23. (i) The Chillingham Bull, the Turtle and the Bat

According to the Ninth is a realm where nothing is fixed, so I hope that readers will bear with me through this current stage of outlandish experimentation. You may notice that the charmingly quaint Morris-like background template (known to Blogger as Scribe) has been dropped in favour of one starker and simpler. The reasons behind this change are

1. I couldn't help but notice that every blog of vaguely nineteenth century material uses the exact same template.

2. The blockquote function in that format prints in italics, which interferes with following EB9's use of italics to denote book titles. As you will appreciate, this is deeply irksome.

3. Rare occasions allow me a few minutes of spare time from my employment to enter Interwebshire, and on those occasions the processors of the steam-driven Babbage engines at my place of work struggle to load and scroll such frivolous embellishments.

The final point has also been an excuse for keeping this site image free, however the wonder that is Freecycle has today seduced me with a flatbed scanner, and the accompanying hours of mounting frustration as the thing hums, whirrs and pauses ominously, whilst a black mess on the screen may or may not look slightly more promising than the last three dozen attempts.

There is more to Encyclopaedia Britannica than its sublime text. There are maps, beautiful engravings, and fascinating tables of all sorts of data. I owe it to the greater glory of the Ninth Edition to persevere with this new-fangled and unaccustomed technology, and I hope that this will ultimately benefit patient and loyal Accordingianists everywhere. As a foretaste, from the article FLIGHT, FLYING MACHINES, by Prof J. B. Pettigrew, I give you a most edifying set of figures, illustrating creatures that can (1) not fly, (2) sort of fly (i.e. swim) and (3) fly. Remarkable, as I'm sure you will agree.

22 (iii) Obscure histories and noble successes

I have tried without success to get hold of a copy of Braveheart this past week, with the object of drawing precise comparisons between the movie's depiction of events and the historical record. Instead I must rely on my imperfect memory. I seem to recall King Patrick the McGoohan cursing and fretting that the maverick Sgt Gibson and his crazy schemes are about to lay waste to Olde London Town, or some such, and that only a fiendish betrayal inexplicably not perpetrated by Alan Rickman can save his realm.

There is presumably some very logical law of historical motion picture-making which demands such reinterpretations. A shame, because the outline given in Britannica seems cinematic in scope, despite lacking the bizarre insertion of a love triangle between the vengeful Scot and Edward's queen.

Last week we saw the fierce uprising initiated by Wallace shattered by division in his ranks. Undeterred, however,

"Wallace retired to the north, and although deserted by the barons was soon at the head of a large army. The vigour and success of his operations was such that in a short time he succeeded in recovering almost all the fortresses held by the English to the north of the Forth. He had begun the siege of Dundee when he received the information that an English army, led by the Earl of Surrey and Cressingham the treasurer, was on its march northward. Leaving the citizens of Dundee to continue the siege of the castle, he made a rapid march to Stirling. Encamping in the neighbourhood of the Abbey Craig - on which now stands the national monument to his memory - he watched the passage of the Forth. After an unsuccessful attempt to bring Wallace to terms, the English commander, on the morning of 11th September 1297, began to cross the bridge. When about one half of his army had crossed, and while they were still in disorder, they were attacked with such fury by Wallace, that almost all - Cressingham among the number - were slain, or driven into the river and drowned.

"[...]The results of [this battle] were important. The English were everywhere driven from Scotland. To increase the alarm of the English, as well as to relieve the famine which then prevailed, Wallace organized a great raid into the north of England, in the course of which he devastated the country to the gates of Newcastle. On his return he was elected guardian of the kingdom. In this office he set himself to reorganize the army and to regulate the affairs of the country. His measures were marked by much wisdom and vigour, and for a short time succeeded in securing order, even in the face of the jealousy and opposition of the nobles."

This was the pinnacle of Wallace's career - his successes were remarkable and inspiring, and well worthy of celluloidal commemoration. His downfall, execution and legacy were equally dramatic.

Edward I, the "Hammer of the Scots" was in Flanders during the Battle of Stirling.

