Chaucer and Genghis Khan

Bill Ratliff comments on the posting about Chaucer: "The most interesting recent reference I have found to Chaucer was at the front of a book by Jack Weatherford called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. It is a re-evaluation of the historical role of Genghis Khan and the Mongols, arguing that the view of him as simply or largely a big-time cutthroat that savaged massive slices of the world is a modern and misguided reading of the figure's true role in history. Weatherford begins by quoting several lines (in italics) from the following remarks on Genghis Khan made by Chaucer's Squire.

At Sarra, in the land of Tartary,
There dwelt a king that warrayed* Russie, <2> *made war on
Through which there died many a doughty man;
This noble king was called Cambuscan,<3>
Which in his time was of so great renown,
That there was nowhere in no regioun
So excellent a lord in alle thing:
Him lacked nought that longeth to a king,
As of the sect of which that he was born.
He kept his law to which he was y-sworn,
And thereto* he was hardy, wise, and rich, *moreover, besides
And piteous and just, always y-lich;* *alike, even-tempered
True of his word, benign and honourable;
*Of his corage as any centre stable;* *firm, immovable of spirit*
Young, fresh, and strong, in armes desirous
As any bachelor of all his house.
A fair person he was, and fortunate,
And kept alway so well his royal estate,
That there was nowhere such another man".

RH; This brings us to a complicated `poblem in our learning history project. The traditional view of  Genghis Khan was that he was a brutal conqueror. Like many historians, Jack Weatherford likes to make history by revising it. Using documents recently discovered in Mongolia, he depicts Genghis Khan as a pacifier who created a great empire which linked China with the West.  The History Channel has run a superb documentary on China's Great Wall; in it  Genghis Khan appears as a brutal monster. I tend to accept that view; probably some future revisionist historian will use a similar argument to redeem Stalin.  The question is: how did Chaucer's Squire get this benevolent view of him? This is like the question I asked myself as a schoolboy: how did Coleridge become infatuated with Genghis Khan's grandson Kublai Khan, who did a pleasure dome decree? In both cases I think March Polo was responsible He had an enormous readership, including Christopher Columbus. While I view it as obvious, is there documentary proof that Chaucer read Marco Polo? Does Marco Polo mention Genghis Khan?About two years ago a British scholar infuriated Italians by concluding that he never went to China. In any case, Marco Polo's praise of  Kublai Khan must be read with caution. The Chinese viewed the Mongols as outsiders. Whatever his qualities, Kublai Khan engaged in futile military expeditions, trying to emulate his grandfather. His attempt to conquer Japan failed.  What do Japanese history books say about him? The Chinese resented his regime. Kublai Kham died in 1294.  The short-lived Yuan dynasty was finally overthrown in 1368. Can Bill, a China expert, tell us what Chinese history books say about Genghis Khan (negative?) and Kublai Khan (mixed?)? My guess is that the Chinese today are not wildly friendly toward Mongolia, long a Soviet satellite.