The Travels of Marco Polo Volume II Part 6

[Ill.u.s.tration: Cross on the Monument at Si-ngan fu (actual size). (From a rubbing.)]

Ho-chou, in Western Kan-Suh, about 320 _li_ (107 miles) from Lan-chau, has a population of about 30,000 nearly entirely Mahomedans with 24 mosques; it is a "hot-bed of rebellion." _Salar-pa-kun_ means "the eight thousand Salar families," or "the eight thousands of the Salar." The eight _kiun_ (Chinese _t'sun_? a village, a commune) const.i.tuting the Salar pa-kun are Ka-tzu, the oldest and largest, said to have over 1300 families living in it, Chang-chia, Nemen, Ch'ing-shui, Munta, Tsu-chi, Antasu and Ch'a-chia.

Besides these Salar kiun there are five outer (_wai_) kiun: Ts'a-pa, Ngan-ssu-to, Hei-ch'eng, Kan-tu and Kargan, inhabited by a few Salar and a mixed population of Chinese and T'u-ssu: each of these wai-wu kiun has, theoretically, fifteen villages in it. Tradition says that the first Salar who came to China (from Rum or Turkey) arrived in this valley in the third year of Hung-wu of the Ming (1370). (_Rockhill, Land of the Lamas, Journey; Grenard_, II. p. 457)--H.C.] (_Martini; Cathay_, 148, 269; _Petis de la Croix_, III. 218; _Russian paper on the Dungen_, see supra, vol. i. p. 291; _Williamson's North China_, u.s.; _Richthofen's Letters_, and MS. Notes.)

NOTE 4.--_Mangalai_, Kublai's third son, who governed the provinces of Shen-si and Sze-ch'wan, with the t.i.tle of _w.a.n.g_ or king (supra ch. ix.

note 2), died in 1280, a circ.u.mstance which limits the date of Polo's journey to the west. It seems unlikely that Marco should have remained ten years ignorant of his death, yet he seems to speak of him as still governing.

[With reference to the translation of the oldest of the Chinese-Mongol inscriptions known hitherto (1283) in the name of Ananda, King of Ngan-si, Professor Deveria (_Notes d'epigraphie Mongolo-Chinoise_, p. 9) writes: "In 1264, the Emperor Kublai created in this region [Shen si] the department of Ngan-si chau, occupied by ten hordes of Si-fan (foreigners from the west).

All this country became in 1272, the apanage of the Imperial Prince Mangala; this prince, third son of Kublai, had been invested with the t.i.tle of King of Ngan-si, a territory which included King-chao fu (modern Si-ngan fu). His government extended hence over Ho-si (west of the Yellow River), the T'u-po (Tibetans), and Sze-ch'wan. The following year (1273) Mangala received from Kublai a second invest.i.ture, this of the Kingdom of Tsin, which added to his domain part of Kan-Suh; he established his royal residence at K'ia-ch'eng (modern Ku-yuan) in the Liu-p'an shan, while King-chao remained the centre of the command he exercised over the Mongol garrisons. In 1277 this prince took part in military operations in the north; he died in 1280 (17th year Che Yuan), leaving his princ.i.p.ality of Ngan-si to his eldest son Ananda, and this of Tsin to his second son Ngan-tan Bu-hoa. Kublai, immediately after the death of his son Mangala, suppressed administrative autonomy in Ngan-si." (_Yuan-s.h.i.+ lei pien_).--H.C.]

[1] I am indebted for this information to Baron Richthofen.

[2] See the small map attached to "Marco Polo's Itinerary Map, No. IV.,"

at end of Vol. I.

[3] [It is supposed to come from _kang_ (king) _dang_.--H.C.]

[4] In the first edition I was able to present a reduced facsimile of a _rubbing_ in my possession from this famous inscription, which I owed to the generosity of Dr. Lockhart. To the Baron von Richthofen I am no less indebted for the more complete rubbing which has afforded the plate now published. A tolerably full account of this inscription is given in _Cathay_, p. xcii. seqq., and p. clx.x.xi. seqq., but the subject is so interesting that it seems well to introduce here the most important particulars:--

The stone slab, about 7-1/2 feet high by 3 feet wide, and some 10 inches in thickness,[A] which bears this inscription, was accidentally found in 1625 by some workmen who were digging in the Chang-ngan suburb of the city of Singanfu. The cross, which is engraved at p. 30, is incised at the top of the slab, and beneath this are 9 large characters in 3 columns, const.i.tuting the heading, which runs: "_Monument commemorating the introduction and propagation of the n.o.ble Law of_ Ta T'sin _in the Middle Kingdom;_" _Ta T'sin_ being the term applied in Chinese literature to the Roman Empire, of which the ancient Chinese had much such a shadowy conception as the Romans had, conversely, of the Chinese as _Sinae_ and _Seres_. Then follows the body of the inscription, of great length and beautiful execution, consisting of 1780 characters. Its chief contents are as follows:-- 1st. An abstract of Christian doctrine, of a vague and figurative kind; 2nd. An account of the arrival of the missionary OLOPAN (probably a Chinese form of _Rabban_ = Monk),[B] from Ta T'sin in the year equivalent to A.D. 635 bringing sacred books and images, of the _translation of the said books_, of the Imperial approval of the doctrine and permission to teach it publicly. 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 _k.u.mdan_. There follow sixty-seven names of persons in Syriac characters, most of whom are characterised as priests (_Kas.h.i.+sha_), 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 rus.h.i.+ng 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 Ill.u.s.trata_, 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 t.i.tle 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.--H.C.]

