1270, second moon. Kublai inspects a court pageant
prepared by Puh-lo and others.
B. Chap. 7, p. 6-1/2: 1270, twelfth moon. The yue-shi chung-ch'eng
(censor) Puh-lo made also President of the Ta-sz-nung department. One of
the ministers protested that there was no precedent for a censor holding
this second post. Kublai insisted.
C. Chap. 8, p. 16-1/2: 1275, second moon. Puh-lo and another sent to look
into the Customs taxation question in Tangut.
D. Chap. 8, p. 22-1/2: 1275, fourth moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yue-shi
chung-ch'eng Puh-lo promoted to be yue-shi ta-fu.
E. Chap. 9, p. 11-2/2: 1276, seventh moon. The Imperial Prince Puh-lo
given a seal.
F. Chap. 9, p. 16-2/2: 1277, second moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yue-shi
ta-fu, Puh-lo, being also suean-wei-shi and Court Chamberlain, promoted
to be shu-mih fu-shi, and also suean-hwei-shi and Court Chamberlain.
"The words shu-mih fu-shi the Chinese characters for which are given on
p. 569 of M. Cordier's second volume, precisely mean 'Second-class
Commissioner attached to the Privy Council,' and hence it is clear that
Pauthier was totally mistaken in supposing the censor of 1270 to have been
Marco. Of course the Imperial Prince Puh-lo is not the same person as the
censor, nor is it clear who the (1) pageant and (2) Tangut Puh-los were,
except that neither could possibly have been Marco, who only arrived in
May - the third moon - at the very earliest.
"In the first moon of 1281 some gold, silver, and bank-notes were handed
to Puh-lo for the relief of the poor. In the second moon of 1282, just
before the assassination of Achmed, the words 'Puh-lo the Minister'
(ch'eng-siang) are used in connection with a case of fraud. In the
seventh moon of 1282 (after the fall of Achmed) the 'Mongol man Puh-lo'
was placed in charge of some gold-washings in certain towers of the then
Hu Peh (now in Hu Nan). In the ninth moon of the same year a commission
was sent to take official possession of all the gold-yielding places in
Yuen Nan, and Puh-lo was appointed darugachi (= governor) of the mines.
In this case it is not explicitly stated (though it would appear most
likely) that the two gold superintendents were the same man; if they were,
then neither could have been Marco, who certainly was no 'Mongol man.'
Otherwise there would be a great temptation to identify this event with
the mission to 'una citta, detta Carazan' of the Ramusio Text.
"There is, however, one man who may possibly be Marco, and that is the
Poh-lo who was probably with Kublai at Chagan Nor when the news of
Achmed's murder by Wang Chu arrived there in the third moon of 1282. The
Emperor at once left for Shang-tu (i.e. K'ai-p'ing Fu, north of
Dolonor), and 'ordered the shu-mih fu-shi Poh-lo [with two other
statesmen] to proceed with all speed to Ta-tu (i.e. to Cambalu). On
receiving Poh-lo's report, the Emperor became convinced of the deceptions
practised upon him by Achmed, and said: "It was a good thing that Wang Chu
did kill him."' In 1284 Achmed's successor is stated (chap, 209, p.
9-1/2) to have recommended Poh-lo, amongst others, for minor Treasury
posts. The same man (chap. 209, p. 12-1/2) subsequently got Poh-lo
appointed to a salt superintendency in the provinces; and as Yang-chou is
the centre of the salt trade, it is just possible that Marco's
'governorship' of that place may resolve itself into this.
"There are many other Puh-lo and Poh-lo mentioned, both before Marco's
arrival in, and subsequently to Marco's departure in 1292 from, China. In
several cases (as, for instance, in that of P. Timur) both forms occur in
different chapters for the same man; and a certain Tartar called 'Puh-lan
Hi' is also called 'Puh-lo Hi.' One of Genghis Khan's younger brothers was
called Puh-lo Kadei. There was, moreover, a Cathayan named Puh-lo, and a
Naiman Prince Poh-lo. Whether 'Puh-lo the Premier' or 'one of the
Ministers,' mentioned in 1282, is the same person as 'Poh-lo the ts'an
cheng,' or 'Prime Minister's assistant' of 1284, I cannot say. Perhaps,
when the whole Yuean Shi has been thoroughly searched throughout in all
its editions, we may obtain more certain information. Meanwhile, one thing
is plain: Pauthier is wrong, Yule is wrong in that particular connection;
and M. Cordier gives us no positive view of his own. The other
possibilities are given above, but I scarcely regard any of them as
probabilities. On p. 99 of his Introduction, Colonel Yule manifestly
identifies the Poh-lo of 1282 with Marco; but the identity of his title
with that of Puh-lo in 1277 suggests that the two men are one, in which
case neither can be Marco Polo. On p. 422 of Vol. I. Yule repeats this
identification in his notes. I may mention that much of the information
given in the present article was published in Vol. XXIV. of the China
Review two or three years ago. I notice that M. Cordier quotes that
volume in connection with other matters, but this particular point does
not appear to have caught his eye.
"As matters now stand, there is a fairly strong presumption that Marco
Polo is once named in the Annals; but there is no irrefragable evidence;
and in any case it is only this once, and not as Pauthier has it."
Cf. also note by Prof. E.H. Parker, China Review, XXV. pp. 193-4, and,
according to Prof. Pelliot (Bul.