"He hastened home, and at the head of a great army entered Scotland in July 1298. Wallace was obliged to adopt the only plan of campaign which would give any hope of success. He slowly retired before the English monarch, driving off all supplies and wasting the country. The nobles as usual for the most part deserted his standard. Those that remained thwarted his councils by their jealousies. His plan, however, came very near being successful. Edward, compelled by famine, had already given orders for a retreat when he received information of Wallace's position and intentions. The army, then at Kirkliston, was immediately set in motion, and next morning (July 22, 1298) Wallace was brought to battle in the vicinity of Falkirk. After an obstinate fight,the Scots were overpowered and defeated with great loss. Among the slain were Sir John de Graham, the bosom friend of Wallace, whose death, as Blind Harry tells, threw the hero into a frenzy of rage and grief. The account of his death is one of the finest and most touching passages of the poem. With the remains of his army Wallace found refuge for the night in the Torwood - known to him from his boyish life at Dunipace. He then retreated to the north, burning the town and castle of Stirling on the way. He resigned the office of guardian, and betook himself again to a wandering life and a desultory and predatory warfare against the English. At this point his history again becomes obscure.

"[...]When in the winter of 1303-4 Edward received the submission of the Scottish nobles, Wallace was expressly excepted from the terms. And after the capture of Stirling castle and Sir William Oliphaunt, and the submission of Sir Simon Fraser, he was left alone, but resolute as ever in refusing allegiance to the English king. A price was set upon his head, and the English governors and captains in Scotland had orders to use every means for his capture. On the 5th August 1305 he was taken - as is generally alleged, through treachery - at Robroyston, near Glasgow, by Sir John Menteith, carried to the castle of Dumbarton, and thence conveyed in fetters and strongly guarded to London. He reached London on the 22d August, and next day was taken to Westminster Hall, where he was impeached as a traitor by Sir Peter Mallorie, the king's justice. To the accusation Wallace made the simple reply that he could not be a traitor to the king of England, for he never was his subject, and never swore fealty to him. He was found guilty and condemned to death. The sentence was executed the same day with circumstances of unusual cruelty."

Our Reverend author closes with a very nice summation.

"The cause of national independence was not lost with the life of Wallace. Notwithstanding the cruelty and indignity amid which it terminated, that life was not a failure. It has been an inspiration to his countrymen ever since. The popular ideas regarding his stature, strength, bodily prowess, and undaunted courage are confirmed by the writers nearest his own time - Wyntoun and Fordun. And indeed no man could in that age have secured the personal ascendancy which he did without the possession of these qualities. The little we know of his statesmanship during the short period he was in power gives proof of political wisdom. His patriotism was conspicuous and disinterested. He was well skilled in the modes of warfare that suited the country and the times. That he failed in freeing his country from the yoke of England was due chiefly to the jealousy with which he was regarded by the men of rank and power. But he had a nobler success in inspiring his countrymen with a spirit which made their ultimate conquest impossible."

22 (ii) Happy Treaty of Irvine Day

WALLACE, SIR WILLIAM, the most popular national hero of Scotland, is believed to have been the second son of Sir Malcolm Wallace of Elderslie and Auchinbothie, in Renfrewshire. The date of his birth is not certainly ascertained, but is usually given as 1270.

"Not certainly ascertained" is uncharacteristically clumsy for the Ninth edition (why not simply "uncertain"?), and a poor start for author A. F. H. whose humble entry in the Index's List of Contributors reads : A. F. HUTCHISON, M.A., Rector, High School, Stirling.

The only authority for the events of his early life is the metrical history of Blind Harry. That authority cannot be implicitly relied on, though we need not conclude that the minstrel invented the stories he relates.

I don't intend to harp on the good Reverend's writing style, which might bring to mind pots, kettles, and degrees of swarthiness, but the repetition of "authority" is another clunker. I am already imagining that A.F.H. might have been a beloved school master of volume 24's editor. I am furthermore caused to doubt whether Blind Harry really was a minstrel and not a mere strolling instrumental musician.

