(1.) That Fu-chau was not the capital of Fo-kien ("chief dou reigne").

(2.) That the River of Fu-chau does not flow through the middle of the city ("por le mi de cest cite"), nor even under the walls.

(3.) That Fu-chau was not frequented by foreign trade till centuries afterwards.

The first objection will be more conveniently answered under next chapter.

As regards the second, the fact urged is true.  But even now a straggling street extends to the river, ending in a large suburb on its banks, and a famous bridge there crosses the river to the south side where now the foreign settlements are.  There may have been suburbs on that side to justify the por le mi, or these words may have been a slip; for the Traveller begins the next chapter—­“When you quit Fuju (to go south) you cross the river."[3]

Touching the question of foreign commerce, I do not see that Mr. Phillips’s negative evidence would be sufficient to establish his point.  But, in fact, the words of the Geog.  Text (i.e. the original dictation), which we have followed, do not (as I now see) necessarily involve any foreign trade at Fu-chau, the impression of which has been derived mainly from Ramusio’s text.  They appear to imply no more than that, through the vicinity of Zayton, there was a great influx of Indian wares, which were brought on from the great port by vessels (it may be local junks) ascending the river Min.[4]

[Illustration:  Scene on the Min River, below Fu-chau. (From Fortune.)

“E sachies che por le mi de ceste cite vait un grant fluv qe bien est large un mil, et en ceste cite se font maintes nes lesquelz najent por cel flum.”]

[Mr. Phillips gives the following itinerary after Unguen:  Kangiu = Chinchew = Chuan-chiu or Ts’wan-chiu.  He writes (T.  Pao, I. p. 227):  “When you leave the city of Chinchew for Changchau, which lies in a south-westerly, not a south-easterly direction, you cross the river by a handsome bridge, and travelling for five days by way of Tung-an, locally Tang-oa, you arrive at Changchau.  Along this route in many parts, more especially in that part lying between Tang-oa and Changchau, very large camphor-trees are met with.  I have frequently travelled over this road.  The road from Fuchau to Chinchew, which also takes five days to travel over, is bleak and barren, lying chiefly along the sea-coast, and in winter a most uncomfortable journey.  But few trees are met with; a banyan here and there, but no camphor-trees along this route; but there is one extremely interesting feature on it that would strike the most unobservant traveller, viz.; the Loyang bridge, one of the wonders of China.”  Had Polo travelled by this route, he would certainly have mentioned it.  Pauthier remarks upon Polo’s silence in this matter:  “It is surprising,” says he, “that Marco Polo makes no mention of it.”—­H.C.]

NOTE 2.—­The G.T. reads Caiton, presumably for Caiton or Zayton.  In Pauthier’s text, in the following chapter, the name of Zayton is written Caiton and Cayton, and the name of that port appears in the same form in the Letter of its Bishop, Andrew of Perugia, quoted in note 2, ch. lxxxii.  Pauthier, however, in this place reads Kayteu which he develops into a port at the mouth of the River Min.[5]