Volume II Part 161 (1/2)

LXI., p. 305, n. Harlez's inscription is a miserable scribble of the facsimile from Dr. Bush.e.l.l. (PELLIOT.)

LXI., p. 308, n. 5. The _Yuan s.h.i.+_, ch. 77, f 7 _v._, says that: ”Every year, [the Emperor] resorts to Shang tu. On the 24th day of the 8th moon, the sacrifice called 'libation of mare's milk' is celebrated.” (PELLIOT.)

[1] The eight stages would be:--(1) Hasanabad, 21 miles; (2) Darband, 28 miles; (3) Chehel Pai, 23 miles; (4) Naiband, 39 miles; (5) Zenagan, 47 miles; (6) Duhuk, 25 miles; (7) Chah Khushab, 36 miles; and (8) Tun, 23 miles.

[2] _Genom Khorasan och Turkestan_, I., pp. 123 seq.

BOOK SECOND.

PART I.--THE KAAN, HIS COURT AND CAPITAL.

II., p. 334.

NAYAN.

It is worthy of note that Nayan had given up Buddhism and become a Christian as well as many of his subjects. Cf. PELLIOT 1914, pp. 635-6.

VII., pp. 352, 353.

Instead of _Sir-i-Sher_, read _Sar-i-Sher_. (PELLIOT.)

_P'AI TZU_.

”Dr. Bush.e.l.l's note describes the silver _p'ai_, or tablets (not then called _p'ai tsz_) of the Cathayans, which were 200 (not 600) in number.

But long before the Cathayans used them, the T'ang Dynasty had done so for exactly the same purpose. They were 5 inches by 1-1/2 inches, and marked with the five words, 'order, running horses, silver _p'ai_,' and were issued by the department known as the _men-hia-sheng_. Thus, they were not a Tartar, but a Chinese, invention. Of course, it is possible that the Chinese must have had the idea suggested to them by the ancient wooden orders or tallies of the Tartars.” (E.H. PARKER, _As. Quart. Review_, Jan., 1904, p. 146.)

Instead of ”Publication No. 42” read only No. 42, which is the number of the _pai tzu_. (PELLIOT.)

VIII., p. 358, n. 2.

_Kun ku = hon hu_ may be a transcription of _hw.a.n.g heu_ during the Mongol Period, according to Pelliot.

IX. p. 360.

MONGOL IMPERIAL FAMILY.

”Marco Polo is correct in a way when he says Kublai was the sixth Emperor, for his father Tu li is counted as a _Divus_ (Jwei Tsung), though he never reigned; just as his son Chin kin (Yu Tsung) is also so counted, and under similar conditions. Chin kin was appointed to the _chung shu_ and _shu-mih_ departments in 1263. He was entrusted with extensive powers in 1279, when he is described as 'heir apparent.' In 1284 Yun Nan, Chagan-jang, etc., were placed under his direction. His death is recorded in 1285. Another son, Numugan, was made Prince of the Peking region (Peh-p'ing) in 1266, and the next year a third son, Hukaji, was sent to take charge of Ta-li, Chagan-jang, Zardandan, etc. In 1272 Kublai's son, Mangalai, was made Prince of An-si, with part of Shen Si as his appanage.

One more son, named Ai-ya-ch'ih, is mentioned in 1284, and in that year yet another, Tu kan, was made Prince of Chen-nan, and sent on an expedition against Ciampa. In 1285 Essen Temur, who had received a _chung-shu_ post in 1283, is spoken of as Prince of Yun Nan, and is stated to be engaged in Kara-jang; in 1286 he is still there, and is styled 'son of the Emperor.' I do not observe in the Annals that Hukaji ever bore the t.i.tle of Prince of Yun Nan, or, indeed, any princely t.i.tle. In 1287 Ai-ya-ch'ih is mentioned as being at Shen Chou (Mukden) in connection with Kublai's 'personally conducted' expedition against Nayen. In 1289 one more son, Geukju, was patented Prince of Ning Yuan. In 1293 Kublai's _third son_ c.h.i.n.kin, received a posthumous t.i.tle, and c.h.i.n.kin's son Temur was declared heir-apparent to Kublai.

”The above are the only sons of Kublai whose names I have noticed in the Annals. In the special table of Princes Numugan is styled Peh-an (instead of Peh-p'ing) Prince. Aghrukji's name appears in the table (chap. 108, p.

107), but though he is styled Prince of Si-p'ing, he is not there stated to be a son of Kublai; nor in the note I have supplied touching Tibet is he styled a _hw.a.n.g-tsz_ or 'imperial son.' In the table Hukaji is described as being in 1268 Prince of Yun Nan, a t.i.tle 'inherited in 1280 by Essen Temur.' I cannot discover anything about the other alleged sons in Yule's note (Vol. I., p. 361). The Chinese count Kublai's years as eighty, he having died just at the beginning of 1294 (our February); this would make him seventy-nine at the very outside, according to our mode of reckoning, or even seventy-eight if he was born towards the end of a year, which indeed he was (eighth moon). If a man is born on the last day of the year he is two years old the very next day according to Chinese methods of counting, which, I suppose, include the ten months which they consider are spent in the womb.” (E.H. PARKER, _As. Quart. Rev._, Jan., 1904, pp.

137-139.)

XI., p. 370, n. 13.

The character _King_ in _King-shan_ is not the one representing Court [Chinese] but [Chinese].--Read ”Wan-_sui_-Shan” instead of _Wan-su-Shan_.

XII., p. 380.