Hubbry Logo
CathayCathayMain
Open search
Cathay
Community hub
Cathay
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cathay
Cathay
from Wikipedia

Empire of the Great Khan (Catayo for Cathay) according to the Catalan Atlas (1375, rotated 180°). Xinjiang with its caravan of traders appears in the bottom right corner, while the Pacific coast runs along the top-left corner. Kublai Khan is seen enthroned. A flag with three red crescent moons () appears on all the territory.[1][2]

Cathay (/kæˈθ/ ka-THAY) is a historical name for China that was used in Europe. During the early modern period, the term Cathay initially evolved as a term referring to what is now Northern China, completely separate and distinct from China, which was a reference to southern China. As knowledge of East Asia increased, Cathay came to be seen as the same polity as China as a whole. The term Cathay became a poetic name for China.

The name Cathay originates from the term Khitan[3] (Chinese: 契丹; pinyin: Qìdān), a nomadic people who ruled the Liao dynasty in northern China from 916 to 1125, and who later migrated west after they were overthrown by the Jin dynasty to form the Qara Khitai (Western Liao dynasty) for another century thereafter. Originally, this name was the name applied by Central and Western Asians and Europeans to northern China; the name was also used in Marco Polo's book on his travels in Yuan dynasty China (he referred to southern China as Mangi). Odoric of Pordenone (d. 1331) also writes about Cathay and the Khan in his travelbooks from his journey before 1331, perhaps 1321–1330.

History

[edit]
"Chataio" on Fra Mauro map, c. 1450 (South is up.)
On this 1570 map by Abraham Ortelius, Cataio is located inland of China (referring to today's Guangdong) and Chequan (Zhejiang), and borders on "Thebet" in the southwest and "Camul" in the west. There is also Mangi (between "Cataio" and Xanton (Shandong)). The objects in "Cataio" are based on Marco Polo's description and include the capital Cambalu, Xandu, and a marble bridge.

The term Cathay came from the name for the Khitans. A form of the name Cathai is attested in a Uyghur Manichaean document describing the external people circa 1000.[4] The Khitans refer to themselves as Qidan (Khitan small script: ; Chinese: 契丹), but in the language of the ancient Uyghurs the final -n or -ń became -y, and this form may have been the source of the name Khitai for later Muslim writers.[5] This version of the name was then introduced to medieval and early modern Europe via Muslim and Russian sources.[6]

The Khitans were known to Muslim Central Asia: in 1026, the Ghaznavid court (in Ghazna, in today's Afghanistan) was visited by envoys from the Liao ruler, he was described as a "Qatā Khan", i.e. the ruler of Qatā; Qatā or Qitā appears in writings of al-Biruni and Abu Said Gardezi in the following decades.[4] The Persian scholar and administrator Nizam al-Mulk (1018–1092) mentions Khita and China in his Book on the Administration of the State, apparently as two separate countries[4] (presumably, referring to the Liao and Song Empires, respectively).

The name's currency in the Muslim world survived the replacement of the Khitan Liao dynasty with the Jurchen Jin dynasty in the early 12th century. When describing the fall of the Jin Empire to the Mongols (1234), Persian history described the conquered country as Khitāy or Djerdaj Khitāy (i.e., "Jurchen Cathay").[4] The Mongols themselves, in their Secret History (13th century) talk of both Khitans and Kara-Khitans.[4]

In about 1340 Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, a merchant from Florence, compiled the Pratica della mercatura, a guide about trade in China, a country he called Cathay, noting the size of Khanbaliq (modern Beijing) and how merchants could exchange silver for Chinese paper money that could be used to buy luxury items such as silk.[7][8]

Words related to Khitay are still used in many Turkic and Slavic languages to refer to China. The ethnonym derived from Khitay in the Uyghur language for Han Chinese is considered pejorative by both its users and its referents, and the PRC authorities have attempted to ban its use.[6] The term also strongly connotes Uyghur nationalism.[9]

Cathay and Mangi

[edit]

As European and Arab travelers started reaching the Mongol Empire, they described the Mongol-controlled Northern China as Cathay in a number of spelling variants. The name occurs in the writings of Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (c. 1180–1252) (as Kitaia), and William of Rubruck (c. 1220–c. 1293) (as Cataya or Cathaia).[10] Travels in the Land of Kublai Khan by Marco Polo has a story called "The Road to Cathay". Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, ibn Battuta, and Marco Polo all referred to Northern China as Cathay, while Southern China, ruled by the Song dynasty, was Mangi, Manzi, Chin, or Sin.[10] The word Manzi (蠻子) or Mangi is a derogatory term in Chinese meaning "barbarians of the south" (Man was used to describe unsinicised Southern China in its earlier periods), and would therefore not have been used by the Chinese to describe themselves or their own country, but it was adopted by the Mongols to describe the people and country of Southern China.[11][12] The name for South China commonly used on Western medieval maps was Mangi, a term still used in maps in the 16th century.[13]

Identifying China as Cathay

[edit]

The division of China into northern and southern parts ruled by, in succession, the Liao, Jin and Yuan dynasties in the north, and the Song dynasty in the south, ended in the late 13th century with the conquest of southern China by the Yuan dynasty.

