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
0205 Notes on Marco Polo : vol.2
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.2 / Page 205 (Color Image)

New!Citation Information

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

OCR Text


312. PEM


is RUGE'S misreading). In other words, we would have here another example of -g- (-gh- before i not to give J-) used to mark the hiatus stop (see « Coigangiu »).

The hsien of Pao-ying received that name in 676, became a chou in 1227, and almost immediately (?) thereafter was changed into a military area (chün); it is under the name of Pao-ying-chiin that the diarist of 1276 registers his passage there (cf. TP, 1915, 396, 413-414). In 1279, it was raised to An-i-fu, but degraded to Pao-ying-hsien in 1283 (cf. YS, 59, 11 a; TP, 1915, 414; Ta-Ch'ing i-t'ung chih, 66, map, 3 a; text, 2 a). The name used by Polo is thus quite correct for the time when he wrote.

312. PEM

pain, paines, pera FB pein F, Fr, FA, L, V(cor.) peiti, terchin VB

peiu F

pem Ft, FA(?), Z

peym TA1, TAS; R peyn LT, P; G

piem, pien VA pin V

poyn VL

This is certainly the correct form, despite BENEDETTO'S hesitation (B1, 446); we might only suppose that « Pein » of F is Peim > Pei > Pein, and that the « Pem » of Z is this same last form Pein misread *Pem (hence *Pe > Pen in Fra Mauro, Zu, 36; HALLBERG, 409). R has « Peym ». There is no doubt that Polo dictated a form with final -m. « Pem » is Hsüan-tsang's P'i-mo (*P'iei-muâ); this last name has been restored into Bhimâ by Stan. JULIEN, but the p'i of P'i-mo is an ancient aspirate (p'-), and the theoretical reading is *Phema, or possibly *Phima. The « Pim » of the ancient Turkish map mentioned in Y, I, 192, is interesting as a survival, but gives no clue to the proper pronunciation, as Pim can also be read Bim, Pém, Bém. More stress may be laid on the Phye-ma of ancient Tibetan texts referring to the region of Khotan, and F. W. THOMAS is probably right in seeing in that Phye-ma Hsüan-tsang's P'i-mo (Zeitschr. für Buddhismus, September 1924; Notes relating to... Ancient Khotan, p. 2 of the reprint).

« Pem » has been placed by HUNTINGTON at Keriya, by STEIN at Uzun-tati (better Uzun-tatir, « Long Tatir »; tatir means a stretch of hard barren ground), by CHARIGNON at Endereh. But HUNTINGTON'S view belongs to an early stage of the archaeological study of Chinese Turkestan; CHARIGNON'S theory (Ch, I, 104-107) is vitiated from the start because he denies the identity of P'imo and Pem and keeps « Pein » so as to identify it phonetically (!) with the T'ang station of Pohsien. In the present state of our knowledge, the identification of P'i-mo and Pem with Uzuntatir is the only plausible one, and it is at least probable.

I leave aside Abu Dulaf's ,.*U Bahâ, corrected to 3,.., Bimà by the last commentators (cf. Fe, 217-218). The form is uncertain, the location unknown, and the whole account most untrustworthy.