Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia

Citation preview

Dietmar W. Winkler, Li Tang (Eds.)

Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica herausgegeben von/edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg)

Vol. 1

LIT

Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang

LIT

Cover illustration: Gravestone (22× 23 cm) with Syriac inscription from Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan (early 14th century; Village Museum Novopokrvka near Bischkek). Photo: Wassilios Klein. Gedruckt mit Unterstützung von

Mayr-Melnhof Institut für den Christlichen Osten (Salzburg) Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung in Wien Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-50045-8 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ©LIT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien 2009

LIT VERLAG Dr.W.Hopf Berlin 2009

Krotenthallergasse 10/8 A-1080Wien Tel. +43 (0)1-4095661 Fax +43(0)1-409 5697 e-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.at

Fresnostr. 2 D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22 Fax +49 (0)2 51-9226099 e-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.de

Distribution: In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 251-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 251-922 60 99, e-Mail: [email protected] In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-ÖBZ GmbH & Co KG IZ-NÖ, Süd, Straße 1, Objekt 34, A-2355 Wiener Neudorf Tel. +43 (0) 22 36-63 53 52 90, Fax +43 (0) 22 36-63 53 52 43, e-Mail: [email protected] In Switzerland: B + M Buch- und Medienvertriebs AG Hochstr. 357, CH-8200 Schaffhausen Tel. +41 (0) 52-643 54 85, Fax +41 (0) 52-643 54 35, e-Mail: [email protected] Distributed in the UK by: Global Book Marketing, 99B Wallis Rd, London, E9 5LN Phone: +44 (0) 20 8533 5800 – Fax: +44 (0) 1600 775 663 http://www.centralbooks.co.uk/html

Distributed in North America by: Transaction Publishers

0

Rutgers University 35 Berrue Circle Piscataway, NJ 08854

Phone: +1 (732)445-2280 Fax: + 1 (732) 445 -3138 for orders (U. S. only): toll free (888) 999 -6778 e-mail: [email protected]

CONTENTS

Editor’s Introduction Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang

5

INSCRIPTIONS

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum Mark Dickens

13

Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Sculptures Found at Nestorian Sites in Inner Mongolia Tjalling Halbertsma

51

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China: Reflections in the Xi’an Fu Syriac inscriptions Erica C.D. Hunter

71

Zwei neu gefundene syrische Grabsteine aus Kyrgyzstan Wassilios Klein und Kuvatbek Tabaldiev

87

The Discovery of Nestorian Inscriptions in Almaliq, Xinjiang, China Li Chonglin and Niu Ruji

91

A Comparative Study on the Nestorian Inscriptions from Semirechie, Inner Mongolia and Quanzhou Niu Ruji

101

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription of Luoyang: Text Analysis, Commentary and English Translation Li Tang

109

Contents

2

MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXTS

Ways to Go and Not to Go in the Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period Max Deeg

135

A Diatessaronic Reading in the Chinese Nestorian Texts Zhihua Yao

153

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer from Bulayık Peter Zieme

167

HISTORY

Reference to China in Syriac Sources Mar Aprem Mooken

183

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity with Tantric Buddhism in Medieval China Chen Huaiyu

195

When was the Temple of the Cross at Fangshan a “Christian Temple”? Pierre Marsone

215

Jesuit Jingjiao: The “Appopriation” of Tang Christianity by Jesuit Missionaries in the seventeenth Century Matteo Nicolini-Zani

225

In Search of King George Maurizio Paolillo Medieval Sources on the Naiman Christians and on their Prince Küchlüg Khan Li Tang Was Alopen a “Missionary” Glen L. Thompson

241

257

267

Contents

3

Christians in Korea at the End of the Thirteenth Century Alexander Toepel

279

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas Jürgen Tubach

291

On the Christians in Jiangnan during theYuan Dynasty according to “The Gazeteer of Zhenjiang of the Zhishun Period” 1329-1332 Yin Xiaoping

305

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History from the First World War until Today Dietmar W. Winkler

321

LITURGY AND ARTS

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music in the Tang and Yuan Periods of China [in Chinese] Ge Chengyong

337

Monumenti Sinici: A Remarkable Chinese Hymn Garry M.Y. Pang

353

The Confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China Xiaojing Yan

383

Index

393

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION Dietmar W. WINKLER and Li TANG

Already in the first century, Christianity spread with remarkable rapidity in Syria, Egypt and north-westwards into Asia Minor, Cappadocia and Greece, Italy and Spain. It crossed the Roman imperial frontier and language barrier in the northeast, reached the Osrhoëne and Mesopotamia. In the second century, Christian missions moved far up the Nile Valley; also growing Christian com munities could be found in Gaul and Britain as well as in Roman Africa with Carthage as its centre. Historical researches on Christianity commonly focus on the areas within the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean and Europe, where Christianity eventually became the religion of the majority. Little consideration has been shown on the fact that also the Oxus (Amu-Darja) was crossed, Sogdians and Turkish tribes as well as the Indian Malabar coast were reached in the times of the late antique world. East Syrian Christianity gained a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula and, in the seventh century, reached the imperial court of the Chinese Tang dy nasty.1 In 1928 E. A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published an English translation of a Syriac narrative that goes back to the 14th century.2 The text, originally written in Persian, recounts the travels of two Turkic-speaking (whether Uighur or Ongut) Christian monks from China in the 13th century. Bar Sauma from Cambalic (today’s Beijing) and Markos from Kawshang set out for Jerusalem in or der to pray at the tomb of the Lord. Most probably they were emissaries of the Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, sent to the West to negotiate an alliance with the Christian kings of Europe against the Arab Muslims in the Middle East. The two humble monks traveled along the Silk Road through China and Central Asia and reached Kurdistan and today’s Iraq, where the See of their Patriarch was. They were unable to proceed farther west because fighting blocked all roads. In the end, Bar Sauma and Markos stayed with the Patriarch in Bagdad and never reached Jerusalem. Markos, the younger monk, found himself conse crated a Metropolitan of China and received the Name Yahballaha. When the Patriarch died in 1281, Yahballaha was elected Patriarch of the Church of the East, becoming spiritual head of the faithful in Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Armenia, India, Central Asia and China. The elder monk, Bar Sauma, became 1

2

Cf. BAUM Wilhelm, WINKLER Dietmar W. The Church of the East. A concise history. LondonNew York 2003. Cf. The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China. Trans. E. A. Wallis BUDGE. London 1928.

6

Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang

Visitor-General for congregations in the East, and ambassador of the Persian Mongolian Il-Khan to the emperor of Byzantium, Andronicus II, the king of France, Philip IV, the king of England, Edward I, and Pope Nicholas IV. This remarkable and well-known document shows the impressive expansion of the “Nestorian” Church. Encyclopedia information is generally found under this entry. In Late Antiquity it was called simply the “Church of the East”, be cause it spread in the East and outside the borders of the Roman Empire. The editors of the present volume are fully aware of the fact, that – from a theologi cal point of view – the epithet “Nestorian” is more than problematic. The usage of this term is highly discouraged not only as a result of contemporary ecu menical dialogues, but also due to the fact that theologians from the Church of the East have lamented over this misnomer throughout history. The term refers to a heresy, which the Church of the East has rejected itself. Therefore the term “East Syrian” is more appropriate than “Nestorian” which links to a heresy in the context of the 5th century Christological controversies within the Roman Empire. In 1298, the distinguished East Syrian author and canonist Abdisho bar Brika († 1318) wrote in his book “The Pearl” (Margaritha) that East Syrian Christians of the Church of the East “never changed their faith and preserved it as they had received it from the apostles, and they are called Nestorians un justly, especially since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, and they did not understand his language”.3. Although the Church of the East in its historical and various geographic set tings may have borne different names, two main adjectives have been used in an attributive way to describe it, which are deemed appropriate: East Syrian and East Syriac. The former refers more to the liturgical and theological tradi tion of the Church of the East (but not to be confused or equated with the mod ern state “Syria”) whereas the latter, which is a more recent term, emphasizes on the perspective of language and literature since Syriac was used by Chris tians of different ethnic origins across Eurasia, such as Persian, Sogdian, Uighur, Ongut and Chinese. In the Chinese context, the usage of either East Syrian or East Syriac has not been evidenced in the original indigenous sources. Instead new terms emerged during the Tang (7th-9th centuries) and Yuan (13th-14th centuries) Dynasties, respectively. The Tang usage Jingjiao 景教 (i.e. the Luminous Religion) is found in the Xi’an and Luoyang Inscrip tions as well as other manuscripts discovered in Dunhuang. This is the name that the Tang-Christians used to designate their religion. Other names such as the “Daqin Religion”, “Persian religion” were also found in Chinese sources. During the Mongol-Yuan period, Christians were called either Diexie 迭屑 in pre-Kublai time or Yelikewen during the Yuan period. Diexie is a phonetic translation of the Persian word tarsā; and Yelikewen is a Chinese phonetic

3

Abdisho bar Brika, Marganitha III.4. Quote from BADGER, George Percy, The Nestorians and their Rituals Vol II. London 1852 (reprint 1987), 400.

Editor’s Introduction

7

translation of the Turco-Mongolic word ärkägün whose etymology is still de bated. However, the term “Nestorianism” has still had its place in the scholarly nontheological discussion to identify the Church of the East in those areas where it was called the “Luminous Religion” in the times of the Tang dynasty. It is in this light that the term “Nestorian” still appears in several articles in this vol ume, but most of the authors have adopted the Chinese word Jingjiao to refer to the Tang-Christianity. In any case, the Church of the East is not just a “Nestorian” episode in the his tory of early Christianity within the Roman Empire as western works on Church history would suggest. Its expansion to Central Asia, China and India is one of the most exciting chapters in the history of Christianity. Further more it still exists in regions of the Middle East, India and the diaspora (Europe, Americas, Australia) in four different Christian denominations: “Assyrian Church of the East”, “Ancient Church of the East”, “Chaldean Catholic Church”, and “Syro-Malabar Catholic Church”. The present collection of strong and diverse studies on this subject makes an important contribution to the research on East Syrian Christianity. It contains elaborated papers presented at the Second International Conferenc “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” which took place in Salz burg (Austria) from 1st to 6th June 2006.4 It brought together scholars from various disciplines such as Religious and Ecclesiastical History, Philology (Si nology, Syrology), Archeology, Central Asiatic Studies, Theology and others. It has been a fruitful interdisciplinary exchange of recent research to explore the subject in details and from various perspectives. The volume is organized in four parts. While the first two parts mainly present and analyze hidden treasures – i.e. inspiring new findings, sources, manuscripts and texts – the third and the fourth parts are devoted to stimulating studies on intercultural and intereligious encounters along the Silk Roads. The first part on Inscriptions contains current research on texts carved in stones from various geographical areas. Mark Dickens analyses Syriac gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum, while Tjalling Halbertsma gives us insight into his field work in Inner Mongolia. Erica C.D. Hunter reflects on the Syriac In scriptions of Xi’an Fu. Wassilios Klein and Kuvatek Tabaldiev present two newly discovered gravestones from Kyrgyzstan. Niu Ruji transcribes and trans lates in his two articles – one elaborated together with Li Chonglin – several inscriptions from Almaliq, Semirchie, Inner Mongolia and Quanzou. Li Tang analyzes, comments and translates a new inscription from the Tang Dynasty found in Luoyang.

4

For the first conference cf. Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Ed. by Roman MALEK in connection with Peter HOFRICHTER. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica 2006.

8

Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang

The second part deals with Manuscripts and Texts. Max Deeg discusses on the possibilities and limits in the contextualization of Christian documents of the Tang period. Zhiuhua Yao interprets Chinese “Nestorian” texts in the light of Tatian the Syrian’s Diatessaron. Peter Zieme profoundly explores and philologically presents a prayer booklet from Bulayık consisting of a Turkic section written in Uighur and Syriac scripts and a Syriac passage written in Syriac script alone. Part three focuses on History, i.e. the evaluation and interpretation of various sources such as inscriptions, archeological evidence and texts. Metropolitian Mar Aprem Mooken develops references to China in Syriac Sources. Chen Huaiyu investigates the encounter between East Syrian Christianity and Tantric Buddhism in China, while Pierre Marsone examines the Temple of the Cross in Fangshan. Matteo Nicolini-Zani studies the appropriation of Tang Christianity by the Jesuit Missionaries and Maurizio Paolillo scrutinizes the 13th century Christian Mongolian (Öngüt) king George. Li Tang evaluates medieval sources on the Christian Naiman and their Prince Küchlüg Khan. Glen L. Thompson deals with the question whether the famous Alopen was a missionary. Alexan der Toepel has an insightful look into Christians in Korea at the end of the 13th century. The mission field of the apostle Thomas is investigated by Jürgen Tubach, while Yin Xiaoping, inquires into the Christians in the Jiangnan area of China during the Yuan dynasty. A glance at the history and fate of East Syriac Christians in the 20th century in the Middle East is offered by Dietmar W. Winkler. The last part is devoted to Liturgy and Arts. The first two scholarly contribu tions deal with liturgical music: Ge Chengyong inspects Christian Chant Music during the Tang and Yuan dynasties; Garry M.Y. Pang presents and comments on a remarkable Chinese hymn. The topic on intercultural exchange is perfectly shown in the article of Xiaojing Yan who demonstrates the confluence of East and West in “Nestorian” arts in China. Editing such a collection of diverse interdisciplinary scholarship is definitely a challenge. The authors come from China, Central Asia, India, Europe and the USA. The individual scholars employ the scientific tools of their discipline and sometimes have their own methods utilized in their geographic context. Most of the electronically received articles would use different fonts to present their original texts and transcriptions, which did not always arrive in the same ver sion as they were sent. Although we worked as thoroughly and careful as pos sible, there might be still typographic mistakes we failed to notice. The editors therefore would like to ask the respected reader to be patient. We did not inter fere in the individual contributions to avoid repetitions since this would have disturbed the inner coherence of some presentations. Likewise, the different transcriptions used by the respective scholars remain within the scholarly re sponsibility of the authors themselves. For practical reasons and convenience,

Editor’s Introduction

9

each article has the bibliography at its end where the reader will find detailed bibliographical data of what is given in the footnotes only in brevity. We are grateful to all who helped to make the conference and this publication possible. These are, of course, the scholars, colleagues and friends who con tributed with their research and erudition. We express also our thanks to those institutions who either financially or organizationally supported the conference: the Monumenta Serica Institute St Augustin (Frankfurt/Germany) directed by Fr. Prof. Dr. Roman Malek, S.V.D, the Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg and its Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History, the MayrMelnhof-Institute for Eastern Christian Studies at the International Research Centre Salzburg, the Foundation PRO ORIENTE Vienna, the Provincial Gov ernment of Salzburg, and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Culture. Last but not at all least our special thanks go to Professors Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. It has been their exceptional initiative and commitment gath ering again an interdisciplinary conference in Salzburg with scholars from all over the world. Without their inspired ideas, this endeavor could not take place. We hold them in high regard and thank them for their engagement that remains an input for us to move on powered by our own curiosity and inquisitiveness.

INSCRIPTIONS

SYRIAC GRAVESTONES IN THE TASHKENT HISTORY MUSEUM Mark DICKENS University of Cambridge, England

Our knowledge of the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia is generally dependent on data from the following corpora: 1) the literature of the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox Church, in both Syriac and Arabic; 2) the works of Muslim geographers and historians; 3) the reports of travellers (both Christians and Muslims) who had contact with Christians in Central Asia; 4) Christian texts in Syriac, Sogdian and Old Uighur that have been discovered in Chinese Turkestan; 5) non-textual archaeological finds; and 6) various inscrip tions left by Central Asian Christians.1 The vast majority of Christian inscriptions from Central Asia have been found on gravestones.2 This corpus of gravestone inscriptions gives us limited, but nonetheless fascinating insights into the life of Central Asian Christians to wards the end of the millennium that the Church of the East had a presence in the area. In so doing, they help us in the difficult task of determining how these Christians lived their lives on a daily basis and interacted with the society around them. The corpus of Christian gravestones written in the Syriac script (as opposed to those written in Chinese characters) can be further subdivided into four groups:

1

2

I am indebted to Dr. Wassilios Klein (University of Bonn) and Dr. Alexei Savchenko (Society for the Exploration of Eurasia) for many helpful suggestions and answers to questions. My supervisor, Dr. Erica C.D. Hunter (University of Cambridge), read through the preliminary draft and provided valuable feedback. Thanks also to Dr. Savchenko for permission to use his im ages of the gravestones and to Prof. Niu Ruji (Xinjiang University) for a copy of his modified Serto font incorporating the letter X. Finally, I am grateful for questions answered and informa tion supplied by Prof. Michal Biran (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Peter B. Golden (Rutgers University), Prof. Aleksandr Naymark (Hofstra University), Mr. John O’Farrell (Tashkent, Uzbekistan), Dr. Christine van Ruymbeke (University of Cambridge), Prof. Nicho las Sims-Williams (SOAS) and Prof. Peter Zieme (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences). The few inscriptions (including those in black ink) not connected with gravestones include those found on 1) a rock wall located near Urgut (МЕЩЕРСКАЯ – ПАЙКОВА 1981; SAVCHENKO 1996; TARDIEU 1999); 2) an ostracon found in Panjikent (PAYKOVA 1979); 3) fragments of vases found at Taraz and Saryg (LALA COMNENO 1997, 41; БАЙПАКОВ 1994, 98); 4) a jug and a cross imprint found in Aq-Beshim (medieval Suyab) (KLEIN 2004a, 27); and 5) the rims of large stone jars found in and near Krasnaya Rečka (medieval Navekath) (ГОРЯЧЕВА – ПЕРЕГУДОВА 1994, 93; БАЙПАКОВ 1994, 99-100).

14

Mark Dickens

those found in 1) the Chu Valley, in modern-day Kyrgyzstan,3 2) Almaliq, in Chinese Turkestan,4 3) Inner Mongolia5 and 4) other parts of China, principally in and around the city of Quanzhou (ancient Zaytun).6 This paper will concen trate on gravestones from the Chu Valley that are currently held in the National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan in Tashkent.

Christian Gravestones from the Chu Valley Discovery and Deciphering of the Gravestones Beginning in 1885, Russian settlers in the province of Semirechye (called Zheti Su or Yettisu in Turkic),7 recently added to the Russian Empire and located ad jacent to Chinese Turkestan, began to unearth stones marked with crosses and inscriptions from two sites in the Chu Valley: Karajigach, near Pishpek (now Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan) and Burana (medieval Balasaghun), just south of Tokmak. Although they were identifiable as Christian gravestones and the sites they came from were obviously cemeteries,8 it was not until photo graphs and handmade rubbings from the stones were sent to the eminent Semitist Prof. Daniel Chwolson in St. Petersburg that the language on them was de termined to be Syriac, written in the Estrangelo script.9

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

See footnotes below dealing with this group of gravestones, the focus of this paper. Alexei Savchenko informs me that there are also “two gravestones at the Ashkhabad Museum, pos sibly brought from Urgut” (personal communication, 27 August, 2006, citing МАССОН 1978). See DŽUMAGULOV 1968; NIU – DESREUMAUX – MARSONE 2004, 145-46. Other articles dealing with this corpus are mentioned below. See MARTIN 1938; GROENBECH 1940; MURAYAMA 1963; ENOKI 1964; MURAYAMA 1964a; NIU – DESREUMAUX – MARSONE 2004, 146-49; HALBERTSMA – WEI 2005; HALBERTSMA 2006. See FOSTER 1954; ENOKI 1964; MURAYAMA 1964a, MURAYAMA 1964b; HAMILTON – NIU 1994; GENG – KLIMKEIT – LAUT 1996; LIEU 2002; NIU 2004; NIU – DESREUMAUX – MARSONE, 2004, 149-51;2007. FRANZMANN NIU Although 2005; FRANZMANN this is obviously – LIEU outside 2006; LIEU the geographical 2006; NIU 2006; area of BORBONE Central 2006; Asia, the fact that these inscriptions belong to Turkic Christians justifies their inclusion in this cor pus. Both names mean “Seven Rivers”, referring to various rivers that flow northward into Lake Balkhash. Although the Chu River is in this region, after flowing out of Lake Issyq-Köl, it empties into the arid steppeland southwest of Lake Balkhash. Approximately 3000 graves were found, although there were only about 600 gravestones with inscriptions (CHWOLSON 1890, 2). Thus, the gravestones give us information about only 20% of the Christian community that was buried in the two cemeteries. On the discovery and subsequent deciphering of the stones, see CHWOLSON 1886, 1-6; CHWOLSON 1890, 1-5. Good overviews of the history of these stones, including those that have ended up in other countries, can be found in THACKER 1967 and DŽUMAGULOV 1968. Chwol son actually described the script as a “transition from Estrangelo to the modern Nestorian script” (KLEIN 2002, [23], quoting CHWOLSON 1890, 119).

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

15

Over the next several years, as more gravestones were unearthed, Chwolson published an initial report in German10 and Russian11 and then two lengthy monographs in German covering a total of 568 stones (including those from the initial report).12 Most of the stones were dated according to the Seleucid Era (SE) used by Syriac Christians,13 the twelve-year animal-cycle used by the Turkic peoples,14 or both. The stones with dates were dated from 1200/01 (or possibly 1185/86, based on uncertain readings of two stones) to 1344/45 CE.15 Although all of the inscriptions except one were exclusively in the Syriac script,16 not all were in the Syriac language; approximately 30 of the inscrip tions in Chwolson’s corpus were wholly or partially in the Turkic language spoken in the region at that time.17 Furthermore, the paleography seemed to re flect the influence of the Uighur script still in use in parts of Central Asia at that time, since the Syriac characters were written vertically as well as horizon tally.

CHWOLSON 1886, which dealt with 22 stones. ХВОЛЬСОН 1887a, which dealt with the same 22 stones; ХВОЛЬСОН 1887b, which dealt with an additional six stones, ХВОЛЬСОН 1887c. 12 CHWOLSON 1890, which dealt with 231 stones, and CHWOLSON 1897, which dealt with 337 stones. In between the two, he also published ХВОЛЬСОН 1895 (in Russian), which dealt with 12 stones found between his 1890 and 1897 publications. Of the 22 stones in CHWOLSON 1886, only one, No. II, was not republished in CHWOLSON 1890, since it was judged to be too indis tinct (CHWOLSON 1890, i). 13 The Seleucid era began on 1 October, 312 BCE. 14 Each year in the Turkic animal-cycle began between 14 January and 14 February during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (BAZIN 1991, 414, 417). The twelve animals in the cycle are: 1) mouse/rat; 2) ox/cow; 3) tiger/leopard; 4) hare/rabbit; 5) dragon; 6) snake; 7) horse; 8) sheep; 9) monkey; 10) rooster/hen; 11) dog; and 12) pig. The seminal work on the animalcycle calendar is BAZIN 1991. 15 The first gravestone in Chwolson’s 1886 report was initially dated to 858; he later corrected this to 1258 (CHWOLSON 1886, No. I; CHWOLSON 1890, No. 69), but the literature continues to refer to the incorrect date, giving the impression that the stones are much earlier than they are (e.g. MINGANA 1925, 334; DAUVILLIER 1948, 290). As noted above, a second stone, originally dated 911, was later discarded by Chwolson as too indistinct (CHWOLSON 1886, No. II; CHWOLSON 1890, i). Leaving these two erroneous readings aside, the date ranges in 1) CHWOLSON 1886, 2) CHWOLSON, 1890 and 3) CHWOLSON 1897 are, respectively: 1) 1569 SE (1257/58 CE) to 1648 SE (1336/37 CE); 2) 1560 SE (1248/49 CE) or possibly 1543 SE (1231/32) to 1656 SE (1344/45 CE); 3) 1512 SE (1200/01 CE) or possibly 1497 SE (1185/86 CE) to 1653 SE (1341/42 CE). However, Aleksandr Naymark notes that “finds of re-used tombstones of 789 and 909 C.E. in the foundations of [a] building [from] the end of the 10thearly 11th century in the city of Navekath pose the question whether all of more than eight hundred Syriac-Turkic tombstones of Semirech’e belong to the 13th-14th centuries” (NAYMARK 10 11

2004, 3). The exception is the gravestone of an Armenian bishop, partially in Syriac and partially in Armenian (МАРР 1894). 17 Not including the many references to the animal-year that are in Turkic. The linguistic status of Turkic will be dealt with below. On Turkic Christian gravestones in the Greek script, see PROKOSCH 1992. 16

16

Mark Dickens

As a result of analyzing the gravestone inscriptions, it became clear that the de ceased had been “Nestorian” Christians, members of the Church of the East,18 most of whom were ethnic Turks who died in the thirteenth and fourteenth cen turies. Furthermore, many of the deceased were clergy; Chwolson calculated that 120 of the 300 males referred to on the gravestones held some position in the church.19

Subsequent Research on the Gravestone Corpus Chwolson’s work aroused a great deal of interest, amongst both his fellow Rus sian scholars and those in other parts of Europe. There were several important reviews and critiques of his publications20 and further articles were published dealing with the way in which the gravestones fit into the overall picture of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia21 and the personal names that appeared on the stones.22 At the same time, beginning in 1902, more gravestones were discovered in an other cemetery, located just over the border in Chinese Turkestan, near the me dieval city of Almaliq. These were sent to Prof. Pavel Kokovtsov in St. Peters burg, who published them, along with other stones that had been unearthed in the Chu Valley, over the next several years.23 However, the active excavation of the cemeteries ceased soon afterwards and any subsequent finds have been largely by happenstance. 18

I am aware of the theological inadequacy of the term “Nestorian” to describe members of the Church of the East, but in the absence of a more convenient adjective, it is used sparingly in this article. Usage of the term does not imply any association with connotations of heresy. Of interest is the fact that the name Nestorius is found on at least two stones in the corpus (e.g. CHWOLSON 1890, No. 49 & XXVIII). 19 The hierarchy in the Church of the East at the time consisted of nine ranks (further divided into three triads): 1) Catholicos-Patriarch, 2) metropolitan, 3) bishop, 4) archdeacon, 5) chorepiscopus (= periodeutes = visitor), 6) priest (presbyter), 7) deacon, 8) subdeacon, and 9) reader (VOSTÉ 1931, 229). There also seems to have been a lower order of exorcists operating amongst Christians who had come from a shamanistic environment (CHWOLSON 1890, 161; NÖLDEKE 1890, 522; GILLMAN – KLIMKEIT 1999, 238-39). Chwolson counted 9 archdeacons, 23 church visitors, 46 scholastics, 3 exegetes, 2 preachers, 8 readers/doctors, 15 others who held various church offices and a great number of priests (CHWOLSON 1897, 54; cf. NAU 1914, 334-35). Wassilios Klein counted 88 priests (bringing the actual total to 194) and suggested that the large number in this office, including many who are described as “youths,” could be a reflection of the Nestorian tendency to “have all the male children, even those in the cradle, ordained as priests,” as William of Rubruck noted (KLEIN 2004b, 133-34; JACKSON 1990, 163). 20СЛУЦКИЙ 1889; КОРШ 1889; NÖLDEKE 1890; HALÉVY 1890; СЛУЦКИЙ 1891. Of these, Nöldeke’s was the most influential and Chwolson incorporated a number of his suggestions into his 1897 publication. 21 BARTHOLD 1901. 22 CHABOT 1906. 23 КОКОВЦОВ 1906; КОКОВЦОВ 1907; КОКОВЦОВ 1909.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

17

Although many of the gravestones ended up in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg or scattered throughout the Russian Empire (and then the Soviet Union) in various museums and universities, a number of them found their way to muse ums or private collections in England, Finland and France.24 Unfortunately, of the approximately 610 gravestones found in the Chu Valley, nearly 500 of them were destroyed in a fire in the museum where they were being kept in Almaty in 1939.25 Although there was little interest in the gravestone inscriptions for several dec ades after the initial flurry of publications in the late nineteenth and early twen tieth centuries, there has been a steady stream of articles since the late fifties, either dealing with one aspect of the inscriptions (e.g. the Turkic language, per sonal names or dating systems used)26 or the corpus as a whole, including the publication of newly discovered stones and the republication of those already known from the work of Chwolson and Kokovtsov. Much of this work has been done by Chetin Jumagulov and Wassilios Klein.27

The Geographical and Historical Context The Chu River, flowing out of Lake Issyq-Köl and into the arid steppeland to the north, was strategically located on the northern route of the Silk Road, which was the favoured route during the Pax Mongolica.28 This northern route ran from Samarkand through Tashkent (known at different times as Čač, Šaš and Binkent) and Talas, north of the Talas-Alatau Mountains to the Chu Val ley. From there, it continued on north of the mountains through Almaliq and Besh-baliq to either Turfan or Qamil (Hami), where other routes connected it with the central route of the Silk Road. At the same time, there were also minor routes that connected Lake Issyq-Köl with Samarkand via the Ferghana Valley29 and with Kashghar through various passes in the Talas-Alatau Mountains. Other routes also ran eastward from the Chu Valley, along both the southern and the northern shores of Lake Issyq-Köl, THACKER 1967; HEALEY 1983; HJELT 1909; TALLGREN 1940; AALTO 1981, 5, 7; CHAFFANJON 1899, 63-64, 99-100; NAU 1913; NAU 1914, 301-46; DESREUMAUX 2000. 25 KLEIN 2000, 156-57. 26 МАЛОВ 1959, 77-86; MANSUROĞLU 1959, 108-12; RÁSONYI 1962, 232-39; HAGE 1978; BAZIN 1991, 413-29; RYBATZKI 2004. The stones are also referred to in SAEKI 1951, 408-15. 27 ДЖУМАГУЛОВ 1963, 1982 & 1987; ДЖУМАГУЛОВ 1971; KLEIN 1994; KLEIN 1998; KLEIN 2000; KLEIN 2001; KLEIN 2002; KLEIN 2004b; KLEIN – ROTT 2006. 28 For an excellent overview of the Silk Road, see FRANCK – BROWNSTONE 1986, especially the map on p. 6 and the description of the various routes on pp. 9-26. As Baipakov notes, the nor thern route was “used from the seventh to the fourteenth century by the majority of ambassa dorial and mercantile caravans” (BAIPAKOV 2000, 222). 29 A detailed description of the route, requiring comparison with a modern map of Central Asia, can be found in BURYAKOV 1999, 84, 98, 99. 24

18

Mark Dickens

converging eventually in the Ili Valley around Almaliq, where they joined the northern branch of the Silk Road. Important cities in the Chu Valley included Navekath (Krasnaya Rečka), Suyab (Aq-Beshim) and Balasaghun (Burana) to the west of Lake Issyq-Köl, along with Qayaliq, about 450 km by road north of the lake, and Almaliq, about 650 km by road northeast of the lake. On the other side of the Tien Shan Moun tains, located on (or just to the north of) the middle route of the Silk Road, were the cities of Kashghar, Aqsu, Bai, Kucha, Bügür (Lun-t’ai), Qarashahr, Beshbaliq, Turfan, Qocho, Qamil, and Bars-köl (Barkul).30 The time period covered by the gravestones corresponds roughly to the period of Mongol dominance in Central Asia. The earliest gravestone can be confi dently dated to 1200/01, shortly before Chingiz Khan became khan of the Mongols (1206). In the next two decades, before his death, the Mongols con quered the Kirghiz, the Uighurs, the Qarakhitai and the Khwarazmshahs. The Qarakhitai had held Semirechye-Zheti Su and the Tarim Basin since c. 11301140, although they were ruled by the Naiman prince Küchlüg between 1211 and 1218, when the Mongols defeated them, killing Küchlüg in the process. When Chingiz Khan died in 1227, his empire was divided amongst his heirs and his son Chaghatay received the Chaghatayid ulus (a division of the Mongol Empire, usually called a khanate), encompassing Mawara’un-nahr (Transoxiana), the Tarim Basin, and Semirechye-Zheti Su. Whereas the Qarakhitai (and Küchlüg) had made Balasaghun their capital, the Chaghatayid seat of power was Almaliq.31 After the death of Chaghatay in 1244, the khanate became less and less stable, splitting into two halves in the early fourteenth century: Transoxiana in the west and Moghulistan in the east. Three of the four Mongol khanates eventually became Muslim.32 Although in each case the actual process was gradual, the official conversion of the IlKhanids in Iran is associated with the reign of Ghazan Khan (1295-1304) and that of the Golden Horde on the northern steppe with Özbeg Khan (13131341). The first Chaghatayid khan to convert to Islam whose subsequent poli cies reflected that conversion was Tarmashirin Khan (1331-1334), after whom Islamization increased in the khanate.33 Less than twenty years after the latest stone in the corpus, dated to 1344/45, Timur (Tamerlane) overthrew the last in dependent Chaghatayid khan Tughluq Timur (1363) and began his program of military conquest that proved so disastrous for the Church of the East. For an excellent map cf. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/silkroad/pdf/silkroadmap.pdf. As RYAN 1998, 362 notes, rather than a real capital, it was “a major rallying point for the bands of nomadic warriors who ruled Chaghatai, and served as a kind of administrative cen ter.” 32 The exception was, of course, the Mongol Yüan Dynasty of China, ruled over initially by Qubilai Khan. Several on the other political structure of thehad khanate prior previously, to Tarmashirin, on whom see BIRAN 33 fect Chaghatayid khans converted but there had been little if2002. any ef30 31

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

19

The Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Context Since the Semirechye-Zheti Su area was the centre of the Qarakhitai state and an important part of the Chaghatayid ulus, the population was probably a mix ture of various Turkic tribes, including Uighurs and Qarakhanid Turks.34 Wil liam of Rubruck specifically mentions Christian Uighurs living in this area (see below; the other ethnic groups he identified as Christian – the Naiman, Kerait and Merkit – all lived further to the north) and one gravestone in the corpus is that of H (Banus, the Uighur priest).35 It seems reasonable to assume therefore that many of those buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries were ethnic Uighurs, although we cannot be sure. Linguistically, Semirechye-Zheti Su in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was in a state of transition from Old Turkic to Middle Turkic. Old Uighur, which had dominated the area since the eighth century and had then been adopted as the language of officialdom in the Mongol Empire, gradually de creased in importance.36 So too did Qarakhanid (also called Xakani), the first Islamic Turkic literary language, which had developed in the eleventh century under the Qarakhanid dynasty. By the time of Timur, shortly after the last inscription in the gravestone corpus, these two languages would begin to be replaced by the Middle Turkic lan guage, Chaghatay.37 In the opinion of Peter B. Golden, the language of the in scriptions is best termed Middle Southeastern Turkic.38 Its major characteristics have been documented by Mansuroğlu.39 The linguistic status of Syriac will be dealt with below. Semirechye-Zheti Su at the time was a religious intertidal zone. Muslims dominated to the south in Mawara’un-nahr, Buddhists to the east in China, and followers of traditional Central Asian animism-shamanism to the north. All of these, along with Christians, mixed together in Semirechye-Zheti Su. There had been Christians in the area since at least the eighth century, as evidenced by two churches excavated in Aq-Beshim (medieval Suyab), not far from the Burana cemetery.40 Based on the evidence of archaeological finds from the area, Michal Biran, personal communication, 29 May, 2007. CHWOLSON 1897, No. 97. 36 Nevertheless, commenting on the Uighur language and alphabet, William of Rubruck noted that “almost every Nestorian is familiar with their script” (JACKSON 1990, 157). 37 See JOHANSON 1998, 85-86. 38 Personal communication, 23 May, 2006. 39 MANSUROĞLU 1959, 108-12. 40 See KLEIN 2001, 86-89; KLEIN 2004a. It is debatable whether there was 1) a continual Christi an presence from the eighth century or 2) a hiatus between an earlier Christian presence, pro bably dominated by Sogdian-speakers, and a later one, primarily made up of Turkic-speakers (KLEIN 2004b, 130-31). 34 35

20

Mark Dickens

Aleksandr Naymark concludes that, while Christianity went into decline in Mawara’un-nahr during the ninth and tenth centuries (as a result of the Muslim conquest of Central Asia), it continued to flourish in Semirechye-Zheti Su un der the Qarakhanids and in fact, spread south from there back into Mawara’unnahr later on.41 When the shamanist and Buddhist Qarakhitai captured Semirechye-Zheti Su and the Tarim Basin from the Muslim Qarakhanids (c. 1130-1140), both Bud dhism and Nestorian Christianity experienced a revival in the area. The two re ligions were further strengthened after the Qarakhitai khan Yelü Zhilugu was overthrown in 1211 by Küchlüg, who had been born into a Nestorian family and later converted to Buddhism. When Küchlüg was in turn defeated by the armies of Chingiz Khan in 1218, Christians in the area continued to be treated well, due to the generally-favourable view that the Mongols held of Christianity.

The Status of Syriac Christianity in the Chu Valley Thanks to the two cemeteries and their contents, we have a significant amount of information about the Christian community near Lake Issyq-Köl. The ceme tery in Burana (medieval Balasaghun), just south of Tokmak, is the smaller of the two, since Balasaghun at the time had a largely Muslim population, but the cemetery in Karajigach, near Bishkek, was much larger, reflecting the fact that it was located next to a Christian town called Tarsakent.42 Since the only bishop mentioned is an Armenian one43 and the highest Nestorian church office men tioned on the inscriptions is an archdeacon, we must assume that the area was overseen by the latter, rather than a bishop.44 The Christians in the area undoubtedly used Syriac as their primary liturgical language, as has been the case throughout the history of the Church of the East, but the degree to which those in the community used it outside of the liturgy is unclear. The poor quality of Syriac on the gravestones shows that those who prepared the inscriptions were not well-versed in the language, but it is difficult to know from this how literate either the clergy or laity were in Syriac.45 At the same time, as Wassilios Klein notes, if there had not been a significant degree of literacy in Syriac amongst the community, there would have been no

41 42

NAYMARK 2004, 3-5. Meaning, literally, “City of the Christians”, on which see KLEIN 2000, 132-36; KLEIN 2001, 86.

43МАРР1894.

The archdeacon’s residence was probably in Tarsakent (KLEIN 2004b, 134). See also KLEIN 2000, 240-41 on archdeacons in general. 45 Various grammatical inconsistencies are dealt with below. On the poor quality of the orthography, see KLEIN 2002, [24]-[28]. 44

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

21

need to produce the gravestones with inscriptions in the first place.46 Further more, “If Syriac dominates the tombstone inscriptions, then it follows that it must have played a substantial role as a liturgical language… As can be seen from the details relating to occupations contained on the tombstone inscrip tions, there were schools both for elementary education and for ecclesiastical training... The level of competence in Syriac reflected in these inscriptions is reminiscent of a knowledge of foreign languages that has been acquired at school without any exposure to the country where the language is spoken.”47 Given the number of Turkic inscriptions in Syriac script on the gravestones, perhaps Old Uighur was also used in an ecclesiastical context. This was cer tainly the case in Eastern Turkistan several centuries earlier, based on the Christian texts found in Turfan,48 and there are a higher percentage of Turkic inscriptions on the gravestones found in Almaliq. William of Rubruck says that the area around Qayaliq “used to be known as Organum and to have its own language and script… Its script and language were habitually used by the Nestorians of these parts for their services and for writing their books,” perhaps a reference to the earlier use of either Sogdian or Old Uighur.49 Since neither bishops nor metropolitans are encountered in the gravestone in scriptions, we do not know which ecclesiastical diocese or even province these Christians belonged to. We have a rough idea of how the provinces of the Church of the East in Central Asia might have been organized at the time, thanks to various medieval Syriac and Christian Arabic sources which list the metropolitan see cities of the church (see below). However, we do not know how the dioceses were organized, since there are no references to bishops in Central Asia at this time, unless one considers that ‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ “John, bishop of Kamul,” who (according to ‘Amr ibn Mattai) was present at the consecration of Patriarch DenÐa I in 1265,50 refers to Qamil (Hami) in Chinese Turkestan.51 KLEIN 2004b, 136. KLEIN 2001, 91. The situation was probably analogous to that of modern-day Syriac Christians in the Middle East, most of whom only use Syriac in the liturgy, whereas Arabic is their lingua franca for the rest of life, including social interaction with other Christians. On the educational situation that is revealed from the gravestones, see KLEIN 2004b, 136. 48 See BANG 1926 and ZIEME 1974. 49 JACKSON 1990, 148. Early scholars erroneously associated “Organum” with Orghina Khatun, regent of the Chaghatayid ulus (1251-1260) (PELLIOT 1973, 114). In contrast, François Nau ar gued that the word was a latinization of ärkägün, the Mongol term for “Christian” (NAU 1913, 8-9). The current scholarly consensus is that the term is “a corruption of Ürgench, the capital of Khwārazm, the name of the chief city being applied to the country as a whole” (JACKSON 1990, 148, following PELLIOT 1973, 113-18). My thanks to Michal Biran for clarifying my thinking on this matter (personal communication, 29 May, 2007). 50 GISMONDI 1896-1897, ١٢١/70. On the basis of an average of three bishops per metropolitan in 1265, Bonin suggested that the metropolitan of Kashghar oversaw three bishoprics, namely Tokmak, Jan-baliq and Yarkand (BONIN 1900, 585, 587), but this is pure speculation, not backed up by any solid evidence. 51 MINGANA 1925, 328-29. 46 47

22

Mark Dickens

Interestingly, none of the Europeans who travelled through the area mention meeting a bishop or metropolitan,52 prompting some to ponder whether or not some of these positions were purely titular.53 Lists of metropolitanates in the Church of the East can be found in the works of Elias Jauhari of Damascus (c. 893), Ibn aì-¯ayyib (d. 1043), ‘Abdišo bar Berikha (1316) and ‘Amr ibn Mattai (c. 1350).54 All of the writers mention Samarkand. In addition, ‘Abdišo lists a metropolitan of the Turks, ‘Amr one of Turkestan, probably both referring to the same location. Various suggestions have been given for the location of this metropolitanate – initially created dur ing the patriarchate of Timothy I (780-823) – including Kashghar and Otrar on the Syr Darya, but due to the uncertainty over its location, it will not be consid ered below.55 ‘Amr also lists Khan-baliq and Al-Faliq (to be dealt with below) and Kashghar and Navekath. Unfortunately, we do not have precise start or end dates for any of these metropolitanates.56 Samarkand was the oldest and most stable of the Central Asian metropolitan ates, but since it was also about 900 km by road southwest of Lake Issyq-Köl, its ecclesiastical authority likely extended only as far as the Ferghana Valley.57 Nevertheless, although we have no evidence of this from the gravestone cor pus, there were presumably contacts between Christians in Samarkand and the Chu Valley as a result of travel along the Silk Road. The city was still an im portant centre for the Church of the East at this time. Marco Polo described a “a big church [built] in the city to the honour of St John the Baptist,”58 as well as a PELLIOT 1973, 5. For a discussion of the church hierarchy in Central Asia, see KLEIN 2000, 240-49. At the same time, we know that the Turkic monk Marqos was consecrated as Metropolitan of Katay (Ca thay) and Ong (i.e. Öng, the singular of Öngüt) and that only warfare in Central Asia prohib ited him from returning to China to take up his position (MONTGOMERY 1927, 41). 54 A good summary of the relevant lists of metropolitanates can be found in SACHAU 1919, 2122. 55 On the possible location of this metropolitanate, see NAU, 1914, 247-48; DAUVILLIER 1948, 285-86; PELLIOT 1973, 6-7; HUNTER 1989/1991, 158-59. In contrast to these suggestions, Alexei Savchenko suggests that it was located at Čač (Tashkent), where coins with Christian crosses were minted (personal communication, 14 September, 2007). 56 For a discussion of these metropolitanates, see KLEIN 2000, 250-55. On the relationship bet ween the “metropolitans of the exterior” and the patriarch, see DAUVILLIER 1948, 263-66; HAGE 1997, 22-25. For a map of the Church of the East in Central Asia with the various bis hoprics and metropolitanates marked, see HAGE 1970, 27. 57 Dating the establishment of the metropolitanate of Samarkand is very difficult, since it is at tributed to all of the following Patriarchs by different authorities: Ahai (410-414), Shila (503523), Isho‘yahb – either Isho‘yahb I (582-596), Isho‘yahb II (628-646), or Isho‘yahb III (650658) – and Saliba-Zakha (714-728). It is most likely that it took place in the seventh or eighth century. On the history of the ecclesiastical province of Samarkand, see COLLESS 1986; DAUVILLIER 1948, 283-86; BARTHOLD 1968, 485-87. 58 LATHAM 1958, 81-82. According to Polo, the construction of the church was linked to the con version of Chaghatay himself. A later khan, Eljigidei (1327-1330) was also reported to have built a church in Samarkand dedicated to John the Baptist, a coincidence that seems somewhat 52 53

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

23

certain Mar Sergius, a “Nestorian” Christian (who we know was from Samar kand) that was appointed governor of the city of Zhenjiang (Chen-chiang) in eastern China by Kublai Khan, who we know was from Samarkand.59 The Syriac History of Mar Yahballaha also mentions that Mar Jacob, the Metropoli tan of Samarkand, was amongst those who consecrated the Turkic monk Marqos as Patriarch Yahballaha III in 1281.60 Kashghar, located over the Tien Shan Mountains, about 500 km by road south of Lake Issyq-Köl, received a metropolitan much later than Samarkand. Ac cording to ‘Amr ibn Mattai, writing c. 1350, this took place under Patriarch Eliya III (1176-1190), who consecrated two consecutive metropolitans for the city, John (‫ )ا‬and Sabhrišo (‫)ع‬.61 However, a century later (c. 1280), when the monks Rabban ªauma and Marqos passed through the city, they found it in a state of war and desolation.62 ‘Amr’s list of metropolitanates also includes a joint metropolitanate of Kashghar and Navekath (‫واآ‬ ‫)آ‬.63 This seems to indicate that the historically-significant metropolitanate of Kashghar had been revived, but in conjunction with Navekath in the Chu Val ley, which was much closer to the Chaghatayid capital of Almaliq.64 If so, then the Christians buried in the Chu Valley would presumably have belonged to this ecclesiastical province, located between the provinces of Samarkand to the suspicious, as RYAN 1998, 366 points out. In fact, Marco Polo could never have seen the church himself, since the head of a Sufi khanaqah in Samarkand reported in 1259 that it had been destroyed (BARTHOLD 1968, 486). Since most of the Christians buried in the Chu Valley lived after this time, the church would have been no more than a painful reminder of the fragil ity of their faith in the predominantly Muslim culture around them. Three and a half centuries earlier, c. 900, the Muslim writer Ibn al-Faqih described the church at Samarkand as a wellknown site, one of “le plus dignes de demeurer sur la face du temps et le plus éloignés d'être effaces” (MASSÉ 1973, 296-97). 59 See PELLIOT 1963, 774-76; MOULE 1930, 145-57, 160. It is thought that, since Marco Polo could not have seen the church himself, he must have heard about it from Mar Sergius. This seems to be confirmed by a Chinese document called The History of Chên-chiang of the Chihshun period, which speaks of Mar Sergius coming from Samarkand, “a land where the yeh-lik’o-wên [Chinese for ärkägün, i.e. Christians] practice their religion” and refers to a “chapel” with one pillar “hanging in the air more than a foot [from the floor]” (MOULE 1930, 146), a fact which Polo relates in his description of the church. 60 MONTGOMERY 1927, 46. 61 GISMONDI 1896-1897, ١١١/64. However, François Nau suggested that the elevation of Kashghar to metropolitan status is to be equated with Patriarch Timothy’s appointment of a metropolitan for the Turks in the late eighth century (NAU 1914, 247-48). See also DAUVILLIER 1948, 286-88. 62 MONTGOMERY 1927, 35. 63 GISMONDI 1896-1897, ١٢٦/73. See also the version of this list by ªaliba ibn YuÐannā (GISMONDI 1896-1897, ١٣٢/74). 64 As Erica C.D. Hunter has noted, there may be a parallel situation in the equation of Nishapur with the metropolitanate of Merv in the list of ‘‘Abdišo bar Berikha (1316): “Nišapur was never a metropolitanate, but its reputation may have bolstered the declining fortunes of Merv. Conversely, Merv may have been retained in the title on account of its renown, if the seat mo ved to Nišapur” (HUNTER 1996, 137).

24

Mark Dickens

southwest and Almaliq to the northeast. However, we have no other evidence that this city in the Chu Valley, so close to the cemeteries, had a metropolitan and no gravestone for even a Nestorian bishop, let alone a metropolitan.65 The final metropolitanate to consider is Almaliq itself, the capital of the Chaghatayid ulus, located about 650 km by road northeast of Lake Issyq-Köl.66 This is somewhat less sure, based on an interpretation of Khan-baliq and AlFaliq (‫وا‬ ‫ )ن‬in ‘Amr’s list of metropolitans.67 Rather than understand ing ‫ ن‬Khan-baliq in its usual sense (referring to Peking), Eduard Sachau suggested that it should be read as ‫ ن‬Jan-baliq, the equivalent of Beshbaliq (near modern-day Urumchi), and that ‫ ا‬Al-Faliq should be read as ‫ا‬ Ili-baliq, another name for Almaliq.68 The discovery of the Almaliq grave stones, along with the possibility that one of its rulers may have had a Christian name,69 confirms that it was an important Christian centre, but we have no solid evidence of the city’s status as a metropolitanate. Based on the gravestone in scriptions, however, we do know that several Christians from Almaliq, along with at least one from Kashghar,70 were buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries, implying that there was a certain degree of interaction between Christians in these cities. In the end, we cannot know for sure which metropolitanate those buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries came under.

Medieval Travel Accounts In addition to the above information derived from Syriac and Christian Arabic literature, we are also fortunate to have more travel accounts related to Central Asia from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than from any other time prior to the modern era. Although some of them give us significant information about the general status of Christianity in Central Asia and China at that time, there is less data on the state of the Nestorian Christians in Semirechye-Zheti Su than we would like.

On the status of Navekath, see DAUVILLIER 1948, 288-91; KLEIN 2000, 136-39. Several Chris tian artifacts, including five pectoral crosses and a Sogdian inscription on a ceramic vessel, ha ve been discovered in modern Krasnaya Rečka, the site of medieval Navekath (KLEIN 2000, 112-13). For its location, see BREGEL 2003, 5. See also the discussion in MINORSKY 1970, 28990. 66 On which, see DAUVILLIER 1948, 305-08. Nau rather confusingly asserts that the capital of the (ecclesiastical or Chaghatayid?) province was Almaliq, but that the metropolitanate responsi ble for those buried in the cemeteries was “sans doubte” Kashghar (NAU 1913, 18 and NAU 1914,335). 67 GISMONDI 1896-1897, ١٢٦/73. 68 SACHAU 1919, 22. See also DAUVILLIER 1948, 305-06. 69 Prince ’Ozar in 1211 (DAUVILLIER 1948, 305). 70 CHWOLSON 1890, No. 98, 3,3, 11,1; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 261, 211. 65

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

25

The earliest account is that of Ch’ang Ch’un, a Taoist monk and alchemist who travelled through Central Asia in 1219 en route to see Chingiz Khan at his orda in Afghanistan. He mentions that, when passing the city of Lun-t’ai (also known as Bügür, located on the northern rim of the Tarim Basin), “the head of the Tarsa [as Christians were known in Central Asia71] came to meet us.”72 In contrast, the Franciscan monk John of Plano Carpini, travelling through the area in 1246, makes no mention of Christians at all in “the land of the Black Kitayans.”73 Similarly, his fellow-traveller Benedict the Pole says of the “land which is called Kara Kitai” that “the inhabitants are pagans.”74 More promising is the account of William of Rubruck, who passed through Central Asia en route to see Khan Möngke in Khan-baliq (Peking) in 1253. His comments on the Christians of Qayaliq have been noted above. Of the Uighurs, he said, “All their cities contain Nestorians and Saracens intermingled… I en countered a man who had on his hand a little cross in black ink [i.e. a tattoo], which led me to believe he was a Christian, since he answered like a Christian all the questions I put to him.”75 At one point, Rubruck speaks of entering a church in a settlement that was entirely Nestorian near the town of Qayaliq and breaking into a chant “as we had not seen a church for a long time.”76 Marco Polo, who journeyed through Central Asia in 1275, mentions Christians in Samarkand, Kashghar, Yarkand, Qara Khoja (near Turfan), and Ghinghintalas, which is generally identified with Barkul (= Bars-köl, to the north of Qamil).77 However, since he did not take the northern route of the Silk Road (as William of Rubruck had), he does not mention any in Semirechye-Zheti Su. Travelling in the opposite direction, the Turkic monks Rabban ªauma and Marqos78 passed through Central Asia en route to Jerusalem shortly after Marco Polo, c. 1280. They also took the southern route of the Silk Road, but no men tion is made of Christians in Kashghar.79 Fifty years later, the Franciscan Odoric of Pordenone, returning to Europe from Khan-baliq c. 1328, did not

In Pahlavi, a Christian was called tarsāg, in New Persian ‫ ﺗﺮﺳﺎ‬tarsā, from the verb ‫ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺪﻥ‬, tarsidān, “to fear.” On the possible origin of this term, see PINES 1968. 72 WALEY 1931, 82. See also MOULE 1930, 216-18. 73 DAWSON 1955, 59. 74 DAWSON 1955, 81. Andrew of Longjumeau’s account of his passage through Central Asia in 1249-1250 is even briefer, mentioning only some German slaves in Talas (DE RACHEWILTZ, 1971, 123). 75 JACKSON 1990, 150. 76 JACKSON 1990, 165. 77 LATHAM 1958, 80-82, 88-89. On the identification of Ghinghintalas with Barkul/Bars-köl, see MOULE 1930, 131. 78 Although Bar Hebraeus calls them Uighurs (ABBELOOS – LAMY 1877, col. 451-54; BUDGE 1932, 492), they were actually Öngüt Turks (BORBONE 2005, 11-12). 79 MONTGOMERY 1927, 35. Another important Catholic traveller to the East, John of Monte Corvino, travelled to China via India (1291-1294) and so did not pass through Central Asia. 71

26

Mark Dickens

even mention the Christians of Tangut that Rabban ªauma and Marqos had praised for their ardent belief, let alone Christians anywhere else on his route.80 By this time, the Catholics had established a presence in the area.81 Almaliq was probably made a bishopric in the 1320s. Thomas of Mancasola was ap pointed bishop of Samarkand in 1329. A third bishopric was set up in Urgench, in Khwarazm, sometime before 1340. Responsible in part for this openness to Christianity was the Chaghatayid ruler Eljigidei (1327-1330). However, the conversion to Islam (probably around the same time) and subsequent accession to the throne of his brother Tarmashirin in 1331 ultimately resulted in a decline in the fortunes of Christians in the khanate, whether “Nestorian” or Catholic.82 The Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta, who passed through Central Asia in 13321333, spent nearly two months at the court of Tarmashirin near Nakhshab (modern-day Qarshi, Uzbekistan), but he does not mention any Christians in the area.83 Not long afterwards, the plague swept through the area, a fact borne out by the large number of gravestones from the years 1338-1339.84 In the same year, 1339, seven residents of the Catholic friary at Almaliq were martyred, in cluding the bishop, Richard of Burgundy. A year later, John of Marignolli stopped in Almaliq while en route to Khan-baliq. After learning of the martyr doms the previous year, he “built a church, bought a piece of ground, dug wells, sung masses and baptized several; preaching freely and openly.”85 De spite the optimism of this account, however, the indigenous Christian commu nity, after a presence of at least six centuries in the area, was on the verge of dying out.86

1971, 184-85. An excellent overview can be found in RYAN 1998. See HAGE 1970, 63 for a map of Catholic missions in Central Asia. 82 Although, as RYAN 1998, 367-68 notes, there was also openness towards, or at least tolerance of, Christianity under his successors Buzan (1334-1335) and Changshi (1335-1337). 83 GIBB 1929, 172-74. Of course, Ibn Battuta did not travel through Semirechye-Zheti Su. Also, since he was meeting the newly converted khan of the Chaghatay ulus and his primary motive was to describe the spread of Islam throughout the known world, it is not surprising that he does not mention Christians in the area. He does, however, mention Christian Qipchaqs further west in the Muslim Qipchaq Khanate (ibid, 142). 84 CHWOLSON 1890, 85-91; CHWOLSON 1897, 33-38. This was the same plague which ravaged Europe shortly after, from 1347 to 1351. 85 YULE – CORDIER, 1914, 212. See also MOULE 1930, 255-56; STANDAERT 2001, 75-76. 86 Yet the memory of these Christians was not entirely lost, as we learn from the Portuguese Je suit Benedict Goës. Passing through the Tarim Basin 250 years later, in 1603, he was told by the prince of Cialis, which Cordier equates with Qarashahr, located midway between Kucha and Turfan on the middle route of the Silk Road, that “Christians were really Misermans [musulmans = Muslims?], or True Believers, adding that his own ancestors had been profes sors of their faith” (YULE – CORDIER 1916, 233-34). 80 DERACHEWILTZ 81

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

27

Christian Gravestones in Tashkent The National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan in Tashkent is the current name of the former Lenin Museum, originally opened in 1970 on the anniversary of the revolutionary’s birth. After Uzbekistan gained its independence in 1991, the museum’s contents were supplemented by archaeological material from the former Aybek Museum, founded in 1876, and the whole museum was subse quently closed for several years in order to update the tired old Soviet-style ex hibits to a presentation more in keeping with modern museology. The reno vated museum opened on 31 March, 2003. At the time, I was living and work ing in Uzbekistan and so I took advantage of the opportunity to see the new ex hibits. Prominently displayed on the second floor in their own display case are four Christian gravestones in Syriac script.87 In April 2003, I obtained permission to photograph the four gravestones on display, which I will now proceed to de scribe.88 As with most of the gravestones from the Chu Valley, the workman ship on these stones is somewhat crude and the inscriptions, in Syriac Estrangelo script, are difficult to decipher in places. Each of the stones appears to be the work of a separate engraver. Although I did not verify their geological makeup, Thacker noted that most of the stones are of diorite, with some of blu ish granite and a few of grey sandstone.89

Gravestone No. 1 The first gravestone is dated to 1573 SE (1261/62 CE). It is No. 5 in CHWOLSON, 1897.90 The inscription is engraved on three sides of what is often

МИНАСЯНЦ 1992, 17-18 details how originally 17 gravestones were acquired by the Turkestan National Museum in 1918, of which only 13 are still extant. In addition to the four on display, another seven gravestones are kept in the attic of the museum and one in the History Faculty of the National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirza Ulugbeg, formerly known as TashGU (I do not know where the thirteenth stone is). See also МУСАКАЕВА 1994, 46. My thanks to Alexei Savchenko for clarifying various questions about these stones and supplying me with the article by Mr. Minasiants (see next footnote also), as well as images he took of the stones to compare with my own photographs. 88 I am grateful to Dr. Margarita Filanovich (ret’d.), Dr. Edvard Rtveladze (Scientific Research Institute of the Academy of Arts of Uzbekistan) and Dr. Timur Shirinov (Samarkand Institute of Archaeology) for references & letters of introduction to the museum; to the museum direc tor, Dr. Jannat Ismailova, for permission to take photos and to the curator, Mr. Vazgen Mina siants, for taking the stones out of their display case so I could photograph them. 89 THACKER 1967, 95. 90 Cat. 908/8 in the Tashkent museum, 28.5 cm high X 20.5 cm wide. My thanks to Alexei Sav chenko for supplying me with the catalogue numbers and dimensions of the four stones. A photograph with translation can also be found in BAUMER 2006, 210. 87

28

Mark Dickens

referred to as a “Nestorian cross,” or a “pearl cross.”91 In addition, the cross is placed on a raised stand. .92 Syriac Text and Transliteration:92

H G

šant 1000 + 400 + 100 + 70 + 393

‫؟‬

X H

hādāy qabrāh PH¬SYS-?94 sā qušìānê emeh d-ispah-salār

Translation: The year 1573 [1261/62 CE]. This is the grave of PH¬SYS-sā qušìānê (the teacher), the mother of the commander-in-chief. Commentary: This gravestone is a good example of the wealth of information, both linguistic and non-linguistic, that we can gain from this corpus. Linguistically, we may note the following:95 Whereas grammatically it would be more correct to have the prefix (b, “in”) before the word (šant, “year”), as is the case in the next three inscriptions,96 it is missing here and in many inscriptions in the corpus.

91

On these and other crosses used in Central Asia, see DAUVILLIER 1956; PARRY 1996, 145-47; KLEIN – RECK 2004; ROTT 2006. On the general iconography of the gravestones, see EGAMI 1966. On the use of the cross in Central Asia across the religious spectrum, see KLIMKEIT 1979. 92 Since we do not know exactly how Syriac was pronounced by the community that produced these gravestones, I have chosen to follow the pronunciation of classical Syriac. Spirantized sounds are underlined. Non-Syriac names are transcribed according to RÁSONYI – BASKI 2007. 93 It looks like there might be a final after the in the date, but this makes no sense and Chwolson has not included it, so I have not taken it into account in my reading. 94 Capital letters indicate uncertainty over the vocalization of this name. 95 For more on the following grammatical and orthographic points, see KLEIN 2002, [11]-[18]. 96 Tashkent gravestones No. 2-4 all have the more grammatically correct bašnat (“in the year”).

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

r wi J'

29

-1

Gravestone 1 (photo: A. Savchenko)

The demonstrative pronoun “this” in the phrase “this is the grave” should al ways be in the masculine, since it refers to the masculine noun (qabr, “grave”). On the gravestones, however, when the person named is a female, as with this example, the demonstrative pronoun “this” is changed from the mas culine (hānaw) to the feminine G (hādāy). In order to express the phrase “the grave of [name],” the prefix (d, “of”) should be added to the name, but here it is missing (although it has been cor rectly used in the expression emeh d-ispah-salār “mother of the commander-inchief”). These minor details, along with many other mistakes in the inscrip tions, show that the stone-carvers were certainly not native speakers of Syriac and may not have been literate in any language.97 aThe turn special word was letter a modified X that X (qušìānê) isversion borrowed of is interesting the fromSyriac the Christian on alphabet. several Sogdian Although accounts. alphabet, XIt in begins Christian which with in Sogdian is used to represent phonetic /x/,98 in Christian Turkic texts (primarily the gravestones), it generally represents phonetic /q/, especially in Turkic

As KLEIN 2002, [22] notes, “the orthography of the Turkic parts of these inscriptions is no bet ter… The stonemasons were here as elsewhere illiterate, uneducated people.” 98 SIMS-WILLIAMS 1989, 178; SIMS-WILLIAMS – EVERSON 2002.

97

30

Mark Dickens

words and personal names,99 but it can also represent phonetic /k/ in Turkic words.100 By comparison, the Syriac letter G can represent both 1) its usual value of phonetic /k/ in Syriac words and names and 2) phonetic /q/ in Turkic words and names,101 showing that there was no direct correlation between these two letters and the sounds /k/ and /q/. Until recently, scholars dealing with the gravestones understood qušìānê to be a corrupted form of Constance (or Constantia),102 the feminine form of the Late Latin name Constantius, which was itself derived from Constans, meaning its variant steadfast.” “constant, X (qunšìanê), It occurs frequently X (qušìanê) in the gravestone and corpus, X along with (qušìaê).103 In almost every case, it occurs after a female name (e.g. , Maryam; H, Rafiqa; , Febronia). However, Werner Sundermann has pointed out that this word is actually *xuštānč, a loan-word from Sogdian. Although unattested in Sogdian, it would be the the form feminine X (qušìi).104 form of xušte, The original xušt, which meaning is found is “elder, in the eldest,” gravestone but corpus in Chris in tian Sogdian texts it usually means “teacher.” Thus, the pronunciation of the word should be amended to qušìānč, since the Syriac letter is consistently used to render the Turkic sound /č/ on the gravestones. Whether those with this title taught in schools overseen by the church or were possibly in charge of educating the daughters of the ruling class is unclear.105 On this gravestone, there are clearly two lines below hādāy qabrāh (“this is the grave of”) but it is very difficult to make them out, either on my photograph or one kindly supplied to me by Alexei Savchenko. Chwolson, noting a “strange scratch,” a G and beneath it , concluded that the stone-carver intended to

E.g. GX (qoy) “sheep” and X (qātun, khātun) “lady” (CHWOLSON 1890, No. 42). PELLIOT 1973, 272 suggested that it was also used for Iranian (Sogdian or Persian) names, but gave no examples. Perhaps he was aware of the Sogdian origin of this letter, discussed below. 100 E.g. GX (közi) “his eyes” (CHWOLSON 1890, No. 97). 101 E.g. G (quduq) “well,” here used as a personal name (CHWOLSON 1890, No. 97,4). See also Nöldeke’s discussion of this letter (NÖLDEKE 1890, 525). The letter is only used for Syriac words, where it represents the expected phonetic /q/. 102 CHWOLSON 1886, 23; CHWOLSON 1890, 12, 134; KLEIN 1994, 435. However, Nöldeke ex pressed doubts about this early on (NÖLDEKE 1890, 525). 103 See CHWOLSON 1890, No. 19, 19,1, 42,1, 42,3, 61, 65, 80,1, 85, VI, XXVI; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 4, 5, 28, 40, 71, 104, 155, 194, 195,1, 310, 312. NAU, 1914, 336 suggested that it was the most common female name in the corpus. The variants spellingsX, X, X, X (see CHABOT 1906, 290-91) generally involve the presence or absence of the letter nun in either or both syllables. 104 CHWOLSON 1890, No. 75,2, where it occurs with the masculine name (ªemÐa). 105 SUNDERMANN 1995. As Sundermann notes, the Russian scholar V.A. Livshits independently came to the same conclusion some years earlier. See also KLEIN 2000, 267-68; KLEIN 2004b, 136. My thanks to both Wassilios Klein and Peter Zieme for alerting me to Sundermann’s ar ticle and to Nicholas Sims-Williams (personal communication, 12 December, 2007) for clari fying the meaning of this term. 99

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

31

write the name of the deceased here and made a mistake.106 However, since qušìānê (or rather, qušìānč) cannot be interpreted as the name on this grave stone and refers rather to the title “teacher,” the personal name must be located below hādāy qabrāh and above qušìānč. My best reading of this is ‫؟‬ (PH¬SYS), followed by (sā) on the second line. G (PH¬) might possibly stand for Persian baxt (“luck, fortune”), a name attested amongst Turkic peoples,107 but I am unable to make sense of the rest of the name.108 Regarding the date, this stone is one of only about 10% of Chwolson’s cor pus109 that give the date strictly according to the Seleucid Era. Two methods of giving the Seleucid date are used in the corpus: 1) spelling out the numbers and 2) using the numerical equivalents of the letters of the Syriac alphabet, which is the method used on this stone, as well as the next two. In this case, the letters for 1000 + 400+100 + 70 + 3 are added together to give the date of 1573 SE, equivalent to 1 Oct. 1261-30 Sept. 1262 CE.110 The word H (ispah-salār) represents Persian ‫“( ار‬military leader” or “commander-in-chief”).111 As Chwolson noted, it is found on three gravestones in the corpus, all in Chwolson, 1897: 1) this one (No. 5) from 1573 SE (1261/62 CE); 2) No. 71 from 1624 SE (1312/13 CE), the grave of “Taptirim qušìānč (the teacher), the daughter of the ispah-salār”; and 3) No. 193 from 1650 SE (1338/39 CE), the grave of “Elišma (i.e. Elišba), the wife of YuÐannan Tegin Beg Mirza (?), the ispah-salār.” Whether or not we are dealing with one family is impossible to say, but the fifty-year gap between PH¬SYS-sā qušìānč (the mother of the ispah-salār) and Tap-tirim qušìānč (the daughter of the ispah-salār), along with the fact that both women were teachers, makes this a plausible suggestion.112 Since the mili tary commander’s name is not given in either case (No. 5 and No. 71), this may indicate that he was so well-known in the community that it was not necessary to name him. Two (or possibly three) other military commanders are also men-

CHWOLSON 1897, 7. RÁSONYI – BASKI 2007, 96. Although baxtsiz – formed by the addition of the Turkic negative adjectival suffix -siz and meaning “unlucky” – fits my reading of PH¬SYS, it is highly unlikely this name would be given to a child in Turkic culture, for obvious reasons. 109 According to BAZIN 1991, 415. 110 For a table of the non-adjusted (to be explained below) equivalents between Seleucid Era da tes, Common Era dates and the animal-cycle dates, see KLEIN 2000, 339-48. 111 The word itself is very hard to read and could equally be read as just H (aspahsalār), a variant spelling of ispahsalār. An alternative form is ‫ ﺳﭙﻪ ﺳﺎﻻﺭ‬sipahsalār (STEINGASS 1892, 653). My thanks to Christine van Ruymbeke for this information (personal communication, 27 April, 2006). The use of Persian terms so far east is not surprising, especi ally given William of Rubruck’s comments about the town of Equius (probably Quyas, near Almaliq), “inhabited by Saracens who spoke Persian, though they were a very long way from Persia” (JACKSON 1990, 147). 112 See also CHWOLSON 1897, p. 53. 106

107 108

32

Mark Dickens

tioned in the corpus, all employing the standard Syriac term H (rab Ðaylā)113: 1) the commander/amir George (undated) and 2) the priest and com mander/amir ªauma, the son of the commander/amir George (1583 SE = 1271/72 CE).114 There are, of course, other examples of Christian military leaders during the Mongol period outside of the gravestone corpus, including the famous Mongol general Kitbuqa, a Kerait Christian, who captured Aleppo and Damascus for the Il-khanids, and King George of the Öngüt.115 The ongoing presence of Christians in the military in Central Asia is also suggested by the discovery of a tomb near Samarkand where the deceased was buried with a gold cross sewn on his clothing over his stomach, along with a quiver full of arrows.116

Gravestone No. 2 The second gravestone is dated to 1591 SE (1279/80 CE). It is No. 18 in CHWOLSON, 1897.117 The inscription is engraved under a small cross with in dented arms and consists of two horizontal lines and six vertical lines. Syriac Text and Transliteration:

HH G

en

H H H

bašnat 1000 + 400 + 100 +90 + 1 šant atliya hādāy qabrāh d-Dawlat-eši118 barteh d-ŠliÐā qašišā tebsam māryā119 bmalkuteh

Literally, “great power” (see PAYNE SMITH 1902, 140). CHWOLSON 1897, No. 309; CHWOLSON 1890, No. 83. Since George’s gravestone is undated, it is impossible to know if he is the same George as the one named on Sauma’s gravestone. See also Chwolson’s comments on this stone (CHWOLSON 1890, 129, 162). As Léon Cahun noted, this is the last epitaph of a Christian military commander found in the cemeteries, possibly in dicating the subsequent decline of Christianity in the region (CAHUN 1896, 407). See also the discussion in KLEIN 2000, 256-57. 115 See also CHWOLSON 1890, 129, 162-63. 116 The author suggests that the deceased was probably both a priest and a soldier (ШИШКИНА 1994, 57). See also NAYMARK 2004, 4-5. 117 Cat. 206/1 in the Tashkent museum, 22 cm high x 15 cm wide. 118 It is difficult to tell from photographs whether this name ends in H, or . Thus, the ending could be pronounced -āš, -iš or -eši. Since Chwolson seems to have read it as the latter and this fits in with my proposed reading, I have chosen this option. 113 114

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

33

Translation: In the year 1591 [1279/80 CE], the year of the dragon. This is the grave of Dawlat-eši, the daughter of Šliha the priest. May she please the LORD in his kingdom. Commentary: Unlike the previous gravestone, this one employs both dating systems.120 Theo retically, since the new year in the Seleucid system began on 1 October and the new year in the animal-cycle began between 14 January and 14 February, each year in the Seleucid system should correspond to parts of two years in the ani mal-cycle and vice versa. However, upon analyzing the data, Louis Bazin con cluded that in fact the animal-cycle dates on most of the gravestones were ad justed to coincide with the SE dates. Thus, each year had only one SE date and one animal-cycle designation.121 If this is the case with this gravestone (since those carving the gravestones were not consistent with this), then we can date this stone to somewhere between 1 October 1279 and 30 September 1280. Of particular interest is the use of H (atliya) for “dragon.” In common usage, and even for the sign of the Zodiac, the standard Syriac word is H (taninā),122 whereas atliya means “solar or lunar eclipse.”123 This word, or its variant (ahliya),124 is the only Syriac word used to designate the year of the dragon on the gravestones, although its Turkic equivalent (luu), a loanword from Chinese, is also used on many of the gravestones for the same purpose.125 François Nau suggested that it should be read as “Ataliā,” in order to connect it with the Assyrian word Atalū, meaning “eclipse.”126

Chwolson read this as māryā, but it could also be mārā, meaning respectively “the LORD” (i.e. Yahweh) and “lord” (PAYNE SMITH 1902, 298). 120 As do 82% of the inscriptions, according to BAZIN 1991, 415. 121 BAZIN, 1991, 417-18. For a table of the adjusted equivalents between Seleucid Era dates, Common Era dates and the animal-cycle dates, see KLEIN 2000, 349-53. 122 PAYNE SMITH 1902, 616; NAU, 1896, 163. 123 PAYNE SMITH 1879, col. 423. 124 See, e.g. CHWOLSON 1890, No. 74. 125 See, e.g. CHWOLSON 1890, No. 3. On the etymology of luu, see CLAUSON 1972, 762. In Qarakhanid, luu was replaced by nag, a loan-word from Sanskrit (CLAUSON 1972, 776). 126 NAU, 1910a, 220. 119

34

Mark Dickens

Gravestone No. 2 (photo: A. Savchenko)

Chwolson and Nöldeke both gave considerable room to the discussion of this word, Chwolson suggesting that it was related to Hebrew ‫תלי‬, which was also translated as “dragon” in medieval rabbinic literature, possibly referring to the Milky Way, and ultimately originating in Babylonian astrological literature.127 Nöldeke, who agreed with Chwolson’s basic conclusions, further suggested that it might come from Greek άνθήλια (or άνθηλία)128 and also noted the fact that many ancient and medieval cultures thought of an eclipse as the result of a cosmic dragon devouring the sun.129 It is interesting in this respect to note a conversation about an eclipse between Ch’ang Ch’un, the Taoist monk who travelled through Central Asia in 1219, and a Chinese astrologer in Samarkand, who remarked, “Here the eclipse was at its full at the hour of the Dragon, when it covered three-fifths of the sun.”130 Both Nöldeke and (in response) Chwolson suggested several other places in Syriac literature where H (atliya) seems to have the meaning of “dragon,” 127

CHWOLSON, 1890, 122-23. This Greek word can be glossed as either “opposite the sun” (LIDDELL – SCOTT 1996, 152) or “false sun” (SOPHOCLES 1900, 168), both of which could suggest an eclipse, although the Greek word for eclipse is, of course, έκλειψις. 129 NÖLDEKE 1890, 523-24. See also Chwolson’s response to this (CHWOLSON, 1897, 59-60). 128

130WALEY1931,94.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

35

including one of the poems of Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), a passage in the History of Mar Yahballaha (after 1317), and a reference to an eclipse in the Chronol ogy of Simeon Šanqlawaya (c. 1200?).131 There is, however, one other very clear use of this word to designate “dragon.” It can be found in a treatise on the causes of a lunar eclipse by the West Syriac (“Jacobite”) scholar Severus Sebokht, bishop of the monastery of Qennešrin, written in 971 SE (659/60 CE). In an effort to combat mistaken notions about the cause of an eclipse, Severus writes:

HH ... ...

H H .H

H 132

.

.H H G

Because they did not understand, men from the ancients composed that fiction about the dragon (atliya)… They supposed that this lunar eclipse happened because ‘a dragon (atliya) rises up in front of the two lights and hides them from each other’… But we have demonstrated clearly that it is not a dragon (atliya).

Somehow, this distinct usage of the Syriac word H migrated from a West Syriac scholar of the seventh century to East Syriac Christians in Central Asia, living six centuries later.133 Chwolson read the name on this stone () as “Dultaïschi,” but I pro pose to read it as Dawlat-eši or possibly Dawlat-aša. The name “Dawlat” (Per sian ‫دو‬, “wealth, government”) occurs on two other stones in Chwolson’s corpus, both of them also females: in CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 49,9 and in CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 229, transliterated by Chwolson as “Dulit” and “Daulet” respectively.134 The ending is either (eši) or, less likely, (aša). The former means, “lady, the feminine counterpart of beg [referring to a common Turkic title for “lord”].”135 Klaus Röhrborn has outlined several different senses in which Old Turkic eši is used, usually in conjunction with the term beg (or bäg): 1) woman, lady; 2) princess; 3) female companion of a beg; 4) attendant of a beg; and 5) business of a beg.136

NÖLDEKE 1890, 524; CHWOLSON 1897, 59-60. For the passage in the History of Mar Yahbal laha, see BEDJAN 1895, 53-54 (text) and MONTGOMERY 1927, 54 (translation). 132 NAU, 1910a, 222-23. See also NAU 1910b, 253-54. 133 On the “mythological dragon… which was assumed to cause solar and lunar eclipses” in Ara bic thought, see Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Tinnīn. 134 See also RÁSONYI – BASKI, 2007, 235-37. 135 CLAUSON 1972, 256. On the occurrence of this term in the gravestone corpus, see KLEIN 2000, 257. 136 RÖHRBORN 2000. 131

36

Mark Dickens

The second term, aša, is found on the end of many female names in the cor pus.137 László Rásonyi suggested that it actually represents Turkic ača, mean ing “older sister,” “woman” or “aunt.”138 If so, then it must be a dialectal vari ant, since Turkic č is always represented by the Syriac letter (never H ) in the inscriptions. However, in the absence of a final in this name (necessary if the ending is ), eši is probably the correct reading, thus referring to a woman of considerable social rank.139 Dawlat-eši’s father, Šliha (meaning “apostle, messenger”) was a priest, one of many buried in the two cemeteries.140 His name is also a common one in the corpus141 and shows how both Syriac and Turkic (or in this case, Persian) names co-existed in Christian families in the Chu Valley at this time. Chwolson suggested that there are grammatical problems with the last three words, H H (tebsam māryā bmalkuteh), which ought to have been written as either: 1) H H (tebsam bmāryā bmalkuteh), meaning “May she delight in the Lord in his kingdom,” or 2) H H (tebsam bmalkuteh dmāryā), meaning “May she delight in the kingdom of the Lord.” 142 However, there is a third option for interpreting the last sentence, which is the reading I have adopted, namely H H (tebsam lmāryā bmalkuteh), meaning “May she please the Lord in his kingdom.” Since the pre fix is frequently omitted before a direct object, this reading does not require any additions or changes to the text as it stands.143

Gravestone No. 3 The third gravestone is dated to 1605 SE (1293/94 CE), but is not in the Chwolson corpus and is published here, to the best of my knowledge, for the CHWOLSON 1890, No. 19,1, 27,2, 38,3, 42,1, 50,1; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 11, 14, 46, 51, 86, 107, 132, 134, 137, 240, 249, 259, 281, 291-293. 138 RÁSONYI 1962, 232. See also CLAUSON 1972, 20. 139 There are only two other occurrences of eši, spelt , in the corpus: GX (Qutluqeši) and H (Eši-Tarim), although there is also a variant spelling of the latter name: H (CHWOLSON 1897, No. 138, 157, 215). On these, or similar, names recorded in Chinese sources, see PELLIOT 1973, 277-79, 284. 140 On which, see KLEIN 2000, 244-47. 141 See CHWOLSON 1890, No. 11,2, 27, 50,24, 73; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 18, 115, 210, 265, 296. 142 CHWOLSON 1897, 10. 143 The verb means “to be fragrant,” and by extension, “to please” (with the prefix ) or “to enjoy/delight in” (with the prefix ) (PAYNE SMITH 1902, 49). The notion that believers can delight the Lord, as well as take delight in the Lord, is mentioned in the Bible (Psa. 149:4; Zeph. 3:17; II Cor. 5:9), something which perhaps Chwolson overlooked. My thanks to my supervisor, Erica C.D. Hunter, for clarifying the grammatical issues involved in this sentence. 137

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

37

first time.144 Unlike the previous two gravestones, the tips of each arm on the “pearl cross” are pointed, rather than indented. The inscription runs along three sides of the stone. Syriac Text and Transliteration:

HH H (H?X) (G)?X G

X?

bašnat 1000 + 400 +200 + 5 yunt hānaw qabreh d-Eša‛yā qašā breh s‛urā Qutluq? (Qutāy?) (Qutāš?)

Translation: In the year 1605 [1293/94 CE], [the year of] the horse. This is the grave of Isaiah the priest, son of the church visitor Qutluq (or Qutāy or Qutāš?).

Gravestone No. 3 (photo: A. Savchenko)

144

Cat. 201/3 in the Tashkent museum, 28.5 cm high x 20 cm wide.

38

Mark Dickens

Commentary: This inscription is uncommon, in that it uses only the Turkic word to indicate the year in the animal-cycle system, namely yunt (“horse”).145 Although not common in the corpus, the name Isaiah also occurs in CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 313 (p. 51). Here (qašā), the contracted form of (qašišā), is used for “priest.” Although the name of Isaiah’s father is unclear on the stone, it is definitely Turkic and looks like Qutluq,146 Qutāy,147 or Qutāš.148 The father is one of 22 clerics designated by the term H (s‛urā) that occur on the gravestones.149 This term can be translated as church visitor, periodeutes or chorepiscopus – the (peryādewìā) latter two andterms also occur H (kurepisqupā). independentlyPeriodeutes in the corpus: denotes “a visit ing priest, acting as the bishop’s representative in visiting villages and monas teries.”150 Originally the chorepiscopus was a higher rank, signifying “one who ruled over village churches in the place of a bishop and appointed the lesser or ders, but did not ordain priests or deacons,”151 but by the fourteenth century, the two ranks had basically merged into one.152

Gravestone No. 4 The fourth gravestone is dated only to “the year of the dragon.” It is No. 230 in CHWOLSON, 1897.153 The cross on this stone is similar to that on Tashkent Stone No. 3, with the addition of a smaller cross inside the larger cross. Again, the inscription runs along the top and both sides of the stone.

Where the SE date is not given, it is more common to have both the Syriac and the Turkic name for the animal-year. See also CHWOLSON 1890, No. 41, 41,1, 53,1, where yunt occurs in conjunction with (susāyā), the Syriac word for horse. 146 An important Turkic word meaning “fortunate, happy, blessed” (CLAUSON 1972, 601) which occurs often as a name in the corpus (CHWOLSON 1890, No. 19,1, 21, 24, 29, 36, 41, 48,5, 50,15, 50,16, 53, 75, 80, XIX, XXII, XXIX, XXXIII; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 58, 113, 129, 138, 149, 156, 179, 223, 231, 285, 286, 325). See RÁSONYI – BASKI, 2007, 507-12. 147 A much less common name in the corpus, found only in CHWOLSON 1897, No. 189. It is a combination of the Turkic words qut, “good fortune, happiness” and āy, “moon” (CLAUSON, 1972, 594, 265). However, as RÁSONYI – BASKI 2007, lxiii note, the -āy suffix is usually used for females, so this interpretation is unlikely. Compare RÁSONYI – BASKI, 2007 16. 148137. Again, SeeaRÁSONYI less common – BASKI, name, 2007, found 507. in CHWOLSON 1890, No. 21,1, XL; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 145

The gravestone numbers are listed in KLEIN 2000, 242-43. PAYNE SMITH 1902, 460. 151 PAYNE SMITH 1902, 210. 152 Wassilios Klein, personal communication, 25 April, 2006. See also the helpful overviews in AMADOU 1959; GILLMAN – KLIMKEIT 1999, 238; KLEIN 2000, 241-44. 153 Cat. 52/2 in the Tashkent museum, 26.5 cm high X 15 cm wide. 149 150

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

39

Syriac Text and Transliteration:

H H

bašnat atliya hānaw qabreh ªaumā mhaymnā breh Išo rišÐubā

Translation: In the year of the dragon. This is the grave of the believer ªauma, son of Išo, the head of charity. Commentary: This stone is one of only about 8% of Chwolson’s corpus154 that give the date strictly according to the Turkic animal-cycle calendar. Again, the Syriac word that is used for “dragon” is H (atliya). Both ªauma155 and Išo,156 meaning “fasting” and “Jesus,” respectively, are common names in the corpus and the word (mhaymnā, “believer”) is found on many of the gravestones. Although the SE date is not given, Chwolson suggested that this inscription may be linked with two others in the corpus: that of Išo the rišÐubā, dated to 1575 SE (1263/64 CE) (CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 9), and that of a certain Maïfrah (),157 the wife of ªauma the rišÐubā, dated to 1593 SE (1281/82 CE) (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 92).158 Based on these three occurrences of the term H (rišÐubā), along with similarities between the carving on this stone and that of Maïfrah, Chwolson suggested that the two ªaumas may have been one and the same person, the husband of Maïfrah and the son of Išo, who thus inherited his title from his fa ther. If so, then his father died in 1575 SE (1263/64 CE) and his wife died in 1593 SE (1281/82 CE). This would mean that Išo likely died in one of the fol

According to BAZIN 1991, 415. See CHWOLSON 1890, No. 11,3, 13, 16,1, 27,4, 40,2, 47,3, 56, 83, 92; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 7, 19, 25, 40, 130, 201, 222, 230, 237, 243. NAU 1914, 336 suggested that it was the most com mon male name in the corpus. 156 See CHWOLSON 1890, No. 16,1, 18,1, 19, 38,2, XXXVIII; CHWOLSON 1897, No. 9, 59, 230, 269. See also RYBATZKI 2004, 277, 282 on these two names in other Central Asian literature. 157 Nöldeke suggested that this name came from Persian ‫“ ﻣﺎﻩ ﭘﺎﺭﻩ‬piece of the moon” (NÖLDEKE 1890, 527). 158 Chwolson originally dated it to 1592 SE = 1281 CE, but later corrected it to 1593 SE. Similar ly, (ªaumā he corrected rišÐubā). his His original corrections reading can beoffound in CHWOLSON (ªaumā 1897,Ya‘qub) 57. to H 154 155

40

Mark Dickens

lowing dragon-years: 1579 SE (1267/68 CE), 1591 SE (1279/80 CE), 1603 SE (1291/92 CE), or 1615 SE (1303/04).159 Chwolson admitted that he could not state with certainty what rišÐubā meant, since he could not find it in any Syriac dictionaries or lexicons at that time, in cluding Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus.160 The natural meaning seems to be quite simply H (riš, “head”) + (Ðubā, “love, charity”) = “the head of charity,” presumably someone in charge of administering alms to the poor, al though the term could also have meant something else which has been lost to history.161 If the former, then it may have been equivalent to what, in the early church, was overseen by a deacon or “the cleric put in charge of ‘administering good works’.”162

Gravestone No. 4 (photo: A. Savchenko) This all depends, of course, on how much longer both Išo‘ and the stone-carver lived after Maïfrah’s death. 160 His discussion of this term can be found under CHWOLSON 1897, No. 9, where he noted that the expression was even unknown to Nöldeke. 161 Chwolson commented that, “If this assumption should be confirmed, then one could conclude from this fact that Christianity seized root firmly under those wild trunks [i.e. the Central Asian Turks] and exerted a very charitable influence on the same.” In the absence of any other occurrence of this title, he also suggested that it might be interpreted as “bridge custodian,” but admitted that this does not harmonize well with the eulogy (malpānā gmirā) “a perfect teacher” found on CHWOLSON 1897, No. 9. There are no words even remotely close to this under the listing for H in PAYNE SMITH 1901, col. 3899-3911 (this volume was not available to Chwolson in 1897). Despite inquiries to the Hugoye email discussion list and even Sebastian Brock (personal communication, 27 July, 2006), I have yet to find any Syriac scholar who has encountered this term anywhere else. See also KLEIN 2000, 249. 162 FINN 2006, 77. 159

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

41

Conclusions This brief look at just four examples from the Chu Valley gravestone corpus demonstrates how much can be learned from these gravestones. Amongst other things, they show us the following: 1. Numerous grammatical and orthographic errors reveal that, although the Christian community used Syriac in ecclesiastical settings, it was probably not a language that many were fluent in. Like the non-Christians that they lived amongst, their day-to-day language would have been a Middle Turkic dialect. 2. The names, titles and terms on the gravestones demonstrate the rich blend of cultural influences in the area, including Syriac, Turkic, Sogdian, and New Per sian, as well as, in the case of H (atliya), possibly Assyrian, Hebrew or Greek. 3. Several things demonstrate the synthesis of Turkic and Syriac culture that these Chu Valley Christians had developed, including the mixture of Syriac personal names with Persian and Turkic names in single families, as well as the joint use of the Seleucid Era calendar and the Turkic animal-cycle calendar. 4. There are also several linguistic innovations in the gravestone corpus, in cluding the use of H (atliya) for “dragon” and the clerical office of H (rišÐubā) “head of charity.” 5. There were few families which did not include at least one member who was in the clergy. In addition to clerics, however, the Christian community also in cluded other professions such as military commanders and teachers. At least some in the community seemed to be well-connected with the ruling class. 6. Based on the prevalence of the term qušìānč, there were a large number of female teachers in the community, possibly indicating a strong value on educat ing young women in the church. If so, this is consistent with what we know about Turkic society, which traditionally accorded a higher status to women than elsewhere in the Muslim world.163 The corpus, so crucial to reconstructing the history of Christianity in this area, deserves further study and renewed efforts to establish connections between it and other witnesses to Syriac Christianity in medieval Central Asia.

As Ibn Battuta noted, “A remarkable thing which I saw in this country [the Qipchaq Khanate, or Golden Horde] was the respect shown to women by the Turks, for they hold a more digni fied position than the men” (GIBB 1929, 146).

163

42

Mark Dickens

Bibliography AALTO, Pentti. 1981. “Central Asiatic Epigraphic and Manuscript Material in Finland,” inJA, Vol. 269, 3-10. ABBELOOS, Jean-Baptiste and Thomas Joseph LAMY, ed. & trans. 1877. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Vol. III. Leuven: Peeters & Paris: J.-P. Maisonneuve. AMADOU, Robert. 1959. “Chorévêques et périodeutes,” in L’Orient Syrien, Vol. 4, 23340. БАЙПАКОВ, К.М. 1994. “Христианство Казахстана в Средние Века,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 96-100. BAIPAKOV, K. 2000. “The Silk Route across Central Asia,” in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV, Part Two, ed. C.E. Bosworth and M.S. Asimov. Paris: UNESCO, 221-26. BANG, W. 1926. “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion,” in Le Muséon 39, 41-75. BARTHOLD, W. 1901. Zur geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen eroberung, trans. Rudolf Stübe. Tübingen & Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr. BARTHOLD, W. 1968. Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, New Series, V), trans. Mrs. T. Minorsky, ed. C.E. Bosworth. London: Luzac & Co., Ltd. BAUMER, Christoph. 2006. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London: I.B. Tauris. BAZIN, Louis. 1991. Les systèmes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien. Buda pest: Akadémiai Kiado (especially Chapter VIII, “Le double calendrier des turcs nestoriens,” 413-29). BEDJAN, Paul, ed. 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. BIRAN, Michal. 2002. “The Chaghadaids and Islam: the Conversion of Tarmashirin Khan (1331-1334),” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 122, 74252. BONIN, Charles-Eudes. 1900. “Notes sur les anciennes chrétientés nestoriennes de l’Asie centrale,” in JA, Ser. IX, Vol. 15, 584-92. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio. 2005. “Some Aspects of Turco-Mongol Christianity in the Light of Literary and Epigraphic Syriac Sources,” in JAAS, Vol. 19, No. 2, 5-20. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio. 2006. “Peshitta Psalm 34:6 from Syria to China,” in Text, Translation and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradi tion Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden: Brill, 1-10. BREGEL, Yuri. 2003. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia (HdO, Section 8, Vol. 9). Lei den: Brill. BUDGE, E.A.W., ed. & trans. 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the World, Vol. I (English translation). Ox ford: Oxford University Press. BURYAKOV, Y.F. et al. 1999. The Cities and Routes of the Great Silk Road. Tashkent: Sharq. CAHUN, Léon. 1896. Introduction à l’histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols, des origines à 1405. Paris: A. Colin et Cie.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

43

CHABOT, Jean-Baptiste. 1906. “Éclaircissements sur quelques points de la littérature syriaque: Contribution à l’onomastique syriaque,” in JA, Ser. X, Vol. 8, 286-93. CHAFFANJON, M.J. 1899. “Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’Asie centrale et la Sibérie,” in Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, Vol. IX, 55-101. CHWOLSON, D. 1886. “Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in MAISSP, VIIe série, tome XXXIV, no. 4. 30 pp. + 1 plate. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887a. “Предварительныя замътки о найденныхъ въ Семиръченской области сирійскихъ надгробныхъ надписяхъ,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I(1886), 84-109. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887b. “Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I (1886), 217-21. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887c. “Дополненія и поправки къ статьямъ ‘Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья’,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I (1886), 303-08. CHWOLSON, D. 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in MAISSP, VIIe série, tome XXXVII, no. 8. 168 pp. + 3 plates. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1895. “Сирійско-тюркскія несторіанскія надгробныя надписи XIII и XIV стольтій, найденныя въ Семиръчьъ,” in Восточныя Замътки, 115-29. CHWOLSON, D. 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. 62 pp. + 4 plates. CLAUSON, Sir Gerald. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. COLLESS, Brian E. 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarkand,” in Abr-Nahrain, Vol. XXIV, 51-57. DAUVILLIER, Jean. 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, 260-316. DAUVILLIER, Jean. 1956. “Les croix triomphales dans l’ancienne Eglise chaldéenne,” in Eléona, 11-17 (reprint: Histoires et institutions des Eglises orientales au Moyen Age, by Jean Dauvillier. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983, Article X). DAWSON, Christopher, ed. 1955. The Mongol Mission. London: Sheed and Ward. DESREUMAUX, Alain. 2000. “Stèles syriaques nestoriennes,” in Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lyonnais, Vol. 2-3, 58-73. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч. 1963, 1982 & 1987. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 1-3. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч. 1971. Язык Сиро-Тюркских (Несторианских) Памятников Киргизии. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. DŽUMAGULOV, Četin. 1968. “Die syrisch-türkischen (nestorianischen) Denkmäler in Kirgisien,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientsforschung, Vol. 14, 470-480. EGAMI, Namio. 1966. “On the Form and Decoration of Nestorian Tombstones discov ered in East Asia,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, Vol. 11, 22-24. ENOKI, Kazuo. 1964. “The Nestorian Christianism in China in Mediaeval Time Ac cording to Recent Historical and Archaeological Researches,” in PASC. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 45-77. FINN, Richard, OP. 2006. Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313-450). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44

Mark Dickens

FOSTER, John. 1954. “Crosses from the Walls of Zaitun,” in Journal of the Royal Asi atic Society, 1-25. FRANCK, Irene M. and David M. BROWNSTONE. 1986. The Silk Road: A History. Ox ford: Facts on File Publications. FRANZMANN, Majella and Samuel N.C. LIEU. 2006. “A New Nestorian Tombstone from Quanzhou: the Epitaph of Lady Kejamtâ,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 293-302. FRANZMANN, Majella. 2007. “Syriac Language and Script in a Chinese Setting: Nes torian Inscriptions from Quanzhou, China,” in Hugoye, Vol. 10, No. 2 (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol10No2/HV10N2Franzmann.html). GENG Shimin, Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT and Jens Peter LAUT. 1996. “Eine neue nestorianische Grabinschrift aus China,” in UAJb, N.F., Vol. 14, 164-75. GIBB, H.A.R. 1929. Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa. London: George Routledge & Sons (reprint: London: Darf Publishers, 1983). GILLMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT. 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. GISMONDI, H. 1896-1897. Maris, Amri, et Slibae de patriarchis Nestorianorum commentaria, Vol. II: Amri et Slibae. Rome: Excudebat C. de Luigi. ГОРЯЧЕВА, В.Д. and С.Я ПЕРЕГУДОВА. 1994. “Памятники Христианства НА Территории Кыргызстана,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 84-95. GROENBECH, K. 1940. “Turkish Inscriptions from Inner Mongolia,” in MS, Vol. IV, 305-08. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1970. “Das orientalische Christentum in Asien bis zum 14. Jh.,” and “Das römisch-katholische Christentum im Machtbereich der Mongolen (13.-14. Jh.),” in Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte: die christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hubert Jedin, Kenneth Scott Latourette and Jochen Martin. Frei burg: Herder, 27, 63. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1978. “Einheimische Volkssprachen und syrische Kirchensprache in der nestorianischen Asienmission,” in Erkenntnisse und Meinungen II (Göttinger Orientforschungen I. Reihe: Syriaca, Vol. 17), ed. Gernot Wießner. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1997. Syriac Christianity in the East. Kerala: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling and WEI Jian. 2005. “Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Material from Graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in MS, Vol. LIII, 113-244. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2006. “Some Notes on Past and Present Field Research on Gravestones and Related Stone Material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongo lia, China,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 303-319. HALEVY, J. 1890. “De l’introduction du christianisme chez les tribus turques de la haute-asie a propos des inscriptions de Semirjetschie,” in Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, Vol. XXII, 289-304. HAMILTON, James and NIU Ru-Ji. 1994. “Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale,” in JA, Vol. 282, 147-64. HEALEY, John. 1983. “A Nestorian gravestone,” in Arts of Asia, Vol. 13, 87. HJELT, Arthur. 1909. “Drei syrisch-nestorianische Grab-Inschriften,” in Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, t. 1, no. 2, 3-11 + 3 plates.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

45

HUNTER, Erica C.D. 1989/1991. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, Vol. 22, 142-63. HUNTER, Erica C.D. 1996. “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” in BJRL, Vol. 78, No. 3, 129-42. JACKSON, Peter, tr. 1990. The Mission of Friar William Rubruck. London: Hakluyt So ciety. JOHANSON, Lars. 1998. “The History of Turkic,” in The Turkic Languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató. London: Routledge, 80-125. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1994. “Christliche Reliefgrabsteine des 14. Jahrhunderts von der Seidenstrasse,” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992 (OCA 247). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 419-42. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1998. “Nestorianische Inschriften in Kirgizistan: Ein Situationsbericht,” in Symposium Syriacum VII 1996 (OCA 256). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Ori entale, 661-69. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. (SRS III). Turnhout: Brepols. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2001. “A Christian Heritage on the Northern Silk Road: Archaeo logical and Epigraphic Evidence of Christianity in Kyrgyzstan,” in JCSSS, Vol. 1, 85-100. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2002. “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions,” in Hugoye, Vol. 5, No. 2 (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No2/HV5N2Klein.html). KLEIN, Wassilios. 2004a. “A Newly Excavated Church of Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road in Kyrghyzstan,” in The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 56, 25-47. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2004b. “Les inscriptions syriaques des républiques d’Asie centrale,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié and A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 125-41. KLEIN, Wassilios and Christiane RECK. 2004. “Ein Kreuz mit sogdischer Inschrift aus Ak-Bešim/Kyrgyzstan,” in ZDMG, Vol. 154, 147-156. KLEIN, Wassilios and Philipp G. ROTT. 2006. “Einige problematische Funde von der Seidenstrasse,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 403-424. KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim. 1979. “Das Kreuzessymbol in der zentralasiatischen Religionsbegegnung,” in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Vol. 31, 99115. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1906. “Христіанско-сирійскія надгробныя надписи изъ Алмалыка,” in ZVOIRAO Vol. XVI (1904-1905), 0190-0200. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1907. “Несколько новыхь надгробныхъ камней съ христіанскосирійскіми надписями изъ Средней Азіи,” in IIAN (= BAIS), VI Série, Vol. I, 427-58. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1909. “Къ сиро-турецкой эпиграфикь Семирьчья,” in IIAN (= BAIS), VI Série, Vol. III, 773-96. КОРШ, Ф.Е. 1889. “О Турецкомъ языкь Семирьченскихъ надгробныхъ надписей,” inDV, Vol. I, No. I, 67-72. LALA COMNENO, Maria Adelaide. 1997. “Nestorianism in Central Asia during the First Millennium: Archaeological Evidence,” in JAAS, Vol. XI, No. 1, 20-67. LATHAM, Ronald, tr. 1958. The Travels of Marco Polo. London: Penguin Books.

46

Mark Dickens

LIDDELL, Henry George and Robert SCOTT. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon, 9th ed. Ox ford: Clarendon Press. LIEU, Samuel N.C. 2002. “Nestorian Angels from Central Asia and other Christian and Manichaean Remains at Zaitun (Quanzhou) on the South China Coast,” in Walls and Frontiers in Inner-Asian History (SRS VI). Turnhout: Brepols, 1-17. LIEU, Samuel N.C. 2006. “Nestorian Remains from Zaitun (Quanzhou), South China,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 277-291. МАЛОВ, С.Е. 1959. Памятники Древнетюркской Письменности Монголии и Киргизии. Москва, Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. MANSUROĞLU, Mecdut. 1959. “Das Karakhanidische,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, Vol. I, ed. Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel and Zeki VelidiTogan, 87-112. МАРР, Н. 1894. “Надгробный камень изъ Семирьчія, съ армяанско-сирійской надписъю 1323 г.,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. VIII (1893-1894), 344-49. MASSE, Henri. 1973. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī, Abrégé du livre des pays. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. МАССОН, М.Е. 1978. “Происхождение двух несторианских намогильных галек Средней Азии,” in Общественные науки в Узбекистане, No. 10, 50-55. MARTIN, Desmond. 1938. “Preliminary Report on Nestorian Remains North of Kueihua, Suiyüan,” in MS, Vol. III, 232-49. МЕЩЕРСКАЯ, Е. and А. ПАЙКОВА. 1981. “Сиро-тюркские наскальные надписи из Ургута,” in Культурные взаимодействия народов Средней Азии и Кавказа с окружающим миром в древности и средневековье (тезисы докладов). Москва, 109-10. МИНАСЯНЦ, В.С. 1992. “К истории комплектования археологического фонда Музея истории народов Узбекистана (1876-1917 гг.),” in Времен связующая нить (по материалам музейных фондов). Ташкент: Фан, 3-26. MINGANA, Alphonse. 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in BJRL, Vol. 9, 297-371. MINORSKY, Vladimir, ed. & trans. 1970. udūd al-‘Ālam: “The Regions of the World” (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, New Series, XI) London: Luzac & Co., Ltd. MONTGOMERY, James A. 1927. The History of Yaballaha III. New York: Columbia University Press (reprint: New York: Octagon Books, 1966). MOULE, A.C. 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550. London: SPCK. MURAYAMA, S. 1963. “Die syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Pailing Miao und Ch’üan-chou,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, No. VIII, 22-25. MURAYAMA, S. 1964a. “Über die nestorianischen Grabinschriften in der Innern Mongolei und in Südchina,” in PASC. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 77-80. MURAYAMA, S. 1964b. “Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift in türkischer Sprache aus Zaiton,” in UAJb, Vol. XXV, 394-96. МУСАКАЕВА, А.А. 1994. “О Несторианах в Средней Азии,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 42-55. NAU, François. 1896. “Notice sur quelques cartes syriaques,” in JA, Ser. IX, Vol. 8, 155-165. NAU, François. 1910a. “Notes d’astronomie syrienne,” in JA, Ser. X, Vol. 16, 209-228. NAU, François. 1910b. “La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les syriens,” in ROC, Sé ries II, Vol. V (Vol. 15), 225-254.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

47

NAU, François. 1913. “Les pierres tombales nestoriennes du Musée Guimet,” in ROC, Séries II, Vol. VIII (Vol. 18), 1-35, 325-27. NAU, François. 1914. “L’expansion nestorienne en Asie,” in Annales du Musée Guimet. Bibliothèque de vulgarisation, Vol. 40 (Conférences faites au Musée Guimet en 1913), 193-383. NAYMARK, Aleksandr. 2004. “Christians in the Qarakhanid Khanate” (unpublished pa per). NIU Ruji. 2004. “A New Syriac Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou, Fujian Province),” in JCSSS, Vol. 4, 60-65. NIU Ruji, Alain DESREUMAUX and Pierre MARSONE. 2004. “Les inscriptions syriaques de Chine,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié and A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 143-53. NIU Ruji. 2005. “Nestorian Grave Inscriptions from Quanzhou (Zaitun), China,” in JCSSS, Vol. 5,51-67. NIU Ruji. 2006. “Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th-14th Centuries),” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 209-242. NÖLDEKE, Theodor. 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in ZDMG, Vol. 44, 520-28. PARRY, K. 1996. “Images in the Church of the East: the Evidence from Central Asia and China,” in BJRL, Vol. 78, No. 3, 143-62. PAYKOVA, A.V. 1979. “The Syrian Ostracon from Panjikant,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 92, 159-69. PAYNE SMITH, Robert, ed. 1879 & 1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, Vol. I (1879) & II (1901). Oxford: Clarendon. PAYNE SMITH, Jessie, ed. 1902. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprint: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999). PELLIOT, Paul. 1963. Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. II. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. PELLIOT, Paul. 1973. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. PINES, Shlomo. 1968. “The Iranian name for Christians and the ‘God-Fearers’,” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II. Jerusalem, 143-52 (reprint: Studies in the History of Religion, by Shlomo Pines, ed. by Guy Stroumsa. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996, [11-20]). PROKOSCH, Erich. 1992. “Karamanisch-türkische Grabinschriften II,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 76, 158-176. DE RACHEWILTZ, I. 1971. Papal Envoys to the Great Khans. London: Faber & Faber. RÁSONYI, László. 1962. “Der Frauenname bei den Türkvölkern,” in UAJb, Vol. XXIV, 223-39. RÁSONYI, László (†) and Imre BASKI. 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names (2 vols) (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172/I & II). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. RÖHRBORN, Klaus. 2000. “Nochmals zu alttürkisch bäg eši,” in Folia Orientalia, Vol. 36, 275-279. ROTT, Philipp G. 2006. “Christian Crosses from Central Asia,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 395-401.

48

Mark Dickens

RYAN, James D. 1998. “Preaching Christianity along the Silk Road: Missionary Out posts in the Tartar ‘Middle Kingdom’ in the Fourteenth Century,” in Journal of Early Modern History, Vol. 2, 350-73. RYBATZKI, Volker. 2004. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia,” in Studia Orientalia 99 SACHAU, Eduard. 1919. “Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien,” in AbhandlungenderPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,Jahrgang 1919, No. 1, 1-80. SAEKI, P.Y. 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Academy of Oriental Culture. SAVCHENKO, Alexei. 1996. “Urgut Revisited,” in Aram, Vol. 8, 333-54. ШИШКИНА, Г.В. 1994. “Несторианское погребение в Согде Самаркандском,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 56-63. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas. 1989. “Sogdian,” in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 173-92. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas and Michael EVERSON. 2002. Proposal to add six Syriac let ters for Sogdian and Persian to the UCS (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2422). Inter national Organization for Standardization (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/ docs/n2422.pdf). СЛУЦКИЙ, С.С. 1889. “Семирьченскія несторіанскія надписи,” in DV, Vol. I, No. I, 1-66. СЛУЦКИЙ, С.С. 1891. “Къ Семирьченскимъ несторіанскимъ надписямъ,” in DV, Vol. I, No. II, 176-94. SOPHOCLES, E.A. 1900. Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. STANDAERT, Nicolas, ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China, Vol. 1, 635-1800 (HdO, Section 4, Vol. 15). Leiden: Brill. STEINGASS, Francis. 1892. A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary. London: W.H. Allen (reprint: Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1970). SUNDERMANN, Werner. 1995. “Soghdisch *xwšt’nc „Lehrerin“,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 48, 225-27. TALLGREN, A.M. 1940. “The Mannerheim Archaeological Collection from Eastern Turkestan,” in Across Asia from West to East in 1906-1908, Vol. II, ed. C.G. Man nerheim. Helsinki: Fenno-Ugrian Society (reprint: Oosterhout: Anthropological Publications, 1969), 1-53. TARDIEU, Michel. 1999. “Un site chrétien dans la Sogdiane des Sâmânides,” in Le Monde de la Bible, No. 119, 40-42. THACKER, T.W. 1967. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia in the Gulbenkian Museum, Durham University,” in The Durham University Journal, Vol. LIX (New Series, Vol. XXVIII), 94-107. VOSTE, Jacques. 1931. Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti - Fascicolo IV. Disci pline Chaldéenne (Chaldéens) I, Droit Ancien: Synodes (Synodicon Orientale) Collectio Canonum synodicorum d’Ebedjésus de Nisibe. Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. WALEY, Arthur, ed. 1931. The Travels of an Alchemist: The Journey of the Taoist Ch’ang-Ch’un from China to the Hindukush at the Summons of Chingiz Khan. London: George Routledge & Sons. YULE, Sir Henry and Henri CORDIER. 1914 & 1916. Cathay and the Way Thither, Vol. III (1914) & Vol. IV (1916). London: The Hakluyt Society.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

49

ZIEME, Peter. 1974. “Zu den nestorianish-türkischen Turfantexten,” in Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5), ed. Georg Hazai and Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 661-68. Abbreviations: BAIS = Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg BJRL = Bulletin of the John Rylands (University) Library DV = Древности Восточныя HdO = Handbuch der Orientalistik IIAN = Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ IDKSA = Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство JA = Journal Asiatique JAAS = Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society JCSSS = Journal of the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies Jingjiao = Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia MAISSP = Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg MS = Monumenta Serica OCA = Orientalia Christiana Analecta PASC = Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: L’Oriente Cristiano Nella Storia Della Civiltà ROC = Revue de l’Orient chrétien SRS = Silk Road Studies UAJb = Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZVOIRAO = Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества

SOME FIELD NOTES AND IMAGES OF STONE SCULPTURES FOUND AT NESTORIAN SITES IN INNER MONGOLIA Tjalling HALBERTSMA

I. Introduction When a culture has left limited written traces, graves and grave objects often become the major source of cultural information. The Nestorian culture of In ner Mongolia is no exception.1 The traces of the Nestorian material culture of the Öngüt include a great number of graves and associated objects. This paper will not discuss the explicit Nestorian material from Inner Mongolia, such as the horizontal gravestones or stone slabs and steles inscribed with Nestorian iconography and Syriac inscriptions, but instead focus on tomb statues and ste les from spirit ways encountered at three Nestorian sites.2 These three Öngüt sites are Wangmuliang 王墓梁, Olon Sume 阿伦苏木 and Chengbuzi 城卜子 (see Map A).3 It must be noted that none of these statues remains in situ. The exact whereabouts of these spirit ways are, in other words, at present unknown. After introducing the traditional spirit way of the Chinese tomb approach I will describe the current state of the three sites and attempt to reconstruct the pre sent and past whereabouts of the tomb material. I will conclude this paper with some remarks regarding the objects, and their relation to each other, and the people who used them.

II. Tomb Approaches Shendao 神道, spirit ways at Chinese tomb approaches, generally consist of identical pairs of animals and human figures and a stone stele with an inscrip tion commemorating the deceased. The sculptures of each pair are positioned 1

2

3

This paper is based on Chapter 7 of the author’s dissertation which was published in 2008. See HALBERTSMA 2008. For these overt Nestorian objects see, among others: HALBERTSMA 2005 and HALBERTSMA 2006. These sites were documented by the author with a generous grant from the HulsewéWazniewski Foundation, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Tjalling Halbertsma

52

opposite each other to form the spirit way leading to the tomb. Animals, such as lions, sheep, unicorns and horses, are portrayed both resting and standing to suggest a rotation of the guard. Human figures guarding the tomb are, confirm etiquette, always standing. Pairs of figures may include military personnel wearing armour and officials dressed in flowing robes.

Gravesites in Damaoqi and Siziwangqi

The stele at a spirit way, shendao beiming 神道碑銘, contains an extensive in scription and is generally positioned on a turtle base at the start or end of a spirit way. A Shendao beiming thus differs markedly from A Chinese mubei 墓碑 (which generally lists only the name and date of death and burial of the deceased) and muzhiming 墓誌銘 (extensive epitaphs inscribed on stone steles inside the tomb).4 The practice of constructing such ceremonial spirit ways at tomb sites had been widely prevalent by the Song 宋 (900-1127 CE) and can be considered a Chi nese custom. The Song regulated that animal figures could be used for the bur-

4

SCHOTTENHAMMER 1994, 253-254.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

53

ial of public functionaries. The inclusion of human figures was limited to high officials.5 Assuming that no complete pair of sculptures was removed, the groups of stat ues found at Wangmuliang, Olon Sume and Chengbuzi seem complete. At each site also a turtle base for a stele was found, though not all the corresponding steles. None of the statues from these three sites portrays obvious Nestorian motifs such as crosses or Syriac inscriptions. Among the human figures found at the Nestorian sites in Inner Mongolia are statues featuring long gowns with wide sleeves associated with officials and sculptures with swords associated with military figures.6 The first question to raise here is whether these sculptures originate from the Nestorian period in Inner Mongolia, i.e. the period of the build up of the Mon gol rule and the Yuan 元 Dynasty (1272-1368 CE). If the statues date to this period – and I think they do - the second question concerns what conclusions can be drawn from the use of these objects.

