National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books
|
|
Color Thumbnail -
Page Number -
Biliographic Information (Metadata) -
Caption -
Color Image -
Gray HighRes. Image -
Facing Pages -
Graphics -
| 0302 |
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
Citation Information
OCR Text
birth in *ting-hai* is quite different. In all the other cases, that of *ting-hai* for Sung T'ai-tsu as well
as the double *chia-hsü*, *i-hai* and *ping-tzŭ* for both Sung T'ai-tsu and Chinghiz-khan, Yang Wei-
chêng's parallels must be taken with the full value of both the elements which determine the cyclical
position of the year. The same should hold good in the case of the birth of Chinghiz-khan, and
the only significance I can see in Yang Wei-chêng's parallel is that he actually believed that Chinghiz-
khan was born in the *ting-hai* year, *i. e.* in 1167.
I think, moreover, that we can trace the same tradition in other Chinese works more or less
contemporary with Yang Wei-chêng's memorial. In WANG Kuo-wei's edition (64 *b*) of the *Shêng-
wu ch'in-chêng lu*, it is stated that in 1226, Chinghiz-khan was sixty-five years old (counted in the
Chinese fashion, *i. e.* sixty-four for us), which is in agreement with the later official date of his birth
in 1162. But this is the result of a correction : all the ancient texts of the work say he was then
« sixty years old » (時 上 年 六 十 矣), which would imply that he was born in 1167. Of course,
the correction seems at first sight justified by the fact that, just before speaking of 1204 and so,
apparently, referring to 1203, the same work speaks of Chinghiz as being then « forty-two years old »
(forty-one for us), which would date his birth in 1162. I shall not dwell on the discrepancy with
Rašidu-'d-Din, according to whom the events recorded in the *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu* under 1203
appear in the « rat » year, which began on February 3, 1204. More stress should be laid, I believe,
on the manner in which the age is indicated under 1203. That the age of the Emperor should be
mentioned when he starts for his last campaign (in the course of which he died) need cause no
surprise. But the situation is different when, in 1203, after relating other events which seem to
have taken place in the same year, and before passing on to *chia-tzŭ* (1204), the texts begins the
account of the attempt made by Tayang-khan of the Naiman to make the Öngüt sovereign join in a
league against Chinghiz-khan with the unusual mention « when the age of the Emperor was forty-
two » (上 春 秋 四 十 二 時). I think that, except perhaps for the last word, we might have to deal
here with an interpolation (there is at least one other interpolation in the *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu*
as we have it now; cf. WANG Kuo-wei, 58 *b*, and my paper *Sur un passage du « Cheng-wou ts'in-
tcheng lou »*, in *Ts'ai Yüan P'ei Anniversary Volume*, 937). This is the only explanation I can
think of if the original text under the year 1226 really says that the Emperor was then « sixty years
old ». The opinion is literally confirmed by the *Li-tai fo-tsu t'ung-tsai* (ch. 32; *ibid.* 37 *a*), which,
under 1226, and exactly in the same words as the original *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu*, says that the
Emperor was then « sixty years old » (上 年 六 十 矣). Now it is out of the question that a corrupt
reading which might in the Ming period have crept into the *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu* should have
contaminated at a still later date the Buddhist chronicle of 1344, or that our ancient texts of the
*Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu* should have been altered on the authority of the Buddhist chronicler.
That the compiler of the *Li-tai fo-tsu t'ung-tsai* knew the *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu* is established
by the fact that his entry under 1206 (大 會 于 斡 羅 河 建 九 游 之 白 旗 其 上 尊 號 曰 成 吉
思 皇 帝) is a *verbatim* quotation from the latter work (46 *b*). The only admissible conclusion is
that the chronicler of 1344 used a copy of the *Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu* which already attributed
sixty (Chinese) years to the age of Chinghiz-khan in 1226, or in other words which implied that
1167 was the year of his birth. This was certainly the ancient tradition, of which we have yet
another mention in Yang Wei-chêng's memorial.
1
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
21
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
31
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
51
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
61
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
71
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
81
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
91
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
101
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
111
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
121
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
131
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
141
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
151
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
161
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
171
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
181
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
191
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
201
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
211
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
221
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
231
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
241
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
251
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
261
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
271
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
281
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
291
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
300
301
302
303
304
.
|
.
.
.
.
311
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
321
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
331
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
341
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
351
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
361
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
371
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
381
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
391
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
401
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
411
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
421
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
431
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
441
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
451
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
461
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
471
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
481
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
491
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
501
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
511
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
521
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
531
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
541
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
551
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
561
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
571
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
581
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
591
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
601
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
611
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
621
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
631
632
Copyright (C) 2003-2026
National Institute of Informatics
and
The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.
