“Fulin Monk: Did Some Christian Community Other Than Nestorians Entered China during
the Tang Period”, in Proche-Orient Chrétien Tome 57 （2007）(SAINTE-ANNE, Jerusalem,
Isreal)
Fulin Monks: Did some Christians other than Nestorians enter
China during the Tang period?
I. Introduction
Since Paul Pelliot published his study on the origin of the name
of Fulin in 1914, Fulin has been widely accepted as the Persian
or Sogdian transliteration of Rum, i.e., Hrum or From, and
refers to Byzantium in the Sui (581-618 CE) and Tang periods
(618-907 CE). 1 It was in the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE) that
the visits of Fulin emissaries were clearly recorded for the first
time. According to the Jiu tangshu (the standard history of the
Tang Dynasty, compiled in the 10th century) and the Xin tangshu
(the new standard history of the Tang Dynasty, compiled in the
11th century), the state of Fulin sent emissaries to China seven
times:
In 643 (the 17th year of the Zhenguan period), Bo-duo-li, the
king of Fulin, made tribute of red glass, green Jinjing and so
1 P. Pelliot, “Sur l’origine du nom Fou-lin”, Journal Asiatique 1914, 497-500. See also, F. Hirth, China and the
Roman Orient, Shanghai and Hong Kong 1885 (reprint Chicago 1975); D.D.Leslie and K.H.J.Gardiner, The
Roman Empire in Chinese Sources, Roma 1996.
son.
In 667 (the 2nd year of the Qianfeng period), (Fulin) sent envoys
to make tribute of Diyejia.
In 701 (the 1st year of Dazu period), (Fulin) sent envoys again
(to China).
In 708 (the 2nd year of the Jingyun period), Fulin presented local
products.
In 719 (the 7th year of the Kaiyuan period), the ruler of Fulin
sent the chieftain of Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan) to present two lions
and two gorals. After (several) months, he again sent the
virtuous monks to make tribute.
In May of 742 (the 1st year of the Tianbao period), the ruler of
Fulin sent a virtuous monk to make tribute.2
At the beginning of the 20th century, F. Hirth argues that
Bo-duo-li is the Chinese transliteration of Patriarch, the title of
the leader of the Syrian Church. He considered that this
Patriarch in Chinese sources was in fact the leader of the
Nestorian Church (also known as the Church of the East)in
Persia. He saind:
“With the settling of so many Syrian Christians in Persia after
2 See Jiu tangshu, juan 198, Cefu yuangui, juan 971.
the fall of Antioch in 540 AD, the Nestorian Patriarch in Persia
could perhaps lay claim to the dignity. His residence in exile
was merely a makeshift; to his own flock and to the Chinese
behind them he was the patriarch of all the Christians, whatever
the heterodox clergy in the west may have thought of it. It was
the Nestorian patriarch who sent the first Christian missionaries
to China, and whether he did so under orders from a still higher
patriarch in Antich, or on his own authority, it seems not easy to
decide.”3
Hirth’s argument had a great influence on the successive
explanations for these mysterious Fulin emissaries. For example,
Shirotori and Hudson in the 1930’s thought that the virtuous
monks sent by the Fulin ruler in 719 and 742 were Nestorian
missionaries, though they disagreed with Hirth’s viewpoints,
that all the emissaries from Fulin were Nestorians.4 Cen
Zhongmian and Yan Zonglin in the 1950’s and the 1960’s agreed
with Hirth completely5. On the other hand, Qi Sihe and Barrett
tended to believe that the Fulin envoys came from the Byzantine
Empire, and had no direct connection with the Nestorian
3 F. Hirth, “The Mystery of Fu-lin”, Journal of American Oriental Society 30, 1910, 9.
4 C.F. Hudson (Wang Zunzhong tr. ), Europe and China, London 1931- Beijing 1995, 195; K. Shirotori, “A New
Attempt at the Solution of the Fu-lin Problem”,
5 Cen Zhongmian, “Liqian, Daqin and Fulin in the Chinese Sources”, The Supplement of Documents on the
Western Turks, Beijing 1958, 223-233; Yan Zonglin, Yan Zonglin shixue wenji, Taiyuan 1998, 326-327.
Church6. Nevertheless, Hirth’s viewpoints have affected them in
another way. In their opinion, the reason for which the Nestorian
Church in China changed its name from Bosi jingjiao (“Persian
Religion of Scripture”) into Daqin jingjiao (“Daqin Illustrious
Religion”), was because it wanted to emphasize its Byzantine
rather than its Persian origin. That change of name was
confirmed by imperial edict in 745, the 4th year of Tianbao
period.
Hirth’s identification for Bo-duo-li is reasonable7. B0-duo-li
sounds close to Patriarch, and especially to Bathric, Patriarch in
Arabic. Hence, the first Fulin emissary seems to have been sent
by some Christian church connected with Byzantium. The
emissaries in 719 and 742 were called “virtuous monk”.
Moreover , Youyang zazu, an encyclopedia on the exotica in the
9th century, mentioned a Fulin monk whose name was Wan.
These records indicate a close connection between the Fulin
emissaries and some religious community. Therefore, the two
questions that were first raised by Hirth are still foci for the
present discussion: Were the virtuous monks Nestorians? What
were the relations between the Fulin monks and the Byzantine
6 Qi Sihe, Zhongguo yu Baizhanting diguo de guanxi (China and Byzantium), Shanghai 1956, 35-36; T.H. Barrett,
“Buddhism, Taoism and the eighth-century Chinese term for Christianity: a response to recent work by A Forte and
others”, BSOAS 63.3, 2002, 555-560.
7 About the several identifications for Bo-duo-li, see Zhang Xinglang, Zhongxi jiaotong shiliao huibian, I, Beijing
1977, 97-98.
Empire?
II. FULIN MONKS AND BOSI MONKS
In Hirth’s argument, the patriarch of the Nestorian church
Considered himself the patriarch of Antioch, aiming to increase
the prestige of his enterprise. Nevertheless, Hirth did not give
any solid grounds to support his assertion. In fact, the Christian
communities in Persia had a long history and had shown a
tendency of independence even before the arrival of the
Nestorians from Edessa in 431. In the three Synods held in
410,420 and 424, the bishops from various places of Persia
allied to emphasize the high authority of their leader, the Persian
Catholicos. Thus, they were able to establish the two
fundamental features of the Oriental Church. One was the
Nicene Creed and the other was the independence of Persian
Christians from the Church in the Byzantine world. Their
Catholicos was answerable to God alone8. Shortly thereafter, the
influx and growing influence of Nestorians strengthened the
independence of the Persian church again. With the support of
the Sassanian emperors, the Persian Church, now Nestorian,
declared its complete independence from the West when
Babowin assumed the title “Patriarch of the East” in 498.
8 W.S.McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, Chicago 1982, 123-126.
The Catholicos of the Persian Church thus declared himself
equal to the Patriarchs in Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. By
643, when the Tang empire saw the first Fulin emissary, the title
“Patriarch of the East” had already prevailed for nearly a
century and a half in Persia and Central Asia. In such a situation,
why would the Nestorians in China want to borrow and use the
title of “Patriarch of Antioch”, in order to glorify their enterprise
in the Far East?
In fact, the names used for Nestorians in the Tang period reveal
the very close connection between them and Persia. In 638, the
first Nestorian missionary A-luo-ben was called “Bosi monk”
(Persian monk)9. The term of “Persian monk” continued in use
till 745, when the Emperor Xuanzong declared that “Persian
temple”, the original term for Nestorian churches in the two
capitals (Chang’an and Luoyang) be replaced with a new term,
i.e., “Daqin temple”. From 638 to 745, Nestorians in China
called themselves Persian monks, as well. For example, the
Xian-Fu monument (Daqin jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei, the
eulogistic verses on the stone monument recording the diffusion
of the Illustrious Religion) records the following:
“ In the Shengli period (698-700), the Buddhists slandered (our
9 The imperial decree in 638 says:”A-luo-ben, the Persian monk, carries the scriptures and religion rules from afar
and presents them to the grand capital”. See Tang huiyao, juan 49.
church) in Luoyang to suppress the growth of Nestorians. In the
late Xiantian period (around 713), the Taoists made libel (of our
church) in Chang’an. Luo-han, leader of our monastery, Ji-lie,
the virtuous monk, and aristocrats from the west and monks
from the monastery made their efforts to protect (our church)
and finally changed the situation.”
Of Ji-lie, the virtuous monk, was also recorded in juan 546 of
Cefu yuangui:
“Liu Ze assumed the office of Dianzhong shi yushi (the imperial
inspector in court) and Lingnan jianxuan shi (the inspector in the
region of Lingnan) in 714 (the 2nd year of Kaiyuan). At the time,
Zhou Qingli, the official in charge of trade affairs in Lingnan,
and Ji-lie, the Persian monk, produced many exotic implements,
aiming to present them to emperor.”
Clearly, around 713 and 714, Nestorians were called “Persian
monks”. The imperial decree issued by the Emperor Xuanzong
in 745 (the 4th year of the Tianbao period) states:
“The Persian religion of the scriptures, starting from Daqin
(referring to the Roman Empire in the Chinese sources from the
1st century to the 5th century) and coming to preach and practice,
has long existed in the Middle Kingdom.”10
10 Tang huiyao, juan 49.
Clearly, Nestorianism was considered as a Persian religion. In
the Xian-fu monument erected in 781 (the 2nd year of Jianzhong),
we find: “A-luo-ben, the virtuous monk from Daqin state”,
replacing “A-luo-ben, the Persian monk” in the imperial decree
of 638. This correction shows that the Nestorians intended to
stress their relation with Daqin, i.e. the Roman Empire. Their
efforts, however, seem not to have met with immediate success.
