christ in "li tai shen hsien t'ung chien." 243 



torian priests," or whether, anyhow, it was or is the custom 

 of Nestorian priests to kneel when they deliver blessings, 

 holding a Taoist scroll in one hand and putting the other 

 in the characteristic attitude of Lao Tzu with his two 

 straightened fingers, symbolical of the Taoist art of the magical 

 two-edged sword (M |&), or whether, when they knelt 

 to bless, they kept their knees a foot and a half to two 

 feet or more apart. It seems to me that if that amputated, 

 kneeling figure were to adopt that extremely uncomfortable 

 and irreverent attitude in order to deliver a blessing, he 

 would — either before, during, or after (probably before) the 

 delivery — topple over on to his nose, carrying Professor Giles' 

 theory with him ! 



If, as seems unquestionable, Lao Tzu is thus iden- 

 tified, that would, apart from all other considerations, settle 

 the whole issue. 



As regards the emphasis I laid on the main character- 

 istics of the portraits or pictures of Christ, it is a little 

 difficult to compare satisfactorily with them what was at 

 first said to be "one more early portrait of Christ," but is 

 now said to be "hardly a likeness" and Christ in the dress 

 of a Nestorian priest. Had not this been an afterthought 

 as a result of the criticism of foreign and native scholars it 

 surely would have been wise to have saved much writing by 

 mentioning it in the first instance. As it is, if Professor 

 Giles sees in this picture a Nestorian coiffure on the head 

 of Christ and I and others see the ushnlsha on the head of 

 Buddha, there is no hope of agreement. Nor do I agree 

 with the view he takes regarding the "similarity" between 

 the "Christ" on p. 27 and the "barbarian of the "West" 

 on p. 301 (note that the lo-han is "replying to," not "bless- 

 ing," the •"barbarian"), nor regarding the existing portraits 

 of Christ, especially the points I referred to of the thick 

 head of hair of Christ with the parting down the middle, the 

 curly beard, and the general dissimilarity between such 

 collections of pictures as those in The Christ Face in Art 

 and this old engraving. If the "bone of contention" were 

 intended to be "an early portrait of Christ" these character- 

 istics would surely have been indicated, if not emphasized. 

 It was at least unfortunate that the artist, if he intended 

 to depict Christ and two Nestorian priests, should have 

 made them so unmistakably like Buddha, Lao Tzti, and 

 Confucius! If every characteristic of Christ is omitted or 

 disguised in a picture which "can hardly profess to be a 

 likeness," there is nothing left of Christ at all! Professor 

 Giles having now completely dechristified Christ by taking 



