Volume II Part 70 (1/2)
BUKA the Jelair, who had been a great chief under abaka, and had resentments against Ahmad, got up a conspiracy in favour of Arghun, and effected his release as well as the death of ALINAK, Ahmad's commander-in-chief. Ahmad fled towards Tabriz, pursued by a band of the Karaunas, who succeeded in taking him. When Arghun came near and saw his uncle in their hands, he called out in exultation _Morio!_--an exclamation, says Wa.s.saf, which the Mongols used when successful in archery,--and with a gesture gave the signal for the prisoner's death (10th August 1284).
Buka is of course the _Boga_ of Polo; Alinak is his _Soldan_. The conspirators along with Buka, who are named in the history of Wa.s.saf, are _Yesubuka_, _Gurgan_, _Aruk_, _Kurmis.h.i.+_, and _Arkasun Noian_. Those named by Polo are not mentioned on this occasion, but the names are all Mongol.
TAGaJAR, ILCHIDAI, TUGHAN, SAMAGHAR, all appear in the Persian history of those times. Tagajar appears to have had the honour of a letter from the Pope (Nicolas IV.) in 1291, specially exhorting him to adopt the Christian faith; it was sent along with letters of like tenor addressed to Arghun, Ghazan, and other members of the imperial family. Tagajar is also mentioned by the continuator of Abulfaraj as engaged in the conspiracy to dethrone Kaikhatu. ULATAI was probably the same who went a few years later as Arghun's amba.s.sador to Cambaluc (see Prologue, ch. xvii.); and Polo may have heard the story from him on board s.h.i.+p.
(_a.s.sem._ III. pt. 2, 118; _Mosheim_, p. 80; _Ilchan._, pa.s.sim.)
Abulfaragius gives a fragment of a letter from Arghun to Kublai, reporting the deposition of Ahmad by the princes because he had ”apostatized from the law of their fathers, and adopted that of the Arabs.” (_a.s.semani_, _u.s._ p. 116.) The same historian says that Ahmad was kind and liberal to the Christians, though Hayton speaks differently.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Facsimile of the Letters sent to Philip the Fair King of France, by Arghun Khan in A.D. 1289 and by Oljaitu in A.D. 1305.]
NOTE 2.--Arghun obtained the throne on Ahmad's death, as just related, and soon after named his son Ghazan (born in 1271) to the Government of Khorasan, Mazanderan, k.u.mis, and Rei. Buka was made Chief Minister. The circ.u.mstances of Arghun's death have been noticed already (supra, p. 369).
CHAPTER XVIII.
HOW KIACATU SEIZED THE SOVEREIGNTY AFTER ARGON'S DEATH.
And immediately on Argon's death, an uncle of his who was own brother[1]
to Abaga his father, seized the throne, as he found it easy to do owing to Casan's being so far away as the _Arbre Sec_. When Casan heard of his father's death he was in great tribulation, and still more when he heard of KIACATU'S seizing the throne. He could not then venture to leave the frontier for fear of his enemies, but he vowed that when time and place should suit he would go and take as great vengeance as his father had taken on Acomat. And what shall I tell you? Kiacatu continued to rule, and all obeyed him except such as were along with Casan. Kiacatu took the wife of Argon for his own, and was always dallying with women, for he was a great lechour. He held the throne for two years, and at the end of those two years he died; for you must know he was poisoned.[NOTE 1]
NOTE 1.--KaIKHATu, of whom we heard in the Prologue (vol. i. p. 35), was the brother, not the uncle, of Arghun. On the death of the latter there were three claimants, viz., his son Ghazan, his brother Kaikhatu, and his cousin Baidu, the son of Tarakai, one of Hulaku's sons. The party of Kaikhatu was strongest, and he was raised to the throne at Akhlath, 23rd July 1291. He took as wives out of the Royal Tents of Arghun the Ladies Bulughan (the 2nd, not her named in the Prologue) and Uruk. All the writers speak of Kaikhatu's character in the same way. Hayton calls him ”a man without law or faith, of no valour or experience in arms, but altogether given up to lechery and vice, living like a brute beast, glutting all his disordered appet.i.tes; for his dissolute life hated by his own people, and lightly regarded by foreigners.” (_Ram._ II. ch. xxiv.) The continuator of Abulfaraj, and Abulfeda in his Annals, speak in like terms. (_a.s.sem._ III. Pt. 2nd, 119-120; _Reiske_, _Ann. Abulf._ III. 101.)