While Central Asia had long known China under names similar to Cathay, that country was known to the peoples of Southeast Asia and India under names similar to China (cf. e.g. Cina in modern Malay). Meanwhile, in China itself, people usually referred to the realm in which they lived on the name of the ruling dynasty, e.g. Da Ming Guo ("Great Ming state") and Da Qing Guo ("Great Qing state"), or as Zhongguo (中國, lit. Middle Kingdom or Central State); see also Names of China for details.

When the Portuguese reached Southeast Asia (Afonso de Albuquerque conquering Malacca in 1511) and the southern coast of China (Jorge Álvares reaching the Pearl River estuary in 1513), they started calling the country by the name used in South and Southeast Asia.[14] It was not immediately clear to the Europeans whether this China is the same country as Cathay known from Marco Polo. Therefore, it would not be uncommon for 16th-century maps to apply the label China just to the coastal region already well known to the Europeans (e.g., just Guangdong on Abraham Ortelius' 1570 map), and to place the mysterious Cathay somewhere inland.

Gerardus Mercator's placing of the "Kingdom of Cathay" (Cathay Reg.) on the Pacific Coast north-east of China remained typical for a number of maps published in the decades to follow (originally published 1595)

It was a small group of Jesuits, led by Matteo Ricci who, being able both to travel throughout China and to read, learned about the country from Chinese books and from conversation with people of all walks of life. During his first fifteen years in China (1583–1598) Matteo Ricci formed a strong suspicion that Marco Polo's Cathay is simply the Tatar (i.e., Mongol) name for the country he was in, i.e. China. Ricci supported his arguments by numerous correspondences between Marco Polo's accounts and his own observations:

  • The River "Yangtze" divides the empire into two halves, with nine provinces ("kingdoms") south of the river and six to the north;
  • Marco Polo's "Cathay" was just south of "Tartary", and Ricci learned that there was no other country between the Ming Empire and "Tartary" (i.e., the lands of Mongols and Manchus).
  • People in China had not heard of any place called "Cathay".

Most importantly, when the Jesuits first arrived to Beijing 1598, they also met a number of "Mohammedans" or "Arabian Turks" – visitors or immigrants from the Muslim countries to the west of China, who told Ricci that now they were living in the Great Cathay. This all made them quite convinced that Cathay was indeed China.[15]

China-based Jesuits promptly informed their colleagues in Goa (Portuguese India) and Europe about their discovery of the Cathay–China identity. This was stated e.g. in a 1602 letter of Ricci's comrade Diego de Pantoja, which was published in Europe along with other Jesuits' letters in 1605.[16] The Jesuits in India, however, were not convinced, because, according to their informants (merchants who visited the Mughal capitals Agra and Lahore), Cathay – a country that could be reached via Kashgar – had a large Christian population, while the Jesuits in China had not found any Christians there.[17][18]

A typical early 17th-century depiction of "Cataia" as China's northeastern neighbour, Jodocus Hondius, 1610

In retrospect, the Central Asian Muslim informants' idea of the Ming China being a heavily Christian country may be explained by numerous similarities between Christian and Buddhist ecclesiastical rituals – from having sumptuous statuary and ecclesiastical robes to Gregorian chant – which would make the two religions appear externally similar to a Muslim merchant.[19] This may also have been the genesis of the Prester John myth.

To resolve the ChinaCathay controversy, the India Jesuits sent a Portuguese lay brother, Bento de Góis, on an overland expedition north and east, with the goal of reaching Cathay and finding out once and for all whether it is China or some other country. Góis spent almost three years (1603–1605) crossing Afghanistan, Badakhshan, Kashgaria, and Kingdom of Cialis with Muslim trade caravans. In 1605, in Cialis, he, too, became convinced that his destination is China, as he met the members of a caravan returning from Beijing to Kashgar, who told them about staying in the same Beijing inn with Portuguese Jesuits. (In fact, those were the same very "Saracens" who had, a few months earlier, confirmed it to Ricci that they were in "Cathay"). De Góis died in Suzhou, Gansu – the first Ming China city he reached – while waiting for an entry permit to proceed toward Beijing; but, in the words of Henry Yule, it was his expedition that made "Cathay... finally disappear from view, leaving China only in the mouths and minds of men".[20]

Not convinced by the Jesuits, John Speed in 1626 follows Jodocus Hondius' layout: He shows the chain of Silk Road cities visited by de Góis (Cuchia, Chialis, Turfan, Camul) – but has it directed not toward China's Shaanxi Sancii, as shown by de Góis, but toward the mysterious "Cathaya, the Chief Kingdome of Great Cam", northeast of China. Naturally, Cambalu and Xandu are shown in Cathay, while Shuntien (Beijing) is in China.

