CHRIST IN THE "LI TAI SHEN IISIEN T'UNG CHIEN" 191 



cedence of place 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; Lao 

 Tzu is placed in front of Confucius, either because the 

 picture is by a Taoist artist or for the reason given below; 

 and Confucius is listening approvingly to the exposition of 

 a statement or doctrine his agreement with which is shown 

 by the pleased expression of countenance. Lao Tzu is not 

 kneeling, but standing and holding up his hand not in 

 benediction, but in the act of expounding either his Tao in 

 general or the convergence in essence of three seemingly 

 divergent doctrines (han san wei i) : when they come to 

 the Ultimate (T'ai Chi) the three are seen to coalesce into 

 one, or to be essentially the same — "by different roads arrive 

 at the same destination," or "three teachings but one 

 Way" — or is pressing this point especially on the attention 

 of Buddha. As he is presented in this act of expounding, 

 he could not well be placed in the background of the picture, 

 but in any case, according to native explanations, he and 

 Confucius are here as "brother to brother" without any 

 thought of rivalry or precedence. 



If it be replied that this is "mere guess-work," it at 

 least seems to meet the case better than the somewhat 

 bizarre guess "Christ and two Nestorian priests." My in- 

 terpretation at any rate has the emphatic approval of all 

 the Chinese literati whom I have consulted (none of 

 whom could rightly be described by Professor Giles's epithet 

 "ignorant"), and so far I have not met with a single one 

 who will admit that the picture is intended to represent 

 any other persons than Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confuciu3. 

 Whilst the view that it represents Christ and two Nestorian 

 priests has met with disagreement (in some cases even with 

 sarcasm) on the part of most of the Western scholars who 

 have dealt with the question, it has always, in my experience, 

 met with firm (and frequently hilarious) rejection (especially 

 the idea that the little toe-points have been "touched in") 

 on the part of native scholars. 



