National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

183. COTTON   431

more extended use is in agreement with the use of tiad in Sanskrit texts, but it is with reference to special kinds of cotton goods that tou-lo-mien has long survived in Chinese lay texts of the Southern Sung, Yüan, and Ming dynasties (cf. HR, 219; TP, 1933, 429-430; 1934, 306). Chao Ju-kua makes of tou-lo-mien the name of the best quality of cotton goods (HR, 218); at the beginning of the 15th cent., it was the designation of cotton velvets (Ar. malimal). WANG Kuo-wei's attempt to connect with tou-lo-mien the t'u-lu-ma of Ch'iu Ch'ang-ch'un's Hsi-yu chi (cf. his edition, t, 24-25) is decidedly a failure (cf. infra, p. 514). Tou-lo-mien is given as a product of Burma in Ming i-t'ung chih, 87, 35 a (it is altered into tou-lo-[ 1, ]chin in the corresponding passage of the T'u-shu pien, 85, 51 a) and of Bengal in WANG Ch'i's Hsi). IVên-hsien t'ung-k'ao (33, 14 a). The Ming shih

(324, 10 a) mentions in Sumatra 92   tou-lo-pei, « tou-lo blankets », for which I doubt whether
GROENEVELDT'S « blankets of woollen cloth » (Essays relating to Indo-China, 2nd series, t, 193) is a correct rendering. These are, moreover, certainly the same as tou-lo-chin pei mentioned among the objects of tribute offered by the states of Sumatra in Hsü Wên-hsien t'ung-k'ao (33, 12 a, 13 a); here again I suspect that tou-lo-chin pei is a corrupt reading of tou-lo-mien pei.

The tou-lo-mien of the Ming dynasty must have been a strong fabric, since the author of the Tung-hsi yang k'ao, after mentioning the tou-lo-mien of Siam (2, 13 b), adds : « tit 14 f Cifü Jui-fu says : ' As to the tou-lo-mien, neither sword nor arrow can pierce it '. » Jui-fu is the tzû of both 'VPr; Ch'ü Chih of the Yüan, and VP 3r F . CRT Ch'iu-ssû of the Ming; the one here meant is almost certainly CR'Ü Ch'iu-ssù (c. 1550-1620; cf. Ming shih, 288, 3 a).

WATTERS (Essays on the Chinese language, 439) says that tou-lo was used as a « general name » when European velvet, plush, and woollen goods were first introduced into China, and that

we thus find «   Utz tou-lo-ni (now to-to-ni) and 92   tou-lo-jung, for woolens and velvets
respectively ». I doubt the existence of both tou-lo-ni and tou-lo-jung, or at least I can find no authority for these forms. But it is true that a kind of woollen velvet imported into Canton in

European vessels is mentioned in the dictionary Z   j Chêng tzû t'ung, first published in 1670-
1672 [cf. COURANT, Catalogue, Nos. 4464-4512; I do not know why WATTERS says (Essays on the

Chinese language, 87) that it was first published in 1705], as ÿ   to-lo jung (s. v.   t'a;
cf. also K'ang-hsi tzic-tien, s. v. lit t'a). On the other hand, broadcloth has been known in China, in modern times, as I~ P UPS to-to-ni, the origin of which is obscure, and there is a still more obscure TN * i$ P q « to-lo-ma of Kuang-tung », said to be a fabric of hemp or ramie manufactured in Kuang-tung (cf. KIUNG and COURTOIS, Quelques mots sur la politesse chinoise [Var. Sin., No. 25], 33 and 109, where the transcription « tou-lou-ma » is not correct). I do not know the origin of ma in to-to-ma. As to the ni of to-to-ni, it enters into a number of names of European cotton and woollen textiles, such as J UPS to-ni, « great ni », another name for « broadcloth »;

J. Ufa hsiao-ni, «small ni », «cassimeres, flannels »; (, px O-ni, « Russian ni », « Russian cloth », etc. The authors of the Tz'û-yüan (s. v. Ups) say that ni was originally written J ni, and cite a poem of Huang T'ing-chien (1045-1105) in which already this P ni occurs. But the chronological gap is a large one, and moreover Huang T'ing-chien does not speak of a cotton stuff, but of camel-hair; and the identification cannot be accepted unless intermediary and more decisive examples are discovered. Pending this, one might suppose that UPS, ni in « great ni », « small ni », etc., is nothing more than an aphoretical abbreviation of to-lo-ni itself. As to to-to-ni, HIRTH has already called attention (JNCB,