and seems to imply derivation from the French directly, or by
some other channel (_Baldelli Boni_).

[3] In the Prologue (vol. i. p. 34) this class of MSS. alone names the
King of England.

In the account of the Battle with Nayan (i. p. 337) 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 the chapter on _Malabar_ (vol. ii. p. 390), 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. 375), we have a notice of the
Columbine ginger so celebrated in the Middle Ages, which is also
absent from the older text.

[4] See vol. ii. p. 439. It is, however, remarkable that a like mistake is
made about the Persian Gulf (see i. 63, 64). 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. 397).

[5] Such are Pasciai-_Dir_ and _Ariora_ Kesciemur (i. p. 98.)

[6] Thus the MSS. of this type have elected the erroneous readings
_Bolgara, Cogatra, Chiato, Cabanant_, etc., instead of the correcter
_Bolgana, Cocacin, Quiacatu, Cobinan_, where the G. T. presents both
(supra, p. 86). 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. 115) into _escoliers_; the _giraffes_ of
Africa into _girofles_, or cloves, etc., etc.

[7] There are about five-and-thirty such passages altogether.

[8] 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.

[9] The following comparison will also show that these two Latin versions
have probably had a common source, such as is here suggested.