The Zenyuan xinding shijiao mulu (The New Catalogue of
Buddhist Works in the Zhenyuan Period), written by Yuanzhao
in 800, mentions:
(Bore, an Indian monk) collaborated with Jingjing, the Persian
monk from Daqin temple (the author of Xian-fu monument in
781) to translate the Sutra of Six Bolumi and divided it into
seven volumes. At that time Bore didn’t know the language of
Hu (a language of Central Asian), while Jingjing didn’t know
Sanskrit, let alone the doctrines of Buddhism. They claimed
their work as honest translation, however, they were not able to
convey the true meaning at all. What they wanted was their own
fame and wealth alone. They even reported their translation to
the Throne, hoping their work would be issued officially. Our
great emperor (the Emperor Dezong 780-805) was so intelligent
and knowledgeable on Buddhism. He found that their translation
was poor and incorrect. Moreover, the monk from the Buddhism
temple and the monk from the Daqin temple were distinct in
theory and behavior. Jingjing should spread the religion of
Mi-shi-ke (the Messiah). The Buddhist shoud spread the
teaching of Buddha. So the different religions were able to be
discerned. The correct was thus separated from the wrong.”
Judging from this record, the contemporary Chinese outside the
Nestorian communities continued to call Nestorians “Persian
monks” after the decree in 742. In the 10th century (late Tang
and Early Song), the Guiyijunshi yanei mai you po yongli
(Account on the Outlay of Wheat and Oil in the Office of Guiyi
Army Commander) says:
“Give the Persian monks from Ganzhou wheat flour seven dou
(1 dou=17.5pint) and oil one she (1 she= 1.75 pint) for monthly
expenditure.
Give the Persian monks who present medicine wheat flour one
shi (1 shi=2.75 bushel) and oil three she on 26, ? month.”
Again, Wang Yande mentioned Nestorians in his Xizhou
shichengji (ways to Xizhou) in the same period:
“There are temples of Moni (Manichaeism) and Persian monks
in this area. They are called waidao (outsides) by the Buddhist
scriptures.”
Xiang Da and Jiang Boqin have identified the “Persian monks”
in these contexts as Nestorians. 11Clearly, Non-Nestorian
Chinese living in the two capitals (Yuanzhao at Chang’an) as
well as on the frontier (Dunhuang area) referred to Nestorians as
“Persian monks” through the Tang period.
From 638 (when A-luo-ben visited the Chinese Emperor for the
first time) to 742 (when an imperial decree officially confirmed
the change of name of the Nestorian Church), it took nearly a
century for the Nestorian church to finish the process of
Sinicization. We may question why, if A-luo-ben called himself
a Persian monk, the later emissaries from Fulin did not do the
same, if they were in fact Nestorians.
Yishen lun (On the One God), an early Nestorian document in
Chinese, was possibly written around the Zhenguan period
(627-649), i.e. the time when Persian monks and the Fulin
monks entered China. It says:
“There is only One God in the world. HIS heaven is borderless.
HE is one, but does not inhabit one place. HE is not one place,
HE never sticks to one place. HE is not the boundary of the first
place and the second place, not that of the first phase and the
second phase. For example, there is no land-border and
11 See JIANG BOQIN, Dunhuang tuluofan wenshu and Sichou zhi lu (Turfan Documents and Silk Road), Beijing
1994, 37.
time-border between China and Persia, and Persia between Fulin
(Byzantium). (So is HIS nature.)”12
Clearly, the Nestorian missionaries knew that Bosi (Persia) and
Fulin (Byzantium) are different in geography. This period also
saw frequent visits of Fulin emissaries. It is reasonable to
conclude that the Fulin monks were not Persian monks, i.e.
Nestorians.
After 742, Nestorians in China started to call themselves Daqin
jingjiao (possibly, “The Illustrious Religion of Rome”). The old
Tangshu (the standard history of the Tang Dynasty, compiled in
the 10th century) stated that Fulin was the same as Daqin,
recorded in ancient documents. Nevertheless, the Xian-fu
monument, the only history of missionary enterprise written by
Nestorians themselves, did not mention Fulin at all. Fulin, on
the contrary, seems to be a term that was intentionally avoided
in this stele. The Xu ting mishisuo jing (The Book of Jesus, the
Messiah), a Nestorian document, writes:
“Therefore, the Lord is in heaven and making his plan in the
heaven and the earth. Yishu mishihe (Jesus, the Messiah) will be
born (according to HIS plan). A big and bright star is seen on the
12 Weng Shaojun, Hanyu jingjiao wendian quanshi (The Chinese Nestorian Documents: Text, Note and Critical),
Shanghai 1996, 118. As for the latest textual criticism about the Chinese Nestorian sources, see Lin Wushu,
Tangdai jingjiao zaiyanjiu (Rethinking Nestorianism during the Tang period) Beijing 2003.
sky by the people of the world. Yishu mishihe will be born
(according to HIS plan). The xin xing (xin star) appears in the
sky, as big as a cart wheel. The star is in the bright and clean
place, where Lord dwells. After one year or so, (Jesus) is born in
Wulishilian (Jerusalem) of Fulin state.”
In the Xian-fu monument, however, the same account was
written in different words:
“The celestial world celebrated the birth of holy son from the
virgin in Daqin. The luminous stars showed the good signs and
guided the Persian sages to call on him, and make tribute to him.
Clearly, Jerusalem, the birth place of Jesus, is Fulin in the earlier
document, while the same place is Daqin in the Xian-fu
monument.
The Xian-fu monument also mentions:
“According to Xiyu tuji and historical works of the Han and Wei
dynasties (1st century to 3rd century), the Daqin state ruled the
Sea of Coral in the south, bordered the Mountain of Treasure in
north, spanned the Celestial Land and Flower Forest in the west,
and connected with the Long Wind and Weak Water in east.”
The Xiyu tuji in this text may refer to Pei Ju’s work about the
western region(Xiyu) in the Sui period (written around 605-615).
Judging from the biography of Pei Ju in Sui shu, the term of
Fulin had appeared in Xiyu tuji. Moreover, during the time from
762 to 763 (the Baoying period), Du Huan, who had travelled in
Western Asia for over ten years, clearly stated the connection of
Fulin and Daqin in his Jing Xing ji (Account on the Journey):
“The Fulin state is to the west of the Shan state (Sham, Syria). It
is thousands of miles afar and separated by mountains from
Shan. The country is also called Daqin.”
Clearly, the fact that Fulin was the ancient Daqin was known to
the Chinese in 781 when Jingjing, the leader of the Chinese
Nestorian Church wrote the inscription on the Xian-fu
monument. The sources on the western region in the Tang
period also indicated that the term of Fulin became more
popular from the Sui period onwards. The term Daqin, i.e. the
Roman Empire, no longer appeared in the Tang geographic
documents. The Xian-fu monument provided additional
evidence for this point. When the geographic location of Daqin
was explained, the inscription just talked about Xiyu tuji
(possibly Sui period) and the historical works of the Han and
Wei dynasties (1st to 3rd century). Contemporary geographical
works, on the contrary, were never mentioned, even in passing.
This may further indicate that the Chinese Nestorian Church did
not want to emphasize the connection between the ancient
Daqin and the present Fulin. The question then arises: why did
the Nestorian leader prefer Daqin, a term that was no longer in
use, to Fulin, the contemporary term for Rome? Jingjing’s
selction possibly resulted from this fact: Bo-duo-li, the Fulin
king, was not Dongfang fazhu (the Ruler of Law in the East, the
title for the Patriarch of the Oriental Church in Xian-fu
monument); the Persian monks were different from the Fulin
monks. Therefore, the hidden reason was that the Nestorians did
not want to be confused with some other Christian group. They
claimed that they were from Daqin, i.e. ancient Rome, rather
than Fulin, i.e. contemporary Rome.
III. WAN AND THE ELEMENTS OF DIOSCORIDES’
MATERIA MEDICA IN YOUYANG ZAZU
Duan Chengshi (803?-863), a well known man of letters in the
late Tang dynasty, recorded 19 kinds of herbal plants in his
youyang zazu, an encyclopedia of exotic things and religious
stories. Of the 19 kinds of plants, 15 plants originated from
Fulin or had names in the Fulin language. Duan Chengshi also
mentioned Wan, a Fulin monks. It was Wan who gave the
botanical knowledge to him. Notably, these accounts were
organized in a very regular format, for instance:
“ The Bosi zaojia (cassia pod) has its habitat in the country Bosi
(Persia), where it is termed hu-ye-yen-mo, while in Fulin it is
styled a-li-ku-fa. The tree has a height of from there or four
zhang, and measures from four to five chi in circumference. The
leaves resemble those of juyuan (Citrus medica), but are shorter
and smaller. During the cold season it does not wither. It does
not flower, and yet bears fruit. Its pods are two chi long. In their
interior are shells. Each of these encloses a single seed of the
size of a finger, red of colour, and extremely hard. The interior
(the pulp) s as black as mi (Chinese ink) and as sweet as yi
(sugar-plums). It is eatable, and is also employed in the
pharmacy.” 13
Generally, these plants were described in the same format:
provenance, their names respectively in the language of Persia,
Fulin and India, and morphological description, size of plant,
leaves, flowers, fruits or seeds and their taste, then the
pharmacological function. This model looks quite different from
the descriptions of other Chinese plants in this book, for
instance:
“xiantao (fairy peach), comes from the altar established for Su
Dan in the place of Binzhou. If one pray for it wholeheartedly,
the xiantao will constantly be seen to fall down to the altar.
13 FANG NANSHENG, Youyang zazu: a Version of Textual Criticism, Beijing 1981, entry 799.
Sometimes there are as many as five or six. It resembles stone in
size. It is red and yellow. When it is broken, the interior seems
to contain kernels of three layers. To grind it into fine powder
and make drink. This drink can cure various diseases, in
particular, perverse trends.”14
Clearly, Duan Chengshi’s botanical descriptions in Youyang zazu
stressed the strangeness and miraculous effect of plants. Given
that western medicines were widely accepted and used in Tang
Chinese society, we can surmise that these descriptions of Fulin
plants may be taken from some other concurrent pharmacopoeia.
Now let us compare the description in Youyang zazu with three
well-known pharmacopoeia in the Tang period.
First, Longnaoxiang in Youyang zazu,
“ Longnaoxiang, comes from the country of Poli. It is called in
Poli gu-bu-po-lu. It also has its habitat in Bosi. The tree grows
to a height of eight and nine zhang. It is as large as six and seven
wei (one wei equals the length that one adult strentches out his
arms) in circumference, with round leaves, white at the back. It
bears neither flowers nor fruits. The trees are divided into the
slim sort and the fat sort. The slim tree produces the polu resin.
Now it is said that the slim tree produces longnaoxiang gao,
14 See note 13, entry 793.
while the fat tree produces polu resin. The resin is from the
middle of the trunk. It is taken out by cutting off the trunk. The
resin flows out of the top of tree. Cutting down the trunk and
making a container to receive the resin. It is utilized as medicine
in another manner.”15
Second, longnaoxiang, the same plant in Xinxiu bencao
(composed in 659):
“Longnaoxiang, the tree resembles shan-mu (China fir). It is
said that the polu resin comes from the qingzhi (liquid resin) in
its root, while the longnaoxiang resin comes from the ganzhi
(solid resin) in the trunk. Its seeds resemble doukou (round
cardamom). Its bark has scale and shell. Its resin resembles the
longnao (head of dragon). The resin tastes pungent and is very
effective in warding off bad trends. It (also) cures indigestion,
and keeps one’s mouth fragrant. It is said in the past that the
resin comes from the country of polu, thus it is called according
to the name of its country. Practically it is the resin of shan tree
(China fir). The Shan tree grows in southern China, but no one
tries to take out the resin from it. It is possible that the local shan
tree can not produce resin, as the local banana tree has no
fruits.”16
15 See note 13, entry 785.
16 TANG SHENGWEI, Jingshi zenglei daguan bencao, Wuchang 1904, book 12, section one, first-class trees.
Third, Poluomen zaojia (cassia pod) in bencao shiyi, written by
Chen Zangqi in the first half of the 8th century:
“Abole, it tastes bitter and is very cold in nature. It has no
poison. It cures the hotness between the atrium of heart, winded
heart, yellow bone. It removes cold and hot, and kills the tree
worms. It grows in the country of Foshi. Its seeds resemble pods,
round and long in shape. It tastes sweet and good to eat. It is
also termed Poluomen zaojia (Indian pod).” 17
At last, Longnaoxiang in Haiyao bencao, completed in the early
10th century, shortly after the end of the Tang period.
“According to Tao Hongjing (?-502 AD?), the tree grows in the
country of Lu in the West Sea. It is the resin from the middle of
trunk. It resembles white glue. It calms the heart and increases
sperm. There is also black longnao, curing the wind sore and
scar. It works better when being decocted. When employing it
directly to the eyes, it will hurt the eyes. The Mingyi bielu says,
in the case of dystocia, grind a bit of longnao into powder, and
blend it with fresh water. This drink will reduce the pain at once.
In addition, the Lu country presented longnaoxiang during the
reign of Emperor Taizong. So we know that Longnaoxiang
17 The work is not extant. Some chapters are preserved in the pharmacopoeia published in the Sung dynasty
(960-1279). Longnaoxiang can not be found in its extant text (it is also possible that the Bencao shiyi, as its title
reveals, aimed to record botanical information not included in Xinxiu bencao). I give the writing of Abole, which is
similar to Polumen zaojia, recorded in Youyang zazu.
comes from this country.”18
The Xinxiu bencao, Bencao shiyi, and Haiyao bencao are three
major material medica composed in the Tang period. In
comparison with them, the description in Youyang zazu is
expressed in a distinct way. The Chinese pattern emphasized the
medical function and diseases treated by the plants. Moreover, a
major part consisted of quotations from earlier pharmacopoeia,
in accordance with the Chinese academic tradition. The
morphological description, however, is given less attention. The
phonetic rendering of plants were neglected totally, or just
mentioned in a passing word.
The botanical writings in Youyang zazu, on the other hand, were
similar to Dioscorides’ Materia Medica (written around 78 AD).
For example, the fourth entry “Kupeiros (Cyperus rotundus)” in
Dioscorides’ Book 4, “Aromatics”, writes:
“Kuperios, the Roman (call it ) the roote of the Bulrush, others
the Bulrush. Somme call Cyperus, as well as Aspalathus, by the
name of Erysisceptrum. It hath leaues like the Porrum, but long
and more slender; a stalke there is a growing-out of ye little
leaues and of ye seed, the roots lie under, of which also there is
vse, long as of ye olive, cleaving together, or round, black,
18 SHANG ZHIJUN (ed.), Haiyao bencao, Beijing 1997, 55-56.
well-smelling, bitter. It growes in tillowed places, as also in
marishie. But that is ye best (roote) which is heaviest, thick, full,
hard to breake, rough, with a certain sharpenesse, but such as
this is ye Cilician and the Syrian, and that from the Cycladean
Islands. There is a warming power in it, opening ye narrow
mouths of the vasa and it is diureticall, being dranck it helps
such as are troubles with the Calculus, and ye Hydropicall and
also for them that are a scorpione morsi, and it is good fro the
prefrigeratio vuluae, and the obstruction thereof, it being applied
by way of domentation, drawing downe the menstrual. It is good
also for the vlcera oris, yea although they be feeding (or fretting),
being dryed and beaten to powder. It is mixed also with ye
malagmata calfacientia, and it is usefull for the thickening of
ointments. Somme speake also of another kinde of Cyperus
which growes in India, like Ginger, which being chewed, is
found to tast like saffron and to be bitter, and being applied like
an ointment, presently it gets off the hayre.”19
Dioscrides’ description starts with the names of plant in various
languages. It was followed with a morphological description,
given in the order of size of tree, leaves, trunks, and fruit, then
different provenances, and finally the curative functions. These
19 JOHN GOODYER (tr.), ROBERT T. GUNTHER (ed.), The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides (1st ed. 1635,
Facsimile of the 1934 edition, London), 8.
similarities can be easily found, revealing the western origin of
the text provided by Wan. Moreover, the Arabic translation (of
unknown date) of Dioscrides also showed some interesting
points:
“Aqurun /al-wajj, its leaves resemble those of the iris, but are
finer, and its roots are not unlike those of the iris, but are finer,
wined, they are not straight but bent and have nodules outside,
are of a whitish color, slightly sharp in taste and not
foul-smelling.
The best wajj is white, thick, not corroded, full and
sweet-smelling. The one originating from the city called Chalcis,
as well as the one from the land called Galatia and named
asplenon (sleenless), are of this kind.
The power of its root is hot and , if it is stewed and its water is
drunk, it produces much urine. The root water helps against pain
in the side (ribs, pleura), in the chest and the liver, against colic
and torn muscles. It dissolves swelling of the spleen and helps
against strangury and the bites of insects (reptiles). It is as
effective against pain in the uterus as iris water.
The juice of the wajj root clears obscurations of eye.
The wajj root is a useful ingredient in electuaries. 20
20 FRANZ ROSENTHAL, The Classical Heritage in Islam, London 1975, 197.
Compared to the text of Dioscrides,21 the Arabic translation is a
free rather than a literal rendering. The abstruse Greek medical
terms are replaced with vocabulary that can be easily understood.
This transformation was explained by Al-Safadi in al-Ghaith
al-musajjam (Cairo, 1305):
“the second method is that of Hunain b. Ishaq, al-Janhari and
others. Here the translator considers a whole sentence, ascertains
its full meaning, without concern for the correspondence of
individual words. This method is superior, and hence there is no
need to improve the works of Hunain b. Ishaq.”22
In the process from translation to representation, the special
style of Arab pharmaceutical writing was shaped. It is based on
the pattern of Dioscrides, but more practical and flexible. The
Kitāb al-adwiya al-mufrada written by Ahmad al-Ghāfīqī
(?-1164) provides us an example of the finest Arabic Materia
Medica:
“Basbāyij, polypody. It grows on moss-grown rocks and on the
trunks of old oak trees and on the tree moss (ushna). It is about a
span high and resembles the plant called ptiris, the male fern
(al-sarakhs). on it is some down which is long but not as fine as
that of ptiris. The root has branches like the fish called polyp
21 GUNTHER, 6-7.
22 ROSENTHAL, 17.
( kathīr al-arjul). It is as thick as a little finger. If robbed, the
color of its interior appears to be green. Its flavor is astringent
and inclined to sweetness; this is the best. It is desiccative with
pungency. “23
We can conclude now that the text in Youyang zazu was written
in the format of Arabic material medica that were derived from
Dioscrides’ work, therefore, it was so distinct from concureent
Chinese pharmaceutical documents.
Wan’s writing, on the other hand, did not follow the western
model completely. It is clear that Wan wrote for Chinese readers.
All the plants were described in Chinese measures, like Chi
(around 33 cm) and Zhang (around 330 cm). Similar Chinese
botanicals that would have been known to readers were given as
parallels for understanding. In short, Wan was likely to have
lived in China for years, otherwise, he could not know Chinese
plants so well.
The botanical in Wan’s narrative fall into three categories: first,
plants both from Persia and Fulin; second, plants from India;
third, plants from Fulin. When a botanical came from Persia or
India, Wan gave its name in the language of Fulin in the
23 M. LEVY, Early Arabic Pharmacology, Leiden, 1973, 110. According to M. Levy, “ al-Ghafiqi who, in turn,
copied from the excellent work of the much earlier Ibn Samajun, who must now be recognized as one of the
greatest botanists and pharmacologists of the entire Arabic period far outstripping ibn al-Baitār and al-Ghafiqi in
his wide learning. “ Ibn Samajun (832-932?) is nearly in the same period of Youyang zazu.
beginning. For a Fulin plant, no Persian or Indian names
followed. Moreover, for the Fulin plants their specific usage in
Fulin was given, while for the Persian or Indian plants we just
learn their function in Xiyu (western region), a general term
covering the wide range of India, Persia and even the far west in
Chinese sources. Clearly, Fulin formed a key word in Wan’s
narrative, echoing Wan’s identity as a monk from Fulin. The
pharmaceutical knowledge of India and Persia were also
important in the text. Some plants were of Persian origin or their
Persian names were given. Clearly, Wan knew Persian and
Indian botanicals as well.
The above analysis naturally leads us to the following questions:
why did Wan called himself a “Fulin monk”? where and what
did Fulin denote in Wan’s self-introduction? Did Fulin refer to
Byzantium in thes text? In short, where did Wan and the other
Fulin monks come from?
IV. WERE THE FULIN MONKS LIKELY TO BE
MELKITES IN CENTRAL ASIA?
Were the Fulin monks and emissaries from Constantinople, i.e.
the official envoys sent by some Byzantine emperor? The Greek
sources and Chinese documents do not provide positive
evidences for this hypothesis.
Some Chinese scholars believed that the Byzantine Empire
wanted to ally with China in the Far East to confront the Arabs
in the beginning of the 7th century. The Fulin emissaries and
monks, therefore, had a diplomatic task like the envoys sent by
the escaped Persian emperors and principalities in the Central
Asia. Nevertheless, China was not in the scope of Byzantine
emperors in this period. For example, Taugas, China in
Theophylact Simocattes’ History (written in the early 7th
century), was a distant and legendary country. How could the
Byzantine emperors plan to ally with such an untrue land? In
fact, the Byzantines made alliance with the Khazar Qaghanate,
their northern neighbor. It was the Khazars that pinned Arabs
back in the north and mitigated the military pressure on the
empire. 24
The Chinese sources on Fulin envoys, on the other hand, assume
some religious aspects to them. Nevertheless, Byzantine
emperors seldom appointed priests to do diplomatic work except
when the destination was the Pope’s office in Rome. Moreover,
fine textiles, precious stone works, and beautifully bound books
were the main diplomatic gifts from the empire to the western
kings, while gold coins and gold and silver works consisted of
24 P.B. GOLDEN, The Khazar Studies, Budapest 1980.
the gifts to the eastern nomadic chieftains. Comparing to this list,
the gift from Fulin covered red glass (tableware? In 643), green
Jinjing (in 643), medicine (diyejia in 667, opium according to
Hirth’s identification), and animals (lions and gorals in 719).
Glass work was no doubt a famous products in the Levant,
however, it was unlikely that glassware would be sent as a royal
gift because glass looked quite ordinary according to the
Byzantine taste. Animals and medicines, too, seem out of the
ordinary for Byzantine diplomatic gifts. Also, the Fulin envoy in
719 was in fact from Tokharistan rather than Constantinople.
A close look at the provenances of the Fulin gifts shows that
they were more likely to originate from Tokharistan in Central
Asia. The Xin Tang Shu (the new standard history of Tang,
compiled in the 11th century) writes:
“Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan), is called Tuheluo or Duhuoluo, and
Tuhuluo in the Northern Wei period (386-534). It is to the west
of Pamir and to the south of Oxus river. It was Bactria in ancient
time. People in Tuhuoluo also includes the Hephthalites. There
are 100,000 soldiers in this country. The polulation of men is
more than that of women in local people. In the north of this
country, there is a Boli mountain (glass mountain).”
Moreover, in the same volume:
“Julan, is called Juluowan or Julanmo, borders on Tuhuluo
(Tokharistan). It is 3,000 li in circumstance. In the south of it is
the Daxue shan (big snow mountain). In the north is the Julu he
(Kokcha River?). It produces Jinjing, which is carved out of
stone. In 646 AD (the 20th year of Zhenguan), its king, Hu-ti-po
sent envoy to make tribute. His address looked like a Buddhist
sutra.”
Clearly, glass and Jinjing were products from Tokharistan.
According to Cefu yuangui (encyclopedia edited on the basis of
governemental archive, compiled in the early 11th century), glass,
Jinjing and medicine were frequent tributes from countries in
this region.
The consequent questions arise: why was Fulin, namely, Rome,
connected with Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan) in Central Asia? And for
what reason did the Fulin monks call themselves Romans if they
actually started their trips from Tuhuoluo?
A review of the history of the Church of the East may help us to
answer these questions. The council of Chalcedon in 451, with
the support of Marcian and his empress Plucheria, denounced
the Monophysites (or Jacobites) as heretics. After that, the
followers of the Chalcedon decrees were called Melkites
(malkaya in Syriac), that is , people who were loyal to the
Byzantine emperors and empire. During the period from 431 to
616, the Melkites controlled the big cities of Egypt and Syria
with the support of an imperial army. They were mostly citizens
who spoke Greek and supported the Byzantine Empire. The
Jacobites, on the other hand, were Syriac-speaking peasants and
monks in the countryside. In 616 Syria was conquered by the
Sasanian Persians, and then conquered by the Arabs in 630.
After that, the Melkites lost their Byzantine military protection
and were suspected and persecuted by the new rulers. Because
of their loyalty towards the Byzantine empire, they were call
Rumagis, i.e. Romans, in the Sasanian period. This name
continued in use during the Islamic times.25
From the 6th century to the 8th century, many of the Melkites in
Syria were moved east by the Sasanian King of King and the
Arabic Caliphs. Deportations occurred at least twice. The first
forced migration took place in 590 when Khusro I destroyed
Antioch and moved the citizens into some place near Ctesphon.
The Melkites were ordered to build a new city which was
officially named Antioch. This new settlement, however, was
usually called Rumaghan, i.e. the city of Romans, in the
Sasanian period. After that, Ctesiphon became the center of the
25 HUGH KENNEDY, “The Melkite Church from the Islamic Conquest to the Crusades: Continuity and
Adaptation in the Byzantine Legacy”, The 17 International Byzantine Congress, Washington D.C., 1986, Major
papers, New Rochelle 1986, 325-343.
Melkite church in Mesopotamia. The settlements of the Melkites
gradually extended into many regions of the Sasanian capital,
who was sent by the Patriarch of Antioch. J.M. Fiey, on the basis
of a seal collected in Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, suggested
that the Melkites had established a Catholicos in Central Asia as
early as the Sasanian period. 26
In the following Islamic period, the Arab rulers allowed
Christians and Jews to preserve their beliefs. The Melkite
Catholicos and bishops survived the military and political
turmoils. Nevertheless, the 7th and 8th centuries saw intense
military conflicts between the Arabs and the Byzantines. The
lingering wars might cause large-scaled movements of
population in the borderland, and result in an increasing number
of Melkites in the east. Since Byzantium was seena s the major
enemy of the Arabs, the Melkites were no doubt the first object
of persecution. In the mid-8th century, Du Huan writes in his
Jingxing ji:
“When the Fulin people were captured and moved into the
countries of the Arabs, they often stuck to their customs, even if
they had to pay with their life (for this persistence). “ 27
26 Introduction of this seal, see Ph. GIGNOUX, “Sceaux chrétiens d’époque sassanide”, Iranica Antiqua (Gent)
XV, 1980, 305-306. The discussion on it, see J.M.FIEY, “Le sceau sassnide d’un catholicos melkite d’Asie
central”, Proche-Orient Chrétien 45, 1995, 6-9.
27 Cf. DU YOU, Tong dian, juan 191. The Jingxingji is not extant. Some texts were preserved in Du You’s Tong
dian.
In this situation, the Melkites were forced to move again by
al-Mansur, the founder of Baghdad in 762. According to Ibrahim
bin Yuhanna (?-after 969 AD):
“Les Agaréniens, dit Ibrahim, décidèrent de chaser les chrétiens
de son entourage. IIs les transférènt dans un lointain pays de
Perse appelè Shâsh. IIs y exilèrent le catholicos en meme temps
que les siens. Cette tribu (sic) émigrée s’appelle: ‘Colonie des
Roums’. Ce nom convenait d’ailleurs bien à leur groupement.
“28
Shâsh has been identified as Sas, i.e. Tashkent. 29 There are
divergent opinions on the time of the establishment of the
Melkite Catholicos in Tashkent. Nevertheless, we at least know
that the seat of the grand Melkite Catholicos was in Sogdiana by
the mid-8th century.30According to al-Biruni of Khwarazm (Abu
Rihan Mohammed al-Biruni 973-1048), some Christians were
Melkites in Syria, Iraq and Khurasan. Judging from a Melkite
calendar recorded in his work, there were two Melkite
settlements in Merv (found by Barsibia) and Nisapur, which
28 See the French translation by H. ZAYAT in POC 2, 1952, 23.
29 More introduction of the identification, see Mgr J. NASRALLAH, “L’ Église melchite en Iraq, en Perse et dans
l’Asi central”, POC 26, 1976, 21.
30 There are more evidences for the Melkite community in Sogdiana after the 9th century. A fragment found from
the Nestorian library of Bulayiq (after 866 CE) contains the first phrase of Psalm 33 in Greek followed by its
continuation in Sogdian. The Sogdian translation agrees in part with the Greek of the Septuagint but also shows the
influence of the Syriac Peshitta version. This document points to the Melkites, the only Syrian church which ever
used Greek in their liturgy. See NICHOLASS SIMS-WILLIAMS, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan
and Tu-Huang Manuscripts”, Turfan and Dun-Huang: the Texts Encount of Civilizations on the Silk Route, Edited
by Alfredo Cadonna, Firenze 1992, 43-61.
continued down to the 11th century.31
It is notable that the Melkites in the Islamic period were called
“Romans”, that is, people of Fulin. In the Sasanian period,
“Rome” referred to the Byzantine territory and subjects, as we
can find in the above-mentioned Nestorian texts, composed
before the mid 7th century. After that, “Rum” specifically
pointed to Melkites in the Arabic vocabulary. 32 The Melkite
Catholicos in Central Asia bore the title “Catholicos of
Rumagyris” and this seems not to have changed till the 12th
century. Therefore, when the Melkite Catholicos in Central Asia
sent his envoys to China, they would naturally have told the
Chinese emperors that they are priests of the Romans, that is,
monks from Fulin.
V. CONCLUSION
In comparison to the plentiful scholarship on Christianity in
medieval western Europe, the history of Christianity in Central
Asia and the Far East Remains obscure. Moreover, the
enterprise of the Nestorians is the sole subject when Christian
mission in this vast area is discussed. Nevertheless, the
existence of several different Christian communities to the eas
of the Euphrates may naturally lead us to question this
31 Jean DAUVILLIER, “Byzantins d’Asie central et d’Extrême-Orient au Moyen Age”, Revue des etudes
byzantines XI, Paris, 1953, 66-67.
32 Encyclopedia Islamica, “Rum”.
monochromatic picture.
Why did only Nestorians develop missions towards the east,
especially after the Arab conquest in Persia? Did the Jacobites
and Melkites play any role in the eastward spread of Christianity
in the era of Pax Arabica?
It is within this international background that the Chinese
sources on the Fulin monks make sense to us. That the Fulin
monks did not leave a stone monument like that of the
Nestorians hints at the limitations of their enterprise.
Nevertheless, the difference drawn between a Fulin monk and a
Bosi monk, and the fragmentary Greek Materia Medica in
Youyang zazu remind us that the history of Christianity in not
the sole property of the Nestorian Church, but also includes the
east wards diffusion of other eastern churches.
the Tang Period”, in Proche-Orient Chrétien Tome 57 （2007）(SAINTE-ANNE, Jerusalem,
Isreal)
Fulin Monks: Did some Christians other than Nestorians enter
China during the Tang period?
I. Introduction
Since Paul Pelliot published his study on the origin of the name
of Fulin in 1914, Fulin has been widely accepted as the Persian
or Sogdian transliteration of Rum, i.e., Hrum or From, and
refers to Byzantium in the Sui (581-618 CE) and Tang periods
(618-907 CE). 1 It was in the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE) that
the visits of Fulin emissaries were clearly recorded for the first
time. According to the Jiu tangshu (the standard history of the
Tang Dynasty, compiled in the 10th century) and the Xin tangshu
(the new standard history of the Tang Dynasty, compiled in the
11th century), the state of Fulin sent emissaries to China seven
times:
In 643 (the 17th year of the Zhenguan period), Bo-duo-li, the
king of Fulin, made tribute of red glass, green Jinjing and so
1 P. Pelliot, “Sur l’origine du nom Fou-lin”, Journal Asiatique 1914, 497-500. See also, F. Hirth, China and the
Roman Orient, Shanghai and Hong Kong 1885 (reprint Chicago 1975); D.D.Leslie and K.H.J.Gardiner, The
Roman Empire in Chinese Sources, Roma 1996.
son.
In 667 (the 2nd year of the Qianfeng period), (Fulin) sent envoys
to make tribute of Diyejia.
In 701 (the 1st year of Dazu period), (Fulin) sent envoys again
(to China).
In 708 (the 2nd year of the Jingyun period), Fulin presented local
products.
In 719 (the 7th year of the Kaiyuan period), the ruler of Fulin
sent the chieftain of Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan) to present two lions
and two gorals. After (several) months, he again sent the
virtuous monks to make tribute.
In May of 742 (the 1st year of the Tianbao period), the ruler of
Fulin sent a virtuous monk to make tribute.2
At the beginning of the 20th century, F. Hirth argues that
Bo-duo-li is the Chinese transliteration of Patriarch, the title of
the leader of the Syrian Church. He considered that this
Patriarch in Chinese sources was in fact the leader of the
Nestorian Church (also known as the Church of the East)in
Persia. He saind:
“With the settling of so many Syrian Christians in Persia after
2 See Jiu tangshu, juan 198, Cefu yuangui, juan 971.
the fall of Antioch in 540 AD, the Nestorian Patriarch in Persia
could perhaps lay claim to the dignity. His residence in exile
was merely a makeshift; to his own flock and to the Chinese
behind them he was the patriarch of all the Christians, whatever
the heterodox clergy in the west may have thought of it. It was
the Nestorian patriarch who sent the first Christian missionaries
to China, and whether he did so under orders from a still higher
patriarch in Antich, or on his own authority, it seems not easy to
decide.”3
Hirth’s argument had a great influence on the successive
explanations for these mysterious Fulin emissaries. For example,
Shirotori and Hudson in the 1930’s thought that the virtuous
monks sent by the Fulin ruler in 719 and 742 were Nestorian
missionaries, though they disagreed with Hirth’s viewpoints,
that all the emissaries from Fulin were Nestorians.4 Cen
Zhongmian and Yan Zonglin in the 1950’s and the 1960’s agreed
with Hirth completely5. On the other hand, Qi Sihe and Barrett
tended to believe that the Fulin envoys came from the Byzantine
Empire, and had no direct connection with the Nestorian
3 F. Hirth, “The Mystery of Fu-lin”, Journal of American Oriental Society 30, 1910, 9.
4 C.F. Hudson (Wang Zunzhong tr. ), Europe and China, London 1931- Beijing 1995, 195; K. Shirotori, “A New
Attempt at the Solution of the Fu-lin Problem”,
5 Cen Zhongmian, “Liqian, Daqin and Fulin in the Chinese Sources”, The Supplement of Documents on the
Western Turks, Beijing 1958, 223-233; Yan Zonglin, Yan Zonglin shixue wenji, Taiyuan 1998, 326-327.
Church6. Nevertheless, Hirth’s viewpoints have affected them in
another way. In their opinion, the reason for which the Nestorian
Church in China changed its name from Bosi jingjiao (“Persian
Religion of Scripture”) into Daqin jingjiao (“Daqin Illustrious
Religion”), was because it wanted to emphasize its Byzantine
rather than its Persian origin. That change of name was
confirmed by imperial edict in 745, the 4th year of Tianbao
period.
Hirth’s identification for Bo-duo-li is reasonable7. B0-duo-li
sounds close to Patriarch, and especially to Bathric, Patriarch in
Arabic. Hence, the first Fulin emissary seems to have been sent
by some Christian church connected with Byzantium. The
emissaries in 719 and 742 were called “virtuous monk”.
Moreover , Youyang zazu, an encyclopedia on the exotica in the
9th century, mentioned a Fulin monk whose name was Wan.
These records indicate a close connection between the Fulin
emissaries and some religious community. Therefore, the two
questions that were first raised by Hirth are still foci for the
present discussion: Were the virtuous monks Nestorians? What
were the relations between the Fulin monks and the Byzantine
6 Qi Sihe, Zhongguo yu Baizhanting diguo de guanxi (China and Byzantium), Shanghai 1956, 35-36; T.H. Barrett,
“Buddhism, Taoism and the eighth-century Chinese term for Christianity: a response to recent work by A Forte and
others”, BSOAS 63.3, 2002, 555-560.
7 About the several identifications for Bo-duo-li, see Zhang Xinglang, Zhongxi jiaotong shiliao huibian, I, Beijing
1977, 97-98.
Empire?
II. FULIN MONKS AND BOSI MONKS
In Hirth’s argument, the patriarch of the Nestorian church
Considered himself the patriarch of Antioch, aiming to increase
the prestige of his enterprise. Nevertheless, Hirth did not give
any solid grounds to support his assertion. In fact, the Christian
communities in Persia had a long history and had shown a
tendency of independence even before the arrival of the
Nestorians from Edessa in 431. In the three Synods held in
410,420 and 424, the bishops from various places of Persia
allied to emphasize the high authority of their leader, the Persian
Catholicos. Thus, they were able to establish the two
fundamental features of the Oriental Church. One was the
Nicene Creed and the other was the independence of Persian
Christians from the Church in the Byzantine world. Their
Catholicos was answerable to God alone8. Shortly thereafter, the
influx and growing influence of Nestorians strengthened the
independence of the Persian church again. With the support of
the Sassanian emperors, the Persian Church, now Nestorian,
declared its complete independence from the West when
Babowin assumed the title “Patriarch of the East” in 498.
8 W.S.McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, Chicago 1982, 123-126.
The Catholicos of the Persian Church thus declared himself
equal to the Patriarchs in Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. By
643, when the Tang empire saw the first Fulin emissary, the title
“Patriarch of the East” had already prevailed for nearly a
century and a half in Persia and Central Asia. In such a situation,
why would the Nestorians in China want to borrow and use the
title of “Patriarch of Antioch”, in order to glorify their enterprise
in the Far East?
In fact, the names used for Nestorians in the Tang period reveal
the very close connection between them and Persia. In 638, the
first Nestorian missionary A-luo-ben was called “Bosi monk”
(Persian monk)9. The term of “Persian monk” continued in use
till 745, when the Emperor Xuanzong declared that “Persian
temple”, the original term for Nestorian churches in the two
capitals (Chang’an and Luoyang) be replaced with a new term,
i.e., “Daqin temple”. From 638 to 745, Nestorians in China
called themselves Persian monks, as well. For example, the
Xian-Fu monument (Daqin jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei, the
eulogistic verses on the stone monument recording the diffusion
of the Illustrious Religion) records the following:
“ In the Shengli period (698-700), the Buddhists slandered (our
9 The imperial decree in 638 says:”A-luo-ben, the Persian monk, carries the scriptures and religion rules from afar
and presents them to the grand capital”. See Tang huiyao, juan 49.
church) in Luoyang to suppress the growth of Nestorians. In the
late Xiantian period (around 713), the Taoists made libel (of our
church) in Chang’an. Luo-han, leader of our monastery, Ji-lie,
the virtuous monk, and aristocrats from the west and monks
from the monastery made their efforts to protect (our church)
and finally changed the situation.”
Of Ji-lie, the virtuous monk, was also recorded in juan 546 of
Cefu yuangui:
“Liu Ze assumed the office of Dianzhong shi yushi (the imperial
inspector in court) and Lingnan jianxuan shi (the inspector in the
region of Lingnan) in 714 (the 2nd year of Kaiyuan). At the time,
Zhou Qingli, the official in charge of trade affairs in Lingnan,
and Ji-lie, the Persian monk, produced many exotic implements,
aiming to present them to emperor.”
Clearly, around 713 and 714, Nestorians were called “Persian
monks”. The imperial decree issued by the Emperor Xuanzong
in 745 (the 4th year of the Tianbao period) states:
“The Persian religion of the scriptures, starting from Daqin
(referring to the Roman Empire in the Chinese sources from the
1st century to the 5th century) and coming to preach and practice,
has long existed in the Middle Kingdom.”10
10 Tang huiyao, juan 49.
Clearly, Nestorianism was considered as a Persian religion. In
the Xian-fu monument erected in 781 (the 2nd year of Jianzhong),
we find: “A-luo-ben, the virtuous monk from Daqin state”,
replacing “A-luo-ben, the Persian monk” in the imperial decree
of 638. This correction shows that the Nestorians intended to
stress their relation with Daqin, i.e. the Roman Empire. Their
efforts, however, seem not to have met with immediate success.
The Zenyuan xinding shijiao mulu (The New Catalogue of
Buddhist Works in the Zhenyuan Period), written by Yuanzhao
in 800, mentions:
(Bore, an Indian monk) collaborated with Jingjing, the Persian
monk from Daqin temple (the author of Xian-fu monument in
781) to translate the Sutra of Six Bolumi and divided it into
seven volumes. At that time Bore didn’t know the language of
Hu (a language of Central Asian), while Jingjing didn’t know
Sanskrit, let alone the doctrines of Buddhism. They claimed
their work as honest translation, however, they were not able to
convey the true meaning at all. What they wanted was their own
fame and wealth alone. They even reported their translation to
the Throne, hoping their work would be issued officially. Our
great emperor (the Emperor Dezong 780-805) was so intelligent
and knowledgeable on Buddhism. He found that their translation
was poor and incorrect. Moreover, the monk from the Buddhism
temple and the monk from the Daqin temple were distinct in
theory and behavior. Jingjing should spread the religion of
Mi-shi-ke (the Messiah). The Buddhist shoud spread the
teaching of Buddha. So the different religions were able to be
discerned. The correct was thus separated from the wrong.”
