^{page 389 note 1} JRAS., 1909, pp. 923, etc.

^{page 389 note 2} Mémoires des Ohinois, par les missionaires de Pekin, vol. xiv, pp. 209–13, Paris, 1789Google Scholar. M. Amiot does not specify the title of this work, but states that it was edited by Kiang-fan, a doctor of the Hanlin, and completed in 1696.

^{page 389 note 3} JRAS., pp. 535–8.

^{page 389 note 4} The introductory paragraph quoted by Amiot is not represented in the text, and appears to be a gratuitous note by the copyist. It is “La première année de Tchang-tsing, l'Empereur des Tang et celui des Tou-fan ont juré l'observation exact ce que est gravé sur cette pierre”. Tchang-tsing, or properly Ch'ang-k'ing, is the title that Mu-Tsung gave to the years of his reign, the initial year of which corresponded to 821 a.d.

^{page 390 note 1} That treaty was made in 821 A.D. and ratified in Tibet in 822 a.d., when the pillar was erected.

^{page 390 note 2} The Wei Tsang t'u chih, dated 1792. Rockhill, JRAS., 1891, pp. 2, 121, 193, 281.

^{page 390 note 3} Ibid., p. 281.

^{page 390 note 4} Ibid., p. 264.

^{page 390 note 5} The “Chï-li-tsan” of the Chinese (Bushell, loc. cit., p. 439).

^{page 391 note 1} The Mongolian historian Ssanang Ssetsen, writing in the latter half of the seventeenth century, confuses this king with his grandfather and gives him the title of “Thi-bTsong-lTe” and “Thi-aTsong-lTe-bDsan Chongho-tsoktu”, whilst he calls the grandfather “Thi-srong-lTe-Dsan ” (Schmidt's, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, pp. 47, 49, 358)Google Scholar. Direct proof, however, that this writer confused these two kings is clearly seen, to my mind, at p. 48 of his MS. (as translated by Schmidt, p. 49), where he states that Ral-pa-chan “killed the emperor Tschotsong [ = Su-Tsung] of the Tang when he conquered China in the field and took great booty”. Now Su-Tsung we find from the Potala Treatyedict B died the year before Ral-pa-chan's grandfather (i.e. K'ri Sron-ldebtsan) “conquered China in the field and took great booty”, namely, on the occupation of the imperial capital in 763; whilst if Chao Tsung be intended, this emperor was assassinated in 904, i.e. about sixty-six years after Ral-pa-chan's death. Thus Ssetsen's, as well as Sumpa's (see n. 2, p. 405), confusion of the two names may be set aside.

^{page 391 note 2} Properly Wên-wu-hsiao-tê. See Art. I, p. 930, n. 3. It is probably, at least, the first two syllables of it, the stereotyped title used in Tibet for every T'ang emperor, after the famous Wên and Wu, the founders of the earlier Chou dynasty; as we find it applied in Edict A to Tai Tsung (Art. I, p. 932). It is translated by M. Amiot (op. cit., p. 209) as “Empereur Supreme, sous lequel fleurissent les lettres, les armes, la doctrine, et la vertu”, and by Bushell (loc. cit., p. 534) as above. Professor Parker kindly informs me that “Most, if not all, Chinese emperors of most dynasties seem to have the complimentary Wêi Wu added to their posthumous titles in some form or other. The late emperor (1908) was also Wen and Wu”. Here, in the edict, it seems applied to the reigning emperor, and not posthumously.

^{page 392 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 460Google Scholar.

^{page 392 note 2} See p. 422.

See my previous articles, I, pp. 942–5, and II, pp. 1250, etc.

^{page 394 note 1} btsan-po, the same as in opening sentence of Lhasa Edict Inscription A. See Part I of my article in Journal, 1909, p. 930.

^{page 394 note 2} Here the same title is applied to the emperor of China as to the Tibetan king, namely rgyal-po.

