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?]