The Travels of Marco Polo — Volume 1

Note 1.—According to Sanang Setzen, Chinghiz himself discerned young Kúblái’s superiority. On his deathbed he said: “The words of the lad Kúblái are well worth attention; see, all of you, that ye heed what he says! One day he will sit in my seat and bring you good fortune such as you have had in my day!” (p. 105).

The Persian history of Wassáf thus exalts Kúblái: “Although from the frontiers of this country (’Irák) to the Centre of Empire, the Focus of the Universe, the genial abode of the ever-Fortunate Emperor and Just Kaan, is a whole year’s journey, yet the stories that have been spread abroad, even in these parts, of his glorious deeds, his institutes, his decisions, his justice, the largeness and acuteness of his intellect, his correctness of judgment, his great powers of administration, from the mouths of credible witnesses, of well-known merchants and eminent travellers, are so surpassing, that one beam of his glories, one fraction of his great qualities, suffices to eclipse all that history tells of the Cæsars of Rome, of the Chosroes of Persia, of the Khagans of China, of the (Himyarite) Kails of Arabia, of the Tobbas of Yemen, and the Rajas of India, of the monarchs of the houses of Sassan and Búya, and of the Seljukian Sultans.” (Hammer’s Wassaf, orig. p. 37.)

Some remarks on Kúblái and his government by a Chinese author, in a more rational and discriminative tone, will be found below under ch. xxiii., note 2.

A curious Low-German MS. at Cologne, giving an account of the East, says of the “Keyser von Kathagien—syn recht Name is der groisse Hunt!” (Magnus Canis, the Big Bow-wow as it were. See Orient und Occident, vol. i. p. 640.)

Note 1.—There is no doubt that Kúblái was proclaimed Kaan in 1260 (4th month), his brother Mangku Kaan having perished during the seige of Hochau in Szechwan in August of the preceding year. But Kúblái had come into Cathay some years before as his brother’s Lieutenant.

He was the fifth, not sixth, Supreme Kaan, as we have already noticed. (Bk. I. ch. li. note 2.)

Note 2.—Kúblái was born in the eighth month of the year corresponding to 1216, and had he lived to 1298 would have been eighty-two years old. [According to Dr. E. Bretschneider (Peking, 30), quoting the Yuen-Shi, Kúblái died at Khanbaligh, in the Tze-t’an tien in February, 1294.—H. C.] But by Mahomedan reckoning he would have been close upon eighty-five. He was the fourth son of Tuli, who was the youngest of Chinghiz’s four sons by his favourite wife Burté Fujin. (See De Mailla, IX. 255, etc.)

Note 3.—This is not literally true; for soon after his accession (in 1261) Kúblái led an army against his brother and rival Arikbuga, and defeated him. And again in his old age, if we credit the Chinese annalist, in 1289, when his grandson Kanmala (or Kambala) was beaten on the northern frontier by Kaidu, Kúblái took the field himself, though on his approach the rebels disappeared.

Kúblái and his brother Hulaku, young as they were, commenced their military career on Chinghiz’s last expedition (1226–1227). His most notable campaign was the conquest of Yunnan in 1253–1254. (De Mailla, IX. 298, 441.)

