ON A RECENT TRANSLATION OF THE MENG-TA PEI-LU AND HEI-TA SHIH-LÜEH: A REVIEW

ARTICLE
Author(s): Igor de Rachewiltz
Source: Monumenta Serica, Vol. 35 (1981-1983), pp. 571-582
Published by: Monumenta Serica Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40726521 .
Accessed: 18/10/2014 11:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Monumenta Serica Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Monumenta
Serica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mon.Ser.35(1981-83)

ON A RECENT TRANSLATION OF THE MENG-TAPEI-LU

AND HELTA SHIHLÜEH: A RE VIEW ARTICLE

Igor de Rachewiltz
AustralianNational University

The Chinesesourceson the Mongols,so richforthe periodfrom

Qubilai-qa7an(r. 1260-1294) on, are notoriouslyscarceforthe early
period, witnessthe space devoted to the firstfour khans (Cinggis,
Ögödei,Güyügand Möngke)in the Yüan-shih7CÍ : only threechiian
altogethercomparedwithQubilai'sfourteen.
True,a good deal of information can be foundin thebiographies
in epigraphies,
of Yuan personalities, funerary and through-
inscriptions,
out the literaryworks (wen-chiX H ) of contemporaryscholars.
However,data on early Mongol history,social structure,traditional
customs,and materialand spiritualculturethat we find scatteredin
thesesourcesare fragmentary and oftenunreliable.Veryfeweducated
Chinese,or people of Chineseculture,had theopportunity to studythe
redoubtableTatarsat close quartersand recordforposteritytheresults
of theirinvestigation.The onlypeople who werein a positionto do so
were those who had actuallybeen givensuch an assignment by their
government, i.e. membersof officialmissions.
This is, in fact,what happened. Various Sung embassiesto the
Mongolsin the firsthalfof the thirteenth century(especiallybetween
1220 and 1240) resultedin a numberof reportsdescribingthe things
heardand seenby the envoysduring journeysto theNorth.
their
We have an almostexact counterpartof thisin theWesternEuro-
pean missionsad Tartaros which resulted in the very informative
relationsof Johnof Pian di Carpine(1247) and Williamof Rubruck
(1255). The Sung envoys'reportsare, of course,muchdrierand more
impersonalthanthoseof thetwo Franciscanfriars, the
forin describing
571

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
572 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

customsof the Tatars,the Sung envoysfolloweda conventionalmodel

sanctionedby Chinese historiography since Han times. Nevertheless,
the informationcontainedin the two extantreportswithwhichwe are
concernedis preciousnot onlyper se, but also because it both comple-
mentsand supplements thatcollectedby theWesternenvoys.
The reportsin question are 1) the Meng-Tapei-lu jEüfitÜ or
GeneralAccount of theMongol-Tatars(hereafterMT), and 2) theHei-
Ta shih-lüehH U 9 B& or BriefOutlineof the Affairsof the Black
Tatars(^Mongols) (hereafter
HT).
MTythe shorterof the two works,containsinformation collected
by Chao Hung it î£ (1 195-1246) in the courseof a missionto Muqali
(1 170-1223), the famousMongolgeneraland viceroyof northChina,
whoseheadquarters wereinYen-ching(modernPeking).Chao's mission
is of 12211 and his reportdates fromthe same year. It is the earliest
accountof theMongolsthatwë possess.

Chao, a northerner but probablyof non-Hanorigin,must have

obtained most of his information fromofficialsworkingin the mixed
(Sino-Khitan-Jurchen) administrationin Yen-ching,so that what he
tellsus is largelysecond and even thirdhand,and therefore not always
reliable. His personalobservations,especiallyon eventsat the "court"
of Muqali,are on theotherhandaccurateand valuable.
MT consistsof a seriesof briefnotes in seventeensections,each
withits own heading,on varioustopicsrelatingto theMongols,begin-
ning with the foundingof theirstate and endingwith a section on
feasts,dance and music. As shownby Paul Pelliot,thetextofMT was
apparentlyrevisedor,rather,retouchedafter1227.2
HT is a muchrichersource. Its two authors,P'eng Ta-ya^ ^H
(a chin-shihm ± of 1214) and Hsü Ting & g (fi. 1230-1240), visited
Mongolia on two separate missionsin the mid-thirties- a period of

