Chapter XI: Prologue (2)

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]

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

[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.