a BRIEF RESPONSE ON THE CONTROVERSIES OVER SHANGDI, TIANSHEN AND LINGHUN. 9789811604508, 9811604509

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
Notes on Contributors
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 The Genesis, Editions and Translations of Longobardo’s Treatise
1.1 Before Longobardo: The Jesuit Mission in Japan and João Rodrigues
1.1.1 The Jesuit Mission in Japan
1.1.2 The Man Driving the Debate: João Rodrigues
1.1.3 Niccolò Longobardo
1.2 The Discussions About the Terms Within the Jesuit Order
1.2.1 Under the Visitor Francesco Pasio (1611–1612)
1.2.2 Under the Visitor Francisco Vieira (1615–1619)
1.2.3 Under the Visitor Jerónimo Rodriguez Junior (1619–1626)
1.2.4 Under the Visitor André Palmeiro (Visitor, 1626–1635)
1.3 The Jiading Conference
1.4 The Circulation of Longobardo’s Treatise Among the Mendicant Friars
1.5 The Canton Conference
1.6 The Members of the Missions Étrangères de Paris
1.7 Conclusion
2 The Identification of Chinese Non-Christian Literati and Reflections on the Dating of the “Resposta breve” and Its Place of Composition
2.1 Eight Pagan Literati with Record of Conversation
2.1.1 Wu Yongxian 吳用先, Alias Wu Benru 吳本如
2.1.2 Zhou Qiang 周锵, Alias Zhou Muqian 周慕乾
2.1.3 Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤, Alias Qian Linwu 錢隣武
2.1.4 Xu Ruke 徐如珂?
2.1.5 Zhou Hongmo 周洪謨, Alias Zhou Qingyu 周慶虞
2.1.6 Li Zongyan 李宗延
2.1.7 Chen Qiyu 陳奇瑜?
2.1.8 Zhu Yicheng 祝以成?
2.2 Eight Pagan Literati Without Record of Conversation (Prelude 17, N.o 15)
2.2.1 Wu Shiqi 吳士奇, Alias Wu Hengchu 吳恒初
2.2.2 Huang Yuntai 黄運泰, Alias Huang Jiyun 黄際雲
2.2.3 Mao Yilu 毛一鹭, Alias Mao Ruchu 毛孺初
2.2.4 Chen Yi 陳儀, Alias Chen Shaofeng 陳紹鳳
2.2.5 He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠, Alias He Feiwo 何匪莪
2.2.6 Liu Dingguo 刘定國?
2.2.7 Cao Yubian 曹于汴, Alias Cao Zhenyu 曹貞予
2.2.8 Feng Shixing 馮時行?
2.3 Dating of Longobardo’s Treatise and Its Place of Composition
3 Longobardo’s Scholastic Critique of Ricci’s Accommodation of Confucianism
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Textual Criticism and Humanism
3.3 Esoteric and Exoteric Knowledge
3.4 Chinese Wisdom and the Presocratics
3.5 The Role of the Commentarial Tradition in State-Mandated Orthodoxy
3.6 Conclusion
4 Longobardo’s Reading of Song Confucianism
4.1 Longobardo’s Double Method: Semiotic and Philosophical
4.2 Longobardo’s Sources
4.3 Shao Yong’s Cosmology
4.4 Zhang Zai and Zhu Xi’s Metaphysics
4.5 On the guishen, or Spirits, and the Human Soul
4.6 Conclusion
5 Philological Note
5.1 This Edition
5.2 Manuscripts and Printed Editions of Longobardo’s Treatise
5.2.1 Portuguese Original, Dated to 1623–1624 but with Evidence of Revisions Made as Late as 1630
5.2.2 Latin Translation by Caballero
5.2.3 Spanish Translation by Navarrete
5.2.4 French Translation by Louis Champion de Cicé
5.2.5 English Translation by the Churchill Brothers
6 A Brief Response to the Controversies Over Shangdi 上帝, tianshen 天神, and linghun 靈魂, by Longobardo
6.1 Preface. To Know the Origin of These Controversies and the Efforts Made in Relation to Them by the Order of the Major Superiors
6.2 Index of the First Part
6.3 Prelude 1. On the Classic and Authentic Books by Which These Controversies Must Be Decided
6.4 Prelude 2. On the Difference or Contradiction Which Is Sometimes Found Between the Authentic Books. In Such Cases We Ought to Be Governed by the Commentaries Rather Than the Texts
6.5 Prelude 3. On the Symbols of the Sect of the Literati. From These Symbols It Emerges That They Have Two Modes of Teaching: One True, the Other Apparent
6.6 Prelude 4. On the Philosophical Method Used in Rujiao, {That Is, the Sect of the Literati}
6.7 Prelude 5. On xiantianxue {Knowledge}, That Is, {Knowing a Priori} How the Universe Was Produced According to the Opinion of the Chinese
6.8 Prelude 6. On houtianxue {Knowledge}, Which Is {Knowing A Posteriori, Namely} How Things Are Generated and Corrupted in This Universe
6.9 Prelude 7. On the Most Celebrated Axiom of the Chinese, Namely “wanwu yiti,” Which Corresponds to Our “omnia sunt unum” (All Things Are One)
6.10 Prelude 8. What Is Generation and Corruption in Their Teaching
6.11 Prelude 9. How Do They Understand the Differentiation of Things Given That the Essence and Nature of All Things Are One and the Same?
6.12 Prelude 10. The Chinese Did Not Recognise Two Distinct Substances, Spiritual and Corporeal, but Only One That Is More or Less Material
6.13 Prelude 11. On the Spirits or Gods Which the Chinese Adore According to the Sect of Literati
6.14 Prelude 12. On the Various Authoritative Texts by Classic Authors Who Discuss the Spirits or Gods of the Chinese
6.15 Prelude 13. All Chinese Spirits or Gods Are Reduced to Only One Which Is What They Call li or taiji
6.16 Prelude 14. On the Various Names and Attributes Which the Chinese Attribute to This First Principle of the World and Its Universal Substance
6.17 Prelude 15. What Is Life and Death According to the Chinese Literati Sect in Order to See Whether [for Them] Our Soul Is Immortal and in What Way
6.18 Prelude 16. The Wisest of Those Chinese Literati Professing the Rujiao Sect Are All in the End Led to the Sea of Atheism
6.19 Prelude 17. On the Testimony of Various and Authoritative Literati Concerning the Most High Shangdi and the Spirits
6.19.1 Part 1. On the Saying and Judgement of the Pagan Literati
6.19.2 Part 2. On the Mind and Judgement of the Christian Literati
6.20 Annex
6.20.1 Cover Page by Caballero
6.20.2 Preface by Caballero
6.20.3 Postface by Caballero
Appendix 1: Transcription of Caballero’s Latin Translation
Appendix 2: Transcription of Longobardo’s Portuguese Text
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE GLOBAL HISTORY

A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun

Edited by Thierry Meynard Daniel Canaris

Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History

Series Editors Manuel Perez-Garcia, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China Lucio De Sousa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan

This series proposes a new geography of Global History research using Asian and Western sources, welcoming quality research and engaging outstanding scholarship from China, Europe and the Americas. Promoting academic excellence and critical intellectual analysis, it offers a rich source of global history research in sub-continental areas of Europe, Asia (notably China, Japan and the Philippines) and the Americas and aims to help understand the divergences and convergences between East and West. Advisory Board Patrick O’Brien (London School of Economics) Anne McCants (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Joe McDermott (University of Cambridge) Pat Manning (Pittsburgh University) Mihoko Oka (University of Tokyo) Richard Von Glahn (University of California, Los Angeles) Bartolomé Yun-Casalilla (Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla) Shigeru Akita (Osaka University) François Gipouloux (CNRS/FMSH) Carlos Marichal (Colegio de Mexico) Leonard Blusse (Leiden University) Antonio Ibarra Romero (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, UNAM) Giorgio Riello (University of Warwick) Nakajima Gakusho (Kyushu University) Liu Beicheng (Tsinghua University) Li Qingxin (Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences) Dennis O. Flynn (University of the Pacific) J. B. Owens (Idaho State University)

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15711

Thierry Meynard · Daniel Canaris Editors

A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun By Niccolò Longobardo

Editors Thierry Meynard Sun Yat-sen University Guangzhou, China

Daniel Canaris Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies Nanjing University Nanjing, China

ISSN 2662-7965 ISSN 2662-7973 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History ISBN 978-981-16-0450-8 ISBN 978-981-16-0451-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: portrait of Longobardo, seventeenth century (probably not authentic but painted by a local artist in Sicily after the death of Longobardo in China) Cover credit: Musei Civici e Pinacoteca L. Sturzo, Carcere Borbonico, Caltagirone, Sicily This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

In any cross-cultural dialogue, translation plays a crucial role in understanding the key concepts and ideas of the other culture. Such a dialogue does not take place in a vacuum devoid of self-interest and motivation. When Christian missionaries conducted their first examinations of Chinese intellectual traditions, they were not dispassionate observers, but wished to determine whether equivalents to the Christian concepts could be found in Chinese thought. They believed that by identifying analogues they could facilitate the transmission of Christianity among the Chinese who would see that their traditional culture is not ignored or contradicted but enriched by this new religion. Such a path is risky because no exact conceptual match can ever be found between two disparate cultures. Indeed, when Francis Xavier first arrived in Japan, he was advised by his interpreter to translate the Christian God as Dainichi 大日, which literally translates to “Great Sun”, but it turned out that this was none other than a Buddhist deity, thus confusing his Japanese interlocutors. After this embarrassment, the Jesuit missionaries in Japan were cautious about conceptual translations of Christian doctrine, preferring phonetic loans. Despite these warnings from Japan, the three co-founders of the China mission, Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607), Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606), persisted in developing a strategy of cultural accommodation in China to make Christianity seem more accessible to locals. Ricci’s influential Chinese-language work, The True v

vi

PREFACE

Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu shiyi, 1603), explained God, angel and soul as equivalent to the Chinese terms Shangdi 上帝, tianshen 天神 and linghun 靈魂 respectively. But Ricci did not intend equivalence as a strict identity or pure commensurability. For example, the meaning of God in Christianity is not exhausted by the Chinese concept of Shangdi nor, conversely, is the meaning of Shangdi exhausted by the Christian concept of God. Ricci expressed this limitation in terms of the theology of his time: the ancient Chinese, like the philosophers of GrecoRoman antiquity, knew through natural reason the existence of Shangdi, and could even offer Him due worship, but they did not necessarily have access to the full revelation of the incarnation of God in Jesus-Christ. Only with this premise can Ricci’s axiom be correctly understood: “Shangdi and God are different in name only” (上帝與天主, 特異以名也).1 After Ricci’s death, the Sicilian Niccolò Longobardo (1565–1654) became the most formidable opponent to his method. Ironically, Ricci had hand-picked him to succeed him as Superior of the China mission, a position which he held until 1622. Overall, Longobardo spent over six decades in China, conducting missionary work in Guangdong (Shaozhou), Beijing, Nanjing, Zhejiang (Hangzhou) and finally Shandong (Ji’nan). During his tenure as superior, his crisis management skills were tested when for the first time in the Ming dynasty the Catholic Church was faced with official prohibition. One of his lasting contributions was to send the Flemish Jesuit Nicolas Trigault (1577–1628) to Europe as procurator to raise funds and recruit personnel for the China mission. Trigault successfully elevated the profile of China mission in Europe by publishing Ricci’s journals in a Latin translation and securing independence for the China mission from the Japanese province as a ViceProvince. He returned to China with a large library of Western books, which served as basis for the missionaries and Chinese Christians to translate into Chinese many works of mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and theology. Because of his opposition to Ricci’s accommodation policy, Longobardo has remained a rather controversial figure in Jesuit historiography and, we could even say, a repressed voice. For sure, he was not the first to cast doubt on Ricci’s attempt to harmonize ancient Confucianism and

1 Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, ed. Thierry Meynard (Boston: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2016), 100.

PREFACE

vii

Christianity. Jesuits in Japan and China had already started investigating the matter, and a great deal of letters and reports were written for or against the Chinese terms. Longobardo’s own report stands out because it was discussed by the Jesuits in a special conference held from December 1627 to January 1628 at Jiading, in Zhejiang province. Today only the first part of this report is extant, but it clearly shows Longobardo’s systematic refutation of Ricci’s reading of Confucianism. Longobardo’s position achieved some success at the conference, which decided to discontinue the use of Shangdi to designate God, but eventually the Jesuits rallied behind Ricci’s position out of fear that abandoning Ricci’s accommodations would compromise his legacy. The situation became even more complicated in 1630s with the arrival of the Dominicans and Franciscans in China, who started to voice opposition to the Jesuits’ toleration of Confucian ritual practices in Chinese Christian communities. In order to shield the Jesuits from further criticism, in the 1645 the viceprovincial of China, Francisco Furtado (1589–1653) ordered the burning of Longobardo’s report. Fortunately, Longobardo’s treatise survived the suppression through the efforts of Dominican and Franciscan missionaries. An original Portuguese manuscript in Longobardo’s own hand is still extant, as well as a manuscript translation in Latin (1661) by Antonio de Santa María Caballero (1602–1669), but neither the Portuguese nor Latin manuscripts have never been published until this present edition. Instead, Longobardo’s report became notorious through three printed translations: the first was published in Spanish (1676) by Domingo Navarrete (1610–1689), the second in French (1701) by Louis Champion de Cicé (1648–1727) and the third in English (1704) by the Churchill brothers. Both the French and the English translations are based on the Spanish which is itself based on the Portuguese. Although Longobardo’s original report only made passing remarks to these rituals, these translations sought to martial Longobardo’s report as further evidence in the broader controversy over rites in honour of Confucius and ancestors. The ignominy of the revelation that Ricci’s own successor so vehemently disagreed with Ricci’s position no doubt played an important role in the papal condemnation of the Jesuits’ missionary practices in 1704. The report acquired also a great recognition beyond the Catholic Church, because the Protestant philosopher Leibniz (1646– 1716) examined and refuted it in The Natural Theology of the Chinese

viii

PREFACE

(Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, 1716). For this reason, Longobardo’s report was even included in Leibniz’s complete works. In 2002, Li Wenchao and Hans Poser published an edition of The Natural Theology of the Chinese, which included the French version of Longobardo’s report used by Leibniz.2 In this edition, they added some annotations on some figures and Chinese concepts mentioned by Longobardo. Although they compared the French translation with its Spanish source text, they did not consult the Portuguese and Latin manuscripts. The Spanish, French and English versions are generally accurate and provide a correct understanding of Longobardo’s views; however, there are omissions and some serious mistakes. For example, the Spanish version claims that the Ming dynasty Compendium on Nature and Principle (Xingli daquan) was written 2500 years before, and the same mistake is repeated in the French and English versions. In fact, the Portuguese and the Latin manuscripts more accurately report that it was composed 200 years before. This may appear a minor mistake but it had a considerable influence on Leibniz who was led to believe that the Compendium on Nature and Principle and all the philosophy contained therein was conterminous with ancient Confucianism. Another important advantage of the Portuguese and Latin manuscripts is that they include the Chinese characters corresponding to the Chinese terms and citations discussed by Longobardo. These characters, which are absent from the printed versions, are crucial for reconstructing how Longobardo critiqued and utilized his sources. In 2017, Pan Feng-chuan conducted a systematic textual analysis of Longobardo’s Chinese citations, which she mostly traced to theCompendium on Nature and Principle.3 However, our own study shows that the quotes from the Four Books correspond to the Section and Sentence Commentaries and Collected Annotations on the Four Books (Sishu zhangju jizhu) by Zhu Xi. Using the English version of 1704, in 2017 Li Tiangang published a general overview of Longobardo’s report in which he thoroughly analysed its influence in the formation of the European idea of “Chinese 2 Leibniz, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, ed. Li Wenchao & Hans Poser (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002). 3 Pan Feng-chuan 潘鳳娟, “Long Huamin Lun Zhongguo zongjiao de jidian wenti fanyi chutan 龍華民 《論中國宗教的幾點問題》 翻譯初探” [A Preliminary Investigation to Niccolò Longobardo’s Account on China], in Zhexue yu wenhua 哲學與文化 [Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture] 522 (November 2017): 29–43.

PREFACE

ix

religion”.4 However, Longobardo does not discuss Chinese religion as such, but only Chinese terms. The association between the report and “religion” was first introduced by the French translation, which changed its title to Treatise on Some Aspects of the Religion of the Chinese (Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois ). But this title misleadingly projects into Longobardo’s report concerns which emerged only eighty years later. This new annotated translation of Longobardo’s report into English builds upon this increased scholarly attention to Longobardo’s contrarian presence in the China mission. The existing English translation by the Churchill brothers is quite outdated in its language and does not provide any scholarly apparatus for navigating Longobardo’s complex and at times confusing interweaving of Neo-Confucian, scholastic and humanist ideas. In our annotations, we have endeavoured to identify to the best of our ability Longobardo’s European and Chinese sources. Chinese terms, figures and places are all rendered wherever possible with Hanyu pinyin and Chinese characters to ease readability. Since Longobardo’s autograph Portuguese manuscript is mutilated, this English translation is based on the Latin manuscript, which is more readable and better preserved. This Latin text was transcribed by Claudia von Collani and revised by Daniel Canaris and Thierry Meynard. Due to the importance of the Portuguese manuscript, the text was transcribed by Emanuele Landi and revised by Mário S. de Carvalho, both from Coimbra University, Portugal. Using their transcription, we have compared the Latin with the Portuguese texts and indicated meaningful differences. Our edition is introduced with four essays which serve to introduce the historical and intellectual context of Longobardo’s report. Claudia von Collani provides a very detailed analysis of the texts produced by the missionaries on the Terms Controversy. An important protagonist in this debate, mentioned by Longobardo himself, is João Rodrigues Tçuzu (1561–1633), a key figure in the connection between the missions of Japan and China. While in Japan, he commenced research on Chinese language, history and thought. But he was also divisive because he pressed upon the China mission his own reading of Confucianism. In China he interviewed Chinese Christians and concluded that their understanding of 4 Li Tiangang 李天纲, “Long Huamin dui Zhongguo zongjiao benzhi de lunshu ji

yingxiang 龍華民對中國宗教本質的論述及其影響,” in Xueshu yuekan 學術月刊 49, no. 5 (2017): 165–84.

x

PREFACE

God, angel and soul was mistaken. His method of textual examination and interviews prompted Longobardo to launch his own investigation. Collani analyses also how different manuscripts of the report were produced, and its role in the tense discussions in 1668 when almost all the missionaries in China had been exiled to Canton. The disagreements in Canton led the opponents of Ricci’s missionary policy to publicize Longobardo’s report in Europe; in response, Ricci’s supporters published the famous Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (1687), which included a monumental translation of and commentary on three of the Four Books as an implicit refutation of Longobardo’s report. In his report, Longobardo mentions the names of well-known Chinese Christians, such as the three pillars of the Church, Paul Xu Guangqi, Leo Li Zhizao and Michael Yang Tingyun. In particular, the report features a detailed interview with Yang Tingyun, which was analysed by Nicolas Standaert in his doctoral dissertation.5 Another detailed interview was conducted with a certain Athanasius from the province of Jiangxi, but we have not yet identified him. Longobardo mentions also the names of sixteen non-Christian literati. So far only one literatus (Qian Linwu) had been identified by Standaert. Based on the information provided by the manuscripts and Chinese historical records, Song Liming has identified with certitude eleven of the sixteen literati. For the five remaining literati, Song hazards some possibilities. He infers from details about the positions of those literati that Longobardo held two rounds of interviews: a first round in Beijing around 1621–1625, and a second round in Nanjing and Hangzhou around 1625–1629. Song provides convincing evidence that the report had not been finalized in 1623, as previously assumed, but that Longobardo continued to revise it up until the very end of the 1620s. Song’s research has made an immense contribution to the reconstruction of the Jesuits’ literati networks at the imperial courts of Beijing and Nanjing. After the two historical investigations written by Collani and Song, Canaris inserts Longobardo’s report into its Renaissance intellectual context. He argues that the different approaches taken by Ricci and Longobardo reflect coeval European debates between humanism and scholasticism. Just as the European humanists attempted to discard the

5 Nicolas Standaert, Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in Late Ming China (Leiden: Brill, 1988).

PREFACE

xi

traditional commentaries of the Middle Ages and return to the original meaning of ancient texts, Ricci rejected the traditional commentaries of the Song dynasty and attempted to restore what he believed to be the authentic meaning of the Confucian classics by returning to the original texts of the Confucius. In contrast, just as the Renaissance scholastics interpreted ancient texts in continuity with medieval tradition, Longobardo interpreted the ancient texts of China in the light of those very Songdynasty commentaries that Ricci had rejected. In textual interpretation, it is indeed of paramount importance to find right balance between canonical texts and their commentarial tradition so that textual traditions may continue without being entrenched into a rigid traditionalism which forecloses any new hermeneutical innovation. Standing more firmly on side of the commentarial traditions, Longobardo was able to discern more clearly important differences between Christian philosophy and Confucianism, while Ricci was able to bring an innovative reading of Confucianism which came to have a great impact on Chinese culture and religion in the last four hundred years. The last contribution by Thierry Meynard examines the Song commentaries which Longobardo considered so important for understanding correctly Confucianism. In particular, Meynard reveals that Longobardo’s understanding of what constituted canonical thought in late Ming China was highly idiosyncratic. Longobardo elevates Shao Yong as the representative thinker of the Confucian tradition despite the fact that Zhu Xi considered many of his ideas to be heterodox. Longobardo’s report provides the first European description of Shao Yong’s cosmological division between metaphysical and abstract realities (xiantianxue), and the concrete realities unfolding in the physical universe (houtianxue). Longobardo interprets his cosmology through the lens of Aristotelian concepts and concludes that it was essentially materialist monism which does not allow for spiritual substances, thereby proving terminology indigenous to the Confucian tradition cannot convey the transcendence of Christian theological concepts. The Terms Controversy propelled an unprecedented examination of how Christianity could be properly expressed in Chinese language and culture. In many ways, Ricci’s missionary methods anticipated the Second Vatican Council, which endorsed inculturation to make Christianity meaningful to non-Christian cultures. From this perspective, it may appear that Ricci was on the right side of history and Longobardo on the wrong side. Indeed, Longobardo’s analysis of Chinese philosophy was based on

xii

PREFACE

arguable premises, such as its materialism. However flawed his methods, he made a pioneering effort to ground his argumentation on the analysis of key Song-dynasty philosophical texts. Despite his overall rejection of Chinese thought, he still took it seriously and studied it. In the process, he discovered a sophisticated intellectual system and he could value its rational coherence. As the first Westerner to analyse Chinese metaphysics, Longobardo paved the way for others, such as the French Jesuit François Noël (1651–1729) and Leibniz, who came to very different conclusions. Guangzhou, China Nanjing, China May 2020

Thierry Meynard Daniel Canaris

Acknowledgements

On September 2019, the Archive for the Introduction of Western Thoughts, and the Research Center on Canton and Foreign Cultural Exchanges organized a workshop at Sun Yat-sen University with Claudia von Collani and Song Liming, during which we read through and discussed Longobardo’s report. We would like here to express our thanks to generous support of Sun Yat-sen University’s grant “Canton and early Sinology: research on Chinese culture of the missionaries detained after the Calendar Case”. In January 2020, we had the opportunity to consult the original Portuguese manuscript of Longobardo and its original Latin translation by Antonio de Santa María Caballero at the Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide (APF), and we would like to express here our warmest thanks to Msgr. Luis Manuel Cuña Ramos, Raffaella Tibalducci and all the team of the APF for their assistance during our research. We have obtained from APF the authorization to reproduce the images inserted in this volume. We benefited also from the help of Dr. Emanuele Raini and Fr. Giuseppe Zhao Hongtao at the Centro Studi Cinesi dell’Università Urbaniana. We are especially grateful to Professors Manuel Pérez García, Shanghai Jiaotong University and Lucio de Sousa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, for including this volume in the “Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History”. Many thanks also to Hua Bai and Connie Li at Palgrave for managing the editing and publication.

xiii

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication forms part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC DP210100458—Transforming the East: Jesuit Translations of the Confucian Classics).

Contents

1

The Genesis, Editions and Translations of Longobardo’s Treatise Claudia von Collani 1.1 Before Longobardo: The Jesuit Mission in Japan and João Rodrigues 1.1.1 The Jesuit Mission in Japan 1.1.2 The Man Driving the Debate: João Rodrigues 1.1.3 Niccolò Longobardo 1.2 The Discussions About the Terms Within the Jesuit Order 1.2.1 Under the Visitor Francesco Pasio (1611–1612) 1.2.2 Under the Visitor Francisco Vieira (1615–1619) 1.2.3 Under the Visitor Jerónimo Rodriguez Junior (1619–1626) 1.2.4 Under the Visitor André Palmeiro (Visitor, 1626–1635) 1.3 The Jiading Conference 1.4 The Circulation of Longobardo’s Treatise Among the Mendicant Friars 1.5 The Canton Conference 1.6 The Members of the Missions Étrangères de Paris 1.7 Conclusion

1

2 2 6 8 10 10 11 12 13 14 16 20 23 24 xv

xvi

2

CONTENTS

The Identification of Chinese Non-Christian Literati and Reflections on the Dating of the “Resposta breve” and Its Place of Composition Song Liming 2.1 Eight Pagan Literati with Record of Conversation 2.1.1 Wu Yongxian 吳用先, Alias Wu Benru 吳本如 2.1.2 Zhou Qiang 周锵, Alias Zhou Muqian 周慕乾 2.1.3 Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤, Alias Qian Linwu 錢隣武 2.1.4 Xu Ruke 徐如珂? 2.1.5 Zhou Hongmo 周洪謨, Alias Zhou Qingyu 周慶虞 2.1.6 Li Zongyan 李宗延 2.1.7 Chen Qiyu 陳奇瑜? 2.1.8 Zhu Yicheng 祝以成? 2.2 Eight Pagan Literati Without Record of Conversation (Prelude 17, N.o 15) 2.2.1 Wu Shiqi 吳士奇, Alias Wu Hengchu 吳恒初 2.2.2 Huang Yuntai 黄運泰, Alias Huang Jiyun 黄際雲 2.2.3 Mao Yilu 毛一鹭, Alias Mao Ruchu 毛孺初 2.2.4 Chen Yi 陳儀, Alias Chen Shaofeng 陳紹鳳 2.2.5 He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠, Alias He Feiwo 何匪莪 2.2.6 Liu Dingguo 刘定國? 2.2.7 Cao Yubian 曹于汴, Alias Cao Zhenyu 曹貞予 2.2.8 Feng Shixing 馮時行? 2.3 Dating of Longobardo’s Treatise and Its Place of Composition

27 29 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 39

CONTENTS

3

4

5

6

Longobardo’s Scholastic Critique of Ricci’s Accommodation of Confucianism Daniel Canaris 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Textual Criticism and Humanism 3.3 Esoteric and Exoteric Knowledge 3.4 Chinese Wisdom and the Presocratics 3.5 The Role of the Commentarial Tradition in State-Mandated Orthodoxy 3.6 Conclusion Longobardo’s Reading of Song Confucianism Thierry Meynard 4.1 Longobardo’s Double Method: Semiotic and Philosophical 4.2 Longobardo’s Sources 4.3 Shao Yong’s Cosmology 4.4 Zhang Zai and Zhu Xi’s Metaphysics 4.5 On the guishen, or Spirits, and the Human Soul 4.6 Conclusion Philological Note Claudia von Collani, Daniel Canaris, and Thierry Meynard 5.1 This Edition 5.2 Manuscripts and Printed Editions of Longobardo’s Treatise 5.2.1 Portuguese Original, Dated to 1623–1624 but with Evidence of Revisions Made as Late as 1630 5.2.2 Latin Translation by Caballero 5.2.3 Spanish Translation by Navarrete 5.2.4 French Translation by Louis Champion de Cicé 5.2.5 English Translation by the Churchill Brothers A Brief Response to the Controversies Over Shangdi 上 帝, tianshen 天神, and linghun 靈魂, by Longobardo Daniel Canaris and Thierry Meynard 6.1 Preface. To Know the Origin of These Controversies and the Efforts Made in Relation to Them by the Order of the Major Superiors

xvii

45 45 46 50 53 57 59 61

62 65 66 75 78 81 83 83 85

85 86 87 89 90 91

92

xviii

CONTENTS

6.2 6.3 6.4

6.5

6.6 6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10 6.11

6.12

6.13 6.14

6.15

Index of the First Part Prelude 1. On the Classic and Authentic Books by Which These Controversies Must Be Decided Prelude 2. On the Difference or Contradiction Which Is Sometimes Found Between the Authentic Books. In Such Cases We Ought to Be Governed by the Commentaries Rather Than the Texts Prelude 3. On the Symbols of the Sect of the Literati. From These Symbols It Emerges That They Have Two Modes of Teaching: One True, the Other Apparent Prelude 4. On the Philosophical Method Used in Rujiao, {That Is, the Sect of the Literati} Prelude 5. On xiantianxue {Knowledge}, That Is, {Knowing a Priori} How the Universe Was Produced According to the Opinion of the Chinese Prelude 6. On houtianxue {Knowledge}, Which Is {Knowing A Posteriori, Namely} How Things Are Generated and Corrupted in This Universe Prelude 7. On the Most Celebrated Axiom of the Chinese, Namely “ wanwu yiti,” Which Corresponds to Our “ omnia sunt unum” (All Things Are One) Prelude 8. What Is Generation and Corruption in Their Teaching Prelude 9. How Do They Understand the Differentiation of Things Given That the Essence and Nature of All Things Are One and the Same? Prelude 10. The Chinese Did Not Recognise Two Distinct Substances, Spiritual and Corporeal, but Only One That Is More or Less Material Prelude 11. On the Spirits or Gods Which the Chinese Adore According to the Sect of Literati Prelude 12. On the Various Authoritative Texts by Classic Authors Who Discuss the Spirits or Gods of the Chinese Prelude 13. All Chinese Spirits or Gods Are Reduced to Only One Which Is What They Call li or taiji

99 101

104

111 119

121

130

132 136

137

138 140

148 155

CONTENTS

6.16

6.17

6.18

6.19

6.20

Prelude 14. On the Various Names and Attributes Which the Chinese Attribute to This First Principle of the World and Its Universal Substance Prelude 15. What Is Life and Death According to the Chinese Literati Sect in Order to See Whether [for Them] Our Soul Is Immortal and in What Way Prelude 16. The Wisest of Those Chinese Literati Professing the Rujiao Sect Are All in the End Led to the Sea of Atheism Prelude 17. On the Testimony of Various and Authoritative Literati Concerning the Most High Shangdi and the Spirits 6.19.1 Part 1. On the Saying and Judgement of the Pagan Literati 6.19.2 Part 2. On the Mind and Judgement of the Christian Literati Annex 6.20.1 Cover Page by Caballero 6.20.2 Preface by Caballero 6.20.3 Postface by Caballero

xix

163

170

173

176 176 186 196 196 197 197

Appendix 1: Transcription of Caballero’s Latin Translation

199

Appendix 2: Transcription of Longobardo’s Portuguese Text

285

Bibliography

365

Index

373

Notes on Contributors

Daniel Canaris is Associate Professor in the Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies at Nanjing University, Nanjing. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney in 2017, he has held fellowships in Germany, England and the United States. His first monograph, Vico and China, was published in the Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment series. Mário S. de Carvalho is Full Professor of Philosophy at the University of Coimbra (Faculty of Letters and Humanities—DFCI), Institute for Philosophical Studies (IEF). He is currently Director of the IEF and the webproject www.conimbricenses.org, as well as co-editor of the bilingual edition (Latin-Portuguese) of the Coimbra Jesuit Course (1592–1606). Emanuele Landi obtained a licentiate and master’s degree in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Macerata. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Institute of Philosophical Studies at the University of Coimbra. Song Liming studied and taught in the Department of History of Nanjing University from 1978 to 1988. He went to Italy at the end of 1988 as a visiting scholar at the Political Science Institute of Florence University. Since 1990, he has lived in Italy as an independent scholar and now, he is also a visiting professor in the Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies at Nanjing University. He is the author of a biography in Chinese of Father Matteo Ricci. xxi

xxii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Thierry Meynard, S.J. is Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Director of the Archive for the Introduction of Western Knowledge at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou. Prior book publications in English include: The Jesuit Reading of Confucius (2015), The Religious Philosophy of Liang Shuming (2011), Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (2011), and co-authored with Dawei Pan, A Brief Introduction to the Study of Human Nature by Giulio Aleni (2020), and with Sher-shiueh Li, Jesuit Chreia in Late Ming China (2014). Claudia von Collani is Professor for Missiology and Religious Dialogue at the University of Würzburg. Her main fields of research are the mission history of China, Figurism, the Chinese Rites Controversy, and the exchange of science and knowledge between China and Europe. Her recent publications include, together with Paul Rule, two volumes of Kilian Stumpf’s Acta Pekinensia (2015, 2019), as well as numerous articles and biographies.

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2

Fig. 4.3

Fig. 4.4

Fig. 6.1

Longobardo’s depiction of taiji (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) The efficient causes of generation and corruption (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) The five phases (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) Longobardo’s understanding of Chinese cosmology (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) Longobardo’s depiction of taiji (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

71

72

72

74

124

xxiii

xxiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.4

Fig. A2.1

Fig. A2.2

Fig. A2.3

Fig. A2.4

The efficient causes of generation and corruption (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) The five phases (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) Longobardo’s understanding of Chinese cosmology (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 153r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

125

126

127

310

311

312

313

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Chart of the non-Christian literati mentioned by Longobardo and identified with certitude The five stages The eight trigrams of interior heaven Longobardo’s understanding of Shao Yong’s cosmology Natural qualities and the generation of things

42 69 75 76 77

xxv

CHAPTER 1

The Genesis, Editions and Translations of Longobardo’s Treatise Claudia von Collani

The treatise “Resposta breve sobre as controversias do Xámtý, tien xîn, lîm hoên” (“A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi 上 帝, tianshen 天神 and linghun 靈魂”) was written in Portuguese by the Sicilian Jesuit missionary Niccolò Longobardo (1559–1654) between 1623 and 1630.1 His treatise is primarily concerned with appropriate vocabulary for expressing Christian theologian concepts, but in the second half of the seventeenth century it was appropriated by the various 1 Like many early modern figures, there are many variant spellings of Longobardo’s name. For the sake of consistency, we refer to him as Niccolò Longobardo as this is the spelling used by Elisabetta Corsi in her entry on Longobardo in the Treccani encyclopedia. Corsi indicates that Longobardo was born on 10 September 1565 and died in 1655. See Elisabetta Corsi, “LONGOBARDO, Niccolò,” in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, ed. Mario Caravale, vol. 65 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2005), 716–720. However, we believe that his year of birth was in fact 1559, as this is the date recorded

C. von Collani (B) University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_1

1

2

C. VON COLLANI

missionary orders in China, including the Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and members of the “Missions Étrangères de Paris” as a key text in the controversies over Chinese ritual practices that would ultimately destroy the Jesuit China mission and play a major role in the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773.2 With its roots in the Jesuit Japan mission, the text constituted a bridge between the end of this once prosperous mission with the start of the still small and unimportant China mission. It was translated into four major European languages (Latin, Spanish, French, English), the last three of which were published and widely read. This chapter recounts the historical background of Longobardo’s treatise and its diffusion in Europe.

1.1 Before Longobardo: The Jesuit Mission in Japan and João Rodrigues 1.1.1

The Jesuit Mission in Japan

The debates about how to best express the Christian God in East Asian languages began in the Jesuit Japan mission during the sixteenth century. Confronted with the need to develop new methods of evangelization, catechesis and Christian life in Japan, the Jesuit Visitor to the Jesuit missions in the East, Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606), ordered the Jesuits to adapt to Japanese culture and way of life. This adaptation, however, was limited to the outer appearance of Japanese life and

on his tombstone. See Louis Pfister, Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les Jésuites de l’ancienne mission de Chine, 1552–1773 (Chang-hai: Imprimerie de la mission catholique Orphelinat de T’ou-Se-We, 1932), 1:58. The birth year of 1559 is confirmed by Antonio Santa Maria, who wrote that Longobardo whom he met twice at the imperial court died in 1654, aged 94: “Fuit P. N. Longobardus gloriae Dei magno zelo ductus, vix post plus sexaginta annos transactos in hac Missione, aetate vero nonaginta quatuor iam completis in curia Regia obijt in Domino anno 1654.” Antonio Santa Maria Caballero, “Declaratio sub iuramento,” APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 214v. Also, for reasons that will be explained later in this chapter, we date his death to 1654, not 1655 as Corsi argues. 2 For details about the Chinese Rites Controversy, which was not the original focus of Longobardo’s treatise, see David Mungello, The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning (Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1994).

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

3

excluded religious inculturation.3 During the discussions and debates between Christians and Buddhist monks, who mostly followed Zen Buddhism both sides sought to overcome the other through argumentation, but neither aimed at mutual understanding.4 The European Jesuits interpreted the Japanese side through the prism of Aristotelianism and neo-Scholasticism upon which their theological education was based.5 In Japanese Buddhism the visitor Valignano found an exoteric and an esoteric teaching. In his opinion, the elite followed the esoteric teaching whereas the uneducated masses were following the exoteric teaching.6 The first decades of the Japanese mission had been quite successful, boasting many conversions, including among the daimy¯o. This changed after Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川 家康 (1543–1616) had unified Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate. The Japanese came to consider the Christian missionaries as the forerunners of an invasion by European powers, which

3 For a detailed study, see Josef F. Schütte, Valignanos Missionsgrundsätze für Japan, 2 vols. (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1951–1958). For an English translation, see Josef F. Schütte, Valignano’s Mission Principles for Japan, trans. John J. Coyne, 2 vols. (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1980–1985). 4 See Urs App, The Cult of Emptiness: The Western Discovery of Buddhist Thought and the Invention of Oriental Philosophy (Wil: UniversityMedia, 2014), 23–32. 5 See Georg Schurhammer, Die Disputationen des P. Cosme de Torres S.J. mit den Buddhisten in Yamaguchi im Jahre 1551 (Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1929), 6. Claudia von Collani, “The Opposing Views of Niccolò Longobardo and Joachim Bouvet on Chinese Religions,” in Leibniz and the European Encounter with China. 300 Years of Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, ed. Li Wenchao 李文潮 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017), 69–103. As soon as the Jesuits entered Japan in 1549, they started to deal with Japanese religions. In particular, Luis Fróis (1532–1597) was interested, whereas Valignano engaged in sustained polemic with Japanese religion in his Catechismus Christianae fidei, in quo veritas nostrae religionis ostenditur et sectae Iaponenses confutantur (Lisbon: Antonius Riberius, 1586). 6 See App, The Cult of Emptiness, 55–58. Later, Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) took Valignano’s catechism as a model for his Chinese-language catechism, the Tianzhu shiyi 天主 實義 (True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 1603). For an edition with cross-references to Valignano’s catechism, see Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, ed. Thierry Meynard, trans. Douglas Lancashire and Hu Guozhen (Chestnut Hill, MA: Institute of Jesuit Sources, Boston College, 2016). Besides the Buddhists, Ricci criticized the neo-Confucianists for having perverted the first law, namely the natural law that came before the law of Moses and the law of the Gospel. See Collani, “The Opposing Views,” 71. The Japanese had a great predilection for secrecy and secret doctrines, and this element was noticed by Valignano and transmitted to China by Rodrigues. See Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006).

4

C. VON COLLANI

had already conquered parts of Asia. As a consequence, most missionaries were expelled in the years 1610–1614 after Japan had been unified. Three of these expelled Jesuits became important in the debates about the correct terminology for God and spiritual matters in China, namely Camillo Costanzo (1571–1622), Luís Naitó (ca. 1571–1646) and, above all, João Rodrigues (1561/1562–1633). The first Jesuit to enter Japan, Francis Xavier (1506–1552), had a rather unfortunate experience when using Japanese names for the Christian God. Acting on the advice of his translator, he opted for Dainichi 大日 (Great Sun), which turned out to be a name for a divinity in esoteric Buddhism, thus causing great misunderstanding among the Japanese. From that time on, the missionaries decided to use only Latin names adapted to the Japanese pronunciation, such as Deusu for Deus.7 However, at a conference in Macao in 1600, still during Matteo Ricci’s (1552–1610) lifetime, the Jesuits in China had received approval to use Chinese terms for Christian spiritual concepts in their books and preaching.8 For instance, in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu shiyi 天主實義, 1603), Ricci used the terms Tianzhu 天主 (Lord of Heaven), Shangdi 上帝 (Emperor-on-High) and tian 天 (heaven) to denote God as well as tianshen 天神 and linghun 靈魂 for angel and soul respectively. After Ricci’s death, the intense discussions started within the Society of Jesus about the proper names for spiritual things, and it lasted several decades.9 In 1612, the visitor Francesco Pasio (1554–1612, visitor 1611–1612) instructed Niccolò Longobardo, who succeeded Ricci as Superior of the China mission, to investigate the best name for God.10 At the same time, the Jesuits expelled from Japan arrived in Macao. They considered themselves older and more experienced than the missionaries in China, which 7 Georg Schurhammer, Das kirchliche Sprachproblem in der japanischen Jesuitenmission des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts (Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1928), 30–33. App, Cult of Emptiness, 14–17. 8 Robert Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, vol. 5 (Freiburg: Herder, 1929), 728; Josef Metzler, Die Synoden in China, Japan und Korea, 1570–1931 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980), 11f; Pasquale M. D’Elia, Fonti Ricciane: documenti originali concernenti Matteo Ricci e la storia delle prime relazioni tra l’Europa e la Cina (1579–1615) (Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1942–1949), 1:108ff. Valignano and the Bishop of Japan, Luis de Cerqueira SJ (1552–1615) were involved in the approval process. 9 Metzler, Die Synoden, 11–17. 10 Metzler, Die Synoden, 13.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

5

was still a part of the Japanese province.11 Camillo Costanzo became one of the leaders of the Japan party. His main occupation in Macao was to write books and treatises against the Japanese sects.12 He informed his brethren that the Jesuits’ writings in Chinese contained great errors that were caused by faulty assumptions. Consequently, he was ordered by the visitor Francisco Vieira (1555–1619, visitor 1616–1619) to write a treatise about the subject. In his opinion the missionaries had been misled by incapable interpreters to believe that pagans of the East had knowledge about God, the angels and the immortal soul. In reality, only semblances of these concepts could be found in East Asia. Therefore, he advocated that the Christian books should be corrected.13 In the years following these debates, the Jesuits divided into supporters and opponents of the Chinese names for God. On the “Ricci side” advocating the use of Chinese names were the Jesuits Diego de Pantoja (1571–1618) and Alfonso Vagnone (1566–1640), later joined by Nicolas Trigault (1577–1628), Giulio Aleni (1582–1649), Álvaro de Semedo (1568–1628), Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592–1666), Giacomo Rho (1592–1638), Rodrigo de Figueiredo (1594–1642) and others. The opponents advocated the use of Chinese transliterations from Latin to express spiritual things. Among them were the China missionaries Sabatino de Ursis (1557–1620), Francesco Sambiasi (1582–1649), the Provincial of Japan and China Valentim Carvalho (1559–1630) and the visitor Francisco Vieira; they were joined by three Jesuits from Japan, Francesco Pasio (1554–1612), Camillo Costanzo and João Rodrigues. The subject was analysed in several conferences and numerous treatises. Many of these unpublished writings were destroyed or lost, especially as a result of the abolition of the Society of Jesus in 1773.14

11 The China mission was separated from the province of Japan as a vice-province in 1618. Joseph Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites de Chine de 1552 à 1800 (Rome: Institutum Historicum S.I., 1973), 328. 12 Schurhammer, Das kirchliche Sprachproblem, 128. In 1602 Costanzo left Europe for

Japan and worked there from 1605–1614. After his expulsion, he stayed in Macao until 1621, before leaving for Japan again where he was martyred on 15 September 1622. 13 Schurhammer, Das kirchliche Sprachproblem, 129f. 14 Paul Rule, K’ung-Tzu or Confucius?: The Jesuit Interpretation of Confucius (Sydney

and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 86; Metzler, Die Synoden, 15; Collani, “The Opposing Views,” 73f.

6

C. VON COLLANI

1.1.2

The Man Driving the Debate: João Rodrigues

A key figure in the debate over the terms question was the Portuguese Jesuit João Rodrigues 陸若漢, who was one of the most interesting personalities among the missionaries of the seventeenth century. Born in Portugal, he arrived Japan in 1577 at the age of fifteen years as part of the Portuguese service and joined the Society of Jesus in 1580. During his studies with the Jesuits, he learnt Latin and Japanese. Not much is known about his theological background except that he received his philosophical and theological education in Japan at the seminaries in Azuchi and later in Funai. As in Europe, Aristotle played an important role in the training of Jesuits in Goa and in Japan.15 Evidently, Rodrigues was also greatly influenced by the disputations which took place between Jesuits and Japanese Buddhists,16 and by Valignano’s Catechismus.17 Rodrigues’ youth, his talent for languages and his stay at the courts of Japanese daimy¯os, where he served as interpreter between Jesuits and Japanese nobles, enabled him to master the Japanese language to such an extent that he received the epithet “Tçuzu” (modern Japanese Tsuji 通事), which translates as “the interpreter”.18 His linguistic skills were put to use when he served as an interpreter for audiences of Jesuits with the Japanese dictator Toyotomi Hideyoshi 豊臣 秀吉 (1537– 1598) and the sh¯ ogun Tokugawa Ieyasu.19 Well acquainted with the life at court and an expert in the Japanese language, he wrote the first European grammar of the Japanese language and several books about the history of Japan.20 Rodrigues, however, made many enemies because of his occasional imprudence, as well as his involvement in the Nagasaki silk

15 Michael Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter: An Early Jesuit in Japan and China

(New York: Weatherhill, 1974), 56–66. 16 Schurhammer, Die Disputationen, 29–36; 66–86. 17 See App, The Cult of Emptiness, 96. Valignano had also been Rodrigues’ teacher at

the beginning of his studies. 18 Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 227f. 19 Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter, 72–83, 100–101, 192–195; Michael Cooper, ed.,

João Rodrigues’s Account of Sixteenth-Century Japan (London: Hakluyt Society, 2001), xvii. 20 See Cooper, João Rodrigues’s Account, 21f. Rodrigues is the author of Arte da lingoa de Iapam (Nagasaki: Collegio de Iapâo da Companhia de Iesu, 1604).

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

7

trade. He was forced to leave Japan for Macao in 1610, where he resided until his death in 1633 while making frequent travels through China.21 Although Rodrigues could not speak Chinese, he fashioned himself as an expert in Chinese religion and culture, writing many treatises about Chinese terms. During his travels through China, Rodrigues interviewed the so-called pillars of Christianity in China, namely Michael (Yang Tingyun 杨廷筠, 1557–1627), Paul (Xu Guangqi 徐光启, 1562–1633) and Leo (Li Zhizao 李之藻, 1565–1630). He also interviewed the nonChristian gelao 閣老 (cabinet minister) Ye Xianggao 葉向高 (1559–1627), who was a friend of the Jesuit Giulio Aleni.22 Many of Rodrigues’ writings on the Terms Controversy are lost, but we can form a rough idea of his position through his letter dated 22 January 1616 to the Superior General of the Jesuits. At the beginning of his letter of 1616, Rodrigues remarks, “Until I entered China, our Fathers of China knew practically nothing about this and about the speculative doctrine. They knew only about the civil and popular doctrine, for there was nobody to explain it to them and enlighten them.”23 Rodrigues meant that they had no idea about the speculative doctrine of the Chinese religions. He was convinced that his knowledge of the Chinese characters was sufficient to understand the three Chinese “sects”: Ru 儒 (Confucianism), Shi 釋 (Buddhism) and Dao 道 (Daoism). However, most of Rodrigues’ attention was devoted to the Ru, which embraced both neo-Confucianism and ancient Confucianism despite the fact that missionaries who followed Ricci usually portrayed ancient Confucianism in positive light.24 Applying Valignano’s understanding of exoteric and esoteric teachings in Japanese Buddhism described in his Catechismus, he found two kinds of doctrines in the Ru sect: the first being a kind of civil theology, which had been invented by the learned and wise men to control the people; the second being a kind of speculative theology under which atheism is concealed. But this doctrine was hidden below dark symbols known only to a few, such as Pythagorean numbers and 21 Cooper, João Rodrigues’s Account, xvi. 22 Collani, “The Opposing Views,” 74f. 23 Rodrigues, “Letter, 22 January 1616,” in Michael Cooper, “Rodrigues in China.

The Letters of João Rodrigues, 1611–1633,” in Kokugoshi e no michi: Doi Sensei sh¯ oju kinen ronbunsh¯ u 国語史への道: 土井先生頌寿記念論文集, (Festschrift Prof. Doi Tadao) vol. 2 (Tokyo: Sanseid¯o, 1981), 312. See Collani, “The Opposing Views,” 76. 24 See Collani, “The Opposing Views,” 76.

8

C. VON COLLANI

other symbols like those used by the Chaldean and Persian magi. Their founder, Zoroaster, King of Bactria and chief of the Chaldean Magi, who had lived during the times of the Babylonian King Ninus, was identified by Rodrigues with the mythological Chinese emperor Fuxi 伏羲 (2952 BC).25 1.1.3

Niccolò Longobardo

The Jesuit figure who assumed the greatest prominence in the whole debate was Niccolò Longobardo. Born in the Sicilian city of Caltagirone in 1559,26 he became notorious for his contrarian stance in the Terms Controversy and is often cast as an opponent of and traitor to his brethren in the Society of Jesus. He conducted his novitiate in Messina where he studied humanities for two years, philosophy for three years and theology for two years, which he completed privately. After teaching for three years and working as novice master for two years, he left Lisbon in 1596 for the East. He arrived in China in 1597, conducting pastoral work in Shaozhou 韶州 (today called Shaoguan 韶關). His success as a missionary was evidenced by numerous conversions among the common people and literati, though he faced persistent opposition from Buddhist bonzes who on occasion even conspired to kill him.27 In 1609, he was called to Beijing and in the following year was designated by Ricci himself to succeed as superior of the China mission, a position which he held for twelve years. In this capacity he demonstrated his talent for organization, sending Nicolas Trigault back to Europe in 1613 to request independence for the China mission from that of Japan.28 Yet Longobardo is also described as an anxious man with a scrupulous conscience. At first he was accepted into the Society of Jesus only as a spiritual coadjutor because his theological knowledge was regarded as weak.

25 Rodrigues, “Letter, 22 January 1616”; Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 312. Similar views were advanced by Kircher. See Athanasius Kircher, China monumentis, qua sacris qua profanis , nec non variis naturae et artis spectaculis , aliarumque rerum memorabilium argumentis illustrata (Amsterdam: Jacobus a Meurs, 1667), 226. 26 See the note at the beginning of this chapter. 27 Pfister, Notices biographiques, 1:59. 28 See Piero Corradini, “La figura e l’opera di Nicolò Longobardo,” in Scienziati siciliani gesuiti in Cina nel secolo XVII , ed. Alcide Luini (Rome: Istituto italo-cinese per gli scambi economici e culturali, 1985), 73–81.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

9

But his achievements in the mission were recognized by being admitted as a professed of the four vows in 1617.29 He made these vows in the private chapel of Yang Tingyun, who was protecting the Jesuits in his Hangzhou home during the persecution of 1617–1620. Longobardo lived there together with the Jesuits Lazzaro Cattaneo (1560–1640), Giulio Aleni, Francesco Sambiasi, Gaspar Ferreira (1571–1649) and Pierre Van Spiere (1584–1628) among others.30 Most probably, he also used this time of seclusion to study Chinese books and commentaries. Longobardo’s scruples would have made it easy for Rodrigues to convince him of his ideas about the colonization of China by Zoroaster and others. As a consequence, Longobardo became obsessed with the idea that the Chinese were misinformed about spiritual things. He wrote various treatises about this issue until he was stopped by Francisco Furtado (1589–1653). From 1627 onwards, he lived for the most part in Beijing, though he made occasional trips to other places, especially to Ji’nan fu 濟南府 in Shandong province, which from 1636 onwards he would visit each year for a couple of months to support the fledgling Christian community there.31 He had a reputation for asceticism, dressing and eating simply, observing all fasts and practising flagellation. When he realized that his time had come, he was prepared for death by Schall. Longobardo’s funeral was described as a magnificent affair. The Shunzhi 順治 emperor himself contributed 300 taels to defray the costs of the burial, thus affording the burial official status.32 Longobardo died in Beijing either on September 1 or December 11, 1654.33 Unfortunately, Longobardo’s tombstone was destroyed during the Boxer rebellion in 1900, but a photograph of it has been preserved. The

29 Ignaz Dunyn-Szpot, “Historiae Sinarum Imperii pars I.,” ARSI, Jap.Sin 102, Annus 1628. See Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 154. 30 Nicolas Standaert, Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in Late Ming China (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 92. 31 Pfister, Notices biographiques, 1:62. 32 [François Clément] Ex litteris P. Francisci Clementis 7 Maij annni 1655. ex Regno

Sinarum missis. De vita et morte P. Nicolai Longobardi Societatis Jesu, HStA, Jesuitica 607/110. 33 According to Dehergne, who refers to D’Elia’s research, Longobardo died in 1655. Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 154. Elisabetta Corsi dates his death to 11 December 1655, which is evidently wrong. Corsi, “LONGOBARDO, Niccolò.”

10

C. VON COLLANI

tombstone indicates that Longobardo died on 11 December 1654, and not 1 September 1654 as recorded by François Clément (1620–1658). Incidentally, the tombstone notes that Longobardo “strongly disapproved of the Chinese Rites (plurimum improbavit Ritus Sinenses )”—a surprising claim given that Longobardo’s objections were directed at Ricci’s use of Chinese terms and were only associated with the Chinese rites by mendicant friars.34

1.2 The Discussions About the Terms Within the Jesuit Order 1.2.1

Under the Visitor Francesco Pasio (1611–1612)

Official discussion within the Society of Jesus on the Chinese terms commenced in 1611 when the visitor Francesco Pasio sent to Longobardo from Nagasaki some “Ordinances” (“Ordinationes”) on the proper terms for God.35 Longobardo asked the opinion of missionaries in China and prominent Chinese Christians, such as Paul (Xu Guangqi), Michael (Yang Tingyun) and Leo (Li Zhizao), Philip, and Thomas among others, while also soliciting the views of non-Christian literati. The Chinese Christians supported Ricci’s position. However, those adhering to Longobardo’s stance thought that Ricci’s position needed to be re-examined. At the time, de Ursis, Rodrigues and the new provincial of Japan and China, Valentim Carvalho supported Longobardo’s side in the debate.36 Longobardo was asked to write a treatise, especially about the term Shangdi. As a result of this small discussion, the use of Shangdi was forbidden in 1612 34 Edward Malatesta and Zhiyu Gao, eds., Departed, yet Present : Zhalan, the Oldest Christian Cemetery in Beijing (Macau and San Francisco: Instituto Cultural de Macau and Ricci Institute, 1995), 267. The 1654 date is also confirmed by Antonio Santa Maria. APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674. Gerd Treffer, Beatrix Schönewald, and Ansgar Reiß, eds., Jesuitenmission in China: der Jesuitenfriedhof in Peking : Katalog zur Ausstellung 2016 im Bayerischen Armeemuseum, Neues Schloß Ingolstadt, 12. Juli bis 20. November 2016 (Ingolstadt: Stadt Ingolstadt, 2016), 296. 35 Giandomenico Gabiani, “De ritibus Ecclesiae Sinicae permissis Apologetica dissertatio,” 1656, “Apologeticae dissertationis appendix,” BNC FG 1249/5, fols 109–158; 159–199; 200–210, published in Henri Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique de la fin du XVIIe siècle sur la question des termes Chinois,” Recherches de science religieuse 36 (1949): 65, §6. 36 Carvalho was provincial of Japan and China 1611–1617. In 1614, he was forced to leave Japan, went to Macao and finally to Goa.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

11

or 1613.37 Diego de Pantoja and Alfonso Vagnone in Beijing disagreed with this decision and wrote treatises against it. In turn, Longobardo, de Ursis and others tried to refute them with their own writings. The different treatises were sent for examination to Rome, where the question was judged by the leading Jesuit theologians of the day, including Leonardus Lessius (1554–1623), Jean Lorin (1559–1634) and Miguel Vazquez.38 They agreed with the opinion of the Chinese Christian literati who believed that the true God had been known and revered in China.39 Theologians in Macao were also questioned, but since there was a great distance between China and Europe, decisions made in Rome took a long time to arrive in China. 1.2.2

Under the Visitor Francisco Vieira (1615–1619)

The new visitor Francisco Vieira sided with Longobardo and Carvalho, but tried to give formal resolution to the controversy by listening to both sides. Pantoja and Vagnone wrote new treatises in support of the terms Shangdi, tianshen and linghun whereas Costanzo, de Ursis and Rodrigues wrote a number of treatises against. Although Costanzo’s treatise is not extant, his stance can be understood from his letters. In particular, he fought against Vagnone. In Costanzo’s opinion, Vagnone had only understood the literal meaning of the Chinese books whereas he himself considered their mystical meaning. Moreover, he argued that since the books which had been burnt in China 600 years ago (ca. 1000) had survived in Japan, the Jesuits in Japan were better and more accurately informed than the Jesuits in China.40 For Costanzo, the polysemy of Tianzhu created much misunderstanding. A bonze who opposed the Jesuits in Nanjing wrote that if

37 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:729. Metzler, Die Synoden, 13. 38 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 65, §11. For the theologians’

response, see Bernard-Maître, 60, §31. 39 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 66, §11. 40 Camillo Costanzo, Letter 14 (25 December 1618) in Stefano De Fiores and Camillo

Costanzo, Il beato Camillo Costanzo: con diciassette lettere inedite dal Giappone e dalla Cina (Vibo Valentia: Qualecultura, 2000), 148–152. The collocation of the original manuscript is ARSI, Jap.Sin. 34, fols 232r–234v. See Schurhammer, Das kirchliche Sprachproblem, 128–132; Antonio Sisto Rosso, Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century (South Pasadena: P.D. and Ione Perkins, 1948), 93–96.

12

C. VON COLLANI

the fathers took Tianzhu in its inner, mystical and secret meaning then this Lord of Heaven would be a being beyond sentience, understanding and even existence and could be epitomized with the Japanese Buddhist concept of munen muso 無想無念, meaning: “he does not understand; he does not know”.41 Even the literal meaning of Tianzhu indicated that the Jesuits were prejudiced by their monotheism and had little understanding of Buddhism, because the Buddhists believed that there were many lords of heaven while the Jesuits thought that there was only one.42 Costanzo’s treatise was sent to Longobardo in Beijing, who agreed and even demanded that the visitor correct all the theological books printed by the Jesuits so far. 1.2.3

Under the Visitor Jerónimo Rodriguez Junior (1619–1626)

The newly appointed visitor Jerónimo Rodriguez (1575–1631), alias Ruiz, convoked a new meeting in Macao in 1621, which was attended primarily by the older China missionaries subscribing to Ricci’s stance, such as Vagnone and Pantoja, as well as opponents such as Camillo Costanzo. The result was a document in favour of the Chinese Terms, “Ordinationes anno 1621 approbatae in favorem P. Matthaei Ricci”.43 It was around this time that Longobardo started to pen his lengthy “Resposta breve”. According to Gabiani, the first draft of the treatise was finished either in 1623 or 1624, although the only extant autograph manuscript was most likely finished in the late 1620s or early 1630s around the Jiading conference.44 Longobardo’s treatise was based on four other treatises, including those written by João Rodrigues and Sabatino de Ursis.45 The differences between the missionaries were not resolved, but became even more entrenched. On Longobardo’s orders, Giacomo 41 Cited in Schurhammer, Das kirchliche Sprachproblem, 128–132. 42 Schurhammer, 131. See also De Fiores and Costanzo, Il beato Camillo Costanzo,

148. 43 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:729. 44 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 69, §22. The reason for the later

dating of the extant autograph manuscript is explained by Song Liming in the second chapter of this introduction. 45 Metzler, Die Synoden, 14. Cfr. Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 184f. The text is preserved in the Archivio della Sacra Congregazione de Propaganda Fide, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 145r–168v.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

13

Rho wrote another treatise to oppose Ricci’s position from Jiangzhou 降 州 in 1623.46 At that time, the Chinese Rites such as the veneration of Confucius and ancestors were not controversial, as they were declared to be purely civil without any superstitious or religious meaning.47 1.2.4

Under the Visitor André Palmeiro (Visitor, 1626–1635)

The visitor André Palmeiro (1569–1635) summoned several missionaries to write more reports. In 1627, Rodrigo (Rui) de Figueredo attacked Rodrigues with another treatise,48 whereas in the same year Pierre Van Spiere (1584–1628) wrote a treatise in support of Rodrigues in Nanjing.49 In the meantime, both parties under the guidance of Longobardo and Vagnone, respectively, were so upset that they accused each other of superstition.50 In Macao, the Spanish Jesuit Pedro de Morejón (Morigoni) was ordered by Palmeiro to conduct a theological examination of both positions.51 He wrote “Sententiae super utriusque partis scriptis”, which favoured the Riccian position, but did little to put the controversy to rest.52 Moreover, the Jesuit Manuel Diaz senior (1559–1639) contributed to the discussion, supporting the Chinese names for God. The bishop of Macao, Diogo Correia Valente (1568–1633), and seven

46 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:750f. 47 Acta Cantoniensia authentica in quibus praxis missionariorum Sinensium Societatis

Jesu circa ritus Sinenses approbata est communi consensu Patrum Dominicanorum, & Jesuitarum, qui erant in China; atque illorum subscriptione firmata (Paris, 1700), 102. See Metzler, Die Synoden, 14; Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:730. 48 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 70, §28; Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:751. 49 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 70, §33; Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:751; Metzler, Die Synoden, 15. 50 Metzler, Die Synoden, 15. 51 Morejón (died 1631) had worked as missionary in India and Japan and from 1627

was rector of the Jesuit college in Macao. Josef F. Schütte, ed., Monumenta historica Japoniae: textus catalogorum Japoniae aliaeque de personis domibusque S.J. in Japonia informationes et relationes 1549–1654, vol. 1 (Rome: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1975), 1243. 52 Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 71, §35; Rosso, Apostolic Legations, 100; Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:751.

14

C. VON COLLANI

theologians were consulted, all of whom confirmed the use of Chinese names.53

1.3

The Jiading Conference

The visitor Palmeiro tried to reconcile the two parties by convoking a conference in Jiading, a small city near Shanghai. The acts of this conference, which was held between December 1627 and January 1628, were lost, but some participants took notes, which were used by the Dominican Domingo Fernández Navarrete (1618–1696) in his Controversias (1679).54 It was attended by eleven missionaries who came from various parts of and Christian literati as Xu Guangqi, Yang Tingyun, Li Zhizao and the licentiate Ignatius who became later viceroy (prorex).55 The discussion, which lasted one month, touched upon thirty-five questions. Each participant was asked to write down his opinion about the Chinese names for God. Foreign phonetic names were rejected by most because they were considered as barbarous by the Chinese. Most Jesuits opted for Tianzhu, while Shangdi and tian were accepted only in certain contexts.56 Trigault wrote a treatise about the spiritual substance in ancient China and how the terms Shangdi, Tianzhu, gui, tianshen and linghun represented God, Angel and “anima rationalis”. Both Schall and Johannes Schreck (1576–1630) also contributed their own treatises. The Jiading conference, however, did not reach an agreement because Longobardo and his followers continued to maintain their opposition. The visitor Palmeiro then issued a decree forbidding the Chinese terms Shangdi and tian. It seems that Schall initially agreed with Palmeiro, but later changed his opinion.57 53 Gaspar Castner SJ, “Historica relatio controversiae de ritibus aliquot Sinicis,” 63 ff. in-12, 1705, München, B. Stat. Codd. Ms. lat. II, P. O, 8689, fol. 6. 54 Monumenta sinica cum disquisitionibus criticis pro vera apologia Jesuitarum contra falsam apologiam dominicanorum et pro recto totius causae sinensis iudicio, 1700, 16; Benno Biermann, Die Anfänge der neueren Dominikanermission in China (Münster: Aschendorff, 1927), 173; Liam Matthew Brockey, The Visitor: André Palmeiro and the Jesuits in Asia (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014), 219–220. 55 Acta Cantoniensia authentica, 102. Gabiani mentions ten missionaries in his “Dissertatio.” 56 Castner, “Historica Relatio,” fol. 5. 57 Castner, “Historica Relatio,” fol. 6; Metzler, Die Synoden, 15–16.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

15

Manuel Dias senior was not satisfied with Palmeiro’s decision to forbid the terms Shangdi and Tian. In his letter of 1630, he wrote to the Superior General of the Jesuits Muzio Vitelleschi (1563–1645, in office 1615–1645) in defence of Ricci’s stance. He asserted that Dr Leo (Li Zhizao), Dr Ignatius (Sun Yuanhua 孙元化, 1581/1582–1632) and Dr Paul (Xu Guangqi) together with the non-Christian literatus Ye Xianggao were much concerned about the troubles stirred by Longobardo and his adherents.58 Longobardo answered with “Annotationes contra usum nominis Xam-ti, Pekini 1631”,59 whereas Gaspar Ferreira rebutted Longobardo with “Refutatio argumentorum P. Longobardi”.60 When João Rodriguez entered China proper again in 1630, Palmeiro ordered him not to disturb the peace by speaking or writing anything about the name of the highest numen.61 This was by no means the end of the controversy. The discussion continued under the new visitor Pedro Ribero (1570–1640, visitor 1630– 1632) and Francisco Furtado, Vice-Provincial of China, at the end of 1633 or beginning of 1634.62 It was decided that as European names are meaningless in Chinese, the three names Shangdi, tian and Tianzhu could also be used in the future.63 Longobardo, however, could not be convinced.64 At this point, he even wanted to forbid the name Tianzhu, which he had formerly tolerated, and sought to modify Ricci’s works.

58 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2140. 59 Dehergne wrote that the treatise was held in the Diocesan Archive of the diocese of

Hankou, now part of the Franciscan Archive in Rome, but this is not the case since the Franciscan Archive only has a copy of the Spanish translation of Longobardo’s “Resposta”. Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 154. 60 Streit, 5:§2134, 763; Metzler, Die Synoden, 16. 61 Castner, “Historica Relatio,” fol. 7. 62 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:763. 63 Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 184; Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 47,

75. 64 Castner, “Historica relatio,” fol. 8; Rule, K’ung-Tzu or Confucius?, 87. Gaspar Castner (1655–1709) was sent together with François Noël (1651–1729) and Ramón Arxó (1633–1711) as Jesuit procurator in Rome on behalf of the Chinese Rites.

16

C. VON COLLANI

The result was his treatise “Annotationes contra usum nominis TienChu”, resp. “Annotações sobre o nome Tien Chu, Pechino”, 2 November 1633.65 The planned corrections of the books already published by the Jesuits in China were forbidden by two successive visitors, Francisco Vieira and Jerónimo Rodriguez, and even by the Jesuit Superior General Muzio Vitelleschi. Longobardo was warned not to disturb the mission with his scruples. In order to end the controversy and also to prevent the text from being used against the Jesuits by the mendicant friars, the ViceProvincial of South China, Francisco Furtado ordered in 1645 or 1646 the burning of Longobardo’s treatise, which was executed by Gaspar Ferreira in Ji’nan in Shandong, where Longobardo was working as a missionary since 1640.66

1.4 The Circulation of Longobardo’s Treatise Among the Mendicant Friars Despite Furtado’s order, parts of Longobardo’s treatise survived. At Longobardo’s death in 1654 it was not known that Longobardo had preserved a copy for himself. It was discovered by the French Jesuit Jean Valat (1614–1696) in the Beijing residence, perhaps upon his return to the capital in 1656.67 The Jesuits may have found the document while cleaning Longobardo’s room after his death. Valat then passed it over to the Franciscan friar Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero (1602–1669).68 Afterwards it was Santa Maria who spread copies and translations of that manuscript. Probably there was also another copy in the Archives of the

65 BNC. VE., Rome, FG 1252/6, fols 250r–275r. Cf. Marina Battaglini, “The Jesuit Manuscripts Concerning China, Preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale—Vittorio Emanuele II in Rome,” in Actes du cinquième colloque international de Sinologie, Cantilly 1986, ed. Edward Malatesta and Yves Raguin (Taipei: Ricci Institute, 1993), 50. BernardMaître mentions the Latin title only; “Un dossier bibliographique,” 73, §47. 66 Castner: “Historica relatio,” fol. 8; Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 47; Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 154. 67 Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 278. 68 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 196r and 214v. Castner, “His-

torica Relatio,” fol. 8; Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique,” 55, 75; App, The Cult of Emptiness, 147.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

17

Vice-Province of China which was seen by Gabiani and mentioned in his list, but this copy later disappeared. Santa Maria, also known to posterity by the French translation of his name, Antoine de Sainte Marie, was the most important Franciscan missionary of early modern times. He first attempted to enter southern China in 1633, where he baptized among others Luo Wenzao 羅文 炤 (1617–1691), also known as Gregorio López, who later became a Dominican and the first Chinese bishop. Under the influence of the Dominican Juan Bautista de Jesús de Morales (1597–1664), Santa Maria formed the view that the rituals used for veneration of the ancestors and Confucius were superstitious and idolatrous. On 12 September 1645, Morales obtained a decree from the Propaganda Fide which strictly forbade the veneration of the ancestors and Confucius “under pain of excommunication latae sententiae” (sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae) from the Holy See.69 When the Jesuits learned of this, they sent Martino Martini (1614–1661) to Rome in 1651. In 1656, Martini obtained a contradictory decree tolerating the use of the Chinese rites. Santa Maria is described as a very zealous missionary who was always anxious about the purity of the Christian faith. Although opposed to the Jesuits’ missionary policy, he maintained comparably good personal relations with them.70 He was made Apostolic Prefect of the China mission of his order in 1648 and arrived in Shandong in 1650 together with the Castilian Juan Buenaventura Ibáñez OFM (1610–1691).71 Here he established a mission in the city of Ji’nan with Schall’s advice and assistance.

69 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2189. 70 Alfons Väth, Johann Adam Schall von Bell S.J. Missionar in China, kaiserlicher

Astronom und Ratgeber am Hofe von Peking 1592–1666 (Nettetal: Steyler, Verlag 1991), 214; Anastasius van den Wyngaert, ed., Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 2 (Quaracchi, Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1933), 326. Santa Maria’s letters are published in the second and ninth volumes of the Sinica Franciscana series. 71 For Ibáñez, see Wyngaert, ed., Sinica Franciscana, vol. 3 (Quaracchi, Florence:

Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1936), 19-329, Georgius Mensaert, ed., Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 7.1 (Rome: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1965), 3–119. He seems to have been comparably successful as a missionary. During a drought in Shandong, at the insistence of the viceroy, Ibáñez prayed and fasted with his Christians, and it rained. Castner, “Historica relatio”; App, The Cult of Emptiness, 147.