1) He carried out this particularmissionin the firsthalf of 1221 and under-

took the returnjourneyin July-Augustof thatyear.
2) See P. Pelliot, Sur un passage du Cheng-wouts ing[sic] -tcheng lou in
Birthday,II (Peiping,1935),
Studies Presentedto Ts'ai Yuan P'ei on His Sixty-fifth
pp. 930-931, n. 23.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ON THE MENG-TA PEI-L U AND HEI- TA SHIH-L ÜEH 573

intensediplomaticactivitybetweenthe Sungand Mongolcourts.3

P'eng was one of the aides of Tsou Shen-chih Jjß#¿, whosefirst
embassyreachedQara-qorum late in the winterof 1234. His report
on the Mongolswas enlarged withtheadditionof an important com-
mentary by Hsü, who was a member of Tsou's secondembassy,which
arrivedin Qara-qorumin themiddleof thefollowing year. Hsü spent
morethanone monthat theMongolcourt. Thejointaccount,com-
P'eng'soriginalreport(withhis ownbriefinter-textual
prising notes)
andHsü'sadditions,was putintofinalformby thelatterin 1237.4 It
consistsof an unbrokenseriesof noticeson fiftytopicsrelating to
Mongolhistory,societyandculture.
The MT and HT textshavesuffered somewhat in thecourseof
transmission.However,they had the of
advantage attracting the
of a scholarlikeWangKuo-weiïii
attention (1877-1927), who
editedthemboth withan excellentcommentary.They werefirst
in 1926,thenposthumously
published in 1928 and againin 1940 and
1968.5 Pelliotreviewed edition
Wang's in ToungPao in 1929,adding

3) See C. A. Peterson in M. Rossabi (ed.), China Among Equals (Univ. of

CaliforniaPress,1983), p. 222 ff.
4) Colophon dated 27 April 1237. See the discussion,largelybased on Wang
Kuo-wei's research(on which see below) by N. C. Munkuevin "O 'Mén-da bèi-lu'
i 'Khéi-da si-lyue'-Zapiskakhkitaïskikhputesestvennikovxiii v. o drevnikhmongo-
lakh," in Kitaï. Yaponiya. Istoriya i filologiya. K 70-letiyuAkademika Nikolas
Iosifonica Konrada (Moscow, 1961), pp. 86-88. Cf. also Peterson in Rossabi,
op. cit., p. 237, n. 73.
5) The 1926 edition was published in Meng-kushih-liaossu-chungchiao-chu
**Á fctoSRÊÈ (Ch'ing-huahsüeh-hsiaoyen-chiuso » ^*8W3E0r ; Peking;rep.
Taipei, 1962), pp. 431-631 (of the Taiwan reprint). The 1928 edition,in Hai-ning
WangChung-ch'üehkung i-shu fêJpHiJS&fifc&ttA , ed. by Lo Chen-yüMM% 3d.
Series, ts'e 2, contains numerous printingand other errors. In 1940, Wang Kuo-
wei's collected works,thoroughlyrevisedby Chao Wan-liíSSfi , werereprintedin
Shanghai by the Commercial Press (ïSSFSIÏFtl) under the title Hai-ning Wang
Ching-anhsien-shengi-shu íg^B?P£5fc£jtit . MT and HT are foundin ts'e 37.
All referencesin the presentarticleare to this edition, which has been reprinted,
with differentpaginationand additions, in Taipei in 1968 under the title Wang
Kuan-t'ang hsien-shengch'üan-chi3:Ü11É5te¿fe¿A, Wen-hua ch'u-p'an kung-ssu
X^&M&'oi , 16 vols. On Wang's collected works, see P. Pelliot in Toung Pao
26 (1929): 113-182; Wang Te-yiﻫ, WangKuo-wei nien-p'uÍH«É*ÉíS
(Taipei, 1967), pp. 413-451.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
574 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

