Now you must know that the Emperor sent the aforesaid Messer Marco Polo, who is the author of this whole story, on business of his into the Western Provinces. On that occasion he travelled from Cambaluc a good four months’ journey towards the west.{1} And so now I will tell you all that he saw on his travels as he went and returned.
When you leave the City of Cambaluc and have ridden ten miles, you come to a very large river which is called Pulisanghin, and flows into the ocean, so that merchants with their merchandise ascend it from the sea. Over this River there is a very fine stone bridge, so fine indeed, that it has very few equals. The fashion of it is this: it is 300 paces in length, and it must have a good eight paces of width, for ten mounted men can ride across it abreast. It has 24 arches and as many water-mills, and ’tis all of very fine marble, well built and firmly founded. Along the top of the bridge there is on either side a parapet of marble slabs and columns, made in this way. At the beginning of the bridge there is a marble column, and under it a marble lion, so that the column stands upon the lion’s loins, whilst on the top of the column there is a second marble lion, both being of great size and beautifully executed sculpture. At the distance of a pace from this column there is another precisely the same, also with its two lions, and the space between them is closed with slabs of grey marble to prevent people from falling over into the water. And thus the columns run from space to space along either side of the bridge, so that altogether it is a beautiful object.{2}
Note 1.—[When Marco leaves the capital, he takes the main road, the “Imperial Highway,” from Peking to Si-ngan fu, viâ Pao-ting, Cheng-ting, Hwai-luh, Taï-yuan, Ping-yang, and T’ung-kwan, on the Yellow River. Mr. G. F. Eaton, writing from Han-chung (Jour. China Br. R. As. Soc. XXVIII. No. 1) says it is a cart-road, except for six days between Taï-yuan and Hwai-luh, and that it takes twenty-nine days to go from Peking to Si-ngan, a figure which agrees well with Polo’s distances; it is also the time which Dr. Forke’s journey lasted; he left Peking on the 1st May, 1892, reached Taï-yuan on the 12th, and arrived at Si-ngan on the 30th (Von Peking nach Ch’ang-an). Mr. Rockhill left Peking on the 17th December, 1888, reached T’aï-yuan on the 26th, crossed the Yellow River on the 5th January, and arrived at Si-ngan fu on the 8th January, 1889, in twenty-two days, a distance of 916 miles. (Land of the Lamas, pp. 372–374.) M. Grenard left Si-ngan on the 10th November and reached Peking on the 16th December, 1894 = thirty-six days; he reckons 1389 kilometres = 863 miles. (See Rev. C. Holcombe, Tour through Shan-hsi and Shen-hsi in Jour. North China Br. R. A. S. N. S. X. pp. 54–70.)—H. C.]
Note 2.—Pul-i-Sangín, the name which Marco gives the River, means in Persian simply (as Marsden noticed) “The Stone Bridge.” In a very different region the same name often occurs in the history of Timur applied to a certain bridge, in the country north of Badakhshan, over the Wakhsh branch of the Oxus. And the Turkish admiral Sidi ’Ali, travelling that way from India in the 16th century, applies the name, as it is applied here, to the river; for his journal tells us that beyond Kuláb he crossed “the River Pulisangin.”
A Housselin d.The Bridge of Pulisanghin. (From the Livre des Merveilles.)We may easily suppose, therefore, that near Cambaluc also, the Bridge, first, and then the River, came to be known to the Persian-speaking foreigners of the court and city by this name. This supposition is however a little perplexed by the circumstance that Rashiduddin calls the River the Sangín, and that Sangkan-Ho appears from the maps or citations of Martini, Klaproth, Neumann, and Pauthier to have been one of the Chinese names of the river, and indeed, Sankang is still the name of one of the confluents forming the Hwan Ho.
[“By Sanghin, Polo renders the Chinese Sang-kan, by which name the River Hun-ho is already mentioned, in the 6th century of our era. Hun-ho is also an ancient name; and the same river in ancient books is often called Lu-Kou River also. All these names are in use up to the present time; but on modern Chinese maps, only the upper part of the river is termed Sang-Kan ho, whilst south of the inner Great Wall, and in the plain, the name of Hun-ho is applied to it. Hun ho means “Muddy River,” and the term is quite suitable. In the last century, the Emperor K’ien-lung ordered the Hun-ho to be named Yung-ting ho, a name found on modern maps, but the people always call it Hun ho.” (Bretschneider, Peking, p. 54.)—H. C.]