Ricci's and de Gois' conclusion was not, however, completely convincing for everybody in Europe yet. Samuel Purchas, who in 1625 published an English translation of Pantoja's letter and Ricci's account, thought that perhaps Cathay still can be found somewhere north of China.[18] In this period, many cartographers were placing Cathay on the Pacific coast, north of Beijing (Pekin) which was already well known to Europeans. The borders drawn on some of these maps would first make Cathay the northeastern section of China (e.g. 1595 map by Gerardus Mercator), or, later, a region separated by China by the Great Wall and possibly some mountains and/or wilderness (as in a 1610 map by Jodocus Hondius, or a 1626 map by John Speed). J. J. L. Duyvendak hypothesized that it was the ignorance of the fact that "China" is the mighty "Cathay" of Marco Polo that allowed the Dutch governor of East Indies Jan Pieterszoon Coen to embark on an "unfortunate" (for the Dutch) policy of treating the Ming Empire as "merely another 'oriental' kingdom".[21]

Cathay is finally gone: This 1689 map by Giacomo Cantelli da Vignola from Modena identifies it (and Mangi) with China.

The last nail into the coffin of the idea of there being a Cathay as a country separate from China was, perhaps, driven in 1654, when the Dutch Orientalist Jacobus Golius met with the China-based Jesuit Martino Martini, who was passing through Leyden. Golius knew no Chinese, but he was familiar with Zij-i Ilkhani, a work by the Persian astronomer Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, completed in 1272, in which he described the Chinese ("Cathayan") calendar.[22] Upon meeting Martini, Golius started reciting the names of the 12 divisions into which, according to Nasir al-Din, the "Cathayans" were dividing the day – and Martini, who of course knew no Persian, was able to continue the list. The names of the 24 solar terms matched as well. The story, soon published by Martini in the "Additamentum" to his Atlas of China, seemed to have finally convinced most European scholars that China and Cathay were the same.[18]

Even then, some people still viewed Cathay as distinct from China, as did John Milton in the 11th Book of his Paradise Lost (1667).[23]

In 1939, Hisao Migo (Japanese: 御江久夫, a Japanese botanist[24][25]) published a paper describing Iris cathayensis (meaning "Chinese iris") in the Journal of the Shanghai Science Institute.[26]

Etymological progression

[edit]

Below is the etymological progression from "Khitan" to Cathay as the word travelled westward:

  • Classical Mongolian: ᠬᠢᠲᠠᠳ Qitad (cf. modern Mongolian Хятад Khyatad)
  • Uyghur: خىتاي (Xitay)
  • Persian: ختای (khatāy)
  • Kyrgyz: Кытай (Kytai)
  • Kazakh: قىتاي, Қытай, Qıtay
  • Uzbek: Хитой (Xitoy)
  • Kazan Tatar: Кытай (Qıtay)
  • Russian: Китай (Kitay)
  • Ukrainian: Китай (Kytaj)
  • Belarusian: Кітай (Kitaj)
  • Bulgarian: Китай (Kitay)
  • Georgian: ხატაეთი (Khataeti) (archaic or obsolete)
  • Polish: Kitaj
  • Slovenian: Kitaj (Китаj)
  • Croatian: Kitaj
  • Medieval Latin: Cataya, Kitai
  • Italian: Catai
  • Spanish: Catay
  • Portuguese: Cataio or Catai
  • French, English, German, Dutch, Scandinavian:[citation needed] Cathay

In many Turkic and Slavic languages a form of "Cathay" (e.g., Russian: Китай, Kitay) remains the usual modern name for China. In Javanese, the word ꦏꦠꦻ (Katai, Katé) exists,[27] and it refers to "East Asian", literally meaning "dwarf" or "short-legged" in today's language.[citation needed]

In Uyghur, the word "Xitay (Hitay)" is used as a derogatory term for Ethnic Han Chinese.[28]

Use in English

[edit]

In the English language, the word Cathay was sometimes used for China, although increasingly only in a poetic sense, until the 19th century, when it was completely replaced by China. Demonyms for the people of Cathay (i.e., Chinese people) were Cathayan and Cataian. The terms China and Cathay have histories of approximately equal length in English. Cathay is still used poetically. The Hong Kong flag-bearing airline is named Cathay Pacific. One of the largest commercial banks of Taiwan is named Cathay United Bank.

The novel Creation by Gore Vidal uses the name in reference to "those states between the Yangtze and the Yellow Rivers" as the novel is set in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. Ezra Pound's Cathay (1915) is a collection of classical Chinese poems translated freely into English verse.

In Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age stories (including the tales of Conan the Barbarian), the analog of China is called Khitai.

In Warhammer Fantasy, a fantastical reimagination of the world used as a setting for various novels and games produced by Games Workshop, Grand Cathay is the largest human empire, situated in the far east of the setting and based on medieval China.[29]

In the names of organized entities

[edit]

Cathay is more prevalent in proper terms, such as in Cathay Pacific Airways or Cathay Hotel.

Cathay Bank is a bank with multiple branches throughout the United States and other countries.