III. The Spirit Way at Wangmuliang Wangmuliang was first researched by Canadian historian Desmond Martin in 1936. Martin recorded a wealth of grave material at Wangmuliang, including spirit way sculptures of officials and animals, an inscribed tablet with its head stone and seventeen gravestones.7 Martin, who lost the map he had drawn of the site, recalled that ‘the northwest angle contained the official and animal figures, the turtle, tablet and most of the fragments, while the rest of the site was given over to the seventeen stones carved with crosses’.8 In 1973 Chinese archeologist Gai Shanlin 盖山林 excavated a number of graves at the site. Gai documented fragments of the shield of a turtle base at Wangmuliang and recorded pairs of stone officials, pigs, lions and ram.9 Ac cording to Gai, an inscribed tablet was subsequently brought to the Inner Mon golia Museum. Gai, who published a rather small image of a rubbing from the stele (the image is too small to distinguish characters) transcribed the inscrip tion on the stele into simplified characters.10

DE GROOT 1892, 1089 [Vol. III]. DE GROOT 1892, 817 [Vol. II]. 7 MARTIN 1938, 238: ‘…two headless and prostrate official figures like those at Ulan Baisheng; two overturned sitting lion-dogs; a stone turtle; a tablet lying face downwards; seven teen stones, some with and some without inscriptions, but all having crosses and designs, and a number miscellaneous fragments.’ 8 MARTIN 1938, 238. 9 GAI 1991, 191 and Plate I.I.VII 10 GAI 1991, I.VI.II and 274-275. 5

6

54

Tjalling Halbertsma

Gai’s assistant during the excavations at Wangmuliang was a farmer who had lived his entire life near the gravesite and who remembered in 2005: “In 1970 there were many gravestones with inscriptions and crosses, two stone turtles, two stone sheep, two stone pigs and a pair of stone human figures. There also was a stele with an inscription.”11 In 2001 the author documented fragments of a stone turtle-base, ram and a pair of officials at Wangmuliang. At subsequent visits these fragments had disap peared. During later visits further material from the tomb sculptures was re corded and documented (see Plate 1-6, annex below).12 In summer 2005, the last visit of the author to the site, only a fragment of the shield of a turtle re mained (see Plate 7). All three researchers noted that the gravesite had been much disturbed by treasure seekers. Despite this damage Wangmuliang is the least complicated of the three burial sites in terms of establishing a Nestorian dimension of the sculptures, as it seems that the site was exclusively used by Nestorian Chris tians. Furthermore, Wangmuliang yielded not only a turtle base but also the stele.13 As this is the only stele encountered at the three spirit ways discussed here, it is important to have a closer look at this object. In 1938, Chen Yuan 陳垣, published a first study of the stele. Chen Yuan worked from photographs made by Martin’s expedition and concluded his study with the remark that only a rubbing of the tablet would allow for further study. The Chinese scholar was nevertheless able to read and translate the in scription on the headstone: ‘Tablet on the Spiritual Way (i.e. grave-yard ave nue) of Lord Yeh-lü 耶律, administrator of the Yelikewen 也里可温’. Studies of the tablet revealed the personal name of Lord Yelü as Yucheng 于成. The title from the headstone was used again in the main inscription. Chen Yuan pointed out that Yelü Yucheng descended from the prominent Khitan clan who founded the Western Liao 遼 dynasty (1131-1213 CE). It will be remembered that one of the more prominent members of this clan, namely Yelü Dashi, was associated with the figure of Prester John. Until the discovery of the tablet at Wangmuliang, members of the clan were only known to have adhered to Bud dhism and Daoism. Chen Yuan thus pointed out that ‘it is indeed great news to historians that some members of that illustrious clan were Christians’.14 The title of the headstone confirms that the tomb sculptures encountered at Wangmuliang were part of a spirit way. Given these circumstances the tablet and headstone most likely stood on the turtle-base recorded by Martin at the

Interview with Han Chinese farmer Mr. G.E., Wangmuliang, July 2005. Photo credits include the initial of the photographer (IB stands for Iwan Baan and TH for Tjal ling Halbertsma) and the year that they were taken in. 13 MARTIN 1938, plate VI c-e. For another good photograph of the stele still in situ also see: LUM 1981, photo 21. 14 CHEN 1938, 256. 11 12

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

55

site,15 which Lum also suggested.16 The design of the inscriptions follows the Song Dynasty instructions for epitaphs erected at spirit ways. These instruc tions detail that the head stone should list the name and office of the adminis trator in seal characters whereas the inscription on the stele should detail the achievements of the deceased in classical characters. The latter can consist of an extensive inscription. Such epitaphs were both erected inside the tomb and on spirit ways.17 Gai interpreted the gravesite as a family cemetery. Gravesites accommodating a single family or clan were not uncommon during the Song and later dynasties.18 Based on his study of the inscription Gai argued that the administrator had come from the “Western Region” and had been of Uighur rather than Khitan descent. Furthermore, Gai identified the name of the Yelikewen administrator as Yelü Zicheng 耶律子成 rather than Yelü Yucheng.19 Since the tombstones at Wangmuliang are Nestorian and the site seems to be exclusively used by Nestorian Christians, it is most likely that Lord Yelü was a Nestorian Christian himself. Indeed, the title ‘administrator’ used on the tablet, guanling 管領 in Chinese, was frequently used in the Mongol administration for administrators of special populations and these officials frequently origi nated from the people they administered.20 What is important here is that the stele, and thus the spirit way was used by Nestorians. This does not make the sculptures Nestorian, but suggests that prominent Nestorian Christians were at some point practicing Chinese customs. Indeed, archaeological excavations at Wangmuliang confirm that the Nestorian Christians at the site incorporated Chinese elements in their burial practices.21 The tomb sculptures originating from Olon Sume and Chengbuzi are very simi lar in style to the ones discovered at Wangmuliang. At all sites these statues are encountered in a Nestorian context of horizontal gravestones. It is thus not too far fetched to assume that the sculptures found at Olon Sume and Chengbuzi were also used by the Öngüt Nestorian Christians.

IV. Spirit way at Olon Sume The story of the discovery and preservation of the grave sculptures at Olon Sume is disheartening. Since their discovery by Lattimore in 1932, the sculp MARTIN (1938) 238. The dimensions of the tablet, 200 cm high, 80 cm wide and 29 cm thick, allow for this positioning. 16 LUM 1981, 178. 17 SCHOTTENHAMMER 1994, 255-256. 18 KUHN1996, Chapter 4. 19 GAI 1991, 194. 20 FARQUHAR 1990, Chapter 6. 21 GAI 1991, 191 ff. 15

56

Tjalling Halbertsma

tures of Olon Sume have been much damaged or lost all together. Lattimore re corded: two headstones; ‘a stone tortoise, which had once borne on its back an inscribed tablet; two lions, of the kind that stand at the gates of important build ings, and two stone figures of officials, of the kind that not infrequently guard the approach of a tomb’.22 Already by 1932 the heads of the two officials had been chiselled off. Lattimore, who noted that the site had been visited by treas ure seekers, speculated that the objects had been sold to Chinese art dealers. The early researchers, primarily Lattimore, Martin and Egami, recorded the statues at a gravesite situated one kilometre north east of the city remains. In 1936 Martin documented the objects already noted by Lattimore and a second turtle base situated within the city walls.23 Around the same time, the Japanese researcher Namio Egami also documented the sculptures and their immediate surroundings.24 Gai, who documented the site and sculptures in 1974, located the gravesite simply as ‘outside the north-eastern side of the city’ and the sculptures ‘not far outside’ the north-eastern end of the city.25 By 2001, when the present author visited Olon Sume, the sculptures had been removed from the site and, along with a number of gravestones, brought to the cultural relics yard at Bailingmiao 百庙灵 (see Plate 14 and 15). In 2001 only a severed head of a turtle remained in the north-eastern part of the city (see Plate 10). Examining the two known turtle bases, both recorded by Egami, it seems that this head belongs to a third turtle base.26 Around 2005 local authorities de cided to develop Olon Sume for tourism. Bricks, tiles and other stone remains that had covered the entire site were cleared away to make pathways for visi tors. Two gravestones and two pairs of sculpted officials and lions, along with two carved headstones, possibly the objects referred to by Lattimore, were brought from Bailingmiao to Olon Sume and deposited within the city walls (see Plate 16-18). The two turtle bases recorded by Egami and other early re searchers were also returned to ‘the field’ (for one of these bases see Plate 1113). Sadly, the turtle base that originated from within the city walls, identified by Egami as belonging to the Wangfu Defengtang 王傅德風堂 stele, was com pletely destroyed when it was unloaded (compare Plate 8 and 9). The identification of the sculptures at Olon Sume is complicated due to the ab sence of a stele. The identity and history of the person buried in this important tomb is thus unclear. Martin remarked that the stele from the turtle had been removed to the temple of Bailingmiao but could not visit the monastery to ver ify this due to the Japanese army presence of 1936.27 In 2001 the stele was not LATTIMORE 1934, 231. MARTIN 1938, 244 and Ppate 12. See also: LUM 1981, 175. 24 EGAMI 2000), plate 57-58. 25 GAI 1991, 101. 26 Cf. Plate 10 with EGAMI 2000, plate 19 B and 58 A. 27 MARTIN 1938, 244. 22 23

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

57

kept at the temple, nor could it be identified in the collection kept at the cultural relics yard of the town. Gai seems to suggest that the statues and a Mongolian stele were of the Tumet Mongols who inhabited Olon Sume during the Ming 明 dynasty.28 Both Egami and Lattimore documented a sixteenth century Mongolian stele of the Tumet.29 Lattimore, however, described the stele as a ‘black stone’ and it is most unlikely that it had been part of the turtle base, which is of a white marble.30 This black tablet can thus not be used to date the marble turtle base encoun tered outside Olon Sume. Martin also mentioned a headstone of a stele within the city remains, which was again recorded in 2001 at the cultural relics yard of Balingmiao and in 2005 at Olon Sume (see Plate 19 and 21-22).31 Given the dark colour of the headstone it is well possible that the object is part of the ‘black stone’ referred to by Lattimore. In 2001 and 2005 this headstone was one of a pair of headstones. The second headstone of the pair was sculpted from a white marble and it may be that this headstone belongs to one of the two white marble turtle bases originating from Olon Sume (see Plate 20-22). The question to address for future research thus concerns which turtle base, if any, this marble headstone belonged to. Egami, who also could not locate the stele belonging to the tomb sculptures at Olon Sume, speculated that the inscribed tablet at the site had been taken away as a war trophy by the Ming troops when they conquered the city. The associa tion of the Öngüt with the ruling Mongols would have put the Nestorian Chris tians at Olon Sume in the Ming’s enemy camp of the Mongol troops. Egami, in other words also interpreted the objects as dating from the Öngüt period. The Japanese archaeologist further speculated that the tomb with the sculptures was that of King George.32 Egami based himself on the prominence of the tomb and a reference to the burial of the royal in Yan Fu’s 閻復 funerary inscription which revealed that after King George had been killed by his enemies his son Prince John retrieved the remains for reburial. The document does not specify the location of the reburial but Egami argued that King George would have been buried according to Chinese customs at the Öngüt capital of Olon Sume, i.e. the site with the Chinese style tomb sculptures and turtle base.33 The identification of the tomb as the burial site of King George is, however, problematic. The style, nature and especially number of the pairs of tomb stat ues encountered at Olon Sume and Wangmuliang are very similar (compare for example the pattern on the turtle shield at Wangmuliang in Plate 1, 6 and 7 GAI 1991, 101. See: Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures (2003) 56. For a study and translation of the stone see: HEISSIG 1955 and 1966. 30 LATTIMORE 1941, 108. 31 MARTIN 1938), 144 and plate XI C. 32 EGAMI 2000), 46 ff. 33 EGAMI 2000, 46-47. 28 29

58

Tjalling Halbertsma

with the turtle sculptures from Olon Sume in Plate 11, 12 and 13). The sculp tures at Wangmuliang were erected to commemorate an administrator of the Yelikewen. Unless one or more pairs of sculptures had been removed from the site at Olon Sume, it is highly unlikely that a king of the stature of King George, who was so closely allied with the descendents of Genghis Khan and the Mongol ruling court, would have been buried in the same fashion as an ad ministrator of the Yelikewen. The number of sculptures encountered at the ad ministrator’s grave at Chengbuzi seems to tally with these findings. At this stage, without much other clues, it is thus difficult to date the sculptures from the spirit way at Olon Sume other than by comparing their features to the statues found at Wangmuliang. Similarities between these two groups, how ever, would suggest that the sculptures found at Olon Sume date to the same period as those from Wangmuliang, i.e. the Nestorian period. This would in turn suggest that the occupants at the site were at some point practicing Chi nese customs.

V. Spirit way at Chengbuzi The gravesite with the tomb sculptures from Chengbuzi is situated to the west of the ancient city remains first documented by Martin in 1936. In 2001 the au thor documented two Nestorian gravestones at Chengbuzi, which had been re covered from the same grave site where the statues had also been found. The presence of the gravestones confirms the Nestorian origins of Chengbuzi.34 Martin, who indicated the city remains as Ulan Baishing, documented a turtle and pairs of stone officials, lions35 and ram at the site. Gai’s excavation in 1974 at Chengbuzi mainly focussed on the city remains. Gai, the Chinese archaeolo gist, did record a number of sculptures at a grave site outside the western end of the city.36 In 2001, when the present author visited the site, the statues could still be found at the western end of the city. A basketball court was set up on the site and lo cal children played among the statues (see Plate 23-25). In 1936 Martin had no ticed that one of the statues was headless. By 2001 both statues were headless. One of the heads, presumably the one documented by Martin in 1936, could reportedly be bought from a local Chinese farmer.37 By 2003 all but one of the sculptures had been moved to Gegentala 格根塔拉, a large Mongolian-themed tourist resort of felt and concrete ger-tents situated north-east of Siziwangqi 四子王旗. There, the statues lay abandoned in a field along a road leading to HALBERTSMA 2005, Gravestone 1-2. Martin recorded ‘four lion-dogs, two couching and two erect’: MARTIN 1938, 236. For im ages of the site see: MARTIN 1938, plate V c. 36 GAI 1991, 114. 37 For images of these sculptures see: MARTIN 1938, fig. V d-e; LUM 1981, plate 17. 34 35

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

59

the reception hall of the resort (see Plate 28-33). By 2005 these sculptures had again been moved a short distance to a parking lot in order to decorate the en trance to the resort and a newly built sports and entertainment facility (see Plate 34-38). One of the statues recorded at Chengbuzi in 2001, a sculpture of an official car rying a paizi 牌子 (see Plate 24), was not found along the road of the resort in 2003, but reappeared again in 2005 at the parking lot of Gegentala (see Plate 36). Curiously, a third statue of a figure of which the origins remain unknown, was recorded in 2001 along the road (see Plate 26-27) but had disappeared again from Gegentala in 2005. It may be well possible that this third statue was traded or exchanged for the statue of the official carrying the paizi from Chengbuzi. The current whereabouts of this third statue are unknown to the au thor. As is the case at Olon Sume, the dating of the statues is complicated due to the absence of a stele or inscription. Again, a comparison of the features of the sculptures to those encountered at Wangmulaing suggests that the spirit way at Chengbuzi should have been in use during the Nestorian period (compare for example the sheep or ram from Wangmuliang in Plate 5 with the sculptures from Chengbuzi in Plate 30 and 31 and the fold-pattern on the garment from Wangmuliang in Plate 3 and 4 with the fold-pattern in the garment depicted on sculptures from Chenbuzi in Plate 24, 25, 29, 36 and 37 ). It must also be pointed out that the style of the sculptures, especially the human figures, from Chengbuzi and Olon Sume portray similarities that suggest that these statues date to the same period (compare for example the military official at Olon Sume in Plate 14 with the sculpture from Chenbuzi in Plate 25, 29 and 37). The use of the spririt way would again suggest that the Nestorian Christians at Chengbuzi were at some point practicing Chinese customs. Interestingly, Chengbuzi yielded one more pair of sculptures than Wangmuliao and Olon Sume. Provided that no complete pair of sculptures was removed from Olon Sume and Wangmuliang, the number of tomb sculptures at Chengbuzi suggests that the tomb at Chengbuzi was for a person of higher rank than those con structed at Olon Sume and Wangmuliang. If King George was indeed buried at Olon Sume it is unlikely that there could be a person of higher rank at Cheng buzi. Based on the number of tomb statues one would thus rather expect to find the grave of King George at Chengbuzi. The number of tomb sculptures dis covered at Chengbuzi may also point to a greater prominence of the site itself. Indeed, Gai identified Chengbuzi as Jingzhou 淨州, one of the prominent cities included in the Jinshi 金史 [History of the Jin Dynasty]38

38

GAI 1991, 113.

60

Tjalling Halbertsma

VI. Conclusion No complete and intact Nestorian spirit way has been encountered in Inner Mongolia. Indeed it is only from the statues that we can conclude that the Nes torian communities constructed the spirit ways. None of these statues remains in situ and many have been damaged or are now lost altogether. The absence of steles complicates the dating of the spirit way statues from Olon Sume and Chengbuzi but similarities in their features with those encoun tered at Wangmuliang - which can be dated to the Nestorian period - suggest they originate from the same period. Further study of the style of the clothing depicted on human statues, including the sleeves, belts, collars and sword deco rations, and animal characteristics such as the shield pattern of the turtle shells, may shed additional light on the period that these sculptures belong to. It must be noted that the spirit way sculptures in the first place give an insight into the religious lives of the Öngüt elite in Inner Mongolia as commoners would not have been buried in such elaborate graves. It must be further noted that the number of spirit ways used by the Nestorian communities in Inner Mongolia is rather limited. The reason for this may not only lie in the fact that sprit ways were reserved for the elite, but also that it was in essence a Chinese practice whereas the Öngüt were of Turkic stock. The usage of the few spirit ways encountered in Inner Mongolia does indicate the Öngüt elite adopted Chinese customs.

Bibliography CHEN, Yuan. 1938. “On the Damaged Tablets Discovered by Mr. D. Martin in Inner Mongolia,” in Monumenta Serica III 1 (1938), 250-256, pl. XV-XVI. DE GROOT. 1910. The Religious System of China. Its Ancient Forms, Evolution, His tory and Present Aspect, Manners, Custom and Social Institutions Connected Therewith. Leiden:Brill: Leiden. EGAMI, Namio. 2000. The Mongol Empire and Christendom. Tokyo: San Paolo. FARQUHAR, D. 1990. The government of China under Mongolian rule. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. GAI, Shanlin 盖焦香.1991. Yinshan Wanggu 焦山江阴[The Öngüt of the Yinshan Moun tains]. Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe 内三江都亦信信信: Hohhot, 1991. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2005. “Some field notes and images of stone material from graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China (with additional rub bings of seven stones by Wei Jian)”, Monumenta Serica, 53 (2005), 113-244. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2006. “Some notes on past and present field research on gravestones and related stone material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, edited by Roman Malek. St. Augustin: Institut Momumenta Serica, 303-319.

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

61

HEISSIG, Walther. 1955). “Die Mongolische Steininschrift von Olon süme,” in Cent ral Asiatic Journal 1 (1955), 268-283. HEISSIG, Walther Heissig. 1966. Die Mongolische Steininschrift und Manuskriptfragmente aus Olon süme in der Inneren Mongolei. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KUHN, Dieter.1994. Burial in Song China. Heidelberg: Edition Forum. KUHN, Dieter. 1996. A Place for the Dead. An Archeological Documentary on Graves and Tombs of the Song Dynasty (960-1279). Heidelberg: Edition Forum. LATTIMORE, Owen. 1934. “A ruined Nestorian city in Inner Mongolia,” in Geo graphical Journal 6 (1934), 481-497. LUM, Peter. 1981. My Own Pair of Wings. San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center. MALEK, Roman, ed. 2006. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin, Institut Monumenta Serica. MARTIN, Desmond. 1838. “Preliminary Report on Nestorian Remains North of Kueihua, Suiyüan,” Monumenta Serica III (1938), 232-249. SCHOTTENHAMMER, Angela.1994. “Characteristics of Song Epitaphs,” in Burial in Song China. ed., Dieter Kuhn. Heidelberg: Edition Forum. YOKOHAMA MUSEUM OF EURASIAN CULTURES. 2003. Remains of Christen dom in Inner Mongolia. Yokohama: Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures.

Annex: Plates by Iwan Baan and Tjalling Halbertsma

1. Fragment of turtle base, front, at Wangmuliang in 2001/ TH2001

2. Sculpture of official at Wangmuliang/ TH2001

62

Tjalling Halbertsma

4. Sculpture of official at Wangmuliang in 2001/ TH2001

3. Sculpture of official at Wangmuliang in 2001/ TH2001

5. Sculpture of ram at Wangmuliang in 2001/TH2001

6. Turtle base at Wangmuliang in2001/TH2001

7. Turtle base at Wangmuliang/ IB2005

8. Turtle base inside city remains in 1930s, compare to image 9 / Egami (2000) Plate 19 A

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

63

.-'■ '*■ 1

s

. "

- fttffc . | " •'* - - .

.■^,... .

%-_ ■* • ,^. v?^» ,_»«/jl^3*y! j>f * .'

■'^S^S

1- -..■■ 9. Damaged turtle base in 2005, photographed and documented as intact by Egami in 1930s, see image 8 / IB2005

•

• *•'«*

i -*■■■ -,:,:.-)' ;i.

;-|jM|k-: ; J

. /. j^Hlh m / .■}££- '-L-I,--

'\:-:^^^KfAJSM

10. Fragment of turtle base remaining atOlon Sume in 2001/TH2001

11. One of two turtle bases returned to Olon Sume in 2005/ IB2005

12. Turtle base returned to Olon Sume from Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2005/ IB2005

64

Tjalling Halbertsma

13. Turtle base returned to Olon Sume from Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2005, same object as in left image/ IB2005

14. Sculpture of military official at Bailing miao cultural relics yard in 2001/ TH2001

15. Sculpture of official at Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2001/ TH2001

16. Two tomb sculptures returned to Olon Sume in 2005 / IB2005

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

65

■>:vS%'-:- ;,,i, .g; ' "' ' -.'5 . /^ . '- .' ^"-~ - ^-. "^r- ■-* * ,./-r'U -■ V .. -* - . ^ijsjy jfe - ■&&$**■*?> . .■ ^HV4 ■ j**)'. .:-' ~*^*^r> -*--%-■> . "■ _.■ 4i fafe _! J -* ■-"*•■" ™ ■1 p. a • m - ' •.£?*J

yfr—--t*' -"■ . *r- :"

w^^

'j0*?~

*^H

k

■.•■■!.:..

'i^*1 i.j-

> :-^^*S^:, 17. Pair of lions from spirit way returned to Olon Sume in 2005/ IB2005

18. Pair of stone lions returned to Olon Sume in 2005/ IB2005

%smm i19. Grey headstone at Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2001/ TH2001

20. White headstone at Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2001/ TH2001

22. Two headstones of steles returned to Olon Sume from Bailingmiao cultural relics yard in 2005/ IB2005

21. Two headstones of steles returned to Olon Sume in 2005/IB2005

66

23. Spirit way sculptures at Chengbuzi in2001/TH2001

Tjalling Halbertsma

24. Sculpture of an official with paizi at Chengbuzi in 2001/TH2001

25. Sculpture of a military official at Chengbuzi in 2001/ TH2001 26. Unidentified statue at Gegentala, origin unknown/ TH2003

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

67

\

27. Detail of unidentified statue at Gegentala/ TH2003

28. Spirit way sculptures from Chengbuzi at Gegentala/ TH2003

29. Sculpture of a military official from Chengbuzi at Gegentala/ TH2003

30. Sculpture of a sheep from Chengbuzi at Gegentala/ TH2003

31. Headless sculpture of sheep from Chengbuzi at Gegentala/ TH2003

32. Sculpture of a stone lion from Chengbuzi at Gegentala/ TH2003

68

Tjalling Halbertsma

33. Sculpture of a lion from Chengbuzi along road at Gegentala/ TH2003

34. Sculpture of a lion from Chengbuzi at park ing lot of Gegentala/IB2005

35. Detail of sculpture of a military official from Chengbuzi/TH2003

36. Figure of an official with paizi at parking lot of Gegentala/ IB2005

Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum

37. Military official from Chengbuzi at parking lot Gegentala/ IB2005

69

38. Spirit way statues from Chengbuzi at park ing lot of Gegentala/ IB2005

THE PERSIAN CONTRIBUTION TO CHRISTIANITY IN CHINA: REFLECTIONS IN THE XI’AN FU SYRIAC INSCRIPTIONS Erica C.D. HUNTER School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

The magnificent Xi’an Fu stele, which was discovered sometime between 1623 and 1625 by workmen digging a trench near Ch'ang-an, encapsulates the con nection of ‘Nestorian’ Christianity in China with Persia during the Tang Dy nasty1. The Chinese text gives an optimistic account of the propagation of the lo-han in Church of 635 the East C.E.2i.n This China, long following inscription the arrival was intended of the monk to beA-lo-pen read or Aby a far wider audience than the much shorter Syriac inscriptions on the base and sides of this fine stele that are essentially lists of names. They attest the monastic or ganisation of the Church of the East in China, but additionally give valuable affirmation of the fundamentally ‘Persian’ character of the church which was directly linked with the patriarchate in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. If the Chinese text of inscription can be considered as presenting the ‘official’ account of Christi anity under the Tang dynasty, the Syriac text provides insight into its ‘actual’ face. Moreover, the Syriac contents intimate why Adam (Ching-Ching), the re Jiao3 composer of the Chinese text described his faith as the religion of Daqin puted . The Physical Impact of the Stele The execution of the long Chinese inscription by Lü Hsiu-yen is of the highest calligraphic calibre, demonstrating the great importance that was attached to its contents. Its fine workmanship betokened the presentation of a prestigious and impressive face to the Tang emperor and his court. The 70 names that occupy 1

2

3

See FORTE in PELLIOT 1996, 5- 57 for a comprehensive discussion of the stele’s discovery which treats questions of the year and place. On p.43 he upholds 1625 as the date of the stele’s exhumation. A succinct summary of issues re the stele’s date and place of discovery occurs in TANG 2004, 25-29. For a survey of literature on this monument, see LATOURETTE 1939 vol. II, 277, n.69. Dauvillier considers ‘a-lo-han’ to be a Sinicization of ‘Abraham’ where br > l. DAUVILLIER 1949 in DAUVILLIER 1983, 218. For differing interpretations of A-lo-pên see MOULE 1930, 38, n.2. Forte concludes that Adam abided by existing law which imposed the name-change in 745. See FORTE in PELLIOT 1996, 355.

Erika C.D. Hunter

72

the base and sides of this stele are written vertically in Estrangela, the essen tially monumental script that was used to write inscriptions as well as lemmata in manuscripts of both the Monophysite and Diophysite branches of the Syriac church.

Cross

Di Ei (11 names)

Dii

(11 names)

(6 names)

Eii Diii

(13 names)

(13 names)

Div

A (1 line)

B (1 line)

Eiii

Henanisho

Adam

(5 names)

(11 names)

Ci (13 lines)

Cii (1 name: 2 lines)

Ciii (2 names: 5 lines)

DONOR & SON

The arrangement of the Syriac text

The placing of the Syriac inscriptions on the bottom and sides of the stele, clearly subordinates them to the Chinese text. Whilst the vertical alignment of the Syriac lines reproduced the direction in which the Chinese inscription was read, it conformed to time-honoured epigraphic conventions that can be seen already the Middle in fourth Euphrates and fifth regions century 4 Syriac inscriptions from the Tur ‘Abdin and . Front face of the stele A: To the left of the main Chinese inscription: 1 line Statement of the Patriarch of the Church of the East

4

See HUNTER 1991 in Oriens Christianus 75 (1991), 149. Also PALMER 1990, 224.

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

G

73

H

„In the day of our Father of Fathers, Mar Henanisho, Catholicos-Patriarch”

The inscription commences with the joint titles of ‘Catholicos-Patriarch’ thus making an explicit reference to the head of the Church of the East. This state ment of affiliation is supported by the fine example of a Nestorian cross that is inscribed at the stele’s apex5. Mar Henanisho was consecrated in 773/774 CE after the death of his predecessor Mar Jacob, but his date of death is subject to debate, ranging between 778 and 780 CE6. The election of Patriarch Timothy in February 780 and his consecration in May were events that were surrounded with much controversy, being opposed by various bishops and metropolitans, including Ephraim of Gundeshapur (Beth Lapat) and Joseph of Marv. The lat ter unsuccessfully attempted to have the appointment nullified through the in tervention of the Caliph al-Mahdi and when this failed, embraced Islam7. B: To the right of the principal inscription: 1 line Statement of Adam, head of the Chinese church

H “Adam, priest and chorespiscopus and papas of China” [followed by his name and the epithet ‘monk’ in Chinese letters].

Adam, the author of the inscription, who is described in the Chinese text as “priest of the Daqin Monastery” is generally considered to be a missionary from the Church of the East who was engaged in translating Buddhist works8. His titles juxtapose Greek and Sanskrit loan-words in Syriac. H indicating a bishop overseeing rural areas was a well-entrenched term in Syriac that is also found in the tombstones from Semireche’e9. was read by Moule, following Pelliot, as a transliteration of the Buddhist title fa-shih “Mas ter of the Law” and is a hapax legomenon10. Saeki proposed that the term might

For the iconography of Nestorian crosses see, PARRY in COAKLEY – PARRY 1996, 156157, plate 4. Also OKADA 1990, 103-112. TANG 2004, 17 describes the cross as ‘Maltese’. 6 MOULE 1930, 47 n. 43 gives 780 as the date of Hananisho’s death, as do Saeki. See SAEKI 1937, 106. BUDGE 1893, vol. I111, vol. II 383 n.3. Dauvillier suggests that the patriarch died in autumn 779, rather than in the beginning of 780. DAUVILLIER in PELLIOT 1984, vol.2/1, 41. TANG 2004, 18 n.8 plumps for 778. 7 BUDGE 1893, vol. II, 383 n.3 citing ABBELOOS – Lamy 1872-1877, v.ii.col. 171. 8 Standaerd notes that Dauvillier thought that Jing Jing was Chinese and that Pelliot considered that he had a knowledge of Sogdian. STANDAERT 2001, vol.1., 25 9 See SMITH 1868-1901, 1713. For medieval usage of chorepiscopus, see KLEIN 2000, 241242 with specific references to the usage of the term in tombstones from Semireche’e. These were originally published by CHWOLSON 1886. 10 MOULE 1930, 35 n.12. For Pelliot’s suggestion of the term being a Buddhist title equivalent to “Master of the Law” see PELLIOT 1911 in T’oung-pao XII (1911), 664-70. 5

74

Erika C.D. Hunter

be equated with the rank of metropolitan11. has transliterated into Syriac the Sogdian term denoting a geographical location H to denote Adam’s bishopric, i.e. “land of the Chinese”12. The preference for this termi nology suggests his origins in the Iranian-territories of Central Asia since Syriac writers tended to use + ethnic designation when referring to ethnic or geographical entities. Thus Thomas of Marga’s Historia Monastica recounts the election by Patriarch Timothy I (727/8-823 CE) of a certain David “to be Metropolitan of Beth Sinaye”13. In a letter to Sergius, metropolitan of Elam dated between 794 - 798 CE, Timothy wrote ‘we are preparing to anoint an other [metropolitan] for the bēt Tūptāye’ a possible reference to Tibet14. Simi larly, he used the term bēt ¬urkaye’, but gives no further clue re the identity or location of this Turkic people15.

Bottom of the front face Three blocks of Syriac text forming Ci, Cii, Ciii Ci: 13 lines + 3 Chinese characters.

The donor statement This is the longest of the Syriac inscriptions and informs re the date of the stele’s erection, the donor and his family and his city of origin. Date This commences, as is normative, with the Seleucid dating: “one thousand and ninety-two of the Greeks” (= 781 CE) which commemorates the monument’s erection, over and above the commissioning and incising of the text which must have taken place some years prior. As previously mentioned, Patriarch Henaniso had died by 781 and, as Moule suggests, the news may not have yet reached China after the stele’s execution, rendering it too late to change the in scription16. Given the stele’s raison d’être: to present ‘an official’ face to the imperial authorities, the cutting of a new inscription would have been both time-consuming and expensive and highly impractical. Moreover, since the

SAEKI 1937, 187. PELLIOT1913, in T’oung-Pao XIV (1913), 428. SAEKI 1937, 82. 13 BUDGE 1893, i, 448, ii, 238. 14BRAUN 1901 in Oriens Christianus I (1901), 308-309. See also BIDAWID 1956,, 37, 85; LABOURT 1904, 45-46; DAUVILLIER 1948, 291-296 and n. 134 which cites the manuscript sources (Vatican Borg. sir. 81, p. 697 and Vatican sir. 605, f. 310 v˚). 15 HUNTER in COAKLEY - PARRY 1996, 137. 16 MOULE 1930 and TANG 2004 suggests that the news of the patriarchal death had not reached China by 781 since communication between the distant metropolitanates and the partriarchate was only required every 6 years. However, in exceptional circumstances such as the death of the Patriarch, adherence to this canon [see ASSEMANI (vol. iii, I, 347)] seems very unlikely. 11 12

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

75

election of Timothy I was surrounded with much contention by his ecclesiasti cal peers, it may have been considered more expedient, in this situation of un certainty, to retain the erstwhile patriarchal name to the emperor and his court. Donor H

H

G

H H “Mar Yazedbouzid, presbyter and chorepiscopus of Kumdan, the Royal city, whose late father, Milis was a priest from of Balkh, a city of Tocharistan”. The donor’s biographical details espouse his connection with Central Asia and the Persian world. Whilst Yazedbourzid is a Pahlavi name meaning “Saved by is God” akin[His to Syriac Chinese epithets name such is Issu] as 17 Sargis , the18morphology of his father’s name . might also be considered to be a variant of with the ‘i’ sound being rendered by the Rhbaça instead of the Yodh. Church of the It was Easta19well-known , including the Syriac bishop name, of Susa sported whobywas seven martyred bishops in 341 of the 20 . In his 1930 address to the Royal Society of Central Asian Studies, Pelliot stated that Yazedbourzid was Armenian, but supplied no documentary evidence to support his claim21. There was an Armenian community at Balkh; possibly de portees from Edessa who were settled in Khurasan, however the context . of the Place stele clearly of origin connects Yazedbourzid with the Church of the East22

The reference to Balkh in Tocharistan, i.e. Bactria locates the family in the Ira nian world, although no indication is made about their connection with the city i.e. whether they were an ‘old-established’ family or relative newcomers. Balkh was the capital of Bactria and, at the beginning of the eighth century, was the residence of one of the four marzbans of Khorasan. As well as having strong Zoroastrian connections, the city supported a large Buddhist community and traditionally had strong links with both China and Persia. Balkh sustained sev-

PELLIOT 1984, vol. 2/1, 56, n.5. SMITH 1868-1901, 2091 lists the proper noun with a reference to Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticanus recensuit Jos. Sim. Assemanus (Rome 1719-1728) ii, 255 = iii.ii 782. 19 Cf. SMITH 1868-1901, 2092. CHABOT 1902, 274, 285, 289, 290, 423, 465, 616, 617, 618. is today the name of the Assyrian bishop in Sydney, Australia. 20 Ibid, 289. Also SMITH 1868-1901, 2092 referring to Acta Martyum Orientalium et Occidentalium a St. Ev. Assemano edidit, tome I and ii (Rome: 1748), i: 78 and WRIGHT 1870-1872, 1081, b. 21 PELLIOT 1930, in Journal of the Central Asian Society XVII:3 (1930), 303. 22 DAUVILLIER in Pelliot 1984b, 65, referencing MARQUART 1903, 283. N..2 notes that an Armenian source confirmed the existence of an Armenian community in Bactria. 17 18

76

Erika C.D. Hunter

eral Christian communities including the Church of the East23. The orthogra phy of HH is distinguished by the absence of the Aleph in H – al though this orthography may reflect Sogdian that regularly abstained from rePurpose producing the long a in stan24.

The inscription is clear in its raison d’être that is both pedagogical and propa gandist. The choice of H underlies the discipline of a monastic institu tion. Criticising Pauthier, who translated H as ‘redemption’, Dauvillier equated it with the Greek οἰχονοµἰα i.e. indicating the government and dispen sation of divine providence through Christ’s incarnation and the redemption of mankind25. Saeki translated H as “the law of our Saviour”, but again this interpretation might be considered to be too restricted26. The femi nine singular abstract noun H might be rendered as “stewardship or guidance”, denoting an idea of ‘a way’ that was frequently used in association with the monastic life. A variety of derivatives from the verbal root DBR are found in the writings of seventh and eighth century East Syriac ascetics from the monastery of Rabban Shabbour in Khuzistan, especially occurring in the treatise of Dad’isho of Qatar “On Solitude”27. The inherent idea of a monastic discipline associated with H might approximate the Buddhist title “Master of the Law” that was borne by the composer of the text, Adam. The royal connection is explicitly espoused in H H “and the proclamation of our forefathers to the kings of China”. Latourette declares government and used that his Yazedbourzid wealth to care hadforrisen the poor to high and favour enlargeinmonasteries the Chinese 28 . Certainly the intended visibility of the stele is encapsulated in “erected, established” (causative 3rd masculine Aphel Perfect of √QUM).

DAUVILLIER 1948, 282 discusses Assemani’s attempt to identify Balkh with the metropolitanate of alaÐ which he considered to be unconvincing. He also discusses this in greater length in PELLIOT 1984, op. cit., 64-5. Cf. SAEKI, op. cit. 110 who lists ‘Balkh and Takharistan’ as a metropolitanate. 24 PELLIOT 1913, 428. 25 DAUVILLIER in Pelliot 1984b op. cit., 57 n.5 and in reference to PAUTHIER 1858, 43. 26 SAEKI 1937, 70. 27 “Dadisho of Qatar ‘On solitude’” published by MINGANA 1931, 70-143 (English translation) 201-47 (Syriac text). Dadisho of Qatar, like Isaac of Nineveh, came from the Gulf region and entered the Monastery of Rabban Shabur in Khuzistan in the late seventh century. He wrote a miscellany of works on the spiritual life; his ‘exercises in solitude’ claimed that there was no possibility of any real mystical experience outside the cell and isolation. 28 LATOURETTE, 1939, 278. 23

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

77

Codicil A codicil, written H some distance “Adam from the the donor deacon, statement, son ofreads: Yazedbourzid the chorepiscopus”. This codicil endorses the concept of an ancestral priestly line age that is suggested by Yazedbourzid’s reference to his father. The sequence of the names borne by the three generations: grandfather, father and son, namely Milis, Yazedbourzid and Adam: respectively Syriac > Iranian > Hebrew may reflect the trajectory of the family’s dislocation: from Persia to Central Asia and thence to China. It is noteworthy that Yazed bourzid’s son bore the same name as the bishop of China.

Cii: 2 lines in Syriac H “Mar Sargis, the priest and chorepiscopus”. Sargis was a famous saint and the namesake of the founder of several monasteries in the vicinity of Samarkand29. John was the most popular name in the listing, but Sargis occurs four times. On each occasion, the honorific title has been amalgamated with Sarguis to pro duce the name MarSargis, in which the Yodh of the honorific epithet G , which is quiescent in pronunciation, has been omitted.

Ciii: 8 lines Syriac interspersed with Chinese characters (lines 6-8). Lines 1-2 commence with Chinese annotation “examiner and collator at the erection of the stone + Chinese name” + “Sabar-isho, the priest” – a Syriac name meaning “hope of Jesus” derived from √SBR.

Lines 3.–5 H

H

H

“Gabriel, the priest and archdeaon and head of the church of Kumdan and of Sarag”. Kumdan and Sarag have been identified as the Sanskrit names for Chang’an and Lo-yang, respectively the western and eastern capitals of the Tang empire30. See LIGETI 1972 in, Acta Orientalia Scientarum Hungaricae XXVI (1972), 169-78. HUNTER 1989/1991in Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1989/1991), 154-155 for Mar Sergius in Mari ibn Suleiman’s account of the Kerait conversion (Kitabu’l Mijdal). 30 See DAUVILLIER in PELLIOT 1984b, 57 n.7 and n.8. MOULE 1930, 48 n.45 for discussion noting Pelliot’s reference to the occurrence of Khumdan in a “Sodgian manuscript of the T’ang and Χουµαδάν or Χουβδάν from Theophylact Simocatta (A.D. 610; Historiae vii. 9, ed. Teubner 261, 262)” and dismissing alternative suggestions of “place of water-lilies” and “palace”. SAEKI 1937, 248 however translates Kumdan as “inside the citadels”, on the basis of Japanese phonology derived from Chinese of the Tang period. On p. 249 Saeki rules out the identifica 29

78

Erika C.D. Hunter

Left Lateral31 Four listings of names [designated Di - Div] are arranged along the full-length of the stele’s left side. The left margins of the lines are justified but the right hand margins are irregular and are dictated by the length of script that has also determined the spacing between the blocks of names. On the lower half of the left lateral are carved five rows of Chinese characters, with four characters per row arranged symmetrically and somewhat obscure the final two blocks of names. Di : eleven names, evenly spaced, beginning with G “Mar John the bishop” who is qualified by Chinese epi thet “Yao-lun of great virtue” followed by ten names, each one designated as “priest”. Dii arrangement of the six names is more irregular. The first four names are designated by double-barrelled epithet ) “priest and solitary”, but is followed by a large gap between the second and third names. The third, fourth and fifth names are grouped together, with the third and fourth names also qualified as ) “priest and solitary”. Notably they are unaccompanied by Chinese epithets. Saeki translates ) as “monk” 32, however this term does not convey the full force of the word in the Syriac tradition where, during the fourth centuries, at the height of asceticism in Syria, the ihidaye were solitaries leading an anchoritic lifestyle, although in later centuries they were affiliated with cenobitic communities33. The fifth name, Simeon has the singular epithet ) “the priest of the grave” a title indicating that he was responsible for overseeing the burial of his clerical colleagues. The masculine singular noun passed into Old Turkic as a loan-word, where it Yuan tomb-stones occurs on the Syro-Turkic from Quanzhou stone grave-inscriptions 34. The from Semireche’e and the sixth and final name is separated tion of Saragh with Lo-yang, but equates it with its namesake in Khurasan. MOULE 1930, 49 upholds the identification of Sarag with Lo-yang in the Ho-nan province and notes its initial identification in PAUTHIER 1857, 92 and also its acceptance by Yule, loc. cit. On the phonol ogy of Sarag, see PELLIOT 1927 in T’oung Pao XXV (1927a), 91-92. Also PELLIOT 1927b in Journal Asiatique CCXI (July-September, 1927), 138. 31 DAUVILLIER in PELLIOT (1984b), 57-60 and MOULE 1930, 49-50 for transliterations and translations of the listed names. SAEKI 1937, 176 – 8 also lists the Chinese epithets where these occur. 32 SAEKI 1937, 176. 33 See VÖÖBUS 1955-1958, 106-8 for a discussion of the relationship between the and µόναχος. 34 For an example of in the Syro-Turkic tombstones from Quanzhou, see Geng et al 1996, in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 14 (1996), 170 referring to l.7 and commentary on 171. The Syro-Turkic tombstones from Quanzhou are currently being studied by an Australian team headed by Samuel N.C. Lieu (Macquarie University). See ECCLES et .al. in GARDNER et. al 2005, 247-278.

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

79

from the previous appellations by a large gap and is out of alignment with the rest of the listing [Dii]. “John the deacon and yda” is the singular instance where the popular epithet ‘John’ is written with the suffix, thus reproducing the Greek name, over and above the Syriac spelling that occurs ten times elsewhere. However as has already been pointed out there are precedents in Syriac for names ending . Much discussion has accompanied . Moule and Dauvillier note that Cheikho translated as ‘Secretarius’’ on 35 the basis of the Syriac noun “hand” . Whilst Saeki followed Cheikho’s interpretation, Moule and Dauvilllier considered the word to be an abbreviation for ihidaya, arguing that the word was abbreviated so that the mason could accommodate the Chinese characters that follow36. Reasons of space could have dictated this move, but this is offset by the hierarchical organization and palaeographic conventions of the listings that lend support to a scribe or ‘secretary’. Lists Diii and Div comprise thirteen and eleven names respectively, which in each instance is qualified only by the Chinese characters for “monk”. Right Lateral Three listings of names [designated Ei - Eiii] cover approximately two-thirds of the stele’s right lateral. Again the left margins of the lines are justified but the right hand margins are irregular and dictated by the length of script, which has determined the spacing between the blocks of names. Ei consists of eleven names beginning with “Jacob the priest”37 who is followed by H “Mar Sargis, the priest and chorepiscopus shi’ngtsua Much debate surrounds the final word, but it has obviously been used to differentiate this Mar Sargis from his afore mentioned namesake. Saeki plumped for a place-name, stating that “it must be a name of the Nestorian district in China” over and above Pelliot’s designation that the term was a Buddhist title designating Mar Sargis as “le supérieur d’un couvent nestorien”38. Moule, following Pelliot, likewise interpreted shang-tso, as a Buddhist title: denoting someone privileged to teach and become an abbot39. The next person named on the listing, G “Gigoi” was designated by his diocese “priest and archdeacon and his ‘job of Kumran descriptions’: and teacher of reading”, whilst theH remain

MOULE 1930, 49, n.49. DAUVILLIER in PELLIOT (1984b), 58 n.4. SAEKI 1937, 176, MOULE 1930, DAUVILLIER, 58. 37 For the occurrence of this proper name in Syriac inscriptions from Ctesiphon and Hira in Iraq see, Hunter 1996 in Oriens Christianus 80 (1996), 70 and Hunter 1997 in, Al-Rafidain XVIII (1997), 364. 38 SAEKI 1937, 255. PELLIOT 1911, 670. 39 MOULE 1930, 51 n.50. 35 36

80

Erika C.D. Hunter

”Simeon” ing eight is names, also named are all designated ”venerable”, by the a title epithet that no doubt“priest”. pays deference to his age and which might also have been a compensatory epithet in lieu of a Chinese name. Eii which consists of thirteen names, is a listing of monks, each qualified by a Chinese epithet. No Syriac designations are given, except for “sacristan” that accompanies “Jacob”, the initial name on the list. Eiii lists five names. The first, third and fifth carry Chinese epithets, whereas the second and fourth are devoid of any identification of rank. The ‘Persian’ Matrix of the Luminous Religion With the exception of the Donor Statement [Ci], the Syriac inscriptions are list ings of names that are often accompanied by a designation of the incumbent’s role. They impart much valuable information about the organization of ‘Lumi nous Religion’ and affirm its Persian connection. They provide a clear indica tion of the hierarchical structure, but also show the assimilative tendencies of the Church of the East which are seen principally in the employment of the Buddhist designations and . Over and above these however, the inscriptions substantiate the direct link of the Church of the East with the patriarchate in Mesopotamia in various ways: (1) Affirmation of the authority of the Patriarchate [of Henanisho] that was based in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, but later moved by Timothy I to Baghdad. (2) The names of the clerics and monks, derivative from either Syriac or Pahlavi, were used throughout the erstwhile Sassanid territories. These names fall into two categories: Christian and non-Christian. The Christian category juxtaposes Syriac or Pahlavi cognates with išo’ “Jesus”. Syriac examples include ‘Abdišo’ “servant of God” [Syriac √‘bd] and S’abrišo’ [Syriac √sbr] “hope of Jesus”. The plene orthography of this nounced name, i.e.long theā,Alaph’s i.e Zqapha inclusion, over andsuggests above the thatexpected the initial Pthaha syllable 40. Names was with pro the Pahlavi dad = given component include Christ” and Išo‘dad “given by Jesus”.

MešiÐadad “given by

The non-Christian category consists of names that are attested in Zoroastrian and other communities in Sassanid Mesopotamia. Māhdadgušnap is a composite name consisting of the Pahlavi elements māhdad + gušnap41. Dauvillier, who noted that the appellation combined māhdad ‘given 40 41

See SMITH 1868-1901., 2516 . See JUSTI 1895, 186 for Māhgušnasp. For Māhdad see SEGAL 2000, with a contribution by HUNTER, 54-55 for the transliteration and translation of BM 91710. For combinations of Guënasp see LEVENE 2003, 62-63 for the transcription and translation of M107 [an incanta-

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

81

by [the moon-god] Māh’ with Gušnasp meaning ‘who has standards (of weights and measures)’42, also cited the Zoroastrian connection of gušnasp43. However, the name had a much wider distribution for it frequently occurs, in various combinations, on incantation bowls that were widely used by Jewish, pagan and Mandaean communities in Mesopotamia during the fifth and sixth centuries. Clearly gušnasp had become ubiquitous by the Late Sassanid period. Dauvillier noted ‘Izadsepās as being Iranian44. (iii) The –ai suffixes of the names Abhai, Pusai and Gigoi likewise point to Persian etymology and occur frequently in the nomenclature of incantation bowls45.

(3) The offices of the clergy are those of the Church of the East. Of course, ti tles such as H “chorepiscopus” and “priest” were not exclusive to the Church of the East, but they were used throughout its dioceses in Central Asia and China, as shown by the grave-stones from Semireche’e and the tombstones from Quanzhou, as late as the thirteenth century. “soli tary” denotes a direct link with Syrian asceticism and monasticism. In the eighth century, a network of monastic institutions was flourishing in the north ern regions of Mesopotamia, the most famous being Mt. Izla and its offshoot Beth ‘Abhe, wherein many missionaries were trained. One can only speculate whether some of the listed men were alumni from these monasteries or from the equally vibrant, but now almost overlooked expression that was rooted in southern Iraq and Iran. The region of al-Hira was famous for its monasteries, with Islamic historians recording more than forty in the eighth and ninth centu ries. In Iran, at the monastery of Rabban Shabbour in Khuzistan, the concept of ‘the solitary’ was fully embraced: translating the ihidaye from the peripatetic ascetic extremist movements of the fourth century in Syria to a cenobitic ma trix. A distinct solitary ‘way of life’ which was expounded by contemporary East Syrian mystical writers, including Isaac of Nineveh and Dadisho of Qatar, may have resonated with the Buddhist ‘law’. Maintaining an impeccable face: The preference for Daqin Jiao over and above Bosi Jiao “Persian Teaching” in the Chinese inscription indicated the position of Church of the East in the Tang tion bowl with no information about its provenance from the private collection of Shlomo Moussaieff as noted onp.1]. 42 DAUVILLLIER 1948, 57, n.9. 43 Idem. 44 DAUVILLLIER 1948, 59, n.7. 45 For names with –ai suffixes in a Mandaic incantation bowl, see SEGAL 2000, 134-5 for the transliteration and translation of BM 135438. The longevity of this genre, continuing even in modern Iraq is attested by the names of Saddam Hussein’s sons: ‘Udai and Qusai.

82

Erika C.D. Hunter

court46. As Standaert has pointed out, “tolerance towards foreign religions de pended almost entirely on the emperor’s will to accept them”47. Whilst Adam used Daqin Jiao in accord with the edict issued in 638, further reasons may be inherent in the phrase’s adoption. Hopes of a Persian restoration that might have been entertained were undoubtedly dashed with the death at Chang’an in 707 CE. of the last descendent of the ill-fated monarch, Yezdegird III, who had been assassinated near Merv48. The term may thus have acknowledged the de mise of the Sassanid dynasty49. Furthermore a ‘Persian’ connection may have been considered to be politically outmoded; its usage could have compromised the Church of the East in the eyes of their new political masters by suggesting covert loyalties with the nascent Abbassid dynasty. With the Islamic push into Central Asia and the clashes with the Chinese, that saw their curtailment at the Battle of Talas in 745 CE, it might not have been expedient to foster in the Tang court any connections, even implicit, with the Abbassids. Aside from es tablishing their new capital, Baghdad (762 C.E.), the Abbassids were forging a much more consciously defined Islamic identity where, paradoxically, the ‘Per sian’ dimension played more pronounced than under the Ummayids. The monumental physical and intellectual relocation of Islam from the ‘Mediterra nean’ reaches of Syria to the ‘Persian’ territories undoubtedly had a ‘ripple ef fect’ all the way to China. However, as Barrett has postulated, “it would seem therefore quite likely that at least part of the motivation for Nestorian Christianity distancing itself from any association with the fallen power of Persia related to contemporary interreligious polemical concerns”50. In view of the keen interest of the Tang dy nasty in its illustrious Taoist ancestry and the belief that Daqin had been on Laozi’s itinerary, the citation of Daqin Jiao meant that a connection was “cun ningly established between Christianity and the hagiography of the divine an cestor of the Taoist emperor” who had departed westwards on his travels to In dia51. Although not endowed with the overt chameleon qualities of the Manichaeans who ‘re-invented’ themselves in response the different religions they encountered, the Church of the East responded sensitively to the kaleido scope of religious, cultural and linguistic dimensions with which it inter-acted during its long experience in Central Asia and beyond. The Christians would have been keen to conform to the Tang blueprint of an officially approved re ligion. For a recent discussion see BARRETT 2002, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65:3 (2002), 559. MOULE 1930, 35 n.12 opines that the term was used rather vaguely for the Roman Orient and perhaps more particularly for Syria, “the original home of the Church”. 47 STANDAER 2001, 31. 48 MOFFETT 1992, 295. 49 PELLIOT 1996, 364. 50 BARRET 2002, 557. 51 Ibid 558. 46

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

83

Drawing on its great prowess for enculturation that underlay the successes of the Church of the East in Central Asia, Adam espoused a term of propitious mutual contact with the place of his own religion’s genesis and presented, in the Chinese text, a ‘face’ before the Tang Emperors. It was a brilliant, albeit short-lived, piece of propaganda. In comparison to the eloquence of the Chi nese text, the Syriac inscriptions and listings of the Xi’an Fu stele are perfunc tory and would have been read by a much more restricted audience. Yet, they show the heart of the Church of the East to be ‘Persian’, not only in the link that was maintained with the Patriarch in Mesopotamia, but also via the hierar chical organization and importation of titles that were integral to Syriac Chris tianity. And, finally, the distinctly ‘Persian’ components, of several of the Syriac names listed on the stele intimate that some of the men had indeed trav eled along the Silk Route from the Mesopotamian ‘homeland’ to China.

Bibliography ASSEMANI, G.S. 1719-1728. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticanus, 3 vols. in 4. Rome: Propaganda Fides. BARRETT, T. 2002. “Buddhism, Taoism and the Eighth-century Chinese term for Christianity: A Response to Recent Work by A. Forte and Others”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65:3, 555-560. BIDAWID, R. 1956. Les lettres du Patriarche Nestorien Timothée I. Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. .Studi e Testi 187. BRAUN, O. 1901. “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I”, Oriens Christianus I, 308309. BUDGE, E.A.W. 1893. The Book of the Governors: the Historia Monastica of Thomas, bishop ofMarga, 2 vols. London: Kegan Paul. CHABOT, J.B. 1902. Synodicon Orientale, ou Receuil des synodes nestoriens. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. DAUVILLIER, J. 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéenes “de l’Extérieur” au Moyen Age”, Mélanges Offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera à l’Occasion de la Quarantième Année de Son Professorat à l’Institut Catholique. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, 261-316. DAUVILLIER 1983. Histoire et Institutions des Eglises Orientales au Moyen Age. London: Varioum. DAUVILLIER, J. 1984a. “L’inscription Chinoise de la Stele de Si-gnan-fou. Presenta tion” in P. Pelliot Recherches sur les Chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’ExtrêmeOrient. Première Partie. DAUVILLIER, J. 1984b. “Inscriptions Syriaques de la Stele de Si-ngang-fou. Trans cription et Traduction. II. Commentaire” in P. Pelliot Recherches sur les Chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’Extrême-Orient, vol. 2,1. Paris: Èditions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac, deuxième partie. DAUVILLIER, J. 1949 “L’expansion au Tibet de l’Église Chaldéenne au Moyen Age et le Probleme des Rapports du Bouddhisme et du Christianisme”, in J. Dauvillier, Histoire etIinstitutions des Églises Orientales au Moyen Age. London: Variorum, 1983.

84

Erika C.D. Hunter

ECCLES, L. et. al. 2005. “Observations on Select Nestorian Inscriptions in the Syriac Script from Zayton (Quanzhou)” in I. Gardner et al, eds. From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography. Silk Road Studies X. Turnhout, Brepols, 247-278. GENG, Shimin et. al.1996. “Eine neue nestorianische Grabinschrift aus China”, UralAltaische Jahrbücher 14, 164-175. HUNTER, E.C.D. 1991. “An Inscribed Reliquary from the Middle Euphrates”, Oriens Christianus 75, 112-23. HUNTER, E.C.D. 1996a. “The Church of the East in Central Asia” in C. Coakley and K. Parry (eds.), “The Church of the East: life and thought”, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, vol. 78:3 (1996), 129-142. HUNTER, E.C.D. .1996b. “Syriac Inscriptions from al Hira”. Oriens Christianus 80, 66-81. HUNTER, E.C.D. 1997. “A Syriac Ostracon from Ctesiphon” Al-Rafidain XVIII 361367. KLEIN, W. 2000. Das Nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgystan bis zum 14.Jh. Turnhout: Brepols. LABOURT, J. 1904. De Timotheo I, Nestorianorum Patriarcha (A.D. 728 - 823), Paris: Victor Lecoffre. LATOURETTE, K.S. 1939. A History of the Expansion of Christianity, vol.II. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. LEVENE, D. 2003. A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity. London, Kegan Paul. MINGANA, A. 1931. “Dadisho of Qatar ‘On solitude’” in Early Syriac Mystics, Woodbrooke Studies vol. vii. Cambridge: Heffers. MOFFETT, S. 1992. A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. I. San Franscisco: Orbis. MOULE, A.C. 1930. Christians in China before the Year 1550. London: SPCK. OKADA, Y. 1990. “Reconsideration of Plaque-type Crosses from Ain Sha’ia near Najaf”, Al-Rafidan XI, 103-112. PALMER, A. 1990. Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier. Cambridge: C.U.P. PARRY, K. 1996. “Images in the Church of the East: The Evidence from Central Asia and China” in C. Coakley and K. Parry (eds.), “The Church of the East: Life and Thought”, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 78:3, 143-162. PAUTHIER, J. 1858. L’inscription Syro-chinoise de Si-ngan-fou, Monument Nestorien Élèvé en Chine l’An 781 de Notre Ère, et Découvert en 1625. Texte Chinois Accompagné de la Prononciation Figuré, d’Une Version Latine Verbale, d’Une Tra duction Française, ainsi que de Notes Philologiques et Historiques. Paris: Didot. PAUTHIER, J. 1857. De l’Authenticité de l’Inscription De Si-gnan-fou, Relative à l’Introduction de la Religion Chrétienne en Chine dès le Viie Siècle de Notre Ère Paris: Dupont. PAYNE SMITH, R. 1868-1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. PELLIOT, P. 1911. “Deux titres Bouddhiques Portés par des Religieux Nestoriens” T’oung-pao XII, 664-670. PELLIOT, P. 1913. “Encore a Propos du Nom de “Chine’” T’oung-Pao XIV, 427-428. PELLIOT, P. 1927a. “L’evêché Nestorian de Khumdan et Sarag”, T’oung Pao XXV, 91–92. PELLIOT, P. 1927b. ““šul” ou Sarag(?)”. Journal Asiatique CCXI (July-September), 138-141.

The Persian contribution to Christianity in China

85

PELLIOT, P. 1930. “Christianity in Central Asia in the Middle Ages”, Journal of the Central Asian Society XVII:3, 301-312. PELLIOT, P 1984. Recherches sur les Chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’Extrême-Orient, vol. 2,1. Paris: Èditions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac. PELLIOT, P.1996. L’Inscription Nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou. Edited with Supplements by Antonino Forte. Kyoto: Seuola di Studie sull’Asia Orientale. SAEKI, P.Y. 1937. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: The Toho Bunkwa Gakuin, The Academy of Oriental Culture, Yokyo Institute. SEGAL, J.B. 2000. Catalogue of Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the Brit ish Museum. London, British Museum Press. STANDAERT, N. ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 1 (635 – 1800) Leiden, Brill. TANG, Li 2004. A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and its Lit erature in Chinese Together With a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents. 2nd rev. ed. European University Studies. Series XXVII Asian and African Studies Vol. 87. Frankfurt: Lang. VÖÖBUS, A. 1958-1988. A History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, 3 vols. Louvain: Secrètariat du Corpus Scriptorum Orientalium Christianorum. YULE, H. ed. 1915. Cathay and the Way Thither, Being a Collection of Medieval No tices of China, vol. 1, 2nd ed. London: Hakluyt Society.

ZWEI NEU GEFUNDENE SYRISCHE GRABSTEINE AUS KYRGYZSTAN Wassilios KLEIN und Kuvatbek TABALDIEV

Mehrere hundert Grabsteininschriften aus Kyrgyzstan sind bereits seit langem bekannt und publiziert.1 Da seit mehr als 100 Jahren an den Stellen der einstigen christlichen Friedhöfe Landwirtschaft betrieben wird, ist die Hoffnung auf Neufunde gering. Beispielsweise lagen noch vor wenigen Jahren große Haufen von Steinen ohne Inschriften neben der Satellitenantenne von Kara-Džigač. Inzwischen wurden sie weggeschafft, um einige Quadratmeter mehr Ackerfläche zu gewinnen. Unter solchen Umständen sind spektakuläre Neufunde kaum zu erwarten. Allerdings passiert es doch hin und wieder, dass ein Grabstein gefunden wird, und in derselben Gegend findet sich auch schon mal ein kleines Bronzekreuz. So gelangten zwei Grabsteine in die Hand von Kuvatbek Tabal diev, so dass sie publiziert werden können.

Einer der beiden Grabsteine (siehe Abbildung links) stammt aus Kara-Džigač. Bei diesem Dorf einige Kilometer südöstlich der Hauptstadt Bishkek wurden in der Vergangenheit die meisten Grabsteine gefunden. Hier lag also der größte christliche Friedhof auf heute kirgisischem Boden. Der Stein wurde am Rande des Dorfes auf einem Acker gefunden, und zwar von einem Schüler namens D. Ukašev. Der Stein ist 22 cm breit und 28 cm hoch. Die Inschrift ist wie gewohnt um ein zentral angeordnetes Kreuz angeordnet. Das Kreuz ist gleichschenklig und hat einen dreieckigen Fuß, der mit der Spitze nach unten zeigt. 1

All 424.available informations in KLEIN 2000; for some new material cf. KLEIN – ROTT 2006, 403-

88

Wassilios Klein and Kuvatbek Tabaldiev

Der Text lautet folgendermaßen: oberhalb des Kreuzes: links des Kreuzes: rechts des Kreuzes:

H[] H /

Dies ist das Grab des Qutlug Arslan ’wnwly’ / Türsteher (?)

Es handelt sich also um eine sehr einfach aufgebaute Inschrift. Eine Datierung, sei es nach dem syrischen Kalender, sei es nach dem türkischen Tierjahr, fehlt. In der ersten Zeile ist der stereotype Anfang fast aller Inschriften nicht vollständig zu lesen. Sehr deutlich und klar ist der Name des Verstorbenen, Qutlug Arslan, geschrieben. Es handelt sich um einen turksprachigen Doppelnamen, der nach der Edition von Daniil Chwolson zweimal bezeugt ist.2 Der erste Buchstabe des Wortes Qutlug ist regelgerecht mit einem Sonderzeichen, das dem arabischen kaf ähnlich sieht, geschrieben. Lediglich die dritte Zeile rechts vom Kreuz macht Probleme. Dort steht ein Wort. Am Anfang könnte ein alaf stehen. Danach ist nicht klar, ob es sich um ein qofoder wau handelt, nach Eutings Schrifttafel eher ein wau,3 im Vergleich mit der ersten Zeile eher ein qof. Es folgen ein nun und wieder ein wau/qof, zwei weitere Buchstaben (lamadh und yodh) sowie am Ende ein alaf. Mir ist kein Wort bekannt, das dazu passen könnte. Lediglich zwei ähnliche Wörter finden sich. Es gibt das Wort , das „Eunuch“ bedeutet und interessanterweise synonym für verwendet wird. Letzteres Wort aber findet sich sehr häufig auf den Grabsteinen, und zwar im Anschluss an den Personennamen und häufig genug als letztes Wort der Inschrift. Auch auf dem hier vorgelegten Grabstein wäre es passend. Dass hier, und nur hier, das Synonym verwendet worden sein soll, noch dazu in erheblich falscher Schreibweise, die das Wort unkenntlich macht, ist allerdings unwahrscheinlich. Ein zweiter Vorschlag für die Lesung kommt auch nicht ohne Zusatzannahmen aus. Der Strich vor dem Wort, oben als alaf gedeutet, könnte auch schlicht nur ein Kratzer im Stein sein. Dann würde das Wort mit qof beginnen und könnte cancellarius (Türsteher) bedeuten. Dieses Amt ist aber ansonsten auf den Grabsteinen nicht belegt. Außerdem müsste man den vorletzten Buchstaben als resch lesen, wofür aber der diakritische Punkt fehlt. Diese Lesung könnte man noch rechtfertigen dadurch, dass das resch im zweiten Wort der Inschrift einen nur schwer erkennbaren diakritischen Punkt zeigt. Letztlich fehlt diesem Wort aber die nötige Eindeutigkeit. Die Kürze der Inschrift passt zu der dem Durchschnitt der anderen Grabsteine entsprechend nicht immer sorgfältigen und schlichten Ausführung. Der zweite Grabstein (Abbildung siehe unten) stammt aus Burana, dem kleineren Friedhof im Ču-Tal. Er wurde außerhalb der alten Stadtmauern des Grabungsplatzes auf einem Acker gefunden. Der heute Burana genannte Gra 2 3

CHWOLSON 1890, 152. Ibid., Anhang.

Zwei neu gefundene Grabsteine aus Kyrgyzstan

89

bungsplatz war einst die Residenzstadt Balasagun. Der Finder des Steins war der Wächter Alym Kylyčev. Das Kreuz auf diesem Grabstein ist in Flachrelieftechnik eingemeißelt. Am unteren Schenkel ist ein Handgriff mit abgebildet. Die Inschrift befindet sich links und rechts des Kreuzes. Wenn man damit rechnet, dass die Inschrift dem Standard folgt, könnte man sie wie folgt lesen: links des Kreuzes rechts des Kreuzes

oJcn rdl\ rClL

Dies ist das Grab des Jalda Tana.

Die Inschrift besteht aus vier Wörtern und bietet keine Datierung. Links des Kreuzes bilden sie keine saubere Zeile, eher schon zwei. Dennoch könnte man davon ausgehen, dass sie eine Zeile bilden sollen, weil die Wendung „Dies ist das Grab“ beinahe immer vorkommt. Für das erste Wort müsste man dann primitivste Schreibweise annehmen. Vor allem das zu erwartende he als erster Buchstabe sieht eher aus wie ein wau mit nachfolgendem heth-nun-pe. Aber dies könnte man der Ungeübtheit des Steinmetzen zuschreiben, der in Burana den Fundzahlen zufolge wenig zu tun hatte. Auch andere Grabsteine aus Burana sind von schlechter Qualität. Der männliche Name „Jalda“ ist als syrischer Name auf anderen Grabsteinen bezeugt.4 Das letzte Wort scheint gut lesbar. Am sinnvollsten erscheint die Interpretati on als Zweitname, wenn man der Lesung teth-nun-alaf folgen will. Auch auf ande ren Grabsteinen, nicht zuletzt auf unserem oben vorgestellten ersten Beispiel, finden sich Doppelnamen. Der Name „Tana“, wie er wohl zu vokalisieren wäre, steht in nichtwissenschaftlichen islamischen Namenlisten, die leider jede Herkunftsangabe vermissen lassen. In einer Liste wird er als weiblicher Vorname geboten und soll „Dankbarkeit“ bedeuten.5 Ein Frauenname ist für unseren Grabstein aber unsinnig. In einer anderen Liste findet sich die Form „Dana“, die entweder – im Hebräischen – als Kurzform des Prophetennamens Daniel Verwendung findet oder – als islamischer Männername – „weise, intelligent“ bedeuten soll.6 Im modernen Kirgisisch wird Dana als Adjektiv verwendet in der Bedeutung „der Beste“, auch als Ad4 5 6

Ibid. 133. arabic.net.ua (February 10, 2007). http://www.my-baby-names.com/baby_names/dana_origin_and_meaning.html (July 25, 2007).

90

Wassilios Klein and Kuvatbek Tabaldiev

verb (treffend wiedergegeben mit „super“). In dem Frauennamen Danagül bzw. Güldana wird das Wort so verstanden. Leider lässt sich nichts davon in gängigen Wörterbüchern verifizieren, auch nicht in Wörterbüchern des Arabischen, Alttürkischen, Syrischen oder Persischen. Auch waren die Autoren der Grabsteine in der Regel in der Lage, teth und dalath voneinander zu unterscheiden. Hilfe bietet hier nur das Onomasticon Turcicum mit Zeugnissen ab dem 18. Jahrhundert für die Verwendung von Tana auch als Männername im kasachischen Raum.7 So möchten wir der Deutung des Wortes als Personenname den Vorzug geben. Der Name „Tana“ wäre dann auf einem Grabstein in Kyrgyzstan erstmals hier zu finden.

Zusammenfassend ist festzuhalten, dass Datierungen leider fehlen, und die Namen der beiden verstorbenen Männer sind bereits von anderen Grabsteinen bekannt. Dennoch ist jeder neue Fund ein neuer Mosaikstein und zu begrüßen. In diesem Fall ist besonders interessant, dass die Möglichkeit besteht, dass der Verstorbene aus Burana ein Apostat gewesen ist und nichtsdestoweniger einen christlichen Grabstein bekommen hat.

Bibliographie KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Silk Road Studies 3. Turnhout: Brepols. KLEIN, Wassilios und Philipp G. ROTT. 2006. “Einige problematische Funde von der Seidenstraße, Novopokrovka IV und V, Issyk-Kuľ-Gebiet, Chotan”, in Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, ed. by Roman Malek in con nection with Peter Hofrichter, Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 403424. CHWOLSON D. 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie” in Mémoires de l´Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Péterbourg, VIIe série, tome XXXVII, No. 8. St. Petersbourg. RÁSONYI László and Imre BASKI. 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum : Turkic personal names, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic series vol. 172. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University.

7

RÁSONYI – BASKI 2007, 707 f.

THE DISCOVERY OF NESTORIAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM ALMALIQ, XINJIANG, CHINA LI Chonglin and NIU Ruji Xinjiang Agriculture University and Xinjiang University, China

Two scholars are very important for the discovery of Nestorian inscriptions in Almaliq, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China. One is N. N. Pantusov (1849-1909) from Russia, the other is Chinese archeologist Huang Wenbi (1893-1966). There were more than 630 Nestorian tombstones with inscriptions in Syriac and Turkic found in two graveyards in Semirechie1 of Central Asia at the end of the 19th century. N. N. Pantusov, who was one of the pioneers in that dis covery was as an official of the Province of Seven-Rivers visited Semirechie and Almaliq during the period from 1883 to 1908. He was of the opinion that in one graveyard near Pishpek alone, which had the size of 256 m x 128 m, about 3000 people must have been buried. Not far from Semirechie towards the east, passing through the boundary between Kazakhstan and China, lies the ruined city Almaliq in Huocheng County, Xinjiang. In May 1902, Mr. Pantusov who played such a prominent part in the excava tion of the Tokmak and Pishpek cemeteries, discovered another cemetery at Mazar at the site of the ancient city of Almaliq, the residence of the Chagatay Khans during the 13th-14th centuries, about 100 miles to the Northeast of Tokmak.2 Mr. Pantusov was appointed one of the Russian representatives on a joint Russo-Chinese judiciary commission, which met on Chinese territory to settle claims and disputes that had arisen amongst the tribes inhabiting the fron tier region. The commission began its sessions on May 1, 1902 and continued daily without a break until May 19th, which happened to be the birthday of Chi-darin (迟大人?), the head of the Chinese delegation. The weary officials seized the excuse for a day’s rest and made an excursion to the near-by village Mazar. In one evening, an elder of Yining, who accompanied the party, pre sented, to the secretary of the Russian consul of Yining and another Russian representative on the commission, a broken gravestone and some coins. The 1

2

See CHWOLSON 1886, CHWOLSON 1890, CHWOLSON 1897, 1-62, pl. IV; KOKOVZOFF 1905, 190-200. KOKOVZOFF 1909, 773-796, pl. I; NAU 1913, 1-35, 325-327; SAEKI 1938, 796-888. DŽUMAGULOV 1971; KLEIN 2000; DESREUMAUX 2000, 58-73. THACHER 1967, 94-106. Most of the information about PANTUSOV which we mention in our paper was quoted from Thacher’s article.

92

Li Chonglin and Niu Ruij

next morning the secretary showed these objects to Mr. Pantusov. A cross to gether with an inscription in Syriac werer inscribed on the stone. Mr. Pantusov ascertained that the elder had acquired the stone and the coins from Moham med Yusuf, the muezzin of the mosque at Mazar, and that he had found them amongst the ruins to the west of Mazar. On May 26th, however, the muezzin brought Mr. Pantusov a whole stone and afterwards more stones of such type were found by various people.3

Mausoleum of Tughluq Timur Khan (1359-1363), located in Qorgas where the ancient city of Almaliq was, near the border with Kazakhstan, It was ostensibly built in 1363 upon the death of Tughluq Temür Khan, the last descendant of Genghis Khan in the Chagatayid line.

During the time between 1902 and 1903, Mr. Pantusov sent the originals of 11 grave-stones to the Imperial Archaeological Commission (Russia). In 1906, they were published by Professor P. Kokovtsov, the Semitist based in St. Pe tersburg.4 The script of the inscription and the language of all the inscriptions are Syriac, except one inscription, which is written in Turkic. In style and con tent they are similar to those from the gravestone inscriptions in Tokmak and Pishpek. The workmanship is of better quality than the Tokmak and Pishpek stones. In 1904, the Asiatic Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences re ceived a collection of 10 gravestones, which had been sent by the Russian Con sul in Yining. However, the Consul gave neither indication of where they were found nor any details of the circumstance in which they were discovered. The fact that they were sent from Yining strongly suggests that they came from the same site as those discovered by Mr. Pantusov in 1902, i.e. from Almaliq. The crosses of most stones are on stepped bases, similar to those found in Almaliq. Only one of the stones is dated whose inscription reads: This bears the date A.D. 1301. It had two angels carved on both sides of the cross, which is thus of 3

4

See PANTUSOV 1902, 52-54. On page 55, there is a report by Lieutenant-Colonel of the Gen eral Staff Fedorov on the finding of two stones at the Almalyk site in November, 1902. KOKOVZOFF 1906, 0190-0200.

Discovery of Nestorian Inscriptions in Almaliq

93

exceptional interest. This group of stones was published by Kokovtsov5 in 1907 and some were restudied by Wassilios Klein.6

Sarysftagh; (Sayshagan)

rTaldvkofi ZHAMBVL langalas harulas) Tarar

shu {Sh

Map of Semirechie (between the Lake Balkhash and Issik ) and Almaliq

This one remarkable stone from Almaliq found by N. N. Pantusov, is the gravestone of one ‘exegete Nestorius’, dated to AD 1301/1302. It has a Nes torian cross on a stylized lotus flower, flanked by two angels of Chinese ap pearance in long flowing robes. The flower was placed on an altar which is reminiscent of those Zoroastrian fire altars found in Sogdiana.

Gravestone from Almaliq (Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg)

5

KOKOVZOFF 1907, 427-458.

Li Chonglin and Niu Ruij

94

Reproduction of the Inscription and Transliteration 1. bšnt ’tryg ’lksnd 2. rws ‛nd wnpq mn ‛lm’ 3. hn’ ns ṭ wrys 4. mpšqn’ ’ksgys ṭ’ 5. br kry’ br ymyn’

dnskla gYrtA tyvB .1 æmlC ~M qpnW dnc swR .2 sYrwisN anH .3 aisygskA anqvpM .4 AnymY rB aYrK rB .5

Translation In the year of 1613 of Alexander [i.e. 1301/1302 C.E.] there went away and departed from this world Nesrtorius. Interpreter-Exegete, the son of blessed Karia. The form of the Nestorian cross on a stylized lotus flower based on an altar was also seen in Nestorian relics from Shizhuziliang 石柱子梁 in Inner Mongolia.

Nestorian tombstone from Inner Mongolia (cf. P. Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, Tokyo 1937,427)

A total of 568 inscribed gravestones from Tokmak and Pishpek were published by Chwolson, which represents the greater part of all those found gravestoens. Few of them are without inscriptions and all are engraved with a cross. Thirty or more inscriptions were composed wholly or in part in Turkic written in Syriac script. One stone was inscribed partly in Syriac and partly in Armenian.7 There are a great number of Christian tombstones, stemming between the 9th and the 14th Century. The oldest date found on the tombstones is AD 825, fol lowed by those of 911 and 1201. The latest is A.D. 1367/1368. Two systems of dating are employed: the Seleucid8 and the 12 animal-cycle9 systems. Most in scriptions used both datings.

6 7

8

9

KLEIN 1994, 432. MARR 1894, 344-349. The Syrian portion of the inscription reads „This is the grave of John, the Armenian bishop“; the Armenian portion reads „Christ Jesus, Lord God. His Eminence John, the Armenian Bishop. (This) monument was inscribed in 722 according to the Armenian reckoning“. The Seleucid system takes as its starting point the first year of the reign of Seleucus I. the founder of the Syrian monarchy in 312 B.C. The animal-cycle system, used by the Chinese, Mongols, Turks and other East Asiatic peoples, is a twelve-year cycle in which each year is given the name of an animal. The order of the cy

Discovery of Nestorian Inscriptions in Almaliq

95

Of interest is the fact that the Christians of Semirechie were buried together with the Christians from other areas in Asia, including India and China. At least seven inscriptions had the name Almaliq10. One woman was described as ‘Tarim the Chinese’. A priest was called ‘Banus the Uighurian’ and a layman ‘Sazik the Indian’. Furthermore there are references in the tombstone inscrip tions that people who were buried here came not only from the vicinity, but also from other areas, including East and West Turkestan, Mongolia, Manchu ria, Siberia and Persia.11 The inscriptions, though brief, shed light on the Nes torian Turkic communities with their international contacts in the area south of Lake Balkash, thus giving evidence of a vivid Christian life in one corner of Central Asia.12 Almaliq was the residence of the Turkic Chagatai rulers in the 13th and 14th centuries. It was at this time an important centre of Nestorianism since it had a metropolitan status in the Nestorian Church.13 Most of the gravestone inscrip tions from Almaliq were written in Syriac, but Turkic epitaphs were also found.14 In recent times, further such gravestones have been discovered in the area by Chinese archaeologists. West of Almaliq, in the region of Lake Issik-Köl, mainly in the city of Navekath, similar gravestones were also discovered. Of the tombstones found in this area, now part of metropolitan of Kirgizia, about 15% bear Turkic in scriptions, the rest have Syriac ones. The oldest ones are in Syriac alone, then followed, chronologically, by those in Syriac and Turkic, and finally by those in Turkic only. This indicates a marked tendency toward indigenization, which becomes more apparent as we look further to the East. Though some Turks borne Syriac names, the majority had Turkic names.15 During the period from April 1957 to August 1958, Huang wenbi, a professor of the Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Science, took an archaeological survey of Xinjiang. He investigated the District of Ili including Almaliq. Huang collected three Nestorian tombstones with Cross and Syriac script in the ancient city of Almaliq.16 Now, they are preserved in National Mu seum of China. After Huang, Chinese archaeologists found or collected several more tomb stones from Almaliq. Now they are preserved in the office of Cultural relic in

cle is Mouse, Ox, Tiger, Hare, Dragon, Serpent, Horse, Sheep, Ape, Hen, Dog, Pig. On the animal-cycle system of dating among the Turkic people see Chavannes, 1906, 51-122. 10 NIU 2003, 105. 11 Cf. MINGANA 1925, 335; STEWART 1979, 206f. 12 For a more comprehensive evaluation of the Semirechie inscriptions cf. STEWART 1979, 198213. 13 HAGE 1978a, 372. 14 DŽUMAGULOV 1968, 473. 15 GILLMAN – KLIMKEIT 1999, 230-232. 16 HUANG 1983, 14~17, pl. 6, 7, 8.

96

Li Chonglin and Niu Ruij

Huocheng County, in the Museum of Ili Region as well as in Xinjiang Mu seum. There were more than ten Nestorian inscriptions in Syriac or Turkic with the Cross or the Cross above lotus found at the Almaliq ruined site during the 1950s and the 1990s. Twenty-three inscriptions in Syriac were found in Al maliq by Russian scholars during 1902-190317.

Example I:

Tombstone with Syriac inscription found in Almaliq 1985 size: 24 x 19 cm (Photo: Niu Ruji).

Reproduction of the inscription and transliteration 1. ‛nd wnfq mn ‛lm’ hn’ 2. gywrgys mhymn’ bšnt 3. ’tr‛z

ænH æmlC ~M ‡pN› ∂nC .1 †nvB ænmYÌM ÒyG¤‹yG .2 ÂC¤™Æ .3

Transcription: 1. ānad wanfaq men ālmā hānā 2. giwārgis mehaimenā bašnat 3. ātrāz Translation Died and departed from the world, the faithful George, in the year of 1677 (= 1365 or 1366 A. D.).

Example II Reproduction of the inscription and transliteration: 1. kwzms mhymn’

17

ænMYÌM ÒMÅ‹K .1

KOKOWZOFF 1905b., 197. KOKOWZOFF 1907b., 427. KOKOWZOFF 1909, 777.

Discovery of Nestorian Inscriptions in Almaliq

2. br yw‛č’š 3. ’rkydyqwn

97

√ÆÏCwY ®B .2 ıwqYdyKRA .3

Tombstone with Syriac inscription found in Almaliq (Photo: Niu Ruji, July 1999)

Transcription 1. kuzmas mehaymenā 2. bar yoičaš 3. arkidiaqon Translation The faithful, Quzmas, son of archdeacon Yoičaš.

Example III

Tomb stone with Syriac inscription found in Almaliq (Photo: Zhu Qianzhi, Zhongguo jingjiao中国景教 (Nestorianism in China, Peking: Oriental Press 1983,25.

Transliteration, reproduction of the inscription, transcription, translation 1. ’lyšb‛ 2. ṭlyt’

©bvyLA .1 AtylI .2

elišbā ṭelaytā

Elisabeth young girl.

Li Chonglin and Niu Ruij

98

Bibliography CHAVANNES, É. 1906. “Le cycle turc des douze animaux“ in T’oung pao. IIe serie , vol. vii, 51-122 CHWOLSON, D. 1886. Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetshi. Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Péterbourg, VIIe Série. Tome XXXIV, No. 4. St. Petersburg. CHWOLSON, D. 1890. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semiretschie, Nebst einer Beilage: Über das türkische Sprachmaterial dieser Grabinschriften von W. Radloff, mit drei phototypischen Tafeln und einer ebensolchen, von Julius Euting ausgearbeiteten Schrifttafel, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, Tome XXXVII, No. 8. St.-Pétersbourg. CHWOLSON, D. 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semiretschie. Neue Folge. Vorgelegt der Akademie am 28. Februar 1896. St.-Péterbourg l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Péterbourg. DESREUMAUX, A. 2000. “Stèles Syriaques Nestoriennes” in Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lonnais, N. 2-3. 58-73. DZUMAGULOV, C. 1971. Yazik Syro-Türkskyx (Nestoryanskyx) Pamiyatnykov Kyrgyzyy, Frynze. GILLMAN, Ian - Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Rich mond (Surrey), Curzon Press/ Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. HUANG Wenbi 黄文弼 .1983. Xinjiang kaogu fajue baogao 新疆考古发掘报告 [Re port on An Archaeological Tour of Xinjiang]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1994. “Christliche Reliefgrabsteine des 14. Jahrhunderts von der Seidenstraβe” in René Lavenant (ed.), Acta des Vierten Symposium Syriacum 1992, Roma : Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247, 419-442. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das Nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Silk Road Studies III. Turnhout, Brepols. KOKOVZOFF, P. K., 1905, “Pierres tombales chrétiennes en Syriaque trouvées à Almalik” in Les Mémoires de la Société archéol., sectin orientale (en russe), Tome XVI, St-Péterbourg. 190-200. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1905b. “Christlich-syrische Grabinschriften aus Almalik” in Mémoi res de la Société archéologique. Section orientale, Tome XVI, St. Pétersbourg. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1906. “Khristiansko-siriiskiya nadgrobnyya nadpisi iz Almalyka” in Zapiski VORAO, vol. xvi. 0190-0200. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1907. ‘Neskol’ke novykh nadgrobnykh kamnei s khristianskosiriiskimi nadpisyami iz Srednei Azii in Izvestiya AN, VIth series, vol. I. 427-458. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1907b. “Quelques nouvelles pierres tombales de l’Asie Centrale” in Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences, St. Pétersbourg. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1909. “Sur l’épigraphie syro-turque” in Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences (en russe). 773-796. MARR, N. 1894. “Nadgrobniy Kamen’ iz Semirechyia, s armyansko-siriiskoi nadpis’yu 1323 g.” in Zapiski VORAO, vol. viii. 344-349. NAU, F. 1913. “Les Pierres Tonbales Nestoriennes du Musée Guimet” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 18. 1-35 ; 325-327. NIU Ruji. 2003. Inscriptions et manuscrits Nestoriens en écriture Syriaque découverts en Chine (Xiiie-Xive Siècles). Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Section des Scien ces Historiques et Philologiques (Thèse de Doctorat).

Discovery of Nestorian Inscriptions in Almaliq

99

PANTUSOV N. 1902. “Nadgrobnye khristianskie pamyatniki v Almalyke” in Protokoly TKlA, 7th year. SAEKI, P. Y. 佐伯好郎 .1938. 景教の研究 [Research on Jingjiao]. Institute of Oriental Culture 东方文化学院研究所. 796-888. THACHER, T. W. 1967. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia” in Durham Uni versity Journal, March. 94-106.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE NESTORIAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM SEMIRECHIE, INNER MONGOLIA AND QUANZHOU NIU Ruji Xinjiang University, China

There is a general similarity among the Syro-Turkic Nestorian inscriptions from Semirechie, Inner Mongolia and Quanzhou, even though these three places are far away each other. For example, this similarity is seen in the in scription structure, the Syro-Turkic language, the Cross, etc. Of course, there are differences among them as well. The following is a comparative study of some of these inscriptions. There were more than 630 Nestorian tombstones with inscriptions in Syriac and Turkic found in two graveyards in Semirechie1 of Central Asia at the end of the 19th century. Thirty or more inscriptions are composed wholly or in part in Turkic written in Syriac script. One inscription was from Semirechie and published by P. K. Kokovzoff. My reading of some the words differs with that of Kokovzoff.

Tombstone from Semirechie:

Inscription found in Semirechie, quoted from P.K.Kokovzoff 1909, N° 2, pp.788-796, pl.1.

Reproduction of the inscription：：：：

1

See CHWOLSON 1886, 1890, 1897; KOKOVZOFF 1905,. 190-200. KOKOVZOFF 1909, 773-796, I pl ; NAU, F 1913, 1-35, 325-327 ; SAEKI佐黄和佐1938, 796-888; DŽUMAGULOV 1971; KLEIN – DESREUMAUX 2000, 58-73.

Niu Ruji

102

swpyLyP klklaP æyNWdyQaM .1 ÚvykæS ıæK ÒWRdnskLA ÚlK‹A .2 jnykYA kryK zWA ÚilA finyM lyY .3 zwiwA zwkwI gnyN yrU yrvT adnylyY .4 ıywK jnyvyP gnyN atdcYdwA .5 gnyN auyvyM amylc dmvwY wP .6 ydrwiywP ~ykylraY .7 vykaS JækBæI gnyN ylyY qwA aymY .8 drwirA iWzywA ydrA lyY dnwY .9 ıymA ıwslwP daY .10 Translitteration and Transcription: 1. m’qydwny’ yqpylypws 2. ’wkly ’lksndrws k’n s’kyšy 3. yyl myng ’lṭy ywz k’rk ’yknč 4. yylynd’ tšry ḥry nyng ṭwkwz ’wtwz 5. ’wdy‛dt’ nyng pyšynč kwyn 6. pw ywšmd ‛lym’ myšyḥ’ nyng 7. y’rlykynpwṭwrdy 8. ymy’ ’wq2 yyly nyng ṭ’bg’č3 s’kyš4 9. ywnd5 yyl ’rdy6 ’wyzw ṭ ’r ṭwrdy 10. y’d pwlswn ’myn

1. maqadonya-ïq pilipus 2. oγlï alqsandros qan saqïšï 3. yïl mïng altï yüz qïrq ikinč 4. yïlïnda tešri-ḥrāi-nïng toquz otuz 5. oday-edta-nïng bišinč kün 6. bu yušmed elaymā mešiḥa-nïng 7. yarlïγïn bütürdi 8. ymä oq yïlï-nïng tabγač saqïš 9. yond yïl ärdi özüt ärtürdi 10. yad bolsun amen

Translation: “In the year one thousand six hundred and forty ( = 1330 A. D.) according to the computation of Emperor Alexander, son of Emperor Philip of Macedonia, in November, on the 29th, the fifth day of preying, the young man Yušmed ful filled the will of the Messiah. And still in the year house according to the Chi nese computation, his soul took rest. Let there be commemoration, Amen!”

Commentary: 4.2-3 tešri-rāi = tešrin-Írāi, the name in Syriac for “Novemnber”. In Syriac the names of twelve months are: 2 3 4 5 6

Kokovzof: yämäyä ... Kokovzof: ṭonguz “pig” Kokovzof: ärdi “was”. Kokovzof: qoy “sheep”. Kokovzof: yïlda “in the year”.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

103

Tešrīn qedīm : October; Tešrīn rāi : November; Kānūn qedīm : December ; Kānūn rāi : January ; Šebāt : February ; Ādār : March; Nīsān : April; Iyyār: May ; ezīrān: June; Tāmmūz :July; Āb : August ; Īlul September. So, 22 Ādār 1611 is on the 22nd of March, 1300 (A.D.); on 25 Kānūn qedīm 1611 is on the 25th of December 1299 (A.D.)7. In this inscription: the 29 Tešrīn rāi 1642 is on the 29th of November, 1330. 5.2 / ‛d/ed, “time”, cf. CSD, p.400; Ht’/ta, “in”. 6.2 / ywšmd / yušmed, person name. 6.3 amylc ‛lym’/elaymā, “young, youngster”, cf. CSD, p.414. P. Kokovzoff reads this word like a person name. 6.4 /myšy’/mešia, « Messiah Christ ». 8.1-2 /ym’ ’wq / ymä oq, “still, in addition”, cf. EDPT, pp.76, 934. P. Kokovzoff read yämäyä (oq) “to confess”. 8.4-5 / ṭ’βk’č s’kyš / tabγač saqïš “Chinese reckoning”, P. Kokovzoff read: tonguzärdi “was (the year) of pig”. 9.1 /ywnd / yond = yont, “house”, P. Kokovzoff read: qoy “sheep”. But the year of sheep does not correspond to the year 1331, so it is not correct. 9.3 GH /’rdy/ärdi “was”, P. Kokovzoff read: yilda “in year”. 9.4-5 GHH G/’wyzwṭ ’rṭwrdy / özüt ärtürdi “his soul took rest”.

Tombstone from Inner Mongolia:

££=Ql

In Inner Mongolia, the archaeologists of Inner Mongolia investigated the ruined city of Olun Sum in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively and found two bigger Nestorian tablets and other tombstones8. One of bigger tablets was broken into two parts. Thirteen lines of Syriac inscrip tion remained. The following is my reading of this inscription. Nestorian inscription in Syriac script in Syro-Uyghur found in Olun-Sume. Photographed by Gai Shanlin, 1992, 159.

My reading of the Syriac Script: æVd‹QD æU›RW ÆrBW æBA µvB .1 ÚlK‹A ıaK spyLyP klklaP æyNWdqM .2 finyM ÚvykæS ıæK fiYlYA ÒWRdnskLA .3 7 8

Cf. BAZIN 1991, 414. See GAI 盖焦香1991, 96~97; and NIU牛牛牛2003, 151~155.

Niu Ruji

104

JækBæI ainylyY ykYA zWA ÚilA .4 jNwnwA lyY sraP ÚvykæS .5 //////aiygnaY yiyY yA .6 /////// ~ygaI/////// .7 ainyvaYjywA zwiwA///// .8 iaY ydrwiywP ~ykylraY yrgnT .9 wgnM yiWzywA ıwslwP .10 ianrwA aikamyivwA .11 ıymAW ıymA wzlwP ykaM .12

Translitteration and Transcription: 1. bšm ’b’ wbr’ wrw’ dqwdš’

1. bšem aba webrā werūā deqūdšā

2. mqdwny’ p’lk lk k’n’wkly

2. maqadonya balïq-lïq pilipus qan oγl-ï

3. ’lksndrws k’n s’kyšy myng

3. alaqsandros qan saqïšï mïng

4. ’lṭy ywz ’yky yylynṭ’ ṭ’bk’c

4. altï yüz iki yïl-ïn-ta tabγač

5. s’kyšy p’rs yyl ’wnwnc

5. saqïšï bars yïl onunč

6. ’y yy ṭ y y’ngy ṭ’ //////

6. ay yiti yangï-ta //////

7. ////// ṭ’gyn //////

7. ////// tägin //////

8. //// ’wṭwz ’wyc y’šyn ṭ’

8. ////// otuz üč yašinta

9. tngry y’rlykyn pwy ṭ wrdy y’ ṭ

9. tängri yarlïq-ïn bütürdi yat

10. pwlswn ’wyzw ṭ y mngw

10. bolsun özüti mängü

11. ’wš ṭym’k ṭ’ ’wrn’ ṭ

11. uštimaq-ta ornat

12. m’ky pwlzw ’myn w ’myn

12. -maq-ï bolzu(n) amen wamen

Translation: (In Syriac) In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (In Uyghur) In the year one thousand six hundred and two ( = 1290 A. D) ac cording to the computation of Emperor Alexander, son of Emperor Philip of the town of Macedonia, and in the year of sheep according to the Chinese computation, the Tiger year, the twelfth month, the seventh day...... Tägin......at the age of thirty-three, (he)fulfilled the will of God. Let here be commemorated! May his soul take rest in the eternal paradise! Amen and Amen!

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

105

Tombstone from Quanzhou: Now at from which an let Quanzhou, was inscription usfound look

.* vA

'>! * )

■ W4.WJ

in 1980s.9

Wmmmm Tombstone with In scription in Syriac script. Photographed by Yang Qinzhang .

My reading of the Syriac Script: abA µvB .1 awrW arbW .2 ~mlyL avdqD .3 xylaP aynwdqM .4 swpylyP xyl .5 ylx wA ıax .6 ıax swrdnsxlA .7 lyY yvyxaS .8 zwY yilA gnyM .9 ainylyY zwiwA .10 lyY ywK yvxaS krwI .11 aizkaS yA jnwnwA .12 sygrwyG avaQ .13 xylraY gnynauvyM .14 ydrwiywP ıy .15 wgnaM yiwzywA .16 adxamyivwA .17 daY ydrwirA .18 ımA ıWslwP .19

Transliteration and Transcription: 1. bšm ’b’ 2. wbr’ wrw’ 3. dqdš’ lylm’n 9

NIU 2004, 59-60, pl. 6.

1. bšemaba 2. webrā werūa 3. deqūdšā lalmin

Niu Ruji

106

4. mqdwny’ p’lyq 5. -lyqpylypws 6. k’n ’wkly 7. ’lksndrws k’n 8. s’qyšy yyl 9. myng ’l ṭ y ywz 10. ’w ṭ wz yylyn ṭ’ 11. ṭ wrk s’qyšy kwy yyl 12. ’wnwnc ’y s’kyz ṭ’ 13. q’š’ gywrgys 14. myš’-nyng y’rlyk 15. -ynpwy ṭ wrdy 16. ’wyzwty m’ngw 17. ’wštym’kd’ 18. ’r ṭ wrdy y’d 19. pwlswn ’mn

4. maqadonya balïq 5. -lïqpilipus 6. qan oγl-ï 7. alaqsandros qan 8. saqïšï yïl 9. mïng altï yüz 10. otuz yïlïn-ta 11. türk saqïšï qoy yïl 12. onunčï ay säkiz-tä 13. qaša10 giwārgis 14. mešia-nïng yarlïq 15. -ïn bütürdi 16. özüt-i mängü 17. uštïmaq-da 18. ärtürdi yat 19. bolsun amen

Translation: “(In Syriac) In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. (In Uyghur) In the year one thousand six hundred and thirty (= 1318 A. D.) according to the computation of Emperor Alexander, son of Em peror Philip of the town of Macedonia, in the year of sheep according to the Turkic computation, in the tenth month, on the eighth day, the priest George fulfilled the will of the Messiah. May his soul take rest in the paradise! May people commemorate him! Amen!” The inscriptions from Semirechie, Inner Mongolia and Quanzhou have shown that there were some ethnic and religious relationships between them, and also show us the following information: 1. The Inscriptions were written with the same script: Syriac letters in Estrangelo form, and in the same Turkic language or Syro-Turkic languages. 2. Almost all have a Cross or a Cross above lotus inscribed on the tombstones. 3. The inscription structure was almost the same: a. With or without Syriac words: “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and the Holly Spirit”; b. The Seleucid year according to the computation of Emperor Alexander (in some inscriptions, the sentence “the son of the Emperor Philip, native of the town of Macedonia” was also mentioned) ; 10

avaQ/qaša = avyvQ qašiša “priest”.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

107

c. The Turkic or Chinese computation in the animal-cycle of 12 years system; d. The person who died fulfilled the will of the Messiah or the God (in some inscriptions also mentioned the age of the person when he or she died); e. May soul of the person who died be in Paradise; f. Let there be commemoration, amen!

Bibliography CHWOLSON, Daniil. 1886. Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Péterbourg, VIIe Série. Tome XXXIV, No. 4. St. Petersburg. CHWOLSON, Daniil. 1890. Syrisch nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie, Nebst einer Beilage: Über das türkische Sprachmaterial dieser Grabinschriften von W. Radloff, mit drei phototypischen Tafeln und einer ebensolchen, von Julius Euting ausgearbeiteten Schrifttafel. Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Scien ces de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, Tome XXXVII, No. 8. St.-Pétersbourg. CHWOLSON, Daniil. 1897. Syrisch nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semiretschie. Neue Folge. Vorgelegt der Akademie am 28. Februar 1896. l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Péterbourg, St.-Péterbourg. 1-62. DESREUMAUX, Alain. 2000. “Stèles Syriaques Nestoriennes” in Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lonnais N. 2-3. 58-73. DZUMAGULOV, C. 1971. Yazik Syro-Türkskyx (Nestoryanskyx) Pamiyatnykov Kyrgyzyy, Frynze. HAMILTON, James and NIU Ruji. 1994. “Deux Inscriptions Funéraires Turques Nes toriennes de la Chine Orientale,” Journal Asiatique 282 (1994), 147-164. HUANG, Wenbi 黄文弼. 1983: Xinjiang kaogu fajue baogao 新疆考古发掘报告 An Archaeological Tour of Xinjiang, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe 文物出版社Cultural Relic Press. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1994. “Christliche Reliefgrabsteine des 14. Jahrhunderts von der Seidenstraβe” in René Lavenant (ed.), Acta des VIten Symposium Syriacum 1992. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247. Roma: Pontificio Instituto Orientale. 419-442. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das Nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Silk Road Studies III. Turnhaut: Bropols. KOKOVZOFF, P. K. 1905. “Pierres tombales chrétiennes en qyriaque trouvées à Almalik” in Mémoires de la Société Archéologique Section Orientale (in Russian), Tome XVI. St-Péterbourg, 190-200. KOKOVZOFF, P. K.1909. “Sur l’Epigraphie Syro-Turque” in Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences (in Russian). 773-796. KOKOVZOFF, P.K. 1906. “Khristiansko-siriiskiya nadgrobnyya nadpisi iz Almalyka” in Zapiski VORAO, vol. xvi (1906), 0190-0200. KOKOVZOFF, P. K.: “Neskol’ke novykh nadgrobnykh kamnei s khristianskosiriiskimi nadpisyami iz Srednei Azii” in Izvestiya AN, VIth series, vol. I (1907): 427-458. LUO, Xianglin罗香林 1966. “Nestorianism under the Tang and the Yuan” 唐元二代之景教 Hong Kong: Zhongguo Xueshe, 1966. (香港中国学社出版). MOULE, A. C. 1930. Christians in China before the Year 1550, London, New York and Toronto, SPCK.

108

Niu Ruji

PANTUSOV, N.N. 1902. “Nadgrobnye khristianskie pamyatniki v Almalyke” in Protokoly TKlA. 52-54. NAU, F. 1913. “Les pierres tonbales nestoriennes du Musée Guimet” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 18. 1-35, 325-327. NIU, Ruji牛汝极 1999. “A Study on a Nestorian Inscription in Uighur and Syriac script Found in Quanzhou” in Minzu yuwen 民族语文 No.3. Beijing. 33-34. NIU, Ruji. 2004. “A New Syriac Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou, Fujian Province),” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 (2004), 60- 65. SAEKI, P. Y. 佐伯好郎. 1938. Recherche on Nestorianism景教の研究, Institute of Oriental Culture 东方文化学院研究所 796-888. SUNDERMANN, Werner. 1995. “Soghdisch * xwšt’a(n)č, ‘Lehrerin’ ”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, t. 48, (1995), 225-227. THACHER, T. W. 1967. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia” in Durham Uni versity Journal, March (1967), 94-106. WU, Wenliang吴文良. 1958 Quanzhou zongjiao shike 泉州宗教石刻, [Religious In scriptions in Quanzhou ]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1958.

A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON THE JINGJIAO INSCRIPTION OF LUOYANG: TEXT ANALYSIS, COMMENTARY AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION Li TANG University of Salzburg, Austria

I. Introduction and Description A new East Syrian (“Nestorian”1) inscription was unearthed in Luoyang, Henan Province, China in May, 2006. Since the discovery of the celebrated “Nes torian Stele of Xi’anfu” in the 1620s, the Luoyang Inscription has been the sec ond most significant “Nestorian” inscription unearthed in China, which yields more evidence of the spread of early Christianity in Tang-China (A.D. 618907). The inscription of Luoyang is in Chinese and was engraved on an oc tagonal spiritual pillar, which resembles a Buddhist dhārāṇi pillar 經幢, a type of Buddhist sculpture highly popular during the Tang Dynasty. This type of Buddhist pillar was normally engraved with an image of the Buddha or with Buddhist sūtras, predominantly the Dharani (dhārāṇi) sūtras. The lower part of the Luoyang pillar was unfortunately destroyed and seems to have been cut away with a stone cutting machine. The remaining body is about 85 cm high and 14 cm wide. The remnant height of the broken sides ranges from 60 to 85 centimetres. There are six iconographic expressions (depicting four angels and two crosses) on top of the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh side of the pillar. Each depiction is about 13.3 -14.2 cm high and 12.8-15 cm wide. On the third side, a (“Nestorian”) cross was engraved in the middle with flowery pat terns around it. On each side of the cross, i.e., on the first and the third sides of the pillar, a flying angel was portrayed respectively, each facing the cross. On top of the sixth side, another cross was carved. Similarly, there is a flying angel on each side of the cross, i.e., on the fifth and the seventh sides. The angle on the fifth side seems to carry in his hand a live coal with smoke going up in the air; and the angel on the seventh side holds a lotus flower.

1

The author is aware of the controversy over the term “Nestorian”, but has decided to keep the term in quotation mark in some places, as the academic world is gradually adjusting itself to the term “East Syrian/East Syriac”. There is no theological bias involved.

110

Li Tang

II. The Inscription There are six vertical lines of Chinese characters on Sides 1-7 and four lines on Side 8. The inscription starts with a praise in a Trisagion form, i.e. “Holy ’Alāhā, Holy Mighty (One), Holy [Immortal].” The content of the inscription is divided into two parts: the first part from Side 2-5 bears the title “The Sūtras (Teaching) on the Origin of Origins of the Daqin Luminous Religion (Jingjiao)” 大秦景教宣元至本經 and the second part from Side 5-8 is entitled “The Stone Pillar Account of the Sūtra (Teaching) on the Origin of Origins of the Daqin Luminous Religion”大秦景教宣元至本經幢記. The first part is most probably the full text of the fragmentary Sūtra discovered in Dunhuang in the early 20th century, which has the same title. The second part is a memorial epi taph dedicated to a certain Madam An of Sogdian Christian origin and to a “de ceased” master’s uncle.

III. The Dating According to the inscription, this spiritual pillar was erected in the 12thth month of the 9th year of Yuanhe (A.D. 814/815) and was moved to another place on the 16th day of the second month in the 3rd year of Dahe (A.D. 829). Both events took place during the Tang Dynasty.

IV. The Place of Erection of the Stone Pillar The stone pillar was erected in Luoyang 洛陽 in the Tang period and was un earthed in the proximity of today’s Luoyang in 2006. Luoyang being an ancient trade center along the eastern part of the Silk Road attracted many merchants from Central Asia, especially the Sogdians to reside there. It also served as a capital for 13 Chinese dynasties from the first Xia Dynasty (2070-1600 B.C.) to the Later Jin Dynasty in the middle of the 10th century. During the Tang pe riod, Luoyang was for the most part, the Eastern capital of the Empire whereas Chang’an was the Supreme Capital 上都.

The Publication of the Inscription After the stone pillar was unearthed in May 2006, it was unlawfully sold to a certain black market in Shanghai where it was later spotted and was brought to attention. After a series of hunting, the stone pillar was finally returned to the cultural relics office in Luoyang in the later part of 2006. Since then, scholars in China have been able to investigate the inscription. Chinese scholar Zhang

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

111

Naizhu and Luo Zhao were among the first to publish, in separate articles, a reproduction and some preliminary studies of the inscription. Both of them included a photo of the rubbing of the inscription in their respective pieces of work. Following the two, Lin Wushu together with Yin Xiaoping gave a series of initial studies on the inscription.2 The present translation is based on the inscription reproduced (with photos) by Zhang Naizhu in his article “Ba Henan chutu de yi jian tangdai jingjiao shike” [Notes on the Jingjiao Inscription of the Tang Period recently Unearthed in Luoyang, Henan Province]3 and by Luo Zhao in his study titled “Luoyang xin chutu daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhi ben jing ji jingchuang de jige wenti” [Questions Concerning the Newly Unearthed Inscription of Daqin Jingjiao Sūtras on the Origin of Origins and Its Epigraphic Account] (2007).4 It is worth mentioning that in some places, Zhang and Luo suggested their own variants for the damaged words.

Translation Problems Since the lower part of the pillar was cut away, part of the inscription text was lost, which posed a great challenge to a proper reading and interpretation of the content. This means that the first character of each line is not necessarily the beginning of a sentence; rather it is connected to the missing words before it in the preceding line. Additionally, punctuation of the text also affects the combination of word groups and consequently determines the interpretation of the sentence involved. There are certain words that are difficult to understand in the given context. For the first part of the inscription, some missing words can be reconstructed by cross-referring to the Dunhuang “Nestorian” fragment that has the same title “Daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhi ben jing [Sūtras (Teaching) on the Origin of Origins]”. In the following Chinese text, words underlined are the words reconstructed from the Dunhuang fragment. For the second part of the Chinese inscription, missing words are illustrated in empty square boxes in the following text. Each box represents one Chinese character. The amount of the missing characters is suggested by Lin Wushu together with Xin Xiaoping, based on a strenuous

2

3

4

See LIN-YIN 2008 in Zhonghua wenshi luncong No. 89(January2008), 325-352. 妙大信 《 大大大大大元至大妙》 考貞-唐元洛中大大妙大世世唐一。《 伽妙八元一叢》 2008， ，1 89輯，325-342; YIN-LIN 2008in Zhonghua wenshi luncong No.90 (February 2008), 269-292. 《 大以》 即若若若考貞。《 伽妙八元一叢》 2008， ，1 90輯，269-292頁. ZHANG2007 in Xiyu yanjiu No. 1 (2007), 65-73. 张乃乃， 载《西域研究》2007年, 65-73页。 LUO2007 in Wenwu No.6 (2007), 3-42, 48. 炤罗, 洛洛新信從 《 大大大大大元至大经唯大记》 石大伽石石问题。《 八文》 2007年6期，3-42页.

112

Li Tang

study of careful measuring and calculating.5 Words inside square boxes are suggested words. Words in brackets are the modern variant forms which were written differently in the inscription (異體字). For the sake of reference, in the following reproduction of the Inscription, lines are given a sequent and con tinuous number starting from the right to the left and from the first side to the eighth side. The main inscription entails 42 vertical lines. An interlineal Eng lish translation is provided. V. English Translation and Commentary6

First Part (The first side) Line 1 祝曰 Praises (saying)7: Line 2 清淨阿羅訶 清淨大威力 清淨…… Holy Aluohe8, Holy mighty (one), Holy [immortal]…9 (The Second Side) Line 3 ． 大秦景教宣元至本經 The Sūtra (Teaching)10 on proclaiming the origin of origins of the Daqin Luminous Religion [Jingjiao] 5

YIN-LIN 2008 in Zhonghua wenshi luncong No.90 (Febuarary 2008), 269-292. The following translation and analysis were given after an initial study of the inscription. It is hoped that this preliminary investigation will facilitate international readers to gain a quicker access to the content of this new discovery. Deficiencies in the present work may serve as a call for more and deeper research on this inscription by scholars who have interests in this topic. I take this opportunity to thank sincerely Prof. Ge Chengyong, Prof. Cai Hongsheng and Prof. Lin Wushu for kindly inviting me to participate in this research and for their great help. 7 祝曰:literally means “praise saying” 8 From the Syriac: ’alāhā 9 清淨 (qingjing) in Chinese means “peaceful and quiet, undisturbed, etc.” This appears to be the Trisagion (thrice holy 三聖讚) “holy God, holy and mighty, holy immortal …” In Syriac: qdyšṭ’lh’, qdyšṭylṭn’, qdyšṭl’ mywṭ’… (H ) Cf. Isaish 6:3 and Revelation 4:8. It is also sung at the entry of the coffen into the church or when the coffen is carried to the grave. 10 The word “sūtra” is not a good choice to translate the Chinese word “jing 經” meaning “book, classics”, for instance, Confucian classics: Jing Shu 經書；Book of Changes:Yi Jing易經”. The word “jing” had existed in the Chinese language before Buddhist scholars employed this word to translate the Sanskrit word “sūtra”. Therefore, it may not be accurate to use the word “sūtra” to translate the Chinese word “jing” in the above Jingjiao text. Here it may be more appropriate to apply the word “teaching” to the word “jing”. However, since many scholars 6

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

113

Line 4 ‧ 時景通法王，在大秦國那薩羅城和明宮寶法雲座，將與二見， 了决真源。應樂咸通，七方雲集。有諸眀淨士、一切神天,等, 妙法 11 12 13 At that time, the law-king Jingtong [spoke] : “There was a throne of pre cious law set in the clouds14 in the crystal palace15 (and16) in the city of Naz17 areth of the country of Daqin. He bore two appearances and explained the true origin (of truth). The music sounded18 and all ways were opend. All came

have used the word “sūtra” to name the Chinese “Nestorian” documents, I keep this term for the time being. 11 Law King 法王: It derives from the Sanskrit “dhamarāja”, the Buddha. 12 The Chinese name Jingtong 景通 was one of 70 clergy names on the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu. (The third line on the top row on the right side of the Inscription). His title and name in Syriac are Mar Sargis, Priest and Chorespiscopus. He had also a parallel Chinese title tran scribed into Syriac: Ši’ngtsu’ (Shiangtso). However, it is not clear the Jingtong in the Luoyang Inscription is the same Jingtong in the Xi’an inscription. Paul Pelliot suggested that the name “Shiangtso” could be the Chinese Buddhist title “shang-tso 上座” given to those who were privileged to preach and to become Abbots. However, Heller believed that it was the Chinese word hsiang-chu (Mandarin pinyin: Xiangzhu 鄉主), meaning the Chorespiscopus. I think Heller’s suggestion is right because hisang-chu is the Chinese pronunciation for Chorespisco pus 鄉主教，which corresponds to the title of Jing Tong in the Xi’an inscription. See HELLER 1897, 43. See MOULE 1977, 51, note 50. 13 Concerning the first sentence, I agree with Saeki that this sentence actually refers to the time when Jing Tong spoke about the throne in heaven, not that Jing Tong himself sat at the throne. See SAEKI 1934, 133. 14 Revelation 1:7: “behold, he comes with the clouds.” 15 See description about the front of the heavenly throne where glass sea like crystal in Rev. 4:6. 16 Here I translate it as the Crystal Palace, instead of Palace of Peace and Enlightenment as Saeki put it, because the next sentence (line 5) mentions only “ming gong 明明”, i.e. Crystal Palace, without the word “peace”, i.e. “he 伽”. Therefore, the word “he” in line 4 is a conjunction word. Cf. SAEKI 1931,312. 17 I once translated as “He put two different views together”, since the Chinese character 見 can mean both “views” or “appearance”. See TANG, 2004,200. However, as more evidences pointed to the possibility that this piece of writing reflects the heavenly throne described in the book of Revelation, I tend to think that this may correspond to Revelation 4:3 which describes the one who sits on the throne has an appearance of jasper and cornelian. In Greek it is Omoios: is like (something, someone, etc.). Therefore, 二見 means “two appearances”. There might be another way of interpreting it. If the word 見 should mean “views”, then the term “二見” can be related to a Chinese Buddhist term for the “two (wrong) views” (which my pre vious translation was based on): (1) Looking on people grudgingly with regard to almsgiving and preaching; (2) Holding to the real existence of material things, to their entire unreality, to the view of total annihilation and to that of permanence or immortality. 18 Cf. Rev. 4:1 about the sound of trumpets.

Li Tang

114

and gathered herefromseven directions.19 Among them were the enlightened andthepure,allheavenlyangels,andsoon.The mysterious law20Line5

‧ 王、無量覺衆，及三百六十五種異見中民。如是族類，無邊無極, 自嗟空昧，久失真源。罄集眀宮，普心至仰。時景通法王，端嚴進 kings, countless enlightened onesand threehundreds and sixty-five 21 peopleof differentkindsofopinions. Regardingtheraces (ofthesepeople), they came fromboundlesslands and infinite endsof the world. They sighedforvanity and ignorance, and for havinglonglosttheoriginof truth.Theyallappeared22 and gatheredinthecrystalpalace.Alltheirheartswerelifteduptoworship.Atthat time,thelaw-king. Jingtongbegansolemnly Line 6 ． 念,上觀空皇，親承印旨，告諸衆曰：“善来法衆，至至無来，今可23通 ． 常，啓生滅死，各圎其分，靜諦我宗。如了无元，礙當隨散。”即宣玄 化匠帝真 to proclaim. Behold, thekingon high personally received an edict24 and declared toallsaying: “Welcome,25allyepeopleofthelaw. Cometoseewhat hasnevercomebefore.26Today,thetrees27areasgreenasnormalandhaveregainedlife after conqueringthedeath. Eachone [ofyou] has accomplished his ownpartandlistensquietlytomyteaching.28Ifyou comprehend the originof

This happens to be like what Revelation 1:4 & 19 describe, that is, the seven churches in Asia. 雲集 (yunji): to gather together (like clouds). 20 Rev. 4:4. “Those what sat around the throne were elders and rulers, spirits of God”. 21 This number 365 also appears in the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu. 22 罄(qing): 顯顯, to appear. For example, 《 韓韓公·外儲說左上》: 夫犬馬，人所不知也， 旦暮罄于前。 23 In the Dunhuang manuscript, the work “ke” 可 is 柯. I think the Luoyang version is a writing failure. 24 Cf. Rev. 5:1 about the scroll. 25 善来, a Chinese Buddhist term for svāgata, meaning “welcome”. 26 至至無来: the meaning of this term can be debated. Saeki translated “it is good that you have come”. See SAEKI 1934, 134. If we regard it as a passage from the revelation, then Rev. 4:1 demonstrates a scene where the heaven was opened and a voice was saying;” come up here. I will show the things which must be after this. The expression in Chinese used Buddhist-like term. 27 In the Luoyang inscription, the word柯which was so written in the Dunhuang manuscript has become可. See SAEKI 1934, 135. It is likely that the word in the Luoyang inscription is a corrupted form. 柯 (ke) means “trees”. 28 諦 (di): listen or see carefully. It is also a Chinese Buddhist term for “truth”. Sanskrit: Satya 19

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

115

no beginning, then all barriers should be therefore disappeared. And begin to proclaim the mysterious creation29 and the truth of the Creator.30 Line 7 常,（旨）：“無元、無言、無道、無緣，妙有非有，湛（寂）常然。” 常 ， ( 旨 ) : " 無 元 、 綱吉 、 無道 、 無緣 ， 妙 有 非 有 ， 湛 ( 寂 ) 常 然 吾聞‧ ‧ 太阿羅訶開无開異，生无心浼，藏化自然，渾元發, 无發，无性，无動。霊虛空 (Theedict reads): “[Therewere] no beginning, nowords, noway (Tao), no original cause. Therewasthe mysteriousexistence butitwas non-existent.31 Being tranquilwasits unchangeable way”32. Iheardthatthemost high Aluohe (’alāhā) opened thebeginning33and madethe impossible wonders. Heproduced with mixed nopollution the original ofheart. growing. He34is[There hiddenwere] in the nocreation growth, and nature and is nodisposition, no motion.Intheemptiness,theSpirit…35 Line 8 ‧ ‧ 置因緣機軸，自然著為象本，因緣配為感乘。剖判叅羅，三生七位，浼

‧‧ 諸名數，无力任持；各使相成，教了…反元真體。夫為匠无 installed the axis of the original causes yingyuan.36 The nature was made to be the origin of shapes.37 The matching of the primary cause with the secondary 玄化: mysterious creation. 匠帝: literally means “a skillful emperor”, which implies the Creator, that is, the God, the maker. 31 妙彼(miaoyou): a Chinese Buddhist term, meaning “the absolute reality”. 32 常常 (changran): the normal way, the unchangeable, etc.; 湛寂(zhangji): deep tranquility. A similar term is found at the very beginning of the Xi’an Inscription: 常常人寂(changran zhenji): the unchangeable and the true tranquility. 33 The Manusscript of Li Shengduo reads陳開陳不. The second word is “wu開” which is a modern version of the old character無. However, “wu開” did exist in ancient Chinese. It has the same connotation as “yuan 元”, meaning “the beginning.” According to Kangxi Lexicon, after the unification of China by Qin, all the 開was changed to 無。With the prevalence of Buddhism in China, the word 開came into use again, which was expressed in “nāmó 南无”. This passage seems to deal with the beginning of God’s creation. 34 The word “fa” 發 was not clear in the Dunhuang manuscript. Luo Zhao thought it can be the word “yan” 衍. If it is “fa”, the meaning, judging from the context, could suggest something about the nature and its growth. 35 This passage seems to describe “the very beginning” before God’s Creation. 36 因緣 (yinyuan): a Chinese Buddhist term for the original causes for Samāsra. yin: primary cause, Sanskrit, Hetupratyaya; yuan: secondary cause, Sanskrit, pratyaya. 37 Since the word 象(xiang) in this context is not clearly explained. It can be interpreted from the following two perspectives: (1) it represents the 28 constellations as referred to in ancient China. Ancient Chinese divided these 28 constellations into 4 groups each being imagined as resembling a form of an animal. Therefore, each group was called a “Xiang”. There are four “Xiangs”. In the content of our inscription, it symbolizes the basic structure or nature of the 29 30

cause 116

of a result was predestined out of His feelings and inspirations. TheLi naTang

ture with its myriads of things was determined.38 The three produced seven (folds of Spirits).39 Many were polluted and failed to sustain. They supplemented each Behold, the maker/creator other [wordstook missing]. no action. [They] 40 returned to the original true form.

