“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 cheng,’ or ‘Prime Minister’s assistant’ of 1284, I cannot say.  Perhaps, when the whole Yuean Shi 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 franc.  Ext.  Orient, July-Sept., 1904, p. 769), the biography of Han Lin-eul in the Ming shi, k. 122, p. 3.

Prof.  Pelliot writes to me:  “Il faut renoncer une bonne fois a retrouver Marco Polo dans le Po-lo mele a l’affaire d’Ahmed.  Grace aux titulations successives, nous pouvons reconstituer la carriere administrative de ce Po-lo, au moins depuis 1271, c’est-a-dire depuis une date anterieure a l’arrivee de Marco Polo a la cour mongole.  D’autre part, Rashid-ud-Din mentionne le role joue dans l’affaire d’Ahmed par le Pulad-aqa, c’est-a-dire Pulad Chinsang, son informateur dans les choses mongoles, mais la forme mongole de ce nom de Pulad est Bolod, en transcription chinoise Po-lo.  J’ai signale (T’oung Pao, 1914, p. 640) que des textes chinois mentionnent effectivement que Po-lo (Bolod), envoye en mission aupres d’Arghun en 1285, resta ensuite en Perse.  C’est donc en definitive le Pulad (= Bolod) de Rashid-ud-Din qui serait le Po-lo qu’a la suite de Pauthier on a trop longtemps identifie a Marco Polo.”