The Travels of Marco Polo Volume 1 - Marco Polo and Rustichello of Pisa

M >> Marco Polo and Rustichello of Pisa >> The Travels of Marco Polo Volume 1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78

[Dozy (_Supp. aux Dict. Arabes_) has [Arabic] [_naqqare_] "petit tambour
ou timbale, bassin de cuivre ou de terre recouvert d'une peau tendue," and
"grosses timbales en cuivre portees sur un chameau ou un mulet."--Devic
(_Dict. Etym._) writes: "Bas Latin, _nacara_; bas grec, [Greek: anachara].
Ce n'est point comme on l'a dit, l'Arabe [Arabic] _naqir_ ou [Arabic]
_naqoer_, qui signifient _trompette_, _clairon_, mais le persan [Arabic] en
arabe, [Arabic] _naqara_, _timbale_." It is to be found also in Abyssinia
and south of Gondokoro; it is mentioned in the _Sedjarat Malayu_.

In French, it gives _nacaire_ and _gnacare_ from the Italian _gnacare_.
"Quatre jouent de la guitare, quatre des castagnettes, quatre des
gnacares." (MOLIERE, _Pastorale Comique_.)--H. C.]

[Illustration: Nakkaras. (From an Indian original.)]

NOTE 4.--This description of a fight will recur again and again till we
are very tired of it. It is difficult to say whether the style is borrowed
from the historians of the East or the romancers of the West. Compare the
two following parallels. First from an Oriental history:--

"The Ear of Heaven was deafened with the din of the great _Kurkahs_ and
Drums, and the Earth shook at the clangour of the Trumpets and Clarions.
The shafts began to fall like the rain-drops of spring, and blood flowed
till the field looked like the Oxus." (_J. A. S._ ser. IV. tom. xix. 256)

Next from an Occidental Romance:--

"Now rist grete tabour betyng,
Blaweyng of pypes, and ek trumpyng,
Stedes lepyng, and ek arnyng,
Of sharp speres, and avalyng
Of stronge knighttes, and wyghth meetyng;
Launces breche and increpyng;
Knighttes fallyng, stedes lesyng;
Herte and hevedes thorough kervyng;
Swerdes draweyng, lymes lesyng
Hard assaylyng, strong defendyng,
Stiff withstondyng and wighth fleigheyng.
Sharp of takyng armes spoylyng;
So gret bray, so gret crieyng,
Ifor the folk there was dyeyng;
_So muche dent, noise of sweord,
The thondur blast no myghte beo hirde_,
No the sunne hadde beo seye,
For the dust of the poudre!
_No the weolkyn seon be myght,
So was arewes and quarels flyght_."
--_King Alisaunder, in Weber_, I. 93-94.

And again:--

"The eorthe quaked heom undur,
_No scholde mon have herd the thondur_."
--Ibid. 142.

Also in a contemporary account of the fall of Acre (1291): "Renovatur ergo
bellum terribile inter alterutros ... clamoribus interjectis hine et inde
ad terrorem; _ita ut nec Deus tonans in sublime coaudiri potuisset_."
(_De Excidio Acconis_, in _Martene et Durand_, V. 780.)

NOTE 5.--"_Car il estoit_ homme _au Grant Kaan_." (See note 2, ch. xiv.,
in Prologue.)

NOTE 6.--In continuation of note 4, chap. ii., we give Gaubil's conclusion
of the story of Nayan: "The Emperor had gone ahead with a small force,
when Nayan's General came forward with 100,000 men to make a
reconnaissance. The Sovereign, however, put on a bold front, and though in
great danger of being carried off, showed no trepidation. It was night,
and an urgent summons went to call troops to the Emperor's aid. They
marched at once, the horsemen taking the foot soldiers on the crupper
behind them. Nayan all this while was taking it quietly in his camp, and
his generals did not venture to attack the Emperor, suspecting an
ambuscade. Liting then took ten resolute men, and on approaching the
General's camp, caused a Fire-_Pao_ to be discharged; the report caused a
great panic among Nayan's troops, who were very ill disciplined at the
best. Meanwhile the Chinese and Tartar troops had all come up, and Nayan
was attacked on all sides: by Liting at the head of the Chinese, by
Yusitemur at the head of the Mongols, by Tutuha and the Emperor in person
at the head of his guards and the troops of _Kincha_ (Kipchak). The
presence of the Emperor rendered the army invincible, and Nayan's forces
were completely defeated. That prince himself was taken, and afterwards
put to death. The battle took place in the vicinity of the river Liao, and
the Emperor returned in triumph to Shangtu" (207). The Chinese record
given in detail by Pauthier is to the like effect, except as to the Kaan's
narrow escape, of which it says nothing.

