144. CIAGATAI 253
become easier to understand if the custom already obtained in Polo's time to use Cayatai's name as the designation of his branch.
Moreover, we must not be too much surprised at Polo's errors when we see those made by other mediaeval travellers and historians. Plan Carpine (Wy, 65) knew that Chinghiz-khan had four sons, but he gives them in the following order : Ögödäi, Jöèi, Cayatai and a last one (= Tolui) whose name he was not told. Kirakos gives to Chinghiz-khan three sons in the following order : Cayatai, a second son unnamed (Jöêi or Tolui) and Ögödäi (BROSSET, Deux historiens arméniens, I, 115; PATKANOV, Istoriya Mongolov, II, 13). In Hethum, Cayatai becomes the third son of Ögödäi (Hist. des Crois., Arm., II, 157, 163, 296). Even the Mongol chronicler « Sanang Setsen » is mistaken and gives Cayatai as Chinghiz-khan's eldest son (SCHMIDT, Gesch. der Ost-Mongolen, 111). European scholars are not always more accurate : Cayatai becomes Chinghiz-khan's third son, instead of second, in RADLOV's dictionary (iv, 15), in SREZNEVSKII (Clavijo, 425) and in LE STRANGE (Clavijo, 350). In 1819, 'JIGS-MED NAM-MKHA (HUTH, Gesch. des Buddhismus, u, 29) gives the four names in the correct order, but attributes to Cayatai five fanciful sons who became kings of western Asia and India, one of them being « Kodkhar » (read « Kornkhar »), king of « Rom », and residing in « Stambhola », which in a note to the text is supposed to be part of the mythical land of Sambhala !
On Cayatai, cf. Juwaini, I, 226-232; Raidu-'d-Din in Bl, II, 153-197 (Raid left this section incomplete); T'u Chi, 14.8, 32, I a-2 b; 148, 39 a; Oh, II, 99-108; EI, s. v. « Caghatâi-khän », by
BARTHOLD.
We do not know in which year Cayatai was born, but he was older than Ögödäi, who was born in 1186. It is not likely that there should have been a great difference of age between them, and we may assume that Cayatai was born c. A. D. 1185. He took part in the campaigns of his father against the Juêen and against the Mussulmans. After Chinghiz-khan's death (1227), Cayatai remained most of the time in his own appanage which extended from Bokhara and Samarkand to the region of Beg-balïq (north-east of Urumchi). In the summer, he used to reside at A; Quyas ( ? *Quyâg) near Aimaliq, and in the winter at a place the name of which has been read I A2j311. *Marâùzik-Ili, but which may as well be *MâzäarAng-Ila, *Mârâùrâng-Iiâ, *Märwâzik-Iiâ, etc. None of the names has as yet been identified, but both places were certainly in the Iii region (cf. Juwaini, I, 31, 227; Kàgyari, in Brockelmann, 247 [« Qayas »] and 248 [« Quyas »1; Oh, II, 107; BARTHOLD, 12 Vorlesungen, 76, 181; Mi, 298, 301); T'u Chi's identification (32, I a) of the winter residence with « Maryinan » (the « Margelan » of our maps; cf. Br, II, 54) is not acceptable. Rubrouck mentions a city of «Equius » which has been equated with Kàgyari's « Iki-ögüz » by BARTHOLD (12 Vorlesungen, 95; cf. TP, 1936, 363); although this is a possible solution, I am not convinced that an identification of « Equius » with « Quyas » is not just as likely. Apart from his dominions in the West, we know that Cayatai had been given as appanage 47,330 families of T'ai-yüan-fu in Shàn-hsi in 1236 at the time of the repartition of lands in North China among Mongol princes and grandees (YS, 2, 3 a; 95, 2 b; Oh, II, 70); in 1238, he received an additional grant of 10,000 families of Chên-ting (see « Achbaluch ») and ig')4 Shên-chou (now Shên-hsien; cf. YS, 95, 2 b).
In the Secret History, written when Cayatai was still alive, he is represented by Chinghiz-
IIIF Color HighRes
