초록 close

The aim of this article is to clarify Rashīd al-Dīn's perception of China through the examination of his work generally known as History of China. A careful look at its contents suggests the fact that when he compiled this work he utilized at least more than one Chinese book. The most important one is, as he mentioned, a historical work compiled by three Buddhist monks during the time of Jīn Līūwān (陳留王, r. 260-265). This may be the reason why we find a number of episodes up to the third century but later on almost nothing except for names of emperors. It is possible that he used a complementary source, a sort of short enlightening piece, covering the period after the third century. Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the identity of these works found in the workshop of Rashīd al-Dīn. Then, this article emphasizes the fact that the genuine title of his work is Tārīkh-i pādishāhān-i Khitāy va Māchīn, i.e. "History of the emperors of Khitāy and Māchīn." According to the contemporary usage, Khitāy meant North China which had been the territory of the Jurchen state and Māchīn South China under the Southern Song dynasty. Pursuing the question why he did not use a more convenient and concise term denoting the entire China, this article reached to the conclusion that actually there was no such term in the vocabulary of Rashīd al-Dīn and that many other European and Islamic sources prove the absence of such terminology. And the Mongols too, as he asserted in his work, had separate terms for the two parts of China, Jauqut and Nangɣiyas. This tells us a fundamental difference in the perception of China between the Han Chinese and the non-Han peoples during that time. However, Rashīd al-Dīn's work also reveals that he transmitted quite faithfully the information found in Chinese historical books. The transcriptions of names of emperors, more than three hundred, are relatively correct except for some inevitable mistakes by scribes who were probably ignorant about Chinese characters and pronunciations. As the table at the end of the paper shows, Rashīd al-Dīn enumerates altogether 36 'original dynasties' (ṭabaqa-i aṣlī) from the one founded by Pankū (盤古) to the last one founded by Jūtāīzū (趙太祖). This idea of the 'original dynasty' actually is conforming to the traditional Chinese concept of dynastic legitimacy. He relegates the dynasties erected by northern peoples such as the Sixteen dynasties, Northern Wei, Northern Zhou, the Qitan and the Jurchen states to the group which he calls 'tribe' (ṭaīfa). It is evident that this distinction was not made by his own judgment but inspired by the original books he relied upon. Nonetheless, we need to take notice of an interesting fact that nowhere in his work we can find a dynastic name. Rather, the examples of Khūḥankūnfū, Sinfūdī and Sunkāūzū seem to suggest that he did not aware of the dynastic names, i.e. Khūḥan(後漢), Sin(晉) and Sun(宋), contained in them. Rashīd al-Dīn also did not comprehend the idea of Heavenly Mandate, a key concept among the Chinese when they talked about the succession of the legitimate dynasties. Although he was conscientiously copying the order of dynastic succession, he was foreign to that idea. So he introduced an interesting terminology of 'original dynasties' to explain the dynastic succession. All in all, from his point of view, the Mongol empire founded by Chinggis Khan was not succeeding these dynasties, thus becoming the 37th 'original dynasty', but it was of a completely new kind which terminated the long chain of emperors in Khitay and Machin and destined to become a world empire.