Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rachewiltz - The Secret History of The Mongols - I-II 2004

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Corrêa
    41 views741 pages

    Original Title

    Rachewiltz_The Secret History of the Mongols_I-II 2004

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    41 views741 pages

    Rachewiltz - The Secret History of The Mongols - I-II 2004

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Corrêa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 741
    THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century BRILL’S INNER ASIAN LIBRARY EDITED BY A HISTORICAL AL COMMENTARY TRANSLATED AND PHILOLOG NICOLA DI COSMO DEVIN DEWEESE CAROLINE HUMPHREY by VOLUME 7/ IGOR pe RACHEWILTZ VOLUME ONE, NEGLy 6 f68s BRILL LEIDEN: BOSTON 2004 Be CONTENTS VOLUME ONE Maps, Tables and Illustrations fone IX Preface ... . xi Notes on the Illustrations .. . xv Abbreviations and Conventional Signs ... xix Introduction .. 2 xKY Notes to the Introduction Ixxxiti Summary of Chapters... sernnnnnnseee OX Chapter and Paragraph Concordance... exxvii Translation Chapter One 1 Chapter Two ... 7 Chapter Three ..... a Chapter Four .. 33 Chapter Five ... 70 Chapter Six. 89 Chapter Seven 108 Chapter Eight .. 125 Chapter Nine 142 Chapter Ten 159 Chapter Eleven (= Sup. 1) 175 Chapter Twelve (= Sup. 2) 196 Commentary (§§ 1-177) 221 CONTENTS VOLUME TWO, Commentary (§§ 178-282) . Appendices 1. Cinggis Qan’s Campaigns 1204-19... . Secret History Passages in the Altan Tobi. Altan Tobéi Passages in C. Damdinstirén’s Version 4. A, Mostaert's Sur quelques passages: A Paragraph-Page Reference List 5. Additions and Corrections to F.W. Cleaves’ Translation of the Secret History . 6. Additions and Corrections to 1. de Rachewiltz’s Index to the Secret History so 7. Wade-Giles ~ Pinyin Conversion Table... Bibliography and Abbreviations 1. Periodicals, Collections and Reference Works 2. Sources, Monographs and Articles ~ Index 1. Proper and Place Names 2. Subjects .. 3. Grammar and Lexis .. Additions and Corrections 643 1045 . 1051 1055 1056 . 1060 . 1064 1077 1081 1088, 1195 1246. 1315 1343 } MAPS, TABLE AND ILLUSTRATIONS. Maps 1, Mongolia ca. ab 1200 between xviii and xix 2. Eurasia ca. aD 1210 do. Table 1. Genealogy of Temujin (Cinggis Qan) and origin of the Mongol clans .. after 1347 Illustrations Pl. 1. Leaves from the Filan-ch'a0 pi-shi ccs XXIV Pl. 2. Leaf (recto and verso) from Lubsangdanjin's, Altan tobéi . Pl. 3. Portrait of . exiv after Cxxviii nggis Qan PI. 4. Portrait of Ogddei Qa’an .. os do. Pl. 5. Mount Burgan Qaldun (south side)... do. Pl. 6. Mount Burgan Qaldun (view from top) do. Pl. 7, The Onor River do. Pl. 8. Dolo‘an Bolda'ut (partial view) do, Pl. 9. Gold coin (dindr) of Cinggis Qan . do. Pl. 10. The Khentei Range (aerial view) .. do. Pl. 11. Mongol archer and horseman . 219 Pl. 12. The ‘Stone of Chingis 220 ' PREFACE Thiny-five years azo I began working on a translation of the Secret History of the Mongols which was published in eleven instalments in the journal Papers on Fur Eastern History at the 3 Australian National University between 197] and 1985. As I stated in the Introduction to the first issue, my reason for undertaking the translation was to provide students and non- specialist readers with an up-to-date English rendering of the magnum opus. The latter had been completed in 1956 and type- set in 1957, but Cleaves deferred its release. ‘The reasons for the eA delay were such that publication might be postponed indefinitely Furthermore, I knew from Cleaves’ other publications that his translation was a literal one in somewhat archaic, biblical English, modelled on that of the Authorized Version of 1611. Professor N. Poppe, then at the University of Washington, Seattle, had earlier encouraged me to prepare a complete word-index to the Secret History, which appeared in the Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series in 1972. Fearing that Cleaves’ work would never be published, he now urged me to prepare a badly-needed translation _into current English together with a basic commentary. Fr. Henry Serruys, with whom I was corresponding, also encouraged me to undertake the task. When Cleaves’ translation was eventually published in 1982, mine was well advanced and the commentary was assuming fairly large proportions. Since Cleaves’ announced commentary (which was to form Volume II of his edition) did not eventuate, I © persevered and completed my translation in 1985, following it ~ with a list of Additions and Corrections in 1986. I was by then aware that 1) my translation and commentary, especially of the first six chapters, needed a thorough revision, and 2) Cleaves had virtually given up the idea of producing the commentary volume. For these reasons, 1 decided in 1987 to prepare a new. «/ updated edition of my translation, enlarging the commentary so as xii PREFACE to take into account the contributions to the study of the Secret History that were by then appearing in increasing numbers in Asia, Europe and the United States. This