CHAPTER I._The Travels of Marco Polo

[Illustration: H. Yule

_T. B. Wirgman, del. et. sc._ _Walker & Cockerell, ph. sc._]

THE TRAVELS OF

MARCO POLO

THE COMPLETE

YULE-CORDIER EDITION

Including the unabridged third edition (1903) of

Henry Yule’s annotated translation, as revised

by Henri Cordier; together with Cordier’s later

volume of notes and addenda (1920)

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOLUME I

_Containing the first volume of the 1903 edition_

DEDICATION.

TO THE MEMORY OF

SIR RODERICK I. MURCHISON, BART., K.C.B., G.C.ST.A., G.C.ST.S.,

ETC.

THE PERFECT FRIEND

WHO FIRST BROUGHT HENRY YULE AND JOHN MURRAY TOGETHER

(HE ENTERED INTO REST, OCTOBER 22ND, 1871,)

AND TO THAT OF HIS MUCH LOVED NIECE,

HARRIET ISABELLA MURCHISON,

WIFE OF KENNETH ROBERT MURCHISON, D.L., J.P.,

(SHE ENTERED INTO REST, AUGUST 9TH, 1902,)

UNDER WHOSE EVER HOSPITABLE ROOF MANY OF THE PROOF

SHEETS OF THIS EDITION WERE READ BY ME,

I DEDICATE THESE VOLUMES FROM

THE OLD MURCHISON HOME,

IN THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE OF ALL I OWE TO

THE ABIDING AFFECTION, SYMPATHY, AND EXAMPLE OF BOTH.

TARADALE, AMY FRANCES YULE.

ROSS-SHIRE, SEPTEMBER 11TH, 1902.

SCOTLAND.

* * * *

Ed è da noi sì strano,

Che quando ne ragiono

I’ non trovo nessuno,

Che l’abbia navicato,

* * * *

Le parti del Levante,

Là dove sono tante

Gemme di gran valute

E di molta salute:

E sono in quello giro

Balsamo, e ambra, e tiro,

E lo pepe, e lo legno

Aloe, ch’è sì degno,

E spigo, e cardamomo,

Giengiovo, e cennamomo;

E altre molte spezie,

Ciascuna in sua spezie,

E migliore, e più fina,

E sana in medicina.

Appresso in questo loco

Mise in assetto loco

Li tigri, e li grifoni,

Leofanti, e leoni

Cammelli, e dragomene,

Badalischi, e gene,

E pantere, e castoro,

Le formiche dell’oro,

E tanti altri animali,

Ch’io non so ben dir quali,

Che son sì divisati,

E sì dissomigliati

Di corpo e di fazione,

Di sì fera ragione,

E di sì strana taglia,

Ch’io non credo san faglia,

Ch’alcun uomo vivente

Potesse veramente

Per lingua, o per scritture

Recitar le figure

Delle bestie, e gli uccelli....

—From _Il Tesoretto di Ser Brunetto Latini_ (_circa_ MDCCLX.).

(_Florence_, 1824, pp. 83 _seqq._)

[Illustration]

Ἂνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ

Πλάγχθη . . . . . . .

Πολλῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω.

_Odyssey_, I.

————“I AM BECOME A NAME;

FOR ALWAYS ROAMING WITH A HUNGRY HEART

MUCH HAVE I SEEN AND KNOWN; CITIES OF MEN,

AND MANNERS, CLIMATES, COUNCILS, GOVERNMENTS,

MYSELF NOT LEAST, BUT HONOURED OF THEM ALL.”

TENNYSON.

“_A SEDER CI PONEMMO IVI AMBODUI

VÔLTI A LEVANTE, OND’ERAVAM SALITI;

CHÈ SUOLE A RIGUARDAR GIOVARE ALTRUI._”

DANTE, _Purgatory_, IV.

[Illustration: Messer Marco Polo, with Messer Nicolo and Messer Maffeo,

returned from xxvi years’ sojourn in the Orient, is denied entrance to

the Ca’ Polo. (See _Int._ p. _4_)]

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

page

DEDICATION iii

NOTE BY MISS YULE v

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION vii

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION xi

ORIGINAL PREFACE xxi

ORIGINAL DEDICATION xxv

MEMOIR OF SIR HENRY YULE BY AMY FRANCES YULE, L.A.SOC. ANT.

SCOT. xxvii

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SIR HENRY YULE’S WRITINGS lxxv

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS lxxxiii

EXPLANATORY LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOL. I. xcvii

INTRODUCTORY NOTICES _1–144_

THE BOOK OF MARCO POLO.

NOTE BY MISS YULE.

I desire to take this opportunity of recording my grateful sense of

the unsparing labour, learning, and devotion, with which my father’s

valued friend, Professor Henri Cordier, has performed the difficult and

delicate task which I entrusted to his loyal friendship.

Apart from Professor Cordier’s very special qualifications for the

work, I feel sure that no other Editor could have been more entirely

acceptable to my father. I can give him no higher praise than to say

that he has laboured in Yule’s own spirit.

The slight Memoir which I have contributed (for which I accept all

responsibility), attempts no more than a rough sketch of my father’s

character and career, but it will, I hope, serve to recall pleasantly

his remarkable individuality to the few remaining who knew him in his

prime, whilst it may also afford some idea of the man, and his work and

environment, to those who had not that advantage.

No one can be more conscious than myself of its many shortcomings,

which I will not attempt to excuse. I can, however, honestly say that

these have not been due to negligence, but are rather the blemishes

almost inseparable from the fulfilment under the gloom of bereavement

and amidst the pressure of other duties, of a task undertaken in more

favourable circumstances.

Nevertheless, in spite of all defects, I believe this sketch to be such

a record as my father would himself have approved, and I know also that

he would have chosen my hand to write it.

In conclusion, I may note that the first edition of this work was

dedicated to that very noble lady, the Queen (then Crown Princess)

Margherita of Italy. In the second edition the Dedication was

reproduced within brackets (as also the original preface), but not

renewed. That precedent is again followed.

I have, therefore, felt at liberty to associate the present edition

of my father’s work with the Name MURCHISON, which for more than a

generation was the name most generally representative of British

Science in Foreign Lands, as of Foreign Science in Britain.

A. F. YULE.

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.

Little did I think, some thirty years ago, when I received a copy

of the first edition of this grand work, that I should be one day

entrusted with the difficult but glorious task of supervising the

third edition. When the first edition of the _Book of Ser Marco Polo_

reached “Far Cathay,” it created quite a stir in the small circle

of the learned foreigners, who then resided there, and became a

starting-point for many researches, of which the results have been

made use of partly in the second edition, and partly in the present.

The Archimandrite PALLADIUS and Dr. E. BRETSCHNEIDER, at Peking, ALEX.

WYLIE, at Shang-hai—friends of mine who have, alas! passed away, with

the exception of the Right Rev. Bishop G. E. MOULE, of Hang-chau, the

only survivor of this little group of hard-working scholars,—were the

first to explore the Chinese sources of information which were to yield

a rich harvest into their hands.

When I returned home from China in 1876, I was introduced to Colonel

HENRY YULE, at the India Office, by our common friend, Dr. REINHOLD

ROST, and from that time we met frequently and kept up a correspondence

which terminated only with the life of the great geographer, whose

friend I had become. A new edition of the travels of Friar Odoric

of Pordenone, our “mutual friend,” in which Yule had taken the

greatest interest, was dedicated by me to his memory. I knew that Yule

contemplated a third edition of his _Marco Polo_, and all will regret

that time was not allowed to him to complete this labour of love, to

see it published. If the duty of bringing out the new edition of _Marco

Polo_ has fallen on one who considers himself but an unworthy successor

of the first illustrious commentator, it is fair to add that the work

could not have been entrusted to a more respectful disciple. Many of

our tastes were similar; we had the same desire to seek the truth,

the same earnest wish to be exact, perhaps the same sense of humour,

and, what is necessary when writing on Marco Polo, certainly the same

love for Venice and its history. Not only am I, with the late CHARLES

SCHEFER, the founder and the editor of the _Recueil de Voyages et de

Documents pour servir à l’Histoire de la Géographie depuis le XIIIᵉ

jusqu’à la fin du XVIᵉ siècle_, but I am also the successor, at the

École des langues Orientales Vivantes, of G. PAUTHIER, whose book on

the Venetian Traveller is still valuable, so the mantle of the last two

editors fell upon my shoulders.

I therefore, gladly and thankfully, accepted Miss AMY FRANCIS YULE’S

kind proposal to undertake the editorship of the third edition of the

_Book of Ser Marco Polo_, and I wish to express here my gratitude to

her for the great honour she has thus done me.[1]

Unfortunately for his successor, Sir Henry Yule, evidently trusting

to his own good memory, left but few notes. These are contained in an

interleaved copy obligingly placed at my disposal by Miss Yule, but I

luckily found assistance from various other quarters. The following

works have proved of the greatest assistance to me:—The articles of

General HOUTUM-SCHINDLER in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,

and the excellent books of Lord CURZON and of Major P. MOLESWORTH

SYKES on Persia, M. GRENARD’S account of DUTREUIL de RHINS’ Mission

to Central Asia, BRETSCHNEIDER’S and PALLADIUS’ remarkable papers

on Mediæval Travellers and Geography, and above all, the valuable

books of the Hon. W. W. ROCKHILL on Tibet and Rubruck, to which the

distinguished diplomatist, traveller, and scholar kindly added a list

of notes of the greatest importance to me, for which I offer him my

hearty thanks.

My thanks are also due to H.H. Prince ROLAND BONAPARTE, who kindly

gave me permission to reproduce some of the plates of his _Recueil

de Documents de l’Époque Mongole_, to M. LÉOPOLD DELISLE, the

learned Principal Librarian of the Bibliothèque Nationale, who gave

me the opportunity to study the inventory made after the death of

the Doge Marino Faliero, to the Count de SEMALLÉ, formerly French

Chargé d’Affaires at Peking, who gave me for reproduction a number

of photographs from his valuable personal collection, and last, not

least, my old friend Comm. NICOLÒ BAROZZI, who continued to lend me the

assistance which he had formerly rendered to Sir Henry Yule at Venice.

Since the last edition was published, more than twenty-five years

ago, Persia has been more thoroughly studied; new routes have been

explored in Central Asia, Karakorum has been fully described, and

Western and South-Western China have been opened up to our knowledge

in many directions. The results of these investigations form the main

features of this new edition of _Marco Polo_. I have suppressed hardly

any of Sir Henry Yule’s notes and altered but few, doing so only when

the light of recent information has proved him to be in error, but

I have supplemented them by what, I hope, will be found useful, new

information.[2]

Before I take leave of the kind reader, I wish to thank sincerely Mr.

JOHN MURRAY for the courtesy and the care he has displayed while this

edition was going through the press.

HENRI CORDIER.

PARIS, _1st of October, 1902_.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Miss Yule has written the Memoir of her father and the new

Dedication.

[2] Paragraphs which have been altered are marked thus ✛; my own

additions are placed between brackets [ ].—H. C.

[Illustration:

“=Now strike your Sailes yee jolly Mariners,

For we be come into a quiet Rode=”....

—THE FAERIE QUEENE, I. xii. 42.]

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

The unexpected amount of favour bestowed on the former edition of this

Work has been a great encouragement to the Editor in preparing this

second one.

Not a few of the kind friends and correspondents who lent their aid

before have continued it to the present revision. The contributions

of Mr. A. WYLIE of Shang-hai, whether as regards the amount of labour

which they must have cost him, or the value of the result, demand

above all others a grateful record here. Nor can I omit to name again

with hearty acknowledgment Signor Comm. G. BERCHET of Venice, the Rev.

Dr. CALDWELL, Colonel (now Major-General) R. MACLAGAN, R.E., Mr. D.

HANBURY, F.R.S., Mr. EDWARD THOMAS, F.R.S. (Corresponding Member of the

Institute), and Mr. R. H. MAJOR.

But besides these old names, not a few new ones claim my thanks.

The Baron F. VON RICHTHOFEN, now President of the Geographical Society

of Berlin, a traveller who not only has trodden many hundreds of miles

in the footsteps of our Marco, but has perhaps travelled over more of

the Interior of China than Marco ever did, and who carried to that

survey high scientific accomplishments of which the Venetian had not

even a rudimentary conception, has spontaneously opened his bountiful

stores of new knowledge in my behalf. Mr. NEY ELIAS, who in 1872

traversed and mapped a line of upwards of 2000 miles through the almost

unknown tracts of Western Mongolia, from the Gate in the Great Wall at

Kalghan to the Russian frontier in the Altai, has done likewise.[1] To

the Rev. G. MOULE, of the Church Mission at Hang-chau, I owe a mass

of interesting matter regarding that once great and splendid city,

the KINSAY of our Traveller, which has enabled me, I trust, to effect

great improvement both in the Notes and in the Map, which illustrate

that subject. And to the Rev. CARSTAIRS DOUGLAS, LL.D., of the English

Presbyterian Mission at Amoy, I am scarcely less indebted. The learned

Professor BRUUN, of Odessa, whom I never have seen, and have little

likelihood of ever seeing in this world, has aided me with zeal and

cordiality like that of old friendship. To Mr. ARTHUR BURNELL, Ph.D.,

of the Madras Civil Service, I am grateful for many valuable notes

bearing on these and other geographical studies, and particularly for

his generous communication of the drawing and photograph of the ancient

Cross at St. Thomas’s Mount, long before any publication of that

subject was made on his own account. My brother officer, Major OLIVER

ST. JOHN, R.E., has favoured me with a variety of interesting remarks

regarding the Persian chapters, and has assisted me with new data, very

materially correcting the Itinerary Map in Kerman.

Mr. BLOCHMANN of the Calcutta Madrasa, Sir DOUGLAS FORSYTH, C.B.,

lately Envoy to Kashgar, M. de MAS LATRIE, the Historian of Cyprus,

Mr. ARTHUR GROTE, Mr. EUGENE SCHUYLER of the U.S. Legation at St.

Petersburg, Dr. BUSHELL and Mr. W. F. MAYERS, of H.M.’s Legation at

Peking, Mr. G. PHILLIPS of Fuchau, Madame OLGA FEDTCHENKO, the widow of

a great traveller too early lost to the world, Colonel KEATINGE, V.C.,

C.S.I., Major-General KEYES, C.B., Dr. GEORGE BIRDWOOD, Mr. BURGESS, of

Bombay, my old and valued friend Colonel W. H. GREATHED, C.B., and the

Master of Mediæval Geography, M. D’AVEZAC himself, with others besides,

have kindly lent assistance of one kind or another, several of them

spontaneously, and the rest in prompt answer to my requests.

Having always attached much importance to the matter of

illustrations,[2] I feel greatly indebted to the liberal action of Mr.

Murray in enabling me largely to increase their number in this edition.

Though many are original, we have also borrowed a good many;[3]

a proceeding which seems to me entirely unobjectionable when the

engravings are truly illustrative of the text, and not hackneyed.

I regret the augmented bulk of the volumes. There has been some

excision, but the additions visibly and palpably preponderate. The

truth is that since the completion of the first edition, just four

years ago, large additions have been made to the stock of our knowledge

bearing on the subjects of this Book; and how these additions have

continued to come in up to the last moment, may be seen in Appendix

L,[4] which has had to undergo repeated interpolation after being put

in type. KARAKORUM, for a brief space the seat of the widest empire

the world has known, has been visited; the ruins of SHANG-TU, the

“Xanadu of Cublay Khan,” have been explored; PAMIR and TANGUT have been

penetrated from side to side; the famous mountain Road of SHEN-SI has

been traversed and described; the mysterious CAINDU has been unveiled;

the publication of my lamented friend Lieutenant Garnier’s great

work on the French Exploration of Indo-China has provided a mass of

illustration of that YUN-NAN for which but the other day Marco Polo

was well-nigh the most recent authority. Nay, the last two years have

thrown a promise of light even on what seemed the wildest of Marco’s

stories, and the bones of a veritable RUC from New Zealand lie on the

table of Professor Owen’s Cabinet!

M. VIVIEN de St. MARTIN, during the interval of which we have been

speaking, has published a History of Geography. In treating of Marco

Polo, he alludes to the first edition of this work, most evidently with

no intention of disparagement, but speaks of it as merely a revision

of Marsden’s Book. The last thing I should allow myself to do would be

to apply to a Geographer, whose works I hold in so much esteem, the

disrespectful definition which the adage quoted in my former Preface[5]

gives of the _vir qui docet quod non sapit_; but I feel bound to say

that on this occasion M. Vivien de St. Martin has permitted himself to

pronounce on a matter with which he had not made himself acquainted;

for the perusal of the very first lines of the Preface (I will say

nothing of the Book) would have shown him that such a notion was

utterly unfounded.

In concluding these “forewords” I am probably taking leave of Marco

Polo,[6] the companion of many pleasant and some laborious hours,

whilst I have been contemplating with him (“_vôlti a levante_”) that

Orient in which I also had spent years not a few.

• • • • •

And as the writer lingered over this conclusion, his thoughts wandered

back in reverie to those many venerable libraries in which he had

formerly made search for mediæval copies of the Traveller’s story;

and it seemed to him as if he sate in a recess of one of these with

a manuscript before him which had never till then been examined with

any care, and which he found with delight to contain passages that

appear in no version of the Book hitherto known. It was written in

clear Gothic text, and in the Old French tongue of the early 14th

century. Was it possible that he had lighted on the long-lost original

of Ramusio’s Version? No; it proved to be different. Instead of the

tedious story of the northern wars, which occupies much of our Fourth

Book, there were passages occurring in the later history of Ser Marco,

some years after his release from the Genoese captivity. They appeared

to contain strange anachronisms certainly; but we have often had

occasion to remark on puzzles in the chronology of Marco’s story![7]

And in some respects they tended to justify our intimated suspicion

that he was a man of deeper feelings and wider sympathies than the book

of Rusticiano had allowed to appear.[8] Perhaps this time the Traveller

had found an amanuensis whose faculties had not been stiffened by

fifteen years of Malapaga?[9] One of the most important passages ran

thus:—

“_Bien est voirs que, après ce que |Messires Marc Pol| avoit pris

fame et si estoit demouré plusours ans de sa vie a |Venysse|, il

avint que mourut |Messires Mafés| qui oncles |Monseignour Marc|

estoit: (et mourut ausi ses granz chiens mastins qu’avoit amenei

dou Catai,[10] et qui avoit non |Bayan| pour l’amour au bon

chievetain |Bayan Cent-iex|); adonc n’avoit oncques puis |Messires

Marc| nullui, fors son esclave |Piere le Tartar|, avecques lequel

pouvoit penre soulas à s’entretenir de ses voiages et des choses

dou Levant. Car la gent de |Venysse| si avoit de grant piesce

moult anuy pris des loncs contes |Monseignour Marc|; et quand

ledit |Messires Marc| issoit de l’uys sa meson ou Sain Grisostome,

souloient li petit marmot es voies dariere-li courir en cryant

|Messer Marco Miliòn! cont’a nu un busiòn!| que veult dire en

François ‘Messires Marcs des millions di-nous un de vos gros

mensonges.’ En oultre, la Dame |Donate| fame anuyouse estoit, et de

trop estroit esprit, et plainne de convoitise.[11] Ansi avint que

|Messires Marc| desiroit es voiages rantrer durement._

_“Si se partist de |Venisse| et chevaucha aux parties d’occident.

Et demoura mainz jours es contrées de |Provence| et de |France| et

puys fist passaige aux Ysles de la tremontaingne et s’en retourna

par |la Magne|, si comme vous orrez cy-après. Et fist-il escripre

son voiage atout les devisements les contrées; mes de la France

n’y parloit mie grantment pour ce que maintes genz la scevent

apertement. Et pour ce en lairons atant, et commencerons d’autres

choses, assavoir, de |BRETAINGNE LA GRANT|._

=Cy devyse dou roiaume de Bretaingne la grant.=

_“Et sachiés que quand l’en se part de |Calés|, et l’en nage |XX|

ou |XXX| milles à trop grant mesaise, si treuve l’en une grandisme

Ysle qui s’appelle |Bretaingne la Grant|. Elle est à une grant royne

et n’en fait treuage à nulluy. Et ensevelissent lor mors, et ont

monnoye de chartres et d’or et d’argent, et ardent pierres noyres,

et vivent de marchandises et d’ars, et ont toutes choses de vivre

en grant habondance mais non pas à bon marchié. Et c’est une Ysle

de trop grant richesce, et li marinier de celle partie dient que

c’est li plus riches royaumes qui soit ou monde, et qu’il y a li

mieudre marinier dou monde et li mieudre coursier et li mieudre

chevalier (ains ne chevauchent mais lonc com François). Ausi ont-il

trop bons homes d’armes et vaillans durement (bien que maint n’y

ait), et les dames et damoseles bonnes et loialles, et belles com

lys souef florant. Et quoi vous en diroie-je? Il y a citez et

chasteau assez, et tant de marchéanz et si riches qui font venir

tant d’avoir-de-poiz et de toute espece de marchandise qu’il n’est

hons qui la verité en sceust dire. Font venir |d’Ynde| et d’autres

parties coton a grant planté, et font venir soye de |Manzi| et de

|Bangala|, et font venir laine des ysles de la Mer Occeane et de

toutes parties. Et si labourent maintz bouquerans et touailles et

autres draps de coton et de laine et de soye. Encores sachiés que

ont vaines d’acier assez, et si en labourent trop soubtivement de

tous hernois de chevalier, et de toutes choses besoignables à ost;

ce sont espées et glaive et esperon et heaume et haches, et toute

espèce d’arteillerie et de coutelerie, et en font grant gaaigne

et grant marchandise. Et en font si grant habondance que tout li

mondes en y puet avoir et à bon marchié._

=Encores cy devise dou dyt roiaume, et de ce qu’en dist Messires

Marcs.=

_“Et sachiés que tient icelle Royne la seigneurie de l’|Ynde

|Mien|. Et moult est saige et noble dame et pourvéans, si que

est elle amée de chascun. Et avoit jadis mari; et depuys qu’il

mourut bien |XIV| ans avoit; adonc la royne sa fame l’ama tant que

oncques puis ne se voult marier a nullui, pour l’amour le prince

son baron, ançois moult maine quoye vie. Et tient son royaume ausi

bien ou miex que oncques le tindrent li roy si aioul. Mes ores en

ce royaume li roy n’ont guieres pooir, ains la poissance commence

a trespasser à la menue gent. Et distrent aucun marinier de celes

parties à |Monseignour Marc| que hui-et-le jour li royaumes soit

auques abastardi come je vous diroy. Car bien est voirs que

ci-arrières estoit ciz pueple de |Bretaingne la Grant| bonne et

granz et loialle gent qui servoit Diex moult volontiers selonc lor

usaige; et tuit li labour qu’il labouroient et portoient a vendre

estoient honnestement labouré, et dou greigneur vaillance, et

chose pardurable; et se vendoient à jouste pris sanz barguignier.

En tant que se aucuns labours portoit l’estanpille |Bretaingne

la Grant| c’estoit regardei com pleges de bonne estoffe. Mes

orendroit li labours n’est mie tousjourz si bons; et quand l’en

achate pour un quintal pesant de toiles de coton, adonc, par trop

souvent, si treuve l’en de chascun |C| pois de coton, bien |XXX|

ou |XL| pois de plastre de gifs, ou de blanc d’Espaigne, ou de

choses semblables. Et se l’en achate de cammeloz ou de tireteinne

ou d’autre dras de laine, cist ne durent mie, ains sont plain

d’empoise, ou de glu et de balieures._

_“Et bien qu’il est voirs que chascuns hons egalement doit de son

cors servir son seigneur ou sa commune, pour aler en ost en tens

de besoingne; et bien que trestuit li autre royaume d’occident

tieingnent ce pour ordenance, ciz pueple de |Bretaingne la

Grant| n’en veult nullement, ains si dient: ‘Veez-là: n’avons

nous pas la |Manche| pour fossé de nostre pourpris, et pourquoy

nous penerons-nous pour nous faire homes d’armes, en lessiant

nos gaaignes et nos soulaz? Cela lairons aus soudaiers.’ Or li

preudhome entre eulx moult scevent bien com tiex paroles sont

nyaises; mes si ont paour de lour en dire la verité pour ce que

cuident desplaire as bourjois et à la menue gent._

_“Or je vous di sanz faille que, quand |Messires Marcs Pols| sceust

ces choses, moult en ot pitié de cestui pueple, et il li vint à

remembrance ce que avenu estoit, ou tens |Monseignour Nicolas| et

|Monseignour Mafé|, à l’ore quand |Alau|, frère charnel dou Grant

maistre cité, atout son vaste tresor d’or et d’argent, et l’amère

parolle que dist ledit Alau au Calife, com l’a escripte li Maistres

Rusticiens ou chief de cestui livre.[12]_

_“Car sachiés tout voirement que |Messires Marc| moult se deleitoit

à faire appert combien sont pareilles au font les condicions des

diverses regions dou monde, et soloit-il clorre son discours si

disant en son language de |Venisse:| ‘|Sto mondo xe fato tondo|,

com uzoit dire mes oncles Mafés.’_

_“Ore vous lairons à conter de ceste matière et retournerons à

parler de la Loy des genz de |Bretaingne la Grant|._

=Cy devise des diverses créances de la gent Bretaingne la Grant et

de ce qu’en cuidoit Messires Marcs.=

_“Il est voirs que li pueples est Crestiens, mes non pour le

plus selonc la foy de l’Apostoille Rommain, ains tiennent le en

mautalent assez. Seulement il y en a aucun qui sont féoil du

dit Apostoille et encore plus forment que li nostre prudhome de

|Venisse|. Car quand dit li Papes: ‘Telle ou telle chose est

noyre,’ toute ladite gent si en jure: ‘Noyre est com poivre.’ Et

puis se dira li Papes de la dite chose: ‘Elle est blanche,’ si

en jurera toute ladite gent: ‘Il est voirs qu’elle est blanche;

blanche est com noifs.’ Et dist |Messires Marc Pol|: ‘Nous n’avons

nullement tant de foy à |Venyse|, ne li prudhome de |Florence| non

plus, com l’en puet savoir bien apertement dou livre Monseignour

|Dantès Aldiguiere|, que j’ay congneu a |Padoe| le meisme an que

Messires |Thibault de Cepoy| à |Venisse| estoit.[13] Mes c’est

joustement ce que j’ay veu autre foiz près le Grant |Bacsi| qui est

com li Papes des Ydres.’_

_“Encore y a une autre manière de gent; ce sont de celz qui

s’appellent filsoufes;[14] et si il disent: ‘S’il y a Diex n’en

scavons nul, mes il est voirs qu’il est une certeinne courance

des choses laquex court devers le bien.’ Et fist |Messires Marcs|:

‘Encore la créance des |Bacsi| qui dysent que n’y a ne Diex Eternel

ne Juge des homes, ains il est une certeinne chose laquex s’appelle

|Kerma|.’[15]_

_“Une autre foiz avint que disoit un des filsoufes à |Monseignour

Marc|: ‘Diex n’existe mie jeusqu’ores, ainçois il se fait

desorendroit.’ Et fist encore |Messires Marcs|: ‘Veez-là, une autre

foiz la créance des ydres, car dient que li seuz Diex est icil

hons qui par force de ses vertuz et de son savoir tant pourchace

que d’home il se face Diex presentement. Et li Tartar l’appelent

|Borcan|. Tiex Diex |Sagamoni Borcan| estoit, dou quel parle li

livres Maistre |Rusticien|.’[16]_

_“Encore ont une autre manière de filsoufes, et dient-il: ‘Il n’est

mie ne Diex ne |Kerma| ne courance vers le bien, ne Providence,

ne Créerres, ne Sauvours, ne sainteté ne pechiés ne conscience de

pechié, ne proyère ne response à proyère, il n’est nulle riens fors

que trop minime grain ou paillettes qui ont à nom |atosmes|, et

de tiex grains devient chose qui vive, et chose qui vive devient

une certeinne creature qui demoure au rivaige de la Mer: et ceste

creature devient poissons, et poissons devient lezars, et lezars

devient blayriaus, et blayriaus devient gat-maimons, et gat-maimons

devient hons sauvaiges qui menjue char d’homes, et hons sauvaiges

devient hons crestien.’_

_“Et dist |Messires Marc|: ‘Encore une foiz, biaus sires, li

si dient que l’arme vivant doie trespasser par tous cez changes de

vestemens; si com se treuve escript ou livre |Maistre Rusticien|

que |Sagamoni Borcan| mourut iiij vint et iiij foiz et tousjourz

resuscita, et à chascune foiz d’une diverse manière de beste, et

à la derreniere foyz mourut hons et devint diex, selonc ce qu’il

dient.’[17] Et fist encore |Messires Marc|: ‘A moy pert-il trop

estrange chose se juesques à toutes les créances des ydolastres

deust dechéoir ceste grantz et saige nation. Ainsi peuent jouer

Misire li filsoufe atout lour propre perte, mes à l’ore quand tiex

fantaisies se respanderont es joenes bacheliers et parmy la menue

gent, celz averont pour toute Loy =manducemus et bibamus, cras

enim moriemur=; et trop isnellement l’en raccomencera la descente

de l’eschiele, et d’home crestien deviendra hons sauvaiges, et

d’home sauvaige gat-maimons, et de gat-maimon blayriaus.’ Et fist

encores |Messires Marc|: ‘Maintes contrées et provinces et ysles

et citéz je |Marc Pol| ay veues et de maintes genz de maintes

manières ay les condicionz congneues, et je croy bien que il est

plus assez dedens l’univers que ce que li nostre prestre n’y

songent. Et puet bien estre, biaus sires, que li mondes n’a estés

creés à tous poinz com nous creiens, ains d’une sorte encore

plus merveillouse. Mes cil n’amenuise nullement nostre pensée de

Diex et de sa majesté, ains la fait greingnour. Et contrée n’ay

veue ou Dame Diex ne manifeste apertement les granz euvres de sa

tout-poissante saigesse; gent n’ay congneue esquiex ne se fait

sentir li fardels de pechié, et la besoingne de Phisicien des

maladies de l’arme tiex com est nostre Seignours Ihesus Crist, Beni

soyt son Non. Pensez doncques à cel qu’a dit uns de ses Apostres:

=Nolite esse prudentes apud vosmet ipsos=; et uns autres: =Quoniam

multi pseudo-prophetae exierint=; et uns autres: =Quod venient in

novissimis diebus illusores ... dicentes, Ubi est promissio?= et

encores aus parolles que dist li Signours meismes: =Vide ergo ne

lumen quod in te est tenebrae sint=._

=Commant Messires Marcs se partist de l’ysle de Bretaingne et de la

proyère que fist=.

_“Et pourquoy vous en feroie-je lonc conte? Si print nef |Messires

Marcs| et se partist en nageant vers la terre ferme. Or |Messires

Marc Pol| moult ama cel roiaume de |Bretaingne la grant| pour son

viex renon et s’ancienne franchise, et pour sa saige et bonne Royne

(que Diex gart), et pour les mainz homes de vaillance et bons

chaceours et les maintes bonnes et honnestes dames qui y estoient.

Et sachiés tout voirement que en estant delez le bort la nef, et

en esgardant aus roches blanches que l’en par dariere-li lessoit,

|Messires Marc| prieoit Diex, et disoit-il: ‘Ha Sires Diex ay merci

de cestuy vieix et noble royaume; fay-en pardurable forteresse de

liberté et de joustice, et garde-le de tout meschief de dedens et

de dehors; donne à sa gent droit esprit pour ne pas Diex guerroyer

de ses dons, ne de richesce ne de savoir; et conforte-les fermement

en ta foy’ ...”_

A loud _Amen_ seemed to peal from without, and the awakened reader

started to his feet. And lo! it was the thunder of the winter-storm

crashing among the many-tinted crags of Monte Pellegrino,—with the wind

raging as it knows how to rage here in sight of the Isles of Æolus,

and the rain dashing on the glass as ruthlessly as it well could have

done, if, instead of Æolic Isles and many-tinted crags, the window had

fronted a dearer shore beneath a northern sky, and looked across the

grey Firth to the rain-blurred outline of the Lomond Hills.

But I end, saying to Messer Marco’s prayer, Amen.

PALERMO, _31st December, 1874_.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] It would be ingratitude if this Preface contained no acknowledgment

of the medals awarded to the writer, mainly for this work, by the

Royal Geographical Society, and by the Geographical Society of

Italy, the former under the Presidence of Sir Henry Rawlinson,

the latter under that of the Commendatore C. Negri. Strongly as

I feel the too generous appreciation of these labours implied

in such awards, I confess to have been yet more deeply touched

and gratified by practical evidence of the approval of the two

distinguished Travellers mentioned above; as shown by Baron von

Richthofen in his spontaneous proposal to publish a German version

of the book under his own immediate supervision (a project in

abeyance, owing to circumstances beyond his or my control); by Mr.

Ney Elias in the fact of his having carried these ponderous volumes

with him on his solitary journey across the Mongolian wilds!

[2] I am grateful to Mr. de Khanikoff for his especial recognition of

these in a kindly review of the first edition in the _Academy_.

[3] Especially from Lieutenant Garnier’s book, mentioned further on;

the only existing source of illustration for many chapters of Polo.

[4] [Merged into the notes of the present edition.—H. C.]

[5] See page xxix.

[6] Writing in Italy, perhaps I ought to write, according to too

prevalent modern Italian custom, _Polo Marco_. I have already

_seen_, and in the work of a writer of reputation, the Alexandrian

geographer styled _Tolomeo Claudio_! and if this preposterous

fashion should continue to spread, we shall in time have _Tasso

Torquato_, _Jonson Ben_, Africa explored by _Park Mungo_, Asia

conquered by _Lane Tamer_, Copperfield David by _Dickens Charles_,

Homer Englished by _Pope Alexander_, and the Roman history done

into French from the original of _Live Tite_!

[7] Introduction p. _24_, and _passim_ in the notes.

[8] _Ibid._, p. _112_.

[9] See Introduction, pp. _51_, _57_.

[10] See Title of present volumes.

[11] Which quite agrees with the story of the document quoted at p.

_77_ of Introduction.

[12] Vol. i. p. 64, and p. 67.

[13] _I.e._ 1306; see Introduction, pp. _68–69_.

[14] The form which Marco gives to this word was probably a

reminiscence of the Oriental corruption _failsúf_. It recalls to

my mind a Hindu who was very fond of the word, and especially of

applying it to certain of his fellow-servants. But as he used it,

_bara failsúf_,—“great philosopher”—meant exactly the same as the

modern slang “_Artful Dodger_”!

[15] See for the explanation of _Karma_, “the power that controls the

universe,” in the doctrine of atheistic Buddhism, Hardy’s _Eastern

Monachism_, p. 5.

[16] Vol. ii. p. 316 (see also i. 348).

[17] Vol. ii. pp. 318–319.

ORIGINAL PREFACE.

The amount of appropriate material, and of acquaintance with the

mediæval geography of some parts of Asia, which was acquired during the

compilation of a work of kindred character for the Hakluyt Society,[1]

could hardly fail to suggest as a fresh labour in the same field

the preparation of a new English edition of Marco Polo. Indeed one

kindly critic (in the _Examiner_) laid it upon the writer as a duty to

undertake that task.

Though at least one respectable English edition has appeared since

Marsden’s,[2] the latter has continued to be the standard edition, and

maintains not only its reputation but its market value. It is indeed

the work of a sagacious, learned, and right-minded man, which can never

be spoken of otherwise than with respect. But since Marsden published

his quarto (1818) vast stores of new knowledge have become available

in elucidation both of the contents of Marco Polo’s book and of its

literary history. The works of writers such as Klaproth, Abel Rémusat,

D’Avezac, Reinaud, Quatremère, Julien, I. J. Schmidt, Gildemeister,

Ritter, Hammer-Purgstall, Erdmann, D’Ohsson, Defrémery, Elliot,

Erskine, and many more, which throw light directly or incidentally

on Marco Polo, have, for the most part, appeared since then. Nor, as

regards the literary history of the book, were any just views possible

at a time when what may be called the _Fontal_ MSS. (in French) were

unpublished and unexamined.

Besides the works which have thus occasionally or incidentally

thrown light upon the Traveller’s book, various editions of the book

itself have since Marsden’s time been published in foreign countries,

accompanied by comments of more or less value. All have contributed

something to the illustration of the book or its history; the last and

most learned of the editors, M. Pauthier, has so contributed in large

measure. I had occasion some years ago[3] to speak freely my opinion

of the merits and demerits of M. Pauthier’s work; and to the latter at

least I have no desire to recur here.

Another of his critics, a much more accomplished as well as more

favourable one,[4] seems to intimate the opinion that there would

scarcely be room in future for new commentaries. Something of the

kind was said of Marsden’s at the time of its publication. I imagine,

however, that whilst our libraries endure the _Iliad_ will continue

to find new translators, and Marco Polo—though one hopes not so

plentifully—new editors.

The justification of the book’s existence must however be looked

for, and it is hoped may be found, in the book itself, and not in

the Preface. The work claims to be judged as a whole, but it may be

allowable, in these days of scanty leisure, to indicate below a few

instances of what is believed to be new matter in an edition of Marco

Polo; by which however it is by no means intended that all such matter

is claimed by the editor as his own.[5]

From the commencement of the work it was felt that the task was

one which no man, though he were far better equipped and much more

conveniently situated than the present writer, could satisfactorily

accomplish from his own resources, and help was sought on special

points wherever it seemed likely to be found. In scarcely any quarter

was the application made in vain. Some who have aided most materially

are indeed very old and valued friends; but to many others who have

done the same the applicant was unknown; and some of these again, with

whom the editor began correspondence on this subject as a stranger, he

is happy to think that he may now call friends.

To none am I more indebted than to the Comm. GUGLIELMO BERCHET, of

Venice, for his ample, accurate, and generous assistance in furnishing

me with Venetian documents, and in many other ways. Especial thanks

are also due to Dr. WILLIAM LOCKHART, who has supplied the materials

for some of the most valuable illustrations; to Lieutenant FRANCIS

GARNIER, of the French Navy, the gallant and accomplished leader

(after the death of Captain Doudart de la Grée) of the memorable

expedition up the Mekong to Yun-nan; to the Rev. Dr. CALDWELL, of

the S. P. G. Mission in Tinnevelly, for copious and valuable notes

on Southern India; to my friends Colonel ROBERT MACLAGAN, R.E., Sir

ARTHUR PHAYRE, and Colonel HENRY MAN, for very valuable notes and

other aid; to Professor A. SCHIEFNER, of St. Petersburg, for his

courteous communication of very interesting illustrations not otherwise

accessible; to Major-General ALEXANDER CUNNINGHAM, of my own corps, for

several valuable letters; to my friends Dr. THOMAS OLDHAM, Director

of the Geological Survey of India, Mr. DANIEL HANBURY, F.R.S., Mr.

EDWARD THOMAS, Mr. JAMES FERGUSSON, F.R.S., Sir BARTLE FRERE, and Dr.

HUGH CLEGHORN, for constant interest in the work and readiness to

assist its progress; to Mr. A. WYLIE, the learned Agent of the B. and

F. Bible Society at Shang-hai, for valuable help; to the Hon. G. P.

MARSH, U.S. Minister at the Court of Italy, for untiring kindness in

the communication of his ample stores of knowledge, and of books. I

have also to express my obligations to Comm. NICOLÒ BAROZZI, Director

of the City Museum at Venice, and to Professor A. S. MINOTTO, of the

same city; to Professor ARMINIUS VÁMBÉRY, the eminent traveller;

to Professor FLÜCKIGER of Bern; to the Rev. H. A. JAESCHKE, of the

Moravian Mission in British Tibet; to Colonel LEWIS PELLY, British

Resident in the Persian Gulf; to Pandit MANPHUL, C.S.I. (for a most

interesting communication on Badakhshan); to my brother officer,

Major T. G. MONTGOMERIE, R.E., of the Indian Trigonometrical Survey;

to Commendatore NEGRI the indefatigable President of the Italian

Geographical Society; to Dr. ZOTENBERG, of the Great Paris Library, and

to M. CH. MAUNOIR, Secretary-General of the Société de Géographie; to

Professor HENRY GIGLIOLI, at Florence; to my old friend Major-General

ALBERT FYTCHE, Chief Commissioner of British Burma; to Dr. ROST and

Dr. FORBES-WATSON, of the India Office Library and Museum; to Mr.

R. H. MAJOR, and Mr. R. K. DOUGLAS, of the British Museum; to Mr.

N. B. DENNYS, of Hong-kong; and to Mr. C. GARDNER, of the Consular

Establishment in China. There are not a few others to whom my thanks

are equally due; but it is feared that the number of names already

mentioned may seem ridiculous, compared with the result, to those who

do not appreciate from how many quarters the facts needful for a work

which in its course intersects so many fields required to be collected,

one by one. I must not, however, omit acknowledgments to the present

Earl of DERBY for his courteous permission, when at the head of the

Foreign Office, to inspect Mr. Abbott’s valuable unpublished Report

upon some of the Interior Provinces of Persia; and to Mr. T. T. COOPER,

one of the most adventurous travellers of modern times, for leave to

quote some passages from his unpublished diary.

PALERMO, _31st December, 1870_.

[_Original Dedication._]

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS,

MARGHERITA,

_Princess of Piedmont_,

THIS ENDEAVOUR TO ILLUSTRATE THE LIFE AND WORK

OF A RENOWNED ITALIAN

BY HER ROYAL HIGHNESS’S GRACIOUS PERMISSION

=Dedicated=

WITH THE DEEPEST RESPECT

H. YULE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] _Cathay and The Way Thither, being a Collection of Minor Medieval

Notices of China_. London, 1866. The necessities of the case have

required the repetition in the present work of the substance of

some notes already printed (but hardly published) in the other.

[2] Viz. Mr. Hugh Murray’s. I mean no disrespect to Mr. T. Wright’s

edition, but it is, and professes to be, scarcely other than a

reproduction of Marsden’s, with abridgment of his notes.

[3] In the _Quarterly Review_ for July, 1868.

[4] M. Nicolas Khanikoff.

[5] In the Preliminary Notices will be found new matter on the Personal

and Family History of the Traveller, illustrated by Documents; and

a more elaborate attempt than I have seen elsewhere to classify and

account for the different texts of the work, and to trace their

mutual relation.

As regards geographical elucidations, I may point to the

explanation of the name _Gheluchelan_ (i. p. 58), to the discussion

of the route from Kerman to Hormuz, and the identification of the

sites of Old Hormuz, of _Cobinan_ and _Dogana_, the establishment

of the position and continued existence of _Keshm_, the note on

_Pein_ and _Charchan_, on _Gog_ and _Magog_, on the geography of

the route from _Sindafu_ to _Carajan_, on _Anin_ and _Coloman_, on

_Mutafili_, _Cail_, and _Ely_.

As regards historical illustrations, I would cite the notes

regarding the Queens _Bolgana_ and _Cocachin_, on the _Karaunahs_,

etc., on the title of King of _Bengal_ applied to the K. of Burma,

and those bearing upon the Malay and Abyssinian chronologies.

In the interpretation of outlandish phrases, I may refer to the

notes on _Ondanique_, _Nono_, _Barguerlac_, _Argon_, _Sensin_,

_Keshican_, _Toscaol_, _Bularguchi_, _Gat-paul_, etc.

Among miscellaneous elucidations, to the disquisition on the _Arbre

Sol_ or _Sec_ in vol. i., and to that on Mediæval Military Engines

in vol. ii.

In a variety of cases it has been necessary to refer to Eastern

languages for pertinent elucidations or etymologies. The editor

would, however, be sorry to fall under the ban of the mediæval

adage:

“_Vir qui docet quod non sapit Definitur Bestia!_”

and may as well reprint here what was written in the Preface to

_Cathay_:

“I am painfully sensible that in regard to many subjects dealt

with in the following pages, nothing can make up for the want of

genuine Oriental learning. A fair familiarity with Hindustani for

many years, and some reminiscences of elementary Persian, have been

useful in their degree; but it is probable that they may sometimes

also have led me astray, as such slender lights are apt to do.”

[Illustration]

HENRY YULE.

Until you raised dead monarchs from the mould

And built again the domes of Xanadu,

I lay in evil case, and never knew

The glamour of that ancient story told

By good Ser Marco in his prison-hold.

But now I sit upon a throne and view

The Orient at my feet, and take of you

And Marco tribute from the realms of old.

If I am joyous, deem me not o’er bold;

If I am grateful, deem me not untrue;

For you have given me beauties to behold,

Delight to win, and fancies to pursue,

Fairer than all the jewelry and gold

Of Kublaï on his throne in Cambalu.

E. C. BABER.

_20th July, 1884._

MEMOIR OF SIR HENRY YULE.

Henry Yule was the youngest son of Major William Yule, by his first

wife, Elizabeth Paterson, and was born at Inveresk, in Midlothian, on

1st May, 1820. He was named after an _aunt_ who, like Miss Ferrier’s

immortal heroine, owned a man’s name.

On his father’s side he came of a hardy agricultural stock,[1] improved

by a graft from that highly-cultured tree, Rose of Kilravock.[2]

Through his mother, a somewhat prosaic person herself, he inherited

strains from Huguenot and Highland ancestry. There were recognisable

traces of all these elements in Henry Yule, and as was well said

by one of his oldest friends: “He was one of those curious racial

compounds one finds on the east side of Scotland, in whom the hard

Teutonic grit is sweetened by the artistic spirit of the more genial

Celt.”[3] His father, an officer of the Bengal army (born 1764, died

1839), was a man of cultivated tastes and enlightened mind, a good

Persian and Arabic scholar, and possessed of much miscellaneous

Oriental learning. During the latter years of his career in India, he

served successively as Assistant Resident at the (then independent)

courts of Lucknow[4] and Delhi. In the latter office his chief was the

noble Ouchterlony. William Yule, together with his younger brother

Udny,[5] returned home in 1806. “A recollection of their voyage was

that they hailed an outward bound ship, somewhere off the Cape, through

the trumpet: ‘What news?’ Answer: ‘The King’s mad, and Humfrey’s beat

Mendoza’ (two celebrated prize-fighters and often matched). ‘Nothing

more?’ ‘Yes, Bonapart_y_’s made his _Mother_ King of Holland!’

“Before his retirement, William Yule was offered the

Lieut.-Governorship of St. Helena. Two of the detailed privileges

of the office were residence at Longwood (afterwards the house of

Napoleon), and the use of a certain number of the Company’s slaves.

Major Yule, who was a strong supporter of the anti-slavery cause

till its triumph in 1834, often recalled both of these offers with

amusement.”[6]

William Yule was a man of generous chivalrous nature, who took large

views of life, apt to be unfairly stigmatised as Radical in the narrow

Tory reaction that prevailed in Scotland during the early years of the

19th century.[7] Devoid of literary ambition, he wrote much for his

private pleasure, and his knowledge and library (rich in Persian and

Arabic MSS.) were always placed freely at the service of his friends

and correspondents, some of whom, such as Major C. Stewart and Mr.

William Erskine, were more given to publication than himself. He never

travelled without a little 8vo MS. of Hafiz, which often lay under his

pillow. Major Yule’s only printed work was a lithographed edition of

the _Apothegms_ of ’Ali, the son of Abu Talib, in the Arabic, with an

old Persian version and an English translation interpolated by himself.

“This was privately issued in 1832, when the Duchesse d’Angoulême was

living at Edinburgh, and the little work was inscribed to her, with

whom an accident of neighbourhood and her kindness to the Major’s

youngest child had brought him into relations of goodwill.”[8]

Henry Yule’s childhood was mainly spent at Inveresk. He used to say

that his earliest recollection was sitting with the little cousin,

who long after became his wife, on the doorstep of her father’s house

in George Street, Edinburgh (now the Northern Club), listening to the

performance of a passing piper. There was another episode which he

recalled with humorous satisfaction. Fired by his father’s tales of

the jungle, Yule (then about six years old) proceeded to improvise an

elephant pit in the back garden, only too successfully, for soon, with

mingled terror and delight, he saw his uncle John[9] fall headlong

into the snare. He lost his mother before he was eight, and almost his

only remembrance of her was the circumstance of her having given him

a little lantern to light him home on winter nights from his first

school. On Sundays it was the Major’s custom to lend his children,

as a picture-book, a folio Arabic translation of the Four Gospels,

printed at Rome in 1591, which contained excellent illustrations from

Italian originals.[10] Of the pictures in this volume Yule seems never

to have tired. The last page bore a MS. note in Latin to the effect

that the volume had been read in the Chaldæan Desert by _Georgius

Strachanus_, _Milnensis_, _Scotus_, who long remained unidentified, not

to say mythical, in Yule’s mind. But George Strachan never passed from

his memory, and having ultimately run him to earth, Yule, sixty years

later, published the results in an interesting article.[11]

Two or three years after his wife’s death, Major Yule removed to

Edinburgh, and established himself in Regent’s Terrace, on the face

of the Calton Hill.[12] This continued to be Yule’s home until his

father’s death, shortly before he went to India. “Here he learned to

love the wide scenes of sea and land spread out around that hill—a

love he never lost, at home or far away. And long years after, with

beautiful Sicilian hills before him and a lovely sea, he writes words

of fond recollection of the bleak Fife hills, and the grey Firth of

Forth.”[13]

Yule now followed his elder brother, Robert, to the famous High School,

and in the summer holidays the two made expeditions to the West

Highlands, the Lakes of Cumberland, and elsewhere. Major Yule chose his

boys to have every reasonable indulgence and advantage, and when the

British Association, in 1834, held its first Edinburgh meeting, Henry

received a member’s ticket. So, too, when the passing of the Reform

Bill was celebrated in the same year by a great banquet, at which Lord

Grey and other prominent politicians were present, Henry was sent to

the dinner, probably the youngest guest there.[14]

At this time the intention was that Henry should go to Cambridge (where

his name was, indeed, entered), and after taking his degree study for

the Bar. With this view he was, in 1833, sent to Waith, near Ripon, to

be coached by the Rev. H. P. Hamilton, author of a well-known treatise,

_On Conic Sections_, and afterwards Dean of Salisbury. At his tutor’s

hospitable rectory Yule met many notabilities of the day. One of them

was Professor Sedgwick.

There was rumoured at this time the discovery of the first known (?)

fossil monkey, but its tail was missing. “Depend upon it, Daniel

O’Conell’s got hold of it!” said ‘Adam’ briskly.[15] Yule was very

happy with Mr. Hamilton and his kind wife, but on his tutor’s removal

to Cambridge other arrangements became necessary, and in 1835 he was

transferred to the care of the Rev. James Challis, rector of Papworth

St. Everard, a place which “had little to recommend it except a

dulness which made reading almost a necessity.”[16] Mr. Challis had at

this time two other resident pupils, who both, in most diverse ways,

attained distinction in the Church. These were John Mason Neale, the

future eminent ecclesiologist and founder of the devoted Anglican

Sisterhood of St. Margaret, and Harvey Goodwin, long afterwards the

studious and large-minded Bishop of Carlisle. With the latter, Yule

remained on terms of cordial friendship to the end of his life. Looking

back through more than fifty years to these boyish days, Bishop Goodwin

wrote that Yule then “showed much more liking for Greek plays and for

German than for mathematics, though he had considerable geometrical

ingenuity.”[17] On one occasion, having solved a problem that puzzled

Goodwin, Yule thus discriminated the attainments of the three pupils:

“The difference between you and me is this: You like it and can’t do

it; I don’t like it and can do it. Neale neither likes it nor can do

it.” Not bad criticism for a boy of fifteen.[18]

On Mr. Challis being appointed Plumerian Professor at Cambridge, in the

spring of 1836, Yule had to leave him, owing to want of room at the

Observatory, and he became for a time, a most dreary time, he said, a

student at University College, London.

By this time Yule had made up his mind that not London and the Law,

but India and the Army should be his choice, and accordingly in Feb.

1837 he joined the East India Company’s Military College at Addiscombe.

From Addiscombe he passed out, in December 1838, at the head of the

cadets of his term (taking the prize sword[19]), and having been duly

appointed to the Bengal Engineers, proceeded early in 1839 to the

Headquarters of the Royal Engineers at Chatham, where, according to

custom, he was enrolled as a “local and temporary Ensign.” For such

was then the invidious designation at Chatham of the young Engineer

officers of the Indian army, who ranked as full lieutenants in their

own Service, from the time of leaving Addiscombe.[20] Yule once

audaciously tackled the formidable Pasley on this very grievance. The

venerable Director, after a minute’s pondering, replied: “Well, I don’t

remember what the reason was, but I have _no_ doubt (_staccato_) it ...

was ... a very ... _good_ reason.”[21]

“When Yule appeared among us at Chatham in 1839,” said his friend

Collinson, “he at once took a prominent place in our little Society by

his slightly advanced age [he was then 18½], but more by his strong

character.... His earlier education ... gave him a better classical

knowledge than most of us possessed; then he had the reserve and

self-possession characteristic of his race; but though he took small

part in the games and other recreations of our time, his knowledge,

his native humour, and his good comradeship, and especially his strong

sense of right and wrong, made him both admired and respected.... Yule

was not a scientific engineer, though he had a good general knowledge

of the different branches of his profession; his natural capacity lay

rather in varied knowledge, combined with a strong understanding and

an excellent memory, and also a peculiar power as a draughtsman, which

proved of great value in after life.... Those were nearly the last

days of the old _régime_, of the orthodox double sap and cylindrical

pontoons, when Pasley’s genius had been leading to new ideas, and when

Lintorn Simmons’ power, G. Leach’s energy, W. Jervois’ skill, and

R. Tylden’s talent were developing under the wise example of Henry

Harness.”[22]

In the Royal Engineer mess of those days (the present anteroom), the

portrait of Henry Yule now faces that of his first chief, Sir Henry

Harness. General Collinson said that the pictures appeared to eye each

other as if the subjects were continuing one of those friendly disputes

in which they so often engaged.[23]

It was in this room that Yule, Becher, Collinson, and other young

R.E.’s, profiting by the temporary absence of the austere Colonel

Pasley, acted some plays, including _Pizarro_. Yule bore the humble

part of one of the Peruvian Mob in this performance, of which he has

left a droll account.[24]

On the completion of his year at Chatham, Yule prepared to sail for

India, but first went to take leave of his relative, General White. An

accident prolonged his stay, and before he left he had proposed to and

been refused by his cousin Annie. This occurrence, his first check,

seems to have cast rather a gloom over his start for India. He went

by the then newly-opened Overland Route, visiting Portugal, stopping

at Gibraltar to see his cousin, Major (afterwards General) Patrick

Yule, R.E.[25] He was under orders “to stop at Aden (then recently

acquired), to report on the water supply, and to deliver a set of

meteorological and magnetic instruments for starting an observatory

there. The overland journey then really meant so; tramping across the

desert to Suez with camels and Arabs, a proceeding not conducive to the

preservation of delicate instruments; and on arriving at Aden he found

that the intended observer was dead, the observatory not commenced, and

the instruments all broken. There was thus nothing left for him but to

go on at once” to Calcutta,[26] where he arrived at the end of 1840.

His first service lay in the then wild Khasia Hills, whither he was

detached for the purpose of devising means for the transport of the

local coal to the plains. In spite of the depressing character of

the climate (Cherrapunjee boasts the highest rainfall on record),

Yule thoroughly enjoyed himself, and always looked back with special

pleasure on the time he spent here. He was unsuccessful in the object

of his mission, the obstacles to cheap transport offered by the dense

forests and mighty precipices proving insurmountable, but he gathered

a wealth of interesting observations on the country and people, a

very primitive Mongolian race, which he subsequently embodied in two

excellent and most interesting papers (the first he ever published).[27]

In the following year, 1842, Yule was transferred to the irrigation

canals of the north-west with head-quarters at Kurnaul. Here he had

for chief Captain (afterwards General Sir William) Baker, who became

his dearest and most steadfast friend. Early in 1843 Yule had his

first experience of field service. The death without heir of the

Khytul Rajah, followed by the refusal of his family to surrender the

place to the native troops sent to receive it, obliged Government to

send a larger force against it, and the canal officers were ordered

to join this. Yule was detailed to serve under Captain Robert Napier

(afterwards F.-M. Lord Napier of Magdala). Their immediate duty was to

mark out the route for a night march of the troops, barring access to

all side roads, and neither officer having then had any experience of

war, they performed the duty “with all the elaborate care of novices.”

Suddenly there was an alarm, a light detected, and a night attack

awaited, when the danger resolved itself into Clerk Sahib’s _khansamah_

with welcome hot coffee![28] Their hopes were disappointed, there

was no fighting, and the Fort of Khytul was found deserted by the

enemy. It “was a strange scene of confusion—all the paraphernalia and

accumulation of odds and ends of a wealthy native family lying about

and inviting loot. I remember one beautiful crutch-stick of ebony with

two rams’ heads in jade. I took it and sent it in to the political

authority, intending to buy it when sold. There was a sale, but my

stick never appeared. Somebody had a more developed taste in jade....

Amid the general rummage that was going on, an officer of British

Infantry had been put over a part of the palace supposed to contain

treasure, and they—officers and all—were helping themselves. Henry

Lawrence was one of the politicals under George Clerk. When the news of

this affair came to him I was present. It was in a white marble loggia

in the palace, where was a white marble chair or throne on a basement.

Lawrence was sitting on this throne in great excitement. He wore an

Afghan _choga_, a sort of dressing-gown garment, and this, and his thin

locks, and thin beard were streaming in the wind. He always dwells in

my memory as a sort of pythoness on her tripod under the afflatus.”[29]

During his Indian service, Yule had renewed and continued by letters

his suit to Miss White, and persistency prevailing at last, he soon

after the conclusion of the Khytul affair applied for leave to go home

to be married. He sailed from Bombay in May, 1843, and in September of

the same year was married, at Bath, to the gifted and large-hearted

woman who, to the end, remained the strongest and happiest influence in

his life.[30]

Yule sailed for India with his wife in November 1843. The next two

years were employed chiefly in irrigation work, and do not call

for special note. They were very happy years, except in the one

circumstance that the climate having seriously affected his wife’s

health, and she having been brought to death’s door, partly by illness,

but still more by the drastic medical treatment of those days, she was

imperatively ordered back to England by the doctors, who forbade her

return to India.

Having seen her on board ship, Yule returned to duty on the canals.

The close of that year, December, 1845, brought some variety to his

work, as the outbreak of the first Sikh War called nearly all the

canal officers into the field. “They went up to the front by long

marches, passing through no stations, and quite unable to obtain any

news of what had occurred, though on the 21st December the guns of

Ferozshah were distinctly heard in their camp at Pehoa, at a distance

of 115 miles south-east from the field, and some days later they came

successively on the fields of Moodkee and of Ferozshah itself, with

all the recent traces of battle. When the party of irrigation officers

reached head-quarters, the arrangements for attacking the Sikh army

in its entrenchments at Sobraon were beginning (though suspended till

weeks later for the arrival of the tardy siege guns), and the opposed

forces were lying in sight of each other.”[31]

Yule’s share in this campaign was limited to the sufficiently arduous

task of bridging the Sutlej for the advance of the British army. It is

characteristic of the man that for this reason he always abstained

from wearing his medal for the Sutlej campaign.

His elder brother, Robert Yule, then in the 16th Lancers, took part in

that magnificent charge of his regiment at the battle of Aliwal (Jan.

28, 1846) which the Great Duke is said to have pronounced unsurpassed

in history. From particulars gleaned from his brother and others

present in the action, Henry Yule prepared a spirited sketch of the

episode, which was afterwards published as a coloured lithograph by

M‘Lean (Haymarket).

At the close of the war, Yule succeeded his friend Strachey as

Executive Engineer of the northern division of the Ganges Canal, with

his head-quarters at Roorkee, “the division which, being nearest the

hills and crossed by intermittent torrents of great breadth and great

volume when in flood, includes the most important and interesting

engineering works.”[32]

At Roorkee were the extensive engineering workshops connected with the

canal. Yule soon became so accustomed to the din as to be undisturbed

by the noise, but the unpunctuality and carelessness of the native

workmen sorely tried his patience, of which Nature had endowed him with

but a small reserve. Vexed with himself for letting temper so often get

the better of him, Yule’s conscientious mind devised a characteristic

remedy. Each time that he lost his temper, he transferred a fine of

two rupees (then about five shillings) from his right to his left

pocket. When about to leave Roorkee, he devoted this accumulation of

self-imposed fines to the erection of a sun-dial, to teach the natives

the value of time. The late Sir James Caird, who told this legend of

Roorkee as he heard it there in 1880, used to add, with a humorous

twinkle of his kindly eyes, “It was a _very_ handsome dial.”[33]

From September, 1845, to March, 1847, Yule was much occupied

intermittently, in addition to his professional work, by service on a

Committee appointed by Government “to investigate the causes of the

unhealthiness which has existed at Kurnal, and other portions of the

country along the line of the Delhi Canal,” and further, to report

“whether an injurious effect on the health of the people of the Doab

is, or is not, likely to be produced by the contemplated Ganges Canal.”

“A very elaborate investigation was made by the Committee, directed

principally to ascertaining what relation subsisted between certain

physical conditions of the different districts, and the liability of

their inhabitants to miasmatic fevers.” The principal conclusion of the

Committee was, “that in the extensive epidemic of 1843, when Kurnaul

suffered so seriously ... the greater part of the evils observed had

not been the necessary and unavoidable results of canal irrigation,

but were due to interference with the natural drainage of the country,

to the saturation of stiff and retentive soils, and to natural

disadvantages of site, enhanced by excess of moisture. As regarded

the Ganges Canal, they were of opinion that, with due attention to

drainage, improvement rather than injury to the general health might

be expected to follow the introduction of canal irrigation.”[34] In an

unpublished note written about 1889, Yule records his ultimate opinion

as follows: “At this day, and after the large experience afforded by

the Ganges Canal, I feel sure that a verdict so favourable to the

sanitary results of canal irrigation would not be given.” Still the

fact remains that the Ganges Canal has been the source of unspeakable

blessings to an immense population.

The Second Sikh War saw Yule again with the army in the field,

and on 13th Jan. 1849, he was present at the dismal ‘Victory’ of

Chillianwallah, of which his most vivid recollection seemed to be the

sudden apparition of Henry Lawrence, fresh from London, but still clad

in the legendary Afghan cloak.

On the conclusion of the Punjab campaign, Yule, whose health had

suffered, took furlough and went home to his wife. For the next three

years they resided chiefly in Scotland, though paying occasional visits

to the Continent, and about 1850 Yule bought a house in Edinburgh.

There he wrote “The African Squadron vindicated” (a pamphlet which was

afterwards re-published in French), translated Schiller’s _Kampf mit

dem Drachen_ into English verse, delivered Lectures on Fortification at

the, now long defunct, Scottish Naval and Military Academy, wrote on

Tibet for his friend Blackwood’s Magazine, attended the 1850 Edinburgh

Meeting of the British Association, wrote his excellent lines, “On

the Loss of the _Birkenhead_,” and commenced his first serious study

of Marco Polo (by whose wondrous tale, however, he had already been

captivated as a boy in his father’s library—in Marsden’s edition

probably). But the most noteworthy literary result of these happy

years was that really fascinating volume, entitled _Fortification for

Officers of the Army and Students of Military History_, a work that has

remained unique of its kind. This was published by Blackwood in 1851,

and seven years later received the honour of (unauthorised) translation

into French. Yule also occupied himself a good deal at this time with

the practice of photography, a pursuit to which he never after reverted.

In the spring of 1852, Yule made an interesting little

semi-professional tour in company with a brother officer, his

accomplished friend, Major R. B. Smith. Beginning with Kelso, “the

only one of the Teviotdale Abbeys which I had not as yet seen,” they

made their way leisurely through the north of England, examining

with impartial care abbeys and cathedrals, factories, brick-yards,

foundries, timber-yards, docks, and railway works. On this occasion

Yule, contrary to his custom, kept a journal, and a few excerpts may be

given here, as affording some notion of his casual talk to those who

did not know him.

At Berwick-on-Tweed he notes the old ramparts of the town: “These,

erected in Elizabeth’s time, are interesting as being, I believe, the

only existing sample in England of the bastioned system of the 16th

century.... The outline of the works seems perfect enough, though both

earth and stone work are in great disrepair. The bastions are large

with obtuse angles, square orillons, and double flanks originally

casemated, and most of them crowned with cavaliers.” On the way to

Durham, “much amused by the discussions of two passengers, one a

smooth-spoken, semi-clerical looking person; the other a brusque

well-to-do attorney with a Northumbrian burr. Subject, among others,

Protection. The Attorney all for ‘cheap bread’— ‘You wouldn’t rob the

poor man of his loaf,’ and so forth. ‘You must go with the _stgheam_,

sir, you must go with the stgheam.’ ‘I never did, Mr. Thompson, and I

never will,’ said the other in an oily manner, singularly inconsistent

with the sentiment.” At Durham they dined with a dignitary of the

Church, and Yule was roasted by being placed with his back to an

enormous fire. “Coals are cheap at Durham,” he notes feelingly, adding,

“The party we found as heavy as any Edinburgh one. Smith, indeed,

evidently has had little experience of really stupid Edinburgh parties,

for he had never met with anything approaching to this before.” (Happy

Smith!) But thanks to the kindness and hospitality of the astronomer,

Mr. Chevalier, and his gifted daughter, they had a delightful visit

to beautiful Durham, and came away full of admiration for the (then

newly established) University, and its grand _locale_. They went on

to stay with an uncle by marriage of Yule’s, in Yorkshire. At dinner

he was asked by his host to explain Foucault’s pendulum experiment.

“I endeavoured to explain it somewhat, I hope, to the satisfaction of

his doubts, but not at all to that of Mr. G. M., who most resolutely

declined to take in _any_ elucidation, coming at last to the conclusion

that he entirely differed with me as to what North meant, and that

it was useless to argue until we could agree about that!” They

went next to Leeds, to visit Kirkstall Abbey, “a mediæval fossil,

curiously embedded among the squalid brickwork and chimney stalks of

a manufacturing suburb. Having established ourselves at the hotel, we

went to deliver a letter to Mr. Hope, the official assignee, a very

handsome, aristocratic-looking gentleman, who seemed as much out of

place at Leeds as the Abbey.” At Leeds they visited the flax mills

of Messrs. Marshall, “a firm noted for the conscientious care they

take of their workpeople.... We mounted on the roof of the building,

which is covered with grass, and formerly was actually grazed by a

few sheep, until the repeated inconvenience of their tumbling through

the glass domes put a stop to this.” They next visited some tile and

brickworks on land belonging to a friend. “The owner of the tile works,

a well-to-do burgher, and the apparent model of a West Riding Radical,

received us in rather a dubious way: ‘There are a many people has

come and brought introductions, and looked at all my works, and then

gone and set up for themselves close by. Now des you mean to say that

you be really come all the way from Beng_u_l?’ ‘Yes, indeed we have,

and we are going all the way back again, though we didn’t exactly

come from there to look at your brickworks.’ ‘Then you’re not in the

brick-making line, are you?’ ‘Why we’ve had a good deal to do with

making bricks, and may have again; but we’ll engage that if we set up

for ourselves, it shall be ten thousand miles from you.’ This seemed in

some degree to set his mind at rest....”

“A dismal day, with occasional showers, prevented our seeing Sheffield

to advantage. On the whole, however, it is more cheerful and has more

of a country-town look than Leeds—a place utterly without beauty of

aspect. At Leeds you have vast barrack-like factories, with their usual

suburbs of squalid rows of brick cottages, and everywhere the tall

spiracles of the steam, which seems the pervading power of the place.

Everything there is machinery—the machine is the intelligent agent, it

would seem, the man its slave, standing by to tend it and pick up a

broken thread now and then. At Sheffield ... you might go through most

of the streets without knowing anything of the kind was going on. And

steam here, instead of being a ruler, is a drudge, turning a grindstone

or rolling out a bar of steel, but all the accuracy and skill of hand

is the Man’s. And consequently there was, we thought, a healthier

aspect about the men engaged. None of the Rodgers remain who founded

the firm in my father’s time. I saw some pairs of his scissors in the

show-room still kept under the name of _Persian_ scissors.”[35]

From Sheffield Yule and his friend proceeded to Boston, “where there

is the most exquisite church tower I have ever seen,” and thence to

Lincoln, Peterborough, and Ely, ending their tour at Cambridge, where

Yule spent a few delightful days.

In the autumn the great Duke of Wellington died, and Yule witnessed the

historic pageant of his funeral. His furlough was now nearly expired,

and early in December he again embarked for India, leaving his wife

and only child, of a few weeks old, behind him. Some verses dated

“Christmas Day near the Equator,” show how much he felt the separation.

Shortly after his return to Bengal, Yule received orders to proceed

to Aracan, and to examine and report upon the passes between Aracan

and Burma, as also to improve communications and select suitable

sites for fortified posts to hold the same. These orders came to Yule

quite unexpectedly late one Saturday evening, but he completed all

preparations and started at daybreak on the following Monday, 24th Jan.

1853.

From Calcutta to Khyook Phyoo, Yule proceeded by steamer, and thence

up the river in the _Tickler_ gunboat to Krenggyuen. “Our course lay

through a wilderness of wooded islands (50 to 200 feet high) and bays,

sailing when we could, anchoring when neither wind nor tide served

... slow progress up the river. More and more like the creeks and

lagoons of the Niger or a Guiana river rather than anything I looked

for in India. The densest tree jungle covers the shore down into the

water. For miles no sign of human habitation, but now and then at

rare intervals one sees a patch of hillside rudely cleared, with the

bare stems of the burnt trees still standing.... Sometimes, too, a

dark tunnel-like creek runs back beneath the thick vault of jungle,

and from it silently steals out a slim canoe, manned by two or three

wild-looking Mugs or Kyens (people of the Hills), driving it rapidly

along with their short paddles held vertically, exactly like those of

the Red men on the American rivers.”

At the military post of Bokhyong, near Krenggyuen, he notes (5th Feb.)

that “Captain Munro, the adjutant, can scarcely believe that I was

present at the Duke of Wellington’s funeral, of which he read but a

few days ago in the newspapers, and here am I, one of the spectators,

a guest in this wild spot among the mountains—2½ months since I left

England.”

Yule’s journal of his arduous wanderings in these border wilds is

full of interest, but want of space forbids further quotation. From

a note on the fly-leaf it appears that from the time of quitting the

gun-boat at Krenggyuen to his arrival at Toungoop he covered about 240

miles on foot, and that under immense difficulties, even as to food.

He commemorated his tribulations in some cheery humorous verse, but

ultimately fell seriously ill of the local fever, aided doubtless by

previous exposure and privation. His servants successively fell ill,

some died and others had to be sent back, food supplies failed, and

the route through those dense forests was uncertain; yet under all

difficulties he seems never to have grumbled or lost heart. And when

things were nearly at the worst, Yule restored the spirits of his

local escort by improvising a wappenshaw, with a Sheffield gardener’s

knife, which he happened to have with him, for prize! When at last Yule

emerged from the wilds and on 25th March marched into Prome, he was

taken for his own ghost! “Found Fraser (of the Engineers) in a rambling

phoongyee house, just under the great gilt pagoda. I went up to him

announcing myself, and his astonishment was so great that he would

scarcely shake hands!” It was on this occasion at Prome that Yule first

met his future chief Captain Phayre—“a very young-looking man—very

cordial,” a description no less applicable to General Sir Arthur Phayre

at the age of seventy!

After some further wanderings, Yule embarked at Sandong, and returned

by water, touching at Kyook Phyoo and Akyab, to Calcutta, which he

reached on 1st May—his birthday.

The next four months were spent in hard work at Calcutta. In August,

Yule received orders to proceed to Singapore, and embarked on the 29th.

His duty was to report on the defences of the Straits Settlements, with

a view to their improvement. Yule’s recommendations were sanctioned by

Government, but his journal bears witness to the prevalence then, as

since, of the penny-wise-pound-foolish system in our administration. On

all sides he was met by difficulties in obtaining sites for batteries,

etc., for which heavy compensation was demanded, when by the exercise

of reasonable foresight, the same might have been secured earlier at a

nominal price.

Yule’s journal contains a very bright and pleasing picture of

Singapore, where he found that the majority of the European population

“were evidently, from their tongues, from benorth the Tweed, a

circumstance which seems to be true of four-fifths of the Singaporeans.

Indeed, if I taught geography, I should be inclined to class Edinburgh,

Glasgow, Dundee, and Singapore together as the four chief towns of

Scotland.”

Work on the defences kept Yule in Singapore and its neighbourhood until

the end of November, when he embarked for Bengal. On his return to

Calcutta, Yule was appointed Deputy Consulting Engineer for Railways

at Head-quarters. In this post he had for chief his old friend Baker,

who had in 1851 been appointed by the Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie,

Consulting Engineer for Railways to Government. The office owed its

existence to the recently initiated great experiment of railway

construction under Government guarantee.

The subject was new to Yule, “and therefore called for hard and anxious

labour. He, however, turned his strong sense and unbiased view to the

general question of railway communication in India, with the result

that he became a vigorous supporter of the idea of narrow gauge and

cheap lines in the parts of that country outside of the main trunk

lines of traffic.”[36]

The influence of Yule, and that of his intimate friends and ultimate

successors in office, Colonels R. Strachey and Dickens, led to the

adoption of the narrow (metre) gauge over a great part of India. Of

this matter more will be said further on; it is sufficient at this

stage to note that it was occupying Yule’s thoughts, and that he had

already taken up the position in this question that he thereafter

maintained through life. The office of Consulting Engineer to

Government for Railways ultimately developed into the great Department

of Public Works.

As related by Yule, whilst Baker “held this appointment, Lord Dalhousie

was in the habit of making use of his advice in a great variety of

matters connected with Public Works projects and questions, but which

had nothing to do with guaranteed railways, there being at that time no

officer attached to the Government of India, whose proper duty it was

to deal with such questions. In August, 1854, the Government of India

sent home to the Court of Directors a despatch and a series of minutes

by the Governor-General and his Council, in which the constitution of

the Public Works Department as a separate branch of administration,

both in the local governments and the government of India itself, was

urged on a detailed plan.”

In this communication Lord Dalhousie stated his desire to appoint Major

Baker to the projected office of Secretary for the Department of Public

Works. In the spring of 1855 these recommendations were carried out by

the creation of the Department, with Baker as Secretary and Yule as

Under Secretary for Public Works.

Meanwhile Yule’s services were called to a very different field, but

without his vacating his new appointment, which he was allowed to

retain. Not long after the conclusion of the second Burmese War, the

King of Burma sent a friendly mission to the Governor-General, and

in 1855 a return Embassy was despatched to the Court of Ava, under

Colonel Arthur Phayre, with Henry Yule as Secretary, an appointment

the latter owed as much to Lord Dalhousie’s personal wish as to

Phayre’s good-will. The result of this employment was Yule’s first

geographical book, a large volume entitled _Mission to the Court of Ava

in 1855_, originally printed in India, but subsequently re-issued in

an embellished form at home (see over leaf). To the end of his life,

Yule looked back to this “social progress up the Irawady, with its many

quaint and pleasant memories, as to a bright and joyous holiday.”[37]

It was a delight to him to work under Phayre, whose noble and lovable

character he had already learned to appreciate two years before in

Pegu. Then, too, Yule has spoken of the intense relief it was to escape

from the monotonous scenery and depressing conditions of official

life in Bengal (Resort to Simla was the exception, not the rule, in

these days!) to the cheerfulness and unconstraint of Burma, with its

fine landscapes and merry-hearted population. “It was such a relief

to find natives who would laugh at a joke,” he once remarked in the

writer’s presence to the lamented E. C. Baber, who replied that he had

experienced exactly the same sense of relief in passing from India to

China.

Yule’s work on Burma was largely illustrated by his own sketches. One

of these represents the King’s reception of the Embassy, and another,

the King on his throne. The originals were executed by Yule’s ready

pencil, surreptitiously within his cocked hat, during the audience.

From the latter sketch Yule had a small oil-painting executed under his

direction by a German artist, then resident in Calcutta, which he gave

to Lord Dalhousie.[38]

The Government of India marked their approval of the Embassy by an

unusual concession. Each of the members of the mission received a

souvenir of the expedition. To Yule was given a very beautiful and

elaborately chased small bowl, of nearly pure gold, bearing the signs

of the Zodiac in relief.[39]

On his return to Calcutta, Yule threw himself heart and soul into the

work of his new appointment in the Public Works Department. The nature

of his work, the novelty and variety of the projects and problems

with which this new branch of the service had to deal, brought Yule

into constant, and eventually very intimate association with Lord

Dalhousie, whom he accompanied on some of his tours of inspection.

The two men thoroughly appreciated each other, and, from first to

last, Yule experienced the greatest kindness from Lord Dalhousie. In

this intimacy, no doubt the fact of being what French soldiers call

_pays_ added something to the warmth of their mutual regard: their

forefathers came from the same _airt_, and neither was unmindful of the

circumstance. It is much to be regretted that Yule preserved no sketch

of Lord Dalhousie, nor written record of his intercourse with him, but

the following lines show some part of what he thought:

“At this time [1849] there appears upon the scene that vigorous and

masterful spirit, whose arrival to take up the government of India had

been greeted by events so inauspicious. No doubt from the beginning the

Governor-General was desirous to let it be understood that although new

to India he was, and meant to be, master; ... Lord Dalhousie was by no

means averse to frank dissent, provided _in the manner_ it was never

forgotten that he was Governor-General. Like his great predecessor Lord

Wellesley, he was jealous of all familiarity and resented it.... The

general sentiment of those who worked under that ἄναξ ανδρῶν was one of

strong and admiring affection ... and we doubt if a Governor-General

ever embarked on the Hoogly amid deeper feeling than attended him who,

shattered by sorrow and physical suffering, but erect and undaunted,

quitted Calcutta on the 6th March 1856.”[40]

His successor was Lord Canning, whose confidence in Yule and personal

regard for him became as marked as his predecessor’s.

In the autumn of 1856, Yule took leave and came home. Much of his

time while in England was occupied with making arrangements for the

production of an improved edition of his book on Burma, which so

far had been a mere government report. These were completed to his

satisfaction, and on the eve of returning to India, he wrote to his

publishers[41] that the correction of the proof sheets and general

supervision of the publication had been undertaken by his friend the

Rev. W. D. Maclagan, formerly an officer of the Madras army (and now

Archbishop of York).

Whilst in England, Yule had renewed his intimacy with his old friend

Colonel Robert Napier, then also on furlough, a visitor whose kindly

sympathetic presence always brought special pleasure also to Yule’s

wife and child. One result of this intercourse was that the friends

decided to return together to India. Accordingly they sailed from

Marseilles towards the end of April, and at Aden were met by the

astounding news of the outbreak of the Mutiny.

On his arrival in Calcutta Yule, who retained his appointment of Under

Secretary to Government, found his work indefinitely increased. Every

available officer was called into the field, and Yule’s principal

centre of activity was shifted to the great fortress of Allahabad,

forming the principal base of operations against the rebels. Not only

had he to strengthen or create defences at Allahabad and elsewhere,

but on Yule devolved the principal burden of improvising accommodation

for the European troops then pouring into India, which ultimately

meant providing for an army of 100,000 men. His task was made the

more difficult by the long-standing chronic friction, then and long

after, existing between the officers of the Queen’s and the Company’s

services. But in a far more important matter he was always fortunate.

As he subsequently recorded in a Note for Government: “Through all

consciousness of mistakes and shortcomings, I have felt that I had the

confidence of those whom I served, a feeling which has lightened many a

weight.”

It was at Allahabad that Yule, in the intervals of more serious work,

put the last touches to his Burma book. The preface of the English

edition is dated, “Fortress of Allahabad, Oct. 3, 1857,” and contains

a passage instinct with the emotions of the time. After recalling

the “joyous holiday” on the Irawady, he goes on: “But for ourselves,

standing here on the margin of these rivers, which a few weeks ago were

red with the blood of our murdered brothers and sisters, and straining

the ear to catch the echo of our avenging artillery, it is difficult to

turn the mind to what seem dreams of past days of peace and security;

and memory itself grows dim in the attempt to repass the gulf which

the last few months has interposed between the present and the time to

which this narrative refers.”[42]

When he wrote these lines, the first relief had just taken place, and

the second defence of Lucknow was beginning. The end of the month saw

Sir Colin Campbell’s advance to the second—the real—relief of Lucknow.

Of Sir Colin, Yule wrote and spoke with warm regard: “Sir Colin was

delightful, and when in a good humour and at his best, always reminded

me very much, both in manner and talk, of the General (_i.e._ General

White, his wife’s father). The voice was just the same and the quiet

gentle manner, with its underlying keen dry humour. But then if you did

happen to offend Sir Colin, it was like treading on crackers, which was

not our General’s way.”

When Lucknow had been relieved, besieged, reduced, and finally

remodelled by the grand Roads and Demolitions Scheme of his friend

Napier, the latter came down to Allahabad, and he and Yule sought

diversion in playing quoits and skittles, the only occasion on which

either of them is known to have evinced any liking for games.

Before this time Yule had succeeded his friend Baker as _de facto_

Secretary to Government for Public Works, and on Baker’s retirement

in 1858, Yule was formally appointed his successor.[43] Baker and

Yule had, throughout their association, worked in perfect unison,

and the very differences in their characters enhanced the value of

their co-operation; the special qualities of each friend mutually

strengthened and completed each other. Yule’s was by far the more

original and creative mind, Baker’s the more precise and, at least in

a professional sense, the more highly-trained organ. In chivalrous

sense of honour, devotion to duty, and natural generosity, the men

stood equal; but while Yule was by nature impatient and irritable, and

liable, until long past middle age, to occasional sudden bursts of

uncontrollable anger, generally followed by periods of black depression

and almost absolute silence,[44] Baker was the very reverse. Partly by

natural temperament, but also certainly by severe self-discipline, his

manner was invincibly placid and his temper imperturbable.[45] Yet none

was more tenacious in maintaining whatever he judged right.

Baker, whilst large-minded in great matters, was extremely conventional

in small ones, and Yule must sometimes have tried his feelings

in this respect. The particulars of one such tragic occurrence

have survived. Yule, who was colour-blind,[46] and in early life

whimsically obstinate in maintaining his own view of colours, had

selected some cloth for trousers undeterred by his tailor’s timid

remonstrance of “Not _quite_ your usual taste, sir.” The result was

that the Under-Secretary to Government startled official Calcutta by

appearing in brilliant claret-coloured raiment. Baker remonstrated:

“Claret-colour! Nonsense, my trousers are silver grey,” said Yule, and

entirely declined to be convinced. “I think I _did_ convince him at

last,” said Baker with some pride, when long after telling the story to

the present writer. “And _then_ he gave them up?” “Oh, no,” said Sir

William ruefully, “he wore those claret-coloured trousers to the very

end.” That episode probably belonged to the Dalhousie period.

When Yule resumed work in the Secretariat at Calcutta at the close of

the Mutiny, the inevitable arrears of work were enormous. This may be

the proper place to notice more fully his action with respect to the

choice of gauge for Indian railways already adverted to in brief. As

we have seen, his own convictions led to the adoption of the metre

gauge over a great part of India. This policy had great disadvantages

not at first foreseen, and has since been greatly modified. In

justice to Yule, however, it should be remembered that the conditions

and requirements of India have largely altered, alike through the

extraordinary growth of the Indian export, especially the grain, trade,

and the development of new necessities for Imperial defence. These new

features, however, did but accentuate defects inherent in the system,

but which only prolonged practical experience made fully apparent.