Judging from this record, the contemporary Chinese outside the
Nestorian communities continued to call Nestorians “Persian
monks” after the decree in 742. In the 10th century (late Tang
and Early Song), the Guiyijunshi yanei mai you po yongli
(Account on the Outlay of Wheat and Oil in the Office of Guiyi
Army Commander) says:
“Give the Persian monks from Ganzhou wheat flour seven dou
(1 dou=17.5pint) and oil one she (1 she= 1.75 pint) for monthly
expenditure.
Give the Persian monks who present medicine wheat flour one
shi (1 shi=2.75 bushel) and oil three she on 26, ? month.”
Again, Wang Yande mentioned Nestorians in his Xizhou
shichengji (ways to Xizhou) in the same period:
“There are temples of Moni (Manichaeism) and Persian monks
in this area. They are called waidao (outsides) by the Buddhist
scriptures.”
Xiang Da and Jiang Boqin have identified the “Persian monks”
in these contexts as Nestorians. 11Clearly, Non-Nestorian
Chinese living in the two capitals (Yuanzhao at Chang’an) as
well as on the frontier (Dunhuang area) referred to Nestorians as
“Persian monks” through the Tang period.
From 638 (when A-luo-ben visited the Chinese Emperor for the
first time) to 742 (when an imperial decree officially confirmed
the change of name of the Nestorian Church), it took nearly a
century for the Nestorian church to finish the process of
Sinicization. We may question why, if A-luo-ben called himself
a Persian monk, the later emissaries from Fulin did not do the
same, if they were in fact Nestorians.
Yishen lun (On the One God), an early Nestorian document in
Chinese, was possibly written around the Zhenguan period
(627-649), i.e. the time when Persian monks and the Fulin
monks entered China. It says:
“There is only One God in the world. HIS heaven is borderless.
HE is one, but does not inhabit one place. HE is not one place,
HE never sticks to one place. HE is not the boundary of the first
place and the second place, not that of the first phase and the
second phase. For example, there is no land-border and
11 See JIANG BOQIN, Dunhuang tuluofan wenshu and Sichou zhi lu (Turfan Documents and Silk Road), Beijing
1994, 37.
time-border between China and Persia, and Persia between Fulin
(Byzantium). (So is HIS nature.)”12
Clearly, the Nestorian missionaries knew that Bosi (Persia) and
Fulin (Byzantium) are different in geography. This period also
saw frequent visits of Fulin emissaries. It is reasonable to
conclude that the Fulin monks were not Persian monks, i.e.
Nestorians.
After 742, Nestorians in China started to call themselves Daqin
jingjiao (possibly, “The Illustrious Religion of Rome”). The old
Tangshu (the standard history of the Tang Dynasty, compiled in
the 10th century) stated that Fulin was the same as Daqin,
recorded in ancient documents. Nevertheless, the Xian-fu
monument, the only history of missionary enterprise written by
Nestorians themselves, did not mention Fulin at all. Fulin, on
the contrary, seems to be a term that was intentionally avoided
in this stele. The Xu ting mishisuo jing (The Book of Jesus, the
Messiah), a Nestorian document, writes:
“Therefore, the Lord is in heaven and making his plan in the
heaven and the earth. Yishu mishihe (Jesus, the Messiah) will be
born (according to HIS plan). A big and bright star is seen on the
12 Weng Shaojun, Hanyu jingjiao wendian quanshi (The Chinese Nestorian Documents: Text, Note and Critical),
Shanghai 1996, 118. As for the latest textual criticism about the Chinese Nestorian sources, see Lin Wushu,
Tangdai jingjiao zaiyanjiu (Rethinking Nestorianism during the Tang period) Beijing 2003.
sky by the people of the world. Yishu mishihe will be born
(according to HIS plan). The xin xing (xin star) appears in the
sky, as big as a cart wheel. The star is in the bright and clean
place, where Lord dwells. After one year or so, (Jesus) is born in
Wulishilian (Jerusalem) of Fulin state.”
In the Xian-fu monument, however, the same account was
written in different words:
“The celestial world celebrated the birth of holy son from the
virgin in Daqin. The luminous stars showed the good signs and
guided the Persian sages to call on him, and make tribute to him.
Clearly, Jerusalem, the birth place of Jesus, is Fulin in the earlier
document, while the same place is Daqin in the Xian-fu
monument.
The Xian-fu monument also mentions:
“According to Xiyu tuji and historical works of the Han and Wei
dynasties (1st century to 3rd century), the Daqin state ruled the
Sea of Coral in the south, bordered the Mountain of Treasure in
north, spanned the Celestial Land and Flower Forest in the west,
and connected with the Long Wind and Weak Water in east.”
The Xiyu tuji in this text may refer to Pei Ju’s work about the
western region(Xiyu) in the Sui period (written around 605-615).
Judging from the biography of Pei Ju in Sui shu, the term of
Fulin had appeared in Xiyu tuji. Moreover, during the time from
762 to 763 (the Baoying period), Du Huan, who had travelled in
Western Asia for over ten years, clearly stated the connection of
Fulin and Daqin in his Jing Xing ji (Account on the Journey):
“The Fulin state is to the west of the Shan state (Sham, Syria). It
is thousands of miles afar and separated by mountains from
Shan. The country is also called Daqin.”
Clearly, the fact that Fulin was the ancient Daqin was known to
the Chinese in 781 when Jingjing, the leader of the Chinese
Nestorian Church wrote the inscription on the Xian-fu
monument. The sources on the western region in the Tang
period also indicated that the term of Fulin became more
popular from the Sui period onwards. The term Daqin, i.e. the
Roman Empire, no longer appeared in the Tang geographic
documents. The Xian-fu monument provided additional
evidence for this point. When the geographic location of Daqin
was explained, the inscription just talked about Xiyu tuji
(possibly Sui period) and the historical works of the Han and
Wei dynasties (1st to 3rd century). Contemporary geographical
works, on the contrary, were never mentioned, even in passing.
This may further indicate that the Chinese Nestorian Church did
not want to emphasize the connection between the ancient
Daqin and the present Fulin. The question then arises: why did
the Nestorian leader prefer Daqin, a term that was no longer in
use, to Fulin, the contemporary term for Rome? Jingjing’s
selction possibly resulted from this fact: Bo-duo-li, the Fulin
king, was not Dongfang fazhu (the Ruler of Law in the East, the
title for the Patriarch of the Oriental Church in Xian-fu
monument); the Persian monks were different from the Fulin
monks. Therefore, the hidden reason was that the Nestorians did
not want to be confused with some other Christian group. They
claimed that they were from Daqin, i.e. ancient Rome, rather
than Fulin, i.e. contemporary Rome.
III. WAN AND THE ELEMENTS OF DIOSCORIDES’
MATERIA MEDICA IN YOUYANG ZAZU
Duan Chengshi (803?-863), a well known man of letters in the
late Tang dynasty, recorded 19 kinds of herbal plants in his
youyang zazu, an encyclopedia of exotic things and religious
stories. Of the 19 kinds of plants, 15 plants originated from
Fulin or had names in the Fulin language. Duan Chengshi also
mentioned Wan, a Fulin monks. It was Wan who gave the
botanical knowledge to him. Notably, these accounts were
organized in a very regular format, for instance:
“ The Bosi zaojia (cassia pod) has its habitat in the country Bosi
(Persia), where it is termed hu-ye-yen-mo, while in Fulin it is
styled a-li-ku-fa. The tree has a height of from there or four
zhang, and measures from four to five chi in circumference. The
leaves resemble those of juyuan (Citrus medica), but are shorter
and smaller. During the cold season it does not wither. It does
not flower, and yet bears fruit. Its pods are two chi long. In their
interior are shells. Each of these encloses a single seed of the
size of a finger, red of colour, and extremely hard. The interior
(the pulp) s as black as mi (Chinese ink) and as sweet as yi
(sugar-plums). It is eatable, and is also employed in the
pharmacy.” 13
Generally, these plants were described in the same format:
provenance, their names respectively in the language of Persia,
Fulin and India, and morphological description, size of plant,
leaves, flowers, fruits or seeds and their taste, then the
pharmacological function. This model looks quite different from
the descriptions of other Chinese plants in this book, for
instance:
“xiantao (fairy peach), comes from the altar established for Su
Dan in the place of Binzhou. If one pray for it wholeheartedly,
the xiantao will constantly be seen to fall down to the altar.
13 FANG NANSHENG, Youyang zazu: a Version of Textual Criticism, Beijing 1981, entry 799.
Sometimes there are as many as five or six. It resembles stone in
size. It is red and yellow. When it is broken, the interior seems
to contain kernels of three layers. To grind it into fine powder
and make drink. This drink can cure various diseases, in
particular, perverse trends.”14
Clearly, Duan Chengshi’s botanical descriptions in Youyang zazu
stressed the strangeness and miraculous effect of plants. Given
that western medicines were widely accepted and used in Tang
Chinese society, we can surmise that these descriptions of Fulin
plants may be taken from some other concurrent pharmacopoeia.
Now let us compare the description in Youyang zazu with three
well-known pharmacopoeia in the Tang period.
First, Longnaoxiang in Youyang zazu,
“ Longnaoxiang, comes from the country of Poli. It is called in
Poli gu-bu-po-lu. It also has its habitat in Bosi. The tree grows
to a height of eight and nine zhang. It is as large as six and seven
wei (one wei equals the length that one adult strentches out his
arms) in circumference, with round leaves, white at the back. It
bears neither flowers nor fruits. The trees are divided into the
slim sort and the fat sort. The slim tree produces the polu resin.
