On a Recently Discovered Ms. of Činggis-Qaγan’s Precepts to his Younger Brothers and Sons

Igor de Rachewiltz

Činggis-qan’s wise sayings or precepts (bilig),[1] as distinct from his formal pronouncements, rules and regulations which eventually made up the now largely lost corpus of Činggiside laws (yeke ǰasaγ),[2] have come down to us as individual collections, and in the body of larger works such as historical chronicles.[3]

In either form, Činggis’ aphorisms, opinions and practical advice on statecraft and life in general, are usually expressed in alliterative verse, with connecting passages in (often rhythmic) prose, and are set in the context of poetic dialogues between the emperor and members of his family and/or faithful companions (nököd), at a feast (qurim), during a military campaign, or on other occasions.[4]

These wise sayings (hereafter biligs) attributed to the great Mongol conqueror have a long and interesting history, and even though they contain obvious interpolations and later additions, it seems that much of their content is genuine and dating from the thirteenth century.[5]

Anecdotes illustrating Činggis’ prudence and sagacity, and stories — true or semi-fictional — concerning his special relationship with some of his brothers (for example, Qasar), sons, wives and companions (Boγorču in particular), no doubt circulated among the Mongols already in his lifetime.[6] His remarkable deeds and feats of arms were declaimed and sung in the Mongol tents. As for his biligs, they were, appraently, duly recorded by specially appointed officals — a practice that must have been introduced in the latter part of his life.[7]

Soon after Činggis’ death, these stories, songs and biligs became part of a growing body of traditions about the now legendary figure of the emperor from which Mongol bards and chroniclers were to draw both inspiration and information in the following decades. The biligs in particular were quoted and recited at the Mongol court, and we know that proficiency in bilig-lore was so highly regarded that Temür-Ölǰeitü reputedly gained the throne in 1294 over his rival because he knew the biligs of Činggis-qan better and could declaim them with a pure accent.[8]

Contemporary, or near contemporary, literary productions like the famous Secret History of the Mongols (dating from the second quarter of the thirteenth century), as well as the histories of J̌uvainī and Rašīd al-Dīn, contain a good deal of epic material which derives, directly or indirectly, from that vast store of early poetic traditions about Činggis-qan and his preux to which we may refer as the ‘Činggis-qan Saga’.[9] We must, in fact, distinguish the legendary cycle from the purely factual and unadorned account of Činggis’ deeds as found, for instance, in the Chinese historical records.[10]

Unfortunately, the Činggis-qan Saga has been handed down in a fragmentary and, at times, re-elaborated form, This is due to various causes. The rapid Turkisation of the Mongol ruling élite in the various ulus, political and cultural alienation from the Mongol homeland, and protracted wars combined with dislocation of people, are some of the most obvious reasons for the disappearance of most of the early Mongolian literature, including of course the written epics (the Secret History is a notable exception).[11]

On Mongol soil, a few historial records and religious works somehow survived the dark and confused period following the collapse of the Yüan dynasty in 1368.[12] Thse records, as well as epic songs, narratives and legends handed down orally (and hence further elaborated in the course of transmission), were collected and used by the learned lamas and chroniclers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in their works.[13] Thanks to their labour, part at least of the ancient literary heritage has reached us, albeit often in Buddhist garb and in a form reflecting the outlook and biases of the post-Yüan Mongol feudal society.[14]

Besides the ‘original’ material preserved in the Secret History and in the works of the Persian authors (Rašīd al-Dīn in particular), and odd references in Western medieval records, our knowledge of the Činggis-qan Saga derives entirely from these later rifacimenti and the still (?) living oral tradition. Only in recent decades, however, have scholars been able to undertake a systematic survey of the seventeenth and eighteenth century chronicles, and of Mongolian literature in general, largely thanks to the greater availability of primary source material, including oral traditions, and the discovery, in several countries, of numerous manuscripts and blockprints of perviously unknown works, and of different versions of known ones.[15]

Therefore, we are now in the fortunate position of approaching the complex problems raised by the reconstruction of the Činggis-qan Saga in a way that would have not been possible thirty years ago. In this virtually unexplored field of research, a comparative study of the extant versions of Činggis’ biligs is clearly of prime importance.[16]

