The 12,000 bridges have been much carped at, and modern accounts of Hang-chau (desperately meagre as they are) do not speak of its bridges as notable. “There is, indeed,” says Mr. Kingsmill, speaking of changes in the hydrography about Hang-chau, “no trace in the city of the magnificent canals and bridges described by Marco Polo.” The number was no doubt in this case also a mere popular saw, and Friar Odoric repeats it. The sober and veracious John Marignolli, alluding apparently to their statements, and perhaps to others which have not reached us, says: “When authors tell of its ten thousand noble bridges of stone, adorned with sculptures and statues of armed princes, it passes the belief of one who has not been there, and yet peradventure these authors tell us no lie.” Wassáf speaks of 360 bridges only, but they make up in size what they lack in number, for they cross canals as big as the Tigris! Marsden aptly quotes in reference to this point excessively loose and discrepant statements from modern authors as to the number of bridges in Venice. The great _height_ of the arches of the canal bridges in this part of China is especially noticed by travellers. Barrow, quoted by Marsden, says: “Some have the piers of such an extraordinary height that the largest vessels of 200 tons sail under them without striking their masts.” [Illustration: Plan of the Imperial City of Hangchow in the 13th Century. (From the Notes of the Right Rev. G. E. Moule.) 1–17, Gates; 18, _Ta-nuy_; 19, _Woo-Foo_; 20, _T’aï Miao_; 21, _Fung-hwang shan_; 22, _Shĭh fŭh she_; 23, _Fan t’ien she_; 24, _Koo-shing Kwo she_.] Mr. Moule has added up the lists of bridges in the whole department (or _Fu_) and found them to amount to 848, and many of these even are now unknown, their approximate sites being given from ancient topographies. The number _represented_ in a large modern map of the city, which I owe to Mr. Moule’s kindness, is 111. NOTE 3.—Though Rubruquis (p. 292) says much the same thing, there is little trace of such an ordinance in modern China. Père Parrenin observes: “As to the hereditary perpetuation of trades, it has never existed in China. On the contrary, very few Chinese will learn the trade of their fathers; and it is only necessity that ever constrains them to do so.” (_Lett. Edif._ XXIV. 40.) Mr. Moule remarks, however, that P. Parrenin is a little too absolute. Certain trades do run in families, even of the free classes of Chinese, not to mention the disfranchised boatmen, barbers, chair-coolies, etc. But, except in the latter cases, there is no compulsion, though the Sacred Edict goes to encourage the perpetuation of the family calling.