18

C. VON COLLANI

Since 1652, the Jesuit Jean Valat also worked as a missionary in Shandong,72 and it seems that Santa Maria and Valat became friends.73 Adversaries of the rites, mostly Dominicans, described Valat as a man of strict religious observance who sought to protect the purity of the faith by fighting superstition among his neophytes. After Valat gave Santa Maria a copy of Longobardo’s treatise in 1661, the Franciscan made several copies, which he distributed in Fujian and to the Dominicans in Manila, New Spain and Europe,74 and made a Latin translation, which later assumed great importance in the Rites Controversy.75 The title of the Latin translation was “Responsio breuis super controuersias de Xámtí, hoc est de Altissimo Domino, de Ti¯en xîn, id est de spiritibus cœlestibus, de Lím-hoên, id est de Anima rationali”.76 The Latin translation was also authenticated by Morales, who as Notary Apostolic on 27 May 1662 confirmed that the Latin text was the exact translation of the Portuguese original text.77 The translation was done for the cardinals of Propaganda Fide who could, of course, read Latin but not necessarily Portuguese.78 72 Sébastien-Joseph Cambout de Pontchâteau, La Morale pratique des Jésuites, vol. 6 (Nancy: Nicolai, 1735), 50. 73 Castner, “Historica relatio”; Fortunatus Margiotti, ed., Sinica , Franciscana, vol. 9.2 (Matriti: Centrum Cardenal Cisneros, 1995), 987–989. Valat wrote Santa Maria’s Elogium in Guangzhou (dated 17 June 1669). See Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2364. The inscription on Santa Maria’s tombstone was written by his former disciple, Luo Wenzao. See Wyngaert, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 2, 329. 74 “Este tratado foi reprovado pellos superiores, por ordem dos quaes eu tinha queimado em Xamtum hum treslado que lá esteva, vivendo ainda nesse tempo o mesmo P. Longobardo em Pekim. Depoes de sua morte hum padre vindo de novo, que foi mandato a corte pro companheiro do P. João Adamo em lugar do Longobardo, a caso achou em hum canto dessa casa outro exemplar desses plolegomenos (assy hera intitulado o papel, somente começado e não acabado) e vindose pera Xamtum o deu ao P. Fr. Antonio. Este bom padre … pondolhe encima (de sua propria cabeça hum titulo infame), fez delle muitos treslados, e os mandou a Fokien en aos RR. Padres Dominicos, a Manila, a Novo Espanha, e a Europa.” Letter by Gianfrancesco de Ferrariis SJ (1609–1671), in Mensaert, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 9.2, 987, n.11. See also Ferrariis’ letter of 20 February 1670, ARSI, FG 730, fol. 103r–105v. 75 Castner, “Historica relatio,” fol. 8. 76 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 170r–197v, cf. Streit, Bibliotheca

missionum, 5:750; Metzler, Die Synoden, 13. 77 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 197v. The testification in the manuscript in the Biblioteca Casanatense was in Lanqi, 4 of April 1662, fol. 30v. 78 Antonio Santa Maria, “For the most eminent Cardinals of the Propaganda Fide in Rome. Translation from the Portuguese language into Latin of a certain treatise (written)

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

19

The Latin translation of Longobardo’s treatise was signed by Santa Maria on 8 December 1661. The Latin manuscript in the Archives of Propaganda Fide (APF) has several paratexts which are absent in the Biblioteca Casanatense copy. While both manuscripts end with the allusion to a missing “praeludium 18”, in the APF text Santa Maria mentions that the last folia of the manuscript after “praeludium 17” did not reach his hands because they had been cut. He explains that this is the reason why Longobardo’s signature is absent from the end of the manuscript, but he points out that his name appears on the first folio of the preface in the right corner of the top. Santa Maria also mentions that he met Longobardo twice at the imperial court of Beijing and that he talked with him during several days, and that Longobardo died in Beijing in 1654 aged ninety-four years.79 He testified that the treatise was written by Longobardo in his own hand since he could recognize his handwriting.80 In 1662, Santa Maria sent Ibañez to Rome to refute the 1656 decree obtained by Martini. This is confirmed by Santa Maria’s letter to Francisco Ingoli (1578–1649), former secretary of the Propaganda Fide, dated 5 April 1662.81 “Declaratio sub iuramento,” Santa Maria wrote that the contradictions between the two decrees of 1645 and 1656 made the situation complicated for the missionaries. Of particular concern to Santa Maria was the fact that the 1656 decree permitted Chinese Christians to participate in Chinese rites “sub praetextu civili ac politico” at home and in public temples and cemeteries. In his eyes, the decision was based on Martini’s faulty assumptions. Even before reading Longobardo’s treatise, Santa Maria had been working on a refutation of the 1656 decree, to which he then appended Longobardo’s original Portuguese text and his own Latin translation.82

by a missionary of the Societas Jesu, written by order of his superiors”. AP, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 170v. 79 The dates are written on the tombstone and confirmed by Santa Maria; see footnote at the beginning of this chapter. 80 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 196r. 81 Margiotti, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 9.2, 985–988. 82 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 198–214v. This is followed by Antonio Santa Maria’s “Epilogus,” fols 214v–218v, dated 24 of March 1662. See Wyngaert, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 2, 340, n. 56; Margiotti, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 9.2, 986, n. 9.

20

C. VON COLLANI

In Ibáñez’s opinion, Longobardo’s text proved that the term Shangdi was not an appropriate name for the Christian God, for it was a “diabolic chimera” introduced by the devil to deceive Chinese gentiles.83 Ibáñez commenced his journey from Ji’nan on 14 April 1662, reaching Canton in mid-August 1662. In February 1665, he arrived in Masulipatam in India (now in the state of Andhra Pradesh) where he joined the travelling party of the Apostolic Vicar François Pallu MEP (1626–1684), who was on his way from Siam back to Europe. Travelling partly by ship and partly by land through the Mogul empire in India and Egypt, on Christmas 1666 they reached Aleppo and finally Rome on 20 April 1667.84 In Rome, Ibañez presented to the Propaganda Fide his own report on the China mission and several petitions.85 He also submitted Santa Maria’s treatise “Declaratio sub iuramento” refuting the Chinese rites together with Longobardo’s “Resposta breve” and its Latin translation.86 In the meantime, the Dominican Father Juan Polanco had also arrived in Rome to get a solution concerning the two contradictory decrees of 1645 and 1656.87 Polanco’s questions were answered by a further decree of 13 November 1669, which declared that both decrees were to be observed according to their respective contents and circumstances.88

1.5

The Canton Conference

Another important stage in the reception of Longobardo’s text was the so-called Canton Conference, when most missionaries were expelled to Canton as a result of the Calendar Case (1665–1669). Since the Kangxi Emperor (1662–1722) was still a minor, China was ruled by four Manchu

83 Ibáñez, Letter to Sebastian Rodriguez, 27 February 1664, Anastasius van den Wyngaert, ed., Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 3 (Quaracchi, Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1936), 53. 84 For a description of the long travel to and through Europe, see Mensaert, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 7.1, 9–14. 85 Wyngaert, Sinica , Franciscana, vol. 3, 58–74. Mensaert, Sinica, Franciscana, vol. 7.1, fols 43–48. 86 Aug. 1661, fols 45r–218v in: APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 198–214v. 87 Polanco, since 1658 in China, was sent to Europe as procurator in 1661. He died in Sevilla in 1671. 88 Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2738; Rosso, Apostolic Legations, 124.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

21

regents. Under their regency, the notorious Confucian literatus Yang Guangxian 楊光先 (1597–1669) made several accusations at the Bureau of Rites (Libu 禮部) against Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592–1666), who was then director of Imperial Astronomical Bureau. He successfully charged Schall of having caused the death of the Shunzhi 順治 emperor (reign 1644–1661), his consort and son by having chosen an inauspicious day for the burial of an infant from the imperial household.89 As a result, Schall was condemned to death and incarcerated with the three other missionaries stationed in Beijing, Ludovico Buglio (1606–1682), Gabriel de Magalhães (1610–1677) and Ferdinand Verbiest (1623–1688). The other missionaries in China were first summoned to Beijing, then exiled to Canton. On 25 March 1666, twenty-five missionaries arrived at the Jesuit residence of Canton, where they stayed under house of arrest until 1671 when the Kangxi emperor relaxed the restrictions on the missionaries.90 Under housearrest in Canton were nineteen Jesuits, one Franciscan and three Dominicans.91 Other Dominicans hid in the provinces, whereas the Dominican Gregorio Luo Wenzao moved around freely because he was Chinese.92 The missionaries made the most of their house arrest to translate Chinese philosophical texts, but they also sought to resolve 89 Johann Adam Schall von Bell and the Calendar bureau were accused to have caused the death of the Shunzhi Emperor, his consort and his son because of doing bad feng shui. The name of the Prince was Rong, 榮親王 (12 November 1657–25 February 1658), fourth son of Shunzhi. See Martin Gimm, Der Fall Prinz Rong im Prozeß gegen den Jesuitenpater Adam Schall in den Jahren 1664/65 in China (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018). 90 Nicolas Standaert, ed., Handbook of Christianity in China (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 312, 513–515. 91 António de Gouvea (1592–1677), Portuguese; Pietro Canevari from Genova (1596– 1675); Inácio da Costa, Portuguese (1603–1666) (died in Canton); Francesco Brancati, Sicilian (1607–1671) died in Canton; Giovanni Francesco Ferrariis, from Piedmont Cuneo (also Gianfrancesco) (1609–1671), died in Anqing when he returned from the exile; Andrea Giovanni Lubelli from Lecce, kingdom of Naples (1628–1685); Jacques le Faure, French (1613–1675); Stanislao Torrente, from Orvieto (1616–1681); Feliciano Pacheco, Portuguese (1622–1687); Jean Valat, French (1614 (?)– 1696); Humbert Augery, French (1618–1673); Manuel Jorge, Portuguese (1621–1677); Giandomenico Gabiani, Piedmont Nizza (1623–1694); Claude Motel (1618–1671) set free in 1671 and Jacques Motel (1619–1692), blood brothers from France; Philippe Couplet (1623–1692), Belgian; Francois de Rougemont (1624–1676), Belgian; Christian Herdtrich (1625–1684), Austrian; Adrien Grelon (1618–1696), French; Prospero Intorcetta (1625–1696), Sicilian. See Acta Cantoniensia authentica, 4–7; Metzler, Die Synoden, 23. 92 Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, 463.

22

C. VON COLLANI

long standing differences in missionary policy by holding a forty-day conference from 18 December 1667 until 26 January 1668. Forty-two controversial points were discussed.93 It seems that most participants of the conference signed the minutes, but, according to the Jesuits, the friars later changed their mind. Santa Maria did not sign, because he had doubts concerning four of the forty-two resolutions.94 The Jesuits sent the conference minutes to the visitor Luis da Gama in Macao, whereas Navarrete wrote his own report, which attacked in particular the forty-first resolution on the Confucian rites.95 Interestingly, the Dominican Domenico Sarpetri (1623–1683) remained on the Jesuits’ side as he had done at the Lanqi conference of 1661. He continued to support the 1656 decree and even wrote a refutation of Longobardo’s treatise, dealing with three questions.96 The first concerned the first being, that is, what the ancient Chinese understood by the term Shangdi. In Sarpetri’s opinion it was quite probable that the Chinese had an idea of the true God, perhaps not as clear as that of the Jews, but similar to that held by certain pagans who lived at the time of Abraham. The second question concerned Longobardo’s treatise. Sarpetri replied that the Jesuit superiors did well to burn it because it disturbed the conscience. Sarpetri also thought that Longobardo’s scruples were the result of poor instruction whereas he believed that the other missionaries from Japan were carried away by zeal, did not know the Chinese books and had little understanding of China. The third question concerned whether European terms should be used for Chinese things, Sarpetri answered in the negative, because they would not suit the Chinese language.97 93 See Metzler, Die Synoden, 24–28. 94 See Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2344; Metzler, Die Synoden, 30. 95 “Informe del P. Domingo Navarrete O.P. al R.P. Feliciano Pacheco, Vice-Provincial

de la Misión de China de la Compañia de Jesús, sobre si el culto, que los letrados deste Reyno dan á su Maestro el Confucio, es supersticioso, ó no, Canton 8 di Marzo 1668,” Domingo Navarrete, Controversias antiguas y modernas de la mission de la gran China (Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1679), 295–356. See Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2349; Metzler, Die Synoden, 29. 96 Domingo Sarpetri, De Sinensium Ritibus politicis Acta seu appendix ad scripta R.P. Sarpetri, … De Deo uno, vivo ac vero a veteribus Sinis per duo annorum millia cognito adversus scripta P. Longobardi S.J. (Paris, 1700). 97 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, ed. Li Wenchao 李文潮 and Hans Poser (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002), 259.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

23

Santa Maria made and kept other copies of Longobardo’s treatise in addition to the one which was given to Ibáñez. He passed a copy to Navarrete, who translated it into Spanish from Portuguese and included it as the “Tratado quinto” of his Tratados históricos under the title “Respuesta breve, sobre las controversias de el Xang Ti, Tien Xin, y Ling Hoen”.98 Navarrete added his own annotations, but excluded Chinese characters and illustrations. During the following years, Navarrete’s Spanish translation became very popular in Europe and was used by many as a weapon against the Jesuits’ position in the Rites Controversy. For instance, in La Morale pratique des Jésuites (1688), the editor Sébastien-Joseph du Cambout de Pontchâteau (1634–1690) reproached the Jesuits for claiming that the Chinese literati were idolaters and atheists at the same time. He recommended Longobardo’s treatise as a source of good information about the religion of the Chinese.99

1.6

The Members of the Missions Étrangères de Paris

In the meantime the Missions Étrangères de Paris (MEP) had become an important player in the missions of the Far East. After several vain attempts of sending their members as Vicars Apostolic to China, François Pallu became the first Vicar Apostolic to reach ever China, but died soon afterwards in 1684. While the MEP was at first close to the French Jesuits, they became their strongest opponents in Europe and China. The controversies about rites and terms resumed with the mandate of 1693 issued by Charles Maigrot MEP (1652–1730), the Vicar Apostolic of Fujian. Although Maigrot accepted Tianzhu as name for God, he forbade the terms Shangdi, tian and taiji. The mandate was submitted to the Holy Office in 1697 to discredit the Jesuits’ policy of accommodation.100 After 1700, numerous treatises, books and pamphlets on the Rites Controversy were published on both sides. As France had emerged as the cultural and scientific centre of Europe, much of the discussion shifted 98 Domingo Navarrete, Tratados históricos , políticos , éticos y religiosos de la monarchia de China (Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1676), 245–289; Streit, Bibliotheca missionum, 5:§2440. 99 Cambout de Pontchâteau, La Morale pratique des Jésuites, 6:48. 100 Claudia von Collani, “Charles Maigrot’s Role in the Chinese Rites Controversy,”

in The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning, ed. David Mungello (Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1994), 151–155.

24

C. VON COLLANI

from Latin to French. It was in this context that the two lengthy treatises of Longobardo and Santa Maria were translated into French by the former China missionary Louis Champion de Cicé MEP (1648–1727).101 In a letter of 24 October 1698 Cicé had praised Charles Le Gobien’s Histoire de l’édit de l’empereur de la Chine (1698), which presented China in a very positive light, and confessed that he more or less shared the Jesuits’ opinion concerning the rites.102 However, when his letter of 1698 was printed in 1700, Cicé denied ever having written it and accused the Jesuits of forgery. He professed that he followed Maigrot in all things Chinese. Impressed by Longobardo, Cicé decided to translate Longobardo from Spanish into French to prove that neither the old nor the modern Chinese ever knew the same God as the Christians, and that Chinese terms for God must be refused. Cicé also related the story that Furtado, Longobardo’s successor as superior of the Jesuit China mission, clearly understood the damage this manuscript would cause, and thus decided to burn it in the presence of other Jesuits to put an end to all debate on the matter.103

1.7

Conclusion

Longobardo’s treatise played a highly influential role in European perceptions of Chinese religion and philosophy for nearly 150 years. His treatise was diffused and translated by several missionaries of different orders who met and exchanged ideas and texts: the Jesuit Valat with the Franciscan Santa Maria; the Franciscan Ibáñez with Pallu of the Missions Étrangères de Paris and with Propaganda Fide; Santa Maria with the Dominican

101 Niccolò Longobardo, Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois, trans. Louis Champion de Cicé (Paris: Louis Guérin, 1701); Antonio Caballero a Santa Maria, Traité sur quelques points importans de la mission de la Chine, trans. Louis Champion de Cicé (Paris: Louis Guérin, 1701). After attempts in Canada to convert the Irokese and other Indians Cicé joined the MEP in 1682 and went to China the same year. In 1697, he returned to France for the needs of the MEP seminary. In 1700 he was elected titulary bishop of Sabula and Vicar Apostolic of Siam. He went to Siam and died in Juthia, Siam, in 1727. 102 Several sentences from this book were condemned by the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne in 1700. 103 Louis de Cicé, Lettre de M. Louis de Cicé, nommé par le S. Siège à l’évêché de Sabula, et au vicariat apostolique de Siam, du Japon, &c. aux RR. PP. Jésuites sur les idolâtries & sur les superstitions de la Chine (Cologne: Chez les Héritiers de Corneille d’Egmond, 1700), 13.

1

THE GENESIS, EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS …

25

Navarrete; and Navarrete with Pallu and (indirectly) with Cicé of the Missions Étrangères de Paris. Longobardo’s treatise was even translated into English by the Churchill brothers as part of their translation of Navarrete’s Tratados historicos in the first volume of their series A Collection of Voyages and Travels.104 It also deeply influenced the German philosopher and polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), who had been interested in China from at least 1675 until his death.105 Paradoxically, despite reading Longobardo’s treatise, Leibniz embraced the Jesuit position not only in the Rites Controversy but also in the debates about ancient Chinese religion, and sought to solve these questions with his own intellectual contribution. After having read and annotated the French treatises written by Longobardo and Santa Maria, he tried to refute the purported atheism of the Chinese with a long letter to one of his correspondents, namely the “Lettre à M. Rémond”, which was written in 1716 but only published in 1735 as part of Leibniz’s opera omnia together with treatises of Longobardo and Santa Maria.106 At the end of the same volume are some excerpts from two letters by the French Orientalist Maturin Vessière de La Croze (1661–1739) to Sebastian Kortholt, the editor’s father.107 La Croze shared Longobardo’s 104 Niccolò Longobardo, “A Short Answer Concerning the Controversies About Xang

Ti, Tien Xin, and Ling Hoen (That Is, the King of the Upper Region, Spirits, and Rational Soul Assign’d by the Chineses) and Other Chinese Names and Terms; to Clear Which of Them May Be Us’d by the Christians of These Parts,” in A Collection of Voyages and Travels, ed. Awnsham Churchill and John Churchill, vol. 1 (London: H.C. at the Black-Swan in Pater-noster-Row, 1704), 183–224. 105 Virgile Pinot, La Chine et la formation de l’esprit philosophique en France, 1640–1740 (Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1971), 337. 106 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Lettre de Mr. De Leibniz sur la philosophie chinoise à Mons. De Remond,” in Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, ed. Christian Kortholt, vol. 2, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1735), 413–494. Niccolò Longobardo, “Traité sur quelques points de la religion des chinois,” in Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, ed. Christian Kortholt, vol. 2, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1735), 165–266; Antonio Caballero a Santa Maria, “Traité sur quelques points importans de la mission de la Chine,” in Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, ed. Christian Kortholt, vol. 2, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1735), 268–412. 107 Maturin Vessière de La Croze (1661–1739), French Orientalist and librarian at the Berlin Court. Initially a theologian, he became a Huguenot. He wrote mission histories of India, Ethiopia and Armenia and made sinological studies. La Croze was one of Leibniz’ correspondents (he sent 36 letters to Leibniz and received 12 letters from Leibniz). He considered the expulsion of the Jesuits from China as a great loss for religion and for

26

C. VON COLLANI

opinion about Chinese atheism and idololatry. It is followed by excerpts from another letter, dated 22 July 1721, which deals specifically with Longobardo’s treatise. Here La Croze praises Longobardo’s geniality and erudition, while considering Confucius as pantheist, as did Alexandre de Rhodes SJ (1593–1660) and Claude de Visdelou SJ (1656–1737).108 The next eighteenth-century edition of Leibniz’s complete works was published at Geneva in 1768 by Louis Dutens (1730–1812).109 This edition contains: “Lettre de M. Leibniz sur la philosophie Chinoise, à M. De Rémond (recueil Kortholt)”,110 followed by the “Excerpta” of Maturin Veyssiere La Croze,111 and Longobardo’s treatise,112 but excludes Santa Maria’s treatise. Despite Leibniz’s efforts in refuting Longobardo’s treatise, Longobardo’s negative evaluation of Chinese religion and philosophy played a part in the shift from sinophilie in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries to sinophobie. Longobardo’s undermining of the Jesuits’ missionary practices in China also inadvertently contributed to the abolition of the Society of Jesus in 1773. Many Jesuits strove in vain to present China, its religion, philosophy and books in a positive light (Couplet, Intorcetta, Michel Le Tellier), but their lengthy analysis was not as effective as Longobardo’s more concise style. Leibniz was the first who really tried to understand the philosophy of the Song dynasty behind Longobardo’s text. Yet paradoxically, the republication of Longobardo and Santa Maria’s texts in Leibniz’s opera omnia probably contributed more to the contempt of China and the Jesuits in the eighteenth century than the polemics of Antoine Arnauld and Nicolas Malebranche.

science. Eduard Bodemann, Die Handschriften der Königlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover (Hannover: Hahn, 1867), 125; Franz Rudolf Merkel, G. W. von Leibniz und die China-Mission. Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der protestantischen Missionsbewegung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920), 33. 108 Maturin Vessière de La Croze, “Excerpta ex epistola Maturini Veyssiere La Croze ad Sebastianum Kortholtum scripta die XXII. IVLII MDCCXXI,” in Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, ed. Christian Kortholt, vol. 2, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1735), 502–504. 109 Louis Dutens, ed., Gothofridi Guillelmi Leibnitii opera omnia, 6 vols. (Geneva: Fratres de Tournes, 1768). 110 Dutens, 4:169–210. 111 Dutens, 4:211–215. 112 Dutens, 4:89–144.

CHAPTER 2

The Identification of Chinese Non-Christian Literati and Reflections on the Dating of the “Resposta breve” and Its Place of Composition Song Liming

In order to acquire a more comprehensive and balanced view on the controversies over Shangdi, tianshen and linghun, Longobardo conducted interviews with many Christian and non-Christian Chinese. In Prelude 17 of the “Resposta breve”, Longobardo mentions the names, birthplace and official positions of sixteen pagan literati who agree with his position. He provides a record of his conversations with eight of these pagan literati while in the concluding paragraph he merely lists the names of the remaining eight literati without recording their interviews. It is worth noting that while the French translation omits Prelude 17 in its

L. Song (B) Nanjing University, Nanjing, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_2

27

28

L. SONG

entirety, the Spanish and English printed translations only provide incomplete information about the pagan literati and often lack their birthplace and official position; all the printed translations omit the list of the eight literati whose conversations were not recorded by Longobardo.1 Based on the three printed versions, it is very difficult and in some cases impossible to identify them. As a matter of fact, until now only one Chinese name, Qian Linwu 錢隣武, has been identified in a publication.2 This new English translation, which is based on Santa Maria’s Latin translation and Longobardo’s Portuguese manuscript, presents for the first time Longobardo’s information about the sixteen pagan literati in full, thus allowing the identification of more of Longobardo’s Chinese interlocutors. In fact, Thierry Meynard has recently identified another two literati: Wu Benru 吳本如 and Li Zongyan 李宗延. Since these two literati, like Qian Linwu, held very high office, it is relatively easy to identify them. However, since the remaining literati for the most part held lower office, it is more difficult to identify them. To make matters worse, one of them is not even a real mandarin and even not an advanced scholar (jinshi 进士): working out his Chinese name is just like finding a needle in a haystack. Moreover, the phonetic system used by missionaries four centuries ago is different from the Pinyin system used now. Even after determining the modern Pinyin equivalent of phonetic transliterations used by the Jesuits, it is difficult to work out to which character the transliteration corresponds. For instance, when Longobardo writes “ly pu”, he could mean Ministry of Rites (Libu 禮部) or Ministry of Personnel (Libu 吏部). Finally, Longobardo usually uses the literary names of the literati instead of their actual names. For these reasons, the identification of these pagan literati is still a difficult task. In this chapter, I identify eight Chinese pagan literati in addition to the three already identified by Standaert and Meynard; however, the identification of five literati remains uncertain or in need of further confirmation. Here I report first my research on the eight Chinese whose conversations

1 Navarrete, Tratados históricos, 282–284; Longobardo, Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois; Longobardo, “A Short Answer Concerning the Controversies About Xang Ti, Tien Xin, and Ling Hoen (That Is, the King of the Upper Region, Spirits, and Rational Soul Assign’d by the Chineses) and Other Chinese Names and Terms; to Clear Which of Them May Be Us’d by the Christians of These Parts,” 218–220. 2 Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 199. Nicolas Standaert identified Qian Linwu using his alternative name Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤.

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

29

are recorded in the “Resposta breve”, and then on the eight Chinese without recorded conversations; finally, I draw from these identifications some inferences about the dating of Longobardo’s treatise and its place of composition.

2.1 Eight Pagan Literati with Record of Conversation 2.1.1

Wu Yongxian 吳用先, Alias Wu Benru 吳本如

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 1): “Doctor u puen ju, of Nanchili (Nanzhili 南直隸) or Nanjing Province, formerly a Buddhist monk (bonze), who later obtained the degree of jinshi 進士, a mandarin of Tumchim (Tongzhengsi 通政司, Bureau of Communication), now tutao (dutang 都堂, governor) in Leaotum (Liaodong 遼東)”.3 Identification: Thierry Meynard identified “u puen ju” as Wu Benru 吳本如. His formal name was Wu Yongxian 吳用先 (1558–1626), and one of his literary names was Benru 本如. He was born in Tongcheng 桐 城, which now belongs to Anhui Province 安徽省, but during the Ming dynasty Tongcheng was part of Nanjing Province (Nanzhili 南直隸).4 There is no evidence that Wu was ever a Buddhist monk (heshang 和尚), although he was a famous lay Buddhist (jushi 居士). Longobardo might have mistaken lay Buddhist for Buddhist monk. Wu obtained the degree of jinshi in 1592, and in 1623 he was Director of Bureau of Communication (Tongzhengshi 通政使).5 From August 1624 to March 1625 he was Governor (zongdu 總督) of Jiliao 冀遼, or “Tutao” of Liaodong, as Longobardo called this position. Wu is also mentioned in Prelude 11, N.o 8 and Prelude 13, N.o 8.

3 The information has been checked against the original Portuguese manuscript in APF to resolve inaccuracies in the Latin manuscript. 4 In the Ming and Qing dynasties, there were two provinces called zhili, Nanjing and Beijing, which were southern and northern capitals. 5 Zhang Dexin 張德信, Mingdai zhiguan nianbiao 明代職官年表 (Hefei: Huangshan Shushe, 2009), 2:1238.

30

L. SONG

2.1.2

Zhou Qiang 周锵, Alias Zhou Muqian 周慕乾

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 2): “Doctor Cheu m˘o kien, from Beizhili 北直隸 or Beijing Province, a mandarin of Lypu (Libu 禮部, Ministry of Rites), as an assistant of chù ke siì (Zhukesi 主客司, Bureau of Receptions)”. Identification: Zhou Qiang 周鏘 (?-?) was born in Haining 海寧 of Zhejiang Province 浙江省. According to the Logs and Drafts of the Ministry of Rites (Libu zhigao 禮部志稿, 1620), his household registration was attached to the emperor’s Embroidered Uniform Guard (Jinyiwei 錦衣衛). Perhaps for this reason Longobardo considered him as being from Beijing Province (Beizhili 北直隸). His literary name was Muqian 慕乾, which corresponds to m˘o kien. He obtained the degree of jinshi in 1595 and in 1621 became Councillor of the Bureau of Receptions (Zhukesi yuanwailang 主客司員外郎), which was a part of the Ministry of Rites.6 Zhou is also one of co-editors of the Libu zhigao, which he signed as Councillor of Bureau of Sacrifice (Cijisi yuanwailang 祠祭司員外郎). His final official position was Chief Prosecutor of Henan Province (Henan anchashi 河南按察使). In Prelude 13, N.o 10 Longobardo mentions that Zhou Muqian debated with Huang Yuntai 黃運泰 (see below) on the doctrine of li or taiji. 2.1.3

Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤, Alias Qian Linwu 錢隣武

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 3): “Doctor Çiên lîn vû, from Chikiam (Zhejiang Province), recently promoted to lypu chamxu (Libu shangshu 禮部尚書, President of the Ministry of Rites)”. Identification: As mentioned above, Standaert identified “Çiên lîn vû” as Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤. One of his literary names was Linwu 隣武, which corresponds to “lîn vû”. He was born in 1569 in Shaoxing 紹興 of Zhejiang Province, obtained the degree of jinshi in 1601 and in 1626 became President of the Board of Rites of Nanjing (Nanjing libu shangshu 南京禮部尚書). He was in this post for a very short time when in 1628 he was promoted to President of the Board of Rites (of Beijing).7 Longobardo said that he had a discussion with Qian Xiangkun and doctor Michael 6 Lin Yaoyu 林尧俞, ed., Libu zhigao 禮部志稿 (1620), 43:59a. 7 Zhang Tingyu 張廷玉, Mingshi 明史 (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1974), 22:6492–

6493.

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

31

(Yang Tingyun 杨廷筠, 1557–1627) “in a certain academy near our residence” in Hangzhou, and this academy would be the famous Academy of Wansong (Wansong shuyuan 萬松書院). 2.1.4

Xu Ruke 徐如珂?

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 4): “Doctor Siû j˘o c˘o, from Kiamsi (Jiangxi Province 江西省), was once a mandarin of Tumchim (Tongzhengsi), now Tutao (dutang 都堂, Governor) of Xamsi (Shanxi Province 山西省)”. Identification: “Siû j˘o c˘o” would seem to correspond phonetically to Xu Ruke 徐如珂 (1562–1626), who obtained the degree of jinshi in 1595 and was Vice Director of the Bureau of Communication (Tongzhengsi zuotongzheng 通政司左通政) before 1625,8 then promoted Director of Bureau of Sacrifice (Guanglusi qing 光禄寺卿),9 and his final official position was Vice President of Ministry of Works (Gongbu youshilang 工部右 侍郎). But Xu Ruke 徐如珂 was born in Wuxian 吳縣 of Nanzhili 南直隸, and not in Jiangxi Province. Moreover, he was never Governor of Shanxi Province 山西巡撫. In this period, the only Governor of Shanxi Province with the surname Xu 徐 was Xu Shaoji 徐紹吉 (1620–1622).10 But he was born in Baoning 保寧 of Sichuan Province 四川省 and never held an office in the Bureau of Communication. It is interesting to note that both Xu Ruke and Xu Shaoji obtained the degree of jinshi in 1595, I wonder if for this reason Longobardo conflated these two officials with the same surnames. In any case, neither Xu Ruke nor Xu Shaoji fits exactly Longobardo’s rather precise description of “Siû j˘o c˘o”, although Xu Ruke is more probable than Xu Shaoji. The former was hostile towards Christianity and was one of protagonists who persecuted the missionaries in 1616.11

8 Zhang, 249:6447–6448. 9 Zhang, Mingdai zhiguan nianbiao, 2:1242. 10 Zhang, 3:2873–2877. 11 Zhang, Mingshi, 326:8460.

32

L. SONG

2.1.5

Zhou Hongmo 周洪謨, Alias Zhou Qingyu 周慶虞

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 5): “Doctor Che¯u k¯em iû, from Chekiam (Zhejiang Province), Coli (Keli 科吏) of Hupu (Hubu 户部, Ministry of Revenue)”. Identification: Zhou Hongmo 周洪謨 (1565–1630), also known by his literary name Qingyu 慶虞, which corresponds to “k¯emiû”. He came from Shaoxing 紹興 of Zhejiang Province and obtained the degree of jinshi in 1616. He became Supervisor of the Bureau of Revenue (Huke jishizhong 户科給事中) in 162312 and was promoted in 1628 to Imperial Censor of Huguangdao (Huguang daoyushi 湖廣道御史).13 In the Ming Dynasty, there were Six Bureaus or Liuke 六科, corresponding to the Six Ministries or Liubu 六部. The Supervisor or jishizhong 給事中 of each bureau seems to be called Coli (keli 科吏); for example, when Matteo Ricci stayed in Nanjing, he had a close relationship with Cioscelino (Zhu Shilin 祝石林), who was then Supervisor of the Bureau of Personnel (Like jishizhong 吏科給事中), and Ricci called him Coli (keli).14 Since Zhou Hongmo was the Supervisor of the Bureau of Revenue (Huke jishizhong 户科給事中), Longobardo described his official position as Coli (keli), a term not found in the Chinese dictionaries. 2.1.6

Li Zongyan 李宗延

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 6): “Doctor Ly sum yo, from Honan (Henan Province 河南省), Hupu chamxu (Hubu shangshu 户部 尚書, President of Ministry of Revenue), and Tuchayuen (Duchayuan 都 察院, Censorate)”. Identification: Meynard identified “Li sum yo” as Li Zongyan 李宗 延 (1563–1627), whose literary name was Songyu 崧毓. He was born in Ru’nan 汝南 of Henan Province 河南省 and obtained the degree of Jinshi in 1586. From 1623 to 1624, he was President of the Censorate 12 Wu zi of the 12th month of the 3rd year of emperor Tianqi (22 January 1624, 天 啟三年十二月戊子), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 42Mingshilu 明實錄 (Veritable records of the Ming dynasty) (Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 2018) 13 Bing yin of the 3rd month of the 1st year of emperor Chongzhen (8 April 1628 崇禎 元年三月丙寅), Chongzhen changbian 崇禎長編 (The extended records of the Chongzhen reign). 14 D’Elia, Fonti Ricciane, 2:46, nn.2; 2:89.

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

33

(Duchayuan duyushi 都察院都御史), as well as President of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu shangshu).15 In 1626 he was promoted President of the Ministry of War (Bingbu shangshu 兵部尚書) and then President of Ministry of Personnel (Libu shangshu 吏部尚書). In the preface and postface of Longobardo’s Dizhenjie 地震解 (Treatise on earthquakes, 1626), Li Zongyan explains that Longobardo’s motive for writing the book was to answer a question asked by Li Songyu 李崧毓 or Li Shaozai 李少宰 (President of Ministry of Personnel) about an earthquake which occurred on 17 April 1624. 2.1.7

Chen Qiyu 陳奇瑜?

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 7): “Doctor Chím ti¯en fû, from xemsi Province (Shaanxi Province 陝西省), mandarin of Ly pu (Libu 禮 部, Ministry of Rites)”. Identification: “xemsi” is Longobardo’s romanisation of Shaanxi 陝 西, while “xamsi” corresponds to Shanxi 山西. But I have found no candidate suitable for “Chím ti¯en fû” in Shaanxi Province, while in Shanxi Province there are two possibilities. One is Chen Qiyu 陳奇瑜 (?–1648), whose literary names are Yuxuan 玉鉉 and Zhengxue 正學, but neither name corresponds to “tian fu”. Chen was born in Baode 保徳 of Shanxi Province, and obtained the degree of jinshi in 1616, and had been Supervisor of Bureau of Rites (Like jishizhong 禮科給事中) from 1622 to 1625,16 and then was promoted Supervisor of the Bureau of Punishment, and of the Bureau of Revenue and so on. His final official position was Governor of Yansui (Xunfu Yansui 巡撫延綏) in 1632. Another hypothesis is Chen Zhen 陈震 (?–?) whose literary name was Qianfu 潜甫. Born at Shouyang 壽陽 in Shanxi Province, he obtained the degree of jinshi in 1583. Qianfu is similar to “ti¯en fû”, but he never held an office in the Ministry of Rites (Libu 禮部) or Ministry of Personnel (Libu 吏部).

15 Zhang, Mingdai zhiguan nianbiao, 1:658–660. 16 Gui you of the 5th month of the 5th year of emperor Tianqi (30 June, 天啟五年五

月癸酉), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 59.

34

L. SONG

2.1.8

Zhu Yicheng 祝以成?

Original information (Prelude 17, N.o 8): “Literatus Çe¯ u yâm ti¯en, from Ciyi of Jao cheu (Raozhou 饶州) of Kiamsi (Jiangxi), well versed in all three sects, and held the office of Kiamhio (jiangxue 講學)”. Identification: Of all the sixteen pagan literati cited by Longobardo, “Çe¯u yâm ti¯en” is the only one who did not obtain the degree of jinshi, so he is titled only literatus instead of doctor. According to Longobardo, he held an office of jiangxue 講學, but this title does not exist in Ming Dynasty. I guess jiangxue maybe a mistake for jiaoshou 教授, director of education in a prefecture, or jiaoyu 教諭, director of education in a county. I checked in the local gazetteers of (Raozhoufu zhi 饒州 府志, 1683), and I found a literatus named Zhu Yicheng 祝以成, born in Dexing County 德興縣 of Raozhou 饒州, Jiangxi Province, who obtained the degree of juren 舉人 in 1600, and was jiaoyu 教諭 in Anyuan County 安遠縣 of Ganzhou 赣州, Jiangxi Province. But I must say that this identification is no more than a pure hypothesis.

2.2

Eight Pagan Literati Without Record of Conversation (Prelude 17, N.o 15)

2.2.1

Wu Shiqi 吳士奇, Alias Wu Hengchu 吳恒初

Original information: “Doctor u hêm ç¯o, from Ho¯ei che¯u (Huizhou 徽 州, Anhui Province 安徽省 or Nanzhili 南直隸), mandarin of Taichansu (Taichangsi 太常寺, Bureau of Sacrifice)”. Identification: Wu Shiqi 吳士奇 (1566–?), literary name Hengchu 恒 初, so Wu Hengchu is rendered as “u hêm ç¯o”. He was born in Shexian 歙縣 of Huizhou 徽州, now Anhui Province 安徽省. He obtained the degree of jinshi in 1592 and from 1623 to 1625 was Chief Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices (Taichangsi Qing 太常寺卿).17 He then retired to private life.

17 Zhang, Mingdai zhiguan nianbiao, 1:1239–1242.

2

2.2.2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

35

Huang Yuntai 黄運泰, Alias Huang Jiyun 黄際雲

Original information: “Doctor Hoâm çy yûn, from Ho nan (Henan Province 河南省), mandarin of Taíp˘osú (Taipusi 太僕寺, Bureau of Horses)”. Identification: Huang Yuntai 黄運泰 (?–?)’s literary name was Jiyun 際雲, so Huang Jiyun 黃際雲 is rendered as “Hoâm çí iûn”. He was born at Yongcheng 永城, Henan Province 河南省 and obtained the degree of jinshi in 1589. He was Chief Minister of the Court of the Imperial Stud (Taipusi qing 太僕寺卿) from 1623 until 1625 when he was promoted Right Vice President of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu youshilang 户部右侍郎) and Right Censor-in-chief of the Censorate (Duchayuan youduyushi 都察院右都御史).18 His final office was President of Ministry of Revenue (Hubu shangshu). Longobardo mentions in Prelude 13, N.o 10 that he had a debate with Zhou Muqian on the teachings of li or taiji. 2.2.3

Mao Yilu 毛一鹭, Alias Mao Ruchu 毛孺初

Original information: “Doctor Maô Jû ç¯o, from Zhejiang Province 浙江省, recently promoted tutao (dutang 都堂, Governor) of Nankim (Nanjing 南京)”. Identification: Mao Yilu 毛一鹭 (?–?), literary name Ruchu 孺初, which corresponds to “Jû ç¯o”. He was born in Sui’an 遂安, Zhejiang Province 浙江省, obtaining the degree of jinshi in 1604. In 1625 he was promoted Governor of Nanjing (Yingtian xunfu 應天巡撫),19 resigning two years later due to ill health.20

18 Xin chou of the 6th month of the 5th year of emperor Tianqi (28 July 1625‚ 天啟 五年六月辛丑), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 60. 19 Yi hai of the 1st month of the 5th year of emperor Tianqi (4 March 1625‚ 天啟 五年正月乙亥), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 55. 20 Bing yin of the 7th month of the 7th year of emperor Tianqi (12 August 1627‚ 天啟七年七月丙寅), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 86.

36

L. SONG

2.2.4

Chen Yi 陳儀, Alias Chen Shaofeng 陳紹鳳

Original information: “Doctor Chîn xaó fúm, from Fokian (Fujian Province 福建省), mandarin of Himpu (Xingbu 刑部, Ministry of Punishment)”. Identification: Chen Yi 陳儀 (1575–1634), literary name Shaofeng 紹鳳, which corresponds to “xaó fúm”. He was born in Minxian 閩縣, Fujian Province, obtaining the degree of jinshi in 1610. According to the True Record of the Ming Dynasty (Mingshilu 明實錄), in 1621 he was Director of the Jiangxi Bureau of the Ministry of Punishment (Xingbu Jiangxi si langzhong 刑部江西司郎中). Around 1630–1634, he wrote a preface for the Brief Introduction to the Study of Human Nature (Xingxue cushu 性學述述) by Giulio Aleni (1582–1649), in which he narrated that he had met with Ricci in 1598.21 2.2.5

He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠, Alias He Feiwo 何匪莪

Original information: “Doctor Hô fi ngô, also from Fokian (Fujian Province), now promoted Cumpu xilan (Gongbu shilang 工部侍郎, Vice President of Ministry of Works)”. Identification: One of the literary names of He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠 (1558–1631) was Feiwo 匪莪, which corresponds to “fi ngô”. He was born in Jinjiang 晋江, Fujian Province, obtaining the degree of jinshi in 1586. He held various offices in Beijing, including Vice President of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu youshilang 户部右侍郎). In 1623, he resigned from his position and returned to his home town. Six years later, in 1629, he became Vice President of the Ministry of Works in Nanjing (Nanjing Gongbu youshilang 南京工部右侍郎), but after a few months he retired again.22 He Qiaoyuan was friendly with the missionaries. In 1626, he wrote a preface for Aleni’s Xixue fan 西學凡 (Overview of Western learning, 1623) in which he also recorded his close relationship with Longobardo when he was in Beijing.

21 Ji hai of the 9th month of the 1st year of emperor Tianqi (15 October 1621, 天啟 元年九月己亥), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 14. 22 Zhang, Mingshi, 21:6286–6287.

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

2.2.6

37

Liu Dingguo 刘定國?

Original information: “Lieû ki¯am yù, from Kiamsi (Jiangxi), mandarin of Xampaosu (Shangbaosi 尚寶司, Bureau of Seals)”. Identification: Liu Dingguo 刘定國 (?–?), former name Shi 是, literary name Qufei 去非, was born in Nanchang 南昌 of Jiangxi Province.23 He obtained the degree of jinshi in 1601, and in 1622 he became an assistant to the Director of the Bureau of Seals (Shangbaosi sicheng 尚寶司司丞).24 In the following year, he was promoted to Vice Director of the Bureau of Seals (Shangbaosi shaoqing 尚寶司少卿).25 At the end of the same year, he promoted again to Vice Director of the Bureau of Horses (Taipusi shaoqing 太仆寺少卿).26 His final official position was President of the Ministry of Works in Nanjing (Nanjing Gongbu shangshu 南京工部尚書). I think he is a suitable candidate for “Lieû ki¯am yù”, but the only problem is that I have failed to find a literary name of his that corresponds to “ki¯am yù”. 2.2.7

Cao Yubian 曹于汴, Alias Cao Zhenyu 曹貞予

Original information: “Çaô ch¯ın yû, from Xamsi (Shanxi Province 山西 省), mandarin of Tuchayuen (Duchayuan 都察院, the Censorate)”. Identification: Cao Yubian 曹于汴 (1558–1634), one of his literary names being Zhenyu 貞予, which corresponds to “ch¯ın yû”. He was born in Anyi 安邑, Shanxi Province 山西省, and obtained the degree of jinshi in 1592年. In 1628 he became Vice President of the Censorate (Duchayuan zuoduyushi 都察院左都御史)27 and then was promoted to Vice President of Ministry of Revenue (Hubu youshilang 户部右侍郎). In 23 Gu Xichang 顧錫鬯, ed., Nanchangxian zhi 南昌縣誌 [Nanchang county gazetteer], Qianlong 乾隆 16th year (1751), juan 37, 13a. 24 Bing yin of the 6th month of the 2nd year of emperor Tianqi (9 July 1622, 天啟 二年六月丙寅), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 23. 25 Gui you of the 4th month of the 3rd year of emperor Tianqi (12 May 1623, 天啟

三年四月癸酉), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 33. 26 Yi hai of the 10th month of the 3rd year of emperor Tianqi (10 November 1623, 天啟三年十月乙亥), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 39. 27 Zhang, Mingshi, 21:6557.

38

L. SONG

1629 he became Vice President of Ministry of Works in Nanjing (Nanjing Gongbu youshilang 南京工部右侍郎). When Matteo Ricci entered in Beijing in 1601, as a Supervisor of Bureau of Personnel (Like jishizhong 吏科給事中), Cao Yubian helped Ricci significantly during his stay in Beijing.28 In the fifth chapter of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci recorded his conversation with Cao Yubian. Cao also wrote prefaces for the Qike 七克 (Seven victories, c.1610) by Diego de Pantoja (1571–1618) and for Taixi shuifa 泰西水法 (Hydromethods of the Great West, 1612) by Sabatino de Ursis (1575–1620). 2.2.8

Feng Shixing 馮時行?

Original information: “Doctor fum ç¯am ch˘o, from Beizhili or Beijing Province 北直隸, mandarin of Tumchim (Tongzhengsi)”. Identification: During this period, there was a mandarin of the Bureau of Communication from Beijing Province (Beizhili 北直隸) with surname Feng 馮 by the name of Feng Shixing 馮时行 (?–?). He was born in Hejian 河間 of Hebei Province 河北省, which in the Ming Dynasty was part of Beijing Province. He obtained the degree of jinshi in 1589 and from 1621 to 1626 was a Councillor in the Bureau of Communication (Tongzhengsi zuocanyi 通政司左參議). He was then promoted Director of Bureau of Seals (Shangbaosi qing 尚寶司卿).29 In 1628, he finally became Director of Bureau of Communication. Unfortunately I have not yet found his literary name in the gazetteers,30 so the identification needs to be confirmed.

28 D’Elia, Fonti Ricciane, 2:133, 149. 29 Xin mao of the 6th month of the 1st year of emperor Tianqi (8 August 1621, 天啟

元年六月辛卯), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 11; Wu wu of the 3rd month of the 6th year of emperor Tianqi (11 April 1626, 天啟六年三月戊午), Ming Xizong zhe huangdi shilu 明熹宗悊皇帝實錄 (Veritable records of Tianqi), juan 69. 30 Yuan Yuanxiu 袁元修 and Yang Jiuyou 楊九有, Hejianxian zhi 河間縣誌, 康熙十三 年 (1674).

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

39

2.3 Dating of Longobardo’s Treatise and Its Place of Composition The above identifications force us to reconsider some of the traditional assumptions about when and where Longobardo finished his treatise. It is generally said that Longobardo wrote his treatise in or around 1623.31 The principal evidence for this date is that at the very beginning of the treatise Longobardo wrote: “First of all, more than twenty-five years have passed since I began to be troubled by the fact that the Chinese call the Most High Lord or Emperor Shangdi”. Since Longobardo had entered China in 1597, the “more than twenty-five years” suggests that he wrote the treatise in 1623. However, the terms of office of the pagan literati mentioned by Longobardo shed a new light on the issue. It can be seen that Longobardo began to talk with pagan literati at the beginning of 1620s, such as in the cases with Zhou Qiang who became Councillor of the Bureau of Receptions under the Ministry of Rites in 1621, and Chen Yi who was Director of the Jiangxi Bureau of the Ministry of Punishment in 1621. Some interviews took place around 1623, as in the cases with Li Zongyan who was President of the Ministry of Revenue from 1623 to 1624, and Huang Yuntai who was Chief Minister of the Court of the Imperial Stud from 1623 to 1625, Wu Shiqi 吳士奇 who was Chief Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices from 1623 to 1625, and Wu Yongxian who was Governor of Jiliao from 1624 to 1625. It is not easy to ascertain when Longobardo talked with Zhou Hongmo because he was Supervisor of the Bureau of Revenue from 1623 to 1628.

31 George H. Dunne, Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962), 284–85; Claudia von Collani, “Did Jesus Christ Really Come to China?,” in Religions and Missionaries Around the Pacific, 1500–1900, ed. Tanya Storch (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 31; Wenchao Li 李文潮, “Long Huamin jiqi ‘Lun zhongguo zongjiao de jige wenti’ 龍華民及其 《論中國宗教的幾個問題》 ,” Guoji hanxue 國際漢學 25 (2006): 67. For Li Tiangang, the treatise should be dated between 1622 and 1623. See Li Tiangang 李天纲, “Long Huamin dui Zhongguo zongjiao benzhi de lunshu ji yingxiang 龍華民 對中國宗教本質的論述及其影響,” Xueshu yuekan 學術月刊 49, no. 5 (2017): 173. See also J. S. Cummins, A Question of Rites: Friar Domingo Navarrete and the Jesuits in China (Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1993), 159. Brockey, however, proposes 1624. See Liam Matthew Brockey, Journey to the East: The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579–1724 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 439, n.85.

40

L. SONG

However, Longobardo made a few interviews in the second half or even at the end of 1620s, as in the cases with Mao Yilu who was Governor of Nanjing from 1625 to 1627, Cao Yubian who became Vice President of the Censorate in 1628, Qian Xiangkun who became President of the Ministry of Rites in 1628 and He Qiaoyuan who became Vice President of the Ministry of Works in Nanjing in 1629. Therefore, Longobardo’s interviews with the pagan literati lasted for nearly a decade. I imagine that each time when Longobardo talked with someone, he must have taken notes, in which he wrote down the name, birthplace and official position of the person he interviewed as well as the content of the conversation. As for the official position of a certain person, Longobardo listed his official position when he talked with him, even though this person was promoted to a higher position some years later. For example, when he talked with He Qiaoyuan in 1629, Cao Yubian was Vice President of the Ministry of Works in Nanjing, but in the treatise Cao is described as mandarin of Censorate, actually Vice President of Censorate, a title he had in 1628. In any case, since the last interview was made in 1629 with He Qiaoyuan, Longobardo would have finished his treatise in 1629 or even after it. Longobardo made these interviews at different times, and consequently at different places, some times in the north, and some times in the south. The whereabouts of Longobardo in 1620s has not been traced very well, but it is sure that he returned to Beijing at the beginning of 1620s after being forced to leave Beijing in 1616 because of the persecution. It is also sure that in the second half of 1620s he was in the south, since he participated in the conference in Jiading 嘉定 (December 1627– January 1628), a city near Shanghai and Hangzhou. It was in Hangzhou where Longobardo circa 1628 sent the Jesuit brother Pascal Mendez (邱 永良厚, 1584–1640) to see Paolo Xu (Xu Guangqi 徐光启, 1562–1633), who lived far away in Beijing. It was also in Hangzhou where Longobardo talked with Qian Xiangkun and Yang Tingyun in 1628 when Qian was President of Ministry of Rites. As a matter of fact, Longobardo himself said in the Preface, N.o 8: “As for the pagan literati, I could not ask their opinion, as the Father Visitor expressly urged me, because the persecution did not allow me to speak freely with them. Hence I was forced to delay my response longer than I wanted while ensuring that no one could complain that a definitive judgment was made when the other side had not been heard. In the end, I did not neglect the opportunities presented to me of speaking with various

2

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

41

literati in the last years that I was in the south, and especially for the two years after our publication (nostram publicationem) while I was residing in this royal court (Regia hac Curia)”. In the Ming Dynasty, there were two capitals: one was Beijing, the Northern Capital, another was Nanjing, the Southern Capital. The evidence suggests that when Visitor André Palmeiro visited Beijing in June 1628, Longobardo was in Beijing and did not follow the Visitor on his journey to the south. Therefore, it is most probable that Longobardo finished the treatise in Beijing (Table 2.1).32

32 Liam Matthew Brockey, The Visitor: André Palmeiro and the Jesuits in Asia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 2014, 253–277.

Birthplace Province

Haining 海寧 Zhejiang

Minxian 閩縣 Fujian

Runan 汝南 Henan

Zhou Qiang 周鏘 Muqian 慕乾

Chen Yi 陳儀 Shaofeng 紹鳳

Li Zongyan 李宗延 Songyu 崧毓 1563–1627

1575–1634

Dates

1586

1610

1595

jinshi 進士 Date of interview

1621 1621 Councillor of the Bureau of Receptions 主客司員 外郎; Councillor of Bureau of Sacrifice 祠 祭司員外郎; Chief Prosecutor of Henan Province 河南按察使 1621 Director of the 1621 Jiangxi Bureau of the Ministry of Punishment 刑部江西 司郎中 1623 1623 to 1624, President of the Censorate 都察院都御 史, and President of the Ministry of Revenue 户部尚書; 1626 President of the Ministry of War 兵部 尚書) and then President of Ministry of Personnel 吏部尚書

Positions held

Chart of the non-Christian literati mentioned by Longobardo and identified with certitude

Name Literary name

Table 2.1

Beijing

Beijing

Beijing

Place of interview

42 L. SONG

1558–1626

Shexian 歙縣 Anhui

Anhui 安徽

Shaoxing 紹興 Zhejiang

Wu Shiqi 吳士奇 Hengchu 恒初

Wu Yongxian 吳用 先 Benru 本如

Zhou Hongmo 周 洪謀 Qingyu 慶虞 1565–1630

1566–?

Yongcheng 永城 Henan

Huang Yuntai 黄運 泰 Jiyun 際雲

Dates

Birthplace Province

Name Literary name

1616

1592

1592

1589

jinshi 進士 1623–1625 Chief Minister of the Court of the Imperial Stud 太僕寺卿; Right Vice President of the Ministry of Revenue 户部右侍郎 and Right Censor-in-chief of the Censorate 都察院右都 御史 1623–1625 Chief Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices 太常寺卿 1623 Director of Bureau of Communication 通政 使; 1624–1625: Governor 總督 of Jiliao 冀遼 1623 Supervisor of the Bureau of Revenue 户科給事中; 1628 Imperial Censor of Huguangdao 湖廣 道御史

Positions held

16231625

1624

1623

1623

Date of interview

(continued)

Beijing

Beijing

Beijing

Beijing

Place of interview

2 THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHINESE NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATI …

43

1558–1631

Jinjiang 晋江 Fujian

He Qiaoyuan 何喬 遠 Feiwo 匪莪

1558–1634

1569

Sui’an 遂安 Zhejiang Anyi 安邑 Shanxi

Mao Yilu 毛一鹭 Ruchu 孺初 Cao Yubian 曹于汴 Zhenyu 貞予

Dates

Qian Xiangkun 錢象 Shaoxing 紹興 坤 Zhejiang Linwu 隣武

Birthplace Province

(continued)

Name Literary name

Table 2.1

1586

1601

1592

1604

jinshi 進士 1625 Governor of Nanjing 應天巡撫 1628 Vice President of the Censorate 都察 院左都御史, and then Vice President of Ministry of Revenue 户部右侍郎; 1629 Vice President of Ministry of Works in Nanjing 南京工部 1626 President of the Board of Rites of Nanjing 南京禮部尚 書; 1628 President of the Board of Rites of Beijing Vice President of the Ministry of Revenue of Beijing 户部右侍 郎; 1623 resignation from his position; 1629 President of the Ministry of Works in Nanjing 南京工部右 侍郎

Positions held

1629

1628

16251627 1628

Date of interview

Nanjing

Hangzhou

Nanjing

Nanjing

Place of interview

44 L. SONG

CHAPTER 3

Longobardo’s Scholastic Critique of Ricci’s Accommodation of Confucianism Daniel Canaris

3.1

Introduction

As Collani mentions in her contribution to this volume, the “Resposta breve” was one of the most controversial documents ever penned by a Jesuit missionary in China. Although the Jesuits attempted to suppress it, its chance rediscovery by the mendicant friars in the 1660s played a significant role in the Vatican decision to condemn the Jesuits’ use of Chinese terms for God and their toleration of certain Confucian rituals among Chinese Catholic converts. In this section, I will set aside the controversies over the Chinese rites, which were not mentioned in Longobardo’s original treatise, and focus on the grounds upon which Longobardo critiqued Ricci’s reading of Confucianism. I argue that Longobardo’s polemic against Ricci’s accommodation should not merely be viewed in theological terms, but as an extension of contemporary European debates over

D. Canaris (B) Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_3

45

46

D. CANARIS

humanist exegesis within a Chinese context. Whereas Ricci and Longobardo were undoubtedly in agreement on the evils of pagan idolatry and their assessment of neo-Confucianism, they diverged on how to reconcile discrepancies between ancient sources and medieval commentaries and the relative weight to be afforded to later interpreters as guides for interpreting the past.

3.2

Textual Criticism and Humanism

At the heart of this debate was the question as to whether textual critics could arrogate to themselves the authority to override tradition and establish a direct relationship with the past. This debate has often been referred to as the “Humanist-Scholastic debate”, which, inaugurated by Petrarch in fourteenth century with On His Own Ignorance (1368), progressed unabated in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as humanists such as Lorenzo Valla (1406–1457) and Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536) applied their philological expertise to the criticism of the textus receptus of the Bible, enraging scholastic theologians who appealed to the authority of tradition and the medieval commentators.1 It must be reaffirmed that despite the differences between Ricci and Longobardo, they share many conceptual and interpretative assumptions. Strikingly, the Greco-Roman echoes found in Ricci’s writings are developed more explicitly and systematically in Longobardo’s treatise. But whereas Ricci only vaguely articulates the relative purity of ancient Confucianism, Longobardo draws on an alternative tradition of the prisca theologia that saw the transmission of pagan knowledge as an act of diabolical deception. Such a view found sanction in Augustine’s ambiguous treatment of figures such as Hermes Trismegistus, who despite accurately foretelling the decline of idolatry was inspired by a “fallacious

1 The contours of the Humanist-Scholastic debate is expertly narrated in Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). For a collection of essays on the impact of this debate on Biblical criticism, see Erika Rummel, ed., Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2008). While the impact of Renaissance humanism on the Jesuit ratio studiorum has been given much attention, how tensions between scholastic and humanist methodology played out in the Jesuit order require further examination.

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

47

spirit” (spiritus fallax).2 Longobardo identifies Fuxi 伏羲, the legendary creator of humanity and first sovereign of China, with Zoroaster who after initiating the heretical sects in the West came to China where he established a new kingdom and the Confucian literati. Longobardo refers the reader to the abovementioned report of Rodrigues for a more extensive treatment of the topic.3 Should Rodrigues’ thesis that Confucianism had an ultimately diabolical origin be accepted, it would go without saying that the entire edifice of Ricci’s accommodation would be compromised. While the prisca theologia threads Longobardo’s treatise, the principal prong of his attack on Ricci’s interpretative practice was his insistence upon the importance of commentaries and consensus for navigating the ambiguities of the past in both the Western and Chinese traditions. In the first prelude, Longobardo provides an overview of the range of texts employed in China and their respective authority in China: of first rank were the five ancient jing 經 (Yijing 易經, Shujing 書經, Shijing 詩經, Liji 禮記, Chunqiu 春秋) and the Four Books (Sishu 四書); of second rank were the commentaries; of third rank were the summaries of their natural and moral philosophy contained in the Xingli daquan 性理大 全; and of fourth rank were works composed after the great burning of books by Qin Shihuang 秦始皇 in 212 BC, an event frequently alluded to by the Jesuits as emblematic of the chasm between pre- and post-Qin intellectual culture. Of interest here is how Longobardo introduces the commentaries. Whereas Ricci saw the sheer quantity of seemingly endless and self-referential commentaries in the same way a humanist would scorn medieval verbositas, Longobardo is evidently very impressed not only by their number but also their consistency, evoking a comparison with the Church fathers as authoritative guides to Sacred Scripture: There is a great number of ancient interpreters: for there are 107 interpreters of the Sishu or Four Books of Confucius; 136 interpreters commenting on the Yijing , 166 on the Shujing , and so on for the

2 Johannes van Oort, “Augustine and Hermes Trismegistus: An Inquiry into the Spirituality of Augustine’s ‘Hidden Years’,” Journal of Early Christian History 6, no. 2 (2016): 55–76. 3 See Isabel Pina, “Joâo Rodrigues Tçuzu and the Controversy over Christian Terminology in China: The Perspective of a Jesuit from the Japanese Mission,” Bulletin of Portuguese/Japanese Studies 6 (2003): 47–71.

48

D. CANARIS

remaining jing or books of their teachings, as is seen in their catalogue printed at the beginning of them. It is wondrous to see how they combine everything in their understanding of the substantial points of their doctrine. It seems an image of our Holy Fathers in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Hence not without reason great attention is paid to these commentaries in China because the compositions of literati on the text cannot be admitted unless they agree with the interpretation of the commentaries.4

Longobardo’s argument is essentially that missionaries do not possess sufficient philological skills to reconstruct with confidence an interpretation of the classics that so blatantly contradicts the received tradition of the commentaries. At the heart of his concern is the sheer obscurity of the Chinese classics. In the third prelude, Longobardo asserts that obscurity is not restricted to Chinese antiquity but an integral part of the prisca theologia tradition to which he subsumes his account of ancient Chinese wisdom. Citing the Coimbra commentary on Aristotle’s De physica, a work which probably had arrived in China upon Trigault’s return in 1619, According to Brockey, Trigault returned Macao in 1619. Longobardo argues that “all ancient pagan philosophers devised various symbols, enigmas and figures so that the mysteries of their philosophy can be covered up and hidden (todos os antigos Philosophos da gentilidade inventaram varios symbolos, enigmas, e figuras a fim de serem encubertos e escondidos os mysterios da sua Philosofia)”.5 His signal example is naturally the abstruse Yijing , which he considers emblematic of “the theoretical part of Chinese teaching (esta o speculativo da Doutrina Sínica)”: “The primary symbols are even and odd numbers, lines that are broken in the middle and whole, white and black dots, round and square figures, the six positions of places, and other words and metaphoric expressions. (Os principaes symbolos são os numeros par e impar, riscas cortadas pello meyo 4 “O numero destes Interpretes antigos he grande, porque soo no Suxu entram alguns 107, no comento do Yekim entram 136, no do Xukim 166, e assi das mais Kins, como se vee nos catalogos que andas impressos no prime[iro] das mesmas Kins. E he pera pasmar, ver como combinam e conspiram todos na intellig[enti]a das cousas fundamentaes e substansiaes das suas doutrinas, que he huma imagem dos nossos Santos Padres e doutores na exposição da sa[gr]ada scriptura. Por onde não sem rezão se faz na China tanto caso destes comentos, que não se admitemas composições que fazem os Letrados sobre o Texto, se não forem conformes ao sentido que lhe dão os Comentos.” APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientiali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 147r . 5 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 149v .

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

49

e enteiras , pontos brancos e pretos , figuras redondas e quadradas, as seis posições dos lugares , entras palavras e termos metaphoricos.)”.6 He claims that the mathematical mysteries of this book can only be understood by studying the 11th and 12th juan of the Xingli daquan, which include the cosmological and numerological theories of Shao Yong 邵雍 (1011– 1077). For Longobardo, the numerological content of this work suggests a comparison with Pythagorean numerology. This analogy is apt because, like the Yijing , Pythagoras’ actual philosophical doctrines were shrouded in mystery, and scholars relied upon Aristotle’s summaries and other commentaries of late antiquity for a basic knowledge of Pythagoreanism.7 In other words, commentaries were necessary for interpreting not merely Chinese tradition but also the West. The prisca theologia framework also allows Longobardo to reverse probative value of the Pythagorean analogy: since Pythagoras was heir to Zoroaster, whom Longobardo identified with Fuxi, the example of Pythagoras not only demonstrates the importance of commentaries, it also suggests that Chinese commentaries can have a role in reconstructing knowledge of Western antiquity. To bolster his claim about the necessity of commentaries for interpreting Chinese antiquity, Longobardo draws extensively on Western sources on Presocratic philosophy and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Some of his sources, such as Augustine’s City of God, share Longobardo’s sceptical or dismissive view of ancient wisdom, but others such as the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano (1477–1558) do not reconcile easily with the tenor of Longobardo’s analysis. After all, Valeriano was very much a product of the Egyptian enthusiasm that swept across Italy with the publication of Horapollo’s Hieroglyphica. As Valeriano makes clear in his dedication to the reader, he saw his task as not only an explanation of Egyptian antiquity, but of “the sacred letters (sacrarum literarum)” in which Christ himself, the Apostles and Prophets were versed, as well as Pythagoras and Plato.8

6 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 149v . 7 Christopher S. Celenza, “Pythagoras in the Renaissance: The Case of Marsilio Ficino,”

Renaissance Quarterly 52, no. 3 (1999): 667–711. 8 Pierio Valerianio Bolzani, Hieroglyphica sive de sacris aegyptiorum literis commentarii (Basel, 1556), title page.

50

D. CANARIS

3.3

Esoteric and Exoteric Knowledge

But Longobardo does not cite Valeriano for his views about the compatibility between Egyptian wisdom and Christianity but for his conviction, common to most Renaissance humanists, that the Egyptian hieroglyphs are to be interpreted symbolically as ideograms expressive of abstruse philosophic doctrines. Since these lofty doctrines would not have been comprehensible to the common man, Longobardo envisages under the authority of Plutarch, Augustine and the Coimbra commentaries that there were two teachings common to all ancient peoples, a hidden “true” philosophy of natural causes known only to a philosophic elite and a “false external teaching” couched in the more accessible language of idolatry that was used as a political expedience in controlling the people: As for the second part, it must also be noted that by reason of the symbols there were two sorts of teaching in all nations since antiquity: one true and secret; the other false and apparent. The first was a philosophy and knowledge of natural causes known only by the philosophers and discussed secretly among them in their classes. The second was a certain false external doctrine for the people, which was an enigma of the first teaching.But the people thought it true according to the sound of the words, despite being absolutely false.9

This division had a long history in the Jesuits’ exposition of Japanese Buddhism, appearing in the 1556 document “Sumário dos erros en que os gentios do Japão vivem e de algumas seitas gentílicas en que principalmente confiã” (“Summary of the errors in which the peoples of Japan live and of some pagan sects in which they principally believe”), attributed by Wicki to Balthasar Gago (1520–1583), but largely a recompilation of information about Japanese religion stereotyped in 1551—only two years after Xavier’s arrival in Japan.10 Valignano gave this idea its 9 “Quanto a secunda parte, deve igualmente notarse, que por causa dos symbolos em todas as nações desde antigo ouve duas sortes de doutrina, huma verdadeira e secreta, outra falsa e aparente. A primeira hera a Philosophia e scientia das causas naturaes que sabiam somente os sabios, e tratavam secretamente entre si nas suas Classes. A secunda hera huma falsa apparentia da doutrina popular, que hera enigma da primeira e o povo evidava ser verdadeira na forma que soavam as palavras, havendo que na realidade hera totalmente falsa.” APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 149v . 10 “Esta seita do Amida hé a que isteriormente se pregua e declara. E perguntando aos mais sabios que dem rezão de que maneira o Amida pode salvar as jentes, dizem

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

51

clearest theoretical articulation in his Catechismus christianae fidei (Catechism of the Christian Faith, 1586). Rodrigues, however, would seem to be the first to explicitly apply it to the “three sects” of China in his letter of 22 January 1616 from Macao to the Superior General and was most likely Longobardo’s source.11 Intriguingly, both Longobardo and Rodrigues compare the popular doctrine to Varro’s “civil theology” described in the sixth book of Augustine’s City of God and then cite the same passage of Seneca quoted by Augustine. Rodrigues’ comparison between the monism of Melissus and Chinese philosophy is elaborated in Longobardo’s explanation of the Chinese axiom wan wu yi ti 萬物一體 (all things are one). However, Longobardo may have already formulated this equivalence because in a letter dated 1598 to the Superior General Acquaviva Longobardo elliptically affirms that what Aristotle said about Melissus could be applied to Chinese natural philosophy, namely that “they err in matter and form (peccant in materia & forma)”.12 Since Rodrigues’ letter was composed before Trigault’s return to China in 1619, it understandably does not mention the Coimbra commentaries, but in his History of Japan, composed between 1620 and 1621, Rodrigues cites the Coimbra commentaries on De generatione et corruptione and De coelo to demonstrate the concordance of Presocratic cosmology with that of Sino-Japanese Buddhism.13 It is thus certainly

por derradeiro que tudo hé fonbem. Esta palavra fonbem [h¯ oben 方便] não a entendem os simples e os que não são letrados.” Juan Ruiz-de-Medina, ed., Documentos del Japon: 1547 –1557 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1990), 662. For the authorship of this document, see Ruiz-de-Medina, 652–654. For the progeny of this concept in China, see Thierry Meynard, “Chinese Buddhism and the Threat of Atheism in Seventeenth-Century Europe,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011): 3–23. The Sumario is discussed extensively in App, The Cult of Emptiness, 33–50. 11 Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 298–315. Rodrigues’ views about the Near Eastern origin of East Asian civilisation predate his intervention in the Terms Controversy. At the end of his famous Japanese grammar, or Arte da lingoa de Japam, Rodrigues traces the Chinese back to the ten tribes of Israel. Similar theories are propounded in his unfinished Historia da Igreja do Japâo, which was written between 1620 and 1621. See Rodrigues, Arte da lingoa de Iapam, 235r–235v; Cooper, João Rodrigues’s Account, 330–331; Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter, 269–294. 12 Niccolò Longobardo, “Exemplum epistolae a P. Nicolao Longobardo, anno 1598, ex China conscriptae ad Reverendum P. Claudium Aquavivam Societatis Iesu Generalem,” in Recentissima de amplissimo regno Chinae (Mainz: Typis Ioannis Albini, 1601), 7. 13 Cooper, João Rodrigues’s Account, 358–359.

