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

241. GIOGIU

chugiu, gogiu TA³ enguy FA giogu TA², VL
chugni, cugni, gioghui TA¹ gigiu Fr gioguy, guingui LT
chuigian, giugui, gugui V gingim, giogin VA giugiu, giungiu F
ciugiu Ft, VL (?) gingni FAr gouza R
cuguy, ginguy FB gingui FA; R guigui FAт
çingiu, gingui, zinqui VB ginugui LTr gyougium P
çonça, çonçu, çuçu Z giogiu F, L

With the exception of MOULE who thought of 趙州 Chao-chou (TP, 1915, 409), all com-
mentators have agreed that « Giogiu » is 涿州 Cho-chou, and they are certainly right. Polo says
that at « Giogiu » the two roads meet, one of them leading to the west, the other to the south-east.
The Yung-lo ta-tien (19423, 26 a) speaks of two routes followed by official envoys sent to the south,
which branched off at Cho-chou (see « Cacanfu »). It has already been remarked that, if Polo begins
the account of his journey to the south (south-south-east) with Cho-chou, it is because he had already
described the part common to both roads in the account of his journey to Yün-nan.
Cho-chou is written جوجو Joju in 1812 by the author of the itinerary obtained by « Mir 'Izzet
Ullah » (JRAS, No. XIV, 308), but YULE (Y, II, 11) is mistaken when he thinks that the same spelling
is used by Rašidu-'d-Dīn in a text mentioning the vineyards of « Joju ». I have shown (JA, 1927,
II, 261-263) that both mentions of « Joju » in the text where Rašid praises the vines of that region
(Bl, II, 463) are altered from فوجو Fuju, which the Persian writer gives elsewhere, and apply to
撫州 Fu-chou, outside the Great Wall. But this does not mean that the name of Joju never appears
in Rašidu-'d-Dīn. I have no doubt that it is the جوجو Juju or جوجيو Jojiu of Ber, III, 21, and Bl, II,
180, 215, since the name of Cho-chou occurs in the parallel text of Shêng-wu ch'in-chêng lu (ed.
WANG Kuo-wei, 53 a); many other names are corrupt in the Mss. or have been wrongly restored by
BEREZIN and BLOCHET; but this is not the place for a critical study of these passages of Rašidu-'d-
Dīn).
The forms « Jonju » and « Giongiu » adopted, instead of « Giogiu », in RR and B¹ are certainly
wrong.


242. GION

geichon R gyon Z iou FA
geon TA¹ ion F jon F, FB, L
gion LT, TA³, V, VB, Z

Represents جيحون Jīhūn (also vocalized Jāihūn), so that gi- is not here simply = j-; the name
is gi + on = jion, not « Jon » as in Y, II, 458, 466, and RR, 424; it may even be that Polo's « Gion »,
like « Gyon » in the letter of Sembat of Febr. 7, 1247, « Gion » in Hethum (Hist. des Crois., Arm.,