Blind Harry's verses were supposedly based on the Latin testimony of Wallace's personal friend, John Blair.

As Blair's account has perished, we cannot tell how far the minstrel has faithfully followed his authority, but some comparatively recent discoveries have confirmed the truth of portions of the narrative which had previously been doubted. At best, however, his authority must be regarded with suspicion, except when it is confirmed by other and more trustworthy evidence.

That's two more "authorities", and from here onwards I will restrict my observations to content rather than style.

Only for a period of less than two years in his life - from the beginning of the insurrection in 1297 to the battle of Falkirk - does Wallace come before us in the clearest historical light. With the exception of one or two glimpses of him that we obtain from authentic historical documents, the recorded events of his later as of his earlier life rest on no more certain a[*******]y than that of Blind Harry.

The absence of reliable biographical information is little different in Wallace's case than in that of a great many other figures in history. Little more is known of the 'real' Wallace than can be proven of Robin Hood or King Arthur. True history, of course, is not saying that this or that happened, but that this or that piece of evidence exists, from which inferences are carefully drawn. Blind Harry's account is romantic, and may as well be believed as the truth, or ignored.

On account of an incident that happened at Dundee [where Wallace was studying] - his slaughter of a young Englishman named Selby, for an insult offered to him - he is said to have been outlawed, and so driven into rebellion against the English. Betaking himself to the wilds of his country, he gradually gathered round him a body of desperate men whom he led in various attacks upon the English.

The essential fact derived from Wallace's early career, is that he was an outlaw who attacked the English in Scotland. It may be that you find Mel Gibson's humble peasant enraged by Droit de Signeur somehow nobler than Blind Harry's hot-tempered, brawling student, but my own sympathies and credulity are more with the latter.

Anyhow, Wallace's successes attracted "patriotic nobles" to his cause.

His insurrection now became more open and pronounced, and his enterprises of greater importance. [...] The success of these exploits induced the English king to take measures for staying the insurrection. A large army, under the command of Sir Henry Percy and Sir Robert Clifford, was sent against the insurgents, and came up with them at Irvine. Dissension broke out among the Scottish leaders, and all Wallace's titled friends left him and made submission to Edward, except the ever faithful Sir Edward Moray. The Treaty of Irvine, by which these Scottish nobles agreed to acknowledge Edward as their sovereign lord, is printed in Rymer's Foedera. It is dated 9th July 1297, and is the first public document in which the name of Sir William Wallace occurs.

We'll leave our hero at this serendipitous juncture for today, without further questioning how Mr Gibson's blue-faced barbarian fits in with all these knights and lords. More presently.

[This article can be found at 1911Encyclopedia.com - taken from the 11th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article (from my uncertain ascertation), appears to be identical to the 9th Edition, with a full inventory of "accounts" and no other omissions or additions.]

22. (i) Freedom!

Having recently considered the depiction of the great conqueror Chinggis Khan in Mongol, I am led to ponder another cinematic portrayal of a martial hero, namely Mr Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson's iconic performance as the inspired guerrilla, William Wallace, in Braveheart.

Whilst not without its critics, Braveheart did (in addition to worldwide acclaim) prove popular with many Scots, in particular the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Alex Salmond, who was outspoken in its praise. It has just topped a poll as the Greatest Scottish Movie of All Time (narrowly beating Trainspotting, then Whiskey Galore). This is difficult to swallow for those who are concerned about either the depiction of the period (eg - kilts and woad having no part in Scottish dress at that time), or the events (eg - pretty much everything in the movie), let alone the notion of Sgt Martin Riggs as the Knight of Elderslie.

There is some consolation for English viewers that at least we get The Prisoner portraying the Hammer of the Scots, a nice piece of casting that almost makes up for everything else, and which (along with a desire to see just how grossly distorted the Gibson history was) greatly motivated a younger self to learn everything I could about the reign of Edward I - more on whom some other day.

