READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS

INTRODUCTION.

THERE can be no greater mistake than to write history as if our views were immaculate and not subject to revision. The fact is, that nearly all history is tentative, and subject to be modified by fresh discoveries. We can only raise our ladder to a certain height, and then look round and describe the narrow horizon which we see from its summit. Those who come after us will profit by our work, will start where we ended, will raise the vantage higher, and will without doubt secure a wider view, and be able to improve upon our position, and so on till the whole story is secured. This is not a very encouraging conclusion. It has one moral, however, which is too frequently forgotten.

If we see further than those who went before, it is because we are raised higher from the ground by their efforts, we in fact stand on their shoulders. Where we should have been had they not preceded us is not easy to say. To throw stones, to cast jibes at them for their mistakes, is surely very like parricide. We who move the coach an ell, where they perhaps moved it a mile, are but poor creatures if we cannot gauge their work, the vast mass of new matter they brought together, without a perpetual snarl at their small mistakes, or a perpetual cackle over our own superior wisdom. I hold that the value of a man’s work is to be measured, not by the fewness of his mistakes, but by the number of new facts and ideas he has brought together. He who never opens his mouth will not speak much folly, nor will he add much to the world’s resources. Orientalists are proverbial for being testy, and for having many quarrels. They too often crucify a victim who has dug knee-deep in new matter but who has failed to accept some shibboleth which has been ear-marked as essential; nor do they easily pardon a writer who has not quite reached their stand-point, and a large portion of writing on Oriental matters is not only polemical but bitterly so. I feel too much gratitude for the great dead who have cleared my path to imitate this example. I am not going to throw any stones at my father Parmenides, or at the many old giants whose work has made mine possible. I would rather greet them cap in hand on my knees, as I would my ancestors, if they could be summoned and made to go trooping by. If I have corrected some of their mistakes, it is because I have had advantages which they had not; and I am well aware that the digging into historic quagmires is a mere lottery, in which by some good chance a student may discover a nugget, while his far superior master close by will find only barren earth.

I now propose to give a short account of the sources from which the history of the Mongols in this volume has been collected, and the authorities to which I have been indebted. I will begin with the native chronicler Ssanang Setzen.

Ssanang Setzen was a prince of the Ordus tribe of the Mongols. He was born in 1604. His original name was Ssanang Taidshi, and he was surnamed Ssanang Setzen Khungtaidshi after his grandfather. He wrote a work entitled “Mongol Khadun Toghudji, or a History of the Mongol Khans,” which was completed in 1662. This work was translated into German, and published with elaborate notes at St. Petersburgh in 1829, by Isaac Jacob Schmidt, who, I believe, was a missionary of the Moravian brotherhood among the Mongols, and who was a very distinguished Mongol scholar. This is the only indigenous Mongol chronicle which has been made accessible. It treats of the history of the Eastern Mongols, from the earliest times to the date when it was written. The Mongol royal family is traced up to that of Thibet, and the earlier portion of the work is in fact a history of Thibet, and derived from Lama sources. That portion which deals with the origins of the Mongols and their history down to the reign of Toghon Timur Khan is a mutilated translation from the Chinese, and where it differs from the Chinese authority is, as has been shown by Remusat and Klaproth in their criticisms in the Journal Asiatique, not reliable. I have extracted a few Sagas from this portion of the work, rather as illustrative of Mongol habits of thought than as being convinced of their reliability. From the reign of Toghon Timur to the date of its completion, the work of Ssanang Setzen is an independent and first-rate authority, and during this period I have made it the basis of my narrative. I have also to express my great indebtedness to Schmidt’s notes, which are exceedingly valuable and interesting, although not always to be implicitly followed. Schmidt had a long duel with Klaproth and Remusat on various points of Mongol history. The controversy may be read in the earlier volumes of the two first series of the Journal Asiatique, and in it Schmidt was generally discomfited. I have carefully examined these polemical writings, and used them in my text and notes.

