All these were placed on the Observatory stage.
"There is a wind-index-pole called the 'Fair-wind-pennon,' on which is an
iron disk marked out in 28 points, corresponding in number to the 28
constellations."[15]
+ Mr. Wylie justly observes that the evidence is all in accord, and it
leaves, I think, no reasonable room for doubt that the instruments now in
the Observatory garden at Peking are those which were cast aside by Father
Verbiest[16] in 1673 (or 1668); which Father Ricci saw at Peking at the
beginning of the century, and of which he has described the duplicates at
Nanking; and which had come down from the time of the Mongols, or, more
precisely, of Kublai Khan.
Ricci speaks of their age as nearly 250 years in 1599; Verbiest as nearly
300 years in 1668. But these estimates evidently point to the
termination of the Mongol Dynasty (1368), to which the Chinese would
naturally refer their oral chronology. We have seen that Kublai's reign
was the era of flourishing astronomy, and that the instruments are
referred to his astronomer Ko Sheu-king; nor does there seem any ground
for questioning this. In fact, it being once established that the
instruments existed when the Jesuits entered China, all the objections
fall to the ground.
We may observe that the number of the ancient instruments mentioned in the
popular Chinese account agrees with the number of important instruments
described by Ricci, and the titles of three at least out of the four seem
to indicate the same instruments. The catalogue of the new instruments of
1673 (or 1668) given in the native work also agrees exactly with that
given by Lecomte.[17] And in reference to my question as to the
possibility that one of Verbiest's instruments might have been removed
from the terrace to the garden, it is now hardly worth while to repeat Mr.
Wylie's assurance that there is no ground whatever for such a supposition.
The instruments represented by Lecomte are all still on the terrace, only
their positions have been somewhat altered to make room for the two added
in last century.
Probably, says Mr. Wylie, more might have been added from Chinese works,
especially the biography of Ko Sheu-king. But my kind correspondent was
unable to travel beyond the books on his own shelves. Nor was it needful.
It will have been seen that, beautiful as the art and casting of these
instruments is, it would be a mistake to suppose that they are entitled to
equally high rank in scientific accuracy. Mr. Wylie mentioned the question
that had been started to Freiherr von Gumpach, who was for some years
Professor of Astronomy in the Peking College. Whilst entirely rejecting
the doubts that had been raised as to the age of the Mongol instruments,
he said that he had seen those of Tycho Brahe, and the former are quite
unworthy to be compared with Tycho's in scientific accuracy.
The doubts expressed have been useful in drawing attention to these
remarkable reliques of the era of Kublai's reign, and of Marco Polo's
residence in Cathay, though I fear they are answerable for having added
some pages to a work that required no enlargement!
[Mr. Wylie sent a most valuable paper on The Mongol Astronomical
Instruments at Peking to the Congress of Orientalists held at St.
Petersburg, which was reprinted at Shanghai in 1897 in Chinese
Researches. Some of the astronomical instruments have been removed to
Potsdam by the Germans since the siege of the foreign Legations at Peking
in 1900. - H. C.]
On these auguries, and on diviners and fortune-tellers, see Semedo, p.
118 seqq.; Kidd, p. 313 (also for preceding references, Mid. Kingdom,
II. 152; Gaubil, 136).
NOTE 2. - + The real cycle of the Mongols, which was also that of the
Chinese, runs: 1. Rat; 2. Ox; 3. Tiger; 4. Hare; 5. Dragon; 6. Serpent; 7.
Horse; 8. Sheep; 9. Ape; 10. Cock; 11. Dog; 12. Swine. But as such a cycle
[12 earthly branches, Ti-chih] is too short to avoid confusion, it is
combined with a co-efficient cycle of ten epithets [celestial Stems,
T'ien-kan] in such wise as to produce a 60-year cycle of compound names
before the same shall recur. These co-efficient epithets are found in four
different forms: (1) From the Elements: Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water,
attaching to each a masculine and feminine attribute so as to make ten
epithets. (2) From the Colours: Blue, Red, Yellow, White, Black, similarly
treated. (3) By terms without meaning in Mongol, directly adopted or
imitated from the Chinese, Ga, Yi, Bing, Ting, etc. (4) By the five
Cardinal Points: East, South, Middle, West, North. Thus 1864 was the first
year of a 60-year cycle: -
1864 = (Masc.) Wood-Rat Year = (Masc.) Blue-Rat Year.
1865 = (Fem.) Wood-Ox Year = (Fem.) Blue-Ox Year.
1866 = (Masc.) Fire-Tiger Year = (Masc.) Red-Tiger Year.
1867 = (Fem.) Fire-Hare Year = (Fem.) Red-Hare Year.
1923 = (Fem.) Water-Swine Year = (Fem.) Black-Swine Year.
And then a new cycle commences just as before.
This Calendar was carried by the Mongols into all their dominions, and it
would appear to have long survived them in Persia. Thus a document issued
in favour of Sir John Chardin by the Shaikh-ul-Islam of Ispahan, bears
the strange date for a Mahomedan luminary of "The year of the Swine." The
Hindus also had a 60-year cycle, but with them each year had an
independent name.
The Mongols borrowed their system from the Chinese, who attribute its
invention to the Emperor Hwang-ti, and its initiation to the 61st year of
his reign, corresponding to B.C. 2637.
