the origin and early use of the ju-i

8/10/2019 The Origin and Early Use of the Ju-I

1/13

The Origin and Early Use of the Ju-iAuthor(s): J. LeRoy DavidsonSource: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1950), pp. 239-249Published by: Artibus Asiae PublishersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3248425.

Accessed: 14/12/2014 22:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Artibus Asiae Publishersis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArtibus Asiae.

htt // j t
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibushttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3248425?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3248425?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibus


2/13

J.

LEROY

DAVIDSON:

THE

ORIGIN

AND EARLY USE OF THE

JU-I

THE ORIGIN

AND USE

OF

THE

JU-I

A

HAVE BEEN

FOR SOME

TIME

THE

SOURCE

of

considerable

speculation

among

scholars

in

the

West

and in the Far East. The

literal

translation of the

term,

as

desired,

is

vague

enough

to

permit

a wide

range

of

interpre-

tation which has

extended from

the

provocative

to

the

burlesque.

Occidental studies

have

progressed

but

little

since

they

were

summed

up

by

Berthold Laufer

in

1912

in his study on jade.' Laufer concurred with H. A. Giles in following a thirteenth

century

archeologist,

Chao

Hsi-ku,

who

believed

that the

ju-i

was

originally

made of

iron.

Laufer stated that the

ju-i

was a kind

of blunt

sword

with traces of

basket-work still

to

be

found inside what

must

have

been

the

sword-guard.

Giles

added

that,

when the

ju-i

later

became a

ceremonial

object,

iron was

replaced

by

other more decorative materials. He

further

remarkedthat in modern

times the

object

is sent

to

a

friend

as

a

token of

good

wishes. To

this

Laufer

agreed

and

remarked

that

in

regard

to

no

other

object

of their

culture are the

accounts of

the

Chinese more

unsatisfactory

than anent the

J'u-i. Laufer

also

stated

that

he

knew of no

ju-i

earlier in

date than the

eighteenth century

but

astutely

added that there

is no

guaranty

that

the

later

ju-i

are

identical with

earlier

forms,

or

that

all

references

to the

character

u-i

are

germane

to the instrument of that name.

Laufer then

summarized

other theories

concerning

the

ju-i

and

quoted

excerpts

from

Chinese

sources

which throw

some

light

on

the

problem.

In

contemporary Japanese

and

Chinese

dictionaries

we

find

theju-i

defined as

a

backscratcher

principally

because

of its

appearance.

The

literal

meaning,

as

desired,

is also

claimed

as

signifying

the

function

of

backscratching,

perhaps

because of its

apparent

ability

to reach

otherwise

inaccessible areas

of

the

human

body.

Most

dictionaries,

of

course,

cite the

modern use of the ju-i as a good luck gift.

Despite

this inconclusive information, there

1

Laufer, Berthold,

Yade,

A

Study

in Chinese

Arckaeology

and

Religion,

Chicago, 1912,

pp.

335--339-

239

This content downloaded from 134.53.24.2 on Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:07:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

ilk

7

1

ITT

19

Ass

nti

Plate

I

Buddhist Stele dated

;

64

A.D.

Freer

Gallery

of

Art,

J'Washington

.C.

(Photograph Courtesy

Smithsonian

Institution,

Freer

Gallery

of

Art)

J.

LeRoy

Davidson: The

Origin

and

Early

Use

of

the

7u-i



4/13

are,

in these

repositories

of

knowledge,

bits

of

evidence that can be

correlated

with

other

materialto

provide

less

whimsical

and more

convincing

solutions,

as

we later

shall see.

Laufer

tapped

anothersource of informationwhen he

noticed

that the

ju-i

appeared

n

pictorial

art. He found that the

Bodhisattva

Mafijusrr

Wen

Chu

Z

n,)

sometimes holds a

ju-i

instead

of

the

sword which is

his usual attribute. Laufer

then considered

the

possibility

that

the

ju-i

derived

from

the

lotus,

another common attribute

of

Mafijufri.

Had

Laufer

been

possessed

of

the

mass

of

archeological

material

now

available

for

study,

his

observations

on the re-

lationship

of the

Bodhisattva

and the

ju-i

might

have

opened

the

way

to an

early

solution

of

this

perplexing

if narrow

problem.

For

Mafijusri's

connection with

the

ju-i

provides

the

clue to its

early

form

and

use.

In Chinese

art the usual attribute

of

Mafijusri,

as

we

have

noted,

is

the sword.