Note 4.—Nayan was no “uncle” of Kúblái’s, but a cousin in a junior generation. For Kúblái was the grandson of Chinghiz, and Nayan was the great-great-grandson of Chinghiz’s brother Uchegin, called in the Chinese annals Pilgutai. [Belgutai was Chinghiz’s step-brother. (Palladius.)—H. C.] On this brother, the great-uncle of Kúblái, and the commander of the latter’s forces against Arikbuga in the beginning of the reign, both Chinghiz and Kúblái had bestowed large territories in Eastern Tartary towards the frontier of Corea, and north of Liaotong towards the Manchu country. [“The situation and limits of his appanage are not clearly defined in history. According to Belgutai’s biography, it was between the Onon and Kerulen (Yuen shi), and according to Shin Yao’s researches (Lo fung low wen kao), at the confluence of the Argun and Shilka. Finally, according to Harabadur’s biography, it was situated in Abalahu, which geographically and etymologically corresponds to modern Butkha (Yuen shi); Abalahu, as Kúblái himself said, was rich in fish; indeed, after the suppression of Nayan’s rebellion, the governor of that country used to send to the Peking Court fishes weighing up to a thousand Chinese pounds (kin.). It was evidently a country near the Amur River.” (Palladius, l.c. 31.)—H. C.] Nayan had added to his inherited territory, and become very powerful. [“History has apparently connected Nayan’s appanage with that of Hatan (a grandson of Hachiun, brother of Chinghiz Khan), whose ordo was contiguous to Nayan’s, on the left bank of the Amur, hypothetically east of Blagovietschensk, on the spot, where still the traces of an ancient city can be seen. Nayan’s possessions stretched south to Kwang-ning, which belonged to his appanage, and it was from this town that he had the title of prince of Kwang-ning (Yuen shi).” (Palladius, l.c. 31.)—H. C.] Kaidu had gained influence over Nayan, and persuaded him to rise against Kúblái. A number of the other Mongol princes took part with him. Kúblái was much disquieted at the rumours, and sent his great lieutenant Bayan to reconnoitre. Bayan was nearly captured, but escaped to court and reported to his master the great armament that Nayan was preparing. Kúblái succeeded by diplomacy in detaching some of the princes from the enterprise, and resolved to march in person to the scene of action, whilst despatching Bayan to the Karakorum frontier to intercept Kaidu. This was in the summer of 1287. What followed will be found in a subsequent note (ch. iv. note 6). (For Nayan’s descent, see the Genealogical Table in the Appendix (A).)

Note 1.—I am afraid Marco, in his desire to impress on his readers the great power of the Kaan, is here giving the reins to exaggeration on a great scale.

Ramusio has here the following explanatory addition:—“You must know that in all the Provinces of Cathay and Mangi, and throughout the Great Kaan’s dominions, there are too many disloyal folk ready to break into rebellion against their Lord, and hence it is needful in every province containing large cities and much population, to maintain garrisons. These are stationed four or five miles from the cities, and the latter are not allowed to have walls or gates by which they might obstruct the entrance of the troops at their pleasure. These garrisons as well as their commanders the Great Kaan causes to be relieved every two years; and bridled in this way the people are kept quiet, and can make no disturbance. The troops are maintained not only by the pay which the Kaan regularly assigns from the revenues of each province, but also by the vast quantities of cattle which they keep, and by the sale of milk in the cities, which furnishes the means of buying what they require. They are scattered among their different stations, at distances of 30, 40, or 60 days (from the capital); and had Cublay decided to summon but the half of them, the number would have been incredible,” etc.

[Palladius says (p. 37) that in the Mongol-Chinese documents, the Mongol garrisons cantoned near the Chinese towns are mentioned under the name of Aolu, but no explanation of the term is given.—H. C.]

The system of controlling garrisons, quartered at a few miles from the great cities, is that which the Chinese followed at Kashgar, Yarkand, etc. It is, in fact, our own system in India, as at Barrackpúr, Dinapúr, Sikandarábád, Mián Mír.

Note 1.—“Une grande bretesche.” Bretesche, Bertisca (whence old English Brattice, and Bartizan), was a term applied to any boarded structure of defence or attack, but especially to the timber parapets and roofs often placed on the top of the flanking-towers in mediæval fortifications; and this use quite explains the sort of structure here intended. The term and its derivative Bartizan came later to be applied to projecting guérites or watch-towers of masonry. Brattice in English is now applied to a fence round a pit or dangerous machinery. (See Muratori, Dissert. I. 334; Wedgwood’s Dict. of Etym. sub. v. Brattice; Viollet le Duc, by Macdermott, p. 40; La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Dict.; F. Godefroy, Dict.)

[John Ranking (Hist. Res. on the Wars and Sports of the Mongols and Romans) in a note regarding this battle writes (p. 60): “It appears that it is an old custom in Persia, to use four elephants a-breast.” The Senate decreed Gordian III. to represent him triumphing after the Persian mode, with chariots drawn with four elephants. Augustan Hist. vol. ii. p. 65. See plate, p. 52.—H. C.]

Note 2.—This circumstance is mentioned in the extract below from Gaubil. He may have taken it from Polo, as it is not in Pauthier’s Chinese extracts; but Gaubil has other facts not noticed in these.

[Elephants came from the Indo-Chinese Kingdoms, Burma, Siam, Champa.—H. C.]

Note 3.—The specification of the Tartar instrument of two strings is peculiar to Pauthier’s texts. It was no doubt what Dr. Clarke calls “the balalaika or two-stringed lyre,” the most common instrument among the Kalmaks.