^{page 394 note 3} The Tibetan phonetic for Hwang-ti or supreme ruler. There is nothing here in the Tibetan text equivalent to the Chinese title of “the learned, warlike, filial, and virtuous” of Bushell's translation, loc. cit., p. 536.

^{page 394 note 4} The expression dbon-z'aṅ, whilst ordinarily meaning “nephew and maternal uncle”, may also mean “father and son-in-law ”; cf. Jaeschke's, Dict., p. 389Google Scholar. “Son-in-law,” says Yule, (Marco Polo, lst ed., i, p. 253)Google Scholar, was a recognized title of honour conferred by the Chinese on those who married into the imperial blood—in Mongolian this title is “Gurgan”. In this regard Professor E. Parker writes to me: “I think Kiu and Shêng [the Chinese equivalents], though often meaning ‘maternal uncle and nephew’, throughout mean ‘father-in-law and son-in-law’: even now they are so used colloquially.”

^{page 394 note 5} There is nothing in the Tibetan text here regarding “to unite the gods of the land and of grain”, as translated by Dr. Bushell from the Chinese version. See p. 395, n. 5.

^{page 395 note 1} It is noteworthy that here the title of the Buddhist “God of Mercy”, Avalokita, or “the one with great compassion”, is applied to both sovereigns; and especially to the king of Tibet, whose latter-day successors, the Talai Lamas, pose as the earthly manifestations of that deity. See further, p. 417.

^{page 395 note 2} mṅā-pa.

^{page 395 note 3} “The Chinese versions in books,” says Bushell, , p. 538Google Scholar, “give here to the east of T'ao and Min 'the names of two cities in the south of Kansu,” but this obviously refers to the Mu-Tsung treaty and not to this one. T'ao-chow stands in 34° 21′ N. and 103° 14′ E., and Min-chow 34° 15′ N. and 104° 1′ E; but the Ch'ingshui or Ts'ing-shui is 106° 15′ E., or about 130 miles further east. If, therefore, T'ao-Min occurs in the Chinese version of this edict, it must refer to the districts of that name, und not the mere towns. Professor Parker suggests that T'ao and Min may perhaps refer to the two rivers of the name passing through those districts. See further, n. 3, p. 399.

^{page 395 note 4} There is nothing about “clothes and food” to be supplied.

^{page 395 note 5} There is no mention in the Tibetan text of “the gods of the land and grain” as translated by Dr. Bushell from the Chinese version; but Professor Parker tells me that this phrase is often used elliptieally as “dynasty” or “dominion”.

^{page 396 note 1} p'o-ña, literally “man + woman”, with reference, as I believe, to the, envoy being often a eunuch. See p. 416. This phrase in Part I of article, 1. 6, p. 934, should be altered to “envoy”.

^{page 396 note 2} “At the Chiang-chun pass” in Chinese version (Bushell, p. 537).

^{page 396 note 3} “Suiyung barrier” in Chinese version (Bushell, p. 537); ch'eg is obviously the Tibetan form of the Chinese word ch'e , the ordinary word for “barrier”, which Professor Parker informs me is the actual word used by Dr. Bushell here—and that in modern Chinese it is usually pronounced cha or sha or ct'ak. Professor Parker further tells me “in my T'ung-chi copy, borrowed in 1893, the words ‘east of T'ao Min’ take the place of Bushell's ‘east of Suiyung barrier’; but that copy had many other places where it added and omitted sentences or words not. in or added by the T'ung-chi used by Bushell to amend his text”.

^{page 396 note 4} “The city (i.e. hsien) of Ch'ing-shui” in Chinese version (Bushell, p. 537). See p. 407 for discussion on this site.

^{page 396 note 5} The word employed p'u-dud is now almost obsolete. It literally means “bowing to superiors”.

^{page 396 note 6} This expressive phrase, sa-sa mal-mal, is not met with now in literature.

^{page 397 note 1} The Chinese version has “sworn oath”, and the Tibetan text, which is slightly indistinct here, is read by me as bro-'bor, which has that sense.

