国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

788   293. NAIAN

(Fe, 524). Somewhat older is the mention of « Mutapalay » on the so-called « Cantino » map of 1502 (cf. KAMMERER, La Mer Rouge, II, 391).

It may possibly also be the r !}   Mo-t'ê-pu or Mu-t'ê-pu (_ *Mutepul ?) of an « ancient
Chinese map », as supposed by FUJITA in his commentary on the Tao-i chih-lio (8 b).

YULE is certainly right when he says that Polo called the kingdom of Telingana by the name of the port he touched at. As to the story of the widow who reigned some forty years after the death of her husband, I have to point out that, according to JRAS, 1927, 598, this queen was not the widow, but the daughter of the deceased king.

Nayan (Ch. Jÿ   Nai-yen, Pers. 3l,l; Nayan; means « eighty » in Mongolian) is given by

YULE (Y, I, 334; II, 505) as « the great-great-grandson of Chinghiz's brother Uchegin, called in the Chinese annals Bilgutai », and BENEDETTO (BI, 445) makes him a descendant of another of Chinghizkhan's brothers, Jöêi-gasar. BENEDETTO'S opinion is simply a mistake. As to YULE'S information, it is an arbitrary combination of two apparently conflicting statements, that of YS, 107, 4 b, which

names the « great prince » Jrj   Nai-yen as the son of the prince of VII ÿ Kuang-ning 11.

Kua-tu (read A45Chao-tu, Jautu) and the great-grandson (not great-great-grandson) of Chinghizkhan's half-brother Bälgütäi (cf. also YS, 59, 1 b), and that of the Persian historians, who see in him a descendant of Chinghiz-khan's youngest brother, Tämügä-otcigin (not « uchegin » [= üêügän], as is still said too often). Kuang-ning is to the WSW. of Mukden, N. of j j.1-1 Chin-chou, and there is no doubt that this appanage belonged to Bälgütäi's family, but the « great prince » Nayan of the

genealogical tables ( YS, 107, 4 b) must be the prince Vi   Na-ya (Naya) who was almost induced
to join in Nayan's revolt; Rasidu-'d-Din also employs sometimes l,l; Naya for Nayan, and the two forms seem to be equivalent; there are thus two princes Nayan living at the same time and almost in the same regions. The Nayan who revolted against Qubilai is not named in the genealogical tables perhaps because his name had been suppressed from the Imperial family records after he had been put to death, and it is by mistake that subsequent writers (for instance the Yüan ship hsin-pien, 19, 1 a) have thought he was the Nayan of the lineage of Bälgütäi. HUNG Ch tin and particularly T'u Chi (75, 8 a) have shown that the Chinese texts themselves give strong arguments for placing Nayan among Tämügä-otcigin's descendants, and there is no doubt that the Persian historians are correct on that point. The genealogy of Nayan can almost certainly be fixed as follows : Tämügä-otcingin, Jibügän, Tayacar (> Tâcar), Ajul, Nayan; Nayan was thus a great-great-grandson of Tämügä-otêigin (cf. Bl, II, 94, corrected with T'u Chi, 75, 7 b-8 b); instead of being Qubilai's « uncle », as Polo has it, he was a cousin younger by three generations.