The sounding of the Nakkára as the signal of action is an old Pan-Asiatic custom, but I cannot find that this very striking circumstance of the whole host of Tartars playing and singing in chorus, when ordered for battle and waiting the signal from the boom of the Big Drum, is mentioned by any other author.

The Naḳḳárah or Nagárah was a great kettledrum, formed like a brazen caldron, tapering to the bottom and covered with buffalo-hide—at least 3½ or 4 feet in diameter. Bernier, indeed, tells of Naḳḳáras in use at the Court of Delhi that were not less than a fathom across; and Tod speaks of them in Rájpútána as “about 8 or 10 feet in diameter.” The Tartar Naḳḳárahs were usually, I presume, carried on a camel; but as Kúblái had begun to use elephants, his may have been carried on an elephant, as is sometimes the case in India. Thus, too, P. della Valle describes those of an Indian Embassy at Ispahan: “The Indian Ambassador was also accompanied by a variety of warlike instruments of music of strange kinds, and particularly by certain Naccheras of such immense size that each pair had an elephant to carry them, whilst an Indian astride upon the elephant between the two Naccheras played upon them with both hands, dealing strong blows on this one and on that; what a din was made by these vast drums, and what a spectacle it was, I leave you to imagine.”

Joinville also speaks of the Nakkara as the signal for action: “So he was setting his host in array till noon, and then he made those drums of theirs to sound that they call Nacaires, and then they set upon us horse and foot.” The Great Nakkara of the Tartars appears from several Oriental histories to have been called Ḳúrḳah. I cannot find this word in any dictionary accessible to me, but it is in the Ain Akbari (Kawargah) as distinct from the Naḳḳárah. Abulfazl tells us that Akbar not only had a rare knowledge of the science of music, but was likewise an excellent performer—especially on the Naḳḳárah!

Nakkaras. (From a Chinese original.)

The privilege of employing the Nakkara in personal state was one granted by the sovereign as a high honour and reward.

The crusades naturalised the word in some form or other in most European languages, but in our own apparently with a transfer of meaning. For Wright defines Naker as “a cornet or horn of brass.” And Chaucer’s use seems to countenance this:—

“Pipes, Trompes, Nakeres, and Clariounes,

That in the Bataille blowen blody sounes.”

—The Knight’s Tale.

On the other hand, Nacchera, in Italian, seems always to have retained the meaning of kettle-drum, with the slight exception of a local application at Siena to a metal circle or triangle struck with a rod. The fact seems to be that there is a double origin, for the Arabic dictionaries not only have Naḳḳárah, but Naḳír and Náḳúr, “cornu, tuba.” The orchestra of Bibars Bunduḳdári, we are told, consisted of 40 pairs of kettle-drums, 4 drums, 4 hautbois, and 20 trumpets (Naḳír). (Sir B. Frere; Della Valle, II. 21; Tod’s Rájasthán, I. 328; Joinville, p. 83; N. et E. XIV. 129, and following note; Blochmann’s Ain-i-Akbari, pp. 50–51; Ducange, by Haenschel, s.v.; Makrizi, I. 173.)

[Dozy (Supp. aux Dict. Arabes) has نقّارة [naqqārè] “petit tambour ou timbale, bassin de cuivre ou de terre recouvert d’une peau tendue,” and “grosses timbales en cuivre portées sur un chameau ou un mulet.”—Devic (Dict. Étym.) writes: “Bas Latin, nacara; bas grec, ἀνάχαρα. Ce n’est point comme on l’a dit, l’Arabe نقير naqïr ou ناقور náqör, qui signifient trompette, clairon, mais le persan نقاره, en arabe, نقارة naqāra, timbale.” It is to be found also in Abyssinia and south of Gondokoro; it is mentioned in the Sedjarat Malayu.

In French, it gives nacaire and gnacare from the Italian gnacare. “Quatre jouent de la guitare, quatre des castagnettes, quatre des gnacares.” (Molière, Pastorale Comique.)—H. C.]

Nakkaras. (From an Indian original.)

Note 4.—This description of a fight will recur again and again till we are very tired of it. It is difficult to say whether the style is borrowed from the historians of the East or the romancers of the West. Compare the two following parallels. First from an Oriental history:—

“The Ear of Heaven was deafened with the din of the great Kurkahs and Drums, and the Earth shook at the clangour of the Trumpets and Clarions. The shafts began to fall like the rain-drops of spring, and blood flowed till the field looked like the Oxus.” (J. A. S. sér. IV. tom. xix. 256.)

