_Babur-nama_ (History of Babur) is a well-warranted name by which to distinguish the original Turki text, because long associated with this and rarely if ever applied to its Persian translation.[8] It is not comprehensive because not covering supplementary matter of biography and description but it has use for modern readers of classing Babur's with other Timuriya and Timurid histories such as the _Zafar-Humayun-Akbar-namas_. _Waqi`āt-i-baburi_ (Babur's Acts), being descriptive of the book and in common use for naming both the Turki and Persian texts, might usefully be reserved as a title for the latter alone. Amongst European versions of the book _Memoirs of Baber_ is Erskine's peculium for the Leyden and Erskine Perso-English translation—_Mémoires de Baber_ is Pavet de Courteille's title for his French version of the Bukhara [Persified-Turki] compilation—_Babur-nama in English_ links the translation these volumes contain with its purely-Turki source. b. _Problems of the Constituents of the Books._ Intact or mutilated, Babur's material falls naturally into three territorial divisions, those of the lands of his successive rule, Farghana (with Samarkand), Kabul and Hindustan. With these are distinct sub-sections of description of places and of obituaries of kinsmen. The book might be described as consisting of annals and diary, which once met within what is now the gap of 1508-19 (914-925). Round this gap, amongst others, bristle problems of which this change of literary style is one; some are small and concern the mutilation alone, others are larger, but all are too intricate for terse statement and all might be resolved by the help of a second MS. _e.g._ one of the same strain as Haidar's. Without fantasy another constituent might be counted in with the three territorial divisions, namely, the grouped _lacunæ_ which by their engulfment of text are an untoward factor in an estimate either of Babur or of his book. They are actually the cardinal difficulty of the book as it now is; they foreshorten purview of his career and character and detract from its merits; they lose it perspective and distort its proportions. That this must be so is clear both from the value and the preponderating amount of the lost text. It is no exaggeration to say that while working on what survives, what is lost becomes like a haunting presence warning that it must be remembered always as an integral and the dominant part of the book.