(TheThirdSide) Line9 作，以為應旨順成，不待而變，合無成有，破有成無，諸所造化，靡不 依由，故号玄化匠帝、无覺空皇。隱現生霊，感之善應；異哉，霊 伽 ， 姑 玄化 啼 、 憫 盟 。 黜 悌 ， 感之離 ; 娥 ， Therefore, it was believed that thins will proceed according to His will. Although without any expectation, things would change. Non-existence may become existence and existence may be broken away to become non-existence. All these were created. Nothing is without cause. No wonder he is called the mysterious Creator. The king without emptiness. The creatures, hidden or shown, felt him and responded kindly to Him. How different are the children [born] of His Spirit, Line 10

‧ 嗣虔仰造化。迷本匠王，未曉阿羅訶，功無所衒，施無所仁，包浩 察 （微），育衆如一。觀諸浼有，若之一塵，況是一塵亦非塵。見非見， who worship His Creation piously. They are fascinated about the Creator. Those who do not know Aluohe, their merit cast no glamour; their alms-giving does not stem from compassion. [Aluohe] is magnanimous and can observe the tiniest detail. He nurtures all as ever. He observes every corrupted one and regards it as one unclean desire. Even if it is an unclear desire, it is not the real unclear desire. One sees, but has not perceived. Line11 ‧‧ 悉見見故；無界非聽，悉聽聽故；無界無力，盡持力故。無界嚮無，无 像无法。所觀无界无邊，獨唯自在；善治無方，鎮位无際；妙制周

sky, which God created. (2)Xiang can also be 象形(xiang xing), one of the six elements from which a Chinese word was created. 38 參羅 (cenluo)＝森羅(senluo): a Chinese Buddhist term meaning trees being luxuriant. 39 This three produced seven. The three may refer to the origin of all things as it is expressed in Laozi’s Daodejing, chapter 42: “The Dao (the Way) produced one; one produced two; two produced three and three produced all.” 道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物. The seven may imply the sevenfold spirits of God mentioned in Revelation 4:5. “Seven” is seen in many places in the book of Revelation such as the seven scrolls, seven angels, seven churches, etc. 40 This passage (line 8) is absurd. It seems to talk about the original creation and the falling of human beings. However, the wording is quite ambiguous.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

117

Understand what isheard what is hearing. isseen 41 is seeing. Unlimited Unlimited strengthhearing isnostrength; isno hearing; striving Understand perseveranceisstrength. Theboundlessisempty, formless42andlawless. What He (God)seesisinfiniteandboundless.He[God]isfreeatease.Hekindlygovernstheboundlessandcalmstheinfinite.Hiswondroussystemappearsincircles. Line 12

‧ ‧ ‧ 臨，物象咸揩，唯霊感異，積眛亡途，是故以善教之，以平治之，以 慈救之。夫知改者，罪无不捨。是謂匠帝能成衆化，不自化成，是 The original shapes of things were all erased. Only the Spirit can feel the difference. Accumulated foolishness leads to doom. Therefore, they should be taught with goodness, governed by stability and saved through benevolence. Behold, for those who repent, their sins shall be taken away. This means that the Creator can change all things, but He himself is unchanging. Line 13

‧ 化終遷，唯匠帝不虧不盈，不濁不清，保任 化 終 遷 ， 唯 匠 帝 不 虧 不 盈 ， 不 濁 不 清 ， 保 任 真空，常存不易…… 真空 ， 常 存休惕 Thewaning, no creation 43 shall neither eventually turbid nor change, clear. He but keeps the Creator Himself remains in emptiness neither and waxing His eternal existence shall not change. Line 14 弥施訶應天慶原霊, 故慧圎悟之, 空有不空, 無扵空不滯…… Mishihe [theMessiah] born oftheheavenlycelebratedoriginal Spirit, perceivesitwithwisdom and understands it completely.44 Itisboth non-existent and existent45. Itisnot empty. Non-existence in emptinessproducesnonstagnation. (TheFourthSide) Line 15 盧訶那體，究竟真凝，常樂生命，是知匠帝為無境逐不法 ．……

Comparing with the samewording in Isaiah 6:9:“Be ever hearing but not understanding, be ever seeing but not perceiving.” “你們聽是要聽見，卻不明白；看是要看見，卻不曉得。” 42 取(xiang) here means “form” or “rules”. 43 虧(kui) and 盈(ying) are the descriptionof the Moonwhichissometimes waxing and sometimes waning. 44 圓悟: completely apprehendto thetruth. 45 空彼(kongyou): a Chinese Buddhist termmeaning “unrealandreal;non-existent and existent; abstract andconcrete, etc.”. 41

118

Li Tang

The entity46 of Luke (the Holy Spirit) is truly the embodiment of truth and the life of eternal joy. It is known that the Creator has, for those who are in no [blessed] circumstance and who followed the way of no-law… Line 16 ‧ 數，曉人大晤 數 ， 喨 人大 昭 。了皆成益，眛民滯識，是見将違，盖霊本渾…… 。 丁 皆 成 益 ， @ 昧@ 民 滯 職 ， 是 見 將 違 ， 孟 需 本 渾 … one who understands will be greatly enlightened.47 Those who understand will all benefit from it. Ignorant people have stagnant knowledge. What they perceive will violate (the truth), therefore,48 the spirit is original and natural49… Line 17 ‧ 且容焉，了己終亡焉，聽為主, 故通霊伏識，不遂識遷，囗…… …and istolerant.50Oneshould knowthat one will eventuallydie. Obedienceis the main thing. Therefore, knowtheSpirit andresist temptationthrough meditation.51 Donotpursuethe knowledgethat is changeable… Line 18 下備八境，開生三常滅死, 八境之度，長省深悔，警慎…… (He) prepared eight conditions52andopened thethreeconstant principles53 that givelifeandconquerthedeath. Oneshallreflectalwaysandrepent deeplyaccordingtothese eight conditions. Be watchful… Line 19 ‧ 景通法王說至既已，普觀衆晤扵其會中，詮以慧圎……

Literally it says “that body of Luke”. The Chinese 盧訶盧訶盧訶盧訶 (luke) is the direct phonetic translation of the Syriac Ru’ (H)HHH for the Spirit. 47 Here晤(wu) is equal to 林(wu), as it is the case sometimes in classical Chinese. 48 Here, the word蓋(gai) serves as a conjunction word, linking the former sentence to the following one. Here it means “therefore”. 49 Since the characters after the word 渾(hun) are missing. It is not completely clear if the word Hun is an adjective (i.e. turbid, muddy, etc.) or adverb (i.e. entirely, totally, etc.). 50 It lacks the content with the preceding words which are missing. 51 初不 (fu shi): This term appears in the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu. 齋伽初不餧叢，戒伽戒戒為戒。Paul Pelliot believed that it meant “la retraite et la Méditaiton. See PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 219, note 70. 53 52 The eight blessed conditions conditions and the are three stated constant in theprinciples Beatitudes have in Matthew been normally 5;3-11.taken to be “the Be46

atitude “and “Faith, hope and love”. Pelliot thought they are “les règles des huit stations” in the East Syrian Church. See PELLIOT in FORTE 1996,, 174, 207-208, notes 48 & 50. Cf. the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu: 通八制唐三，煉煉叢人，啓三常唐世，陳蔡日聞。The term “san chang 三常” was probably borrowed from the Confucius’s term on the three cardinal guides and five constant virtues, “sangang wuchang三三虔常”.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

119

The law-king Jing Tong finished his speech. His overall observation is that the mass had understood (his teaching) and has gained perception. He explained to them in order that they may gain wisdom... Line 20 諸界，但有人受持讀誦、信解勤行，當知其人德超…… …allthesides.54 But some haveacceptedtheteaching andreadandreciteit. Theybelieve and understanditandputit diligently intopractice. Ofcourse, oneknowsthatthe virtue ofsuchpeopleexceed… (The Fifth Side) Line 21 ‧ 如海溢坳平，日昇暗滅，各證太(寂)，曉自在常喜, 滌囗…… ...liketheseathat overflows thevalley, theSun that rises andthedarknessthat diminishes, soisHis great (tranquillity)55 witnessedbyevery element in nature.Thoushaltknowthyexistenceandrejoicealways.Washaway…

SecondPart Line 22 大秦景教宣元至本經幢記 The Stone Pillar56Account oftheSūtra (Teaching) onthe Origin of Origins of theDaqin LuminousReligion Line 23 夫至聖應現，利洽無方，我无元真主匠帝阿羅訶囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 Behold,theHoliestbecamevisible.57Hisgoodnessspreadtotheboundless ends.Myeternal58andtrueLordandCreatorAluohe… Line 24 海，而畜衆類，日月輝照，五星運行，即 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗

Since some words are missing in the previous sentence, it is not clear what “zhujie諸界” here refers to. It can mean either “all the sides” or “all social circles”. 55 The word寂(ji) for tranquility is not clear. It seems to be a variant of the word寂(ji). These two sentences resemble the verses in the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu: 懸耿日日，皆元人至。 56 幢 (chuang): A “chuang” is a stone pillar inscribed with Buddhist names and Scriptures. Sanskrit: dhāraṇī. 57 This may refer to the incarnation of Christ. 58 The original word is無元(wuyuan) which means literarily “no beginning”. It implies the eter nity. 54

120Li Tang

…sea, and nurture all the creatures.59 The Sun and the Moon shine brightly.60 The five planets61 move…that is...62 Line25. ． ． 散, 有終亡者，通霊伏識，孑會無遺，咸超囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …dispersed. Thosewho will perish in the end knowtheSpirit andresist temptation. They are (left) alonebuttheyhave no regret.63 They allexceed…

Line 26 海，窅窅冥冥。道不名，子不語，世莫得而也。善囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 涸 ， 宵宵 冥 冥 。 道 不 名 ， 于 不 語 ， @ 世英 得 而 山 。 苦 " " 口 口 口 口 二 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …sea, deep and profound. The “Dao” has no nameand [if] Idonot pronounce (proclaim) it, theworld cannotreceiveit. Good… (TheSixthSide) Line 27 無始未來之境，則我匠帝阿羅訶也囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …theworldwithout beginning andend64is Aluohe, myCreator’s! Line 28 有能諷持者，皆獲景福，况書寫扵幢銘囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 Those whocankeepreciting (God’s words) willallobtain God’s blessings.65 Besides,66theywrote this epitaphon thestone pillar…[words missing]

Cf. Psalm 104:25. Cf. Psalm 104:19. 61 The five planets probably refer to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which the ancient Chinese observed. In Chinese, it was called Water, Gold, Fire, Wood and Earth (not the Earth Planet). These five planets were part of the basics of Chinese astrology, plus the Sun and the Moon. The ancient Chinese used the Sun, the Moon, Water (Mercury), Gold (Venus), Fire (Mars), Wood (Jupiter) and Earth (Saturn) to name the seven days of the week. These seven elements were the orders of the universe. Here in the context, it implies that God (Aluohe) created the universe and was in charge of it as well as the humankind, as it is stated at the beginning of the book of Genesis. 62 Cf. Psalm 148. 63 孑看無孑： 孑孑(jie yi) means those who survived or what is left. 64 The 65 無始未來之境=無始、無未來之境。 word 大看(jing fu) literarily means the blessings of the Luminous Religion. 59

60

APreliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription UnearthedinLuoyang

121

Line 29 承家嗣嫡。恨未展孝誠，奄違庭訓。高堂囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 Being a directheir indebtedto my family, I regret thatIdidnotshow myfilial piety and sincerity (tothedeceased). Isuddenly feltthatIdisobeyedwhatwas taught in the greathall [inthe family].67 Line 30 森沉感囙（因），卑情蓬心，建茲幢記，鐫經刻石，用囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 withdeepand profound gratitude, humblefeelings and a vigorousheart, I/we erected this spiritualpillarwithitsinscriptionandinscribedthe sūtraonthe stone.Use… Line 31 ‧尉亡妣安國安氏太夫人神道及亡師伯和囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …comfort my/ourdeceased mother.68 The Holy-Way (Spirit-Way)69ofthe honored mother70oftheAn family from thecountry ofAn,71 and thedeceased master’suncleand… Line32 ‧ 願景日長懸，朗明闇府，真姓不迷，即景性也。夫求囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗

Here況(kuang) can mean “besides”, but in classic Chinese, sometimes it can be regarded as a parallel to the word 貺(kuang) meaning “to grant a reward”. If so, here it can mean “we granted this epitaph…” 67 The word “始(ting)” normally refers to a great hall or a courtyard. The implication here can be twofold: it refers to what is taught in the big hall or courtyard of the family, thus indicating the teaching of the family; or it means the great hall in the church, thus implying the teaching of the church. I would suppose here it refers to the former more than the latter, because the following words 陳或(gaotang) means the big hall which implies “parents”. 68 The first word尉(wei) is not fully clear without its connection with the former words. Literarily it can mean a military title. 69 一所(shendao): Holy Way, also called Spirit Way is the passage that leads to the tomb. 70 太都都(taifuren): honored mother. It is an honorific title for someone else’s mother. 71 The country of An was Bukhara in today’s Uzbekistan, formerly Sogdiana. Xin Tangshu [The New History of the Tang Dynasty] Vol. 278 has the following remarks: “The country of An was also called Buhuo (布豁) or Puhe (捕喝)...is bordered to River Oxus in the west.“ When Sogdians came to settle down in China, they normally adopted the name of their country as their Chinese surname. 66

122

Li Tang

May the radiance of the Sun (of the Luminous Religion)72 be suspended on high and shine over the dark chambers. Their73 true names should not be confusing, that is, [it is] of the nature74 of Jing (the Luminous Religion). Wishing… (TheSeventhSide) Line33 幽魂見在，支屬（亦）願無諸障難，命等松筠，長幼囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 Maysoulsofthedeceasedbepresent. The otherrelativesequallywishthat thereshallbeneither hindrancenortribulation, andtheir lifeshallbelikepine trees and green bamboos. Herchildren, oldandyoung… Line 34 ． 次敘立塋買兆之, 由所管即洛陽縣感德鄉柏仁囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …according tothesequence (ofgeneration), theyerected this gravestoneand boughtthe graveyard.75 The responsible administrative district, thatis, the LuoyangCounty, Gande village, Bairen76… Line 35 之始，即元和九年十二月八日，扵崔行本處買保人囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 … atthe beginning of…, thatis, the eighthdayof the 12th month ofthe ninth yearofYuanhe (A.D. 814/5), theyboughtaguarantor atCui’strading firm77… Line36. ‧ 戚，歲時奠酹，天地志同。買南山之石，磨龔瑩澈，刻勒書經囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗

The word大(jing) was always employed to refer to something related to the Jingjiao, the luminous religion. For instance, 大看jing fu: the blessing of the luminous religion, 大為jing zhong: the mass of the luminous religion, etc. Here, 景日，the Sun of Jingjiao is obviously a metaphor. 73 Here it seems to imply the deceased mother. 74 In this sentence there are two words: 姓(xing), meaning “surname” and 人(xing), meaning “nature”. They can be the same words with one of them wrongly written. 75 兆(zhao): the border of an alter or graveyard. 76 柏輔（Bairen): place name 77 Here“崔不大 (cui hangben)”can be interpreted as either a proper name or the place of Cui’s trading firm. The present translation used the latter interpretation for the time being, since the event involved buying a guarantor, something of a legal sort and it should have happened at a business firm.

72

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

123

…relatives. sprinkled upon It was the the ground time78for andtheheaven memorial and ceremony earth had the at which same the will.wine A stone was from Nanshan [mountain in the south] was bought. The stone was ground79 and polished until it became smooth on the surface. Then the sūtra was inscribed on it… Line37 于陵, 文翼自慙猥拙，抽毫述文，將来君子，無見哂焉！時囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 ...atthe graveyard.80 Feeling humbledabout mypoorstyleofwriting, Itookthe (for my brush writing humbleand writing). wrote 81 theAtaccount. thetime… May thefuture menofnobleexcuse me

Line 38. 勅（勑）東都右羽林軍押衙、陪戎校尉、守左威衛、汝州梁川府囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 The emperor commandedtheLackey82 ofthe RightForestof Plumes Army83 oftheEastern Capital84, Commandant Tending theWestern Frontier,85Acting86Left Awesome Guard, and …from LiangshanPrefecture in Ruzhou… (TheEighthSide) Line 39 中外親族，題字如後 弟景僧清素 從兄少誠 舅安少連 囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗 ...relatives from boththeCentralPlain [China] andforeign lands87havewritten their names to commemorateasfollows: youngerbrotherand monkoftheLu Sprinkling wine on the ground as a symbol of offering to the spirits of the dead is a HanChinese tradition. It is not clear if the Sogdians had the same practice or they adopted this Han tradition. 79 The word龔(gong) is supposed here. It is not very clearly shown on the inscription. 80 Lin Wushu discussed that the words于陵文翼 (yu ling wen yi) may be names, but he was not sure of it. See YIN-LIN 2008 in Zhonghua wenshi luncong no. 90 (2008), 275-278. Since the words in the proceeding sentence are missing, it is difficult to know the wording. For the time being, I tend to have a different way of punctuation, which puts a comma between “yu ling” and “wen yi”. In this way, “ling” means gravestone, “yu ling” referes to “at the gravestone”; wen yi =wenyi means the style of writing. 81 Literarily, “the future gentle would laugh at me.” 哂(shen): be ridiculed. Normally it is used as a polite term. 82 押押(yaya): a non-official hiring used for menial work in units of territorial administration. 83 羽林軍 (yulinjun): one of the 12 Armies stationed at the capital. 84 Eastern Capital is Luoyang during the Tang Dynasty. 85 陪戎校尉 (peirong xiaowei): a prestige title for military officer of the 9th rank. 78

86

守(shou): a prefix to an official title during the Tang and Song dynasties when the appointee’s rank was lower than deserved or the post was already occupied by another person.

124

Li Tang

minous Religion [Jingjiao] Qingsu, elder cousin88 Shaocheng, Uncle An Shaolian… Line40 ‧ 義叔上都左龍武軍散將兼押衙, 寜遠將軍、守左武衛大將軍、置同政員 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 …adopted uncle whoisGeneralAttendant oftheSuperior Left Dragons Army89 in Supreme Capital90 as wellasLackey, Ningyuan (district) General, Acting Generalof theLeft MilitantGuards, established supplementary officials… Line41 大秦寺寺主法和玄應俗姓米 威儀大德玄慶俗姓米 九階大德志通俗姓康 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 AbbotoftheDaqinMonastery Fahe Xuanying with his lay91 nameMi, DisciplinarianGreat Virtue92 Xuanqing with his lay nameMi, the Lector (the9th rank)93GreatVirtue Zhitong with his lay nameKang94… Line 42 檢校塋及莊家人昌兒 故題記之…… Graveyard inspector andthelandowner95Chang’er. Hereby we have the epitaphengraved…

Since the deceased’s family came from Central Asia, it is most probable that “Zhongwai伽中雖中” here refers to relatives from both China and outside China. China here may be restricted to the Central Plain of China, that is, 伽中。 88 從從(cong xiong): elder male cousin on the paternal side. 89 龍武軍 (longwujun): unit of the imperial army that constituted the Northern Command. 90 上都(shangdu): refers to the Supreme Capital, i.e. Chang’an. 91 The lay name was his family name, which is in contrast to his monastic or clerical name. 92 大聞(da de): literally means “Great Virtue”. It has been normally believed that it is a honorific title for a Bishop from the East Syriac Church, similar to the Syriac Title Mar asyā (the holy one). However, from this inscription, we know that those ordained clergy who were below a bishop seemed to be called “Great Virtue”, too. For instance, the 9th rank clergyman (in the 87

same line) is either the Lector or the Singer. He is not a Bishop. Therefore, it should be a respective form to address someone in the priesthood. 93 九階 (jiu jie): the 9th rank in the ranks of priesthood in the East Syriac Church. He should be a Reader or Singer. 94 The Chinese surnames Mi米and Kang康were both typical Sogdian names. Sogdians from the country of Mi, that is Māymurgh and the country of Kang with its center in Samarkand, gave themselves a Chinese surname using the name of their country of origin. 95 Of course, the literal meaning of 莊不都(Zhuangjiaren) may seem to mean the person from the family of Zhuang. But in the Chinese feudal society, a Zhuang could also refer to a rich family that owned a large piece of land. It is highly possible that the inscription implied the latter and this person Chang’er may have contributed to the buying of the graveyard.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

125

[On top of the eighth side]96 其大和三年二月十六 日壬寅遷舉大事 It was the great event that took place on the 16th day of the second moon of the third to another year of place. Dahe 97 [829 A.D.], the year of Renyan, when the coffin was moved

VI. Some Remarks The first part is a theological discourse. Although Chinese Buddhist vocabulary is heavily employed in many places, one can still see the Christian message proclaimed in the text. I would rather say that it is a Christian text formulated in classical Chinese and borrowing many Buddhist and Chinese Taoist terms. Although one should be careful not to over interpret the content of the inscrip tion in the light of Christian theology (as some may suggest), one would also go too far if one tries to Buddhistize the message contained. Several points strongly indicate the Christian element of the inscription. First, the cross inscribed is a typical “Nestorian” cross. Secondly, the words “Daqin Jingjiao” contained in title of the inscription are the same words as in the title of the “Nestorian Stele of Xi’anfu”. “Jingjiao” was a term used during the Tang Dynasty to refer to East Syrian Christianity and “Daqin temple” rep resented the Christian temple. The word for God “Aluohe” (Syriac:’alāhā) con firms this East Syriac origin. Last but not the least, the iconographic depictions, the Trisagion praise at the beginning of the inscription and some passages in the first part show striking similarities to biblical scenes described in the books of Isaiah and Revelation. Some further discussions are as follows. 1. On the Trisagion98 Trisagion is placed in the East Syrian Liturgy in the beginning of the Mass of the catechumens. It is the beginning of the Liturgy of the word officially in the East Syrian Liturgy. In line with the Syriac tradition it can be seen as proclama tion of the Holiness of the trinity, also as a litany of the trinity. In the East Syr ian Liturgical prayers it is always used: in the Mass, in the Liturgy of the Hours and other Para liturgical prayers.

These two lines were later engraved on the stone. This sentence was engraved on top of the inscription 15 years after the original stele was erected. 98 The word “Trisagion” is the Greek word meaning “thrice holy”. 96 97

126

Li Tang

The inscription begins with a Trisagion praise: “Holy Aluohe, Holy Mighty One, Holy [Immortal One] 清淨阿羅訶,清淨大威力,清淨…”. Unfortunately we do not know what Chinese words were employed for the word “immortal” since these words are missing. This is the first time we see an early Chinese translation of the ancient Trisagion prayer. A similar yet not so explicit Chinese version of Trisagion can be found in the Dunhuang manuscript Jingjiao sanwei meng du zan《景教三威蒙度讚》， which is the Chinese version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo. This manuscript contains the phrases “唯獨絕凝清淨德，唯獨神威無等力，唯獨不轉儼然存”。[You alone, the absolute, are holy; you alone, the almighty, are incomparable; you alone, the unchanging, are ever-existent]. The modern Chinese rendering of Trisagion is: 聖哉上帝,聖哉大能者,聖哉不朽者. The content of Trisagion (thrice-holy) which originated from the book of Isaiah 6:3, is a praise and glorification of the Triune God by the heavenly beings Seraphim or the divine assembly (Psalm 82:1) to the Saboath whom the prophet Isaiah saw (Isaiah 6:1-30). This also signifies that the whole congregation joins with the heavenly choirs of Seraphim and Cherubim in praising God. The word “Holy” is translated as “Qing Jing 清淨”in the Luoyang Inscription. It means “peaceful, still, quiet and undisturbed”. We also find that in both the “Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu” and the Dunhuang manuscript “Zunjing”, the word for the Holy Spirit is “Jing Feng 淨風”, the pure wind.99 Here in the Dunhuang text, “jing 淨” (pure) is the Chinese rendering for “holy”. “Qing Jing” may be one of the early renderings for the word “holy” in Chinese. The term seems to bear some Buddhist color, although it can also belong to Taoist vocabulary as well, which means “pure and clean”, a kind of condition in which one has no desire, but it is by no means a Buddhist or Taoist proper term. “Qing 清” as in “Qingzhen 清真” [pure and true or pure truth] is a Chinese Islamic term as well. A mosque in China is called “qingzhen si 清真寺” [literally, the temple of pure truth]. Evidently, “qing”, “jing” or two words together “qingjing” were words or terms perceived in ancient China as an attribute or nature of holiness. This may also indicate that early Christians in China learned this term from Buddhist or Taoist literal expressions and used it to describe the state of being “holy”. No doubt, Buddhist scholars had accumulated rich experiences in translating Buddhist Sūtras into Chinese before early Christians in China began their translation work. The word “sheng 聖” is another option to render the word “holy”. For instance, in the same Zunjing text, the Messiah is called “sheng zi 聖子” (Holy Son). “Sheng” is widely used in modern Chinese for “holy”.

99

See the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu, line 16 and Pelliot Collection No. 3874, Manuscript Zunjing, line 6 and the third last line.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

127

The Trisagion at the beginning of the Luoyang Inscription demonstrates clearly that early Christians in Tang China used the liturgy of the Oriental Church, i.e., to be more exact, the Syriac liturgy. Trisagion reflects the biblical scenes de scribed in both Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8, which concerns the throne in heaven. This corresponds to what Xuan Yuan Zhi Ben Jing (abbreviated as XJ thereafter) describes. The first passage of XJ resembles the scene in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), which is mirrored in the book of the Prophet Isaiah. If one compares Isaiah 6 and Revelation 1-4 with the description of XJ, one sees a striking similarity, such as, the precious throne in heaven 寶座 (Rev. 4:2)100, the angels 一切神天 and elders 妙法王 (Rev.5:11), the clouds (Rev.1:7&11), the seven directions representing seven churches in Asia 七方云集 (Rev.1ff), accompanying music 應樂 (Rev. 4:1), the appearance of jasper and carnelian 二見 (Rev.6:2), the scroll 印旨 (Rev. 5:1), the great multi tude from every nation and tribe 三百六十五種 (Rev.7:9), etc. This connection can be further elaborated from the theme of Revelation which seems to correspond to what the title of the Inscription implies, i.e., revealing the origin of origins. The book of Revelation does convey the message of “Je sus being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end”. (Rev.1:8&17). That means the Messiah (Mishihe) is the origin of origins. Additionally, since the XJ was engraved at the beginning of a Christian epitaph, it is therefore re lated to the Christian understanding of death. The deceased has gone to heaven to meet the Messiah in his heavenly palace and is to be welcomed by the an gles. Death is therefore a celebration with the sound of music and drum of the future reunion with Christ through resurrection.

2. On the Iconographic Depiction The top of the Luoyang inscription sees four swiftly flying angles, each two angles facing one of the two crosses. They are in robes that flutter in the air. Whether these four angels correspond to the angles in the Book of Revelation, a conclusion cannot be made until more evidence comes to light. However, the angles are certainly the main figures or creatures that are present in the heav enly palace around the throne portrayed in Revelation. Luo Zhao pointed out that these angelic images resemble the Buddhist angles depicted in the Longmen Grottos.101 Indeed, the angle on the 7th side of the Luoyang Inscription carries a lotus flower in her/his hand, which indicates some Buddhist influence. The presence of lotus flowers is not unusual in Christian artistic expressions in ancient and medieval China. The lotus flower also appears on the Nestorian In scription of Xi’anfu as well as on some other gravestone inscriptions of the 100《以賽亞書》6:1:“我見主坐在高高的寶座上”.

throne, high and exalted.” 101 LUO 2007, 30.

Isaiah 6:1: “I saw the Lord seated on a

128

Li Tang

Yuan period. The same is true with Buddhist terms in Christian texts. East Syr ian Christians borrowed a lot of Buddhist terms in their translation and formu lation of Christian texts since they collaborated with Buddhist scholars together in translation projects. Buddhists had a longer tradition of translating Buddhist sutras into Chinese than East Syrian Christians who relied heavily on the help of Buddhist scholars in translation. They later also turned to the Confucian and Taoist scholars for linguistic help after they lost the help from the Buddhists.102 It is worth mentioning that the angle on the 5th side of the Inscription seems to carry a small round object which still sends smoke into the air (if my observa tion of the rubbing is correct), which hints that the object is still burning. If this observation is correct, the image may well mirror the scene of the heavenly throne in Isaiah 6:6 that the heavenly being Seraphim carries a live coal 紅炭 in his hand. Luo Zhao meant that it was a diamond and the angle looks like a female one, probably judged by the hairstyle of the angle.103 It does look like that the angles on the 5th and the 7th sides had their hair set high in a coil. However, why cant’ it be a golden hoop on the head (cf. Rev. 4:4)? Regarding the iconographic depiction of the Luoyang Stone Pillar, there is still much room for ex amination and discussion. Therefore, my preliminary studies will not draw any conclusions on that, except for raising some questions for further investigation.

3. On the Vocabulary The vocabulary of the Luoyang Inscription bears a strong resemblance to that of the Nestorian Inscription of Xi’anfu. A number of terms are exactly the same as in the Xi’an Inscription. For example, 願景日長懸, 無元, 八境, 三常, 无元真主匠帝, 景福，etc. Since the Luoyang inscription is dated a few dec ades later, it is most likely that the author of the Luoyang inscription was famil iar with the Xi’an inscription as well as other Jingjiao documents. It is certainly the case that the author of the Luoyang inscription used the sources of the Xi’an inscription. The Xi’an Inscription states that Jing Jing 景凈,i.e. Adam was the author of the Xi’an Inscription. According to the Chinese jingjiao manuscript Zunjing, He was also the author of more than 30 jingjiao writings, including the Xuanyuan zhi ben jing (XJ), which was engraved on the Luoyang Stone Pillar. A Buddhist reference Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 《真元新定釋教目 》 mentions about Jing Jing collaborating with the Buddhist monk prajna translat ing a Buddhist text written in the Hu (probably Sogdian) language in the Zhenyuan Period (A.D. 785-806). The Xi’an Stele was erected in A.D. 781. From these two pieces of information, we know that Jing Jing lived at least be

102 103

CHEN in MALEK 2006, 97. Ibid.

A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed in Luoyang

129

tween the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century. This also indicates that the author of the Luoyang Inscription was probably a contempo rary of Jing Jing. One may not be surprised if the two were acquaintances. Ac cording to the Xi’an inscription, Jing Jing, i.e. Adam was “priest and chorespiscopus and papas of China”.104 He was also the priest of the Daqin Tem ple.105 Obviously, being a chorespiscopus 鄉主教 in charge of the rural area, Jing Jing and his works must have been known to the Christian communities in the two capital cities Xi’an and Luoyang. Therefore, the author of the Luoyang Inscription must have been familiar with Jing Jing’s writings including the Xi’an Inscription and the XJ. It is no surprise that the author of Luoyang In scription copied so many terms from the Xi’an Inscription. Apart from religious terms, the Luoyang Inscription also demonstrates that Sogdian Christians in Tang-China were culturally sinicized. This is shown in their sinicized surnames and their choice of language vocabulary. For instance, the inscription uses phrases such as, “ming deng songyun 命等松筠” [may their life be like pine trees and green bamboos]106 and “chouhao shuwen 抽毫述文” 107[taking the brush and write]. Bamboo is a plant grown in South China and is often used as a typical Chinese metaphor in Chinese literature, which symbolizes green, young and luxuriant; writing with the brush is anther traditional Chinese cultural Chinese element. The phrase like “Dao bu ming, zi bu yu 道不名，子不語” [The Dao has no name if I do not say it] is a Chinese Taoist phrase, whereas “qiaocheng 孝誠” [filial piety] or “tingshun 庭訓” [family teaching] are representative Confucian jargons.

4. On the Account The account starts with a few lines of praises. The content of the first few lines seems to resemble some Psalm verses that praise God’s creation, which were the whole into translated creation Chinese. praises From thethe greatness stars inof theGod. sky108 to living And those creatures who in the sea, recite and follow the word of God will receive blessings.109 Following these phrases of praise, the inscription gives an account of the background of the erection of the stone pillar and the ceremony of its erection. It ends with the prayers for the deceased.

The third line of the Xi’an Inscription, written in Syriac. The second line of the Xi’an Inscription, written in Chinese: 大秦寺僧景淨. 106 Luoyang Inscription: line 33. 107 Ibid., line 37. 108 See inscription line 24; cf. Psalm 104. 109 See inscription line 28; cf. Psalm 1. 104 105

130

Li Tang

Reciting the Psalter formed the core devotional practice in the early Christian communities. This was also true in the East Syrian tradition. Therefore, it is most likely that those sentences in the Chinese Luoyang Inscription that resem ble the Psalm verses are de facto the translated Chinese version of the verses taken from the Psalter. Psalter fragments used by East Syrians in Central Asia and West China have been found. We know for sure that the East Syrian Chris tians in Mongo-Yuan China used the East Syrian liturgy. A Syriac liturgical fragment was found in Grotto B53, a meditation grotto in the Northern part of the Dunhuang Grottos in 1995. The two-paged fragment contains part of the Syriac liturgy printed on both sides of the fragment.110 The content consists of Psalm verses in Syriac, which were recited or sung in the East Syrian Daily Liturgy of the Hours. Between the Syriac Psalm verses are some Uighur sen tences. One thing is clear that the East Syrian Christians recite the Psalm verses in Syriac, but the prayers and meditations were done in Uighur. The Luoyang Inscription gives hint that Christians in the Tang Period used the East Syrian liturgy. Besides such a fact, the most important data contained in this account is the information about the identity of the Christians in Luoyang in the early 9th century. It is obvious that the majority of the names given in the inscriptions are typical Chinese Sogdian names, such as Mi and Kang. Sogdians in ancient China used the Chinese version of their country’s name as their personal surnames. Since Chang’an (today’s Xi’an) and Luoyang were the two capital cities of the Tang Dynasty, they served, of course, as the main business centers where foreign traders and immigrants dwelt. The Luoyang Inscription indicated that there was a Sogdian Christian community in Luoyang as well as a Daqin Christian monastery. These Sogdian Christians came from elite fami lies whose members either held high positions (mostly military) in the imperial government or served as clergy within the East Syrian Church. Judging from the language (i.e., Chinese) they used and the funeral customs described in the inscription, it can be seen that these Sogdians were highly sinicized. However, from the point of religious practice, the inscription has thrown some light on the East Syrian liturgical and priestly elements preserved within the Sogdian Christian communities in Tang-China.

Bibliography

ASMUSSEN, Jes P. 1982. “The Sogdian and Uighur-Turkish Christian Literature in Central Asia before the Real Rise of Islam: A Survey” in Indological and Buddhist Studies Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday edited by L.A. Hercus. Dehli: Sri Satguru Publishing, 11-29. BADGER, George Percy. 1987. The Nestorians and Their Rituals: With the Narrative of A Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842-1844 and of a Late Visit to

110

For an introduction of this Syriac fragment from Dunhuang, see DUAN 2001.

A Preliminary Studyon the Jingjiao Inscription Unearthed inLuoyang

131

Those Countries in 1850;Also Researches into the Present Condition of the Syrian Jacobites, Papal Syrians, and Chaldeans and an Inquiry into the Religious Tenets of the Yezeedees Vol. II. London: Darf Publishers. CAI, Hongsheng 蔡鴻生. 2001. Tangdai jiu xing hu yu Tujue wenhua [The Nine HuSurnames and Turkic Culture]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 蔡鴻生，《唐代九姓胡與突厥文化》，北京：中華書局，2001。 DELAVAISSIÈRE, Étienne. 2002. Histoire des Marchands Sogdiens. Bibliothèque de L’Institut deshautes Études Chinoises vol. xxxii. Paris : Collège de France Institut desHautes Études Chinoises. DEVIES, Wilhelm. 1947. Sakramentaentheologie bei den Nesotrianern. Oreintalia Christianan Analecta 133. Roma: Pnt. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. DUAN, Qing. 2001. “Bericht über ein neuentdecktes syrisches Dokument aus Dunhuang/China,” in Oriens Christianus 85(2001): 84-93. GE, Chengyong 葛承壅 & Matteo NICOLINI-ZANI. 2004. “The Christian Faith of a Sogdain Family in Chang’an during the Tang Dynasty,” in Annali 64. Napoli, 181196. HEINZ, Andreas. 1998. Feste und Feiern im Kirchenjahr nach dem Ritus der SyrischOrthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien(M‘ad’dono). Tier: Paulus Verlag. HELLER, J. E. 1897. Das nestorianische Denkmal von Singan Fu. Budapest. HUCKER, Charles O. 1985. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress. MOULE, A.C. 1977. Christians in China before the Year 1550. NY: Octagon Books. LIN, Wushu 林悟殊. 2003. Tangdai jinjiao zai yanjiu [NewReflections on Nestorianism of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan chubanshe. 林悟殊, 《唐代景教再研究》，北京：中國社會科學院出版社，2003。 LIN, Wushu 林悟殊. 2008. “Tangdai jingseng mingzi de huahua guiji,” [The Sinicisation Process of the“Nestorian” Monks of theTang Dynasty] in Lunwen yu tiyao: Jingjiaoru hua de lishi yu yanjiu No.3. (2008): 18-35. 唐代景僧名字的華化軌跡-唐唐代洛陽景教經幢研究之三. 《论文与提要：景教入华的历史与研究3》：18-35页。 LIN, Wushu 林悟殊 and YIN Xiaoping 殷小平. 2008. “Jingchuangban ‘daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhi ben jing’kaoshi,” [An Investigation into the Sutra on the Origin of Origins oftheDaqin Jingjiao Inscribed onaDharani Pillar] in Zhonghua wenshi luncong No. 89 (January2008), 325-352. 經幢版《大秦景教宣元至本經》考釋唐代洛陽景教經幢研究之一。《中華文史論叢》2008，1，89輯，325-342頁 LUO, Zhao 罗炤. 2007. “Luoyan xin chutu daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhi ben jing ji chuanji shichuang de jige wenti,” [Questions Concerning theDaqin Jingjiao Sūtras on the Origin of Origins and ItsAccountRecently Unearthed in Luoyang] in Wenwu No. 6 (2007), 30-42. 洛阳新出土《大秦景教宣元至本经及幢记》石幢的几个问题。《文物》2007 年6期，30-42页。 MACLEAN, Authur John. 1894. East Syrian Daily Offices Translated from the Syriac with Instroduction, Notes and Indices and an Appendix Containing the Lectionary and Glossary. London: Rivington, Percival &Co.. PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. Paul Pelliot. L’Inscription Nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou, edited byAntonino Forte. Kyoto: Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, Paris.

132

Li Tang

PULLEYBLANK, Erwin. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBS Press. RONG, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2001. Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming. Beijing: SACHAU, Sanlian Edward. chubanshe. 1915. 榮新江,《中古中國與外來文明》。北京：三聯出版社. Die Chronik von Arbela. Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1915: philosophische-historische Klasse Nr.6. Berlin: Verlag der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. SAEKI, P.Y. 1937&1955. Nestorian Documents and Relics. Tokyo: Mazuren. SAEKI, P. Y. 1934. “The Tachin Luminous Religion Sutra on the Origin of Origins” in Bulletin No.9 of the Catholic University of Peking (November 1934), 133-135. SOOTHILL, William Edward and Lewis HODOUS. 1960. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms with Sanskrit and English Equivalents and a Sanskrit-Pali Index. Taipei: Ch’eng-wen Publishing Company. TAKAKUSU, Junjiro. 1896. “The Name ‘Messiah’ Found in a Buddhist Book: The Nestorian Missionary Adam, Presbyter, Papas of China, Translating a Buddhist Sutra” in T’oung-pao 7 (1896), 589-591. WENG, Shaojun. 1995. Hanyu Jingjiao wendia quanshi. [Sino-Nestorian Dcuments: Commentarz and Exegesis]. Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 1995. YIN翁紹軍。《漢語景教文典詮釋》。 Xiaoping 殷小平and LIN Wushu林悟殊. 香港：漢語基督教文化研究所，1995. 2008. “Chuangji ruogan wenti kaoshi,” [An Investigation into Several Issues Concerning the Dharani Insciption] in Zhonghua wenshi luncong No.90 (Febuarary 2008): 269-292. 《幢記》若干問題考釋。《中華文史論叢》 2008，1，90輯，269-292頁 ZHANG, Naizhu 张乃翥. 2007. “Ba Henan Luoyang xin chutu de yijian tangdai jingjiao shike,” [Notes on the Jingjiao Inscription of the Tang Dynasty Newly Unearthed in Luoyang, Henan Province] in Xiyu Yanjiu No.1 (2007), 65-73. 跋河南洛阳新出土的一件景教石刻, 《西域研究》2007年。65-73页。

MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXTS

WAYS TO GO AND NOT TO GO IN THE CONTEXTUALISATION OF THE JINGJIAO DOCUMENTS OF THE TANG PERIOD Max DEEG Cardiff University, Great Britain

Modernity and its “post”-derivations like to foster the idea of globalisation and multi-ethnic and -religious plurality. In religious studies the rather theologically derived idea of a common substantial essence of all religions (or Religion), which dominated Religious Studies far into the second half of the 20th century, is still in sway and has been expressed and formulated in the ideas of religious inclusivism and universalism. Both trends, and the search for historical prede cessors of inter-religious dialogue, have led to the discovery of historical peri ods in which the ideal of social and religious unity in variety – presupposing harmony and a lesser degree, of conflict than we are confronted with in our modern world – prevailed. In Chinese history, one of the periods in which such an ideal is often seen real ised is the Tang 唐 Empire (618 – 907) which is considered to be a tolerant and open-minded polity which furthered, accepted and tolerated several foreign faiths such as Buddhism, Manichaeism and Christianity in its realm. A period like this seems to be an attractive “option of the past” to a certain strand of his torians and theologians as well. At the same time, however, the paradigmatic change in Humanities towards cultural studies ironically has brought a similar pluralism of approaches and methods which charge this over-simplistic approach of not only a secular but also a religious past. Historical “texts” (in a broader sense) are no longer stud ied as pure descriptions of an objective and the real past, nor are religious sources read at face value of their dogmatic and idealised content; both are rather considered to be an expression of a complex and contextualised cultural memory. To interpret the highly multifaceted texture called modern culture is already a complicated task of contextualisation, but the more we leave the cen tre of our own intellectual culture, the more the historical texts and sources we study seem to become vulnerable to a de-contextualising interpretation. This interpretation is often trapped in some kind of Orientalist discourse, which I have described elsewhere as hyper-Orientalist, as it goes beyond the normal black-and-white pattern of Orientalism. It demonstrates that the own religious values have either influenced historically other religions and cultures, or – in a

136

Max Deeg

universalistic turn which very often cannot avoid the overt colonial overtones of common Orientalism by not critically questioning the value of its cultural presumptions – that some of these values are common to all religions.1 In the following paper I would like to discuss some examples of modern contextualisation of the Jingjiao texts from the Tang period. I will try to show some failed attempts and counter these with more successful ways of interpre tation. These examples of, in my eyes, failed interpretation are localized at the two extreme ends of the hyper-Orientalism I have just described. In one case the protagonist tries to retrieve as much of Christian concepts from the Chinese texts as possible: this is the way of interpretation by Peter Yoshirō Saeki (佐伯好郎), the Japanese Methodist minister who has translated the Jingjiao texts into English in the first half of the last century2. The other case is the at tempt of a universalistic approach for the Jingjiao missionaries who are thought to have created a true blend of Christian and Daoist ideas: this is the concept of Martin Palmer in his book The Jesus Sutras,3 and recently, obviously stimu lated by Palmer and heavily relying on his book, of the two American authors Ray Riegert and Thomas Moore in their book The Lost Sutras of Jesus. Unlock ing the Ancient Wisdom of the Xian Monks4, the latter claiming to be a spiritual guide for Christian wisdom seekers and presents partly de-contextualized pas sages from Palmer’s “translations”. But before proceeding to these examples, it may be worth discussing briefly what I mean by contextualisation. Contextualisation of historical documents is a multi-layered process. The context of a text is per se – unless the text is com pletely isolated and thus leaving us at stake with a fact-based attempt of con textualisation – very complex. Or one could rather say that a text has different contexts. Context in case of historical texts, if created and creatable in a “thick” description – to use the attribute of Clifford Geertz5 –, is a complex texture which a historian must at least try to seize and to understand as comprehensive as possible. My presupposition is that religious texts are, as a whole and in general, to be treated in the same way as a secular text; this claim is not even completely dispensable if they are discussed and interpreted from an innerreligious, let us say: Christian-theological standpoint – the borderline between both strands of historical documents becoming blurred in most cases, anyway. 1 2 3 4

5

See DEEG in SCHALK-DEEG-FREIBERGER-KLEIN 2003, 27–61. Cf. DEEG in BERNER-BOCHINGER-HOCK 2005, 75 – 104; see also DEEG 2007, 411-426. PALMER 2001. RIEGERT-MOORE 2003. As one example of the historical “hyper-reading” in this book I would like to quote one passage on the relation between the emperor Taizong and Jingjiao (p.6f.): “It was not for tales of his journey that the emperor summoned the bishop Aleben [sic!] to the Imperial Library. Emperor Taizong, … was interested in a set of written teachings Aleben carried overland across Asia. The texts told of a savior who would free humankind. Taizong even provided a name for this new creed: “The Luminous Religion”. Within the manuscripts themselves they are simply referred to as “Jesus Sutras.”” GEERTZ in GEERTZ, 3 – 30.

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

137

The possible layers of contextualisation of historical texts, although in reality complexly interdependent, may be heuristically described as: a. Political: a text grows out and is set in a certain political context. This means that the political situation shapes, formats and to a certain extent also restricts the way things can be expressed in language and other means of communica tion. b. Social-cultural: a text is produced in the context of a peculiar society at a certain time and is so shaped by it; if it is successfully positioned, it is able to influence this very society. c. Literary: a text is created and oriented according to certain literary categories of genre, style, form, etc. The first two parameters, and to a lesser degree also the third one, comprise a very important element of contextuality which I call intentionality. Even if a text is written for the pure purpose of entertainment – and religious texts usu ally are not – it not only has a certain politico-social setting but also an inten tion which may, at a deeper layer, have agenda-driven levels of intention such as gaining money, power, influence and fame. This clearly shows that inten tionality in case of a text is bidirectional: the text – that is, the “author” – wants to produce a certain reaction on the side of the receiver, and by doing this it usually wants to achieve something. The context of a text may well be described by a model of interaction between different levels or aspects which I, again heuristically, would categorise in the following way: 1. Inter-textual: a text usually is not the product of an individual and isolated act but it is written in a certain context of genre, style and form. These parame ters may be and usually are again influenced by the social context and deter mine to a certain extent the circle of receivers for which it is accessible. In case of the Jingjiao document, this aspect clearly overlaps with the third, the interreligious aspect. 2. Inter-material:6 The term in my usage means that texts gain historical depth, authenticity and meaning by being substantialized by other material evidence such as archaeological remains (architectural structures, tools and instruments, pieces of art, etc.). 3. Inter-religious: in multi-religious societies – and I use the term without any qualitative connotation only meaning that there are at a particular moment in time, different religious entities in one clearly defined or definable society – there is inter-religious interaction. The degree of this interchange may be dif ferent from case to case and it may be positioned between complete hostility and criticism on one hand and acceptance on the other hand, but it is certainly 6

I have to apologize for this “zombie”-word which I, in lack of a better term, have chosen to keep the “inter-”category going.

138

Max Deeg

there – even ignoring is a way of reaction. In texts, the inter-religious aspect, unless addressed directly in inter-religious criticism, very often materialize in terms of loans. 4. Inter-cultural,7 according to my definition, is any kind of exchange between two or more social units which are clearly discernable from each other through means of cultural parameters such as language, religion, social behaviour and structure, self-definition, material culture, etc., notwithstanding the fact that the borderlines between these more or less reconstructed and heuristic units is in a lot of cases very fuzzy. 5. Trans-historical, -cultural, -religious: here I clearly leave my self-chosen in ter-categories because this level of contextualisation definitely leaves the con centric circles which all belong to the material realm. With religious texts there is, not necessarily but often, a kind of macro-contextualisation, which tries to lead them back into an integral frame of interpretation with general philosophi cal or theological intentions. Historical texts usually do not express the attitude or feeling of an individual or of a group of individuals but are transposed and presented on impersonal levels of cultural memory – to use Jan Assman’s notion of “Kulturelles Gedächtnis” in its English rendering8 –, official or semi-official intentions and boundaries of literary genres. My presupposition is that contexts are ordered hierarchically and my theoreti cal framework is – taken, as it were, from the rather discredited field of phe nomenology of religion9 – that the (re-)contextualisation done by the historian should be proceed in exocentric circles from the centre of the text in question itself to the direct historical and social setting which are historically known and from there to the outer circles of contextualisation and not vice-versa. This means, for instance, that a more comparative inter-historical approach to a text or a corpus of texts should not be made before the inner contextual circles are fully investigated. This also means that in case of the intercultural context, the historically stronger part should be taken into account first before it is brought together with the part which is less well documented. The last remark seems to me very important for a correct understanding of the Tang Jingjiao documents. We do not have direct comparative material from the Iranian side as the cultural region which forms the cultural background of the 7

8 9

One brief note of caution from a modern point of view may be useful: multi-religious may but must not necessarily mean inter-cultural. An inter-cultural exchange can be an exchange of embassies, of goods, of architectural patterns, elements of art, literature, etc., without trans porting the religious semantic implication of the culture it has been borrowed from. On the other hand the multi-religious context of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism in the Tang pe riod was mainly a Chinese discourse, although the influx of Indian and Central-Asian ideas, texts, etc. was one of its elements. ASSMANN 1997. See HEILER 1979, 19ff.

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

139

documents. No Chinese Jingjiao text – and I will come back to this aspect later – has a direct parallel in Syriac or another relevant – let us say Central-Asian – language in which Nestorian texts10 are preserved. The stele of Xi’an is linguis tically and culturally Chinese. The few direct references to Christian concepts in the first, dogmatic part are self-evident and not extraordinarily specific for the brand of Christianity which transmitted it into the Chinese context, as the terms for the Trinity,11 the transcription for Satan,12 the virginal conception13 and the Ascension14 show15. In other cases, the Christian context is less clear, as for instance in the cosmogonic introduction in the Chinese garb of which the narrative and descriptive outline of Genesis 1 is hardly recognisable. In the same line as the stele are, more or less, the manuscript documents: they are Chinese, how corrupt this Chinese may be, and notwithstanding the doubts about their authenticity.16 These documents, too, should be understood first and fully in their Chinese context before hasty comparison with other Christian texts and concepts is made. I now subsequently will go through the five points introduced above and give an example of a problematical attempt at contextualisation – which also can be a completely un-contextualized interpretation – and, of course, my own which is supposed to demonstrate how, in my opinion, it should be done. 1. Here I would like to address shortly two levels: (a). the interrelation of the Jingjiao texts, and (b). the question of loans – which could, of course, also be discussed under 3. (a). We have two clearly distinguished kinds of text. One is the semi-official stele from Chang’an (Xi’an), and the others are the so-called Dunhuang manu scripts. The overlap and inter-textual connection between these is indeed very small. If we leave out the self-designating term Jingjiao, after having read and studied these documents one would rather say that most texts of the second group have nothing to do with the stele.17 I will come back to the documents with some general observations under the sub-point (a). Being aware of the disputable term Nestorianism – I am fully aware of the problems involved in its application to the Church of the East – I still have chosen to use it in the sense of Jingjiao because of its practical advantage of being able to form an adjective. 11 Wo sanyi miaoshen, 我三一妙取, wo sanyi fenshen 我三一欲取, sanyi jingfeng 三一三涼 (=honorific blank space, quezi 闕十). 12 suodan 娑娑/ Early Middle Chinese (Pulleyblank) *sa-tan. 13 shinü dan sheng yu Daqin 室為室聖聖大大. 14 xuanjingri 懸大懸; this has been taken as a metaphor for the Crucifixion. 15 Thus the – as far as my opinion is concerned – failure to identify a specific “Nestorian” Theol ogy or Christology in the text; see, however, TUBACH in MALEK 2006, 175 – 194. 16 Cf. LIN-RONG 1992 in Jiuzhou Xuekan 16 (1992), 19 – 34; slightly extended reprint in: LINRONG in RONG 1999, 65-102; LIN香林林2000 in Tang Yanjiu 6 (2000), 67 – 86; LIN香林林 2001 in Dunhuang Tulufan Yanjiu 忽敦敦希敦世世5 (2001), 59 – 77. 17 This is also true for the newly discovered sepulchral stele of Luoyang for which see, as a first overview: ZHANG 2007 in Xiyu yanjiu 西域研究 (2007), 65 – 73. 10

140

MaxDeeg

The text of the stele shares more with other contemporaneous Chinese inscriptional texts and with the bulk of so-called classical Chinese literature than with the Jingjiao manuscripts. Its content and style is formed by what I have called in a recently published paper “the rhetoric of antiquity” and the “politicoreligious propaganda in the Nestorian stele of Xi’an”.18 The other, quite natural range of inter-textuality concerns the already men tioned problem of translation. There is only one text of the Jingjiao documents which has been identified with a Syriac text. This is the “Gloria in excelsis”, in Chinese (Jingjiao-)Sanwei mengdu zan (景教)三威蒙度讚, what I translate as “Praise of the Salvation through the Three Mighty (Ones)”. The term mengdu 蒙度 has caused translators and interpreters quite some headache19 – and this seems to be due to the fact that such a term is nowhere found in the extensive Chinese dictionaries, neither in the Japanese so-called Morohashi 諸橋20 nor in the Chinese Hanyu dacidian 汉语大辞典.21 A quick search of the electronic version of the Chinese Buddhist canon (CBETA), however, reveals that this term is quite common in Buddhist literature (more than 70 times). The meaning is clearly the same as the one in my translation of the title, “salvation”22. The identification with a Syriac Gloria has been made by Mingana and been popularised by A. C. Moule in his book Christians in China Before the Year 1550 in a rather casual way: “It [the text] contains first a Hymn to the holy Trinity, which Dr. A. Mingana identified with the East Syrian form of the Glo ria in excelsis, …”23; in the respective note Moule even admits: “I cannot trace the article in which this fact was announced by Dr Rendel Harris about ten years ago.”24 After the publication of Moule’s book this identification has been DEEG 2006 in Rekishi-bunka-shakai-ron-kōza-kiyō 歴史分化社会論講座紀要 3 (2006), 1 – 13; the English version of this article was published online in The Journal of Late Antique Re ligion and Culture 1, Cardiff 2007: see http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/clarc/jlarc. 19 Saeki took it to be a transliteration of a Syriac motwa. 20 MOROHASHI 中諸諸諸1955, 60. 21 LUO 羅羅涼1990. 22 See, for example, in the Binpisuoluo wang yi fo gongyang jing 頻大娑羅國娑都供遂妙 [Sūtra of king Bimbisāra visiting and venerating the Buddha], T.133.856b.24f. … 亦當亦亦亦都亦， 為並三三，為使使並使三使，永彼至永。 {“… (the king) will exhort his ministers and people to at tain salvation, let them get rid of the three kinds of punishment (fire, chopping with a knife or a sword, tearing apart by wild beasts) in a short period of time and rest in peace.”}; also T.154.75b.25f., 75c.1, and 105a.17; T.186.499c.9 and 500a.1f., etc. 23 MOULE 1930, 52. 24 Ibid, 52, note 52; ibid., 53, note 53, refers to an English translation of the Syriac text by A. J. Maclean. See MACLEAN 1892, 230f. A comparison of the Chinese text with Maclean’s trans lation given in MOULE 1930(p. 57, note 66) should have shown clearly that the former is not a translation of the latter: “1. Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and a good hope to mankind. 2. We worship thee, We glorify thee, We exalt thee, 3. Being who art from eter nity, Hidden nature that cannot be fathomed, Father, Son, and holy Ghost, King of kings And Lord of lords; 4. Who dwellest in the glorious light, Whom no man hath seen, And cannot see; 5. Who alone art holy and alone mighty and alone immortal. 6. We confess thee through the 18

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

141

repeated over and over again but nobody took the pain to substantiate the iden tification. There is of course no doubt that the Chinese text is starting with a paraphrase of Luke 2.1425 but as a whole it is definitely not a translation of any “Gloria in excelsis Deo” – it is too long, and in terms of style it is, despite some identical catchwords the general ductus of the epitheta used is more Chi nese-Buddhist than Syriac-Christian. In the latter context I only would like to point out the relativisation of the monotheistic basic view found in expressions like: 於諸帝中為師帝，於諸世尊為法皇。 “Among all rulers (Thou) art the ruler of masters (shidi); among all World-Honored Ones (shizun) (Thou) art the Ruler of the Law (fahuang)”. b. Loans from a different religious context are usually interpreted as a sign of adaptation or, with a judging, often slightly negative undertone, of synchretism. In the case of Jingjiao and its copious loans from Daoism, Ruism (vulgarly la belled as Confucianism) and Buddhism this term proves to be highly dangerous as its use tends to lead to two biased answers to the – and this may be called in ter-historical because it goes beyond the mere range of synchronic historical contextualisation – question: did the Jingjiao missionaries do a good job al though they failed or did they do a bad job because they failed? If the first part of the question is answered positively, then the idea is prevailing that syncre tism has been the right thing to do for the Jingjiao missionaries. If the answer is no, we have to deal with an underlying purist theory of religion which hides the spirit of a conservative theological belief which already threatened the Jesuits in the 17th century China: that adapting Christianity to an autochthonous pattern is to be avoided and, if done, is doomed to fail. So, what would be the answer to the question? My answer is: there is no answer in the framework of historical and cultural studies because these have to refrain from such subjective and judging conclusions as implicated already through the question. What has to be of interest for the historian of religions, however, is the question of what was meant by certain terms and what had been understood by a Chinese readership of the time. For our subject the Dutch Sinologist Erik Zürcher, in an article on the relation of Chinese Buddhist and early Daoist terminology, has proposed a very useful

mediator of our blessings, Jesus Messiah, The Saviour of the world and the Son of the Highest. 7. O Lamb of the living God who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy upon us. 8. Who sittest at the right hand of the Father, Receive our request. 9. For thou art our God, And thou art our Lord, And thou art our King, And thou art our Saviour, 10. And thou art the forgiver of our sins. The eyes of all men hang on thee. 11. Jesus Christ, Glory to God thy Father. And to thee, and to the Holy Ghost, For ever. Amen.” 25 “O Highest! Whom all gods (or: All Heaven) deeply adore (adores), whom the Great Earth invocated reverently to spread peace. In whom humans, of true nature from origin, childly trust.” 旡上中天旡旡旡，大蜜或大大至伽，都元人人三依且 … : “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (quoted after THE HOLY BIBLE 1995.). Bold and underlined: direct semantic equivalence; bold: indirect (possible) equivalence in terms of content.

142

Max Deeg

distinction: strong loans and weak loans,26 and this, again certainly heuristic distinction sets out, in my opinion, the two heuristic poles between which ter minological adoption – a loan meaning that the form of the adopted term is not changed in contrast to terminological neologisms – is done. Jingjiao terminol ogy here is no exception. The only problem is that in a lot of cases we do not exactly, in some cases not at all, know what the loan-terms stand for. Unfortu nately the contextualisation of Jingjiao terminology has been done quite at ran dom and with an overall eye on possible underlying Christian terminology. Strong loans are terms taken over from a different strand of culture or religion while keeping most of its original conceptual and connotative semantics. In the Jingjiao texts there are some difficulties in identifying the concrete meaning and position of institutional terms with their Syriac counterparts, but the two basic terms seng 僧, “monk”, and si 寺, “monastery, temple”, seem to be wellsettled in the sense of strong loans. However, the Chinese scholar of Buddhism and Iranian studies Duan Qing 段晴 has shown in an article that this is not the case. As we do not have exact parallels between Syriac and Chinese, it may well be argued, as she does, that seng does not mean monk but priest, and that si was rather a church than a monastery27. These two examples may suffice to show that in the case of the Jingjiao terminology in most cases we are standing on a “weak” stance because we do not have what I would call “interlinear” con text. Weak loans are terms which take over the form of a word but fill it with a dif ferent semantic content, sometimes not even keeping the same meaning in the framework of the same text. What was the concrete semantic range of the dif ferent occurrences of the term Dao (Tao) 道 in the Nestorian stele? In most cases it seems to refer to the rather vague concept used in Tang political ideol ogy as a transcendent principle or power. I would propose that it was the inten tion of the author (or authors) of the stele to keep this term intentionally open in the sense of a weak loan in order to bring together the official notion of the Dao and the “essence” of Jingjiao; this was done even at the expense of Chris tian theology as from the stele the Christian god rather as a deus absconditus who, after having been involved quite non-specifically in the creation of the world, retires to be replaced by the Dao. 2. To put it very briefly, an inter-material contextualisation in the case of the Tang-Jingjiao is not possible as there are no direct archaeological remains of this period in China except the textual sources. There are no remains of churches or monasteries, of cemeteries and thus consequently also no arthistorical remains; there is no remainder of the material culture such as crosses and other ritual objects as well. The famous, ubiquitous painting from Turfan with a crowned Christ holding a staff with a cross in his hand can only be taken

26 27

ZÜRCHER 1980 in T’oung Pao 66 (1980), 84 – 147. DUAN段段2003 in Tangdai zongjiao xinyang yu shehui 唐元世大信唐將信看, 434 – 427.

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

143

as an indirect witness and it is difficult to contextualize it with the content of the texts. There has been, however, a claim that a complete archaeological site has been discovered near Chang’an which the discoverer, Martin Palmer, was in a hurry to declare it a Jingjiao Si (景教寺), i.e., a Jingjiao temple, on the basis of two stucco panels inside the building.28 Palmer has identified these fragmentary pieces of art as Biblical scenes. It is a pity that, to my best knowledge, better photographs have not been published. I may add that, some four years ago, I was shown a photo of graffiti from this site which was declared Estrangelo but which rather looked like some Central-Asian script. Another graffito from the site, as well declared to be Estrangelo and published in an article in the Japa nese newspaper Mainichi-shinbun 毎日新聞29, turned out to be a Tibetan Oṃ maṇi-padme hūṃ of considerably later origin than the Tang period. Up to now and unfortunately, as I have heard from a Chinese colleague at Bei jing University who was involved with this site, there has not been an appropri ate archaeological coverage of the pagoda-like architectural remain which very much looks like a Buddhist one.30 One popular book has been published,31 which I unfortunately have not been able to see yet, in which the claim has been upheld, assumingly to attract donor money from Christian Chinese in Hongkong. 3. A complete decontextualised reading of Jingjiao in the Tang period is the as cription of an influence of this religion on Chinese Buddhism and Chinese re ligion in general. This view has been brought forward and propagated by Saeki who, in his introduction to his translation of the Xi’an stele, has assumed that Jingjiao has survived in China in the folk-religious denomination of the Jindanjiao 金丹教, the “Teaching of the Golden Vermillion”32, had an important im pact on the quasi-monotheistic belief in Amitābha / Amituo-fo 阿彌陀佛, the “Buddha of the West”33. The always re-quoted34 evidence of Jingjiao influence

See PALMER 2001. I have to thank Tjalling Halbertsma for sending me his own colour pho tographs of the frescoes which allowed a better evaluation of the fragments than the rather poor black-and-white photographs in Palmer’s book. On a similar assessment, see KEEVAK 2008, 129ff. (Epilogue). 29 I have to thank my Japanese colleague Seishi Karashima 辛嶋淨志, Sōka-daigaku 創価大学, Tokyo, for sending me the article. 30 In fact, Prof. Ge Chengyong 葛葛葛 remarked during the conference that the pagoda looked very much like a Song-period structure. 31 See GUAN英关 2005. 32 Peter Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China, London 1916, 48ff. Saeki here and else where claims that the Jindanjiao was an institutionalized religion in the framework of which Nestorian ideas could have survived, while the facts rather refer to a variety of popular reli gious movements which refer to the “Golden Elixir” (jindan) stemming from a Daoist back ground. See SEIWERT 2003, 269ff. 33 SAEKI 1916, 124ff and especially 158. 28

144

Max Deeg

on Buddhism is the cooperation of Jingjing 景淨 / Adam, the “author” of the stele, and Prajña / Banruo 般若, an Indian Buddhist monk, in the translation of a version of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra, as recorded in the sūtra-catalogues of the Tang period: „In the 2nd (year) of the (era) Zhenyuan (786) (Prajña) met a relative from his home, the Commander (of the Army) of Eminent Strategy (Shenceshijiang), Luo Haoxin, who was the son of the maternal uncle of the TripiṠaka-master Prajña. They were sad (because they were so far away from their homeland but also) pleased (to see each other) and consoled each other. They went into the house (of Luo who) paid (Prajña) much honour, had him stay very long and made donations to him. (As Haoshin) was a fervent believer in the three jewels (of Buddhism he asked Prajña) to translate Buddhist sūtras; thereupon (Prajña) translated the ªaìpāramitā-(sūtra) in seven fascicles on the basis of a version in a Hu-(language) together with the Persian monk Jingjing from the Daqin Monastery. As Prajña did not understand the Hu-language at this time and also had not mastered the language of the Tang (Chinese), and Jingjing did not know Sanskrit (fanwen) and did not understand the Buddhist teaching (shijiao) they did not grasp half of the jewels (of the Buddhist teaching) although they called (their work) translation. They strived for superficial and empty honour but did not achieve merit. They made a petition to the throne to have (their translation) be inserted in the (official) catalogue (of Buddhist texts) and hoped that this would help to propagate (their work). His Imperial Majesty with His austere wisdom and scholarship had seriously (studied) the Buddhist scriptures and realized after a thorough inspection (of the translation) that the principles (of the dharma) had been obscured and that (their) rendering was without context. Besides the living style in a Buddhist monastery (jialan) and in a temple of Daqin are completely incompatible. Jingjing should teach the teaching of the Messias (mishihe jiao), the śramaṇa and Śākya-son should propagate the Buddhist sūtras. (His Majesty) wished that the ways of teaching should be clearly discerned from each other so that the people would not be confused. True and false teachings (should) remain different like the Jing and the Wei Rivers flow separately.”35

See KLIMKEIT in GILLMAN-KLIMKEIT 1999. Klimkeit already recognised the critical Buddhist approach in Moule’s translation, while Samuel Hugh Moffett followed Saeki in assuming a Christian influence on Buddhism. See MOFFETT 1998, 299f, 212. 35 Datang zhenyuan xu kaiyua shijiao lu 大唐貞元續陳元貞大 (1st fascicle) by Yuanzhao圓圓, 34

T.2156.756a.17ff. (better readings in the same compiler’s Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu貞元新貞貞大 , T.2157.892a.4ff.): 至貞元唐至至令鄉雖至乃十將羅和研，涼即即三焦即即唐公初。悲悲相悲，將至不伽，用用雖雖。留留供遂，既 信或三信，請元都妙，乃將大大十波如集大及依波大波波羅唯元叢波波。初為即即生時波時，復復復唐復，大及 生不不八，復復明貞大。雖雖看元，復未未未。圖圖 乃，匪為看克， 表聞表，意意明不。聖上聖聖八明聖聖 貞釋，察我序元，理理理理。且都貞即伽且大大集十聖且既且，不妙續行。大及景看初景初大，沙世貞公沙沙都 妙。欲為大妙欲欲，都無人 。正正不正，涇涇林明。

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

145

Read correctly and in the context of Chinese Buddhism, this passage rather ex presses the contrary: it is a fine piece of Buddhist propaganda to show that this co-operational project was condemned to fail and that only the second, purely Buddhist translation was the legitimate one. Although the claim of Christian influence on Chinese Buddhism of the Tang and thereafter is not repeated in serious scholarly research, Saekis’s point found its way into handbooks.36 As an example of the inter-religious context in the exactly opposite way I would like to take up the topic of religious protection of the Imperial realm. In the second half of the 8th century this issue became more and more important, not least due to the difficult political situation and through the activities of the Buddhist Tantric master Amoghavajra / Bukong(jingang) 不空(金剛) (705 – 774) – and before him the Huayan Master Fazang 法藏 (643 – 712) – who, at several occasions, performed Buddhist rituals for the sake of military success and rainfall.37 The political background of this was the rebellion of An Lushan 安 (755 – 763) which shook the last years of the rule of Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712–756) to its root and was only resolved under the rule of his son, Suzong 肅宗 (r. 756 – 762), and the empire than consolidated again under Daizong 代宗 (r. 762 – 779), and which definitely weakened the Tang Dynasty to an ex tent from which it never recovered completely. The last section in the historical prose part38 of the Xi’an stele is clearly a propagandistic attempt to ascribe the prominent Jingjiao figure (seng) Yisi (僧)伊斯, father of Jingjing / Adam to an essential part in the defeat of the re volt under the command of the Tang-general Guo Ziyi 郭子儀 (697 – 781): The Great Lord Donor, the ‘Great Lord of Radiant Bless’, bearer of the golden (seal) and of the purple (ribbon), (who is) at the same time vice-military com missioner of Shuofang, director of the palace administration on probation, re ceiver of the purple kāêāya,39 the priest Yisi, was friendly and loved generosity. He had heard of the Dao and strived to practice it. He came from far away, from the ‘city of King’s Home’40, to China. His abilities were higher (devel

See THON in DREHSEN 1988, 867a: s.v. „Nestorianische Kirche“: „Die ... Säule von Singan-fu berichtet in syr. und chin. Sprache, daß schon vor 635 eine Kirchenorganisation in China bestand und möglicherweise sogar den Mahayana Buddhismus beeinflußt hat.“ (“The pillar of Si-ngan-fu relates in Syr. and Chin. languages that a church organization existed in China even before 635 which has eventually even influenced Mahayana Buddhism.”). (Italic by Max Deeg). 37 See CHEN 2007 for the relevant chapters in the recent biography of Fazang. 38 It should be noted that this relatively long passage is not rephrased in the poetic last portion of the stele, which seems to indicate that the authors were well aware that they had to keep the balance between self-propaganda and self-eulogy and praise of the Imperial house. 39 On the purple kāêāya in China as a symbol of imperial support see FORTE in VERARDIVITA 2003, 145-166; FAURE in FAURE 2003, 211-249. 40 Wangshe zhi cheng 國王唐城; Wangshe 國王is normally the Buddhist translation of Rājagåha, the old capital of Central-Indian Magadha in whose vicinity the Buddha often dwelt. It is evi36

146

Max Deeg

oped than those) of the three dynasties, his arts were more comprehensive (than) the ten perfections (of the medical art). After he had first done service in the cinnabar palace, he enrolled in the Imperial Tent. The secretary (and) prince of Fenyang, the respectable Guo Ziyi, undertook a military mission in Shuofang for the first time. (Emperor) Suzong committed (Yisi) to be his company. Although he had frequented the (Imperial) bedroom, he did not claim a distinct (treatment) in the troops. He was the claws and the teeth of the respectable (Guo Ziyi), he was the ears and the eyes of the army.41 Compared with the ceremonial activities of Buddhist religious specialists like Amoghavajra, Yisi had the advantage to have acted as a soldier, but he also had to be portrayed as a man of wisdom (Dao, medical art) and a benevolent and compassionate religious figure because he did not keep his income and rewards from his service to the Empire for himself but used it for works of charity42. Thus Jingjiao as a whole could claim through its foremost representative in the realm that it had contributed its share to overthrow the revolt but also contributed to the well-being of the empire.43 4. Jingjiao of the Tang Period was a multi-cultural “endeavour” insofar as it involved the Sassanian and post-Sassanian religious culture of Iran in the form of the Church of the East (Jingjiao) and Chinese culture in the heydays of the Tang Dyansty. Unfortunately, the Iranian aspect of Jingjiao is not addressed very often in the discussion of the material, and the reason for this is quite understandable. Direct and concrete data for the micro-history of late imperial Sassanian politics and of the Christian community in Iran are scarce, but I supdent that the name here has to mean something else and it has been suggested that it refers to Central-Asian Balkh (Fuhe 縛縛) which is called “small Rājagåha” in Xuanzang’s 至玄Xiyuji 明西以 [Records of the Western Regions] (T.2087872c2f.). See PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 280, note 205, and Forte’s Notes éditoriales, 343. 41Stele, line67ff.: 大世方，金金金能大都，同同方同三同為，試于伽試，能金賜賜，集伊如，伽餧和和， 聞所聞不。遠彼國王唐城，聿從伽夏。術陳三元，藝藝十續。始更同聖始始，乃乃乃聖國乃。伽叢令中中中國中 塔公公，叢初初聖同方初。肅世肅唐從肅。雖令雖聖雖 ，生彼不聖不不。為塔為為，所作作色。 42 我能能能，生不聖不； 天獻獻唐獻獻，布布布唐金布。或或我或十，或或或妙或； 崇崇崇崇，如如如如。 更更大世，依輔世克。 叢續十集集，虔以虔供虔中虔虔。餧十從餧餧唐，寒十從餧來唐； 病十病餧起唐，聞 十者餧至唐。 (“He was able to distribute his income and his honors and did not accumulate them at home. He donated the glasses of favor he had received and spread the golden brocade of his pension (in order) to extend (the Jingjiao’s) former temples or to expand their halls of the law (teaching). He ornamented the corridors as if they were flying pheasants. He caused the ‘Brilliant Gate’ [i.e.: Jingjiao] to develop (and) gave up his fortune, based on humanity. Every year, he summoned the priests of the four temples (in order) to donate respectfully spiritual donations for (a period of) full fifty days. When the hungry came he fed them; when the freezing came he clad them; he alleviated (the pain) of the sick, and consoled them; he buried the dead and gave them piece.”) (line 73ff.) 43 This was a different claim compared with Buddhist institutions like the famous Shaolin Si 少香十which also had received imperial rewards. One has to discern, however, that the Jingjiao stele was a semi-official document erected by the denomination itself and thus represents the emic view while the Shaolin Si stele, with which it can be compared, was an official imperial document. Concerning the Shaolin Si, see MAMORU (礪波波) in HERBERT-FORTE 1990.

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

147

pose that another reason for excluding the Iranian aspect is certainly that it is a disturbing element adding up to the already complicated and complex interrela tion of Jingjiao Christianity and Tang culture. How this can prevent thinking into new directions and resolving hitherto un solved problems can be demonstrated by the example of the name of the first Jingjiao missionary in China, Aluoben 阿羅本.44 Different solutions have been proposed,45 but they all are unsatisfactory, not least because of phonetic rea sons.46 It seems to be a kind of biased approach of scholars who tried to find a sound identification of this name that they were all looking for Biblical names instead of trying out Iranian names – after all the names written in Estrangelo on the stone of the stele prove that quite some of the persons mentioned bore Iranian or Syro-Iranian Hybrid names. In the case of Aluoben it was the Japanese scholar Haneda Tōru 羽田亨 who carefully pointed out that this name could be a transcription for the personal name Abraham and Saeki took this for granted.47 The name Alouben is definitely a Chinese phonetic rendering of a foreign name. It is advisable to start the hunt for a successful identification with its pronunciation indicated by the results of the historical phonology of TangChinese: Aluoben 阿羅本 is – in Pulleblank’s transcription of Early Middle Chinese – *ʔa-la-pən’48. As to Saeki’s identification with Abraham it should be emphasized that phonetically the metathesis of -b- and -r- and the final -n in the reconstructed Chinese against the -m in the Semitic name (Araban < *ʔ a-lapən’ – versus Abraham), but also the context does not support the identification of Aluoben with the Biblical name. I have to confess that I am not very convinced of the “Semitic” identifications (Abraham, Rabban) but would rather suggest an Iranian name behind the cryp

A more detailed and philological discussion of this issue can be found in my article (in Japa nese). See DEEG in Kyōto-daigaku-jinbun-kagaku-kenkyūjo, 411-426. 45 An almost comical and anti-catholic attempt of identification was made by a probably German protestant Christian of the early 18th century who tried to prove that the stele was a fake from 44

later times by arguing that Olupuen resp. Lopuen as an anagram for Polven, Pol Vénitien (Marco Polo). See PELLIOT in FORTE, 123. 46 The Maronite scholar and church historian Simon Joseph Assemani took Aluoben to represent Syriac Yahballaha. Another identification is suggesting a connection with the Syriac word rabbouni, “teacher” (cp. Hebrew rabbi); the “name” would then be a religious title. See WU 2001 in Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 忽敦敦希敦世世 5 (2001),13. This interpretation was recently repeated by Kahar Barat. See BARAT 2002 in Journal of Asian History 36 (2002), 193. 47 See PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 379. Cf. also SAEKI 1951, 84f, note 10, where he also gave an overview of other identifications. 48 In Late Middle Chinese, according to Edwin G. Pulleyblank, the last character is reconstructed as: *pun´. See PULLEYBLANK 1991.

148

Max Deeg

tic Aluoben.49 In Middle-Iranian languages, the final membrum of personal names -bān, respectively, -pān (written as -pn or -p’n), meaning “protected (by, through)” (or: “the one who protects …”) is found quite often and it is a perfect equivalence to the Chinese ben / *pən’ 本 in Aluoben. Examples from the cor pus of Middle-Iranian names are Ādurbān, “the one protected by the fire”, (Ādurbed-)Baypān, “the one protected by god (Bay)”, Marzbān, “the protector of the frontiers”, etc.50 The explanation of the second half of the name being accepted for the moment there is still the initial part of the name Chin. Aluo- *ʔa-la- 阿羅. I think that the Middle-Iranian “candidate” fitting best in terms of phonology and semantic is Middle-Iranian ard (Gignoux, Iranisches Personennamenbuch, 44, Nr.116), which in personal names often occurs as Ardā- (< Old-Iranian artāvan, “posessing the law, righteous”); cf. Ardādar, “the more righteous one”; ArdāyFarr, “light of the righteous ones”, etc. (Gignoux, Iranisches Personennamen buch, 45, No.119; 47, No.130). The basic word ard means “(cosmic) law, jus tice” and is one of the old Iranian religious keywords (Avestan aša, Old-IndoIranian arta, Old-Indo-Aryan åtá). If this equation is correct the Chinese Aluoben would then be an attempt to ren der a Middle-Iranian name *Ardābān, “the one protected by the righteous ones”, or *Ardabān, “the one protected by the (cosmic) law”. There is only one small phonological crux concerning this identification. The Chinese syllable luo / *la 羅 would have to transcribe a Middle-Iranian -rdā-. But in the light of the fact that luo / *la 羅 is used in the Buddhist transcriptional corpus to tran scribe quite a variety of foreign phonems (r, l, È) – but also taking into account the Middle-Iranian writing variants for Ardā-: ’lt’, ’rt’ – this seems indeed to be a minor problem compared with the phonological difficulties of the other iden tifications discussed above. Besides, the Chinese name may well reflect an Ira nian local pronunciation in which the consonant-cluster -rd- was assimilated or / and cerebrated into *AÈ(È)ābān. If my identification is correct, the first Christian missionary would not have had a Christian but a typical Iranian name: Ardabān, “the one protected by the law”, which finally was also the name of four Arsacid rulers. Ardabān would have been Aluoben’s birth-name or it may have been interpreted in a Christian way: the one who is protected by the transcendent law, the teaching of Christi anity and reminiscent of the Dao which is so often referred to in the inscription of the stele.

See ITŌ伊伊伊大1979, 301 and 411. (cf. PELLIOT in FORTE, 383). Itō already tried to show that Aluoben was a transliteration of a Persian name Anōš-ruwān; this identification, however, poses serious phonetic problems. 50 GIGNOUX in MAYRHOFER-SCHMITT 1986 in Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse. 31, Nr.36; 32, Nr.40; 120, Nr.591. 49

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

149

5. Trans-historical and -religious claims are quickly at hand in the case of Jing jiao Christianity. One of the latest attempts in this direction of deducing some trans-religious meaning from the sources is Palmer’s that Jingjiao was a pro found adoption of Daoism through the Iranian Christians which reflects the overall adoptability of religions in general. It is interesting that Palmer did not really note and address the issue of the overwhelming influence of Buddhism on the Jingjiao texts and their terminology. This may be due to his restricted knowledge of Chinese Buddhism but is certainly also based, to a certain extent, on his misconception of the character and role of “Daoism” in Chinese culture. Without denying the importance of this continuously rather cultural than reli gious discourse for the formation of historical China, I would bring up two main points of criticism against Palmer’s approach: 1. Daoism has never been – even under highly pro-Daoist emperors as Xuanzong – an institutionalised panChinese religious organisation to be identified as an underlying historical sce nario for the adoption of Jingjiao to Chinese culture. 2. Consequently, refer ences to Daoist “classics” like the Daodejing 道德經 and the Zhuangzi 莊子 cannot be taken as a direct proof for a dominant Daoist influence on Jingjiao. The Daodejing and the Zhuangzi certainly played a very important role in the textual production of China but this very fact shows rather the presence of these texts (and others) in the general literary cultural memory of China. Quot ing from these texts and using them allusively does not at all prove that reli gious Daoism of the time, which spoke a rather different language, had such a high impact on Jingjiao as Palmer assumed. I hope, it has become clear that what I consider a “thick” contextualisation of the Jingjiao-texts from the Tang period is a multi-layered and complex hermeneutical process which has to be performed with a necessary degree of philol ogical and historical caution and academic professionalism. It is strange that this is a self-understood procedure in the case of a lot of other central Asian languages in which early Christian texts, often referred to as Nestorian, are pre served (Sogdian, Turkish / Uighur, etc.) but that in the case of the Chinese texts a lot of speculative interpretation is brought forward as hardcore fact. This is ironical partly due to the wide range of context which Chinese culture of the Tang period and before provides and from which the interpreters often quite randomly take their specific interpretation of a certain term or passage of the text trimming it along a presupposed line of a theological or ideological framework. What has been neglected in the study of the Jingjiao documents – if they were studied at all – is what the late Professor Klimkeit demanded for the study of the history of Central-Asian Christianity, i.e., a “three-way discussion among scholars of” the history of Chinese religions (Daoism, Buddhism), Ori ental Christianity and Iranian history and culture.51

51

GILLMAN-KLIMKEIT, 262.

150

MaxDeeg

Bibliography ASSMANN, Jan. 1997. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität infrühen Hochkulturen. München: Beck. BARAT, Kahar. 2002 “Aluoben, A Nestorian Missionary in the 7th Century China,” in Journal of Asian History 36 (2002), 184 – 198. CHEN, Jinhua. 2007. Philosopher, Practitioner, Politician: The Many Lives of Fazang (643 – 712). Sinica Leidensia Vol. 75. Leiden: Brill. DEEG, Max. 2003. “Wer eine kennt, kennt keine ... – Zur Notwendigkeit der Unterscheidung von Orientalismen und Okzidentalismen in der asiatischen Religionsgeschichte” in Religion im Spiegelkabinett. Asiatische Religionsgeschichte im Spannungsfeld zwischen Orientalismus und Okzidentalismus, edited by P. Schalk, M. Deeg, O. Freiberger, and Ch. Kleine. Uppsala: Uppsala Univeristy, 27–61. DEEG, Max. 2005. “Verfremdungseffekt beim Übersetzen und “Wieder”-übersetzen der chinesischen Nestorianica,” in Das Christentum aus der Sicht der Anderen. Religionswissenschaftliche und missionswissenschaftliche Beiträge, edited by Ulrich Berner, Christoph Bochinger and Klaus Hock. Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Mission Nr.3. Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck, 75 – 104. DEEG, Max. 2007. “Gareki no yama kara kami wo horu – Keikyō-bunken to kenkyū no ideorogī“ 瓦礫の山から神を掘る — 景教文獻と研究のｲ ﾃ ﾞ ｵ ﾛ ｷ ﾞ [Dig ging out God from the Rubbish-Heap – The Ideology of Research of the JingjiaoDocuments] in Chūgoku-shūkyō-bunken-kenkyū 中國宗教文獻研究, edited by Kyōto-daigaku-jinbun-kagaku-kenkyūjo Kyoto京都大學人文科學研究所編. Ky oto: Rinsen-shoten 臨川書店, 411-426. DEEG, Max. 2007. (ﾏ ｯ ｸ ｽ ・ﾃ ﾞｲーｸ ) “Kodai no shūjihō – Seian no Nesutoriusu-hakirisuto-kyōhibun ni miru seiji-shūkyō no fukyō” 古代の修辞法 ・西安のﾈ ｽ ﾄ ﾘ ｳ ｽ 派ｷ ﾘ ｽ ﾄ 教碑文にみる政治宗教の布教 [The Rhetoric of Antiquity – The Politico-religious Propaganda in the Nestorian Stele of Xi’an] in Rekishi-bunkashakai-ron-kōza-kiyō 歴史分化社会論講座紀要 3 (2006) 1 – 13. (The English version of this article was published online in The Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 1, Cardiff 2007 at: http:// www.cardiff.ac.uk/clarc/jlarc) DUAN, Qing 段晴. 2003. “Tangdai daqinsi seng xinshi” 大唐大秦、寺僧新釋 [Daqin Si and (Daqin-)seng of the Great Tang – an attempt of a new explanation], in Tangdai zongjiao xinyang yu shehui 唐代宗教信仰與社會Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu chubanshe, 434 – 427. FAURE, Bernard. 2003. “Quand l’habit fait le moine. Le symbolisme of the kāêāya in Sōtō Zen,” in Chan Buddhism in Ritual Context, edited by Bernard Faure. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 211 – 249. FORTE, Antonino. 2003. “On the Origin of the Purple Kāêāya in China,” in Buddhist Asia 1. Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, edited by Giovanni Verardi. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Stud ies, 145 – 166. GEERTZ, Clifford, 1973. “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture,” in The interpretation of cultures, edited by C. Geertz. New York: Basic Books. GIGNOUX, Philippe. 1986. Iranisches Personennamenbuch (ed. M. Mayrhofer and R. Schmitt), Band II: Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 2: Noms propres Sassanides en moyen-Perse épigraphique, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. 31,Nr.36.

Contextualisation of the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period

151

GILLMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. GUAN, Ying 关英. 2005. Jingjiao yu Daqin Si 景教与大秦寺 [Jingjiao and the Daqin Si], Xi’an. HEILER, Friedrich. 1979. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion. Religionen der Menschheit, Bd.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. THE HOLY BIBLE 1995. Containing Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphical / Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Edition, Anglicized Edition, Oxford. ITŌ, Gikyō 伊藤義教. 1979. Zoroasutā kenkyū ｿ ﾞ ﾛ ｱ ｽ ﾀー 研究 [Studies in Zoroastrianism]. Tōkyō. KEEVAK, Michael. 2008. The Story of a Stele. China’s Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625 – 1916. Hongkong: Hong Kong University Press. LIN, Wushu 林悟殊 and RONG Xinjiang 榮新江. 1996. “Doubts concerning the Authenticity of Two Nestorian Chritian Documents Unearthed at Dunahuang from the Li”s Collection”. China Archaeological Digest vol. 1, no.1. (1996), 5-14.the Nestorian Discourse on One God from the Tomioka Collection“, LIN, Wushu 林悟殊. 2001. “Dunhuang jingjiao xieben P.3847 zhi zai yanjiu“ 敦煌景教寫本伯 3847 之再研究 [A new study of Dunhuang manuscript P.3847], Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究 5 (2001), 59 – 77. LUO, Zhufeng 羅竹風, et al,eds.1990. Hanyü da cidian 漢語大詞典. Beijing 1990. MACLEAN, A. J. 1892. The Catholicos of the East and His People. London. MOFFETT, Samuel Hugh 1998. A History of Christianity in Asia, Volume 1: Beginnings to 1500, New York: HarperSanFrancisco. MOROHASHI, Tetsuji 諸橋轍次, ed. 1955. Dai-kanwa-jiten 大漢和辭典, Tokyo 1955. MOULE, A. C. 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550, London, New York, Toronto: Octagon Books. PALMER, Martin. 2001. The Jesus Sutras. Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity. London: Piatkus. (German translation: Die wiedergefundenen Evangelien und Kultstätten des taoistischen Christentums in China, München: Ansata Verlag, 2002). PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. L’inscription nestorienne de Si-Ngan-Fou, edited with Supplements by Antonino Forte. Italian School of East Asian Studies Epigraphical Series 2. Paris : Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises. PULLEYBLANK, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin, Vancouver: UBS Press. RONG, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1999. Mingshaji 鳴沙集. Taibei 1999. RIEGERT, Ray and Thomas MOORE. 2003. The Lost Sutras of Jesus. Unlocking the Ancient Wisdom of the Xian Monks, Berkeley: Ulysses. SAEKI, P. Y. 1916. The Nestorian Monument in China, London: SPCK. SAEKI, P.Y. 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Mazuren. SEIWERT, Hubert. 2003. Popular Religious Movements and Heterodox Sects in Chinese History. Leiden: Brill. THON, Nikolaus. 1988. “Nestorianische Kirche” in Wörterbuch des Christentums edited by Volker DREHSEN. Gütersloh: Mohn.

152

Max Deeg

TUBACH, Jürgen. 2006. “Deuteronomistic Theology in the Text of the Stele of Xi’an”, in Jingjiao.The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, edited by Roman Malek. Sankt Augustin: Institute Monumenta Serica, 175-194. TONAMI, Mamoru 1990. The Shaolin Monastery Stele on Mount Song. Translated and annotated by P.A. Herbert, edited by Antonino Forte. Italian School of East Asian Studies Epigraphical Series 1. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies. WU, Qiyu 吴其昱. 2001. “Tangdai jingjiao zhi fawang yu zunjing kao” 唐代景教之法王與尊經考 in Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究 5 (2001), 13-58. ZHANG, Naizhu张乃翥.2007. “Ba Henan Luoyang xin chutu de yijian Tangdai jingjiao shike“ 跋河南洛阳新出土的一件唐景教石刻 [On a recently excavated Jingjiao-inscription of the Tang period from Luoyang, Henan], Xiyu-yanjiu 西域研究 (2007), 65–73. ZÜRCHER, Erik. 1980. “Buddhist influence on early Taoism: a survey of scriptural evidence,” in T’oung Pao 66 (1980), 84-147.

A DIATESSARONIC READING IN THE CHINESE NESTORIAN TEXTS Zhihua YAO The University of Hong Kong

In the Dunhuang manuscripts discovered in the early twentieth century, we found rich contents of Nestorian texts, indicating their belief, practice and doc trine. Especially, they contain the “gospel” that was alleged by James Legge and others to be missing in the Chinese Nestorian literature.1 This gospel is seen in the Book of Xu ting mishisuo序聼迷詩所經, one of the Aluoben 阿羅本 documents. In the following, I will argue that the “Gospel” of Chinese Nestorianism is based on the Diatessaron, a Gospel Harmony that was popular among Eastern Churches but not extant anymore. I will proceed in five sec tions: 1) Diatessaronic criteria; 2) Resurrection of the dead and Jesus; 3) As cetic rules; 4) Jewish-Christian orientation; 5) A Chinese gospel harmony.

I. The Diatessaronic Criteria Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning “through [the] four [Gospels],” is the title of a “combination and collection” of the Gospels created by Tatian about the year 170. Tatian was an Assyrian, who studied in Rome. He composed this work in his native language Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. In the beginning, the Syrians referred to this word with an explanation de-Mehallete, “[the Gospel] of the Mixed,” later they simply adopted the transliteration of this Greek word.2 The Diatessaron proved itself to be one of the most popular editions of the Gospels ever produced. It was used by Catholics, Jewish Christians, Nestorians and Manicheans. However, its greatest impact was in Syria. To our present knowledge, the Diatessaron was the first Syriac gospel, and it was continuously used in official ecclesiastics until about 425. Even after its replacement in offi cial ecclesiastical circles by the Canonical Gospels, it continued to be respected and popular. It was cited approvingly by Syriac scholars as late as the four teenth century.3 1 2 3

See LEGGE 1888, 54. See PETERSON 1994, 35. Ibid., 432.

154

Zhihua Yao

Though the Diatessaron did not come down to us, there are diverse witnesses to its text in the East and the West. In the East we have Ephrem’s Commentary, the gospel quotations of Aphrahat, an Arabic Harmony, a Persian Harmony, and Isho’dad of Merv’s Commentary. In the West there are Codex Fuldensis, The Heliand, the Liege Harmony and the related Stuttgart, Cambridge, Haaren, and Haagse Harmonies, the Middle German Leben Jhesu or Theodiscum Har mony, the Tuscan Harmony, the Venetian Harmony, and the Pepysian Har mony. As it is pointed out by Petersen, “Diatessaronic witnesses crop up in places as diverse as Britain and China.”4 While Peterson is saying this, what bears in his mind is “the fabled city of Turfan” at the north-east edge of the Takla Makan Desert in north-western China, where some of the major Chinese minorities reside. The Diatessaronic readings found there are actually in Parthian. But it makes the Diatessaronic studies ex citing when new Diatessaronic witnesses appear in different corners of the earth. To encounter this situation and to guide the Diatessaronic studies in norms, Petersen proposed some criteria to judge a Diatessaronic reading. Based on a general observation of the Diatessaronic readings in the East and the West, he summarized four characteristics of the Diatessaron’s text as follows: 1) The majority are textual trivia: the addition of a pronoun or an adjective is common. Substitution of names for pronouns (“Jesus” for “he” or “him”) are also common. 2) Some variants are glosses or rearrangements serving theological purposes. These often facilitate a particular exegetical interpretation, and encourage exe gesis of gospel passages by means of Hebrew Bible references. 3) Some variants appear to reflect specific liturgical practices of Tatian’s time, or his own particular Encratite views. 4) Other variants seem to be nothing more – or less – than a more ancient form of the text than we now possess in our present canonical manuscripts.5 Among the Chinese Nestorian texts found in Dunhuang, I find that one text, the Book ofXu ting mishisuo, arguably meets these criteria. This text is believed to be composed in the Tang Capital Chang’an長安 between 635 and 638 by the first Nestorian missionary to China Aluoben or his companies. It was probably composed for the purpose of making a presentation to the Chinese Emperor Taizong太宗. In the last section of their presentation, they summarized the nar ratives of Jesus’ life on the basis of the Diatessaron, which was still widely cir culating among the Syriac Church, and was carried along to Chang’an by this first missionary group represented by Aluoben. According to the Zunjing尊經, Aluoben presented five hundred and thirty sūtras to Taizong. Later, another Nestorian priest Jing Jing景淨 translated thirty-five of them into Chinese, and

4 5

Ibid., xiii. See ibid, 438.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

155

one of them is entitled Ningyeting jing寧耶頲經 , which, according to Wu, can be reconstructed as “Diatessaron.”6 By comparing the Chinese text with various Apocryphal Gospels and Gnostic documents as well as the Canonical Gospels, we can observe their parallels and differences, and, more importantly, we can learn how a Gospel Harmony is worked out among these diverse and sometimes conflicting narrative traditions. If one can appreciate this little book of 2800 words (the actual size of the gos pel contents is one-third of this number) in such a sense of incredibility, one has come closer to our assumption: what else could this text be if it is not a Diatessaronic reading? To substantiate this assumption, we have to examine the Book ofXu ting mishisuo against Petersen’s four criteria one by one. First of all, for the fourth crite rion we have exactly what Petersen used as an example: the resurrection of the dead when Jesus dies on the cross (Matt 27:52); for the third, we have the ascetic rules such as no meat-eating, no wine-drinking, and stressing on Mary’s no man-husband; for the second, we have the light and rising star at Jesus’ birth, Pilate’s washing hands at Jesus’ trial, a strong legal tendency, and the at titude towards the Davidic genealogy. The first criterion is in a different situa tion. Owing to the unique characteristics of the Classical Chinese, it is difficult to seek evidences for textual trivia. Instead, we notice its distinctive harmonic writing style, referring to sources in various gospel traditions, attempting to fill the gap of Jesus’ lost years, and so forth. All these convincing evidences will support the Book ofXu ting mishisuo to stand out as a Diatessaronic reading in the Far East.

II. The Resurrection of the Dead and Jesus Among the Chinese Nestorian texts, there are two versions of reports on Jesus’ death. One is a translation of Matthew 27:51-53, which limits the resurrection of the dead during Jesus’ death on the cross to some “virtuous dead.” This is a passage from the Shizun bushi lun世尊佈施論, which states: “There were some graves which were opened themselves, and it was heard that some virtuous dead men arose from the dead to life. They arose and came toward the peo ple.”7 The other is the last part of the Book ofXu ting mishisuo, which explic itly states that “all the dead men all received life”8 at that moment. The obvious differences between the two statements suggest that the Chinese Nestorian texts

6

7

8

See WU 2001, 36. But SAEKI 1951 reconstructed it as “Anidha Book,” which does not make sense. 彼彼彼彼彼陳，聞彼看聞聞十，並從聞並看，起起都彼從。Plate 10, lines 281-282. Numbering system according to Lin 2003. 序彼聞都並所並看。Plate 11, lines 168-169.

156

Zhihua Yao

keep two gospel traditions: one being the Canonical Gospel of Matthew, the other the Diatessaron. Petersen has noticed that a common feature of the Diatessaronic readings is to substitute a more general “the dead” or “all the dead” for “bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” in Matthew 27:52. He singled out twelve witnesses in the Eastern and Western Diatessaronic readings. Among them, there are nine from the East: two in Armenian, two in Greek, and five in Syriac; the rest are respectively from the Venetian Harmony, Pepysian Harmony and Heliand in the West. The following is an example from the Armenian readings: “...when the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn, and the guards were disturbed, and the tombs were opened, and the dead raised.”9 This statement closely matches the Chinese text. The latter even emphasizes more on a generalized statement: “All the gates of graves in the world were opened and all the dead men all received life.”10 In a condensed sentence, the terms for “all” (suoyou所有, xi悉) occurs three times, and a general term “in the world” (shijian世間) is stressed. This, following Petersen’s arguments, must imply that the Chinese text “offers us a more primitive version of Mat thew 27:52 than does the present canonical text, which is longer and much more sophisticated theologically.”11 This is because these readings fit the can ons of textual criticism: the shorter reading is earlier and the less-theologically developed reading is earlier. For a single word “the dead” or “all the dead” cer tainly can be imagined to be priori to the canonical statement that is specific as to the number raised (“many”), the form in which they are raised (“bodies”), and who is raised (“saints”). On the other hand, since the prospect of “all the dead arose” is obviously absurd, it needs a theological correction which is ex actly what the canonical text did. Having proved the Chinese text to be more primitive than the canonical text concerning the resurrection of the dead at Jesus’ death on the cross, we have drawn this text to the fourth characteristic of the Diatessaronic readings. In the meantime, we find such a close parallel between the Chinese text and the Di atessaronic readings in the East and the West that we cannot help to assume their common source. Actually this example is taken as one of the most impor tant criteria for judging a Diatessaronic reading by Petersen. This is an excel lent point that shows the authenticity of this Chinese Diatessaronic text and its value to the scriptural studies.12 While dealing with the resurrection of the dead during Jesus’ death, we regret fully notice the last part of the Chinese text being missing, where the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection is supposed to be told. Fortunately, there is a testimony

PETERSEN 1994, 404. 世明序彼彼世並陳，序彼聞都並所並看。Plate 11, lines 168-169. 11 PETERSEN 1994,413. 12 See LIN 2003, 208-228 for the discussion on the authenticity of the Book ofXu ting mishisuo. 9

10

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

157

suggesting that the missing part be little.13 One may speculate that even if the Book ofXu ting mishisuo continues with Jesus’ resurrection, it should be fairly brief. This is coherent to the testimonies of the Diatessaronic records of the resurrection by the ancient writers. An eighth century Nestorian writes: And when he [Tatian] reached the pericope of the resurrection, he saw that the tes timonies of all four differed, because each one described that He was risen from the dead at the time that our Lord appeared to him. And so as not to have to choose one testimony and omit three, he spoke thus in order to take account of the testimony of all four: “In the night when the first day of the week dawned, our Lord rose from the dead.”14

However, some others testified that the author of Diatessaron gave up his work when it came to the narrative of the resurrection. Petersen argues at this point that “this need not mean that Tatian abandoned creating the Diatessaron at that point; rather, bar Koni’s remarks suggest that he ceased his harmonizing, and presumably switched to presenting the accounts seriatim.”15 But I think the main point here is not whether Tatian gave up his work at this point or switched to one of the Gospel traditions because he might just simplify his ac counts. Rather the major concern should be why Tatian tried to give up or sim plify his Gospel Harmony at this point. In addition to the difficulties encountered while harmonizing the testimonies of the different gospels, I think that the major reason of Tatian’s giving up is his gnostic tendency. This is evident in the Chinese text, in which the death of Je sus is presented in a gnostic perspective to be “giving up his body to evil men for the sake of all the living beings.”16 Following this gnostic understanding of body-spirit relationship, there is even no need of resurrection, for the real Jesus or Jesus of the Spirit is always alive. On this gnostic view, one certainly does not feel obliged to go on with the narrative of resurrection. Moreover, in the Chinese text, a metaphysical struggle between the powers of good and evil in Jesus’ ministry and trial is evident. This displays an implicit radical dualism which is one of the exclusive marks of Gnosticism. Tatian also held a similar position, as it is testified by a tenth century Arabic writer: “There existed, he said, many other gods and many invisible aeons. Everything is a mixture of good and evil, for which reason everything lives in couples [i.e., in Syzygies].”17 At this point, we should keep in mind that the gnostic tendency is already pre sented in the Gospel of John, where the typical gnostic metaphor of light and darkness is applied thoroughly. The gnostic elements of Diatessaron might di See ibid., 227. PETERSEN 1994, 51. This is the first original Syriac document to mention Tatian and the Di atessaron. 15 PETERSEN 1994, 60. See BAARDA 1983, 104-105. 16 將取世將將，為一為為蔡。Plate 11, lines 161-162. 17 PETERSEN 1994, 57. 13 14

158

Zhihua Yao

rectly come from John; as it is pointed out by Plooij, “the Diatessaron evi dences no gnostic influence beyond that already present in the canonical gos pels.”18 On the other hand, this certainly is not contradictory to the possibility of Tatian’s being a gnostic. The Diatessaron could witness the Gnosticism of both John and Tatian. To summarize, the issue of the resurrection of the dead during Jesus’ death has drawn the Chinese text to meet the fourth criterion of the Diatessaronic read ings. It shows that Tatian and Aluoben transmitted us a more primitive form of Matthew 27: 51-53. The issue of Jesus’ resurrection leads us to the mystery whether Tatian gave up the resurrection narrative, and to explore his gnostic view behind this.

III. The Ascetic Rules Tatian’s gnostic tendency is enhanced by his being a practitioner of Encratism. According to the testimony of the early Church Fathers, Encratism is a heresy that “sprang from Saturninus and Marcion, rejected marriage and practiced sexual continence, abhorred wine and other alcoholic drink, and was vegetar ian.”19 All these practical rules concerning marriage, drinking and eating are evident in the Chinese text. In the narratives of the virgin birth, Mary’s no manhusband is very much stressed, and the function of the Holy Spirit is high lighted. Jesus’ birth is described as a purely spiritual birth. This indicates a Di atessaronic attitude towards marriage. Petersen thinks that the evidences for this rule of anti-marriage in the Diatessa ron are not so certain and still open to question, for the variant often occurs only in a single Diatessaronic witness. They are: 1) At Matthew 1:19, three Diatessaronic witnesses (the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony, the Middle Italian Venetian Harmony, and the Curetonian Syriac) refrain from calling Joseph the husband of Mary, reflecting the Encratite bias against marriage; 2) At Matthew 1:24, both the Armenian recension of Ephrem’s Commentary and the Persian Harmony have Joseph “guard” Mary, rather than “he took his wife,” again avoiding the intimation of a marriage between the two.20 Besides these witnesses regarding marriage, Petersen provides us some scat tered witnesses concerning the ascetic rules of drinking and eating. They are: 1) At Matthew 26:29 the Armenian recension of Ephrem’s Commentary sup presses the thought of a renewed “drinking of fruit of the vine” in the future Kingdom, avoiding a possible reference to wine; 77. CHADWICK 1985, 343. 20 PETERSEN 1994, 81. 18Ibid., 19

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

159

2)At John 15:1, the Persian Harmony changes “I am the true vine” to “I am the tree of the fruit of truth,” eschewing oenophile imagery; 3)At Matthew 11:19, Ephrem’s Hymn on the Resurrection of Christ presents Jesus as one who simply “drinks,” while the canonical version states he is a “drinker of wine”; 4)At Matthew 27:34, the Armenian recension of Ephrem’s Commentary reads that Jesus received “vinegar and gall” on the cross, not the offending “wine mingled with gall”; 5)At John 2:10, the Armenian recension of Ephrem’s Commentary omits the offending remark “when they have drunk freely.”21 All these witnesses are under doubt by Petersen for their single occurrence. But now we see the Chinese text explicitly holds the ascetic rules with regards to marriage, drinking and eating. These ascetic rules are mentioned by the Chinese text in the following contexts: 1) Virgin birth: “Hereupon, the Cool Wind entered the body of Moyan in accordance with the instruction of the Lord of Heaven. Then Moyan became pregnant because the Lord of Heaven sent the Cool Wind to her when she was a virgin. Conceiving without a man-husband it taught all living beings to see that she conceived without a man-husband.”22 2)John the Baptist: “At first, the Messiah submitted to [Gu-hun谷昏, i.e., John] as a disciple. This sacred man dwelt in a wild ravine. He neither drank wine nor ate meat from his birth, but only ate raw vegetables and honey— honey on the ground.”23 3)Jesus’ ministry: “All the men who did evils, those who did not turn toward the good way, those who did not believe in the teaching of the Lord of Heaven, and those who were unclean and covetous, and those ‘literary men’ [i.e., scribes] who did not cease to desire wine and take meat in their lives in this world and serve inferior gods, hindered him, proceeded to plot deceitfully.”24 The Chinese text seems to suggest that both John and Jesus shard these ascetic rules of no marriage, no wine-drinking and no meat-eating. If it is taken as a Diatessaronic reading, this text certainly would add weight to the above witnesses. However, those witnesses do not mention the rule of no meat-eating. Is this rule created by Aluoben under the influence of the popular practice of vegetarianism among the Chinese Buddhists and Manicheans? Or has it its source in the particular Encratite view of Tatian? Or even is it rooted in the 21Ibid.,pp.81-82.

，依天世大，當涼看涼當取。為伽天世為涼涼為為為為，無無都當無，令一為為蔡令無無都當 無。Plate 11, lines 116-119. 23 叢初初初初初初初 聖看聖聖伽聖聖，蔡蔡生從生生生生，唯唯蔡唯唯唯，唯聖蜜上。Plate 11, lines 130131. 24 序彼所將都生所起所所十，生信天世大十，唯生及及及克唐都，今世並生今今今生今生，唯以潳[-十+ 禹一八都 ] 留看著留留。Plate 11, lines 145-148.

22涼涼涼涼看涼涼

160

ZhihuaYao

gospel traditions? Since we cannot trace these ascetic rules back to the Canoni cal Gospels, we should pay attention to the Jewish-Christian Gospels, which are considered to be the fifth source of Tatian’s Diatessaron. The surviving witnesses of the Gospel according to the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans explic itly state that John’s food is honey-cakes instead of locusts in the Canonical Gospels, and that Jesus expresses his no-desire of eating meat in the last sup per. In this Jewish-Christian tradition, Jesus is represented to hold “rejection of meat and sacrifice.”25 So the fact might be: from these gospels, Tatian absorbed the ascetic rules of no meat-eating, no wine-drinking and no marriage, which in the meantime fitted his Encritate view and were put into the writings of Diates saron. To summarize, the ascetic rules as found in the Chinese text meet the third cri terion of Diatessaronic readings as proposed by Petersen. Some variants, i.e., the ascetic rules such as anti-marriage, no wine-drinking and no meat-eating, reflect Tatian’s own particular Encratite views or specific liturgical practices of his time.

IV. Jewish-Christian Orientation Petersen’s second criterion of Diatessaronic readings is that “encourage[s] exe gesis of gospel passages by means of Hebrew Bible (OT) references.”26 One of his favorite examples is the “light” in the Jordan at Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:15-16). In this example, he reminds us of the author of the Diatessaron “is re liably transmitting a very ancient tradition,...[which] failed to be included in the main Greek manuscript tradition, or, alternately, were actively rejected by later Christians.”27 This actually refers to the Jewish-Christian gospel tradition pre served in the Diatessaron. In the Chinese text, though we find no light at Jesus’ baptism, we have the “bright signs in heaven and on earth,” i.e., rising star, at Jesus’ birth.28 More over, we find another example of the “exegesis” in the Chinese text, and it is Pilate’s washing hands at Jesus’ trial: “The Great King Pilodusi毘羅都思 or dered water to be brought to him and washed his hands in front of ‘these fol lowers of the wicked cause of existence’ and came and stood before them and said, ‘I truly cannot kill this man.’”29 Both of these details are only recorded in the Gospel of Matthew which is considered to be the most Jewish-Christian oriented among the Canonical Gospels. The rising star is an exegesis in refer ence to Numbers 24:17 “[A] star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall KLIJN 1992, 41. PETERSEN 1994, 438. 27 Ibid., 20. 28 明明看聖天蜜。Plate 11, line 125. 29 大國大羅都八，索林索索，對將 對伽： 我我生我我我都。Plate 11, lines 159-160. 25 26

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

161

rise out of Israel.” Here the star is a royal symbol that is associated with kings like David in the Jewish tradition. Washing hands has its reference to the Deu teronomy 21:8 and Psalm 26:6, in which it is described as a ritual that let one “be absolved of blood-guilt.” (Deuteronomy 21:8). This, again, is a Jewish cul tural mark and seems not proper to be associated with a Roman governor. However, the Jewish-Christian orientation is not only demonstrated in some exegesis reference to the Hebrew Bible, but also in its strong sense of keeping the old laws. In the Book ofXu ting mishisuo, the incarnation of Jesus follows a whole section of the moral teaching of the Lord of Heaven. The virgin birth of Jesus is a sign that shows the “power and dignity” (weili威力) of the Lord of Heaven so as to make the people turn back to “the old teaching” and “good re lation” (shanyuan善 ). In his baptism, Jesus is announced to be the guider of the people in the world to lead them to follow the good way and to obey the Lord of Heaven. And finally Jesus’ ministry is still to fulfill these moral teach ings. Generally on the Diatessaronic readings, Petersen notices that “the validity of the Torah for Christians,” i.e., the obligation of being obedient to the law or the old law, is quite common.30 In this context, the incarnation of Jesus is for the purpose of fulfilling the law and his ministry is to persuade people to be obedi ent to the law. It displays a clear Jewish-Christian position that regarding the law was still binding. The Chinese text seems to understand the laws as moral teachings; it implies that sacrifice and especially the killing along with the sacrifice is against the moral teachings of the Lord of Heaven.31 This is evident in a surviving source of the Gospel according to the Ebionites, it says: “I [Jesus] have come to abol ish sacrifices and if you do not stop sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you.”32 It seems that this group who composed the Chinese text was loyal to the laws but against sacrifice and the killing along with it. Having explored the Jewish-Christian orientation in Diatessaronic readings concerning the validity of the Jewish laws, a sharp question arises, how can such a position co-exist with a strong anti-Jewish tendency in the Diatessaron? The Chinese text is also very anti-Jewish. It finds no responsibility of “the Great King,” i.e., the Roman governor, in Jesus’ trial and death, but attributes all the condemnation to envious evil-livers, i.e., the Jews. So the Diatessaronic readings appear to represent a more Jewish-Christian form of the text, such as fulfilling the old law, keeping the precepts of the Jewish-Christian community, including no wine-drinking and no meat-eating; at the same time they also ap pear to be more anti-Jewish. How to explain this? Petersen suggests, “[t]his anti-Judaic tendency may be explained in part by the fratricidal hatred which

PETERSEN 1994, 24. See Plate 11, lines 111-114. 32 KLIJN 1992, 75. 30 31

162

Zhihua Yao

inevitably follows a religious schism, turning former co-religionists into ene mies; consider Catholic-Protestant relations immediately after the Reformation.”33 This explanation is certainly helpful, but I think a more profound reason for this anti-Jewish tendency is a gnostic worldview that identifies the enemies of Jesus to be the absolute evil power. The Chinese text does not give us the par ticular identity of Jesus’ enemies but “the evil-livers”; it describes the trial of Jesus as a power struggle between good and evil, and the death of Jesus as a giving-up of his body to the evil. The gnostic worldview is also reflected in Jesus’ physical genealogy. In the Chinese text, Jesus’ possible relationship with the Davidic genealogy has been cut off by admitting Mary’s no man-husband, and by admitting him to be the son of the “Cool Wind” and the Lord of Heaven. Jesus’ purely spiritual birth ensures his power over the evil and consequently turns to be an anti-Jewish tendency. As to the Diatessaron, Petersen provides us some witnesses of an cient authors concerning Jesus’ physical genealogy that seem to conflict with each other: 1) A fifth century Bishop in Syria accuses Tatian’s Diatessaron of “cutting out the genealogies and whatever goes to prove the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” 2) A Nestorian physician in the late ninth century records “in it [Diatessaron] are not mentioned the physical genealogy, nor the exalted one, of our Lord Christ, and he who composed it is cursed for this reason.” 3) A Jacobite in the thirteenth century reports: “Because he cut out all of the genealogies and all which demonstrated that Christ was from the seed of David, and he also changed the Apostle.” The other two report the opposite: 1) A tenth century Arabic writer says: “He [Tatian] changed and destroyed the order of the tribute [i.e. the genealogy], which had been fixed. He said that the Lord Christ, whom he glorified, [was of the race of] David.” (2) A Syriac monk who died in the twelfth century recorded: “And there were tracts in which he was showing that Christ was from the seed of David.” 34 Petersen did not suggest a solution to this contradiction. But at least we know that the Diatessaron concerns the Davidic genealogy of Jesus, whether to ap prove or to deny. If it approves, it is more Jewish-Christian oriented; if it de nies, it is more gnostic oriented. In the case of Jesus’ trial, we learn that there is a tension between the Jewish-Christian and gnostic orientation. Here the atti tude towards Davidic genealogy may also indicate this tension. Actually, we can see such a tension in the Canonical Gospels where the genealogy of David 33

PETERSEN 1994, 428, n. 4.

