Written By: Cleo C.
Date: 17 Sep. 2022
Table of Contents:
The ancient civilization holds the greatest mysteries regarding humanity's origin. However, deciphering the most accurate description of a lost society may maintain a one-dimensional outlook, possibly leaving out the significant parts that fade with the flow of time. After all, it poses true that most of history is written by the victors. As for a Venetian writer, he does not stay immune to such debate, for historical accuracy poses a questionable feature in his works.
Marco Polo, a writer from the 13th century, composed many accounts of the earliest parts of human civilization. Such findings entail a voyage embarked through the ancient lands of China and India, which he claims to be under the guidance of a fathomable ruler. Polo's The Travels describes this journey that includes his father and uncle as they venture through the societies of ancient Asia. Such locations once held different names, believed to be regions now named China and India. During Polo's time, his travels included a reputable ruler named Khubilai Khan, who favored these foreign travelers and adopted them as his personnel. Guided and protected by a powerful king of this time, Polo records details of various cultures that authenticate their way of life (Cliff xi-xii).
Knowing Polo's vast journey, it seems almost unfathomable for a young man in his teenage years to set foot in many parts of the Eastern world. Hence, many scholars throughout generations questioned the integrity of his works, scrutinizing a possible misunderstanding they may have misinterpreted. The cryptic truth within Polo's accounts deems impenetrable for readers, causing a debate on its meaning. What once was a travel guide for westerners now becomes an artwork of riddles hinting at the ambiguous image of an ancient world. Through this, Marco Polo divides the literary world on its credibility based on inconsistency in the text, edited versions through time, and scholarly arguments on its authenticity.
The Young Yet Experienced Marco Polo
Polo has been described to be in adolescence when he began his embarkment to the Eastern region. In 1269, the young author reunited with his father and uncle, Niccolo Polo and Maffeo, after they failed to fulfill Khubilai Khan's orders to greet the former Pope Clement IV (Cliff xxii). Years after awaiting a new pope, Gregory X succeeded the papal palace and accepted Niccolo and Maffeo's messages with "credentials, letters and gifts" for the King (xxii). They returned to Great Khan to complete their duties as emissaries, bringing Marco along in hopes of being a favorable addition to Khan's officials (Polo 11). Once brought along on his father's journey, this event possibly poses as the beginning of his recordings, along with the details of his father and uncle's journey passed down to him (Cliff xxii-xxiii). To become a traveler at such a young age causes a reasonable alibi for his findings to be meticulous and concise. In addition, his appointment as Great Khan's personal observer or inspector in 1279 offered leverage for many more travels within China and India. According to Cliff's introduction in the book, Chinese sources concur that Polo's recordings show that "the immense wealth of information he provides is in the main strikingly accurate — outmatching the sum total of surviving accounts by other [travelers]." (xxvii)
Furthermore, it deems reasonable if Marco Polo were to evolve as more Mongolian than Venetian, based on the many accounts of the Eastern world coinciding with historical evidence. Other witness testimonies of Polo's upbringing include returning to his homeland in 1299, when a Venetian named Ramusio claimed to find the young boy "dressed in Mongol, rags, barely able to speak Venetian and with a certain indescribable smack of the Tartar both in air and accent…." (xxix). The witness further strengthens Polo's stories when assembled kinsmen grew abashed after "slashing at their traveling outfit until rubies, sapphires, carbuncles, diamonds and emeralds came tumbling out." (xxix). Despite the skeptical impression from later generations, eyewitnesses that defend his experiences compel readers to resonate with this strange upbringing of a Venetian native. Whether he implicates a riddling approach or a self-explanatory record of his recollections, the mystery of a young yet experienced traveler continues to divide humanity on its credible source. Nevertheless, it did not hinder Polo's commitment to his findings, as his final words reinstate truthfulness in his intentions, "I have not told one half, of what I have really seen" (xiv).
Inconsistencies from the Text
Although Polo persists in his integrity, his dying words did not hinder scholars from further analyzing inaccuracies proven centuries later. For example, Cliff mentions how scholars have argued Polo's inaccuracy with historical accounts of ancient China, where the common staples such as "tea, calligraphy, and the binding of women's feet" were not mentioned in any parts of Polo's stories (Cliff xv). A source by John W. Haeger concurs with the same notion and elaborates how such items were prevalent in many Chinese sources to prove their existence (23). Another idea that further challenges Polo's integrity is his claim to governing Yangzhou. According to his findings from Beijing to Quanzhou, the book claims that Marco Polo had "governed [Yangzhou] for three years by the Great Khan's commission in lieu of one these barons." (Polo, 188).