^{page 397 note 2} gsol-te. There is nothing: about “looking up”, as translated by Bushell. Professor Parker tells me that the character wang, which Bushell translates “looking up”, also moans “in face of”, and that in his (Parker's) copy of the T ung-chi the word tang, “in the presence of, ” is substituted for wang, so that “have begged” is really translated in effect.

^{page 397 note 3} This is not necessarily the Buddhist Triad, see p. 417.

^{page 397 note 4} This term, 'p'ags-pa, includes nowadays Buddha and the celestial Bodhisattvas as well as the earthly saints.

^{page 397 note 5} Ba is here so translated: it may, however, merely mean “also”.

^{page 397 note 6} This word bsad is the ordinary word for “killed”or “slaughtered”, and is not the one now employed for “sacrifice”.

^{page 397 note 7} rje-Mon; but we know from the Chinese records that both of the sovereigns were absent at the public ceremony.

^{page 397 note 8} Literally “seal of hand”, namely p'yag-rgyax.

^{page 397 note 9} Literally “earthen throne”, sa-k'ri, see p. 413.

^{page 398 note 1} These “signatures” form Lhasa Treaty-edict Inscription C, p. 422.

^{page 398 note 2} Mémoires des Chinois, paries missionairesde Pékin, vol. xiv, pp. 209–13, Paris, 1789Google Scholar.

^{page 398 note 3} JRAS., 1880, pp. 535–8.

^{page 398 note 4} “Tchang-tsing est le nom que Mou-tsouiig, douzième Empereur de la Dynastie des Tang, donna aux années de son règne.”

^{page 398 note 5} “L'Empereur de la Chine prend les titres de Ouen, ou, hiao, te, hoang-Ty. En voici l'explication: Empereur supreme, sous lequel fleurissent les lettres, les armes, la doctrine, et la vertu.” See n. 2, p. 391.

^{page 398 note 6} Ta-fan=Great Fan, or Great Po[t], i.e. Great Tibet.

^{page 398 note 7} This is. spelt in the next paragraph without the g—the proper form, however, Professor Parker informs me, is Shin-sheng, meaning “divine and holy”.

^{page 399 note 1} Hanand “The Son of Han” has come to be a synonym for the Chinese, so called after the famous Han dynasties (202 b.c. -a.d. 221), whose epoch is considered to be the most glorious of the purely Chinese dynasties, so that we find here even the T'ang emperors (also a pure Chinese dynasty) proudly describing themselves as “Han”. Even now, says Professor Parker (in epist.), the Cantonese always call themselves “Men of T'ang”, and the Cantonese dialect T'ong-wa (= T'ang-hwa) or “T'ang speech”.

^{page 399 note 2} The character Fan= “barbarian”, but was more expressly applied by the Chinese to the Tibetan and associated tribes.

^{page 399 note 3} “Tchao-min ou Tao-min. C'est le nom général des lieux qui sont sous la dépendance de Koung-tchang-fou d'aujourd'hui. Tao est la ville qu'on appelle aujourd'hui Tao-tcheou-ouei; et Min est ce qu'on appelle aujourd'hui Min-tcheou-ouei.” See my n. 3, p. 395, above.

^{page 400 note 1} “Les Couriers Tou-fan pouvoient s'avancer jusqu'à Tsing-choui-hien, on apparemment il y avoit des Officiers Tou-fan, ” etc. This is Ts'ingshui, the identity of which is discussed on p. 407.

^{page 401 note 1} “Dans le texte Chinois il y a seulement les trois Pao, c'est-à-dire, les trois choses qui n'ont point de prix, ou qui sontd'un prix inestimable.” These are not necessarily the Buddhist triad, see p. 417.

^{page 401 note 2} Elevé here is obviously a mistake for scellé.

^{page 401 note 3} See n. 1, p. 389.

^{page 402 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, pp. 488–90Google Scholar.

^{page 402 note 2} “The black-heads” is a common Chinese term for the Chinese, but I have shown (in Art. II, pp. 1254, 1258) that it was applied to the Tibetans by their own kings.

