Khakhan

“Mr. Rockhill’s remarks about the title Khakhan require supplementing. Of course, the Turks did not use the term before 560 (552 was the exact year), because neither they nor their name ‘Turk’ had any self-assertive existence before then, and until that year they were the ‘iron-working slaves’ of the Jou-jan. The Khakhan of those last-named Tartars naturally would not allow the petty tribe of Turk to usurp his exclusive and supreme title. But even a century and a half before this, the ruler of the T’u-kuh-hun nomads had already borne the title of Khakhan, which (the late Dr. Bretschneider agreed with me in thinking) was originally of Tungusic and not of Turkish origin. The T’u-kuh-hun were of the same race as the half-Mongol, half-Tungusic Tobas, who ruled for two centuries over North China.... The title of Khakhan, in various bastard forms, was during the tenth century used by the Kings of Khoten and Kuche, as well as by the petty Ouigour Kings of Kan Chou, Si Chou, etc.” (E. H. Parker, Asiatic Quart. Rev., Jan., 1904, pp. 139–140.)

Introduction, p. 19. [The] second start [of the Venetians] from Acre took place about November, 1271.

M. Langlois remarks that the last stay of the Polos at Acre was necessarily before the 18th November, 1271, date of the departure of Gregory X. for the West. Cf. Itinéraires à Jérusalem et Descriptions de la Terre-Sainte rédigés en français aux XIe, XIIe et XIIIe siècles, publ. par H. Michelant et G. Raynaud (Genève, 1882), pp. xxviii–xxix:

“La date de 1269, donnée seulement par un des manuscrits de la rédaction de Thibaut de Cépoy, pour le premier séjour à Acre des Polo et leur rencontre avec Tedaldo Visconti, qui allait être élu pape et prendre le nom de Grégoire X., date préférée par tous les éditeurs à celles évidemment erronées de Rusticien de Pise (1260) et des huit autres manuscrits de Thibaut de Cépoy (1250 et 1260), n’est pas hors de toute discussion. M. G. Tononi, archiprêtre de Plaisance, qui prépare une histoire et une édition des œuvres de Grégoire X., me fait remarquer que les chroniqueurs ne placent le départ de Tedaldo pour la Terre-Sainte qu’après celui de S. Louis pour Tunis (2 juillet 1270), et que, d’après un acte du Trésor des Chartes, Tedaldo était encore à Paris le 28 décembre 1269. Il faudrait donc probablement dater de 1271 le premier et le deuxième séjour des Polo à Acre, et les placer tous deux entre le 9 mai, époque de l’arrivée en Terre-Sainte d’Edouard d’Angleterre,—avec lequel, suivant l’Eracles, aborda Tedaldo—et le 18 novembre, date du départ du nouveau pape pour l’Occident.” (Cf. Hist. litt. de la France, XXXV, Marco Polo.)

Introduction, p. 19 n.

I have here discussed Major Sykes’ theory of Polo’s itinerary in Persia; the question was raised again by Major Sykes in the Geographical Journal, October, 1905, pp. 462–465. I answered again, and I do not think it necessary to carry on farther this controversy. I recall that Major Sykes writes: “To conclude, I maintain that Marco Polo entered Persia near Tabriz, whence he travelled to Sultania, Kashan, Yezd, Kerman, and Hormuz. From that port, owing to the unseaworthiness of the vessels, the presence of pirates, the fact that the season was past, or for some other reason, he returned by a westerly route to Kerman, and thence crossed the Lut to Khorasan.”

I replied in the Geographical Journal, Dec., 1905, pp. 686–687: “Baghdad, after its fall in 1258, did not cease immediately to be ‘rather off the main caravan route.’ I shall not refer Major Sykes to what I say in my editions of ‘Odorico’ and ‘Polo’ on the subject, but to the standard work of Heyd, Commerce du Levant, Vol. 2, pp. 77, 78. The itinerary, Tabriz, Sultania, Kashan, Yezd, was the usual route later on, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and it was followed, among others, by Fra Odorico, of Pordenone. Marco Polo, on his way to the Far East—you must not forget that he was at Acre in 1271—could not have crossed Sultania, which did not exist, as its building was commenced by Arghún Khan, who ascended the throne in 1284, and was continued by Oeljaitu (1304–1316), who gave the name of Sultania to the city.” Cf. Lieut.-Col. P. M. Sykes, A History of Persia, 1915, 2 vols., 8vo; II., p. 181 n.