At the outset the supporters of the narrow gauge seemed to have the

stronger position, as they were able to show that the cost was much

less, the rails employed being only about ⅔rds the weight of those

required by the broad gauge, and many other subsidiary expenses also

proportionally less. On the other hand, as time passed and practical

experience was gained, its opponents were able to make an even stronger

case against the narrow gauge. The initial expenses were undoubtedly

less, but the durability was also less. Thus much of the original

saving was lost in the greater cost of maintenance, whilst the small

carrying capacity of the rolling stock and loss of time and labour in

shifting goods at every break of gauge, were further serious causes of

waste, which the internal commercial development of India daily made

more apparent. Strategic needs also were clamant against the dangers

of the narrow gauge in any general scheme of Indian defence. Yule’s

connection with the Public Works Department had long ceased ere the

question of the gauges reached its most acute stage, but his interest

and indirect participation in the conflict survived. In this matter

a certain parental tenderness for a scheme which he had helped to

originate, combined with his warm friendship for some of the principal

supporters of the narrow gauge, seem to have influenced his views

more than he himself was aware. Certainly his judgment in this matter

was not impartial, although, as always in his case, it was absolutely

sincere and not consciously biased.

In reference to Yule’s services in the period following the Mutiny,

Lord Canning’s subsequent Minute of 1862 may here be fitly quoted. In

this the Governor-General writes: “I have long ago recorded my opinion

of the value of his services in 1858 and 1859, when with a crippled

and overtaxed staff of Engineer officers, many of them young and

inexperienced, the G.-G. had to provide rapidly for the accommodation

of a vast English army, often in districts hitherto little known, and

in which the authority of the Government was barely established, and

always under circumstances of difficulty and urgency. I desire to

repeat that the Queen’s army in India was then greatly indebted to

Lieut.-Colonel Yule’s judgment, earnestness, and ability; and this to

an extent very imperfectly understood by many of the officers who held

commands in that army.

“Of the manner in which the more usual duties of his office have

been discharged it is unnecessary for me to speak. It is, I believe,

known and appreciated as well by the Home Government as by the

Governor-General in Council.”

In the spring of 1859 Yule felt the urgent need of a rest, and took

the, at that time, most unusual step of coming home on three months’

leave, which as the voyage then occupied a month each way, left him

only one month at home. He was accompanied by his elder brother George,

who had not been out of India for thirty years. The visit home of the

two brothers was as bright and pleasant as it was brief, but does not

call for further notice.

In 1860, Yule’s health having again suffered, he took short leave to

Java. His journal of this tour is very interesting, but space does

not admit of quotation here. He embodied some of the results of his

observations in a lecture he delivered on his return to Calcutta.

During these latter years of his service in India, Yule owed much

happiness to the appreciative friendship of Lord Canning and the ready

sympathy of Lady Canning. If he shared their tours in an official

capacity, the intercourse was much more than official. The noble

character of Lady Canning won from Yule such wholehearted chivalrous

devotion as, probably, he felt for no other friend save, perhaps in

after days, Sir Bartle Frere. And when her health failed, it was to

Yule’s special care that Lord Canning entrusted his wife during a tour

in the Hills. Lady Canning was known to be very homesick, and one day

as the party came in sight of some ilexes (the evergreen oak), Yule

sought to cheer her by calling out pleasantly: “Look, Lady Canning!

There are _oaks_!” “No, no, Yule, _not_ oaks,” cried Sir C. B. “They

are (solemnly) IBEXES.” “No, _not_ Ibexes, Sir C., you mean SILEXES,”

cried Capt. ——, the A.D.C.; Lady Canning and Yule the while almost

choking with laughter.

On another and later occasion, when the Governor-General’s camp was

peculiarly dull and stagnant, every one yawning and grumbling, Yule

effected a temporary diversion by pretending to tap the telegraph

wires, and circulating through camp, what purported to be, the usual

telegraphic abstract of news brought to Bombay by the latest English

mail. The news was of the most astounding character, with just enough

air of probability, in minor details, to pass muster with a dull

reader. The effect was all he could wish—or rather more—and there was

a general flutter in the camp. Of course the Governor-General and one

or two others were in the secret, and mightily relished the diversion.

But this pleasant and cheering intercourse was drawing to its mournful

close. On her way back from Darjeeling, in November, 1861, Lady Canning

(not then in Yule’s care) was unavoidably exposed to the malaria of a

specially unhealthy season. A few days’ illness followed, and on 18th

November, 1861, she passed calmly to

“That remaining rest where night and tears are o’er.”[47]

It was to Yule that Lord Canning turned in the first anguish of his

loss, and on this faithful friend devolved the sad privilege of

preparing her last resting-place. This may be told in the touching

words of Lord Canning’s letter to his only sister, written on the day

of Lady Canning’s burial, in the private garden at Barrackpoor[48]:—

“The funeral is over, and my own darling lies buried in a spot which

I am sure she would have chosen of all others.... From the grave can

be seen the embanked walk leading from the house to the river’s edge,

which she made as a landing-place three years ago, and from within 3

or 4 paces of the grave there is a glimpse of the terrace-garden and

its balustrades, which she made near the house, and of the part of

the grounds with which she most occupied herself.... I left Calcutta

yesterday ... and on arriving here, went to look at the precise spot

chosen for the grave. I could see by the clear full moon ... that it

was exactly right. Yule was there superintending the workmen, and

before daylight this morning a solid masonry vault had been completely

finished.

“Bowie [Military Secretary] and Yule have done all this for me. It

has all been settled since my poor darling died. She liked Yule.

They used to discuss together her projects of improvement for this

place, architecture, gardening, the Cawnpore monument, etc., and they

generally agreed. He knew her tastes well....”

The coffin, brought on a gun-carriage from Calcutta, “was carried by

twelve soldiers of the 6th Regiment (Queen’s), the A.D.C.’s bearing

the pall. There were no hired men or ordinary funeral attendants of

any kind at any part of the ceremony, and no lookers-on.... Yule was

the only person not of the household staff. Had others who had asked”

to attend “been allowed to do so, the numbers would have been far too

large.

“On coming near the end of the terrace walk I saw that the turf

between the walk and the grave, and for several yards all round the

grave, was strewed thick with palm branches and bright fresh-gathered

flowers—quite a thick carpet. It was a little matter, but so exactly

what she would have thought of.”[49]

And, therefore, Yule thought of this for her! He also recorded the

scene two days later in some graceful and touching lines, privately

printed, from which the following may be quoted:

“When night lowered black, and the circling shroud

Of storm rolled near, and stout hearts learned dismay;

Not Hers! To her tried Lord a Light and Stay

Even in the Earthquake and the palpable cloud

Of those dark months; and when a fickle crowd

Panted for blood and pelted wrath and scorn

On him she loved, her courage never stooped:

But when the clouds were driven, and the day

Poured Hope and glorious Sunshine, she who had borne,

The night with such strong Heart, withered and drooped,

Our queenly lily, and smiling passed away.

Now! let no fouling touch profane her clay,

Nor odious pomps and funeral tinsels mar

Our grief. But from our England’s cannon car

Let England’s soldiers bear her to the tomb

Prepared by loving hands. Before her bier

Scatter victorious palms; let Rose’s bloom

Carpet its passage....”

Yule’s deep sympathy in this time of sorrow strengthened the friendship

Lord Canning had long felt for him, and when the time approached for

the Governor-General to vacate his high office, he invited Yule, who

was very weary of India, to accompany him home, where his influence

would secure Yule congenial employment. Yule’s weariness of India at

this time was extreme. Moreover, after serving under such leaders as

Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning, and winning their full confidence and

friendship, it was almost repugnant to him to begin afresh with new

men and probably new measures, with which he might not be in accord.

Indeed, some little clouds were already visible on the horizon. In

these circumstances, it is not surprising that Yule, under an impulse

of lassitude and impatience, when accepting Lord Canning’s offer,

also ‘burnt his boats’ by sending in his resignation of the service.

This decision Yule took against the earnest advice of his anxious and

devoted wife, and for a time the results justified all her misgivings.

She knew well, from past experience, how soon Yule wearied in the

absence of compulsory employment. And in the event of the life in

England not suiting him, for even Lord Canning’s good-will might

not secure perfectly congenial employment for his talents, she knew

well that his health and spirits would be seriously affected. She,

therefore, with affectionate solicitude, urged that he should adopt the

course previously followed by his friend Baker, that is, come home on

furlough, and only send in his resignation after he saw clearly what

his prospects of home employment were, and what he himself wished in

the matter.

Lord Canning and Yule left Calcutta late in March, 1862; at Malta

they parted never to meet again in this world. Lord Canning proceeded

to England, and Yule joined his wife and child in Rome. Only a few

weeks later, at Florence, came as a thunderclap the announcement of

Lord Canning’s unexpected death in London, on 17th June. Well does

the present writer remember the day that fatal news came, and Yule’s

deep anguish, not assuredly for the loss of his prospects, but for

the loss of a most noble and magnanimous friend, a statesman whose

true greatness was, both then and since, most imperfectly realised by

the country for which he had worn himself out.[50] Shortly after Yule

went to England,[51] where he was cordially received by Lord Canning’s

representatives, who gave him a touching remembrance of his lost

friend, in the shape of the silver travelling candlesticks, which had

habitually stood on Lord Canning’s writing-table.[52] But his offer to

write Lord Canning’s _Life_ had no result, as the relatives, following

the then recent example of the Hastings family, in the case of another

great Governor-General, refused to revive discussion by the publication

of any Memoir.

Nor did Yule find any suitable opening for employment in England, so

after two or three months spent in visiting old friends, he rejoined

his family in the Black Forest, where he sought occupation in renewing

his knowledge of German. But it must be confessed that his mood both

then and for long after was neither happy nor wholesome. The winter

of 1862 was spent somewhat listlessly, partly in Germany and partly

at the Hôtel des Bergues, Geneva, where his old acquaintance Colonel

Tronchin was hospitably ready to open all doors. The picturesque figure

of John Ruskin also flits across the scene at this time. But Yule was

unoccupied and restless, and could neither enjoy Mr. Ruskin’s criticism

of his sketches nor the kindly hospitality of his Genevan hosts. Early

in 1863 he made another fruitless visit to London, where he remained

four or five months, but found no opening. Though unproductive of work,

this year brought Yule official recognition of his services in the

shape of the C.B., for which Lord Canning had long before recommended

him.[53]

On rejoining his wife and child at Mornex in Savoy, Yule found the

health of the former seriously impaired. During his absence, the kind

and able English Doctor at Geneva had felt obliged to inform Mrs. Yule

that she was suffering from disease of the heart, and that her life

might end suddenly at any moment. Unwilling to add to Yule’s anxieties,

she made all necessary arrangements, but did not communicate this

intelligence until he had done all he wished and returned, when she

broke it to him very gently. Up to this year Mrs. Yule, though not

strong and often ailing, had not allowed herself to be considered an

invalid, but from this date doctor’s orders left her no choice in the

matter.[54]

About this time, Yule took in hand the first of his studies of mediæval

travellers. His translation of the _Travels of Friar Jordanus_ was

probably commenced earlier; it was completed during the leisurely

journey by carriage between Chambéry and Turin, and the Dedication

to Sir Bartle Frere written during a brief halt at Genoa, from which

place it is dated. Travelling slowly and pleasantly by _vetturino_

along the Riviera di Levante, the family came to Spezzia, then little

more than a quiet village. A chance encounter with agreeable residents

disposed Yule favourably towards the place, and a few days later he

opened negotiations for land to build a house! Most fortunately for

himself and all concerned these fell through, and the family continued

their journey to Tuscany, and settled for the winter in a long rambling

house, with pleasant garden, at Pisa, where Yule was able to continue

with advantage his researches into mediæval travel in the East. He paid

frequent visits to Florence, where he had many pleasant acquaintances,

not least among them Charles Lever (“Harry Lorrequer”), with whom

acquaintance ripened into warm and enduring friendship. At Florence he

also made the acquaintance of the celebrated Marchese Gino Capponi, and

of many other Italian men of letters. To this winter of 1863–64 belongs

also the commencement of a lasting friendship with the illustrious

Italian historian, Villari, at that time holding an appointment at

Pisa. Another agreeable acquaintance, though less intimate, was formed

with John Ball, the well-known President of the Alpine Club, then

resident at Pisa, and with many others, among whom the name of a very

cultivated German scholar, H. Meyer, specially recurs to memory.

In the spring of 1864, Yule took a spacious and delightful old villa,

situated in the highest part of the Bagni di Lucca,[55] and commanding

lovely views over the surrounding chestnut-clad hills and winding river.

Here he wrote much of what ultimately took form in _Cathay and

the Way Thither_. It was this summer, too, that Yule commenced his

investigations among the Venetian archives, and also visited the

province of Friuli in pursuit of materials for the history of one

of his old travellers, the _Beato Odorico_. At Verona—then still

Austrian—he had the amusing experience of being arrested for sketching

too near the fortifications. However, his captors had all the usual

Austrian _bonhomie_ and courtesy, and Yule experienced no real

inconvenience. He was much more disturbed when, a day or two later, the

old mother of one of his Venetian acquaintances insisted on embracing

him on account of his supposed likeness to Garibaldi!

As winter approached, a warmer climate became necessary for Mrs. Yule,

and the family proceeded to Sicily, landing at Messina in October,

1864. From this point, Yule made a very interesting excursion to the

then little known group of the Lipari Islands, in the company of that

eminent geologist, the late Robert Mallet, F.R.S., a most agreeable

companion.

On Martinmas Day, the Yules reached the beautiful capital of Sicily,

Palermo, which, though they knew it not, was to be their home—a very

happy one—for nearly eleven years.

During the ensuing winter and spring, Yule continued the preparation

of _Cathay_, but his appetite for work not being satisfied by this,

he, when in London in 1865, volunteered to make an Index to the third

decade of the _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society_, in exchange

for a set of such volumes as he did not possess. That was long before

any Index Society existed; but Yule had special and very strong views

of his own as to what an Index should be, and he spared no labour

to realise his ideal.[56] This proved a heavier task than he had

anticipated, and he got very weary before the Index was completed.

In the spring of 1866, _Cathay and the Way Thither_ appeared, and

at once took the high place which it has ever since retained. In the

autumn of the same year Yule’s attention was momentarily turned in a

very different direction by a local insurrection, followed by severe

reprisals, and the bombardment of Palermo by the Italian Fleet. His

sick wife was for some time under rifle as well as shell fire; but

cheerfully remarking that “every bullet has its billet,” she remained

perfectly serene and undisturbed. It was the year of the last war with

Austria, and also of the suppression of the Monastic Orders in Sicily;

two events which probably helped to produce the outbreak, of which Yule

contributed an account to _The Times_, and subsequently a more detailed

one to the _Quarterly Review_.[57]

Yule had no more predilection for the Monastic Orders than most of

his countrymen, but his sense of justice was shocked by the cruel

incidence of the measure in many cases, and also by the harshness with

which both it and the punishment of suspected insurgents was carried

out. Cholera was prevalent in Italy that year, but Sicily, which had

maintained stringent quarantine, entirely escaped until large bodies

of troops were landed to quell the insurrection, when a devastating

epidemic immediately ensued, and re-appeared in 1867. In after years,

when serving on the Army Sanitary Committee at the India Office, Yule

more than once quoted this experience as indicating that quarantine

restrictions may, in some cases, have more value than British medical

authority is usually willing to admit.

In 1867, on his return from London, Yule commenced systematic work on

his long projected new edition of the _Travels of Marco Polo_. It was

apparently in this year that the scheme first took definite form, but

it had long been latent in his mind. The Public Libraries of Palermo

afforded him much good material, whilst occasional visits to the

Libraries of Venice, Florence, Paris, and London, opened other sources.

But his most important channel of supply came from his very extensive

private correspondence, extending to nearly all parts of Europe

and many centres in Asia. His work brought him many new and valued

friends, indeed too many to mention, but amongst whom, as belonging

specially to this period, three honoured names must be recalled here:

Commendatore (afterwards Baron) CRISTOFORO NEGRI, the large-hearted

Founder and First President of the Geographical Society of Italy,

from whom Yule received his first public recognition as a geographer,

Commendatore GUGLIELMO BERCHET (affectionately nicknamed _il Bello e

Buono_), ever generous in learned help, who became a most dear and

honoured friend, and the Hon. GEORGE P. MARSH, U.S. Envoy to the Court

of Italy, a man, both as scholar and friend, unequalled in his nation,

perhaps almost unique anywhere.

Those who only knew Yule in later years, may like some account of

his daily life at this time. It was his custom to rise fairly early;

in summer he sometimes went to bathe in the sea,[58] or for a walk

before breakfast; more usually he would write until breakfast, which

he preferred to have alone. After breakfast he looked through his

notebooks, and before ten o’clock was usually walking rapidly to the

library where his work lay. He would work there until two or three

o’clock, when he returned home, read the _Times_, answered letters,

received or paid visits, and then resumed work on his book, which he

often continued long after the rest of the household were sleeping. Of

course his family saw but little of him under these circumstances, but

when he had got a chapter of _Marco_ into shape, or struck out some

new discovery of interest, he would carry it to his wife to read. She

always took great interest in his work, and he had great faith in her

literary instinct as a sound as well as sympathetic critic.

The first fruits of Yule’s Polo studies took the form of a review of

Pauthier’s edition of _Marco Polo_, contributed to the _Quarterly

Review_ in 1868.

In 1870 the great work itself appeared, and received prompt generous

recognition by the grant of the very beautiful gold medal of the

Geographical Society of Italy,[59] followed in 1872 by the award of

the Founder’s Medal of the Royal Geographical Society, while the

Geographical and Asiatic Societies of Paris, the Geographical Societies

of Italy and Berlin, the Academy of Bologna, and other learned bodies,

enrolled him as an Honorary Member.

Reverting to 1869, we may note that Yule, when passing through Paris

early in the spring, became acquainted, through his friend M. Charles

Maunoir, with the admirable work of exploration lately performed by

Lieut. Francis Garnier of the French Navy. It was a time of much

political excitement in France, the eve of the famous _Plébiscite_,

and the importance of Garnier’s work was not then recognised by his

countrymen. Yule saw its value, and on arrival in London went straight

to Sir Roderick Murchison, laid the facts before him, and suggested

that no other traveller of the year had so good a claim to one of the

two gold medals of the R.G.S. as this French naval Lieutenant. Sir

Roderick was propitious, and accordingly in May the Patron’s medal

was assigned to Garnier, who was touchingly grateful to Yule; whilst

the French Minister of Marine marked his appreciation of Yule’s good

offices by presenting him with the magnificent volumes commemorating

the expedition.[60]

Yule was in Paris in 1871, immediately after the suppression of the

Commune, and his letters gave interesting accounts of the extraordinary

state of affairs then prevailing. In August, he served as President of

the Geographical Section of the British Association at its Edinburgh

meeting.

On his return to Palermo, he devoted himself specially to the

geography of the Oxus region, and the result appeared next year in his

introduction and notes to Wood’s _Journey_. Soon after his return to

Palermo, he became greatly interested in the plans, about which he was

consulted, of an English church, the gift to the English community of

two of its oldest members, Messrs Ingham and Whitaker. Yule’s share in

the enterprise gradually expanded, until he became a sort of volunteer

clerk of the works, to the great benefit of his health, as this

occupation during the next three years, whilst adding to his interests,

also kept him longer in the open air than would otherwise have been the

case. It was a real misfortune to Yule (and one of which he was himself

at times conscious) that he had no taste for any out-of-door pursuits,

neither for any form of natural science, nor for gardening, nor for

any kind of sport nor games. Nor did he willingly ride.[61] He was

always restless away from his books. There can be no doubt that want of

sufficient air and exercise, reacting on an impaired liver, had much

to do with Yule’s unsatisfactory state of health and frequent extreme

depression. There was no lack of agreeable and intelligent society

at Palermo (society that the present writer recalls with cordial

regard), to which every winter brought pleasant temporary additions,

both English and foreign, the best of whom generally sought Yule’s

acquaintance. Old friends too were not wanting; many found their way to

Palermo, and when such came, he was willing to show them hospitality

and to take them excursions, and occasionally enjoyed these. But though

the beautiful city and surrounding country were full of charm and

interest, Yule was too much pre-occupied by his own special engrossing

pursuits ever really to get the good of his surroundings, of which

indeed he often seemed only half conscious.

By this time Yule had obtained, without ever having sought it, a

distinct and, in some respects, quite unique position in geographical

science. Although his _Essay on the Geography of the Oxus Region_

(1872) received comparatively little public attention at home, it had

yet made its mark once for all,[62] and from this time, if not earlier,

Yule’s high authority in all questions of Central Asian geography was

generally recognised. He had long ere this, almost unconsciously,

laid the broad foundations of that “Yule method,” of which Baron von

Richthofen has written so eloquently, declaring that not only in his

own land, “but also in the literatures of France, Italy, Germany,

and other countries, the powerful stimulating influence of the Yule

method is visible.”[63] More than one writer has indeed boldly compared

Central Asia before Yule to Central Africa before Livingstone!

Yule had wrought from sheer love of the work and without expectation

of public recognition, and it was therefore a great surprise as well

as gratification to him, to find that the demand for his _Marco Polo_

was such as to justify the appearance of a second edition only a few

years after the first. The preparation of this enlarged edition, with

much other miscellaneous work (see subjoined bibliography), and the

superintendence of the building of the church already named, kept him

fully occupied for the next three years.

Amongst the parerga and miscellaneous occupations of Yule’s leisure

hours in the period 1869–74, may be mentioned an interesting

correspondence with Professor W. W. Skeat on the subject of _William of

Palerne_ and Sicilian examples of the Werwolf; the skilful analysis and

exposure of Klaproth’s false geography;[64] the purchase and despatch

of Sicilian seeds and young trees for use in the Punjab, at the request

of the Indian Forestry Department; translations (prepared for friends)

of tracts on the cultivation of Sumach and the collection of Manna as

practised in Sicily; also a number of small services rendered to the

South Kensington Museum, at the request of the late Sir Henry Cole.

These latter included obtaining Italian and Sicilian bibliographic

contributions to the Science and Art Department’s _Catalogue of Books

on Art_, selecting architectural subjects to be photographed;[65]

negotiating the purchase of the original drawings illustrative of

Padre B. Gravina’s great work on the Cathedral of Monreale; and

superintending the execution of a copy in mosaic of the large mosaic

picture (in the Norman Palatine Chapel, Palermo,) of the Entry of our

Lord into Jerusalem.

In the spring of 1875, just after the publication of the second

edition of _Marco Polo_, Yule had to mourn the loss of his noble wife.

He was absent from Sicily at the time, but returned a few hours after

her death on 30th April. She had suffered for many years from a severe

form of heart disease, but her end was perfect peace. She was laid to

rest, amid touching tokens of both public and private sympathy, in the

beautiful camposanto on Monte Pellegrino. What her loss was to Yule

only his oldest and closest friends were in a position to realise.

Long years of suffering had impaired neither the soundness of her

judgment nor the sweetness, and even gaiety, of her happy, unselfish

disposition. And in spirit, as even in appearance, she retained to the

very last much of the radiance of her youth. Nor were her intellectual

gifts less remarkable. Few who had once conversed with her ever forgot

her, and certainly no one who had once known her intimately ever ceased

to love her.[66]

Shortly after this calamity, Yule removed to London, and on the

retirement of his old friend, Sir William Baker, from the India Council

early that autumn, Lord Salisbury at once selected him for the vacant

seat. Nothing would ever have made him a party-man, but he always

followed Lord Salisbury with conviction, and worked under him with

steady confidence.

In 1877 Yule married, as his second wife, the daughter of an old

friend,[67] a very amiable woman twenty years his junior, who made

him very happy until her untimely death in 1881. From the time of his

joining the India Council, his duties at the India Office of course

occupied a great part of his time, but he also continued to do an

immense amount of miscellaneous literary work, as may be seen by

reference to the subjoined bibliography, (itself probably incomplete).

In Council he invariably “showed his strong determination to endeavour

to deal with questions on their own merits and not only by custom and

precedent.”[68] Amongst subjects in which he took a strong line of his

own in the discussions of the Council, may be specially instanced his

action in the matter of the cotton duties (in which he defended native

Indian manufactures as against hostile Manchester interests); the

Vernacular Press Act, the necessity for which he fully recognised; and

the retention of Kandahar, for which he recorded his vote in a strong

minute. In all these three cases, which are typical of many others,

his opinion was overruled, but having been carefully and deliberately

formed, it remained unaffected by defeat.

In all matters connected with Central Asian affairs, Yule’s opinion

always carried great weight; some of his most competent colleagues

indeed preferred his authority in this field to that of even Sir Henry

Rawlinson, possibly for the reason given by Sir M. Grant Duff, who has

epigrammatically described the latter as good in Council but dangerous

in counsel.[69]

Yule’s courageous independence and habit of looking at all public

questions by the simple light of what appeared to him right, yet

without fads or doctrinairism, earned for him the respect of the

successive Secretaries of State under whom he served, and the warm

regard and confidence of his other colleagues. The value attached to

his services in Council was sufficiently shown by the fact that when

the period of ten years (for which members are usually appointed),

was about to expire, Lord Hartington (now Duke of Devonshire), caused

Yule’s appointment to be renewed for life, under a special Act of

Parliament passed for this purpose in 1885.

His work as a member of the Army Sanitary Committee, brought him into

communication with Miss Florence Nightingale, a privilege which he

greatly valued and enjoyed, though he used to say: “She is worse than a

Royal Commission to answer, and, in the most gracious charming manner

possible, immediately finds out all I don’t know!” Indeed his devotion

to the “Lady-in-Chief” was scarcely less complete than Kinglake’s.

In 1880, Yule was appointed to the Board of Visitors of the Government

Indian Engineering College at Cooper’s Hill, a post which added to his

sphere of interests without materially increasing his work. In 1882, he

was much gratified by being named an Honorary Fellow of the Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland, more especially as it was to fill one of the

two vacancies created by the deaths of Thomas Carlyle and Dean Stanley.

Yule had been President of the Hakluyt Society from 1877, and in

1885 was elected President also of the Royal Asiatic Society. He

would probably also have been President of the Royal Geographical

Society, but for an untoward incident. Mention has already been made

of his constant determination to judge all questions by the simple

touchstone of what he believed to be right, irrespective of personal

considerations. It was in pursuance of these principles that, at the

cost of great pain to himself and some misrepresentation, he in 1878

sundered his long connection with the Royal Geographical Society,

by resigning his seat on their Council, solely in consequence of

their adoption of what he considered a wrong policy. This severance

occurred just when it was intended to propose him as President. Some

years later, at the personal request of the late Lord Aberdare, a

President in all respects worthy of the best traditions of that great

Society, Yule consented to rejoin the Council, which he re-entered as a

Vice-President.

In 1883, the University of Edinburgh celebrated its Tercentenary, when

Yule was selected as one of the recipients of the honorary degree

of LL.D. His letters from Edinburgh, on this occasion, give a very

pleasant and amusing account of the festivity and of the celebrities

he met. Nor did he omit to chronicle the envious glances cast, as he

alleged, by some British men of science on the splendours of foreign

Academic attire, on the yellow robes of the Sorbonne, and the Palms

of the Institute of France! Pasteur was, he wrote, the one most

enthusiastically acclaimed of all who received degrees.

I think it was about the same time that M. Renan was in England, and

called upon Sir Henry Maine, Yule, and others at the India Office.

On meeting just after, the colleagues compared notes as to their

distinguished but unwieldy visitor. “It seems that _le style n’est

pas l’homme même_ in _this_ instance,” quoth “Ancient Law” to

“Marco Polo.” And here it may be remarked that Yule so completely

identified himself with his favourite traveller that he frequently

signed contributions to the public press as MARCUS PAULUS VENETUS or

M.P.V. His more intimate friends also gave him the same _sobriquet_,

and once, when calling on his old friend, Dr. John Brown (the beloved

chronicler of _Rab and his Friends_), he was introduced by Dr. John to

some lion-hunting American visitors as “our Marco Polo.” The visitors

evidently took the statement in a literal sense, and scrutinised Yule

closely.[70]

In 1886 Yule published his delightful _Anglo-Indian Glossary_, with the

whimsical but felicitous sub-title of _Hobson-Jobson_ (the name given

by the rank and file of the British Army in India to the religious

festival in celebration of Hassan and Husaïn).

This _Glossary_ was an abiding interest to both Yule and the present

writer. Contributions of illustrative quotations came from most diverse

and unexpected sources, and the arrival of each new word or happy

quotation was quite an event, and gave such pleasure to the recipients

as can only be fully understood by those who have shared in such

pursuits. The volume was dedicated in affecting terms to his elder

brother, Sir George Yule, who, unhappily, did not survive to see it

completed.

In July 1885, the two brothers had taken the last of many happy

journeys together, proceeding to Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. A few

months later, on 13th January 1886, the end came suddenly to the elder,

from the effects of an accident at his own door.[71]

It may be doubted if Yule ever really got over the shock of this

loss, though he went on with his work as usual, and served that year

as a Royal Commissioner on the occasion of the Indian and Colonial

Exhibition of 1886.

From 1878, when an accidental chill laid the foundations of an

exhausting, though happily quite painless, malady, Yule’s strength

had gradually failed, although for several years longer his general

health and energies still appeared unimpaired to a casual observer.

The condition of public affairs also, in some degree, affected his

health injuriously. The general trend of political events from 1880 to

1886 caused him deep anxiety and distress, and his righteous wrath at

what he considered the betrayal of his country’s honour in the cases of

Frere, of Gordon, and of Ireland, found strong, and, in a noble sense,

passionate expression in both prose and verse. He was never in any

sense a party man, but he often called himself “one of Mr. Gladstone’s

converts,” _i.e._ one whom Gladstonian methods had compelled to break

with liberal tradition and prepossessions.

Nothing better expresses Yule’s feeling in the period referred to

than the following letter, written in reference to the R. E. Gordon

Memorial,[72] but of much wider application: “Will you allow me an inch

or two of space to say to my brother officers, ‘Have nothing to do with

the proposed Gordon Memorial.’

“That glorious memory is in no danger of perishing and needs no

memorial. Sackcloth and silence are what it suggests to those who

have guided the action of England; and Englishmen must bear the

responsibility for that action and share its shame. It is too early for

atoning memorials; nor is it possible for those who take part in them

to dissociate themselves from a repulsive hypocrisy.

“Let every one who would fain bestow something in honour of the great

victim, do, in silence, some act of help to our soldiers or their

families, or to others who are poor and suffering.

“In later days our survivors or successors may look back with softened

sorrow and pride to the part which men of our corps have played in

these passing events, and Charles Gordon far in the front of all; and

then they may set up our little tablets, or what not—not to preserve

the memory of our heroes, but to maintain the integrity of our own

record of the illustrious dead.”

Happily Yule lived to see the beginning of better times for his

country. One of the first indications of that national awakening was

the right spirit in which the public, for the most part, received Lord

Wolseley’s stirring appeal at the close of 1888, and Yule was so much

struck by the parallelism between Lord Wolseley’s warning and some

words of his own contained in the pseudo-Polo fragment (see above, end

of Preface), that he sent Lord Wolseley the very last copy of the 1875

edition of _Marco Polo_, with a vigorous expression of his sentiments.

That was probably Yule’s last utterance on a public question. The sands

of life were now running low, and in the spring of 1889, he felt it

right to resign his seat on the India Council, to which he had been

appointed for life. On this occasion Lord Cross, then Secretary of

State for India, successfully urged his acceptance of the K.C.S.I.,

which Yule had refused several years before.

In the House of Lords, Viscount Cross subsequently referred to his

resignation in the following terms. He said: “A vacancy on the Council

had unfortunately occurred through the resignation from ill-health of

Sir Henry Yule, whose presence on the Council had been of enormous

advantage to the natives of the country. A man of more kindly

disposition, thorough intelligence, high-minded, upright, honourable

character, he believed did not exist; and he would like to bear

testimony to the estimation in which he was held, and to the services

which he had rendered in the office he had so long filled.”[73]

This year the Hakluyt Society published the concluding volume of Yule’s

last work of importance, the _Diary of Sir William Hedges_. He had for

several years been collecting materials for a full memoir of his great

predecessor in the domain of historical geography, the illustrious

Rennell.[74] This work was well advanced as to preliminaries, but was

not sufficiently developed for early publication at the time of Yule’s

death, and ere it could be completed its place had been taken by a

later enterprise.

During the summer of 1889, Yule occupied much of his leisure by

collecting and revising for re-issue many of his miscellaneous

writings. Although not able to do much at a time, this desultory work

kept him occupied and interested, and gave him much pleasure during

many months. It was, however, never completed. Yule went to the seaside

for a few weeks in the early summer, and subsequently many pleasant

days were spent by him among the Surrey hills, as the guest of his old

friends Sir Joseph and Lady Hooker. Of their constant and unwearied

kindness, he always spoke with most affectionate gratitude. That

autumn he took a great dislike to the English climate; he hankered

after sunshine, and formed many plans, eager though indefinite, for

wintering at Cintra, a place whose perfect beauty had fascinated him

in early youth. But increasing weakness made a journey to Portugal,

or even the South of France, an alternative of which he also spoke,

very inexpedient, if not absolutely impracticable. Moreover, he

would certainly have missed abroad the many friends and multifarious

interests which still surrounded him at home. He continued to take

drives, and occasionally called on friends, up to the end of November,

and it was not until the middle of December that increasing weakness

obliged him to take to his bed. He was still, however, able to enjoy

seeing his friends—some to the very end, and he had a constant stream

of visitors, mostly old friends, but also a few newer ones, who were

scarcely less welcome. He also kept up his correspondence to the last,

three attached brother R.E.’s, General Collinson, General Maclagan, and

Major W. Broadfoot, taking it in turn with the present writer to act as

his amanuensis.

On Friday, 27th December, Yule received a telegram from Paris,

announcing his nomination that day as Corresponding Member of the

Institute of France (Académie des Inscriptions), one of the few

distinctions of any kind of which it can still be said that it has at

no time lost any of its exalted dignity.

An honour of a different kind that came about the same time, and was

scarcely less prized by him, was a very beautiful letter of farewell

and benediction from Miss Florence Nightingale,[75] which he kept

under his pillow and read many times. On the 28th, he dictated to the

present writer his acknowledgment, also by telegraph, of the great

honour done him by the Institute. The message was in the following

words: “Reddo gratias, Illustrissimi Domini, ob honores tanto nimios

quanto immeritos! Mihi robora deficiunt, vita collabitur, accipiatis

voluntatem pro facto. Cum corde pleno et gratissimo moriturus vos,

Illustrissimi Domini, saluto. YULE.”

Sunday, 29th December, was a day of the most dense black fog, and he

felt its oppression, but was much cheered by a visit from his ever

faithful friend, Collinson, who, with his usual unselfishness, came to

him that day at very great personal inconvenience.

On Monday, 30th December, the day was clearer, and Henry Yule awoke

much refreshed, and in a peculiarly happy and even cheerful frame

of mind. He said he felt so comfortable. He spoke of his intended

book, and bade his daughter write about the inevitable delay to his

publisher: “Go and write to John Murray,” were indeed his last words to

her. During the morning he saw some friends and relations, but as noon

approached his strength flagged, and after a period of unconsciousness,

he passed peacefully away in the presence of his daughter and of an

old friend, who had come from Edinburgh to see him, but arrived too

late for recognition. Almost at the same time that Yule fell asleep,

his “stately message,”[76] was being read under the great Dome in

Paris. Some two hours after Yule had passed away, F.-M. Lord Napier

of Magdala, called on an errand of friendship, and at his desire

was admitted to see the last of his early friend. When Lord Napier

came out, he said to the present writer, in his own reflective way:

“He looks as if he had just settled to some great work.” With these

suggestive words of the great soldier, who was so soon, alas, to follow

his old friend to the work of another world, this sketch may fitly

close.

• • • • •

The following excellent verses (of unknown authorship) on Yule’s death,

subsequently appeared in the _Academy_:[77]

“‘Moriturus vos saluto’

Breathes his last the dying scholar—

Tireless student, brilliant writer;

He ‘salutes his age’ and journeys

To the Undiscovered Country.

There await him with warm welcome

All the heroes of old Story—

The Venetians, the Cà Polo,

Marco, Nicolo, Maffeo,

Odoric of Pordenone,

Ibn Batuta, Marignolli,

Benedict de Goës—‘Seeking

Lost Cathay and finding Heaven.’

Many more whose lives he cherished

With the piety of learning;

Fading records, buried pages,

Failing lights and fires forgotten,

By his energy recovered,

By his eloquence re-kindled.

‘Moriturus vos saluto’

Breathes his last the dying scholar,

And the far off ages answer:

_Immortales te salutant_. D. M.”

The same idea had been previously embodied, in very felicitous

language, by the late General Sir William Lockhart, in a letter which

that noble soldier addressed to the present writer a few days after

Yule’s death. And Yule himself would have taken pleasure in the idea of

those meetings with his old travellers, which seemed so certain to his

surviving friends.[78]

He rests in the old cemetery at Tunbridge Wells, with his second wife,

as he had directed. A great gathering of friends attended the first

part of the burial service which was held in London on 3rd January,

1890. Amongst those present were witnesses of every stage of his

career, from his boyish days at the High School of Edinburgh downwards.

His daughter, of course, was there, led by the faithful, peerless

friend who was so soon to follow him into the Undiscovered Country.[79]

She and his youngest nephew, with two cousins and a few old friends,

followed his remains over the snow to the graveside. The epitaph

subsequently inscribed on the tomb was penned by Yule himself, but is

by no means representative of his powers in a kind of composition in

which he had so often excelled in the service of others. As a composer

of epitaphs and other monumental inscriptions few of our time have

surpassed, if any have equalled him, in his best efforts.

SIR GEORGE UDNY YULE, C.B., K.C.S.I.[80]

George Udny Yule, born at Inveresk in 1813, passed through Haileybury

into the Bengal Civil Service, which he entered at the age of 18 years.

For twenty-five years his work lay in Eastern Bengal. He gradually

became known to the Government for his activity and good sense, but

won a far wider reputation as a mighty hunter, alike with hog-spear

and double barrel. By 1856 the roll of his slain tigers exceeded four

hundred, some of them of special fame; after that he continued slaying

his tigers, but ceased to count them. For some years he and a few

friends used annually to visit the plains of the Brahmaputra, near the

Garrow Hills—an entirely virgin country then, and swarming with large

game. Yule used to describe his once seeing seven rhinoceroses at once

on the great plain, besides herds of wild buffalo and deer of several

kinds. One of the party started the theory that Noah’s Ark had been

shipwrecked there! In those days George Yule was the only man to whom

the Maharajah of Nepaul, Sir Jung Bahadur, conceded leave to shoot

within his frontier.

Yule was first called from his useful obscurity in 1856. The year

before, the Sonthals in insurrection disturbed the long unbroken

peace of the Delta. These were a numerous non-Aryan, uncivilised,

but industrious race, driven wild by local mismanagement, and the

oppressions of Hindoo usurers acting through the regulation courts.

After the suppression of their rising, Yule was selected by Sir F.

Halliday, who knew his man, to be Commissioner of the Bhagulpoor

Division, containing some six million souls, and embracing the hill

country of the Sonthals. He obtained sanction to a code for the latter,

which removed these people entirely from the Court system, and its

tribe of leeches, and abolished all intermediaries between the Sahib

and the Sonthal peasant. Through these measures, and his personal

influence, aided by picked assistants, he was able to effect, with

extraordinary rapidity, not only their entire pacification, but such

a beneficial change in their material condition, that they have risen

from a state of barbarous penury to comparative prosperity and comfort.

George Yule was thus engaged when the Mutiny broke out, and it soon

made itself felt in the districts under him. To its suppression within

his limits, he addressed himself with characteristic vigour. Thoroughly

trusted by every class—by his Government, by those under him, by

planters and by Zemindars—he organised a little force, comprising a

small detachment of the 5th Regiment, a party of British sailors,

mounted volunteers from the districts, etc., and of this he became

practically the captain. Elephants were collected from all quarters to

spare the legs of his infantry and sailors; while dog-carts were turned

into limbers for the small three-pounders of the seamen. And with this

little army George Yule scoured the Trans-Gangetic districts, leading

it against bodies of the Mutineers, routing them upon more than one

occasion, and out-manœuvring them by his astonishing marches, till

he succeeded in driving them across the Nepaul frontier. No part of

Bengal was at any time in such danger, and nowhere was the danger more

speedily and completely averted.

After this Yule served for two or three years as Chief Commissioner

of Oudh, where in 1862 he married Miss Pemberton, the daughter of a

very able father, and the niece of Sir Donald MacLeod, of honoured

and beloved memory. Then for four or five years he was Resident at

Hyderabad, where he won the enduring friendship of Sir Salar Jung.

“Everywhere he showed the same characteristic firm but benignant

justice. Everywhere he gained the lasting attachment of all with whom

he had intimate dealings—except tigers and scoundrels.”

Many years later, indignant at the then apparently supine attitude

of the British Government in the matter of the Abyssinian captives,

George Yule wrote a letter (necessarily published without his name,

as he was then on the Governor-General’s Council), to the editor of

an influential Indian paper, proposing a private expedition should

be organised for their delivery from King Theodore, and inviting the

editor (Dr. George Smith) to open a list of subscriptions in his paper

for this purpose, to which Yule offered to contribute £2000 by way of

beginning. Although impracticable in itself, it is probable that, as in

other cases, the existence of such a project may have helped to force

the Government into action. The particulars of the above incident were

printed by Dr. Smith in his _Memoir of the Rev. John Wilson_, but are

given here from memory.

From Hyderabad he was promoted in 1867 to the Governor-General’s

Council, but his health broke down under the sedentary life, and he

retired and came home in 1869.

After some years of country life in Scotland, where he bought a small

property, he settled near his brother in London, where he was a

principal instrument in enabling Sir George Birdwood to establish the

celebration of Primrose Day (for he also was “one of Mr. Gladstone’s

converts”). Sir George Yule never sought ‘London Society’ or public

employment, but in 1877 he was offered and refused the post of

Financial Adviser to the Khedive under the Dual control. When his

feelings were stirred he made useful contributions to the public press,

which, after his escape from official trammels, were always signed.

The very last of these (_St. James Gazette_, 24th February 1885) was

a spirited protest against the snub administered by the late Lord

Derby, as Secretary of State, to the Colonies, when they had generously

offered assistance in the Soudan campaign. He lived a quiet, happy, and

useful life in London, where he was the friend and unwearied helper of

all who needed help. He found his chief interests in books and flowers,

and in giving others pleasure. Of rare unselfishness and sweet nature,

single in mind and motive, fearing God and knowing no other fear, he

was regarded by a large number of people with admiring affection. He

met his death by a fall on the frosty pavement at his door, in the very

act of doing a kindness. An interesting sketch of Sir George Yule’s

Indian career, by one who knew him thoroughly, is to be found in Sir

Edward Braddon’s _Thirty Years of Shikar_. An account of his share in

the origin of Primrose Day appeared in the _St. James’ Gazette_ during

1891.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] There is a vague tradition that these Yules descend from the same

stock as the Scandinavian family of the same name, which gave

Denmark several men of note, including the great naval hero Niels

Juel. The portraits of these old Danes offer a certain resemblance

of type to those of their Scots namesakes, and Henry Yule liked

to play with the idea, much in the same way that he took humorous

pleasure in his reputed descent from Michael Scott, the Wizard!

(This tradition was more historical, however, and stood thus:

Yule’s great grandmother was a Scott of Ancrum, and the Scotts of

Ancrum had established their descent from Sir Michael Scott of

Balwearie, reputed to be the Wizard.) Be their origin what it may,

Yule’s forefathers had been already settled on the Border hills

for many generations, when in the time of James VI. they migrated

to the lower lands of East Lothian, where in the following reign

they held the old fortalice of Fentoun Tower of Nisbet of Dirleton.

When Charles II. empowered his Lord Lyon to issue certificates of

arms (in place of the Lyon records removed and lost at sea by the

Cromwellian Government), these Yules were among those who took out

confirmation of arms, and the original document is still in the

possession of the head of the family.

Though Yules of sorts are still to be found in Scotland, the

present writer is the only member of the Fentoun Tower family now

left in the country, and of the few remaining out of it most are to

be found in the Army List.

[2] The literary taste which marked William Yule probably came to him

from his grandfather, the Rev. James Rose, Episcopal Minister of

Udny, in Aberdeenshire. James Rose, a non-jurant (_i.e._ one who

refused to acknowledge allegiance to the Hanoverian King), was

a man of devout, large, and tolerant mind, as shown by writings

still extant. His father, John Rose, was the younger son of the

14th Hugh of Kilravock. He married Margaret Udny of Udny, and

was induced by her to sell his pleasant Ross-shire property

and invest the proceeds in her own bleak Buchan. When George

Yule (about 1759) brought home Elizabeth Rose as his wife, the

popular feeling against the Episcopal Church was so strong and

bitter in Lothian, that all the men of the family—themselves

Presbyterians—accompanied Mrs. Yule as a bodyguard on the occasion

of her first attendance at the Episcopal place of worship. Years

after, when dissensions had arisen in the Church of Scotland,

Elizabeth Yule succoured and protected some of the dissident

Presbyterian ministers from their persecutors.

[3] General Collinson in _Royal Engineers’ Journal_, 1st Feb. 1890. The

gifted author of this excellent sketch himself passed away on 22nd

April 1902.

[4] The grave thoughtful face of William Yule was conspicuous in the

picture of a Durbar (by an Italian artist, but _not_ Zoffany),

which long hung on the walls of the Nawab’s palace at Lucknow. This

picture disappeared during the Mutiny of 1857.

[5] Colonel Udny Yule, C.B. “When he joined, his usual _nomen_ and

_cognomen_ puzzled the staff-sergeant at Fort-William, and after

much boggling on the cadet parade, the name was called out _Whirly

Wheel_, which produced no reply, till some one at a venture

shouted, ‘sick in hospital.’” (_Athenæum_, 24th Sept. 1881.) The

ship which took Udny Yule to India was burnt at sea. After keeping

himself afloat for several hours in the water, he was rescued by a

passing ship and taken back to the Mauritius, whence, having lost

everything but his cadetship, he made a fresh start for India,

where he and William for many years had a common purse. Colonel

Udny Yule commanded a brigade at the Siege of Cornelis (1811),

which gave us Java, and afterwards acted as Resident under Sir

Stamford Raffles. Forty-five years after the retrocession of Java,

Henry Yule found the memory of his uncle still cherished there.

[6] Article on the Oriental Section of the British Museum Library in

_Athenæum_, 24th Sept. 1881. Major Yule’s Oriental Library was

presented by his sons to the British Museum a few years after his

death.

[7] It may be amusing to note that he was considered an almost

dangerous person because he read the _Scotsman_ newspaper!

[8] _Athenæum_, 24th Sept. 1881. A gold chain given by the last

Dauphiness is in the writer’s possession.

[9] Dr. John Yule (b. 176–, d. 1827), a kindly old _savant_. He was one

of the earliest corresponding members of the Society of Antiquaries

of Scotland, and the author of some botanical tracts.

[10] According to Brunet, by Lucas Pennis after Antonio Tempesta.

[11] _Concerning some little-known Travellers in the East_. ASIATIC

QUARTERLY, vol. v. (1888).

[12] William Yule died in 1839, and rests with his parents, brothers,

and many others of his kindred, in the ruined chancel of the

ancient Norman Church of St. Andrew, at Gulane, which had been

granted to the Yule family as a place of burial by the Nisbets

of Dirleton, in remembrance of the old kindly feeling subsisting

for generations between them and their tacksmen in Fentoun

Tower. Though few know its history, a fragrant memorial of this

wise and kindly scholar is still conspicuous in Edinburgh. The

magnificent wall-flower that has, for seventy summers, been a

glory of the Castle rock, was originally all sown by the patient

hand of Major Yule, the self-sowing of each subsequent year, of

course, increasing the extent of bloom. Lest the extraordinarily

severe spring of 1895 should have killed off much of the old

stock, another (but much more limited) sowing on the northern

face of the rock was in that year made by his grand-daughter, the

present writer, with the sanction and active personal help of

the lamented General (then Colonel) Andrew Wauchope of Niddrie

Marischal. In Scotland, where the memory of this noble soldier is

so greatly revered, some may like to know this little fact. May the

wall-flower of the Castle rock long flourish a fragrant memorial of

two faithful soldiers and true-hearted Scots.

[13] Obituary notice of Yule, by Gen. R. Maclagan, R.E. _Proceedings,

R. G. S._ 1890.

[14] This was the famous “Grey Dinner,” of which The Shepherd made grim

fun in the _Noctes_.

[15] Probably the specimen from South America, of which an account was

published in 1833.

[16] Rawnsley, _Memoir of Harvey Goodwin, Bishop of Carlisle_.

[17] Biog. Sketch of Yule, by C. Trotter, _Proceedings, R.S.E._ vol.

xvii.

[18] Biog. Sketch of Yule, by C. Trotter, _Proceedings, R.S.E._ vol.

xvii.

[19] After leaving the army, Yule always used this sword when wearing

uniform.

[20] The Engineer cadets remained at Addiscombe a term (= 6 months)

longer than the Artillery cadets, and as the latter were ordinarily

gazetted full lieutenants six months after passing out, unfair

seniority was obviated by the Engineers receiving the same rank on

passing out of Addiscombe.

[21] Yule, in _Memoir of General Becher_.

[22] Collinson’s _Memoir of Yule_ in _R. E. Journal_.

[23] The picture was subscribed for by his brother officers in the

corps, and painted in 1880 by T. B. Wirgman. It was exhibited at

the Royal Academy in 1881. A reproduction of the artist’s etching

from it forms the frontispiece of this volume.

[24] In _Memoir of Gen. John Becher_.

[25] General Patrick Yule (b. 1795, d. 1873) was a thorough soldier,

with the repute of being a rigid disciplinarian. He was a man of

distinguished presence, and great charm of manner to those whom he

liked, which were by no means all. The present writer holds him in

affectionate remembrance, and owes to early correspondence with

him much of the information embodied in preceding notes. He served

on the Canadian Boundary Commission of 1817, and on the Commission

of National Defence of 1859, was prominent in the Ordnance Survey,

and successively Commanding R.E. in Malta and Scotland. He was

Engineer to Sir C. Fellows’ Expedition, which gave the nation the

Lycian Marbles, and while Commanding R.E. in Edinburgh, was largely

instrumental in rescuing St. Margaret’s Chapel in the Castle

from desecration and oblivion. He was a thorough Scot, and never

willingly tolerated the designation N.B. on even a letter. He had

cultivated tastes, and under a somewhat austere exterior he had a

most tender heart. When already past sixty, he made a singularly

happy marriage to a truly good woman, who thoroughly appreciated

him. He was the author of several Memoirs on professional subjects.

He rests in St. Andrew’s, Gulane.

[26] Collinson’s _Memoir of Yule_.

[27] Notes on the Iron of the Khasia Hills and Notes on the Khasia

Hills and People, both in Journal of the R. Asiatic Society of

Bengal, vols. xi. and xiii.

[28] Mr. (afterwards Sir) George Clerk, Political Officer with the

expedition. Was twice Governor of Bombay and once Governor of

the Cape: “A diplomatist of the true English stamp—undaunted in

difficulties and resolute to maintain the honour of his country.”

(Sir H. B. Edwardes, _Life of Henry Lawrence_, i. 267). He died in

1889.

[29] Note by Yule, communicated by him to Mr. R. B. Smith and printed

by the latter in _Life of Lord Lawrence_.

[30] And when nearing his own end, it was to her that his thoughts

turned most constantly.

[31] Yule and Maclagan’s _Memoir of Sir W. Baker_.

[32] Maclagan’s _Memoir of Yule, P.R.G.S._, Feb. 1890.

[33] On hearing this, Yule said to him, “Your story is quite correct

except in one particular; you understated the _amount_ of the fine.”

[34] Yule and Maclagan’s _Memoir of Baker_.

[35] It would appear that Major Yule had presented the Rodgers with

some specimens of Indian scissors, probably as suggestions in

developing that field of export. Scissors of elaborate design,

usually damascened or gilt, used to form a most important item in

every set of Oriental writing implements. Even long after adhesive

envelopes had become common in European Turkey, their use was

considered over familiar, if not actually disrespectful, for formal

letters, and there was a particular traditional knack in cutting

and folding the special envelope for each missive, which was

included in the instruction given by every competent _Khoja_ as the

present writer well remembers in the quiet years that ended with

the disasters of 1877.

[36] Collinson’s _Memoir of Yule, Royal Engineer Journal_.

[37] Extract from Preface to _Ava_, edition of 1858.

[38] The present whereabouts of this picture is unknown to the writer.

It was lent to Yule in 1889 by Lord Dalhousie’s surviving daughter

(for whom he had strong regard and much sympathy), and was returned

to her early in 1890, but is not named in the catalogue of Lady

Susan’s effects, sold at Edinburgh in 1898 after her death. At

that sale the present writer had the satisfaction of securing for

reverent preservation the watch used throughout his career by the

great Marquess.

[39] Now in the writer’s possession. It was for many years on

exhibition in the Edinburgh and South Kensington Museums.

[40] Article by Yule on Lord Lawrence, _Quarterly Review_ for April,

1883.

[41] Messrs. Smith & Elder.

[42] Preface to _Narrative of a Mission to the Court of Ava_. Before

these words were written, Yule had had the sorrow of losing his

elder brother Robert, who had fallen in action before Delhi (19th

June, 1857), whilst in command of his regiment, the 9th Lancers.

Robert Abercromby Yule (born 1817) was a very noble character and

a fine soldier. He had served with distinction in the campaigns in

Afghanistan and the Sikh Wars, and was the author of an excellent

brief treatise on Cavalry Tactics. He had a ready pencil and

a happy turn for graceful verse. In prose his charming little

allegorical tale for children, entitled _The White Rhododendron_,

is as pure and graceful as the flower whose name it bears. Like

both his brothers, he was at once chivalrous and devout, modest,

impulsive, and impetuous. No officer was more beloved by his men

than Robert Yule, and when some one met them carrying back his

covered body from the field and enquired of the sergeant: “Who

have you got there?” the reply was: “Colonel Yule, and better have

lost half the regiment, sir.” It was in the chivalrous effort to

extricate some exposed guns that he fell. Some one told afterwards

that when asked to go to the rescue, he turned in the saddle,

looked back wistfully on his regiment, well knowing the cost of

such an enterprise, then gave the order to advance and charge. “No

stone marks the spot where Yule went down, but no stone is needed

to commemorate his valour” (Archibald Forbes, in _Daily News_,

8th Feb. 1876). At the time of his death Colonel R. A. Yule had

been recommended for the C.B. His eldest son, Colonel J. H. Yule,

C.B., distinguished himself in several recent campaigns (on the

Burma-Chinese frontier, in Tirah, and South Africa).

[43] Baker went home in November, 1857, but did not retire until the

following year.

[44] Nothing was more worthy of respect in Yule’s fine character

than the energy and success with which he mastered his natural

temperament in the last ten years of his life, when few would have

guessed his original fiery disposition.

[45] Not without cause did Sir J. P. Grant officially record that “to

his imperturbable temper the Government of India owed much.”

[46] Yule’s colour-blindness was one of the cases in which Dalton,

the original investigator of this optical defect, took special

interest. At a later date (1859) he sent Yule, through Professor

Wilson, skeins of coloured silks to name. Yule’s elder brother

Robert had the same peculiarity of sight, and it was also present

in two earlier and two later generations of their mother’s

family—making five generations in all. But in no case did it pass

from parent to child, always passing in these examples, by a sort

of Knight’s move, from uncle to nephew. Another peculiarity of

Yule’s more difficult to describe was the instinctive association

of certain architectural forms or images with the days of the

week. He once, and once only (in 1843), met another person, a

lady who was a perfect stranger, with the same peculiarity. About

1878–79 he contributed some notes on this obscure subject to

one of the newspapers, in connection with the researches of Mr.

Francis Galton, on Visualisation, but the particulars are not now

accessible.

[47] From Yule’s verses on her grave.

[48] Lord Canning to Lady Clanricarde: Letter dated Barrackpoor, 19th

Nov. 1861, 7 A.M., printed in _Two Noble Lives_, by A. J. C. Hare,

and here reproduced by Mr. Hare’s permission.

[49] Lord Canning’s letter to Lady Clanricarde. He gave to Yule Lady

Canning’s own silver drinking-cup, which she had constantly used.

It is carefully treasured, with other Canning and Dalhousie relics,

by the present writer.

[50] Many years later Yule wrote of Lord Canning as follows: “He had

his defects, no doubt. He had not at first that entire grasp of

the situation that was wanted at such a time of crisis. But there

is a virtue which in these days seems unknown to Parliamentary

statesmen in England—Magnanimity. Lord Canning was an English

statesman, and he was surpassingly magnanimous. There is another

virtue which in Holy Writ is taken as the type and sum of all

righteousness—Justice—and he was eminently just. The misuse

of special powers granted early in the Mutiny called for Lord

Canning’s interference, and the consequence was a flood of savage

abuse; the violence and bitterness of which it is now hard to

realise.” (_Quarterly Review_, April, 1883, p. 306.)

[51] During the next ten years Yule continued to visit London annually

for two or three months in the spring or early summer.

[52] Now in the writer’s possession. They appear in the well-known

portrait of Lord Canning reading a despatch.

[53] Lord Canning’s recommendation had been mislaid, and the India

Office was disposed to ignore it. It was Lord Canning’s old friend

and Eton chum, Lord Granville, who obtained this tardy justice for

Yule, instigated thereto by that most faithful friend, Sir Roderick

Murchison.

[54] I cannot let the mention of this time of lonely sickness and

trial pass without recording here my deep gratitude to our dear

and honoured friend, John Ruskin. As my dear mother stood on the

threshold between life and death at Mornex that sad spring, he

was untiring in all kindly offices of friendship. It was her old

friend, Principal A. J. Scott (then eminent, now forgotten), who

sent him to call. He came to see us daily when possible, sometimes

bringing MSS. of Rossetti and others to read aloud (and who could

equal his reading?), and when she was too ill for this, or himself

absent, he would send not only books and flowers to brighten the

bare rooms of the hillside inn (then very primitive), but his own

best treasures of Turner and W. Hunt, drawings and illuminated

missals. It was an anxious solace; and though most gratefully

enjoyed, these treasures were never long retained.

[55] Villa Mansi, nearly opposite the old Ducal Palace. With its

private chapel, it formed three sides of a small _place_ or court.

[56] He also at all times spared no pains to enforce that ideal on

other index-makers, who were not always grateful for his sound

doctrine!

[57] He saw a good deal of the outbreak when taking small comforts to a

friend, the Commandant of the Military School, who was captured and

imprisoned by the insurgents.

[58] After 1869 he discontinued sea-bathing.

[59] This was Yule’s first geographical honour, but he had been elected

into the Athenæum Club, under “Rule II.,” in January, 1867.

[60] Garnier took a distinguished part in the Defence of Paris in

1870–71, after which he resumed his naval service in the East,

where he was killed in action. His last letter to Yule contained

the simple announcement “_J’ai pris Hanoï_” a modest terseness of

statement worthy of the best naval traditions.

[61] One year the present writer, at her mother’s desire, induced him

to take walks of 10 to 12 miles with her, but interesting and

lovely as the scenery was, he soon wearied for his writing-table

(even bringing his work with him), and thus little permanent good

was effected. And it was just the same afterwards in Scotland,

where an old Highland gillie, describing his experience of the Yule

brothers, said: “I was liking to take out Sir George, for _he_

takes the time to enjoy the hills, but (plaintively), the Kornel is

no good, for he’s just as restless as a water-wagtail!” If there

be any _mal de l’écritoire_ corresponding to _mal du pays_, Yule

certainly had it.

[62] The Russian Government in 1873 paid the same work the very

practical compliment of circulating it largely amongst their

officers in Central Asia.

[63] “Auch in den Literaturen von Frankreich, Italien, Deutschland und

andere Ländern ist der mächtig treibende Einfluss der Yuleschen

Methode, welche wissenschaftliche Grundlichkeit mit anmuthender

Form verbindet, bemerkbar.” (_Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für

Erdkunde zu Berlin_, Band XVII. No. 2.)

[64] This subject is too lengthy for more than cursory allusion here,

but the patient analytic skill and keen venatic instinct with

which Yule not only proved the forgery of the alleged _Travels of

Georg Ludwig von ——_ (that had been already established by Lord

Strangford, whose last effort it was, and Sir Henry Rawlinson),

but step by step traced it home to the arch-culprit Klaproth, was

nothing less than masterly.

[65] This is probably the origin of the odd misstatement as to Yule

occupying himself at Palermo with photography, made in the

delightful _Reminiscences_ of the late Colonel Balcarres Ramsay.

Yule never attempted photography after 1852.

[66] She was a woman of fine intellect and wide reading; a skilful

musician, who also sang well, and a good amateur artist in the

style of Aug. Delacroix (of whom she was a favourite pupil). Of

French and Italian she had a thorough and literary mastery, and

how well she knew her own language is shown by the sound and pure

English of a story she published in early life, under the pseudonym

of Max Lyle (_Fair Oaks, or The Experiences of Arnold Osborne,

M.D._, 2 vols., 1856). My mother was partly of Highland descent on

both sides, and many of her fine qualities were very characteristic

of that race. Before her marriage she took an active part in many

good works, and herself originated the useful School for the Blind

at Bath, in a room which she hired with her pocket-money, where she

and her friend Miss Elwin taught such of the blind poor as they

could gather together.

In the tablet which he erected to her memory in the family

burial-place of St. Andrew’s, Gulane, her husband described her

thus:—“A woman singular in endowments, in suffering, and in faith;

to whom to live was Christ, to die was gain.”

[67] Mary Wilhelmina, daughter of F. Skipwith, Esq., B.C.S.

[68] Collinson’s _Memoir of Yule_.

[69] See _Notes from a Diary_, 1888–91.

[70] The identification was not limited to Yule, for when travelling

in Russia many years ago, the present writer was introduced by an

absent-minded Russian _savant_ to his colleagues as _Mademoiselle

Marco Paulovna_!

[71] See Note on Sir George Yule’s career at the end of this Memoir.

[72] Addressed to the Editor, _Royal Engineers’ Journal_, who did not,

however, publish it.

[73] Debate of 27th August, 1889, as reported in _The Times_ of 28th

August.

[74] Yule had published a brief but very interesting Memoir of Major

Rennell in the _R. E. Journal_ in 1881. He was extremely proud of

the circumstance that Rennell’s surviving grand-daughter presented

to him a beautiful wax medallion portrait of the great geographer.

This wonderfully life-like presentment was bequeathed by Yule to

his friend Sir Joseph Hooker, who presented it to the Royal Society.

[75] Knowing his veneration for that noble lady, I had written to tell

her of his condition, and to ask her to give him this last pleasure

of a few words. The response was such as few but herself could

write. This letter was not to be found after my father’s death,

and I can only conjecture that it must either have been given away

by himself (which is most improbable), or was appropriated by some

unauthorised outsider.

[76] So Sir M. E. Grant Duff well calls it.

[77] _Academy_, 19th March, 1890.

[78] He was much pleased, I remember, by a letter he once received from

a kindly Franciscan friar, who wrote: “You may rest assured that

the Beato Odorico will not forget all you have done for him.”

[79] F.-M. Lord Napier of Magdala, died 14th January, 1890.

[80] This notice includes the greater part of an article written by my

father, and published in the _St. James’ Gazette_ of 18th January,

1886, but I have added other details from personal recollection and

other sources.—A. F. Y.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SIR HENRY YULE’S WRITINGS

COMPILED BY H. CORDIER AND A. F. YULE[1]

1842 Notes on the Iron of the Kasia Hills. (_Jour. Asiatic Soc.

Bengal_, XI. Part II. July–Dec. 1842, pp. 853–857.)

Reprinted in _Proceedings of the Museum of Economic Geology_, 1852.

1844 Notes on the Kasia Hills and People. By Lieut. H. Yule. (_Jour.

Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, XII. Part II. July–Dec. 1844, pp. 612–631.)

1846 A Canal Act of the Emperor Akbar, with some notes and remarks on

the History of the Western Jumna Canals. By Lieut. Yule. (_Jour.

Asiatic Society Bengal_, XV. 1846, pp. 213–223.)

1850 The African Squadron vindicated. By Lieut. H. Yule. Second

Edition. London, J. Ridgway, 1850, 8vo, pp. 41.

Had several editions. Reprinted in the Colonial Magazine of March,

1850.

——— L’Escadre Africaine vengée. Par le lieutenant H. Yule. Traduit du

_Colonial Magazine_ de Mars, 1850. (_Revue Coloniale_, Mai, 1850.)

1851 Fortification for Officers of the Army and Students of Military

History, with Illustrations and Notes. By Lieut. H. Yule,

Blackwood, MDCCCLI. 8vo, pp. xxii.–210. (There had been a previous

edition privately printed.)

——— La Fortification mise à la portée des Officiers de l’Armée et des

personnes qui se livrent à l’étude de l’histoire militaire (avec

Atlas). Par H. Yule. Traduit de l’Anglais par M. Sapia, Chef de

Bataillon d’Artillerie de Marine et M. Masselin, Capitaine du

Génie. Paris, J. Corréard, 1858, 8vo, pp. iii.–263, and Atlas.

1851 The Loss of the _Birkenhead_ (Verses). (_Edinburgh Courant_, Dec.

1851.)

Republished in Henley’s _Lyra Heroica_, a Book of Verse for Boys.

London, D. Nutt, 1890.

1852 Tibet. (_Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_, 1852.)

1856 Narrative of Major Phayre’s Mission to the Court of Ava, with

Notices of the Country, Government, and People. Compiled by Capt.

H. Yule. Printed for submission to the Government of India.

Calcutta, J. Thomas, ... 1856, 4to, pp. xxix. + 1 f. n. ch. p. l.

er. + pp. 315 + pp. cxiv. + pp. iv. and pp. 70.

The last pp. iv.–70 contain: Notes on the Geological features of

the banks of the River Irawadee and on the Country north of the

Amarapoora, by Thomas Oldham ... Calcutta, 1856.

——— A Narrative of the Mission sent by the Governor-General of India

to the Court of Ava in 1855, with Notices of the Country,

Government, and People. By Capt. H. Yule. With Numerous

Illustrations. London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1858, 4to.

1857 On the Geography of Burma and its Tributary States, in

illustration of a New Map of those Regions. (_Journal, R.G.S._,

XXVII. 1857, pp. 54–108.)

——— Notes on the Geography of Burma, in illustration of a Map of that

Country. (_Proceedings R.G.S._, vol. i. 1857, pp. 269–273.)

1857 An Account of the Ancient Buddhist Remains at Pagân on the

Iráwadi. By Capt. H. Yule. (_Jour. Asiatic Society, Bengal_, XXVI.

1857, pp. 1–51.)

1861 A few notes on Antiquities near Jubbulpoor. By Lieut.-Col. H.

Yule. (_Journal Asiatic Society, Bengal_, XXX. 1861, pp. 211–215.)

——— Memorandum on the Countries between Thibet, Yunân, and Burmah.

By the Very Rev. Thomine D’Mazure (_sic_), communicated by

Lieut.-Col. A. P. Phayre (with notes and a comment by Lieut.-Col.

H. Yule). With a Map of the N. E. Frontier, prepared in the Office

of the Surveyor-Gen. of India, Calcutta, Aug. 1861. (_Jour.

Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, XXX. 1861, pp. 367–383.)

1862 Notes of a brief Visit to some of the Indian Remains in Java. By

Lieut.-Col. H. Yule. (_Jour. Asiatic Society, Bengal_, XXXI. 1862,

pp. 16–31.)

——— Sketches of Java. A Lecture delivered at the Meeting of the

Bethune Society, Calcutta, 13th Feb. 1862.

——— Fragments of Unprofessional Papers gathered from an Engineer’s

portfolio after twenty-three years of service. Calcutta, 1862.

Ten copies printed for private circulation.

1863 _Mirabilia descripta_. The Wonders of the East. By Friar Jordanus,

of the Order of Preachers and Bishop of Columbum in India the

Greater (_circa_ 1330). Translated from the Latin original, as

published at Paris in 1839, in the _Recueil de Voyages et de

Mémoires_, of the Society of Geography, with the addition of a

Commentary, by Col. H. Yule, London.

Printed for the Hakluyt Society, M.DCCC.LXIII, 8vo, p.

iv.–xvii.–68.

——— Report on the Passes between Arakan and Burma [written in 1853].

(_Papers on Indian Civil Engineering_, vol. i. Roorkee.)

1866 Notices of Cathay. (_Proceedings, R.G.S._, X. 1866, pp. 270–278.)

——— Cathay and the Way Thither, being a Collection of Mediæval

Notices of China. Translated and Edited by Col. H. Yule. With a

Preliminary Essay on the Intercourse between China and the Western

Nations previous to the Discovery of the Cape route. London,

printed for the Hakluyt Society. M.DCCC.LXVI. 2 vols. 8vo.

1866 The Insurrection at Palermo. (_Times_, 29th Sep., 1866.)

——— Lake People. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2042, 15th Dec. 1866, p. 804.)

Letter dated Palermo, 3rd Dec. 1866.

1867 General Index to the third ten Volumes of the Journal of the Royal

Geographical Society. Compiled by Col. H. Yule. London, John

Murray, M.DCCCLXVII, 8vo, pp. 228.

——— A Week’s Republic at Palermo. (_Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1867.)

——— On the Cultivation of Sumach (_Rhus coriaria_), in the Vicinity of

Colli, near Palermo. By Prof. Inzenga. Translated by Col. H. Yule.

Communicated by Dr. Cleghorn. _From the Trans. Bot. Society_, vol.

ix., 1867–68, ppt. 8vo, p. 15.

Original first published in the _Annali di Agricoltura Siciliana,

redatti per l’Istituzione del Principe di Castelnuovo_. Palermo,

1852.

1868 Marco Polo and his Recent Editors. (_Quarterly Review_, vol. 125,

July and Oct. 1868, pp. 133 and 166.)

1870 An Endeavour to Elucidate Rashiduddin’s Geographical Notices of

India. (_Journal R. Asiatic Society_, N.S. iv. 1870, pp. 340–356.)

——— Some Account of the Senbyú Pagoda at Mengún, near the Burmese

Capital, in a Memorandum by Capt. E. H. Sladen, Political Agent at

Mandalé; with Remarks on the Subject, by Col. H. Yule. (_Ibid._

pp. 406–429.)

——— Notes on Analogies of Manners between the Indo-Chinese and the

Races of the Malay Archipelago. (_Report Fortieth Meeting British

Association, Liverpool_, Sept. 1870, p. 178.)

1871 The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, Concerning the

Kingdoms and Marvels of the East. Newly translated and edited

with notes. By Col. H. Yule. In two volumes. With Maps and other

Illustrations. London, John Murray, 1871, 2 vols. 8vo.

——— The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, concerning the Kingdoms

and Marvels of the East. Newly translated and edited, with Notes,

Maps, and other Illustrations. By Col. H. Yule. Second edition.

London, John Murray, 1875, 2 vols. 8vo.

1871 Address by Col. H. Yule (_Report Forty-First Meeting British

Association, Edinburgh_, Aug. 1871, pp. 162–174.)

1872 A Journey to the Source of the River Oxus. By Captain John Wood,

Indian Navy. New edition, edited by his Son. With an Essay on the

Geography of the Valley of the Oxus. By Col. H. Yule. With maps.

London, John Murray, 1872. In–8, pp. xc.–280.

——— Papers connected with the Upper Oxus Regions. (_Journal_, xlii.

1872, pp. 438–481.)

——— Letter [on Yule’s edition of Wood’s _Oxus_]. (_Ocean Highways_,

Feb. 1874, p. 475.)

Palermo, 9th Jan. 1874.

1873 Letter [about the route of M. Polo through Southern Kerman].

(_Ocean Highways_, March, 1873, p. 385.)

Palermo, 11th Jan. 1873.

——— On Northern Sumatra and especially Achin. (_Ocean Highways_, Aug.

1873, pp. 177–183.)

——— Notes on Hwen Thsang’s Account of the Principalities of

Tokharistan, in which some previous Geographical Identifications

are reconsidered. (_Jour. Royal Asiatic Society_, N.S. vi. 1873,

pp. 92–120 and p. 278.)

1874 Francis Garnier (In Memoriam). (_Ocean Highways_, pp. 487–491.)

March, 1874.

——— Remarks on Mr. Phillips’s Paper [_Notices of Southern Mangi_].

(_Journal_, XLIV. 1874, pp. 103–112.)

Palermo, 22nd Feb. 1874.

——— [Sir Frederic Goldsmid’s] “Telegraph and Travel.” (_Geographical

Magazine_, April, 1874, p. 34; Oct. 1874, pp. 300–303.)

——— Geographical Notes on the Basins of the Oxus and the Zarafshán. By

the late Alexis Fedchenko. (_Geog. Mag._, May, 1874, pp. 46–54.)

——— [Mr. Ashton Dilke on the Valley of the Ili.] (_Geog. Mag._, June,

1874, p. 123.) Palermo, 16th May, 1874.

——— The _Atlas Sinensis_ and other Sinensiana. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st

July, 1847, pp. 147–148.)

——— Letter [on Belasaghun]. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st July, 1874, p. 167;

_Ibid._ 1st Sept. 1874, p. 254.)

Palermo, 17th June, 1874; 8th Aug. 1874.

1874 Bala Sagun and Karakorum. By Eugene Schuyler. With note by Col.

Yule. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st Dec. 1874, p. 389.)

——— M. Khanikoff’s Identifications of Names in Clavijo. (_Ibid._ pp.

389–390.)

1875 Notes [to the translation by Eugene Schuyler of Palladius’s

version of _The Journey of the Chinese Traveller, Chang Fe-hui_].

(_Geog. Mag._, 1st Jan. 1875, pp. 7–11.)

——— Some Unscientific Notes on the History of Plants. (_Geog. Mag._,

1st Feb. 1875, pp. 49–51.)

——— Trade Routes to Western China. (_Geog. Mag._, April, 1875, pp.

97–101.)

——— Garden of Transmigrated Souls [Friar Odoric]. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st

May, 1875, pp. 137–138.)

——— A Glance at the Results of the Expedition to Hissar. By Herr P.

Lerch. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st Nov. 1875, pp. 334–339.)

——— Kathay or Cathay. (_Johnson’s American Cyclopædia_.)

——— Achín. (_Encycl. Brit._ 9th edition, 1875, I. pp. 95–97.)

——— Afghânistân. (_Ibid._ pp. 227–241.)

——— Andaman Islands. (_Ibid._ II. 1875, pp. 11–13.)

——— India [Ancient]. (Map No. 31, 1874, in _An Atlas of Ancient

Geography, edited by William Smith and George Grove_. London, John

Murray, 1875.)

1876 Mongolia, the Tangut Country, and the Solitudes of Northern Tibet,

being a Narrative of Three Years’ Travel in Eastern High Asia.

By Lieut.-Col. N. Prejevalsky, of the Russian Staff Corps; Mem.

of the Imp. Russ. Geog. Soc. Translated by E. Delmar Morgan,

F.R.G.S. With Introduction and Notes by Col. H. Yule. With Maps

and Illustrations. London, Sampson Low, 1876, 8vo.

——— _Tibet_ ... Edited by C. R. Markham. Notice of. (_Times_, 1876,

——?)

——— Eastern Persia. Letter. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2559, 11th Nov.

1876.)

——— Review of _H. Howorth’s History of the Mongols_, Part I. (_The

_Athenæum, No. 2560, 18th Nov. 1876, pp. 654–656.) Correspondence.

(_Ibid._ No. 2561, 25th Nov. 1876.)

——— Review of _T. E. Gordon’s Roof of the World_. (_The Academy_, 15th

July, 1876, pp. 49–50.)

1876 Cambodia. (_Encycl. Brit._ IV. 1876, pp. 723–726.)

1877 Champa. (_Geog. Mag._, 1st March, 1877, pp. 66–67.)

Article written for the _Encycl. Brit._ 9th edition, but omitted

for reasons which the writer did not clearly understand.

——— _Quid, si Mundus evolvatur?_ (_Spectator_, 24th March, 1877.)

Written in 1875.—Signed MARCUS PAULUS VENETUS.

——— On Louis de Backer’s _L’Extrême-Orient au Moyen-Age_. (_The

Athenæum_, No. 2598, 11th Aug. 1877, pp. 174–175.)

——— On P. Dabry de Thiersant’s _Catholicisme en Chine_. (_The

Athenæum_, No. 2599, 18th Aug. 1877, pp. 209–210.)

——— Review of _Thomas de Quincey, His Life and Writings. By H. A.

Page_. (_Times_, 27th Aug. 1877.)

——— Companions of Faust. Letter on the Claims of P. Castaldi.

(_Times_, Sept. 1877.)

1878 The late Col. T. G. Montgomerie, R.E. (Bengal). (_R. E. Journal_,

April, 1878.) 8vo, pp. 8.

——— Mr. Henry M. Stanley and the Royal Geographical Society; being

the Record of a Protest. By Col. H. Yule and H. M. Hyndman B.A.,

F.R.G.S. London: Bickers and Son, 1878, 8vo, pp. 48.

——— Review of _Burma, Past and Present; with Personal Reminiscences of

the Country_. By Lieut.-Gen. Albert Fytche. (_The Athenæum_, No.

2634, 20th April, 1878, pp. 499–500.)

——— Kayal. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2634, 20th April, 1878, p. 515.)

Letter dated April, 1878.

——— Missions in Southern India. (Letter to _Pall Mall Gazette_, 20th

June, 1878.)

——— Mr. Stanley and his Letters of 1875. (Letter to _Pall Mall

Gazette_, 30th Jan. 1878.)

——— Review of _Richthofen’s China_, Bd. I. (_The Academy_, 13th April,

1878, pp. 315–316.)

——— [A foreshadowing of the Phonograph.] (_The Athenæum_, No. 2636,

4th May, 1878.)

1879 A Memorial of the Life and Services of Maj.-Gen. W. W. H.

Greathed, C.B., Royal Engineers (Bengal), (1826–1878). Compiled

by a Friend and Brother Officer. London, printed for private

circulation, 1879, 8vo, pp. 57.

——— Review of _Gaur: its Ruins and Inscriptions_. By John Henry

Ravenshaw. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2672, 11th Jan. 1879, pp. 42–44.)

——— Wellington College. (Letter to _Pall Mall Gazette_, 14th April,

1879.)

——— Dr. Holub’s Travels. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2710, 4th Oct. 1879,

pp. 436–437.)

——— Letter to Comm. Berchet, dated 2nd Dec. 1878. (_Archivio Veneto_

XVII. 1879, pp. 360–362.)

Regarding some documents discovered by the Ab. Cav. V. Zanetti.

——— Gaur. (_Encyclop. Brit._ X. 1879, pp. 112–116.)

——— Ghazni. (_Ibid._ pp. 559–562.)

——— Gilgit. (_Ibid._ pp. 596–599.)

——— Singular Coincidences. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2719, 6th Dec. 1879.)

1880 [Brief Obituary Notice of] General W. C. Macleod. (_Pall Mall

Gazette_, 10th April, 1880.)

——— [Obituary Notice of] Gen. W. C. Macleod. (_Proc. R. Geog. Soc._,

June, 1880.)

——— An Ode in Brown Pig. Suggested by reading Mr. Lang’s _Ballades

in Blue China_. [Signed MARCUS PAULUS VENETUS.] (_St. James’

Gazette_, 17th July, 1880.)

——— Notes on Analogies of Manners between the Indo-Chinese Races

and the Races of the Indian Archipelago. By Col. Yule (_Journ.

Anthrop. Inst. of Great Britain and Ireland_, vol. ix., 1880, pp.

290–301.)

——— Sketches of Asia in the Thirteenth Century and of Marco Polo’s

Travels, delivered at Royal Engineer Institute, 18th Nov. 1880.

[This Lecture, with slight modification, was also delivered on

other occasions both before and after. Doubtful if ever fully

reported.]

——— Dr. Holub’s Collections. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2724, 10th Jan.

1880.)

——— Prof. Max Müller’s Paper at the Royal Asiatic Society. (_The

Athenæum_, No. 2731, 28th Feb. 1880, p. 285.)

——— The Temple of Buddha Gaya. (Review of _Dr. Rajendralála Mitra’s

Buddha Gaya_.) (_Sat. Rev._, 27th March, 1870.)

——— Mr. Gladstone and Count Karolyi. (Letter to _The Examiner_, 22nd

May, 1880, signed TRISTRAM SHANDY.)

——— Stupa of Barhut. [Review of Cunningham’s work.] (_Sat. Rev._, 5th

June, 1880.)

——— From Africa: Southampton, Fifth October, 1880.

[Verses to Sir Bartle Frere.] (_Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_,

Nov. 1880.)

——— Review of _H. Howorth’s History of the Mongols_, Part II. (_The

Athenæum_, No. 2762, 2nd Oct. 1880, pp. 425–427.)

——— _Verboten ist_, a Rhineland Rhapsody. (Printed for private

circulation only.)

——— Hindú-Kúsh. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XI. 1880, pp. 837–839.)

——— The River of Golden Sand, the Narrative of a Journey through China

and Eastern Tibet to Burmah, With Illustrations and ten Maps from

Original Surveys. By Capt. W. Gill, Royal Engineers. With an

Introductory Essay. By Col. H. Yule, London, John Murray, ...

1880, 2 vols. 8vo, pp. 95–420, 11–453.

——— The River of Golden Sand: Being the Narrative of a Journey through

China and Eastern Tibet to Burmah. By the late Capt. W. Gill, R.E.

Condensed by Edward Colborne Baber, Chinese Secretary to H.M.’s

Legation at Peking. Edited, with a Memoir and Introductory Essay,

by Col. H. Yule. With Portrait, Map, and Woodcuts. London, John

Murray, 1883, 8vo., pp. 141–332.

——— Memoir of Captain W. Gill, R.E., and Introductory Essay as

prefixed to the New Edition of the “River of Golden Sand.” By Col.

H. Yule. London, John Murray, ... 1884, 8vo. [Paged 19–141.]

1881 [Notice on William Yule] in Persian Manuscripts in the British

Museum. By Sir F. J. Goldsmid.

(_The Athenæum_, No. 2813, 24th Sept. 1881, pp. 401–403.)

——— Il Beato Odorico di Pordenone, ed i suoi Viaggi: Cenni dettati dal

Col. Enrico Yule, quando s’inaugurava in Pordenone il Busto di

Odorico il giorno, 23° Settembre, MDCCCLXXXI, 8vo. pp. 8.

——— Hwen T’sang. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XII. 1881, pp. 418–419.)

——— Ibn Batuta. (_Ibid._ pp. 607–609.)

——— Kâfiristân. (_Ibid._ XIII. 1881, pp. 820–823.)

——— Major James Rennell, F.R.S., of the Bengal Engineers. [Reprinted

from the _Royal Engineers’ Journal_], 8vo., pp. 16.

(Dated 7th Dec. 1881.)

1881 Notice of Sir William E. Baker. (_St. James’ Gazette_, 27th Dec.

1881.)

——— Parallels [Matthew Arnold and de Barros]. (_The Athenæum_, No.

2790, 16th April, 1881, pp. 536.)

1882 Memoir of Gen. Sir William Erskine Baker, K.C.B., Royal Engineers

(Bengal). Compiled by two old friends, brother officers and

pupils. London. Printed for private circulation, 1882, 8vo., pp.

67.

By H. Y[ule] and R. M. [Gen. R. Maclagan].

——— Etymological Notes. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2837, 11th March, 1882;

No. 2840, 1st April, 1882, p. 413.)

——— Lhása. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XIV. 1882, pp. 496–503.)

——— _Wadono_. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2846, 13th May, 1882, p. 602.)

——— Dr. John Brown. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2847, 20th May, 1882, pp.

635–636.)

——— A Manuscript of Marco Polo. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2851, 17th June,

1882, pp. 765–766.)

[About Baron Nordenskiöld’s Facsimile Edition.]

——— Review of _Ancient India as described by Ktesias the Knidian_,

etc. By J. W. M’Crindle. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2860, 19th Aug.

1882, pp. 237–238.)

——— The Silver Coinage of Thibet. (Review of Terrien de Lacouperie’s

Paper.) (_The Academy_, 19th Aug. 1882, pp 140–141.)

——— Review of _The Indian Balhara and the Arabian Intercourse with

India_. By Edward Thomas. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2866, 30th Sept.

1882, pp. 428–429.)