Now it is said that the slim tree produces longnaoxiang gao,
14 See note 13, entry 793.
while the fat tree produces polu resin. The resin is from the
middle of the trunk. It is taken out by cutting off the trunk. The
resin flows out of the top of tree. Cutting down the trunk and
making a container to receive the resin. It is utilized as medicine
in another manner.”15
Second, longnaoxiang, the same plant in Xinxiu bencao
(composed in 659):
“Longnaoxiang, the tree resembles shan-mu (China fir). It is
said that the polu resin comes from the qingzhi (liquid resin) in
its root, while the longnaoxiang resin comes from the ganzhi
(solid resin) in the trunk. Its seeds resemble doukou (round
cardamom). Its bark has scale and shell. Its resin resembles the
longnao (head of dragon). The resin tastes pungent and is very
effective in warding off bad trends. It (also) cures indigestion,
and keeps one’s mouth fragrant. It is said in the past that the
resin comes from the country of polu, thus it is called according
to the name of its country. Practically it is the resin of shan tree
(China fir). The Shan tree grows in southern China, but no one
tries to take out the resin from it. It is possible that the local shan
tree can not produce resin, as the local banana tree has no
fruits.”16
15 See note 13, entry 785.
16 TANG SHENGWEI, Jingshi zenglei daguan bencao, Wuchang 1904, book 12, section one, first-class trees.
Third, Poluomen zaojia (cassia pod) in bencao shiyi, written by
Chen Zangqi in the first half of the 8th century:
“Abole, it tastes bitter and is very cold in nature. It has no
poison. It cures the hotness between the atrium of heart, winded
heart, yellow bone. It removes cold and hot, and kills the tree
worms. It grows in the country of Foshi. Its seeds resemble pods,
round and long in shape. It tastes sweet and good to eat. It is
also termed Poluomen zaojia (Indian pod).” 17
At last, Longnaoxiang in Haiyao bencao, completed in the early
10th century, shortly after the end of the Tang period.
“According to Tao Hongjing (?-502 AD?), the tree grows in the
country of Lu in the West Sea. It is the resin from the middle of
trunk. It resembles white glue. It calms the heart and increases
sperm. There is also black longnao, curing the wind sore and
scar. It works better when being decocted. When employing it
directly to the eyes, it will hurt the eyes. The Mingyi bielu says,
in the case of dystocia, grind a bit of longnao into powder, and
blend it with fresh water. This drink will reduce the pain at once.
In addition, the Lu country presented longnaoxiang during the
reign of Emperor Taizong. So we know that Longnaoxiang
17 The work is not extant. Some chapters are preserved in the pharmacopoeia published in the Sung dynasty
(960-1279). Longnaoxiang can not be found in its extant text (it is also possible that the Bencao shiyi, as its title
reveals, aimed to record botanical information not included in Xinxiu bencao). I give the writing of Abole, which is
similar to Polumen zaojia, recorded in Youyang zazu.
comes from this country.”18
The Xinxiu bencao, Bencao shiyi, and Haiyao bencao are three
major material medica composed in the Tang period. In
comparison with them, the description in Youyang zazu is
expressed in a distinct way. The Chinese pattern emphasized the
medical function and diseases treated by the plants. Moreover, a
major part consisted of quotations from earlier pharmacopoeia,
in accordance with the Chinese academic tradition. The
morphological description, however, is given less attention. The
phonetic rendering of plants were neglected totally, or just
mentioned in a passing word.
The botanical writings in Youyang zazu, on the other hand, were
similar to Dioscorides’ Materia Medica (written around 78 AD).
For example, the fourth entry “Kupeiros (Cyperus rotundus)” in
Dioscorides’ Book 4, “Aromatics”, writes:
“Kuperios, the Roman (call it ) the roote of the Bulrush, others
the Bulrush. Somme call Cyperus, as well as Aspalathus, by the
name of Erysisceptrum. It hath leaues like the Porrum, but long
and more slender; a stalke there is a growing-out of ye little
leaues and of ye seed, the roots lie under, of which also there is
vse, long as of ye olive, cleaving together, or round, black,
18 SHANG ZHIJUN (ed.), Haiyao bencao, Beijing 1997, 55-56.
well-smelling, bitter. It growes in tillowed places, as also in
marishie. But that is ye best (roote) which is heaviest, thick, full,
hard to breake, rough, with a certain sharpenesse, but such as
this is ye Cilician and the Syrian, and that from the Cycladean
Islands. There is a warming power in it, opening ye narrow
mouths of the vasa and it is diureticall, being dranck it helps
such as are troubles with the Calculus, and ye Hydropicall and
also for them that are a scorpione morsi, and it is good fro the
prefrigeratio vuluae, and the obstruction thereof, it being applied
by way of domentation, drawing downe the menstrual. It is good
also for the vlcera oris, yea although they be feeding (or fretting),
being dryed and beaten to powder. It is mixed also with ye
malagmata calfacientia, and it is usefull for the thickening of
ointments. Somme speake also of another kinde of Cyperus
which growes in India, like Ginger, which being chewed, is
found to tast like saffron and to be bitter, and being applied like
an ointment, presently it gets off the hayre.”19
Dioscrides’ description starts with the names of plant in various
languages. It was followed with a morphological description,
given in the order of size of tree, leaves, trunks, and fruit, then
different provenances, and finally the curative functions. These
19 JOHN GOODYER (tr.), ROBERT T. GUNTHER (ed.), The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides (1st ed. 1635,
Facsimile of the 1934 edition, London), 8.
similarities can be easily found, revealing the western origin of
the text provided by Wan. Moreover, the Arabic translation (of
unknown date) of Dioscrides also showed some interesting
points:
“Aqurun /al-wajj, its leaves resemble those of the iris, but are
finer, and its roots are not unlike those of the iris, but are finer,
wined, they are not straight but bent and have nodules outside,
are of a whitish color, slightly sharp in taste and not
foul-smelling.
The best wajj is white, thick, not corroded, full and
sweet-smelling. The one originating from the city called Chalcis,
as well as the one from the land called Galatia and named
asplenon (sleenless), are of this kind.
The power of its root is hot and , if it is stewed and its water is
drunk, it produces much urine. The root water helps against pain
in the side (ribs, pleura), in the chest and the liver, against colic
and torn muscles. It dissolves swelling of the spleen and helps
against strangury and the bites of insects (reptiles). It is as
effective against pain in the uterus as iris water.
The juice of the wajj root clears obscurations of eye.
The wajj root is a useful ingredient in electuaries. 20
20 FRANZ ROSENTHAL, The Classical Heritage in Islam, London 1975, 197.
Compared to the text of Dioscrides,21 the Arabic translation is a
free rather than a literal rendering. The abstruse Greek medical
terms are replaced with vocabulary that can be easily understood.
This transformation was explained by Al-Safadi in al-Ghaith
al-musajjam (Cairo, 1305):
“the second method is that of Hunain b. Ishaq, al-Janhari and
others. Here the translator considers a whole sentence, ascertains
its full meaning, without concern for the correspondence of
individual words. This method is superior, and hence there is no
need to improve the works of Hunain b. Ishaq.”22
In the process from translation to representation, the special
style of Arab pharmaceutical writing was shaped. It is based on
the pattern of Dioscrides, but more practical and flexible. The
Kitāb al-adwiya al-mufrada written by Ahmad al-Ghāfīqī
(?-1164) provides us an example of the finest Arabic Materia
Medica:
“Basbāyij, polypody. It grows on moss-grown rocks and on the
trunks of old oak trees and on the tree moss (ushna). It is about a
span high and resembles the plant called ptiris, the male fern
(al-sarakhs). on it is some down which is long but not as fine as
that of ptiris. The root has branches like the fish called polyp
21 GUNTHER, 6-7.
22 ROSENTHAL, 17.
( kathīr al-arjul). It is as thick as a little finger. If robbed, the
color of its interior appears to be green. Its flavor is astringent
and inclined to sweetness; this is the best. It is desiccative with
pungency. “23
We can conclude now that the text in Youyang zazu was written
in the format of Arabic material medica that were derived from
Dioscrides’ work, therefore, it was so distinct from concureent
Chinese pharmaceutical documents.
Wan’s writing, on the other hand, did not follow the western
model completely. It is clear that Wan wrote for Chinese readers.
All the plants were described in Chinese measures, like Chi
(around 33 cm) and Zhang (around 330 cm). Similar Chinese
botanicals that would have been known to readers were given as
parallels for understanding. In short, Wan was likely to have
lived in China for years, otherwise, he could not know Chinese
plants so well.
The botanical in Wan’s narrative fall into three categories: first,
plants both from Persia and Fulin; second, plants from India;
third, plants from Fulin. When a botanical came from Persia or
India, Wan gave its name in the language of Fulin in the
23 M. LEVY, Early Arabic Pharmacology, Leiden, 1973, 110. According to M. Levy, “ al-Ghafiqi who, in turn,
copied from the excellent work of the much earlier Ibn Samajun, who must now be recognized as one of the
greatest botanists and pharmacologists of the entire Arabic period far outstripping ibn al-Baitār and al-Ghafiqi in
his wide learning. “ Ibn Samajun (832-932?) is nearly in the same period of Youyang zazu.
beginning. For a Fulin plant, no Persian or Indian names
followed. Moreover, for the Fulin plants their specific usage in
Fulin was given, while for the Persian or Indian plants we just
learn their function in Xiyu (western region), a general term
covering the wide range of India, Persia and even the far west in
Chinese sources. Clearly, Fulin formed a key word in Wan’s
narrative, echoing Wan’s identity as a monk from Fulin. The
pharmaceutical knowledge of India and Persia were also
important in the text. Some plants were of Persian origin or their
Persian names were given. Clearly, Wan knew Persian and
Indian botanicals as well.
The above analysis naturally leads us to the following questions:
why did Wan called himself a “Fulin monk”? where and what
did Fulin denote in Wan’s self-introduction? Did Fulin refer to
Byzantium in thes text? In short, where did Wan and the other
Fulin monks come from?
IV. WERE THE FULIN MONKS LIKELY TO BE
MELKITES IN CENTRAL ASIA?
Were the Fulin monks and emissaries from Constantinople, i.e.
the official envoys sent by some Byzantine emperor? The Greek
sources and Chinese documents do not provide positive
evidences for this hypothesis.
