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-tzŭ 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-Kwé and Kwang-té, 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; _Bürck._ p. 483; _Cathay_, p. cxciii.; _J. N. Ch. Br. R. A. S._, December 1865, p. 3 _seqq._; _Escayrac de Lauture, Mém. 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 siège_,” 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, _sultán_. 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.)