^{page 402 note 3} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, pp. 516, etcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 402 note 4} See n. 2, p. 391.

^{page 404 note 1} In regard to Dr. Bushell's use of the word “the text” Professor Parker notes: “I doubt if ‘text’ was meant. The Chinese always say ‘it ran’in a vague sort of way.”

^{page 404 note 2} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 518Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note 1} Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen verfasst von Ssanang Ssetsen, v. Schmidt, I. J., p. 361, St. Petersburg, 1829Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note 2} The chief confusion has occurred in regard to the term rMe-ru or “The Mark”, where the Mu-Tsung-Ralpachan edict pillar was erected on the Chinese frontier. This place was suggested by Schmidt to be the Mt. Meru of the Indian Buddhists, i.e. Kailas in the North-West Himalayas, an impossible misinterpretation which nevertheless was somewhat excusable at that early period over eighty years ago, though the Sanskrit “Meru” is never spelt by the Tibetans with a prefixed r. Subsequently the matter was further complicated by a writer interpreting the word gung-gui, which occurs in the same sentence as “the Ganges” with the sense of “Meru of the Ganges streams”. I find that a Tibetan historian, Sumpa, writing in the eighteenth century and generally following the Mongolian account as used by Schmidt so closely as to suggest that he either copied it or referred to the same source, uses this identical expression in regard to Ralpachan's reign, but in a clearer sense. The paragraph reads (Calcutta text of 1908, p. 151, 1. 10): “rGya-bod so-so dan bar-gyi rme-rur rdo-rin gsum-la mna ch'od ftkodpa sogs-kyis kyan bod-la drin-che la.” This I would translate: “Since China and Tibet [in Ralpaehan's reign] each on their own land [and] on a spot [or’mark'], rMe-ru between, [i.e.] at the three stone pillars, pledged themselves by oath and other ceremonies, there has been great benefit to Tibet.” Fortunately Sumpa, in a note to so-so, says that that word=the Chinese gung-gui. Now so-so, though ordinarily meaning “each separately ”, also means “each land or country”; and Professor Parker suggests that Icung might be either “both” (i.e. each), or “publicly”, and that gui is most likely a kuei of some kind. In any case, this effectually disposes of the misreading of “Meru of the Ganges”. A somewhat curious coincidence is that I was informed many years ago by a lama at Darjeeling that at the great cloister bearing the somewhat similar name of Mu-ru in the north-west of Lhasa, at the Gya-bum-lean Ghorten, was an inscription recording a great victory of the Chinese; but on my visit there in 1904 I could find no trace of any such inscription. See my Lhasa and its Mysteries, pp. 331, 402.

^{page 406 note 1} See n. 2, p. 405.

^{page 406 note 2} aufgerichtet (Schmidt, op. cit., p. 361).

^{page 406 note 3} Rockhill, , JRAS., 1891, p. 281Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 480Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note 2} Ibid., p. 488; Rockhill, loc. cit., p. 193.

^{page 407 note 3} Both M. Amiot and Dr. Bushell agree in this reading.

^{page 407 note 4} See details, p. 405. There is no note in the Chinese books of any ceremony on the frontier in respect to the Mu-Tsung treaty.

^{page 408 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 532, n. 49Google Scholar.

^{page 408 note 2} Ibid., p. 489.

^{page 409 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 488Google Scholar.

^{page 410 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 532, n. 49Google Scholar.

^{page 410 note 2} Text, E. Schlagintweit's ed., p. 12.

^{page 410 note 3} This is clearly a proper name, a Tibetan phonetic reproduction of the Chinese word. Schlagintweit has taken it etymologically as a Tibetan literary phrase, though without any aptness in sense. Professor Parker tells me pei, pēh, or po means “north” in the Mandarin dialects.

^{page 410 note 4} dPag-bsam ljon-bzaṅ, by the Abbot Sumpa in eighteenth century a.d.S. C. Das' ed., Calcutta, 1908, p. 151.