——— The Expedition of Professor Palmer, Capt. Gill, and Lieut.

Charrington. (Letter in _The Times_, 16th Oct. 1882.)

——— Obituary Notice of Dr. Arthur Burnell. (_Times_, 20th Oct. 1882.)

——— Capt. William Gill, R.E. [Notice of]. (_The Times_, 31st Oct.

1882.)

See _supra_, first col. of this page.

——— Notes on the Oldest Records of the Sea Route to China from Western

Asia. By Col. Yule. _Proc. of the Royal Geographical Society, and

Monthly Record of Geography_, Nov. No. 1882, 8vo.

_Proceedings_, N.S. IV. 1882, pp. 649–660. Read at the

Geographical Section, Brit. Assoc., Southampton Meeting, augmented

and revised by the author.

1883 Lord Lawrence. [Review of _Life of Lord Lawrence_. By R. Bosworth

Smith.] (_Quarterly Review_, vol. 155, April, 1883, pp. 289–326.)

——— Review of _Across Chrysé_. By A. R. Colquhoun. (_The Athenæum_,

No. 2900, 26th May, 1883, pp. 663–665.)

——— La Terra del Fuoco e Carlo Darwin. (Extract from Letter published

by the _Fanfulla_, Rome 2nd June, 1883.)

——— How was the Trireme rowed? (_The Academy_, 6th Oct. 1883, p. 237.)

——— _Across Chrysé_. (_The Athenæum_, No. 2922, 27th Oct. 1883.)

——— Political Fellowship in the India Council. (Letter in _The Times_,

15th Dec. 1883.) [Heading was not Yule’s.]

——— Maldive Islands. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XV. 1883, pp. 327–332.)

——— Mandeville. (_Ibid._ pp. 473–475.)

1884 A Sketch of the Career of Gen. John Reid Becher, C.B., Royal

Engineers (Bengal). By an old friend and brother officer. Printed

for private circulation, 1884, 8vo, pp. 40.

——— Ruc Quills. (_The Academy_, No. 620, 22nd March, 1884, pp.

204–205.) Reprinted in present ed. of Marco Polo, vol. ii. p. 596.

——— Lord Canning. (Letter in _The Times_, 2nd April, 1884.)

——— Sir Bartle Frere [Letter respecting Memorial of]. (_St. James’

Gazette_, 27th July, 1884.)

——— Odoric. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XVIII. 1884, pp. 728–729.)

——— Ormus. (_Ibid._ pp. 856–858.)

1885 Memorials of Gen. Sir Edward Harris Greathed, K.C.B. Compiled by

the late Lieut.-Gen. Alex. Cunningham Robertson, C.B. Printed for

private circulation. (With a prefatory notice of the compiler.)

London, Harrison & Sons, ... 1885, 8vo, pp. 95.

The Prefatory Notice of Gen. A. C. Robertson is by H. Yule, June,

1885, p. iii.–viii.

——— Anglo-Indianisms. (Letter in the _St. James’ Gazette_, 30th July,

1885.)

——— Obituary Notice of Col. Grant Allan, Madras Army. (_From the Army

and Navy Gazette_, 22nd Aug. 1885.)

——— Shameless Advertisements. (Letter in _The Times_, 28th Oct. 1885.)

1886 Marco Polo. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XIX. 1885, pp. 404–409.)

——— Prester John. (_Ibid._ pp. 714–718.)

——— Brief Notice of Sir Edward Clive Bayley. Pages ix.–xiv. [Prefixed

to _The History of India as told by its own Historians: Gujarat_.

By the late Sir Edward Clive Bayley.] London, Allen, 1886, 8vo.

——— Sir George Udny Yule. In Memoriam (_St. James’ Gazette_, 18th Jan.

1886.)

——— Cacothanasia. [Political Verse, Signed Μηνιν ἈΕΙΔΕ.] (_St. James’

Gazette_, 1st Feb. 1886.)

——— William Kay, D.D. [Notice of]. (Letter to _The Guardian_, 3rd Feb.

1886.)

——— Col. George Thomson, C.B., R.E. (_Royal Engineers’ Journal_, 1886.)

——— Col. George Thomson, C.B. [Note]. (_St. James’ Gazette_, 16th Feb.

1886.)

——— Hidden Virtues [A Satire on W. E. Gladstone]. (Letter to the _St.

James’ Gazette_, 21st March, 1886. Signed M. P. V.)

——— Burma, Past and Present. (_Quart. Rev._ vol. 162, Jan. and April,

1886, pp. 210–238.)

——— Errors of Facts, in two well-known Pictures.

(_The Athenæum_, No. 3059, 12th June, 1886, p. 788.)

——— [Obituary Notice of] Lieut.-Gen. Sir Arthur Phayre, C.B.,

K.C.S.I., G.C.M.G. (_Proc. R.G.S._, N.S. 1886, VIII. pp. 103–112.)

——— “Lines suggested by a Portrait in the Millais Exhibition.”

Privately printed and (though never published) widely circulated.

These powerful verses on Gladstone are those several times

referred to by Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff, in his published

Diaries.

——— Introductory Remarks on _The Rock-Cut Caves and Statues of

Bamian_. By Capt. the Hon. M. G. Talbot. (_Journ. R. As. Soc._

N.S. XVIII. 1886, pp. 323–329.)

——— Opening Address. (_Ibid._ pp. i.–v.)

——— Opening Address. (_Ibid._ xix. pp. i.–iii.)

——— Hobson-Jobsoniana. By H. Yule (_Asiatic Quarterly Review_, vol. i.

1886, pp. 119–140.)

——— HOBSON-JOBSON: Being a Glossary of Anglo-Indian Colloquial Words

and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms; etymological, historical,

geographical, and discursive. By Col. H. Yule, and the late Arthur

Coke Burnell, Ph.D., C.I.E., author of “The Elements of South

Indian Palaeography,” etc., London, John Murray, 1886. (All rights

reserved), 8vo, p. xliii.–870. Preface, etc.

A new edition is in preparation under the editorship of Mr.

William Crooke (1902).

1886 John Bunyan. (Letter in _St. James’ Gazette_, _circa_ 31st Dec.

1886. Signed M. P. V.)

——— Rennell. (_Encyclop. Brit._ XX. 1886, pp. 398–401.)

——— Rubruquis (_Ibid._ XXI. 1886, pp. 46–47.)

1887 Lieut.-Gen. W. A. Crommelen, C.B., R.E. (_Royal Engineers’

Journal_, 1887.)

——— [Obituary Notice] Col. Sir J. U. Bateman Champain. (_Times_, 2nd

Feb. 1887).

——— “Pulping Public Records.” (_Notes and Queries_, 19th March, 1887.)

——— A Filial Remonstrance (Political Verses). Signed M. P. V. (_St.

James’ Gazette_, 8th Aug. 1887.)

——— Memoir of Major-Gen. J. T. Boileau, R.E., F.R.S. By C. R. Low,

I.N., F.R.G.S. With a Preface by Col. H. Yule, C.B., London,

Allen, 1887.

——— The Diary of William Hedges, Esq. (afterwards Sir William Hedges),

during his Agency in Bengal; as well as on his voyage out and

return overland (1681–1687). Transcribed for the Press, with

Introductory Notes, etc., by R. Barlow, Esq., and illustrated by

copious extracts from unpublished records, etc., by Col. H. Yule.

Pub. for Hakluyt Society. London, 1887–1889, 3 vols. 8vo.

1888 Concerning some little known Travellers in the East. (_Asiatic

Quarterly Review_, V. 1888, pp. 312–335.)

No. I.—George Strachan.

——— Concerning some little known Travellers in the East. (_Asiatic

Quarterly Review_, VI. 1888, pp. 382–398.)

No. II.—William, Earl of Denbigh; Sir Henry Skipwith; and others.

——— Notes on the St. James’s of the 6th Jan. [A Budget of

Miscellaneous interesting criticism.] (Letter to _St. James’

Gazette_, 9th Jan. 1888.)

——— Deflections of the Nile. (Letter in _The Times_, 15th Oct. 1888.)

——— The History of the Pitt Diamond, being an excerpt from Documentary

Contributions to a Biography of Thomas Pitt, prepared for issue

[in Hedges’ Diary] by the Hakluyt Society. London, 1888, 8vo. pp.

23.

Fifty Copies printed for private circulation.

1889 The Remains of Pagan. By H. Yule. (_Trübner’s Record_, 3rd ser.

vol. i. pt. i. 1889, p. 2.)

To introduce notes by Dr. E Forchammer.

——— A Coincident Idiom. By H. Yule. (_Trübner’s Record_, 3rd ser. vol.

i. pt. iii. pp. 84–85.)

——— The Indian Congress [a Disclaimer]. (Letter to _The Times_, 1st

Jan. 1889.)

——— Arrowsmith, the Friend of Thomas Poole. (Letter in _The Academy_,

9th Feb. 1889, p. 96.)

BIOGRAPHIES OF SIR HENRY YULE.

——— Colonel Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I., C.B., LL.D., R.E. By General

Robert Maclagan, R.E. (_Proceed. Roy. Geog. Soc._ XII. 1890, pp.

108–113.)

——— Colonel Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I., C.B., LL.D., R.E., etc. (With a

Portrait). By E. Delmar Morgan. (_Scottish Geographical Magazine_,

VI. 1890, pp. 93–98.) Contains a very good Bibliography.

——— Col. Sir H. Yule, R.E., C.B., K.C.S.I., by Maj.-Gen. T. B.

Collinson, R.E., _Royal Engineers’ Journal_, March, 1890. [This is

the best of the Notices of Yule which appeared at the time of his

death.]

——— Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I, C.B., LL.D., R.E., by E. H. Giglioli.

Roma, 1890, ppt. 8vo, pp. 8.

Estratto dal _Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana_,

Marzo, 1890.

——— Sir Henry Yule. By J. S. C[otton]. (_The Academy_, 11th Jan. 1890,

No. 923, pp. 26–27.)

——— Sir Henry Yule. (_The Athenæum_, No. 3245, 4th Jan. 1900, p. 17;

No. 3246, 11th Jan. p. 53; No. 3247, 18th Jan. p. 88.)

——— _In Memoriam_. Sir Henry Yule. By D. M. (_The Academy_, 29th

March, 1890, p. 222.)

See end of _Memoir_ in present work.

——— Le Colonel Sir Henry Yule. Par M. Henri Cordier. Extrait du

_Journal Asiatique_. Paris, Imprimerie nationale, MDCCCXC, in–8,

pp. 26.

——— The same, _Bulletin de la Société de Géographie_. Par M. Henri

Cordier. 1890, 8vo, pp. 4.

Meeting 17th Jan. 1890.

1889 Baron F. von Richthofen. (_Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für

Erdkunde zu Berlin_, xvii. 2.)

——— Colonel Sir Henry Yule, R.E., C.B., K.C.S.I. Memoir by General R.

Maclagan, _Journ. R. Asiatic Society_, 1890.

——— Memoir of Colonel Sir Henry Yule, R.E., C.B., K.C.S.I., LL.D.,

etc. By Coutts Trotter. (_Proceedings of the Royal Society of

Edinburgh_, 1891. p. xliii. to p. lvi.)

1889 Sir Henry Yule (1820–1889). By Coutts Trotter. (_Dict. of National

Biography_, lxiii. pp. 405–407.)

1903 Memoir of Colonel Sir Henry Yule, R.E., C.B., K.C.S.I., Corr.

Inst. France, by his daughter, Amy Frances Yule, L.A. Soc. Ant.

Scot., etc. Written for third edition of Yule’s Marco Polo.

Reprinted for private circulation only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This list is based on the excellent preliminary List compiled by E.

Delmar Morgan, published in the _Scottish Geographical Magazine_,

vol. vi., pp. 97–98, but the present compilers have much more than

doubled the number of entries. It is, however, known to be still

incomplete, and any one able to add to the list, will greatly

oblige the compilers by sending additions to the Publisher.—A. F. Y.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.

MARCO POLO AND HIS BOOK.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICES.

PAGE

I. OBSCURITIES IN THE HISTORY OF HIS LIFE AND BOOK. RAMUSIO’S

STATEMENTS _1_

§ 1. Obscurities, etc. 2. Ramusio his earliest Biographer;

his Account of Polo. 3. He vindicates Polo’s Geography. 4.

Compares him with Columbus. 5. Recounts a Tradition of the

Traveller’s Return to Venice. 6. Recounts Marco’s Capture

by the Genoese. 7. His statements about Marco’s liberation

and marriage. 8. His account of the Family Polo and its

termination.

II. SKETCH OF THE STATE OF THE EAST AT THE TIME OF THE JOURNEYS OF

THE POLO FAMILY _8_

§ 9. State of the Levant. 10. The various Mongol Sovereignties

in Asia and Eastern Europe. 11. China. 12. India and

Indo-China.

III. THE POLO FAMILY. PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE TRAVELLERS TILL THEIR

FINAL RETURN FROM THE EAST _13_

§ 13. Alleged origin of the Polos. 14. Claims to Nobility. 15.

The Elder Marco Polo. 16. Nicolo and Maffeo Polo commence

their Travels. 17. Their intercourse with Kúblái Kaan. 18.

Their return home, and Marco’s appearance on the scene. 19.

Second Journey of the Polo Brothers, accompanied by Marco.

(See App. L. 1.) 20. Marco’s Employment by Kúblái Kaan; and

his Journeys. 21. Circumstances of the departure of the Polos

from the Kaan’s Court. 22. They pass by Persia to Venice.

Their relations there.

IV. DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE MANSION OF THE POLO FAMILY AT S.

GIOVANNI GRISOSTOMO _26_

§ 23. Probable period of their establishment at S. Giovanni

Grisostomo. 24. Relics of the Casa Polo in the Corte

Sabbionera. 24_a_. Recent corroboration as to traditional

site of the Casa Polo.

V. DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE WAR-GALLEYS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN

STATES IN THE MIDDLE AGES _31_

§ 25. Arrangement of the Rowers in Mediæval Galleys; a separate

Oar to every Man. 26. Change of System in 16th Century.

27. Some details of 13th-Century Galleys. 28. Fighting

Arrangements. 29. Crew of a Galley and Staff of a Fleet. 30.

Music and miscellaneous particulars.

VI. THE JEALOUSIES AND NAVAL WARS OF VENICE AND GENOA. LAMBA

DORIA’S EXPEDITION TO THE ADRIATIC; BATTLE OF CURZOLA; AND

IMPRISONMENT OF MARCO POLO BY THE GENOESE _41_

§ 31. Growing Jealousies and Outbreaks between the Republics.

32. Battle in Bay of Ayas in 1294. 33. Lamba Doria’s

Expedition to the Adriatic. 34. The Fleets come in sight of

each other at Curzola. 35. The Venetians defeated, and Marco

Polo a Prisoner. 36. Marco Polo in Prison dictates his Book

to Rusticiano of Pisa. Release of Venetian Prisoners. 37.

Grounds on which the story of Marco Polo’s capture at Curzola

rests.

VII. RUSTICIANO OR RUSTICHELLO OF PISA, MARCO POLO’S

FELLOW-PRISONER AT GENOA, THE SCRIBE WHO WROTE DOWN THE

TRAVELS _55_

§ 38. Rusticiano, perhaps a Prisoner from Meloria. 39. A Person

known from other sources. 40. Character of his Romance

Compilations. 41. Identity of the Romance Compiler with

Polo’s Fellow-Prisoner. 42. Further particulars regarding

Rusticiano.

VIII. NOTICES OF MARCO POLO’S HISTORY AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS

IMPRISONMENT AT GENOA _64_

§ 43. Death of Marco’s Father before 1300. Will of his Brother

Maffeo. 44. Documentary Notices of Polo at this time. The

Sobriquet of _Milione_. 45. Polo’s relations with Thibault

de Cepoy. 46. His Marriage, and his Daughters. Marco as

a Merchant. 47. His Last Will; and Death. 48. Place of

Sepulture. Professed Portraits of Polo. 49. Further History

of the Polo Family. 49 _bis_. Reliques of Marco Polo.

IX. MARCO POLO’S BOOK; AND THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS FIRST

WRITTEN _80_

§ 50. General Statement of what the Book contains. 51. Language

of the original Work. 52. Old French Text of the Société de

Géographie. 53. Conclusive proof that the Old French Text is

the source of all the others. 54. Greatly diffused employment

of French in that age.

X. VARIOUS TYPES OF TEXT OF MARCO POLO’S BOOK _90_

§ 55. Four Principal Types of Text. _First_, that of the

Geographic or Oldest French. 56. _Second_, the Remodelled

French Text; followed by Pauthier. 57. The Bern MS. and two

others form a sub-class of this type. 58. _Third_, Friar

Pipino’s Latin. 59. The Latin of Grynæus, a Translation at

Fifth Hand. 60. _Fourth_, Ramusio’s Italian. 61. Injudicious

Tamperings in Ramusio. 62. Genuine Statements peculiar to

Ramusio. 63. Hypothesis of the Sources of the Ramusian

Version. 64. Summary in regard to Text of Polo. 65. Notice of

a curious Irish Version.

XI. SOME ESTIMATE OF THE CHARACTER OF POLO AND HIS BOOK _104_

§ 66. Grounds of Polo’s Pre-eminence among Mediæval Travellers.

67. His true claims to glory. 68. His personal attributes

seen but dimly. 69. Absence of scientific notions. 70. Map

constructed on Polo’s data. 71. Singular omissions of Polo in

regard to China; historical inaccuracies. 72. Was Polo’s Book

materially affected by the Scribe Rusticiano? 73. Marco’s

reading embraced the Alexandrian Romances. Examples. 74.

Injustice long done to Polo. Singular Modern Example.

XII. CONTEMPORARY RECOGNITION OF POLO AND HIS BOOK _116_

§ 75. How far was there diffusion of his Book in his own day?

76. Contemporary References to Polo. T. de Cepoy; Pipino;

Jacopo d’Acqui; Giov. Villani. 77. Pietro d’Abano; Jean

le Long of Ypres. 78. Curious borrowings from Polo in the

Romance of Bauduin de Sebourc. 78 _bis._ Chaucer and Marco

Polo.

XIII. NATURE OF POLO’S INFLUENCE ON GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE _129_

§ 79. Tardy operation, and causes thereof. 80. General

characteristics of Mediæval Cosmography. 81. Roger Bacon

as a Geographer. 82. Arab Geography. 83. Marino Sanudo

the Elder. 84. The Catalan Map of 1375, the most complete

mediæval embodiment of Polo’s Geography. 85. Fra Mauro’s

Map. Confusions in Cartography of the 16th Century from

the endeavour to combine new and old information. 86.

Gradual disappearance of Polo’s nomenclature. 87. Alleged

introduction of Block-printed Books into Europe by Marco Polo

in connexion with the fiction of the invention of Printing

by Castaldi of Feltre. 88. Frequent opportunities for such

introduction in the Age following Polo’s.

XIV. EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE BASIS ADOPTED FOR THE PRESENT

TRANSLATION _141_

§ 89. Texts followed by Marsden and by Pauthier. 90. Eclectic

Formation of the English Text of this Translation. 91. Mode

of rendering Proper Names.

THE BOOK OF MARCO POLO.

PROLOGUE.

CHAP. PAGE

PRELIMINARY ADDRESS OF RUSTICIANO OF PISA 1

I.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS POLO SET FORTH FROM CONSTANTINOPLE TO

TRAVERSE THE WORLD 2

NOTES.—1. _Chronology._ 2. “_The Great Sea._” _The Port of

Soldaia._

II.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS WENT ON BEYOND SOLDAIA 4

NOTES.—1. _Site and Ruins of Sarai._ 2. _City of Bolghar._

3. _Alau Lord of the Levant (i.e. |Hulaku|)._ 4.

_Ucaca on the Volga._ 5. _River Tigeri._

III.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS, AFTER CROSSING A DESERT, CAME TO

THE CITY OF BOCARA, AND FELL IN WITH CERTAIN ENVOYS THERE 9

NOTES.—1. “_Bocara a City of Persia._” 2. _The Great Kaan’s

Envoys._

IV.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS TOOK THE ENVOYS’ COUNSEL, AND WENT

TO THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN 11

V.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS ARRIVED AT THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN 11

VI.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN ASKED ALL ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE

CHRISTIANS, AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE POPE OF ROME 12

NOTE.—_Apostoille._ _The name |Tartar|._

VII.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN SENT THE TWO BROTHERS AS HIS ENVOYS

TO THE POPE 13

NOTES.—1. _The Great Kaan’s Letter._ 2. _The Seven Arts._

3. _Religious Indifference of the Mongol Princes._

VIII.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN GAVE THEM A TABLET OF GOLD, BEARING

HIS ORDERS IN THEIR BEHALF 15

NOTES.—1. _The Tablet._ 2. _The Port of Ayas._

IX.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS CAME TO THE CITY OF ACRE; AND THENCE

TO VENICE 17

NOTES.—1. _Names of the deceased Pope and of the Legate._

2. _Negropont._ 3. _Mark’s age._

X.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS AGAIN DEPARTED FROM VENICE, ON THEIR

WAY BACK TO THE GREAT KAAN, AND TOOK WITH THEM MARK, THE

SON OF MESSER NICOLO 19

NOTE.—_Oil from the Holy Sepulchre._

XI.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS SET OUT FROM ACRE, AND MARK ALONG

WITH THEM 20

NOTE.—_Pope Gregory X. and his Election._

XII.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE THE NEW

POPE 22

NOTES.—1. _William of Tripoli._ 2. _Powers conceded to

Missionary Friars._ 3. _Bundúḳdár and his Invasion of

Armenia; his character._ 4. _The Templars in Cilician

Armenia._

XIII.—HOW MESSER NICOLO AND MESSER MAFFEO POLO, ACCOMPANIED

BY MARK, TRAVELLED TO THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN 25

NOTE.—_The City of Kemenfu, Summer Residence of Kúblái._

XIV.—HOW MESSER NICOLO AND MESSER MAFFEO POLO AND MARCO

PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE THE GREAT KAAN 26

NOTES.—1. _Verbal._ 2. “_Vostre Homme._”

XV.—HOW THE LORD SENT MARK ON AN EMBASSY OF HIS 27

NOTES.—1. _The four Characters learned by Marco, what?_

2. _Ramusio’s addition._ 3. _Nature of Marco’s

employment._

XVI.—HOW MARK RETURNED FROM THE MISSION WHEREON HE HAD BEEN

SENT 30

XVII.—HOW MESSER NICOLO, MESSER MAFFEO, AND MESSER MARCO,

ASKED LEAVE OF THE GREAT KAAN TO GO THEIR WAY 31

NOTES.—1. _Risks to Foreigners on a change of Sovereign._

2. _The Lady Bolgana._ 3. _Passage from Ramusio._

XVIII.—HOW THE TWO BROTHERS AND MESSER MARCO TOOK LEAVE OF THE

GREAT KAAN, AND RETURNED TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY 34

NOTES.—1. _Mongol Royal Messengers._ 2. _Mongol

communication with the King of England._ 3. _Mediæval

Ships of China._ 4. _Passage from China to Sumatra._

5. _Mortality among the party._ 6. _The Lady Cocachin

in Persian History._ 7. _Death of the Kaan._ 8. _The

Princess of Manzi._

BOOK FIRST.

_Account of Regions Visited or heard of on the Journey from the

Lesser Armenia to the Court of the Great Kaan at Chandu._

CHAP. PAGE

I.—HERE THE BOOK BEGINS; AND FIRST IT SPEAKS OF THE LESSER

HERMENIA 41

NOTES.—1. _Little Armenia._ 2. _Meaning of_ Chasteaux. 3.

_Sickliness of Cilician Coast._ 4. _The phrase |“fra

terre.”|_

II.—CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF TURCOMANIA 43

NOTES.—1. _Brutality of the people._ 2. _Application of

name |Turcomania|. Turcoman Hordes._

III.—DESCRIPTION OF THE GREATER HERMENIA 45

NOTES.—1. _Erzingan._ Buckrams, _what were they?_ 2.

_Erzrum._ 3. _Baiburt._ 4. _Ararat._ 5. _Oil wells of

Baku._

IV.—OF GEORGIANIA AND THE KINGS THEREOF 50

NOTES.—1. _Georgian Kings._ 2. _The Georgians._ 3. _The

Iron Gates and Wall of Alexander._ 4. _Box forests._

5. _Goshawks._ 6. _Fish Miracle._ 7. _Sea of Ghel

or Ghelan._ _Names ending in |-án|._ 8. _Names of the

Caspian, and navigation thereon._ 9. _Fish in the

Caspian._

V.—OF THE KINGDOM OF MAUSUL 60

NOTES.—1. _Atabeks of Mosul._ 2. _Nestorian and Jacobite

Christians._ 3. _Mosolins._ 4. _The Kurds._ 5. _Mush

and Mardin._

VI.—OF THE GREAT CITY OF BAUDAS, AND HOW IT WAS TAKEN 63

NOTES.—1. _Baudas, or Baghdad._ 2. _Island of Kish._ 3.

_Basra._ 4. _Baldachins and other silk textures;

Animal patterns._ 5, 6. _Hulákú’s Expedition._ 7.

_The Death of the Khalíf Mosta’sim._ 8. _Froissart._

VII.—HOW THE CALIF OF BAUDAS TOOK COUNSEL TO SLAY ALL THE

CHRISTIANS IN HIS LAND 68

NOTES.—1. _Chronology._ 2. “_Ses |Regisles| et ses

|Casses|._”

VIII.—HOW THE CHRISTIANS WERE IN GREAT DISMAY BECAUSE OF WHAT

THE CALIF HAD SAID 70

NOTE.—_The word “|cralantur|.”_

IX.—HOW THE ONE-EYED COBLER WAS DESIRED TO PRAY FOR THE

CHRISTIANS 71

X.—HOW THE PRAYER OF THE ONE-EYED COBLER CAUSED THE MOUNTAIN

TO MOVE 72

NOTE.—_The Mountain Miracle._

XI.—OF THE NOBLE CITY OF TAURIS 74

NOTES.—1. _Tabriz._ 2. _Cremesor._ 3. _Traffic at Tabriz._

4. _The_ Torizi. 5. _Character of City and People._

XII.—OF THE MONASTERY OF SAINT BARSAMO ON THE BORDERS OF

TAURIS 77

NOTE.—_The Monastery of Barsauma._

XIII.—OF THE GREAT COUNTRY OF PERSIA; WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF

THE THREE KINGS 78

NOTES.—1. _Kala’ Atishparastán._ 2. _The Three Kings._

XIV.—HOW THE THREE KINGS RETURNED TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY 79

NOTES.—1. _The three mystic Gifts._ 2. _The Worshipped

Fire._ 3. _Sávah and Ávah. The Legend in Mas’udi.

Embellishments of the Story of the Magi._

XV.—OF THE EIGHT KINGDOMS OF PERSIA, AND HOW THEY ARE NAMED 83

NOTES.—1. _The Eight Kingdoms._ 2. _Export of Horses, and

Prices._ 3. _Persian Brigands._ 4. _Persian wine._

XVI.—CONCERNING THE GREAT CITY OF YASDI 88

NOTES.—1. _Yezd._ 2. _Yezd to Kerman. The Woods spoken of._

XVII.—CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF KERMAN 90

NOTES.—1. _City and Province of Kerman._ 2. _Turquoises._

3. _|Ondanique| or Indian Steel._ 4. _Manufactures of

Kerman._ 5. _Falcons._

XVIII.—OF THE CITY OF CAMADI AND ITS RUINS; ALSO TOUCHING THE

CARAUNA ROBBERS 97

NOTES.—1. _Products of the warmer plains._ 2. _Humped oxen

and fat-tailed sheep._ 3. Scarani. 4. _The Karaunahs

and Nigudarian Bands._ 5. _Canosalmi._

XIX.—OF THE DESCENT TO THE CITY OF HORMOS 107

NOTES.—1. _Site of Old Hormuz and Geography of the route

from Kerman to Hormuz._ 2. _Dates and Fish Diet._ 3.

_Stitched Vessels. “|One rudder|,” why noticed as

peculiar._ 4. _Great heat at Hormuz._ 5. _The Simúm._

6. _History of Hormuz, and Polo’s Ruomedan Acomat._

7. _Second Route between Hormuz and Kerman._

XX.—OF THE WEARISOME AND DESERT ROAD THAT HAS NOW TO BE

TRAVELLED 123

NOTES.—1. _Kerman to Kúbenán._ 2. _Desert of Lút._ 3.

_Subterraneous Canals._

XXI.—CONCERNING THE CITY OF COBINAN AND THE THINGS THAT ARE

MADE THERE 125

NOTES.—1. _Kuh-Banán._ 2. _Production of Tútíá._

XXII.—OF A CERTAIN DESERT THAT CONTINUES FOR EIGHT DAYS’ JOURNEY 127

NOTES.—1. _Deserts of Khorasan._ 2. _The |Arbre Sol| or

|Arbre Sec|._

XXIII.—CONCERNING THE OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN 139

NOTE.—_The Assassins, Hashíshîn, or Muláhidah._

XXIV.—HOW THE OLD MAN USED TO TRAIN HIS ASSASSINS 142

NOTES.—1. _The story widely spread. Notable murders by the

Sectaries._ 2. _Their different branches._

XXV.—HOW THE OLD MAN CAME BY HIS END 145

NOTE.—_History of the apparent Destruction of the Sect by

Hulákú; its survival to the present time. Castles of

Alamut and Girdkuh._

XXVI.—CONCERNING THE CITY OF SAPURGAN 149

NOTE.—_Shibrgân, and the route followed. Dried Melons._

XXVII.—OF THE CITY OF BALC 151

NOTES.—1. _Balkh._ 2. _Country meant by |Dogana|._ 3.

_Lions in the Oxus Valley._

XXVIII.—OF TAICAN, AND THE MOUNTAINS OF SALT. ALSO OF THE

PROVINCE OF CASEM 153

NOTES.—1. _Talikan._ 2. _Mines of Rock-salt._ 3.

_Ethnological characteristics._ 4. _Kishm._ 5.

_Porcupines._ 6. _Cave dwellings._ 7. _Old and New

Capitals of Badakhshan._

XXIX.—OF THE PROVINCE OF BADASHAN 157

NOTES.—1. _Dialects of Badakhshan. Alexandrian lineage of

the Princes._ 2. _Badakhshan and the Balas Ruby._ 3.

_Azure Mines._ 4. _Horses of Badakhshan._ 5. _Naked

Barley._ 6. _Wild sheep._ 7. _Scenery of Badakhshan._

8. _Repeated devastation of the Country from War._ 9.

_Amplitude of feminine garments._

XXX.—OF THE PROVINCE OF PASHAI 164

NOTE.—_On the country intended by this name._

XXXI.—OF THE PROVINCE OF KESHIMUR 166

NOTES.—1. _Kashmir language._ 2. _Kashmir Conjurers._ (See

App. L. 2.) 3. _Importance of Kashmir in History

of Buddhism._ 4. _Character of the People._ 5.

_Vicissitudes of Buddhism in Kashmir._ 6. _Buddhist

practice as to slaughter of animals._ 7. _Coral._

XXXII.—OF THE GREAT RIVER OF BADASHAN; AND PLAIN OF PAMIER 170

NOTES.—1. _The Upper Oxus and Wakhan. The title_ Nono. (See

App. L. 3.) 2. _The Plateau of Pamir._ (See App. L. 4

and 5.) _The Great Wild Sheep. Fire at great

altitudes._ 3. _Bolor._

XXXIII.—OF THE KINGDOM OF CASCAR 180

NOTE.—_Kashgar._

XXXIV.—OF THE GREAT CITY OF SAMARCAN 183

NOTES.—1. _Christians in Samarkand._ 2. _Chagatai’s

relation to Kúblái mis-stated._ 3. _The Miracle of

the Stone._

XXXV.—OF THE PROVINCE OF YARCAN 187

NOTE.—_Yarkand. Goître prevalent there._

XXXVI.—OF A PROVINCE CALLED COTAN 188

NOTES.—1. _Government._ 2. “_Adoration of Mahommet._”

3. _Khotan._

XXXVII.—OF THE PROVINCE OF PEIN 191

NOTES.—1. _Position of Pein_ (App. L. 6.) 2. _The_ Yu _or

Jade._ 3. _Temporary marriages._

XXXVIII.—OF THE PROVINCE OF CHARCHAN 194

NOTE.—_Position of Charchan and Lop._

XXXIX.—OF THE CITY OF LOP, AND THE GREAT DESERT 196

NOTES.—1. _Geographical discrepancy._ 2. _Superstitions

as to Deserts: their wide diffusion. The Sound of

Drums on certain sandy acclivities._ 3. _Sha-chau to

Lob-nor._

XL.—CONCERNING THE GREAT PROVINCE OF TANGUT 203

NOTES.—1. _Tangut._ 2. _Buddhism encountered here._ 3.

_Kalmak superstition, the “|Heaven’s Ram|.”_ 4.

_Chinese customs described here._ 5. _Mongol disposal

of the Dead._ 6. _Superstitious practice of avoiding

to carry out the dead by the house-door; its wide

diffusion._

XLI.—OF THE PROVINCE OF CAMUL 209

NOTES.—1. _Kamul._ 2. _Character of the people._ 3.

_Shameless custom._ 4. _Parallel._

XLII.—OF THE PROVINCE OF CHINGINTALAS 212

NOTES.—1. _The Country intended._ 2. _Ondanique._ 3.

_Asbestos Mountain._ 4. _The four elements._ 5 and 6.

_The Story of the Salamander. Asbestos fabrics._

XLIII.—OF THE PROVINCE OF SUKCHUR 217

NOTES.—1. _Explanatory._ 2. _The City of Suhchau._ 3.

_Rhubarb country._ 4. _Poisonous pasture._

XLIV.—OF THE CITY OF CAMPICHU 219

NOTES.—1. _The City of Kanchau._ 2. _Recumbent Buddhas._ 3.

_Buddhist Days of Special Worship._ 4. _Matrimonial

Customs._ 5. _Textual._

XLV.—OF THE CITY OF ETZINA 223

NOTES.—1. _Position of Yetsina._ 2. _Textual._ 3. _The Wild

Ass of Mongolia._

XLVI.—OF THE CITY OF CARACORON 226

NOTES.—1. _Karakorum._ 2. _Tartar._ 3. _Chorcha._

4. _Prester John._

XLVII.—OF CHINGHIS, AND HOW HE BECAME THE FIRST KAAN OF THE

TARTARS 238

NOTES.—1. _Chronology._ 2. _Relations between Chinghiz and

Aung Khan, the Prester John of Polo._

XLVIII.—HOW CHINGHIS MUSTERED HIS PEOPLE TO MARCH AGAINST PRESTER

JOHN 240

XLIX.—HOW PRESTER JOHN MARCHED TO MEET CHINGHIS 241

NOTES.—1. _Plain of Tanduc._ 2. _Divination by Twigs and

Arrows._

L.—THE BATTLE BETWEEN CHINGHIS KAAN AND PRESTER JOHN. DEATH OF

CHINGHIS 244

NOTE.—_Real circumstances and date of the Death of

Chinghiz._

LI.—OF THOSE WHO DID REIGN AFTER CHINGHIS KAAN, AND OF THE

CUSTOMS OF THE TARTARS 245

NOTES.—1. _Origin of the |Cambuscan| of Chaucer._ 2.

_Historical Errors._ 3. _The Place of Sepulture of

Chinghiz._ 4. _Barbarous Funeral Superstition._

LII.—CONCERNING THE CUSTOMS OF THE TARTARS 251

NOTES.—1. _Tartar Huts._ 2. _Tartar Waggons._ 3. _Pharaoh’s

Rat._ 4. _Chastity of the Women._ 5. _Polygamy and

Marriage Customs._

LIII.—CONCERNING THE GOD OF THE TARTARS 256

NOTES.—1. _The old Tartar idols._ 2. _Kumiz._

LIV.—CONCERNING THE TARTAR CUSTOMS OF WAR 260

NOTES.—1. _Tartar Arms._ 2. _The Decimal Division of their

Troops._ 3. _Textual._ 4. _Blood-drinking._ 5.

_|Kurút|, or Tartar Curd._ 6. _The Mongol military

rapidity and terrorism._ 7. _Corruption of their

Nomade simplicity._

LV.—CONCERNING THE ADMINISTERING OF JUSTICE AMONG THE TARTARS 266

NOTES.—1. _The Cudgel._ 2. _Punishment of Theft._ 3.

_Marriage of the Dead._ 4. _Textual._

LVI.—SUNDRY PARTICULARS ON THE PLAIN BEYOND CARACORON 269

NOTES.—1. _Textual._ 2. _Bargu, the Mecrit, the Reindeer,

and Chase of Water-fowl._ 3. _The bird |Barguerlac|,

the Syrrhaptes._ 4. _Gerfalcons._

LVII.—OF THE KINGDOM OF ERGUIUL, AND PROVINCE OF SINJU 274

NOTES.—1. _Erguiul._ 2. _Siningfu._ 3. _The Yak._ 4. _The

Musk Deer._ 5. _Reeves’s Pheasant._

LVIII.—OF THE KINGDOM OF EGRIGAIA 281

NOTES.—1. _Egrigaia._ 2. _Calachan._ 3. _White Camels, and

Camlets: Siclatoun._

LIX.—CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF TENDUC, AND THE DESCENDANTS

OF PRESTER JOHN 284

NOTES.—1. _The name and place Tenduc. King George._ 2.

_Standing Marriage Compact. The title |Gurgán|._ 3.

_Azure._ 4. _The terms |Argon| and |Guasmul|. The

|Dungens|._ 5. _The Rampart of Gog and Magog._ 6.

_Tartary cloths._ 7. _Siuen-hwa fu._

LX.—CONCERNING THE KAAN’S PALACE OF CHAGANNOR 296

NOTES.—1. _Palace._ 2. _The word |Sesnes|._ 3. _Chagan-nor._

4. _The five species of Crane described by Polo._ 5.

_The word |Cator|._

LXI.—OF THE CITY OF CHANDU, AND THE KAAN’S PALACE THERE 298

NOTES.—1. _Two Roads._ 2. _Chandu, properly Shangtu._

3. _Leopards._ 4. _The Bamboo Palace. Uses of the

Bamboo._ 5. _Kúblái’s Annual Migration to Shangtu._

6. _The White Horses. The Oirad Tribe._ 7. _The

Mare’s Milk Festival._ 8. _Weather Conjuring._ 9.

_Ascription of Cannibalism to Tibetans, etc._ 10.

_The term |Bacsi|._ 11. _Magical Feats ascribed to

the Lamas._ 12. _Lamas._ 13. _Vast extent of Lama

Convents._ 14. _Married Lamas._ 15. _Bran._ 16.

_Patarins._ 17. _The Ascetics called |Sensin|._ 18.

_Textual._ 19. _Tao-sze Idols._

BOOK SECOND.

PART I.

CHAP. PAGE

I.—OF CUBLAY KAAN, THE GREAT KAAN NOW REIGNING, AND OF HIS

GREAT PUISSANCE 331

NOTE.—_Eulogies of Kúblái._

II.—CONCERNING THE REVOLT OF NAYAN, WHO WAS UNCLE TO THE GREAT

KAAN CUBLAY 332

NOTES.—1. _Chronology._ 2. _Kúblái’s Age._ 3. _His Wars._

4. _Nayan and his true relationship to Kúblái._

III.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN MARCHED AGAINST NAYAN 335

NOTE.—_Addition from Ramusio._

IV.—OF THE BATTLE THAT THE GREAT KAAN FOUGHT WITH NAYAN 336

NOTES.—1. _The word |Bretesche|._ 2. _Explanatory._ 3. _The

Nakkára._ 4. _Parallel Passages._ 5. _Verbal._ 6.

_The Story of Nayan._ (See App. L. 7.)

V.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN CAUSED NAYAN TO BE PUT TO DEATH 343

NOTES.—1. _The Shedding of Royal blood avoided._ 2.

_Chorcha, Kaoli, Barskul, Sikintinju._ 3. _Jews in

China._

VI.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN WENT BACK TO THE CITY OF CAMBALUC 348

NOTE.—_Passage from Ramusio respecting the Kaan’s views of

Religion. Remarks._

VII.—HOW THE KAAN REWARDED THE VALOUR OF HIS CAPTAINS 350

NOTES.—1. _Parallel from Sanang Setzen._ 2. _The Golden

Honorary Tablets or_ Paizah _of the Mongols._ 3.

_Umbrellas._ 4. _The Gerfalcon Tablets._

VIII.—CONCERNING THE PERSON OF THE GREAT KAAN 356

NOTES.—1. _Colour of his Eyes._ 2. _His Wives._ 3. _The

Kungurat Tribe. Competitive Examination in Beauty._

IX.—CONCERNING THE GREAT KAAN’S SONS 359

NOTES.—1. _Kúblái’s intended Heir._ 2. _His other Sons._

X.—CONCERNING THE PALACE OF THE GREAT KAAN 362

NOTES.—1. _Palace Wall._ 2. _The word |Tarcasci|._ 3.

_Towers._ 4. _Arsenals of the Palace._ 5. _The

Gates._ 6. _Various Readings._ 7. _Barracks._

8. _Wide diffusion of the kind of Palace here

described._ 9. _Parallel description._ 10. _“Divine”

Park._ 11. _Modern account of the Lake, etc._

12. “Roze de l’açur.” 13. _The Green Mount._ 14.

_Textual._ 15. _Bridge._

XI.—CONCERNING THE CITY OF CAMBALUC 374

NOTES.—1. _Chronology, etc., of Peking._ 2. _The City

Wall._ 3. _Changes in the Extent of the City._ 4.

_Its ground plan._ 5. _Aspect._ 6. _Public Towers._

7. _Addition from Ramusio._

XII.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN MAINTAINS A GUARD OF TWELVE THOUSAND

HORSE, WHICH ARE CALLED KESHICAN 379

NOTE.—_The term |Quescican|._

XIII.—THE FASHION OF THE GREAT KAAN’S TABLE AT HIS HIGH FEASTS 381

NOTES.—1. _Order of the Tables._ 2. _The word |Vernique|._

3. _The Buffet of Liquors._ 4. _The superstition of

the Threshold._ 5. _Chinese Etiquettes._ 6. _Jugglers

at the Banquet._

XIV.—CONCERNING THE GREAT FEAST HELD BY THE GRAND KAAN EVERY YEAR

ON HIS BIRTHDAY 386

NOTES.—1. _The Chinese Year._ 2. “_Beaten Gold._” 3.

_Textual. Festal changes of costume._ 4. _Festivals._

XV.—OF THE GREAT FESTIVAL WHICH THE KAAN HOLDS ON NEW YEAR’S

DAY 390

NOTES.—1. _The White Month._ 2. _Mystic value of the number

9._ 3. _Elephants at Peking._ 4. _Adoration of

Tablets. K’o-tow._

XVI.—CONCERNING THE TWELVE THOUSAND BARONS WHO RECEIVE ROBES OF

CLOTH OF GOLD FROM THE EMPEROR ON THE GREAT FESTIVALS,

THIRTEEN CHANGES A-PIECE 394

NOTES.—1. _Textual._ 2. _The words |Camut| and |Borgal|._

3. _Tame Lions._

XVII.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN ENJOINETH HIS PEOPLE TO SUPPLY HIM WITH

GAME 396

NOTE.—_Parallel Passage._

XVIII.—OF THE LIONS AND LEOPARDS AND WOLVES THAT THE KAAN KEEPS

FOR THE CHASE 397

NOTES.—1. _The Cheeta or Hunting Leopard._ 2. _Lynxes._ 3.

_The Tiger, termed |Lion| by Polo._ 4. _The Búrgút

Eagle._

XIX.—CONCERNING THE TWO BROTHERS WHO HAVE CHARGE OF THE KAAN’S

HOUNDS 400

NOTE.—_The Masters of the Hounds, and their title._

XX.—HOW THE EMPEROR GOES ON A HUNTING EXPEDITION 402

NOTES.—1. _Direction of the Tour._ 2. _Hawking

Establishments._ 3. _The word |Tosḳáúl|._ 4. _The word

|Bularguchi|._ 5. _Kúblái’s Litter._ 6. _Kachar Modun._

7. _The Kaan’s Great Tents._ 8. _The Sable and

Ermine._ 9. _Pétis de la Croix._

XXI.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN, ON RETURNING FROM HIS HUNTING

EXPEDITION, HOLDS A GREAT COURT AND ENTERTAINMENT 410

NOTE.—_This chapter peculiar to the 2nd Type of MSS._

XXII.—CONCERNING THE CITY OF CAMBALUC, AND ITS GREAT TRAFFIC AND

POPULATION 412

NOTES.—1. _Suburbs of Peking._ 2. _The word |Fondaco|._

XXIII.—[CONCERNING THE OPPRESSIONS OF ACHMATH THE BAILO, AND THE

PLOT THAT WAS FORMED AGAINST HIM] 415

NOTES.—1. _Chapter peculiar to Ramusio._ 2. _Kúblái’s

Administration. The Rise of Ahmad._ 3. _The term

|Bailo|._ 4. _The Conspiracy against Ahmad as related

by Gaubil from the Chinese._ 5. _Marco’s presence and

upright conduct commemorated in the Chinese Annals.

The Kaan’s prejudice against Mahomedans._

XXIV.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN CAUSETH THE BARK OF TREES, MADE INTO

SOMETHING LIKE PAPER, TO PASS FOR MONEY OVER ALL HIS COUNTRY 423

NOTE.—_Chinese Paper Currency._

XXV.—CONCERNING THE TWELVE BARONS WHO ARE SET OVER ALL THE

AFFAIRS OF THE GREAT KAAN 430

NOTE.—_The Ministers of the Mongol Dynasty. The term

|Sing|._

XXVI.—HOW THE KAAN’S POSTS AND RUNNERS ARE SPED THROUGH MANY

LANDS AND PROVINCES 433

NOTES.—1. _Textual._ 2. _The word |Yam|._ 3. _Government

Hostelries._ 4. _Digression from Ramusio._ 5. _Posts

Extraordinary._ 6. _Discipline of the Posts._ 7.

_Antiquity of Posts in China, etc._

XXVII.—HOW THE EMPEROR BESTOWS HELP ON HIS PEOPLE, WHEN THEY ARE

AFFLICTED WITH DEARTH OR MURRAIN 439

NOTE.—_Kúblái’s remissions, and justice._

XXVIII.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN CAUSES TREES TO BE PLANTED BY THE

HIGHWAYS 440

NOTE.—_Kúblái’s Avenues._

XXIX.—CONCERNING THE RICE-WINE DRUNK BY THE PEOPLE OF CATHAY 441

NOTE.—_Rice-wine._

XXX.—CONCERNING THE BLACK STONES THAT ARE DUG IN CATHAY, AND ARE

BURNT FOR FUEL 442

NOTE.—_Distribution and Consumption of Coal in China._

XXXI.—HOW THE GREAT KAAN CAUSES STORES OF CORN TO BE MADE, TO

HELP HIS PEOPLE WITHAL IN TIME OF DEARTH 443

NOTE.—_The Chinese Public Granaries._

XXXII.—OF THE CHARITY OF THE EMPEROR TO THE POOR 444

NOTE.—_Buddhist influence, and Chinese Charities._

XXXIII.—[CONCERNING THE ASTROLOGERS IN THE CITY OF CAMBALUC] 446

NOTES.—1. _The word |Tacuin|.—_The Chinese Almanacs. The

Observatory._ 2. _The Chinese and Mongol Cycle._

XXXIV.—[CONCERNING THE RELIGION OF THE CATHAYANS; THEIR VIEWS AS

TO THE SOUL; AND THEIR CUSTOMS] 456

NOTES.—1. _Textual._ 2. _Do._ 3. _Exceptions to the general

charge of Irreligion brought against the Chinese._

4. _Politeness._ 5. _Filial Piety._ 6. _Pocket

Spitoons._

EXPLANATORY LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOLUME I.

INSERTED PLATES AND MAPS.

_To face

page_

_Title_ PORTRAIT of Sir HENRY YULE. From the Painting by Mr. T. B.

Wirgman, in the Royal Engineers’ Mess House at Chatham.

iv. Illuminated Title, with Medallion representing the POLOS

ARRIVING AT VENICE after 26 years’ absence, and being refused

admittance to the Family Mansion; as related by Ramusio, p.

_4_ of Introductory Essay. Drawn by Signor QUINTO CENNI, No.

7 Via Solferino, Milan; from a Design by the Editor.

_1._ DOORWAY of the HOUSE of MARCO POLO in the Corte Sabbionera at

Venice (see p. _27_). Woodcut from a drawing by Signor L.

ROSSO, Venice.

_26._ _Corte del Milione_, Venice.

_28._ _Malibran Theatre_, Venice.

_30._ Entrance to the Corte del Milione, Venice. From photographs

taken for the present editor, by Signor NAYA.

_42._ Figures from St. Sabba’s, sent to Venice. From a photograph of

Signor NAYA.

_50._ Church of SAN MATTEO, at Genoa.

_62._ _Palazzo di S. Giorgio_, at Genoa.

_68._ _Miracle of S. Lorenzo_. From the Painting by V. CARPACCIO.

_70._ FACSIMILE of the WILL of MARCO POLO, preserved in St. Mark’s

Library. Lithographed from a photograph specially taken by

Bertani at Venice.

_74._ Pavement in front of S. Lorenzo.

_76._ Mosaic Portrait of Marco Polo, at Genoa.

_78._ The Pseudo Marco Polo at Canton.

_80._ Porcelain Incense-Burner, from the Louvre.

_82._ Temple of 500 Genii, at Canton, after a drawing by FÉLIX

RÉGAMEY.

_108._ Probable view of MARCO POLO’S OWN GEOGRAPHY: a Map of the

World, formed as far as possible from the Traveller’s own

data. Drawn by the Editor.

_134._ Part of the _Catalan Map_ of 1375.

• • • • •

1. Marco Polo’s Itineraries, No. I. WESTERN ASIA. This includes

also “Sketch showing the chief Monarchies of Asia, in the

latter part of the 13th century.”

4. Map illustrating the geographical position of the CITY of SARAI.

4. Plan of part of the remains of the same city. Reduced from a

Russian plan published by _M. Grigorieff_.

29 Reduced FACSIMILE of the BUDDHIST INSCRIPTION of the Mongol

& 30. Era, on the Archway at KIU-YONG KWAN in the Pass of Nan-k’au,

north-west of Peking, showing the characters in use under the

Mongol Dynasty. Photogravure from the _Recueil des documents

de l’Époque Mongole_, by H.H. Prince ROLAND BONAPARTE. _See

an Article by_ Mr. Wylie _in the J. R. A. S. for 1870, p. 14._

41. Plan of AYAS, the Laias of Polo. _From an Admiralty Chart_.

41. Plan of position of DILÁWAR, the supposed site of the Dilavar

of Polo. _Ext. from a Survey by Lt.-Col. D. G. Robinson, R.E._

114. Marco Polo’s Itineraries, No. II. Routes between KERMAN and

HORMUZ.

178. Marco Polo’s Itineraries, No. III. Regions on and near the

UPPER OXUS.

305. Heading, in the old Chinese seal-character, of an INSCRIPTION

on a Memorial raised by Kúblái Kaan to a Buddhist

Ecclesiastic, in the vicinity of his summer-palace at SHANGTU

in Mongolia. Reduced from a facsimile obtained on the spot by

_Dr. S. W. Bushell_, 1872, and by him lent to the Editor.

319. The CHO-KHANG. The grand Temple of Buddha at _Lhasa_, from _The

Journey to Lhasa_, by SARAT CHANDRA DAS, by kind permission

of the Royal Geographical Society.

352. “_Table d’Or de Commandement_;” the PAÏZA of the MONGOLS, from

a specimen found in Siberia. _Reduced to one-half the scale

of the original, from an engraving in a paper by_ I. J.

Schmidt _in the_ Bulletin de la Classe Historico-Philologique

de l’Acad. Imp. des Sciences, St.-Pétersbourg, tom. iv. No. 9.

355. Second Example of a Mongol Païza with superscription in the

Uighúr character, found near the Dnieper River, 1845. From

_Trans. of the Oriental Section, Imp. Soc. of Archæology_

of St. Petersburg, vol. v. The Inscription on this runs:

“_By the strength of Eternal Heaven, and thanks to Its Great

Power, the Man who obeys not the order of Abdullah shall be

guilty, shall die._”

376. Plan of PEKING as it is, and as it was about A.D. 1290.

426. BANK-NOTE of the MING Dynasty, on one-half the scale of the

original. Reduced from a genuine note in the possession of

the British Museum. Was brought back from Peking after the

siege of the Legations in 1900.

448. Mongol “Compendium Instrument.”

450. Mongol Armillary Sphere.

452. Observatory Terrace.

454. Observatory Instruments of the Jesuits. All these from

photographs kindly lent to the present Editor by Count de

Semallé.

_last Marco Polo’s Itineraries. No. IV. EASTERN ASIA. This includes

page_ also Sketch Map of the Ruins of SHANGTU, after Dr. BUSHELL;

and Enlarged Sketch of the Passage of the Hwang-ho or

Karamoran on the road to Si-ngan fu (see vol. ii. pp. 25–27)

from the data of _Baron von Richthofen_.

WOODCUTS PRINTED WITH THE TEXT.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICES.

_Page_

x. A MEDIÆVAL SHIP.

xxvi. COAT OF ARMS of Sir HENRY YULE.

_7._ ARMS of the POLO family, according to Priuli.

_8._ ARMS of the POLO family, according to Marco Barbaro. (See p. 7,

note.)

_13._ Autograph of HETHUM or HAYTON I. King of (Cilician) Armenia;

copied from _Codice Diplomatico del Sacro Militare Ordine

Gerosolemitano_, I. 135. The signature is attached to a

French document without date, granting the King’s Daughter

“Damoiselle Femie” (Euphemia) in marriage to Sire Julian,

son of the Lady of Sayete (Sidon). The words run: _Thagávor

Haiwetz_ (“Rex Armenorum”), followed by the King’s cypher or

monogram; but the initial letter is absent, probably worn off

the original document.

_18._ The PIAZZETTA at VENICE in the 14th century. From a portion of

the Frontispiece Miniature of the MS. of Marco Polo in the

Bodleian. (Borrowed from the _National Miscellany_, published

by J. H. Parker, Oxford, for 1853–55; and see _Street’s Brick

and Marble_, etc., 1855, pp. 150–151.) [See vol. ii. p. 529.]

_29._ Three extracts from MAPS of VENICE, showing the site of the CA’

POLO at three different periods, (1) From the great woodcut

Map or View of Venice, dated 1500, and commonly called Albert

Dürer’s. (2) From a Plan by Cav. Ludovico Ughi, 1729. (3)

From the Modern Official Plan of the City.

_34._ Diagram of arrangement of oars in galleys.

_35._ Extract from a fresco by SPINELLO ARETINI, in the Municipal

Palace at SIENA, representing a GALLEY-FIGHT (perhaps

imaginary) between the Venetians and the fleet of the Emperor

Frederick Barbarossa, and illustrating the arrangements

of mediæval galleys. Drawn from a very dim and imperfect

photograph, after personal study of the original, by the

Editor.

_37._ Extract from a picture by DOMENICO TINTORETTO in the Ducal

Palace at Venice, representing the same GALLEY-FIGHT. After

an engraving in the _Theatrum Venetum_.

_49._ MARCO POLO’S GALLEY going into action at CURZOLA. Drawn by

Signor Q. CENNI, from a design by the Editor.

_50._ Map to illustrate the SEA-FIGHT at CURZOLA, where Marco Polo

was taken prisoner.

_57._ SEAL of the PISAN PRISONERS in Genoa, after the battle of

Meloria (1284). From _Manni, Osservazioni Storiche sopra

Sigilli Antichi_, tom. xii. Engraved by T. ADENEY.

_75._ The Convent and CHURCH of S. LORENZO, the burial-place of Marco

Polo, as it existed in the 15th century. From the Map of 1500

(see above). Engraved by the same.

_78._ Arms of the TREVISAN family, according to Priuli.

_120._ TAILED STAR near the Antarctic, as Marco Polo drew it for

Pietro d’Abano. From the _Conciliator_ of Pietro d’Abano.

PROLOGUE.

_Page_

3. Remains of the Castle of SOLDAIA or Sudák. After _Dubois de

Montpereux, Voyage autour du Caucase_, Atlas, 3d s. Pl. 64.

7. Ruins of BOLGHAR. After _Demidoff, Voyage dans la Russie

Méridionale_, Pl. 75.

15. The GREAT KAAN delivering a GOLDEN TABLET to the two elder

Polos. From a miniature in the _Livre des Merveilles du

Monde_ (Fr. 2810) in the Library at Paris, fol. 3 verso.

16. Castle of AYAS. After _Langlois, Voyage en Cilicie._

18. Plan of ACRE as it was when lost (A.D. 1291). Reduced and

translated from the contemporary plan in the _Secreta

Fidelium Crucis_ of Marino Sanudo the Elder, engraved in

_Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos_, vol. ii.

21. Portrait of Pope GREGORY X. After _J. B. de Cavaleriis

Pontificum Romanorum Effigies_, etc. Romæ, 1580.

37. Ancient CHINESE WAR VESSEL. From the Chinese Encyclopædia

called _San-Thsai-Thou-Hoei_, in the Paris Library.

BOOK FIRST.

_Page_

42. Coin of King HETUM I. and Queen ISABEL of Cilician Armenia.

From an original in the British Museum. Engraved by ADENEY.

48. Castle of BAIBURT. After _Texier, L’Arménie_, Pl. 3.

51. Mediæval GEORGIAN FORTRESS. From a drawing by Padre CRISTOFORO

DI CASTELLI of the Theatine Mission, made in 1634, and now in

the Communal Library at Palermo. The name of the place has

been eaten away, and I have not yet been able to ascertain it.

55. View of DERBEND. After a cut from a drawing by M. Moynet in the

_Tour du Monde_, vol. i.

61. Coin of BADRUDDÍN LOLO of Mosul (A.H. 620). After _Marsden’s

Numismata Orientalia_, No. 164. By ADENEY.

76. GHÁZÁN Khan’s Mosque at TABRIZ. Borrowed from _Fergusson’s

History of Architecture._

95. KASHMIR SCARF with animals, etc. After photograph from the

scarf in the Indian Museum.

100. Humped Oxen from the Assyrian Sculptures at Kouyunjik. From

_Rawlinson’s Ancient Monarchies._

102. Portrait of a Hazára. From a Photograph, kindly taken for the

purpose, by M.-Gen. _C. P. Keyes_, C.B., Commanding the

Panjáb Frontier Force.

116– Illustrations of the use of the DOUBLE RUDDER in the Middle

118. Ages. 7 figures, viz., No. 1, The Navicella of Giotto in

the Porch of St. Peter’s. From _Eastlake’s H. of Painting_;

Nos. 2 and 3, from _Pertz, Scriptores_, tom. xviii. after

a Genoese Chronicle; No. 4, Sketch from fresco of Spinello

Aretini at Siena; No. 5, Seal of Port of Winchelsea, from

_Sussex Archæological Collections_, vol. i. 1848; No. 6,

Sculpture on Leaning Tower at Pisa, after _Jal, Archéologie

Navale_; No. 7, from the Monument of Peter Martyr, the

persecutor of the Lombard _Patarini_, in the Church of St.

Eustorgius at Milan, after _Le Tombe ed i Monumenti Illustri

d’Italia_, Mil. 1822–23.

134. The _ARBRE SEC_, and _ARBRES DU SOLEIL ET DE LA LUNE_. From

a miniature in the Prose Romance of Alexander, in the Brit.

Museum MS. called the _Shrewsbury Book_ (Reg. xv. e. 6).

137. The CHINÁR or Oriental Plane, viz., that called the Tree of

Godfrey of Boulogne at Buyukdéré, near Constantinople.

Borrowed from _Le Monde Végétal_ of Figuier.

147. Portrait of H. H. AGHA KHÁN MEHELÁTI, late representative of

the OLD MAN of the MOUNTAIN. From a photograph by Messrs.

SHEPHERD and BOURNE.

159. Ancient SILVER PATERA of debased Greek Art, formerly in the

possession of the Princes of BADAKHSHAN, now in the India

Museum.

167. Ancient BUDDHIST Temple at Pandrethan in KÁSHMIR. Borrowed from

_Fergusson’s History of Architecture_.

176. Horns of the _OVIS POLI_, or Great Sheep of Pamir. Drawn by

the Editor from the specimen belonging to the Royal Asiatic

Society.

177. Figure of the _OVIS POLI_ or Great Sheep of Pamir. From a

drawing by Mr. Severtsof in a Russian publication.

180. Head of a native of KASHGAR. After Verchaguine. From the _Tour

du Monde_.

181. View of KASHGAR. From _Mr. R. Shaw’s Tartary_.

184. View of SAMARKAND. From a Sketch by Mr. D. IVANOFF, engraved

in a Russian Illustrated Paper (kindly sent by Mr. I. to the

editor).

221. Colossal Figure; BUDDHA entering NIRVANA. Sketched by the

Editor at Pagán in Burma.

222. Great LAMA MONASTERY, viz., that at Jehol. After _Staunton’s

Narrative of Lord Macartney’s Embassy_.

224. The _Kyang_, or WILD ASS of Mongolia. After a plate by Wolf in

the _Journal of the Royal Zoological Society_.

229. The Situation of Karákorum.

230. Entrance to the Erdeni Tso, Great Temple. From MARCEL MONNIER’S

_Tour d’Asie_, by kind permission of M. PLON.

244. Death of Chinghiz Khan. From a Miniature in the _Livre des

Merveilles_.

253. Dressing up a Tent, from MARCEL MONNIER’S _Tour d’Asie_, by

kind permission of M. PLON.

255. Mediæval TARTAR HUTS and WAGGONS. Drawn by Sig. QUINTO CENNI,

on a design compiled by the Editor from the descriptions of

mediæval and later travellers.

258. Tartar IDOLS and KUMIS Churn. Drawn by the Editor after data in

_Pallas_ and _Zaleski_ (_Vie des Steppes Kirghiz_).

273. The _SYRRHAPTES PALLASII; Bargherlac_ of Marco Polo. From a

plate by Wolf in the _Ibis_ for April, 1860.

280. REEVES’S PHEASANT. After an engraving in _Wood’s Illustrated

Natural History_.

293. The RAMPART of GOG and MAGOG. From a photograph of the Great

Wall of China. Borrowed from _Dr. Rennie’s Peking and the

Pekingese_.

307. A PAVILION at Yuen-Ming-Yuen, to illustrate the probable style

of Kúblái Kaan’s Summer Palace. Borrowed from _Michie’s

Siberian Overland Route_.

317. CHINESE CONJURING Extraordinary. Extracted from an engraving in

_Edward Melton’s Zeldzaame Reizen_, etc. Amsterdam, 1702.

320. A MONASTERY of LAMAS. Borrowed from the _Tour du Monde_.

326. A TIBETAN BACSI. Sketched from the life by the Editor.

BOOK SECOND.—PART FIRST.

_Page_

340. NAKKARAS. From a Chinese original in the _Lois des Empereurs

Mandchous_ (_Thai-Thsing-Hoei-Tien-Thou_), in the Paris

Library.

341. NAKKARAS. After one of the illustrations in Blochmann’s edition

of the _Ain-i-Akbari_.

352. Seljukian Coin, with the LION and the SUN (A.H. 640). After

_Marsden’s Numismata Orientalia_, No. 98. Engraved by ADENEY.

355. Sculptured GERFALCON from the Gate of Iconium. Copied from

_Hammer’s Falknerklee_.

357. Portrait of the Great KAAN KÚBLÁI. From a Chinese engraving in

the Encyclopædia called _San Thsai-Thou-Hoei_; in the Paris

Library.

367. Ideal Plan of the Ancient Palaces of the Mongol Emperors at

Khanbaligh, according to Dr. Bretschneider.

369. Palace at Khan-baligh. From the _Livre des Merveilles_.

369. The WINTER PALACE at PEKING. Borrowed from _Fergusson’s History

of Architecture_.

371. View of the “GREEN MOUNT.” From a photograph kindly lent to the

present Editor by Count de SEMALLÉ.

373. The _Yüan ch’eng_. From a photograph kindly lent to the present

Editor by Count de SEMALLÉ.

376. South GATE of the “IMPERIAL CITY” at Peking. From an original

sketch belonging to the late _Dr. W. Lockhart_.

399. The BÚRGÚT EAGLE. After _Atkinson’s Oriental and Western

Siberia_.

409. The TENTS of the EMPEROR K’ien-lung. From a drawing in the

_Staunton Collection_ in the British Museum.

413. Plain of CAMBALUC; the City in the distance; from the hills

on the north-west. From a photograph. Borrowed from _Dr.

Rennie’s Peking_.

458. The Great TEMPLE OF HEAVEN at Peking. From _Michie’s Siberian

Overland Route_.

463. MARBLE ARCHWAY erected under the MONGOL DYNASTY at Kiu-Yong

Kwan in the Nan-k’au Pass, N.W. of Peking. From a photograph

in the possession of the present Editor.

[Illustration: Doorway of the House of Marco Polo in the Corte

Sabbionera, at Venice.]

MARCO POLO AND HIS BOOK.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICES.

I. OBSCURITIES IN THE HISTORY OF HIS LIFE AND BOOK.

RAMUSIO’S STATEMENTS.

[Sidenote: Obscurities of Polo’s Book, and personal History.]

1. With all the intrinsic interest of Marco Polo’s Book it may perhaps

be doubted if it would have continued to exercise such fascination on

many minds through successive generations were it not for the difficult

questions which it suggests. It is a great book of puzzles, whilst our

confidence in the man’s veracity is such that we feel certain every

puzzle has a solution.

And such difficulties have not attached merely to the identification

of places, the interpretation of outlandish terms, or the illustration

of obscure customs; for strange entanglements have perplexed also the

chief circumstances of the Traveller’s life and authorship. The time

of the dictation of his Book and of the execution of his Last Will

have been almost the only undisputed epochs in his biography. The year

of his birth has been contested, and the date of his death has not

been recorded; the critical occasion of his capture by the Genoese, to

which we seem to owe the happy fact that he did not go down mute to

the tomb of his fathers, has been made the subject of chronological

difficulties; there are in the various texts of his story variations

hard to account for; the very tongue in which it was written down

has furnished a question, solved only in our own age, and in a most

unexpected manner.

[Sidenote: Ramusio, his earliest biographer. His account of Polo.]

2. The first person who attempted to gather and string the facts of

Marco Polo’s personal history was his countryman, the celebrated John

Baptist Ramusio. His essay abounds in what we now know to be errors of

detail, but, prepared as it was when traditions of the Traveller were

still rife in Venice, a genuine thread runs through it which could

never have been spun in later days, and its presentation seems to me an

essential element in any full discourse upon the subject.

Ramusio’s preface to the Book of Marco Polo, which opens the second

volume of his famous Collection of Voyages and Travels, and is

addressed to his learned friend Jerome Fracastoro, after referring to

some of the most noted geographers of antiquity, proceeds:[1]—

“Of all that I have named, Ptolemy, as the latest, possessed

the greatest extent of knowledge. Thus, towards the North, his

knowledge carries him beyond the Caspian, and he is aware of its

being shut in all round like a lake,—a fact which was unknown

in the days of Strabo and Pliny, though the Romans were already

lords of the world. But though his knowledge extends so far, a

tract of 15 degrees beyond that sea he can describe only as Terra

Incognita; and towards the South he is fain to apply the same

character to all beyond the Equinoxial. In these unknown regions,

as regards the South, the first to make discoveries have been the

Portuguese captains of our own age; but as regards the North and

North-East the discoverer was the Magnifico Messer Marco Polo, an

honoured nobleman of Venice, nearly 300 years since, as may be

read more fully in his own Book. And in truth it makes one marvel

to consider the immense extent of the journeys made, first by the

Father and Uncle of the said Messer Marco, when they proceeded

continually towards the East-North-East, all the way to the Court

of the Great Can and the Emperor of the Tartars; and afterwards

again by the three of them when, on their return homeward, they

traversed the Eastern and Indian Seas. Nor is that all, for one

marvels also how the aforesaid gentleman was able to give such an

orderly description of all that he had seen; seeing that such an

accomplishment was possessed by very few in his day, and he had

had a large part of his nurture among those uncultivated Tartars,

without any regular training in the art of composition. His Book

indeed, owing to the endless errors and inaccuracies that had

crept into it, had come for many years to be regarded as fabulous;

and the opinion prevailed that the names of cities and provinces

contained therein were all fictitious and imaginary, without any

ground in fact, or were (I might rather say) mere dreams.

[Sidenote: Ramusio vindicates Polo’s Geography.]

3. “Howbeit, during the last hundred years, persons acquainted

with Persia have begun to recognise the existence of Cathay. The

voyages of the Portuguese also towards the North-East, beyond

the Golden Chersonese, have brought to knowledge many cities and

provinces of India, and many islands likewise, with those very

names which our Author applies to them; and again, on reaching

the Land of China, they have ascertained from the people of that

region (as we are told by Sign. John de Barros, a Portuguese

gentleman, in his Geography) that Canton, one of the chief cities

of that kingdom, is in 30⅔° of latitude, with the coast running

N.E. and S.W.; that after a distance of 275 leagues the said coast

turns towards the N.W.; and that there are three provinces along

the sea-board, Mangi, Zanton, and Quinzai, the last of which is

the principal city and the King’s Residence, standing in 46° of

latitude. And proceeding yet further the coast attains to 50°.[2]

Seeing then how many particulars are in our day becoming known of

that part of the world concerning which Messer Marco has written,

I have deemed it reasonable to publish his book, with the aid of

several copies written (as I judge) more than 200 years ago, in a

perfectly accurate form, and one vastly more faithful than that in

which it has been heretofore read. And thus the world shall not

lose the fruit that may be gathered from so much diligence and

industry expended upon so honourable a branch of knowledge.”

4. Ramusio, then, after a brief apologetic parallel of the marvels

related by Polo with those related by the Ancients and by the modern

discoverers in the West, such as Columbus and Cortes, proceeds:—

[Sidenote: Ramusio compares Polo with Columbus.]

“And often in my own mind, comparing the land explorations of these

our Venetian gentlemen with the sea explorations of the aforesaid

Signor Don Christopher, I have asked myself which of the two were

really the more marvellous. And if patriotic prejudice delude me

not, methinks good reason might be adduced for setting the land

journey above the sea voyage. Consider only what a height of

courage was needed to undertake and carry through so difficult an

enterprise, over a route of such desperate length and hardship,

whereon it was sometimes necessary to carry food for the supply

of man and beast, not for days only but for months together.

Columbus, on the other hand, going by sea, readily carried with

him all necessary provision; and after a voyage of some 30 or 40

days was conveyed by the wind whither he desired to go, whilst the

Venetians again took a whole year’s time to pass all those great

deserts and mighty rivers. Indeed that the difficulty of travelling

to Cathay was so much greater than that of reaching the New World,

and the route so much longer and more perilous, may be gathered

from the fact that, since those gentlemen twice made this journey,

no one from Europe has dared to repeat it,[3] whereas in the very

year following the discovery of the Western Indies many ships

immediately retraced the voyage thither, and up to the present day

continue to do so, habitually and in countless numbers. Indeed

those regions are now so well known, and so thronged by commerce,

that the traffic between Italy, Spain, and England is not greater.”

[Sidenote: Recounts a tradition of the travellers’ return to Venice.]

5. Ramusio goes on to explain the light regarding the first part or

prologue of Marco Polo’s book that he had derived from a recent piece

of luck which had made him partially acquainted with the geography

of Abulfeda, and to make a running commentary on the whole of the

preliminary narrative until the final return of the travellers to

Venice:—

“And when they got thither the same fate befel them as befel

Ulysses, who, when he returned, after his twenty years’ wanderings,

to his native Ithaca, was recognized by nobody. Thus also those

three gentlemen who had been so many years absent from their

native city were recognized by none of their kinsfolk, who were

under the firm belief that they had all been dead for many a year

past, as indeed had been reported. Through the long duration and

the hardships of their journeys, and through the many worries and

anxieties that they had undergone, they were quite changed in

aspect, and had got a certain indescribable smack of the Tartar

both in air and accent, having indeed all but forgotten their

Venetian tongue. Their clothes too were coarse and shabby, and of

a Tartar cut. They proceeded on their arrival to their house in

this city in the confine of St. John Chrysostom, where you may

see it to this day. The house, which was in those days a very

lofty and handsome palazzo, is now known by the name of the _Corte

del Millioni_ for a reason that I will tell you presently. Going

thither they found it occupied by some of their relatives, and

they had the greatest difficulty in making the latter understand

who they should be. For these good people, seeing them to be in

countenance so unlike what they used to be, and in dress so shabby,

flatly refused to believe that they were those very gentlemen of

the Ca’ Polo whom they had been looking upon for ever so many years

as among the dead.[4] So these three gentlemen,—this is a story I

have often heard when I was a youngster from the illustrious Messer

GASPARO MALPIERO, a gentleman of very great age, and a Senator

of eminent virtue and integrity, whose house was on the Canal of

Santa Marina, exactly at the corner over the mouth of the Rio di S.

Giovanni Chrisostomo, and just midway among the buildings of the

aforesaid Corte del Millioni, and he said he had heard the story

from his own father and grandfather, and from other old men among

the neighbours,—the three gentlemen, I say, devised a scheme by

which they should at once bring about their recognition by their

relatives, and secure the honourable notice of the whole city; and

this was it:—

“They invited a number of their kindred to an entertainment, which

they took care to have prepared with great state and splendour

in that house of theirs; and when the hour arrived for sitting

down to table they came forth of their chamber all three clothed

in crimson satin, fashioned in long robes reaching to the ground

such as people in those days wore within doors. And when water

for the hands had been served, and the guests were set, they took

off those robes and put on others of crimson damask, whilst the

first suits were by their orders cut up and divided among the

servants. Then after partaking of some of the dishes they went

out again and came back in robes of crimson velvet, and when

they had again taken their seats, the second suits were divided

as before. When dinner was over they did the like with the robes

of velvet, after they had put on dresses of the ordinary fashion

worn by the rest of the company.[5] These proceedings caused much

wonder and amazement among the guests. But when the cloth had

been drawn, and all the servants had been ordered to retire from

the dining hall, Messer Marco, as the youngest of the three, rose

from table, and, going into another chamber, brought forth the

three shabby dresses of coarse stuff which they had worn when

they first arrived. Straightway they took sharp knives and began

to rip up some of the seams and welts, and to take out of them

jewels of the greatest value in vast quantities, such as rubies,

sapphires, carbuncles, diamonds and emeralds, which had all been

stitched up in those dresses in so artful a fashion that nobody

could have suspected the fact. For when they took leave of the

Great Can they had changed all the wealth that he had bestowed

upon them into this mass of rubies, emeralds, and other jewels,

being well aware of the impossibility of carrying with them so

great an amount in gold over a journey of such extreme length

and difficulty. Now this exhibition of such a huge treasure of

jewels and precious stones, all tumbled out upon the table, threw

the guests into fresh amazement, insomuch that they seemed quite

bewildered and dumbfounded. And now they recognized that in spite

of all former doubts these were in truth those honoured and worthy

gentlemen of the Ca’ Polo that they claimed to be; and so all paid

them the greatest honour and reverence. And when the story got

wind in Venice, straightway the whole city, gentle and simple,

flocked to the house to embrace them, and to make much of them,

with every conceivable demonstration of affection and respect.

On Messer Maffio, who was the eldest, they conferred the honours

of an office that was of great dignity in those days; whilst the

young men came daily to visit and converse with the ever polite and

gracious Messer Marco, and to ask him questions about Cathay and

the Great Can, all which he answered with such kindly courtesy that

every man felt himself in a manner his debtor. And as it happened

that in the story, which he was constantly called on to repeat, of

the magnificence of the Great Can, he would speak of his revenues

as amounting to ten or fifteen _millions_ of gold; and in like

manner, when recounting other instances of great wealth in those

parts, would always make use of the term _millions_, so they gave

him the nickname of MESSER MARCO MILLIONI: a thing which I have

noted also in the Public Books of this Republic where mention

is made of him.[6] The Court of his House, too, at S. Giovanni

Chrisostomo, has always from that time been popularly known as the

Court of the Millioni.

[Sidenote: Recounts Marco’s capture by the Genoese.]

6. “Not many months after the arrival of the travellers at Venice,

news came that LAMPA DORIA, Captain of the Genoese Fleet, had

advanced with 70 galleys to the Island of Curzola, upon which

orders were issued by the Prince of the Most Illustrious Signory

for the arming of 90 galleys with all the expedition possible, and

Messer Marco Polo for his valour was put in charge of one of these.

So he with the others, under the command of the Most Illustrious

MESSER ANDREA DANDOLO, Procurator of St. Mark’s, as Captain

General, a very brave and worthy gentleman, set out in search of

the Genoese Fleet. They fought on the September feast of Our Lady,

and, as is the common hazard of war, our fleet was beaten, and Polo

was made prisoner. For, having pressed on in the vanguard of the

attack, and fighting with high and worthy courage in defence of his

country and his kindred, he did not receive due support, and being

wounded, he was taken, along with Dandolo, and immediately put in

irons and sent to Genoa.

“When his rare qualities and marvellous travels became known

there, the whole city gathered to see him and to speak with him,

and he was no longer entreated as a prisoner but as a dear friend

and honoured gentleman. Indeed they showed him such honour and

affection that at all hours of the day he was visited by the

noblest gentlemen of the city, and was continually receiving

presents of every useful kind. Messer Marco finding himself in

this position, and witnessing the general eagerness to hear all

about Cathay and the Great Can, which indeed compelled him daily to

repeat his story till he was weary, was advised to put the matter

in writing. So having found means to get a letter written to his

father here at Venice, in which he desired the latter to send the

notes and memoranda which he had brought home with him, after the

receipt of these, and assisted by a Genoese gentleman, who was a

great friend of his, and who took great delight in learning about

the various regions of the world, and used on that account to spend

many hours daily in the prison with him, he wrote this present book

(to please him) in the Latin tongue.

“To this day the Genoese for the most part write what they have to

write in that language, for there is no possibility of expressing

their natural dialect with the pen.[7] Thus then it came to pass

that the Book was put forth at first by Messer Marco in Latin; but

as many copies were taken, and as it was rendered into our vulgar

tongue, all Italy became filled with it, so much was this story

desired and run after.

[Sidenote: Ramusio’s account of Marco’s liberation and marriage.]

7. “The captivity of Messer Marco greatly disturbed the minds

of Messer Maffio and his father Messer Nicolo. They had decided,

whilst still on their travels, that Marco should marry as soon as

they should get to Venice; but now they found themselves in this

unlucky pass, with so much wealth and nobody to inherit it. Fearing

that Marco’s imprisonment might endure for many years, or, worse

still, that he might not live to quit it (for many assured them

that numbers of Venetian prisoners had been kept in Genoa a score

of years before obtaining liberty); seeing too no prospect of being

able to ransom him,—a thing which they had attempted often and

by various channels,—they took counsel together, and came to the

conclusion that Messer Nicolo, who, old as he was, was still hale

and vigorous, should take to himself a new wife. This he did; and

at the end of four years he found himself the father of three sons,

Stefano, Maffio, and Giovanni. Not many years after, Messer Marco

aforesaid, through the great favour that he had acquired in the

eyes of the first gentlemen of Genoa, and indeed of the whole city,

was discharged from prison and set free. Returning home he found

that his father had in the meantime had those three other sons.

Instead of taking this amiss, wise and discreet man that he was,

he agreed also to take a wife of his own. He did so accordingly,

but he never had any son, only two girls, one called Moreta and the

other Fantina.

“When at a later date his father died, like a good and dutiful son

he caused to be erected for him a tomb of very honourable kind for

those days, being a great sarcophagus cut from the solid stone,

which to this day may be seen under the portico before the Church

of S. Lorenzo in this city, on the right hand as you enter, with

an inscription denoting it to be the tomb of Messer Nicolo Polo of

the contrada of S. Gio. Chrisostomo. The arms of his family consist

of a _Bend_ with three birds on it, and the colours, according to

certain books of old histories in which you see all the coats of

the gentlemen of this city emblazoned, are the field _azure_, the

bend _argent_, and the three birds _sable_. These last are birds of

that kind vulgarly termed _Pole_,[8] or, as the Latins call them,

_Gracculi_.

[Sidenote: Ramusio’s account of the Family Polo and its

termination.]

8. “As regards the after duration of this noble and worthy family,

I find that Messer Andrea Polo of San Felice had three sons,

the first of whom was Messer Marco, the second Maffio, the third

Nicolo. The two last were those who went to Constantinople first,

and afterwards to Cathay, as has been seen. Messer Marco the elder

being dead, the wife of Messer Nicolo who had been left at home

with child, gave birth to a son, to whom she gave the name of Marco

in memory of the deceased, and this is the Author of our Book. Of

the brothers who were born from his father’s second marriage, viz.

Stephen, John, and Matthew, I do not find that any of them had

children, except Matthew. He had five sons and one daughter called

Maria; and she, after the death of her brothers without offspring,

inherited in 1417 all the property of her father and her brothers.

She was honourably married to Messer AZZO TREVISANO of the parish

of Santo Stazio in this city, and from her sprung the fortunate

and honoured stock of the Illustrious Messer DOMENICO TREVISANO,

Procurator of St. Mark’s, and valorous Captain General of the Sea

Forces of the Republic, whose virtue and singular good qualities

are represented with augmentation in the person of the Most

Illustrious Prince Ser MARC’ANTONIO TREVISANO, his son.[9]

“Such has been the history of this noble family of the Ca’ Polo,

which lasted as we see till the year of our Redemption 1417, in

which year died childless Marco Polo, the last of the five sons of

Maffeo, and so it came to an end. Such be the chances and changes

of human affairs!”

[Illustration: Arms of the Ca’ Polo.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Preface is dated Venice, 7th July, 1553. Fracastorius died

in the same year, and Ramusio erected a statue of him at Padua.

Ramusio himself died in July, 1557.

[2] The Geography of De Barros, from which this is quoted, has never

been printed. I can find nothing corresponding to this passage in

the Decades.

[3] A grievous error of Ramusio’s.

[4] See the decorated title-page of this volume for an attempt to

realise the scene.

[5] At first sight this fantastic tradition seems to have little

verisimilitude; but when we regard it in the light of genuine

Mongol custom, such as is quoted from Rubruquis, at p. 389 of

this volume, we shall be disposed to look on the whole story with

respect.

[6] This curious statement is confirmed by a passage in the records of

the Great Council, which, on a late visit to Venice, I was enabled

to extract, through an obliging communication from Professor

Minotto. (See below, p. _67_.)

[7] This rather preposterous skit at the Genoese dialect naturally

excites a remonstrance from the Abate Spotorno. (_Storia Letteraria

della Liguria_, II. 217.)

[8] _Jackdaws_, I believe, in spite of some doubt from the imbecility

of ordinary dictionaries in such matters.

They are under this name made the object of a similitude by Dante

(surely a most unhappy one) in reference to the resplendent spirits

flitting on the celestial stairs in the sphere of Saturn:—

“E come per lo natural costume

_Le Pole_ insieme, al cominciar del giorno,

Si muovono a scaldar le fredde piume:

Poi altre vanno vià senza ritorno,

Altre rivolgon sè, onde son mosse,

Ed altre roteando fan soggiorno.”—_Parad._ XXI. 34.

There is some difference among authorities as to the details of

the Polo blazon. According to a MS. concerning the genealogies of

Venetian families written by Marco Barbaro in 1566, and of which

there is a copy in the Museo Civico, the field is _gules_, the bend

_or_. And this I have followed in the cut. But a note by S. Stefani

of Venice, with which I have been favoured since the cut was made,

informs me that a fine 15th-century MS. in his possession gives the

field as _argent_, with no _bend_, and the three birds _sable_ with

beaks _gules_, disposed thus ∵.

