[897] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., Preface to the second edition, p. viii.
[898] Ibid., vol. i., p. 203.
[899] “Visdelon,” p. 130.
[900] “Pliny,” vii., 2.
[901] “Philostratus,” book ii., chap. iv.
[902] Ibid., book iv., p. 382; “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 206.
[903] There are pious critics who deny the world the same right to judge the “Bible” on the testimony of deductive logic as “any other book.” Even exact science must bow to this decree. In the concluding paragraph of an article devoted to a terrible onslaught on Baron Bunsen’s “Chronology,” which does not quite agree with the “Bible,” a writer exclaims, “the subject we have proposed to ourselves is completed.... We have endeavored to meet Chevalier Bunsen’s charges against the inspiration of the “Bible” on its own ground.... An inspired book ... never can, as an expression of its own teaching, or as a part of its own record, bear witness to any untrue or ignorant statement of fact, whether in history or doctrine. If it be untrue in its witness of one, who shall trust its truth in the witness of the other?” (“The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record,” edited by the Rev. H. Burgess, Oct., 1859, p. 70.)
[904] Remusat: “Histoire du Khotan,” p. 74; “Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 206.
[905] Like the Psylli, or serpent-charmers of Libya, whose gift is hereditary.
[906] “Ser Marco Polo,” vol. ii., p. 321.