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]