42" read only No. 42, which is the number of
the pai tzu. (PELLIOT.)
VIII., p. 358, n. 2.
Kun ku = hon hu may be a transcription of hwang heu during the Mongol
Period, according to Pelliot.
IX. p. 360.
MONGOL IMPERIAL FAMILY.
"Marco Polo is correct in a way when he says Kublai was the sixth Emperor,
for his father Tu li is counted as a Divus (Jwei Tsung), though he never
reigned; just as his son Chin kin (Yue Tsung) is also so counted, and under
similar conditions. Chin kin was appointed to the chung shu and
shu-mih departments in 1263. He was entrusted with extensive powers in
1279, when he is described as 'heir apparent.' In 1284 Yuen Nan,
Chagan-jang, etc., were placed under his direction. His death is recorded
in 1285. Another son, Numugan, was made Prince of the Peking region
(Peh-p'ing) in 1266, and the next year a third son, Hukaji, was sent to
take charge of Ta-li, Chagan-jang, Zardandan, etc. In 1272 Kublai's son,
Mangalai, was made Prince of An-si, with part of Shen Si as his appanage.
One more son, named Ai-ya-ch'ih, is mentioned in 1284, and in that year yet
another, Tu kan, was made Prince of Chen-nan, and sent on an expedition
against Ciampa. In 1285 Essen Temur, who had received a chung-shu post in
1283, is spoken of as Prince of Yuen Nan, and is stated to be engaged in
Kara-jang; in 1286 he is still there, and is styled 'son of the Emperor.' I
do not observe in the Annals that Hukaji ever bore the title of Prince of
Yuen Nan, or, indeed, any princely title. In 1287 Ai-ya-ch'ih is mentioned
as being at Shen Chou (Mukden) in connection with Kublai's 'personally
conducted' expedition against Nayen. In 1289 one more son, Geukju, was
patented Prince of Ning Yuean. In 1293 Kublai's third son Chinkin,
received a posthumous title, and Chinkin's son Temur was declared
heir-apparent to Kublai.
"The above are the only sons of Kublai whose names I have noticed in the
Annals. In the special table of Princes Numugan is styled Peh-an (instead
of Peh-p'ing) Prince. Aghrukji's name appears in the table (chap. 108, p.
107), but though he is styled Prince of Si-p'ing, he is not there stated
to be a son of Kublai; nor in the note I have supplied touching Tibet is
he styled a hwang-tsz or 'imperial son.' In the table Hukaji is
described as being in 1268 Prince of Yuen Nan, a title 'inherited in 1280
by Essen Temur.' I cannot discover anything about the other alleged sons
in Yule's note (Vol. I., p. 361). The Chinese count Kublai's years as
eighty, he having died just at the beginning of 1294 (our February); this
would make him seventy-nine at the very outside, according to our mode of
reckoning, or even seventy-eight if he was born towards the end of a year,
which indeed he was (eighth moon). If a man is born on the last day of the
year he is two years old the very next day according to Chinese methods of
counting, which, I suppose, include the ten months which they consider are
spent in the womb." (E.H. PARKER, As.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 641 of 701
Words from 338489 to 339062
of 370046