Cathay Cineplexes was a cinema operator in Singapore operated by mm2 Asia, acquired from the Cathay Organisation. It ceased operations as of 1 September 2025, undergoing voluntary liquidation after months of financial troubles.[30]

Cathay United Bank and Cathay Life Insurance are, respectively, a financial services company and an insurance company, both located in Taiwan.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Cathay was the medieval and early modern European name for , specifically denoting the northern regions under non-Han rule, originating from the who established the in 916 CE. The term entered European languages via Central Asian intermediaries as Khitai or Khitay, reflecting the Liao's control over and surrounding territories before their conquest by the Jurchens in 1125. Popularized in the West through Marco Polo's Travels, which described Cathay as the prosperous domain of and the Mongol , the name evoked images of a vast, advanced empire accessible via the . Europeans initially distinguished Cathay—the Mongol north—from Mangi, the southern territories of the , perceiving them as separate polities until Jesuit missionaries in the clarified their unity under Ming rule. The appellation persisted in European maps and literature into the , symbolizing exotic wealth and imperial grandeur, though it gradually yielded to "" derived from the as direct trade and diplomacy increased.

Etymology

Origins in Khitan

The name "Cathay" originates from "Khitay," the term used by neighboring Turkic, Mongolic, and Persian peoples to refer to the Khitan (Chinese: Qidan), a seminomadic group that founded the in 916 CE. The Khitans, emerging from regions in eastern and , unified under leader Yelü Abaoji, who proclaimed himself emperor and established imperial rule over northern , parts of , and adjacent territories, maintaining control until the dynasty's conquest by the Jurchens in 1125 CE. This designation "Khitay" specifically denoted the Liao realm's northern domains, distinguishing it from southern Chinese polities, and was propagated westward through overland Silk Road trade and diplomatic exchanges among Central Asian nomads and Muslim geographers. In Persian sources, such as those documenting interactions with Khitan successors like the Qara Khitay in Central Asia during the 12th century, "Khitay" consistently referenced the original northern Chinese heartland of the Liao. Mongol chronicles further corroborate this usage, with "Khitad" applied to the Khitan lands and peoples incorporated into the after the Liao's fall, emphasizing the term's association with the specific geographic and ethnic entity of northern rather than the broader Han-dominated .

Linguistic Transmission and Variations

The name "Khitay," originating in Mongol and Persian contexts to refer to territories linked to the Khitan , spread westward primarily through overland trade networks and Mongol diplomatic channels, adapting phonetically across languages. In Persian sources, it retained a form close to "Khitāy," as evidenced in historical compilations reflecting Ilkhanid-era knowledge of eastern regions. Arabic intermediaries rendered it as "Qitāy," substituting the guttural /kh/ with /q/ typical of Arabic phonology, a shift observable in medieval Islamic geographical texts compiling data from Central Asian informants. This adaptation facilitated transmission to via Muslim merchants along the , where the term entered Latin as "Cataya" or "Cathaya" by the mid-13th century, with orthographic variations preserving the aspirated initial and final vowel. European vernaculars further diversified the term: Italian texts employed "Catai," simplifying the Latin form by eliding the 'ya' ending, while Russian adopted "Kitai" through direct frontier interactions with Mongol-influenced northern territories, bypassing some intermediary shifts. These variations arose from causal phonetic constraints—such as ' preference for intervocalic /t/ over fricatives and Slavic retention of /k/—rather than deliberate standardization, as and reports circulated without unified until printed maps in the . The process remained distinct from maritime-derived names like "," which stemmed from transliterations via southern routes, underscoring how linguistic paths mirrored geographic vectors of contact.

Historical Scope

Association with Northern China and Liao Dynasty

The term Cathay originated as a European rendering of Khitan (Qidan in Chinese), denoting the territories controlled by the during the (907–1125 CE), which spanned modern-day , the eastern , and the northern plains of including parts of and provinces. This region, characterized by steppe grasslands and forested highlands, contrasted sharply with the agrarian heartlands further south, under the contemporaneous (960–1279 CE), emphasizing a political and cultural divide rather than a unified imperial entity. The Khitan, originating as semi-nomadic pastoralists of proto-Mongolic stock from southeastern and northeastern , consolidated power under Yelü (Emperor Taizu, r. 907–926 CE), who proclaimed the Liao empire after unifying disparate tribes and subjugating Tangut and other neighboring groups. Liao administration divided the realm into five capitals, with the Supreme Capital (modern Balin Zuoqi, ) serving as the Khitan political core amid hybrid governance blending tribal hierarchies with adopted Chinese bureaucratic elements. Territorial extent peaked around 983 CE under Emperor Shengzong (r. 982–1031 CE), incorporating buffer zones against Korean kingdoms to the east and the Xi Xia state to the west, totaling approximately 2.5 million square kilometers. Archaeological evidence from Liao-period sites, including royal tombs at Qing State (near , ) and elite burials in present-day province, attests to Khitan dominance through artifacts like bronze saddles, lacquered coffins, and murals depicting mounted warriors in fur-trimmed attire alongside Confucian ritual scenes, illustrating a synthesis of Turkic-Mongolic nomadic traditions and sedentary Chinese influences. Inscriptions on stone stelae, such as those commemorating imperial hunts and alliances, further document this cultural hybridity, with bilingual Khitan and Chinese scripts evidencing linguistic adaptation without full assimilation into Han norms. Geopolitically, the Liao's role as a northern power persisted in the Cathay designation due to its function as a buffer impeding Song expansion northward; recurrent border skirmishes culminated in the 1004–1005 CE campaign, where Liao forces advanced to the before negotiating the Treaty of Chanyuan (1005 CE), securing annual Song tribute of 200,000 taels of silver and 300,000 bolts of in exchange for peace. This arrangement underscored the Liao's non-Han identity and strategic separation from southern dynasties, preserving Cathay as a term for the Khitan-held north until Jurchen conquest in 1125 CE fragmented the realm.