Until

the tenth

century he is shown holding the ju-i only in one context, that is in the famous meeting

with

the devout

layman

Vimalakirti

Wei-mo-chi

,~

J#

E

).2

The

story,

as recounted

in

the

Vimalakirti

Nirdeia

Sfitra,

describes

the

visit

made

by

Maiijusri

to the

ailing

devotee

at

whose

sickbed

a

profound

philosophical

discussion

was

held. This scene

of

the conversation

between

the

Bodhisattva

and

Vimalakirti

became

one

of

the

favorite

subjects

of

the Buddhist

artist

in China3

(Plates

I and

II).

The

significance

for this

study,

however,

is not

the

place

this

representation

took

in Buddhist

art,

but the fact that

Mafijufri,

n this

scene,

is

almost

always

to

be

identified

by

a wand held

in his hand. At times the

iconography

of

this

scene

is

exceedingly complex

and

complete .and

thus

easily

identifiable.

At other

times, however,

the

scene

is reduced

to

the

representation

of the two chief

protagonists,

Vimalakirti

dressed

as

a

layman

and

Maiijusri

as a Bodhisattva. Vimalakirti

always

holds a

fan,

Maiijusri

the

wand

which,

as we

shall later

show,

is the

ju-i.

It

was

Eduard

Chavannes

who,

although

he did not

recognize

the

Vimalakirti-MaiijuriT

scene,

nevertheless,

with

his

customary

wisdom,

saw

the

fan

and the wand

as

symbols

of

2

Takakusu

and Watanabe

(ed),

Taisko

Daizokyo,

Tokyo,

1924,

VIV,

p. 5

37

ff.

Translated

byHokei

Id[z]umi,

Vimalakirti's

Discourse

on

Emancipation,

Eastern

Buddhist,

1923,

II, pp.

358-366;

1924-5,

III,pp.

55-69,

138-153,

224-242, 336-349;

1926,

IV,

pp.

48-55, 177-190;

1927,

IV,

pp.

348-366.

3

For

a discussion

of

this

scene

see,

Davidson,

J.

LeRoy,

Traces

of Buddhist

Evangelism

in

Early

Chi-

nese

Art ,

Artibus

Asie,

XI,

4, 1948,

pp. 251

--265.

240



5/13

debate.4

This

symbolic

function

of the fan

is well known and

need not be stressed here

other

than

to

point

out its

appearance

as a

counterpoint

to

Mafijusri's

wandin this scene.

The

wand

was

considered

by

Chavannes

o be

a

t'an

ping

4}1i,

literally,

adiscussion

stick,

and

not

a

ju-i.

Chavannes

supplied

two references rom the Chinese

dictionary,

P'ei

Wen

Yiin

Fu

fK

Zflf

.5

r

:?

~i? ~

~ ?;?

::i:~

i:.

-::-----_~j__j:::(-_~

::::-:

:?i'::

-_-i-::'i:i__-iiiii

ii

--::::-:

:::::i

i: :

:::::: igi~jiai

b

.i

:II

i:::

,:::-

i

::

::

:-.

-iii~ii:i

-:

~-ii

~:-:

:

-:.

_::::

a:l:

Plate II

Maiijusri

with

ju-i.

Detail PlateI

(see

title

page)

Courtesy

mithsonian

nstitution,

Freer

Gallery

of

Art

The first of these

is a

poem

by

Yii

Hsin

f

(6th

century)

on the death of

a

monk.

It is

susceptible

to

translation

in

both normal

and

reverse

order.

Such

a

poetic

tour

deforce

was

not

uncommon

Whichever

way

the

poem

is

read

the

t'anping

is

closely

allied

with

eloquence.

Chavannes' second quotation is even

more

provocative.

It

occurs

in

the

Chuan

TengLu4

~

,5,

a

chronological

account

of Buddhist

monks,

written

by

the

monk,

Tao

Yiian,

in

i004.'

In this

document

we

are informed

that

the

monk,

Ta-lang

k

1

Ii

ofthe

Chi-yiin

i

tTemple,

was

in the

habit of

leduring

while

holding

Chavannes,

E.,

Mission

Arckeologique

dans

la

Chine

Septentrionale,

Paris,

1915,

I,

Pt.

2,

p.

556.

Also see:

Chavannes,

E.,

in

Mimoires

prsentes par

divers savants

i

l'Acadimie

des

Inscriptions

et

Belles-Lettres,

premiere

sdrie,

XI,

1904,

p.