Among the most famous biligs are the ‘Holy Cinggis–qaγan’s precepts to this younger brothers and sons’,[17] of which various versions are known. One of these was published by A. Popov as early as 1836 in his Mongolian Chrestomathy.[18] Another version was edited by C.Ž. Žamcarano and published in Urga in 1915.[19] It is now a bibiliographical rarity. W. Kotwicz discussed both these versions, translating excerpts from them, in an aritcle which appeared in 1923.[20] The following year, the Mongγol ulus-un sudur bičig-ün küriyeleng of Ulan-Bator published the Činggis boγda-yin durasaqal-un tegübüri, which contains Činggis’ biligs extracted from Rasipungsuγ’s Bolor erike.[21]A second edition of the Tegübüri was published by the Mongγol bičig-ün qoriya of Peking in 1926.[22] This was translated into Japanese by Yamamoto Mamoru in 1941.[23] Some of the biligs from the Bolor erike were rendered into German by W. Heissig in 1962.[24] A modern MS from Chakhar of a version close to the one published by Popov is in the Royal Library, Copenhagen,[25] and similar MSS are known to exist in other collections.[26]

At the beginning of 1975, a MS of these biligs formerly belonging to the great Polish Mongolist J.S. Kowalewski (1801–78), was discovered by the late Professor Y. Rintchen in Vilnius University Library.[27] The MS, entitled Činggis boγda-yin surγal-un ǰarliγ-un dam baγulγaγsan debter, or Book That Has Handed Down the Instructions of Činggis the Holy One, is described by Rintchen in his article ‘Manuscrits mongols de la collection du professeur J. Kowalewski à Vilnius’ in Central Asiatic Journal 19(1975):105–17, at pp.114–15, no.68.

Like other MSS in the same collection, this too is a copy made for Kowalewski by a Mongol scribe in Transbaikalia and dates from the first quarter of the nineteenth century. It is written on bluish paper of Russian origin, and it is bound into a book 15cm x 12.5cm.[28]

With regard to the contents of the MS, Rintchen quotes in his article some of Činggis’ biligs in transcription, and a colophon ( Ĵaγarvardi neretü qaγan-u uliger quuli bayiγul-uγsan šastir tegüsbe) which actually belongs to another work.[29] All the biligs quoted by Rintchen appear, with minor differences, in Popov’s text.[30] In a letter to me dated 17–19 January 1977, Rintchen wrote:

I think among these unknown Mongol manuscripts of the first quarter of the XIX century copied by Mongol scribes for Professor Kowalewski it would be very interesting for you and for the Mongolists of the world a book of Chingis khan’s aphorisms all rhymed and showing his great poetical and improvisatory talent, his high ethical and philosophical level, indispensable in my opinion for all the kings and emperors not only of his time but also of nowadays.
I am sure, the manuscript unknown in the Northern and South Mongolia after the annihilation of all monastic and hereditary libraries of Mongol intellectuals and nobles …, is one of the most interesting monuments of the earlier Mongol literature remonting [sic] to the XIII century.
I hope the Vilnius university would procure you a microfilm of the book of Chingis khan’s aphorisms and you might publish it with a translation which would show to the world readers in English a quite unknown aspect of the great Mongol Emperor, who was my naγaču, because my late mother descended from the line of Čoγtu qungtayiǰi of Qalq-a.[31]

In view of the above and in compliance with Professor Rintchen’s wish, I immediately wrote to Vilnius University Library requesting a microfilm of the MS in question. This was kindly supplied and I was thus able to examine the text of the Vilnius MS and compare it with the other texts of the same work available to me.[32]

The Činggis boγda-yin surγal-un ǰarliγ-un dam baγulγaγsan debter occupies the first fourteen leaves of a ‘book’ containing other Mongol texts. The leaves are numbered 1 to 14 in Arabic numbers (=pp. lr–14r in my pagination). Each page contains seven lines of text. Various scribal errors and omissions have been subsequently corrected, either by the copyist himself or by a later hand, and a number of alternative readings have been inserted between the lines, also by an unknown hand.

The version of the biligs contained in the Vilnius MS is essentially the same as that published by Popov. However, quite a few readings are at variance with Popov’s text, but agree with those found in the Copenhagen MS. Conversely, some readings are at variance with the Copenhagen MS but agree with Popov’s text. Other differences between these three texts can be explained by the fact that in the Vilnius MS some words, or groups of words, have been left out by a careless copyist; and, occasionally, the same material has been rearranged somewhat differently.

Thus, even though the Vilnius MS does not actually provide a new version of Činggis’ ‘Precepts to his younger brothers and sons’, it may certainly help in preparing a new edition of the biligs which will take into account all the variae lectiones offered by the extant MSS.

Two samples from the text of the Vilnius MS, namely the passages in pp.lr,l–3r, 3 and 13v,3–14r,7, are given in transcription at the end of the this article, followed by the variae lectiones found in Popov’s edition (P) and the Copenhagen MS (C). For the present purpose, I have ignored all alliteration in the three texts. Obvious orthographic mistakes in our MS (for example, boγdan for boγda, tarγaγaǰu for tarqaγaǰu) have been tacitly corrected. However, in a few cases I have preferred to retain the original form and insert my correction — usually an additional letter or syllable — within square brackets (for example, asaγ[u]ǰu, qar[bu]basu). In the case of a doubtful word, I have given the correct form, or suggested emendation, in square brackets following the word in question (for example, öni [?oni]. The alternative readings inserted between the lines of the MS are given in parentheses following the word(s) to which they refer.


[lr] Boγda Činggis-qaγan: degüü-ner köbögüd-tür-iyen[1] surγal ǰarliγ bolurun: omoγküčün-i tarqaγaǰu olan arγabar bariγsan-u tula: olan-u eǰen bolqu bui ǰ-a.arγ-a bilig-i medebesü: aliba küčü-ten-i erke-dür-iyenoroγulqu kilber bolai.[2] arγ-a bilig-i ese medebesü: alaγan-daki[3] bariγsan-iyan toγtaγaqu[4] berke bolai: bey-e böke bögesü γaγča-yi čidayu:[5] sedkil böke

[lv] bögesü olan-i čidayu:[5] ügen-dür eǰile [d]besü[6] sečen boluyu: ildu ǰidan-dur[7] eǰile [d]besü[6] baγatur boluyu: amitan kedüi ber olan bolǰu[8] (bolbaču) ayalγutan[9] (ayulγatan) üčügüken[10] bolbasu tusa ügei bui: aliba bilig-tü kümün kereg[11] tüg tümen kümün-eče[12] törö yosun-i[13] medekü γaγča[14] kümün degere: ere kümün beyeben ed-iyer čimegsen-eče erdem-iyer čimegsen degere bui: ündü aγula-yin

[2r] kötel[15] ǰori: örgön[16] dalai-yin ulum-iyer[17] ǰori: qola kemen buu čökü[18] (sedki) yabubasu kürüyü:[19] kündü kemen buučökü: ergübesü daγayu:[20] dabasi ügei dabaγan bui[21] kemen[22] sonostamu:[23] ker dabaqu kemen buu sedki dabay-a kemen sedkibesü dabayu:[24] getül[e]si[25] ügei müren bui kemen sonostamui: ker getülkü[26] kemen buu sedki: getüley-e[27] kemebesü getülüyü:[28] nige[29]

[2v] sedkil-tü ere bolbasu[30] ere busu erdeni kemegdeǰüküi:[31] qoyar sedkil-tü ere-yi ere busu em-e kemegdeǰüküi:[31] nigen sedkil-tü em-e-yi em-e busu ere kemegdeǰüküi: öber-ün buruγu-ben[32] kümün-eče asaγ[u]ǰu medegdeǰüküi:[33] sedkil-ün osol-i sečed-eče[34] asaγ[u] ǰusuruγdaqui:[35] sumun-u mösün[36] kedüi-ber sidurγu bögesü öni[37] [?oni] ödün-eče[38] öber-e[39] qar[bu]basu[40]

[3r] ülü boluyu:[41] kümün kedüi-ber sayin töröbesü surγaγuli-ača[42] öbere[43] sečen ülü boluyu[44] kemen ǰarliγ boluγsan aǰiγu : :

[13v,3] Činggis-qaγan ǰarliγ bolurun: törö yosu[45] töbsin-iyer abasu: törö-yin eǰen qaγan sečen mergen bolbasu:[46] törögülügsen ečige eke bütün bolbasu:[47] törö yosu-i[48] medekü

[14r] tüsimel[49] bolbasu:[50] türidkel ügei dayisun-i daruqu čerig-tü[51] bolbasu: tümen on daγustala gergei[52] köbögün[53] ači[54] üri[55] anu[56] mendü bolbasu: delekei-yin erketü möngke tengri ibegeküi[57] bögesü:[58] tengsel ügei yeke ǰirγalang[59] tere bui:[60] kemen ügülügsen[61] aǰiγu:[62] Činggis-qaγan[63] degüner[64] köbögüd-iyen[65] soyun surγaγsan ǰarliγ inu tegüsbe[66] :: : ::

Variae Lectiones

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.




