^{page 2 note 1} For a more complete bibliography see Cathay, new ed., vol. iii, p. 208Google Scholar, where, however, the Fontes Serum Bohemicarum is not mentioned.

^{page 3 note 1} Easter fell, I believe, on 28 March in the year 1339. It was certainly in 1338, not 1334, as he himself is made to say, that John left Avignon. See below, p. 15, and above.

^{page 3 note 2} Yule translated “not indeed from France, but from Frank-land”. franquia does not occur, I believe, in Du Cange or the other glossaries of medieval Latin; and Frank-land is not to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. From the analogies in Du Cange it would seem likely that Francia and Franquia were exactly synonymous (Franquesia = Franchesia; Franquitas = Francitas); and it appears that Francia would be more likely to mean “Europe” than “France” (regna Christianorum, idest, Franciam peterem, cited in Du Cange, col. 679). Francland (cf. Du Cange, cols. 672, 684), though defined as terra Francorum, seems to mean a free-holder or free-hold land. In Raynouard's Lexique Roman the forms Franquetat, Franquesa, Franquir, all have reference to freedom and not to the Franks. It seems to me to be possible that John meant to say “They call us Franks not because we come from Francia (Europe) but because of our freedom (franquia)”. But this is not the only sentence in which neither his thought nor his language is perfectly clear.

^{page 3 note 3} Frederick is almost certainly a mistaken interpolation. The Emperor Frederick died in 1250, when John of Monte Corvino was a little boy of three or four years old; but John was actually employed in the service of an Emperor (Michael Palæologus), and we cannot help suspecting that the fact that we first hear of him as a Minor Friar and in the Emperor's service in the year 1272 has something to do with the obscure words “post LXXII. annos”, which Yule boldly rendered “seventy-two years previously”. The Venice MS. reads: pts lxxii annos. Cf. Cathay, vol. iii, p. 211Google Scholar. For John of Monte Corvino cf. Cathay, vol. ii (new ed., vol. iii)Google Scholar, passim; and JRAS., 07, 1914, pp. 533–99, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Cytiacam is not in Du Cange, but is supposed to represent the Greek ζȗθος (also called in Latin Sabaium), a drink made of fruits, presumably fermented.

^{page 4 note 2} Almalig, the capital of Dure Temur of the house of Chagatai. This Middle Empire of Central Asia is not to be confused with the Middle Kingdom.

^{page 5 note 1} We owe to De Mailla and Gaubil, and more recently to E. H. Parker and P. Pelliot, references to Chinese books which give us the date of the audience of Marignolli and his party. In the Yüan Shih, c. xl, fol. 6 r°, we read: … … . “The second year … the seventh month (August, 1342) … This month the kingdom of Fu-lang (the Franks) presented a remarkable horse. The length was eleven feet three inches, the height six feet four inches; the body was entirely black, the two hind hoofs both white” (cf. Yüan shih lei pien, c. x, fol. 16). A painting of the horse was long preserved at Peking. Monsieur H. Cordier, in the new edition of Yule, 's Cathay, vol. iii, p. 214Google Scholar, says, referring to a recent article in the T'oung-pao (see p. 26), “Professor Pelliot has a good many documents drawn from Chinese sources about this great horse, and he can trace the picture in the Imperial Palace up to the beginning of the nineteenth century”; and again, “From Chinese sources, Pelliot has come to the conclusion that Marignolli's audience took place on the 19th August, 1342.” In a letter of the 23 April, 1913, Professor Pelliot told me that the authority for the date was the Kuei-chai-chi, a book which no English library seems yet to possess.

^{page 7 note 1} Nicholas IV, Girolamo Musci, Bishop of Palestrina.

^{page 8 note 1} Hang-chou, still apparently in 1347 called by foreigners Ching-shih (Campsay, Kinsay, etc.) or the Capital, as it had been in fact from a.d. 1138 to 1276. In saying this we assume that the identification of Kinsay with the Chinese Ching-shih is correct, but it does not seem to be quite certain that this is the case. Yule supposed that the question was practically settled by the fact that “in the Chinese Atlas, dating from 1595, which the traveller Carletti presented to the Magliabecchian Library, that city [Hang-chou] appears to be still marked with this name [Ching-shih], transcribed by Carletti as Camse” (Marco Polo, 1903, ii, p. 193). Without knowing what the Atlas in question is or whether the characters are really (Ching-shih), it is difficult to express an opinion on this; but we may remark that in the well-known Chinese Atlas, the Kuang-yü-t'u, of rather earlier date (1561), the name is Hang-chou. Now the sound of the characters (Hang chou) in the local speech, which is said to date from the days when Hang-chou was the Sung capital (of. Ch'i-hsiu-lei-kao in Hsi-htt-chih, c. xlviii, fol. 3 v°), is 'Ang-tsé, which would be very nearly represented by Camse. The official use of Ching-shih to denote the capital of the empire is perhaps more characteristic of the T'ang than of the later dynasties, but the term was in common use (in books) in the thirteenth century. If we take two books written, probably at Hangchou, in that century, the Tu-ch'êng-chi-shêng of 1235 and the Mêng-liang-lu of 1274, we shall find Ching-shih frequently in the seventeen leaves of the former and occasionally in the three volumes of the latter, and always meaning the true capital, Pien-liang (often in the latter called Pien-ching), and not Hang-chou. In the Preface of the Tu-ch'êng-chi-shêng the author writes … “The Emperor settled at Hang, and the scenery of Hang is ten times more beautiful than that of Ching-shih”. Elsewhere in this book Hang-chou is called Hsing-tu or Tu-ch'eng, but in the Mêng-liang-lu it is constantly called Hang (c. xiii, fol. 1: Hangch'êng (c.xii, fol. l r°: ) or Hang-chou (c. xii, fol. 15 r°: ), and more rarely Lin-an (the official name from 15 December, 1129, until 1278, c. x, fol. 1 v°: ); whilst the natives are Hang jên (c. vii, fol. 2r°: ). The Ch'ien-tao Lin-an chih, c. a.d. 1170, though it has less opportunity for introducing the popular name of the place, yet records the distance from the Hsing-tsai-so (i.e. Hang-chou, the Emperor's temporary or provincial lodge) to Tung Ching and Hsi Ching, the Eastern and Western Capitals. This official title () appears in the Mêng-liang-lu (c. vii, fol. l v°: ) and of course in the Sung Shih, c. lxxxv, fol. 5v°. The title Ching-shih is not applied to Hang-chou in the Geographical sections of the Sung Shih, I.c., Yüan Shih, c. lxii, fol. 1, or Ming Shih, c. xliv, fol. 9: nor, as far as I have observed, in the historical portions of the Sung Shih, where Lin-an or Hsing-tsai is used, or of the Yüan Shih, where Pien-liang is frequently referred to as Nan Ching, its title under the Chin dynasty. The conclusion suggested above, that Hang or Hang-chou has been the popular colloquial name of the place from the Sui dynasty (cf. Chiu T'ang Shu, c. xl, fol. 7 v°) down to the present day, and certainly was so during the years in question of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is confirmed by a rather hurried survey of a score of small books of the Sung and Yüan dynasties about Hang-chou which are preserved in the Wu-lin chang ku ts'ung pien. Among these the only exceptions seem to be in the Ku Hang tsa chi, the the Ku Hang tsa chi shih chi, and the Ch'ien-t'ang i shih, all of the Yüan dynasty. These, while using Hang, Hang-chou, Hang jên, and Lin-an, contain also such phrases as “The capital city was shaken” (Tsa chi, fol. 1; in the story of an earthquake in the T'ien-mu hills near Hang-chou) or the ambiguous “The capital made up the following saying” (Tsa chi shih chi, fol. 17 r°); while the Ch'ien-t'ang i shih calls the place Ching two or three times, Ching-shih perhaps six times, and Ching ch'êng frequently. The question is whether the Western name is not at least as likely to be a transcription of Hang-chou as of Ching-shih. The principal forms of the Western names are, as far as I can gather, these:—Chesai, Quinsai, Quiensay, Chisai in Marco Polo; Cansay, Cansaia, Cansana, Chansay, Campsay, Chansana, Ahamsane, Cansave, Guinzai, Casaie, Casay in Odoric; Cassai in Pegolotti and the Portulano Mediceo; Cassay in the Livre du Grant Caan; Campsay in Marignolli; Khing-saï in Rashid ed-Din; Khin-zaï or Khan-zaï in Wassaf; Khin-za in Abulfeda; and Khan-sa in Abulfeda and Ibn Batuta. Monsieur E. Blochet, to whose kindness I owe some of these forms, tells me that the aspirate in Khing or Khan is no objection to their standing for an unaspirated word like ching in Chinese, although it is true that Rashid always writes Namking for the Chinese Nan-ching; and also that the aspirated forms are supposed to be older than the unaspirated, though none of them can apparently be traced further back than the middle or end of the thirteenth century. That the termination sai or sa, which it will be seen is almost invariable, is not a good representation of the Northern sound of chou (Marco's giu or Odoric's zu) is obvious, but Hang-chou was one of the places like Zaitun and Cinkalan, which was likely to be known to travellers by the name given it by Arab and Persian traders, who would approach it not from the north but by sea from the south, and would learn its name in the pronunciation of its own or of some southern dialect. Thus it is to be noticed in support of the traditional view that the sounds of Ching-shih at Zaitun might have been precisely King-sai. On the other hand, it is clear that when Odoric calls Yang-chou lamzai (v.l. Janzu, lanzi, Jancus, Jamathay, etc.), he seems to make it at least possible that Hang-chou should have been transcribed as Campsay.