further and criticalcomments.6

information
MT was firsttranslatedinto Russian by V. P. Vasilievin 1857.7
His translationis, in Pelliot'swords,"assez incorrecteet mal annotée."8
A new, fullyannotatedRussian translationof both theMT text and
Wang Kuo-wei's commentaryby N. C. Munkuevappeared in 1975.9
Thisis a workof soundscholarship.
As for HT, until 1980 there existed only a partial,annotated
translationinto Russian by Lin Kyun-iand N. C. Munkuevcovering
sections 1- 30. 10 This was merelya prelude to a fullyannotated
translationby Munkuev,on the model of his earlierworkon theMT,
whichhas now been withthepublishersforsometime.11
For the sake of completeness,one should mentionalso a transla-
tion of MT and HT, togetherwithWangKuo-wei'scommentary, into
modern literaryMongolianwhich was publishedin 1979 in Heilung-
chiang.12The nameof thetranslator is MöngkejayaTa.
In 1980, the long awaited translationof both worksby Peter
Ulbrichtand ElisabethPinks appeared under the titleMeng-Tapei-lu
und Hei-Ta shih-lüeh. ChinesischeGesandtenberichteüberdie frühen
1221 und 1237. 13 This translation(hereafterCG) has a
Mongolen

6) Pelliot,op. cit.,pp. 165-169.

7) In Istoriya i drevnostivostocnoi casti Sredneï Azii ot X do XIII v. (St.
Petersburg,1857), pp. 216-235.
8) T'oungPao 26 (1929): 165.
9) Men-dabèï-Iu(«Polnoe opisanie mongolo-tatar»), Pamyatnikipis'mennosti
vostoka26 (Moscow, 1975), hereafterPO.
"
10) 'Kratkiesvedeniyao cernykhtatarakh'Pen Da-ya i Syuï Tina,"inProblemy
Vostokovedeniya5 (1960): 133-158.
11) Letterof 17 June 1982. Apparently,a complete Englishtranslationoi MT
and HT and of Wang's commentaryto both works has been completed by Prof.
F. W. Cleaves of Harvard. See HarvardJournalof Asiatic Studies 14 (1951): 496,
n. 6; it is, however,stillunpublished.In 1975 Prof.Kobayas.hiTakashirõ/J'#iÜE9Ä$
of Tokyo was workingon an annotated translationof the MT and HT (private
communication).
12) Mongyol-Tatar-untuqai burin temdeglel. Qara Tatar-un tuqai kereg-un
tobci (Qaramören/Heilungchiang, 1979). This is a plain translationwith veryfew
notes,and these only to the MT.
13) Nach Vorarbeitenvon Erich Haenischf und Yao Ts'ung-wuTübersetztund

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ON THE MENG-TA PEI-L U AND HEI- TA SHIH-L ÜEH 575

rathercomplex history. A roughversionof MT into Germanby Yao

Ts'ung-wu$fcfé 5 (1894-1970), made in the early 1930s duringhis
stay in Germany,14 servedas a basis fora translationof thisworkby
Erich Haenisch (1880-1966), who also prepared an independent
translationof HT; however,neitherof thesetranslationswas put into
final form. In 1964-1965, Haenisch handed his draftversionsto
ProfessorUlbrichtof Bonn University,requestinghim to edit them
for publication. This unenviabletask, involvingas it did a complete
recastingof the earliertranslationand the writingex novo of the
commentary, was sharedbetweenProfessorOlbrichtand his collabo-
ratorDr. ElisabethPinks. However,Olbricht'spoor healthprevented
him fromcarrying the plan throughand the burdenfellon the shoul-
dersof Dr. Pinks. In themeantime,manynew contributions to Mongol
studieswereappearingin Europe, the UnitedStates,China and Japan,
makingthe task of updatingthe commentaryincreasingly difficult.
When the work had reached the galley-proof stage, Munkuev's book
appeared,causinga further delay.15
Thanks to the perseveranceof Dr. Pinks and to ProfessorW.
Heissig's timelyappointmentof Dr. WernerBanck to speed up and
finalisethe publication,this importantwork finallysaw the lightin
1980.
W. Banck has writtenthe excellent"Einleitung"(pp. VH-XXI),
a tour-de-forcein itself,in which the textual historyof MT and HT,
and the historyof the Germantranslation, are discussedin detail,and
important questions are raised.
In the case of MT, one would have wishedperhapsto learnmore
about the historyof the Shuo-fuIE ?P collection with which the

