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

of Pasè is possibly much older than the date at which it first appears in native texts. The practical
equivalence of the two forms would seem to be further illustrated by the fact that the Chinese texts
name, in the beginning of the 15th cent., a king of Samudra (Su-mên-ta-la, Sumundara) Zaynu-'l-
Ābidin (cf. TP, 1933, 275-276; 1934/1935, 293-294, 312-314), almost surely identical with the king
of Pasè whom VALENTIJN mentions at the same time as «Sainalabdin», correctly restored by FERRAND
into Zaynu-'l-'Ābidin (JA, 1918, I, 465). There is nevertheless a difficulty, since VALENTIJN speaks
of a war between the king Zaynu-'l-'Ābidin and Manṣūr-šāh of Malacca, and we know for certain
that Manṣūr-šāh died as late as 1477 (cf. ROUFFAER, in Bijdragen, Vol. 77, 574, 588; on Zaynu-'l-
'Ābidin, cf. also Rapporten v. d. Oudheidk. for 1913, Batavia, 1914, 8). There must have been
at least two kings Zaynu-'l-'Ābidin (cf. also H. K. J. COWAN, Bijdrage tot de Kennis der geschiedenis
van het rijk Samoedra-Pasè, in Tijdschrift v. Ind. Taal-, Land- en Volkenk., Vol. 78 [1938], 204-
214). The duality of names for one and the same country explains also the apparent silence of
Albuquerque and other early Portuguese travellers about the state of Samudra; they speak of it,
but under the name of Pasè (« Pacem »).
We cannot trace the real history of Samudra-Pasè far beyond the date of Polo's visit. The
first mention of Samudra occurs in 1282 (in Chinese texts), and its first Mussulman king died in
1297; it seems that the importance of the place, under this name, dates only from the conversion
of its kings to Islam.


347. TAGACIAR

tagaciar L tagatiar F

Our only source here, F, writes « Tagatiar », an evident clerical error. Polo's form represents
Mo. Tayačar, and is absolutely correct. This Tayačar was one of the principal officers in Persia
before and still more after Aryun's accession (cf. Ha¹, II, 541). Waṣṣāf (Ha², 262) writes طاماجار,
and so it is with Rašīdu-'d-Dīn when he mentions one of the many who have borne that name. In
Bl, II, 236, etc., BLOCHET always transcribes « Toghatchar », and explains it (App., 36, 46) by toγoγan
(> toγōn) + čar, « who resembles a kettle ». But there is no notation of o in the Arabic writing
of the name, and BLOCHET himself mentions that the Chinese transcription is 搭察兒 Ta-ch'a-
êrh. This cannot be for *Toyačar, which would have given *Tōčar. Ta-ch'a-êrh is obviously
Tāčar < Ta'ačar. We have here an example of the double value of -γ- in Mongol writing, which
is either -γ- or -'-; even in the living language, there were some hesitations, perhaps of a dialectal
character; for a similar example with -g- = -g- and -'-, see « Sogatu ». Tayačar is the addressee
of a letter written by Pope Nicholas IV in 1291; although the name is altered in the Pontifical
Registers, its form « Tagharzar » confirms a in the first syllable; cf. CHABOT, Hist. de Mar Jabalaha
III, 247; GOLUBOVICH, Bibliot. bio-bibliogr., II, 474-475. The wrong form « Tughácháŕ » is also
to be corrected in BROWNE, Hist. of Pers. lit., III, 35-39; the Persian form of p. 35 gives in reality