The River is that which appears in the maps as the Hwan Ho, Hun-ho, or Yongting Ho, flowing about 7 miles west of Peking towards the south-east and joining the Pe-Ho at Tientsin; and the Bridge is that which has been known for ages as the Lu-kou-K’iao or Bridge of Lukou, adjoining the town which is called in the Russian map of Peking Feuchen, but in the official Chinese Atlas Kung-Keih-cheng. (See Map at ch. xi. of Bk. II. in the first Volume.) [“Before arriving at the bridge the small walled city of Kung-ki cheng is passed. This was founded in the first half of the 17th century. The people generally call it Fei-ch’eng.” (Bretschneider, Peking, p. 50.)—H. C.] It is described both by Magaillans and Lecomte, with some curious discrepancies, whilst each affords particulars corroborative of Polo’s account of the character of the bridge. The former calls it the finest bridge in China. Lecomte’s account says the bridge was the finest he had yet seen. “It is above 170 geometrical paces (850 feet) in length. The arches are small, but the rails or side-walls are made of a hard whitish stone resembling marble. These stones are more than 5 feet long, 3 feet high, and 7 or 8 inches thick; supported at each end by pilasters adorned with mouldings and bearing the figures of lions.... The bridge is paved with great flat stones, so well joined that it is even as a floor.”
Magaillans thinks Polo’s memory partially misled him, and that his description applies more correctly to another bridge on the same road, but some distance further west, over the Lieu-li Ho. For the bridge over the Hwan Ho had really but thirteen arches, whereas that on the Lieu-li had, as Polo specifies, twenty-four. The engraving which we give of the Lu-kou K’iao from a Chinese work confirms this statement, for it shows but thirteen arches. And what Polo says of the navigation of the river is almost conclusive proof that Magaillans is right, and that our traveller’s memory confounded the two bridges. For the navigation of the Hwan Ho, even when its channel is full, is said to be impracticable on account of rapids, whilst the Lieu-li Ho, or “Glass River,” is, as its name implies, smooth, and navigable, and it is largely navigated by boats from the coal-mines of Fang-shan. The road crosses the latter about two leagues from Cho-chau. (See next chapter.)
[The Rev. W. S. Ament (M. Polo in Cambaluc, p. 116–117) remarks regarding Yule’s quotation from Magaillans that “a glance at Chinese history would have explained to these gentlemen that there was no stone bridge over the Liu Li river till the days of Kia Tsing, the Ming Emperor, 1522 A.D., or more than one hundred and fifty years after Polo was dead. Hence he could not have confounded bridges, one of which he never saw. The Lu Kou Bridge was first constructed of stone by She Tsung, fourth Emperor of the Kin, in the period Ta Ting 1189 A.D., and was finished by Chang Tsung 1194 A.D. Before that time it had been constructed of wood, and had been sometimes a stationary and often a floating bridge. The oldest account [end of 16th century] states that the bridge was pu 200 in length, and specifically states that each pu was 5 feet, thus making the bridge 1000 feet long. It was called the Kuan Li Bridge. The Emperor, Kia Tsing of the Ming, was a great bridge builder. He reconstructed this bridge, adding strong embankments to prevent injury by floods. He also built the fine bridge over the Liu Li Ho, the Cho Chou Bridge over the Chü Ma Ho. What cannot be explained is Polo’s statement that the bridge had twenty-four arches, when the oldest accounts give no more than thirteen, there being eleven at the present time. The columns which supported the balustrade in Polo’s time rested upon the loins of sculptured lions. The account of the lions after the bridge was repaired by Kia Tsing says that there are so many that it is impossible to count them correctly, and gossip about the bridge says that several persons have lost their minds in making the attempt. The little walled city on the east end of the bridge, rightly called Kung Chi, popularly called Fei Ch’eng, is a monument to Ts’ung Chêng, the last of the Ming, who built it, hoping to check the advance of Li Tzu ch’eng, the great robber chief who finally proved too strong for him.”—H. C.]