kommentiertvon Peter Olbricht und Elisabeth Pinks. Eingeleitet von Werner

Banck. Asiatische Forschungen,Bd. 56 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,1980),
xxi, 264 pp.
hsi hsüeh-
14) See Wang Te-yi jLiBm in Kuo-li T'ai-wan ta-hsüehli-shih-hsüeh
pfloSÄ"&»^:*Mi*^»«l (1974): 105-107. Yao's translationwascarried
outon theMT editionof 1926. See W.Banck'sremarks in CG,p. XVII.
15) Unfortunately, it wasimpossible studyfullyintoaccount;
to takeMunkuev's
his workand CG mustbe regarded
therefore, especiallysince
as complementary,
somematerial Pinksand Banckwasnotavailableto Munkuev.
utilisedby Olbricht,

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
576 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

transmissionof MT is intimatelybound up.16 As forthe issuesraised

by Banck, such as the criteriaof selectivityof subjectmatterby the
authorsof MT and HT, C. R. Bawden has alreadydealt withthemin
his reviewof CG.17 I am also of the opinionthatin the case of both
works,the authorshad only a superficial knowledgeof Mongolculture
and customs,gained in loco mostlyfromnon-Mongolinformants and
enlargedor "padded" withcurrentreportson the Mongolscirculating
in northChina. The informationthus obtained was combinedwith
personalobservationsand a certainamount of speculationand guess-
work. The factthat the authorsdo not speakof marriagecustomsand
shamanisticpracticesat any lengthis, in my view, due 1) to lack of
directaccess to information on these subjects,and 2) to thesetopics
not beingof immediaterelevanceto the purposeof theirinquiry. By
the same token, the Franciscanenvoysare silentabout the language,
scriptand calendar of the Mongols,and say littleabout theirhorse
managementand other practiceswhich were observedand described
by the Sungenvoys.
Turningnow to the translators'effort-not an indifferent one
owing to the terseness
and occasional of
ambiguities the original-one

16) This should be done in the light of the importantstudies on the Shuo-fu
versions(MSS. and printededitions) that have appeared since WorldWarII. I refer
in particularto ChangPi-te's Híí&fêlexhaustivestudyin Chung-kuoTung-Yahsueh-
shu yen-chiuchi-huawei-yüanhuinien-pao + H*a5*flíWftfl'Í!l^S#*Mll {Bul-
letinof the China Councilfor East Asian Studies) 1 (1962): 1-276 (for the Mr, see
ibid., p. 207); and Jao Tsong-yi'sarticlein Melangesde Sinologie offertsa Monsieur
Paul Demiéville,I. Bibliothèque de l'Institutdes Hautes Études Chinoises20 (Paris,
1966), pp. 87-104. This is not an idle question, forWang Kuo-wei's criticaledi-
tion, good as it is, may stillbe improved. For example,in theMT text of the Shuo-
fu i-pai-chiiantft¥[$^Ê33ê re-editedby the CommercialPress(Shanghai, 1927) 54,
16a, line 9, we findthe two characterstí ^ before the words ÜÜÄi&Ä^ . In
Wang Kuo-wei's text (MT, 2b, line 9) tifare omitted, but they were probably
in the originaltext. To be sure, one would have to collate severalMSS. of the
Shuo-futhat were not available to WangKuo-wei,includingthose formerlybelong-
ing to Fu Tseng-hsiangÄi##8which Haneda Töru ^ ffl¥ used in 1920 to collate
the Sheng-wuchyin-cheng lu ÜÄÜffiÜ . As to the HT, Wang Kuo-wei's text is
also not faultless. Thus, e.g., the character|i on p. 17b, line 1 1, is a mistakeforü .
17) See the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and AfricanStudies 45, no. 1
(1982): 204-205. For anotherreviewof CG, see M. Gimm in Mundus 18, no. 1
(1982): 34-36.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ON THE MENG-TA PEI-LU AND HEI-TA SHIH-LÜEH SII

