240 CHRIST IN "LI TAI SHEN HSIEN T'UNG CHIEN.^ 



are always rightly received with caution; e.g. the Ireland 

 and Shapira forgeries. Sometimes the caution is overdone ; 

 e.g. the Nestorian Tablet, with the denunciations of Voltaire, 

 Kenan, and of several distinguished Chinese scholars. Mean- 

 while, ' I may be allowed a little friendly giggle at the 

 amazing suggestion by Mr. Werner that, with reference to 

 the isolation of one of the three figures, " Buddha is given 

 precedence out of ceremonial deference, because his religion 

 is foreign to China and he occupies in the picture the 

 position of a 'guest' or ' stranger ' in China. " Solvuntur 



tabulae ! 



Herbert A. Giles. 



21 March, 1922. 



Mr. WERNER'S REPLY. 



It is true that I had, and have, "no wish to revive the 

 controversy." When I stated in my paper in the Journal 

 for 1921 that the picture of Christ I reproduced from the Li 

 tax shen hsien t'ung chien "added another to the existing 

 portraits of Christ," it would, in default of reference to Pro- 

 fessor H. A. Giles' alleged "figure," ' picture," or "early 

 portrait, ' ' have been supposed that I agreed with the theory 

 he has been so laboriously trying to substantiate. Had I 

 not appended to my statement my reasons for making it, 

 these would only have been called for later. My action was 

 therefore quite consistent with * the absence of a wish to 

 revive the controversy. It was purely a defensive measure, 

 intended to preclude the mistake of including me among the 

 few who have adopted Professor Giles' view. 



The absence of the wish has a further cause. I prefer 

 to have the supreme joy of residence and research in Peking 

 disturbed by controversy only when it is likely to lead to 

 some positive and useful result, without marring friendship 

 with fellow workers in the same field. Discussions of the 

 kind which occurred in the pages of the old China Review 

 detract, in my experience, from the pleasure of perusing 

 that interesting if now somewhat antiquated periodical. For 

 toilers in the most fascinating realm of sinology I have 

 always entertained a feeling of brotherly lovingkindness, 

 holding that "rival" (I prefer the adjective "co-operating" 

 as long as no socialistic meaning is attached to it) sinologists 

 should be regarded as friends to be cherished, not as enemies 

 to be killed. After all — unless our work is indifferent or we 

 are destructionists or exterminationists — we are all builders, 