52

D. CANARIS

possible that even the Coimbra citations used in the “Resposta” had been suggested to Longobardo by Rodrigues. For Longobardo, the division between the esoteric and exoteric teachings is confirmed by the Chinese classics. He cites four passages of the Lunyu 論語 (Analects ) and one passage mistakenly attributed to the Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語 (Sayings of Confucius ) but actually from the Zhuangzi 莊子 that purportedly prove that Confucius deliberately withheld from the common people information about the supernatural just like Shakyamuni Buddha and the Presocratic philosophers. Longobardo’s reading of these passages is tendentious, but he is correct in identifying esoteric/exoteric tendencies in the Chinese commentarial tradition. For instance, Longobardo first cites the affirmation of Zigong 子貢 (520– 456 BC) in Lunyu 5.13, “Confucius’s discourses about man’s nature and the way of Heaven cannot be heard” (夫子之言性與天道, 不可得而聞 也). This is a very significant passage in the Lunyu because, as Philip J. Ivanhoe remarks, “it is one of only two places in the text where the character human nature (xing 性) is mentioned (the other being 17.2) and it is the only passage that mentions the Way of Heaven (tiandao 天道)”.14 The commentator He Yan 何晏 (195–249), influenced by Daoism, saw the character yan 言 (to say) as indicative of the ineffability of metaphysical entities such as xing and tiandao compared to observable phenomena which “can be heard” (夫子之文章可得而聞也). Variations of this esoteric interpretation of this passage can be found in the Song 宋 interpreters Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107), Cheng Hao 程顥 (1032–1085) and Zhu Xi. But where Longobardo diverges from the commentarial tradition is in his claim that Zigong “almost complained about his teacher, saying that in his whole life he never managed to have Confucius speak to him about human nature and the natural condition of heaven except towards the end (como queixandose do seu Mestre, que nunca em toda a vida tinha / alcançado delle que lhe falasse da natureça humana, e da natural condição do / Ceo: se não depois no cabo)”.15 In fact, the commentators have contrasting interpretations about the frequency of Confucius’ discourse on such matters. Cheng Yi understood the passage as meaning that “although the Master often discoursed on these topics,

14 Philip J. Ivanhoe, “Whose Confucius? Which Analects ?,” in Confucius and the Analects: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 119. 15 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 150v .

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

53

few could comprehend such complex and difficult teachings”, whereas Zhu Xi, perhaps reminiscing on Lunyu 9.1, argued that Confucius “rarely spoke of these”, and hence “there were some students who had not heard about them”.16 But at the end of the citation, Longobardo adds “except towards the end”, suggesting that Confucius in the end did talk about it, but it was a hidden message, akin to how Buddha delivered at the end of this life his hidden atheist doctrines! It becomes apparent that Longobardo’s concern is to demonstrate not just the consistency between the Chinese commentarial tradition, which Ricci too lightly disregarded, and the Chinese classics, but also the consistency between the Chinese commentarial tradition and the prisca theologia, which assumes a common origin for both Chinese and Western paganism. The fact that the testimony of Western classics about the beliefs of the Presocratics largely agrees with the premises of neo-Confucianism in Longobardo’s mind proves that the neo-Confucian views were likely to be correct.

3.4

Chinese Wisdom and the Presocratics

In the seventh prelude, however, there is an interesting change of focus that reveals Longobardo’s concerns are broader than the authority of the Chinese commentarial tradition and strike at the heart of the humanist critique of scholasticism. Here Longobardo relates how Aristotle and the commentarial tradition that largely follows him attribute to the Presocratics knowledge of only the material cause, insofar as matter is “the entire essence of natural things and that all things were only one continuous thing (hera toda a essentia das cousas naturaes, e que todas heram huma soo cousa continuada)”.17 Each of the Presocratics differed in their account of what this material cause was but were apparently united in their view that the diversity of phenomena in the universe was not substantial,

16 Ivanhoe, “Whose Confucius? Which Analects ?,” 124. Interestingly, however, the Qing dynasty philologist Zhang Xuecheng would adopt a reading similar to Longobardo’s in claiming, “Everything Confucius talked about concerned human nature and the Way of Heaven, but he never explicitly said what these were because he feared people would abandon the actual phenomena of the world in their search for the Way.” Ivanhoe, 127. 17 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 154r .

54

D. CANARIS

but only accidental, resulting from factors such as rarefication and temperature. Following the Coimbra commentary, Longobardo writes, “In this sense Parmenides and Melissus asserted that all things are only one, and Aristotle cites and refutes them accordingly (E nesse sentido affirmaram Parmenides e Milisso que todas as cousas são huma soo cousa, e conforme a isso os refere Aristoteles e os refuta)”.18 As noted above, the attribution of such views to Confucius and the neo-Confucian tradition was integral to Longobardo’s critique of Ricci’s textual exegesis. Yet Longobardo is plainly aware that Aristotle’s material reading of Presocratic metaphysics had been disputed: Philosophers of this time and others after Aristotle, on account of their opinion of the first philosophers, could not be pursuaded that men of such genius (even if their words are that all things are one continuous substance and not different among themselves except according to their external senses which are fallible) wished to speak in that sense in which Aristotle refutes and reproaches them, and thus they interpret them in different ways. They say that Aristotle reprimanded them on account of their words, not because he believed that they truly thought such things. Others note that Aristotle imposed on them something which those philosophers themselves did not wish to say in the sense in which he refutes them.19

While Longobardo does not identify the target of his criticism, it was a commonplace among Renaissance thinkers that Aristotle had fundamentally misunderstood the Presocratics. Cardinal Bessarion (1403–1472) argued in his work In calumniatorem Platonis (Against the Slanderer of Plato, 1469) that Aristotle knew that Parmenides and Melissus shared

18 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 154r . Cfr. Commentarii collegii conim-

bricensis Societatis Iesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis stagiritae (Coimbra: Typis et expensis Antonii à Mariz Universitatis Typographi, 1592), 100–103 (liber I, c. 2, q. 2). 19 “Os Philosophos deste tempo e outros depois de Aristoteles, pello conceito que tem daquelles primeiros Philosophos, não se persuadem que homens de tanto ingenio (posto que suas palavras são o que todas as cousas são huma Substantia continuada, e assi não differem entre si se não conforme a os sentidos exteriores os quaes se enganam) ouvessem de querer falar no sentido em que Aristoteles os refuta e reprende por onde os interpretam de varios modos. Mais dizem que Aristotels os reprende naquella forma, pera si ser as palavras, e não por cuidar que in se elles sentiam aquillo. Outros notam Aristoteles que lhes impos o que elles não quizeram dizer no sentido em que os refuta.” APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 154v.

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

55

the Platonic view of the One, Being and the Principle of Beings but dissimulated this knowledge so that his readers may not be misled into thinking that existence is single and immutable. The crux of the confusion is Bessarion’s contention that Aristotle did not consider the underlying meaning of the words, which concern not the physical realm, but divine things.20 Nearer to Longobardo in time, Francesco Patrizi da Cherso (1529–1597), who was appointed by Clement VIII the chair of Platonic philosophy at the Studium Urbis (La Sapienza), in the Dissertationes peripateticae (Peripatetic Dissertations, 1581) sought to counter Aristotle’s distortion of Presocratic philosophy by proposing the Presocratics as in continuity with the ancient sapiential tradition that culminated in Platonism and received fulfilment in Christianity. For Patrizi, Aristotle fundamentally misunderstood the metaphysical doctrines of the Presocratics and Plato because his vision was anchored to empiricism.21 To prove the accuracy of Aristotle’s reading of the Presocratics, Longobardo presents a series of arguments which are effectively adapted from his critique of Ricci’s reading of ancient Confucianism. He appeals first of all to plain meaning of their words cited in Aristotle, the fact that these authors seem to lack knowledge of an efficient cause necessary for a concept of a transcendent Creator, the agreement of other classical sources such as Galen and Cicero with Aristotle, and finally the fact that Chinese sources themselves present a metaphysics that concords with the Aristotelian reading of the Presocratics: Fourth, it is finally proven that this is not at all new and that other more ancient authors besides the ones mentioned here had held these notions. The sect of the Indian Gymnosophists held it openly and the Chinese Bonzes who came from the gymnosophists also profess it. The same is held by Laozi together with his Daoist priests, and above all this view is held by the teachers of Rujiao, from the greatest to the least, as well as both ancient and modern. Therefore, these three sects are more ancient than the philosophers mentioned above and all these sects originated from the

20 Michael Malone-Lee, “Cardinal Bessarion and the Introduction of Plato to the Latin West,” in Making and Rethinking the Renaissance: Between Greek and Latin in 15th–16th Century Europe, ed. Giancarlo Abbamonte and Stephen Harrison (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019), 118–119. 21 Cesare Vasoli, “La critica di Francesco Patrizi ai ‘Principia’ aristotelici,” Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 51, no. 4 (1996): 713–787.

56

D. CANARIS

magus Zoroaster, prince of the Chaldeans, who taught and disseminated throughout the world notions such as chaos is eternal.22

It is striking that in a treatise about Chinese philosophy Longobardo feels the need to devote an entire prelude to bolstering the authority of Aristotle’s interpretation of the Presocratics. It bespeaks anxieties about the status of Aristotle and scholastic philosophy in the early seventeenth century, which had already suffered a sustained attack at the hands of humanism and was now suffering even greater challenges in Europe with the profound epistemic shift taking place in Europe at the time. Evidently, for Longobardo Ricci’s philological criticism of the neoConfucian commentaries was dangerous not only because it admitted possible heterodoxy in the Chinese Christian Church but also because his arguments were in fact derived from the very philological principles used by humanists to discredit the scholastic tradition which was at the heart of Jesuits’ curriculum. Longobardo’s sensitivity to this contradiction was no doubt heightened by the fact that since the early 1590s the Jesuits at Coimbra had embarked on a new project of systematically commentating on the Aristotelian corpus. During the 1620s when Longobardo penned the “Resposta,” the Jesuits had just commenced the translation of these commentaries into Chinese, a project which would have been sanctioned by Longobardo as Superior of the China mission. From 1623 to 1640, some nine works were published in China that broadly canvassed the three branches of the philosophy curriculum: logic, natural philosophy and ethics.23 It would have been very difficult for Longobardo to reconcile such a project with Ricci’s professed disdain for commentaries.

22 “Quarto finalmente, provase não ser isto cousa nova, que outros Autores mais antigos que os sobre nomeados não tivessam, pois a Seita dos Gymnosophistas Indianos o tem abertamente, e o professam os Bonzos da China que delles emanaram. O mesmo tem o Laoçu com os seus Tausus, e sobre tudo os professores do Jukiao desde maior ate o minor, assi antigos como modernos. Estas tres seitas são mais antigas que os Philosophos ditos acima, e todas tem origem de Zoroastre Mago e principe dos Chaldeos, que assi o ensinou e semeou pello mundo, pondo o Chaos eterno etc.” APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 154v. 23 For a survey of these works, see Thierry Meynard, “Aristotelian Works in Seventeenth-Century China,” Monumenta Serica 65, no. 1 (2017): 61–85.

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

57

3.5 The Role of the Commentarial Tradition in State-Mandated Orthodoxy Longobardo’s anxiety about the humanist attack on the commentarial tradition leads him to adopt at various points of his treatise an alternative argument that puts aside the historical exactitude of the commentaries. Already in the second prelude, Longobardo acknowledges that, at least on the surface, discrepancies can be perceived between texts of antiquity and the interpretations of the Song-dynasty commentators. For instance, whereas the ancient speak of Shangdi in terms that strikingly resemble the Christian God, “living in the palace of heaven where he governs the world, bestowing reward on the good and inflicting punishment on the wicked (qual esta no paço do Ceo, e dali governa o mundo, apremiando os bons e castigando os maos )”, the commentators identify this with a material heaven or an immanent principle of nature called li 理.24 In the same vein, the ancient texts admit the existence of spiritual beings called shen 神, gui 鬼, or guishen 鬼神, which govern particular places while the interpreters reduce these entities to natural causes or the “operative virtues (virtudes operativas )” working in things—a term that had been used by Aquinas in explaining how an incorporeal God could be described in the Bible as having arms.25 Even if we were to accept that the commentaries distorted the meaning of ancient Confucianism (a premise which Longobardo of course rejects), the missionaries could not escape the fact that these state-mandated commentaries were so embedded within the prevailing sensus communis that they were inseparable from contemporary Chinese usage. Whatever assertions a missionary makes about the true meaning of Shangdi would be filtered by his Chinese interlocutor through the assumptings of the prevailing neo-Confucian orthodoxy. Longobardo illustrates this point in the seventeenth prelude with fascinating interviews between pagan and Christian mandarins that give incredible insights into limitations of intercultural dialogue. One notable episode involved a conversation

24 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 147v . 25 “Nec est litteralis sensus ipsa figura, sed id quod est figuratum. Non enim cum

Scriptura nominat Dei brachium, est litteralis sensus quod in Deo sit membrum huiusmodi corporale: sed id quod per hoc membrum significatur, scilicet virtus operativa.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Thomas Gornall (London: Blackfriars, 1964), I, q. 1, a. 10, ad 3.

58

D. CANARIS

with a non-Christian mandarin called Zhou Jiang 周鏘 (literary name 慕乾) from Beijing.26 After reading Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, the mandarin asked Longobardo what the Jesuits meant by Tianzhu. Longobardo’s explanation that Tianzhu was the same as Shangdi, who was an eternal intelligent Creator governing the cosmos provoked laughter. His interlocutor found Longobardo’s anthropomorphic explanation of Shangdi crude compared to the neo-Confucian view of Shangdi as a “virtue which governs in heaven, just as it lords and governs in all things, including our very selves (virtude que domina e governa no Ceo, como também domina e governa em todas as mais cousas, e ainda em nos mesmos )”.27 The very fact Longobardo had identified the Christian God with Shangdi prevented him from responding because his interlocutor already had a preconceived view of Shangdi. Perhaps even more damning were Longobardo’s charges against Yang Tingyun (to whom Longobardo refers as doctor Michael). Longobardo alleges that in the Xixue shijie chujie 西學十誡初解 (Introduction to the 10 Commandments, 1624)—a text which is unfortunately not extant— Yang interpreted Christianity through neo-Confucian monism, suggesting that “all things are the one same substance as li, while there is no difference among things except in terms of their external figure and accidental qualities (todas as cousas são huma mesma Substantia que he a Ly, não differindo as humas das outras mais que na figura exterior, e nas qualidades accidentarias )”.28 Standaert demonstrated in his meticulous comparison between Longobardo’s interview with Yang and Yang’s Chinese writings that Longobardo, while mostly accurate in his citations, misrepresented Yang’s true beliefs, because in other writings Yang clearly distinguished li from the Lord of Heaven.29 Be that as it may, Longobardo’s overall point remains coherent. Exegesis cannot be conducted in a vacuum divorced from the socio-political context. The missionaries cannot just reconstruct the original meaning of texts following the humanist appeal ad fontes, but must consider their diverse meanings assumed within a textual tradition and living community.

26 The identification of the Mandarin is by Song Liming. See his essay (Chapter 2, Sect. 2.1.2). 27 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 165r . 28 APF, SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol. 167v . 29 Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 198.

3

LONGOBARDO’S SCHOLASTIC CRITIQUE OF RICCI’S …

3.6

59

Conclusion

In contrasting the interpretative practices of Ricci and Longobardo, it must be emphasised that Ricci and Longobardo do not represent antipodal binaries but depart from common assumptions, since they were formed in the same educational system which fused both the studia humanitatis and neo-Scholasticism. Like Ricci, Longobardo draws extensively on humanist texts and concepts to construct his arguments. Yet these commonalities obscure the significant differences in their respective approaches. Ricci subliminally exploits humanist beliefs about the purity of ancient wisdom to make his reconstruction of ancient Confucian monotheism more plausible to the European reader, while Longobardo explicitly integrates ancient Chinese philosophy within a prisca theologia paradigm to demonstrate an equivalence between ancient Chinese philosophy and Presocratic monism, thereby proving the reliability of the neo-Confucian commentaries as guides to ancient wisdom. As the above discussion has revealed, at the root of Longobardo’s disagreement with Ricci were tensions between the humanistic appeal ad fontes which Ricci so enthusiastically embraced and the authority afforded to the commentarial tradition by the Jesuits in their interpretation of classical antiquity. Longobardo was conscious that the authority of commentaries had been undermined by humanist textual criticism. Hence he saw his defence of Chinese commentaries not only as a critique of Ricci’s missionary methods but also as a contribution to the rehabilitation of the commentarial tradition in the West. Longobardo’s reduction of all Chinese philosophy to an offshoot of a diabolical conspiracy may be offputting and his readings too heavily filtered through his scholastic worldview. Nevertheless, his treatise raises significant issues with the humanist mindset that inspired Ricci’s confidence in his ability to reinterpret the Confucian tradition against received tradition. While it may be bit farfetched to claim that Longobardo was the father of identity politics, Longobardo betrays an acute sensitivity to the dangers of cultural appropriation. He sees the missionaries as foreign guests in China and any attempt on their part to contradict the Chinese who knew their tradition far better than the missionaries as an egregious impropriety. In this respect, Longobardo’s attempt to distance Christianity from Chinese cultural forms was ironically motivated by a profound respect for Chinese as the rightful guardians and best interpreters of their own culture.

CHAPTER 4

Longobardo’s Reading of Song Confucianism Thierry Meynard

As Collani mentions in Chapter 1, Longobardo’s “Resposta breve” acquired an important status in comparative philosophy because of the extensive reference made to it in Leibniz’s Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois [Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese, 1716]. However, Leibniz worked from Cicé’s French translation (1701) which was based on Navarrete’s Spanish translation (1676) of Longobardo’s Portuguese text. In the course of the translations, significant errors crept in. Research on Longobardo’s treatise itself has remained greatly limited because the Chinese-language citations and diagrams which were inserted in the original manuscript were omitted from the three printed editions. Based on the Portuguese and Latin manuscripts, this chapter elucidates what hermeneutical method was used by Longobardo, upon what texts he applied this method, and finally how he understood key concepts of Song Confucianism.

T. Meynard (B) Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_4

61

62

T. MEYNARD

4.1

Longobardo’s Double Method: Semiotic and Philosophical

Longobardo’s report is a systematic refutation of Ricci’s interpretation of Confucianism. By quoting authoritative texts of Confucianism, he seeks to demonstrate that their core thinking is inimical to any idea of a transcendental being, instead concealing a deep atheism. Ricci’s Confucian hermeneutics is based on the ancient Classics and on his rejection of the Song commentaries, which he considered as corrupted by Buddhism. As Canaris discusses in Chapter 3, Longobardo refutes Ricci’s hermeneutics by arguing that the true meaning of the Classics can only be found in the Song commentaries. To salvage the commentaries from the suspicion of Buddhist contamination, he first points out that some commentaries were written before the entry of Buddhism into China (reputed to have taken place in 65 AD). Longobardo is not mistaken on this point because some of commentators listed in the Shujing daquan 書經大全 [The Compendium of the Book of History] by Hu Guang 胡廣 (1369–1418) indeed came before this date, such as Kong Anguo 孔安國 (156 BC–74 BC), Kong Guang 孔光 (65 BC–5 AD), and Yang Xiong 楊雄 (53 BC–18 AD). More importantly, however, Longobardo argues that Buddhism did not introduce a rupture with ancient Confucianism; rather, he insists that there is a continuous teaching running up to the Song commentators and that the missionaries should, therefore, accept the Song interpretation as normative, instead of creating new interpretations as Ricci did. As we can see, Longobardo rejects Ricci’s interpretation of tian 天 (heaven), guishen 鬼神 (ghosts), and hun 魂 (soul) not by focusing on Confucius’ own understanding of these terms but by consulting the readings of Song dynasty philosophers. Indeed, Longobardo did not have the philological resources to establish the meaning of the terms during the time of Confucius, and even today sinologists are very much aware that we have lost access to much of Confucius’ original meaning since the Lunyu 論語 [The Analects ] itself was edited centuries after his death.1 However, Longobardo’s method seems quite unsatisfactory because he proposes an indirect refutation of Ricci’s hermeneutics that is mediated through the interpretation of the Song commentators. While Ricci 1 See John Makeham, Transmitters and Creators, Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the Analects (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2003).

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

63

held that there was a radical discontinuity between ancient Confucianism and Song commentators, Longobardo moved into another extreme by claiming a complete identity of meaning between the classical texts and their commentaries. The structure of Longobardo’s treatise follows quite neatly the question debated among the missionaries: After outlining the exegetical foundations of his enquiry (Preludes 1–3), Longobardo discusses in detail the first principle (4–10), and then more briefly the spirits (11–13) and even more succinctly the human soul (15), finishing with a conclusion proclaiming the atheism of the literati (16), and finally providing the testimonies of his interviews with the Christian and non-Christian literati (17). The structure of Longobardo’s treatise reveals a dual semiotic and philosophical approach. The semiotic approach, inspired by João Rodriguez, considers ambiguous symbols, which on the surface seem religious and spiritual but, in reality, are atheistic. In ancient China, those symbols which appear across ancient civilizations could be found in the figures of the Yijing and were fashioned by the elite as a deceit to fool the common people into believing in supernatural powers and divinities. However, those symbols, if correctly read, are in fact asserting atheism. The difficulty in this semiotic approach is that the core message of atheism is hidden. As Canaris points out, Longobardo detects five passages attributed to Confucius which seemingly indicate that he was concealing his nihilistic thinking about heaven, the spirits, human nature, and after-death. Needless to say, this accusation of concealing the truth is hardly consistent with Confucius’ emphasis on sincerity (cheng 誠) and the rectification of names (zhengming 正名). Besides this semiotic approach, Longobardo develops a more sophisticated approach based on a philosophical reading of Song dynasty texts. He uses an Aristotelian framework to interpret and reject tian, li 理, taiji 太極, qi 氣, guishen, hun, etc., as material concepts devoid of spiritual substance. In a certain way, Longobardo adopts the philosophical method initiated by Ricci in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, but he offers a more systematic treatment which is supported by a wealth of texts, drawn mostly from the Xingli daquan. His philosophical enquiry that is developed in great detail through Preludes 4–15 is nevertheless conditioned by the semiotic approach of the first three preludes where Longobardo already affirms that the symbols in China are apparently religious but in fact atheistic. Therefore, the philosophical method serves not

64

T. MEYNARD

so much as an independent investigation but mostly as a confirmation of the premise that had already been clearly affirmed in Prelude 3, so much that one could jump to Prelude 16 to see the same conclusion of atheism being reaffirmed. The premise of Confucian atheism leads Longobardo to err in his philosophical demonstration. From the standpoint of Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy, it was perfectly legitimate to demonstrate that the concepts of li, taiji, and qi lack spiritual substance. Being blinded by the scholastic dualism between matter and spirit and by the presupposition of literati atheism, Longobardo wrongly deduces that those concepts are purely material. Longobardo could have safely affirmed that the Chinese do not possess an equivalent to the scholastic notion of transcendence, but he rushes into another extreme, claiming they are atheists. The absence of transcendence cannot be construed as a proof that the literati deliberately rejected the idea of God, unless one holds that the literati were using ambivalent concepts to deceive the people, as Rodrigues had suggested to Longobardo. The philosophical demonstration of confucian atheism is flawed because Longobardo makes use of a non-philosophical premise about the hidden intention of literati, expounded though the semiotic approach.2 Longobardo rightly points out that Ricci had considered most literati as atheists and even cites from Trigault’s Latin translation of Ricci’s Della entrata, which was published as De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas [On the Christian Mission to China, 1615].3 However, Ricci reaches this conclusion by examining the religious pluralism of the literati. He believes that they were led by toleration of diverse religious beliefs to relativism and nihilism. On the contrary, Longobardo’s accusation against the atheism of the literati is advanced through a semiotic method and is demonstrated methodically with the philosophical method, so that we

2 As suggested to me by Daniel Canaris, one could also argue that Longobardo’s stance about the hidden intention of the literati is not a premise, but a conclusion based upon his (flawed) philological research and that his philosophical demonstration is not construed as being dependent on this conclusion, but as further evidence in support of it, i.e., the semiotic/philosophical approaches are mutually corroborative. 3 Nicolas Trigault and Matteo Ricci, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Iesu (Ausburg: Apud Christophorum Mangium, 1615).

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

65

could call them “athée(s) de système,” as Pierre Bayle in his Dictionnaire historique et critique [Historical and Critical Dictionary, 1696] later described Baruch Spinoza.4

4.2

Longobardo’s Sources

Before going further into our study, it is necessary to analyze the sources with which Longobardo applies his double method. Longobardo himself reveals that his main source is the Xingli daquan 性理大全 [Compendium on Nature and Principle], edited by Hu Guang under the Yongle 永樂 emperor (r. 1403–1424) of the Ming dynasty. In many instances, Longobardo even gives the precise juan (volume) and page number. He has more than twenty references to the Xingli daquan, quoting from juan 1 (on the Taijitu 太極圖), 4 (on Zhang Zai 張載), 11 and 12 (on Shao Yong), 26 (on li and qi), 28 (on guishen), and 34 (on dao 道 and li). As for the Five Classics, he quotes from the Wujing daquan 五經大 全 [Compendium of the Five Classics], edited also by Hu Guang. For example, concerning the Liji, he quotes from the Liji jishuo 禮記集說 [Collected Commentaries on the Book of Rites] by the Yuan 元 dynasty scholar Chen Hao 陳澔 (1261–1341), which was included within the Wujing daquan. In Prelude 11, the reference that Longobardo makes to book 8 of the Liji, page 47 correlates to a passage of Chapter 24 of the Liji (祭義第二十四) on juan 8 of the Liji jishuo in the Wujing daquan. But his use of the Wujing daquan is not systematic. For example, in reference to the counsels of Gaoyao (Gaoyao mo 皋陶謨) in the Shujing 書 經, Longobardo in Prelude 11 apparently does not quote the words of the Song dynasty scholar Wu Cheng 吳澄 (1249–1333) contained in the Wujing daquan, but from an edition by Yuan dynasty scholar Dong Ding 董鼎, entitled the Shuzhuan jilu zuanzhu 書傳輯錄纂注 [Annotations on the Compilation of the Commentaries on the Book of History], which was constantly reprinted during the Ming dynasty. As for the quotes from the Four Books, it may be tempting to assume that Longobardo quotes from the Sishu daquan 四書大全 [Compendium of the Four Books], also edited by Hu Guang. In fact, he refers to the standard Nanjing edition of Zhu Xi 朱熹’s Sishu jizhu 四書集註 [Collected commentaries on the Four Books]. This does not come as

4 Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, vol. 13 (Paris: Desoer, 1820), 416.

66

T. MEYNARD

a great surprise, since the Jesuits used this edition for learning and translating the Four Books.5 While Longobardo deals with a single author, he might use multiple sources at the same time. For example, when discussing Zhang Zai, he cites from juan 28 of the Xingli daquan, and in the next paragraph he has another comment of Zhang Zai on the Zhongyong drawn from the Sishu jizhu.

4.3

Shao Yong’s Cosmology

In Preludes 4–10, Longobardo analyzes the “first principle,” or “the cause and origin of all things,” and its relation to the world, on the basis of writings of the Song philosophers. As I shall show, the first three preludes (4–6) discuss the cosmology of Shao Yong 邵雍 (1011–1077); the following three preludes (7–9) the cosmology of Zhang Zai and Zhu Xi; finally, there is a concluding prelude on the first principle. In the systems of Shao Yong and the one of Zhang Zai and Zhu Xi, key concepts like li, qi, and taiji bear different meanings, and Longobardo does not clearly explain the differences. This may create some confusion for readers unfamiliar with the history of Song Confucianism. In the Xingli daquan, the Song philosopher Shao Yong occupies a remarkable position given that six out of the seventy juan are devoted to him with a reproduction of the Huangji jingshi shu 皇極經世書 [Book of the Supreme Ultimate Ordering the World]. Yet, Shao Yong is placed in the Xingli daquan after Zhang Zai, even though Shao Yong was nine years his senior, as Wing-tsit Chan 陳榮捷 (1901–1994) remarked.6 Zhu Xi adopted some ideas of Shao Yong in his Zhouyi benyi 周易本 義, but did not consider him an orthodox Confucian because of his Taoist background and his particular path toward sagehood. In the beginning of the Ming dynasty, the Huangji jingshi shu was included in the Taoist canon (Daozang 道藏). Not long after Longobardo arrived China, Zhou Rudeng 周汝登 (1547–1629) of the School of the Mind (Xinxue 心學) raised Shao Yong to a higher status, including him before 5 See Thierry Meynard, The Jesuit Reading of Confucius: The First Complete Translation of the Lunyu(1687) Published in the West (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 20. For a modern edition of Zhu Xi’s work: Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003). 6 See Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 482–483.

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

67

Zhang Zai in his Shengxue zongchuan 聖學宗傳 [Orthodox Transmission of the Teaching of the Sage, 1605]. Despite his debated status in Song philosophy, Longobardo makes Shao Yong the representative of Rujiao. Already in Prelude 3, Longobardo had made a quick reference to the Yijing and the “mysteries and various causalities of numbers” described in juan 11 and 12 of the Xingli daquan, corresponding to the Guanwu waipian 觀物外篇 [Outer Chapters on Observing Things] from the Huangji jingshi shu.7 Longobardo paid attention to this section because it deals with numerology, suggesting that it may be possible from Shao Yong’s numerology to retrieve the Pythagorean numerology which had disappeared in the West long ago (Prelude 3, N.o 2).8 However, for Longobardo, both Pythagoras and Shao Yong deceived people by making them turn away from God. (We can recall here that Jesuits in Asia associated Buddhist reincarnation with Pythagorean metempsychosis, blaming both the Pythagoreans and the Buddhists for leading people to superstition, or even worst, to atheism.) In the fourth prelude, Longobardo presents Shao Yong’s distinction between the Study of Anterior Heaven (xiantianxue 先天學) and the Study of Posterior Heaven (houtianxue 後天學), that is, the study of the structuring and constitutive elements of Heaven and Earth, and the study of the operations of Heaven and Earth in their concrete unfolding. According to Shao Yong, Anterior Heaven is logically prior to Posterior Heaven, but also chronologically prior since the former is attributed to Fuxi 伏羲, and the later to Wen Wang 文王. Longobardo discusses first Anterior Heaven and Earth in Prelude 5, and more briefly Posterior Heaven in Prelude 6.

7 The two juan that Longobardo studied corresponds to the two parts (shang and xia

上下) of the Guanwu waipian, which are said to be the teaching of Shao Yong collected by his disciples and edited by his son, Shao Bowen 邵伯溫 (1057–1134). Apparently, Longobardo did not study the Guanwu neipian 觀物内篇 (“Inner Chapters on Observing Things”) which is reproduced in the Xingli daquan (juan 9 and 10), and considered from the hand of Shao Yong himself. 8 Following João Rodrigues and other Jesuits, Longobardo believes in the existence of

a common source for all the philosophies in the world, and from the point of view of the history of human knowledge, it may be worthy reconstituting Pythagorean numerology with the help of Chinese numerology. After Longobardo, many Jesuits like Anathasius Kircher (1602–1680) or Joachim Bouvet (1656–1730) made efforts in retrieving the universal ancient knowledge through Chinese sources.

68

T. MEYNARD

According to Shao Yong, the highest reality is the first principle (li), the first chaos (hundun 渾沌), or the universal cause (dao). It may sound strange to identify chaos with principle, but for Shao Yong, there is already in the primordial stage of the cosmos a potential, not yet concretely realized, order. Longobardo takes the decisive step to identify Shao Yong’s li, hundun and dao with the Aristotelian first matter (prima materia), or ether, which is eternal and incorruptible, most simple, pure and subtle, and devoid of body, figure and color.9 In the De coelo, Aristotle has placed incorruptible matter or ether in heaven, beyond the moon, and corruptible matter below the moon; similarly, Longobardo places li “beyond heaven.” One element of Shao Yong’s cosmology which drew Longobardo’s attention is that the cosmos is eternal, but going through phases of complete destruction and rebirth. For Shao Yong, one cycle is the equivalent of a unit (yuan 元) of 129,600 years, which Longobardo calls a great year (taisui 太歲), a term originating from ancient Chinese astronomy and later adopted by Taoism and popular religions. Longobardo mentions several times the idea of an endless cycle of birth and death of the universe, affirming that this belief is common throughout all China. However, this can hardly be correct since the most important Song philosophers like Zhang Zai, the brothers Cheng and Zhu Xi never accepted the idea. In the West, Heraclitus of Ephesus (c.535–c.475 BC) was believed to hold the view that the world was periodically destroyed by fire and reborn, and this could provide another connection between Chinese philosophy and the materialist monism of Presocratic philosophy. The dynamic constitution of Shao Yong’s universe is quite different from Aristotle’s static view of the supralunary and sublunary worlds, which remains silent on how ether and corruptible matter came to be formed. Shao Yong’s cosmogony has only two steps and Longobardo makes it even more complex by describing five steps or motions (wuyun 五運): “Air emanated naturally and by chance out of that infinite and immense prime matter through five emanations.”10 Interestingly Longobardo uses the Neoplatonic concept of emanation to expresses wuyun, stressing the continuity of a process in which the same substance unfolds 9 Previously, Ricci had associated first matter to taiji: “Ex iis quae de Taikieo loquuntur, nihil mea quidem sententia aliud est quam id quod nostri Philosophi dicunt primam materiam.” See Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 377. 10 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.177v .

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

69

Table 4.1 The five stages Five Motions 五運 Great Great Great Great Great

yi 太易 Origin 太初 Beginning 太始 Plain 太素 Ultimate 太極

qi 氣

Form 形

Undifferentiated qi Without Essential qi 元氣 Without Qi With Qi With Material world with primordial qi

Material 質 Without Without With Formation of matter

in different realms. This suggests that like Neoplatonism Confucianism is monistic and lacks the idea of creation out of nothing. However, wuyun is not found in Shao Yong’s Huangji jingshi shu, nor in the other sections of the Xingli daquan. In the margin of the manuscript, Longobardo has a quote in Chinese referring to the “Confucians,” which he left untranslated: 儒者計有五運: 其一曰太易, 即氣象未分; 其二曰太初, 即元氣始萌; 其三曰太 始, 即氣形之端; 其四曰太素, 即形變有質; 其五曰太極, 即形質已具是也。11

By way of translation, the wuyun or five stages are represented in Table 4.1. I have not found the exact source of the text quoted by Longobardo, but similar expressions can be found in Han-dynasty divination books, which are replete with mystical Confucian ideas, like the Zhouyi ganzaodu 周易乾鑿度 [Revealing the laws of the qian hexagram] and the Xiaojing goumingjue 孝經鉤命決 [Quick divination in filial piety].12 The five-stage cosmogony was not retained by the Confucian tradition, and it is unclear how Longobardo had access to this peculiar cosmological

11 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.177v . 12 For the Xiaojing goumingjue 孝經鉤命決: “天地未分之前有太易, 有太初, 有太始, 有

太素, 有太極; 謂之五運 形象未分謂之太易; 元氣始萌謂之太初; 氣形之端謂之太始; 形變 有質謂之 形已具謂之太極; 五氣漸變謂之五運.” Shao Yong is himself influenced by Han dynasty works, like Yang Xiong’s Taixuanjing 太玄經. Some Tang dynasty monks make also mention of a cosmogeny in five stages, like Falin 法琳 (572–640) in his Bianzhenglun 辯證論 and Zongmi 宗密 (780–841) in his Yuanjuejing lueshuzhichao 圓覺經略疏之鈔.

70

T. MEYNARD

model,13 but from an Aristotelian point of view, this model does not allow independent substances to exist, and this was precisely on this ground that Longobardo wants to show the flaw of Chinese cosmology. Longobardo continues his explanation of Shao Yong’s cosmogenesis by discussing taiji. Indeed, for Shao Yong li, hundun or dao engenders directly the taiji. In fact, Shao Yong and Zhou Dunyi (1017–1073) were the first to attribute to taiji an important philosophical role, but unlike Zhu Xi, they did not make it the ultimate principle. For Zhou Dunyi, wuji 無極 is above taiji. Also, for Shao Yong, taiji intervenes only in the second stage of his cosmogenesis (corresponding to the fifth stage in the cosmological model of the Han dynasty).14 This leads Longobardo to interpret taiji as second matter (5.3, 5.8, 5.10, 8.1), corresponding also to the primordial qi (yuanqi 元氣, which Longobardo mentions more than twenty times). While li was incorruptible and infinite, taiji is still incorruptible but spatially bound within a “certain finite globe.” Also, taiji does not exist in complete independence from li but is in the midst of it, as Longobardo depicts in Fig. 4.1. As Longobardo explains: “taiji is of the same incorruptible substance, but more material and changeable through condensation and rarefaction, motion and rest, heat and cold.”15 The diagram suggests a progression from unspecified prime matter outside of the circle (strangely labeled here with the Buddhist category of emptiness, or kong ) to qi, and to taiji at the center. Similar representations of the eight trigrams with taiji at the center can be found in the Tushubian 圖書編 (Edition of illustrated works, 1613) by the famous philosopher Zhang Huang 章潢 (1527–1608), a friend of Matteo Ricci in Jiangxi. It is probable that Longobardo saw and was influenced by such representations. The binary terms here certainly suggested to Longobardo that the reality at the level of the second matter, taiji, is not simple anymore.

13 It is interesting to note that Antonio de Santa María Caballero (1602–1669) in his Zhengxue liushi 正學鏐石, published posthumously in 1698, discusses this five-stage cosmology, which he may probably have discovered in Longobardo’s report which he translated in 1661. Antonio de Santa María Caballero, Zhengxue liushi 正學鏐石, in Dongchuan fuyin 東傳福音, ed. Zhou Xiefan 周燮藩, 25 vols (Hefei: Huangshan shushe, 2005), 3:3–5. 14 However, in some passages (like 13.12), Longobardo seems to identify li and taiji, like Zhu Xi did. 15 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.177v .

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

71

Fig. 4.1 Longobardo’s depiction of taiji (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

Therefore, he reads in the Chinese mechanism of changes an Aristotelian mechanism of generation and corruption, like efficient causes (Fig. 4.2). At the next level are produced the abstract physical elements of Anterior Heaven Earth. Longobardo correctly follow Shao Yong in mentioning sun (ri 日), moon (yue 月), stars, and planets (xingchen 星辰) which are the four structuring elements of Heaven, and water (shui 水), fire (huo 火), earth (tu 土), and stone (shi 石), which are the structuring elements of the Earth. He also follows the same sequence: “Since Yang produces Yin, water is constituted first; since Yin produces Yang, fire is constituted next” (陽生陰, 故水先成; 陰生陽, 故火後成). Just after mentioning the abstract principles that structure Anterior Heaven and Earth, Longobardo touches upon the five phases, that is, water (shui 水), fire (huo 火), earth (tu 土), metal (jin 金), and wood (mu 木). However, for Shao Yong, the five phases do not belong to the abstract structure of reality (Anterior Heaven) but to the concrete functioning of reality (Posterior Heaven). Unaware of this, Longobardo draws Fig. 4.3 representing the five phases, with earth (tu) in the middle.

72

T. MEYNARD

Fig. 4.2 The efficient causes of generation and corruption (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

Fig. 4.3 The five phases (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

Here Longobardo has missed Shao Yong’s sui generis treatment of the Five Phases. Shao Yong is unique in the history of Chinese philosophy in replacing the Five Phases with the Four Images (si xiang 四象). Longobardo draws a final figure, which is correctly placed because it represents

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

73

Anterior Heaven with the eight trigrams, which correspond to the socalled Xiantian bagua 先天八卦 supposedly created by Fuxi and to the River Chart or Hetu 河圖. Longobardo’s explanation about this diagram is very succinct, and I rely here on the explanation by Robin Wang: “According to Shao Yong this is the Fuxi’s points of compass which exhibits a sequence in pair, so it is called the ‘Diagram of Directions of Fuxi’s Eight Trigrams.’ A primal eight trigrams are arranged in line with this vision. North (qian/tian) is up and south (kun/di) is below, a north-south axis; fire (li) is east and water (kan) is west, east-west axis. These four cardinal trigrams set up the basic matrix of directions. The mountain-lake pair and thunder-wind pair are something between.”16 In Fig. 4.4, the circle represents round heaven, and the square represents square earth, in accordance with traditional Chinese cosmology. However, instead of the square occupying the maximum surface of the inner circle, the inner space within the circle is divided into a upper part (physical heaven) and a lower part (physical earth), the latter corresponding to traditional Chinese representations of the Earth as a mass of land surrounded by four seas. In view of the fact that Anterior Heaven represents an abstract structure of reality, it is quite strange that Longobardo decided to represent here the Chinese map of the Earth! Longobardo adds in the margin two quotes which apparently do not have any written source and were most probably picked up orally: Outside of the six dimensions there is some qi that has not yet been exhausted [六合之外猶有未盡之氣]. The twelve hours have determined orientations; only when the sun arrives to a certain point, this is time, just like the sun arriving to wu means it is noontime, and everything else like this [十二時固有定方, 惟日 所到處即為時, 如日行到午則為午時, 餘皆然].17

16 Robin R. Wang, “Decoding the Philosophical DNA of the Yinyang Symbol,” in Symbols, Cultures and Identities in a Time of Global Interchange, ed. Paata Chkheidze, Hoang Thi Tho, and Yaroslav Pasko (Washington, DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2015), 296. 17 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.178r .

74

T. MEYNARD

Fig. 4.4 Longobardo’s understanding of Chinese cosmology (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

He also explains the method of Shao Yong of structuring the cosmos by a series of divisions: That second chaos, that is the primordial air, produced heat and cold (which include the five elements posited by the Chinese). But they multiplied themselves into four, namely into an intense heat and a subdued heat, and into a subdued cold and an intense cold. These four things then produced eight qualities, namely hot, cold, strong, and pleasant or soft, each with an intense degree and a subdued degree.18

In this passage, heat stands for yang, and cold for yin, and we can reconstitute the eight trigrams in the Anterior Heaven arrangement as given in Table 4.2. Longobardo gives many details about the abstract structure of the cosmos (i.e., Anterior Heaven) according to Shao Yong, but he is very brief about its concrete functioning (i.e., Posterior Heaven). As we have 18 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.179r .

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

75

Table 4.2 The eight trigrams of interior heaven

陽 Yang

Taiji 太極

陰 Yin

sixiang 四象

bagua 八卦

Intense heat taiyang 太陽 Subdued heat shaoyang 少陽 Subdued cold shaoyin 少陰 Intense cold taiyin 太陰

Pleasant intense heat qian 乾 Soft intense heat dui 兌 Pleasant subdued heat li 离 Soft subdued heat zhen 震 Soft subdued cold xun 巽 Pleasant subdued cold kan 坎 Soft intense cold gen 艮 Pleasant intense cold kun 坤

seen above, he misplaced the Five Phases within the Anterior Heaven and Earth. In the section on Posterior Heaven and Earth, he does describe in a few sentences the Eight Trigrams of Heaven according to Wen Wang (Wen Wang houtian bagua 文王後天八卦), with zhen 震 in the east, but unfortunately he does not include the diagram itself. Longobardo points out that the knowledge of Posterior Heaven is important for the prognostication of future: In this way, everybody’s fate, lot or fortune, and natural inclination may be foreknown. They do this so that they can know how everybody ought to regulate their actions in a way that co-operates with their fate and does not oppose it.19

For Longobardo, this cooperation between the structure of the universe and the human actions in response may not leave any role to the action of God. Table 4.3 illustrates the different levels of Shao Yong’s cosmology according to Longobardo’s understanding.

4.4

Zhang Zai and Zhu Xi’s Metaphysics

The sophisticated cosmogony elaborated by Shao Yong unfolds through historical cycles of successive birth and destruction of the cosmos. Longobardo shows a keen interest in this because the theory resembles the views

19 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.179r .

76

T. MEYNARD

Table 4.3 Longobardo’s understanding of Shao Yong’s cosmology Anterior Heaven and Earth (xian tiandi 先天地)

Aristotle

Li 理, hundun 渾沌, or dao First principle, first chaos, 道 universal cause, or first matter Wuyun 五運: Five emanations 太易, 太初, 太始, 太素, 太極 Taiji 太極, yuanqi 元氣 Second matter, second chaos, dongjing yinyang nannü primordial qi tiandi 動靜陰陽男女天地 Efficient causes Eight trigrams of heaven Eight paths or directions according to Fuxi Ri yue xingchen日月星辰 Sun, moon, stars, planets shui huo tu shi水火土石 Water, fire, earth, stone Five phases of the Earth Water, fire, earth, metal and (misplaced) wood (misplaced) Posterior Heaven and Earth (hou tiandi 後天地) Eight trigrams of heaven Eight paths or directions according to Wen Wang

Ether in supralunary sphere

Corruptible matter in sublunary sphere With four elements and four primary qualities

of the Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus, and this theory points out to a naturalistic view of reality with the absence of an ultimate origin and finality in God. When treating the first principle of all things, Longobardo could not ignore the metaphysics of the Song philosophers Zhang Zai, the Cheng brothers, and Zhu Xi, who had absorbed some ideas of Shao Yong but rejected the historical cycles in his cosmogony. In Prelude 7, Longobardo presents their metaphysics as a monism which he epitomizes with the maxim “all things are one” (wanwu yiti 萬物一體; omnia sunt unum). The quote he inserted in Chinese allows us to trace the source back to the words of Cheng Yi 程頤 as quoted by Zhang Zai in his Zhengmeng 正蒙 (Correcting Youthful Ignorance) and reproduced in juan 4 of the Xingli daquan. Longobardo has a long digression to show that monism was held by Presocratic thinkers, such as Parmenides and Melissus. Longobardo had previously followed Shao Yong in discussing li/hundun and taiji/qi, but in this section he uses the concepts of Zhu Xi: what he calls now prime matter refers to the concept of li/taiji, and what he calls second matter refers here to qi, and following Zhu Xi, he emphasizes that li/taiji and qi cannot exist separately, saying in Prelude 8: “The substance and being of that first matter are intrinsically within

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

77

Table 4.4 Natural qualities and the generation of things zheng 正 Correct

pian 偏 Oblique

jing 精 jing 精 cu 粗 cu 粗 jing 精 jing 精 cu 粗 cu 粗

tong 通 Penetrating

se 塞 Obtuse

qing zhuo qing zhuo qing zhuo qing zhuo

清 濁 清 濁 清 濁 清 濁

shengren聖人, wise and heroes xianren 賢人, virtuous and prudent yuren 愚人 worthless people qinshou 禽獸, brute animals Different species caomu 草木, plants and herbs

[the second matter], and therefore, by consequence, are in all things and never separated from them.”20 He continues explaining the role of qi in the production of things, but he holds that ultimately the universe is produced out of the transformations of the same cause or substance, li/taiji, without the need of efficient, formal and final causes, so that the process of generation and corruption results only from a material process of aggregation and disaggregation. In Prelude 9, Longobardo explains Zhu Xi’s view on the nature of human beings and things. He draws from juan 1 of the Xingli daquan, which reproduces many parts of Zhu Xi’s chapter “Nature of Human Beings and Objects, and Nature of qizhi” (人物之性、氣質之性).21 Longobardo translates the key concept of qizhi as natural quality, and he explains how natural quality differs according to a different combination of four basic elements: namely zheng 正 (correct), pian 偏 (oblique), tong 通 (penetrating), se 塞 (obtuse), with two degrees of perfection (jingcu 精粗 or qingzhuo 清濁), which I summarize in Table 4.4. Commenting on this, Longobardo laments that the Chinese do not understand the notion of substance. Indeed, according to Aristotle, human beings and all things have their own specific substance which differentiate them ontologically from everything else. He understands that things in Chinese philosophy are not substantially differentiated but are only the transformations of one common substance. Prelude 10 concludes the section on the first principle, but it is a bit confused since Longobardo mixes elements from Shao Yong and others from Zhu Xi. Longobardo admits that the attributes of taiji, as eternal, 20 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.181r . 21 See Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類, juan 4 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 2004), 56–81.

78

T. MEYNARD

simple, pure and subtle seemingly suggest that they transcend the material world and thus could be considered spiritual. However, he dispels this misconception, affirming that “in the teaching of Rujiao or the literati there is emphatically nothing more than one material substance.”22

4.5 On the guishen, or Spirits, and the Human Soul In Preludes 11–13, Longobardo devotes much attention to the guishen (spirits). Indeed, the missionaries had quickly recognized their importance in the ordinary life of Chinese people, unlike the imperial ritual to heaven. We may have expected missionaries to reject the guishen as idolatrous, but Ricci discovered in studying the Classics that they play a positive role. In Chapter 4 of the True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, he justifies their existence against the atheistic and materialistic interpretations of Zhu Xi who had reduced them to the contraction and expansion of a material qi. Ricci proves that ancient Chinese believed in their existence as attested by Chapter 16 of the Zhongyong (如在其左右), by the chapters Xibokanli 西伯戡黎, Jinteng 金縢, and Shaogao 召誥 in the Shujing , by the Decade of Wen Wang 文王 in the Shijing , and by the chapter Zhaogong qinian 昭公七年 in the Chunqiu. Ricci does not intend to explicitly endorse the ancient worship of the guishen, but he wants to prove that ancient Chinese believed in the immortality of the soul and the possibility of communication between the living and the dead. Since the Chunqiu mentions that, in the country Zheng 鄭, the ghost of Boyou 伯有 had returned among the living, Ricci explains that the ghosts are messengers of God, almost like angels.23 Ricci was correct in considering the ancient belief in the guishen as religious, but it was impossible for him explain on the basis of the Classics how the guishen receive commands from God, have their own independent substance, and even enjoy free will, according to the Catholic discourse on angels. Longobardo does not reject the belief in the guishen as idolatrous, but he needs to refute Ricci’s affirmation that the guishen are independent substances that obey God. Therefore, he strives to show that according to the Song philosophers the guishen are devoid of substance, intelligence 22 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.182r . 23 “凡有囘世界者, 必天主使之.” Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 150.

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

79

and will, and ultimately are absorbed into the same material principle of li/taiji. In Prelude 11, Longobardo deals mostly with the nature of the guishen, showing that they are not independent spiritual substances, but like Shangdi are of the same substance as li, qi, and taiji. In support of this, he translates a quote from Cheng Yi, drawn from juan 26 of the Xingli daquan: 或問天帝之異。 曰: 以形體謂之天, 以主宰謂之帝, 以至妙謂之神, 以功用謂 之鬼神, 以性情謂之乾, 其實一而已。 所自而名之者, 異也。 夫天專言之, 則道 也。 The author Chengzi clearly says that Shangdi (spirit of heaven) is the same thing as heaven, and therefore by extension, or at least by analogy, the same ought to be said about the spirits of other things.

Cheng Yi expresses the view here that heaven, di (帝), shen (神), guishen (鬼神), and qian (乾) form the same reality (shi 實), yet he explains elsewhere in detail that they correspond to different levels of reality. Longobardo’s monistic reading does not pay enough attention to the subtle articulations of those different levels. On several occasions, Longobardo makes reference to Chapter 16 of Zhongyong , which is the most important text for understanding the guishen. Here Longobardo understands Confucius as saying that they “constitute the being and substance of things, and cannot be divided or separated from things, otherwise things would be immediately destroyed” (體物而不可遺).24 The idea of immediate destruction in case of separation is neither in the Chinese text nor in the commentaries, but Longobardo’s interpretation was probably influenced by his understanding of Shao Yong’s cosmology. More importantly, the statement by Confucius proves to Longobardo that the guishen are not independent substances since their existence is always attached to matter. Of course, all of Longobardo’s analysis is founded on the premise that qi corresponds to air, one of the four material elements in Ancient Greek thought. This erroneous assumption was first made by Ricci and followed by generations of Jesuits during the seventeenth century. In fact, qi cannot be considered only as material or physical, but it is also moral and spiritual.

24 Longobardo inserted the words of Zhongyong 16: “體物而不可遺.”

80

T. MEYNARD

After having dealt with the nature of the guishen in Prelude 11, Longobardo explains in Prelude 12 the political application of the rituals offered to them, drawing mostly from a short section called “About rituals and spirits” (Lun jisi shenqi 論祭祀神祗) in juan 28 of the Xingli daquan. Longobardo translates this section quite extensively, presenting the rationalistic explanation of the rituals based on the continuum of qi, but leaves aside more sophisticated explanations like the mutual influence (ganying 感應) between the one who practices the rituals and their ancestors. Further quotes by Zhang Zai, Zhu Xi, Chen Beixi 陳北溪 (1156–1223), and Zhu Gongqian 朱公遷 (Yuan dynasty) express their opposition to supernatural beliefs and exhibit their moralistic explanation of the rituals to mountains, waters, and ancestors. From Zhu Gongqian, Longobardo infers the existence of two spirits: besides philosophical spirits, there are civil or popular spirits endowed with life, intelligence, and will, and this should not be understood literally, but metaphorically, to lead the common people to observe religion. Longobardo does not discuss specifically the imperial rites to heaven, but he was keen to discuss the rites to guishen which were part of ordinary life because he wanted to show their incompatibility with good philosophy and the Christian religion. For Longobardo, the literati’s explanations of guishen hide their atheistic thinking, and they abuse religious rituals because they themselves do not believe in them. Here again he was deeply influenced by Rodrigues’ semiotic approach that I have discussed above. In Prelude 13, Longobardo shows that the spirits can be reduced to li or taiji, and this leads him to make a list in Prelude 14 of fourteen different names, all of which represent the first principle. It is worth noticing that, in relation to the guishen, Longobardo does not deal with the Classical texts quoted by Ricci. When he mentions the Zhongyong and the Yijing , it is mostly for their philosophical ideas, not for any historical evidence, as Ricci did. As we argued above, Longobardo’s refutation of Ricci is not completely satisfying since he does not address directly the question of the guishen in ancient China, demonstrating only that the Song interpretation of the guishen results in a kind of pantheism, something that Ricci would have agreed with. Concerning the human soul, Ricci knew about the ancient notions of hun 魂 and po 魄, but he did not consider that both hun and po disappear after a certain time. He instead argued that linghun 靈魂 is immortal. Also, the concepts of hun and po play a marginal role in Song

4

LONGOBARDO’S READING OF SONG CONFUCIANISM

81

philosophy, but because Ricci had used those archaic notions, Longobardo was compelled to discuss them, albeit briefly. He rightly stresses that since after death both souls “completely lose the being which they had before,”25 immortality does not belong to a person but to the two entities of heaven and earth. In support, Longobardo quotes Master Cheng expressing the idea that, “the refined qi (jingqi 精氣) goes to heaven and the earthly soul goes to earth, and this could be said to depart, but in reality nothing comes nor departs” (合而生, 非來也; 盡而死, 非往也。 然 而精氣歸於天, 形魄歸於地, 謂之往亦可矣).26 From the standpoint of Song philosophers like Cheng Yi‚ Longobardo interprets the passages that Ricci had used in his True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven to prove the belief in immortality in ancient China: It is not the soul of Wen Wang who survives in heaven, but only the air, detached from any individuality, and moving freely up and down, like “a wandering soul or youhun 游魂.”27

4.6

Conclusion

Overall, Longobardo should be credited for being the first Westerner to attempt an account of Shao Yong’s sophisticated cosmological system. He has captured quite well the key feature that distinguishes Shao Yong’s cosmology from that of the other Song philosophers, namely the differentiation of li/hundun and taiji/qi. He correctly understands them as two levels of reality, primary and secondary, while both are incorruptible and constitute together Anterior Heaven and Earth. Only at the level of Posterior Heaven is reality corruptible. Longobardo understands Shao Yong’s cosmogony with its different stages and cycles as the unfolding and the working of the same substance. This allows him to point out the defect of a monist philosophy ultimately founded on a material principle and not allowing spiritual substances distinct from matter. In some instances, Longobardo signals that li has also moral and metaphysical dimensions, but unfortunately he remains tied to the Aristotelian framework of matter and spirit.

25 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.190r . 26 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.190r . 27 APF, Manuscript SC Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, fol.190v .

82

T. MEYNARD

Despite his efforts in studying Song Confucianism, Longobardo is constrained by Western concepts, which he applies too directly. He is correct to dispute Ricci’s thesis of radical rupture in the Confucian tradition by pointing out its continuities, yet he goes to another extreme and overlooks the huge differences that exist between ancient and Song Confucianism, instead construing a unified teaching from Confucius to the Song philosophers. He develops further Ricci’s refutation of Song Confucianism, but he does not examine ancient Confucianism as such. His argument on the continuity between ancient Confucianism and Song Confucianism does not address directly the heart of Ricci’s interpretation of ancient Confucianism, especially the notions of Shangdi and guishen in antiquity. Thus Longobardo’s refutation of Ricci’s interpretation is only indirect and inconclusive, while reflecting divergences of views among Jesuits themselves.

CHAPTER 5

Philological Note Claudia von Collani, Daniel Canaris , and Thierry Meynard

5.1

This Edition

Our aim in producing this edition and translation of Longobardo’s “Resposta breve” is to represent as accurately as possible Longobardo’s intellectual contribution while giving a sense of how in later decades the text was manipulated as part of the Chinese Rites Controversy. We also wanted to analyze systematically Longobardo’s use of Western and Chinese sources. Since Longobardo’s autograph Portuguese manuscript

C. von Collani (B) University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] D. Canaris Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] T. Meynard Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_5

83

84

C. VON COLLANI ET AL.

in the archives of Propaganda Fide in Rome (APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 145r–168v) has suffered damage and is illegible in many parts, we have decided to base our English translation on Santa Maria’s Latin translation (APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623– 1674, fols 170r–197v), which is largely faithful to the original Portuguese and helpfully includes the original Chinese-language citations. However, we have compared the Latin text to the reconstructed Portuguese text and indicated where Santa Maria deviates significantly from Longobardo’s text. Santa Maria’s glosses are translated in the footnotes and clearly distinguished from Longobardo’s text. In Santa Maria’s manuscript, there are also marginalia added by Jean Valat. Since these marginalia represent lacunas in Santa Maria’s translation which are in the main body of Longobardo’s Portuguese text, we have integrated these marginalia into the main body of the translation. Appendix 1 contains a full transcription of Santa Maria’s Latin translation. Misspellings (such as frequent use of “ss” in place of “s”) in the original manuscript have been corrected to ease reading. Accents used for marking adverbs have not been reproduced; however, we have opted to reproduce the accents used to mark the tones of Chinese words because they aid in identifying the corresponding Chinese characters. Capitalization has been preserved. Generally speaking, punctuation follows that of Santa Maria; however, on a few occasions it has been modified to ease reading. In the footnotes are indicated Santa Maria’s deviations from the Portuguese original, as well as the Chinese citations in the margins of Santa Maria’s Latin translation and Longobardo’s Portuguese original. Appendix 2 contains a transcription of Longobardo’s Portuguese text that is reconstructed from Longobardo’s original Portuguese text in APF and the copy found in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF, Ms. Espagnol 409, fols 82r–101v). The story behind the different copies, translations, and editions of Longobardo’s treatise is complex. Below is a list and description of the most important manuscripts and printed editions of Longobardo’s treatise prepared by Claudia von Collani.

5

PHILOLOGICAL NOTE

85

5.2 Manuscripts and Printed Editions of Longobardo’s Treatise 5.2.1

Portuguese Original, Dated to 1623–1624 but with Evidence of Revisions Made as Late as 1630

Manuscript A (original): “Reposta (sic!) breve sobre as Controversias do Xámtý, Tien Xîn, Lim hoên, e outros nomes e termos sinicos: para se determinar quaes delles podem ou não podem usarse nesta [Crista]ndade. Dirigida aos Padres das Resid[enci]as da China, pera a verem, e depois enviarem com o seu parecer sobre ella ao nosso P[ad]re Visitador em Macao.” APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 145r–168v. Total of 47 pages. With Chinese characters and the four drawings. Lacks the paratexts by Santa Maria and Morales. Undated. Ends with the interview of Dr. Leam (Leo), which is the last interview before the “18. Praeludio.” Bad state of conservation, with edges badly damaged, and missing text especially the Chinese quotes. The text consisted of three parts, but two of them were lost and did not reach Santa Maria. The first part stopped before Prelude 18. See Antonio Santa Maria, “Declaratio sub iuramento,” APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 214v. The following reasons indicate that this is most likely the original manuscript by Longobardo: • Santa Maria identifies it as the original autograph text. He does not make this claim about any other manuscript. • As indicated by Santa Maria, Longobardo’s name seems to be on the first page in the upper right margin. The first syllable, however, is illegible, though it is followed by what appears to be “bardo.” • The handwriting resembles that of Longobardo’s epistolary correspondence. Manuscript B: BnF Paris, Ms. Espagnol 409, fols 82r–101v. Total of 38 pages. Entitled “Resposta breve,” with Chinese characters and the four drawings. This MS was transcribed from a copy made by Santa Maria and was sent to Europe by Luis da Gama in 1668 from Macao, together with a copy from Santa Maria’s own treatise, which can be found just before Longobardo’s text; Ms. Espagnol 409, fols 63r–81r. Undated. Good state

86

C. VON COLLANI ET AL.

of conservation. It contains four marginal annotations in French, signed G.P. (i.e., Guillaume Pauthier, 1801–1873). Available for download at Gallica, BnF. Manuscript C: Archive des Missions Étrangères de Paris (AMEP), t. 474, fols 1–46, starting with Prelude 2. Total of 46 pages. Short paratext at the end, namely a certification made by Santa Maria, 12 August 1663: “Un cuaderno ya mui biezo, roto, scisso empartes y muy maltratado; y ansi le faltava el Preludio 18. q[ue] supra in fine promete: por esso no tiena fecha, ni firma del dicho Padre.” Without Chinese characters and without drawings. The handwriting is identical with that of the Latin translation in the Archive of the Propaganda Fide; hence, the manuscript was written by Santa Maria. 5.2.2

Latin Translation by Caballero

Manuscript A: “Responssio (sic!) breuis super controuersias de Xámtí, hoc est de Altissimo Domino, de Ti¯en xîn, hoc est de spiritibus cœlestibus, de Lím-hoên, hoc est de Anima rationali. De aliisque nominibus ac Terminis sinicis ad determinandum, qualia eorum uti possint vel non in hac Xpianitate,” preserved in the Archive of the Propaganda Fide in Rome. APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fols 170r–197v. Total of 54 pages, with Chinese characters and the four drawings. Afterword by Santa Maria, 8 December 1661 Second afterword by Santa Maria, 28 December 1661 Signed by Juan Bautista Morales, 27 May 1662. Manuscript B: Biblioteca Casanatense, Rome, Ms. 1516, fols 1r–30v. Before the translation is inscribed: “Quod sequitur, opusculum P. Nicolai Longobardi Soc. Jesu, latine redditum ex Lusitano idiomate per P. Fr. Antonium de S. Maria Ord[ini]s Minorum in Sinis an. 1661, authenticatum dicitur a P. Fr. Jo. Baptistae de Morales Ord. Praed[icato]rum anno 1662 uti videre est ad calcem. Censendum est ex Mss. Sinenses Ritus spectantibus quos dono dederit Rmus P. F. Antoninus Cloche Magister ordinis.” Followed by the copy of the Latin translation, with the index on fol. 3r, fols 1r–30v. Total of 80 pages. With Chinese characters and the four drawings. After the mention of the “18.um Praeludium” there is a short afterword by Santa Maria: “Hucusque Pater Nicolaus Longobardus Societatis Jesu:

5

PHILOLOGICAL NOTE

87

18 Praeludium defficit omnino, praeter praescriptum tituli initum positus in dextra margine in parte inferiore ultimi folii praeludii 17 praescripti; caetera folia defficiunt: consequenter in fine praescripti tractatus firma aut subscriptio deficit Autoris: quae adest in initio in primo folio Proëmii: in parte superiore dextere marginis. Hocque transumptum de Lusitano versum in Latinum a R.P. Antonio de S.ta Maria Praeffectus Appcus ordin. Min. in isto Regno Sinae, este en M.e authenticato por el Pr fr. Ju(an) Bapt(a) de Morales Nott.o Ap.co in 4 de Abril en Lan ki anno de 1662.” This manuscript was a gift of Antonin Cloche (1628–1720), who was Master General of the Dominican order from 1686 to 1720. The Biblioteca Casanatense, which opened in 1701, has its origin in a donation given by Cardinal Girolamo Casanate OP (1620–1700) and was run by the Dominicans nearby Santa Maria sopra Minerva. As the Biblioteca Casanatense was exchanging manuscripts with the Holy Office, it might be possible that Cloche gifted the manuscript to the Holy Office and not to the Casanatense as such. Manuscript C: AMEP, t. 474, fols 47–152. Total of 105 pages. Without Chinese characters, without first pages, starts with Praeludium 2, with 4 comparably primitive drawings. Afterword by Santa Maria, dated 8 of December 1661, and Juan Bautista Morales 27 May 1662. 5.2.3

Spanish Translation by Navarrete

Text A: “Respuesta breve, sobre las controversias de el Xang Ti, Tien Xin, y Ling Hoen (esto es de el Rey de lo alto, espiritus, y alma rational, que pone el China) y otros nombres, y terminos Chinicos, para determinarse, quales de ellos se pueden usar en esta, Christiandad dirigida à los Padres de las residencias de China, para que le vean, y imbien despues su parecer al P. Visitador de Macau.” Without Chinese characters and without the four drawings. Translated by Navarrete from the original Portuguese. Published as “Tratado quinto” together with Navarrete’s annotations in Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, Tratados históricos, politicos, ethicos y religiösos de la monarchia de China (Madrid, 1676), 245–289. Total of 44 pages. Navarrete’s Spanish text was a direct translation from the Portuguese text which Navarrete received in Guangzhou from Santa Maria in 1668. Meynard demonstrates this with three indications:

88

C. VON COLLANI ET AL.

1. On fol. 87v of the BnF Portuguese manuscript there is: “a qual elles chamam ly.” Navarrete text translates this as: “la qual ellos llamas Li.”1 This clause is not present in either the APF or Casanatense Latin manuscripts. 2. On fol. 179v of the APF Latin manuscript there is, “sic enim vocantur a Sinis cælum, terra, et homo: vel p˘a kuá, id est illæ octo qualitates Aëris orizontis supradictæ. Trinitas vero omnia produxit.” The gloss “illæ octo qualitates Aëris orizontis” finds no equivalent in the Portuguese manuscripts (though it is also absent in the Biblioteca Casanatense Latin manuscript). This further distances Navarrete’s translation from Santa Maria’s Latin text and suggests a stronger correspondence with the Portuguese manuscripts. 3. On fol. 182v of the APF Latin manuscript there is a marginal note added by Valat: “Si aliquis […] existere.” This is absent in the Casanatense Latin manuscript, but there is a corresponding passage in the Portuguese manuscripts. Navarrete correctly inserts this passage in the main body of his Spanish translation. (“Si alguno opusiere …”).2 Another marginal note by Valat on fol. 187r of the APF manuscript is simply integrated into the main body of Navarrete’s text, again following the Portuguese text. Manuscript B: Manuscript copy of the Diocesane Archive of the diocese of Hankou, now part of the Archive in the General Curia of the Franciscans in Rome, MH 19–1, 7, fols 68–164. Total of 96 pages. “A Respuesta breve por el P. Nicolas Longobardo s.j., sobre las controversias de el Xangti, Tientsin, Linghoen, formerly sectio A Num. 71.” Without characters and drawings, also the index is lacking. Mentioned by Dehergne under the title “Annotationes contra usum nominis Xam-ti, Peking, 1631.”3

1 Navarrete, Tratados históricos, 260. 2 Navarrete, 268. 3 Dehergne, Répertoire des Jésuites, 154.

5

5.2.4

PHILOLOGICAL NOTE

89

French Translation by Louis Champion de Cicé

Text A: Anciens Traitez de divers Auteurs sur les ceremonies de la Chine; Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois, Par le R. Pere Longobardi, ancien Supérieur des Missions de la Compagnie de JESUS à la Chine (Paris 1701). Prelude 17 is incomplete, lacking the interviews with the Chinese Christians. Ends within the interview of Ie Ko lao within a sentence. No Chinese characters nor drawings. The translation seems to be very free and omits the quotations from Church Fathers, etc. There is another strange edition of this translation which concludes with section 16, followed by Sainte-Marie’s text. Cicé’s translation is based on the Spanish translation made by Navarrete. As Thierry Meynard argues, this can be demonstrated by common mistakes. For instance, both Navarrete and Cicé’s translation wrongly date the composition of the Xingli daquan to 2500 years ago, instead of 200 years ago as originally (and more correctly) indicated by Longobardo.4 The erroneous date led Leibniz to infer that the Wujing daquan and the Xingli daquan were ancient texts with the greatest authority.5 Text B: “Anciens Traitez de divers Auteurs sur les ceremonies de la Chine, avec des notes de Monsieur de Leibniz. Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois. Par le R. Pere Nicolas Longobardi, ancien Superieur des Missions de la Compagnie de JESVS à la Chine. Nouvelle edition faite depuis celle de Paris de l’an. 1701 in 12, et augmentée avc des remarques sur le manuscrit de Mr. de Leibniz,” in Viri illvstris Godefredi Gvil. Leibnitii Epistolae ad diversos, ed. Christian Kortholt (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1735), 2:165–266. No Chinese characters nor drawings, ends with the last interview of Doctor Leon, before section 18. With Leibniz’ annotations. Text C: “Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois, par le P. Longobardi, avec des remarques de M. Leibniz” (Edit. Paris. a., 1701), in Gothofredi Guillelmi Leibnitii, … Opera Omnia, tomus quartus, in tres partes distributs, quarum I. Continet Philosophiam in genere, & opuscula Sinenses attingentia, ed. Ludovicus Dutens (Geneva: Fratres de Tournes, 1768), 89–144.

4 Navarrete, 250. 5 Thierry Meynard, “Leibniz as Proponent of Neo-Confucianism in Europe,” in Leibniz

and the European Encounter: 300 years of Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, ed. Li Wenchao 李文潮 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017), 187.

90

C. VON COLLANI ET AL.

With Leibniz’ annotations. Text D: “Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois,” in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Discours sur la theologie naturelle des Chinois. Mit einem Anhang: Nicolas Longobardi, Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois; Antoine de Sainte Marie, Traité sur quelques points importans de la Mission de la Chine; Nicolas Malebranche, Entretien d’un Philosophe Chrétien et d’un Philosophe Chinois sur l’existence et la Nature de Dieu; Leibniz, Marginalien zu den Texten von Longobardi, Sainte Marie und Malebranche; Rezensionen aus dem Journal des Sçavans; Leibniz, Annotationes de cultu religioneque Sinensium, ed. Li Wenchao 李文潮 and Hans Poser (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002), 114–146. 5.2.5

English Translation by the Churchill Brothers

“A short Answer concerning the Controversies about Xang Ti, Tien Xin, and Ling Hoen (that is, the King of the upper Region, Spirits, and rational Soul assign’d by the Chineses) and other Chinese Names and Terms; to clear which of them may be us’d by the Christians of these Parts. Directed to the Fathers of the Residences in China, that they may peruse it, and then send their Opinion concerning it to the F. Visitor at Macao,” in A Collection of Voyages and Travels, Some Now First Printed from Original Manuscripts. Others Translated out of Foreign Languages, and Now First Publish’d in English, ed. Awnsham Churchill and John Churchill (London, 1704), 1:183–224. No Chinese characters nor drawings. Based on Navarrete’s Spanish translation and includes Navarrete’s annotations.

