The Peking version

Published in 1716 in Peking was the Mongolian version of “Geser”. It is headlind: “The story of the merciful wise Geser-khan, the extirpator of the ten evils in the ten contries of the world”.

In 1836 this version was published by academician Ya. I. Schmidt in Petersburg in the Mongolian language and translated by him to German. Y. I. Schmidt’s translation was printed in Petersburg in 1839 and re-published in Berlin in 1925. 

In 1935 academician S. A. Kozin published the Russian translation of this version  accompanying it with an introductory article in which he gave a social analysis of the story of Geser. This is the most well-known version in the scientific circles from among all the Mongolian, Tibetan and  Buryat versions of the Geser story.

S. A. Kozin writes the following concerning the Peking version: “I find it possible just now to put a question whether the Geseriade of the version under study  presents  the Mongol-Tibetan literary monument that emerged in the time of the disturbances and discord in the mongolian - tibetan world  contemporary to the monument (maybe, the XVI-XVII centuries) under the influence of the revolts and wars, and at the same time in the epoch of the highest prosperity of the Mongolian literary activity”.

And at the same time the monument in the Mongolian version seems to have been  formed up on the Mongolian environment which is territorially and culturally most close to Tibet and which has reflected in itself primarily and formost the impact of the satirical genre so widely spread in Tibet.

From this point of view the cycle of Geser might be determined as an allegorical poem- satire, with its point being directed in the side of the dominating classes – the spiritual and secular feudal lords contemporary to the monument .

The Mongolian tradition runs that the “Geser” version published in Peking was written down in approximately 1630 from the five elet storytellers coming from Koko-nor. It is difficult to state whether this information is close to the reality. One can merely state that spread among the Mongols prior to the edition of the Peking version were the manuscripts of the same version because there is a more correct manuscript than the Peking version  among the “Geser” manuscripts kept in the Insitute of the oriental science, the USSR Academy of sciences, of which it will be written below.

The language of the Peking version greatly differs from that of the  classical written language of the Mongols and as it seems to us it is close to the colloquial language of the Koko-nor  oirats. Academician B.Ya. Vladimirtsov wrote concerning the language of the Peking version of the “Geser” story: “This tale … is written with quite a peculiar language which greatly differs from that of the other Mongolian writings edited in Peking in the xylographic form”.

There is an opinion that the Peking version was corrected and edited by one of the spiritual leaders of the Chinese emperor , the reincarnation of the janja-khutukhta, which seems to be rather doubtful as the first jandja-khutukhta Agwan-Choyindon died in 1714, that is two years earlier than the publication of the Peking version, whereas his follower, jandja Rolbi-Dorji was born in 1717, i.e. a year later than the edition of the Peking version.

Most probably that a part of the scholarly members of the collegiums or board working at the translation of the collections of the Buddhist works into Mongolian having taken advantage of the absence of the representatives of the higher clerical authorities after the death of the first of the janja-khutukhtas mentioned above managed to publish the favorite work of their people.

The former researchers of the Mongolian story of Geser thought it impossible to find out its origin and make its scientific analysis prior to clarifying  the issue of the Tibetan Geser story. For example, B. Laufer in 1907 wrote the following of the Mongolian version of the Geser story: 

 “Unfortunately, it (The story of Geser) is not accessible now for the scholarly analysis which would be untimely and prompt  because we are not well acquainted with the big Tibetan epic of Geser”. Now we have at our disposal the three renderings of the Tibetan versions of the Geser story (Potanin, Francke and A. David-Neel) and having got acquainted with a few manuscripts of the Tibetan “Geser” story we can put a question whether the Peking version of the story of Geser is a translation from Tibetan or it is an independent work”.

The comparison of the Peking version with the Tibetan versions reveals a certain similarity in contents. Geser in all the versions quarrels with Tsoton. Geser sets out for a battle to the North and stays there for a few years and at this time the sharaigols capture Geser’s wife, etc. This similarity concerns only the Ist and the Vth chapters. But in the Peking version there is a number of the events that are lacking in the Tibetan chapters. These are the adventures of Geser in the hell or the Underworld, the battle with the mangus who prevented the people from seeing the light of the sun, the slaughter of the black and mottled tiger, the suppression of the 300 robbers, the destruction of the seven evil demon or spirits, etc.

The discrepancies among the Mongolian and Tibetan versions are not limited to merely the general plotline. They are still more pronounced in the style, the manner of the narration. The Mongolian versions are prosaic, sometimes there occurs in them the rhythmic prosaic passages with alliterations. As for the Tibetan versions they are abundant in verses. The story in these versions are usually given in prose  whereas the speech of the personages are in verses. Besides each new personage introduces himself and informs where he is from.    

Such an introduction is compulsory even in the talk of the spouses that characterizes thse words as the compulsory literary device in the Tibetan versions. Maybe, when creating the I and V chapters of the Peking version use was made of the plot of the Tibetan tale of Geser. The rest five chapters are an independent Mongolian composition both in the plotline and the form. All this evidences of the fact that it is incorrect to assume that the Peking version is the translation from the Mongolian language. Probably both the works, the Mongolian and the Tibetan versions, have the common roots.

As for the social character of the Peking version one cannot but agree with the opinion expressed by S.A. Kozin, that the story of Geser is a people’s work , people’s satire aaagainst the civil and clerical feudal authorities. The correctness of such an opinion is well confirmed by the life and activities of the hero of the epic itself.

Geser gets born on the Earth in the time of troubles in order to lead the black-headed. The term хара-тэригуту – “the black-headed” – occurs in many versions as a social term which is used in opposition to the term ундур-сагудалту – “the highly seated” or “those occupying the highest position in a society”. Geser begins his deeds with the struggle with the black raven who pecked out the people’s eyes and the great lama who bit out the children’s tongues. Geser kills both the raven and the lama. After that he makes a sandy desert a blooming place and makes the herds and flocks quite numerous.

Having made his people happy Geser starts the battle with the noble man Tsoton and the mangus. In the talk with the mother Geser says: “If I stay here the noble man Tsoton will kill me, if I go to the mountains the devils will eat me up as they obey the same laws”. Geser wins victory over his enemies: he discrowns Tsoton from his throne and kills the mangus who . Geser defeats his enemies: he destroys the mangus who closed the light of the sun from the people. One of the manguses in the clothes of lama pretending to bless Geser turns him into an ass, but Geser struggles with him and defeats him.

Geser is a great magician performing a lot of fairy-tale deeds, once rising to the sky or descending underneath. But expressed in this fairy-tale form inherent in the peoples of the medieval Orient, on the one hand, were the aspirations and dreams of those peoples and on the other hand the satirical attitude of the people to the feudal lords and lamas.

Most vividly expressed was the ironical attitude to religion and Buddhist clergy in the account of the visit of Geser to the precipice or the hell. The irreverence or disrespect on the part of Geser to religion amounted and reached into doubting the  fairness of the infallible lord of the hell and he revenged on him for his being unjust, he descends into the hell and breaks all on his way, kills the porter and gets the god of the hell so much frightened that he turns into the mouth which Geser beats with no mercy. This episode vividly characterizes the anti-lama’s nature of the epic of Geser.

If we throw away all the fairy-tale elements then the plot line of this version will appear quite plain and serene. Living in the north-west of Tibet in the locality of Amdo were the three tribes of the tusa, donsar and lin. Their chief was Tsoton. He was at war with certain Khu-Bayin from the kin of Lu-dragons, captured his daughter Amurjil. Tsoton gave this woman to his elder brother Sanlun and then drove them away to the northern desert.  

Born in the desert from that woman was Geser. He had the elder brothers Djasa and Ronsa born from another mother. Geser when he grew up deprived the prince Tsoton of his throne and became the khan of the locality. Then Geser sets out for the northern land of manguses and stays there for three years.

In Geser’s absence his motherland is attacked by the sharaigols who killed his brothers and bogatyrs and took away his wife, the beauty Rogmo. The sharaigols came to Geser’s country on the instigation of Tsoton who treacherously helped the sharaigols and deceived his relatives. Tsoton with the help of the sharaigols restored  his power over the country and became a vassal of the sharaigol khan.

Having come home quite unexpectedly Geser heavily punishes Tsoton, brings back from the sharaigols’ camp his wife Rogmo and subdues the sharaigols. Geser has no son, so he adopts an orphan, who is his nephew, his brother Jasa’s  son who was killed by the sharaigols. These are the main lines of the plot of the Peking version without any fantastic features but giving the pictures of the possible events in the life of the people.   

Geser’s motherland and the locality where the military actions take place are indicated quite definitely. In the first song it is said: “At that time the ulus consisted of the three districts – otoks: Tusa, Donsar and Ling. In Tusa the noyon was Sanlun, in Donsar – Tsargin and in Ling - Tsoton”. It’s clear that this is not a  worldwide kingdom or realm, but just the three tribes, each of them has its leader. Where were they situated? There is also an exact answer to this question.

A raven scout says to the sharaigol khan: “I flew in the Tibetan land to the sovereign of the ten countries of the world, the gracious Geser-mergen khan”. Geser having learned of the sharaigol attack comes back from the northern country to Tibet. So Geser’s motherland is really Tibet. From the other chapters it is seen that Geser and discrowned by him Tsoton are not the sovereigns of the whole Tibet. They are the tribal chiefs of some tribes of North-Eastern Nibet inhabiting the localities of Hwang Ho and Kuku-nor.

This follows from, for instance, the reference that the sharaigol, troops attack from the river head of the Hwang Ho river (Mong.: Khatuny gol “the tsarina - river” ), that Geser brother Jasa during the battle with the sharaigols got drowned in the Hwang Ho river, that Jasa’s nomads' camp was located on the Chichirgana river not far from the Hwang Ho river. After being taken away by the sharaigols she goes up on top of a high mountain and sees her motherland the Hwang Ho and Kuku-nor.

She says: “The plate of the blue turquoise: it seems as if it is just full of the blue and turquoise water. This is the Kuku-nor lake. It looks as if the two bogatyrs  raised their sables at each other. Those are the two rocks in riverhead of the Hwang Ho. And what looks like a mark of the arrow and a bow string is the Hwang Ho-river itself ”.

Thus the two countries that are at war are there close to each other. The countries are Tibet and Sharaigol. Geser says to the sharaigols: “What kind of feud was there between Sharaigol and Tibet?” The geographical names that occur in the poem are quite exacting. The Chichirgana river does really flows in the South of the Hwang Hoin the mountains of the Bayin-Khara, there are in the North-Eastern Tibet both the turquoise Kuku-nor lake and the Hwang Ho river.

The exactness of the geographical data metioned in the story suggest that in its basis there is some historical event that took place near the Kuku-nor lake and the Hwang Ho river, in the neighborhood of Amdo. That might have been the war between the tanguts and the sharaigols who until the recent times often unleashed  bloody wars, robbed and killed each other.

Leaping a little ahead I’d like to inform that in the Tibetan versions there is ‘sharaigol’ instead of ‘khor’. The ‘khor’ in Tibetan means: the Mongols, the Tiurks and the Tibetan tribe inhabiting East Tibet. Thus, the country of Khor is not necessarily the country of the sharaigols or Mongolia. It might just as well be some land in the East-Tibetan province Khor-Gantsy inhabited with the khor tribe.