90 Chinese Clay Figures 



states, "The animal se is built like the water-buffalo. The elephant is a 

 large animal with long trunk and tusks ten feet long; it is popularly- 

 styled 'river ape' {kiang yiian, No. 13,741). The animal si has a head 

 resembling that of the ape yiian and a single horn on its forehead." 1 



mentation is entirely inadmissible. It is certain that neither rhinoceros nor elephant 

 exists in Japan: consequently Tiao-jan, in using the expression si siang (Japanese 

 sai-zo) cannot be understood to convey to it its literal meaning, but he is sure to em- 

 ploy it in a different sense. Chinese expressions (and Japanese are largely based 

 on them) do not always mean what they seem to imply on the surface, but are often 

 literary allusions or reminiscences of a metaphorical significance. The Japanese monk 

 indeed avails himself of a Chinese phrase of classical origin traceable to MSng-tse 

 (Legge, Classics, Vol. II, p. 281), and in my opinion, simply means to say that Japan 

 produces "extraordinary wild animals." Yen Shi-ku, defining the word shou ("wild 

 animals") in the Annals of the Han (Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 A, p. 4 b), explains it as 

 embracing such kinds as rhinoceros and elephants, whence it follows that this com- 

 pound si siang is capable of rendering the general notion of wild animals. Si siang 

 has thus become a stereotyped term occurring in many authors, although the literal 

 meaning usually remains, as, for example, in Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 28 B, p. 17), Erh ya 

 (see p. 94, note 3), Nan shi (Ch. 78, p. 7), T'ang shu (Chs. 43 A, p. 1, and 221 A, 

 p. 10 b), and in the History of Shu (Shukien) written by Kuo Yun-t'ao in 1 236 (Ch. 10, 

 p. 1, ed. of Shou shan ko ts'ung shu, Vol. 23). Hirth and Rockhill (Chau Ju-kua, 

 p. 174) have taken a different view of the matter and suppose that the document utilized 

 in the Sung Annals, and partially copied by Chao Ju-kua (inclusive of the statement 

 that Japan produces si siang), contained a number of clerical errors; they are convinced 

 that Tiao-jan's statement really was to the effect that there are neither rhinoceroses 

 nor elephants in Japan. There is certainly no direct objection to be raised to such a 

 point of view, but I am inclined to believe that with the indication as given there is 

 no necessity of resorting to such a conjecture. 



1 This universal notion could have emanated only from the two-horned species 

 with reference to the rear horn, which anatomically is indeed placed over the frontal 

 bone, while the front horn is situated over the conjoined nasal bones (Flower and 

 Lydekker, Introduction to the Study of Mammals, p. 403). The posterior horn 

 immediately follows the anterior one, and is somewhat beneath the eyes. Curiously 

 enough, this idea of the position of the horn on the forehead was transferred also to 

 the single-horned species, and became a well-established tradition, which one author 

 copied from another. It is found in the classical world as well as among the Arabic 

 authors. Ctesias (ed. Baehr, p. 254) seems to be the most ancient writer in whom 

 this tradition has crystallized: he describes the wild white asses of India as "having 

 on the forehead a horn a cubit and a half in length." The fact that he speaks of the 

 rhinoceros, above all, is evidenced by his reference to the horn being made into 

 drinking-cups which were a preventive of poisoning (compare also Lassen, Indische 

 Altertumskunde, Vol. II, p. 646). The monoceros of India, in the description of 

 Pliny (Nat. hist., vin, 21), had a single black horn projecting from its forehead, 

 two cubits in length (uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente) . The 

 horn of the rhinoceros sculptured in Assyria, as we have seen, is planted on its fore- 

 head. Of course, when describing a rhinoceros which he saw at the games in the cir- 

 cus, Pliny (viii, 20) states correctly that it has a single horn on its nose (unius in 

 nare cornus) ; so does Aelian (xvii, 44), and so does likewise Kuo P'o. The Arabic 

 merchant Soleiman, writing in 851 (M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages faits par les 

 Arabes, Vol. I, p. 28), attributes to the rhinoceros of India a single horn in the middle 

 of its forehead, and is duly seconded by his copyist Mas'udi (Ruska, Der Islam, 

 Vol. IV, p. 164). Ibn al-Faqih, describing the two-horned species of Africa, states 

 that it has on its forehead a horn, by means of which it inflicts mortal wounds; and 

 another minor one is beneath the former and placed between its eyes (E. Wiede- 

 mann, Zur Mineralogie im Islam, p. 250). Even al-Berunl (E. Sachau, Alberuni's 

 India, Vol. I, p. 204), who imparts a sensible account of the Indian rhinoceros, asserts 

 from hearsay that the African species has a conical horn on the skull, and a second 

 and longer horn on the front. Early European observers also believed that the 

 horn of the rhinoceros was growing on its forehead. Barker, as quoted by Yule 