[Illustration: Arms of the Polo[A]]

[A] [This coat of arms is reproduced from the Genealogies of

Priuli, Archivio di Stato, Venice.—H. C.]

[9] Marco Antonio Trevisano was elected Doge, 4th June, 1553, but died

on the 31st of May following. We do not here notice Ramusio’s

numerous errors, which will be corrected in the sequel. [See p.

78.]

II. SKETCH OF THE STATE OF THE EAST AT THE TIME OF THE

JOURNEYS OF THE POLO FAMILY.

9. The story of the travels of the Polo family opens in 1260.

[Sidenote: State of the Levant.]

Christendom had recovered from the alarm into which it had been

thrown some 18 years before when the Tartar cataclysm had threatened

to engulph it. The Tartars themselves were already becoming an object

of curiosity rather than of fear, and soon became an object of hope,

as a possible help against the old Mahomedan foe. The frail Latin

throne in Constantinople was still standing, but tottering to its fall.

The successors of the Crusaders still held the Coast of Syria from

Antioch to Jaffa, though a deadlier brood of enemies than they had yet

encountered was now coming to maturity in the Dynasty of the Mamelukes,

which had one foot firmly planted in Cairo, the other in Damascus.

The jealousies of the commercial republics of Italy were daily waxing

greater. The position of Genoese trade on the coasts of the Aegean was

greatly depressed, through the predominance which Venice had acquired

there by her part in the expulsion of the Greek Emperors, and which won

for the Doge the lofty style of Lord of Three-Eighths of the Empire

of Romania. But Genoa was biding her time for an early revenge, and

year by year her naval strength and skill were increasing. Both these

republics held possessions and establishments in the ports of Syria,

which were often the scene of sanguinary conflicts between their

citizens. Alexandria was still largely frequented in the intervals of

war as the great emporium of Indian wares, but the facilities afforded

by the Mongol conquerors who now held the whole tract from the Persian

Gulf to the shores of the Caspian and of the Black Sea, or nearly so,

were beginning to give a great advantage to the caravan routes which

debouched at the ports of Cilician Armenia in the Mediterranean and

at Trebizond on the Euxine. Tana (or Azov) had not as yet become the

outlet of a similar traffic; the Venetians had apparently frequented to

some extent the coast of the Crimea for local trade, but their rivals

appear to have been in great measure excluded from this commerce, and

the Genoese establishments which so long flourished on that coast, are

first heard of some years after a Greek dynasty was again in possession

of Constantinople.[1]

[Sidenote: The various Mongol Sovereignties in Asia and Eastern Europe.]

10. In Asia and Eastern Europe scarcely a dog might bark without

Mongol leave, from the borders of Poland and the Gulf of Scanderoon

to the Amur and the Yellow Sea. The vast empire which Chinghiz had

conquered still owned a nominally supreme head in the Great Kaan,[2]

but practically it was splitting up into several great monarchies under

the descendants of the four sons of Chinghiz, Juji, Chaghatai, Okkodai,

and Tuli; and wars on a vast scale were already brewing between them.

Hulaku, third son of Tuli, and brother of two Great Kaans, Mangku

and Kúblái, had become practically independent as ruler of Persia,

Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and Armenia, though he and his sons, and his

sons’ sons, continued to stamp the name of the Great Kaan upon their

coins, and to use the Chinese seals of state which he bestowed upon

them. The Seljukian Sultans of Iconium, whose dominion bore the proud

title of Rúm (Rome), were now but the struggling bondsmen of the

Ilkhans. The Armenian Hayton in his Cilician Kingdom had pledged a

more frank allegiance to the Tartar, the enemy of his Moslem enemies.

Barka, son of Juji, the first ruling prince of the House of Chinghiz to

turn Mahomedan, reigned on the steppes of the Volga, where a standing

camp, which eventually became a great city under the name of Sarai, had

been established by his brother and predecessor Batu.

The House of Chaghatai had settled upon the pastures of the Ili and the

valley of the Jaxartes, and ruled the wealthy cities of Sogdiana.

Kaidu, the grandson of Okkodai who had been the successor of Chinghiz

in the Kaanship, refused to acknowledge the transfer of the supreme

authority to the House of Tuli, and was through the long life of Kúblái

a thorn in his side, perpetually keeping his north-western frontier in

alarm. His immediate authority was exercised over some part of what we

should now call Eastern Turkestan and Southern Central Siberia; whilst

his hordes of horsemen, force of character, and close neighbourhood

brought the Khans of Chaghatai under his influence, and they generally

acted in concert with him.

The chief throne of the Mongol Empire had just been ascended by Kúblái,

the most able of its occupants after the Founder. Before the death of

his brother and predecessor Mangku, who died in 1259 before an obscure

fortress of Western China, it had been intended to remove the seat

of government from Kara Korum on the northern verge of the Mongolian

Desert to the more populous regions that had been conquered in the

further East, and this step, which in the end converted the Mongol Kaan

into a Chinese Emperor,[3] was carried out by Kúblái.

[Sidenote: China.]

11. For about three centuries the Northern provinces of China had been

detached from native rule, and subject to foreign dynasties; first

to the _Khitan_, a people from the basin of the Sungari River, and

supposed (but doubtfully) to have been akin to the Tunguses, whose rule

subsisted for 200 years, and originated the name of KHITAI, Khata, or

CATHAY, by which for nearly 1000 years China has been known to the

nations of Inner Asia, and to those whose acquaintance with it was

got by that channel.[4] The Khitan, whose dynasty is known in Chinese

history as the _Liao_ or “Iron,” had been displaced in 1123 by the

Chúrchés or Niu-chen, another race of Eastern Tartary, of the same

blood as the modern Manchus, whose Emperors in their brief period of

prosperity were known by the Chinese name of Tai-_Kin_, by the Mongol

name of the _Altun_ Kaans, both signifying “Golden.” Already in the

lifetime of Chinghiz himself the northern Provinces of China Proper,

including their capital, known as Chung-tu or Yen-King, now Peking, had

been wrenched from them, and the conquest of the dynasty was completed

by Chinghiz’s successor Okkodai in 1234.

Southern China still remained in the hands of the native dynasty of

the Sung, who had their capital at the great city now well known as

Hang-chau fu. Their dominion was still substantially untouched, but its

subjugation was a task to which Kúblái before many years turned his

attention, and which became the most prominent event of his reign.

[Sidenote: India, and Indo-China.]

12. In India the most powerful sovereign was the Sultan of Delhi,

Nassir-uddin Mahmud of the Turki House of Iltitmish;[5] but, though both

Sind and Bengal acknowledged his supremacy, no part of Peninsular India

had yet been invaded, and throughout the long period of our Traveller’s

residence in the East the Kings of Delhi had their hands too full,

owing to the incessant incursions of the Mongols across the Indus, to

venture on extensive campaigning in the south. Hence the Dravidian

Kingdoms of Southern India were as yet untouched by foreign conquest,

and the accumulated gold of ages lay in their temples and treasuries,

an easy prey for the coming invader.

In the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and the Eastern Islands a variety of

kingdoms and dynasties were expanding and contracting, of which we

have at best but dim and shifting glimpses. That they were advanced

in wealth and art, far beyond what the present state of those

regions would suggest, is attested by vast and magnificent remains of

Architecture, nearly all dating, so far as dates can be ascertained,

from the 12th to the 14th centuries (that epoch during which an

architectural afflatus seems to have descended on the human race),

and which are found at intervals over both the Indo-Chinese continent

and the Islands, as at Pagán in Burma, at Ayuthia in Siam, at Angkor

in Kamboja, at Borobodor and Brambánan in Java. All these remains are

deeply marked by Hindu influence, and, at the same time, by strong

peculiarities, both generic and individual.

[Illustration: Autograph of Hayton, King of Armenia, _circa_ A.D. 1243.

“... =e por so qui cestes lettres soient fermes e establis ci avuns

escrit l’escrit de notre main vermoil e sayelé de notre ceau

pendant=....”]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See Heyd, _Le Colonie Commerciali degli Italiani_, etc., passim.

[2] We endeavour to preserve throughout the book the distinction

that was made in the age of the Mongol Empire between _Khán_ and

_Ḳaán_ (خان and قآان, as written by Arabic and Persian authors).

The former may be rendered _Lord_, and was applied generally to

Tartar chiefs whether sovereign or not; it has since become in

Persia, and especially in Afghanistan, a sort of “Esq.,” and in

India is now a common affix in the names of (Musulman) Hindustanis

of all classes; in Turkey alone it has been reserved for the

Sultan. _Ḳaán_, again, appears to be a form of _Kháḳán_, the

Χαγάνος of the Byzantine historians, and was the peculiar title

of the supreme sovereign of the Mongols; the Mongol princes of

Persia, Chaghatai, etc., were entitled only to the former affix

(Khán), though _Ḳaán_ and _Ḳhaḳán_ are sometimes applied to them

in adulation. Polo always writes _Kaan_ as applied to the Great

Khan, and does not, I think, use _Khan_ in any form, styling the

subordinate princes by their name only, as _Argon_, _Alau_, etc.

_Ilkhan_ was a special title assumed by Huláku and his successors

in Persia; it is said to be compounded from a word _Il_, signifying

tribe or nation. The relation between _Khán_ and _Khaḳán_ seems to

be probably that the latter signifies “_Khán of Kháns_,” Lord of

Lords. Chinghiz, it is said, did not take the higher title; it was

first assumed by his son Okkodai. But there are doubts about this.

(See _Quatremère’s Rashid_, pp. 10 _seqq._ and _Pavet de

Courteille, Dict. Turk-Oriental._) The tendency of swelling titles

is always to degenerate, and when the value of Khan had sunk, a new

form, _Khán-khánán_, was devised at the Court of Delhi, and applied

to one of the high officers of state.

[Mr. Rockhill writes (_Rubruck_, p. 108, note): “The title _Khan_,

though of very great antiquity, was only used by the Turks after

A.D. 560, at which time the use of the word _Khatun_ came in use

for the wives of the Khan, who himself was termed _Ilkhan_. The

older title of _Shan-yü_ did not, however, completely disappear

among them, for Albiruni says that in his time the chief of the

Ghuz Turks, or Turkomans, still bore the title of _Jenuyeh_, which

Sir Henry Rawlinson (_Proc. R. G. S._, v. 15) takes to be the same

word as that transcribed _Shan-yü_ by the Chinese (see _Ch’ien

Han shu_, Bk. 94, and _Chou shu_, Bk. 50, 2). Although the word

_Khakhan_ occurs in Menander’s account of the embassy of Zemarchus,

the earliest mention I have found of it in a Western writer is in

the _Chronicon_ of Albericus Trium Fontium, where (571), under

the year 1239, he uses it in the form _Cacanus_”—Cf. _Terrien de

Lacouperie, Khan, Khakan, and other Tartar Titles_. Lond., Dec.

1888.—H. C.]

[3] “China is a sea that salts all the rivers that flow into it.”—_P.

Parrenin_ in _Lett. Édif._ XXIV. 58.

[4] _E.g._ the Russians still call it Khitai. The pair of names,

_Khitai_ and _Machin_, or Cathay and China, is analogous to the

other pair, _Seres_ and _Sinae_. _Seres_ was the name of the great

nation in the far East as known by land, _Sinae_ as known by sea;

and they were often supposed to be diverse, just as Cathay and

China were afterwards.

[5] There has been much doubt about the true form of this name.

_Iltitmish_ is that sanctioned by Mr. Blochmann (see _Proc. As.

Soc. Bengal_, 1870, p. 181).

III. THE POLO FAMILY. PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE TRAVELLERS

DOWN TO THEIR FINAL RETURN FROM THE EAST.

[Sidenote: Alleged origin of the Polos.]

13. In days when History and Genealogy were allowed to draw largely

on the imagination for the _origines_ of states and families, it

was set down by one Venetian Antiquary that among the companions of

King Venetus, or of Prince Antenor of Troy, when they settled on the

northern shores of the Adriatic, there was one LUCIUS POLUS, who became

the progenitor of our Traveller’s Family;[1] whilst another deduces it

from PAOLO the first Doge[2] (Paulus Lucas Anafestus of Heraclea, A.D.

696).

More trustworthy traditions, recorded among the Family Histories of

Venice, but still no more it is believed than traditions, represent the

Family of Polo as having come from Sebenico in Dalmatia, in the 11th

century.[3] Before the end of the century they had taken seats in the

Great Council of the Republic; for the name of Domenico Polo is said to

be subscribed to a grant of 1094, that of Pietro Polo to an act of the

time of the Doge Domenico Michiele in 1122, and that of a Domenico Polo

to an acquittance granted by the Doge Domenico Morosini and his Council

in 1153.[4]

The ascertained genealogy of the Traveller, however, begins only with

his grandfather, who lived in the early part of the 13th century.

Two branches of the Polo Family were then recognized, distinguished by

the _confini_ or Parishes in which they lived, as Polo of S. Geremia,

and Polo of S. Felice. ANDREA POLO of S. Felice was the father of three

sons, MARCO, NICOLO, and MAFFEO. And Nicolo was the Father of our Marco.

[Sidenote: Claims to be styled noble.]

14. Till quite recently it had never been precisely ascertained whether

the immediate family of our Traveller belonged to the _Nobles_ of

Venice properly so called, who had seats in the Great Council and were

enrolled in the Libro d’Oro. Ramusio indeed styles our Marco _Nobile_

and _Magnifico_, and Rusticiano, the actual scribe of the Traveller’s

recollections, calls him “_sajes et noble citaiens de Venece_,”

but Ramusio’s accuracy and Rusticiano’s precision were scarcely to

be depended on. Very recently, however, since the subject has been

discussed with accomplished students of the Venice Archives, proofs

have been found establishing Marco’s personal claim to nobility,

inasmuch as both in judicial decisions and in official resolutions of

the Great Council, he is designated _Nobilis Vir_, a formula which

would never have been used in such documents (I am assured) had he not

been technically noble.[5]

[Sidenote: Marco the Elder.]

15. Of the three sons of Andrea Polo of S. Felice, Marco seems to have

been the eldest, and Maffeo the youngest.[6] They were all engaged

in commerce, and apparently in a partnership, which to some extent

held good even when the two younger had been many years absent in

the Far East.[7] Marco seems to have been established for a time at

Constantinople,[8] and also to have had a house (no doubt of business)

at Soldaia, in the Crimea, where his son and daughter, Nicolo and

Maroca by name, were living in 1280. This year is the date of the Elder

Marco’s Will, executed at Venice, and when he was “weighed down by

bodily ailment.” Whether he survived for any length of time we do not

know.

[Sidenote: Nicolo and Maffeo commence their travels.]

16. Nicolo Polo, the second of the Brothers, had two legitimate sons,

MARCO, the Author of our Book, born in 1254,[9] and MAFFEO, of whose

place in the family we shall have a few words to say presently. The

story opens, as we have said, in 1260, when we find the two brothers,

Nicolo and Maffeo the Elder, at Constantinople. How long they had been

absent from Venice we are not distinctly told. Nicolo had left his wife

there behind him; Maffeo apparently was a bachelor. In the year named

they started on a trading venture to the Crimea, whence a succession

of openings and chances, recounted in the Introductory chapters of

Marco’s work, carried them far north along the Volga, and thence first

to Bokhara, and then to the Court of the Great Kaan Kúblái in the Far

East, on or within the borders of CATHAY. That a great and civilized

country so called existed in the extremity of Asia had already been

reported in Europe by the Friars Plano Carpini (1246) and William

Rubruquis (1253), who had not indeed reached its frontiers, but had

met with its people at the Court of the Great Kaan in Mongolia; whilst

the latter of the two with characteristic acumen had seen that they

were identical with the Seres of classic fame.

[Sidenote: Their intercourse with Kúblái Kaan.]

17. Kúblái had never before fallen in with European gentlemen. He was

delighted with these Venetians, listened with strong interest to all

that they had to tell him of the Latin world, and determined to send

them back as his ambassadors to the Pope, accompanied by an officer

of his own Court. His letters to the Pope, as the Polos represent

them, were mainly to desire the despatch of a large body of educated

missionaries to convert his people to Christianity. It is not likely

that religious motives influenced Kúblái in this, but he probably

desired religious aid in softening and civilizing his rude kinsmen of

the Steppes, and judged, from what he saw in the Venetians and heard

from them, that Europe could afford such aid of a higher quality than

the degenerate Oriental Christians with whom he was familiar, or the

Tibetan Lamas on whom his patronage eventually devolved when Rome so

deplorably failed to meet his advances.

[Sidenote: Their return home, and Marco’s appearance on the scene.]

18. The Brothers arrived at Acre in April,[10] 1269, and found that

no Pope existed, for Clement IV. was dead the year before, and no new

election had taken place. So they went home to Venice to see how things

stood there after their absence of so many years.

The wife of Nicolo was no longer among the living, but he found his son

Marco a fine lad of fifteen.

The best and most authentic MSS. tell us no more than this. But

one class of copies, consisting of the Latin version made by our

Traveller’s contemporary, Francesco Pipino, and of the numerous

editions based indirectly upon it, represents that Nicolo had left

Venice when Marco was as yet unborn, and consequently had never seen

him till his return from the East in 1269.[11]

We have mentioned that Nicolo Polo had another legitimate son, by name

Maffeo, and him we infer to have been younger than Marco, because he

is named last (_Marcus et Matheus_) in the Testament of their uncle

Marco the Elder. We do not know if they were by the same mother. They

could not have been so if we are right in supposing Maffeo to have been

the younger, and if Pipino’s version of the history be genuine. If

however we reject the latter, as I incline to do, no ground remains for

supposing that Nicolo went to the East much before we find him there

viz., in 1260, and Maffeo may have been born of the same mother during

the interval between 1254 and 1260. If on the other hand Pipino’s

version be held to, we must suppose that Maffeo (who is named by his

uncle in 1280, during his father’s second absence in the East) was born

of a marriage contracted during Nicolo’s residence at home after his

first journey, a residence which lasted from 1269 to 1271.[12]

[Illustration: The Piazzetta at Venice. (From the Bodleian MS. of

Polo.)]

[Sidenote: Second Journey of the Polo Brothers, accompanied by Marco.]

19. The Papal interregnum was the longest known, at least since the

dark ages. Those two years passed, and yet the Cardinals at Viterbo

had come to no agreement. The brothers were unwilling to let the Great

Kaan think them faithless, and perhaps they hankered after the virgin

field of speculation that they had discovered; so they started again

for the East, taking young Mark with them. At Acre they took counsel

with an eminent churchman, TEDALDO (or Tebaldo) VISCONTI, Archdeacon

of Liège, whom the Book represents to have been Legate in Syria, and

who in any case was a personage of much gravity and influence. From him

they got letters to authenticate the causes of the miscarriage of their

mission, and started for the further East. But they were still at the

port of Ayas on the Gulf of Scanderoon, which was then becoming one of

the chief points of arrival and departure for the inland trade of Asia,

when they were overtaken by the news that a Pope was at last elected,

and that the choice had fallen upon their friend Archdeacon Tedaldo.

They immediately returned to Acre, and at last were able to execute the

Kaan’s commission, and to obtain a reply. But instead of the hundred

able teachers of science and religion whom Kúblái is said to have asked

for, the new Pope, Gregory X., could supply but two Dominicans; and

these lost heart and drew back when they had barely taken the first

step of the journey.

Judging from certain indications we conceive it probable that the three

Venetians, whose second start from Acre took place about November

1271, proceeded by Ayas and Sivas, and then by Mardin, Mosul, and

Baghdad, to Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, with the view of

going on by sea, but that some obstacle arose which compelled them to

abandon this project and turn north again from Hormuz.[13] They then

traversed successively Kerman and Khorasan, Balkh and Badakhshan,

whence they ascended the Panja or upper Oxus to the Plateau of Pamir, a

route not known to have been since followed by any European traveller

except Benedict Goës, till the spirited expedition of Lieutenant John

Wood of the Indian Navy in 1838.[14] Crossing the Pamir highlands the

travellers descended upon Kashgar, whence they proceeded by Yarkand and

Khotan, and the vicinity of Lake Lob, and eventually across the Great

Gobi Desert to Tangut, the name then applied by Mongols and Persians

to territory at the extreme North-west of China, both within and

without the Wall. Skirting the northern frontier of China they at last

reached the presence of the Kaan, who was at his usual summer retreat

at Kai-ping fu, near the base of the Khingan Mountains, and nearly 100

miles north of the Great Wall at Kalgan. If there be no mistake in

the time (three years and a half) ascribed to this journey in all the

existing texts, the travellers did not reach the Court till about May

of 1275.[15]

[Sidenote: Marco’s employment by Kúblái Kaan; and his journeys.]

20. Kúblái received the Venetians with great cordiality, and took

kindly to young Mark, who must have been by this time one-and-twenty.

The _Joenne Bacheler_, as the story calls him, applied himself to

the acquisition of the languages and written characters in chief use

among the multifarious nationalities included in the Kaan’s Court

and administration; and Kúblái after a time, seeing his discretion

and ability, began to employ him in the public service. M. Pauthier

has found a record in the Chinese Annals of the Mongol Dynasty,

which states that in the year 1277, a certain POLO was nominated a

second-class commissioner or agent attached to the Privy Council,

a passage which we are happy to believe to refer to our young

traveller.[16]

His first mission apparently was that which carried him through the

provinces of Shan-si, Shen-si, and Sze-ch’wan, and the wild country on

the East of Tibet, to the remote province of Yun-nan, called by the

Mongols Karájàng, and which had been partially conquered by an army

under Kúblái himself in 1253, before his accession to the throne.[17]

Mark, during his stay at court, had observed the Kaan’s delight in

hearing of strange countries, their marvels, manners, and oddities,

and had heard his Majesty’s frank expressions of disgust at the

stupidity of his commissioners when they could speak of nothing but

the official business on which they had been sent. Profiting by these

observations, he took care to store his memory or his note-books with

all curious facts that were likely to interest Kúblái, and related them

with vivacity on his return to Court. This first journey, which led

him through a region which is still very nearly a _terra incognita_,

and in which there existed and still exists, among the deep valleys of

the Great Rivers flowing down from Eastern Tibet, and in the rugged

mountain ranges bordering Yun-nan and Kwei-chau, a vast Ethnological

Garden, as it were, of tribes of various race and in every stage of

uncivilisation, afforded him an acquaintance with many strange products

and eccentric traits of manners, wherewith to delight the Emperor.

Mark rose rapidly in favour, and often served Kúblái again on distant

missions, as well as in domestic administration, but we gather few

details as to his employments. At one time we know that he held for

three years the government of the great city of Yang-chau, though we

need not try to magnify this office, as some commentators have done,

into the viceroyalty of one of the great provinces of the Empire; on

another occasion we find him with his uncle Maffeo, passing a year at

Kan-chau in Tangut; again, it would appear, visiting Kara Korum, the

old capital of the Kaans in Mongolia; on another occasion in Champa

or Southern Cochin China; and again, or perhaps as a part of the last

expedition, on a mission to the Indian Seas, when he appears to have

visited several of the southern states of India. We are not informed

whether his father and uncle shared in such employments;[18] and the

story of their services rendered to the Kaan in promoting the capture

of the city of Siang-yang, by the construction of powerful engines of

attack, is too much perplexed by difficulties of chronology to be cited

with confidence. Anyhow they were gathering wealth, and after years of

exile they began to dread what might follow old Kúblái’s death, and

longed to carry their gear and their own grey heads safe home to the

Lagoons. The aged Emperor growled refusal to all their hints, and but

for a happy chance we should have lost our mediæval Herodotus.

[Sidenote: Circumstances of the Departure of the Polos from the Kaan’s

Court.]

21. Arghún Khan of Persia, Kúblái’s great-nephew, had in 1286 lost his

favourite wife the Khatun Bulughán; and, mourning her sorely, took

steps to fulfil her dying injunction that her place should be filled

only by a lady of her own kin, the Mongol Tribe of Bayaut. Ambassadors

were despatched to the Court of Kaan-baligh to seek such a bride. The

message was courteously received, and the choice fell on the lady

Kokáchin, a maiden of 17, “_moult bele dame et avenant_.” The overland

road from Peking to Tabriz was not only of portentous length for such

a tender charge, but was imperilled by war, so the envoys desired to

return by sea. Tartars in general were strangers to all navigation; and

the envoys, much taken with the Venetians, and eager to profit by their

experience, especially as Marco had just then returned from his Indian

mission, begged the Kaan as a favour to send the three _Firinghis_

in their company. He consented with reluctance, but, having done so,

fitted the party out nobly for the voyage, charging the Polos with

friendly messages for the potentates of Europe, including the King of

England. They appear to have sailed from the port of Zayton (as the

Westerns called T’swan-chau or Chin-cheu in Fo-kien) in the beginning

of 1292. It was an ill-starred voyage, involving long detentions on

the coast of Sumatra, and in the South of India, to which, however,

we are indebted for some of the best chapters in the book; and two

years or upwards passed before they arrived at their destination in

Persia.[19] The three hardy Venetians survived all perils, and so did

the lady, who had come to look on them with filial regard; but two of

the three envoys, and a vast proportion of the suite, had perished by

the way.[20] Arghún Khan too had been dead even before they quitted

China;[21] his brother Kaikhátú reigned in his stead; and his son

Gházán succeeded to the lady’s hand. We are told by one who knew both

the princes well that Arghún was one of the handsomest men of his time,

whilst Gházán was, among all his host, one of the most insignificant in

appearance. But in other respects the lady’s change was for the better.

Gházán had some of the highest qualities of a soldier, a legislator and

a king, adorned by many and varied accomplishments; though his reign

was too short for the full development of his fame.

[Sidenote: They pass by Persia to Venice. Their relations there.]

22. The princess, whose enjoyment of her royalty was brief, wept as she

took leave of the kindly and noble Venetians. They went on to Tabriz,

and after a long halt there proceeded homewards, reaching Venice,

according to all the texts some time in 1295.[22]

We have related Ramusio’s interesting tradition, like a bit out of the

Arabian Nights, of the reception that the Travellers met with from

their relations, and of the means that they took to establish their

position with those relations, and with Venetian society.[23] Of the

relations, Marco the Elder had probably been long dead;[24] Maffeo

the brother of our Marco was alive, and we hear also of a cousin

(_consanguineus_) Felice Polo, and his wife Fiordelisa, without being

able to fix their precise position in the family. We know also that

Nicolo, who died before the end of the century, left behind him two

illegitimate sons, Stefano and Zannino. It is not unlikely that these

were born from some connection entered into during the long residence

of the Polos in Cathay, though naturally their presence in the

travelling company is not commemorated in Marco’s Prologue.[25]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] _Zurla_, I. 42, quoting a MS. entitled _Petrus Ciera S. R. E. Card,

de Origine Venetorum et de Civitate Venetiarum_. Cicogna says he

could not find this MS. as it had been carried to England; and then

breaks into a diatribe against foreigners who purchase and carry

away such treasures, “not to make a serious study of them, but

for mere vain-glory ... or in order to write books contradicting

the very MSS. that they have bought, and with that dishonesty and

untruth which are so notorious!” (IV. 227.)

[2] _Campidoglio Veneto_ of Cappellari (MS. in St. Mark’s Lib.),

quoting “the Venetian Annals of Giulio Faroldi.”

[3] The _Genealogies_ of Marco Barbaro specify 1033 as the year of the

migration to Venice; on what authority does not appear (MS. copy in

_Museo Civico_ at Venice).

[4] _Cappellari_, u.s., and _Barbaro_. In the same century we find

(1125, 1195) indications of Polos at Torcello, and of others (1160)

at Equileo, and (1179, 1206) Lido Maggiore; in 1154 a Marco Polo of

Rialto. Contemporary with these is a family of Polos (1139, 1183,

1193, 1201) at Chioggia (_Documents and Lists of Documents from

various Archives at_ Venice).

[5] See Appendix C, Nos. 4, 5, and 16. It was supposed that an

autograph of Marco as member of the Great Council had been

discovered, but this proves to be a mistake, as will be explained

further on (see p. _74_, note). In those days the demarcation

between Patrician and non-Patrician at Venice, where all classes

shared in commerce, all were (generally speaking) of one race, and

where there were neither castles, domains, nor trains of horsemen,

formed no wide gulf. Still it is interesting to establish the

verity of the old tradition of Marco’s technical nobility.

[6] Marco’s seniority rests only on the assertion of Ramusio, who also

calls Maffeo older than Nicolo. But in Marco the Elder’s Will these

two are always (3 times) specified as “_Nicolaus et Matheus_.”

[7] This seems implied in the Elder Marco’s Will (1280): “_Item

de bonis quæ me habere contingunt_ de fraternâ Compagniâ _a

suprascriptis Nicolao et Matheo Paulo_,” etc.

[8] In his Will he terms himself “Ego Marcus Polo quondam de

Constantinopoli.”

[9] There is no real ground for doubt as to this. All the extant MSS.

agree in making Marco fifteen years old when his father returned to

Venice in 1269.

[10] Baldelli and Lazari say that the Bern MS. specifies 30th April;

but this is a mistake.

[11] Pipino’s version runs: “Invenit Dominus Nicolaus Paulus uxorem

suam esse defunctam, quae in recessu suo fuit praegnans.

Invenitque filium, Marcum nomine, qui jam annos xv. habebat

aetatis, qui post discessum ipsius de Venetiis natus fuerat de

uxore sua praefatâ.” To this Ramusio adds the further particular

that the mother died in giving birth to Mark.

The interpolation is older even than Pipino’s version, for we find

in the rude Latin published by the Société de Géographie “quam cum

Venetiis primo recessit praegnantem dimiserat.” But the statement

is certainly an _interpolation_, for it does not exist in any of

the older texts; nor have we any good reason for believing that

it was an _authorised_ interpolation. I suspect it to have been

introduced to harmonise with an erroneous date for the commencement

of the travels of the two brothers.

Lazari prints: “Messer Nicolò trovò che la sua donna era morta, e

n’era rimasto un fanciullo di _dodici_ anni per nome Marco, _che

il padre non avea veduto mai, perchè non era ancor nato quando

egli partì_.” These words have no equivalent in the French Texts,

but are taken from one of the Italian MSS. in the Magliabecchian

Library, and are I suspect also interpolated. The _dodici_ is pure

error (see p. 21 _infra_).

[12] The last view is in substance, I find, suggested by Cicogna (ii.

389).

The matter is of some interest, because in the Will of the

younger Maffeo, which is extant, he makes a bequest to his uncle

(_Avunculus_) Jordan Trevisan. This seems an indication that

his mother’s name may have been Trevisan. The same Maffeo had a

daughter _Fiordelisa_. And Marco the Elder, in his Will (1280),

appoints as his executors, during the absence of his brothers,

the same Jordan Trevisan and his own sister-in-law _Fiordelisa_

(“Jordanum Trivisanum de confinio S. Antonini: et Flordelisam

cognatam meam”). Hence I conjecture that this _cognata Fiordelisa_

(Trevisan?) was the wife of the absent Nicolo, and the mother of

Maffeo. In that case of course Maffeo and Marco were the sons

of different mothers. With reference to the above suggestion of

Nicolo’s second marriage in 1269 there is a curious variation in

a fragmentary Venetian Polo in the Barberini Library at Rome.

It runs, in the passage corresponding to the latter part of ch.

ix. of Prologue: “i qual do fratelli steteno do anni in Veniezia

aspettando la elletion de nuovo Papa, _nel qual tempo Mess. Nicolo

si tolse moier et si la lasò graveda._” I believe, however, that it

is only a careless misrendering of Pipino’s statement about Marco’s

birth.

[13] [Major Sykes, in his remarkable book on _Persia_, ch. xxiii. pp.

262–263, does not share Sir Henry Yule’s opinion regarding this

itinerary, and he writes:

“To return to our travellers, who started on their second great

journey in 1271, Sir Henry Yule, in his introduction,[A] makes

them travel _viâ_ Sivas to Mosul and Baghdád, and thence by sea

to Hormuz, and this is the itinerary shown on his sketch map.

This view I am unwilling to accept for more than one reason. In

the first place, if, with Colonel Yule, we suppose that Ser Marco

visited Baghdád, is it not unlikely that he should term the River

Volga the Tigris,[B] and yet leave the river of Baghdád nameless?

It may be urged that Marco believed the legend of the reappearance

of the Volga in Kurdistán, but yet, if the text be read with care

and the character of the traveller be taken into account, this

error is scarcely explicable in any other way, than that he was

never there.

“Again, he gives no description of the striking buildings of

Baudas, as he terms it, but this is nothing to the inaccuracy of

his supposed onward journey. To quote the text, ‘A very great river

flows through the city, ... and merchants descend some eighteen days

from Baudas, and then come to a certain city called Kisi,[C] where

they enter the Sea of India.’ Surely Marco, had he travelled down

the Persian Gulf, would never have given this description of the

route, which is so untrue as to point to the conclusion that it was

vague information given by some merchant whom he met in the course

of his wanderings.

“Finally, apart from the fact that Baghdád, since its fall, was

rather off the main caravan route, Marco so evidently travels east

from Yezd and thence south to Hormuz, that unless his journey

be described backwards, which is highly improbable, it is only

possible to arrive at one conclusion, namely, that the Venetians

entered Persia near Tabriz, and travelled to Sultania, Kashán, and

Yezd. Thence they proceeded to Kermán and Hormuz, where, probably

fearing the sea voyage, owing to the manifest unseaworthiness of

the ships, which he describes as ‘wretched affairs,’ the Khorasán

route was finally adopted. Hormuz, in this case, was not visited

again until the return from China, when it seems probable that

the same route was retraced to Tabriz, where their charge, the

Lady Kokachin, ‘moult bele dame et avenant,’ was married to Gházan

Khán, the son of her fiancé Arghun. It remains to add that Sir

Henry Yule may have finally accepted this view in part, as in the

plate showing _Probable View of Marco Polo’s own Geography_,[D] the

itinerary is not shown as running to Baghdád.”

I may be allowed to answer that when Marco Polo _started_ for the

East, Baghdád was not rather off the main caravan route. The fall

of Baghdád was not immediately followed by its decay, and we have

proof of its prosperity at the beginning of the 14th century.

Tauris had not yet the importance it had reached when the Polos

visited it on their _return_ journey. We have the will of the

Venetian Pietro Viglioni, dated from Tauris, 10th December, 1264

(_Archiv. Veneto_, xxvi. 161–165), which shows that he was but

a pioneer. It was only under Arghún Khan (1284–1291) that Tauris

became the great market for foreign, especially Genoese, merchants,

as Marco Polo remarks on his return journey; with Gházán and the

new city built by that prince, Tauris reached a very high degree

of prosperity, and was then really the chief emporium on the route

from Europe to Persia and the far East. Sir Henry Yule had not

changed his views, and if in the plate showing _Probable View of

Marco Polo’s own Geography_, the itinerary is not shown as running

to Baghdád, it is mere neglect on the part of the

draughtsman.—H. C.]

[A] Page 19.

[B] _Vide Yule_, vol. i. p. 5. It is noticeable that John of Pian

de Carpine, who travelled 1245 to 1247, names it correctly.

[C] The modern name is Keis, an island lying off Linga.

[D] Vol. i. p. 110 (Introduction).

[14] It is stated by Neumann that this most estimable traveller once

intended to have devoted a special work to the elucidation of

Marco’s chapters on the Oxus Provinces, and it is much to be

regretted that this intention was never fulfilled. Pamir has been

explored more extensively and deliberately, whilst this book was

going through the press, by Colonel Gordon, and other officers,

detached from Sir Douglas Forsyth’s Mission. [We have made use

of the information given by these officers and by more recent

travellers.—H. C.]

[15] Half a year earlier, if we suppose the three years and a half to

count from Venice rather than Acre. But at that season (November)

Kúblái would not have been at Kai-ping fu (otherwise Shang-tu).

[16] _Pauthier_, p. ix., and p. 361.

[17] That this was Marco’s first mission is positively stated in the

Ramusian edition; and though this may be only an editor’s gloss

it seems well-founded. The French texts say only that the Great

Kaan, “l’envoia en un message en une terre ou bien avoit vj. mois

de chemin.” The traveller’s actual Itinerary affords to Vochan

(Yung-ch’ang), on the frontier of Burma, 147 days’ journey, which

with halts might well be reckoned six months in round estimate.

And we are enabled by various circumstances to fix the date of

the Yun-nan journey between 1277 and 1280. The former limit is

determined by Polo’s account of the battle with the Burmese, near

Vochan, which took place according to the Chinese Annals in 1277.

The latter is fixed by his mention of Kúblái’s son, Mangalai, as

governing at Kenjanfu (Si-ngan fu), a prince who died in 1280. (See

vol. ii. pp. 24, 31, also 64, 80.)

[18] Excepting in the doubtful case of Kan-chau, where one reading

says that the three Polos were there on business of their own not

necessary to mention, and another, that only Maffeo and Marco were

there, “_en légation_.”

[19] Persian history seems to fix the arrival of the lady Kokáchin

in the North of Persia to the winter of 1293–1294. The voyage to

Sumatra occupied three months (vol. i. p. 34); they were five

months detained there (ii. 292); and the remainder of the voyage

extended to eighteen more (i. 35),—twenty-six months in all.

The data are too slight for unexceptional precision, but the

following adjustment will fairly meet the facts. Say that they

sailed from Fo-kien in January 1292. In April they would be in

Sumatra, and find the S.W. Monsoon too near to admit of their

crossing the Bay of Bengal. They remain in port till September

(five months), and then proceed, touching (perhaps) at Ceylon, at

Kayal, and at several ports of Western India. In one of these,

_e.g._ Kayal or Tana, they pass the S.W. Monsoon of 1293, and then

proceed to the Gulf. They reach Hormuz in the winter, and the camp

of the Persian Prince Gházán, the son of Arghún, in March,

twenty-six months from their departure.

I have been unable to trace Hammer’s authority (not Wassáf I find),

which perhaps gives the precise date of the Lady’s arrival in

Persia (see _infra_, p. 38). From his narrative, however (_Gesch.

der Ilchane_, ii. 20), March 1294 is perhaps too late a date.

But the five months’ stoppage in Sumatra _must_ have been in the

S.W. Monsoon; and if the arrival in Persia is put earlier, Polo’s

numbers can scarcely be held to. Or, the eighteen months mentioned

at vol. i. p. 35, must _include_ the five months’ stoppage. We may

then suppose that they reached Hormuz about November 1293, and

Gházán’s camp a month or two later. [20] The French text which

forms the _basis_ of my translation says that, excluding mariners,

there were 600 souls, out of whom only 8 survived. The older MS.

which I quote as G. T., makes the number 18, a fact that I had

overlooked till the sheets were printed off.

[21] Died 12th March, 1291.

[22] All dates are found so corrupt that even in this one I do not feel

absolute confidence. Marco in dictating the book is aware that

Gházán had attained the throne of Persia (see vol. i. p. 36, and

ii. pp. 50 and 477), an event which did not occur till October,

1295. The date assigned to it, however, by Marco (ii. 477) is 1294,

or the year _before_ that assigned to the return home.

The travellers may have stopped some time at Constantinople on

their way, or even may have visited the northern shores of the

Black Sea; otherwise, indeed, how did Marco acquire his knowledge

of that Sea (ii. 486–488) and of events in Kipchak (ii. 496

_seqq._)? If 1296 was the date of return, moreover, the

six-and-twenty years assigned in the preamble as the period of

Marco’s absence (p. 2) would be nearer accuracy. For he left Venice

in the spring or summer of 1271.

[23] Marco Barbaro, in his account of the Polo family, tells what seems

to be the same tradition in a different and more mythical version:—

“From ear to ear the story has past till it reached mine, that

when the three Kinsmen arrived at their home they were dressed in

the most shabby and sordid manner, insomuch that the wife of one

of them gave away to a beggar that came to the door one of those

garments of his, all torn, patched, and dirty as it was. The next

day he asked his wife for that mantle of his, in order to put away

the jewels that were sewn up in it; but she told him she had given

it away to a poor man, whom she did not know. Now, the stratagem he

employed to recover it was this. He went to the Bridge of Rialto,

and stood there turning a wheel, to no apparent purpose, but as if

he were a madman, and to all those who crowded round to see what

prank was this, and asked him why he did it, he answered: ‘He’ll

come if God pleases.’ So after two or three days he recognised his

old coat on the back of one of those who came to stare at his mad

proceedings, and got it back again. Then, indeed, he was judged to

be quite the reverse of a madman! And from those jewels he built

in the contrada of S. Giovanni Grisostomo a very fine palace for

those days; and the family got among the vulgar the name of the

_Ca’ Million_, because the report was that they had jewels to the

value of a million of ducats; and the palace has kept that name to

the present day—_viz._, 1566.” (_Genealogies_, MS. copy in _Museo

Civico_; quoted also by _Baldelli Boni, Vita_, p. xxxi.)

[24] The Will of the Elder Marco, to which we have several times

referred, is dated at Rialto 5th August, 1280.

The testator describes himself as formerly of Constantinople, but

now dwelling in the confine of S. Severo.

His brothers _Nicolo_ and _Maffeo_, if at Venice, are to be his

sole trustees and executors, but in case of their continued

absence he nominates _Jordano Trevisano_, and his sister-in-law

_Fiordelisa_ of the confine of S. Severo.

The proper tithe to be paid. All his clothes and furniture to be

sold, and from the proceeds his funeral to be defrayed, and the

balance to purchase masses for his soul at the discretion of his

trustees.

Particulars of money due to him from his partnership with Donato

Grasso, now of Justinople (Capo d’Istria), 1200 _lire_ in all.

(Fifty-two lire due by said partnership to Angelo di Tumba of S.

Severo.)

The above money bequeathed to his son _Nicolo_, living at

_Soldachia_, or failing him, to his beloved brothers _Nicolo_ and

_Maffeo_. Failing them, to the sons of his said brothers (_sic_)

_Marco_ and _Maffeo_. Failing them, to be spent for the good of his

soul at the discretion of his trustees.

To his son Nicolo he bequeaths a silver-wrought girdle of vermilion

silk, two silver spoons, a silver cup without cover (or saucer?

_sine cembalo_), his desk, two pairs of sheets, a velvet quilt, a

counterpane, a feather-bed—all on the same conditions as above, and

to remain with the trustees till his son returns to Venice.

Meanwhile the trustees are to invest the money at his son’s risk

and benefit, but only here in Venice (_investiant seu investire,

faciant_).

From the proceeds to come in from his partnership with his brothers

Nicolo and Maffeo, he bequeaths 200 lire to his daughter Maroca.

From same source 100 lire to his natural son Antony.

Has in his desk (_capsella_) two hyperperae (Byzantine gold coins),

and three golden florins, which he bequeaths to the sister-in-law

_Fiordelisa_.

Gives freedom to all his slaves and handmaidens.

Leaves his house in Soldachia to the Minor Friars of that place,

reserving life-occupancy to his son Nicolo and daughter Maroca.

The rest of his goods to his son Nicolo.

[25] The terms in which the younger Maffeo mentions these half-brothers

in his Will (1300) seem to indicate that they were still young.

IV. DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE MANSION OF THE POLO FAMILY

AT VENICE.

[Sidenote: Probable period of their establishment at S. Giovanni

Grisostomo.]

23. We have seen that Ramusio places the scene of the story recently

alluded to at the mansion in the parish of S. Giovanni Grisostomo,

the court of which was known in his time as the Corte del Millioni;

and indeed he speaks of the Travellers as at once on their arrival

resorting to that mansion as their family residence. Ramusio’s details

have so often proved erroneous that I should not be surprised if this

also should be a mistake. At least we find (so far as I can learn) no

previous intimation that the family were connected with that locality.

The grandfather Andrea is styled of _San Felice_. The will of Maffeo

Polo the younger, made in 1300, which we shall give hereafter in

abstract, appears to be the first document that connects the family

with S. Giovanni Grisostomo. It indeed styles the testator’s father

“the late Nicolo Paulo of the confine of St. John Chrysostom,” but that

only shows what is not disputed, that the Travellers after their return

from the East settled in this locality. And the same will appears

to indicate a surviving connexion with S. Felice, for the priests

and clerks who drew it up and witness it are all of the church of S.

Felice, and it is to the parson of S. Felice and his successor that

Maffeo bequeaths an annuity to procure their prayers for the souls

of his father, his mother, and himself, though after the successor

the annuity is to pass on the same condition to the senior priest of

S. Giovanni Grisostomo. Marco Polo the Elder is in his will described

as of _S. Severo_, as is also his sister-in-law Fiordelisa, and the

document contains no reference to S. Giovanni. On the whole therefore

it seems probable that the Palazzo in the latter parish was purchased

by the Travellers after their return from the East.[1]

[Illustration: Corte del Milione, Venice.]

[Sidenote: Relic of the Casa Polo in the Corte Sabbionera.]

24. The Court which was known in the 16th century as the Corte del

Millioni has been generally understood to be that now known as the

Corte Sabbionera, and here is still pointed out a relic of Marco Polo’s

mansion. [Indeed it is called now (1899) _Corte del Milione_; see p.

_30_.—H. C.]

M. Pauthier’s edition is embellished with a good engraving which

purports to represent the House of Marco Polo. But he has been misled.

His engraving in fact exhibits, at least as the prominent feature, an

embellished representation of a small house which exists on the _west

side_ of the Sabbionera, and which had at one time perhaps that pointed

style of architecture which his engraving shows, though its present

decoration is paltry and unreal. But it is on the _north side_ of the

Court, and on the foundations now occupied by the Malibran theatre,

that Venetian tradition and the investigations of Venetian antiquaries

concur in indicating the site of the Casa Polo. At the end of the

16th century a great fire destroyed the Palazzo,[2] and under the

description of “an old mansion ruined from the foundation” it passed

into the hands of one Stefano Vecchia, who sold it in 1678 to Giovanni

Carlo Grimani. He built on the site of the ruins a theatre which was

in its day one of the largest in Italy, and was called the Theatre

of S. Giovanni Grisostomo; afterwards the _Teatro Emeronitio_. When

modernized in our own day the proprietors gave it the name of Malibran,

in honour of that famous singer, and this it still bears.[3]

[In 1881, the year of the Venice International Geographical Congress, a

Tablet was put up on the Theatre with the following inscription:—

QVI FURONO LE CASE

MARCO POLO

CHE VIAGGIÒ LE PIÙ LONTANE REGIONI DELL’ASIA

E LE DESCRISSE

PER DECRETO DEL COMUNE

MDCCCLXXXI].

There is still to be seen on the north side of the Court an arched

doorway in Italo-Byzantine style, richly sculptured with scrolls,

disks, and symbolical animals, and on the wall above the doorway is a

cross similarly ornamented.[4] The style and the decorations are those

which were usual in Venice in the 13th century. The arch opens into a

passage from which a similar doorway at the other end, also retaining

some scantier relics of decoration, leads to the entrance of the

Malibran Theatre. Over the archway in the Corte Sabbionera the building

rises into a kind of tower. This, as well as the sculptured arches and

cross, Signor Casoni, who gave a good deal of consideration to the

subject, believed to be a relic of the old Polo House. But the tower

(which Pauthier’s view does show) is now entirely modernized.[5]

[Illustration: Malibran Theatre, Venice.]

[Illustration: The site of the CA’ POLO.

Fig. A. From the Dürer Map. A.D. 1500.

Fig. B. From Map by Ludovico Ughi. A.D. 1729 Scale 1 to 2500.

Fig. C. From Recent Map. Scale 1 to 1315.]

Other remains of Byzantine sculpture, which are probably fragments of

the decoration of the same mansion, are found imbedded in the walls of

neighbouring houses.[6] It is impossible to determine anything further

as to the form or extent of the house of the time of the Polos, but

some slight idea of its appearance about the year 1500 may be seen

in the extract (fig. A) which we give from the famous pictorial map

of Venice attributed erroneously to Albert Dürer. The state of the

buildings in the last century is shown in (fig. B) an extract from the

fine Map of Ughi; and their present condition in one (fig. C) reduced

from the Modern Official Map of the Municipality.

[Coming from the Church of S. G. Grisostomo to enter the calle del

Teatro on the left and the passage (_Sottoportico_) leading to the

_Corte del Milione_, one has in front of him a building with a door of

the epoch of the Renaissance; it was the office of the _provveditori_

of silk; on the architrave are engraved the words:

PROVISORES SERICI

and below, above the door, is the Tablet which] in the year 1827 the

Abate Zenier caused to be put up with this inscription:—

AEDES PROXIMA THALIAE CVLTVI MODO ADDICTA

MARCI POLO P. V. ITINERVM FAMA PRAECLARI

JAM HABITATIO FVIT.

[Sidenote: Recent corroboration as to the traditional site of the Casa

Polo.]

24_a_. I believe that of late years some doubts have been thrown on

the tradition of the site indicated as that of the Casa Polo, though

I am not aware of the grounds of such doubts. But a document recently

discovered at Venice by Comm. Barozzi, one of a series relating to the

testamentary estate of Marco Polo, goes far to confirm the tradition.

This is the copy of a technical definition of two pieces of house

property adjoining the property of Marco Polo and his brother Stephen,

which were sold to Marco Polo by his wife Donata[7] in June 1321.

Though the definition is not decisive, from the rarity of topographical

references and absence of points of the compass, the description of

Donata’s tenements as standing on the Rio (presumably that of S.

Giovanni Grisostomo) on one side, opening by certain porticoes and

stairs on the other to the Court and common alley leading to the Church

of S. Giovanni Grisostomo, and abutting in two places on the CA’ POLO,

the property of her husband and Stefano, will apply perfectly to a

building occupying the western portion of the area on which now stands

the Theatre, and perhaps forming the western side of a Court of which

Casa Polo formed the other three sides.[8]

[Illustration: Entrance to the Corte del Milione, Venice.]

We know nothing more of Polo till we find him appearing a year or two

later in rapid succession as the Captain of a Venetian Galley, as a

prisoner of war, and as an author.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Marco Barbaro’s story related at p. _25_ speaks of the Ca’ Million

as _built_ by the travellers.

From a list of parchments existing in the archives of the _Casa di

Ricovero_, or Great Poor House, at Venice, Comm. Berchet obtained

the following indication:—

“_No. 94. Marco Galetti invests_ Marco Polo _S. of_ Nicolo

_with the ownership of his possessions_ (beni) _in_ S. Giovanni

Grisostomo; _10 September, 1319; drawn up by the Notary Nicolo,

priest of S. Canciano._”

This document would perhaps have thrown light on the matter, but

unfortunately recent search by several parties has failed to

trace it. [The document has been discovered since: see vol. ii.,

_Calendar_, No. 6.—H. C.]

[2] ——“Sua casa che era posta nel confin di S. Giovanni Chrisostomo,

_che hor fà l’anno s’abbrugiò totalmente_, con gran danno di

molti.” (_Doglioní, Hist. Venetiana_, Ven. 1598, pp. 161–162.)

“1596. 7 _Nov. Senato_ (Arsenal ... ix c. 159 t).

“Essendo conveniente usar qualche ricognizione a quelli della

maestranza dell’Arsenal nostro, che prontamente sono concorsi all’

incendio occorso ultimamente a S. Zuane Grizostomo nelli stabeli

detti di CA’ MILION dove per la relazion fatta nell collegio nostro

dalli patroni di esso Arsenal hanno nell’estinguere il foco

prestato ogni buon servitio....”—(Comm. by Cav. Cecchetti through

Comm. Berchet.)

[3] See a paper by G. C. (the Engineer Giovanni Casoni) in _Teatro

Emeronitio Almanacco per l’Anno 1835_.

[4] This Cross is engraved by Mr. Ruskin in vol. ii. of the _Stones of

Venice_: see p. 139, and Pl. xi. Fig. 4.

[5] Casoni’s only doubt was whether the _Corte del Millioni_ was what

is now the Sabbionera, or the interior area of the theatre. The

latter seems most probable.

One Illustration of this volume, p. 1, shows the archway in the

Corte Sabbionera, and also the decorations of the soffit.

[6] See _Ruskin_, iii. 320.

[7] Comm. Barozzi writes: “Among us, contracts between husband and wife

are and were very common, and recognized by law. The wife sells to

the husband property not included in dowry, or that she may have

inherited, just as any third person might.”

[8] See Appendix C, No. 16.

V. DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE WAR-GALLEYS OF THE

MEDITERRANEAN STATES IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

[Sidenote: Arrangement of the Rowers in Mediæval Galleys: a separate

oar to every man.]

25. And before entering on this new phase of the Traveller’s biography

it may not be without interest that we say something regarding the

equipment of those galleys which are so prominent in the mediæval

history of the Mediterranean.[1]

Eschewing that “Serbonian Bog, where armies whole have sunk” of Books

and Commentators, the theory of the classification of the Biremes and

Triremes of the Ancients, we can at least assert on secure grounds

that in _mediæval_ armament, up to the middle of the 16th century or

thereabouts, the characteristic distinction of galleys of different

calibres, so far as such differences existed, was based _on the number

of rowers that sat on one bench pulling each his separate oar, but

through one_ portella _or rowlock-port_.[2] And to the classes of

galleys so distinguished the Italians, of the later Middle Age at

least, did certainly apply, rightly or wrongly, the classical terms of

_Bireme_, _Trireme_, and _Quinquereme_, in the sense of galleys having

two men and two oars to a bench, three men and three oars to a bench,

and five men and five oars to a bench.[3]

That this was the mediæval arrangement is very certain from the details

afforded by Marino Sanudo the Elder, confirmed by later writers and by

works of art. Previous to 1290, Sanudo tells us, almost all the galleys

that went to the Levant had but two oars and men to a bench; but as it

had been found that three oars and men to a bench could be employed

with great advantage, after that date nearly all galleys adopted this

arrangement, which was called _ai Terzaruoli_.[4]

Moreover experiments made by the Venetians in 1316 had shown that four

rowers to a bench could be employed still more advantageously. And

where the galleys could be used on inland waters, and could be made

more bulky, Sanudo would even recommend five to a bench, or have gangs

of rowers on two decks with either three or four men to the bench on

each deck.

[Sidenote: Change of System in the 16th century.]

26. This system of grouping the oars, and putting only one man to an

oar, continued down to the 16th century, during the first half of which

came in the more modern system of using great oars, equally spaced,

and requiring from four to seven men each to ply them, in the manner

which endured till late in the last century, when galleys became

altogether obsolete. Captain Pantero Pantera, the author of a work

on Naval Tactics (1616), says he had heard, from veterans who had

commanded galleys equipped in the antiquated fashion, that _three_ men

to a bench, with separate oars, answered better than three men to one

great oar, but four men to one great oar (he says) were certainly more

efficient than four men with separate oars. The new-fashioned great

oars, he tells us, were styled _Remi di Scaloccio_, the old grouped

oars _Remi a Zenzile_,—terms the etymology of which I cannot explain.[5]

It may be doubted whether the four-banked and five-banked galleys,

of which Marino Sanudo speaks, really then came into practical use.

A great five-banked galley on this system, built in 1529 in the

Venice Arsenal by Vettor Fausto, was the subject of so much talk and

excitement, that it must evidently have been something quite new and

unheard of.[6] So late as 1567 indeed the King of Spain built at

Barcelona a galley of thirty-six benches to the side, and seven men

to the bench, with a separate oar to each in the old fashion. But it

proved a failure.[7]

Down to the introduction of the great oars the usual system appears to

have been three oars to a bench for the larger galleys, and two oars

for lighter ones. The _fuste_ or lighter galleys of the Venetians, even

to about the middle of the 16th century, had their oars in pairs from

the stern to the mast, and single oars only from the mast forward.[8]

[Sidenote: Some details of the 13th century Galleys.]

27. Returning then to the three-banked and two-banked galleys of the

latter part of the 13th century, the number of benches on each side

seems to have run from twenty-five to twenty-eight, at least as I

interpret Sanudo’s calculations. The 100-oared vessels often mentioned

(_e.g._ by _Muntaner_, p. 419) were probably two-banked vessels with

twenty-five benches to a side.

[Illustration]

The galleys were very narrow, only 15½ feet in beam.[9] But to give

room for the play of the oars and the passage of the fighting-men, &c.,

this width was largely augmented by an _opera-morta_, or outrigger

deck, projecting much beyond the ship’s sides and supported by timber

brackets.[10] I do not find it stated how great this projection was in

the mediæval galleys, but in those of the 17th century it was _on each

side_ as much as ²⁄₉ths of the true beam. And if it was as great in the

13th-century galleys the total width between the false gunnels would be

about 22¼ feet.

In the centre line of the deck ran, the whole length of the vessel, a

raised gangway called the _corsia_, for passage clear of the oars.

The benches were arranged as in this diagram. The part of the

bench next the gunnel was at right angles to it, but the other

two-thirds of the bench were thrown forward obliquely. _a_, _b_, _c_,

indicate the position of the three rowers. The shortest oar _a_ was

called _Terlicchio_, the middle one _b Posticcio_, the long oar _c

Piamero_.[11]

I do not find any information as to how the oars worked on the gunnels.

The Siena fresco (see p. _35_) appears to show them attached by loops

and pins, which is the usual practice in boats of the Mediterranean

now. In the cut from D. Tintoretto (p. _37_) the groups of oars

protrude through regular ports in the bulwarks, but this probably

represents the use of a later day. In any case the oars of each bench

must have worked in very close proximity. Sanudo states the length of

the galleys of his time (1300–1320) as 117 feet. This was doubtless

length of _keel_, for that is specified (“_da ruoda a ruoda_”) in

other Venetian measurements, but the whole oar space could scarcely

have been so much, and with twenty-eight benches to a side there

could not have been more than 4 feet gunnel-space to each bench. And

as one of the objects of the grouping of the oars was to allow room

between the benches for the action of cross-bowmen, &c., it is plain

that the rowlock space for the three oars must have been very much

compressed.[12]

[Illustration: Galley-Fight, from a Mediæval Fresco at Siena. (See p.

_36_.)]

The rowers were divided into three classes, with graduated pay.

The highest class, who pulled the poop or stroke oars, were called

_Portolati_; those at the bow, called _Prodieri_, formed the second

class.[13]

Some elucidation of the arrangements that we have tried to describe

will be found in our cuts. That at p. _35_ is from a drawing, by the

aid of a very imperfect photograph, of part of one of the frescoes

of Spinello Aretini in the Municipal Palace at Siena, representing a

victory of the Venetians over the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa’s fleet,

commanded by his son Otho, in 1176; but no doubt the galleys, &c., are

of the artist’s own age, the middle of the 14th century.[14] In this

we see plainly the projecting _opera-morta_, and the rowers sitting two

to a bench, each with his oar, for these are two-banked. We can also

discern the Latin rudder on the quarter. (See this volume, p. 119.) In

a picture in the Uffizj, at Florence, of about the same date, by Pietro

Laurato (it is in the corridor near the entrance), may be seen a small

figure of a galley with the oars also very distinctly coupled.[15]

Casoni has engraved, after Cristoforo Canale, a pictorial plan of a

Venetian trireme of the 16th century, which shows the arrangement of

the oars in _triplets_ very plainly.

The following cut has been sketched from an engraving of a picture by

Domenico Tintoretto in the Doge’s palace, representing, I believe,

the same action (real or imaginary) as Spinello’s fresco, but with

the costume and construction of a later date. It shows, however, very

plainly, the projecting _opera-morta_ and the arrangement of the oars

in fours, issuing through row-ports in high bulwarks.

[Illustration: Part of a Sea Fight, after Dom. Tintoretto.]

[Sidenote: Fighting Arrangements.]

28. Midships in the mediæval galley a castle was erected, of the width

of the ship, and some 20 feet in length; its platform being elevated

sufficiently to allow of free passage under it and over the benches.

At the bow was the battery, consisting of mangonels (see vol. ii. p.

161 _seqq._) and great cross-bows with winding gear,[16] whilst there

were shot-ports[17] for smaller cross-bows along the gunnels in the

intervals between the benches. Some of the larger galleys had openings

to admit horses at the stern, which were closed and caulked for the

voyage, being under water when the vessel was at sea.[18]

It seems to have been a very usual piece of tactics, in attacking as

well as in awaiting attack, to connect a large number of galleys by

hawsers, and sometimes also to link the oars together, so as to render

it difficult for the enemy to break the line or run aboard. We find

this practised by the Genoese on the defensive at the battle of Ayas

(_infra_, p. _43_), and it is constantly resorted to by the Catalans in

the battles described by Ramon de Muntaner.[19]

Sanudo says the toil of rowing in the galleys was excessive, almost

unendurable. Yet it seems to have been performed by freely-enlisted

men, and therefore it was probably less severe than that of the

great-oared galleys of more recent times, which it was found

impracticable to work by free enlistment, or otherwise than by slaves

under the most cruel driving.[20] I am not well enough read to say

that war-galleys were never rowed by slaves in the Middle Ages, but

the only doubtful allusion to such a class that I have met with is

in one passage of Muntaner, where he says, describing the Neapolitan

and Catalan fleets drawing together for action, that the gangs

of the galleys had to toil _like_ “forçats” (p. 313). Indeed, as

regards Venice at least, convict rowers are stated to have been first

introduced in 1549, previous to which the gangs were of _galeotti

assoldati_.[21]

[Sidenote: Crew of a Galley and Staff of a Fleet.]

29. We have already mentioned that Sanudo requires for his three-banked

galley a ship’s company of 250 men. They are distributed as follows:—

_Comito_ or Master 1

Quartermasters 8

Carpenters 2

Caulkers 2

In charge of stores and arms 4

Orderlies 2

Cook 1

Arblasteers 50

Rowers 180

———

250[22]

This does not include the _Sopracomito_, or Gentleman-Commander, who

was expected to be _valens homo et probus_, a soldier and a gentleman,

fit to be consulted on occasion by the captain-general. In the Venetian

fleet he was generally a noble.[23]

The aggregate pay of such a crew, not including the sopracomito,

amounted monthly to 60 _lire de’ grossi_, or 600 florins, equivalent

to 280_l._ at modern gold value; and the cost for a year to nearly

3160_l._, exclusive of the victualling of the vessel and the pay of

the gentleman-commander. The build or purchase of a galley complete is

estimated by the same author at 15,000 florins, or 7012_l._

We see that war cost a good deal in money even then.

Besides the ship’s own complement Sanudo gives an estimate for

the general staff of a fleet of 60 galleys. This consists of a

captain-general, two (vice) admirals, and the following:—

6 _Probi homines_, or gentlemen of character, forming a council to

the Captain-General;

4 Commissaries of Stores;

2 Commissaries over the Arms;

3 Physicians;

3 Surgeons;

5 Master Engineers and Carpenters;

15 Master Smiths;

12 Master Fletchers;

5 Cuirass men and Helmet-makers;

15 Oar-makers and Shaft-makers;

10 Stone cutters for stone shot;

10 Master Arblast-makers;

20 Musicians;

20 Orderlies, &c.

[Sidenote: Music; and other particulars.]

30. The musicians formed an important part of the equipment. Sanudo

says that in going into action every vessel should make the greatest

possible display of colours; gonfalons and broad banners should float

from stem to stern, and gay pennons all along the bulwarks; whilst it

was impossible to have too much of noisy music, of pipes, trumpets,

kettle-drums, and what not, to put heart into the crew and strike fear

into the enemy.[24]

So Joinville, in a glorious passage, describes the galley of his

kinsman, the Count of Jaffa, at the landing of St. Lewis in Egypt:—

“That galley made the most gallant figure of them all, for it was

painted all over, above water and below, with scutcheons of the

count’s arms, the field of which was _or_ with a cross _patée

gules_.[25] He had a good 300 rowers in his galley, and every man

of them had a target blazoned with his arms in beaten gold. And,

as they came on, the galley looked to be some flying creature,

with such spirit did the rowers spin it along;—or rather, with

the rustle of its flags, and the roar of its nacaires and drums

and Saracen horns, you might have taken it for a rushing bolt of

heaven.”[26]

The galleys, which were very low in the water,[27] could not keep the

sea in rough weather, and in winter they never willingly kept the sea

at night, however fair the weather might be. Yet Sanudo mentions that

he had been with armed galleys to Sluys in Flanders.

I will mention two more particulars before concluding this digression.

When captured galleys were towed into port it was stern foremost, and

with their colours dragging on the surface of the sea.[28] And the

custom of saluting at sunset (probably by music) was in vogue on board

the galleys of the 13th century.[29]

We shall now sketch the circumstances that led to the appearance of our

Traveller in the command of a war-galley.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] I regret not to have had access to Jal’s learned memoirs

(_Archéologie Navale_, Paris, 1839) whilst writing this section,

nor since, except for a hasty look at his Essay on the difficult

subject of the oar arrangements. I see that he rejects so great

a number of oars as I deduce from the statements of Sanudo and

others, and that he regards a large number of the rowers as

supplementary.

[2] It seems the more desirable to elucidate this, because writers on

mediæval subjects so accomplished as Buchon and Capmany have (it

would seem) entirely misconceived the matter, assuming that all the

men on one bench pulled at one oar.

[3] See _Coronelli, Atlante Veneto_, I. 139, 140. Marino Sanudo the

Elder, though not using the term _trireme_, says it was well

understood from ancient authors that the Romans employed their

rowers _three to a bench_ (p. 59).

[4] “_Ad terzarolos_” (_Secreta Fidelium Crucis_, p. 57). The Catalan

Worthy, Ramon de Muntaner, indeed constantly denounces the practice

of manning _all_ the galleys with _terzaruoli_, or _tersols_,

as his term is. But his reason is that these thirds-men were

taken from the oar when crossbowmen were wanted, to act in that

capacity, and as such they were good for nothing; the crossbowmen,

he insists, should be men specially enlisted for that service and

kept to that. He would have some 10 or 20 per cent. only of the

fleet built very light and manned in threes. He does not seem to

have contemplated oars three-banked, and crossbowmen _besides_, as

Sanudo does. (See below; and _Muntaner_, pp. 288, 323, 525, etc.)

In Sanudo we have a glimpse worth noting of the word _soldiers_

advancing towards the modern sense; he expresses a strong

preference for _soldati_ (viz. _paid_ soldiers) over _crusaders_

(viz. volunteers), p. 74.

[5] _L’Armata Navale_, Roma, 1616, pp. 150–151.

[6] See a work to which I am indebted for a good deal of light and

information, the Engineer Giovanni Casoni’s Essay: “_Dei Navigli

Poliremi usati nella Marina dagli Antichi Veneziani_,” in

“_Esercitazioni dell’Ateneo Veneto_,” vol. ii. p. 338. This great

_Quinquereme_, as it was styled, is stated to have been struck by a

fire-arrow, and blown up, in January 1570.

[7] _Pantera_, p. 22.

[8] _Lazarus Bayfius de Re Navali Veterum_, in _Gronovii Thesaurus_,

Ven. 1737, vol. xi. p. 581. This writer also speaks of the

Quinquereme mentioned above (p. 577).

[9] _Marinus Sanutius_, p. 65.

[10] See the woodcuts opposite and at p. 37; also _Pantera_, p. 46

(who is here, however, speaking of the great-oared galleys), and

_Coronelli_, i. 140.

[11] _Casoni_, p. 324. He obtains these particulars from a manuscript

work of the 16th century by Cristoforo Canale.

[12] Signor Casoni (p. 324) expresses his belief that no galley of

the 14th century had more than 100 oars. I differ from him with

hesitation, and still more as I find M. Jal agrees in this view. I

will state the grounds on which I came to a different conclusion.

(1) Marino Sanudo assigns 180 rowers for a galley equipped _ai

Terzaruoli_ (p. 75). This seemed to imply something near 180 oars,

for I do not find any allusion to reliefs being provided. In the

French galleys of the 18th century there were no reliefs except in

this way, that in long runs without urgency only half the oars were

pulled. (See _Mém. d’un Protestant condamné aux Galères_, etc.,

Réimprimés, Paris, 1865, p. 447.) If four men to a bench were to be

employed, then Sanudo seems to calculate for his smaller galleys

220 men actually rowing (see pp. 75–78). This seems to assume 55

benches, _i.e._, 28 on one side and 27 on the other, which with

3-banked oars would give 165 rowers. (2) Casoni himself refers to

Pietro Martire d’Anghieria’s account of a Great Galley of Venice

in which he was sent ambassador to Egypt from the Spanish Court in

1503. The crew amounted to 200, of whom 150 were for working the

sails and oars, _that being the number of oars in each galley_,

one man to each oar and three to each bench. Casoni assumes that

this vessel must have been much larger than the galleys of the 14th

century; but, however that may have been, Sanudo to his galley

assigns the larger crew of 250, of whom almost exactly the same

proportion (180) were rowers. And in the _galeazza_ described by

Pietro Martire the oars were used only as an occasional auxiliary.

(See his _Legationis Babylonicæ Libri Tres_, appended to his 3

Decads concerning the New World; _Basil_. 1533, f. 77 _ver._) (3)

The galleys of the 18th century, with their great oars 50 feet

long pulled by six or seven men each, had 25 benches to the side,

and only 4′ 6″ (French) gunnel-space to each oar. (See _Mém. d’un

Protest._, p. 434.) I imagine that a smaller space would suffice

for the 3 light oars of the mediæval system, so that this need

scarcely be a difficulty in the face of the preceding evidence.

Note also the _three hundred rowers_ in Joinville’s description

quoted at p. _40_. The great galleys of the Malay Sultan of Achin

in 1621 had, according to Beaulieu, from 700 to 800 rowers, but I

do not know on what system.

[13] _Marinus Sanutius_, p. 78. These titles occur also in the

_Documenti d’ Amore_ of Fr. Barberino referred to at p. 117 of this

volume:—

“Convienti qui manieri _Portolatti e prodieri_ E presti galeotti

Aver, e forti e dotti.”

[14] Spinello’s works, according to Vasari, extended from 1334 till

late in the century. A religious picture of his at Siena is

assigned to 1385, so the frescoes may probably be of about the same

period. Of the battle represented I can find no record.

[15] Engraved in Jal, i. 330; with other mediæval illustrations of the

same points.

[16] To these Casoni adds _Sifoni_ for discharging Greek fire; but this

he seems to take from the Greek treatise of the Emperor Leo. Though

I have introduced Greek fire in the cut at p. _49_, I doubt if

there is evidence of its use by the Italians in the thirteenth

century. Joinville describes it like something strange and new.

In after days the artillery occupied the same position, at the bow

of the galley.

Great beams, hung like battering rams, are mentioned by Sanudo, as

well as iron crow’s-feet with fire attached, to shoot among the

rigging, and jars of quick-lime and soft soap to fling in the eyes

of the enemy. The lime is said to have been used by Doria against

the Venetians at Curzola (_infra_, p. _48_), and seems to have been

a usual provision. Francesco Barberini specifies among the stores

for his galley: “_Calcina_, con lancioni, Pece, pietre, e ronconi”

(p. 259). And Christine de Pisan, in her _Faiz du Sage Roy Charles_

(V. of France), explains also the use of the soap: “_Item_, on

doit avoir pluseurs vaisseaulx legiers à rompre, comme _poz plains

de chauls_ ou pouldre, et gecter dedens; et, par ce, seront comme

avuglez, au brisier des poz. _Item_, on doit avoir autres _poz

de mol savon_ et gecter es nefzs des adversaires, et quant les

vaisseaulx brisent, le savon est glissant, si ne se peuent en piez

soustenir et chiéent en l’eaue” (pt. ii. ch. 38).

[17] _Balistariæ_, whence no doubt _Balistrada_ and our _Balustrade_.

Wedgwood’s etymology is far-fetched. And in his new edition (1872),

though he has shifted his ground, he has not got nearer the truth.

[18] _Sanutius_, p. 53; _Joinville_, p. 40; _Muntaner_, 316, 403.

[19] See pp. 270, 288, 324, and especially 346.

[20] See the _Protestant_, cited above, p. 441, _et seqq._

[21] _Venezia e le sue Lagune_, ii. 52.

[22] _Mar. Sanut._ p. 75.

[23] _Mar. Sanut._, p. 30.

[24] The Catalan Admiral Roger de Loria, advancing at daybreak to

attack the Provençal Fleet of Charles of Naples (1283) in the

harbour of Malta, “did a thing which should be reckoned to him

rather as an act of madness,” says Muntaner, “than of reason. He

said, ‘God forbid that I should attack them, all asleep as they

are! Let the trumpets and nacaires sound to awaken them, and I will

tarry till they be ready for action. No man shall have it to say,

if I beat them, that it was by catching them asleep.’” (_Munt._ p.

287.) It is what Nelson might have done!

The Turkish admiral Sidi ’Ali, about to engage a Portuguese

squadron in the Straits of Hormuz, in 1553, describes the Franks as

“dressing their vessels with flags and coming on.” (_J. As._ ix.

70.)

[25] A cross _patée_, is one with the extremities broadened out into

_feet_ as it were.

[26] Page 50.

[27] The galley at p. _49_ is somewhat too high; and I believe it

should have had no _shrouds_.

[28] See _Muntaner_, passim, _e.g._ 271, 286, 315, 349.

[29] _Ibid._ 346.

VI. THE JEALOUSIES AND NAVAL WARS OF VENICE AND GENOA. LAMBA DORIA’S

EXPEDITION TO THE ADRIATIC; BATTLE OF CURZOLA; AND IMPRISONMENT

OF MARCO POLO BY THE GENOESE.

[Sidenote: Growing jealousies and outbreaks between the Republics.]

31. Jealousies, too characteristic of the Italian communities, were,

in the case of the three great trading republics of Venice, Genoa,

and Pisa, aggravated by commercial rivalries, whilst, between the two

first of those states, and also between the two last, the bitterness of

such feelings had been augmenting during the whole course of the 13th

century.[1]

The brilliant part played by Venice in the conquest of Constantinople

(1204), and the preponderance she thus acquired on the Greek shores,

stimulated her arrogance and the resentment of her rivals. The three

states no longer stood on a level as bidders for the shifting favour

of the Emperor of the East. By treaty, not only was Venice established

as the most important ally of the empire and as mistress of a large

fraction of its territory, but all members of nations at war with her

were prohibited from entering its limits. Though the Genoese colonies

continued to exist, they stood at a great disadvantage, where their

rivals were so predominant and enjoyed exemption from duties, to which

the Genoese remained subject. Hence jealousies and resentments reached

a climax in the Levantine settlements, and this colonial exacerbation

reacted on the mother States.

A dispute which broke out at Acre in 1255 came to a head in a war which

lasted for years, and was felt all over Syria. It began in a quarrel

about a very old church called St. Sabba’s, which stood on the common

boundary of the Venetian and Genoese estates in Acre,[2] and this flame

was blown by other unlucky occurrences. Acre suffered grievously.[3]

Venice at this time generally kept the upper hand, beating Genoa by

land and sea, and driving her from Acre altogether.✛ Four ancient

porphyry figures from St. Sabba’s were sent in triumph to Venice, and

with their strange devices still stand at the exterior corner of St.

Mark’s, towards the Ducal Palace.[4]

But no number of defeats could extinguish the spirit of Genoa, and the

tables were turned when in her wrath she allied herself with Michael

Palaeologus to upset the feeble and tottering Latin Dynasty, and with

it the preponderance of Venice on the Bosphorus. The new emperor handed

over to his allies the castle of their foes, which they tore down with

jubilations, and now it was their turn to send its stones as trophies

to Genoa. Mutual hate waxed fiercer than ever; no merchant fleet of

either state could go to sea without convoy, and wherever their ships

met they fought.[5] It was something like the state of things between

Spain and England in the days of Drake.

[Illustration: Figures from St. Sabba’s, sent to Venice.]

The energy and capacity of the Genoese seemed to rise with their

success, and both in seamanship and in splendour they began almost

to surpass their old rivals. The fall of Acre (1291), and the total

expulsion of the Franks from Syria, in great measure barred the

southern routes of Indian trade, whilst the predominance of Genoa in

the Euxine more or less obstructed the free access of her rival to the

northern routes by Trebizond and Tana.

[Sidenote: Battle in Bay of Ayas in 1294.]

32. Truces were made and renewed, but the old fire still smouldered. In

the spring of 1294 it broke into flame, in consequence of the seizure

in the Grecian seas of three Genoese vessels by a Venetian fleet.

This led to an action with a Genoese convoy which sought redress. The

fight took place off Ayas in the Gulf of Scanderoon,[6] and though the

Genoese were inferior in strength by one-third they gained a signal

victory, capturing all but three of the Venetian galleys, with rich

cargoes, including that of Marco Basilio (or Basegio), the commodore.

This victory over their haughty foe was in its completeness evidently

a surprise to the Genoese, as well as a source of immense exultation,

which is vigorously expressed in a ballad of the day, written in a

stirring salt-water rhythm.[7] It represents the Venetians, as they

enter the bay, in arrogant mirth reviling the Genoese with very

unsavoury epithets as having deserted their ships to skulk on shore.

They are described as saying:—

“‘Off they’ve slunk! and left us nothing;

We shall get nor prize nor praise;

Nothing save those crazy timbers

Only fit to make a blaze.’”

So they advance carelessly—

“On they come! But lo their blunder!

When our lads start up anon,

Breaking out like unchained lions,

With a roar, ‘Fall on! Fall on!’”[8]

After relating the battle and the thoroughness of the victory, ending

in the conflagration of five-and-twenty captured galleys, the poet

concludes by an admonition to the enemy to moderate his pride and curb

his arrogant tongue, harping on the obnoxious epithet _porci leproxi_,

which seems to have galled the Genoese.[9] He concludes:—

“Nor can I at all remember

Ever to have heard the story

Of a fight wherein the Victors

Reaped so rich a meed of glory!”[10]

The community of Genoa decreed that the victory should be commemorated

by the annual presentation of a golden pall to the monastery of St.

German’s, the saint on whose feast (28th May) it had been won.[11]

The startling news was received at Venice with wrath and grief, for

the flower of their navy had perished, and all energies were bent at

once to raise an overwhelming force.[12] The Pope (Boniface VIII.)

interfered as arbiter, calling for plenipotentiaries from both sides.

But spirits were too much inflamed, and this mediation came to nought.

Further outrages on both sides occurred in 1296. The Genoese

residences at Pera were fired, their great alum works on the coast of

Anatolia were devastated, and Caffa was stormed and sacked; whilst

on the other hand a number of the Venetians at Constantinople were

massacred by the Genoese, and Marco Bembo, their Bailo, was flung from

a house-top. Amid such events the fire of enmity between the cities

waxed hotter and hotter.

[Sidenote: Lamba Doria’s Expedition to the Adriatic.]

33. In 1298 the Genoese made elaborate preparations for a great blow at

the enemy, and fitted out a powerful fleet which they placed under the

command of LAMBA DORIA, a younger brother of Uberto of that illustrious

house, under whom he had served fourteen years before in the great rout

of the Pisans at Meloria.

The rendezvous of the fleet was in the Gulf of Spezia, as we learn

from the same pithy Genoese poet who celebrated Ayas. This time the

Genoese were bent on bearding St. Mark’s Lion in his own den; and after

touching at Messina they steered straight for the Adriatic:—

“Now, as astern Otranto bears,

Pull with a will! and, please the Lord,

Let them who bragged, with fire and sword,

To waste our homesteads, look to theirs!”[13]

On their entering the gulf a great storm dispersed the fleet. The

admiral with twenty of his galleys got into port at Antivari on the

Albanian coast, and next day was rejoined by fifty-eight more, with

which he scoured the Dalmatian shore, plundering all Venetian property.

Some sixteen of his galleys were still missing when he reached the

island of Curzola, or Scurzola as the more popular name seems to have

been, the Black Corcyra of the Ancients—the chief town of which, a rich

and flourishing place, the Genoese took and burned.[14] Thus they were

engaged when word came that the Venetian fleet was in sight.

Venice, on first hearing of the Genoese armament, sent Andrea Dandolo

with a large force to join and supersede Maffeo Quirini, who was

already cruising with a squadron in the Ionian sea; and, on receiving

further information of the strength of the hostile expedition, the

Signory hastily equipped thirty-two more galleys in Chioggia and the

ports of Dalmatia, and despatched them to join Dandolo, making the

whole number under his command up to something like ninety-five.

Recent drafts had apparently told heavily upon the Venetian sources of

enlistment, and it is stated that many of the complements were made up

of rustics swept in haste from the Euganean hills. To this the Genoese

poet seems to allude, alleging that the Venetians, in spite of their

haughty language, had to go begging for men and money up and down

Lombardy. “Did _we_ do like that, think you?” he adds:—

“Beat up for aliens? _We_ indeed?

When lacked we homeborn Genoese?

Search all the seas, no salts like these,

For Courage, Seacraft, Wit at need.”[15]

Of one of the Venetian galleys, probably in the fleet which sailed

under Dandolo’s immediate command, went Marco Polo as _Sopracomito_ or

Gentleman-Commander.[16]

[Sidenote: The Fleets come in sight of each other at Curzola.]

34. It was on the afternoon of Saturday the 6th September that the

Genoese saw the Venetian fleet approaching, but, as sunset was not far

off, both sides tacitly agreed to defer the engagement.[17]

The Genoese would appear to have occupied a position near the eastern

end of the Island of Curzola, with the Peninsula of Sabbioncello behind

them, and Meleda on their left, whilst the Venetians advanced along the

south side of Curzola. (See map on p. _50_).

According to Venetian accounts the Genoese were staggered at the sight

of the Venetian armaments, and sent more than once to seek terms,

offering finally to surrender galleys and munitions of war, if the

crews were allowed to depart. This is an improbable story, and that

of the Genoese ballad seems more like truth. Doria, it says, held

a council of his captains in the evening at which they all voted

for attack, whilst the Venetians, with that overweening sense of

superiority which at this time is reflected in their own annals as

distinctly as in those of their enemies, kept scout-vessels out to

watch that the Genoese fleet, which they looked on as already their

own, did not steal away in the darkness. A vain imagination, says the

poet:—

“Blind error of vainglorious men

To dream that we should seek to flee

After those weary leagues of sea

Crossed, but to hunt them in their den!”[18]

[Sidenote: The Venetians defeated, and Marco Polo a prisoner.]

35. The battle began early on Sunday and lasted till the afternoon. The

Venetians had the wind in their favour, but the morning sun in their

eyes. They made the attack, and with great impetuosity, capturing ten

Genoese galleys; but they pressed on too wildly, and some of their

vessels ran aground. One of their galleys too, being taken, was cleared

of her crew and turned against the Venetians. These incidents caused

confusion among the assailants; the Genoese, who had begun to give

way, took fresh heart, formed a close column, and advanced boldly

through the Venetian line, already in disorder. The sun had begun

to decline when there appeared on the Venetian flank the fifteen or

sixteen missing galleys of Doria’s fleet, and fell upon it with fresh

force. This decided the action. The Genoese gained a complete victory,

capturing all but a few of the Venetian galleys, and including the

flagship with Dandolo. The Genoese themselves lost heavily, especially

in the early part of the action, and Lamba Doria’s eldest son Octavian

is said to have fallen on board his father’s vessel.[19] The number of

prisoners taken was over 7000, and among these was Marco Polo.[20]

[Illustration: Marco Polo’s Galley going into action at Curzola.

... “=il sembloit que la galie volast, par les nageurs qui la

contreingnoient aux avirons, et sembloit que foudre cheist des ciex,

au bruit que les pennonciaus menoient; et que les nacaires les tabours

et les cors sarrazinnois menoient, qui estoient en sa galie.=”

(_Joinville_, vide _ante_, p. 40.)]

The prisoners, even of the highest rank, appear to have been chained.

Dandolo, in despair at his defeat, and at the prospect of being carried

captive into Genoa, refused food, and ended by dashing his head against

a bench.[21] A Genoese account asserts that a noble funeral was given

him after the arrival of the fleet at Genoa, which took place on the

evening of the 16th October.[22] It was received with great rejoicing,

and the City voted the annual presentation of a pallium of gold brocade

to the altar of the Virgin in the Church of St. Matthew, on every

8th of September, the Madonna’s day, on the eve of which the Battle

had been won. To the admiral himself a Palace was decreed. It still

stands, opposite the Church of St. Matthew, though it has passed from

the possession of the Family. On the striped marble façades, both of

the Church and of the Palace, inscriptions of that age, in excellent

preservation, still commemorate Lamba’s achievement.[23] Malik al

Mansúr, the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt, as an enemy of Venice, sent a

complimentary letter to Doria accompanied by costly presents.[24]

[Illustration: Scene of the Battle of Curzola.]