Bridge of Lu-ku k’iao.The Bridge of Lu-kou is mentioned more than once in the history of the conquest of North China by Chinghiz. It was the scene of a notable mutiny of the troops of the Kin Dynasty in 1215, which induced Chinghiz to break a treaty just concluded, and led to his capture of Peking.
This bridge was begun, according to Klaproth, in 1189, and was five years a-building. On the 17th August, 1688, as Magaillans tells us, a great flood carried away two arches of the bridge, and the remainder soon fell. [Father Intorcetta, quoted by Bretschneider (Peking, p. 53), gives the 25th of July, 1668, as the date of the destruction of the bridge, which agrees well with the Chinese accounts.—H. C.] The bridge was renewed, but with only nine arches instead of thirteen, as appears from the following note of personal observation with which Dr. Lockhart has favoured me:
“At 27 li from Peking, by the western road leaving the gate of the Chinese city called Kwang-’an-măn, after passing the old walled town of Feuchen, you reach the bridge of Lo-Ku-Kiao. As it now stands it is a very long bridge of nine arches (real arches) spanning the valley of the Hwan Ho, and surrounded by beautiful scenery. The bridge is built of green sandstone, and has a good balustrade with short square pilasters crowned by small lions. It is in very good repair, and has a ceaseless traffic, being on the road to the coal-mines which supply the city. There is a pavilion at each end of the bridge with inscriptions, the one recording that K’ang-hi (1662–1723) built the bridge, and the other that Kienlung (1736–1796) repaired it.” These circumstances are strictly consistent with Magaillans’ account of the destruction of the mediæval bridge. Williamson describes the present bridge as about 700 feet long, and 12 feet wide in the middle part.
[Dr. Bretschneider saw the bridge, and gives the following description of it: “The bridge is 350 ordinary paces long and 18 broad. It is built of sandstone, and has on either side a stone balustrade of square columns, about 4 feet high, 140 on each side, each crowned by a sculptured lion over a foot high. Beside these there are a number of smaller lions placed irregularly on the necks, behind the legs, under the feet, or on the back of the larger ones. The space between the columns is closed by stone slabs. Four sculptured stone elephants lean with their foreheads against the edge of the balustrades. The bridge is supported by eleven arches. At each end of the bridge two pavilions with yellow roofs have been built, all with large marble tablets in them; two with inscriptions made by order of the Emperor K’ang-hi (1662–1723); and two with inscriptions of the time of K’ien-lung (1736–1796). On these tablets the history of the bridge is recorded.” Dr. Bretschneider adds that Dr. Lockhart is also right in counting nine arches, for he counts only the waterways, not the arches resting upon the banks of the river. Dr. Forke (p. 5) counts 11 arches and 280 stone lions.—H. C.]
(P. de la Croix, II. 11, etc.; Erskine’s Baber, p. xxxiii.; Timour’s Institutes, 70; J. As. IX. 205; Cathay, 260; Magaillans, 14–18, 35; Lecomte in Astley, III. 529; J. As. sér. II. tom. i. 97–98; D’Ohsson, I. 144.)
When you leave the Bridge, and ride towards the west, finding all the way excellent hostelries for travellers, with fine vineyards, fields, and gardens, and springs of water, you come after 30 miles to a fine large city called Juju, where there are many abbeys of idolaters, and the people live by trade and manufactures. They weave cloths of silk and gold, and very fine taffetas.{1} Here too there are many hostelries for travellers.{2}
After riding a mile beyond this city you find two roads, one of which goes west and the other south-east. The westerly road is that through Cathay, and the south-easterly one goes towards the province of Manzi.{3}
Taking the westerly one through Cathay, and travelling by it for ten days, you find a constant succession of cities and boroughs, with numerous thriving villages, all abounding with trade and manufactures, besides the fine fields and vineyards and dwellings of civilized people; but nothing occurs worthy of special mention; and so I will only speak of a kingdom called Taianfu.
Note 1.—The word is sendaus (Pauthier), pl. of sendal, and in G. T. sandal. It does not seem perfectly known what this silk texture was, but as banners were made of it, and linings for richer stuffs, it appears to have been a light material, and is generally rendered taffetas. In Richard Cœur de Lion we find
“Many a pencel of sykelatounAnd of sendel of grene and broun,”and also pavilions of sendel; and in the Anglo-French ballad of the death of William Earl of Salisbury in St. Lewis’s battle on the Nile—
“Le Meister du Temple brace les chivauxEt le Count Long-Espée depli les sandaux.”
The oriflamme of France was made of cendal. Chaucer couples taffetas and sendal. His “Doctor of Physic”
“In sanguin and in persë clad was allë,Linëd with taffata and with sendallë.”[La Curne, Dict., s.v. Sendaus has: Silk stuff: “Somme de la delivrance des sendaus.” (Nouv. Compt. de l’Arg. p. 19).—Godefroy, Dict., gives: “Sendain, adj., made with the stuff called cendal: Drap d’or sendains (1392, Test. de Blanche, duch d’Orl., Ste-Croix, Arch. Loiret).” He says s.v. Cendal, “cendau, cendral, cendel, ... sendail, ... étoffe légère de soie unie qui paraît avoir été analogue au taffetas.” “‘On faisait des cendaux forts ou faibles, et on leur donnait toute sorte de couleurs. On s’en servait surtout pour vêtements et corsets, pour doublures de draps, de fourrures et d’autres étoffes de soie plus précieuses, enfin pour tenture d’appartements.’ (Bourquelot, Foir. de Champ. I. 261).”
“J’ay de toilles de mainte guise,De sidonnes et de cendaulx.Soyes, satins blancs et vermaulx.”—Greban, Mist. de la Pass., 26826, G. Paris.—H. C.]The origin of the word seems also somewhat doubtful. The word Σενδἑς occurs in Constant. Porphyrog. de Ceremoniis (Bonn, ed. I. 468), and this looks like a transfer of the Arabic Săndăs or Sundus, which is applied by Bakui to the silk fabrics of Yezd. (Not. et Ext. II. 469.) Reiske thinks this is the origin of the Frank word, and connects its etymology with Sind. Others think that sendal and the other forms are modifications of the ancient Sindon, and this is Mr. Marsh’s view. (See also Fr.-Michel, Recherches, etc. I. 212; Dict. des Tissus, II. 171 seqq.)
Note 2.—Jújú is precisely the name given to this city by Rashiduddin, who notices the vineyards. Juju is Cho-chau, just at the distance specified from Peking, viz. 40 miles, and nearly 30 from Pulisanghin or Lu-kou K’iao. The name of the town is printed Tsochow by Mr. Williamson, and Chechow in a late Report of a journey by Consul Oxenham. He calls it “a large town of the second order, situated on the banks of a small river flowing towards the south-east, viz. the Kiu-ma-Ho, a navigable stream. It had the appearance of being a place of considerable trade, and the streets were crowded with people.” (Reports of Journeys in China and Japan, etc. Presented to Parliament, 1869, p. 9.) The place is called Jújú also in the Persian itinerary given by ’Izzat Ullah in J. R. A. S. VII. 308; and in one procured by Mr. Shaw. (Proc. R. G. S. XVI. p. 253.)
[The Rev. W. S. Ament (Marco Polo, 119–120) writes, “the historian of the city of Cho-chau sounds the praises of the people for their religious spirit. He says:—‘It was the custom of the ancients to worship those who were before them. Thus students worshipped their instructors, farmers worshipped the first husbandman, workers in silk, the original silk-worker. Thus when calamities come upon the land, the virtuous among the people make offerings to the spirits of earth and heaven, the mountains, rivers, streams, etc. All these things are profitable. These customs should never be forgotten.’ After such instruction, we are prepared to find fifty-eight temples of every variety in this little city of about 20,000 inhabitants. There is a temple to the spirits of Wind, Clouds, Thunder, and Rain, to the god of silk-workers, to the Horse-god, to the god of locusts, and the eight destructive insects, to the Five Dragons, to the King who quiets the waves. Besides these, there are all the orthodox temples to the ancient worthies, and some modern heroes. Liu Pei and Chang Fei, two of the three great heroes of the San Kuo Chih, being natives of Cho Chou, are each honoured with two temples, one in the native village, and one in the city. It is not often that one locality can give to a great empire two of its three most popular heroes: Liu Pei, Chang Fei, Kuan Yu.”
“Judging from the condition of the country,” writes the Rev. W. S. Ament (p. 120), “one could hardly believe that this general region was the original home of the silk-worm, and doubtless the people who once lived here are the only people who ever saw the silk-worm in his wild state. The historian of Cho-Chou honestly remarks that he knows of no reason why the production of silk should have ceased there, except the fact that the worms refused to live there.... The palmy days of the silk industry were in the T’ang dynasty.”—H. C.]
Note 3.—“About a li from the southern suburbs of this town, the great road to Shantung and the south-east diverged, causing an immediate diminution in the number of carts and travellers” (Oxenham). [From Peking “to Cheng-ting fu”, says Colonel Bell (Proc. R. G. S., XII. 1890, p. 58), “the route followed is the Great Southern highway; here the Great Central Asian highway leaves it.” The Rev. W. S. Ament says (l.c., 121) about the bifurcation of the road, one branch going on south-west to Pao-Ting fu and Shan-si, and one branch to Shantung and Ho-nan: “The union of the two roads at this point, bringing the travel and traffic of ten provinces, makes Cho Chou one of the most important cities in the Empire. The magistrate of this district is the only one, so far as we know, in the Empire who is relieved of the duty of welcoming and escorting transient officers. It was the multiplicity of such duties, so harassing, that persuaded Fang Kuan-ch’eng to write the couplet on one of the city gateways: Jih pien ch’ung yao, wu shuang ti: T’ien hsia fan nan, ti yi Chou. ‘In all the world, there is no place so public as this: for multiplied cares and trials, this is the first Chou.’ The people of Cho-Chou, of old celebrated for their religious spirit, are now well known for their literary enterprise.”—H. C.] This bifurcation of the roads is a notable point in Polo’s book. For after following the western road through Cathay, i.e. the northern provinces of China, to the borders of Tibet and the Indo-Chinese regions, our traveller will return, whimsically enough, not to the capital to take a fresh departure, but to this bifurcation outside of Chochau, and thence carry us south with him to Manzi, or China south of the Yellow River.
Of a part of the road of which Polo speaks in the latter part of the chapter Williamson says: “The drive was a very beautiful one. Not only were the many villages almost hidden by foliage, but the road itself hereabouts is lined with trees.... The effect was to make the journey like a ramble through the avenues of some English park.” Beyond Tingchau however the country becomes more barren. (I. 268.)
After riding then those ten days from the city of Juju, you find yourself in a kingdom called Taianfu, and the city at which you arrive, which is the capital, is also called Taianfu, a very great and fine city. [But at the end of five days’ journey out of those ten, they say there is a city unusually large and handsome called Acbaluc, whereat terminate in this direction the hunting preserves of the Emperor, within which no one dares to sport except the Emperor and his family, and those who are on the books of the Grand Falconer. Beyond this limit any one is at liberty to sport, if he be a gentleman. The Great Kaan, however, scarcely ever went hunting in this direction, and hence the game, particularly the hares, had increased and multiplied to such an extent that all the crops of the Province were destroyed. The Great Kaan being informed of this, proceeded thither with all his Court, and the game that was taken was past counting.]{1}
Taianfu{2} is a place of great trade and great industry, for here they manufacture a large quantity of the most necessary equipments for the army of the Emperor. There grow here many excellent vines, supplying great plenty of wine; and in all Cathay this is the only place where wine is produced. It is carried hence all over the country.{3} There is also a great deal of silk here, for the people have great quantities of mulberry-trees and silk-worms.
From this city of Taianfu you ride westward again for seven days, through fine districts with plenty of towns and boroughs, all enjoying much trade and practising various kinds of industry. Out of these districts go forth not a few great merchants, who travel to India and other foreign regions, buying and selling and getting gain. After those seven days’ journey you arrive at a city called Pianfu, a large and important place, with a number of traders living by commerce and industry. It is a place too where silk is largely produced.{4}
So we will leave it and tell you of a great city called Cachanfu. But stay—first let us tell you about the noble castle called Caichu.