revision was completed in and the publication of the new edition has been made possible by a grant from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for Intemational Scholarly E: change, I wish to thank the Foundation most sincerely for its generous support It is my pleasure to acknowledge the assistance 1 received from friends, colleagues and learned institutions without whose help this work could not have been carried out First and foremost, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my late friend and mentor Nicholas Poppe who followed my progress with keen interest, making countless and invaluable suggestions in his correspondence with me, and generously ‘tutoring’ me for several weeks at his home in Seattle in 1979. He was pleased to know that I would dedicate my book to him. After Poppe, the person who helped me most with textual difficulties was Henry Serruys, who also contributed materially by sending me from Arlington, Virginia, numerous relevant publica~ tions, some of them quite rare. I shall always remember him as an outstanding and modest scholar, and as a great friend in need ‘Among the friends and colleagues in and outside Australia who have given me much of their time and the benefit of their experience in reading and improving the manuscript, in supplying indispensable material and in carrying out research on my behalf, I wish to express my profound gratitude to Andrew Fraser, Ken Gardiner, Mary Hutchinson, Peter W. Geier, May and Sydney Wang, John R. Krueger, Henry G. Schwarz, Okada Hidehiro, Sh. Choimaa, Elisabetta Chiodo, Klaus Sagaster, and Borjigijin Ulan For encouragement and assistance of various kinds at all stages of my work, enlightening suggestions and unfailing kindness, my warm thanks are due to Frangoise Aubin, John C Street, Ch'i-ch’ing Hsiao, Hok-lam Chan, Ozawa Shigeo, Herbert Franke, Liu Tsun-yan, Ruth I. Meserve, Tanya D. Skrynnikova, Huang Shijian, Sh, Bira, Denis Sinor, Alice Sarkézi, Mariya N. THE SECRET HISTORY xiii Orlovskaya, Th. T. Allsen, Ruth W. Dunnell, Hung Chin-fu, Svetlana Dyer, Natalia S. Yakhontova, Kuribayashi Hitoshi, Noel Barnard, Leonid Pettov, James Greenbaum, Lee Seong-Gyu and ‘Anton Schénbaum Some of the friends who had occasion to assist me through correspondence, personal contact and exchange of material are no longer with us, but their memory is very much alive. Among them I should mention Murakami Masatsugu, John A. Boyle, James R. Hamilton, Lajos Bese, Sh. Gaadamba, Nikolai Ts. Munkuyev, Militsa M. Colan, and Ludmilla Panskaya, Leamed institutions and their libraries have played an indispensable role in my quest. I wish to thank in particular the National Library of Australia and the Menzies and Chifley Libraries at the Australian National University in Canberra and their staif for their unfailing professional help; the C.1.C.M. (Scheut) Archives in Rome and the Rev. Raymond Renson; the Chinese Memorial Library at Kessel-Lo (Leuven) and Ms Els Bossier and Ms Sara Lievens; the Bibliothéque du Musée Guimet, Paris, and M. F. Macouin; the Centre de Recherches sur |’Asie Centrale et la Haute-Asie, Instituts d’Asie, Collége de France. Paris, and Mme M, Maillard; the Toyo Bunko, Tokyo, and Mr Shimo Hirotoshi; the National Library of China, Peking; The National Palace Museum, Taipei; the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Prof. E. I. Kychanov; the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, and the late Prof. K.V. Malakhovskii of Moscow. My thanks are also due to Dr Terry Lee of Canberra for allowing me to reproduce the gold dinar of Genghis Khan from his collection; to Prof. B. Sum'yaabaatar of Ulan Bator for permission to reproduce the aerial photograph of the Khentei Range; and to Mrs Cynthia Moloney of Canberra for permission to reproduce her photograph of Khentei Khan. I am also grateful to Prof. Manfred Taube of Leipzig for providing the model of the genealogical table. T owe a special debt to my former Department of Far Eastern History and the present Division of Pacific and Asian History of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the aiv PREEACE ‘Australian National University and their staff, especially Ms Dorothy Melntosh and Ms Marion Weeks, for their support during many pleasant and fruitful years of association. For the word-processing of the manuscript I am as ever grateful to Ms H. Oanh Collins and Mr Samson Rivers. Their skill and forbearance have been truly outstanding. Special thanks are also due to my copy-editor in Canberra, Ms Elisabeth Kat, and to Ms Patricia Radder, Assistant Editor Ancient Near East & ‘Asian Studies, at Koninklijke Brill N.V., Leiden, for going over a difficult text with such care and attention to details; to Mr Barry Howarth for his assistance in preparing and editing the indices; to Mr Ian Heyward and the Cartography Unit in the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU, for drawing the maps; and to Mr Darren Boyd for the photographic work. All errors and other shortcomings are of course my responsibility. For advice, support, and more than I can