The infant (or ju) is distinctly called a ruler (or ti.) Moreover, although he was little (shao) or but a ju (suckling); he was a supreme king (or chwen suh). (Note 22.)
Chwen is formed by putting together the two words "only" and "head." And suh is a Chinese term composed of the two significant words "only" and "king" (see Williams' dict. pp. 117, 825, 1043.)
Evidently the baby ruler (or ju ti) was regarded by his people, in this region remarkable for its mountains, as the only or supreme head—the chwen suh, as Chinese historians might forcibly phrase it—of the people ruled.
[Because the infant was king and even the supreme king, it seems reasonable to suppose that his father was dead (and his mother alive) at the time when he was carried into the Great Canyon and duly suckled there.] We need not just here attempt to unravel his history. Enough to show that our Grand Canyon is positively and clearly referred to in Chinese literature. We may, however, note the fact that the royal infant (see translation) belonged to the Kin Tien or Golden Heaven family, and this title must be considered when the history of our Arizona Prince comes to be investigated. It should further be remarked that the respected translator has erred slightly in his supposition that the Chwen Suh (or Supreme Head) was "Shao Hao's descendant." The Chinese terms in the original are: shao hao (not hao's) ju (baby) ti (ruler) chwen suh (head king.) It was the little sun child ruler and supreme king who was at the Canyon.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact, that, although regarded as a supreme ruler, the Prince is represented as being but a suckling (or ju) when in the neighborhood of the Great Canyon.
Now, the translation states that this baby or supreme lord "of whom no further description is given, left there his lute and lyre. It says that his lute and lyre are in this canyon."
MUSIC IN THE GRAND CANYON?
It is absurd to imagine for a moment that a sucking infant could own, or could be really supposed to own, a lute. The Chinese text does not say that the musical instrument is "his." And yet, curiously enough, it does declare that the baby-prince left or abandoned (k'i) a Lute or Lyre in the Canyon.
Why should such a matter be mentioned? Supposing that a fiddle was left behind, or a drum, or a rattle, why should the trivial fact be gravely recorded?
If a Lute was left in the mighty chasm, its remains might be there still. But how could an infant be said to leave or abandon a Lute? Would he not try, so well as our memory serves, to first get it into his mouth? Would not his chubby hands, quite stout enough for destructive arts, tear the strings apart and feed the music to the nearest cat? Would it be a lute at all when ultimately relinquished? And if the babe derived pleasure from ill-treated and squalling strings, why should he leave the lute behind? As well say that the suckling abandoned there a fishing-rod! Would not a milk-bottle be a much readier fount of ecstacy than either a lute or a flute? Why, neither one nor the other could be heard within the Canyon.