Next from an Occidental Romance:—

“Now rist grete tabour betyng,

Blaweyng of pypes, and ek trumpyng,

Stedes lepyng, and ek arnyng,

Of sharp speres, and avalyng

Of stronge knighttes, and wyghth meetyng;

Launces breche and increpyng;

Knighttes fallyng, stedes lesyng;

Herte and hevedes thorough kervyng;

Swerdes draweyng, lymes lesyng

Hard assaylyng, strong defendyng,

Stiff withstondyng and wighth fleigheyng.

Sharp of takyng armes spoylyng;

So gret bray, so gret crieyng,

Ifor the folk there was dyeyng;

So muche dent, noise of sweord,

The thondur blast no myghte beo hirde,

No the sunne hadde beo seye,

For the dust of the poudré!

No the weolkyn seon be myght,

So was arewes and quarels flyght.”

—King Alisaunder, in Weber, I. 93–94.

And again:—

“The eorthe quaked heom undur,

No scholde mon have herd the thondur.”

—Ibid. 142.

Also in a contemporary account of the fall of Acre (1291): “Renovatur ergo bellum terribile inter alterutros ... clamoribus interjectis hinc et inde ad terrorem; ita ut nec Deus tonans in sublime coaudiri potuisset.” (De Excidio Acconis, in Martene et Durand, V. 780.)

Note 5.—“Car il estoit homme au Grant Kaan.” (See note 2, ch. xiv., in Prologue.)

Note 6.—In continuation of note 4, chap. ii., we give Gaubil’s conclusion of the story of Nayan: “The Emperor had gone ahead with a small force, when Nayan’s General came forward with 100,000 men to make a reconnaissance. The Sovereign, however, put on a bold front, and though in great danger of being carried off, showed no trepidation. It was night, and an urgent summons went to call troops to the Emperor’s aid. They marched at once, the horsemen taking the foot soldiers on the crupper behind them. Nayan all this while was taking it quietly in his camp, and his generals did not venture to attack the Emperor, suspecting an ambuscade. Liting then took ten resolute men, and on approaching the General’s camp, caused a Fire-Pao to be discharged; the report caused a great panic among Nayan’s troops, who were very ill disciplined at the best. Meanwhile the Chinese and Tartar troops had all come up, and Nayan was attacked on all sides: by Liting at the head of the Chinese, by Yusitemur at the head of the Mongols, by Tutuha and the Emperor in person at the head of his guards and the troops of Kincha (Kipchak). The presence of the Emperor rendered the army invincible, and Nayan’s forces were completely defeated. That prince himself was taken, and afterwards put to death. The battle took place in the vicinity of the river Liao, and the Emperor returned in triumph to Shangtu” (207). The Chinese record given in detail by Pauthier is to the like effect, except as to the Kaan’s narrow escape, of which it says nothing.

As regards the Fire-Pao (the latter word seems to have been applied to military machines formerly, and now to artillery), I must refer to Favé and Reinaud’s very curious and interesting treatise on the Greek fire (du Feu Grégeois). They do not seem to assent to the view that the arms of this description which are mentioned in the Mongol wars were cannon, but rather of the nature of rockets.

[Dr. G. Schlegel (T’oung Pao, No. 1, 1902), in a paper entitled, On the Invention and Use of Fire-Arms and Gunpowder in China, prior to the Arrival of Europeans, says that “now, notwithstanding all what has been alleged by different European authors against the use of gunpowder and fire-arms in China, I maintain that not only the Mongols in 1293 had cannon, but that they were already acquainted with them in 1232.” Among his many examples, we quote the following from the Books of the Ming Dynasty: “What were anciently called P’ao were all machines for hurling stones. In the beginning of the Mongol Dynasty (A.D. 1260), p’ao (catapults) of the Western regions were procured. In the siege [in 1233] of the city of Ts’ai chow of the Kin (Tatars), fire was for the first time employed (in these p’ao), but the art of making them was not handed down, and they were afterwards seldom used.”—H. C.]