Schmidt also published in the Memoirs of the St. Petersburgh Academy for 1834, a translation of a Manchu description of the various Mongol tribes (exclusive of the Kalmuks), which were subject to China, with the history of their chiefs and of their final struggle with the Manchu empire. It is almost the only authority we possess for the subject it treats of. This has been much used in writing the seventh and eighth chapters of this work. Another of Schmidt’s works, to which I have been slightly indebted is entitled “Forschungen im Gebiete der alteren Religiosen Politischen und Literarischen Bildungsgeschichte der Volker Mittel-Asiens vozuglich der Mongolen und Tibeter.” St. Petersburgh, 1824.

We will now turn to the Chinese authorities for Mongol history, no doubt the most important and valuable authorities we possess.

De Mailla.—Joseph-Anne Marie de Moyriac de Mailla was a French Jesuit, belonging to the Peking mission, one of a noble band of scholars to whom we are under very great obligations. He translated an epitome of Chinese history, known as the Tong-Kieng-Kang-Mu, which was published in Paris in 1779, thirteen quarto volumes, and is the only general history of China we possess. It has constantly been at my elbow during the progress of this work, and will be found quoted on almost every page. The volumes which contain references to the Mongols are the eighth to the twelfth. The ninth is devoted almost entirely to them. The translation of De Mailla was edited under the superintendence of M. Deshautesrayes and the Abbé Crosier. As I have said, the work professes to be a translation of the Kang Mu, and is evidently very carefully done. We are told by the editor that for the period covered [by the dynasties of the Liau, Kin, and Yuen or Mongols, the Kang Mu was singularly deficient in details about the foreign dynasties, and that consequently De Mailla had recourse to other sources. The Emperor Shun shi, father of Kang hi, caused the history of these three dynasties to be translated into Manchu by Charbukai, Nantu, Hokiton, Liau hong yu, and many other skilled literates. This history, which was written with the most critical care, has equal authority with the Kang Mu, and it was translated and incorporated by De Mailla in his work.

Gaubil.—According to M. Rémusat, Gaubil was the greatest of the French Jesuit scholars who investigated the antiquities of China. He was born at Gaillac in Languedoc in 1689, became a Jesuit in 1704, and went to China in 1723, where he greatly distinguished himself as a scholar. His most celebrated work was the translation of the Shu king into French. He also translated from the Chinese an epitome of the history of the Mongols, which was published in 1739 at Paris, under the title of “Histoire de Gentchiscan et de toute la dynastie des Mongous.” It is a capital work, and contains many facts not mentioned by De Mailla, and is quite an independent authority. I have used it constantly in the following work.

Visdelou.—We owe to a third member of the Jesuit mission at Paris a very valuable series of translations from the Chinese, relating to the history of the various nomads who lived in the desert north of China and its borderland, namely, Visdelou. He was born in Brittany in 1656, and went to China in 1685. His translations are mainly derived from Matuanlin, the great encyclopaedist, who lived in the thirteenth century, but he also consulted later authors. His translations are praised for their faithfulness by M. Remusat. They were published in the supple­mentary volume to D’Herbelof’s Bibliotheque Orientale, of which work they form the most valuable portion. I have frequently used them in the subsequent chapters.

De Guignes.—The author of the history of the Huns wrote a history of the Mongols as a part of his great work. This is largely taken from Chinese sources, but I have found nothing in it which is not to be found elsewhere; nor is this portion of De Guignes’s work very satisfactory. We have considerably advanced in our knowledge of the period since his day.

Pauthier.—In his edition of Marco Polo and elsewhere, M. Pauthier has quoted largely from the Yuen Si, or the annals of the Yuen dynasty. His translations are not always trusted by Chinese scholars, but in the main are no doubt correct. I have used all the materials he has published which I could reach and which elucidate my subject. These chiefly illustrate the reign of Kublai Khan.

De la Marre.—In the year 1865, M. l’Abbé De la Marre, attached to the French missions, published a translation of a work composed by the Emperor Kien lung, entitled “Histoire de la Dynastie des Ming.” It contains many references to the later Mongol history which I have abstracted. Unfortunately the translation is only a fragment, and I am assured it will not be completed. It covers the ground from 1368 to 1505. I have frequently used it, and occasionally quoted it as “the Ming annals,” which is a somewhat misleading title.