277

and note

5.

5

P'ei Wen

Yiin

Fu,

originally

compiled

in

171

I.

The edition

of

1937 published

by

the

Commer-

cial

Press, Shanghai,

has

been used. See

IV, p.

3289-a.

6

Reprinted

in

Taisho

Daizokyo,

no.

2125.

241



6/13


7/13

at

the

base. Variations occur

where

the

center

medallion,

ecomes

a

rect-

angle,

or the

second is

omitted.

The former

type

merely

shows

that

slight

elaborationstook

place

on

the

basic

stru&ure

of the

earliest

Chinese

ju-i.

The additions of

the

medallions

to the latter

type

indicate a

radical

change

in

the

ju-i.

The

rationalized

opinion

that the

ju-i

derivedfrom a

backscratchercould

have

developed

only from the earliest form which

bears a close

but

superficial

resem-

blance to

that useful if

somewhat in-

elegant

instrument.

Examples

of

the modern

elebora-

tions

of

theju-i

do not

appear

n

art

until

after

the

T'ang

Dynasty

(6i8-

906).8

The

presumption

is that

they

are

developments

of the

Sung

or

later

dynasties.

In

sum,

the

ju-i,

as

represented

in

art,

is

the

attributeof

Mafijufri

only

when

he

is

shown in discussion with

Vimalakirti

and

only

until

the

tenth

century.

After

this date

and con-

current

with the

change

in

form,

8

The earliest

examples appear

in

what

seem to be Sung caves at Tun Huang.

Cf.

Pelliot, P.,

Les Grottesde

Touen-Houang,

Paris,

1914-

192

I,

II,

Pls.

CVII,

CVIII.

Plate

III Three

ju-i

in

the

Sh6soin,

Nara

8

th

century

A.D.

243



8/13


9/13

Beyond

this the stories indicate that the

possession

of

the

ju-i

gave

the

holder of

that

implement

the

right

to talk.

It

becomes

plain

that

the

function of

the

ju-i

was

related

to,

if

not identical

with,

that of the

tan-ping.

Yet,

though

we

have

representations

in art of

the

ju-i

and

actual

examples

of the

scepter

from

eighth

century

Japan,

no

early

object

identifiablewith

the

(an-ping

is

known.

The

relationship

between the

two

utensils is in-

dicated

by

another

factor common to

both.

The

story of the monk who used a pine branch as a

(an-ping

has

already

been told.

Among

the old

ju-i

extant

in the Shosoin are

two made of bronze

simulating

bamboo.l

Not

only

are the

typical

nodes

of

the

plant

carefully

shown,

but

in

addition

there

is a realistic

representation

of

twigs

hanging

from

the

sides

(Plate

IV).

In

these

examples

it

is

clear

that

a definite effort

was

made

to

identify

the

ju-i

with

the branch

of a

plant.

A

sixth

century

stele

from

China,

published

by

Sir Percival

Yetts,

shows

Mafiju rI

onversing

with

Vimalakirti

and

holding

a

uniqueju-i.

Yetts noticed

this

peculiarity

and

described it as a rare

form of trifid

sprig. '4

Here

again

the

ju-i

seems to imitate

the

branch

of

a

plant.

In addition

Albert von Le

Coq

has

published

a

Plate IV Two

ju-i

in

the

Shosoin,

Nara

8

th

century

A.D.

13

Toyei-shuko,

VI,

nos.

294-295.

14

Yetts,

W.

P.,

The

George

Eumorfopoulos

Collection:

Buddhist

Sculpture,

London,

1932;

P1.

II, fig.

c

3.

245



10/13

small

picture

on

paper

found

near

Murtuq

in

Central

Asia.'5

The

painting

shows a

kneeling

man

facing

a

group

of

felines.

In

his hands the

kneeling figure

holds

a

twig.

If this scene

could

be

definitely

connected

with

the

story

of the monk

T'ang

Yu

who

preached

to the

tigers,

we

should

have another

certain

correlation between the

ju-i

and

a

twig.

Lacking

any

assured

relationship

between the

picture

and the

anecdote,

the

painting

offers

only

a

probable

corroboration.

It becomes

necessary

to

seek some evidence for

a

branch held

as

a

symbol

of

discussion.

The

only

Chinese reference

available s

the

already quoted

statement

concerning

the tan-

ping.

There

is

reason,

however,

to look to India for the source. The

ju-i

is

intimately

con-

ne&ed

with

Buddhism

and considered

by

many

to be

a

translation

of

the sanscrit

annurudha.

