Abstract
According to the Yüan History (Yüan-shih 元史), the Kesig (ch’ieh-hsüeh 怯薛) or “Imperial Guard” was divided into four groups under the hereditary command of the “Four Heroes” families. Each of the four Kesig went on duty for three straight days in accordance with the 12 cyclical characters (ti-chih 地支). Accordingly, the First or the Yeke Kesig served on shen 申, yu 酉 and hsü 戌 days; the Second Kesig on hai 亥, tzu 子 and ch’ou 丑 days, etc.
Was the three-day rotation system observed as the Yüan History prescribed? By examining Yüan documents bearing the customary formula “x年x月x日, x怯薛第x日” (_year, _month, _day, the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd day of the Kesig of _), one may answer this question satisfactorily. After having examined 18 passages using this formula, Yanai Wataru 箭內亙claimed in 1916 that since Qubilai Qan’s reign the system was not followed at all. Subsequently, however, after examining additional source materials, Katayama Tomoo 片山共夫 and Yeh Hsin-min 葉新民 confirmed the veracity of the Yüan History’s statements in 1977 and 1983 respectively. Nevertheless, the presence of many passages consisting of the aforesaid formula and conflicting with the prescription of the Yüan History still needs to be explained.
In this paper, I examine 97 passages concerning the Kesig’s rotation system. Of these, 30 passages show discrepancies with the Yüan History. I do not know the causes of such discrepancies for 6 of the 30 passages, including 3 passages concerning the Kesig under the command of Ch’a-ch’a-er 察察兒, whom I have discussed at length. I have, however, concluded that most of the discrepancies derive from textual corruption. Careless copyists and woodblock carvers may have mistaken the Chinese numerical character “三” for “二”, or “二” for “一”, as well as “二十八” for “十八”, or “十八” for “二十八”, and so on. Authors may also have made such mistakes.
The case of the Kesig of Qara ǰang (Ha-la-chang 哈剌章) is worth mentioning here. About 250 years ago, the great scholar Ch’ien Ta-hsin 錢大昕 cited a passage from an inscription that read as follows: “至正廿三年十月廿三日, 哈喇章怯薛第一日.” That date was the day wu-wu 戊午. According to the Yüan History, it was the 2nd day of the Fourth Kesig, but the above passage states that it was the 1st day, while Qara ǰang was the commander of the Second Kesig, not of the Fourth Kesig. Ch’ien seemed to be ignorant of these discrepancies. As late as the 20th century, the passage in question appeared in 1908 in the work of Édouard Chavannes , who was quoted by Yanai Wataru in 1916 and by Francis W. Cleaves in 1951. Yanai Wataru was in turn quoted by Katayama Tomoo in 1977. The passage can also be found in the work of Feng Ch’eng-chün 馮承鈞 in 1933 and that of Ts’ai Mei-piao 蔡美彪 in 1955, who was quoted by Yeh Hsin-min in 1977. However, the readings provided by these scholars differ slightly from that of Ch’ien Ta-hsin. Instead of “廿三日” or “the 23rd day”, they have “十三日” or “the 13th day”; while Ch’ien has “第一日” or “the 1st day,” they have “第二日” or “the 2nd day.” The date “十三日” was the day wu-shen 戊申, which was, according to the Yüan History, the 1st day of the First Kesig, neither the 2nd day nor the Kesig of Qara ǰang. Among the above-mentioned scholars, only Katayama and Yeh noticed the “mistakes” in the passage, but they proved unaware of the exact nature of these mistakes. Fortunately, I found three pieces of the rubbing of the said inscription in the Fu Ssu-nien 傅斯年 Library, and, after making comparisons among them , was able to decipher the passage as follows: “至正廿三年十月十六日, 哈剌章怯薛第一日.” The Peking Library also has a rubbing of the same inscription. The librarians read it “十六日” as I do. The “十六日” or “the 16th day” of the said year and month was the day hsin-hai 辛亥, which according to the Yüan History was the 1st day of the Second Kesig. The passage, when read correctly, testifies to the accuracy of the Yüan History. Thus, I have been able to correct a 250 year-old misreading, and add one more piece of evidence to support what the Yüan History asserts.
Keywords
Yüan History, Kesig, inscription, Ch’ien Ta-hsin, Mongolian
Cite
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.
