CHAPTER IX.

CONCERNING THE GREAT KAAN’S SONS.

The Emperor hath, by those four wives of his, twenty-two male children;

the eldest of whom was called CHINKIN for the love of the good Chinghis

Kaan, the first Lord of the Tartars. And this Chinkin, as the Eldest

Son of the Kaan, was to have reigned after his father’s death; but, as

it came to pass, he died. He left a son behind him, however, whose name

is TEMUR, and he is to be the Great Kaan and Emperor after the death

of his Grandfather, as is but right; he being the child of the Great

Kaan’s eldest son. And this Temur is an able and brave man, as he hath

already proven on many occasions.{1}

The Great Kaan hath also twenty-five other sons by his concubines; and

these are good and valiant soldiers, and each of them is a great chief.

I tell you moreover that of his children by his four lawful wives there

are seven who are kings of vast realms or provinces, and govern them

well; being all able and gallant men, as might be expected. For the

Great Kaan their sire is, I tell you, the wisest and most accomplished

man, the greatest Captain, the best to govern men and rule an Empire,

as well as the most valiant, that ever has existed among all the Tribes

of Tartars.{2}

NOTE 1.—Kúblái had a son older than CHIMKIN or CHINGKIM, to

whom Hammer’s Genealogical Table gives the name of _Jurji_, and

attributes a son called Ananda. The Chinese authorities of Gaubil

and Pauthier call him _Turchi_ or _Torchi_, _i.e._ _Dorjé_, “Noble

Stone,” the Tibetan name of a sacred Buddhist emblem in the form

of a dumb-bell, representing the _Vajra_ or Thunderbolt. Probably

Dorjé died early, as in the passage we shall quote from Wassáf

also Chingkim is styled the Eldest Son: Marco is probably wrong in

connecting the name of the latter with that of Chinghiz. Schmidt

says that he does not know what _Chingkim_ means.

[Mr. Parker says that Chen kim was the _third_ son of Kúblái

(_China Review_, xxiv. p. 94). Teimur, son of Chen kim, wore the

temple name (_miao-hao_) of _Ch’êng Tsung_ and the title of reign

(_nien-hao_) of _Yuen Chêng_ and _Ta Téh._—H. C.]

Chingkim died in the 12th moon of 1284–1285, aged 43. He had

received a Chinese education, and the Chinese Annals ascribe to him

all the virtues which so often pertain in history to heirs apparent

who have not reigned.

“When Kúblái approached his 70th year,” says Wassáf, “he desired to

raise his eldest son Chimkin to the position of his representative

and declared successor, during his own lifetime; so he took counsel

with the chiefs, in view to giving the Prince a share of his

authority and a place on the Imperial Throne. The chiefs, who are

the Pillars of Majesty and Props of the Empire, represented that

His Majesty’s proposal to invest his Son, during his own lifetime,

with Imperial authority, was not in accordance with the precedents

and Institutes (_Yasa_) of the World-conquering Padshah Chinghiz

Khan; but still they would consent to execute a solemn document,

securing the Kaanship to Chimkin, and pledging themselves to

lifelong obedience and allegiance to him. It was, however, the

Divine Fiat that the intended successor should predecease him who

bestowed the nomination.... The dignitaries of the Empire then

united their voices in favour of TEIMUR, the son of Chimkin.”

Teimur, according to the same authority, was the third son of

Chimkin; but the eldest, Kambala, _squinted_; the second, Tarmah

(properly _Tarmabala_ for _Dharmaphala_, a Buddhist Sanskrit name)

was rickety in constitution; and on the death of the old Kaan

(1294) Teimur was unanimously named to the Throne, after some

opposition from Kambala, which was put down by the decided bearing

of the great soldier Bayan. (_Schmidt_, p. 399; _De Mailla_, IX.

424; _Gaubil_, 203; _Wassáf_, 46.)

