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

text as follows : « ...après Cinghis Can fui seignor Cui Can, le tierce Batui Can, le quart Oktai Can,
le quint Mongu Can, le sexme Cublai Can »; and in B¹, 84, he translates accordingly. But « Oktai
Can » is a correction (not a very happy one as to the spelling, since there are very few k in the nomen-
clature adopted from F by BENEDETTO; he ought at least to have written « Octai »). The readings
of the main texts are given above. PAUTHIER, YULE have admitted that « Alton » or « Alacou »
was Hülägü; PENZER (Pe, 189), reading B too quickly, has thought that « Oktai » was the real reading
of F; RR, while keeping « Alton » in their text (p. 83), agree that Hülägü is meant (p. xiv, 411).
I think there can be no doubt on this point. « Alton » of F is for « Alcon », itself altered
from « Aloon », and precisely in Hülägü's name, the « Halaon » or « Haloon » of Hethum is altered
into « Halcon » and « Alcon » in many Mss. (cf. Hist. des Crois., Arm., II, 167-168). Moreover,
in the present passage of Polo, we read « Alau », not Alton, in VB and in the old German trans-
lation. It is true that Hülägü was not Great Khan, but the case is the same with Batu, and BENEDETTO
does not contest « Batui »'s identity with Batu.
One more word on the name. The editors of Hist. des Crois., Arm., II, in an additional note
p. 1035, have supposed that « Haloon » or « Halcon » was altered from « Halaou » or « Haloou »;
but they add themselves that the Latin translation has « Halaonus » or « Haloonus ». The form
with final -n, not -u, is not to be rejected, and falls in with « Alaoni » in the Pontifical letter of 1260-
1261 (though that might be dative of Alao). In Mongolian, Hülä'ün is as correct as Hülä'ü, and
the name is written هولاون Hülāwün by Mufaẓẓal in 1358 (cf. BLOCHET, Hist. des sultans mamlouks,
101-102 du tirage à part). Maqrīzī also writes « Hulaun » once, when quoting a letter from Hülägü
(cf. QUATREMÈRE, Hist. des sultans mamlouks, I, I, 102). Bar Hebraeus (Abu'l-Faraǰ), who writes
« Hulaku » in the first part of his chronicle, misreading Juwaini's « Hülägü », uses « Hulawun »
in the second part, which is really his own work (cf. ABBELOOS and LAMY, Barhebraei Chron. Eccl.,
I, 734).
There is nevertheless a remark which must be made about Polo's list of great khans : several
names in it have a form different from that used in the rest of the book. We cannot say much
about « Cui » for Güyük (Küyük), named only here by Polo (see « Cui »). As the name is followed
by « Can », BENEDETTO (B¹, 442) has supposed an original form « Cuic-Can » (the reverse error has
produced « Tossuc » instead of *Tossu in Plan Carpine and « Mongut Kaan » with t < c, in B, 110).
But we must not forget « Keuchan » in Rubrouck (Wy, 213), « Guio Can » in Hethum (although
there is an isolated « Guiot Can », for *Guioc Can »; cf. Hist. des Crois., Arm., II, 115, 159, 293);
in other words, « Cui » would not necessarily be a copyist's error, and Polo, Rubrouck and Hethum,
having always heard the name followed by « Can », may themselves have thought that it was simply
Küyü and not Küyük. Batu is mentioned elsewhere by Polo as one of the sovereigns of the Golden
Horde, but under the form Patu (miswritten for Batu ?; see « Batu »); in the present paragraph,
all Mss. suppose « Batui », and nothing shows that Polo took the two forms as applying to one and
the same man. The same obtains here with « Alton » (read « Aloon »), which is certainly Hülägü,
but differs from the « Alau » (originally « Ulau ») used everywhere else by Polo; and here again
nothing indicates that Polo felt the two names to be identical. Things look as if this paragraph
was due to a different man, or had been tampered with after Polo had dictated it. But I must be
content with raising a question for which I see no solution at present.