292 158. CINGHIS
corresponding to § 134 of the Secret History, gives e-ay-un törö (or Otfirii), which is very close to the reading ch'a-wu-t'u-lu and still more to the ch'a-kun-t'u-lu of the Ch'ien-lung Commissioners.
The Chinese abridged version of the Secret History, the only one which PALLADIUS knew
when he published his translation, gives (§ 134) [, )t ? cha-wu-hu-li, which would seem to
render ya'uquri. PALLADIUS (Trudy elenov. ... , Iv, 66, 194) read it as «Jauh uri », which is still retained by VLADIMIRCOV (Cingis-khan, 50). There can be no doubt, however, that this restitution is not correct. The complete text of the Secret History, in a phonetic transcription of the Mongolian original, gives once (§ 134) cha-wu-t'i['i,]-hu-li, and once (§ 179) ch'a['1]-wu-t'i-hu-li (the t'i being both times written smaller and a little to the right of the column), which would suppose *ja'utquri and *cra'utquri, respectively.
That the -t- is original is proved by Rasidu-'d-Din, where the title occurs twice, as in the Secret History (Ber, II, 104, 140). It has been misread « Odjaout-kodi », « Djaout-kodi », « Tschavatkodi » (cf. ERDMANN, Temudschin, 585), « Dschaukturi » (WOLFF, Gesch. der Mongolen, 39), « Dschaut-ikuri » (ERDMANN, ibid., 267), « Jaut-ikuri » (HowoRTH, I, 54). The correct form had, however, been given long ago by D'OHSSON (Oh, I, 47) and HAMMER (Ha3, 61), and is confirmed
by BEREZIN'S mss : it is ,5,yi Jâüt-güri (or Z`aüt-güri), which is identical with the transcriptions
of the complete Secret History.
An occlusive consonant at the end of a syllable, transcribed with a smaller character, is frequently omitted by less accurate copyists, as is the case in the ch'a-wu-hu-li of the abridged version of the Secret History. On the other hand, -i and -u, at the end of a word, are easily confused in Mongolian writing. There would thus be nothing surprising in findingch'a-wu-hu-lu for *ea'utquri in the Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu if we did not have the puzzling ch'a-wu-t'u-lu of the Supplement to the Kang-mu and of the Yiian-shih lei-pien, going back to one or several lost mss. of the Shêngwu ch'in-chêng lu, and the eay-un törö (or Otiirii) of the Ulan-Bator ms. based on the original Mongol text of the Secret History. The form of the very faulty Ulan-Bator ms. seems to be the result of an absurd interpretation « rule of the moment ». That the -törö of this ms. should be the outcome of [ca'u]t-quri, the -t being mistaken for the first letter of the second element of the title, the -q- omitted and the final -i misread as -u (-12, -o, -o) would be possible in itself, and it may also be possible that the final -i was miswritten or misread -u in the Mongolian manuscript from which the Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu was translated. Yet a difficulty remains, since we have also the ch'a-wu-t'u-lu derived from one or several lost mss. of the Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu and because, as will be seen further on, a form *-quru may be etymologically as correct as quri. Ch'a-wu-t'u-lu cannot be due to a misreading of a manuscript in Mongolian, since the known mss. have, correctly, ch'a-wu-hu-lu and since there is no trace of two independent translations of the work from the Mongolian. On the other hand, a mere coincidence which would make a corrupt reading of Mongolian origin in one work fall in with a corrupt reading of Chinese origin in another is hardly acceptable. I have no satisfactory solution to proffer. As to the hesitation between I and 6, which is reflected in the different transcriptions of the Secret History in § 134 and 179, it must be remembered that Mongolian manuscripts rarely distinguish the two letters, and that the translators and transcribers of the 14th cent. had no longer a living tradition to guide them as to the pronun-
IIIF Color HighRes