34

Ibid., 42, 54, 63, 57, and 61.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

163

is emphasized in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, meanwhile there is the doubt of “[i]f David thus calls him (the Messiah) the Lord, how can he be his son?” (Matthew 22:45; cf. Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20: 41-44) To summarize, the Chinese text meets Petersen’s second criterion with refer ence to the rising star at Jesus’ birth and Pilate’s washing hands at Jesus’ trial. Meanwhile, its favorable attitude towards the laws, negative attitude towards sacrifice, and the tension concerning Jesus’ Davidic genealogy also indicate the text being a Diatessaronic reading.

V. A Chinese Gospel Harmony Petersen takes the first criterion, i.e., textual trivia, as the major one to judge a Diatessaronic reading. Owing to the unique features of the Classical Chinese, it is difficult to apply this criterion to the Chinese text. Another reason that ex cuses us from getting into the textual trivia is that the Book ofXu ting mishisuo is not a literal translation of the Syriac sources. Rather, it only briefly summa rizes the life of Jesus, without recording any of Jesus’ sayings. This has signifi cantly reduced the possibility of proving it to be an accurate translation of Diatessaron. On the other hand, however, this abridgment seems to be distinctive among the Eastern Diatessaronic witnesses. As it is commonly assumed, “[the Western harmonies are] on the whole rougher and cruder, while the Syriac form has the characteristics of a ‘second edition, revised and enlarged.’”35 The Book ofXu ting mishisuo seems to be an exception of this assumption. I think its author did this for the missionary purpose. To present themselves better to the Chinese Emperor, they must try to include all the essentials in a roll of pa per. This is why we find an introduction to Christian theology, its moral teach ings and the gospel in one single book. By comparing the Chinese text to the Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels, we find that the Chinese text is composed in a harmonic way with sources from various Canonical and Apocryphal Gospel traditions. This, on the other hand, proves the Chinese text to be a Diatessaronic reading, for the harmonic inten tion which left any doubt out of narratives is the very intention of Tatian. As Baarda pointed out, “The Diatessaron was a careful attempt to create one his torical account of the words and deeds of Jesus, as far as they could be recon structed....The basic idea of the harmony was that the truth becomes visible in unity and harmony....Tatian wanted to replace the sources and their contradic tions with a new document that surpassed all these sources and would avoid the criticisms the pagans and Christian dissidents made on the basis of the existing

35

BURKITT 1924, 128.

164

Zhihua Yao

Gospels...”36 This harmonic writing style of the Chinese text, in my opinion, reveals no less evidence than the grammatical textual trivia. Among the Canonical Gospels, we find that the Chinese text is closely related to the Gospel of Matthew. Besides the details common to the synoptic gospels, in the Chinese text we find some exclusive details in Matthew, such as the ris ing star at Jesus’ birth, Pilate’s washing hands at Jesus’ trial and the resurrec tion of the dead at Jesus’ death. This is coherent to the ancient testimony of Tatian’s Diatessaron. A sixth century Latin writer reported that “for the most part he (Tatian) joined the words of the remaining three [gospels] to the gospel of Saint Matthew.”37 Since the Gospel of Matthew has a strong Jewish-Christian orientation, it pre sumably shares more commonness with the Jewish-Christian gospels. For the same reason, the Chinese text should share more common details with these Hebrew gospels than with other Apocryphal Gospels. Owing to the obscure sources of the surviving Jewish-Christian gospels, we cannot explore this fur ther. But at least we find their parallels on the ascetic rules of no meat-eating and no wine-drinking, as well as the favorable attitude towards the laws and the negative attitude towards sacrifice and killing. Their close relationship is sup ported by an ancient testimony of the Diatessaron. A Greek in the fourth cen tury wrote: “It is said the Diatessaron gospel was created by him [Tatian], which some call according to the Hebrews.”38 Besides the details that can be traced back to the Canonical and Apocryphal Gospels, the Chinese text contains some details that we find no parallels else where, such as Jesus’ birth time at the fifth hour, his early preaching since one year old, his early baptism at twelve years old, and his long period of mission ary from twelve to thirty-three. Many of these details concern the early years of Jesus’ life, which is left as a gap in the Canonical Gospels. Though many Apocryphal Gospels try to fill this gap, most of them only focus on the child hood of Jesus before the age of twelve. Since Petersen did not provide any cri terion concerning Jesus’ early years to judge a Diatessaronic reading, I am not sure whether these contents should be attributed to the Diatessaron. But it seems that the Chinese Nestorian author had no reason to make up these details while faithfully following the other records. On the other hand, this intention of filling the gap of the “lost years” of Jesus and providing us a unitized and har monic picture of his life should exactly be the intention of Tatian. On these matters, the Chinese text has no other possible sources but the Diatessaron. One may wonder where Tatian got these sources or whether he simply fabri cated them. According to a Syriac testimony in the fourteenth century, when Tatian was composing the Diatessaron, “[h]e did not add at all something from

36BAARDA1994,46. 37 38

PETERSEN 1994, 47. Ibid., 39.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

165

his own to the original state.”39 This suggests that Tatian was very honestly fol lowing the existing traditions at his time and could not possibly make up such important events in Jesus’ life by himself. Another possibility is that he might have had access to the oral traditions on Jesus’ life circulating in the second century and recorded them in the Diatessaron. And the possible source of this oral tradition is the Jewish-Christian group. This tradition, as we mentioned earlier, failed to be included in the main Greek manuscript tradition, or was ac tively rejected by later Christians. So the narrative of Jesus’ life in the Chinese text may not only be faithful to the Diatessaron, but also have its source in an ancient tradition that we cannot eas ily gain access to today. In this tradition we can find a more primitive and less theologically developed form of gospel, as we see in the example of the “resur rection of the dead” in the second section. And more importantly, we may find a more faithful image of the historical Jesus in this tradition. This will be very significant to the on-going “Jesus research.” To conclude, by proving the gospel section contained in the Book of Xu ting mishisuo to be based on the Diatessaron, and by tracing its source back to the early Jewish-Christians, we have not only provided a new witness to the studies of the Diatessaron, but also shed new light on the studies of Chinese Nestorian texts. Bibliography BAARDA, Tjitz. 1983. Early Transmission of the Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament, Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel. BAARDA, Tjitz. 1994. Essays on the Diatessaron. Kampen. BURKITT, F.C. 1924. “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Dutch Harmonies,” in Journal of Theological Studies 25. CHADWICK, H. 1985. “Enkrateia” in Reallexikon f. Antike u. Christentum, Stuttgart. KLIJN, A. F. J. 1992. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. Leiden: E.J. Brill. LEGGE, James. 1888. Christiantiy in China, London: Trubner & Co. LIN, Wushu林悟殊. 2003. Tangdai jingjiao zai yanjiu唐代景教再研究, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. PETERSEN, W. L. 1994. Tatian’s Diatessaron. Leiden: E.J. Brill. SAEKI, P. Y. 1951. Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, Tokyo: Muzuren. WU, Qiyu …其 . 2001. “Tangdai jingjiao zhi fawang yu zunjing kao”唐代景教之法 王與尊經考, in Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu敦煌吐魯番研究 5 (2001), 13-57.

39

Ibid., 64.

NOTES ON A BILINGUAL PRAYER BOOK FROM BULAYIK Peter ZIEME Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Germany

General Remarks As Nestorianism spread from the Near East to the Far East of Asia, it attracted also Turkic and Mongol peoples such as the Kereit, Öŋgüt and the Uighur. Be side using Syriac books in liturgy and partly translating them into their lan guages, they also wrote their own texts either on stones, mostly tomb inscrip tions, or on paper, which were two most widespread writing materials. In his still unpublished thesis, Niu Ruji has given an overview on all kinds of texts found in China,1 while W. Heffening presented a list of Near Eastern manu scripts in Turkic written in Syriac script already in 1936.2

Near Eastern Turkic Texts Written in Syriac Script The first scholar who studied such manuscripts systematically was W. Heffen ing who gave essential remarks on several manuscripts in 1936,3 but did not edit the texts due to other works. They are still unpublished, but deserve a spe cial attention as they give, on the one hand interesting details and deviations of some liturgical texts; and on the other hand they show that Turkish Christian communities once used the Syriac script to some extent. The following items can be added now:

1

2 3

NIU 2003. It is a long piece of literature on the tomb inscriptions from Semireč’e to Quanzhou covering the period from the 11th to the 14th centuries. HEFFENING 1936. HEFFENING 1936. Cf. also HEFFENING 1935, HEFFENING 1942. In the last work (p. 9) he mentioned that he intended to prepare an edition of the texts. Not mentioned before, he re ferred here to “einige äsopische Fabeln in syrischer Schrift.” [no reference!] And he added: “Nach den Ergebnissen meiner weiteren Untersuchungen stammen diese Texte [without saying which texts] wahrscheinlich aus der Gegend von Malatia, wofür die Form der armenischen Lehnwörter spricht, während das türkische Sprachgewand nach unserer bisherigen Kenntnis der türkischen Dialekte die Texte nur allgemein ins östliche Anatolien verweist.”

168

Peter Zieme

1) U. Marizzi has edited one text of the Vatican.4 2) Geng Shimin kindly showed me some copies of the manuscripts written in Syriac script. Among them are two Turkish letters in Syriac script from Tarsus written in 1915. They are interesting testimonies of some Turks who used the Syriac script still in the last days of the Ottoman Empire. I would like to men tion that at the first Salzburg conference in 2003, it was Jürgen Tubach who gave me the first instruction as to how to read these texts. Deciphering the complete text was a difficult5 yet solvable task. But as the text is not connected to the religious matters, I will not present it here. 3) A manuscript of the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris. Among the Syriac ma nuscripts, the number 371 is a composite one which contains on folios 145 till 146 a “hymne métrique sur la résurrection, en langue Syriaque, Arabe et Turque.”6 4) In this connection one should also mention the Manuel de Piété of Paul Bedjan. Recently H. Younansardaroud has published a study of Bedjan’s Turkish texts.7 By the way I would like to mention that the Near Eastern regions during the Elhanid period as well as later in some parts of the Ottoman Empire Christian manuscripts were produced in Turkish, or, as in the case of the famous Gospel from Diyarbakır, for Turkish speaking people in far away King George’s coun try as the colophon dated to 1298 makes clear.8

Turkic Texts Written in Syriac Script from Central Asia and China This leads us farther to the East from where we know the rich materials of in scriptions, mainly tomb inscriptions, from inter alia Semireč’e, Almalık, Olon Süme and Quanzhou. The study of these materials, which began at the end of the 19th century has continued to our days, and new finds have been made re cently and other discoveries are still possible. Beside the epigraphic materials, there are also manuscripts mainly written on paper in a great variety. These Nestorian written in Middle Persian, Syriac, Sogdian, Chinese and Turkic were discovered during several Central Asian ex peditions at the beginning of the last century in the Turfan oasis, mainly in Bu4 5 6 7 8

MARAZZI 1982. To mention only one example: is chemin de fer. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1997, 44 ff. YOUNANSARDAROUD 2005. Cf. HACALOĞLU 1995, 35-45. See BORBONE 2003, BORBONE 2006. I am grateful to Mr. Borbone for his kindness to share a copy of the colophon page with me. Now, I am convinced that the transcription of the Chinese title can be read as g’wṭ’ng w’ng, thus perfectly corresponding to Chinese 高唐王 Gaotang Wang.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

169

layık, Kurutka, Toyok, Kočo as well as in Dunhuang and Xaraxoto. In recent years new finds from Dunhuang have been added to the collection, and I had the pleasure to present my identification of a bundle of folios from Xaraxoto at the last conference in 2003.9 While the Syriac and Sogdian texts are written mostly in Syriac script, the Uighurs used beside the Syriac script, their own Uighur script as well. However, there are also some exceptions. According to the information given by Chr. Reck, there are also some Sogdian texts written in Sogdian script.10 And, what seems to be more surprising, there is one longer manuscript of a Syriac text written in Uighur script.11 The nine folios, alto gether 225 lines of Syriac texts and three final lines in Uighur language, are clearly written, but difficult to decipher due to a quite different system of con sonantal letters. Confusions arise because of they were written by ear. Al though still at the beginning of the decipherment, I would like to mention one example. In lines 46 to 48 we have the following words:

mytwl tqtysw mùryù ùrqù :: sùpùq lmùryù sùpùq lmùryù which is in Syriac: mytwl dqdyšw mùryù ùlhù :: šbh lmùryù šbh lmùryù. This phrase, just from the middle of the text, can be translated as “because of the holy Lord, the God. Praise for the Lord, praise for the Lord”. So far I can only guess that the book is a kind of a liturgical piece. A further hint to the genre the book belongs can be seen in line 26 from the letters mùrmyt. They present nothing else than the Syriac mrmyṭ ù, from a section of the Psalter. Unfortunately as the reconstruction of the Syriac text needs more time and more imagination I have to postpone a definite solution to a later date, unless I can find a decisive clue, which can help me to compare the text with a parallel written in Syriac script. Here, I would like to express my thanks to Helen Younansardaroud who spent her time and energy to help me in this matter.

Scripts Description of the Prayer Booklet from Bulayık and Peculiarities of Its

The little book has a very small size of 7 to 6 cm in width and consists of a Turkic section written in Uighur and Syriac scripts and a Syriac passage written in Syriac script alone. The pages of this booklet preserved in the Turfan Collec-

9

In my paper delivered at that conferece (Zieme 2006), I only gave a preliminary study. Chr. Reck is preparing an article on this subject. N. Sims-Williams mentioned some of them already, cf. SIMS-WILLIAMS 1992. 11 LE COQ 1919, 95 Anm. 1: “Als Unikum wurden dort auch 7 oder 8 Blätter eines syrischen, aber in uigurischen Lettern geschriebenen Buches ausgegraben.” 10

170

Peter Zieme

tion of Berlin under the siglum U 338 (T II B 41, No. 1)12 are bound together by a string. One can guess that its use was limited to private purposes. Although mentioned in a survey of the Nestorian-Turkic texts from Xinjiang and available in the Digital Turfan Archive, the manuscript has not been stud ied so far. During the sixties of the past century, Semih Tezcan made an initial transcription of the manuscript, but he never returned to it. Both scripts show some peculiarities. The Syriac script used for writing Turkic has the following ones: p for b; s for z (according to the dental confusion); ww for ü (like in Uighur script); î for č (like in Sogdian); ú for q/γ; ú with an additional stroke for x (or q?) (like in Sogdian); the letters y, t and š have in their final forms a long stroke; g for k (rare). Peculiarities of the Uighur script are: dental confusion; sometimes the letter n has a diacritic stroke; final w = final y; -e- in beš is written by two yy.

Sections of the Booklet Although the booklet consists of ten folios, the text itself is rather short. It can be divided into the prayer and the concluding colophon: 1. A prayer written in both scripts, partly differing, partly totally matching. It says that the Lord Messiah, who is keeping alive our bodies and who is rescu ing our souls, is praised by all Christians. The text in Uighur script has, after the word kutgartačı, an additional section. 2. The colophon mentions the year (according to the Twelve Animal Cycle),13 the month and the day, the scribe’s name, the merit transfer as well as the con cluding amen. The phrase “writing it five times and teaching son and girl in the house” can be explained in the way that the booklet was a school exercise book. Given the fact that it would be the first testimony of such a school book, one can see that it is of great value.

Available in the Digital Turfan Archive I of the project “Turfanforschung” at the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften // Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities: http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/u/images/u033801.jpg and ff. 13 Therefore, it must be one of the cow years during the 13th and 14th centuries. 12

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

171

The Words for “Christian(s)” Written only in Syriac letters, the Uighur word here interpreted as “Christians”, is ùrykùkwtlùr. It can be read as är{i}käküt14 followed by the Turkish plural suf fix {lAr}, although the word itself is already the plural form. But this is not un common in Uighur. We find this word mentioned here in Syriac letters as well as in Uighur script in several other texts. It does not appear in texts of PreMongol period. In classical Mongol it is well known both from Mongol and ùPhags-pa script. It is usually regarded as the origin of the Chinese term 也里可溫 yelikewen. The origin of the term ärkägün is highly debated. Here I would like to mention only the following facts: The Chinese term is the tran script of a foreign term. That foreign term is recorded in Uighur and Mongol sources, the first in Uighur and Syriac scripts, the latter in Mongol and ùPhagspa scripts. Armenian and Persian sources record the term in historical content. P. Pelliot mentions the Persian spelling ärkäwün15 as well as Armenian arkhaun. Although recorded in Uighur and Mongol sources, one cannot be sure where the term originally came from. The other name for “Christian” is tars or tùrsùk16 borrowed from Middle Persian trsù. It is found in some other Uighur texts.

Bacchus, the Scribe’s Name Bäküz is the scribe’s name whose origin is Latin Bacchus, the god of wine. This name appears also in the Alkıš bitigi17 as well as in some Uighur docu ments, e.g. U 5291.18 It seems to be a widespread name among Nestorians,19 surely because Syrians had a legend about Sergius and Bacchus, the two fa mous saints of the early history of the Nestorian church.20 Due to my previous wrong spelling Bägün21 V. Rybatzki recorded the name as Bägün.22

Considering that this is a re-transcript of the word in Uighur script, one may also read är{i}kägüt = ärkägüt. 15 E.g. in Rašīd ad-Dīn: used as an ethnic name like Tazik, Chinese, Uighur, cf. VERCHOVSKIJ 1960, 178. 16 ZIEME 1974, 664. 17 ZIEME (forthcoming). 18 RASCHMANN 1995, Nr. 24; MATSUI 1998, 36. 19 Cf. CHABOT 1894, 96 (prêtre Bacchus: Cod. 17 (histoires édifiantes (en caršouni) écrit par le prêtre Gabriel, originaire de a région d’Ourmiah, du village de Soupourgan, demeurant actuellement à Amid). Cf. FRANKE 1998, 317-318. 20 FIEY 2004, 171 (“Bien que Serge et Bacchus soient peut-être les martyrs les plus célèbres de tout l’Orient, leur légende, malgré son ancienneté, n’a guère de valeur historique.”). 21 BT XIV, 69a (ad U 330r). 22 RYBATZKI 2004, 276. 14

Peter Zieme

172

Merit Transfer The institution of merit transfer is widespread in Buddhist religious texts. As we can conclude from this as well as other texts, the Uighur Nestorians fol lowed this custom as well. K.H. Menges supposed that this could be of Chris tian origin, too.23 Yonan, the Name of the Scribe’s Father Yonan, the scribe’s father, is the person to whom the merit is transferred. It is a shortened form of YoÍanÂn, the Syriac form of John.

The Syriac Phrase in the Uighur Section Four words in Syriac are inserted into the Uighur sentence: úmmù pryqù g úšù24 šbyhù.

Although the reading of these four words is rather clear, the interpretation is not easy. Here I take into account that the text was recorded by ear, and thus I assume that mistakes are possible. Usually it is a great risk to take mistakes into account, but judging from the manuscript in Uighur script mentioned at the beginning, it may be allowed here, too. If so, one may think of the second half of Psalm 72:17 “May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed.”

23

MENGES 1991, 87-88: “Genau so dürfte es sich bei der Zuwendung von eigenem punja “me ritum. Verdienst” an andere (p. 18) um eine Paralle handeln, die in beiden Religionen ursprünglich ist, da sie auf ganz dem gleichen Bedürfnis beruht. Gerade in der römischen Kirche ist die Zuwendung von merita an andere, besonders die Verstorbenen (vulgo: die armen Seelen im Fegfeuer), in der Volksreligiosität tief verwurzelt. Daß der Kopist des von KLIMKEIT erwähnten syrisch-türkischen Gebetbüchleins sein meritum, das er durch das Abschreiben erwirbt, seinem Vater zuwendet (p. 18), könnte bedeuten, daß er es seinem verstorbenen Vater zuwendet, in echt christlicher Weise. KLIMKEIT weist ja auch darauf hin, daß die türkischchristliche Volksreligiosität aus den Kolophonen ersichtlich ist. Daß die Christen OstTürkistans dogmatisch anscheinend stärker gebunden waren als die Buddhisten und Manichaeer, wäre daraus zu schließen, daß Manichaeer christliche Texte wie Evangelientexte und Apokrypha in Pahlavi und Parthisch nach Turfan überlieferten (p. 19).”

24Or:gnš’.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

173

The Syriac Peshitta text is not identical, but very similar: ntbrkwn bh klhwn úmmù wklhwn nšbÍwnyhy. The identical stems are highlighted by bold charac ters. Comparing this parallel, I assume that pryqù is written for brykù “blessed”, while g úšù may be gnsù “gentes”. On the other hand, Helen Younansardaroud thinks, if pryqù is correct, the word means “liberatur, salvatus”25, while gnšù may be read as knšù with the meaning “collectio”26. Thus the phrase may be translated as “Rescued peoples, blessed community”. This interpretation is more distant from the above cited psalm, but at least still similar.

The Syriac Passage As already in the short two lines of Syriac phrases inserted into the Uighur text, we have to reckon also here with some misspellings. Words given here in bold characters are still to be deciphered or not very clear.

VIII 01

ïïïïbù d mnyn/w/ “[Lord ?] God, community of your sole holy church, passion of Lord Messiah ... (for the) sheep of your flock, from the goodness of the Holy Spirit who is son of the nature of your Godliness, your Praised ... grade of treasure of the true priesthood, in your mercy. Lord ... to his humbleness, we are of noble members in ... Lord of your …, we serve with (our) spiritual benefit for the souls of the be lievers ... PAYNE SMITH 3293. PAYNE SMITH 1774. 27 The second letter, as it has no dot, could be r or d, possibly also z. 28 The second letter is doubtful, either ḥ or ‘. The scribe was undecided. 25 26

174

Peter Zieme

Lord ... hearing ... , goodness ... in your hand, love and mercy to you ... we .... to your Godliness ... ... goodness …”

Appendix: The whole text in transliteration, transcription, and translation Transliteration of the Text29 I present here the text first in a transliteration following the actual sequence of the leaves in its bound form. I 01 twttùùùùcy 02 ùùùùwyzwtwmwz 03 ny qwtqùùùùrtùùùùcy 04 hnmz mšyhùùùù II 01 tngry nyng 02 sùùùùbygy tùùùùb 03 lùùùùky kwngly 04 ùùùùwyzùùùù III 01 úúúúmmùùùù pryqùùùù 02 gnšùùùù šbyhùùùù 03 typ ùùùùt 04 ùùùùwyzùùùù ùùùùsyl IV 01 myš gww ù ù 02 wyzùùùù gwlùùùùl 03 myš ùùùùlky 04 šlyk ùùùùrykùùùù V 01 kwtlùùùùr kùùùù 02 ùwd yyl rùm 03 ùùy ùwyc ùwtwz 04 qù mn pùkwz VI 01 pytytym pwyù 02 ny ùtm ywnùn 03 qù tùkswn

29

The letters of the Syriac script are written in bold characters.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

175

VII 01ùùmynùùmyn 02 typ mwny tùk 03 pyys qùtù pytyp 04 ùβdù ùwqwl qyz qù 05 ùwqytyp ùsydmùky 06 pwlzwn ùmyn VIII 01r/ùùùù30ùùùùlhùùùùÍÍÍÍltnùùùù 02 d ÍÍÍÍd hy úúúúdytk qd 03 yštùùùù wbÍÍÍÍšh rbùùùù 04dmšyÍÍÍÍùùùùùùùù/dbntùùùù IX 01 úúúúnùùùù dmrúúúúytk mn 02 ïïïïybwtùùùù d rwÍÍÍÍùùùù d 03 qwdšùùùù hw d ù ù 04 yt hw br kynùùùù d ù ù l X 01dùùùùlhwtùùùùmšbÍÍÍÍtùùùù 02 mtybyn dr/gùùùù dsym 03 tùùùù. d khnwtùùùù lšr 04 yrtùùùù bmrÍÍÍÍmnwtk XI 01 mry ùùùùšwtùùùù (k?) 02 lbîyrîyrîyrîyr wth // ÍÍÍÍnn 03dnhwùùùùhdmùùùùydyúúúúùùùù 04 bÍÍÍÍwšmùùùù rbùùùù XII 01 d úúúúy...tk wnšmš 02úúúúwd//rwÍÍÍÍnùùùùlnfšùùùù 03 tùùùù d mhymnùùùù ùùùùnt 04 /wy/ mrn /ùùùù lhn XIII 01šmlùùùùúúúúmntybwtùùùù 02kùùùùšpúúúúbùùùùydyk 03 mwhbtùùùù w rÍÍÍÍmyk 04 wÍÍÍÍynk úúúúmwn úúúúlyk

30

The reading is questionable, only the letters r and ’ are clear, perhaps one has to emend to mry’.

176

XIV 01 02 úúúún tbg 03 b XV 01 šwtyt kl//w/ 02 ywmtùùùù d ÍÍÍÍnn //br 03 lùùùùlhwtùùùùk by/ 04 ïbùïbùïbùïbù d mnyn/w/ XVI 01 ymù pw pyz 02 ynk ùtwyzw 03 mwz ny tyryk 04 ùsùn twtdùcy XVII 01 ùwyzwdwmwz 02 ny qwtqùrtù 03 cy ùùlqw ùùdm 04 ùwqwsy ylnk XVIII 01 wqlùryq sw 02 ywrkùyw ùyry 03 nckùyw ùwtlwq 04 yùlyncyq yln XIX 01 kwqlùryq sw 02 ywrqùyw ùyry 03 nckùyw ùwtlwq 04 qùnyq kwynkwlyn XX 01 [ ]31ymùùùùpw 02 pyzyng ùùùùt 03 wyswm wzny 04 tyryg ùùùùsn

31

Deleted word.

Peter Zieme

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

177

Transcription and Comparison Syriac

Uighur

XX 01 [ ] y(ä)mä bo 02 biziŋ ät 03 -özümüzni 04 tirig äs(ä)n

XVI y(ä)mä bo biz 02 -iŋ ät ùözü 03 -müzni tirig 04 äsän

I 01 tuttačı 02 üzütümüzn 03 -i kutgartačı

tutdačı XVII 01 üzüdümüz 02 -ni kutgarta 03 -čı alku ad(a)m 04 ugušı y(a)l(a)ŋ XVIII 01 uklarıg so 02 - yurkayu 02 iri 03 -nčkäyü otlug 04 kanıg köŋülin

04 h(a)n(ı)m(ı)z mšyhùùùù II 01 t(ä)ŋri-niŋ 02 sävigi tap 03 -lagı köŋli 04 üzä III 01 úmmù pryqù 02 gnšù šbyhù 03 tep at 04 üzä asıl IV 01 -mıš küü 02 üzä küläl 03 -miš alkı 04 -šlıg är{i}kä V

V

01 -kütlär-kä 02 ud yıl ram 03 ay üč otuz 04 -ka mn bäküz

Peter Zieme

178

VI 01 bitidim buya 02 -nı atam yonan 03 -ka tägzün

VII amin amin 02 tep munı täg 03 beš kata bitip 04 ävdä ogul kız 05 okıtıp äšidmäki 06 bolzun amin

Translation of the Turkic Passages (prayer) By the heart of love and gratification of God, our Lord Messiah who keeps our bodies healthy and alive, who rescues our souls, who has mercy with all crea tures of Adam’s lineage32 {who has mercy with the fiery and flaming people}33 (blessings may come) upon the holy34 ärkiküt who are praised through the word “peoples blessed, men praised!” (colophon) the Cow year, the first month, on the 23rd, I, Bäküz (= Bacchus) have written (it). Its merit may be transferred to my father Yonan! Amen, amen. Five times thus writing and letting recite, boy and girl in the house, it may be heard! Amen!

Bibliography BLOCHET, E. 1925-1926. “La conquête des Etats nestoriens de l’Asie Centrale par les schiïtes. Les influences chrétienne et bouddhique dans le dogme islamique, ” in: Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 25 (1925-1926), 3-131. BLOCHET, E. 1929-1930. “Christianisme et Mazdéisme chez les Turks orientaux, ” 32 33 34

In Turkish ademoğlu. The passage in italic only in Uighur script. In CC alγıšlı = benedictus, sanctus, cf. GRØNBECH 1942, 35.

Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık

179

in: Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 27 (1929-1930), 31-125. BORBONE, P.G. 2003. “I vangeli per la principessa Sara. Un manoscritto siriaco crisografato, gli Öngüt cristiani e il principe Giorgio, ” in Egitto e Vicino Oriente XXVI (2003), 63-82. BORBONE, P.G. 2006. “Princess Sara’s Gospel Book. A Syriac Manuscript Written in Inner Mongolia?” in Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, ed. Roman Malek. Nettetal: Monumenta Serica Institute, 347-348. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. 1997. Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356-435, entrés depuis 1911), de la bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aixen-Provence, de la bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la Bibliothèque natio nale et universitaire de Strasbourg, Paris. CHABOT, J.-B. 1894. “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques, ” in Journal asiatique (1894), 92-134. FIEY, J. M. 2004. Saints Syriaques, ed. L. I. Conrad. Princeton N.J. : Darwin Press. FRANKE, H. 1998. “Zu einigen christlichen Personennamen in Texten der Yüan-Zeit, ” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 148 (1998), 315322. GRØNBECH, K. 1942. Komanisches Wörterbuch. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard. HACALOĞLU, R. Albayrak. 1995. Türkmen Ve Asur Kiliselerinde Okunan Türkçe Đlâhî Metinleri, Ankara. HEFFENING, W. 1936. “Liturgische Texte der Nestorianer und Jakobiten in SüdTürkischen Mundarten, ” in Oriens Christianus III, 11 (1936), 232-235. HEFFENING, W. 1942. Die türkischen Transkriptionstexte des Bartholomaeus Georgievits aus den Jahren 1544-1548. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Grammatik des Osmanisch-Türkischen. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Band 27, Nr. 2, Leipzig. HEFFENING, W. and С. Peters. 1935. “Spuren des Diatessarons in liturgischer Überlieferung. Ein türkischer und ein karšūnī-Text,” in Oriens Christianus III, 10 (1935), 225-238. KARA, G. 2003. “Mediaeval Mongol Documents from Khara Khoto and East Turke stan in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies,” in Manuscripta Orientalia 9-2 (June 2003), 4-40. MaCLEAN, A. J. 1901. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. London: Clarenden Press. MARAZZI, U. 1982. “Sull’importanza dei testi osmanli in caratteri siriaci,” in Studia Turcologica memoriae Alexii Bombaci dicata, Napoli (1982), 339-365. MATSUI, D. 1998. “Uigur Administrative Orders Bearing ‘Qutluγ-seals’,” in Studies on Inner Asian Languages 13 (1998), 1-62. NICOLINI-ZANI, Matteo. 2003. “Christiano-Sogdica: An Updated Bibliography on the Relationship between Sogdians and Christianity throughout Central Asia and into China,” in Ērān ud Anērān Webfestschrift Marshak. MENGES, K. H. 1991. “Manichaeismus, Christentum und Buddhismus in Zentralasien und ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis,” in Central Asiatic Journal 35 (1991), 81-95. NIU, Ruji. 2003. Inscriptions et manuscrits nestoriens en écriture syriaque découverts en Chine (XIIIe-XIVe siècles). Paris (Thèse de doctorat). PAYNE SMITH, R. 1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxford : Clarendon Press. PIGOULEWSKY, N. [= N. Pigulevskaya]. 1935-1936. “Fragments Syriaques et SyroTurcs de Hara-hoto et de Tourfan, ” in Revue de l'Orient Chrétien 30 (1935-1936), 3-46.

180

Peter Zieme

PIGULEVSKAYA, N. 1940. “Siriyskie i siro-tyurkskiy fragmenty iz Xara-xoto i Turfana, ” in Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie I (1940), 212-234. PIGULEVSKAYA, N. 1966. “Ešče raz o siro-tyurkskom,” in Tyurkologičeskiy sbornik k šestidesyatiletiyu Andreya Nikolayeviča Kononova. Moskva, 228-232. RASCHMANN, S. 1995. Baumwolle im türkischen Zentralasien. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 44. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. RYBATZKI, V. 2004. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia,” in Verbum et calamus. Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Profes sor Tapani Harviainen, ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen, and H. Palva. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society, 269-291. SIMS-WILLIAMS, N. 1992. Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and TunHuang Manuscripts, ”in Turfan and Tun-Huang. The Texts. Encounter of Civiliza tions on the Silk Route, Firenze: Olschki, 43-61. TANG, Li. 2002. A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and Its Lit erature in Chinese. Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. TANG, Li. 2006. “Mongol Responses to Christianity in China: A Yuan Dynasty Phe nomenon,” in ARI Working Paper No. 63. Singapore: Asia Research Institute, Na tional University of Singapore. VERCHOVSKIJ, Ju. P. 1960. Rašīd-ad-dīn. Sbornik Letopisey. Tom II, Moskva / Len ingrad. WANG, Weifan. 2008. “Chinese Traditional Culture and its Influence on Chinese Theological Reflection,” in Chinese Theological Review 13. http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=1445. WRIGHT, W. 1901. A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. YOUNANSARDAROUD, H. 2005. “Die türkischen Texte aus dem Buch ‘Manuel de Piété’ von Paul Bedjan (1893), ” in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica. Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 489-525.

HISTORY

REFERENCE TO CHINA IN SYRIAC SOURCES Mar Aprem MOOKEN Trichur, Kerala, India

Christianity spread to China in A.D. 635 when Alopen, the Assyrian mission ary brought the gospel of Jesus Christ to China for the first time. Is Alopen a Syriac name? There is no man named Alopen known in the Church of the East at that time. Is it another form for Malpan, which means teacher in Syriac? Malpan is an abbreviation of the word Malpana. Was the first apostle to China called Malpan, a teacher and later corrupted to the word Alopen? I do not know the Chinese language. But I have been using Syriac language for nearly half a century for the liturgical prayers. My interest in Church history in general made me to search for Syriac sources about the history of Christianity in China. I have never visited China and therefore my knowledge is limited to the rubbing of the Xi’an Fu Tablet erected in 781 AD, which was presented to me by an American missionary who was working in China. I do not claim to have made any exhaustive study of this topic. I have, however used secondary sources and references to the history of Christianity in China since A.D. 635. There are no references of Indian Christians going to China for missionary work. We do not have any reference to Chinese missionaries coming to India. All the foreigners who came to India were from the Church in Persia or from the region now known as Iraq and Turkey.

History of Crosses There are three crosses in Leh near Ladakh nealy 18,000 feet high where there is a Syriac inscription. On the top of the cross the Syriac inscription reads Ishow. On the right-hand side of these crosses there is the inscription written in vertical lines. It can be translated as follows: In the year of our Lord Jesus 800 after his death, Nestorian Christians of Syria have arrived at this place from Samarkand (with their leader Charansar). In one year they changed 215 camps to arrive Tangtse in Ladakh district about 60 miles east of Leh, after crossing 18,000 feet high from Leh. 1 1

This inscription is seen on page 189 of Ladage Rgyalrabs Chimed Ster (History of Ladakh) by Yoseb Geren, edited by his son S.S. Gergen. The present reader is grateful to Mr. S.S. Gergen

184

Mar Aprem Mooken

There is no cross reference to check the identity of this Charansar who came to this mountain region to evangelize. It is a historical fact that Samarkand was a flourishing center of Nestorian Christians around 800 A.D. It was the seat of a Metropolitan. The neighbouring centers such as Kashgar, Naukith and Gundispur were the seats of the Metropolitans of the Nestorian Church at the time. There were bishops in Khotan and Yarkand. So it was probable that the leader mentioned in this Syriac inscription, namely Charansar, must have made this ambitious missionary journey. We do not have the names of his companions and other details about this mission. A few years ago the members of the Syro-Malabar Church of Kerala started a school which they claim is the highest school in the world, meaning a school at such a high altitude. The existence of this Syriac inscription was brought to the attention of others in a book written in Tibetan language. The Syriac word for China is Chinestan or Zhinestan or China or Zhina. P.Y. Saeki says in his famous book The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China2, p. 81 and 82: (4) We have two different forms of Syriac words for China in the inscription. One is the form of Chinestan or Zhinestan, the other is that of China or Zhina. The former is a local designation of the country, meaning the “Land of Chinese”, whilst the lat ter is a legal appellation of the country meaning “The state of China” or “China and the Chinese”. The word “China” in the title “Papas of Chinestan” which we read here is one, and “the ruler of China”, which expression we find in the Syriac part of the Inscription, is the other.

Syriac sources are scanty about the Church in China. Did they use the prayer books and Bibles in the Syriac language? That is probable. But as we under stand that the Chinese Church was more an indigenous Church than the Indian Church, in the sense that it translated the Sutras into Chinese language from the time of the origin of the Church in China in the 7th century itself. They tried to translate the prayer books into Chinese language. The people with Alopen translated the gospel writings into Chinese language when Alopen and his companions came to China. It is different from the situation in India. St. Tho

2

who was kind enough to translate what he had written in Tibetan language and presenting a photo of the inscription. The photo was of small size and was not easy to decipher. Hence Mr. Gergen translated for me what he had written in Tibetan language, having been properly deci phered by somebody earlier. This meeting was in 1975. The present reader had produced the photo of this inscription on the cover page of his book Nestorian Missions published in 1975, Mar Narsai Press. Trichur, Kerala, India. The Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York reprinted this book in their series PROBE Third World Imprints in 1980. Unfortunately the cover of the book was changed and hence the photograph of this inscription is missing in this edition. To make the story sad, the reprint made by the original publishers Mar Narsai Press, Trichur, Ker ala, India could not reproduce the block of this photo as the original block was misplaced in the Press. Published in 1951, Maruzen Company, Tokyo.

Reference to China in Syriac Sources

185

mas, the doubting disciple of Jesus is believed to have preached the gospel and established the church. The translations came centuries later. We have not discovered many Syriac prayer books in China. In India we find many manuscripts in Syriac language. Now there are scholars in Syriac lan guage all over the world. But in China we do not know many scholars who know Syriac language. Saeki speaks of eight Syriac manuscripts of China, which were presented to the “Morrison Library” in Japan. In the winter of 1929 a set of photograph copies were given to P.Y. Saeki. The author refers to it in his The Nestorian Docu ments And Relics in China on pages 320-347. The author acknowledges his gratitude to Mrs. Margoliouth (Jessie Payne Smith, author of the famous Syriac Dictionary) and Sir E.A. Wallis Budge of England who had translated many Syriac books to English, Prof. H.A. Sayce, the Hon. Mrs. E.A. Gordon, Dr. F.X. Biallas, Dr. Kuwabara, Dr. Sekino and other friends also encouraged Prof. P.Y. Saeki in his study. In the next para graph of his Preface to the First Edition written in 1937, P.Y. Saeki expresses his gratitude to any Japanese scholars, which throws light, to the interest some Japanese scholars had at that time, in unearthing the historical evidence of the historicity of the Church of that time in China. In his Preface Saeki writes: Above all, the author’s sincere gratitude is due to Dr. Hattori, the Director of the Tokyo Institute of the Academy of Oriental Culture, and Professor Emeritus at the Tokyo Imperial University and Member of the Imperial Academy and Dr. K. Shiratori, Professor Emeritus of the Tokyo Imperial University and Member of the Impe rial Academy, Dr. Takakusu, Professor Emeritus at the Tokyo Imperial University and Member of the Imperial Academy, Dr. Haneda, Professor of Oriental History at the Kyoto Imperial University and Member of the Imperial Academy, and Dr. D. Tokiwa, a great authority on Chinese Buddhism, and other members of the Acad emy of Oriental Culture, without whose great assistance this book would never have seen the light.3

On p. 410 of The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, we see a tomb in Semirijechesk, (Turfan Figure 4). This tomb has a cross with Syriac writings on four sides. It runs as follows: In the year 1578 (i.e., 1267 A.D.), which is the Hare year, this is the tomb of Periodent Shah-Malyk, the son of Giwargis (i.e. George) Altaz.

Periodata is the 5th of the nine-fold rank of the clergy in the Church of the East. It is also called chor-episcopa. On p. 412 (Figure 5) of the same book Saeki gives the photograph of the tombstone. The Syriac writing around the Cross can be translated as In the year 1618 (i.e., 1307 A.D.), which is the Sheep year and Turkish Kui (sheep). This is the Tomb of Julia, the beloved young lady, the bride of Johan.

3

SAEKI 1951,6-7.

186

Mar Aprem Mooken

We see (Figure 6) another tombstone erected in 1316 A.D. Around a cross is written: In the year 1627 (i.e., 1316 A.D., which was the year of the Eclipses, and the Turk ish Luu (i.e. Dragon). This is the tomb of Sheliha, the famous Exegete and Preacher, who enlightened all the Cloisters with Light, being the son of Exegete.4 He was famous for his wisdom, and when preaching his voice sounded like a trum pet. May our Lord unite his enlightened soul with those of the righteous and of the forefathers so that he may be worthy of participating in all glories.5

Saeki observes on p. 441 of his book that Manchu Alphabets are nothing but the modified forms of the Nestorian scripts introduced into Mongolia and Man churia long before such a historical fact as the emigration of the Nestorian fam ily took place. Kenneth S. Latourette, the famous church historian, speaks of the condition of Christianity in T’ang China. When it is recalled that at this time there were Christian communities in Southern India and that in Central Asia the Nestorians were widespread and active, it is not surprising to find Christians in China. It would, indeed be surprising if they had not been there.6

The decree of 638 A.D., issued by the T’ang Emperor Tai-tsung (d. 649 A.D.) says: The Way (Tao) has no immutable name, sages have no unchanging method. Teach ing is founded to suit the land that all the living may be saved. The Persian monk Alo-pen bringing scriptures and teaching from far has come to offer them at Shangching. The meaning of the teaching has been carefully examined: It is mysterious, wonderful, calm; it fixes the essentials of life and perfection; it is salvation of living beings, it is the wealth of man. It is right that it should spread through the empire. Therefore let the local officials build a monastery in the I-ning quarter with twentyone regular monks.7

The modern edition on the left side which has greatly injured the original in scription translated as follows: One thousand and seventy-nine years later, in the year Chi-wei of the Hsien-feng period (i.e., 1895 A.D.) I, Han Tai-hua of Wu-lin (i.e., Hangochou), came and saw this stone. Fortunately, the characters were perfect and complete. I rebuilt the pavil ion to protect the Monument. But, alas! My late friend Wu Tzy-pi, the Treasurer, was not able to accompany me on the visit. I grieved greatly on this account. 8

4

5 6 7 8

We do not know much about this famous exegete who lived in China. Did he write his exege sis in Chinese or in Syriac? SAEKI 1951,414. LATORETTE 1929. 52. GILLMAN – KLIMKEIT 1999, 269. SAEKI 1951, 12.

Reference to China in Syriac Sources

187

In the book Christians in Asia before 1500 Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit write about the monasteries built by Mar Sargis around 1281 A.D. The Turkish names of these establishments are interesting. They are: 1. Main monastery, 2. The monastery of the stone, 3. The monastery of restoration, 4. The ocean-like monastery, 5. The monastery of the great rock or of the deep ravine, 6. The monastery of St. George and 7. ‘The new monastery’. It was this sev enth monastery that was erected in Han-chow.9

The History of Chen-chiang mentioned above also gives us some insight into the Practice of worship. We hear of the importance of worship toward the east, which, as the place where the Sun and the Moon rise, symbolizes creative ac tivity and is an allusion to ‘the ever-creative God’. The next also tells us some thing about the significance of the cross, the figure for ten in Chinese script. It had anthropological as well as cosmological connotations. On the one hand it was ‘an image of the human body’, on the other hand it was considered to be an ‘indicator of the four quarters, the zenith and nadir’. The old Chinese idea of a correspondence between man and the cosmos is here interpreted with the help of the central Christian symbol. In addition to the monasteries, there were hermitages where individual monks would live a life of seclusion. In the tradition of the Church of the East various monks were living individually without joining a community of monks. The monk Mar Sargis who converted the Kerait King had retreated to the Altai Mountains. There were other monks who wielded political power. The story of Rabban Sauma and his colleague monk Mark who became Patriarch Mar Yabhallaha III in the 13th century is well known. Both these aspects are combined in the persons of Rabban Sauma, and Mark, who was later to become Patriarch Yaballaha III, whereas his teacher Rabban Sauma was given a high ecclesiastical position as ‘Vicar General’. The story of their role in the diplomatic contact between the II Khan of the Mongol of Persia on the one hand and the Pope and European rulers on the other has been outlined above. We are here concerned only with their life in China. 10

Rabban Sauma was the son of a noble, rich and respected Turkish Nestorian in the rank of a “visitor”, a Periodent in Khan Baliq. He was given a religious education by a “worthy master”. The parents also made him “apply himself with care to religious learning”. He seemed fit for the priesthood, was ordained as a priest and became a sacristan in the Church at Khan Baliq. It was his wish, however, to renounce the world, much to the dismay of his wealthy parents. Like St. Anthony in Egypt, he distributed all his property to the poor. Having been tonsured at the hands of the Nestorian Metropolitan of Khan Baliq, Mar Giwargis (George), he shut himself in a cell for seven years. Since the men coming to see him increasingly molested him, he then chose dwelling in a cave in the mountains west of his hometown. Though living in such a remote place, 9 10

GILLMAN - KLIMKEIT, 296. Ibid., 297, 298.

188

Mar Aprem Mooken

his reputation grew and people came to hear him teach. Among these was Mark, the son of a Nestorian Archdeacon in Koshang in the Ordos area, whose wish it was to become a monk and live with him as a hermit. Rabban Sauma endeavoured to persuade him to return to his parents, pointing to the rigour demanded of an ascetic life. But in view of the steadfastness of the young man, Rabban Sauma finally allowed him to live with him. Having been taught for three years, Mark received the tonsure at the hands of the Metropolitan. Then he returned to his teacher, living an ascetic life with him. It was he who urged Rabban Sauma to undertake the long pilgrimage to Jerusalem together with him. Though they did not reach that city, they were to play an important eccle siastical and political role in the Near East where Mark became Patriarch Yaballaha III. On pp. 13 and 14 of the Appendix of the book of Saeki we read the names of several church leaders. Since Mar (meaning my Lord) is used for the bishops and not to lower clergy we find the name of Mar Sargis. But it is mentioned that he is chor-episcopa and not a real episcopa (Bishop). None of the others have the name Mar prefixed to him.

Personal names in Xi’an Fu Monument The writings in Syiac language in Xi’an Fu Monument are personal names of seventy clergy. The first list has 29 names (see Saeki, Figure 4, p. 77). They are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Yakob Qashisha Mar Sargis Qashisha and chorepiscopa Shiangthsoa Gigor Qashisha and Archidyakon of Kumdan and Maquienat Pulose Qashisha Shimon Qashisha Adam Qashisha Elia Qashisha Ishaq Qashisha Yahannan Qashisha Yohannan Qashisha Shim’on Qshisha and Sawa (old) Yakob Qashisha Abdisho Ishodad

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Yakob Yohannan Shubha Lmaran Mar Sargis Shim’on Aprem Skariah Quriakos Bachu Ammanuel Gabriel Yohannan Shlimon Is’haq Yohannan

There are 41 names on the other side (see Saeki, Figure 3, p. 74). So the total number of clergymen mentioned on this famous stele of Xi’an Fu is 70.

Reference to China in Syriac Sources

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Mar Yohannan Apiscopa Ishaq Qashisha Yuel Qashisha Michael Qashisha Gevargies Qashisha Mahdad Goshnap Qashisha Mshihadad Qashisha Aprem Qashisha Abi Qashisha Daveed Qashisha Mosha Qashisha Bachos Qashisha iehiedaya Elia Qashisha iehiedaya Mosha Qashisha iehiedaya Abdisho Qashisha iehiedaya Shim’on Qashisha d’qaora Yohannies Mshamshana Vieda Ahron Pathrose Iyyob Luqa

189

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Mathai Yohannan Ishome Yohannan Savriesho Ishodad Luqa Qusthanthinos Noh Iezdsape Yohannan Anosh Mar Sargis Ishaq Yohannan Mar Sargis Posie Shim’on Ishaq Yohannan

In the Chinese text we find many Syriac writings. They are translated as fol lows: In the days of the father of fathers Mar Khananisho Catholiqa Patheryarkies. … 1. Adam Shamshana, son of Izdbokht chor-episcopa 2. Mar Sargis11 Qashisha and chor-episcopa 3. Savreesho Qashisha 4. Gabriel Qashisha and Archidyaqon and head of the church of Khumdan and Srogh

In the year one thousand ninety-two of Greeks,12 Mar Yozdbozd Qashisha and chor-episcopa of Khumdan city of the kingdom bar nikh navsa (son of the de ceased spirit). Milies Qashisha from the town of Thuristan erected this Rock of monument, where it is written administration of our Saviour and the preaching of our Fathers of Kurudistan to the Kings of China. Alopen’s texts include several Syriac words in Chinese phonetization. The modern writers Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit observe: Within the group of the A-lo-pen texts a development can be traced in terminology. Thus in the ‘Jesus Messiah Sutra’ the word ‘Buddha’ was used for God, whereas in the ‘Discourse on Monotheism’ the word employed is I-shen (lit. one God). Simi larly, other central concepts like ‘Messiah’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ were first rendered in The name Mar Sargis is written without the third letter yod, which means my Lord. Always in these Chinese documents we find Ma is written with just two letters without the usual third let ter. 12 That is 781 A.D. 11

Mar Aprem Mooken

190

misleading, even ridiculous forms of transcription (e.g. ‘Remove-Rat-Confusing Teacher’ or ‘Confused-Teacher-Upbraid’ for Jesus the Messiah in the Takakusu document, where as the Tomeoka text has more satisfying renderings like ‘FullTeacher-Upbraid’ for Jesus). The ‘Jesus Messiah Sutra’ falls into two parts. The first part is doctrinal, explicating God’s qualities as source of life and listing his commandments, including the charge to obey the emperor. The second part in cludes the gospel story from the incarnation to the crucifixion of Jesus.13

After studying the text carefully, Gillman and Klimkeit made following obser vation: With respect to doctrinal teachings, a development can be traced. Alopen’s first text meant to introduce the Emperor to the Christian faith. It emphasizes Chinese virtues like ancestor worship, filial piety and loyalty to the emperor, even emperor worship, whereby the Emperors were depicted as being sacred, as gods born in the world, i.e., as ‘Sons of Heaven’, as those blessed by the Buddhas, and even as the manifes tation of the Lord in heaven. The Chinese concepts are of course most intimately connected with Christian precepts for daily life. Thus the Ten Commandments are explicated in Buddhist and Confucian terms, and the life of Jesus, up to his death, is described in terms understandable to educated Chinese. Unfortunately the text breaks off before the account of the resurrection.14

Emperor Tai Tsung, who welcomed Alopen in 635 A.D., died in 649 A.D. His ninth son Kao Tsung ruled for thirty years. He encouraged the Christian relig ion and built several monasteries and churches. He “promoted Alopen to be Great Spiritual Lord, Protector of the Empire.”15 John Foster in his book The Church of the Tang Dynasty thinks that this state ment is equivalent to the appointment of Alopen as Metropolitan of China by the Patriarch of the Church of the East Mar Isho Yabh III (650-660). [...] There is no record for this conjecture. Probably the church under the patronage of the Emperor of China was established in China and then necessity of appointment of a Metropolitan arose. As it was not easy to seek the Patriarch for all ap pointments or consecrations of the bishops, the Patriarch must have created the status of a Metropolitan in China. 16 There is a need for a bishop to ordain clergy such as priests and deacons. There is a need for a Metropolitan to consecrate bishops. We do not know whether we had bishops in India continuously. Some people think that foreign bishops oc casionally came to India from Persia to ordain clergy here. The highest clergy man in India was an archdeacon at the time of the arrival of the Portuguese in India in 1498 A.D. China is mentioned in the reply of Patriarch Mar Timothy I in the 9th century. When the new Metropolitan of Sarbaziyah demanded money for his travels, Mar Timothy replied: “Many monks make voyages to India and China with GILLMAN-KLIMKEIT 1999, 276-277. Ibid, 277. 16 FOSTER Great Protector, 1928, 63. 15 does it mean a bishop? 13 14

Reference to China in Syriac Sources

191

only a stick and a purse. Consider yourself to have gone by sea with as much money as they had.”17 Metropolitan Mar Abdisho of Soba in his famous codification of the Nomo Canon made in 1291 A.D. places the Metropolitan of China after the Metro politan of the Turks, who was placed the 10th in the list. The Metropolitan of China was ranked higher than the Metropolitan of Armenia.18 As mentioned earlier there are not many references in Syriac sources about the Church in China. In his well documented book published in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Volume 582 (Louvain 2000) entitled The Ecclesi astical Organization of the Church of the East 1318-1913, David Wilmhurst lists the Syriac Manuscripts written in different places. From p. 378 to 732 he lists many Syriac manuscripts including two copies of Hudra preserved in Trichur, Kerala, India. They were copied in 1598 A.D. at Alkaye in Urmi re gion in Iran and 1681 A.D. at Alkosh in Mosul region in Iraq. We cannot be sure if there may be some manuscripts to be unearthed in the fu ture in China. As there existed no Church of the East in China in recent years, there was neither need nor possibility to preserve these manuscripts. At the same time the present writer thinks that most of the manuscripts of the Church of the East in China were in Chinese and not in Syriac.

History of the Nestorian Church In a small book of 51 pages entitled Tashietha Nestornayutha dkharyutha [His tory of the Nestorian Church] published in 1929 in Gary, Indiana, USA, we find references to China. In chapter 10 captioned al athoraye d sien (Chien), we read mdietha dpiekin. There is one episcopa by the name Mar Poulose from the city of Bombay. There are many priests and deacons. There are ten churches, 17,000 faithful families all Nestornaye in the days of the Father of Fathers Mar Khananisho Patriarch. The anonymous author writes that the Nes torian Shliehe (Apostles) went to the lands of the Sienaye (Chienaye) in the year 670 of our Lord, in the days of the Father of Fathers Mar Ishak,19 Patriarch of the Nesthornaye. In the city of Nanking there is one Metropolitha by the name Mar Gewargis from the land of Hind (India). Under him there were two Bishops. 1. Mar Ishaq from Teheran. Under him there were 300 priests and 900 deacons in the days of Mar Shimun Dinkha Patriarch in the year 1551 of our Lord. Cf. MAR APREM 1976, 55. The oldest known manuscript of this Nomo Canon is preserved in the Metropolitan Palace in Trichur, Kerala, India. 19 According to Marganeeta the Patriarch who ruled from A.D. 661 to 680 was Mar Gewargis I and not Mar Ishak. 17 18

192

Mar Aprem Mooken

2. In the city of Shushav there was one episcopa by the name Mar Yohannan from the land of Dusthan. Under him there were priests and deacons, eighteen churches and 13,000 families of the Nestorians (pp.48-51). In the city of Tai there was one Episcopa named Mar Eliazar. Under him there were many priests and deacons. There were nine churches with 7000 families, all Nestorians. In another city, Titus, there was one Metropolitan named Mar Oudisho. Under him there were two bishops, Mar Antonies and Mar Augin, under whom there were a lot of priests and deacons. There were fifteen churches and 25,400 Nestorian families. In Canton town there was one Episcopa named Mar Daniel from the city of Darmsoq (Damascus). Under him there were many priests and deacons and twelve churches and 8,000 families of Nestorians. From Egypt, under him, there were 24 churches and many priests and deacons and 20,000 families. It was in the days of the Father of our Fathers Mar Simon Patriarch. In the town of Kashkar there was a Metropolitan by the name of Mar Michael from the town of Shiraz, under whom there were two bishops by the name Mar Patos and Mar Gabriel Yoma in the days of Mar Yaw Alaha Patriarch the 3rd.20

Conclusion In his famous book Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of a Church on Fire, Rev. John Stewart refers to a very glorious history of the Church in China. He writes: It is evident that a large and influential body of Christians were resident in China in the year A.D. 780, and it appears to be almost equally certain that Christianity was then, and had been for at least some generations previously, either the dominant religion of the state or that it occupied a very important po sition therein, and yet not a word of this is found in any Chinese record. 21 In brief I would like to state that the information so far available is not suffi cient to draw any significant observations regarding the Church of the East in China. This book printed in Syriac refers to such a large community of Nes torian Christians. That observation may be true. But the mention that the Bishop was from the city of Bombay raises the question about the possibility of constant contacts between the Church in India and the Church in China. Alopen began his mission in China in 635 A.D., just three years after the Prophet Mohammad had passed away and the Muslims had invaded Iran. We 20 21

Mar Yaw Alaha or Jaballaha ruled from 1281-1317. STEWART 1928,187.

Reference to China in Syriac Sources

193

should not forget that the mission of Alopen was patronized by the Emperor. It was not popular. Hence naturally Alopen’s movements did not succeed. I am inclined to agree with the opinion of the Rev. Oppenheim, “As the fortunes of the House of T’ang declined, the Church founded upon a close church-state re lation was doomed.”22

Bibliography APREM, Mar. 1975. The Nestorian Missions. Trichur: Mar Narsai Press. BUDGE, E.A.W., translated. 1928. The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China, or the History of the Life and Travels of Rabban Sauma and Markos, London: The Religious Tract Society. FOSTER, John. 1928. The Church of the Tang Dynasty. London: SPCK. GILMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT. 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. LATOURETTE, Kenneth Scott. 1929. A History of Christian Missions in China. New York: Macmillan. MOULE, Arthur Christopher. 1940. Nestorians in China. London: China Society. OPPENHEIM, R.L. 1971. Nestorians in China. Berkeley, California: Shires Bookstore. SAEKI, P.Y. 1951. The Nestorian documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Maruzen. STEWART, John. 1928. Nestorian Missionary Enterprise. Edinburgh: Clark.

22

OPPENHEIM 1971, 101.

THE ENCOUNTER OF NESTORIAN CHRISTIANITY WITH TANTRIC BUDDHISM IN MEDIEVAL CHINA Huaiyu CHEN University of Arizona, USA

Introduction This paper aims to examine the interaction between Nestorian Christianity and Tantric Buddhism in medieval China. Nestorian Christianity, or Nestorianism, refers to the Church of the East that was denounced as heretical by the Byzan tine Orthodox Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431, because the archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius (386-451), claimed that Christ has two natures, the man Jesus and divine son of God, and the Blessed Virgin was not the mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Nestorius’s theology was radically criticized during the Council of Ephesus and he was dismissed from his position as archbishop. Later in 489, many of his followers were forced to leave the Christian school located in the city of Edessa (Ch. Lüfen cheng 驢份城). After the death of Nestorius, the Nestorian Church soon established its strong presence in the Persian area. Since Nestorians were suppressed in the territory under the control of the Orthodox Church, they moved to the Mesopotamian region that was ruled by Sassanid Persia. A new Church was developed around the cities of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (in the south of modern Baghdad), which was called the Persian Church in Nestorian literature. Their new school opened in Nisibis, where many Greek and Roman works in law, medicine, lin guistics, and other disciplines were translated into Persian and well preserved. The Nestorian scholars also developed their own theological tradition. Syriac Peshitta was used as the official Bible in the Persian Church. The Syriac lan guage remained as the Church language within the Nestorian church, but Nes torians translated their scriptures and theological works into other languages across the Sassanid Empire.1 Although some scholars have suggested that Nestorianism was the name selfgiven by Nestorians themselves, Nestorianism often appeared as a heretical group in Orthodox Church literature.2 Therefore, the successors of the legacy of Nestorius prefer not to use this term. However, in this paper, I just use the well 1 2

See PELLIOT 1914, 623-644; MINGANA 1925, 297-371; GILLMAN - KLIMKEIT 1999. The first international conference on Nestorianism in China and Central Asia, organized by Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter, agreed to use the Chinese term Jingjiao to replace the term “Nestorianism”.

196

Huaiyu Chen

known “Nestorianism” and “Nestorians” for convenience, without any sectar ian discrimination. Buddhism, on the other hand, is also a name labeled by modern British scholars for a religion that was believed to be about the Bud dha, like Christianity is a religion about Christ in their conception. Yet strictly speaking, early Buddhism was a religion more about Dharma rather than the Buddha. In Chinese Nestorian literature, Nestorianism is called Jingjiao 景教, “Luminous Teaching” or “Brilliant Teaching.” Actually, in Chinese sources, there are many other names for Nestorianism which indicate the geographical origin of Nestorianism, such as the “Teaching from Persia (Bosi jiao 波斯教)” and the “Teaching from Syria (Daqinjiao 大秦教).” In Chinese, Buddhism is called Fojiao 佛教, “Buddha’s Teaching.” Buddhism was introduced to China around the first century, yet Nestorianism spread into China in the early sev enth century. Nestorians first arrived in Chang’an in 635. Both of them came to China through the Silk Road via Central Asia. Buddhism survived in China and eventually became a part of the Chinese culture. Nestorianism, however, disap peared from central China after the ninth century because of the religious sup pression in 845 and Nestorian Christians only found shelter in some small citystates in Central Asia.3 We have very few primary sources about the spread and condition of Nestori anism in China from the seventh to the ninth centuries. One of the most impor tant sources about the history of Nestorianism in China is the famous “Stele of the Transmission of the Brilliant Teaching to the Middle Kingdom” (Da Qin jingjiao liuxing zhongguo bei 大秦景教流行中國碑) that was found in Chang’an (長安，present Xi’an) in the early seventeenth century (1626-1627). In the early twentieth century, eight Chinese Nestorian manuscripts4 were dis covered from the Cave Library (Cave 17) in Dunhuang, an oasis city in north western China. The Cave Library preserves more than fifty thousand manu scripts written in multiple languages that can be dated from the early fifth cen tury to the eleventh century. Dunhuang served as a military garrison base at that time. And it was also a multi-language, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious trading center. Although most of the manuscripts were about Buddhism, there are many manuscripts from other religious traditions, especially Confucianism and Daoism, and a dozen manuscripts from Manichaeism and Nestorianism. Several Syriac fragments of the Book of Psalms were also found in the Dun huang area. A couple of tomb inscriptions of Nestorian families and a Nes3

4

SIMS-WILLIAMS 1991, 530-535; SIMS-WILLIAMS 1992,.43-61; SUNDERMANN 1994, 255-264; CHEN 1999, 165-214. They are Xuting mishisuo jing 序序以序妙聼 (Scripture of Hearing the Preaching of the Mes siah), Yishen lun 一一一(Treatise on the One God), Yu di’er 第唐喻(Similis, number. 2), Shizun bushi lun 世世世世一(Treatise of the Alms-Giving of the World-Honored One), Sanwei mengdu zan 三三三三三 (Gloria in Excelsis Deo), Zunjing 世妙(Scripture of Veneration), Zhixuan anle jing 至至至明妙 (Scripture of the Ultimate and Mysterious Happiness), Xuanyuan zhiben jing 大元至大妙(Scripture of the Origin of Origins).

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

197

torian scriptural pillar were found in Xi’an and Luoyang, respectively, in the past decade. In Kyrgyzstan, Inner Mongolia, and Chinese Turkestan, numerous Nestorian manuscripts and inscriptions written in Syriac and Turkic-Uighur languages were found in the twentieth century.5 These materials tremendously help modern scholars reconstruct the early history of Nestorianism in medieval China and Central Asia and investigate the relationship between Nestorianism and other religions of the Silk Road. Although contemporary scholarship has made progress in studying Nestorianism and Buddhism, new materials still de serve new interpretations. In contextualizing the connection between Nestori anism and Buddhism, this paper attempts to offer a new understanding of the dynamics that can be traced from many aspects about these two religions. This study will first investigate the social and historical context in which Bud dhism and Nestorianism were introduced to China by hostages, refugees, and merchants in ancient and medieval periods.6 Secondly, by drawing upon ar chaeological sources, especially Chinese Nestorian manuscripts from Dunhuang and a Nestorian scriptural pillar, this paper identifies the Buddhist tradi tion that was connected to Nestorianism in medieval China as Tantric Bud dhism. Thirdly, by taking the newly-discovered Nestorian pillar of Scripture of the Origin of Origins (Xuanyuan zhibenjing 宣元至本經) from Luoyang into account, this paper also suggests that the Nestorian scriptural pillar borrowed its form and ritual practice from Tantric Buddhism. Finally, this paper also compares the features of a figure in a Nestorian painting that was found in Dunhuang and attempts to locate its original model in Tantric Buddhist litera ture. This study also reexamines the nature of a Tibetan manuscript with Nes torian element in the context of Tantric Buddhism. It will show that the net work of Nestorianism in Central Asia and China seemed to be constructed by merchants, which was very similar to the situation of Buddhism when it came to China through Central Asia. This paper continues to illustrate the interaction between Buddhism and the “Brilliant Teaching (Jingjiao)” in the Tang era on ethnicity, translation and art and attempts to contextualize how the Nestorian Church responded to the rise of the Tantric Buddhist tradition in both metro politan and peripheral regions of China.

Contextualizing Indo-Iranian Religions in Medieval China From the fourth to the eighth centuries, Iranian-speaking merchants, especially Persians and Sogdians, were the most important groups active on the Silk Road, along which many trading centers were transformed to be multi-ethnic, multi-language, and multi-religion cities, such as Merv, Samarkand, Bukhara,

5 6

See KLEIN 2000; MALEK 2006, esp. part II. ChEN 2000, 286-298.

198

Huaiyu Chen

Suyab, Turfan, Dunhuang, Chang’an, and Luoyang.7 Both Buddhism and Nestorianism were introduced to China by Indo-Iranian missionaries. Although Buddhism originally came from India, in fact, many early Buddhist missionar ies who contributed to the spread of Buddhism into China and helped translate Buddhist texts into Chinese were from an Iranian-speaking background. They either came from Persia or Sogdiana.8 For instance, An Shigao 安世高, the first known missionary and translator, was actually a Persian hostage.9 Some other missionaries with the same surname “An 安” must have also come from Par thian Persia. Kang Senghui 康僧會, a missionary known for his bringing the Buddha’s relics to South China, was from the region of Sogdiana. Many other missionaries with the same surname “Kang 康” must have been from the same region. In short, the Iranian-speaking background seemed to play a crucial role among the first generation of Buddhist missionaries in China. Early Nestorian missionaries were also Iranian-speaking people, mostly Per sians and Sogdians. Persians and Sogdians not only were responsible for intro ducing Nestorianism into China, but also they spread Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism into China in the early medieval period. Zoroastrianism is be lieved to have reached the northwestern border of the Chinese Empire as early as the fourth century. Later on, until the eighth century before the outbreak of An Lushan 安祿山Rebellion (755-763), some Sogdian merchants lived in their own communities in several trading centers along the Silk Road, such as Dun huang 敦煌, Wuwei 武威, Lingwu 靈武, Chang’an 長安, and Luoyang 洛陽. They practiced their own religion, Zoroastrianism, which was particularly re flected in their funeral and burial rites. Following the spread of Nestorianism into China, in the seventh century Manichean missionaries also entered China under the leadership of a Persian priest Fuduodan 拂多誕.10 Nestorianism soon became a multi-ethnic religion when it spread to Central Asia and China. At least, we know Persians, Sogdians, and Turkic-Uyghurs constituted the main body of the Nestorian church in Central Asia. Among them, Sogdians might be the most important ethnic group of Nestorians in Cen tral Asia and China. In Turfan 吐魯番, an oasis city in Chinese Turkestan, a lot of Sogdian Nestorian manuscripts were discovered. In central China, Chang’an and Luoyang, it seems that many Sogdian Nestorians lived there as a small community. Ge Chengyong 葛承雍 revealed that a tomb inscription discovered in Xi’an belonged to a Sogdian family, which is indicated by the surname of the owner of this inscription, Mi 米. The surname Mi indicates that the home town of this family was the Kingdom of Mi (米國Maimargh, near present-day See JIANG 1994; FOLTZ 1999;RONG 2001 (in Chinese); JULIANO - LERNER 2001; DE LA VAISSIÈRE 2002; WHITFIELD 2004; and GRENET, 2007, 463-478. 8 Walter 2006, pp. 1-89. 9 See FORTE, 1995. 10 STEIN 1980, 329–337. 7

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

199

Samarkand) in Central Asia. Many Sogdian names also appear on a newlydiscovered Nestorian scriptural pillar. Scholars have discussed the Persian and Sogdian origins of many personal names in Nestorian stele from Xi’an. There fore, it becomes more and more clear that the Iranian-speaking ethnic groups played the most important role in the Chinese Nestorian community. As I have mentioned above, in the early stage of the spread of Buddhism into China, the Iranian-speaking ethnic groups also had close connections with Buddhism and many early Buddhist missionaries had Iranian surnames such as “An” or “Kang,” as many works have pointed out.11 Contemporary scholarship has shown that some monks with the Syrian names were also regarded as Persians. An interesting example is Wenzhen 文貞 who appeared on left side of the Nes torian Inscription of Xi’an (line 4). His lay name was Li Su 李素, who was a Persian astronomer. Finally, those Chinese names of monks with Persian names actually coined their Persian names; sometimes the former name corresponds exactly to the latter one. For example, the second son of Li Su (Wenzhen), his Chinese name was Jingfu 景福, his Persian name was Ishudad.12 Ishu in Per sian is derived from Ishu in Syriac which refers to Jesus. The word dad in Per sian means “gift” or “(being) given.” Therefore the word Ishudad means “the gift of Jesus” or “being given by Jesus.” The Chinese word Jingfu literally means “the happiness of Nestorianism,” which could be understood as “being given by Nestorianism.” The word for Chinese Empire appeared as Sīnestān in the Syriac title of the author of the Nestorian Inscription. The name of the au thor Jingjing景淨, also indicates a Persian origin.13 Since Sogdian merchants played the most important role in the trade network connecting Central Asia, India, and China, in what way were they also in volved in bridging Nestorianism and Tantric Buddhism? To answer this ques tion, it is necessary to look at the tracks of Sogdian merchants in Central Asia and their social network in the Tang capital city, Chang’an. As contemporary scholarship has shown, in the Tang Dynasty, Sogdian merchants and immi grants were active in many trade centers along the Silk Road, such as Turfan 吐魯番, Dunhuang敦煌, Wuwei武威, Lingwu靈武, Chang’an 長安 and Luoyang 洛陽.14 In reading Nestorian Inscription from Xi’an,15 we know that some Nestorian priests were from Iranian-speaking communities, and many of them were Sogdians. Lingwu had a large Sogdian community. In the meantime, ac cording to the Nestorian Inscription, when the Emperor Suzong 肅宗 came into

WALTER 2006, 1-89; FORTE 1999-2000, 277-290. See PELLIOT 1984. 13 DUAN 2003 (in Chinese), 441. 14 RONG 1999 (in Chinese), 27-85; RONG 2001 (in Chinese), 37-110. 15 Some scholars also suggest that this stele was originally from Zhouzhi. Even before the Nes torian monastery was established in Chang’an, Sogdian merchants had stayed in Zhouzhi area. According to Zizhi tongjian (juan 184), A Sogidan merchant He Panren何潘輔organized a great band of brigands in the Imperial Bamboo Garden near Zhouzhi. Also see SAEKI 1951, 382. 11 12

200

Huaiyu Chen

power, he issued an edict to rebuild many Nestorian churches, which might be an idea initiated from some Nestorians from the Sogdian community. On the one hand, from the Nestorian stele in Xi’an and the Nestorian scriptural pillar found in Luoyang, we know Sogdians were the majority in the Nestorian Church. On the other hand, we also know Sogdian merchants traveled to cen tral China through Tibet and other central regions. Therefore, Sogdians had many opportunities to learn about Tantric Buddhism. In the following section, we will look at the contact between Nestorians and Tantric Buddhists in Chang’an, the capital of Tang dynasty. According to the Nestorian Inscription, when Nestorians came to Chang’an un der the leadership of Aluoben 阿羅本 in the ninth year of the Zhenguan 貞觀 period (635), they were well received by Fang Xuanling 房玄齡 in the western suburb of Chang’an. In the twelfth year of the Zhenguan period (638), the Em peror Taizong issued an edict that approved the establishment of a Nestorian monastery (Daqin si 大秦寺) in the Yining quarter (Yining fang 義寧坊), which was located in the western district of Chang’an. Following the estab lishment of the monastery, twenty-one Nestorian monks were newly ordained. Later on, this monastery functioned as the major center of Nestorianism in Chang’an, except it seemed to be suppressed when Empress Wu Zetian 武則天 promoted Buddhism later. When Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 came into power, he ordered five princes to visit the Nestorian monastery and they founded a ritual space (Tanchang 壇場).16 Paul Pelliot suggested that this altar was designed as a platform (estrade-autel) for ordination rituals.17 Although it is difficult to de termine the nature of this space, it seems like a Tantric Buddhist mandala, be cause of this Chinese name, Tanchang. Tanchang was a common term in Chi nese literature of Tantric Buddhism, which refers to a mandala, a ritual space for many Tantric Buddhist rituals, including meditation, confession, visualiza tion, as well as healing illness. Given the above historical context, it seems that the term Tanchang in the Nestorian stele might have been borrowed from con temporary Tantric Buddhist monks. In modern translation of Nestorian texts, it was translated as the place of worship.18 Three great translators in the Kaiyuan period, Śubhākarasṃha (637-735), Vajrabodhi (671-741), and Amoghavajra (705-774), frequently applied this term in their translations. In terms of the practice of Tantric rituals, this mandala was virtually respected in the Tang court. After they arrived in Chang’an, those three Tantric masters from India were often invited by the Tang Emperors to construct mandalas for healing ill ness or praying for rain in Chang’an. In sum, it seems that the dominance of Saeki translated this section as the follows: “The Emperor Hsüan-tsung (712-755AD), who was surnamed ‘the Perfection of the Way,’ ordered the Royal prince, the King of Ning-kuo and four other Royal princes to visit the blessed edifices (i.e. monastery) personally and to set up altars therein.” See SAEKI 1951, 60. 17 PELLIOT 1996, 258, note 156 (137). 18 See PELLIOT 1996; SAEKI; and TANG, 2002. 16

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

201

Tantric Buddhism in the Tang imperial court inspired Nestorians to pursue a tied connection with Tantric Buddhism. During the reign of Xuanzong, a Nestorian priest Yeli also arrived in Chang’an in 732 together with a Persian envoy. He was bestowed by the Emperor Xuan zong with a purple robe that was the highest honor a monk could receive from the court.19 In 745, the emperor ordered to change the name of the Nestorian monastery from Persian Monastery (Bosi si) to Syriac Monastery (Daqin si). This action reflects that the Emperor paid particular attention to the develop ment of the Nestorian community. At that time, the Tantric monk Amoghavajra was also living in Chang’an and played a crucial role in introducing Tantric rituals to the Tang court. So it might not be surprising that Persian Nestorian priests and Tantric monks had known each other in the court, or just in the capital city, Chang’an. When Jingjing 景淨 led the Nestorian church in Chang’an in the late eighth century, around 780, Tantric Buddhism was favored by the emperor in the court. Jingjing’s friend Prajñā 般若 was active in translating Tantric Buddhist texts. The legacy of three Tantric Buddhist masters also had a profound impact in the Buddhist community in Chang’an. Amoghavajra (Ch. Bukong, Jp. Fuku 不空, 705-774) passed away six years before the erection of the Nestorian stele. It might be possible that he met Jingjing in Chang’an. His death was so big an event that the Emperor Daizong代宗 declared a three-day official mourning ceremony upon his death. Amoghavajra had a Sogdian mother and an Indian father. He came to Chang’an with his uncle when he was a child.20 This kinship connection with the Sogdian community might also indicate that Amoghavajra had contact with Sogdian Nestorians in Chang’an. Before he came to Chang’an, Amoghavajra’s master Vajrabodhi (Jingang zhi 金剛智, 671-741) came to China with Persian merchants together from Srivijiaya (pre sent Sumatra). In the early ninth century, it seems that many Sogdian Nestorians lived near the Nestorian Monastery in Chang’an. According to the tomb inscription of the Mi family, a Nestorian monk named Siyuan 思圓, was the second son of Mi Jifen 米繼芬, a Sogdian hostage living in the Liquan Quarter (Liquan fang 禮泉坊) of Chang’an.21 Mi Jifen died in the twentieth year of Zhenyuan (804), while Siyuan was living in the Nestorian monastery in the Yining Quarter, which was only one quarter away from the Liquan Quarter. In 805, the Japanese pilgrim Kūkai 空海 (774-835) came to Chang’an and visited Master Huiguo 惠果 in

See GORDEN 1921, 215. The institution for bestowing purple robe to monks was established in 704 when the Empress Wu Zetian was in power. 20 TAKAKUSU et al., Taisho shinshu daizokyō (hereafter abbreviated as T.). no. 2061, 50: 712a. Also Cf. WALTER 2006, in Sino-Platonic Papers 174 (November, 2006), 34. 21 GE 2006, 233. “Mi”is one of nine surnames attributed to the Sogdians by the Chinese, see PULLYBLANKE 1952 in T’oung Pao XLI (1952), 317-356. 19

202

Huaiyu Chen

the Qinglong Monastery (Qinglong si 青龍寺). From 804 to 806, it seems that Kūkai had direct contacts with Prajñā. Kūkai received new translations of Avatamsaka-sūtra and other scriptures from Prajñā because the latter wanted his translations to be brought to Japan.22 During that time, Prajñā was working with Nestorians together on the translations of Tantric Buddhist texts. There fore, Kūkai might have been well aware of the presence of the Nestorian church during his stay in Chang’an. For Nestorians, a successful politicalreligious ally would ascertain the support from the court for the survival of Nestorianism in the capital of the Tang Empire, Chang’an.

Cross-cultural Translations in Tantric Buddhism and Nestorianism This section will examine how Nestorians and Buddhists shared some terms in their translations. First, Nestorian priests had been working together with Bud dhist monks in their translation projects. Second, Nestorians adopted several key terms from Buddhism in order to make their translations be easily under stood among Chinese readers. Third, the main intellectual sources for Nestorian translations seemed to come from Tantric Buddhist texts, which might be due to the dominant role of Tantric Buddhism in the court of the Tang Empire. Although the collaborative project between Nestorian priests and Buddhist monks ended up as a tragedy under the interference of the Emperor, this col laboration should be viewed as a way through which foreign missionaries at tempted to benefit each other with their intellectual backgrounds in order to impress Chinese readers. A paragraph in the Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon Newly Compiled in Zhenyuan Period (Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目 ) has illustrated that there was a collaboration between the Nestorian priest Jingjing 景淨and Buddhist monk Prajñā 般若. According to this passage, Prajñā came to China in the third year of the Jianzhong 建中 pe riod (782). He vowed to translate the Mahāyāna Scripture of Transcending Principles of Six Paramitas (Dasheng liqu liu poluomi jing大乘理趣六波羅蜜經) into Chinese. So jointly with the Persian monk Jingjing, he translated this scripture from a Central Asian version into Chinese. Prajñā had no knowledge in this unspecified Central Asian language, nor did he understand Chinese. Yet Jingjing did not know Sanskrit and had no background in Buddhism. When they reported their translation to the emperor, the emperor found their translation very poor. So the emperor ordered that they should sepa rate from each other without interaction because they belonged to different re ligious orders.23 Later the emperor ordered to have a translation team organized which included Prajñā from the Ximing Monastery 西明寺, who was responsi ble for the translation of Dasheng liqu liu poluomi jing. In 784, Prajñā also 22 23

T. no. 2161, vol. 55: 1065c. See GORDON 1921, 204. Also see YORITOMI 1979, 6. SeeTAKAKUSU1886, 589-591.

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

203

translated some mantras into Chinese.24 These two translators still collaborated in the translation project of the Buddhist text called the Mahāyānamūlagatahṛidaya-bhūmi-dhyāna-sūtra (Dasheng bensheng xindi guanjing大乘本生心地觀經) which has some parallel terms and phrases that can also be found in the Nestorian text Gloria in Excelsis Deo (A Hymn of the Bril liant Teaching to the Three Majesties for Obtaining Salvation, Sanwei mengdu zan 三威蒙度讚). There are two Buddhist and Nestorian texts that shared some common features in genre, technical terms, and sentence structure. The Bud dhist text Dasheng bensheng xindi guanjing 大乘本生心地觀經 shared many parallels with the Nestorian text Gloria in Excelsis Deo 大秦景教三威蒙度讚. 25

There are some particular terms worth noting here.26 The relationship between God and Jesus Christ is clearly manifested in Chinese Nestorian literature. At first, we can examine God as “benevolent father (Cifu 慈父).” It appeares four times in the Chinese translation of Gloria in Excelsis Deo, which refers to God, the Holy Father. This term appears with a Chinese transliteration of Aramaic term for God “Alaha 阿羅訶” together in Gloria in Exelsis Deo, for instance, one sentence reads, “three talent benevolent father Alaha 三才慈父阿羅訶.” Another term is “Great Sage or the Great Holy One (Dasheng 大聖),” which was used to translate the title of Jesus Christ in the Chinese Nestorian docu ments. In Chinese translation of Gloria in Excelsis Deo, it appears in various forms, including the Brilliant Son, the Holy Son, and the Great Holy Son (Dashengzi 大聖子).” All these terms were used to indicate Jesus Christ. And the Great Holy Son appears in the sentence like “Messiah, Jesus, the Great Holy Son!" Another sentence is translated as the following: “Great Holy One, Jesus, Messiah!” But "Great Holy One" does not appear in the Nestorian In scription from Xi’an. The Chinese term for “Great Holy One” is Dasheng 大聖, which is one of the most popular terms referring to Chinese sages in Confucian and Buddhist works. For instance, in a Buddhist encyclopedia enti tled Pearl Forest of Dharma Grove （Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林）compiled by Daoshi 道世 in the late seventh century frequently refers to Buddha as the “Great Holy One” (fascicles 8, 40, 55). In the fascicle 55, it is said that “Con fucius profoundly understands that Buddha is a Great Holy One.” Apparently, the Great Holy One is a term across the boundaries of Confucianism, Bud dhism, and Nestorianism. In fact, the Chinese character Sheng 聖 is used to translate Sanskrit word arya, which also is translated as zun 尊 (being venerated) in Chinese. In Buddhist works, Buddha is also called Dashengzun 大聖尊 (the Great Holy and Honored Takakusu no. 2157, vol. 55: 892a-893b. CHEN, 2006, 93-113. 26 For a detailed study see CHEN 1997 (in Chinese), 41-52. 24 25

204

Huaiyu Chen

One) or Dasheng Zhizun 大聖至尊 (the Great Holy One and the Most Hon ored). Following this conjunction, similarly, in the Chinese translation of Glo ria in Excelsis Deo, Nestorians also offered Jesus a titled named Dasheng Puzun 大聖普尊 (Great Holy One and Universally Honored). As a term, Puzun 普尊 must be a variant form that was inspired by a Buddhist title for Buddha, Shizun 世尊 (the World-honored One) and a Daoist title for Laozi, Tianzun 天尊 (the Heaven-honored One). In Chinese Manichean literature, a similar ti tle was given to Mani, Mingzun 明尊 (the Brilliant Honored One). In the Nestorian stele inscription from Xi’an, a variant form is called Jingzun 景尊 (the Luminous Honored One). In this case, Jesus Christ was called the Luminous Honored One, Messiah. Besides Great Holy One and Universally Honored, in the Chinese translation of Gloria in Excelsis Deo there is another term for Jesus Christ, which is Fawang 法王 (Dharma King, or the King of Teaching). All these three terms frequently appear in the Chinese Buddhist canon, often respectively, but the only simulta neous appearance was from the above Tantric Buddhist text Dasheng bensheng xindi guanjing. The connection between these two texts can be assured at this point. In these two Nestorian and Tantric Buddhist texts, Jesus Christ and Bud dha share the same title and the same honor: Great Holy One, Universally Honored, and the King of Dharma. This parallelism illustrates that Nestorianism and Tantric Buddhism shared their knowledge in their translations.

Astronomical Knowledge in Tantric Buddhism and Nestorianism Nestorians might also have exchanged astronomical knowledge with Tantric Buddhist monks. A Nestorian family seemed to have introduced Claudius Ptolemy’s (85?-165?) astronomy into China by translating his astronomical work Tetrabiblios (Four Books, 132-160, Ch. Simenjing 四門經). Rong Xinji ang 榮新江 examines a couple of tomb inscriptions that belong to a Persian Nestorian family living in Tang China. The head of this Persian family was Li Su 李素, who was the director of the Bureau of Astronomy of (Sitian jian 司天監) the Tang Empire for more than fifty years until his death in 817. Af terwards his oldest son succeeded his position.27 It seemed that this family made tremendous contribution to the astronomical knowledge during their ser vice for the Tang Empire. Li Su’s grandfather came to China in the middle of the Kaiyuan period (742-756). In the meantime, an Tantric Buddhist monk, Yixing 一行 (673-727), was also an important astronomer in Chang’an.28 He was invited to Chang’an to be in charge of compiling the new calendar in the ninth year of the Kaiyuan period (721). He finished a draft of a new calendar in 27 28

RONG 2001 (in Chinese), 238-357. CHEN 2000-2001, 1-39.

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

205

727, which was called the Dayan Calendrical Manual of the Kaiyuan Period (Dayan li 大衍 ). This calendar was issued officially all over the country in 729 and was replaced by Guo Xianzhi’s 郭羡之 Five-chronicle Calendarical Manual (Wuji li 五紀 ) in 762 during Xianzong’s reign, which means Yixing’s calendar was only canceled two years earlier than the appointment of Li Su as the head of the Bureau of Astronomy. Moreover, it seems that both Nestorians and Tantric Buddhists in Chang’an all used the planetary week that was introduced by Sogdians from Persia. The cal endar of planetary week appeared as the “Seven Luminaries (Qiyao 七曜)” in Chinese sources. In Chinese Buddhist literature, for instance, the biography of An Shigao (?-168) tells us that he learned about both the foreign system of “Seven Luminaries” and the domestic system of “Five Phases (Wuxing 五行),” as well as medical knowledge and magic techniques. An Shigao was a Persian hostage living in Luoyang, the capital of the Eastern Han dynasty, in 148. “Seven Luminaries” was traditionally viewed as a Persian astronomical system, but astonishingly, in Chinese Tantric Buddhism, there are numerous scriptures talking about the “Seven Luminaries.” A number of commentaries by local Chinese Buddhist masters also cover this topic. In particular, Yixing wrote a book titled Separate Running Method of Seven Luminous Stars (Qiyao xingcheng biexing fa七曜星辰別行法), which deals with the rituals for using Tan tric calendarical rituals to heal illness, based on the theory that each star in the sky was responsible for one sort of illness on the ground.29 In the Nestorian stele, no wonder this Persian system of “Seven Luminaries” was adopted too. At the end of the stele text, it was said that the stele was erected on the seventh day of the first month, Sunday (大簇月七日大耀森文日). The latter part of this date is from Old Persian yašambah. If looking back to Yixing, interestingly in Yixing’s Separate Running Method of Seven Stars, Sunday was called Miri, the day of mit, which was from the Sogdian word myr.30 A manuscript from Dunhuang, P. 4071, illustrates that a Sogdian magician Kang Zun wrote about Persian divination techniques and he used the Persian calendar.31 In sum, Per sians, Sogdians, and Tantric monks all contributed to the influence of Persian astronomical knowledge in medieval China.

Scriptural Pillars in Tantric Buddhism and Nestorianism The scriptural Pillar, in Sanskrit, dhvaja, is also a banner for being held by the Bodhisattvas or simply being planted in front of the tombs. The newly discov ered Nestorian scriptural pillar from Luoyang in 2006 has a similar format to

Takakusu. no. 1309, vol. 21. CHAVANNES – PELLIOT1913, 162-164. 31 JIANG 1994 (in Chinese), 59-63. 29 30

206

Huaiyu Chen

the Dharani pillar in Tantric Buddhism, with a round head and eight sides.32 Let me first summarize what this pillar looks like. First, on the round head of this Nestorian scriptural pillar, we can see a series of decorative images with the motif of a cross and flying angels, which marks its Nestorian identity. More over, the Nestorian scripture Da Qin jingjiao xuanyuan zhiben jing 大秦景教宣元至本經and the colophon were carved on the eight sides of this pillar. Furthermore, according to the colophon, the pillar was erected by a son and dedicated to his deceased mother, Lady An 安太夫人. It says that in the eighth day of the twelfth month, 814, the ninth year of Yuanhe period 元和九年, the burial land was purchased by her relatives from Cui Xingben 崔行本. The body was reburied in the third year of Dahe period (829). Lady An’s brother was a Nestorian monk named Qingsu 清素, and her old clan brother was named Shaocheng 少誠, and her uncle was named An Shaolian 安少蓮. Some Nestorian priests were also present during the erection of this pillar. They were the abbot of Daqin Nestorian Monastery Fahe Xuanying 法和玄應, whose surname is Mi 米; the Great Virtue of Ritual Xuanqing 威儀大德玄慶, whose surname is also Mi; and the Great Virtue in the ninth rank, Zhitong 九階大德志通, whose surname is Kang 康. This pillar was carved and erected in late Tang period when Tantric Buddhism was influential. We shall examine the ways in which how this Nestorian pillar can be viewed as an imitated version of Tantric Buddhist scriptural pillars. First of all, it is worth noting that in Tantric Buddhism, many scriptural pillars were commissioned to carve Dharani scriptures, especially The Sutra of The Supreme Sacrosanct Dharani From The Buddha's Summit (Skt. Buddhoṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇi-sūtra, Ch. Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經.33 This scripture is one of the most popular texts in Tantric Buddhism in medieval China. There are many different Chinese versions translated by Du Xingyi 杜行顗, Divākara 地婆訶羅, Buddhapāri 佛陀波利, and Yijing 義淨. Among them, Buddhapāri’s translation was the dominant version in the Chinese Buddhist community. According to this scripture, anyone who chants this text can avoid falling into hell in his or her next life circle. As it states, wherever this Dharani dwells, if it is written for distribution, propagated, received and upheld, read, recited, heard, all evil paths will be purified. All sufferings will be completely eradicated. It also teaches that, if this Dharani is written and placed on the top of a tall banner, a high mountain, a tall building, both monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen will be saved from evil paths. In Nestorian case, since the colophon of this scriptural pillar indicated the bur ial ritual, it seems that this pillar served the burial ceremony, particularly for 32

ZHANG 2007 (in Chinese), 65-73; Luo 2007 (in Chinese) 30-48; LIN - YIN, 2008 (in Chi nese), 325-394.

33

LIU 1996 (in Chinese), 143-193; idem. 1997 (in Chinese), 643-786; idem.2003 (in Chinese), 673-763.

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

207

the protection of the deceased woman, Lady An. Carving the Nestorian scrip ture on the pillar would help the deceased purify her sin, preventing her from falling into hell. Furthermore, like the Dharani pillar in Tantric Buddhism, the Nestorian scriptural pillar not only served the deceased ones, but also served the living ones, including both priests and lay people. According to the colo phon of this Scriptural pillar, both priests and lay people were involved in carv ing and erecting the scriptural pillar, which echoes the case in Buddhist scrip ture of the Dharani for receiving merits. It seems that in Nestorianism, the priests and lay people can also receive the protection from falling into hell by copying and carving Nestorian scriptures, and by erecting a scriptural pillar. The titles of Nestorian monks appearing on this Nestorian scriptural pillar seem to be borrowed from Tantric Buddhism in the late Tang period. In the second year of the Guangde period (764), Amoghavajra 不空 (705-744) suggested the emperor to appoint forty-nine Great Virtues in Da Xingshan si 大興善寺. As both an official title and a political honor, the Great Virtue was a title that could only be bestowed by the Emperor, for the purpose of showing the emperor’s high esteem toward some eminent monks. It seems that in the Nestorian church, there were many priests who possessed the title of Great Virtue, ap pearing in variant forms. In the case of the Nestorian scriptural pillar, two of Nestorian priests held the titles of the “Great Virtue.” One was named the “Great Virtue of Ritual,” and another was named the “Ninth-Rank Great Vir tue.” In Tantric Buddhist literature, the Great Virtue was also highly esteemed. For instance, in one of Amoghavajra’s translations, Dharani Scripture of Guangyin’s Great Compassion Mind (Avalokiteśvara-padma-jāla-mūlatantra‐ nāma-dhāranī) 攝無礙大悲心大陀羅尼經, there is a sentence called the “mark of the great virtues of Ritual 威儀大德相.”34 In short, institutionally and doctrinally, as well as artistically, Nestorianism seemed to have borrowed many ideas from its contemporary dominant religious tradition in the Capital city of Tang Empire, Tantric Buddhism.

Nestorianism and Tantric Buddhism in Dunhuang and Tibet This section offers a new understanding of a Nestorian painting and a Tibetan Buddhist manuscript from Dunhuang from a perspective of the Tantric Bud dhist cultural context. It seems that the Nestorian painting in Aural Stein’s Dunhuang collection should be reexamined, given a Tantric Buddhist back ground in Dunhuang area after Dunhuang became a local politically independ ent region in 848. From 781 to 848, Dunhuang was under the rule of the Ti betan Empire. During this period, Buddhism was well preserved and even

34

Takakusu. no. 1067, 20: 136b22.

Huaiyu Chen

208

achieved new development. The Tantric elements were certainly incorporated into local Buddhism in the Dunhuang area. A Nestorian painting in Stein’s collection was dated to the ninth or tenth cen tury, right after Dunhuang’s independence from Tibetan regime. However, it might still reflect some sort of Tantric influence. This Nestorian painting num bered Ch. XLIX. 001 in the British Museum, has was studied by Arthur Waley.35 For the figure in the painting, Waley remarks: In the front of his tiara, just where a Bodhisattva’s dhyāni Buddha usually appears, this deity wears a ‘Maltese cross’; the same emblem is worn upon his breast. Though the right hand is making a familiar Buddhist mudrā, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the figure is a Good Shepherd rather than a Bodhisattva. The form of the two crosses is just that of the cross which is at the top of the famous Nestorian monument at Xi’an Fu.36

For me, this painting might have been influenced by the painting dedicated to the worship of Maricideva 摩利支天 in a Chinese Tantric text entitled Scrip ture of the Assembly of Dharani (Ch. Tuoluoni jijing陀羅尼集經) that was translated by an Indian monk Atkuta 阿地瞿多in Chang’an in 652. According to this scripture, there is a method for creating such a painting. It said that, this Maricideva should look like a young lady. Her left hand should be held before the chest like a fist拳頭，but holding a fan. Her right hand made a mudra, let ting five fingers hang down. As an important deity in the Chinese Tantric Bud dhist tradition, Maricideva can be also found in the translations by both Prajñā’s translation Dasheng liqu liu piluomi jing37 and Amoghavajra’s translation Scripture of Maricideva (Foshuo molizhitian jing 佛 經). However, the description of this deity in Chinese Tantric Buddhist literature is very similar to what the Nestorian texts describe as God. In the Nestorian text Gloria in Excelsis Deo 三威蒙度讚, it said that “From the beginning no man has able to see you, nor may you be imaged by the eye of flesh.”38 Yet in the Scripture on Maricideva, it is said that a heavenly lady has the name Mari cideva, who has supernatural power without binding. Even the Sun and Moon Heavens cannot see her, but she can see Sun and Moon Heavens. No human being can see her and sense her. No human being can grasp her and embrace her. And no one can hurt her or cheat her. Nobody can indebt her property, nor can they punish her.39 This similarity might be due to the common rhetoric strategy in a generic writing in both Nestorian and Buddhist texts. However, since Tantric Buddhism and Nestorianism co-existed in both Chang’an and WALEY1925, 4-5. Ibid., 5. 37 Takakusu. no. 261, 8: 873c. 38 For a linguist analysis, see CHEN 2006, 102-103. 39 Takakusu. no. 1255b, 21: 260b. 35 36

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

209

Dunhuang area, it is not impossible to say that Nestorians had been inspired by Tantric Buddhist tradition in terms of the rhetoric strategy to explain what their God looks like in a verbal form. Finally, the connection between Tibetan Tantric Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity should also be discussed. Nestorian elements have been found in study some Tibetan has revealed manuscripts that a Tibetan from themanuscript Dunhuanginarea. the For Pelliot instance, Collection Geza held Uray’s in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France has some lines that in fact mentioned Je sus Messiah. According to him, the lines 40-44 of P. t. 351 in Pelliot Tibetan collection can be read as the following: Man, your ally is the god called “Jesus Messiah”. He acts as Vajrapāṇi and Śrī Śākyamuni. When the gates of the seven levels of heaven have opened, you will accomplish the yoga that you will receive from the judge at the right hand of God. Because of this, do whatever you wish without shame, fear or appre hension. You will become a conqueror, and there will be no demons or ob structing spirits. Whoever casts this lot (mo), it will be very good. 40

Interestingly, here Jesus Messiah again was mentioned as the counterpart of Śākyamuni Buddha. This feature of Jesus Messiah in a Tibetan text echoes what we have seen in Chinese Nestorian texts that Jesus Messiah appeared as the Great Holy One, same as the title of the Buddha in Chinese Tantric Bud dhist texts. Wang Yao has suggested that a literary reading of these lines has revealed that Jesus Messiah held diamond mallet (Vajra-vara) in his hand.41 If this reading is correct, and Jesus Messiah was portrayed to hold a diamond mallet in Tantric Buddhist literature, it seems that the Nestorian painting from Dunhuang discussed above actually was a portrait of Jesus Messiah –appearing like a Tantric Buddha - and what he held was a Nestorian diamond mallet with a cross on its head. Besides Jesus Messiah appearing in Tibetan Tantric Buddhist texts, some Nes torian crosses also are found in Tibetan manuscripts in the Pelliot collection, such as P. t. 1182 and P. t. 1676. In Lhadak, Nestorian crosses have been found on some rocks on the ancient trading tracks. On a rock with a Nestorian cross, one of Sogdian inscriptions tells that a Sogdian man would visit the Tibetan king from the inner land (Central Eurasia) around mid-ninth century (844855).42 For this issue, Nicolas Sims-Williams has attempted to construct a net work of Sogdian merchants in Tibet and Lhadak.43 This social and commercial

This manuscript is numbered as P. t. 351 (Pelliot Tibetan mss) in Pelliot collection. URAY 1983, 399-430. 41 WANG1992, 539-543. 42 MÜLLER 1925, 371-372. 43 SIMS-WILLIAMS 1996, 45-66; GRENET 1996, 65-84; TROMBERT 2001, 285-327. FRANCKE 1925, 366-371. 40

210

HuaiyuChen

network has an impact on the spread of Nestorianism in Central Asia and China, which can never be underestimated.

Conclusion To summarize the discussion above, by our discussions on the connections be tween Tantric Buddhism and Nestorianism, this paper suggests the organic dy namics between Nestorianism and Tantric Buddhism in medieval China. This dynamics came from the unique dominant position of Tantric Buddhism in the capital city of the Tang Empire, Chang’an and also in Dunhuang area and Nestorians might have been intended to benefit from Tantric Buddhism in order to expand its religious space in a competitive multi-religious society in medieval period. More specifically, Nestorians and Tantric Buddhists in Chang’an benefited from each other during their mutual collaboration in translating Buddhist and Nestorian texts into Chinese. Some Tantric Buddhists might have shared Sogdian background with Nestorians, in kinship and in community. Nestorians and Tantric Buddhists all contributed to introducing Persian astronomical knowl edge to the Tang court. Nestorian Christians adopted Tantric Buddhist scrip tural pillars in their burial ritual, serving their Nestorian community. Nestorians and Tantric Buddhists in Dunhuang and Tibet might have had a mutual rela tionship, textually and artistically.

Bibliography CHAVANNES, É. and Paul PELLIOT. 1913. “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine (deuxième partie),” Journal Asiatique XIe Série I (1913), 99-199. CHEN, Huaiyu. “Suowei Tangdai jingjiao wenxian liangzhong bianwei bushuo,” Tang yanjiu vol. 3 (1997), 41-52. CHEN, Huaiyu. 1999. “Gaochang huigu jingjiao yanjiu,” Dunhuang tulufan yanjiu vol. 4 (1999), pp. 165-214. CHEN, Huaiyu 2000. “Jingjiao zai zhonggu zhongguo de mingyun,” Huaxue vol. 4 (2000), 286-298. CHEN, Huaiyu. 2006. “The Connection between Nestorian and Buddhist Texts in Late Tang China,” in Roman Malek ed., The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006), 93-113. CHEN, Jinhua. 2000-2001. “The Birth of a Polymath: The Genealogical Background of the Tang Monk-Scientist Yixing (673-727).” T’ang Studies 18-19 (2000-2001), pp. 1-39. DUAN, Qing. “Tangdai jingjiaosi yu jingjiaoseng xinshi” in RONG Xinjiang ed. 2003. Tangdai zongjiao xinyang yu shehui, Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe, 2003. pp. 434-472. FOLTZ, Richard. 1999. Religions of the Silk Road, New York: St. Martin's Press.

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

211

FORTE, Antonino. 1995. The Hostage an Shigao and His Offspring: an Iranian Family in China, occasional paper Series, vol. 6, Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 1995. FORTE, Antonino. 1999-2000. “Iranians in China: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Bu reau of Commerce,” in Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 11 (1999-2000), 277-290. FRANKE, A.H. 1925. “Felseninschriften in Ladakh,” in: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 1925, 366371. GE, Chengyong. 2006. Tangyun huyin yu wailai wenming, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. GILLMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. GORDON, Elizabeth A. 1921. Syriac Christianity and the Daijō Bukkyō, reprinted in Asian Christology and the Mahāyāna, Tokyo: Maruzen & Company, Ltd. GRENET, Frantz. 1996. “Les Sogdiens dans les Mers du Sud,” Cahiers d’Asie centrale, 1-2 (1996), 65-84. GRENET, Frantz. 2007. “Religious Diversity among Sogdian Merchants in SixthCentury China: Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, and Hinduism,” Com parative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 27: 2 (2007), 463-478. JIANG, Boqin. 1994. Dunhuang tulufan wenshu yu sichou zhilu, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. JULIANO, Annette L. and Judith A. LERNER eds. 2001. Monks and Merchants: Silk Road Treasures from Northwest China, New York: Harry N. Abrams. KLEIN, W. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgystan bis zum 14 jh, Turnhout: Brepoles Publishers. LIN, Wushu and YIN Xiaoping. 2008. “Jingzhuang ben Daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhibenjing kaoshi: Tangdai Luoyang jingjiao jingzhuang yanjiu zhiyi,” Zhonghua wenshi luncong vol. 89 (2008), 325-394. LIU, Shufen 1996. “Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing yu Tangdai Zunsheng jingchuang de yanli: Jingchuang yanjiu zhi yi,” Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 67: 1 (1996), 143-193. LIU, Shufen. 1997. “Jingzhuang de xingzhi, xingzhi he laiyuan: jingzhuang yanjiu zhi’er,” Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 68: 3 (1997), 643-786. LIU, Shufen. 2003. “Muzhuang yanjiu: Jingzhuang yanjiu zhisan,” Zhongyang yanjiu yuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 74: 4 (2003), 673-763. LUO, Zhao. 2007. “Luoyang xin chutu Daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhibenjing ji zhuangji shizhuang de jige wenti,” Wenwu vol. 6 (2007), 30-48. MALEK, Roman ed. 2006. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica. MINGANA, A. 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” Bulletin of The John Rylands Library of University of Manchester, Vol.9, No.2, 297-371. MÜLLER, F. W. K. 1925. “Eine Sogdische Inschrifts in Ladakh,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft xxxi (1925), 371-372. PELLIOT, Paul. 1914. “Chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’Extreme-Orient,” T’oung Pao vol. XV (1914), 623-644. PELLIOT, Paul 1984. Recherches sur les chrétiens d'Asie centrale et d'ExtremeOrient: II, 1: La Stele de Si-Ngan-Fou, Paris: Editions de la Fondation SingerPolignac.

212

HuaiyuChen

PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. L'Inscription nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou, edited with Supple ments by Antonino Forte, Kyoto: Scuola di Studi sull'Asia Orientale & Paris: Col lège de France, Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises. PULLYBLANKE, Edwin G. 1952. “A Sogdian Colony in Inner Mongolia,” T’oung PaoXLI (1952), 317-356. RONG, Xinjiang. 1999. “Beichao Sui Tang Suteren zhi qianxi jiqi juluo,” Guoxue yan jiu 6 (1999), 27-85. RONG, Xinjiang. 2001. Zhonggu zhongguo yu wailai wenming, Beijing: Sanlian shudian. SAEKI, Yoshiro. 1951.. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, Tokyo: The Toho Bunkawa Gakuin: The Academy of Oriental Culture, Tokyo Institute, The Maruzen Company Ltd., 1951. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicolas. 1991. “Christianity in Central Asia and Chinese Turke stan,” in E.Yarshater, ed., Encyclopedia Iranica, vol.V (1991), 530-535. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicolas. 1992. “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang manuscripts,” in: A Cadonna, ed.,Turfan and Tun-huang the Texts. En counter of Civilization on the Silk Road, Firenze, 1992, 43-61. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicolas. 1996. “The Sogdian Merchants in China and India,” In A. Cadonna & L. Lanciotti, ed., Cina e Iran da Alessandro Magno alla dinastia Tang. Florence: Leo S. Olschki editore, 45-66. STEIN, Rolf A. 1980. “Une mention du manichéisme dans le choix du bouddhisme comme religion d'état par le roi tibétain Khri-sroṅ lde-bcan,” in: Indianisme et bouddhisme: Mélanges offerts á Mgr Étienne Lamotte, Louvain-la-Neuve, 329– 337. SUNDERMANN, Werner. 1994. „Byzanz und Bulayiq,“ in: Iranian and IndoEuropean Studies. Memorial Volume of Otokar Klima, ed. by P.Varrousek, Prag, 255-264. TAKAKUSU, Junjiro. 1896. “The Name of ‘Messiah” found in a Buddhist Book; the Nestorian Missionary Adam, Presbyter, Papas of China, Translating a Buddhist Sūtra,” T’oung Pao vol. VII (1896), 589-591. TANG, Li. 2002. A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and its Lit erature in Chinese: Together With a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang, 2002. TROMBERT, Eric. 2001. “La vigne et le vin en Chine. Misères et succès d’une tradi tion allogène,” Journal Asiatique, 289 (2001), 285-327. URAY, Geza. 1983. “Tibet’s Connections with Nestorianism and Manichaeism in the 8th–10th Centuries,” in Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher eds., Contribu tions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture. Wien: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 399-430. VAISSIERE, Étienne de la. 2002. Histoire des marchands sogdiens, Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises. WALEY, Arthur. 1925. “Christ or Bodhisattva?” in Artibus Asiae 1: 1 (1925), 4-5. WALTER, Mario Nambo. 2006. “Sogdians and Buddhism,” Sino-Platonic Papers 174 (November, 2006), 1-89. WANG, Yao.1992. “Dunhuang P. t. 351 tubo wenshu ji jingjiao wenxian xulu,” in Hanxue yanjiu zhongxin ed., Di’erjie Dunhuangxue guoji yantaohui lunwenji Taipei: Hanxue yanjiu zhongxin, 539-543. WHITFIELD, Susan. ed. 2004. The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith, London: Serindia Publications.

The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity With Tantric Buddhism

213

YORITOMI, Motohiro. 1979. Chūgoku mikkyō no kenkyū, Tokyo: Daito shuppansha. ZHANG, Naizhu. 2007. “Ba Henan Luoyang xin chutu de yijian Tangdai jingjiao shike,” Xiyu yanjiu vol. 1 (2007), 65-73.

WHEN WAS THE TEMPLE OF THE CROSS AT FANGSHAN A “CHRISTIAN TEMPLE”? Pierre MARSONE École Pratique des Hautes Études Paris, France

Introduction The debate about the Temple of the Cross (Shizisi 十 字 寺) of Fangshan 房 山 (about 30 km Southwest of Peking), began in 1919 with a short note in The New China Review reporting that, following the mention by E. H. Parker of a Temple of the Cross “Shiziguan 什 字 自“ (sic) outside of the North gate of Lanzhou (Lanzhoufu 蘭 州 府 at that time), H.I. Harding, second secretary of the English mission in Peking, pointed out that there was a sanctuary called “Shizici 什 字 祠“ near Peking, at the foot of the mountains1. The temple is lo cated at a place called Chechang 車 廠 or Chaichang 柴 廠2, northwest of Zhoukoudian 周 口 店 in the Fangshan District. At that time, Harding pre cluded that the name could mean “temple of the Cross” and that it could refer to Nestorianism. The authors of the note were considering the hypothesis that “the most obvious solution” to the meaning of the temple name was “cross road”, but they remarked at the same time that there was no trace, nor even any possibility for the presence of a cross-road at that “entrance to a narrow defile”. One year later, Sir Reginald Johnston (Emperor Xuantong’s private tutor), us ing the pseudonym of “Christopher Irving”, wrote in the same review an article entitled “A Chinese Temple of the Cross”3. Overtaken by a thunderstorm, Ir ving one day had to find shelter in that secluded temple near the foot of the Sanpen Hill (Sanpenshan 三 盆 山)4 in the Dafangshan 大 房 山 range of mountains. As the title indicates, the author defended that the correct meaning of the name of the temple was “Temple of the Cross”. What drew the attention of Westerners at that time was primarily the fact that the temple was called “Temple of the Cross”, and secondarily that there were on this site two stone blocks on which crosses were carved. These stones prove 1i 2

3 4

The New China Review, 1919, 321. XU 徐 萍 芳 1992-7, 185. The name Chaichang, which appears on the verso of the Yuan stele, seems to be the ancient name of the place. IRVING 1920, 522-533. The name Sanpen (“Three bowls”) would derive from the fact that the small stream flowing near the temple contains three pools looking like bowls. See IRVING, 523.

216

Pierre Marsone

that the temple must have been, at least at one time, a Christian temple. This paper cannot replace the recent researches which have been made up to now, in particular the two articles written in 2005 and in 2006 by Prof. Pier-Giorgio Borbone and Prof. Marco Guglielminotti, who gave us an extensive analysis of the remaining epigraphic documents5. However, they have not yet concluded the debate about when the Temple of the Cross became Christian.

The current situation Nowadays, no part of the temple remains is there. The stone blocks were brought to Beijing in 1931, and in 1936 they were carried to Nanjing Museum where they have been kept until now. At Fangshan, we can only see their repli cas in the famous Buddhist temple Yunjusi 雲 居 寺, and the only relics which remain on the spot of the Temple of the Cross are two steles. The first stele is entitled: Account on the stele of Chongshengyuan at Dadu (Dadu Chongshengyuan beiji 大 都 崇 聖 院 碑 記)6. This stele written by Wang Mingfeng 王 鳴 鳳 in the 4th month of the year 960 presents the temple as a Buddhist temple called Chongshengyuan (“Temple of the Reverence for the Holy”). We will call it the Liao stele. The other stele is entitled Account on the Stele of the Temple Called by Imperial Decree the Great Yuan “Temple of the Cross” (Da Yuan chici Shizisi beiji 大元敕賜 十 字寺碑 記). It was written by Huang Jin黃 溍 (1277-1357) and the calligrapher was Li Haowen 李 好 文. It is dated 1365, that is to say, three years before the fall of the Mongol dynasty. The stele explains how a Buddhist monk restored the temple between 1358 and 1363 and obtained for it, from the Yuan emperor, the name “Temple of the Cross”. Both steles, which had been well conserved until the Republican period, are broken in two parts. A few years ago, they were lying on the ground, but we can see on the photographs reproduced in Guglielminotti’s article that they were erected again not long ago. From these epigraphic documents, we learn the followings: The verso of the Liao stele, written under the Ming, indicates that the temple was founded in 317 (Jianwu 1) by the monk Huijing 慧 淨 (?-374), and that three centuries later, under the Tang dynasty, a restoration was completed on the 9th day of the 9th month of the year 638 (Zhenguan 12) by monk Yiduan 義 端 (?-674). The front side of the stele only mentions the new restoration of the temple during the Khitan Liao dynasty, between 952 and 958, by monk Hu-

5 6

See BORBONE 2006 and GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL 2005, 431-460. The title on the fronton is Sanpenshan Chongshengyuan beiji (Report on a stele about the Chongsheng Temple of the Sanpen hill).

Temple of the Cross at Fangshan

217

icheng 惠 誠7. The original name of the temple is unknown. The stele only as serts that during the Khitan Dynasty the temple was known as “Reverence for the Holy”, not as Temple of the Cross. Moreover, the stele also reports that at the time of this restoration there remained from the past only one stone pillar (shichuang yi zuo 石 幢 一 座). The dates given in the inscription are: Yingli 2 (952) wuchen ; Yingli 8 (958) jiaxu and Yingli 10 (960) bingzi. But, if this se ries of calendar codes is correct in itself, the codes do not match with the real ity. There is a discrepancy of sixteen years (wuchen does not match with Yingli 2 but with Yingli 18, and so on). The Yuan stele explains that at the end of the Yuan dynasty the temple had been “seriously damaged by the fire of war after the restoration of the Liao era many years ago, so that it was difficult for monks to live there”8. There re mained only “two relics: a stele and a pillar” (bei chuang erzuo 碑 幢 二 坐). At the end of the summer of 1358, the Chan monk Jingshan 淨 善9, a disciple of the “lecturer” (jiangzhu 講 主) Xi 禧 of the Haotiansi 昊 天 寺, passed by the temple. After having spoken for a while with the monks who were living there, he sat alone near the pillar. While he was meditating, he saw an immortal wearing green clothes, a golden armour, a black/green turban and black shoes, who told him: “You, monk, ought to dwell on this mountain. I will protect it”10. Then, the monk saw the cross carved on the pillar shining brighter and brighter. He uttered a stanza11 and went to Dadu 大 都 (present Beijing) in order to seek donators who could support the restoration. With the support of the members from the highest Mongol gentry, he restored the temple between 1358 (Zhizheng 18) and 1363 (Zhizheng 23). But this stele, like the Liao stele, contains many vital mistakes probably introduced in the text when the stele was carved again during the Ming period. For example, the author of the text, Huang Jin, who died in 1357, cannot be the author of the stele that dated eight years later. His title was abridged and eminent personalities mentionned in the stele, as Temür buqa (Tiemuer buhua 鐵 木 兒 不 花) or Qingtong 慶 童, were given titles that they received only after the erection of the stele12. Indeed, during the Ming Dynasty, in 1535 (Jiajing 14), both steles were carved again by the Buddhist rector (zhuchi 住 持) Yuanshi 圓 實。 A poem by Zheng Minyue 鄭 民 悅 attests that the temple was active during the Wanli era (1573-

7 8 9 10 11

12

His lay name was Zhang 張, and his mother’s name was Sun 孫). 大遼之修營，已經多載，兵火焚蕩，僧難居止 (Yuan stele). Jingshan (lay name Fan 范) originated from the gentry of Daxing 大 興 district. 和尚好住此山，吾當護持. 特來游此山，定中遇神仙。十字發光現，此地有大緣 (“I especially came to this mountain, and during meditation I encountered an immmortal. The cross became lightening, here there is great destiny”). All the mistakes contained in both steles are clearly and precisely set out by GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL 2005, 452-454.

