China and the Roman Orient

Researches into their Ancient and Medieval Relations as Represented in Early Chinese Records

Friedrich Hirth

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780755639410
• eBook ISBN: 9780755639397
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Chinese History
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Similar in size and in duration, the Chinese and the Roman empires ruled half the world's population at the time of their co-existence. But what did they know about each other? In China and the Roman Orient Friedrich Hirth uses linguistic, geographical and historical analysis of ancient Chinese records to reconstruct the ancient trade routes used by the Chinese and to show what knowledge they had of the Roman Empire. His careful research on the original Chinese sources also tells us much about the geography, history and commerce of the period. China and the Roman Orient quickly established itself as a landmark work. It remains an important and much cited work but is now scarce. This new edition contains a new introduction by leading contemporary scholar Victor Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Pennsylvania, USA

INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION.

It is well known that China is fortunate enough to possess a series of historical works comparing most favourably, in some of its parts, with the historical literature of any nation in the West. Since the Han, each dynasty has had its own history, compiled from its court chronicles or Jih-li

, during the succeeding reigns. The J-ih-li, lit. "Daily Chronicles,” must be considered the prime source of all the information contained in these histories. Whether these latter were impartial in the treatment of historical characters, whether they did not "turn black into white, or right into wrong,” would, of course, depend greatly on the entries made in the Jih-li, but also upon the neutrality of the historian himself. If the assumption could be justified that a new dynasty, having by conquest gained the ascendency, regarded the succumbing dynasty as the enemy of its cause, we might perhaps expect but scant justice from those who had power over both the Chronicles and the compilers. There is, however, no ground for this suspicion when a life-time has elapsed between the period described and that during which the history was written. One fact only strikes us as being possibly ascribable to prejudice on the part of historians, and that is, that the last ruler of a dynasty is generally described as either a very foolish or a very wicked character. Our present subject is, fortunately, scarcely affected at all by these considerations; and the less so, as, thanks to the uniform arrangement of these dynastic histories, the information regarding the various foreign nations with which the Court of China had come into contact has been extracted from the Jih-li and collected separately in special geographical divisions of the work.

The Êrh-shih-ssŭ Shih

or “Twenty-four Dynastic Histories,” contain in all over 3,000 books, and a European scholar who would think of extracting from them notes on a subject similar to ours, would find this to be a Herculean labour were it not that the methodical mind of the Chinese writers had carefully put aside all he wants into special chapters regarding foreign countries. Thus we find chapters on the Hsiungnu; on the South-Western barbarians (Man); on the country of Ta-wan, generally identified with the present Ferghana, in the Shih-chi of Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien

whose work opens the series of the Êrh-shih-ssŭ Shih. Ssu-ma Ch'ien¹ did not attempt to carry his geographical notes farther than the countries with which China had then come into immediate contact. His successor, Pan Ku

who, with his sister Chao

compiled the Ch'ien-han-shu, i.e., “History of the Former Han Dynasty,” and who died A.D. 92, knows considerably more about the countries of Central and Western Asia. His geographical chapters, of which we possess a translation,¹ betray the interest which had been taken in geographical enterprise since the death of Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien, and which must have naturally been increased in the author from the fact of his being the elder brother of Pan Ch'ao

the famous military traveller of that period. Pan Ku may have heard of his brother’s expedition to the foreign territories in Western or Central Asia but he was no longer alive when Pan Ch‘ao returned to China in A.D. 102. This may account for the fact that much of the information for which the Chinese must have been indebted to Pan Ch‘ao s last expedition found its way into the Hou-han-shu, or “ History of the After Han Dynasty,” and not into Pan Ku’s work.

The Hou-Jian-shu, compiled by Fan Yeh

of the earlier Sung Dynasty (A.D. 420-477), is the first authority which gives us a certain number of details regarding the countries in the extreme west of Asia. The Hsi-yü-chuam

i.e., “Traditions regarding Western Countries,” then became a regular feature in the dynastic histories, and is found under this or some similar designation in most of the subsequent Shih.

