part in his evil deeds.”
And so thenceforward no more was heard of the floutings of the
unbelievers against the Christians; for they heard very well what the
Sovereign said to the latter about the Cross on Nayan’s banner, and its
giving him no help.
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.)