154 Chinese Clay Figures 



The word se is presumably the older of the two, as the ancient 

 Chinese seem to have been first acquainted with this species, while it 

 was still alive in their country; at a somewhat later time, which, how- 

 ever, still ranged in a prehistoric period, they became familiar with the 

 two-horned si. This theory would account for the statement of Li 

 Shi-chen that the ancients were fond of saying se, while later on people 

 inclined toward the word si; and that in the north (the ancient habitat 

 of the se) the word se prevailed, in the south the word si. This came about 



Siam, Vol. I, p. 156) reports the following: "On attribue beaucoup de vertus a sa 

 come, et (chose singuliere!) sa peau, quelque 6paisse et coriace qu' elle soit, est re- 

 garded comme un mets delicat et fortifiant pour les personnes faibles. On grille 

 d'abord la peau, on la ratisse, on la coupe en morceaux et on la fait bouillir avec des 

 Apices assez longtemps pour la convertir en matiere gelatineuse et transparente. 

 J'en ai mange 1 plusieurs fois avec plaisir, et je pense qu'on pourrait appliquer avec 

 succes le meme proc^de" aux peaux de quelques autres animaux." The skin, as well 

 as the horn, the blood, and the teeth, were medicinally employed in Cambodja, 

 notably against heart-diseases (A. Cabaton, Breve et veridique relation des 6v6ne- 

 ments du Cambodge par Gabriel Quiroga de San Antonio, p. 94, Paris, 1914). In 

 Japan rhinoceros-horn is powdered and used as a specific in fever cases of all kinds 

 (E. W. Clement, Japanese Medical Folk-lore, Transactions As. Soc. of Japan, 

 Vol. XXXV, 1907, p. 20). Ko Hung of the fourth century, as we observed, is the very 

 first Chinese author to develop the theory of the horn as to its ability to detect poison, 

 and as an efficient antidote against poison. He also reasons his theory out, and sup- 

 ports it with arguments of natural philosophy breathing a decidedly Taoist spirit. 

 Nothing appears in his account that would necessitate a cogent conclusion as to his 

 dependence on Indian thought. Indian-Buddhist influence on the Taoism of that 

 period certainly is within the reach of possibility, but like everything else, remains 

 to be proved; and for the time being I can only side with Pelliot (Journal asiatique, 

 1912, Juillet-Aout, p. 149) when he remarks to L. Wieger, " Ici non plus, je ne nie pas 

 la possibility de semblable influence, mais j'estime qu'il faut etre tres prudent." If a 

 Buddhist text translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in or before the age of Ko Hung, 

 and containing a distinct reference to this matter, can be pointed out, I am willing to 

 concede that Ko Hung is indebted to an Indian source; if such evidence should fail to 

 be forthcoming, it will be perfectly sound to adhere to the opinion that Ko Hung's 

 idea is spontaneous, and the expression of general popular lore obtaining at his time; 

 and there is no valid reason why it should not be. No ancient Sanskrit text containing 

 similar or any other notions concerning this subject has as yet come to the fore; and 

 the evidence in favor of Indian priority is restricted to the slender thread of Ctesias' 

 account (p. 97), which is insufficient and inconclusive. The light-minded manner 

 with which Bushell (Chinese Art, Vol. I, p. 119) dealt in the matter (as if the lore 

 of the horn and the horn itself had only been a foreign import in China!) must be posi- 

 tively rejected. Bretschneider (above, p. 75) no doubt was a saner judge. Neither 

 in ancient India nor in the classical world do we find any trace of such beliefs as those 

 expounded by Ko Hung and his successors, nor a particle of all that Chinese natural 

 philosophy of the horn. Aelian merely reiterates Ctesias; Juvenal (vii, 130) 

 mentions an oil-bottle carved from the horn; the Periplus Maris Erythraei (ed. Fabri- 

 Cius, pp. 40, 44, 56) refers to the export of the horn from African ports only, not from 

 India. The Cyranides (F. de Mely, Les lapidaires grecs, p. 90) are ignorant of the 

 poison-revealing character of the horn. But for Ctesias, we should be compelled to 

 admit that this belief originated in China and spread thence to India. At any rate, 

 the report of Ctesias stands isolated in the ancient world ; the untrustworthy charac- 

 ter of this author is too well known to be insisted upon, and it would be preposterous 

 to build a far-reaching conclusion on any of his statements which cannot be checked 

 by other sources. His text is handed down in poor condition, and as late as by 

 Photius, patriarch of Byzance (820-891), so that I am rather inclined to regard the 

 incriminated passage as an interpolation of uncertain date. The belief in rhinoceros- 

 horn being an efficient antidote against poison prevailed in Europe until recent times. 



