Chau Ju-Kua - University of Oregon Libraries

108 BAGHDAD. 1,20
Golius (1596-1GG7) is quoted in Hettinger's Bibliotheca Orientalis, 62, as having referred to
Elias III as ((Patriarch of Antiochn, but Assemani ridicules the idea, because he says, the title
((Patriarch of Antioch» was never claimed by the Kestorians (see supra, p. 105, line 46).
8) Mahmud of Ghazni is wrongly reputed to have been the first sovereign prince to take
the title of Sultan, in 1002 A. D. It was later on borne by Togrul beg and the succeeding Seldjuk 5
princes. See de Guignes, Hist, des Huns, II, 162. In 1057 Togrul was made General of the Empire
and Governor of all the Moslim by the Caliph. In 1072 the Sultan Malekshah was given by the
Caliph the title of Amir el-Mumenin, which had only been borne by the Caliphs until then. On the
other hand the Caliphs were confirmed in their title by the Sultans. Ibid. II, 197—198, 214.
In the time just preceding the year 1178, when Ch6u K'il-fei's work appeared, the Caliphs 10
of Baghdad were politically powerless, though they continued to be the spiritual rulers of the
Moslim world. The political masters of Baghdad itself were the Seldjuk Sultans, descendants of
the great Malekshah. But even their power had begun to decline, and it seems doubtful which
of the several rulers bearing the title of Sultan in Ch6u K'il-fei's time is referred to by that
author. Possibly Saladin, who had captured Damascus and other Syrian cities, called himself 15
'Sultan' on his coins, and gave orders '
that in the mosque prayers the names of himself and
the Caliph of Baghdad should be mentioned. "When Elias III was elected Patriarch of the Nesto-
rians, Mustadi was Caliph (see Mar Amr, op. cit., 64); the Seldjuk Stittans immediately preceding
this period were Arslan and Togrul. See E. G. Browne, in J. R. A. S., 1902, 873-882.
Under the Seldjuk Sultans, the country was divided among numerous Emirs as feudal 20
lords, who had to deliver an annual tribute to the Sultan and who, in times of war, had to fit out
certain troops for service under the Sultan. Hence the remark that 'he orders the Ta-shi, etc.'.
See von Kremer, Culturgesch. des Orients, I, 254.
9) In Chou K'il-fei's work there follow here the references to T'ien-chu being a dependency
of Ta-ts'in and to the holy-water which quiets the -waTes; which our author has transposed to 35
the beginning of his chapter on T'ien-chu, see infra, p. 110 line 30 and p. 111. lines 7— 9.
10) Chou K'il-fei probably took this reference to the gem called hie-ki-si from the Hou-
Han-shu, 1 18, where it is found mentioned for the first time. If the hie-ki-si was a gem, it probably
belonged to the same class as the ye-huang-pi or 'jewel that shines at night', which is said to
have been a product of Ta-ts'in. See Hirth, China and the Koman Orient, 79 and 242. See also 30
infTa. Pt. II. Ch. XLI. Kote.
11) The date here given is apparently a misprint, the Hou Han-shu gives the correct date,
ninth year of the yen-hi period', i. e. 166 A. D. See on this famous mission from Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, Hirth, op. cit., 42 and 173. Cf. supra, p. 5.
12) Quotation from Tsin-shu, 97. See Hirth, op. cit., 45. 35
13) Quotation from H6u Han-shu, 118. See Hirth, op. cit., 42-43, 291—293. The
Weak-Water, as well as the other terms usually mentioned together with it, the Si-wang-mu,
the Bed Water (Ch'i-shui) and the Flying Sands (Liu-sha), appear in very old Chinese legends,
and, although it would be a fruitless task to seek to ascertain their actual whereabout (cf. F. AV.
Mayers, Chinese Readers Manual, Nos. 236, 330, 572), so much is certain, that these imaginary 40
abodes of a fairy queen were, according to the ideas of the original legend writers, neither in
T'iau-chi nor in Ta-ts'in. See also Hirth, Ancient History of China, 144— 151.
14) Tu Huan, the author of the King-hing-ki, was made a prisoner by the Arabs in the
battle of Taras in 751 A. D., and lived among them for ten years, and, when released, returned
to Canton by sea. The King-hing-ki is an ethnographical work, fragmentsonly of which have been 45
preserved in the commentary of the T'ung-tien (^ M.. Chs. 191—193), the author of which,
TuYu(Jg;2 T/b), was his relative.
Tu Huan's account of Fu-lin throws a still better light on our identification of the coimtry
with Syria than the statements of the standard Chinese historians, because it was written by a Chinese
author who had resided in Western Asia during a clearly definable period (751—762 A. D.) thus 50
giving us an opportunity of comparing notes with information from contemporaneous western
sources. Chan ("^ Canton dialect, Shim), in the west, (not north or north-west), of which Fu-lin is
to be looked for, is a transcription of Sham, or ash-Sham, ((that which is on the left hand (looking