say, my heartfelt thanks go to my wife Ines who has had to share her life for decades not only with me, but also with Genghis Khan and his restless mob, something she had not really bargained for. Igor de Rachewiltz Canberra, | October 2003 are seer NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Two leaves (four pages) from the Secret History of the Mongols (Viian-ch’ao pi-shih [Y°] 4, 45a-b, and 48a-b) corresponding to the beginning and the end of § 146. The leafs reproduced here are two of the 41 surviving leaves of the original Ming printed edition, The second leaf contains also most of the Chinese sectional summary following the enc of the Mongol text in transcription. See Section Four of the Introduction. Plate 2 Leaf (two pages) from the unique Ulan Bator ms. copy of Lubsangdanjin's chronicle lian tobci (AT', 43a-b) containing part of § 145 and the beginning of § 146 of the Secret History of the Mongols (43b, line 12). Late 17th or early 18th century. See Section Five of the Introduction. Plate 3 Idealized portrait of Cinggis Qan (Yuan T’ai-tsu, r. 1206-27) from the Collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei. Colour on silk, Artist and date unknown (7 14th Reproduced by permission. Plate 4 Imaginative portrait of Ogddei Qa’an (Yuan T’ai-tsung, r. 1229-41) from the same Collection. Colour on silk. Artist and date unkriown (? L4th c.). Reproduced by permission, Plate 5 Mount Burgan Qaldun, present-day Khentei Khan (Xéntii Xan) in the Great Khentei Range, northem Mongolia, viewed from the Bogd River valley south of the mountain Photographed by Mrs Cynthia Moloney of Canberra. Plate 6 View from the top of Mount Burqan Qaldun/Khentei Khan overlooking the (presumed) imperial burial ground further down the slope. and the Bogd River valley and Kerulen Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 ILLUSTRATIONS, (Xerlen) River further south, Photographed by the Author See the Commentary to § 268. ‘The Onon River in northem Mongolia on the western bank of which Cinggis Qan was born. See the Commentary to § 59. Photographed by the Author. Partial view of Dolo‘an Bolda'ut (‘Seven Solitary Hills’) near the place where the Secret History was written. See the Commentary to § 282. Photographed by the Author. A rare gold coin (dinar) of Cinggis Qan struck at Ghazna in Au618 (= AD1221/1222) from a hoard of ca. 150 coins discovered in or about 1996. Cinggis’ name appears in the last line of the reverse field in the form ‘Cingiz Xan’. For a transcrip-tion and translation of the legend, cf. M.A Whaley in AOH 54:2001, 20, n. 60. Courtesy of Dr Terry Lee of Canberra. Plate 10 Aerial view of the Khentei Range of northern Mongolia showing the sources of the Onon and Kerulen rivers, and the exact situation of Burqan Qaldun/Khentei Khan. Courtesy of Prof. B. Sum’ yaabaatar of Ulan Bator. Plate 11 Above. Mongol archer from the 14th century Chinese encyclopedia Shih-lin kuang-chi (SLKC fenl. ed. of 1330- 32], hou-chi 13, 3a). Below. Mongol horseman shooting backwards, from the same encyclopedia (ibid., 3b). Plate 12 Granite stele in honour of Cinggis Qan’s nephew Yisiingge (ca.1190 - ca.1270) celebrating his victory at an archery contest held in Central Asia in 1224/1225 after the successful Mongol campaign against Khwarazm. Com- monly known as the ‘Stone of Chingis.’ The text reads: ‘THE SECRET HISTORY xvii “When Cinggis Qan. having subjugated the Sartayui people set up camp (ang) the noblemen of the entire Mongol nation gathered at Buga (S)ociyai (? = Buga [S]udiyay, at the long-distance shooting (contest) Yistingge shot an arrow 335 aldas (= 536 m.).’ Hermitage Museum. Reproduced by permission. MOEA Coasoanas a s oe AMG Lo KI Map 1. Monguta ea, 1200 Yovegot & Wosy ereT (UIGHURS) TOBOT SA atten ever quignurs) 60% wos rive er astnsie fino xrrvr OMI Map 2, Eurasia en, AD 1210. ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONAL SIGNS Common aad conventional abbreviations are not listed (The entries in the starred items have been transliterated into Latin script andor simplified when necessary, as in IMCS) ach, Ancient Chinese (= Middle Chinese), after GSRuos. adj, adjective adv adverb, adverbial alt alternatively; alternative reading or rendering {AMI unpublished note by Antoine Mostzert amo. Ancient Mongolian (pre-12th c.) 05. and other sources arab. Ambie aux. auxiliary bur. Buriat, after BRS* u.0.s Ch Chapter ch Chinese ch, chitan emo. Common Mongolian com, my commentary (or commentaries) to the paragraph(s) in question con. = conjunction connective vowel conn. vo. conv. abt conver’um abtemporale conv.imp. = converbum imperfecti conv. prsep converbum praeparativum corr. correct to CRAC. Centre de Recherches sur l'Asie Centrale et la Haute Asie, Instituts d’ Asie, College de France, Paris crim. = Crimean Tatar tag. = Chaghatai, after MA, DTO and VWTD* dag Dagur, after DN*, THHIT* and DY* xx. dat. dat.