shouldsay at theoutsetthattheGermantranslation readswelland that

it is, on the whole, accurate. Almostin the same breath,one should
add that it is regrettablethat the translatorsdid not include page
references to WangKuo-wei'sedition(as inPO): thiswould havecaused
littletroubleto themand savedthereadersmuchtime.
Beforedealingwiththe translationproper,a fewwordsabout the
problemsof transcriptionand reconstructionof Mongol and other
non-Chinese
namesare calledfor.
In CG (see theIndex)we findthe followingtranscriptions:
Temujin
(for the correct form Temüjin),Ogodai (for Ögödei), Temuge-otcigin
(for Temüge-otöigin), Kocu (for Köcü), Õigu and (Üiku(for éigü and
Cikü), Mongko (for Möngke), guregen (for güregen),munggu(for
mönggü or münggü). There is really no justificationfor retaining
erroneousformslike the above ones, originallyadopted by Haenisch
followinghis systemof mechanicaltransliteration fromthe Chinese
transcriptions of Mongol sounds. Forms like Temujin,Ogodai, Koiu
and Mongkoare simplyuntenablebecause theyare phoneticallyincor-
rect. Equally incorrectare statementslike the following(CG, p. 87,
n. 6): "Im Mongolischenjedoch heißt 'Mongolen'= mangqol,Silber
aber munggu" where"mangqol" shouldread "mongqol" (= mongyol)
and "munggu"should read "mönggü" or "münggü" In view of the
numerousoccasionsin our text whereMongolpropernamesand terms
are discussed,it would have been advisableforthe translators to pay
more attentionto thisproblem.18The book, as a whole,would have
gainedin exactitudeand reliability.
Anotherrelatedproblemwhichdeservedattentionis the"interpre-

" Ch'a-ho-t'ai" in
18) Cf. also the transcriptions Tft^ Shu-ch'ih" and "^££
CG, p. 28, n. 8. The correctreadingsare "Chu-ch'ih" and "Ch'a-ha-t'ai." Although
Pelliot(Notes sur l'histoirede la Horde d'Or [Paris,1949], p. 13) also transcribesthe
formeras "Chou-tch'e," it should be pointed out thatthe characterJ%can be read
shu and chu. See MorohashiTetsuji ffffiítt^C , Dai kanwajiten XMfàWtn (Tokyo,
1955-60), VI, 14423. In the presentinstance ^t can only be read chu (French
tchou) since, as Pelliot himselfcorrectlypointsout (loc. cit.), it "transcritrégulière-
mentfu ou Jùà l'époque mongole." As to ^ (= °a ) ha, transcribing Mong.qa (ya),
see e.g. P. Pelliotet L. Hambis,Histoiredes campagnesde Genghis-khan, I (Leiden,
1951), pp. 97-98, 196,410.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
578 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

tation,"as distinctfromtranscription of tribaland

and transliteration,
othernames. Take, forexample,the name Ta-ta H $B of whichTa $1
is the shortform. CG (p. 3 et passim)rendersTa(-ta) as "Tatan" (sing,
and plur.). Thisis misleading."Ta-ta" standsfor"Tatar," the nameof
one of the leadingtribesof Mongoliaused sensulato as a generalname
for all the peoples of Mongolia(includingthe Mong7oltribe)by the
Chineseand UighurTurks,and throughthemby thePersians,Russians
and otherWesternnations.19 The final-rof "Tatar," like otherfinal
consonantsin foreignnames,is oftendroppedin theChinesemedieval
transcriptions.This fact is well known and Olbrichtand Pinks are
aware of it;20thus it is difficultto understandwhytheydid not use
"Tatar" and "Tataren" insteadof "Tatan." Fortunatelysuchcases are
rarein CG.
More serious,however,is the arbitraryand unwarrantedrecon-
structionof propernamesof whichthe originalformis unknown. A
case in pointis the name of the Sino-Khitanofficialappointedby the
Mongolsas residentcommissioner or governor(daruyaèi)of Yen-ching
in 1216. His name as givenin the Yüan-shihand otherYuan sources
is Shih-moHsien-te-pu JíWfâMh (^ ).21 In MT, 9a-b, he is referred
to as "His Excellencythe MinisterTa-ko" (*:gffi& ). In HT, 23a, he
is referredto as "the presentRegionalCommanderTa-ko,Han-t'a-pu,
"
of Yen-ching"(^£0sï*SfT«Si£ h I22 The "Han-t'a-pu^i^ h of
HT is clearlya variant,or corruption,of "Hsien-te-pu$M h (^)."