CHAPTER 6

A Brief Response to the Controversies Over Shangdi 上帝, tianshen 天神, and linghun 靈魂, by Longobardo Translated from Latin into English by Daniel Canaris and Annotated by Thierry Meynard and Daniel Canaris Daniel Canaris

and Thierry Meynard

A brief response to the controversies over Shangdi 上帝, {that is, the Supreme Lord;}1 tianshen 天神, {that is, the celestial spirits;} linghun 靈魂, {that is, the rational soul,} and other Chinese terms, to determine whether they can be used in Christianity. 1 In this translation, Santa Maria’s additions to Longobardo’s text are indicated with curly brackets {}. Square brackets [] indicate our editorial glosses. Some of these glosses include significant words in the Portuguese text that were excluded from Santa Maria’s translation.

D. Canaris (B) Xue-Heng Institute for Advanced Studies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] T. Meynard Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5_6

91

92

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Addressed to the fathers in residence in China, so that they may see it, and afterwards send it back with their judgement on it to our Father Visitor in Macao.2 {Written by Fr Niccolò Longobardo of the Society of Jesus. Translated from Portuguese into Latin by Friar Antonio de Santa Maria, Apostolic Prefect of the Order of [Friars] Minor in the Kingdom of China. In the year of the Lord 1661.}3

6.1 Preface. To Know the Origin of These Controversies and the Efforts Made in Relation to Them by the Order of the Major Superiors [N.o 1] First of all, more than twenty-five years have passed since I began to be troubled by that which the Chinese call {the Most High Lord or Emperor} Shangdi.4 After I read the Four Books {of Confucius} (Sishu 四書), as we are all accustomed to do the moment we arrive in China, I noticed that various interpreters explain the term Shangdi in a way that is most incompatible and repugnant to the divine nature. But when I learned from the veteran fathers of the mission that this {being called}

2 The Father Visitor is Jerónimo Rodrigues, Visitor in 1619–1621 and 1622–1626. This treatise of Longobardo was written in reply to the Macao conference of 1621, which decided in favour of Ricci’s position in the terms controversy. See Antonio Sisto Rosso, Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century (South Pasadena: P.D. and Ione Perkins, 1948), 96. 3 1661 indicates the year of the translation of Longobardo’s report by Santa Maria from Portuguese into Latin. Longobardo first drafted the report in Portuguese around 1623, but continued to revise the text until at least 1630. The text was discussed in 1627 at Jiading, in Zhejiang province. See the introduction by Claudia von Collani for the composition of the text and Song Liming’s chapter for the late dating of the extant autograph manuscript. 4 Longobardo’s text was originally intended for internal use among Jesuits in China and thus Longobardo presumes that his readers understand the meaning of terms such as Shangdi. In contrast, Santa Maria opted to gloss Chinese terms to make the text more accessible for his intended audience—the cardinals of Propaganda Fidei—who were most likely ignorant of the Chinese language.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

93

Shangdi {by the Chinese} was our {Most High True Lord} God, I put aside my scruple and formed the view that some authors were perhaps mistaken, insofar as their individual interpretations did not conform with the doctrine of ancient China.5 Under this persuasion, I spent thirteen years in the city of Shaozhou 韶州, without being able to confer in person with the fathers of the other residences, as I ought to have done.6 [N.o 2] After the death of Fr Matteo Ricci, {who was the first missionary of this kingdom of China),}7 I took charge over the whole mission. I received a letter from the Visitor of Japan, Fr Francesco Pasio,8 who informed me that some books written by our fathers in China agree with pagan errors and that the fathers and brothers of that Christian mission in Japan found great difficulty in confuting these errors, because their opponents can easily cite the testimony of the fathers’ Chinese books.9 Thus he implored us to examine carefully what was taking place over here. He could not imagine that the fathers in China would err about the sects in their writings since they were such learned theologians, 5 Longobardo refers here to Ricci and other Jesuits who claimed that the ancient Chinese knew God as Shangdi, but later the Chinese went astray from the original meaning of the canonical texts. 6 Longobardo was based in Shaozhou, in Guangdong province starting from 1597. After Ricci’s passing in May 1610, he was named superior of the Jesuit mission in China; he arrived Beijing in May 1611. 7 In fact, the first missionary was Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607), but Ricci was generally regarded as the founder of the China mission, especially after his death in 1610. 8 Francesco Pasio (1554–1612) was the Visitor to the Jesuit Mission of Japan and China from 1611 to 1612. He was Michele Ruggieri’s first companion in Zhaoqing. See Sangkeun Kim, Strange Names of God: The Missionary Translation of the Divine Name and the Chinese Responses in Late Ming China, 1583–1644 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 167. The date of the letter is not mentioned in Longobardo’s treatise, but a letter of Pasio from Nagasaki to Longobardo dated 24 September 1611 is mentioned in the list (elenchus ) of documents on Rites Controversy compiled in 1680 by the then Vice-Provincial of China, Giandomenico Gabiani (1623–1694) as part of the Dissertatio apologetica. The elenchus is not included in the version printed in 1700, but included in full in appendix to Henri Bernard-Maître, “Un dossier bibliographique de la fin du XVIIe siècle sur la question des termes Chinois,” Recherches de science religieuse 36 (1949): 26–79. 9 Those books include The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu shiyi 天主實 義) by Ricci, first published in Beijing in 1603, and reprinted in Guangdong province in 1605 by order of Alessandro Valignano for use in the Japan mission.

94

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

but he was troubled to see that this was affirmed by many of us there who had specialised knowledge of the sects and, above all, were knowledgable about Chinese books.10 When I was informed of this, my old doubt was confirmed, and I began to apply even greater diligence. Moreover, when I went to Beijing because of my office, I found Fr Sabatino de Ursis wavering with the same doubts about {that Most High called} Shangdi.11 Hence together with Doctor Paul12 and others who were sufficiently well versed, we carefully discussed what means could be used to reconcile the discrepancies between their texts and commentaries. They all were unanimous in saying that we ought not to reconcile them but to follow the teaching of the texts which were favourable to our purposes while neglecting the contrary explanations of the interpreters. The same response was given to us at other places and times by doctors Michael and Leo.13 Therefore, some fathers said that this was sufficient to decide the case and that no more discussion of this subject was necessary. But Fr Sabatino and I, along with many others, felt that this alone could not allay our concerns because the Christian literati often accommodate their interpretations of their jing 經, {that is, their teachings,} to something which they understand to be similar to our holy law while not realising how important it is for the truth of these controversies to come to light and for nothing false or fictitious to be said.

10 Francesco Pasio was probably influenced by João Rodrigues who was at that time considered within the Japanese province as an expert on Chinese books. See the note below on Rodrigues. 11 Sabatino de Ursis (1575–1620) was an Italian Jesuit from Lecce who arrived in Beijing in 1607 to assist Ricci with astronomical research. He contributed to the translation of Euclid and also wrote a book in Chinese on hydraulics, the Taixi shuifa 泰西水 法. 12 Paul was the baptismal name of Xu Guangqi (1562–1633), who also collaborated with Ricci on the translation of Euclid. This suggests that Longobardo had a first round of discussions in the years 1610–1615, with Xu Guangqi in Beijing, and with Li Zhizao and Yang Tingyun in Hangzhou through letters, but those Chinese Christians expressed their support to Ricci’s policy. 13 Michael was the baptismal name of Yang Tingyun (1557–1627), who collaborated with Giulio Aleni on a global atlas, the Zhifang waiji 職方外紀. Leo was the baptismal name of Li Zhizao (1565–1630). They were both from Hangzhou. Together with Xu Guangqi, they are known as the “Three Pillars of Chinese Catholicism.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

95

[N.o 3] While we were discussing these things, Fr João Rodrigues,14 who recently had arrived in Macao from Japan, came over here [to mainland China] and desired to examine these controversies. His arrival was most opportune and, I believed, divinely ordained for the benefit of the Christian church in China and Japan. Although those fathers considered the issue clear and settled and did not want to discuss it with this father, the rest of us who believed that the truth was still concealed were very happy to discuss with him the difficulties on both sides.15 Thus, we clearly outlined the fundamental principles of the three sects, Ru 儒, Shi 釋, Dao 道,16 {that is, the sects of the Chinese literati and of the two other principal sects of the idols}. On this basis, it will be easier to determine a means that better fits these controversies. [N.o 4] When Fr João Rodrigues returned to Macao, he delivered a letter about our situation to Fr Valentim Carvalho,17 then the provincial of both provinces,18 who in his letters had urged us to study the sects. This was necessary so that we would not make mistakes when introducing terms and views in this Christian church. At the same time, he [Carvalho] sent a list of the terms which were in his view dangerous and doubtful so that we might examine them and make a mature decision. In particular, he indicated that we thoroughly investigate the term Shangdi, {which the Chinese use to designate the Most High Ruler}. Since he knew that several of us living in China believed that this term was mistaken, he forbade its use until the matter was completely resolved.

14 The Portuguese Jesuit João Rodrigues (1561/1562–1633/1634), known as Tçuzu

or “the Interpreter” arrived in Japan as a teenager in 1577. Known for his fluency in Japanese, he served as an interpreter for Alessandro Valignano and Gaspar Coelho and had a close relationship with Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. In 1610, he was exiled from Japan and came to Macao. 15 Rodrigues spent two years in China, from June 1613 to June 1615. He arrived Beijing in early 1615; see Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter (New York: Weatherhill, 1974), 280. 16 Ru 儒 refers to Confucianism; Shi 釋 refers to Buddhism; Dao 道 refers to Daoism. 17 Valentim Carvalho (1559–1630), provincial of Japan from 1611 to 1617. Rodrigues

returned Macao on July 1615; see Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter, 289. Rodrigues expressed in a letter dated 22 January 1616 his disagreement with Ricci’s policy; see Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter, 261. 18 Longobardo refers to a period where the Chinese mission was still under the provincial of Japan. In 1615, Superior General Acquaviva erected the China mission as a vice-province independent from Japan, but this was applied only in 1623.

96

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 5] Afterwards, Fr Francisco Vieira19 succeeded in the office of Visitor. Knowing the order of his predecessor Fr Valentim Carvalho on this topic, he confirmed it and again pressed us to send to him a decision on these matters made according to the judgement of the Christian mandarins.20 I sent this with Fr Sabatino, who was heading to Macao with other exiled fathers,21 and I asked him to relate many particulars on the subject matter since he was well versed in them. He did this diligently in oral and written form. Then, when the Father Visitor saw that there were two others present with contrary views, namely Fr Diego Pantoja and Fr Alfonso Vagnone,22 he thought that these controversies could not be decided except by formal disputation. Therefore, so that the discussion may be conducted methodically, he ordered that these three fathers write individual treatises discussing three questions: the first on God; the second on the angels; the third on the rational soul. [He asked them] to demonstrate whether there was any vestige of these things in Chinese teachings. On this depended the decision on what Chinese terms ought to be used in this Christian church. [N.o 6] These three fathers wrote separate treatises expressing contrasting views: the two treatises of Fr Pantoja and Fr Vagnone argued in favour of the view that the Chinese had some knowledge of God, the angels and the rational soul, and that God could be called Shangdi, the angels tianshen, and the rational soul linghun.23 But Fr Sabatino argued against this view, proving that according to the principles of their natural

19 Francisco Vieira (1555–1619) was Visitor of Japan and China in 1616–1619. 20 The term “prefect” used in the Latin text corresponds to “mandarin” used in the

Portuguese text. For clarity, “mandarin” is used throughout this translation. 21 Due to the Nanjing persecution, Ursis and Pantoja were forced to leave Beijing on 18 March 1617 for Macao; see Dehergne, Répertoire, 75. 22 Diego de Pantoja (1571–1618) accompanied Ricci to Beijing from Nanjing in 1600. Alfonso Vagnone (1566–1640) was first based in Nanjing, but after the first nationwide persecution of Christianity, was exiled in Macao, returning later to Shanxi where he had a very fruitful apostolate. For an English presentation of his works, see Sher-shiueh Li and Thierry Meynard, Jesuit Chreia in Late Ming China: Two Studies with an Annotated Translation of Alfonso Vagnone’s Illustrations of the Grand Dao (Bern: Peter Lang: 2014). 23 Vagnone and Pantoja arrived Macao at the end of 1617 and wrote their treatise in 1618–1619. Concerning Alfonso Vagnone, we have only found a very brief report of three pages, with seven points, on the question of the name of God: Breve informaçao sobre o nome Xam’ti, e Tien En lugar de Deus por os Senhor, ARSI Jap. Sin. 161, II, 225–226.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

97

philosophy the Chinese gentiles did not recognise any substance distinct from matter (as we posit), and nor did they know what is God, the angels or the rational soul.24 This view greatly pleased the Japanese fathers and brothers living in Macao, who approved it insofar as it was much better grounded and compatible with Chinese teaching and it almost became the definitive judgement of the Father Visitor [Vieira]. However, since this was a serious matter, and he could not adjudicate between Chinese authorities adduced to argue both positions, in the end he decided to send these treatises back to us, so that we could examine them not only with the Christian literati, but also with the pagan literati, who could not be suspected of wanting to appease the fathers in explaining their teachings. [N.o 7] At the same time [that the three China fathers wrote these treatises in Macau], Fr João Rodrigues wrote another extensive treatise on what Fr Sabatino asserted, and thus there were now two treatises for both positions.25 When the treatise by Fr João Rodrigues was read by the Father Visitor and the other more senior fathers of that college,26 it pleased everybody, and thus he wanted to send it to us with the three other treatises, but since he could not transcribe it so soon, he sent a summary of it together with a [three-page] letter,27 which was enough to resolve what is now being discussed in relation to these controversies. [N.o 8] At that point I had received four treatises. I did not doubt that the fathers Sabatino and Rodrigues were quite close to the true meaning of Chinese teaching, according to what I had discussed with 24 Sabatino de Ursis arrived Macao in 1603 and Ricci requested him to come to Beijing in 1607 because of his knowledge in astronomy and hydraulics. Together with Diego de Pantoja, he was expelled from Beijing and exiled to Macao. We have lost the report that he wrote there in 1617, as instructed by Vieira and Longobardo, and we have only the name of it: “Adnotationes quaedam Patris Sabbatini de Ursis super rebus memorabilibus a P. Nicolao Longobardo pro dirigenda re christiana ad P. Visitatorem Franciscum Vieiram anno 1617 post commotam Nankinensem persecutionem conscriptis.” Henri BernardMaitre, “Un dossier bibliographique de la fin du XVIIe siècle sur la question des termes Chinois,” Recherches de science religieuse 36 (1949): 67. 25 We have not found the treatise by Rodrigues, but his ideas can be clearly seen from his letter to the Superior General, dated 22 January 1616; for the English translation of this letter, see Michael Cooper, “Rodrigues in China. The Letters of João Rodrigues, 1611–1633,” in Kokugoshi e no michi: Doi sensei sh¯ ojukinen ronbunsh¯ u 国語史への道: 土 井先生頌寿記念論文集, ed. Doi Tadao (Tokyo: Sanseid¯o, 1981), 2:352–224. 26 This refers to the Jesuit College of Saint Paul in Macao. 27 The Portuguese manuscript is more precise: “huma carta que me / escreveu de tres

folhas.”

98

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

them before. However, in addition to what I had told the Father Visitor, I wanted to make further enquiries on this issue by consulting again the Christian mandarins and arguing on various occasions with the fathers of this mission. I always found the opinion of these two fathers to be more certain and better grounded. As for the pagan literati, I could not ask their opinion, as the Father Visitor expressly urged me, because the persecution did not allow me to speak freely with them. Hence I was forced to delay my response longer than I wanted while ensuring that no one could complain that a definitive judgement was made when the other side had not been heard. In the end, I did not neglect the opportunities presented to me of speaking with various literati in the last years that I was in the south, and especially for the two years after our publication while I was residing in the royal court.28 Now that I have a very clear understanding of the Chinese teaching relevant to our discussion, I will outline them plainly and concisely in this response of mine. [N.o 9] The fathers who are to see this response should first read those four above-mentioned treatises, since many things which are stated in them are taken for granted in my response. It may be noted that I propose a short response because I am discussing these matters with Your Reverences who are so well versed in them. Thus it is sufficient to outline the principle points. The same principle applies for the Father Visitor [Jerónimo Rodrigues] and other fathers outside of China who are hoping for a speedy resolution of these controversies that has been approved by the more experienced and knowledgable fathers of this mission.29 This response is divided into three parts. The first part consists of some preludes30 on Chinese doctrine which are necessary so that our opinion is better grounded and understood. The second contains a judgement on the Chinese names and terms which can be used in the Chinese Christian 28 We have not been able to determine the meaning of “post nostram publicationem,” which corresponds to the Portuguese “depois na nossa publicação.” Longobardo is probably referring to the years 1622–1623 when he was still in Hangzhou, and the years 1623–1624 when he was back to Beijing. 29 This suggests that Longobardo addressed his report to Jerónimo Rodrigues (1567– 1628), the Jesuit Visitor at that time (1619–1626), but he seems to have in view the Jesuits in Rome (fathers outside of China). 30 The Portuguese and Latin texts use the words “preludio” and “praeludium” respectively to indicate the chapters of Longobardo’s treatise. This term emphasizes the fact that these chapters are intended as an introduction to the second and third parts of Longobardo’s treatise, which have been lost.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

99

community after being explained and adapted to our manner. The third part answers the objections made by the fathers who hold the contrary opinion. Everything for the greater glory of God.

6.2

Index of the First Part

Prelude 1. On the classic and authentic books of the Chinese by which we ought to decide these controversies. Prelude 2. On the contradictions that are sometimes between the authentic books. In these cases we should be guided by the comments rather than the texts. Prelude 3. On the symbols used by the sect of the literati. From these symbols emerge their two methods of teaching: one true, the other apparent. Prelude 4. On the philosophical method of the Rujiao sect, {that is of the literati} in general. Prelude 5. On xiantianxue, that is, {knowing a priori} how the universe was produced according to the opinion of the Chinese literati. Prelude 6. On houtianxue, that is, {knowing a posteriori} how things are generated and corrupted in this universe. Prelude 7. On that most celebrated axiom among the Chinese, “Wanwu yiti,” which corresponds to our axiom, “omnia sunt unum (all things are one).” Prelude 8. What is generation and corruption in their teaching? Prelude 9. How do they understand the differentiation of things given that the essence and nature of things are one and the same? Prelude 10. The Chinese do not recognise the distinction between spiritual and corporeal substances, but they know only one, which is more or less material. Prelude 11. On the spirits or gods which the Chinese adore according to the sect of the literati. {N.o 6 of this prelude discusses various sacrifices among which are included also the sacrifices made to people who were famous in the country.}31 31 Santa Maria’s annotations often concern ritual questions such as rites in honour of Confucius and ancestors that were being debated during the 1660s when Santa Maria

100

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Prelude 12. On the various authoritative texts by classic authors which discuss the spirits or gods of the Chinese. {N.o 8 and 11 of this prelude discuss the ancestor temples and sacrifices which are made to deceased parents and ancestors, and similarly to their master Confucius.}

Prelude 13. All the spirits or gods of the Chinese are reduced to one alone, which they called li or taiji. Prelude 14. On the various attributes and terms which the Chinese attribute to the first principle of the whole world. Prelude 15. A discussion on what life and death is according to the sect of the Chinese literati in order to see whether they understand our soul to be immortal. Prelude 16. The Chinese literati and intellectuals are all atheists. Prelude 17. On the testimonies of various and important pagan and Christian literati on the subject of {the Most High} Shangdi {or Most High King of Heaven} and of the spirits.32 {In Part 1, N.o 3 of this prelude, Christ the Lord is likened to Confucius and the most holy law of Christ to the law of Confucius according to the Chinese understanding. In Part 2, N.o 8 of the same prelude, they say that the ancient Chinese philosophers were angels incarnate. In Part 2, N.o 9 of the same prelude, it is said that the Lord of Heaven (called either Shangdi or Tianzhu) was incarnated on many occasions in China and appeared in the persons of Confucius and of other such people, and thus he could also be incarnated in the West in the person of Jesus Christ. In Part 2, N.o 10 of the same prelude, it is said that the teaching of Confucius is most perfect, and is one and the same as our theology and with the divine law.

made his translation. Longobardo’s treatise, however, focuses exclusively on terminological questions. 32 In the Portuguese text, Longobardo includes reference to the tianshen (angels) and soul (linghun); however, Santa Maria only more vaguely refers to “spirits.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

101

In Part 2, N.o 11 it is said that sacrifices can be offered to our saints, as they are offered to Heaven and Earth and deceased teachers in China. End.}33

First Part in which are proposed some preludes necessary for better understanding the principal parts of this response.

6.3 Prelude 1. On the Classic and Authentic Books by Which These Controversies Must Be Decided [N.o 1] In China, there is a great variety of books treating of diverse matters and beliefs in which many points of our controversies are discussed. But since they do not all have the authority required for the resolution of such weighty questions, after mature deliberation we have decided to use only the classic books followed by the sect of the literati. Since it is most ancient sect and professed by all the kings of China and his mandarins, for over four thousand years it has been most powerful and celebrated of all. [N.o 2] The authentic books proper to this sect can be reduced to four ranks. Of the first rank are the books of ancient teaching. These are called jing, namely the Yijing 易經, Shujing 書經, Shijing 詩經, [Liji 禮記,] Chunqiu 春秋 and Sishu 四書.34 The first kings and philosophers of China left these written teachings and the literati are appointed after being examined on them. [N.o 3] Of the second rank are their commentaries, which have two forms. The first is a short commentary by a single author following the text of any teaching with a suitable gloss. Students study this under the

33 The Portuguese manuscript of APF (but not BnF) adds the title of Prelude 18, but the text of this prelude is missing in all our manuscripts: “Preludio. Do proprio estado destas Controversias, que he ver se se pode seguir a doutrina apparente d’algums Textos antigos, contra a comum exposoção dos Interpretes Classicos, e contra a corrente dos Letrados Modernos.” 34 Longobardo overlooks here the distinction between the Five Classics and the Four Books, but he makes the distinction below. In the list of the Five Classics, APF Latin manuscript omits the Liji, but the other manuscripts make mention of it.

102

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

instruction of teachers.35 The other is a large commentary called Daquan, which the king named Yongle36 ordered to be made more than two hundred years ago,37 choosing forty-two of the most famous mandarins in the literati sect, of whom the majority belonged to the Hanlin academy. These mandarins first of all recognised and approved the short commentary on the Sishu, {that is, on the Four Books of Confucius} and on all the jing, {that is on all the books of the other teachings}. Moreover, they compiled a huge and copious commentary, collecting the interpretations of noted interpreters who had written on these teachings for 1600 years, namely from the time in which the great burning of the books took place at the command of a certain king named Shihuang.38 There is a great number of ancient interpreters: for there are 107 interpreters of the Sishu {or Four Books of Confucius}, 136 interpreters commenting on the Yijing , 166 on the Shujing and so on for the remaining jing {or books of their teachings}, as seen in their catalogue printed at the beginning of them.39 It is wondrous to see their consistency in understanding and interpreting the substantial points of their doctrine. It seems a mirror of our Holy Church Fathers in their interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Hence not without reason these commentaries are so highly esteemed in China because the compositions of literati on the text cannot be admitted unless they agree with the interpretation of the commentaries.

35 This refers to the Section and Sentence Annotations and Collected Commentaries on the Four Books , or Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 by Zhu Xi 朱熹. Also, Zhu Xi wrote commentaries for the Yijing and the Shijing . 36 The Yongle Emperor (1360–1424), the third emperor of the Ming dynasty, reigned from 1402 till his death. 37 The Spanish version by Navarrete (1676) and the French version by Champion de Cicé indicate wrongly 2500 years instead of 200 years. This error of date influenced Leibniz who gathered that the Wujing daquan and the Xingli daquan are ancient texts with the greatest authority; see Thierry Meynard, “Leibniz as proponent of NeoConfucianism in Europe,” in Leibniz and the European Encounter with China: 300 Years of Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, ed. Li Wenchao 李文潮 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017), 187. 38 This refers to the Sishu wujing daquan 四書五經大全, published in 1413 under the supervision of Hu Guang 胡廣 (1369–1418). 39 The listing for the Sishu daquan 四書大全 indeed has 107 names and that for the Yizhuan daquan 易傳大全 136. However, in relation to the Shujing , the Shuzhuan daquan 書傳大全 lists only 133 instead of Longobardo’s 166. Moreover, 70 interpreters are listed for Shijing daquan 詩經大全, and 92 for the Chunqiu daquan 春秋大全.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

103

[N.o 4] Of the third rank are the books which contain the summary of their natural and moral philosophy, which is called Xingli.40 Forty-two mandarins assembled this summary by recompiling materials dispersed in their ancient teachings, together with other treatises written later by various authors, of whom 118 are included in the summary. Of the fourth rank are the original books of these authors, who flourished, as said above, after the great burning of the Chinese books. They dedicated themselves in part to the interpretation of the teachings of the first philosophers and in part to their own compositions. Therefore, these are the classic books which are followed in the sect of the literati and from which we can gather whether the Chinese have any knowledge of God, the angels and the rational soul. [N.o 5] Before we progress any further, the antiquity of the Chinese teaching should be briefly noted. It began with the first king of the Chinese called Fuxi 伏羲, who according to the Chinese chronology lived many years before the universal flood. Although this cannot be accepted since it contradicts Sacred Scripture, it is at least certain that he lived close to the division of languages. Fr João Rodrigues thoroughly proves in his above-mentioned treatise that Fuxi was that great king of Bactria, Zoroaster, prince of the Chaldean magi. He originated all the sects in the West and afterwards came into the East, founded the kingdom of China and at the same time this sect of the Chinese literati. Since this and other sects of those pagan peoples flowed from the same source through the Devil’s manoeuvres, they all greatly resemble each other, and with the same artifice and stratagem they lead the deceived to the abyss of Hell. I do not want to spend more time on this matter because this father has already treated it extensively and eruditely in his treatise. I encourage that this be read attentively, for it sheds great light on how to decide these controversies.41

40 This refers to the Xingli daquan 性理大全, published in 1413, again under the supervision of Hu Guang. 41 See Preface, N.o 7. In his letter dated 22 January 1616 to the Superior General, Rodrigues finds in China “many other symbols in the fashion of the Chaldeans and the Persian magicians, whose founder was Zoroaster, Magician King of Bactria, which is now Samarcan”; Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 312. Following Rodrigues, Longobardo assigns to Confucianism a genealogy which traces back to Zoroaster, considered as the source of all heresies and superstitions. To the prisca theologia of Ricci, Rodrigues and Longobardo oppose what we may call a prisca theologia diabolica.

104

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

6.4 Prelude 2. On the Difference or Contradiction Which Is Sometimes Found Between the Authentic Books. In Such Cases We Ought to Be Governed by the Commentaries Rather Than the Texts When we penetrate their principles, there are no contradictions within the authentic books of the literati; however, sometimes there seems to be a contradiction between the texts of their teachings and the explanations of the interpreters. Therefore, this prelude has been placed here to discern how we ought to proceed in such a case. [N.o 1] First of all, I will begin by citing some examples of this difference. For instance, the texts of their teachings say, or intend to show, that there is a certain lord or king, the highest and supreme emperor called Shangdi, who lives in the palace of heaven where he governs the world, bestowing reward on the good and inflicting punishment on the wicked. But the interpreters attribute all this to a {material ethereal} heaven or to the universal {reason of all} nature, which they call li 理, as will be discussed below.42 The texts of the teachings say that there are various spirits called shen 神 or gui 鬼, or guishen 鬼神, etc. who preside over the mountains, rivers and other things of this universe, while the interpreters understand this as resulting from natural causes, or from the operative virtues which work in things.43 Finally, these texts when speaking about the human soul (using the term linghun) understand it as something that still lives after the death of a person. For they speak about an ancient king called Wen Wang 文王 who inhabits the heights of heaven and lives beside

42 The Portuguese text is slightly different here: “Mas os Interpretes atribuem todo isto ao mesmo Ceo, ou a Substantia e Natureça universal que chamam Ly, como depois se dira em seu lugar.” 43 The term “operative virtues” was used by Aquinas to explain the references to the “arm” of God in Sacred Scripture. As God has no members, the “arm of God” (Dei bachium) must be understood figuratively as God’s “operative power.” Summa theologiae I, q. 1, a. 10, ad 3: “Nec est litteralis sensus ipsa figura, sed id quod est figuratum. Non enim cum Scriptura nominat Dei brachium, est litteralis sensus quod in Deo sit membrum huiusmodi corporale: sed id quod per hoc membrum significatur, scilicet virtus operativa.” Thus Longobardo is applying scholastic biblical exegesis to the interpretation of neo-Confucianism.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

105

{that most high king,} Shangdi.44 But the interpreters unanimously assert that linghun, {that is the rational soul,} is none other than a certain airy and fiery entity, which when separated from the body, climbs up, and is united with the [substance]45 of heaven and becomes one and the same thing with it.46 And this is the true meaning of their ancient texts when they say that this king Wen Wang sits beside the Most High Shangdi. In their mind, that Most High is nothing other than the eternal heaven itself, and is one and the same thing as it. Therefore, when the soul returns to heaven, it is said to ascend and join together with the most high Shangdi. [N.o 2] Many of these apparent contradictions can be found between their texts and commentaries. When the texts seem more in conformity with our teaching, some of the fathers think that we should follow the texts while not paying attention to the commentaries. Others believe that it is not sufficient to rely on the texts alone, but that it is necessary to pay attention to the explanations of the commentaries. When some doubt stands in the way, they say that we ought to adhere to the commentaries rather than the texts. Now that this difference of opinions is known, since it is so important for resolving this question, everything must first be made clear. Thus, I will put forth the reasons used to argue both opinions. [N.o 3] The following reasons can be adduced in favour of the first opinion, which is followed by Frs Pantoja and Vagnone. First, the truth of all Chinese philosophy and knowledge is and consists in the texts of the teachings, on which the sect of the literati is founded. Hence the texts are doubtlessly of greater force and authority than the commentaries. Second, the authors of the commentaries lived for the most part during the reign of the Song dynasty, after the sect of the idols had already come from India. This was the reason why sometimes they deviated from the true meaning of the ancient texts.47 Third, the leading Christians in China, who are important literati and mandarins, encourage and advise

44 Chapter “Wen Wang” (文王) in the Shijing 詩經: “文王陟降, 在帝左右.” James Legge, Chinese Classics, vol. 4.2 (London: Frowde, 1893), 428. 45 Santa Maria renders Longobardo’s “substantia” (substance) as “corpore” (body). We

have opted to translate Longobardo’s original wording because it has a technical scholastic meaning. 46 In fact, Chinese philosophy does not discuss the concept of linghun, a neologism invented by Ricci. Longobardo seems to refer here to the concept of hun 魂. 47 The sect of the idols (Secta idolorum in Latin, Seita dos Pagodes in Portuguese) refers to Buddhism.

106

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

us to adhere to the teachings of the texts which they have interpreted in a way that is closer to our Holy Faith, just as it has been done since the Society first entered this kingdom. It seems that we are able, or rather are bound, to follow their judgement since they are very well versed in Chinese matters and also know what agrees and disagrees with our Holy Faith. Fourth, that by following the texts which are favourable to us (as in fact many parts do favour us) we will join the sect of the literati, and thus attract the good will of the Chinese, thereby facilitating the spread of the Holy Gospel. This view is supported by the example of the saints, who would use whatever they found effective among the gentiles, as St Paul did at the Areopagus, citing the saying of the Poet, “For we are his offspring.”48 [N.o 4] There are much more convincing and fitting reasons in favour of the second opinion which Frs Sabatino and Rodrigues defend. First, the teachings of the ancient texts are often extremely obscure. In many places, errors have been introduced by the removal or addition of words (as the literati themselves assert). Very frequently they use enigmas and parables to hide the mysteries of their philosophy (as will be shown below). Thus, without the guiding light of the interpreters, they cannot be understood, or our understanding will be full of great errors. For this reason, the commentary and the selections of the interpreters were made with painstaking effort. Similarly, all the literati are required to follow them in their compositions (as said in Prelude 1, N.o 3). If the Chinese themselves are governed by their commentaries when they encounter difficulties in their obscure and perplexing texts, all the more so should foreigners be bound to do the same. [N.o 5] Second, if we explain the texts differently from their commentaries, the Chinese will think that we are explaining them in this way because we have not yet read their books or because we do not understand them as they ought to be understood. And thus some literati took exception to several points in the book of Fr Matteo Ricci entitled Shiyi 實義. Among them a famous bonze—{that is a priest of the idols}—from Zhejiang province wrote four chapters against this book. At the beginning of the bonze’s book, he said that the foreign father should be forgiven for having interpreted the Chinese books incorrectly since he did not know

48 Acts 17:28. Paul cites from the hexameter poem Phenomena by the Greek poet Aratus (315/310 BC–240 BC).

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

107

better.49 Another person called Qu Taisu50 —a very good friend of the Society in China and especially devoted to Fr Ricci—wrote a certain book in which he pointed out what should be said about the three sects, since the father was not well informed about them in his own book. I omit other similar examples because this point is known to almost all of us in this mission. The chapters of this bonze and the book of Qu Taisu are in the archive of Hangzhou, and can be seen by anyone who wishes to see them. [N.o 6] Third, as I said above, the commentaries are certainly not in opposition to the texts. To state the contrary will be considered as a heresy by the Chinese because these commentaries are accepted by all classes and are considered as great as the texts themselves. Let us admit that there is some contradiction between the texts and the commentaries, and that the former agree more with reason than the latter. Yet even in such a case the Chinese will never submit their judgement to ours if we interpret the texts differently from their commentaries. For them the commentaries are absolutely not mistaken and are not in opposition to the texts. Thus we would be attempting an unwinnable argument with them, and in the end we will come off worse. I have witnessed this, having experienced myself and others arguing with the Chinese on this subject matter. To begin, they laugh at us when they hear us say that {the Most High} Shangdi is the creator of the whole world, as we are accustomed to declare. They know that according to Rujiao 儒教, {that is, the teaching of the literati,} their {eternal and Most High} Shangdi is heaven or its {preeminent} virtue.51 Thus, Shangdi by no means could exist before heaven but came into existence together with heaven or after there was already

49 In 1615, the Buddhist abbot Zhu Hong 祩宏 (1535–1615) published Tianshuo 天 説 (On heaven) to refute Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. Longobardo is probably referring to the beginning of the Tianshuo: “The foreigner [Ricci] worships and serves Tianzhu, but he does not understand very well the discourse on heaven” (彼虽崇 事天主, 而天之说实所未谙). See Zhu Hong 祩宏, Tianshuo 天說, and Xu Changzhi 徐 昌治, ed., Shengchao poxieji 聖朝破邪集, Dazangjing bubian 大藏經補編 (Taipei: Huayu chubanshe 華宇出版社, 1986), 28:322. 50 Qu Rukui 瞿汝夔 or Qu Taisu 瞿太素 (1549–1611) studied mathematics with Ricci and assisted him with the translation of the first book of Euclid into Chinese. Qu Taisu suggested to Ricci to don the clothes of Chinese literati. He was finally baptised in 1605. The book of Qu Taisu referred to by Longobardo is not extant. 51 The Portuguese text here is slightly different: “sabendo pella doutrina do Jukiao que o Xámtý he o mesmo Ceo, ou a sua virtude e dominio.”

108

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

heaven. When we try to continue our proof that there must be a maker beforehand, and afterwards there was the house, etc.,52 they do not let us speak any further. They say that since our God is {the Most High Lord called} Shangdi, we don’t need to explain it because they know it better than we do. Finally, even if each day we insist that their interpreters do not have to explain {the Most High} Shangdi in that way, they thunder against us the same refrain, saying that we still do not understand their books. Rather, many get angry with us, and we are considered rude and rash for wanting to teach the Chinese how to understand and interpret their authors. [N.o 7] Fourth, when the Father Visitor Francisco Vieira ordered the “Chinese fathers”53 in Macao to discuss these three questions (see Proemium, N.o 5), Fr Sabatino asked whether His Reverence would like the debate to be conducted according to the literal meaning of the texts or according to the exegetic decisions of the interpreters. The Father Visitor, when considering the question, was informed by Fr Sabatino about what was happening in China in relation to this issue. He responded that he wanted to know the opinion of the interpreters because it was the practice in all classes and teaching bodies of the world to discuss Platonic or Peripatetic teaching while referring to their classic and canonical commentaries. After the Father Visitor made this decision, Fr Sabatino wrote his treatise, proving that according to the authentic commentaries of the Chinese literati, {that which they call} Shangdi, {that is the Most High Emperor or Lord,} cannot be our true God nor can those which they call tianshen, {that is the celestial spirits,} be our angels, and nor can that which they call linghun, {that is the rational soul,} be our soul, etc. These reasons were sufficient to substantiate the second opinion that the commentaries should be followed over the texts. Now it remains to respond to the arguments of the first opinion. [N.o 8] As to the first argument, I concede everything which is said about the force and authority of the jing {or texts} over the commentaries. However, I argue that in order to understand difficult or obscure passages the light and guidance of the commentaries are necessary. I should not neglect to say here that I am amazed to see how much 52 This refers to Aquinas’ second way for proving the existence of God (efficient cause). See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, Ia, q.2.a.3. 53 This refers to the fathers of the China mission (Vagnone, De Ursis, Pantoja), in contrast to the “Japanese fathers” like Rodrigues.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

109

those fathers lean upon the texts of the Chinese doctrines, which they consider as revealed doctrine incapable of error.54 But we know, however, that Confucius corrected many errors in these jing {or ancient doctrine,} as did our Aristotle in the books of preceding philosophers. And as in the passing of time many things have been found in Aristotle worthy of correction, so they can be found in Confucius. [N.o 9] As to the second, I respond firstly that these classic commentaries under discussion are not only by authors who wrote after Sect of Idols entered China in 65 AD55 : many of them lived two hundred years before Christ, that is, before the entrance of the Sect of Idols into this kingdom.56 Therefore, they all professed to follow the Sect of the Literati which was untainted by the opinions of other sects as seen today in their commentaries.57 As for the other writers who wrote after the Sect of the Idols entered China and mixed in their errors, I do not deny that they are the majority and very famous, but they do not belong to the sect of the literati that we are dealing with now, but to the Sect of the Idols,

54 In the Latin manuscript, but not in the Portuguese manuscripts, there is a marginal note added by Santa Maria connected to the Rites Controversy, which started more than ten years after Longobardo’s report: “[Nor] can it be omitted here to say that it is noteworthy to see how much they otherwise are devoted to the worship of Confucius, parents and of dead ancestors, including pagan, as if it was a divine law or revealed doctrine, since it is full of superstitious sacrifices, as will be seen below in Prelude 12, N.o 8 and 11, and in Prelude 17, Part 2, N.o 11.” 55 The year 65 AD for the entrance of Buddhism into China had already been given by Ricci in Della entrata della Compagnia di Giesù e christianità nella Cina (Book 1, Chapter 10). See Pasquale M. D’Elia, Fonti Ricciane: documenti originali concernenti Matteo Ricci e la storia delle prime relazioni tra l’Europa e la Cina (1579–1615) (Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1942), 1:121. 56 This dates corresponds roughly to the beginning of the Han dynasty (206 BC), and Longobardo believes that the commentaries of the Confucian texts started from that date. Indeed, the Wujing daquan lists the commentators according to the dynasties, starting from the Han. For example, the Shuquan daquan has the four names of Kong Anguo 孔 安國 (156 BC–4 BC), Kong Guang 孔光 (65 BC–5 AD), Yang Xiong 楊雄 (53 BC–18 AD) and Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127 AD–200 AD) for the Han dynasty. Instead of “many of them lived two hundred years before Christ,” Navarrete wrongly translates: “many of them lived two thousand years before Christ”; Navarrete, Tratados, 253. 57 To prove that the commentarial tradition is very orthodox and free from the supposed corruption of Buddhism, Longobardo suggests that some commentaries of the Confucian classics were written as early as 200 BC.

110

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

professing to be their students.58 Secondly, I reply that no literatus of China tolerates the claim that their authentic commentaries on any book have departed from the true meaning of their jing {or doctrines}. Rather, they are all persuaded that their jing {or doctrines} do not allow any interpretation different from their commentaries, if their texts are compared with each other and measured by the principles of their philosophy. [N.o 10] As for the third, I say that our Christian literati give this advice because they do not yet fully understand how the smallest error can prejudice these matters and also because they desire to dissimulate with the aim of merging our holy law with their sect so that they won’t be marked out as followers of a foreign law.59 But our fathers ought to proceed with higher notions. They should not allow themselves to be guided by them, but rather guide them in a way which according to their understanding best suits both sides. Secondly, I say that these Christian literati in their compositions on the texts of their jing {or teachings} do not apply any meaning to the texts except that which is in the commentaries, for otherwise they would be reproached as erroneous and unorthodox in the school of Confucius.60 Therefore, I do not see why they persuade us to do the opposite of their own practice. [N.o 11] As for the fourth, I respond that it is wrong to assume that the texts are favourable to us since in truth they are not if understood in the way they ought to be understood in the sect of the literati. Thus, to deliberately oppose that which is said by the commentaries is like wanting to build on sand or fly with the wings of Icarus. As for the example of the saints, it ought to be imitated when it can be done on solid grounds.

58 Longobardo seems to contradict himself since he had refered below to the commentaries as being the Wujing daquan and the Sishu daquan, written during the Ming dynasty. 59 Here is another marginal note by Santa Maria concerning the Rites Controversy: “= a It seems it is better to say that if permitted by the ministers they can persist with their rites of worship of Confucius and their deceased parents under a political pretext. Since the cult is religious, it is considered as one of the sacrifices of the other false spirits, as seen below in Prelude 11, N.o 6, Prelude 12, N.o 8 and 11, Prelude 17, Part 2, N.o 11. We ministers ought to guide them, not be misguided by them.” 60 Longobardo perhaps has in mind the commentary on the Shijing written by Xu Guangqi, Maoshi liutie 毛詩六帖 (1617).

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

111

6.5 Prelude 3. On the Symbols of the Sect of the Literati. From These Symbols It Emerges That They Have Two Modes of Teaching: One True, the Other Apparent [N.o 1] As for the first part of this prelude, it must be noted that nearly all ancient pagan philosophers devised various symbols, enigmas and figures so as to have some hidden mysteries of their philosophy. Book 1 of the Coimbra commentary on the Physics speaks about this in the following way: The old custom of the philosophers taken from the Egyptians and Chaldeans, as well as from Pherecydes, the master of Pythagoras, was that the mysteries of philosophy are either not written down or written in a dissembling way, that is, hidden under the obscurity of elliptical meanings and under mathematical images and enigmas. For the poets concealed and obscured the mysteries of philosophy with fables, the Pythagorean philosophers with symbols, the Platonic philosophers with mathematics, and Aristotle with a concise style. For they believed that it was wrong to admit the profane public to the mysteries of wisdom, and to share with the sluggish and lazy masses these things which nature had hidden. But even if Aristotle believed that philosophy was not to be divulged everywhere, he did not agree with that method of teaching which leaves everything ambiguous and sometimes obscures the truth with an empty display of falsehood.61

[N.o 2] In the same way, the Chinese philosophers who founded the Sect of the Literati have their symbols hidden under various figures, numbers and metaphors. And all this is in order to signify the essence and being of universal causes and their causalities. The primary symbols are even and odd numbers, lines that are broken in the middle and whole, black and white dots, round and square figures, the six positions of places, and other words and metaphoric expressions. The books called Yijing , which

61 In general, the citation corresponds to Commentarii Conimbricenses in octo libros

physicorum Aristotelis (Lyon, 1592), 145. However, “Poëtæ enim fabulis; Pythagorei Philosophi symbolis; Platonici Mathematicis; Aristoteles orationis brevitatem arcana Philosophiæ obrexuit et obscuravit” is taken from page 60 of the same work. In 1619, Nicolas Trigault brought to China the full series of Coimbra commentaries, which were then translated into Chinese by the Jesuits and their Chinese collaborators.

112

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

contain the theoretical part of Chinese teaching, are full of these things.62 As for the mysteries and various causalities of numbers there are two entire books [juan], namely 11 and 12, of their Xingli {or Philosophy}.63 From these books it would be easy to restore knowledge of Pythagorean numbers which have disappeared in the Great West. This use of symbols in China is also found among the sects of the Bonzes and Daoist priests, {that is, the priests of the idols}. The Bonzes began to use them from when the Sect of the Idols entered this kingdom and brought with them the symbols of the gymnosophists, which consist of figures of people and animals, clouds, snakes, demons, swords, lances, bows and arrows, as well as other various material instruments which are suited for expressing their purposes.64 The Daoists in imitation of the Bonzes also use almost the same symbols consisting of human figures to signify the first principle, the powers of the soul and the constituent elements of a person. And thus it is well known that in the three sects there are symbols, even if not everybody knows them as such, except those well versed in the principles and mysteries of these sects. [N.o 3] As for the second part [of this prelude], it must also be noted that the symbols gave rise to two sorts of teaching in all nations since antiquity: one secret and considered true; the other false and apparent. The first was a philosophy and knowledge of natural causes that was known only to the philosophers and dwelt secretly among them in their class. The second was a false external doctrine for the people, which was an enigma of the first teaching.65 But the people, following the sound 62 Longobardo possibly borrowed his views on the Yijing from Rodrigues who had written in 1616: “Here are to be found in all their vigour the Pythagorean symbols of odd and even numbers and how things are composed of numbers and why.” Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 312. 63 Juan 11 and 12 of the Xingli daquan include the “Guanwu waipian 觀物外篇” (Outer chapters on observing things) from the Huangji jingshi shu 皇極經世書 (Book of the supreme ultimate ordering the world) by the Song philosopher Shao Yong 邵雍 (1011–1077) and his disciples, which combine cosmology and numerology. Interestingly, Longobardo suggests that the Chinese numerology of Shao Yong could help in retrieving the teaching of Pythagoras. 64 The term gymnosophist refers in general to an Indian sage, but for the Jesuits, this refers more specifically to Buddha and his disciples in India. The idea that Buddhism had borrowed from the cosmology and numerology of the Yijing is far-fetched. However, the connection with Daoism is obvious since Shao Yong himself was inspired by Daoism. 65 The theory of the double teaching, one esoteric and one exoteric, was devised by Jesuits in Japan, like Baltasar Gago (1520–1583) and Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606),

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

113

of the words, thought it true, despite being absolutely false and fictitious. This was applied to morals, to the governance of the people and to divine worship, as Plutarch says in the Doctrines of the Philosophers,66 and Pierio in his Hieroglyphics among others.67 In this way the ancients introduced various good and evil gods. The good were those who were made to signify prime matter or chaos and the four elements, as Empedocles puts it as related by Plutarch in the Doctrines of the Philosophers (Book 1, Chapter 3) where he says: I will first show you the four roots of things: ethereal Jupiter, vital Juno, and besides these, Dis and Nestis, who moisten human channels with tears. Jupiter, that is fire and ether; vital Juno, that is the air; Dis or Pluto, that is the earth. Nestis under the name of human channels is water and seed.68

But evil and harmful gods were those gods who were imagined under the name of Furies, Harpies and Fates, which signify the passions of the soul that inwardly agitate and torture a person. As the Coimbra course notes while citing St Augustine on the subject of the soul,69 this can be seen in the sect of the gymnosophists, who feigned that their separated souls migrate into various bodies of beasts in order to suggest that people obeying their passions are similar to brute animals in their customs. For this reason, the common people thought that there were good and bad

to explain the Buddhist sects in Japan. Rodrigues was the first to extend the theory to Chinese sects, including Confucianism and Daoism. For a short presentation of the theory by Rodrigues, see his letter of 1616; Cooper, 311–312. 66 Actually, Pseudo-Plutarch. Greek title is Π ερ`ι τ îν ¢ρεσ κ o´ ντ ων ϕιλoσ o´ ϕ oις ϕυσ ικ îν δ oγ ματ ´ ων. In Latin, De placitis philosophorum. 67 Pierio Valeriano Bolzani (1477–1560) wrote a study of Egyptian hieroglyphics called Hieroglyphica seu de sacris aegyptiorum aliarumque gentium literis commentarii (1556), which he dedicated to Cosimo de’ Medici (1519–1574), the Duke of Florence. It was very popular in Europe at the time. 68 The citation corresponds to Plutarch, De placitis philosophorum, 1.3 in Plutarch, Scripta moralia, ed. Johann Friedrich Dübner (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Socii, 1890), 2:1069. 69 The Coimbra commentary on the soul discusses the belief in transmigration and mentions Pythagoras, Plato and other philosophers, but there is no mention of the gymnosophists; see De anima II, c.1.q.7.a.1.

114

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

gods, and that there were also angels and demons, and that our souls migrate into various bodies.70 Plutarch, too, in the same book of Doctrines says that since those who deny divine providence in the world and the immortality of the soul could not restrain the evil secrets of people with fear of the civil laws alone, they began to imagine a divinity and religion under symbols and enigmas to control the people and govern the country, judging that they could not live in peace and quiet without some form of religion and worship, even a false one.71 [N.o 4] St Augustine clearly demonstrates all these things in many places of his book The City of God where he describes three types of philosophy among the ancients: one fabulous used by the poets; another natural used by the philosophers; and a third civil, which was in vogue among the people. In Book 6 he cites Varro72 : In the first type that I mentioned, there are many things feigned against the dignity and nature of the immortals. [...] The second type is that which I demonstrated and about which the philosophers have left many books. In these books there is information about what gods there are, where they are, of what kind they are, of what quality, for how long they have existed, whether they have always existed, whether they are made of fire, as Heraclitus believes, or of numbers, as Pythagoras thinks, or of atoms, as Epicurus says. And there are other things which their ears can more easily endure inside the walls of a school than outside in the forum. [...] The third kind is that which the citizens in their towns, and especially the priests, should know and administer. In this kind is contained the knowledge of which gods are to be worshipped publicly and what rites and sacrifices are appropriate to each.73 70 Ricci says that Pythagoras created the theory of transmigration to restrain evil-doing among the people; Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, ed. Thierry Meynard (Boston: Jesuit Sources, 2016), 197. 71 See De placitis philosophorum, 1.7. See Plutarch, Scripta moralia, 2:1072. This is the first passage where Longobardo uses the term religion, with twelve occurrences in the whole treatise, including five mentions in direct quotes. In 1701, the French translation by Louis Champion de Cicé appeared under the title Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois, thus making religion the focal point of the treatise. 72 Marcus Terentius Varro (116 BC –27 BC), prolific Roman author and Stoic philosopher. This reference is made in Rodrigues’ letter of 22 January 1616. See Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 312. 73 Augustine, City of God, 6.5.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

115

On this point, Saint Augustine says the same thing: He [Varro] found nothing objectionable in this type; he only mentioned their controversies with each other, which have resulted in a multitude of quarrelling sects. However, he banished this type from the forum, that is, from the people and locked it up in the walls of the schools.

In Book 4 (page 32) he relates again about Varro: Varro also says that in relation to the generations of the gods, the people were inclined more to the poets than to philosophers; therefore his ancestors, that is, the ancient Romans, believed in the sex and generation of the gods and arranged marriages for them. This was done (according to Augustine) for no reason save that it was the business of prudent and wise men to deceive the people in matters of religion, and by this deception not only to worship but to imitate the demons, whose chief desire was to deceive. For just as the demons have no power except over those whom they deceive by their deception, so also human rulers–not, indeed, the just, but those who resemble the demons–in the name of religion convince the people of the truth of what they themselves know to be false, thus binding them more closely to the state, that they may hold them subject.

In Chapter 10 of Book 6 in the same work St Augustine says in relation to Seneca74 : We will adore, so he says, that entire crowd of ignoble gods so that we remember that their worship pertains more to custom than to reality. […] He worshipped what he condemned, did what he deplored, and adored what he blamed. Philosophy, clearly, had taught him something great: not to be superstitious in the world, but to do in the temple what he certainly would not do in the theatre. It had taught him to imitate the part of an actor for the sake of the laws of cities and the customs of mankind. This was all the more damnable in that he acted out his lying part in such a way that the people deemed him to be acting truthfully.75

74 This reference is also made in Rodrigues’ letter of 22 January 1616. See Cooper, “Rodrigues in China,” 312. 75 Augustine, City of God, 6.10.

116

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Finally, in Chapter 27 of Book 4, after relating the opinion of the pontiff Scaevola76 that many things ought to be hidden from the people when speaking about things pertaining to the gods, he reaches this conclusion: Therefore, he [Scaevola] believes that it is expedient for citizens to be deceived in religion. Varro himself also does not doubt this in his books on divine things. What a wonderful religion! He who is weak may take refuge in it when in need of deliverance and when he seeks out the truth by which he is to be delivered, he may believe it expedient to be deceived!77

[N.o 5] The three Chinese sects (called Sanjiao 三教) follow this way of philosophising, having two forms of teaching: one secret which they consider true, and which is understood and professed by the literati, but hidden under symbols and enigmatic figures; the other is vulgar and a metaphor of the first. The literati consider it false according to the meaning of the words and use it for outward politics and for the civil and fabulous divine cult, with which they lead the people toward good and check them from evil. I omit now that which concerns {the two sects of the idols, called} Shijiao 釋教 [Buddhism] and Daojiao 道教 [Taoism], which are not the subject of these controversies. In {the sect of the literati, called} Rujiao, it is certain that they represent the general causes under numbers and other symbols with their efficiencies and influences, as we showed above. With the term good and bad spirits, of which one is the spirit of heaven, another the spirit of the earth, another the spirit of the stars, and others of the mountains and rivers, etc., they mean both the general causes of this universe and the powers and passions of the soul with the habits of virtues and vices, as they think them to be. So as to confirm that in {the literati sect or} Rujiao there are two forms of doctrine—one secret for the philosophers and another common and public for the uneducated—I will cite here some authoritative Chinese passages from their canonical books that clearly illustrate this.

76 Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex (died 82 BC) was a jurist of the late Roman Republic and pontifex maximus (high priest) from 89. He is not be confused with Quintus Mucius Scaevola “Augur” (159 BC–88 BC), who appeared in Cicero’s dialogues. 77 Augustine, City of God, 4.27.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

117

[N.o 6] First of all, in Book [juan] 3 of the Lunyu (page 5)78 a certain disciple of Confucius named Zigong almost complained about his teacher, saying that in his whole life he never managed to have Confucius speak to him about human nature and the natural condition of heaven except towards the end.79 Secondly, again in Book [juan] 3 of the Lunyu (page 17) Confucius says that a suitable way of governing the people is to lead and make them honour the spirits and to keep the spirits far from them.80 This means that one should not be curious to examine what the spirits are or what they do, or where and how they exist.81 Thirdly, in Book [juan] 6 of the same Lunyu (page 3) Confucius is asked by a certain disciple named Jilu, “What is death?” He succinctly

78 Pan Feng-chuan 潘鳳娟 believes that this and the other quotes from the Four Books come from the Xingli daquan; Pan Feng-chuan 潘鳳娟, “Long Huamin Lun Zhongguo zongjiao de jidian wenti fanyi chutan 龍華民《論中國宗教的幾點問題》翻譯 初探” [A Preliminary Investigation to Niccolò Longobardo’s Account on China], Zhexue yu wenhua 哲學與文化 [Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture] 522 (November 2017): 29–43. However, the page number here, as well as for the other quotes, indicates that Longobardo was using the standard Nanjing edition of Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu. What Longobardo calls “book” here refers to juan in the Zhu Xi’s edition. 79 The Chinese text of this passage from Lunyu (5.13) is inserted in a marginal annotation: “夫子之言性與天道, 不可得而聞也.” Longobardo follows the interpretation of Zhu Xi according to whom Confucius “rarely spoke” (han yan 罕言) about human nature, but Longobardo makes it more radical by suggesting that Confucius never talked about it in his whole life except that at the end of his life. Similarly, we have some hints that Rodrigues believed that Buddha had addressed to a few disciples an esoteric teaching just before his death. See Urs App, The Cult of Emptiness (Tokyo: UniversityMedia, 2012), 141. Longobardo probably reads this interpretation in the now lost treatise of Rodrigues and then applied it to Confucius. However, nothing in this passage of the Lunyu indicates that Confucius decided to reveal something only at the end of his life, as suggested by Longobardo. 80 The Chinese text of this passage from Lunyu (6.20) is provided in a marginal annotation: “子曰:務民之義, 敬鬼神而遠之, 可謂知矣.” This means that wisdom consists in two things: devoting oneself to secure justice, and to pay respect to the guishen while keeping them at distance. However, Longobardo’s translation collapses the two things into one: to govern others, this is to make them practice a religion, but without them understanding it. 81 This is in accordance with the exoteric meaning of the teaching, which turns religion into a mere political tool.

118

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

replies, “How can anyone who does not yet know what life is know what death is?”82 Fourth, in book [juan] four of the same Lunyu (page 6), four things are related which Confucius is not accustomed to discussing. One of these was spirits.83 The commentary on this passage assigns this reason: Confucius did not speak about spirits because there were many difficult things in them and therefore it was not proper to speak about them with everybody.84 Fifth, in the book Jiayu, Confucius himself wanted to be rescued from the trouble of responding to many questions which he was being asked about the spirits, rational soul and the state of things after death. He firmly gave the rule that the things which are among the six positions, that is, the things which are visible and appear in this visible world, may be discussed and may not be doubted, but those things which are outside the six positions, that is, the things which are outside this visible world and are invisible, may be left in their own state and should not be talked about or discussed.85 On the basis of these and other similar authoritative passages of Confucius we can infer some conclusions necessary for our purposes in these controversies. [N.o 7] The first conclusion is that in the sect of the literati, in addition to the visible vulgar teaching, which everybody knows, there is another secret and philosophical teaching, which only the masters of the sect know. The second conclusion is that Confucius openly and pointedly avoided talking about spirits, the rational soul and the things of the afterlife. For he feared that if the people knew the pure truth of these things which

82 The Chinese text of this passage from Lunyu (11.11) is provided in a marginal annotation: “問死。曰: 未知生, 焉知死.” 83 The Chinese text of this passage from Lunyu (7.20) is provided in a marginal annotation: “子不語怪、力、亂、神.” 84 Longobardo follows Zhu Xi’s interpretation: “有未易明者, 故亦不輕以語人也.” 85 The corresponding Chinese sentence is provided in a marginal annotation: “家語

孔子曰六合之內論而不議六合之外存而不論.” The reference to The Sayings of Confucius (Jiayu 家語) is incorrect. The quote comes from the chapter Qiwulun 齊物論 in the Zhuangzi: “莊子: 六合之外, 聖人存而不論; 六合之內, 聖人論而不議.” Longobardo probably did not read the text directly, and his use is even more problematic since Zhuangzi was criticizing Confucian discourse.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

119

are discussed in his philosophy, all religion would suffer harm and by consequence the whole country would be thrown into confusion. The third is that, because these words of Confucius have final authority, the eyes of the Chinese literati are blinded and their minds rave, with the result that they do not think about anything except visible things of this perishable age. The fourth and final conclusion is that in this way nearly all the Chinese philosophers are deceived by their great arrogance and philosophy, and are led into the greatest of all evils, which is atheism, as will be seen more clearly in the following prelude where we will examine the fundamental principles of their natural and moral teaching.86

6.6 Prelude 4. On the Philosophical Method Used in Rujiao, {That Is, the Sect of the Literati} [N.o 1] The philosophical method of the Chinese literati consists in the investigation of the first principle of this universe, and how both the universal and particular causes proceed from it with their effects and causalities, and, above all, in investigating what man is in terms of his body and soul, his way of understanding and acting, the habits of his virtues and vices, his fate and star, the final destination of everybody through natal horoscopy so that he may pre-arrange his actions according to his lot or fortune. They discuss these things (as it has been shown above) for the most part under various figures, symbols, numbers and other enigmatic terms.87 [N.o 2] Their philosophical method contains two parts. The first is to discuss the first principle and the other universal causes which proceed from it, in terms of their own being and substance with their places, qualities and operative virtues, not insofar as they actually operate, but insofar as they have the power of operating. They call this knowledge xiantianxue 先天學, {that is the same as a priori knowledge}. Fuxi discussed this before all the Chinese when he fashioned the figures (called gua 卦) of his book the Yijing . After having considered the first production, order and constitution of the universe together with its general causes, the second 86 Those four conclusions are strongly inspired by Rodrigues, and Longobardo’s analysis of the Song dynasty philosophy in the following preludes serves as a confirmation. 87 The numerology of Shao Yong indeed bears some similarities with that of Pythagoras, who is mentioned twice in Prelude 3.

120

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

part is to examine in what point of the zodiac, according to their hemisphere and climate, the general and efficient causes begin to dominate with their virtue and produce things and to what point this dominion extends so that things are generated and then corrupted {or resolved in their non-being}.88 This is just like how in the four seasons of year as the sun approaches and withdraws heat seemingly reigns for six months during spring and summer and cold during the other six months during winter and autumn. They call this second knowledge houtianxue 後天學, {which is the same as a posteriori knowledge}. Much was discussed about this by two very ancient kings of China, called Wen Wang 文王 and Zhou Gong 周公, as well as by Confucius together with other famous literati, because in this knowledge consists their entire end, which is to imitate heaven and earth in their actions and in the governance of the country during the four seasons of the year.89 [N.o 3] Hence it emerges that when heat reigns, which has the property of production and generation, they conduct their affairs and make judgements, etc. However, when cold is dominant, which has the property of corrupting and dissolving, they put into execution death sentences.90 Following the vicissitudes of the four seasons, they examine everybody’s horoscope according to the time and place of their birth. There are various opinions and ways of explaining things in this {second} knowledge. Some say that the universal causes begin to have their vigour in such a point of the zodiac and accordingly such qualities, lot, fate and fortune are received in the production of a thing. Others have different views. Therefore, there are various sects with some following the figures

88 The Portuguese text is slightly different here: “E ate que ponto chegue o tal predomínio, pera as cousas se gerarem: ou se torna a recolher, e as cousas se corrompam.” 89 Longobardo explains the distinction between xiantianxue and houtianxue according to Shao Yong’s “Guanwu waipian” which he read in the juan 11 and 12 of the Xingli daquan, as he mentioned above in the Prelude 3. Accordingly, the eight trigrams of Fuxi constitute the xiantianxue, which display the essence of the universe, and the eight trigrams of Wen Wang constitute houtianxue, which display the functioning of the universe. 90 According to the Chunqiu fanlu 春秋繁露 by Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179 BC–104 BC), punishments were given during autumn, and capital punishments during winter.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

121

or gua made by Wen Wang whereas others follow those which are of Yangshi, Zhu Xi or others.91 They call this virtue or dominion of general causes di 帝 and zhu 主, zhuzai 主宰, jun 君, wang 王, huang 皇, all of which signify to dominate or rule and are the very characters which signify king. That which has been said above about the difference between their forms of knowledge ought to be considered as something necessary for our purpose. Hence I want to explore them more extensively in two special preludes.

6.7 Prelude 5. On xiantianxue {Knowledge}, That Is, {Knowing a Priori} How the Universe Was Produced According to the Opinion of the Chinese [N.o 1] First of all, the Chinese could not conceive of anything being able to be produced out of pure nothing and could not imagine an infinite power with the ability to create everything out of nothing. Yet, on the other hand, they see that there are many things in the world, which now exist and now cease to exist, and which were not eternal. Thus they have firmly decided that there must be a single cause, which precedes everything in eternity and is most necessary and inevitable. This is the cause and origin of all things.92 They have understood also that this first cause is a certain entity, which is infinite, ingenerable and incorruptible, without beginning and without end. For they think that nothing is made out of nothing, thus also that which has a beginning will have an end and that the end will return to its beginning. From this has emerged the common belief held throughout all China that this world will have a final end and again another world will be reproduced. The period of time from the

91 Master Yang or Yangshi 揚氏 refers to the Han-dynasty philosopher Yang Xiong 揚 雄 who composed a book in imitation of the Yijing . Zhu Xi wrote the Original Meaning of the Yijing (Zhouyi benyi 周易本義). 92 This refers to li 理. See the Portuguese manuscript of BnF: “a qual elles chamam

ly.” Navarrete in his Spanish version translates this clarification which is present in the Portuguese but not in the Latin manuscript: “la qual ellos llamas Li”; Navarrete, Tratados históricos, políticos, éticos y religiosos de la monarchia de China (Madrid Imprenta Real, 1676), 260. This is an indication that Navarrete translated the Spanish from the Portuguese original.

122

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

beginning of the world to its end is called taisui 太歲, that is, the great year.93 [N.o 2] This first cause according to them is neither living nor cognizant, and it does not have any property or activity except being pure, still, subtle and diaphanous without body and shape, and can only be perceived with the intellect in the way in which we speak about spiritual things. Although it is not spiritual, it still does not possess these active and passive qualities of the elements.94 [N.o 3] The way of investigating how this visible world proceeded from the first principle or chaos95 was as follows. They saw that, a fortiori, before all things there must be some eternal cause of visible things. On the one hand, they thought that this could not by itself have any efficiency or activity, without which it could not produce anything. On the other hand, they saw from ordinary experience that heat and cold are the foundations from which things are generated and corrupted and that these two qualities are the efficient causes of generation and corruption. Thus they examined how the proximate matter out of which things are made emanated from that chaos or prime matter, and how heat and cold could be generated in the world so that things could be generated out of it [prime matter]. And thus they thought that Air emanated naturally and by chance out of that infinite and immense prime matter through five emanations96 (which they assign) until it became material, as it is 93 According to Shao Yong in the “Guanwu waipian,” this amounts to a cycle of 129,600 years (十二萬九千六百). However, Shao Yong calls this cycle yuan 元. The term of great year (taisui 太歲) originates from ancient Chinese astronomy, corresponding to a cycle of twelve years, but it was later used in Taoism and popular religions. 94 This short paragraph is key to understanding the premises of Longobardo’s interpretation of li. From the standpoint of Thomistic philosophy, many features of li suggest that it is spiritual since it “can only be perceived with the intellect,” but in the next sentence, Longobardo reveals the premise which grounds and predetermines his interpretation of li: “it is not spiritual.” 95 Chaos is another name for li 理; BnF: “chamado ly.” In the philosophy of Shao Yong, li 理 is the highest reality, placed above taiji 太極. However, Longobardo is not consistent, as he sometimes follows Zhu Xi’s identification of li with taiji, such as in Prelude 14. 96 Text in the Latin ms. (with our punctuation): “儒者計有五運: 其一曰太易, 即氣 相未分; 其二曰太初, 即元氣始萌; 其三曰太始, 即氣形之端; 其四曰太素, 即形變有質; 其 五曰太極, 即形質已具是也.” This text seems connected to a Han dynasty cosmology with the five initial stages in the constitution of the universe, such as that listed in the chapter Tianrui 天瑞 of the Liezi 列子: “太易者, 未見氣也。太初者, 氣之始也。 太始者,

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

123

now, still remaining with that infinite chaos, and made into a certain finite globe, which they call taiji 太極, that is supremely terminated or bound. It is also called chaos, hundun 渾沌, or hunlun 渾淪, etc., before things had emanated from it.97 This air, which emanated through five mutations out of that first principle, is of the same incorruptible substance as that [first principle], but it is more material and more changeable through condensation and rarefaction, through motion and rest, through heat and cold, etc. This second chaos or taiji, before things emanated from it, is conceptualised and depicted by them in Fig. 6.1. [N.o 4] Since they see that heat and cold are the cause of generation and corruption in things,98 and that these are generated by motion and rest, they thought that motion was made either by chance or by nature (ziran 自然 as they say) in this {second} chaos or conglobated Air. It was through this motion that heat was produced in the very body of the Air. When that motion naturally stops and rests, cold is produced, with a part of the Air remaining hot, and a part cold. This is not intrinsic or a property of its nature, but only extrinsic, such that Air remained after having been divided into heat and cold, which are called the liangyi 兩儀 or yinyang 陰陽.99 While heat is said to be pure, clean and clear, transparent and light, cold is said to be impure, turbid, opaque and heavy, as is seen in Fig. 6.2.

形之始也。太素者, 質之始也。氣形質具而未相離, 故曰渾淪, 渾淪者, 言萬物相渾淪而未相離 也.” Those five stages are called wuyun 五運 in a divination book of the Han dynasty, the Xiaojing goumingjue 孝經鉤命決 (Tally of the key to the mandate in the Classic of Filial Piety): “天地未分之前有太易, 有太初, 有太始, 有太素, 有太極; 謂之五運。釋云: 氣象未 分謂之太易, 元氣始萌謂之太初, 氣形之端謂之太始, 形變有質謂之太素, 質形已具謂之太 極; 五氣漸變謂之五運.” In the citation “氣相未分” of the APF Latin and Portuguese manuscripts, the character 相 seems a mistake. The BnF manuscript has the character 象. See https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E7%94%84%E6%AD%A3%E8%AB%96. 97 Those expressions of hundun or hunlun are not Confucian, but Daoist. 98 Longobardo understands heat and cold as cause of natural changes in an Aristotelian

way. For Aristotle, natural changes are explained by the four qualities of heat and cold, dryness and wetness. 99 This section comments on a passage of the Taijitu shuo 太極圖說 by Zhou Dunyi 周

敦頤: “太極動而生陽, 動極而靜, 靜而生陰, 靜極復動。一動一靜, 互為其根; 分陰分陽, 兩儀 立焉.” Longobardo suggests that the process of alteration or change described here is not complete from an Aristotelian perspective because there is no substantial transformation. For Aristotle, the four qualities of heat, cold, dryness and humidity provoke substantial changes so that the four natural elements change into each other.

