MAN-TZŬ
By the Chinese many of the western tribes are more or less indiscriminately known as Man-tzŭ, Man-chia, Hsi Fan and T'u Fan. Now the words Hsi Fan and T'u Fan[285] appear at first sight to mean simply western Barbarians and aboriginal (or perhaps agricultural as distinct from pastoral or nomadic) Barbarians; but, as is now well known,[286] the old pronunciation of the second Chinese character in T'u Fan was not fan, but something like po or p'o, which is simply the Tibetan word Bod,[287] pronounced Bö or Beu, the name by which the Tibetans describe their own country and people, and from which we derive the second syllable of our word Tibet. The character t'u was similarly a Chinese approximation to the Tibetan word teu, meaning upper or superior.[288] T'u Fan is then simply the Chinese equivalent of our own word Tibetan, and means the Bö(d) of the Uplands; and I assume that the name Turfan (the oasis on the borders of Turkestan and Sungaria, where some remarkable discoveries have recently been made by exploring expeditions) has the same origin, though Turfan itself happens to lie in a very deep depression. The combination Hsi Fan, as Mr T. W. Kingsmill gives good reason for supposing, is in like manner derived from the sound Shar-bar, the name of a tribe of eastern Tibet still found near the town of Sung-p'an in north-western Ssuch'uan.
The word Man-tzŭ (蠻子)[289] is of very wide application, and at the present time conveys the meaning of "Savage Fellows" or "Sons of Savages," though it is not impossible that here too we have a rough attempt at imitating the sound of a non-Chinese word. When the Chinese had spread themselves over all northern China they used this term to describe all the uncivilised tribes whose habitations lay to the south; just as they described the "barbarians" beyond their western frontier as Jung (戎), those beyond their northern frontier as Ti (狄), and those of the east as I (夷). These terms all appear again and again in the ancient Chinese classics, such as the Shu Ching and Shih Ching, and the references show that at the time to which they refer, that is to say as far back as the third millennium B.C., the Chinese were constantly at war with their less civilised neighbours, and by no means met with uniform success in contending with them. In the Shu Ching, for example, we read that "the invading barbarous tribes of the west (Jung) have greatly injured our empire."[290] The Man tribes are in several places described as eight in number,[291] and we learn that in the reign of the more or less mythical king Yu (2204-2197 B.C.) their country was known as the Wild Domain,[292] and that Chinese criminals were transported thither when sentenced to exile,[293] much as the Russians send their convicts at the present day to Siberia. Sometimes in the Chinese classics the name Man is combined with I or Jung as a definition of barbarians in general,[294] and sometimes the word Nan (South) is prefixed to make the definition more specific. In Mencius we hear of "this shrike-tongued barbarian of the south (Nan Man), whose doctrines are not those of the ancient kings."[295] Naturally enough they are often spoken of contemptuously. "I have heard of men," says Mencius, "using the doctrine of our great land to change barbarians, but I have never yet heard of any being changed by barbarians."[296] Yet it is interesting to notice that Confucius was liberal-minded enough to admit that even a "barbarian" might—if he were truthful and honourable—be regarded as a gentleman.[297]
MANZI AND CATHAY
The name Man-tzŭ clung to the inhabitants of what is now southern China long after the Chinese had themselves begun to spread over that country, and no doubt many of the early Chinese immigrants and their descendants writhed under the derogatory epithet. About Marco Polo's time (in the second half of the thirteenth century) the southern portion of the empire—in fact, the greater part of China south of the Yellow River—was ruled by the emperors of the expiring Sung dynasty, who, owing to the successful invasions of the Chin Tartars, had been expelled from north China and had created a new capital for themselves at Hangchow (Marco's Kinsay) in the maritime province of Chekiang. The whole of their empire was known to the Venetian traveller as the land of the Manzi or Man-tzŭ, as distinct from the northern (Chin-Tartar and afterwards Mongol) empire which he calls Cathay. He has handed down a circumstantial account of the splendour and wealth of the so-called Manzi capital, and he was an eye-witness of many of the stirring episodes in that long series of campaigns which overwhelmed the Sung imperial house and the Shan and Lolo princes of Tien, and established the descendants of Genghis Khan on the throne of a united China as emperors of the Yüan or Mongol dynasty.
