C. Chap. 8, p. 16¹⁄₂: 1275, second moon. Puh-lo and another sent to look into the Customs taxation question in Tangut.
D. Chap. 8, p. 22¹⁄₂: 1275, fourth moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yü-shï chung-ch’êng Puh-lo promoted to be yü-shï ta-fu.
E. Chap. 9, p. 11²⁄₂: 1276, seventh moon. The Imperial Prince Puh-lo given a seal.
F. Chap. 9, p. 16²⁄₂: 1277, second moon. The Ta-sz-nung and yü-shï ta-fu, Puh-lo, being also süan-wei-shï and Court Chamberlain, promoted to be shu-mih fu-shï, and also süan-hwei-shï and Court Chamberlain.
“The words shu-mih fu-shï, the Chinese characters for which are given on [p. 569] of M. Cordier’s second volume, precisely mean ‘Second-class Commissioner attached to the Privy Council,’ and hence it is clear that Pauthier was totally mistaken in supposing the censor of 1270 to have been Marco. Of course the Imperial Prince Puh-lo is not the same person as the censor, nor is it clear who the (1) pageant and (2) Tangut Puh-los were, except that neither could possibly have been Marco, who only arrived in May—the third moon—at the very earliest.
“In the first moon of 1281 some gold, silver, and bank-notes were handed to Puh-lo for the relief of the poor. In the second moon of 1282, just before the assassination of Achmed, the words ‘Puh-lo the Minister’ (ch’êng-siang) are used in connection with a case of fraud. In the seventh moon of 1282 (after the fall of Achmed) the ‘Mongol man Puh-lo’ was placed in charge of some gold-washings in certain towers of the then Hu Pêh (now in Hu Nan). In the ninth moon of the same year a commission was sent to take official possession of all the gold-yielding places in Yün Nan, and Puh-lo was appointed darugachi (= governor) of the mines. In this case it is not explicitly stated (though it would appear most likely) that the two gold superintendents were the same man; if they were, then neither could have been Marco, who certainly was no ‘Mongol man.’ Otherwise there would be a great temptation to identify this event with the mission to ‘una città, detta Carazan’ of the Ramusio Text.
“There is, however, one man who may possibly be Marco, and that is the Poh-lo who was probably with Kúblái at Chagan Nor when the news of Achmed’s murder by Wang Chu arrived there in the third moon of 1282. The Emperor at once left for Shang-tu (i.e. K’ai-p’ing Fu, north of Dolonor), and ‘ordered the shu-mih fu-shï Poh-lo [with two other statesmen] to proceed with all speed to Ta-tu (i.e. to Cambalu). On receiving Poh-lo’s report, the Emperor became convinced of the deceptions practised upon him by Achmed, and said: “It was a good thing that Wang Chu did kill him.”’ In 1284 Achmed’s successor is stated (chap. 209, p. 9½) to have recommended Poh-lo, amongst others, for minor Treasury posts. The same man (chap. 209, p. 12½) subsequently got Poh-lo appointed to a salt superintendency in the provinces; and as Yang-chou is the centre of the salt trade, it is just possible that Marco’s ‘governorship’ of that place may resolve itself into this.
“There are many other Puh-lo and Poh-lo mentioned, both before Marco’s arrival in, and subsequently to Marco’s departure in 1292 from, China. In several cases (as, for instance, in that of P. Timur) both forms occur in different chapters for the same man; and a certain Tartar called ‘Puh-lan Hi’ is also called ‘Puh-lo Hi.’ One of Genghis Khan’s younger brothers was called Puh-lo Kadei. There was, moreover, a Cathayan named Puh-lo, and a Naiman Prince Poh-lo. Whether ‘Puh-lo the Premier’ or ‘one of the Ministers,’ mentioned in 1282, is the same person as ‘Poh-lo the ts’an chêng,’ or ‘Prime Minister’s assistant’ of 1284, I cannot say. Perhaps, when the whole Yüan Shï has been thoroughly searched throughout in all its editions, we may obtain more certain information. Meanwhile, one thing is plain: Pauthier is wrong, Yule is wrong in that particular connection; and M. Cordier gives us no positive view of his own. The other possibilities are given above, but I scarcely regard any of them as probabilities. On p. 99 of his Introduction, Colonel Yule manifestly identifies the Poh-lo of 1282 with Marco; but the identity of his title with that of Puh-lo in 1277 suggests that the two men are one, in which case neither can be Marco Polo. On p. 422 of vol. i. Yule repeats this identification in his notes. I may mention that much of the information given in the present article was published in Vol. XXIV. of the China Review two or three years ago. I notice that M. Cordier quotes that volume in connection with other matters, but this particular point does not appear to have caught his eye.
“As matters now stand, there is a fairly strong presumption that Marco Polo is once named in the Annals; but there is no irrefragable evidence; and in any case it is only this once, and not as Pauthier has it.”
Cf. also note by Prof. E. H. Parker, China Review, XXV. pp. 193–4, and, according to Prof. Pelliot (Bul. Ecole franç. Ext. Orient, July-Sept., 1904, p. 769), the biography of Han Lin-eul in the Ming shi, k. 122, p. 3.