A note may here be added on the date at which Hang chou became the temporary capital. From the Sung Shih, cc. xxv–xxix, we learn that Kao Tsung first reached Hang chou on 5 March, 1129. He stayed until 9 May, and was there again from 21 to 28 November. He then went to Yüeh chou (Shao-hsing) till early in January, 1130. After wandering about south-eastern Chekiang by sea and land, he returned to Yüeh chou on 20 May and stayed there till 29 January, 1132. He reached Lin-an (Hang chou) on 2 February, 1132, and stayed there until 10 November, 1134, when he went to P'ing-chiang (Su chou). On 22 February, 1135, he came back to Lin-an, staying till 28 September, 1136, when he returned to P'ing-chiang. On 1 April, 1137, he reached Chien-k'ang (Nanking); and on 3 April, 1138, he returned to Lin-an, “and fixed his capital there.” Chapter xxix ends with the words “From this year the capital was fixed at Hang”. The Sung Shih, c. lxxxv, fol. 5v°, makes Kao Tsung reach Lin-an in the intercalary eighth month (Sept.-Oct.), 1129. The account in the Ch'ien-t'ang i shih, c. i, fols. 3v°-4v°, differs from the above in some details only. The Ch'ien-tao Lin-an chih, c. i, fol. l r°, refers the decree establishing the capital at Lin-an to the third month (April-May), 1138. The same book, c. i, fol. 7 r°, says that the name was changed to Lin-an on 15 December, 1129, whereas the Sung Shih. c. xxv, fol. 7 v°. gives the date as 1 August.

The Venice MS. reads Manci or Manzi where Dobner prints Mauzi; cf. Cathay, etc., vol. iii, p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} Though the origin of the Persian name Zaitun or Zayton is not certain, there is no doubt that the place is Ch'üan-chou on the Fukien coast. For the churches of the Minor Friars there see JRAS., 07, 1914, pp. 538, 564–7Google Scholar, and Cathay, vol. ii, 1913, p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 2} With balneum fundatum compare: Molendinum & balnea juxta Fundam mercatorum, quoted by Du Gange s.v. Funda. Dufresne quotes several examples of Fundatum in the same sense, namely, a fondaco, godown, or warehouse.

^{page 11 note 3} Yule regarded Meinert's emendation of terram Sabam for terram sanctam as probably right. John reached Ceylon from the island of Saba (see p. 7 above).

^{page 12 note 4} According to Yule's calculation John left Zaitun on 26 December, 1346, or, more probably, 1347Google Scholar, and reached Columbum in the Spring of 1348. The dates would then be: Dominica olivarum (Palm Sunday), 13 April; Wednesday in the Greater Week (Holy Week), 16 April; the Vigil of St. George, 22 April. For 1347 the corresponding dates would be, I believe, 25 March, 28 March, and 22 April.

Nimbar may be, as Yule suggests, a mistaken transcription of Dobner's for Minibar. The Venice MS. reads more correctly Minubar or Mynibar; cf. Cathay, vol. iii, p. 230.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} Annales Minorum, 2nd ed., tom, vii, p. 258Google Scholar: “Horum [domiciliorum] numerum auxerunt, & Fratribus majorem advexerunt opinionem frater Joannes de Florentia, & socii, Legati missi a Benedicto ad magnum Chamum Imperatorem, qui a Principibus Orientis honorifice habiti, pervenerunt hoc anno [1342] ad civitatem Cambaliensem”; and tom, viii, p. 87: “Sub hujus anni [1353] finem venit ex Tartaria frater Joannes de Florentia, de quo alias egimus, missus a magno Chamo, ad Pontificem Romanum datis litteris, obsequio & reverentia plenis.”

