Imágenes de páginas





The first Nestorian missionary Olopun who,in 1888, published a new translation and his associates went to China in A.D. of the inscription and a lecture on the 635. Favorably received by T'ai-tsung, monument; he also found a confirmation the then ruling einperor of the Tang- as to its genuineness from other sources. Dynasty, he was engaged in a mission Now the same Adam = k'ing-tsing, work in the city of Ch'ang-ngan (Si- who erected the monument, is mentioned ngan-fu).

again in a Buddhist book, which in a In A.D. 781 that famous nestorian way gives light on the activity of the monument with a Syro-chinese inscript- Nestorian missionaries in China. While ion, of which a vast literature has been I was referring to the Buddhist canonical produced in Europe and in America, was books of China, the other day, I came erected to commemorate the diffusion of

across a book called the “Chêng-yüan christianity in China. The Syro-chinese

Sin-ting-Shih-kiâo-muh-luh” composition was made by a persian missionary, Adam, presbyter and chor- ***, i. 0. “The , ,

WWW episcopos, and papas of China, whose New Catalogue of (the books of) the chinese name, as the inscription shows, Teaching of Śákya in the period of was King-tsing of the Ta-ts' in Chéng-yian” (A. D. 785—804) compiled monastery ***

by Yuen-chao , a priest of This monument had long been buried the Si-ming monastery DG # in the ground, until in 1625 it was dug up of the Western Capital (Si-ngan-fu). and the inscription was brought to light. For this book see Bodleian Library, Jap. Many facsimiliæ and translations were 65DD, Vol. VII, fol. 5 vo. In this I found since produced, the genuineness of the a passage relating to the Nestorian inscription was questioned and once it was Missionary which I translate as follows: almost attributed to a Jesuit fabrication. “Prajna, a Buddhist of Kapiśa, N. At last its genuineness was completely India'), travelled through Central India, established by the two able scholars Ceylon, and the Islands of the Southern Mr. Wylie and M. Pauthier, who handled Sea (Sumatra, Java etc.) and came to the subject by a series of discussions, China, for he heard that Manjuśrî was based on the concensus of chinese anti- in China. quaries and on a great variety of hist- He arrived at Canton and came to orical, biographical and topographical the upper province (North) in A.D. 782 notices in its details, and elucidated every He met a relation of his in A.D. 786, point by a fulness of evidence which who came to China before him. He leaves nothing more to be desired. They | translated together with King-tsing (= were followed by Dr. Legge of Oxford | Adam) ?), a persian priest of the monas

1法師梵名般刺若、北天境迦畢試國人也。 tery of Tå-ts'in(Syria), the Satpáramitâ, DE A TE F. * * sâtra ') from a Hu text, and finished translating seven volumes.

2) In my translation of I-tsing's Record (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1896) p. 224, "named Adam" ought to have been in brackets, for it is not in the text. We get the name from the Inscription.

間奏、意望流行。聖上 But because at that time Prajña was not familiar with the Hu language, nor 濬哲文明、允恭釋典。 understood the Chinese language, and as King-tsing (Adam) did not know the FT Brahma language (sanskrit), , nor was versed in the teaching of the Sakya, so 且夫釋氏伽藍大秦 though they pretended to be translating the text, yet they could not, in reality, 14 EL 9 FT obtain a half of its gems (i. e. real meanings). They were seeking vain glory # te up

全乘。景淨應傳彌尸 privately, and wrongly trying their luck. They presented a memorial (to the V7 F F G H

詞教。沙門釋子弘聞 Emperor), expecting to get it propagated. The Emperor (Te-tsung, A.D. .* W WEEST,


佛經。欲使教法區分、 780—804), who was intelligent, wise and accomplished, who revered the canon I LEPE PE ***,

人無濫涉。正邪異類、 translated, and found that the principles #te. Vide ITG

涇渭殊流貞元新 contained in it were obscure and the Japanese Tripi

定釋教目錄 [ wording was diffuse. Moreover 2) the Sanghârâma of the sa- taka

, t'ao (XXXVIII), 7th fasc., kya and the monastery of -ts'in(Syria) differing much in their customs, and their p. 5 verso). religious practices being entirely op- So far the extract from the book of posed to each other, King-tsing (Adam) | Yuen-chao. As to the identity of Adam ought to hand down the teaching of with King-tsing there is no doubt whatMi-shi-ho i Pan (Messiah), and ever, as the parallel texts of the inscriptthe Sakyaputriya-Śramanas should pro

ion clearly show.

It is very interesting to have this little pagate the sûtras of the Buddha. It is to contemporary notice of the Nestorian be wished that the boundaries of the from a Buddhist source. Christianity of doctrines may be made distinct, and the China, as Gibbon remarks in his famous followers may not intermingle. Ortho- history, in the 7th and 13th century, is doxy and heterodoxy are different things invincibly proved by the consent of just as the rivers King and Wei have Chinese, Arabian, Syriac and Latin a different course”.

evidence. In addition to these we have 乃與大秦寺波斯僧 now a reference made by an eye-witness

in a Buddhist work. It was under the 景淨胡六波羅 # # * $ Emperor Te-tsung (A.D. 780—804),

that King-tsing (= Adam) had erected mol te of the monument, and under the same

Emperor, he was recorded to have been # # translating a Buddhist Sútra. I have

some doubt as to whether the translation 解唐言、景淨不識梵 took place before the erection of the

monument or after it, though from what 文、復未明釋教。雖稱 we have in the above extract, the trans

lation seems to have been made after the #36 # FF. W inscription :). 1) The complete chinese title of this book is * TAREHE 2) Hereafter the sentences seem to be a part of the imperial Edict. If so, the whole text of the Edict may be found in some book.

3) Prajña came to the upper province in A.D. 782, while the monument was erected in A D. 781. But tbe year in which they were translating the Buddhist book is not given.

But their united work seems to have to learn right religious terms for expressbeen stopped by an Edict no doubt as a ing himself to the people. result of jealousy of Buddhist priests. As to the characters representing -tsung, the ruling Emperor, was *Messiah', the phonetization is exactly claimed as patron by both Buddhists and the same as that of the inscription, Nestorians, and was praised by both “shi

' titi only of 'mi-shi-ho’ being a sides. It might have been so, as such has often been the case in China as well different character of the same sound 2). as in India. If we compare the state- We should like to know what had ments of both sides, we can easily under- become of the book which Adam was stand the emperor's attitude toward | translating. That sûtra is indeed presreligions of his time. I may find another erved in the Buddhist canonical books, occasion for entering into this question. but it is ascribed entirely to his colleague

Adam on his part seems to have Prajña (see no. 1004 Nanjio, catalogue of adopted many Buddhist terms in ex- the Chinese Tripitaka). pressing himself.

Whether or not the translation is the In the inscription we find a number same as that which was made by both of Buddhistic expressions 1) or ideas, as we cannot tell. Dr. Edkins has already remarked. This

For the students of the syro-chinese fact can now be explained as the result inscription and of the early missions of of King-tsing's study of Buddhism, for China, it may be worth examining this we have the evidence that he was engaged special sútra, for it may throw some in translating Buddhist works.

light on the composition of that singular It is most natural for him to be anxious inscription. to get a knowledge of Buddhism in order

1) He used the Buddhistic words for ‘monastery', 'priest' etc. 2) I gave these chinese symbols in my I-tsing, p. 224, note.



M. Simon avait été envoyé en mission en Chine par le Ministère de l’Agriculture en 1860; il avait remonté le Kiang en février 1861, sur le navire anglais qui conduisait l'amiral Hope, le major Sarel, le capitaine Blakiston dans le Haut-Fleuve. C'est dans ce voyage que Simon fit la connaissance de Jean Dupuis, avec lequel il arriva à Han-keou le 11 Mars 1861. Son dernier écrit devait être l'introduction au livre ') de ce dernier sur les Origines de la question du Tong-king paru il y a quelques semaines. Il remontait dans le Nord en 1862. Puis, en 1863, Simon visitait le Sze-tchouen et rentrait en France l'année suivante. Grâce à M. Drouyn de Lhuys, il put changer de carrière et fut envoyé en 1865 comme consul à Ning-po. Depuis, il fut transféré à Foutcheou, puis à Sydney (Nouvelle-Galles du Sud) qui fut son dernier poste consulaire. Il fut mis ensuite à la retraite et il vient de mourir à St. Georges d'Oléron le 29 Septembre 1896. Pendant son séjour en Chine, Simon s'est occupé spécialement de questions d'agriculture 2) et des sociétés d'argent :). Il nous a

1) Les Origines de la Question du Tong-king, par Jean Dupuis, Explorateur du Fleuve Rouge. Paris, Augustin Challamel, 1896, in-18, pp. XXXVI—240.