Did

the Indians

use

a branch to

symbolize

debate?

Again

the

evidence

is

slim,

but

one

Jataka provides the base for further investigation.16 The tale is told of a group of heretics

who

wandered

around

with

branches of the

Yambu

tree. When

they

wished

to debate

they

sat down

and

planted

the

branch

in front of them. Those who wished

to

accept

the chal-

lenge

to

a discussion

plucked

the

branch.

Another

connedion

with

an Indian

tree,

which seems

to have

remained

unnoticed,

was

made

by

Samuel

Beal

in

1884.

In a note

discussing

the

name of

Manorhita

(variants:

Ma-

norata,

Maoratha),

Bealremarked that

the name is

explained

by

the

Chinese

ju-i,

an

expres-

sion used

for

the

Kalpavriksha

or

'wishing

tree',

denoting

power

to

produce

whatever

was

wished;literally,

conformable

(hita)

o

thought (mana,mind).' 17Unfortunately,

Beal

was

not

concerned

with

the

ju-i

as

such,

and

his

statement

provides

a clue rather

than a

solution.

Perhaps

the

most

significant

indication

of the Indian link between tree

and

ju-i

is found

in

the

records

of the

Buddhist

monk,

I

Ch'ing

-

iP,

who traveled

in

India from

673

to

695.

In a discussion

of

rules

about

the

Upavasatha

day,

as translated

by

Junjiro

Takakusu,

I

Ch'ing

says,

Then

gifts

aredistributed.

Sometimes

the

host

provides

a

'wishing

tree'

(Kalpa-vriksha),

and

gives

it to

the

priests;..

. 8

It is

unlikely

that a

real tree could

have been

given. Ap-

15

Chotscow,

Berlin,

1913,

P1.

47

a.

16

Hardy,

R.

S.,

A

Manual

of

Buddhism,

London,

1860; p.

255.

A

varient

of

this

story

appears

in

Cowell,

E.B.

(ed),

The

jataka, Cambridge 1897,

Number

301,

p.

I

ff.

1-

Beal,

Samuel,

Buddhist Records

of

the

Western

World,

London,

1884,

I,

p.

105,

note

79.

18

A Record

of

the

Buddhist

Religion

as Practised

in India and

the

illalay

Archipelago,

Oxford,

1896,

p.

49.

246



11/13

parently

some sort of

symbolic

tree was deemed

appropriate

as a

gift

to a Buddhist

priest.

We

find

something

even more

significant

when we turn from the

English

translation to

the

Chinese text.

9

Here

the words which

Takakusu

reconstruded as

Kalpa-vriksha

re

ju-i

shu,

that

is,

the

ju-i

tree.

20

The

t'an-ping

and

ju-i

are then both

symbols

of

discussion.

I

Ch'ing specifically

refers

to

a

ju-i

tree. Extant

ju-i

of

the

eighth

century

simulate

branches.

A

pine

branch was

used

as

a

t'an-pingby

at

least

one

Buddhist monk.

It

is the

Pei

Wen

Yiin

Fu

which

provides

definite

proof

of

the

connedtion

between the

t'an-

ping

and

the

ju-i.

The

di&ionary

quotes

a

passage

from the

biography

of Li Hsun

$.

7J00

in

the

T'ang

History)K

:

Wen-Tsung

-',

when

Li

(Hsun)

was

tutoring

him

on the

I

(Ching)

-,

t,

on a

hot summer

day

ordered

a

heat

repelling,

rhinoceros

horn

ju-i,

and

gave it to Hsun, saying 'This ju-i is for you to be used as a

tcan-ping. ''2

This anecdote

leaves no

doubt as to the

relationship

between

the

ju-i

and

t'an-ping.

The

t'an-ping

was,

as

its

literal

translation

indicates,

a discussion stick.

A

ju-i

could be a

t'an-ping.

It is also

likely

that other

objeds,

the fan

(t'ang-shan

,

)r)

and

the

deer

or

yak

tail

(chu

M)

which

also

symbolized

discussion

might

also

fall into the

generic

category

of

t'an-ping.

But

there

seems

no

doubt

that

the

primary

and

original

fundion

of the

ju-i

was

that

of a

scepter

qualifying

the

holder to

take

the floor. Its

origin

was

probably

n

India where

the branch

of a tree seems to have served a

similar fundion.