The Hsi-yü-chuan of the Hou-han-shu contains for the first time a description, consisting of 589 characters, of the westernmost amongst the countries described in Chinese literature previous to the Ming dynasty, the country of Ta-ts'in¹

In this description we find quite a number of facts regarding the situation of the country, its boundaries, capital, people, products, and industries, which would, apart from any collateral information derived from later histories, have furnished a sufficient basis for the identification of the country, had not an unfortunate prejudice at once taken possession of those European sinologues who investigated the subject, for they held to the opinion that Ta-ts‘in, being the most powerful country described in the Far West, must necessarily be the Roman Empire in its full extent, with Rome as its capital. This theory has been especially defended by Visdelou and de Guignes, and recently by Bretschneider, Edkins, and yon Richthofen. I must confess that I once shared that prejudice, and that when, two years ago, I commenced to collect the passages relating to this question, I did so for the purpose of supporting the arguments in favour of Rome and Italy. I soon found, however, that a close examination of the Chinese accounts, instead of substantiating my original views, induced me to abandon them altogether. In these records mention is made of the manufacture of storax, which has been shown by Hanbury to have been at all times confined to the Levant; of the use of crystal (glass) and precious stones as architectural ornaments; of foreign ambassadors being driven by post from the frontier to the capital; of the milliary system of the country, which was based on the division of ten and three; of the dangerous travelling, the roads being infested with tigers and lions, thus compelling wayfarers to resort to caravans. A consideration of this among other testimony forcibly suggested the idea that Ta-ts‘in was not Rome itself, but one of its eastern provinces.

It is well known that the Nestorian missionaries, whose existence in China during the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. is witnessed by the celebrated stone inscription found near the city of Hsi-an-fu in A.D. 1625, declare Ta-ts'in to be their native country. and the country in which Christ was born. This clearly points to Syria; and on this evidence several of those who were familiar with the subject have been induced to abandon the idea of Rome being the country sought for, in favour of Syria or a part of Syria (Judæa, Palestine). Paravey,¹ adopted that view in 1836 ; so, some twenty years later, did.Wylie² and Pauthier.³ But the reasons assigned by these three sinologues for their opinion rest mainly on the Nestorian inscription itself. They would not be valid in the eyes of those who consider this document a forgery as did Voltaire, and recently Renan, neither of whom were sinologues, supported by K. F. Neumann and St. Julien, who were, and might have formed a better opinion on the matter but for their prejudice against those who held the opposite view. I am personally perfectly satisfied as to the genuineness of this inscription, and think it superfluous to add any new arguments to those brought forward by Wylie and Pauthier. What I wish to do, however, is to fill the gap left by those two writers by collecting such of the arguments in favour of the identity of Ta-ts‘in with Syria as may be derived from ancient and mediaeval Chinese historical literature, altogether apart from the Nestorian inscription.

In giving an outline of my Chinese sources I had arrived at the Hou-han-shu of Fan Yeh. The text of this work, as it now appears in recognised editions, was not entirely written by Fan Yeh himself, the so-called Chih

being of another hand. The chapters on foreign countries, however, are assigned to him. The emperor Kao-tsung (A.D. 650-683) ordered a commentary to be written,¹ 2 which is still printed with Fan Yeh’s text. It must be understood, therefore, that the notes intended to explain certain difficulties in the text are written about two centuries after the latter. As regards the trustworthiness of the tradition we must consider that the Hou-han-shu was first printed during the Sung dynasty, and that none but manuscript copies existed for several centuries after the completion of the work. I have not seen the editio princeps²; but I have had before me one of the oldest editions, printed during the 3rd year of Ch‘ien-tao (A.D. 1167)³ together with the Ch'ien-h...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Introduction
• Bibliography
• Preface
• Contents
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Translations and Chinese Text
• 3. Identifications
• 4. General Index
• eCopyright