Volume I Part 34 (2/2)

[18] ”_Porce que lengue Frenceise cort parmi le monde, et est la plus delitable a lire et a oir que nule autre, me sui-je entremis de translater l'ancien estoire des Veneciens de Latin en Franceis._”

(Archiv. Stor. Ital. viii. 268.)

[19] ”_Et se aucuns demandoit por quoi cist livres est escriz en Romans, selonc le langage des Francois, puisque nos somes Ytaliens, je diroie que ce est por. ij. raisons: l'une, car nos somes en France; et l'autre porce que la parleure est plus delitable et plus commune a toutes gens._” (Li Livres dou Tresor, p. 3.)

[20] It is, however, not improbable that Rusticiano's hasty and abbreviated original was extended by a scribe who knew next to nothing of French; otherwise it is hard to account for such forms as _perlinage_ (pelerinage), _peseries_ (espiceries), _proque_ (see vol.

ii. p. 370), _oisi_ (G.T. p. 208), _thochere_ (toucher), etc. (See _Bianconi_, 2nd Mem. pp. 30-32.)

[21] Polo, Friar Odoric, Nicolo Conti, Ibn Batuta.

X. VARIOUS TYPES OF TEXT OF MARCO POLO'S BOOK.

[Sidenote: Four Princ.i.p.al Types of Text. First, that of the Geographic, or oldest French.]

55. In treating of the various Texts of Polo's Book we must necessarily go into some irksome detail.

Those Texts that have come down to us may be cla.s.sified under Four princ.i.p.al Types.

I. The First Type is that of the Geographic Text of which we have already said so much. This is found nowhere _complete_ except in the unique MS. of the Paris Library, to which it is stated to have come from the old Library of the French Kings at Blois. But the Italian _Crusca_, and the old Latin version (No. 3195 of the Paris Library) published with the Geographic Text, are evidently derived entirely from it, though both are considerably abridged. It is also demonstrable that neither of these copies has been translated from the other, for each has pa.s.sages 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 cla.s.sed 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 cla.s.s 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 _itself_ the copy given to the Sieur de Cepoy, and that the differences in the copies of the cla.s.s 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 circ.u.mstances 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 cla.s.s 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 circ.u.mstances 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 cla.s.s 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 others form a sub-cla.s.s of this Type.]

57. There is another curious circ.u.mstance about the MSS. of this type, viz., that they clearly divide into two distinct recensions, of which both have so many peculiarities and errors in common that they must necessarily have been both derived from _one_ modification of the original text, whilst at the same time there are such differences between the two as cannot be set down to the accidents of transcription. Pauthier's MSS. A and B (Nos. 16 and 15 of the List in App. F) form one of these subdivisions: his C (No. 17 of List), Bern (No. 56), and Oxford (No. 6), the other. Between A and B the differences are only such as seem constantly to have arisen from the whims of transcribers or their dialectic peculiarities. But between A and B on the one side, and C on the other, the differences are much greater. The readings of proper names in C are often superior, sometimes worse; but in the latter half of the work especially it contains a number of substantial pa.s.sages[7] which are to be found in the G. T., but are altogether absent from the MSS. A and B; whilst in one case at least (the history of the Siege of Saianfu, vol. ii.

p. 159) it diverges considerably from the G. T. _as well_ as from A and B.[8]

<script>