Instead of “Publication No. 42” read only No. 42, which is the number of the pai tzŭ. (Pelliot.)
VIII., p. 358, n. 2.
Kún ḳú = 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 Kúblái 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 (Yü 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 Yün 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 (Pêh-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 Kúblái’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 Chên-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 Yün 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 Yün Nan, or, indeed, any princely title. In 1287 Ai-ya-ch’ih is mentioned as being at Shên Chou (Mukden) in connection with Kúblái’s ‘personally conducted’ expedition against Nayen. In 1289 one more son, Géukju, was patented Prince of Ning Yüan. In 1293 Kúblái’s third son, Chinkin, received a posthumous title, and Chinkin’s son Temur was declared heir-apparent to Kúblái.
“The above are the only sons of Kúblái whose names I have noticed in the Annals. In the special table of Princes Numugan is styled Pêh-an (instead of Pêh-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 Kúblái; 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 Yün 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 Kúblái’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. Quart. Rev., Jan., 1904, pp. 137–139.)
XI., p. 370, n. 13.
The character King in King-shan is not the one representing Court 京 but 景.—Read “Wan-sui-Shan” instead of Wan-su-Shan.
XII., p. 380.