- The name here applied to Fo-kien by Polo is variously written as
Choncha, Chonka, Concha, Chouka. It has not been satisfactorily
explained. Klaproth and Neumann refer it to Kiang-Che, of which Fo-kien
at one time of the Mongol rule formed a part. This is the more improbable
as Polo expressly distinguishes this province or kingdom from that which
was under Kinsay, viz. Kiang-Che. Pauthier supposes the word to represent
Kien-Kwe "the Kingdom of Kien," because in the 8th century this
territory had formed a principality of which the seat was at Kien-chau,
now Kien-ning fu. This is not satisfactory either, for no evidence is
adduced that the name continued in use.
One might suppose that Choncha represented T'swan-chau, the Chinese
name of the city of Zayton, or rather of the department attached to it,
written by the French Thsiuan-tcheou, but by Medhurst Chwanchew, were
it not that Polo's practice of writing the term tcheu or chau by giu
is so nearly invariable, and that the soft ch is almost always expressed
in the old texts by the Italian ci (though the Venetian does use the
soft ch).[1]
It is again impossible not to be struck with the resemblance of Chonka
to "CHUNG-KWE" "the Middle Kingdom," though I can suggest no ground for
the application of such a title specially to Fo-kien, except a possible
misapprehension. Chonkwe occurs in the Persian Historia Cathaica
published by Mueller, but is there specially applied to North China. (See
Quat. Rashid., p. lxxxvi.)
The city of course is FU-CHAU. It was visited also by Friar Odoric, who
calls it Fuzo, and it appears in duplicate on the Catalan Map as Fugio
and as Fozo.
I used the preceding words, "the city of course is Fu-chau," in the first
edition. Since then Mr. G. Phillips, of the consular staff in Fo-kien, has
tried to prove that Polo's Fuju is not Fu-chau (Foochow is his
spelling), but T'swan-chau. This view is bound up with another regarding
the identity of Zayton, which will involve lengthy notice under next
chapter; and both views have met with an able advocate in the Rev. Dr. C.
Douglas, of Amoy.[2] I do not in the least accept these views about Fuju.
In considering the objections made to Fu-chau, it must never be forgotten
that, according to the spelling usual with Polo or his scribe, Fuju is not
merely "a name with a great resemblance in sound to Foochow" (as Mr.
Phillips has it); it is Mr. Phillips's word Foochow, just as absolutely
as my word Fu-chau is his word Foochow. (See remarks almost at the end of
the Introductory Essay.) And what has to be proved against me in this
matter is, that when Polo speaks of Fu-chau he does not mean Fu-chau.
It must also be observed that the distances as given by Polo (three days
from Quelinfu to Fuju, five days from Fuju to Zayton) do correspond well
with my interpretations, and do not correspond with the other.