124

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Fig. 6.1 Longobardo’s depiction of taiji (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) {Figure of the chaos of the world}100 渾淪一氣圖. [On the right:] 未有天地之 先, 渾渾雖無一物, 雖無色相, 然自有一氣不能消滅, 此天地之根也101 {Taiji is in the middle of chaos, that is, the first air, which was first to be emanated from that first cause, as described in N.o 3 above}102 100 All the explanations we have inserted in brackets were added by Santa Maria. They are not present in the Portuguese manuscript. The addition here translates “渾淪一氣圖” 101 This means: “Before there was heaven and earth, all was undifferentiated without any object or form, and yet there was one qi which could not be extinguished and was the root of heaven and earth.” Strikingly, Longobardo has replaced Shao Yong’s li 理 with the Buddhist notion of kong or emptiness as the matrix of taiji, as we can see with the four characters of kong 空 outside of the external circle. Even more surpringly, Longobardo calls this diagram “Sphere - first qi” (渾淪一氣). This already suggests strongly that Longobardo is superposing his materialist interpretation upon the philosophical system of Shao Yong, for whom li, and not qi, is the matrix of taiji. 102 We have not yet found the source of this Taoist passage, but in his translation, Longobardo seems influenced by Aristotelian cosmology, making li as an equivalent of the ether or prime matter, and taiji as the equivalent of proximate matter or sublunar matter. We can also notice his use of the Neoplatonic concept of emanation, stressing the continuity in terms of substance between the first ultimate origin and its different emanations. This model is in complete opposition to Christian creationism.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

125

Fig. 6.2 The efficient causes of generation and corruption (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) {Figure of heat and of cold air}103 兩儀. [Left:] 動陽男天 [Right:] 靜陰女地

[N.o 5] In this way, the most general efficient causes of the whole universe are motion and rest, heat and cold, which they call dongjing 動靜, yinyang 陰陽. This yinyang or heat and cold were joined together through an extremely tight union and harmony like husband and wife, or father and mother, and produced the element of water which pertains to yin, that is, cold.104 In the second union they produced the element of fire which pertains to yang, that is, heat, and in such a way they produced the five elements, which are the very taiji or the very yinyang or the very Air qualified, as qualities are among us with their elements. There is water in the north, fire in the south, wood in the east, metal in the west, earth placed in the middle, as seen in Fig. 6.3.105 [N.o 6] Yinyang, {that is heat and cold} with its five elements, produced heaven and the earth, the sun, moon, stars and planets. For when pure, hot, transparent and light Air was ascending, heaven was made. When impure, cold, opaque and heavy Air was descending, earth 103 Santa Maria’s addition translates liangyi 兩儀. 104 The diagram above and this passage describe the prior heaven (xiantian) with its

polarities according to Shao Yong: heaven–earth, man–woman, yin–yang and motion–rest. From an Aristotelian point of view, it is impossible to have heat and cold joined together. 105 This passage describes the posterior heaven (houtian) with its five phases (wuxing ): fire, water, metal, water and earth.

126

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Fig. 6.3 The five phases (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide) {Figure of the five Chinese elements}106 五行之圖. {Earth is that black part in the middle}107

was made. Afterwards heaven and earth united together with their virtue in the middle and produced mankind, man and woman. Man corresponds to yang, heat and heaven whereas woman corresponds to yin, cold and earth. And so the king {of China} is called tianzi 天子, that is, the son of heaven, and he sacrifices to heaven and to earth as universal parents. All this is shown in Fig. 6.4. All other things are contained in these three things—heaven, earth and mankind—as their source and origin. [N.o 7] This is the creation of the whole universe according to ancient and modern Chinese: the formation of the whole machine consists in three primary things, which are the causes of others.108 The first is heaven, under which is contained the sun, moon, stars and planets, and the region of the Air which is between heaven and the earth. Here there are the five elements which are the matter out of which lower corporeal things are generated. This region of the air is divided into eight gua, that 106 Santa Maria’s addition translates wuxing zhi tu五行之圖. 107 Addition of Santa Maria. 108 Longobardo describes here the triad heaven-earth-man, or tian-di-ren 天地人.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

127

Fig. 6.4 Longobardo’s understanding of Chinese cosmology (Caballero’s Latin translation). APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 178v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

{These eight Chinese characters within the circle are the eight parts of the air of the horizon.}

{This white part is heaven together with its stars and planets.}109 {This square is the earth with its seeds which are called bagua, or the constellations from which the fate of people is taken.}

is into the eight parts of the same air,110 or elements of air qualified with various qualities corresponding to efficient causes as conceived by them. 109 All these explanations in brackets are not present in the Portuguese manuscripts but were added by Santa Maria. The Chinese text on the left within the diagram reads: “Outside of the six directions, there is still qi which is not exhausted” (六合之外, 猶有 未盡之氣); the Chinese text on the right: “The twelve hours have fixed positions, and the place reached by the sun immediately marks the hour, like the sun reaching noon marking noontime, and so on” (十二時固有定方, 惟日所到處即為時, 如日行到午則為午 時, 餘皆然). 110 There is a marginal note added by Santa Maria, which translates as: “The gua are the eight points of the horizon, namely those points which face east, west, north and the other four intermediary points placed evenly between them.”

128

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

The second is the earth, which includes the mountains, hills, rivers, lakes, swamps and sea. All these things are also general efficient causes, which have their own virtues {of acting} and efficiency. The earth is also subdivided into its own parts following the gua, and includes gang ruo 剛柔, {that is the strong and the weak, or hard and soft}. The third is man, from which other people are generated. [N.o 8] Here it may be noted that this production of the universe was completely fortuitous {and accidental} as said above because the first efficient causes of this whole machine were motion and rest, heat and cold while the proximate matter was Air, a homogenous body. But the production of heaven and earth was accidental and random or natural, and not the result of deliberation or a decision, since it is said that pure and light Air ascended and so became heaven while the impure and heavy Air descended and thus also became earth.111 [N.o 9] The form of the universe is a spherical heaven, and thus moves and flows in a circle. However, the earth is square, and thus remains at rest in the middle, influencing through its square shape with four elements corresponding to it, one element on each side of its four parts and then one in the middle surface. Beyond heaven they imagine an infinite prime matter out of which emanated taiji, that is that primordial Air. They call this prime matter kong 空, xu 虛, li 理, dao 道, wu 無, wuji 無極, that is at rest, transparent, subtle to the highest degree, but without life, knowledge or activity, and nothing more than pure potency.112 They divide that Air between heaven and earth (as said above) by a horizontal hemisphere into eight parts, which are eight paths or directions. Four of these are attributed to the south, where {the heat of the sun which is called} yang reigns. The other four are attributed to the north, where {the cold of the moon which is called} yin reigns. Each part has its own corresponding portion of Air, which is called gua on account of the diverse qualities they contain. [N.o 10] Fuxi, the first king of the Chinese, first established this production of the universe. It is represented in the book Yijing with the figure called Hetu 河圖, which has white and black squares, and has 111 Longobardo intends here to underline the difference between the naturalist cosmology of the Chinese and Christian creationism. 112 For Aquinas’s concept of prime matter (materia prima), in turn derived from Augustine’s concept of informed matter (materia informa), see Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia.q.44.a.2.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

129

always been understood in this way by tradition. This production of the universe has also been illustrated [with the Luoshu 洛書 figure],113 which has black and white points for even and uneven numbers, namely five uneven numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) and five even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10), which correspond to those gua or general causes of the universe. Confucius meant all this in his writings when explaining the Yijing , beginning from {the Air which is called} taiji in this form.114 That {second} chaos, {that is the primordial Air,} produced heat and cold (which include the five elements {posited by the Chinese}). But they multiplied themselves into four, namely into an intense heat and a subdued heat, and into a subdued cold and an intense cold. These four things then produced eight qualities, namely hot, cold, strong and {pleasant or} soft, each with an intense degree and a subdued degree. They substitute these eight qualities for the three principal causes which are in the world, namely heaven, earth and man, or sancaizhe 三才者, {that is the three wise things,} as said in the Yijing . And so these three things, {heaven, earth and man,} produced all other things.115 Thus all this tends to constitute these three things called sancai which they say are the cause of all things that are generated and are corrupted in the whole world.116 The literati in their books and glossaries or commentaries specify in greater detail that this production of the world begins from the primary origin or that infinite matter, as it is at the beginning of their Compendium of Philosophy called the Xingli, which begins from wuji, that is from the first principle, which is also called li or dao, etc.117

113 Santa Maria’s Latin translation suggests that Luoshu is the title of a book (“in figura libri L˘o x¯ u ”), whereas Longobardo’s Portuguese text more accurately describes it as the name of the figure itself (“na figura do L˘o Xu”). We have followed the Portuguese text here. 114 This translates the quote from the “Guanwu neipian 觀物內篇” (Inner chapters on observing things) by Shao Yong, drawn from juan 9 of the Xingli daquan: “觀物 内篇之一第七頁: 太極生兩儀, 兩儀生四象, 四象生八卦.” The original expression in the Appendix (Xici 系辭) of the Yiijng is slightly different: “易有太極, 是生兩儀, 兩儀生四 象, 四象生八卦.” 115 The Portugese text here is slightly different: “E assi estas oito ou estas tres produziram todas as cousas.” 116 The Portuguese text reads differently: “De modo que tudo he pera armar este Sançâi que dizem são causa das cousas que se geram e corrompem no Universo.” 117 Xingli daquan, juan 1, Taijitu 太極圖, 1b.

130

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 11] Another ancient man called Laozi, who is the head of one sect of Idols in the book Laozijing posits the same process, describing the production of the universe under numbers and metaphorical terms in this form: Dao or that first chaos, produced unity, which is that taiji or {primordial Air, or} the second matter. Unity produced duality, which is the liangyi, {that is the two qualities hot and cold}. Duality produced trinity, tian, di, ren, {that is heaven, earth and man,} or the sancai, {that is the three wise things.

For thus the Chinese call them “heaven, earth and man, or the bagua, {that is the eight qualities of air of the horizon; Trinity produced everything.”}118 Thus, this is the same teaching as that of the literati.

6.8 Prelude 6. On houtianxue {Knowledge}, Which Is {Knowing A Posteriori, Namely} How Things Are Generated and Corrupted in This Universe [N.o 1] Once the initial creation of the world and the order of its general causes have been considered, another way of philosophising employed by the Chinese is to investigate the cause of generation and corruption, which occurs every year over the course of the four seasons—spring, summer, autumn and winter—and to investigate celestial influences, which cast influence over the body during the four seasons, months, days, hours, zodiac signs. In this way, everybody’s fate, lot or fortune, and natural inclination may be foreknown. They do this so that they can know how everybody ought to regulate their actions in a way that cooperates with their fate and does not oppose it. [N.o 2] The principal authors of this houtian{xue} knowledge {or foreknowing future events from ordinary effects} were the kings Wen Wang, and his son Zhou Gong. Seeing that things were generated by heat, 118 This passage translates the beginning of chapter 42 of the Daodejing 道德經: “道 生一, 一生二, 二生三, 三生萬物”. The gloss of the bagua as the “eight qualitities of the air of the horizon” is not present in the Portuguese text. The gloss is also missing from Navarrete, indicating that he was translating from the Portuguese original and not the Latin.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

131

corrupted by cold and died in their own way,119 they believed that the causes of generation and corruption were heat and cold. Heat was generated by motion with its brightness on account of the sun drawing near whereas cold was produced from rest and the retreating of the sun with its darkness. They saw that each thing begins to be generated in spring, and then grows in its strength and remains flowering to the end of summer, and from autumn begins to be altered, and thenceforth withers and is dissolved, and completely stops in its operations until the end of winter. Thus they attribute the first two seasons to heat and the latter two to cold. Accordingly, they divided the zodiac along the horizon into eight parts or eight points, which are called the gua of the houtianxue, {that is, these eight parts of the constellations of the horizon which pertain to the foreknowledge of their prognostication of the lot or fortune of any person}. Four of these belong to heat whereas the other four belong to cold. Accordingly they say that {the activity of natural agent causes}120 begins in the hemisphere in the gua or point called zhen 震, which corresponds to the east, and according to the course of the sun begins in their spring, which is usually on the fifth or sixth day of February. And they call this activity, dominance or influence Dizhu 帝主, Zhuzai 主宰, which is the dominance of heat in the first six months. It then is withdrawn while receding in the opposite season, namely from October onwards. To signify the departure of this dominance and the beginning and end of its reclusion they use these words: churu 出入, that is to go out and to enter; qushen 屈伸, that is to contract and to expand; wanglai 往來, that is to go and to come. All these words {mean the same thing, or} have the same meaning. Since this happens as a result of the approach and withdrawal of the sun, which they observe rotating in the south, they think that the southern region is hot, and they call it taiyang 太陽, {that is great brightness,} whereas they think the north cold and call it taiyin 太陰, {that is great darkness}.

119 Santa Maria has slightly abbreviated Longobardo’s Portuguese text here: “os quaes como vissem [por] experientia que com o calor se geravam as cousas, e se sostentava a vida dos animaes, plantas, hervas, e com o mesmo exercitavam suas op[er]ações pera conseguirem seus fins; e pello contrario que com o frio, faltando o calor, se corrumpiam / e em hum certo modo morriam.” 120 Longobardo’s Portuguese text is quite different here: “a efficientia das causas agentes geraes, ou o predominio e actividade.”

132

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

6.9 Prelude 7. On the Most Celebrated Axiom of the Chinese, Namely “wanwu yiti,” Which Corresponds to Our “omnia sunt unum ” (All Things Are One) [N.o 1] Among the other principles of Chinese philosophy that ought to be considered for deciding these controversies is that axiom, which is very important for the Chinese, namely that all things are one and the same substance.121 But since this opinion agrees with an opinion of some ancient philosophers from Europe, who also asserted that all things are one, it is necessary to demonstrate briefly here how they understood this. [N.o 2] When speaking about the opinions of the principal philosophers, in various passages Aristotle makes mention of those who believed that all things were continuous and were completely one being in terms of their nature and reason, but are many according to sense, while not being in any way different. The Coimbra course and Fr Fonseca, and other commentators following the text of Aristotle say that those early ancient philosophers did not know any of the causes except the material cause, and not as it is in itself, but in a coarser way. For they thought and firmly believed that matter itself was the all-embracing essence of natural things and that all things were one and co-extensive with it while seeming many according to the external senses without any essential difference between them. For example, if someone were to say that the principle of natural things is water or air, a fortiori he would be bound to say that all things are water or air in terms of their essence and that they are distinguished as being diverse only in terms of their accidents, such as how dense or rarefied and hot or cold they are.122 Thus we are accustomed to say that things made by skill from {wood}, in terms of their intrinsic essence, are all {wood}, but differ according to their shapes introduced by

121 The manuscript has in Chinese a quote from the Song philosopher Cheng Yi 程 頤 (1032–1085), drawn from the chapter “Ximing 西銘” (Western inscriptions), which is included in Zhengmeng 正蒙 (Correcting youthful ignorance) by Zhang Zai 張載 (1020– 1077). This passage can be found in the Xingli daquan (juan 4, Ximing, 6): “所以謂萬 物一體者皆有此理.” 122 See De physica; commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu in octo libros physicorum (Coimbra, 1592), 146 (liber I, c. 7, q. 1, a. 1).

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

133

skill.123 In this sense, therefore, Parmenides and Melissus asserted that all things are only one, and Aristotle cites and refutes them accordingly.124 Fr Fonseca in his gloss on Book 1 of Physica says as below: The ancient philosophers almost only considered the material cause in their undeveloped and unclear philosophy, and not as it is, but in a certain primitive way they thought that the entire essence of natural things was matter itself. Hence, those who said that the principles of natural things was water were thereby compelled to profess that all things according to their essence was water, but differing in their accidents, such as density, rarefication, warmth, cold, and so on. In the same way we say that all things crafted from wood are wood according to their substance, but differ in terms of their shape introduced by craft. Therefore, following these philosophers Aristotle says that the question as to whether the principles are one or many does not differ from the question as to whether natural entities are one or many, and whether they are finite or infinite in their further subdivision. The reason is that the principle and the derivative of the first principle are in no way distinguished among them according to the essence.125

123 Longobardo’s original analogy refers to bread (pao), not wood. 124 See De physica; commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu in octo libros

physicorum (Coimbra, 1592), 100–103 (liber I, c. 2, q. 2). Already in a letter of 1598, Longobardo pointed out that the natural philosophy of the Chinese was similar to the one of Melissus, which was rejected by Aristotle: “Exemplum epistolae a P. Nicolao Longobardo, anno 1598 ex China conscriptae, ad Reverendum P. Claudium Aquavivam Societatis Iesu Generalem,” in Recentissima de amplissimo regno Chinae (Mainz: Ioannes Albinus, 1601), 7: “si aliquid è Philosophia naturali delibandum sit, verè de iis dici potest, quod Aristoteles dixit de Melisso: Peccant in materia & forma.” The quote “Peccant in materia & forma” was expressed by Walter Burley (c.1275–1344) on Melissus and Parmenides in his Commentaria super libros de physico auscultatione Aristotelis. 125 As noticed by Mário Carvalho, this gloss on Physics does not belong to the corresponding Coimbra commentary, but to a manuscript course given by Fonseca while he was lecturing in Coimbra. We know only of it through this excerpt by Longobardo. See Mário Santiago de Carvalho, “Fonseca, Pedro da,” in Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, ed. Mário Santiago de Carvalho and Simone Guidi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2563270, https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/fonseca-pedro-da, latest revision: January 29, 2020. Longobardo or another Jesuit missionary obtained a manuscript copy while in Portugal and brought it along to China. Aristotle’s position on the Presocratics is quite nuanced, and their full rejection was done by Scholasticism on the ground they knew only a material principle; see Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia.q.4.a.1. As expressed in the next paragraph, Longobardo opposed the attempt of some of his contemporaries to re-evaluate the Presocratics in more positive light.

134

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 3] But contemporary philosophers and others after Aristotle, according to their understanding of these early philosophers, could not be persuaded that men of such genius had meant that for which Aristotle refutes and reproaches them (even if their words suggest that all things are one continuous substance alone and not different among themselves except according to their external senses which are fallible), and thus they interpret them differently. Some say that Aristotle reprimanded them on account of the absurd sound of their words, not because he himself believed that they truly believed such things. But some note that Aristotle imposed on them something which those philosophers themselves did not wish to say in the sense in which they were refuted by him. But they are all deceived, for it is certain that those philosophers held such an opinion, and thus asserted it in the sense refuted by Aristotle and neither did he impose such things on them, since he approves and praises them for some true and certain things said among their absurdities. It is clearly proved that they held this opinion in the above-mentioned sense. [N.o 4] Firstly, [it is proven] from the text of Aristotle: their words which they use suggest this. Secondly, [it is proven] from the reasons which they adduce. They did not yet know the omnipotent Creator, who as the first efficient cause created the whole universe {out of nothing}, and they adhered to the general rule that nothing can be made out of nothing. So, they could not say that while proving their opinion in the following way: Whatever has been made has a beginning of duration. Therefore, whatever has not been made does not have such a beginning, and by consequence has no end of duration, but in and of itself is infinite in terms of its duration and essence, and by consequence is one and unchanging. Likewise, whatever is beyond being, which contains the act of being in itself, is nonbeing and nothing. Thus since being, which contains the act of being in itself, is only one, such a being is consequently only one being.126

[N.o 5] Thirdly it is proven because some authors beside Aristotle also make mention of that opinion which they held, namely that all things are one. Galen in his Natural History says that Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, taught his disciples to call into question everything except 126 The source of this citation has not been identified. The Portuguese text mentions Fonseca: “como diz o Fonseca na sua grosa tirada do texto.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

135

the proposition that all things are one, and that this was God. Crassus, in Book 3 of that work by Cicero to his brother Quintus says: And in my own view the great men of the past, having a wider mental grasp, had also a far deeper insight than our mind’s eye can achieve, when they asserted that all this universe above us and below is one single whole, and is held together by a single force and harmony of nature.127

[N.o 6] Fourthly, it is finally proven that this is not at all new and that other authors besides the ones mentioned here had held these notions. The Chinese bonzes who are the priests of the idols and came from [the Indian gymnosophists]128 also profess the same thing. The same is held by Laozi together with his Daoist priests, {that is the head of the other sect of the idols,} and his disciples. But above all this view is held by Rujiao, {that is, those teachers of the sect of the literati,} including the greatest and the lowest as well as both ancient and modern {proponents of the Chinese school of the teachings of Confucius}.129 Therefore, these three above-mentioned Chinese sects are more ancient than the philosophers mentioned above and all these sects originated from the magus Zoroaster, prince of the Chaldeans, who taught such things like chaos is eternal and disseminated these ideas throughout the world. Hence it is clear that both the above-mentioned ancients as well as the teachers of {these three sects called in Chinese} Sanjiao {unanimously} believed that all things are one by nature and reason and that the opinion of both the former and the latter was the same on this issue.

127 Cicero, De oratore, 3.20. 128 Santa Maria simply writes “ab illis” and is not clear to what the “illis” refers. The

Portuguese text specifies more clearly that the Chinese Bonzes derived their doctrines from the gymnosophists in India: “[Quart]o finalmente, provase não ser isto cousa nova, que outros Autores mais antigos que os sobre nomeados não tivessam, pois a Seita dos Gymnosophistas Indianos o tem abertamente, e o professam os Bonzos da China que delles emanaram.” 129 In The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Ricci refuted the pantheist doctrine that all things form one entity (wanwu yiti 萬物一體), but the doctrine was attributed to the more recent Confucians, not to the ancient Confucians. Longobardo considers that both ancient and modern Confucians hold this doctrine.

136

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

6.10 Prelude 8. What Is Generation and Corruption in Their Teaching [N.o 1] According to the Chinese philosophers, there were two sorts of matter out of which the world was constituted, and both were incorruptible: the first matter was that infinite chaos which they call li; the second matter was that primordial air called taiji. The substance and being of that first matter are intrinsically within [the second matter], and therefore, by consequence, are in all things and never separated from them.130 But after heaven and earth were produced, there is the air which is between heaven and earth; it is the proximate matter of all corruptible things, just like the elements among us, and out of this air things are joined together through generation and are dissolved into it during corruption. For this reason, this [air] is the essence, the being and the nature of all things, which are generated out of it through condensation of some corporeal figure, having been actuated or endowed with various qualities from the virtue of heaven, sun, moon, stars, planets, elements, earth and other universal causes according to the time, hour, day, month and sign in which such a thing was produced. All these things are like the forms and principles of the internal and external operations of composites.131 [N.o 2] Therefore, in their philosophy generation is none other than receiving the substance of that air or chaos actuated in various figures. Moreover, qualities, which have varying degrees of purity, are either penetrating or obtuse and are subservient to it as its form, while at the same time the sky, sun, moon, stars, planets and elements as universal causes as well as particular causes apply and arrange the matter. [N.o 3] Corruption or death is none other than the exterior figure being destroyed together with the qualities, humours and vital spirits, on which the living thing was sustained, and thus being dissolved or returned into the substance {or being} of that Air. That which is pure, light and hot ascends while that which is impure, heavy and cold descends. Hence it pertains to shen 神 and hun 魂, {that is the soul and clear spirits,} to ascend whereas it pertains to gui 鬼 and po 魄, {that is to the dark spirits and corpses,} to descend.

130 Longobardo explains here the Anterior Heaven, or xiantian, by Shao Yong; see Prelude 5 above. 131 This explains the Posterior Heaven, or houtian, by Shao Yong; see Prelude 6 above.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

137

6.11 Prelude 9. How Do They Understand the Differentiation of Things Given That the Essence and Nature of All Things Are One and the Same? [N.o 1] Since they hold that the entire essence of a thing is {the essence of} air, they consequently say that there is only one substance and nature but that it is differentiated in terms of its external figures and the various qualities of air. They call that by which things are differentiated qizhi 氣質, {that is, its own natural quality}. But as to the figure, the reasons for differences are the various external figures of all corporeal species. As to qualities, they think that this air can be qualified under four modes, namely zheng 正, pian 偏, tong 通, se 塞. Zheng means correct, constant and pure. Pian means oblique, inconstant and turbid. Tong is penetrating and subtle. However, se is obtuse and dense. From these four qualities the first two, namely correct and penetrating, are excellent and those who receive them in their generation become people. The other two, namely oblique and obtuse, are bad qualities, and those who receive them in their production become brute animals, grass, plants, etc. [N.o 2] Those two excellent qualities, zheng and tong, {that is, correct and penetrating,} are again subdivided in this way. Correct is divided into jing 精 and cu 粗, that is perfect and imperfect; penetrating is divided into qing 清 and zhuo 濁, that is into pure and turbid. They say that those who receive perfect rectitude and pure penetration {in their generation} are shengren 聖人, that is, wise men and heroes among them. And they are born as such because they naturally know reason and follow it in their practice and never do they dare to go against reason. Hence they surpass all other people and thus they are greatly esteemed, and are worthy of the greatest veneration. But those who at their birth receive imperfect rectitude and turbid penetration are uncouth people and have depraved lives, being disordered in their customs and called yuren 愚人, {that is, most worthless people,} having only the appearance of being a person, for they are like beasts in other respects. Between these two sorts of people are others of mediocre condition and nature, whom they call xianren 賢 人, that is virtuous and prudent men.132

132 This corresponds to Zhu Xi’s classification of people according to their natural endowment; see Xingli daquan, juan 1.

138

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 3] In the same way the other bad qualities pian 偏 and se 塞, that is, oblique and obtuse are also divided into perfect and imperfect, pure and turbid. Those who receive the first two, {namely perfect oblique and pure obtuse,} become brute animals; those who receive last two, {namely imperfect oblique and turbid obtuse,} become plants, herbs, etc. Also in these things there is some variety in their types and species. [N.o 4] Hence it can be clearly seen that the Chinese never knew of a creator who made everything out of pure nothing by His infinite power, nor understood true generation from matter and substantial form, but only the alteration and accidental change of shape and qualities on the presupposition that there is a common homogenous matter of all things. This is the eternal air, which is ungenerable and incorruptible in its substance but changeable through motion and rest, hot and cold, rarefication and density, etc., since only it is the essence of all things. This is just like what Aristotle says about those [Presocratic] philosophers, who philosophised in a similar way.133

6.12 Prelude 10. The Chinese Did Not Recognise Two Distinct Substances, Spiritual and Corporeal, but Only One That Is More or Less Material [N.o 1] Since the Chinese believe that all things are one and the same substance (“wanwu yiti 萬物一體,” that is, “all things are one”), it is evident that they did not recognise two really distinct substances, namely spiritual substances, such as God, the Angels and the rational soul, as distinct from corporeal substances. Even stronger proof of this can be found in the fact that they did not have knowledge of creation ex nihilo through an infinite divine power. They only recognised one universal, immense and infinite substance. Out of this is emanated that primordial Air called taiji, which embraces the general substance itself. After having 133 Aristotle, Metaphysics I.3, 984a5: “Anaximenes and Diogenes make air prior to water, and the most primary of the simple bodies […] Of those who said the universe was one, then no one succeeded in discovering a cause of this sort, except perhaps Parmenides, and he only inasmuch as he supposes that there is not only one but also in some sense two causes. But for those who make more elements it is more possible to state the second cause, e.g. for those make hot and cold, or fire and earth, the elements; for they treat fire as having a nature which fits it to move things, and water and earth and such things they treat in the contrary way.” Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Modern Library, 2001), 694–695.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

139

been put into motion134 with various qualities and accidents joined to it, this primordial Air comes to be the proximate matter of all things.135 [N.o 2] They divide this substance into two parts, namely you 有 and wu 無, {that is, to have and to have not}. The first is the whole corporeal substance with body and figure, which has colour, is solid and dense, with the result that it resists and makes a sound when struck. The second is a less material substance, like that Air which they imagine has no body, figure, colour or voice, and thus cannot be touched or seen. Hence it is called nothing and void, that is, wu 無, xu 虛, kong 空, wuxing 無形, wuse 無色, etc., [which mean this].136 Considering this substance more deeply in relation to its entity alone, abstracted from every quality and accident, they call it taiwu 太無, taikong 太空, taixu 太虛. They also use other similar terms which show that it is most simple, pure and subtle, just as we talk about a spiritual substance. [N.o 3] But no one should think on this account that this substance [taiji] assigned by the Chinese can be spiritual according to our understanding of this term. To begin, this substance cannot exist by itself except in that qi, {that is, in that primordial air} from which it can never be separated. Secondly, it sustains in itself all the qualities and material accidents, and constitutes the being of all things, or rather it is the being and substance of all things. Thirdly, the things which seem spiritual, such as the guishen 鬼神, {that is, all the heavenly and earthly spirits, and the rational soul, or} tianshen 天神, linghun 靈魂, are all called qi, {that is air or vapour,} by both the ancients and moderns. When asked by his disciple what guishen is, Confucius replied, “Qi ye” (氣也), that is, “It is Air”. On this topic one may refer to Chapter 16 of the Zhongyong where Confucius speaks at length about the spirits.137 Book 28 of the Xingli also treats specifically of guishen and hunpo 魂魄, {that is about spirits, the soul and body}.138 The Chinese reduce all these things to air or to its activity and {operative} virtue. From this it can be certainly concluded 134 The Portuguese text is more precise, adding “vestindose per motum et quietem.” 135 In scholastic philosophy, “proximate” or “immediate matter” (materia immediata)

refers to what a thing is directly made of (i.e. bricks in the case of a house), as opposed to “prime matter,” which is undifferentiated. 136 The gloss “quae praefata significant” is not in the Portuguese text and redundant. 137 Zhongyong 16: “The Master said: In their being virtuous, how great are ghosts and

spirits!…” (子曰: 鬼神之為德).

138 Xingli daquan, juan 28.

140

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

that in the teaching of Rujiao or the literati there is emphatically nothing more than one material substance.

6.13 Prelude 11. On the Spirits or Gods Which the Chinese Adore According to the Sect of Literati [N.o 1] It can be sufficiently understood from the above what are the spirits adored by the Chinese and regarded in their own way as gods. Nevertheless, since this is a very important point for these controversies, it is necessary to treat it a little more extensively and separately, as I will do in this prelude. I will outline relevant teachings about spirits that are affirmed in {the sect of the literati or} Rujiao. [N.o 2] First of all, it must be noted that according to the teaching of the literati everything that is and can be in this universe proceeds and issues from the workshop of taiji, that is from that primordial Air, which contains in itself that {first} universal substance called li and qi, because both things, {namely itself [li] and Air [qi],} are always joined together and in turn cannot be separated, as we speak about prime matter and its coeval quantity. The way in which things are produced is that the five virtues, together with their habits and other spiritual things, emerge out of li insofar as it is li: {that is, insofar as it is the first cause, substance, and universal reason of all nature}.139 From that same li or universal first cause, insofar as it is {endowed and} qualified with its qi {or its primordial Air}, flow also the [five]140 elements with other qualities and corporeal figures. Thus according to the Chinese both the natural and moral [realms] are born from the same source, namely from that li {or first universal cause} and, as has been said above, this is the being of all things. Hence there is that famous saying of Confucius, namely that all his doctrine is reduced to a

139 According to the marginal note added by Santa Maria, the five universal moral virtues or wuchang 五常 are clemency (ren 仁), justice (yi 義), cultivation (li 禮), wisdom (zhi 智) and faith on a human level (xin 信). 140 The corresponding Portuguese text adds “cinco” here.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

141

single point which is li or the most universal reason141 {of all the nature of things, transcendent in every respect}.142 [N.o 3] Second, it may be noted that li, {the reason or cause of all things,} does not produce the things of this universe without qi, {or its primordial Air,} which is joined to it as an instrument. Similarly, li does not govern the things of the universe without {it, but rather it manages and arranges these through} qi {or Air.} Hence it happens that both the operations which pertain to the production of things and those which pertain to their governance are commonly attributed to qi {or coeval Air} as the instrumental and formal cause of {that first general cause} li, just as for example it is often said that the intellect understands and the will loves, although it is the Soul itself which truly and really understands and loves through its own powers.143 [N.o 4] Third, it may be noted that it is the teaching of {the literati or} Rujiao that once that number of years which they call taisui 太歲 has been completed, this whole universe with everything inside it will end, and that all things must return to their first principle from which they emanated. Only that pure and simple li, {the first cause of all things,} may remain joined with qi, its coeval Air. Then afterwards, the same li, the first cause, will reproduce again another new universe in the same order. When this has ended, again and again it will reproduce other worlds in infinite succession.144 [N.o 5] Fourth, it may be noted that the notion of spirits arose in China (as was the case among other pagans) for two reasons. First, since they had seen that heaven and earth, along with the other special causes of the world, unfailingly perform their operations in an orderly manner, they thought that there was some maker and invisible principle which infallibly works and governs within them. They call this zhu 主, zhuzai

141 The corresponding Poruguese text adds the concept of substance here: “rezão e Substantia universalíssima.” 142 Quote from the chapter Liren 里仁 of the Lunyu (4.15): “子曰: 參乎!吾道一以貫

之.”

143 The relationship between li and qi is quite complex and varies among different Neo-Confucian philosophers. Longobardo expresses here the priority assigned by Zhu Xi to li over qi, and he explains this priority in terms of Aristotelian causes. 144 This is not the common teaching of Neo-Confucianism, but the view of Shao Yong. Also, Stoicism held the view of an endless cycle of birth and death of the universe.

142

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

主宰, shen 神, guishen 鬼神, di 帝, jun 君, {all of which mean Lord, preeminence, spirit and supreme power}. One may refer to Chapter 16 of the Zhongyong .145 The second reason was because of the great benefits which people receive from the intervention of those spirits. Consequently, they believed that they were obliged to honour and worship them with various sacrifices, as testified by Book 8 of the Liji (page 47).146 [N.o 6] Fifth, it may be noted that the Chinese from the earliest antiquity of their Empire, which properly began with Yao and Shun, {who were the fourth and fifth Chinese kings after the World Flood,} adored these spirits, as seen in Book 1 of the Shujing (page 11). Here there are four types of sacrifices assigned for the four types of spirits. The first sacrifice called lei 酹 was made to heaven and at the same time to its spirit called Shangdi, {that is the supreme king or highest emperor}. The second sacrifice called yin 禋 was made to the spirits of the six principle things, namely, the spirits of the four seasons of the year; heat and cold; the sun, moon and stars; rain; and drought. The third sacrifice called wang 望 was made to the spirits of the mountains and famous rivers. Finally, the fourth sacrifice called bian 籩 was made to a great multitude of other spirits pertaining to the other lesser parts of the universe and distinguished men in the country.147 [N.o 7] First conclusion. All spirits adored by the Chinese are the same substance as the things in which they subsist and exist. Firstly, it is proved by their axiom, “wanwu yiti,” that is, “all things are one.” Secondly, since the author Chengzi 程子 clearly says that Shangdi (spirit of heaven) is the same thing as heaven, and therefore by extension, or at least by analogy, the same ought to be said about the spirits of other things.148 Thirdly, Confucius in the book Zhongyong (page 11), when writing about all the spirits, says that they constitute the being and substance of things, and

145 As mentioned above, Zhongyong 16 deals specifically with guishen. 146 Longobardo probably used the commentary by Chen Hao 陳澔 (Yuan dynasty)

which was inserted in the Wujing daquan. 147 Canon of Shun (Shundian 舜典) in the Book of Documents, or Shujing . 148 Longobardo inserted the Chinese text by Chengzi 程子, drawn from Xingli daquan,

juan 26, 11a: “或問天帝之異。曰: 以形體謂之天, 以主宰謂之帝, 以至妙謂之神, 以功用謂 之鬼神, 以性情謂之乾, 其實一而已。 所自而名之者, 異也。夫天專言之, 則道也.” The original quote is found in chapter Tiandi (天地篇) of the book Er Cheng cuiyan 二程粹 言.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

143

cannot be divided or separated from things, otherwise things would be immediately destroyed.149 Some may object at this point that those spirits are often taken for the operative {or intellective} virtue and the activity of things,150 and therefore ought to be more rightly termed the property of things, and not [substance of] things.151 My reply is that firstly it is true, and in practice they are taken {both for the property and} for the substance itself adorned with this operative virtue, and more ordinarily in the latter sense because we have already said that according to Confucius they constitute the being of things. Secondly, I reply that, if they are taken for the activity or virtue of causes, they are of even baser conception, since they cannot exist by themselves.152 [N.o 8] Second conclusion. All [spirits] have a beginning. This is the proof. They have emanated {from that primordial Air called} taiji and from that first universal {cause}153 called li (as mentioned in the first point to be noted [i.e. N.o 2]) and thus they are posterior and inferior to this. As confirmation of this, the doctor by the name of Wu Benru 吳本 如 who is now a great mandarin called dutang of the province Liaodong 遼東154 said about the most high being called Shangdi that he was the son or creature of taiji, {that is of the primordial Air}. He said that the same ought to be asserted about Tianzhu, {that is, about our Most High 149 Longobardo inserted the words of Zhongyong 16: “體物而不可遺.” The idea of an immediate destruction in case of separation is not in the Chinese text or in the commentaries, but is Longobardo’s own interpolation. 150 The Portuguese text adds the Greek word entelekia (entelechy) to further define

the spirits, but this is not translated in the Latin text. 151 The Portuguese text here is clearer and includes the concept of substance, which contrasts with the concept of quality or property: “e assi mais veriam a ser a qualidade ou propriedade, que a Substantia das cousas.” 152 The Portuguese text adds the concept of quality and accident here: “Respondo [secund]o que tomandose os Spiritos pella pura virtude ou actividade das cousas, fica o conceito delles cada vez mais abatido, com de qualidade e accidente que non potest per seexsistere.” 153 The Portuguese text uses the word “Substantia” here. 154 Missionaries use the term Tutao, derived from the Chinese dutang 都堂, to indicate

a Governor, xunfu 巡撫 or zongdu 總督. Wu Yongxian 吳用先 (1558–1626), literary name Wu Benru 吳本如, was from Anhui province. He became advanced scholar (jinshi) in 1592. He was the governor (zongdu) of Jiliao 蓟遼 for less than a year, from August 1624 to March 1625. He is also mentioned in Prelude 13, N.o 8, and Prelude 17, N.o 1.

144

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Lord God,} if this was the same as that called by the Chinese under the name Shangdi, {Lord King or Supreme Emperor}. [N.o 9] Third conclusion. All spirits according to the Chinese will finish at the end of this world, when all things are brought back to their first origin. It is proven from the doctrine in the third point noted and confirmed from the affirmation of the doctor Zhou Qingyu 周慶 虞, keli 科吏 of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu 户部),155 namely that both Tianzhu, {that is our God,} and {their most high} Shangdi must certainly end with all other spirits. Only the pure universal {thing}156 called li remains. From this he has deduced that according to the teaching of the Chinese there is nothing greater and better than li. [N.o 10] Fourth conclusion. All spirits and deities of the Chinese are of equal perfection in terms of {their substance and} existence. But a difference in terms of being more or less noble and greater or lesser is deduced from {the rank of} the places or things over which they preside. For example, the water placed in various golden, bronze, wooden and clay vases is the same water: the only difference is their vases. The same is said about spirits because they are themselves li, [qi]157 or taiji, {namely that first universal substance or that primordial Air,} positioned in various subjects, namely, heaven, earth, mountains and rivers. [N.o 11] Fifth conclusion. All these spirits are without life, knowledge and liberty. It is firstly proven from the fact they spring from that first most universal cause which, according to the principles of their philosophy, lacks all these things, as said in Prelude 5, N.o 2. The second reason is because in Book 1 of the Shujing (page 35) it is clearly stated that heaven, [the greatest thing]158 of the whole universe, does not see, listen, understand, love, nor hate, but does all these things through people.159 155 Also mentioned in Prelude 17, N.o 5. For more information on Wu Benru, see the chapter by Song Liming above. 156 The Portuguese text uses the word “Substantia” here. 157 Santa Maria forgets to include “Ki,” which can be found in the Portuguese text.

This is obviously an oversight because he provides a gloss for this word in the same sentence. 158 Santa Maria’s Latin text has: “the second greatest cause of the universe” (quod cælum maior prorsus causa 2.a totius universi) but this does not correspond to the Portuguese (que he a maior cousa que ha no Universo). Morales’ Latin text is more accurate (quod prorsus est maior causa totius universi). 159 The text of the Shujing is: “天聰明, 自我民聰明。 天明畏, 自我民明威” (虞書·皋陶 謨). However, Longobardo inserted a Chinese quote from a commentator: “天之聦明,

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

145

It is therefore inferred from this either that there is no spirit within {the ethereal body of} heaven, or that it is one and the same substance with it; and thus it does not see, hear or understand. Thirdly, because heaven and earth, as written in Book 26 of the Xingli (pages 16 and 17), have no heart at all. That is, they have no will, no deliberation, but everything operates through a certain natural inclination just as fire burns and a stone falls downwards.160 Fourthly, because when disputing this subject, heaven is equated to the earth: for it is self-evident that the earth does not understand and does not have life, etc., therefore the same must be said about heaven. In relation to the operations which properly pertain to spirits, while saying that such operations of heaven and earth by no means happen through choice or reason,161 it is clear that the same must be concluded about the spirits of heaven, of earth and of other things, which are all without life, intelligence and freedom. This is confirmed by the general Chinese conviction that whoever does well will naturally and necessarily be rewarded, but whoever does bad will likewise be punished just like how someone who draws near to fire will be burnt and someone who draws near to snow gets cold. Finally, it is to say that the things of this world are not ruled by any supreme providence, but by chance, or according to the course of natural things. Since some questions about those spirits can emerge here, I present them with their responses to make the Chinese teaching clearer. [N.o 12] The first question is, if these spirits are the same substance as the very things which they inhabit, why are they called spirits? What need is there for a term in addition to the name of the thing itself? My reply is that they are called spirits to denote the formality of acting, insofar as such an action proceeds from a certain hidden principle, which somehow lives within things, ruling and governing like a vital spirit. Sometimes it also denotes the substance of things, insofar as it is a certain pure, subtle and almost incorporeal being. Thus the actions are always more wondrous and inscrutable. 非有視聽也, 因民之視聽以為聦明; 天之明畏, 非有好惡, 因民之好惡以為明畏.” See Wu Cheng 吳澄, Shu zuan yan 書纂言, juan 1, 54. 160 Longobardo inserts a quote of Cheng Yi 程颐, drawn from the section “Tiandi 天 地” (Heaven and earth), in juan 26 of the Xingli daquan, 16b: “天地無心而成化, 聖人 有心而無為.” 161 The Portuguese text here is slightly more precise here: “vontade rational.”

146

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 13] The second question is, if those spirits are li or the first universal substance in terms of their essence, how can it be said they have been produced by it? My reply is that they have been produced just as other things. Moreover, there needs to be added to this universal thing called li a certain accidental form or certain formality with which other things are formally distinguished from li, {the universal first cause}. And thus in the present case spirit indicates again that operative virtue emanating from the universal {cause} li. It is enough to say that it is produced by it. The same argument holds in relation to what is said, that the spirits will have an end, which is certainly nothing else than to be destroyed at the end of the world and that the operative virtue of {the first cause} li will completely cease once [li] alone in its {pure and permanent} substantial being is freed from all {external} qualities and formalities. [N.o 14] The third question is, if the above mentioned first cause called li does not have any activity (as said above in Chapter 5, N.o 2), how can it be said that it is the same as the spirits, the nature of which is that they are operative? I reply that this substance of the {first cause}, when considered in itself, has no activity, but it begins to have activity after the production of qi, that is, the primordial Air, which is the instrument conjoined to itself. Thus the operations of spirits fundamentally pertain to this li, {the first general cause,} instrumentally to qi, {the primordial Air,} but formally to the spirits themselves. [N.o 15] The fourth question is, if among things themselves there is not any living spirit that is distinguished from their substance, when sacrifices are made to heaven and earth, and the mountains, etc., to what are these sacrifices offered? I reply that the Chinese very often follow the custom handed down to them by their ancient forebears. They do not examine to whom they are making the sacrifices, whether they are sacrificing to something visible or to its operative virtue, or to some living spirit, which perhaps is in them. This is because of a rule handed down by Confucius stating that we must not examine invisible or imperceptible things.162 My second response is that the most erudite and well-versed Chinese literati of their sect do not recognise anything in the things to which they offer sacrifice other than the substance of {that first universal cause 162 As the BnF ms. attests, Longobardo inserts here the same quote which was already given in Prelude 3, and wrongly attributed to Confucius: “六合之內論而不議, 六合之外 存而不論.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

147

called} li and {its primordial air called} qi insofar as it is conjoined to it as an instrument. This is clearly in accordance with the doctrine of Confucius in Chapter 16 of the Zhongyong , where he teaches that spirits are component parts of the entity of things, and thus cannot be separated from them without their destruction.163 Right after he says in relation to spirits that they bring themselves to be venerated and revered by men, inducing them to compose themselves {silently,} interiorly and exteriorly, so that they offer sacrifices to the spirits.164 This point must be considered as a principal foundation of {the sect of the literati called} Rujiao. [N.o 16] The fifth question concerns the fact that most believe that there are spirits, and that they are living intelligences, and that this belief dates not only to the entrance of the idolatrous sects in China, but also much earlier, namely from the first kings Yao and Shun, and thus in the ancient Chinese teachings those spirits are discussed as if they were living and in charge of human affairs. Granted this, how do the literati resolve this? My response is that all literati of authority, both ancient and modern, absolutely and unanimously deny that such spirits are living and different in substance from the places and things where they are: for this would create a contradiction in the principles of their philosophy, by which all things are one and the same, as stated above in various places. [N.o 17] As for the opinion of the common people and the ways of speaking of their authentic books it must be noted that they posit two sorts of spirits. Some are called the spirits of generation and corruption whereas others are the spirits of sacrifices. The first are the philosophical spirits by which are signified the natural causes of generation and corruption, which are in the universe. They are often taken both for the very substance of things or their virtues operating in them and for the qualities and formality of acting. The latter are the civil spirits, which were introduced into the country in order to restrain the people from hidden evils and to ensure that they do not live disorderly, presuming and thinking that there are various spirits in heaven, earth, the mountains and rivers

163 Chinese words of Zhongyong 16 on the BnF manuscript: “體物而不可遺.” See N.o 7 above. 164 Longobardo translates here the words of Zhongyong 16 that he inserted in the text (Latin ms. APF): “使天下之人齊明盛服以承祭祀.” In the BnF manuscript, there is a further addition “明盛服以承祭祀, 如在其上, 如在其左右.”

148

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

with the power to benefit or harm people, just as what was once said of Jupiter and Mars.165 Therefore, it is necessary that we all consider the essential point of these controversies, namely that in the sect of the literati, just as in the sects of the Bonzes and Daoist priests, {which are the sects of the idols,} there is a hidden and secret doctrine which the wise believe to be true and is not known to others. However, for the ignorant there is another false and visible doctrine, which they [the literati] believe is completely false. For this reason there are no grounds for relying on the texts of their doctrines in which they deliberately and falsely teach the common people to believe that there are spirits or living gods in a thing, so worthy of fear and reverence that the people should worship, fear and honour them.166 In order to show that this is the true interpretation of Chinese teaching, I cite some famous authors who dealing with this point expressly conclude that there are no spirits except the natural causes themselves.167

6.14

Prelude 12. On the Various Authoritative Texts by Classic Authors Who Discuss the Spirits or Gods of the Chinese

[N.o 1] A certain author called Chengzi 程子 in his commentary on the Zhongyong (page 11), when explaining the nature and being of spirits, says that spirits are none other than the operations of heaven and earth, and 165 The terms “philosophical spirits” and “civil spirits” seem to be adaptations of Varro’s tripartite theology (civil theology, natural theology and mythical theology). Whereas civil theology is practised by the people for the purpose of social cohesion, natural theology is theorised by philosophers using reason. Trigault had adopted the terms “political” and “civil” to describe the rituals surrounding Ricci’s burial. See Nicolas Standaert, “Early Sino-European Contacts and the Birth of the Modern Concept of ‘Religion’,” in Rooted in Hope: China—Religion—Christianity: Festschrift in Honor of Roman Malek S.V.D. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. Barbara Hoster and Dirk Kuhlmann (Oxford: Routledge, 2017, 3–27. 166 Santa Maria has slightly abbreviated Longobardo’s Portuguese text here: “Por onde não ha [que] acribar nos textos das suas doutrinas, nas quaes de industria falam de maneira que o povo possa imaginar haver Spiritos ou Deoses viventes, e assi os reverencie e tenha medo delles mas ha mister estar fixos nos principios da sua Ph[ilosophi]a, entendendo tudo como o entendem os mestres das Seitas, conforme a luz e guia [que] dão os Interpretes classicos.” 167 Longobardo here applies Rodrigues’s theory of the double teaching, with an esoteric teaching for the elite, and an exoteric teaching for the people.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

149

certain signs or vestiges of natural generations and corruptions.168 Here it must be noted that by the term “operations” is to be understood the operative virtue, or its very power of operation, and by the term vestiges are also to be understood the being and essence of natural causes. Therefore the author in Book 28 of the Xingli (page 37) says that the spirits about which the Yijing speaks are generations and corruptions, that is to say they are the very causes of generations and corruptions, which is the proper subject of the book.169 [N.o 2] In that same place, he asks this question: “What are the clouds and rains, which flow from the mountains and from the waters?” He replies saying that they are the steam or vapour of Air.170 Granted this principle, he then readily infers that when people sacrifice to the spirit of the rains, they are not sacrificing to anything other than to Air itself, which is the proper cause of the rains. Similarly, he proves that it is very stupid to enter the temples of the idols in order to obtain rain from wooden or clay statues which do not have rain and to leave behind the mountains and waters, which are the proper places of rain. From this it is clear that this author does not recognise any spirits other than Air, out of which the substance of the mountains and waters is constituted.171 [N.o 3] The same author in Book 26 of the Xingli (page 11), when treating of the difference between heaven and {that supreme king called} Shangdi, says that heaven when considered in relation to its corporeal figure is called heaven, but when considered in relation to its {reigning 168 Longobardo cites in Chinese from Zhongyong 16: “鬼神, 天地之作用而造化之迹 也.” However, he has “作用” instead of “ 功用” as found in Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu, juan 1, 11a. The mistake is found in all four manuscripts consulted: the APF Latin and Portuguese manuscripts, the BnF Portuguese manuscript, and the Casanatenese Latin manuscript. 169 Longobardo cites in Chinese from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 37b: 《易》 “ 說: 鬼神便 是造化也.” 170 This translates the Chinese text, not present in our manuscripts: “又問如名山大川能 興雲致, 何也?曰: 氣之蒸成耳”. The Portuguese text reads slightly differently: “E risponde dizendo que são effeitos dos fumos ou / vapores dos Ar.” The word “effeitos” (effects) is not translated in Santa Maria’s Latin text. 171 Longobardo translates this passage from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 37b, and

provides the Chinese text in the margin: “又問: 既有祭, 則莫須有神否?曰: 只氣便是神 也。 今人不知此理, 纔有水旱便去廟中祈禱。 不知雨露是甚物, 從何處出, 復於廟中求邪?名山 大川能與雲致雨却都不説著, 却只於山川外木土人身上討雨露, 木土人身上有雨露邪?” The Portuguese translates buzhi 不知 as “ignorantia” (ignorance), but Santa Maria’s Latin translation opts for a stronger “stultitia” (stupidity).

150

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

providence}172 is called king or emperor. However, when considered in relation to its supreme subtlety it is called imperceptible. As for its operations it is called spirit. Finally, as for its property and nature, it is called strong. The truth of the matter is that all these things are the same: they only differ in terms of their name and formality.173 This is what he says. Therefore, this ought to be considered, for when saying that Shangdi {or Supreme King}, namely the spirit of heaven, is one and the same thing with its {eternal celestial body},174 the same ought to be said of the spirits of the mountains and other things, that they all are one and the same thing, substance and entity. [N.o 4] Another author called Zhang Zai 張載 in Book 28 of the Xingli (page 38) says that the spirits are none other than fullness and solidity; that is to say the substance itself and universal solidity, which is immense and infinite and thus fills all things.175 Hence the interpreter called Lü Jianzhong 吕堅中 gives the spirits the attribute of being above, on the right and left, that is to say, everywhere. This is taken from the book Zhongyong (page 11).176 [N.o 5] The same Zhang Zai in his commentary on the Zhong Yong (page 11) says that the spirits are the potency and the natural activity of warm and cold Air: and they call them yin yang, that is that they are

172 The Portuguese translates zhuzai 主宰 as “governo” (government), but the Latin

translation opts for a more theological expression: “regens providentia.” 173 Longobardo had already alluded to this quote of Chengzi in Prelude 11, N.o 7, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 26, 11a, and here he gives a more literal translation. He writes again the same Chinese words in the margin: “或問天帝之異。 曰: 以形體謂之 天, 以主宰謂之帝, 以至妙謂之神, 以功用謂之鬼神, 以性情謂之乾, 其實一而已。所自而名 之者, 異也.” However, the last sentence is omitted: “夫天專言之, 則道也.” 174 The Portuguese only has “elle,” but the Latin specifies this as “aeternum corpus caeleste.” 175 Longobardo translates this quote from Zhang Zai 張載 and provides the Chinese text in the margin, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 38a: “鬼神[事]無他却只是箇 誠.” 176 This is taken also from the Xingli daquan, in reference to Zhongyong 16, but Longobardo did not provide the Chinese characters, which are as follows: “吕堅中曰: 如在 其上如在其左右, 曰然.” Lü Jianzhong is a Song dynasty commentator who is mentioned in Zhuzi yulei, juan 119.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

151

the general causes of generation and corruption which are in the {whole} universe.177 [N.o 6] Another author called Zhu Xi in Book 28 of the Xingli (page 2) asks whether the spirits are the air. And he replies saying that they seem to be that vivacity, entelecheia, vigour or activity, or virtue, which is within that very air.178 [N.o 7] The same author Zhu Xi in the same book (page 3) says that rain, wind, dew, hail, sun, moon, day and night are all vestiges and effects of the spirits, and that there are clear, universal and good spirits. As for those spirits which are said to hiss in bridges, to strike in breasts (like the spirits of the possessed), they are called crooked, false and dark spirits, which sometimes are present, and sometimes return; sometimes congregate, sometimes disperse. There are also some spirits which are said to respond to questions and agree to requests. They are equally called spirits and are the same as li, that is that same universal substance and being of all things, on the presupposition that all things of this universe are the same substance and that the only difference between them is that some substances are more subtle, others denser, some greater, others smaller.179 [N.o 8] The same author Zhu Xi in the same book (page 38) shows that there are spirits and he proves it this way: “If there were no spirits, the ancients would never demand anything from them. We see, therefore, that for seven days they refrain from marital relations, and for three days they fast in order to make their entreaties to visible or invisible things. Therefore, it must necessarily be understood that there are spirits. Now, the emperor makes sacrifices to heaven and earth. Therefore, it is certain that there is heaven and earth. The princes and dukes make sacrifices to famous mountains and renowned rivers under their jurisdiction. Therefore, it is certain there are famous mountains and renowned rivers. The 177 Longobardo translates the words of Zhang Zai which he writes in Chinese: “鬼神 者, 二氣之良能也.” According to Pan Feng-chuan, this comes from the Xingli daquan, but in fact, it comes from Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu, Nanjing edition, 11a. 178 Longobardo provides the Chinese, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 2b: “問: 鬼神便只是此氣否?曰: 又是這氣裏面神靈相似.” Longobardo uses the Aristotelian concept of entelecheia to define the guishen. 179 Longobardo provides in the margin the Chinese text of Zhu Xi, drawn from Xingli

daquan, juan 28, 3a: “雨風露雷、日月晝夜, 此鬼神之迹也, 此是白日公平正直之鬼神。 若所謂有嘯于梁、觸于胷, 此[則]所謂不正邪暗、或有或無、或去或來、或聚或 者, 又 有所謂禱之而應、祈之而獲, 此亦所謂鬼神, 同一理也。世間萬事皆此理, 但精粗大小之不同 爾.”

152

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

noble men offer the five sacrifices.180 Therefore, it is certain that there is a Greater Gate of Two Tablets and that there is a way and lesser gate of one tablet, that there is a hearth and hall or cloister in the middle. Now when in the ancestral temples it seems wondrous that there is nothing other than the air of the mountains and waters gathered there. After some time, if these temples have later been destroyed or fallen into ruin, they will not appear wondrous. The reason of this is that the Air of such places has been completely dispersed.”181 From this authority it can be evidently gathered that the spirits are none other than the activity of Air. To this are directed the sacrifices which are made to heaven, earth, mountains, rivers, gates, hearths and the ancestral temples. [N.o 9] The same author Zhu Xi proposes this question in the same place: “When sacrifices are made to heaven, earth, the mountains and water, victims are slaughtered, textiles are burnt and wine is poured. Is all this done to show the affection of our heart or because there truly is Air, which comes to receive such sacrifices?” He responds saying: “If we say that there is nothing which comes to receive the offering, to what are we making sacrifices?” Again, he says, “What is the thing which exists above there, instilling reverence and making people offer sacrifices to it in fear and dread? If we say that there is a chariot made out of clouds on which such a thing came down, this would be the greatest falsity.”182 [N.o 10] The same author in the same place (page 39) when treating of the etymology of the spirit of heaven, which is the same as the highest emperor called Shangdi, says, “It is called shen, that is spirit.”183 Since

180 “The five sacrifices [wusi] are archaic sacrifices to spirits that were eventually linked to the five phases: door/wood, stove/fire, middle pillar/earth, gate/metal, and well/water.” See “Sacrifice and the Imperial Cult of Confucius,” History of Religions 41, no. 3 (2002): 256, n.16. 181 Longobardo provides the Chinese characters, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 38b: “鬼神若是無時, 古人不如是求, 七日戒、三日齋, 或求諸陽, 或求諸陰, 須是見得 有如天子祭天地, 定是有個天, 有個地。 諸侯祭境內名山大川, 定是有個名山大川; 大夫祭五 祀, 定是有個門行戶 中霤。 今廟宇有靈底亦是山川之氣聚會處, 久之被人掘損壞, 於是不 復有靈, 亦是這些氣過了.” 182 Longobardo provides the Chinese characters, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 38b–39a: “問: 祭天地山川而用牲帛酒禮者, 只是表吾心之誠耶?抑真有氣來格也?曰: 若道無物來享時, 自家祭甚底?肅然在上, 令人奉承敬畏是甚物?若道真有雲車擁從而來, 又 妄誕.” 183 Longobardo provides Zhu Xi’s words in Chinese, drawing from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 39a: “天氣常伸, 謂之神.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

153

the Air of heaven always spreads and is extended, it is plainly clear that according to them there is no living and intelligent spirit, except the substance of Air with its activity and efficiency. [N.o 11] The same author Zhu Xi in the same book asks this: “When children make sacrifices to their parents and deceased ancestors, it is certain that they seek them through their own very Air. That is to say, they consider them as if they were one and the same with the Air which they have in themselves. When they sacrifice to the spirits of other persons or things, how then is this done? Is it assumed that they come to receive those sacrifices or not?” He replies to this question saying that children undoubtedly possess the same unchangeable substance as their parents and ancestors. When they sacrifice to other persons or things, these are also the things to which they ought to sacrifice out of justice. Therefore, Confucius said: “Sacrifice to your deceased parents as if they were present. Sacrifice also to other spirits as if they were also present.” “When the emperor sacrifices to heaven, heaven is the thing to which he ought to sacrifice, and its very Air resembles the emperor. Therefore, how does it neglect to accept the sacrifices? When the princes and dukes sacrifice to the family gods and to the gods of the five {elements},184 they sacrifice equally to them because of the likeness of the same Air which is between them. Therefore, how could they neglect to accept those sacrifices? Now, sacrifices are also made to Confucius. But this does not take place except in the university school, so that the likeness of its air can be imagined.”185 “If anyone says that heaven and earth or the mountains and waters are permanent and fixed things, when sacrifices are made to them, it is possible that their spirits come to the sacrifice. But as for deceased people, their Air has already been dispersed. How is it possible, therefore, that they come to receive the sacrifice? He responds saying that it is

184 The Portuguese text correctly translates ji 稷 as “Deoses dos cinco mantimientos” (gods of the five provisions), but Santa Maria erroneously translates it as “Dei quinque elementorum” (gods of the five elements). 185 In fact, the question has two parts. For the first question, this corresponds to the words of the Xingli daquan, juan 28, 39a–b, provided by Longobardo: “問子之祭先 祖, 固是以氣而求, 若祭其他鬼神, 則如之何?有來享之意否?曰: 子之於祖先, 固有顯然不易 之理。若祭其他, 亦祭其所當祭。 祭如在, 祭神如神在。 如天子, 則祭天, 是其當祭, 亦有氣類, 烏得而不來歆乎?諸侯祭社稷, 故今祭社亦是從氣類而祭, 鳥得而不來歆乎?今祭孔子, 必於 學, 其氣類亦可想.” The quote of Confucius comes from Lunyu 3.12. Santa Maria added a note in the Latin manuscript, not present in the Portuguese manuscripts, concerning the rites to Confucius.

154

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

no more than the one and same Air, which communicated itself from the first principle to ancestors and parents, and through these to children and grandchildren.”186 This is what Zhu Xi said. Hence it is clearly shown that in the Rujiao sect, {that is, of the Chinese literati,} all spirits, be they of people or of heaven and earth and other things or parts of the universe, are no more than Air, the homogenous body and coeval being of all things. Consequently, the Chinese do not recognise any spiritual substance that exists by itself, lives and understands or is distinct from material bodies. [N.o 12] Another author named Chen Beixi 陳北溪 says in Book 28 of the Xingli (page 40): “When the ancients made sacrifices to heaven and earth, to the mountains and waters, they always placed a statue. The reason was that heaven and earth, the mountains and waters are no more than the being of warm or cold air, which they call yinyang. Therefore, with that statue, they claim that the warm or cold air comes to gather into that statue, and thus that sacrifice is not offered in vain. But when they poured wine, burnt spices, slaughtered victims, and offered silk textiles, all this was to give full expression to the true veneration of their heart. When their heartfelt veneration was truly fulfilled, then the Air of the heavens and the earth, the mountains and waters would quickly gather together to answer the desires of those making the sacrifice.”187 [N.o 13] Another author named Zhu Gongqian 朱公遷 in a comment on the Zhongyong , in the third book of the Daquan (page 48) says that the spirits treated by the Rujiao {or sect of the literati} are reduced to two orders: “The first is of the spirits, which are called the spirits of generation and corruption, and this is the proper and true meaning of the spirits. The second is of those which are called the spirits of the sacrifices. This latter meaning is improper and anomalous.”188 In other words, in the sect of the literati, there are philosophical spirits, which denote the activity of 186 The words for the second part of the question are also written in the margin, drawn from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 39b: “問天地山川是有個物事, 則祭之, 其神可致。人死, 氣 己散, 如何致之?曰: 只是一氣。如子孫有個氣在此, 畢竟是因何有此, 其所自來, 葢自厥初生 民氣化之祖, 相傳到此, 只是此氣.” 187 Chen Chun 陳淳, or Chen Beixi 陳北溪 (1159–1223), was a disciple of Zhu Xi. Longobardo provides the Chinese text, drawn from Xingli daquan, juan 28, 40a–b: “古 人祭天地山川皆立尸, 誠以天地山川只是陰陽二氣, 用尸要得二氣來聚這尸上, 不是徒然歆 享, 所以用灌、用燎、用牲、用幣, 大要盡吾心之誠敬。誠敬既盡, 則天地山川之氣便自聚.” 188 Zhu Gongqian 朱公遷 (Yuan dynasty) wrote a commentary on the Four Books , called the Sishu tongzhi 四書通旨. Longobardo provides the Chinese the text, probably

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

155

natural causes and their efficiency, and that there are civil or popular spirits introduced for the good governance of the country, which induce the people to honour and fear them as if they were alive. This is so because literati themselves do not believe that such spirits exist, but admit only that first universal substance called li and taiji with its natural operations. It ought to be especially noted that none of us can be misled by the false appearance of other texts, when they speak of their Supreme Lord or King, Shangdi, and about other spirits as if they were alive and of a different essence from the places where they reside, having considered their way of speaking which is figurative and metaphoric.

6.15 Prelude 13. All Chinese Spirits or Gods Are Reduced to Only One Which Is What They Call li or taiji [N.o 1] In this prelude it must be noted that Chinese idolatry is for the most part like ancient European idolatry. Leaving aside now their other points of agreement, I will refer only to that which pertains to designating only the One God, whom they believe is a substance and being {of the whole mass} of this universe. St Augustine in the fourth book of the City of God (Chapters 10, 11 and 12) shows from the writings of the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians that the various gods introduced by the ancient philosophers amounted to one thing, that is, that such a God is one and, at the same time, is all things and all the gods, and is the soul of the world or even the world itself. Hence it can be inferred that the ancient Chinese held that all things come from infinite chaos, which they imagined to be the first material principle and prime matter. They were persuaded themselves that this [first principle] is one and the same with the parts of the world and that there is nothing beyond it or outside it. Therefore, in their cosmological imaginations they fused the whole host of gods and all idolatry. St Augustine himself states that this opinion was commonly held in Asia and was passed to the Greeks and Egyptians, and from them to the Romans, as St Augustine says below:

drawing from the Wujing daquan: “鬼神自造化而言, 是專言之也; 主乎祭祀而言, 是偏言 之也.”

156

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Therefore, they make all sorts of assertions in their cosmological reasonings and disputations. In one account, Jupiter is the soul of this world and fills and moves that whole mass that has been made and fastened together from four or however many elements. In another, he grants its parts to his sister (that is Juno) and his brothers (that is the other elements). In another, he is the aether, so that he may embrace from Juno the air, spread out beneath him. In another, he is the whole heaven, together with the air, but he fertilises the earth with his rain and seeds as if it were his spouse and mother. In another, he is the one God about whom many believe the poet spoke about when he said that: “For God passes through all, lands and tracts of sea, and the depths of the heaven.”189 Let him be Jupiter in aether; Juno in the Air; Neptune in the sea; Salacia in the lower parts of the sea; Pluto in the earth; Prosperina in the lower earth; Vesta in the domestic hearths; Vulcan in the kilns of blacksmiths; Sun, Moon and stars in the constellations; Apollo among diviners; Saturn in time; Minerva in natural dispositions; and finally also that hord of plebeian gods, so to speak. All these things which I have said, and whatever I have not said (for I have not thought that all things ought to be said), all these gods and goddesses are the one Jupiter; whether they all are (as some would have it) his parts, or his virtues, as it seems to them. There are those who also like to think that he is the soul of the world: this is the opinion of of the great and many learned.

Likewise, in Chapter 12 it is written as follows: If the soul of the world is God, the world is the body of that soul, such that it is one animal consisting of mind and body, and that God is the bosom of nature, containing in himself everything, so that the lives and souls of many living creatures stem from his soul, by which this whole mass is enlivened, each according to the manner of its birth, nothing can remain that is not a part of God.190

[N.o 2] On this point, Juan Luis Vives191 says that this opinion of Pythagoras, namely that all things are parts of God, is the same as to 189 Augustine quotes Virgil, Georgics, 4.221f. 190 Augustine, City of God, 4.12. 191 Juan Luis Vives (Latin: Ioannes Ludovicus Vives), 1493–1540, Spanish humanist. Longobardo might have used Vives’ edition of Augustine’s De civitate Dei (1522) because the following two citations from the Aeneid and Georgics are taken from this work. See Augustine, De civitate Dei libri xxii, ed. Juan Luis Vives (Basil, 1555), 245.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

157

say that in the universe there is nothing except one thing alone, which is either chaos or prime Matter, which is called by them God or mind. The sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid expresses this Pythagorean view in this way: In the beginning, the heaven and earth, the liquid plains, the shining globe of the moon, Titan’s star,192 are sustained by the spirit within; and the whole mass is stirred by Mind, infused through the limbs, and the birth of people and animals are mixed in the great body, and the lives of the birds, and those beasts harboured by the water under its marble surface. Fiery is the vigour and celestial the origin of those seeds, so far as harmful bodies do not hinder them, and the earthly limbs and deadly members do not weaken them.193

And in the Fourth Georgic: With these signs, and having followed these examples They said that the bees have a part of the divine mind and a draught of the heavenly ether. For God travels through all the lands and tracts of the sea, and the depths of heaven. Hence the flocks, herds, men and every sort of beast, and each at birth has drawn slender life. That is to say, all thins then will be returned unto him, and when dissolved, will be restored, and nor will be there any place for death, but alive they will fly in the number of the stars, and climb to the heights of heaven.194

[N.o 3] From what has been written above, it is clear what they understand by the notion that all things are one thing alone, out of which they originated and into which they will be resolved in the end. Hence they are moved to call it God, since they do not know anything greater. The Chinese {literati} have constructed the same understanding of their li or taiji, thinking that it is the substance {and essence} of all things, or rather filling the whole spirit and carrying the whole universe. They

192 i.e. the Sun, called Titan in Virgil, Aeneid, 4.119. 193 Virgil, Aeneid, 6.724–732. 194 Virgil, Georgics 4.219–227.

158

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

speak at length about this topic in their books. Here I will relate three or four more important points. [N.o 4] In first place, so that there is no misunderstanding about terms, it must be noted that whatever they call li and taiji is one and the same substance and being as the first principle of the whole universe.195 The only difference between them is a certain formality, which is proper to each. That which is called li {which has the same meaning as the common and universal reason of all things and of nature} denotes its own being alone as distinct from every other respect. That which is called taiji {which is that primordial air emanated from that li by motion, as is said in Prelude 5, N.o 3} denotes the same entity as li insofar as it is the fundament and hinge of all things and exists in the midst of them, just like how the North Pole is in the midst of the heaven and stars and like how a king is in the midst of his kingdom and subjects.196 [N.o 5] Secondly, in the Xingli, Book 26 (page 8) it is said that this taiji or this li is the cause on account of which heaven is always in movement, but the earth already remains fixed whereas people and things are always incessantly in generation.197 The reason for this is that li or taiji is within these things, like their governor or ruler. This is indeed the same function that is attributed to the spirits, and the same author named Chen Beixi posits it in his definition of {the Supreme King or Lord, called} Shangdi, saying that he is called so because he rules or governs, etc.198

195 The identity between li and taiji was affirmed by Zhu Xi, and Longobardo mentions Zhu Xi’s words in Chinese, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 5a: “ 太極只是一箇理字.” 196 Longobardo provides the quote in Chinese, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 7b: “太極只是以理言也, 理緣何又謂之極?極, 至也。以其在中有樞, 極之義如皇極、北 極等, 皆有在中之義, 不可便訓極為中.” 197 Santa Maria’s Latin translation has “res agunt suas operationes semper incessanter.” However, in the original Portuguese Longobardo writes, “as cousas sempre fazem suas gerações sem cessar.” Morales’ Latin translation is a more accurate translation of Longobardo’s text: “homines et res semper agunt suas generationes incessanter.” We have followed Longobardo’s text in rendering this passage. 198 Longobardo gives a passage of Chen Chun (Chen Beixi) in Chinese, drawn from

the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 8a–b: “若太極云者, 乃是就理論天之所以萬古常運, 地之所以 萬古長存, 人物之所以萬古生生不息, 不是各各自恁地都是理。在其中為之主宰便自然如此, 就其為天地萬物主宰處論, 恁地渾淪極至, 故以太極名之, 葢總天地萬物之理, 到此凑合, 更無去處。及散而為天地、為人、為物, 又皆一一停勻, 無少虧欠, 所以謂之太極.” Despite Longobardo’s claim, Shangdi is not mentioned in this passage, only zhuzai 主宰.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

159

[N.o 6] Again, in the Xingli, volume 1 (page 31), it is shown that this li {or universal reason of all nature} dominates the things of the {whole} universe, and therefore nothing lacking is found in them. Thus when heat goes away, cold follows; when the Sun moves further way, the Moon comes closer: in spring the sprouts emerge; in summer they take root199 ; in autumn they mature; but then in winter they withdraw. In the beginning, rooting, maturing and withdrawal of things, the beginning, together with the end of things, turn as if in a wheel: and from the beginning of all antiquity, it was thus, because the rule and dominion of that true and solid li, {which is the universal intrinsic reason of the whole nature of things}.200 [N.o 7] Fourthly, again in the Xingli, volume 26 (page 9) it is said that taiji {or primordial Air} is the origin and cause of the production and end of the whole universe with these words: “Before the world was produced, taiji, {that is this Air,} was reason for there being chaos. After the production of the world, this taiji was also the reason for there being heaven and earth, people and other things. After the end of the world, taiji will also be the reason for things and people being completely ended, and heaven and earth being reunited in their first chaos. But taiji always exists and remains in the same way in the beginning as in the end.”201 On account of these and similar discussions on li and taiji found in Chinese books, it can be gathered that they do not and cannot conceive of anything greater. Here, however, some important questions may arise, so I will therefore outline them below with their answers.