Under Mongol Rule and Jin Dynasty

The Jurchen Jin dynasty (1115–1234 CE), after overthrowing the Khitan Liao dynasty in 1125 CE, governed northern China, encompassing the territories historically linked to the Cathay designation derived from Khitan rule. The Jin regime positioned itself as the legitimate continuation of the northern imperial tradition, maintaining administrative structures and cultural elements from the Liao while integrating Jurchen tribal governance with Han Chinese bureaucracy in the region. This continuity reinforced the northern area's distinct identity amid ongoing conflicts with the southern Song dynasty, which claimed legitimacy over a more southern-centric "China" concept. The Mongol conquest of the Jin culminated in 1234 CE, when Mongol forces under captured the Jin capital of Caizhou, fully incorporating northern China into the expanding . Despite the fall of the Jin, the retained regional designations, referring to the conquered northern territories and their populations—often including assimilated Khitan and Jurchen elements—as Khitay in administrative and diplomatic contexts, preserving the pre-existing northern nomenclature. Under the (1271–1368 CE), proclaimed by , the northern regions formerly under Jin control formed the core of initial Mongol administration in , with a clear divide maintained from the unconquered southern territories until their submission in 1279 CE. Yuan records and associated chronicles, such as those compiled in Persian under Mongol patronage, continued to employ "Khitay" to denote this northern domain, emphasizing its role as the empire's eastern frontier integrated into transcontinental trade networks. Economic policies prioritized the north's position along revived routes, facilitating overland commerce with and , while censuses like the 1290 registration documented approximately 59 million households empire-wide, with northern provinces showing depopulation from prior wars but serving as key agricultural and military bases. This administrative emphasis on the north as a distinct unit underscored the persistence of Cathay's geographical and cultural connotation through successive conquests.

Distinctions from Other Terms for China

Cathay versus Mangi

Cathay primarily denoted the northern territories of China, encompassing regions under the influence of the Liao, Jin, and later Mongol Yuan dynasties, as known to overland travelers from Central Asia and Europe. In contrast, Mangi referred to the southern regions, specifically the lands of the Southern Song dynasty south of the Yangtze River, which were characterized by their maritime orientation and Han Chinese governance prior to Mongol conquest. This division reflected the incomplete unification of Chinese territories during the 13th century, with the Yuan dynasty under Kublai Khan exerting control over both but maintaining administrative distinctions that Europeans adopted in their nomenclature. The term Mangi originated from the Mongol designation "Manzi," a derogatory label meaning "southern barbarians," applied to the ethnic Han populations of the Southern who resisted Mongol incursions until their defeat in 1279. , in his account Il Milione (c. 1298), explicitly delineated this boundary, portraying Cathay as the Mongol heartland with its grand cities like Khanbaliq (modern ) and Mangi as the subdued southern realm with ports such as Quinsay (modern ), emphasizing the former's nomadic imperial structure versus the latter's sedentary, commercial prosperity. Polo's itinerary, which traversed northern routes before descending southward, aligned with Yuan administrative maps that separated the northern Kitai from the southern Manzi provinces, underscoring how direct observation reinforced the perceptual split. The persistence of separate designations stemmed from divergent European access routes: overland expeditions, like those of the Polos in the 1270s, yielded detailed knowledge of Cathay's inland empires but limited insight into the south, while maritime voyages—initially Arab-mediated and later from the —prioritized southern coastal entrepôts, equating Mangi with the essence of "China" as a trading powerhouse. This fragmented cognition delayed European recognition of as a singular entity until Jesuit mappings in the 16th-17th centuries bridged the divide through combined terrestrial and nautical data.

