Magaillans thinks Polo's memory partially misled him, and that his
description applies more correctly to another bridge on the same road, but
some distance further west, over the Lieu-li Ho. For the bridge over the
Hwan Ho had really but thirteen arches, whereas that on the Lieu-li had,
as Polo specifies, twenty-four. The engraving which we give of the Lu-kou
K'iao from a Chinese work confirms this statement, for it shows but
thirteen arches. And what Polo says of the navigation of the river is
almost conclusive proof that Magaillans is right, and that our traveller's
memory confounded the two bridges. For the navigation of the Hwan Ho, even
when its channel is full, is said to be impracticable on account of rapids,
whilst the Lieu-li Ho, or "Glass River," is, as its name implies, smooth,
and navigable, and it is largely navigated by boats from the coal-mines of
Fang-shan. The road crosses the latter about two leagues from Cho-chau.
(See next chapter.)
[Illustration: Bridge of Lu-ku k'iao]
[The Rev. W.S. Ament (M. Polo in Cambaluc, p. 116-117) remarks regarding
Yule's quotation from Magaillans that "a glance at Chinese history would
have explained to these gentlemen that there was no stone bridge over the
Liu Li river till the days of Kia Tsing, the Ming Emperor, 1522 A.D., or
more than one hundred and fifty years after Polo was dead.
