but for the former “the little person,” “the disciple,” “the inferior,” and so on; and for the latter, “the learned man,” “the master,” or even “the emperor.”  These phrases, however, are not confined to China, most of them having exact parallels in Hindustani courtesy.  On this subject and the courteous disposition of the Chinese, see Fontaney, in Lett.  Edif. VII. 287 seqq.; also XI. 287 seqq.; Semedo, 36; Lecomte, II. 48 seqq.  There are, however, strong differences of opinion expressed on this subject; there is, apparently, much more genuine courtesy in the north than in the south.

NOTE 5.—­“Filial piety is the fundamental principle of the Chinese polity.” (Amiot, V. 129.) “In cases of extreme unfilial conduct, parents sometimes accuse their children before the magistrate, and demand his official aid in controlling or punishing them; but such instances are comparatively rare....  If the parent require his son to be publicly whipped by the command of the magistrate, the latter is obliged to order the infliction of the whipping....  If after punishment the son remain undutiful and disobedient, and his parents demand it at the hands of the magistrate, the latter must, with the consent of the maternal uncles of the son, cause him to be taken out to the high wall in front of the yamun, and have him there publicly whipped to death.” (Doolittle, 102-103.)

NOTE 6.—­[Mr. Rockhill writes to me that pocket-spitoons are still used in China.—­H.  C.]

[1] “In the worship carried on here the Emperor acts as a high priest.  HE
    only worships; and no subject, however high in rank, can join in the
    adoration.” (Lockhart.) The actual temple dates from 1420-1430; but
    the Institution is very ancient, and I think there is evidence that
    such a structure existed under the Mongols, probably only restored
    by the Ming. [It was built during the 18th year of the reign of the
    third Ming Emperor Yung Loh (1403-1425); it was entirely restored
    during the 18th year of K’ien Lung; it was struck by lightning and
    burnt down in 1889; it is being re-built.—­H.  C.]

[2] In 1871 I saw in Bond Street an exhibition of (so-called) “spirit”
    drawings, i.e. drawings alleged to be executed by a “medium” under
    extraneous and invisible guidance.  A number of these extraordinary
    productions (for extraordinary they were undoubtedly) professed to
    represent the “Spiritual Flowers” of such and such persons; and the
    explanation of this as presented in the catalogue was in substance
    exactly that given in the text.  It is highly improbable that the
    artist had any cognizance of Schott’s Essay, and the coincidence was
    assuredly very striking.

END OF VOL I.

[Illustration:  MARCO POLO’S ITINERARIES No.  IV (Book I, Chapter 36 to end & chief part of Book II.)]