Bureaucrat, administrator, widgeteditor
146,870
edits
Changes
no edit summary
[537]
It is said to occur also in the prefecture of TehTeṅ-cou $£ 4Hčou <>, SanŠan-tun tuṅ Province, where it is likewise made into walking-sticks. 1 <ref>''Šan tuṅ t'uṅ či'', Ch. 9, p. 6.</ref> The latter being much in demand by Buddhist monks, the bamboo has received the epithet "Lo-han bamboo" (bamboo of the Arhat).<ref>See ''K'ien šu'' <>, Ch. 4, p. 7 b (in ''Yüe ya t'aṅ ts'uṅ šu'', ''t'ao'' 24) and ''Sü K'ien šu'', Ch. 7, p.2b (''ibid.''). Cf. also ''Ču p'u siaṅ lu'' <>, written by Li K'an <> in 1299 (Ch. 4, p. I b; ed. of ''Či pu tsu čai ts'uṅ šu'').</ref>
It is perfectly manifest that what was exported from Se-6č'wan by way of YunYün-nan into India, and thence forwarded to Bactria, was the square bamboo in the form of walking-canes. India is immensely rich in bamboos; and only a peculiar variety, which did not exist in India, could have compensated for the trouble and cost which this long and wearisome trade-route must have caused in those days. For years, I must confess, it has been a source of wonder to me why Se-cč'wan bamboo should have been carried as far as Bactria, until I encountered the text of the Pet ''Pei hu lu'', which gives a satisfactory solution of the problem.3<ref>The speculations of J. Marquart (Eranšahr, pp. 319-320) in regard to this bamboo necessarily fall to the ground. There is no misunderstanding on the part of Čan K'ien, and the account of the ''Ši ki'' is perfectly correct and clear.</ref>
== Silk ==
2. The most important article by which the Chinese became] famously known in ancient times, of course, was silk. This subject is so extensive, and has so frequently been treated in special monographs, that it does not require recapitulation in this place. I shall only recall the fact that the Chinese silk materials, after traversing Central Asia, reached the Iranian Parthians, who acted as mediators in this trade with the anterior Orient.^\<ref>Hirth, Chinesische Studien, p. 10.</ref> It is assumed that the introduction of sericulture into Persia, especially into Gilan, where it still flourishes, falls in the latter part of the Sasanian epoch. It is very probable that the acquaintance of the Khotanese with the rearing of silkworms, introduced by a Chinese princess in aA.dD. 419, gave the impetus to a further growth of this new industry in a western direction, gradually spreading to Yarkand, Fergana, and Persia.5 <ref>Spiegel, Eranische Altertumskunde, Vol. I, p. 256.</ref> Chinese brocade (diba''dībā-i llri) is fre- --čīn'*"' quently ) is frequently mentioned by FirdausI as playing a prominent part in Persian decorations.6 <ref>J. J. Modi, Asiatic Papers, p. 254 (Bombay, 1905).</ref> He also speaks of a very fine and decorated Chinese silk under the name parniyan''parniyān'', corresponding to Middle Persian parntkan? ''parnīkān''.<ref>Hübschmann, Persische Studien, p. 242.</ref> Iranian has a peculiar word for "silk," not yet satisfactorily explained: Pahlavi *apresumaprēšum, *aparesumaparēšum; New Persian abre*>urnabrēšum, abreiam abrēšam (Arme-
____________________
<references/>
nian, loan-word from Persian, aprUum)\ hence Arabic ibarisam or ibrlsam; Pamir dialects warSum, war$um, Sugni wrelom, etc.; Afghan writs'am. 1 Certain it is that we have here a type not related to any Chinese word for "silk." In this connection I wish to register my utter disbelief in the traditional opinion, inaugurated by Klaproth, that Greek ser (" silk- worm " ; hence Seres, Serica) should be connected with Mongol Urgek and Manchu sirge ("silk"), the latter with Chinese se M.2 My reasons for rejecting this theory may be stated as briefly as possible. I do not see how a Greek word can be explained from Mongol or Manchu,—languages which we merely know in their most recent forms, Mongol from the thirteenth and Manchu from the sixteenth century. Neither the Greek nor the Mongol-Manchu word can be correlated with Chinese se. The latter was never provided with a final consonant. Klaproth resorted to the hypothesis that in ancient dialects of China along the borders of the empire a final r might (pent- tire) have existed. This, however, was assuredly not the case. We know that the termination V jrcl, so frequently associated with nouns in Pekingese, is of comparatively recent origin, and not older than the Yuan period (thirteenth century) ; the beginnings of this usage may go back to the end of the twelfth or even to the ninth century. 3 At any rate, it did not exist in ancient times when the Greek ser came into being. Moreover, this suffix V is not used arbitrarily : it joins certain words, while others take the suffix tse ?", and others again do not allow any suffix. The word se, however, has never been amalgamated with V. In all probability, its ancient phonetic value was *si, sa. It is thus phonetically impossible to derive from it the Mongol-Manchu word or Korean sir, added by Abel-R6musat. I do not deny that this series may have its root in a Chinese word, but its parentage cannot be traced to se. I do