Note 1.—Friar Ricold mentions this Tartar maxim: “One Khan will put another to death, to get possession of the throne, but he takes great care that the blood be not spilt. For they say that it is highly improper that the blood of the Great Khan should be spilt upon the ground; so they cause the victim to be smothered somehow or other.” The like feeling prevails at the Court of Burma, where a peculiar mode of execution without bloodshed is reserved for Princes of the Blood. And Kaempfer, relating the conspiracy of Faulcon at the Court of Siam, says that two of the king’s brothers, accused of participation, were beaten to death with clubs of sandal-wood, “for the respect entertained for the blood-royal forbids its being shed.” See also note 6, ch. vi. Bk. I., on the death of the Khalif Mosta’sim Billah. (Pereg. Quat. p. 115; Mission to Ava, p. 229; Kaempfer, I. 19.)

Note 2.—Chorcha is the Manchu country, Niuché of the Chinese. (Supra, note 2, ch. xlvi. Bk. I.) [“Chorcha is Churchin.—Nayan, as vassal of the Mongol khans, had the commission to keep in obedience the people of Manchuria (subdued in 1233), and to care for the security of the country (Yuen shi); there is no doubt that he shared these obligations with his relative Hatan, who stood nearer to the native tribes of Manchuria.” (Palladius, 32.)—H. C.]

Kauli is properly Corea, probably here a district on the frontier thereof, as it is improbable that Nayan had any rule over Corea. [“The Corean kingdom proper could not be a part of the prince’s appanage. Marco Polo might mean the northern part of Corea, which submitted to the Mongols in A.D. 1269, with sixty towns, and which was subordinated entirely to the central administration in Liao-yang. As to the southern part of Corea, it was left to the king of Corea, who, however, was a vassal of the Mongols.” (Palladius, 32.) The king of Corea (Ko rye, Kao-li) was in 1288 Chyoung ryel wang (1274–1298); the capital was Syong-to, now Kăi syeng (K’ai-ch’eng).—H. C.]

Barskul, “Leopard-Lake,” is named in Sanang Setsen (p. 217), but seems there to indicate some place in the west of Mongolia, perhaps the Barkul of our maps. This Barskul must have been on the Manchu frontier. [There are in the Yuen-shi the names of the department of P’u-yü-lu, and of the place Pu-lo-ho, which, according to the system of Chinese transcription, approach to Barscol; but it is difficult to prove this identification, since our knowledge of these places is very scanty; it only remains to identify Barscol with Abalahu, which is already known; a conjecture all the more probable as the two names of P’u-yü-lu and Pu-lo-ho have also some resemblance to Abalahu. (Palladius, 32.) Mr. E. H. Parker says (China Review, xviii. p. 261) that Barscol may be Pa-la ssŭ or Bars Koto [in Tsetsen]. “This seems the more probable in that Cauly and Chorcha are clearly proved to be Corea and Niuché or Manchuria, so that Bars Koto would naturally fall within Nayan’s appanage.”—H. C.]

The reading of the fourth name is doubtful, Sichuigiu, Sichingiu (G. T.), Sichin-tingiu, etc. The Chinese name of Mukden is Shing-king, but I know not if it be so old as our author’s time. I think it very possible that the real reading is Sinchin-tingin, and that it represents Shangking-Tungking, expressing the two capitals of the Khitan Dynasty in this region, the position of which will be found indicated in No. IV. map of Polo’s itineraries. (See Schott, Aelteste Nachrichten von Mongolen und Tartaren, Berlin Acad. 1845, pp. 11–12.)

[Sikintinju is Kien chau “belonging to a town which was in Nayan’s appanage, and is mentioned in the history of his rebellion. There were two Kien-chow, one in the time of the Kin in the modern aimak of Khorchin; the other during the Mongol Dynasty, on the upper part of the river Ta-ling ho, in the limits of the modern aimak of Kharachin (Man chow yuen lew k’ao); the latter depended on Kuang-ning (Yuen-shi). Mention is made of Kien-chow, in connection with the following circumstance. When Nayan’s rebellion broke out, the Court of Peking sent orders to the King of Corea, requiring from him auxiliary troops; this circumstance is mentioned in the Corean Annals, under the year 1288 (Kao li shi, ch. xxx. f. 11) in the following words:—‘In the present year, in the fourth month, orders were received from Peking to send five thousand men with provisions to Kien-chow, which is 3000 li distant from the King’s residence.’ This number of li cannot of course be taken literally; judging by the distances estimated at the present day, it was about 2000 li from the Corean K’ai-ch’eng fu (then the Corean capital) to the Mongol Kien-chow; and as much to the Kien-chow of the Kin (through Mukden and the pass of Fa-k’u mun in the willow palisade). It is difficult to decide to which of these two cities of the same name the troops were ordered to go, but at any rate, there are sufficient reasons to identify Sikintinju of Marco Polo with Kien-chow.” (Palladius, 33.)—H. C.]