19) See P. Pelliotet L. Hambis,op. cit.,p. 2. The correctreadingof íft(3§ )

ft ( fe ) is Ta-ta,not Ta-tan(as in F. W. Cleaves,The SecretHistoryof theMon-
gols,I [HarvardUniv.Press,1982], p. xxv). See PelliotinJournal Asiatique(Avr.-
Juin1920): 143 andnote.
20) See CG,p. 5, n. 1,and 259b,"Tatan,Tataren(Ta-ta)."
21) See Yüan-shih (Peking:Chung-hua shu-chuwmmm ed., 1976) 146: 3456,
3458 (AI h ); 150: 3557 (IS7); Ta-Yüanma-cheng chi ^C^cllígcfS(Kuang-
ts'anghsüeh-chün ts'ung-shuffi#^g^# ed.), 29b (Ä# h ); Su T'ien-chueh
M3im , Kuo-cWaowen-leim^XM (Ssu-puts'ung-k'anfflgp^fijéd.) 57, 13a
(Aí#^ ). On thispersonage, see I. de Rachewiltz,"Personnel in
and Personalities
NorthChina in the EarlyMongolPeriod,"Journalof theEconomicand Social
Historyof theOrient9 (1966): 116, n. 1; 122, n. 1; 123, n. 1; 135, n. 3. Pelliot,
"Sur un passage,"p. 926, n. 5, confusesShih-moHsien-te-pu withtheson of Liu
Po-lin»fa** , i.e. Liu Ni Sift .
22) Thisshouldprobablybe amendedto ^¿KmfTWT:»®» h .

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ON THE MENG'TA PEI-L U AND HEI-TA SHIH-L ÜEH 579

Cf. the irregularformsWu-k'u-taiTCjgÄI(= Ögödei) and T'o-luangg£i

(= Tplui) found on the same page of HT Hsien-te-pu'v Han-t'a-pu
was the^official'sKhitanname in Chinesephonetictranscription.The
originalKhitanformcannotbe reconstructed withany certainty owing
to our ignoranceof the Khitanlanguage,but it musthave been some-
thinglike *Hemdeb, *Hendeb 'v *Hamtab, *Hantab. The different
Chinese transcriptions and the uncertaintyof the reconstruction are
not mentionedin the CG commentary,and throughoutthe work
Shih-moHsien-te-puis called "Shih-moQantab," or simply"Qantab"
(see pp. 255b, 257b). On theotherhand,Shih-moYeh-hsienHtfc-fe^fc ,
whose ming % was definitelyEsen, is called "Shih-mo Yeh-sien"
throughout(see p. 257b). These inconsistenciesand hypothetical
reconstructions passed on as establishedfacts (there is no asterisk
beforeQantab) somewhatspoil the presentation of the material,even
iftheydo notgreatlyaffectthe substance.
As forthe puzzlingTa-ko ;*;1F(JS), whichaccordingto Munkuev
could be a faultytranscriptionof Mongoliandaruya23(= daruyaci),it
is simplythe Khitan or Jurchenhsiao-tzu'b^r of Hsien-te-pu. This
name must have been fairlycommon,for it was also borne by the
contemporary JurchenofficialAo-t'un Shih-yingII »E (ffc)t&31 , as
we learn fromthe inscriptionon his "spiritway stele" (shen-tao-pei
in
#iií$ ).24 Moreover,the characterta (<tai<d'ai) ^ was transcribed
Mongolianas dai,25notda, and thisfactalone would
thirteenth-century
automaticallyexclude daruya. The termdaruyaii in the formta-lu-
hua-ch'ih ^:#7E# which, according to CG, p. 43, n. 21, "schon
damalsziemlichgesichertwar," did not in factexist,exceptperhapsas
an aberranttranscription,
the regularformbeingof course^#7E#.26
Officialtitlesin MT and HT are regularlyrenderedinto German

23) SeePO, pp. 161-162, n. 248.