Amiot.—Father Amiot, another member of the Peking mission, pub­lished in 1776, in the grand collection of materials for Chinese history known as the “Memoires Concernant l’Histoire des Sciences, &c., des Chinois,” Volume I, a translation of the inscription put on the monument erected to commemorate his conquest of the Eleuths or Sungars by the Emperor Kien lung. This lengthy document, with the notes upon it, has been largely used in the following history. In the same volume is a similar document relating the wonderful march of the Torguts from China back to their old homes on the borders of China. This document was also engraved on stone, and we owe its translation to Father Amiot. Its contents have been used in writing the ninth chapter.

Hyacinthe, a member of the Russian mission at Peking, and a very profound Chinese scholar, translated several important works from the Chinese, but unfortunately he translated them into Russian, a language almost if not quite as inaccessible. Inter alia, he translated a history of the first four Mongol Khans. This, I gather from D’Ohsson, is taken from the same epitomes which were consulted by De Mailla and Gaubil. The value of the work consists in the variants he gives us for the proper names. It has been collated by both Erdmann and D’Ohsson, and in their works we probably have all the facts which are of any use in it. A second of his works, namely, a history of the Kalmuks from Mongol sources, I have not been able to meet with, although I have sent to Russia for it. I believe it is not to be had. A third work, namely, an epitome of Chinese history, with an account of his travels in Mongolia, was translated by M. Borg, under the title of “Denkwurdigkeiten ueber die Mongolei.” It was published at Berlin in 1832, and I have occasionally used it.

Timkowski.—M. Timkowski was a savant who was appointed to accompany the Russian mission to China in 1820 and the following years. He wrote an account of his journey, which was edited with notes by Klaproth, and was translated into English in 1827. It is the best topographical account of Mongolia we possess. To the account of his travels has been appended a very valuable translation from the Chinese by Father Hyacinthe, consisting of an historical, geographical, and ethnographical description of Mongolia. I have used it very largely in composing the seventh and eighth chapters of this work.

Schott.—Professor Schott, of Berlin, one of my honoured correspond­ents, has published a number of very valuable papers on the history, &c., of the Altaic peoples, in the Transactions of the Berlin Academy. Among these is one I have frequently used in the second chapter of this work, in which he has examined the question of the Origins of the Mongols as given by Chinese authors. It is entitled “ Älteste Nach richten von Mongolen und Tataren.”

Bergmann.—M. Bergmann was the author of a capital descriptive work upon the Kalmuks, published at Riga in 1804, under the title of “Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmuken in den Jahren 1802 und 1803.” I have used it a good deal in treating of the Kalmuks.

The next authorities to which I shall refer are unfortunately not so accessible as the Chinese; they still remain largely locked up in their original language, and in fact inedited. I refer to the Persian historians of the Mongols. They have, however, been diligently and carefully sifted by such experienced Eastern scholars as De la Croix, D’Ohsson, Von Hammer, Erdmann, &c., who have distilled for us the essence of the story in nearly all its details, and criticised in a very skilful way its inconsistencies and errors. Before I describe their works it will be well to give a short conspectus of the authorities upon which they are based, and which form the basis, although at second hand, of a large portion of our work. The first in date of them was

I bn al Athir, who was born at Djezireh, on the borders of the Tigris, in the year 1160, and died at Mosul in 1233. He was thus a contemporary of Jingis Khan and of his son Ogotai, and wrote a work entitled “Kamil ut Tewarikh,” “complete history,” which begins with the creation and terminates in 1231; under the year 1220 and those that follow he gives a description of the Mongol invasion of Transoxiana, Persia, the borders of the Tigris and Euphrates, Georgia, and the north of the Caucasus. As he lived at Mosul he had special opportunities for learning what occurred at this time in Western Persia.

