Marco Polo is a world-renowned
explorer; he is privileged to have a TV series, several films, and an airport
in Venice named after and based around his travels. Polo claimed to have
travelled to China with his family and ended up working for the Great Khan for
seventeen years. Nevertheless, the traveller has met criticism and sparked
debate among scholars, particularly Wood who argues the narrative of his time
in China is completely false due to his failure to mention Chinese customs.[1]
I believe there is too little evidence to argue either way, and Marco Polo as a
figure of history is similar to King Arthur: he is ingrained into history, and
to deny what he has done is to destroy mystical belief. I don’t think history
is boring, and of course you should try and follow the facts, but allowing the
people to believe in these sorts of figures and adventures is what makes
history enjoyable.
The main argument going against Marco
Polo is the fact that he failed to mention many customs of the Chinese which
would most likely interest a foreign traveller. Wood clings to this, saying
that his failure to touch upon things like foot-binding, tea drinking, and even
the Great Wall, and of course Polo claimed he went to pains to find curious
customs of people he met to report to the Great Khan.
However, in my opinion, good
historians should never accept omissions as negative evidence, especially when we
have none of the original texts or drafts to see what made it into Rustichello’s
The Travels of Marco Polo. Plus, we should also remember that
contemporaries doubted his accounts because there was too much
information, so can it not be theorised that information was then removed from
the account, to make it more believable at the time? Additionally, if, as archaeologists
have argued, Polo got his information from Persian merchants, does this then
mean that they themselves missed, or failed to mention, the customs of the Chinese?
Why is it more believable that they omitted it, but not Polo? Furthermore, Polo
would have spent a significant amount of time in Mongol circles; he would not
have shown such a great interest in Chinese subjects or their customs.
Polo’s omission of the Great Wall
cannot be used as negative proof on his claim, considering there is much debate
on where he entered China, and whether the Wall was even there when he visited.
Waldron argues that the Wall was most likely created under the Ming dynasty in
the sixteenth century. Considering most scholars agree with this claim suggests
it is quite reliable, thus giving credence to the argument that Polo would not
have mentioned the Wall simply because it was not there.
The fact that Polo claims to have
worked for the Khan on important business, yet there is no mention of him in
any Chinese or Mongol source cause, is evidence for Wood that Polo did not make
it to China. She argues that there would be some reference to him somewhere,
yet she emphasises that there is none at all.
Nevertheless, this is not reliable enough to definitively claim that
Polo was not in China; it does imply, however, that he most likely exaggerated
his role in the court of the Great Khan. Polo claims in his account to have
been the governor of Yang-chou, although this is highly unlikely considering he
did not understand Chinese. In addition to this, he gives an account of his and
his family’s aid in the siege of Hsiang-yang, yet the year of his arrival and
the years of the siege mean this is highly implausible, and the Chinese sources
suggest two Muslim engineers started the construction of catapults for the
siege.
If we consider both pieces of
evidence, then the absence of his name from Chinese and Mongol sources should
be considered as evidence for the exaggeration on Polo’s part of his status
within the court, rather than proof bearing weight on the argument of whether
he visited China or not.
The writing of the original work
must also be considered, as it is supposed that Polo met his author,
Rustichello of Pisa, in a Genoese prison in around 1298. The fact that
throughout the book, and right at the beginning, the author is keen to stress
the veracity of the claims suggests perhaps there were many claims within which
were unbelievable. This strengthens the argument that maybe Polo wanted to omit
certain customs purposefully, if he came across them in the first place,
because much of the book was already difficult to believe and would be met with
distrust.
The authorship of the book is
significant to the question of whether Polo went to China or not, also because
Wood highlights that Rustichello was best known for his romantic Arthurian
work. Moreover, there is no clear
distinction made within the writing between what was seen and what was heard,
and what is the writing of Rustichello and of Polo. The fact that Rustichello did work in
Arthurian texts might have a negative effect on Polo’s work, as it may
exaggerate many things and even make false claims in order to create a new
legend, perhaps. This is evident if we consider the exaggerations made of
Polo’s position and role in China, which would have been able to gain an
audience for the story by adding personal interest.
However, there is evidence that
Rustichello’s Arthurian work resembles only a minor part of Polo’s work, and
not enough to suggest the whole work is a piece of fiction. Additionally, if this work was a fiction, or
another attempt to create a legend like King Arthur, there would more marvels
and romance filling the book. That is not the case with Polo’s book, as it is
mostly filled with everyday things; such restraint suggests that the work
should be taken seriously for its reliability.
Additionally, because we do not
have the original text we cannot say for certain what Rustichello has chosen to
keep in and leave out; Polo may have reported the fascinating customs of the
peoples he came across, but it was up to Rustichello whether to leave them in
or censor the book in order to produce it for the general audience. This would
also suggest that Rustichello gave Polo the ability to record his travels in
China, and without Polo, it is incredibly unlikely that Rustichello would have
had such a knowledge on China to create the book; he would not have been able
to create the character of Marco Polo, or lie about his going to China, because
the information that is given is mostly accurate. Moreover, because all texts now of Polo’s
work have been tinkered with by so many different people, it is difficult to
argue that because things are omitted from the text Marco Polo did not go to
China.
It is my belief that Marco Polo
did go to China, or at least there is not enough to suggest that he did not. The
evidence Wood bases her claims on is flimsy, and to bring down an important
historical figure on it is wrong. If she had presented enough concrete
evidence, it would be easier to believe and consider, but it seems like Wood
holds a grudge against people who believe in his adventures. That makes me wonder
about historians, and how some are serious, and some are whimsical: I am
certainly one of the whimsical ones. History is of course something we should
learn from, but why should we remove any fun from it? If we think of King
Arthur for example, it becomes less likely he was real, but to destroy the narrative
of him would be disastrous, and there is little information to do so anyway.
Enjoy history, because it is a
subject to be learned from, but also to be told as a story.
No comments:
Post a Comment