Text of which we have already said so much. This is found nowhere complete except in the unique MS. of the Paris Library, to which it is stated to have come from the old Library of the French Kings at Blois. But the Italian Crusca, and the old Latin version (No. 3195 of the Paris Library) published with the Geographic Text are evidently derived entirely from it, though both are considerably abridged. It is also demonstrable that neither of these copies has been translated from the other, for each has passages which the other omits, but that both have been taken, the one as a copy more or less loose, the other as a translation, from an intermediate Italian copy.* A special difference lies in the fact * In the following citations, the Geographic Text (G.T.) is quoted by page from the printed edition (1824); the Latin published in the same volume (G.L.) also by page; the Crusca, as before, from Bartoli's edition of 1863. References in parentheses are to the present translation : : A. Passages showing the G.L. to be a translation from the Italian, and derived from the same Italian text as the Crusca. Page (1). G.T. 17 (I. 43). Il hi se laborent le souran tapis dou monde. Crusca, 17 G.L. 311 (2). G.T. E quivi si fanno i sovrani tappeti del mondo. Et ibi fiunt soriani et tapeti pulcriores de mundo. 23 (,, 65). Et adonc le calif mande partuit les cristienz . . . Crusca, 27 G.L. (3). G.T. 316 qui en sa tere estoient. Ora mandò lo califfo per tutti gli Cristiani ch'erano đi là. Or misit califfus pro Cristianis qui erant ultra fluvium 198 (II. 254). Ont sosimain (sesamum) de coi il font le olio. Crusca, 253 G.L. 448 Habent turpes manus (taking sosimani for sozze mani "dirty hands" !) 66 (4). Crusca, 52 (I. 150). Cacciare et uccellare v' è lo migliore del mondo. G.L. 332 (5). G.T. Et est ibi optimum caciare et uccellare. 124 (II. 22). Adonc treuve.... un Provence qe est encore de le Crusca, 162-3 G.L. 396 (6). G.T. confin dou Mangi. L'uomo truova una Provincia ch'è chiamata ancora delle confine di Mangi. Invenit unam Provinciam quae vocatur Anchota de confinibus Mangi. 146 (,, 82). Les dames portent as jambes et es braces braciaus d'or et d'argent de grandisme vaillance. Crusca, 189 G.L. 411 Le donne portano alle braccia e alle gambe bracciali d'oro e d'ariento di gran valuta. Dominæ eorum portant ad bracia et ad gambas brazalia de auro et de argento magni valoris. that the Latin version is divided into three Books, whilst the Crusca has no such division. I shall show in a tabular form the filiation of the texts which these facts seem to demonstrate (see Appendix G). There are other Italian MSS. of this type, some of which show signs of having been derived independently from the French;* but I have not been able to examine any of them with the care needful to make specific deductions regarding them. 56. II. The next Type is that of the French MSS. on which M. Pauthier's Text is based, and for which he claims the highest authority, as having had the mature re- Second; vision and sanction of the Traveller. There are, as far as I know, five MSS. which may be classed together under this type, three in the Great Paris Library, one at Bern, and one in the Bodleian. the remodelled French Text, followed by Pauthier. The high claims made by Pauthier on behalf of this class of MSS. (on the first three of which his Text is formed) rest mainly upon the kind of certificate which two of them bear regarding the presentation of a copy by Marco Polo to Thibault de Cepoy, which we have already quoted (supra, p. xcvi). This certificate is held by Pauthier to imply that the original of the copies which bear it, and of those having a general B. Passages showing additionally the errors, or other peculiarities of a translation from a French original, common to the Italian and the Latin. Page (7). G.T. 32 (I. 91). Est celle plaingne mout chaue (chaude). Crusca, 35 G.L. 322 Questo piano è molto cavo. Ista planities est multum cava. (8). G.T. 32 (,, 104). Avent porceque l'eiue hi est amer. Crusca, 40 G.L. 324 E questo è per lo mare che vi viene. Istud est propter mare quod est ibi. (9). G.T. 18 (,, 49). Un roi qi est apelés par tout tens Davit Melic qi veut Crusca, 20 G.L. 312 à dire en fransois Davit Roi. Uno re il quale si chiama sempre David Melic, cio è a dire in francesco David Re. Rex qui semper vocatur David Mellic quod sonat in gallico David Rex. These passages, and many more that might be quoted, seem to me to demonstrate (1) that the Latin and the Crusca have had a common original, and (2) that this original was an Italian version from the French. * Thus the Pucci MS. at Florence, in the passage regarding the Golden King (vol. ii. p. 8) which begins in G. T. “ Lequel fist faire jadis un rois qe fu appelés Roi d'Or, renders "Lo quale fa fare Jaddis uno re," a mistake which is not in the Crusca nor in the Latin, and seems to imply derivation from the French directly, or by some other channel (Baldello-Boni). correspondence with them, had the special seal of Marco's revision and approval. To some considerable extent their character is corroborative of such a claim, but they are far from having the perfection which Pauthier attributes to them, and which leads him into many paradoxes. It is not possible to interpret rigidly the bearing of this socalled certificate, as if no copies had previously been taken of any form of the Book; nor can we allow it to impugn the authenticity of the Geographic Text, which demonstratively represents an older original, and has been (as we have seen) the parent of all other versions, including some very old ones, Italian and Latin, which certainly owe nothing to this revision. The first idea apparently entertained by M. D'Avezac and M. Paulin-Paris was that the Geographic Text was itself the copy given to the Sieur de Cepoy, and that the differences in the copies of the class which we describe as Type II. merely resulted from the modifications which would naturally arise in the process of transcription into purer French. But closer examination showed the differences to be too great and too marked to admit of this explanation. These differences consist not only in the conversion of the rude, obscure, and half Italian language of the original into good French of the period. There is also very considerable curtailment, generally of tautology, but also extending often to circumstances of substantial interest; whilst we observe the omission of a few notably erroneous statements or expressions; and a few insertions of small importance. None of the MSS. of this class contain more than a few of the historical chapters which we have formed into Book IV. The only addition of any magnitude is that chapter which in our Translation forms chapter xxi. of Book II. It will be seen that it contains no new facts, but is only a tedious recapitulation of circumstances already stated, though scattered over several chapters. There are a few minor additions. I have not thought it worth while to collect them systematically here, but two or three examples are given in a note.