christ in "li tai shen hsien t'ung chien. " 241 



not completers, and, however good the building, the work 

 of every one of us is destined to seem antiquated, perhaps 

 even quaint, in time. Even now the Tzu erh chi of our 

 sinological childhood must be regarded rather as an inter- 

 esting historical relic than as a useful text-book by those 

 who, from the vantage-ground of residence in China, can 

 see with their own eyes the progress that has been made. 

 A kaiserly attitude or manner (objectionable in any case) 

 would therefore be particularly inappropriate in a domain of 

 which we have as yet explored only the merest fringe and 

 are never likely to conquer the whole territory. 



A recent writer in the New China Review, not the first 

 to do so, refers to the "assurance" (the more colloquial 

 term "cocksureness" has also been used) of Professor Giles, 

 and this assurance seems to> me to- be a serious if not in- 

 superable obstacle to any final and satisfactory agreement 

 on this matter. The impression left on my mind by perusal 

 of his articles ^as that, having broached a theory which had 

 excited keen opposition and even ridicule, he had deter- 

 mined to carry liis point somehow or other, and in so doing 

 had only got deeper and deeper into the mire. First, it 

 was simply "a figure of Christ." Now, it is Christ dis- 

 guised as a Nestorian priest. First, it was "a Nestorian priest 

 kneeling at his feci. Now, after the toe-points have been 

 pointed out. these have been "touched in," because he, who 

 resembles Lao Tzu, "was mistaken for Confucius" ( !), when 

 someone much more like Confucius was standing just behind 

 him! (Would any Chinese, alive or dead, make the very 

 tall Confucius into a dwarf?) Terms, also, are strained in 

 favour of Professor Giles' view and against that of his 

 opponents. F< r instance, the use of the word "dwarf" as 

 compared with the "overtopping" figure is quite unjustifiable 

 in relation to the figures of Lao Tzu (or the "Nestorian 

 priest" in front) and Confucius (or the "Nestorian priest" 

 behind). The three figures in the picture differ from each 

 other in height only by one-eighth of an inch; they measure 

 exactly one inch and four — , one inch and five—, and one 

 inch and six-eighths respectively. The difference between 

 the shortest and the tallest figure is one quarter of an inch. 

 It was evidently therefore the intention of the artist, engraver, 

 or moulder to indicate only a slight discrepancy in stature, 

 though, of course, the question of relative height may have 

 nothing to do with the matter at all. Now it is well known 

 that Confucius, the son of an unusually tall father, was, in 

 modern measurement, about seven feet in height. This 

 would make the shorter figure 6 feet 6 inches in height — by 



16 



