National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

> > > >
Color New!IIIF Color HighRes Gray HighRes PDF   Japanese English
0462 Cathay and the Way Thither : vol.1
Cathay and the Way Thither : vol.1 / Page 462 (Grayscale High Resolution Image)

New!Citation Information

doi: 10.20676/00000042
Citation Format: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR Text



According to the lists of Deguignes Tarmeshirin Khan, the first Mussulman Khan of Chagatai, was dethroned in 1327 by his brother Butan Khan; Butan again was dethroned by Zenkshi or Jinkshi ; he by his brother Yesuntimur ; and he again by ALISULTAN of the descendants of Okkodai, who in 1332 was succeeded by Kazan, who reigned till 1346.

Again, in the narrative which is given in Astley's collection from Abulghazi and others, the succession of the princes is the same, but Tarmeshirin Khan dies in 1336, and no other date is given except the death of Kazan in 1348.

If the dates in Deguignes be correct, the Ali-Sultan of the history certainly cannot be the Alisolda of the Franciscans. The other statement has nothing inconsistent with this identification which so obviously suggests itself. Now, the first dates are certainly incorrect ; for Ibn Batuta visited Tarmeshirin Khan not many months before he entered India, and that was in the end of 1333. About two years later, he tells us, he heard of the dethronement of Tarmeshirin by his cousin Buzan Oglu (Butan Khan ?).1 This would place the event about 1334-5. Ibn Batuta also tells us that this Buzan was an unjust sovereign who persecuted Islam, and allowed the Jews and Christians to rebuild their temples, etc. This looks very like a counterpart, from the Mussulman point of view, of the favourable character given by the missionaries of the sovereign who patronised them.

There is, however, a letter written in 1338, from Pope Benedict XII to the Khan of Chagatai, thanking him for his kindness to the Christians in his territory, and especially to Archbishop Nicholas when on his way to Cambalec.2 And another letter to the ministers of the Khan, already quoted, speaks of their having granted a piece of land to the mission to build a church on, etc. Now, this Khan is called in the Pope's letter Chansi, which seems to identify him with the Jinkshi of the historical lists; whilst the circumstances mentioned seem to identify him with the Khan

1 There are some curious difficulties attending the chronology of Ibn Batuta's journey, but though their solution might throw the dates in question later, I believe it could not throw them earlier.

2 Mosheim, App., p 175.