Even those Scots who simply enjoyed Braveheart as a rousing piece of English-bashing entertainment found the grotesque Mel Gibson statue that materialized in 1997 at the Wallace Monument something of an insult to national pride. In a recent, delightfully apt development, it seems that the controversial sculpture may soon be moving to its natural home : Donald Trump's projected billion dollar golfing resort on the Aberdeenshire coast. At the risk of terminal digression, I note that Mr Trump has a very nice website outlining his proposal, which includes the following deeply touching personal detail:

The project will only strengthen Mr. Trump’s connection to Scotland, where his mother grew up in a simple croft (a small agricultural land unit found in northern Scotland) on the Island of Lewis in Stornoway.

The Wallace Monument - a colossal tower with an extravagantly crenellated crown - might be considered to be of an equally representative degree of poor taste and aesthetic judgement of the century in which it was constructed. My cautious opinion is that Victorian bad taste will stand the test of time better than late 20th century crassness. The 19th century was a time of a reemergence and to some extent redefining of Scottish nationalism, and Wallace became pre-eminent as a symbol of Scottish pride. Naturally, the final volume of the Edinburgh-published Ninth Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica contains his biography. I hope that Accordingianists share my faith that the accuracy of EB9's portrait need not be prefaced by a disclaimer such as graces Braveheart's IMDB entry :

Incorrectly regarded as goofs: This is neither a biopic nor a historical documentary but is, rather, a romantic fiction inspired by true events. Many of the "real" characters and events have been deliberately reinterpreted to suit the story, as have some details of costume and custom.

Indeed.

Next : more Wallace.

21. Tumultuous and riotous assemblies

The Mongolian capital Ulaanbaatar is currently under a State of Emergency, as a result of disturbances following widespread dissatisfaction with the conduct and outcome of the country's recent parliamentary elections. Protesting crowds in the capital's central Sukhbaatar Square have led to riots which have resulted in five deaths, the destruction of the ruling Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party headquarters, and damage and looting to the Culture Palace. English language commentary on the events has been posted at the Asian Gypsy blog, scoring valuable points for citizen journalism. (The limited international interest in the run-up to the election is wryly underlined by this posting, remarking on the fascination with the fact that some voters arrived at polls on horseback.)

Today's Guardian has found room for the subject, and takes this assessment from a Reuters report:

Analysts and foreign business executives in Mongolia played down the violence, saying most Mongolians did not support it and describing it as teething troubles for a young democracy.

"The outskirts of Ulan Bator have a lot of poor and frustrated youngsters who would use any pretext to get to streets and participate in any turmoil[.]"

Whether by accident or design, the Guardian avoids the word 'riot.' The Ninth Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica provides the following definition:

RIOT is "an unlawlful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it assembled by a breach of the peace and to the terror of the public. A lawful assembly may become a riot if the persons assembled form and proceed to execute an unlawful purpose to the terror of the people, although they had not that purpose when they assembled" (Stephen, "Digest of the Criminal Law," art. 73).

[...]y. In its previous stages it may be an affray, an unlawful assembly, or a [rout], according to circumstances, and it may, if carried far enough, become treason. An affray is the fighting of two or more persons in the public street. An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons with the intent to commit a crime by force or carry out a common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a way as to give reasonable grounds for fearing a breach of the peace. A rout is an unlawful assembly which has made the motion towards the execution of its common purpose. If the unlawful assembly should begin to demolish a particular inclosure, that would be a riot ; if it should proceed to pull down all inclosures, that would be treason.

I imagine that a history of disturbances fitting the legal definition of 'riot' in British history would provide an interesting parallel to show social progress and the movement of democracy. Whenever unsatisfactory conditions such as shortages of food or employment have led to large crowds of aggrieved citizens congregating, the law has sought to preserve the peace. Inevitably, the forces of law and order are in a reactionary position in these engagements, but that a 'riot' by this definition includes the wanton (or directed) destruction of property, draws a distinction between that act and a 'protest.' My right-on NERVE 2008 Calendar lists an upcoming anniversary on 4th of July as:

1981: Start of Liverpool 8 uprising ('the riots')

As though the scale of events in Toxteth that year are somehow only alleged. The Boston Riots of 1770 are of course remembered as a 'massacre' in the former colonies: the emotional impact of soldiers firing at a mob attacking them in a city where their presence is resented by much of the populace, is a phenomena not without significance to the present United States.