* * In the Prologue (vol. i. p. 32) this class of MSS. alone names the King of England. In the account of the Battle with Nayan (i. p. 301) this class alone speaks of the two-stringed instruments which the Tartars played whilst awaiting the signal for battle. But the circumstance appears elsewhere in the G. T. (p. 250). In There are also one or two corrections of erroneous statements in the G. T. which seem not to be accidental and to indicate some attempt at revision. Thus a notable error in the account of Aden, which seems to conceive of the Red Sea as a river, disappears in Pauthier's MSS. A and B.* find in these MSS. one or two interesting names preserved which are not found in the older Text.† But on the other hand this class of MSS. contains many erroneous readings of names, either adopting the worse of two forms occurring in the G. T. or originating blunders of its own.‡ M. Pauthier lays great stress on the character of these MSS. as the sole authentic form of the work, from their claim to have been specially revised by Marco Polo. It is evident, however, from what has been said, that this revision can have been only a very careless and superficial one, and must have been done in great measure by deputy, being almost entirely confined to curtailment and to the improvement of the expression, and that it is by no means such as to allow an editor to dispense with a careful study of the Older Text. 57. There is another curious circumstance about the MSS. of this type, viz., that they clearly divide into two distinct recensions, of which both have so many peculiarities The Bern and errors in common that they must necessarily have been both derived from one modification of the ss of this original text, whilst at the same time there are such Type. MS. and two others form a sub In the chapter on Malabar (vol. ii. p. 325), it is said that the ships which go with cargoes towards Alexandria are not one-tenth of those that go to the further East. This is not in the older French. In the chapter on Coilun (II. p. 312), we have a notice of the Columbine ginger so celebrated in the middle ages, which is also absent from the older text. * See vol. ii. p. 374. It is however remarkable that a like mistake is made about the Persian Gulf (see I. 60, 61). Perhaps Polo thought in Persian, in which the word darya means either sea or a large river. The same habit and the ambiguity of the Persian sher led him probably to his confusion of lions and tigers (see I. 354). † Such are Pasciai-Dir and Ariora Kesciemur (I. p. 93). Thus the MSS. of this type have elected the erroneous readings Bolgara, Cogatra, Chiato, Cabanant, &c., instead of the correcter Bolgana, Cocacin, Quiacatu, Cobinan, where the G.T. presents both (supra, p. lxxviii). They read Esanar for the correct Etzina; Chascun for Casvin; Achalet for Acbalec; Sardansu for Sindafu; Kayteu, Kayton, Sarcon for Zaiton or Caiton; Soucat for Locac; Falec for Ferlec, and so on, the worse instead of the better. They make the Mer Occeane into Mer Occident; the wild asses (asnes) of the Kerman Desert into wild geese (oes ;) the escoillez of Bengal (II. p. 79) into escoliers; the giraffes of Africa into girofles, or cloves, &c. &c. differences between the two as cannot be set down to the accidents of transcription. Pauthier's MSS. A and B (Nos. 16 and 15 of the List in Appendix F) form one of these subdivisions: his C (No. 17 of the same list), Bern (No. 56), and Oxford (No. 6), the other. Between A and B the differences are only such as seem constantly to have arisen from the whims of transcribers or their dialectic peculiarities. But between A and B on the one side, and C on the other the differences are much greater. The readings of proper names in C are often superior, sometimes worse; but in the latter half of the work especially it contains a number of substantial passages* which are to be found in the G. T., but are altogether absent from the MSS. A and B ; whilst in one case at least (the history of the Siege of Saianfu, vol. ii. p. 121) it diverges considerably from the G. T. as well as from A and B.† I gather from the facts that the MS. C represents an older form of the work than A and B. I should judge that the latter had been derived from that older form but intentionally modified from it. And as it is the MS. C, with its copy at Bern, that alone presents the certificate of derivation from the Book given to the Sieur de Cepoy, there can be no doubt that it is the true representative of that recension. Third: 58. The next Type of Text is that found in Friar Pipino's Latin version. It is the type of which MSS. are by far the most numerous. In it condensation and curtailment are carried a good deal further than in Type II. The work is also divided into three Books. But this division does not seem to have originated with Pipino, as we find it in the ruder and perhaps older Latin version of which we have already spoken under Type I. And we have demonstrated that this ruder Latin is a translation from an Italian copy. It is probable therefore that an Italian version similarly divided was the common source of what we call the Geographic Latin and of Pipino's more condensed version.‡ *There are about five and thirty such passages altogether. + The Bern MS. I have satisfied myself is an actual copy of the Paris MS. C. The Oxford MS. closely resembles both, but I have not made the comparison minutely enough to say if it is an exact copy of either. The following comparison will also show that these two Latin versions have probably had a common source, such as is here suggested. At the end of the Prologue the Geographic Text reads simply : "Or |