Cathay versus China Proper and Serica

The designation Serica, used by ancient Greco-Roman geographers such as in his (c. 150 CE), referred to an inland region east of associated with production, likely corresponding to northern or northwestern territories of what is now , accessed via overland routes. In contrast, Sinae denoted coastal polities south of Serica, known through maritime intermediaries like Indian traders, evoking settled empires rather than nomadic frontiers; in Natural History (c. 77 CE) described Seres (inhabitants of Serica) as extracting from arboreal sources in remote eastern lands, emphasizing economic rather than political unity with southern Sinae. These terms predated Cathay by centuries and stemmed independently from (221–206 BCE) associations via Cīna and Latin adaptations, focusing on core Han heartlands south of the rather than Khitan steppe domains. Medieval Persian and texts maintained a verifiable divergence, with al-Sīn or Chīn (from Qin) applied to southern, agrarian dynasties like the Tang (618–907 CE) and (960–1279 CE), portraying silk-exporting civilizations via sea , while Khitā or Khātay designated northern nomadic confederations, including the Liao (907–1125 CE) and Mongol Yuan (1271–1368 CE), evoking mounted warriors and continental expanse over maritime ports. Rashid al-Din, in his Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (c. 1307 CE), exemplified this by chronicling Khitā as a distinct Tartar realm north of Sīn, attributing to the former pastoral conquests and to the latter bureaucratic continuity, reflecting causal geographic divides: overland intelligence prioritized northern polities, while networks highlighted southern commerce. This non-synonymy persisted because Cathay embodied alien, non-Han governance, whereas (Sinae-derived) connoted indigenous imperial cores, unsubstantiated assumptions of equivalence arising only from incomplete source synthesis. European cartography until the echoed these separations in Ptolemaic revivals, such as 15th-century adaptations depicting as northern hinterlands apart from southern Sinaean coasts, though textual conflations occurred due to limited verification. Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci's (1602), commissioned by the , marked an initial merger by overlaying accurate latitudes on Chinese toponyms, positioning the full territory under unified Ming nomenclature while acknowledging prior divisions like Cathay for northern provinces, but this synthesis relied on Ricci's fieldwork reconciling overland Mongol-era reports with coastal Han records, not erasing the empirical north-south causal disparities in pre-modern attestations.

European Awareness and Accounts

Pre-Modern European Knowledge

European knowledge of Cathay prior to the 13th century remained fragmentary and second-hand, derived mainly from Arabic geographical compilations accessed through Mediterranean trade and scholarly exchanges in and Iberia. al-Idrisi's Nuzhat al-mushtāq fī ikhtirāq al-āfāq (1154), commissioned by , incorporated reports of Qitay—a vast eastern domain ruled by a powerful —as a land of extensive cities, fertile plains, and disciplined armies, positioned beyond and the Turks. These descriptions, aggregated from Muslim merchants traversing , emphasized Cathay's strategic position in overland commerce, yielding goods such as and , but offered no firsthand verification or cultural specifics. Such accounts reached limited European audiences, primarily Norman and Crusader elites, via translations and oral relays, without penetrating broader Latin chronicles or records. Rumors highlighted Cathay's reputed abundance in gold from northern mines and furs from Siberian frontiers, alongside tales of formidable forces capable of subduing neighboring tribes, yet these were unadorned by idealization or myth, reflecting pragmatic intelligence rather than Prester John-style legends. Absent were systematic insights into , , or , as intermediaries prioritized economic utility over ethnographic detail, constrained by the hazards of traversal and geopolitical silos between Islamic caliphates and polities. Nestorian Christian communities, active in Central Asia since the 7th century, facilitated some informational flow along caravan routes but left no surviving pre-13th-century European texts explicitly linking their missions to Khitay, underscoring the opacity of direct Sino-European contacts before Mongol expansions. Genoese and other Italian ledgers from Crusader ports recorded eastern commodities but referenced Khitay obliquely through provenance markers, not as a distinct , indicating awareness confined to mercantile pragmatism devoid of geopolitical mapping. This empirical trickle, untainted by classical exaggerations of , laid scant groundwork for later perceptions, as systemic barriers—tribal warfare, linguistic barriers, and intermediary filtering—precluded comprehensive reconnaissance.

Marco Polo and Medieval Travelogues

In Il Milione, composed around 1298 while was imprisoned in , Cathay is portrayed as the vast northern domain of , encompassing prosperous cities such as Cambaluc—identified with the Yuan capital Khanbaliq (modern )—characterized by grand palaces, extensive canals, and a sophisticated . details administrative practices, including the use of paper currency and the imperial postal relay system known as the yam, which facilitated rapid communication across the empire, aligning with records of Mongol governance structures that emphasized mobility and control over diverse territories. These elements reflect causal mechanisms of Mongol rule, where centralized logistics enabled rule over heterogeneous regions, rather than idealized exaggerations. Authenticity debates persist, with critics noting omissions such as the Great Wall, tea consumption, and bound feet, suggesting Polo may have fabricated or second-hand sourced much of his narrative; however, the Wall as a continuous barrier largely post-dates the Yuan era, existing then as fragmented fortifications predating unified Ming construction, thus not warranting mention in Polo's itinerary-focused account. Corroborative evidence, including Polo's accurate depictions of salt production techniques and revenue systems matching Yuan fiscal policies, supports partial firsthand reliability, as these specifics derive from observable economic realities unlikely to be invented without access. Polo's text crystallized Cathay in European consciousness as an opulent, Mongol-administered realm of the north, emphasizing tangible marvels like unicorn-like rhinoceroses and usage over mythical elements, thereby differentiating it from earlier fantastical legends such as the Christian kingdom of , which blended biblical prophecy with vague eastern geography. This grounded portrayal, disseminated through copies and influencing cartographers, shifted perceptions from symbolic allure to empirical intrigue, prompting subsequent explorers despite Rustichello da Pisa's likely embellishments in the romance-inflected prose.

