Chapter XIV: Prologue (5)

[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.

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]

[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.]