The changes of the Great Kiang do not seem to have attracted so much attention among the Chinese as those of the dangerous Hwang-Ho, nor does their history seem to have been so carefully recorded.  But a paper of great interest on the subject was published by Mr. Edkins, in the Journal of the North China Branch of the R.A.S. for September 1860 [pp. 77-84], which I know only by an abstract given by the late Comte d’Escayrac de Lauture.  From this it would seem that about the time of our era the Yang-tzu Kiang had three great mouths.  The most southerly of these was the Che-Kiang, which is said to have given its name to the Province still so called, of which Hang-chau is the capital.  This branch quitted the present channel at Chi-chau, passed by Ning-Kwe and Kwang-te, communicating with the southern end of a great group of lakes which occupied the position of the T’ai-Hu, and so by Shih-men and T’ang-si into the sea not far from Shao-hing.  The second branch quitted the main channel at Wu-hu, passed by I-hing (or I-shin) communicating with the northern end of the T’ai-Hu (passed apparently by Su-chau), and then bifurcated, one arm entering the sea at Wu-sung, and the other at Kanp’u.  The third, or northerly branch is that which forms the present channel of the Great Kiang.  These branches are represented hypothetically on the sketch-map attached to ch. lxiv. supra.

(Kingsmill, u.s. p. 53; Chin.  Repos. III. 118; Middle Kingdom, I. 95-106; Buerck. p. 483; Cathay, p. cxciii.; J.N.Ch.Br.R.A.S., December 1865, p. 3 seqq.; Escayrac de Lauture, Mem. sur la Chine, H. du Sol, p. 114.)

NOTE 10.—­Pauthier’s text has:  “Chascun Roy fait chascun an le compte de son royaume aux comptes du grant siege,” where I suspect the last word is again a mistake for sing or scieng. (See supra, Bk.  II. ch. xxv., note 1.) It is interesting to find Polo applying the term king to the viceroys who ruled the great provinces; Ibn Batuta uses a corresponding expression, sultan.  It is not easy to make out the nine kingdoms or great provinces into which Polo considered Manzi to be divided.  Perhaps his nine is after all merely a traditional number, for the “Nine Provinces” was an ancient synonym for China proper, just as Nau-Khanda, with like meaning, was an ancient name of India. (See Cathay, p. cxxxix. note; and Reinaud, Inde, p. 116.) But I observe that on the portage road between Chang-shan and Yuh-shan (infra, p. 222) there are stone pillars inscribed “Highway (from Che-kiang) to Eight Provinces,” thus indicating Nine. (Milne, p. 319.)

NOTE 11.—­We have in Ramusio:  “The men levied in the province of Manzi are not placed in garrison in their own cities, but sent to others at least 20 days’ journey from their homes; and there they serve for four or five years, after which they are relieved.  This applies both to the Cathayans and to those of Manzi.