Introduction, p. 21. M. Pauthier has found a record in the Chinese Annals of the Mongol dynasty, which states that in the year 1277, a certain Polo was nominated a second-class commissioner or agent attached to the Privy Council, a passage which we are happy to believe to refer to our young traveller.

Prof. E. H. Parker remarks (Asiatic Quart. Review, 3rd Series, Vol. XVII., Jan., 1904, pp. 128–131): “M. Pauthier has apparently overlooked other records, which make it clear that the identical individual in question had already received honours from Kúblái many years before Marco’s arrival in 1275. Perhaps the best way to make this point clear would be to give all the original passages which bear upon the question. The number I give refer to the chapter and page (first half or second half of the double page) of the Yuan Shï: —

A. Chap. 7, p. 1²⁄₂: 1270, second moon. Kúblái inspects a court pageant prepared by Puh-lo and others.

B. Chap. 7, p. 6¹⁄₂: 1270, twelfth moon. The yü-shï chung-ch’êng (censor) Puh-lo made also President of the Ta-sz-nung department. One of the ministers protested that there was no precedent for a censor holding this second post. Kúblái insisted.

C. Chap. 8, p. 16¹⁄₂: 1275, second moon. Puh-lo and another sent to look into the Customs taxation question in Tangut.

D. Chap. 8, p. 22¹⁄₂: 1275, fourth moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yü-shï chung-ch’êng Puh-lo promoted to be yü-shï ta-fu.

E. Chap. 9, p. 11²⁄₂: 1276, seventh moon. The Imperial Prince Puh-lo given a seal.

F. Chap. 9, p. 16²⁄₂: 1277, second moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yü-shï ta-fu, Puh-lo, being also süan-wei-shï and Court Chamberlain, promoted to be shu-mih fu-shï, and also süan-hwei-shï and Court Chamberlain.

“The words shu-mih fu-shï, the Chinese characters for which are given on p. 569 of M. Cordier’s second volume, precisely mean ‘Second-class Commissioner attached to the Privy Council,’ and hence it is clear that Pauthier was totally mistaken in supposing the censor of 1270 to have been Marco. Of course the Imperial Prince Puh-lo is not the same person as the censor, nor is it clear who the (1) pageant and (2) Tangut Puh-los were, except that neither could possibly have been Marco, who only arrived in May—the third moon—at the very earliest.

“In the first moon of 1281 some gold, silver, and bank-notes were handed to Puh-lo for the relief of the poor. In the second moon of 1282, just before the assassination of Achmed, the words ‘Puh-lo the Minister’ (ch’êng-siang) are used in connection with a case of fraud. In the seventh moon of 1282 (after the fall of Achmed) the ‘Mongol man Puh-lo’ was placed in charge of some gold-washings in certain towers of the then Hu Pêh (now in Hu Nan). In the ninth moon of the same year a commission was sent to take official possession of all the gold-yielding places in Yün Nan, and Puh-lo was appointed darugachi (= governor) of the mines. In this case it is not explicitly stated (though it would appear most likely) that the two gold superintendents were the same man; if they were, then neither could have been Marco, who certainly was no ‘Mongol man.’ Otherwise there would be a great temptation to identify this event with the mission to ‘una città, detta Carazan’ of the Ramusio Text.

“There is, however, one man who may possibly be Marco, and that is the Poh-lo who was probably with Kúblái at Chagan Nor when the news of Achmed’s murder by Wang Chu arrived there in the third moon of 1282. The Emperor at once left for Shang-tu (i.e. K’ai-p’ing Fu, north of Dolonor), and ‘ordered the shu-mih fu-shï Poh-lo [with two other statesmen] to proceed with all speed to Ta-tu (i.e. to Cambalu). On receiving Poh-lo’s report, the Emperor became convinced of the deceptions practised upon him by Achmed, and said: “It was a good thing that Wang Chu did kill him.”’ In 1284 Achmed’s successor is stated (chap. 209, p. 9½) to have recommended Poh-lo, amongst others, for minor Treasury posts. The same man (chap. 209, p. 12½) subsequently got Poh-lo appointed to a salt superintendency in the provinces; and as Yang-chou is the centre of the salt trade, it is just possible that Marco’s ‘governorship’ of that place may resolve itself into this.