As regards the Fire-_Pao_ (the latter word seems to have been applied to
military machines formerly, and now to artillery), I must refer to Fave
and Reinaud's very curious and interesting treatise on the Greek fire (_du
Feu Gregeois_). They do not seem to assent to the view that the arms of
this description which are mentioned in the Mongol wars were cannon, but
rather of the nature of rockets.

[Dr. G. Schlegel (_T'oung Pao_, No. 1, 1902), in a paper entitled, _On the
Invention and Use of Fire-Arms and Gunpowder in China, prior to the
Arrival of Europeans_, says that "now, notwithstanding all what has been
alleged by different European authors against the use of gunpowder and
fire-arms in China, I maintain that not only the Mongols in 1293 had
cannon, but that they were already acquainted with them in 1232." Among
his many examples, we quote the following from the Books of the Ming
Dynasty: "What were anciently called _P'ao_ were all machines for hurling
stones. In the beginning of the Mongol Dynasty (A.D. 1260), _p'ao_
(catapults) of the Western regions were procured. In the siege [in 1233]
of the city of _Ts'ai chow_ of the _Kin_ (Tatars), fire was for the first
time employed (in these _p'ao_), but the art of making them was not handed
down, and they were afterwards seldom used."--H. C.]

CHAPTER V.

HOW THE GREAT KAAN CAUSED NAYAN TO BE PUT TO DEATH.

And when the Great Kaan learned that Nayan was taken right glad was he,
and commanded that he should be put to death straightway and in secret,
lest endeavours should be made to obtain pity and pardon for him, because
he was of the Kaan's own flesh and blood. And this was the way in which he
was put to death: he was wrapt in a carpet, and tossed to and fro so
mercilessly that he died. And the Kaan caused him to be put to death in
this way because he would not have the blood of his Line Imperial spilt
upon the ground or exposed in the eye of Heaven and before the Sun.[NOTE
1]

And when the Great Kaan had gained this battle, as you have heard, all the
Barons and people of Nayan's provinces renewed their fealty to the Kaan.
Now these provinces that had been under the Lordship of Nayan were four in
number; to wit, the first called CHORCHA; the second CAULY; the third
BARSCOL; the fourth SIKINTINJU. Of all these four great provinces had
Nayan been Lord; it was a very great dominion.[NOTE 2]

And after the Great Kaan had conquered Nayan, as you have heard, it came
to pass that the different kinds of people who were present, Saracens and
Idolaters and Jews,[NOTE 3] and many others that believed not in God, did
gibe those that were Christians because of the cross that Nayan had borne
on his standard, and that so grievously that there was no bearing it. Thus
they would say to the Christians: "See now what precious help this God's
Cross of yours hath rendered Nayan, who was a Christian and a worshipper
thereof." And such a din arose about the matter that it reached the Great
Kaan's own ears. When it did so, he sharply rebuked those who cast these
gibes at the Christians; and he also bade the Christians be of good heart,
"for if the Cross had rendered no help to Nayan, in that It had done right
well; nor could that which was good, as It was, have done otherwise; for
Nayan was a disloyal and traitorous Rebel against his Lord, and well
deserved that which had befallen him. Wherefore the Cross of your God did
well in that It gave him no help against the right." And this he said so
loud that everybody heard him. The Christians then replied to the Great
Kaan: "Great King, you say the truth indeed, for our Cross can render no
one help in wrong-doing; and therefore it was that It aided not Nayan, who
was guilty of crime and disloyalty, for It would take no part in his evil
deeds."

And so thenceforward no more was heard of the floutings of the unbelievers
against the Christians; for they heard very well what the Sovereign said
to the latter about the Cross on Nayan's banner, and its giving him no
help.

NOTE 1.--Friar Ricold mentions this Tartar maxim: "One Khan will put
another to death, to get possession of the throne, but he takes great care
that the blood be not spilt. For they say that it is highly improper that
the blood of the Great Khan should be spilt upon the ground; so they cause
the victim to be smothered somehow or other." The like feeling prevails at
the Court of Burma, where a peculiar mode of execution without bloodshed
is reserved for Princes of the Blood. And Kaempfer, relating the
conspiracy of Faulcon at the Court of Siam, says that two of the king's
brothers, accused of participation, were beaten to death with clubs of
sandal-wood, "for the respect entertained for the blood-royal forbids its
being shed." See also note 6, ch. vi. Bk. I., on the death of the Khalif
Mosta'sim Billah. (_Pereg. Quat._ p. 115; _Mission to Ava_, p. 229;
_Kaempfer_; I. 19.)