218

Pierre Marsone

1619)13. At the beginning of the XXth century, there remained one hall of the temple, both of the steles, both of the stone blocks and an inscription above the gate of the temple announcing “Old Chan Temple of the Cross” (Gucha Shizi chanlin 古 剎 十 字 禪 林). This inscription, which is now lost, was dated “Zhonghua dingsi jiu yue” 中 華丁 巳九月, that is to say the ninth month of the year 1917. According to Irving’s article, the people there also called the temple “Temple of the Stones” (Shitousi 石 頭 寺)14. Soon after that, the tem ple and its lands were sold by the rector Longhai 龍 海 to a certain Zhang Yunfu 張 雲 甫 who transformed the temple into a private cottage (shanzhuang 山 莊)15.

Borbone’s argumentation for a Nestorian temple during the Yuan In his detailed and rigorous article on the carving of the stone blocks, Prof. Borbone defended the thesis that the Temple of the Cross was probably a Nes torian temple during the Yuan Dynasty. He first remarked that the expression “See to him and hope in him”, carved beside the vertical axis of one of the crosses, became widely used in the Near East around the XIIIth century16. He considered that this sentence could be a proof of the ties existing at that time between the Church of the Near East and the Nestorians of the Yuan Empire17. The syriac sentence (hwrw * lwth ** wsbrw*bh), which means “Look at It [the cross] and hope in It” 18, slightly differs from that written around an other cross discovered in 1986 near Chifeng and dated 1253 (hwr lwth ** sbrw bh)19. This could prove the usage of that formula at that time. For what concerns the dif ferent forms of the letter t between both inscriptions, a document from the hand of the Öngüt Catholicos Mar Yahballaha III, dated 1304, indicates that both forms were used simultaneously in that place at that time20. Moreover, Prof. Borbone noticed that the script used for writing the Syriac letters is not identi cal to that of the famous Xi’an stele, as it was asserted in 1925 by Father Cheikho21, nor is it a kind of Estranghelo of the 9th century22, but it is nearer from the Sino-Turkic epigraphic materials of the XIIIth and XIVth centuries23. 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23

Cf. TONG 佟 有 年 1664, quoted and analysed by YANG 1999, 220. IRVING 1920, 523. Cf. « Fangshanxian shizi shike » 房 山 縣 十 字 石 刻, Yanjing xuebao 燕 京 學 報, n° 10, (Dec. 1931), 2168, quoted by Yang 1999, 220. BORBONE 2006, 4. Ibid, 6. This sentence is the verse 6 of Psalm 34. See HAMILTON - NIU RUJI 1994, 147-164. See the addresses in Syriac of the two letters written in Arabic to pope Bonifatius VIII, in BOTTINI 1992, 239-256. Le Bulletin catholique de Pékin, 1925, 403-406. LAGRANGE 1922 in Le Bulletin catholique de Pékin (1922), 421 BORBONE 2006, 5.

Temple of the Cross at Fangshan

219

We can add to that analysis that, according to Prof. Xu Pingfang’s explana tions, the typology of the flower vases also corresponds to that of the XIIIth century24. A little cross is carved on the top of the stele dated 1365. This important detail encourages Prof. Borbone to consider that, when the steles were carved again in 1535, their content concerning the history of the temple had been altered. So he suggested that information about the Christian history of the temple during the Yuan could have been erased. Prof. Borbone also noticed that the cross seen by the monk cannot be one of the crosses carved on the stone blocks of Fangshan because the cross seen by the monk was carved on a devotional pillar (chuang) of the temple whose existence is confirmed by the Liao stele. Prof. Borbone also spoke of the Christian monk Rabban Sauma who, after hav ing lived as a monk in Peking for seven years, left that city and went to the mountains in order to live as an hermit between 1255 and 1270. We know that it took a day from Peking to walk to that place and fifteen days from the pre sumable capital of the Öngüts, Koshang, present Olan Süme25. This led Prof. Borbone to take into account the possibility that Rabban Sauma could have set tled at Fangshan. In his book Christians in China, Moule cautiously noticed that the distance from this Temple of the Cross to Peking “makes it perhaps possible that it was located near the retreat of the monk Rabban Sauma”26. But this hypothesis seems very hazardous. According to the records, Rabban Sauma did not go to any temple in the mountains, but lived as an hermit in the nature. Moreover, if he left Peking in the direction of Koshang, he had to go to the North or Northwest. But Fangshan is located Southwest of Peking…

Yang Yiwu’s argumentation An opposite point of view was developed by a Chinese scholar, Yang Yiwu, in his recent Researches on Fangshan Historical Relics (Fangshan lishi wenwu yanjiu 房 山 歷 史 文 物 研 究). In that book, Yang Yiwu defended the thesis that the Shizisi was a Nestorian temple during the Tang period. He first argued that the year 638, the year of the restoration by monk Yiduan, corresponds to the year in which Tang Taizong allowed Nestorianism (Jingjiao 景 教) to spread across China. Would Yiduan have been a Christian monk? It seems somewhat difficult to assert that only three years after Aluoben’s arrival in China and in the same year of the edict, Nestorianism could have spread so far from the capital to a rather secluded region at that time. But this hypothesis cannot be rejected. If this hypothesis is true, we can accept Yang’s explanation

24 25 26

XU 1992-1997, 184-185. VARALDO - BENENTE 2004, 81. MOULE 1930, 88.

220

Pierre Marsone

that the Shizisi stopped being a Nestorian shrine because of the persecution against alien religions in 845. Next, Yang Yiwu argued that the name “Chongshengyuan” used during the Liao period, probably comes from an earlier time, that Chongsheng has a real Nestorian connotation and that there is no reason for the people of the Liao to call a Buddhist temple “Chongsheng”. Yang Yiwu erroneously asserted that the Nestorian temple in Xi’an during the Tang dynasty was called Chongsheng. But on the other side, there are few Buddhist temples which were called Chongsheng.27 At the same time, this name could be appropriate for a Nes torian sanctuary because “holy” (sheng 聖) is, with “way” (dao 道), a key no tion developed in the famous Nestorian stele of Xi’an28. Yang Yiwu also argued that, when Harding found the temple, people told him that the stone blocks had been found during the restoration of 1358 in the pavement of the Tianwang Dian. Moreover, according to the Yuan stele, it seems that there were no restoration from the Liao Dynasty until the end of the Yuan. Yang thus concluded that these blocks should date back to the Tang pe riod. But this argument is not convincing. Prof. Borbone has demonstrated that the stone blocks were very likely carved in Yuan times. Moreover, how could people of the Republican period remember this origin of the blocks? Their only document was the dubious Yuan stele which does not give any information about the blocks. The argument is very weak. Yang Yiwu also used the argument of the Syriac language, but his argument that Syriac letters are carved on both Xi’an stele and the stone blocks is not relevant. Nor can his argument that the Syriac sentences on one of the stone blocks are found in a sixth century Syriac manuscript of St Luke’s Gospel29 be taken into account, because a similar inscription dating back to the Yuan period was found at Chifeng in Inner Mongolia.

27

28

29

However we know some temples called Chongshengsi, like the Chongshengsi of Dali 大 理 (Yunnan), a Chongshengyuan of the Lü river (Lüchuan 呂 川, now Xingzihe 杏 子 河, Northeast of Zhidanxian 志 丹 縣, Yan’an, Shaanxi), one at Jiuhuashan 九 華 山 (Jiuhuashan zhi九 華 山 志, j. 6), one at Yuanzhou 袁 州 (Tiansheng Guangdeng lu 天 聖 廣 燈 錄, j. 26 ; Taishō Daizōkyō 大 正 大 藏 經, n° 1553, vol. 78, p. 554c) ; an other Chongshengyuan, non located, during the Yuan (preface to an edition of the Nirvāna sūtra, in Taishō Daizōkyō, n° 1767, vol. 38, p. 41c) and a Ganlu Chongshengyuan 甘 露 崇 聖 院 at Ningdexian 寧 德 縣 (Fujian) during the Xiantong era (860-874). “The way [of wisdom] cannot be propagated whithout a holy, the holy cannot grow whithout the way. If way and holy are joined together, the empire is in order“ (惟道，非聖不弘，聖非道不大。道聖符契，天下文明). “The way has no immu table name, the holy has no immutable form“ (道無常名。聖無常體). “For the way there is nothing impossible, and what is possible can get a name ; for the holy, there is nothing that cannot happen, and what happens can be reported“ (道 無 不 可，所可可名。聖無不作，所作可述). The Gospel, discovered by Burkitt, is now conserved at the British Museum.

Temple of the Cross at Fangshan

221

Yang Yiwu’s most audacious thesis is that the Shizisi would have become again a Nestorian temple only in 1358, before turning back to Buddhism during the Ming period. This hypothesis is interesting but lacks proofs. In examining Yang Yiwu’s arguments, we notice that on each point they contain mistakes or lack proofs. But the documents that remain are so scarce and so less reliable that many hypothesis remain possible.

Conclusion From the facts and remarks mentioned above, I personally conclude the followings: 1. Historical elements contained in the steles must be taken with the greatest caution. Two troubling errors in the Liao stele warn us about it. The first error is that Peking is called Dadu 大 都 (the Great City). Dadu was officially the name of Peking only during the Yuan period. During the Khitan Dynasty, Pe king was called Yanjing 燕 京 (Capital of Yan) or Nanjing 南 京 (Southern Capital), and there was no reason to call it Dadu. One other stele of the Khitan period, dated Qiantong 7 (1107), seems to call Peking “dadu”. But the context is not clear enough to say with certainty whether “dadu” in that stele is a proper name or a generic name30. Therefore, this argument is not completely convinc ing. But the modifications are not limited to details or sentences. The calendar codes used in that stele are erroneous. We cannot imagine that people of the Liao Dynasty could have made such an mistake. So we must recognize that the Liao stele was profoundly modified and this mistake makes that stele dubious in its whole. The Liao stele was probably not forged from nothing. In the main lines, it may report a restoration but the time of that restoration remains dubi ous. If there were a Liao stele, what would be the reason for changing the date and erroneously forging a stele of the Yingli era? This remains a mystery. A hypothesis would be that Ming Buddhists who created or modified the stele wanted to occult a Christian period of the temple during the Tang. 2. One permanent element in the epigraphy is the old stone pillar, prior to the Khitan (Liao) Dynasty, on which a carved cross made the temple to be called “Temple of the Cross” at the end of the Yuan dynasty. We can hardly imagine any valuable reasons for forging the existence of that pillar in both steles. So we can conclude that, from early times, a pillar existed in the temple. Neither can we consider that the carved cross of the pillar was one of the two stone blocks, first because theses crosses do not seem to have been carved earlier than the Yuan Dynasty, and secondly because, due to their size and form, these 30

See Da Liaoguo Xijinfu Jizhou Sanhexian chongxiu Wenxuanwang miao ji 大遼國 析津府薊 州 三 河 縣 文 宣 王 廟 記 in XIANG 2004, 577, and TANG湯 更 生 1998, 61. Guglielminotti considers that Dadu in that context is only a generic term, not a proper name. See GUGLIELMONOTTI 2005, 453.

222

Pierre Marsone

blocks, whose usage is unknown until now, can hardly been parts of a pillar. Therefore, we must assume that there has been at least one cross more in the temple, the cross of the ancient stone pillar. If we exclude that people of Yuan times carved a cross on the old pillar, the cross of the pillar could have been carved during the Tang period and therefore we have an argument for defend ing that the temple could have been Christian during a part of that dynasty. Was monk Yiduan a Christian priest? We cannot brush aside this possibility. 3. If the stone blocks, from their carving, cannot be dated earlier than the Yuan dynasty, they must prove a Christian activity of Shizisi during the Mongol pe riod. The cross carved at the top of the Yuan stele also makes us think that the stele could have been originally a Christian stele, reemployed later to com memorate the foundation of the “Buddhist Shizisi”. The stele asserts that, at the end of the Yuan, the temple had been destroyed by war. But what could be that war which destroyed the temple? Could it be the Mongol conquest at the be ginning of the XIIIth century? This could be a piece of false information for avoiding any mentioning of Christian activities during the Yuan period. But there is another possibility. If we follow Yang Yiwu’s hypothesis, this stele be longed to a Christian Shizisi founded in the last years of the Yuan dynasty and which were modified by Buddhist monks during the Ming dynasty. From the annals of the Yuan Empire, we know that the numerous Christian temples in the empire were called Shizisi. At the time when the Shizisi of the Yuan dy nasty was restored, the Yuan dynasty itself was collapsing. Its main sponsor, Temür-buqa, was defeated and executed three years later. Was the restoration of the temple the last attempt of the collapsing dynasty to protect its remnants through a Christian shrine? I do not exclude that hypothesis which would ex plain better the impossibility to keep the original text of the Yuan stele during the Ming Dynasty. Obviously, due to the scarcity and falsehood of the remaining documents, we cannot give a definitive conclusion about when the Temple of the Cross was a Christian place of worship. We have to hope that future excavations will enable us to put an end to that debate. For the present, according to the various avail able documents, I consider that the temple was a Christian temple during the Tang period. Then, it was restored again as a Christian temple perhaps only in the last years of the Yuan Dynasty.

Bibliography BOTTINI 1992. “Due lettere inedite del patriarcha Mar Yahballaha III (1281-1317)”. Rivista degli studi orientali, 1992. 239-256. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio 2006. “I blocchi con croci e iscrizione siriaca da Fangshan”. Christiana Orientalia Periodica, vol. 72 (2006):167-187.

Temple of the Cross at Fangshan

223

GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL 2005. Marco, “Tempio della Croce – Fangshan – Pechino: Documentazione preliminare delle fonti epigrafiche in situ”. Christiana Orientalia Periodica, vol. 71, (2005), 431-460. HAMILTON, James and NIU Ruji 1994. “Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale“, Journal Asiatique, CCLXXXII,1 (1994) : 147-164. IRVING, Christopher. “A Chinese Temple of the Cross”. The New China Review (1919):. 522-533. MOULE, Arthur Christopher. Christians in China before the Year 1550. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930. SAEKI, Yoshirō 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Maruzen, 1951. TANG, Gengsheng 湯 更 生1998. “Beijing Fangshan Shizisi Liao Yuan bei zhiyi” 北 京 房 山 十 字 寺 遼 元 碑 質 疑. Beijing tushuguan guankan 北 京 圖 書 館 館 刊,No.1 (1998): 61-64. VARALDO, Carlo and Fabrizio BENENTE 2004. “Prospettive di ricerche archeologiche sul sito di Olon Sume (Mongolia Interna)” in Gabriella Airaldi, Paola Mortari Vergara Caffarelli et Laura Emilia Parodi ed., I Mongoli dal Pacifico al Mediterraneo. Gênes, Edizioni Culturali Genova, 2004. 81-92. Xiang, Nan 向 南 ed. 1995. Liaodai shike wenbian 遼 代 石 刻 文 編. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu chubanshe, 1995. XU, Pingfang 徐 萍 芳1992-1997. “Beijing Fangshan Shizisi Yelikewen shike” 北 京 房 山 十 字 寺 也 里 可 溫 石 刻, Zhongguo wenhua 中 國 文 化 (1992-7): 184189. YANG, Yiwu 楊 亦 武1999. Fangshan lishi wenwu yanjiu房 山 歷 史 文 物 研 究. Beijing: Aolinpike chubanshe, 1999.

JESUIT JINGJIAO THE “APPROPRIATION” OF TANG CHRISTIANITY BY JESUIT MISSIONARIES IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Matteo NICOLINI-ZANI Communità Monastica di Bose, Italy

Introduction: the stone and its stories For almost three centuries, from 1623-1625 (when the Christian monument was discovered) to 1907 (when the first Chinese “Nestorian” manuscript were found), the only doorway to Tang Christianity was the Xi’an Christian stele (Da Qin jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei 大秦景教流行中國碑). For these three centuries, any effort to approach the stele meant to approach the oldest record of Chinese Christian experience, whether to read it, to explain it, or in a certain sense to appropriate it. This is why we can speak of a history of the “appropria tion” of the Christian stele, and through it, we can speak of a history of the “appropriation” of Tang Christianity. It is worth remembering the curious fact that during the centuries following the unearthing of the Xi’an Christian monument, this approach increased to the point that at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was even an attempt to take possession of the actual stele. The charm emanating from that mysteri ous stone led the Danish traveller Frits V. Holm to leave his country for China in 1907, in order to examine the monument directly and, if possible, to buy it. He did not succeed in this project, but he was able to obtain a replica of the stele, made of the same material and of the same size of the original, and to ship this replica to New York.1 The stone’s journey away from China also had a symbolic meaning: from this moment on, the Christian stone became the heri tage of the entire world, forever. This matter of the appropriation of the stele is in fact the third of three “stories” (gushi 故事) that can be told about the Xi’an “stone” (shitou 石頭), as a Chi-

1

Accounts of the Holm’s expedition can be found in CARUS 1909 and HOLM 1923. After his expedition to Xi’an, Dr. Holm ordered many plaster casts of the monument to be made and to be placed in some important museums all over the world.

226

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

nese historian recently summarized in a witty essay.2 I shall briefly recall here these three stories. The first is the “story of the stone” (shitou de gushi 石頭的故事): it deals with the Xi’an stone as a physical object which, after being hidden for centuries in the bowels of the earth, was fortuitously restored by the earth to mankind at the beginning of the seventeenth century. This first story has been retold often in a plenty of works. The second is the “story about the stone” (shishang de gushi 石上的故事), and it refers to the knowledge of the contents of the stele, to its interpretations and translations of its inscription. From the discovery of the monument onwards, there have been a steady succession of commentaries by Chinese literati3 and philological, historical and theological investigations of the epigraphic text by Western scholars.4 Several translations of the stone inscription into different languages have been produced by some great Sinologists and Christian mis sionaries.5 This second story is less known than the previous one but is just as important, because its plot is closely interwoven with the plot of the third story. The third story is the “story beyond the stone” (shiwai de gushi 石外的故事). It will hold our interest here because it essentially concerns the appropriation of the stele, of its contents, of its symbolism, its having objectives that lie beyond itself (consciously or unconsciously).6 There is a great deal of truth in what has been underlined recently by the use of a vivid metaphor: the stone is a mirror, “in the sense that every time it is inter preted, it is also interpreting the interpreter.”7 Therefore, the hermeneutical studies of the stele inscription that have been carried out over time have pro duced both different explanations of its contents, and different interpretations of Tang Christianity in general.8 Among these interpretations, we can acknowl-

2 3 4

5

6

7 8

See LIANG 2004. The most reliable commentary is PAN 1917. Pelliot’s works are undoubtedly the most important and representative of the studies by West ern scholars. A summary of the research can be found in PELLIOT 1996, 74-146; LIN 2000; GENG 2001, based mostly on Pelliot’s work. Actually, this third story also concerns the use of elements contained in the text of the stele for wider studies, which take into considerations the other sources as well, in order to answer par ticular questions concerning Tang Christianity. The main questions are: the nature of the Christian community in Tang China, the relationship between Christians and followers of other religions, the inculturation of the Christian message in the Chinese context during the Tang dynasty. The Xi’an stele is therefore considered, beside the Tang Christian manuscripts and other Chinese historical sources, as a precious piece of material for “the studies on the Luminous Teaching” (jingjiao yanjiu 景教研究 or jingjiao xue 景教學). WICKERI 2004, 43. A good survey can be found in WICKERI 2004, 46-52.

Jesuit Jingjiao

227

edge and mention a “Jesuit approach,” a “Protestant approach,”9 a crosscultural approach,10 and a “Daoist approach.”11 The Jesuit version of the “story beyond the stone”: already known elements The Jesuit version of this third story has been the least told and investigated version until now. For this reason it will be the main subject of this essay. The story is a historical narrative, and so my aim will be to gather together the his torical elements on which the story was based. I will start with those elements, which are already known, and then I will add some new points that have not yet been considered in research. Among the different versions of this story about the stele’s appropriation, the Jesuit version was the first to be produced, and the most influential one. Its ori gins trace back to the years right after the stone’s discovery, and to the former Jesuit environments in China and Europe. The discovery of the stone was a ma jor historical event for the Jesuit missionaries in China, who for several dec ades had been engaged in the process of trying to ease open the closed door of Chinese culture. This was an opportunity they could not miss. It was meaning ful in two ways: As tangible evidence of the antiquity of Christianity [...] the monument was the ideal prop for converting the people of China, who would generally be less likely to revere a teaching that could be considered a novelty. In Europe, properly expli cated, the stele could be appropriated as a providential sign in counter-reformation or pro-Jesuit polemics in the face of increasingly controversial and even endangered missions both in India and China during the seventeenth century.12

In confirmation of the first purpose of the Jesuit appropriation of the stele, i.e., a more effective missionary strategy, Álvaro de Semedo, one of the protago nists of the Jesuit mission in the 17th century China wrote in 1641: “At last –– we had the good luck to find a document which proves clearly and in an irrefu-

9

In the 19th century the Protestant missionary A. Williamson considered the Xi’an stele as a

Protestant document ante litteram (see GAILLARD 1893, 118-119). At the end of the same century a Chinese Protestant, Yang Rongzhi 楊榮鋕, wrote a commentary on the stele, which “s’attache surtout à montrer ce qui est d’institution apostolique dans la doctrine que fait connaître l’inscription et à dénoncer ce qui sent déjà les ‘innovations’ des ‘Roman Catholics’” (PELLIOT 1996, 83). James Legge (1815-1897), maybe the most learned among the Sinolo gist-missionaries of the 19th century, in some of his remarks betrays his own Protestant per spective in the study of the first Christian mission in China. 10 Saeki’s essays and translations, for example, read the Christian monument as a cultural bridge between East and West (see SAEKI 1916 and SAEKI 1937). 11 See PALMER 2001. Martin Palmer presents Tang Christianity as a creative Daoist-Christian reinterpretation of the faith, and in his book, we find “a New Age or post-modern Christianity” (WICKERI 2004, 49). 12 BILLINGS 2004, 18.

228

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

table way that the Christian religion existed and flourished in China many cen turies ago.”13 But some specific elements clearly speak of the will of both the Jesuits (in par ticular Giulio Aleni14 and Manuel Dias jr.) and the Chinese converts (in par ticular Li Zhizao 李之藻) to emphasize how Tang Christianity was a distin guished ancestor of their Catholic mission. First, some of them identified the Catholic religion brought to China by Matteo Ricci and his Jesuit brothers, which was known in those years as the “Heavenly Study” or “Heavenly Doctrine” (tianxue 天學), with the “Luminous Teaching” (jingjiao 景教) that had entered China during the Tang dynasty. Li Zhizao was the first to make this identification in his writing: “The tianxue was called jing jiao during the Tang dynasty. It was introduced into China in the ninth year of the Zhenguan 貞觀 period (635). It has already had a history of one thousand years.”15 The same Li Zhizao, in the explanatory note that followed the first printed edi tion of the Xi’an stele as early as 1625, wrote: When I lived in the countryside near Lingzhu 靈竺, a [man] from Qiyang 歧陽who was in spiritual communion with me, Zhang Gengyu 張賡虞, sent me a copy of the Tang inscription. [Together with a letter in which] he said: “It is [a monument] that has been recently found while digging the earth in Chang’an 長安. It bears the title of Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo song 景教流行中國頌 [Laudatory memorial of the diffusion into China of the Luminous Teaching]. I had never heard about this relig ion before. Is this not the ‘Heavenly Doctrine’ [tianxue] preached by Master Li Xitai 利西泰 [Matteo Ricci]?” I read [the inscription], and [I found that] it was exactly that [doctrine] ...16

Second, we know that a certain number of Chinese converts began to adopt the name of jingjiao houxue 景教後學, which means “disciples of the Luminous Teaching.” Moreover, some of the churches in Min 閩 (later called Fujian 福建) province were renamed as jingjiao tang 景教堂, or “Churches of the Luminous Teaching”. To my knowledge these are the churches of Fuzhou 福州, Jinjiang 晉絳, and Wenling 溫陵 (the ancient name of Quanzhou 泉州). Third, the works written in Chinese by Jesuit missionaries contain many refer ences to Tang Christianity. Giulio Aleni (1582-1649) refers to the “recent” discovery of the stele in two of his three books of learned conversations with Chinese literati, i.e. Sanshan

SEMEDO 1641, I,31. Also quoted in the Italian translation in “La stela di Singan fu, monumento cristiano dell’VIII secolo in Cina,” 715-716. 14 See XIE 1997. 15 LI 1929 reprint 1965, vol. I, 1. See also CHEN 1997, 523-525. 16 LI 1878. About the studies made by Li Zhizao on the Xi’an stele see XU 2002. 13

Jesuit Jingjiao

229

lunxueji 三山論學紀 [Discussions on the Doctrine at Sanshan, circa 1629] and Kouduo richao 口鐸日抄 [Journal of Oral Instructions, circa 1640].17 In Sanshan lunxueji, Aleni used the Xi’an stele as a reliable proof of the antiq uity of the Christian presence in China, probably for the first time: “In the ninth year of the Zhenguan era (635), there were missionaries who came to the East. If one refers to writings on the monumental stele of the Luminous Religion, one can know the rough picture.”18 The fact that Christianity was not a novelty in late Ming China is stressed by Aleni in his Kouduo richao in the following terms, clearly shaped on the ac count of the Xi’an Christian stele: [...] The event of incarnation and the coming of the Religion to the East do not start only today. In the ninth year of the Zhenguan era of the Tang Dynasty(635), there was a man from the West who had carried the images of the Lord (Zhuxiang 主像) from the place of the Incarnation of the Lord of Heaven, bringing also the True Scriptures (zhenjing 真經) to Chang’an. Taizong 太宗 ordered his minister Fang Xuanling 房玄齡 to go as far as the outskirts of the city, to the countryside, to wel come him [the missionary]. He then travelled all over China, building monasteries for worshipping [the Lord]. Generation after generation, [the Lord] was venerated, and until the second year of the Jianzhong 建中 era (781) the engraved stele spread [the Lord’s] blessings. It bears the title of “Stele of the Diffusion into China of the Luminous Religion from Da Qin”: Da Qin is the kingdom where the Lord of Heaven became incarnate. The stele had long been buried, for quite a number of years. It is only recently, in the third year of the Tianqi 天啟 era (1623), that the people within the area unearthed it. Therefore, [the news of the stele] was widely spread in the area, and learned scholars all came and took a look at it. This was something that happened in recent years in China. And yet you said you could not fully believe in it.19

The same reference to the discovery of the Xi’an stele is made by Ludovico Buglio (1606-1682) and Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592-1666) who attrib uted their words to Li Zubai 李祖白, in the booklet Tianxue chuan’gai 天學傳概 [Exposition of the Principles of the Heavenly Doctrine, 1664]. The same Giulio Aleni included the text of the Xi’an stele in Xixue fan 西學凡 [Survey of Western Learning, 1623], one of his works addressed to his friends who were interested in Western learning.20

See CRIVELLER 1997, 272-273, 337-339 and CRIVELLER 2001, 168-169, 172. ALENI in WU 1966, vol. I, 489. Translation by G. Criveller in CRIVELLER 2001, 168-169. 19 Li 1640, 7, f. 19b-20a. See STANDAERT-DUDINK 2002, vol. VII, 494-495. The translation is mine. 20 I have taken most of these data from CHAN 2002. 17 18

230

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

Some new elements of this old story These are the elements with which researchers are already familiar, and which was worth gathering together and summarizing here. There are two additional pieces of literary evidence which have not yet been considered as relevant ech oes of the discovery of the stele and of the interpretation of its contents within the Jesuit environments of the seventeenth century. The first piece of evidence is a sort of “second Xi’an stele” which was erected in 1644 by two Portuguese Jesuits, Inácio da Costa (1603-1666) and José Estevão de Almeida (1612-1647), on the property of the Jesuit mission in the Xi’an district. The Chinese text carved on this monument, which most likely had been originally composed by Johann Adam Schall von Bell in the form of a memorial three years before the erection of the stele,21 was handwritten – for being then carved in the stone – by Zhao Guowei 趙國衛. This precious epigraphy (see Illustration below), which is much smaller than the “Nestorian” stele22 and which has yet to be investigated in depth, shows some astonishing similarities to the Christian stele erected in 781. First of all, there is an iconographic similarity: on the top a cross is carved, just as on the Tang stele. Moreover, if on the “Nestorian” stele some sentences in Syriac language are inserted into the Chinese text; here, on the Jesuit stele the Chinese text contains some Latin sentences. But the most relevant similarities between the two stones are found in the text itself.

This supposition is based on the fact that the same complete text is contained – with only few variants – in Zhengjiao fengbao 正大明正 (Imperial favours accorded to the True Religion), a modern collection of memorials and edicts related to Christianity not preserved in official sources compiled by Huang Bolu 黄黄祿 (or Pierre Hoang, 1830-1909). See FUREN DAXUE TIANZHUJIAO SHILIAO YANJIU ZHONGXIN 2003, 481-482. The introduction indicates that it was Johann Schall who prepared it, and explains its original nature as memorial to be reported to the throne: “the first month of the thirteenth year of the Chongzhen 崇禎 era (1641). The antecedent is that Maximilian [I], prince of Bavaria, ordered that fine goat leather should be used for making a cover to bind sheets together and that pictures of the events of the entire earthly life of the Heavenly Lord should be painted in colours. He also [ordered that] a statue of the three kings [i.e., Magi] in adoration of the Heavenly Lord be made with wax and painted with colours. Then he sent these things to China, asking Johann Adam Schall von Bell to present them to the Chinese Emperor. Johann Schall explained in Chinese the holy events represented in the pictures, and the effect was remarkable. He presented it with respect to the emperor. He prepared also the [following] memorial to be reported to the throne: ‘I ventured to affirm that …’.” See FUREN DAXUE TIANZHUJIAO SHILIAO YANJIU ZHONGXIN 2003,480-481. 22 The rubbing of the 1644 Jesuit stone is kept at the Xaverian Museum of Chinese Art and Eth nography in Parma, Italy. It measures cm 143 × 63,5, while the “Nestorian” stone of 781 measures ca. cm 280 × 100. 21

Jesuit Jingjiao

231

Firstly, the textual structures of the two steles are parallel. The text of the Jesuit stele of 1644, like that of the stele of 781, opens with an evocation of God,23 Creator of all things; speaks of His majesty and transcendence; and goes on with a description of this Heavenly Lord’s manifestation as a human being. It ends with a short outline of Christian doctrine,24 mentioning how it later spread all over the world and is “greatly different from the Buddhist and Daoist teach ings.” What can be more reliably evaluated is the linguistic level of the “Nestorian Stele” on which the Jesuit stele depended. Even though the Jesuit stele of 1644 was carved almost one thousand years later than the “Nestorian” monument of 781, and is therefore characterized by a linguistic style very different from that of the old Xi’an stone, the two steles present some meaningful linguistic affini ties in certain words and sentences. I quote here the most evident parallel, in which the two stones describe the Messiah’s incarnation with the same eight Chinese characters: Text of the stele of 781: 於是

25我三一分身，景尊彌施訶，戢隱真威，同人出代。

And so the Luminous and Venerable Messiah, distinct person of our Trinity, depriv ing [himself] of and hiding his true majesty, came into the world as man.

Text of the stele of 1644: 於是

26天主大發仁慈，戢隱真威，同人出代。

And so the Heavenly Lord showed his great love and mercy: depriving [himself] of and hiding his true majesty, [he] came into the world as man.

All of these suggest that, about twenty years after the discovery of the Tang Christian monument, “the missionaries in Xi’an, through the erection of this stele [...] wished to make a sort of completely Catholic replica of the incom plete Christian teachings contained in the stele erected in the year 781.”27 It In the text of the stele of 781, God is called Aluohe 阿羅訶 (phonetic translation from the Syriac word Alāhā), while in the text of the 1644 stele God is called Tianzhu 天主 (Heavenly Lord), as the Jesuits had chosen to call God in Chinese. For the Chinese text of the stele of 781, see PELLIOT 1996, 497-503. 24 The inscription actually bears the title Tianzhu zhengdao jielüe 天主正道解略 [Outline of the True Way of the Heavenly Lord]. 25 In the original text of both the inscriptions, the Chinese characters referring to persons worthy of particular respect and honour are preceded by a space corresponding to one or two missing characters. This was a common practice in the Chinese epigraphy (known in Chinese as quezi 闕字, “missing characters”), where we especially find the emperors’ names stressed in such a way. 26 See ibid. 27 “Une autre stèle de Si-an-fou,” 211-212. This is the only study I know about the 1644 stele: it also contains a copy of the rubbing of the original stele and a translation into French of its text. One rubbing of the stone is kept at the Xaverian Museum of Chinese Art and Ethnography in 23

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

232

also suggests that the “Nestorian” experience was in a certain way acknowl edged and cleverly exploited by the Jesuits in their missionary strategy. These attempts to identify Tang Christianity with the Catholic faith brought to China by the Jesuits were also acknowledged by Chinese scholars who knew the missionaries. We have a confirmation of this in the poems written by Fujian literati in honour of Giulio Aleni [Minzhong zhugong zengshi 閩中諸公贈詩].28 A close analysis of these poems would reveal numerous and deep linguistic and symbolic references to the Luminous Teaching (jingjiao) and to the Syro-Chinese stele (called jingjiao bei or Tang bei in the poems).29 In order to help us perceive the linguistic and symbolic allusions to the Xi’an stele and, through it, to ancient Tang Christianity, let me quote here some lines from two late Ming poems, one by Lin Jun 林焌 from Longxun 龍潯 (today’s Dehua 德化), and the other by Lin Shuxue 林叔學 from Sanshan 三山 (to day’s Fuzhou 福州): 在唐莊事欽 在明授室侈 景淨既開先 泰西從利氏

Under the Tang [Christians] revered the emperor, under the Ming they were granted a sumptuous residence. Jingjing was only the beginning, then from the far West came master Li [Ricci].30

敬天立教本吾曹

To establish a teaching based on the respect of Heaven is our [Confucian scholars’] duty, thanks to the Tang stele we acknowledged the high nature of the Luminous Teaching.31

仍識唐碑景教高

Among these poems, one is worth quoting here unabridged, as it is a real col lection of the expressions taken from the Tang stele. The author, Ke Xianshi 柯憲世 from Puyang 蒲陽 (today’s Putian 蒲田), used these expressions to describe poetically the main elements of the Christian teaching brought to him by Giulio Aleni, who had come back to Europe some years before. The mem ory of his friend Aleni led the author to remember the contents of the message preached by the Italian missionary as follows: 別去幾經歲 離懷可具陳。

From his departure few years have passed and the nostalgia can be written down.

Parma, Italy (catalogue n. 599); a photograph of it can be found in MIGNINI 2003,152, and is reproduced here (see Illustration). A Latin and an Italian translation of the text are contained in TOSCANO 1965, 427-430. 28 For a good presentation of the collection see LIN 1998. 29 A preliminary attempt to do this analysis has been made by Lin Jinshui: see LIN 1998, 85-88, and LIN 2005, 169-170. 30 There are poems offered by Fujian scholars in Minzhong zhugong zengshi. See WU 1966, 660. The English translation from Chinese is mine. See also BREZZI et al, 2005, 136-137. Jingjing 景淨 is the author of the text of the Tang Christian inscription from Xi’an. 31 See WU 1966, 652. The translation from Chinese is mine, based on the Lin Jinshui’s interpre tation (LIN 1998, 97-98). See also BREZZI et al 2005, 112-113.

Jesuit Jingjiao

233

無元該大道The great dao should be without origin 有主是真因。but [he said] that there is a Lord, and He is the true Cause.32 日旦臨惟汝Like a rising sun, He is beside you day by day 居高聽每親。and, even if He dwells on high, He is close to everyone. 大千寧淨土In thousands of peaceful and pure lands 三一信分身。 the distinct person of the Trinity is confessed.33 景宿祥長普 A bright star spread word of the happy event everywhere34 波斯曜轉新。 and from Persia, thanks to its splendour, [people] turned towards the new happening.35 七時勤禮贊Seven times a day they praise [God] with zeal in their liturgies36 十字儼持循。and persevere in carrying the cross with dignity.37 重譯來中土To explain anew [all this teaching], [Aleni] came to China 流行仰大秦。but the origin of its diffusion was Da Qin.38 念余宗孔聖Always thinking of him, I honour the great sage39 [Aleni] 友德願為鄰。and I wish that our friendship may bind us forever.40

From these few quotations it is evident that in the scholarly circles of literati (wenren 文人) who were close to the Jesuits, Tang Christianity was perceived as the beginning of an old and venerable religious tradition that had come down to them through the centuries. To what extent Aleni, to whom these poems were addressed to, strove to spread this way of thinking, can therefore be deduced, even if only indirectly, from the lines composed by these scholars in late Ming China.

Other echoes and conclusion As said above, the discovery of the stele also had a significant resonance in European environments, thanks to all of the activities promoted by the Jesuits.

Among many titles which define God in the Tang stele, there is also Zhenzhu 真主, “True Lord.” The first section of the stele describes this God as cause and origin of all the creation. 33 See the Xi’an stele: wo sanyifenshen 我三一分身. 34 See the Xi’an stele:jingsu gaoxiang 景宿告祥. 35 See the Xi’an stele: Bosi du yao yi lai gong 波斯賭耀以來貢. 36 See the Xi’an stele: qishi lizan 七時禮讚. 37 Daqin 38 See the大秦 Xi’anisstele: the Chinese yinchi shizi term印持十字. used throughout the Syro-Chinese stele of 781 to indicate the 32

country which the Syro-Oriental Christianity came from. In the Chinese historical sources it refers to the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire). 39 The Chinese expression kongsheng 孔聖is identified with the “sage Confucius.” Its use here is meaningful because Aleni was known among Chinese scholars as the “Confucius from the West” (xilai Kongzi 西來孔子). 40 See WU 1966, 651. The translation from Chinese is mine. See also BREZZI et al 2005, 106107.

234

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

This meant that the knowledge in European circles about Tang Christianity, in its particular “Jesuit version,” was also due to these Jesuit cultural efforts. The Jesuit Philippe Couplet, in his Synopsis chronologiae monarchiae Sinicae (1668), written to introduce the Europeans to the history of the Chinese empire, recorded the discovery of the Xi’an monument and even spoke of the duke Guo Ziyi 郭子儀, a figure mentioned in the stele, as if he were a Christian.41 In Italy, Matteo Ripa who, even if not a Jesuit himself, was very close to the Jesuit milieus, “worked to spread the true evidence of the stele in the West.”42 With this intention he made a copy of the text of the monument, probably bas ing on the version made previously by Athanasius Kircher.43 In Milan, the archbishop Federico Borromeo wished to have a rubbing of the Xi’an stele in his newly established Ambrosiana Library. This gives an evidence of the cardi nal’s interest in the scientific and literary culture of China, and of the opening of his academic programs to Far Eastern countries.44 But content of the stele, according to the particular interpretatio jesuitica, was made widely known mostly due to the work of two other Jesuits. One is Manuel Dias Jr. who in 1644 wrote what he thought to be the True Commen tary on the Tang Monument of the Luminous Teaching (Tang jingjiao beisong zhengquan 唐景教碑頌正詮);45 the other is Athanasius Kircher, who published a critical edition of the epigraph in 1667. Kircher’s edition contains a transcrip tion of the Chinese original text, a pronunciation table with Romanized spell ings of the Chinese characters, a word-for-word translation into Latin, and a paraphrase, i.e. a readable idiomatic Latin version.46 A recent study of this critical edition remarked wittily that “Kircher’s edition is partly a Sinologicaldoctrinal polemic aimed at figuring the stone as a proto-Jesuit historical relic by strategically rewriting in translation everything that does not conform to the Jesuit identity that is positively projected onto it.”47 In conclusion, all of the elements which have been mentioned above help to re construct, albeit in an approximate way, the approach of the Jesuit missionaries See CHAN 2002, 540-541. Philippe Couplet most probably took this opinion from Li Zhizao (Leo Li). Li in his 1625 commentary on the stele, confused Guo Ziyi with what the Xi’an in scription writes about the Christian dignitary Yisi 伊斯, the man who commissioned the erec tion of the carved stone. 42POGGI1985, 211. 43 See ALBANESE 2005. The author argues that the rubbing of the Xi’an stele kept in Bologna University Library can be attributed to Matteo Ripa. 44 See FUMAGALLI 2004. The copy kept at the Ambrosiana Library, which was probably given by Trigault to Borromeo, is one of the first rubbings of the Xi’an stele made after its discovery. 45 See DIAS 1644. No serious study has been made on it until now. 46 See KIRCHER 1667. On the basis of Kircher’s work, some years later the Protestant theolo gian and Sinologist Andreas Müller added to the transcription of the stele’s text made by Kircher a musical notation, in order to make the pronunciation of Chinese tones easier for the European reader: see Müllerus 1672. 47 BILLINGS 2004, 4. 41

Jesuit Jingjiao

235

and of some Chinese converts to Tang jingjiao, the “Luminous Teaching.” Tang Christianity was essentially perceived as the illustrious ancestor of the Catholic doctrine brought to China by Ricci, Aleni and other Jesuits. The Xi’an stele was thus perceived as a sort of “ancestors’ tablet,” which was to be vener ated as a symbol of that Light and which had been kindled under the Tang dy nasty and then had been shaded for centuries, but was still hidden somewhere. What was needed was to add fuel to the lamp again. This was the task of the Jesuits in late Ming China, as it is clearly indicated in the following analysis written by Adam Schall in 1642: [...] During the Zhenguan period of the Tang dynasty, scholars from the distant country of Da Qin [Syria] came with books and statues to present them to the Court and explained the instructions of this teachings [to the Emperor]. After he had understood the nature of the Lord, he decreed the building of temples to worship Him. For more than two hundred years this teaching was practised all over the empire. All this is explained in the inscription on the stele of the Luminous Teaching (Jing jiao beiwen 景教碑文). From then until now, some thousand years have elapsed, so that people of another race [had to] come to China to restore the broken tradition, as the teaching of the Lord had become extinct.48

48

The translation is found in DUDINK 1998, 864 (The cursive part is my translation).

236

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

Bibliography ALBANESE, Andreina 2005. “La stele di Xi’an, i gesuiti e Ripa,” in Caro Maestro... Scritti in onore di Lionello Lanciotti per l’ottantesimo compleanno, edited by Maurizio Scarpari and Tiziana Lippiello. Venezia: Cafoscarina. [ALENI, Giulio ca. 1629] 艾儒略. 1966. Sanshan lunxue ji 三山論學紀 vol. I. [Discussions on the Doctrine at Sanshan] in Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian xubian天主教東傳文獻續編 [Documents of the Diffusion of Catholicism into East. Continuation], edited by Wu Xiangxiang. Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 419-493. BERNARD, Henri. 1932. “Chrétiens nestoriens et missionnaires catholiques à la fin du XVIe siècle,” in Bulletin Catholique de Pékin XIX (1932), 176-178, 241-251. BILLINGS, Timothy. 2004. “Jesuit Fish in Chinese Nets: Athanasius Kircher and the Translation of the Nestorian Tablet,” in Representations 87 (2004), 1-42. BREZZI, Alessandra et al, eds. 2005. Al Confucio di Occidente. Poesie cinesi in onore di P. Giulio Aleni S.J. Brescia: Fondazione Civiltà Bresciana. CARUS, Paul, ed. 1909. The Nestorian Monument. An Ancient Record of Christianity in China, With Special Reference to the Expedition of Frits V. Holm. Chicago: The Open Court. CHAN, Albert. 2002. Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome. A Descriptive Catalogue. Japonica-Sinica I-IV. Armonk-London: M. E. Sharpe. CHEN Min-sun. 1997. “T’ian-hsüeh ch’u-han and Hsi-hsüeh fan. The Common Bond between Li Chih-tsao and Giulio Aleni,” in Scholars from the West: Giulio Aleni (1582-1649) and the Dialogue between Christianity and China, edited by Tiziana Lippiello and Roman Malek. Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica Institute, 519525. CRIVELLER, Gianni. 1997. Preaching Christ in Late Ming China. The Jesuits’ Presentation of Christ from Matteo Ricci to Giulio Aleni. Ricci Institute Variétès Sinologiques. N. S. 86. Fondazione Civiltà Bresciana. Annali 10. Taipei: Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies, CRIVELLER, Gianni. 2001. “The Dialogues of Giulio Aleni on Christ and China: The Mystery of the Plan of Salvation and China,” in Missionary Approaches and Linguistics in Mainland China and Taiwan, edited by Ku Wei-ying. Leuven Chinese Studies 10. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 163-181. [DIAS, [True Manuel Commentary jr.] 陽瑪諾.1644. on the TangTang Nestorian jingjiao Monument]. beisong zhengquan Hangzhou: 唐景教碑頌正詮 Wulin tianzhutang. Reprint: Beijing 1790; Shanghai:Tou-sè-wè, 1878&1927. Collected in Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian xubian 天方大東看八天續方Vol. 2 by Wu Xiangxiang 相相. Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1966, 653-751. DUDINK, Adrian. 1993. “Zhang Geng, Christian Convert of Late Ming Times: Descendant of Nestorian Christians?” in L’Europe en Chine: interactions scientifiques, religieuses et culturelles aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Actes du Colloque de la Fondation Hugot (14-17 octobre 1991), edited by Catherine Jami and Hubert Delahaye. Mémoires de l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises 34. Paris : Collège de France/Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, 57-86. DUDINK, Adrian. 1998. “The Religious Works Composed by Johann Adam Schall von Bell, especially His Zhuzhi qunzheng and His Efforts to Convert the Last Ming Emperor,” in Western Learning and Christianity in China. The Contribution and

Jesuit Jingjiao

237

Impact of Johann Schall von Bell, S.J. (1592-1666), vol. II, edited by Roman Malek. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 805-898. FUMAGALLI, Pier Francesco. 2004. “Sinica federiciana. Il fondo antico dell’Ambrosiana,” in Aevum LXXVIII (2004), 725-771. FUREN DAXUE TIANZHUJIAO SHILIAO YANJIU ZHONGXIN 輔輔大輔天方大史料世世伽研, ed. 2003. Zhongguo tianzhujiao shiji huibian 伽國天方大元江彙編[A Collection of Chinese Catholic Documents]. Furen daxue zongjiao congshu 3.輔輔大輔世大叢叢 3 . Xinzhuang: Furen daxue chubanshe. GAILLARD, Louis. 1893. Croix et swastika en Chine. Variétés sinologiques 3. 2nd edition. Chang-hai: Imprimerie de la Mission Catholique. GENG, Sheng 耿耿. 2001. “Zhongwai xuezhe dui Da Qin jingjiaobei de zaoqi yanjiu zongshu” 中外学者对大秦景教碑的早期研究综述 [Summary of the First Research on the Nestorian Stele by Chinese and Foreign Scholars], in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu nianjian 1999-2000 中国宗教研究年鉴 1999-2000 (Annual of Religious Studies in China, 1999-2000), edited by Cao Zhongjian 曹中建. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 363-393. HOLM, Frits. 1923. My Nestorian Adventure in China. A Popular Account of the Holm-Nestorian Expedition to Sian-Fu and Its Results. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co. KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1667. China Monumentis, qua Sacris qua Profanis, Nec non variis Naturae et Artis Spectaculis, Aliarumque rerum memorabilium Argumentis Illustrata, Amsterdam 1667. LI, Jiubiao明李標, et al, ed. 2002. Kouduo richao 口鐸日抄 [Journal of Oral Instructions (ca. 1640)], 8. in Yesuhui luoma dang an guan tianzhujiao wenxian Vol. II [Chinese Christian Texts from the Roman Archives of the Society of Jesus], edited by Nicolas Standaert and Stephen Dudink . Taipei: Li shi xushe, 1-594. LI, Zhizao 李之藻. 1878. Du jingjiaobei shu hou 讀景教碑書後[After Reading the Inscription of the Nestorian Tablet] in [Dias, Manuel jr.] 陽瑪諾Tang jingjiao beisong zhengquan 唐景教碑頌正詮 [True Commentary on the Tang Nestorian Monument]. Hangzhou: 1625. Reprint, Shanghai: Tou-sè-wè, 1878. LI, Zhizao李之藻,ed. 1965. Tianxue chuhan 天學初函 [First Collection of Works about the Heavenly Doctrine]. Edition 1629. Reprint, Zhongguo shixue congshu 中國史學叢書23. Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju,1965.. LIANG, Yuansheng 梁元生 [Leung Yuen-sang, Philip]. 2004. “Shitou ji. Yikuai xuanbei de jizhong gushi” 石頭記—一塊玄碑的幾重故事 [Notes on the Stone. Some Stories of a Misterious Stele] in Shizi lianhua. Jidujiao yu Zhongguo lishi wenhua lunji 十字蓮花—基督教與中國歷史文化論集 [Cross-Lotus. Selected Essays on Chinese Christianity: Historical and Cultural Perspectives], edited by Liang Yuansheng. Hong Kong: Jidujiao Zhongguo zongjiao wenhua yanjiushe, 1-18. LIN, Jinshui 香金林. 1998. “‘Minzhong zhugong zengshi’ chutan” 《 伽塔闽诸赠诗》 叢初 [Preliminary Observations on the Poems offered by Fujian scholars] in Zongjiao wenhua 世大八宗3, (1998), 77-106. LIN, Jinshui 香金林. 2005. “Yi shi ji shi, yi shi zheng shi. Cong ‘Minzhong zhugong zengshi’ kan Mingmo yesuhui shi zai Fujian de chuanjiao huodong de lishi” 伽以以以，伽元元以―從《 伽塔闽诸赠诗》 從明看看看看看看看看伽看大看看伽 元 [The Function of Poetry in Recording Events and Verifying History. Jesuit Activities in Fujian from the Mirror of Poems to Giulio Aleni by Fujian scholars] in Encounters

238

Matteo Nicolini-Zani

and Dialogues. Changing Perspectives on Chinese-Western Exchanges from the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, edited by Wu Xiaoxin. Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica Institute, 163-177. LIN, Wushu 香林林. 2000. “Xi’an jingjiaobei yanjiu shuping” 西安景教碑研究述评 [“A Review of the Studies of the Nestorian Monument in Hsi-an-fu”], in Zhongguo xueshu 中国学艺 4 (2000), 230-260. MIGNINI, Filippo, ed. 2003. Padre Matteo Ricci. L’Europa alla corte dei Ming. Milano: Mazzotta. Minzhong zhugong zengshi 伽中塔以闽赠 [Poems Offered by Fujian Scholars] in Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian 天主教東傳文獻 [Documents of the Diffusion of Catholicism into East], edited by Wu Xiangxiang. Taipei: Zhonguo shixue congshu, 633-691. MÜLLERUS, Andreas. 1672. Monumenti sinici […]. Berolini: ex officina Rungiana. PAN, Shen 潘紳. 1917. Jingjiao beiwen zhushi 景教碑文注釋 [Notes and Comment to the Text of the Nestorian Stele]. Shanghai: Shenggonghui. Reprint 1925. PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. L’inscription nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou, edited with supplements by Antonino Forte. Kyoto: Scuola di Studi sull’Asia Orientale. Paris : Collège de France/Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises. POGGI, Vincenzo. 1985. “Matteo Ripa e la stele di Si-an,” in La conoscenza dell’Asia e dell’Africa in Italia nei secoli XVIII e XIX, vol. II.1, edited by Aldo Gallotta and Ugo Marazzi. Matteo Ripa 4. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 211-218. SAEKI, P. Yoshirō. 1916. The Nestorian Monument in China. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Reprint 1928. SAEKI, P. Y.[oshirō] 1937. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, The Toho bunkwa gakuin / The Academy of Oriental Culture, Tokyo Institute, Tokyo 1937; 19512. SEMEDO, Á. De. 1641. Relação da propagação da fé no reyno da China e outros adjacentes, Madrid. Spanish translation by A. Semmedo in Imperio de la China, I. Madrid: Sanchez, 1642. [STANDAERT, Nicolas] 鐘鳴旦and [Adrian DUDINK] 杜鼎克, eds. 2002. Yesuhui Luoma dang’anguanMingQingtianzhujiaowenxian 看看看羅馬檔案館明清天主教文獻 [Chinese Christian Texts from the Roman Archives of the Society of Jesus]. Taipei Ricci Institute. “La stela di Singan fu, monumento cristiano dell’VIII secolo in Cina,” in La Civiltà Cattolica [18. serie] X (1903), 715-727. TOSCANO, Giuseppe M., ed. 1965. Museo d’arte cinese di Parma. Franco: Reggio Emilia. “Une autre stèle de Si-an-fou”. 1925. Bulletin Catholique de Pékin XII (1925), 210217. WICKERI, Philip L. 2004. “The Stone Is a Mirror: Interpreting the Xi’an Christian Monument and Its Implications for Theology and the Study of Christianity in Asia,” in Quest III, no.2, (2004), 37-64. XIE, Bizhen. 1997. “Aleni’s Contribution to the History of Christianity in China. The Nestorian Stele and Ancient Christian Tombs in Quanzhou, Fujian,” in Scholars from the West: Giulio Aleni (1582-1649) and the Dialogue between Christianity and China, edited by Tiziana Lippiello and Roman Malek. Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica Institute, 403-416.

Jesuit Jingjiao

239

XU, Xiangxiang许翔翔. 2002. “Mingmo fengjiao guanyuan Li Zhizao dui ‘Jingjiaobei’ deyanjiu” 明看明大明明唐明员对“大大從”伽世世 [The Study Made by Li Zhizao, Christian Officer of theLate Ming, on the Nestorian Stele]in Zhejiang xuekan 浙江浙浙1 (2002), 130-136.

IN SEARCH OF KING GEORGE Maurizio PAOLILLO Università del Salento, Italy

The contact between the Church of the East (jingjiao 景教) once commonly called “Nestorianism” (a misleading term never adopted by its followers)1 and the peoples of Central and East Asia is an extraordinary example of the histori cal ties existing in Eurasia between different cultures and peoples. After the es tablishment of the pax mongolica in the first half of the 13th century, the diffu sion of this tradition was, of course, also related to the religious policy of the Mongol rulers, and to the presence of princesses in their family, who were con verted to Christianity.2 During this period, within the ethnic group known as Öngüt (Chinese Wanggu 汪古, also defined as the “White Tatars”, bai Dada 白躂靼),3 jingjiao was, ac cording to the sources, the dominant faith. The conversion of an entire tribe to jingjiao was not at all a new phaenomenon: suffice here to remember the case of the Kerait, maybe converted already in 1007; their leader Toghril was in many studies identified as the “Prester John” described in a famous passage of Marco Polo's Milione.4 Here, the clash between Prester John and Gengis Khan’s armies happened “in a fine plain called Tenduc, near to Prester John’s territory”.5 Elsewhere, Polo described the “Tenduc province” as a region lo cated to the East of “Egrigaia”, identified with the territory of the ancient capi 1 2

3

4

See the considerations of HOFRICHTER in MALEK 2006, 11-14; 12-13. Maybe the most famous case his that of Sorkaktani Beki, wife of Tolui, the youngest son of Genghis Khan, and mother of three Mongol Khans: Möngke, Hulegu and Qubhilai. TANG in MALEK, 349-355. It must be stressed that the first occurrence of a term with a sound near to “Öngüt” is found in the Secret History of the Mongols, completed in 1240. For the identifications of the Öngüt with the “White Tatars” of earlier sources, see GAI 1992, 2-3. As everybody knows, the rumours about “Prester John”, a misterious priest-king ruling a fabu lous oriental kingdom, began to spread through Western Europe in the second half of the 12th century, with the famous “Prester John Letters”, a series of fake documents maybe having some “Nestorians” roots. See BECKINGHAM – HAMILTON 1996. About the identification of Prester John with Toghril, see MORGAN in BECKINGHAM – HAMILTON 1996, 159170; 162-163. On the discussed conversion of the Kerait king in 11th century, present in Bar

5

Hebreus chronicle, see. HUNTER 1989-1991 in Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1989-1991), 142-163. On the cultural and maybe ethnic affinity between Kerait and Öngüt, see ZHU 1993, 171-175. “[...] a uno bello piano ch'à nome Tanduc [sic], ch'è presso al Preste Gianni”. See PIZZORUSSO 1994, 88.

242

Maurizio Paolillo

tal of Tangut Xi Xia Empire, in today’s Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.6 In the following passage, we find references to King George, the personage who is the main object of these notes: Tenduc is a province in the east, with many castles and cities. They are subjects to the Great Khan, and they descend from Prester John. Its main city is Tenduc. The king of this province is a descendant of Prester John family; he is still Prester John, and his name is George [...]. The rulers of the place are Christians, but there are also idolaters and worshippers of Mahomet. In the country, these men are the whitest, the most handsome, the wisest and the most inclined to trade. And you must know that this province was the main seat of Prester John, when he was Lord of the Tartars [...]. And this is the place that we call Gorgo and Magogo, but they call it Nug and Mungoli [...].7

Here, “Prester John” is showed clearly as a title or a function, more than as a specific person. In the French version of the manuscript, we do not find the term “Nug”(the other, “Mungoli”, being a very clear reference to the Mongols), but “Ung”, that is, Öngüt.8 In a Latin version, the so-called Z Manuscript, the “King George” of the passage is described as being a fourth generation descen dant of Prester John.9 Finally, the line about the people of Tenduc as “the whit est men in the country” (which by the way is not always present in all the ver sions of the text)10 is very puzzling: it is maybe not irrelevant to remember the presence of populations speaking Indo-European idioms in Central Asia (also in the so-called Gansu corridor) until at least the 8th - 9th centuries. For exam ple, according to Victor Mair, the Uigur (Huihe 回紇) absorbed “meaningful elements” of the Indo-European peoples of the “Tocarian kingdoms” when they moved to the Tarim Basin in the half of the 9th century, establishing their new

6

Ibid., 104. On the problems of the geographical identity of Tenduc, see PAOLILLO in MALEK 2006, 357-373; 360-366. 7 “Tenduc è una provincia verso levante, ov'à castella e cittadi assai. E' sono al Grande Kane, e sono discendenti del Preste Giovanni. La mastra cittade è Tenduc. E de questa provincia è re uno discendente del legnaggio del Preste Giovanni, e ancora si è Preste Gianni, e suo nome si è Giorgio [...]. La terra tengono li cristiani, ma e' v'à degl'idoli e di quelli ch'adorano Maccometo. Egli sono li più bianchi uomini del paese e' più begli e' più savi e' più uomini mercatanti. E sappiate che questa provincia era la mastra sedia del Preste Gianni, quando egli signoregiava li Tartari [...]. E questo è llo luogo che noi chiamamo Gorgo e Magogo, ma egli lo chiamano Nug e Mungoli [...]. See PIZZORUSSO 1994, 105-106. 8 Ibid., 422. We must also remember the title of “Ong-Khan”, bestowed by the Jurchen to the Kerait leader Toghril. “Ong” is probably the Mongol on, that is, the Chinese wang. See CARDONA in PIZZORUSSO 1994, 639-641; 738-739; MORGAN in BECKINGHAM – HAMILTON 1996, 163. About the theores concerning the origin of the name “Öngüt”, see GAI 1992, 1-3. 9 BARBIERI 1998, 102-103. 10 For example, it is not present in BARBIERI 1998.

In Search of King George

243

capital of Gaochang (Kocho) in 848, 11 This is all the more interesting, if we consider the traditional ancestral relationship existing between the Uigurs and the Öngüt. According to tradition, the origin of the Öngüt is to be found in Zhuye clan of the Turks Shatuo 沙陀 ethnic group, coming during the 5th and the 6th centuries from the region of Selenga River.12 It seems that every research about the an cestors of the Öngüt tribe has to deal with the Turkish group of the Uigur, which was controlling the Ordos region in the first half of the 9th century. In Chinese sources, the Öngüt first mythic ancestor is called Buguo 卜國, a name resembling the legendary khan Bügü, founder of the Uigur. The place of Buguo’s miraculous birth was the region between Tula and Selenga rivers, the same ancestral area of the Turkish Shatuo.13 But also the Uigur were placed in this territory, before the destruction of the Eastern Turk Empire, in which they had a fundamental role.14 The Öngüt-Uigur connection is manifested also in the tradition about the origin of the Öngüt rulering family line, traced back to Li Keyong 李克用 (856-908), jiedushi 節度使 at the end of the Tang Dynasty, and father of Li Cunxiu 李存勗 , founder of the Hou Tang Dynasty (923-936). This tradition, although described as groundless by some historians,15 is all the same worth to be re membered. It is found on the famous damaged stelae inscription, the Bailin si Jinwang yingtang bei 柏林寺晉汪影堂碑 (Bailin Monastery Stelae of the Shadow Hall of the Prince of Jin), erected in the sixth month of the fifteenth year of Emperor Shundi Zhizheng 至正 era (1355).16 The stelae was found 3 km west of Daizhou, in today's Shanxi Province. The funerary mound was still intact at the end of the 12th century, when Alaqus Tigin-qori (in Chinese sources Alawusi tijihuli 阿剌兀思 剔吉忽里), the man who in 1204 established the alliance with Gengis Khan, “having scrutinized the genealogy registers, did realize that the Prince [of Jin, that is, Li Keyong] was his ancestor, and so he presided a sacrificial rite for him”.17 According to the local gazetteer Daizhou zhi, the tomb of the Prince of Jin Li Keyong was situated in a place just to the east of Bailin Monastery. The in11

MAIR in CADONNA – LANCIOTTI 1996, 3-28; 21. The presence of Sogdians in the Uigur empire territory was also fundamental in Uigur cultural development. This influence was very pervasive: in the 10th century sources about the Uigur, about one half of their family names

seem of Sogdian origin. See HAMILTON 1955, 6. GAI 1992, 3-4. 13 See Yuanshi vol. 29, 2923; Yuanshi leibian 1775, Vol. 29, 15a. The identity of Buguo-Bügü is stressed in PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 239-288; 244-245, note 1. 14 HAMILTON 1955, 1-2; 61-63. 15 GAI 1992, 5-6. 16 Bailin si Yingtang Jinwang bei, in Shanyou shike congbian, juan 39 in Xuxiu siku quanshu 1901 edtion. 2002,154-156). (p. 5a is corrupted text and on p. 8 a comment.) 17 Ibid., 5 b. 12

244

Maurizio Paolillo

scription, although damaged, seems clear about the formation of a a posteriori “pedigrée”, a blood connection between Li Keyong, the Öngüt ruler Alaqus, and his offsprings, like the man called Kuolijisi 闊里吉思 , who chose, accord ing to Daizhou zhi, twenty families to “protect the site”.18 As already stressed by Paul Pelliot in a posthumous study published in 1973, the inscription pre sents Buddhist elements; but at the end of it the presence of the bynom chongfu 崇福 reminds us of the chongfu si 崇福司, the office which was charged of administering Christian cult during the Yuan dynasty.19 To throw more light on the interesting figure of King George, we have to con sider the area ruled by the Öngüt in the 13th century. In a precedent study, we focused on two regions: one to the east of the Great Bend of the Yellow River, and one to the north of the Da Qingshan Mountain range. Both were related to Öngüt chiefs’ family line, at least from the time of Alaqus Tigin-qori.20 The most interesting urban remains in the northern area were discovered at the end of the 1920s by Huang Wenbi, a member of Sven Hedin exploration team. This site, called in modern times Olon Süme-in Tor (Chinese Alunsumu 阿倫蘇木 , literally “Ruins of many temples”), has been studied by many re searchers. After the II World War, Gai Shanlin of Inner Mongolia Institute of Archeology and Cultural Relics was particularly involved in some archeological campaigns on the spot, while since the year 2000 a research project funded by the University of Genova and the Italian Foreign Office, and directed by Professor P. Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, has made a study of the site, with an archeological surface survey (2001-2002) which confirmed the interest of the place, and the urgent need to start without delay a serious excavation activity.21 During the Yuan dynasty, Olon Süme-in Tor was certainly an important politi cal and religious center, where the presence of jingjiao was predominant. Near to the site, there are several “Nestorian” burial sites, where several tombs and stelae with Syriac inscriptions and the symbol of the typical cross of the Church of the East survived to the offences of time.22 Gai Shanlin considered Olon Süme-in Tor as the capital of the Öngüt.23 Maybe we are nearer to the his torical truth if we assume that it was their northern capital, in a dual capital sys Ibid., part 8 a. PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 245, note 6. 20 See PAOLILLO in MALEK 2006. 21 About the bibliography on Olon Süme-in Tor, see PAOLILLO in MALEK 2006, 367-368, note 37, and now also P. MORTARI in AIRALDI - MORTARI 2004, 11-28; VARALDO – BENENTE in AIRALDI - MORTARI 2004, 81-92; HALBERTSMA 2005 in Monumenta Serica 53 (2005). 113-244; HALBERTSMA in MALEK 2006, 303-319. The last two studies describe the work of documentation of stone material (in Olon Süme-in Tor and elsewhere) made by the Hulsewé-Wazniewski Project at Leiden University, a task really urgent for this kind of endangered relics. 22 See GAI 1992,186-212; GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL in AIRALDI - MORTARI 2004, 93108. 23 GAI 1992, 96-103. 18 19

In Search of King George

245

tem well known in states founded by nomadic peoples.24 But the importance of the site cannot be discussed: in Wangfu defeng tang beiji 王傅德風堂碑記 (Record of the Stelae of the Prince Instructor's Virtue Wind Hall), the famous stelae inscription composed in november 1347 by a scholar from Jingzhou,25 and found on the place, a genealogy of Öngüt kings is presented, along with some hints that, at the beginning of the 14th century, central administration was effectively situated in Olon Süme-in Tor. In the inscription, the Öngüt rulers are called “Prince of Zhao” (Zhaowang 趙王).26 Beside this source, there is an other text called the Henei Lishi xiande jieming 河內李氏先德碣銘 , com posed in 1310 by the scholar Yao Sui 姚燧 for a minister of the “Prince of Shu” (Shuwang 鄃王), one of the honorific titles of Öngüt kings. One passage says: “The passed away parent of the Prince of Shu [...] was granted the terri tory of Gaotang: he was an hereditary king, and his ancestral residence was Jing'an, north of the Dark Stream”.27 Jing'an 靜安 (also in the form 靖安 ) was one of the ancient names of Olon Süme-in Tor, and in 1310, the “Prince of Shu” was the man called Zhu'an 注安 / 主安 or Shu'an 術安 by the Chinese sources.28 His “passed away parent” with the title “Prince of Gaotang” (Gao tang wang 高唐), was called Kuolijisi 闊里吉思 , who was the “King George” described by Marco Polo.29 The identification of Polo's figure with this Kuolijisi (a common Chinese tran scription of Gîwargîs, the Syriac rendering of “George”), is proved by the ex traordinary history of his conversion to the Catholic Church, narrated by Gio vanni da Montecorvino, a Franciscan missionary who left Italy in 1289, sent to the Orient by the Pope Nicola IV. In one of his few surviving letters from Khanbalik, dated 8 of January 1305 and written in Latin, he described the con version from “Nestorianism” to Catholicism of “King George”, who “was of 24

See PAOLILLO in MALEK 2006, 369. During the Jin dynasty, Jingzhou was an important fortified center in the defense line built by the Jurchen against invasions from the north. At that time, before the change of alliances made by theh Öngüt leader Ala-quš tigin-qorī in 1204, about six thousand families lived in the city. See Jinshi 1975, 566. On Jingzhou site, see GAI 1992, 113-114. The author of the stelae in scription described himself as a man from Jingzhou: this led sometimes to the erroneous iden tification of Olon Süme-in Tor with Jingzhou, as in STANDAERT 2001,53. 26 The text of the inscription is reproduced in Gai Shanlin, op.cit., pp. 420-421. After being stud ied before II World War by scholars like D. Martin, Chen Yuan and Namio Egami, the stelae disappeared from the site. The event remembered in the inscription is the appointment of a Chinese adviser for the Prince of Zhao, happened in 1308 (when this title was conferred to Shuhunan, brother of King George: see infra). 27 YAO SUI in YAO WENGONG 1992, vol. 92, 56 b – 57 a. 28 Jing'an was the name of the “New City on the Dark Stream” from 1305 to 1318. See Yuanshi, 464; 582. “Dark Stream” (Heishui) was the ancient name of Aibagh-in Gol, the river near to Olon Süme-in Tor. About the young Prince Shu'an/Zhu'an, see GAI 1992, 32-34; PELLIOT in PELIOT 1973, 282. 29 For the sources about the bestowing to King George of the title of Gaotang in the summer 1294, see PELLIOT in PELIOT 1973, 273, nota4. 25

246

Maurizio Paolillo

the line of that big king, called Prester John of India”. The conversion hap pened “the first year that I was there” (probably in 1293 or 1294) and led to the erection of the first Catholic church in East Asia, which called the “Roman Church”. And there, according to the narration, King George, after obtained the minor orders and celebrated the Mass with the Franciscan father.30 George seems thus to have realized the temporal and sacerdotal functions which were Prester John's traditional attributes. This quality of the legendary rex et sacerdos has been related by some historians with the power struggle be tween the Roman Church and the Empire, particularly becoming bitter in the middle of the 13th century.31 But the two functions in one single person is al ready present in the Bible, where it is an attribute of Melkitsedeq, “King of Sa lem”. This figure is the paradigm on which is Christian priesthood based (see Salms, 110: 4). For example, Paul wrote in Hebrew 8:1-3 about priest Melkit sedeq, that he loses its semi-historical features, being “without father, without mother, without genealogy, his life neither has a beginning nor an end”. The passage that describes Abraham giving to Melkitsedeq the tithe of his posses sions is reflected in Milione: when the Tartars “were in the north [...], they were subordinated to a ruler, who was in our language Prester John [...]. Tartars gave to him one tenth of the cattle”. 32 Giovanni of Montecorvino's travel to the East, and his meeting with King George led to the encounter between the Pope and an Öngüt holy man, Bar (or Rabban) Sauma. According to a Syriac chronicle first studied at the beginning of 20th century and recently re-translated by P. Borbone, around the year 1275 Bar Sauma left the Öngüt territory with his disciple Markos (who was later chosen as the new Catholikos of the Church of the East, with the name of Mar Yahballaha III), with the aim to go to Jerusalem. The two men got the permis sion to leave the country from the Öngüt rulers of that time, who were the two brothers Aibuqa (King George's father) and Kunbuqa.33

“De bono rege Georgio. Quidam Rex illius regionis de septa nestorianorum christianorum, qui erat de genere illius magni Regis qui dictus fuit Presbiter Iohannes de Yndia, primo anno quo huc ego veni michi adhesid et ad veritatem vere fidei catholice per me conversus, minores ordines suscepit, michique celebranti sacris vestibus indutus ministravit [...]. Tamen ipse magnam populi sui partem ad veram fidem catholicam adduxit, et ecclesiam pulchram secundum regiam magnificentiam construxit ad honorem Dei nostri, sancte Trinitatis et domini Pape et nomine meo vocans eam ecclesiam romanam, [...]. Et eo vivente in ecclesia sua celebrabatur missa secundum ritum latinum [...]”, see VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 348-350. 31 The legendary “Magi kings” were also of course an expression of the fusion of the two pow ers; the “discovering” of their corpses in Milan, and their moving to Cologne, was an impor tant episode in the conflict between Roman Church and the Empire. See HAMILTON in BECKINGHAM – HAMILTON 1996, 171-185. We should not forget that Prester John was traditionally considered as a descendant of the Magi. 32 PIZZORUSSO 1994, 85. 33 BORBONE 2000, 61-62. On Aibuqa and Kunbuqa, see GAI 1992, 30-31; PELLIOT in PELLIOT, 268. 30

In Search of King George

247

Therefore, Giovanni of Montecorvino's mission was not casual. This could ex plain also why the Franciscan made a stop in the Öngüt territory, where he converted the new ruler “George” to Catholicism, and built a church there. In the same letter Giovanni of Montecorvino also stressed how the Öngüt returned to the “Nestorian” faith after the death of King George in winter 1298-99 (as the letter dated 8 of January 1305 says, he “ante VI annos migravit ad Dominum”).34 Chinese extant sources about King George are not abundant; nevertheless, they give us a very interesting and puzzling picture of this personnage.35 His biogra phy appears in Yuanshi 元史, while another useful source on him is the Fuma Gaotang zhongxian wang bei 駙馬高唐忠獻王碑, an inscription composed in 1305 by Yan Fu 閻復, which without doubt was also a main reference to the genealogy of Öngüt kings present in Yuan dynastic history.36 The title of Prince of Gaotang was conferred by the Mongol rulers to George in 1294, while the posthumous title of Zhongxian wang 忠獻王 was granted in 1305.37 George was a son of Aibuqa, one of the two brothers ruling the Öngüt territory that Bar Sauma and Markos had stopped before they left for the West. His mother, called Yüräk (or Üräk) was one of the daughters of Qubhilai Khan’s and she was undoubtedly converted to jingjiao. In his life, George married Qutadmiš, one of the daughters of Ĵingim who was the son of Qubilai, and after her death George married Ayamishi, daughter of Tämür Ölĵaitü who was the son of Ĵingim 38 According to Yuanshi: George was brave and intrepid by nature, and was familiar with martial affairs; but he attached more importance to learned matters and to the arts. In his private resi dence, he built a “Ten Thousand Chapters Hall”, and every day he debated with all the scholars about Classics and history, Nature and Principles, Yin and Yang, and cosmological doctrines. There was nothing that he should not thoroughly under stand.39

This unusual portrait finds a correspondence in the cited Wangfu Defeng tang beiji, the stele inscription discovered at Olon Süme-in Tor. In this inscription,

See VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 348. In these notes, we will not make use of some other Eastern sources on King George, like the famous Persian chronicle written by Raŝid al-Din. 36 For the genealogy of the Öngüt rulers, see the table in GAI 1992, 37. 37 Biography of George in Yuanshi 1976 edition. 2925-2926; for Yan Fu's Fuma Gaotang Zhongxian wang bei, see Yuanwen lei 元文類 , juan 23, 281a- 284 a (Siku quanshu edition 1993), 38 PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 273-274 (also for the different transcriptions of George's second wife). 39 Yuanshi, 1976 edition, 2925. 34 35

248

Maurizio Paolillo

the Zhongxian wang (i.e. George) is described as a man who “was naturally endowed with a high cleverness; he respected and loved the sacred studies”.40 Under the reign of Qubilai’s successor, Tämür Ölĵaitü (Emperor Chengzong), who was also the father of Qubilai’s second wife, George asked Tämür Ölĵaitü to allow him to serve in the military campaign against Khaidu. George said: “If I will not succeed in the pacification of the northwest, my horse will no longer turn the head to the south!”.41 After the first victorious battle in summer 1297, during the autumn of 1298 Mongol generals, seeing the absence of any menace from Khaidu's army and worried by the coming of the winter season, decided to retreat, notwithstanding the criticism by George. Being left alone with his small army, the Öngüt king George was captured by surprise by a Khaidu ally, Duwa, who imprisoned George. Refusing to surrend and to pass to Khaidu’s side through a political marriage, George was executed during the winter 1298-99 (second year of Dade 大德reign period).42 George left a young son, called in Chinese sources Zhu'an, or Shu'an. He was the “Prince of Shu” remembered in the previously cited Henei Lishi xiande jieming. According to Giovanni of Montecorvino's letter, when King George died six years before, “He left an heir, who now is nine years old [...]. And this son of the King is named Iohannes, in accord with my name, and I hope in God that he will follow his father’s traces [...].”43 As stressed by Pelliot, it seeems clear that the Chinese name of the boy must be read as a transcription of a “Jo hannes”, or more probably of the Italian “Giovanni”.44 The young age of George's son made a period of interregnum of ten years nec essary: during which the ruler of the Öngüt was a brother of George called Shuhunan 術忽南, maybe a rendering of the Syriac name Yohannan.45 It is the same man who, according to the narration of Giovanni of Montecorvino, forced his people to return to “Nestorianism”. But we find no trace of this double con fessional choice in Chinese sources of the period, as nothing of this appears in the exceptional document classified as Ms. Vatican Syriac 622, a chrysographed Gospel written in Syriac in 1298, discovered by Henri Pognon and Addai Scher in Diyarbakir, and recently studied by Professor Pier Giorgio Borbone.46 In the colophon, the scribe stresses how the Gospel was “written with great diligence and much effort for [...] Sara the believer called 'r'w’wl, famous Wangfu Defeng tang beiji, in GAI 1992, 420. Yuanshi 1976 edition, 2925. 42 Ibid., 2925-2926. Here is a perfect concordance with time of King George’s death according to Giovanni of Montecorvino's letter. 43 “[...] relicto filio herede in cunabulis, qui nunc est annorum novem [...]. Et filius dicti Regis vocatur Iohannes propter nomen meum, et spero in Deo quod ipse imitabitur vestigia patris sui”: VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 348-350. 44 PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 282. 45 On this brother of King George, see PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 275-278; GAI 1992, 32. 46 BORBONE 2003 in Egitto e Vicino Oriente 26 (2003), 63-82. 40 41

In Search of King George

249

among the queens, sister of the illustrious among the warriors and hero among the combatants, George, the glorious king of the Christians, also called g'nŃ'ng w'ng [...]”.47 Pelliot has been the first to identify the queen as Ärä'öl, sister of King George: she married the Prince Altan-buqa, a grandson of Qubilai Khan, lived in Kaicheng, in Liupan Mountain area of today's Gansu Province, and died there before 1314.48 In 1298, thus some years after the conversion of George to Roman Catholicism according to Giovanni of Montecorvino (which happened in 1293-94), the “Nestorian” author of the chrysography made no mention of this event, while he was well aware of the title of Gaotang wang (g'nŃ'ng w'ng in the text), be stowed to George in 1294. Borbone proposed, as more plausible, the hypothesis that the Gospel, after being executad in Near Orient by a scribe who had accu rate informations about his patrons, probably never reached the Princess Ärä'öl.49 As for the refusal from George’s descendants concerning George’s religious conversion, we must consider that this “conversion” was maybe not so percep tible as Montecorvino stressed in his letter. Meanwhile, the absence of any serious doctrinal divergence between jingjiao and the Catholic Church (in recent years clearly acknowledged)50 , was already exposed in the dialogue between Rabban Sauma and the cardinals, narrated in the already cited Syrian chronicle. The wish manifested by the new Pope Nicola IV (who, according to the chroni cle, was one of the cardinals who questioned Sauma’s orthodoxy) that Sauma took part in Easter liturgy is another evidence that he was considered as a “true” Christian.51 George, “illustrious among the warriors and hero among the combatants”, was in Yuanshi the object of an epic narrative also after the end of his life.52 In his posthumously edited article of 1973, Pelliot already stressed how the chronicle of his corpse recovery seemed what remained of a “literary monument with an unofficial feature”.53 Maybe this “monument” is the Chici Fuma Zhaowang xiande jiafeng bei ming 敕賜駙馬趙王先德加封碑銘 (Stelae Inscription on the Granting of the Virtuous Ancestor Titles of Imperial Son-in-Law, and Prince of Zhao), composed by the famous scholar Liu Minzhong 劉敏中 (1243-1318):

Ibid. PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 279-282. The French sinologist had already identified the queen in a previous article: see PELLIOT 1914 in Toung Pao 15 (1914), 623-644; 635. 49 BORBONE 2003. 50 See the considerations of HOFRICHTER in MALEK 2006, 12-14. 51 BORBONE 2000, 80-82; 88-93. The orthodoxy of Sauma’s faith is also reflected in the bish opric authority conferred to him during his stay in Rome: Sauma’s bishop seal is still visible on a 1288 document preserved in Vatican Library. See BORBONE 2000, 204-206. 52 Yuanshi 1976 edition, 2926. 53 PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 283. 47 48

250

Maurizio Paolillo

In the first year of Emperor Wuzong's Zhida reign period [1308], the title of Prince of Shu was bestowed to [Shuhunan]. He passed away in the following year, and Prince Shu'an inherited the title. The Emperor considered him to be the most loyal among the loyals, and bestowed to him the title of Prince of Zhao [...]. One day, the Prince of Zhao summoned his Regal Preceptor Tuohuan and his General Axisi, and said: 'The coffin of the former King is in the solitary and remote land of Buluo. What will his spiritual souls rely upon [to have ancestral worship rituals]? My heart is full of shame, I have no more desire of living. Please help me in bringing back the grave to [our] ancestral burial place, so I could close my eyes without regrets!’ The two men informed Yelini, of the Secret Council. The Emperor sighed for a long time, and then said: 'Shu'an is a filial son !'. Therefore, he granted a bot tle full of gold to Axisi, who, having obtained Bashihutulu, General Officer of the Artisans and son of the Regal Preceptor Tuohuan, the son of Shuhunan [...], Aluhutu [...] and other nineteen people, departed [...]. In May, after crossing the bor ders, the Prince of Qiyang Yuechicha'er and the Minister Tuohuochu Badulu sent five hundred men to protect the route. In July, they arrived at the burial site. After ritual offerings were made, they opened it and saw that the jade corpse looked as if it was still living. Inside the dragon fir coffin, dresses were still disposed orderly. Everyone was crying; there was more than one thousand people from Buluo, and they were all crying, too. They brought the coffin to the East. In August, they reached the ancestral cemetery of Yelike'ersi: the Regal Preceptor Tuohuan [...] came to the place, and [the burial site of George] was restored with everybody's assistance.54

From the internal evidence of this source, the expedition must have taken place between 1310 and 1311.55 The “solitary and remote land of Buluo”卜羅, where George’s coffin was recovered, in Gai Shanlin and others' opinion, is Boluo 博羅 , an ancient city on the north bank of Tala River, 5 km west of today's

See LIU MINZHONG in Beijing tushuguan guji zhenben congkan 1992, vol. 92, 299 and the following. The text is reproduced in GAI 1992, 33-34. About the identification of names, Paul Pelliot has given already many answers or clues, on the base of the Yuanshi similar passage. Here is a list: 1. Tuohuan=Toγon (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973. 283, note 1); 2. Axisi=Atsĩz (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, note 2); 3. Yelini: Yuanshi has Yelijini=*Ärgini (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 284, note 1); 4. Bashihudulu: in Yuanshi, this name is without the first synogram ba, but Pelliot identifies it as =*Aš-qutluγ, or *Aši-qutluγ, thinking that in this name a first syllabe a was lost (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, note 4); 5. Aluhudu=*Aruqtu (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 285: probably between 1314 and 1321, this son of Shuhunan was the Öngüt ruler after the early disappearance of King George's son); 6. Yuechicha'er=*Üčičar (?) (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 284-285, note 7); 7. Tuohuochu Badulu=*Togoči Batur (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 285, note 1). 55 The bestowing to Zhu'an of the title of Prince of Zhao, described before the history of George corpse recovery, happened in 1310: see Yuanshi 1976 edition, 2926. In PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 285, note 7, the author proposed the period 1307-1311 for the expedition. Elsewhere (PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, note 2), he stressed the parallels with the history of the “Tartar emperor” of the Golden Horde, baptised by the Franciscans with the name of “John”, whose corpse was found incorrupted near Saraï, in the Low Volga region, according to a Franciscan chronicle relating the years 1304-1313. 54

In Search of King George

251

Bole County 博樂縣, in the northwest of Xinjiang Province.56 As for the identi fication of King George’s final resting place, Pelliot, who could only refer to Yuanshi narration, said that “if one should not consider the long distance be tween Daizhou and the ordinary residence of the Öngüt kings, we could almost be tempted by the consideration that this 'ancestral cemetery' was the site of Bailinsi, where the tomb of the 'first ancestor' Li Keyong was situated, and where the same George had appointed twenty families to protect the place”.57 But in Liu Minzhong’s stelae inscription, we have the name of the “ancestral cemetery” of King George family: Yelike'ersi 也里可兒思 . Until now, it has not been possible to get an identification of this place: Gai Shanlin has ad vanced the hypothesis that it could be the burial site of Biqigetu Haolai 筆其格圖好來 , situated about 15 km north-west of Olon Süme-in Tor, in Da'erhan Maoming'han Banner (Darhan Muminggan). Considering the very close relations existing between Olon Süme-in Tor (called in Yuan sources with several names: “New City” [xincheng 新城], Jing'an, Dening 德寧), and the figure of King George, and the reference in Henei Lishi xiande jieming to Jing'an as the “ancestral residence” (shiju 世居 ) of George's family, this the ory deserves our attention.58 In 1974, Gai Shanlin led some excavation campaigns in Biqigetu Haolai site. The cemetery area was in origin enclosed by a 40 x 30 m rammed earth wall, with a northwest – southeast orientation axis like that of the walls of Olon Süme-in Tor. Twenty-three burial sites have been identified, nineteen inside the enclosure, and four outside it. In one isolated tomb, a vertical pit type with a brick chamber, archeologists have found a mirror, having possiblly Taoist mo tives, and a bronze object, with a form simliar to the Chinese character for “great”, da 大, a possible reference to the Cross.59 In 1997, inside the burial en closure, excavations works brought to light two tombs of the lythic chamber type, with bas-reliefs having floral and animal symbolic decorations on the walls.60 These findings seem to prove that Biqigetu Haolai was without doubt a burial site for the Öngüt nobility. In recent years, much rumours aroused in China (to tell the truth, without a big echo in Western sinological world) about a real conclusion of the search for King George’s resting place. In autumn 1999, a team of the Hebei Province In stitute of Cultural Relics (Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo) made in Guyuan County 沽源縣 some excavations inside the Shuzhuang lou 梳妝樓, a building

56

GAI 1992, 33. PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1973, 285. 58 In PAOLILLO in MALEK 2006, 372-373, the author summarized the elements which seem to prove the ties between Olon Süme-in Tor and King George, on the basis of Chinese and West ern sources. 59 GAI 1992, 187-188. 60 GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL 2004, 99-100. 57

252

Maurizio Paolillo

that the local tradition had always connected with Queen Mother Xiao 萧太后 of the Liao Dynasty. The archeologists found an ancient tomb, with three brick chambers, the bigger middle one with male skeleton remains, the other two with female skeletons. Judging from the burial objects and coffins wood mate rial, the tomb was certainly of the Yuan period, and its guests were members of the high nobility. Much speculation was made about the identity of the man buried there; among some stelae fragments excavated in this site, one piece (maybe part of the stelae inscription title) had the sinograms Xiang Kuolijisi 襄阔里吉思 . From here came the conclusion that the burial of King George had been discovered. Thus, the two female skeletons must belong to the two wives of George. In 2003, a brief article by Zhao Qi published on the revue Zhongguo shi yanjiu questioned about the logic of this deduction.61 First of all, in Yuan sources many bore the name Kuolijisi.62 The second consideration made by the author is not so conclusive: the copper coins of Zhida 至大reign period (1308-1311), found in the tomb, could still have a logic reason, considering the date of the history, when George corpse recovering expedition (between 1310 and 1311) was made. This is an historical clue which Zhao Qi seems to not taken into ac count. The Xiang 襄 which precedes the name in the stelae fragment is more impor tant. It seems to be part of a shihao 谥号, a posthumous title; but King George never had a title similar to this one bestowed after his death. The only official who had a similar title recorded by Yuan sources is Kuo'erjisi 闊兒吉思 (a dif ferent Chinese transcription of the same Syriac name Gîwargîs), who, accord ing to Yuanshi, in the first month of the sixth year of Zhiyuan 至元 reign period (1340) received from Emperor Shundi the posthumous title of Zhongxiang 忠襄 . It is worth noting that this same figure is found in Yuan sources also with the more common transcription Kuolijisi.63 Zhao Qi noticed also that, in the Puning Zhongxiang wang beixu 晋宁忠襄王碑序 , a text written for a stelae erection by Xu Youren许有壬, member of the Hanlin Academy, and conserved in juan 34 of Zhizheng ji 至正集, recorded how the stelae inscription for the Prince of Zhongxiang was made after the imperial order. The stelae was set on the site of the tomb, in the region of Luanjing 灤京. The first of these data fits well with the chizhuan 敕撰 (“written by imperial orders”) and han 翰 (a reference to Hanlin Acad

ZHAO in Zhongguo shi yanjiu 2 (2003), 173-175. See the reference to this name in DE RACHEWILTZ – WANG 1988, vol. II, 1104. 63 See for example the juan 29 of the Sanshi tongming lu 三史同名錄 , p. 1b, where, after the reference to the bestowed titles of Puning wang 普寧王and Zhongxiang, it is stressed how this Kuolijisi (here listed as one of the six figures with this name) is present also with the name Kuo'erjisi. 61 62

In Search of King George

253

emy), found inscribed on the stelae fragments discovered in 1999;64 the second shows that the site of Kuo'erjisi’s tomb had to be in Hebei region, because Luanjing was another name for Shangdu 上都 , the Yuan north capital. In Zhao Qi's opinion, Kuo'erjisi must be the misterious man of Shuzhuang lou tomb. Thus, it seems that the search for George, the heroic and sage Öngüt king, whose symbolic features are a weird bridge between East and West, is still far from conclusion.

Bibliography Primary Sources Bailin si Yingtang Jinwang bei, in Shanyou shike congbian, juan 39. 1901 edition in Xuxiu siku quanshu. 2002. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Jinshi 1975. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Liu Minzhong. 1992. Chici Fuma Zhaowang xiande jiafeng beiming in Zhong'an xiansheng Liu Wenjian gong wenji, juan 4, in Beijing tushuguan guji zhenben congkan. 1992. Beijing: Shumu wenxian chubanshe.. Yao Sui. 1992. Henei Lishi xiande jieming in Yao Wengong mu'anji, in Beijing Tushu guan guji zhenben congkan vol. 92, 56 b – 57 a. Beijing: Shumu wenxian chuban she. Yan Fu. 1993. Fuma Gaotang Zhongxian wang bei in Yuanwen lei, juan 23, 281a- 284a in Siku quanshu. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Yuanshi. 1976. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Yuanshi leibian 1795. Zhu Huizu. 1937. Sanshi tongming lu, Shangwu yinshuguan, Shanghai 1937.

Secondary Sources AIRALDI, G., P. MORTARI VERGARA CAFFARELLI and L.E. PARODI, eds. 2004. I Mongoli dal Pacifico al Mediterraneo, Genova: ECIG. BARBIERI, A., ed. 1998. Marco Polo. Milione. Redazione latina del Manoscritto Z, Parma: Pratiche Editrice. BECKINGHAM, C.F. and B. HAMILTON, eds. 1996. Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes. Aldershot: Variorum. BERTOLUCCI PIZZORUSSO, V., ed. 1994. Milione. Milano: Adelphi. BORBONE, P. G. 2000. Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Un orientale in Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo. Torino: Zamorani.

64

But Zhao Qi, considering the discrepancies between the two dates of Kuo'erjisi death (between 1335 and 1340) and Xu Youren’s succession to Hanlin Academy, and some other text frag ments, concludes that the stelae in the tomb was not the Puning Zhongxiang wang beixu, but an unknown Kuolijisi /Kuo'erjisi bei 闊里吉思/ 闊兒吉思碑 , which was all the same com posed by imperial order.

254

Maurizio Paolillo

BORBONE, P.G. 2003. “I Vangeli per la principessa Sara. Un manoscritto siriaco crisografato, gli Öngüt cristiani e il principe Giorgio” in Egitto e Vicino Oriente 26 (2003), 63-82. CARDONA, G. R. 1994. “Indice ragionato” in V. BERTOLUCCI PIZZORUSSO, ed. (1st Ed.: 1975) Milione, Milano: Adelphi, 489-761. GAI, Shanlin. 1992. Yinshan Wangu. Huhehaote: Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe. GUGLIELMINOTTI TRIVEL, M. 2004. “Sepolture e riti funerari degli Onguti in Mongolia Interna”, in G. AIRALDI, P. MORTARI VERGARA CAFFARELLI and L.E. PARODI, eds. I Mongoli dal Pacifico al Mediterraneo, Genova: ECIG, 93-108. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2005. “Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Material from Graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China” Monumenta Serica 53 (2005), 113-244. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2006 “Some Notes on Past and Present Field Research on Gravestones and Related Stone Material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongo lia, China (with 21 Illustrations of the Hulsewé-Wazniewski Project in Inner Mon golia)” in Roman MALEK, ed. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Cen tral Asia. St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 303-319. HAMILTON, B. 1996. “Prester John and the Three Kings of Cologne” in C. F. BECKINGHAM, C.F. and B. HAMILTON, eds. Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes. Aldershot: Variorum, 171-185. HAMILTON, J.R. 1955. Les Ouïghours à l'époque des Cinq Dynasties. Bibliothèque de l'Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, vol. X. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.HOFRICHTER, Peter. 2006. “Preface”, in Roman MALEK, ed. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 11-14. HUNTER, Erica C. D. 1989-1991. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A. D. 1007”, Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1989-1991), 142-163. MAIR, Victor. 1996. “I corpi essiccati di popolazioni caucasoidi dell'Età del Bronzo e del Ferro rinvenuti nel Bacino del Tarim (Cina)”, in A. Cadonna and L. Lanciotti, eds., Cina e Iran. Da Alessandro Magno alla dinastia Tang. Orientalia Venetiana 5. Firenze: Olschki, 3-28. MALEK, Roman, ed. 2006. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica. MORGAN, David. 1996. “Prester John and the Mongols”, in BECKINGHAM, C.F. and B. HAMILTON eds. Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes. Aldershot: Variorum, 159-170. MORTARI VERGARA CAFFARELLI, P. 2004. “Monumenti nestoriani dal Mediterraneo alla Mongolia”, in G. AIRALDI, P. MORTARI VERGARA CAFFARELLI and L.E. PARODI, eds. I Mongoli dal Pacifico al Mediterraneo. Genova: ECIG, 11-28. PAOLILLO, Maurizio. 2006. “A Nestorian Tale of Many Cities. The Problem of the Identification of Urban Structures in Öngüt Territory during the Yuan Dynasty according to Chinese and Western Sources”, in Roman Malek, ed. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica. 357-373. PELLIOT, Paul. 1914. “Chrétiens d'Asie Centrale et d'Extrême-Orient” in T’oung-pao 15 (1914), 623-644. PELLIOT, Paul. 1973. “Màr Ya(h)bһalàhâ, Rabbân Sauma et les princes Öngüt chré tiens” in Paul Peilliot Recherches sur les chrétiens d'Asie Centrale et d'Extrême

In Search of King George

255

Orient, III. Œuvres posthumes de Paul Pelliot, edited by J. Dauvillier and L. Hambis. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 239-288. PIZZORUSSO, V. Bertolucci, ed. 1994. Milione. Milano: Adelphi. DE RACHEWILTZ, Igor and WANG M. (LOU CHAN-MEI), eds. 1988. Repertory of Proper Names in Yüan Literary Sources. Taipei: Southern Materials Center. STANDAERT, Nicolas, ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China. Volume One: 6351800. Handbuck der Orientalistik IV/15.1. Leiden, et al: Brill. Tang, Li 2006. “Sorkaktani Beki. A Prominent Nestorian Woman at the Mongol Court”, in Roman Malek, ed. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Cen tral Asia. St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 349-355. VARALDO, C. And F. BENENTE. 2004. “Prospettive di ricerche archeologiche sul sito di Olon Sume (Mongolia Interna)”, in G. AIRALDI, P. MORTARI VERGARA CAFFARELLI and L.E. PARODI, 2004, 81-92. VAN DEN WYNGAERT, Anastasius, ed. 1929. Sinica Franciscana, I: Itinera et Relationes Fratrum Minorum Saeculi XIII et XIV, Firenze: Quaracchi, 1929. ZHAO, Qi. 2003. “Hebei sheng Guyuan xian shuzhuang lou Yuan Menggu guizu mu muzhu kao”, Zhongguo shi yanjiu 2 (2003), 173-175. ZHU, Qianzhi. 1993. Zhongguo jingjiao. Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe.

MEDIEVAL SOURCES ON THE NAIMAN CHRISTIANS AND ON THEIR PRINCE KÜCHLÜG KHAN Li TANG University of Salzburg, Austria

1. Introduction This paper intends to identify and locate the nomadic people Naiman who were for the most part East Syrian Christians. It is difficult to trace this people who bore the name “Naiman” in historical records before the 11th century. The Mongol source Tobchi’an, commonly known as the Secret History of the Mon gols, which survived only in Chinese translation, provides some accounts of the Naiman at the time of Chinggis Khan’s campaign. Medieval Chinese standard historical records possess scattered information about them, for instance, the Liao Shi [History of the Liao Dynasty 《遼史》], Jin Shi [History of the Jin Dynasty 《金史》], and Yuan Shi [History of Yuan 《元史》]. The reason for this lack of records on the Naiman might be due to the fact that this people lived further away in the north and had less interaction with the Chinese (as in comparison to other nomads like the Xiongnu 匈奴, the Rouran 柔然, and the Uighur 回鶻). The name “Naiman” appears in various forms in Chinese char acters, such as, 乃蛮，乃满，耐满，奈曼，etc. In the 13th century, Persian historians like Juvayni and Rashiduddin (Rashid al-Din) gave references to the Naiman due to the fact that a large number of Naimans escaped westwards to the territory of the Kara Kitai after Chinggis Khan’s campaign against them.

2. The Naiman Nation The Naiman was one of the largest tribes on the Steppe from the 11th to the 13th century. The group was so big that it should be called a nation rather than a tribe. It consisted of several branches and different branches once dwelt at dif ferent places, in the wilderness, in the remote mountain areas as well as on the plains. Their dwelling places identified by Rashiduddin (1247-1318) were “Al tai, Qaraqorum (where Ögödei Qa’an built a splendid palace in the wildness), the mountains of Al’ui Saras, the Black Irtysh (where the Qanqli also dwelt), the Irdish Mürän which is the Irtysh River, the mountains between the Irtysh River and the territory of the Qirqiz and the adjacent region as far as the land of

Li Tang

258

Mongolia (the territory in which Ong Khan dwelt, and for that reason there were constant disputes between the Naiman and Ong Khan), up to the edge of the deserts that are adjacent to Uyghuristan.”1

^ SIBi V MJIRGH1Z

0/ r

& S±

v\ \ r^ S*4^^

iiiifi. 4lmslyk • Alitucy J "t^J

NA1KAK

dtcbukV •

BB

\ \

This area corresponds to the lands between Kobdo and Wubsu Lake of today. It stretches from Black Irtysh River in the west to the Selenga River in the east. Although the Naiman as a nation was very big, it lacked unity within itself. Prior to the time of Chinggis Khan, the rulers of Naiman were Narqish Tayang and Anyar Qa’an who were brothers.2 However, these two brothers did not keep peace with each other. They took their own people and lived apart. This also explained why the Naiman area was widely stretched out. As the power of Chinggis Khan swept over the Mongolian Steppe, the Naiman who dwelt at the western end of the Steppe and the Kerait were the only nations who could exer cise an equal power against the Mongols. Juvayni recorded that the Ong-Khan of the Kerait and the “Saqiyat” (saqiz in Turkish, meaning eight) surpassed the other tribes in strength and dignity and were stronger in gear and equipment and the number than the Mongols.3 The term “Naiman” has a Mongolian origin meaning “eight”, however, the Naiman spoke a Turkic language and their titles were Turkic titles. It is possi ble that they were Mongolised Turks.4

1 2 3 4

RASHIDUDDIN in THACKSTON 1998, 68. Ibid., 67. JUVAYNI in BOYLE 1997, 36-37. The ethnicity of the Naiman is also debated. See MURAYAM 1958-1959 in Central Asiatic Journal 4 (1958-59), 188-198.

Medieval Sources On The Naiman Christians and on Their Prince Küchlüg Khan

259

3. The Naiman as Christians As any other nomadic people on the Steppe, the Naiman once practiced Sha manism as their primal religion. However, at some point in early medieval times, Christian missionary activities reached some Turkic tribes in the Steppe, including the Naiman. Medieval historians and travelers referred to the Kerait and the Naiman as Nestorian Christian groups. John of Piano Carpini (ca. 1180-1252) in his Ystoria Mongolorum described the Naiman as pagan (“qui sunt pagani”).5 This was his observation as he en tered the land of the Naiman in the middle of the 13th century. This alluded to us that he might have met some groups of Naiman who practiced Shamanism. William of Rubruck (ca. 1210-1270) who traveled to the Mongol capital of Karakorum in the middle of the 13th century reported that in a certain plain among those mountains dwelt a certain Nestorian who was a mighty shepherd, and lord over the people called Naiman, who were Nestorian Christians. Et in quadam planicie inter illas alpes erat quidam nestorinus, pastor potens et do6 minus super populum qui dicebatur Naiman, qui errant christiani nestorini.

And when their Coir Cham (Gurkhan) died, that Nestorian raised himself to be King (in his place), and the Nestorians used to call him King John, and to tell things of him ten times in excess of the truth.7 The mountain and plain areas, which Rubruck mentioned above, were where the Black Cathayans (Kara Kitai) inhabited. Rubruck described that the Naiman called themselves Black Ca thayans (Kara Kitan) in order to distinguish themselves from the proper Catha yans (Kitan) who dwelt upon the ocean in the Far East.8 According to Juvayni (1226-1283), the Naiman were for the most part Chris tian.9 However, there lacks information on the Naiman conversion to Christian ity. Since the Naiman were neighbors to the Kerait, their conversion may go back to the same missionary origin. However, one clue may point to the Uighur among whom we know they were Christians.10 The Uighur were the southern neighbors of the Naiman. As they left Upper Mongolia after the fall of the Uighur Khanate in 840, they had handed down their cultural tradition to the Naiman and the Kerait.11 The Uighur engaged themselves in trade with both nomadic tribes and the Chinese.

VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 115. Ibid., 206. 7 Ibid., 205-206. 8 Ibid., 206. 9 JUVAYNI-BOYLE 1997, 64. 10 Carpini wrote about the Uighur who were Christians of the Nestorian sect. See “VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 55. 11 DAWSON 1980, x. 5 6

260

Li Tang

4. Küchlüg, the Naiman Prince More information about the Naiman is available from Muslim sources, which is connected to the person named Küchlüg 屈出律, the son of the Naiman ruler Tayang Khan 太阳汗. However, Küchlüg was by no means a positive person ality in Muslim sources, but rather a notorious figure due to his persecutions of Muslims. In Juvayni’s Tarik-i Jahangusha, Küchlüg was portrayed as an unjust and cruel conqueror.12 Chinese standard history only mentioned him briefly. He was called the “King of Maiman” 13 in Liao Shi [History of the Liao Dynasty]. Chinggis Khan attacked the Naiman around 1204, the Year of the Rat, captured their head, Tayang Khan and finished him off. It was during this battle that the Naiman tumbled down the Naqu Qun Mountains (纳忽山崖).14 Chinggis Khan then defeated the Naiman on the southern side of the Altai Mountain and sub jugated them. Chinggis Khan then took the wife of Tayang Khan as his wife. At He the immediately time whenescaped his father and was fled killed, to his Küchlüg uncle Buiruq, was staying the brother somewhere of Tayang else.15 Khan. However, Buiruq was also killed later. Küchlüg, together with some of his Naiman people then joined Toqto’a of the Merkit near the Irtysh River in 1205, the year of the Ox. Soon later Chinggis Khan arrived, Toqto’ died at the hands of the Mongols. The Naiman and the Merkit retreated and tried to cross the Irtysh River, but most of their men were drowned. Küchlüg together with some of his followers managed to cross the river and were heading towards the Gurkhan of the Kara Kitai on the Chu River.16 Juvayni recorded that Küchlüg struck the road for Beshbaligh (today’s Jimsar in Xinjiang吉木养尔), and from thence he came to Kucha, where he wandered in the mountains without food or sustenance, while those of his tribe that had accompanied him were scattered far and wide. He finally fled to the Gurkhan of the Kara Kitai.17

5. Küchlüg, the Usurper in Kara Kitai The Dynasty of Kara Kitai, also called the Western Liao Dynasty (1124-1218), was established by Yelü Tashi (reigned, 1124-1144), the former officer of the Kitai Liao Dynasty. After the Jurchen conquered the Kitai Liao Empire in 1124, Yelü Dashi assembled his troops and escaped westward. His journey to the west became a journey of conquest. He conquered many small Muslim ter ritories in Central Asia. In 1130, upon arrival at the Chu River, Yelü Dashi es JUVAYNI-BOYLE 1997, 65. TUO 1902, vol. 30. ONON 1990, 101. 15 Ibid., 100-102. 16 Ibid., 104-105. 17 JUVAYNI-BOYLE 1997, 62. 12 13 14

Medieval Sources On The Naiman Christians and on Their Prince Küchlüg Khan

261

tablished his own Empire, the Western Liao Dynasty and he named himself “Gurkhan”, meaning “the Universal Khan”. The empire is known in Arab and western sources as Kara Kitai. Chinese historical record Liao Shi [History of the Liao Dynasty] vol. 30 does give reference to the founder of the Western Liao Dynasty, that is, Yelü Dashi (or Yelü Taishi), but the information only covers the beginning stage of his political career. Since Kara Kitai was geo graphically closer to Central Asian Muslim territory, Persian and Arab sources have additional notices on this dynasty. Persian historian Juvayni in his Tarik-i Jahangusha18 provides some extra information about the conquest of Yelü Dashi in Central Asia. Since Juvayni’s work was compiled a century later than the founding of the Western Liao Dynasty, confusion of names did occur in his work. In the subsequent decades, the Kara Kitan conquered the Turkic Karakhanid Kingdom, which was centered on Kashgar and Balasaghun. The Karakhanid Kingdom was the first Turkic State that embraced Islam in the 10th century. The Gurkhan’s army then went on occupying Buhkara and Khorezmia.19 The ruler of Western Liao now became the overlord across Central Asia. The East ern and Western Karakhanates, the Uighur Kingdom of Qočo and Khorezmia all became subject to the Western Liao Empire. The Kitan people were for the most part idolaters mingled with Shamanistic elements. Some of them also accepted Buddhism. As Yelü Dashi conquered Central Asia and the eastern part of Turkistan where Islam had been a state re ligion for more than a century, many Muslims fell in the battle and later Mus lims in these areas had to submit to the rule of Gurkhan. However, after the conquest, Yelü Dashi realized the importance of religious tolerance and there fore, began to exercise a lenient religious policy. He allowed the conquered people to continue to practice their own religion as long as they paid taxes to his empire. This situation continued for some decades. However, this religious tolerance came to an end when Küchlüg 屈出律(reigned, 1211-1218) usurped power in the Western Liao Empire. As Küchlüg escaped to Kara Kitai in 1208, he managed to win favor from the Gurkhan Yelü Zhilugu (reigned, 178-1211). According to Juvayni’s record, as the Sultan Muhammad Khorazm-Shah began to revolt against the Gurkhan, the princes in Qočo also responded in revolt. Küchlüg took the chance to show off before the Gurkhan by promising him that he would gather his forces to assist the Gurkhan. The Gurkhan, after being deceived by Küchlüg’s words, pre sented Küchlüg with many gifts and bestowed upon him the title “Küchlüg Khan”. Küchlüg’s name was soon popular around the region and he succeeded in gathering his own forces, which soon became a huge army. Küchlüg soon plotted against the Gurkhan by asking the Sultan’s army to make a converging attack on the Gurkhan. Küchlüg made an oath to the Sultan that if the Sultan 18 19

Ibid., 354-361. BARTHOLD 1958, 325-326.

262

Li Tang

were the first to conquer the territory of the Gurkhan; the Gurkhan’s entire kingdom would be surrendered to him; if Küchlüg took the lead, then all the territory to the River of Fanakat should belong to Küchlüg. But the war resulted in the victory of the Gurkhan.20 However, the Gurkhan in his course committed excesses to his people and de stroyed their homes. This aroused great resentment among the population. Küchlüg by taking advantage of this emotional crisis of the population captured the Gurkhan and put him into prison. As a result, he himself seized the king dom and its army.21 Küchlüg became the ruler of Western Liao in 1212/3. The fate of Muslims in the Western Liao soon changed as Küchlüg assumed power. Küchlüg was a Naiman ruler of the Kara Kitai Kingdom. Since the Naiman tribe was one of the few Christian tribes on the Steppe, Küchlüg was originally a Christian of the East Syrian rite. Küchlüg took Qunqu, the maiden of the Gurkhan to wife. Qunqu was a Buddhist. According to Juvayni, this maiden, Qunqu, the daughter of the Gürkhan and Bürbesü persuaded Küchlüg to give up his Christian faith and become a Buddhist. She demanded Küchlüg to turn idolater like herself and to abjure his Christianity.22 Küchlüg then aban doned the Christian faith. As Juvayni wrote, the injustice, oppression and cru elty began as Küchlüg and his army plundered and trampled on the people in Kashgar, most of them Muslims, and devoured the crops of the peasants and consumed them with fire. The people were left in hunger.23 Küchlüg is portrayed as a cruel persecutor of Muslims in Juvayni’s work. He began to attack Khotan (Yutian) where he commanded the people there to ab jure Islam, giving them three choices: adopting Christianity or Buddhism; or putting on the garb of the Kitayans. The Muslims in Khotan chose to wear Kitayan garb instead of changing their religion. Muslim prayers were forbidden; their schools were closed and destroyed. The peak of this persecution was reached when all the imams in town were asked to wear Kitayan garb and to assemble on the plain. Küchlüg asked them to debate with him on the issue of religion. Imam ‘Ala-adin Muhammad of Khotan ventured to come out and dis pute with Küchlüg. Being furious about the accusation of the imam, Küchlüg crucified the imam upon the door of the Islamic college right after a severe tor ture.24 Küchlüg’s cruel rule was soon threatened by the Mongols. Chinggis Khan set out to attack the countries of the Sultan and also dispatched a group of his sol diers to remove Küchlüg from power in 1218. Küchlüg immediately fled away, but the Mongols were pursuing him till a valley where Küchlüg was finally

Ibid., 63-64. Ibid., 64. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., 65. 24 Ibid., 66. 20

21

Medieval Sources On The Naiman Christians and on Their Prince Küchlüg Khan

263

captured by some hunters there. These hunters handed Küchlüg over to the Mongols who beheaded him afterwards. Under Chinggis Khan, all religious practices were allowed. He gave permission to Muslims to resume their recitation of takbir and azan and caused a herald to proclaim in the town that each should abide by his own religion and follow his own creed.25 The Mongol army continued their victory in Central Asia and East Turkistan. The region of Kashgar and Khotan as well as all territories of the Sultan became subject to the Mongol rule.

4. Some Final Remarks Both Christian and Muslim sources of medieval times noted that the Naiman were for the most part Christians. Some of them were also Shamanists, as most of the traditional nomads were. Some were also converted to Buddhism in the later period as they traveled along the Silk Road. According to the sources cited above, there seemed to be, from the report of William of Rubruck, some confusion about the origin of Prester John. Rubruck mentioned that he was connected with the Naiman, but then later on also said the Prester John had a brother named Ong Khan, the Khan of the Kerait. This may allude to two kinds of possibilities: firstly, it was likely that European travelers in further Asia were constantly searching the legendary figure, Prester John who was, according to the legend, a mighty Christian king in the Far East and whose fabulous story had been popular in Europe since the 12th century. As soon as they saw a Christian ruler in the Far East, they would immediately re late him to the marvelous Prester John. Secondly, the Naiman and the Kerait might have similar if not the same oral legendary tradition about their Christian origin. This made European travelers believe that their Christian traditions all went back to the so-called Prester John. This may also mean that their conver sion could go back to the same missionary source. It is quite likely the case since the Naiman and Kerait were close neighbors. We have sources on the conversion of the Kerait in the beginning of the 11th century, for instance, from Bar Hebraeus26 (although this source may be vague), some may believe that it were the Kerait who carried the Christian faith to the Naiman and the Merkit, as F. Nau noted.27 However, we know from Rashiduddin that the Kerait and the Naiman, though neighbors, were often at war and dispute with each other be cause of scrambling for green pastures.28 It was difficult to assume that peace ful exchanges through which Christian missionary efforts made from the Kerait

Ibid., 67. BUDGE 1932, 204. 27 NAU 1913, 272 28 JUVAYNI-BOYLE 1975, 68. 25

26

264

Li Tang

to the Naiman could happen frequently, although one cannot rule out this pos sibility. Therefore, I would dare to suppose that it were rather the Uighur Christians who brought Christianity to both the Kerait and the Naiman. First, there were enough Uighur Christians in Uighuristan in medieval times as medieval travel ers attested. Marco Polo passed through a province in Uighuristan, which was subject to the great Khan, he saw Uighur Christians near its main city Karahoço who followed the Nestorian rule.29 The 13th century Taoist traveler Chang Chun 长春 (also named Qiu Chuji 邱处机) also mentioned about the King of Diexie, i.e., Tarsa (referring to Christians), who dwelt in Luntai in the Uighur Land near the Yinshan Mountains, came to welcome him.30 Secondly, since the Naiman territory was adjacent to Uighuristan in the South, the Uighur Christians could have spread their religion to their neighbor, the Naiman tribe, through trade contacts. As we know that Nestorian Turkish Christians in Tenduc lived by trade and crafts, for there were made cloths of silk and of gold.31 Thirdly, the Naiman and the Uighur had a good relationship with each other. The Uighur exercised a great influence in terms of culture and language on the Naiman and the Kerait. At the beginning of the 13th century, the king of Nai man employed a Uighur named Tata Tong’a (塔塔统阿) as his scriber and seal-keeper.32 This shows a large amount of trust from the Naiman ruler in the Uighur officer. The Uighur language was the language of officialdom for the Naiman. Through the Uighur, the Naiman also absorbed many Chinese ele ments. One can easily assume that Uighur Christians spread their faith to the Naiman through trade and cultural contacts. William of Rubruck referred to the Naiman as Black Cathayans. The same is true with John of Piano Carpini who also named the Naiman Kara Kitan.33 Since both passed through the area in the same period, what they actually saw should be those Naimans who escaped with Küchlüg Khan to Kara Kitai and later integrated into the Kara Kitai Kingdom. Therefore, they called themselves Black Cathayans or the Kara (Black) Kitan, in order to differentiate themselves from the Kitan. The Naiman who were conquered by Chinggis Khan remained in the Mongol Empire. Chinggis Khan and his sons took Naiman women as wives. Later, the Mongol Khans employed many outstanding Naimans includ ing Naiman Christians in their service. The Naiman was one of the Central Asian peoples who played an important role in the Mongol government. From 1200 to 1368, about 70 Naimans were

MOULE-PELLIOT 1938, 156. LI 1935, 7. (元)李志常, 《长春真人西游记》卷上, 上海:中华书局, 7页. 31 Ibid., 183. 32 See SONG 1903, Vol. 124: Biography 11. 33 VAN DEN WYNGAERT 1929, 53.