Stone monuments of character strictly a.n.a.logous are frequent in the precincts of Buddhist sanctuaries, and probably the idea of this one was taken from the Buddhists. It is reasonably supposed by Pauthier that the monument may have been buried in 845, when the Emperor Wu-Tsung issued an edict, still extant, against the vast multiplication of Buddhist convents, and ordering their destruction. A clause in the edict also orders the _foreign bonzes of Ta-T'sin_ and _Mubupa_ (Christian and _Mobed_ or Magian?) _to return to secular life_.

[A] [M. Grenard, who reproduces (III. p. 152) a good facsimile of the inscription, gives to the slab the following dimensions: high 2m. 36, wide 0m. 86, thick 0m. 25.--H.C.]

[B] [Dr. F. Hirth (_China and the Roman Orient_, p. 323) writes: "O-LO-PeN = Ruben, Rupen?" He adds (_Jour. China Br. R. As.

Soc._ XXI. 1886, pp. 214-215): "Initial _r_ is also quite commonly represented by initial _l_. I am in doubt whether the two characters _o-lo_ in the Chinese name for Russia (_O-lo-ssu_) stand for foreign _ru_ or _ro_ alone. This word would bear comparison with a Chinese transcription of the Sanskrit word for silver, _rupya_ which in the _Pen ts ao kang mu_ (ch. 8, p. 9) is given as _o lu pa_. If we can find further a.n.a.logies, this may help us to read that mysterious word in the Nestorian stone inscription, being the name of the first Christian missionary who carried the cross to China, _O lo pen_, as 'Ruben'. This was indeed a common name among the Nestorians, for which reason I would give it the preference over Pauthier's Syriac 'Alopeno'. But Father Havret (_Stele Chretienne_, Leide, 1897, p. 26) objects to Dr. Hirth that the Chinese character _lo_, to which he gives the sound _ru_, is not to be found as a Sanskrit phonetic element in Chinese characters but that this phonetic element _ru_ is represented by the Chinese characters p.r.o.nounced _lu_ and therefore, he, Father Havret, adopts Colonel Yule's opinion as the only one being fully satisfactory."--H.C.]

CHAPTER XLII.

CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF CUNCUN, WHICH IS RIGHT WEARISOME TO TRAVEL THROUGH.

On leaving the Palace of Mangalai, you travel westward for three days, finding a succession of cities and boroughs and beautiful plains, inhabited by people who live by trade and industry, and have great plenty of silk. At the end of those three days, you reach the great mountains and valleys which belong to the province of CUNCUN.[NOTE 1] There are towns and villages in the land, and the people live by tilling the earth, and by hunting in the great woods; for the region abounds in forests, wherein are many wild beasts, such as lions, bears, lynxes, bucks and roes, and sundry other kinds, so that many are taken by the people of the country, who make a great profit thereof. So this way we travel over mountains and valleys, finding a succession of towns and villages, and many great hostelries for the entertainment of travellers, interspersed among extensive forests.

NOTE 1.--The region intended must necessarily be some part of the southern district of the province of Shen-si, called HAN-CHUNG, the axis of which is the River Han, closed in by exceedingly mountainous and woody country to north and south, dividing it on the former quarter from the rest of Shen-si, and on the latter from Sze-ch'wan. Polo's C frequently expresses an _H_, especially the Guttural _H_ of Chinese names, yet _Cuncun_ is not satisfactory as the expression of _Hanchung_.

The country was so ragged that in ancient times travellers from Si-ngan fu had to make a long circuit eastward by the frontier of Ho-nan to reach Han-chung; but, at an early date, a road was made across the mountains for military purposes; so long ago indeed that various eras and constructors are a.s.signed to it. Padre Martini's authorities ascribed it to a general in the service of Liu Pang, the founder of the first Han Dynasty (B.C.

202), and this date is current in Shan-si, as Baron v. Richthofen tells me. But in Sze-ch'wan the work is a.s.serted to have been executed during the 3rd century, when China was divided into several states, by Liu Pei, of the Han family, who, about A.D. 226, established himself as Emperor [Minor Han] of Western China at Ch'eng-tu fu.[1] This work, with its difficulties and boldness, extending often for great distances on timber corbels inserted in the rock, is vividly described by Martini. Villages and rest-houses were established at convenient distances. It received from the Chinese the name of _Chien-tao_, or the "Pillar Road." It commenced on the west bank of the Wei, opposite Pao-ki h'ien, 100 miles west of Si-ngan fu, and ended near the town of Paoching-h'ien, some 15 or 20 miles north-west from Han-chung.