199 “In primo vere” is literally “early spring” and “in medio veris” is literally “mid spring” in Latin, but in Portuguese “primavera” simply means “spring” and “verão” means “summer.” Hence what is meant here is “spring” and “summer,” respectively. 200 Another quote from Chen Chun (Chen Beixi) given by Longobardo in Chinese,

drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 1, 27a: “天道流行, 自古及今, 無一毫之妄。暑往則 寒來, 日往則月來。春生了便夏長, 秋殺了便冬蔵。元亨利貞, 終始循環, 萬古常如此, 皆是真 實道理為之主宰.” The indication of page 31 in all our manuscripts is a mistake. 201 This quote of Zhou Dunyi’s Taijitu shuo 太極圖說 is given in Chinese by Longobardo, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 9a–b: “開物之前, 渾沌未[太]始。 混元 之如此者, 太極為之也。開物之後, 有天地、有人物, 如此者, 太極為之也。 閉物之後, 人銷物 盡, 天地又合為渾沌者, 亦太極為之也。太極常常如此, 始終一般, 無增無減, 無分無合, 故以 未判已判言太極者, 不知道之言也.” In the Portuguese manuscript of APF, parts of the Chinese quote cannot be read, but the other three manuscripts consulted have the character of wei 未 instead of tai 太. Santa Maria omits in his translation “não ha acrecentarlhe nem ha tirarlhe etc” (there is no need to add to it or remove anything from it).

160

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 8] The first question: if, as it has been said, this li or taiji is the greatest thing, why don’t the Chinese sacrifice to them, or entrust themselves to them, as they do with other much lesser things?202 The first reply is that since sacrifices have been instituted for the good governance of the people, it was seen as more fitting for the sacrifices to be offered to the things which can be seen and understood by the people, such as the sky, earth and mountains together with the spirits or operative virtues which they recognise in them. As for taiji, however, they leave it aside without any worship and it is not worshipped by any of the Chinese because it is a most hidden thing, which according to Confucius’ rule ought not be investigated by the common people. My second reply is that the wiser Rujiao literati, {that is the Chinese scholastics,} either do not perform these sacrifices, thinking them merely a political ceremony, or are happy enough to offer them to private spirits, understanding that they are as it were the members and parts of that universal spirit. Thus one day, a certain learned man by the name Wu Benru, dutang of Liaodong {that is, a great mandarin of a certain province} said to us that they could adore a vase which he was holding in his hands with some beverage inside, since he knew (he said) that within the vase was his taiji and it was in the same form as it is in heaven and in other parts of the universe.203 [N.o 9] The second question: how is this taiji understood to be a universal spirit while the spirits of the sky and earth and other parts of the universe are like its members or parts? Response: various analogies can be made (according to the teaching of the Rujiao {or literati [sect]}). Firstly, it is like water which as a general concept can be contrasted with particular waters of the sea, rivers, wells, etc. Secondly, it is like our soul, which in general governs the whole body and in particular all its members. Thirdly, it is like the essence and universal nature which can be considered abstractly by itself, and concretely in relation to individuals. Fourthly, it is like prime matter, which since it is a general being is distributed into many secondary material things according to the diversity of qualities which it assumes.204 Fifthly and lastly, it is like a mass of wax, which after being 202 Ricci had already remarked that Chinese do not pay respect to taiji. See Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Boston: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2016), 81. 203 For Wu Benru, see above Prelude 11, N.o 8, and below Prelude 17, N.o 1. 204 Santa Maria’s Latin text adds the notion of “actualization” at this point (iuxta

diversitatem qualitatum quibus actuatur et induitur) but this is absent in Longobardo’s Portuguese text (conforme a diversidade das qualidades de que se vai vestindo).

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

161

melted can be moulded into various figures of trees, leaves, animals, etc. After the figures have solidified, the same original wax remains in them as before. Through these comparisons, therefore, it can be well understood how taiji is the universal substance and spirit of the whole universe, and at the same time the particular spirit of all its parts. An authority has expressed this view in volume 1 of the Xingli (page 6) saying that all things are one and the same taiji.205 In this place, a comment adds more {specifically}206 that everything has its own taiji in itself.207 The same is said in relation to li in volume 26 of the Xingli (page 1), which puts it like this: li, {that is, the reason or universal substance of all nature,} is indeed one, but its parts are many.208 When speaking in general terms about the sky, the earth, and all things there is no more than one li, that is, than one general reason of the whole nature of the universe. But when speaking about people and other things on an individual level, everything has its own li, {that is, it has its own special reason}. [N.o 10] The third question: from the authorities and comparisons outlined above, it is proven only that there is one and the same substance in the whole world and in all its parts. However, it is still not clear how that universal spirit is one and the same with all the particular spirits. Therefore, the question is asked now in what does the formal reason of a spirit consist according to the Chinese? My reply: since it has already been proven that there is only one substance in the whole world, it is proven by way of consequence that there is only one spirit. The reason is that substance and spirit are not two things, but one and the same considered under two formalities: the former of its own being, the latter of its activity, or the same being insofar as it is the beginning of its activity. Now, therefore, since there is one substance in the whole world and in any of its parts, thus the spirit is accordingly one and the same, even if it is universal insofar as it rules the universe, and insofar as it rules its

205 Longobardo gives in Chinese: “萬物一太極.” This is drawn from Xingli daquan, juan 1, 2b. The indication of page 6 is probably a mistake. 206 Longobardo originally stated in Portuguese that this comment is more universal

(clausula mais universal ), but Santa Maria instead says that it is more specific (individuanter). 207 Longobardo gives in Chinese: “是萬物各一太極.” This is drawn from Xingli daquan, juan 1, 21b: “物物各一太極.” 208 Words of Cheng Yi are given in Chinese: “理一分殊合, 天地萬物而言, 只是一箇理, 及在人物又各自有一箇理.” This is drawn from Xingli daquan, juan 26, 1b–2a.

162

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

parts it is particular. I saw this doctrine brilliantly debated by the learned man Huang Yuntai 黃運泰, mandarin of the Taipusi 太僕寺 [Ministry of Horses], and by the learned man Zhou Muqian 周慕乾, mandarin of the Libu 禮部 [Ministry of Rites], and by other people well versed in the three sects.209 [N.o 11] Fourth question: having granted this teaching about the universal spirit, there is now a question about the spirit of heaven called Shangdi, {that is, the Supreme King}. What relationship does it have with the other individual spirits of the earth, mountains, waters and the like? My reply is that they agree in some things and differ in others. Firstly, they agree in terms of their substantial being, which in all things is the same as the being of the first principle. Hence, as far as this point is concerned, there is no difference of greater or lesser nobility and perfection between them, but rather they are all equal. Secondly, they agree in terms of their origin, since they were all produced by taiji {or by that primordial air}, when the sky and the earth were produced with the other things in which they reside. Thus since they are all one and the same thing, they cannot be separated. Thirdly, they agree in their final termination, since all spirits will see an ultimate end, when the things to which the spirits belong finally end. This is because according to the beliefs of the Chinese literati, there will indeed be a general end of the world once time has been concluded, which the Chinese call taisui, as mentioned above. [N.o 12] These spirits differ, however, in first place according to the relative greatness of the places over which they preside. Secondly, they differ in their qualities and other accidental dispositions, which conform to the places or things to which they pertain. Thirdly, they differ in their activities, which are more or less perfect according to the places, things and qualities upon which they depend. This suffices, therefore, to show how all spirits and gods of the Chinese are reduced to only one thing, which they have conceived as the first principle {of the universe} and called li or taiji. Since this is none other than prime matter, or that Air according to Rujiao or the teaching of the literati, it is a vivid image of that European Jupiter. Thus, Valerius Soranus’ couplet can be quite rightly be applied to both: 209 Li Tiangang proposed Zhou Jiamo 周嘉謨, but he is from Hubei, and not a member of the Libu. Song Liming identifies him as Zhou Muqian 周慕乾. See also Prelude 17, N.o 2. For more information on Huang Yuntai and Zhou Muqian, see the chapter by Song Liming above.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

163

Jupiter almighty, father of kings, the material world and gods, and mother of the gods: God is one and all.210

6.16 Prelude 14. On the Various Names and Attributes Which the Chinese Attribute to This First Principle of the World and Its Universal Substance So that the nature and conditions of this first principle can be better understood, in this prelude I intend to point out the various names and attributes, which the literati use for this [first principle] according to the teaching of their Rujiao school. [N.o 1] First and foremost, it is called li 理. With this term they signify being itself or substance and the being of all things in general, imagining that there is an immense, infinite, eternal, ungenerable and incorruptible substance without beginning and without end. According to the Chinese, this is not only the physical principle of the sky and earth and other corporeal things, but also the moral principle of virtues, habits and of other spiritual things. Hence arises their celebrated axiom, “wanwu yiti,” that is, “all things are one.” Another similar maxim is “gewu qiongli,” that is “to exhaust the nature and property of things,” that is, to understand the being of things {until the end}.211 [N.o 2] Second, it is called wuji 無極, that is the invisible principle, because that universal substance when considered only by itself was utterly invisible before it became visible by means of the quality of change. It is still now invisible in terms of its metaphysical abstraction when considered according to its being alone, separated from all individuating qualities.212 [N.o 3] Third, it is called taiji 太極, that is the first and supreme principle because all things have flowed out of it by means of emanation and again will return to it at the end of the world. It is also called taiji because 210 Quintus Valerius Soranus (ca. 135 BC–82 BC). Latin poet and tribune of the people. This is the only extant text attributed to him. It was handed down to posterity by Augustine in City of God, 7.9. 211 Santa Maria’s wording diverges slightly from Longobardo’s Portuguese text: “E aquelle outro, K˘e ua˘e Kium ˘ Ly: chegar ao intimo das cousas, e esgotar a sua essentia e natureça.” It is possible that Santa Maria misread “intimo” as “ultimo”, thus translating “chegar ao intimo” as “usque ad ultimum quod sic.” 212 In the Taijitu shuo, Zhou Dunyi considers wuji as prior to taiji.

164

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

in itself it is supreme with every type of perfection and perfect in the highest degree.213 [N.o 4] Fourth, it is called taixu 太虛, that is immense vacuum and supreme capacity because in the universal essence are contained the essences of all particular things, just like in a spring are contained the waters of different rivers, and in the root of a tree are contained the trunk, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits.214 [N.o 5] Fifth, it is called taiyi 太乙, that is, supreme oneness: for just as in numbers, the principle of all things is oneness, which being indivisible in itself is their principle. Thus among the essences of this universe there is only one essence that is supremely one and incapable of any division in terms of its being, and this is the principle of other things, which are and can be in nature.215 [N.o 6] Sixth, it is called hundun 混沌, that is, a mixture or cluster, since the essences of all things are collectively in the being of this first principle, not in actuality, but virtually as if in seed. Therefore, when that aggregate was divided in the production of the universe, the pure and light substance ascended to make heaven whereas the earth was formed from the descent of the dense and heavy substance.216 [N.o 7] Seventh, it is called hunlun 渾淪, that is, ball-like and spherical, because before the production of the world, the substance of the first principle was like an extremely round sphere, which has neither beginning nor end.217

213 In fact, for Zhu Xi, li, taiji and wuji are identical, but Longobardo suggests in fact the unfolding of a cosmogenesis in different temporal stages, something similar to the Bible. 214 The concept of taixu is mentioned in the Zhuangzi, but it refers here to the concept developed by Zhang Zai in the first chapter “Taihe 太和” (Great harmony) of his Zhengmeng 正蒙 (Correcting youthful ignorance). 215 Taiyi may refer to a Taoist divinity residing in the pole star, or to a principle of number divination (shushu 數術) based on the Yijing . 216 Hundun refers to the Daoist notion of chaos and was used by Shao Yong to express the idea of an ordered chaos. See the chapter by Meynard above. 217 Hunlun is also a Daoist concept for chaos.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

165

[N.o 8] Eighth, it is called hongmeng 鴻濛, that is, the greatest void, because it can receive and gather in itself all things and there can be nothing beyond it.218 [N.o 9] Ninth, it is called yuanqi 元氣: that is, the original or primordial Air which is that first universal substance, but arranged and prepared with those five changes (as is explained in Prelude 5, N.o 3) so that it can act. Thus primordial Air both denotes that first quality which germinated from that first cause called li and also signifies its very being disposed to act through this Air as its instrument, since following the rules of good philosophy: “Actions are of the individual” (actiones sunt suppositorum).219 [N.o 10] Tenth, it is called tianzai 天載, that is, the thing which exists in the sky, or which is contained by the sky, because although this universal substance of the first principle is in all things as if in individual things, it is said that it is especially in the sky, because heaven is the most excellent thing in the whole universe, and causality and efficient power shine forth more brilliantly in it than in any other thing. [N.o 11] Eleventh, it is called tianming 天命, that is, gift of heaven,220 because out of the secondary causes heaven is the most general cause, which has the greatest share of the efficient power in the production of things. Consequently, it is said that the nature and {reason}221 of that first principle is communicated from heaven to things, and therefore is called the gift of heaven. [N.o 12] Twelfth, it is called tiandao 天道, that is the rule or natural condition of heaven, insofar as it causes all things to be governed or

218 In the myth of the creation of the world by Pangu 盤古, hongmeng refers to the

original chaos. 219 “Actiones sunt suppositorum” refers to the fact that the subject of an action is not the part, as the hand, or an organ, as the eye, or even the form, as the soul, but the individual substance. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 2a2ae, q. 58.2. Longobardo’s wording here is slightly different: “De modo que o Ar primigenio per huma parte denota a primeira qualidade que emanou da Substantia da Ly, e lhe serve como de instrumento conionto: e per outra significa a mesma Substantia da Ly disposta ja pera operar.” (Thus primordial Air signifies the first quality which germinated from that first substance li, and serves as a conjoined instrument, and also the same substance li disposed to act.) 220 A more appropriate translation of tianming would be “heavenly mandate.” 221 Longobardo’s Portuguese text has here “Substantia” (substance).

166

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

guided with their due symmetry. But this does not involve any intelligence or discursive choice, but only a certain natural inclination and order. [N.o 13] Thirteenth, it is called wuxing 物性, that is, the essence or nature of things insofar as that particular things participate in the universal nature of the first principle just as, for example, the material of metal or clay is considered when fashioned and divided in various vases. [N.o 14] Fourteenth, it is called zhicheng 至誠, that is, supreme solidity and fullness, because that first universal nature and being fills all things and itself is being and the very being of all things. It is extensively treated in the book Zhongyong , especially from Chapter 20 to Chapter 25 where it must be noted that the nature of the first principle is extended both within and outside the universe, constituting both the physical and moral being of all things. [N.o 15] They attribute to this solidity and universal being three properties, which we attribute to being in general: namely, oneness, truth and goodness. As for oneness, in Book 34 of the Xingli (page 19) they say that in the world there is no more than one li, {that is, than one nature or universal essence}.222 In the same place they add that the being of any particular thing is itself the being of all things.223 On page 20 they infer that the reason for saying that all things are one is because of this same being.224 This is more clearly expressed in volume 26 of the Xingli (page 7) with these words: all things have their own being, all beings proceed from the one principle which is that taiji. But this taiji, that is, the origin of all things, is the universal term, which includes in itself all beings.225 [N.o 16] They also attribute to it another property of being, which is truth: and so the ordinary commentary on the book Zhongyong (page 19) says that that solidity of the universal nature is a true thing without a

222 Chinese text given by Longobardo, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 34, 19b: “天下只是一箇理.” 223 Chinese text given by Longobardo: “天下之理, 即萬物之理.” The Xingli daquan,

juan 34, 19b, has something sligthly different: “隨時觀理, 而天下之理矣.”

224 Chinese text given by Longobardo, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 34, 20a: “所以謂萬物一者皆有此理.” 225 Longobardo gives the words of Zhen Dexiu 真德秀 (1178–1235) in Chinese, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 7a: “萬物各具一理, 萬理同出一原, 所謂萬物一原者, 太極也。太極者, 乃萬理統會之名.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

167

single particle of falsity; rather it is truth itself, and this is the proper and natural being of heaven.226 [N.o 17] And they attribute to this goodness, which is the final property of being, as seen in volume 1 of the Xingli (page 19) where it is said that taiji or the first principle is good out of necessity and simplicity.227 In volume 26 (page 9) they say that supreme good is xu 虛, that is empty and free {from every impurity}.228 They say that xu 229 {which is most pure and empty} is the parent of heaven and earth, since heaven and earth emanated from it.230 [N.o 18] Therefore, to the same universal nature they attribute all types of such perfection that nothing greater could be imagined. They speak about this in many places of their teachings. But it suffices for our purposes to refer to one passage from volume 26 of the Xingli (page 7) where it says that the reason why this taiji, {the first principle,} is something supremely great and sublime, is that it is the universal nature, and thus it is the supreme mean and supreme rectitude; it is supreme perfection, supreme perfection, supreme purity, and supremely spiritual, and supremely imperceivable {or unthinkable}. In conclusion, it is supremely perfect and it is not possible for anything to be added to it.231 [N.o 19] Therefore, on account of these wondrous attributes and perfections, which the Chinese literati proclaim about this universal nature, consequently they say that it is {sublime and} of such incomparable excellence and dignity that there is nothing like or equal to it, as is 226 Longobardo gives in Chinese the quote of Zhongyong 20, drawn from the “ordinary commentary,” i.e. Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu, juan 1, 19a–b: “誠者, 真實無妄之謂, 天 理之本然也.” 227 Longobardo provides the following Chinese text: “太極固純之善.” This seems to continue the passage of the Xingli daquan, juan 1, 19a: “所謂 ‘繼之者善’、 ‘誠之複’是 萬物已得此理,而皆有所歸藏之時所謂 ‘成之者性’.” 228 Santa Maria adds “from every impurity” (ab omni impuritate), but the Portuguese text does not mention the concept of purity, which does not seem to have any relation with xu. 229 Santa Maria adds “which is most pure and empty” (purissimum et inane), but again

the Portuguese text does not mention purity. 230 The Chinese text given by Longobardo is drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 11a: “至善者, 虛也。 虛者, 天地之祖, 天地從虛中來.” 231 These are the words of Chen Chun (Chen Beixi), which are given by Longobardo in Chinese, drawn from the Xingli daquan, juan 26, 7b: “太極之所以為極至者, 言此理 至中、至正、至精、至粹, 至神、至妙, 至矣、盡矣, 不可以復加矣.”

168

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

seen in Book 2 of the Lunyu (page 5).232 And although in the passage these words of praise are used in relation to heaven, it is done so insofar as heaven is the same thing as that li or universal nature. For this reason, the style of writing used by the literati in the books of the Rujiao sect ought to be noted, because when they want to use words to extol {the Most High, whom they call} Shangdi, they say that it is the same thing as ethereal heaven: but when they want to magnify heaven, they say that heaven is one and the same thing as li, {the universal nature, first origin of all things}. But when they speak about this li, or first nature, they say that it is the greatest thing through itself, {out of itself, and by itself}. Since it has always been there through itself from all eternity and for eternity, it will be without end, and it is the first principle, and the final end of all things, even of the Supreme Lord himself, that is {the Emperor} Shangdi, and of heaven itself, as has been shown above.233 [N.o 20] It seems to me that someone could perhaps wonder whether the Chinese literati wished to indicate the creator of all things and our true God with the term li or taiji, since such wondrous attributes can belong to our true God alone and not to any other. But to this I reply, “Take heed, take heed! For a snake lies under the grass234 and a dreadful Leviathan under the calm wave.” Let no one be seduced by so many wondrous titles, but let us first thoroughly examine the object to which the Chinese attribute such wondrous things. {What or what thing is it? And quickly he will find that} it is nothing else than our physical prime matter. {For those wondrous words are false and external.} It is proven with sufficient clarity from the very teaching of the Chinese that, notwithstanding the many perfections attributed to this li, {the universal being,} they attribute also many imperfections to it, as our own philosophers did. First of all, they do not attribute to it its own substance, but rather it needs to be sustained by its qi, that is by that primordial coeval Air, which is equivalent to our coeval quantity. Secondly, they say that it is something stupid without capacity for judgement, intelligence or life. Thirdly, 232 The Lunyu does not discuss li 理, but in reference to the reverence towards tian

天 (heaven) in Lunyu 3.13, Zhu Xi identified heaven with li: “天, 即理也.” Longobardo gives those words in reference to li 理, drawn from Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu, juan 2, 5b: “其尊無對.” 233 Longobardo makes the point that Shangdi, identified by Ricci as the equivalent of God, is not in Chinese philosophy the ultimate reality. 234 Virgil, Eclogue 3.93.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

169

they say that it cannot perform any action except through its coeval Air and with other qualities emanating from it by chance. Fourthly, they say that it is only a subject of all generations and corruptions when having assumed or taken off various qualities, out of which the being of all things is constituted and distinguished as if out of accidental forms that influence or actuate it. Fifthly, they say or they are bound to say according to the principles of their philosophy that all things of the universe are material, and that by no means can anything be posited which is really a pure spirit, as our God, the Angels and the rational soul are. Some of these properties of prime mater and the first principle as conceived by the Chinese philosophers can be seen in the treatises on the first principle of the world called li, [qi]235 and taiji, in volume 26 of the Xingli, that is, in the {Chinese Physics }.236 Likewise, in volume 34 it can be seen in a particular treatise on li, {the general reason of all nature}. [N.o 21] Secondly I reply that from earliest antiquity no one in China adored this principle of the world called li or taiji, nor anyone who made sacrifice to it because both the wise and foolish alike all think that religious worship ought not to be bestowed except to visible things according to the teaching of the eighth book of the Liji (page 42).237 It truly can be deduced that the philosophers of Rujiao, {or the Chinese school,} were either extremely stupid or outwardly feigned a religion, which they did not have within. Because if, according to them, their li or taiji, which is regarded as the first origin of the world, has no divinity, heaven which is its effect can much less have it, and much less that Most High [being] called Shangdi can be divine, who according to them is only the operative or governing virtue of heaven. And still much less divine can be considered their other gods and lower spirits, which pertain to the mountains, waters and other parts of the universe.

235 This is mentioned in the Portuguese text, but is absent in Santa Maria’s translation. 236 This refers to two sections of juan 26: liqiyi 理氣一 and taiji 太極. In the

Portuguese text, Longobardo translates Xingli as Philosophia sinica, but Santa Maria has a more restrictive translation of Sinensis Physica, or Chinese natural philosophy. The confusion between the philosophia and physica can be attributed to Longobardo’s use of an abbreviation (Phiá), which can in fact be read in both ways. However, in certain parts Longobardo clearly spells physica with a “y”, suggesting that Phiá must be an abbreviation of philosophia. 237 This refers to chapter 24 of the Liji (祭義第二十四) on juan 8 of the Liji jishuo in the Wujing daquan.

170

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

6.17 Prelude 15. What Is Life and Death According to the Chinese Literati Sect in Order to See Whether [for Them] Our Soul Is Immortal and in What Way [N.o 1] Above all, according to the Chinese teaching, certain axioms must be presupposed. First, all things are one and the same being or universal substance and do not differ among themselves except in terms of their exterior appearance and particular qualities. Second, substance and universal being produce qualities by emanation, as if by a material cause. Thus, they cannot be separated from it without {passive} corruption of themselves. Third, that universal substance, after being disposed and qualified with that primordial air, is distributed into secondary causes, which are heaven, earth and the elements. Thus when the secondary causes operate, the universal substance also cooperates within them insofar as it is the first cause, even if the denomination of operations is taken not from the universal substance but from the secondary causes, just as it happens among us, because when they work together and compose mixed bodies, we make no mention of prime matter, although it is within those elements. [N.o 2] Let us consider four terms or formalities of the universal substance insofar as they relate now to our purposes. First, when considered in relation to its own being, or insofar as it is in heaven, it is called li 理 (that is, the reason of all nature). Second, insofar as it is infused or derived from heaven, which among the secondary causes is the most general cause, it is called ming 命 (that is, mandate from heaven). Third, insofar as it is received by things, it is called xing 性, that is the quiddity or essence. Fourth, insofar as it conducts its operations within things, it is called zhu 主 or zhuzai 主宰, that is, lord or governor. And when this last formality is applied to a person it is said that the heart of a person is his or her own zhuzai, that is, the governor of a person, because the heart of a person is sovereign, ruling everything which is within a person both in the physical and moral realms. [N.o 3] First, I say that the life of a person {according to Chinese teaching} consists in the fact that the parts of heaven and earth are harmonious and united in a person. The being of heaven is a certain most pure and light air of a fiery nature, out of which the soul of a person is formed, or the vital and animal spirits, which are called hun 魂 {or soul}. But the being of earth is a certain heavy or weighty air of earthly nature, out of

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

171

which the body of a person is conjoined with all its humours and is called po 魄, {that is, corpse}. [N.o 4] Second, I say that the death of a person consists in the fact that the heavenly and earthly parts out of which he or she had been constructed are severed and are returned into those places to which they belong. Hence the hun or soul ascends into heaven, and po or corpse descends into the earth. This is treated in Book 1 of the Shujing (page 16) where the death of a king named Yao is described with these words: “cu luo” (殂落).238 These words are explained in their comment in this way: “He ascends and descends, that is, he departed from life because when a person dies, the fiery or airy being returns into heaven, and the bodily composite returns into earth.”239 Hence it is noted that the Chinese call air our soul, and this designation is used in many passages of their teaching. And thus it cannot go beyond the sphere of corporeity even if it is considered most subtle, pure, invisible and imperceptible to the external senses.240 [N.o 5] Third, I say that as for the immortality of [the soul] after its separation from the body, both the soul and its {formal} body completely lose the being (which they had before) while only the heavenly and earthly beings remain as they were before they united to form the person. Hence immortality or permanence (which is what it is among the Chinese) no longer pertains to the parts of a person who was, but to two entities of heaven and earth, which remain as general causes in their substantial being and they are changed only in terms of their accidental form.241 In the way, much more ought to be understood about that li or universal substance, which never can suffer the detriment of any change, neither in relation to its substantial being, nor in terms of time or place, but always remains free from harm and immobile in general causes. All this is clearly seen in

238 “Shundian 舜典” (Canon of Shun) of the Shujing: “After twenty-eight years the emperor demised” (二十有八載, 帝乃殂落); James Legge, Chinese Classics, vol. 3.1 (London: Trübner, 1865), 40. 239 Comment of Wu Cheng 吳澄 (1249–1333) on the “Shundian” drawn probably

from the Wujing daquan: “殂落, 死也。死者魂氣升于天, 故曰殂; 體魄降于地, 故曰落.”

240 Ricci had argued that the po elements are material and the hun elements are spiritual. See Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 145. However, Longobardo considers that even hun, being air, is material. 241 Indeed, Longobardo’s understanding of the hun po elements was more correct than Ricci, since those elements after some time ultimately disperse into heaven and earth.

172

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Book 28 of the Xingli (page 41) in the treatise on life and death. I will quote only the words of an author named Chengzi 程子 who said: “When a person is generated and born (which happens because of the reciprocal conjunction of the entities of heaven and earth), that universal nature by no means comes. But when he or she dies (which happens because of the reciprocal severing of the two aforementioned entities) the same universal nature by no means departs. However, since pure air, which is the entity of heaven, returns into heaven, and bodily composite, which is the entity of earth, returns into earth, therefore it is said that the universal nature departs.”242 [N.o 6] From the teaching of this author [Chengzi] can be inferred the literal meaning of that passage from the book Shijing (page 1) where it says that Wen Wang {who is an extremely ancient king} when ascending into heaven seats on the right and left of the Most High King called Shangdi.243 First of all, {the Chinese literati do not understand at all, nor think} that this king or his soul is there or standing there in a living and formal way (as the words suggest) except a part of the heavenly air, which was in another time the soul of the King Wen Wang.244 Secondly, they say that this air ascends and descends, and stands or is present on the left and on the right so as to signify that it is of the same condition and nature with all the air of heaven.245 For the same reason they call the separated soul youhun 游魂, that is, wandering soul.246 It wanders here and there, like the air of the heavenly region which wanders everywhere.

242 Quote from Chengzi given by Longobardo in Chinese, drawn from the Xingli

daquan, juan 28, 41a: “合而生, 非來也; 盡而死, 非往也。然而精氣歸於天, 形魄歸於地, 謂之往亦可矣.”

243 Longobardo cites the Shijing and writes the Chinese characters in the margin: “文 王陟降, 在帝左右.” There is already an allusion to this passage in Prelude 2, N.o 1. 244 Ricci had used similar quotes of the Five Classics to show that the ancient Chinese believed that the soul of Wen Wang was still alive and protecting the country; see Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 145. Through this secular explanation, Longobardo destroys Ricci’s argumentation. 245 This refers to the second part of the previous quote of the Shijing : “On the right and left of God” (在帝左右). James Legge, Chinese Classics, vol. 4.2 (London: Frowde, 1893), 428. 246 In scholastic philosophy, separated soul (anima separata) refers to the soul as separated from the body after death, and waiting for the resurrection of the body. While the separated soul retains its individuality, the youhun in Chinese thought disappears into heaven and loses all individuality.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

173

Third, the air of heaven in this place is also called Shangdi, that is, the lord and governor, to show its likeness with the air of the soul. Just as this heavenly air lords and governs in the ethereal body of heaven, so that air of the soul lords and governs in the human body, and is its formality out of which the substance of thing is called spirit, as said above in Prelude 11, N.o 12. [N.o 7] Fourth, I say that the Chinese literati attribute true immortality to nothing other than this universal nature called li, which preceded all things and after the final consummation and end of these things, that alone will remain unscathed, just as our philosophers spoke about prime matter. As for {that Most High being called} Shangdi, the other spirits of the mountains, earth and waters at the end of the world all must finish in the consumation of things, in which they reside. Then nothing will remain except this first universal nature alone, completely freed from all figures, {forms,} and qualities, just as it was before all things, before it began to assume and actuate them.247 For this reason, the literati of the Rujiao sect are all persuaded that after death they must return again to kong 空, that is, to {that immense void of} the first principle from which they emanated.248

6.18 Prelude 16. The Wisest of Those Chinese Literati Professing the Rujiao Sect Are All in the End Led to the Sea of Atheism This point must be understood in relation to both the ancient and modern literati. Therefore, in this prelude I will discuss both. [N.o 1] As for the modern literati, Fr Matteo Ricci in the Chinese History (Book 1, Chapter 10) clearly asserts that almost all of them are atheists, as he says below:

247 Portuguese text is clearer here: “E então não havera mais que huma Natureça universal despida de todas as figuras e qualidades, como hera antes que começasse a vestirse dellas.” 248 In fact, Confucianism rejects the Buddhist category of kong, or emptiness. In the fourth figure of Prelude 5 on Anterior Heaven, Longobardo had already inserted this category of kong, and mentioned it also in Prelude 10.

174

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Over the course of the centuries, that first light has been so obscured, that if perhaps they abstain from the empty cult of gods, there are a few of them who do not fall into the even greater error of atheism.249

He makes the same point at the end of the chapter saying: But in these times, the most commonly accepted opinion of all the wise is that these three laws (the three principal sects of China: one of the literati and two of the idols) merge into one, and all can and should be observed together. For this reason, they most confusingly bring both themselves and others into error, having thought that the more ways there are for speaking about religion, the more these questions about religion are useful for the public good. In the end, they obtain something very different from what they had expected. For while they profess that they can observe all those three laws at the same time, they find themselves without any law. [...]250 And so many of them openly admit that they have no religion, and those who deceive themselves with a false belief, and for the most part everybody is deeply entrenched in the error of atheism.251

These are the words of Fr Ricci about the modern literati. We all agree on this without any distinction. [N.o 2] As for the ancient authors, Fr Matteo Ricci says in the same place that they recognised and honoured a supreme deity, calling him Shangdi {that is the Most High Lord or Emperor} and other spirits inferior to him, and thinks that they were not atheists, but rather had knowledge of the true God. But I beg the pardon of the good father and of the others among us who agree with him. I am persuaded that the ancient authors were also atheists, or leaned in that direction, as indicated by the principles of their teaching, which is seen in their writings.

249 Nicolas Trigault, De christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Iesu

(Augsburg: Apud Christophorum Mangium, 1615), 105. The citation has been slightly modified. In the original text it should read “ab inanium Deorum cultu” (from the cult of empty gods). 250 The clause “cum nullam syncerè persequantur” (since they do not sincerely follow any) is omitted here. 251 Trigault, De christiana expeditione apud Sinas, 116.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

175

[N.o 3] First, this is proven from their most universal principle that all things are one or one and the same substance.252 Because of this, the teachers of this sect are convinced either that there is no God or that in place of God they have posited a monstrous chimera, which amounts to positing there is no God. Second, it is from another extremely widespread principle of the literati school, namely, that all things which are in the world have emanated from that primordial Air taiji and will be dissolved in it at the end.253 Hence one must infer that this Shangdi, just like all the other things that they call spirits (which their doctrine considers to have the same essence as the things which they inhabit), had a beginning and will also have an end. Leaving aside other considerations, these two points are greatly opposed to divinity and spirits. When the authors of the sect proposed these things in place of gods, rationally speaking it seems to have been with a view to control the people and govern the state in good peace and not because the [literati] of antiquity believed that there were gods or spirits. This point was raised in the aforementioned passages of Confucius, where he makes clear that he does not like to affirm what spirits are insofar as he believes that their [existence] cannot be easily demonstrated by anyone of normal intelligence.254 [N.o 4] Third, it is proven from the common belief held among the literati that this world was produced by chance, that all things are governed by fate, that people after death are returned to kong or the void of the first principle, and that there is no reward or punishment for good and bad deeds. From this it can be deduced that for the Chinese literati there is no God who is living, intelligent or free and that the gods invented for governing the country are considered by all the literati to be {empty likenesses, and} stone and wooden gods which have nothing more than the appearance of divinity. [N.o 5] Finally, to prove that the ancient literati of Rujiao were also atheists, it is sufficient to say that the moderns are the same, as Fr Ricci professes, because the moderns are none other than an exemplar and living image of the ancients. They are immersed in their doctrines and 252 Longobardo discusses here ancient Chinese philosophy but through some NeoConfucian ideas like the unity of all into one entity (wanwu yiti 萬物一體). 253 This conception of a cycle of birth and destruction of the universe is not Confucian, but comes from Daoism. 254 See Prelude 3, N.o 6.

176

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

cite them in all their activities, both in their knowledge and moral virtues, as well as in the subject of worship and religion.255 To show the strength of the grounds upon which this is said, I will now relate what I have found in practice in my dealings with several literati and mandarins in the following prelude.

6.19 Prelude 17. On the Testimony of Various and Authoritative Literati Concerning the Most High Shangdi and the Spirits The material of this prelude would be sufficient to make an entire book, but it is sufficient to relate the special testimonies of the literati who are extremely well versed in their Rujiao sect and therefore most trustworthy. First of all, it must be noted that it was ordered by the Father Visitor of good memory Francisco Vieira256 that we follow not only the ancient texts of the Chinese doctrines to give resolution to these controversies, but also examine the interpretation of authentic commentaries, and observe as much as possible their common meaning, against which the literati of today expound and understand these texts. As I said at the beginning, I conducted this inquiry with great diligence for the sake of divine goodness, and thus I think that in these matters we ought to follow the opinion of the literati. I have separated the literati into two parts for greater clarity. The first part will be about the pagan literati while the second part will consider the Christian literati. 6.19.1

Part 1. On the Saying and Judgement of the Pagan Literati

[N.o 1] First of all, a doctor by the name of Wu Benru from Nanjing province, who was once a Buddhist monk {a priest of the idols}, afterwards by dedicating himself to letters, obtained the degree of jinshi, that is of doctor, and [became] a mandarin of Tongzheng 通政 [the Bureau

255 Ricci made the mistake of assuming a complete break between ancient and modern Confucianism; Longobardo goes in another extreme, assuming a complete uniformity of the teaching, and thus denying any difference between the two. 256 Vieira had already passed away in 1619 when Longobardo writes. Concerning Vieira, see Preface, N.o 5, as well as the chapter by Collani above.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

177

of Communication], and presently of Liaodong province.257 In various discussions with him, when he heard that Tianzhu, {that is our true God,} created heaven, earth and all things, and even taiji, which the Chinese thought to be the principle of the universe,258 he expressed great pity for us, whom he thought endowed with great intelligence, but he said that we had deviated from truth. Thus he wrote a verse containing a description of the first principle in the following way, “A certain thing, which preceded heaven and earth, has no form and is in a state of rest; it is vast and powerful, as well as Lord and governor of all things; it does not suffer any harm from the vicissitudes of time.259 Anyone who wishes to see it through colours, or examine it through sound will deviate from truth and will never be able to see rulai 如来,” that is the first principle.260 Afterwards, he showed us that our God, whom in Chinese we call Tianzhu, that is, the Lord of Heaven, etc., when combined with {that most High King called} Shangdi, cannot be anything other than a creature and, as it were, son of {that first principle called} taiji (according to the teaching related in the previous preludes). Finally, he said to us that all things are one and the same substance as that of the first principle called rulai or taiji, and he said that this is the spirit of heaven, earth and all parts of the universe. And although in the sect of the literati it may be said that

257 Wu Benru, alias Wu Yongxian, is already mentioned in Prelude 11, N.o 8. The description of him as a Buddhist monk seems incorrect, but in any case, he was known for his Buddhist sympathies. At one point of his career, he is said to have resigned from his position and stayed at home for eight years because of his health. Longobardo inserted in his Portuguese text important information that was omitted by Santa Maria: Wu Benru held the rank of tutao (dutang ). Thanks to this information, we can determine his identity. 258 The Portuguese text makes the Latin clearer here: “vendo que diziamos que o nosso Tienchu tinha criado o ceo e a terra com todas as mais cousas, e ainda o Táiki˘e, que elles poem [por] primeiro principio do Universo.” 259 On the manuscript Longobardo Wu Benru’s words in Chinese, comprising two sentences. The first comes from the Buddhist monk Fu Dashi 傅大士 (497–569): “有物 先天地, 無形本寂寥, 能為萬象主, 不逐四時凋.” Fu Dashi 傅大士, Guzunsu yulu 古尊宿 語錄 (Recorded sayings of the ancient worthies, Song dynasty) CBETA 68, no. 1315. 260 The second sentence noted down on the manuscript by Longobardo is a famous

verse of the Jingang jing 金剛經 (Diamond Sutra): “若以色見我, 以音聲求我, 是人行 邪道, 不能見如來.” See Thich Nhat Hanh, The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1992), 22. Rulai is one of the titles of Buddha. Being in contact with the syncretism of the three teachings, Longobardo inadvertently received some Buddhist and Daoist influences which made him misunderstand Confucianism.

178

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

there are various spirits that are fitted to the various things over which they have charge, but in truth there is no more than one total spirit as there is no more than one universal substance in nature. And the spirit is not anything really distinct from substance, but rather the substance itself considered under the formality of its actual operation, ruling or governing within things themselves. Then I asked him from where arose the difference among spirits, having supposed that some are considered superior, others inferior, some more nobles and others less noble. He replied, “The substance and entity of spirits are the same as in heaven as on earth, as in gold as in mud. As for their operation and efficient power, differences stem from the various qualities and dispositions of things.” This is what the Poet [Virgil] said as cited above in Prelude 13, N.o 2 near the end: Fiery is the vigour and celestial the origin of those seeds, so far as harmful bodies do not hinder them, and the earthly limbs and deadly members do not weaken them.261

[N.o 2] A doctor by the name of Zhou Muqian 周慕乾 from Beijing [province] and mandarin of Libu [Ministry of Rites],262 after reading the book of Fr Ricci entitled the [Tianzhu] shiyi, on a certain day asked us what we understand by the term Tianzhu. As was our custom, we would say that Tianzhu is the Lord of heaven and earth, a living intellectual substance without beginning or end, with other similar perfections, and is the creator of all things, governing all things from heaven, just like how a king governs his whole kingdom from his palace. He laughed at us, saying that we use very coarse comparisons since Tianzhu, {the Lord of heaven,} or Shangdi, {the most high protector,} is not really a living man sitting in heaven, but a virtue which governs in heaven, just as it lords and governs in all other things, and even in ourselves. And so we ought to imagine that our heart is one and the same thing as that Tianzhu, {Lord of heaven,} or with Shangdi, {the supreme king}. Although we wanted to continue explaining our Tianzhu {or our true God}, he did not allow us to speak any further, saying that he knew very well what was Tianzhu 261 Vergil, Aeneid, VI, 730–732. 262 The Portuguese (APF) more precisely identifies him as an assistant of the “chù k˘e

s¯ıi”, which corresponds to “Bureau of Receptions” (主客司). Song Liming identifies him as Zhou Muqian 周慕乾.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

179

{or the Lord of Heaven}, having considered that it was the same as their {most high lord} Shangdi. Our Father Vice-Provincial was also present during this discussion.263 [N.o 3] There was another doctor named Qian Linwu 錢隣武 from Zhejiang province,264 [recently elevated to president (shangshu 尚書)]265 of the Libu 禮部 [Ministry of Rites]. Although he was a close friend of ours and would often hear [us] speak about our true God and how he {was incarnated and} came into the world for the salvation of people, etc., he was unable to conceptualise Him except by likening Him to their teacher Confucius in China. This was rooted in their error that there is nothing more in the whole world than one universal nature, which is the principle of all things, such that it is all things. As far as people are concerned, those who are more perfect out of their own good nature or their own effort better represent that universal nature of the first principle. And so it is said that they are one and the same as it [the first principle]. Hence following this teaching, our Jesus in Europe is like Confucius in China and the Buddha in India.266 I will not neglect to relate here something which happened to me. When the doctor named Qian, the doctor Michael and I met up in a certain academy near our home, we discussed various matters concerning the Dao, that is, doctrines, as the literati there are accustomed to do.267 263 Manual Dias (1574–1659) was the first vice-provincial, holding office from 23 March 1623 to 1635. 264 Standaert identified Çiên lîn vû as Qian Xiangkun 錢象坤, literary name Linwu 隣 武; see Nicolas Standaert, Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in Late Ming China (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 199. Li Tiangang said the same, but without mentioning Standaert. See Li Tiangang 李天綱, “Long Huamin dui Zhongguo zongjiao benzhi de lunshu ji qi yingxiang 龍華民對中國宗教本質的論述及其影響,” Xueshu yuekan 學術月刊 49, no. 5 (2017): 177. Qian Xiangkun (1569–1640) was from Shaoxing 紹興 in Zhejiang province. He became advanced scholar in 1601. He held the position of junior vice-president, youshilang 右侍郎, in the Ministry of Rites (Libu 禮部). 265 Santa Maria’s Latin text merely states that he was “præfectus” (mandarin), while the Portuguese text provides extra information about a recent promotion to shangshu 尚 書 of the Ministry of Rites (Libu 禮部). 266 Santa Maria adds the marginal note “= a Ecce conceptus tam sublimis quem Sinæ habent de suo Confucio. Quid ergo erit si ministri Christi Domini Christianis sub prætextu politico permittamus cultum eius supra relatum Præludio 12, N.o 11?” 267 This meeting probably happened in Hangzhou in 1622–1623, and Song Liming suggests that it may have taken place in the famous Academy of Wansong (Wansong shuyuan 萬松書院).

180

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

After many things, it was discussed how we in Europe followed a law given by God and the doctor Qian interrupted saying that it was like the law given to the Chinese by Confucius, having supposed that both legislators were one and the same with heaven and the first principle. I wished to reply to this, but Doctor Michael softly pressured me to refrain myself so that I did not displease the friend, especially because such a commonly received opinion in China could not easily be refuted. And let this point of Doctor Michael be noted, for it will be useful below, while we treat of his mind and opinion of these matters. [N.o 4] There was another doctor called Siû j˘o c˘o from the province of Jiangxi, once mandarin of Tongzheng (Bureau of Communication), now dutang in the province of Shanxi.268 I asked him what he thought of {their Most High} Shangdi, and of the other spirits of the earth and mountains and whether {in the mind of the Chinese} they were something distinct from the places over which they preside, or what they were. He replied unreservedly saying that in the universe there is no more than one substance called li or taiji, and that this immense substance is of itself without limit or end for all its six positions, that is, within the sphere of visible and invisible things. And so it can be said that it is everything just like how we speak of our true God, as if there were one infinite circle, whose centre is everywhere, and circumference is nowhere.269 Hence since this li {or universal reason of all nature} is always in the middle in terms of its physical entity, so it is also in the same place in terms of its moral entity. Confucius understood this when he said that all his doctrine consists in one point.270 Therefore, supposing that there is only one substance, it necessarily follows that {the Most High Lord} Shangdi with all the other spirits are only the operative virtue of things, or their substance insofar as it performs operations. Similarly, I asked him who in this universe arranged so many variations of things and whether he ruled them by reward, punishment or some other action, which can only come from some living, intelligent and just mind. He said that all comes from this li {universal reason of nature} which is like the original font of everything physical and moral. It does not 268 Song Liming suggests Xu Ruke 徐如珂 or Xu Shaoji 徐紹吉 as possibilities. 269 Perhaps a reference to Nicholas of Cusa whose works could be found in the Jesuit

library in Beijing. 270 Lunyu 4.15: “吾道一以貫之.” This passage was already quoted in Prelude 11, N.o

2.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

181

use these operations, thought or choice, but performs them all naturally and out of necessity according to the connection of universal causes and the disposition of particular subjects. This is what they properly call ming, which we call fate. [N.o 5] Another doctor named Zhou Qingyu 周慶虞 from Zhejiang province and mandarin (keli 科吏) of the Hubu 戶部 (Ministry of Revenue),271 after we had discussed with him many things about Tianzhu, {that is, about our true God,} marvelled that we so depended on him and said, “Your Tianzhu {or your God} must also finish at the end of the whole world. Thus, how you do you say that people will enjoy eternal joy with him?” He said that on account of two reasons: firstly, because he thought that {our God or} Tianzhu was the same as {the Most High [spirit] called} Shangdi due to the similarity between both names; secondly, because he knew that this Shangdi, the spirit of heaven, together with heaven will finish at the end of the world according to what has been said above about spirits in general.272 Therefore, I responded that his conclusion would be correct if Tianzhu our God had been produced by his taiji, {which is called by the Chinese first principle,} just as, in his opinion, {the most high} Shangdi and all the other spirits contained in their teaching are produced by taiji. But our Tianzhu {or God} was not produced by anyone, and not by taiji, but rather [taiji] and all things visible and invisible are made and produced by {our God, called} Tianzhu. Then I showed to him what we say about the participation of the four causes in the production of the world. I also showed that our Tianzhu {or God} is not a material cause, as the Chinese consider {their first principle} taiji, but {our God} is a {first} efficient cause, which preceded all things, and differs substantially from all things, just as the maker of a vehicle differs from the vehicle itself. He was most pleased with this teaching saying that the substantial difference between the efficient cause and things produced has never been spoken about in China before and that it seems to him that our assertions about God were tenable.

271 Song Liming identifies him as Zhou Hongmo 周洪謨 (1565–1630) with the literary name as Qingyu 慶虞. He is already mentioned in Prelude 11, N.o 9. 272 If Shangdi is understood as the spirit of an ancestor, it may make sense to say that after sometime, it will also disappear, but it cannot be said in Confucianism that heaven or its spirit will vanish. Either this literatus was influenced by Daoist ideas, or Longobardo did not get it right.

182

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 6] Another doctor called Li Songyu from Henan 河南 province, president of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu shangshu 戶部尚書) and of the Censorate (Duchayuan 都察院),273 said several times to us that there is no reward or punishment after death, but people must return to kong 空, that is to the void or vacuum from which they emanated.274 Thus when we argued that there is one immortal, living and omnipotent God in heaven, who remunerates everybody according to how well or badly they acted, he absolutely rejected the existence of such a God, of Paradise and Hell, on the basis that such things have never been heard of in the sect of the Chinese literati. [N.o 7] Another doctor by the name of Chím ti¯en fû of Shanxi province, mandarin of the Libu [Ministry of Rites],275 was asked by us whether according to the teaching of the literati there would be glory or punishment in the next life in accordance with the virtues and vices of each person. He first laughed at this question as if it were vacuous and said that it cannot be denied that there are virtues and vices in this life, but when people die, those things which were in them also end. As for punishment and glory, having supposed that after death nothing more than this universal nature called li remains, it is certain, he says, that there is no place for punishment and glory. Thus we ought to care only about the present, and not the future life. [N.o 8] I met a certain literati called Çe¯u iâm ti¯en from Jiangxi province and the city Raozhou 饒州 who was well versed in all three sects.276 He held the office of lecturer (jiangxue 講學), that is of teaching, and was always flanked by many students. Since he seemed erudite to me, I proposed my doubts to him, to which he responded clearly, as below.

273 Li Tiangang suggests the name of Li Daiwen 李待問 (Kuiru 葵如). In fact, this refers to Li Zongyan 李宗延 (1563–1627), literary name Songyu 崧毓, from Henan province. He became advanced scholar in 1586. He was promoted in 1621 to the censorate 都察院 in Beijing, and not long after became its president. In 1623–1624, he held the office of President of the Ministry of Revenue (Hubu shangshu 戶部尚書). Li Zongyan wrote a preface and a postface to Longobardo’s Dizhenjie 地震解 (Treatise on earthquakes, 1626). 274 Perhaps Li Songyu was influenced by Buddhism, but at any rate the Buddhist concept of kong was strongly rejected by Confucian orthodoxy. 275 Song Liming suggests Chen Qiyu 陳奇瑜 as a possibility. 276 Song Liming suggests Zhu Yicheng 祝以成 as a possibility. BnF has “Cheu” instead

of “Çe¯ u”.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

183

First, I asked what is that Shangdi {or Most High Lord}, whom the literati proclaim in their writings. He responded that it is a spirit or god, whom they worship, and is different from the god called Yuhuang 玉皇 worshipped by the Daoists, {that is, the ministers of his sect}. This god is also different from that called Fo 佛 adored by the bonzes, {who are his priests and ministers}. Second, I asked whether this Shangdi is one and the same thing as heaven or different. He replied that it is the same thing (as related in Prelude 12, N.o 3). Moreover, it is the same as {the first universal cause called} li 理, and the same as taiji 太極 and yuanqi 元氣, {that is its primordial air (see Prelude 5, N.o 3)}. It is the same as tianshen 天神 and tianming 天命, {that is, the spirit of heaven and its mandate ordained by nature}. And it is the same as nanren 男人, that is with heaven itself, which is as it were the husband of the earth, {because the earth is fertilised by its celestial influences}. And so all those other terms are nothing more than various formalities of the same entity of the universal substance which they say is the first principle of all things. [N.o 9] Third, I asked whether that {Most High} Shangdi 上帝 was visible before this heaven or together with it, or after it. He replied that it was not before, but together with heaven, since heaven and Shangdi were both produced by that same first air taiji through emanation from that same universal substance as said in Prelude 11, N.o 1. Fourth, I asked whether that {Most High} Shangdi is something living and intelligent, with the power of knowing the good and evil deeds of people so that he may impose reward or punishment. He replied that it is neither living nor intelligent like us but essentially is li and qi, {that is the very entity, or universal reason of nature called the first principle}. However, it operates as if it were intelligent and living. This is mentioned in the book Shujing (page 35) [where it is written] that heaven neither sees, neither hears, nor loves, but does everything through the people with whom it is inwardly joined in li, {the universal reason of nature}.277 [N.o 10] Fifth, I asked whether that Shangdi is one or many because in China it is said that there are five tudi 土地, that is the five spirits of the five sacred mountains. Is this Shangdi same name also given to the idol of the Daoists called Yuhuang and the like? He replied that the {Most High} Shangdi is properly only one, and this is the spirit of heaven. He 277 This passage of the Shujing and its commentary by Wu Cheng was already mentioned Prelude 11, N.o 11.

184

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

said that there are the five tudi of the five mountains just like there are those called tudi or spirits of the provinces and cities, which are all much inferior to Shangdi, just as mountains and other places are greatly inferior to heaven. The title Shangdi is conferred on Yuhuang, Laozi 老子 and the like, only to honour them, under the pretence that their virtues can be equated with the virtues of Shangdi, since we know that they were people.278 [N.o 11] Sixth, I asked, “How do you understand that passage from book of the Yijing (page 2), namely ‘Di chuyu zhen’ (帝出於震). That is to say, is there some king who comes out of those parts of heaven or are only the operations of air and celestial influences indicated?” He replied, “That di, {that is, that king,} is himself the Air which proceeds by causing the generation of things till the end of its perfection. This can be clearly gathered from the changes of this Air made through the eight parts of the horizon. This is the physical and literal meaning of this passage from the Yijing , though it is expressed with the metaphor and simile of a certain king.” [N.o 12] Seventh, I asked, “If that Shangdi is not something living, but Air itself, or only the virtue of heaven, how in some passages of their jing 經, {or teachings,} is it said that this Shangdi communicates with kings, who were saying that in some deeds they have an order of acting in such a way from the Most High Shangdi, the Supreme King.”279 He replied that there was never such communication between Shangdi and the kings of earth as implied by these words, but that it only a metaphorical figure of speech implying that these kings were interiorly in harmony with the heavenly li, {that is with natural right reason bestowed by heaven,} and so everything they did was done as if commanded by heaven. [N.o 13] Eighth, I asked, “When the King of China sacrifices to heaven each year, does he also sacrifice to {that Most High} Shangdi?” He replied that heaven and Shangdi are not really two distinct things, but rather one and the same substance considered under two formalities, as said in the second question {and in Prelude 12, N.o 3}. Hence when a sacrifice is made to heaven, a sacrifice is offered to {the Most High} Shangdi at the 278 Yuhuang Shangdi 玉皇上帝 is the holy name given to the Jade emperor Yuhuang dadi 玉皇大帝 by the Song dynasty emperor Huizong 徽宗 (r. 1100–1126). 279 Chinese words on the BnF manuscript: “周公、召公, 何人乎?其謂成湯、文王既崩 之後, 猶在天陟降而能保佑國家.” Ricci quoted this passage in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, 145.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

185

same time. It is the same with the other sacrifices, which are made to the mountains, rivers and other places as they are equally offered to the spirits of things. [N.o 14] Ninth, I asked, “When Confucius was sick, how come he did not allow his disciple Zilu to pray to heaven for him?” He replied that Confucius was convinced that he was one and the same with heaven and its spirit, and moreover since he had never did anything against reason, it was not necessary to pray for him.280 [N.o 15] Tenth, I asked, “If the wisest literati of the Rujiao sect do not believe that spirits are true, why did they introduce them into the country?” He responded that they thought that the people could be kept from disordered actions with the pretext of a false, fake and fabricated religion. This is what I heard from the literatus named Çe¯ u iâm ti¯en.281 In addition to the above-mentioned mandarins, I found many others who said more or less the same thing on this topic. They are Doctor Wu Hengchu 吳恆初 of Huizhou, mandarin of Taichangsi 太常寺 [Bureau of Sacrifices]282 ; Doctor Huang Jiyun 黃際雲, of Henan 河南, mandarin of Taipusi 太僕寺 [the Bureau of Horses]283 ; Doctor Mao Ruchu 毛孺初 of Zhejiang 浙江 who was afterwards dutang of Nanjing 南京284 ; Doctor Chen Shaofeng 陳紹鳳 of Fujian 福建, mandarin of the Xingbu 刑部 [Ministry of Punishment]285 ; Doctor He Feiwo 何匪莪, also of Fujian, Vice-President of the Shilang gongbu 侍郎工部 [Ministry of Works]286 ; 280 The question is drawn from Lunyu 7.34. Commenting this passage, Zhu Xi

expressed the idea that Confucius conformed his actions to the spirits (孔子素行合於 神明), but neither Zhu Xi nor the other Chinese commentators ever said that Confucius claimed to be identical with heaven. 281 This literatus candidly expresses what Rodrigues referred to as a reprehensible double teaching. Longobardo mentions only “the pretext of religion” but Santa Maria qualifies religion with three adjectives: false, fake and fabricated. Longobardo states that the control over the people through religion is enduring (que se não desanda), but Santa Maria omits this. 282 Song Liming identifies him as Wu Shiqi 吳士奇 (1566–?), literary name Hengchu

恒初.

283 Song Liming identifies him as Huang Yuntai 黃運泰, literary name Jiyun 際雲. 284 Song Liming identifies him as Mao Yilu 毛一鹭, literary name Ruchu 孺初. 285 Song Liming identifies him as Chen Yi 陳儀, literary name Shaofeng 紹鳳. 286 Song Liming identifies him as He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠 (1558–1631), literary name

Feiwo 匪莪. In the Portuguese text, Longobardo states that he presently (agora) occupies the position.

186

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

Doctor Lieû ki¯am iù of Jiangxi 江西, mandarin of Shangbaosi 尚寶司 [the Bureau of Seals]287 ; Doctor Cao Zhenyu 曹貞予 of Shanxi province, mandarin of Duchayuan 都察院 [the Censorate]288 ; and Doctor Fum ç¯am ch˘o of Beizhili 北直隸 [Beijing province], mandarin of Tongzheng 通 政 [Bureau of Communication].289 There are other learned people of learning and renown in this royal court, whom I will pass over for the sake of brevity, nor do I make mention of that large number of literati and mandarins, with whom I spoke in other places of China during all the years in which I stayed in China since I see that they are all in perfect agreement. 6.19.2

Part 2. On the Mind and Judgement of the Christian Literati

Not only the pagan literati, but also the Christians themselves when systematically questioned confirm the opinion of the things mentioned above. This will be seen from [the testimony] of some of the most important individuals which I will relate here. [N.o 1] First, I will relate the mind and judgement of Doctor Michael, whom I brought into the debate {with a certain caution} so his opinions on these matters may be made known. For I said to him that our fathers, who dwell in parts of the East in the kingdom of Cochinchina,290 studied the Chinese books, as we do in China. Since they had some doubts, which the locals themselves did not know how to resolve, they asked us by letter to send them a resolution of these doubts from the literati of Rujiao {that is, of the school of Confucius} who are well versed in his sect. Therefore, I said that I will ask him to give me this resolution since he was a literatus of such renown, while advising him that these fathers desired to know the pure, authentic and common teaching of Rujiao, {that is, the sect of the Chinese literati,} on this point, free from any fusion of interpretations that we Christians are accustomed to apply. When he heard this, he rejoiced greatly, asking me to propose my doubts, and that he would reply to

287 Song Liming suggests Liu Dingguo 刘定國. 288 Song Liming identifies him as Cao Yubian 曹于汴 (1558–1634), literary name

Zhenyu 貞予.

289 Song Liming suggests Feng Shixing 馮时行. 290 Jesuit mission started in South Vietnam in 1615.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

187

them quickly according to the proper, common and genuine mind of the literati.291 [N.o 2] First, I asked, “What are the authentic and classic books of Rujiao?”, that is, the sect of the literati. He replied, “The Wujing and the Sishu, {that is, the five books of their Chinese knowledge and teaching, and the four books of Confucius,} with their commentaries. The same can be said of their Summa philosophica, the Xingli, which explains the substance of the jing, {that is, of these doctrinal books}. The same can be said also of the chronicle Tongjian 通鑒, which describes the times and succession of Chinese affairs.292 Beyond these there is no other book which can be brought forth as an authority among the literati class.” Then he pointed out that in the books of Rujiao {or the sect of the literati}, very often something is written in one way, but the meaning ought to be interpreted in another. By this he wanted to make known that these books use figures, enigmas and metaphors which only those trained and versed in the mysteries of their sect can understand. [N.o 3] Second, I asked whether the interpreters of these jing or doctrines, especially the literati of the Song dynasty, have the most authority in China, or they are considered to have erred in their interpretation. He responded that they have great authority, since they corrected the texts of the ancient teachings and explained them with their commentary without which everybody would be almost blind. Therefore, it has been decided with reason that in the examinations of the literati no compositions are to be admitted which deviate from the common reading of the interpreters. Although these interpreters sometimes do not agree among themselves—rather in some matters of small significance they are observed to have made mistakes—in the essential doctrines of Rujiao, {that is, the sect of the literati,} they are very consistent and in conformity with the mind of the ancients. He also points out that the Chinese literati spoke excellently about visible things, namely about the

291 In the Portuguese text, Longobardo describes his methods of drawing Yang Tingyun into the debate as a “strategem” (stratagemma). While Longobardo stresses that the Jesuits in Vietnam truly made this request (como foi na verdade), Longobardo’s true purpose in asking these questions was in fact to resolve questions debated within the Jesuit China mission. Perhaps embarrassed by this duplicity, Santa Maria adds that a degree of “caution” (cautela) was used. 292 Zizhi tongjian gangmu 資治通鑒 (The original mirror for aid of government) by Sima Guang.

188

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

five orders of people, about the five universal virtues and about governance.293 However, in relation to invisible things, such as the angels, the rational soul, the afterlife and the like, they spoke with great uncertainty, and indeed were greatly mistaken. Therefore, on these matters one must not wish to adhere to their judgement.294 All these things ought to be marked with capital letters for making a suitable decision about our controversies.295 [N.o 4] Third, I asked, “If the Chinese do not know about invisible things, when they sacrifice what do they offer sacrifice to?” At this question he began to shake his head and said laughing that the Chinese offer sacrifices to the visible heaven and to the earth, mountains and other parts of the universe, which are visible to all, rejoicing at the benefits and utility coming from them. As for the spirits, they do not know for certain whether there are spirits, but since they think that perhaps these spirits could be together with the parts of the universe, they revere and honour them under the belief that they are one and the same entity as the things themselves. [N.o 5] Fourth, I asked whether the literati think after death there is reward for good deeds and punishment for evil deeds. He replied that the Chinese literati do not speak about these things. And here he began to sigh and to complain about the teachers of the Rujiao sect of the literati, saying that they were greatly diminished since they teach nothing about the things of the next life. It is for this reason the people have nothing to stir them in the pursuit of true virtue. Consequently, he began to praise the teachers of Fojiao, {that is, of the sect of idols,} saying that they are much better in this respect, since they preach the glory of paradise and the punishments of Gehenna. For this reason they lure the people’s souls

293 On the BnF manuscript: “五倫之道, 君臣父子夫婦兄弟朋友.” 294 Marginal note added by Santa Maria in relation to the Rites Controversy: “Since

Confucius teaches that the dead ought to be reverenced as if they were still living, they ought to be honoured with the cult of sacrifices after the funeral rights (ji zhi yi li 祭 之以禮), which means to sacrifice with those signs. Why are we ministers of the gospel bound to these opinions?” 295 This last sentence is not from Yang Tingyun, but from Longobardo: the acknowledgement by Yang Tingyun that Chinese literati do not understand the notions of God, angels and soul, answers the questions that were asked by Carvalho and Vieira. In doing his interviews, Longobardo may have been interested only in listening to the literati to confirm his own standpoint, overlooking nuances.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

189

to themselves, as it is seen throughout the kingdom in the worship and veneration of the idols.296 [N.o 6] Fifth, I asked in relation to the immortality of the soul how to understand that passage of Book 6 of the Shijing (page 1) that has {King} Wen Wang after his death standing beside {the Most High} Shangdi.297 He replied that according to the interpretations of all interpreters there is no mystery except that after the death of {King} Wen Wang his earthly parts were reduced to dust while his heavenly parts of Air ascended upwards and joined themselves to heaven itself and to {the Most High} Shangdi who is himself the most high heaven insofar as he operates and manages things under heaven. And so with this praise the Chinese poet intends no more than to extol and praise {King} Wen Wang, feigning that the ethereal body and heavenly globe is like a supernal emperor, standing at the side [of Shangdi] like a faithful vassal. With these responses, the doctor excellently showed that according to the teaching of the Chinese literati there is no God or angels except by some extremely obscure conjecture, which became ever more obscure and weak in the conceptual imagination of the Chinese who consider spirits as the same thing as the places in which they reside. As for the soul, he also said that since it is not yet known what it is and whether or not it remains after the death of a person, it is much less understood. I acquired this information from him while he was living in Hangzhou, when I asked him to respond to me as a Chinese literatus, excluding the things which he knew now as a Christian. [N.o 7] But afterwards while I met with Doctor Michael in the royal court of Beijing, he [Yang Tingyun] showed us a few treatises that he wrote about our questions, especially an interpretation of the Ten Commandments of the law of God. Although in these treatises he considers those which he had heard from our fathers, he inserts everywhere many things from his own Chinese teaching.298 In this way, the

296 Yang Tingyun was himself a Buddhist, and then converted to Christianity, rejecting completely his former Buddhist faith. He believed that Buddhism and Christianity shared a common concern for the afterlife, but adopted the missionaries’ view that the notions of paradise and hell were first invented by Christians, and then copied by the Buddhists; see Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 193. 297 See mentions in Prelude 2, N.o 1 and Prelude 15, N.o 6. 298 Longobardo raises here a suspicion of syncretism in Yang Tingyun’s thought and

belief.

190

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

true opinion of the Chinese literati is more fully revealed. I will relate here a few points by way of example. [N.o 8] In his Introduction to the 10 Commandments,299 he says that all things are one and the same substance, which is the above-mentioned li, {or universal reason of all nature,} while there is no difference among things except in terms of their external figures and accidental qualities. From this proposition necessarily follow all those absurd things which our Europeans deduce from that axiom “All things are one.”300 In the same Introduction he says, “All the Chinese philosophers of antiquity were angels incarnate one after another in succession.” According to the conception of the Chinese this is so: namely that that li, regarded as the first principle of all things, which is called Spirit when considered in terms of how its operations are both wondrous and also useful to people. Since its operations are observed to be in heaven, earth, the mountains, waters and other parts of the universe, and even among people, different spirits are therefore assigned in each of these things. According to the mind of the philosophers, however, there is only one spirit, just as there is only one substance of things.301 [N.o 9] This notion is alluded to by another man called Ye Gelao [ 葉閣老, Ye Xianggao 葉向高] in his preface to the book on the [Ten] Commandments, when he said that Shangdi, or as we call him Tianzhu (that is the true God), had been incarnate on our earth. He proves and approves this in this way: “Shangdi or the Most High King was incarnated several times in the East, appearing in the persons of Yao and Shun302 and 299 The Xixue shijie chujie 西學十誡初解 (The introduction to the Ten Commandments of Western learning) was written by Yang Tingyun in 1624, but the text is not extant. Only the preface mentioned below has been preserved. The mention of this book here shows that Longobardo had met Yang Tingyun in 1624 in Beijing. 300 In the Portuguese text, Longobardo mentions that this maxim has led Europeans in recent years to atheism. As Standaert says, Yang Tinyun may have made such a statement (the work itself is lost), but “this does not mean that Yang Tingyun did not make any distinction between the nature of the Master of Heaven, man and animals, and it certainly did not lead Yang Tingyun to atheism”; Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 198. 301 As Standaert shows, Yang Tingyun rejected in fact the idea that Heaven is only li; Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 198. 302 Santa Maria adds the following marginal note: “Yao and Shun are two of the most ancient Chinese Kings and are considered by the Chinese most holy and excellent. Confucius, however, is called the foremost teacher of the Chinese, and is considered great by everybody, such that he is often said to be the epitome of zhisheng 至聖, or perfect holiness or excellence. The character sheng 聖 has a broad meaning.”

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

191

of Confucius, and in many other kings and vassals. Therefore he could well incarnate in the West, just as the fathers say that he had done in the person of Jesus Christ.”303 Hence it is inferred that the Chinese have the notion that Christ our Lord must be great in Europe as Confucius or another similar philosopher is considered great in China. This was the reason why Doctor Michael did not want me to reply to Doctor Qian Linwu 錢隣武 (as I mentioned above in Part 1, N.o 3 towards the end), because he himself still adheres to this idea, or better, this Babylonian chimera.304 [N.o 10] Third, he says in this passage, “The teaching of Confucius is absolutely perfect, being one and the same with theology and the divine law which we have in the Great West.” From these two preceding points it is consequently deduced that all the philosophers are spirits incarnate and that all the spirits are one and the same substance and thus have one and the same knowledge, and one and the same power.305 [N.o 11] In the explanation of the first commandment he says that heaven and earth ought to be revered.306 In the declaration of the third commandment, however, he says, “Sacrifices can be offered to our saints, as in China they are offered to heaven, to the earth and to the dead.” All this is grounded in the opinion of the literati that all things are one and

303 Ye Xianggao’s preface, entitled Xixue shijie chujie xu 西學十誡初解序, is dated automn 1624, and it is preserved in his collection Cangxia yucao 蒼霞餘草: “惟謂天主降 生其國,近于語怪。然聖賢之生, 皆有所自, 其小而有功德于人者, 猶必以山嶽以列星, 則其大 而主宰造化, 開萬世之太平如堯舜孔子, 非上帝所降生, 安得有許大力量, 夫既生于東, 又安 知其不生于西乎.” Standaert compared Longobardo’s translation and the original preface by Ye Xianggao, and he concluded that “the statements quoted by Longobardo are authentic; but one still has to be very cautious about the contents.” See Nicolas Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 187–188. 304 Longobardo detects in Yang Tingyun a syncretist belief by which Jesus Christ was for him on the same level as Confucius, but Longobardo’s exclusivism does not pay justice to the Christian faith of Yang Tingyun. 305 Yang Tingyun expressed his conviction about the compatibility between Christianity and the ancient teaching of the sages in China, transmitted along the ages. Following the idea of Lu Jiuyuan 陆九渊 (1139–1193), Yang Tingyun also wrote: “Within the four seas, this mind and this li are the same” (四海之内此心此理同也). See Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 200–201. 306 Yang Tingyun holds in fact that reverence is given to the Lord of Heaven, and this includes reverence towards heaven and earth. See Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 202.

