NOTE 1.—­The name here applied to Fo-kien by Polo is variously written as Choncha, Chonka, Concha, Chouka.  It has not been satisfactorily explained.  Klaproth and Neumann refer it to Kiang-Che, of which Fo-kien at one time of the Mongol rule formed a part.  This is the more improbable as Polo expressly distinguishes this province or kingdom from that which was under Kinsay, viz.  Kiang-Che.  Pauthier supposes the word to represent Kien-Kwe “the Kingdom of Kien,” because in the 8th century this territory had formed a principality of which the seat was at Kien-chau, now Kien-ning fu.  This is not satisfactory either, for no evidence is adduced that the name continued in use.

One might suppose that Choncha represented T’swan-chau, the Chinese name of the city of Zayton, or rather of the department attached to it, written by the French Thsiuan-tcheou, but by Medhurst Chwanchew, were it not that Polo’s practice of writing the term tcheu or chau by giu is so nearly invariable, and that the soft ch is almost always expressed in the old texts by the Italian ci (though the Venetian does use the soft ch).[1]

It is again impossible not to be struck with the resemblance of Chonka to “CHUNG-KWE” “the Middle Kingdom,” though I can suggest no ground for the application of such a title specially to Fo-kien, except a possible misapprehension. Chonkwe occurs in the Persian Historia Cathaica published by Mueller, but is there specially applied to North China. (See Quat.  Rashid., p. lxxxvi.)

The city of course is FU-CHAU.  It was visited also by Friar Odoric, who calls it Fuzo, and it appears in duplicate on the Catalan Map as Fugio and as Fozo.

I used the preceding words, “the city of course is Fu-chau,” in the first edition.  Since then Mr. G. Phillips, of the consular staff in Fo-kien, has tried to prove that Polo’s Fuju is not Fu-chau (Foochow is his spelling), but T’swan-chau.  This view is bound up with another regarding the identity of Zayton, which will involve lengthy notice under next chapter; and both views have met with an able advocate in the Rev. Dr. C. Douglas, of Amoy.[2] I do not in the least accept these views about Fuju.

In considering the objections made to Fu-chau, it must never be forgotten that, according to the spelling usual with Polo or his scribe, Fuju is not merely “a name with a great resemblance in sound to Foochow” (as Mr. Phillips has it); it is Mr. Phillips’s word Foochow, just as absolutely as my word Fu-chau is his word Foochow. (See remarks almost at the end of the Introductory Essay.) And what has to be proved against me in this matter is, that when Polo speaks of Fu-chau he does not mean Fu-chau.  It must also be observed that the distances as given by Polo (three days from Quelinfu to Fuju, five days from Fuju to Zayton) do correspond well with my interpretations, and do not correspond with the other.  These are very strong fences of my position, and it demands strong arguments to level them.  The adverse arguments (in brief) are these: