great khan, or emperor of the Moguls 4 and Tartars. 5 Of these kindred, though rival, names, the former had given birth to the imperial race; and the latter has been extended by accident or error over the spacious wilderness of the north. 101 (return) [ On the traditions of the early life of Zingis, see D’Ohson, Hist des Mongols; Histoire des Mongols, Paris, 1824. Schmidt, Geschichte des Ost-Mongolen, p. 66, &c., and Notes.—M.] 2 (return) [ The khans of the Keraites were most probably incapable of reading the pompous epistles composed in their name by the Nestorian missionaries, who endowed them with the fabulous wonders of an Indian kingdom. Perhaps these Tartars (the Presbyter or Priest John) had submitted to the rites of baptism and ordination, (Asseman, Bibliot Orient tom. iii. p. ii. p. 487—503.)] 3 (return) [ Since the history and tragedy of Voltaire, Gengis, at least in French, seems to be the more fashionable spelling; but Abulghazi Khan must have known the true name of his ancestor. His etymology appears just: _Zin_, in the Mogul tongue, signifies _great_, and _gis_ is the superlative termination, (Hist. Généalogique des Tatars, part iii. p. 194, 195.) From the same idea of magnitude, the appellation of _Zingis_ is bestowed on the ocean.] 4 (return) [ The name of Moguls has prevailed among the Orientals, and still adheres to the titular sovereign, the Great Mogul of Hindastan. * Note: M. Remusat (sur les Langues Tartares, p. 233) justly observes, that Timour was a Turk, not a Mogul, and, p. 242, that probably there was not Mogul in the army of Baber, who established the Indian throne of the “Great Mogul.”—M.] 5 (return) [ The Tartars (more properly Tatars) were descended from Tatar Khan, the brother of Mogul Khan, (see Abulghazi, part i. and ii.,) and once formed a horde of 70,000 families on the borders of Kitay, (p. 103—112.) In the great invasion of Europe (A.D. 1238) they seem to have led the vanguard; and the similitude of the name of _Tartarei_, recommended that of Tartars to the Latins, (Matt. Paris, p. 398, &c.) * Note: This relationship, according to M. Klaproth, is fabulous, and invented by the Mahometan writers, who, from religious zeal, endeavored to connect the traditions of the nomads of Central Asia with those of the Old Testament, as preserved in the Koran. There is no trace of it in the Chinese writers. Tabl. de l’Asie, p. 156.—M.]