We learn from Gaubil that the rebellion did not end with the capture of Nayan. In the summer of 1288 several of the princes of Nayan’s league, under Hatan (apparently the Abkan of Erdmann’s genealogies), the grandson of Chinghiz’s brother Kajyun [Hachiun], threatened the provinces north-east of the wall. Kúblái sent his grandson and designated heir, Teimur, against them, accompanied by some of his best generals. After a two days’ fight on the banks of the River Kweilei, the rebels were completely beaten. The territories on the said River Kweilei, the Tiro, or Torro, and the Liao, are mentioned both by Gaubil and De Mailla as among those which had belonged to Nayan. As the Kweilei and Toro appear on our maps and also the better-known Liao, we are thus enabled to determine with tolerable precision Nayan’s country. (See Gaubil, p. 209, and De Mailla, 431 seqq.)

[“The rebellion of Nayan and Hatan is incompletely and contradictorily related in Chinese history. The suppression of both these rebellions lasted four years. In 1287 Nayan marched from his ordo with sixty thousand men through Eastern Mongolia. In the 5th moon (var. 6th) of the same year Khubilai marched against him from Shangtu. The battle was fought in South-Eastern Mongolia, and gained by Khubilai, who returned to Shangtu in the 8th month. Nayan fled to the south-east, across the mountain range, along which a willow palisade now stands; but forces had been sent beforehand from Shin-chow (modern Mukden) and Kuang-ning (probably to watch the pass), and Nayan was made prisoner.

“Two months had not passed, when Hatan’s rebellion broke out (so that it took place in the same year 1287). It is mentioned under the year 1288, that Hatan was beaten, and that the whole of Manchuria was pacified; but in 1290, it is again recorded that Hatan disturbed Southern Manchuria, and that he was again defeated. It is to this time that the narratives in the biographies of Liting, Yuesi Femur, and Mangwu ought to be referred. According to the first of these biographies, Hatan, after his defeat by Liting on the river Kui lui (Kuilar?), fled, and perished. According to the second biography, Hatan’s dwelling (on the Amur River) was destroyed, and he disappeared. According to the third, Mangwu and Naimatai pursued Hatan to the extreme north, up to the eastern sea-coast (the mouth of the Amur). Hatan fled, but two of his wives and his son Lao-ti were taken; the latter was executed, and this was the concluding act of the suppression of the rebellion in Manchuria. We find, however, an important variante in the history of Corea; it is stated there that in 1290, Hatan and his son Lao-ti were carrying fire and slaughter to Corea, and devastated that country; they slew the inhabitants and fed on human flesh. The King of Corea fled to the Kiang-hwa island. The Coreans were not able to withstand the invasion. The Mongols sent to their aid in 1291, troops under the command of two generals, Seshekan (who was at that time governor of Liao-tung) and Namantai (evidently the above-mentioned Naimatai). The Mongols conjointly with the Coreans defeated the insurgents, who had penetrated into the very heart of the country; their corpses covered a space 30 li in extent; Hatan and his son made their way through the victorious army and fled, finding a refuge in the Niuchi (Djurdji) country, from which Laotai made a later incursion into Corea. Such is the discrepancy between historians in relating the same fact. The statement found in the Corean history seems to me more reliable than the facts given by Chinese history.” (Palladius, 35–37.)—H. C.]

Note 3.—This passage, and the extract from Ramusio’s version attached to the following chapter, contain the only allusions by Marco to Jews in China. John of Monte Corvino alludes to them, and so does Marignolli, who speaks of having held disputations with them at Cambaluc; Ibn Batuta also speaks of them at Khansa or Hangchau. Much has been written about the ancient settlement of Jews at Kaifungfu, in Honan. One of the most interesting papers on the subject is in the Chinese Repository, vol. xx. It gives the translation of a Chinese-Jewish Inscription, which in some respects forms a singular parallel to the celebrated Christian Inscription of Si-ngan fu, though it is of far more modern date (1511). It exhibits, as that inscription does, the effect of Chinese temperament or language, in modifying or diluting doctrinal statements. Here is a passage: “With respect to the Israelitish religion, we find on inquiry that its first ancestor, Adam, came originally from India, and that during the (period of the) Chau State the Sacred Writings were already in existence. The Sacred Writings, embodying Eternal Reason, consist of 53 sections. The principles therein contained are very abstruse, and the Eternal Reason therein revealed is very mysterious, being treated with the same veneration as Heaven. The founder of the religion is Abraham, who is considered the first teacher of it. Then came Moses, who established the Law, and handed down the Sacred Writings. After his time, during the Han Dynasty (B.C. 206 to A.D. 221), this religion entered China. In (A.D.) 1164, a synagogue was built at P’ien. In (A.D.) 1296, the old Temple was rebuilt, as a place in which the Sacred Writings might be deposited with veneration.”

