302 158. CINGHIS
spirits to whom the shamans paid reverence » (ZVOIRAO, x, 116), and he mentioned BANZAROV'S « Hajir Cinggis tängri ». This is also the view taken by VLADIMIRCOV. I do not feel inclined to accept in without some qualification. Of course, it is difficult to discuss a name occurring in unknown conditions in a manuscript of unknown date and origin. But it may be a prejudiced view to give to Kököcü, on the authority of Ragidu-'d-Din, an importance in the ceremony of the enthronement which is not countenanced by any other source. At any rate, the very name of the shamanist god seems to betray a non-Mongolian origin. Tängri, « Heaven » and « God », is common to both Turkish and Mongolian; but hajir qajir is the form taken by the Turkish qadir, « powerful », « terrible », when it was borrowed from Turkish into Mongolian (cf. TP, 1930, 53). Even if there be a connection with the title adopted by Chinghiz-khan, we may explain «Hajir Cinggis tängri » as being originally the name of a Turkish shamanist god, *Qadïr Tängiz tängri, « the Powerful God Ocean ». The etymology of « Cinggis » would remain the same.
In Mongolian, Chinghiz-khan is never called simply « Cinggis », but always « Cinggis-ban » or « Cinggis-qa'an ». In F, despite some exceptions, « Cinghis can » is generally given in the text, but « Cinghis kaan » in the table of contents and in the titles of chapters; on the other hand, « kaan » occurs even in the text when Polo speaks of Qubilai. YULE adopted « Chinghis Kaan » throughout his edition; the present one gives « Cinghis Kan ». Without being too positive, it looks
as though Polo had distinguished « can » or « kan » ban, « khan », and « kaan » == qa'an; the
forms « Cinghis kaan » in the table of contents and in the titles of chapters would be the result of a mistaken normalization. Whatever the case may be with Polo himself, the distinction actually existed; the relation and the respective values of ban and qa'an will be discussed under « Kaan ». Among mediaeval travellers, Plan Carpine and Rubrouck give to Chinghiz-khan the title of « chan » — khan; Marignolli alone speaks of « Cingwis caam » (Wy, 543), which probably renders « Cinggis-qa'an ». Rasidu-'d-Din devotes chapters to « Cingiz-ban », « Ögötäi-ban », «Jöci-ban »,
Cayatai-ban », « Tului-ban », « Güyük-ban », and « Mongka-han », but to « Qubilai-gaân ». The first to take the title of qa'an was Ögötäi, and this as a sort of personal epithet, which was even at a later date a sufficient designation of him as qa'an-ban (see « Kaan »). It was only Qubilai who took on the title of the great qa'an as a mere epithet, and was spoken of as Qubilai-qa'an. It may be objected that the Secret History always speaks of « Cinggis-qa'an », and even applies the title of qa'an to the sovereigns of the first short-lived Mongol Empire which preceded that of Chinghiz-khan, « Qabul-qa'an », « Qutula-qa'an ». All this must be due to later tradition, when qa'an had replaced han in Mongol usage, and is ascribable either to the compilers of the Secret History in 1240, or more probably to later copyists. We have irrefutable proof, however, that Chinghiz-khan did not take the title of qa'an. The so-called « stone of Chinghiz-khan » preserved in Leningrad begins with the words Cinggis qan-i (or Cinggiz qan-i ?; cf. supra), a popular genitive of « Cinggis-qan »; qan is the regular notation of han in Uighur script, because this, like the later Uighur-Mongolian script, had no special letter for h. This was still the case in Güyük's time. We have already seen that, in his letter of 1246 adressed to Innocent IV, he styles himself in Turkish talui-nung ban, and in his Mongol seal dalai-in qanu (genitive), i. e. both times than, not qa'an. When Malakia, in the 13th cent., speaks of « Cangiz-yayan » _ Cinggisqa'an, it was already the result of the same change of habit which altered Cinghis-qan to
IIIF Color HighRes
