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

south of Badaḫšān as Polo says. The bands must have afterwards gone down the valley of the Kabul
river to reach Kashmir, and Dir would have been quite out of their way.
Fra Mauro has a « Paxan », which HALLBERG (pp. 56-57, 398) has not connected with « Pasciai ».
But its vicinity on the map with « Chesmir » leaves no doubt as to the identification. Moreover
« Paxan » is very near Z's « Paxay », a new link between Z and Fra Mauro.


310. PAUCA PAUCA PACAUCA

pacauca pacauca pacauca R pauca pauca pacauca Z

On the strength of « Pacauca pacauca pacauca » in R, YULE (Y, II, 346-347) has corrected the
three words into « Pacauta » and considered certain that it was some form derived from Bhagavat,
« holy », « divine », and has used it in Hobson-Jobson², 654, when discussing the etymology of
«pagoda». In spite of the fact that the Tamil forms put to contribution by YULE for his note on Polo
suppose only «Bagavā» or «Pagavā», which does not account for a final -ta, we might think of some
other forms with t from Bhagavatī, like Pogōdi. But RAMUSIO's form is not altogether convincing.
Although RAMUSIO did not actually use our Ms. Z, his copy was very similar to it, and he has
sometimes corrected it, so that on the whole Z is safer. Of course, a correction of c to t is easy, but the
formula as it stands in Z, with a repetition of one form and then a third mention slightly different,
is so well in agreement with Hindu invocations that it has a good chance of being correct. It is
only strange that it cannot be traced for the present in native sources or in modern usage.
B¹, 307, retains the text of Z, without comment; RR, 429, keeps it too, but adds that it is pro-
bably a corruption of « Bhagava ». My objection is the same as for YULE's « Pacauta ».


311. PAUGHIN

panchi P, VA; G pangui VL pauchin F, FA, FAt, FB
panchin Fr, t, FAr, L paquin, parchin VB paughin Z; R
panchy P pauchi P(?), TA¹ paugin Z
panchym LT pauchim TA² pauian, pauin V
panghi G

The location, one day south of Huai-an, leaves no doubt that 寶應 Pao-ying is meant, but sur-
prise has been expressed at the transcription. Former editors have adopted the « Pauchin » of F;
I think that V's « Pauin » is accidental, but that the « Paughin » of R and Z has every chance of
being correct. Fra Mauro gives also « Paugin » (Zu, 36; HALLBERG, 397-398, where « Patigin »