29 30

Medieval Sources On The Naiman Christians and on Their Prince Küchlüg Khan

265

active in the Mongol service and 20 of them held positions as high as Darughachis 达鲁花赤, the local or provincial governor.34 Since the Naiman was one of the largest Nations on the Steppe and they were for the most part Christians as the Kerait and the Merkit, it is clearly seen that East Syrian Christianity in medieval times was very prevalent especially among the Turkic-speaking groups on the Mongolian Steppe. As the Mongol rulers employed a large number of Turkic Christians in their administration in central and provincial offices, these Christians played a part in spreading medieval Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China.

Bibliography BUDGE, E.A.W, ed. 1932. The Chronography of Greogory Abu ‘l Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus Being the First Part of His Political History of the World, translated from the Syriac by E. A. W. Budge, etc. (Vol. 1: English Translation; Vol. 2: Facsimiles of the Syriac Texts in the Bodleian MS. Hunt No. 52. London: Oxford University Press. BARTHOLD, W. 1958. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion. London: Messrs. Luzac and Co. Ltd.. DAWSON, Christopher. 1980. Mission to Asia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Anonymous]. 1990. The History and the Life of Chinggis Khan (The Secret History of the Mongols), Translated by Urgunge Onon. Leiden: Brill. JUVAYNI. 1997. ‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Ata Malik (1226-1283). Tarik-i jahangusha. Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror. Translated from the text of Mizra Muhammad Qazvini by J. A. Boyle; with a new introduction and bibliography by David. O. Morgan. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Li Zhichang, ed. 1935. Changchun Zhenren Xiyouji.Vol. 1. Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju. (元)李志常, 《长春真人西游记》卷上, 上海:中华书局。 MOULE, A.C. and Paul PELLIOT, eds. 1938. Marco Polo: The Description of the World. London: G. Routledge. MURAYAM, S. 1958-1959. “Sind die Naiman Türken oder Mongolen?” in Central Asiatic Journal 4 (1958-59), 188-198. NAU, F. 1913. “L’Expansion Nestorienne en Asie” in Annales du Musée Guimet Bibliothéque de Vulgarisation Tome XL. Paris: Librairie Hachette. RASHIDUDDIN Fazlullah. 1998. Jami ‘u’t-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles. A History of the Mongols. Translated and Annotated by W.M. Thackston. Sources of Oriental Languages & Literatures 45. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ROSSABI, Morris. 1983. China Among Equals. Edited by. Berkeley, et al: University of California Press, 1983. SONG, Lian (1310-1381). 1903. Yuanshi [History of the Yuan Dynasty]. Wuzhou tongwen shuju. TUO, Tuo. 1902. Liao Shi. 116 Vols. [History of the Liao Dynasty]. (元)脫脫《遼史》１１６卷。史學會社, 清光緒28年. 34

Statistics is contained in Yuanshi and was gathered by Igor de Rachewiltz. See DE RACHEWILTZ in ROSSABI 1983, 285.

266

Li Tang

VAN DEN WYNGAERT, A. ed. 1929. Sinica Franciscana Vol. 1: Itinera et Relationes Fratrum Minorum Saeculi XIII et XIV. Quaracchi-Firenze: Ad Claras Aquas.

WAS ALOPEN A “MISSIONARY”? Glen L. THOMPSON Wisconsin Lutheran College, USA

The famous “Nestorian” stele,1 erected near Xi’an in A.D. 781 describes the arrival of a Christian delegation at the court of the Tang emperor in 635: And behold there was a highly virtuous man named Alopen in the Kingdom of Da Qin. Having observed the signs in the azure sky, he decided to carry the true sutras with him, and observing the course of the winds, he made his way through difficul ties and perils. Thus in the ninth year of the Chen-kuan period he arrived at Singan-fou (Xi’an). The emperor dispatched his minister of state, the honorable Fang Xuan-ling2 with an imperial guard to the western suburb to meet the visitor and conduct him to the palace. The sutras were translated in the imperial library. The emperor investigated “The Way” in his own forbidden apartments, and being deeply convinced of its correctness and truth, he gave special orders for its propaga tion.3

The literature often refers to Alopen as the first known Christian missionary to China. In this study, I wish to re-examine the situation leading up to and imme diately after 635 in order to provide a more nuanced understanding of what Alopen’s mission was.

1. The Church of the East under Sassanian Rule Alopen was a representative of the large Church of the East, which had for mally declared its independence from Antioch and the western church at a 1

2

3

In modern western accounts the name Nestorian was attached early on both to the stele and to the church which sent Alopen and developed in China. The Chinese term used in the stele is Jingjiao – Luminous Religion. The Persian church called itself the Church of the East. While its historical connection with Nestorius is undoubted, it is questionable whether it propagated a particularly Nestorian theology. However, the name Nestorian has “stuck” and is still widely used for both the ancient church in Persia and its medieval Chinese offspring, partly because there is no brief alternative. We will use the term with this caveat. Fang Xuan-ling (578-648) was the personal secretary and close advisor of Emperor Taizong (ruled 627-649). The son of a Sui prefect, he was known as a fair and efficient administrator. He served 13 year as vice-president of the department of state affairs, the longest tenure of any minister. SeeWECHSLER 1979, 195-196. Coll.10-11; this excerpt from the stele, as well as those that follow, are based on the translation of Saeki with alterations based on Paul Pelliot. See SAEKI 1951, 57 and PELLIOT 1984, 4445.

268

Glen L. Thompson

council in 424. It was centered in western Persia, an area ruled by the Sassanians which had Zoroastrianism (with its priesthood of Magi) as its official relig ion. There the church had been under almost continuous strains and pressures throughout the fifth and sixth centuries. However, a working relationship be tween the local church and the Sassanians had evolved which provided official recognition and toleration for the church in return for loyalty to the government and the latter’s involvement in patriarchal elections.4 Yet there were still peri ods of persecution instigated by the leading Magi and by rival Christian com munities, for by the late fifth century the Church of the East had officially de clared itself to accept the theology of Nestorius.5 In addition, the Sassanian Empire was frequently in conflict with the Byzantine Empire, and as a result the Persian Christians were often under suspicion of aiding the Christian By zantines. Periods of tension at times grew into full-blown persecutions – first from 339-379 under Shapur II, then again the following century during the reigns of Yazdgard I (419-420), Bahram V (420-422) and Yazdgard II (439457), and finally in the period following 562 when Khusrau I made proselytiz ing by Christians a capital offense.6 It was felt again between 622 and 628 when the Byzantine emperor Heraclios made a series of invasions, driving deep into Persia. This latter threat had barely ended when Arabic Islamic raiders launched their first attacks. In 632, three years before the arrival of Alopen at the Tang court, the Arabs captured the entire Mesopotamian plain, sealing the fate of the Sassanian realm.7 Arab rule brought no relief to the Christians in Persia. Nestorian writers give conflicting accounts of the earliest period of Muslim rule, but references to some early official recognition of Christians are probably inaccurate. Morony concludes that the Nestorians and other Persian Christians received no special status at first, and were thus subjected to the same “disruptive and destructive” 4

5

6

7

The Nestorians became the only Christian group that was a recognized religious minority (mil let) and the Nestorian patriarch was therefore their official spokesman. The need for accom modation with the Sassanian rulers had contributed to the deep rivalries within the Church of the East. Since at least the mid-sixth century, aristocratic and monastic parties had regularly put forward rival candidates in patriarchal elections. The patriarch who sent out Alopen was Ishoyahb II of Gadala (628-646), the monastic party candidate who had been nominated by King Kavad II during his brief reign. With the excommunication of Nestorius by the western church, many of his followers moved into Persia. Asmussen also sees Nestorian Christology as being attractive to Iranian converts who had grown up in the milieu of Zoroastrianism. See ASMUSSEN 1983, 943-945) However Monophysite and “orthodox” (i.e. those in fellowship with the non-Monophysite or Melkite bishop of Antioch) Christians were also to be found in Persia throughout this period. Cf. ASMUSSEN 1983, 936-46; CHRISTENSEN 1944, 256-315; and MOFFETT 1998, 13747 and 160-61. Physical remains of executed Christians have been found in a Sassanian royal palace according to Ghirshman. See GHIRSHMAN 1952, 7-8. For the names of the Sassanid rulers we follow the spelling used in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3, ed. YARSHATER 1979. On Christianity under the Sassanians see MORONY 1984, 332-83 and BAUM - WINKLER 2000, 32-41.

Was Alopen a „Missionary“?

269

acts as all other non-Muslims, including destructive raids, the taking of cap tives, and monks fleeing to the mountains.8 Thus, the experience of Persian Christians in this period ranged from suffering death at the hands of raiders to living almost as normal a life as previously. While many individual Christians who experienced duress in aspects of their public or private life continued to live under the uncertainty and debilities im posed by the government or society, others would have chosen to emigrate to a place where they could live and worship more freely. This latter group proba bly increased significantly during the uncertain years of the late sixth and early seventh centuries. Christian emigrants from Persia did not have many choices. To the south the Arabian Desert with its increasingly militaristic Arab armies offered little hope for a peaceful or prosperous life. To the west the Byzantine Empire, which had so recently invaded their lands, was probably also viewed as a less than promis ing alternative. The north was a possibility, but the rugged mountains would have been viewed as a challenge for the traditional plains-dwellers. That left the east as the most favorable alternative, the lands along the silk routes which stretched as far as China.

2. The Eastward Expansion of Christianity This exodus, probably not dramatic enough to be noticed by contemporary ob servers, merely increased the numbers of Christians who had moved eastwards in the preceding centuries. Sassanian and Sogdian traders had served for centu ries as the middlemen for trade between China and the Roman Empire. From the second century on, Christians had undoubtedly been among the Mesopotamian merchants who had traveled the silk routes. As noted above, Christianity had taken deep root in the western part of the Sassanian Empire and by the sixth century the Church of the East had come to be a numerical and political force in Mesopotamia. From there, the faith had already spread into the area which is now Iran. Christians remained a small minority, however, except in the southwestern province of Fars and in the northeastern areas along the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, where it found more fertile soil.9 From the southern Caspian area, the Christian message must have spread fur ther eastwards along the silk routes into Khorasan and Margiana, the area 8

9

MORONY 1984, 343-46. Browne agrees with this portrayal, while BAUM - WINKLER paints a much rosier picture of accommodation between the church and the new Arab regime. BROWNE 1967, 38-43 and BAUM – WINKLER 2000, 42-46. On the spread of Christianity in these two areas, cf. SPULER 1952, 210-13. Asmussen also notes that a significant number of captured Syriac and Greek Christians had been moved to Persis (Fars), Parthia, and Susiana (Khuzistan) by Shapur in 256 and 260, and these must have swelled the number and variety of Christians in the Sassanid realm. ASMUSSEN 1983, 929930.

270

Glen L. Thompson

which extended from the Aral Sea and the delta of the Oxus River southwards. Merv was the early center of Christianity in this area. It had a Nestorian bishop by 424, and was the site of a metropolitan by 554. Herat was another key cen ter, and was also home to a metropolitan by 585. Nestorian church councils of the fifth and sixth centuries list no fewer than twenty bishoprics in the area of Eastern Persia up to the Oxus.10 The archaeological evidence for Christianity in this region includes ossuaries decorated with crosses from the late seventh cen tury and some late seventh and early eighth century coins depicting rulers of Khwarizm with crosses on their crowns.11 From there the faith spread further eastwards into Sogdiana (today’s southern Uzbekistan), though the details are more sketchy. In the centuries before the Arab conquest, this region was controlled by Sogdians, then the Hephthalites (White Huns), and finally by tribes of the Western Turks. While none of these groups became Christians en masse, there is evidence for a substantial Chris tian presence here as early as the fourth century. Sogdian was the lingua franca of the silk routes by that time, and translations of Christian literature into Sog dian appeared by the late fifth century.12 Samarkand eventually became the seat of another Nestorian metropolitan, probably by the early sixth century.13 The faith would have spread further eastwards from Samarkand along the silk routes to the Turkic peoples around the Kashgar oases and the steppes of mod ern Kyrgistan, then north around the Taklamakan Desert and Tarim Basin to the oases of Turfan. These areas on the western edge of China were part of the Göktürk or Tujue Empire until its break-up in 584. While most of the evidence for Christianity in this area comes from a later period, some Christians were most likely present by the sixth century.14 After the creation of the new Sui The Synodicon Orientale’s list of bishops attending the synod of Markabta in 424 includes Bar Saba of Merv, while the synod of Mar Josef in 554 lists David, metropolitan of Merv, as ab sent from the synod but giving written assent to its actions (CHABOT 1902, 285 & 366). Cf. also MINGANA 1925, 23-26, BARTOLD 1901, 14-22, and ASMUSSEN 1983, 932. 11 On the ossuaries cf. GRENET 1984, 141-47. On both, ossuaries and coins cf. NERAZIK 1999, 46 (with parts in English translation at http://www.kroraina.com/ca/h_khorezm.html). 12 On the importance of the Sogdian language cf. La Vaissière and Dresden who dates the first examples of Christian literature to the mid-fifth century. See LA VAISSIÈRE 2005 and DRESDEN 1983, 1225-1227. 13 On Samarkand see the anonymous Syriac Monophysite Chronicle and the Life of Mar Aba. Colless surmises that the variety of dates given in the ancient sources for creating a metropoli tan at Samarkand (early 5th century, early sixth century, and early eighth century) are due to 10

the successive invasions. Thus metropolitans had to be re-created after each new kingdom was established. See COLLESS 1986, 52. 14 On the mass of later Christian documents found at Turfan and written in Syriac, Sogdian, and other languages, cf. SIMS-WILLIAMS 1992, 43-56. On the earlier situation, Thrower who states that “By the seventh century, on the eve of the Arab conquest, Christianity was also widespread among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia.” See THROWER 2004, 89. Watson also confirms that Sogdians had settled in the Tarim Basin by this period. It is likely that a small minority of these were also Christians. See WATSON 1983, 553. On the spread of Christianity further north into Kirgizstan, cf. KLEIN 2000.

Was Alopen a „Missionary“?

271

Empire in China and the Tang Dynasty which followed it, China increasingly supported Turkic tribes such as the Tiele (ancestors of the Uighur people) against their Turkic rivals.15 Chinese sources document the frequent diplomatic and military contacts that connected these Turkish peoples with the Byzantines and the Chinese during the late-sixth and seventh centuries. They also describe the resettlement in Chinese territory of tens of thousands of captured Turks.16

3. Christians in China before 635 The incomplete picture we have of this period in Central Asian history prevents us from making definitive statements about the spread of Christianity into China before 635.17 However, the sources do make it clear that the areas through which the silk routes ran were very cosmopolitan, with traders and set tlers from many backgrounds and religions. Thus it is most probable that, just as numerous Christians came to reside along the western three-quarters of the route, they did so also at the Turkic and Chinese end. The missionary zeal of the Nestorian church also made it likely that Nestorian Christians intentionally took part in this diverse mix of humanity. Yet we do not have specific notices of Christians in China before Alopen, just as the incomplete written sources and archaeological record only occasionally give us details of the many east ern-flowing Zoroastrian, Manichaean, Buddhist and Shamanistic migrants.18

By the time of Alopen, the Western Turks controlled much of the silk routes -- from the Jade (Yumen) Gate (the West end of the Great Wall) to Persia. They were driven with internal divi sions, and so Taizong began to play off the various sides against each other. However it was the mid-640s before the Tang began to conquer this key area. During the 630s, the oases king doms of Karashahr and Karakhoja also played important roles in the political arena along the silk routes . See WECHSLER 1979, 223-24. 16 Cf. GROUSSET 1970, 80-89, and Von GABAIN 1983. Grousset documents the similar spread of Buddhism from India into China as early as the third and fourth centuries via the Tarim Ba sin (pp. 48-53). 17 The paucity of archaeological evidence in Central Asia was made clear by W. Sundermann during a conference on Sogdian religion. After asking "Why did we not yet find Buddhist sanctuaries in Sogdiana?" Sundermann responded, “I cannot claim to provide an answer. But I should point out that we are confronted with just the same question when we are reflecting on Manichaeism in Sogdiana.” After adducing several ancient testimonies to its presence Sun dermann concludes, “And yet, so far no certain traces of Manichaeism seem to have been found in what was formerly Sogdiana. See, MARSAK - RASPOPOVA 1991, 195. 18 Saeki says “it is recorded in Chinese History that even in 578 A.D. (xuān zhèng zhījì), already a great Nestorian family of Mar Sargis immigrated from the Western Lands to Lin-t’ao, Kansu.” He cites this after saying that “the propagation of Nestorianism or the emigration of the Nestorians into China must naturally have preceded this public entrance of the missionaries in 635 A.D.” See SAEKI 1951, 85-86. I have been unable to confirm his statement, however. Saeki also believed that other missionaries or Christian immigrants preceded “this public en trance” of Alopen (p. 85-86). 15

272

Glen L. Thompson

However, there is indirect evidence to support the conclusions that Christians were part of the flow of peoples and cultures along the silk routes and that China was also an early target of Nestorian mission zeal. For example, contact of the Church of the East with China is implied in the account of “Indian” (i.e. Nestorian) Christian monks bringing silkworms to Constantinople in 552.19 The Nestorian Stele’s text also implies a widespread Christian presence within China. It states that Emperor Gaozong (649-683) granted permission for Chris tian centers in each prefecture and province: Gaozong … added new ornaments to the True Religion. He allowed for the estab lishment of a Luminous monastery in each prefecture. He showed new favor to Alopen, conferring on him the title of Great Lord of the Law, Guardian of the Realm. The law spread through the ten provinces, and the empire enjoyed immense happiness. Monasteries were built in a hundred cities, and families prospered with great blessings.20

This favorable decree is likely to have come no later than the mid-650s, before the future Empress Wu came to dominate imperial policy,21 i.e. within two dec ades of the arrival of Alopen’s delegation. It is unlikely that twenty years of even very successful evangelism would have resulted in such widely spread communities needing to be served. Rather, the stele’s statement is more likely an indication that numerous Christian immigrants were settled throughout China already before 635. The natural immigration eastwards that resulted from the silk route trading would have increased dramatically at its eastern end in the first third of the sev enth century with the Byzantine and Arab invasions, just as it did at its western end due to the Turkic-Chinese wars. As the Sassanian Empire fell to pieces, numerous Persians, rich and poor alike, would have sought to keep their fami lies and possessions safe by emigrating. The king’s son and other Sassanian of ficials are known to have made numerous diplomatic trips to Xi’an, first to the court of the Sui and later to the Tang emperors, seeking military help. Eventu ally the Sassanian royal family would establish a court in exile there.22

The incident is recorded by Procopius, De Bello Gothico 4.17 and Theophanes (cf. MÜLLER 1849-1884, 270). The mention of India should remind us that there was also a sea route for the silk trade from China via Vietnam and India to Byzantium. 20 Cf. coll. 15-16. It is tempting to see the imperial title granted to Alopen as a confirmation of the patriarch’s appointment of Alopen as a bishop or metropolitan. On the translation, see note 3. 21 Wu Zhao, the future Empress Wu Zetian, had replaced empress Wang as the chief consort by 655, and was in almost total control after Gaozong suffered a stroke in 660. On her rise to power, cf. TWITCHETT -WECHSLER 1979, 244-253. 22 On the court in exile, cf. FRYE 1983, 176 and TWITCHETT -WECHSLER 1979, 280. 19

Was Alopen a „Missionary“?

273

Among the diplomatic and royal retinues would have been Christians since they often filled important royal posts such as court physicians.23 Highly edu cated Nestorians would later do the same for the Islamic caliphs, serving also as legal scholars, tutors, counselors, ambassadors, and astronomers. Though our sources are sketchier, it is likely the situation was similar under the Sassanians. The Christians who were part of the diplomatic missions to China may even have brought their own clergy or chaplains with them on the long journey.24

4. Alopen’s Arrival and Status Having shown that there must have been numerous Christians (and perhaps even some clergy) already living in China when Alopen arrived, we can now better interpret Alopen’s mission. Christianity is a communal religion that re volves around communities of worship and instruction. Thus, those Persian, Sogdian and Turkic Christians already living in China would naturally seek each other out and gather for worship; these communities would require clergy to shepherd them and to administer the sacraments. If there were some clergy already present, they too needed oversight, an episcopal or diocesan structure in which to function as the number of émigrés continued to grow. It would have been natural for them to send back word to the patriarch in Persia, asking for an official delegation of clergy to formalize the church structure and ser vices in China and its capital city. A similar request had come a century earlier from the Hephthalites according to the History of Mar Aba. In 549, they re quested the Nestorian patriarch to appoint a bishop specifically to serve their country.25 And while we do not have record of a request being made, Ishoyahb II, the Persian patriarch from 628-643, is known to have dispatched the first metropolitan to India on a similar mission of organization and consolidation.26 Thus, in all likelihood, it was in answer to a plea from Christians in China that Alopen and his companions were sent out by Ishoyahb in 635, and that it was a On Nestorian royal physicians under the Sassanians, cf. ASMUSSEN 1983, 946 and BAUM WINKLER 2003, 39, 64-69. On their importance under the early caliphs, see KHANBAGHI 2006, 39. On the schools which educated such men, cf. MORONY 1984, 359-61. 24 Chinese sources are replete with examples and parodies of the Zoroastrian and Manichaean immigrants living among them. The lack of references to Christians is most likely a result of their less distinctive lifestyles and the fact that they did not tend to be ghettoized like the two Persian religions. La Vaissière declares that “the fifth and sixth centuries were certainly the high days of Sogdian emigration to China.” LA VAISSIÈRE 2003. 25GILMAN - KLIMKEIT 1999, 212; MINGANA 1925, 10-11, citing the edition of Bedjan 1895, 266-69. The text also mentions a letter being sent simultaneously to the Sassanid king: “The Hephthalite Khudai sent a priest as a messenger to the King of Kings, and the Hephtahlites who were Christians also wrote a letter to the patriarch requesting him to ordain as a bishop for the entire Hephthalite kingdom the priest they had sent” (my adaptation of Gilman’s translation). 26 MOFFETT 1998, 257. 23

274

Glen L. Thompson

request to serve the immigrant Christian population which they presented to the Tang emperor.27 The emperor responded to Alopen’s arrival in 635 with an imperial decree in 638, part of which is quoted in the text of the Nestorian Stele, and which is confirmed in another Tang historical text: The Persian monk Alopen, bringing texts and images from afar, has come to offer them at the supreme capital. … As they are of help to the beings, and of profit to men, it is proper to have them circulate under the sky [i.e. throughout the empire]. Let the responsible authorities, therefore, in the Yining quarter of the capital, build one Persian monastery, and ordain twenty-one monks.28

Antonino Forte, while editing unpublished notes of Pelliot, examined the edict of 638 in detail, finding that except for a few accommodations for its eighthcentury readers, the text provided in the stele is accurate. Furthermore, he con cluded that the edict was the response to a specific request to the Chinese em peror by the Sassanian king Yazdgard III.29 Among the arguments he adduces are the following: a) the government would be unlikely to hear, much less to grant, the petition of a foreign monk to establish a new foreign religious com munity; b) Christianity was officially referred to in Chinese documents as the “Persian” religion;30 c) Peroz II, the Persian king in exile, is known to have pe titioned for the establishment of a second monastery in the capital in 677; d) the Nestorian church was officially protected by the Persian government;31 and e) the emperor would have only sent a state minister to meet an official state dele gation. Forte also shows that the lack of other historical documentation for a 635 Persian delegation is not unusual, since many foreign delegations were not recorded in official Tang histories.32

This practice would further be in line with that of other famous early churchmen who have become known to us as apostles or missionaries, such as Ulfilas among the Goths and Augustine of Canterbury among the English. While their work included preaching to those outside the church, it was centered on organizing the faithful, providing trained clergy, and es tablishing the ecclesiastical structures needed for the future. 28 Coll. 12-13, translation of A. Forte (PELLIOT 1996, 357). The edict is also found in the Tang huiyao. Forte has a full study of the text with translation and commentary (ibid., 349-73). 29 Again this parallels the earlier situation of the aforementioned Christian Hephthalites. They sent a request for a bishop both to the patriarch and to the Sassanid king (see note 26 above). 30 An edict of 745 ordered the changing of the name of the Christian monasteries from Bosi (Per sian) to Da Qin (“from the West”, i.e. Syrian, Roman, Byzantine) since “the texts and teaching of Persia originated in Da Qin.” Thus the stele of 781 by law uses the latter term, while the edict of 638 was originally published using the former. Cf. FORTE in PELLIOT 1996, 353-55. 31 See note 4 above. 32 FORTE, in PELLIOT 1996, 362-65. There was a Persian delegation that arrived in 638 (TWITCHETT - WECHSLER 1979, 280) and it is conceivable that the Tang officials had requested some sort of supporting materials or verification of the first request and that this ar rived with that delegation. 27

Was Alopen a „Missionary“?

275

Thus Forte agrees that the edict indicates that Christianity was present in China before Alopen’s arrival.33 Forte’s thesis that Alopen was part of an official Sassanian delegation is very likely and fits well into our overall thesis. The Chris tians in China requested a bishop from the patriarch in Persia. The patriarch agreed to the idea, and then, as leader of the sanctioned Christian church in Persia, he approached the Sassanian court to support his request to the Chinese officials, and the king acquiesced and drew up the proper documents. Whether Alopen joined an already planned delegation, waited some time for the next one to leave, or whether he and his companions were a delegation unto them selves is uncertain. In any case he would have been traveling as an official delegate of Patriarch Ishoyahb II and he would have been carrying a petition from the Sassanian king. But if Alopen was part of an official delegation which arrived in 635, why did it take three years for the decree to be issued? While following normal protocol in receiving the foreign delegation, the Tang court would have been well aware that the Sassanian Empire was in the process of disintegration. There was no political reason to move forward quickly with this particular request. Therefore, the emperor, following normal procedures in such matters, would have turned the request over to his religious affairs bureau, which oversaw all religious ac tivity. The bureau would have investigated the moral and political teachings and practices of the new religion. Translation of key writings, as noted in the preceding section of the stele cited earlier, would have been part of the inquiry, as well as investigating local adherents and making further inquiries of the Sas sanian officials who had long familiarity with this religion. Thus it is easy to visualize several years elapsing before the request was granted and the gov ernment bureaus were directed to give the appropriate assistance and coopera tion, years during which the ongoing wars in Persia and among the Western Turks would have led to the influx of still more Christians. Again, it should be made clear that the imperial government did not give some sort of encourage ment for the spreading of the new teachings among the native Chinese popula tion, although it does not seem to have prohibited that either. As for the stele’s claim that the emperor took a personal interest in the investigations (see the quote on p. 1), that statement, together with the subsequent claim that “he gave special orders for its propagation,” is merely a slanted interpretation of provi sions of the edict of 638 as viewed by the inscription’s author, a Christian apologist writing a century and a half later.

5. Completing the Mission Christianity is by its very nature an evangelistic religion and the Nestorian church was especially zealous in spreading the message. So, even though

33

Ibid., p. 363.

276

Glen L. Thompson

Alopen’s first mission was to gain permission to serve the émigré population and to establish a functioning clergy and hierarchy for it, the success of those endeavors would have encouraged further evangelism. Just as it was the laity, not the clergy, who had first spread the faith from Persia to China, this is un doubtedly how Christianity continued to grow within China itself. Once the Church of the East had been legally established in the Middle Kingdom, its ad herents were in an even better situation for sharing their faith with their neighbors, including the native Chinese. This was made easier since, unlike other immigrant populations, there is no indication that the Christian Persians lived in segregated areas. Thus Alopen’s original mission also contained the seeds for a more general evangelistic mission as well. The surviving Christian documents from the Tang Dynasty, written in Chinese, indicate that this evangelistic mission among the Chinese began occurring shortly after Alopen’s arrival, if not before. Christian communities of necessity always produce three types of literature – liturgical texts, catechetical and hagiographical works, and apologetic or evangelistic tracts. We have found in China literature from the Tang period in all three of these categories, written not just in Syriac, but also in Chinese. Similarly, later texts of similar content are found at Turfan written in Sogdian, Uighur and Persian, as well as in Syriac.34 Immigrant churches almost always maintain connections with and fierce loy alty to their mother church, and this is shown by the preservation of worship, at least in part, in the mother language. But as new generations arrive, worship eventually begins using the new language as well. Again, this is just what the evidence indicates happened among the Persian Christians in China.35 On the stele we find a very elegant Chinese text with names of clergy added in Syriac. Thus Alopen and company probably did encourage (and perhaps even engage in) more basic evangelistic mission work, even though their first mission was more official, pastoral and administrative. This reading of the evidence helps us make proper sense of the stele text as well, so that we neither dismiss it as pure propaganda, nor over-interpret it to indicate either enthusiastic support at the imperial court or widespread and wholesale conversions throughout the empire. We may never have enough evidence to piece together the true extent of Chris tianity’s spread in Tang dynasty China.

There is no up-to-date comprehensive study on the early Christian Chinese documents, but see the various articles in MALEK 2006. On the later Turfan and Dunhuang Christian manu scripts, see SIMS-WILLIAMS 1992. 35 On the languages used for religious purposes in Central Asia and its religions, cf. the helpful study of FRYE 1991, especially the chart (plate 64). 34

Was Alopen a „Missionary“?

277

Bibliography ASMUSSEN, J. P. 1983. “Christians in Iran,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.2 The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. Yarshater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 924-48. BARTOLD, V. 1901. Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur Mongolischen Eroberung. Tübingen; Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr. BAUM, Wilhelm and Dietmar WINKLER 2000. The Church of the East: A Concise History London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2000. BEDJAN, Paul 1895. Histoire de Mar Jab-alaha, patriarche et de Raban Sauma. Leip zig: O. Harrassowitz. BROWNE, Laurence 1967. The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia, From the Time of Mu hammad Till the Fourteenth Century. New York: Fertig. CHRISTENSEN, Arthur 1944. L’Iran sous les Sassanides, 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. COLLESS, B. E. 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarqand,” Abr-Nahrain 24 (1986): 51-57. DRESDEN, Mark 1983. “Sogdian Language and Literature,” in The Cambridge His tory of Iran, vol. 3.2 The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. Yar shater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1216-1229. FRYE, R. N. 1983. “The Political History of Iran Under the Sasanians,” in The Cam bridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1 The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. Ehsan Yarshater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116-80. FRYE, R. N. 1991. “Les Sogdiens et les religions de l'Asie centrale,” in Histoire et cultes de l'Asie Centrale préislamique: sources écrites et documents archéologiques: Colloque international: Papers. Paris: CNRS, 163-167. GHIRSHMAN, R. 1952. “Cinq campagnes de fouilles à Suse, 1946-1951,” Revue d’Assyriologie 46 (1952) : 1-18. GILLMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT. 1999. Christians in Asia Before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. GRENET, Frantz. 1984. Les pratiques funéraires de l'Asie centrale sédentaire: de la conquete grecque à l'islamisation. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recher che scientifique. GROUSSET, René. 1970. The Empire of the Steppes. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. KHANBAGHI, Aptin. 2006. The Fire, the Star, and the Cross: Minority Religions in Medieval and Early Modern Iran. London: I.B. Tauris. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Silk Road Studies 3. Turnhout Belgium: Brepols. LA VAISSIÈRE, Étienne. 2007. “Sogdians in China: A Short History and Some New Discoveries,” Silkroad Foundation Newsletter 1, no. 2 (December 2003), http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/december/new_discoveries.htm (ac cessed September 24, 2007). LA VAISSIÈRE, Étienne. 2005. Sogdian traders: a History, translated by James Ward. Leiden: Brill. MACKERRAS, Colin. 1972. The Uighur Empire According to the T’ang Dynasty His tories: A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations 744-840. Columbia, S. Carolina: Univer sity of South Carolina Press.

278

Glen L. Thompson

MALEK, Roman. 2006. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica. MINGANA, Alphonse. 1925. The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document. Manchester: University Press. MOFFETT, Samuel H. 1998. A History of Christianity in Asia, I: Beginnings to 1500, 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco. MORONY, Michael. 1984. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest. Princeton: Princeton Uni versity Press, 1984. MÜLLER, Karl. 1849-1884. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Paris: Firmin Didot. NERAZIK, Elena. 1999. “Horezm v IV-VIII vv.,” in Srednyaya Aziya i Daľniy Vostok v epokhu srednevekov’ya. Srednyaya Aziya v rannem srednevekov’e, ed. G. A. Brykina Moskva: Nauka, 30-49. PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. L’Inscription Nestorienne de Si-Ngan-Fou, ed. A. FORTE. Pa ris: Scuola di Studi sull’Asia Orientale, Kyoto. PELLIOT, Paul. 1984. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’extrêmeorient. II,1: La Stèle de Si-ngan-fou. Oevres postumes de Paul Pelliot, ed. J. Dauvillier. Paris, Éditions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac. SAEKI, P. Y. 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, 2nd. ed. Tokyo: Academy of Oriental Culture, Tokyo Institute. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas. 1992. “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tunhuang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Dunhuang, the Texts: Encounter of Civili zations on the Silk Route, ed. Alfredo Cadonna. Firenze: Olschki, 43-61. SPULER, Bertold. 1952. Iran in Früh-Islamischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. THROWER, James. 2004. The Religious History of Central Asia from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press. TWITCHETT, Denis and Howard J. WECHSLER. 1979. “Kao-tsung (Reign 649-83) and the Empress Wu: The Inheritor and the Usurper,” in The Cambridge History of China, vol. 3.1 Sui and T'ang China, 589-906, Part 1, ed. D. TWITCHETT. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 242-289. Von GABAIN, A. 1983. “Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1 The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. Yarshater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 613-624. WATSON, William.1983. “Iran and China,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1 The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. YARSHATER. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 537-558. WECHSLER, Howard J. 1979. “The Founding of the T’ang Dynasty: Kao-tsu (618– 26),” in The Cambridge History of China, vol. 3.1 Sui and T'ang China, 589-906, Part 1, ed. D. Twitchett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 188-241.

CHRISTIANS IN KOREA AT THE END OF THE 13TH CENTURY

Alexander TOEPEL University of Tübingen, Germany

The presence of Christians in Korea at the end of the 13th century is due not to any systematic missionary attempts, but to the country's involvement in Mon golian politics and warfare. It is a well-known fact that there was a great num ber of Christians – notably Nestorian Turks and Greek-Orthodox Alans – who served the Mongols in various parts of Asia as administrators and military leaders. Therefore it will be no surprise to find individual Christians who came to Korea during the Mongol-Yuan period. However, before presenting the evi dence, it will be helpful to first give an outline of the relations between Korea and the Mongols as they developed from the early 13th century onwards. When Genghis Khan first started his campaigns, Korea was known under the name of Koryo. It was nominally a monarchy, but the kings of the ruling Wang dynasty had already by 1170 become mere figure-heads, while real power lay with the members of a quasi-dynastical family of military dictators.1 The first contact between Koryo and the Mongols dates back to 1217 as the Mongols sought military help from the Koreans in their efforts to subdue the Northern Chinese Chin Empire.2 Thanks to the Koreans' fighting prowess, relations be tween the two nations seem to have been good at the beginning. Korea was recognized as a Mongol vassal and in exchange for a moderate tribute was left unhampered.3 In the following years, however, the relationship deteriorated. This was apparently due to the increasingly excessive Mongol demands for tribute, which led to the murder of a Mongol envoy and eventually in 1231 to the invasion of a Mongol army. After initial successes this invasion was 1 2 3

Cf. SHULTZ 2000. For the early history of Korean-Mongol relations, see HENTHORN 1963. To be sure, this holds true only for the Korean peninsula proper. Manchuria, the Liaodong pen insula and parts of Northern Korea were given by Genghis Khan to his fourth and youngest brother Temüge Ötčigin as a personal appanage. cf. HENTHORN 1963, 24 n. 80. The area in question had previously been held by the Jurchen 蒲蒲蒲蒲 [Puxian Wannu] who in 1215 rebelled against the Chin Empire and created his own state under the name of 大大[Dazhen], lit erally „Great Truth“, with its capital in Liaoyang on the Liaodong peninsula; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 5, 24, n. 80. This latter state fully vanquished only in 1233 and its remaining territory likewise was given to Temüge Ötčigin; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 102, 195.

280

Alexander Toepel

brought to a standstill in 1232 and finally had to be called off because of the death of the Mongolian general Sartaq in battle. A major reason for this failure was the fact that the Korean capital, out of fear for the Mongols, had been moved from Kaegyeong (ca. 100 km north of present-day Seoul) to an offshore island by the name of Kanghwa where it was to remain for the next 30 years. Despite several new invasions, this island proved to be unconquerable for the Mongols and their demands upon Korea were accordingly tuned down until they consisted merely of the Korean king's return to the mainland capital and his presentation at the Yuan court. In 1259, a peace-agreement was reached fi nally, which essentially renewed Koryo's status of vassalage to the Mongols. It is important to note here that this agreement was due not only to Korea's mili tary and economical exhaustion but also to frictions within the government which eventually had led to the ousting of the military dictatorship4. It was vital for the Korean king in his return to power not only to stop the Mongol incur sions but also to secure their support against local opponents. Therefore, from 1269 onwards, the relationship between the Koryo royal family and the by now established Yuan dynasty can be called amiable and it remained so until the Yuan's collapse in 1368.5 As a result of this close relationship, after 1270, there were manifold cultural contacts between Korea and the Mongols. This is evident at least by numerous Mongolian loan-words, mostly from the areas of horsemanship and falconry, which entered the Korean language at this time.6 In 1270 for the first time 回回 [huihui] “Muslims” are mentioned in Korea and since this time the Uigur, 4 5

6

Cf. HENTHORN 1963, X. Cf. HENTHORN 1971, 122; HAMBIS 1957 in: TP 45 (1957), 173; LEE 1984, 155. It is im portant to note that the actual status of Korea was perceived differently on the Korean and Mongol side. The Mongols regarded Korea essentially as a province, while the Koreans per ceived themselves as an independent kingdom in a temporal state of vassalage. This discrep ancy is due to the fact that among the twelve provinces of the Yuan empire only its heartland (the area around the capital Khanbaliq [modern Beijing], including Hebei, Shandong, Shanxi and parts of present-day Inner Mongolia) was under direct control of the Mongol emperor. The other provinces were more or less autonomous and assumed in the case of Yunnan and Gansu, both of whom had significant Muslim populations, the status of independent kingdoms; cf. FARQUHAR in LANGLOIS 1981 , 53; KURZ in Conermann - Kusber 1997, 169-172. The Korean king was from 1260 onwards forced to bear the title 國國[guowang], that is, “national king” or “vice-king”, but apart from this he retained his full sovereignty. In 1270 Mongol gov ernors (darugačis) were installed, but these were withdrawn already in 1278 upon request of the Korean king; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 198-199. As will be seen below, Korean kings were from the early 14th century onwards even in a position to use the Yuan institutions for pressing their own wishes against internal opponents. The close and friendly relationship between Ko rea and the Yuan Dynasty is furthermore highlighted by the fact that, even though already in 1356 Mongol rule had effectively broken down in Korea, there were, until the end of the Koryo era (1392) partisans of the Yuan Dynasty in Korea who after the Yuan's fall in 1368 wished to militarily support the spurious “Northern Yuan Dynasty” against the newly rising Ming Dynasty; cf. LEDYARD in ROSSABI 1983, 362-363. Cf. LEE 1964 in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 35 (1964), 188-197.

Christians in Korea at the End of the 13th Century

281

Jurchen and Phagspa scripts were studied by Korean scholars. Mongolian dress and, to a lesser extent, hairstyle were also introduced. In 1274 the Korean crown-prince and later king Chung-ryeol married a daughter of Khublai Khan’s, thus inaugurating a tradition of marriage relationship which remained until the end of the Yuan Dynasty.7 Given this close interaction between the Korean and Mongolian ruling elites, what is the evidence which can testify to the presence of Christians in Korea at this time? There are basically two evidences which hint at such a presence. The first instance is a Mongolian helmet bearing a cross-ornament, which was found at the coast of Fukuoka upon Kyushu (Southern Japan);8 the second is the mention in Yuanshi vol. 134 of a Mongolian official bearing the Christian name Giwargis (that is, George) who stayed in Kaegyeong between 1299 and 1300.9 This seems scanty enough, but upon closer scrutiny a number of inter esting details can be found, which will help to put these events into a larger context within the history of both Korea and the Nestorian Church. According to P.Y. Saeki, the Mongolian helmet with a cross-decoration dates back to the Mongol invasion of Japan in 1281 and must have belonged to a high-ranking officer.10 There were altogether two attempts of the Mongols to invade Japan, namely in 1274 and 1281. In both cases the Mongol expedition ary force was stationed in advance at a military colony in the Southern Korean coastal town Happo (present-day Masan).11 Furthermore, in 1281 the Mongol invasion army consisted mainly of 漢人 [hanren] (“Northern Chinese”; that is, people from the former Chin Empire plus Koreans) and was being commanded by Hong Da-gu, a Korean general from the Liaodong Peninsula in Southern Manchuria.12 Hong Da-gu was the son of Hong Bok-won, who in 1233 estab

Cf. HENTHORN 1963, 117-123; LEE 1984, 155-156. Cf. SAEKI 1951,444-445. 9 Cf. KIM 2002, 239-240; TOEPEL – CHUNG 2004 in Oriens Christianus 88 (2004), 32. 10 Cf. SAEKI 1951, 444. 11 Cf. HENTHORN 1963, 177 n. 31, 178 n. 36, 197 (map). The Mongols began to establish mili tary colonies in Korea from 1250 onward and the number of these eventually grew to be ten, each containing between 500 and 2000 men. They were administered by two Mongolian offi cials named šá都[Xindu] and 元史[Shishu]; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 206-208. While the latter was in all likelihood of Jurchen extraction (cf. HENTHORN 1963.), Xindu stands for the name Hindu (“Indian”), which at this time was borne only by Muslims and Christians; cf. FRANKE in DE RACHEWILTZ – CHAN – HSIAO - GEIER 1993, 579; FRANKE in DE RACHEWILTZ – CHAN – HSIAO - GEIER 1993, 553; KLEIN 2000, 161. Since Khublai, under whose reign the invasions into Japan occurred, did not normally entrust military offices to Muslims (cf. ROSSABI in LANGLOIS 1981, 277), Hindu could have been a Christian. He commanded the first invasion of 1274 and afterwards, perhaps out of shame for its catastrophic defeat, changed his name into 忽忽[Hudun]; cf. HENTHORN1963, 177, n. 31. 12 Cf. ROSSABI 1988, 209. Hong Da-gu started from Happo with 40000 hanren soldiers and held the supreme command. He was aided by the Chinese general Fan Wenhu and Hindu, who set off from the Southern Chinese coast with 100000 soldiers. Like the first expedition from 1274 this campaign was a horrific catastrophe. Apart from the Japanese victims, one-third of 7 8

282

Alexander Toepel

lished a Korean colony around the former Chin Dynasty's Southern capital Liaoyang. Both Hong Bok-won and his son Hong Da-gu held high ranks within the Mongol military, which was exemplified not only by the latter's leadership of the second Japanese invasion but also by the fact that Hong Da-gu in 1287 helped to subdue the rebellion of the Mongolian prince Nayan.13 In order to elucidate the presence of a Nestorian officer in the army of Hong Da-gu, it will be helpful to further investigate the relationship between Hong Da-gu and Nayan. Marco Polo in ch. 80 of his Milione lists four areas which were ruled by Nayan as his personal fiefdom, among which two can be identified, namely “Ciorcia” and “Cauli”. “Ciorcia” is the land of the Jurchen, that is, the former Chin Empire, and “Cauli” goes back to kao li (gaoli), the Chinese pronuncia tion of Koryo. Marco Polo's information is confirmed by the fact that Nayan was the great-great-grandson of Genghis' younger brother Temüge Ötčigin, who in the wake of Mongolian conquest was given Manchuria, Liaodong and parts of Northern Korea as an apanage.14 That the Mongols considered the the Northern Chinese and more than half of the Southern Chinese soldiers died; cf. ROSSABI 1988, 208-209, 212. On the distinction between the Mongols, 色色都[semuren] = Western and Central Asians, 漢都 [hanren] “Northern people” = Northern Chinese, Jurchen and Koreans, and 南都[nanren] = Southern Chinese cf. KURZ in CONERMANN – KUSBER 1997, 173-174 and CHEN 1989, 2. 13 Hong Bok-won inherited from his father Hong Tae-sun the position of 都都[Sino-Korean doryeong] “commander” of the North-western Korean city Inju near the estuary of the Yalu River. In this position he surrendered the city in 1231 voluntarily to the invading Mongol gen eral Sartaq. After the latter's defeat Hong Bok-won fled with the inhabitants of Inju to Liaodong, where he settled in the vicinity of Liaoyang. In the summer of 1234 he was given the supreme command over all Koreans who had surrendered to the Mongols and control over the North-western part of Koryo. In 1250 he was furthermore made the (nominal) commander of the Koryo army, but already in 1258 he suffered execution due to internal quarrels; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 14, n. 5, 61, n. 10, 200. Both Hong Bok-won and his son Hong Da-gu par ticipated in the Mongol invasions of Korea before 1259; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 77, 115 n. 49. Hong Da-gu received the rank of military commander by the Mongols in 1260. He cooperated with Hindu before 1274 in subduing a military revolt within Koryo and served as his vicegeneral in the first invasion of Japan in 1274. After participating in the quelling of Nayan's re volt in 1287 with a Korean army he died in 1291 and was succeeded first by his brother Hong Kun-sang and then by his eldest son Hong Chung-hui; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 181, 200, 209 n. 49. The Korean colony established by his father Hong Bok-won grew at the time of Hong Dagu's death to 5000 households (approximately 25000 persons); cf. HENTHORN 1963, 200. 14 Cf. HENTHORN 1963, 195; MULLIE 1964, 5; HAMBIS 1945, 39-40, n. 16. To be sure, the Yuanshi does not mention Nayan among the descendants of Temüge; cf. HAMBIS 1945, 3940, n.16 and MULLIE 1964, 5. Since, however, Rašidu’d-Dīn and the Mu‛izz as well as inde pendent Chinese sources put him in the lineage of Temüge, his omission in the official Mongol records has to be seen as a deliberate attempt to erase his memory after the unsuccessful revolt of 1287; cf. MULLIE 1964, 5. The close connection between Nayan and the Liaodong Penin sula is further highlighted by the fact that even after his rebellion and death in 1287 his brother Toqto was allowed to retain the title “Prince of Liao” and bequest it upon his son Yamaširi; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 195. It has to be noted in this regard that another of Temüge's descendants bore the Western name šá都 Hindu, which was used at that time only among Muslims and Christians; cf. footnote 11. The Yuanshi mentions this person in the years 1271, 1290 and

Christians in Korea at the End of the 13th Century

283

whole of Korea as part of Temüge's land is evident by the fact that the tribute Koryo paid until 1225, was received by him and not by one of Genghis' direct descendants.15 The administrative capital of this area was furthermore located in Liaoyang, where Hong Da-gu's father in 1233 established a Korean colony.16 The Yuanshi also mentions Nayan collecting taxes from Liaodong prior to his rebellion in 1287.17 Hong Da-gu, therefore, was a direct subordinate of Nayan and it is to be supposed that the “Northern Chinese” soldiers of his invasion army came from the same area. However, it is also known that the Liaodong Peninsula contained a substantial Nestorian population of probably Turkish de scent which is attested as early as the late 10th century and whose members served as administrators and military leaders successively to the Liao and Chin Dynasties.18 The Mongols would naturally have used this local elite in the ad ministration of a newly acquired territory and such a connection becomes even more likely given the fact that Nayan himself was according to Marco Polo's account a Nestorian Christian.19 If we take into consideration that Hong Da-gu as Nayan's subject would have raised his army primarily with the latter's con sent and within his territory, he likewise must have come into contact with Nes torian officials from Liaodong. It seems therefore reasonable to assume that the helmet found in Japan belonged to a Nestorian Turk who served under Hong Da-gu and in this capacity would have spent some considerable time in Korea.20 1300; cf. Hambis, Chapitre, p. 36 with 45. Since Islam was not favored among the Mongol ruling elite at this time, his name might be taken as a hint that apart from Nayan there were other Christians in Temüge's family. Whether this Hindu was identical with the leader of the first Japanese invasion of 1274 (cf. above footnote 11) has to be further elucidated. 15 Cf. HENTHORN 1963, 195. 16 Cf. MULLIE 1964, 6. 17 Ibid. 18 Cf. WITTFOGEL – FENG 1949, 308; CHEN 1989, 41-47. The presence of Christians in this area is archaeologically attested as well, the earliest remains dating back to A.D. 998 and 1006; cf. SAEKI 1951, 440-443. 19 That Nayan had a number of Christian retainers is evident by the fact that Marco Polo attrib utes to him a Christian army, and by some derogatory remarks about the religion of his follow ers in a Chinese source. In the latter work it is said that Nayan's fellow-rebels after 1287 were deported to the vicinity of present-day Ningbo in the province Zhejiang; cf. SAEKI 1951, 519. Upon their complaining about the local conditions the Mongol governor threatened to send them to the realm of eternal life they were looking for in their faith; cf. SAEKI 1951, 519. Marco Polo might be exaggerating concerning Nayan's Christian army, but it seems very prob able that Nayan had indeed retainers among the local Nestorian population of Liaodong. Since the traditional Chinese distinction between civil and military officials was not valid during the Yuan period (cf. DE RACHEWILTZ in ROSSABI 1983, 288 n. 46), the Turkish Nestorians of Liaodong could have served him in both functions. 20 It might be speculated whether or not Nayan's rebellion was in fact caused by the catastrophic end of the expeditions in 1274 and 1281. In both cases a considerable number of hanren sol diers were involved, the greater part of whom perished; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 181 with n. 54; ROSSABI 1988, 102-103, 212; TENNANT 1996, 113-114. For Nayan this must have meant a considerable loss of manpower and military strength and it is possible that Khublai's centrali

284

Alexander Toepel

The second instance of a Christian staying in Korea is likewise rather unim pressive at first sight. The Mongolian official Giwargis, whose biography is given in Yuanshi vol. 134, stayed in Korea from 1299 to 1300 as head of the 征東行省 [Sino-Korean jeong dong haeng seong] “Bureau for Conquering the East” and in this position tried to abolish hereditary slavery in Korea.21 The “Bureau for Conquering the East” had been established in 1280 to coordinate preparations for the invasion of Japan. It was closed down after the defeat of 1281and shortly revived in 1283, 1285 and 1299/1300 in order to be finally re established in 1321, from which date it continued to exist at least nominally un til 1365.22 While its reestablishment in 1283 and 1285 was connected with re newed plans to conquer Japan and the nominal installation from 1321 to 1365 actually had the purpose of allowing the Korean king to rule his country while residing in Beijing,23 the incident of 1299/1300 remains mysterious, since nei ther the Korean king nor the Mongol emperor at this time had any interest in Japan anymore.24 It is, however, intriguing to note that crown-prince Chungseon, son of the reigning king Chung-ryeol, in 1298, that is, one year before Giwargis came to Korea, deposed his father and ascended the throne with a program of social reform. Chung-seon, aged 24 in 1298, had up until then spent most of his life at the Yuan court in Beijing. He was associated with a group of zation policy in Eastern Mongolia and Manchuria, which Mullie and Hsiao (MULLIE 1964, 911 and HSIAO in DE RACHEWILTZ - CHAN - GEIER 1993, 599) tentatively regard as one of the reasons for Nayan's revolt, rather it was a reaction toward a growing reluctance on the side of the latter to support the ongoing efforts to subdue Japan. After 1281 there had been rebellions in China as a result of renewed attempts to attack Japan and it is intriguing to note that for August 1286, the year preceding Nayan's rebellion, another invasion was scheduled; cf. SHOJI in Yamamura 1990, 420-421. 21 Cf. KIM 2002, 239-240; TOEPEL – CHUNG 2004 in Oriens Christianus 88 (2004), 32. Cf. also LEE 1984,157, who, however, neither mentions the attempt to abolish slavery nor the fact that the envoy was a Christian. The envoy's name is given as 闊里里八 [Kuolijisi] in Yuanshi, which is the usual Chinese form of „George“, going back to Syriac Giwargis or Giurgis; cf. FRANKE 1998 in ZDMG 148 (1998), 321. He was of Christian Mongol extraction, his father belonging to the tribe Alčidai and bearing the Christian name “Joseph”; cf. FRANKE 1998 in ZDMG 148 (1998), 321-322. 22 Cf. HENTHORN 1963, 199; LEE 1984, 157; FARQUHAR 1990, 400. 23 Cf. TENNANT 1996, 115; SHOJI in Yamamura 1990, 420-421. On the period from 1321 to 1365 cf. MIN 2000 in International Journal of Korean History 1 (2000), 17-35. The “Bureau for Conquering the East” was abolished only in 1365 as a result of internal struggles within the Korean government. King Kongmin (r. 1351-1374) disbanded the office as part of a reform, which was directed against a faction within the royal family in favor of supporting the Yuan against the rising Ming Dynasty; cf. LEE 1984, 161. 24 Khublai died in 1294 and his policy of conquest was not continued under his grandson and successor Temür. According to Yuanshi vol. 208-209 Temür in 1298 “rejected a recommenda tion to renew the invasion of Japan and instead in the following year sent a monk to that island country on a peace mission”; HSIAO in Franke - Twitchett 1994, 501. Cf. also SHOJI in Ya mamura 1990, 421, according to whom this envoy “contributed to the development of Japa nese culture through his broad knowledge” rather than renewing Khublai's demands for sub mission.

Christians in Korea at the End of the 13th Century

285

young Korean scholars who had attached themselves to Neo-Confucian ideals and on this ground rejected the prevailing mode of land-ownership in Korea.25 At the end of the 13th century the majority of land in Korea was owned by a small number of powerful families, including the royal family. These families held vast estates which were worked upon by non-free farmers. The latter be longed to the class of cheon min “despised people” and paid taxes not to the government but to their landlords.26 Chung-seon and the group of reformers around him were first and foremost concerned with the financial damage the state suffered from such a system, but Chung-seon also had a genuine concern for the social circumstances of his subjects, as is evidenced by his declaration upon ascending the throne.27 However, his reform-plans proved to be too am bitious for the Korean leadership at this time and so Chung-seon had to return the throne to his father in early 1299, shortly before the arrival of Giwargis in Korea.28 Since Giwargis, who came to Korea approximately six months after the crown-prince's return to Beijing, followed exactly the same path of social reform, it seems reasonable to assume a connection between the two men. This becomes more clear if we examine the family background of the crown-prince. Chung-seon was the son of the Korean king Chung-ryeol and a daughter of Khublai Khan’s named Qutlug Kälmiš, the first of altogether seven Mongolian princesses who were married to Korean kings.29 According to Yuanshi vol. 109 Qutlug Kälmiš was the daughter of Khublai Khan and a woman named Asujin Qatun. The latter’s name besides the honorific title “Qatun” consists of the tribal designation “As”, that is, “Alan” and the Turkish ending -jin, which means “belonging to”. The name “Asujin”, therefore, can be translated as “one of the Alan” which obviously means that the mother of Qutlug Kälmiš and

MIN 2000 in International Journal of Korean History 1 (2000), 21-23; LEE 1984, 161, 165166. The emergence of Korean Neo-Confucianism was connected with the rise of a literate, land-owning middle-class during the years of military dictatorship in the first half of the 12th century. Unlike the wealthy upper-class families, the newly emerging literati actually lived and worked on the land they owned and thus were naturally opposed to the absentee landlords who relied on slave-labor to maintain huge estates as a political powerbase; cf. LEE 1984, 160. 26 Cf. SHULTZ 2000, 4-5; LEE 1984, 158-159. On slavery in Korea cf. UNRUH 1976 in Korea Journal 16.4 (1976), 27-34; PALAIS 1984 in Journal of Korean Studies 5 (1984), 173-190; PETERSON 1985 in Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch 60 (1985), 3141; PRATT – RUTT in PRATT – RUTT 1999, 428-429. Slavery had been endemic in Korea from early times on and was officially abolished only in 1894. Especially during the time of the Koryo-Dynasty (918-1392) slave-holding was important for the landowning nobility, since their economic and military power depended upon the number of their slaves; cf. HENTHORN 1963, 89, 110. Since the begin of military rule in 1170 there was a marked increase in the number of slaves, not least because in times of political instability many farmers preferred to receive the protection of wealthy families by becoming their slaves; cf. PALAIS 1984 in Jour nal of Korean Studies 5 (1984), 179. 27 Cf. MIN 2000 in International Journal of Korean History 1 (2000), 23. 28 Cf. ibid., p. 21; HAMBIS 1945, n.187-191. 29 Cf. HAMBIS 1945, 178-185. 25

286

Alexander Toepel

grandmother of the Korean crown-prince Chung-seon was of Alan descent.30 As is well known, the Alans were an originally Iranian tribe which had joined the Mongols from early on, and they furthermore were Christians of the GreekOrthodox branch.31 That means that both Chung-seon's mother and grand mother were in all probability Christians and Chung-seon thus must have had some knowledge about Christianity if he was not actually baptised himself.32 Furthermore, since the Alans at this time formed the Yuan emperors' body guard, Chung-seon would have had a considerable powerbase in Khanbaliq (modern Beijing), as indeed even after he eventually became king in 1308 he spent most of his time in the Yuan capital.33 The fact that he was a grandson of Khublai Khan’s and among the supporters of Khublai's grandson and successor Temür Öljeitü no doubt contributed to his high position, so that in spite of the fact that he abdicated a second time in 1313 in favor of his son Chung-suk, he continued to exercise considerable influence over Korean politics, at least through the “Bureau for Conquering the East.34 As the son of a Christian Mon golian princess he must have been aware of the fact that slave-holding was prohibited by Nestorian canon law and thus it seems well imaginable that it was in fact the Korean crown-prince who in 1299 through his contacts with the Alan military establishment had the “Bureau for Conquering the East” re opened in Korea and installed there a Nestorian official who would pursue those reforms which Chung-seon himself could not carry out the year before.35 Cf. ibid., 180. Cf. BARTHOLD – MINORSKY 1960, 354. 32 Qutlug Kälmiš seems to have been a rather strong personality. It is reported about her that she “rode, hunted and flew falcons beside her husband [king Chung-ryeol]” (TENNANT 1996, 114), which would have been rather unusual for a Korean queen at this time. She married king Chung-ryeol in 1274. Since she died in 1297 at the age of 39, she must have been 15 years old at the time of her marriage (taking into account the Chinese custom of reckoning the age from conception, according to which a child is considered to be one year old at the time of birth); cf. HAMBIS 1945, n. 178-180. The prefix “Qutlug”, meaning “splendour”, is amply attested in male and female names on the Nestorian tombstones which have been unearthed in the area of present-day Kyrgyztan and which date to approximately the same time; cf. CHWOLSON 1886, 16, 21-22, 24; CHWOLSON 1890, 18, 22, 52, 54-55, 60, 65, 71, 87-89, 92-93, 95, 100101, 103; CHWOLSON 1897, 16, 28-29, 31-33, 35-36, 42, 48, 53; KLEIN2000, 173-175. 33 On the Alan troops in Mongol service cf. MOULE 1917 in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1917), 20-21. The Alans, many of whom held high positions within the Mongol military, were, unlike the Nestorians and probably out of rivalry with them, friendly disposed toward the Roman Catholic missionaries, who came to Khanbaliq from the late 13th century onwards; cf. MOULE 1917 in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1917), 11-26. It is quite likely that Chung-seon's preference of the Yuan capital was due not only to the scholarly circles which he met there (cf. LEE 1984, 166; Min 2000 in International Journal of Korean History 1 [2000], 26) but also to the fact that his supporters, most notably his mother's relatives, lived there. 34 Cf. MIN 2000 in International Journal of Korean History 1 (2000), 21-35. On Temür's succes sion cf. Hsiao in FRANKE – TWITCHETT 1994, 494-496. 35 Slave-holding is prohibited by canon 7 of the synod of Išo‛yahb I. in A.D. 585; cf. SELB 1981, 148. The Nestorian inscription from Xi’an (A.D. 781) likewise emphasizes that Christians do not hold slaves; cf. XU 2004, 96. 30 31

Christians in Korea at the End of the 13th Century

287

From these incidences it becomes clear that the contacts between Korea and Christianity at the end of the 13th century probably were closer than it appears at first sight. It is evident that there was no mission in any sense of the term, but this holds true for the whole of the Mongol empire. However, the fact that at least two Nestorian Christians are known to have spent time in Korea in high-ranking positions within the Mongol administration and military, suggests a situation similar to other parts of the Yuan Empire, especially since Korea was regarded by the Mongols as a province, not an independent kingdom. Fur thermore, since the wife of the Korean king and mother of the crown-prince in all probability was a Christian, it seems justified to assume that at least in the time between 1280 and 1300 there must have been more Christians in Korea except the two individuals mentioned above. Concerning Giwargis and his attempts to abolish slavery, it has to be noted that the problem of land-ownership and slavery persisted to the end of the KoryoDynasty. Even though there were various attempts to carry out land-reform and to make social improvement after King Chung-seon, it was only after the dynastical change in 1392 that the Neo-Confucian reform program was seriously put into practice by the newly risen Yi-Dynasty.36 The drastic social changes following these reforms are evidenced by the fact that the number of slaves, which comprised 20-30% of the population in the 13th and 14th century, had fallen to a mere 200,000 by the mid-17th century.37 It is furthermore interesting to see that the alliance between Neo-Confucian reformers and Christians which supposedly took place at the appointment of Giwargis, was repeated during the late 18th century, when young Korean scholars first came into contact with Roman Catholic missionaries in China.38. Thus, while the actual contacts with Christianity remained marginal at best at the end of the 13th century, they nev ertheless add, as it were, a depth of field to Korean church history which can be helpful in putting Christianity into place within Korea's intellectual history and thus may contribute to explaining the overwhelming success of the Christian mission in this country during the 19th and 20th century. Bibliography BARTHOLD, V. and V. MINORSKY. 1960. “Alān,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, 1. eds. H.A.R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, E. Lévi-Provençal and J. Schacht. Leiden: Brill. CHEN, Yuen. 1989. Western and Central Asians in China under the Mongols. Monu menta Serica Monograph Series 15. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag. Cf. LEE 1984, 163-164. Cf. PRATT - RUTT IN PRATT – RUTT 1999, 428. 38 Cf. YI in YU 2004, 44-101. Towards the end of the 19th century both Korean Catholics and Protestants referred to Confucius, and the Neo-Confucian reforms were in many respects taken up and transformed by the Korean Christians; cf. YUN in YU 2004, 28, 31; YI in YU 2004, 40-49.

36 37

288

Alexander Toepel

CHOWOLSON, D. 1886. Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Mémoires de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, 34.4. St. Peters burg: Eggers et Glasounof. CHOWOLSON, D. 1890. Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Mémoires de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, 37.8. St. Petersburg: Eggers et Glasounof. CHOWOLSON, D. 1897. Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Eggers et Glasounof. FARQUHAR, D.M. 1981. “Structure and Function in the Yüan Imperial Government,” in China under Mongol Rule, ed. J.D. Langlois. Princeton: Princeton University Press. FARQUHAR, D.M. 1990. The Government of China under Mongolian Rule. Münchener Ostasiatische Studien 53. Stuttgart: Steiner. FRANKE, H. 1993. “Ahmad,” in In the Service of the Khan, eds., Igor de Rachewiltz, H.L. Chan, C.C. Hsiao and P.W. Geier. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 553. FRANKE, H. 1993. “Sangha,” in In the Service of the Khan, eds. Igor de Rachewiltz, H.L. Chan, C.C. Hsiao and P.W. Geier. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 579. FRANK, H. 1998. „Zu einigen christlichen Personennamen in Texten der Yüanzeit,“ in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 148 (1998), 315-322. HAMBIS, L. 1945. Le chapitre CVII du Yuan Che. T’oung Pao Supplèment au Vol. 38. Leiden: Brill. HAMBIS, L. 1957. “Notes sur l'histoire de Corée à l'époque mongole,” in T’oung Pao 45 (1957), 151-218. HENTHORN, W.E. 1963. Korea: The Mongol Invasions. Leiden: Brill. HENTHORN, W.E. 1971. A History of Korea. New York: The Free Press. HSIAO, C.C. 1993. “Bayan,” in In the Service of the Khan, eds. Igor de Rachewiltz, H.L. Chan, C.C. Hsiao, and P.W. Geier. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 584-607. HSIAO, C.C. 1994. “Mid-Yüan Politics,” in The Cambridge History of China 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368, eds. H. Franke, D. Twitchett. Cambridge: CUP 1994, 490-560. KIM, H.D. 2002. [Dongbang gidokgyowa dongseo munmyeong]. Seoul: [Kkachi geulbang]. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyztan bis zum 14. Jahrhundert. Silk Road Studies 3. Turnhout: Brepols. KURZ, J. 1997. „Die Yuan-Dynastie der Mongolen (1279-1368) in China. Historische Ausgangslage, Verwaltung und ethnisches Verhältnis,“ in Die Mongolen in Asien und Europa, eds. S. Conermann and J. Kusber. Kieler Werkstücke Reihe F: Beiträge zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 4. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 161-177. LEDYARD, G. 1983. “Yin and Yang in the China-Manchuria-Korea Triangle,” in China among Equals, ed. Morris Rossabi. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 313-353. LEE, K.-B. 1984. A New History of Korea. Seoul: Il Chokak Publishers. LEE, K.-M. 1964. “Mongolian Loan-Words in Middle Korean,” in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 35 (1964), 188-197. MOULE, A.C. 1917. “The Minor Friars in China,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic So ciety (1917), 1-36. MULLIE, E.P.J. 1964. De Mongoolse Prins Nayan. Mededelingen van de koninklijke academie voor wetenschapen letteren en schone kunsten van België; Klasse der letteren 26/3. Brüssel: Vlaamse Academie Voor Wetenschapen.

Christians in Korea at the End of the 13th Century

289

MIN, H.-K. 2000. “Koryo Politics under Mongol Control: Dynastic Continuity During the Period of Royal Absence,”in International Journal of Korean History 1 (2000), 17-35. PALAIS, J.B. Palais. 1984. “Slavery and Slave Society in the Koryo Period,” in Jour nal of Korean Studies 5 (1984), 173-190. PETERSON, M. 1985. “Slaves and Owners; or Servants and Masters? A Preliminary Examination of Slavery in Traditional Korea,’” in Transactions of the Royal Asi atic Society, Korea Branch 60 (1985), 31-41. PRATT, K. and R. RUTT 1999. “Slaves,” in Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dic tionary, eds. T, K. Pratt and R. Rutt. Richmond: Curzon, 428-429. RACHEWILZ, Igor de. 1983. “Turks in China under the Mongols: A preliminary In vestigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries,” in China among Equals, ed. Morris Rossabi. Berkeley: University of California Press, 281310. ROSSABI, Morris. 1981. “The Muslims in the Early Yüan Dynasty,” in China under Mongol Rule, ed. J.D. Langlois, Jr. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 257295. ROSSABI, Morris. 1988. Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times. Berkeley: University of California Press. SAEKI, P.Y. 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics. Tokyo: Maruzen. SELB, W. 1981. Orientalisches Kirchenrecht 1. Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Nestorianer. Österr. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl.; Sitzungsberichte 388. Wien: Verlag der Österreischen Akademy der Wissenschaften. SHOJI, K. 1990. “Japan and East Asia,” in The Cambridge History of Japan 3. Medie val Japan, ed. K. Yamamura. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 396446. SHULZ, E.J. 2000. Generals and Scholars. Military Rule in Medieval Korea. Hono lulu: University of Hawaii Press. TENNANT, R. 1996. A History of Korea. London: Kegan Paul. TEOPEL, A. Toepel and J. Chung. 2004. “Was there a Nestorian mission in Korea?” in Oriens Christianus 88 (2004), 29-35. UNRUH, E.S. 1976. “The Landowning Slave: A Korean Phenomenon,” in Korea Journal 16.4 (1976), 27-34. WITTFOGEL, K.A. and C.S. Feng. 1946. History of Chinese Society: Liao. Transac tions of the American Philosophical Society NS 36/1946. New York: MacMillan. XU, Longfei. 2004. Die nestorianische Stele in Xi’an. Begegnung 12. Bonn: Borengässer. YI, M.-Y. 2004. “The Birth of the National Spirit of the Christians in the Late Choson Period,” in Korea and Christianit, ed, C.-S. Yu. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 39-72. YI, W.-S. 2004. “The Sirhak Scholars' Perspectives on Sohak in the Late Choson Soci ety,” in The Founding of Catholic Tradition in Korea, ed. C.-S. Yu. Studies in Ko rean Religions and Culture 7. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 45-101. YUN, K.-N. 2004.”The Relationship Between Korean Catholics and Protestants in the Early Mission Period,” in Korea and Christianity, ed. C.-S. Yu. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 7-37.

THE MISSION FIELD OF THE APOSTLE THOMAS Jürgen TUBACH University of Halle, Germany

The first general synod of the East Syrian church after the great persecution of Shapur II (309-379) took place in the year 410 and was held in Ctesiphon,1 the capital of the Sasanian kingdom. The assembled bishops decided to introduce a metropolitan constitution, which had already existed in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. The main regions of the church were divided into six church Persian state. provinces or hiparchies, 2 which corresponded to the administrative units of the In the 5th century the province Persis (syr. Bēṯ Parsāyē) was added as the 7th metropolitan see.3 The metropolitan bishop of Persis, the homeland of the Achaemenians and Sasanians,Peninsula. (Bušīr) resided i4n Compared the seaport Rew Ardašīr (Rīšahr/Rāšahr) on the Bushire with the rest of the dioceses of Persis the geo graphical location of the metropolitan see was remote and peripheral. This choice – the other subordinate Episcopal sees were difficult to reach – suggests that the archbishop still controlled more regions. Indeed he ruled the largest ter ritory of the Nestorian church: in Persis and Karmania, the opposite regions Suquṭra),Baḥrayn, namely then IndiaQaṭar and even and bishoprics Oman, the beyond islandit.5ofAllSocotra this did(arab. not correspond Suquṭrā/ to the province of the Sasanian state, which only comprised the opposite coast of the Persian Gulf, mainly the region of Baḥrayn. The connection with India and Arabia in ecclesiastical matters is old. In a list of bishops who signed the 1

2 3 4

5

HAUSER 2007, 461-488; KRÖGER 1993, 446-448; STRECK – HONIGMANN 1924, s.v. “Ktesiphon”. MÜLLER 1981, 294f; CALMEYER 1983, 164. SACHAU 1919, 971; TAMCKE 2005, 1553f; Fiey in KHOURI – SARKIS 1969, 178f, 182f. FIEY in KHOURI – SARKIS 1969, 179-182; WHITEHOUSE – WILLIAMSON 1973, 32.35-42; WHITCOMB 1987,311-336. FIEY in KHOURI – SARKIS 1969, 178, 179, 183, 209; TAMCKE 2007, 108, 111f; MUNDADAN 1984, 99-102, etc.; KAWERAU 1983, 14, 18., 19; FEDALTO 1988, 962, 96, 966f; BROWN 1982, 66-74, esp. 68f; JOHN 1981, 9f; Mar APREM 1981, 37-47; VERGHESE, 25-28; WHITEHOUSE – WILLIAMSON 1973, 40, 41, 42f, 47f; BRANDL 1973, 166; PODIPARA 1966, 52, 53f, 57; MINGANA 1926, 464, 493; SACHAU 1919, 58f, 69, 71f; SACHAU 1916, 974-975; GERMANN 1874, 235-237; cf. FALLER 2000, 154; MÜLLER 1999, 185; MÜLLER 2001, 146; BIEDERMANN 2006, 43f, 51.

292

Jürgen Tubach

Creed of the Council of Nicaea, 325, we find the following name: “John the Persian, on behalf of (the churches) in the whole of Persia and in Great India.”6 In his claims John was a forerunner of the metropolitan bishops a century later. His diocese was not limited to Persis, but extended far beyond it. The metro politan Ma’nā of Rew Ardašīr, who studied theology at the famous School of Edessa (before 458), translated theological literature from Syriac into Persian. He sent his translations to the church communities of Eastern Arabia and South India.7 In Sasanian times Rew Ardašīr was the most important harbor of the Empire for trade with India. In the 5th and 6th centuries Persian merchants managed to control the maritime trade with the East.8 In keen competition they superseded their Byzantine or Ethiopian rivals. The bishops and later the met ropolitan bishops organized their missionary activities from this trade center. Nestorian merchants and monks spread the gospel along the sea route. Thus their traces are to be found in Socotra, Ceylon and South India, where they even left Pahlavi inscriptions on crosses9 and copper plates.10 In all probability the Church of Thomas in the south Arabian seaport Qāna²11 was an ecclesia mercatorum, founded and used by the merchant community. The increasing territorial expansion of the hiparchy Persis did not correspond to an increasing ecclesiastical influence of the metropolitan bishop inside the Nestorian church. The church leaders of Persis were often severe and resolute opponents to the see of the capital, or were inclined to ignore the supremacy of the Catholicos. The reasons for their opposition are not quite clear. The conflict between Rew Ardašīr and Ctesiphon started already in the 4th century, when the eastern bishops tried to prevent a metropolitan constitution, and it escalated at the end of the 6th century.12 In the 7th century the church of Persis is autocephalous. At the time of the Catholicos Īšō‛yahḇ III (649-659)13 the archbishop Šem‛ōn (Simon) formally declared his independence, supported by his bishops.14 The Catholicos wrote several letters to the Metropolitan, bishops, YOUNG 1969, 28, no.27; KOLLAPARAMBIL 1994, 281-298. SCHER 1909, 117;SACHAU 1916, 971; VÖÖBUS 1958, 18. 8 WHITEHOUSE – WILLIAMSON 1973, 29-49; WHITEHOUSE 1996, 339-349; cf. COLLESS 19691970, 17-38, esp.19ff,23ff. 9 GROPP 1970, 267-271; See VAZHUTHANAPALLY 1988; KOLLAPARAMPIL 1994, 24-35; HAGE 1995-1996, 375-382; JOSEPH 1950, 112-122; one of the so called Persian crosses comes from Śrī Lankā (sanscr. Tāmraparṇī, greek. Taprobanē; pāli/sanscr. Sīhaladīpa/Siṃhaladvīpa “Island of the Lions”, arab./pers. Sarandīb/Serendip, portug. Ceilão, holländ. Ceylan, engl. Ceylon) and was found in the citadel of Anurādhapura, the old capital of the Singhalese kingdom, be fore it was moved to Poloṇṇaruva in 846 A.D.: SOMARATNA 1989, 150-152; See also SOMARATNA 1998; WEERAKKODY 1997, 135f. 10 BAILEY 1982, 87-89; cf. WINCKWORTH 1930, 320-322; WEST 1870, 88f, 390. 11 BERGER 2006, 394/395§155 cf. BERGER 2006, 5, 56; VASILIEV 1907-1909, 63; CHRISTIDES 1972, 138; SHAHID 1979, 29, 48; FINSTER 1996, 300. 12 Cf. esp. SACHAU 1916. 13 FIEY 1969; TAMCKE 2007. 14 Cf. esp. SACHAU 1916, 973-975; TAMCKE 2007, 108ff 6 7

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

293

clergy and people of Persis, including Qatar in order to become reconciled to their leaders, especially the Metropolitan. The main argument for the separation was a claim founded in church history. No one versed in history or canonical law contested it. The catchword difficult to refute or eliminate was according to Barhebraeus Thomas, and we the have following no share one: with “We thehave See ofbeen Mari!” evangelized 15 by the Apostle This claim implies that the mission of the apostle Thomas is much older. All the people in Persis knew that Thomas had sent his disciple Addai to Edessa and Addai himself had commissioned his disciple Mārī16 with the evangeliza tion of Mesopotamia. Although Edessa was the town of the apostle Thomas, no church of a Mesopotamian city could lay a claim to be an apostolic foundation. Mari was not even a disciple of an apostle, but the disciple of an apostle's disciple. Because the later archdiocese of Persis, extending on both sides of the Persian Gulf till In dia, was evangelized by Thomas, a disciple of the Lord, it could not be ex pected that the head of this church should submit oneself to someone, whose church was only founded by a “great-grandson disciple" of the Lord. For this reason Thomas had older rights similar to Petrus in Rome. The conflict was not immediately settled after the Muslim conquest of the Iranian highland, although Persis lost all Arabian regions. At the end of the 7th century India was separated and got a Metropolitan of its own.17 The reduction of their church province, and the loss of many church members, urged the Metropolitans of Persis to bury all dreams of an independent and autocephalous status. With its reduced territory the metropolitan bishop had probably no alternative in the long run but to give up all his old claims. For this reason he preferred to acknowledge the supremacy of the Catholicos in Ctesiphon. This took place during the reign of Timothy I (780-823) according to Barhebraeus. The discon tinuation of opposition was connected with some alterations. The bishops of Persis had to renounce several ecclesiastical traditions inherited from the past. Barhebraeus reported that the church province had preserved some special tra ditions until the times of the famous Catholicos Timothy I. The bishops used to wear white clothes and to eat meat. Furthermore they were married which is strictly forbidden in eastern churches. Bishops were not allowed to marry. The ordinary priest could marry, but he must do so before the ordination. If he had already taken orders, it was no longer possible and he had to stay unmarried. For a short period this canonical law ceased to be effective. At the end of the 5th century celibacy was suspended. Even monks could marry. At the beginning of the 7th century the church returned to the old tradition and from now on it was

15

YOUNG BBELOOS 1969, – LAMY 327, no.447; 1977,172; HUFFcf.1989, SACHAU 718; SACHAU 1916, 977; 1916, MINGANA 977. 1926, 467; FIEY 1993, 95; A

16

Cf. ABBELOOS 1885; BEDJAN 1892, 45-94; JULIEN 2003; RAABE 1893. FIEY 1993, 95

17

294

Jürgen Tubach

no longer allowed that high clerics be married. In the acts of several synods the marriage is defended and vindicated with biblical reasons and examples. The accounts about the apostle’s travels which the Portuguese heard in India,18 reflect a tradition deviating from the poor geographic ideas of the Acts of Thomas (i.e. Acta Thomae).19 In these reports the itinerarium of Thomas’ sea voyage started at Apologos (Greek, arab. al-Ubulla), the later Basra, which was sometimes part of Persis,20 and led him through all regions which afterwards belonged to the later metropolitan see. Thomas preached the gospel in Persis, perhaps in Karmania, then in Eastern Arabia, possibly in Qāna², afterwards he converted the inhabitants of Socotra and came to South India, to the Malabar and Coromandel coasts. The travel of Thomas from the mouth of Euphrates and Tigris looked like a canonical visitation of the metropolitan of Persis, who visited the bishops of the singular regions. Because Thomas was the first mis sionary and therefore like Peter in Rome, the founder of the church, he is ven erated everywhere in the archdiocese – which is incompletely documented in the sources relating to the extinct dioceses in comparison to South India, the only surviving part of the ancient archdiocese of Persis. There were monasteries named after Thomas on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf.21 In his work on Nestorian church law Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyyib (†1043) attributed to Tho mas a huge territory as his mission field. Thomas was not only credited with preaching the gospel in India but also in ’ūzistān, Persis, the region of Merw and China.22 Bar Hebraeus still enumerated Karmania.23 To this list of coun tries we can add the Island of Socotra and Eastern Arabia, which Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyyib omitted, because the Christian inhabitants either accepted Islam immediately after the Muslim conquest, or they emigrated. Leaving aside the region of Merv and China, the Portuguese accounts on the sea voyage of Thomas roughly cor-

18

MOULE 1930, 13f, 14, no. 17; YOUNG 1969, .26f, no.25. WRIGHT 1871, 171-333; BEDJAN 1892, 3-175; BONNET 1903, 99-288, cf. LIPINSKI 1988; THOMPSON 2001. 20 CASSON 1989, 180. 21 Yāqōt cited a poem of Marrār al-Faq‛asá who praised the beauty of the monastery Dayr Tōmā on named the Arabian Yaunān side (BEDJAN of the , Acta Persian Martyrum Gulf (WÜSTENFELD I, p.466-525).1867, ZāÊâi649f; who MINGANA was "priest, 1926,452f; monk, and KING ar 1997, 234). At the end of the 4th century a certain ZāÊâi wrote the biography about a hermit 19

chimandrite of the monastery of St. Thomas in India" (BEDJAN 1892,466), erected the monas tery on the shores of "the black island". Judging from the text, the monastery was not situated in a remote part of India or in Ceylon, but near Bēṯ Qaṭrāyē (MINGANA 1926, 450-453; VÖÖBUS 1958, 308f; POTTS 1990,245), the present-day Qaṭar. Probably the monastery, which housed two hundred monks, was on one of the islands between Qaṭar and Oman on the sea route to India. 22 HOENERBACH –SPIES 1957,138 l.7f, 140f. 23 ABBELOOS – LAMY 1877, 3-4 (conjecture according to ASSEMANI 1728, 33).

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

295

respond to his mission field. Before he came to the Malabar Coast, he preached the Gospel on both sides of the Persian Gulf and in Socotra.24 China is not only mentioned in Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyyib’s text but also in the breviary of the East Syrian (Chaldean) Church, in several Portuguese accounts and the lo cal tradition of South India. All these texts have in common that the apostle Thomas spent some time in China where he preached the gospel and founded churches. According to the Thomas Rabban Pattu, the apostle made a short journey to China.25 This song was orally handed down in pre-Portuguese times and later written down. The apostle Thomas spent four and a half months in Mylapore. Then he traveled to China where he stayed four and a half months as well. Afterwards the apostle returned to Mylapore, the place of his martyrdom. The Thomas Rabban Pattu includes some other songs corresponding to the Por tuguese reports let the apostle in the essential travel toaspects Camballe of Thomas’ or Cambalia missionary 26 whichwork. is a mutilated The Por form of the Uiguric name for the capital of the Yuan Empire. The Mongol great Khan resided in Khan Baliq, the “town of the Khan”. The Chinese called it Ta Tu “big city.” The residence of the Khan, a city of its own, was the forerunner of the “forbidden city” of the later Manchu dynasty in Peking. The residential quarters of the Yuan and Manchu are identical. The Portuguese accounts prove that the tradition of Thomas’ sea voyage to China belongs to an old and firm tradition which existed long before Vasco da Gama (ca. 1469-1524) discovered the sea-route to India (1498). This statement is compatible with Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyyib’s note that China was one of Thomas’ mis sionary fields. Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyyib’s lifetime moreover testifies that the China tradi tion was not a late invention of the middle age. If we consider the circumstance that Thomas’ stay in China is found in the prayer book,27 we can conclude that the connection between Thomas and China existed in early Islamic or late Sasanian times. With this background in mind we can better understand why the metropolitan bishops residing in Rew Ardašīr, the capital of the province Persis, thought that they were entitled to challenge or deny the claim of the Catholikos in Ctesiphon. Under their control was a huge church province which comprised all the land of Thomas’ missionary field: Arabia, the island of Soco tra, Caramania, India and China. In some respect the holder of the see of Persis If Rhiy dī Bašōra (arab. Ra’s bašūrī) near Qalansiyya (late Sabaic qilīsān or qalīsān, syr.) is rendered as “Cape of Preaching” [MÜLLER 1999, 189; MÜLLER 2001, 85; BIEDERMANN 2006, 45], the place could be connected to the legendary missionary journey of the apostle. But it is more probable that Rhiy dī Bašōra simply meant “Cape of Good Hope/Good News.” If a ship from India reached the island the captain knew that the winds changed and South Arabia or Somalia was not very far away. The consonant s is dropped in rhiy [réy, re’, rēh, rhe < ethiop. rə’əsa, arab. ra’s], cf. LESLAU 1938, 390. 25ROCCA 1933, 171, cf. PODIPARA 1966,18, PLACID 1952, 235; MUNDADAN 1970, 61f and MUNDADAN 1989, 30; LAMERS 1958, 125; BROWN 1982, 51. 26HALLBERG 1906,102-106. 27 BEDJAN 1887, 476 l.9f, 13-15; MOULE 1930, 11 [Syriac text with F. C. Burkitt’s translation]. 24

296

Jürgen Tubach

residing in Rew Ardašīr was the successor of the apostle Thomas who was now subordinate to the throne of Mārī, although Mārī was only the “great-grandson disciple" of the Lord and not a real disciple of Christ like Thomas. We do not know when the first Christian missionaries came to China. According to the famous stele of Si-an-fu28 it seems that Alopen was the first official missionary, but it is not claimed that he was the first Christian envoy to China. Neither the Chinese nor the short Syriac text refers to the apostle Thomas. The etymology of Alopen’s name is not quite clear29 but probably he was a Sogdian and belonged Sogdian controlled to the the colony international of Sogdian trade merchants in Central in the Asia. Chinese 30 Many capital. of them The were Christians and belonged to the Church of the East wrongly called the Nestorian Church. Alopen was given a kind reception in the Chinese capital31 in 635. The chancellor came to one of the western city gates and welcomed him. Afterwards he was conducted to the palace of the emperor32 in the north of Chang’an. The audience with Tai-tsung (627-649), the second emperor of the Tang dynasty (617-907), took place in the imperial palace town (Gongcheng) built along the northern city wall. Later the emperor moved to the Daminggong palace outside the northern wall which was connected to the imperial city, a special quarter, through the gate of the black warrior of the north.33 Alopen re ceived an extraordinary honor: Tai-tsung led him to his private rooms where Alopen was given the opportunity to explain the new religion. If Alopen had been a normal member of the Christian community in the capital, which must already have existed for some time, it would have been impossible to be re ceived by the emperor, the son of heaven. For this reason we must assume that Alopen held the rank of a bishop. In the text he is later called head of the church of China. The famous stele of Si-an-fu was set up on the 4th of Feb. 781 A.D., long after Alopen had passed away. The stele of marble does not content any precise hint regarding the native place of Alopen except that he came from the far west, from Ta-Tsin, “the Greater China”, which was not the homeland of the Nestorian Church, but the Roman Empire. The Old Church of the East, commonly called the Nestorian Church, had no parish communities in the Eastern part of the Byzantine Empire. The Syriac church historians did not mention a mission ary named Alopen. They did not mention any missionary to China. We must conclude from the text of the stele that Alopen was very successful in China.

MOULE 1930, 34ff; BÜRKE in BAUMGARTNER 1971, 128ff; HSÜ 1986, 41-81; PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 173ff; 1969, PELLIOT 1032-1034. 1984, 43ff, cf. MOFFETT 1992, 288ff, esp.291-293. 29 HANSEN 30 See DE LA VAISSIERE 2005; and DE LA VAISSIERE – TROMBERT 2005. 31 THILO 1992, 245-254. 372-385. I.II. 32 MOULE 1930, 38; BÜRKE in BAUMGARTNER, 131; HSÜ 1986, 41-81; PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 175; PELLIOT 1994, 44f. 33 KUHN 1993, 36-38, 42-44. 28

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

297

He is credited with founding the Nestorian Church in the empire of the Tang dynasty. For this reason it is astonishing that his name is not found in any his torical text of the Syriac literature. If the Catholicos Īšō‛yahḇ II (628-646) had ordained Alopen as a bishop and sent him to China, it would be curious that the origins the nextofbut theone church successor in China of Īšō‛yahḇ were passed II, reported over ininsilence his letters later. 34 Īšō‛yahḇ that the con III, flict with the archbishop of the diocese Persis was not settled, but he did not mention that the loss of Arabia was compensated by missionary successes in the East outside the new Islamic state. We must conclude that the mission to China was not inaugurated by the Catholicos of the East residing in Ctesiphon. If Alopen was not sent to China by the head of the Church of the East, the seat of Mārī, there remains only one possibility: Alopen came to China as represen tative of the autocephalous church of the Persis which was founded by the apostle Thomas (according to legend). He preached the gospel in one of the re gions, which Thomas once visited on his missionary journeys. In this case it is understandable why Alopen was forgotten in the West but commemorated in China in later times when the rebellious church province was reconciled with Ctesiphon again and China got a metropolitan bishop of its own in the 8th century.35

Bibliography ABBELOOS, J.P. 1885. Acta Sancti Maris, Assyriae, Babyloniae ac Persidis seculo I apostoli Syriace sive Aramaice juxta Manuscriptum Alqoschianum adiectis aliorum codicum lectionibus variantibus versione Latina et annotationibus illustrata. Bruxelles, Leipzig 1885. ABBELOOS, J. P. and Thomas Josephu LAMY, eds. 1887. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum quod e codice Musei Britannici descriptum conjuncta opera ediderunt, latinitate donarunt annotationibusque theologicis, historicis, geographicis et archaeologicis illustraverunt Louvain: Peeters. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha post Constantinum Tischendorf denuo ediderunt Ricardus Adelbertus Lipsius et Maximilianus Bonnet II 2. Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae accedunt Acta Barnabae edidit Maximilianus Leipzig: Herrmann Mendelssohn. 1903. Repr. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt 1959. Repr. Hildersheim et al: Georg Olms: 1959, 1972, & 1990. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum I. III. 1892. Leipzig-Paris: Otto Harrassowitz. = Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum Syriace edidit Paulus BEDJAN [= Pōlos Bēǧān] I. III Hildesheim: Georg Olms: 1968. Repr. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. ASSEMANI, Joseph Simonius [Giuseppe Simone].1782. Biblioteca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana in qua manuscriptos codices Syriacos, Arabicos, Persicos, Turcicos, Hebraicos, Samaritanos, Armenicos, Æthiopicos, Græcos, Ægypticos, Ibericos, & Malabaricos, jussu et munifecentia Clementis XI Pontificus Maximi ex 34 35

See DUVAL 1904. MOFFETT 1992, 296; cf. FEDALTO 1988, 993.

298

Jürgen Tubach

oriente conquisitos, comparatos, avectos, & Bibliothecæ Vaticanæ additicos recensuit, digessit, et genuina scripta à spuriis secrevit, addita singulorum auctorum vita III.2. De Syris Nestorianis. Roma, 1728. = Joseph Simonius ASSEMANUS, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana III. 2. Avec une postface par JosephMarie SAUGET. Hildesheim, et al: Georg Olms: 1975 und 2000. Repr. Gorgias Press: Piscataway 2002. BEDJAN. 1892. → Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum BEDJAN, Paul. 1887. Breviarium Chaldaicum III. A Pentecoste ad Dedicationem Paris. [Breviarium iuxta ritum Syrorum orientalium id est Chaldaeorum, Congregatio "Pro Ecclesia Orientali". Roma, 1938. BERGER, Albrecht, ed. 2006. Life and Works of Saint Gregentios, Archbishop of Taphar. Introduction, Critical Edition and Translation. With a contribution by Gianfranco Fiaccadori. Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr./Millennium Studies in the culture and history of the first millen nium C.E. 7. Berllin, et al: Walter de Gruyter. BIEDERMANN, Zoltán. 2006. Soqotra. Geschichte einer christlichen Insel im Indischen Ozean vom Altertum bis zurfrühen Neuzeit. Maritime Asia 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. BONNET. 1903. → Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha BRANDL, Ludwig. 1973. “Sokotra – die ehemals christliche Insel,” in Oriens Christianus 57 (1973), 162-177. BROWN, Leslie Wilfrid. 1956/1982. The Indian Christians of St Thomas. An Account of the Ancient Syrian Church of Malabar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BÜRKE, Alois. 1971. “Das Nestorianer-Denkmal von Si-an-fu,” in Vermittlung zwischenkirchlicher Gemeinschaft. 50 Jahre Missionsgesellschaft Bethlehem Immensee. Festschrift. Herausgegeben von Jakob Baumgartner. Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft. Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionaire. Supplementa 17. Immensee: Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft, 125-141. CALMEYER, Peter. 1983. Die "statistische Landcharte des Perserreiches – II," Zur Genese altiranischer Motive VIII in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran [N.S.] 16 (Berlin 1983), 141-222. CASSON, Lionel.1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Transla tion, and Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CHRISTIDES, Vassilios. 1972. “The Himyarite-Ethiopian War and the Ethiopian Occu pation of South Arabia in the Acts of Gregentius (ca.530 A.D.),” in Annales d’Ethiopie 9 (1972), 115-146. COLLESS, Brian C. “The Traders of the Pearl [I]. The Mercantile and Missionary Ac tivities of Persian and Armenian Christians in South East-Asia,” in Abr-Nahrain. An Annual published by the Department of Middle Eastern Studies University of Melbourne 9 (1969-70), 17-38. DIDIER, de Hugues. 1987/2005. Correspondance, 1535-1552. Lettres et documents. Saint François Xavier. Traduction inteÏgrale, preÏsentation, notes et index. Collec tion Christus 64. Paris: Textes DescleÏe de Brouwer, Bellarmin. DUVAL, Paul Rubens, ed. 1904-1905. Išō‛yahb Patriarchae III Liber epistularu. Cor pus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 64. Scriptores Syri, serie II. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. FALLER, Stefan. 2000. Taprobane im Wandel der Zeit. Das Śrî-Lankâ-Bild in griechischen und lateinischen Quellen zwischen Alexanderzug und Spätantike. Geographica historica 14. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

299

FEDALTO, Giorgio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis. Series Episcoporum Ecclesiarum Christianarum Orientalium II. Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus (Edizioni Messaggero: Padova 1988). DE LA VAISSIERE, Étienne and Eric TROMBERT. 2005. Les Sogdiens en Chine. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient. DE LA VAISSIERE, Étienne, EÏtienne. 2005. Sogdian traders. A history. Translated by James Ward. Handbuch der Orientalistik 8: Zentralasien. Section eight: Central Asia Handbook of Uralic Studies 10. Leiden: Brill: Leiden 2005. FIEY, Jean-Maurice. 1969. “Diocèses syriens orientaux du Golfe persique,” in Mémo rial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis (1898-1968). Fondateur et directeur de L’Orient Syrien 1956-1957. Revue d'Études et de Recherches sur les Églises de langue syriaque. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 177-219 FIEY, Jean-Maurice. 1969-1970. “ Īšō‛yaw le Grand. Vie du catholicos nestorien Īšō‛yaw III d'Adiabène (580-659): I&II,”,in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 35 (1969), 305-333 and 36 (1970), 5-46. FIEY, Jean Maurice. 1993. Pour un Oriens Christianus novus. Répertoire des diocèses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux. Beiruter Texte und Studien 49. Beirut and Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. FINSTER, Barbara. 1996. “Arabien in der Spätantike. Ein Überblick über die kulturelle Situation der Halbinsel in der Zeit von Muhammad,” in Archäologischer Anzeiger 1996,287-319. GERMANN, Wilhelm. “Das Christentum auf Socotra,” in Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 44. NF 38. (1874), 227-258. GROPP, Gerd. 1970. “Die Pahlavi-Inschrift auf dem Thomaskreuz in Madras,” in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran [NF] 3 (1970), 267-271. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1996. “Crosses with Epigraphs in Medieval Central and East Asian Christianity,” in The Harp. A Review of Syriac and Oriental Studies 8/9 (19951996), 375-382. HANSEN, Olaf. 1969. “Der Anteil der Iranier an der Ausbreitung des Christentums nach Zentralasien,” in XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg. Vorträge herausgegeben von Wolfgang Voigt III. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Supplementa 1.3. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner,1032-1035. HAUSER, Stefan R. 2007. “Vēh Ardashīr and the Identification of the Ruins at alMadā’in,” in Facts and Artifacts. Art in the Islamic World. Festschrift for Jens Kröger on his 65th Birthday. Edited by Annette Hagedorn and Avinoam Shalem. Islamic History and Civilization 68. Leiden: Brill, 461-488. HALLBERG, Ivar. 1906. L’Extrême Orient dans la Littérature et la Cartographie de l’Occident des XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles. Étude sur l’histoire de la géographie Göteborgs Kungliga Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhälles. Handlingar. Fjarde foljden. 4. F., 7./8. häftena H.7.8. Göteborg: Wettergren & Kerber. HSÜ, Cho Yün. 1986. “Nestorianism and the Nestorian Monument in China,” in Asian Culture Quarterly 14 No.1 (1986), 41-81. HUFF, Dietrich. 1989. “Ein christliches Felsgrab bei Istakhr,” in Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalia. Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe edenda curaverunt Léon de Meyer et Ernie Haerinck II (1989), 713-730. Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyib. 1957. Fiqh an-naêrānīa “Das Recht der Christenheit II.” Herausgege ben und übersetzt von Wilhelm Hoenerbach und Otto Spies. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 167/168. Scriptores Arabici 18/19. Louvain.

300

Jürgen Tubach

JOHN, Koyikkara Joseph.1981. “Origin and Growth of Christianity in Kerala,” in Chris tian Heritage of Kerala. Grand Chevalier Prof. Lanthaparampil Mani Pylee Fe licitation Volume. Edited by Koyikkara] Joseph John with a foreword by Joseph Kelanthara . Cochin: L.M. Pylee Felicitation Committee, 1-21. JOSEPH, T. K. 1950. “Christian and Non-Christian Crosses in Ancient India,” in Jour nal of Indian history 28, part II, No.83 (1950), 112-122. JULLIEN. Florence and Christelle Jullien, eds. 2003. Les Actes de Mār Māri. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 602/603. Scriptores Syri 234/235. Louvain: Peeters. KAWERAU, Peter. 1983. Ostkirchengeschichte I. Das Christentum in Asien und Afrika bis zum Auftreten der Portugiesen im Indischen Ozean. Corpus Scriptorum Chris tianorum Orientalium 451. Subsidia 70. Louvain: Peeters. KING, Geoffrey R. D. 1997. “A Nestorian monastic settlement on the island of Ṣīr Banī Yās, Abu Dhabi: a preliminary report,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60 (1997), 221-235. KOLLAPARAMBIL, Jacob. 1994. “The Identity of Mar John of Persia and Great India who attended the first Council of Nicaea,” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992. Uni versity of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity, 30 August - 2 September 1992 edited by René Lavenant. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 281-298. KOLLAPARAMPIL, Jacob. “The Persian Crosses in India are Christian not Manichaean,” in Christian Orient. An Indian Journal of Eastern Churches for Creative Theologi cal Thinking 15, No.1 (1994), 24-35. KRÖGER, Jens. 1993. “Ctesiphon,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica VI. Costa Mesa, 1993, 446-448. KUHN, Dieter. 1993. “Chinas Goldenes Zeitalter (618-907 n. Chr.). Die Weltmetropole Chang'an, “in Chinas Goldenes Zeitalter. Die Tang-Dynastie (618-907 n. Chr.) und das kulturelle Erbe der Seidenstraße. Herausgegeben von Dieter Kuhn. Hei delberg: Edition Braus, 34-44. LAMERS, B. J. 1958. “Der Apostel Thomas in Südindien,” in Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft 14 (1958), 15-28; 116-130. LESLAU, Wolf. 1938. Lexique soqoṭri (sudarabique moderne) avec comparaisons et explications étymologiques. Collection linguistique publiée par Societe de Linguistique de Paris. 41. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. LIPINSKI, Matthias. 1988. Konkordanz zu den Thomasakten (Bonner biblische Beiträge 67. Athenäums Monografien. Theologie. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. MAR APREM. 1981. “The Nestorian Church in India from 5th to the 16th Century,” in Christian Heritage of Kerala. Grand Chevalier Prof. Lanthaparampil] Mani Pylee Felicitation Volume. Edited by Koyikkara Joseph John with a foreword by Joseph Kelanthara. Cochin: L.M. Pylee Felicitation Committee, 37-47. MINGANA, Alphonse. 1926. “The Early Spread of Christianity in India, “in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 10 (Manchester 1926). Repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1967, 435-514. MOFFETT, Samuel Hugh. 1992. A History of Christianity in Asia I. Beginnings to 1500. San Francisco: Harper. MOULE, A. C. 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550. London: SPCK. MÜLLER, Caspar Detlef Gustav. 1981. Geschichte der orientalischen Nationalkirchen Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte. Ein Handbuch I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, D269-D367.

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

301

MÜLLER, Walter Wilhelm. 1999. “Zeugnisse über Sokotra aus antiken und mittelalterlichen Quellen,” in Sokotra. Mensch und Natur, ed., Wolfgang Wranik. JemenStudien 14. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 183-191. Müller, Walter W. 2001. “Antike und mittelalterliche Quellen als Zeugnisse über So kotra, eine einstmals christliche Insel,“ in Oriens Christianus 85 (2001), 139-161. MUNDADAN, Antony Mathias. 1984/2001. History of Christianity in India I. From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century (up to 1542). Bangalore: Theological Publications in India. MUNDADAN, Antony Mathias. 1970. Sixteenth Century Traditions of St Thomas Chris tians. Dharmaram College studies 5. Bangalore: Dharmaram College. PELLIOT, Paul. 1996. L’inscription nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou. Edited with Supple ments by Antonino FORTE. Epigraphical Series 2. Oeuvres posthumes de Paul Pelliot Kyoto : Scuola di Studi sull’Asia Orientale, Kyoto. PELLIOT, Paul. 1984. Oeuvres posthumes de Paul Pelliot. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’Éxtrême-Orient II.1: La stèle de Si-ngan-fou. Paris : Éditions de la Fondation Singer-Polignac. PLACID of ST. JOSEPH, The South Indian Apostolate of St. Thomas, in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 18 (1952), p.229-245. PODIPARA, Placid J. 1966. Die Thomas-Christen. Übersetzung aus dem Englischen von Coelestin Patock Das Östliche Christentum, N.F., 18. Würzburg: AugustinusVerlag: 1966. POTTS, Daniel Thomas. 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity II. From Alexander the Great to the Coming of Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press. RAABE, Richard. 1893. Die Geschichte des Dominus Mâri, eines Apostels des Orients. Aus dem Syrischen übersetzt und untersucht. Leipzig: J.C.Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. RAMELLI, Ilaria. 2008. Atti di Mar Mari. Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 7. Letteratura della Siria cristiana 2.: Brescia : Paideia. ROCCA, Francis Xaxier. 1933. “La Legenda di S.Tomaso Apostolo,” in Orientalia Christiana 32 (Roma 1933), 168-179. SACHAU, Carl Eduard. 1916. “Vom Christentum in der Persis,” in Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sitzung der philosophischhistorischen Klasse. Nr.XXXIX. Berlin: Georg Reimer: Berlin (1916,), 958-980. SACHAU, Carl Eduard. 1919. Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien. Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jg. 1919. Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Nr.1. Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei Georg Reimer. SCHER, Addaï, ed. 1909. Histoire nestorienne inédite (Chronique de Séert). Seconde partie (I). Patrologia Orientalis 7 fasc. 2 = No.32. Paris: Firmin-Didot. SCHURHAMMER, Georgius and Josephus WICKI. 1944-1945. Epistolae S. Francisci Xaverii aliaque eius scripta (1535-1552). Nova editio ex integro refecta, textibus, introductionibus, notis, appendicibus aucta. Monumenta historica Societatis Iesu 67/68. Roma: Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu. SHAHID, Irfan. 1979. “Byzantium in South Arabia,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33 (1979), 23-94. SOMARATNA, Gintota Parana Vidanage. 1989. “Pre-Portuguese Christianity on Sri Lanka,” in Indian Church History Review 23 (1989), 150-152. SOMARATNA, Gintota Parana Vidanage. Chronology of Christianity in Sri Lanka Nugegoda, Sri Lanka: Margaya Fellowship of Sri Lanka.

302

Jürgen Tubach

STRECK, Maximilian and Ernst HONIGMANN. 1924. “Ktesiphon,” (Nr.5) in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften. Supplementband IV Stutt gart: J.B.Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart, 1102-1109; 1109-1119. TAMCKE, Martin. 2005. “Yahballaha I.,” in Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, ed., Friedrich Wilhelm BAUTZ. Bd. XXV. Ergänzungen XII. Hamm: Verlag Traugott Bautz, 1553-1555. TAMCKE, Martin. 2007. “Der Patriarch und seine arabischen Christen. Die nestorianischen Katholikoi-Patriarchen in ihren Anweisungen für Kirchenglieder auf der Arabischen Halbinsel in frühomajadischer Zeit,” in Arabische Christen – Christen in Arabien, eds., Detlev Kreikenbom, Franz-Christoph Muth, and Jörn Thielmann. Nordostafrikanisch/Westasiatische Studien 6. Frankfurt/M, et al: Peter Lang, 105119. THILO, Thomas. 1992. “Zur Neugründung der chinesischen Hauptstadt im Jahre 582,” in Altorientalische Forschungen 19 (1992), 245-254. THILO, Thomas. 1992. “Über die Tore von Chang’an,” in Altorientalische Forschungen 19(1992), 372-385. THILO, Thomas. 1997/2006. Chang'an. Metropole Ostasiens und Weltstadt des Mittelalters 583-904 I. Die Stadtanlage. Opera Sinologica 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. THOMPSON, J. David. 2001. A critical concordance to the New Testament Acts: Acts of Thomas. The computer Bible 95. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. VASILIEV, Aleksandro Aleksandrovič. 1907-1909. “Žitie sv. Grigentija episkopa Omiritskogo,” in Vizantijskij Vremennik 14. (St. Peterburg 1907-09), 23-67. VAZHUTHANAPALLY, Joseph. 1988. The Biblical and Archaeological Foundations of the Mar Thoma Slībâ. Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India Publications 139. Kottayam. VERGHESE, Paul.1974. “Die dunklen Jahrhunderte,”in Die syrischen Kirchen in Indien, hrsg., Paul Verghese. Übers. aus dem Englischen von Gerhard Raabe. Die Kir chen der Welt. Reihe A. Bd. 13. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 21-32. VITZTHUM, Elisabeth Gräfin, ed. 1939. Die Briefe des Francisco de Xavier 1542-1552. Leipzig: Jakob Hegner. VÖÖBUS, Arthur. 1965. History of the School of Nisibis. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 266. Subsidia 26. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO. VÖÖBUS, Arthur. 1958. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East I. The Origin of Asceticism, early Monasticism in Persia. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 184. Subsidia 14. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, Louvain. WEERAKKODY, Don] Patrick Mervyn. 1997. Taprobanê. Ancient Sri Lanka as known to Greeks and Romans. Indicopleustoi, archaeologies of the Indian Ocean 1. Turnhout: Brepols. WEST, Edward William. 1870. “Sassasian Inscriptions explained by the Pahlavî of the Pârsîs,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, NS 4 (1870), 357-405. WHITCOMB, Donald Scott. 1987. “Bushire and the Angali Canal,” in Proceedings of the Symposium “Common Ground and Regional Features of the Parthian and Sasanian World”, Torino, June 17th – 21st, 1985. Mesopotamia. Rivista di archeologia, epigrafia e storia orientale antica 22. Torino: G. Giappichelli, 311-336. WHITEHOUSE, David. 1996. “Sasanian Maritime Activity,” in The Indian Ocean in An tiquity, ed., Julian READE. London: Kegan Paul International in association with the British Museum, 339-349.

The Mission Field of the Apostle Thomas

303

WHITEHOUSE, David and Andrew WILLIAMSON. 1973. “Sasanian Maritime Trade,” in Iran: Journal of Persian Studies 11 (1973), 29-49. WINCKWORTH, C.P.T. 1930. “Note on the Pahlavi Signatures to the Quilon CopperPlates,” in Kerala Society Papers 1, Series 6 (Trivandrum 1930), 320-322. WRIGHT, William. 1871/2005. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum and other Libraries I. The Syriac Texts. Lon don: Williams & Norgate. Repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968. Repr. Hildesheim, et al, 1990. Repr. Gorgias Press: Piscataway, 2005, 171-333. WÜSTENFELD, Heinrich, ed. 1867/1994. Jacut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften zu Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London und Oxford. Frankfurt/M: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. YOUNG, William Galbraith. 1969/1977. Handbook of Source-Materials for Students of Church History up to 650 A.D. Indian Theological Library 2. Madras: the Christian Literature Society. Repr. 1977.

ON THE CHRISTIANS IN JIANGNAN DURING THE YUAN DYNASTY ACCORDING TO THE GAZETTEER OF ZHENJIANG OF THE ZHISHUN PERIOD 1329-1332 YIN Xiaoping South China Agricultural University

1. Introduction: Description of Daxingguo Monastery大興國大興國寺寺寺寺大興國大興國 and Mar Sargis 馬薛里吉思馬薛里吉思馬薛里吉思馬薛里吉思 Concerning Christianity during the Yuan Dynasty, very few Chinese records explicitly has come down from this period. Furthermore, the surviving Chinese documents, including the official records, the archaeological evidences, the le gal materials and some anthologies, were too scattered and obscure to be un derstood. Therefore, researches on Christians in the Yuan Dynasty has mainly depended on the western travelogues for a long time. It was until the publica tion of Chen Yuan’s famous article “Yuan Yelikewen jiao kao”元也里可 教考 [“Study on Yelikewen in the Yüan period”]1 that Chi nese scholars began to make use of the Chinese materials and realized that Ye likewen2 in Yuan Shi元史 [Official History of the Yuan Dynasty] referred to Christians. This article of Chen Yuan initiated a new stage of the researches on Christians of Yuan-China. Both Chinese and western scholars paid attention to the Gazetteer Zhishun Zhenjiang Zhi 至順鎮江志 (abbr. ZSZJZ).3 Since 1875 when Palladius discov1 2

3

t was originally published in 1917. See CHEN 1980, vol. 1, 1-56. The word “Yelikewen” originally referred to the Christians under the Mongol Empire and ap peared frequently in the official documents at that time; however, with the publication of Chen Yuan’s “Yuan Yelikewen jiao kao” it was acknowledged as a religion, the so-called “Ye likewen jiao”, and was regarded as the second stage of the dissemination of Christianity in China. Since there was no idiomatic usage of “Yelikewen jiao” I should emphasize that Ye likewen does not refer to a religion but the group of Christians, and in different contexts, its definition varied: In Yuan Shi 元元it means a certain kind of religious residents who were reg istered by the empire; In some imperial decrees, it means the monasteries living in Shizi Si 十十十(the Crosses Monastery); It was also the name of a certain western land, or a certain peo ple or tribe in some circumstances. ZSZJZ was compiled by Yu Xilu 俞希希 around 1332-1333. In 1795 a famous antiquary Ruan Yuan 阮元 obtained a manuscript of it. Before long he presented it to the government while

306

Yin Xiaoping

ered this document, many scholars have tried to annotate it.4 It was also considered as “the most complete account of a Christian community in China in the thirteenth century”,5 especially the Chapter Nine on the description of Daxingguo Monastery, which contained an account of the Nestorian faith and a biography of Mar Sargis. It was acknowledged as the most valuable historical source concerning Christianity in Yuan-China during the late 13th and early 14th centuries. This paper is not going to re-annotate the description; rather, it focuses on the origin of Christians in Jiangnan, that is, the area south of the Yangtze River, during the Yuan Dynasty and analyzes the prerogative status of Ma Xuelijisi (Mar Sargis). In orderto makethediscussionclear, both Chineseinscription and English translationareprovidedasfollows: 大興國寺，在夾道巷，至元十八年（1281），本路副達魯花赤薛里吉思建， 儒學教授梁相記。其略曰：薛迷思賢在中原西北十萬餘里，乃也里可溫行教 之地。愚問其所謂教者，云：“天地有十字寺十二，內一寺佛殿，四柱高四 十尺，皆巨木，一柱懸，虛尺餘，祖師麻兒也里牙靈跡，千五百餘嵗。”今 馬薛里吉思是其徒也。教以禮東方爲主，與天竺寂滅之教不同。且大明出於 東，四時始於東，萬物生於東，東屬木主生，故混沌既分，乾坤之所以不 息，日月之所以運行，人物之所以蕃盛，一生生之道也，故謂之長生天。十 字者，取像人身，揭於屋，繪於殿，冠於首，佩於胸，四方上下以是爲準。 薛迷思賢，地名，也里可溫，教名也。公之大父可里吉思、父滅里、外祖撒 必爲大醫。太祖皇帝初得其地，太子也可那延病，公外祖舍里八、馬里哈昔 牙徒衆祈禱，始愈。充御位舍里八赤，本處也里可溫答剌罕。至元五年，世 祖皇帝召公馳驛進入舍里八，賞賫甚侈。舍里八，煎諸香果泉調蜜和而成； 舍里八赤，職名也。公世精其法，且有驗，特降金牌以專職。九年，同賽典 赤平章往雲南；十二年，往閩浙；皆爲造舍里八。十四年，欽受宣命虎符懷 遠大將軍、鎮江府路總管府副達魯花赤。雖登榮顯，持教尤謹，常有志於推 廣教法。一夕，夢中天門開七重，二神人告云：“汝當與寺七所。”贈以白 物爲記。覺而有感，遂休官，務建寺。首於鐡甕門捨宅建八世忽木剌大興國 寺；次得西津豎土山並建答石忽（木）剌雲山寺、都打吾兒忽木剌聚明山

4

5

keeping two transcripts in his private libraries: Jiaoshan Shucang 焦焦叢焦 and Wenxuan Lou八文文. A printed edition of ZSZJZ, including an emendation edited by Liu Wenqi 劉八劉 who was a student of Ruan Yuan and his son Liu Yusong 劉劉劉, was issued by Bao Jingwei包大包 in 1842. In 1863 and 1923, it was re-printed for three times. A gravure was published by Zhonghua Shuju in 1980; and in 1999, a punctuated copy was issued by the Classics Publishing House ofJiangsu江江江江信信信. Cf. КАФАРОВ1872. (I wish to thank Chen Kaike 陳陳陳, an expert on Russian Sinologist Palladius, for giving me the information); also see The Chinese Recorder 1873, 108-113; MOULE-GILES 1915 in T’oung Pao (1915), 627-686; CHEN 1917, 42-53. SAEKI 1937511515. PELLIOT 1963, 774-776; FANG 方方1988, 36-40; LO 羅香香1966, 153-189. LIU 劉劉劉 2001, 14-23; QIU 邱邱邱2001, 357-383. MOULE 1930, 145.