24) See Li T'ing$g , Yü-anchi Ä«*(Ou-hsiang ling-shih «S^lfè ed.) 7,
75b. a. T'u Chi g§, Meng-wu-erh shih-chiMXft&îï (1934; rep.Taipei,1962)
47, 10a.
25) Cf.,e.g., Ta-tuXÜS= Mong.Daidu; Ta-Yuan Xtc = Mong.Dai On. See
F. W. Cleavesin HarvardJournalof Asiatic Studies 12 (1949): 71b.
26) See CG, pp. 124-125, n. 3. Cf. Cleaves,HarvardJournalof Asiatic Studies
16(1953):237-255.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
580 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

in CG. This is perfectlylegitimateand, indeed^preferable to mechani-

cal transcriptionfor the sake of smoothreading. The originaltitles
shouldthenbe givenin Chineseeitherin thefootnotesor in the Index.
Ulbrichtand Pinks normallydo that, and I found only a few omis-
sions.27 If some of the Chinese officialtitles(e.g. hsing-shengff^)
pose problems,Mongolianones, as we have seen,are even more con-
fusingat timesowingto the different Chinesetranscriptions foundin
our sources. Thus, the importantofficeoîjarquëi (=Jaryuèi)or Judge
(Richter)is incorrectly
transcribedin CG, pp. 125 and 256a, as 'farqoii"
because of an irregularChinese transcription adopted by the transla-
tors.28
The problems discussed above, although of consequence, are
peripheralto the real substanceof the work,viz. thetranslationofMT
and HT As statedearlier,thisis smoothand reliable,and, in myview,
a happycompromisebetweena literaland freerendering oftheoriginal.
Only occasionally is the Chinesetextmisunderstood by thetranslators.
For example,Hsü Ting's commentson the "i-la horses"(ï£$PI), i.e.
the stallions,and the way theybehavein protecting theherdsof mares,
concludewiththe words *ffBW»J;fc£«HR(Ä7;17b). In CG, p. 168,
thisis rendered"und in (gebührendem) Abstandhalten. Das isthöchst
sehenswert." The words Ifcffn W SÜ actually mean "they are very
affectionate,yet they keep apart (or they keep theirdistance)," i.e.
fromtheotherherds.29
In theCG commentary, each sectionof theMT and HT is endowed
with quite extensivephilologicaland historicalnotes. Ulbrichtand

27) See, e.g., the Index s.v. Präfektand Präsidentder Staatskanzlei(p. 255a);
Oberpräfekt(p. 253b); Landesherzog(p. 251b); Grenzkommissariat des Nordostens/
Südwestens(p. 247a); Heerführer, obersterdes Reiches (p. 247b); Hoher Kommissar
(p. 248a).
28) Cha-lu-huo-ch'ih
ft#i/c#for cha-lu-hu-ch'ih
^L#^#. The formeris
attested in the Yüan-shih(see Tamura JitsuzõfflííIS, ed., Genshi goi shüsei
7c£fg**$c, I [Kyoto, 1961], p. 621b), but the latteris the regularand correct
form. See loc. cit., and P. Ratchnevskyet F. Aubin, Un Code des Yuan, III: Index
(Paris, 1977), p. 131.
29) See Morohashi,op. cit., V, 12632: 13. Cf. S. Jagchidand C. R. Bawden,
"Some Notes on the Horse-policyof the Yuan Dynasty," CentralAsiatic Journal
10 (1965): 250; which may have been partlyresponsibleforthe misunderstanding.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ON THE MENG'TA PEI-L U AND HEI-TA SHIH-L ÜEH 58 1