13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
P, C köbegüd-tür-iyen
P erke-dür oroγulqu kele
C erke-dür-iyen oroγulqu kele

C alaγan-daγan
P toγtaqui
C toγtoγaqui

P,C ilayu
P,C iǰildebesü
P ildun-dur
C ildu-dur
P,C bolbaču
P ayulγatan
C ayuγčin
P čögeken
C čögüken
P kereg-tü
C kereg-tei
P olan kümün-eče
C tüg tümen-eče
C yosu-yi
P om.
P,C kötöl
P örgen
P,C ulum
P čöke
C kürümüi
C daγamui
P om.
C om.
P,C sonastamui
C dabamui
C getelesi
C getelkü
P getülsügei
C getelsügei

C getelmüi
P,C nigen
P bisi
P,C kemegdekü
P buruγu-yi
P,C medegdeküi
34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.


48. 49.
50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.
C sečen-eče
P surγaγdaqui
C surutuγai

C mösü
C onamui
P ödün ügei
P om.
P qarbuǰu
C bolumui
C surγaγuli ügei ber
C öber-iyen
C bolumui
P,C yosun
after bolbasu P adds
terigülegsen aq-a degüü tegüs bolbasu
after bolbasu C adds
törögsen aq-a degüü tegüs bolbasu
P,C yosun-i
P tüsumel-dü   C tüsimed
C bui bolbasu
C čerig-tei
C qatan
P köbegün
C ači γuči
P ür-e
C ür-e-tei
P aqu C om.
P,C ibegekü
P bolbasu
C ǰirγalang-un sayin
C bui ǰ-a
P ügülegsen
C bolai
P boγda Činggis-qaγan
P degüü-ner
P köbegüd-iyen
C om. last sentence. The colophon quoted by Rintchen, op. cit., p.115, does not belong to this MS, but to the one immediately following it in the same ‘book’ (leaves 14–26 = pp.14v–26v). The colophon is on p.26v, 3–4.
This paper was first published in L.A. Hercus, F.B.J. Kuiper, T. Rajapatirana, E.R. Skrzypczak (eds), Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, 1982).



