IIIF Color HighRes
National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
| |||||||||
|
| IIIF Color HighRes |
| Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation Information
228 126. CATAI
the subject, one from Rand himself, the other from Bänàkäti who copied Rand. Raid says :
The country of Hitai is known among the Mongols under the general name of Jâûqût.
Hitai is called in Chinese s,;l;.. Hânzi ... ». Bänâkäti's text reads follows : « The region [of Hïtai] which has almost always been the residence of the kings bears in Chinese the name of
Y Hânzu-cû-bun-qûi, in Mongolian that of `'~%. - Javqut ... ». In the first case,
QUATREMÈRE corrected « Hânzi » to S;,l . Janzi, which he took to be the province of Shan-hsi.
In the second QUATREMÈRE read s,; Sal} « Janzi û Gûn-qui », which he interpreted as « Shan-
hsi and 4' do Chung-kuo (Middle Kingdom) ». D'OHSSON (0h, i, 120) retained « Hänzi », without explaining it. « Hânzi », has passed as « Kansi » into Hist. des Croisades, Arm., ii, 261. QUATREMÈRE was mistaken, and « Hanzi » is absolutely correct. Opposed by Rasid to « Manzi »,
Man-tzû, Southern China (see «Mangi »), it renders al Han-tzû, « Chinese », and we have many
texts showing that «Han» was used in the Mongol period as the official designation of the people of Chinese descent in Northern China, as distinguished from the Ch'i-tan, Jucen and Tangut people on the one hand, and from the « Man » or Southern Chinese on the other. I do not believe either in the correction « Jûn-qûi » == Chung-kuo; the word kuo is always transcribed by Rand with k- (g-), not with q- (see « Caugigu », « Çipingu »). Bänâkäti's text, however, is obviously corrupt. As there is no probability that it could give a name which does not occur
in Rasid's text, I think that his ,S, y,- is merely a wrong duplication, by a copyist, of the
following `-'*V- Javqut. The latter name, said to be Mongolian, is puzzling. As already said by QUATREMÈRE, Rand uses it more than once; it occurs for instance in Bl, ri, 323, 374, 380, 383, generally applied to troops and in contradistinction to the Mongol forces. The natural deduction is that it was the general name in Mongolian for all the people of North China, excepting the Mongols. BLOCHET (Bl, it, 323) says that it is a plural of JE ii chao-hu, « million of families ». The hypothesis is hardly worth refutation; suffice it to say that it is wholly arbitrary, and that a Mongol plural of a transcription of chao-hu would have in principle, c. A. D. 1300, ended in -s and not in -t. D'OHSSON (0h, I, 120) considers « Cauqut » as meaning « country of Chao », adding that the name had probably been borrowed from the Chinese; but he does not explain how -qut can mean « country ». My own view is as follows. Although BLOCHET always writes « Cauqut », Rasid's mss. do not distinguish between - and j-; both sounds, as a rule, are written j-. In the Secret History, there are two forms which might be taken into account. One is Jaqut (or Jayut) occurring twice (§ 281), with the translation « Chin », i. e. Julien. But one does not see why it should be used as a designation of the Northern Chinese, and in a wider sense of all people of Northern China except the Mongols; above all, the first -u-
of « Jâûqût » is missing in Jaqut. The other form is twice transcribed ~'f~i Chao-kuan (§ 251),
and translated Sung (= the Sung dynasty). « Chao-kuan » renders in principle a Mongol
form *Jaugon, and since the Sung Emperors belonged to the Chao family, there can be no doubt that it is their surname which constitutes the first part of the Mongol term. It is more
difficult to be sure of the second. 6 kuan means « official », « mandarin », but ' kuan-chia
was used in China for many centuries as a popular designation of the Emperor (cf. TP, 1921, 326, 328). So it is quite possible that « Chao-kuan » was really used in the sense of « Sung »,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019 National Institute of Informatics and The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.