[The Rev. W. S. Ament (_Marco Polo in Cambaluc_, p. 106), makes

the following remarks regarding this young prince (Chimkin): “The

historians give good reasons for their regard for Chen Chin.

He had from early years exhibited great promise and had shown

great proficiency in the military art, in government, history,

mathematics, and the Chinese classics. He was well acquainted with

the condition and numbers of the inhabitants of Mongolia and China,

and with the topography and commerce of the Empire (Howorth).

He was much beloved by all, except by some of his father’s own

ministers, whose lives were anything but exemplary. That Kúblái had

full confidence in his son is shown by the fact that he put the

collecting of taxes in his hands. The native historians represent

him as economical in the use of money and wise in the choice of

companions. He carefully watched the officers in his charge, and

would tolerate no extortion of the people. After droughts, famines

or floods, he would enquire into the condition of the people and

liberally supply their needs, thus starting them in life again.

Polo ascribes all these virtues to the Khan himself. Doubtless he

possessed them in greater or less degree, but father and son were

one in all these benevolent enterprises.”—H. C.]

NOTE 2.—The Chinese Annals, according to Pauthier and Gaubil,

give only _ten_ sons to Kúblái, at least by his legitimate wives;

Hammer’s Table gives _twelve_. It is very probable that xxii. was

an early clerical error in the texts of Polo for xii. _Dodeci_

indeed occurs in one MS. (No. 37 of our Appendix F), though not one

of much weight.

Of these legitimate sons Polo mentions, in different parts of his

work, five by name. The following is the list from Hammer and

D’Ohsson, with the Chinese forms from Pauthier in parentheses.

The seven whose names are in capitals had the title of _Wang_ or

“King” of particular territories, as M. Pauthier has shown from the

Chinese Annals, thus confirming Marco’s accuracy on that point.

I. Jurji or Dorjé (Torchi). II. CHIMKIN or CHINGKIM (Yu Tsung,

King of Yen, _i.e._ Old Peking). III. MANGALAI (Mankola, “King of

the Pacified West”), mentioned by Polo (_infra_, ch. xli.) as King

of Kenjanfu or Shensi. IV. NUMUGAN (Numukan, “Pacifying King of

the North”), mentioned by Polo (Bk. IV. ch. ii.) as with King

George joint leader of the Kaan’s army against Kaidu. V. Kuridai

(not in Chinese List). VI. HUKAJI (Hukochi, “King of Yunnan”),

mentioned by Polo (_infra_, ch. xlix.) as King of Carajan. VII.

AGHRUKJI or UKURUJI (Gaoluchi, “King of Siping” or Tibet). VIII.

Abaji (Gaiyachi?). IX. KUKJU or GEUKJU (Khokhochu, “King of Ning”

or Tangut). X. Kutuktemur (Hutulu Temurh). XI. TUKAN (Thohoan,

“King of Chinnan”). His command lay on the Tungking frontier,

where he came to great grief in 1288, in consequence of which he

was disgraced. (See _Cathay_, p. 272.) XII. Temkan (not in Chinese

List). Gaubil’s Chinese List omits _Hutulu Temurh_, and introduces

a prince called _Gantanpouhoa_ as 4th son.

M. Pauthier lays great stress on Polo’s intimate knowledge of

the Imperial affairs (p. 263) because he knew the name of the

Hereditary Prince to be Teimur; this being, he says, the private

name which could not be known until after the owner’s death, except

by those in the most confidential intimacy. The public only then

discovered that, like the Irishman’s dog, his real name was Turk,

though he had always been called Toby! But M. Pauthier’s learning

has misled him. At least the secret must have been very badly kept,

for it was known in Teimur’s lifetime not only to Marco, but to

Rashiduddin in Persia, and to Hayton in Armenia; to say nothing of

the circumstance that the name _Temur Khaghan_ is also used during

that Emperor’s life by Oljaitu Khan of Persia in writing to the

King of France a letter which M. Pauthier himself republished and

commented upon. (See his book, p. 780.)