192

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

the same substance, {namely, of the first Chinese principle} or parts of it, as said above in various passages.307 [N.o 12] Fifth, since this belief that all things are one and the same substance is common to the teachers of all three sects (namely, those of the literati and idols), he tries in his treatises to speak well of them all, showing that all things have one and the same end and the same intent of assigning a first principle of the universe. Therefore, they agree with our Holy Law and are one and the same in essentials. He says that if anyone objects that there are many errors in the sects that contradict our Holy Law, he replies that such errors were not at the beginning of the sects, when the sects were powerful in their true and pure doctrine, but had been introduced afterwards through the comments of disciples who did not follow the intention of the ancient authors.308 Hence he advised us to use equivocations in our explanation of things (hutong de 互通的) so that they could be accommodated to both sides of the argument, and thus we will be able to please everybody and attract the hearts of everyone. This advice and strategy was given to us by Doctor Michael for preaching the Holy Gospel in China. Now let the prudent see what consequences ought to be inferred from this!309 [N.o 13] Just as I questioned Doctor Michael, I also asked our teacher Athanasius310 from the province of Jiangxi, knowing that he was very well versed in the teaching of the literati, insofar as he had read many of the most distinguished books of China and he responded to me with some brief and succinct propositions in which a portrait, as it were, of Rujiao, 307 Santa Maria adds the following marginal note: “The [Roman] Curia was already given clear and true information about these sacrifices which are made in China to ancestors, teachers and the dead.” 308 Here Yang Tingyun expresses quite clearly the idea that there is a strong distinction between ancient and modern Chinese thought, and this goes against Longobardo’s main line of argumentation which assumes a strong uniformity in the Confucian teaching. However, the idea that sects with the plural, that is, including Buddhism and Daoism, would have been free from errors in their beginning cannot truly represent Yang Tingyun’s thought because he harshly criticized Buddhism and Daoism. 309 Standaert noted that Longobardo had approved Yang Tingyun’s opinion about the lack of knowledge about invisible matters in China (the end of N.o 3), but Longobardo makes here an ironical comment on Yang Tingyun; see Standaert, 188. Longobardo seems to read into Yang Tingyun’s mind the theory of the double teaching of Rodrigues. 310 Not yet identified. Longobardo describes him as being a scholar from Jiangxi who had not yet passed civil exams. He taught Chinese to the missionaries and wrote a work on Shangdi.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

193

or the sect of the literati is represented.311 Since he wrote this down for me, I shall relate his words as follows: 1. They treat of people and not of heaven, or of human and not heavenly affairs.312 2. They treat of life and not of death.313 3. They treat of the present age, and not of the future age.314 4. They treat of bodily things, and not of the spiritual.315 5. They treat of the foundation, which is only one, and not of its many and diverse species, that is they say that these species ought not to be considered of importance.316 6. They say that things ought to be done without any purpose and that neither reward nor punishment ought to be given.317 7. They say that heaven and people are one and the same thing as li or the universal substance, and that to fulfil one’s potential is to serve heaven.318 8. They say that the supreme good or perfection is the pinnacle of nature and that there is nothing to be added above nature.319

311 According to the words written in Chinese, those are the “common theses of Confucianism” (rujia tonglun 儒家通論). However, those theses are quite schematic and lack nuances. 312 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論人, 不論

天.”

313 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論生, 不論

死.”

314 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論今世, 不論 後世.” 315 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論有形, 不論 無形.” 316 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論一本, 不論 萬殊.” 317 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論無所為而 為, 不論報應.” 318 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論天人一理, 盡人即所以事天.” 319 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論至善者為 性之極, 性上無以復加.”

194

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

9. They say that the dao of heaven, that is, the nature of heaven, is the entity of the supreme good, which has neither sound nor odour, and thus is imperceptible.320 10. They say that nature is supremely good, without beginning or end, and exists within the body and heart of a person.321 11. They say that people will live in good fortune and rest in death if they fulfil their obligations and duties.322 12. As for these propositions, nine out of ten Chinese literati agree with and believe what is written above.323 Therefore, our theology and revelation cannot be easily understood. This is how Athanasius speaks about the mind of today’s literati, whom he says need to be strongly opposed. For if not informed by any other explanations, {the sect of the literati or} Rujiao would otherwise lean directly towards atheism. Therefore, he devoted himself to the task of writing a treatise on Shangdi intending to prove who He is against all other interpreters.324 [N.o 14] Since Doctor Paul was far away from me, I sent to him brother Pascal Mendez to ask about these questions.325 He replied with clarity and sincerity, saying that he thinks that {the Most High King, called by the Chinese} Shangdi {this is the meaning of the words} in no way can

320 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論天道只是 一至善之理, 無聲無臭.” 321 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論至善之性

無始無終, 只在人身心之內.”

322 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “論人道盡則 生順死安.” 323 Longobardo provides the corresponding Chinese text in the margin: “以上諸論儒 者十分中有九分是這等所以天學未易得明.” 324 The BnF Portuguese manuscript states that Athanasius “seems to refer to God” (The BnF Portuguese manuscript states that Athanasius “seems to refer to God” (aqui parese falar a palavra: Deus ). Anathasius was still following Ricci’s position and not Rodrigues and Longobardo’s since he accepted the notion of Shangdi as an equivalent of God. 325 Brother Pascal Mendez (邱永良厚, 1584–1640) was born in Macao of Chinese Christian parents. He was a close companion of Longobardo. See Louis Pfister, Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les Jésuites de l’ancienne mission de Chine, 1552– 1773 (Chang-hai: Imprimerie de la mission catholique Orphelinat de T’ou-Se-We, 1932), 1:120–121.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

195

be our true God with the attributes which we ordinarily attribute to God, such as the fact that God is one uncreated substance distinct and different from all creation, has neither beginning nor end, and is the Creator of all things visible and invisible, which he made from nothing, and is the end and beginning of all things, arranging and ruling all things by His nod alone, and so on. The Chinese do not conceive their Most High Shangdi with such attributes. And so he thought that the Chinese never knew the true God in the preceding centuries, and do not recognise Him now. But since the Fathers call God Shangdi {or the Most High Lord}, for the fair reasons that the Chinese literati did not object to it and also that the name seemed fitting, he judged it good and necessary to attribute all these attributes to him.326 As for the soul, he said that it seemed to him that the Chinese had some—albeit unclear—knowledge about it. And he was increasingly convinced of this seeing that people of this time say so much about it, do so much for it, although [their understanding is] full of errors.327 This is what Doctor Paul said, as Brother Mendez faithfully related to me in his letter to me when I was living in Hangzhou.

326 Xu Guangqi uses the term Shangdi in his own writings. For example, in his Bianxue shugao 辨學疏稿 (Memorial in defense of [Western] teaching, 1616), he defines the Western teaching as “to serve Shangdi” (zhaoshi Shangdi 昭事上帝) and “to worship Him” (chongfeng Shangdi 崇奉上帝); Li Tiangang 李天綱, ed., Mingmo Tianzhujiao sanzhushi wenjianzhu 明末天主教三柱石文箋注 [Catholic Documents of Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao and Yang Tingyun] (Hong Kong: Logos and Pneuma Press, 2007), 62–69. From Longobardo’s record of the interview, we can see that Xu Guangqi was well aware that there was a discrepancy between what the ancient texts say about Shangdi and the Catholic teaching on God, but yet the word Shangdi could be used as a full equivalent for the Christian God. This is what Longobardo would not allow. 327 Xu Guangqi collaborated with Francesco Sambiasi in writing the Lingyan lishao (1623). Sambiasi himself was opposed to the idea that the Chinese had some knowledge on the soul, and therefore he did not use the neologism of linghun 靈魂, invented by Ruggieri and Ricci to connect with the Chinese tradition, but instead he merely translated anima as ya-ni-ma. However, in his Outline of the Correct Way, or Zhengdao tigang 正 道題綱 (1603–1630), he uses the word linghun. Li Tiangang, ed., Mingmo Tianzhujiao sanzhushi wenjianzhu, 107–108. Xu Guangqi accepted the teaching of the soul taught by the missionaries, and he expresses here the idea that the Chinese had some unclear knowledge about it.

196

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

[N.o 15] Doctor Leo,328 the licentiate Ignatius329 and the other Christian literati all frankly profess that all the modern literati tend towards atheism and, moreover, are grounded in the common explanation of the interpreters as we have related thus far. They say that it seems to them only that in order to accommodate ourselves to China we must follow the texts of the ancient teachings which were favourable to our purposes, caring little of the opinion of the moderns and of the explanations of the ancient interpreters. The entire hinge of these controversies rests on this. It is necessary to seek constantly the illumination of the Holy Spirit so that we can weigh up and firmly decide what ought to be done. On my part since this affair is of such great importance I propose some other considerations in Prelude 18 that follows.330 Up to here is what was written by Fr Niccolò Longobardo, Missionary of the Society of Jesus.

6.20 6.20.1

Annex

Cover Page by Caballero

Translation of text (original attached) from Portuguese into Latin to facilitate its reading by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation [of the Faith]. Although the preface and the first and second preludes of the original text may seem irrelevant to the subject to be discussed in the Sacred Congregation, I humbly beseech that it does not create an inconvenience,

328 Li Zhizao is already mentioned once; see Preface, N.o 2. Four mentions of Shangdi can be found in his writtings; Zheng Cheng 鄭誠, ed., Li Zhizao ji 李之藻集 [Collected writings of Li Zhizao] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2018). 329 Sun Yuanhua 孫元化 (1582–1631) was from Jiading, obtained the degree of licentiate (juren 舉人) in 1612, was baptized as Ignatius in 1621. That year, he invited the Jesuits to set up a residence in Jiading, where he attended the conference held by the Jesuits between December 1627 and January 1628. He published a work on the Western technique of canons (Xifa shenqi 西法神機, 1622–1623). He also collaborated with Francesco Sambiasi and Alfonso Vagnone, revising their books or writing prefaces. We do not know from his writings his position on the Terms Controversy, but from Longobardo’s record, we can see that he was dismissive of the interpretations of Song philosophy, and this was not acceptable to Longobardo. 330 This prelude is missing in all extant manuscripts.

6

A BRIEF RESPONSE TO THE CONTROVERSIES …

197

and that it should be read in its entirety. Indeed, it is relevant for understanding the other things discussed in the following preludes up until the end.331 6.20.2

Preface by Caballero

To my most Eminent Lords and Cardinal Lords of the Most Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome: A translation from Portuguese to Latin of an original treatise composed by one of the superiors of the mission. It frankly discusses the most ancient philosophical sect of China, saying and touching upon many points about the worship, sacrifices and temples of their ancestors, as well of their teacher Confucius, and other things which are indicated at the end of the following introduction in the Table of Preludes.332 6.20.3

Postface by Caballero

The remaining text of the original manuscript is not available: its final pages were detached from the manuscript and did not reach me.333 Consequently, the signature of the author is not seen at the end of the manuscript. However, it is present at the beginning on the first page of the introduction in the upper right margin next to the title. Here “Auctor P.e N. Longobardo” is written with clear letters.334 This is a faithful translation from the Portuguese text of the original manuscript. I saw the author of the text, Fr Niccolò Longobardo, twice in the royal court of China, called Beijing, and conversed with him for several days in various years. The original codex was written in his own 331 This cover page is not present in the Portuguese manuscript of APF, nor in the Portuguese manuscript of BnF. It was added by Santa Maria before the document was brought to Rome by Ibañez. Santa Maria underlines here the importance of Longobardo’s preface and of the first two preludes which expose his hermeneutical principles, mostly drawn from Rodrigues. 332 Preface present in the Latin manuscript of APF and the Portuguese manuscript of

BnF, but not present in the Portuguese manuscript of APF. 333 This meaning in the Latin manuscript is also present in the BnF manuscript, but the latter stops here. 334 Santa Maria’s description matches the APF Portuguese manuscript. Hence, we can presume that this is the manuscript referred to by Santa Maria. This suggests that the APF Portuguese manuscript is the original text of Longobardo and that the BnF is a copy.

198

D. CANARIS AND T. MEYNARD

hand. I am very familiar with the handwriting of the author because I have seen several times other writings of his and have them even now at hand. I have also seen the author himself writing some things in front of me with the same calligraphy as seen in this original manuscript. I assert and affirm all this under oath as a priest. The author, Fr N. Longobardo, full of merit, died in the Lord at the ripe age of 94 years, in the royal court of Beijing, in the year of the Lord 1654. In Prelude 11, at the end of N.o 6, and in Prelude 12, N.o 9 in the original manuscript and in N.o 8 of this translation, and in N.o 12 in the original and N.o 11 of this translation, and in Prelude 17, Part 2, N.o 11, it will be seen that in China there are ancestral temples, which are called so because there are sacrifices which are made and offered to parents and dead ancestors, as well as to Confucius and other dead teachers. Again, in Prelude 17, Part 1, N.o 3 and Part 2 from N.o 8 to 10 inclusive is seen the conception that the Chinese have of their Confucius and other ancient philosophers. They compare them to Christ the Lord, and the sect and teaching of Confucius with the law and holy teaching of Christ. After examining and seeing this, judgement can be made on whether Chinese Christians are permitted to conduct such worship, even if for civil or political reasons, be it privately or publicly, in the temples, tombs or at home. Written in the kingdom of China on the eighth day of December, in the year of the Lord 1661, by Friar Antonio de Santa Maria, Apostolic Prefect of the Order of Friars Minor in China.

Appendix 1: Transcription of Caballero’s Latin Translation

Transcribed by Claudia von Collani, Daniel Canaris, and Thierry Meynard1 /170r/ Traductio Originalis inclusi de Lusitana Lingua in Latinam ut facilius legitur SS Congregatione de Propaganda Licet Proëmium; 1.um et 2.um Præludium Originalis prædicti in eo quod præmittit, videtur impertinens ad materiam in SS.a Congregatione discutiendam supplico humiliter ut fastidium non generet, sed totum legatur: interest quippe ad fidem faciendam 1 APF SC, Indie Orientali e Cina, vol. 1, ff. 170–198.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5

199

200

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

de cæteris, quæ in subsequentibus agit Præludijs usque in finem.2

/170v/ E. M.mis D. ac Dominis meis de Fide Propaganda SS.æ Congregationis Cardinalibus. Romæ. Traductio de lingua Lusitana in Latinam cuiusdam originalis Tractatus ab uno ex Missionarijs Societatis Compositi de ordine superiorum suorum. In quo ex professo agens de secta Philosophica antiquissima Sinarum, plura dicit et tangit de cultu ac sacrificijs et templis suorum defunctorum, ac de suo Magistro Confucio; alijsque quæ in fine Proëmij sequentis in Tabula Præludiorum indicantur.

/171r/ Responsio Brevis Super Controversias De Xámtí: hoc est, de Altissimo Domino; De Ti¯enxîn: id est, de spiritibus cælestibus; De Lîmhoên: hoc est, de Anima rationali. De aliisque nominibus ac Terminis Sinicis ad determinandum; qualia eorum vti possint vel non in hac Christianitate. Directa ad Patres Residentiarum Chinæ, vt ab eis videatur post autem remittatur cum cuiuslibet super illam censura ad Nostrum Patrem Visitatorem in Macao. Aucthore Patre Nicolao Longobardo Societatis Jesu

De Lusitano idiomate versa in Latinum per Fratr. Antonium de Sancta Maria Præfectum Apostolicum Ordinis Minorum in Sinarum Regno. Anno Domini 1661.

2 Glossa: 28. Decembre 1661 Cina. De Secta philosophica in Cina de cultu, sacrificijs et templis defunctorum, ac de Confucio auctore Nicolao Longobardo S.J.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

201

Proëmium. Ad sciendum harum Controversiarum Originem, diligentiasque quæ iuxta id factæ sunt de ordine Superiorum Maiorum.

[N.o 1] In primis plus quam Anni viginti quinque elapsi sunt, quod a Sinis nominatus Altissimus Dominus seu Imperator sub nomine Xámtí, oculos corque meum stimulare cœpit; quia post quam quatuor libros Confucii Súx¯u audivi, ut omnes agere solemus quam primum Sinam ingredimur, observavi, quod expositio termini illius Xámtí secundum diversos interpretes, valde opposita repugnansque erat naturæ divinæ. At cum a veterioribus missionis Patribus didicissem; quod ille a Sinis vocatus Xámtí erat noster Altissimus verus Dominus Deus, scrupulum deponebam; formabamque conceptum Auctores aliquos forsitan errasse, quatenus qui privatis interpretationibus cum Sinicis antiquis Doctrinis non conformabantur. Hac persuasione ac idea primos tredecim annos transegi, quibus fui in Civitate Xaucheu, absque posse prædicta conferre cum Patribus aliarum Residentiarum præsentialiter, sicut agere debuissem. [N.o 2] Post obitum autem Patris Mathæi Riccij (Primi huius Regni Sinæ Missionarii) vice eius ego succedens in munus curæ universalis huius Missionis, epistolam Patris Francisci Pasio Visitatoris Japonensis suscepi, certior factus per eam libros aliquos lingua Sinica hic a nostris compositos notari illic, cum erroribus convenire Gentilium, ita quod Patres Fratresque Christianitatis illius, magna laborabant difficultate in præfatis confutandis erroribus, propterea quod adversarij cito allegabant cum Patrum Sinensium librorum testimonijs. Ideoque mihi quam plurimum commendabat, quod accurate examinassemus quid in hac parte versabatur? Quia quamvis ille cogitare non posset Patres Sinenses, libros componentes (quatenus qui tam eruditi Theologi erant) in materia errasse Sectarum; at urgebat quidem videre, quod ex nostris plures id ipsum ibi affirmabant, qui speciali studio Sectarum vacaverant, insuperque intelligentes erant librorum Sinensium. De quo certior factus in meoque antiquo dubio confirmatus plures ac plures diligentias adhibendi animum resumpsi. Præterea cum ratione mei muneris in P˘ek¯ım me conferrem, inveni Patrem Sabbathinum de Ursis /171v/ eisdem dubijs de illo Altissimo vocato Xámtí fluctuantem. Quare cum Doctore Paulo alijsque satis intelligentibus accurate tractavimus, quod medium dari posset in dissonantia Textuum suorumque commentorum ad ea inter se conciliandum? Omnesque unanimiter dixere: opus non esse in eis conciliandis fatigari; sed sequi Textuum Doctrinam in eis, quibus nostro intento

202

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

favorabilis esset; non curantes de expositionibus contrarijs Interpretum; idemque alijs in locis ac temporibus responsum nobis fuit a Doctoribus Michaële et Leone. Idcirco aliqui Patres ex nostris dixere hanc diligentiam sufficere quidem ut causa decideretur; opusque non esse has materias amplius ventilare. At mihi, Patri Sabbathino, alijsque pluribus visum fuit quidem, cum hoc solum modo necdum posse nos quietos manere ac securos: supposito maximè quòd litterati Christiani solent sæpe in expositionibus suarum K¯ıms, id est suarum Doctrinarum se accommodare nobiscum in eo quod intelligunt verisimilitudinem habere cum nostra S.ta lege, nondùm advertentes quantum interest ut veritas controversiarum harum prodeat in lucem, et neutiquàm dicatur aliquid falsitati redolens aut figmento. [N.o 3] Nobis hæc ventilantibus, Pater Joannes Royz, qui nupèr è Japone venerat in Macam, ingressum huc fecit, easdem exoptans examinare controversias: adventus eius opportunissimus fuit, meoque videri divinitus ordinatus pro utriusque Christianitatis Sinicæ et Japonicæ utilitate. Et quamvis Patres illi rem iam claram ac firmam esse iudicantes cum prædicto Patre disputare noluerunt, cæteri vero qui veritatem adhuc obumbratam esse arbitrabamur, gavisi valde sumus difficultates pro utraque parte cum eo conferre. Itaque fundamenta clare principaliora proposuimus trium Sectarum Jû, X˘e, Taó, id est Sectæ litteratorum Sinarum, aliarumque duarum præcipuorum Sinæ Idolorum. Cum quo facile erit medium convenientius his controversijs decidere. [N.o 4] Cum autem Pater Ioannes Royz Macam rediret, Epistolam de eo in quo versabamur tulit Patri Valentino Carvalho tunc Provinciali utriusque Provinciæ tradendam, qui per suas litteras nobis incumbebat studio vacare Sectarum, necessarissimo utique ad non errandum in terminis et opinionibus in hac Christianitate introducendis; simulque misit catalogum quemdam de nominibus periculosis ac dubijs suo videri, ut ea hic examinassemus ac mature determinassemus: præcipue vero annotavit ut iuxta nomen illud Xámtí (sub quo Dominator altissimus significatur a Sinis) summa fieret inquisitio: et quia ipse sciebat plures ex nobis (Sinæ morantibus) erratum esse tale nomen iudicare, inhibuit eo uti deinceps, donec res penitus decideretur. [N.o 5] Post hoc autem in munere Visitatoris successit Pater Franciscus Viera, sciensque ordinem iuxta prædicta sui prædecessoris P. Valentini Carvalho confirmavit, atque de novo incubuit nobis, ut resolutionem prædictorum ex iudicio Præfectorum Christianorum habitam remitteremus ad illum. Hanc remisi cum Patre Sabbathino Macam petente

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

203

cum alijs exulibus Patribus, item ei commendavi ut plura specialia iuxta subiectam materiam ipse referret, quatenus in eis satis versatus, quod diligenter complevit verbo et scriptis: porro cum P. Visitator videret ibi duos alios adesse contrarium sentientes, scilicet Patrem Didacum Pantoja et Patrem Illephonsum Vanhoni, putavit has controversias decidi non posse, nisi disputarentur in forma. Idcirco ordinavit ut tres dicti Patres singulos super illas scriberent Tractatus; tres disputantes (ut cum methodo procederetur) quæstiones: 1.am De Deo, 2.am de Angelis; 3.am vero de Anima rationali: ostenderentque si in Sinarum Doctrinis aliquod de ijs rebus esset vestigium vel non? Ex hoc enim omnis resolutio nominum Sinicorum quibus uti debeat in hac Christianitate dependet. [N.o 6] Tres prædicti Patres singulos Tractatus in opposita fecerunt: duo enim P. Pantoja et P. Vanhoni mittebantur partem affirmativam probare, Sinas quidem aliquam de Deo, de Angelis, de Animaque rationali habuisse notitiam, Deumque nominare velle sub nomine Xámtí, Angelos sub nomine Ti¯enxîn, Animamque rationalem sub nomine Lîmhoên: Pater autem Sabbathinus penitus oppositum tenuit, probans Sinicas Gentes secundum principia suæ Philosophiæ ac Physicæ naturalis neutiquam substantiam aliquam à materiali (sicut nos ponimus) distinctam agnovisse necdum scivisse quid Deus sit, quid Angeli, /172r/ quid ve Anima rationalis. Quæ opinio valde placuit Patribus Fratribusque Japonensibus existentibus in Macao, eam approbantibus quatenus plus fundatam consentaneamque Sinarum Doctrinæ parumque defuit, quin pro ea Patris Visitatoris sententia definitiva daretur. Porro cum res ita esset gravis, et non posset ille tam exactus iudex esse iuxta Sinicas auctoritates pro utraque parte allegatas, resoluit denique ad nos huc prædictos Tractatus remittere, examinandos utique non solum cum litteratis Christianis, verumtamen cum litteratis Gentilibus, qui in exponendis suis Doctrinis suspecti non sunt conformari velle beneplacito Patrum. [N.o 7] Tunc temporis P. Joannes Royz alium copiosum fecit Tractatum iuxta assertum a Patre Sabbathino, et sic pro utraque parte duo iam erant Tractatus. Hic ultimus P. Joannis Royz a P. Visitatore alijsque illius Collegij gravioribus Patribus pariter visus valde omnibus placuit, ideoque cum alijs tribus ad nos remittere voluit, sed cum transcribere illico non posset, epilogum eius cum sua epistola misit, satis utique ad resolvendum quod de ijs nunc prætenditur controversijs. [N.o 8] Cum ego autem hic 4.or suscepissem Tractatus, etsi non dubitabam Patres Sabbathinum & Royz directe in scopum Doctrinarum tendere Sinicarum, secundum id quod antea hic egeram cum

204

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

illis; præterquam quod informare illuc feceram ad Patrem Visitatorem, maiorem adhuc diligentiam super istud volui adhibere; inquirensque de novo de Præfectis Christianis, et varijs occasionibus disputans cum Patribus huius Missionis, semper inveni opinionem horum duorum Patrum certiorem securioremque esse. Quoad litteratos autem Gentiles, inquirere ab eis non potui sicut P. Visitator nominatim mihi incumbebat persecutionis causa, quæ libere agere cum eis non patiebatur, et ita coactus fui, plus quam volebam, hanc responsionem differre, attendens quidem nullum querelari posse, sententiam ferri definitivam, inaudita altera parte. Denique occasiones cum diversis litteratis agendi mihi oblatas non omittens annis ultimis dum steti in parte Australi, maximè biennio post nostram publicationem dum in Regia hac Curia resedi; de Doctrina Sinica attingente ad præsens negotium, iam clarum me ac clarissimum puto, itaque distincte ac breviter in hac mea responsione quod sentio proponam. [N.o 9] Patres autem qui hanc viderint responsionem opus est 4.or præfatos prævidere Tractatus, siquidem plura hic, quæ illic dicuntur suppono. Advertatur vero me hanc responsionem brevem proponere, propterea quod cum Vestris Reverentijs ago, quatenus qui tam versati sunt in materijs. Itaque sufficit ut principaliora indicentur. Eadem ratio militat quoad Patrem Visitatorem aliosque Patres ultra Chinam qui non plus quam brevem harum controversiarum videre resolutionem expectant a Patribus veterioribus versatissimisque huius Missionis approbatam. Hæc responsio in tres dividitur partes: 1.a de aliquibus Præludijs super Sinicam doctrinam necessarijs valde ut melius nostra fundetur intelligaturque opinio. 2.a censuram continet nominum terminorumque Sinicorum, qui in hac Christianitate uti possunt; expliciti tamen nostroque modo adaptati. 3.a vero obiectionibus oppositis a Patribus contrariæ opinionis respondet: omne ad maiorem gloriam Dei. Index Primæ Partis 1.um Præludium. De libris classicis et authenticis Sinensibus, per quos has controversias debemus decidere. fol. 1. Pagina 1. 2.um Præludium. De dissonantia quæ interdum est inter libros authenticos et in similibus casibus potius regi per commenta quam per Textus debemus. fol. 1. Pagina 2.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

205

3.um Præludium. De Symbolis, quibus utitur Secta Litteratorum: unde provenit duos modos habere doctrinæ: veram unam; apparentem alteram. fol. 3. Pagina 1. 4.um Præludium. De modo Philosophandi Sectae Jûki¯ao, id est Litteratorum in generali. fol. 5. Pagina 1. 5.um Præludium. De Si¯en Ti˘en Hi˘o hoc est, scire a priori, quomodo universum fuit productum iuxta Sinensium Litteratorum opinionem. fol. 5. Pagina 2. 6.um Præludium. De Heú Ti˘en Hi˘o: hoc est scire à posteriori, quomodo res generantur et corrumpuntur in hoc universo. fol. 7. Pagina 2. 7.um Præludium. De illo inter Sinas celeberrimo Axiomate vuán vo˘e iˇe tì: nostro correspondenti scilicet omnia sunt unum. fol. 8. Pagina 1. 8.um Præludium. Quid sit generatio et corruptio in eorum Doctrina? fol. 8. Pagina 2. 9.um Præludium. Cum essentia naturaque omnium rerum una eadem sit, quomodo res differunt inter se secundum illos? fol. 9. Pagina 1. 10.um Præludium. Sinæ neutiquam duas substantias distinctas agnoverunt, spiritualem et corpoream; sed unam dumtaxat plus aut minus materialem. fol. 9. Pagina 2. 11.um Præludium. De spiritibus seu Dijs, quos Sinenses adorant secundum Sectam Litteratorum. fol. 10. Pagina 1. In hoc præludio n.o 6 agit de varijs sacrificijs: inter quæ annumerantur etiam sacrificia hominibus facta, qui insignes fuerant in Republica. fol. 10. Pagina 2. 12.um Præludium. De varijs auctoritatibus Auctorum Classicorum agentibus de spiritibus seu Dijs Sinarum. fol. 12. Pagina 1. In hoc præludio n.o 8 et n. 11.o agit de Templis Antecessorum: ac de sacrificijs quæ fiunt Parentibus Avisque defunctis, similiterque suo Magistro Confucio. Hæc vero in Codice Originali, eodem continentur Præludio sed in n.o 9 et n.o 12.3

3 Notes added by Caballero.

206

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

13.um Præludium. Omnes spiritus vel Dij Sinarum reducuntur ad unum fol. 13. Pagina 2. dumtaxat, ab eis vocatum Lì seu T˘aiki˘e. 14.um Præludium. De varijs attributis ac nominibus, quæ Sinæ attribuunt suo primo totius orbis Principio. fol. 16. Pagina 1. 15.um Præludium. Quid sit Vita et Mors secundum Sectam litteratorum Sinensium, ad videndum si Anima nostra sit immortalis vel non secundum mentem eorum. fol. 17. Pagina 2. 16.um Præludium. Sinenses litterati et sapientiores omnes sunt Atheistæ. fol. 18. Pagina 2. 17.um Præludium. De testimonijs diversorum graviumque litteratorum Gentilium et Christianorum iuxta materiam de suo Altissimo Xámtí seu cæli Altissimo Rege ac de spiritibus. fol. 19. Pagina 1. In hoc 17. Præludio § 1 n. 3 Christus Dominus æquiparatur Confucio: lexque sanctissima Christi, legi Confutij, ex mente Sinarum. fol. 19 Pagina 2 in fine. Ibidem § 2 n.o 8. Dicitur ab eis, Antiquos Sinas sapientes, Angelos fuisse incarnatos. fol. 22 Pagina 2. Ibidem § 2 n.o 9. Dicitur cæli Dominum (vel Xámtí, vel Ti¯en chù nominatum) pluries in Sina incarnasse apparuisseque in personis Confucij et aliorum similium: et sic bene potuit in Occidente incarnari in persona Jesu Christi. fol. 22. Pagina 2. Ibidem § 2 n.o 10. Dicitur Doctrinam Confucij penitus perfectam esse; unamque eamdem cum nostra Theologia, cum legeque divina ibidem in fine. Ibidem § 2 n.o 11. Dicitur Sanctis nostris posse sacrificia offerri, sicut Sinæ offeruntur cælo et terræ, Magistrisque defunctis. fol. 23. Pagina 1.4

Finis. /173r/ Prima Pars In qua aliqua ponuntur proponunturque Præludia necessaria ad melius

4 Notes added by Caballero.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

207

intelligendam fundandamque hanc Responsionem Primum Præludium De libris Classicis et Authenticis: per quos decidendæ sunt hæ controversiæ

[N.o 1] Supposito quidem Sinæ magnam esse varietatem librorum de diversis agentium materijs ac professionibus, in quibus plura de controversijs nostris tractantur, sed cum omnes non eam aucthoritatem habeant, quæ ad resolutionem tam gravium rerum requiritur, ideo maturo decrevimus consilio libris tantummodo classicis uti, qui in Secta Litteratorum sequuntur. Quæ cum antiquissima sit, utpote professa ab omnibus Sinæ Regibus suisque Præfectis, sic pollentissima ac omnium celeberrima est quæ a tempore quatuor mille annorum fuere usque nunc. [N.o 2] Libri huius Sectæ proprij et Authentici ad quatuor in summa ordines reducuntur. 1.us ordo, sunt libri doctrinarum antiquarum, qui vocantur K¯ıms; scilicet I˘ek¯ım, X¯uk¯ım, Xík¯ım, Ch¯unçi¯eu, Súx¯u.5 Has doctrinas reliquerunt scriptas primi Reges, sapientesque Sinarum, itaque per eas examinantur graduanturque sui litterati. [N.o 3] 2.us Ordo: sunt horum commenta, quæ duobus modis sunt: Alterum est commentum breve unius dumtaxat Auctoris, qui Textum insequitur cuiuslibet ex ijs doctrinis, apposita sua glossa ordinaria, huic student discipuli, suis declarantibus magistris: Alterum vero est commentum grande vocatum Táçiuên,6 quod fieri præcepit (plus iam sunt quam Anni ducenti) Rex nomine Iûm l˘o, præeligens ad hoc quadraginta duos in secta litteratorum, præclaræ famæ Præfectos: quorum maior pars erat ex ordine Hânl¯ıns. Hi Præfecti imprimis recognoverunt approbaruntque commentum breve de Súxu, hoc est super 4.or libros Confucij, super omnesque K¯ıms, id est super omnes cæterarum doctrinarum libros. Insuper illi quoddam magnum copiosumque commentum fecerunt, colligentes præcipuorum expositiones Interpretum, qui tempore mille sexcentos Annorum super eas scripserant, ab eo scilicet tempore, in quo Sinensium librorum facta fuit (de mandato cuiusdam Regis nomine Chì Hoâm) generalis combustio. Numerus autem antiquorum Interpretum magnus est: nam super Súx¯u seu 4.or libros Confucij, sunt

5 = a 易經書經詩經春秋禮記四書. The Liji is omitted in the Latin text, but is present in the Portuguese. 6 = b 大全.

208

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

107 Interpretes. In Commento I˘ek¯ım 136. In commento X¯uk¯ım 166 et sic de reliquis K¯ıms seu libris doctrinarum suarum, sicut Catalogis impressis videtur in eorum initio. Estque dignum miru, videre uniformem conventientiam eorum in rerum substantialium suarum doctrinarum intelligentia et expositione. Quod videtur utique nostrorum Sanctorum Patrum quædam imago in expositione SS.æ Scripturæ. Unde non sine ratione hæc commenta tanti Sinæ æstimantur, quod compositiones litteratorum super textum neutiquam admittuntur, si consentaneæ non fuerint commentorum expositioni. [N.o 4] 3.us Ordo: libri sunt qui summam continent suæ Philosophiæ tam Physicæ quam Moralis, quæ intitulatur Símlì7 : Hanc summam collegerunt ipsi 42 Præfecti recompilantes in ea materias in antiquis doctrinis dispersas, simul cum alijs per varios auctores postea tractatis, quorum numerus est in summa 118. 4.us Denique ordo libri sunt originales horum Auctorum, qui floruerunt ut dicitur supra post universalem combustionem librorum Sinensium. Qui auctores partim vacarunt expositioni doctrinarum primorum Philosophorum, partim vero compositioni, ex proprio marte diversarum materiarum. Hi ergo sunt libri classici, qui in Secta litteratorum sequuntur e quibus colligere poterimus: num Sinæ aliquam de Deo, de Angelis, de Animaque rationali habuerint agnitionem. [N.o 5] Antequam ultra progreditur, obiter notetur antiquitas doctrinarum Sinensium, quæ initium habuere a primo Sinarum Rege nomine Fo˘e H¯ı, qui secundum Sinicam Chronologiam fuit quidem a multis annis ante universale diluvium, sed cum hoc admitti non possit utpote oppositum SS.æ Scripturæ, saltem est certum proximum eum fuisse divisioni linguarum: sic P. Joannes Royz in suo supra prædicto Tractatu fundamentaliter probat, ut scilicet præfatus /173v/ F˘oh¯ı fuerit utique Magnus ille Zoroastres Rex Bactrianæ Magorum Princeps Chaldæorum, qui omnibus Sectis Occidentis Regionis dedit principium: postque veniens in Orientalem plagam, Sinarum Regnum fundavit, simulque hanc Sectam Sinensium litteratorum. Unde cum hæc Secta aliæque illarum Gentilitatum opere ipsius Diaboli ex uno eodemque fonte profluxerint, ita omnes inter se magnam habent similitudinem, eademque arte atque inventione ad baratrum Inferni homines deceptos perducunt. Prolixior in hac materia esse nolo, supposito præfatum Patrem fuse et erudite hoc egisse in suo

7 = c 性理.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

209

illo Tractatu. Exhortor tamen eum legi attente, magnam enim lucem ille ministrat ad decisionem harum controversiarum. 2.um Præludium De differentia seu dissonantia quæ interdum invenitur inter libros Authenticos: et in similibus casibus potius per commenta quam per Textus regi debemus

Supposito in rei veritate inter authenticos libros litteratorum, si eorum penetrentur principia, dissonantiam non esse, at vero quia aliquando esse videtur inter Doctrinarum Textus expositionemque Interpretum, ideo præmittitur hoc præludium intuitu decernendi, in tali casu quomodo procedere debemus. [N.o 1] Inprimis quædam huius differentiæ præmittam exempla. V.g.a Doctrinarum Textus aiunt, seu volunt ostendere, quemdam esse Dominum seu Regem Imperatorem altissimum et supremum vocatum Xámtí, qui in cæli aiunt existit palatio, indeque mundum gerit, bonis præmium tribuens, pravis vero pœnam infligens: porro Interpretes totum hoc ipsimet materiali æthereo cælo attribuunt, aut rationi universali totius naturæ, quæ ab eis vocatur Lì: ut infra suo loco dicetur. Textus doctrinarum aiunt varios spiritus esse, qui vocantur Xîn, vel Kùei, seu Kuèixîn ett.a qui montibus præsunt, ac fluminibus, cæterisque rebus huius Universi: at interpretes id ipsummet exponunt de causis naturalibus, seu de virtutibus rerum operativis, quæ operantur in eis. Textus denique prædicti de hominis Anima loquentes (sub nomine Lîmhoên) insinuant intelligere, eam post hominis obitum adhuc permanere viventem. Dicunt enim de quodam suo antiquo Rege vocato Vên Vuâm inhabitare altitudinem cæli, ad latusque existere illius Altissimi Regis Xámtí: sed interpretes uniformiter asserunt Lîmhoên id est, Animam rationalem non aliud esse nisi quamdam aëream igneam entitatem, quæ à corpore separata sursum ascendit, cum cælique Corpore counitur, cum eoque est una eadem identificata res; et hæc est Textuum antiquorum germana eorum expositio, quando dicunt præfatum Regem Vên Vuâm ad latus esse Altissimi illius Xámtí: quia cum iste Altissimus secundum eorum mentem aliud non sit nisi ipsummet æternum cælum, una eademque res cum eo, sic quando Anima redit in cælum dicitur eam ascendere seque coniungere cum illo Altissimo Xámtí. [N.o 2] Ex ijs apparentibus dissonantijs, multæ inter Textus suaque commenta inveniuntur: et cum Textus conformiores nostræ doctrinæ

210

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

videantur, idcirco aliqui ex Patribus putant ut Textus sequamur ad commenta non attendentes. Alij vero sentiunt non sufficere Textibus inniti solummodo, sed opus esse et ad commentorum expositiones attendere: immo et cum dubium aliquod obstiterit, potius commentis quam Textibus adhærere debere. Supposito igitur hoc iudiciorum discrimine, cum tanti momenti sit ad intenti resolutionem, opus est id ante omnia declarare; itaque rationes utriusque opinionis præmittam. [N.o 3] In favorem 1.æ opinionis, quam sequuntur PP. Pantoja et Vanhoni possunt hæ allegari rationes. 1.o in Textibus Doctrinarum est et consistit omnis Sinicæ Philosophiæ /174r/ suarumque scientiarum veritas, in eisque fundatur Secta litteratorum; unde dubium non est, quin Textus maioris vis et auctoritatis sint quam commenta. 2.o Auctores commentorum magna ex parte fuerunt dum Prosapia Regia cognomine Sum Sinæ imperabat, quando iam ex India venerat Secta Idolorum, et hoc fuit causa ut interdum illi à vero sensu Textuum antiquorum recederent. 3.o Præcipui Christiani quos Sinæ habemus, qui graves sunt litterati et Præfecti, exhortantes consulunt nobis Textuum adhærere doctrinis, nostra apposita expositione, quæ nostræ sanctæ legi fuerit proximior, quemadmodum antea agebatur a primo in hoc Regnum Societatis ingressu. Videtur nos utique posse immo et teneri eorum sequi iudicium, quatenus illi in rebus Sinicis tum versatissimi sunt, tum etiam sciunt quid cum nostra S.ta lege consonet aut dissonet. 4.o Nos quidem Textus sequentes in eis quibus nobis favorabiles sint (sicut de facto favent in pluribus) cum Secta Litteratorum adunabimur, sicque voluntates attrahemus Sinarum dilatatioque S.ti Evangelij in tota Sina facilitabitur. De quo etiam adest Sanctorum exemplar qualibet minima utili ratione inventa in Gentilitatibus utentium, sicut S. Paulus Areopagi fecit, dictum allegans Poëtæ Ipsius enim et genus sumus. [N.o 4] Pro 2.a autem opinione quam defendunt PP. Sabbathinus et Royz, multo validiores convenientesque adsunt rationes. 1.o Antiquorum Textuum doctrinæ sæpe sæpius obscurissimæ sunt: in pluribusque locis ex diminutione seu additione verborum (ut ipsimet asserunt Litterati) erratis non carent: sæpissime ænigmatibus ac parabolis utuntur ad suæ Philosophiæ (ut inferius videbitur) recondenda mysteria ideoque si lux interpretum ductrix defuerit, intelligi non possunt, vel absque magnis erroribus non erit intelligentia. Quare commenta fuere facta tanta diligentia selectionesque Interpretum: Item omnes litterati in suis compositionibus (ut dicitur 1.o Præludio n.o 3.) ea sequi tenentur. Si igitur in

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

211

Textuum difficultatibus, quia obscuri ac perplexi sunt, Sinæ ipsi reguntur per sua commenta patere videtur idem facere multo plus extraneos teneri. [N.o 5] 2.o Nobis quidem Textus exponentibus in diverso sensu a suis commentis cogitabunt Sinæ ideo sic exponere, quia nondum suos perlegimus libros, vel quia non intelligimus sicut intelligi debent: et sic aliqui litterati plura notavere in libro Patris Matthæi Rictij intitulato X˘e í: inter quos fuit ille Boncius famosus (id est quidam Sacerdos Idolorum) de Provincia Ch˘e ki¯am, qui 4.or capitula fecit opposita libro præfato, in quorum initio aiebat dignum venia Patrem alienigenam esse, in sensu errato libros exposuisse Sinenses, quatenus plus non assequentem. Alius Kiû t˘ai s˘o nominatus, amicissimus Societatis in China, Patrisque Rictij specialis devotus, codicem quemdam scripsit, in quo indicabat quæ de tribus Sectis dici debebant, siquidem Pater de illis in libro suo nondum certum invenit. Alia omitto similia exemplaria eo quod punctum hoc notum est quasi omnibus nostris huius Missionis. Capitulaque Bonzij præfati, codexque prædicti Kiû T¯ai s˘o, sunt in Archivo de Hâmche¯u, qui videre voluerit utique poterit. [N.o 6] 3.o Certum est ut supra dixi commenta Textibus non opponi, et contrarium dicere, reputabitur a Sinis ut hæresis, eo quod commenta hæc (in omnibus classibus recepta) tanti ducuntur quasi ipsimet Textus. Concesso tamen inter Textus et commenta aliquam esse contrarietatem, illosque consentaneos esse rationi plus quam ista; adhuc in tali casu Sinæ nunquam iudicium suum nostro submittent. Si Textus exponamus aliter quam sua commenta apud illos enim indubitabile est commenta non errare, nec sentire quid oppositum Textibus: itaque litem contra Sinas aggrediemur invincibilem, et peior tandem pars nobis attinget: Testis ad hoc sum expertus tam de me quam de alijs aggredientibus iuxta subiectam materiam disputare cum Sinis. /174v/ In initio enim illi audientes nos dicere Altissimum illum Xámtí creatorem esse totius universi ett.a sicut declarare solemus, nobis irrident, ex sua Jûki¯ao id est, litteratorum doctrina scientes, suum Altissimum Xámtí æternum esse utique cælum, vel suam prædominantem virtutem, itaque neutiquam ante cælum eum existere posse, sed simul dum cælum fuit, vel adhuc postquam iam erat cælum. Cum vero nitimur progredi probantes prius artificem esse debere, posteaque domum ett.a non patiuntur ultra nos loqui: dicentes, supposito quidem nostrum Deum esse altissimum Dominum nuncupatum Xámtí, opus non esse a nobis declarari; illi quippe melius id sciunt quam nos. Denique etiamsi indies instemus non debere suos interpretes in illa forma exponere Altissimum

212

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

illum Xámtí, illi semper nobis intonant eamdem Antiphonam, nos scilicet nondum suos intelligere libros: immo et multi contra nos irascuntur putamurque importuni et imprudentes, volentes Sinas docere suos intelligere interpretarique Aucthores. [N.o 7] 4.o Quando Pater Visitator Franciscus Viera Patribus Sinensibus in Macao ordinavit illas tres disputare quæstiones (ut supra in Proëmio n.o 5) Pater Sabbathinus interrogavit, utrum Sua Reverentia vellet disputationem fieri iuxta litteram Textuum an iuxta resolutivam interpretum expositionem? Pater Visitator ad quæsitum advertens informatusque ab eodem Patre Sabbathino de eo quod iuxta hoc versabatur in Sinis, respondit se scire desiderare mentem interpretum, siquidem in omnibus mundi classibus ac professionibus sic fiebat, quod non est de doctrina Platonica seu Peripatetica diffinire nisi iuxta sua commenta classica et recepta. Hac supposita P. Visitatoris resolutione P. Sabbathinus suum fecit Tractatum, probantem utique quod secundum commenta authentica litteratorum Sinensium, ille qui ab eis vocatur Xámtí hoc est Altissimus Imperator aut Dominus; nullatenus potest esse noster verus Deus, neque illi quos vocant Ti¯en xîn, id est spiritus cælestes, possunt nostri Angeli esse, neque ea quam vocant Lîm hoên, hoc est Animam rationalem, potest esse Anima nostra ett.a Hæ rationes satis erant ut 2.a approbaretur opinio adhærendi potius commentis quam Textibus. Restat nunc ad argumenta respondere 1.æ opinionis. [N.o 8] Ad 1.um Concedo totum quod dicitur de vi auctoritateque K¯ıms seu Textuum supra sua commenta: sed dico ad difficilia, seu obscura, intelligenda valde necessariam esse lucem ac directionem commentorum. Nec dicere hic omittam mirari me valde videre quantum illi Patres Textibus Sinensium Doctrinarum innitantur, quæ ab eis teneri videtur quasi esset doctrina revelata non potens capere errorem8 : et tamen scimus Confucium multos errores in prædictis K¯ıms seu antiquis doctrinis emendasse, sicut noster Aristoteles fecit in libris Philosophorum præcedentium. Unde sicut in Aristotele plura cursu temporis inventa sunt digna correctu, ita inveniri possunt in Confucio. [N.o 9] Ad 2.dum Respondeo 1.o quod hæc Classica de quibus loquimur commenta non sunt Auctorum dumtaxat, qui post ingressum 8 [Nec] hic omitti potest dicere valde dignum miru esse, videre quantum aliter innitantur cultui Confucij et Parentum, Avorumque defunctorum etiam Gentilium, quasi esset de iu[re] divino aut doctrina revelata: cum plena sit sacrificijs superstitiosis, ut infra videbitur in Præludio 12.n.o 8 et n.o 11. ibidem relati sunt Prælud.17. § 2, [n.o ] 11.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

213

in Sinam Sectæ Idolorum scripsere, sed et aliorum plurium qui ante ingressum Idolorum Sectæ in hoc Regnum (quod fuit Anno 65 post incarnationem) floruerunt quidem ducentis Annis ante Incarnationem. Hi ergo omnes professi sunt Sectam sequi Idolorum9 propriam ac puram absque aliarum Sectarum opinionum admixtione sicut hodie in suismet commentis videtur. Quantum ad alios vero scriptores qui post ingressam Sectam Idolorum scripserunt, miscueruntque suos errores; non nego plurimos esse valdeque celebres: at isti non attinent ad Sectam de qua nunc agimus litteratorum, sed ad sectam Idolorum se illius profitentes alumnos. Respondeo 2.o aliquem litteratum Sinæ non esse qui dicere patiatur sua authentica commenta in aliquo separari a vero sensu suarum K¯ıms seu Doctrinarum: immo omnes illi suadentur suas K¯ıms seu doctrinas expositionem aliam a suis Commentis non pati, si Textus earum adinvicem conferantur, metianturque per suæ Philosophiæ principia /175r/. [N.o 10] Ad 3.um Dico 1.o nostros litteratos Christianos ita consulere nobis; tum quia nondum penetrant quantum præiudicet in materijs de quibus agimus tantillum erroris esse: tum etiam quia dissimulari desiderant prætextu scilicet quod nostra St.a lex cum sua secta combinat, ut sic notari non possint se exteram sequi legem.10 At nostri Patres alijs superioribus ideis debent procedere, ab illis duci non patientes, sed potius ducere eos quemadmodum parti utrique convenientius esse intellexerint. Dico 2.o quod hi litterati Christiani in suismet supra Textus suarum K¯ıms seu doctrinarum compositionibus, eis non alium sensum apponunt nisi illum qui est in commentis: alias enim suæ compositiones tamquam erratæ et anomalæ in schola Confucíj reprobabuntur: Non video igitur cur nobis suadeant faciamus oppositum, quod ipsi non agunt. Ad 4.um Respondeo ibi supponere falsum, quod textus scilicet nobis sint favorabiles: quia in veritate non sunt, si eo modo intelligantur, quo in secta Litteratorum debent intelligi: itaque coacte velle illis inniti contra id quod aiunt commenta erit sicut supra arenam ædificare, aut Icari alis velle 9 “Idolorum” is obviously a mistake and should be “litteratorum”. The APF Portuguese text reads: “E estes todos professaram de [seg]uir a doutrina pura e propria da Seita dos Letrados.” (149v). 10 = a Videtur quidem melius hoc dicere eos posse, si eis ministri permittant, adhuc permanere in ritibus cultus Confucij et Parentum defunctorum sub prætextu politico, cum cultus sit Religionis, anumeratur inter sacrificia aliorum falsorum spirituum. Ut Prælud. 11. n.o 6. Prælud. 12. n.o 8 n.o 11. Prælud. 17. § 2. n.o 11. infra videbitur. Nos Ministri ducere eos debemus; non ab eis seduci [Marginal note added by Caballero].

214

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

volare. Quantum ad exemplum vero Sanctorum imitandum est quidem dum cum fundamento fieri potest. 3.um Præludium. De Simbolis Sectæ litteratorum: unde oritur duos modos doctrinarum habere: Alteram veram: Apparentem vero Alteram.

[N.o 1] Quantum attinet ad 1.am huius Præludij partem notari debet quod fere omnes antiquæ Gentilitatis Philosophi varios symbolos, ænigmata, figurasque adinvenerunt, intuitu quidem recondita habendi suæ Philosophiæ mysteria de quo utique loquens cursus Conimbricensis lib. 1. Physicorum dicit sequentia: Vetus Philosophantium consuetudo fuit ab Ægyptijs et Chaldæis atque a Pherecide Pythagoræ magistro ducta, ut Philosophiæ mysteria aut non scriberent omnino, aut scriberent dissimulanter, id est, implicita recedentium sensuum obscuritate, et mathematicis imaginibus atque ænigmatibus reconderent. Poëtæ enim fabulis; Pythagorei Philosophi symbolis; Platonici Mathematicis; Aristoteles orationis brevitate arcana Philosophiæ obtexuit et obscuravit. Nefas enim putabant ad arcana sapientiæ profanum vulgum admittere, et quæ natura in abdito collocasset, ea desidi et ignavæ multitudini communicare. Aristoteles vero etsi iudicaret Philosophiam passim evulgandam non esse, eam tamen doctrinæ rationem, quæ cuncta in ambiguo relinqueret, et interdum inani falsitatis specie veritatem obumbraret, minime probandum censuit.11

[N.o 2] Eodem modo Sinæ Philosophi sectam fundantes litteratorum sua symbola habent, tam sub varijs figuris et numeris, quam sub metaphoricis verbis: et hoc totum est ad significandum essentiam et esse causarum universalium suarumque causalitatum. Symbola præcipua sunt numeri par et impar: lineæ per medium scissæ et integræ: Puncta nigra et alba: figuræ rotundæ et quadratæ: sexque locorum positiones12 : aliaque verba 11 In general, the citation corresponds to Commentarii Conimbricenses in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis (Lyon, 1592), 145. However, “Poëtæ enim fabulis; Pythagorei Philosophi symbolis; Platonici Mathematicis; Aristoteles orationis brevitatem arcana Philosophiæ obrexuit et obscuravit.” is taken from page 60 of the same work. 12 = b Hæ positiones infra declarantur. Præliudio 8 n.o 6 hic in fine [Marginal note added by Caballero].

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

215

et termini metaphorici. His rebus pleni sunt libri dicti I˘ek¯ım, ubi est doctrinæ Sinicæ speculativum. Quantum vero ad mysteria numerorumque varias causalitates, sunt quoque duo integri libri, scilicet 11. et 12 de sua Símlì seu Philosophia: per quos facile utique esset instaurari scientia numerorum Pythagoricorum qui eo in magno Occidente disparuerunt. Sinæ hic symbolorum usus invenitur quoque in Sectis Bonziorum et Tausorum, id est, sacerdotum Idolorum: Boncij illis uti cœperunt a tempore ingressus Sectæ Idolorum in hoc Regnum, quæ secum traxit Symbola Gymnosophitarum, quæ sub figuris hominum sunt, et Animalium, nubium, serpentium, Dæmoniorum, ensium, lancearum, arcuum et sagittarum, aliorumque materialium diversorum instrumentorum /175v/ quæ apta sunt suis significandis intentis. Taosi quoque Boncios imitantes utuntur eisdem fere symbolis sub figuris humanis ad primum significandum Principium, Animæ potentias, ac elementa e quibus componitur homo ett.a Itaque notorium est in tribus utique sectis symbola esse, etiamsi non omnes ea cognoscunt ut talia, nisi versatissimi in principijs ac mysterijs prædictarum Sectarum. [N.o 3] Quantum autem ad 2.am partem debet etiam notari quod symbolorum occasione in omnibus nationibus ab antiquo duæ sortes fuere doctrinarum; Altera secreta, et vera putata; Altera vero falsa et apparens. Prima quidem Philosophia erat ac scientia causarum naturalium, quam sciebant sapientes dumtaxat, secreteque versabatur inter eos in classibus suis. Secunda vero erat quædam falsa apparentia doctrinæ popularis, quæ primæ erat ænigma: At populus secundum quod verba sonabant, veram illam esse cogitabat, cum in re falsa fictitiaque esset omnino: et hæc convertebatur ad moralia, ad populi regimen, ad cultumque divinum: sicut ait Plutarch de Placit. Philosophi: et Pierius in suis hierogliphicis ac alij. Hoc igitur modo varios antiqui introduxerunt Deos, bonos et malos: Boni erant illi qui imponebantur ad materiam primam, vel Chaos, quatuorque elementa significandum; sicut ponit Empedocles relatus a Plutarcho de Placit. lib. 1 cp. 3 ubi ait: Radices primum rerum tibi quatuor edam. Jupiter Æthereus; Juno Vitalis, ad hos Dis et Nestis, lachrimis humanos quæ rigat alveos. Jupiter, id est ignis et Æther; Juno vitalis, id est Aër; Dis seu Pluto, id est Terra. Nestis sub humanorum Canalium nomine, Aqua et semen.

216

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

Dij autem mali et nocivi erant utique illi qui fingebantur sub nomine de Furias, Diras, Parcas ett.a cum quibus significabantur præcipuæ Animæ passiones interius turbantes extorquentesque hominem: et hoc in terminis habet (sicut notat cursus Conimbricensis, referens D. Augustinum in materia de Anima) Secta Gymnosophitarum, qui ad denotandum homines suis obsequentes passionibus similes esse in moribus Brutis Animalibus, finxere quidem Animas separatas in varia Bestiarum corpora transmigrare. Ex hoc enim populus rudis tales etenim esse Deos; bonos et malos; Angelos quoque esse atque Dæmonia: nostrasque Animas in diversa transmigrare corpora cogitabat. Plutarchus etiam eodem libro de Placit. inquit Providentiam divinam negantes in mundo, Animæque immortalitatem, quia legum civilium timore dumtaxat mala populi occulta cohibere non poterant, sub symbolis et ænigmatibus fingere divinitatem ac Religionem cœperunt ad populum coërcendum, gerendamque Rempublicam, iudicantes utique quiete ac pacifice vivere non posse absque aliquo modo Religionis et cultus etiamsi falsi. [N.o 4] Quæ omnia ostendit clare D. Augustinus in libro De Civitate Dei pluribus in locis, ubi tria genera Philosophiæ antiquorum assignat: Alterum, fabulosum, quo utebantur Poëtæ: Naturale Alterum, quo utebantur Philosophi, Tertium vero civile, quod inter populum versabatur. In libro 6. refert Varronem. Ait vero Varro: “Primum, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam immortalium ficta. 2.um genus est, inquit, quod demonstravi, de quo multos libros Philosophi reliquerunt: in quibus est Dij qui sunt; ubi; quod genus, quales ex quo tempore; an ex sempiterno fuerint; an ex igne sint, ut credit Heraclitus; an ex Numeris, ut Pythagoras; an ex Athomis, ut Epicurus; sic alia quæ facilius intra parietes in schola, quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures. 3.um genus est, quod in urbibus cives, maxime /176r/ sacerdotes nosse atque administrare debent. In quo est quos Deos publice colere, quæ sacra et sacrificia facere quemque par sit.” Ita Varro.

Juxta hoc ait illico idem Sanctus Augustinus: Nihil in eo genere culpavit; tantum, quod eorum inter se controversias commemoravit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo Sectarum removet tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis, scholis vero et parietibus clausit.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

217

In libro 4. p. 32 de eodem Varrone refert: Dicit etiam Varro de generationibus Deorum, magis ad Poëtas, quam ad Philosophos fuisse populos inclinatos: et ideo et sexum et generationes Deorum maiores suos, id est veteres credidisse Romanos, et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique (ait D. Augustinus) non ob aliam causam factum fuit, nisi quia hominum veluti prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit, populum in Religionibus fallere, et in eo ipso non solum colere, sed imitari etiam Dæmones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim Dæmones nisi eos quos fallendo decipiant possidere non possunt, sic etiam homines Principes, non sane iusti, sed Dæmonum similes, ea quæ varia esse noverant, Religionis nomine populis tamquam vera suadebant. Hoc modo eos civili societati veluti arctius alligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent.

In libro autem 6. cp. 10. idem S. Augustinus loquens de Seneca inquit: Omnem istam ignobilium Deorum turbam, sic inquit, adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem, quam ad rem pertinere. Colebat, quod reprehendebat; agebat, quod arguebat; quod culpabat adorabat, quia videlicet magnum aliquod eum Philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges civium moresque hominum, non quidem ageret fingentem in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quod illa quæ mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret.

Denique in libro 4 cp. 27. post referre opinionem Scævolæ Pontificis multa debere populo cælari dicentis de rebus pertingentibus ad Deos, hanc ponit conclusionem: Expedire igitur existimat falli in Religione civitates: quod etiam in libris rerum divinarum ipse Varro non dubitat. Præclara Religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum veritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credat expedire quod fallitur.

[N.o 5] Tres autem Sectæ Sinensium (S¯anki¯ao dictæ) sequuntur omnino hunc Philosophandi modum, habentes utique duas formas doctrinæ: Altera secreta quam ipsi veram putant, hancque litterati dumtaxat intelligunt ac profitentur, reconditam tamen sub symbolis ac ænigmaticis figuris: Altera vero est vulgaris, quæ est quidem metaphora primæ eamque sui litterati falsam putant in sensu quo verba sonant, et hac utuntur

218

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

ad externam politicam, ad cultumque divinum civilem et fabulosum, quo quidem populum inducunt ad bonum a maloque coërcent. Nunc autem omittendo id quod ad duas attinet Idolorum Sectas, X˘eki¯ao, Taóki¯ao vocatas, de quibus in ijs controversijs non agimus; in Secta vero Litteratorum Jûki¯ao dicta, certum est sub Numeris alijsque Symbolis (ut supra ostendimus) causas generales cum suis efficientijs ac influentijs repræsentare. Sub nomine vero spirituum bonorum et malorum, quorum unus est spiritus cœli, alius spiritus terræ; stellarum alius; similiter montium ac fluminum cuiuslibet alius ett.a significant tam huius universi causas generales, quam Animæ potentias et passiones cum virtutum ac vitiorum habitibus, eo modo quo illi cogitant esse. In huius autem confirmationem scilicet quod in Secta Jûki¯ao litteratorum sunt /176v/ utique duæ doctrinarum formæ; Alia pro sapientibus secreta: pro rudibus vero alia Vulgaris et publica; aliquas hic referam Sinicas Auctoritates ex suis authenticis libris id ipsum clare ostendentes. [N.o 6] In primis lib. 3. Lún iù pag.a 5. quidam Confucij Discipulus nomine Çü` kúm, quasi querelatus de suo Magistro dicit13 quod nunquam in tota sua vita obtinuerat ab eo, ut sibi de natura loqueretur humana, ac de naturali cæli conditione, nisi postea iam in fine. 2.o Eodem libro 3. Lún iù pag.a 17. inquit14 Confucius, convenientem formam populum gerendi, esse utique inducere agereque illum, ut spiritus honoret, ac longe fiat ab eis: hoc est quod curiosus non sit in scrutando de spiritibus, quid illi sint? Quidve illi agant? Ubi et quomodo sint ett.a ? 3.o eodem Lún iù lib. 6. pag.a 3. cum Confucius interrogaretur a quodam discipulo nomine Kìlú15 quid utique esset mors? Succincte ille respondit dicens: qui nondum scit quid vita sit, quomodo sciet quid sit mors? 4.o eiusdem Lún iù lib. 4. pag.a 6.16 Quatuor de Confucio referuntur res, de quibus ille non solebat agere, quarum una erant spiritus. Ubi commentum rationem huius assignans dicit: Confucium ideo non agere de spiritibus, quia in eis plura difficillima essent, atque ita neutiquam cum omnibus passim de illis agere oportere.

13 = a 夫子之言性與天道不可得而聞也. 14 = b 子曰務民之義敬鬼神而遠之. 15 = c 問死曰未知生焉知死. 16 = d 子不語怪力亂神.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

219

5.o In lib. Ki¯a iù ipse Confucius eripi desiderans a molestia respondendi ad plura, quæ quærebantur ab eo de spiritibus, de Animave rationali, de statuque rerum post mortem; resolutive hanc dedit regulam dicens17 Res quidem quæ intra sex sunt positiones, id est quæ visibiles sunt et apparent in hoc visibili mundo disputentur utique, ac de illis non dubitetur. Porro quæ sunt extra sex positiones, hoc est, quæ extra hunc mundum visibiles sunt, ac in seipsis sunt invisibilia, in suo relinquantur statu, ac de illis nec agatur nec disputetur. Per has similesque Confucij auctoritates aliqui possunt deduci corollarij necessarij ad nostrum intentum in ijs controversijs. [N.o 7] 1.um Corollarium est quod in secta Litteratorum, præter doctrinam vulgarem apparentem, quam omnes quidem sciunt, est et alia secreta et Philosophica, quam magistri Sectæ sciunt dumtaxat. 2.um Corollarium est quod Confucius fugiebat utique aperte ac distincte de spiritibus agere, de Anima rationali, ac de rebus alterius vitæ. Timebat enim, ut si a populo pura veritas earum rerum, quæ in sua aguntur Philosophia sciretur, Religio tota detrimentum pateretur, ac per consequens tota perturbaretur Respublica. 3.um est quod ex verbis Confucij in ultima auctoritate allegatis oculi obcæcantur litteratorum Sinensium, mensque hallucinatur eorum, ne de alijs quam de visibilibus cogitent caduci huius sæculi rebus, nihilo alia ducentes. 4.um denique est, quod hac via omnes fere Sinæ sapientes alta præsumptione Philosophiaque sua decepti perducuntur quidem ad summum omnium malorum, quod quidem est Atheismus, sicut in sequentibus clarius videbitur in quibus fundamenta ac principia suæ doctrinæ tam Physicæ quam moralis examinabimus. /177r/ 4.um Præludium. De modo Philosophandi sectæ Jûki¯ao id est litteratorum in generali.

[N.o 1] Modus Philosophandi Sinensium litteratorum consistit utique in investigatione Primi huius universi Principij, et quomodo processerint 17 = e 家語孔子曰六合之內論而不議六合之外存而不論; BNF: 家語子曰…

220

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

ab eo tam causæ universales quam particulares cum suis effectibus et causalitatibus: specialiterque in inquirendo de homine, quid ipse sit quoad corpus et Animam; de suo modo intelligendi et operandi; de virtutum ac vitiorum habitibus; de suo fato et stella; de finalique uniuscuiusque destinatione per horoscopum sui natalis, ut iuxta suam sortem seu fortunam suas quilibet præordinet operationes. De ijsque rebus (ut supra ostensum est) maxima ex parte sub varijs figuris, symbolis, numeris alijsque ænigmaticis terminis agunt. [N.o 2] Hic eorum Philosophandi modus duas continet partes. 1.a est discurrere circa Primum Principium, ac reliquas procedentes ab eo causas universales, quoad suum proprium esse ac substantiam cum suis sitibus, qualitatibus, virtutibusque operativis, non quatenus operantur in actu, sed quatenus habent operandi potentiam. Hæc ergo scientia vocatur ab eis Si¯en ti¯en hi˘o18 : quod est idem ac scire a priori. Ante omnes Sinas egit de hac scientia supra dictus F˘oh¯ı quando formavit figuras (vocatas Kuàs) de libro I˘ek¯ım. 2.a vero (supposita prima universi productione, ordine, et constitutione cum suis causis generalibus) est scrutari utique in quo Zodiaci puncto secundum suum emispherium et clima, causæ generales et efficientes cœperunt, aut incipiunt cum sua virtute prædominari ac res producere, et usque quo tale prædominium pertingat, ut res generentur, iterumque corrumpantur, seu resolvantur in sui non esse: sicut in quatuor anni temporibus ob accessum recessumque solis fieri videtur, calore spatio sex mensium in vere et æstu regnante, frigoreque sex mensibus alijs in hyeme et autumno. Hæc 2.a scientia vocatur ab eis Heú ti¯en hi˘o,19 quod est idem ac scire a posteriori: de qua impensius egerunt duo huius Sinæ antiquissimi Reges, Vên Vuâm et Che¯u K¯um nominati, pariterque Confucius cum alijs præclaræ famæ litteratis, eo quod in hac scientia consistit totus eorum intuitus, qui est in 4.or anni temporibus cælum ac terram in suis operationibus imitari et in gubernatione Reipublicæ. [N.o 3] Unde provenit quod calore regnante, cuius proprietas est producere et generare, illi de suis agunt negotijs, iudicant ett.a. dominante vero frigore, cui proprium est corrumpere ac dissolvere, executioni dantur mortis sententiæ. Illi quoque has 4.or temporum vicissitudines sequentes, uniuscuiusque scrutantur horoscopum iuxta punctum sui ortus et natalis. In hac autem sua 2.a scientia sunt variæ inter eos opiniones modique

18 = a 先天學. 19 = b 後天學.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

221

explicandi. Alij enim aiunt quod causæ universales in tali Zodiaci puncto suum incipiunt habere vigorem et secundum hoc deinceps recipiuntur tales qualitates in rei productione, talisque sors, fatum, et fortuna: Alij dicunt quod in tali puncto ett.a Itaque variæ sunt Sectæ, alijs sequentibus figuras seu Kuas Auctoris Vên Vuâm: alijs vero, eas quæ sunt de Yàm xí, vel de Ch¯u çü` seu alijs. Hanc ergo virtutem vel prædominium causarum generalium vocant illi Tíchû: chûçaì; ki¯un; vuâm; hoâm20 : quæ omnia prædominari, imperareque significant ett.a et sunt ipsæmet litteræ quæ significant Regem. Quod autem prædictum est de differentia suarum scientiarum notari debet veluti res necessaria ad nostrum intentum: Ideoque in duobus Præludijs specialibus volo fusius eas exponere. /177v/ 5.um Præludium. De scientia Si¯en ti¯en hi˘o, hoc est scire a priori quomodo Universum fuit productum secundum opinionem Sinarum.

[N.o 1] Inprimis cum Sinenses excogitare non possent ex puro nihil rem aliquam posse produci, necdum potentiam infinitam cognoverint omnia de nihilo creare valentem; et alia ex parte viderent plura esse in orbe, quæ nunc sunt, nuncque desunt esse, et quæ non fuerunt æterna; firmiter senserunt, unam debere dari causam, quæ æternaliter omnibus præcederet, necessarissimum ac inevitabile esse; quæ utique esset omnium rerum causa et origo. Intellexerunt quoque causam primam præfatam cuiusdam entitatis esse infinitæ; ingenerabilis et incorruptibilis, sine principio et sine fine. Putant enim quod sicut ex nihilo nihil fit: ita etiam quod principium habet; finem habiturum est; finisque reducitur ad suum principium. Unde orta est communis Sinarum opinio totius Sinæ recepta mundum hunc finem consummationis habiturum esse, iterumque de novo mundum alium reproducendum esse: spatium vero temporis, a primo mundi initio usque in finem eius, vocant illi Tá súi,21 hoc est Annum permagnum.

20 = h 帝主主宰君王皇; NOTA: 帝主、主宰、君、王、皇; BnF: 八卦帝主主宰君王皇. 21 = a 大歲.

222

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 2] Hæc autem prima causa secundum illos nec vivens est nec sciens, nec proprietatem seu activitatem aliquam habet, nisi esse puram, quietam, subtilem ac diaphanam absque corpore et figura, quæ solo cum intellectu percipi potest eo modo quo de rebus spiritualibus dicimus: et supposito quod necdum spiritualis sit, adhuc tamen non habet in se has qualitates activas et passivas elementorum. [N.o 3] Modus autem investigandi quomodo hic mundus visibilis a Primo processit Principio vel Chaos, fuit huiusmodi: cum illi vidissent, a fortiori debere esse ante omnia, rerum visibilium aliquam causam æternam, cogitantesque ex una parte, hanc ex semetipsa neutiquam efficientiam nec activitatem aliquam habere, sine qua non possent res ab illa produci; et ex alia parte videntes ex ordinaria experientia calorem ac frigus esse fundamenta, unde generantur res ac corrumpuntur, hasque duas qualitates, causas efficientes esse generationum et corruptionum; modum scrutati sunt, qua utique via ex illo Chaos, ac prima materia profluxerit materia proxima, cum qua res componuntur, et quomodo calor et frigus poterant in mundo generari, ut res ex illa generarentur: sicque cogitavere quod ex illa prima materia infinita et immensa per quinque emanationes22 (quas illi assignant) naturaliter et a casu emanavit hic Aër donec materialis fieret, sicut nunc est, manens utique intra illud infinitum Chaos, factus quidem in uno quodam globo finito, quem illi vocant Ta˘ıkiˇe,23 id est summe terminatus aut limitatus. Idque ipsum nominant Chaos; hoêntún24 ; hoênlûn25 ett.a antequam ex illo profluerent res. Aër vero iste, qui per quinque mutationes emanavit ex illo primo Principio, quoad suam substantiam est quoque eiusdem incorruptibilis esse cum illo; attamen est plus materialis magisque alterabilis per condensationem et rarefactionem, per motum et quietem, per calidum et frigidum ett.a Iste secundus Chaos vel Ta˘ıkiˇe antequam res ab eo profluerent, cogitatur depingiturque ab illis in hac subsequente figura posita in folio sequente /178r/.