There is something of a nostalgic, old-worlde charm to the manner in which English laws on riotous assemblies were once carried out: by means of the 'reading of the Riot Act.' And something somehow quaint in notion that this would take place in the event of an unlawful assembly beginning to transform into the uglier stage - where modern laws involving Designated Areas and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders can be put in place for months at a time to empower the police against such an assembly occurring in the first place.

[It is] the duty of a justice, sheriff, mayor, or other authority, wherever twelve persons or more are unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together to the disturbance of the public peace, to resort to the place of such assembly and read the following proclamation :- "Our Sovereign Lady the Queen chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains of the Act made in the first year of King George for preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies. God save the Queen." It is a felony punishable with penal servitude for life to obstruct the reading of the proclamation or to remain or continue together unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously for one after the proclamation was made or for one hour after it would have been made, but for being hindered.

The heavy penalty reflects the opinion that the offence "is the most grave kind of breach of the peace known to the law, short of treason." It is notable, however, that the penalties are incurred after fair warning, in the form of reading of the proclamation, is given. Furthermore, a distinction is noted that goes some way towards forestalling the Act and relating law being abused by justifying provocation from the forces of law and order themselves:

A matter of interest is the extent of the protection afforded by the Riot Act to soldiers acting under the commands of their officers. The soldier is at the same time a citizen, and the mere fact of his being a soldier is not sufficient to exonerate him from all responsibility. No case in which the question has called for a decision seems to have arisen. It is the opinion of Mr Justice Stephen that a soldier would be protected by orders for which he might reasonably believe his superior officer to have good grounds [...]. On the other hand, he would probably not be protected by an order plainly unnecessary, such as an order to fire into a crowd of women and children when no violence was observable.

This brings to mind the events in Londonderry of 1972 (and the much subsequent inquiry of 1998-2004) notorious as 'Bloody Sunday.' The last point of no violence being observable is largely contradicted by the majority of accounts which concede that British troops had been attacked, if only by a small group of teenagers throwing stones, but the question of whether soldiers had been given an immoral order and whether they bore any responsibility for obeying such an order, was at least (albeit after considerable time, at great expense and to the satisfaction of very few) asked.

FOOTNOTE: More pedantry. Where the word "rout" appears in square brackets above, EB9 printed "riot", but I took it from the later reference to rout and the context being stages that lead to and succeed a riot, that this was a rare error in our noble work of reference. As the word is not being used in this instance in a sense with which I am familiar, and as I am myself fallible, it could be that my correction is itself an error. You have been cautioned.

20. Lines and phrases of marvellous felicity

Two curious Welsh brothers for today : because they don't make 'em like they did in the 17th century.

VAUGHAN, HENRY (1621-1693), called "the Silurist," poet and mystic, was born into an ancient Welsh family settled at Skethiog-on-Usk, in the parish of Llansaintfraed, Brecknockshire, in 1621. From 1632 to 1638 he and his twin brother Thomas were privately educated by the rector of Llangattock, and then they proceeded to Jesus College, Oxford. At what time Henry left the university is not known ; but it was evidently after he had studied for some time in London and had been introduced into the society of men of letters that he printed his first volume, Poems, with the Tenth Satire of Juvenal Englished (1646). Of this publication he was afterwards, very needlessly, ashamed. Vaughan presently became a physician and returned to his native country, first for a while practising in the town of Brecon, and then settling down for the remainder of his life in Skethiog. From this place he sent forth his collection of sacred poems, Silex Scintillans, in 1650, of which a second part appeared in 1655, and the secular poems of his Olor Iscanus, prepared for the press in 1647, and published without his consent by his brother Thomas in 1651. A mystical treatise in prose, The Mount of Olives, followed in 1652, and then two prose translations, Flores Solitudinis, 1654, and Hermetical Physick, 1655. The world took little notice of these performances. In 1678 an Oxford friend collected the miscellaneous verses of Vaughan's middle life in a volume entitled Thalia Rediviva. Henry Vaughan died at Skethiog on 23d April 1693, and lies buried in the churchyard of Llansaintfraed.