Note 1.—Marsden translates the commencement of this passage, which is peculiar to Ramusio, and runs “E in capo di cinque giornate delle predette dieci,” by the words “At the end of five days’ journey beyond the ten,” but this is clearly wrong.[1] The place best suiting in position, as halfway between Cho-chau and T’ai-yuan fu, would be Cheng-ting fu, and I have little doubt that this is the place intended. The title of Ak-Báligh in Turki,[2] or Chaghán Balghásun in Mongol, meaning “White City,” was applied by the Tartars to Royal Residences; and possibly Cheng-ting fu may have had such a claim, for I observe in the Annales de la Prop. de la Foi (xxxiii. 387) that in 1862 the Chinese Government granted to the R. C. Vicar-Apostolic of Chihli the ruined Imperial Palace at Cheng-ting fu for his cathedral and other mission establishments. Moreover, as a matter of fact, Rashiduddin’s account of Chinghiz’s campaign in northern China in 1214, speaks of the city of “Chaghan Balghasun which the Chinese call Jintzinfu.” This is almost exactly the way in which the name of Cheng-ting fu is represented in ’Izzat Ullah’s Persian Itinerary (Jigdzinfu, evidently a clerical error for Jingdzinfu), so I think there can be little doubt that Cheng-ting fu is the place intended. The name of Hwai-luh’ien (see Note 2), which is the first stage beyond Cheng-ting fu, is said to mean the “Deer-lair,” pointing apparently to the old character of the tract as a game-preserve. The city of Cheng-ting is described by Consul Oxenham as being now in a decayed and dilapidated condition, consisting only of two long streets crossing at right angles. It is noted for the manufacture of images of Buddha from Shan-si iron. (Consular Reports, p. 10; Erdmann, 331.)
[The main road turns due west at Cheng-ting fu, and enters Shan-si through what is known among Chinese travellers as the Ku-kwan, Customs’ Barrier.—H. C.]
Between Cheng-ting fu and T’ai-yuan fu the traveller first crosses a high and rugged range of mountains, and then ascends by narrow defiles to the plateau of Shan-si. But of these features Polo’s excessive condensation takes no notice.
The traveller who quits the great plain of Chihli [which terminates at Fu-ch’eng-i, a small market-town, two days from Pao-ting.—H. C.] for “the kingdom of Taianfu,” i.e. Northern Shan-si, enters a tract in which predominates that very remarkable formation called by the Chinese Hwang-tu, and to which the German name Löss has been attached. With this formation are bound up the distinguishing characters of Northern Interior China, not merely in scenery but in agricultural products, dwellings, and means of transport. This Löss is a brownish-yellow loam, highly porous, spreading over low and high ground alike, smoothing over irregularities of surface, and often more than 1000 feet in thickness. It has no stratification, but tends to cleave vertically, and is traversed in every direction by sudden crevices, almost glacier-like, narrow, with vertical walls of great depth, and infinite ramification. Smooth as the löss basin looks in a bird’s-eye view, it is thus one of the most impracticable countries conceivable for military movements, and secures extraordinary value to fortresses in well-chosen sites, such as that of Tung-kwan mentioned in Note 2 to chap. xli.
Agriculture may be said in N. China to be confined to the alluvial plains and the löss; as in S. China to the alluvial plains and the terraced hill-sides. The löss has some peculiar quality which renders its productive power self-renewing without manure (unless it be in the form of a surface coat of fresh löss), and unfailing in returns if there be sufficient rain. This singular formation is supposed by Baron Richthofen, who has studied it more extensively than any one, to be no subaqueous deposit, but to be the accumulated residue of countless generations of herbaceous plants combined with a large amount of material spread over the face of the ground by the winds and surface waters.
[I do not agree with the theory of Baron von Richthofen, of the almost exclusive Eolian formation of loess; water has something to do with it as well as wind, and I think it is more exact to say that loess in China is due to a double action, Neptunian as well as Eolian. The climate was different in former ages from what it is now, and rain was plentiful and to its great quantity was due the fertility of this yellow soil. (Cf. A. de Lapparent, Leçons de Géographie Physique, 2e éd. 1898, p. 566.)—H. C.]
Though we do not expect to find Polo taking note of geological features, we are surprised to find no mention of a characteristic of Shan-si and the adjoining districts, which is due to the löss; viz. the practice of forming cave dwellings in it; these in fact form the habitations of a majority of the people in the löss country. Polo has noticed a similar usage in Badakhshan (I. p. 161), and it will be curious if a better acquaintance with that region should disclose a surface formation analogous to the löss. (Richthofen’s Letters, VII. 13 et passim.)
