Редакции и даты составления текстов хроники «Чингиз-наме» Утемиша-хаджи

Полный текст

The past three decades witnessed a considerable increase of interest in the study of “native sources” of the Golden Horde, and in particular the so-called Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī. This unique piece of historical literature was written in the 16th century in the territory of Ḫ^wārazm, then under Šaybanīd rule, and in an eastern Turkic Islamic literary language. The work has been preserved in two copies, one in Tashkent (hence: Tashkent manuscript), and one in Istanbul (hence: Istanbul manuscript)¹, the text of which – as we shall see – was supplemented with events of the 17^th century.

Although the Tashkent manuscript of this unique chronicle was introduced to scholarship as early as 1902 by Bartol’d [4, p. 164–166], and the Istanbul manuscript was acquired by Togan not much later in the 1910s [19, p. 27, 22, pp. 14–19; 23, pp. 60–62; 32, pp. 8–10]. The historical circumstances of the 20th century largely prevented simultaneous access to both manuscripts for a long time. This resulted in scholars being able to work only with either one or the other copy of the chronicle, and as a consequence its many editions and translations have been based on either the Tashkent or the Istanbul manuscript. For the time being, this remains a serious shortcoming of scholarship regarding the Čingiz-nāme. However, excellent editions containing transliterations and facsimiles of both the Tashkent [25; 31] and Istanbul [19; 32] manuscripts offer us the possibility to compare the texts and reveal details hidden up to the present.

It is important to note that both the extant manuscripts are later copies of the Čingiz-nāmä. My aim here is not to determine the date at which these copies were finished², but to point out that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī made two separate redactions of the chronicle and to assert the times at which the author finished them.

A remark in the Istanbul manuscript of the Čingiz-nāmä reads as follows: Further, I wish to compose this copy³ of this [poo]r wretched [soul] – as the author refers to himself – for a second time. I start for the second time.” [19, p. 136, 32, pp. 59–60, 133, 216/fol. 48b]⁴. Mirgaleev pointed out this fact [32, p. 6], which lead me to raise a few questions. The remark leaves no doubt that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī made two separate redactions of his chronicle and that the Istanbul manuscript contains the second one. Could the Tashkent manuscript contain the first/initial redaction of the Čingiz-nāmä? If so, how can we prove it and when did the author finish the first and then the second? These are the questions that are going to be answered in this article. Although I have recently addressed both these topics and formed a hypothesis [13, pp. 127–129], at that time I failed to recognise further clues that support it.

Keeping in mind that the Istanbul manuscript contains the second, i.e., the later redaction, it seems reasonable to compare the texts and the structure of the narrative in both manuscripts. A comparison of these shows substantial differences, but only at the beginning of the chronicle. The text preserved in the Tashkent manuscript begins – as was typical for works composed in an Islamic environment – with the praise of God and the Prophet Muhammad (invocation) and proceeds with information on the author, his patron, the sources of the chronicle, and the circumstances of its compilation (introduction). After these it continues with the partition of the Mongol Empire and the history of the Jočids (narration). It is important to point out that there is no abrupt break in the manuscript between the introduction and the narration. In stark contrast, the text of the Istanbul manuscript lacks the invocation and introduction! It starts with the history of Genghis Khan followed by that of the establishment of the Mongol Empire. Only after these does the manuscript proceed with the partition of the empire and the history of the Jočids (narration), from which point the text corresponds to that of the Tashkent manuscript almost verbatim⁵.

Structural differences between the texts of the Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts

The structural difference between the texts leads us to the hypothesis that the Tashkent manuscript preserved the text of the first redaction. This redaction had been compiled for Iš (Muḥammad) Sulṭān, the patron of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, a fact that is stated expressis verbis in the introduction [25, pp. 7–8, 66–67; 31, pp. 90–91, 119–120]. At a later date, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī made a second redaction of the chronicle, in which he left out the invocation and the introduction, opting instead to extended the text with the history of Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire.