As a poet Vaughan comes latest in the so-caled "metaphysical" school of the 17th century. He is the most remote of the disciples of Donne, and follows him mainly as he saw him reflected in George Herbert. He analyses his experiences, amatory and sacred, with excessive ingenuity, striking out, every now and then, through his extreme intensity of feeling and his close though limited observation of nature, lines and phrases of marvellous felicity. He is of imagination all compact, and is happiest when he abandons himself most completely to his vision. His verse is apt to seem crabbed and untunable in comparison with that of Crashaw, and even of Herbert at his best. The Retreat, with its Wordsworthian intimations, The World, mainly because of the magnificence of its opening lines, and, Beyond the Veil are by far the most popular of Vaughan's poems and represent him at his best. His passion for the Usk, and his desire to immortalize that pastoral river, are pathetically prominent in his writings. His metrical ear was not fine, and he affected, almost more than Herbert himself, tortured and tuneless forms of self-invented stanza.

VAUGHAN, THOMAS (1621-1665), "the Rosicrucian," was the twin brother of Henry VAUGHAN (see above). When Thomas left Oxford he went into the church and became rector of his native parish Llansaintfraed until his ejectment, when he settled at Oxford as an alchemist. He died at Albury on 27th February 1665, poisoned by the fumes of a cauldron. Under the pseudonym of Eugenius Philalethes, Thomas Vaughan produced eleven volumes defending and describing the tenets of Rosicrucians. The titles of these - among which are The Man-Mouse, 1650 ; The Second Wash, 1651 ; The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross, 1652 ; Aula Lucis, 1652 ; and Euphrates, 1653 - are not more extraordinary than their style. Henry More the Platonist engaged in controversy with Thomas Vaughan, deep calling unto deep in pamphlets.

You may judge the marvellous felicity of "The World" for yourself, courtesy of www.luminarium.org . It begins

I SAW Eternity the other night,
Like a great ring of pure and endless light,
All calm, as it was bright ;
And round beneath it, Time in hours, days, years
Driv'n by the spheres
Like a vast shadow mov'd ; in which the world
And all her train were hurl'd.

FOOTNOTE: Eagle-eyed pedants will have noticed that I have given Thomas Vaughan's date of death as 1665, rather than the 1666 which all other sources in Interwebshire show. Please be assured that I have transcribed diligently, and 1665 is the date given in the 9th Edition. It seems likely that Britannica was, in this unfortunate instance, in error, but the tantalising possibility remains that EB9 got it right, and that later citings have been perpetuating someone else's error. If any Accordingianists happen to be in the vicinity of Albury any time, could you possibly check the parish records (or gravestone if there is one) and clarify this troublesome matter? A substantial reward is on offer (subject to availability: the alternative being an insubstantial reward).

19. One of the greatest conquerors the world has ever seen

Managed to catch Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan before it closed at our local arts cinema last night. I enjoyed the film, although Mongolian members of the Barleycorn family were less impressed. As the title suggests, the film depicts the early life of the great conqueror, for which the source material is the Mongolian Secret History, a carefully guarded historical tradition, which may well be an accurate record of the facts, but being the sole document relating to the period, that isn't something historically knowable. What is unforgivable about the movie to Mongolian thinking is the reinterpretation of those events. Deep offense was caused in Mongolia when news of the central scene, and the director's invention, depicting the mighty Chinggis locked in a cage for the amusement of passers-by, reduced to catching a live bird and eating it raw. This provoked a similar reaction in my wife to the portrayal in Bill and Ted, of Chinggis as a small Chinese savage, with an uncontrollable lust for women and barbecued chicken.