Nessavi.—The next author in date is Shihab ud din Muhammed, son of Ahmed, styled el Nessavi. He is often spoken of as Nessavi, from the place of which he was a native, namely, Nessa. He was of princely family, and his castle was the well known fort of Karendar, between Nessa and Nishapoor. The work he wrote is known as the “Siret us Sultan, Jelal-ud-din Muhammed,” and is a biography of the celebrated Khuarezm chief, Jelal-ud-din, son of Muhammed, whose secretary he was. He was incited to write this book from having casually met with the work of Ibn al Athir, and there read an account of the end of Muhammed and of the youth of his son. The book is contained in 108 chapters, and was written in 1241, and gives the history of Jelal ud din until his death in 1231. His narrative, we are told, is singularly ingenuous and interesting, and he was also singularly well-placed for acquiring correct notions on what he wrote. He only mentions the Mongols occasionally.

Alai-ud-din Ata Malik Juveini.—This author was a native of Juvein in Khorasan, and his work is called “Tarikh Jihankushai, or History of the Conqueror of the World.” In 1252 he accompanied his father, who was in the Mongol service, to the grand Kuriltai held at the accession of Mangu Khan. He accompanied Khulagu in his expedition, and was by him appointed governor of Baghdad, Irak Arab, and Khuzistan, a post which he occupied until his death in 1283. His work is divided into two parts. The first one contains an account of the last ten years of the reign of Genghis Khan and of the reigns of Ogotai and Kuyuk, with chapters on the Uighurs and the Khans of Kara Khitai, a detailed history of the Khuarezm Shahs, and of the doings of the Mongols in Persia until the arrival of Khulagu there. The second part describes Khulagu’s western campaign, and also contains a detailed account of the Ismailites or Assassins. It terminates in 1257. His position prevented Juveini from being anything but a panegyrist of the Mongols, whose conquests he excuses, and whose western campaign he argues was providentially arranged, so that by their means the religion of Islam might be widely disseminated. He praises their tolerance and the way in which they exempted from taxes the ministers of religion and others; but he breaks out occasionally in a different strain. “The revolution,” he says, “which has overwhelmed the world, has destroyed the colleges, and slaughtered the learned, especially in Khorasan, which was the focus of light, the rendezvous of the learned, as is shown by the words of the prophet: Science is a tree whose roots are at Mecca while it bears fruit in Khorasan! All the learned men there have fallen by the sword. The nobodies who have replaced them know only the Uighur language and writing. The highest offices are filled by the meanest people, many contemptible folk have been enriched. Every intriguer has become an emir or vizier. Every braggart has become powerful. The slave is become the patron; anyone who wears a doctor’s turban deems himself a doctor, and obscure people consider themselves gentry. In such times, which are a period of famine for science and virtue, and of a full market for ignorance and corruption, where all honesty is degraded, where everything bad is held in honour, it may be guessed what encouragement there is for science and letters.”

VASSAF.—Abdullah, son of Fazel ullah, styled Vassaf-ul-Hazret, or the Panegyrist of his majesty, wrote in Persian a work entitled “Kitab Tedjziyet ul emssar ve tezdjiyet ul a’ssar” (Division of countries and transition of centuries). It contains a history of the Mongols from 1257 to 1327, and forms a sort of continuation to the Jihankushai. It is divided into five parts, and describes the doings of the Mongols in Persia, in Turkestan, and Transoxiana, with the contemporary history of Egypt, Fars, Kennan, and India. He was a protégé of the vizier Raschid-ud-din, to whom I shall presently refer, by whom he was presented to the Ilkhan Uldjaitu, who gave him the soubriquet of Vassaf-ul-Hazret as a reward for an ode he wrote in his honour.

