parative
fulness with which he treats the manners of the Tartars and of the
Southern Hindoos; but the impression remains that his associations in
China were chiefly with foreigners. Wherever the place he speaks of had a
Tartar or Persian name he uses that rather than the Chinese one. Thus
_Cathay, Cambaluc, Pulisanghin, Tangut, Chagannor, Saianfu, Kenjanfu,
Tenduc, Acbalec, Carajan, Zardandan, Zayton, Kemenfu, Brius, Caramoran,
Chorcha, Juju_, are all Mongol, Turki, or Persian forms, though all have
Chinese equivalents.[12]

In reference to the then recent history of Asia, Marco is often
inaccurate, e.g. in his account of the death of Chinghiz, in the list of
his successors, and in his statement of the relation ship between notable
members of that House.[13] But the most perplexing knot in the whole book
lies in the interesting account which he gives of the Siege of Sayanfu or
Siang-yang, during the subjugation of Southern China by Kublai. I have
entered on this matter in the notes (vol. ii. p. 167), and will only say
here that M. Pauthier's solution of the difficulty is no solution, being
absolutely inconsistent with the story as told by Marco himself, and that
I see none; though I have so much faith in Marco's veracity that I am
loath to believe that the facts admit of no reconciliation.

Our faint attempt to appreciate some of Marco's qualities, as gathered
from his work, will seem far below the very high estimates that have been
pronounced, not only by some who have delighted rather to enlarge upon his
frame than to make themselves acquainted with his work,[14] but also by
persons whose studies and opinions have been worthy of all respect. Our
estimate, however, does not abate a jot of our intense interest in his
Book and affection for his memory. And we have a strong feeling that,
owing partly to his reticence, and partly to the great disadvantages under
which the Book was committed to writing, we have in it a singularly
imperfect image of the Man.

[Sidenote: Was Polo's Book materially affected by the Scribe Rusticiano?]

72. A question naturally suggests itself, how far Polo's narrative, at
least in its expression, was modified by passing under the pen of a
professed litterateur of somewhat humble claims, such as Rusticiano was.
The case is not a singular one, and in our own day the ill-judged use of
such assistance has been fatal to the reputation of an adventurous
Traveller.

We have, however, already expr