190 CHRIST IN THE "LI TAI SHEN HSIEN T'UNG CHIEN" 



through that fascinating work, The Christ Face in Art, shows 

 this quite convincingly. But a point generally overlooked 

 is that Christ's hair was invariably parted down the centre 

 after the fashion of the Nazarites. This is not the case in 

 Professor Giles's alleged portrait of Christ; nor does the 

 short, curly under-beard resemble the beard of Christ, 

 though it does resemble that shown in portraits of the 

 Buddha. The Chinese work from which I have taken 

 the accompanying picture contains also one in which the 

 three figures of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius are re- 

 presented (with the names printed above each in the upper 

 margin), and that of Buddha resembles the "Christ" in 

 Professor Giles's picture very strikingly. Lao Tzu and Con- 

 fucius are also unmistakably like his "Nestorian priests." 



It is unlikely that the alleged picture of Christ is wholly 

 imaginary, that is, drawn by the artist from his own con- 

 ception to illustrate some text he had been reading or some 

 idea which had come to him. But if so, it was at least 

 unfortunate, his intention being to represent Christ and two 

 Nestorian priests, that he should have depicted one figure 

 so like Buddha in countenance, dress, earrings, bare feet and 

 shoulder, and two others so like Confucius and Lao Tzu 

 (with the scroll), and have added besides a motto so identified 

 with Chinese philosophy, instead of one which would un- 

 equivocably mean the "three in one" of the Christian 

 Trinity. If the picture is a copy, it contains essential 

 points of resemblance to Buddhist originals, and omits 

 essential points of resemblance to known portraits of Christ; 

 and would therefore give good ground for the belief that 

 the figure in the foreground is intended to represent not 

 Christ, but Buddha. 



Some further questions suggest themselves. If one 

 of the "Nestorian priests" was kneeling (before, according 

 to Professor Giles, his "toe-points were touched in"), where 

 are his lower legs? It will hardly be contended that they 

 would be altogether invisible or were erased when the toe- 

 points were touched in. What object can there have been 

 in mutilating the picture, and then only in this one point (or 

 rather these "two little toe-points"), except to bring the 

 priest down on his knees to Professor Giles's theory? If one 

 priest is kneeling in the presence of Christ, we would expect 

 the other to be kneeling also. Would the "Nestorian priest" 

 be kneeling and blessing at the same time ? Is there, in fact, 

 anything to show that these two "priests" are Nestorian? 



The most satisfactory explanation of the picture seems 

 to me to be somewhat as follows. It is a representation of 

 Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius. Buddha is given pre- 



