christ in "li tai shen hsien t'ung chien." 239 



Cambridge, in the library of Trinity College, and is attri- 

 buted to the 8th century. Mr. Werner gives many reasons 

 why the shorter priest (or Lao Tzu) should not be kneeling. 

 If not, he would be a mere dwarf compared with the over 

 topping figure behind him. As to the toe-points, I will 

 retire incontinently from the fray, and leave Mr. Werner to 

 fight it out with one of the most distinguished archaeologists 

 in the United Kingdom, Miss Jane Harrison, Hon. LL.D. 

 Hon. D. Litt., Lecturer in Classical Archaeology, etc., who 

 favoured me with the following opinion: — "The kneeling 

 attitude of the lower figure convinces me. I took the figure as 

 kneeling before I read the text, or noticed the visible toes." 



All the the above details, however, weigh like chaff in 

 the balance compared with the real crux of the question, 

 which has been studiously burked, shirked, or evaded, by 

 every previous disputant, and now by Mr. Werner himself. 

 This crux is the accurate translation of the descriptive label 

 attached to the picture : @i H M — ■ • Opponents say that 

 these words simply mean that the three Religions, that is, 

 Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, are one, — in their 

 ultimate aim, the regeneration of man kind. In reply to 

 this it may be stated, not for the first time, that there is a 

 stock phrase covering exactly the sense required which has 

 been used for many centuries and might well have been 

 applied here, had the composition of the picture allowed of 

 such a meaning. This of course is the well known sentence, 

 H ifc % — in which there is no difficulty as regards the 

 subject of "are one;" whereas we search in vain for any 

 subject of Si beyond something we find in the picture itself, 

 namely, the segregation of one of the three figures, in 

 striking contrast with the aggregation of the other two. 

 For me, that isolated figure becomes the subject of M '> and 

 for me, therefore, the true translation is that the said figure 

 " Envelopes Three, being One." Who could the person be, 

 of whom such a statement could be made? This view 

 seems to me to be fully borne out by a sentence in a t f 

 postscript to the work in which the picture appears. The 

 writer of this enlarges on the wonderful variety of pictures 

 brought together; aod among these he particularly mentions, 

 as something out of the way, the very illustration now in 

 question: ^ — BS H %, which can only mean, "There is a 

 One who envelopes Three " with no suggestion whatever of 

 three religions having the same aim. 



Mr. Werner ended his paper with " hilarious " laughter 

 at my expense in reference to the "toe-points touched in." 

 I have a presentiment that I shall laugh last. Discoveries 