-loc, ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGNS dative dative-locative denominal deverbal dialect(s) diminutive emphatic, enclitic endearment (form) English exclusive form factitive (form, verb) feminine folio French German Gorlos Gothic Greek honorific unpublished note by Henry Serruys ‘Hungarian idem, the same Indo-European instrumental interrogative Italian Institut Vostokovedeniya, Akacemiya Nauk SSSR Institut Vostokovedeniya, Rossiiskaya Akademi ya Nauk Japanese Jaréen, after SIV a.oss. Kalmuck, after KW a.0s. Kazakh kirg kit lat let. loc. ma med. mmand. = oir. omand. = ord, osm. otu. él. _ pe. vue ann noun noe ene THE SECRET HISTORY xxi Khalkha, after Cév.* a.0.s. Kirghiz, after KiRS* Kiten Latin letter locative, local Manchu, after HM and CMEL medieval Middle Mandarin, after the Chinese transcrip- tions of the 13th-L4th c. Middle Mongolian modern Mongolian in Uighur script Written or Script Mongolian modem Mogol Monguor, after DMF u.0.s. Mongolian, Mongol Middle Persian note no date of publicztion negative Neue Folge nominal nomen imperfecti no place of publication N. Poppe New Series obsolete official Oirat (lit), after OECD u.0s. Old Mandarin, after PCH, MKTY, CYYY Ordos, after DO 1.0.8. Osmanli (Osman Turkish) Old Turkic (Orkhon and Yenisei inscriptions) lot personal communication (PP-CRAC} (PP-MG] practimp. = pref. = pron. prop. proth = r ree. red. nus, s. sing. skt. sogd. stg subs. suff. syn. syr. tang. tat ti. ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGNS Paragogic particle passive Persian “Phags-pa plural; plate(s) Preclassical Mongolian Proto-Mongolian poetic(al) possessive unpublished note by Paul Pelliot in the Louis, Hambis archives of the CR.A.C. library do. in the Pelliot archives of the library of the Musée Guimet, Paris praeteritum imperfecti prefix Pronoun properly prothetic reigned reciprocal (form) redupiicative Russian someone, somebody singular Sanskrit Sogdian something substantive suffix syonym(ous) Syriac ‘Tangut Tatar Tibetan translator, translated " THE SECRET HISTORY xxii transcription Mongolian dialect of Tsinghai (Qinghai), after TH Turkic Tungus Turkmen Uighur unpublished note(s) unless otherwise specified unseen work cited from other source verb(al) written form(s), ie. the same word(s) or suf fix(es) retranscribed according to mo. ortho- graphy Yakut, after SYY* a.0.s. CONVENTIONAL SIGNS * < «<< Lv te actoyt reconstructed form derives from, developed from ultimately derives from results into, developed into and, by extension (or metaphorically): and from there to corresponds to, is the same as as opposed to alternates with paralle! forms; double parallelism occurs in both forms according to general rules (gram.); synonym or variant form of the same word, €.g. mangyus/mayus with the addition of (the suffix) doubtful form for explanatory matter in the text for lacunae in the text for dittographies and redundancies in the text | ae fsa] ‘ # a cl 3 | By “le . es 4 eli ah, meena af 1. “ ans Pam gop ale aati se PEE iss Bayh Feb a 1 1 BK dike Gy RelA play AL Be mie ab ! wz ae pa Rie wie Re BRE Faie i Sm Aes 1 we | 1 pee! ae] RFA SE HSN GEE 8 * See WHER A Rs nine : Pl. 1, Two leaves from the Filan-han pishih INTRODUCTION B PEP Ra Ae The 13th century work known as the Secret History of (Monggol-un niuca {= ni'uéa] tofb|éa‘an) is the earliest important literary monument o! Mongoi-spe: people, challenged only by the later 17th century chronicle Erdeni-yin tobéi, ot Precious Summary, by the Ordos prince Sayang Seden (1604-2). There is no doubt, however, that notwithstanding the literary merits of the latter ~ and they many — Sayang’s masterpiece is by far outshone by the Secret History, witness the number of translations and versions of this work (over forty)’ against the mere eight of the Erdeni-yin tobé ~The feason for the great success of the Secret History at home and abroad is, first of all, its subject matter, for the Secret History is the only genuine (not to be confused with reliable) native account of the life and deeds of Cinggis Qan - our Genghis re Khan — one of the world’s outstanding figures, whereas the Erdeni-yin tobéi is a 1 history of the Mongols, written under the influence of Tibetan culture and Lamaism. ‘There is no Buddhist influence in the Secret History, its language has not been touched by the literary and historiographical conventions of Tibet, its poetry reflects the pure, unmitigated tradition of the nomadic tribes of Mongolia and of the Turkic- and Mongolian-speaking inhabitants of the vast steppelands of Inner Asia. To be sure, the Turkic element ~ cultural and linguistic ~ is present in the Secret History; how could it be otherwise, since Mongolia was the + eradle, home and stamping ground of both those peoples, so that they shared from remote times a common way of life, the same spiritual, ie. shamanistic, background (with related cults and customs), and exchanged words, terms and titles as the occasion arose. Later, the settled and cul:urally more advanced Turks of Central Asia, the Uighurs in particular, acted as tutors and cultural intermediaries to the Mongols, their greatest gift to them being the xxvi INTRODUCTION attractive vertical Uighur script which the Mongols adopted about the turn of the 13th century and in which the Secret History was first written.’ However, regardless of its Turkic component, the Secret History is and remains a true and original Mongol product, unique of its kind, for no other nomadic or sem:-nomadic people has ever created a literary masterpiece like it, in which epic poetry and narrative are so skilfully and indeed artistically blended with fictional and historical accounts. Linguistically too, the Secret History provides the finest and richest source of Preclassical Mongolian (in its reconstructed ‘written’ form) dating from the first half of the 13th century, and of Middle Mongolian, the language actually spoken in the second half of the 14th century a language lacking any artificiality, simple and direct in style, far removed from the learned and often convoluted syntax of so- called Classical Mongolian.’ In this respect, one can say with A. Waley that its ‘story-tellers’ tales ... are some of the most vivid primitive literature that exists anywhere in the world’,’ words echoed by F.W. Cleaves who called the Secret History ‘one of the great literary monuments of the world.”* The Secret History is a complex work; it presents at times great difficulties of interpretation. Because of the wealth of data that it provides on all aspects of life in 12th-13th century Mongolia, on important events and on a great number of individuals (some of whom played key historical roles), and on their clans and tribes, it is also a work that, to quote Waley again, “would be possible to furnish with endless annotation.” Cleaves, for his part, went as far as observing that ‘a definitive translation is out of the question until generations of scholarship have been consecrated to its study" — a sobering reminder to all those who take up this task. In the following sections I shall survey some of the major issues conceming the Secret History, viz. its contents, date and place of composition, authorship and textual history (in relation also to the text of the Secret History preserved in the Altan tob¢i), as well as the transcriptions and translations made in modem times. I shall touch upon its value as a literary work and historical THE SECRET HISTORY XXVLi source, presenting different and often conflicting views on the subject. 1 shall conclude with some remarks on the present version. Several appendices provide additioral information on the §- chronology of Cinggis Qan’s campaigns in Mongolia, Siberia and © Central Asia in 1204-1219, and some useful reference lists for the reader of the Secret History who wishes to pursue the study of this 5» text more in depth. The bibliography contains only titles cited in the present work; however, there are many references in the commentary to contributions of lesser importance, brief reviews and the like that are not included in the bibliography. The indices have been made ‘as comprehensive as possible to facilitate the use of both the © Although arbitrarily divided into 12 or 15 chapters and 282 sections or paragraphs at a later date, the Secret History is a ‘Continuous narrative with comparatively few lacunae and interpo- lations in the text, which shall be discussed further on.'' The plain prose narrative tums frequently into alliterative passages of various lengths, i.e. into poetry, mainly for dramatic effect, to emphasize statements, or simply to introduce apt ‘proverbial sayings, the so-called ‘ancient words’, ive. the wise Ewwords of the ancients whenever circumstances call for their thority. It is a well-known genre, the characteristics of which {will also be discussed in detail below." 5’ — The order of events in the Secret History is chronological © but the first date, corresponding to AD 1201, appears only in § 141 (Chapter IV). ‘Chapters I-XII (up to § 268) describe the life and career of nggis Qan from his birth, probably in 1162 (§ 59), to his death 1227 (§ 268), the preceding sections (§§ 1-58) being devoted to his"anvestry and the legendary origins of te Mongol (Mongqol) tribe and clans. xxviii INTRODUCTION The final portion of the work (§§ 269-281) deals with the election of Ogédei Qa’an, Cinggis’ third son and successor, and with some events of his reign (1229-41), without however mentioning his death The narrative ends ($ 282) with a brief and apparently incomplete colophon recording where and when the Secret History was completed. ‘The work is thus essentially biographical, describing, often in great detail and in very vivid form, various aspects of Cinggis Qan’s private and official life, his numerous military campaigns, his relationship with relatives, friends and allies, as well as with rivais and foes, his pronouncements on matters of law and army organization, on moral issues, such as loyalty and the duties and obligations of chiefs and subjects, the role of Heaven and Earth in human affairs, and man’s attitude towards these powers. The section on Ogédei is, by comparison, much less coherent and quite fragmentary ~ a sort of afterthought or supplement (Which, as we shall see, it almost certainly is) — but, nevertheless, still containing useful deta on important topics like taxation and the post-relay service, and on the relationship of Ogédei with his brothers. Significantly, only_one date, corre- sponding ta-1231, is found in §§ 270-281," but several of the events described in that section can be dated quite accurately from the accounts in the Chinese and Persian sources. It should be mentioned, however, that the chronology of the Secret History is, in general, quite unreliable and at odds with those sources. This, has much to do with the true nature of the work and the author(s)" aims."