Note 2.—Taianfu is, as Magaillans pointed out, T’ai-yuan fu, the capital of the Province of Shan-si, and Shan-si is the “Kingdom.” The city was, however, the capital of the great T’ang Dynasty for a time in the 8th century, and is probably the Tájah or Taiyúnah of old Arab writers. Mr. Williamson speaks of it as a very pleasant city at the north end of a most fertile and beautiful plain, between two noble ranges of mountains. It was a residence, he says, also of the Ming princes, and is laid out in Peking fashion, even to mimicking the Coal-Hill and Lake of the Imperial Gardens. It stands about 3000 feet above the sea [on the left bank of the Fen-ho.—H. C.]. There is still an Imperial factory of artillery, matchlocks, etc., as well as a powder mill; and fine carpets like those of Turkey are also manufactured. The city is not, however, now, according to Baron Richthofen, very populous, and conveys no impression of wealth or commercial importance. [In an interesting article on this city, the Rev. G. B. Farthing writes (North China Herald, 7th September, 1894): “The configuration of the ground enclosed by T’ai-yuan fu city is that of a ‘three times to stretch recumbent cow.’ The site was chosen and described by Li Chun-feng, a celebrated professor of geomancy in the days of the T’angs, who lived during the reign of the Emperor T’ai Tsung of that ilk. The city having been then founded, its history reaches back to that date. Since that time the cow has stretched twice.... T’ai-yuan city is square, and surrounded by a wall of earth, of which the outer face is bricked. The height of the wall varies from thirty to fifty feet, and it is so broad that two carriages could easily pass one another upon it. The natives would tell you that each of the sides is three miles, thirteen paces in length, but this, possibly, includes what it will be when the cow shall have stretched for the third and last time. Two miles is the length of each side; eight miles to tramp if you wish to go round the four of them.”—H. C.] The district used to be much noted for cutlery and hardware, iron as well as coal being abundantly produced in Shan-si. Apparently the present Birmingham of this region is a town called Hwai-lu, or Hwo-luh’ien, about 20 miles west of Cheng-ting fu, and just on the western verge of the great plain of Chihli. [Regarding Hwai-lu, the Rev. C. Holcombe calls it “a miserable town lying among the foot hills, and at the mouth of the valley, up which the road into Shan-si lies.” He writes (p. 59) that Ping-ting chau, after the Customs’ barrier (Ku Kwan) between Chih-li and Shan-si, would, under any proper system of management, at no distant day become the Pittsburg, or Birmingham, of China.—H. C.] (Richthofen’s Letters, No. VII. 20; Cathay, xcvii. cxiii. cxciv.; Rennie, II. 265; Williamson’s Journeys in North China; Oxenham, u.s. 11; Klaproth in J. As. sér. II. tom. i. 100; Izzat Ullah’s Pers. Itin. in J. R. A. S. VII. 307; Forke, Von Peking nach Ch’ang-an, p. 23.)
[“From Khavailu (Hwo-luh’ien), an important commercial centre supplying Shansi, for 130 miles to Sze-tien, the road traverses the loess hills, which extend from the Peking-Kalgan road in a south-west direction to the Yellow River, and which are passable throughout this length only by the Great Central Asian trade route to T’ai-yuan fu and by the Tung-Kwan, Ho-nan, i.e. the Yellow River route.” (Colonel Bell, Proc. R. G. S. XII. 1890, p. 59.) Colonel Bell reckons seven days (218 miles) from Peking to Hwo-lu-h’ien and five days from this place to T’ai-yuan fu.—H. C.]
