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
| |||||||||
|
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.2 | |
マルコ=ポーロについての覚書 : vol.2 |
736 241. GIOGIU
chugiu, gogiu TA 3 chugni, cugni, gioghui TA1 chuigian, giugui, gugui V ciugiu Ft, VL (?) cuguy, ginguy FB çingiu, gingui, zinqui VB çonça, çonçu, çuçu Z | enguy FA gigiu Fr gingim, giogin VA gingni FAr gingui FA; R ginugui LTr giogiu F, L | giogu TA3, VL gioguy, guingui LT giugiu, giungiu F gouza R guigui FAt gyougium P |
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.
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.,
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019
National Institute of Informatics(国立情報学研究所)
and
The Toyo Bunko(東洋文庫). All Rights Reserved.
本ウェブサイトに掲載するデジタル文化資源の無断転載は固くお断りいたします。