tself_ 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.[3]

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.[4] And we
find in these MSS. one or two interesting names preserved which are not
found in the older Text.[5]

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.[6]

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.

[Sidenote: The Bern MS. and two other