NOTE 2.--CHORCHA is the Manchu country, Niuche of the Chinese. (Supra,
note 2, ch. xlvi. Bk. I.) ["Chorcha is Churchin.--Nayan, as vassal of the
Mongol khans, had the commission to keep in obedience the people of
Manchuria (subdued in 1233), and to care for the security of the country
(_Yuen shi_); there is no doubt that he shared these obligations with his
relative Hatan, who stood nearer to the native tribes of Manchuria."
(_Palladius_, 32.)--H. C.]

KAULI is properly Corea, probably here a district on the frontier thereof,
as it is improbable that Nayan had any rule over Corea. ["The Corean
kingdom proper could not be a part of the prince's appanage. Marco Polo
might mean the northern part of Corea, which submitted to the Mongols in
A.D. 1269, with sixty towns, and which was subordinated entirely to the
central administration in Liao-yang. As to the southern part of Corea, it
was left to the king of Corea, who, however, was a vassal of the Mongols."
(_Palladius_, 32.) The king of Corea (_Ko rye, Kao-li_) was in 1288
Chyoung ryel wang (1274-1298); the capital was Syong-to, now Kai syeng
(K'ai-ch'eng).--H. C.]

BARSKUL, "Leopard-Lake," is named in Sanang Setsen (p. 217), but seems
there to indicate some place in the west of Mongolia, perhaps the _Barkul_
of our maps. This Barskul must have been on the Manchu frontier. [There
are in the _Yuen-shi_ the names of the department of _P'u-yue-lu_, and of
the place _Pu-lo-ho_, which, according to the system of Chinese
transcription, approach to Barscol; but it is difficult to prove this
identification, since our knowledge of these places is very scanty; it
only remains to identify Barscol with Abalahu, which is already known; a
conjecture all the more probable as the two names of P'u-yue-lu and
Pu-lo-ho have also some resemblance to Abalahu. (_Palladius_, 32.) Mr. E.
H. Parker says (_China Review_, xviii. p. 261) that Barscol may be Pa-la
ssu or Bars Koto [in Tsetsen]. "This seems the more probable in that Cauly
and Chorcha are clearly proved to be Corea and Niuche or Manchuria, so that
Bars Koto would naturally fall within Nayan's appanage."--H. C.]

The reading of the fourth name is doubtful, _Sichuigiu, Sichingiu_ (G.
T.), _Sichin-tingiu_ etc. The Chinese name of Mukden is _Shing-king_, but
I know not if it be so old as our author's time. I think it very possible
that the real reading is _Sinchin-tingin_, and that it represents
SHANGKING-TUNGKING, expressing the two capitals of the Khitan Dynasty in
this region, the position of which will be found indicated in No. IV. map
of Polo's itineraries. (See _Schott, Aelteste Nachrichten von Mongolen und
Tartaren_, Berlin Acad. 1845, pp. 11-12.)

[Sikintinju is Kien chau "belonging to a town which was in Nayan's
appanage, and is mentioned in the history of his rebellion. There were two
Kien-chow, one in the time of the Kin in the modern aimak of Khorchin; the
other during the Mongol Dynasty, on the upper part of the river Ta-ling
ho, in the limits of the modern aimak of Kharachin (_Man chow yuen lew
k'ao_); the latter depended on Kuang-ning (_Yuen-shi_). Mention is made of
Kien-chow, in connection with the following circumstance. When Nayan's
rebellion broke out, the Court of Peking sent orders to the King of Corea,
requiring from him auxiliary troops; this circumstance is mentioned in the
Corean Annals, under the year 1288 (_Kao li shi_, ch. xxx. f. 11) in the
following words:--'In the present year, in the fourth month, orders were
received from Peking to send five thousand men with provisions to
Kien-chow, which is 3000 _li_ distant from the King's residence.' This
number of _li_ cannot of course be taken literally; judging by the
distances estimated at the present day, it was about 2000 _li_ from the
Corean K'ai-ch'eng fu (then the Corean capital) to the Mongol Kien-chow;
and as much to the Kien-chow of the Kin (through Mukden and the pass of Fa-
k'u mun in the willow palisade). It is difficult to decide to which of
these two cities of the same name the troops were ordered to go, but at any
rate, there are sufficient reasons to identify Sikintinju of Marco Polo
with Kien-chow." (_Palladius_, 33.)--H. C.]

