Note {1} — Chapter LI

Note 1.—Before parting with Chinghiz let me point out what has not to my knowledge been suggested before, that the name of “Cambuscan bold” in Chaucer’s tale is only a corruption of the name of Chinghiz. The name of the conqueror appears in Fr. Ricold as Camiuscan, from which the transition to Cambuscan presents no difficulty. Camius was, I suppose, a clerical corruption out of Canjus or Cianjus. In the chronicle of St. Antonino, however, we have him called “Chinghiscan rectius Tamgius Cam” (XIX. c. 8). If this is not merely the usual blunder of t for c, it presents a curious analogy to the form Tankiz Khán always used by Ibn Batuta. I do not know the origin of the latter, unless it was suggested by tankis (Ar.) “Turning upside down.” (See Pereg. Quat., p. 119; I. B. III. 22, etc.)