It's a shame because it seems that the director was really doing his best to make a positive portrayal. It is a constant source of aggrievement that Chinggis is always portrayed by a foreigner, from John Wayne and Omar Sharif in Hollywood versions, to the young Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano in the present case. A big budget Japanese production of the story just a couple of years ago opted understandably to use the language of the cast and crew. Which didn't go down well in the homeland, for numerous reasons, not least being that Chinggis is continually addressed by the Japanese word for leader, which unfortunately sounds a local like the Mongolian word 'zugg-cho' : 'waitress'. My wife may deny it at a future date, but after watching Mongol she had been certain that the lead was Mongolian, so was surprised to learn that this wasn't so, and grudgingly conceded that his mastery of the language for his role was impressive. This is nicely emphasised by a scene towards the end when Chinggis eulogises his mother tongue, and predicts that one day the whole world will understand it. [For a Mongolian perspective on the movie, check out this review from the Asian Gypsy blog, with particular emphasis on the film's skewed portrayal of the shamanistic faith of the Mongols, and also an anecdote about a projected Steven Seagal portrayal of Chinggis that sadly failed to materialise.]

The movie of course strikes a poor note for Mongolians with the "Genghis" choice of spelling. I do not know when the soft g became hard in popular speech, but it's an annoyance to his descendants. A lot of Mongolian words are a struggle for the Western tongue, but Chinggis isn't one of them.

The second volume of EB9 contains the article ASIA, which has a succinct summary of his career and the empire he forged, and opts for a spelling notably close to the native pronunciation.

Chenghiz Khan, a Mongolian chief, having made himself master of Central Asia, established his capital at Karakorum, the precise site of which is doubtful. In 1215 he took possession of Northern China, and then turned westward ; he overran the whole of Turkestan, the countries along the Oxus, Afghanistan, and Persia, and added them to his empire. After his death in 1227, his successors, dividing his kingdom among them, continued their advance against the west.

Later, either due to consensus or personal choice, the spelling shifts, so the great man's full biography is found in volume 13.

JENGHIZ KHAN (1162 - 1227) Mongol emperor, was born in a tent on the banks of the river Onon, in 1162.

There's less about the early days than the movie depicted. Whether this is owing to unfamiliarity with the Secret History or a decision to ignore events less likely to have been fact, I do not know. (Apparently the Secret History was rediscovered some time in the 19th Century, I have not yet found a reference to it in EB9, although I have a dim memory that it is lurking in there somewhere). We do get a neat description of Temuchin(ie the young Jenghiz)'s troubled ascension to the head of his tribe:

The death of [his father] Yesukai, which placed Temuchin, who was then only thirteen years, on the Mongol throne, was the signal also for the dispersal of several tribes whose allegiance the old chieftain had retained by the exercise of an iron rule. When remonstrated with by Temuchin on their desertion of his banner, the rebels replied : "The deepest wells are sometimes dry, and the hardest stones are sometimes broken ; why should we cling to thee?"

Robert K Douglas, the author of this article, does himself no favours with my wife by giving the etymology of Jenghiz as deriving from the Chinese Ching-sze, or "perfect warrior." I am informed that this should be from Tengis, a Mongolian word meaning "ocean". I am not in a position to object that the great empire was otherwise notably lacking in any maritime associations.

Jenghiz' great military successes are given some detail in this article (which I ought inform you at this juncture can be read in full at 1902.encyclopedia.com). Jenghiz' bold and effective approach to international diplomacy can be well judged from the missive he sent to the chinese Kin Emperor, in order to bring to a swifter end a military campaign that was growing tiresome to him.

"All your possessions in Shan-tung and the whole country north of the Yellow river are now mine with the solitary exception of Yenking (the modern Peking). By the decree of heaven you are now as weak as I am strong, but I am willing to retire from my conquests; as a condition of my doing so, however, it will be necessary that you distribute largess to my officers and men to appease their fierce hostility."

These conditions were wisely accepted by the Kin Emperor. Less wisely he moved his capital to further from the Mongolian border as soon as Jenghiz returned to Mongolia, prompting the conqueror, doubtless with a world-weary shake of the head, to "once more [march] his troops into the doomed empire."

