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
0604 Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 / Page 604 (Grayscale High Resolution Image)

New!Citation Information

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

OCR Text


588   195. ÇAITON

had grown to seven (Yuan tien-chang, ch. 22; YS, 17, 7b; 94, 10b-11b). But there was none at Chang-chou (the text of YS, 94, 10 b, referred to by PHILLIPS in JNCB, 21, 42, and in TP, 1895, 453, is irrelevant). Moreover, the one at Ch'üan-chou enjoyed until 1293 a privileged position : while the duties levied at the six other ports on imported heavy goods were one-fifteenth of their value, they were only one-thirtieth at Ch'üan-chou (for the general rules, cf. HR, 21-22). It looks indeed as though it had been the policy of the Southern Sung to concentrate foreign trade as far

as possible at Ch'üan-chou.   In 1178, for instance, when an embassy came from San-fo-ch'i
(Palembang-Jambi) which the Emperor did not wish to permit to proceed to the Court, orders were issued to receive and treat the envoys at Ch'üan-chou (Sung shih, 489, 6 b). On September 8, 1278, a high-sounding title was bestowed by Qubilai upon the goddess of sailors at Ch'üan-chou (YS, 10, 4a); more epithets were added in 1288, 1299, 1329, 1354 (cf. WANG Hui-tsu2, 2, 5 b).

These facts would suffice, in my opinion, to establish that the great centre for foreign trade in the Middle Ages was not at Chang-chou, but at Ch'üan-chou, and consequently that Ch'üanchou is Zäitûn. But PHILLIPS's other arguments must also be dealt with.

Rasidu-'d-Din (BI, II, 490) has the following paragraph on Fu-chou and Zäitùn in his list of the Chinese provinces (YULE'S translation in Y, II, 239, and Yi, III, 126, based on KLAPROTH'S, is inaccurate; that of Oh, II, 638, is unsatisfactory) : « The seventh sing (see ' Scieng ') [is that of] the city of Fu-ju, [one] of the cities of Manzi (see ' Mangi '). Formerly the [seat of the] sing was there. [Then] it was transferred to Zâitûn; but now it has returned there (i. e. to Fu-)u). » Even from an incomplete translation, YULE had concluded that there was a striking parallelism between what Rand said of Fu-ju and Zâitûn and what PAUTHIER (Pa, 525) had translated from Chinese sources about Fu-chou and Ch'üan-chou. PHILLIPS objected (JNCB, XXIII [1889], 24-27, and TP, 1890, 234) on the ground that Chang-chou had also been, from time to time, the provincial capital of Fu-chien during the Mongol period, so that it may have been Raid's Zâitûn. ARNAIZ'S reply to PHILLIPS (TP, 1911, 686) that the compilation from which PHILLIPS quoted must have mixed up the place-name is not pertinent. Of course — and this ARNAIZ did not notice — PHILLIPS is wrong when he makes a work which is supposed to have been written in 1328 quote from the Yüan shih of 1369, while its real source is a Ming compilation. But the source of that Ming compilation has been correctly reproduced; it is YS, 12, 7a, which says : « In the 20th chih-yuan year, ... the third moon,] ... on [the day] jên-wu (April 26, 1283), the hsüan-wei-ssû of the circuit (tao) of Fu-chien was suppressed; the ' moving Grand Secretariat ' (hsing chung-shu-shêng) was re-established (i A fu li) at Chang-chou. » It must not be forgotten that the « moving Grand Secretariats », hsing chung-shu-shêng, or in an abbreviated form hsing-shêng, of the Yüan period have given their name to the shêng, or « provinces », of later times, and can almost be

equated to the « provinces » themselves (see «Scieng »).   Surprising as the text of the YS may

appear, it seems at first sight difficult to think here of a corrupt reading.   Not only does the

same text occur in the Yüan shih lei-pien, which may merely copy the YS, but PHILLIPS cites another text, the real origin of which I have unfortunately not been able to determine, according to which the « moving shêng of Chang-chou » must have been in existence already in 1280; that would explain how, after a temporary suppression, it came to be « re-established » in 1283. Still

on this point I have certain doubts which will be expressed hereafter.   At any rate, such a