Although this alleged knowledge derives from the author, other sources have argued that such claims are nonexistent in historical evidence. Cliff and Haeger both mention how Polo's governance over the city was nowhere to be found. Haeger mentions through "four major editions" he has read, all versions have omitted this information about Polo, while "Chinese sources are silent about any foreign "ruler" or governor in the last quarter of the 13th century." (23). Meanwhile, Cliff mentions other sources proving foreigners' involvement, but Marco was not one of these officials (xxv). Amid the confusion of foreign officials and their proof of authority in the Eastern region, a mutual conclusion between Cliff and Haeger is that Polo's false claims were created by a second party to enhance Polo's image (Cliff xxv, Haeger 23).
Another factor that supports this notion appears in the change of tone between sections in the book. One example is comparing the Prologue and the first section's recordings of the Middle East. Reading through the introductory section illustrates a sentimental journey of a son, father, and uncle towards the unknown lands of ancient Asia, creating a profound tale of adventure. Khubilai Khan, or the Great Khan, becomes one of the essential characters in this story. With unfathomable power across the Eastern lands, immense knowledge in militia strategy, and wisdom in a few moral principles, his legacy becomes an aspect Polo glorifies among his other experiences. Along with the willingness to adopt the Polos, implying a sense of adoration for them, the Prologue further romanticizes a family's journey that gave meaningful experiences and relationships (Polo 12). Such a compelling beginning to a travel story anticipates further development of this exciting adventure. However, once the reader reads the first few pages describing the Middle East, the descriptions become this deadpan, monotonous, and almost textbook explication of his encounters. The repetitive instances of the same beliefs, resources, and occupations create this mundane narrative of a person's trip through a foreign land (Polo 18-45). After reading such a riveting Prologue, the expectation of a worthwhile escapade becomes a mere informative guidebook.
Such an abrupt and major shift in the tone and language of Polo's writing accentuates the questionable credibility of his claims. The reader initially perceives an illustrative visual of one's journey to a foreign land. But as they enter the first few pages of Polo's actual recollections, a disillusionment occurs within that immediate transition. With that stark difference in writing style, it is inevitable to analyze if there was some form of misinterpretation. Furthermore, the contrast between each conveyance implies the possibility of more than one contributor. Would it have been possible that someone else was helping Polo with his book? In addition, since it was recorded in the ancient era, could multiple editions throughout time slowly modify Polo's true journey?
The Truth Lost Through Time
As the mystery of Polo's credibility leads to more unanswered questions, the changes in writing methods introduce another prospect attributed to its riddle-like perception. This aspect includes the contribution of Rustichello of Pisa. Rustichello was a fellow inmate of Marco Polo during his imprisonment in 1298. The skilled romance writer was incarcerated in 1284 when Polo led to an "opportunity to set down his experiences" (Cliff xii). Knowing another writer's contribution to Polo's work, it would be plausible why the inconsistency between the Prologue and Middle East section implied a collaboration of two distinct writing styles. While Polo intended to recollect all his journeys while in prison, Rustichello's expertise in romanticization helped captivate his western audience. Haeger mentions a similar notion in his observations, where he differentiates Polo's accounts of South China from Rustichello's "vitality of the descriptive imagery" (Haeger 25). He further mentions how he seems to notice Polo's struggle with the ability to correlate with Rustichello's creative literacy by pinpointing "the absence of visual imagery, the routinization of descriptions, the "puzzling" silences, the misunderstanding of Chinese words, and the apparently Persian or Turko-Mongol transcription of names." (Haeger 28)
With the co-author's ability to embellish Polo's details, it becomes inevitable that several parts of his records may not accurately describe what he encountered. A source by Peter Jackson explains a similar idea by stating the initial conclusion of Polo and Rustichello:
“First, the book—in any of the forms that have come down to us— is not by Marco Polo. We simply cannot be certain what was in the work originally drafted by [Rustichello] on the basis of Polo’s reminiscences in a Genoese prison. Even if we possessed that original, Polo’s own perspective on late thirteenth century Asia would be refracted for us through the prism of [Rustichello’s] prose.” (Jackson 85)
What Jackson entails in his statement coincides with the impact Rustichello's lyrical prose makes on the truth. Although recent editions proving the change in tone language may be reasonable evidence against his credibility, it does not conclude that finding the original can unravel the entire truth. Knowing the distance in eras stretched between editions, finding the first accounts solely written by Polo equates to finding a needle in a haystack.
