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.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 41 of 701
Words from 20560 to 21069
of 370046