* For the readers’ convenience a detailed, chapter by chapter summary of events is provided before the Translation. In it, the dates in brackets are those given in the Secret History converted to the Christian era. THE SECRET HISTORY xxix, 2. Place and date of composition ‘These two issues — place and date ~ are crucial and, in the case of the Secret History, they are closely, indeed intimately, related. Both have attracted the atention of scholars since the second half of the 19th century, and I have discussed them in detail in my previous articles on the subject to which the reader is referred." Whe following is a summary of the various theories and conflicting arguments, updated and with additional comments. <4, The colophon of the Secret History (§ 282) tells us almost exactly where the ‘writing’ was completed, viz. ‘at Dolo’an ‘Boldaq of Kéde’e Aral of (= by) the Keliiren (= Keriilen) River, ‘between Silginéek and ....’ The name of the second locality is = missing, owing to a lacuna in the text. This gap is unimportant © since Dolo’an Boldag (‘Seven Solitary Hills’) of Kéde’e Aral (‘Barren Island’) is a well-known place south-west of present-day ‘Délgérxaan and just north of the Xérlén (Kerulen) River in thern Xéntii Aimag. Kéde'e (or Kédé"e, Kéde'il) Aral is not ‘an island, but a large plain comprised between the. two rivers % ‘Kerlén and Cénsér in the south and east, and the Bayan | Mountains (Bayan Uul) in the north and west."” It was in this © beautiful, hill-dotted and well-watered plain that Cinggis Qan had his principal encampment, the so-called Qan’s ‘Palaces’ (ordos), ‘and it was here that the Great Assembly (yeke qurilia) that elected “Ogddei in 1229 was convoked in 1228, soon after Cinggis’ death and burial." A place consecrated by tradition, as it were.” y,, As for the date, the colophon is deceptively precise: “The iting was completed at the time when the Great Assembly mvened and when, in the Year of the Rat, in the month of the ERocbuck, the Palaces were established at Dolo’an Boldag ... .” ©. The month of the Roebuck (quran sara) is the seventh Hmonth of the iunar calendar, but to which Year of the Rat P(qulugana jil) of the duodenary animal cycle does the colophon XXX INTRODUCTION Since the Secret History ends with the reign of Ogddei (1229-41) but does not mention his death (cf. Cinggis’ ‘ascension to Heaven" recorded in § 268), it has been assumed for a long time that the year in question must be 1240, even if no great assembly is mentioned in our sources s.a. 1240. This was the opinion held, among others, by the pionzering Secret History scholars Naka Michiyo #3438, P. Pelliot, E. Haenisch and S.A. Kozin;” it is still the generally accepted date in Mongolia and China. albeit with some notable exceptions in either country."! However, doubts on this dating were expressed in 1941, and again in 1948, by R. Grousset, who pointed out that in § 255 of the Secret History Cinggis Qan appears to ‘predict’ the transfer of the throne from Ogédei’s line to that of Tolui, as indeed happened with Mongke’s election as qa‘an in ‘over, § 281 reads very much like 2 posthumous appraisal of Ogédei. Grousset therefore suggested the Year of the Rat 1252 as a more likely alternative. His suggestion was rejected by Pelliot on the grounds that the ambitions of Tolui’s house must have been known before Ogédei’s death in 1241, and that, whereas the sketchy nature of the Annals of the latter's reign in the Yiian-shih Je may account for the lack of mention of a great assembly in 1240, the more detailed imperial annals from 1251 onward would have no doubt recorded such an important event s.a. 1252." ~-Writing in 1951, W. Hung, while agreeing with Grousset on a dating later than 1240, put forth the view that an even better Year of the Rat would be 1264, owing mainly to the fact that a place-name given in § 247 of the Secret History as Hsiian-te fu # aff, only became a fir or administration in 1263 (previously it was a chou #{ or prefecture). In answer to Hung’s objection, A. Mostaert who, I suspect, was himself in favour of the year 1240, posed the question of why, if that were the case, did the Secret History leave out all the momentous events that occurred between the end of Ogédei’s reign and 1264, including Ogédei's death, two long regencies, Ménigke’s election, etc., etc.?