P.
226). Ramusio's account of the position of the city of Sindafu (Ch'eng-tu
fu) encompassed and intersected by many branches of a great river (ii. p.
40), is much more just than that in the old text, which speaks of but one
river through the middle of the city. The intelligent notices of the
Kaan's charities as originated by his adoption of "idolatry" or Buddhism;
of the astrological superstitions of the Chinese, and of the manners and
character of the latter nation, are found in Ramusio alone. To whom but
Marco himself, or one of his party, can we refer the brief but vivid
picture of the delicious atmosphere and scenery of the Badakhshan plateaux
(ip. 158), and of the benefit that Messer Marco's health derived from a
visit to them? In this version alone again we have an account of the
oppressions exercised by Kublai's Mahomedan Minister Ahmad, telling how
the Cathayans rose against him and murdered him, with the addition that
Messer Marco was on the spot when all this happened. Now not only is the
whole story in substantial accordance with the Chinese Annals, even to the
name of the chief conspirator,[15] but those annals also tell of the
courageous frankness of "Polo, assessor of the Privy Council," in opening
the Kaan's eyes to the truth.
Many more such examples might be adduced, but these will suffice. It is
true that many of the passages peculiar to the Ramusian version, and
indeed the whole version, show a freer utterance and more of a literary
faculty than we should attribute to Polo, judging from the earlier texts.
It is possible, however, that this may be almost, if not entirely, due to
the fact that the version is the result of a double translation, and
probably of an editorial fusion of several documents; processes in which
angularities of expression would be dissolved.[16]
[Sidenote: Hypothesis of the sources of the Ramusian Version.]
63. Though difficulties will certainly remain,[17] the most probable
explanation of the origin of this text seems to me to be some such
hypothesis as the following: - I suppose that Polo in his latter years
added with his own hand supplementary notes and reminiscences, marginally
or otherwise, to a copy of his book; that these, perhaps in his lifetime,
more probably after his death, were digested and translated into
Latin;[18] and that Ramusio, or some friend of his, in retranslating and
fusing them with Pipino's version for the Navigationi, made those minor
modifications in names and other matters which we have already noticed.
The mere facts of digestion from memoranda and double translation would
account for a good deal of unintentional corruption.
That more than one version was employed in the composition of Ramusio's
edition we have curious proof in at least one passage of the latter. We
have pointed out at p. 410 of this volume a curious example of
misunderstanding of the old French Text, a passage in which the term Roi
des Pelaines, or "King of Furs," is applied to the Sable, and which in
the Crusca has been converted into an imaginary Tartar phrase Leroide
pelame, or as Pipino makes it Rondes (another indication that Pipino's
Version and the Crusca passed through a common medium). But Ramusio
exhibits both the true reading and the perversion: "E li Tartari la
chiamano Regina delle pelli" (there is the true reading), "E gli animali
si chiamano Rondes" (and there the perverted one).
We may further remark that Ramusio's version betrays indications that one
of its bases either was in the Venetian dialect, or had passed through
that dialect; for a good many of the names appear in Venetian forms, e.g.,
substituting the z for the sound of ch, j, or soft g, as in Goza,
Zorzania, Zagatay, Gonza (for Giogiu), Quenzanfu, Coiganzu, Tapinzu,
Zipangu, Ziamba.
[Sidenote: Summary in regard to Text of Polo.]
64. To sum up. It is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute that we have, in
what we call the Geographic Text, as nearly as may be an exact transcript
of the Traveller's words as originally taken down in the prison of Genoa.
We have again in the MSS. of the second type an edition pruned and
refined, probably under instructions from Marco Polo, but not with any
critical exactness. And lastly, I believe, that we have, imbedded in the
Ramusian edition, the supplementary recollections of the Traveller, noted
down at a later period of his life, but perplexed by repeated translation,
compilation, and editorial mishandling.
And the most important remaining problem in regard to the text of Polo's
work is the discovery of the supplemental manuscript from which Ramusio
derived those passages which are found only in his edition. It is possible
that it may still exist, but no trace of it in anything like completeness
has yet been found; though when my task was all but done I discovered a
small part of the Ramusian peculiarities in a MS. at Venice.[19]
65. Whilst upon this subject of manuscripts of our Author, I will give
some particulars regarding a very curious one, containing a version in the
Irish language.
[Sidenote: Notice of a curious Irish Version of Polo.]
This remarkable document is found in the Book of Lismore, belonging to
the Duke of Devonshire. That magnificent book, finely written on vellum of
the largest size, was discovered in 1814, enclosed in a wooden box, along
with a superb crozier, on opening a closed doorway in the castle of
Lismore. It contained Lives of the Saints, the (Romance) History of
Charlemagne, the History of the Lombards, histories and tales of Irish
wars, etc., etc., and among the other matter this version of Marco Polo.
A full account of the Book and its mutilations will be found in O'Curry's
Lectures on the MS.
