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

back to a fairly early date, and, as I am going to show, the real value of *facfūr* had been forgotten
in the time of Sidi 'Ali Čelebi.

In Polo's text, « facfur » is the designation of the Sung Emperor, and is never referred to
Qubilai; this is once more in agreement with the Mussulman, and particularly the Persian habit
of the time. Qubilai and his successors were known as *qa'an*, not as *faγfūr*, and the title was not
used again when the Mongols were overthrown and replaced by the Ming. Statements of the
15th and the 16th cents. establish that *faγfūr* was then an obsolete term (cf. VAN BERCHEM in *TP*,
1911, 725). An Arabic inscription of Ch'üan-chou affords a decisive confirmation for Polo's use
of « facfur ». Dated 1323, it speaks of events which occurred «in the time of the *faγfūr*», and this
was enough, shortly after Qubilai and Polo, to denote that the text was alluding to the time of the
Sung Emperors (cf. *TP*, 1911, 721).

According to SCHIEFNER, whose theory is ignored by BERNEKER (I, 66) but echoed by LOKOTSCH
(No. 175), Pers. *bāhādur*, « hero », would also represent *faγfūr* or its alleged prototype *bagapuθra*,
through dissimilation. The range of dispersion of the word is enormous, from old Turkish, Mongol,
Manchu (and Chinese) on one side to Slavonian and Hungarian on the other, and also from Persia
to modern India. But its origin is doubtful, it may not be Iranian, and the meanings of *faγfūr*
and *bāhādur* are quite different; the proposed etymology can hardly be retained.

As already stated by YULE, Polo's « Facfur » is in fact a combination of at least three different
Sung Emperors. The one he describes as effeminate is Tu-tsung, born in 1240 (not 1222 as in
GILES, *Biogr. Dict.*, No. 147), who ascended the throne in 1264. It was under his reign that
Qubilai's armies undertook the conquest of the Sung empire by laying siege to Hsiang-yang in
1268, so that Polo's date is for once correct. But Tu-tsung had died in 1274, two years before the
fall of his capital Hang-chou. He was succeeded by his son 趙㬎 Chao Hsien, born in 1270,
who reigned under the regency of the Empress Dowager Hsieh (her true name is 謝道清 Hsieh
Tao-ch'ing; she was not Chao Hsien's real grandmother, but only one of the wives of his grand-
father). It was this Empress Hsieh, not Tu-tsung's widow, who surrendered to Bayan in 1276
together with the infant Emperor Chao Hsien, who never fled « to the islands of the Ocean sea »,
as said by Polo. But there were two half-brothers of Chao Hsien, born of concubines of Tu-tsung,
one slightly older than Chao Hsien and the other younger. The elder one, 趙昰 Chao Shih
(cf. GILES, *Biogr. Dict.*, No. 182), was proclaimed Emperor at Fu-chou on June 14, 1276, but was
soon obliged to take to sea; after two years' wanderings, he died on May 5, 1278, at 岡州 Kang-chou
(now Nao-chou, near the bay of Kuang-chou-wan in Kuang-tung); his followers canonized him as
Tuan-tsung. His younger brother 趙昺 Chao Ping (cf. GILES, *Biogr. Dict.*, No. 177) was set up
in his place. The Sung fleet, carrying the new boy Emperor, was anchored off 厓山 Yai-shan
(south of Hsin-hui in Kuang-tung). On March 19, 1279, after a desperate sea-battle, 陸秀夫
Lu Hsiu-fu, realizing that all hope was forlorn, bade his wife and children throw themselves over
board, and he himself taking the young Emperor on his back plunged into the sea. This was the
end of the Sung dynasty (*Sung shih*, 47, 9-12).

Such is the official and probably accurate version. Yet it was not the one which was current
among the people. Polo believed that the Facfur had gone to the islands of the Ocean. YULE
has also noted, with some surprise, that Rašidu-'d-Dīn, writing more than twenty years after the down-