on of 1282. The
Emperor at once left for Shang-tu (i.e. _K'ai-p'ing Fu_, north of
Dolonor), and 'ordered the _shu-mih fu-shi_ Poh-lo [with two other
statesmen] to proceed with all speed to Ta-tu (i.e. to Cambalu). On
receiving Poh-lo's report, the Emperor became convinced of the deceptions
practised upon him by Achmed, and said: "It was a good thing that Wang Chu
_did_ kill him."' In 1284 Achmed's successor is stated (chap, 209, p.
9-1/2) to have recommended Poh-lo, amongst others, for minor Treasury
posts. The same man (chap. 209, p. 12-1/2) subsequently got Poh-lo
appointed to a salt superintendency in the provinces; and as Yang-chou is
the centre of the salt trade, it is just possible that Marco's
'governorship' of that place may resolve itself into this.

"There are many other Puh-lo and Poh-lo mentioned, both before Marco's
arrival in, and subsequently to Marco's departure in 1292 from, China. In
several cases (as, for instance, in that of P. Timur) both forms occur in
different chapters for the same man; and a certain Tartar called 'Puh-lan
Hi' is also called 'Puh-lo Hi.' One of Genghis Khan's younger brothers was
called Puh-lo Kadei. There was, moreover, a Cathayan named Puh-lo, and a
Naiman Prince Poh-lo. Whether 'Puh-lo the Premier' or 'one of the
Ministers,' mentioned in 1282, is the same person as 'Poh-lo the _ts'an
cheng_,' or 'Prime Minister's assistant' of 1284, I cannot say. Perhaps,
when the whole _Yuean Shi_ has been thoroughly searched throughout in all
its editions, we may obtain more certain information. Meanwhile, one thing
is plain: Pauthier is wrong, Yule is wrong in that particular connection;
and M. Cordier gives us no positive view of his own. The other
possibilities are given above, but I scarcely regard any of them as
probabilities. On p. 99 of his Introduction, Colonel Yule manifestly
identifies the Poh-lo of 1282 with Marco; but the identity of his title
with that of Puh-lo in 1277 suggests that the two men are one, in which
case neither can be Marco Polo. On p. 422 of Vol. I. Yule repeats this
identification in his notes. I may mention that much of the information
given in the present article was published in Vol. XXIV. of the _China
Review_ two or three years ago. I notice that M. Cordier quotes that
volume in connection with other matters, but this particular point does
not appear to have caught his eye.

"As matters now stand, there is a fairly strong presumption that Marco
Polo is _on