Raschid.—The most valuable Western authority on the history of the Mongols is the “Jami-ut-Tewarikh,” or collection of annals written by Fadhl allah or Fazel ullah Raschid, son of Abulkhair of Hamadan. Raschid was a doctor in the service of the Ilkhan Gazan, and was in the year 1300 made governor of Persia. He continued in the office of vizier during the reign of Uldjaitu, to whom he presented his work in 1307, and was put to death by his successor Abusaid on the 13th of September, 1318. This most valuable history commences with a conspectus of the various tribes of Asia at the accession of Genghis Khan, with an account of their origin and the topography of the districts they inhabited, &c. This portion of his work has been translated by Erdmann, and appeared at Kazan in the year 1841. It is a very rare work, and I have been happy in having had it beside me. The same part of Raschid’s history is extracted almost verbatim in Erdmann’s life of Temudjin, 172-248. Raschid then gives an account of the traditions which he had been able to collect on the early history of the Mongols, and continues his story by relating the events that happened under Mongol rule until the period when he wrote. He tells us that in the archives of the Persian Mongols were many authentic papers,, written in Mongol, which had been entrusted to him by the Ilkhan Uldjaitu, in order that he might draw up a history, and that to assist him there had been assigned a number of Chinese, Indian, Uighur, and Kipchak learned men, and especially the great Noyan Pulad Ching sang, who was generalissimo and administrator of the kingdom, and was well versed in the traditions and history of the Turkish nations, and especially of that of the Mongols. His work is largely based on the Jihankushai. and other works already mentioned, but contains a great deal of additional matter. It is a great pity that it is still inaccessible. M. Quatremere commenced a translation of it on a very large scale, with ample notes, but it did not go beyond one volume. The work of Raschid forms the main authority used by Erdmann in his life of Temudjin, of D’Ohsson’s history of the Mongols, and of Von Hammer’s Ilkhans, and we have it abridged in the well known work of Abulghazi.

Abulghazi.— He was the son of Arab Muhammed Khan, and a descendant of Juji, the son of Genghis, was born in 1605, became chief of Khuarezm in 1643, and died in 1663-64. He wrote a work entitled “Shedjeri i Turki,” the genealogical tree of the Turks. It is written in Turki, and has been recently edited and translated by M. Desmaisons. The earlier portion of it is an abridgment of Raschid, the latter is founded on original documents otherwise inaccessible. It will be found quoted frequently in the following work.

Abulfaradj.—Gregory Abulfaradj, also known as Bar Hebraeus, was born in 1226, at Malattia or Melitene, and was the son of a doctor named Aaron. He became a cleric, and at the age of twenty was appointed bishop of Gobos. He was afterwards translated to Aleppo, and became in 1264 Maphriam or primate of the Jacobites. He wrote a meagre chronicle in Syriac, known as the “Abridgment of Universal History”. What it contains in regard to the Mongols is chiefly derived from Juveini, but he gives us a good many details about the eastern Christians not otherwise to be met with.

These are the chief Eastern authorities for Mongol history. We will now turn to European authors who have dealt with the same subject. First in point of date are the narratives of the missionary friars.

Carpini.—John of Plano Carpini was so called from a place in the territory of Perugia. He was a Franciscan friar who was sent by Pope Innocent on a mission to the Mongol Khan. He set out in April, 1245, and returned in the autumn of 1247. His narrative has been edited by M. D’Avezac, in the 4th volume of the Reccueil de Voyages et Memoires. It is of great interest and value for the reign of Kuyuk Khan.

Rubruquis.—It has been supposed that this traveller, who was also a Franciscan, was a native of Ruysbrok in Brabant, and I have called him more than once William of Ruysbrok, but Colonel Yule says there is a place called Rubrouck in French Flanders, and its name occurs frequently in old documents published by M. Coussemaker, of Lille, in which we read of a Thierry de Rubrouc in 1190, a Gauthier du Rubrouc in 1202 and 1221, a Jean du Rubrouc in 1250, and a Woutermaun de Rubrouc in 1258; and M. D’Avezac and Colonel Yule argue that our traveller was one of the same stock. He was sent on a similar mission to Carpini’s by St. Louis, and arrived at the Mongol camp in the reign of Mangu Khan. He entered the Black Sea on the 7th of May, 1253. His narrative has also been published, with valuable notes by M. D’Avezac, in the work above named. Rubruquis supplies us with many facts about the reign of Mangu.

Haython, the king of Little Armenia, also went to the court of Mangu Khan, and has left us a short account of his journey, which has been translated by Klaproth.