We learn from Gaubil that the rebellion did not end with the capture of
Nayan. In the summer of 1288 several of the princes of Nayan's league,
under Hatan (apparently the _Abkan_ of Erdmann's genealogies), the
grandson of Chinghiz's brother Kajyun [Hachiun], threatened the provinces
north-east of the wall. Kublai sent his grandson and designated heir,
Teimur, against them, accompanied by some of his best generals. After a
two days' fight on the banks of the River Kweilei, the rebels were
completely beaten. The territories on the said River _Kweilei_, the
_Tiro_, or _Torro_, and the _Liao_, are mentioned both by Gaubil and De
Mailla as among those which had belonged to Nayan. As the Kweilei and Toro
appear on our maps and also the better-known Liao, we are thus enabled to
determine with tolerable precision Nayan's country. (See _Gaubil_, p. 209,
and _De Mailla_, 431 seqq.)

["The rebellion of Nayan and Hatan is incompletely and contradictorily
related in Chinese history. The suppression of both these rebellions
lasted four years. In 1287 Nayan marched from his _ordo_ with sixty
thousand men through Eastern Mongolia. In the 5th moon (_var._ 6th) of the
same year Khubilai marched against him from Shangtu. The battle was fought
in South-Eastern Mongolia, and gained by Khubilai, who returned to Shangtu
in the 8th month. Nayan fled to the south-east, across the mountain range,
along which a willow palisade now stands; but forces had been sent
beforehand from Shin-chow (modern Mukden) and Kuang-ning (probably to
watch the pass), and Nayan was made prisoner.

"Two months had not passed, when Hatan's rebellion broke out (so that it
took place in the same year 1287). It is mentioned under the year 1288,
that Hatan was beaten, and that the whole of Manchuria was pacified; but
in 1290, it is again recorded that Hatan disturbed Southern Manchuria, and
that he was again defeated. It is to this time that the narratives in the
biographies of Liting, Yuesi Femur, and Mangwu ought to be referred.
According to the first of these biographies, Hatan, after his defeat by
Liting on the river Kui lui (Kuilar?), fled, and perished. According to
the second biography, Hatan's dwelling (on the Amur River) was destroyed,
and he disappeared. According to the third, Mangwu and Naimatai pursued
Hatan to the extreme north, up to the eastern sea-coast (the mouth of the
Amur). Hatan fled, but two of his wives and his son Lao-ti were taken; the
latter was executed, and this was the concluding act of the suppression of
the rebellion in Manchuria. We find, however, an important _variante_ in
the history of Corea; it is stated there that in 1290, Hatan and his son
Lao-ti were carrying fire and slaughter to Corea, and devastated that
country; they slew the inhabitants and fed on human flesh. The King of
Corea fled to the Kiang-hwa island. The Coreans were not able to withstand
the invasion. The Mongols sent to their aid in 1291, troops under the
command of two generals, Seshekan (who was at that time governor of
Liao-tung) and Namantai (evidently the above-mentioned Naimatai). The
Mongols conjointly with the Coreans defeated the insurgents, who had
penetrated into the very heart of the country; their corpses covered a
space 30 _li_ in extent; Hatan and his son made their way through the
victorious army and fled, finding a refuge in the Niuchi (Djurdji) country,
from which Laotai made a later incursion into Corea. Such is the
discrepancy between historians in relating the same fact. The statement
found in the Corean history seems to me more reliable than the facts given
by Chinese history." (_Palladius_, 35-37.)--H. C.]