  1. Bilig, lit. ‘wisdom, knowledge’ (<Turkic bilig id.), is the term regularly employed by Rašīd al-Dīn for Činggis’ maxims. See Rashīd al-Dīn, The Successors of Genghis Khan, tr. J.A. Boyle (New York: 1971), pp.13, 18, 155–56, 321, 339. Cf, G. Doerfer, Türkische und monglische Elemente im Neupersischen, II (Wiesbaden: 1965), no.835.
  2. On the ǰasaγ or yeke (‘great’) ǰasaγ, the famous code of Mongol customary law, see P. Ratchnevsky, ‘Die Yasa (J̌asaq) Činggis-khans und ihre Problematik’, in G. Hazai und P. Zieme (eds), Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker (Berlin, 1974), pp.471–87; P.H.–C. Ch’en, Chinese Legal Tradition Under the Mongols. The Code of 1291 as Reconstructed (Princeton, 1979), pp.4–9; Doefer, op. cit., IV (Wiesbaden, 1975), No.1789.
  3. Individual collections can, of course, be made of extracts and quotations from larger works, as in the case of the Činggis boγda-yin durasqal-un tegübüri, which consists of extracts from the Bolor erike and Köke sudur. See below, and nn. 22, 23.
  4. For the literature on the biligs, besides the references in Doerfer, op. cit., II, No.835 (pp.417–18), see V. Kotvič (W. Kotwicz), ‘Iz poueniĭ Čingis-khana,’ Vostok 3 (Moscow-Petersburg, 1923), pp.94–96; B. Ya. Vladimir-cov, Etnologo-lingvističeskie issledovaniya v Urge, Urginskom i Kenteĭskom raĭonakh (Leningrad, 1927), pp.16–19; C.Ž. Žamcarano, The Mongolian Chronicles of the Seventeenth Century, tr. R. Loewenthal (Wiesbaden, 1955), pp.74, 75ff; N. Poppe, The Heroic Epic of the Khalkha Mongols, 2nd ed., tr. J. Krueger, D. Montgomery, M. Walter (Bloomington, 1979), pp.23–25; W. Heissig, Bolug erike Eine Kette aus Bergkristallen’. Eine mongolische Chronik der Kienlung-Zeit von Rasipungsuγ (1774/ 75), Monumenta Serica Monograph X (Peiping, 1946), Chap.IV, esp. pp.36ff, 66ff; C. Damdinsüren, Mongolyn uran zoxiolyn toĭm, I (Ulaanbaatar, 1957), pp.83–85; A. Mostaert in F.W. Cleaves (ed.), Altan Tobči. A Brief History of the Mongols by bLo bzaṅ bsTan ‘jin (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), pp.xiv–xviii; and the important recent contributions by W. Heissig, ‘Die Čaγadai-“bilig” und ihre Historizität’ in W. Heissig a.o. (eds), Tractata Altaica, Denis Sinor sexagenario optime de rebus altaicis merito dedicata (Wiesbaden, 1976), pp.277–90, and L.V. Clark, ‘From the Legendary Cycle of Činggis-qaγan: The Story of an Encounter with 300 Tayičiγud from the Altan Tobči (1655)’ in Mongolian Studies 5 (1978–89), 5–39 (esp. p.29, nn.7, 8, for further references to the litera-ture on the subject). See also nn.7, 8, 16, 22–25.
  5. See Kotvič, loc. cit. Cf. P. Pelliot in TP 22 (1923), 392.
  6. Cf. Poppe, op. cit., pp.7, 9.
  7. See J.A. Boyle in Rashīd al-Dīn, op. cit., Introduction, p.13; Žamcarano, op. cit., p.77. The recording of Činggis’ words by a scribe-secretary (bičigeči) is beyond doubt a post-1206 practice.
  8. See J.A. Boyle, loc. cit., and pp.155, 321; W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 4th. ed. (London, 1977), p.42; Žamcarano, op. cit., p.74; Clark, op. cit., pp.12– 13. Some of Činggis’ biligs are quoted by Rašid al-Dīn in a supplement to his work. See I.N. Berezin in Trudy V.O.I.R.A.O. XV (1888), 120–31.
  9. On the evolution of the saga, or legendary cycle, of Činggis-qan, see the important remarks of Poppe, op. cit., Chap.1, and Clark, op. cit., p.5ff.
  10. The epic quality of the Secret History of the Mongols, its rich psychological content and the intimate details of Mongol life so vividly described in it are totally absent in the Yüan-Ming sources on the Mongols. This is probably the reason why the anonymous Mongol epic-chronicle was given this unusual title by its early Ming editors/translators, namely because it related the unofficial or ‘inside’ story of the former ruling family, a story which, by its very nature and character, had been excluded by Yüan official historiography of Chinese traditional type.
  11. As is known, the preservation of the Secret History was not due originally to its intrinsic value as a historical or literary text, but rather to its usefulness as a textbook for the study of Mongolian language and customs. See W. Hung in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 14(1951), pp.452, 460. For other ‘unfavourable influences’ on the preservation of Mongol literary monuments, see Žamcarano, op. cit., pp.3, 5–6. The extent of the loss can be gauged by the fact that of all the Mongol works printed in China in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, only one virtually complete book has physically survived to this day; of several others, mostly Buddhist texts, we only have fragments. See my forthcoming study ‘The Preclassical Mongolian Version of the Hsaio-ching’ in Zentralasiatische Studien. It should be pointed out, however, that a number of ancient Mongol texts may have perished in comparatively recent times as a result of civil wars and other catastrophes. See Žamcarano, op. cit., pp.3, 5, 58; W. Heissig, A Lost Civilization. The Mongols Rediscovered, tr. J.S. Thomson (London, 1964), pp.14–16.