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

307

寺；二寺之下，剏爲也里可溫義阡；又於丹徒縣開沙建打雷忽木剌四瀆安 寺；登雲門外黃山建的廉海牙忽木剌高安寺；大興國寺側又建馬里結瓦里吉 思忽木剌甘泉寺；杭州薦橋門建樣宜忽木剌大普興寺。此七寺實起於公之 心。公忠君愛國無以自見，而見之寺耳。完澤丞相謂公以好心建七寺，奏聞 璽書護持，仍撥賜江南官田三十頃，又益置浙西民田三十四頃，爲七寺常 住。公任鎮江五年，連興土木之役，秋毫無擾於民。家之人口受戒者，悉爲 也里可溫，迎禮佛國馬里哈昔牙麻兒失理河必思忽八。闡揚妙義，安奉經 文，而七寺道場，始爲大備。且敕子孫流水住持舍利八世業也。謹不可廢。 條示訓誡，爲似續無窮計，益可見公之用心矣，因緝其所聞爲記。6

English Version7: The Daxingguo Monastery is in the Jiadao夾道 lane. It was built in the 18th year of Zhiyuan era (A.D. 1281) by Xuelijisi薛里吉思 [Sargis], assistant darukhachi 達魯花赤 (sub-governor) of this Circuit. Liang Xiang 梁相, Director of Classical Studies, wrote a commemorative inscription. It says: “Xue mi si xian 薛迷思賢 [Samarqand] is distant from China more than myriad li to the north-west. It is a land where the religion of Yelikewen prevails. When I humbly asked about this so-named religion, it was said that in the whole world there were twelve Cross Monasteries; among them there was one chapel which had four pillars forty feet high, each was made of enormous wood. One pillar hanging in the air was more than a foot from the floor. Patriarch Ma’er yeliya 麻兒也里牙 8worked the miracle there in the year 1500 and odd. The present Ma 馬 Xue li ji si is his disciple. In the religion the worship towards the east is regarded as the principal thing. (But) it is different from the Indian religion of Nirvana. The fact is that the Sun rises in the East, the four seasons originate in the East, and all things are born in the East. The East comes under (the nature of) wood and presides over birth. Thus, hundun混沌 (chaos) have been parted, which causes qiankun乾坤 (heaven and earth) to be restless, which causes sun and moon to be carried on their way, which causes the human race to multiply, is the principle of continuous reproduction of life. Therefore, they call it Chang sheng tian長生天 (the eternal Heaven). The figure of ten 十 [a Chinese word, it is like a Cross] is an image of the human body. It is set up in the houses, painted in the churches, wore on the heads, and hung on the breasts. The adherents consider it as an indicator of the four quarters, the zenith and nadir. Xue mi si xian is the name of a place; Yelikewen is the name of a religion. His Excellency’s grandfather Kelijisi 可里吉思, his father Mieli 滅里, and his maternal grandfather Sabi 撒必 were court physicians. When the emperor Taizu 太祖 [Genghis Khan] first conquered their country, the Crown Prince yeke noyan 也可那顏 [i.e. Tului] fell ill. His Excellency’s maternal grandfather Sabi (administered) sherbet, the Mali Haxiya and nov

6 7

8

The text is taken from ZSZJJ, Vol. 9. See YU 1980, 2740. The English version is revised from Moule’s (MOULE 1930, 145-150) and Saeki’s (SAEKI 1937,511-515). Chen Yüan considered that Ma’er yeliya referred to the Mother of God or Madonna (CHEN 1917), but Moule, Fang Hao and Saeki held that it should be the Metropolitan Mar Elijah, who lived in the thirteenth century. Cf. MOULE, 146; FANG 1988, 39-40; SAEKI 1937, 511.

308

Yin Xiaoping

ices prayed, whereupon the prince recovered. He was appointed imperial Shelibachi 舍里八赤 (the administrative office of Sherbet) and dalahan 答剌罕 of the Yelikewen of his native place. In the 5th year of Zhiyuan era (1268) the emperor Shizu世祖 [Kubilai Khan] ordered his Excellency to come post haste to present sherbet, and rewarded him very liberally. Sherbet is made of a quantity of fragrant fruits boiled and mixed with honey. Sheliba-chi is the name of an office. His Excel lency had the hereditary skill in the method of making sherbet; and moreover there is proof of this. The emperor specially bestowed on him a gold tablet that he might devote himself to the office. In the ninth year (1272) he went with the pingzhang 平章, Sai dian chi 賽典赤 to Yunnan; in the twelfth year (1275) he went to MinZhe 閩浙 [Fujian and Zhejiang provinces] for the purpose of making sherbet. In the fourteenth year (1277) he was appointed assistant darukhachi of the central admini stration of Zhenjiangfu, receiving a tiger badge and the title of “Huaiyuan Dajiangjun” 懷遠大將軍 [the Great General Huaiyuan]. Though raised to splendor and prominence he held all the more closely to his religion and was constantly devoted to the propagation of faith. One evening in a dream, seven gates were opened and two Gods appeared. They said to him: ‘You must build seven monasteries.’ And they presented him with a white thing as a token. When he awoke he felt inspired, and then he resigned office and devoted himself to building the monasteries. First at the Tieweng 鐵甕 gate he built the Bashi humula9 八世忽木剌 or Daxingguo Mon astery at the groundwork of his own house. Next he obtained the Shutu 豎土 hill at Xijing 西津 and built together the Dashi humula 答石忽木剌 or Yunshan Monas tery 雲山寺 and the Dudawu’er Humula 都打吾兒忽木剌 or Jumingshan Monas tery 聚明山寺. Below the two monasteries, he found a free cemetery for the Yelikewen. Again at Kaisha 開沙in the district of Dantu 丹徒built the Dalei (打雷) humula or Sidu’an Monastery 四瀆安寺. On the Huang hill outside the Dengyun gate登雲門he built the Dilianhaiya 的廉海牙 humula or Gao’an Monastery 高安寺. By the side of Daxingguo Monastery, he built also the Mali jiewalijisi hu mula 馬里結瓦里吉思忽木剌 or Ganquan Monastery 甘泉寺. In Hangzhou at the Jianqiao gate 薦橋門 he built the Yangyi humula 樣宜忽木剌 or Puxing Monastery 普興寺. These seven monasteries were truly the outcome of his Excellency’s zeal. He was loyal to the sovereign and devoted to the empire, not seeking to make him self conspicuous but only making his monasteries so. the Grand Councilor (Chengxiang, 丞相) Wanze 完澤10 presented a memorial stating that his Excellency had goodness in heart to built seven monasteries, and obtained a letter of protection (for him) under the imperial seal. An immediate grant was made of thirty qing 頃 (about 200 hectare) of government arable land in Jiangnan, and thirty-four qing of privately owned arable land in west Zhejiang were brought in addition for the per petual maintenance of the seven monasteries. His Excellency held office in ZhenjiIt is regarded that “humula” was translated from Syriac “umra”, a monastery. Some of these names have been identified. “Bashi” is probably the Turkic “bash”, means “head or the first”; “Dashi” is possible the Turkic “dash”, means “stone”; “Dalei” is probably the Turkic word “daluy”, means “sea”; for “Mali jie walijisi” and “Yang-yi”, probably Mar Kurgis (St. Goerge) and yangi “new”. Cf. MOULE 1930, 149; LIU 2001, 14-15; SAEKI 1937, 513-514 10 Wanze became the Grand Councilor of the Grand Council in 1291, and he held the office until May 1303 when he died. Cf. Yuan Shi (1976 edition), vol.130, 3173-3174.

9

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

309

ang for five years. The continuously building affairs did not oppress any members of the common people in the very least degree. Those who took the vows were all Yelikewen. He ceremoniously invited the Mali Haxiya Ma’ershili hebisihuba 馬里哈昔牙麻兒失理河必思忽八 of the land of Buddha, who expounded the teaching of the religion and reverently deposited the scriptures, and then the chapels of seven monasteries were quite complete. Moreover he commanded his sons and grandsons to maintain them down the stream of time. Sherbet 舍里八was an heredi tary business to be carefully fostered, and must not decay. These precepts and in structions were designed to secure a perpetual inheritance and succession, and are a further illustration of his Excellency’s thoughtfulness. So I have brought together what I heard to form a record.”

According to the description, the founder was called Xuelijisi firstly. Obvi ously, Ma 馬 (lit. horse) was not his family name, actually, it was a title and was translated from Syriac “Mar”, namely noble or holy.11 When employed as a title or an honor, it is usually put ahead of the name.12 “Xuelijisi” was a fami liar Nestorian name “Sargis”. It was recorded in the description that “he held all the more closely to his religion and was constantly devoted to the propaga tion of faith 持教尤謹，常有志於推廣教法”, therefore I suppose that Xueli jisi (Sargis) should be a bishop of the Nestorian Church. Xuelijisi, or Mar Sargis, was from Samarqand, a famous metropolitan city in Central Asia. He was most possibly born in a Nestorian family. The reason why Xue-li-ji-si built seven churches in Jiangnan district possibly lay on the worship of number “seven” in Sogdians.13 His families were taken to China by Genghis Khan and assumed very important positions for their medical skills and special status. As the description of Daxingguo Monastery pointed out, Sargis’ father and grandfathers were all appointed officials of the royal medical department. Once Prince Tuolei 拖雷 (Tului) was ill, Sargis’s grandfather Sabi cured the Prince with Sherbet and then was ennobled a title of Dalahan答剌罕 (darkhan, 14a military aristocracy) for his deed. Besides, a group of followers were headed by Ma’er Haxiya馬爾哈昔牙to pray for the Prince. We do not know the relationship between Sabi and this Ma’er Haxiya. In my opinion, these two names might refer to one person. Ma’er haxiya is translated from Syriac mar hasia which means noble or a metropolitan of the Nestorian Church. As to Sherbet, it was a translation of Farsi Sharäb, a kind of fruit juice or liquid medicine.15 This liquid medicine was introduced into China in the Yuan Dy nasty; we do not know the details of its spread, however. It is believed that the making of Sharäb was one kind of hereditary career and was monopolized by

Cf. MURAYAMA 1964 in Uaral-Altaische Jahrbücher, 35 (1964), 394-496. NIU 牛牛牛2003 in Shijie Zongjiao Yanjiu 世世世大世世, vol. 2, (2003), 75. 13 CAI 蔡蔡蔡2002 in Wenshi 八元no.3 (2002), 105-112. 14 BARTHOLD 1968, 385. 15 SONG 宋宋2000, 36. 11 12

310

Yin Xiaoping

semu 色目 (Central Asians),16 such as Sargis and his family. Sargis spread the making of Sharäb in Yunnan, Fujian and Zhejiang provinces as recorded. The status and craftsmanship of Sargis and his grandfathers were accordant to the characteristics of Nestorians in history, such as the medical specialists in the Tang documents. 17 We therefore can trace out the common headstream from Tang Jingjiao and Yüan Yelikewen. Sargis wasappointed assistant darukhachi of Zhenjiang. Darukhachi wasthe highest officialofthelocal governments atalllevels underthe Mongol Empire. The reason why Sargis couldbuildsevenforeign religious temples in Jiangnan in severalyearssuccessfully, webelieve, couldhave much to dowith his official background. Furthermore, Sargisalsoreceivedagoodofsupport from the Grand CouncilorWanze and Chongfushi崇福使 (thegovernor administrates affairs of Yelikewen) Aixue爱薛. With Wanze’s help, Sargisgotenough officialland from thecourt (Seeabove). Wanze, asLiu Yingsheng discovered, was from a famousNestorian tribeKerait克烈 and mustbeaNestorian himself.18 Aixuehelpedtoconveyrescripts for Sargis. In Tongzhitiaoge 通志條格 [A Comprehensive Code of Institutions ofthe GreatYuan Dynasty] therewasa recordation, itsays: 元貞元年七月二十三日，中書省奏：“也里可 馬昔(思) [里]乞思，皇帝的御名薛禪皇帝、裕宗皇帝、太后的名字裏，江南自己氣力裏 蓋寺來，系官地內要了合納的租子，並買來的田地的 不納官，寺裏做香 燭。” 麼道，教愛薛那的 奏呵…19 In July 23rd, the first year of Yuanzhen period （元貞, 1295）, theGrandCouncil reported: “Yelikewen Maxiqisi…built monasteries by himself. Hebought lands [as groundsill] with the official land tax; in his monasteries [Yelikewen] held ceremonies.” His storywasconveyedby Aixue20 tothe emperor…

HereMaXuelijisi (Sargis) was miswritten asMaxiqisi. According totherecord, we knowthatSargis built monasteries by virtue of official land tax; besides, hewas notaccusedbutawardedofnotreporting totheGrandCouncil beforehand.

Cf. CHEN 陳陳妙2005, 61-67. HUANG 黃蘭蘭 2002 in Jounral of Sun Yat-sen University [Social Science Edition], No. 5 (2002), 67-71. 18 LIU 2001, 16-17. 19 Quoted from the 29th volume of Fang Linggui’s方方方 Tongzhitiaoge Jiaozhu 通通通通通通 [Notes on Tongzhitiaoge]. See FANG 2001, 720-721. 20 Aixue was considered to be from an Arabian tribe in the western Syria. He was regarded by Kubilai Khan. He devoted his life to three khans and died around 1312. Though Aixue was well-known in the Christian history in China, there were not enough records concerning his faith yet. However it was clear that he occupied the position of Chongfusi for a long time. Cf. PELLIOT 1914. HAN 韓韓香1982, 93-108. 16

17

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

311

However, the condition changed in1311, twooftheseseven Yelikewen monasteries, YunshanMonastery and Juming Monastery, werealteredtoBuddhist templesbyforce for this reason. See ZSZJZ, vol. 9: 至大四年，五月甲申，誕降璽書，……乘驛馳諭江浙等處行中書省曰：“也里 可 擅作十字寺於金山地，其毀拆十字，……命前畫塑白塔寺工劉高，往改 作寺殿屋壁佛菩薩天龍圖像，官具給需用物，以還金山。庚辰，洊降璽書， 護持金山，也里可 子子孫孫勿爭，爭者坐罪以重論。21 In the 4th Zhida 至大 year the fifth Jiashen甲申 day (May 31st), an order under the Imperial seal was made…to inform the provincial government of Jiangzhe 江浙 that: “Yelikewen have taken upon themselves to build Monasteries of the Cross on land belonging to Jinshan [Monastery], let the crosses be torn down and destroyed. The artist Liu Gao, who formerly did the painting and modeling for the Baita 白塔 Monastery, is ordered to go and paint their idols, figures of Buddha and Bodhisattvas and dragons, on the walls of the monasteries. The officials are to prepare and supply whatever the monasteries needs to use; they may revert to Jinshan. On the Genchen庚辰 day (May 27th), another charter with the Imperial seal was sent down for the protection of Jinshan, that the Yelikewen and their descendants should not dispute (the matter); and those who raise a dispute shall be severely punished.

It is obvious that in 1311 Yelikewen in Jiangnan were in an inferior position and could not compete with Buddhists any longer, which might ascribe to the death of Aixue and Wanze, i.e. Yelikewen had lost their support in the court. The instance furthermore proves the importance of official support towards the development of a religion.

2. A comparative review on TangJingjiao (Nestorianism) and Yuan Yelikewen From the interpretation of the religion Yelikewen by Liang Xiang, we can not find that Yelikewen in the Yuan Dynasty stemmed from Tang Jingjiao directly. As a Chinese Confucian, Liang Xiang seemed to know little about the foreign religion Yelikewen or Nestorianism. He used very multiplex terms to describe it, which combined Buddha (e.g. 天竺寂滅之教, Indian religion of Nirvana), Taoism (e.g. qiankun乾坤) and Shamanism (e.g. Changshengtian 長生天，the eternal God or Tengri), and so on. Liang was aware that Yelikewen differed from Buddhism and had non-Chinese origin, but he didn’t understand the teaching of it. Therefore, though he noticed the basic ritual performance of Yelikewen, e.g. the worship towards the East and the usage of the cross, he couldn’t come to the core of teaching and the real symbolism attached to the cross yet. In a word, Yelikewen was a new, unacquainted, non-Chinese religion for Liang Xiang and the Chinese people at that time.

21

ZZSZJZ (vol. 9), cf. MOULE 1930, 152-153.

312

Yin Xiaoping

In fact, as early as the Tang Dynasty, the Nestorian missionaries had translated some of their their Syriac texts into Chinese, which were known as the “Nes torian documents discovered at Dunhuang”. In the famous Tang Nestorian Stele unearthed in Xi’an, scholars found many concepts and terms borrowed from Taoism and Buddhism, such as yuanzun元尊 (the highest God in Tao ism), si寺 (temple of Buddhism), seng僧 (monk of Buddhism), Aluohe阿羅訶 (the Syriac word “Alāhā” for Lord; it borrowed from Buddhist Saddharma Pundarika Sutra妙法蓮華經22). By doing so they tried to explain their teach ing and ritual in a way that the Chinese could understand easily. In Chinese context, this borrowing was called geyi格義.23 Geyi was a common phenome non which usually happens when two different cultures contact; it first came forth in the Chinese interpretation of Buddhist sutras.24 As for the Tang Jiangjiao, they not only used the expressions of Buddhism and Taoism, but also cre ated a new word “Jing”景, which was used comprehensively in Nestorian Church of the Tang period, e.g. the Nestorian church was called Jingsi景寺, the Nestorian missionary was called Jingseng 景僧, the religion itself was called Jingjiao, etc.. The Nestorian missionaries of Tang were more purposively and devotional than Yelikewen of Yüan. They dedicated themselves to the missionary work, and geyi was a byproduct of lections’ translation. So far, we haven’t found any Chinese Nestorian scriptures of the Yuan Dynasty so far. Moreover, as the de scription of Daxingguo Monastery showed, Liang Xiang was obviously igno rant about Tang Jingjiao. As we know, in ancient China the inscription com poser always cast back the past examples to honor the present one. For exam ple, we confirms that Mingjiao明教 (Manicheism in the Song and the Yuan pe riods) in Fujian was transplanted from Manijiao摩尼教 (the Manicheism in the Tang Dynasty) in North China because their relationship was recorded explic itly in the Chinese document Min Shu閩書 (The Book of Fujian).25 There are many archeological relics to support the continuity between them. If Yelikewen came from Tang Jingjiao, Liang Xiang had no reason to omit the connection between them. Hong Jun 洪鈞 considered that Yelikewen of the Yuan dynasty might be descendent from the Nestorian of the Tang period;26 however, there’s

22

This transcription of the Syriac for God is borrowed from a Buddhist who used it for arhat in Miao Fa Lian Hua Jing 妙妙妙妙妙 of the 5th century. Cf. HAVRET quoted in MOULE 1930,

35. Cf. CHEN 陳陳陳1980 in Jinminguan Conggao Chubian金明金叢金叢方, 148-154. 24 CAI 2004, 64. 25 Cf. PELLIOT 1923 in T’oung Pao, XXII, (l923), l93-208; LIN 香林林2005, in Journal of Sun Yat-sen University [Social Science Edition] 3，(2005), 67-71. 26 See HONG’s Yüanshi Yiwen Zhengbu 元元元八元元, vol. 9. 23

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

313

still no strong evidence to support such continuity.27 Therefore we tend to be lieve that Nestorianism was re-introduced under the name of Yelikewen into China in the Yuan period.

3. Re-introduction of Nestorianism in Jiangnan, South of the Yangtze River As referred in the above record, Ma Xuelijisi was from Samarkand in Central Asia, which was an important Sogdian city-state. In the 19th century it was the Metropolitanate of the East Church.28 Here Yelikewen was referred to as Nestorian without doubt, as Marco Polo pointed out in his Description of the World: Here he tells of the city of Cinghianfu. Cinghianfu is a city of Mangi...And there are also in this city two churches of Nestorian Christians. And this came about from the 1278 year from the incarnation of Christ our Lord onward, and I will tell you how it happened. It was true that there had never been a monastery of Christians there nor had there been Christian God until that time; for it happened in the 1278 year of the said incarnation that the lord sent there for three years a baron who had for name Marsarchis, who was a Nestorian Christian, who was to be dwelt there three years for the lord be had those two Christian churches, of which I have told you, made there, and from that time onwards there have been churches where Nestorian Chris tians dwell, though before there was no church, nor Christian dwelt there.29

The above passage of Marco Polo was accordant to the description of Daxingguo Monastery. As a Christian from Italy, unlike Chinese and Mongolians, Marco Polo was able to distinguish the various Christian communities in China. Friar Odoric de Pordennone similarly noticed the Catholic Churches in Yangzhou as traveling there. His record has been proved true according to the archaeological researches in recent years. In 1951, two gravestones, one of which contained inscription in Latin, were found in Yangzhou.30 Therefore, the “Yelikewen” in ZSZJZ mostly likely referred to Nestorianism rather than the Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, the appearance of Yelikewen here may not mean that there were no Christians in Zhenjiang before 1278. On the contrary, there must have been enough Christians so that Mar Sargis built seven churches for them. The sur vival of the foundation of the church, as the religious active centre, is base on enough amounts of its followers.

Prof. Cai Hongsheng has discovered some clues of Jingjiao which was concealed into Bud dhism in the Hebei 河北 province after the Tang Dynasty, further investigations are still going on. 28 Cf. COLLESS 1986 in Abr-Nabrain Vol. XXIV, (1986), 51-57. 29 MOULE – PELLIOT 1938, 322-323. 30 Cf. XIA 夏夏1979 in Kao Gu 考, vol. 6, (1979), 532-537, 572. 27

314

Yin Xiaoping

Scholars normally drawtheconclusionthatChristiansintheYüanDynasty were companied bytheMongolarmyinto China; butno furtherandmoredetailedargumentshavebeen raised. NowwewillattempttodiscussthepossibilityofsuchoriginatleastfortheChristiansinSouthoftheYangtze River (Jiangnan). In Chinesedocuments, thefirst referenceof “Yelikewen” inJiangnanwasin 1304 (the 8th yearofDade大德 period). InVol. 33ofYuanDian Zhang元典章 [Institutions of the Yüan Dynasty], aritualconflict betweenYelikewen and the TaoistsinJiangnanwasrecorded: 大德八年，江浙行省准中書省咨，禮部呈奉省判集賢院呈，江南諸路道教所 呈， 州路有也里可 ，創立掌教司衙門，招收民 ，充本教 計；及行將 法籙先生誘化，侵奪管領；及於祝聖處祈禱去處，必欲班立於先生之上，動 致爭競，將先生人等毆打，深為不便，申乞轉呈上司禁約事。得此，照得江 南自前至今，止有僧道二教，各令管領，別無也里可 教門。近年以來，因 隨路有一等歸避差役之人，投充本教 計，遂於各處再設衙門，又將道教法 籙先生侵奪管領，實為不應，呈乞照驗。得此，奉都堂鈞旨，送禮部照擬。 議得即目隨朝慶賀班次，和尚、先生祝讚之後，方至也里可 人等。擬合依 例照會外，據擅自招收 計，並攙管法籙先生事理，移咨本道行省，嚴加禁 治，相應具呈照詳，得此，都省咨請照驗，依上禁治施行外，行移合屬並僧 道 司、也里可 掌教司，依上施行。 In the eighth year of the Dade period (1304 A. D.), the Provincial Government of Jiangzhe received an instruction from the Grand Council. According to the instruction, Li Bu 禮部 (the Board of Rites) had the honour to receive a report presented to it from the Jixianyuan 集賢院 (i.e., the Bureau controlling over the Taoist religion) which was forwarded to Li Bu with the endorsement of the Provincial Government, notifying people of the Circuits in Jiangnan to effect that in Wenzhou lu …3k (the Circuit of Wenzhou) there were Yelikewen who had established a yamen 衙門 (offices) for a Zhangjiao si掌教司. (They) invited common people to rank as members of their teaching, and by proceeding to convert Taoist priests; they gradually usurped the Taoist authority. And when they went away from the place of supplication they always insisted to precede Xiansheng (the Taoist Priests). Sometimes it went to the extreme that they disputed with the Taoist Priests, once some Yelikewen beat Xiansheng and his people. …When this complaint was forwarded, the authorities concerned found that there had been only two religions in Jiangnan, seng (Buddhism) and dao (Taoism), each religion with its own jurisdiction, but there had been no Yelikewen body besides. …the Chinese converts registered as members of the Yelikewen religion in order to evade taxation and corvee. 31

The document recorded a conflict between the Taoists and the Yelikewen. Chen Yüan commented that it was only “the one-side statement of the Taoists”32 that we should cautiously treat with. That “there had been only two religions in Jiangnan, seng (Budhist) and dao (Taoist), each religion with its own jurisdic 31

Yüan Dian Zhang (vol. 33) inXu Xiu Si Ku Quan Shu 續續續續續叢2002, 787, 340.

32CHEN1917,32.

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

315

tion, but there had been no Yelikewen body besides” should not be accordant to the historical truth. On the contrary, the Yelikewen should have been developed for a certain time and thus became a big threat to the Taoists. There had been seven Nestorian churches and churchyard in Zhenjiang early in the 1380’s ac cording to the description of Daxingguo Monastery. The Yelikewen expanded so fast that in the Government upgraded Chongfu Si to Chongfu Yuan 崇福院 in order to dominate these seventy-two Zhangjiao si. 33 According to all documents and historical facts, the Nestorians came to Jiangnan along with the Mongol army, especially the famous Christians Alans or Asu 阿速,34 and Kipchak (欽察, Cumans)35 armies, both of which were main forces in conquering the Southern Song Dynasty. Zhenjiang, a strategic port at the southern bank of the Yangtze River, was the first city that the Mongol army conquered. There were no specific records in Chinese documents about Alains involved in Zhenjiang warfare. However, we could know the importance about them by examining another war field Chingingui 鎮 (Zhenchao). As Marco Polo recorded:

At the end of the three day’s journeys [from Cinghiafu] then one finds the city of Tinghingiu (or Ciangiu36) which is very great and noble…Moreover I will tell you an evil thing which those of that city did and how they bought it dearly. It was true that when the province of Mangi was taken by the men of the great Kaan and Baian was their head, it happened that Baian sends a part of his people who were Alans, who were Christians, to this city to take it. Now it happened that these Alans took it and entered into the city. And they found there such good wine that they drank so much of it that they were all drunken so that they slept in such a way that they per ceived neither good nor bad. And when the men of the city saw that those who had taken it were so transformed that they resembled dead men, they made no delay but all immediately in that night they killed them all so that never a single one of them escaped. And when Baian, the lord of the great army, knew that those of this city had killed his men so treacherously, he sent there enough of his men and they took it by force. And also I tell you quite truly that when they took it they killed them with the sword(s). And in such a way as you have heard were so many men slain in this city.37

Baian was Boyan 伯顏, the grand commander of the Mongol troop for con quering the Southern Song Dynasty. After Alans was killed, Boyan sent Angji’er昂吉爾, a general from Zhangye 張掖 to attack the city and reoccupied it in the end.38 Whether or no, it took Alans disastrous expenses in the war,

Cf. Yuan Shi (vol. 89), 2273. Cf. PELLIOT in PELLIOT 1959, 16-25. 35 Cf. LUO 1984, 178. Luo’s work is a Chinese translation of BARTHOLD 1962. 36 Cf. MOULE – PELLIOT 1938, 323. 37 MOULE 1930, 140; also see MOULE – PELLIOT 1938, 323-324. 38 Yuan Shi (vol. 132), 214. 33 34

316

Yin Xiaoping

thereforetheMongol army slaughteredthecityandthensetupagain the Asu Qianjun Wanhu 阿速前軍萬 .39 Nowwe will cometothe Kipchak 欽察 army, the most famousexampleisUljaitu Batu 完者都拔都 and his family. They settled in Jiangnan becauseofthe Song-Yuan war. As Yuan Shi recorded: 完者都，欽察人。父哈剌火者，從憲宗征討有功。（至元）十一年（1274） ……九月，從丞相伯顏南征。十一月，攻沙洋、新城。始授金符，領丞相帳 前合必赤軍。十二月，統舟師由沙蕪口渡江。十二年春，與宋將孫虎臣戰于 丁家洲，大捷，進武義將軍。攻泰州，戰揚子橋，戰焦山，破常州。十三年 春，入臨安，下揚州，皆有功。江南平，入見，帝顧謂侍臣曰：“真壯士 也。” 因賜名拔都兒，授信武將軍、管軍總管、高郵軍達魯花赤，佩虎符。 既而軍升爲路，遂進懷遠大將軍、高郵路總管府達魯花赤。40 Uljaitu was from Kipchak…He joined Baian’s army in September 1275 and was promoted as a general before long; …in December, his subordination crossed the Yangtze River from Shawu port. In spring, 1276, [his army] captured Taizhou, Yangtze bridge, Jiaoshan and Changzhou successively. In the next year [his army] entranced Lin’an (Hangzhou) and Yangzhou. When south of the Yangtze River was conquered, he was called up to the court and praised by the great Khan: “What a bravery soldier!” He was honored as a name Badu’er (means brave man) hence, and awarded the General Xinwu and darukhachi (here means the martial governor) of Gaoyou army. When Gaoyou was upgraded to the circuit, Uljaitu was naturally got a promotion as the Great General Huaiyuan and the martial governor of Gaoyou circuit.

Uljaitu and his family settled in Gaoyou in South of Yangtze River thereupon. His eldest son inherited his post of darukhachi, and other sons occupied respectively on. Allthehis positions offspring of darukhachi lived in South of Changzhou of Yangtzecircuit, River.Huzhou 41 We believed circuit, and there so should have been a large amount of Mongol soldiers settled in Jiangnan like this family, many of which should be Christians. Sargis might have entered China along with the Mongol army after Samarqand had been conquered. As far as the description of Daxingguo Monastery was concerned, Sargis came to Zhenjiang (in 1275) soon after the conquest of this city (in 1274). This martial entrance or martial immigrant was the main missionary pattern of Yuan Yelikewen. It was advantageous for the new religion, Yelikewen, to increase its influence; and Yelikewen Jiao was imcomparably superior over Tang Jingjiao (Nestorianism). The conflict between Taoists and Yelikewen recorded in Yuan Dian Zhang, as cited above, provided a convincing proof to this conclusion.

Ibid, (vol. 99), 2527. Ibid, (vol. 131), 3192-3193. 41 PAN 潘明 2000 in Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences),2000 (3), 130.

39

40

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

317

It was an early, also the main missionary pattern for Yelikewen in the Yuan Dynasty. Additionally, Jiangnan developed quite fast under the Mongol domi nation and became the most flourishing area of China. Therefore, a large quan tity of merchants, friars and other Christians from Central Asia, West Asia and Europe, among whom were of course many Catholics, arrived in Jiangnan, and enriched the distribution of Christians in this area.

4. Conclusion and post-discussion The paper discusses the relationship between Yuan Yelikewen and Tang Jingjiao. It concludes that Yelikewen in Jiangnan (South of Yangtze River) were made up of the Nestorians in early period and could not be the descendents from Tang Jingjiao. Whereas there were still some common grounds between the two religions, such as, both of these groups specialized in medicament. The origin of Christians (Yelikewen) in Jiangnan had much to do with Chris tians from Alains, Kipchak armies, and so on. The paper brings forward a con cept of “martial immigrant”, which differed from Tang Jingjiao and Catholi cism in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, to sum up the missionary pat tern of the Yuan Dynasty. As far as those immigrant Christians were concerned, they belonged to a highclass at that time and had many privileges in every field (political, social and economical) of lives, so that their religion developed rapidly. Sargis, the foun der of Daxingguo Monastery, was one typical example. As a local governor of Zhenjiang circuit, he could build the first church in Zhenjiang by virtue of his official resource, including the support from Aixue and Wanze in the court. That’s the main reason why he could successfully build seven monasteries in Jiangnan in spite of the competition with their Buddhist and Taoist adversaries at that time. In conclusion, martial immigrant and official background are two crucial points to understand the spread of Yelikewen communities in the Yuan Dynasty.

Bibliography Chinese Historical Sources HONG, Jun 洪鈞.1897. Yuanshi Yiwen Zhengbu 元史譯文證補 in Congshu Jicheng Chubian 叢叢叢叢叢方，Vol. 3914. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985 SONG, Lian (1976 edition), Yuan Shi, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Yuan Dian Zhang in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu 續修四庫全書 (2002 edition), 787, Shang hai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. YU, Xilu 俞希魯. (1980 edition). Zhishun Zhenjiangzhi 至順鎮江志, Zhishun Zhenjiangzhi 至順鎮江志, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

318

Yin Xiaoping

Secondary Sources BARTHOLD, Wilhelm. 1968. Turkstan down to the Mongol Invasion, London, Luzac. BARTHOLD, Wilhelm. 1962. Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung Hildesheim. (Chinese Translation by Luo Zhiping Zhongya tujue shi shi’er Jiang 中亞突厥史十二講, Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社, 1984). COLLESS, Brian E. 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarqand” in Abr-Nabrain Vol. XXIV (1986), 51-57. CAI, Hongsheng 蔡鴻生. 2002. “Tangdai jiuxinghu chong qi lisu jiqi yuanliu kaobian”唐代九姓胡崇“七”禮俗及其源流考辨 [“Analyse on the rites and customs of the worship towards ‘seven’ among Sogdian in the Tang dynasty”] in Wenshi 文史 3,(2002), 105-112. CAI, Hongsheng 蔡鴻生. 2004. “Cong Zhimingdu xueshuo dao Zhimindu huati” 從支愍度學說到支愍度話題 [“From the theory to the theme of Zhimindu”] in Yangwang Chen Yinke仰望陳寅恪. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 64. CHEN, Gaohua 陳高華.2005. Chen Gaohua wenji 陳高華文集 [Collected Edition of Chen Gaohua] by Chen Gaohua. Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe, 61-67. CHEN, Yinke 陳寅恪.1980. “Zhimindu Xueshuo kao”支愍度學說考 [“Examine on Zhimindu’s Theory”] in Jinminguan Conggao Chubian 金明館叢稿初編, Shang hai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 148-154. CHEN, Yüan.1917. Yuan Yelikewen kao元也里可溫考 [An Investigation of Yelikewen Religion in the Yuan Dynasty]. Beijing: Furen she. Reprint, Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1923. CHEN, Yüan.1934. Yuan Xiyuren Huahua Kao元西域人華化考. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe 上海古籍出版社. FANG, Hao 方豪. 1988. “Ma Xuelijisi” in Zhongguo Tianzhujiao Renwu Zhuan中國天主教人物傳 [Biographies of Catholics in China] by Fang Hao. Bei jing: Zhonghua shuju, 36-40. FANG, Linggui 方齡貴. 2001. Tongzhitiaoge Jiaozhu 通制條格校註 [Notes on Tongzhitiaoge], Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. HAN, Rulin 韓儒林.1982. “Aixue zhi zai tantao”愛薛之再探討 [“Restudy on Aixue”] in Qionglu Ji 穹廬集. Shanghai : Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, 1982, 93-108. HUANG, Lanlan 黃蘭蘭. 2002. “Tangdai Qin Minghe wei Jingyi kao”唐代秦鳴鶴爲景醫考 [“Verification of the fact that Qin Ming-he was a Nes torian Doctor in the Tang Dynasty”] in Journal of Sun Yat-sen University [Social Science Edition], no. 5, 2002, 67-71. КАФАРОВ, Плладия.1872. “Старинные следы христианства в Китае по китайским источникам” Воточный сборник. LIN, Wushu 林悟殊. 2005. “Song Yuan binhai diyu Mingjiao fei hailu shuru bian” 宋元濱海地域明教非海路輸入辨 [“The Manichaeism on the Coastal Area during the Song and Yuan Periods: Non-Marine Route Entry”] in Journal of Sun Yat-sen University [Social Science Edition] 3, (2005) 67-71.

On the Christians in Jangnan during the Yuan Dynasty

319

LIU, Yingsheng 劉迎勝. 2001. “Guanyu Ma Xuelijisi” 關於馬薛里吉思 [“About Mar Sargis”] in Yüan ShiLun Cong元史論叢 vol. 8. Nanchang: Jiangxi Jiaoyuchubanshe, 14-23. LO. Hsiang-Lin 羅香林.1966. Nestorianism in the T’ang and Yüan Dynasties. Hong Kong: Institute of ChineseCulture. MOULE, A. C. 1930. Christians in China before the Year 1550. London et al: the Macmillan Co, 1930. MOULE, A. C. andL. GILES. 1915. “Christians at Chên Kiang Fu” in T’oung Pao (1915),627-686. MOULE, A. C. andPaul PELLIOT. 1938. Marco Polo, The Description of the World I. London: Routledge. MURAYAMA, Shichiro.1964. “EineNestorianische Grabinschrift in TürkischerSprache aus Zaiton” in Uaral-Altaische Jahrbücher 35 (1964), 394-396. NIU, Ruji 牛汝極. 2003. “Cong chutu beiming kanQuanzhouhe Yangzhou de Jingjiao laiyuan” 從信從從從從年年伽從年伽大大從從[“The origin of Nestorianism in Quanzhou and Yangzhou seen fromthe unearthed inscriptions”] in Shijie Zongjiao Yanjiu 世世世大世世vol. 2 (2003), 73-79. PAN, Qing潘清. 2000. “Yuandai jiangnan menggu semu qiaoyurenhu de jiben leixing”元代江南蒙古、色目僑寓人戶的基本類型 [“Basic types of Mongol and Semu population living South of the YangtzeRiver during the Yüan Dynasty”] in Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities andSocial Sciences) 3, (2000),130. PELLIOT, Paul.1923. “Les traditions manichéennes au Fou-Kien” in T’oung Pao, XXII, (l923), 193-208. PELLIOT, Paul. 1934. “Tang Yuan shidai zhongya ji dongya zhi jidujiaotu” 唐元時代中亞及東亞之基督教徒 in Xiyu nanhai shidi kaozheng yicong 西域南海史地考證譯叢, Beijing Shangwu yinshuguan, 49-70. PELLIOT, Paul. 1959. Notes on Marco Polo I,Paris : Impr. Natinale. PELLIOT, Paul. 1963. Notes on Marco Polo II, Paris: Impr. Nationale. QIU, Shusen 邱樹森.2001. “Daxingguo si bei yanjiu” 大興國寺碑研究 [“Studyon Daxingguo Monastery”] in Yuandai Wenhuashi Tanwei 元代文化史探微. Haikou: Nanfang chubanshe. SAEKI, P.Y. 1937. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Mazuren. SONG, Xian宋峴. 2000. Huihui Yaofang Kaoshi 回回藥方考釋 [Notes on Huihui Prescriptions]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. XIA, Nai夏鼐.1979. “Yangzhou Ladingwen mubei he Guangzhou Weinisi yinbi”揚州拉丁文墓碑和廣州威尼斯銀幣 [“The Latin Gravestones in Yangzhou and the Venetian Silver Coins inGuangzhou”) in Kaogu 考古, vol. 6, (1979), 532537,572. ZHANG, Xinlang 张星星. 1930. Zhongxi jiaotong shiliao huibian 中西交通史料彙編 [A Corpus of Historical Materialsonthe Intercourse between China and the West] Vol.1.Beijing:Furendaxuetushuguan.

EAST SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN IRAQ: A GLANCE AT HISTORY FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR UNTIL TODAY Dietmar W. WINKLER University of Salzburg, Austria

In the European Middle Ages, the Church of the East was geographically far larger than any Western Christian Church and has expanded into areas such as Central Asia, China and India. It has always been a minority in these regions, but nevertheless flourished for many centuries with a rich scholarly, literary, monastic and liturgical heritage.1 Though its decline has begun at the beginning of the so-called early modern period (14th century onwards) it is still a living Church today. There are four main denominations. Although there are no accurate statistics, the following numbers may give at least an idea of their size and spreading at the beginning of the twenty-first century: The „Assyrian Church of the East“ has approximately 385,000 members. The „Ancient Church of the East“ num bers perhaps 50-70,000 faithful in total. Further, there are two parts of the Church of the East which are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church: The Chaldean Catholic Church, with about 400,000 members, and the Indian Catholics who follow the East Syriac rite, the Syro-Malabar Church, who are by far the largest group. The latter counts about 3,8 Million members. How ever, India is not in the horizon of my paper2 Within Christianity, the Church of the East has become a minority today, but it is still present in its historic homeland Iraq, spread all over the Middle East, the Caucasus, India, Europe, North America and Australia. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the area settled by the part of the Church of the East which has not been in communion with the Catholic Church, had been reduced essentially to the rough, mountainous land of Hakkari along the present-day border between Turkey and Iraq. Besides this moun tain region, Urmiyah and Van were the only areas with significant numbers of 1

2

For a sketch of the history of the (East Syriac) Church of the East in the periods of the Sassanians, Arabs, Mongols and Ottomans cf. BAUM-WINKLER 2003. This paper refers to pp. 135157 of that book including the respective references and updating the present time. Cf. also WINKLER 2002. For India cf. Mar Aprem MOOKEN 2003.

322

Dietmar W. Winkler

East Syriac Christians.3 The Church had become a tribal Church, made up of more than a dozen Christian tribes4, its members numbering about 150,000.5 Western travelers, scholars, and missionaries gave them the name „Mountain Nestorians“, while they simply called themselves „Christians“ (mshīhāyē). In the second half of the nineteenth century the missionaries of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury6 introduced the term „Assyrian“, which they eventu ally adopted to describe themselves.7 The patriarchate, conforming to the social structure of the mountain tribes, had become hereditary and was passed within a family from uncle to nephew. The offices of bishop and metropolitan were likewise hereditary and were taken over, in part, by the tribal rulers, the maliks (kings). Because of this hereditary succession, the episcopacy, priesthood, and patriarchate each remained in a closed group of families. At the start of the twentieth century, the Assyrian Church had one patriarch, one metropolitan, and seven to ten bishops.8 The pa triarch was both ecclesiastical head and secular leader. The Chaldeans are those East Syriac Christians who had established union with Rome in the 16th century. In 1913 the Chaldeans numbered 100,000 faithful.9 Almost entirely limited to the region of modern Iraq, they were largely spared the fate of most Assyrians in the first half of the twentieth century which brought the Assyrian Church of the East to the verge of ruin.

1. The First World War In the decaying Ottoman Empire, the idea of the nation-state, imported from Europe, was not only the ideological argument for the Young Turk regime, which sought to found a state including all Turkish peoples, but also the foun dation of struggles for autonomy among the Armenians, Assyro-Chaldeans, Kurds, and Arabs. On the eve of the First World War, the British, French, and Russians deliberately used the politics of nationalism to win allies and weaken the Ottoman Empire. The Young Turks, who at first announced democratic reforms leading to equal ity for all peoples represented in the Ottoman Empire, soon feared for their own dominant position and championed instead the idea of a great Turkish empire

3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Cf. VINE 1937, 138. Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 122-145. STROTHMANN 1936, 43 writes “100.000 to 200.000”; VINE 1937, 184 notes “100.000”. Cf. COAKLEY 1992. COAKLEY 1996. An important monograph on the “Assyrians” is JOSEPH 2000, which is a thorough remake of JOSEPH 1961. STROTHMANN 1936 44; VINE 1937, 184. Cf. SPULER 1961, 164.

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

323

from Russia to Central Asia.10 The Young Turk regime tried to maintain the cohesion of the empire and finally, with the help of Kurdish troops, acted against any effort for independence. Well-known is the genocide of the Arme nians11. The West and East Syriac Christians suffered the same fate.12 In 1907 an agreement between England and Russia divided the PersianMesopotamian region into Russian, neutral, and British spheres of influence. Northwestern Persia came under the control of the Russians. Eventually, as the Russian troops presented a strategic danger to the Young Turks, one of the first Near Eastern conflicts of World War I broke out in neutral Persia. The Assyrian region of settlement lay on the line dividing the interests of Tur key and Russia. As late as 1914, Patriarch Benjamin Shimun XIX (1903-1918) approached the Turkish provincial governor to negotiate for the security of his East Syriac tribes. The governor offered guarantees, but Kurdish-Turkish at tacks on Christians soon followed because the Christians were seen as allies of Russia. In January 1915, because of the military situation in the Caucasus, Rus sia had to withdraw its troops temporarily from northwestern Persia. Turkish troops and Kurdish volunteers subsequently massacred the Assyrians, and peace returned only when the Russians advanced to Van. From here, they es tablished contact with Patriarch Benjamin Shimun XIX in the Hakkari moun tain region. The news of the massacres of Christians and the hope for support of the Russians eventually led to the patriarch’s officially declaring war on Turkey in the name of his nation (millet) on May 10, 1915.13 Shortly thereafter the strategic situation changed. The Russians again had to withdraw from Van; the Kurds attacked the Assyrians and forced them higher into the mountains. Many East Syriac villages and churches were destroyed. These desperate straits led to the Assyrians’ decision of evacuate all of their tribes from the Hakkari mountain region. Under the skillful leadership of their maliks, 50,000 men, women, and children gathered together and reluctantly ad vanced toward Urmiyah, where they hoped to secure aid from Russian troops. On the plains they joined with other East Syriac Christians. The „Mountain Nestorians“ had left their homeland behind, and few would ever see it again.14 Urmiyah lay in neutral Persia, where since 1915 starvation and epidemics had ravaged the large refugee population. The arrival of the East Syriac Christians from Hakkari worsened the situation. American aid workers and mission sta tions provided medical and other assistance; nevertheless, the death rate among the refugees may have reached one-third.15

More information cf. YONAN 1978, 28-39. Cf. TAMCKE 1996. 12 Cf. Y ONAN 1989. 13 Cf. S TROTHMANN 1936, 61. 14 Cf. Ibid. 62. 15 Cf. YONAN 1978, 32. 10 11

324

Dietmar W. Winkler

In Urmiyah the Russians recruited the battle-tested Assyrians to oppose the Turkish-Kurdish attacks. In January 1916 Patriarch Benjamin Shimun XIX traveled to Tiflis to meet with Tsar Nicolas, with whom he negotiated for an autonomous Assyrian settlement in their residential areas after the war. How ever, he had to bow to the general strategic situation. Due to the fatal condi tions in Urmiyah, the patriarch was at least able to accomplish the transfer of 15,000 of his people into the Caucasus, where they founded a new homeland in the present-day states of Armenia and Georgia. Those Assyrians who remained behind were subsequently given military training by Russian officers, with the patriarch maintaining supreme command. In 1917 the British, who had captured Baghdad, had also been trying to estab lish relations with the Assyrians. In the battle against the Central Powers an al liance was formed between the Russians and British, which included the Assyr ians, Armenians, and a Kurdish tribe.16 However, after the 1917 October Revo lution, the Russian troops pulled out of the Urmiyah region and Turkey. Ac cording to British plans, the Assyro-Armenian-Kurdish troops were to form a collective front line to impede a Turkish offensive. While there were no prob lems between the Armenians and Assyrians, cooperation with the Kurds led to catastrophe. On March 3, 1918, during talks in a village, the Kurdish leader murdered the Assyrian Patriarch Mar Benjamin Shimun.17 One month later the younger brother of the slain ruler was set up as the new pa triarch. He adopted the name Mar Poulos Shimun XX. Encouraged by the Brit ish, the Assyrian troops withstood the Turkish attacks on Urmiyah until June 1918, though they were surrounded and could not longer receive supplies. The Assyrians then resolved to attempt a desperate breakthrough. In a forced march of some 500 kilometers, 70,000 people moved from Urmiyah through western Iran to Hamedan (Ekbatana).18 Through hunger, epidemics, and Kurdish at tacks, this undertaking left about a third of the people dead.19 In Hamedan the Assyrians found the British, who provided emergency care. In 1918, when the capitulation of Turkey became known, further transport in the direction of Baghdad followed, to a refugee camp near Bakuba. The opportunity to return the Assyrians to their homeland in the Hakkari region, which was at the time a real possibility, was wasted. The camp claimed numerous additional victims among the Assyrians, many of whom died from the strain of the experience. Among them was the young patriarch Mar Poulos Shimun XX, who died of tu berculosis. The next patriarch was elected in a refugee camp northeast of Mossul: Mar Eshai Shimun – he was eleven years old.

Cf. STROTHMANN 1936, 63; YONAN 1978, 34f. Cf. YONAN 1978, 39. Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 127 writes. “more than 100.000”; YONAN 1978, 36 states: “60.000 to 70.000”. 19 Cf. S TROTHMANN 1936, 64. 16 17 18

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

325

With the loss of the Hakkari region during the First World War, the Assyrians lost not only their homeland but also more than half their population.20 From an estimated 150,000 before World War I, only about 70,000 left Urmiyah, and of these, a mere 50,000 made it through to the British in Mesopotamia. Among the victims were two patriarchs, the metropolitan, many bishops, and the ma jority of priests.

2. Postwar diplomacy and the Question of an Assyrian State The allied victory awakened among Christian Assyrians the hope for their own autonomous state or at least a return to their traditional homeland. At negotia tions with the Assyro-Armenian troops regarding defense of the Urmiyah line, British, Russian, and French diplomats offered assurance of Assyrian auton omy, sponsored by the British.21 However, neither this question, nor the return to their traditional homeland was explicitly addressed at the Versailles peace talks. It soon became clear that return to the Hakkari region was impossible, and the Assyrians had to remain in Iraq as refugees. The Assyrians were not, however, the only ones to whom the British and French made promises which were not kept. The Armenians, Kurds, and Arabs had similar experiences. Plans for the Assyrians, Armenians, and Kurds each to have their own state were stymied by their overlapping territories. At the start of the First World War the Arabs, under the leadership of Sherif Hussain of Mecca, a member of the Hashemite dynasty, were also promised by the British that following a victory over the Ottomans, they would receive support for the establishment of an independent Arab state. Like the Assyrians and Armenians, the Arabs fought as allies of the Entente. But as early as 1916, the British, French, and Russians had divided the Near East among themselves with the so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement. Following this, in 1917, the British foreign minister Arthur J. Balfour informed the French Baron Rothschild that his government had resolved, again without Arab in volvement, to found a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people.22 In 1919 Faisal, Hussain’s son, made a triumphant entry into Damascus, and many of his supporters saw him as king of an Arab empire stretching from Antioch to Sinai. Nevertheless, at the peace talks following World War I, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was carried out: Syria and Lebanon went to the French; Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq with Kuwait to the British. Many peoples believed they had been cheated out of political promises which had placed a vision of independence before their eyes. Thanks to British intervention, Faisal was Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 128; SPULER 1961, 166. Cf. YONAN 1978, 35. 22 There is an enormous literature on the Middle-East conflict. Very useful standard works are SCHEIBER– WOLFFSOHN 1996 and GOLDSCHMIDT 2006. 20 21

326

Dietmar W. Winkler

nominally tolerated as king of Syria but found himself unprepared to act as a puppet for the French. For this reason, he was forced out of Damascus in 1920. The British subsequently gave Faisal the throne of Iraq. This state was founded in 1921 and stood under British mandate in order to keep open the lines of communication with the colonies in India and protect British interests in the oil fields of Mesopotamia. In the partition of the Near East and the securing of European power interests, the question of the Assyrians was only a small detail.23 They could not partici pate in the talks at Versailles.24 The 1920 peace treaty of Sèvres provided for the foundation of an autonomous Kurdish state, in which the Assyro-Chaldeans and smaller ethnic and religious minorities would be guaranteed protection and security.25 However, since in the succeeding years the overall strategic situation and the interests of the victori ous powers changed, no autonomous Kurdistan was established. The Assyrian question was also cleared out of the way. In Turkey the troops of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk achieved victory. In 1923 Atatürk proclaimed the Turkish republic and by the time of the Lausanne Conference (1923), Turkish sovereignty had, for all practical purposes, been reestablished. Turkey had already entered into treaties with France and the Soviet Union. As a consequence, the Kurdish ques tion (and with it the Assyrian question) received scant attention in Lausanne; Armenia, which had been a signatory power at Sèvres, was not even invited.26 In the Lausanne treaties the individual peoples were not even named but were merely referred to collectively as „non-Muslim minorities“.27 The Assyrians had to eke out an uncertain life in Iraq. With no solution in sight and the closing of the Babuka and Mendan camps in 1920, 6000 mountain and Urmiyah Assyrians attempted to return to their former homeland. The opera tion failed, a group perished in the mountains.28 Nonetheless, between 1922 and 1923 many Assyrians gradually returned to their former villages in Hakkari. The borders were not yet fixed, and the Turk ish state not quite firmly established. In this way, some 8000 succeeded in re turning to their homeland.29 Most, however, remained as refugees in the plains surrounding Mosul and Kirkuk and set their hopes on the Mosul question, left open at Lausanne. England, Iraq, and Turkey tussled over the Mosul region. Because of its oil de posits and agriculture, the area has great economic as well as military signifi cance. The borders were not yet firmly established, and the British believed an 23

Cf. YONAN 1978.40-51. Cf. STROTHMANN 1936, 65. 25 Cf. ibid. 66. 26 Cf. Y ONAN 1978, 44. 27 Cf. Extract of the text in: ibid. 45. 28 Cf. Ibid. 54f. 29 Cf. Ibid. 47. 24

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

327

Assyrian buffer state would have a calming effect on the region. At the 1924 conference of Constantinople, the English representative advocated shifting Iraq’s border to the north and settling the Assyrians there. However, the nego tiations were broken off. The Turks moved into northern Iraq. Kurds and regu lar troops attacked Assyrian villages and slaughtered women, children, and eld erly people.30 The population fled by the thousands back into Iraq. In 1925 the archbishop of Canterbury appealed to the British public not to forget the prom ises made to the Assyrians.31 Nevertheless, an investigation by a commission of the League of Nations led to the creation of the so-called „Brussels line“ divid ing Turkey and Iraq, which placed the major region of Assyrian settlement conclusively in the Turkish state. The Assyrian settlement problem, which had existed since the First World War, remained acute.

3. The End of the British Mandate in Iraq The English mandate in Iraq lasted over twelve years. During this time the As syrian question could not be resolved. The people themselves were without a unified leadership as the young patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun had been living under the care of the archbishop of Canterbury in England, where he was re ceiving his education. In addition, in 1919, under new British promises, Assyr ian troops were recruited in Iraq to suppress Arab and Kurdish uprisings. These so-called Iraqi aid troops (Iraqi Levies)32 enabled the Sunni Faisal to hold on to his throne in the face of opposition from the Arab Shiites of Iraq, but as for eigners and colonial mercenaries, the Assyrians earned the hatred of the Mus lim population. The Assyrian aid troops were identified by most of the Muslim Iraqis as Christian supporters of the foreign occupation. Again and again the British thoughtlessly ordered the Iraqi aid troops to oppose uprisings of Arab and Kurds. The hatred which built up among the Muslim population made clear that the Assyrians could not be left behind unprotected after Iraq gained its in dependence. At the 1927 Anglo-Iraqi negotiations regarding ending the mandate, a common Assyrian position could not be agreed upon. Only about half of the Assyrian tribes stood behind the patriarchal family. Other groups rejected the leader, who had returned from England. His position in the eyes of both the Assyrians and the Iraqi authorities was further weakened by his lack of practice in the East Syriac dialect and ignorance of Arabic.33 Some bishops’ families desire

Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 129. Cf. STROTHMANN 1936, 67. 32 Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 129; YONAN 1978, 46f. 33 Cf. ANSCHÜTZ 1969, 131. 30 31

328

Dietmar W. Winkler

the abolition of the hereditary patriarchate and the reintroduction of patriarchal elections, in hope of increasing the prestige of their own families and tribes.34 Since the Assyrians recognized that British support would not be provided to the extent that been promised, both the pro- and the anti-patriarchal parties in undated the League of Nations with a flood of petitions between 1930 and 1933. In 1932 Mar Eshai Shimun traveled to Geneva to bring the Assyrian con cerns to the attention of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, it became clear that a settlement of the Assyrians as a collective ethnic group in a homogene ous and autonomous region was out of the question. The tensions with Iraq, which in 1932 was accepted into the League of Nations as an independent state, steadily increased. The patriarch was placed under house arrest in Baghdad and the perilous situation gradually increased Assyrian sentiment in favor of emi gration. Several incidents and the accumulating aggression against the Assyrians led in 1933 to the so-called massacre of Semile. A rumor was created among the Iraqis that the Assyrians were going to plunder northern Iraq. In response, Kurdish and Arab tribes were stirred up against the Assyrians. Sixty out of sixty-four villages were destroyed. Under the leadership of the Iraqi military, the Assyrians were gathered together, and all males over the age of ten were shot. What happened in Semile was a gruesome slaughter by Iraqi troops, which was celebrated by Iraq as a great victory, the defeat of an uprising and the liberation of the country from a great danger.35 In Semile alone, the dead numbered 350; the total accounting of Assyrian dead during this time reached 3,000.36 The patriarch, who was being held in Baghdad, attempted through petitions to inform the diplomatic representatives and the League of Nations of the dra matically intensifying events. This led to the deportation of the twenty-sixyear-old leader from Iraq in August 1933; he was taken by British military air craft to Cyprus. In the same year he again presented the concerns of his people to the League of Nations in Geneva. At this time the Assyrian people had been terribly decimated, and the survivors were homeless, the patriarch expelled, the Church leaderless. Of the twenty to thirty thousand Assyrians remaining in Iraq, nearly all wanted unreservedly to leave. In 1933 the League of Nations appointed a committee to resolve the Assyrian question. Various governments were asked to accept the Assyrians. Several remarkable resettlement plans were proposed - including such destinations as Brazil, East Africa, Latin America, Canada, and others - for this old and estab lished mountain people of the Near East. They failed mostly due to lack of fi nancial resources, but also because of immigration problems in the nations suggested. Cf. Ibid. 130. Cf. Ibid. 65; STROTHMANN 1936, 72. 36 Cf. YONAN 1978, 64. 34 35

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

329

4. Emigration and Diaspora While on Cyprus, Patriarch Eshai Shimun submitted numerous documents and petitions in an attempt to make the League of Nations aware of his people’s fate.37 He was expelled from Iraq and denied entry into Syria. Eventually - after sojourns in Cyprus, Geneva, Paris, and London - he immigrated in 1940/41 to the United States to join his diaspora community there. The center of the American Assyrian diaspora was Chicago, where some 30,000 Assyrian lived. A solution for part of the Assyrians was found in Syria by the settlement com mittee of the League of Nations. Beginning in May 1936, 9000 Assyrians were taken from Iraq and settled in the desolate, entirely uncultivated region of Khabur in the plains of Jezireh.38 They were divided between thirty-five vil lages according to their tribal affiliation, with some others settling in the cities of Qamishli, Hassake, and Aleppo, as well.39 At the beginning of World War II the 20,000 or so Assyrians who had re mained in Iraq lived in scattered settlements in the north of the country. Thus they had lost their ethnic unity and were, as a „nation“, leaderless. The main areas of settlement were Mosul, Irbil, and Kirkuk but also the capital Baghdad. Beginning in 1961 the Assyrians became entangled in the struggles of the Kurds in northern Iraq. In this matter the Assyrians relied on the treaty of Sèvres, which guaranteed the Assyro-Chaldeans protection and security inside an autonomous Kurdish region. Over the course of the fighting, many Christian villages and churches were destroyed by the Iraqi troops. In the West attention was paid almost exclusively to the problems of the Kurds.

5. Ecclesiastical Reorganization and Patriarchal Schism In the United States, through persistent efforts, Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun succeeded in reorganizing his Church and rebuilding it on a modest scale. The chief problem for the Church was the shortage of priests and the reestablishment of an ecclesiastical hierarchy which had been nearly annihilated in the first half of the twentieth century. In Iraq since the exile of the patriarch, his uncle and teacher, Metropolitan Mar Yosip Khnanisho, had held the leadership of the Church. His diocese lay in the Persian-Turkish border region. In 1963 Mar Khnanisho transferred his See to Baghdad and exercised his office as patriarchal vicar over all the other dioceses of the Near East. In the 1960s additional bishops were ordained for Irbil, Cf. Ibid. 76. For the numbers cf. also DE VRIES 1953, 233-252. 39 Cf. TALAY 2000, 451f. For the political situation cf. VINE 1937, 203-205. 37 38

330

Dietmar W. Winkler

Kirkuk, Basra, and Baghdad. Patriarch Eshai Shimun could not return to his homeland until 1970, thirty-seven years after his expulsion. At that time he was again recognized by the Iraqi government as the religious head of his Church. Nonetheless, the patriarch deemed the situation too uncertain to permit him to move his See back to Baghdad. The communities of Khabur in Syria were left entirely to themselves for nearly thirty years. They have remained until the present day poor and spiritually ne glected.40 In March 1964 Eshai Shimun issued a decree to his metropolitans and bishops, in which he announced some changes in his Church. These included in particu lar the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, the shortening of Lent, and litur gical reforms.41 These novelties, which were seen as „Western“, aroused oppo sition among some in the countries of the Near East, which was also tied up with various tribal rivalries. In Baghdad an opposition criticized in particular the more than thirty-year absence of the patriarch, but also the hereditary patri archate, and the reforms which had not received synodal approval. To remedy the shortage of priests, they turned to the Indian metropolitan Mar Thomas Darmo, who opposed the hereditary patriarchate. In 1968 he traveled to Iraq and consecrated three bishops: Mar Poulos and Mar Aprem from Trichur, as well as Mar Addai from Baghdad. Shortly thereafter these three elected Mar Thomas Darmo patriarch of the Church of the East and they deposed Mar Eshai Shimun. Thus there was a duplication of the hierarchy and a patriarchal schism developed. After Mar Thomas died in 1969, the metropolitan of Baghdad, Mar Addai II Giwargis, was elected as his successor. At the beginning of the 1970s the Apostolic Church of the East was split into two jurisdictions of roughly equal size at that time.42 The second crisis after this schism befell the Church in the 1970s. In late 1972 Mar Eshai Shimun decided to resign the patriarchate; in 1973 he married.43 In the same year seven Assyrian bishops from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria as sembled in Beirut to discuss the resignation and marriage of the patriarch.44 The most significant outcome of the synod was the abolition of hereditary suc cession and the reintroduction of canonical election of the patriarch. Another synodical meeting concerning this difficult question for the Assyrian Church took place in Beirut 1975. The problem of the patriarchate was supposed to get solved at a synod in Seattle, Washington. In 1975, however, Mar Eshai Shimun was assassinated in San Jose, California.45

For the situation of Church and economy of the Khabur-Assyrians cf. TALAY 2000, 447-467. Cf. ibid. 145f. 42 Cf. M ADEY 1972, 136-138. 43 Cf. M ADEY 1975, 173f. 44 Cf. YONAN 1978, 140. 45Cf.LECOZ1995, 394. 40 41

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

331

With the death of Mar Eshai Shimun, the hereditary succession of the patriar chate came to an end. In 1976, Mar Dinkha Khnania was elected as the new pa triarch and 120th successor to the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Since then the As syrian Church of the East has begun to involve herself in inter-church (ecu menical) dialogues.46

6. The recent wars and its consequences for the Christians in Iraq The recent three wars in the Persian Gulf region – Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Gulf War (1990-1991) and the Iraq war which began with the invasion in March 200347 - brought renewed hardship to the Christian minority. In 1988 Saddam Hussein advanced on northern Iraq because the Kurds had supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein sought to institute a plan of Arabization, affecting in particular the Kurds and Christians in northern Iraq, who were violently expelled. In the process, many Christian villages, churches, and monasteries were destroyed, and a wave of Kurdish and Christian refugees fled to Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Syria. In Northern Iraq the number of Chris tians decreased from 1961 to 1995 from 1 Million to 150.000.48 The consequences of the present political and economic situation in the Middle East are huge waves of refugees. Today there are more Christians from the Middle East in the Diaspora than in the Middle East. According to the Middle East Council of Churches about 2 Million Christians emigrated from the Mid dle East (as a whole) between 1997 and 2002. Despite the military clashes in northern Iraq, the Gulf War (1990-1991) drew the world’s attention to Kuwait in the south. The 1991 United Nations cease fire resolution made no reference to northern Iraq. In 1992, West European and American initiative led to the creation of a kind of „buffer zone“ north of the 36th parallel, though this was not recognized under international law.49 The Kurds hoped for their own state within Iraq. The Assyrians were once again the forgotten segment of the region’s populace. From the end of the Gulf war in 1991 to the eve of the next war in 2003 more than 10,000 Christians (Assyr ians, Chaldeans, Armenians etc.) had left Iraq each year. The reason was the fear of a new war and the UN embargo against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which caused a hopeless economic situation. 50 In March 2003 began the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. They quickly de feated Iraq’s Army and drove Saddam Hussain from power. However, it soon

Cf. WINKLER 2003. WINKLER 2001, 138-151. WINKLER 1998, 158-173. Cf. GOLDSCHMIDT 2006, 432-438. M ÄDER 1995, 83-102. 48 Cf. D ÜMLER 1999, 141. 49 Cf. K ERNIC 1995, 236. 50 Cf. SAKO2001,4. 46

47

332

Dietmar W. Winkler

turned out that the coalition had no idea how to restore order and establish se curity in the country. Even after the election in 2005 suicide bombers, kidnap ping and car bombs are on the daily agenda. Christians emigrate in a desire for peace and economical stability. Those who are already in the West will pull out their relatives to follow them. They should have a future with jobs. An estimated 70.000 Christians left Iraq between April 2004 and February 2005, especially after the church bombings in Mosul and Baghdad.51 New church bombings happened at the beginning of 2006. It is difficult to quantify the extent of persecutions of Christians in Iraq, especially in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad. This includes kidnappings, torture and executions. Within the Kurd ish region, the situation appears to be more stable. As the President of the Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani offered the Assyro-Chaldean population to take refuge in the North, East Syriac Christians move again to northern Iraq. In the last two years about 30 new villages were build for them in this area and about 3.500 families, i.e. 18.000 people moved there, while another 50.000 took refuge in Syria. On May 20, 2006, the new government of Iraq took office following approval by the members of the Iraqi National Assembly which were elected in December 2005. Among the 37 member cabinet are only two Assyrians and no further Christians. The current situation for religious minorities in Middle and South Iraq is a disaster. While the Kurdish region is not only on the way to de velop economically, but also includes Christians in regional parliaments, the Christians in the other regions – which are supposedly controlled by US and British troops – have to fear for their lives on a day by day basis. The attacks and threads as well as kidnapping of priests have pushed the Chal dean Patriarchate in Bahdad to transfer St Peter’s Major Seminary and Babel College, the only Christian Theological University in Iraq, to Erbil in Kurdi stan. The move started in August 2006 while car bombs hit one of four churches in the capital Bagdad. 52 In September, the vice-rector was kidnapped, when he left the building, in December the rector was taken. In January 2007, this eminent Christian Institution got settled in Ankawa. “This transfer together with the inauguration in mid-November of the Syrian-Catholic seminary in Bakhdida (Qaraqosh) reveals that the north of Iraq, under Kurdish control, is currently the only safe place for Iraqi Christians.”53 Nevertheless, it is to hope, that the Church of the East has a future in its Mesopotamian homeland– and not only in the USA, Europe, Australia and India.

These figures are according to reports of participants in the PRO ORIENTE Syriac Commission. Cf. Asia News (January 4, 2007). 53 Assyrian International News Agency, http://www.aina.org/news/20070105003221.htm (Janu ary 20, 2009) 51 52

East Syriac Christianity in Iraq: A Glance at History

333

Bibliography ANSCHÜTZ Helga. 1969. „Die Gegenwartslage der ‚Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens’ und ihre Beziehungen zur ‚assyrischen’ Nationalbewegung“ in Ostkirchliche Studien 18, 122-145. BAUM Wilhelm, WINKLER Dietmar W. 2003. The Church of The East. A concise his tory. London, New York: Routledge. COAKLEY J.F. 1992. The Church of the East and the Church of England. A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission. Oxford. COAKLEY J.F. 1996. „The Church of the East since 1914“ in Bulletin of the John Ryland’s University Library of Manchester 78, 179-198. DE VRIES Willhelm. 1953. „Zur neuesten Entwicklung der Ostkirchen“ in: Ostkirchli che Studien 2, 233-252. DÜMLER Beate. 1999. „Zur aktuellen Situation der Christen im Irak“ in Ostkirchliche Studien 48. GOLDSCHMIDT Arthur. 2006 (8th ed.). A Concise History of the Middle East. Boulder, Oxford. JOSEPH John. 1961. The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbors. A Study of Western Influence on their Relations, Princeton. JOSEPH John. 2000. The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East. Encounters with West ern Christian missions, archaeologists, and colonial powers. (Studies in Christian Mission 26) Leiden KERNIC Franz. 1995. „Der Kurden-Konflikt“ in H. Mäder, Die Streitkräfte der Staaten des Nahen Ostens und Nordafrikas Teil B. Wien, 214-239. LE COZ Raymond. 1995. Histoire de l’Église d’Orient. Chrétiens d’Irak, d’Iran et de Turquie. Paris. MÄDER Horst. 1995. „Nahost-Kriege der jüngeren Geschichte. Ein Überblick“ in Idem, Die Streitkräfte der Staaten des Nahen Ostens und Nordafrikas Teil B. Wien, 83-102. MADEY Johannes. 1972. „Neue Beiträge zur Statistik der Alt-Orientalischen Kirchen“ in: Der Christliche Osten 27, 136-138. MADEY Johannes. 1975. „Zur Gegenwartslage der Orientalischen Kirchen“ in: Ost kirchliche Studien 59, 169-184. MOOKEN Mar Aprem. 2003. The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century with special reference to the Syriac Literature in Kerala. (Moran Etho 18).Kottayam, SEERI SAKO Louis. 2001. “Trotz Leiden ein Herz aus Gold“ in ICO-Information Christlicher Orient 4, 4. SCHEIBER F., WOLFFSOHN M. 1996. Nahost. Geschichte und Struktur eines Konflikts. Opladen (4th ed.) SPULER Berthold. 1961. „Die Nestorianische Kirche“, in Handbuch der Orientalistik Vol.8,2. Leiden. STROTHMANN Rudolph. 1936. “Heutiges Orientchristentum und Schicksal der Assyrer” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 55, 17-43. TALAY Shabo. 2000. „Bericht über die Lage der Apostolischen Kirche des Ostens in Syrien“ in M. Tamcke, A. Heinz (eds.), Zu Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Ge genwartslage der syrischen Kirchen (Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 9) Münster 2000, 447-467. TAMCKE Martin. 1996. Armin T. Wegener und die Armenier. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit eines Augenzeugen. (Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 2). Hamburg.

334

Dietmar W. Winkler

VINE A.R. 1937. Nestorian Churches. A Concise History of Nestorian Christianity in Asia from the Persian Schism to the Modern Assyrians. London. WINKLER Dietmar W. 1998. “The Current Theological Dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East” in R. Lavenant, Symposium Syriacum VII. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256) Rome 1998, 158-173. WINKLER Dietmar W. 2001. “Between Progress and Setback: The Ecumenical Dia logues of the Assyrian Church of the East” in: Pro Oriente (ed.), Syriac Dialogue 4. Fourth non-official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition. Vienna 2001, 138-151. WINKLER Dietmar W. 2002. “The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Cen tury”, in The Harp. A Review of Syriac and Oriental Ecumenical Studies 16, 245270. WINKLER Dietmar W. 2003. Ostsyrisches Christentum. Untersuchungen zu Christologie, Ekklesiologie und zu den ökumenischen Beziehungen der Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens (Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 26) Münster. YONAN Gabriele. 1978. Assyrer heute. Kultur, Sprache, Nationalbewegung der aramäisch sprechenden Christen im Nahen Osten. Hamburg. YONAN Gabriele. 1989. Ein vergessener Holocaust. Die Vernichtung der Christlichen Assyrer in der Türkei. Göttingen.

LITURGY AND ARTS

A STUDY ON THE JINGJIAO CHANT MUSIC IN THE TANG AND YUAN PERIODS OF CHINA GE Chengyong China’s Cultural Relics Publishing, Beijing

Abstract This article investigates a ritual performed at a Royal Palace in A.D. 744, at tended by the New Bishop Jihe from Syria and 17 monks in the Nestorian tem ples. The event is documented in the Inscription of Xi’an. As the mass was usually conducted in the form of anthem and singing, singing was preferred to recital. Trained monks were like singers in the choir, we can thus conclude that this is a big occasion for prayers and singing. As an emperor with good music taste, Tang Xuanzong was fascinated with the Jingjiao and therefore, it helped the spread of this religion. With a reflection on the two popular versions about the origin of Jingjiao chant music in the academia (some attributed its origin to Byzantine and the others credited Syria for its origin), the author believes that the early stages of both hymn and round hymn in Christianity started in Syria and that the Syriac lan guage was used in the liturgy of the Oriental Churches. However, the Christian sacred music was not made in an exclusive environment by a single nationality. Based on the Jewish music, the chant music came into being during its frequent interactions with the Greek music. The early stage of Christian music in the Greek and the Roman worlds was characterized by oriental traits. It was highly possible that churches in the East introduced the sacred music of churches in the west. Despite the fact that the Byzantine church adopted the Greek lan guage, the Byzantine music was not a continuation of ancient Greek music. Rather it mingled oriental elements with Jewish and Syriac heritage, bearing much similarity to the sacred music in occidental churches. The Byzantine church used to adopt the pagan hymn of Syria. In this case, the sacred music of Jingjao incorporated the features of several melodies of both oriental and occi dental churches on the ground that they have something in common. Because the religious music before the 9th century A.D. spread from ear to mouth based on lyrics rather than music books, we are left with few data about the church music

338

Ge Chengyong

The author analyzed the Hymn to the Holy Trinity, the chant scripts of Jingjiao in the Tang Dynasty, compared them with the chant music of Zoroastrianism and the Manichaeism. The author concluded that the Jingjiao music was likely to have made Tang Xuanzong feel harmonized and was then he introduced the Jingjiao music into the Taoist music etiquette. As such, the Chinese Taoist mu sic was featured with traces of influence from the Christian music. This article also gives a sketch of the Jingjiao chant music and its spread in the Yuan dynasty. Looking back on Jingjiao music’s development in the Tang Dy nasty (7th – 9th centuries) and the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, the author made the following observations: 1. When Jingjiao was introduced into China in the Tang Dynasty, the Christian chant music, featured in the Syriac Oriental church, spread as a liturgy. Even without the appearance of the Occidental church music, the music still bore similarities to the Byzantine scared chant music and it interested many people as an exotic chant music. 2. The Christian music practiced by the Jingjiao believers used to please the elite aristocrats. Either Tang Xuanzong of the Tang Dynasty or Emperors in the Yuan Dynasty, indulged in the exotic and amazing music from foreign lands. The spread of Jingjiao music was limited in terms of audience and geographic coverage, thus failing to make an influence in the music history of ancient China. 3. Among the three foreign religions in China, the Jingjiao chant music carried a style of gracefulness and solemnity, the Zoroastrian music was featured as a boisterous magic and the Manichean one was characterized by the popular mu sic in Western Asia. I don’t think the metaphor is perfect. However, one thing for sure is that the genre of the Jingjiao chant music was difficult to follow and this impeded its dissemination and spread among the public. 4. Buddhist and other religious elements were contained in the development of Jingjiao in the Tang Dynasty. The predominant role of the Buddhist melody depressed the prospect for Jingjiao’s spread. The popularity of other ethnic music also contributed to the waning influence of the Jingjiao music when it was forced to blaze a path on its own. 5. Historical documents from the Tang and Yuan Dynasties indicated that the local music was yet to be developed, the converted and baptized local disciples were unable to create a new church music and the best thing they could do was to sing the sacred music in turns in the local language. However, it was in the Yuan Dynasty that the Occidental Christian music was introduced into China. 6. The spread of the Jingjiao failed to make much headway. Immigrants from western Asia were its major adherents in the Tang Dynasty; Mongolians and Semu Peoples were its followers in the Yuan Dynasty. It was difficult for Christians to win more disciples and the religion seemed never to have spread well among the Han Chinese. Categorized into the indirect spread in the cul

A Studyon the Jingjiao Chant Music

339

tural history, the Jingjiao chant music did not attract more audience and the religion failed to win more converts. The spread of the Jingjiao chant music in the Tang and the Yuan dynasties, plummeted into the valley after its heyday, just like a flash of thunderbolt. With no huge and resonant impact, the music provided researchers endless room to speculate. It is a pity that traces of the less obvious evidence of the Jingjiao chant music was scarce. Based on the available body of research, this article attempts to provide some new evidence in a solid and lucid way.

唐唐唐唐、、、、元时代景教歌咏音乐的考述 元时代景教歌咏音乐的考述 葛承雍

基督教（Christianity）的福音传播离不开音乐，因为音乐可以直接和心灵 基督教 ( C血isti 田fty ) 的 福音 传播离 不 开 音乐 ， 因为 音乐 可以 西 接和心灵 对话。基督教音乐作为艺术不仅与宗教相通，而且首要职能是引导人们 肘 话 。 基督教 音乐 作为 艺术 不仅 与 宗教 柑通 ， 而且 首要 职能是 引导 人 仰'1 去领会神的启示。音乐的真魂，音乐的因子，音乐的灵感，活跃了宗教 去 领会 神 的 启示 。 音乐 的 真 魂 ， 音乐 的 因子 ， 音乐 的 灵感 ， 活跃 了 宗教 严肃刻板的气氛，并以其独特的震撼心灵力量成为呼唤神的最佳媒体， 严肃刻板的 气氛 ， 卉 以 其独特 的 震撼心灵 力量成为 呼唤 砷 的 最 佳 媒体 ， 创造一个彼此 教导 的 融洽高潮 。 公元 五 世纪晚期 ， 基督教 聂 斯托利派 创造一个彼此教导的融洽高潮。公元五世纪晚期，基督教聂斯托利派 (Nesto血 n ) 从 君 士 坦 丁 堡 进入 萨珊 波斯 帝 回 版图 内 的 两 河流域地区 后 ， (Nestorian）从君士坦丁堡进入萨珊波斯帝国版图内的两河流域地区后， 为了 捉高 自己 教派 传播的 质量 和效果 ， 肘音乐 一面非常 重视 ， 无论是在 为了提高自己教派传播的质量和效果，对音乐一直非常重视，无论是在 神学院教学中，还是在礼拜仪式中，都注重音乐的成分，通过音乐真切 砷 字 院 教宇 中 ， 还是在礼拜 仪式 中 ， 邵注重音乐 的成分 ， 通过 音乐 真切 体验宗教的魅力。公元七世纪聂斯托利派进入中国后虽称名“景教”，但仍 体验 宗教 的腿 力 。 公元七世纪 聂 斯托利派进入 中 回 后 虽称名 " 景 教" ， 但 仍 执著原有的宗教音乐，使基督教音乐在东方各国促进人类文明交流中， 执著原 有的 宗教音乐 ， 使基督教音乐 在 东 万 各国促进人类 文明 交流 中 ， 成为 一 种无法 替代 的 元素 。 成为一种无法替代的元素。

寸 一一 计 (一一一一)

八 世纪 的 开元 大宝 时代 ， 是 唐朝 对景教 优礼 厚待 的 时期 。 《 大秦景教流 八世纪的开元天宝时代，是唐朝对景教优礼厚待的时期。《大秦景教流 行中国碑》记载唐玄宗派宁王等五王，亲临长安城内基督教堂，建立坛 行 中国 脾 》 记载唐文 宗派宁 壬等 五 王 ， 荣 临 长安城内 基督教 堂 ， 建立 坛 场。又派大将军高力士送五位皇帝画像，到基督教教堂安置。这并非唐 场 。 又派 大 将军高 力 上迭 五 位里 帝 画像 ， 到 基督教教堂 安置 。 汉并非 唐 玄宗对景教偶然情有独钟，而是景教传教士通过走上层路线所采取奉献 玄宗 对景教偶然情有独钟 ， 而是景教 传教 士通过走上层路线所宋取奉献 珍宝、医术诊病等种种方式与朝廷接触、沟通，才使皇帝加深对景教的 珍宝 、 医术 诊 病等种种 万 式 与 朝廷 接触 、 沟通 ， 才使里 帝 加深肘景教 的 印象 。 特别是 《 大秦景教流行 中国碑 》 记录 大宝 三 载 ( 7叫午 ) 印象。特别是《大秦景教流行中国碑》记录天宝三载（744年）：

340

GeChengyong

“大秦国有僧佶和，瞻星向化，望日朝尊。诏僧罗含、僧普论等一七 人，与大德佶和于兴庆宫修功德。”1 这条录文表明来自叙利亚的新主教佶和到达中国的第一年，便接到了唐 玄宗的诏书，与大秦寺僧罗含、普论等17人前往兴庆宫修功德。“修功 德”按照佛教所说就是诵经礼仪的法会，而叙利亚东方教会传统中，宗 教礼拜仪式一年繁多不断，周而复始，宗教礼仪与圣咏歌唱不可分割， 早期基督教音乐在叙利亚得到了自由充分的发展，认为只能用人的颂歌 声音直接向神表示崇拜，这也是基督教最基本的特征。兴庆宫是唐玄宗 的皇家别宫，各类艺术家经常在这里举行歌舞演出，景教17个僧侣共同 前往兴庆宫殿里举行宗教仪式，因为弥撒大多采用赞美诗与歌咏的形 式，歌咏比诵读要更受推崇，受过训练的僧侣犹如唱诗班的歌手，所以 我们判断这是应有一定规模的祈祷歌咏表演活动。 唐玄宗天宝三载在兴庆宫所目睹的这场颇具规模的祈祷仪式，无疑是景 教传教士与唐王朝最高统治者互动关系的一次成功事例，整个仪式由新 到中国的主教佶和亲自主持，按照叙利亚赞美诗轮唱形式的惯例，参加 歌咏的景教教团人数可能16人分两组。尽管我们不知道领唱的牧师是 谁，是否按唱诗班形式轮唱，但不难想象赞美上帝的仪式高贵，与西域 胡人略有区别的深目高鼻的景教传教士们，引喉高歌，异域情调使精通 音乐的唐玄宗耳目一新，所以给予了丰厚的奖赏：“天题寺榜，额戴龙 书，宝装璀翠，灼烁丹霞，睿札宏空，腾凌激日，宠赉比南山峻极，沛 泽与东海齐身”。新上任的主教佶和无疑获得极大的荣誉，受到中国皇 帝宠爱的长安景教教团，肯定会倍受鼓舞，祆教、摩尼教均没有这样显 要的机遇，承接这样荣耀的恩泽。 天宝四载（745），唐朝终于改变了原来一直含糊不清的景教称谓， 朝廷下诏： 波斯经教，出自大秦，传习而来，久行中国。爰初建寺，因以为名。将欲示 人，必修其本，其两京波斯寺，宜改为大秦寺。天下诸府郡置者，亦准此。2222

这一诏令的颁发，标志着唐人和中国皇帝对传自波斯的摩尼教、祆教和 景教已有了甄别深化，不仅意识到三夷教之间的不同，而且认识到景教 真正的源头是在大秦，要比波斯还遥远。所以中国境内当时流行的基督 教寺院一律改为大秦寺，说明景教已得到最高统治者的重视。由波斯寺 到大秦寺的命名变更，自然应归功于当时来华景教传教士的努力，他们 为传教做了大量工作，特别是景教徒为了摆脱武周以来屡受佛道攻击的

1

2

《 大秦 景 教 流行 中国 碑 》 ， 几 翁 绍 军校 注 《 汉语 景 教文 典 论 释 》 第 59 页 ， 三 联 书 店 《大秦景教流行中国碑》，见翁绍军校注《汉语景教文典诠释》第59页，三联书店， 1996年。 1996 午 。 《唐会要》卷四十九，大秦寺。上海古籍出版社，1012页，1991年。 《 唐 会 要 》 卷 四 @ · 九 ， 大秦 寺 。 上海 古籍 出版 社 ， 1012 页 ， 1991 年 。

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music

341

窘境，其中利用歌咏音乐为唐玄宗演唱基督教的赞美诗，不失为一种介 绍自己、融合双方的捷径。 在基督教宗教礼拜仪式上，景教最鲜明的特点和固守传统就是凡礼拜仪 式时必须歌咏，正如《大秦景教流行中国碑》记载所说：“击木震仁惠 之音，东礼趣生荣之路”，“斋以伏识而成，戒以静慎为固”，“七时 礼赞”，“七日一荐”[[[[3333；尽管我们不知道当时做礼拜时“击木”是否为乐 器奏乐，但唱圣歌、咏诗篇则是肯定的，这说明唐代长安景教教会严格 恪守着聂斯托利派基督教的礼仪传统。 景教教会传教士中一定有音乐造诣很深的人，特别是大师级人物没有深 厚的文化底蕴是不可能的一直鼎立推动高雅音乐走进传播的全过程，让 信徒感到音乐优美旋律的力量。在《大秦景教流行中国碑》左右两侧有7 0位僧人名字用叙利马文字镌刻，从主教、牧师等神职人员到普通教民排 列井然有序，其中有依据叙利马语职衔maqreyānā标明的宣讲师身份，特 指培养教授唱歌的人，这个人汉文名字“玄览”，他的头衔为“牧师及 长安的执事长及宣讲师”(Gigoi，priest andarchdeaconof Khumdan and preacher)4。根据9世纪《东方教会法》和公元840年《教堂司事书》记载 规定，执事长是主教的左膀右臂和喉舌，引导神职人员做礼拜，负责教 堂祝圣仪式活动，专门教授训练神职人员颂经歌诗，并“去教居民唱神 5

的赞歌” ,在唱完一节经文后再由信徒重复歌唱颂咏。象玄览这类具有三 个职衔的人物应该是一个具有音乐天赋或景教音乐造诣很高的人，扮演 着教授歌诗甚至领唱的重要角色。这也说明，聂斯托利派基督教会进入 唐朝传教时，将其音乐一同传入中国。 早期基督教咏唱圣歌是没有乐器伴奏的，由于口头传承不使用记谱法和 历史文献的缺憾，我们不知唐代景教教堂礼拜仪式中，是否使用琵琶、 箜篌、筚篥、箫笛、琴瑟、羯鼓等中外乐器6，歌唱诗篇时是否无伴奏和 3

4

5

6

《大秦景教流行中国碑》，见《汉语景教文典诠释》第51页。“击木震仁惠之音” 的“击木”是用圆木撞响教堂钟声还是像佛教徒敲木鱼吟诵念经，仅从字面上很难确 定。翁绍军注释景教教堂习事击木板，召集会众作夜祷，引穆尔说“景教徒用木板而 不用铃”。希腊人和东方基督教徒在教堂做礼拜时，敲击用绳索悬挂的铁板或铁条， Pulsant tabulam，用来代替钟。英国卡迪符大学马克思·宁梵夫教授认为“击木”这句 可能与音乐有关，但音与乐有区别，音指演唱，乐指奏乐。 段晴沿袭传统对玄览的职衔本来含义翻译为“讲师”teacher monk.《唐代大秦寺与景 教僧新释》，《唐代的宗教信仰与社会》453－455页，上海辞书出版社，2003年。玄 览职务旧译为“司铎、教正、博士”，见朱谦之《中国景教》第162页，人民出版 社，1993年。 （德国）克里木凯特著，林悟殊译《达.伽马以前中马和东马的基督教》第11页， 台湾淑馨出版社，1995年。 奥地利养尔茨堡大学霍夫力教授（Peter Hofrichter）提命笔者注意：尽管9世纪以前已 有管风琴出现，但当时教堂里不会用，东罗马教会曾收到赠送的管风琴不知道怎么使 用。查理大帝（Charlemagne,公元768－814年在位）以后西方教会才有管风琴，但景 教不会使用天主教管风琴，直到今天叙利马东方教会仍然不用管风琴。

Ge Chengyong

342

声合唱，圣乐是否拜占庭通用的美声唱法，赞美诗Hymns或圣歌Anthems 中是否吸收了中国的西域民歌音素，如此细节之谜很难破解。尽管聂斯 托利派基督教会的音乐肯定是古典、高尚的严肃音乐，但从西马、中马 到中国，由于教理和礼拜仪式方面有所差异，咏唱诗篇圣歌的音调可能 也不统一，其甄别不易确指，有待新发现的遗留文物研究复原。即就是 20世纪初已发现的敦煌曲谱，尽管有人依据古谱板眼“均拍”记号译读 了一些小节7，但很多音乐史专家认为只能推测节奏快慢，其他曲调尚难 断定，原来旋律怎么咏唱不可能知道，这个历史之谜不会复原破解。

(二二二二) K "" 计 """"

一 种 观点 认为 基督教 聂 斯托利派 传 入 中 回 使用 的 是拜占庭 乐谱 ， 拜占庭 一种观点认为基督教聂斯托利派传入中国使用的是拜占庭乐谱，拜占庭 乐谱与公元前古希腊乐谱有着特殊亲缘关系，后来用于记写教堂音乐歌 乐谱 与 公元 前古希胎 乐谱有 若特殊荣 缘 关系 ， 后来 用 于 记 写教堂 音乐 歌 曲 ， 公元428 午 ， 聂 斯 托利 被 任命 为 拜占庭 君士坦丁 堡 ( Co @]sta@]ti @]ople ) 曲，公元428年，聂斯托利被任命为拜占庭君士坦丁堡（Constantinople） 大主教，公元435年左右被罗马教廷宣布为异端流放，逃往波斯建立大本 大主教 ， 公元435 午左右 被 罗马教廷 宜布 为 异端流放 ， 逃往波斯 建立 大 本 营向中亚传教，拜占庭乐谱随之开始传入中亚。公元531年后，《魏书·乐 营 向 中 亚 传教 ， 拜占庭 乐谱 随 之 开始 传 入 中 亚 。 公元531 午后 ， 《瓤 书 · 乐 志》记载北魏崔九龙开始使用“但记声折，不知本意”的“龟兹乐谱”，包括 志 》 记载北魏 崔九龙 开始使用 " 但记声 折 ， 不知本意相扩龟 兹 乐谱" ， 包括 了 华 、 戎 、 雅 、 俗 等 五 百 首 乐曲 ， 特别是 北齐 时 龟 兹 、 西 囤 龟 兹 、 上 龟 了华、戎、雅、俗等五百首乐曲，特别是北齐时龟兹、西国龟兹、土龟 兹三种龟兹乐曲流传盛行，号称龟兹筚篥谱，有可能就是拜占庭乐谱。 兹 三种 龟 兹 乐曲 流传 盛行 ， 号称 龟 兹 毕 箕 谱 ， 有 可能就是 拜占庭 乐谱 。 开元 大宝 年间 ， 唐 文宗 又在 " 龟 兹 乐谱 " 上 改制 出 新 乐谱 ， 因此 ， 拜占庭 乐 开元天宝年间，唐玄宗又在“龟兹乐谱”上改制出新乐谱，因此，拜占庭乐 谱演化成中国俗字谱。景教十七名传教士在兴庆宫演唱圣咏，与改编拜 谱 演化 成 中 回俗字 谱 。 景教十 七 名 传教士在 兴 庆 宫 演唱 圣 咏 ， 乓 改编 拜 占 庭 乐谱 是 同时 的 事 ， 很可能就是 唱 拜占庭 的 乐曲 叫 '。8。 占庭乐谱是同时的事，很可能就是唱拜占庭的乐曲[8] 另 一 种 观点 认为 ， 聂 斯 托 利 派基督教 教会 的 传统 是 凡 礼拜 仪式 必 闻 歌 另一种观点认为，聂斯托利派基督教教会的传统是凡礼拜仪式必闻歌 乐，虽然聂斯托利派主要以养珊波斯为大本营，但教会仍使用叙利马 乐 ， 虽然 聂 斯 托 利 派 主要 以 萨 珊 波斯 为 大本营 ， 但 教会 仍 使用 叙利亚 语 ， 波斯 出身 的 教会 领袖 们 也 主要 以 叙利亚 语 创作 并 做 礼拜 仪式 ， 显示 语，波斯出身的教会领袖们也主要以叙利马语创作并做礼拜仪式，显示 了他们对传统的执著于发扬。聂斯托利派既然始终坚持使用叙利马语作 了 他们 对 传统 的 执著 于 发扬 。 聂 斯 托 利 派 既然 始终 坚持 使用 叙利亚 语 作 礼拜 仪式 的 语言 ， 所 歌 之 《 诗篇 》 也 必 是 叙利亚 语 的 。 《 大秦 景 教 流行 礼拜仪式的语言，所歌之《诗篇》也必是叙利马语的。《大秦景教流行 中国 碑 》 使用 叙利亚 语 ， 那么 天宝 三 载 兴 庆 宫 所 歌唱 的 《 诗篇 》 同样 为 中国碑》使用叙利马语，那么天宝三载兴庆宫所歌唱的《诗篇》同样为 叙利马语的基督教赞美歌 叙利亚 语 的 基督教 赞美 歌 。并指出唐玄宗与景教接触似乎颇为频繁，景 。 并 指出 唐 玄宗 与 景 教 接触 似乎 颇 为 频繁 ， 景 教吸引玄宗之所在，可能更多的是它的音乐以及宗教礼仪中绵绵不断的 教 吸引 玄宗 之 所在 ， 可能 更 多 的 是 它 的 音乐 以及 宗教 礼仪 中 绵绵 不断 的 歌声。景教好歌，酷爱音律的唐玄宗应早已有所闻。玄宗之兄宁王也通 歌声 。 景 教 好 歌 ， 酷爱 音律 的 唐 玄宗 应 早 己 有 所 闻 。 玄宗 之 兄 宁 王 也 通 音律 ， 尤 擅长 吹 笛 ， 宁 王 曾 光临 景 教 的 教堂 ， 参加 了 建立 坛 场 的 仪式 ， 音律，尤擅长吹笛，宁王曾光临景教的教堂，参加了建立坛场的仪式，

7 8

蕊 许

丛 ， 谱 叶栋《唐代音乐与古谱译读》，人文丛刊第十辑，西安，1985年。 埋 魏 何 叶舶 栋 论 昌 斗故 唐门 《代 乐。 半 宇该 与 ·字 谱 古奶 谱 与缔 拜《 眨 译 一 谱唐文 人 管 》叫韶 刊 、 《 "）第 交源 十 响驯 辑 一 出 扩 西安 占庭 唐 中顶 燕 音 国俗 读 俗 占 音土 安 uO 何昌林《中国俗字谱与拜占庭乐谱》，《交响－西安音乐学院学报》1985年第 字 庭 》 谱 乐 ，是 西 拜 ，@ 奶 ， 色 乐 十。 划 拜 证 年 第格 林《1 谱 学 19 8吗。 3期，14– 20页。该文结论之一是唐燕乐“一宫四调”理论，源出拜占庭“正格四调” 占1 庭 98 四调 理论；故唐燕乐半字谱（俗字谱—管色谱）源出拜占庭乐谱。 一

一

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music

343

也必然目睹了景教的宗教仪式，聆听了叙利马语的赞歌，在喜音律的唐 玄宗面前，宁王免不了要将亲眼所见、亲耳所闻渲染一番9。 对这两种观点，都有其推测合理性与考释烁见，因为基督教会赞美诗和 轮唱赞美诗的早期发展都始于叙利亚，东方教会的礼仪经文和音乐传统 都使用叙利亚语10 。但基督教圣咏音乐原始来源不是在一个封闭环境中由 单一民族形成的，它是以犹太教音乐为基础，而与希腊式音乐频繁交流 中形成的，早期基督教音乐在希腊化和罗马世界里经常体现东方的特 征，东方教会也完全有可能吸取西方教会的圣咏音乐，因为《新约》原 文为希腊文，景教经书中亦似有《四门经》(Tetrabiblos)等少数希腊原本 文书，所以聂斯托利派教士也研习希腊文，神学系统与文化背景间接接 受希腊拉丁文化亦有极大可能。拜占庭教会虽然使用希腊语，但拜占庭 音乐并非古希腊音乐的延续，而是以融合了东西方因素的犹太人、叙利 亚人的模式为基础，与西方教会的圣咏颇有相似之处，拜占庭教会还曾 采用过叙利亚的异教赞美歌11。 基督教作为一个重视歌唱和音乐的宗教，313年罗马帝国信仰基督教为国 教后，罗马就使用拜占庭音乐，米兰则使用安布罗斯平咏调，590年格里 高利(Gregory)任教皇后糅合东西方教会曲调，吸收几种有特征的圣咏 曲，相互融合修改形成格里高利平咏调。东方教会主流音乐中盛行的单 声部圣咏，与拜占庭圣咏有着共通性。只是9世纪以前教会音乐依赖口授 言传，除歌词外没有乐谱，所以包括聂斯托利派在内的基督教会所流传 下来的音乐资料都不多。 1908年在敦煌发现了译自叙利亚文的唐代景教颂文《三威蒙度赞》（Hy mn totheHoly Trinity）12。虽然其在文字上带有佛道两教的词汇，但在音

9

10

11 12

段晴《唐代大秦寺、僧新释》，初刊北京大学《东方学研究通讯》2002年第2期， 后收入荣新江主编《唐代的宗教信仰与社会》434－472页，上海辞书出版社， 2003年。 英国学者赫德逊（G.F.Hudson，1903-1974）认为“基督教就其源起而言是马洲的宗 教，只是它被欧洲各族人民接受之后才属于欧洲的历史。景教形式的基督教只局限于 马洲，其语言为古叙利马语，而其传播中心总是在罗马帝国境外，在波斯或阿拉伯的 统治地区。13世纪前，中国的基督教是来自美索不达米马的景教传教士，而不是欧洲 的拉丁天主教会”。所以，赫德逊主张研究欧洲与中国关系时，可以将景教忽略不 提。见《欧洲与中国》第98、100页，中华书局，1995年。我认为这种观点过于简单 化，忽视了聂斯托里派和基督教各个教派共同拥有基督教发展史，也忽视了当时传教 士与信众在东西方宗教思想之间的文化交流。例如19、20世纪在埃及俄克西林古城遗 址陆续出土的“基督教赞美歌蒲纸残片”（Oxyrynchus Hymn Papyri），是现存最早 的基督教圣歌和最古老的赞美诗，相传写于2－4世纪，它用叙利马文字谱记录，但它 的歌词是希腊文，旋律是希腊风格，采用了希腊声乐记谱法，充分说明基督教从耶路 撒冷向欧洲传播时，吸收融合了不同地区不同民族的音乐文化。 陈小鲁《基督宗教音乐史》207－210页，宗教文化出版社，2006年。 《三威蒙度赞》共309字，1908年被伯希和发现于敦煌，现藏于巴黎国家图书 （P.3847），是与《大秦景教流行中国碑》同为唐代景教文学双璧。对《三威蒙度

344

Ge Chengyong

节和内容上却按照汉语七言韵文为四十四句，译义正确，诗句优美，“赞” 和“颂”一样用于供传教士和会众歌唱，因为音乐伴随语言在对神的礼拜中 具有特别的性格和作用。本赞歌词大概在公元800年前后成文，译者可能 是景教碑文的作者景净（Adam），“三威”指圣父、圣子、圣灵“三位一体” 的威严，“蒙度”指“得蒙救度”13。景教会众在举行礼拜时歌唱 道： 无上诸天深敬叹，大地重念普安和，人元真性蒙依止，三才慈父阿罗诃。一 切善众至诚礼，一切慧性称赞歌。一切含真尽归仰，蒙圣慈光救离魔。

从歌词译文来看，《三威蒙度赞》就是今天仍广泛用于天主教礼仪的 《荣归上帝颂》（Gloria inexcelsis Deo）14，一方面是原诗歌的西文节 奏（rhythmicus），另一方面是翻译的中文格律(metricus)，遗憾的是既无 直接的咏唱曲谱，也无间接的口头传唱记述。据西方学者研究，这首赞 美诗在长达一千多年的中世纪（公元450—1450年）共有五十多种不同的 曲式，流传至今还配有音乐咏唱。古代叙利马教会在9世纪前使用的最简 单的一条单旋律圣咏，发音法和调式都是东方的类型，聂斯托利派追随 者中间就传播的叙利马赞美诗，神父领唱后，教徒们以短句应答，或是 由两组人轮流咏唱,每组各有一名领唱，这种分两组的唱诗班，歌诗的名 目繁多，有礼拜仪式开始时《诗篇》歌词节选，有做弥撒所唱的赞美 歌，有在仪式前半段唱的圣坛歌，有在圣餐礼拜中伴随整个奉献仪式所 唱的神秘之歌，有在接受圣餐时所唱的北摩之歌（北摩是位于圣坛和教 堂中堂之间一座高起的布道坛），此外，在某些节日的仪式上，读过 《福音》之后有时还要唱福音歌。聂斯托利派基督教会常常通过礼仪程 序中穿插的歌唱，来扩大自己的影响，所以歌诗的主要意义不在于借助 乐曲来吟诵《诗篇》，而是真正在于文学与艺艺结合后的歌唱。这也是 叙利马东方教会音乐的影响，比较完整地保留了早期基督教会的歌咏形 式。 基督教的礼拜仪式，是其最鲜明的特征，在聂斯托利派基督教会的传统 中，宗教礼仪繁多，尤其是聂斯托利派承认基督的人性，反对墨守成规 和严厉的寺院规矩，其中最凸现的特点是不管在何种礼拜仪式上，歌诗

13

14

赞》研究的不同观点，见朱谦之《中国景教》第121页。吴其昱《景教三威蒙度赞研 究》比较了汉文、叙利马文与希腊拉丁文原本的异同，指出此赞“实为中国与希腊犹 太文化接触所生结果之一”，《中央研究院历史语言研究所集刊》第57本第3分，第4 11–438页，1986年。林悟殊《敦煌景教写本P.3847再考察》，《唐代景教再研究》 第125页，中国社会科学出版社，2003年。 日本学者佐伯好郎认为“威蒙度”是叙利马文imuda“洗礼”的音译，其中“三威蒙 度”就是三次受洗，见《支那基督教の研究》第1卷，东京春秋社，1943年。穆尔（A. C. Moule）在《一五五Ｏ年前的中国基督教史》中，则认为“三威”指圣父、圣子、 圣灵，“蒙度”指“得蒙救度”。郝镇华中译本，中华书局，1984年。穆尔的说法近 年得到认同越来越广泛，例如刘奇《中国古代传入的基督教音乐探寻》一文认为，所 谓“三威”，即指天主（或上帝）“三位一体”的威严，“蒙度”就是仰望救赎的意 思；见《音乐艺艺》，1987年第1期。 方豪《中西交通史》(上册)第415页，岳麓书社，1987年。

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music

345

必不可少，通过肃穆的音乐使人心灵得到安慰。七世纪中叶，在伊索马 布三世（IshoyabhⅢ,647－657）主持聂斯托利派基督教会时期，曾编纂了 一部大型唱本《轮》（Hudrā）,汇集了一年内各个礼拜日和节日所举行 礼拜仪式时歌唱的内容，从弥撒曲、奉献曲、感恩曲到赞歌、圣母赞主 歌、哀歌等，由于歌诗内容每次不同，循环轮回，因此唱本叫《轮》。 但值得注意的是，伊索马布三世是按照拜占庭风格将唱诗班的制度引入 聂斯托利派教堂的礼拜仪式中，具有浓厚的宗教庄严肃穆气氛，并没有 染上阿拉伯民间音乐的色彩，保存了圣咏的原有性格15。 在聂斯托利派基督教会的大本营尼西比斯城（Nisibis）神学院，诵经歌诗 为教会学校专修的课程，不仅牧师要学歌，修道士也要学歌，用音乐表 达高深的思想和丰富的情感，因此，聂斯托利派教堂里传出的悦耳的乐 曲曾吸引了许多群众，一些神职人员因浑厚圆润的歌喉而出名。基督教 会其他教派的人因忌妒聂斯托利派音乐的力量，讥讽他们到处建立学校 的目的是为了教人唱教堂歌曲，借口教会学生唱歌的声音干扰修行的宁 静而反对兴建学校，甚至禁止使用乐器和抵制礼仪咏唱，主张靠精神上 的无言祈祷向神灵祈求，厌恶景教高歌颂诗对情感呼唤的手段。这正说 明，景教寺院里的圣咏音乐引得人们驻足倾听，余音回荡。音乐与福音 传播相，有助于由人而神，灵魂上升与神联合，其魅力就在于它能使生 活更有情趣，思维更有创意，人生更加丰厚。所以，景教崇奉圣咏歌唱 的风采会为更多的人所赏识。 近年，敦煌研究院在莫高窟北区石窟考古发掘出铜十字架和一份叙利马 语文书16，残存四整页所记录的就是景教《圣经》文选，摘录《旧约》中 《诗篇》的内容17，也是当时基督教流行最广之书，极富道德教训意义， 这类文书曾在中马和中国景教教团流行过的文献，是许多零散的、互相 没有联系的诗句经过重复，形成了演唱的歌词。尽管这份叙利马语文书 属于元代景教遗物，但上溯唐代也足以证明景教歌唱内容是一脉相承、 独步当世的。

15

16

17

由于古代叙利马与阿拉伯音乐在形式上有着很大差别，叙利马圣咏权威多姆 伯 神 亚 叼 出化煌 土 为 上 吉 发 和 曾现 》亚 基 存： 格 圣 至宗 督 见 基《孝 差 文 咏 列 今权 高的教 成 音 利 赞圣 史 咏 诗 彭 拍 段 形似 年 星 巴 由· 金 式 未 蜀 于 页 睛 第 ， 《但 5章 敦 古 仍 书 ，尔《 肌 格 阿 让 叙 北 从 教 ， 敦 2窟 列 拉 南 利 文0 高叙 新 父 与 利 莫 年 出 人阿 亚 叙 高 版 圣 。证《 服 窟拉 社 咏 叼利 课 文 仍 书 石 的 叼《 快 乐 奏 西 考 叶 形 。@ o报 音 续 有 在 ， 诗 、着 陈派 督 别 化敦 门 叙 行 研 流 鲁 会利 》究 ， ~与 保 很 性 》利 古 @残 美 乐 多姆 敦是 宗 仕 代 比 ·煌~ 煌 6，以6 经 伯 更 亚 北 富音 前 文 区 一川 有 羽 释 窟 年 节 在 东读 认 式 性 古 ， a叮 看 节 聂 叙 篇斯 托 代 大 亚 ，。 利 ·朱尔·让南神父（1866－1933）认为，叙利马基督教会保存至今的赞美诗旋律结构 日》方定卢 2常 释 煌 盛 教 交 ， 小 律4 结I 勾N 形式仍是阿拉伯人征服以前的东西，曾在聂斯托利派盛行，与格列高利圣咏非常相 才 5 ， 一+ 似，但比格列高利圣咏更富有节奏性和音节性。见陈小鲁《基督宗教音乐史》245－2 49页，宗教文化出版社，2006年。 彭金章《从敦煌莫高窟北区石窟考古发现看古代文化交流》，《敦煌研究》，2005 且 年第5期。 段晴《敦煌新出土叙利马文书释读报告续篇》，《敦煌研究》，2000年第4期。吴其 2000 年 第 4 期 。 吴 其 昱《敦煌北窟叙利马文课经（Lechoary）诗篇残页考释》，《新世纪敦煌学论集》， ~ 况 《 新 世纪 敦煌 学 论 集 》 篇 页 巴蜀书社，2003年。

Ge Chengyong

346

(三三三三) 在唐代外来宗教中祆教(Zoroastrianism)、摩尼教(Manichaeism)和景教 （Nestorianism）合称“三夷教” (the Three ForeignReligions)， 三夷教作 为西亚宗教，其东传要让各地人信仰，往往将西亚的音乐、舞蹈等艺术 载体一同带入中国，不仅强调“入乡随俗”，而且还注重传教方式的灵活性 和适应性，为吸引大众，三夷教中景教盛行以歌咏形式进行“唱颂仪”，有 自己的颂歌已众所周知，祆教和摩尼教也创作有颂歌。 祆教素有“仪式宗教”之称，早在伊朗–雅利安人时就有素称“琐罗亚斯德 之歌”的《伽萨》（Gāthā），词义为“配乐吟唱的颂歌”18。3世纪中叶以后 献祭诸神所吟诵的《亚斯纳》（Yasnā）变成每天祭拜行礼的祈祷诗，共 72章。琐罗亚斯德教建立后在举行祈祷仪式时，僧侣朗诵祷辞和拜念信 经更为规范，特别在万灵节晚上家家点火，众人高声吟唱颂诗。由于祆 教经书是以口头传授方式代代相沿，具有不主动自觉向外传教的特点， 大概到公元5、6世纪才出现书面文献《阿维斯塔》经典。但波斯琐罗亚 斯德教传入中国变成祆教后，发生很大变化，只有火坛崇拜遗迹，却没 有发现赞歌颂词遗留，相反，唐代史书上记录祆教徒“群胡奉事，取火咒 诅”19，在凉州、伊州、洛阳等地的祭祀祈祷日是酣歌醉舞，或幻术表 演，或咒语驱魔，从考古出土的祆教画像石祭神舞蹈、乐队组合、鼓笛 音乐图像上，也确凿地证实了历史记载20。有学者认为娱神兼娱乐“赛祆” 活动中的“穆护歌”实际是迎神曲21，或者推测安国《末奚曲》可能是赞颂 祆教月神之曲22，但中国版的祆教祭神时似乎都不歌唱琐罗亚斯德宗教颂 歌，大概本土化后变种了，即并不靠宗教音乐歌曲作为积极传教的感性 手段和良好效果。 摩尼创教者本人是一个曾致力于音乐研究的艺术家，他把神性起源也归 于音乐，摩尼教在进行敬神仪式活动时，常用音乐伴奏，埃及、中亚都 曾发现了大量的各类文本礼赞诗，摩尼教寺院中有教徒“唱诗班”，咏唱时 用琵琶、竖箜篌等乐器伴奏，这一点与中亚操突厥语诸族的音乐爱好保 持一致。据考证23，《隋书·音乐志》中记载龟兹乐歌曲有“善善摩尼”就 18

19 20

21

22 23

( 伊朗 ) 贾 利 尔 · 仕 斯 特 哈 赫 选编 《 阿 维 斯 塔 一 琐 罗 亚 斯 德 教 圣 书 》 第 33533 - 358 页 ， 商 (伊朗)贾利尔·杜斯特哈赫选编《阿维斯塔–琐罗马斯德教圣书》第353－358页，商 务印书馆，2005年。 务 印 书馆 ， 2005 年 。 《通典》卷四十，《职官典·视流内》，养宝府祆正。 《通典 》 卷 四 十 ， 《 职官 典 · 视流 内 》 ， 萨 宝府袄正 。 陕西 省 考古 耐 究 所 《 西安 北周 安 仰 墓 》 图版 38 、 刊 、 碉 ， 奏乐 舞蹈 图 ， 文物 出版 社 ， 陕西省考古研究所《西安北周安伽墓》图版38、44、63，奏乐舞蹈图，文物出版社， 200 芯 年 。 山西 省 考古 研究 所 等 《 太原 隋 虞 弘 墓 》 图版 沥 、 42 ， 文物 出版 社 ， 2005 年 。 2003年。山西省考古研究所等《太原隋虞弘墓》图版35、42，文物出版社，2005年。 史 君 墓 图像 见 《 从 撒 马尔 千 到 长安 一 粟 特 人 在 中国 的 文化 遗迹 》 第 22 页 图 队 第 61 页 史君墓图像见《从撒马尔干到长安–粟特人在中国的文化遗迹》第22页图5，第61页 石椁北侧图；北京图书馆出版社，2004年。 石 停 北 侧 图 : 北京 图书馆 出版 社 ， 2004 年 。 饶宗颐《穆护歌考》，《饶宗颐史学论著选》第401－441页，上海古籍出版社， 饶宗颐 《 穆 护 歌 考 》 ， 《 饶宗颐 史学 论著 选 》 第 401 - 441 页 ， 上海 古籍 出版 社 ， 199 芯 年 。 1993年。 龚方震、晏可佳《祆教史》第254页，上海社会科学院出版社，1998年。 龚万震 、 曼 可 佳 《 袄 教史 》 第 254 页 ， 上海 社会 科学院 出版 社 ， 1998 年 。 周菁葆《西域摩尼教的乐舞艺艺》，《西域研究》2005年第1期，85– 周 青 傈 《 西域 摩 尼 教 的 乐舞 艺术 》 ， 《 西域 耐 究 》 2005 年 第 1 期 ， 85 - 93页。 93 页 。

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music

347

是指流传新疆鄯善一带的摩尼教乐曲名。此外，还有《摩尼佛曲》、 《穆护砂》、《羽调绿腰》（六幺）等都是西域传来的摩尼大曲名称。 特别证明的是，敦煌莫高窟发现唐后期译作的《下部赞》就是中国一般 摩尼教徒举行宗教仪式时歌咏的赞美诗集，并注明采用的主题歌咏唱时“ 任依梵音”的音乐旋律24，而吐鲁番高昌旧址发现摩尼教会人物图中多个 手抱乐器的礼拜者，清楚表明摩尼教举行祭神仪式时用乐器伴奏唱诗的 情景25。1981年吐鲁番柏孜克里克千佛洞65号窟出土的摩尼教粟特语书信 文献，更保存有这样的话：“在全世界中，有生命的事物中比如在新的一 天里，都有一些规定、习惯被确立。在新的一天里，要做必须做的事情 、唱优美的赞歌”26。在斋月里摩尼教徒有的“咏唱了四首赞美诗，反复朗 读和歌唱了20条教规和300首歌”；有的则是“用粟特语两次咏唱了名为 《没有过失》的赞美诗，反复朗读和歌唱了40条教规和300首歌”。所以， 摩尼教信徒 虔诚地唱颂赞美诗歌，是礼拜祈祷、为庆祝赦罪作准备 的不可缺少的宗教仪式。 三夷教之间艺术特点不同，也难以复原比较。据史书记载推测，祆教、 摩尼教传入中国的音乐可能犹如世俗流行音乐节奏较快，其宣泄性、娱 乐性强，语言相对浅显，表现手法相对简单，符合大众的口味27，因此容 易融入中国乐舞。而景教要求艺术素养高，因为基督教古典音乐几乎都 是严肃音乐，演唱时具有庄严肃穆的色彩，旋律舒缓平静、超凡不俗， 诠释宗教与人生互动层次，消除尘世俗念，这种咏唱非一般民众所能容 易理解，尽管传教士利用音乐在争取群众信徒方面很下努力，但估计具 有难度的音乐要获得中国信徒支持，大概也不会太多。 聂斯托利派使用叙利亚语作为宗教仪式的语言，传教士平时日常之间交 流语言又是波斯语，阿拉伯帝国从七世纪上半叶取代了萨珊波斯帝国以 后，语言文化在一百多年里变化多端，植入唐朝景教的语言也可能受到 影响，若没有很好的翻译词语，颂歌在长安人及其他地方人中听不懂， 即使中亚移民信徒也会受到语言制约的障碍。“在东突厥斯坦的一些遗址 中，包括吐鲁番绿洲一处被毁的聂斯托利派寺院的图书馆里，发现了许 多基督教文献遗存。它们是用叙利亚文、中古波斯文、帕提亚文、和田

24 25

26 27

博 煌 教 风 凡 第年 林悟殊《摩尼教及其东渐》第259页，中华书局，1987年。 洪 残 % 下 典 归岭 曾 亮 殊 片 年 部 隆｜ 摩里 编 这 大 台 · 柑 尼 湾 经 些 学~洲 淑 肯 歪 i 吐 名 教寺 警 鲁 考 乐 教 及色 释 其 史 出番 ， 认 渐 社 犹 ，出 附 为 敦 调 第译儿 华 尼 刮 鲁 类 。己· 肿 隆 耐 当 ，华 尼·究书 ，教 -局 艺 l9》 盯 柳 林 授 瑞 僻 叼 图， 悟 版 》新 东卞利 系 69 (德国)克里木凯特著，林悟殊译《古代摩尼教艺艺》第69页，图25，高昌，乐师 吾摩》，曲尔《 ，术 图 25 ， 高昌 ， 乐师 。页 克 主 赞 听 。~ 德 戈 番· 似 复 图残片。台湾淑馨出版社，1995年。 1995 年 柳洪亮主编《吐鲁番新出摩尼教文献研究》第25页、98页，文物出版社，2000年。 9吐 格 文士 ~ · · 献 研究 》 第 25 页 、 98 页 ， 文物 出版 社 ， 2000 年 。 原 丁 一些 古代 中 亚 摩 尼 教 的 音乐 ， 林悟殊 教 瑞典隆德大学宗教史系犹尔华博士已复原了一些古代中马摩尼教的音乐，林悟殊教 授曾聆听这些音乐，认为曲调风格类似当今新疆的民族音乐。见林悟殊《敦煌摩尼教 今 新疆 的 民族 音乐 。 见 林悟殊 《 敦煌 摩 尼 教 》 第 三 卷 批 - 51 页 ， 北京 大学 出版 社 ， ‘下部赞’经名考释》，《敦煌吐鲁番研究》第三卷45－51页，北京大学出版社， 1998年。