Jenghiz' attempts to conduct his business in a peaceful manner would again and again be confounded. The state of things could not have been put plainer to the Persian Shah:

"I send thee greeting; I know thy power and the vast extent of thine empire ; I regard thee as my most cherished son. On my part thou must know that I have conquered China and all the Turkish nations north of it ; thou knowest that my country is a magazine of warriors, a mine of silver, and that I have no need of other lands. I take it that we have an equal interest in encouraging trade between our subjects."

Unfortunately, after initially accepting these overtures, the Persians found themselves on Jenghiz' bad side, as a result of executing two of his emmisaries as spies.

The invading force was in the first instance divided into armies : one commanded by Jenghiz’s second son Jagatai was directed to march against the Kankalis, the northern defenders of the Khuarezm empire; and the other, led by Juji, his eldest son, advanced by way of Sighnak against Jend.

Against this latter force Muhammed led an army of 400,000 men, who after a bloody battle with the invaders were completely routed, leaving it is said 160,000 dead upon the field. With the remnant of his host Muhammed fled to Samarkand.

Meanwhile Jagatai marched down upon the Jaxartes by the pass of Taras and invested Otrar, the offending city. After a siege of five months the citadel was taken by assault, and Inaljuk and his followers were put to the sword. To mark their sense of crime of which it had been the scene, the conquerors leveled the walls with the ground, after having given the city over to pillage.

At the same time a third army besieged and took Khogend on the Jaxartes ; and yet a fourth, led by Jenghiz and his youngest son Tule, advanced in the direction of Bokhara. Tashkend and Nur surrendered on their approach, and after a short siege Bokhara fell into their hands.

On entering the town Jenghiz ascended the steps of the principal mosque, and shouted to his followers, "The hay is cut ; give your horses folder." No second invitation to plunder was needed ; the city was sacked, and the inhabitants either escaped beyond the walls or were compelled to submit to infamies which were worse than death.

As a final act of vengeance the town was fired, and before the last of the Mongols left the district, the great mosque and certain palaces were the only buildings left to mark the spot where the "center of science" once stood.

History, it is said, is somewhat repetitive in nature. The Russians of 1222 ought to be able to confirm this. They may, in their defense, not have been fully up-to-date on news from the east.

[T]hey received envoys from the Mongol camp, whom they barbarously put to death. "You have killed our envoys," was the answer made by the Mongols ; "well, as you wish for war you shall have it. We have done you no harm. God is impartial ; He will decide our quarrel." If the arbitrament was to be thus decided, the Russians must have been grievously in the wrong. In the first battle, on the river Kaleza, they were utterly routed, and fled before the invaders, who after ravaging Great Bulgaria retired gorged with booty, through the country of Saksin, along the river Aktuba, on their way to Mongolia.

After this campaign, Jenghiz headed back to China to mete out some more of his own (clearly expressed) brand of justice. Sadly,

While on this campaign the five planets appeared in a certain conjunction which to the superstitiously minded Mongol chief foretold the evil was awaiting him. With this presentiments strongly impressed upon him he turned his face homewards, and had advanced no farther than the Se-Keang river in Kansuh when he was seized with all illness of which he died a short time afterwards (1227) at his traveling palace at Ha-laou-tu, on the banks of the river Sale in Mongolia.

By the terms on his will Oghotai was appointed his successor, but so essential was it considered to be that his death should remain a secret until Oghobati was proclaimed that, as the funeral procession moved northwards to the great ordu on the banks of the Kerulon, the escort killed every one they met. The body was then carried successively to the ordus of his several wives, and was finally laid to rest in the valley of Keleen.

Thus ended the career of one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever seen. Born and nurtured as the chief of a petty Mongolian tribe, he lived to see his armies victorious from the China Sea to the banks of the Dnieper[.]

With my own domestic harmony in mind, I omit Robert K. Douglas' final remarks on the eventual decline of the Mongolian empire and nation.

Read the original 9th Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica article JENGHIZ KHAN here.

Read the current Britannica Online article GENGHIS KHAN here.