  12. Cf. W. Heissig, Die mongolischen Handscriften-Reste aus Olon süme Innere Mongolei (16.–17. Jhdt.) (Wiesbaden, 1976), pp.3–5.
  13. Cf. B. Laufer, ‘Skizze der mongolischen Literatur’, Keleti Szemle 8(1907), p.239; Žamcarano, op. cit., pp.4, 6 et passim; W. Heissig, Die Familien- und Kirchenge-schichtsschreibung der Mongolen I. 16.–18. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1959), pp.57, 60, 100ff.
  14. See Poppe, op. cit., p.9ff; Clark, op. cit., p.6.
  15. A special tribute must be paid to Prof. W. Heissig of Bonn for his painstaking search for, collection of, and description of Mongolian MSS, books and documents scattered throughout the world.
  16. Part of a bilig addressed to Boγorču is apparently among the Khara-khoto documents in Leningrad (Doc. G110). See P.K. Kozlov and W. Kotwicz apud F.W. Cleaves in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 18(1955), pp.5, 7. Cf. N.Ts. Munkuyev in L. Ligeti (ed.), Mongolian Studies (Amsterdam and Budapest, 1970), p.343. It is to be hoped that this interesting fragment will be published before too long.
  17. I am not giving the Mongolian title of these biligs as it varies somewhat from version to version. See below and nn.18, 19, 25.
  18. A. Popov, Mongol’skaya khrestomatiya dlya načinayuščikh obučat’sya mongol’skomu yazyku (Kazan, 1836), pp.54–65. No Mongolian title.
  19. Under the title Suutu boγda Činggis-qaγan-u altan surγal orosibai. See B. Laufer, Očerk mongol’skoĭ literatury, per. V.A. Kazakeviča, pod red. i s pred. B.Ya Vladimircova (Lenin-grad, 1927), p.XIII; R.A. Rupen in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 19 (1956), p.141, no.21. Cf. Heissig, Bolur erike, p.67 and n.98. This work is not available to me.
  20. ‘Iz poučeniĭ Čingis-khana’. See above, nn.4 and 5. Kotwicz’s article is also not available.
  21. Unavailable to me. On this edition, see Heissig, op. cit., p.1 and n.1, et passim. For the biligs contained therein, see below, n.22.
  22. See L. Ligeti, Rapport préliminaire d’un voyage d’exploration fait en Mongolie Chinoise 1928–1931 (Budapest, 1933); rep. 1977), pp.25–26; J.R. Krueger in W. Heissig (ed.), Collectanea Mongolica. Festschrift für Professor Dr. Rintchen zum 60. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 1966), p.111, no.4. This (second) edition of the Tegübüri was reprinted photographically in Taiwan a few years ago, without however place and date of publication, and publisher’s name. Činggis’ biligs to his younger brothers, etc., are found on pp.40, 5–47, 6. See Heissig, Bolur erike, pp.66–70; A. Mostaert in F.W. Cleaves (ed.), Bolor Erike. Mongolian Chronicle by Rasip-ungsuγ (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), I, p.21, no.6.
  23. ‘Chingisu-kan tanka-roku no kenkyū,’ in Kenkoku Daigaku kenkyūin kihō 1(1941): 225–316 [=1–62]. The translation occupies pp.262–312 [=8–58]. Cf. Heissig, op. cit., p.33, n.1.
  24. W. Heissig, Helden–, Höllenfahrts– und Schelmengeschichten der Mongolen (Zürich, 1962), pp.55–61. See also ibid., p.14 and n.2.
  25. See W. Heissig and C. Bawden, Catalogue of Mongol Books, Manuscripts and Xylographs. The Royal Library (Copenhagen, 1971), pp.30–31 (MONG. 145). Title on title page: Tngri-eče ǰayaγatu boγda Činggis-qaγan degüü-ner köbegüdiyen surγaγsan ǰarliγ orosiba.
  26. Ibid., p.31, and Ligeti, Rapport préliminaire, pp.27–28.
  27. In the J. Kowalewski Collection, Mokslinė Bibilioteka, V. Kapsuko Universiteto.
  28. See Rintchen, op. cit., p.106. However, the consecutive number (68) given by Rintchen, p.114, to the MS in question is not the actual call number of the MS. This is F11–48, as I eventually found out.
  29. See, Variae lectiones.
  30. Popov, op. cit., pp.54, 2–56, 3.
  31. This letter, of which only a section is quoted here, is an interesting document in itself. It was written by Prof. Rintchen when he was already bedridden, and shortly before his death (4 March 1977).
  32. I wish to record here my sincere gratitude to Vilnius University Library and its director, Mr J. Tornau, for their co-operation and prompt response.