Some Chinese scholars believed that the Byzantine Empire
wanted to ally with China in the Far East to confront the Arabs
in the beginning of the 7th century. The Fulin emissaries and
monks, therefore, had a diplomatic task like the envoys sent by
the escaped Persian emperors and principalities in the Central
Asia. Nevertheless, China was not in the scope of Byzantine
emperors in this period. For example, Taugas, China in
Theophylact Simocattes’ History (written in the early 7th
century), was a distant and legendary country. How could the
Byzantine emperors plan to ally with such an untrue land? In
fact, the Byzantines made alliance with the Khazar Qaghanate,
their northern neighbor. It was the Khazars that pinned Arabs
back in the north and mitigated the military pressure on the
empire. 24
The Chinese sources on Fulin envoys, on the other hand, assume
some religious aspects to them. Nevertheless, Byzantine
emperors seldom appointed priests to do diplomatic work except
when the destination was the Pope’s office in Rome. Moreover,
fine textiles, precious stone works, and beautifully bound books
were the main diplomatic gifts from the empire to the western
kings, while gold coins and gold and silver works consisted of
24 P.B. GOLDEN, The Khazar Studies, Budapest 1980.
the gifts to the eastern nomadic chieftains. Comparing to this list,
the gift from Fulin covered red glass (tableware? In 643), green
Jinjing (in 643), medicine (diyejia in 667, opium according to
Hirth’s identification), and animals (lions and gorals in 719).
Glass work was no doubt a famous products in the Levant,
however, it was unlikely that glassware would be sent as a royal
gift because glass looked quite ordinary according to the
Byzantine taste. Animals and medicines, too, seem out of the
ordinary for Byzantine diplomatic gifts. Also, the Fulin envoy in
719 was in fact from Tokharistan rather than Constantinople.
A close look at the provenances of the Fulin gifts shows that
they were more likely to originate from Tokharistan in Central
Asia. The Xin Tang Shu (the new standard history of Tang,
compiled in the 11th century) writes:
“Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan), is called Tuheluo or Duhuoluo, and
Tuhuluo in the Northern Wei period (386-534). It is to the west
of Pamir and to the south of Oxus river. It was Bactria in ancient
time. People in Tuhuoluo also includes the Hephthalites. There
are 100,000 soldiers in this country. The polulation of men is
more than that of women in local people. In the north of this
country, there is a Boli mountain (glass mountain).”
Moreover, in the same volume:
“Julan, is called Juluowan or Julanmo, borders on Tuhuluo
(Tokharistan). It is 3,000 li in circumstance. In the south of it is
the Daxue shan (big snow mountain). In the north is the Julu he
(Kokcha River?). It produces Jinjing, which is carved out of
stone. In 646 AD (the 20th year of Zhenguan), its king, Hu-ti-po
sent envoy to make tribute. His address looked like a Buddhist
sutra.”
Clearly, glass and Jinjing were products from Tokharistan.
According to Cefu yuangui (encyclopedia edited on the basis of
governemental archive, compiled in the early 11th century), glass,
Jinjing and medicine were frequent tributes from countries in
this region.
The consequent questions arise: why was Fulin, namely, Rome,
connected with Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan) in Central Asia? And for
what reason did the Fulin monks call themselves Romans if they
actually started their trips from Tuhuoluo?
A review of the history of the Church of the East may help us to
answer these questions. The council of Chalcedon in 451, with
the support of Marcian and his empress Plucheria, denounced
the Monophysites (or Jacobites) as heretics. After that, the
followers of the Chalcedon decrees were called Melkites
(malkaya in Syriac), that is , people who were loyal to the
Byzantine emperors and empire. During the period from 431 to
616, the Melkites controlled the big cities of Egypt and Syria
with the support of an imperial army. They were mostly citizens
who spoke Greek and supported the Byzantine Empire. The
Jacobites, on the other hand, were Syriac-speaking peasants and
monks in the countryside. In 616 Syria was conquered by the
Sasanian Persians, and then conquered by the Arabs in 630.
After that, the Melkites lost their Byzantine military protection
and were suspected and persecuted by the new rulers. Because
of their loyalty towards the Byzantine empire, they were call
Rumagis, i.e. Romans, in the Sasanian period. This name
continued in use during the Islamic times.25
From the 6th century to the 8th century, many of the Melkites in
Syria were moved east by the Sasanian King of King and the
Arabic Caliphs. Deportations occurred at least twice. The first
forced migration took place in 590 when Khusro I destroyed
Antioch and moved the citizens into some place near Ctesphon.
The Melkites were ordered to build a new city which was
officially named Antioch. This new settlement, however, was
usually called Rumaghan, i.e. the city of Romans, in the
Sasanian period. After that, Ctesiphon became the center of the
25 HUGH KENNEDY, “The Melkite Church from the Islamic Conquest to the Crusades: Continuity and
Adaptation in the Byzantine Legacy”, The 17 International Byzantine Congress, Washington D.C., 1986, Major
papers, New Rochelle 1986, 325-343.
Melkite church in Mesopotamia. The settlements of the Melkites
gradually extended into many regions of the Sasanian capital,
who was sent by the Patriarch of Antioch. J.M. Fiey, on the basis
of a seal collected in Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, suggested
that the Melkites had established a Catholicos in Central Asia as
early as the Sasanian period. 26
In the following Islamic period, the Arab rulers allowed
Christians and Jews to preserve their beliefs. The Melkite
Catholicos and bishops survived the military and political
turmoils. Nevertheless, the 7th and 8th centuries saw intense
military conflicts between the Arabs and the Byzantines. The
lingering wars might cause large-scaled movements of
population in the borderland, and result in an increasing number
of Melkites in the east. Since Byzantium was seena s the major
enemy of the Arabs, the Melkites were no doubt the first object
of persecution. In the mid-8th century, Du Huan writes in his
Jingxing ji:
“When the Fulin people were captured and moved into the
countries of the Arabs, they often stuck to their customs, even if
they had to pay with their life (for this persistence). “ 27
26 Introduction of this seal, see Ph. GIGNOUX, “Sceaux chrétiens d’époque sassanide”, Iranica Antiqua (Gent)
XV, 1980, 305-306. The discussion on it, see J.M.FIEY, “Le sceau sassnide d’un catholicos melkite d’Asie
central”, Proche-Orient Chrétien 45, 1995, 6-9.
27 Cf. DU YOU, Tong dian, juan 191. The Jingxingji is not extant. Some texts were preserved in Du You’s Tong
dian.
In this situation, the Melkites were forced to move again by
al-Mansur, the founder of Baghdad in 762. According to Ibrahim
bin Yuhanna (?-after 969 AD):
“Les Agaréniens, dit Ibrahim, décidèrent de chaser les chrétiens
de son entourage. IIs les transférènt dans un lointain pays de
Perse appelè Shâsh. IIs y exilèrent le catholicos en meme temps
que les siens. Cette tribu (sic) émigrée s’appelle: ‘Colonie des
Roums’. Ce nom convenait d’ailleurs bien à leur groupement.
“28
Shâsh has been identified as Sas, i.e. Tashkent. 29 There are
divergent opinions on the time of the establishment of the
Melkite Catholicos in Tashkent. Nevertheless, we at least know
that the seat of the grand Melkite Catholicos was in Sogdiana by
the mid-8th century.30According to al-Biruni of Khwarazm (Abu
Rihan Mohammed al-Biruni 973-1048), some Christians were
Melkites in Syria, Iraq and Khurasan. Judging from a Melkite
calendar recorded in his work, there were two Melkite
settlements in Merv (found by Barsibia) and Nisapur, which
28 See the French translation by H. ZAYAT in POC 2, 1952, 23.
29 More introduction of the identification, see Mgr J. NASRALLAH, “L’ Église melchite en Iraq, en Perse et dans
l’Asi central”, POC 26, 1976, 21.
30 There are more evidences for the Melkite community in Sogdiana after the 9th century. A fragment found from
the Nestorian library of Bulayiq (after 866 CE) contains the first phrase of Psalm 33 in Greek followed by its
continuation in Sogdian. The Sogdian translation agrees in part with the Greek of the Septuagint but also shows the
influence of the Syriac Peshitta version. This document points to the Melkites, the only Syrian church which ever
used Greek in their liturgy. See NICHOLASS SIMS-WILLIAMS, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan
and Tu-Huang Manuscripts”, Turfan and Dun-Huang: the Texts Encount of Civilizations on the Silk Route, Edited
by Alfredo Cadonna, Firenze 1992, 43-61.
continued down to the 11th century.31
It is notable that the Melkites in the Islamic period were called
“Romans”, that is, people of Fulin. In the Sasanian period,
“Rome” referred to the Byzantine territory and subjects, as we
can find in the above-mentioned Nestorian texts, composed
before the mid 7th century. After that, “Rum” specifically
pointed to Melkites in the Arabic vocabulary. 32 The Melkite
Catholicos in Central Asia bore the title “Catholicos of
Rumagyris” and this seems not to have changed till the 12th
century. Therefore, when the Melkite Catholicos in Central Asia
sent his envoys to China, they would naturally have told the
Chinese emperors that they are priests of the Romans, that is,
monks from Fulin.
V. CONCLUSION
In comparison to the plentiful scholarship on Christianity in
medieval western Europe, the history of Christianity in Central
Asia and the Far East Remains obscure. Moreover, the
enterprise of the Nestorians is the sole subject when Christian
mission in this vast area is discussed. Nevertheless, the
existence of several different Christian communities to the eas
of the Euphrates may naturally lead us to question this
31 Jean DAUVILLIER, “Byzantins d’Asie central et d’Extrême-Orient au Moyen Age”, Revue des etudes
byzantines XI, Paris, 1953, 66-67.
32 Encyclopedia Islamica, “Rum”.
monochromatic picture.
Why did only Nestorians develop missions towards the east,
especially after the Arab conquest in Persia? Did the Jacobites
and Melkites play any role in the eastward spread of Christianity
in the era of Pax Arabica?
It is within this international background that the Chinese
sources on the Fulin monks make sense to us. That the Fulin
monks did not leave a stone monument like that of the
Nestorians hints at the limitations of their enterprise.
Nevertheless, the difference drawn between a Fulin monk and a
Bosi monk, and the fragmentary Greek Materia Medica in
Youyang zazu remind us that the history of Christianity in not
the sole property of the Nestorian Church, but also includes the
east wards diffusion of other eastern churches.