We are told that Tului, the son of Chinghiz, when directing his march against Ho-nan in 1231 by this very line from Paoki, had to _make_ a road with great difficulty; but, as we shall see presently, this can only mean that the ancient road had fallen into decay, and had to be repaired. The same route was followed by Okkodai's son Kutan, in marching to attack the Sung Empire in 1235, and again by Mangku Kaan on his last campaign in 1258. These circ.u.mstances show that the road from Paoki was in that age the usual route into Han-chung and Sze-ch'wan; indeed there is no other road in that direction that is more than a mere jungle-track, and we may be certain that this was Polo's route.

This remarkable road was traversed by Baron v. Richthofen in 1872. To my questions, he replies: "The entire route is a work of tremendous engineering, and all of this was done by Liu Pei, who first ordered the construction. The hardest work consisted in cutting out long portions of the road from solid rock, chiefly where ledges project on the verge of a river, as is frequently the case on the He-lung Kiang.... It had been done so thoroughly from the first, that scarcely any additions had to be made in after days. Another kind of work which generally strikes tourists like Father Martini, or Chinese travellers, is the poling up of the road on the sides of steep cliffs....[2] Extensive cliffs are frequently rounded in this way, and imagination is much struck with the perils of walking on the side of a precipice, with the foaming river below. When the timbers rot, such pa.s.sages of course become obstructed, and thus the road is said to have been periodically in complete disuse. The repairs, which were chiefly made in the time of the Ming, concerned especially pa.s.sages of this sort."

Richthofen also notices the abundance of game; but inhabited places appear to be rarer than in Polo's time. (See _Martini_ in _Blaeu_; _Chine Ancienne_, p. 234; _Ritter_, IV. 520; _D'Ohsson_, II. 22, 80, 328; _Lecomte_, II. 95; _Chin. Rep._ XIX. 225; _Richthofen_, _Letter_ VII. p.

42, and MS. Notes).

[1] The last is also stated by Klaproth. Ritter has overlooked the discrepancy of the dates (B.C. and A.D.) and has supposed Liu Pei and Liu Pang to be the same. The resemblance of the names, and the fact that both princes were founders of Han Dynasties, give ample room for confusion.

[2] See cut from Mr. Cooper's book at p. 51 below. This so exactly ill.u.s.trates Baron R.'s description that I may omit the latter.

CHAPTER XLIII.

CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF ACBALEC MANZI.

After you have travelled those 20 days through the mountains of CUNCUN that I have mentioned, then you come to a province called ACBALEC MANZI, which is all level country, with plenty of towns and villages, and belongs to the Great Kaan. The people are Idolaters, and live by trade and industry. I may tell you that in this province, there grows such a great quant.i.ty of ginger, that it is carried all over the region of Cathay, and it affords a maintenance to all the people of the province, who get great gain thereby. They have also wheat and rice, and other kinds of corn, in great plenty and cheapness; in fact the country abounds in all useful products. The capital city is called ACBALEC MANZI [which signifies "the White City of the Manzi Frontier"].[NOTE 1]

This plain extends for two days' journey, throughout which it is as fine as I have told you, with towns and villages as numerous. After those two days, you again come to great mountains and valleys, and extensive forests, and you continue to travel westward through this kind of country for 20 days, finding however numerous towns and villages. The people are Idolaters, and live by agriculture, by cattle-keeping, and by the chase, for there is much game. And among other kinds, there are the animals that produce the musk, in great numbers.[NOTE 2]

NOTE 1.--Though the termini of the route, described in these two chapters, are undoubtedly Si-ngan fu and Ch'eng-tu fu, there are serious difficulties attending the determination of the line actually followed.

The time according to all the MSS., so far as I know, except those of one type, is as follows:

In the plain of Kenjanfu . . . . . 3 days.

In the mountains of Cuncun . . . . 20 "

In the plain of Acbalec . . . . . 2 "

In mountains again . . . . . . 20 "

-- 45 days.

[From Si-ngan fu to Ch'eng-tu (Sze-ch'wan), the Chinese reckon 2300 _li_ (766 miles). (Cf. _Rockhill, Land of the Lamas_, p. 23.) Mr. G.F. Eaton, writing from Han-chung (_Jour. China Br.R.A.S._ xxviii. p. 29) reckons: "From Si-ngan Fu S.W. to Ch'eng-tu, via K'i-shan, Fung-sien, Mien, Kw.a.n.g-yuan and Chao-hwa, about 30 days, in chairs." He says (p. 24): "From Ch'eng-tu via Si-ngan to Peking the road does not touch Han-chung, but 20 _li_ west of the city strikes north to Pao-ch'eng. The road from Han-chung to Ch'eng-tu made by Ts'in s.h.i.+ Hw.a.n.g-ti to secure his conquest of Sze-ch'wan, crosses the Ta-pa-shan."--H.C.]

It seems to me almost impossible to doubt that the Plain of Acbalec represents some part of the river-valley of the Han, interposed between the two ranges of mountains called by Richthofen _T'sing-Ling-Shan_ and _Ta-pa-Shan_. But the time, as just stated, is extravagant for anything like a direct journey between the two termini.