Marco Polo.—The most valuable of all Western authorities, however, from the means he had of acquiring information, from the long time he lived among the Mongols, and from the length and accuracy of his work, was Marco Polo. Andrea Polo, of St. Felice at Venice, says Colonel Yule, had three sons, Marco, Nicolo, and Maffeo. The three brothers were merchants, and had houses at Constantinople and Soldaia in the Crimea. In 1260 the two younger of these brothers started on a trading venture, first to the Crimea, then by way of the Volga to Bokhara, and thus on to the court of the Great Khan Kublai. Kublai received them kindly, made many inquiries about Europe, and eventually sent them back on an embassy to the Pope. They arrived at Acre in April, 1269, and found the Pope dead, Clement IV having died the year before. They then went to Venice. Nicolo had two sons, the eldest of whom was named Marco. He was the subject of this notice. When his father returned to Venice Marco was fifteen years old. In 1271 the two brothers set out on their return to the East, taking young Marco with them. They travelled by way of Baghdad to Hormuz on the Persian Gulf, then turning northwards traversed Kerman and Khorasan, Balkh and Badakhshan, and reached the Pamir steppe. This they crossed, and then continued by way of Kashgar, Yarkand, Khotan, by lake Lob and Tangut, until they reached Kublai’s court in 1275. Kublai was very kind to the young Polo, whom he took into his service. His first mission was one to Yunnan, and he filled various offices. For three years he was governor of the important city of Yang chau, on one occasion he passed a year at Kanchau with his uncle Maffeo, at another time he was at Karakorum, at a third at Champa or Southern Cochin China, and even in the Indian seas. The Venetians now wished to return home, but Kublai did not like to part with them. In 1286 the Ilkhan Argun sent to China for a wife of the Imperial stock. His envoys, who rather dreaded the return journey by sea alone, asked that the three Feringhis might accompany them, and Kublai at length consented. They set sail in 1292, and after many mishaps in the Indian seas, arrived in two years at the Persian court, and having been handsomely entertained there, at length reached Venice in 1295, and with the wealth which they had accumulated proceeded to either purchase or build themselves a palace there, known as the Corte del Millioni, of which there are still some remains. A year or two later Marco appears as the captain of a galley fighting for Venice against Genoa; and in the great fight which took place in 1298, near the Island of Curzola, the Venetians were defeated and Marco was taken prisoner. While in prison he met a learned Pisan named Rusticiano or Rustichello, who wrote down from his dictation an account of the marvellous and unique adventures of the traveller. In July 1299 a truce was agreed to between the two republics, and Marco once more regained his liberty. He lived many years afterwards at Venice, and died in 1324. Such is a bald epitome of the most romantic life of probably any traveller, as I have taken it from Colonel Yule’s great work. It will be seen into how many strange lands he went, and considering that in all probability he had taken few notes, it is marvellous how exceeding accurate his narrative is. It is in every way very valuable, and I have used it freely. Two recent editions of it have been before me—one by M. Pauthier, which is accompanied by many erudite notes from Chinese authors ; and the other by my friend Colonel Yule, a complete encyclopaedia of mediaeval lore about Asia, a wonderful collection of illustrative matter from various sources, and a very pattern of how a book should be edited. I may add that during the progress of this work Colonel Yule has brought out a second edition. The new matter will be found incorporated, but it must be noted that the references are to the first edition, except when the second edition is mentioned. Besides Marco Polo, Colonel Yule has brought together a very interesting series of small notices of China in his work, published by the Hakluyt Society, entitled “Cathay and the Way Thither.” Among these are the letters of Odoric of Pordenone, a town in the district of Friuli, who was born in 1286, and became a missionary friar. He travelled in the earlier part of the fourteenth century in India and China, and died in 1331. I have extracted what he says of the Mongols. Besides Odoric’ there may be found in the same work the letters of John of Monte Corvino, the founder of the Catholic missions in China. He was born in 1247, and probably reached Khanbalig in 1294, and about 1307 was created archbishop of that city. His letters are interesting, and I have used them as well as those of other missionaries in the same collection. 1 must not forget to say that Colonel Yule’s notes have been as valuable to me as the text they illustrate. We will now turn to more modem authorities.