Pinks have made full use of Wang Kuo-wei'slearnedannotationsand

have consulted a wide range of publicationsin Westernlanguages,
Chineseand Japaneseup to 1975/76.30 The resultis, in general,good
as faras the basic references
and Yuan sourcematerialare concerned.
Unfortunately, a fail numberof relevantstudiesby modernand con-
temporaryscholarspublishedbefore 1975/76 have not been directly
consulted,or havealtogetherescapedthe translators'
attention.
Besides Munkuev's above-mentionedarticle "O 'Mén-da bèi-
.
lu' . ,"31 whichmay have been difficultor impossibleto procurein
Germany,no attemptwas apparentlymade to consultPelliot's funda-
mentalpaper "Sur un passagedu Cheng-wouts'ing-tcheng lou"32 which
containsovera score of referencesto theMT and HT dealingwiththe
identificationof personagesand otherimportanttopics.33Had Pelliot's
theywould not havemisunder-
articlebeen availableto the translators,
stood the passage in MTt 6b, concerningthe "eldest" son of Cinggis-
"
qan "Pi-yintìM (= ? bigin<bigi<begi),i.e. Jüröedei-inrealityhis
youngestson- and would have avoided writinga faultyand incomplete
noteon it.34
Notes on importanttopics could have been broughtup to date
to 1975/76 had the translators been aware of the publishedliterature
availableto them. For example,in the noteon Ta-Meng-ku-kuo;*;ïgi
IH (CG, pp. 22-23, n. 15) thevariousinterpretationsof thisappellation
by modernscholarsare discussed. To themone shouldhaveadded the
important remarkson the subjectby N. C. Munkuevin S. L. Tikhvinskiï
(ed.), Tataro-Mongoly v Azii i Evrope. Sbornikstatèt(Moscow, 1970),
pp.354-355; idem.2nded. (Moscow,1977),pp. 379-381. Also,the

30) See W. Banck's remarksin CG, p. XIX. However,some post-1976 works

are also cited, such as G. Doerfer's Türkischeund MongolischeElemente im Neu-
persischen(p. 234).
31) See above, n. 4.
32) See above, n. 2.
33) On pp. 910, 911, 915, 916, 917-918, 919, 920, 923, 925, 926-927, 930,
931 and 933. Pelliot'sarticleis cited in CG at least once in the notes,but at second
hand (p. 34, n. 21).
34) CG, pp. 24 and 27, n. 7. Munkuev has also failed to take into account
Pelliot'sremarkson thispoint. See PO, p. 142, n. 159.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
582 IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ

note on the clan-nameI-laWeh-lü(CG, p. 50, n. 7) mayhavebenefitted

frommy own investigation of the problemwhichappearedin Papers
on Far EasternHistory9 (March 1974): 187-204. In it I also dealt
with the passage in HT concerningthe i-la horses.35 The articleby
J. A. Boyle, "Turkishand MongolianShamanismin the MiddleAges"
in Folklore 83 (1972): 177-193, should have been mentionedin n. 7
on p. 189; etc., etc. Thisis, perhaps,themostseriouscriticism
one can
level at what is otherwisea veryimportantcontributionnot only to
the field of Sino-Mongolianstudies,but also to our knowledgeof
medievalculture.
It is not difficultfor a specialistin the field to find faultsand
shortcomings in a book of this kind, for the numberof primaryand
secondary sources on the Mongols and Inner Asia is now immense,
and one could easily write a monographon each and everytopic
discussedin MT and HT. We shouldbe gratefulto ProfessorUlbricht,
Dr. Pinks, Dr. Banck and- last but not least-ProfessorHeissig,for
havingmenéà bonnefinthisheavyassignment and forhavingprovided
specialistand non-specialistalike witha sound and eminently readable
annotatedtranslation of two capitalworkson the earlyMongols.

35) I take thisopportunity to rectifysome minorerrors. On p. 192, n. 12,

line 2: for p. 17b read p. 17a-b; line 7: removedotsafterand; line 8: add dots
aftergeldings.

This content downloaded from 107.0.92.58 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:18:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions