Chapter LXXXI

CONCERNING THE GREATNESS OF THE CITY OF FUJU.

Now this city of Fuju is the key of the kingdom which is called CHONKA, and which is one of the nine great divisions of Manzi.{1} The city is a seat of great trade and great manufactures. The people are Idolaters and subject to the Great Kaan. And a large garrison is maintained there by that prince to keep the kingdom in peace and subjection. For the city is one which is apt to revolt on very slight provocation.

There flows through the middle of this city a great river, which is about a mile in width, and many ships are built at the city which are launched upon this river. Enormous quantities of sugar are made there, and there is a great traffic in pearls and precious stones. For many ships of India come to these parts bringing many merchants who traffic about the Isles of the Indies. For this city is, as I must tell you, in the vicinity of the Ocean Port of ZAYTON,{2} which is greatly frequented by the ships of India with their cargoes of various merchandize; and from Zayton ships come this way right up to the city of Fuju by the river I have told you of; and ’tis in this way that the precious wares of India come hither.{3}

The city is really a very fine one and kept in good order, and all necessaries of life are there to be had in great abundance and cheapness.

NOTE 1.—The name here applied to Fo-kien by Polo is variously
written as _Choncha, Chonka, Concha, Chouka_. It has not been
satisfactorily explained. Klaproth and Neumann refer it to
_Kiang-Ché_, of which Fo-kien at one time of the Mongol rule formed
a part. This is the more improbable as Polo expressly distinguishes
this province or kingdom from that which was under Kinsay, viz.
Kiang-Ché. Pauthier supposes the word to represent _Kien-Kwé_, “the
Kingdom of Kien,” because in the 8th century this territory had
formed a principality of which the seat was at _Kien-chau_, now
Kien-ning fu. This is not satisfactory either, for no evidence is
adduced that the name continued in use.

One might suppose that _Choncha_ represented _T’swan-chau_, the
Chinese name of the city of Zayton, or rather of the department
attached to it, written by the French _Thsiuan-tchéou_, but by
Medhurst _Chwanchew_, were it not that Polo’s practice of writing
the term _tchéu_ or _chau_ by _giu_ is so nearly invariable, and
that the soft _ch_ is almost always expressed in the old texts by
the Italian _ci_ (though the Venetian does use the soft _ch_).[1]

It is again impossible not to be struck with the resemblance of
_Chonka_ to “CHUNG-KWÉ” “the Middle Kingdom,” though I can suggest
no ground for the application of such a title specially to Fo-kien,
except a possible misapprehension. _Chonkwé_ occurs in the Persian
_Historia Cathaica_ published by Müller, but is there specially
applied to _North China_. (See _Quat. Rashid._, p. lxxxvi.)

The city of course is FU-CHAU. It was visited also by Friar Odoric,
who calls it _Fuzo_, and it appears in duplicate on the Catalan Map
as _Fugio_ and as _Fozo_.

I used the preceding words, “the city of course is Fu-chau,” in the
first edition. Since then Mr. G. Phillips, of the consular staff
in Fo-kien, has tried to prove that Polo’s Fuju is not Fu-chau
(_Foochow_ is his spelling), but T’swan-chau. This view is bound up
with another regarding the identity of Zayton, which will involve
lengthy notice under next chapter; and both views have met with an
able advocate in the Rev. Dr. C. Douglas, of Amoy.[2] I do not in
the least accept these views about Fuju.

In considering the objections made to Fu-chau, it must never be
forgotten that, according to the spelling usual with Polo or his
scribe, Fuju is not merely “a name with a great resemblance in
sound to Foochow” (as Mr. Phillips has it); it _is_ Mr. Phillips’s
word Foochow, just as absolutely as my word Fu-chau is his word
Foochow. (See remarks almost at the end of the Introductory Essay.)
And what has to be proved against me in this matter is, that when
Polo _speaks_ of Fu-chau he does not _mean_ Fu-chau. It must also
be observed that the distances as given by Polo (three days from
Quelinfu to Fuju, five days from Fuju to Zayton) do correspond well
with my interpretations, and do _not_ correspond with the other.
These are very strong fences of my position, and it demands strong
arguments to level them. The adverse arguments (in brief) are these:

(1.) That Fu-chau was not the capital of Fo-kien (“_chief dou
reigne_”).

(2.) That the River of Fu-chau does not flow through the middle of
the city (“_por le mi de cest cité_”), nor even under the walls.

(3.) That Fu-chau was not frequented by foreign trade till
centuries afterwards.

The first objection will be more conveniently answered under next
chapter.

