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

wrongly alleged to say that T'ien-tê is on the Selenga!), BENEDETTO (B¹, 448) still abstains from
any etymology.

The only weak point in KLAPROTH's explanation is that *chün* is no part of Tenduc. T'ien-tê,
in T'ang times, was pronounced *T'ien-tak, which sounded very much like « Tenduc » to foreign
ears. This form was retained in Central Asiatic speech, even after the final -*k* had been dropped
in modern Chinese pronunciation, just as this -*k* has been retained down to the present day in foreign
forms of Su-chou (in Kan-su; see « Succiu »). The name of T'ien-tê-chün was still used officially
under the Chin, and even, according to PALLADIUS, down to Qubilai's time, in 1267 (*Y*, 1, 287;
PALLADIUS does not mention his source, which is not the *pên-chi*, nor *YS*, 58). Although I have
not come across the use of the name in Chinese in any work of the Mongol period, its survival in
foreign speech is very natural. As I said in 1914 (*TP*, 1914, 631), Rašidu-'d-Dīn's كندوك « Kändük »
in his notice of the Öngüt (*Ber*, 1, 115) is most probably a scribe's error for تندك « Tändük ».

Without any doubt, the province of « Tenduc » is the region at the north-eastern corner of
the great bend of the Yellow River then occupied by the Nestorian Öngüt (see « Ung » and « Giorge »).
As to the city of « Tenduc », one may think of Sui-yüan (formerly Kuei-hua-ch'êng, Mong. Kökö-
boto, « Blue Town »), but the probabilities are in favour of 東 勝 Tung-shêng of the Yüan, to-day
Toḥto, on the eastern bank of the Yellow River (cf. *TP*, 1914, 632, 634; *Mo*, 134).

From Ning-hsia to « Tenduc », the maps in YULE and in PENZER make Polo follow the northern
bank of the river. This could only be true if he had travelled by water; and, as a matter of fact,
« water post-stations » (*shui-yi*) had been established between Chung-hsing (= Ning-hsia) and
Tung-shêng in 1267 (*YS*, 6, 5 *a*). But the journey was slow. A land postal road, going direct
from Ning-hsia to Tung-shêng *via* Yü-lin had long been in existence and the ancient names of the
postal stations are shown on a map the original of which goes back to Khitan times. It seems
to me most probable that the three Polos, who were then expected by Qubilai, crossed the great
bend overland.

Polo's confusion between Ong-khan (see « Uncan »), the Christian sovereign of the Kerait,
and the Christian Öngüt princes of « Tenduc » has made him place in the plain of « Tenduc » the
battle between Chinghiz-khan and « Prester John »; but the battle was really fought north of the Gobi,
far from « Tenduc ».

Godinho de EREDIA, writing in 1613, says that the Christians of Tenduc keep and venerate
one of Saint Thomas's slippers (« ...Christandade de S. Thome, de que se acharão reliquias como
hum calçado ou sappatos do ditto apostollo, que os naturaes tem em muyta veneração »; cf. L. JANSSEN,
*Malaca, l'Inde méridionale et le Cathay*, Brussels, 1882, 4to, text, p. 65; transl., p. 75). This is
of course a curious distortion of facts. The name of « Tenduc » is taken from Polo, whom Godinho
often quotes. On the other hand, the early missionaries have mistaken Ta-mo, abbreviated form
of Po-t'i-ta-mo, Bodhidharma, for a transcription of the name of S. Thomas, and the legend of
Bodhidharma's slipper is very popular in China. But Godinho, born at Malacca of a Portuguese
father and the daughter of a king of Macassar, never went to China, and I cannot trace at present
any source prior to 1613 where the confusion between Ta-mo and S. Thomas occurs. Godinho
knew of the travels of Bento de Goes (pp. 76, 79), prior to the publication of RICCI's *Commentaries*
in 1615; but in none of the letters published in 1609-1611 (nor moreover in the *Commentaries*)