^{page 411 note 1} Rockhill, , JRAS., 1891, p. 193Google Scholar.

^{page 411 note 2} Essays, ii, p. 189.

^{page 411 note 3} Between it and Singan Fu the Nepalese Mission crossed in a journey of 14 kos, i.e. about 30–40 miles, four lakes, eight rivers, seven bridges, and passed two forts.

^{page 411 note 4} Bushell, loc. cit., p. 475.

^{page 411 note 5} It is not probably so, as it is not on the route between the two capitals of China and Tibet.

^{page 411 note 6} Journal, 1909, p. 949.

^{page 412 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 517Google Scholar.

^{page 412 note 2} Ibid., p. 519.

^{page 412 note 3} Lhasa and its Mysteries, p. 320.

^{page 412 note 4} Bodhimör, see above, p. 405. The sworn ceremony at Ch'ang-an was performed on “an altar to the west of the capital” (Bushell, loc. cit., p. 491).

^{page 412 note 5} Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 494Google Scholar.

^{page 412 note 6} See p. 390.

^{page 413 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, pp. 439, 485Google Scholar.

^{page 413 note 2} Parker's, Ancient China Simplified, p. 95Google Scholar.

^{page 413 note 3} Bushell, loc. cit., p. 488.

^{page 414 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 490Google Scholar.

^{page 414 note 2} Ibid., p. 491.

^{page 414 note 3} Ibid., p. 521.

^{page 415 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 488Google Scholar.

^{page 415 note 2} Ibid., p. 490.

^{page 415 note 3} See first part of my paper, p. 933.

^{page 415 note 4} Ibid., p. 491.

^{page 415 note 5} Ibid., p. 490.

^{page 415 note 6} For forms of such oaths see my Buddhism of Tibet, p. 569.

^{page 416 note 1} DrLorentz, H. A., Daily Press, 08 27, 1910Google Scholar.

^{page 416 note 2} On this Professor Parker notes that “Eunuchs as envoys were sent to the Huns, but never to the Tibetans or Turks, only as messengers”.

^{page 416 note 3} Bushell, loc. cit., p. 465.

^{page 416 note 4} Ibid., p. 485.

^{page 416 note 5} Ibid., p. 498.

^{page 417 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 500Google Scholar.

^{page 417 note 2} Ibid., p. 490.

^{page 418 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 536Google Scholar.

^{page 418 note 2} For or .

^{page 419 note 1} The Chinese version according to Bushell has here “of the great Fan”, loc. cit., p. 536. The same word recurs in 1. 30.

^{page 419 note 2} The Chinese version has here “of the great Han”, ibid., p. 536.

^{page 419 note 3} Here the i has the modern form, though in 1. 4 the same word has the reversed form.

^{page 419 note 4} The o is doubtful.

^{page 419 note 5} There is a dot () here in addition to the comma or vertical stroke (shad).

^{page 420 note 1} This d I take as a separate syllable, and as the adverb da, “now, ” and not as a “d-drag”, its preceding dot seems to be below the line like that of the word sñen immediately following it.

^{page 420 note 2} The mark on the d like a subjoined r is apparently an accidental scratch.

^{page 420 note 3} Yog for modern 'og = “down”.

^{page 420 note 4} with correlated (1. 46) is used for modern and = “lower” and “upper”.

^{page 420 note 5} P'u-dud is an almost obsolete word. See note 5 in translation, p. 396.

^{page 421 note 1} This is not clearly legible; it may be read , or possibly = “to swear an oath”. The Chinese version in this place reads “swear”.

^{page 421 note 2} A dot here in addition to the vertical line.

^{page 421 note 3} Here seems to mean “unchangeable or eternal”, a possible meaning according to the vernacular dictionaries.

^{page 421 note 4} Possibly = “to swear”.

^{page 421 note 5} Same as n. 1.

