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

shu-shêng, the others the provincial « moving » Chung-shu-shêng (cf. YS, 58, 1). Rašīdu-'d-Dīn
gives a full list of the twelve shêng (šing), and Waṣṣāf also knows this use of شنگ šeng (or šing);
cf. Ha², 43; Y¹, III, 125-129; Bl, II, 484-497; also Abū-'l-Fidā, transl. REINAUD, II, II, 125; Ḥitai-
nāmāh, in Mél. Orientaux published by the Ec. des Langues Orient., 47. Here again, the name
could be used in reference either to the office or to the officer. Rašīdu-'d-Dīn speaks of the officer
of the qaān, entitled šeng, who resides at Zaitūn (see « Çaiton »); cf. ELLIOT, History of India, 1²,
71-72, where « shak » is a misreading for šeng).

Now, if we read Polo's text with some attention, we cannot fail to be struck by the fact that,
although the very words he uses seem to concern only the metropolitan Chung-shu-shêng, much
of his information does in fact refer to the eleven provincial or « moving » Chung-shu-shêng. And
this is confirmed by what Polo says in his paragraph on Yang-chou. We read in F : « En ceste
cité siet un des xii baronz dou grant kaan; car elle est esleue por un des xii sajes ». Yang-chou
was in fact the seat of a shêng during part of Qubilai's reign (see « Yangiu »). YULE (Y, II, 154,
156-157) has supposed that the « sajes » of F and « sieges » of FA etc. were altered from an original
« sing » (= « scieng »). As BENEDETTO says (B, 137), « una de sedibus duodecim » in Z is based
on a reading «sajes» or «sieges», and does not favour YULE's hypothesis. But YULE may be right
nevertheless : an early alteration of «scieng» into « sajes » or «sieges» was easy because «scieng»
was a foreign word, which in the present case might well have been contaminated by the
influence of the preceding « siet ». It is in the same way that we read in Odoric : « Hoc imperium
in XII partes ipse dominus divisit, quelibet quarum signo duodecim nominatur. » Although the
last editor does not comment on this passage (Wy, 476), the text as it stands does not make much
sense. The Mss. give various readings « syno », «singo », « siglo », «strigo», and I agree with YULE's
reading « singo » = sing, i. e. « scieng », shêng (Y¹, II, 231). Moreover, even if « sajes » were to
be retained, there can be no doubt that these twelve « sajes » are the twelve shêng. Former
editors have not called attention to the fact that, in the chapter on the twelve barons of the
« thai » and the twelve barons of the « scieng », Polo makes all of them live at the capital, while
here he says most clearly that the twelve barons live at the seats of the twelve provinces. It
may be that the contradiction is due to Polo himself, but I do not feel confident about it. It is to be
regretted that there is no chapter on the « thai » and « scieng » in Z. In any case, I think that the
notion of the twelve barons of the « scieng » has arisen from the notion of the governors of the twelve « scieng »
or provinces, and that, consequently, we need not torture the Chinese texts to extract from them a
list of twelve members of the metropolitan Chung-shu-shêng.

I have spoken of the twelve « provinces » which are the shêng of Chinese nomenclature, but
they are not Polo's « provinces ». The shêng were regarded by Polo as « kingdoms », at least
when he speaks of those of Manzi, and including that of Yang-chou. The twelve barons of the
« scieng », according to Polo, gave their orders to the « judge » and the « scribes », appointed in
every one of the 34 « provinces ». The « judges » may be the 斷事官 tuan-shih-kuan (Mong.
jarγuči, Turk. yarγuči), who, although in charge of judicial affairs, were dependent on the Chung-
shu-shêng, and not on the Hsing-pu or Board of Justice; their numbers in Qubilai's reign varied
from 13 to 35, 36, and finally 41. As to the «scribes», they may be the bitigači or bičigāči, «writers».
The number of 34 « provinces » is difficult to account for. CORDIER (Y, I, 433) supposed that it