Note 3.—Martini observes that the grapes in Shan-si were very abundant and the best in China. The Chinese used them only as raisins, but wine was made there for the use of the early Jesuit Missions, and their successors continue to make it. Klaproth, however, tells us that the wine of T’ai-yuan fu was celebrated in the days of the T’ang Dynasty, and used to be sent in tribute to the Emperors. Under the Mongols the use of this wine spread greatly. The founder of the Ming accepted the offering of wine of the vine from T’ai-yuan in 1373, but prohibited its being presented again. The finest grapes are produced in the district of Yukau-hien, where hills shield the plain from north winds, and convert it into a garden many square miles in extent. In the vintage season the best grapes sell for less than a farthing a pound. [Mr. Theos. Sampson, in an article on “Grapes in China,” writes (Notes and Queries on China and Japan, April, 1869, p. 50): “The earliest mention of the grape in Chinese literature appears to be contained in the chapter on the nations of Central Asia, entitled Ta Yuan Chwan, or description of Fergana, which forms part of the historical records (Sze-Ki) of Sze-ma Tsien, dating from B.C. 100. Writing of the political relations instituted shortly before this date by the Emperor Wu Ti with the nations beyond the Western frontiers of China, the historian dwells at considerable length, but unluckily with much obscurity, on the various missions despatched westward under the leadership of Chang K’ien and others, and mentions the grape vine in the following passage:—‘Throughout the country of Fergana, wine is made from grapes, and the wealthy lay up stores of wine, many tens of thousands of shih in amount, which may be kept for scores of years without spoiling. Wine is the common beverage, and for horses the mu-su is the ordinary pasture. The envoys from China brought back seeds with them, and hereupon the Emperor for the first time cultivated the grape and the mu-su in the most productive soils.’ In the Description of Western regions, forming part of the History of the Han Dynasty, it is stated that grapes are abundantly produced in the country of K’i-pin (identified with Cophene, part of modern Afghanistan) and other adjacent countries, and referring, if I mistake not, to the journeys of Chang K’ien, the same work says, that the Emperor Wu-Ti despatched upwards of ten envoys to the various countries westward of Fergana, to search for novelties, and that they returned with grape and mu-su seeds. These references appear beyond question to determine the fact that grapes were introduced from Western—or, as we term it, Central—Asia, by Chang K’ien.”
Dr. Bretschneider (Botanicon Sinicum, I. p. 25), relating the mission of Chang K’ien (139 B.C. Emperor Wu-Ti), who died about B.C. 103, writes:—“He is said to have introduced many useful plants from Western Asia into China. Ancient Chinese authors ascribe to him the introduction of the Vine, the Pomegranate, Safflower, the Common Bean, the Cucumber, Lucerne, Coriander, the Walnut-tree, and other plants.”—H. C.] The river that flows down from Shan-si by Cheng-ting-fu is called “Putu-ho, or the Grape River.” (J. As. u.s.; Richthofen, u.s.)
[Regarding the name of this river, the Rev. C. Holcombe (l.c. p. 56) writes: “Williamson states in his Journeys in North China that the name of this stream is, properly Poo-too Ho—‘Grape River,’ but is sometimes written Hu-t’ou River incorrectly. The above named author, however, is himself in error, the name given above [Hu-t’o] being invariably found in all Chinese authorities, as well as being the name by which the stream is known all along its course.”
West of the Fan River, along the western border of the Central Plain of Shan-si, in the extreme northern point of which lies T’aï-yuan fu, the Rev. C. Holcombe says (p. 61), “is a large area, close under the hills, almost exclusively given up to the cultivation of the grape. The grapes are unusually large, and of delicious flavour.”—H. C.]
Note 4.—✛In no part of China probably, says Richthofen, do the towns and villages consist of houses so substantial and costly as in this. Pianfu is undoubtedly, as Magaillans again notices, P’ing-yang fu.[3] It is the Bikan of Shah Rukh’s ambassadors. [Old P’ing yang, 5 lis to the south] is said to have been the residence of the primitive and mythical Chinese Emperor Yao. A great college for the education of the Mongols was instituted at P’ing-yang, by Yeliu Chutsai, the enlightened minister of Okkodai Khan. [Its dialect differs from the T’aï-yuan dialect, and is more like Pekingese.] The city, lying in a broad valley covered with the yellow löss, was destroyed by the T’aï-P’ing rebels, but it is reviving. [It is known for its black pottery.] The vicinity is noted for large paper factories. [“From T’ai-yuan fu to P’ing-yang fu is a journey of 185 miles, down the valley of the Fuen-ho.” (Colonel Bell, Proc. R. G. S. XII. 1890, p. 61.) By the way, Mr. Rockhill remarks (Land of the Lamas, p. 10): “Richthofen has transcribed the name of this river Fuen. This spelling has been adopted on most of the recent maps, both German and English, but Fuen is an impossible sound in Chinese.” (Read Fen ho.)—H. C.] (Cathay, ccxi.; Ritter, IV. 516; D’Ohsson, II. 70; Williamson, I. 336.)