National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

238. GEL or CHELAN (< *GIEL or GHELAN)

cechichelam LT geluchelan FB, Z, VL, S gleluchelan FA
cheluchelam Pº, VA gheluchelam P gleuchelan F
chieui e gielau V gheluchelan L jerusalem VB
geluchalat R gieluchelan TA¹, TA²

GHELLA

chella P ghella VA gielie V
gella VL, S ghelle L¹, LT grelle FA
gelle F, L ghellie R guelle FB
ghele TA¹, TA²

All Mss. treat both names as one, and although YULE (Y, I, 52) has translated « Sea of Ghel or
Ghelan », and supposed (Y, I, 58) that Polo had said that the sea was called « La Mer de Ghel ou
(de) Ghelan », the rest of his commentary, in a contradictory way, suggests that the double name
is simply taken over by the traveller from the Persian. « Abulfeda », adds YULE, « uses exactly
Polo's phrase, saying that the districts in question are properly called Kil-o-Kilán, but by the Arabs
Jîl-o-Jilán. » Hence, for instance, « Ghelukelan = Gil-u-Gilān » in RR, 422, and « Gheluchelan »
in B¹, 443.

It is true that there existed a certain number of double names such as Jūj-u-Māj̄ūj, « Gog and
Magog » (q. v.), Čin-u-Mačin, « North China and South China » (see « Cin »), and for instance Steph.
Orbelian uses in Armenian the ready-made « Čin-u-Mačin » in its Persian form (cf. BROSSET, Hist.
de la Siounie, 229). But in such double terms, names are coupled which, although cognate, are
not identical in meaning. The case of Gil and Gilān is quite different, inasmuch as both forms are
strictly synonymous; one is the real name, the other a form derived from an old oblique plural.
YULE is absolutely right in saying that they are in the same relation as Ḥotl and Ḥotlān, Badaḫš
and Badaḫšān, etc. But these two synonymous forms have never been used as a joint expression.
YULE's quotation from Abū-'l-Fidā is misleading. Abū-'l-Fidā, who writes in Arabic, simply
says that the country is called in Persian كيلان Gilān or (؟ wa) كيل Gil », and that these names
become respectively جيلان Jīlān and جيل Jīl in Arabic (cf. REINAUD, Géogr. d'Aboulféda, II,
II, 172); this has nothing to do with a compound name united by a copula (FERRAND is also mis-
leading when, in JA, 1925, II, 112, he attributes to Mas'ūdī, among other names of the Caspian,
that of « mer du Gil ou Gilān »; « ou Gilān » ought to be between brackets, as it is not in the original
Arabic, which only says « Sea of Jīl »).

I have no doubt that Polo spoke as Abū-'l-Fidā, that is to say that he quoted the two alterna-