Any

other

purposes

the

ju-i

served,

such

as a note

tablet,

honorific

insignia, good

luck

gift,

or

even

backscratcher,

were

merely

later accruals.

The

problem

of the

change

in form of the later

ju-i

is not

pertinent

to

this

study.

How-

ever,

I

wish to

offer an

hypothesis.

The

elaboration

of

the

ju-i

can be seen in

some

of

the

later Tun

Huang

paintings, probably

of

the

tenth

century.

Similar

u-i

appear

n the

hands

of two

emperors

shown in the famous

scroll,

attributed

to Yen

Li-pen

1

Yii

(d.

673),

in

the Museum

of

Fine

Arts,

Boston.22

Whether this indicates that the Tun

Huang

type

19

Taisho

Daizokyo,

LIV,

no.

2125.

20

Ibid.,

p.

221b.

21

Op.

cit.,

III,

pp.

2325

c--

2326

a.

22

Tomita,

Kojiro,

Portraits f

the

Emperors,

Bulletin

of

the Museum

of

Fine

Arts,

XXX,

Feb.

1932,

(figures unnumbered).

247



12/13

I .;.

: ::

: :

::

:

- :

: :

:

:

:: ::

:: :-:

iiiii:

:-:_:: ~sl~i~BF~-~

- -:~ _I~Pg~ll I : 1(1

_~a~p~p~?as~pra~l?l~?

:: _

:: ::::::

::...--

i-:iiiiS CCC I~ssB~PB~L~lsOldg~ll~ ::

:_: :

I Is B.LPI~Bsr

::

::

__

i:

: :

: : :

Plate

V

Belt Hook. Han

Dynasty

Collection

F.

M.

Mayer,

New

York

lagged

behind that

used

in the

metropolitan

centers or that the

Emperor

Scroll is

by

a

later

hand,

need not be

considered here.

It

is

worthwhile to notice

that

none

of

the

ju-i

in

the

Shosoin,

dating

from the middleof the

eighth century

are as

developed.

The

ju-i

with three

medallions

appears

to

have

elements not

derived

from the

earlier

orms.

Again

the

Pei

Wen

248



13/13

~iiiii:iiiii'(;;ij:-;LiE;:: :~--::'iiii~iiiLii_:l-::::

,, i :- -

--::::--iiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiii

:::: :::::iii-iii:i-i:--::i-i--:i-i.:-:::__:::

i'i-i-liiii-ii----'----:_::----_:::-:?-::::i~iii(liii:.i-i:-iii-i:iii-i-i:iiiiiii::---ii

?::::::::::::::;-::

:::

::::-:---:::-:-:':-:-- :::;.:i--i:i::i-:i:iiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiii-i:ii::_-::,i-i-i-i:ici-i:i---_-:---

:::::::i:-:i:-:~i-i~iii:~iii-i:iiiiiii

ii;_~.

-:I:_:_::::__:.~:i:-:%::-:i:-::i:-:::i~::-:----ii---:--:-;:

:~i,~ ::i~i_'' -'-':'''-'-'---':''''''''''''''''''''''''-'-':''-'-':'

-i:i:ii-iii-::.::::::::: i-i

:.: iiii~ii__-::-i-i-i-i-i-iii:i-i:iiiii:.. --:

i-iiiiiiiiiii:~-i:i::...:.-i--ii

iiil'-i-i-i--:::i

:--::i'--i-i:i-:i-i-i:i

~:iiiiiiiii;iiiiiiii'iiii:._lii:::l-iji-i-ii-i:i:i--:-__::--

.~~iiiis~:??li~iiiiiii~,,~i_-i-i-ii:ii-:-:-::'i'iiii-----::

:::::::::----:-:::-:::-- ::ii'''''-':'-

i-iii:i:i:i:-::i-i-i:i-i-i:ii-ii:ii-i:i--:-:--

::::i::i:-:::-::::-:-:-:::.. ::.. :.