[Illustration: Church of San Matteo, Genoa.]

The latter died at Savona 17th October, 1323, a few months before

the most illustrious of his prisoners, and his bones were laid in a

sarcophagus which may still be seen forming the sill of one of the

windows of S. Matteo (on the right as you enter). Over this sarcophagus

stood the Bust of Lamba till 1797, when the mob of Genoa, in idiotic

imitation of the French proceedings of that age, threw it down. All

of Lamba’s six sons had fought with him at Meloria. In 1291 one of

them, Tedisio, went forth into the Atlantic in company with Ugolino

Vivaldi on a voyage of discovery, and never returned. Through Cæsar,

the youngest, this branch of the Family still survives, bearing the

distinctive surname of _Lamba-Doria_.[25]

As to the treatment of the prisoners, accounts differ; a thing usual in

such cases. The Genoese Poet asserts that the hearts of his countrymen

were touched, and that the captives were treated with compassionate

courtesy. Navagiero the Venetian, on the other hand, declares that most

of them died of hunger.[26]

[Sidenote: Marco Polo in prison dictates his book to Rusticiano of

Pisa. Release of Venetian prisoners.]

36. Howsoever they may have been treated, here was Marco Polo one of

those many thousand prisoners in Genoa; and here, before long, he

appears to have made acquaintance with a man of literary propensities,

whose destiny had brought him into the like plight, by name RUSTICIANO

or RUSTICHELLO of Pisa. It was this person perhaps who persuaded

the Traveller to defer no longer the reduction to writing of his

notable experiences; but in any case it was he who wrote down those

experiences at Marco’s dictation; it is he therefore to whom we owe the

preservation of this record, and possibly even that of the Traveller’s

very memory. This makes the Genoese imprisonment so important an

episode in Polo’s biography.

To Rusticiano we shall presently recur. But let us first bring to

a conclusion what may be gathered as to the duration of Polo’s

imprisonment.

It does not appear whether Pope Boniface made any new effort for

accommodation between the Republics; but other Italian princes did

interpose, and Matteo Visconti, Captain-General of Milan, styling

himself Vicar-General of the Holy Roman Empire in Lombardy, was

accepted as Mediator, along with the community of Milan. Ambassadors

from both States presented themselves at that city, and on the 25th

May, 1299, they signed the terms of a Peace.

These terms were perfectly honourable to Venice, being absolutely

equal and reciprocal; from which one is apt to conclude that the

damage to the City of the Sea was rather to her pride than to her

power; the success of Genoa, in fact, having been followed up by no

systematic attack upon Venetian commerce.[27] Among the terms was the

mutual release of prisoners on a day to be fixed by Visconti after the

completion of all formalities. This day is not recorded, but as the

Treaty was ratified by the Doge of Venice on the 1st July, and the

latest extant document connected with the formalities appears to be

dated 18th July, we may believe that before the end of August Marco

Polo was restored to the family mansion in S. Giovanni Grisostomo.

[Sidenote: Grounds on which the story of Marco Polo’s capture at

Curzola rests.]

37. Something further requires to be said before quitting this event in

our Traveller’s life. For we confess that a critical reader may have

some justification in asking what evidence there is that Marco Polo

ever fought at Curzola, and ever was carried a prisoner to Genoa from

that unfortunate action?

A learned Frenchman, whom we shall have to quote freely in the

immediately ensuing pages, does not venture to be more precise in

reference to the meeting of Polo and Rusticiano than to say of the

latter: “In 1298, being in durance in the Prison of Genoa, he there

became acquainted with Marco Polo, whom the Genoese had deprived of his

liberty _from motives equally unknown_.”[28]

To those who have no relish for biographies that round the meagre

skeleton of authentic facts with a plump padding of what _might have

been_, this sentence of Paulin Paris is quite refreshing in its stern

limitation to positive knowledge. And certainly no contemporary

authority has yet been found for the capture of our Traveller at

Curzola. Still I think that the fact is beyond reasonable doubt.

Ramusio’s biographical notices certainly contain many errors of detail;

and some, such as the many years’ interval which he sets between the

Battle of Curzola and Marco’s return, are errors which a very little

trouble would have enabled him to eschew. But still it does seem

reasonable to believe that the main fact of Marco’s command of a galley

at Curzola, and capture there, was derived from a genuine tradition, if

not from documents.

Let us then turn to the words which close Rusticiano’s preamble (see

_post_, p. 2):—“Lequel (Messire Marc) puis demorant en le charthre de

Jene, fist retraire toutes cestes chouses a Messire Rustacians de Pise

que en celle meissme charthre estoit, au tens qu’il avoit 1298 anz que

Jezu eut vesqui.” These words are at least thoroughly consistent with

Marco’s capture at Curzola, as regards both the position in which they

present him, and the year in which he is thus presented.

There is however another piece of evidence, though it is curiously

indirect.

The Dominican Friar Jacopo of Acqui was a contemporary of Polo’s,

and was the author of a somewhat obscure Chronicle called _Imago

Mundi_.[29] Now this Chronicle does contain mention of Marco’s capture

in action by the Genoese, but attributes it to a different action

from Curzola, and one fought at a time when Polo could not have been

present. The passage runs as follows in a manuscript of the Ambrosian

Library, according to an extract given by Baldelli Boni:—

“In the year of Christ MCCLXXXXVI, in the time of Pope Boniface

VI., of whom we have spoken above, a battle was fought in Arminia,

at the place called Layaz, between xv. galleys of Genoese merchants

and xxv. of Venetian merchants; and after a great fight the galleys

of the Venetians were beaten, and (the crews) all slain or taken;

and among them was taken Messer Marco the Venetian, who was in

company with those merchants, and who was called _Milono_, which

is as much as to say ‘a thousand thousand pounds,’ for so goes

the phrase in Venice. So this Messer Marco Milono the Venetian,

with the other Venetian prisoners, is carried off to the prison

of Genoa, and there kept for a long time. This Messer Marco was a

long time with his father and uncle in Tartary, and he there saw

many things, and made much wealth, and also learned many things,

for he was a man of ability. And so, being in prison at Genoa,

he made a Book concerning the great wonders of the World, _i.e._,

concerning such of them as he had seen. And what he told in the

Book was not as much as he had really seen, because of the tongues

of detractors, who, being ready to impose their own lies on others,

are over hasty to set down as lies what they in their perversity

disbelieve, or do not understand. And because there are many great

and strange things in that Book, which are reckoned past all

credence, he was asked by his friends on his death-bed to correct

the Book by removing everything that went beyond the facts. To

which his reply was that he had not told _one-half_ of what he had

really seen!”[30]

This statement regarding the capture of Marco _at the Battle of

Ayas_ is one which cannot be true, for we know that he did not reach

Venice till 1295, travelling from Persia by way of Trebizond and the

Bosphorus, whilst the Battle of Ayas of which we have purposely given

some detail, was fought in May, 1294. The date MCCLXXXXVI assigned

to it in the preceding extract has given rise to some unprofitable

discussion. Could that date be accepted, no doubt it would enable us

also to accept this, the sole statement from the Traveller’s own age

of the circumstances which brought him into a Genoese prison; it would

enable us to place that imprisonment within a few months of his return

from the East, and to extend its duration to three years, points which

would thus accord better with the general tenor of Ramusio’s tradition

than the capture of Curzola. But the matter is not open to such a

solution. The date of the Battle of Ayas is not more doubtful than that

of the Battle of the Nile. It is clearly stated by several independent

chroniclers, and is carefully established in the Ballad that we have

quoted above.[31] We shall see repeatedly in the course of this Book

how uncertain are the transcriptions of dates in Roman numerals, and in

the present case the LXXXXVI is as certainly a mistake for LXXXXIV as

is Boniface VI. in the same quotation a mistake for Boniface VIII.

But though we cannot accept the statement that Polo was taken prisoner

at _Ayas, in the spring of 1294_, we may accept the passage as evidence

from a contemporary source that he was _taken prisoner in some

sea-fight with the Genoese_, and thus admit it in corroboration of the

Ramusian Tradition of his capture in a sea-fight at Curzola in 1298,

which is perfectly consistent with all other facts in our possession.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] In this part of these notices I am repeatedly indebted to _Heyd._

(See _supra_, p. 9.)

[2] On or close to the Hill called _Monjoie_; see the plan from Marino

Sanudo at p. 18.

[3] “Throughout that year there were not less than 40 machines all at

work upon the city of Acre, battering its houses and its towers,

and smashing and overthrowing everything within their range.

There were at least ten of those engines that shot stones so big

and heavy that they weighed a good 1500 lbs. by the weight of

Champagne; insomuch that nearly all the towers and forts of Acre

were destroyed, and only the religious houses were left. And there

were slain in this same war good 20,000 men on the two sides,

but chiefly of Genoese and Spaniards.” (_Lettre de Jean Pierre

Sarrasin_, in _Michel’s Joinville_, p. 308.)

[4] The origin of these columns is, however, somewhat uncertain. [See

_Cicogna_, I. p. 379.]

[5] In 1262, when a Venetian squadron was taken by the Greek fleet

in alliance with the Genoese, the whole of the survivors of the

captive crews were _blinded_ by order of Palaeologus. (_Roman._ ii.

272.)

[6] See pp. 16, 41, and Plan of Ayas at beginning of Bk. I.

[7] See _Archivio Storico Italiano_, Appendice, tom. iv.

[8]

_Niente ne resta a prender

Se no li corpi de li legni:

Preixi som senza difender;

De bruxar som tute degni!_

* * * *

_Como li fom aproximai

Queli si levan lantor

Como leon descaenai

Tuti criando_ “Alor! Alor!”

This _Alor! Alor!_ (“Up, Boys, and at ’em”), or something similar,

appears to have been the usual war-cry of both parties. So a

trumpet-like poem of the Troubadour warrior Bertram de Born, whom

Dante found in such evil plight below (xxviii. 118 _seqq._), in

which he sings with extraordinary spirit the joys of war:—

“=Ie us dic que tan no m’a sabor

Manjars, ni beure, ni dormir,

Cum a quant aug cridar,= ALOR!

=D’ambas la partz; et aug agnir

Cavals voits per l’ombratge=....”

“I tell you a zest far before

Aught of slumber, or drink, or of food,

I snatch when the shouts of ALOR

Ring from both sides: and out of the wood

Comes the neighing of steeds dimly seen....”

In a galley fight at Tyre in 1258, according to a Latin narrative,

the Genoese shout “Ad arma, ad arma! _ad ipsos, ad ipsos!_” The

cry of the Venetians before engaging the Greeks is represented

by Martino da Canale, in his old French, as “_or à yaus! or à

yaus!_” that of the Genoese on another occasion as _Aur! Aur!_ and

this last is the shout of the Catalans also in Ramon de Muntaner.

(_Villemain, Litt. du Moyen Age_, i. 99; _Archiv. Stor. Ital._

viii. 364, 506; _Pertz, Script._ xviii. 239; _Muntaner_, 269, 287.)

Recently in a Sicilian newspaper, narrating an act of gallant and

successful reprisal (only too rare) by country folk on a body of

the brigands who are such a scourge to parts of the island, I read

that the honest men in charging the villains raised a shout of “_Ad

iddi! Ad iddi!_”

[9] A phrase curiously identical, with a similar sequence, is

attributed to an Austrian General at the battle of Skalitz in 1866.

(_Stoffel’s Letters._)

[10]

_E no me posso aregordar

Dalcuno romanzo vertadê

Donde oyse uncha cointar

Alcun triumfo si sobré!_

[11] _Stella_ in _Muratori_, xvii. 984.

[12] _Dandulo_, Ibid. xii. 404–405.

[13]

_Or entram con gran vigor,

En De sperando aver triumpho,

Queli zerchando inter lo Gorfo

Chi menazeram zercha lor!_

And in the next verse note the pure Scotch use of the word _bra_:—

_Sichè da Otranto se partim

Quella bra compagnia,

Per assar in Ihavonia,

D’Avosto a vinte nove dì._

[14] The island of Curzola now counts about 4000 inhabitants; the town

half the number. It was probably reckoned a dependency of Venice

at this time. The King of Hungary had renounced his claims on the

Dalmatian coasts by treaty in 1244. (_Romanin_, ii. 235.) The

gallant defence of the place against the Algerines in 1571 won

for Curzola from the Venetian Senate the honourable title in all

documents of _fedelissima_. (_Paton’s Adriatic_, I. 47.)

[15]

_Ma sé si gran colmo avea

Perchè andava mendigando_

_Per terra de Lombardia

Peccunia, gente a sodi?

Pone mente tu che l’odi

Se noi tegnamo questa via?_

_No, ma’ più! ajamo omi nostrar

Destri, valenti, e avisti,

Che mai par de lor n’o visti

In tuti officj de mar._

[16] In July 1294, a Council of Thirty decreed that galleys should be

equipped by the richest families in proportion to their wealth.

Among the families held to equip one galley each, or one galley

among two or more, in this list, is the CA’ POLO. But this was

before the return of the travellers from the East, and just after

the battle of Ayas. (_Romanin_, ii. 332; this author misdates Ayas,

however.) When a levy was required in Venice for any expedition

the heads of each _contrada_ divided the male inhabitants, between

the ages of twenty and sixty, into groups of twelve each, called

_duodene_. The dice were thrown to decide who should go first on

service. He who went received five _lire_ a month from the State,

and one _lira_ from each of his colleagues in the _duodena_. Hence

his pay was sixteen _lire_ a month, about 2_s._ a day in silver

value, if these were _lire ai grossi_, or 1_s._ 4_d._ if _lire dei

piccoli_. (See _Romanin_, ii. 393–394.)

Money on such occasions was frequently raised by what was called an

_Estimo_ or _Facion_, which was a force loan levied on the citizens

in proportion to their estimated wealth; and for which they were

entitled to interest from the State.

[17] Several of the Italian chroniclers, as Ferreto of Vicenza and

Navagiero, whom Muratori has followed in his “Annals,” say the

battle was fought on the 8th September, the so-called Birthday of

the Madonna. But the inscription on the Church of St. Matthew at

Genoa, cited further on, says the 7th, and with this agree both

Stella and the Genoese poet. For the latter, though not specifying

the day of the month, says it was on a Sunday:—

“Lo di de Domenga era

Passa prima en l’ora bona

Stormezam fin provo nona

Con bataio forte e fera.”

Now the 7th September, 1298, fell on a Sunday.

[18]

_Ma li pensavam grande error

Che in fuga se fussem tuti metui

Che de si lonzi eram vegnui

Per cerchali a casa lor._

[19] “Note here that the Genoese generally, commonly, and by nature,

are the most covetous of Men, and the Love of Gain spurs them to

every Crime. Yet are they deemed also the most valiant Men in the

World. Such an one was Lampa, of that very Doria family, a man

of an high Courage truly. For when he was engaged in a Sea-Fight

against the Venetians, and was standing on the Poop of his Galley,

his Son, fighting valiantly at the Forecastle, was shot by an Arrow

in the Breast, and fell wounded to the Death; a Mishap whereat

his Comrades were sorely shaken, and Fear came upon the whole

Ship’s Company. But Lampa, hot with the Spirit of Battle, and more

mindful of his Country’s Service and his own Glory than of his Son,

ran forward to the spot, loftily rebuked the agitated Crowd, and

ordered his Son’s Body to be cast into the Deep, telling them for

their Comfort that the Land could never have afforded his Boy a

nobler Tomb. And then, renewing the Fight more fiercely than ever,

he achieved the Victory.” (_Benvenuto of Imola_, in _Comment. on

Dante, in Muratori, Antiq._ i. 1146.)

(“Yet like an English General will I die,

And all the Ocean make my spacious Grave;

Women and Cowards on the Land may lie,

The Sea’s the Tomb that’s proper for the Brave!”

—_Annus Mirabilis_.)

[20] The particulars of the battle are gathered from _Ferretus

Vicentinus_, in _Murat._ ix. 985 _seqq._; _And. Dandulo_, in xii.

407–408; _Navagiero_, in xxiii. 1009–1010; and the Genoese Poem as

before.

[21] _Navagiero_, u.s. Dandulo says, “after a few days he died of

grief”; Ferretus, that he was killed in the action and buried at

Curzola.

[22] For the funeral, a MS. of Cibo Recco quoted by _Jacopo Doria_ in

_La Chiesa di San Matteo descritta_, etc., Genova, 1860, p. 26. For

the date of arrival the poem so often quoted:—

“_De Oitover_, a zoia, _a seze di_

Lo nostro ostel, con gran festa

En nostro porto, a or di sesta

Domine De restitui.”

[23] S. Matteo was built by Martin Doria in 1125, but pulled down

and rebuilt by the family in a slightly different position in

1278. On this occasion is recorded a remarkable anticipation of

the feats of American engineering: “As there was an ancient and

very fine picture of Christ upon the apse of the Church, it was

thought a great pity that so fine a work should be destroyed. And

so they contrived an ingenious method by which the apse bodily was

transported without injury, picture and all, for a distance of 25

ells, and firmly set upon the foundations where it now exists.”

(_Jacopo de Varagine_ in _Muratori_, vol. ix. 36.)

The inscription on S. Matteo regarding the battle is as

follows:—“_Ad Honorem Dei et Beate Virginis Marie Anno MCCLXXXXVIII

Die Dominico VII Septembris iste Angelus captus fuit in Gulfo

Venetiarum in Civitate Scursole et ibidem fuit prelium Galearum

LXXVI Januensium cum Galeis LXXXXVI Veneciarum. Capte fuerunt

LXXXIIII per Nobilem Virum Dominum Lambam Aurie Capitaneum et

Armiratum tunc Comunis et Populi Janue cum omnibus existentibus

in eisdem, de quibus conduxit Janue homines vivos carceratos VII

cccc et Galeas XVIII, reliquas LXVI fecit cumburi in dicto Gulfo

Veneciarum. Qui obiit Sagone I. MCCCXXIII._” It is not clear to

what the _Angelus_ refers.

[24] _Rampoldi, Ann. Musulm._ ix. 217.

[25] _Jacopo Doria_, p. 280.

[26] _Murat._ xxiii. 1010. I learn from a Genoese gentleman, through

my friend Professor Henry Giglioli (to whose kindness I owe the

transcript of the inscription just given), that a faint tradition

exists as to the place of our traveller’s imprisonment. It is

alleged to have been a massive building, standing between the

_Grazie_ and the Mole, and bearing the name of the _Malapaga_,

which is now a barrack for Doganieri, but continued till

comparatively recent times to be used as a civil prison. “It is

certain,” says my informant, “that men of fame in arms who had

fallen into the power of the Genoese _were_ imprisoned there, and

among others is recorded the name of the Corsican Giudice dalla

Rocca and Lord of Cinarca, who died there in 1312;” a date so

near that of Marco’s imprisonment as to give some interest to the

hypothesis, slender as are its grounds. Another Genoese, however,

indicates as the scene of Marco’s captivity certain old prisons

near the Old Arsenal, in a site still known as the _Vico degli

Schiavi_. (_Celesia, Dante in Liguria_, 1865, p. 43.) [Was not the

place of Polo’s captivity the basement of the _Palazzo del Capitan

del Popolo_, afterwards _Palazzo del Comune al Mare_, where the

Customs (_Dogana_) had their office, and from the 15th century the

_Casa_ or _Palazzo di S. Giorgio?_—H. C.]

[27] The Treaty and some subsidiary documents are printed in the

Genoese _Liber Jurium_, forming a part of the _Monumenta Historiae

Patriae_, published at Turin. (See _Lib. Jur._ II. 344, _seqq._)

Muratori in his Annals has followed John Villani (Bk. VIII. ch. 27)

in representing the terms as highly unfavourable to Venice. But for

this there is no foundation in the documents. And the terms are

stated with substantial accuracy in Navagiero. (_Murat. Script._

xxiii. 1011.)

[28] _Paulin Paris, Les Manuscrits François de la Bibliothèque du Roi_,

ii. 355.

[29] Though there is no precise information as to the birth or death

of this writer, who belonged to a noble family of Lombardy, the

Bellingeri, he can be traced with tolerable certainty as in life in

1289, 1320, and 1334. (See the Introduction to his Chronicle in the

Turin _Monumentà_, _Scriptores_ III.)

[30] There is another MS. of the _Imago Mundi_ at Turin, which has

been printed in the _Monumenta_. The passage about Polo in that

copy differs widely in wording, is much shorter, and contains no

date. But it relates his capture as having taken place at _Là

Glazà_, which I think there can be no doubt is also intended for

Ayas (sometimes called _Giàzza_), a place which in fact is called

_Glaza_ in three of the MSS. of which various readings are given in

the edition of the Société de Géographie (p. 535).

[31]

“_E per meio esse aregordenti

De si grande scacho mato

Correa mille duxenti

Zonto ge novanta e quatro._”

The Armenian Prince Hayton or Héthum has put it under 1293. (See

_Langlois, Mém. sur les Relations de Gênes avec la Petite-Arménie_.)

VII. RUSTICIANO OR RUSTICHELLO OF PISA, MARCO POLO’S FELLOW-PRISONER

AT GENOA, THE SCRIBE WHO WROTE DOWN THE TRAVELS.

38. We have now to say something of that Rusticiano to whom all who

value Polo’s book are so much indebted.

[Sidenote: Rusticiano, perhaps a prisoner from Meloria.]

The relations between Genoa and Pisa had long been so hostile that it

was only too natural in 1298 to find a Pisan in the gaol of Genoa. An

unhappy multitude of such prisoners had been carried thither fourteen

years before, and the survivors still lingered there in vastly dwindled

numbers. In the summer of 1284 was fought the battle from which Pisa

had to date the commencement of her long decay. In July of that year

the Pisans, at a time when the Genoese had no fleet in their own

immediate waters, had advanced to the very port of Genoa and shot their

defiance into the proud city in the form of silver-headed arrows, and

stones belted with scarlet.[1] They had to pay dearly for this insult.

The Genoese, recalling their cruisers, speedily mustered a fleet of

eighty-eight galleys, which were placed under the command of another of

that illustrious House of Doria, the Scipios of Genoa as they have been

called, Uberto, the elder brother of Lamba. Lamba himself with his six

sons, and another brother, was in the fleet, whilst the whole number of

Dorias who fought in the ensuing action amounted to 250, most of them

on board one great galley bearing the name of the family patron, St.

Matthew.[2]

The Pisans, more than one-fourth inferior in strength, came out boldly,

and the battle was fought off the Porto Pisano, in fact close in front

of Leghorn, where a lighthouse on a remarkable arched basement still

marks the islet of MELORIA, whence the battle got its name. The day

was the 6th of August, the feast of St. Sixtus, a day memorable in

the Pisan Fasti for several great victories. But on this occasion the

defeat of Pisa was overwhelming. Forty of their galleys were taken or

sunk, and upwards of 9000 prisoners carried to Genoa. In fact so vast

a sweep was made of the flower of Pisan manhood that it was a common

saying then: “_Che vuol veder Pisa, vada a Genova_!” Many noble ladies

of Pisa went in large companies on foot to Genoa to seek their husbands

or kinsmen: “And when they made enquiry of the Keepers of the Prisons,

the reply would be, ‘Yesterday there died thirty of them, to-day there

have died forty; all of whom we have cast into the sea; and so it is

daily.’”[3]

[Illustration: Seal of the Pisan Prisoners.]

A body of prisoners so numerous and important naturally exerted

themselves in the cause of peace, and through their efforts, after many

months of negotiation, a formal peace was signed (15th April, 1288).

But through the influence, as was alleged, of Count Ugolino (Dante’s)

who was then in power at Pisa, the peace became abortive; war almost

immediately recommenced, and the prisoners had no release.[4] And,

when the 6000 or 7000 Venetians were thrown into the prisons of Genoa

in October 1298, they would find there the scanty surviving remnant

of the Pisan Prisoners of Meloria, and would gather from them dismal

forebodings of the fate before them.

It is a fair conjecture that to that remnant Rusticiano of Pisa may

have belonged.

We have seen Ramusio’s representation of the kindness shown to Marco

during his imprisonment by a certain Genoese gentleman who also

assisted him to reduce his travels to writing. We may be certain

that this Genoese gentleman is only a distorted image of Rusticiano,

the Pisan prisoner in the gaol of Genoa, whose name and part in the

history of his hero’s book Ramusio so strangely ignores. Yet patriotic

Genoese writers in our own times have striven to determine the identity

of this their imaginary countryman![5]

[Sidenote: Rusticiano, a person known from other sources.]

39. Who, then, was Rusticiano, or, as the name actually is read in the

oldest type of MS., “Messire Rustacians de Pise”?

Our knowledge of him is but scanty. Still something is known of him

besides the few words concluding his preamble to our Traveller’s Book,

which you may read at pp. 1–2 of the body of this volume.

In Sir Walter Scott’s “Essay on Romance,” when he speaks of the new

mould in which the subjects of the old metrical stories were cast by

the school of prose romancers which arose in the 13th century, we find

the following words:—

“Whatever fragments or shadows of true history may yet remain

hidden under the mass of accumulated fable which had been heaped

upon them during successive ages, must undoubtedly be sought in

the metrical romances.... But those prose authors who wrote under

the imaginary names of RUSTICIEN DE PISE, Robert de Borron, and

the like, usually seized upon the subject of some old minstrel;

and recomposing the whole narrative after their own fashion, with

additional character and adventure, totally obliterated in that

operation any shades which remained of the original and probably

authentic tradition,” &c.[6]

Evidently, therefore, Sir Walter regarded Rustician of Pisa as a person

belonging to the same ghostly company as his own Cleishbothams and

Dryasdusts. But in this we see that he was wrong.

In the great Paris Library and elsewhere there are manuscript volumes

containing the stories of the Round Table abridged and somewhat

clumsily combined from the various Prose Romances of that cycle,

such as _Sir Tristan_, _Lancelot_, _Palamedes_, _Giron le Courtois_,

&c., which had been composed, it would seem, by various Anglo-French

gentlemen at the court of Henry III., styled, or styling themselves,

Gasses le Blunt, Luces du Gast, Robert de Borron, and Hélis de Borron.

And these abridgments or recasts are professedly the work of _Le

Maistre Rusticien de Pise_. Several of them were printed at Paris in

the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries as the works of

Rusticien de Pise; and as the preambles and the like, especially in the

form presented in those printed editions, appear to be due sometimes to

the original composers (as Robert and Hélis de Borron) and sometimes to

Rusticien de Pise the recaster, there would seem to have been a good

deal of confusion made in regard to their respective personalities.

From a preamble to one of those compilations which undoubtedly belongs

to Rustician, and which we shall quote at length by and bye, we learn

that Master Rustician “translated” (or perhaps _transferred?_) his

compilation from a book belonging to King Edward of England, at the

time when that prince went beyond seas to recover the Holy Sepulchre.

Now Prince Edward started for the Holy Land in 1270, spent the winter

of that year in Sicily, and arrived in Palestine in May 1271. He

quitted it again in August, 1272, and passed again by Sicily, where in

January, 1273, he heard of his father’s death and his own consequent

accession. Paulin Paris supposes that Rustician was attached to the

Sicilian Court of Charles of Anjou, and that Edward “may have deposited

with that king the Romances of the Round Table, of which all the

world was talking, but the manuscripts of which were still very rare,

especially those of the work of Helye de Borron[7] ... whether by

order, or only with permission of the King of Sicily, our Rustician

made haste to read, abridge, and re-arrange the whole, and when Edward

returned to Sicily he recovered possession of the book from which the

indefatigable Pisan had extracted the contents.”

But this I believe is, in so far as it passes the facts stated in

Rustician’s own preamble, pure hypothesis, for nothing is cited that

connects Rustician with the King of Sicily. And if there be not some

such confusion of personality as we have alluded to, in another of the

preambles, which is quoted by Dunlop as an utterance of Rustician’s,

that personage would seem to claim to have been a comrade in arms of

the two de Borrons. We might, therefore, conjecture that Rustician

himself had accompanied Prince Edward to Syria.[8]

[Sidenote: Character of Rustician’s Romance compilations.]

40. Rustician’s literary work appears from the extracts and remarks of

Paulin Paris to be that of an industrious simple man, without method

or much judgment. “The haste with which he worked is too perceptible;

the adventures are told without connection; you find long stories of

Tristan followed by adventures of his father Meliadus.” For the latter

derangement of historical sequence we find a quaint and ingenuous

apology offered in Rustician’s epilogue to Giron le Courtois:—

“Cy fine le Maistre Rusticien de Pise son conte en louant et

regraciant le Père le Filz et le Saint Esperit, et ung mesme Dieu,

Filz de la Benoiste Vierge Marie, de ce qu’il m’a doné grace, sens,

force, et mémoire, temps et lieu, de me mener à fin de si haulte

et si noble matière come ceste-cy dont j’ay traicté les faiz et

proesses recitez et recordez à mon livre. Et se aucun me demandoit

pour quoy j’ay parlé de Tristan avant que de son père le Roy

Meliadus, je respons que ma matière n’estoist pas congneue. Car je

ne puis pas scavoir tout, ne mettre toutes mes paroles par ordre.

Et ainsi fine mon conte. Amen.”[9]

In a passage of these compilations the Emperor Charlemagne is asked

whether in his judgment King Meliadus or his son Tristan were the

better man? The Emperor’s answer is: “I should say that the King

Meliadus was the better man, and I will tell you why I say so. As far

as I can see, everything that Tristan did was done for Love, and his

great feats would never have been done but under the constraint of

Love, which was his spur and goad. Now that never can be said of King

Meliadus! For what deeds he did, he did them not by dint of Love, but

by dint of his strong right arm. Purely out of his own goodness he

did good, and not by constraint of Love.” “It will be seen,” remarks

on this Paulin Paris, “that we are here a long way removed from the

ordinary principles of Round Table Romances. And one thing besides will

be manifest, viz., that Rusticien de Pise was no Frenchman!”[10]

The same discretion is shown even more prominently in a passage of one

of his compilations, which contains the romances of Arthur, Gyron, and

Meliadus (No. 6975—see last note but one):—

“No doubt,” Rustician says, “other books tell the story of the

Queen Ginevra and Lancelot differently from this; and there were

certain passages between them of which the Master, in his concern

for the honour of both those personages, will say not a word.”

Alas, says the French Bibliographer, that the copy of Lancelot,

which fell into the hands of poor Francesca of Rimini, was not one

of those _expurgated_ by our worthy friend Rustician![11]

[Sidenote: Identity of the Romance Compiler with Polo’s

fellow-prisoner.]

41. A question may still occur to an attentive reader as to the

identity of this Romance-compiler Rusticien de Pise with the Messire

_Rustacians de Pise_, of a solitary MS. of Polo’s work (though the

oldest and most authentic), a name which appears in other copies as

_Rusta Pisan_, _Rasta Pysan_, _Rustichelus Civis Pisanus_, _Rustico_,

_Restazio da Pisa_, _Stazio da Pisa_, and who is stated in the preamble

to have acted as the Traveller’s scribe at Genoa.

M. Pauthier indeed[12] asserts that the French of the MS. Romances

of Rusticien de Pise is of the same barbarous character as that of

the early French MS. of Polo’s Book to which we have just alluded,

and which we shall show to be the nearest presentation of the work as

originally dictated by the Traveller. The language of the latter MS. is

so peculiar that this would be almost perfect evidence of the identity

of the writers, if it were really the fact. A cursory inspection which

I have made of two of those MSS. in Paris, and the extracts which

I have given and am about to give, do not, however, by any means

support M. Pauthier’s view. Nor would that view be consistent with the

judgment of so competent an authority as Paulin Paris, implied in his

calling Rustician a _nom recommandable_ in old French literature, and

his speaking of him as “versed in the secrets of the French Romance

Tongue.”[13] In fact the difference of language in the two cases would

really be a difficulty in the way of identification, if there were room

for doubt. This, however, Paulin Paris seems to have excluded finally,

by calling attention to the peculiar formula of preamble which is

common to the Book of Marco Polo and to one of the Romance compilations

of Rusticien de Pise.

The former will be found in English at pp. 1, 2, of our Translation;

but we give a part of the original below[14] for comparison with the

preamble to the Romances of Meliadus, Tristan, and Lancelot, as taken

from MS. 6961 (Fr. 340) of the Paris Library:—

“_Seigneurs Empereurs et Princes, Ducs et Contes et Barons et

Chevaliers et Vavasseurs et Bourgeois, et tous les preudommes de

cestui monde qui avez talent de vous deliter en rommans, si prenez

cestui (livre) et le faites lire de chief en chief, si orrez toutes

les grans aventure_ qui advindrent entre les Chevaliers errans

du temps au Roy Uter Pendragon, jusques à le temps au Roy Artus

son fils, et des compaignons de la Table Ronde. Et sachiez tout

vraiment que cist livres fust translatez du livre Monseigneur

Edouart le Roy d’Engleterre en cellui temps qu’il passa oultre la

mer au service nostre Seigneur Damedieu pour conquester le Sant

Sepulcre, et Maistre Rusticiens de Pise, lequel est ymaginez yci

dessus,[15] compila ce rommant, car il en translata toutes les

merveilleuses nouvelles et aventures qu’il trouva en celle livre

et traita tout certainement de toutes les aventures du monde, et

si sachiez qu’il traitera plus de Monseigneur Lancelot du Lac, et

Monsʳ Tristan le fils au Roy Meliadus de Leonnoie que d’autres,

porcequ’ilz furent sans faille les meilleurs chevaliers qui à ce

temps furent en terre; et li Maistres en dira de ces deux pluseurs

choses et pluseurs nouvelles que l’en treuvera escript en tous les

autres livres; et porce que le Maistres les trouva escript au Livre

d’Engleterre.”

[Illustration: Palazzo di S. Giorgio Genoa.]

“Certainly,” Paulin Paris observes, “there is a singular analogy

between these two prefaces. And it must be remarked that the formula is

not an ordinary one with translators, compilers, or authors of the 13th

and 14th centuries. Perhaps you would not find a single other example

of it.”[16]

This seems to place beyond question the identity of the

Romance-compiler of Prince Edward’s suite in 1270, and the Prisoner of

Genoa in 1298.

[Sidenote: Further particulars concerning Rustician.]

42. In Dunlop’s History of Fiction a passage is quoted from the

preamble of _Meliadus_, as set forth in the Paris printed edition of

1528, which gives us to understand that Rusticien de Pise had received

as a reward for some of his compositions from King Henry III. the

prodigal gift of two _chateaux_. I gather, however, from passages in

the work of Paulin Paris that this must certainly be one of those

confusions of persons to which I have referred before, and that the

recipient of the chateaux was in reality Helye de Borron, the author of

some of the originals which Rustician manipulated.[17] This supposed

incident in Rustician’s scanty history must therefore be given up.

We call this worthy _Rustician_ or _Rusticiano_, as the nearest

probable representation in Italian form of the _Rusticien_ of the

Round-Table MSS. and the _Rustacians_ of the old text of Polo. But

it is highly probable that his real name was _Rustichello_, as is

suggested by the form _Rustichelus_ in the early Latin version

published by the _Société de Géographie_. The change of one liquid for

another never goes for much in Italy,[18] and Rustichello might easily

Gallicize himself as Rusticien. In a very long list of Pisan officials

during the Middle Ages I find several bearing the name of _Rustichello_

or _Rustichelli_, but no _Rusticiano_ or _Rustigiano_.[19]

Respecting him we have only to add that the peace between Genoa and

Venice was speedily followed by a treaty between Genoa and Pisa. On the

31st July, 1299, a truce for twenty-five years was signed between those

two Republics. It was a very different matter from that between Genoa

and Venice, and contained much that was humiliating and detrimental to

Pisa. But it embraced the release of prisoners; and those of Meloria,

reduced it is said to less than one tithe of their original number,

had their liberty at last. Among the prisoners then released no doubt

Rustician was one. But we hear of him no more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] _B. Marangone, Croniche della C. di Pisa_, in _Rerum Ital. Script._

of _Tartini_, Florence, 1748, i. 563; _Dal Borgo, Dissert. sopra

l’Istoria Pisana_, ii. 287.

[2] The list of the whole number is preserved in the Doria archives,

and has been published by Sign. Jacopo D’Oria. Many of the

Baptismal names are curious, and show how far sponsors wandered

from the Church Calendar. _Assan, Alton, Turco, Soldan_ seem to

come of the constant interest in the East. _Alaone_, a name which

remained in the family for several generations, I had thought

certainly borrowed from the fierce conqueror of the Khalif

(_infra_, p. 63). But as one Alaone, present at this battle, had a

son also there, he must surely have been christened before the

fame of Hulaku could have reached Genoa. (See _La Chiesa di S.

Matteo_, pp. 250, _seqq._)

In documents of the kingdom of Jerusalem there are names still more

anomalous, _e.g._, _Gualterius Baffumeth_, _Joannes Mahomet_. (See

_Cod. Dipl. del Sac. Milit. Ord. Gerosol._ I. 2–3, 62.)

[3] _Memorial. Potestat. Regiens._ in _Muratori_, viii. 1162.

[4] See _Fragm. Hist. Pisan._ in _Muratori_, xxiv. 651, _seqq._; and

_Caffaro_, _id._ vi. 588, 594–595. The cut in the text represents

a striking memorial of those Pisan Prisoners, which perhaps

still survives, but which at any rate existed last century in a

collection at Lucca. It is the seal of the prisoners as a body

corporate: SIGILLUM UNIVERSITATIS CARCERATORUM PISANORUM JANUE

DETENTORUM, and was doubtless used in their negotiations for peace

with the Genoese Commissioners. It represents two of the prisoners

imploring the Madonna, Patron of the Duomo at Pisa. It is from

_Manni, Osserv. Stor. sopra Sigilli Antichi_, etc., Firenze, 1739,

tom. xii. The seal is also engraved in _Dal Borgo_, _op. cit._ ii.

316.

[5] The Abate Spotorno in his _Storia Letteraria della Liguria_, II.

219, fixes on a Genoese philosopher called Andalo del Negro,

mentioned by Boccaccio.

[6] I quote from Galignani’s ed. of Prose Works, v. 712. This has

“Rusticien de _Puise_.” In this view of the fictitious character of

the names of Rusticien and the rest, Sir Walter seems to have been

following Ritson, as I gather from a quotation in Dunlop’s H. of

Fiction. (_Liebrecht’s_ German Version, p. 63.)

[7] _Giron le Courtois_, and the conclusion of _Tristan_.

[8] The passage runs thus as quoted (from the preamble of the

_Meliadus_—I suspect in one of the old printed editions):—

“Aussi Luces du Gau (Gas) translata en langue Françoise une

partie de l’Hystoire de Monseigneur Tristan, et moins assez qu’il

ne deust. Moult commença bien son livre et si ny mist tout les

faicts de Tristan, ains la greigneur partie. Après s’en entremist

Messire Gasse le Blond, qui estoit parent au Roy Henry, et divisa

l’Hystoire de Lancelot du Lac, et d’autre chose ne parla il mye

grandement en son livre. Messire Robert de Borron s’en entremist

et Helye de Borron, par la prière du dit Robert de Borron, _et

pource que compaignons feusmes d’armes longuement_, je commencay

mon livre,” etc. (_Liebrecht’s Dunlop_, p. 80.) If this passage be

authentic it would set beyond doubt the age of the de Borrons and

the other writers of Anglo-French Round Table Romances, who are

placed by the _Hist. Littéraire de la France_, and apparently by

Fr. Michel, under Henry II. I have no means of pursuing the matter,

and have preferred to follow Paulin Paris, who places them under

Henry III. I notice, moreover, that the _Hist. Litt._ (xv. p. 498)

puts not only the de Borrons but Rustician himself under Henry II.;

and, as the last view is certainly an error, the first is probably

so too.

[9] Transc. from MS. 6975 (now Fr. 355) of Paris Library.

[10] _MSS. François_, iii. 60–61.

[11] _Ibid._ 56–59.

[12] _Introd._ pp. lxxxvi.–vii. note.

[13] See _Jour. As._ sér. II. tom. xii. p. 251.

[14] “_Seignors Enperaor, & Rois, Dux & Marquois, Cuens, Chevaliers

& Bargions_ [for Borgiois] _& toutes gens qe uoles sauoir les

deuerses jenerasions des homes_, & les deuersités des deuerses

region dou monde, _si prennés cestui liure & le feites lire & chi

trouerés toutes les grandismes meruoilles_,” etc.

[15] The portrait of Rustician here referred to would have been a

precious illustration for our book. But unfortunately it has not

been transferred to MS. 6961, nor apparently to any other noticed

by Paulin Paris.

[16] _Jour. As._ as above.

[17] See _Liebrecht’s Dunlop_, p. 77; and _MSS. François_, II. 349,

353. The alleged gift to Rustician is also put forth by D’Israeli

the Elder in his _Amenities of Literature_, 1841, I. p. 103.

[18] _E.g._ Geronimo, _Girolamo_; and garofalo, _garofano_; Cristoforo,

_Cristovalo_; gonfalone, _gonfanone_, etc.

[19] See the List in _Archivio Stor. Ital._ VI. p. 64, _seqq._

VIII. NOTICES OF MARCO POLO’S HISTORY, AFTER THE TERMINATION

OF HIS IMPRISONMENT AT GENOA.

43. A few very disconnected notices are all that can be collected of

matter properly biographical in relation to the quarter century during

which Marco Polo survived the Genoese captivity.

[Sidenote: Death of Marco’s Father before 1300. Will of his brother

Maffeo.]

We have seen that he would probably reach Venice in the course of

August, 1299. Whether he found his aged father alive is not known; but

we know at least that a year later (31st August, 1300) Messer Nicolo

was no longer in life.

This we learn from the Will of the younger Maffeo, Marco’s brother,

which bears the date just named, and of which we give an abstract

below.[1] It seems to imply strong regard for the testator’s brother

Marco, who is made inheritor of the bulk of the property, failing the

possible birth of a son. I have already indicated some conjectural

deductions from this document. I may add that the terms of the second

clause, as quoted in the note, seem to me to throw considerable doubt

on the genealogy which bestows a large family of sons upon this brother

Maffeo. If he lived to have such a family it seems improbable that the

draft which he thus left in the hands of a notary, to be converted into

a Will in the event of his death (a curious example of the validity

attaching to all acts of notaries in those days), should never have

been superseded, but should actually have been so converted after his

death, as the existence of the parchment seems to prove. But for this

circumstance we might suppose the Marcolino mentioned in the ensuing

paragraph to have been a son of the younger Maffeo.

Messer Maffeo, the uncle, was, we see, alive at this time. We do not

know the year of his death. But it is alluded to by Friar Pipino in the

Preamble to his Translation of the Book, supposed to have been executed

about 1315–1320; and we learn from a document in the Venetian archives

(see p. 77) that it must have been previous to 1318, and subsequent

to February 1309, the date of his last Will. The Will itself is not

known to be extant, but from the reference to it in this document we

learn that he left 1000 _lire_ of public debt[2] (_? imprestitorum_)

to a certain Marco Polo, called _Marcolino_. The relationship of this

Marco to old Maffeo is not stated, but we may suspect him to have been

an illegitimate son. [Marcolino was a son of Nicolo, son of Marco the

Elder; see vol. ii., _Calendar_, No. 6.—H. C.]

[Sidenote: Documentary notices of Polo at this time. The sobriquet of

Milione.]

44. In 1302 occurs what was at first supposed to be a glimpse of

Marco as a citizen, slight and quaint enough; being a resolution on

the Books of the Great Council to exempt the respectable Marco Polo

from the penalty incurred by him on account of the omission to have

his water-pipe duly inspected. But since our Marco’s claims to the

designation of _Nobilis Vir_ have been established, there is a doubt

whether the _providus vir_ or _prud’-homme_ here spoken of may not have

been rather his namesake Marco Polo of Cannareggio or S. Geremia, of

whose existence we learn from another entry of the same year.[3] It is,

however, possible that Marco the Traveller was called to the Great

Council _after_ the date of the document in question.

We have seen that the Traveller, and after him his House and his Book,

acquired from his contemporaries the surname, or nickname rather, of

_Il Milione_. Different writers have given different explanations

of the origin of this name; some, beginning with his contemporary

Fra Jacopo d’Acqui, (_supra_, p. _54_), ascribing it to the family’s

having brought home a fortune of a million of _lire_, in fact to their

being _millionaires_. This is the explanation followed by Sansovino,

Marco Barbaro, Coronelli, and others.[4] More far-fetched is that of

Fontanini, who supposes the name to have been given to the Book as

containing a great number of stories, like the _Cento Novelle_ or the

_Thousand and One Nights!_ But there can be no doubt that Ramusio’s

is the true, as it is the natural, explanation; and that the name was

bestowed on Marco by the young wits of his native city, because of

his frequent use of a word which appears to have been then unusual,

in his attempts to convey an idea of the vast wealth and magnificence

of the Kaan’s Treasury and Court.[5] Ramusio has told us (_supra_, p.

_6_) that he had seen Marco styled by this sobriquet in the Books of

the Signory; and it is pleasant to be able to confirm this by the next

document which we cite. This is an extract from the Books of the Great

Council under 10th April, 1305, condoning the offence of a certain

Bonocio of Mestre in smuggling wine, for whose penalty one of the

sureties had been the NOBILIS VIR MARCHUS PAULO MILIONI.[6]

It is alleged that long after our Traveller’s death there was always,

in the Venetian Masques, one individual who assumed the character of

Marco Milioni, and told Munchausenlike stories to divert the vulgar.

Such, if this be true, was the honour of our prophet among the populace

of his own country.[7]

45. A little later we hear of Marco once more, as presenting a copy of

his Book to a noble Frenchman in the service of Charles of Valois.

[Sidenote: Polo’s relations with Thibault de Cepoy.]

This Prince, brother of Philip the Fair, in 1301 had married Catharine,

daughter and heiress of Philip de Courtenay, titular Emperor of

Constantinople, and on the strength of this marriage had at a later

date set up his own claim to the Empire of the East. To this he was

prompted by Pope Clement V., who in the beginning of 1306 wrote to

Venice, stimulating that Government to take part in the enterprise. In

the same year, Charles and his wife sent as their envoys to Venice, in

connection with this matter, a noble knight called THIBAULT DE CEPOY,

along with an ecclesiastic of Chartres called Pierre le Riche, and

these two succeeded in executing a treaty of alliance with Venice,

of which the original, dated 14th December, 1306, exists at Paris.

Thibault de Cepoy eventually went on to Greece with a squadron of

Venetian Galleys, but accomplished nothing of moment, and returned to

his master in 1310.[8]

[Illustration: Miracle of S. Lorenzo.]

During the stay of Thibault at Venice he seems to have made

acquaintance with Marco Polo, and to have received from him a copy

of his Book. This is recorded in a curious note which appears on two

existing MSS. of Polo’s Book, viz., that of the Paris Library (10,270

or Fr. 5649), and that of Bern, which is substantially identical in its

text with the former, and is, as I believe, a copy of it.[9] The note

runs as follows:—

“Here you have the Book of which My Lord THIEBAULT, Knight and LORD

OF CEPOY, (whom may God assoil!) requested a copy from SIRE MARC

POL, Burgess and Resident of the City of Venice. And the said Sire

Marc Pol, being a very honourable Person, of high character and

respect in many countries, because of his desire that what he had

witnessed should be known throughout the World, and also for the

honour and reverence he bore to the most excellent and puissant

Prince my Lord CHARLES, Son of the King of France and COUNT OF

VALOIS, gave and presented to the aforesaid Lord of Cepoy the first

copy (that was taken) of his said Book after he had made the same.

And very pleasing it was to him that his Book should be carried

to the noble country of France and there made known by so worthy

a gentleman. And from that copy which the said Messire Thibault,

Sire de Cepoy above-named, did carry into France, Messire John, who

was his eldest son and is the present Sire de Cepoy,[10] after his

Father’s decease did have a copy made, and that very first copy

that was made of the Book after its being carried into France he

did present to his very dear and dread Lord Monseigneur de Valois.

Thereafter he gave copies of it to such of his friends as asked for

them.

“And the copy above-mentioned was presented by the said Sire Marc

Pol to the said Lord de Cepoy when the latter went to Venice, on

the part of Monseigneur de Valois and of Madame the Empress his

wife, as Vicar General for them both in all the Territories of the

Empire of Constantinople. And this happened in the year of the

Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ one thousand three hundred and

seven, and in the month of August.”

Of the bearings of this memorandum on the literary history of Polo’s

Book we shall speak in a following section.

[Sidenote: His marriage and his daughters. Marco as a merchant.]

46. When Marco married we have not been able to ascertain, but it was

no doubt early in the 14th century, for in 1324, we find that he had

two married daughters besides one unmarried. His wife’s Christian name

was _Donata_, but of her family we have as yet found no assurance. I

suspect, however, that her name may have been Loredano (_vide infra_,

p. _77_).

Under 1311 we find a document which is of considerable interest,

because it is the only one yet discovered which exhibits Marco under

the aspect of a practical trader. It is the judgment of the Court of

Requests upon a suit brought by the NOBLE MARCO POLO of the parish of

S. Giovanni Grisostomo against one Paulo Girardo of S. Apollinare. It

appears that Marco had entrusted to the latter as a commission agent

for sale, on an agreement for half profits, a pound and a half of

musk, priced at six _lire of grossi_ (about 22_l._ 10_s._ in value of

silver) the pound. Girardo had sold half-a-pound at that rate, and the

remaining pound which he brought back was deficient of a _saggio_, or,

one-sixth of an ounce, but he had accounted for neither the sale nor

the deficiency. Hence Marco sues him for three _lire of Grossi_, the

price of the half-pound sold, and for twenty _grossi_ as the value of

the saggio. And the Judges cast the defendant in the amount with costs,

and the penalty of imprisonment in the common gaol of Venice if the

amounts were not paid within a suitable term.[11]

Again in May, 1323, probably within a year of his death, Ser Marco

appears (perhaps only by attorney), before the Doge and his judicial

examiners, to obtain a decision respecting a question touching the

rights to certain stairs and porticoes in contact with his own house

property, and that obtained from his wife, in S. Giovanni Grisostomo.

To this allusion has been already made (_supra_, p. _31_).

[Illustration: MARCO POLO’S LAST WILL

(_Dimensions of Original, 26·4 inches by 9·4 inches_)

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SPECIALLY TAKEN IN ST. MARK’S LIBRARY BY SIGNOR

BERTANI.]

[Sidenote: Marco Polo’s Last Will and Death.]

47. We catch sight of our Traveller only once more. It is on the 9th of

January, 1324; he is labouring with disease, under which he is sinking

day by day; and he has sent for Giovanni Giustiniani, Priest of S.

Proculo and Notary, to make his Last Will and Testament. It runs thus:—

“IN THE NAME OF THE ETERNAL GOD AMEN!

“In the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1323, on

the 9th day of the month of January, in the first half of the 7th

Indiction,[12] at Rialto.

“It is the counsel of Divine Inspiration as well as the judgment

of a provident mind that every man should take thought to make a

disposition of his property before death become imminent, lest in

the end it should remain without any disposition:

“Wherefore I MARCUS PAULO of the parish of St. John Chrysostom,

finding myself to grow daily feebler through bodily ailment, but

being by the grace of God of a sound mind, and of senses and

judgment unimpaired, have sent for JOHN GIUSTINIANI, Priest of S.

Proculo and Notary, and have instructed him to draw out in complete

form this my Testament:

“Whereby I constitute as my Trustees DONATA my beloved wife, and

my dear daughters FANTINA, BELLELA, and MORETA,[13] in order that

after my decease they may execute the dispositions and bequests

which I am about to make herein.

“First of all: I will and direct that the proper Tithe be paid.[14]

And over and above the said tithe I direct that 2000 _lire_ of

Venice denari be distributed as follows:[15]

“_Viz._, 20 _soldi_ of Venice _grossi_ to the Monastery of St.

Lawrence where I desire to be buried.

“Also 300 _lire_ of Venice denari to my sister-in-law YSABETA

QUIRINO,[16] that she owes me.

“Also 40 _soldi_ to each of the Monasteries and Hospitals all the

way from Grado to Capo d’Argine.[17]

“Also I bequeath to the Convent of SS. Giovanni and Paolo, of the

Order of Preachers, that which it owes me, and also 10 _lire_ to

Friar RENIER, and 5 _lire_ to Friar BENVENUTO the Venetian, of the

Order of Preachers, in addition to the amount of his debt to me.

“I also bequeath 5 _lire_ to every Congregation in Rialto, and 4

_lire_ to every Guild or Fraternity of which I am a member.[18]

“Also I bequeath 20 _soldi_ of Venetian grossi to the Priest

Giovanni Giustiniani the Notary, for his trouble about this my

Will, and in order that he may pray the Lord in my behalf.

“Also I release PETER the Tartar, my servant, from all bondage, as

completely as I pray God to release mine own soul from all sin and

guilt. And I also remit him whatever he may have gained by work

at his own house; and over and above I bequeath him 100 _lire_ of

Venice denari.[19]

“And the residue of the said 2000 _lire_ free of tithe, I direct

to be distributed for the good of my soul, according to the

discretion of my trustees.

“Out of my remaining property I bequeath to the aforesaid Donata,

my Wife and Trustee, 8 _lire_ of Venetian grossi annually during

her life, for her own use, over and above her settlement, and the

linen and all the household utensils,[20] with 3 beds garnished.

“And all my other property movable and immovable that has not

been disposed of [here follow some lines of mere technicality]

I specially and expressly bequeath to my aforesaid Daughters

Fantina, Bellela, and Moreta, freely and absolutely, to be divided

equally among them. And I constitute them my heirs as regards all

and sundry my property movable and immovable, and as regards all

rights and contingencies tacit and expressed, of whatsoever kind

as hereinbefore detailed, that belong to me or may fall to me.

Save and except that before division my said daughter Moreta shall

receive the same as each of my other daughters hath received for

dowry and outfit [here follow many lines of technicalities, ending]

“And if any one shall presume to infringe or violate this Will, may

he incur the malediction of God Almighty, and abide bound under the

anathema of the 318 Fathers; and farthermore he shall forfeit to

my Trustees aforesaid five pounds of gold;[21] and so let this my

Testament abide in force. The signature of the above named Messer

Marco Paulo who gave instructions for this deed.

“‡ I Peter Grifon, Priest, Witness.

“* I Humfrey Barberi, Witness.

“† I John Giustiniani, Priest of S. Proculo, and Notary, have

completed and authenticated (this testament).”[22]

We do not know, as has been said, how long Marco survived the making

of this will, but we know, from a scanty series of documents commencing

in June of the following year (1325), that he had _then_ been some time

dead.[23]

[Sidenote: Place of Sepulture. Professed Portraits of Polo.]

48. He was buried, no doubt, according to his declared wish, in the

Church of S. Lorenzo; and indeed Sansovino bears testimony to the fact

in a confused notice of our Traveller.[24] But there does not seem to

have been any monument to Marco, though the sarcophagus which had been

erected to his father Nicolo, by his own filial care, existed till

near the end of the 16th century in the porch or corridor leading to

the old Church of S. Lorenzo, and bore the inscription: “SEPULTURA

DOMINI NICOLAI PAULO DE CONTRATA S. IOANNIS GRISOSTEMI.” The church

was renewed from its foundations in 1592, and then, probably, the

sarcophagus was cast aside and lost, and with it all certainty as to

the position of the tomb.[25]

[Illustration: Pavement in front of San Lorenzo, Venice.]

There is no portrait of Marco Polo in existence with any claim to

authenticity. The quaint figure which we give in the _Bibliography_,

vol. ii. p. 555, extracted from the earliest printed edition of his

book, can certainly make no such pretension. The oldest one after this

is probably a picture in the collection of Monsignor Badia at Rome, of

which I am now able, by the owner’s courtesy, to give a copy. It is set

down in the catalogue to Titian, but is probably a work of 1600, or

thereabouts, to which the aspect and costume belong. It is inscribed

“_Marcus Polvs Venetvs Totivs Orbis et Indie Peregrator Primus._” Its

history unfortunately cannot be traced, but I believe it came from a

collection at Urbino. A marble statue was erected in his honour by a

family at Venice in the 17th century, and is still to be seen in the

Palazzo Morosini-Gattemburg in the Campo S. Stefano in that city. The

medallion portrait on the wall of the _Sala dello Scudo_ in the ducal

palace, and which was engraved in Bettom’s “Collection of Portraits of

Illustrious Italians,” is a work of imagination painted by Francesco

Griselini in 1761.[26] From this, however, was taken the medal by

Fabris, which was struck in 1847 in honour of the last meeting of the

Italian Congresso Scientifico; and from the medal again is copied,

I believe, the elegant woodcut which adorns the introduction to M.

Pauthier’s edition, though without any information as to its history.

A handsome bust, by Augusto Gamba, has lately been placed among the

illustrious Venetians in the inner arcade of the Ducal Palace.[27]

There is also a mosaic portrait of Polo, opposite the similar portrait

of Columbus in the Municipio at Genoa.

[Illustration: S. Lorenzo as it was in the 15th century]

[Sidenote: Further History of the Polo Family.]

49. From the short series of documents recently alluded to,[28] we

gather all that we know of the remaining history of Marco Polo’s

immediate family. We have seen in his will an indication that the two

elder daughters, Fantina and Bellela, were married before his death. In

1333 we find the youngest, Moreta, also a married woman, and Bellela

deceased. In 1336 we find that their mother Donata had died in the

interval. We learn, too, that Fantina’s husband was MARCO BRAGADINO,

and Moreta’s, RANUZZO DOLFINO.[29] The name of Bellela’s husband does

not appear.

Fantina’s husband is probably the Marco Bragadino, son of Pietro, who

in 1346 is mentioned to have been sent as Provveditore-Generale to

act against the Patriarch of Acquileia.[30] And in 1379 we find Donna

Fantina herself, presumably in widowhood, assessed as a resident of S.

Giovanni Grisostomo, on the _Estimo_ or forced loan for the Genoese

war, at 1300 _lire_, whilst Pietro Bragadino of the same parish—her son

as I imagine—is assessed at 1500 _lire_.[31] [See vol. ii., _Calendar_.]

The documents show a few other incidents which may be briefly noted.

In 1326 we have the record of a charge against one Zanino Grioni for

insulting Donna Moreta in the Campo of San Vitale; a misdemeanour

punished by the Council of Forty with two months’ imprisonment.

[Illustration: Mosaic Portrait of Marco Polo at Genoa.]

In March, 1328, Marco Polo, called Marcolino, of St. John Chrysostom

(see p. _66_), represents before the _Domini Advocatores_ of the

Republic that certain _imprestita_ that had belonged to the late Maffeo

Polo the Elder, had been alienated and transferred in May 1318, by

the late Marco Polo of St. John Chrysostom and since his death by his

heirs, without regard to the rights of the said Marcolino, to whom the

said Messer Maffeo had bequeathed 1000 _lire_ by his will executed

on 6th February, 1308 (_i.e._ 1309). The Advocatores find that the

transfer was to that extent unjust and improper, and they order that

to the same extent it should be revoked and annulled. Two months later

the Lady Donata makes rather an unpleasant figure before the Council

of Forty. It would seem that on the claim of Messer Bertuccio Quirino

a mandate of sequestration had been issued by the Court of Requests

affecting certain articles in the Ca’ Polo; including two bags of

money which had been tied and sealed, but left in custody of the Lady

Donata. The sum so sealed was about 80 _lire_ of grossi (300_l._ in

silver value), but when opened only 45 _lire_ and 22 _grossi_ (about

170_l._) were found therein, and the Lady was accused of abstracting

the balance _non bono modo_. Probably she acted, as ladies sometimes

do, on a strong sense of her own rights, and a weak sense of the claims

of law. But the Council pronounced against her, ordering restitution,

and a fine of 200 _lire_ over and above “_ut ceteris transeat in

exemplum._”[32]

It will have been seen that there is nothing in the amounts mentioned

in Marco’s will to bear out the large reports as to his wealth, though

at the same time there is no positive ground for a deduction to the

contrary.[33]

The mention in two of the documents of Agnes Loredano as the sister

of the Lady Donata suggests that the latter may have belonged to the

Loredano family, but as it does not appear whether Agnes was maid or

wife this remains uncertain.[34]

Respecting the further history of the family there is nothing certain,

nor can we give unhesitating faith to Ramusio’s statement that the

last male descendant of the Polos of S. Giovanni Grisostomo was Marco,

who died Castellano of Verona in 1417 (according to others, 1418,

or 1425),[35] and that the family property then passed to Maria (or

_Anna_, as she is styled in a MS. statement furnished to me from

Venice), who was married in 1401 to Benedetto Cornaro, and again in

1414 to Azzo Trevisan. Her descendant in the fourth generation by the

latter was Marc Antonio Trevisano,[36] who was chosen Doge in 1553.

[Illustration: Arms of the Trevisan family.]

The genealogy recorded by Marco Barbaro, as drawn up from documents

by Ramusio, makes the Castellano of Verona a grandson of our Marco by

a son Maffeo, whom we may safely pronounce not to have existed, and

makes Maria the daughter of Maffeo, Marco’s brother—that is to say,

makes a lady marry in 1414 and have children, whose father was born

in 1271 at the very latest! The genealogy is given in several other

ways, but as I have satisfied myself that they all (except perhaps

this of Barbaro’s, which we see to be otherwise erroneous) confound

together the two distinct families of Polo of S. Geremia and Polo of

S. Giov. Grisostomo, I reserve my faith, and abstain from presenting

them. Assuming that the Marco or Marcolino Polo, spoken of in the

preceding page, was a near relation (as is probable, though perhaps

an illegitimate one), he is the only male descendant of old Andrea of

San Felice whom we can indicate as having survived Marco himself; and

from a study of the links in the professed genealogies I think it not

unlikely that both Marco the Castellano of Verona and Maria Trevisan

belonged to the branch of S. Geremia.[37] [See vol. ii., _App. C_, p.

510.]

[Illustration: The Pseudo Marco Polo at Canton.]

[49. _bis._—It is interesting to note some of the _reliques_ left by

our traveller.

I. The unfortunate Doge of Venice, Marino Faliero, seems to have

possessed many souvenirs of Marco Polo, and among them two manuscripts,

one in the handwriting of his celebrated fellow-citizen(?), and one

adorned with miniatures. M. Julius von Schlosser has reprinted (_Die

ältesten Medaillen und die Antike_, Bd. XVIII., _Jahrb. d. Kunsthist.

Samml. d. Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses_, Vienna, 1897, pp. 42–43) from

the _Bulletino di arti, industrie e curiosità veneziane_, III.,

1880–81, p. 101,[38] the inventory of the curiosities kept in the “Red

Chamber” of Marino Faliero’s palace in the Parish of the SS. Apostles;

we give the following abstract of it:—

Anno ab incarnacione domini nostri Jesu Christi 1351° indictione

sexta mensis aprilis. Inuentarium rerum qui sunt in camera rubea

domi habitationis clarissimi domini MARINI FALETRO de confinio SS.

Apostolorum, scriptum per me Johannem, presbiterum, dicte ecclesie.

• • • • •

_Item_ alia capsaleta cum ogiis auri et argenti, inter quos unum

anulum con inscriptione que dicit: _Ciuble Can Marco Polo_, et unum

torques cum multis animalibus Tartarorum sculptis, que res donum

dedit predictus MARCUS cuidam Faletrorum.

• • • • •

_Item_ 2 capsalete de corio albo cum variis rebus auri et argenti,

quas habuit praedictus MARCUS a Barbarorum rege.

• • • • •

_Item_ 1 ensem mirabilem, qui habet 3 enses simul, quem habuit in

suis itineribus praedictus MARCUS.

• • • • •

_Item_ 1 tenturam de pannis indicis, quam habuit praedictus MARCUS.

_Item_ de itineribus MARCI praedicti liber in corio albo cum multis

figuris.

_Item_ aliud volumen quod vocatur _de locis mirabilibus Tartarorum,

scriptum manu praedicti_ MARCI.

• • • • •

II. There is kept at the Louvre, in the very valuable collection

of China Ware given by M. Ernest Grandidier, a white porcelain

incense-burner said to come from Marco Polo. This incense-burner, which

belonged to Baron Davillier, who received it, as a present, from one of

the keepers of the Treasury of St. Mark’s at Venice, is an octagonal

_ting_ from the Fo-kien province, and of the time of the Sung Dynasty.

By the kind permission of M. P. Grandidier, we reproduce it from Pl.

II. 6, of the _Céramique chinoise_, Paris, 1894, published by this

learned amateur.—H. C.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] 1. The Will is made in prospect of his voyage to Crete.

2. He had drafted his will with his own hand, sealed the draft,

and made it over to Pietro Pagano, priest of S. Felice and Notary,

to draw out a formal testament in faithful accordance therewith

in case of the Testator’s death; and that which follows is the

substance of the said draft rendered from the vernacular into

Latin. (“Ego Matheus Paulo ... volens ire in Cretam, ne repentinus

casus hujus vite fragilis me subreperet intestatum, mea propria

manu meum scripsi et condidi testamentum, rogans Petrum Paganum

ecclesie Scti. Felicis presbiterum et Notarium, sana mente et

integro consilio, ut, secundum ipsius scripturam quam sibi tunc

dedi meo sigillo munitam, meum scriberet testamentum, si me de hoc

seculo contigeret pertransire; cujus scripture tenor translato

vulgari in latinum per omnia talis est.”)

3. Appoints as Trustees Messer Maffeo Polo his uncle, Marco Polo

his brother, Messer Nicolo Secreto (or Sagredo) his father-in-law,

and Felix Polo his cousin (_consanguineum_).

4. Leaves 20 _soldi_ to each of the Monasteries from Grado to Capo

d’Argine; and 150 _lire_ to all the congregations of Rialto, on

condition that the priests of these maintain an annual service in

behalf of the souls of his father, mother, and self.

5. To his daughter Fiordelisa 2000 _lire_ to marry her withal. To

be invested in safe mortgages in Venice, and the interest to go to

her.

Also leaves her the interest from 1000 _lire_ of his funds in

Public Debt (? _de meis imprestitis_) to provide for her till she

marries. After her marriage this 1000 _lire_ and its interest shall

go to his male heir if he has one, and failing that to his brother

Marco.

6. To his wife Catharine 400 _lire_ and all her clothes as they

stand now. To the Lady Maroca 100 _lire_.

7. To his natural daughter Pasqua 400 _lire_ to marry her withal.

Or, if she likes to be a nun, 200 _lire_ shall go to her convent

and the other 200 shall purchase securities for her benefit. After

her death these shall come to his male heir, or failing that be

sold, and the proceeds distributed for the good of the souls of his

father, mother, and self.

8. To his natural brothers Stephen and Giovannino he leaves 500

_lire_. If one dies the whole to go to the other. If both die

before marrying, to go to his male heir; failing such, to his

brother Marco or _his_ male heir.

9. To his uncle Giordano Trevisano 200 _lire_. To Marco de Tumba

100. To Fiordelisa, wife of Felix Polo, 100. To Maroca, the

daughter of the late Pietro Trevisano, living at Negropont, 100. To

Agnes, wife of Pietro Lion, 100; and to Francis, son of the late

Pietro Trevisano, in Negropont, 100.

10. To buy Public Debt producing an annual 20 _lire ai grossi_ to

be paid yearly to Pietro Pagano, Priest of S. Felice, who shall

pray for the souls aforesaid: on death of said Pietro the income to

go to Pietro’s cousin Lionardo, Clerk of S. Felice; and after him

always to the senior priest of S. Giovanni Grisostomo with the same

obligation.

11. Should his wife prove with child and bear a son or sons they

shall have his whole property not disposed of. If a daughter, she

shall have the same as Fiordelisa.

12. If he have no male heir his Brother Marco shall have the

Testator’s share of his Father’s bequest, and 2000 _lire_ besides.

Cousin Nicolo shall have 500 _lire_, and Uncle Maffeo 500.

13. Should Daughter Fiordelisa die unmarried her 2000 _lire_ and

interest to go to his male heir, and failing such to Brother Marco

and his male heir. But in that case Marco shall pay 500 _lire_ to

Cousin Nicolo or his male heir.

14. Should his wife bear him a male heir or heirs, but these should

die under age, the whole of his undisposed property shall go to

Brother Marco or his male heir. But in that case 500 _lire_ shall

be paid to Cousin Nicolo.

15. Should his wife bear a daughter and she die unmarried, her

2000 _lire_ and interest shall go to Brother Marco, with the same

stipulation in behalf of Cousin Nicolo.

16. Should the whole amount of his property between cash and goods

not amount to 10,000 _lire_ (though he believes he has fully as

much), his bequests are to be ratably diminished, except those to

his own children which he does not wish diminished. Should any

legatee die before receiving the bequest, its amount shall fall to

the Testator’s heir male, and failing such, the half to go to Marco

or his male heir, and the other half to be distributed for the good

of the souls aforesaid.

The witnesses are Lionardo priest of S. Felice, Lionardo clerk of

the same, and the Notary Pietro Pagano priest of the same.

[2] According to Romanin (I. 321) the _lira dei grossi_ was also called

_Lira d’imprestidi_, and if the _lire_ here are to be so taken, the

sum will be 10,000 ducats, the largest amount by far that occurs in

any of these Polo documents, unless, indeed, the 1000 _lire_ in § 5

of Maffeo Junior’s Will be the like; but I have some doubt if such

lire are intended in either case.

[3] “(Resolved) That grace be granted to the respectable MARCO PAULO,

relieving him of the penalty he has incurred for neglecting to have

his water-pipe examined, seeing that he was ignorant of the order

on that subject.” (See _Appendix C._ No. 3.) The other reference,

to M. Polo, of S. Geremia, runs as follows:—

[_MCCCII. indic. XV. die VIII. Macii q̄ fiat grā Gūillō aurifici q̄

ipe absolvat a pena ī qua dicit icurisse p̄ uno spōtono sibi iūeto

veuiēdo de Mestre p̄p̄e domū Macī Pauli de Canaregio ūi descenderat

ad bibendū._]

“That grace be granted to William the Goldsmith, relieving him of

the penalty which he is stated to have incurred on account of a

spontoon (_spontono_, a loaded bludgeon) found upon him near the

house of MARCO PAULO of Cannareggio, where he had landed to drink

on his way from Mestre.” (See _Cicogna_, V. p. 606.)

[4] _Sansovino, Venezia, Città Nobilissima e Singolare, Descritta_,

etc., Ven. 1581, f. 236 _v._; _Barbaro, Alberi; Coronelli, Allante

Veneto_, I. 19.

[5] The word _Millio_ occurs several times in the Chronicle of the

Doge Andrea Dandolo, who wrote about 1342; and _Milion_ occurs at

least once (besides the application of the term to Polo) in the

History of Giovanni Villani; viz. when he speaks of the Treasury

of Avignon:— “_diciotto_ milioni _di fiorini d’oro_ ec. _che ogni_

milione _è mille migliaja di fiorini d’ oro la valuta_.” (xi. 20,

§ 1; _Ducange_, and _Vocab. Univ. Ital._). But the definition,

thought necessary by Villani, in itself points to the use of the

word as rare. _Domilion_ occurs in the estimated value of houses

at Venice in 1367, recorded in the _Cronaca Magna_ in St. Mark’s

Library. (_Romanin_, III. 385).

[6] “Also; that Pardon be granted to Bonocio of Mestre for that 152

_lire_ in which he stood condemned by the Captains of the Posts,

on account of wine smuggled by him, in such wise: to wit, that he

was to pay the said fine in 4 years by annual instalments of one

fourth, to be retrenched from the pay due to him on his journey in

the suite of our ambassadors, with assurance that anything then

remaining deficient of his instalments should be made good by

himself or his securities. And his securities are the Nobles Pietro

Morosini and MARCO PAULO MILION̄.” Under _Milion̄_ is written in an

ancient hand “_mortuus_.” (See _Appendix C_, No. 4.)

[7] Humboldt tells this (_Examen_, II. 221), alleging _Jacopo d’Acqui_

as authority; and Libri (_H. des Sciences Mathématiques_, II. 149),

quoting _Doglioni, Historia Veneziana_. But neither authority bears

out the citations. The story seems really to come from Amoretti’s

commentary on the _Voyage du Cap. L. F. Maldonado_, Plaisance,

1812, p. 67. Amoretti quotes as authority _Pignoria, Degli Dei

Antichi_.

An odd revival of this old libel was mentioned to me recently by

Mr. George Moffatt. When he was at school it was common among the

boys to express incredulity by the phrase: “Oh, what a Marco Polo!”

[8] Thibault, according to Ducange, was in 1307 named Grand Master

of the Arblasteers of France; and Buchon says his portrait is at

Versailles among the Admirals (No. 1170). Ramon de Muntaner fell

in with the Seigneur de Cepoy in Greece, and speaks of him as “but

a Captain of the Wind, as his Master was King of the Wind.” (See

_Ducange, H. de l’Empire de Const. sous les Emp. François_, Venice

ed. 1729, pp. 109, 110; _Buchon, Chroniques Etrangères_, pp. lv.

467–470.)

[9] The note is not found in the Bodleian MS., which is the third known

one of this precise type.

[10] Messire Jean, the son of Thibault, is mentioned in the accounts of

the latter in the _Chambre des Comptes_ at Paris, as having been

with his Father in Romania. And in 1344 he commanded a confederate

Christian armament sent to check the rising power of the Turks,

and beat a great Turkish fleet in the Greek seas. (_Heyd._ I. 377;

_Buchon_, 468.)

[11] The document is given in _Appendix C_, No. 5. It was found by

Comm. Barozzi, the Director of the Museo Civico, when he had most

kindly accompanied me to aid in the search for certain other

documents in the archives of the _Casa di Ricovero_, or Poor House

of Venice. These archives contain a great mass of testamentary

and other documents, which probably have come into that singular

depository in connection with bequests to public charities.

The document next mentioned was found in as strange a site, viz.,

the _Casa degli Esposti_ or Foundling Hospital, which possesses

similar muniments. This also I owe to Comm. Barozzi, who had

noted it some years before, when commencing an arrangement of the

archives of the Institution.

[12] The Legal Year at Venice began on the 1st of March. And 1324 was

7th of the Indiction. Hence the date is, according to the modern

Calendar, 1324.

[13] Marsden says of Moreta and Fantina, the only daughters named

by Ramusio, that these may be thought rather familiar terms of

endearment than baptismal names. This is a mistake however.

_Fantina_ is from one of the parochial saints of Venice, S.

Fantino, and the male name was borne by sundry Venetians, among

others by a son of Henry Dandolo’s. Moreta is perhaps a variation

of Maroca, which seems to have been a family name among the Polos.

We find also the male name of Bellela, written _Bellello_,

_Bellero_, _Belletto_.

[14] The _Decima_ went to the Bishop of Castello (eventually converted

into Patriarch of Venice) to divide between himself, the Clergy,

the Church, and the Poor. It became a source of much bad feeling,

which came to a head after the plague of 1348, when some families

had to pay the tenth three times within a very short space. The

existing Bishop agreed to a composition, but his successor Paolo

Foscari (1367) claimed that on the death of every citizen an exact

inventory should be made, and a full tithe levied. The Signory

fought hard with the Bishop, but he fled to the Papal Court and

refused all concession. After his death in 1376 a composition was

made for 5500 ducats yearly. (_Romanin_, II. 406; III. 161, 165.)

[15] There is a difficulty about estimating the value of these sums

from the variety of Venice pounds or _lire_. Thus the _Lira dei

piccoli_ was reckoned 3 to the ducat or zecchin, the _Lira ai

grossi_ 2 to the ducat, but the _Lira_ dei _grossi_ or _Lira

d’imprestidi_ was equal to 10 ducats, or (allowing for higher

value of silver then) about 3_l._ 15_s._; a little more than

the equivalent of the then Pound sterling. This last money is

_specified_ in some of the bequests, as in the 20 soldi (or 1

lira) to St. Lorenzo, and in the annuity of 8 lire to Polo’s wife;

but it seems doubtful what money is meant when _libra_ only or

_libra denariorum venetorum_ is used. And this doubt is not new.

Gallicciolli relates that in 1232 Giacomo Menotto left to the

Church of S. Cassiano as an annuity _libras denariorum venetorum

quatuor_. Till 1427 the church received the income as of _lire dei

piccoli_, but on bringing a suit on the subject it was adjudged

that _lire ai grossi_ were to be understood. (_Delle Mem. Venet.

Ant._ II. 18.) This story, however, cuts both ways, and does not

decide our doubt.

[16] The form of the name _Ysabeta_ aptly illustrates the transition

that seems so strange from _Elizabeth_ into the _Isabel_ that the

Spaniards made of it.

[17] _I.e._ the extent of what was properly called the Dogado, all

along the Lagoons from Grado on the extreme east to Capo d’Argine

(Cavarzere at the mouth of the Adige) on the extreme west.

[18] The word rendered _Guilds_ is “_Scholarum_.” The crafts at Venice

were united in corporations called _Fraglie_ or _Scholae_, each

of which had its statutes, its head called the _Gastald_, and its

place of meeting under the patronage of some saint. These acted as

societies of mutual aid, gave dowries to poor girls, caused masses

to be celebrated for deceased members, joined in public religious

processions, etc., nor could any craft be exercised except by

members of such a guild. (_Romanin_, I. 390.)

[19] A few years after Ser Marco’s death (1328) we find the Great

Council granting to this Peter the rights of a natural Venetian, as

having been a long time at Venice, and well-conducted. (See App. C,

_Calendar of Documents_, No. 13.) This might give some additional

colour to M. Pauthier’s supposition that this Peter the Tartar was

a faithful servant who had accompanied Messer Marco from the East

30 years before. But yet the supposition is probably unfounded.

Slavery and slave-trade were very prevalent at Venice in the Middle

Ages, and V. Lazari, a writer who examined a great many records

connected therewith, found that by far the greater number of slaves

were described as _Tartars_. There does not seem to be any clear

information as to how they were imported, but probably from the

factories on the Black Sea, especially Tana after its establishment.

A tax of 5 ducats per head was set on the export of slaves in 1379,

and as the revenue so received under the Doge Tommaso Mocenigo

(1414–1423) amounted (so says Lazari) to 50,000 ducats, the

startling conclusion is that 10,000 slaves yearly were exported!

This it is difficult to accept. The slaves were chiefly employed

in domestic service, and the records indicate the women to have

been about twice as numerous as the men. The highest price recorded

is 87 ducats paid for a Russian girl sold in 1429. All the higher

prices are for young women; a significant circumstance. With the

existence of this system we may safely connect the extraordinary

frequence of mention of illegitimate children in Venetian wills and

genealogies. (See _Lazari, Del Traffico degli Schiavi in Venezia_,

etc., in _Miscellanea di Storia Italiana_, I. 463 _seqq._) In 1308

the Khan Toktai of Kipchak (see Polo, II. 496), hearing that the

Genoese and other Franks were in the habit of carrying off Tartar

children to sell, sent a force against Caffa, which was occupied

without resistance, the people taking refuge in their ships. The

Khan also seized the Genoese property in Sarai. (_Heyd._ II. 27.)

[20] “_Stracium et omne capud massariciorum_”; in Scotch phrase

“_napery and plenishing_.” A Venetian statute of 1242 prescribes

that a bequest of _massariticum_ shall be held to carry to the

legatee all articles of common family use except those of gold

and silver plate or jeweller’s work. (See _Ducange, sub voce._)

_Stracci_ is still used technically in Venice for “household linen.”

[21] In the original _aureas libras quinque_. According to Marino

Sanudo the Younger (_Vite dei Dogi_ in _Muratori_, xxii. 521) this

should be pounds or _lire_ of _aureole_, the name of a silver

coin struck by and named after the Doge _Aurio_ Mastropietro

(1178–1192): “Ancora fu fatta una Moneta d’argento che si chiamava

_Aureola_ per la casata del Doge; _è quella Moneta che i Notai de

Venezia mettevano di pena sotto i loro instrumenti_.” But this was

a vulgar error. An example of the penalty of 5 pounds of gold is

quoted from a decree of 960; and the penalty is sometimes expressed

“_auri purissimi librae_ 5.” A coin called the _lira d’oro_ or

_redonda_ is alleged to have been in use before the ducat was

introduced. (See _Gallicciolli_, II. 16.) But another authority

seems to identify the _lira a oro_ with the _lira dei grossi_. (See

_Zanetti, Nuova Racc. delle Monete &c. d’Italia_, 1775. I. 308.)

[22] We give a photographic reduction of the original document. This,

and the other two Polo Wills already quoted, had come into the

possession of the Noble Filippo Balbi, and were by him presented in

our own time to the St. Mark’s Library. They are all on parchment,

in writing of that age, and have been officially examined and

declared to be originals. They were first published by _Cicogna,

Iscrizioni Veneziane_, III. 489–493. We give Marco’s in the

original language, line for line with the facsimile, in _Appendix

C_.

There is no signature, as may be seen, except those of the

Witnesses and the Notary. The sole presence of a Notary was held

to make a deed valid, and from about the middle of the 13th

century in Italy it is common to find no actual signature (even of

witnesses) except that of the Notary. The peculiar flourish before

the Notary’s name is what is called the _Tabellionato_, a fanciful

distinctive monogram which each Notary adopted. Marco’s Will is

unfortunately written in a very cramp hand with many contractions.

The other two Wills (of Marco the Elder and Maffeo) are in

beautiful and clear Gothic penmanship.

[23] We have noticed formerly (pp. _14–15_, _note_) the recent

discovery of a document bearing what was supposed to be the

autograph signature of our Traveller. The document in question is

the Minute of a Resolution of the Great Council, attested by the

signatures of three members, of whom the last is MARCUS PAULLO.

But the date alone, 11th March, 1324, is sufficient to raise the

gravest doubts as to this signature being that of our Marco. And

further examination, as I learn from a friend at Venice, has shown

that the same name occurs in connection with analogous entries on

several subsequent occasions up to the middle of the century. I

presume that this Marco Polo is the same that is noticed in our

_Appendix B_, II. as a voter in the elections of the Doges Marino

Faliero and Giovanni Gradenigo. I have not been able to ascertain

his relation to either branch of the Polo family; but I suspect

that he belonged to that of S. Geremia, of which there _was_

certainly a Marco about the middle of the century.

[24] “Under the _angiporta_ (of S. Lorenzo) [see plate] is buried

that Marco Polo surnamed Milione, who wrote the Travels in the

New World, and who was the first before Christopher Columbus to

discover new countries. No faith was put in him because of the

extravagant things that he recounted; but in the days of our

Fathers Columbus augmented belief in him, by discovering that

part of the world which eminent men had heretofore judged to be

uninhabited.” (_Venezia ... Descritta_, etc., f. 23 _v._) Marco

Barbaro attests the same inscription in his Genealogies (copy in

Museo Civico at Venice).

[25] _Cicogna_, II. 385.

[26] _Lazari_, xxxi.

[27] In the first edition I noticed briefly a statement that had

reached me from China that, in the Temple at Canton vulgarly called

“of the 500 gods,” there is a foreign figure which from the name

attached had been supposed to represent Marco Polo! From what I

have heard from Mr. Wylie, a very competent authority, this is

nonsense. The temple contains 500 figures of _Arhans_ or Buddhist

saints, and one of these attracts attention from having a hat like

a sailor’s straw hat. Mr. Wylie had not remarked the name. [A

model of this figure was exhibited at Venice at the international

Geographical Congress, in 1881. I give a reproduction of this

figure and of the Temple of 500 Genii (_Fa Lum Sze_) at Canton,

from drawings by Félix Régamey made after photographs sent to me

by my late friend, M. Camille Imbault Huart, French Consul at

Canton.—H. C.]

[28] These documents are noted in Appendix C, Nos. 9–12, 14, 17, 18.

[29] I can find no _Ranuzzo_ Dolfino among the Venetian genealogies,

but several _Reniers_. And I suspect Ranuzzo may be a form of the

latter name.

[30] _Cappellari_ (see p. 77, footnote) under _Bragadino_.