^{page 421 note 6} Perfect of =

^{page 422 note 1} The here is evidently not an archaic form, but a mistake for , which is the form of this word which occurs in the same connexion in 1. 2 of inscription VI (p. 433), giving = “an upholder”, also “a treaty” itself in the sense of a “binding or holding” agreement.

^{page 422 note 2} Bushell, loc. cit., p. 460.

^{page 422 note 3} Hsiao-ho = “the late Ho”. Bushell does not explain who he is. The late emperor in 726 A. D. was Jui Tsung, whose regnal title was Yen Ho.

^{page 423 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 490Google Scholar.

^{page 423 note 2} Ibid., pp. 490, 495.

^{page 423 note 3} Ibid., p. 541. It is out in two halves to print it within the limits of a folded page. The left-hand one is the top half.

^{page 424 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 518Google Scholar.

^{page 426 note 1} for modern .

^{page 426 note 2} bkā-la gtogs = literally “rank by (special) command”, which the Chinese shows to have the sense of brevet rank.

^{page 426 note 3} Literally “holding state[-office]”.

^{page 426 note 4} Sa-la dbañ z'ṅ.

^{page 426 note 5} Ct'o-ga gi (possibly ch'og gi); the latter = of the adorned or excellent (mchog), the former = of the rites or ceremonies.

^{page 427 note 1} Chuk in Cantonese still (as with chim in No. 13).

^{page 427 note 2} The title of this office differs from the previous one in the absence of “by Command” (i.e. by special appointment), and also in having 610np'yi- pa or minister +external instead of p'yi-Mon or external + minister.

^{page 427 note 3} Or Cha-ba.

^{page 428 note 1} This word is doubtful, as the second element is blurred; if correct, it is the first instance of the occurrence of the word “lama”.

^{page 428 note 2} Literally “of the rites of the land”. Cf. with title in paragraph No. 4.

^{page 428 note 3} rtsam-pa = barley meal, the staple food of the Tibetans.

^{page 428 note 4} Or rGyan O-la.

^{page 428 note 5} The text seems to read here (or ), literally “mouth + wise mind or counsel (or if = saying or interpreting”; but as a compound meaning “steerer or governor”).

^{page 428 note 6} The last word is possibly btsan.

^{page 428 note 7} This manifestly reads rgyal-tsab ch'en-po; the modern spelling of the second syllable as read would be ts'ab ().

^{page 428 note 8} In this sentence z'al-che appears for the modern “z'al-lche” = the honourable tongue or a judge or magistrate.

^{page 429 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 516Google Scholar.

^{page 429 note 2} Ibid., p. 488.

^{page 430 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 488Google Scholar.

^{page 431 note 1} Cf. previous article JRAS., 1910, p. 1274.

^{page 431 note 2} Bushell, loc. cit., p. 440.

^{page 432 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 490Google Scholar.

^{page 432 note 2} Ibid., p. 485.

^{page 432 note 3} Ibid., p. 506.

^{page 432 note 4} It may possibly be rGyan, see text.

^{page 432 note 5} See Article II, JRAS., 1910, p. 1253.

^{page 433 note 1} For modern . The word recurs in par. 12.

^{page 433 note 2} Might read .

^{page 434 note 1} Or .

^{page 434 note 2} Possibly .

^{page 434 note 3} Compare with same letter in par. 1, 1. 2, sixth letter from end.

^{page 434 note 4} Or .

^{page 434 note 5} This may read (= s), in which case the name may be “Bias”, which was the second name or surname of the chief minister of K'ri Sroṅ-lde-btsan's father (see Article II, p. 1254, etc.); but it seems more likely to belong to the following word, which would then read 'Bal, an epithet of the Dong tribe of Eastern Tibet (see my Article II, JRAS., p. 1253).

^{page 434 note 6} The here may be a contraction for

^{page 434 note 7} The last word here may be

^{page 435 note 1} This possibly might be , which has the same meaning as “treaty” or “agreement”.

^{page 435 note 2} This letter is blurred and resembles , which here has no meaning; would mean “possessor of land”.