12th to the 14th
centuries (that epoch during which an architectural afflatus seems to have
descended on the human race), and which are found at intervals over both
the Indo-Chinese continent and the Islands, as at Pagan in Burma, at
Ayuthia in Siam, at Angkor in Kamboja, at Borobodor and Brambanan in Java.
All these remains are deeply marked by Hindu influence, and, at the same
time, by strong peculiarities, both generic and individual.
[Illustration: Autograph of Hayton, King of Armenia, circa A.D. 1243.
"... e por so qui cestes lettres soient fermes e establis ci avuns escrit
l'escrit de notre main vermoil e sayele de notre ceau pendant...."]
[1] See Heyd, Le Colonie Commerciali degli Italiani, etc., passim.
[2] We endeavour to preserve throughout the book the distinction that was
made in the age of the Mongol Empire between Khan and Kaan
([Arabic] and [Arabic] as written by Arabic and Persian authors). The
former may be rendered Lord, and was applied generally to Tartar
chiefs whether sovereign or not; it has since become in Persia, and
especially in Afghanistan, a sort of "Esq.," and in India is now a
common affix in the names of (Musulman) Hindustanis of all classes;
in Turkey alone it has been reserved for the Sultan. Kaan, again,
appears to be a form of Khakan, the [Greek: Chaganos] of the
Byzantine historians, and was the peculiar title of the supreme
sovereign of the Mongols; the Mongol princes of Persia, Chaghatai,
etc., were entitled only to the former affix (Khan), though Kaan and
Khakan are sometimes applied to them in adulation. Polo always
writes Kaan as applied to the Great Khan, and does not, I think, use
Khan in any form, styling the subordinate princes by their name
only, as Argon, Alau, etc. Ilkhan was a special title assumed by
Hulaku and his successors in Persia; it is said to be compounded from
a word Il, signifying tribe or nation. The relation between Khan
and Khakan seems to be probably that the latter signifies "Khan of
Khans" Lord of Lords. Chinghiz, it is said, did not take the higher
title; it was first assumed by his son Okkodai. But there are doubts
about this. (See Quatremere's Rashid, pp. 10 seqq. and Pavet de
Courteille, Dict. Turk-Oriental.) The tendency of swelling titles is
always to degenerate, and when the value of Khan had sunk, a new form,
Khan-khanan, was devised at the Court of Delhi, and applied to one
of the high officers of state.
[Mr. Rockhill writes (Rubruck, p. 108, note): "The title Khan,
though of very great antiquity, was only used by the Turks after A.D.
560, at which time the use of the word Khatun came in use for the
wives of the Khan, who himself was termed Ilkhan. The older title of
Shan-yue did not, however, completely disappear among them, for
Albiruni says that in his time the chief of the Ghuz Turks, or
Turkomans, still bore the title of Jenuyeh, which Sir Henry
Rawlinson (Proc. R. G. S., v. 15) takes to be the same word as that
transcribed Shan-yue by the Chinese (see Ch'ien Han shu, Bk. 94,
and Chou shu, Bk. 50, 2). Although the word Khakhan occurs in
Menander's account of the embassy of Zemarchus, the earliest mention I
have found of it in a Western writer is in the Chronicon of
Albericus Trium Fontium, where (571), under the year 1239, he uses it
in the form Cacanus" - Cf. Terrien de Lacouperie, Khan, Khakan, and
other Tartar Titles. Lond., Dec. 1888. - H. C.]
[3] "China is a sea that salts all the rivers that flow into it." - P.
Parrenin in Lett. Edif. XXIV. 58.
[4] E.g. the Russians still call it Khitai. The pair of names, Khitai
and Machin, or Cathay and China, is analogous to the other pair,
Seres and Sinae. Seres was the name of the great nation in the
far East as known by land, Sinae as known by sea; and they were
often supposed to be diverse, just as Cathay and China were
afterwards.
[5] There has been much doubt about the true form of this name.
Iltitmish is that sanctioned by Mr. Blochmann (see Proc. As. Soc.
Bengal, 1870, p. 181).
III. THE POLO FAMILY. PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE TRAVELLERS DOWN TO THEIR
FINAL RETURN FROM THE EAST.
[Sidenote: Alleged origin of the Polos.]
13. In days when History and Genealogy were allowed to draw largely on the
imagination for the origines of states and families, it was set down by
one Venetian Antiquary that among the companions of King Venetus, or of
Prince Antenor of Troy, when they settled on the northern shores of the
Adriatic, there was one LUCIUS POLUS, who became the progenitor of our
Traveller's Family;[1] whilst another deduces it from PAOLO the first
Doge[2] (Paulus Lucas Anafestus of Heraclea, A.D. 696).
More trustworthy traditions, recorded among the Family Histories of
Venice, but still no more it is believed than traditions, represent the
Family of Polo as having come from Sebenico in Dalmatia, in the 11th
century.[3] Before the end of the century they had taken seats in the
Great Council of the Republic; for the name of Domenico Polo is said to be
subscribed to a grant of 1094, that of Pietro Polo to an act of the time
of the Doge Domenico Michiele in 1122, and that of a Domenico Polo to an
acquittance granted by the Doge Domenico Morosini and his Council in
1153.[4]
The ascertained genealogy of the Traveller, however, begins only with his
grandfather, who lived in the early part of the 13th century.
Two branches of the Polo Family were then recognized, distinguished by the
confini or Parishes in which they lived, as Polo of S. Geremia, and Polo
of S. Felice.
