The fall of
Baghdad was not immediately followed by its decay, and we have proof
of its prosperity at the beginning of the 14th century. Tauris had not
yet the importance it had reached when the Polos visited it on their
return journey. We have the will of the Venetian Pietro Viglioni,
dated from Tauris, 10th December, 1264 (Archiv. Veneto, xxvi. 161-
165), which shows that he was but a pioneer. It was only under Arghun
Khan (1284-1291) that Tauris became the great market for foreign,
especially Genoese, merchants, as Marco Polo remarks on his return
journey; with Ghazan and the new city built by that prince, Tauris
reached a very high degree of prosperity, and was then really the
chief emporium on the route from Europe to Persia and the far East.
Sir Henry Yule had not changed his views, and if in the plate showing
Probable View of Marco Polo's own Geography, the itinerary is not
shown as running to Baghdad, it is mere neglect on the part of the
draughtsman. - H. C.]
[A] Page 19.
[B] Vide Yule, vol. i. p. 5. It is noticeable that John of Pian
de Carpine, who travelled 1245 to 1247, names it correctly.
[C] The modern name is Keis, an island lying off Linga.
[D] Vol. i. p. 110 (Introduction).
[14] It is stated by Neumann that this most estimable traveller once
intended to have devoted a special work to the elucidation of Marco's
chapters on the Oxus Provinces, and it is much to be regretted that
this intention was never fulfilled. Pamir has been explored more
extensively and deliberately, whilst this book was going through the
press, by Colonel Gordon, and other officers, detached from Sir
Douglas Forsyth's Mission. [We have made use of the information given
by these officers and by more recent travellers. - H. C.]
[15] Half a year earlier, if we suppose the three years and a half to
count from Venice rather than Acre. But at that season (November)
Kublai would not have been at Kai-ping fu (otherwise Shang-tu).
[16] Pauthier, p. ix., and p. 361.
[17] That this was Marco's first mission is positively stated in the
Ramusian edition; and though this may be only an editor's gloss it
seems well-founded. The French texts say only that the Great Kaan,
"l'envoia en un message en une terre ou bien avoit vj. mois de
chemin." The traveller's actual Itinerary affords to Vochan
(Yung-ch'ang), on the frontier of Burma, 147 days' journey, which with
halts might well be reckoned six months in round estimate. And we are
enabled by various circumstances to fix the date of the Yun-nan
journey between 1277 and 1280. The former limit is determined by
Polo's account of the battle with the Burmese, near Vochan, which took
place according to the Chinese Annals in 1277. The latter is fixed by
his mention of Kublai's son, Mangalai, as governing at Kenjanfu
(Si-ngan fu), a prince who died in 1280. (See vol. ii. pp. 24, 31,
also 64, 80.)
[18] Excepting in the doubtful case of Kan-chau, where one reading says
that the three Polos were there on business of their own not necessary
to mention, and another, that only Maffeo and Marco were there, "en
legation."
[19] Persian history seems to fix the arrival of the lady Kokachin in the
North of Persia to the winter of 1293-1294. The voyage to Sumatra
occupied three months (vol. i. p. 34); they were five months detained
there (ii. 292); and the remainder of the voyage extended to eighteen
more (i. 35), - twenty-six months in all.
The data are too slight for unexceptional precision, but the following
adjustment will fairly meet the facts. Say that they sailed from
Fo-kien in January 1292. In April they would be in Sumatra, and find
the S.W. Monsoon too near to admit of their crossing the Bay of
Bengal. They remain in port till September (five months), and then
proceed, touching (perhaps) at Ceylon, at Kayal, and at several ports
of Western India. In one of these, e.g. Kayal or Tana, they pass the
S.W. Monsoon of 1293, and then proceed to the Gulf. They reach Hormuz
in the winter, and the camp of the Persian Prince Ghazan, the son of
Arghun, in March, twenty-six months from their departure.
I have been unable to trace Hammer's authority (not Wassaf I find),
which perhaps gives the precise date of the Lady's arrival in Persia
(see infra, p. 38). From his narrative, however (Gesch. der Ilchane,
ii. 20), March 1294 is perhaps too late a date. But the five months'
stoppage in Sumatra must have been in the S.W. Monsoon; and if the
arrival in Persia is put earlier, Polo's numbers can scarcely be held
to. Or, the eighteen months mentioned at vol. i. p. 35, must include
the five months' stoppage. We may then suppose that they reached
Hormuz about November 1293, and Ghazan's camp a month or two later.
[20] The French text which forms the basis of my translation says that,
excluding mariners, there were 600 souls, out of whom only 8 survived.
The older MS. which I quote as G. T., makes the number 18, a fact that
I had overlooked till the sheets were printed off.
[21] Died 12th March, 1291.
[22] All dates are found so corrupt that even in this one I do not feel
absolute confidence. Marco in dictating the book is aware that Ghazan
had attained the throne of Persia (see vol. i. p. 36, and ii.