In the Yunnanese Shan and so-called Lolo states, which were reduced to obedience by the Mongol prince Kúblái (afterwards emperor of China, and known to history as Kúblái Khan), the native tribes were too powerful and numerous to be exterminated. Great numbers, disdaining the Chinese yoke, migrated southward to Siam; some of those who remained behind were allowed to retain their tribal organisations under Chinese suzerainty, and to a limited extent they have retained it ever since. But in other parts of southern China the "barbarians" were much more harshly dealt with, for they were gradually broken up into small bands and forced to find for themselves a scanty subsistence in the rugged and mountainous regions of Kuang-si, Kuei-chou and Ssuch'uan, and multitudes seem to have fallen back on Annam. The term Man-tzŭ, as applied to all inhabitants of south China irrespective of race or descent, was then gradually dropped, but a curious instance of its survival in quite recent times is mentioned by Professor Parker,[298] who found, in an official proclamation, the word used to describe the Chinese of the Canton province.
MAN-CHIA AND MAN-TZŬ
Various notices of the Man-tzŭ and other hill-tribes are to be found in the monumental work of the historian Ssŭ-ma Ch'ien (about B.C. 100), and in the later dynastic and provincial records; but in none of them do we find anything like a clear statement of the history and origin of these tribes. The fact that they were all barbarians was sufficient, in the Chinese mind, to justify their being left severely alone or lumped together under some meaningless designation made applicable to them all.[299] At Tachienlu we come in contact with representatives of all the various tribes of western China and eastern Tibet, but they are nearly all labelled either Man-chia or Man-tzŭ. The former term means "barbarian families," and in practice is applied to the people whom the Chinese choose to regard as true Tibetans as distinct from the wilder denizens of the hills and forests. The Tibetan language is Man-hua ("the language of the barbarians"), and the Chinese language is Han-hua ("the language of the men of Han"). The term Man-tzŭ may now for practical purposes be restricted to certain of the western hill-tribes to whom both Tibetan and Chinese are foreign languages, and who preserve distinct customs of their own in the matters of dress, religion and social intercourse. A considerable proportion of the people who inhabit the scattered villages of the kingdom of Chala, through which lay my route to the Yalung, are Man-tzŭ, not Man-chia. M. Bonin, who has travelled widely in western Ssuch'uan, identifies the Man-tzŭ (using the term in the narrower sense) with the Lolos. In common with many other Europeans he has observed that the word Lolo, whatever it may mean, is an opprobrious epithet, which is not used by the Lolos themselves and should never be used in their presence. He considers that the word Lolo should be dropped altogether, and that we should substitute Man-tzŭ as the designation of both peoples. This word, he says, has the advantage of comprehending Mo-so, Hsi Fan, Ku-tsung, Menia and Li-so, who are, he considers, all of the same origin.[300] I venture to express a doubt whether we should gain much by classing under one such designation a number of peoples who, whatever their origin, have been so long separated from one another that they refuse to acknowledge any mutual connection, and to some extent have different customs and speak different languages.[301]
LOLOS, MAN-TZŬ AND SHAN
As regards the identification of the Lolos with the Man-tzŭ, however, there is good ground for believing that it is justified. Probably no one has a better acquaintance with the Lolos than the Catholic missionary, M. Paul Vial. He has lived for many years among the Nyi (or Ngi) Lolos of Yunnan, and has come to the conclusion that "Man-tzŭ et Lolos ne sont qu'une seule et même race."[302] His historical sketch is unfortunately too brief to be of much value. It would appear that in his opinion the great ruling power in Yunnan up to the thirteenth century was not Shan but Lolo. Indeed, his little book almost ignores the Shans altogether, though he states that, judging from linguistic evidence (which should always be accepted with very great caution) the Lolos are "brothers of the Burmese and cousins of the T'ai"—who, of course, include the Shans. Here, however, he seems to have gone a little astray, as his remarks would imply a closer relationship between Burmese and Shans than can be proved to exist; and when he says that the Lolo language has no relationship with the Chinese—which seems to be true—he overlooks the fact that the language of the Shans, whom he claims as cousins of the Lolos, is generally recognised as being related to Chinese.[303] He concludes that the Lolos, Shans and Burmese all belong to the same stock and came originally from the unexplored regions between the upper Mekong and the Brahmaputra; but he does not account for the subsequent divergence of languages, customs and traditions.