:::::-':':':-:::::-:-:i-ii-i-i-ii-

ii:i:i-ici:~-i-i-i:i-i-i-i-i-:

:::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i-i:i-iiiiii-i:i-:i

:i:i:-:i:-:-:::::::..-.:::-i-i:i-iii;iiii~iiii-i-ii

'ii;iiiiili-ii:iiiii:iiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii-

:i.iiiiiiiiii~iiii~ii-i::::i-liii-i-i:i-iiiii;:i:

i:i-i-i-i-i-i:~iiiiiii-iiiiiii:iiii~ii-i:::iii:i:i::

-::-I-_::::_:-iiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiii-i:i

-i-ii-;i:i-i:i-i-i-:::-:::::(:::::--c''i:i-:-.

i:i~::i--B:::-..-i-iiiiiii::~ii:-iliiiri:

i-i:i-i-i-i-:i:i-ii-i-i:---::::::::::-:i:::i:-:-

ii-ii::-::i:i:i:i:i-i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

:-: :-::::::i:i~:::::i:i:-i:::l::::-::

iii-ii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-~ii~i,'ii?iiiii~~i

:-----:-:-:i-iii~ii-i:i-i-i:iii:i:i'i:iiiii~iii,

-:::-:::-:-:'l-::i::--i:i:i:i:i-i:?_iiii~iij

:-:------iiii~iii:i-i:i~:i:ici-iii-~ii-iii

-i-i.:..-.-:_-i:iiiii-i:i-:i'iii'iiii:iii:i-:::-:

-_-:----:--:-.::::-.-::--:i:::::_-:-:-:::c:-:::-iiii::-_--'

.......:...-i:i-i-i-iii:-iiiii-i-i:i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

:--::-::

iiiii:iiiiiiiiii::i:i :''''''':ii:iii:iiiiiiiiiiiiii

i:i-i:::--:i-i-i-iii-i--:::_:::::::-

i-i:i-i:i-ii:iiiiiiiii~i

...:.....:i-ii-i-i:i:i:i-:i-i-i-i:i;i:--_-:i--:i-i---i:i-i-i-i-i-i:iii:i-i

iiiii:ii-i~~__?_~~~:-

ii;iiii:i-iiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:::_-_-:---:iciiiii:i:

:i:i-i-iizi-i-i-i:_------:---:i:-

---iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i:i:i-i-i:i-i:i:i-i-i:i-i:iiiiiii~i:i-i-i-

'~-~_8_____':'-''''-'''-'''-'-

-'i:iiiii-iii::_iii:-:i:-:ii~_:~iii~ii

:::i-::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I:::_:-

:::::::::::::: ::::::::::.' :i:-:::::::_:-:-:-:::-:iii'i:_:

sirii~iijiii~iiii~jijii~ii~ii:i-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii5iiiiijiii~iiiiiii

~iisijii-i~iiii-i-~i~iiiiii~i-iiiiiiiijijiiiiiii::::

_iiiiiiiiijiiii~iiiji

-~:ii~i;ii-?i,iiiiiiiiiiii-i-i'-i-i:i:iiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-i:

:~~______:___i

_iiii-:::c::--::-i:iii-i-i-i:i-i:i:i:i:i:_-:-i--'--:::---::-i:i~iii:i-i-i-i-:-

:;~~:::~---i~~:-~:ii:-:-:-:-i:-:::(,-ii~-iiii:iiii-i-i-i.::::.:_,-_-::::-___

:_-:::-:::ix:i:--_,:::-i--:::-:i-i:_-i:i-i:i:i:iiiii---_-_-

:-:-:-::::-:::::;-:i:j::::::-:-iiiiii~iii~:i:i-i-i:i-i-i:i:i:iiiii

iii~iiiiiiriii-i-i:iii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i:iiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiii-iiiii:::'...:::iiiii-iiii'iiiiii

ii-i;'ii~ii;iiiniiiiii'iii:iii-i:i-i.:..::_iiiii:i:i:i-i-i:i-i:iiiii:i-i-iiiiiiiii

i-i

::::.._i:i:~iiiii:....-i-i-i-i-i-i-i:i:i:

:::::::::1::-::___:-_:::-:::-

i:::-__::_:____-_. -:-....::... ::.:._.:-i-i:i:i-i:i:iiiiii:i-i-i

i;:i:iii?ii-i-i:::_i:-_:::i::::lii:i-ii-ii:i:i:iiiii'-'--_---::::i:i-

--::::::--.:-::-::--:'-'-'i'-':':I-

: ::'i'i'i-:---::-:-

: - :-:-::::::::::::::-:--::------:

:i-iiii~:i:i:iiiiii-ii........-

-:::-'::::::::::::::iii-iiiiiiiiiiiii

::-::-:-:::::::-:--:-iiiiiiiiiii:~-i-i-i-i-i---i::-

::i-----:::--:-_-_:--_:::-: ::::::iiiiijiiiiiiiii:-i-i-ii

::i:::i:l:-~:-:-:::-:i:::::: :--ii-ii:--::---i-i:i:iii-i~iiiiiiiiii:?:~:~i'i~-ii~iii:i:iiiii::_ii:i::-:i:i-i-i:iiiiiiiiiiii':'-'-'-:i:i-i:i--i:i:~-ii-i-i:i