There is a further clue that supports this hypothesis, one that at first seems negligible but is quite important, so long as we place it in the right context. At one point the Tashkent manuscript makes mention of Sultan Ġāżī Sulṭān b. Ilbars Khan without anything added after his name [25, pp. 40, 95; 31, pp. 114, 140]. In the Istanbul manuscript, however, he is referred to as “his great and auspicious majesty, whom [God] has taken into [his] mercy, whose sins are forgiven – may God make his grave pleasant and make Paradise his abode!” [19, p. 132; 32, pp. 53, 127, p. 229/fol. 42a]⁷. This seemingly unimportant addition to the text makes it clear that the author penned the text of the Tashkent manuscript before the death of the above-mentioned Ghenghisid prince, whereas he wrote the one preserved in the Istanbul manuscript after the event. When we take the disparity in the structure of the chronicle into consideration too, it becomes evident that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī made two redactions of the Čingiz-nāmä. The Tashkent manuscript contains the initial one, while the Istanbul manuscript certainly preserves the second.

The existence of two separately compiled redactions leads us to the next question, namely, when did the author finish the first and the second redactions respectively? Scholarly literature on the topic presents wildly different opinions. This disparity can be explained by researchers long having had access to only one of the manuscripts. Due to the scarcity of information in the text, scholars utilising only the Tashkent manuscript could only suggest a wide time range. Bartol’d worked with the whole span of the 16^th century [4, p. 166], while Akhmedov – in his preface to the edition of Yudin et al. – pointed to the first half of that century [3, p. 5]. Kawaguchi and Nagamine place the compilation of first redaction between the death of Ilbas Khan and Dōst Muḥammad Khan – that is, within the years 1518 and 1558 [20, p. 48]. Scholars who had access to the Istanbul manuscript, which offers more data for dating the compilation, operated within a narrower time range, and they suggest the 1550s [11, p. 144]. Only Kafalı went further and argued that the year 1552 was the terminus ante quem [19, p. 27]. Access to both manuscripts and a comparison of them, however, offers substantially more information to date the compilation of both redactions.

The text of the Tashkent manuscript provides us with three hints regarding the date of its compilation. The first points to the time span (bu asnāda ‘in this time’) when Iš Sulṭān was the “refuge of sultans” along the Syr Darya River (Sir däryāsïǰa) [25, pp. 7, 66–67; 31, pp. 90, 119–120]. I failed to identify any source that would ascribe any kind of appanage to Iš (Muḥammad) Sulṭān along the said river⁸, and any of my attempts to date the redaction on this ground turned out to be futile. This leaves us with two clues and only a rudimentary chronology whit which to work.

Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī left a second clue when he referred to his former lord, Ilbars Khan in the following way in the Tashkent redaction: “his majesty the khan, whose sins are forgiven, whom [God] has taken into [his] mercy – may God make his grave pleasant and the Paradise his abode!” [31, pp. 110, 137; 25, pp. 34, 90; 19, p. 129; 32, pp. 49, 123, 238/fol. 37b]⁹. Kawaguchi and Nagamine were correct in pointing to Ilbars Khan’s death in 1518 as the terminus post quem of the compilation of the Tashkent redaction [20, p. 48].

The final clue that we are able to work with – as we saw earlier – is the date of death of the succeeding Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān. Although Abu l-Ġāzī Bahadur khan (r. 1643–1663) in his Šaǰara‑i Türk vividly portrays the event that led to the murder of the said prince [10, pp. ۲۱۲˗٢٢٢], his chronicle fails to provide a date. There are, however, sources that enable us to narrow down the chronology of the event to a span of few years.

