国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

mean « God », as Iranian *baga* does in Achaemenid inscriptions (cf. Russian *bog*, « God »; and
S. Lévi, in *JA*, 1934, 1, 19).

[The distinction between the senses of « sky », « Heaven » (the abode of God), and « God » is
perhaps as elusive in the Chinese use of *T'ien* as it is in our own use of *Heaven*. On a scrap of paper
found with the Ms. of this Note, PELLIOT had written : « For the idea of *T'ien* in the sense of a
personal God, and of *T'ien-tzŭ* meaning Son of God, cf. the remarkable story in GILES, *Biogr.
Dict.*, No. 393, given with still more detail in the original text of the *San-kuo chich*. » The story,
given as an example of ready wit, is found in the notice of 秦宓 Ch'in Mi, 148-226 (*San-kuo chih*,
38 [*shu*, 8], 4-6). In the year 224, an envoy from Wu to Shu met Ch'in Mi there and catechized
him about *T'ien*. « Has *T'ien* a name ? » the envoy asked, « Yes, Mi replied, and it is Liu ». « How
do you know that ? » « The name of the *T'ien-tzŭ* is Liu (天子姓劉) », referring to Liu Pei,
who had been enthroned the previous year. And again « For the term *T'ien-tzŭ* employed
in Yün-nan for others besides the Emperor, cf. 棗林雜俎 *Tsao lin tsa tsu*, 初, 28 *b*. »
*A.C.M.*]

Early Mussulman writers knew, however, the true meaning of *T'ien-tzŭ* and transferred it to
*faxfūr* (or *baybūr*). In 851, Sulaymān says that the Chinese Emperor « is called with the title of
*baybūr*, which means Son of Heaven; in Arabic, we say مير *maybūr* » (cf. FERRAND, *Voyage du
marchand arabe Sulaymân*, 62; *maybūr* is surprising, and may be corrupt instead of *faxfūr*; for
other examples of *m-* instead of *f-* in the transcription of the same term, cf. *infra*, and in *Masʿūdī*
once « Manṣūrah » and another time, correctly, « Fanṣūrah » [cf. *Hobson-Jobson*², 152]). In the
next century, Masʿūdī speaks of a Chinese Emperor who « received the title of honour of *baybūr*,
that is to say 'son of heaven'; the title, however, which belongs to the sovereigns of China and
which is always employed when addressing them is *tamyamā Jabān*, and not *baybūr* » (cf. BARBIER
DE MEYNARD, *Les Prairies d'or*, I, 306; طمیما جبان *tamyamā Jabān* certainly is corrupt for
طمیماج خان *tamyāč bān*, « khan of the Taẕyač », given in Abū-'l-Fida, II, II, 123; on Taẕyač = Chinese,
see « Cin », p. 274). Speaking on the authority of information obtained in 966-967 A. D., the author
of the *Fihrist* says : « The meaning of *baybūr* in Chinese is 'son of heaven' » (*Fe*, 131). The Arabic
word here used for « heaven » is *samāʾ*, which actually means « sky », « firmament », rather than
« heaven »; not only does it not mean « a god » as *bay-*, but it does not even imply the meaning of
« immaterial heaven », « Heaven », which attaches to Chinese *t'ien*.

Very similar to Chinese *t'ien-tzŭ* and Iranian *faxfūr* is Skr. *devaputra*, « son of the gods », a
title to which S. Lévi has devoted a learned monograph (*JA*, 1934, 1-21). As a title, the term has
never been met with in Sanskrit literature, except in a passage of the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa*; yet it is
of frequent occurrence in the epigraphy of the Kuṣaṇa, as the royal title of that dynasty. The appa-
rent exception of the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa* may almost be said to confirm, rather than to qualify the
exclusive use of the title by the Kuṣaṇa, as it seems that the work was composed under their rule,
and merely extolls the title of the dynasty. Since the Kuṣaṇa had come from China, and remained
in touch with the land of their origin, the conclusion seems almost necessary that they had followed
the example of the Chinese « Son of Heaven ». Here, there seems to be some contradiction in
Lévi's views. On the one hand, he says (p. 15) that the notion of the « divine Heaven », *dyu*,
*Dyaus pitā*, had not outlived Vedic times, so that the secondary notion of *deva*, « a god », remained