242 (II HI ST IN "li tai shen hsien t'ung chien." 



no means a dwarf! As I hold the figure in the background 

 to be thai <>l : Confucius, I am entitled to regard the "dwarf" 

 as being of this height. But taking (to be perfectly fair) 

 tin- middle figure as being of the average Chinese height of 

 saj 5 feel 4 inches, the three figures would be 5 feet 9 inches, 

 5 feei 1 inches, and 4 feet 11 inches in height respectively. 

 A difference of five inches from the average height does 

 not wan ant the application of the term "dwarf" to the 

 Bhorter one. Further, the proportionate difference between 

 Buddha (or Christ) and Confucius (or the taller of the 

 I wo Nestorian priests) is exactly the same as between the 

 latter and Lao Tzu (or the shorter of the two Nestorian 

 priests); yet it is not therefore correct to describe Confucius 

 as a dwarf in comparison with Buddha. Moreover, if the 

 shorter figure is kneeling and is still just about five feet 

 in height, he would indeed be a gaint when he stood up ! 

 If he were a Westerner he might be even still more of a 

 giant. If Professor Giles, more suo, should allege that his 

 Nestorian priest was a giant — say seven feet or more in 

 height — or that, having no lower legs, he could not do any- 

 thing but kneel, that would not surprise me: it would only 

 add another to the straws he has been clutching at to save 

 his theory ! 



My acquaintance, though slight, with Miss Jane Harri- 

 son, impressed me with the fact — a fact which has impressed 

 the scientific and literary world — of her profound knowledge 

 of the Greek language, literature, and art, but it did not 

 impress me with the idea that she was an authority on little 

 Nestorian or Chinese toe -points. (By what perverted law 

 of chivalry Professor Giles acquires a right thus incon- 

 tinently to sidetrack himself and leave the lonely lady to 

 assume the gloves in order to protect, against a man, his little 

 toepoints, is not altogether clear.) Her statement, made in 

 reply to Professor Giles' query, that she "took the figure 

 as Kneeling," made before more careful scrutiny disclosed 

 her mistake, seems to indicate a want of careful observation 

 which vitiates her conclusion. Perhaps a further impartial 

 inspection would have impressed her with the striking re- 

 semblance of the three figures to Buddha, Confucius, and 

 Lao Tzu. But neither she nor Professor Giles has attempted 

 to explain the absence of the lower legs (a point in my 

 papei which Professor Giles burkes), or why both figures 

 are not kneeling in the presence of Christ, or whether the 

 toe-point of the other "Nestorian priest" has also been 

 touched in, or why, if Christ is dressed as a Nestorian priest, 

 his clothing does not resemble that of the other two "Nes- 