Nevertheless, the process of tarnishing Polo's truthfulness does not stop here. As many editions throughout time aim to preserve Polo's travels, copyists intend to achieve this by fabricating his narrative to their personal preference. One aspect that significantly contributes to this theory resonates with the Paris Manuscript. Cliff and Jackson centralize their arguments on this source, as they both concur that its context resembles Polo's original accounts. Copyists later modified his works in the fourteenth century, creating abridge versions of the details caused by the Paris manuscript (Jackson 84). As we reflect on how Polo insists that he shared every truthful word of his travels, it slowly unravels how Polo was not entirely the culprit of his misinterpretation. Instead, it serves how time in itself became his unfathomable nemesis. Unable to control the inevitability of time's influence over his testimonies, its fate resulted in several of his accounts being "loosely arranged" while excessively emphasizing his contributions to China (Jackson 101). Nevertheless, the debate on his credibility remains at a draw since scholars cannot conclude that omitted detail lost through time equates to a deceptive Polo.
The Ongoing Debate Between Scholars
As Marco Polo continues to influence the literary world in his cryptic work, this debate not only exists in the unanimous agreement of perceptions but also between scholars' opposing arguments. Frances Woods is a prominent example of those opposing Polo's claims. Her book "Did Marco Polo Go to China?" explicates inconsistencies within the Venetian's recordings. Wood highly emphasizes the book's historical inaccuracies, inferring the plausibility of Polo not entering China and relying "on the basis of a variety of other (now lost) sources, current traveler's tales, and so forth." (Morgan 222). She further concludes why Polo could not mention critical aspects of ancient Chinese culture such as The Great Wall, calligraphy, tea, and "the binding of women's feet." (Cliff xv). Other scholars, such as Karl J. Schmidt, praised her arguments in his review, believing that Wood provided "an excellent and lucid analysis of an important topic and has made a significant contribution to scholarship in this area." (Schmidt 223). Schmidt's review also addresses his knowledge of many "ardent Polo defenders," which could be evident based on passages from Wood that could ignite their differences of opinion. However, he emphasizes how Wood continues to uphold some of Polo's claims because "it still contains useful and accurate details of China during the thirteenth century" despite not physically residing in the country (Schmidt 223).
As for the opposing side, Wood's perception seems insufficient based on certain factors. Igor de Rachewiltz provides a rebuttal against the arguments doubting Polo's credibility, hence naming his paper "Marco Polo Went to China." In his source, he dissects Wood's book and serves numerous counterarguments that debunk conspiracies of Polo being an "armchair traveler" (Rachewiltz 34). One specific example relates to the previous argument about Chinese calligraphy. While Wood questions Polo's credibility based on the absence of ancient Chinese staples, Rachewiltz infers how the omission refers to a lack of interest on Polo's part and how such process only interests "travelers who were more educated and literary minded." (58). This supposed omission becomes a similar concept to Roman's apathy towards Egyptian hieroglyphics, where Rachewiltz describe their similarities based on a lack of enthusiasm for something they have no preferential taste to its features, despite the possibility of being widely exposed to its existence (59). He thus concludes how Wood seems to rely on the argument of "ex silentio" and fails to provide an alternative possibility within the discrepancies (Rachewiltz 86).
Rachewiltz thus concludes his arguments with Wood's shortcomings as a scholar, further scrutinizing her lack of proper scholarly research. He further critiques her ability to retain a compelling point on her evaluations, where he notices a pattern of incompetency in her arguments. Such observations from Rachewiltz deems inconclusive:
“Her book can only be described as deceptive, both in relation to the author and to the public at large. Questions are posed that, in the majority of cases, have already been answered satisfactorily. Knowing this, and in most instance providing the correct or most probably correct, answer herself, she has then chosen to either play down that answer, or to ignore it, or even to reject outright without sufficient reason- her only aim being to salvage her thesis at all costs.” (89)
Comentarios