Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, National Museum of Asian Art (NMAA), Smithsonian Institution
Location History:
To 1912
Georges Demotte (1877-1923), method of acquisition unknown, Paris, France.
1913-1942
Henri Vever (1854-1942), acquired as partial gift/exchange/purchased from Georges Demotte, Paris, France on November 1912.
1942-1947
Jeanne Louise Monthiers (1861-1947), bequest of Henri Vever, Paris and Boulogne, France.
1947-1986
Francois Mautin (1907-2003), bequest of Jeanne Louise Monthiers and Henri Vever, Paris and Noyers, France.
From 1986
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery purchased from Francois Mautin, Paris and Boulogne, France.
'A Drunken Babur Returns to Camp at Night', from a Baburnama, ca. 1589, by Farrukh Beg (active early 1580s–1619). It is painted in opaque watercolour, ink, and gold on paper at Lahore. The folio is divided into two unequal registers stacked one above the other, with a rectangular block of Persian nasta'liq calligraphy wedged directly into the upper third, inhabiting the same painted field as the image. So that word and picture press against each other within a single frame, as Mughal manuscript pages so often insist they must.
Above the text, a tented encampment crowds the top of the sheet: pavilions in patterned red, rose, and gold, their canopies scalloped and tasselled, stand against a startling band of blue sky broken by heaped white clouds. Below the text, the register changes entirely. The ground turns to the same puffy white cloud-forms now doubling as rocky hills which is a Perso-Chinese convention Farrukh Beg carried with him from his Safavid training. The cloud-and-rock shapes ultimately descended from Chinese landscape painting and absorbed into Iranian art generations before he was born, so that even the earth beneath this Central Asian emperor's horse speaks in a borrowed, well-travelled visual language.
Across that pale ground gallops Babur, and here is the painting's genuinely radical decision: he is rendered almost without colour, a nearly uncoloured figure on a nearly uncoloured horse, his form given only enough tone to separate it from the paper beneath, so that he seems to ride not through night exactly but through his own absence from it. A torch trails from his raised hand, its flame the single hot note of red in an otherwise bleached passage. His body leans, unbalanced, precisely as his own account describes it reeling to one side and then the other, reins slack, a man who has surrendered navigation to the horse itself.
Below him, along the riverbank, a large boat rides at anchor, its cabin a small jewelled pavilion of pink and gold lattice, figures in orange, green, and cobalt gathered on the deck and shore; near a rock at lower left a solitary man crouches over, doubled at the waist, a detail almost too candid to be incidental given what Babur himself recorded happened to him "the next morning." This is a memoir, and the manuscript's illustrators treated it as one: Babur's own text does not spare himself the indignity, admitting in the same breath both the reckless joy of the ride and the vomiting that followed it, and Akbar's atelier, commissioned some six decades later to illustrate his grandfather's memoir in full, chose to paint the admission rather than skip past it.
That choice belongs to a much older Central Asian and Persianate literary habit, razm u bazm, warfare and feasting, in which a ruler's memoir was expected to hold both his conquests and his excesses without shame, because completeness of self-portrait, not flattery, was the genre's actual ambition. Farrukh Beg's own position sharpens this. He arrived in Akbar's Lahore workshop from a career already spent moving between Safavid Khurasan and the small Timurid court of Kabul, a Persian painter repeatedly displaced into new patronage, and here he was set to work translating not just a text but an entire cultural self-understanding out of Chagatai Turkic memory into Persian-inflected Mughal image-making. That the emperor he paints should himself be rendered as barely-there, a body drained of the pigment everything else in the picture is so lavish with, cannot be only technical restraint. It reads, rather, as a kind of visual honesty about memory's own instability: Babur later admitted he remembered nothing of the ride itself, that the night survived only in what others told him afterward, and Farrukh Beg answers that textual gap by giving him a body too faint to be quite believed in, a sovereign present in the scene but absent from his own recollection of it, exactly as the words insist.
Everything is solid and richly worked in this folio. Whether it's the tents, the boat or the crowded riverbank, everything belongs to what was witnessed and remembered by someone. The folio's later life adds its own quiet irony to this theme of unstable custody: dispersed from its original binding, it passed from the Paris dealer Georges Demotte to the collector Henri Vever in 1913, descended through his family for decades, and was eventually remounted within the borders of an unrelated Rawdat al-Safa manuscript page before reaching a museum collection in 1986. An object about a night no one could quite hold onto, itself held for a century inside a series of frames that were never originally its own.
The artwork explores the fragility of memory and the instability of possession. Although the sovereign is physically present in the scene, he is absent from his own recollection, creating a contrast between what is witnessed and what is remembered. The richly detailed tents, boat, and crowded riverbank preserve the event visually, even as memory fails to preserve it personally. The folio’s own history reinforces this theme: separated from its original manuscript and repeatedly reframed, it too became an object without a stable context. Thus, both the scene and the folio reflect the fleeting and uncertain nature of memory, ownership, and historical preservation.