2) Carte agricole générale de l'Empire Chinois, première feuille, par G. Eugène Simou, Consul de France à Ning-po..... Texte : Préface, Légende et Répertoire. 1866. I cah. lith, pet. in-fol. de pp. 27 sans les tableaux.

Carte agricole générale de l'Empire Chinois. Texte, Préface, Légende et Répertoire. Par Monsieur G. Eug. Simon, Consul de France à Ning-po. (Journ. N. C. B. R. As. Soc., N. S., No. IV, Déc. 1867, pp. 209 et seq., Art. X.)

L'Agriculture en Chine à propos d'une carte agricole de la Chine par Eugène Simon, Consul de France. (Bull. Soc. de Géog., 6e Sér, II, 1871, pp. 401–423).

3) Note sur les petites Sociétés d'argent en Chine. Par M. Eng. Simon, Consul de France à Ning-po. (Journ. N. C. B. R. As. Soc., No. V, N. S., Déc. 1868, pp. ) et seq)

Sur les Institutions de Crédit en Chine, par Mons. G. Eug. Simon, Consul de France à Foo-Tcheon. (Ibid., No. VI, N. S., 1869–70, 1'p. 53 et seq.)

laissé le récit de son voyage en Chine“); depuis qu'il est rentré en Europe, il a écrit un livre sur la Cité chinoise 5) qui a fait beaucoup de bruit à cause de théories qui ne me paraissent pas toujours complètement justifiées. Il était un collaborateur actif de la Nouvelle Revue, du Bulletin de la Société d'Acclimatation, etc.



It is with profound regret that we have to announce to our readers the death of our friend and collaborator Mr. Geo. PhillIPS, who died on Sunday, 25th Ootober last, at his residence at Christ Church Avenue, Brondesbury, London, at the age of sixty years.

M. GEORGE PULLIPS was born on the third of October 1836 at Lower Walmer, Kent. He received his first instruction at a school at Hastings, Sussex, and finished his education at King's School and King's College, London.

At the age of 21, he entered the China consular service in 1857, as student interpreter in Hongkong, and after having passed through several employments in this service, among other places in Foochow, Ning-po and Chen-kiang, he was appointed acting vice-consul at Pagoda-Island and acting consul of Amoy. In March 1878 he was appointed British Consul at Kiu-kiang. In 1880 he was transferred as Consul to Tai-wan-foo in Formosa. From August 1882 till April 1886 he was officiating consul at Swatow, when he took a furlough to England, where he arrived on July 1st, and was a few weeks after named Consul at Foochow in the province of Fuh-kien; which post, however, he only took up in November 1887. In August 1892 he retired from service on a pension, and has since been living in England.

His first scientific articles, especially geographical, were published in the now

4) Séance publique de la Société impériale d'acclimatation 4 mars 1870. Récits d'un Voyage en Chine par G. Eugène Simon, Consul de France en Chine. Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Impériale d’Acclimatation (No de Mars 1870). Paris, Imprimerie de E. Martinet, 1870, br. in-8, pp. 18.

5) La Cité chinoise, par G. Eag. Simon, ancien cousul de France en Chine, ancien élève de l'institut national agronomique de Versailles. Paris, Nouvelle Revue, 1885, in-12, pp. 389 tlf. n. c.

La Cité chinoise. Par Eugène Simon (Ann. de l'Ext. Orient, 1882—1883, V, pp. 97–110).

China: its Social, Political, and Religious Life. From the French of G. Eug. Simon. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1887, in-8, pp. 342.

« AnteriorContinuar »