In my paper, I would like to explore the Mongolian literary genre of historical novel in a comparative framework, using the example of Köke Sudur, a well-known Mongolian narrative.
Köke sudur is an abbreviated title of Yeke yüwan ulus-un manduɣsan törü-yin köke sudur （Chin.青史演义, Eng. The Blue Chronicle), a novel by Injannasi (1837–1892), the famed Inner Mongolian novelist and poet.
Injannasi wrote in Mongolian but was under the spell of two literary traditions: Mongolian and Chinese. Two novels, the First Floor （Mong. Nigen davhur asar, Chin. 一层楼） and The Pavilion of Weeping Red（Ulagan-a uhilahu tinghim, Chin.泣红亭）, he wrote under the strong influence of the Chinese novel A Dream of Red Chamber (Chin. 红楼梦). Köke Sudur, on the other hand, wrote under the influence of Mongolian and Chinese literature, most probably such Mongolian chronicles as Lu Altan Tobchi, Erdeni-yin Tobchi, Huriyangui Altan Tobchi, and Altan Khurdun Minggan Hehesutu, the Chinese version of The Secret History of the Mongols (Mong. Mongol-un Nigutsa Tobchiyan, Chin.蒙古秘史), and Continued Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance (Chin. 续资治通鉴长编). Moreover, he enriched certain chapters of Köke Sudur by reading the Manchu-Mongolian translation of the History of the Yuan Dynasty (chin. 元史).
As early as 1943, the German scholar Walther Heissig argued in a paper that Köke Sudur is not a historical work but rather a historical novel. Subsequently, scholars from Mongolia and China have reached a similar consensus. In 1959, in his book One Hundred Works of Mongolian Ancient Literature, Ch. Damdinsüren also stated that Köke Sudur is not a chronicle but a historical novel. He argued that the main character, Genghis Khan, is not a historical figure but an imagined hero created by the author—a hero of the people. Prominent Inner Mongolian scholars such as Zalaga and Bolog[ 宝力高：《长篇历史小说<青史演义>初探》，《内蒙古师大学报》，1983年第二期。] have also held the same view.
Injannasi most probably knew historical novels such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms and historical chronicles, so it would be surprising if he did not distinguish between “historical novel” and “official history.” Even so, he regarded Köke Sudur as a historical work rather than an unofficial history and certainly not as a novel.
Injannasi believed that there is an essential difference between “official historical record” (正传) and “unofficial history” (俾官). He argued that “official historical records” are strictly records of factual events without embellishment or fictional elements and serve as scientific, historical works. In contrast, “unofficial history” adds stories, ornate language, and imaginative content based on minor historical facts to entertain and provide aesthetic value.
He repeatedly emphasized the difference between an “official historical record” and “unofficial history.” In the third chapter of The First Floor, he stated: “Upon careful analysis, it is clear that unofficial history differs from an official historical record. It is often the work of talented literati who display their knowledge or express their emotions.”[ 尹湛纳希：《一层楼》，内蒙古人民出版社，1982年，34页。] (chin.仔细分析便可知，俾官与正传不同，多为有才华的文人墨客展现所学知识或表述情怀之所为)
In the second section of the preface of Köke Sudur, Injannasi, while asserting that his work is an “official historical record,” stated: “If this book were merely a common historical romance, a novel, or a frivolous piece of unofficial history, it would be easier to deal with. One could patch up the incoherent parts based on the context or even resort to imagination and fiction. However, this book is the official history of the Great Yuan”[ 尹湛纳希：《青史演义》，内蒙古人民出版社，1979年，15页。](chin.若此书是一般演义、小说俾官或者浮躁的文章，那还好说，见到欠通之处可依据上下句子加于补丁或凭想象虚构亦可。此书乃大元盛世正史).
The same argument appears multiple times in the preface of Köke Sudur. In Sections 2 and 4, Injannasi continues to emphasize the necessity of distinguishing Köke Sudur, as an “official historical record,” from works of “frivolous literature” and “flowery rhetoric” such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, The Golden Lotus, and the legendary tales from the Han, Jin, Tang, and Song dynasties.
From this, it can be seen that he considered his own writing to be an official historical record. Throughout his discussion, he consistently focused on “historiography” rather than “fiction.” However, the issue is that scholars do not concur with Injannasi’s view. They argue that what he wrote is essentially a historical novel.
I want to discuss the raised issues in the light of comparative studies on fictional and non-fictional literature shaping understanding of history and preserving cultural memory of the chosen society, in this case, of the Mongols.