As regards the second, the fact urged is true. But even now a
straggling street extends to the river, ending in a large suburb
on its banks, and a famous bridge there crosses the river to the
south side where now the foreign settlements are. There _may_ have
been suburbs on that side to justify the _por le mi_, or these
words may have been a slip; for the Traveller begins the next
chapter—“When you quit Fuju (to go south) you _cross the river_.”[3]

Touching the question of foreign commerce, I do not see that Mr.
Phillips’s negative evidence would be sufficient to establish
his point. But, in fact, the words of the Geog. Text (_i.e._ the
original dictation), which we have followed, do not (as I now see)
necessarily involve any foreign trade at Fu-chau, the impression
of which has been derived mainly from Ramusio’s text. They appear
to imply no more than that, through the vicinity of Zayton, there
was a great influx of Indian wares, which were brought on from the
great port by vessels (it may be local junks) ascending the river
Min.[4]

“=E sachiés che por le mi de ceste cité vait un grant flun qe bien
est large un mil, et en ceste cité se font maintes nés lesquelz
najent por cel flum.=”]

[Mr. Phillips gives the following itinerary after Unguen: Kangiu =
Chinchew = Chuan-chiu or Ts’wan-chiu. He writes (_T. Pao_, I. p.
227): “When you leave the city of Chinchew for Changchau, which
lies in a south-westerly, not a south-easterly direction, you cross
the river by a handsome bridge, and travelling for five days by way
of Tung-an, locally Tang-oa, you arrive at Changchau. Along this
route in many parts, more especially in that part lying between
Tang-oa and Changchau, very large camphor-trees are met with. I
have frequently travelled over this road. The road from Fuchau to
Chinchew, which also takes five days to travel over, is bleak and
barren, lying chiefly along the sea-coast, and in winter a most
uncomfortable journey. But few trees are met with; a banyan here
and there, but no camphor-trees along this route; but there is one
extremely interesting feature on it that would strike the most
unobservant traveller, viz.: the Loyang bridge, one of the wonders
of China.” Had Polo travelled by this route, he would certainly
have mentioned it. Pauthier remarks upon Polo’s silence in this
matter: “It is surprising,” says he, “that Marco Polo makes no
mention of it.”—H. C.]

NOTE 2.—The G. T. reads _Caiton_, presumably for Çaiton or Zayton.
In Pauthier’s text, in the following chapter, the name of Zayton is
written _Çaiton_ and _Çayton_, and the name of that port appears
in the same form in the Letter of its Bishop, Andrew of Perugia,
quoted in note 2, ch. lxxxii. Pauthier, however, in _this_ place
reads _Kayteu_, which he develops into a port at the mouth of the
River Min.[5]

NOTE 3.—The Min, the River of Fu-chau, “varies much in width and
depth. Near its mouth, and at some other parts, it is not less than
a mile in width, elsewhere deep and rapid.” It is navigable for
ships of large size 20 miles from the mouth, and for good-sized
junks thence to the great bridge. The scenery is very fine, and is
compared to that of the Hudson. (_Fortune_, I. 281; _Chin. Repos._
XVI. 483.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Dr. Medhurst calls the proper name of the city, as distinct from
the _Fu_, _Chinkang_ (_Dict. of the Hok-keen dialect_). Dr. Douglas
has suggested _Chinkang_, and _T’swan-kok_, _i.e._ “Kingdom of
T’swan” (chau), as possible explanations of _Chonka_.

[2] Mr. Phillips’s views were issued first in the _Chinese Recorder_
(published by Missionaries at Fu-Chau) in 1870, and afterwards
sent to the R. Geo. Soc., in whose Journal for 1874 they appeared,
with remarks in reply more detailed than I can introduce here. Dr.
Douglas’s notes were received after this sheet was in proof, and it
will be seen that they modify to a certain extent my views about
Zayton, though not about Fu-chau. His notes, which do more justice
to the question than Mr. Phillips’s, should find a place with the
other papers in the Geog. Society’s Journal.

[3] There is a capital lithograph of Fu-chau in _Fortune’s Three
Years’ Wanderings_ (1847), in which the city shows as on a river,
and Fortune always so speaks of it; _e.g._ (p. 369): “The river
runs through the suburbs.” I do not know what is the worth of the
old engravings in Montanus. A view of Fu-chau in one of these
(reproduced in _Astley_, iv. 33) shows a broad creek from the river
penetrating to the heart of the city.

[4] The words of the G. T. are these: “_Il hi se fait grant mercandies
de perles e d’autres pieres presiose, e ce est por ce que les nés
de Yndie hi vienent maintes con maint merchaant qe usent en les
ysles de Endie, et encore voz di que ceste ville est prés au port
de Caiton en la mer Osiane; et illuec vienent maintes nés de Indie
con maintes mercandies, e puis de cest part vienent les nés por le
grant flum qe je voz ai dit desoure jusque à la cité de Fugui, et
en ceste mainere hi vienent chieres cousse de Indie._”

[5] It is odd enough that Martini (though M. Pauthier apparently was
not aware of it) does show a fort called _Haiteu_ at the mouth of
the Min; but I believe this to be merely an accidental coincidence.
The various readings must be looked at together; that of the G.
T. which I have followed is clear in itself and accounts for the
others.