Usage and Evolution in Western Languages

In English and Other European Tongues

The term Cathay entered English literature in the mid-14th century via vernacular adaptations of , a composite work drawing from earlier accounts, which depicted Cathay as the core domain of the Mongol Great Khan, encompassing vast territories yielding silks, spices, and mechanical wonders eastward from . This portrayal emphasized its remoteness and opulence, with the text noting Cathay's extension "toward the east by many journeys" beyond known lands. incorporated similar imagery in The Squire's Tale (c. 1380–1390), situating the story in the court of Cambaluc (modern ), the capital of Cathay, where a receives gifts like a brass horse capable of traversing realms in a day, underscoring its status as a fabled source of exotic ingenuity. Parallel usages appeared in continental vernaculars, with French texts rendering it as Cataie in 14th-century manuscripts of Marco Polo's travels, maintaining the association with northern imperial domains distinct from southern regions. German variants such as Katay emerged in medieval cartographic traditions, labeling eastern Asian expanses on maps that echoed Polo-derived descriptions of Khanate-held territories. (c. 1300), a centered on , situated Cathay among the outermost eastern zones, integrating it into a of known oikoumene with biblical and contemporary notations. Despite growing direct Sino-European contacts via and Jesuit missions, Cathay lingered in English and other European diplomatic writings through the , as officials distinguished it from "" in the south, reflecting incomplete assimilation of overland versus maritime intelligence until clarifications like Bento de Gois's 1605–1607 trek linking the terms. This persistence stemmed from entrenched textual traditions, with English correspondents in referencing Cathay for northern polities into the early 1600s before standardization toward .

Etymological Progression and Adaptations

The term "Cathay" derives from the "Cataya" or "Cathaya," first attested in 13th-century European chronicles depicting Mongol-controlled northern regions tied to the Khitan legacy. This form captured phonetic renderings of the Turkic "Khitāy," emphasizing the nomadic Khitan's historical dominion over areas north of the territories. By the , English adaptations shifted to "Cathay," as seen in early literary references, reflecting vernacular pronunciation adjustments while retaining the core referent to an opulent eastern empire. The 15th-century introduction of the accelerated spelling standardization, fixing "Cathay" in 16th-century English imprints and influencing its persistence in printed maps and narratives. Symbolic adaptations emerged in and , where Cathay appeared with invented flags—such as the quartered emblem in the 1375 —evoking heraldic sovereignty to signify untapped mercantile prospects amid limited direct knowledge. Portuguese mariners, arriving at Chinese ports in 1513 under , initially blended "Cataio" with local designations, but these voyages exposed geographic continuities, eroding the term's distinct northern connotation. Post-1510s maritime access via the route diminished "Cathay's" precision, as empirical southern encounters aligned it more closely with the unified polity known as "," supplanting overland-derived distinctions by the late in navigational logs and treaties. This shift prioritized verifiable coastal trade realities over archaic inland reports, rendering "Cathay" increasingly archaic in practical discourse.

Decline and Persistence

Factors Leading to Decline

The establishment of Portuguese maritime routes to Asia, initiated by Vasco da Gama's voyage around the in 1498, enabled direct European access to southern Chinese ports by 1513, when landed near present-day . These sea-based contacts, bypassing the overland networks that had transmitted the term "Cathay" from northern Mongol-era regions, exposed Europeans to trading nomenclature prevalent in Southeast Asian and commerce, such as "China" derived from Sanskrit . This southern entry point emphasized the Ming dynasty's unified control over the empire, diminishing the perceived distinction between a northern "Cathay" and a southern "Mangi" or "China" that had persisted in medieval European accounts reliant on fragmented traveler reports. Jesuit missionary efforts further accelerated nomenclature unification, with Matteo Ricci arriving in Portuguese-held Macao in 1582 and penetrating inland to by 1601, where he documented the empire's cohesion under the self-designation Zhongguo (Middle Kingdom). Ricci's 1602 world map, , integrated Chinese administrative divisions with European geography, portraying the entire territory as "" and influencing subsequent to supplant "Cathay" with terms reflecting Ming imperial reality. His published works, translated into Latin as De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu in 1615, disseminated of a singular , countering earlier suppositions of separate northern and southern realms derived from indirect sources. Ultimately, the obsolescence of "Cathay" resulted from causal shifts in acquisition: direct maritime and traversals debunked the divided-kingdom model upheld by pre-15th-century overland , rendering the term empirically outdated without reliance on ideological reconfiguration. By the mid-17th century, European maps and texts, informed by these firsthand accounts, consistently applied "" to the whole domain, as "Cathay" no longer aligned with verified territorial and administrative continuity.

