National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

in YS, 15, 4 a (for the alternation of -a- and -u- in the middle unaccentuated syllable, see « Abaga »).
Samaγar had been sent to Syria in 1271, and he is the « Cemakar » of a letter sent by Abaγa on
September 4, 1271, to Prince Edward of England (the future Edward I), then at Acre (cf. the text
in Th. Stappleton, Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum, London, 1846, 143; also
Arch. Or. Latin, I, 623; wrongly « Camaker » in Röhricht, Regesta Regni Hierosol., 359, where
« Than Albaga » stands of course for « Chan Abaga »).
To the usual references, add Howorth, III, 237, quoting the Georgian chronicle (Brosset,
Hist. de la Géorgie, I, I, 580-581), but I do not see how the « Sikudar » of that chronicle could
represent « Samaγar ». The name is written شماير Šamāyu in Mufaẓẓal's very faulty text; Blochet
(Moufazzal, 203) is absolutely wrong in looking for etymologies of « Samayu » and « Samaγan »
which are mere wrong readings (confusion of ر and ن with ي); and it is not true that Mong. sama'ur
or samna'ur, « curry-comb » (derived from sam, « comb »), is a late form of *samaγar. I do not
know the etymology of the name Samaγar; a connection with sama'u, « disorder », is possible,
but remains to be proved.

329. SANGON, and see LIITAN SANGON

This title appears only once, in « Liitan Sangon » (see « Liitan »), and is certainly sāngün.
All commentators, from Pa, 442, and Y, II, 138, to RR, 425, and B¹, 444, excepting Ch, III, 12,
have explained sāngün as being Ch. 將軍 chiang-chün, « general ». And it is true that, when
we find sānün (sāngün) for the first time in the 8th cent. in a Turkish runic inscription of the
Orkhon, it must have been borrowed simply from chiang-chün. But the case is no longer the same
in the Mongol period, during which chiang-chün was rarely used (Cordier's addition to Y, II, 138,
about « military governor » refers to the revival of the title of chiang-chün during the Manchu
dynasty as a title for Tartar military governors; it is irrelevant here). On the contrary, both as
a proper name and as a title, sānggün or sānggüm is then of rather frequent occurrence in transcrip-
tions, and Rašīdu-'d-Dīn, as I have already remarked in TP, 1930, 46, explains it as meaning « men
of good origin », « sons of the aristocracy » (hudāvand zādāh, in Ber, I, 98). This can only be
相 公 hsiang-kung, which in ancient China was an epithet used for ministers (« Duke minister »),
but in the Middle Ages was applied to young men of high families; it is well known that the
term has now much deteriorated in Northern Chinese. In the 13th cent., hsiang-kung, without
being an official term, is frequently met with in Chinese texts as a polite designation for high officials
who were neither ministers (ch'êng-hsiang), nor assistant-ministers (yu-ch'êng, tso-ch'êng). For
instance, in a diary of 1276, we find a mention of Bayan ch'êng-hsiang, of 'Ali[-bäg] yu-ch'êng,
but of Po-lo[-huan] hsiang-kung (TP, 1915, 396, 403), Po-lo[-huan] being one of the generals under
Bayan's command during his campaign against the Sung (cf. Ch, III, 33-34). In the same work,
the author notes that he stayed a certain day in the house of Yen hsiang-kung (TP, 1912, 432;
see also « Tundinfu »); the Yen family enjoyed in Tung-p'ing-fu a situation similar to that of
Li T'an in Shan-tung. The well-known Činqai is mentioned as Chên-hai hsiang-kung in YS, 95, 14 a.
In The Ts'ai Yüan P'ei Anniv. Volume, Peiping, 1934, 926, I have quoted two cases where a man