Asia -- Description and travel -- Early works to 1800; Mongols -- History; Polo, Marco, 1254-1323?; Voyages and travels
In his own bearings, at least on land journeys, he usually carries us
along a great general traverse line, without much caring about small
changes of direction. Thus on the great outward journey from the
frontier of Persia to that of China the line runs almost continuously
“_entre Levant et Grec_” or E.N.E. In his journey from Cambaluc or
Peking to Mien or Burma, it is always _Ponent_ or W.; and in that
from Peking to Zayton in Fo-kien, the port of embarkation for India,
it is _Sceloc_ or S.E. The line of bearings in which he deviates most
widely from truth is that of the cities on the Arabian Coast from Aden
to Hormuz, which he makes to run steadily _vers Maistre_ or N.W., a
conception which it has not been very easy to realise on the map.[9]
[Sidenote: Singular omissions of Polo in regard to China; Historical
inaccuracies.]
71. In the early part of the Book we are told that Marco acquired
several of the languages current in the Mongol Empire, and no less than
four written characters. We have discussed what these are likely to
have been (i. pp. 28–29), and have given a decided opinion that Chinese
was not one of them. Besides intrinsic improbability, and positive
indications of Marco’s ignorance of Chinese, in no respect is his
book so defective as in regard to Chinese manners and peculiarities.
The Great Wall is never mentioned, though we have shown reason for
believing that it was in his mind when one passage of his book was
dictated.[10] The use of Tea, though he travelled through the Tea
districts of Fo-kien, is never mentioned;[11] the compressed feet of
the women and the employment of the fishing cormorant (both mentioned
by Friar Odoric, the contemporary of his later years), artificial
egg-hatching, printing of books (though the notice of this art seems
positively challenged in his account of paper-money), besides a score
of remarkable arts and customs which one would have expected to recur
to his memory, are never alluded to. Neither does he speak of the great
characteristic of the Chinese writing. It is difficult to account
for these omissions, especially considering the comparative fulness
with which he treats the manners of the Tartars and of the Southern
Hindoos; but the impression remains that his associations in China
were chiefly with foreigners. Wherever the place he speaks of had a
Tartar or Persian name he uses that rather than the Chinese one. Thus
_Cathay_, _Cambaluc_, _Pulisanghin_, _Tangut_, _Chagannor_, _Saianfu_,
_Kenjanfu_, _Tenduc_, _Acbalec_, _Carajan_, _Zardandan_, _Zayton_,
_Kemenfu_, _Brius_, _Caramoran_, _Chorcha_, _Juju_, are all Mongol,
Turki, or Persian forms, though all have Chinese equivalents.[12]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account