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
DI
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.
Ҡ 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.