Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The "Other" of Marco Polo
For this week I ask that we take up a more complicated angle on the self/other, native/foreign dialectics as a way of situating ourselves in relation to Marco Polo and in situating Marco Polo himself. The topic is theoretical curiosity, something familiar to us all. This work is clearly a geography, to be precise a "description of the world" as it was known for some time. Thus, it is not an itinerary. Instead it is more like a map of a journey within the imagination drawn on the surface of the world and so it is that the internal self/other and external native/foreign dialectics converge. The Travels (il milione) tell the tale of the exotic (much like Baudet describes in his historical account of the European imagination of the other) region of the desired, of paradise and it is this projection, fed by an aggressive desire to transcend the constraints of the theologically confined everyday, that is a critical contribution of Polo to the European narration of mythic geography. Moreover, this extension of the imaginary beyond the realm of the immediately known, was the first adventitious movement of the European mind toward anthropolgy and away from theology, a movement that would be more dramatically choreographed in the astronomical work of Kepler, Brahe, and Galileo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Some theorists say that Marco Polo never traveled further than his family’s trading posts on the Black Sea. Chief among these is Frances Wood, who defends her position in her book Did Marco Polo Go To China? with the following principal arguments:
Not only does his narrative jump around from place to place without a true sense of a connected travelogue, there are also many discontinuities in Marco Polo’s story. For example, he says he was instrumental in the victory of a battle that took place years before he was in China, and he claims he was governor of a part of China where there is NO record of him EVER being there, much less holding an important political position. He failed to mention several popular Chinese customs like tea, foot binding, Chinese writing, woodblock printing, and chopsticks, and he does not mention seeing the Great Wall of China. Many think that he did not leave his family’s trading posts on the Black Sea because he uses Arabic and Persian terms to describe landmarks and places instead of Chinese terms, suggesting that he used Persian guidebooks and research from other merchants’ travels to piece together his story. Marco also says that he and his family are the first Latin speaking people the Khan sees; but according to the Khan’s records they were not.
However, in defense of Polo, Igor de Rachewiltz wrote his review-article 'Marco Polo Went to China,' which refutes Wood’s arguments point by point:
Marco Polo’s travelogue was written several years after he had returned from China, so minor mistakes may be attributed to memory lapse. In addition, a man in his time especially would have had the tendency to exaggerate, which accounts for his false governorship and participation in the battle of Xiangyang. Rustichello or later editors of the narrative may even have added these falsehoods to make the story appeal more to the general public. Also, had he actually used other sources in order to piece together his story, as Wood suggests, Polo would not have made the mistakes he did about landmarks and dates that Wood also points out. In explanation of the omission of several dominant cultural practices, one can point to the fact that Polo most likely lived among other foreigners, rather than the Chinese. Many travelers such as himself formed communities with other people who were connected to the higher powers of China (like the Great Kahn) but had little interaction with the common people. In response to the omission of the Great Wall, the fact that it wasn’t as fortified as it is now may have made it less impressive to Polo than it is now. Even Chinese sources don’t document the existence of the Wall until around the 13th century, after Marco’s narrative was written. The fact that he was unmentioned in Chinese historical records of the time is hardly remarkable, since many other important travelers were also unmentioned, and he may also have had a “Chinese nickname” that we do not recognize.
Our conclusion is that Marco Polo did in fact go to China, based on Rachewiltz’s arguments and the fact that most of his information is entirely accurate and trustworthy. In order to gather such information in his time would have been quite a feat of research, almost on par with actually traveling to the country itself, so in all likelihood, his information is in fact firsthand. Although the evidence found supports the position that Marco Polo did travel to China, whether or not he truly did so does not have much significance. Since the information and details provided in his travel log are accurate whether Marco Polo did or did not travel is does not matter. Through his detailing of China, Marco Polo was able to inspire the Europeans to become more interested in the discovery of China and other Eastern countries. Thus, since the data recorded in the log was accurate and the results of the log were beneficial to the encouragement of discovery, it does not matter if Marco Polo ever made it to China.
Source:
de Rachewiltz, Igor. F. Wood's Did Marco Polo Go To China?: A Critical Appraisal by I. de Rachewiltz. The Austrailian National University. 5 Oct. 2006 http://rspas.anu.edu.au/eah/Marcopolo.html.