NOTE 3.--This passage, and the extract from Ramusio's version attached to
the following chapter, contain the only allusions by Marco to Jews in
China. John of Monte Corvino alludes to them, and so does Marignolli, who
speaks of having held disputations with them at Cambaluc; Ibn Batuta also
speaks of them at Khansa or Hangchau. Much has been written about the
ancient settlement of Jews at Kaifungfu, in Honan. One of the most
interesting papers on the subject is in the _Chinese Repository_, vol. xx.
It gives the translation of a Chinese-Jewish Inscription, which in some
respects forms a singular parallel to the celebrated Christian Inscription
of Si-ngan fu, though it is of far more modern date (1511). It exhibits,
as that inscription does, the effect of Chinese temperament or language,
in modifying or diluting doctrinal statements. Here is a passage: "With
respect to the Israelitish religion, we find on inquiry that its first
ancestor, Adam, came originally from India, and that during the (period of
the) Chau State the Sacred Writings were already in existence. The Sacred
Writings, embodying Eternal Reason, consist of 53 sections. The principles
therein contained are very abstruse, and the Eternal Reason therein
revealed is very mysterious, being treated with the same veneration as
Heaven. The founder of the religion is Abraham, who is considered the
first teacher of it. Then came Moses, who established the Law, and handed
down the Sacred Writings. After his time, during the Han Dynasty (B.C. 206
to A.D. 221), this religion entered China. In (A.D.) 1164, a synagogue was
built at P'ien. In (A.D.) 1296, the old Temple was rebuilt, as a place in
which the Sacred Writings might be deposited with veneration."

[According to their oral tradition, the Jews came to China from _Si Yih_
(Western Regions), probably Persia, by Khorasan and Samarkand, during the
first century of our era, in the reign of the Emperor Ming-ti (A.D. 58-75)
of the Han Dynasty. They were at times confounded with the followers of
religions of India, _T'ien Chu kiao_, and very often with the Mohammedans
_Hwui-Hwui_ or _Hwui-tzu_; the common name of their religion was _Tiao kin
kiao_, "Extract Sinew Religion." However, three lapidary inscriptions,
kept at Kai-fung, give different dates for the arrival of the Jews in
China: one dated 1489 (2nd year Hung Che, Ming Dynasty) says that seventy
Jewish families arrived at P'ien liang (Kai-fung) at the time of the Sung
(A. D. 960-1278); one dated 1512 (7th year Cheng Teh) says that the Jewish
religion was introduced into China under the Han Dynasty (B.C. 206-A.D.
221), and the last one dated 1663 (2nd year K'ang-hi) says that this
religion was first preached in China under the Chau Dynasty (B.C.
1122-255); this will not bear discussion.

The synagogue, according to these inscriptions, was built in 1163, under
the Sung Emperor Hiao; under the Yuen, in 1279, the rabbi rebuilt the
ancient temple known as _Ts'ing Chen sse_, probably on the site of a
ruined mosque; the synagogue was rebuilt in 1421 during the reign of
Yung-lo; it was destroyed by an inundation of the Hwang-ho in 1642, and the
Jews began to rebuild it once more in 1653.

The first knowledge Europeans had of a colony of Jews at K'ai-fung fu, in
the Ho-nan province, was obtained through the Jesuit missionaries at
Peking, at the beginning of the 17th century; the celebrated Matteo Ricci
having received the visit of a young Jew, the Jesuits Aleni (1613), Gozani
(1704), Gaubil and Domenge who made in 1721 two plans of the synagogue,
visited Kai-fung and brought back some documents. In 1850, a mission of
enquiry was sent to that place by the _London Society for promoting
Christianity among the Jews_; the results of this mission were published
at Shang-hai, in 1851, by Bishop G. Smith of Hongkong; fac-similes of the
Hebrew manuscripts obtained at the synagogue of Kai-fung were also printed
at Shang-hai at the London Missionary Society's Press, in the same year.
The Jewish merchants of London sent in 1760 to their brethren of Kai-fung
a letter written in Hebrew; a Jewish merchant of Vienna, J. L. Liebermann,
visited the Kai-fung colony in 1867. At the time of the T'ai-P'ing rising,
the rebels marched against Kai-fung in 1857, and with the rest of the
population, the Jews were dispersed. (_J. Tobar, Insc. juives de
Kai-fong-fou_, 1900; _Henri Cordier_, _Les Juifs en Chine_, and _Fung and
Wagnall's Jewish Encyclopedia_.) Palladius writes (p. 38), "The Jews are
mentioned for the first time in the _Yuen shi_ (ch. xxxiii. p. 7), under
the year 1329, on the occasion of the re-establishment of the law for the
collection of taxes from dissidents. Mention of them is made again under
the year 1354, ch. xliii. fol. 10, when on account of several insurrections
in China, rich Mahommetans and Jews were invited to the capital in order to
join the army. In both cases they are named _Chu hu_ (Djuhud)."--H. C.]

The synagogue at Kaifungfu has recently been demolished for the sake of
its materials, by the survivors of the Jewish community themselves, who
were too poor to repair it. The tablet that once adorned its entrance,
bearing in gilt characters the name ESZLOYIH (Israel), has been
appropriated by a mosque. The 300 or 400 survivors seem in danger of
absorption into the Mahomedan or heathen population. The last Rabbi and
possessor of the sacred tongue died some thirty or forty years ago, the
worship has ceased, and their traditions have almost died away.

(_Cathay_, 225, 341, 497; _Ch. Rep._ XX. 436; _Dr. Martin_, in _J. N.
China Br. R. A. S._ 1866, pp. 32-33.)

CHAPTER VI.

HOW THE GREAT KAAN WENT BACK TO THE CITY OF CAMBALUC.

And after the Great Kaan had defeated Nayan in the way you have heard, he
went back to his capital city of Cambaluc and abode there, taking his ease
and making festivity. And the other Tartar Lord called Caydu was greatly
troubled when he heard of the defeat and death of Nayan, and held himself
in readiness for war; but he stood greatly in fear of being handled as
Nayan had been.[NOTE 1]

I told you that the Great Kaan never went on a campaign but once, and it
was on this occasion; in all other cases of need he sent his sons or his
barons into the field. But this time he would have none go in command but
himself, for he regarded the presumptuous rebellion of Nayan as far too
serious and perilous an affair to be otherwise dealt with.

NOTE 1.--Here Ramusio has a long and curious addition. Kublai, it says,
remained at Cambaluc till March, "in which our Easter occurs; and learning
that this was one of our chief festivals, he summoned all the Christians,
and bade them bring with them the Book of the Four Gospels. This he caused
to be incensed many times with great ceremony, kissing it himself most
devoutly, and desiring all the barons and lords who were present to do the
same. And he always acts in this fashion at the chief Christian festivals,
such as Easter and Christmas. And he does the like at the chief feasts of
the Saracens, Jews, and Idolaters. On being asked why, he said: 'There are
Four Prophets worshipped and revered by all the world. The Christians say
their God is Jesus Christ; the Saracens, Mahommet; the Jews, Moses; the
Idolaters, Sogomon Borcan [_Sakya-Muni Burkhan_ or Buddha], who was the
first god among the idols; and I worship and pay respect to all four, and
pray that he among them who is greatest in heaven in very truth may aid
me.' But the Great Khan let it be seen well enough that he held the
Christian Faith to be the truest and best--for, as he says, it commands
nothing that is not perfectly good and holy. But he will not allow the
Christians to carry the Cross before them, because on it was scourged and
put to death a person so great and exalted as Christ.

"Some one may say: 'Since he holds the Christian faith to be best, why
does he not attach himself to it, and become a Christian?' Well, this is
the reason that he gave to Messer Nicolo and Messer Maffeo, when he sent
them as his envoys to the Pope, and when they sometimes took occasion to
speak to him about the faith of Christ. He said: 'How would you have me to
become a Christian? You see that the Christians of these parts are so
ignorant that they achieve nothing and can achieve nothing, whilst you see
the Idolaters can do anything they please, insomuch that when I sit at
table the cups from the middle of the hall come to me full of wine or
other liquor without being touched by anybody, and I drink from them. They
control storms, causing them to pass in whatever direction they please,
and do many other marvels; whilst, as you know, their idols speak, and
give them predictions on whatever subjects they choose. But if I were to
turn to the faith of Christ and become a Christian, then my barons and
others who are not converted would say: "What has moved you to be baptised
and to take up the faith of Christ? What powers or miracles have you
witnessed on His part?" (You know the Idolaters here say that their
wonders are performed by the sanctity and power of their idols.) Well, I
should not know what answer to make; so they would only be confirmed in
their errors, and the Idolaters, who are adepts in such surprising arts,
would easily compass my death. But now you shall go to your Pope, and pray
him on my part to send hither an hundred men skilled in your law, who
shall be capable of rebuking the practices of the Idolaters to their
faces, and of telling them that they too know how to do such things but
will not, because they are done by the help of the devil and other evil
spirits, and shall so control the Idolaters that these shall have no power
to perform such things in their presence. When we shall witness this we
will denounce the Idolaters and their religion, and then I will receive
baptism; and when I shall have been baptised, then all my barons and
chiefs shall be baptised also, and their followers shall do the like, and
thus in the end there will be more Christians here than exist in your part
of the world!'