^{page 12 note 2} Cf. Cordier in Yule, 's Cathay, vol. iii, p. 179Google Scholar: “‘Scribitur littera salvicunductus pro Andrea et Guillelmo de Nassio ef Thogay Alano de Cathayo nunciis imperatoris Tartarorum super certis fidem catholicam tangentibus ad sedem apostolicam destinatis et cum litteris sursalibus ejusdem sedis remissis. Dat Avenione, xiii kal. julii, anno quarto.’ Reg. vatic. 62, f. xxxii v°, quoted in Lettres inédites de Marino Sanudo l'ancien in Bib. de l'Ecole des Chartes, lvi, 1895, p. 29Google Scholar.” Thogay suggests the Chinese form T'a-hai, which is found as the name of a Christian, but not, I think, of an Alan, in the fourteenth century; cf. Chih-shun Chên-chiang chih, c. xix, fol. 11 v°.

^{page 13 note 1} Ann. Min., tom, vii, p. 209Google Scholar, with marginal note: “Ex secret, an. 4. epist. 131”; Cathay, vol. iii, p. 180Google Scholar. The date is 11 July, 1336. The Emperor is Toghan Temur or Ti, Shun, 1333–68Google Scholar, the last of the Yüan dynasty.

^{page 14 note 1} Ann. Min., tom, vii, pp. 209, 210Google Scholar, with margin: “Ibid. ep. 132”; Cathay, vol. iii, p. 181. See p. 31, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Ann. Min., tom, vii, pp. 210, 211Google Scholar, with marginal note: “Ibid. ep. 198.” The date is 13 June, 1338. Notice the later date (19 June) given on p. 12, n. 2 above.

^{page 18 note 2} Ann. Min., tom, vii, p. 212Google Scholar, with marginal note: “Ibid. ep. 204.” The date is Avignon, 13 June, 1338. The identification of Chansi has given commentators great difficulty. Yule (Cathay, iii, p. 35)Google Scholar is inclined to identify him with Jinkishai or Jinkshi, who began to reign in 1334 or 1335; but the names and dates of the Chagatai Khans who had their capital at Almalig seem to be as yet very uncertainly known; cf. also Bretschneider, , Notices of Mediaeval Geography, etc., pp. 175–81Google Scholar. Nicholas the Archbishop was the successor of John of Monte Corvino as Archbishop of Khanbalig. We gather from this letter that he had reached Almalig before 1337, and his name is not among those who were put to death there about midsummer in 1339 or 1340. There is, I believe, no reason to think that he ever reached Khanbalig, and it was probably at Almalig, or between Almalig and Khanbalig, that he died, as is said (I do not know on what ancient authority), in 1338. Cf. Cathay, vol. iii, p. 14Google Scholar, where Cordier quotes Gams (Series Episcoporum, 1873, p. 126)Google Scholar: “Nicolaus, O.S. Fr., elect. 18. IX, 1333; †1338.”

^{page 20 note 1} Ann. Min., vii, p. 219Google Scholar, with marginal note: “Ibid, epist. 370.” The date above is “Avenione II. Kal. Novembris anno IV”, that is, 31 10, 1338.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} Hou Han Shu, c. cxviii, fol. 6r°: cf. Bretschneider, , Notices of Mediaeval Geography, pp. 258–63Google Scholar. The old map of the Ching-shih-ta-tien and the Appendix () to c. lxiii of the Yüan Shih call the Alani , A-lan-a-ssŭ. For Rubruquis cf. Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, etc., vol. i, p. 102Google Scholar: Vpon the euen of Pentecost [7 06, 1253]Google Scholar, there came vnto vs certaine Alanians, who are there called Acias [marg. “Or, Akas”.—Rockhill reads Aas], being Christians after the rnaner of the Grecians, using greeke bookes and Grecian priests.

^{page 21 note 1} Yüan Shih, c. lxxxvi, fols. 6v° – 7v°.