The death of Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān was a result of power struggles within the ʿArabšāhid dynasty. In the 1530s, two major groups were competing for primacy in Ḫ^wārazm. The first one consisted of the offspring of Büräkä b. Yādgār Khan, headed by Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān who wielded actual authority within the khanate. The second constituted the progeny of Äminäk b. Yādgār Khan with Āwānäš at its head as nominal khan [29, pp. 312–314; 34, pp. 105–107]. The Firdaws al-iqbāl of Mūnis and Āgāhī recalls a revolt in Astarābād against the governor of Tahmāsb Shah (r. 1542–1576). Āwānäš Khan – on the advice (kängäš) of Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān – sent troops under the command of the later’s son, ʿUmar Ġāzī, to aid in the insurrection [18, pp. ١١١˗١١۲; 27, p. 31]. Ṣafawī chronicles fully support the testimony of the Firdaws al-iqbāl. The ʿĀlam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī of Iskandar Beg Tūrkmān dates the revolt to AH 944/AD 10 July 1537–29 May 1538 [17, I. p. ١٠٦,], whereas the Aḥsanu t-tawārīḫ of Ḥasan Rūmlū records it under the events of the year AH 945/AD 30 May 1538–18 May 1539 [1, pp. ۲۸۳˗۲۸۵; 2, pp. 129–130; 15, pp. ۲۸۳˗۲۸۵]. The armed conflict among of the ʿArabšāhids broke out after the Ḫ^wārazmian troops returned from Astarābād. At the end of those events, the faction under Āwānäš Khan killed Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān and several other members of his family. However, ʿUmar Ġāzī was left alive and banished to Buḫarā where he managed to gather the support of ʿUbayd Khan b. Maḥmūd of Buḫarā (r. 1533–1540) and Baraq Khan, the future ruler of Samarqand (1551–1556). The joint forces marched into Ḫ^wārazm and – for a short period – ousted the enemy faction killing many of its members, including the khan. The conquest of Ḫ^wārazm proved to be a successful, but short-lived enterprise. The troops of Buḫārā suffered a defeat shortly afterwards and pulled back. The faction supporting Āwānäš khan came to power once more and raised Qahïl – in other sources Qal – khan to the throne [10, pp. ۲۲۲–۲۲۵; 18, pp. ١١١˗١١۲; 27, p. 32]. The Firdaws al-iqbāl sets these events into AH 946/AD 19 May 1539˗6 May 1540, but also mentions that “Ḥasan ḫān Rūmlū (in the chronicle Aḥsanu t-tawārīḫ ˗ Cs. G.) and the ʿĀlam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī say [the events happened – addition by Cs. G.] in [AH] 945” [18, p. ١١۲; 27, p. 32]¹⁰. While the ʿĀlam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī only alludes to the above-mentioned events in Astarābād, Ḥasan Rūmlū in fact inserted them under the events of this year [1, pp. ۲۹۰˗۲۹۲; 2, pp. 132–133; 15, pp. ۲۹۰˗۲۹۲]. Taking this evidence into consideration we can safely argue that Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān must have perished in the years 1538/39, giving a terminus ante quem for the compilation of the first redaction preserved in the Tashkent manuscript. This means that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī must have penned his first version of the Čingiz-nāmä between the years 1518 and 1538/39.

The redaction of the Istanbul manuscript offers considerably more information with the help of which we can date it even more precisely. Most importantly, at the very end of the continuation, two dates are given. It runs as follows: qad waqaʿa l-farāġ min hāẕīhī l-awrāq fī yawmi čahāršanba fī šahri Muḥarram sanati […] bāraka llāhu tamma tārīh‑i sanat-i […] [19, p. 156; 32, pp. 160/fol. 76b]. It translates to “This manuscript was finished on the day of Wednesday, in the month of Muḥarram of the year […]. May God praise it! [In] the year of […]” I had good reason to leave out both of the years. In the first case, the date is blurred to the extent that I find it impossible to read any text or recognise any numerals. Kafalı and Mirgaleev read 959 [19, p. 156; 24, p. 67; 32, pp. 85, 159]. Wednesdays of Muḥarram 959 correspond to the 30^th of December 1551, the 6^th, 13^th, 20^th or 27^th of January 1552, and if their reading is right, it would be a credible chronology for the compilation of the second draft of the Čingiz-nāmä. As for the second, both scholars read it as 1040 [19, p. 156; 24, p. 67; 32, pp. 85, 159], that is 10^th August 1630 – 29^th July 1631. I find this reading uncertain too, especially because there are five numerals visible on the facsimile. And even if the afore-mentioned readings are right, the question still remains, what do they actually mark? All in all, there are two dates at the end of the chronicle’s continuation, the reading of which are dubious. One has to agree with Belyakov according to whom the dating of the manuscript does not hold water [5, pp. 380–381]. Given all these doubts, in the following I shall scrutinise the content of the Čingiz-nāmä of Istanbul manuscript¹¹, and look for indications that may give us a hint regarding the time of its compilation.