Baidu rose against him; most of his chiefs abandoned him, and he was put to death in March-April, 1295. He reigned therefore nearly four years, not _two_ as the text says.
[1] _Frer carnaus_ (I. p. 187).
CHAPTER XIX.
HOW BAIDU SEIZED THE SOVEREIGNTY AFTER THE DEATH OF KIACATU.
When Kiacatu was dead, BAIDU, who was his uncle, and was a Christian, seized the throne.[NOTE 1] This was in the year 1294 of Christ's Incarnation. So Baidu held the government, and all obeyed him, except only those who were with Casan.
And when Casan heard that Kiacatu was dead, and Baidu had seized the throne, he was in great vexation, especially as he had not been able to take his vengeance on Kiacatu. As for Baidu, Casan swore that he would take such vengeance on him that all the world should speak thereof; and he said to himself that he would tarry no longer, but would go at once against Baidu and make an end of him. So he addressed all his people, and then set out to get possession of his throne.
And when Baidu had intelligence thereof he a.s.sembled a great army and got ready, and marched ten days to meet him, and then pitched his camp, and awaited the advance of Casan to attack him; meanwhile addressing many prayers and exhortations to his own people. He had not been halted two days when Casan with all his followers arrived. And that very day a fierce battle began. But Baidu was not fit to stand long against Casan, and all the less that soon after the action began many of his troops abandoned him and took sides with Casan. Thus Baidu was discomfited and put to death, and Casan remained victor and master of all. For as soon as he had won the battle and put Baidu to death, he proceeded to the capital and took possession of the government; and all the Barons performed homage and obeyed him as their liege lord. Casan began to reign in the year 1294 of the Incarnation of Christ.
Thus then you have had the whole history from Abaga to Casan, and I should tell you that Alau, the conqueror of Baudac, and the brother of the Great Kaan Cublay, was the progenitor of all those I have mentioned. For he was the father of Abaga, and Abaga was the father of Argon, and Argon was the father of Casan who now reigns.[NOTE 2]
Now as we have told you all about the Tartars of the Levant, we will quit them and go back and tell you more about Great Turkey--But in good sooth we _have_ told you all about Great Turkey and the history of Caidu, and there is really no more to tell. So we will go on and tell you of the Provinces and nations in the far North.
NOTE 1.--The Christian writers often ascribe Christianity to various princes of the Mongol dynasties without any good grounds. Certain coins of the Ilkhans of Persia, up to the time of Ghazan's conversion to Islam, exhibit sometimes Mahomedan and sometimes Christian formulae, but this is no indication of the religion of the prince. Thus coins not merely of the heathen Khans Abaka and Arghun, but of Ahmad Tigudar, the fanatical Moslem, are found inscribed ”In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Raynaldus, under 1285, gives a fragment of a letter addressed by Arghun to the European Powers, and dated from Tabriz, ”in the year of the c.o.c.k,” which begins ”_In Christi Nomen, Amen!_” But just in like manner some of the coins of Norman kings of Sicily are said to bear the Mahomedan profession of faith; and the copper money of some of the Ghaznevide sultans bears the pagan effigy of the bull _Nandi_, borrowed from the coinage of the Hindu kings of Kabul.
The European Princes could not get over the belief that the Mongols were necessarily the inveterate enemies of Mahomedanism and all its professors.
Though Ghazan was professedly a zealous Mussulman, we find King James of Aragon, in 1300, offering _Ca.s.san Rey del Mogol_ amity and alliance with much abuse of the infidel Saracens; and the same feeling is strongly expressed in a letter of Edward II. of England to the ”Emperor of the Tartars,” which apparently was meant for Oljaitu, the successor of Ghazan.