* THE SECRET HISTORY xxi Hung’s hypothesis was adopted by A Waley (albeit with some reservations) in 1960, and by G. Ledyard in 1964, both scholars basing their arguments on the fact that certain events concerning the Mongol campaigns in Korea show that the account in the Secret History could not have been written before | While Waley suggests a date ‘well after the middle of the thirteenth century’,” for Ledyard 1264 is the earliest possible date © for the composition of the Secret History: (On the other hand, Grousset’s suggestion was adopted with © qualifications by no less an authority than L. Ligeti in 1962, and without reservations by Ya Ta-chiin 4-44 twenty years later. Ligeti postulates the existence of an carly version of the Secret History completed immediately after Cinggis Qan’s death ‘and containing only an account of his life (a theory already mooted by Chinese and Japanese scholars); if the colophon refers to the Urtext, the Year of the Rat must correspond to 1228; if it *hole work, it must corresponc to 1252 in view of ousset’s valid arg e. the later interpolations. The oblem, for Ligeti, is still unsolved. = Yi Ta-chiin's argument is largely a criticism of previous “theories and a strengthening of Grousset’s proposal for the year 4252, in support of which he adduces further evidence showing, “quite convincingly, that certain passages in the Secret History (in 15, 276 and 277) could not have been written while Ogddei or Chis son and successor, Giiyiik (r. 1246-48), were on the throne. In order to overcome the major objection to the year 1252 being the ‘Year of the Rat of the colophon, viz. that no great assembly was, nvened then, Yii is forced to reinterpret the actual wording of Pthe colophon to mean that the writing of the Secret History was Scompleted ‘a/er (my emphasis ~ LR.) the great qurilta had been held’, the ‘great qurilta’ referring of course to the 1250-51 diet itelected Mingke® == ‘The Year of the Rat 1228 for the first recension of the Secret story had already been put forward by Ting Ch’ien Tak in 1901; Ting’s suggestion was later revived and modified by Uemura Seiji wif = (1955)," G. Doerfer (1963), * P. xxii INTRODUCTION Ratchnevsky (1965),” and I. de Rachewiltz (1965). The main arguments in favour of this theory, which has gained ground in recent times (see below), are: 1) the altan tob¢i (1655) of Blo- bzai bstan-'jin (Lubsangdanjin), which incorporates a large portion of the Secret History text (233 of 282 paragraphs), contains only the portion of the Secret History dealing with Cinggis Qan’s ancestry and life (§§ 1-268), i.e. what is considered to be the Urtext; the section on Ogédei Qa’an is missing altogether; 2) no great assemblies were held, according to our sources, in 1240, 1252 or 1264; 3) the title of the work being, in all likelihood, Cinggis Qan-u huja’ur (pmo. Cinggis Qan-u wjayur) or The Origin (sensu lato = History) of Cinggis Qan, the work itself must have ended, logically, with Cinggis’ death (§ 268). Thus, what one assumes must have happened, is that the later editors in the Yiian and early Ming periods interfered with the original text by interpolating, transferring, deleting and adding material (which would explain the internal historical and chronological inconsistencies, as well as other puzzling aspects of the text), and including the section on Ogédei as 2 continuation or supplement. Eventually, the original colophon of 1228 was transferred from the end of the Cinggis Qan-u huja’ur to the end of the edited and enlarged version. This question will be discussed further in Section Four of this Introduction. Among the scholars who in the last four decades have adopted the date 1228 for the composition of the original text of the Secret History, and who regard the Year of the Rat of the colophon as corresponding to that year, we should mention F.W. Cleaves, G. Clauson, Murakami Masatsugu #t NC. Munkuev, Ozawa Shigeo 2215, Ye. Irinéin (Irinchen), Jinggin, §. Gaadamba, D. Cérensodnom and U. Onon.* Other scholars have accepted it, albeit with a question mark.” Although Ledyard had not excluded duodenary cycles later than 1264, an extreme position was taken by Okada Hidehiro fai 8A who in 1985, re-elaborating an idea mooted by Murakami in 1978," expressed the view that the Secret History was composed THE SECRET HISTORY xxxiii in the Year of the Rat 1324, and that the great assembly referred to in the colophon was the one held the preceding year (1323) at Kéde’e Aral on the Kerulen which elected Yisiin Temiir (T’ai-ting D ti ER, rv. 1324-27.” Finally, a number of scholars beginning with the Archiman- drite Palladii (P.1. Kafarov, 1817-78).” have prudently refrained from identifying the Year of the Rat in question.! While Grousset’s arguments against the date 1240 were fated by Pelliot and rejected by Hung, Hung’s dating was in turn questioned by Mostacrt, Ligeti, Bira and de Rachewiltz; * ‘Ledyard’s thesis was criticised by de Rechewiltz and Bira," and this also happened to the earlier theories proposed by Naka, Ishihama and others, as well as to the more recent one by Yui." igeti’s criticism is not without fault, and Bira’s reinterpretation of the text of the colophon is likewise open to serious doubts.” hus, most of the arguments in favour and against