There Follows A Decree
Of The Emperor (T'ai Tsung, A Very Famous Prince) Issued In 638 In
Favour Of The New Doctrine And Ordering A Church To Be Built In The
Square Of Peace And Justice (I Ning Fang) At The Capital.
The
Emperor's portrait was to be placed in the church.
After this comes a
description of Ta T'sin (here apparently implying Syria), and then some
account of the fortunes of the Church in China. Kao Tsung (650-683 the
devout patron also of the Buddhist traveller and Dr. Hiuen Tsang)
continued to favour it. In the end of the century, Buddhism gets the
upper hand, but under HIUAN TSUNG (713-755) the Church recovers its
prestige, and KIHO, a new missionary, arrives. Under TE TSUNG (780-783)
the monument was erected, and this part ends with the eulogy of ISSE,
a statesman and benefactor of the Church. 3rd. There follows a
recapitulation of the purport in octosyllabic verse.
The Chinese inscription concludes with the date of erection, viz. the
second year Kienchung of the Great T'ang Dynasty, the seventh day of
the month Tait su, the feast of the great Yaosan. This
corresponds, according to Gaubil, to 4th February, 781, and Yaosan
is supposed to stand for Hosanna (i.e. Palm Sunday, but this
apparently does not fit, see infra). There are added the name chief
of the law, NINGCHU (presumed to be the Chinese name of the
Metropolitan), the name of the writer, and the official sanction.
The Great Hosanna was, though ingenious, a misinterpretation of
Gaubil's. Mr. Wylie has sent me a paper of his own (in Chin. Recorder
and Miss. Journal, July, 1871, p. 45), which makes things perfectly
clear. The expression transcribed by Pauthier, Yao san wen, and
rendered "Hosanna," appears in a Chinese work, without reference to
this inscription, as Yao san wah, and is in reality only a Chinese
transcript of the Persian word for Sunday, "Yak shambah." Mr. Wylie
verified this from the mouth of a Peking Mahomedan. The 4th of
February, 781 was Sunday, why Great Sunday? Mr. Wylie suggests,
possibly because the first Sunday of the (Chinese) year.
The monument exhibits, in addition to the Chinese text, a series of
short inscriptions in the Syriac language, and Estranghelo character,
containing the date of erection, viz. 1092 of the Greeks (= A.D. 781),
the name of the reigning Patriarch of the Nestorian church MAR HANAN
ISHUA (dead in 778, but the fact apparently had not reached China),
that of ADAM, Bishop and Pope of Tzinisthan (i.e. China), and those of
the clerical staff of the capital which here bears the name, given it
by the early Arab Travellers, of Kumdan. There follow sixty-seven
names of persons in Syriac characters, most of whom are characterised
as priests (Kashisha), and sixty-one names of persons in Chinese, all
priests save one.
[It appears that Adam (King tsing), who erected the monument under
Te Tsung was, under the same Emperor, with a Buddhist the translator
of a Buddhist sutra, the Satparamita from a Hu text. (See a curious
paper by Mr. J. Takakusu in the T'oung Pao, VII pp. 589-591.)
Mr. Rockhill (Rubruck, p. 157, note) makes the following remarks.
"It is strange, however, that the two famous Uigur Nestorians, Mar
Jabalaha and Rabban Cauma, when on their journey from Koshang in
Southern Shan hsi to Western Asia in about 1276, while they mention
'the city of Tangut, or Ning hsia on the Yellow River as an important
Nestorian centre' do not once refer to Hsi anfu or Chang an. Had Chang
an been at the time the Nestorian Episcopal see, one would think that
these pilgrims would have visited it, or at least referred to it.
(Chabot, Mar Jabalaha, 21)" - H.C.]
Kircher gives a good many more Syriac names than appear on the rubbing,
probably because some of these are on the edge of the slab now built
in. We have no room to speak of the controversies raised by this stone.
The most able defence of its genuine character, as well as a transcript
with translation and commentary, a work of great interest, was
published by the late M. Pauthier. The monument exists intact, and has
been visited by the Rev. Mr. Williamson, Baron Richthofen, and other
recent travellers. [The Rev. Moir Duncan wrote from Shen si regarding
the present state of the stone. (London and China Telegraph, 5th
June, 1893) "Of the covering rebuilt so recently, not a trace remains
save the pedestals for the pillars and atoms of the tiling. In answer
to a question as to when and how the covering was destroyed, the old
priest replied, with a twinkle in his eye as if his conscience pinched,
'There came a rushing wind and blew it down.' He could not say when,
for he paid no attention to such mundane affairs. More than one
outsider however, said it had been deliberately destroyed, because the
priests are jealous of the interest manifested in it. The stone has
evidently been recently tampered with, several characters are effaced
and there are other signs of malicious hands." - H.C.] Pauthier's works
on the subject are - De l'Authenticite de l'Inscription Nestorienne,
etc., B. Duprat, 1857, and l'Inscription Syro Chinoise de Si ngan
fou, etc., Firmin Didot, 1858. (See also Kircher, China Illustrata,
and article by Mr. Wylie in J. Am. Or. Soc., V. 278.) [Father Havret,
S.J., of Zi ka wei, near Shang hai, has undertaken to write a large
work on this inscription with the title of La Stele Chretienne de Si
ngan fou, the first part giving the inscription in full size, and the
second containing the history of the monument, have been published at
Shang-hai in 1895 and 1897; the author died last year (29th September,
1901), and the translation which was to form a third part has not yet
appeared. The Rev. Dr. J. Legge has given a translation and the Chinese
text of the monument, in 1888.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 21 of 360
Words from 20367 to 21372
of 370046
