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

736   241. GIOGIU

With the exception of MOULE who thought of klif Jlj Chao-chou (TP, 1915, 409), all cornmentators have agreed that « Giogiu » is ( 44{ Cho-chou, and they are certainly right. Polo says that at « Giogiu » the two roads meet, one of them leading to the west, the other to the south-east. The Yung-lo ta-tien (19423, 26 a) speaks of two routes followed by official envoys sent to the south, which branched off at Cho-chou (see « Cacanfu »). It has already been remarked that, if Polo begins the account of his journey to the south (south-south-east) with Cho-chou, it is because he had already described the part common to both roads in the account of his journey to Yün-nan.

Cho-chou is written    Joju in 1812 by the author of the itinerary obtained by « Mir 'Izzet
Ullah » (JRAS, No. xiv, 308), but YULE (Y, II, 11) is mistaken when he thinks that the same spelling is used by Rasidu-'d-Din in a text mentioning the vineyards of « Joju ». I have shown (JA, 1927, II, 261-263) that both mentions of « Jo)u » in the text where Raid praises the vines of that region

(Bl, ii, 463) are altered from   ; Fuju, which the Persian writer gives elsewhere, and apply to
Jl~ Fu-chou, outside the Great Wall. But this does not mean that the name of Joju never appears

in Rasidu-'d-Din. I have no doubt that it is the   Juju or >, Jojiu of Ber, iii, 21, and Bl,
180, 215, since the name of Cho-chou occurs in the parallel text of Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu (ed. WANG Kuo-wei, 53 a; many other names are corrupt in the Mss. or have been wrongly restored by BEREZIN and BLOCHET ; but this is not the place for a critical study of these passages of Rasidu-'dDin).

The forms « Jonju » and « Giongiu » adopted, instead of « Giogiu », in RR and B1 are certainly wrong.

242. GION

geichon R   gyon Z   iou FA

geon TA1   ion F   jon F, FB, L

gion LT, TM, V, VB, Z

Represents J   Jihnn (also vocalized Jäihùn), so that gi- is not here simply = j-; the name

is gi   on = jion, not « Jon » as in Y, Ii, 458, 466, and RR, 424; it may even be that Polo's « Gion »,

like « Gyon » in the letter of Sembat of Febr. 7, 1247, « Gion » in Hethum (Hist. des Crois., Arm.,