When enumerating the genealogy of different branches of the Šaybanīds, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī lists the rulers of Ḫ^wārazm in the following fashion: ḫān-i marḥūm Buġuǰa ḫān wä Ṣofyā[n] ḫān wä Āvānäš ḫān wä Qal¹² ḫān ḫallada mulkahū [19, p. 138; 32, pp. 62, 136, 210/fol. 51b]. The Arabic felicitation ḫallada mulkahū ‘may his reign last forever’ is usually added to the names of currently reigning monarchs, meaning that the author was drafting the second redaction of the Čingiz-nāmä during the reign of Qal Khan. This has been already noticed by Kafalı who – for reasons unknown to me – set the demise of the afore-mentioned monarch to 1552 [19, p. 27]¹³. To my knowledge, the only source giving hints regarding the time of the event is the Firdaws al-iqbāl, which tells us that Qal Khan reigned for nine years [18 p. ١١۵; 27, p. 34]. Knowing that Qal Khan was raised to the throne after the forces of ʿUbayd Khan pulled out from Ḫ^wārazm around the year 1539/40, it is safe to assume that we ought reckon with the dates 1539/40–1548/1549 for Qal Khan’s reign. Thus, the date 1549 could be considered the terminus ante quem of the compilation of the second redaction of the Čingiz-nāmä. It is, however, possible to narrow down the date even further!

When narrating the reign of Uluġ Muḥammad (ruled the Golden Horde cc. 1419–1423, and with short interruptions 1428–1432; ruled the Khanate of Kazan’ 1438–1435), Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī alludes to “Aq Köbäk khan who is khan in Ḥāǰǰī Tarḫan (i.e. Astrakhan – Cs. G.) […]” [19, p. 152; 32, pp. 80, 155, 169/fol. 72a]¹⁴. The tense employed by the author in this passage is called aorist (ḫān turur). “Since the aorist does not have a point of time or time frame specifically assigned to it” [7, p. 204], it is hard to determine its exact function in the given sentence. It may refer to a narrated past action, a wide range of present actions – habitual or recurring, progressive or continuous –, general truths, established facts, or future actions [7, pp. 204–207]¹⁵. Although the use of the aorist in the given sentence can be ambiguous, it seems plausible, nay, likely that in this case, it refers to the author’s own time. If that is so, it means that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī worked on the second redaction of the Čingiz-nāmä during the reign of the above-mentioned monarch, Aq Köbäk Khan.

The politics of the Khanate of Astrakhan in the first half of the 16th century were exceptionally complex, but it is possible to provide an acceptable chronology of the rulers’ reign in this period. Aq Köbäk Khan b. Murtażā, came to power in the khanate with the help of his Cherkes allies in 1532, but he lost his position after only a year on the throne. He managed to reclaim it for a second time from 1545 until he was ousted by his enemies in 1546/1547 [30, pp. 219–221, 35, pp. 138–139, 144]. The first reign of Aq Köbäk Khan (1532–1533) can not correspond to that of Qal Khan (1539/40–1548/9) in Ḫ^wārazm, which means we can dismiss it. However, the chronology of his second reign, between 1545 and 1547 does! This indicates that the aorist in sentence “Aq Köbäk ḫān kim Ḥāǰǰī Tarḫanda ḫān turur” expresses a present tense, thus signalling that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī must have worked on the second redaction of the Čingiz-nāmä in the given period. The questions regarding the dates at the end of the Istanbul manuscript, their exact reading and meaning, however, still remains open.

In the course of the article, we compared the structure of the Čingiz-nāmä in the Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts and were able to conclude that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī drafted two separate redactions of his chronicle. He finished the first one for his patron, Iš Muḥammad Sulṭān between the years of 1518 and 1539, the Tashkent manuscript preserved this version of the text. Latter, most probably around 1545–1547, the author made a second redaction which he extended with the history of Genghis Khan and the early history of the Mongol Empire, this is the version preserved in the Istanbul manuscript. These findings raise further questions: why did the author draft a second redaction of the text? Why did he leave the invocation and introduction out of it? Unfortunately, for the time being, it is not possible to answer these questions. Additionally, the study calls to attention the need for, and benefits that arise from modern critical text editions of “native sources” of the later Golden Horde period – a need that has been pointed out three decades ago [33, p. 252].