[31] _Ibid._ and _Gallicciolli_, II. 146.

[32] The _lire_ of the fine are not specified; but probably _ai

grossi_, which would be = 37_l._ 10_s._; not, we hope, _dei_ grossi!

[33] Yet, if the family were so wealthy as tradition represents, it is

strange that Marco’s brother Maffeo, _after_ receiving a share of

his father’s property, should have possessed barely 10,000 _lire_,

probably equivalent to 5000 ducats at most. (See p. _65_, _supra_.)

[34] An Agnes Loredano, Abbess of S. Maria delle Vergini, died in 1397.

(_Cicogna_, V. 91 and 629.) The interval of 61 years makes it

somewhat improbable that it should be the same.

[35] In the _Museo Civico_ (No. 2271 of the Cicogna collection) there

is a commission addressed by the Doge Michiel Steno in 1408,

“_Nobili Viro Marcho Paulo_,” nominating him Podestà of Arostica (a

Castello of the Vicentino). This is probably the same Marco.

[36] The descent runs: (1) Azzo = Maria Polo; (2) Febo, Captain at

Padua; (3) Zaccaria, Senator; (4) Domenico, Procurator of St.

Mark’s; (5) Marc’Antonio, Doge (_Cappellari_, _Campidoglio

Veneto_, MS. St. Mark’s Lib.).

Marc’Antonio _nolebat ducari_ and after election desired to

renounce. His friends persuaded him to retain office, but he lived

scarcely a year after. (_Cicogna_, IV. 566.) [See p. _8_.]

[37] In Appendix B will be found tabulated all the facts that seem to

be positively ascertained as to the Polo genealogies.

In the Venetian archives occurs a procuration executed by the Doge

in favour of the _Nobilis Vir_ SER MARCO PAULO that he may present

himself before the king of Sicily; under date, Venice 9th November,

1342. And some years later we have in the Sicilian Archives an

order by King Lewis of Sicily, directed to the Maestri Procuratori

of Messina, which grants to MARCO POLO of Venice, on account of

services rendered to the king’s court, the privilege of free import

and export at the port of Messina, without payment of customs of

goods to the amount annually of 20 ounces. Dated in Catania 13th

January, 1346 (1347?).

For the former notice I am indebted to the courtesy of Signor B.

Cecchetti of the Venetian Archives, who cites it as “transcribed

in the _Commemor._ IV. p. 5”; for the latter to that of the Abate

Carini of the _Reale Archivio_ at Palermo; it is in _Archivio della

Regia Cancellaria_ 1343–1357, f. 58.

The mission of this MARCO POLO is mentioned also in a rescript of

the Sicilian king Peter II., dated Messina, 14th November, 1340, in

reference to certain claims of Venice, about which the said Marco

appeared as the Doge’s ambassador. This is printed in F. TESTA, _De

Vitâ et Rebus Gestis Federici II., Siciliæ Regis_, Panormi, 1775,

pp. 267 _seqq._ The Sicilian Antiquary Rosario Gregorio identifies

the Envoy with our Marco, dead long before. (See _Opere scelte del

Canon Ros. Gregorio_, Palermo, 1845, 3za ediz., p. 352.)

It is possible that this Marco, who from the latter notice seems

to have been engaged in mercantile affairs, may have been the

Marcolino above mentioned, but it is perhaps on the whole more

probable that this _nobilis vir_ is the Marco spoken of in the note

at p. _74_.

[38] _La Collezione del Doge Marin Faliero e i Tesori di Marco Polo_,

pp. 98–103. I have seen this article.—H. C.

IX. MARCO POLO’S BOOK; AND THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS

FIRST WRITTEN.

[Sidenote: General statement of what the Book contains.]

50. The Book itself consists essentially of Two Parts. _First_, of

a Prologue, as it is termed, the only part which is actual personal

narrative, and which relates, in a very interesting but far too brief

manner, the circumstances which led the two elder Polos to the Kaan’s

Court, and those of their second journey with Mark, and of their return

to Persia through the Indian Seas. _Secondly_, of a long series of

chapters of very unequal length, descriptive of notable sights and

products, of curious manners and remarkable events, relating to the

different nations and states of Asia, but, above all, to the Emperor

Kúblái, his court, wars, and administration. A series of chapters near

the close treats in a verbose and monotonous manner of sundry wars that

took place between the various branches of the House of Chinghiz in the

latter half of the 13th century. This last series is either omitted

or greatly curtailed in all the copies and versions except one; a

circumstance perfectly accounted for by the absence of interest as well

as value in the bulk of these chapters. Indeed, desirous though I have

been to give the Traveller’s work complete, and sharing the dislike

that every man who _uses_ books must bear to abridgments, I have felt

that it would be sheer waste and dead-weight to print these chapters in

full.

[Illustration: Porcelain Incense-Burner, from the Louvre.]

This second and main portion of the Work is in its oldest forms

undivided, the chapters running on consecutively to the end.[1] In some

very early Italian or Venetian version, which Friar Pipino translated

into Latin, it was divided into three Books, and this convenient

division has generally been adhered to. We have adopted M. Pauthier’s

suggestion in making the final series of chapters, chiefly historical,

into a Fourth.

[Sidenote: Language of the original Work.]

51. As regards the language in which Marco’s Book was first

committed to writing, we have seen that Ramusio assumed, somewhat

arbitrarily, that it was _Latin_; Marsden supposed it to have been

the _Venetian_ dialect; Baldelli Boni first showed, in his elaborate

edition (Florence, 1827), by arguments that have been illustrated and

corroborated by learned men since, that it was _French_.

That the work was originally written in _some_ Italian dialect was a

natural presumption, and slight contemporary evidence can be alleged in

its favour; for Fra Pipino, in the Latin version of the work, executed

whilst Marco still lived, describes his task as a translation _de

vulgari_. And in one MS. copy of the same Friar Pipino’s Chronicle,

existing in the library at Modena, he refers to the said version

as made “_ex vulgari idiomate_ Lombardico.” But though it may seem

improbable that at so early a date a Latin version should have been

made at second hand, I believe this to have been the case, and that

some internal evidence also is traceable that Pipino translated _not_

from the original but from an Italian _version_ of the original.

The oldest MS. (it is supposed) in any Italian dialect is one in

the Magliabecchian Library at Florence, which is known in Italy as

_L’Ottima_, on account of the purity of its Tuscan, and as _Della

Crusca_ from its being one of the authorities cited by that body

in their Vocabulary.[2] It bears on its face the following note in

Italian:—

“This Book called the Navigation of Messer Marco Polo, a noble

Citizen of Venice, was written in Florence by Michael Ormanni my

great grandfather by the Mother’s side, who died in the Year of

Grace One Thousand Three Hundred and Nine; and my mother brought it

into our Family of Del Riccio, and it belongs to me Pier del Riccio

and to my Brother; 1452.”

As far as I can learn, the age which this note implies is considered to

be supported by the character of the MS. itself.[3] If it be accepted,

the latter is a performance going back to within eleven years _at most_

of the first dictation of the Travels. At first sight, therefore, this

would rather argue that the original had been written in pure Tuscan.

But when Baldelli came to prepare it for the press he found manifest

indications of its being a Translation from the _French_. Some of these

he has noted; others have followed up the same line of comparison. We

give some detailed examples in a note.[4]

[Illustration: Temple of 500 Genii, at Canton, _after a Drawing by_

FÉLIX RÉGAMEY.]

[Sidenote: Old French Text published by the Société de Géographie.]

52. The French Text that we have been quoting, published by the

Geographical Society of Paris in 1824, affords on the other hand

the strongest corresponding proof that it is an original and not a

Translation. Rude as is the language of the manuscript (Fr. 1116,

formerly No. 7367, of Paris Library), it is, in the correctness of the

proper names, and the intelligible exhibition of the itineraries, much

superior to any form of the Work previously published.

The language is very peculiar. We are obliged to call it French, but it

is not “Frenche of Paris.” “Its style,” says Paulin Paris, “is about as

like that of good French authors of the age, as in our day the natural

accent of a German, an Englishman, or an Italian, is like that of a

citizen of Paris or Blois.” The author is at war with all the practices

of French grammar; subject and object, numbers, moods, and tenses, are

in consummate confusion. Even readers of his own day must at times

have been fain to guess his meaning. Italian words are constantly

introduced, either quite in the crude or rudely Gallicized.[5] And

words also, we may add, sometimes slip in which appear to be purely

Oriental, just as is apt to happen with Anglo-Indians in these days.[6]

All this is perfectly consistent with the supposition that we have

in this MS. a copy at least of the original words as written down

by Rusticiano a Tuscan, from the dictation of Marco an Orientalized

Venetian, in French, a language foreign to both.

But the character of the language _as French_ is not its only

peculiarity. There is in the style, apart from grammar or vocabulary, a

rude angularity, a rough dramatism like that of oral narrative; there

is a want of proportion in the style of different parts, now over curt,

now diffuse and wordy, with at times even a hammering reiteration; a

constant recurrence of pet colloquial phrases (in which, however, other

literary works of the age partake); a frequent change in the spelling

of the same proper names, even when recurring within a few lines, as if

caught by ear only; a literal following to and fro of the hesitations

of the narrator; a more general use of the third person in speaking

of the Traveller, but an occasional lapse into the first. All these

characteristics are strikingly indicative of the unrevised product of

dictation, and many of them would _necessarily_ disappear either in

translation or in a revised copy.

Of changes in representing the same proper name, take as an example

that of the Kaan of Persia whom Polo calls _Quiacatu_ (Kaikhátú), but

also _Acatu, Catu_, and the like.

As an example of the literal following of dictation take the following:—

“Let us leave Rosia, and I will tell you about the Great Sea (the

Euxine), and what provinces and nations lie round about it, all

in detail; and we will begin with Constantinople—First, however,

I should tell you about a province, etc.... There is nothing more

worth mentioning, so I will speak of other subjects,—but there is

one thing more to tell you about Rosia that I had forgotten.... Now

then let us speak of the Great Sea as I was about to do. To be sure

many merchants and others have been here, but still there are many

again who know nothing about it, so it will be well to include it

in our Book. We will do so then, and let us begin first with the

Strait of Constantinople.

“At the Straits leading into the Great Sea, on the West Side, there

is a hill called the Faro.—But since beginning on this matter I

have changed my mind, because so many people know all about it, so

we will not put it in our description but go on to something else.”

(See vol. ii. p. 487 _seqq._)

And so on.

As a specimen of tautology and hammering reiteration the following

can scarcely be surpassed. The Traveller is speaking of the _Chughi_,

_i.e._ the Indian Jogis:—

“And there are among them certain devotees, called _Chughi_; these

are longer-lived than the other people, for they live from 150 to

200 years; and yet they are so hale of body that they can go and

come wheresoever they please, and do all the service needed for

their monastery or their idols, and do it just as well as if they

were younger; and that comes of the great abstinence that they

practise, in eating little food and only what is wholesome; for

they use to eat rice and milk more than anything else. And again I

tell you that these Chughi who live such a long time as I have told

you, do also eat what I am going to tell you, and you will think

it a great matter. For I tell you that they take quicksilver and

sulphur, and mix them together, and make a drink of them, and then

they drink this, and they say that it adds to their life; and in

fact they do live much longer for it; and I tell you that they do

this twice every month. And let me tell you that these people use

this drink from their infancy in order to live longer, and without

fail those who live so long as I have told you use this drink of

sulphur and quicksilver.” (See G. T. p. 213.)

Such talk as this does not survive the solvent of translation; and

we may be certain that we have here the nearest approach to the

Traveller’s reminiscences as they were taken down from his lips in the

prison of Genoa.

[Sidenote: Conclusive proof that the Old French Text is the source of

all the others.]

53. Another circumstance, heretofore I believe unnoticed, is in itself

enough to demonstrate the Geographic Text to be the source of all other

versions of the Work. It is this.

In reviewing the various classes or types of texts of Polo’s Book,

which we shall hereafter attempt to discriminate, there are certain

proper names which we find in the different texts to take very

different forms, each class adhering in the main to one particular form.

Thus the names of the Mongol ladies introduced at pp. 32 and 36 of this

volume, which are in proper Oriental form _Bulughán_ and _Kukáchin_,

appear in the class of MSS. which Pauthier has followed as _Bolgara_

and _Cogatra_; in the MSS. of Pipino’s version, and those founded

on it, including Ramusio, the names appear in the correcter forms

_Bolgana_ or _Balgana_ and _Cogacin_. Now _all the forms_ Bolgana,

Balgana, Bolgara, _and_ Cogatra, Cocacin _appear in the Geographic

Text_.

Kaikhátú Kaan appears in the Pauthier MSS. as _Chiato_, in the Pipinian

as _Acatu_, in the Ramusian as _Chiacato. All three forms_, Chiato,

Achatu, and Quiacatu _are found in the Geographic Text_.

The city of Koh-banan appears in the Pauthier MSS. as _Cabanant_, in

the Pipinian and Ramusian editions as _Cobinam_ or _Cobinan_. _Both

forms are found in the Geographic Text_.

The city of the Great Kaan (Khanbalig) is called in the Pauthier MSS.

_Cambaluc_, in the Pipinian and Ramusian less correctly _Cambalu_.

_Both forms appear in the Geographic Text_.

The aboriginal People on the Burmese Frontier who received from the

Western officers of the Mongols the Persian name (translated from that

applied by the Chinese) of _Zardandán_, or Gold-Teeth, appear in the

Pauthier MSS. most accurately as Zardandan, but in the Pipinian as

_Ardandan_ (still further corrupted in some copies into _Arcladam_).

Now _both forms are found in the Geographic Text_. Other examples might

be given, but these I think may suffice to prove that this Text was the

common source of both classes.

In considering the question of the French original too we must remember

what has been already said regarding Rusticien de Pise and his other

French writings; and we shall find hereafter an express testimony borne

in the next generation that Marco’s Book was composed _in vulgari

Gallico_.

[Sidenote: Greatly diffused employment of French in that age.]

54. But, after all, the circumstantial evidence that has been adduced

from the texts themselves is the most conclusive. We have then every

reason to believe both that the work was written in French, and that

an existing French Text is a close representation of it as originally

committed to paper. And that being so we may cite some circumstances

to show that the use of French or quasi-French for the purpose was not

a fact of a very unusual or surprising nature. The French language had

at that time almost as wide, perhaps relatively a wider, diffusion than

it has now. It was still spoken at the Court of England, and still

used by many English writers, of whom the authors or translators of

the Round Table Romances at Henry III.’s Court are examples.[7] In

1249 Alexander III. King of Scotland, at his coronation spoke in Latin

and French; and in 1291 the English Chancellor addressing the Scotch

Parliament did so in French. At certain of the Oxford Colleges as late

as 1328 it was an order that the students should converse _colloquio

latino vel saltem gallico_.[8] Late in the same century Gower had not

ceased to use French, composing many poems in it, though apologizing

for his want of skill therein:—

“Et si jeo nai de François la faconde

* * * *

Jeo suis Englois; si quier par tiele voie

Estre excusé.”[9]

Indeed down to nearly 1385, boys in the English grammar-schools

were taught to construe their Latin lessons into French.[10] St.

Francis of Assisi is said by some of his biographers to have had his

original name changed to Francesco because of his early mastery of

that language as a qualification for commerce. French had been the

prevalent tongue of the Crusaders, and was that of the numerous Frank

Courts which they established in the East, including Jerusalem and

the states of the Syrian coast, Cyprus, Constantinople during the

reign of the Courtenays, and the principalities of the Morea. The

Catalan soldier and chronicler Ramon de Muntaner tells us that it was

commonly said of the Morean chivalry that they spoke as good French as

at Paris.[11] Quasi-French at least was still spoken half a century

later by the numerous Christians settled at Aleppo, as John Marignolli

testifies;[12] and if we may trust Sir John Maundevile the Soldan

of Egypt himself and four of his chief Lords “_spak Frensche righte

wel!_”[13] Gházán Kaan, the accomplished Mongol Sovereign of Persia,

to whom our Traveller conveyed a bride from Cambaluc, is said by the

historian Rashiduddin to have known something of the Frank tongue,

probably French.[14] Nay, if we may trust the author of the Romance

of Richard Cœur-de-Lion, French was in his day the language of still

higher spheres![15]

Nor was Polo’s case an exceptional one even among writers on the East

who were not Frenchmen. Maundevile himself tells us that he put his

book first “out of Latyn into Frensche,” and then out of French into

English.[16] The History of the East which the Armenian Prince and Monk

Hayton dictated to Nicolas Faulcon at Poictiers in 1307 was taken down

in French. There are many other instances of the employment of French

by foreign, and especially by Italian authors of that age. The Latin

chronicle of the Benedictine Amato of Monte Cassino was translated into

French early in the 13th century by another monk of the same abbey, at

the particular desire of the Count of Militrée (or Malta), “_Pour ce

qu’il set lire et entendre fransoize et s’en delitte._”[17] Martino da

Canale, a countryman and contemporary of Polo’s, during the absence

of the latter in the East wrote a Chronicle of Venice in the same

language, as a reason for which he alleges its general popularity.[18]

The like does the most notable example of all, Brunetto Latini, Dante’s

master, who wrote in French his encyclopædic and once highly popular

work _Li Tresor_.[19] Other examples might be given, but in fact such

illustration is superfluous when we consider that Rusticiano himself

was a compiler of French Romances.

But why the language of the Book as we see it in the Geographic Text

should be so much more rude, inaccurate, and Italianized than that of

Rusticiano’s other writings, is a question to which I can suggest no

reply quite satisfactory to myself. Is it possible that we have in it a

literal representation of Polo’s own language in dictating the story,—a

rough draft which it was intended afterwards to reduce to better form,

and which was so reduced (after a fashion) in French copies of another

type, regarding which we shall have to speak presently?[20] And, if

this be the true answer, why should Polo have used a French jargon in

which to tell his story? Is it possible that his own mother Venetian,

such as he had carried to the East with him and brought back again,

was so little intelligible to Rusticiano that French of some kind was

the handiest medium of communication between the two? I have known

an Englishman and a Hollander driven to converse in Malay; Chinese

Christians of different provinces are said sometimes to take to English

as the readiest means of intercommunication; and the same is said even

of Irish-speaking Irishmen from remote parts of the Island.

It is worthy of remark how many notable narratives of the Middle Ages

have been dictated instead of being written by their authors, and

that in cases where it is impossible to ascribe this to ignorance

of writing. The Armenian Hayton, though evidently a well-read man,

possibly could not write in Roman characters. But Joinville is an

illustrious example. And the narratives of four of the most famous

Mediæval Travellers[21] seem to have been drawn from them by a kind

of pressure, and committed to paper by other hands. I have elsewhere

remarked this as indicating how little diffused was literary ambition

or vanity; but it would perhaps be more correct to ascribe it to that

intense dislike which is still seen on the shores of the Mediterranean

to the use of pen and ink. On certain of those shores at least there

is scarcely any inconvenience that the majority of respectable and

good-natured people will not tolerate—inconvenience to their neighbours

be it understood—rather than put pen to paper for the purpose of

preventing it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] 232 chapters in the oldest French which we quote as the _Geographic

Text_ (or G. T.), 200 in Pauthier’s Text, 183 in the Crusca Italian.

[2] The MS. has been printed by Baldelli as above, and again by Bartoli

in 1863.

[3] This is somewhat peculiar. I traced a few lines of it, which with

Del Riccio’s note were given in facsimile in the First Edition.

[4] The Crusca is cited from Bartoli’s edition.

French idioms are frequent, as _l’uomo_ for the French _on_;

_quattro-vinti_ instead of _ottanta_; etc.

We have at p. 35, “_Questo piano è molto_ cavo,” which is nonsense,

but is explained by reference to the French (G. T.) “_Voz di qu’il

est celle plaingne mout_ chaue” (_chaude_).

The bread in Kerman is bitter, says the G. T. “_por ce que l’eive

hi est_ amer,” because the water there is bitter. The Crusca

mistakes the last word and renders (p. 40) “_e questi è per lo_

mare _che vi viene_.”

“_Sachiés de voir qe_ endementiers,” know for a truth that

whilst——, by some misunderstanding of the last word becomes (p.

129) “_Sappiate di vero_ sanza mentire.”

“_Mès de sel_ font-il monoie”—“They make money of salt,” becomes

(p. 168) “_ma fannole_ da loro,” _sel_ being taken for a pronoun,

whilst in another place _sel_ is transferred bodily without

translation.

“_Chevoil_,” “hair” of the old French, appears in the Tuscan (p.

20) as _cavagli_, “horses.”—“_La Grant Provence_ Jereraus,” the

great general province, appears (p. 68) as a province whose proper

name is _Ienaraus_. In describing Kúblái’s expedition against Mien

or Burma, Polo has a story of his calling on the Jugglers at his

court to undertake the job, promising them a Captain and other

help, “_Cheveitain et aide_.” This has fairly puzzled the Tuscan,

who converts these (p. 186) into two Tartar tribes, “_quegli

d’_Aide _e quegli di_ Caveità.”

So also we have _lievre_ for hare transferred without change;

_lait_, milk, appearing as _laido_ instead of _latte_; _très_,

rendered as “three”; _bue_, “mud,” Italianised as _buoi_, “oxen,”

and so forth. Finally, in various places when Polo is explaining

Oriental terms we find in the Tuscan MS. “_cioè a dire in_

Francesco.”

The blunders mentioned are intelligible enough as in a version

_from the French_; but in the description of the Indian

pearl-fishery we have a startling one not so easy to account for.

The French says, “the divers gather the sea-oysters (_hostrige de

Mer_), and in these the pearls are found.” This appears in the

Tuscan in the extraordinary form that the divers catch those fishes

called _Herrings_ (Aringhe), and in those Herrings are found the

Pearls!

[5] As examples of these Italianisms: “_Et ont del_ olio _de la lanpe

dou_ sepolchro _de Crist_”; “_L’Angel ven en vision pour mesajes

de Deu à un_ Veschevo _qe mout estoient home de_ sante vite”;

“_E certes il estoit bien_ beizongno”; “_ne trop caut ne trop_

fredo”; “_la_ crense” (_credenza_); “remort” for noise (_rumore_);

“inverno”; “jorno”; “dementiqué” (_dimenticato_); “enferme” for

sickly; “leign” (_legno_); “devisce” (_dovizia_); “ammalaide”

(_ammalato_), etc. etc.

Professor Bianconi points out that there are also traces of

_Venetian_ dialect, as _Pare_ for _père_; _Mojer_ for wife;

_Zabater_, cobbler; _cazaor_, huntsman, etc.

I have not been able to learn to what extent books in this kind

of mixed language are extant. I have observed one, a romance in

verse called _Macaire_ (_Altfranzösische Gedichte aus Venez.

Handschriften_, von _Adolf Mussafia_, Wien, 1864), the language of

which is not unlike this jargon of Rustician’s, _e.g._:—

“‘Dama,’ fait-il, ‘molto me poso merviler De ves enfant quant le fi

batecer De un signo qe le vi sor la spal’a droiturer Qe non ait nul

se no filz d’inperer.’”—(p. 41)

[6] As examples of such Orientalisms: _Bonus_, “ebony,” and _calamanz_,

“pencases,” seem to represent the Persian _abnús_ and _ḳalamdàn_;

the dead are mourned by _les mères et les_ Araines, the _Harems_;

in speaking of the land of the Ismaelites or Assassins, called

_Mulhete_, _i.e._ the Arabic _Muláhidah_, “Heretics,” he explains

this term as meaning “des _Aram_” (_Ḥarám_, “the reprobate”).

Speaking of the Viceroys of Chinese Provinces, we are told that

they rendered their accounts yearly to the _Safators_ of the

Great Kaan. This is certainly an Oriental word. Sir H. Rawlinson

has suggested that it stands for _dafátir_ (“registers or public

books”), pl. of _daftar_. This seems probable, and in that case the

true reading may have been _dafators_.

[7] Luces du Gast, one of the first of these, introduces himself thus:—

“Je Luces, Chevaliers et Sires du Chastel du Gast, voisins prochain

de Salebieres, comme chevaliers amoureus enprens à translater du

Latin en François une partie de cette estoire, non mie pour ce que

je sache gramment de François, ainz apartient plus ma langue et ma

parleure à la manière de l’Engleterre que à celle de France, comme

cel qui fu en Engleterre nez, mais tele est ma volentez et mon

proposement, que je en langue françoise le translaterai.” (_Hist.

Litt. de La France_, xv. 494.)

[8] _Hist. Litt. de la France_, xv. 500.

[9] _Ibid._ 508.

[10] _Tyrwhitt’s Essay on Lang., etc., of Chaucer_, p. xxii. (Moxon’s

Ed. 1852.)

[11] _Chroniques Etrangères_, p. 502.

[12] “_Loquuntur linguam quasi Gallicam, scilicet quasi de Cipro_.”

(See _Cathay_, p. 332.)

[13] Page 138.

[14] _Hammers Ilchan_, II. 148.

[15] After the capture of Acre, Richard orders 60,000 Saracen prisoners

to be executed:—

“They wer brought out off the toun,

Save twenty, he heeld to raunsoun.

They wer led into the place ful evene:

_Ther they herden Aungeles off Hevene_:

_They sayde_: ‘SEYNYORS, TUEZ, TUEZ!

‘Spares hem nought! Behedith these!’

Kyng Rychard herde the Aungelys voys,

And thankyd God, and the Holy Croys.”

—_Weber_, II. 144.

Note that, from the rhyme, the Angelic French was apparently

pronounced “_Too-eese! Too-eese!_”

[16] [Refer to the edition of Mr. George F. Warner, 1889, for the

Roxburghe Club, and to my own paper in the _T’oung Pao_, Vol.

II., No. 4, regarding the compilation published under the name of

Maundeville. Also _App. L_. 13—H. C.]

[17] _L’Ystoire de li Normand_, etc., edited by M. Champollion-Figeac,

Paris, 1835, p. v.

[18] “_Porce que lengue Frenceise cort parmi le monde, et est la plus

delitable à lire et à oir que nule autre, me sui-je entremis de

translater l’ancien estoire des Veneciens de Latin en Franceis._”

(Archiv. Stor. Ital. viii. 268.)

[19] “_Et se aucuns demandoit por quoi cist livres est escriz en

Romans, selonc le langage des François, puisque nos somes Ytaliens,

je diroie que ce est por. ij. raisons: l’une, car nos somes en

France; et l’autre porce que la parleure est plus delitable et plus

commune à toutes gens._” (Li Livres dou Tresor, p. 3.)

[20] It is, however, not improbable that Rusticiano’s hasty and

abbreviated original was extended by a scribe who knew next to

nothing of French; otherwise it is hard to account for such forms

as _perlinage_ (pelerinage), _peseries_ (espiceries), _proque_ (see

vol. ii. p. 370), _oisi_ (G. T. p. 208), _thochere_ (toucher), etc.

(See _Bianconi_, 2nd Mem. pp. 30–32.)

[21] Polo, Friar Odoric, Nicolo Conti, Ibn Batuta.

X. VARIOUS TYPES OF TEXT OF MARCO POLO’S BOOK.

[Sidenote: Four Principal Types of Text. First, that of the Geographic,

or oldest French.]

55. In treating of the various Texts of Polo’s Book we must necessarily

go into some irksome detail.

Those Texts that have come down to us may be classified under Four

principal Types.

I. The First Type is that of the Geographic Text of which we have

already said so much. This is found nowhere _complete_ except in the

unique MS. of the Paris Library, to which it is stated to have come

from the old Library of the French Kings at Blois. But the Italian

_Crusca_, and the old Latin version (No. 3195 of the Paris Library)

published with the Geographic Text, are evidently derived entirely from

it, though both are considerably abridged. It is also demonstrable that

neither of these copies has been translated from the other, for each

has passages which the other omits, but that both have been taken, the

one as a copy more or less loose, the other as a translation, from an

intermediate _Italian_ copy.[1] A special difference lies in the fact

that the Latin version is divided into three Books, whilst the Crusca

has no such division. I shall show in a tabular form the _filiation_ of

the texts which these facts seem to demonstrate (see Appendix G).

There are other Italian MSS. of this type, some of which show signs of

having been derived independently from the French;[2] but I have not

been able to examine any of them with the care needful to make specific

deductions regarding them.

[Sidenote: Second; the remodelled French Text, followed by Pauthier.]

56. II. The next Type is that of the French MSS. on which M. Pauthier’s

Text is based, and for which he claims the highest authority, as having

had the mature revision and sanction of the Traveller. There are, as

far as I know, five MSS. which may be classed together under this type,

three in the Great Paris Library, one at Bern, and one in the Bodleian.

The high claims made by Pauthier on behalf of this class of MSS. (on

the first three of which his Text is formed) rest mainly upon the kind

of certificate which two of them bear regarding the presentation of a

copy by Marco Polo to Thibault de Cepoy, which we have already quoted

(_supra_, p. _69_). This certificate is held by Pauthier to imply that

the original of the copies which bear it, and of those having a general

correspondence with them, had the special seal of Marco’s revision and

approval. To some considerable extent their character is corroborative

of such a claim, but they are far from having the perfection which

Pauthier attributes to them, and which leads him into many paradoxes.

It is not possible to interpret rigidly the bearing of this so-called

certificate, as if no copies had previously been taken of _any_ form

of the Book; nor can we allow it to impugn the authenticity of the

Geographic Text, which demonstratively represents an older original,

and has been (as we have seen) the parent of all other versions,

including some very old ones, Italian and Latin, which certainly owe

nothing to this revision.

The first idea apparently entertained by d’Avezac and Paulin Paris was

that the Geographic Text was _itself_ the copy given to the Sieur de

Cepoy, and that the differences in the copies of the class which we

describe as Type II. merely resulted from the modifications which would

naturally arise in the process of transcription into purer French.

But closer examination showed the differences to be too great and too

marked to admit of this explanation. These differences consist not

only in the conversion of the rude, obscure, and half Italian language

of the original into good French of the period. There is also very

considerable curtailment, generally of tautology, but also extending

often to circumstances of substantial interest; whilst we observe the

omission of a few notably erroneous statements or expressions; and a

few insertions of small importance. None of the MSS. of this class

contain more than a few of the historical chapters which we have formed

into Book IV.

The only _addition_ of any magnitude is that chapter which in our

translation forms chapter xxi. of Book II. It will be seen that

it contains no new facts, but is only a tedious recapitulation of

circumstances already stated, though scattered over several chapters.

There are a few minor additions. I have not thought it worth while to

collect them systematically here, but two or three examples are given

in a note.[3]

There are also one or two corrections of erroneous statements in the

G. T. which seem not to be accidental and to indicate some attempt at

revision. Thus a notable error in the account of Aden, which seems to

conceive of the Red Sea as a _river_, disappears in Pauthier’s MSS.

A and B.[4] And we find in these MSS. one or two interesting names

preserved which are not found in the older Text.[5]

But on the other hand this class of MSS. contains many erroneous

readings of names, either adopting the worse of two forms occurring in

the G. T. or originating blunders of its own.[6]

M. Pauthier lays great stress on the character of these MSS. as

the sole authentic form of the work, from their claim to have been

specially revised by Marco Polo. It is evident, however, from what has

been said, that this revision can have been only a very careless and

superficial one, and must have been done in great measure by deputy,

being almost entirely confined to curtailment and to the improvement of

the expression, and that it is by no means such as to allow an editor

to dispense with a careful study of the Older Text.

[Sidenote: The Bern MS. and two others form a sub-class of this Type.]

57. There is another curious circumstance about the MSS. of this

type, viz., that they clearly divide into two distinct recensions,

of which both have so many peculiarities and errors in common that

they must necessarily have been both derived from _one_ modification

of the original text, whilst at the same time there are such

differences between the two as cannot be set down to the accidents of

transcription. Pauthier’s MSS. A and B (Nos. 16 and 15 of the List

in App. F) form one of these subdivisions: his C (No. 17 of List),

Bern (No. 56), and Oxford (No. 6), the other. Between A and B the

differences are only such as seem constantly to have arisen from the

whims of transcribers or their dialectic peculiarities. But between

A and B on the one side, and C on the other, the differences are

much greater. The readings of proper names in C are often superior,

sometimes worse; but in the latter half of the work especially it

contains a number of substantial passages[7] which are to be found in

the G. T., but are altogether absent from the MSS. A and B; whilst in

one case at least (the history of the Siege of Saianfu, vol. ii. p.

159) it diverges considerably from the G. T. _as well_ as from A and

B.[8]

I gather from the facts that the MS. C represents an older form of the

work than A and B. I should judge that the latter had been derived from

that older form, but intentionally modified from it. And as it is the

MS. C, with its copy at Bern, that alone presents the certificate of

derivation from the Book given to the Sieur de Cepoy, there can be no

doubt that it is the true representative of that recension.

[Sidenote: Third; Friar Pipino’s Latin.]

58. III. The next Type of Text is that found in Friar Pipino’s Latin

version. It is the type of which MSS. are by far the most numerous.

In it condensation and curtailment are carried a good deal further

than in Type II. The work is also divided into three Books. But this

division does not seem to have originated with Pipino, as we find it

in the ruder and perhaps older Latin version of which we have already

spoken under Type I. And we have demonstrated that this ruder Latin is

a translation from an Italian copy. It is probable therefore that an

Italian version similarly divided was the common source of what we call

the Geographic Latin and of Pipino’s more condensed version.[9]

Pipino’s version appears to have been executed in the later years of

Polo’s life.[10] But I can see no ground for the idea entertained by

Baldelli-Boni and Professor Bianconi that it was executed with Polo’s

cognizance and retouched by him.

[Sidenote: The Latin of Grynæus a translation at fifth hand.]

59. The absence of effective publication in the Middle Ages led to a

curious complication of translation and retranslation. Thus the Latin

version published by Grynæus in the _Novus Orbis_ (Basle, 1532) is

different from Pipino’s, and yet clearly traceable to it as a base.

In fact it is a retranslation into Latin from some version (Marsden

thinks the printed Portuguese one) of Pipino. It introduces many minor

modifications, omitting specific statements of numbers and values,

generalizing the names and descriptions of specific animals, exhibiting

frequent sciolism and self-sufficiency in modifying statements which

the Editor disbelieved.[11] It is therefore utterly worthless as a

Text, and it is curious that Andreas Müller, who in the 17th century

devoted himself to the careful editing of Polo, should have made so

unfortunate a choice as to reproduce this fifth-hand Translation. I

may add that the French editions published in the middle of the 16th

century are _translations_ from Grynæus. Hence they complete this

curious and vicious circle of translation: French—Italian—Pipino’s

Latin—Portuguese?—Grynæus’s Latin—French![12]

[Sidenote: Fourth; Ramusio’s Italian.]

60. IV. We now come to a Type of Text which deviates largely from

any of those hitherto spoken of, and the history and true character

of which are involved in a cloud of difficulty. We mean that Italian

version prepared for the press by G. B. Ramusio, with most interesting,

though, as we have seen, not always accurate preliminary dissertations,

and published at Venice two years after his death, in the second volume

of the _Navigationi e Viaggi_.[13]

The peculiarities of this version are very remarkable. Ramusio seems

to imply that he used as one basis at least the Latin of Pipino; and

many circumstances, such as the division into Books, the absence of

the terminal historical chapters and of those about the Magi, and

the form of many proper names, confirm this. But also many additional

circumstances and anecdotes are introduced, many of the names assume

a new shape, and the whole style is more copious and literary in

character than in any other form of the work.

Whilst some of the changes or interpolations seem to carry us further

from the truth, others contain facts of Asiatic nature or history, as

well as of Polo’s own experiences, which it is extremely difficult to

ascribe to any hand but the Traveller’s own. This was the view taken

by Baldelli, Klaproth, and Neumann;[14] but Hugh Murray, Lazari, and

Bartoli regard the changes as interpolations by another hand; and

Lazari is rash enough to ascribe the whole to a _rifacimento_ of

Ramusio’s own age, asserting it to contain interpolations not merely

from Polo’s own contemporary Hayton, but also from travellers of later

centuries, such as Conti, Barbosa, and Pigafetta. The grounds for these

last assertions have not been cited, nor can I trace them. But I admit

_to a certain extent_ indications of modern tampering with the text,

especially in cases where proper names seem to have been identified

and more modern forms substituted. In days, however, where an Editor’s

duties were ill understood, this was natural.

[Sidenote: Injudicious tamperings in Ramusio.]

61. Thus we find substituted for the _Bastra_ (or _Bascra_) of the

older texts the more modern and incorrect _Balsora_, dear to memories

of the Arabian Nights; among the provinces of Persia we have _Spaan_

(Ispahan) where older texts read _Istanit_; for _Cormos_ we have

_Ormus_; for _Herminia_ and _Laias_, _Armenia_ and _Giazza_; _Coulam_

for the older _Coilum_; _Socotera_ for _Scotra_. With these changes may

be classed the chapter-headings, which are undisguisedly modern, and

probably Ramusio’s own. In some other cases this editorial spirit has

been over-meddlesome and has gone astray. Thus _Malabar_ is substituted

wrongly for _Maabar_ in one place, and by a grosser error for _Dalivar_

in another. The age of young Marco, at the time of his father’s first

return to Venice, has been arbitrarily altered from 15 to 19, in

order to correspond with a date which is itself erroneous. Thus also

Polo is made to describe Ormus as on an Island, contrary to the old

texts and to the fact; for the city of Hormuz was not transferred to

the island, afterwards so famous, till some years after Polo’s return

from the East. It is probably also the editor who in the notice of

the oil-springs of Caucasus (i. p. 46) has substituted _camel-loads_

for _ship-loads_, in ignorance that the site of those alluded to was

probably Baku on the Caspian.

Other erroneous statements, such as the introduction of window-glass as

one of the embellishments of the palace at Cambaluc, are probably due

only to accidental misunderstanding.

[Sidenote: Genuine statements peculiar to Ramusio.]

62. Of circumstances certainly genuine, which are peculiar to this

edition of Polo’s work, and which it is difficult to assign to any

one but himself, we may note the specification of the woods east of

Yezd as composed of _date trees_ (vol. i pp. 88–89); the unmistakable

allusion to the subterranean irrigation channels of Persia (p. 123);

the accurate explanation of the term _Mulehet_ applied to the sect of

Assassins (pp. 139–142); the mention of the Lake (Sirikul?) on the

plateau of Pamer, of the wolves that prey on the wild sheep, and of the

piles of wild rams’ horns used as landmarks in the snow (pp. 171–177).

To the description of the Tibetan Yak, which is in all the texts,

Ramusio’s version alone adds a fact probably not recorded again till

the present century, viz., that it is the practice to cross the Yak

with the common cow (p. 274). Ramusio alone notices the prevalence of

_goître_ at Yarkand, confirmed by recent travellers (i. p. 187); the

vermilion seal of the Great Kaan imprinted on the paper-currency, which

may be seen in our plate of a Chinese note (p. 426); the variation in

Chinese dialects (ii. p. 236); the division of the hulls of junks into

water-tight compartments (ii. p. 249); the introduction into China from

Egypt of the art of refining sugar (ii. p. 226). Ramusio’s account of

the position of the city of Sindafu (Ch’êng-tu fu) encompassed and

intersected by many branches of a great river (ii. p. 40), is much

more just than that in the old text, which speaks of but one river

through the middle of the city. The intelligent notices of the Kaan’s

charities as originated by his adoption of “idolatry” or Buddhism; of

the astrological superstitions of the Chinese, and of the manners and

character of the latter nation, are found in Ramusio alone. To whom but

Marco himself, or one of his party, can we refer the brief but vivid

picture of the delicious atmosphere and scenery of the Badakhshan

plateaux (i. p. 158), and of the benefit that Messer Marco’s health

derived from a visit to them? In this version alone again we have an

account of the oppressions exercised by Kúblái’s Mahomedan Minister

Ahmad, telling how the Cathayans rose against him and murdered him,

with the addition that Messer Marco was on the spot when all this

happened. Now not only is the whole story in substantial accordance

with the Chinese Annals, even to the name of the chief conspirator,[15]

but those annals also tell of the courageous frankness of “Polo,

assessor of the Privy Council,” in opening the Kaan’s eyes to the truth.

Many more such examples might be adduced, but these will suffice. It

is true that many of the passages peculiar to the Ramusian version,

and indeed the whole version, show a freer utterance and more of a

literary faculty than we should attribute to Polo, judging from the

earlier texts. It is possible, however, that this may be almost, if not

entirely, due to the fact that the version is the result of a double

translation, and probably of an editorial fusion of several documents;

processes in which angularities of expression would be dissolved.[16]

[Sidenote: Hypothesis of the sources of the Ramusian Version.]

63. Though difficulties will certainly remain,[17] the most probable

explanation of the origin of this text seems to me to be some such

hypothesis as the following:—I suppose that Polo in his latter years

added with his own hand supplementary notes and reminiscences,

marginally or otherwise, to a copy of his book; that these, perhaps

in his lifetime, more probably after his death, were digested and

translated into Latin;[18] and that Ramusio, or some friend of his,

in retranslating and fusing them with Pipino’s version for the

_Navigationi_, made those minor modifications in names and other

matters which we have already noticed. The mere facts of digestion

from memoranda and double translation would account for a good deal of

unintentional corruption.

That more than one version was employed in the composition of Ramusio’s

edition we have curious proof in at least one passage of the latter.

We have pointed out at p. 410 of this volume a curious example of

misunderstanding of the old French Text, a passage in which the term

_Roi des Pelaines_, or “King of Furs,” is applied to the Sable, and

which in the Crusca has been converted into an imaginary Tartar phrase

_Leroide pelame_, or as Pipino makes it _Rondes_ (another indication

that Pipino’s Version and the Crusca passed through a common medium).

But Ramusio exhibits _both_ the true reading and the perversion: “_E li

Tartari la chiamano_ Regina delle pelli” (there is the true reading),

“_E gli animali si chiamano_ Rondes” (and there the perverted one).

We may further remark that Ramusio’s version betrays indications that

one of its bases either was in the Venetian dialect, or had passed

through that dialect; for a good many of the names appear in Venetian

forms, _e.g._, substituting the _z_ for the sound of _ch_, _j_, or

soft _g_, as in _Goza_, _Zorzania_, _Zagatay_, _Gonza_ (for Giogiu),

_Quenzanfu_, _Coiganzu_, _Tapinzu_, _Zipangu_, _Ziamba_.

[Sidenote: Summary in regard to Text of Polo.]

64. To sum up. It is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute that we

have, in what we call the Geographic Text, as nearly as may be an

exact transcript of the Traveller’s words as originally taken down in

the prison of Genoa. We have again in the MSS. of the second type an

edition pruned and refined, probably under instructions from Marco

Polo, but not with any critical exactness. And lastly, I believe,

that we have, imbedded in the Ramusian edition, the supplementary

recollections of the Traveller, noted down at a later period of his

life, but perplexed by repeated translation, compilation, and editorial

mishandling.

And the most important remaining problem in regard to the text of

Polo’s work is the discovery of the supplemental manuscript from which

Ramusio derived those passages which are found only in his edition. It

is possible that it may still exist, but no trace of it in anything

like completeness has yet been found; though when my task was all but

done I discovered a small part of the Ramusian peculiarities in a MS.

at Venice.[19]

65. Whilst upon this subject of manuscripts of our Author, I will give

some particulars regarding a very curious one, containing a version in

the _Irish_ language.

[Sidenote: Notice of a curious Irish Version of Polo.]

This remarkable document is found in the _Book of Lismore_, belonging

to the Duke of Devonshire. That magnificent book, finely written on

vellum of the largest size, was discovered in 1814, enclosed in a

wooden box, along with a superb crozier, on opening a closed doorway in

the castle of Lismore. It contained Lives of the Saints, the (Romance)

History of Charlemagne, the History of the Lombards, histories and

tales of Irish wars, etc., etc., and among the other matter this

version of Marco Polo. A full account of the Book and its mutilations

will be found in _O’Curry’s Lectures on the MS. Materials of Ancient

Irish History_, p. 196 _seqq._, Dublin, 1861. The _Book of Lismore_

was written about 1460 for Finghin MacCarthy and his wife Catharine

Fitzgerald, daughter of Gerald, Eighth Earl of Desmond.

The date of the Translation of Polo is not known, but it may be

supposed to have been executed about the above date, probably in the

Monastery of Lismore (county of Waterford).

From the extracts that have been translated for me, it is obvious that

the version was made, with an astounding freedom certainly, from Friar

Francesco Pipino’s Latin.

Both beginning and end are missing. But what remains opens thus;

compare it with Friar Pipino’s real prologue as we give it in the

Appendix![20]

[Irish text] &c.

——“Kings and chieftains of that city. There was then in the city a

princely Friar in the habit of St. Francis, named Franciscus, who

was versed in many languages. He was brought to the place where

those nobles were, and they requested of him to translate the book

from the Tartar (!) into the Latin language. ‘It is an abomination

to me,’ said he, ‘to devote my mind or labour to works of Idolatry

and Irreligion.’ They entreated him again. ‘It shall be done,’ said

he; ‘for though it be an irreligious narrative that is related

therein, yet the things are miracles of the True God; and every one

who hears this much against the Holy Faith shall pray fervently for

their conversion. And he who will not pray shall waste the vigour

of his body to convert them.’ I am not in dread of this Book of

Marcus, for there is no lie in it. My eyes beheld him bringing the

relics of the holy Church with him, and he left [his testimony],

whilst tasting of death, that it was true. And Marcus was a devout

man. What is there in it, then, but that Franciscus translated this

Book of Marcus from the Tartar into Latin; and the years of the

Lord at that time were fifteen years, two score, two hundred, and

one thousand” (1255).

It then describes _Armein Bec_ (Little Armenia), _Armein Mor_ (Great

Armenia), _Musul_, _Taurisius_, _Persida_, _Camandi_, and so forth. The

last chapter is that on _Abaschia_:—

“ABASCHIA also is an extensive country, under the government of

Seven Kings, four of whom worship the true God, and each of them

wears a golden cross on the forehead; and they are valiant in

battle, having been brought up fighting against the Gentiles of

the other three kings, who are Unbelievers and Idolaters. And the

kingdom of ADEN; a Soudan rules over them.

“The king of Abaschia once took a notion to make a pilgrimage to

the Sepulchre of Jesus. ‘Not at all,’ said his nobles and warriors

to him, ‘for we should be afraid lest the infidels through whose

territories you would have to pass, should kill you. There is a

Holy Bishop with you,’ said they; ‘send him to the Sepulchre of

Jesus, and much gold with him’”——

The rest is wanting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] In the following citations, the Geographic Text (G. T.) is quoted

by page from the printed edition (1824); the Latin published in

the same volume (G. L.) also by page; the Crusca, as before, from

Bartoli’s edition of 1863. References in parentheses are to the

present translation:—

A. _Passages showing the G. L. to be a translation from the Italian,

and derived from the same Italian text as the_ Crusca.

Page

(1). G.T. 17 (I. 43). Il hi se laborent _le souran tapis_

dou monde.

Crusca, 17 .. E quivi si fanno _i sovrani tappeti_

del mondo.

G.L. 311 .. Et ibi fiunt _soriani et tapeti_

pulcriores de mundo.

(2). G.T. 23 (I. 69). Et adonc le calif mande par tuit les

cristiez ... _que en sa tere estoient_.

Crusca, 27 .. _Ora mandò_ lo aliffo per tutti gli

Cristiani _ch’erano di là_.

G.L. 316 .. _Or misit_ califus pro Christianis

_qui erant ultra fluvium_ (the last

words being clearly a misunderstanding

of the Italian _di là_).

(3). G.T. 198 (II. 313). Ont _sosimain_ (sesamum) de coi il

font le olio.

Crusca, 253 .. Hanno _sosimai_ onde fanno l’olio.

G.L. 448 .. Habent _turpes manus_ (taking _sosimani_

for _sozze mani_ “Dirty hands”!).

(4). Crusca, 52 (I. 158). _Cacciare e uccellare_ v’è lo migliore

del mondo.

G.L. 332 .. Et est ibi optimum _caciare et

ucellare_.

(5). G.T. 124 (II. 36). Adonc treuve ... une Provence _qe est

encore_ de le confin dou Mangi.

Crusca, 162–3 .. L’uomo truova una Provincia _ch’è

chiamata ancora_ delle confine de’

Mangi.

G.L. 396 .. Invenit unam Provinciam _quae vocatur

Anchota_ de confinibus Mangi.

(6). G.T. 146 (II. 119). Les dames portent as jambes et es

braces, braciaus d’or et d’arjent de

grandisme vailance.

Crusca, 189 .. Le donne _portano alle braccia e alle

gambe bracciali d’oro_ e d’ariento

di gran valuta.

G.L. 411 .. Dominæ eorum _portant ad brachia et

ad gambas brazalia de auro_ et de

argento magni valoris.

B. _Passages showing additionally the errors, or other peculiarities

of a translation from a French original, common to the Italian and

the Latin._

(7). G.T. 32 (I. 97). Est celle plaingne mout _chaue_

(chaude).

Crusca, 35 .. Questo piano è molto _cavo_.

G.L. 322 .. Ista planities est multum _cava_.

(8). G.T. 36 (I. 110). Avent por ce que l’eive hi est _amer_.

Crusca, 40 .. E questo è _per lo mare_ che vi viene.

G.L. 324 .. Istud est _propter mare_ quod est ibi.

(9). G.T. 18 (I. 50). Un roi qi est apelés par tout tens

Davit Melic, que veut à dir _en

fransois_ Davit Roi.

Crusca, 20 .. Uno re il quale si chiama _sempre_

David Melic, ciò è a dire _in

francesco_ David Re.

G.L. 312 .. Rex qui _semper_ vocatur David Mellic,

quod sonat _in gallico_ David Rex.

These passages, and many more that might be quoted, seem to me to

demonstrate (1) that the Latin and the Crusca have had a common

original, and (2) that this original was an Italian version from

the French.

[2] Thus the _Pucci_ MS. at Florence, in the passage regarding the

Golden King (vol. ii. p. 17) which begins in G. T. “_Lequel fist

faire_ jadis _un rois qe fu apellés le Roi Dor_,” renders “_Lo

quale fa fare_ Jaddis _uno re_,” a mistake which is not in the

Crusca nor in the Latin, and seems to imply derivation from the

French directly, or by some other channel (_Baldelli Boni_).

[3] In the Prologue (vol. i. p. 34) this class of MSS. alone names the

King of England.

In the account of the Battle with Nayan (i. p. 337) this class

alone speaks of the two-stringed instruments which the Tartars

played whilst awaiting the signal for battle. But the circumstance

appears elsewhere in the G. T. (p. 250).

In the chapter on _Malabar_ (vol. ii. p. 390), it is said that the

ships which go with cargoes towards Alexandria are not one-tenth of

those that go to the further East. This is not in the older French.

In the chapter on _Coilun_ (ii. p. 375), we have a notice of the

Columbine ginger so celebrated in the Middle Ages, which is also

absent from the older text.

[4] See vol. ii. p. 439. It is, however, remarkable that a like mistake

is made about the Persian Gulf (see i. 63, 64). Perhaps Polo

_thought_ in Persian, in which the word _darya_ means either _sea_

or a _large river_. The same habit and the ambiguity of the Persian

_sher_ led him probably to his confusion of lions and tigers (see

i. 397).

[5] Such are Pasciai-_Dir_ and _Ariora_ Kesciemur (i. p. 98.)

[6] Thus the MSS. of this type have elected the erroneous readings

_Bolgara, Cogatra, Chiato, Cabanant_, etc., instead of the

correcter _Bolgana, Cocacin, Quiacatu, Cobinan_, where the G. T.

presents both (_supra_, p. _86_). They read _Esanar_ for the

correct _Etzina_; _Chascun_ for _Casvin_; _Achalet_ for _Acbalec_;

_Sardansu_ for _Sindafu_, _Kayteu, Kayton, Sarcon_ for _Zaiton_ or

_Caiton_; _Soucat_ for _Locac_; _Falec_ for _Ferlec_, and so on,

the worse instead of the better. They make the _Mer Occeane_ into

_Mer Occident_; the wild asses (_asnes_) of the Kerman Desert into

wild geese (_oes_); the _escoillez_ of Bengal (ii. p. 115) into

_escoliers_; the _giraffes_ of Africa into _girofles_, or cloves,

etc., etc.

[7] There are about five-and-thirty such passages altogether.

[8] The Bern MS. I have satisfied myself is an actual _copy_ of the

Paris MS. C.

The Oxford MS. closely resembles both, but I have not made the

comparison minutely enough to say if it is an exact copy of either.

[9] The following comparison will also show that these two Latin

versions have probably had a common source, such as is here

suggested.

At the end of the Prologue the Geographic Text reads simply:—

“Or puis que je voz ai contez tot le fat dou prolegue ensi con voz

avés oï, adonc (commencerai) le Livre.”

Whilst the Geographic Latin has:—

“_Postquam recitavimus et diximus facta et condictiones morum,

itinerum_ et ea quae nobis contigerunt per vias, _incipiemus dicere

ea quae vidimus. Et primo dicemus de Minore Hermenia_.”

And Pipino:—

“_Narratione facta nostri itineris, nunc ad ea narranda quae

vidimus accedamus. Primo autem Armeniam Minorem describemus

breviter_.”

[10] Friar Francesco Pipino of Bologna, a Dominican, is known also

as the author of a lengthy chronicle from the time of the Frank

Kings down to 1314; of a Latin Translation of the French History

of the Conquest of the Holy Land, by Bernard the Treasurer; and of

a short Itinerary of a Pilgrimage to Palestine in 1320. Extracts

from the Chronicle, and the version of Bernard, are printed in

Muratori’s Collection. As Pipino states himself to have executed

the translation of Polo by order of his Superiors, it is probable

that the task was set him at a general chapter of the order which

was held at Bologna in 1315. (See _Muratori_, IX. 583; and _Quétif,

Script. Ord. Praed._ I. 539). We do not know why Ramusio assigned

the translation specifically to 1320, but he may have had grounds.

[11] See _Bianconi_, 1st Mem. 29 _seqq._

[12] C. Dickens somewhere narrates the history of the equivalents

for a sovereign as changed and rechanged at every frontier on

a continental tour. The final equivalent received at Dover on

his return was some 12 or 13 shillings; a fair parallel to the

comparative value of the first and last copies in the circle of

translation.

[13] The Ramusios were a family of note in literature for several

generations. Paolo, the father of Gian Battista, came originally

from Rimini to Venice in 1458, and had a great repute as a jurist,

besides being a littérateur of some eminence, as was also his

younger brother Girolamo. G. B. Ramusio was born at Treviso in

1485, and early entered the public service. In 1533 he became one

of the Secretaries of the Council of X. He was especially devoted

to geographical studies, and had a school for such studies in his

house. He retired eventually from public duties, and lived at

Villa Ramusia, near Padua. He died in the latter city, 10th July,

1557, but was buried at Venice in the Church of S. Maria dell’Orto.

There was a portrait of him by Paul Veronese in the Hall of the

Great Council, but it perished in the fire of 1577; and that

which is now seen in the Sala dello Scudo is, like the companion

portrait of Marco Polo, imaginary. Paolo Ramusio, his son, was the

author of the well-known History of the Capture of Constantinople.

(_Cicogna_, II. 310 _seqq._)

[14] The old French texts were unknown in Marsden’s time. Hence this

question did not present itself to him.

[15] _Wangcheu_ in the Chinese Annals; _Vanchu_ in Ramusio. I assume

that Polo’s _Vanchu_ was pronounced as in English; for in Venetian

the _ch_ very often has that sound. But I confess that I can adduce

no other instance in Ramusio where I suppose it to have this

sound, except in the initial sound of _Chinchitalas_ and twice in

_Choiach_ (see II. 364).

Professor Bianconi, who has treated the questions connected with the

Texts of Polo with honest enthusiasm and laborious detail, will

admit nothing genuine in the Ramusian interpolations beyond the

preservation of some _oral traditions_ of Polo’s supplementary

recollections. But such a theory is out of the question in face of

a chapter like that on Ahmad.

[16] Old Purchas appears to have greatly relished Ramusio’s comparative

lucidity: “I found (says he) this Booke translated by Master

Hakluyt out of the Latine (_i.e._ among Hakluyt’s MS. collections).

But where the blind leade the blind both fall: as here the corrupt

_Latine_ could not but yeeld a corruption of truth in _English_.

Ramusio, Secretarie to the _Decemviri_ in _Venice_, found a better

Copie and published the same, whence you have the worke in manner

new: so renewed, that I have found the Proverbe true, that it is

better to pull downe an old house and to build it anew, then to

repaire it; as I also should have done, had I knowne that which in

the event I found. The _Latine_ is Latten, compared to _Ramusio’s_

Gold. And hee which hath the _Latine_ hath but _Marco Polo’s_

carkasse or not so much, but a few bones, yea, sometimes stones

rather then bones; things divers, averse, adverse, perverted in

manner, disjoynted in manner, beyond beliefe. I have seene some

Authors maymed, but never any so mangled and so mingled, so present

and so absent, as this vulgar _Latine_ of _Marco Polo_; not so like

himselfe, as the Three _Polo’s_ were at their returne to _Venice_,

where none knew them.... Much are wee beholden to _Ramusio_, for

restoring this _Pole_ and Load-starre of _Asia_, out of that mirie

poole or puddle in which he lay drouned.” (III. p. 65.)

[17] Of these difficulties the following are some of the more

prominent:—

1. The mention of the death of Kúblái (see note 7, p. 38 of this

volume), whilst throughout the book Polo speaks of Kúblái as if

still reigning.

2. Mr. Hugh Murray objects that whilst in the old texts Polo

appears to look on Kúblái with reverence as a faultless Prince, in

the Ramusian we find passages of an opposite tendency, as in the

chapter about Ahmad.

3. The same editor points to the manner in which one of the

Ramusian additions represents the traveller to have visited the

Palace of the Chinese Kings at Kinsay, which he conceives to be

inconsistent with Marco’s position as an official of the Mongol

Government. (See vol. ii. p. 208.)

If we could conceive the Ramusian additions to have been originally

notes written by old Maffeo Polo on his nephew’s book, this

hypothesis would remove almost all difficulty.

One passage in Ramusio seems to bear a reference to the date at

which these interpolated notes were amalgamated with the original.

In the chapter on Samarkand (i. p. 191) the conversion of the

Prince Chagatai is said in the old texts to have occurred “not a

great while ago” (_il ne a encore grament de tens_). But in Ramusio

the supposed event is fixed at “one hundred and twenty-five years

since.” This number could not have been uttered with reference to

1298, the year of the dictation at Genoa, nor to any year of Polo’s

own life. Hence it is probable that the original note contained a

date or definite term which was altered by the compiler to suit the

date of his own compilation, some time in the 14th century.

[18] In the first edition of Ramusio the preface contained the

following passage, which is omitted from the succeeding editions;

but as even the first edition was issued after Ramusio’s own death,

I do not see that any stress can be laid on this:

“A copy of the Book of Marco Polo, as it was originally written

in Latin, marvellously old, and perhaps directly copied from the

original as it came from M. Marco’s own hand, has been often

consulted by me and compared with that which we now publish, having

been lent me by a nobleman of this city, belonging to the Ca’

Ghisi.”

[19] For a moment I thought I had been lucky enough to light on a part

of the missing original of Ramusio in the Barberini Library at

Rome. A fragment of a Venetian version in that library (No. 56 in

our list of MSS.) bore on the fly-leaf the title “_Alcuni primi

capi del Libro di S. Marco Polo, copiati dall esemplare manoscritto

di PAOLO RANNUSIO._” But it proved to be of no importance. One

brief passage of those which have been thought peculiar to Ramusio,

viz., the reference to the Martyrdom of St. Blaize at Sebaste (see

p. 43 of this volume), is found also in the Geographic Latin.

It was pointed out by Lazari, that another passage (vol. i. p. 60)

of those otherwise peculiar to Ramusio, is found in a somewhat

abridged Latin version in a MS. which belonged to the late eminent

antiquary Emanuel Cicogna. (See List in Appendix F, No. 35.)

This fact induced me when at Venice in 1870 to examine the MS.

throughout, and, though I could give little time to it, the result

was very curious.

I find that this MS. contains, not one only, but at least _seven_

of the passages otherwise peculiar to Ramusio, and must have been

one of the elements that went to the formation of his text. Yet of

his more important interpolations, such as the chapter on Ahmad’s

oppressions and the additional matter on the City of Kinsay, there

is no indication. The seven passages alluded to are as follows; the

words corresponding to Ramusian peculiarities are in italics, the

references are to my own volumes.

1. In the chapter on Georgia:

“Mare quod dicitur Gheluchelan _vel ABACU_”....

“Est ejus stricta via et dubia. Ab una parte est mare _quod dixi de

ABACU_ et ab aliâ nemora invia,” etc. (See I. p. 59, note 8.)

2. “Et ibi optimi austures _dicti AVIGI_” (I. 50).

3. After the chapter on Mosul is another short chapter, already

alluded to:

“_Prope hanc civitatem (est) alia provincia dicta MUS e MEREDIEN in

quâ nascitur magna quantitas bombacis, et hic fiunt bocharini et

alia multa, et sunt mercatores homines et artiste_.” (See i. p. 60.)

4. In the chapter on _Tarcan_ (for Carcan, _i.e._ Yarkand):

“_Et maior pars horum habent unum ex pedibus grossum et habent

gosum in gulâ_; et est hic fertilis contracta.” (See i. p. 187.)

5. In the Desert of Lop:

“_Homines trasseuntes appendunt bestiis suis capanullas_ [_i.e._

campanellas] _ut ipsas senciant et ne deviare possint_” (i. p. 197.)

6. “Ciagannor, _quod sonat in Latino STAGNUM ALBUM_.” (i. p. 296.)

7. “Et in medio hujus viridarii est palacium sive logia, _tota

super columpnas. Et in summitate cujuslibet columnæ est draco

magnus circundans totam columpnam, et hic substinet eorum

cohoperturam cum ore et pedibus_; et est cohopertura tota de cannis

hoc modo,” etc. (See i. p. 299.)

[20] My valued friend Sir Arthur Phayre made known to me the passage

in _O’Curry’s Lectures_. I then procured the extracts and further

particulars from Mr. J. Long, Irish Transcriber and Translator

in Dublin, who took them from the Transcript of the _Book of

Lismore_, in the possession of the Royal Irish Academy. [Cf.

_Anecdota Oxoniensia. Lives of the Saints from the Book of

Lismore, edited with a translation ... by_ Whitley Stokes, Oxford,

1890.—_Marco Polo_ forms fo. 79 a, 1–fo. 89 b, 2, of the MS., and

is described pp. xxii.–xxiv. of Mr. Whitley Stokes’ Book, who has

since published the Text in the _Zeit. f. Celtische Philol._ (See

_Bibliography_, vol. ii. p. 573.)— H. C.]

XI. SOME ESTIMATE OF THE CHARACTER OF POLO AND HIS BOOK.

[Sidenote: Grounds of Polo’s pre-eminence among mediæval travellers.]

66. That Marco Polo has been so universally recognised as the King of

Mediæval Travellers is due rather to the width of his experience, the

vast compass of his journeys, and the romantic nature of his personal

history, than to transcendent superiority of character or capacity.

The generation immediately preceding his own has bequeathed to us, in

the Report of the Franciscan Friar William de Rubruquis,[1] on the

Mission with which St. Lewis charged him to the Tartar Courts, the

narrative of one great journey, which, in its rich detail, its vivid

pictures, its acuteness of observation and strong good sense, seems

to me to form a Book of Travels of much higher claims than _any one

series_ of Polo’s chapters; a book, indeed, which has never had justice

done to it, for it has few superiors in the whole Library of Travel.

Enthusiastic Biographers, beginning with Ramusio, have placed Polo on

the same platform with Columbus. But where has our Venetian Traveller

left behind him any trace of the genius and lofty enthusiasm, the

ardent and justified previsions which mark the great Admiral as one

of the lights of the human race?[2] It is a juster praise that the

spur which his Book eventually gave to geographical studies, and the

beacons which it hung out at the Eastern extremities of the Earth

helped to guide the aims, though scarcely to kindle the fire, of the

greater son of the rival Republic. His work was at least a link in the

Providential chain which at last dragged the New World to light.[3]

[Sidenote: His true claims to glory.]

67. Surely Marco’s real, indisputable, and, in their kind, unique

claims to glory may suffice! _He was the first Traveller to trace a

route across the whole longitude of_ ASIA, _naming and describing

kingdom after kingdom which he had seen with his own eyes; the Deserts

of_ PERSIA, _the flowering plateaux and wild gorges of_ BADAKHSHAN,

_the jade-bearing rivers of_ KHOTAN, _the_ MONGOLIAN _Steppes, cradle

of the power that had so lately threatened to swallow up Christendom,

the new and brilliant Court that had been established at_ CAMBALUC:

_The first Traveller to reveal_ CHINA _in all its wealth and vastness,

its mighty rivers, its huge cities, its rich manufactures, its swarming

population, the inconceivably vast fleets that quickened its seas and

its inland waters; to tell us of the nations on its borders with all

their eccentricities of manners and worship; of_ TIBET _with its sordid

devotees; of_ BURMA _with its golden pagodas and their tinkling crowns;

of_ LAOS, _of_ SIAM, _of_ COCHIN CHINA, _of_ JAPAN, _the Eastern Thule,

with its rosy pearls and golden-roofed palaces; the first to speak

of that Museum of Beauty and Wonder, still so imperfectly ransacked,

the_ INDIAN ARCHIPELAGO, _source of those aromatics then so highly

prized and whose origin was so dark; of_ JAVA _the Pearl of Islands;

of_ SUMATRA _with its many kings, its strange costly products, and its

cannibal races; of the naked savages of_ NICOBAR _and_ ANDAMAN; _of_

CEYLON _the Isle of Gems with its Sacred Mountain and its Tomb of Adam;

of_ INDIA THE GREAT, _not as a dream-land of Alexandrian fables, but

as a country seen and partially explored, with its virtuous Brahmans,

its obscene ascetics, its diamonds and the strange tales of their

acquisition, its sea-beds of pearl, and its powerful sun; the first in

mediæval times to give any distinct account of the secluded Christian

Empire of_ ABYSSINIA, _and the semi-Christian Island of_ SOCOTRA; _to

speak, though indeed dimly, of_ ZANGIBAR _with its negroes and its

ivory, and of the vast and distant_ MADAGASCAR, _bordering on the Dark

Ocean of the South, with its Ruc and other monstrosities; and, in a

remotely opposite region, of_ SIBERIA _and the_ ARCTIC OCEAN, _of

dog-sledges, white bears, and reindeer-riding Tunguses_.

That all this rich catalogue of discoveries should belong to the

revelations of one Man and one Book is surely ample ground enough to

account for and to justify the Author’s high place in the roll of Fame,

and there can be no need to exaggerate his greatness, or to invest him

with imaginary attributes.[4]

[Sidenote: His personal attributes seen but dimly.]

68. What manner of man was Ser Marco? It is a question hard to answer.

Some critics cry out against personal detail in books of Travel; but as

regards him who would not welcome a little more egotism! In his Book

impersonality is carried to excess; and we are often driven to discern

by indirect and doubtful indications alone, whether he is speaking of

a place from personal knowledge or only from hearsay. In truth, though

there are delightful exceptions, and nearly every part of the book

suggests interesting questions, a desperate meagreness and baldness

does extend over considerable tracts of the story. In fact his book

reminds us sometimes of his own description of Khorasan:—“_On chevauche

par beaus plains et belles costieres, là où il a moult beaus herbages

et bonne pasture et fruis assez.... Et aucune fois y treuve l’en un

desert de soixante milles ou de mains, esquels desers ne treuve l’en

point d’eaue; mais la convient porter o lui!_”

Still, some shadowy image of the man may be seen in the Book; a

practical man, brave, shrewd, prudent, keen in affairs, and never

losing his interest in mercantile details, very fond of the chase,

sparing of speech; with a deep wondering respect for Saints, even

though they be Pagan Saints, and their asceticism, but a contempt for

Patarins and such like, whose consciences would not run in customary

grooves, and on his own part a keen appreciation of the World’s pomps

and vanities. See, on the one hand, his undisguised admiration of

the hard life and long fastings of Sakya Muni; and on the other how

enthusiastic he gets in speaking of the great Kaan’s command of the

good things of the world, but above all of his matchless opportunities

of sport![5]

Of humour there are hardly any signs in his Book. His almost solitary

joke (I know but one more, and it pertains to the οὐκ ἀνήκοντα)

occurs in speaking of the Kaan’s paper-money when he observes that

Kúblái might be said to have the true Philosopher’s Stone, for he

made his money at pleasure out of the bark of Trees.[6] Even the

oddest eccentricities of outlandish tribes scarcely seem to disturb

his gravity; as when he relates in his brief way of the people called

Gold-Teeth on the frontier of Burma, that ludicrous custom which Mr.

Tylor has so well illustrated under the name of the _Couvade_. There is

more savour of laughter in the few lines of a Greek Epic, which relate

precisely the same custom of a people on the Euxine:—

————“In the Tibarenian Land

When some good woman bears her lord a babe,

’Tis _he_ is swathed and groaning put to bed;

Whilst _she_, arising, tends his baths, and serves

Nice possets for her husband in the straw.”[7]

[Illustration: Probable View OF MARCO POLO’S OWN GEOGRAPHY

Lit. Frauenfelder, Palermo]

[Sidenote: Absence of scientific notions.]

69. Of scientific notions, such as we find in the unveracious

Maundevile, we have no trace in truthful Marco. The former, “lying with

a circumstance,” tells us boldly that he was in 33° of South Latitude;

the latter is full of wonder that some of the Indian Islands where he

had been lay so far to the south that you lost sight of the Pole-star.

When it rises again on his horizon he estimates the Latitude by the

Pole-star’s being so many _cubits_ high. So the gallant Baber speaks

of the sun having mounted _spear-high_ when the onset of battle began

at Paniput. Such expressions convey no notion at all to such as have

had their ideas sophisticated by angular perceptions of altitude, but

similar expressions are common among Orientals,[8] and indeed I have

heard them from educated Englishmen. In another place Marco states

regarding certain islands in the Northern Ocean that they lie so

very far to the north that in going thither one actually leaves the

Pole-star a trifle behind towards the south; a statement to which we

know only one parallel, to wit, in the voyage of that adventurous Dutch

skipper who told Master Moxon, King Charles II.’s Hydrographer, that he

had sailed two degrees beyond the Pole!

[Sidenote: Map constructed on Polo’s data.]

70. The Book, however, is full of bearings and distances, and I have

thought it worth while to construct a map from its indications, in

order to get some approximation to Polo’s own idea of the face of that

world which he had traversed so extensively. There are three allusions

to maps in the course of his work (II. 245, 312, 424).

In his own bearings, at least on land journeys, he usually carries us

along a great general traverse line, without much caring about small

changes of direction. Thus on the great outward journey from the

frontier of Persia to that of China the line runs almost continuously

“_entre Levant et Grec_” or E.N.E. In his journey from Cambaluc or

Peking to Mien or Burma, it is always _Ponent_ or W.; and in that

from Peking to Zayton in Fo-kien, the port of embarkation for India,

it is _Sceloc_ or S.E. The line of bearings in which he deviates most

widely from truth is that of the cities on the Arabian Coast from Aden

to Hormuz, which he makes to run steadily _vers Maistre_ or N.W., a

conception which it has not been very easy to realise on the map.[9]

[Sidenote: Singular omissions of Polo in regard to China; Historical

inaccuracies.]

71. In the early part of the Book we are told that Marco acquired

several of the languages current in the Mongol Empire, and no less than

four written characters. We have discussed what these are likely to

have been (i. pp. 28–29), and have given a decided opinion that Chinese

was not one of them. Besides intrinsic improbability, and positive

indications of Marco’s ignorance of Chinese, in no respect is his

book so defective as in regard to Chinese manners and peculiarities.

The Great Wall is never mentioned, though we have shown reason for

believing that it was in his mind when one passage of his book was

dictated.[10] The use of Tea, though he travelled through the Tea

districts of Fo-kien, is never mentioned;[11] the compressed feet of

the women and the employment of the fishing cormorant (both mentioned

by Friar Odoric, the contemporary of his later years), artificial

egg-hatching, printing of books (though the notice of this art seems

positively challenged in his account of paper-money), besides a score

of remarkable arts and customs which one would have expected to recur

to his memory, are never alluded to. Neither does he speak of the great

characteristic of the Chinese writing. It is difficult to account

for these omissions, especially considering the comparative fulness

with which he treats the manners of the Tartars and of the Southern

Hindoos; but the impression remains that his associations in China

were chiefly with foreigners. Wherever the place he speaks of had a

Tartar or Persian name he uses that rather than the Chinese one. Thus

_Cathay_, _Cambaluc_, _Pulisanghin_, _Tangut_, _Chagannor_, _Saianfu_,

_Kenjanfu_, _Tenduc_, _Acbalec_, _Carajan_, _Zardandan_, _Zayton_,

_Kemenfu_, _Brius_, _Caramoran_, _Chorcha_, _Juju_, are all Mongol,

Turki, or Persian forms, though all have Chinese equivalents.[12]

In reference to the then recent history of Asia, Marco is often

inaccurate, _e.g._ in his account of the death of Chinghiz, in the list

of his successors, and in his statement of the relationship between

notable members of that House.[13] But the most perplexing knot in the

whole book lies in the interesting account which he gives of the Siege

of Sayanfu or Siang-yang, during the subjugation of Southern China by

Kúblái. I have entered on this matter in the notes (vol. ii. p. 167),

and will only say here that M. Pauthier’s solution of the difficulty

is no solution, being absolutely inconsistent with the story as told

by Marco himself, and that I see none; though I have so much faith in

Marco’s veracity that I am loath to believe that the facts admit of no

reconciliation.

Our faint attempt to appreciate some of Marco’s qualities, as gathered

from his work, will seem far below the very high estimates that have

been pronounced, not only by some who have delighted rather to enlarge

upon his frame than to make themselves acquainted with his work,[14]

but also by persons whose studies and opinions have been worthy of all

respect. Our estimate, however, does not abate a jot of our intense

interest in his Book and affection for his memory. And we have a strong

feeling that, owing partly to his reticence, and partly to the great

disadvantages under which the Book was committed to writing, we have in

it a singularly imperfect image of the Man.

[Sidenote: Was Polo’s Book materially affected by the Scribe

Rusticiano?]

72. A question naturally suggests itself, how far Polo’s narrative,

at least in its expression, was modified by passing under the pen of

a professed littérateur of somewhat humble claims, such as Rusticiano

was. The case is not a singular one, and in our own day the ill-judged

use of such assistance has been fatal to the reputation of an

adventurous Traveller.

We have, however, already expressed our own view that in the

Geographic Text we have the nearest possible approach to a photographic

impression of Marco’s oral narrative. If there be an exception to

this we should seek it in the descriptions of battles, in which we

find the narrator to fall constantly into a certain vein of bombastic

commonplaces, which look like the stock phrases of a professed

romancer, and which indeed have a strong resemblance to the actual

phraseology of certain metrical romances.[15] Whether this feature

be due to Rusticiano I cannot say, but I have not been able to trace

anything of the same character in a cursory inspection of some of his

romance-compilations. Still one finds it impossible to conceive of

our sober and reticent Messer Marco pacing the floor of his Genoese

dungeon, and seven times over rolling out this magniloquent bombast,

with sufficient deliberation to be overtaken by the pen of the faithful

amanuensis!

[Sidenote: Marco’s reading embraced the Alexandrian Romances. Examples.]

73. On the other hand, though Marco, who had left home at fifteen

years of age, naturally shows very few signs of reading, there are

indications that he had read romances, especially those dealing with

the fabulous adventures of Alexander.

To these he refers explicitly or tacitly in his notices of the Irongate

and of Gog and Magog, in his allusions to the marriage of Alexander

with Darius’s daughter, and to the battle between those two heroes,

and in his repeated mention of the _Arbre Sol_ or _Arbre Sec_ on the

Khorasan frontier.

The key to these allusions is to be found in that Legendary History

of Alexander, entirely distinct from the true history of the

Macedonian Conqueror, which in great measure took the place of the

latter in the imagination of East and West for more than a thousand

years. This fabulous history is believed to be of Græco-Egyptian

origin, and in its earliest extant compiled form, in the Greek of the

Pseudo-Callisthenes, can be traced back to at least about A.D. 200.

From the Greek its marvels spread eastward at an early date; some part

at least of their matter was known to Moses of Chorene, in the 5th

century;[16] they were translated into Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, and

Syriac; and were reproduced in the verses of Firdusi and various other

Persian Poets; spreading eventually even to the Indian Archipelago,

and finding utterance in Malay and Siamese. At an early date they had

been rendered into Latin by Julius Valerius; but this work had probably

been lost sight of, and it was in the 10th century that they were

re-imported from Byzantium to Italy by the Archpriest Leo, who had

gone as Envoy to the Eastern Capital from John Duke of Campania.[17]

Romantic histories on this foundation, in verse and prose, became

diffused in all the languages of Western Europe, from Spain to

Scandinavia, rivalling in popularity the romantic cycles of the Round

Table or of Charlemagne. Nor did this popularity cease till the 16th

century was well advanced.

The heads of most of the Mediæval Travellers were crammed with these

fables as genuine history.[18] And by the help of that community of

legend on this subject which they found wherever Mahomedan literature

had spread, Alexander Magnus was to be traced everywhere in Asia.

Friar Odoric found Tana, near Bombay, to be the veritable City of King

Porus; John Marignolli’s vainglory led him to imitate King Alexander

in setting up a marble column “in the corner of the world over against

Paradise,” _i.e._ somewhere on the coast of Travancore; whilst Sir

John Maundevile, with a cheaper ambition, borrowed wonders from the

Travels of Alexander to adorn his own. Nay, even in after days, when

the Portuguese stumbled with amazement on those vast ruins in Camboja,

which have so lately become familiar to us through the works of Mouhot,

Thomson, and Garnier, they ascribed them to Alexander.[19]

Prominent in all these stories is the tale of Alexander’s shutting up

a score of impure nations, at the head of which were Gog and Magog,

within a barrier of impassable mountains, there to await the latter

days; a legend with which the disturbed mind of Europe not unnaturally

connected that cataclysm of unheard-of Pagans that seemed about to

deluge Christendom in the first half of the 13th century. In these

stories also the beautiful Roxana, who becomes the bride of Alexander,

is _Darius’s_ daughter, bequeathed to his arms by the dying monarch.

Conspicuous among them again is the Legend of the Oracular Trees of the

Sun and Moon, which with audible voice foretell the place and manner of

Alexander’s death. With this Alexandrian legend some of the later forms

of the story had mixed up one of Christian origin about the Dry Tree,

_L’Arbre Sec_. And they had also adopted the Oriental story of the Land

of Darkness and the mode of escape from it, which Polo relates at p.

484 of vol. ii.

[Sidenote: Injustice long done to Polo. Singular modern instance.]

74. We have seen in the most probable interpretation of the nickname

_Milioni_ that Polo’s popular reputation in his lifetime was of a

questionable kind; and a contemporary chronicler, already quoted,

has told us how on his death-bed the Traveller was begged by anxious

friends to retract his extraordinary stories.[20] A little later one

who copied the Book “_per passare tempo e malinconia_” says frankly

that he puts no faith in it.[21] Sir Thomas Brown is content “to carry

a wary eye” in reading “Paulus Venetus”; but others of our countrymen

in the last century express strong doubts whether he ever was in

Tartary or China.[22] Marden’s edition might well have extinguished

the last sparks of scepticism.[23] Hammer meant praise in calling Polo

“_der Vater orientalischer Hodogetik_,” in spite of the uncouthness of

the eulogy. But another grave German writer, ten years after Marsden’s

publication, put forth in a serious book that the whole story was a

clumsy imposture![24]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] M. d’Avezac has refuted the common supposition that this admirable

traveller was a native of Brabant.

The form _Rubruquis_ of the name of the traveller William de Rubruk

has been habitually used in this book, perhaps without sufficient

consideration, but it is the most familiar in England, from its

use by Hakluyt and Purchas. The former, who first published the

narrative, professedly printed from an imperfect MS. belonging to

the Lord Lumley, which does not seem to be now known. But all the

MSS. collated by Messrs. Francisque-Michel and Wright, in preparing

their edition of the Traveller, call him simply Willelmus de Rubruc

or Rubruk.

Some old authors, apparently without the slightest ground, having

called him _Risbroucke_ and the like, it came to be assumed that he

was a native of Ruysbroeck, a place in South Brabant.

But there is a place still called _Rubrouck_ in French Flanders.

This is a commune containing about 1500 inhabitants, belonging to

the Canton of Cassel and _arrondissement_ of Hazebrouck, in the

Department du Nord. And we may take for granted, till facts are

alleged against it, that _this_ was the place from which the envoy

of St. Lewis drew his origin. Many documents of the Middle Ages,

referring expressly to this place Rubrouck, exist in the Library

of St. Omer, and a detailed notice of them has been published by

M. Edm. Coussemaker, of Lille. Several of these documents refer

to persons bearing the same name as the Traveller, _e.g._, in 1190,

Thierry de Rubrouc; in 1202 and 1221, Gauthier du Rubrouc; in

1250, Jean du Rubrouc; and in 1258, Woutermann de Rubrouc. It is

reasonable to suppose that Friar William was of the same stock.

See _Bulletin de la Soc. de Géographie_, 2nd vol. for 1868, pp.

569–570, in which there are some remarks on the subject by M.

d’Avezac; and I am indebted to the kind courtesy of that eminent

geographer himself for the indication of this reference and the

main facts, as I had lost a note of my own on the subject.

It seems a somewhat complex question whether a native even of

_French_ Flanders at that time should be necessarily claimable

as a Frenchman;[A] but no doubt on this point is alluded to by

M. d’Avezac, so he probably had good ground for that assumption.

[See also _Yule’s_ article in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and

_Rockhill’s Rubruck_, Int., p. xxxv.—H. C.]

That cross-grained Orientalist, I. J. Schmidt, on several occasions

speaks contemptuously of this veracious and delightful traveller,

whose evidence goes in the teeth of some of his crotchets. But I am

glad to find that Professor Peschel takes a view similar to that

expressed in the text: “The narrative of Ruysbroek [Rubruquis],

almost immaculate in its freedom from fabulous insertions, may

be indicated on account of its truth to nature as the greatest

geographical masterpiece of the Middle Ages.” (_Gesch. der

Erdkunde_, 1865, p. 151.)

[A] The County of Flanders was at this time in large part a fief of

the French Crown. (See _Natalis de Wailly_, notes to Joinville,

p. 576.) But that would not much affect the question either one

way or the other.

[2] High as Marco’s name deserves to be set, his place is not beside

the writer of such burning words as these addressed to Ferdinand

and Isabella: “From the most tender age I went to sea, and to

this day I have continued to do so. Whosoever devotes himself to

this craft must desire to know the secrets of Nature here below.

For 40 years now have I thus been engaged, and wherever man has

sailed hitherto on the face of the sea, thither have I sailed also.

I have been in constant relation with men of learning, whether

ecclesiastic or secular, Latins and Greeks, Jews and Moors, and

men of many a sect besides. To accomplish this my longing (to

know the Secrets of the World) I found the Lord favourable to my

purposes; it is He who hath given me the needful disposition and

understanding. He bestowed upon me abundantly the knowledge of

seamanship: and of Astronomy He gave me enough to work withal,

and so with Geometry and Arithmetic.... In the days of my youth

I studied works of all kinds, history, chronicles, philosophy,

and other arts, and to apprehend these the Lord opened my

understanding. Under His manifest guidance I navigated hence to the

Indies; for it was the Lord who gave me the will to accomplish that

task, and it was in the ardour of that will that I came before your

Highnesses. All those who heard of my project scouted and derided

it; all the acquirements I have mentioned stood me in no stead;

and if in your Highnesses, and in you alone, Faith and Constancy

endured, to Whom are due the Lights that have enlightened you as

well as me, but to the Holy Spirit?” (Quoted in _Humboldt’s Examen

Critique_, I. 17, 18.)