Petis de la Croix.—De la Croix was born in 1622, and died in 1695, and was a distinguished Eastern scholar, having filled the post of interpreter to the French king in the Turkish and Arabic languages. He was the author of several learned works, such as a history of France, written in Turkish; an edition of the travels of the younger Thevenot; a catalogue of the Turkish and Persian books in the French library, &c.; but the two works with which his name is chiefly associated were his history of Genghis Khan and his successors, and of Timur. The former work he undertook at the instance of the minister Colbert. It cost him, we are told, ten years’ labour, and it was published after his death. It is a wonderfully able work considering the period when it was written, and many portions of it may still be read profitably. It is founded on the Persian and Arabic authorities, and on the narratives of the European travellers. He gives a list of his sources, which range over nearly the whole field of Eastern literature, and prove him to have been a very diligent writer. I have frequently used his work.

Von Hammer.—Von Hammer’s name is known wherever Eastern studies are prosecuted. His history of the Ottomans is a gigantic work, which probably equals the very greatest efforts that have ever been put forth by a historian in the way of diligent research and of consulting an immense mass of authorities. We are indebted to him for two other works which throw great light on Mongol history, and which have been constantly at my elbow, namely, his history of the Golden Horde of Kipchak, an elaborate examination of the history of the Mongol Khanate founded by Batu, the grandson of Jingis, in Southern Russia and the Kyrgyz Kazak country, which is the standard and only work on the subject, and which I shall use largely in the second volume; and a history of the Ilkhans of Persia, published at Darmstadt in 1842, and from which I have drawn largely for my account of Khulagu’s campaign, and shall draw still more in the second volume.

D’Ohsson.—The name of D’Ohsson occurs on very many pages of this work. The Baron D’Ohsson was the author of a history of the Mongols from the time of Genghis Khan to that of Timur, in four volumes, which was published at Amsterdam in 1852. M. D’Ohsson was a skilful Eastern scholar, and his work is a very able one. He has ransacked almost every authority for his facts, and his book forms the main pillar upon which 1 have relied in large sections of the present work.

Erdmann.—M. Erdmann, a professor at Kazan, to whom I have already referred, published in 1862, at Leipzig, a very able and profound work on the life of Genghis Khan, under the title of “Temudschin der Unerschutterliche” with an ample introduction on the ethnography of Asia, and a great crowd of most useful notes. It is a very perfect and detailed monograph on the subject, and I have made ample use of it, as may be seen from my references.

Wolff.—M. Wolff, a professor at Vienna, has recently published a history of the Mongols from the earliest times to the death of Ogotai Khan, in which he has examined with great care and skill the various accounts extant of the campaign of Batu Khan and his companions in Russia and Central Europe. He has specially availed himself of the contemporary narratives of European writers, many of which he has first brought to bear upon the subject. I have frequently used his work.

Muller.—M. Muller, in 1732 and the following years, published, under the auspices of the Imperial Russian Academy, a great collection of materials on Russian history, in eight volumes. This contains many of the original narratives of the early discoveries of the Cossacks in Siberia. I have used it largely in writing the history of the Kalmuks.

Fischer.—Johann Eberhard Fischer, a professor at Gottingen, pub­lished in 1768 a history of Siberia in two volumes, which unfortunately does not come down below the third quarter of the seventeenth century. I have frequently used his work.

Pallas.—Pallas was one of the most distinguished scholars the Russians have produced. The narrative of his travels through Siberia and Southern Russia are well known. Besides these he published a great work on the history, ethnology, religion, &c., of the Mongols. This is entitled “Samlungen Historischer Nachrichten ueber die Mongolischen Volkerschaften,” and it was published in two quarto volumes at St. Petersburgh in 1776. It contains large materials for the history of the Kalmuks, which 1 have freely used.

Klaproth.—Among those to whom I bow the most deeply, who, with all his faults of temper and some few mistakes (and who has made so few), I hold to have been the greatest giant among the writers on Eastern subjects, is Julius Klaproth. The vast range of his linguistic acquirements, his instinct and ingenuity and fertility are astounding. He was the first to reduce the chaos of Asiatic history to something like order, and it is astonishing how little real advance has been made in many of the subjects he treated since he wrote. I am immensely indebted to him. I shall never cease to reverence his memory. His various papers and essays are so numerous that it is not convenient to enumerate them. Many of them may be seen in the Journal Asiatique, others in various collections, while his travels to the Caucasus and his Asia Polyglotta are universally known; but there is hardly a point of Eastern history which he has not illuminated.