-Skillz That Killz
(Kerry Brennan, Will Hoey, Kathryn LaBelle, and Alan Yanchak)
Group Webwork- Polo and China
• Didn’t mention:
o Binding of feet
o Great wall
o Tea
o Calligraphy
o Woodblock printing
o Chopsticks
o Names of Places
o Erroneously describes the course of the Yellow River
• Why not mentioned?
o But the Great Wall, for example was not as “great” at the time
o Foot binding was only for upper class women with whom he would not have had contact
o Tea and calligraphy may not have been unique to China??
o As he wrote this after returning (may have forgotten some things) and there was another author, these details may have been omitted even though he saw them or the author (not having seen such things) may have chosen to not include their descriptions as they seemed unimpressive or for other reasons.
• Did mention:
o Invention of paper
o Several mechanical devises
o Paper currency
o Jade porcelain
o Silk
o Ivory
o Coal
o Descriptions of cultures and religions
• Counter arguments
o He could have learned from his family and other travelers/traders
• He does not appear in Chinese records
• He could have read accounts from other travelers
• Maybe just a compilation of other people’s stories as told to Rustichello by Polo. So, the work’s importance lies not in its accuracy as the Travels of Marco Polo himself but as a perspective on another culture in that time period.
• It would have been difficult to provide the details that were given if the information was all second hand.
• Does it matter? No. It doesn’t matter if he went because the value of the work lies not in the historical accuracy but in the fact that such descriptions (which undeniably contain some truths despite omissions) made it to Europe, beginning a intercontinental cultural exchange. The work also provides perspective on the reaction to a collision of cultures.
-Brendan, Brendan, Dacey, and Mike H
Jeff Pawlick, Jeff O'Brien, Rachel Cosgray, Hannah Miller, Carl Cullotta
Historical analysts on either side of the debate about whether Polo really went to China site various details either present or absent in Polo’s works. To argue that he did actually go, scholars note that he did accurately report on the use of paper money, coal, the presence of complex population centers, and numerous accurate details about the Great Silk Road. Further, they would argue that the absence of comments about less accessible parts of Chinese culture just indicate that Polo stayed with a group of foreigners and didn’t (obviously) experience all facets of Chinese life. They note that Polo could have feasibly made his way into China using the unity of the Mongol empire as a springboard. And they explain the idea that Chinese records do not mention Polo by arguing that this was due to the nativist tendencies of the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty.
Yet the argument that Polo did not go is also compelling. He did not mention such customs as drinking tea, the foot-binding of upper-class women, or the use of calligraphy for writing (Frances Wood, Did Marco Polo Go to China?). Further, despite supposedly crossing the path of the Great Wall twice in his journey, that enormous engineering feat is totally omitted from his work. Scholars who believe that Polo did not go to China point to the precedent of “historical” works – by the Greek, Herodotus, for example – that set a different precedent for works of history than that with which we are accustomed. The history which Herodotus wrote was a history as reported, rather than as seen; it was a collection of knowledge gleaned from speaking with many people who (perhaps) had made parts of the journey.
Why, then, ought we to believe that Polo, himself, made the journey? Almost all of the evidence cited by either side is circumstantial. There is no direct evidence that the details which Polo related through Rustichelo could not have been gleaned from Persian or Arabian traders who did foray into China. This theory of Polo’s “journals” as a collection of experiences of other traders would explain why many of the details are accurate but many of the connecting pieces are hazy.
Either way, though, Polo/Rustichelo’s work is still an important part of history. Polo still collected knowledge and made it accessible to Europeans. He opened up a cultural dialogue to Asia, and for that, his “history” is timeless.
We have concluded that Marco Polo did in fact travel to China. Despite the numerous theories to disprove his journey, there exist other sources that refute these claims. For example, one theory claims that since Polo did not mention the Great Wall of China, he did not reach that destination. In Frances Wood's book, "Did Marco Polo Go to China?" Wood states that the Great Wall that existed during the time Polo was in Cathay was not the remarkable structure as it is known today. Thereforfe, it was not something that would have inspired Polo to write about it.
Additionally, the details given in Polo's account do not imply that Polo was anywhere else but China. The context that he writes in does not allude to any known place, nor does it match the characteristics of any other country.
Since he is not recorded in any historical records of China, others doubt the veracity of his travels. Even if he was not as closely related to the Khan as stated in the "Travels", this does not give enough evidence to disprove his journey. The work was written by a romance writer who may have exaggerated the connection between Polo and the Khan. The was a Tibetian monk who was a confidante to the Khan. In his records, he mentions a foreign friend of the Khan in 1271. This would coincide with the travels of the Polos. Unfortunately no name is given to this friend.
Ultimately, it is insignificant whether or not Polo actually travelled to China. Although it is an interesting topic to debate, historically it does not affect the widespread reaction that it created.
Melissa, Tim, Kyle, Michael Cole, Jacqueline
Post a Comment