“There are many other Puh-lo and Poh-lo mentioned, both before Marco’s arrival in, and subsequently to Marco’s departure in 1292 from, China. In several cases (as, for instance, in that of P. Timur) both forms occur in different chapters for the same man; and a certain Tartar called ‘Puh-lan Hi’ is also called ‘Puh-lo Hi.’ One of Genghis Khan’s younger brothers was called Puh-lo Kadei. There was, moreover, a Cathayan named Puh-lo, and a Naiman Prince Poh-lo. Whether ‘Puh-lo the Premier’ or ‘one of the Ministers,’ mentioned in 1282, is the same person as ‘Poh-lo the ts’an chêng,’ or ‘Prime Minister’s assistant’ of 1284, I cannot say. Perhaps, when the whole Yüan Shï has been thoroughly searched throughout in all its editions, we may obtain more certain information. Meanwhile, one thing is plain: Pauthier is wrong, Yule is wrong in that particular connection; and M. Cordier gives us no positive view of his own. The other possibilities are given above, but I scarcely regard any of them as probabilities. On p. 99 of his Introduction, Colonel Yule manifestly identifies the Poh-lo of 1282 with Marco; but the identity of his title with that of Puh-lo in 1277 suggests that the two men are one, in which case neither can be Marco Polo. On p. 422 of vol. i. Yule repeats this identification in his notes. I may mention that much of the information given in the present article was published in Vol. XXIV. of the China Review two or three years ago. I notice that M. Cordier quotes that volume in connection with other matters, but this particular point does not appear to have caught his eye.

“As matters now stand, there is a fairly strong presumption that Marco Polo is once named in the Annals; but there is no irrefragable evidence; and in any case it is only this once, and not as Pauthier has it.”

Cf. also note by Prof. E. H. Parker, China Review, XXV. pp. 193–4, and, according to Prof. Pelliot (Bul. Ecole franç. Ext. Orient, July-Sept., 1904, p. 769), the biography of Han Lin-eul in the Ming shi, k. 122, p. 3.

Prof. Pelliot writes to me: “Il faut renoncer une bonne fois à retrouver Marco Polo dans le Po-lo mêlé à l’affaire d’Ahmed. Grâce aux titulations successives, nous pouvons reconstituer la carrière administrative de ce Po-lo, au moins depuis 1271, c’est-à-dire depuis une date antérieure à l’arrivée de Marco Polo à la cour mongole. D’autre part, Rashid-ud-Din mentionne le rôle joué dans l’affaire d’Ahmed par le Pulad-aqa, c’est-à-dire Pulad Chinsang, son informateur dans les choses mongoles, mais la forme mongole de ce nom de Pulad est Bolod, en transcription chinoise Po-lo. J’ai signalé (T’oung Pao, 1914, p. 640) que des textes chinois mentionnent effectivement que Po-lo (Bolod), envoyé en mission auprès d’Arghún en 1285, resta ensuite en Perse. C’est donc en définitive le Pulad (= Bolod) de Rashid-ud-Din qui serait le Po-lo qu’à la suite de Pauthier on a trop longtemps identifié à Marco Polo.”

Introduction, p. 23.

“The Yüan Shï contains curious confirmation of the facts which led up to Marco Polo’s conducting a wife to Arghún of Persia, who lost his spouse in 1286. In the eleventh moon of that year (say January, 1287) the following laconic announcement appears: ‘T’a-ch’a-r Hu-nan ordered to go on a mission to A-r-hun.’ It is possible that Tachar and Hunan may be two individuals, and, though they probably started overland, it is probable that they were in some way connected with Polo’s first and unsuccessful attempt to take the girl to Persia.” (E. H. Parker, Asiatic Quart. Rev., Jan., 1904, p. 136.)

Introduction, p. 76 n.

With regard to the statue of the Pseudo-Marco Polo of Canton, Dr. B. Laufer, of Chicago, sends me the following valuable note: —