178 119. CARAGIAN
the Nan-chao yeh-shih, 2, 41; cf. also SAINSON, Hist. particulière du Nan-tchao, 198.) But Ragidu-'d-Din says that « the king of Qara-Jang bears the title of mah-ara, which means ' great prince '» (QUATREMÈRE, Hist. des Mongols, xcrv); D'OHSSON (Oh, II, 318) gives « Maha Radja (i. e. maharaja); BLOCHET (Bl, 378) corrects to 51;l4. mahâraû the readings »a. and A4. of his mss. Without attempting to establish here what form Ragid actually used, it is clear that the transcriptions represent maharaja or a form derived from maharaja (perhaps jl,>+. mahârâz). This title is confirmed by Chinese sources. The campaign of 1253-1257 in Yün-nan was very trying owing to the climate and to the resistance of the population; out of ten tümän of troops (100,000 men) which Uriyangqadai had under his command in Yün-nan, only 20,000 men survived (Oh, II, 318; Ber, 145-146). As early as 1254, Qubilai, perhaps fretting at his subordinate position under Uriyangqadai (if Ragid be right in that respect; the YS gives the supreme command to Qubilai), had come back to the Court in Mongolia. According to Ragid, Qubilai brought back with him the mahârâja. Chinese texts give a somewhat different account. At the time of the campaign, the power belonged in Ta-li to the Kao clan, under the purely nominal sovereignty of the Tuan family. The Kao were defeated, and mercy was shown to the Tuan; at that time, Qubilai had already left Yün-nan. Uriyangqadai's biography, a not always successful combination of two documents of different origin (see « Iaci »), says that, after Yün-nan-fu had fallen in 1254, Uriyangqadai « captured the king R ty flitt Tuan Chih-hsing and the commander-in-chief ,a â , j IJ j Ma-ha-la-hsi and offered them [to the Emperor] » (YS, 121, 3 a; Tuan Chih-hsing is the form given in this passage and it is retained in Ch, II, 221; T'u Chi, 29, 15 b, silently alters it to Tuan Hsing-chih, the form used in the biography of that ruler's son, YS, 166, 8 b; CHAVANNES, in TP, 1905, 15-16, gives Tuan Hsing-chih without comment; an error in the name as given in the biography of Uriyangqadai would be more probable than in a biography of the Tuan family; but, curiously enough, the form Tuan Chih-hsing is also the one we find in the Nan-chao yeh-shih [transi. SAINSON, 104], not always reliable, but generally based on independent tradition). Ma-ha-la-hsi may or may not be corrupt (? for Ma-ha-la-DI ft] cha; more probably, hsi [si] merely transcribes -s or -z, in agreement with Ragid's mahâreiz), but certainly it renders mahârâja, wrongly taken as a personal name, and still more wrongly given as the name of another man than the actual bearer of the title, i. e. the king Tuan Chih-hsing himself.
In 1256, Tuan Chih-hsing was received by Mongka who gave him the title of i! rte, Dui`: mo-ha-
lo-ts'o (YS, 3, 3 b), or i n J 1U mo-ho-lo-ts'o (YS, 166, 9 a; cf. CHAVANNES, in TP, 1905,
16); we must understand that Tuan Chih-hsing was then confirmed in his pre-existing title. A similar transcription mo-ho-lo-[II]ts'o occurs in an inscription of 1325, also in connection with Tuan Chih-hsing (TP, 1905, 28). Here again I cannot examine the minor discrepancies existing between the various sections of the YS, including the geographical section (ch. 61), as to the date at which and the conditions under which Tuan Chih-hsing was entrusted as tsung-kuan, or «administrator general », with fresh authority over his former subjects; some pertinent remarks have been made by CHAVANNES (TP, 1905, 16) and T'u Chi (6, 9 a-b; 29, 15 b; 110, 2 b). But I wish to point out that, while the transcription of mahârâja in Uriyangqadai's biography is what we should expect in the Mongol period (except perhaps for the last character), the mo-ho-lo-ts'o occurring elsewhere, also adopted in Yüan shih lei-pien, 42, 58 b, and in Nan-chao yeh-shih
IIIF Color HighRes
