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

315. PINGIU

pangiu Ft pinçu Z pinguy FA, FB
pigni TA¹ pingiu F piugiu L
pigui Vr, TA¹r pingui Fr, LT, TA¹, V, VB pogui TA³
piguy FA

Although some secondary Mss. lead to « Pigiu », the best, in particular F and Z, have pin-,
and I accept that Polo possibly used « Pingiu »; « Pigiu » would be *Puigiu > Pigiu; Fra Mauro
writes « Pinzu » (cf. Zu, 36; HALLBERG, 409). Nevertheless, I do not doubt that Polo ought to have
called it « Pigiu », and that the Chinese original, as has long been agreed, is 邳 州 P'ei-chou (one
might think of an original *Puigiu, but it would be an unattested dialectical pronunciation, as there
does not seem to have been a labial semi-vowel in the mediaeval pronunciation of that particular
character). But most commentators are mistaken when they identify it with the modern P'ei-
chou, much too far to the north-east, and not on the road which followed what was the course
of the Huang-ho from 1324 to 1853. CHARIGNON (Ch, III, 23-25) says very justly that Polo's P'ei-
chou is the old P'ei-chou, on the northern bank of the old river, at about three-fifths of the
distance between Hsü-chou and Su-ch'ien. The seat of P'ei-chou was only moved north-east in
1689. It is the new P'ei-chou which is wrongly called « Old P'ei-chou » (« Kieou Pi-tcheou », Chiu-
P'ei-chou) on D'ANVILLE's map; but Chinese maps place « Old P'ei-chou » correctly.
P'ei-chou was a chou in the beginning of the T'ang; suppressed later, it was re-established by
the Chin and remained a chou throughout the whole of the Yüan dynasty (YS, 59, 7a).


316. PONTE OF VENESE

ponte de ueniexia V

The name occurs only in V, a 15th cent. Ms. in Venetian, very corrupt, but going back to a
lost original of great value; moreover, the present passage seems to have left traces in RAMUSIO
(cf. B, 4). Although Ponte of Venice has been introduced by BENEDETTO into his text, no informa-
tion is given about him either in RR, 430, nor in B¹, 446. It would be of great importance, however,
to know something of the man, since V says that he was the official representative of Venice (podestà)
at Constantinople when the two elder Polos started for the Crimea; and some details as to his years
of office would help to settle the long-debated problem of the date of departure of the elder Polos.
Unfortunately, I do not know of any list of the Venetian official representatives at Constantinople
in the 13th-14th cents., such as the one which was compiled for those of Genoa.
At any rate, owing to Sir Percival David who kindly provided me with photographs of the pages