¹ For an in-depth analysis of the author, his chronicle, and its extant copies consult [3, pp. 5–10; 4, pp. 164–169; 11, pp. 144–145; 16, pp. 72–74; 19, pp. 20–29; 20; 21; 22, 24].

² To my knowledge there has been no attempt to determine the date of copy of the Tashkent manuscript. Kafalı and Mirgaleev made their claims regarding the Istanbul manuscript’s dating [19, p. 28; 24, p. 67; 32, p. 6], a topic to which we shall return shortly.

³ The text uses the word nusḫa ‘exemplar, prototype, archetype, a copy or model […]; a manuscript; […]’ [28, p. 1400].

⁴ basa tilär-män ki bu nusḫa-i [faqī]r-i ḥaqīrnï iki defʿā (!) inšā qïlsam defʿa-i šānīsinä šurūʿ qïlġum turur

⁵ Beginning from the partition of the empire, there are only minor differences between the two drafts. For an insight into these see [14, pp. 60–61].

⁶ For an in-depth analysis of the continuation, see [5; 21; 23; 24, pp. 59; 67].

⁷ ḥażrat-i sulṭān-i kabīr-i saʿīd-i marḥūm-i maġfūr ṭayyab llāhu sarāhu wa ǰaʿala l-ǰanna miṯwāhu sulṭān Ġāzī Sulṭān The text of the Istanbul manuscript uses the erroneous verbal form ṭāba instead of ṭayyab. I corrected this.

⁸ Abu l-Ġāzī’s Šaǰara-i Türk relates that of the brothers Dōst Muḥammad and Iš Muḥammad, the latter who commissioned Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī to compile the Čingiz-nāmä, received the town of Kāt (modern-day Beruniy, Uzbekistan) as an appanage [10, p. ٢١٢], which is considerable distance away from the Syr Darya River.

⁹ ḥażrat‑i ḫān‑i maġfūr u marḥūm ṭayyaba allāhu sarāhu wa ǰaʿala l-ǰanna miṯwāhu The text of the Istanbul manuscript – again – uses the verbal form ṭāba. The citation is given according to the correct form of the Tashkent manuscript.

¹⁰ For more detail and further literature consult [8, p.375. note 80].

¹¹ The content of the continuation has been exhaustively analysed by Belyakov who argues that the terminus post quem of the compilation is 1654 [5, pp. 380–387].

¹² The manuscript does not offer a clear reading of the name. Both Kafalı and Mirgaleev read Qahïl ḫān, Kafalı even mentioning the discrepancy [19, p. 27]. Be that as it may, the letters qāf and lām are legible, and we can be sure that the monarch in question is the same person whom the Šäǰärä‑i türk [10, p. ٢٢٩] and the Firaws al-iqbāl [18, pp. ١١۲, ١١۵; 27, pp. 33–34], mention as Qal Khan.

¹³ Kafalı was certainly right in setting the date of the work’s compilation prior to 1552. This was the year Russian troops wrested the city of Kazan’ from Genghisid hands. The event proved to be so significant that it reverberated in most of the chronicles in successor-states of the Golden Horde. The fact that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, a contemporary of the events, failed to mention it, suggests that he, indeed, finished the second redaction of his texts prior to the conquest.

¹⁴ Aq Köbäk ḫān kim Ḥāǰǰī Tarḫanda ḫān turur atyur kim […]

¹⁵ For an in depth view of the tense consult the following grammar books: [6, pp. 340–341; 7, pp. 203–208; 9, pp. 230–237; 12, pp. 163–167; 26, pp. 126–127].

Об авторах

Чаба Гёнцёль

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: csaba986@gmail.com

аспирант по историческим наукам, младший научный сотрудник, Исследовательская Группа османской эпохи Венгерской Академии Наук при Сегедском университете

Список литературы

Дополнительные файлы