''' :::~'--:iii;_~::::--ii~'i-iiiiiiiiii:'~':'-'I''':'-'-'-'-'-'--~:i::li::iiiii:i---i-i-i

:::::: :-:-i:c:__:-:i-i-ii:i-i-i:i-i-i:i-i-i-i-i:

~::?:::i::::::::::--i:-:~:i:ii:i:i.:.:... :-:::::::-:_:::-:-:-:i:i::i::-i:_:_:-

::::::::::::-:---:-:---------:-::-::-:-i-::---:-:-:.::. : _:-:':----i:i:::i_:i:-I:i:-

riiii~iii~iiiii;~:i~iiiii:i:::::-iiiii-i-i-i:i-i:~iiii::-:::-----:--

S::'-i'aii:i-i-i-i-::ii:i-i-i:_i-i:lii::-----::--:ii'--::::-:--:---:-::i::-:::i:::--::

'iiiii~ii-i-i~:--~?iiiiiiiiii...::....::::_'-'-:':''-'-'-iii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

,~?il~ii~iiiiiii;iiii-.-.:..-iiii-i-i:_:_,i~_i:-i:i::::~_--

iiiiiii...-i:i:i-iiii;iii=iii?::i:i::::~'i'-:liii(-:~-:--

-ii:~-i:i-i:i:i:i-iiiiii::::i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:-::.--i:-:i---:-::iiii:::-:--:::::::

---:-::iii~:iiiiii--:-i-ii-iiiiiiiiiii:::---i:_:i:::_-i::~iii:~i::i':---

--:-:-:-: i::-:;i'i:iiii:ii:_:--i-iaici'i'iii'-iiicii:i-i-i:i--i-ii-i-ii-ii-i-i-i:i-i:i:i:i:i-i-~i:i

'' '':;:' :i::-'' :'-'~~-ii~ii-i::--i':'i:':_-:::::-----':-l'-i-i-i-':-::':::

_i:i:i-i:i-ii-i-iiiiiiiii:i:-

i:iii--i'~::c------::::~ii-i-i:-:::::_-..-.-:-i:i:::i-iiii:i:i-i-i-i:-i:i-i-i:i

:::::::-:':':_:i::::i:::::':':-:':i:a:_:::':i:_::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::_:-:::-:::_:j:-::::::::::::::-:::::::

iiiijiiiiiiiiiiii~iji~ii_:i-i:iiiiijiii~

i:i:_:~:-:::::::::a:i-::il::-::.: ::::::::,::::::::

:-i:::::=::::::::j::::i:i:-:::::::::::-:::-:_::::::::::::::i-::::j:-:-:..: :

--i:~~ii~ii~:i-i-~-i-i

c:iii-i-i~ii~iiiii~i-i-_ii:~:-i:

~::i-_iii-i-i-i:;ii:ii~ii~i:~-ii-i:i-i-~

:-:::i:::::::::::::::::.:::..--:::::::::::::::::::: ::::j:::::::::::::j:::::

::::.:-:::::::-:-:-::-:-:::.:...:

-~i-i~_ii~i:i~ii~iiiiiiiii~iiii~iili:_::_~_:'

:-::,:-:i:i:.~--::_-:::~::i:iii__;.,_,

a'i'i~l-ii:i-i(i,-i:i:_::::~:i:::::::::_--i-i-i-ii:i-:iiiaiii:~:i-:---_-

:: ?:::::::::::::::::~l:i:::_:::::i:~::l:::::::::::::i::i:::a::i:-:::i::::j

~iizi~ii-i:i:i:iii::ii~iiiii-iii.iiii-

iiisii:i-_iii:iiicliii-i:i:ii~iii-i:i:

iiii~iiiici:i:~:iiiiiiis:i

i:i:l::::::::::-:-:::::-:-:i:i:

i:,:i-i:i:':_:::_:--::i:-:-:::::~::-:::

:i:i:::::-:::::-:::::::::i: i:i~ii:

i~ii;iiii:i-iii:i:i:i:i:iiii'i:ii-iiidiiciii:ia

:::::ii:i-i-iiil:----::---:-i:-iimi--i-i::u:i:i.:.-:_:::::_:::_

:::-:::-:-:-::::::iiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii:i:i8iii-i-:

i-i:iiiii~iiiiiiiii-i::::a._:

::::iil~iiiiil-;:i:iI::---r::iii;:

i-i:,iiii-i:i:i-i-:i:i:i:i-i:i-i-i-i:,ii

-:::::-:-:-:::-:::~:-::::-::::':-:::::s::~:::::':::::::::::

- :ii~.~?iiii;i:i:i-i:i:i:,:--~:i-i-i-i:i-i-i-i:i:

_::i:iH_:~_/~:--::::':L:i:r::_::::_:_:::-:-

:id::u:i:--::a'.-::::-::::i:::::::::::::::::::::-:':

:iiiiiii::iisiiiiiiii-ii~:'-':-'-::-::--:::'':-'::

-i:i-i-_::::i:i-i:i-i-i:~i-i-i~iE:i-i'iiiiiii8iiiniiii:ii;iiiiiiii

::_::~~:::-::c~:i:a:i:-:::::-:_:i:::::::::::j:::::::::-:

:::::::--::-:8:~:::~::::z:::::::-:-:::::-:::-:-

iiiii~i~ii?iilii~iiii~jiaii;i:iii:: :-:::::::-:-:-:j::-:::::::::i~iii~'ii;:

iiiiiiiiiFi?ii~lii~i=:i-;i:i;i:-_-i::-_-i:i::i::;i:-:::i-~iiiiii::jiimii-.:-i=iii~ii-ii::-i:

iiisiiF'lii-ii'8i-iii-:-':':-::::'''''::::::i-:,:i:i:i:-'i_~i&-~i:''-~:~i;i_-:i:?:i:::::::::j:::::-::::::::::::::::::::

-i-i:

~iiziii~iiir:_,ii~:;i:i--i:i~i:i:~iiioi~_-iiiiii-~i:i:i:i-iii~ii~ii:

'-':''-:'-;'-':'i'~i~ii=iiiiiliiiFiiiii

:_:::~?,:i:'::_:_:::::::1:i:::i::::::::

-::~::::j::i:::::::_:i::::??:?:::

'''

tSiii'i~il~ii_~ii~iii

~-rliatt

:::::::::::::i:i:i:::i:::::::_::~::::-

:iiiii~iii-iiii%?-liii-i?i=:iil:i

-::..ii~i~:-~

iiiifiiiiiiiiiii:ii~-~ii:aij:_'i'i-'i

iiiiii-'iiiiiiiiii-iir::':-:':?

~iiii:~?iiiiiiriiii ?iic'?iii

:i-iiniiiiiiii~:iiiiiiiii

:::

ii:::::-i.:ii9i,:i:li?ii:ii

i :iiiiiiiiii;ii:-:siii-ii: iiiiiii

:--i:i-i'ia:i -ii:_--i:ii

Plate

VI Modern

typeju-i. Jade.

18th

Century

Collection

Ralph

Chait,

New York

Yiin

Fu

provides

a

provocative

quotation.

In the

biography

of Hu

Tsung

Wi

JI

it

was

reported

that At

Mei

(or Mo)

Lin

IR

[near

Nanking]

some

people

while

excavating,

found a bronze box in which was a

white

ju-i

decorated with motives of a

dragon

and

tiger.

So

far as

I

have

observed,

no

early

ju-i

ever

bears

such decoration. When the

ju-i

was de-

corated it

was with

foliage

and birds

perhaps

recalling

the

primitive

Indian

prototype.

The

description

of

the

object

found

in

the bronze

box recalls rather the belt hooks of the late

Chou and Han

periods

(Plate

V).

These

objects

vary

in

size

from

one

to as

much

as

sixteen

inches.

Some,

which

are

long,

slender,

and

S

shaped

remind

us in their

over-all

shape

of the

ju-i.

Dragons

and

tigers

are

frequent

ornaments

on

these

buckles.

Further-

more,

there

is a

button

on

the

back of

each

belt

hook

which could

have been

misinter-

preted

by

a

later

age

as a

simple

decoration.

It is not at all

impossible

that the

archeol-

ogically

minded Chinese

of

the

Sung

dynasty

believed

that the old

belt hooks

were

ju-i,

and

created

the new

form of

the

ju-i

on

the

ancient

models

(Plate

VI).

In

this case

the

presence

of

the

button on

the belt hook

would

explain

the

center medallion on

the

modern

ju-i.

249

the origin and early use of the ju-i

Documents