348

Ge Chengyong

塞语、索格底亚那文和突厥文写成的”28。但在中亚，粟特文即索格底亚 那文无疑是聂斯托利派基督教会仅次于叙利亚文的第二重要的语言文 字。 中亚粟特人信仰复杂多样，包括了佛教、祆教、摩尼教、景教和当地宗 教，所以景教的力量在粟特人本土多元文化中并存，影响时大时小。中 亚碎叶城（吉尔吉斯的托克马克Tokmak）东部考古发掘发现有8世纪的景 教教堂，教堂呈东西长方型，长36米，宽15米，教堂有拱形神殿和祭坛 以及带顶柱廊开放式院子，这是在中亚所发现的最早景教教堂29。在吐鲁 番发现的7－11世纪粟特文景教经典译文，包括《新约》残篇、赞美诗和 圣徒传记等，说明景教从中亚到中国传播时一直注意保持其传统音乐， 尽管景教教会尚处在没有乐谱的时期，歌曲完全依赖口授言传，但可以 推测这些音乐旋律自然、朴素、优美，在教堂演唱时具有庄严、肃穆的 色彩，咏叹的旋律舒缓平静超凡不俗，使人听了可消除尘世俗念，体会 上帝的神圣与慈爱，充分表达出基督的精神。 景教传教士在宽大教堂内主持仪式时，歌唱是一种使声音传播的最好方 式，因为口说往往不能使全体信徒都能听见。博学儒雅的景教传教士希 望信徒们与他们一起通过音乐分享对人生的感悟，体会苦难与拯救的精 神，令听众仿佛倘徉在艺术殿堂里，特别是各种宗教同时并存互相争夺 信仰者时，在一片音乐氛围中，大家可以目睹景教的另一种风采。 这就可使我们推测天宝三载唐玄宗在兴庆宫听了景教礼拜仪式音乐后受 到很大震动与启发，起码提醒他要在自家的道教仪式上多些音乐之声。 信仰道教的唐玄宗个人独具音乐天赋和浪漫幻想艺术心理，他迷醉羽化 成仙的道教，也特别青睐道教法曲，在宫廷亲教道士步虚声，《安禄山 事迹》卷下说“玄宗览龟兹曲名部”，后大量改胡曲名为道曲名30，如“龟 兹佛曲”改为“金华洞真”，“舍佛儿胡歌”改为“钦明引”，“阿固盘陀”改为“ 元昭庆”，“因地利支胡歌”改为“玉关引”，“思归达牟鸡胡歌”改为“金方 引”等等，景教纯净高尚的赞美诗和舒缓庄严的乐曲，完全有可能使唐玄 宗与其合调同拍，汲取景教音乐创造仙道意味的乐曲，借天使幻想的翅 28

29

30

B.A.李特文斯基主编《中马文明史》第三卷（文明的交会：公元250年至750年）， 第十八章宗教与宗教运动，第363页，中国对外翻译出版公司，2003年。 CLAUSON, G.1961.“Ak Beshim－Suyab” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 113.（ 1953年俄国中马学家在吉尔吉斯托克马克西南阿克—贝西姆考古报告） 任半塘《教坊记笺译》第147页（中华书局，1962年）中曾认为玄宗之世法曲与胡 乐始终对立，故天宝十三载（754）诏“道调、法曲与胡部新声合作”，这个“合 作”是指同时同场先后演奏，实事上仍各自为乐，不是将法曲与胡乐揉合于同一曲调 中。此观点过低估计了胡汉音乐的融合与互相影响，也不符合玄宗开元天宝时的史 事。《唐会要》卷三十三《诸乐》记载天宝十三载原胡乐名者很多，如“罗刹未罗” 改为“合浦明珠”，“耶婆色鸡”改为“司晨宝鸡”，“迄陵伽胡歌”改为“来宾 引”等等，不胜枚举。详细研究见岸边成雄《古代丝绸之路的音乐》第95－97页，人 民音乐出版社，1988年。

AStudyon the Jingjiao ChantMusic

349

膀而实现道家仙境的夙愿。因此，他诏令制定了更为规范的道教音乐仪 轨，创立了道教庙堂祭祀雅乐仪制，把道教音乐纳入宫廷燕乐系统，甚 至“诏道士司马祯制玄贞道曲，茅山道士李会元制大罗天曲，工部侍郎贺 之章制紫清上圣道曲。太清宫成，太常卿制景云、九真、紫极、小长 寿、承天、顺天乐六曲，又制商调君臣相遇乐曲”31。如果说唐高宗时期 道曲才创制3曲，那么开元时期道教仪式乐曲20曲，天宝时增加的道教曲 调名就34曲32。《旧唐书·音乐志》记载唐玄宗“制新曲四十余”，还“又 新制乐谱”；唐玄宗之兄宁王也“常夏中挥汗鞔鼓，所读书乃龟兹乐谱 也”33，再加上教坊、梨园中胡人乐工和胡姓弟子的中介，很有可能留存 有基督教音乐影响的痕迹。

(四四四四) 唐代景教从会昌五年（845）退出中国内地后，在中马七河流域34、新疆 吐鲁番高昌回鹘地区继续生存35，一直到三百五十多年后在元代改称“也 里可温”再次重新出现。元朝对各种宗教一般采取保护政策，1289年元 世祖忽必烈下诏设崇福寺，专掌基督教会事务，景教当时在蒙古部落中 皈依崇奉者很多，虽兴盛一时，可惜教会中使用的音乐都没流传下来， 但我们观察元代景教咏唱音乐的传播，从而可推及唐代景教咏唱音乐的 流传脉络。 要注意的前提是，当时罗马天主教方济各会士也开始进入中国内地传 教，他们站在看不起异教派的角度上记述了一些景教教会的音乐活动， 勾勒出大概面貌。 1245年天主教方济各会士、意大利人柏朗嘉宾（Prano Carpini）奉罗马教 皇之命出使蒙古到达国都哈喇和林，他观察在贵由汗（元定宗）的宫廷 官员中有许多人是基督徒，大汗大幕帐之前一直设有一个基督教的小教 堂，并公开举行礼拜仪式，歌唱赞美诗：“无论那里聚集有多少鞑靼人 31 32

33 34

35

《资治通鉴》卷218，中华书局，第15册6843页。 蒲亨强《唐明皇与道教音乐》，《音乐艺艺》，1989年第3期。王小盾《唐代的道 曲和道调》，《中国音乐学》，1992年第2期。德国《华裔学志》主编罗曼·马立克 教授（Roman Malek）提醒我《道藏》中可能有早期西域音乐转变为道教曲名的资 料，或许对景教音乐来源有破解之用，值得今后进一步研究。 唐·段成式《酉阳杂俎》前集卷十二，语资，中华书局，第114页，1981年。 中马七河流域出土元代景教徒十字架墓石叙利马铭文中，有公元1321年音乐师曼固 塔希－塔依的墓碑，不知是否景教教堂的音乐师，暂且存疑。转引自牛汝极《叙利马 文和回鹘文景教碑铭文献在中国的遗存》，《欧马学刊》第一辑173页，中华书局，1 999年。 陈怀宇《高昌回鹘景教研究》，该文论述了9－10世纪新疆吐鲁番高昌景教遗址和 出土景教文献的研究成果，《敦煌吐鲁番研究》第四卷165－214页，北京大学出版 社，1999年。

350

Ge Chengyong

或其他人，但他们仍如同在其他基督教徒中一样在大庭广众之中唱圣 歌，以希腊的方式敲钟报时”36。 方济各会士威廉·鲁布鲁克（Rubruck）1253年奉法国国王路易九世之命 出使蒙古进行联络，他在《鲁布鲁克东行记》中记载了所见的景教歌 咏：“在拔都的斡尔朵，在唱‘上帝垂怜我’时我们站在他面前；1253 年11月30日我们发现了一个完全是景教徒的村子，我们进入他们的教 堂，愉快地吟唱“圣母万岁……”。为了与景教平分秋色抗衡，他觐见 蒙哥大汗（元宪宗）曾用西方曲调唱赞美诗，解释圣经的插图，“1254 年1月3日在蒙哥汗的宫廷门口，我们开始唱赞美诗‘从太阳升起的地 方，直到大地的尽头，我们赞颂主耶稣，圣母玛利马所生……’”。4月 5日鲁布鲁克等一行举着十字架和旗帜进入哈喇和林，在教堂聂斯托里教 徒们排队出来迎接他们，并唱完弥撒。“聂斯托里教徒们让我们站在唱 诗班的入口处，看他们如何作法”；“在契丹有十五个城镇居住着聂斯 托里教徒，他们在称作西京的城市里有一个主教区，那里的聂斯托里教 徒什么也不懂，他们作祷告，有叙利马文的圣书，但他们不懂语言，因 此他们唱圣诗就跟我们的僧侣不懂语法一样”37。 意大利人蒙高维诺 (JeanDe Monte-Corvino) 在1294年来到中国传教，他 皈化了原本是聂斯托利派教徒的蒙古汪古部阔里吉思王，阔里吉思在世 时，曾约蒙高维诺将《拉丁文日课经》全文译成本地文字，以便在其所 辖的全境诵读。蒙高维诺常在景教教堂按照罗马礼举行弥撒，且用当地 语言来举行。从这里也可以推测蒙高维诺曾把一些拉丁圣歌译成了当地 文字，他把西方12世纪的宗教音乐作品传到中国，并用人人都能理解的 译录文字（蒙文或汉文）演唱，更易于福音的传播，这是福音本地化的 前奏。 蒙高维诺后来在北京建立几座教堂，他是一个具有较高音乐修养的传教 士，曾组织儿童唱经班为礼拜仪式服务。他在1305年给罗马教廷一封信 中叙述自己为150名收养幼童施洗礼后，教他们希腊拉丁文字母和圣教礼 仪。抄写了30首《圣歌》（Hymnaries）和两篇《圣务日课》。其中11名 儿童已懂得祭圣礼仪中的乐曲，他们组成数个唱经班每周轮流在教堂服 务，连皇帝陛下也颇喜欢听他们唱歌。每日举行祈祷祭圣时，蒙高维诺 和儿童们共同敲钟行礼，但他们没有附乐谱音符的祈祷书，“歌曲皆由 自编，仅以悦耳为限”38；所以，蒙高维诺写信请本会僧侣急转罗马教廷 寄来唱歌乐谱及《应答对唱赞美诗集》等。 据蒙高维诺信函，蒙高维诺写信期望得到的《应答对唱赞美诗集》，据 学者研究是比较复杂的音乐作品。因当时西方的记谱法已正式确定，教 36 37 38

耿升译《柏朗嘉宾蒙古行记》第107页，中华书局，1985年。 耿 升 译 《 柏 朗 嘉宾 蒙古 行 记 》 第 107 页 ， 中华 书局 ， 1985 竿 。 伺 高 济 译 《 鲁 布鲁克 东 行 纪 》 第 历 队 263 页 ， 中华 书局 ， 1985 年 。 何高济译《鲁布鲁克东行纪》第255、263页，中华书局，1985年。 张 星 熄 编 注 《 中西 交通 史料 汇编 》 第 一 册 第 @ 2l 一 J24 页 ， 中华 书局 200 芯 午 。 张星烺编注《中西交通史料汇编》第一册第321—324页，中华书局，2003年。

A Study on the Jingjiao Chant Music

351

会音乐家们藉此对音乐的形式进行了深入的研究，他们将古老的圣咏旋 律配以复杂的多声部，并使节奏变得明确起来。较难唱的声部必是由蒙 高维诺训练的儿童唱经班担任，他在1306年2月4日写的第二封信上说： “大汗在宫中可以听见我们的歌声，此巧妙之事已在民间广泛传播，并 将产生巨大影响，此乃圣恩之赋予” 39。 由此我们也可知，元代传教士在中国传教时还没有基督圣歌译录乐本， 仍是口头相传，尽管1908年曾在北京午门城楼清朝内阁档案中曾发现过 元代景教叙利马文古钞本8页交替式赞美诗的咏唱歌词40，但所配曲调已 无从考究，在元代的社会影响似乎也没有兴盛。 追溯景教在七–九世纪唐代与赘入十三世纪元代入华后一些音乐活动的线 索，我们初步有以下认识： (1)景教传入中国唐代时，礼拜仪式上有叙利马东方教会的基督教歌唱音 乐传播，即使没有出现西方教会音乐，但也会有拜占庭圣咏音乐相通之 处，并作为一种外来咏唱音乐曾引起人们注意。 (2)景教演唱的基督教歌咏曾取悦于上层贵族，无论是唐玄宗，或是元代 的皇帝，都乐于欣赏外来异域的奇妙音乐，但作为佛道之外异教音乐传 播对象与范围受到局限，没有在中国古代音乐史上取得相应的一席地 位。 (3)三夷教传入唐代中国后，景教《诗篇》圣咏音乐是高雅严肃风格，祆 教《穆护子》等带有巫术喧闹音乐，摩尼教《六幺》等则具有西域通俗 流行音乐的特点，尽管这个比喻还可再讨论，但景教歌咏调式类型估计 较难，不利于在民众中普及、流播。 (4)唐代景教处在佛道等各种宗教包围之中，佛道曲调因其主流地位影响 较大，佛教《菩养蛮》、《南天竺》、《胡僧破》、《达摩》、《献天 花》等，道教《众仙乐》、《太白星》、《洞仙歌》、《临江仙》等， 压抑了景教音乐的发展。加之其他民族俗乐《突厥三台》、《赞普子》 《龟兹乐》、《拂林》，《醉浑脱》等流传较广，夹缝中生存的景教一 花独放不成气候。 (5)虽然从唐元时期史料来看，还没有条件发展本地教会的音乐，皈化的 受洗礼本地信徒不可能创造新的教会音乐，顶多用本土语言轮番吟唱圣 歌，但基督教西方音乐传入中国确定元代毫无问题。

39

40

( 穆 尔 《 1550 年 前 的 中国 基督教 》 177 一 181 页 ， 伦敦 、 纽约 、 多伦多 ， 1 谰 0 年 : （穆尔《1550年前的中国基督教》177—181页，伦敦、纽约、多伦多，1930年； 纽约重印，1972年。郝镇华中译本，中华书局，1984年。） 纽约 重印 ， 1972 年 。 郝 填 华中 译本 ， 中华 书局 ， 1984 年 。 @ 佐伯 好 郎 《 北京 故宫 午 门楼 上 旧 于 不 发 见 廿 5 札 * 6 亡 U 扦 文 古 钞 本 仁 就 。 丁 》 ， 佐伯好郎《北京故宫午门楼上に于て发见せろれたるシリヤ文古钞本に就いて》， 《 东 万 学报 》 东京 第 4 册 308 一 365 页 ， 昭和 8 年 11 月 。 又 几 朱 谦 之 《 中国 景 教 》 第 128 《东方学报》东京第4册308－365页，昭和8年11月。又见朱谦之《中国景教》第128 页。 页 。

352

Ge Chengyong

(6)景教传播力量本身就小，唐代流行于西域移民中人多，元代流行于蒙 古人和色目人中多，难以赢得人数上的优势，似乎没有在汉人中产生广 泛影响，属于文化史上间接传播一路，其咏唱音乐自然也无法扩大受众 面，无法争取到更多的皈依者。 总之，从音乐到艺术，从艺术到人生，这是宗教传播的一种途径，也是 东西方感知音乐通用的一种表意规则“语言”。“基督教是一个音乐的宗 教，一个歌唱的宗教。在世界上所有的宗教中，只有基督教音乐最多， 歌唱最多，音乐水平的发展也最快最高”41。景教歌咏音乐在中国唐、元 时代的传播犹如一道闪光，绚亮之后随即消逝，尽管没有产生巨大的共 鸣影响，但给后来研究者留下无尽的遐想。可惜景教歌咏音乐若隐若现 的遗痕太少，本文综考诸书且做新的试探，以求得到坚实而明朗化的新 证，补缺正误有待大家指正。

41

杨周怀《基督教音乐》第19页，宗教文化出版社，2001年。关于基督教音乐的发 杨周怀 《 基督教 音乐 》 第 19 页 ， 宗教 文化 出版 社 ， 2001 年 。 关于 基督教 音乐 的 发 展，参考（美国）阿尔文·施密特著、汪晓丹等译《基督教对文明的影响》第 展 ， 参考 ( 美国 ) 阿尔 文 · 施 密 特 著 、 汪晓丹 等 译 《 基督教 对 文明 的 影响 》 第 325页，北京大学出版社，2004年。美国耶鲁大学神学院有专门研究基督教音乐的“ 325 页 ， 北京 大学 出版 社 ， 2004 年 。 美国 耶鲁 大学 神 学院 有 专门 耐 究 基督教 音乐 的 圣乐”专业，可惜未见论述中国唐元时代景教音乐歌咏的著述。 圣 乐 " 专业 ， 可惜 未 见 论述 中国 唐 元 时代 景 教 音乐 歌咏 的 著述 。

MONUMENTI SINICI– A REMARKABLE CHINESE HYMN Garry Moon Yuen PANG Shaanxi Normal University, China

Introduction “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven……a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” (Ecclesiastes 2:25). Throughout the history of the Christian Church, there was also a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. Love can solve con flicts, but hate will create conflicts. Conflicts can be found and solved in his tory. The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) marked the conflict and the persecu tion of Nestorians from the Western Church. The word “crisis” (危機) in Chi nese means “the opportunities in danger.” Persecution is the seed for the Church of the East.1 The persecuted Nestorians carried out the missionar spirit of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3) and moved from Syria to Persia. Their coming strengthened the Church of the East in Persia. In the sixth and the sev enth century, the Nestorians,2 or rather the Chaldean or Syrian Christians, as

1

2

“What is the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East?” available from http://www.cired.org/aceov.html, (accessed on 17/2/2006). The Church of East was also called as the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. “The Church of the East be gan in the late Apostolic age, flourished in upper Mesopotamia, and spread quickly throughout the Parthian (later Persian) Empire. Its language is classical Syriac (Aramaic), its government is episcopal, its worship is sacramental and liturgical, its theology is according to the Nicene Creed and the teaching of the fathers of the Church, its customs are Semitic, and its present at titude toward other Christians is ecumenical. It exists in greatest numbers in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, but also in Europe, North America, Australia and India.” MAR APREM 1980, 6. The author mentioned that “The Church of the East is known by various other names such as the East Syrian Church, Babylonian Church, the Persian Church, the Edessan Church, the Nestorian Church, the Seleucian Church and the Chaldean Syrian Church.” “History of the Nestorian Church,” available from http://www. nestorian.org/ history_of_the_nestorianan_churc.html, (accessed in 17/2/2006). “The Apostolic Catholic Assyr ian Church of the East, however, to this day is commonly known to our Western Christian Brethren as the “Nestorian” Church. This misnomer has led them generally to think that this Church has established by Saint Nestorius, and that it received its teaching from his followers. The so-called Nestorian doctrine has been erroneously or deliberately interpreted by its oppo nents to mean the belief of two persons in Christ. These allegations, of course, have their ori-

354

Garry M.Y. Pang

they called themselves, preached the gospel to Central Asia along the Silk Road.3 During the prosperous era of the Tang Dynasty, a Syrian priest Alopen (阿羅本) came to the capital of China-Chang’an (長安) in 635.4 The mission of the Syrian Christians from the Church of the East opened a new page in the his tory of Christianity and caused the birth of the church in China. They were re garded as “the greatest missionaries the Church that the world has ever pro duced.”5 After the Roman Catholic Church walked through the valley of the Medieval Ages and Reformation, the Jesuits opened the door of China again during the late Ming Dynasty. In the 17th Century, the discovery of “The Monument Commemorating the Propagation of the Daqin Jingjiao in China” (大秦景教 流行中國碑) was the most important archaeological discovery in the history of Christianity in China. The Jingjiao Monument (景教碑) was written in Chinese by a Persian priest named Adam (or Jing Jing 景凈) in 781 which witnessed the doctrine and the development of Jingjiao in China from the seventh to the eighth century. Then, the text was translated into Latin and was brought to Europe by the Jesuits. The German Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) with the help of Michael Boym (1612-1659) was one of the first Europeans to trans late the monument into Latin in his book China Monumentis, qva Sacris quàProfanis, nec non variis Naturæ & Artis Spectaculis, Aliarumque rerum memorabilium Argumentis Illustrata (China Illustrata) in 1667.6 In 1672, the Lutheran theologian and Orientalist Andreas Müller (1630-1694) converted the transliteration of the Chinese text of the monument into musical notation and composed it as a hymn and published the book Monumenti Sinici. 7 In this pa per, the author will study the background, the content and the significance of this remarkable hymn.

3 4

5 6

7

gin in the Council of Ephesus. This issue, however, has since been much clarified by various Protestant and also some Roman Catholic scholars.” KESSON 1854, 7-8. RAGUIN in MALEK 2002, 160. The author said, “Since the partisans of Nestorius had taken refuge on Persian territory in order to escape from the persecutions of Byzantine Constantin ople, the Christian Church of Persia, considered as heretic, is known in history under the name of the Nestorian Church of Persia. That is the reason why the monks who arrived in China in 635 in most history books until now are still called Nestorian monks. Such a designation gives the wrong impression that they were heretics. We will call them ‘the Eastern Syrian monks’ since they were natives of Eastern Syria and their books were written in Syriac.” MINGANA 1925, 53. See KIRCHER 1667. Another Latin edition was published in the same year by Joannem Janssonium à Waesberge & Elizeum Weyerstraet. The Dutch edition was published in 1668, See GLAZEMZKER 1668. The French editon was published in 1670, See DALQIÉ 1670. The English edition was published in 1987. See TUYL 1987. But the English edition has the mis takes to state that the text was “from the 1677 original Latin edition”, actually, the year should be 1667. See MÜLLER 1672 & 1695.

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

355

A. The background of Monumenti Sinici The Church of the East or more specifically the Syro-Oriental Church (incor rectly at times called the Nestorian Church8) had come from Syria through Per sia. Many who have written about this great stone mistakenly call it the Nes torian monument. The word “Nestorian” is not found on the inscription. In fact, the inscription has no reference whatever to either Nestorious or Nestorians. Moreover, it does explicitly recognize the head of the Church of the East by giving the name and the date of the East by giving the name and the date of the patriarch of Baghdad, Persia, who at that time was head of the church in its vast extent.9 Besides, by describing the Tang Christian Monument as a Nestorian Monument, an immediate prejudice was established against Tang Christianity in the West as it was perceived to be a corrupted form of the orthodox faith. Some writers have even attributed the demise of Christianity in China at the end of the Tang era to the degraded nature of Tang Christianity. This stigma remains until today.10 Therefore, in this paper, the author will use the method of transliteration to call the monument as the Jingjiao Monument (景教碑) instead of the Nestorian Monument and will call the Tang Christianity as Jingjiao instead of Nestorianism in China . The text of Monumenti Sinici was based on the Jingjiao Monu ment and was translated by Kircher and Boym into Latin in China Illustrata and was finally composed by Müller. Therefore, Monumenti Sinici can be regarded as the fruit of a trio of clergy in three different Christian traditions. That is the special characteristic for the background of Monumenti Sinici.

1. The author of the Jingjiao Monument The Jingjiao Monument was written in Chinese and Syriac. The Chinese re corded the background and the content of the monument. In middle part of the first line of the Jingjiao Monument, we are told in Chinese that the monument was composed by Jing Jing, the priest of the Daqin Temple (大秦寺僧景淨述). Jing Jing was probably at Yi Ning Ward (義寧坊) where the Daqin Temple was built by the Imperial orders in 638 A.D.11 The Syriac writings at the lower part of the first line of the monument introduced a priest named Adam. Kircher 8

Cf. BAUM – WINKLER 2003, 3-5.

WILKINSON 1994, 334. FERREIRA 2004 in Jian Dao, Issue 21 (January 2004), 131. 11 SAEKI 1937, 81. Saeki stressed that “this does not necessarily mean that the Monument was, therefore, erected where Ching-ching(same as Jing Jing) was, for the Monument itself was erected in honour of Lord Yazedbouzid, son of Priest Milis and father of Deacon Adam, whose Chinese name was Ling-Pao (靈寶) as mentioned in the Inscription.” 9

10

356

Garry M.Y. Pang

claimed that he was the first to make a correct translation of it.12 (But Henri Havret and A. C. Moule pointed out that the Syraic portion of the inscription was translated in 1629 or earlier by J. Terrenz, one of the missionaries attached to the court at Peking).13 Kircher transcribed the Syriac into the Latin alphabet: “Adam Kasiso Vcurapiscupo Vpapasi dizinstan” and translated it into Latin: “Adam Sacerdos, seu Presbyter, & Archiepiseopus & Papalis Zinostan”.14 Charles D. Van Tuyl translated it into Englsih as “Adam, a Priest, or Presbyter, and Archbishop and Papal Envoy to Zinostan, which is China.”15 Obviously, this Adam in Syraic and Jing Jing in Chinese was the same person who was the author of the monument.16 Besides, the translation for Adam as “Papal Envoy” is not correct, there should not have the word “envoy”. But the translation of Müller was “Adam Diaconus & Chorepiscopus & Papalis Sinarum” (Adam, a deacon & Choreiscopus & Papas of China).17 Müller might be mixed up with another Adam, whose Chinese name was Ling Bao (靈寶) and was recorded at the bottom of the monument, a deacon and the son of Isdbusaid. Here the word Pope (Papas) in the Church of the East was not the same as the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church which may be referred to the “spiritual lord” (法主)18 and was the most important spiritual leader in China, the position was similar to archbishop. In addition, the name Jing Jing also appeared in the last part of the Jingjiao document by the name of “Zun Jing” (尊經) discovered by Pelliot at Dunhuang (煌) in 1908. Zun Jing literally means “Honourable Sūtra” but also to be trans lated as “Diptychs”.19 In the note added at the end of “Zun Jing”, it was written that there were 530 scriptures on patra in the Brahmin tongue (貝葉梵音) be longing to Daqin Jingjiao. Jing Jing was summoned to translate the abovementioned thirty books (後召本教大德僧景淨， 譯得已上三十部.)20 How ever, only three of the discovered Jingjiao documents are among these books listed. These are The Book Declaring the Origin of Origins (宣元至本經), The KIRCHER 1667, 37. Kircher told us that the inscription etched on the margin of the monu ment couldn’t be translated in China, due to the lack of scholars, “so it was taken by our Por tuguese fathers to Syriac scholars in Europe. I was the first to make a correct translation of it, which I did with due faithfulness. It is written in the ancient Syriac alphabet called Estrangelo, which is inscribed on the margins of the stone and contains the names, titles, and dates of those apostolic men and preachers who wrote the inscription and erected the stone.” 13 HAVRET 1902 in Variétés Sinologiques No. 20 (1902), 73. MOULE 1910 in The Journal of The North-China Branch of The Royal Asiatic Society vol. 41 (1910), 5. 14 KIRCHER1667, 42. 15 KIRCHER 1987, 38. 16 MOULE, 38, note 2. 17 Müller corrected all the translation of Kirhcer’s with the word “envoy” (Vicarius) and that was the contribution of Müller. See MÜLLER 1672. 18 MOULE, 38, note 2. 19 SAEKI 1937, 34. 20 SAEKI 1937, 273, 276. 12

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

357

Book On Mysterious Peace And Joy (志玄安樂經) and Gloria In Excelsis Deo (三威蒙度贊).21 Through the record of “Zun Jing”, we know that Jing Jing was the key person to translate the scriptures into Chinese. His role was similar to that of Alopen. Actually, we found that Jing Jing followed the model of Alopen as a spiritual leader and scripture translator to preach the gospel in China. Moreover, Junjiro Takakusu discovered that the Book Zhen Yuan Xin Ding Shi Jiao Mu Lu (貞元新定釋教目錄 A. D. 785-804), compiled by Yuan recorded that the Persian priest Jing Jing of Daqin Temple was invited by a Buddhist master Prajna (般刺若) from Kapisa, North India (北天竺), to translate the Liu Bo Luo Mi Jing (六波羅蜜經) (Satparamita Sūtra) from a Hu (胡) text into seven sections. But because Jing Jing did not know the Brahman language (Sanskrit), the result was not good. Finally, the emperor separated them to preach their own religion.22 But as John Foster observed, “Undoubtedly Bud dhists regarded Adam as a dangerous man. He was dangerous not because he was making Christianity too Buddhist, but because he was trying to make Bud dhism too Christian.”23 On the other hand, Paul Pelliot pointed out that in more than 10 places the words in the Jingjiao Monument were related to the Dhūta Monastery Incription (L’Inscritpion du Temple des Dhūta 頭陀寺碑).24 Antonio Forte men tioned that Adam was able to write in an elegant, fluent and elaborate Chinese in the style of the best literary. Actually, the literary model which inspired him in composing the text of this Christian inscription was a celebrated late fifth century chef-d’ æuvre, the Dhūta Monastery Inscription.25 Forte pointed out that Pelliot attributed great importance to the “Dhūta Monastery Inscription” as a source of inspiration for the composition of the text of the Jingjiao Monu ment. Forte also told us that the “Dhūta Monastery Inscription” was a literary model for Adam who decided to imitate the text exalting Buddhism in order to extol Christianity.26 The opinions of Pelliot and Forte cannot be accepted com TANG 2004, 104-105. SAEKI 1916, 71-73. “Moreover, the Sangharama (monastery) of the Shakya and the monas tery of Ta-ts’in (Syria) differing much in their custom, and their religious practices being en tirely opposed to each other, King-tsing (Adam) handed down the teaching of Mi-shi-ho (Mes siah) (彌尸訶) while the Shakyaputriya-Sramans propagagted the Sūtras of the Buddha. It is wished that the boundaries of the doctrines may be kept distinct, and their followers may not intermingle. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are different things, just as the rivers King and Wei have a different course.” See TAKAKUSU 1896 in T’oung-pao (1896). HAVRET 1902 in Variétés Sinologiques No. 20 (1902), 5-6. 23 FOSTER 1939,114. 24 PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 208, note 51 (A. 憑五行之軾。拯溺逝川。開八正之門。 大庇交喪。B. 制八境之度。錬塵成真。啟三常之門。開生滅死。); 189, note 16; 201, note 30; 208, note 48; 210, note 55; 211, note 57; 213, note 61; 214, note 64; 219. note 71; 294, note 234. 25 FORTE in PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, x. 26 FORTE PELLIOT in FORTE 1996, 473. 21 22

358

Garry M.Y. Pang

pletely because the content and the structure of the Jingjiao Monument were very different to the Dhūta Monastery Inscription. Since the Dhūta Monastery Inscription collected a lot of scriptures from both Buddhism and Chinese an cient literature, it would be very easy to be influenced by some wordings of it. K. K. Yeo comments that the famous tablet suggests an attempt to contextualize Syrian Nestorian Christianity in a Chinese form… The combination of Christian faith with indigenous Chinese religious symbols points to an accommodationist hermeneutic. Most Chinese scholars interpret this accommodationist approach as a strategy of self-preservation, a survival tactic of a group seek ing identity and security in a largely hostile environment.27

2. The author of China Illustrata Athanasius Kircher was born in Geisa, near Fulda in Germany, on May 2, 1602. Kircher entered the Jesuit Order in 1618, and studied mathematics, hu manities and oriental languages (Coptic, Hebrew, Syriac) in Fulda, Cologne, and Mainz. From 1629 to 1631 he lectured at the University of Würzburg on mathematics. From 1633 to 1635 he studied hieroglyphs at Avignon. From France he went to Rome where he was professor of mathematics at the Col legium Romanum until 1634. He died in Rome on the 28th November, 1680.28 Kircher was the most famous poly-historian and the greatest Orientalist in Germany in the 17th century.29 Besides, Kircher was regarded as “the last man who knew everything.”30 His studies and writings covered practically all fields both in the humanities and the sciences, including optics, music, magnetism, acoustics, arithmetic, astronomy, astrology, physics, archaeology, philosophy, theology, philology, geology, prestidigitation, magic, oriental studies, Egyptian hieroglyphs and missionary discoveries in the Far East.31 Kircher had never been to China in his life. However, during his long sojourn in Rome, he had chance to meet different Jesuits returning to Rome from the Far East. Through personal contact with them and easy access to the central ar chives of the Jesuits in Rome he made possible a vast knowledge of the mate rial and human experience in China.32 One of the important sources came from Kircher’s former pupil in mathematics, Fr. Martin Martini [Martinus Martinius]of Trent (1614-1661), the illustrious author of the Chinese Atlas (Atlantis Sinici). Another source came from Fr. Michael Boym (Michael Boim), a Pole, who was sent by Constantine, King and Emperor of China, and his mother, Helen, to Rome to Pope Innocent X, and who carried a memorial worthy of YEO in HOSGROVE-WEISS-YEO 2005, 106. SZCZESNIAK 1952 in Osiris Vol. 10 (1952), 385-386. 29 Cf. MÜLLER 1672. 30 See FINDLEN 2004. 31 SZCZESNIAK 1952, 387-388. 32 SZCZESNIAK 1952, 387. 27 28

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

359

memory. The other sources came from Fr. Philip Marino [Philippus Marinus] of Genoa, Fr. Johannes Grueber [Joannes Gruberus] of Linz (1623-1680) and Fr. Henry Roth [Henrius Roth] of Augsburg (1620-1668).33 Kircher used the materials to write the book China Monumentis, qva Sacris quàProfanis, nec non variis Naturæ & Artis Spectaculis, Aliarumque rerum memorabilium Ar gumentis Illustrata(China Illustrata With Sacred and Secular Monuments, Various Spectacles of Nature and Art and Other Memorabilia). 34 China Illus trata is an important source of information on the beginnings of western Sinol ogy and Sinophilism in Europe in the 17th century.35 The book was divided into six parts. The first part was about the Jingjiao Monument where Boym played a dominant role as the contributor to the con tent of it. Henri Havret suggested that the first Latin translation of the Jingjiao Monument was done by Nicolas Trigault (1577-1628).36 Emanuel Diaz (Emanuel Dias) remembered the Inscription in his letters written in Portuguese at Macao on August 23, 1625 and November 21, 1627.37 He also sent a Portu guese version of the Chinese text of the Inscription. This version was translated into Italian and published in Rome in 1631under the title of Dichiaratione de una pietra anticad.38 The Italian translation put into Latin was included in Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus, in 1636, by Athanasius Kircher.39 But he said,“I was not able to translate them all, since several pages had been taken from my copy as specimens.”40 Kircher collected the translation of the SinoSyrian monument in China Illustrata. Kircher emphasized that the translation was with the help of Boym. Kircher said, “Finally, at last came Fr. Michael Boim, who brought me the most accurate account of the monument, and who corrected all the mistakes in the Chinese manuscript which I own. In my pres ence he also made a new, minute, and literal help of his companion Andreae Don Sin, a native of China, who is very skilled in his native language.”41 The Chinese name of his companion should be Cheng An-to-le.42 The Jesuit poly-historian and Egyptologist Athanasius Kircher played a special role among the other authors with his China Illustrata, even though he had never been to China. Living in Rome, he tried to decipher the Egyptian hiero glyphs by comparing them with the Chinese characters. He had contacts with the China missionaries Boym, Martini, and others, who supplied him with ma terials about China. In China Illustrata, Kircher collected a transcript of the See “Preface” in KIRCHER 1987. See KIRCHER 1667. Cf. KIRCHER 1987. 35 SZCZESNIAK 1952, 392. 36 HAVRET 1902, 67-71. 37 KIRCHER 1987, 37. 38 SZCZESNIAK 1952, 395. KIRCHER 1936. 39 KIRCHER, 1936. 40 KIRCHER 1987, 5-6. 41 Ibid, 6. 42 MUNGELLO 1989, 167. 33 34

360

Garry M.Y. Pang

famous Sino-Syriac monument which was made by Matthew (a Chinese who came from Xi’an) in Rome in 1664.43 However, James Legge pointed out that the transcript abounded in errors.44 In the transcript, all the Chinese characters of the Jingjiao Monument were marked with the Arabic numbers at the top of the right corner of each word. Every Chinese character was transliterated into Latin according to the number of the word, such as 1.Ta (大), 2.Cyn (秦), 3.Kim (景), 4.Kiao (教), etc. Apart from the words for the head and the title of the monument, the content of each character was divided into 29 vertical columns according to the original col umn of the Jingjiao Monument.45 Then the Chinese characters were translated into Latin one by one also according to their numbers. Kircher called the method that he used in China Illustrata as “the Triple Method of interpreta tion”. Kircher explained the method as the following: Interpretation I only shows in the Latin alphabet how the words represented by the Chinese characters ought to be pronounced. Interpretation II gives the literal mean ing of the characters and words on the monument. Interpretation III is a paraphrase of the meaning of the Chinese inscription. This avoids the word order of the Chi nese whenever possible, since its syntax is strange to Europeans. This explains a lit 46 tle more fully the underlying meanings of the tablet and translates them into Latin.

However, the method was not invented by Kircher, but was mainly the work of Boym. In the letter of Boym, he described, “I am pleased to publish the whole inscription in Chinese and Latin script, with a literal Latin translation which keeps the Chinese word order…..I have translated this word-by-word into Latin with numbers inserted into the text.”47 Besides, Kircher also acknowledged the work of Boym, he said,“The first is literally translated with the correct Chinese pronunciation. This was done by Fr. Michael Boim, who is very skilled in the Chinese languages.48 Therefore, the contribution of Kircher was mainly on the interpretation of the Syriac names on the monument. The illustration of the Jing Jiao Monument with the table for the transliteration and translations of the Latin helped the Europeans to understand the content of the Jing Jiao Monument even though they did not know Chinese at all. Actu ally, Müller used the Latin transliteration of the content of the Jing Jiao Monu ment to compose Monumenti Sinici.

KIRCHER 1667, 12. LEGGE 1888, 36. However, Legge also made a mistake to state that China Illustrata was pub lished in 1678 instead of 1667. 45 KIRCHER 1667, 13-21. 46 KIRCHER 1987, 9. 47 Ibid., 8. 48 Ibid., 1. 43 44

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

361

3. The composer of Monumenti Sinici Andreas Müller was born in Greiffenhagen in Pomerania. In 1649 Müller en tered the university at Rostock to study Middle Eastern languages and theol ogy. He had studied Lutheran theology and oriental languages. In 1653, he be came the rector of the town school in Königsberg/Neumark and in 1655 was referred to as “prefect” at Treptow/Tollense. In 1657 he undertook further stud ies at the university in Greifswald.49 As a result of his continuous studying, he had knowledge of Turkish, Persian, Syrian, a deeper knowledge of Arabic, and some knowledge of Aramaic, Samaritan, Armenian, Coptic, Russia, Hungarian and Modern Greek. In 1658 Müller registered in Leiden where he was first ex posed to the Chinese language.50 In 1659 he presented a second disputation to the philosophy faculty at Rostock. In 1660 Müller was appointed Dozent at Rostock. But he may have gone to England to visit Edmund Castell and Bryan Walton to search for a universal language. 51 The Great Elector Frederick William called him to Berlin as provost of the Nicolaikirche in 1667 and charged him to take care of the Oriental books of his library. 52 In the same year, Kricher’s China Illustrata was published. In No vember 1667, Müller invented a Key to Chinese (Clavis Sinica). While going through certain Arabic materials, he claimed to have found several hints for the solution of the Chinese-language puzzle.53 Since then, as a minister and an Ori entalist, Müller enhanced his interest and reputation in Sinological studies. In 1672, after testing his key for several years, he published The Reading Or Phrasing, Version Or Metaphrasing, Translation Or Paraphrasing Of The Chinese Monument Which Was Dug Out From The Earth In The Year Of Our Lord 1625; Which Is From The 8th Century, Written In Chinese, And Partly In Syrian Language, Inscribed On The Rock, And Which Provides A Very Strong Confirmation Of The Antiquity Of The Doctrine And The Rites Of the Roman Church (Which Were Indeed Received In The Far East About 1000 Years Ago). Just As The Most Famous Poly-historian P. Athanasius Kircher, Priest Of The Society Of Jesus, A Roman, In His Book China Illustrata Of The Year 1667. Particularly And Detailled Edited. Besides This, Andreas Müller Of Greiffen hagen, Added Music Notation By Which He,Through Many Elaborations On The New Edition Of Kircher, Could Supplement Some Shortcomings, could Remove Some Mistakes, And Indicated Everything With Red Colour. In the

MUNGELLO 1989, 210. For the accounts of Müller’s life, see LACH 1940 in Journal of the American Oriental Society 60 (1940), 564-575; WEHR 1966 in Pommersche Lebensblider (Cologne) 4 (1966), 21-35; KRAFT 1976 in Medizinhistorisches Journal 11 (1976), 92-128. 50 VON COLLANI in UHALLEY-WU 2001, 155. 51 MUNGELLO 1989, 210. 52 VON COLLANI in UHALLEY-WU 2001, 155. 53 LACH 1940, 565. See MÜLLER 1697 in Tentzels Monatliche, 9 (1697), 982. See also BAYER 1730 in Museum Sinicum, Vol.I (1730), 35-36. 49

362

Garry M.Y. Pang

long title of the book, he acknowledged the content of the book was based on Kircher’s China Illustrata.54 In 1685, he left Berlin because of a theological controversy. Like Mentzel, he was more or less and autodidact of the Chinese language, but he obtained, comparably, a proficiency in reading Chinese. His most important publications were the Basilicon Siense (Berlin, 1674), a collection of names of Chinese em perors, his Heddomas Observationum de rebus Sinicis (Coloniae Brandeburgicae, 1674), as well as articles on China and some translations. He had invented the so-called “Clavis Sinica” (November 1667), a method of very easily learn ing to read Chinese, and wrote a pamphlet of four pages entitled, Propositio super clave sua Sinica, praising the advantages of his “key” (1674). This “key” made him famous, but also gave him the bad reputation of being a fraud, be cause he looked in vain for a Maecenas to pay for the publication of this key. Because he found none, he burnt all the papers about this key a short time be fore his death. In 1694 he died in Stettin.55 Basically, the transliteration and translation of the monument in Monumenti Sinici were literal duplications of China Illustrata. Müller’s sole contribution was to add the musical notation. But all of this was clarified on the title page where Müller gave Kircher’s work some due credit. So in this sense, it was not plagiarism.56 On the other hand, as David E Mungello mentioned that Kircher’s recommendation in 1674 that Müller read China Illustrata implies that Kircher’s permission had not been received for such a borrowing nor was he even sent a copy of the text upon publication – two acts which in the twentieth century have became standard literary practices.57 Moreover, Müller left some unsolved problems, for instance, he could only conformed that the monument was discovered in Shaanxi province, but he could not point out the exact loca tion, whether in Xi’an City (Si-ganfu), Zhouzhi (Cheuche 盩厔／周至) or Sanyuan (三原). Besides, for the time of discovery, he mentioned that the event happened in 1625 or even a few years earlier than what the Jesuits in China told.58 These problems have not been solved completely even until now. In fact, Kircher’s China Illustrata provided some primary sources for the dis covery of the Jingjiao Monument. In the letter of P. Michael Boym, Andreas Don Sin (a Chinese) and Matthew (a Chinese) on the 4th Novenber 1653, it stated that these three persons as were the eyewitnesses of the monument, who described the tablet.59 Boym mentioned that the monument was precisely dis

MÜLLER 1672. I am indebted to Prof. Marian Galik, Prof. Leopold Leeb and Prof. Li Zhen for helping me to translate the title and part of the content of Monumenti Sinici into English. 55 VON COLLANI 2001,155. 56 MUNGELLO 1989, 220. 57 Ibid. 58 MÜLLER 1667, 9-10. 1653 to 1635. 59 KIRCHER 1987, 8. The English edition had a mistake that changed the year of the letter from 54

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

363

covered in Zhouzhi. This letter was also collected by Müller in “The History of the Stone” (Historia Lapidis) in Monumenti Sinici. We shall pay more attention to the content of the letter. Zhouzhi may be the most probable place where the monument was discovered. In 1625 a Jesuit was invited by Doctor Philip to his home in San yuen, where twenty Persons were baptized, and the Jesuit went with the same Doctor to see the stone, which had been found a few months before near the metropolitan city Syngan-fu in the village Cheu-che, where they had been excavating for a wall. This man reported the finding of the stone. This was confirmed later by the other fathers, who established a residence and a church at Sy-ngan-fu, and by the Christians and 60 their relatives.

B. The content of Monumenti Sinici Monumenti Sinici was divided into three vertical columns with three sections. The first section in the middle column was Lectio, which was the Latin translit eration of the content of the Jingjiao Monumnet with music notation. The Ara bic numbers was put at the top of the music note and the text starting from 1,2,3…and so on. The content was followed by the Latin transliteration of the text of the Jingjiao Inscription. China Illustrata was divided into thirty vertical columns. The second section at the left column is Versio which is the transla tion of the Latin text according to the numbers of the Lectio. The third section at the right column was Parapharasis which was the paraphrase of the content of the monument and was divided into twenty-four parts.61 However, according to the content of Monumenti Sinici, it can be divided into five categories: 1. The prelude; 2. The doctrine of Jingjiao; 3.The spreading of Jingjiao in China; 4.The eulogy; 5. The postlude. Besides, in the tenth part, the development of Jingjiao during the reign of Su Zong (肅宗) should be separated into another part. But the last changed as the postlude. So, apart from the prelude and the postlude, there were still twenty-four parts. Basically, every part can be treated as a single song and combined as a long hymn. The following is a brief intro duction of the content of the monument using these twenty-six songs.

60 61

Ibid., 7. See also MÜLLER 1667, 6. The paraphrase that Müller used in Monumenti Sinici was just the copy of China Illustrata which was Byom’s paraphrase collected by Kircher. Müller acknowledged the paraphrase was the work of Boym in the Note (Nota) of Monumenti Sinici. The English translation for the paraphrase of Monumenti Sinici in this paper was based on the English version of China Illus trata translated by Charles D. Van Tuyl.

364

Garry M.Y. Pang

1. The prelude The prelude was about the title of the monument and to introduce the author of the monument, Jing Jing, a priest of the Daqin Temple.

2. The doctrine of Jingjiao In Monumenti Sinici, the doctrine of Jingjiao can be sung by the following four songs to bring out the creation, the fall of man, the salvation and the monasticism, which can be regarded as the earliest contextualized theology of Christi anity in China.

(1) The Song of the Creation (創世之歌) The text was based on the first Chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament. It ex plained the origin of the world and pointed out that how the self-existent Crea tor created everything from nothing (ex nihilo creavit). Moreover, it described the Divine essence of the Triune God, three persons in one substance (trina in personis, & in substantia una 三一妙身). The name of the Creator was Olo, O yu (which in Chaldean means Eloha), that is Elohim (阿羅訶). It also pointed out that man was created and was appointed to be the lord of the entire uni verse.

(2) The Song of the Fall (墮落之歌) The text comes from Genesis 3. It explained the process for the fall of man and the consequence of the sins of man. By the tricks of Satan (娑殫), the pure and perfect nature of Adam was damaged and evil entered him to disturbed his peace. Therefore, some worshipped the created instead of the Creator. In truth, they labor in vain and without profit. They increased the darkness and so lose the true path, and did not know how to return to the way of life.

(3) The Song of Salvation (救恩之歌) The text shifted from the Old Testament to the New Testament. We need to pay attention to the introduction of the Messiah (彌施訶), “who is one of the divine persons of the most holy Trinity, restrained and covered his majesty and ac commodated himself to human nature and became a man.” This helped us to understand that the Christology of Jingjiao is orthodox and without the hereti cal theology of Nestorianism. It also described how the Messiah was born of a virgin in Judea (室女誕聖於大秦) and gave his life to destroy death. He took the good people to Heaven and saved them. When these things had been ac

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

365

complished by his power, he ascended to Heaven, leaving twenty-seven vol umes of doctrine (經留廿七部 i.e. the New Testament) for opening up the gate to the great salvation of the world. Baptism by water and the spirit for washing away sins was also mentioned as the rites of purification.

(4) The Song of monasticism (修道之歌) Monasticism was avery important practice for the Church of the East. The text introduced the monasticism for the ministers of the Messiah. From their ap pearance to show that they had no inner passions. “They make themselves equal to everyone. They do not accumulate wealth, but have everything in common. They fast to mortify the passions and to keep the divine precepts. They magnify those over them and are removed from worldly matters. They pray seven times a day for the living and the dead. Once each seventh day they perform holy rites purifying their souls and restoring purity.” In addition, it ex plains the reason for which the religion was called Jingjiao (稱景教) that is, the Great and Bright Law.

2. The development of Jingjiao in China In Monumenti Sinici, the history for the spread of Jingjiao in China during the Tang Dynasty (635-781) can be divided into 11 songs. The history that related to the Chinese Emperor started from Taizong to Dezong. The last three songs in this part were especially dedicated to Yi Si, the donor of the monument.

(5) The Song for the beginning of the Holy Law (聖道啟傳歌) The Song emphasized the relation with the Law (Gospel) and the royal persons. In the ninth year of Zhen Guan (635 A.D.) Alopen (Olopuen), a Persian priest from the Church of the East, went to Chang’an (長安) as the first Christian missionary. The emperor Taizong (太宗) sent the prime minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) with a guard of honor to welcome him in the western sub urb of the capital. The emperor ordered for the doctrine to be translated and in vited Alopen into the palace. The emperor understood that there was a true law, and he ordered it to be earnestly introduced and spread with efficacy and honor through his whole kingdom. In 638, the emperor issued an edict to confirm that the doctrine carried by Alopen was excellent and was fitting to be spread through the whole empire. The emperor also ordered to build a church (Da Qin Temple 大秦寺) in Yining Fang (義寧坊) and appointed twenty-one monks in the church. This marked the beginning of Christian mission in China.

366

Garry M.Y. Pang

(6) The Song of Daqin (大秦之歌) The song introduced Daqin according to the historical record. “The kingdom of Daqin is bordered on the south by the Red Sea (珊瑚之海), on the north by mountains of gems (眾寶之山), and on the west by the Boca das fullas (仙境花林) in the prospect facing the holy ones. On the east the boundaries are the place called Ciam fam and the water which they call dead (長風弱水) … The people live in peace and joy. Only Gospel is found there.”

(7) TheSong for the promotion of the Holy Law (聖道廣傳歌) Ｔhe Song described the promotion of the Holy Law and the church growth of Jingjiao in China with the support of the emperor, which led to a prosperous and peaceful society. During the reign of Gaozong (高宗), “He ordered for there to be churches in all the provinces and he honored Alopen (Olopuen) with the title of Bishop of the Great Law Which Rules the Kingdom of China (鎮國大法主). Then the Law of God was preached in the ten provinces (of the Chinese Empire 法流十道) and the kingdom enjoyed great peace (國富元休). All the cities were filled with churches (寺滿百城) and the houses flourished with the happiness of the Gospel (家殷景福).”

(8) The Song of the attack of Holy Law (聖道被辱歌) However, the development of Jingjiao in China also faced difficulties. The Song recorded that the Gospel was attacked twice. The first attack was during the reign of Wu Zetian (武則天) in the period of Sheng Li (聖曆年698-699 A.D.) by the Buddhists at the Eastern Capital (Dong Zhou 東周i.e. Luo Yang 洛陽). The second attack was during the transistion period from Ruizong (睿宗) to Xuanzong (玄宗) at the end of Xian Tian period (先天末712A.D.) by some inferior scholars at Xi Hao (西鎬i.e. Chang An 長安). They attacked the Holy Law with mockery, ridicule, and vituperation.

(9) The Song for the restoration oftheHoly Law (聖道復正歌) By the effort of the religious leaders of Jingjiao and the support of the emperor, the Holy Law was restored. The song described that the chief priest Luo Han (羅含) and another man of great virtue named Ji Lie (及烈), began again continually to explain the Gospel and to mend the threads broken by the malice of the blind demon (共振玄綱俱維絕紐). The emperor Xuanzong ordered his five subordinate kings to enter in person the happy house (that is, the church) and to erect altars (親臨福宇建立壇場). Then the column of the Law, which had a short while before been prostrate, was raised and capped again (道石時傾而復

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

367

正). In the beginning of the year Tian Bao (天寶742 A.D.), the emperor ordered the general Gao Lishi (高力士) to carry the portraits of the five emperors preceding him, and to place them in the church and to carry a hundred precious things to celebrate this solemnity.

(10) The Song for the sacred rites ordered by the emperor (皇詔聖禮歌) The song mentioned that in the third year of Tian Bao, the emperor ordered the priest Luo Han and Pu Lun (普論) and others, seventeen in all (一七人) to their profession betake themselves to the Xing Qing Palace (興慶宮) with the virtuous man Jie He (佶和) for worship and sacred rites (修功德). At this time the royal letters were kept in the church’s tablets, preciously adorned according to their rank, shinning with red and blue.

(11) The Song for the reconstruction of the church (重立景寺歌) The emperor Suzong (肅宗 began to reign at 756 A.D.) ordered to rebuild the church of Jingjiao (立景寺) in Ling Wu which was similar to those in Wu Jun (靈武等五郡).62 He was a king of exceptional disposition under whom the gate of felicity was opened for the whole empire. With happiness, joy, and applause the royal government was greatly exalted.

(12) The Song for the provisions from the emperor (皇賜景眾歌) The emperor Daizong (代宗 begantoreign in763A. D.) enjoyedfavorable times. He administeredtheaffairs according tothe principleof spontaneity (從事無為).63 Every yearatthe festivalcelebrating Christ’s birth (每於降誕之 辰),64 hesent celestial perfumes for thanksgiving andtohonorthe ministersof

SAEKI 1937, 30-33. See 宋敏求：《宋著長安志》卷十八，長安縣志局，1931年重印。 “盩厔縣（唐畿東北至府一百三十里）。漢舊縣也。武帝置屬右扶風。山曲曰盩。水曲 曰厔。因以名之……五郡城在縣東南三十里。周三里。舊說有義兄弟五人共居此城，不 詳建立。”《盩厔縣志》，1563（嘉靖四十二年）。“五群邱木山在縣東三十里。塔谷 山腰有大秦寺。舊碣記宋建隆四年重修。寺內有鎮仙寶塔。高約八丈八稜形。相傳為唐 太宗敕建。” 63 FOSTER 1939, 99. Foster pointedout, “This is adouble reference: (1) tothe famous principle of Lao-tzu, ‘Donot exertyourself, and there is nothing which youwill not achieve’ (Tao-the Ching), and (2) totheone similar saying of Confucius, “Governing withoutexertion, Shunwas suchaone’ (Analects, xv.4). Shunwasa legendaryandfrequently idealized Emperor. 64 LEGGE 1888, 19. Legge said that this wasthebirthdayof the emperor. Nien Chang’s History of Budhhism（《佛祖歷代通載》, xiv, P.18）mentioned that Daizong (Tai Tsung) on his birthday (the same phraseology as in the text)hada service performed for him alsobya large company of Buddhist monks! 62

368

Garry M.Y. Pang

the Holy Law (頒御饌以光景眾), and he assigned them provisions from the court.

(13) The Song for the renewal ofJingjiao (景命更新歌) During the Jian Zhong period (建中 began in 780 A.D.) when Emperor Dezong (德宗)reigned, the author of the monument was experiencing the political and religious reforms. The emperor regarded the Eight Objects of Government in degrading the ignorant and promoting the intelligent. He illustrated the Nine Divisions of the Great Plan in order to renew and advance the development of Jingjiao (闡九疇以惟新景命).65 His rule was excellent. In his work he com prehended mysteries (of the Holy Law 化通玄理). In prayers (for him) there needed be no qualms of conscience (祝無愧心). He benefited everyone living. The society and the environment were in a harmony situation. The song em phasized that all are the effects of the strength and power of Jing Jiao (我景力能事之功用也). That was the transformation power of the Holy Law.

(14) The Song for the appreciation of the priest Yi Si (頌景僧伊斯歌) The song gave praises to the great donor of the monument (大施主), the priest Yi Si (伊斯), who had the title of Guanglu Dafu (光祿大夫 i.e. one of the highest titles conferred on an officer), with the decoration rank of the Gold (signet) and the Purple Robe, and who was also the Lieutenant-GovernorGeneral of the Northern Region (朔方節度副使), and the Assistant Over-Seer of the Examination Hall (試殿中監), was honored with the purple clerical robe.66 So, he was an important figure both as an official of the royal court and a priest of Jingjiao. He was peaceful and delighted in helping others, doing vir tuous works with great joy. He came far from the Royal Palace of the city of Balkh, His deeds surpassed three generations of China, and he perfectly spread abroad the other sciences. In the beginning he served the emperor in the court, and afterwards his name too was entered in the royal book.

(15) The Song for the contribution ofYi Si (頌伊斯功績歌)

FOSTER 1939, 100. “The Great Plan is dealt with in the Book of History (Shu Ching). Its nine divisions are as follows: (1) The Five Elements: water, fire, wood, metal, earth. (2) The Five Businesses: demeanour, speech, seeing, hearing, thinking. (3) The Eight Objects of Govern ment: food, supply, commodities, sacrifices, public works, instruction, law, inter-state inter course, and army. (4) The Five Blessings: long-life, riches, health, virtue, a blessed end to life; and the Six Adversities: short life, sickness, sorrow, poverty, wickedness, weakness. Compare these with lines 202-217 on the Tablet, which may be described as a Christian “Great Plan”. 66 SAEKI 1937, 63. 65

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

369

The song recorded the contribution of Yi Si. He assisted the Duke Guo Zi Yi (郭子儀) who was first appointed to the charge of the military operations in the Northern Regions. He was willing to distribute his salary and not to accumulate wealth at home. He offered to the church the precious things. He completely restored the old churches (或仍其舊寺) and stabilized the hall and home of the Law (或重廣法堂). He adorned homes and hospices which shone like flying pheasants. Besides, he followed the teaching of Jing Jiao (更效景門) and was zealous in works of charity (施仁施利). Once a year he summoned the priests and the followers of the four churches (每歲集四寺僧徒) and served them with all his heart, providing them with all necessities for fifty days. He also fed the hungry, clothed the naked, healed the sick, and buried the dead.

(16) The Song for the excellent example ofYi Si (頌伊斯佳模歌) The song witnessed the excellent example of Yi Si. Among the purest and most self-denying Da Sha (清節達娑),67 such goodness was never heard, but only the white-robed scholar of Jingjiao (白衣景士). Therefore a great monument was carved to proclaim such heroic deeds (願刻洪碑以揚休烈).

3. The eulogy There was the inclusion pattern in the eulogy, the beginning and the ending was also about the doctrine while the middle part was built up by six songs to ad mire the heroic deeds of the six emperors in summary.

(17) The Song of the True Lord (真主之歌) To described the creation of the true God and the salvation of the incarnated Messiah.

(18) The Song of the most splendid Emperor (太宗之歌) To admired Taizong willing to support the preaching of Jingjiao through Scrip ture translation and church building.

(19) The Song ofGaozong (高宗之歌) To admire Gaozong to bring the development of Jingjiao to a high tide that great and magnificent temples of peace filled the whole earth. 67

FOSTER 1939, 107. Foster pointed out that Da Sha（達娑）was a Persian term for “Chris tian.”

370

Garry M.Y. Pang

(20) The Song ofXuanzong (玄宗之歌) To admire the royal tablets, the royal letters and the royal figures of Xuanzong. The whole people deeply venerated them.

(21) The Song ofSuzong (肅宗之歌) To admire Suzong was restored to the throne. Felicity was accumulated in the royal house, and evils ceased.

(22) The Song ofDaizong (代宗之歌) To admire Daizong sent incense to the church as an act of gratitude and he did works of charity.

(23) The Song ofDezong (德宗之歌) To admire Dezong showed bright virtue. He brought to life the whole world. All the barbarians accepted his rule of life.

(24) The Song of the Divine Law (聖道之歌) To praise the greatness of the Divine Law which could only to known as “Three-in-one”. The great monument was built to praise the blessing of God.

5. The Postlude The Postlude was about the date for the erection of the monument which took place in the 2nd year of Jian Zhong period (781A.D) and the monument was written by Lü Xiuyan (呂秀嚴).

C. The significance of Monumenti Sinici As mentioned earlier, the text of Monumenti Sinici was written by the Syrian priest Adam in 781 A.D. It was translated by the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher and was composed by a Protestant minister and Orientalist Andreas Müller in 1627. Therefore from the text to the hymn with music, Monumenti Sinici took about nine hundred years to be finished. Monumenti Sinici can be regarded as the fruit of the combination of three important branches of Christianity, the Church of the East (Adam /Jing Jing), the Jesuit of Roman Catholic Church (Athana

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

371

sius Kircher) and the Protestant Church (Andreas Müller). We can sum up the significance of Monumenti Sinici as the following:

1. To confirm the authenticity of the Jingjiao Monument After the discovery of the Jingjiao Monument, the reports and the translations of the monument spread to Europe by the Jesuits. However, the European re sponse to the Jingjiao Monument was filled with skepticism. The skepticism was fed by such widespread suspicion, distrust of the Jesuits and the debate over the authenticity of the monument.68 In the debate, the integrity of the Jesu its was also attacked. The critics came mainly from the Protestants with a antiCatholic mind. The first attack came from Georg Horn, a German Presbyterian and professor at the university of Haiderwyk and Leiden. In his De orginibus Americanis in 1652, Horn accused the monument of being clearly a Jesuits’ fraud invented to deceive the Chinese.69 Another attack came from Gottlieb Spizelius (1630-1691) who was an historian and preacher at Augsburg. In his De re literaria Sinensium commentaries in 1660, he claimed that the monument presented by Kircher in Prodromus Coptus was a recent composition by some Christian doctor, presumably a reference to someone like Li Chih Tsao (李之 藻) or Hsu Kuang Chi (徐光啟).70 The reason that Kircher emphasized on the interpretation of the Jingjiao Monument in China Illustrata was for apologetic purposes. Kircher mentioned that there were evil critics who tried in every way to persuade themselves, as well as everyone else, to believe that no such monument really existed and that it was only a Jesuit deception.71 Kircher pointed out that one of the critics at tacked the monument with every effort, with arrogant mockery, affirming that the monument was a Jesuit trick and a lie for deceiving the Chinese and steal ing their treasures.72 Even Kircher concealed his name, but obviously, it was Georg Horn. In his lengthy reexamination of the Sino-Syrain monument, Flor ence Hsia said that Kircher married claims of Jesuit linguistic prowess to apologetic strategies characteristics of ecclesiastical history and antiquarianism.73 In the tension between the Protestants and the Jesuits, Müller played an impor tant role. As a Protestant minister and Orientalist, he used his action to confirm the authenticity of the Jingjiao Monumentin Monumenti Sinici. Based on the materials of China Illustrata and other Jesuit missionary sources, such as Se68

MUNGELLO 1989, 169. Ibid., 169-170. See HAVRET 1902, 263-264. 70 MUNGELLO 1989, 170. See SPIZELIUS 1660, 159-160. 71 KIRCHER 1987,1. 72 Ibid. 73 HSIA in FINDLEN 2004, .385. 69

372

Garry M.Y. Pang

medo, Diaz, Martini, and Boym, Müller gave a brief report about the history and the background of the Jingjiao Monument (Historia Lapidis). He listed out 17 issues related to the monument: 1.Discovery; 2. Material of the Monu ment; 3.Size; 4. Shape; 5.Legend; 6.Inscriptions Language; 7.Text; 8.Content; 9.Author; 10.Time; 11.Style; 12.Editions; 13.Translation; 14.Commentaries; 15.Witnesses; 16.Praises; 17.Judgements.74 In Monumenti Sinici, Müller may be the first Protestant minister and scholar to confirm the authenticity of the Jingjiao Monument. He was also the forerunner among the Protestants to study and introduce the Jingjiao Monument through Monumenti Sinici, the great Protestant Sinologists like Alexander Wylie and James Legge also followed his footsteps. Today, no one will query the authenticity of the Jingjiao Monument anymore.

2. To accept the orthodox faith of the Jing Jiao (Tang Christianity) History is the process of discovering the truth. For many centuries, the Church of the East was known as the Nestorian Church and was regarded as heretical. After the Syrian Christians preached the Gospel into China and developed as Jingjiao which was also bear the burden of being heretical. Samuel M. Zwemer mentioned that the Nestorian Church has suffered the label and libel of heresy. But he emphasized, “The strength of the Nestorian Church was its love and loyalty to Christ, its emphasis on His great commission and the heroism of its adventure into regions beyond the near East.”75 Actually, the term “Nestorian” in a heretical sense is inaccurate for the Church of the East.76 John Foster also pointed out that the name Nestorian seems to bear, not the mark of a healthy independence, but the taint of heresy. It is necessary to correct this attitude.77 Kircher on one hand stressed the orthodoxy for the doctrine spread in China during the 7th century, “The translation of this Sino-Syrian monument will force the heretics to admit that ten centuries ago preachers of the Divine Word taught sound doctrine that conforms to modern orthodoxy, and that the doctrine spread in China by evangelical preaching was the same which the universal Roman Catholic Church today holds up to be believed. This will be thoroughly proven by many weighty arguments.”78 However, under the influence of Marco Polo, Kircher attacked the Nestorian as the worst heretic. It infected Colchis, Armenia, Persia, Turchestan, and the farthest boundaries of Asiatic Tartary. Marco Polo and Haython testify that no place in these regions was uncontami MÜLLER 1672, 1-18. See “Forward” by ZWEMER in STEWART 1928. BAUM – WINKLER 2003, 31-32. Winkler points out, “Christianity in the Persian Empire of the Parthians and Sassanians did not begin with Nestorius nor was there a dogmatic split from the church of the Roman Empire in the fifth century named after him.” 77 FOSTER 1939, 24. 78 KIRCHER 1987, 1. 74 75 76

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

373

nated.”79 But on the other hand, when Kircher reported about the priests who preached the orthodox faith in China, he also linked them up with the Nestorian heresy. Armed with zeal for God’s house and excited by desire to preach the ancient Ortho dox faith, they went into China, where they labored and greatly built up the Chris tian cause, as the above discussed Syro-Chinese monument amply shows. Nothing, however, in human affairs is stable or solid. So too the faith brought to those regions degenerated into idolatry, into Islam, into the Nestorian heresy, or to what ever each person wanted.80

Comparatively, Müller showed a more positive assessment about Jingjiao. In the long title of Monumenti Sinici, Müller stressed that the monument “pro vides a very strong confirmation of the antiquity of the dogma and the rites (dogmatum & rituum) of the Roman Church (which were indeed received in the Far East about 1000 years ago).” By doing this, Müller accepted the ortho dox faith of Jingjiao. That was important because it showed that a Protestant minister accepted the orthodox faith of Jingjiao which shared the same faith with the Roman Church. But Müller also paid the cost for studying Chinese. When he was in Berlin, he had conflicts with the reformed minister Elias Grebnitz, who was calling him a heretic, because his study in Chinese language was regarded as “works of the devil”.81 However, the history proved that Müller’s acceptance of Jingjiao as being or thodox was right. The historical meeting of John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East on 11 November, 1994 announced a “Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East”. The question about the Nestorian as heresy was cleared by the following statement: This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.82

3. To promote the cultural exchange of the East and the West Tang Dynasty in China was the “Golden Period” for the cultural exchange of the East and the West. The foreigners who came from the West (西域) through Ibid.,84. Ibid.,85. 81 “Neustes von China II,” available from http://www.mnemion.studien-vonzeitfragen.net/ Leibniz/DASNEU_1/dasneu, accessed on 26/1/2006. 82 “Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East,” in The Holy See-Vatican Web Site, available from http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrsturi/document/rc_p, accessed on 28/4/2006. 79 80

374

Garry M.Y. Pang

the Silk Road were called as “Hu Ren” (胡人). Jingjiao introduced by the Per sian priests from the Church of the East was in the eyes of the Chinese a for eign religion (“Yi Jiao” 夷教) and the temple of Jingjiao was known as “Per sian Hu Temple”（波斯胡寺). For the purpose of mission and evangelism, the Persian priests like Alopen and Adam studied Chinese and Chinese culture in order to translate the Scriptures into Chinese. Their role was similar to that of the Jesuits in China during the late Ming (晚明) and Early Qing (清初) Dy nasty (from sixteenth to seventeenth century), such as Matteo Ricci (15521610), Semedo, Martini, etc. The Jingjiao Monument was the product of the cultural exchange of the East and the West, which witnessed the first encounter of Christianity and the Chinese culture. The means for the transmission of cul ture was by the stone (the Jingjiao Monument). Even printing from woodblocks was first practiced by the Chinese around 700 A.D.83 Actually, the priests from the Church of the East like Alopen and Jing Jing were not only the pioneers of Christianity in China, but also the pioneers of Si nologist. The history of Sinology should be rewritten and the beginning of Si nology should be started from the seventh and eighth century. We can call Alopen and Jing Jing as “medieval Sinologist” compared with those “modern Sinologist” and the Sinology in the Tang Dynasty can be regarded as “the first generation Sinology.” They made great contribution to the exchange between the Eastern and Western culture. “I suppose that no theme could be more important for the history of all human civilization than the development of paper and printing.”84 The above words of Joseph Needham can help us to understand the significance of Monumenti Sinici in the sense of cultural exchange. Mungello called the early European study of China in the seventeenth century as “proto-Sinology”.85 However, it would be better to call that as “proto-modern-Sinology” in order to distinguish the difference between the “medieval Sinology” and the “modern Sinology”. In addition, Kircher and Müller also would be better called “proto-modernSinologists” instead of “proto-Sinologists”. Paper and printing were the means for the transmission and ideas by them. Monumenti Sinici was the product for the encounter of different cultures. The Syrian and Chinese cultures encoun tered with European culture where the “proto-modern-Sinologists” encountered with the “medieval Sinologists”. It was not only the mixture of Eastern and Western culture, but also the mixture of cultures. In the seventeenth century, Europeans were curious about and interested in the Chinese culture. But few of them could visit China. The Book about China be came the important source for them to know the things about China. Kircher’s inclusion of the translation of the Syriac and Chinese text is of considerable

NEEDHAM-TSIEN 1985, 1. Ibid., xxi. 85 MUNGELLO 1989, 13. 83 84

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

375

significance. The Chinese part is the first published Chinese vocabulary in a Western language.86 Based on the material of China Illustrata, Müller’s Monumenti Sinici could also used as a simple Chinese-Latin Dictionary and the music notation could also helpe the Europeans to pronounce Chinese words. However, Müller did not know Chinese very well. He was considered as one of the first to use the Jingjiao Monument and other available materials in his fruit less efforts to produce a key to the easy understanding of Chinese.87 Müller an nounced in 1674 that he had discovered a “Key” to mastering the Chinese lan guage. The proposal was published in the form of a four-page pamphlet entitled “Propositio super clave sua Sinica”.88 Mungello said, “The story behind Mul ler’s Clavis Sinica (Key to the Chinese language) is surely one of the more obfuscatingly fascinating tales of scholarship of this age.”89

4. To study the Jingjiao Monument through the remarkable Chinese hymn In the 17th century, the Europeans tried to find the way to learn Chinese. Kirhcer found that the Chinese characters had different tones and the musical note could help people to study Chinese. He said, “To facilitate the study of Chinese our fathers assigned the musical notes ut, re, mi, fa, so, and la to show the ris ing and falling tones. So the single Ya is written with five different accents to show the change in pronunciation by the use of a different character.” 90 Kircher followed the system of solmization to explained that the first tone cor responds to the musical note “UT” (same as “DO”). 91 The Chinese call this Cho pim. It is pronounced with a prolonged level tone. The second tone corre sponds to the note “RE.” The Chinese call this Pim sim. It is pronounced clearly and evenly. The third tone corresponds to the note “MI,” and is called Xam xim by the Chinese. This means “high tone.” The fourth tone corresponds to “FA.” The Chinese call it Kiu xim, which means “a falling, high tone.” The fifth note refers to the note “SOL,” called Ge xim by the Chinese. This means “a hastening tone.”

SZCZESNIAK 1952 in Osiris Vol. 10, (1952), 394. LACH, “China in Western Thought And Culture,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, avail able from http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-48, accessed on 23/1/2006. 88 MUNGELLO 1989, 198. 89 Ibid. 90 KIRCHER 1987, 10. 91 “Guido d'Arezzo,” in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-2005, available from http://www.bartleby.com/65/gu/guidodAr.html, accessed on 30/12/2005. Guido d'Arezzo (c990-1050), a Benedictine Italian monk. His system of solmization (sometimes called, after him, Aretinian syllables), whereby the syllables ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la are used as names for the six tones, C to A, known as the hexachord. As the octave replaced the hexachord, an additional syllable, si or ti, was added. 86 87

376

Garry M.Y. Pang

Strictly speaking, Müller did not compose the melody to the text of the Jingjiao Monument in Monumenti Sinici. He just followed the five different tones of the Chinese characters according to the table of the Latin transliteration of the Jing jiao Monument collected in China Illustrata. Kircher used the system intro duced by Boym for making the tones of Chinese pronunciation. Mungello said that the ingenious tonal system which Boym used in transliterating the inscrip tion was not his invention, but was derived from the Jesuit Lazzaro Cattaneo (1560-1640).92 Müller placed each transliteration of a Chinese character under a note inscribed on an ordinary western musical staff. Thus, by a process, very similar to our system of coordinating the words with music in a song, he hoped to explain away the tonal difficulties in Chinese.93 Müller used a table to compare the mu sic notes in Europe (Ut, re, mi, fa, sol) with the 5 different tones of Chinese which was similar to the method used by Kircher, but he added a sixth note “la” for the Annamites.94 Müller adopted the method to write the melody for the text of Monumenti Sinici where every word with the first tone corresponds to the musical note “UT”. Every word with the second tone corresponds to the note “RE” and so on. Therefore Ta Cyn Kim Kiao became FA FA MI FA. By doing this, he applied the music notation to explaining the pronunciation of the Chinese text of the Jingjiao Monument. 95 Even though Müller was living in the Baroque Era (1600-1750 A.D.), the structure of his hymn of Monumenti Sinici is surprisingly, similar to the Plainchant or the Gregorian chant.96 Donald Jay Grout pointed out that the Gregor ian chant in the Middle Ages was the music of the people as well as the music of the Church. The medieval modal system of the Gregorian chant has been di vided into eight modes.97 The structure for the hymn of Monumenti Sinici is

MUNGELLO 1987, 171. See GOODRICH – FANG 1976, 21 & 32. Cf. SZCZESVNIAK 1947 in Journal of the American Oriental Society 67 (1947), 163, where Szcześvniak claimed that the system of transliteration was Boym’s invention. This claim was denied by Walter Simon. See SIMON 1959 in Asia Major New Series 7 (1959), 169. 93 LACH, 567. See Footnote 86. 94 MÜLLER 1672,5. 95 MUNGELLO 1989, 198. 96 THOMPSON 1975, 862. Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 A. D.) was responsible for gather ing all the music of the Church into a collection called Antiphonarius Cento. Gregorian Music is the name for this great collection of ancient ecclesiastical music, consisting of more than 600 compositions on Biblical texts, which has been connected with the Roman Catholic Church since early Christian times…The “Golden Age of Gregorian chant” extended from the day of St. Gregory to the eleventh century by which time it had become the universal musical language of Europe. From the eleventh to the thirteenth Century was a period of preservation of the ancient melodies and of transition. After the thirteenth century, the supremacy of plainsong was invaded by the development of counterpoint…until by the second half of the six teenth century the plain chants were discarded as too simple and “barbaric”! 97 GROUT 1973, 37, 58. In the tenth century, theorists tried to identify the system of church modes with the ancient Greek keys; because of an understandable vagueness about their mean 92

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

377

similar to the Mixolydian mode.98 But the notation of Monumenti Sinici was different from the Gregorian chant. It was written on the five line staff instead of four line staff for chant. Moreover, the text of Monumenti Sinici was in Chi nese (transliteration of Latin), while the chant was in Latin, the language of the Roman Empire that spread in Europe and was used for the liturgy of the Church.99 The contribution of Müller was applying the semiminima (crotchet, quarter-note), minima (minim, half-note), and semibrevis (semibreve, wholenote) to showing the time duration of the note as measural notation (from the Latin mensurata, meaning “measured,” in the sense of a division into units), which was introduced by Franco of Cologn in 1280,100 the measured music be gan to supplant the rhythmically free style of plainsong and of early Organum.101 This could show the time duration of the note precisely and make the hymn more musical. Thus, we can call Monumenti Sinici a transformed Gregorian chant. It was also a new form of Chinese hymn. The content of the long hymn has non-Biblical prose text with Christian doctrine, history and eulogy. Therefore, Monumenti Sinici opens a new direction to study the Jingjiao Monument through the study of the remarkable Chinese hymn. However, the Chinese scholars seems not to know Monumenti Sinici very much and even do not have chance to read that book. For instance, Tao Yabing realized that the earliest Chinese music with notation in Europe was collected in the Latin version of Monumenti Sinici. Since he could not find the book, he did not know what the song was and mis

ing…modes I and II are now often called Dorian and Hypodorian, mode III and IV Phrygian and Hypophrygian, modes V and VI Lydian and Hypolydian, and modes VII and VIII Mixolydian and Hypomixolydian. 98 “Mixolydian mode,” available from http://www.answers.com/topic/mixolydian_mode? method=5&linktext=Mixoly…, accessed in 30/12/2005. Mixolydian mode is a musical mode or diatonic scale. It may be considered as having the same order of tones and semitones as the major scale except the fifth (dominant) note is taken as the tonic or starting pitch of the scale. It may also be considered a major scale with the leading tone moved down by a semitone.The order of tones and semitones in a Mixolydian scale is TTSTTST (T = tone, S = semitone), while the major scale is TTSTTTS. 99 “Characteristics of Gregorian Chant,” available from http://www.interletras.com/canticum/ Eng/ Characteristics_ENG.html, accessed on 30/12/2005. 100 BONDS 2006, 47. Franco of Cologne codified a system that retained the note shapes and many of the conventions of the rhythmic modes in his Ars cantus mensurabilis (“The Art of Measurable Song”), written sometime around 1280. The principles of this system were known as mensural notation. Franco’s system did not gain immediate acceptance, but by the end of the 13th century his principles were in widespread use. Around 1280, Petrus de Cruce (Pierre de la Croix), a French composer and theorist, refined the Franconian system to allow for greater subdivision of the breve. Petronian notation allowed fro as many as nine semibreves within the duration of a single breve…Petrus also introduced the minim and semiminim, so named because of their very short – minimal – duration. 101 THOMPSON 1975, 1518-1521.

Garry M.Y. Pang

378

understood that the song to be in Chinese melody.102 That’s why few scholars are aware of the importance of Monumenti Sinici. Actually, Müller composed a remarkable Chinese hymn which can be regarded as one of the most important and the longest Chinese hymn.

Conclusion History is a process of cooperation where different people in different cultures in different period can cooperate together to complete a meaningful task. Due to the effort of the Syrian priest Adam, the Jeusit Kircher and the Lutheran minister Müller, we have a remarkable Chinese hymn – Monumenti Sinici, which can be called in Chinese “Hymn of the Jingjiao Monument” (景教碑 頌). By this remarkable hymn, we can also understand the development of Christianity in the Tang Dynasty and the cultural exchange between the East and the West. “Come Holy Spirit who through the diversity of many languages united all peoples in the faith. Hallelujah, Hallelujah.”(Veni Sancte Spiritus, qui Per diversitatem Lingvarum cunctarum gentes in unitate Fidei congregasti. Halleluja, Halleluja.)103

Bibliography APREM, Mar. 1980. Nestroian Missions, Maryknoll: Orbis Book. BAUM, Wilhelm and Dietmar W. WINKLER 2003. The Church of the East: A Con cise history, translated by Miranda G. Henry. London: Routledge Curzon. BONDS, Mark Evan. 2006 A Brief History of Music in Western Culture, English reprint edition, Peking: Peking University Press, 2006. FERREIRA, Johan. 2004 “Tang Christianity: Its Syriac Origins and Character,” in Jian Dao, Issue 21(January 2004), 129-157. FINDLEN, Paula (ed.) 2004. Athanasius Kircher: The Last Men Who Knew Every thing, New York and London: Routledge. FOSTER, John.1939. The Church Of The T’ang Dynasty, London: Society For Promot ing Christian Knowledge. GOODRICH, L. Carrington and Chaoying FANG. 1976. Dictionary Of Ming Biogra phy, 1368-1644 (2 Vols.) New York, 1976, GROUT, Donald Jay. 1973 A History Of Western Music, revised edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. HAVRET, Henri.1625. La Stele Chretienne De Si-Ngan-Fou, in Variétés Sinologiques No. 20, Shanghai: Imprimerie De La Mission Catholique.

《 明明明伽伽明明明明明》 ，張明張、方方方方，北北： 東方信信信，2001，頁82-83。Tao 2001,82-83. 103 MÜLLER 1672, 18.

102陶陶陶：

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

379

HSIA, Florence. 2004. “Athanasius Kircher’s China Illustrata (1667): An Apologia Pro Vita Sua,” in Paula Findlen ed., Athanasius Kircher: The Last Men Who Knew Everything, New York and London: Routledge. LEGGE, James. 1888. The Nestorian Monument Of His-An Fu In Shen-His ,China Re lating To The Diffusion Of Christianity In China In The Seventh And Eighth Cen turies With The Chinese Text Of The Inscription, A Translation, And Notes And A Lecture On The Monument With A Sketch Of Subsequent Christian Missions in China And Their Present State, London: Trubner & Co. KESSON, John. 1854. The Cross And The Dragon: Or The Fortunes Of The Christian Missions And Missionaries, And Some Account Of The Chinese Secret Societies, Bombay: Smith, Taylor, And Co. KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1667 China Monumentis, qva Sacris quàProfanis, nec non variis Naturæ & Artis Spectaculis, Aliarumque rerum memorabilium Argumentis Illustrata, Amstelodami: Jacobus A Meurs. KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1667. China Monumentis, qva Sacris quàProfanis, nec non variis Naturæ & Artis Spectaculis, Aliarumque rerum memorabilium Argumentis Illustrata, by Joannem Janssonium à Waesberge & Elizeum Weyerstraet, 1667. (Another Latin edition). KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1668. Toonneel Van China, Door veel, Zo Geeftelijke als Werreltlijke, Geheugteekenen, Verscheide Vertoningenvan de Natuur en Kunst, en Blijken van veel andere Gedenk-waerdige dingen, Geopent en Verheerlykt, trans. by J. H. Glazemzker, Amsterdam: Johannes Janssoniu & van Waesberge. (The Dutch edition). KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1670. La Chine Illustrée De plufieurs Monuments Tant Sacrés que Profanes, Et de quantité de Recherches De La Nature & de l’Art, trans. by F. S. Dalquié, Amsterdam: Ches Jean Jansson à Waesberge: 1670. (The French edi tion). KIRCHER, Athanasius. 1987. China Illustrata With Sacred and Secular Monuments, Various Spectacles of Nature and Art and Other Memorabilia, trans. by Charles D. Van Tuyl, Musdogee: Indiana University Press, 1987.(The English edition) MALEK, Roman, ed.2002 The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ, Vol. 1, St. Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica. MINGANA, Alphonse. 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document“ in The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 9, No. 2(1925), 297-371. MOULE, A.C. “The Christian Monument at His-an-fu” in Journal of the North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society No. XLI (1910), 76-115. MUNGELLO 1989, David E. Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation And the Origins of Sinology. Honululu: University of Hawaii Press. MÜLLER, Andreas. 1672. Monumenti Sinici, quod Anno MDCXXV terries in ipsa China erutum; seculo verò octavo Sinici, ac partim Syriacè, in Saxo perscritum esse, adeoque dogmatum & rituum Romanae Ecclesiae (anteannos quippe mille in extreme Oriente receptorum) antiquitatem magnopere confirmare perhibetur, Lec tio seu Phrasis , Versio seu Metaphrasis,Translatio seu Paraphrasis. Plane uti P. Athanasius Kircher in China sua Illustrata anno MDCLXVII. Singula singulariter edidit. Ceterum Tonoa vocibus addidit, inq; nonnullis novæ hujus Editionis Exemplis Kircherianæ Defectus Supplevit, Crrata Sustulit, Omnia verò Minio indicavit.Berlin: Runge.

380

Garry M.Y. Pang

NEEDHAM, Joseph. 1985. Science And Civilisation In China, Volume 5, Chemistry And Chemical Technology Part 1: Paper And Printing, by Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PELLIOT, Paul.1996. Edited with supplements by Antonino Forte, L’Inscription Nestorienne De Si-Ngan-Fou, Paris: Italian School of East Asian Studies. SAEKI, P. Y. 1916 The Nestorian Monument In China, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SAEKI, P.Y. 1937. The Nestorian Documents And Relics In China, The Tohu Bunkwa Gakuin: The Academy Of Oreintal Culture Tokyo Institute. SIMON, Walter. 1959. “The attribution to Michael Boym of two early achievements of Western Sinology,” Asia Major New Series 7 (1959). SONG, Minqiu.1931.宋敏求 《宋著長安志》卷十八，長安縣志局，1931年重印。 SPIZELIUS, Gottlieb. 1660. De re literaria Sinensium commentaries, Leiden. STEWART, John. 1928. Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story Of A Church On Fire. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928. SZCZESNIAK, Baleslaw. 1952. “Athanasius Kircher’s China Illustrata,” in Osiris, Vol. 10, 1952, pp. 385-411. SZCZESNIAK, Baleslaw. 1947. “The beginning of Chinese Lexicography in Europe with Particular Reference to the Work of Michael Boym (1612-1659),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 67 (1947), 160-165. TANG, Li. 2004 A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and its Literature in Chinese Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Document. 2nd revised edition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. TAO , Yabing. 2001. Ming Qing Jian De Zhongxi Yinyue Jiaoliu , Peking: Dongfang chubanshe.陶陶陶：《明明明伽伽明明明明明》 ，張明張、方方方方，北北： 東方信信信， THOMPSON, Oscar.1975. “Gregorian Chant,” in The International Cyclopedia of Music and Musicians, edited by Oscar Thompson. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1975,862. THOMPSON, Oscar.1975. “Notation,” in The International Cyclopedia of Music and Musicians, New York: Dodd, Mead, 1518-1521. VON COLLANI, Claudia. 2001. “China and the German “Geistesgeschichte” in the 17th and 18th Centuries” in China and Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, ed. Stephen Uhalley and Wu Xiaoxin. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 150-161. WILKINSON, Benjamin G. 1994. Truth Triumphant. Brushton:Teach Services, Inc. YEO, K. K. 2005. “Paul’s Theological Ethic and the Chinese Morality of Ren Ren,” in Cross Cultural Paul: Journeys To Others, Journeys To Ourselves, edited by Charles H. Hosgrove, Herold Weiss and K.K.Yeo. Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,104-140. ZWEMER, Samuel M. 1928. “Forward,” in Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of A Church on Fire by John Stewart. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. “Characteristics of Gregorian Chant,” available from http://www.interletras.com/canticum/Eng/Characteristics_ENG.html, accessed on 30/12/2005. LACH, Donald F. “China in Western Thought And Culture,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-48, accessed on 23/1/2006. “Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East,” in The Holy See-Vatican Web Site, available from

Monumenti Sinici – A Remarkable Chinese Hymn

381

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrsturi/document/rc_p, accessed on 28/4/2006. “Guido d'Arezzo,” in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-2005, available from http://www.bartleby.com/65/gu/guidodAr.html, accessed on 30/12/2005. “History of the Nestorian Church,” available from http://www. nestorian.org/history_ of_the_nestorianan_churc.html, accessed on 17/2/2006. “Mixolydian mode,” available from http://www.answers.com/topic/mixolydian_mode? method=5&linktext=Mixoly, accessed on 30/12/2005. “Neustes von China II,” available from http://www.mnemion.studien-vonzeitfragen.net/Leibniz/DASNEU_1/dasneu, accessed on 26/1/2006. “What is the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East?” available from http://www.cired.org/aceov.html, accessed on 17/2/2006.

THE CONFLUENCE OF EAST AND WEST IN NESTORIAN ART IN CHINA Xiaojing YAN

Nestorianism spread into Persia and Central Asia, and further into China after its adherents were persecuted in the Byzantine Empire. Nestorianism was the first Christian tradition to reach China. In the year 638 A.D, the Emperor Taizong gave permission for Nestorians to practice their religion, which Taizong officially named Daqin Jiao (大秦教), because for many centuries, the Chinese knew the geographical area where the Nestorians came from as Daqin (大秦). Nestorians called their religion Jingjiao, the Luminous Religion.1 While Nestorianism spread widely over Central Asia and China and won many scattered groups of converts, Nestorians were always under rulers of another faith, and so continued to be minorities, never attaining political dominance. Meanwhile, the centuries during which the Nestorian Church existed in China were the very centuries during which Buddhists were spreading their teaching over very much the same area. Nestorians followed an eclectic method in order to spread their religion and culture. They combined their teaching with Chinese Daoist, Confucian, Bud dhist and Christian ideas. In the manuscript “大秦景教宣元本经 [Sutras on the Origin of Origins of Daqin Luminous Religion]”2, “善来法众，至至無来” is a Buddhist concept, and “如了無元，嚀碎散，即宣玄匠帝真常旨。無 元、無言、無道、無缘，妙有非有” reflects the Daoist concept.3 Combining western and eastern ideas and symbols, Nestorian art is also eclectic. This pa per will discuss the confluence of the West and the East in Nestorian monu ments, paintings, gravestones and bronze crosses as a visual strategy to create an identity in a new cultural context in order to attract converts to the new re ligion. During the Tang dynasty (618 A.D.-907A.D.), the Nestorian Monument was erected to commemorate the diffusion of Christianity in China. The Nestorian Monument is a black limestone tablet, over 9 feet in height and 3 1/3 feet in width, and a little under a foot thick (figure 1). A relief consisting of two drag 1 2

3

LUO 1966, 164 This manuscript《 大大大大大元大经》 was found in No. 17 grotto at Dunhuang in 1908. Now it is in France's National Library. GILLMAN - KLIMKEIT translated by LIN 1995, 113

384

Xiaojing Yan

ons holding a big pearl with their claws decorates the top of the tablet. On the apex is a cross over a cloud beneath which lies a lotus flower. The inscription on the monument contains about 1756 Chinese characters in length and a few lines in Syriac (70 words). It mentions the early activities of Christianity in China and the Christian doctrine. The inscription consists of all of 67 names, including 1 bishop, 28 presbyters and 38 others. The monument rests on top of a black stone tortoise. The dragon and pearl are Daoist symbols. Some scholars interpreted the pearl as a Chinese variation on the universal motif of the thunderstone.4 According to legend, thunderstones fall from the sky during thunderstorms or battles be tween gods. Other scholars interpreted the pearl as the Sun or The Moon.5 All these interpretations are related to light and the pearl also has flames on the top. Nestorians may have used the pearl to refer to Jingjiao – luminous religion. It actually proved in the inscription on the Nestorian Monument.6 The translation “…and heaven and earth were opened out; the sun and moon revolved,…” and “…he suspended the bright sun to invade the chambers of darkness, …” all suggests the signification of the pearl. The dragon existed in Chinese legend long time before Buddhism was wide spread. Taoist dragons symbolize the search for wisdom, happiness, and im mortality. Additionally, the heavenly dragon (Tian-long 天龙) was the celestial guardian who protected the heavens, supporting the mansions of the gods, shielding them from decay. The dragon was often used on imperial architecture - on the roofs, beams, pillars and doors of palaces. The dragon also appears on the entrance to the Chengchengwan Stupa in Dunhuang, which housed Bud dha's remains (figure 2).7 Borrowed from Daoism, the dragon functioned as a protector in all these contexts. Myriad legends discuss that the Dragon symbolizes benevolence, greatness, goodness and blessings while Chinese mythology gives dragons control over the rain, rivers, lakes, and seas. These are the powers that belong to God. Per haps the dragon was adapted on the Nestorian Monument to represent protec tion, immortality and God's power over all creation. Signs of confluence between East and West can also be seen in Nestorian paintings. The Dunhuang caves of western China contains over 2,000 manu scripts, including some Christian ones.8 In the cave was a silkscreen painting of a robed man wearing a crown with a gold cross, with another cross on his chest, holding a bishop's rod, dated to before 1000 A.D. (figure 3). It is a paint ing of the first Nestorian missionary to China, a bishop named Aluoben.

4 5 6 7 8

See VAN DER SLUIJS 2004. SCHAFER 1978 in. History of Religions, Vol. 17, No. 3/4, (Feb. - May, 1978), 387-398 HORNE 1917, 381-392 俄藏敦煌艺艺品 III , 上海古籍出版社1997, 103 See ATIYA 1968.

The Confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China

385

In the painting, the bishop’s costume is similar to some of Buddha’s costumes in Dunhuang paintings and sculptures. For example, the bowknot of the waist band ties on the front of the lower waist, and the loose-fitting protective outer robe leaves wide open was the popular style of that time. Furthermore, in Bud dhist Dunhuang paintings, the depiction of figures was standardized. For ex ample, the figure is shown in three quarter profile and the lines are pronounced. A comparison between the tentative restoration of the original painting of the Bishop at Dunhuang and No. 401 cave with the Buddhist painting Gongyangpusa (供养菩养), which portrays a Bodhisattva,9 yields strong similarities (fig ure 4). Both figures are slightly sideways, with one hand in the same mudra. Following the Chinese style, the painting of the bishop is executed with terse and orderly lines and exquisite and delicate coloration. The beneficent and amiable expression of the bishop was also depicted in a Buddhist way. Another Nestorian wall painting was discovered at Gaochang (高昌) (figure 5)10. The picture depicts a Palm Sunday procession.11 The painting style is very similar to other paintings found in Dunhuang12. The hairstyle and clothing of the various participants are carefully delineated (figure 6) and the women with the pulled-back, clipped-up coiffures were depicted in similar postures as the ones in Dunhuang. An important question is who did the Nestorian paintings in Dunhuang, the lo cal Chinese laity, a Nestorian foreigner, or a Chinese convert? Scholars have suggested that probably the Dunhuang artist accepted the commission from a deacon or other Nestorian, and executed the painting based on the deacon’s or other Nestorian’s requirements. Perhaps the artist just followed the standard style of that period, or maybe the Nestorian patron wanted the style to follow Chinese examples in order to appeal to converts. Indeed, before the painting of the Palm Sunday Procession was discovered, it was worshiped as a Buddhist painting13. This is strong proof of the similarities between the Nestorian paint ings in Dunhuang and Buddhist works. Another significant aspect of the painting of the bishop is the shape of the halo, which is not a perfect circle like a Christian nimbus. The halo around the bishop is egg-shaped, bigger on the top and narrower on the bottom. This shape appears very often in Buddhist paintings. Usually in Buddhist paintings, if Buddha and Bodhisattva appear together, Buddha always has a big round or a peach-shaped halo, which is pointed on the top (figure 3) In Chinese, these big halos are called Beiguang (背光) or Shenguang (身光). The Bodhisattva usu ally only has a oval or round halo, which is called Xiangguang (项光) or

供供养养is a Buddhist painting at Dunhuang. Zhu 1970 (in Chinese), 202 11 SAEKI 1937. 12 The Painting 《 都都都都都都图》 No. 130 grotto, Dunhuang, Tang dynasty 13 LIN 2003 (in Chinese), 69 9

10

386

Xiaojing Yan

Touguang (头光). Less important characters wear small round halos. It appears that in Buddhist painting, the shape of the halo indicates status. If this is the case, then the Nestorian painting from Dunhuang is a bishop. Flames are inscribed on the bottom of the bishop's halo. Flame patterns are common in halos from the fifth to the eighth centuries in Buddhist images in China. Flames represent an explosion of energy. Such energy flames often ac companied Chinese deities in order to show their divine quality. According to Buddhist and Daoist thought, ordinary mortals can achieve divine status through enlightenment. The appropriation of this divine symbol expresses Buddhist and Daoist ideas in a Christian context. The bishop's right hand is held up with the thumb touching the tip of the second finger; the index finger and little fingers are extended, but the ring finger is curved inward slightly, with the right hand pointing up. This gesture is called a Vitarka Mudra and, generally, indicates the transmission of Buddhist teaching. Mudras indicate to the faithful in a simple way the nature and function of dei ties, and are thus gestures, which evoke divine manifestation. Mudras are also used by monks in their spiritual exercises and ritual meditations, and are be lieved to generate forces that invoke the deity. The core of Buddhism is made up of three pillars: Buddha, the Dharma (his teachings) and the Sangha (monks and nuns). The Buddha is the Awakened One. The Dharma is the teachings or law as expounded by the Buddha. The Sangha are the individuals comprising the two classes: noble Sangha, who pos sess some degree of enlightenment, and the ordinary Sangha, who are the community of people practicing the Dharma. The three pillars are also called the Triple Gem, and are usually represented as three jewels. In Buddha’s ges ture, the three extended fingers symbolize the Three Jewels of Buddhism as the foundation of one's religious practice. In the bishop’s mudra, the thumb and in dex finger of both hands touch at their tips to form a circle, which represents the Wheel of Dharma.14 The Nestorians were well known for their fondness for symbols. The bishop’s hand gesture with a triangle formed by thumb and finger and the remaining three fingers pointing upwards may evoke the Trinity. Although I don’t have enough evidence to prove this point, I believe that for the Nestorians the three jewels could evoke the Trinity. Although this mudra is one of Buddha’s teaching mudras, consisting of two hands together, the mudra with only one hand is called Jixiangyin (吉祥印) in Chinese，which means mudra of the auspiciousness of wisdom. (figure 3) Ac cording to legend, when Shakyamuni Buddha was born, flowers called Tianyu14

The Wheel of Dharma, or the Wheel of the Teaching, is the translation of the Sanskrit word, "Dharma cakra" (dharma-chakra). It is a Buddhist emblem of Hindu origin. Similar to the wheel of a cart that keeps revolving, it symbolizes the Buddha's teaching as it continues to be spread widely and endlessly.

The Confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China

387

hua (天雨花) in Chinese, descended from the sky. The fluttering flowers repre sented an auspicious sign and a celebration. The flowers fluttering around the bishop are undoubtedly borrowed from Buddhist art. So in this painting, the mudra together with the flowers seems to depict a happy and auspicious event or moment. Flowers were offerings in Buddhist practices because they smell sweet. Making offerings is a very common practice in Buddhism. Every offering has a specific meaning; flowers signify the practice of generosity and open the heart. There is a similar offering of scent in Christianity. The early medieval church not only employed incense to communicate with God, but also regarded sweet smells as God’s way of communicating the holiness of his ministers. Offering good smells was used in the Nestorian Palm Sunday ritual. In the Palm Sunday pro cession painting from Gaochang, the deacon or sub-deacon, proceeding from the left hand side to the right, is carrying an incense box in his right hand whilst what may be called purifying smoke arises from the incense burner carried in his left hand. The other three men and woman are carrying red willow-like branches. The incense in this painting is another proof that the offering of sweet odors is a favorite scene in Nestorian painting. Obviously, the painting of the bishop borrowed the Buddhist idea of offering flowers with their sweet odors to communicate with God. A third example of the confluence between Eastern and Western ideas can be found on Nestorian gravestones. Many Chinese gravestones show crosses on lotus flowers or on clouds (figure 7, 8). The lotus is a symbol of enlightenment and mental purity because it has its roots in mud but blossoms into a beautiful flower. Specifically, in China, the lotus is one of Buddhism's most significant symbols and very often appears in Buddhist paintings. Depicting an object on a lotus is to show not only respect for the object, but also to mark it divine. Simi larly, cloud patterns are employed in Daoist art to mark divinity. Usually in Chinese art, when a man becomes a deity, he is depicted on a cloud to demon strate his deified status and people’s veneration for him. Was this one of the reasons why the Nestorians use the lotus and cloud together with the cross? The cross represents Christ’s human nature while the lotus and clouds may re fer to Jesus' divinity. Putting a cross on lotus or clouds emphasizes the two na tures of Christ expressed in a combination of Eastern and Western symbols. Not all Nestorian gravestones have crosses combined with lotus or cloud. Some gravestones only have a cross (figure 10). Some of these gravestones were made later than the ones combining both cross and cloud. One way to explain this discrepancy is that the gravestones inscribed with crosses may have be longed to Christians and the gravestones with crosses, lotuses or clouds, be longed to Chinese Nestorians or converts. Other very important Nestorian artifacts are bronze crosses. More than 1,000 bronze crosses, mostly from the Yuan Dynasty, were found in Suiyuan (绥远) and other places in China. The biggest one is 2.6 inches and the smallest one is

388

Xiaojing Yan

1 inch. Most are cross-shaped, and some consist of shapes such as birds derived from crosses. Such bronze crosses were often used as seals. When used as seals, Chinese characters appear usually abstracted into patterns. Among these crosses, the Swastika, also called Wan in Chinese, is the most often used pat tern (figure 11). The Swastika is a well-known good luck symbol from India. With the spread of Buddhism, it passed into the iconography of China where it was used to denote plurality, abundance, prosperity and long life. It is de scribed as “the accumulation of lucky signs possessing ten thousand effigies.”15 In Buddhist tradition, the swastika symbolizes revolving sun or fire. The Nestorian religion was known in Chinese as Jingjiao which means light or lumi nous religion. The luminous connotation of the swastika can be one of the rea sons why swastika symbol appears so frequently in Nestorian art. As a Buddhist symbol, the swastika is also regarded as the seal of Buddha's heart. It is believed to contain the Buddha consciousness. Often in Chinese art, the swastika is placed on the chest, forehead, palm or foot of Buddha unlike in Indian, where the swastika never appears on Buddha’s chest. For instance, the Buddha figure in Tieta Park (铁塔公园) in Kaifeng (开封) was cast in bronze in the Song dynasty (960-1276). The Buddha stands on a lotus flower with bare feet. On his chest, there is a swastika sign (figure 12). Chinese Nestorians commonly wore a cross on their chests. History records that Nestorians drew crosses in their rooms and halls, and wore them on their heads and chest.16 The bishop in the Nestorian silkscreen painting had three crosses: on his chest, head and his rod. Because only in Chinese and Japanese art Buddha wears the swastika symbol on his chest, I believe that the appear ance of the swastika on Buddha’s chest may have been influenced by the wear ing of the cross by Nestorians. When Nestorians came along the Silk Road, their contact with the religions of China must have altered their world view dramatically. When they came to render the sacred God, they combined the Christian cross with Buddhist lotus and Daoist clouds to reveal the double yet separate nature of the Christian God. They used Buddhist Mudras to evoke the Trinity of the Christian God. They employed Buddhist flower images to evoke the offering of sweet odors to God. Pearls and swastika were used to signify their religion – Luminous Religion (Jingjiao). They suggested the potential divinity of individuals by combining halos with flame patterns. Perhaps these appropriations indicate that Nestorians accepted Buddhist and Daoist ideas that ordinary mortals can achieve divine status through enlightenment. Nestorian art portrays the encounter of Nestori ans with the Chinese beliefs, which transfigured the expression of the Christian belief, recorded in the artwork.

15 16

http://www.buddhamuseum.com/shakyamuni-lotus-bronze.html “十十十，取取都取， 与与揭， 于于绘，冠于冠，佩于佩”,SeeLUO1966,香香罗《唐元唐元唐大大》,69.

The Confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China

389

After having been encouraged for two centuries by the Imperial Court, foreign traders who, as has been suggested, probably made up the bulk of the membership must have left the country. After two centuries, the first introduction of Christianity to China failed. Many artifacts record Nestorian’s presence in China and speak the real history of Nestorian China. They show us one of the many causes of the decline and fall of the Chinese Nestorian Church.

Bibliography ATIYA, A. S.1968 History of Eastern Christianity. Notre Dame: University of Norte Dame. Press. EMHARDT, William Chauncey and Lamsa, George M. 1926. The Oldest Christian People. New York: Macmillan. HORNE Charles F., ed. 1917. The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East Vol. XII, Medieval China. New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb. Gillman, Ian and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit 1985. East from the Jordan: Christians in Asia before Da Gama. Translated intoChinese by Lin Wushu1995. 克克克克凯著， 香林林林林译译《 逹。伽马伽伽伽马伽东马伽伽都大》 ， 书信信信信。 LEGGE, James. 1888. Nestorian Monument of His-an Fu in Shen-Hsi. China Relating to the Diffusion of Christianity in China in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. London: Trubner. LIN, Wushu2003. Tangdai Jingjiao zai yanjiu. [A Re-inverstigation onNestorianism of the Tang Dyansty]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehuichubanshe. 林悟殊《唐代景教再研究》北京:中国社会科学出版社. LUO, Xianglin 1966. Tangyuan erdai zhi Jingjiao [Nestorianism of the Tangand the Yuan Dynasty]. Hongkong: Xianggang zhongguo xueshe. 罗香林 《唐元二代之景教》，香港中国学社. The Mainichi Newspaper. 1959. Tokyo, July 30thand31st, 1959 МЕНЬШИКОВ, ЛЕВНИКОЛАЕВИЧ 2000. Dunhuang Arts Relics Collected in the State Hermitage Museum of Russia III. Wei Tongxian, ed. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe. 魏同贤《俄藏敦煌艺艺品III》 , 上海古籍出版社。 MINGANA, A. 1925. "The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. (July, 1925), 297-367. VON REBER, Franz and Joseph Clarke Thacher. 1887. History of Mediaeval Art. New York Harper & Brothers. XIN TANGSHU. [New History of the Tang Dynasty]. 1975 (edition). Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju. 《新唐书》卷百十二柳泽传，载玄宗开元年间（713—741） CEFUYUANGUI [Great Toirtoise of the National Archives]. 1968 (edition). Beijing: SAEKI, Zhonghua P.Y. 1937.The shuju. 《册俯元龟》. Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo,Masuren.

Xiaojing Yan

390

SCHAFER, Edward H. 1978 “The Jade Woman of Greatest Mystery”, History of Re ligions, Vol. 17 (1978), 387-397. VAN DER SLUIJS, Rens.2004. “The Dragon and the Pearl.” Dec 01 2004 at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041201dragon-pearl.htm XU, Ziqiang. Daqin Jingjiao liuxing zhongguo bei kao. 徐自强《〈大秦景教碑流行 中国〉考》 YOUNG, John M. L. 1984. BY FOOT TO CHINA: Mission of the Church of the East, to 1400. Tokyo: Radiopress. ZHU Qianzhi 1970. Zhongguo Jingjiao.[Nestorianism in China]. Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe. 朱谦之《中国景教》，北京：东方出版社.

Annex: Figures

:"-V^ ■

■'■

f)

■;

wi 5 ? Figure 1 Nestorian monument

Figure 2 Cheng –cheng –wan Stupa (城城城城城) Tang Dynasty, at Dun-huang

The Confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China

Figure 3 A restoration of the original silk painting of a missionary bishop of the Church of the East who was the first missionary named Aleben, came to China.

Figure 4 Gongyangpusa (供供养养) Tang dynasty , Dun-huang

Figure 5 Palm Sunday, Khocho, Nestorian Temple, 683-770 CE. Wall painting

Figure 6 Restoration of 《 都都都都都都图》 No.130 grotto , Dun-huang, Tang dynasty

391

Xiaojing Yan

392

Figure7 2-八八八八，元元

Figure9 1946年年年元元 ,

Figure 11 Yuan dynasty

Figure10 新新新城，元元

Figure12 Tie-ta Park (铁城塔塔)， Kai-feng (封开), Song dynasty ( 960-1276 A.D.)

INDEX

Abbassid 82 Abdišo bar Berikha 22, 23 Alans 279,286,315 Alaqus Tigin-qori 243, 244 Al-Faliq 22,24 Amoghavajra 145,146,200,201,207, 208 Amr ibn Mattai 21, 22, 23 AnLushan 145, 198 An Shaolian 124, 206 AnShigao 198,205 Andreas Müller 234,354,361,370 Aphrahat 154 Apostle Thomas 3, 279, 293 Atkuta 208 Avatamsaka-sūtra 202 Bactria 75 BahramV 268 Bailingmiao 56, 63, 64, 65 Balasaghun 14, 18,20,261 Balkh 75, 76, 146, 368 Bar Sauma 5, 246, 247 Barhebraeus 293 BethLapat 73 Beth Sinaye 74 Buddhapāri 206 Bügür 18,25 Bulayık 2, 8, 167, 169 Burana 14, 18, 19, 20, 88, 89, 90 Byzantine 48, 195, 233, 268, 269, 272, 274, 292, 296, 337, 338, 354, 383 Caramania 295 Carpini 25, 259, 264, 349 Chaldean 295, 321, 332, 353, 364 Chen Yuan 54,245,305 Chu Valley 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,24,27,36,41,260

Chwolson 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36, 38,39,40,43,88,91,94,98 Daizong 145,201,367,370 Daqin 6,71,73,81,82, 110, 111, 112, 113, 119, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 139, 144, 150, 151, 196,200,201, 206, 211, 233, 354, 355, 356, 357, 364, 366, 383, 390 Darukhachi 310 Daxingguo Monastery 305, 306, 307, 309,312,313,315,316,317,319 Dharani 109, 131, 132, 206, 207, 208 Dhūta Monastery 357 Divākara 206 Dunhuang 6, 85, 110, 111, 114, 115, 126, 130, 131, 139, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 165, 169, 180, 196, 197, 198, 199, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 276, 278, 312, 380, 383, 384, 385, 386, 389 Ephesus 195, 353, 354 Ephrem 44, 154, 158, 159 Estrangelo 14, 27, 106, 143, 147, 356 Fang Xuanling 200, 229, 365 Fangshan 2, 8, 215, 216, 219, 222, 223 Ferghanan 17, 22 Gaotang Wang 168 Ghazan Khan 18 Ghinghintalas 25 Giulio Aleni 228, 229, 232, 236, 238, 239 Gîwargîs 245, 252 Gundeshapur 73 Guo Ziyi 145, 146, 234 Gurkhan 259,260,261,262 HePanren 199 Henanisho 72, 73, 80

394

Hephthalites 270, 273, 274 Humula 308 IbnBattuta 26,41,44 Inácio da Costa 230 Ishoyahb II of Gadala 268 Issyq-Köl 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 Jiangnan 3, 8, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310,311,313,314,315,316,317 Jingang zhi 201 Jingjiao 1,2,3,6,7,44,45,46,47, 49,60,61,90,99, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 179, 195, 196, 197, 210, 211, 219, 225, 228, 235, 238, 254, 255, 267, 278, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 317, 319, 337, 338, 339, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 383,384,388,389,390 Jingtong 113, 114 Johann Adam Schall von Bell 229, 230, 237 Jurchen 242, 245, 260, 279, 281, 282 Kaegyeong 280,281 Kang Senghui 198 Karajigach 14, 20 Kerait 19, 32, 45, 77, 187, 241, 242, 254, 258, 259, 263, 264, 265, 310 Khorasan 75,269 King George 2, 32, 57, 59, 168, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250,251,252 Kipchak 315,316,317 Kokovzoff 91, 92, 93, 98, 101, 103 Koryo-Dynasty 285, 287 Koshang 188, 219 Kucha 18, 26, 260 Küchlüg 2, 8, 18, 20, 257, 260, 261, 262, 264 Kūkai 201 Kurutka 169 LiSu 199,204 LiZhizao 228,234,239 Luoyang 1,6,7,109,110,113,114, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,

Index

131, 132, 139, 152, 197, 198, 199, 205,211,213 Malabar 5, 184, 294, 295, 298, 321 Marco Polo 22, 23, 25, 45, 47, 147, 241, 245, 253, 264, 265, 282, 283, 313,315,319,372 Margiana 269 Mārī 293, 296, 297 Maricideva 208 Master Huiguo 201 Merkit 19, 260, 263, 265 MiJifen 201 Michael Boym 354, 359, 362, 380 Möngke 25, 241 Mongol 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, 32, 42, 43, 53,55,57,58,60, 167, 171, 179, 180, 187, 216, 217, 222, 241, 242, 247, 248, 255, 257, 259, 263, 264, 265, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289, 295, 305, 310, 314,315,316,317,318,319 Monophysite 72, 268, 270 Montecorvino 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 Mudra 386 Naiman 2, 8, 18, 19, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265 Nayan 282, 283, 288 Nicolas Trigault 359 Ögödei 257 Oxus 5, 121,270 Pax Mongolica 17 Pelliot 21, 22, 23, 30, 36, 47, 73, 75, 76,77,79,83, 113, 118, 126, 131, 171, 200, 209, 226, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 254, 267, 274, 278, 296, 301,356,357 PerozII 274 Persis 269, 279, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297,301 Prajñā 201,202,208 Prester John 54, 241, 242, 246, 253, 254, 263 Qara Khoja 25 Qaraqorum 257 Qarashahr 18, 26 Qinglong Monastery 202 QutlugKälmiš 285,286 Rabban Sauma 187, 193, 219, 249, 253

Index

Rew Ardašīr 279, 292, 295 Rubruck 16,19,21,25,259,263,264 Sabhrišo 23 Samarkand 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 43, 77, 124, 183, 184, 197, 199, 270,313 Sangha 288, 386 Sanskrit 33, 73, 77, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 132, 144, 202, 203, 205, 357, 386 Sarag 77, 78, 84 Selenga 243, 258 Sherbet 308, 309 Shizisi 215, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223 Siyuan 201 Socotra 279, 294, 295, 299 Śubhākarasṃha 200 Sūtras 110, 111, 126, 131,357 Suzong 145, 146, 199, 367, 370 Taklamakan 270 Tarik-i Jahangusha 260, 261 Tarim Basin 18, 20, 25, 26, 242, 270, 271 Tarmashirin Khan 18,42 Tashkent 1, 7, 13, 14, 17, 22, 27, 28, 32,37,38,42 Tatian 8, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165 Tayang Khan 260 Temür buqa 217 Tengri 311

395

Tocharistan 75 Tokmak 14,20,21,91,92,94,348 Toyok 169 Transoxiana 18 Trisagion 110, 112, 125, 126, 127 Tughluq Timur 18,92 Vajrabodhi 200,201 Wangmuliang 51,53,54,55,57,58, 59,60,61,62 Wu Zetian 200, 201, 272, 366 Xaraxoto 169 Xuanzang 146 Xuanzong 145, 149, 200, 201, 337, 338, 366, 370 Yahballaha 5, 23, 35, 147, 218, 222, 246, 253, 302 YazdgardI 268,274 Yazedbourzid 75, 76, 77 Yeli 201 Yelikewen 6, 54, 55, 58, 223, 305, 307,310,311,312,313,314,316, 317,318 YelüTashi 260 Yisi 145, 146, 234 Yohannan 188, 189, 192, 248 Yuanshi 217, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 265, 281, 282, 283,284,317 Zhouzhi 199,362,363 Zunjing 126, 128, 154