the years 1240, 1252 and 1264 can be refuted on valid grounds. As for the Year the Rat 1324, it can be argued that 1) it does not tally with the ar of the qurilta on the Kerulen that elected Yisiin Temir, shich was a Year of the Pig (1323);** and 2) the vivid, unaffected and fresh style of the Secret History narrative, with its wealth of Fdetails on events, people and places, provides an insight into the life of Cinggis Qan and his associates, and the society of his time that could only come from a contemporary or near contemporary switness and can hardly be reconciled with. as late a composition as hat put forward by Okada. c In view of the above and for the reasons outlined in my jer studies, | am still of the opinion that the original text of the ret History to which the colophon properly belongs was fitten down in the month of the Roebuck (2-31 August) of the ar of the Rat 1228 at Dolo'an Boldag, exactly one year after ggis Qan’s death, However, the text of the Secret History as d down to us, both in its Chinese (Y) and Mongolian (AT) Versions, is the product of later additions, deletions and other itorial changes carried out during the Yiian and early Ming ods, broadly from the reign of Qubilai Qa’an (1260-94) to xxxiv INTRODUCTION those of Hung-wu tif and Yung-lo 4% (1368-14]7/18), At the same time it must be emphasized that while the identification of the Year of the Rat with any of the dates proposed so far remains hypothetical owing, as we shall see, to our almost total ignorance of the viéissitudes of the Mongol text of the Secret History during the period in question,"” an carly, pre-Giiyk or pre-Méngke dating is supported by a hitherto overlooked piece of indirect evicence. In the Secret History § 198, Ogédei is already — alben anachronistically — called Ogédei Qa’an; he is elected gan in § 269 and referred to as Ogddei Qa’an from then on. Neither his * son and immediate successor Giiytik (r. 1246-48), nor Gliyik’s __ successor Méngke (r. 1251-59), both of whom are mentioned several times in the Secret History, and both of whom bore the titles of gan and qa'an, are ever called Giiyik Qar/Qa’an or Méngke Qan/Qa’an, something that we should expect had the Secret History been written in 1252 or 1264 (or later): they are simply referred to as Gilyiik and Méngge (= Méngke) through- ‘out* This may well indicate that the section on Ogédei in the Secret History in which these names occur was written before 1246 (or, at any rate, before 1251), which in tum would also argue for an early or even earlier date for the preceding section.” This. I believe, is as far as we can go at the present state of our know- ledge. 3. Authorship of the Secret History The problem of authorship is, if anything, even more complex than that of dating the Secret History. To begin with, there is no mention of an author. Indeed, given the composite nature of the Secret History (about which more later), it would be more correct to speak of a compiler who gathered his material from a variety of sources — oral and written — such as the recollections of eyewitnesses, accounts of the descendants of personages who had participated in the events described, story-tellers’ songs and narratives about the heroes’ exploits, and possibly a number of documents recording the gan’s pronouncements and legal statutes. CHE SECRET HISTORY xxx although [ am of the opinion that these played a limited role, most (if not all) the information being transmitted orally.** The compiler was, in all likelihood, a person directly or indirecily-invalved in some of the stories; in any event, he had direct access to ‘inside information’, possibly as a member of the gan's family or of his immediate entourage, in order to provide so many details of discussions and deliberations made in the gan’s tent? He was then able to bring all his data (real and fictional) together in an organic whole with great skill, especially for a man with no literary tradition behind him. He may thus have been both author and compiler: such distinctions would have been ‘meaningless in the circumstances, the very problem of ‘author- ship’ itself being irrelevant to the person concemed, hence his anonymity. We also have no idea of how the composition was put together: swhether the compiler was the actual recorder or Whether the writing down was done by someone else, a scribe or copyist. This, likewise, is a matter of little relevance.” Various theories have been put forth as to who may have written or compiled the Secret History. The three main candidates for authorship are the following 1, T’at'a T’ung-a 22%ethy (*Tatar Toma? fl. 1204), the former Uighur seal-keeper of Tayang Qan of the Naiman who passed into the service of Cinggis Qan in 1204 after Tayang Qan’s defeat, becoming Cinggis’ seal-keeper as well as tutor in Uighur script to his sons. On this ground alone he has subsequently been credited with the introduction of that script among the Mongols. The information about him is extremely scanty ~ only ten lines in his Chinese biography,* In 1911, Kanai Yasuz6

    You might also like