^{page 21 note 2} Yüan Shih, c. cxxiii, fols. 7v° – 8r°; c. xxxix, fol. 2v°. Bretschneider, , Notices of Med. Geog., p. 262Google Scholar, considers that Yeh-li-ya (Elias) is probably the same as Yeh-lieh (p. 24 below), but the dates do not seem to tally perfectly. For the passages about Chemboga see below, Texts VII. In the modern notes (, c. i, fo. 1. 19) to the: Chih-shun Chên-chiang chih, we find a stray allusion to Chemboga: “The Êrh-shih-ssŭ shih ta chi says: Cho-yen-pu-hua was Borchi or Cupbearer in the days of Ying Tsung.”

^{page 22 note 1} Yüan Shih, c. cxxiii, fol. 8r°; cf. c. i, fol. 6 v°, where the same name is written A-hsi-lan.

^{page 23 note 1} The headquarters of the Ch'ien-hu-so of Ch'ien-min-chên were at Tung-k'ou in Ta-ning lu in Manchuria. Yüan Shih, c. lxxxvi, fol. 5 r°.

^{page 23 note 2} Yüan Shih, c. cxxxii, fol. 1.

^{page 24 note 1} Yüan Shih, c. xxxviii, fol. 7r°.

^{page 25 note 1} Yüan Shih, c. cxxxii, fols. 2v° – 3r°.

^{page 25 note 2} Yüan Shih, c. cxxxii, fols. 3v° – 4r°.

^{page 25 note 5} Yüan Shih, c. cxxxv, fols. 3v° – 4r°. The biography of A-ta-ch'ih on fol. 5r° adds very little to what has been said of him above, p. 22. Cf. Cathay, vol. iii, p. 182, note.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} Yüan Shih, c. cxxxv, fol. 6 v°.

^{page 29 note 1} The Prag fragment (see p. 1) reads: peruenimus dominica oliuarum ad nobilissimam ciuitatem Indie nomine Columbam, vbi nascitur piper tocius orbis … nec nascitur in desertis set in ortis nec saraceni sunt domini set xpistiani sancti thome qui habent stateram ponderis tocius mundi de qua pro meo officio tanquam legato pape habebam omni mense florenos illius monete primo centum, in fine mille. In the last sentence Dobner's text reads fan (i.e. the Indian fanam) for florenos.

^{page 31 note 1} These letters may be found also in Raynaldus, , Annales Ecclesiastici, 1691, tom, xvi, an. 1338, p. 80Google Scholar, and in Mosheim, , Historia Tartarorum Ecclesiastica, 1741, Appendix, p. 168Google Scholar. Through the great kindness of Dr. L. D. Barnett, of the British Museum, I am able to give here the chief variations between Wadding (as printed above from his second edition) and Raynaldus' earlier text, as regards letters II and III. In the former, for Nuncium read Nuntium; for Andræam read Andream; for Papam, Dominum Christianorum in Franchiam read Papam Dominum Christianum in Franciam; for nunciis read nuntiis; for nobis. Et read nobis, et; for equos, & read equos &; for Ratimense sexto read Rati mense, sexto [?Rati, mense sexto]. In the latter, for Juens read Joens; for Tungii read Tungy; for Juckoy, sanctum read Jukoy sanctum; for positis, pedes read positis pedes; for numquam read nunquam; for notum quod read notum, quod; for Joannem, valentem read Joannem Valentem; for gubernatore, & read gubernatore &; for audierimus read audiverimus; for legato, ille read legato: ille; for male read ovile; for consolatione; supplicamus read consolatione. Supplicamus; for gratiose, ita read gratiose; ita; omit expedita; for feceritis magnum bonum subsequetur read feceritis, magnum bonum sequetur; for bona, et indignatio ejus innumera mala, & read bona: &; for sibi, filios vestros, & read sibi filios vestros &; for ejus, quia read ejus quia; for facietis, cum read facietis. Cum; for nunc iverunt read nuntii venerint [Mosheim, who reads nuntii venerint, has a note to say that Wadding reads non iverunt. He refers possibly to Wadding's first edition.]; for remunerad; & read remunerati, &; for vobis, vel read vobis vel; for promiserunt read promiserint; for nuncium read nuntium; for sexto, tertia read sexto tertia. In the Pope's letter which follows, which Dr. Barnett has also kindly collated, the differences are almost all small matters of spelling or punctuation. The only other changes are these: for tam ex iis read tam ex his; for super his read super iis; for respicient read respiciunt. Letters V and VI below are not given in full by Raynaldus, who, however, has in the same place (p. 80) a long letter from the Pope to Futim and his friends in which he expounds the creed.