[3] Libri, however, speaks too strongly when he says: “The finest

of all the results due to the influence of Marco Polo is that

of having stirred Columbus to the discovery of the New World.

Columbus, jealous of Polo’s laurels, spent his life in preparing

means to get to that Zipangu of which the Venetian traveller had

told such great things; his desire was to reach China by sailing

westward, and in his way he fell in with America.” (_H. des

Sciences Mathém._ etc. II. 150.)

The fact seems to be that Columbus knew of Polo’s revelations only

at second hand, from the letters of the Florentine Paolo Toscanelli

and the like; and I cannot find that he _ever_ refers to Polo by

name. [How deep was the interest taken by Colombus in Marco Polo’s

travels is shown by the numerous marginal notes of the Admiral in

the printed copy of the latin version of Pipino kept at the Bib.

Colombina at Seville. See _Appendix H_. p. 558.—H. C.] Though to

the day of his death he was full of imaginations about Zipangu and

the land of the Great Kaan as being in immediate proximity to his

discoveries, these were but accidents of his great theory. It was

the intense conviction he had acquired of the absolute smallness

of the Earth, of the vast extension of Asia eastward, and of the

consequent narrowness of the Western Ocean, on which his life’s

project was based. This conviction he seems to have derived

chiefly from the works of Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly. But the latter

borrowed his collected arguments from Roger Bacon, who has stated

them, erroneous as they are, very forcibly in his _Opus Majus_ (p.

137), as Humboldt has noticed in his _Examen_ (vol. i. p. 64). The

Spanish historian Mariana makes a strange jumble of the alleged

guides of Columbus, saying that some ascribed his convictions

to “the information given by _one Marco Polo, a Florentine

Physician!_” (“como otros dizen, por aviso que le dio _un cierto

Marco Polo, Medico Florentin_;” _Hist. de España_, lib. xxvi. cap

3). Toscanelli is called by Columbus _Maestro Paulo_, which seems

to have led to this mistake; see Sign. _G. Uzielli_, in _Boll.

della Soc. Geog. Ital._ IX. p. 119. [Also by the same: _Paolo dal

Pozzo Toscanelli iniziatore della scoperta d’America_, Florence,

1892; _Toscanelli_, No. 1; _Toscanelli_, Vol. V. of the _Raccolta

Colombiana_, 1894.—H. C.]

[4] “C’est diminuer l’expression d’un éloge que de l’exagérer.”

(_Humboldt, Examen_, III. 13.)

[5] See vol. ii. p. 318, and vol. i. p. 404.

[6] Vol. i. p. 423.

[7] Vol. ii. p. 85, and _Apollonius Rhodius, Argonaut_. II. 1012.

[8] Chinese Observers record the length of Comets’ tails by _cubits_!

[9] The map, perhaps, gives too favourable an idea of Marco’s

geographical conceptions. For in such a construction much has to

be supplied for which there are no data, and that is apt to take

mould from modern knowledge. Just as in the book illustrations of

ninety years ago we find that Princesses of Abyssinia, damsels of

Otaheite, and Beauties of Mary Stuart’s Court have all somehow a

savour of the high waists, low foreheads, and tight garments of

1810.

We are told that Prince Pedro of Portugal in 1426 received from the

Signory of Venice a map which was supposed to be either an original

or a copy of one by Marco Polo’s own hand. (_Major’s P. Henry_, p.

62.) There is no evidence to justify any absolute expression of

disbelief; and if any map-maker with the spirit of the author of

the Carta Catalana then dwelt in Venice, Polo certainly could not

have gone to his grave uncatechised. But I should suspect the map

to have been a copy of the old one that existed in the Sala dello

Scudo of the Ducal Palace.

The maps now to be seen painted on the walls of that Hall, and on

which Polo’s route is marked, are not of any great interest. But in

the middle of the 15th century there was an old _Descriptio Orbis

sive Mappamundus_ in the Hall, and when the apartment was renewed

in 1459 a decree of the Senate ordered that such a map should be

repainted on the new walls. This also perished by a fire in 1483.

On the motion of Ramusio, in the next century, four new maps were

painted. These had become dingy and ragged, when, in 1762, the Doge

Marco Foscarini caused them to be renewed by the painter Francesco

Grisellini. He professed to have adhered closely to the old maps,

but he certainly did not, as Morelli testifies. Eastern Asia looks

as if based on a work of Ramusio’s age, but Western Asia is of

undoubtedly modern character. (See _Operetti di Iacopo Morelli_,

Ven. 1820, I. 299.)

[10] “Humboldt confirms the opinion I have more than once expressed

that too much must not be inferred from the silence of authors. He

adduces three important and perfectly undeniable matters of fact,

as to which no evidence is to be found where it would be most

anticipated: In the archives of Barcelona no trace of the triumphal

entry of Columbus into that city; _in Marco Polo no allusion to

the Chinese Wall_; in the archives of Portugal nothing about

the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci in the service of that crown.”

(_Varnhagen_ v. _Ense_, quoted by Hayward, _Essays_, 2nd Ser. I.

36.) See regarding the Chinese Wall the remarks referred to above,

at p. 292 of this volume.

[11] [It is a strange fact that Polo never mentions the use of _Tea_

in China, although he travelled through the Tea districts in Fu

Kien, and tea was then as generally drunk by the Chinese as it

is now. It is mentioned more than four centuries earlier by the

Mohammedan merchant Soleyman, who visited China about the middle of

the 9th century. He states (_Reinaud, Relation des Voyages faits

par les Arabes et les Persans dans l’Inde et à la Chine_, 1845,

I. 40): “The people of China are accustomed to use as a beverage

an infusion of a plant, which they call _sakh_, and the leaves of

which are aromatic and of a bitter taste. It is considered very

wholesome. This plant (the leaves) is sold in all the cities of the

empire.” (_Bretschneider, Hist. Bot. Disc._ I. p. 5.)—H. C.]

[12] It is probable that Persian, which had long been the language of

Turanian courts, was also the common tongue of foreigners at that

of the Mongols. _Pulisanghin_ and _Zardandan_, in the preceding

list, are pure Persian. So are several of the Oriental phrases

noted at p. _84_. See also notes on _Ondanique_ and _Vernique_ at

pp. 93 and 384 of this volume, on _Tacuin_ at p. 448, and a note

at p. _93_ _supra_. The narratives of Odoric, and others of the

early travellers to Cathay, afford corroborative examples. Lord

Stanley of Alderley, in one of his contributions to the Hakluyt

Series, has given evidence from experience that Chinese Mahomedans

still preserve the knowledge of numerous Persian words.

[13] Compare these errors with like errors of Herodotus, _e.g._,

regarding the conspiracy of the False Smerdis. (See Rawlinson’s

Introduction, p. 55.) There is a curious parallel between the two

also in the supposed occasional use of Oriental state records, as

in Herodotus’s accounts of the revenues of the satrapies, and of

the army of Xerxes, and in Marco Polo’s account of Kinsay, and of

the Kaan’s revenues. (Vol. ii pp. 185, 216.)

[14] An example is seen in the voluminous _Annali Musulmani_ of _G.

B. Rampoldi_, Milan, 1825. This writer speaks of the Travels of

Marco Polo with his _brother_ and uncle; declares that he visited

_Tipango_ (_sic_), Java, Ceylon, and the _Maldives_, collected all

the geographical notions of his age, traversed the two peninsulas

of the Indies, examined the islands of _Socotra, Madagascar,

Sofala_, and traversed with _philosophic eye_ the regions of

Zanguebar, Abyssinia, Nubia, and Egypt! and so forth (ix. 174).

And whilst Malte-Brun bestows on Marco the sounding and ridiculous

title of “_the Humboldt of the 13th century_,” he shows little real

acquaintance with his Book. (See his _Précis_, ed. of 1836, I. 551

_seqq._)

[15] See for example vol. i. p. 338, and note 4 at p. 341; also vol.

ii. p. 103. The descriptions in the style referred to recur in all

seven times; but most of them (which are in Book IV.) have been

omitted in this translation.

[16] [On the subject of Moses of Chorene and his works, I must refer to

the clever researches of the late Auguste Carrière, Professor of

Armenian at the École des Langues Orientales.—H. C.]

[17] _Zacher, Forschungen zur Critik, &c., der Alexandersage_, Halle,

1867, p. 108.

[18] Even so sagacious a man as Roger Bacon quotes the fabulous letter

of Alexander to Aristotle as authentic. (_Opus Majus_, p. 137.)

[19] _J. As._ sér. VI. tom. xviii. p. 352.

[20] See passage from Jacopo d’Acqui, _supra_, p. _54_.

[21] It is the transcriber of one of the Florence MSS. who appends

this terminal note, worthy of Mrs. Nickleby:—“Here ends the Book

of Messer M. P. of Venice, written with mine own hand by me Amalio

Bonaguisi when Podestà of Cierreto Guidi, to get rid of time and

_ennui_. The contents seem to me incredible things, not lies so

much as miracles; and it may be all very true what he says, but

I don’t believe it; though to be sure throughout the world very

different things are found in different countries. But these

things, it has seemed to me in copying, are entertaining enough,

but not things to believe or put any faith in; that at least is my

opinion. And I finished copying this at Cierreto aforesaid, 12th

November, A.D. 1392.”

[22] _Vulgar Errors_, Bk. I. ch. viii.; _Astley’s Voyages_, IV. 583.

[23] A few years before Marsden’s publication, the Historical branch of

the R. S. of Science at Göttingen appears to have put forth as the

subject of a prize Essay the Geography of the Travels of Carpini,

Rubruquis, and especially of Marco Polo. (See _L. of M. Polo_, by

_Zurla_, in _Collezione di Vite e Ritratti d’Illustri Italiani_.

Pad. 1816.)

[24] See _Städtewesen des Mittelalters_, by _K. D. Hüllmann_, Bonn,

1829, vol. iv.

After speaking of the Missions of Pope Innocent IV. and St.

Lewis, this author sketches the Travels of the Polos, and then

proceeds:—“Such are the clumsily compiled contents of this

ecclesiastical fiction (_Kirchengeschichtlichen Dichtung_)

disguised as a Book of Travels, a thing devised generally in the

spirit of the age, but specially in the interests of the Clergy

and of Trade.... This compiler’s aim was analogous to that of

the inventor of the Song of Roland, to kindle enthusiasm for the

conversion of the Mongols, and so to facilitate commerce through

their dominions.... Assuredly the Poli never got further than Great

Bucharia, which was then reached by many Italian Travellers. What

they have related of the regions of the Mongol Empire lying further

east consists merely of recollections of the bazaar and travel-talk

of traders from those countries; whilst the notices of India,

Persia, Arabia, and Ethiopia, are borrowed from Arabic Works. The

compiler no doubt carries his audacity in fiction a long way, when

he makes his hero Marcus assert that he had been seventeen years in

Kúblái’s service,” etc. etc. (pp. 360–362).

In the French edition of _Malcolm’s History of Persia_ (II. 141),

Marco is styled “_prêtre Venetien_”! I do not know whether this is

due to Sir John or to the translator.

[Polo is also called “a Venetian Priest,” in a note, vol. i., p.

409, of the original edition of London, 1815, 2 vols., 4to.—H. C.]

XII. CONTEMPORARY RECOGNITION OF POLO AND HIS BOOK.

[Sidenote: How far was there diffusion of his Book in his own day?]

75. But we must return for a little to Polo’s own times. Ramusio

states, as we have seen, that immediately after the first commission of

Polo’s narrative to writing (in Latin as he imagined), many copies of

it were made, it was translated into the vulgar tongue, and in a few

months all Italy was full of it.

The few facts that we can collect do not justify this view of the

rapid and diffused renown of the Traveller and his Book. The number

of MSS. of the latter dating from the 14th century is no doubt

considerable, but a large proportion of these are of Pipino’s condensed

Latin Translation, which was not put forth, if we can trust Ramusio,

till 1320, and certainly not much earlier. The whole number of MSS.

in various languages that we have been able to register, amounts to

about eighty. I find it difficult to obtain statistical data as to the

comparative number of copies of different works existing in manuscript.

With Dante’s great Poem, of which there are reckoned close upon 500

MSS.,[1] comparison would be inappropriate. But of the Travels of Friar

Odoric, a poor work indeed beside Marco Polo’s, I reckoned thirty-nine

MSS., and could now add at least three more to the list. [I described

seventy-three in my edition of _Odoric_.—H. C.] Also I find that of

the nearly contemporary work of Brunetto Latini, the _Tresor_, a sort

of condensed Encyclopædia of knowledge, but a work which one would

scarcely have expected to approach the popularity of Polo’s Book, the

Editor enumerates some fifty MSS. And from the great frequency with

which one encounters in Catalogues both MSS. and early printed editions

of Sir John Maundevile, I should suppose that the lying wonders of

our English Knight had a far greater popularity and more extensive

diffusion than the veracious and more sober marvels of Polo.[2] To

Southern Italy Polo’s popularity certainly does not seem at any time to

have extended. I cannot learn that any MS. of his Book exists in any

Library of the late Kingdom of Naples or in Sicily.[3]

Dante, who lived for twenty-three years after Marco’s work was

written, and who touches so many things in the seen and unseen Worlds,

never alludes to Polo, nor I think to anything that can be connected

with his Book. I believe that no mention of _Cathay_ occurs in the

_Divina Commedia_. That distant region is indeed mentioned more than

once in the poems of a humbler contemporary, Francesco da Barberino,

but there is nothing in his allusions besides this name to suggest any

knowledge of Polo’s work.[4]

Neither can I discover any trace of Polo or his work in that of his

contemporary and countryman, Marino Sanudo the Elder, though this

worthy is well acquainted with the somewhat later work of Hayton, and

many of the subjects which he touches in his own book would seem to

challenge a reference to Marco’s labours.

[Sidenote: Contemporary references to Polo.]

76. Of contemporary or nearly contemporary references to our Traveller

by name, the following are all that I can produce, and none of them are

new.

First there is the notice regarding his presentation of his book to

Thibault de Cepoy, of which we need say no more (_supra_, p. _68_).

Next there is the Preface to Friar Pipino’s Translation, which we give

at length in the Appendix (E) to these notices. The phraseology of this

appears to imply that Marco was still alive, and this agrees with the

date assigned to the work by Ramusio. Pipino was also the author of a

Chronicle, of which a part was printed by Muratori, and this contains

chapters on the Tartar wars, the destruction of the Old Man of the

Mountain, etc., derived from Polo. A passage not printed by Muratori

has been extracted by Prof. Bianconi from a MS. of this Chronicle in

the Modena Library, and runs as follows:—

“The matters which follow, concerning the magnificence of the

Tartar Emperors, whom in their language they call _Cham_ as we

have said, are related by Marcus Paulus the Venetian in a certain

Book of his which has been translated by me into Latin out of the

Lombardic Vernacular. Having gained the notice of the Emperor

himself and become attached to his service, he passed nearly 27

years in the Tartar countries.”[5]

Again we have that mention of Marco by Friar Jacopo d’Acqui, which

we have quoted in connection with his capture by the Genoese, at

p. _54_.[6] And the Florentine historian GIOVANNI VILLANI,[7] when

alluding to the Tartars, says:—

“Let him who would make full acquaintance with their history

examine the book of Friar Hayton, Lord of Colcos in Armenia, which

he made at the instance of Pope Clement V., and also the Book

called _Milione_ which was made by Messer Marco Polo of Venice,

who tells much about their power and dominion, having spent a long

time among them. And so let us quit the Tartars and return to our

subject, the History of Florence.”[8]

[Sidenote: Further contemporary references.]

77. Lastly, we learn from a curious passage in a medical work by PIETRO

OF ABANO, a celebrated physician and philosopher, and a man of Polo’s

own generation, that he was personally acquainted with the Traveller.

In a discussion on the old notion of the non-habitability of the

Equatorial regions, which Pietro controverts, he says:[9]

[Illustration: Star at the Antarctic as sketched by Marco Polo[10].]

“In the country of the ZINGHI there is seen a star as big as a

sack. I know a man who has seen it, and he told me it had a faint

light like a piece of a cloud, and is always in the south.[11] I

have been told of this and other matters by MARCO the Venetian, the

most extensive traveller and the most diligent inquirer whom I have

ever known. He saw this same star under the Antarctic; he described

it as having a great tail, and drew a figure of it _thus_. He

also told me that he saw the Antarctic Pole at an altitude above

the earth apparently equal to the length of a soldier’s lance,

whilst the Arctic Pole was as much below the horizon. ’Tis from

that place, he says, that they export to us camphor, lign-aloes,

and brazil. He says the heat there is intense, and the habitations

few. And these things he witnessed in a certain island at which he

arrived by Sea. He tells me also that there are (wild?) men there,

and also certain very great rams that have very coarse and stiff

wool just like the bristles of our pigs.”[12]

In addition to these five I know no other contemporary references to

Polo, nor indeed any other within the 14th century, though such there

must surely be, excepting in a Chronicle written after the middle of

that century by JOHN of YPRES, Abbot of St. Bertin, otherwise known

as Friar John the Long, and himself a person of very high merit in

the history of Travel, as a precursor of the Ramusios, Hakluyts and

Purchases, for he collected together and translated (when needful) into

French all of the most valuable works of Eastern Travel and Geography

produced in the age immediately preceding his own.[13] In his Chronicle

the Abbot speaks at some length of the adventures of the Polo Family,

concluding with a passage to which we have already had occasion to

refer:

“And so Messers Nicolaus and Maffeus, with certain Tartars, were

sent a second time to these parts; but Marcus Pauli was retained by

the Emperor and employed in his military service, abiding with him

for a space of 27 years. And the Cham, on account of his ability

despatched him upon affairs of his to various parts of Tartary

and India and the Islands, on which journeys he beheld many of

the marvels of those regions. And concerning these he afterwards

composed a book in the French vernacular, which said Book of

Marvels, with others of the same kind, we do possess.” (_Thesaur.

Nov. Anecdot._ III. 747.)

[Sidenote: Curious borrowings from Polo in the Romance of Bauduin de

Sebourc.]

78. There is, however, a notable work which is ascribed to a rather

early date in the 14th century, and which, though it contains no

reference to Polo by name, shows a thorough acquaintance with his book,

and borrows themes largely from it. This is the poetical Romance of

Bauduin de Sebourc, an exceedingly clever and vivacious production,

partaking largely of that bantering, half-mocking spirit which is,

I believe, characteristic of many of the later mediæval French

Romances.[14] Bauduin is a knight who, after a very wild and loose

youth, goes through an extraordinary series of adventures, displaying

great faith and courage, and eventually becomes King of Jerusalem. I

will cite some of the traits evidently derived from our Traveller,

which I have met with in a short examination of this curious work.

Bauduin, embarked on a dromond in the Indian Sea, is wrecked in the

territory of Baudas, and near a city called Falise, which stands on the

River of Baudas. The people of this city were an unbelieving race.

“Il ne créoient Dieu, Mahon, né Tervogant,

Ydole, cruchéfis, déable, né tirant.” P. 300.

Their only belief was this, that when a man died a great fire should be

made beside his tomb, in which should be burned all his clothes, arms,

and necessary furniture, whilst his horse and servant should be put to

death, and then the dead man would have the benefit of all these useful

properties in the other world.[15] Moreover, if it was the king that

died—

“Sé li rois de la terre i aloit trespassant,

* * * * *

Si fasoit-on tuer, .viij. jour en un tenant,

Tout chiaus c’on encontroit par la chité passant,

Pour tenir compaingnie leur ségnor soffisant.

Telle estoit le créanche ou païs dont je cant!”[16] P. 301.

Baudin arrives when the king has been dead three days, and through

dread of this custom all the people of the city are shut up in their

houses. He enters an inn, and helps himself to a vast repast, having

been fasting for three days. He is then seized and carried before the

king, Polibans by name. We might have quoted this prince at p. _87_ as

an instance of the diffusion of the French tongue:

“Polibans sot Fransois, car on le doctrina:

j. renoiés de Franche .vij. ans i demora,

Qui li aprist Fransois, si que bel en parla.” P. 309.

Bauduin exclaims against their barbarous belief, and declares the

Christian doctrine to the king, who acknowledges good points in it, but

concludes:

“Vassaus, dist Polibans, à le chière hardie,

Jà ne crerrai vou Dieux, à nul jour de ma vie;

Né vostre Loy ne vaut une pomme pourie!” P. 311.

Bauduin proposes to prove his Faith by fighting the prince, himself

unarmed, the latter with all his arms. The prince agrees, but is rather

dismayed at Bauduin’s confidence, and desires his followers, in case

of his own death, to burn with him horses, armour, etc., asking at the

same time which of them would consent to burn along with him, in order

to be his companions in the other world:

“Là en i ot .ijᵉ. dont cascuns s’escria:

Nous morons volentiers, quant vo corps mort sara!”[17] P. 313.

Bauduin’s prayer for help is miraculously granted; Polibans is beaten,

and converted by a vision. He tells Bauduin that in his neighbourhood,

beyond Baudas—

“ou .v. liewes, ou .vi.

Ché un felles prinches, orgoellieus et despis;

De la Rouge-Montaingne est Prinches et Marchis.

Or vous dirai comment il a ses gens nouris:

Je vous di que chius Roys a fait un Paradis

Tant noble et gratieus, et plain de tels déliis,

* * * * *

Car en che Paradis est un riex establis,

Qui se partist en trois, en che noble pourpris:

En l’un coert li clarés, d’espises bien garnis;

Et en l’autre li miés, qui les a resouffis;

Et li vins di pieument i queurt par droit avis—

* * * * *

Il n’i vente, né gèle. Che liés est de samis,

De riches dras de soie, bien ouvrés à devis.

Et aveukes tout che que je chi vous devis,

I a .ijᵉ. puchelles qui moult ont cler les vis,

Carolans et tresquans, menans gales et ris.

Et si est li dieuesse, dame et suppellatis,

Qui doctrine les autres et en fais et en dis,

Celle est la fille au Roy c’on dist des _Haus-Assis_.”[18]

Pp. 319–320.

This Lady Ivorine, the Old Man’s daughter, is described among other

points as having—

“Les iex vairs com faucons, nobles et agentis.”[19] P. 320.

The King of the Mountain collects all the young male children of the

country, and has them brought up for nine or ten years:

“Dedens un lieu oscur: là les met-on toudis

Aveukes males bestes; kiens, et cas, et soris,

Culoères, et lisaerdes, escorpions petis.

Là endroit ne peut nuls avoir joie, né ris.” Pp. 320–321.

And after this dreary life they are shown the Paradise, and told that

such shall be their portion if they do their Lord’s behest.

“S’il disoit à son homme: ‘Va-t-ent droit à Paris;

Si me fier d’un coutel le Roy de Saint Denis,

Jamais n’aresteroit, né par nuit né par dis,

S’aroit tué le Roy, voïant tous ches marchis;

Et déuist estre à fources traïnés et mal mis.’” P. 321.

Bauduin determines to see this Paradise and the lovely Ivorine. The

road led by Baudas:

“Or avoit à che tamps, sé l’istoire ne ment,

En le chit de Baudas Kristiens jusqu’à cent;

Qui manonent illoec par tréu d’argent,

Que cascuns cristiens au Roy-Calife rent.

Li pères du Calife, qui régna longement,

Ama les Crestiens, et Dieu primièrement:

* * * * *

Et lor fist establir. j. monstier noble et gent,

Où Crestien faisoient faire lor sacrement.

Une mout noble pière lor donna proprement,

Où on avoit posé Mahon moult longement.”[20] P. 322.

The story is, in fact, that which Marco relates of Samarkand.[21] The

Caliph dies. His son hates the Christians. His people complain of the

toleration of the Christians and their minister; but he says his father

had pledged him not to interfere, and he dared not forswear himself.

If, without doing so, he could do them an ill turn, he would gladly.

The people then suggest their claim to the stone:

“Or leur donna vos pères, dont che fu mesprisons.

Ceste pierre, biaus Sire, Crestiens demandons:

Il ne le porront rendre, pour vrai le vous disons,

Si li monstiers n’est mis et par pièches et par mons;

Et s’il estoit desfais, jamais ne le larons

Refaire chi-endroit. Ensément averons

Faites et acomplies nostres ententions.” P. 324.

The Caliph accordingly sends for Maistre Thumas, the Priest of the

Christians, and tells him the stone must be given up:

“Il a .c. ans ut plus c’on i mist à solas

Mahon, le nostre Dieu: dont che n’est mie estas

Que li vous monstiers soit fais de nostre harnas!” P. 324.

Master Thomas, in great trouble, collects his flock, mounts the pulpit,

and announces the calamity. Bauduin and his convert Polibans then

arrive. Bauduin recommends confession, fasting, and prayer. They follow

his advice, and on the third day the miracle occurs:

“L’escripture le dist, qui nous achertéfie

Que le pierre Mahon, qui ou mur fut fiquie,

Sali hors du piler, coi que nul vous en die,

Droit enmi le monstier, c’onques ne fut brisie.

Et demoura li traus, dont le pière ert widie,

Sans pière est sans quailliel, à cascune partie;

Chou deseure soustient, par divine maistrie,

Tout en air proprement, n’el tenés a falie.

Encore le voit-on en ichelle partie:

Qui croire ne m’en voelt, si voist; car je l’en prie!” P. 327.

The Caliph comes to see, and declares it to be the Devil’s doing.

Seeing Polibans, who is his cousin, he hails him, but Polibans draws

back, avowing his Christian faith. The Caliph in a rage has him off to

prison. Bauduin becomes very ill, and has to sell his horse and arms.

His disease is so offensive that he is thrust out of his hostel, and

in his wretchedness sitting on a stone he still avows his faith, and

confesses that even then he has not received his deserts. He goes to

beg in the Christian quarter, and no one gives to him; but still his

faith and love to God hold out:

“Ensément Bauduins chelle rue cherqua,

Tant qu’à .j. chavetier Bauduins s’arresta,

Qui chavates cousoit; son pain en garigna:

Jones fu et plaisans, apertement ouvra.

Bauduins le regarde, c’onques mot ne parla.” P. 334.

The cobler is charitable, gives him bread, shoes, and a grey coat that

was a foot too short. He then asks Bauduin if he will not learn his

trade; but that is too much for the knightly stomach:

“Et Bauduins respont, li preus et li membrus:

J’ameroie trop miex que je fuisse pendus!” P. 335.

The Caliph now in his Council expresses his vexation about the miracle,

and says he does not know how to disprove the faith of the Christians.

A very sage old Saracen who knew Hebrew, and Latin, and some thirty

languages, makes a suggestion, which is, in fact, that about the moving

of the Mountain, as related by Marco Polo.[22] Master Thomas is sent

for again, and told that they must transport the high mountain of

_Thir_ to the valley of _Joaquin_, which lies to the westward. He goes

away in new despair and causes his clerk to _sonner le clocke_ for his

people. Whilst they are weeping and wailing in the church, a voice

is heard desiring them to seek a certain holy man who is at the good

cobler’s, and to do him honour. God at his prayer will do a miracle.

They go in procession to Bauduin, who thinks they are mocking him. They

treat him as a saint, and strive to touch his old coat. At last he

consents to pray along with the whole congregation.

The Caliph is in his palace with his princes, taking his ease at a

window. Suddenly he starts up exclaiming:

“‘Seignour, par Mahoumet que j’aoure et tieng chier,

Le Mont de Thir enportent le déable d’enfeir!’

Li Califes s’écrie: ‘Seignour, franc palasin,

Voïés le Mont de Thir qui ch’est mis au chemin!

Vés-le-là tout en air, par mon Dieu Apolin;

Jà bientost le verrons ens ou val Joaquin!’” P. 345.

The Caliph is converted, releases Polibans, and is baptised, taking

the name of Bauduin, to whom he expresses his fear of the Viex de

la Montagne with his _Hauts-Assis_, telling anew the story of the

Assassin’s Paradise, and so enlarges on the beauty of Ivorine that

Bauduin is smitten, and his love heals his malady. Toleration is not

learned however:

“Bauduins, li Califes, fist baptisier sa gent,

Et qui ne voilt Dieu crore, li teste on li pourfent!” P. 350.

The Caliph gives up his kingdom to Bauduin, proposing to follow him to

the Wars of Syria. And Bauduin presents the Kingdom to the Cobler.

Bauduin, the Caliph, and Prince Polibans then proceed to visit the

Mountain of the Old Man. The Caliph professes to him that they want

help against Godfrey of Bouillon. The Viex says he does not give a

_bouton_ for Godfrey; he will send one of his _Hauts-Assis_ straight to

his tent, and give him a great knife of steel between _fie et poumon!_

After dinner they go out and witness the feat of devotion which we

have quoted elsewhere.[23] They then see the Paradise and the lovely

Ivorine, with whose beauty Bauduin is struck dumb. The lady had never

smiled before; now she declares that he for whom she had long waited

was come. Bauduin exclaims:

“‘Madame, fu-jou chou qui sui le vous soubgis?’

Quant la puchelle l’ot, lors li geta .j. ris;

Et li dist: ‘Bauduins, vous estes mes amis!’” Pp. 362–363.

The Old One is vexed, but speaks pleasantly to his daughter, who

replies with frightfully bad language, and declares herself to be a

Christian. The father calls out to the Caliph to kill her. The Caliph

pulls out a big knife and gives him a blow that nearly cuts him in two.

The amiable Ivorine says she will go with Bauduin:

“‘Sé mes pères est mors, n’en donne .j. paresis!’” P. 364.

We need not follow the story further, as I did not trace beyond this

point any distinct derivation from our Traveller, with the exception

of that allusion to the incombustible covering of the napkin of St.

Veronica, which I have quoted at p. 216 of this volume. But including

this, here are at least seven different themes borrowed from Marco

Polo’s book, on which to be sure his poetical contemporary plays the

most extraordinary variations.

[Sidenote: Chaucer and Marco Polo.]

[78 _bis._—In the third volume of _The Complete Works of Geoffrey

Chaucer_, Oxford, 1894, the Rev. Walter W. Skeat gives (pp. 372

_seqq._) an _Account of the Sources of the Canterbury Tales_. Regarding

_The Squieres Tales_, he says that one of his sources was the Travels

of Marco; Mr. Keighley in his _Tales and Popular Fictions_, published

in 1834, at p. 76, distinctly derives Chaucer’s Tale from the travels

of Marco Polo. (_Skeat, l. c._, p. 463, note.) I cannot quote all the

arguments given by the Rev. W. W. Skeat to support his theory, pp.

463–477.

Regarding the opinion of Professor Skeat of Chaucer’s indebtedness to

Marco Polo, cf. _Marco Polo and the Squire’s Tale_, by Professor John

Matthews Manly, vol. xi. of the _Publications of the Modern Language

Association of America_, 1896, pp. 349–362. Mr. Manly says (p. 360):

“It seems clear, upon reviewing the whole problem, that if Chaucer used

Marco Polo’s narrative, he either carelessly or intentionally confused

all the features of the setting that could possibly be confused, and

retained not a single really characteristic trait of any person,

place or event. It is only by twisting everything that any part of

Chaucer’s story can be brought into relation with any part of Polo’s.

To do this might be allowable, if any rational explanation could be

given for Chaucer’s supposed treatment of his ‘author,’ or if there

were any scarcity of sources from which Chaucer might have obtained as

much information about Tartary as he seems really to have possessed;

but such an explanation would be difficult to devise, and there is

no such scarcity. Any one of half a dozen accessible accounts could

be distorted into almost if not quite as great resemblance to the

_Squire’s Tale_ as Marco Polo’s can.”

Mr. A. W. Pollard, in his edition of _The Squire’s Tale_ (Lond.,

1899) writes: “A very able paper, by Prof. J. M. Manly, demonstrates

the needlessness of Prof. Skeat’s theory, which has introduced fresh

complications into an already complicated story. My own belief is that,

though we may illustrate the Squire’s Tale from these old accounts

of Tartary, and especially from Marco Polo, because he has been so

well edited by Colonel Yule, there is very little probability that

Chaucer consulted any of them. It is much more likely that he found

these details where he found more important parts of his story, _i.e._

in some lost romance. But if we must suppose that he provided his own

local colour, we have no right to pin him down to using Marco Polo to

the exclusion of other accessible authorities.” Mr. Pollard adds in a

note (p. xiii.): “There are some features in these narratives, _e.g._

the account of the gorgeous dresses worn at the Kaan’s feast, which

Chaucer with his love of colour could hardly have helped reproducing if

he had known them.”—H. C.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See _Ferrazzi, Manuele Dantesca_, Bassano, 1865, p. 729.

[2] In Quaritch’s catalogue for Nov. 1870 there is only one old edition

of Polo; there are _nine_ of Maundevile. In 1839 there were

nineteen MSS. of the latter author _catalogued_ in the British

Museum Library. There are _now_ only six of Marco Polo. At least

twenty-five editions of Maundevile and only five of Polo were

printed in the 15th century.

[3] I have made personal enquiry at the National Libraries of Naples

and Palermo, at the Communal Library in the latter city, and at the

Benedictine Libraries of Monte Cassino, Monreale, S. Martino, and

Catania.

In the 15th century, when Polo’s book had become more generally

diffused we find three copies of it in the Catalogue of the Library

of Charles VI. of France, made at the Louvre in 1423, by order of

the Duke of Bedford.

The estimates of value are curious. They are in _sols parisis_,

which we shall not estimate very wrongly at a shilling each:—

“No. 295. _Item_. Marcus Paulus; _en ung cahier escript de lettre

formée, en françois, à deux coulombes. Commt. ou ii{e.} fo._

‘deux frères prescheurs,’ _et ou derrenier_ ‘que sa arrières.’

_X. s. p._

* * *

“No. 334. _Item_. Marcus Paulus. _Couvert de drap d’or, bien

escript & enluminé, de lettre de forme en françois, à deux

coulombes. Commt. ou ii{e.} fol._; ‘il fut Roys,’ _& ou

derrenier_ ‘propremen,’ _à deux fermouers de laton. XV. s. p._

* * *

“No. 336. _Item_. Marcus Paulus; _non enluminé, escript en

françois, de lettre de forme. Commt. ou ii{e.} fo._ ‘vocata

moult grant,’ _& ou derrenier_ ‘ilec dist il.’ _Couvert de

cuir blanc, à deux fermouers de laton. XII. s. p._”

(_Inventaire de la Bibliothèque du Roi Charles VI._, etc.

Paris, Société des Bibliophiles, 1867.)

[4] See _Del Reggimento e de’ Costumi delle donne di Messer Francesco

da Barberino_, Roma, 1815, pp. 166 and 271. The latter passage runs

thus, on _Slavery_:—

“E fu indutta prima da Noé,

E fu cagion lo vin, perchè si egge:

Ch’egli è un paese, dove

Son molti servi in parte di Cathay:

Che per questa cagione

Hanno a nimico il vino,

E non ne beon, nè voglion vedere.”

The author was born the year before Dante (1264), and though he

lived to 1348 it is probable that the poems in question were

written in his earlier years. _Cathay_ was no doubt known by dim

repute long before the final return of the Polos, both through

the original journey of Nicolo and Maffeo, and by information

gathered by the Missionary Friars. Indeed, in 1278 Pope Nicolas

III., in consequence of information said to have come from Abaka

Khan of Persia, that Kúblái was a baptised Christian, sent a party

of Franciscans with a long letter to the Kaan _Quobley_, as he is

termed. They never seem to have reached their destination. And in

1289 Nicolas IV. entrusted a similar mission to Friar John of Monte

Corvino, which eventually led to very tangible results. Neither of

the Papal letters, however, mentions _Cathay_. (See _Mosheim_, App.

pp. 76 and 94.)

[5] See _Muratori_, IX. 583, _seqq._; _Bianconi_, Mem. I. p. 37.

[6] This Friar makes a strange hotch-potch of what he had read, _e.g._:

“The Tartars, when they came out of the mountains, made them a

king, viz., the son of Prester John, who is thus vulgarly termed

_Vetulus de la Montagna!_” (_Mon. Hist. Patr._ Script. III. 1557.)

[7] G. Villani died in the great plague of 1348. But his book was begun

soon after Marco’s was written, for he states that it was the sight

of the memorials of greatness which he witnessed at Rome, during

the Jubilee of 1300, that put it into his head to write the history

of the rising glories of Florence, and that he began the work after

his return home. (Bk. VIII. ch. 36.)

[8] Book V. ch. 29.

[9] _Petri Aponensis Medici ac Philosophi Celeberrimi, Conciliator_,

Venice, 1521, fol. 97. Peter was born in 1250 at Abano, near Padua,

and was Professor of Medicine at the University in the latter city.

He twice fell into the claws of the Unholy Office, and only escaped

them by death in 1316.

[10] [It is curious that this figure is almost exactly that which

among oriental carpets is called a “cloud.” I have heard the term

so applied by Vincent Robinson. It often appears in old Persian

carpets, and also in Chinese designs. Mr. Purdon Clarke tells me

it is called _nebula_ in heraldry; it is also called in Chinese

by a term signifying cloud; in Persian, by a term which he called

_silen-i-khitai_, but of this I can make nothing.—_MS. Note by

Yule_.]

[11] The great Magellanic cloud? In the account of Vincent Yanez

Pinzon’s Voyage to the S.W. in 1499 as given in Ramusio (III. 15)

after Pietro Martire d’Anghieria, it is said:—“Taking the astrolabe

in hand, and ascertaining the Antarctic Pole, they did not see any

star like our Pole Star; but they related that they saw another

manner of stars very different from ours, and which they could not

clearly discern because of a certain dimness which diffused itself

about those stars, and obstructed the view of them.” Also the Kachh

mariners told Lieutenant Leech that midway to Zanzibar there was a

town (?) called Marethee, where the North Pole Star sinks below the

horizon, and they steer by _a fixed cloud in the heavens_. (Bombay

Govt. Selections, No. XV. N.S. p. 215.)

The great Magellan cloud is mentioned by an old Arab writer as a

white blotch at the foot of Canopus, visible in the Tehama along

the Red Sea, but not in Nejd or ’Irák. Humboldt, in quoting this,

calculates that in A.D. 1000 the Great Magellan would have been

visible at Aden some degrees above the horizon. (_Examen_, V. 235.)

[12] This passage contains points that are omitted in Polo’s book,

besides the drawing implied to be from Marco’s own hand! The island

is of course Sumatra. The animal is perhaps the peculiar Sumatran

wild-goat, figured by Marsden, the hair of which on the back is

“coarse and strong, almost like bristles.” (_Sumatra_, p. 115.)

[13] A splendid example of Abbot John’s Collection is the _Livre des

Merveilles_ of the Great French Library (No. 18 in our _App. F._).

This contains Polo, Odoric, William of Boldensel, the Book of the

Estate of the Great Kaan by the Archbishop of Soltania, Maundevile,

Hayton, and Ricold of Montecroce, of which all but Polo and

Maundevile are French versions by this excellent Long John. A list

of the Polo miniatures is given in _App. F_. of this Edition, p.

527.

It is a question for which there is sufficient ground, whether

the Persian Historians Rashiduddin and Wassáf, one or other or

both, did not derive certain information that appears in their

histories, from Marco Polo personally, he having spent many months

in Persia, and at the Court of Tabriz, when either or both may

have been there. Such passages as that about the Cotton-trees of

Guzerat (vol. ii. p. 393, and note), those about the horse trade

with Maabar (id. p. 340, and note), about the brother-kings of that

country (id. p. 331), about the naked savages of Necuveram (id. p.

306), about the wild people of Sumatra calling themselves subjects

of the Great Kaan (id. pp. 285, 292, 293, 299), have so strong

a resemblance to parallel passages in one or both of the above

historians, as given in the first and third volumes of Elliot, that

the probability, at least, of the Persian writers having derived

their information from Polo might be fairly maintained.

[14] _Li Romans de Bauduin de Sebourc IIIᵉ Roy de Jhérusalem_; Poēme

du XIVᵉ Siècle; Valenciennes, 1841. 2 vols. 8vo. I was indebted

to two references of M. Pauthier’s for knowledge of the existence

of this work. He cites the legends of the Mountain, and of the

Stone of the Saracens from an abstract, but does not seem to have

consulted the work itself, nor to have been aware of the extent

of its borrowings from Marco Polo. M. Génin, from whose account

Pauthier quotes, ascribes the poem to an early date after the death

of Philip the Fair (1314). See _Pauthier_, pp. 57, 58, and 140.

[15] See Polo, vol. i. p. 204, and vol. ii. p. 191.

[16] See Polo, vol. i. p. 246.

[17] See Polo, vol. ii. p. 339.

[18] See Polo, vol. i. p. 140. _Hashishi_ has got altered into _Haus

Assis_.

[19] See vol. i. p. 358, note.

[20] See vol. i. p. 189, note 2.

[21] Vol. i. pp. 183–186.

[22] Vol. i. pp. 68 _seqq._ The virtuous cobler is not left out, but is

made to play second fiddle to the hero Bauduin.

[23] Vol. i. p. 144.

XIII. NATURE OF POLO’S INFLUENCE ON GEOGRAPHICAL

KNOWLEDGE.

[Sidenote: Tardy operation, and causes thereof.]

79. Marco Polo contributed such a vast amount of new facts to the

knowledge of the Earth’s surface, that one might have expected his book

to have had a sudden effect upon the Science of Geography: but no such

result occurred speedily, nor was its beneficial effect of any long

duration.

No doubt several causes contributed to the slowness of its action

upon the notions of Cosmographers, of which the unreal character

attributed to the Book, as a collection of romantic marvels rather than

of geographical and historical facts, may have been one, as Santarem

urges. But the essential causes were no doubt the imperfect nature

of publication before the invention of the press; the traditional

character which clogged geography as well as all other branches of

knowledge in the Middle Ages; and the entire absence of scientific

principle in what passed for geography, so that there was no organ

competent to the assimilation of a large mass of new knowledge.

Of the action of the first cause no examples can be more striking than

we find in the false conception of the Caspian as a gulf of the Ocean,

entertained by Strabo, and the opposite error in regard to the Indian

Sea held by Ptolemy, who regards it as an enclosed basin, when we

contrast these with the correct ideas on both subjects possessed by

Herodotus. The later Geographers no doubt knew his statements, but did

not appreciate them, probably from not possessing the evidence on which

they were based.

[Sidenote: General characteristics of Mediæval Cosmography.]

80. As regards the second cause alleged, we may say that down nearly to

the middle of the 15th century cosmographers, as a rule, made scarcely

any attempt to reform their maps by any elaborate search for new

matter, or by lights that might be collected from recent travellers.

Their world was in its outline that handed down by the traditions

of their craft, as sanctioned by some Father of the Church, such as

Orosius or Isidore, as sprinkled with a combination of classical and

mediæval legend; Solinus being the great authority for the former.

Almost universally the earth’s surface is represented as filling the

greater part of a circular disk, rounded by the ocean; a fashion

that already existed in the time of Aristotle and was ridiculed by

him.[1] No dogma of false geography was more persistent or more

pernicious than this. Jerusalem occupies the central point, because

it was found written in the Prophet Ezekiel: “_Haec dicit Dominus

Deus: Ista est Jerusalem_, in medio gentium _posui eam, et in circuitu

ejus terras_;”[2] a declaration supposed to be corroborated by the

Psalmist’s expression, regarded as prophetic of the death of Our Lord:

“_Deus autem, Rex noster, ante secula operatus est salutem_ in medio

Terrae” (Ps. lxxiii. 12).[3] The Terrestrial Paradise was represented

as occupying the extreme East, because it was found in Genesis that

the Lord planted a garden eastward in Eden.[4] _Gog and Magog_ were

set in the far north or north-east, because it was said again in

Ezekiel: “_Ecce Ego super te Gog Principem capitis Mosoch et Thubal

... et ascendere te faciam de lateribus Aquilonis_,” whilst probably

the topography of those mysterious nationalities was completed by

a girdle of mountains out of the Alexandrian Fables. The loose and

scanty nomenclature was mainly borrowed from Pliny or Mela through

such Fathers as we have named; whilst vacant spaces were occupied

by Amazons, Arimaspians, and the realm of Prester John. A favourite

representation of the inhabited earth was this [circled T]; a great O

enclosing a T, which thus divides the circle in three parts; the

greater or half-circle being Asia, the two quarter circles Europe and

Africa.[5] These Maps were known to St. Augustine.[6]

[Sidenote: Roger Bacon as a geographer.]

81. Even Ptolemy seems to have been almost unknown; and indeed had his

Geography been studied it might, with all its errors, have tended to

some greater endeavours after accuracy. Roger Bacon, whilst lamenting

the exceeding deficiency of geographical knowledge in the Latin

world, and purposing to essay an exacter distribution of countries,

says he will not attempt to do so by latitude and longitude, for that

is a system of which the Latins have learned nothing. He himself,

whilst still somewhat burdened by the authoritative dicta of “saints

and sages” of past times, ventures at least to criticise some of the

latter, such as Pliny and Ptolemy, and declares his intention to

have recourse to the information of those who have travelled most

extensively over the Earth’s surface. And judging from the good use

he makes, in his description of the northern parts of the world, of

the Travels of Rubruquis, whom he had known and questioned, besides

diligently studying his narrative,[7] we might have expected much in

Geography from this great man, had similar materials been available

to him for other parts of the earth. He did attempt a map with

mathematical determination of places, but it has not been preserved.[8]

It may be said with general truth that the world-maps current up

to the end of the 13th century had more analogy to the mythical

cosmography of the Hindus than to any thing properly geographical.

Both, no doubt, were originally based in the main on real features. In

the Hindu cosmography these genuine features are symmetrised as in a

kaleidoscope; in the European cartography they are squeezed together in

a manner that one can only compare to a pig in brawn. Here and there

some feature strangely compressed and distorted is just recognisable.

A splendid example of this kind of map is that famous one at Hereford,

executed about A.D. 1275, of which a facsimile has lately been

published, accompanied by a highly meritorious illustrative Essay.[9]

82. Among the Arabs many able men, from the early days of Islám,

took an interest in Geography, and devoted labour to geographical

compilations, in which they often made use of their own observations,

of the itineraries of travellers, and of other fresh knowledge. But

somehow or other their maps were always far behind their books.

Though they appear to have had an early translation of Ptolemy, and

elaborate Tables of Latitudes and Longitudes form a prominent feature

in many of their geographical treatises, there appears to be no Arabic

map in existence, laid down with meridians and parallels; whilst

_all_ of their best known maps are on the old system of the circular

disk. This apparent incapacity for map-making appears to have acted

as a heavy drag and bar upon progress in Geography among the Arabs,

notwithstanding its early promise among them, and in spite of the

application to its furtherance of the great intellects of some (such

as Abu Rihán al-Biruni), and of the indefatigable spirit of travel and

omnivorous curiosity of others (such as Mas’udi).

[Sidenote: Marino Sanudo the Elder.]

83. Some distinct trace of acquaintance with the Arabian Geography is

to be found in the World-Map of Marino Sanudo the Elder, constructed

between 1300 and 1320; and this may be regarded as an exceptionally

favourable specimen of the cosmography in vogue, for the author was a

diligent investigator and compiler, who evidently took a considerable

interest in geographical questions, and had a strong enjoyment and

appreciation of a map.[10] Nor is the map in question without some

result of these characteristics. His representation of Europe,

Northern Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, Arabia and its two gulfs, is a

fair approximation to general facts; his collected knowledge has

enabled him to locate, with more or less of general truth, Georgia,

the Iron Gates, Cathay, the Plain of Moghan, Euphrates and Tigris,

Persia, Bagdad, Kais, Aden (though on the wrong side of the Red Sea),

Abyssinia (_Habesh_), Zangibar (_Zinz_), Jidda (Zede), etc. But after

all the traditional forms are too strong for him. Jerusalem is still

the centre of the disk of the habitable earth, so that the distance is

as great from Syria to Gades in the extreme West, as from Syria to the

India Interior of Prester John which terminates the extreme East. And

Africa beyond the Arabian Gulf is carried, according to the Arabian

modification of Ptolemy’s misconception, far to the eastward until it

almost meets the prominent shores of India.

[Sidenote: The Catalan Map of 1375, the most complete mediæval

embodiment of Polo’s Geography.]

84. The first genuine mediæval attempt at a geographical construction

that I know of, absolutely free from the traditional _idola_, is

the Map of the known World from the Portulano Mediceo (in the

Laurentian Library), of which an extract is engraved in the atlas

of Baldelli-Boni’s Polo. I need not describe it, however, because I

cannot satisfy myself that it makes much use of Polo’s contributions,

and its facts have been embodied in a more ambitious work of the next

generation, the celebrated Catalan Map of 1375 in the great Library of

Paris. This also, but on a larger scale and in a more comprehensive

manner, is an honest endeavour to represent the known world on the

basis of collected facts, casting aside all theories pseudo-scientific

or pseudo-theological; and a very remarkable work it is. In this map it

seems to me Marco Polo’s influence, I will not say on geography, but on

map-making, is seen to the greatest advantage. His Book is the basis of

the Map as regards Central and Further Asia, and partially as regards

India. His names are often sadly perverted, and it is not always easy

to understand the view that the compiler took of his itineraries. Still

we have Cathay admirably placed in the true position of China, as a

great Empire filling the south-east of Asia. The Eastern Peninsula of

India is indeed absent altogether, but the Peninsula of Hither India

is for the first time in the History of Geography represented with a

fair approximation to its correct form and position,[11] and Sumatra

also (_Jaua_) is not badly placed. Carajan, Vocian, Mien, and Bangala,

are located with a happy conception of their relation to Cathay and to

India. Many details in India foreign to Polo’s book,[12] and some in

Cathay (as well as in Turkestan and Siberia, which have been entirely

derived from other sources) have been embodied in the Map. But the

study of his Book has, I conceive, been essentially the basis of those

great portions which I have specified, and the additional matter has

not been in mass sufficient to perplex the compiler. Hence we really

see in this Map something like the idea of Asia that the Traveller

himself would have presented, had he bequeathed a Map to us.

[Illustration: Part of the Catalan Map (1375).]

[Some years ago, I made a special study of the Far East in the Catalan

Map (_L’Extrême-Orient dans l’Atlas catalan de Charles V._, Paris,

1895), and I have come to the conclusion that the cartographer’s

knowledge of Eastern Asia is drawn almost entirely from Marco Polo. We

give a reproduction of part of the Catalan Map.—H. C.]

[Sidenote: Confusions in Cartography of the 16th century, from the

endeavour to combine new and old information.]

85. In the following age we find more frequent indications that Polo’s

book was diffused and read. And now that the spirit of discovery

began to stir, it was apparently regarded in a juster light as a

Book of Facts, and not as a mere _Romman du Grant Kaan_.[13] But in

fact this age produced new supplies of crude information in greater

abundance than the knowledge of geographers was prepared to digest or

co-ordinate, and the consequence is that the magnificent Work of Fra

Mauro (1459), though the result of immense labour in the collection of

facts and the endeavour to combine them, really gives a considerably

less accurate idea of Asia than that which the Catalan Map had

afforded.[14]

And when at a still later date the great burst of discovery eastward

and westward took effect, the results of all attempts to combine the

new knowledge with the old was most unhappy. The first and crudest

forms of such combinations attempted to realise the ideas of Columbus

regarding the identity of his discoveries with the regions of the

Great Kaan’s dominion;[15] but even after AMERICA had vindicated

its independent position on the surface of the globe, and the new

knowledge of the Portuguese had introduced CHINA where the Catalan Map

of the 14th century had presented CATHAY, the latter country, with the

whole of Polo’s nomenclature, was shoved away to the north, forming

a separate system.[16] Henceforward the influence of Polo’s work on

maps was simply injurious; and when to his nomenclature was added a

sprinkling of Ptolemy’s, as was usual throughout the 16th century, the

result was a most extraordinary hotch-potch, conveying no approximation

to any consistent representation of facts.

Thus, in a map of 1522,[17] running the eye along the north of Europe

and Asia from West to East, we find the following succession of names:

Groenlandia, or Greenland, as a great peninsula overlapping that

of Norvegia and Suecia; Livonia, Plescovia and Moscovia, Tartaria

bounded on the South by _Scithia extra Imaum_, and on the East, by

the Rivers _Ochardes_ and _Bautisis_ (out of Ptolemy), which are made

to flow into the Arctic Sea. South of these are _Aureacithis_ and

_Asmirea_ (Ptolemy’s _Auxacitis_ and _Asmiræa_), and _Serica Regio_.

Then following the northern coast _Balor Regio_,[18] _Judei Clausi_,

_i.e._ the Ten Tribes who are constantly associated or confounded with

the Shut-up Nations of Gog and Magog. These impinge upon the River

_Polisacus_, flowing into the Northern Ocean in Lat. 75°, but which is

in fact no other than Polo’s _Pulisanghin_![19] Immediately south of

this is _Tholomon Provincia_ (Polo’s again), and on the coast _Tangut_,

_Cathaya_, the Rivers _Caramoran_ and _Oman_ (a misreading of Polo’s

_Quian_), _Quinsay_ and _Mangi_.

[Sidenote: Gradual disappearance of Polo’s nomenclature.]

86. The Maps of Mercator (1587) and Magini (1597) are similar in

character, but more elaborate, introducing China as a separate system.

Such indeed also is Blaeu’s Map (1663) excepting that Ptolemy’s

contributions are reduced to one or two.

In Sanson’s Map (1659) the data of Polo and the mediæval Travellers are

more cautiously handled, but a new element of confusion is introduced

in the form of numerous features derived from Edrisi.

It is scarcely worth while to follow the matter further. With the

increase of knowledge of Northern Asia from the Russian side, and that

of China from the Maps of Martini, followed by the surveys of the

Jesuits, and with the real science brought to bear on Asiatic Geography

by such men as De l’Isle and D’Anville, mere traditional nomenclature

gradually disappeared. And the task which the study of Polo has

provided for the geographers of later days has been chiefly that of

determining the true localities that his book describes under obsolete

or corrupted names.

[My late illustrious friend, Baron _A. E. Nordenskiöld_, who has

devoted much time and labour to the study of Marco Polo (see his

_Periplus_, Stockholm, 1897), and published a facsimile edition of one

of the French MSS. kept in the Stockholm Royal Library (see vol. ii.

_Bibliography_, p. 570), has given to _The Geographical Journal_ for

April, 1899, pp. 396–406, a paper on _The Influence of the “Travels

of Marco Polo” on Jacobo Gastaldi’s Maps of Asia_. He writes (p. 398)

that as far as he knows, none “of the many learned men who have devoted

their attention to the discoveries of Marco Polo, have been able to

refer to any maps in which all or almost all those places mentioned

by Marco Polo are given. All friends of the history of geography will

therefore be glad to hear that such an atlas from the middle of the

sixteenth century really does exist, viz. Gastaldi’s ‘Prima, seconda

e terza parte dell’Asia.’” All the names of places in Ramusio’s Marco

Polo are introduced in the maps of Asia of Jacobo Gastaldi (1561). Cf.

_Periplus_, liv., lv., and lvi.

I may refer to what both Yule and myself say _supra_ of the Catalan

Map.—H. C.]

[Sidenote: Alleged introduction of Block-printed Books into Europe by

Marco Polo.]

87. Before concluding, it may be desirable to say a few words on the

subject of important knowledge other than geographical, which various

persons have supposed that Marco Polo must have introduced from Eastern

Asia to Europe.

Respecting the mariner’s compass and gunpowder I shall say nothing, as

no one now, I believe, imagines Marco to have had anything to do with

their introduction. But from a highly respectable source in recent

years we have seen the introduction of Block-printing into Europe

connected with the name of our Traveller. The circumstances are stated

as follows:[20]

“In the beginning of the 15th century a man named Pamphilo

Castaldi, of Feltre ... was employed by the Seignory or Government

of the Republic, to engross deeds and public edicts of various

kinds ... the initial letters at the commencement of the writing

being usually ornamented with red ink, or illuminated in gold and

colours.

“According to Sansovino, certain stamps or types had been invented

some time previously by Pietro di Natali, Bishop of Aquilœa.[21]

These were made at Murano of glass, and were used to stamp or print

the outline of the large initial letters of public documents, which

were afterwards filled up by hand.... Pamphilo Castaldi improved

on these glass types, by having others made of wood or metal,

and having seen several Chinese books which the famous traveller

Marco Polo had brought from China, and of which the entire text

was printed with wooden blocks, he caused moveable wooden types to

be made, each type containing a single letter; and with these he

printed several broadsides and single leaves, at Venice, in the

year 1426. Some of these single sheets are said to be preserved

among the archives at Feltre....

“The tradition continues that John Faust, of Mayence ... became

acquainted with Castaldi, and passed some time with him, at his

_Scriptorium_, ... at Feltre;”

and in short developed from the knowledge so acquired the great

invention of printing. Mr. Curzon goes on to say that Panfilo Castaldi

was born in 1398, and died in 1490, and that he gives the story as

he found it in an article written by Dr. Jacopo Facen, of Feltre,

in a (Venetian?) newspaper called _Il Gondoliere_, No. 103, of 27th

December, 1843.

In a later paper Mr. Curzon thus recurs to the subject:[22]

“Though none of the early block-books have dates affixed to them,

many of them are with reason supposed to be more ancient than any

books printed with moveable types. Their resemblance to Chinese

block-books is so exact, that they would almost seem to be copied

from the books commonly used in China. _The impressions are taken

off on one side of the paper only, and in binding, both the

Chinese, and ancient German, or Dutch block-books, the blank sides

of the pages are placed opposite each other_, and sometimes pasted

together.... The impressions are not taken off with printer’s ink,

but _with a brown paint or colour, of a much thinner description,

more in the nature of Indian ink, as we call it, which is used

in printing Chinese books_. Altogether the German and Oriental

block-books are so precisely alike, in almost every respect, that

... we must suppose that the process of printing then must have

been copied from ancient Chinese specimens, brought from that

country by some early travellers, whose names have not been handed

down to our times.”

The writer then refers to the tradition about _Guttemberg_ (so it is

stated on this occasion, not Faust) having learned Castaldi’s art,

etc., mentioning a circumstance which he supposes to indicate that

Guttemberg had relations with Venice; and appears to assent to the

probability of the story of the art having been founded on specimens

brought home by Marco Polo.

This story was in recent years diligently propagated in Northern Italy,

and resulted in the erection at Feltre of a public statue of Panfilo

Castaldi, bearing this inscription (besides others of like tenor):—

“_To Panfilo Castaldi the illustrious Inventor of Movable Printing

Types, Italy renders this Tribute of Honour, too long deferred._”

In the first edition of this book I devoted a special note to the

exposure of the worthlessness of the evidence for this story.[23] This

note was, with the present Essay, translated and published at Venice by

Comm. Berchet, but this challenge to the supporters of the patriotic

romance, so far as I have heard, brought none of them into the lists in

its defence.

But since Castaldi has got his statue from the printers of Lombardy,

would it not be mere equity that the mariners of Spain should set up

a statue at Huelva to the Pilot Alonzo Sanchez of that port, who,

according to Spanish historians, after discovering the New World, died

in the house of Columbus at Terceira, and left the crafty Genoese to

appropriate his journals, and rob him of his fame?

Seriously; if anybody in Feltre cares for the real reputation of

his native city, let him do his best to have that preposterous and

discreditable fiction removed from the base of the statue. If Castaldi

has deserved a statue on other and truer grounds let _him_ stand; if

not, let him be burnt into honest lime! I imagine that the original

story that attracted Mr. Curzon was more _jeu d’esprit_ than anything

else; but that the author, finding what a stone he had set rolling, did

not venture to retract.

[Sidenote: Frequent opportunities for such introduction in the age

following Polo’s.]

88. Mr. Curzon’s own observations, which I have italicised about

the resemblance of the two systems are, however, very striking,

and seem clearly to indicate the derivation of the art from China.

But I should suppose that in the tradition, if there ever was any

genuine tradition of the kind at Feltre (a circumstance worthy of all

doubt), the name of Marco Polo was introduced merely because it was

so prominent a name in Eastern Travel. The fact has been generally

overlooked and forgotten[24] that, for many years in the course of

the 14th century, not only were missionaries of the Roman Church and

Houses of the Franciscan Order established in the chief cities of

China, but a regular trade was carried on overland between Italy and

China, by way of Tana (or Azov), Astracan, Otrar and Kamul, insomuch

that instructions for the Italian merchant following that route form

the two first chapters in the Mercantile Handbook of Balducci Pegolotti

(_circa_ 1340).[25] Many a traveller besides Marco Polo might therefore

have brought home the block-books. And this is the less to be ascribed

to him because he so curiously omits to speak of the art of printing,

when his subject seems absolutely to challenge its description.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “They draw nowadays the map of the world in a laughable manner, for

they draw the inhabited earth as a circle; but this is impossible,

both from what we see and from reason.” (_Meteorolog. Lib._ II.

cap. 5.) Cf. _Herodotus_, iv. 36.

[2] In Dante’s Cosmography, Jerusalem is the centre of our οἰκουμένη,

whilst the Mount of Purgatory occupies the middle of the Antipodal

hemisphere:—

“Come ciò sia, se’ l vuoi poter pensare,

Dentro raccolto immagina Sion

Con questo monte in su la terra stare,

Sì, ch’ambodue hann’un solo orrizon

E diversi emisperi”....

—_Purg._ IV. 67.

[3] The belief, with this latter ground of it, is alluded to in curious

verses by Jacopo Alighieri, Dante’s son:—

“_E molti gran Profeti_

_Filosofi e Poeti_

Fanno il colco dell’Emme

Dov’è Gerusalemme;

_Se le loro scritture_

_Hanno vere figure:_

_E per la Santa fede_

_Cristiana ancor si vede_

_Che’ l’ suo principio Cristo_

Nel suo mezzo _conquisto_

_Per cui prese morte_

_E vi pose la sorte_.”

—(_Rime Antiche Toscane_, III. 9.)

Though the general meaning of the second couplet is obvious,

the expression _il colco dell’Emme_, “the couch of the M,” is

puzzling. The best solution that occurs to me is this: In looking

at the world map of Marino Sanudo, noticed on p. _133_, as engraved

by Bongars in the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, you find geometrical

lines laid down, connecting the N.E., N.W., S.E., and S.W. points,

and thus forming a square inscribed in the circular disk of the

Earth, with its diagonals passing through the Central Zion. The eye

easily discerns in these a great M inscribed in the circle, with

its middle angular point at Jerusalem. Gervasius of Tilbury (with

some confusion in his mind between tropic and equinoxial, like that

which Pliny makes in speaking of the Indian Mons Malleus) says that

“some are of opinion that the Centre is in the place where the Lord

spoke to the woman of Samaria at the well, for there, at the summer

solstice, the noonday sun descends perpendicularly into the water

of the well, casting no shadow; a thing which the philosophers say

occurs at Syene”! (_Otia Imperialia_, by Liebrecht, p. 1.)

[4] This circumstance does not, however, show in the Vulgate.

[5]

“Veggiamo in prima in general la terra

Come risiede e come il mar la serra.

Un T dentro ad un O mostra il disegno

Come in tre parti fu diviso il Mondo,

E la superiore è il maggior regno

Che quasi piglia la metà del tondo.

ASIA chiamata: il gambo ritto è segno

Che parte il terzo nome dal secondo

AFFRICA dico da EUROPA: il mare

Mediterran tra esse in mezzo appare.”

—_La Sfera_, di F. Leonardo di Stagio Dati,

Lib. iii. st. 11.

[6] _De Civ. Dei_, xvi. 17, quoted by _Peschel_, 92.

[7] _Opus Majus_, Venice ed. pp. 142, _seqq._

[8] _Peschel_, p. 195. This had escaped me.

[9] By the Rev. W. L. Bevan, M.A., and the Rev. H. W. Phillott, M.A.

In Asia, they point out, the only name showing any recognition of

modern knowledge is Samarcand.

[10] His work, _Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis_, intended to

stimulate a new Crusade, has three capital maps, besides that of

the World, one of which, translated, but otherwise in facsimile, is

given at p. 18 of this volume. But besides these maps, he gives,

in a tabular form of parallel columns, the reigning sovereigns in

Europe and Asia connected with his historical retrospect, just on

the plan presented in Sir Harris Nicolas’s Chronology of History.

[11] I do not see that al-Birúni deserves the credit in this respect

assigned to him by Professor Peschel, so far as one can judge

from the data given by Sprenger (_Peschel_, p. 128; _Post und

Reise-Routen_, 81–82.)

[12] For example, _Delli_, which Polo does not name; _Diogil_ (Deogír);

on the Coromandel coast _Setemelti_, which I take to be a clerical

error for _Sette-Templi_, the Seven Pagodas; round the Gulf of

Cambay we have _Cambetum_ (Kambayat), _Cocintaya_ (Kokan-Tana, see

vol. ii. p. 396), _Goga, Baroche, Neruala_ (Anharwala), and to the

north _Moltan_. Below Multan are _Hocibelch_ and _Bargelidoa_, two

puzzles. The former is, I think, _Uch-baligh_, showing that part of

the information was from Perso-Mongol sources.

[13] I see it stated by competent authority that _Romman_ is often

applied to any prose composition in a Romance language.

In or about 1426, Prince Pedro of Portugal, the elder brother of

the illustrious Prince Henry, being on a visit to Venice, was

presented by the Signory with a copy of Marco Polo’s book, together

with a map already alluded to. (_Major’s P. Henry_, pp. 61, 62.)

[14] This is partly due also to Fra Mauro’s reversion to the fancy of

the circular disk limiting the inhabited portion of the earth.

[15] An early graphic instance of this is Ruysch’s famous map

(1508). The following extract of a work printed as late as 1533

is an example of the like confusion in verbal description: “The

Territories which are beyond the limits of Ptolemy’s Tables have

not yet been described on certain authority. Behind the Sinae and

the Seres, and beyond 180° of East Longitude, many countries were

discovered by one [_quendam_] Marco Polo a Venetian and others,

and the sea-coasts of those countries have now recently again been

explored by Columbus the Genoese and Amerigo Vespucci in navigating

the Western Ocean.... To this part (of Asia) belong the territory

called that of the _Bachalaos_ [or Codfish, Newfoundland],

_Florida_, _the Desert of Lop_, _Tangut_, _Cathay_, the realm of

_Mexico_ (wherein is the vast city of _Temistitan_, built in the

middle of a great lake, but which the older travellers styled

QUINSAY), besides _Paria_, _Uraba_, and the countries of the

_Canibals_.” (_Joannis Schoneri Carolostadtii Opusculum Geogr._,

quoted by Humboldt, _Examen_, V. 171, 172.)

[16] In Robert Parke’s Dedication of his Translation of Mendoza’s,

London, 1st of January, 1589, he identifies China and Japan with

the regions of which _Paulus Venetus_ and _Sir John Mandeuill_

“wrote long agoe.”—_MS. Note by Yule_.

[17] “_Totius Europae et Asiae Tabula Geographica, Auctore Thoma D.

Aucupario. Edita Argentorati_, MDXXII.” Copied in Witsen.

[18] This strange association of _Balor_ (_i.e._, Bolor, that name of

so many odd vicissitudes, see pp. 178–179 _infra_) with the shut-up

Israelites must be traced to a passage which Athanasius Kircher

quotes from _R. Abraham Pizol_ (qu. Peritsol?): “_Regnum_, inquit,

Belor _magnum et excelsum nimis, juxta omnes illos qui scripserunt

Historicos_. Sunt in eo Judaei _plurimi inclusi, et illud in latere

Orientali et Boreali_,” etc. (_China Illustrata_, p. 49.)

[19] Vol. ii. p. 1.

[20] _A short Account of Libraries of Italy_, by the Hon. R. Curzon

(the late Lord de la Zouche); in _Bibliog. and Hist. Miscellanies;

Philobiblon Society_, vol. i, 1854, pp. 6. _seqq._

[21] P. del Natali was Bishop of Equilio, a city of the Venetian

Lagoons, in the latter part of the 14th century. (See _Ughelli,

Italia Sacra_, X. 87.) There is no ground whatever for connecting

him with these inventions. The story of the glass types appears

to rest entirely and solely on one obscure passage of Sansovino,

who says that under the Doge Marco Corner (1365–1367): “_certe

Natale Veneto lasciò un libro della materie delle forme da giustar

intorno alle lettere, ed il modo di formarle di vetro_.” There is

absolutely nothing more. Some kind of stencilling seems indicated.

[22] _History of Printing in China and Europe_, in _Philobiblon_, vol.

vi. p. 23.

[23] See _Appendix L_. in First Edition.

[24] Ramusio himself appears to have been entirely unconscious of it,

_vide supra_, p. 3.

[25] This subject has been fully treated in _Cathay and the Way

Thither_.

XIV. EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE BASIS ADOPTED FOR THE

PRESENT TRANSLATION.

89. It remains to say a few words regarding the basis adopted for our

English version of the Traveller’s record.

[Sidenote: Text followed by Marsden and by Pauthier.]

Ramusio’s recension was that which Marsden selected for translation.

But at the date of his most meritorious publication nothing was known

of the real literary history of Polo’s Book, and no one was aware of

the peculiar value and originality of the French manuscript texts, nor

had Marsden seen any of them. A translation from one of those texts is

a translation at first hand; a translation from Ramusio’s Italian is,

as far as I can judge, the translation of a translated compilation from

two or more translations, and therefore, whatever be the merits of its

matter, inevitably carries us far away from the spirit and style of

the original narrator. M. Pauthier, I think, did well in adopting for

the text of his edition the MSS. which I have classed as of the second

Type, the more as there had hitherto been no publication from those

texts. But editing a text in the original language, and translating,

are tasks substantially different in their demands.

[Sidenote: Eclectic formation of the English Text of this Translation.]

90. It will be clear from what has been said in the preceding pages

that I should not regard as a fair or full representation of Polo’s

Work, a version on which the Geographic Text did not exercise a

material influence. But to adopt that Text, with all its awkwardnesses

and tautologies, as the absolute subject of translation, would have

been a mistake. What I have done has been, in the first instance, to

translate from Pauthier’s Text. The process of abridgment in this text,

however it came about, has been on the whole judiciously executed,

getting rid of the intolerable prolixities of manner which belong

to many parts of the Original Dictation, but _as a general rule_

preserving the matter. Having translated this,—not always from the

Text adopted by Pauthier himself, but with the exercise of my own

judgment on the various readings which that Editor lays before us,—I

then compared the translation with the Geographic Text, and transferred

from the latter not only all items of real substance that had been

omitted, but also all expressions of special interest and character,

and occasionally a greater fulness of phraseology where condensation

in Pauthier’s text seemed to have been carried too far. And finally I

introduced _between brackets_ everything peculiar to Ramusio’s version

that seemed to me to have a just claim to be reckoned authentic, and

that could be so introduced without harshness or mutilation. Many

passages from the same source which were of interest in themselves, but

failed to meet one or other of these conditions, have been given in the

notes.[1]

[Sidenote: Mode of rendering proper names.]

91. As regards the reading of proper names and foreign words, in which

there is so much variation in the different MSS. and editions, I have

done my best to select what seemed to be the true reading from the G.

T. and Pauthier’s three MSS., only in some rare instances transgressing

this limit.

Where the MSS. in the repetition of a name afforded a choice of forms,

I have selected that which came nearest the real name when known.

Thus the G. T. affords _Baldasciain, Badascian, Badasciam, Badausiam,

Balasian_. I adopt BADASCIAN, or in English spelling BADASHAN, because

it is closest to the real name _Badakhshan_. Another place appears as

COBINAN, _Cabanat, Cobian_. I adopt the first because it is the truest

expression of the real name _Koh-benán_. In chapters 23, 24 of Book I.,

we have in the G. T. _Asisim, Asciscin, Asescin_, and in Pauthier’s

MSS. _Hasisins, Harsisins_, etc. I adopt ASCISCIN, or in English

spelling ASHISHIN, for the same reason as before. So with _Creman,

Crerman, Crermain_, QUERMAN, Anglicè KERMAN; Cormos, HORMOS, and many

more.[2]

In two or three cases I have adopted a reading which I cannot show

_literatim_ in any authority, but because such a form appears to be the

just resultant from the variety of readings which are presented; as in

surveying one takes the mean of a number of observations when no one

can claim an absolute preference.

Polo’s proper names, even in the French Texts, are _in the main_ formed

on an Italian fashion of spelling.[3] I see no object in preserving

such spelling in an English book, so after selecting the best reading

of the name I express it in English spelling, printing _Badashan,

Pashai, Kerman_, instead of _Badascian, Pasciai, Querman_, and so on.

And when a little trouble has been taken to ascertain the true form and

force of Polo’s spelling of Oriental names and technical expressions,

it will be found that they are in the main as accurate as Italian lips

and orthography will admit, and not justly liable either to those

disparaging epithets[4] or to those exegetical distortions which have

been too often applied to them. Thus, for example, _Cocacin, Ghel_

or _Ghelan, Tonocain, Cobinan, Ondanique, Barguerlac, Argon, Sensin,

Quescican, Toscaol, Bularguci, Zardandan, Anin, Caugigu, Coloman,

Gauenispola, Mutfili, Avarian, Choiach_, are not, it will be seen,

the ignorant blunderings which the interpretations affixed by some

commentators would imply them to be, but are, on the contrary, all but

perfectly accurate utterances of the names and words intended.

The _-tchéou_ (of French writers), _-choo_, _-chow_, or _-chau_[5]

of English writers, which so frequently forms the terminal part in

the names of Chinese cities, is almost invariably rendered by Polo

as _-giu_. This has frequently in the MSS., and constantly in the

printed editions, been converted into _-gui_, and thence into _-guy_.

This is on the whole the most constant canon of Polo’s geographical

orthography, and holds in _Caagiu_ (Ho-chau), _Singiu_ (Sining-chau),

_Cui-giu_ (Kwei-chau), _Sin-giu_ (T’sining-chau), _Pi-giu_ (Pei-chau),

_Coigangiu_ (Hwaingan-chau), _Si-giu_ (Si-chau), _Ti-giu_ (Tai-chau),

_Tin-giu_ (Tung-chau), _Yan-giu_ (Yang-chau), _Sin-giu_ (Chin-chau),

_Cai-giu_ (Kwa-chau), _Chinghi-giu_ (Chang-chau), _Su-giu_ (Su-chau),

_Vu-giu_ (Wu-chau), and perhaps a few more. In one or two instances

only (as _Sinda-ciu_, _Caiciu_) he has _-ciu_ instead of _-giu_.

The chapter-headings I have generally taken from Pauthier’s Text, but

they are no essential part of the original work, and they have been

slightly modified or enlarged where it seemed desirable.

• • • • •

“=Behold! I see the Haven nigh at Hand,

To which I meane my wearie Course to bend;

Vere the maine Shete, and beare up with the Land,

The which afore is fayrly to be kend,

And seemeth safe from Storms that may offend.=

* * * * *

=There eke my Feeble Barke a while may stay,

Till mery Wynd and Weather call her thence away.=”

—THE FAERIE QUEENE, I. xii. 1.

[Illustration]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This “eclectic formation of the English text,” as I have called it

for brevity in the marginal rubric, has been disapproved by Mr. de

Khanikoff, a critic worthy of high respect. But I must repeat that

the duties of a translator, and of the Editor of an original text,

at least where the various recensions bear so peculiar a relation

to each other as in this case, are essentially different; and that,

on reconsidering the matter after an interval of four or five

years, the plan which I have adopted, whatever be the faults of

execution, still commends itself to me as the only appropriate one.

Let Mr. de Khanikoff consider what course he would adopt if he

were about to publish Marco Polo in Russian. I feel certain that

with whatever theory he might set out, before his task should be

concluded he would have arrived practically at the same system that

I have adopted.

[2] In Polo’s diction C frequently represents H., _e.g._, _Cormos_ =

Hormuz; _Camadi_ probably = Hamadi; _Caagiu_ probably = Hochau;

_Cacianfu_ = Hochangfu, and so on. This is perhaps attributable to

Rusticiano’s Tuscan ear. A true Pisan will absolutely contort his

features in the intensity of his efforts to aspirate sufficiently

the letter C. Filippo Villani, speaking of the famous Aguto (Sir

J. Hawkwood), says his name in English was _Kauchouvole_. (_Murat.

Script._ xiv. 746.)

[3] In the Venetian dialect _ch_ and _j_ are often sounded as in

English, not as in Italian. Some traces of such pronunciation I

think there are, as in _Coja, Carajan_, and in the Chinese name

_Vanchu_ (occurring only in Ramusio, _supra_, p. _99_). But the

scribe of the original work being a Tuscan, the spelling is in

the main Tuscan. The sound of the _Qu_ is, however, French, as in

_Quescican, Quinsai_, except perhaps in the case of _Quenianfu_,

for a reason given in vol. ii. p. 29.

[4] For example, that enthusiastic student of mediæval Geography,

Joachim Lelewel, speaks of Polo’s “gibberish” (_le baragouinage du

Venitien_) with special reference to such names as _Zayton_ and

_Kinsay_, whilst we now know that these names were in universal

use by all foreigners in China, and no more deserve to be called

gibberish than _Bocca-Tigris_, _Leghorn_, _Ratisbon_, or _Buda_.

[5] I am quite sensible of the diffidence with which any outsider

should touch any question of Chinese language or orthography. A

Chinese scholar and missionary (Mr. Moule) objects to my spelling

_chau_, whilst he, I see, uses _chow_. I imagine we mean the same

sound, according to the spelling which I try to use throughout the

book. Dr. C. Douglas, another missionary scholar, writes _chau_.

[Illustration: MARCO POLO’S ITINERARIES, Nᵒ. I. (Prologue; Book I,

Chapters 1–36; and Book IV.)

SKETCH SHOWING CHIEF MONARCHIES OF ASIA IN LATTER PART OF 13ᵗʰ

CENTURY]

THE

BOOK OF MARCO POLO.

PROLOGUE.

Great Princes, Emperors, and Kings, Dukes and Marquises, Counts,

Knights, and Burgesses! and People of all degrees who desire to get

knowledge of the various races of mankind and of the diversities of the

sundry regions of the World, take this Book and cause it to be read

to you. For ye shall find therein all kinds of wonderful things, and

the divers histories of the Great Hermenia, and of Persia, and of the

Land of the Tartars, and of India, and of many another country of which

our Book doth speak, particularly and in regular succession, according

to the description of Messer Marco Polo, a wise and noble citizen of

Venice, as he saw them with his own eyes. Some things indeed there be

therein which he beheld not; but these he heard from men of credit and

veracity. And we shall set down things seen as seen, and things heard

as heard only, so that no jot of falsehood may mar the truth of our

Book, and that all who shall read it or hear it read may put full faith

in the truth of all its contents.

For let me tell you that since our Lord God did mould with his hands

our first Father Adam, even until this day, never hath there been

Christian, or Pagan, or Tartar, or Indian, or any man of any nation,

who in his own person hath had so much knowledge and experience of

the divers parts of the World and its Wonders as hath had this Messer

Marco! And for that reason he bethought himself that it would be a

very great pity did he not cause to be put in writing all the great

marvels that he had seen, or on sure information heard of, so that

other people who had not these advantages might, by his Book, get such

knowledge. And I may tell you that in acquiring this knowledge he spent

in those various parts of the World good six-and-twenty years. Now,

being thereafter an inmate of the Prison at Genoa, he caused Messer

Rusticiano of Pisa, who was in the said Prison likewise, to reduce the

whole to writing; and this befell in the year 1298 from the birth of

Jesus.

CHAPTER I.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS POLO SET FORTH FROM CONSTANTINOPLE

TO TRAVERSE THE WORLD.

It came to pass in the year of Christ 1260, when Baldwin was reigning

at Constantinople,{1} that Messer Nicolas Polo, the father of my lord

Mark, and Messer Maffeo Polo, the brother of Messer Nicolas, were at

the said city of CONSTANTINOPLE, whither they had gone from Venice with

their merchants’ wares. Now these two Brethren, men singularly noble,

wise, and provident, took counsel together to cross the GREATER SEA on

a venture of trade; so they laid in a store of jewels and set forth

from Constantinople, crossing the Sea to SOLDAIA.{2}

NOTE 1.—Baldwin II. (de Courtenay), the last Latin Emperor of

Constantinople, reigned from 1237 to 1261, when he was expelled by

Michael Palaeologus.

The date in the text is, as we see, that of the Brothers’ voyage

across the Black Sea. It stands 1250 in all the chief texts.

But the figure is certainly wrong. We shall see that, when the

Brothers return to Venice in 1269, they find Mark, who, according

to Ramusio’s version, was _born after their departure_, a lad of

fifteen. Hence, if we rely on Ramusio, they must have left Venice

about 1253–54. And we shall see also that they reached the Volga

in 1261. Hence their start from Constantinople may well have

occurred in 1260, and this I have adopted as the most probable

correction. Where they spent the interval between 1254 (if they

really left Venice so early) and 1260, nowhere appears. But as

their brother, Mark the Elder, in his Will styles himself “_whilom

of Constantinople_,” their headquarters were probably there.

[Illustration: Castle of Soldaia or Sudak.]

NOTE 2.—In the Middle Ages the Euxine was frequently called _Mare

Magnum_ or _Majus_. Thus Chaucer:—

“In the GRETE SEE,

At many a noble Armee hadde he be.”

The term Black Sea (_Mare Maurum_ v. _Nigrum_) was, however, in

use, and Abulfeda says it was general in his day. That name has

been alleged to appear as early as the 10th century, in the form

Σκοτεινή, “The Dark Sea”; but an examination of the passage cited,

from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, shows that it refers rather to

the Baltic, whilst that author elsewhere calls the Euxine simply

Pontus. (_Reinaud’s Abulf._ I. 38, _Const. Porph. De Adm. Imp._ c.

31, c. 42.)

✛ _Sodaya, Soldaia_, or _Soldachia_, called by Orientals _Súdák_,

stands on the S.E. coast of the Crimea, west of Kaffa. It had

belonged to the Greek Empire, and had a considerable Greek

population. After the Frank conquest of 1204 it apparently fell to

Trebizond. It was taken by the Mongols in 1223 for the first time,

and a second time in 1239, and during that century was the great

port of intercourse with what is now Russia. At an uncertain date,

but about the middle of the century, the Venetians established a

factory there, which in 1287 became the seat of a consul. In 1323

we find Pope John XXII. complaining to Uzbek Khan of Sarai that

the Christians had been ejected from Soldaia and their churches

turned into mosques. Ibn Batuta, who alludes to this strife, counts

Sudak as one of the four great ports of the World. The Genoese got

Soldaia in 1365 and built strong defences, still to be seen. Kaffa,

with a good anchorage, in the 14th century, and later on Tana, took

the place of Soldaia as chief emporium in South Russia. Some of the

Arab Geographers call the Sea of Azov the Sea of Sudak.

The Elder Marco Polo in his Will (1280) bequeaths to the Franciscan

Friars of the place a house of his in _Soldachia_, reserving life

occupation to his own son and daughter, then residing in it.

Probably this establishment already existed when the two Brothers

went thither. (_Elie de Laprimaudaie_, passim; _Gold. Horde_, 87;

_Mosheim_, App. 148; _Ibn Bat._ I. 28, II. 414; _Cathay_, 231–33;

_Heyd_, II. passim.)

CHAPTER II.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS WENT ON BEYOND SOLDAIA.

Having stayed a while at Soldaia, they considered the matter, and

thought it well to extend their journey further. So they set forth from

Soldaia and travelled till they came to the Court of a certain Tartar

Prince, BARCA KAAN by name, whose residences were at SARA{1} and at

BOLGARA [and who was esteemed one of the most liberal and courteous

Princes that ever was among the Tartars.]{2} This Barca was delighted

at the arrival of the Two Brothers, and treated them with great honour;

so they presented to him the whole of the jewels that they had brought

with them. The Prince was highly pleased with these, and accepted the

offering most graciously, causing the Brothers to receive at least

twice its value.