Lingering Use in Literature and Cartography

Despite the decline of "Cathay" as a primary geopolitical designation by the late 17th century, the term endured in European literature as an evocative, archaic synonym for China, emphasizing exoticism over empirical geography. In 18th-century English works influenced by the Chinoiserie movement, "Cathay" conjured visions of a fantastical East, as analyzed in studies of the period's cultural vogue for idealized Chinese motifs in poetry, prose, and decorative arts. This usage detached the name from Qing-era realities, relying instead on medieval precedents to foster romantic detachment from contemporary trade and missionary accounts. In , "Cathay" persisted on maps into the and sporadically beyond, often labeling northern or adjacent regions amid evolving projections. Gerardus Mercator's 1595 Asia map positioned Cathay in the northeast of , bridging Ptolemaic traditions with emerging data. Posthumous editions and derivatives, such as Jodocus Hondius's 1610 map, retained the label, reflecting conservative updating practices. Even into the early , select European cartographers depicted Cathay as a separate entity northeast of , possibly conflating it with Mongolian territories due to incomplete assimilation of Jesuit surveys. This holdover stemmed from the term's historical association with the Yuan dynasty's northern domains, preserving a partial distinction empirically grounded in regional ethnolinguistic differences rather than unified imperial nomenclature. Such usages gradually faded as standardized nomenclature from official surveys supplanted archaic labels, though they highlight cartography's lag in reflecting causal shifts in European- interactions.

Legacy and Modern References

In Organizational Names

Cathay Pacific Airways, founded on September 24, 1946, by American Roy C. Farrell and Australian Sydney H. de Kantzow, adopted its name from the medieval European term for to reflect its initial focus on cargo and passenger routes connecting to mainland Chinese cities like using surplus aircraft. The airline expanded from regional operations to a major international carrier, operating a fleet serving over 80 destinations by the 2020s and reporting passenger traffic growth of 36.1% year-over-year in May 2025 amid post-pandemic recovery. In August 2019, during 's anti-government protests, the company faced scrutiny from Chinese authorities after dismissing employees, including pilots, for participating in or supporting demonstrations, culminating in the resignation of CEO Rupert Hogg on and a sharp decline in share value. Cathay Bank, established in 1962 in Los Angeles' Chinatown by Chinese American entrepreneurs including George T.M. Ching, was created to provide banking services to immigrant communities previously denied credit by mainstream institutions, marking it as the oldest U.S. bank founded by Chinese Americans. It has since grown into a subsidiary of Cathay General Bancorp, with over 60 branches across multiple states, primarily serving Asian American diaspora populations through targeted financial products. Such naming in modern organizations, including lesser-known entities like Singapore's Cathay Organisation cinema chain established in 1939, primarily leverages "Cathay" for its evocative association with historical in Western perceptions, serving commercial branding among communities rather than denoting precise geographic or political entities.

Cultural and Symbolic Impact

The duality of Cathay and in medieval European perceptions symbolized an incomplete grasp of Chinese and , with Cathay denoting the northern, steppe-influenced territories under Mongol —rich in silks and furs—contrasted against the southern, agrarian heartlands termed Mangi or . This conceptual split prompted differentiated trade pursuits: overland caravans via the aimed at Cathay's northern emporia to evade Muslim-controlled intermediaries in the and Persia, yielding direct access to luxury goods like and furs by the 13th century, while and later Dutch maritime expeditions from 1498 onward prioritized southern ports such as Canton for and spices. In 20th-century literature, Ezra Pound's Cathay (1915)—a volume of 16 poems adapted from classical Chinese sources via Ernest Fenollosa's interpretive notes—projected an aestheticized East of stoic detachment and visual clarity, diverging from empirical fidelity to emphasize modernist techniques like imagist compression. These renderings, such as the famous "The River-Merchant's Wife: A Letter," innovated poetic form by stripping narrative excess, influencing contemporaries like and advancing Anglo-American modernism's break from Victorian verbosity, though scholars note the adaptations imposed Western sensibilities on source material, fostering an ornamental rather than causal understanding of Chinese verse. The enduring symbolism of Cathay highlighted epistemic asymmetries in pre-global interactions, where fragmented reports from travelers like (c. 1298) sustained a mythic overlay of opulent isolation over northern , guiding pragmatic diplomacy and commerce without integrating it into a unified view of the realm; Alfred Tennyson's 1842 dismissal in —"Better fifty years of than a cycle of Cathay"—exemplified this as a trope for perceived Eastern cyclicality versus Western progress, rooted in 19th-century geopolitical contrasts rather than direct observation.

References

  1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Geoffrey_Chaucer/Volume_3/Sources_of_the_Canterbury_Tales
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.