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

804   315. PINGIU

315.  PINGIU

pangiu Ft   pinçu Z   pinguy FA, FB

pigni TA'   pingiu F   piugiu L

pigui Vr, TAIT   pingui Fr, LT, TA', V, VB   pogui TA3

piguy FA

Although some secondary Mss. lead to « Pigiu », the best, in particular F and Z, have pin-, and I accept that Polo possibly used « Pingiu »; « Pigiu » would be *Pigiu > Pigiu; Fra Mauro writes « Pinzu » (cf. Zu, 36; HALLBERG, 409). Nevertheless, I do not doubt that Polo ought to have called it « Pigiu », and that the Chinese original, as has long been agreed, is p5 'J j P'ei-chou (one might think of an original *Puigiu, but it would be an unattested dialectical pronunciation, as there does not seem to have been a labial semi-vowel in the mediaeval pronunciation of that particular character). But most commentators are mistaken when they identify it with the modern P'eichou, much too far to the north-east, and not on the road which followed what was the course of the Huang-ho from 1324 to 1853. CHARIGNON (Ch, III, 23-25) says very justly that Polo's P'eichou is the old P'ei-chou, on the northern bank of the old river, at about three-fifths of the distance between Hsü-chou and Su-ch'ien. The seat of P'ei-chou was only moved north-east in 1689. It is the new P'ei-chou which is wrongly called « Old P'ei-chou » (« Kieou Pi-tcheou », ChiuP'ei-chou) on n'ANVILLE's map; but Chinese maps place « Old P'ei-chou » correctly.

P'ei-chou was a chou in the beginning of the T'ang; suppressed later, it was re-established by the Chin and remained a chou throughout the whole of the Yüan dynasty (YS, 59, 7a).

316.  PONTE OF VENESE

ponte de ueniexia V

The name occurs only in V, a 15th cent. Ms. in Venetian, very corrupt, but going back to a lost original of great value; moreover, the present passage seems to have left traces in RAMUSIO (cf. B, 4). Although Ponte of Venice has been introduced by BENEDETTO into his text, no information is given about him either in RR, 430, nor in BI, 446. It would be of great importance, however, to know something of the man, since V says that he was the official representative of Venice (podestd) at Constantinople when the two elder Polos started for the Crimea; and some details as to his years of office would help to settle the long-debated problem of the date of departure of the elder Polos. Unfortunately, I do not know of any list of the Venetian official representatives at Constantinople in the 13th-14th cents., such as the one which was compiled for those of Genoa.

At any rate, owing to Sir Percival David who kindly provided me with photographs of the pages