[According to their oral tradition, the Jews came to China from Si Yĭh (Western Regions), probably Persia, by Khorasan and Samarkand, during the first century of our era, in the reign of the Emperor Ming-ti (A.D. 58–75) of the Han Dynasty. They were at times confounded with the followers of religions of India, T’ien Chu kiao, and very often with the Mohammedans Hwui-Hwui or Hwui-tzŭ; the common name of their religion was Tiao kin kiao, “Extract Sinew Religion.” However, three lapidary inscriptions, kept at Kaï-fung, give different dates for the arrival of the Jews in China: one dated 1489 (2nd year Hung Che, Ming Dynasty) says that seventy Jewish families arrived at P’ien liang (Kaï-fung) at the time of the Sung (A.D. 960–1278); one dated 1512 (7th year Chêng Têh) says that the Jewish religion was introduced into China under the Han Dynasty (B.C. 206–A.D. 221), and the last one dated 1663 (2nd year K’ang-hi) says that this religion was first preached in China under the Chau Dynasty (B.C. 1122–255); this will not bear discussion.

The synagogue, according to these inscriptions, was built in 1163, under the Sung Emperor Hiao; under the Yuen, in 1279, the rabbi rebuilt the ancient temple known as Ts’ing Chen sse, probably on the site of a ruined mosque; the synagogue was rebuilt in 1421 during the reign of Yung-lo; it was destroyed by an inundation of the Hwang-ho in 1642, and the Jews began to rebuild it once more in 1653.

The first knowledge Europeans had of a colony of Jews at K’aï-fung fu, in the Ho-nan province, was obtained through the Jesuit missionaries at Peking, at the beginning of the 17th century; the celebrated Matteo Ricci having received the visit of a young Jew, the Jesuits Aleni (1613), Gozani (1704), Gaubil and Domenge who made in 1721 two plans of the synagogue, visited Kaï-fung and brought back some documents. In 1850, a mission of enquiry was sent to that place by the London Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews; the results of this mission were published at Shang-haï, in 1851, by Bishop G. Smith of Hongkong; fac-similes of the Hebrew manuscripts obtained at the synagogue of Kaï-fung were also printed at Shang-haï at the London Missionary Society’s Press, in the same year. The Jewish merchants of London sent in 1760 to their brethren of Kaï-fung a letter written in Hebrew; a Jewish merchant of Vienna, J. L. Liebermann, visited the Kaï-fung colony in 1867. At the time of the T’aï-P’ing rising, the rebels marched against Kaï-fung in 1857, and with the rest of the population, the Jews were dispersed. (J. Tobar, Insc. juives de Kaï-fong-fou, 1900; Henri Cordier, Les Juifs en Chine, and Fung and Wagnall’s Jewish Encyclopedia.) Palladius writes (p. 38), “The Jews are mentioned for the first time in the Yuen shi (ch. xxxiii. p. 7), under the year 1329, on the occasion of the re-establishment of the law for the collection of taxes from dissidents. Mention of them is made again under the year 1354, ch. xliii. fol. 10, when on account of several insurrections in China, rich Mahommetans and Jews were invited to the capital in order to join the army. In both cases they are named Chu hu (Djuhud).”—H. C.]

The synagogue at Kaifungfu has recently been demolished for the sake of its materials, by the survivors of the Jewish community themselves, who were too poor to repair it. The tablet that once adorned its entrance, bearing in gilt characters the name Eszloyih (Israel), has been appropriated by a mosque. The 300 or 400 survivors seem in danger of absorption into the Mahomedan or heathen population. The last Rabbi and possessor of the sacred tongue died some thirty or forty years ago, the worship has ceased, and their traditions have almost died away.

(Cathay, 225, 341, 497; Ch. Rep. XX. 436; Dr. Martin, in J. N. China Br. R. A. S. 1866, pp. 32–33.)

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.