DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0208
King's government is at the town of Mi-mi which is to the west
of Zhe-zhi-ba ( ^ ^ ) and is distant by 12.100 /z from Dai
( ^ ). In the initial year of Zheng-ping, the state dispatched its
envoy to present a black dromedary [to the North Wei]. To the
east of the state there is a mountain called Yu-xi-man ( 4 -4 )
which produces gold, jade and is rich in iron ore." The description
ofMi-miinWeiShu, ch.l02,XiyuZhuan( ^ ^
) is transcribed from the above record of Bei Shi^, thus the
contents of the two are almost identical: but with the exception
that the sentence ".. . is distant by 12.100 A' from Dai" in the
later is taken as "... is distant by 12.600/z from Dai" in the
former. I hold that "12.600/z" of Wei Shu is correct here, and
that the "12.100/z" of Bei Shi are to be probably taken as a
copyist's error. "6" and "1" are written in Chinese as "4" and
", so it is not impossible for one to take " A " for " ^ " if the
former was damaged or indistinct. This problem will be discussed
in detail below.
The name "Mi-mi" only occurs in annals from the time of the
North Wei Dynasty. Although the state still kept a close relation
with China after that time, the transliteration of its name was
changed to "Mi" (jjb), as is seen in Sui Shu, eh. 83, Xiyu Zhuan
( ^ . tg? )- In Bei Shi, Xiyu Zhuan, both the
states of "Mi-mi" and "Mi" were recorded. The former was
probably transcribed from the original of Wei Shu, the latter
deriving from Sui Shu. Li Yan-shou (<^- 14. the author of
Bei Shi, knew little about the geography of the Western Regions.
So he would have no idea that the two names probably referred
to the same place, and so might take them down respectively
from separate sources, thus mistaking a single state as two
district regions. The name of the state is transliterated as "Mi-
2 Bei Shi ( ^b written by Li Yan-sho was transferred
fromWeiShuf ^ t),BeiQiShu(^b ^ ^),ZhouShu(^ t)
and Shui Shu ( 7^ But "Xi Yu Zhuan" ( ^ ) of Wei
Shu was lost later. So some people extracted descriptions relative to the
Northern Wei period to complete Wei Shu, Xiyu Zhuan. When we quote
materials from the work, we must first depend on Bei Shi and then the
proofread Wei Shu: because there is a discrepancy between a few sentences
and words of the two works, which one can make use of in reconstructing
earlier editions.
146
of Zhe-zhi-ba ( ^ ^ ) and is distant by 12.100 /z from Dai
( ^ ). In the initial year of Zheng-ping, the state dispatched its
envoy to present a black dromedary [to the North Wei]. To the
east of the state there is a mountain called Yu-xi-man ( 4 -4 )
which produces gold, jade and is rich in iron ore." The description
ofMi-miinWeiShu, ch.l02,XiyuZhuan( ^ ^
) is transcribed from the above record of Bei Shi^, thus the
contents of the two are almost identical: but with the exception
that the sentence ".. . is distant by 12.100 A' from Dai" in the
later is taken as "... is distant by 12.600/z from Dai" in the
former. I hold that "12.600/z" of Wei Shu is correct here, and
that the "12.100/z" of Bei Shi are to be probably taken as a
copyist's error. "6" and "1" are written in Chinese as "4" and
", so it is not impossible for one to take " A " for " ^ " if the
former was damaged or indistinct. This problem will be discussed
in detail below.
The name "Mi-mi" only occurs in annals from the time of the
North Wei Dynasty. Although the state still kept a close relation
with China after that time, the transliteration of its name was
changed to "Mi" (jjb), as is seen in Sui Shu, eh. 83, Xiyu Zhuan
( ^ . tg? )- In Bei Shi, Xiyu Zhuan, both the
states of "Mi-mi" and "Mi" were recorded. The former was
probably transcribed from the original of Wei Shu, the latter
deriving from Sui Shu. Li Yan-shou (<^- 14. the author of
Bei Shi, knew little about the geography of the Western Regions.
So he would have no idea that the two names probably referred
to the same place, and so might take them down respectively
from separate sources, thus mistaking a single state as two
district regions. The name of the state is transliterated as "Mi-
2 Bei Shi ( ^b written by Li Yan-sho was transferred
fromWeiShuf ^ t),BeiQiShu(^b ^ ^),ZhouShu(^ t)
and Shui Shu ( 7^ But "Xi Yu Zhuan" ( ^ ) of Wei
Shu was lost later. So some people extracted descriptions relative to the
Northern Wei period to complete Wei Shu, Xiyu Zhuan. When we quote
materials from the work, we must first depend on Bei Shi and then the
proofread Wei Shu: because there is a discrepancy between a few sentences
and words of the two works, which one can make use of in reconstructing
earlier editions.
146