After they had spent a twelvemonth at the court of this Prince there

broke out a great war between Barca and Aláu, the Lord of the Tartars

of the Levant, and great hosts were mustered on either side.{3}

[Illustration: Map to illustrate the Geographical Position of the CITY

of SARAI

Part of the Remains of the CITY of SARAI near TZAREV North of the

AKHTUBA Branch of the VOLGA

Lit. Frauenfelder, Palermo]

But in the end Barca, the Lord of the Tartars of the Ponent, was

defeated, though on both sides there was great slaughter. And by reason

of this war no one could travel without peril of being taken; thus it

was at least on the road by which the Brothers had come, though there

was no obstacle to their travelling forward. So the Brothers, finding

they could not retrace their steps, determined to go forward. Quitting

Bolgara, therefore, they proceeded to a city called UCACA, which was at

the extremity of the kingdom of the Lord of the Ponent;{4} and thence

departing again, and passing the great River Tigris, they travelled

across a Desert which extended for seventeen days’ journey, and wherein

they found neither town nor village, falling in only with the tents of

Tartars occupied with their cattle at pasture.{5}

NOTE 1.—✛ Barka Khan, third son of Jújí, the first-born of

Chinghiz, ruled the _Ulús_ of Juji and Empire of Kipchak (Southern

Russia) from 1257 to 1265. He was the first Musulman sovereign of

his race. His chief residence was at SARAI (Sara of the text), a

city founded by his brother and predecessor Bátú, on the banks of

the Akhtuba branch of the Volga. In the next century Ibn Batuta

describes Sarai as a very handsome and populous city, so large that

it made half a day’s journey to ride through it. The inhabitants

were Mongols, Aás (or Alans), Kipchaks, Circassians, Russians, and

Greeks, besides the foreign Moslem merchants, who had a walled

quarter. Another Mahomedan traveller of the same century says the

city itself was not walled, but, “The Khan’s Palace was a great

edifice surmounted by a golden crescent weighing two _kantars_ of

Egypt, and encompassed by a wall flanked with towers,” etc. Pope

John XXII., on the 26th February 1322, defined the limits of the

new Bishopric of Kaffa, which were Sarai to the east and Varna to

the west.

Sarai became the seat of both a Latin and a Russian metropolitan,

and of more than one Franciscan convent. It was destroyed by Timur

on his second invasion of Kipchak (1395–6), and extinguished by the

Russians a century later. It is the scene of Chaucer’s half-told

tale of Cambuscan:—

“At _Sarra_, in the Londe of Tartarie,

There dwelt a King that werriëd Russie.”

[“_Mesalek-al-absar_ (285, 287), says Sarai, meaning ‘the Palace,’

was founded by Bereké, brother of Batu. It stood in a salty plain,

and was without walls, though the palace had walls flanked by

towers. The town was large, had markets, _madrasas_—and baths. It

is usually identified with Selitrennoyé Gorodok, about 70 miles

above Astrakhan.” (_Rockhill, Rubruck_, p. 260, note.)—H. C.]

Several sites exhibiting extensive ruins near the banks of the

Akhtuba have been identified with Sarai; two in particular.

One of these is not far from the great elbow of the Volga at

Tzaritzyn: the other much lower down, at Selitrennoyé Gorodok or

Saltpetre-Town, not far above Astrakhan.

The upper site exhibits by far the most extensive traces of

former population, and is declared unhesitatingly to be the sole

site of Sarai by M. Gregorieff, who carried on excavations among

the remains for four years, though with what precise results I

have not been able to learn. The most dense part of the remains,

consisting of mounds and earth-works, traces of walls, buildings,

cisterns, dams, and innumerable canals, extends for about 7½ miles

in the vicinity of the town of Tzarev, but a tract of 66 miles in

length and 300 miles in circuit, commencing from near the head

of the Akhtuba, presents remains of like character, though of

less density, marking the ground occupied by the villages which

encircled the capital. About 2½ miles to the N.W. of Tzarev a vast

mass of such remains, surrounded by the traces of a brick rampart,

points out the presumable position of the Imperial Palace.

M. Gregorieff appears to admit no alternative. Yet it seems certain

that the indications of Abulfeda, Pegolotti, and others, with

regard to the position of the capital in the early part of the 14th

century, are not consistent with a site so far from the Caspian.

Moreover, F. H. Müller states that the site near Tzarev is known

to the Tartars as the “Sarai of Janibek Khan” (1341–1357). Now it

is worthy of note that in the coinage of Janibek we repeatedly

find as the place of mintage, _New Sarai_. Arabsháh in his History

of Timur states that 63 years had elapsed from the foundation to

the destruction of Sarai. But it must have been at least 140 years

since the foundation of Batu’s city. Is it not possible, therefore,

that both the sites which we have mentioned were successively

occupied by the Mongol capital; that the original Sarai of Batu was

at Selitrennoyé Gorodok, and that the _New Sarai_ of Janibek was

established by him, or by his father Uzbeg in his latter days, on

the upper Akhtuba? Pegolotti having carried his merchant from Tana

(Azov) to Gittarchan (Astrakhan), takes him _one day_ by river to

Sara, and from Sara to _Saracanco_, also by river, eight days more.

(_Cathay_, p. 287.) In the work quoted I have taken Saracanco for

Saraichik, on the Yaik. But it was possibly the Upper or New Sarai

on the Akhtuba. Ibn Batuta, marching on the frozen river, reached

Sarai in three days from Astrakhan. This could not have been at

Tzarev, 200 miles off.

In corroboration (_quantum valeat_) of my suggestion that there

must have been two Sarais near the Volga, Professor Bruun of Odessa

points to the fact that Fra Mauro’s map presents _two_ cities of

Sarai on the Akhtuba; only the Sarai of Janibeg is with him no

longer _New_ Sarai, but _Great_ Sarai.

The use of the latter name suggests the possibility that in the

_Saracanco_ of Pegolotti the latter half of the name may be the

Mongol _Kúnḳ_ “Great.” (See _Pavet de Courteille_, p. 439.)

Professor Bruun also draws attention to the impossibility of Ibn

Batuta’s travelling from Astrakhan to Tzarev in three days, an

argument which had already occurred to me and been inserted above.

[The Empire of Kipchak founded after the Mongol Conquest of 1224,

included also parts of Siberia and Khwarizm; it survived nominally

until 1502.—H. C.]

(_Four Years of Archæological Researches among the Ruins of Sarai_

[in Russian] by M. Gregorieff [who appears to have also published a

pamphlet specially on the site, but this has not been available];

_Historisch-geographische Darstellung des Stromsystems der Wolga,

von Ferd. Heinr. Müller_, Berlin, 1839, 568–577; _Ibn. Bat._ II.

447; _Not. et Extraits_, XIII. i. 286; _Pallas, Voyages; Cathay_,

231, etc.; _Erdmann, Numi Asiatici_, pp. 362 _seqq._; _Arabs._ I.

p. 381.)

NOTE 2.—BOLGHAR, our author’s Bolgara, was the capital of the

region sometimes called Great Bulgaria, by Abulfeda _Inner

Bulgaria_, and stood a few miles from the left bank of the Volga,

in latitude about 54° 54′, and 90 miles below Kazan. The old Arab

writers regarded it as nearly the limit of the habitable world, and

told wonders of the cold, the brief summer nights, and the fossil

ivory that was found in its vicinity. This was exported, and with

peltry, wax, honey, hazel-nuts, and Russia leather, formed the

staple articles of trade. The last item derived from Bolghar the

name which it still bears all over Asia. (See Bk. II. ch. xvi.,

and Note.) Bolghar seems to have been the northern limit of Arab

travel, and was visited by the curious (by Ibn Batuta among others)

in order to witness the phenomena of the short summer night, as

tourists now visit Hammerfest to witness its entire absence.

Russian chroniclers speak of an earlier capital of the Bulgarian

kingdom, Brakhimof, near the mouth of the Kama, destroyed by

Andrew, Grand Duke of Rostof and Susdal, about 1160; and this may

have been the city referred to in the earlier Arabic accounts. The

fullest of these is by Ibn Fozlán, who accompanied an embassy from

the Court of Baghdad to Bolghar, in A.D. 921. The King and people

had about this time been converted to Islam, having previously, as

it would seem, professed Christianity. Nevertheless, a Mahomedan

writer of the 14th century says the people had then long renounced

Islam for the worship of the Cross. (_Not. et Extr._ XIII. i. 270.)

[Illustration: Ruins of Bolghar.]

Bolghar was first captured by the Mongols in 1225. It seems to have

perished early in the 15th century, after which Kazan practically

took its place. Its position is still marked by a village called

Bolgari, where ruins of Mahomedan character remain, and where coins

and inscriptions have been found. Coins of the Kings of Bolghar,

struck in the 10th century, have been described by Fraehn, as

well as coins of the Mongol period struck at Bolghar. Its latest

known coin is of A.H. 818 (A.D. 1415–16). A history of Bolghar was

written in the first half of the 12th century by Yakub Ibn Noman,

Kadhi of the city, but this is not known to be extant.

Fraehn shows ground for believing the people to have been a mixture

of Fins, Slavs, and Turks. Nicephorus Gregoras supposes that they

took their name from the great river on which they dwelt (Βούλγα).

[“The ruins [of Bolghar],” says Bretschneider, in his _Mediæval

Researches_, published in 1888, vol. ii. p. 82, “still exist, and

have been the subject of learned investigation by several Russian

scholars. These remains are found on the spot where now the village

_Uspenskoye_, called also _Bolgarskoye_ (Bolgari), stands, in the

district of Spask, province of Kazan. This village is about 4

English miles distant from the Volga, east of it, and 83 miles from

Kazan.” Part of the Bulgars removed to the Balkans; others remained

in their native country on the shores of the Azov Sea, and were

subjugated by the Khazars. At the beginning of the 9th century,

they marched northwards to the Volga and the Kama, and established

the kingdom of Great Bulgaria. Their chief city, Bolghar, was on

the bank of the Volga, but the river runs now to the west; as the

Kama also underwent a change in its course, it is possible that

formerly Bolghar was built at the junction of the two rivers.

(Cf. _Reclus, Europe russe_, p. 761.) The Bulgars were converted

to Islam in 922. Their country was first invaded by the Mongols

under Subutai in 1223; this General conquered it in 1236, the

capital was destroyed the following year, and the country annexed

to the kingdom of Kipchak. Bolghar was again destroyed in 1391 by

Tamerlan. In 1438, Ulugh Mohammed, cousin of Toka Timur, younger

son of Juji, transformed this country into the khanate of Kazan,

which survived till 1552. It had probably been the capital of the

Golden Horde before Sarai.

With reference to the early Christianity of the Bulgarians, to

which Yule refers in his note, the _Laurentian Chronicle_ (A.D.

1229), quoted by Shpilevsky, adduces evidence to show that in the

Great City, _i.e._ _Bulgar_, there were Russian Christians and a

Christian cemetery, and the death of a Bulgarian Christian martyr

is related in the same chronicle as well as in the Nikon, Tver, and

Tatischef annals in which his name is given. (Cf. Shpilevsky, _Anc.

towns and other Bulgaro-Tartar monuments_, Kazan, 1877, p. 158

seq.; _Rockhill’s Rubruck_, Hakl. Soc. p. 121, note.)—H. C.]

The severe and lasting winter is spoken of by Ibn Fozlán and other

old writers in terms that seem to point to a modern mitigation

of climate. It is remarkable, too, that Ibn Fozlán speaks of the

aurora as of very frequent occurrence, which is not now the case

in that latitude. We may suspect this frequency to have been

connected with the greater cold indicated, and perhaps with a

different position of the magnetic pole. Ibn Fozlán’s account of

the aurora is very striking:—“Shortly before sunset the horizon

became all very ruddy, and at the same time I heard sounds in the

upper air, with a dull rustling. I looked up and beheld sweeping

over me a fire-red cloud, from which these sounds issued, and in

it movements, as it were, of men and horses; the men grasping

bows, lances, and swords. This I saw, or thought I saw. Then there

appeared a white cloud of like aspect; in it also I beheld armed

horsemen, and these rushed against the former as one squadron of

horse charges another. We were so terrified at this that we turned

with humble prayer to the Almighty, whereupon the natives about us

wondered and broke into loud laughter. We, however, continued to

gaze, seeing how one cloud charged the other, remained confused

with it a while, and then sundered again. These movements lasted

deep into the night, and then all vanished.”

(_Fraehn, Ueber die Wolga Bulgaren_, Petersb. 1832; _Gold.

Horde_, 8, 9, 423–424; _Not. et Extr._ II. 541; _Ibn Bat._ II.

398; _Büschings Mag._ V. 492; _Erdmann, Numi Asiat._ I. 315–318,

333–334, 520–535; _Niceph. Gregoras_, II. 2, 2.)

NOTE 3.—ALAU is Polo’s representation of the name of Hulákú,

brother of the Great Kaans Mangu and Kublai and founder of the

Mongol dynasty in Persia. In the Mongol pronunciation guttural

and palatal consonants are apt to be elided, hence this spelling.

The same name is written by Pope Alexander IV., in addressing the

Khan, _Olao_, by Pachymeres and Gregoras Χαλαὺ and Χαλαοῦ, by

Hayton _Haolon_, by Ibn Batuta _Huláún_, as well as in a letter of

Hulaku’s own, as given by Makrizi.

The war in question is related in Rashíduddín’s history, and by

Polo himself towards the end of the work. It began in the summer of

1262, and ended about eight months later. Hence the Polos must have

reached Barka’s Court in 1261.

Marco always applies to the Mongol Khans of Persia the title of

“Lords of the East” (_Levant_), and to the Khans of Kipchak that of

“Lords of the West” (_Ponent_). We use the term _Levant_ still with

a similar specific application, and in another form _Anatolia_. I

think it best to preserve the terms _Levant_ and _Ponent_ when used

in this way.

[Robert Parke in his translation out of Spanish of Mendoza,

_The Historie of the great and mightie kingdome of China_ ...

London, printed by I. Wolfe for Edward White, 1588, uses the word

_Ponent_: “You shall understande that this mightie kingdome is the

Orientalest part of all Asia, and his next neighbour towards the

_Ponent_ is the kingdome of _Quachinchina_ ... (p. 2).”—H. C.]

NOTE 4.—UCACA or UKEK was a town on the right bank of the Volga,

nearly equidistant between Sarai and Bolghar, and about six miles

south of the modern Saratov, where a village called _Uwek_ still

exists. Ukek is not mentioned before the Mongol domination, and is

supposed to have been of Mongol foundation, as the name Ukek is

said in Mongol to signify a dam of hurdles. The city is mentioned

by Abulfeda as marking the extremity of “the empire of the Barka

Tartars,” and Ibn Batuta speaks of it as “one day distant from

the hills of the Russians.” Polo therefore means that it was the

frontier of the Ponent towards Russia. Ukek was the site of a

Franciscan convent in the 14th century; it is mentioned several

times in the campaigns of Timur, and was destroyed by his army.

It is not mentioned under the form Ukek after this, but appears

as _Uwek_ and _Uwesh_ in Russian documents of the 16th century.

Perhaps this was always the Slavonic form, for it already is

written _Uguech_ (= Uwek) in Wadding’s 14th century catalogue of

convents. Anthony Jenkinson, in Hakluyt, gives an observation of

its latitude, as _Oweke_ (51° 40′), and Christopher Burrough, in

the same collection, gives a description of it as _Oueak_, and the

latitude as 51° 30′ (some 7′ too much). In his time (1579) there

were the remains of a “very faire stone castle” and city, with old

tombs exhibiting sculptures and inscriptions. All these have long

vanished. Burrough was told by the Russians that the town “was

swallowed into the earth by the justice of God, for the wickednesse

of the people that inhabited the same.” Lepechin in 1769 found

nothing remaining but part of an earthen rampart and some

underground vaults of larger bricks, which the people dug out for

use. He speaks of coins and other relics as frequent, and the like

have been found more recently. Coins with Mongol-Arab inscriptions,

struck at Ukek by Tuktugai Khan in 1306, have been described by

Fraehn and Erdmann.

(_Fraehn, Ueber die ehemalige Mong. Stadt Ukek_, etc., Petersb.

1835; _Gold. Horde_; _Ibn Bat._ II. 414; _Abulfeda, in Büsching_,

V. 365; _Ann. Minorum_, sub anno 1400; _Pétis de la Croix_, II.

355, 383, 388; _Hakluyt_, ed. 1809, I. 375 and 472; _Lepechin,

Tagebuch der Reise_, etc., I. 235–237; _Rockhill, Rubruck_,

120–121, note 2.)

NOTE 5.—The great River Tigeri or Tigris is the Volga, as Pauthier

rightly shows. It receives the same name from the Monk Pascal of

Vittoria in 1338. (_Cathay_, p. 234.) Perhaps this arose out of

some legend that the Tigris was a reappearance of the same river.

The ecclesiastical historian, Nicephorus Callistus, appears to

imply that the Tigris coming from Paradise flows under the Caspian

to emerge in Kurdistan. (See IX. 19.)

The “17 days” applies to one stretch of desert. The whole journey

from Ukek Bokhara would take some 60 days at least. Ibn Batuta is

58 days from Sarai to Bokhara, and of the last section he says, “we

entered the desert which extends between Khwarizm and Bokhara, and

_which has an extent of 18 days’ journey_.” (III. 19.)

CHAPTER III.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS, AFTER CROSSING A DESERT, CAME TO THE

CITY OF BOCARA, AND FELL IN WITH CERTAIN ENVOYS THERE.

After they had passed the desert, they arrived at a very great and

noble city called BOCARA, the territory of which belonged to a king

whose name was Barac, and is also called Bocara. The city is the best

in all Persia.{1} And when they had got thither, they found they could

neither proceed further forward nor yet turn back again; wherefore they

abode in that city of Bocara for three years. And whilst they were

sojourning in that city, there came from Alau, Lord of the Levant,

Envoys on their way to the Court of the Great Kaan, the Lord of all the

Tartars in the world. And when the Envoys beheld the Two Brothers they

were amazed, for they had never before seen Latins in that part of the

world. And they said to the Brothers: “Gentlemen, if ye will take our

counsel, ye will find great honour and profit shall come thereof.” So

they replied that they would be right glad to learn how. “In truth,”

said the Envoys, “the Great Kaan hath never seen any Latins, and he

hath a great desire so to do. Wherefore, if ye will keep us company

to his Court, ye may depend upon it that he will be right glad to see

you, and will treat you with great honour and liberality; whilst in

our company ye shall travel with perfect security, and need fear to be

molested by nobody.”{2}

NOTE 1.—Hayton also calls Bokhara a city of Persia, and I see

Vámbéry says that, up till the conquest by Chinghiz, Bokhara,

Samarkand, Balkh, etc., were considered to belong to Persia.

(_Travels_, p. 377.) The first Mongolian governor of Bokhara was

Buka Bosha.

King Barac is Borrak Khan, great-grandson of Chagatai, and

sovereign of the Ulús of Chagatai, from 1264 to 1270. The Polos,

no doubt, reached Bokhara before 1264, but Borrak must have been

sovereign some time before they left it.

NOTE 2.—The language of the envoys seems rather to imply that

they were the Great Kaan’s own people returning from the Court of

Hulaku. And Rashid mentions that Sartak, the Kaan’s ambassador to

Hulaku, returned from Persia in the year that the latter prince

died. It may have been his party that the Venetians joined, for the

year almost certainly was the same, viz. 1265. If so, another of

the party was Bayan, afterwards the greatest of Kublai’s captains,

and much celebrated in the sequel of this book. (See _Erdmann’s

Temudschin_, p. 214.)

Marsden justly notes that Marco habitually speaks of _Latins_,

never of _Franks_. Yet I suspect his own mental expression was

_Farangi_.

CHAPTER IV.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS TOOK THE ENVOYS’ COUNSEL, AND WENT TO

THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN.

So when the Two Brothers had made their arrangements, they set out on

their travels, in company with the Envoys, and journeyed for a whole

year, going northward and north-eastward, before they reached the Court

of that Prince. And on their journey they saw many marvels of divers

and sundry kinds, but of these we shall say nothing at present, because

Messer Mark, who has likewise seen them all, will give you a full

account of them in the Book which follows.

CHAPTER V.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS ARRIVED AT THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN.

When the Two Brothers got to the Great Kaan, he received them with

great honour and hospitality, and showed much pleasure at their visit,

asking them a great number of questions. First, he asked about the

emperors, how they maintained their dignity, and administered justice

in their dominions; and how they went forth to battle, and so forth.

And then he asked the like questions about the kings and princes and

other potentates.

CHAPTER VI.

HOW THE GREAT KAAN ASKED ALL ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE

CHRISTIANS, AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE POPE OF ROME.

And then he inquired about the Pope and the Church, and about all

that is done at Rome, and all the customs of the Latins. And the Two

Brothers told him the truth in all its particulars, with order and good

sense, like sensible men as they were; and this they were able to do as

they knew the Tartar language well.{1}

NOTE 1.—The word generally used for Pope in the original is

_Apostoille_ (_Apostolicus_), the usual French expression of that

age.

It is remarkable that for the most part the text edited by Pauthier

has the correcter Oriental form _Tatar_, instead of the usual

_Tartar_. _Tattar_ is the word used by Yvo of Narbonne, in the

curious letter given by Matthew Paris under 1243.

We are often told that _Tartar_ is a vulgar European error. It is

in any case a very old one; nor does it seem to be of European

origin, but rather Armenian;[1] though the suggestion of Tartarus

may have given it readier currency in Europe. Russian writers, or

rather writers who have been in Russia, sometimes try to force on

us a specific limitation of the word _Tartar_ to a certain class of

Oriental Turkish race, to whom the Russians appropriate the name.

But there is no just ground for this. _Tátár_ is used by Oriental

writers of Polo’s age exactly as Tartar was then, and is still,

used in Western Europe, as a generic title for the Turanian hosts

who followed Chinghiz and his successors. But I believe the name in

this sense was unknown to Western Asia before the time of Chinghiz.

And General Cunningham must overlook this when he connects the

Ṭáṭaríya coins, mentioned by Arab geographers of the 9th century,

with “the Scythic or Tátár princes who ruled in Kabul” in the

beginning of our era. Tartars on the Indian frontier in those

centuries are surely to be classed with the Frenchmen whom Brennus

led to Rome, or the Scotchmen who fought against Agricola.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See _J. As._ sér. V. tom. xi. p. 203.

CHAPTER VII.

HOW THE GREAT KAAN SENT THE TWO BROTHERS AS HIS ENVOYS TO

THE POPE.

When that Prince, whose name was CUBLAY KAAN, Lord of the Tartars all

over the earth, and of all the kingdoms and provinces and territories

of that vast quarter of the world, had heard all that the Brothers had

to tell him about the ways of the Latins, he was greatly pleased, and

he took it into his head that he would send them on an Embassy to the

Pope. So he urgently desired them to undertake this mission along with

one of his Barons; and they replied that they would gladly execute all

his commands as those of their Sovereign Lord. Then the Prince sent to

summon to his presence one of his Barons whose name was COGATAL, and

desired him to get ready, for it was proposed to send him to the Pope

along with the Two Brothers. The Baron replied that he would execute

the Lord’s commands to the best of his ability.

After this the Prince caused letters from himself to the Pope to be

indited in the Tartar tongue,{1} and committed them to the Two Brothers

and to that Baron of his own, and charged them with what he wished

them to say to the Pope. Now the contents of the letter were to this

purport: He begged that the Pope would send as many as an hundred

persons of our Christian faith; intelligent men, acquainted with the

Seven Arts,{2} well qualified to enter into controversy, and able

clearly to prove by force of argument to idolaters and other kinds of

folk, that the Law of Christ was best, and that all other religions

were false and naught; and that if they would prove this, he and all

under him would become Christians and the Church’s liegemen. Finally

he charged his Envoys to bring back to him some Oil of the Lamp which

burns on the Sepulchre of our Lord at Jerusalem.{3}

NOTE 1.—✛ The appearance of the Great Kaan’s letter may be

illustrated by two letters on so-called Corean paper preserved

in the French archives; one from Arghún Khan of Persia (1289),

brought by Buscarel, and the other from his son Oljaitu (May,

1305), to Philip the Fair. These are both in the Mongol language,

and according to Abel Rémusat and other authorities, in the Uighúr

character, the parent of the present Mongol writing. Facsimiles of

the letters are given in Rémusat’s paper on intercourse with Mongol

Princes, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript._ vols. vii. and viii.,

reproductions in J. B. Chabot’s _Hist. de Mar Jabalaha III._,

Paris, 1895, and preferably in Prince Roland Bonaparte’s beautiful

_Documents Mongols_, Pl. XIV., and we give samples of the two in

vol. ii.[1]

NOTE 2.—“The Seven Arts,” from a date reaching back nearly to

classical times, and down through the Middle Ages, expressed the

whole circle of a liberal education, and it is to these Seven

Arts that the degrees in arts were understood to apply. They were

divided into the _Trivium_ of Rhetoric, Logic, and Grammar, and

the _Quadrivium_ of Arithmetic, Astronomy, Music, and Geometry.

The 38th epistle of Seneca was in many MSS. (according to Lipsius)

entitled “_L. Annaei Senecae Liber de Septem Artibus liberalibus._”

I do not find, however, that Seneca there mentions categorically

more than five, viz., Grammar, Geometry, Music, Astronomy, and

Arithmetic. In the 5th century we find the Seven Arts to form

the successive subjects of the last seven books of the work of

Martianus Capella, much used in the schools during the early Middle

Ages. The Seven Arts will be found enumerated in the verses of

Tzetzes (_Chil. XI._ 525), and allusions to them in the mediæval

romances are endless. Thus, in one of the “Gestes d’Alexandre,” a

chapter is headed “_Comment Aristotle aprent à Alixandre les Sept

Arts._” In the tale of the Seven Wise Masters, Diocletian selects

that number of tutors for his son, each to instruct him in one of

the Seven Arts. In the romance of _Erec and Eneide_ we have a dress

on which the fairies had portrayed the Seven Arts (_Franc. Michel,

Recherches_, etc. II. 82); in the _Roman de Mahommet_ the young

impostor is master of all the seven. There is one mediæval poem

called the _Marriage of the Seven Arts_, and another called the

_Battle of the Seven Arts_. (See also Dante, _Convito_, Trat. II.

c. 14; _Not. et Ex._ V., 491 _seqq._)

NOTE 3.—The Chinghizide Princes were eminently liberal—or

indifferent—in religion; and even after they became Mahomedan,

which, however, the Eastern branch never did, they were rarely and

only by brief fits persecutors. Hence there was scarcely one of the

non-Mahomedan Khans of whose conversion to Christianity there were

not stories spread. The first rumours of Chinghiz in the West were

as of a Christian conqueror; tales may be found of the Christianity

of Chagatai, Hulaku, Abaka, Arghun, Baidu, Ghazan, Sartak, Kuyuk,

Mangu, Kublai, and one or two of the latter’s successors in China,

all probably false, with one or two doubtful exceptions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See plates with ch. xvii. of Bk. IV. See also the Uighúr character

in the second _Païza_, Bk. II. ch. vii.

[Illustration: The Great Kaan delivering a Golden Tablet to the

Brothers. From a miniature of the 14th century.]

CHAPTER VIII.

HOW THE GREAT KAAN GAVE THEM A TABLET OF GOLD, BEARING HIS

ORDERS IN THEIR BEHALF.

When the Prince had charged them with all his commission, he caused to

be given them a Tablet of Gold, on which was inscribed that the three

Ambassadors should be supplied with everything needful in all the

countries through which they should pass—with horses, with escorts,

and, in short, with whatever they should require. And when they had

made all needful preparations, the three Ambassadors took their leave

of the Emperor and set out.

When they had travelled I know not how many days, the Tartar Baron

fell sick, so that he could not ride, and being very ill, and unable

to proceed further, he halted at a certain city. So the Two Brothers

judged it best that they should leave him behind and proceed to carry

out their commission; and, as he was well content that they should

do so, they continued their journey. And I can assure you, that

whithersoever they went they were honourably provided with whatever

they stood in need of, or chose to command. And this was owing to that

Tablet of Authority from the Lord which they carried with them.{1}

So they travelled on and on until they arrived at Layas in Hermenia,

a journey which occupied them, I assure you, for three years.{2} It

took them so long because they could not always proceed, being stopped

sometimes by snow, or by heavy rains falling, or by great torrents

which they found in an impassable state.

NOTE 1.—On these Tablets, see a note under Bk. II. ch. vii.

NOTE 2.—AYAS, called also Ayacio, Aiazzo, Giazza, Glaza, La Jazza,

and _Layas_, occupied the site of ancient Aegae, and was the chief

port of Cilician Armenia, on the Gulf of Scanderoon. _Aegae_ had

been in the 5th century a place of trade with the West, and the

seat of a bishopric, as we learn from the romantic but incomplete

story of Mary, the noble slave-girl, told by Gibbon (ch. 33). As

Ayas it became in the latter part of the 13th century one of the

chief places for the shipment of Asiatic wares arriving through

Tabriz, and was much frequented by the vessels of the Italian

Republics. The Venetians had a _Bailo_ resident there.

[Illustration: Castle of Ayas.]

Ayas is the _Leyes_ of Chaucer’s Knight,—

(“At LEYES was he and at Satalie”)—

and the Layas of Froissart. (Bk. III. ch. xxii.) The Gulf of Layas

is described in the xix. Canto of Ariosto, where Mafisa and Astolfo

find on its shores a country of barbarous Amazons:—

“Fatto è ’l porto a sembranza d’una luna,” etc.

Marino Sanuto says of it: “Laiacio has a haven, and a shoal in

front of it that we might rather call a reef, and to this shoal

the hawsers of vessels are moored whilst the anchors are laid out

towards the land.” (II. IV. ch. xxvi.)

The present Ayas is a wretched village of some 15 huts, occupied

by about 600 Turkmans, and standing inside the ruined walls of the

castle. This castle, which is still in good condition, was built

by the Armenian kings, and restored by Sultan Suleiman; it was

constructed from the remains of the ancient city; fragments of

old columns are embedded in its walls of cut stone. It formerly

communicated by a causeway with an advanced work on an island

before the harbour. The ruins of the city occupy a large space.

(_Langlois, V. en Cilicie_, pp. 429–31; see also _Beaufort’s

Karamania_, near the end.) A plan of Ayas will be found at the

beginning of Bk. I.—H. Y. and H. C.

CHAPTER IX.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS CAME TO THE CITY OF ACRE.

They departed from Layas and came to ACRE, arriving there in the month

of April, in the year of Christ 1269, and then they learned that the

Pope was dead. And when they found that the Pope was dead (his name was

Pope * *),{1} they went to a certain wise Churchman who was Legate

for the whole kingdom of Egypt, and a man of great authority, by name

THEOBALD OF PIACENZA, and told him of the mission on which they were

come. When the Legate heard their story, he was greatly surprised, and

deemed the thing to be of great honour and advantage for the whole of

Christendom. So his answer to the two Ambassador Brothers was this:

“Gentlemen, ye see that the Pope is dead; wherefore ye must needs

have patience until a new Pope be made, and then shall ye be able to

execute your charge.” Seeing well enough that what the Legate said was

just, they observed: “But while the Pope is a-making, we may as well

go to Venice and visit our households.” So they departed from Acre and

went to Negropont, and from Negropont they continued their voyage to

Venice.{2} On their arrival there, Messer Nicolas found that his wife

was dead, and that she had left behind her a son of fifteen years of

age, whose name was MARCO; and ’tis of him that this Book tells.{3} The

Two Brothers abode at Venice a couple of years, tarrying until a Pope

should be made.

[Illustration: ACRE _AS IT WAS WHEN LOST_ (A.D. 1291). _FROM THE PLAN

GIVEN BY_ MARINO SANUTO.]

NOTE 1.—The deceased Pope’s name is omitted both in the Geog. Text

and in Pauthier’s, clearly because neither Rusticiano nor Polo

remembered it. It is supplied correctly in the Crusca Italian as

_Clement_, and in Ramusio as _Clement IV._

It is not clear that _Theobald_, though generally adopted, is the

ecclesiastic’s proper name. It appears in different MSS. as _Teald_

(G. T.), _Ceabo_ for _Teabo_ (Pauthier), _Odoaldo_ (Crusca), and

in the Riccardian as _Thebaldus de Vice-comitibus de Placentia_,

which corresponds to Ramusio’s version. Most of the ecclesiastical

chroniclers call him _Tedaldus_, some _Thealdus_. _Tedaldo_ is a

real name, occurring in Boccaccio. (Day iii. Novel 7.)

NOTE 2.—After the expulsion of the Venetians from Constantinople,

Negropont was the centre of their influence in Romania. On the

final return of the travellers they again take Negropont on

their way. [It was one of the ports on the route from Venice to

Constantinople, Tana, Trebizond.—H. C.]

NOTE 3.—The _edition_ of the Soc. de Géographie makes Mark’s age

_twelve_, but I have verified from inspection the fact noticed by

Pauthier that the _manuscript_ has distinctly xv. like all the

other old texts. In Ramusio it is _nineteen_, but this is doubtless

an arbitrary correction to suit the mistaken date (1250) assigned

for the departure of the father from Constantinople.

There is nothing in the old French texts to justify the usual

statement that Marco was born after the departure of his father

from Venice. All that the G. T. says is: “Meser Nicolau treuve

que sa fame estoit morte, et les remès un filz de xv. anz que

avoit à nom Marc,” and Pauthier’s text is to the same effect.

Ramusio, indeed, has: “M. Nicolò trovò, che sua moglie era morta,

la quale nella sua partita haveva partorito un figliuolo,” and the

other versions that are based on Pipino’s seem all to have like

statements.

CHAPTER X.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS AGAIN DEPARTED FROM VENICE, ON THEIR WAY BACK TO

THE GREAT KAAN, AND TOOK WITH THEM MARK, THE SON OF MESSER NICOLAS.

When the Two Brothers had tarried as long as I have told you, and saw

that never a Pope was made, they said that their return to the Great

Kaan must be put off no longer. So they set out from Venice, taking

Mark along with them, and went straight back to Acre, where they found

the Legate of whom we have spoken. They had a good deal of discourse

with him concerning the matter, and asked his permission to go to

JERUSALEM to get some Oil from the Lamp on the Sepulchre, to carry with

them to the Great Kaan, as he had enjoined.{1} The Legate giving them

leave, they went from Acre to Jerusalem and got some of the Oil, and

then returned to Acre, and went to the Legate and said to him: “As we

see no sign of a Pope’s being made, we desire to return to the Great

Kaan; for we have already tarried long, and there has been more than

enough delay.” To which the Legate replied: “Since ’tis your wish to go

back, I am well content.” Wherefore he caused letters to be written for

delivery to the Great Kaan, bearing testimony that the Two Brothers had

come in all good faith to accomplish his charge, but that as there was

no Pope they had been unable to do so.

NOTE 1.—In a Pilgrimage of date apparently earlier than this, the

Pilgrim says of the Sepulchre: “The Lamp which had been placed by

His head (when He lay there) still burns on the same spot day and

night. _We took a blessing from it_ (_i.e._ apparently took some of

the oil as a beneficent memorial), and replaced it.” (_Itinerarium

Antonini Placentini_ in _Bollandists_, May, vol. ii. p. xx.)

[“Five great oil lamps,” says Daniel, the Russian Hégoumène,

1106–1107 (_Itinéraires russes en Orient_, trad. pour la Soc. de

l’Orient Latin, par Mme. B. de Khitrowo, Geneva, 1889, p. 13),

“burning continually night and day, are hung in the Sepulchre of

Our Lord.”—H. C.]

CHAPTER XI.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS SET OUT FROM ACRE, AND MARK ALONG

WITH THEM.

When the Two Brothers had received the Legate’s letters, they set

forth from Acre to return to the Grand Kaan, and got as far as

Layas. But shortly after their arrival there they had news that the

Legate aforesaid was chosen Pope, taking the name of Pope Gregory of

Piacenza; news which the Two Brothers were very glad indeed to hear.

And presently there reached them at Layas a message from the Legate,

now the Pope, desiring them, on the part of the Apostolic See, not to

proceed further on their journey, but to return to him incontinently.

And what shall I tell you? The King of Hermenia caused a galley to be

got ready for the Two Ambassador Brothers, and despatched them to the

Pope at Acre.{1}

[Illustration: Portrait of Pope Gregory X.]

NOTE 1.—The death of Pope Clement IV. occurred on St Andrew’s

Day (29th November), 1268; the election of Tedaldo or Tebaldo of

Piacenza, a member of the Visconti family, and Archdeacon of Liège,

did not take place till 1st September, 1271, owing to the factions

among the cardinals. And it is said that some of them, anxious only

to get away, voted for Theobald in full belief that he was dead.

The conclave, in its inability to agree, had named a committee of

six with full powers which the same day elected Theobald, on the

recommendation of the Cardinal Bishop of Portus (John de Toleto,

said, in spite of his name, to have been an Englishman). This

facetious dignitary had suggested that the roof should be taken

off the Palace at Viterbo where they sat, to allow the divine

influences to descend more freely on their counsels (_quia nequeunt

ad nos per tot tecta ingredi_). According to some, these doggerel

verses, current on the occasion, were extemporised by Cardinal John

in the pious exuberance of his glee:—

“Papatûs munus tulit Archidiaconus unus

Quem Patrem Patrum fecit discordia Fratrum.”

The Archdeacon, a man of great weight of character, in consequence

of differences with his Bishop (of Liège), who was a disorderly

liver, had gone to the Holy Land, and during his stay there he

contracted great intimacy with Prince Edward of England (Edward

I.). Some authors, _e.g._ John Villani (VIII. 39), say that he was

Legate in Syria; others, as Rainaldus, deny this; but Polo’s

statement, and the authority which the Archdeacon took on himself

in writing to the Kaan, seem to show that he had some such position.

He took the name of Gregory X., and before his departure from

Acre, preached a moving sermon on the text, “_If I forget thee, O

Jerusalem_,” etc. Prince Edward fitted him out for his voyage.

Gregory reigned barely four years, dying at Arezzo 10th January,

1276. His character stood high to the last, and some of the

Northern Martyrologies enrolled him among the saints, but there

has never been canonisation by Rome. The people of Arezzo used

to celebrate his anniversary with torch-light gatherings at his

tomb, and plenty of miracles were alleged to have occurred there.

The tomb still stands in the Duomo at Arezzo, a handsome work

by Margaritone, an artist in all branches, who was the Pope’s

contemporary. There is an engraving of it in _Gonnelli, Mon.

Sepolc. di Toscana_.

(_Fra Pipino_ in _Muratori_, IX. 700; _Rainaldi Annal._ III. 252

_seqq._; _Wadding_, sub. an. 1217: _Bollandists_, 10th January;

_Palatii, Gesta Pontif. Roman._ vol. iii., and _Fasti Cardinalium_,

I. 463, etc.)

CHAPTER XII.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE

THE NEW POPE.

And when they had been thus honourably conducted to Acre they proceeded

to the presence of the Pope, and paid their respects to him with humble

reverence. He received them with great honour and satisfaction, and

gave them his blessing. He then appointed two Friars of the Order of

Preachers to accompany them to the Great Kaan, and to do whatever might

be required of them. These were unquestionably as learned Churchmen as

were to be found in the Province at that day—one being called Friar

Nicolas of Vicenza, and the other Friar William of Tripoli.{1} He

delivered to them also proper credentials, and letters in reply to the

Great Kaan’s messages [and gave them authority to ordain priests and

bishops, and to bestow every kind of absolution, as if given by himself

in proper person; sending by them also many fine vessels of crystal

as presents to the Great Kaan].{2} So when they had got all that was

needful, they took leave of the Pope, receiving his benediction; and

the four set out together from Acre, and went to Layas, accompanied

always by Messer Nicolas’s son Marco.

Now, about the time that they reached Layas, Bendocquedar, the Soldan

of Babylon, invaded Hermenia with a great host of Saracens, and ravaged

the country, so that our Envoys ran a great peril of being taken or

slain.{3} And when the Preaching Friars saw this they were greatly

frightened, and said that go they never would. So they made over to

Messer Nicolas and Messer Maffeo all their credentials and documents,

and took their leave, departing in company with the Master of the

Temple.{4}

NOTE 1.—Friar William, of Tripoli, of the Dominican convent at

Acre, appears to have served there as early as 1250. [He was born

_circa_ 1220, at Tripoli, in Syria, whence his name.—H. C.] He is

known as the author of a book, _De Statu Saracenorum post Ludovici

Regis de Syriâ reditum_, dedicated to Theoldus, Archdeacon of

Liège (_i.e._ Pope Gregory). Of this some extracts are printed in

Duchesne’s _Hist. Francorum Scriptores_. There are two MSS. of it,

with different titles, in the Paris Library, and a French version

in that of Berne. A MS. in Cambridge Univ. Library, which contains

among other things a copy of Pipino’s Polo, has also the work of

Friar William:—“_Willelmus Tripolitanus, Aconensis Conventus,

de Egressu Machometi et Saracenorum, atque progressu eorumdem,

de Statu Saracenorum_,” etc. It is imperfect; it is addressed

THEOBALDO _Ecclesiarcho digno Sancte Terre Peregrino Sancto_. And

from a cursory inspection I imagine that the Tract appended to one

of the Polo MSS. in the British Museum (Addl. MSS., No. 19,952)

is the same work or part of it. To the same author is ascribed a

tract called _Clades Damiatae_. (_Duchesne_, V. 432; _D’Avezac_ in

_Rec. de Voyages_, IV. 406; _Quétif, Script. Ord. Praed._ I. 264–5;

_Catal. of MSS. in Camb. Univ. Library_, I. 22.)

NOTE 2.—I presume that the powers, stated in this passage from

Ramusio to have been conferred on the Friars, are exaggerated.

In letters of authority granted in like cases by Pope Gregory’s

successors, Nicolas III. (in 1278) and Boniface VIII. (in 1299),

the missionary friars to remote regions are empowered to absolve

from excommunication and release from vows, to settle matrimonial

questions, to found churches and appoint _idoneos rectores_,

to authorise Oriental clergy who should publicly submit to the

Apostolic See to enjoy the _privilegium clericale_, whilst in the

absence of bishops those among the missionaries who were priests

might consecrate cemeteries, altars, palls, etc., admit to the

Order of Acolytes, but nothing beyond. (See _Mosheim, Hist. Tartar.

Eccles._ App. Nos. 23 and 42.)

NOTE 3.—The statement here about Bundúḳdár’s invasion of Cilician

Armenia is a difficulty. He had invaded it in 1266, and his second

devastating invasion, during which he burnt both Layas and Sis,

the king’s residence, took place in 1275, a point on which Marino

Sanuto is at one with the Oriental Historians. Now we know from

Rainaldus that Pope Gregory left Acre in November or December,

1271, and the text appears to imply that our travellers left Acre

before him. The utmost corroboration that I can find lies in the

following facts stated by Makrizi:—

On the 13th Safar, A.H. 670 (20th September 1271), Bundúḳdár

arrived unexpectedly at Damascus, and after a brief raid against

the Ismaelians he returned to that city. In the middle of Rabi I.

(about 20–25 October) the Tartars made an incursion in northern

Syria, and the troops of Aleppo retired towards Hamah. There was

great alarm at Damascus; the Sultan sent orders to Cairo for

reinforcements, and these arrived at Damascus on the 9th November.

The Sultan then advanced on Aleppo, sending corps likewise towards

Marash (which was within the Armenian frontier) and Harran. At

the latter place the Tartars were attacked and those in the town

slaughtered; the rest retreated. The Sultan was back at Damascus,

and off on a different expedition, by 7th December. Hence, if the

travellers arrived at Ayas towards the latter part of November they

would probably find alarm existing at the advance of Bundúḳdár,

though matters did not turn out so serious as they imply.

“Babylon,” of which Bundúḳdár is here styled Sultan, means Cairo,

commonly so styled (_Bambellonia d’Egitto_) in that age. Babylon

of Egypt is mentioned by Diodorus quoting Ctesias, by Strabo, and

by Ptolemy; it was the station of a Roman Legion in the days of

Augustus, and still survives in the name of _Babul_, close to old

Cairo.

Malik Dáhir Ruknuddín Bíbars Bundúḳdári, a native of Kipchak, was

originally sold at Damascus for 800 dirhems (about 18_l._), and

returned by his purchaser because of a blemish. He was then bought

by the Amir Aláuddín Aidekín _Bundúḳdár_ (“The Arblasteer”) whose

surname he afterwards adopted. He became the fourth of the Mameluke

Sultans, and reigned from 1259 to 1276. The two great objects of

his life were the repression of the Tartars and the expulsion of

the Christians from Syria, so that his reign was one of constant

war and enormous activity. William of Tripoli, in the work above

mentioned, says: “Bondogar, as a soldier, was not inferior to

Julius Caesar, nor in malignity to Nero.” He admits, however, that

the Sultan was sober, chaste, just to his own people, and even kind

to his Christian subjects; whilst Makrizi calls him one of the best

princes that ever reigned over Musulmans. Yet if we take Bibars as

painted by this admiring historian and by other Arabic documents,

the second of Friar William’s comparisons is justified, for he

seems almost a devil in malignity as well as in activity. More than

once he played tennis at Damascus and Cairo within the same week. A

strange sample of the man is the letter which he wrote to Boemond,

Prince of Antioch and Tripoli, to announce to him the capture of

the former city. After an ironically polite address to Boemond as

having by the loss of his great city had his title changed from

Princeship (_Al-Brensíyah_) to Countship (_Al-Komasíyah_), and

describing his own devastations round Tripoli, he comes to the

attack of Antioch: “We carried the place, sword in hand, at the

4th hour of Saturday, the 4th day of Ramadhán, ... Hadst thou but

seen thy Knights trodden under the hoofs of the horses! thy palaces

invaded by plunderers and ransacked for booty! thy treasures

weighed out by the hundredweight! thy ladies (_Dámátaka_, ‘tes

DAMES’) bought and sold with thine own gear, at four for a dinár!

hadst thou but seen thy churches demolished, thy crosses sawn in

sunder, thy garbled Gospels hawked about before the sun, the tombs

of thy nobles cast to the ground; thy foe the Moslem treading thy

Holy of the Holies; the monk, the priest, the deacon slaughtered

on the Altar; the rich given up to misery; princes of royal blood

reduced to slavery! Couldst thou but have seen the flames devouring

thy halls; thy dead cast into the fires temporal with the fires

eternal hard at hand; the churches of Paul and of Cosmas rocking

and going down—, then wouldst thou have said, ‘Would God that I

were dust!’ ... As not a man hath escaped to tell thee the tale, I

TELL IT THEE!”

A little later, when a mission went to treat with Boemond, Bibars

himself accompanied it in disguise, to have a look at the defences

of Tripoli. In drawing out the terms, the Envoys styled Boemond

_Count_, not _Prince_, as in the letter just quoted. He lost

patience at their persistence, and made a movement which alarmed

them. Bibars nudged the Envoy Mohiuddin (who tells the story)

with his foot to give up the point, and the treaty was made. On

their way back the Sultan laughed heartily at their narrow escape,

“sending to the devil all the counts and princes on the face of the

earth.”

(_Quatremère’s Makrizi_, II. 92–101, and 190 _seqq._; _J. As._ sér.

I. tom. xi. p. 89; _D’Ohsson_, III. 459–474; _Marino Sanuto_ in

Bongars, 224–226, etc.)

NOTE 4.—The ruling Master of the Temple was Thomas Berard

(1256–1273), but there is little detail about the Order in the East

at this time. They had, however, considerable possessions and great

influence in Cilician Armenia, and how much they were mixed up in

its affairs is shown by a circumstance related by Makrizi. In 1285,

when Sultan Mansúr, the successor of Bundúḳdár, was besieging

the Castle of Markab, there arrived in Camp the Commander of the

Temple (_Kamandúr-ul Dewet_) of the Country of Armenia, charged

to negotiate on the part of the King of Sis (_i.e._ of Lesser

Armenia, Leon III. 1268–1289, successor of Hayton I. 1224–1268),

and bringing presents from him and from the Master of the Temple,

Berard’s successor, William de Beaujeu (1273–1291). (III. 201.)—H.

Y. and H. C.

CHAPTER XIII.

HOW MESSER NICOLO AND MESSER MAFFEO POLO, ACCOMPANIED BY

MARK, TRAVELLED TO THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN.

So the Two Brothers, and Mark along with them, proceeded on their way,

and journeying on, summer and winter, came at length to the Great Kaan,

who was then at a certain rich and great city, called KEMENFU.{1} As to

what they met with on the road, whether in going or coming, we shall

give no particulars at present, because we are going to tell you all

those details in regular order in the after part of this Book. Their

journey back to the Kaan occupied a good three years and a half, owing

to the bad weather and severe cold that they encountered. And let me

tell you in good sooth that when the Great Kaan heard that Messers

Nicolo and Maffeo Polo were on their way back, he sent people a journey

of full 40 days to meet them; and on this journey, as on their former

one, they were honourably entertained upon the road, and supplied with

all that they required.

NOTE 1.—The French texts read _Clemeinfu_, Ramusio _Clemenfu_.

The Pucci MS. guides us to the correct reading, having _Chemensu_

(_Kemensu_) for _Chemenfu_. KAIPINGFU, meaning something like

“City of Peace,” and called by Rashiduddin _Kaiminfu_ (whereby

we see that Polo as usual adopted the Persian form of the name),

was a city founded in 1256, four years before Kublai’s accession,

some distance to the north of the Chinese wall. It became Kublai’s

favourite summer residence, and was styled from 1264 _Shangtu_

or “Upper Court.” (See _infra_, Bk. I. ch. lxi.) It was known to

the Mongols, apparently by a combination of the two names, as

_Shangdu Keibung_. It appears in D’Anville’s map under the name of

_Djao-Naiman Sumé_. Dr. Bushell, who visited Shangtu in 1872, makes

it 1103 _li_ (367 miles) by road distance _viâ_ Kalgan from Peking.

The busy town of Dolonnúr lies 26 miles S.E. of it, and according

to Kiepert’s _Asia_ that place is about 180 miles in a direct line

north of Peking.

(See _Klaproth_ in _J. As._ XI. 365; _Gaubil_, p. 115; _Cathay_, p.

260; _J. R. G. S._ vol. xliii.)

CHAPTER XIV.

HOW MESSER NICOLO AND MESSER MAFFEO POLO AND MARCO

PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE THE GREAT KAAN.

And what shall I tell you? when the Two Brothers and Mark had arrived

at that great city, they went to the Imperial Palace, and there they

found the Sovereign attended by a great company of Barons. So they

bent the knee before him, and paid their respects to him, with all

possible reverence [prostrating themselves on the ground]. Then the

Lord bade them stand up, and treated them with great honour, showing

great pleasure at their coming, and asked many questions as to their

welfare, and how they had sped. They replied that they had in verity

sped well, seeing that they found the Kaan well and safe. Then they

presented the credentials and letters which they had received from

the Pope, which pleased him right well; and after that they produced

the Oil from the Sepulchre, and at that also he was very glad, for he

set great store thereby. And next, spying Mark, who was then a young

gallant,{1} he asked who was that in their company? “Sire,” said his

father, Messer Nicolo, “’tis my son and your liegeman.”{2} “Welcome is

he too,” quoth the Emperor. And why should I make a long story? There

was great rejoicing at the Court because of their arrival; and they met

with attention and honour from everybody.

So there they abode at the Court with the other Barons.

NOTE 1.—“_Joenne Bacheler_.”

NOTE 2.—“_Sire, il est mon filz et vostre_ homme.” The last word

in the sense which gives us the word _homage_. Thus in the miracle

play of Theophilus (13th century), the Devil says to Theophilus:—

“Or joing

Tes mains, et si devien _mes hom_.

_Theoph._ Vez ci que je vous faz _hommage_.”

So _infra_ (Bk. I. ch. xlvii.) Aung Khan is made to say of Chinghiz:

“_Il est_ mon homes _et mon serf_.” (See also Bk. II. ch. iv.

note.) St. Lewis said of the peace he had made with Henry III.: “Il

m’est mout grant honneur en la paix que je foiz au Roy d’Angleterre

pour ce qu’il est _mon home_, ce que n’estoit pas devant.” And

Joinville says with regard to the king, “Je ne voz faire point

de serement, car je n’estoie pas _son home_” (being a vassal of

Champagne). A famous Saturday Reviewer quotes the term applied to

a lady: “_Eddeva puella_ homo _Stigandi Archiepiscopi_.” (_Théâtre

Français au Moyen Age_, p. 145; _Joinville_, pp. 21, 37; _S. R._,

6th September, 1873, p. 305.)

CHAPTER XV.

HOW THE EMPEROR SENT MARK ON AN EMBASSY OF HIS.

Now it came to pass that Marco, the son of Messer Nicolo, sped

wondrously in learning the customs of the Tartars, as well as their

language, their manner of writing, and their practice of war; in fact

he came in brief space to know several languages, and four sundry

written characters. And he was discreet and prudent in every way,

insomuch that the Emperor held him in great esteem.{1} And so when he

discerned Mark to have so much sense, and to conduct himself so well

and beseemingly, he sent him on an ambassage of his, to a country

which was a good six months’ journey distant.{2} The young gallant

executed his commission well and with discretion. Now he had taken

note on several occasions that when the Prince’s ambassadors returned

from different parts of the world, they were able to tell him about

nothing except the business on which they had gone, and that the

Prince in consequence held them for no better than fools and dolts,

and would say: “I had far liever hearken about the strange things,

and the manners of the different countries you have seen, than merely

be told of the business you went upon;”—for he took great delight in

hearing of the affairs of strange countries. Mark therefore, as he went

and returned, took great pains to learn about all kinds of different

matters in the countries which he visited, in order to be able to tell

about them to the Great Kaan.{3}

NOTE 1.—The word Emperor stands here for _Seigneur_.

What the four characters acquired by Marco were is open to

discussion.

The Chronicle of the Mongol Emperors rendered by Gaubil mentions,

as characters used in their Empire, the Uíghúr, the Persian and

Arabic, that of the Lamas (Tibetan), that of the Niuché, introduced

by the Kin Dynasty, the Khitán, and the _Báshpah_ character,

a syllabic alphabet arranged, on the basis of the Tibetan and

Sanskrit letters chiefly, by a learned chief Lama so-called,

under the orders of Kublai, and established by edict in 1269 as

the official character. Coins bearing this character, and dating

from 1308 to 1354, are extant. The forms of the Niuché and Khitán

were devised in imitation of Chinese writing, but are supposed to

be syllabic. Of the Khitán but one inscription was known, and no

key. “The Khitan had two national scripts, the ‘small characters’

(_hsiao tzŭ_) and the ‘large characters’ (_ta tzŭ_).” S. W. Bushell,

_Insc. in the Juchen and Allied Scripts_, Cong. des Orientalistes,

Paris, 1897.—_Die Sprache und Schrift der Juchen_ von Dr. W. Grube,

Leipzig, 1896, from a polyglot MS. dictionary, discovered by Dr. F.

Hirth and now kept in the Royal Library, Berlin.—H. Y. and H. C.

Chinghiz and his first successors used the Uíghúr, and sometimes

the Chinese character. Of the Uíghúr character we give a specimen

in Bk. IV. It is of Syriac origin, undoubtedly introduced into

Eastern Turkestan by the early Nestorian missions, probably in the

8th or 9th century. The oldest known example of this character so

applied, the _Kudatku Bilik_, a didactic poem in Uíghúr (a branch

of Oriental Turkish), dating from A.D. 1069, was published by

Prof. Vámbéry in 1870. A new edition of the _Kudatku Bilik_ was

published at St. Petersburg, in 1891, by Dr. W. Radloff. Vámbéry

had a pleasing illustration of the origin of the Uíghúr character,

when he received a visit at Pesth from certain Nestorians of

Urumia on a begging tour. On being shown the original MS. of the

_Kudatku Bilik_, they read the character easily, whilst much to

their astonishment they could not understand a word of what was

written. This Uíghúr is the basis of the modern Mongol and Manchu

characters. (Cf. E. Bretschneider, _Mediæval Researches_, I. pp.

236, 263.)—H. Y. and H. C.

[At the village of Keuyung Kwan, 40 miles north of Peking, in the

sub-prefecture of Ch’ang Ping, in the Chih-li province, the road

from Peking to Kalgan runs beyond the pass of Nankau, under an

archway, a view of which will be found at the end of this volume,

on which were engraved, in 1345, two large inscriptions in six

different languages: Sanskrit, Tibetan, Mongol, _Báshpah_, Uíghúr,

Chinese, and a language unknown till recently. Mr. Wylie’s kindness

enabled Sir Henry Yule to present a specimen of this. (A much

better facsimile of these inscriptions than Wylie’s having since

been published by Prince Roland Bonaparte in his valuable _Recueil

des Documents de l’Époque Mongole_, this latter is, by permission,

here reproduced.) The Chinese and Mongol inscriptions have been

translated by M. Ed. Chavannes; the Tibetan by M. Sylvain Lévi

(_Jour. Asiat._, Sept.–Oct. 1894, pp. 354–373); the Uíghúr, by

Prof. W. Radloff (_Ibid._ Nov.–Dec. 1894, pp. 546, 550); the Mongol

by Prof. G. Huth. (_Ibid._ Mars–Avril 1895, pp. 351–360.) The

sixth language was supposed by A. Wylie (_J. R. A. S._ vol. xvii.

p. 331, and N.S., vol. v. p. 14) to be Neuchih, Niuché, Niuchen

or Juchen. M. Devéria has shown that the inscription is written

in _Si Hia_, or the language of Tangut, and gave a facsimile of a

stone stèle (_pei_) in this language kept in the great Monastery

of the Clouds (Ta Yun Ssŭ) at Liangchau in Kansuh, together with a

translation of the Chinese text, engraved on the reverse side of

the slab. M. Devéria thinks that this writing was borrowed by the

Kings of Tangut from the one derived in 920 by the Khitans from

the Chinese. (_Stèle Si-Hia de Leang-tcheou_ ... _J. As._, 1898;

_L’écriture du royaume de Si-Hia ou Tangout_, par M. Devéria....

Ext. des Mém.... présentés à l’Ac. des Ins. et B. Let. 1^{ère} Sér.

XI., 1898.) Dr. S. W. Bushell in two papers (_Inscriptions in the

Juchen and Allied Scripts, Actes du XI. Congrès des Orientalistes_,

Paris, 1897, 2nd. sect., pp. 11, 35, and the _Hsi Hsia Dynasty of

Tangut, their Money and their peculiar Script, J. China Br. R. A.

S._, xxx. N.S. No. 2, pp. 142, 160) has also made a special study

of the same subject. The Si Hia writing was adopted by Yuan Ho in

1036, on which occasion he changed the title of his reign to Ta

Ch’ing, _i.e._ “Great Good Fortune.” Unfortunately, both the late

M. Devéria and Dr. S. W. Bushell have deciphered but few of the Si

Hia characters.—H. C.]

[Illustration: Hexaglot Inscription on the East side of the Kiu-Yong

Kwan.]

[Illustration: Hexaglot Inscription on the West side of the Kiu-Yong

Kwan.]

The orders of the Great Kaan are stated to have been published

habitually in six languages, viz., Mongol, Uíghúr, Arabic, Persian,

Tangutan (Si-Hia), and Chinese.—H. Y. and H. C.

Gházán Khan of Persia is said to have understood Mongol, Arabic,

Persian, something of Kashmiri, of Tibetan, of Chinese, and a

little of the _Frank_ tongue (probably French).

The annals of the Ming Dynasty, which succeeded the Mongols in

China, mention the establishment in the 11th moon of the 5th year

Yong-lo (1407) of the _Sse yi kwan_, a linguistic office for

diplomatic purposes. The languages to be studied were Niuché,

Mongol, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Bokharan (Persian?), Uíghúr, Burmese,

and Siamese. To these were added by the Manchu Dynasty two

languages called _Papeh_ and _Pehyih_, both dialects of the S.W.

frontier. (See _infra_, Bk. II. ch. lvi.–lvii., and notes.) Since

1382, however, official interpreters had to translate Mongol texts;

they were selected among the Academicians, and their service

(which was independent of the _Sse yi kwan_ when this was created)

was under the control of the _Han-lin-yuen_. There may have been

similar institutions under the Yuen, but we have no proof of it. At

all events, such an office could not then be called _Sse yi kwan_

(_Sse yi_, Barbarians from four sides); Niuché (Niuchen) was taught

in Yong-lo’s office, but not Manchu. The _Sse yi kwan_ must not be

confounded with the _Hui t’ong kwan_, the office for the reception

of tributary envoys, to which it was annexed in 1748. (_Gaubil_, p.

148; _Gold. Horde_, 184; _Ilchan._ II. 147; _Lockhart_ in _J. R. G.

S._ XXXVI. 152; _Koeppen_, II. 99; G. Devéria, _Hist. du Collège

des Interprètes de Peking_ in _Mélanges_ Charles de Harlez, pp.

94–102; MS. Note of Prof. A. Vissière; _The Tangut Script in the

Nan-K’ou Pass_, by Dr. S. W. Bushell, _China Review_, xxiv. II. pp.

65–68.)—H. Y. and H. C.

Pauthier supposes Mark’s four acquisitions to have been

_Báshpah-Mongol, Arabic, Uighúr_, and _Chinese_. I entirely reject

the Chinese. Sir H. Yule adds: “We shall see no reason to believe

that he knew either language or character” [Chinese]. The blunders

Polo made in saying that the name of the city, Suju, signifies

in our tongue “Earth” and Kinsay “Heaven” show he did not know

the Chinese characters, but we read in Bk. II. ch. lxviii.: “And

Messer Marco Polo himself, of whom this Book speaks, did govern

this city (Yanju) for three full years, by the order of the Great

Kaan.” It seems to me [H. C.] hardly possible that Marco could have

for three years been governor of so important and so Chinese a

city as Yangchau, in the heart of the Empire, without acquiring a

knowledge of the spoken language.—H. C. The other three languages

seem highly probable. The fourth may have been Tibetan. But it is

more likely that he counted separately two varieties of the same

character (_e.g._ of the Arabic and Persian) as two “_lettres de

leur escriptures_.”—H. Y. and H. C.

NOTE 2.—[Ramusio here adds: “Ad und città, detta Carazan,” which,

as we shall see, refers to the Yun-nan Province.]—H. C.

NOTE 3.—From the context no doubt Marco’s employments were

honourable and confidential; but _Commissioner_ would perhaps

better express them than Ambassador in the modern sense. The word

_Ilchi_, which was probably in his mind, was applied to a large

variety of classes employed on the commissions of Government, as

we may see from a passage of Rashiduddin in D’Ohsson, which says

that “there were always to be found in every city from one to two

hundred _Ilchis_, who forced the citizens to furnish them with free

quarters,” etc., III. 404. (See also 485.)

CHAPTER XVI.

HOW MARK RETURNED FROM THE MISSION WHEREON HE HAD

BEEN SENT.

When Mark returned from his ambassage he presented himself before the

Emperor, and after making his report of the business with which he

was charged, and its successful accomplishment, he went on to give an

account in a pleasant and intelligent manner of all the novelties and

strange things that he had seen and heard; insomuch that the Emperor

and all such as heard his story were surprised, and said: “If this

young man live, he will assuredly come to be a person of great worth

and ability.” And so from that time forward he was always entitled

MESSER MARCO POLO, and thus we shall style him henceforth in this Book

of ours, as is but right.

Thereafter Messer Marco abode in the Kaan’s employment some seventeen

years, continually going and coming, hither and thither, on the

missions that were entrusted to him by the Lord [and sometimes, with

the permission and authority of the Great Kaan, on his own private

affairs.] And, as he knew all the sovereign’s ways, like a sensible

man he always took much pains to gather knowledge of anything that

would be likely to interest him, and then on his return to Court he

would relate everything in regular order, and thus the Emperor came

to hold him in great love and favour. And for this reason also he

would employ him the oftener on the most weighty and most distant of

his missions. These Messer Marco ever carried out with discretion and

success, God be thanked. So the Emperor became ever more partial to

him, and treated him with the greater distinction, and kept him so

close to his person that some of the Barons waxed very envious thereat.

And thus it came about that Messer Marco Polo had knowledge of, or had

actually visited, a greater number of the different countries of the

World than any other man; the more that he was always giving his mind

to get knowledge, and to spy out and enquire into everything in order

to have matter to relate to the Lord.

CHAPTER XVII.

HOW MESSER NICOLO, MESSER MAFFEO, AND MESSER MARCO, ASKED

LEAVE OF THE GREAT KAAN TO GO THEIR WAY.

When the Two Brothers and Mark had abode with the Lord all that time

that you have been told [having meanwhile acquired great wealth

in jewels and gold], they began among themselves to have thoughts

about returning to their own country; and indeed it was time. [For,

to say nothing of the length and infinite perils of the way, when

they considered the Kaan’s great age, they doubted whether, in the

event of his death before their departure, they would ever be able

to get home.{1}] They applied to him several times for leave to

go, presenting their request with great respect, but he had such a

partiality for them, and liked so much to have them about him, that

nothing on earth would persuade him to let them go.

Now it came to pass in those days that the Queen BOLGANA, wife of

ARGON, Lord of the Levant, departed this life. And in her Will she had

desired that no Lady should take her place, or succeed her as Argon’s

wife, except one of her own family [which existed in Cathay]. Argon

therefore despatched three of his Barons, by name respectively OULATAY,

APUSCA, and COJA, as ambassadors to the Great Kaan, attended by a very

gallant company, in order to bring back as his bride a lady of the

family of Queen Bolgana, his late wife.{2}

When these three Barons had reached the Court of the Great Kaan, they

delivered their message, explaining wherefore they were come. The Kaan

received them with all honour and hospitality, and then sent for a lady

whose name was COCACHIN, who was of the family of the deceased Queen

Bolgana. She was a maiden of 17, a very beautiful and charming person,

and on her arrival at Court she was presented to the three Barons as

the Lady chosen in compliance with their demand. They declared that the

Lady pleased them well.{3}

Meanwhile Messer Marco chanced to return from India, whither he had

gone as the Lord’s ambassador, and made his report of all the different

things that he had seen in his travels, and of the sundry seas over

which he had voyaged. And the three Barons, having seen that Messer

Nicolo, Messer Maffeo, and Messer Marco were not only Latins, but men

of marvellous good sense withal, took thought among themselves to get

the three to travel with them, their intention being to return to their

country by sea, on account of the great fatigue of that long land

journey for a lady. And the ambassadors were the more desirous to have

their company, as being aware that those three had great knowledge and

experience of the Indian Sea and the countries by which they would have

to pass, and especially Messer Marco. So they went to the Great Kaan,

and begged as a favour that he would send the three Latins with them,

as it was their desire to return home by sea.

The Lord, having that great regard that I have mentioned for those

three Latins, was very loath to do so [and his countenance showed great

dissatisfaction]. But at last he did give them permission to depart,

enjoining them to accompany the three Barons and the Lady.

NOTE 1.—Pegolotti, in his chapters on mercantile ventures to

Cathay, refers to the dangers to which foreigners were always

liable on the death of the reigning sovereign. (See _Cathay_, p.

292.)

NOTE 2.—Several ladies of the name of BULUGHAN (“Zibellina”) have

a place in Mongol-Persian history. The one here indicated, a lady

of great beauty and ability, was known as the _Great Khátún_ (or

Lady) Bulughan, and was (according to strange Mongol custom) the

wife successively of Ábáḳa and of his son ARGHUN, the Argon of the

text, Mongol sovereign of Persia. She died on the banks of the Kur

in Georgia, 7th April, 1286. She belonged to the Mongol tribe of

Bayaut, and was the daughter of Hulákú’s Chief Secretary Gúgah.

(_Ilchan._ I. 374 _et passim; Erdmann’s Temudschin_, p. 216.)

The names of the Envoys, ULADAI, APUSHKA, and KOJA, are all names

met with in Mongol history. And Rashiduddin speaks of an Apushka

of the Mongol Tribe of Urnaut, who on some occasion was sent as

Envoy to the Great Kaan from Persia,—possibly the very person. (See

_Erdmann_, 205.)

Of the Lady Cocachin we shall speak below.

NOTE 3.—Ramusio here has the following passage, genuine no doubt:

“So everything being ready, with a great escort to do honour to the

bride of King Argon, the Ambassadors took leave and set forth. But

after travelling eight months by the same way that they had come,

they found the roads closed, in consequence of wars lately broken

out among certain Tartar Princes; so being unable to proceed, they

were compelled to return to the Court of the Great Kaan.”

CHAPTER XVIII.

HOW THE TWO BROTHERS AND MESSER MARCO TOOK LEAVE OF THE

GREAT KAAN, AND RETURNED TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

And when the Prince saw that the Two Brothers and Messer Marco were

ready to set forth, he called them all three to his presence, and

gave them two golden Tablets of Authority, which should secure them

liberty of passage through all his dominions, and by means of which,

whithersoever they should go, all necessaries would be provided for

them, and for all their company, and whatever they might choose to

order.{1} He charged them also with messages to the King of France,

the King of England,{2} the King of Spain, and the other kings of

Christendom. He then caused thirteen ships to be equipt, each of which

had four masts, and often spread twelve sails.{3} And I could easily

give you all particulars about these, but as it would be so long an

affair I will not enter upon this now, but hereafter, when time and

place are suitable. [Among the said ships were at least four or five

that carried crews of 250 or 260 men.]

And when the ships had been equipt, the Three Barons and the Lady, and

the Two Brothers and Messer Marco, took leave of the Great Kaan, and

went on board their ships with a great company of people, and with all

necessaries provided for two years by the Emperor. They put forth to

sea, and after sailing for some three months they arrived at a certain

Island towards the South, which is called JAVA,{4} and in which there

are many wonderful things which we shall tell you all about by-and-bye.

Quitting this Island they continued to navigate the Sea of India for

eighteen months more before they arrived whither they were bound,

meeting on their way also with many marvels, of which we shall tell

hereafter.

And when they got thither they found that Argon was dead, so the Lady

was delivered to CASAN, his son.

But I should have told you that it is a fact that, when they embarked,

they were in number some 600 persons, without counting the mariners;

but nearly all died by the way, so that only eight survived.{5}

The sovereignty when they arrived was held by KIACATU, so they

commended the Lady to him, and executed all their commission. And when

the Two Brothers and Messer Marco had executed their charge in full,

and done all that the Great Kaan had enjoined on them in regard to

the Lady, they took their leave and set out upon their journey.{6}

And before their departure, Kiacatu gave them four golden tablets of

authority, two of which bore gerfalcons, one bore lions, whilst the

fourth was plain, and having on them inscriptions which directed that

the three Ambassadors should receive honour and service all through the

land as if rendered to the Prince in person, and that horses and all

provisions, and everything necessary, should be supplied to them. And

so they found in fact; for throughout the country they received ample

and excellent supplies of everything needful; and many a time indeed,

as I may tell you, they were furnished with 200 horsemen, more or

less, to escort them on their way in safety. And this was all the more

needful because Kiacatu was not the legitimate Lord, and therefore the

people had less scruple to do mischief than if they had had a lawful

prince.{7}

Another thing too must be mentioned, which does credit to those three

Ambassadors, and shows for what great personages they were held. The

Great Kaan regarded them with such trust and affection, that he had

confided to their charge the Queen Cocachin, as well as the daughter

of the King of Manzi,{8} to conduct to Argon the Lord of all the

Levant. And those two great ladies who were thus entrusted to them they

watched over and guarded as if they had been daughters of their own,

until they had transferred them to the hands of their Lord; whilst the

ladies, young and fair as they were, looked on each of those three as a

father, and obeyed them accordingly. Indeed, both Casan, who is now the

reigning prince, and the Queen Cocachin his wife, have such a regard

for the Envoys that there is nothing they would not do for them. And

when the three Ambassadors took leave of that Lady to return to their

own country, she wept for sorrow at the parting.

What more shall I say? Having left Kiacatu they travelled day by

day till they came to Trebizond, and thence to Constantinople, from

Constantinople to Negropont, and from Negropont to Venice. And this was

in the year 1295 of Christ’s Incarnation.

And now that I have rehearsed all the Prologue as you have heard, we

shall begin the Book of the Description of the Divers Things that

Messer Marco met with in his Travels.

NOTE 1.—On these plates or tablets, which have already been

spoken of, a note will be found further on. (Bk. II. ch. vii.)

Plano Carpini says of the Mongol practice in reference to royal

messengers: “Nuncios, quoscunque et quotcunque, et ubicunque

transmittit, oportet quod dent eis sine morâ equos subductitios et

expensas” (669).

NOTE 2.—The mention of the King of England appears for the first

time in Pauthier’s text. Probably we shall never know if the

communication reached him. But we have the record of several

embassies in preceding and subsequent years from the Mongol Khans

of Persia to the Kings of England; all with the view of obtaining

co-operation in attack on the Egyptian Sultan. Such messages came

from Ábáḳa in 1277; from Arghún in 1289 and 1291; from Gházán in

1302; from Oljaitu in 1307. (See _Rémusat_ in _Mém. de l’Acad._

VII.)

NOTE 3.—Ramusio has “_nine_ sails.” Marsden thinks even this

lower number an error of Ramusio’s, as “it is well known that

Chinese vessels do not carry any kind of topsail.” This is,

however, a mistake, for they do sometimes carry a small topsail

of cotton cloth (and formerly, it would seem from Lecomte, even a

topgallant sail at times), though only in quiet weather. And the

evidence as to the number of sails carried by the great Chinese

junks of the Middle Ages, which evidently made a great impression

on Western foreigners, is irresistible. Friar Jordanus, who saw

them in Malabar, says: “With a fair wind they carry ten sails;”

Ibn Batuta: “One of these great junks carries from three sails

to twelve;” Joseph, the Indian, speaking of those that traded

to India in the 15th century: “They were very great, and had

sometimes twelve sails, with innumerable rowers.” (_Lecomte_, I.

389; _Fr. Jordanus_, Hak. Soc., p. 55; _Ibn Batuta_, IV. 91; _Novus

Orbis_, p. 148.) A fuller account of these vessels is given at the

beginning of Bk. III.

[Illustration: Ancient Chinese War Vessel.]

NOTE 4.—_I.e._ in this case Sumatra, as will appear hereafter. “It

is quite possible for a fleet of fourteen junks which required

to keep together to take three months at the present time to

accomplish a similar voyage. A Chinese trader, who has come

annually to Singapore in junks for many years, tells us that he

has had as long a passage as sixty days, although the average is

eighteen or twenty days.” (_Logan_ in _J. Ind. Archip._ II. 609.)

NOTE 5.—Ramusio’s version here varies widely, and looks more

probable: “From the day that they embarked until their arrival

there died of mariners and others on board 600 persons; and of the

three ambassadors only one survived, whose name was Goza (_Coja_);

but of the ladies and damsels died but one.”

It is worth noting that in the case of an embassy sent to Cathay a

few years later by Gházán Khan, on the return by this same route

to Persia, the chief of the two Persian ambassadors, and the Great

Khan’s envoy, who was in company, both died by the way. Their

voyage, too, seems to have been nearly as long as Polo’s; for they

were seven years absent from Persia, and of these only four in

China. (See _Wassáf_ in _Elliot_, III. 47.)

NOTE 6.—Ramusio’s version states that on learning Arghún’s death

(which they probably did on landing at Hormuz), they sent word of

their arrival to Kiacatu, who directed them to conduct the lady to

Casan, who was then in the region of the _Arbre Sec_ (the Province

of Khorasan) guarding the frontier passes with 60,000 men, and that

they did so, and then turned back to Kiacatu (probably at Tabriz),

and stayed at his Court nine months. Even the Geog. Text seems to

imply that they had become personally known to Casan, and I have

no doubt that Ramusio’s statement is an authentic expansion of the

original narrative by Marco himself, or on his authority.

Arghún Khan died 10th March, 1291. He was succeeded (23rd July) by

his brother Kaikhátú (_Quiacatu_ of Polo), who was put to death

24th March, 1295.

We learn from Hammer’s History of the Ilkhans that when Gházán,

the son of Arghún (_Casan_ of Polo), who had the government of the

Khorasan frontier, was on his return to his post from Tabriz, where

his uncle Kaikhatu had refused to see him, “he met at Abher the

ambassador whom he had sent to the Great Khan to obtain in marriage

a relative of the Great Lady Bulghán. This envoy brought with him

the Lady KÚKÁCHIN (our author’s _Cocachin_), with presents from the

Emperor, and the marriage was celebrated with due festivity.” Abher

lies a little west of Kazvín.

Hammer is not, I find, here copying from Wassáf, and I have not

been able to procure a thorough search of the work of Rashiduddin,

which probably was his authority. As well as the date can be made

out from the History of the Ilkhans, Gházán must have met his

bride towards the end of 1293, or quite the beginning of 1294.

Rashiduddin in another place mentions the fair lady from Cathay;

“The _ordu_ (or establishment) of Tukiti Khatun was given to

KUKACHI KHATUN, who had been brought from the Kaan’s Court, and who

was a kinswoman of the late chief Queen Bulghán. Kúkáchi, the wife

of the Padshah of Islam, Gházán Khan, died in the month of Shaban,

695,” _i.e._ in June, 1296, so that the poor girl did not long

survive her promotion. (See _Hammer’s Ilch._ II. 20, and 8, and I.

273; and _Quatremère’s Rashiduddin_, p. 97.) Kukachin was the name

also of the wife of Chingkim, Kublai’s favourite son; but she was

of the Kungurát tribe. (_Deguignes_, IV. 179.)

NOTE 7.—Here Ramusio’s text says: “During this journey Messers

Nicolo, Maffeo, and Marco heard the news that the Great Khan had

departed this life; and this caused them to give up all hope of

returning to those parts.”

NOTE 8.—This Princess of Manzi, or Southern China, is mentioned

only in the Geog. Text and in the Crusca, which is based thereon. I

find no notice of her among the wives of Gházán or otherwise.

On the fall of the capital of the Sung Dynasty—the Kinsay of

Polo—in 1276, the Princesses of that Imperial family were sent to

Peking, and were graciously treated by Kublai’s favourite Queen,

the Lady Jamui. This young lady was, no doubt, one of those captive

princesses who had been brought up at the Court of Khánbálik. (See

_De Mailla_, IX. 376, and _infra_ Bk. II. ch. lxv., note 6.)

BOOK FIRST.

ACCOUNT OF REGIONS VISITED OR HEARD OF ON THE JOURNEY FROM THE LESSER

ARMENIA TO THE COURT OF THE GREAT KAAN AT CHANDU.

[Illustration: Aias, the LAIAS of POLO, from an Admiralty Chart.

Position of _Diláwar_, the supposed Site of POLO’S DILAVAR

Lit. Frauenfelder, Palermo]

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I.

HERE THE BOOK BEGINS; AND FIRST IT SPEAKS OF THE LESSER

HERMENIA.

There are two Hermenias, the Greater and the Less. The Lesser

Hermenia is governed by a certain King, who maintains a just rule in

his dominions, but is himself subject to the Tartar.{1} The country

contains numerous towns and villages,{2} and has everything in plenty;

moreover, it is a great country for sport in the chase of all manner

of beasts and birds. It is, however, by no means a healthy region,

but grievously the reverse.{3} In days of old the nobles there were

valiant men, and did doughty deeds of arms; but nowadays they are

poor creatures, and good at nought, unless it be at boozing; they are

great at that. Howbeit, they have a city upon the sea, which is called

LAYAS, at which there is a great trade. For you must know that all

the spicery, and the cloths of silk and gold, and the other valuable

wares that come from the interior, are brought to that city. And the

merchants of Venice and Genoa, and other countries, come thither to

sell their goods, and to buy what they lack. And whatsoever persons

would travel to the interior (of the East), merchants or others, they

take their way by this city of Layas.{4}

Having now told you about the Lesser Hermenia, we shall next tell you

about Turcomania.

NOTE 1.—The _Petite Hermenie_ of the Middle Ages was quite distinct

from the Armenia Minor of the ancient geographers, which name the

latter applied to the western portion of Armenia, west of the

Euphrates, and immediately north of Cappadocia.

[Illustration: Coin of King Hetum and his Queen Isabel.]

But when the old Armenian monarchy was broken up (1079–80), Rupen,

a kinsman of the Bagratid Kings, with many of his countrymen, took

refuge in the Taurus. His first descendants ruled as _barons_, a

title adopted apparently from the Crusaders, but still preserved in

Armenia. Leon, the great-great-grandson of Rupen, was consecrated

King under the supremacy of the Pope and the Western Empire in

1198. The kingdom was at its zenith under Hetum or Hayton I.,

husband of Leon’s daughter Isabel (1224–1269); he was, however,

prudent enough to make an early submission to the Mongols, and

remained ever staunch to them, which brought his territory

constantly under the flail of Egypt. It included at one time all

Cilicia, with many cities of Syria and the ancient Armenia Minor,

of Isauria and Cappadocia. The male line of Rupen becoming extinct

in 1342, the kingdom passed to John de Lusignan, of the royal

house of Cyprus, and in 1375 it was put an end to by the Sultan of

Egypt. Leon VI., the ex-king, into whose mouth Froissart puts some

extraordinary geography, had a pension of 1000_l._ a year granted

him by our Richard II., and died at Paris in 1398.

The chief remaining vestige of this little monarchy is the

continued existence of a _Catholicos_ of part of the Armenian

Church at Sis, which was the royal residence. Some Armenian

communities still remain both in hills and plains; and the former,

the more independent and industrious, still speak a corrupt

Armenian.

Polo’s contemporary, Marino Sanuto, compares the kingdom of the

Pope’s faithful Armenians to one between the teeth of four fierce

beasts, the _Lion_ Tartar, the _Panther_ Soldan, the Turkish

_Wolf_, the Corsair _Serpent_.

(_Dulaurier_, in _J. As._ sér. V. tom. xvii.; _St. Martin, Arm._;

_Mar. San._ p. 32; _Froissart_, Bk. II. ch. xxii. _seqq._;

_Langlois, V. en Cilicie_, 1861, p. 19.)

NOTE 2.—“_Maintes villes et maint chasteaux_.” This is a constantly

recurring phrase, and I have generally translated it as here,

believing _chasteaux (castelli)_ to be used in the frequent old

Italian sense of a _walled_ village or small walled town, or like

the Eastern _Kala’_, applied in Khorasan “to everything—town,

village, or private residence—surrounded by a wall of earth.”

(_Ferrier_, p. 292; see also _A. Conolly_, I. p. 211.) Martini,

in his _Atlas Sinensis_, uses “_Urbes_, _oppida_, castella,” to

indicate the three classes of Chinese administrative cities.

NOTE 3.—“_Enferme durement_.” So Marino Sanuto objects to Lesser

Armenia as a place of debarkation for a crusade “_quia terra est

infirma_.” Langlois, speaking of the Cilician plain: “In this region

once so fair, now covered with swamps and brambles, fever decimates

a population which is yearly diminishing, has nothing to oppose

to the scourge but incurable apathy, and will end by disappearing

altogether,” etc. (_Voyage_, p. 65.) Cilician Armenia retains its

reputation for sport, and is much frequented by our naval officers

for that object. Ayas is noted for the extraordinary abundance of

turtles.

NOTE 4.—The phrase twice used in this passage for the _Interior_

is _Fra terre_, an Italianism (_Fra terra_, or, as it stands in the

Geog. Latin, “_infra terram Orientis_”), which, however, Murray

and Pauthier have read as an allusion to the _Euphrates_, an error

based apparently on a marginal gloss in the published edition of

the Soc. de Géographie. It is true that the province of Comagene

under the Greek Empire got the name of _Euphratesia_, or in Arabic

_Furátíyah_, but that was not in question here. The great trade

of Ayas was with Tabriz, _viâ_ Sivas, Erzingan, and Erzrum, as we

see in Pegolotti. Elsewhere, too, in Polo we find the phrase _fra

terre_ used, where Euphrates could possibly have no concern, as in

relation to India and Oman. (See Bk. III. chs. xxix. and xxxviii.,

and notes in each case.)

With regard to the phrase _spicery_ here and elsewhere, it should

be noted that the Italian _spezerie_ included a vast deal more than

ginger and other things “hot i’ the mouth.” In one of Pegolotti’s

lists of _spezerie_ we find drugs, dye-stuffs, metals, wax, cotton,

etc.