NOTE 2.—The mention of the King of England appears for the first time in Pauthier’s text. Probably we shall never know if the communication reached him. But we have the record of several embassies in preceding and subsequent years from the Mongol Khans of Persia to the Kings of England; all with the view of obtaining co-operation in attack on the Egyptian Sultan. Such messages came from Ábáḳa in 1277; from Arghún in 1289 and 1291; from Gházán in 1302; from Oljaitu in 1307. (See _Rémusat_ in _Mém. de l’Acad._ VII.) NOTE 3.—Ramusio has “_nine_ sails.” Marsden thinks even this lower number an error of Ramusio’s, as “it is well known that Chinese vessels do not carry any kind of topsail.” This is, however, a mistake, for they do sometimes carry a small topsail of cotton cloth (and formerly, it would seem from Lecomte, even a topgallant sail at times), though only in quiet weather. And the evidence as to the number of sails carried by the great Chinese junks of the Middle Ages, which evidently made a great impression on Western foreigners, is irresistible. Friar Jordanus, who saw them in Malabar, says: “With a fair wind they carry ten sails;” Ibn Batuta: “One of these great junks carries from three sails to twelve;” Joseph, the Indian, speaking of those that traded to India in the 15th century: “They were very great, and had sometimes twelve sails, with innumerable rowers.” (_Lecomte_, I. 389; _Fr. Jordanus_, Hak. Soc., p. 55; _Ibn Batuta_, IV. 91; _Novus Orbis_, p. 148.) A fuller account of these vessels is given at the beginning of Bk. III. [Illustration: Ancient Chinese War Vessel.] NOTE 4.—_I.e._ in this case Sumatra, as will appear hereafter. “It is quite possible for a fleet of fourteen junks which required to keep together to take three months at the present time to accomplish a similar voyage. A Chinese trader, who has come annually to Singapore in junks for many years, tells us that he has had as long a passage as sixty days, although the average is eighteen or twenty days.” (_Logan_ in _J. Ind. Archip._ II. 609.) NOTE 5.—Ramusio’s version here varies widely, and looks more probable: “From the day that they embarked until their arrival there died of mariners and others on board 600 persons; and of the three ambassadors only one survived, whose name was Goza (_Coja_); but of the ladies and damsels died but one.” It is worth noting that in the case of an embassy sent to Cathay a few years later by Gházán Khan, on the return by this same route to Persia, the chief of the two Persian ambassadors, and the Great Khan’s envoy, who was in company, both died by the way. Their voyage, too, seems to have been nearly as long as Polo’s; for they were seven years absent from Persia, and of these only four in China. (See _Wassáf_ in _Elliot_, III. 47.)