Both the author and the lecturer discuss the legitimacy regarding Marco Polo’s journey to China and its recordings. While the author casts doubt on the authenticity of his recordings, the lecturer argues that both his life in China and his books were genuine one.
One of the skepticism the author raises is that the 3 different versions of his story have disaccording facts in its details and he was only a romance writer who used different accounts from travelers. On the contrary, the lecturer explains this saying his fellow prisoner, who was a romance writer, wrote his story into a book when Marco was imprisoned during the wartime after his journey. Moreover, his original Italian manuscript became lost so it had to be translated into Italian again from the French version. During this process, there occurred some differences in his story.
In opposition to the author’s assertion that Marco Polo failed to include very fundamental facts about China such as tea drinking and the Great Wall and he wasn’t able to read or speak any Chinese, the lecturer says this is because tea wasn’t consumed that much in the north of China where he stayed, and the Great wall faces north so it’s very unlikely that he saw it since he entered China from the west side. Furthermore, he didn’t have to learn any Chinese since he had a translator fluent in Persian.
While the author mentions that his name does not appear in any of Chinese documents even though he was very close to the ruler at the time. On the other hand, the lecturer maintains his name was maybe in Persian or Mongolian way or he wasn’t that significant to be mentioned in historical documents.
In conclusion, the lecturer counters the author’s skepticism by explaining the reasons for misunderstandings about Marco Polo.