National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

> > > >
Color New!IIIF Color HighRes Gray HighRes PDF   Japanese English
0292 Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 / Page 292 (Grayscale High Resolution Image)

New!Citation Information

doi: 10.20676/00000246
Citation Format: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR Text


276   155. CIN

again mentions «   aé-Sin » in Iv, 254, and «Sin-käiân» in iv, 271-272 (cf. Fe, 455, 673). Now,

«Sin-käiân» is the arabized form of Pers. Gin-kälàn, « Great China », thus synonymous with « Mahâcin », and there is not the slightest doubt that « Gin-k5.1511 » is Canton. The name occurs before Ibn Battûtah in Ra"sidu-'d-Din and in Wa§säf. Ra"sid's passage begins as follows (Bl, II, 493) : « The ninth province (sing; see ' Scieng ') is that of SdrÇKongi (?) which the Tâzik call Gin-käiân ... »; the Tâzik (misread « Tâzi » in Fe, 673) are the Persians. The name I have read « Kangi » with the Vienna ms. is uncertain; other readings are « Liimkäli », « Lûtkâii », « Lûtägaii », 'Kûilki» (adopted by BLOCHET). We should expect the name of Kuang-chou-fu, either as such or under the abbreviated form Kuang-fu. In Ragid's transcription, Kuang-fu would become

,1 *Kônfû or   ç*Kôngfû. The reading ,1i1 Lutägäli of L has a j q which may easily be
corrupt for Lif. On the whole I feel inclined to correct the name to *Kôngfû. This would dispose, however, of the very doubtful hypothesis I have suggested for « Choncha » (q. v.).

Wassâf's passage has suffered at the hands of the translators. In the text (Ha2, Pers. text, 43) it is said that there are in China 400 great towns, the smallest of which is of greater extent than Bagdad or Siräz; among them are « Lûngin-fu (Lung-hsing-fu), Zaitûn and Gin-käiân ». D'OHSSON (II, 418) misread the first name as « Kenkan-fou ». As to HAMMER (Ha2, transi., 43), he jumbled up the first two names into « Lonkin Ferwezetiun » and simply omitted « Cinkälân ».

This name of Canton is also mentioned by Western travellers. It is the « Censcaia » of Odoric ( Wy, 458; var. « Cescalan », « Censscolan »; read « Cencalan » or « Cincalan »). I have little doubt that the « Cincalan » of the Catalan Map comes from Odoric (cf. CORDIER, L'Extrême-Orient dans l'Atlas Catalan, 35). Shortly after Odoric, Marignolli, in enumerating cities of « Manzi, formerly Cyn », speaks of « Cynkalan, i. e. Great India, since kalan is ' great ' » (Wy, 543). Marignolli, for whom Southern China (« Manzi ») is the first of the three Indies, opposes « Cynkalan », which is « Great India », to « Cynkali » of « Mynibar ». « Mynibar » (Malabar; see « Melibar ») is Marignoili's second India, and his « Cynkali » has in fact nothing to do with « in »; nor is it easy to see what Oriental word he is referring to when he says that « kali » means « small » (cf. Y', III, 249; Hobson-Jobson2, 828-829). All these texts provide overwhelming evidence that, in the Mongol period, the name « Great China » specifically referred to Canton, a reversion to the use which obtained in I-ching's time.

The intricacies involved in the name « in » are not brought to a close, however, with « Cin-

käiân ». The case of the sort of brazil-wood called verzino sieni or seni by Pegolotti is still obscure (see « Brazil »). Cin and Mann (« Chin et Machin ») are a designation of Southern China in an unpublished section of the Libellus de notitia orbis, completed in 1402 (cf. A. KERN in Arch. Fratr. Praed., vIII [1938], 89). The double term « Cin and Mâcin » occurs c. 1470 in Nikitin (Y', I, 151). Josafa Barbaro, giving c. 1480 information collected in the Crimea in 1436, speaks of « the Cini and Macini, part of Cataio » and of « all those of the Cini and Macini and of Cataio » (RAMusIo [1559], II, 106); he also says that « Cini and Macini are two very great provinces inhabited by idolators » (cf. Y', I, 269). In 1503, Syrian bishops were ordered to go « to the land of the Indians and the islands of the seas which are between Dabag and Sin and Masin » (Y', I, 127; S. GIAMIL, Genuinae Relationes, Rome, 1902, 8 vo, 558-600).