gh 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.[1] A special
difference lies in the fact 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;[2] but I have not been
able to examine any of them with the care needful to make specific
deductions regarding them.

[Sidenote: Second; the remodelled French Text, followed by Pauthier.]

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 revision 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 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.
69). This certificate is held by Pauthier to imply that the original of
the copies which bear it, and of those having a general 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 so-called
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 d'Avezac and Paulin Paris was
that the Geographic Text was _i