Remusat.—Abel Remusat, the distinguished French Sinologue, the author of the great work unfortunately incomplete, entitled “Les Langues Tartares,” of many essays on Eastern subjects, and of the three series of “Melanges Asiatiques,” is another author from whom I have learnt much. In the present work I have chiefly to thank him for the translated biographies in the first series of the “Melanges Asiatiques.”

I have now given a cursory survey of my main authorities. There are many others, such as Isbrand Ides, d’Auteroche, Gmelin, Georgi, Du Halde (whom I have quoted from the English edition of 1739, in four volumes octavo), Gregorief, Madame de Hell, Ritter, Petermann, Karamzin, Oppert, Bruun, Porter Smith, Vambery, Hue, Raverty, &c., whom I have laid under contribution, and to whom I have given references. I may say that in every instance, save perhaps one, these references have been taken from the works quoted, and not at second-hand, and they have been generally verified three or four times over; and I hope that I have not appropriated credit for anything which has not been duly acknowledged.

It is permissible here to express a regret that so much of the original matter relating to the history of the Mongols is still buried in MS. or otherwise inaccessible. That the annals of the Yuen dynasty, otherwise called the Yuen si, should remain untranslated is perhaps pardonable, since they are of considerable length and in some parts intolerably dry, but that the great history of Raschid, perhaps the noblest historical work in the Persian language, and one also of the most critical and valuable, should still remain in manuscript is deplorable; and one cannot help feeling it a reproach to French scholars, who have done so much for the history of the East, that they have not completed the task so nobly begun by Quatremere. It is to be hoped that the school of Persian scholars presided over by M. Schefer will not only give us this work but also Juveini and Muhammed of Nessa.

It is another matter of regret that so much that is valuable in the researches of Russian scientific men, and especially of the Russian mission at Peking, should be lost to nine-tenths of the world by being written only in Russian. It is perhaps natural that it should be so written, and that the patriotism of Russian scholars should rebel against making a foreign language the medium of publishing their researches to the world, but it is nevertheless very unfortunate, for it inevitably buries a great deal of matter which would otherwise fructify, and it inevitably makes Russia a very much smaller figure in the scientific world than it merits. Russian is an exceedingly difficult language, and it is hardly to be expected that Western students who are interested in Eastern subjects should master Russian as well as German and French as a preliminary to their inquiries. Russian scholars, on the other hand, are skilful linguists, and it is not very long ago that most of their scientific papers were either written in German or French, or appeared in duplicate. We are all very grateful for such publications as the Melanges Russes and the Melanges Asiatiques, published by the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg, and their value prompts me (and I know I speak the sentiments of the great majority of Western scholars) to desire that the same kind of work was done on a larger scale, and that the results of the profound researches of Hyacinthe, Palladius, Gregorief, &c, were not entirely buried from us. How much buried one anecdote will suffice to show. Among the Chinese annals probably the most valuable and interesting, and also the oldest, are the well-known annals of the elder Han, of which a small fragment has recently been translated by my friend Mr. Wylie. Some time ago it was proposed at the International Congress of Orientalists that these annals should be translated, and that the work of translation should be distributed among the Chinese scholars of Europe. One of the foremost Russian scientific men was approached on the subject, and the answer given was, that the matter was of small interest to them since the annals had long ago been translated into Russian by Hyacinthe. This answer was literally true, and yet how disappointing. Not only are the annals as much buried as they were before, to Western scholars, but I don’t know of any Russian who has made use of them. I hope sincerely that it may be seen that the vast work which is annually done by Russian scientific men deserves to be widely known, and that if it be patriotism to write in Russian, it is surely also patriotism to make Russia take the very' high place it ought to do in the scientific world, instead of isolating and burying from foreign eyes the vast wealth of matter which its scholars have accumulated.

The maps accompanying this volume have been drawn by the practised hand of my friend Mr. Ravenstein, and incorporate the latest discoveries. One of them gives a view of that portion of Europe and Asia which was trodden under by the Mongols in the thirteenth century’, the other is a special map of Mongolia as it is now constituted.

Derby House, Eccles, 12th April, 1876.