22 = b 儒者計有五運其一曰太易即氣相未分其二曰太初即元氣始萌其三曰太始即氣形 之端其四曰太素即形變有質其五曰太極即形質已具是也. 23 = c 太極. 24 = d 渾沌. 25 = e 渾淪.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

223

APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, (1623–1674) f. 178r (reproduced with authorization) Hæc est Figura chaos mundi [Above] 渾淪一氣圖 [Middle] 太極 Ta˘ıkiˇe 未有天地之先,渾渾雖無一物,雖無色相,然自有一氣不能消滅,此天地之根也。

Ta˘ıkiˇe est in medio chaos, id est Aër primo primus qui in primis fuit emanatus ut supra n.o 3 ab illa prima causa.26

26 This is an addition introduced by Caballero and is not present in the Portuguese

text.

224

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 4] Cum autem viderent illi calidum et frigidum causam esse generationis et corruptionis in rebus, hasque motu et quiete generari, ` sicut illi aiunt) factus cogitaverunt quod a casu seu naturaliter (çüjên o quidam motus fuit in hoc 2. chaos aut Aëre conglobato, per quem motum calor fuit productus in ipsomet Aëris corpore; illoque motu naturaliter cessante, et quiescente, per talem fuit frigus productum, parte dicti Aëris permanente calida, parteque frigida. Hoc vero non intrinsece aut ex sua propria natura, sed extrinsece tantum, taliter quod Aër mansit in calidum et frigidum divisus, quæ duo vocantur leâm î27 vel ¯ın iâm28 ; calidum dicitur esse purum, tersum et limpidum, diaphanum ac leve: frigidum vero impurum, turbidum, opacum et grave, sicut in ijs videtur figuris.

APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, (1623–1674) f. 178r (reproduced with authorization)

Hæc est Figura calidi et frigidi Aëris [Above] 兩儀 [Left] 動陽男天 [Right] 靜陰女地

[N. 5] Itaque hoc modo causæ efficientes, et generalissimæ totius universi sunt utique motus et quies, calor et frigus, quæ ab illis dicuntur Túm 27 = a 兩儀. 28 = b 陰陽.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

225

Çím,29 ¯ın iâm.30 Hæc autem in iâm seu calidum et frigidum connexerunt adinvicem inter se per quamdam coniunctionem et concordiam strictissimam, quasi uxor et vir aut quasi Pater et Mater, et produxerunt elementum Aquæ quæ pertinet ad ¯ın, id est ad frigidum. In 2.a coniunctione produxerunt elementum ignis qui pertinet ad Iâm, hoc est ad calidum, sicque procedentes quinque produxerunt elementa, quæ sunt etenim ipsummet Ta˘ıkiˇe vel ipsamet ¯ın iâm, vel ipsemet Aër qualificatus, sicut sunt inter nos qualitates cum suis elementis. Hæc autem sunt Aqua in Aquilone, Ignis in /178v/ Austro, ligna in Oriente; Metalla in Occidente; Terraque sita in medio, sicut in sua videtur sequente figura.31

APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, (1623–1674) f. 178v (reproduced with authorization)

Hæc est Figura quinque Sinensium elementorum. Terra est illa nigredo in medio. [Above] 五行之圖 [Middle] 南: 火 ignis; 西: 金 metalla; 北: 水 aqua; 東: 木 ligna 29 = c 動靜. 30 = d 陰陽. 31 Quinque elementa Sinarum sunt Ignis, Aqua, Metalla, Ligna, ac Terra.

226

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 6] Illud autem ¯ın iâm, id est calidum et frigidum cum quinque elementis produxerunt cælum et terram, solem, lunam, stellas, atque Planetas: nam sursum ascendente Aëre puro, calido, diaphano, ac levi factum fuit cælum. Deorsum vero descendente Aëre impuro, frigido, opaco, et gravi facta fuit terra. Postea autem cælum et terra se coniungentes cum virtute sua in medio produxerunt hominem virum et fæminam: virque respondet ad iâm seu calidum, et ad cælum; fæmina vero ` 32 ad ¯ın seu frigidum, et ad terram. Ideoque Sinæ Rex vocatur Tiençü, id est Cæli filius: ipseque sacrificat cælo et terræ tamquam universalibus Parentibus. Totum hoc ostenditur in figura sequente: et in his tribus rebus, cælo, Terra, et homine sunt omnes aliæ res sicut in suo fonte et origine. Hoc album est Cælum cum suis Astris et Planetis Illæ octo litteræ Sinicæ intra circulum 11. Octo partes Aëris Orizontis quæ dicuntur P˘a Kúa: seu constellationes: unde fatum sumitur hominum

32 = i 天子.

Hoc quad(rat)um est terra cum suis germinibus

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

227

APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, (1623–1674) f. 178v (reproduced with authorization)

[Left] 六合之外猶有未盡之氣 [Right] 十二時固有定方惟日所到處即為時 如日行到午則為午時餘皆然33 [Inner circle] 乾巽坎艮坤震離兌 [Outer circle] 南氣西氣北氣東氣

[N.o 7] Hæc utique est totius universi creatio secundum Sinas antiquos et modernos: consistente totius Machinæ universi formatione in tribus præcipuis rebus, quæ sunt causæ cœterarum. Prima est cælum, sub quo sol, luna, stellæ, ac Planetæ comprehenduntur, /179r/ Aërisque Regio quæ inter cælum terramque est, ubi sunt sua quinque elementa quæ sunt materia, ex qua res inferiores corporeæ generantur. Hæc Aëris regio dividitur in octo Kúas, id est in octo eiusdem Aëris partes,34 seu Aëris

33 BnF: 天子十二時… 34 = a Kuás sunt octo puncta Orizontis, scilicet quæ respiciunt versus Orientem, Occidentem Aquilonem et Austrum, et alia 4.or intermedia æqualiter interposita [Marginal

note added by Caballero].

228

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

elementa qualificata diversis qualitatibus ad causas efficientes universales correspondentibus, quas cogitant ipsi. Secunda autem est Terra, comprehendens montes, colles, flumina, lacus, paludes, et mare ett.a Et omnia hæc sunt etiam causæ generales efficientes, quæ suas operandi virtutes efficientiamque habent. Terra etiam in suas subdividitur partes in modum Kúas, et comprehendit K¯amjeû,35 hoc est forte et imbecile, seu durum et molle. Tertia denique est Homo, a quo utique cœteri generantur homines. [N.o 8] Hic autem notetur, quod hæc universi productio fuit penitus fortuita et a casu sicut prædictum est: quia primæ causæ efficientes huius Machinæ totius fuere utique motus et quies, calidum et frigidum: materia vero proxima fuit Aër corpus homogeneum. Productio autem cæli et terræ fuit casualis et temeraria vel naturalis non facta cum deliberatione et a consulto, siquidem dicitur Aërem purum ac levem ascendisse sicque compactum fuisse cælum; impurum vero et gravem descendisse, sicque terram compactam fuisse quoque. [N.o 9] Forma autem universi est quod cælum est sphæricum, ideoque movetur et influit in circulum: Terra vero quadrata, et ideo sistit quieta in medio, influens in opera per quadrum, correspondentibus ei quatuor elementis in unoquoque latere suarum quatuor partium elemento uno; unoque in medij superficie. Ultra cælum autem cogitant illi illam primam materiam infinitam (ex qua profluit prædictus Taíkiˇe, id est ille præfatus primogenius Aër) eamque vocant K¯um, Hi¯u, Lì, Taó, Vû, Vûkiˇe36 ; hoc est quieta, diaphana, subtilisque in summo gradu: porro sine vita, sine scientia, sine activitate, non plusque quam una pura potentia. Aërem vero istum inter cælum et terram consistentem dividunt illi (ut supra dictum est) in octo partes per emispherium orizontis, quæ octo viæ aut Rumbi sunt, quarum quatuor Austro attribuuntur, ubi regnat calor solis, qui dicitur iâm; aliæ quatuor attribuuntur Aquiloni, ubi lunæ frigiditas regnat, quæ vocatur ¯ın: unicuique autem parti sua portio Aëris respondet, quæ vocatur Kúa propter diversam quam in se continet qualitatem. [N.o 10] Hanc universi productionem statuit prædictus F˘oh¯ı primo primus Rex Sinarum: repræsentaturque in figura libri Iˇek¯ım. Vocaturque

35 BnF: 剛柔. 36 = b 空虛理道無無極.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

229

Hôt˜ u,37 quæ habet quadros albos et nigros, semperque per traditionem sic intellecta fuit, expressaque est in figura libri L˘ox¯u,38 quæ puncta nigra et alba tenet per numeros pares et impares, videlicet quinque impares 1. 3. 5. 7. 9. et quinque pares 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. qui respondent illis Kúas seu causis generalibus universi. Confucius ergo totum hoc in scriptis significavit in sua expositione libri Iˇek¯ım, incipiens a præfato Aëre vocato Taíkiˇe in hac forma.39 Illud 2.um Chaos, id est præfatus primogenius Aër produxit calidum et frigidum (quæ quinque elementa posita a Sinis comprehendunt). Hæc vero multiplicaverunt se in quatuor, silicet in calidum intensum et remissum: et in frigidum remissum et intensum. Hæc autem quatuor produxerunt octo qualitates, videlicet calidam; frigidam, fortem; ac suavem; seu mollem, quamlibetque in gradu intenso et remisso. Hæc vero octo pro tribus supponunt rebus principalibus, quæ dantur in mundo, scilicet cælum, Terra, et Homo s¯an çaî chè,40 hoc est tres sapientes, sicut ait liber Iˇekim. Itaque hæc tria cælum, Terra et Homo, omnia alia produxerunt. Totumque hoc tendit ad constituendum hæc tria vocata s¯an çaî quæ aiunt causam esse omnium rerum, quæ generantur et corrumpuntur in toto orbe. Litterati autem in suis libris et glossis seu commentis distinctius specificant hanc mundi productionem incipiens a primario origine seu materia illa infinita, sicut est in initio suæ Summæ Philosophicæ vocatæ Símlì, quæ incipit a Vûkiˇe, id est primo Principio sic vocato, alioque nomine vocato Lì, vel Taó ett.a ` qui caput est unius /179v/ Quidam alius antiquus nomine Laòçü, ` Sectæ Idolorum in suo libro Laòçü k¯ım ponit eumdem modum universi productionem sub numeris et terminis metaphoricis in hac forma dicens. Taó41 seu primum illud chaos produxit unitatem, quæ est ille Taíkiˇe seu primogenius Aër, aut 2.a materia. Unitas produxit dualitatem, quæ est Leâm î, id est illæ duæ qualitates calidum et frigidum. Dualitas produxit Trinitatem, quæ est Ti¯en, T˘ı, jîn; id est cælum, Terra et Homo: vel s¯ançaî, hoc est, tres sapientes: sic enim vocantur a Sinis cælum, terra, et homo: vel p˘akuá, id est illæ octo qualitates Aëris orizontis supradictæ. Trinitas vero omnia produxit: et ita est eadem doctrina cum doctrina Litteratorum. 37 = c 河圖. 38 = d 洛書. 39 = e 太極生兩儀兩儀生四象四象生八卦. 40 = f 三才者天地人. 41 = a 道生一一生二二生三三生萬物.

230

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

6.um Præludium. De scientia heú ti¯en hi˘o,42 quæ est scire a posteriori: videlicet quomodo res generantur et corrumpuntur in hoc Universo.

[N.o 1] Alter Sinarum Philosophandi modus est (supposita prima Orbis creatione ordineque suarum generalium causarum) investigare causam generationum et corruptionum, quæ singulis annis, in suis 4.or temporibus fiunt, in vere, æstu, autumno et hyeme: indagareque cælestes influentias, quæ eisdem 4.or temporibus, mensibus, diebus, horis, Zodiacique signis influunt in corpora, ut præsciatur exinde uniuscuiusque fatum, sors, aut fortuna, et inclinatio cuiuslibet naturalis, ad sciendum iuxta idipsum, quomodo regulari quisque debeat in suis operationibus cooperans cum suo fato, et non procedens in oppositum. [N.o 2] Auctores autem præcipui huius scientiæ Heú ti¯en hi˘o (seu ex effectibus ordinarijs futura præscire) fuere præfati Reges Vên Vuâm, filiusque eius Ch¯eu k¯um; qui videntes res calore generari, frigoreque corrumpi et suo modo mori, inde putavere causas generationum et corruptionum esse calidum et frigidum; calidumque motu generari cum sua claritate ob solis accessum; frigidum vero ex quiete produci solisque recessu cum sua obscuritate. Videntes quæque illi res a primo vere cœpi generari, et in suo vigore deinceps coalescere, florentesque usque ad finem æstus in eo permanere, ab autumno utique cœpi alterari, deincepsque marcescere ac resolvi, in suisque operationibus usque ad finem hyemis penitus cessare, duo priora tempora calori, duo vero posteriora frigori attribuerunt: et iuxta hoc per Orizontem in octo partes Zodiacum distribuerunt, quasi in octo puncta, quæ vocantur Kuás de Heú ti¯en hi˘o: hoc est, octo prædictæ partes constellationum Orizontis pertingentes ad præscientiam suæ divinationis sortis aut fortunæ hominis cuiuslibet. Quarum 4.or attinent ad calidum, ad frigidum vero aliæ 4.or et conformiter ad hoc aiunt activitatem causarum agentium naturalium, incipere in suo emispherio in Kuá seu puncto vocato chín correspondente ad Orientem incipitque in puncto suæ veris iuxta cursum solarem, qui sæpesæpius est quinto vel sexto Februarij die: et istam activitatem, prædominium aut influxum vocant illi

42 BnF: 後天學.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

231

Tíchù,43 Chùçaì,44 quod utique est caloris prædominium in sex prioribus mensibus: qui iterum recedens recluditur in tempore opposito scilicet a mense Octobris ac deinceps. Ad significandum vero huius prædominij exitum, initium, ac finem suæ reclusionis utuntur his verbis ch˘u jˇe45 ; id est; exire et introire Ki˘ox¯ın,46 id est contrahi et protendi: Vuâm laî,47 hoc est ire et venire: quæ omnia fere significant idem, seu eumdem habent sensum. Cum /180r/ autem hoc fieri contingat: ex accessu recessuque solis, quem semper ad Australem partem gyrare prospiciunt, sentiunt utique Australem regionem calidam esse, eamque vocant Taí iàm48 : id est magnam claritatem; Aquilonarem vero frigidam valde, vocantque eam Taí ¯ın,49 id est magnam tenebrositatem. 7.um Præludium De illo Axiomate Sinarum celeberrimo scilicet Vuán voˇe iˇe tì: quod nostro respondet omnia sunt unum

[N.o 1] Inter alia Sinicæ Philosophiæ principia, quæ ad decisionem harum controversiarum notanda sunt, est quoddam valde præcipuum inter Sinas Axioma50 scilicet, omnia esse unam utique eamdemque substantiam. At quia hæc opinio omnino convenit cum aliquorum e nostra Europa opinione antiquorum Philosophorum, asserentium quoque omnia esse unum, expedit quidem hic breviter ostendere quomodo illi hoc intelligebant. [N.o 2] Aristoteles diversis in locis agens de principuorum Philosophorum opinionibus mentionem agit eorum, qui senserunt omnia esse continua et penitus unum ens natura et ratione; plura vero secundum sensum, nulloque modo diversa. Cursus autem Conimbricensis et Pater Fonseca, alijque commentatores Textum sequentes Aristotelis inquiunt: priores illos veteres Philosophos ex causis non aliam quam materialem

43 = b 帝主. 44 = c 主宰. 45 = c 出入. 46 = d 屈伸. 47 = e 往來. 48 BnF: 太陽. 49 BnF: 太陰. 50 = a 所以謂萬物一體者皆有此理.

232

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

agnovisse, non utique sicut ipsamet adhuc est in se, sed quodam crassiore modo. Putabant enim ac firmiter sentiebant materiam ipsam esse omnimodam rerum essentiam naturalium, omnesque res unam contiguam rem esse dumtaxat, plures vero secundum sensus externos, absque differentia aliqua essentiali inter se. V.g.a sicut si quis diceret principia rerum naturalium esse Aquam aut Aërem, a fortiori fateri tenebantur omnes res quoad suam essentiam aquam aut aërem esse, porro distingui esseque diversas secundum sua accidentia dumtaxat, qualia sunt densum aut rarum, calidum aut frigidum ett.a Sicut dicere solemus ex ligno arte facta, quantum ad suam intrinsecam essentiam lignum omnia esse, differre vero secundum figuras arte inductas: in hoc igitur sensu asseruerunt Parmenides ac Melisius omnes res unam rem esse solummodo, et iuxta hoc eos refert ac refutat Aristoteles. Pater Fonseca in sua Glossa super 1.um Physicorum inquit ut infra. Philosophi antiqui rudi adhuc et balbutiente Philosophia solam ferme causam materialem attigerunt, nec vero ut ipsa est, sed rudi quodam modo putaverunt totam essentiam rerum naturalium esse materiam ipsam. Unde hi qui dicebant principia rerum naturalium esse aquam, eo cogebantur fateri omnia secundum essentiam esse aquam, differre tamen accidentibus, ut densitate, raritate, calore, frigore, atque ita in cæteris: quemadmodum nos arte facta omnia quæ ex ligno fiunt dicimus esse ligna secundum substantiam, sed differre figuris inductis per artem. Secundum hos igitur Philosophos dicit Aristoteles non differre hanc quæstionem sint ne principia unum an plura, ab hac quæstione sint ne entia naturalia unum an plura, et in reliqua subdivisione sint ne finita an infinita. Ratio est quia principium et principiatum apud eos nulla ratione distinguebantur secundum essentiam. Hæc Fonseca.

[N.o 3] Huius autem temporis Philosophi alijque post Aristotelem, propter conceptum de illis prioribus, quem habent, neutiquam suaderi possunt tanti ingenij viros (etiamsi eorum verba sonant omnes res unam solam esse contiguam substantiam inter se non diversam nisi secundum sensus externos /180v/ qui fallibiles sunt) loqui voluisse in eo sensu in quo eos refutat atque reprehendit Aristoteles, quare varijs eos interpretantur modis. Alij dicunt Aristotelem eos reprehendisse ob sonitum absurdum suorum verborum, non quia ipse putaverit eos in re talia sensisse. Alij vero notant Aristotelem imposuisse eis quod ipsi dicere noluerunt in sensu in quo refutantur ab eo. Porro omnes falluntur; certum est enim talem eos tenuisse opinionem, sicque asseruisse in

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

233

sensu refutato ab Aristotele, neque eum talia eis imposuisse, siquidem approbat laudatque eos, quando inter absurda sua, aliqua vera certaque dixerunt, quod autem illi in prædicto sensu hanc tenuerint opinionem clare probatur. [N.o 4] 1.o ex Aristotelis Textu: idque ipsum sonant eorum verba quibus illimet utuntur, 2.o ex rationibus eorum allatis: nam cum illi nondum omnipotentem Creatorem agnovissent, qui tamquam prima causa efficiens totum ex nihilo creasset universum, adhærerentque illi regulæ generali, ex nihilo nihil fieri, non poterant non dicere illud suam probantes sententiam hoc modo sequente. Quidquid factum est habet principium durationis, ergo quidquid non est factum non habet tale principium, et per consequens nec finem durationis, sed ex se est infinitum duratione et essentia, ac per consequens prorsus unum et immobile. Item quidquid est præter ens quod ex se habet esse est non ens et nihil, et ita cum ens ex se habens esse unum tantum sit, efficitur ut ens tale ens unum omnino sit dumtaxat.

[N.o 5] 3.o probatur: nam alij præter Aristotelem Auctores, mentionem quoque faciunt de opinione hac quem isti tenuerunt, videlicet omnia esse unum dumtaxat. Galenus in Historia naturali dicit Xenophantem Parmenidis magistrum suos docuisse discipulos, de rebus omnibus ambigere præterquam de hac una, scilicet omnia esse unum, et hoc ipsum esse Deum. Crassus autem Ciceronianus lib. 3 de Oratore ad Quintum fratrem ait: Ac mihi quidem veteres illi, maius quiddam animo complexi, plus multo etiam vidisse videntur, quam quantum nostrorum ingeniorum acies intueri potest, qui omnia hæc, quæ supra et subter, unum esse, et una vi, atque una consensione naturæ constricta esse dixerunt.

[N.o 6] 4.o denique probatur, hoc minime esse novum, et quod auctores alij præter nominatos non tenuerint: Boncij quoque Sinenses (sacerdotes sunt Idolorum) quique ab illis provenerunt, idem profitentur. Idem tenet Laòçü` cum Taosis suis id est caput alterius Idolorum Sectæ cum suis etiam discipulis. Sed in primis et super omnes idipsum tenent Jûki¯ao, hoc est Sectæ litteratorum professores a maximo usque ad minimum, tam antiqui quam moderni, doctrinarum Confucij scholam Sinensem profitentes. Hæ igitur tres prænominatæ Sinicæ Sectæ antiquiores utique sunt Philosophis præfatis: omnesque illæ sectæ originantur a Zoroastre Mago, Principeque

234

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

Chaldæorum, qui talia docuit, Chaos æternum ett.a constituens, ac sic per orbem seminavit. Unde patet clare tam antiquos prædictos quam harum trium Sectarum (quæ Sinice dicuntur S¯an kiao) professores uniformiter sensisse omnia esse unum natura et ratione opinionemque horum et illorum eamdem in terminis esse. 8.um Præludium. Quid sit generatio et corruptio in sua Doctrina.

[N.o 1] Secundum Sinenses Philosophos duæ fuerunt sortes materiæ ex quibus mundus fuit compositus, et ambæ incorruptibiles. Prima materia fuit illud chaos /181r/ infinitum ab illis vocatum Lì: Secunda vero ille primogenius Aër ab illis dictus Taíkiˇe, intra quem est intrinsice substantia et esse illius primæ materiæ ac per consequens est in omnibus rebus, nunquamque ab illis separatur. Porro postquam productum cælum fuit et terra, hic aër qui inter cælum terramque est, materia proxima est omnium corruptibilium, quemadmodum elementa inter nos, ex illoque compaginantur res per generationem, et in ipsummet resolvuntur in sua corruptione. Quapropter ille utique est essentia, esse, ac natura omnium rerum, quæ ex illo generantur per condensationem alicuius corpulentæ figuræ, actuato quidem seu cum diversis qualitatibus induto ex virtute cæli, solis, lunæ, et stellarum, Planetarum, elementorum, et terræ cæterarumque causarum universalium, iuxta tempus, horam, diem, mensem, et signum, in quibus fuit producta talis res. Quæ omnia tanquam formæ sunt ac principia operationum tam internarum quam externarum compositorum. [N.o 2] Generatio igitur in hac sua Philosophia non aliud est quam recipere substantiam illius Aëris aut Chaos varijs actuati figuris et qualitatibus plus aut minus puris, penetrantibus aut obtusis, quæ illi deserviunt tamquam formæ, concurrentibus cælo, sole, luna, stellis, Planetis ac elementis sicut causis universalibus, simulque particularibus causis, quæ materiam applicant ac disponunt. [N.o 3] Corruptio autem seu mors non aliud est quam destrui figuram exteriorem, simulque qualitates, humores, spiritusque vitales ett.a quibus vivens substentabatur, et sic resolvi aut iterum reduci in substantiam aut esse illius prædicti Aëris; sursum ascendendo quod purum est leve ac calidum: Descendendo deorsum quod est impurum, grave ac frigidum.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

235

Unde ascendere competit Xîn et hoên,51 hoc est Animæ et spiritibus Claris: descendere competit Kueì et pˇe,52 id est spiritibus obscuris et cadaveri. 9.um Præludium Supposito omnium rerum essentiam et naturam unam eamdemque esse; quomodo aliæ ab alijs differunt inter se secundum illos?

[N.o 1] Cum illi utique teneant totam essentiam rei esse aëris essentiam consequenter dicunt unam solummodo substantiam ac naturam esse; differre tamen inter se ex figuris externis ac ex qualitatibus diversis eiusmodi aëris: istud vero quo res different inter se vocatur ab illis Kì chˇe53 : id est qualitas propria naturalis. Porro quantum ad figuram; rationes differendi sunt variæ externæ figuræ omnium corporearum specierum. Quantum ad qualitates vero cogitant illi hunc aërem quatuor posse modis qualificari scilicet Chím, Pi¯en54 : T¯um; sˇe55 : Chím significat Rectum; constans; et purum ett.a . Pi¯en vero, dicit obliquum; inconstans; et turbidum ett.a . T¯um, id est, Penetrans, ac subtile. Sˇe vero hoc est Obtusum; et crassum. Ex ijs quatuor qualitatibus duæ primæ scilicet Rectum et Penetrans sunt optimæ, et qui eas in sua generatione recipiunt permanent homines. Aliæ autem duæ, videlicet obliquum et obtusum sunt pravæ qualitates, et qui eas in sua productione recipiunt, permanent Bruta animalia, herbæ, plantæ ett.a [N.o 2] Illæ duæ optimæ qualitates Chím et T¯um, id est, rectum et penetrans iterum subdividuntur hoc modo: Rectum dividitur in çim et ç¯u,56 hoc est in perfectum et in imperfectum. Penetrans autem in ç¯ım et chò57 /181v/ id est in purum et turbidum; qui autem in sua generatione recipiunt perfectum rectitudinis, et purum penetrantis; hos aiunt esse Xím jîns,58 hoc est, viros sapientes et Heroës inter alios: et 51 BnF: 神魂. 52 BnF: 鬼魄. 53 = a 氣質. 54 = b; BnF: 正偏. 55 = c 通塞. 56 = d; BnF: 精粗. 57 = e 清濁. 58 BnF: 賢人.

236

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

hi, tales nascuntur quod naturaliter sciunt rationem; et in praxi eam sequuntur, nunquamque audent adversus rationem procedere: Unde est quod omnino cæteris præcellunt hominibus, ideoque magni æastimantur, suntque digni maxima veneratione. Porro alij qui in suo natali recipiunt imperfectum rectitudinis, et turbidum penetrantis; hi sunt homines rudes, pravæque vitæ in moribus suis inordinati valde, vocanturque ab illis jû jîns,59 hoc est, vilissimi homines, figuram hominum dumtaxat habentes, in reliquo enim sunt similes bestijs. Inter hæc duo hominum genera sunt et alij mediocris conditionis et naturæ: quos utique vocant Hiên jîns; hoc est, viros virtuosos et prudentes. [N.o 3] Eodem modo aliæ pravæ qualitates Pi¯en60 et Sˇe,61 id est obliquum et obtusum dividuntur quoque in perfectum et in imperfectum; in purum et turbidum. Qui autem duo priora recipiunt (scilicet perfectum obliqui et purum obtusi) manent bruta animalia: qui vero duo posteriora (videlicet imperfectum obliqui, et turbidum obtusi) manent Plantæ, herbæ ett.a Adhuc etiam in ijs diversitas est plus aut minus in suis generibus et speciebus. [N.o 4] Unde clare videtur Sinas non solum nondum agnovisse creatorem ex puro nihilo creantem omnia per suam infinitam potentiam immo nec adhuc intellexisse veram generationem ex materia et forma substantiali, sed tantum figurae et qualitatum alterationem accidentalemque mutationem, præsupposita communi omnium materia homogenea, quæ est ipsemet aër æternus, ingenerabilis, et incorruptibilis in sua substantia porro est alterabilis per motum et quietem, calidum et frigidum, rarum ac densum ett.a cum ille dumtaxat sit esse omnium rerum, sicut Aristoteles dicebat de illis Philosophis, qui de hoc Philosophabantur similiter. 10.um Præludium. Sinæ nondum cognoverunt duas substantias distinctas, spiritualem et corpoream: sed unam plus aut minus materialem solummodo

59 BnF: 愚人. 60 = f 偏. 61 = g 塞.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

237

[N.o 1] Supposito secundum Sinas omnes res esse unam eamdemque substantiam vuán voˇe iˇe tì,62 id est, omnia unum sunt; patet utique nondum eos duas agnovisse substantias realiter distinctas, scilicet spiritualem, distinctam a corporea, sicut sunt Deus, Angeli, et Anima rationalis: et hoc multo plus confirmatur, siquidem nondum notitiam habuere de creatione ex nihilo per divinam potentiam infinitam. Agnoverunt dumtaxat unam universalem substantiam immensam, et infinitam, ex qua emanavit ille primogenius Aër dictus Taíkiˇe (comprehendens in se ipsammet substantiam generalem) qui actuatus varijs qualitatibus et accidentibus ei accesis, sic utique consequitur esse materiam immediatam omnium rerum. [N.o 2] Hanc ergo substantiam in duo dividunt membra, scilicet ieù et vû,63 hoc est, habere, et non habere: prima est tota substantia corporea cum corporeitate ac figura, quæ colorem habet, estque solida ac densa, ita quod concussa resisitit, sonitumque facit. Secunda vero est substantia minus materialis, sicut iste Aër quem cogitant corpulentiam non habere, nec figuram, nec colorem neque vocem itaque nec tangi, nec videri potest, unde venit quod /182r/ vocatur nihil, et vacuum: id est, vû, hi¯u; k¯um; vûhîm; vûsˇe,64 ett.a quæ præfata significant. Altiusque considerantes hanc substantiam quantum ad suam entitatem solummodo, abstractam ab omni qualitate et accidentibus, vocant illam Taívû, Taíh¯um,65 Taíki¯u, alijsque similibus terminis ostendentibus illam esse simplicissimam, purissimam, et subtilissimam, quemadmodum nos de spirituali substantia dicimus. [N.o 3] At ob hoc nullus cogitet hanc substantiam assignatam a Sinis posse spiritualem esse in eo sensu, in quo sumimus esse spirituale: in primis enim illa non potest per se existere nisi in illo Kí, id est, in illo aëre primogenio a quo seiungi nunquam potest. 2.o sustentat enim in se omnes qualitates accidentiaque materialia, et omnium rerum esse constituit et componit: vel ut melius dicam, est omnium earum esse ac substantia. 3.o quia res quæ spirituales videntur, quales sunt Kuèixîn,66 id est omnes cælestes ac terrestres spiritus, ac Anima rationalis, sub nomine Ti¯enxîn,

62 BnF: 萬物一體. 63 BnF: 有無. 64 BnF: 無、虛、空、無形、無色. 65 Taí H¯ um is a mistake for Taí K¯ um; the Portuguese manuscripts have: tái cum. 66 BnF: 鬼神.

238

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

lîmhoên67 : tam antiqui quam moderni præfata vocant Kí, id est aërem seu vaporem. Nominatim autem Confucius a quodam suo discipulo quæsitus quidne essent Kuèixîn? Respondit: Kí iè,68 hoc est, Aërem esse. Videatur iuxta hoc cp. 16. lib. Ch¯um iûm: ubi Confucius fuse agit de ijs spiritibus. Lib. autem 28. Símlì agit specialiter de Kùeixîn, et hoênpˇe,69 id est de spiritibus ac de Anima et corpore. Omnia vero hæc Sinenses reducunt ad aërem, seu ad illius activitatem ac virtutem operativam. Ex quo certe concluditur in doctrina Jûki¯ao seu litteratorum non plus quam unam esse substantiam hancque materialem, modo declarato. 11.um Præludium. De spiritibus seu Dijs quos Sinenses adorant secundum Sectam litteratorum.

[N.o 1] Supposito ex hucusque præfatis posse satis intelligi quid sint spiritus, qui adorantur a Sinis, suoque modo habentur et reputantur ut Dij; at, cum hoc punctum sit principalius in ijs controversijs, oportet utique paulo fusius sigillatimque tractari, ut in præsenti agam præludio: proponamque in summa quod de illis dicitur in secta Jûkiáo seu litteratorum attinens ad nostrum intentum. [N.o 2] Inprimis notandum est, quantum in hoc universo est et potest esse secundum litteratorum doctrinam totum procedere et exire ex officina Taíkiˇe, id est ex illo primogenio Aëre, qui in se complectitur illam primam substantiam universalem dictam Lì et K˘ı, quia utraque res, ipsamet scilicet et prædictus aër semper unita comitantur, nequeuntque adinvicem separari, sicut dicimus de materia prima suaque quantitate coœva. Modus autem quo res producuntur est, quod ex ea Lì70 in quantum Lì: hoc est in quantum est prima causa, substantia, et ratio universalis totius naturæ, quinque71 prodeunt virtutes cum suis habitibus, cæterisque spiritualibus rebus. Ex eademque Lì seu causa prima universali, in quantum est 67 BnF: 天神、魂. In BnF, “lîm” is omitted before “ hoên.” 68 BnF: 氣也. 69 BnF: 魂魄. 70 BnF: 理. 71 = a Secundum Sinas quinque universales virtutes morales sunt jîn; í, lì; chí; sín: hoc est clementia; iustitia; cultus; sapientia; et fides, nemque humana. [Marginal note added by Caballero. BnF: 五常: 仁義禮智信].

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

239

induta et qualificata cum suo K˘ı id est cum suo primogenio aëre coævo, profluunt etiam elementa cum cæteris qualitatibus, figurisque corporeis. Itaque secundum Sinas tam Physicum quam morale, totum ex eodem fonte nascitur, videlicet ex illa Lì seu prima causa universali ipsaque (ut supra dicitur) est utique omnium rerum esse. Unde exoritur illud celebre dictum Confucij72 : videlicet omnem suam doctrinam ad unum utique punctum reduci quod est ea Lì seu ratio universalissima totius naturæ rerum per omnia transcendens. [N.o 3] 2.o Notetur, quod sicut ea Lì, ratio seu causa omnium rerum; res quidem huius universi non producit absque illo Kí, aëre suo primogenio sed eo mediante quatenus instrumento sibi coniuncto; ac similiter absque eo res universi non gubernat, quin potius per ipsummet Kí aërem prædictum eas gerit ac disponit; unde oritur, quod operationes tam quæ attinent ad rerum productionem, quam ad earum gerentem providentiam, communiter attribuuntur præfato Kí seu Aëri coævo, tamquam causæ instrumentali formalique ipsius Lì causæ primæ generalis, sicut /183v/ v.g. dici solet intellectum intelligere, voluntatemque diligere; cum Anima ipsa sit, quæ vere et realiter intelligit ac diligit per suas potentias. [N.o 4] 3.o Notetur doctrinam Jûki¯ao seu litteratorum esse, quod completo illo annorum numero ab illis dicto Tá sùi,73 hoc universum cum omnibus in eo contentis finem consummationis habiturum est, omniaque ad suum primum Principium e quo profluxerunt penitus reducenda sunt; ita quod sola illa Lì, prima omnium causa permaneat pura et simplex associata cum illo Kí, suo coævo Aëre dumtaxat. Porro post hoc eadem Lì prima causa, iterum eodem ordine aliud novum universum reproducet: quo etiam finito, iterum ac iterum alios et alios mundos reproducet successive in infinitum. [N.o 5] 4.o Notetur, originem ponendi spiritus in China (sicut fuit in alijs Gentilitatibus) propter duos respectus utique fuisse. Primus: cum vidissent utique cælum ac terram suas ordinate ac indeficienter agere operationes cum alijs præcipuis orbis causis, cogitaverunt quidem auctorem aliquem esse principiumque invisibile, infallibiliterque operans, gubernansque intra ipsas; et hoc tale vocant illi Chù; Chùçaì; Xîn; Kuèixîn;

72 = b 子曰吾道一以貫之. 73 BnF: 太歲.

240

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

Tí; Ki¯un74 ett.a , quæ omnia dominum; prædominium; spiritus; Imperiumque significant. Videatur lib. Ch¯um iûm cp. 16. secundus respectus fuit propter maximas utilitates, quas homines interventione illorum spirituum recipiunt; idciro obligatione se captos putaverunt eos honorandi at reverendi diversis sacrificijs sicut testatur lib. 8 Lìkí pag.a 47. [N.o 6] 5.o Notetur Sinenses a primaria sui Imperii antiquitate, quæ proprie cœpit a Yaô et Xún (isti duo fuerunt quartus et quintus numero Reges Sinæ post Mundi diluvium) hos spiritus adorasse, sicut videtur in lib. 1 Xûk¯ım pag. 11. Ubi quatuor assignantur genera sacrificiorum, quæ quatuor speciebus spirituum fiebant. Primum sacrificium vocatum Lúi fiebat cælo simulque suo spiritui vocato Xámtí, hoc est Rex supernus, seu Imperator Altissimus. 2.um sacrificium vocatum ¯ın fiebat spiritibus sex principalium rerum: scilicet spiritibus 4.or Anni temporum, caloris et frigoris; solis, lunæ et stellarum; pluviarum; et siccitatis; 3.um sacrificium vocatum Vuám, fiebat spiritibus montium, fluminumque famosiorum. 4.um denique sacrificium vocatum Pién: fiebat omni turbæ cæterorum spirituum pertinentium ad alias partes minores universi hominibusque insignibus in Republica.75 [N.o 7] Prima conclusio. Omnes spiritus qui adorantur a Sinis sunt una eadem substantia cum rebus in quibus sistunt et sunt. Probatur 1.o ex illo suo Axiomate Vuán voˇe iˇe ti,76 i. omnia sunt unum. 2.o Quoniam de illo Xámtí (spiritu cæli) dicit Auctor Chimçü` expressis verbis77 esse unum eumdem cum ipsomet cælo, igitur a fortiori, vel saltem a simili idem dici debet de spiritibus aliarum rerum. 3.o Confucius enim lib. Ch¯um ium pag. 11 de omnibus spiritibus inquit, eos quidem constituere esse substantiamque rerum, et nullatenus posse a rebus ipsismet dividi aut seiungi: aliter enim res penitus cito destruerentur.78 Si aliquis voluerit hic proponere, quod isti spiritus multoties sumuntur pro virtute operativa, seu intellectiva, vel pro activitate causarum, ac proinde potiori iure nominari debeant causarum proprietas, et non causa. Respondeo: primo verum esse, et de facto sumi et pro proprietate, et pro

74 BnF: 主宰; 神鬼; 鬼神; 帝君. 75 BnF: Lúi cieù 酹酒; yn sú 禋祀 ; vàm leàm 魍魎 ; pién teú 籩豆. 76 BnF: 萬物一體. 77 = a 或問天帝之異。 曰:以形體謂之天, 以主宰謂之帝, 以至妙謂之神, 以功用謂之鬼神, 以性情謂之乾, 其實一而已。 所自而名之者, 異也。 夫天專言之, 則道也. 78 BnF: 鬼神之為德, 其盛矣乎; 體物而不可遺.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

241

ipsa substantia ornata cum tali virtute operativa. Et in hoc secundo sensu magis ordinarie. Eo quod iam diximus et mente Confucij constituere esse causarum. Respondeo secundo quod si sumantur pro causarum activitate, seu virtute, manent in conceptu viliori, siquidem non potunt per se existere.79 [N.o 8] 2.a Conclusio. Omnes isti habent principium: Probatur; profluxerunt de illo primogenio Aëre vocato Taíkiˇe et ex illa prima causa universali vocata Lì (sicut 1.o Notabili de omnibus dicitur rebus) et ita posteriores illa inferioresque sunt. In confirmatione huius Doctor nomine V Puên jû, qui nunc magnus præfectus est dictus Tutao de Provincia Leaòt¯um dixit de illo Altissimo vocato Xámtí esse /183r/ filium seu creaturam Taíkiˇe, id est Aëris primigenij prædicti: Idemque dixit asserendum deberi de nostro Ti¯enchù, hoc est, de nostro Altissimo Domino Deo, si hic erat idem unus ac ille vocatus a Sinis sub nomine Xámtí, Altissimus Dominus Rex seu Imperator Supremus. [N.o 9] 3.a Conclusio. Omnes Spiritus secundum Sinas habituri sunt finem in fine huius mundi, quando omnia ad suam primam originem reducantur. Probatur ex doctrina in 3. notabili confirmaturque ex dicto Doctoris Che¯u K¯em iú de Tribunali K¯olì húpú: scilicet quod tam Ti¯enchù i. noster Deus, quam suus altissimus Xámtí finiendi utique sunt cum omnibus alijs spiritibus: illa sola pura causa universali vocata Lì remanente. Ex quo deduxit ille secundum Sinarum doctrinas non aliam rem maiorem aut meliorem esse quam præfata Lì. [N.o 10] 4.a Conclusio. Omnes spiritus Dijque Sinarum quantum ad suam substantiam et entitatem æqualis sunt perfectionis: sua vero differentia nobilioris aut ignobilioris, maioris aut minoris, ex maioritate aut minoritate locorum aut rerum quibus præsident desumitur, ut v.g.a Aqua posita in diversis vasis aureis, æreis, ligneis, et fictilibus, eadem aqua est, vasorum differentia adest dumtaxat. Idem de spiritibus dicitur quod sunt ipsamet Lì aut Taíkiˇe, i. ipsamet prima substantia universalis, seu ipsemet primogenius Aër, posita tamen in diversis subiectis, scilicet in cælo, terra, montibus, fluminibus ett.a

79 In the Latin manuscript, this passage is indicated as a marginal note with the reference to Valat, but it is completely integrated in the Portuguese text. Also, the content flows with Longobardo’s text. So we have restablished the passage within the main text.

242

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 11] 5.a Conclusio. Omnes isti spiritus sunt sine vita, sine Scientia, ac sine libertate. Probatur 1.o quoniam illi prodeunt ex illa prima universalissima causa,80 quæ (ex principijs suæ Philosophiæ) omnibus ijs caret perfectionibus, sicut supra 5. Præludio N.o 2 visum est. 2.o quia in lib. 1. X¯uk¯ım pag. 35 dicunt expresse quod cælum maior prorsus causa 2.a totius universi, nec videt, nec audit, nec intelligit, nec diligit, nec odium habet, sed omnia hæc mediante populo facit: infertur igitur ex hoc vel quod intra corpus æthereum cæli nullus spiritus est, vel ex una eademque res et substantia cum illo; et ita nec videt nec audit nec intelligit ett.a 3.o Quia81 cælum et terra sicut dicitur lib. 26. Símlì pag.a 16 et 17 nullatenus habet cor; id est non habet voluntatem, nec deliberationem, sed totum quod operator est per quamdam naturalem propensionem quemadmodum ignis urit, lapisque descendit deorsum. 4.o Quia cum de ijs disputatur Materijs, cælum terræ æquiparatur: terram igitur non intelligere, neque vitam habere ett.a per se patet, ergo idem de cælo dici debet. Cum autem agitur de hoc in ordine ad operationes, quæ proprie ad spiritus pertinent, dicendo quod operationes tales cæli et terræ neutiquam fiunt per electionem volutantatis nec rationis, patet clare idem concludi debere, quod spiritus cæli et terræ aliarumque rerum, omnes sunt sine vita, sine intelligentia et sine libertate. Confirmaturque ex generali persuasione Sinarum, scilicet quod quisquis bene fecerit; naturaliter ac necessarie præmiabitur; quisquis autem male, pariterque puniendus erit, v.g. sicut qui igni approximatur, calefiet; qui vero nivi, frigefiet. Est denique dicere res huius mundi non aliqua suprema providentia regi, sed a casu, vel secundum cursum causarum naturalium. Hic vero aliqua quæsita circa hos spiritus occurrere possunt: sic ea cum suis responsionibus proponam ad maiorem Sinicæ doctrinæ claritatem. [N.o 12] 1.o Quæritur. Si spiritus isti una eademque substantia sunt cum ipsismet rebus ubi ipsi sunt, quamobrem appellantur spiritus? Ultra nomina appellationis ipsarummet rerum? Respondeo: Sic quidem appellari ad denotandum formalitatem /183v/ operandi, inquantum talis operatio procedit a quodam principio occulto, qui aliquo modo intra ipsamet res agit et gubernat ad instar vitalis spiritus. Aliquando etiam denotat ipsamet rerum substantiam, in quantum est quædam entitas pura

80 = a 天之聦明非有視聽也因民之視聽以為聦明天之明畏非有好惡也因民之好惡以為明

畏.

81 = b 伊川曰: 天地無心而成化聖人, 有心而無為.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

243

et subtilis, incorporeoque: valde approximata. Unde oritur operationes semper mirabiliores inscrutabilioresque esse. [N.o 13] 2.o Quæritur: si spiritus illi quantum ad suam essentiam sunt ipsamet Lì seu substantia prima universalis, quomodo dicitur eos ab ea esse productos? Respondeo: productos fuisse sicut et cæteræ res, quod quidem est superaddi dictæ causæ universalis vocatæ Li: aliquam formam accidentalem aut formalitatem aliquam cum qua alia res constituatur formaliter distincta ab ipsa Li: causa prima universali. Itaque in præsenti, spiritus dicit de novo virtutem illam operativam emanantem a prædicta Li causa universali. Idque satis est ut dicatur esse productus ab illa. Idem modus Philosophandi est circa id quod dicitur spiritus habiturus esse finem: quod utique non est aliud quam in fine mundi destrui ac penitus cessare illam virtutem prædictæ Li causæ primæ operativam. Ipsamet sola in sua pura entitate substantiali permanente, ab omnibus extrinsecis qualitatibus et formalitatibus prioribus prorsus expedita. [N.o 14] 3.o Quæritur: si prædicta prima causa dicta Li de se (ut dictum est supra 5.o Præludio N.o 2) nullam habet activitatem, quomodo dici potest, illam unum idem cum spiritibus esse, quorum natura est eos esse operativos? Respondeo: Substantiam præfatam primæ causæ, etiamsi considerata in se nullam habeat activitatem, porro incipit habere illam post productum illum K˘ı: id est illum Aërem primogenium, qui instrumentum coniunctum sibi est. Itaque operationes spirituum fundamentaliter pertinent ad prædictam Lì, primam causam generalem, instrumentaliter ad prædictum K˘ı Aërem primogenium, formaliter vero ad ipsosmet spiritus. [N.o 15] 4.o Quæritur, si intra ipsasmet res non est spiritus aliquis vivens ab earum substantia entitativa distinctus, dum cælo et terræ, montibusque ett.a sacrificatur; Cuine offeruntur ista sacrificia? Respondeo: Sinas sæpe sæpius secundum suam consuetudinem procedere a maioribius suis antiquis derelictam, non examinantes, quibusne sacrificent, num si rebus ipsis visibilibus, an suæ virtutis operativæ, vel alicui spiritui viventi, qui forsan sit in illis: et hoc ob regulam relictam a Confucio videlicet non esse studium adhibendum in rebus invisibilibus seu non apparentibus scrutandis.82 Respondeo 2.o Litteratos Sinas in sua secta plus eruditos ac versatos, in rebus quibus sacrificant nihil aliud recognoscere nisi substantiam entitativam, illius primæ causæ universalis Li vocatæ, et sui primigenij Aëris

82 BnF: 六合之内論而不議六合之外存而不論.

244

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

dicti K˘ı quatenus instrumenti sibi coniuncti, sicut ex Confucij doctrina in lib. Ch¯um iûm cp. 16 clare videtur, ubi postquam docet spiritus83 = a partes esse componentes entitatis rerum, ideoque ab eis separari non posse sine earum passiva destructione; illico de eisdem spiritibus dicit84 se agere quidem ab hominibus venerari ac revereri; hominesque inducere silenter, interius et exterius se componi; ut ipsismet spiritibus offerant sacrificia: et hoc punctum multum notari debet tanquam præcipuum in secta litteratorum dicta Jûkiao fundamentum. [N.o 16] 5.o Quæritur: cum plures cogitent spiritus dari, esseque viventes intelligentias, et hoc non solum ab ingressu in Sinam Sectarum Idolorum sed etiam multo antea, scilicet a primis Regibus Yaô et Xûn prædictis, et sic in doctrinis antiquis Sinicis loquitur de ijs spiritibus quasi essent viventes ac in rebus humanis superintendentes, his suppositis, quæ vel qualis iuxta hoc est resolutio litteratorum? Respondeo: Omnes utique auctoritatis litteratos tam antiquos /184r/ quam modernos, absolute et unanimiter negare dari tales spiritus viventes diversosque in substantia a locis rebusque ubi ipsimet sunt: hoc enim implicaret contradictionem in principijs suæ Philosophiæ, per quam omnia utique unum idem sunt, ut supra diversis in locis declaratur. [N.o 17] Quoad opinionem autem vulgi modosque loquendi librorum suorum authenticorum advertendum est duos assignari modos spirituum: Alij, qui vocantur generationum et corruptionum; Alij vero, sacrificiorum spiritus. Primi sunt Philosophici spiritus per quos significantur causæ naturales generationum et corruptionum, quæ sunt in universo istique sumuntur tum pro ipsamet substantia entitativa rerum seu virtutum suarum operantium in eis tum etiam pro qualitatibus suaque operandi formalitate. Secundi autem sunt spiritus civiles, qui in Republica fuerunt introducti, intuitu quidem populum a malis occultis coërcendi faciendique ne inordinate viveret, præsumens et putans diversos esse spiritus in cælo, in terra, in montibus, in fluminibusque ett.a bene maleque hominibus facere potentes, quemadmodum olim dicebatur de Jovijs et Veionibus. Igitur necessarium est omnes nostros advertere in puncto tam essentiali harum controversiarum: videlicet tam in secta litteratorum, quam in Sectis Bonziorum et Tausorum (quæ Idolorum Sectæ sunt) pro sapientibus quidem unam esse doctrinam occultam et secretam ab eis scitam non ab

83 = a 體物而不可遺. 84 = b 使天下人齊明盛服以承祭祀.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

245

alijs, quam putant esse veram: pro rudi populo vero aliam doctrinam esse fucatam et apparentem, quam illi putant esse omnino falsam. Quapropter non adest fundamentum textibus nos innitendi suarum doctrinarum, in quibus a consulto tali fucato modo fantur, ut rudis populus putare possit spiritus aut Deos viventes dari in re, dignos quidem tremore ac reverentia, ut ita populus eos colat, paveat atque honoret. Ut autem videatur hanc esse mentem veritatemque Sinicæ doctrinæ, aliquos famosos referam Auctores, qui de hoc articulo agentes ex professo concludunt utique alios spiritus non esse præter ipsasmet causas naturales. 12.um Præludium De auctoritatibus diversis Auctorum Classicorum de spiritibus vel Dijs Sinensibus agentium.

[N.o 1] Quidam auctor nomine Chîmçü` sup. libr. Ch¯um iûm pag.a 11 declarans naturam propriumque esse spirituum dicit85 : Spiritus utique non aliud esse quam operationes cæli et terræ, quædamque signa seu vestigia generationum et corruptionum naturalium. Ubi advertendum est sub nomine operationum, virtutem operativam comprehendi et intelligi, seu ipsammet suam potentiam operandi: sub nomine autem vestigiorum intelligi quoque causarum naturalium entitatem et essentiam. Ideoque Auctor lib. 28 Símlì pag.a 3786 ait quod spiritus de quibus loquitur libr. Iˇek¯ım sunt utique generationes et corruptiones: hoc est sunt ipsæmet causæ generationum et corruptionum, quod est obiectum proprium libri prædicti. [N.o 2] In eodem loco movet hoc quæsitum87 : quid ne sint nubes et pluviæ, quæ ex montibus ex aquisque profluunt? Respondetque dicens: esse utique fumos aut vapores Aëris. Hoc principio supposito, cito infert quod quando homines pluviarum spiritui sacrificant non alteri rei quam Aëri ipsimet sacrificant, qui est propria pluviarum causa. Itemque probat magnam esse stultitiam templa adire Idolorum ad poscendum pluviam a simulacris ligneis seu fictilibus eam non habentibus postpositis montibus et aquis, quæ pluviarum propria loca sunt. Ex quo patet auctorem 85 = a 程子曰鬼神天地之作用而造化之迹也. 86 = b 易說鬼神便是造化也. 87 = c

.

246

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

præfatum non alios spiritus quam Aërem agnoscere, ex quo montium et aquarum substantia constituitur. /184v/ [N.o 3] Idem Auctor lib. 26 Simlì pag.a 11 agens de differentia quæ datur inter cælum et illum supernum Regem vocatum Xámtí dicit huiusmodi consideratum cælum quantum ad suam corpoream figuram vocatur cælum, sed consideratum quantum ad suam regentem providentiam, vocatur Rex, seu Imperator: consideratum vero quantum ad suam summam subtilitatem vocatur imperceptibile: quantum ad suas autem operationes dicitur spiritus; quantum ad suam denique proprietatem et naturam, forte nominatur. Hæc omnia in rei veritate unum idem sunt; secundumque nomina et formalitates differunt dumtaxat. Hæc ille. Hoc igitur debet summe adverti, nam dicendo quod Xámtí seu Altissimus Rex, scilicet spiritus cæli una eademque res cum ipsomet æterneo corpore cælesti est, idem a simili dici debet de spiritibus montium ac rerum aliarum, quod illi quoque una eadem res ac substantia sunt et entitas cum eis. [N.o 4] Alius auctor nomine Ch¯amçü` lib. 2688 Simli pag.a 38 inquit89 : Spiritus quidem non aliud esse quam plenitudinem et soliditatem; hoc est utique substantiam ipsam et soliditatem universalem, quæ est immensa et infinita, itaque omnia implet: et ideo interpres nomine Liû ki¯en ch¯um spiritibus attribuit esse sursum a dextris et sinistris, id est ubique: desumptum quidem ex lib. Ch¯um iûm pag.a 11. [N.o 5] Idem Ch¯am in commento dicto libri Ch¯um iûm pag.a 11 ait90 Quod spiritus sunt potentia et naturalis activitas Aëris calidi et frigidi: eosque vocant ¯ın iâm, hoc est quod illi sunt causæ generales generationum et corruptionum, quæ sunt in toto universo. [N.o 6] Alius nomine Ch¯u çü` lib. 28 Símlì pag.a 2 Quærit sic91 Utrum spiritus sint ne ipsemet Aër? Et respondet dicens: eos videri esse utique illam vivacitatem, entelexiam, vigorem seu activitatem, aut virtutem, quæ est intra ipsummet Aërem.

88 Page number is mistaken; APF Port: 28; BnF: 28. 89 = e 張子曰鬼神無他却只是箇誠; BnF adds: 如在其上如在其左右. 90 = f 鬼神者, 二氣之良能也. 91 = g 問鬼神便只是此氣否曰又是這氣裡面神靈相似.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

247

[N.o 7] Idem Auctor eodem libr. pag.a 3.92 inquit: Pluviam ventum, rorem, grandinem, solem, lunam, diem, et noctem, omnia hæc esse utique vestigia et effectus Spirituum: et quod isti tales sunt spiritus clari, universales ac recti. Quantum ad eos autem de quibus dicitur eos in pontibus sibilare, in pectoribusque concutere (quemadmodum sunt energumenorum spiritus) hi quidem sunt qui vocantur spiritus obliqui, falsi, et obscuri, qui nunc sunt, nunc vero redeunt; nunc congregantur, nunc vero disperguntur. Etiam aliqui spiritus sunt, de quibus fatur, quod rogati respondent, requisitique annuunt. Hi ergo pariter vocantur spiritus, suntque una eadem Lì, hoc est sunt illa eadem substantia entitasque universalis omnium rerum, supposito quod omnes huius universi res sunt equidem hæc eadem substantia. Differentia quippe quæ datur inter eas, sola hæc est, quod rerum entitas altera est subtilis, altera crassa, quædam magna; quædamque parva est. [N.o 8] Idem Auctor eodem libro pag.a 38. ostendit utique spiritus esse, quod probat hoc modo.93 Si spiritus non essent; Antiqui neutiquam ab illis aliquid postulassent. Videmus igitur nunc quod tempore septem dierum continebant se a matrimonio; tribusque diebus ieiunabant intuitu suas faciendi deprecationes /185r/ visibilibus, aut invisibilibus rebus; igitur intelligendum est necessarie spiritus esse. Nunc Imperator cælo terræque sacrificat, ergo certum est cælum terramque esse. Principes ac Duces montibus famosis, fluminibusque celeberrimis in suis ditionibus existentibus sacrificant; ergo certum est famosos montes fluminaque celeberrima esse. Nobiles viri quinque offerunt sacrificia, ergo certum est portam maiorem duarum tabularum esse; esseque viam portamque unius tabulæ minorem, esseque focarium, atriumque aut claustrum sistens in medio. Quando nunc autem in Templis Antecessorum aliquid mirum videtur, non aliud est quam montium aquarumque Aër ibidem congregatus: interveniente autem tempore, si hæc templa destructa postea fuerint aut collapsa, tunc mira illa non apparebunt: et causa huius erit, quia Aër talium locorum iam utique dispersus est. Ex qua Auctoritate evidenter colligi potest spiritus non aliud esse quam Aëris activitatem: 92 = h 風雨露雷日月晝夜此鬼神之迹也此是白日公平正直之鬼神若所謂有嘯于梁觸于 胸此謂不正邪暗或有或無或去或來或聚或散者又有所謂禱之而應祈之而獲此亦所謂鬼神同 一理也世間萬事皆此理但精粗大小之不同耳. 93 = i

.

248

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

ad huncque diriguntur sacrificia, quæ cælo, terræ, montibus, fluminibus, portis, focarijs, Templisque Antecessorum fiunt. [N.o 9] Idem Auctor Chùçü` eodem loco proponit hoc quæsitum94 : Quando cælo, terræ, montibus, et aquis sacrificatur, utiturque victimis quæ mactantur, textilibusque telis quæ cremantur, ac vino quod effunditur; fitne utique totum hoc ad cordis nostri affectum ostendendum, aut quia in rei veritate adest Aër, qui approximatur ad talia sacrificia suscipiendum? Respondetque ipse dicens: si dixerimus quidem nullatenus rem aliquam esse quæ suscipere veniat id quod offertur, cui ergo sacrificamus? Item (ait ille) quæ utique res est quæ eo sursum existit reverentiam inmittens, faciensque ut homines ei offerant sacrificia? Simulque paveant ac contremiscant? Si adhuc dixerimus quod in rei veritate ex nubibus currus aliquis constructus est in quo illa talis res deorsum descendat; mendax utique erit ac falsitas maxima. [N.o 10] Idem Auctor ibidem pag.a 39 agens de ethymologia spiritus cæli, qui est idem ac ille Altimissimus Imperator vocatus Xámtí dicit95 quod vocatur Xîn, id est spiritus; quoniam Aër cæli semper dilatatur et extenditur. Unde patet clare secundum illos non esse aliquem viventem intelligentemque spiritum, nisi Aëris substantiam cum sua activitate et efficientia. [N.o 11] Idem Auctor Ch¯uçü` eodem libro quærit sic96 Filij autem quando sacrificant suis Parentibus, Avisque defunctis, certum est quod quærunt eos per proprium Aërem suimet ipsorum: id est, considerant eos tamquam unam eamdem rem cum Aëre quem habent in semetipsis. Quando vero aliarum personarum aut rerum spiritibus sacrificant, tunc quomodo fit hoc? Num datur quod illi ea sacrificia suscipere veniant, vel non? Huic respondet ipsemet dicens; quod Filij cum suis parentibus et Avis indubitanter tenent eamdem immutabilem substantiam. Quando autem alijs personis seu rebus sacrificant, hæ quoque sunt quibus ex aliquo iusto titulo debeant sacrificare. Proptereaque dixit Confucius: Sacrificate

94 = k 問祭天地山川而用牲幣酒禮者只是表吾心之誠耶抑真有氣來格也曰若道無物來 享時自家祭甚底肅然在上令人奉承敬畏是甚物若道真有雲車擁從而來又妄誕. 95 = l 天氣常伸, 謂之神. 96 = m 問子之祭先祖固是以氣而求若祭其他鬼神則如之何有來享之意否曰子之于祖先

固有顯然不易之理若祭其亦祭其所當祭祭如在祭神如神在如天子則祭天是其當祭亦有氣類 烏得而不來歆乎諸侯祭社稷故今祭社亦是從氣類而祭鳥得而不來歆乎今祭孔子必於學其氣 類亦可想問天地山川是有箇物事則祭之其神可致人死氣己散如何致之曰只是一氣如子孫有 箇氣在此畢竟是因何有此其所自來盖自厥初生民氣化之祖相傳到此只是此氣.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

249

vestris Parentibus defunctis tamquam si ipsimet præsentes existerent: sacrificate quoque alijs spiritibus, tamquam si etiam illi præsentes essent. Quando Imperator autem cælo sacrificat; cælum utique est res cui debeat ipse sacrificare, habetque similitudinem eiusdem /185v/ Aëris cum Imperatore, quomodo ergo venire omittet ad acceptandum sacrificium? Quando Principes ac Duces Dijs Penatibus sacrificant, Dijsque quinque elementorum, æqualiter eis sacrificant propter similitudinem eiusdem Aëris quæ est inter illos: quomodo ergo venire omittere possunt ad acceptandum illa sacrificia? Nunc etiam sacrificatur Confucio: sed hoc non fit nisi in schola97 Universitatis, ut imaginari possit sui Aëris similitudo. Si aliquis vero dixerit cælum, et terram, montes, et aquas esse permanentes consistentesque res, itaque cum eis sacrificatum fuerit, fieri quidem potest ut sui spiritus veniant ad sacrificium: At quantum attinet ad homines defunctos; Aër eorum iam dispersus est, potest ergo fieri ut ille veniat suscipere sacrificium? Respondeo: (ait ille) quod non plus est quam unus idemque Aër, qui a primo Principio communicavit se Avis et Parentibus, ` Ex et per hos filijs ac nepotibus. Hucusque prædictus Auctor Chùçü. quo clare ostenditur quod in Secta Jûkia¯o id est, Litteratorum Sinensium, omnes spiritus tam hominum, quam cæli et terræ, aliarumque rerum partiumve universi non plus esse quam Aër corpus homogeneum, entitasque coæva omnium rerum; ac per consequens, quod Sinæ nondum agnoverunt substantiam spiritualem aliquam per se existentem, viventem, et intelligentem, distinctam a materiali corporea. [N.o 12] Alius Auctor nomine Chîn pˇe k¯ı libr. 28. Símlì pag.a 40 98 ait : Quod quando Antiqui cælo, et terræ, montibus et aquis sacrificabant, semper quamdam proponebant statuam, et causa erat quoniam cælum et terra, montes et aquæ non plus sunt quam entitas Aëris calidi aut frigidi, quem illi vocant ín iâm. Itaque illa utentes statua, prætendebant utique, ut ille calidus aut frigidus Aër congregari veniret in illam statuam, ac sic illud sacrificium non offeretur in vanum. Quando autem vinum fundebant, comburebant aromata, victimas mactabant, offerebantque sericas telas, totum hoc erat vel penitus exhaurire veram sui cordis 97 = h Id est non fit nisi inter litteratos, a quibus tantummodo sacrificia offeruntur suo Magistro Confucio, non ab alijs, et hoc fit in templis dicatis Confucio, non in schola materiali universali ad docendum quia in Sina nulla huiusmodi schola datur sicut in nostra Europa ut in mea declaratione dico n.o 28 ett.a 98 = n 古人祭天地山川皆立尸誠以天地山川只是陰陽二氣用尸要得二氣來聚這尸上不 是徒然歆享所以用灌用燎用牲用幣大要盡吾心之誠敬誠敬既盡則天地山川之氣便自聚.

250

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

venerationem. Cum autem cordialis veneratio vere iam esset exhausta, tunc cæli et terræ, montium, aquarumque Aër cito ex se congregabatur ad correspondendum sacrificantium desiderijs. [N.o 13] Alius Auctor nomine Ch¯u k¯um çi¯en in commento libr. Táçiuên sup. lib. 3. Ch¯um iûm pag.a 48 ait99 : Quod spiritus de quibus agit Jûkia¯o Secta litteratorum ad duos reducuntur ordines. Primus est spirituum, qui vocantur generationum et corruptionum naturalium spiritus, et hæc est propria et genuina significatio spirituum. Secundus vero est eorum, qui vocantur sacrificorum spiritus: et hæc significatio impropria est, atque anomala. Quod quidem aliter loquendo est dicere: in secta Litteratorum, Philosophicos spiritus esse, denotantes activitatem causarum naturalium ac suam efficientiam; esseque spiritus civiles aut populares introductos utique ad bonum Reipublicæ regimen, inducendo populum ut eos tamquam si viventes essent honoret ac timeat. Cum ita sit quod ipsimet litterati neutiquam credunt tales spiritus esse, sed dari solummodo illam primam substantiam universalem Lì et Táikiˇe nominatam cum suis naturalibus operationibus. Hoc maxime oportet notari, ut nullus ex nostris seduci patiatur ex fucata apparentia Textuum aliquorum, dum loquuntur de suo Altissimo Domino aut Rege Xámtí, ac de alijs spiritibus tamquam si essent viventes, diversæque essentiæ a locis ubi resident, supposito suo modo loquendi qui figurativus omnino ac metaphoricus est. 13.um Præludium. Omnes spiritus vel Dij Sinarum reducuntur ad unum dumtaxat qui est id quod illi vocant Lì aut Ta˘ıkiˇe.

[N.o 1] In hoc Præludio advertendum est, quod Idololatria Sinica maxima ex parte est sicut Idololatria antiqua Europea: Nunc autem alias combinationes utriusque omittens, /186r/ referam dumtaxat id quod attinet ad designandum unum solummodo Deum, quem illi utique cogitant esse substantiam ac entitatem totius molis huius universi. D. Augustinus libr. 4 de Civit. Dei cp. 10. 11. et 12 ex scriptis antiquorum Romanorum, Græcorum, et Ægyptiorum ostendit utique varios Deos a Philosophis antiquis introductos, omnes convenire quidem in unius rei esse dumtaxat; id est quod ille talis Deus est unus, simulque est omnes res, omnesque Dij, atque Anima mundi est, aut ipsemet mundus. Unde colligitur Antiquos Sinenses tenuisse omnia ex illo Chaos 99 = o 鬼神自造化而言是專言之也主乎祭祀而言是偏言之也.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

251

infinito procedere, quatenus ille iuxta imaginationes eorum est primum Principium materiale materiaque prima: sibi persuasi illum esse unam eamdemque rem cum partibus mundi; quin imo præter illum, seu extra illum, neutiquam esse aliquam aliam rem. Itaque in ijs Physicis imaginationibus fundabant illi omnem turbam suorum Deorum, totamque Idololatriam. Constat quippe sicut ipsemet S. Augustinus ait hanc opinionem fuisse Asiæ communiter receptam: ex indeque fuisse communicatam Græcis et Ægyptijs, ex istisque Romanis. S. Augustinus inquit ut infra: Quotquotlibet igitur Physicis rationibus et disputationibus disserant, modo sit Jupiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui universam istam molem ex quatuor vel quotquot eis placet elementis constructam atque compactam implet et movet: modo inde suas partes sorori (id est Junoni) et fratribus suis (id est alijs elementis) cedat: modo sit Æther, ut aërem Junonem, subterfusam desuper amplectatur, modo totum simul cum aëre sit ipse cælum, terram vero tamquam coniugem eamdemque matrem fœcundis imbribus et seminibus fœtet: modo Deus unus de quo multi a Poëta dictum putant: Deum namque ire per omnes Terras Tractusque maris, cælumque profundum. Ipse in Æthere sit Jupiter; ipse in Aëre Juno; ipse in mari Neptunus; in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia; in terris Pluto; in terra inferiore Proserpina; in focis domesticis Vesta; in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus; in sideribus sol, luna, et stellæ; in divinantibus Apollo; Saturnus in tempore; Minerva in ingenijs, ipse sit postremo etiam illa turba quasi plebeorum Deorum. Hæc omnia quæ dixi, et quæcumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum) hi omnes Dij Deæque sit unus Jupiter: sive sint (ut quidam volunt) omnia ista partes eius, sive virtutes eius, sicut eis videtur; quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quæ sententia velut magnorum multorumque Doctorum est.

Item cap. 12 dicit ut sequitur: Si mundi animus Deus est, eique animo mundus, ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore atque iste Deus est quidam sinus naturæ in seipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima, qua vivificatur tota ista moles, vitæ atque animæ multorum viventium pro cuiusque nascentis sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere posse quod non sit pars Dei.

252

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 2] Super hoc autem Ludovicus Vivez ait hanc esse opinionem Pythagoræ omnes scilicet res partes esse Dei, quod idem est ac dicere in universo /186v/ non aliud esse nisi unam tantummodo rem, quæ est vel Chaos, vel materia prima, quæ ab illis vocatur Deus vel mens. Dicit igitur hanc fuisse sententiam Pythagoricam, quam Virgilius 6 Æneid. expressit huiusmodi: Principio cælum ac terras, camposque liquentes Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque Astra Spiritus intus alit: totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet Inde hominum pecudumque genus, vitæque volantum Et quæ marmoreo fert monstra sub æquore pontus Igneus est ollis vigor, et cælestis origo Seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant Terrenique hebetant artus moribundaque membra.

Et in 4. Georgicorum: His quidam signis, atque hæc exempla secuti Esse Apibus partem divinæ mentis et haustus Æthereos dixere. Deum namque ire per omnes Terras tractusque maris, cælumque profundum. Hinc pecudesque, Armenta, viros, genus omne ferarum Quemque sibi tenues nascentem arcessere vitas; Scilicet huc reddi deinde, ac resoluta referri Omnia, nec morti esse locum, sed viva volare Sideris in numerum, atque alto succedere cælo.

[N.o 3] Ex præscriptis clare patet quid illi tenuerint iuxta id, omnia scilicet unam esse rem dumtaxat, ex illa originari, in eamque tandem resolvi: unde moti sunt Deum eam appellare, aliam quippe rem maiorem nondum agnoverunt. Eumdem utique conceptum machinantur litterati Sinenses de sua Lì seu Táikiˇe, putantes eam esse substantiam et essentiam omnium rerum, aut spiritum universalem implentem gerentemque totum universum. De hoc igitur argumento quam plura quidem in suis aiunt libris. Hic vero tria aut quatuor ex principalioribus referam puncta.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

253

[N.o 4] 1.o In primis igitur ut æquivocatio in nominibus non sit, adverti debet: id quod quod ab illis dicitur Lì100 et Ta˘ıkiˇe, unam eamdem esse substantiam, entitatemque sui primi principij totius molis universi, differre tamen inter se in quadam formalitate dumtaxat, quæ propria est uniuscuiusque. Id enim quod dicitur Lì (quod est idem ac ratio communis et universalis omnium rerum totiusque naturæ) denotat suam propriam entitatem solam singillatim absque aliquo alio respectu. Id vero quod dicitur101 Taíkiˇe (et est ille primogenius Aër ab ea Lì per motum emanatus, ut dictum est in 5.o Præludio n.o 3) denotat eamdem ipsiusmet Lì entitatem in quantum ipsa est fundamentum et cardo omnium rerum existens in medio earum, eo modo quo Polus Aquilonaris est in medio cæli et stellarum, et sicut Rex est in medio sui Regni et Vasallorum. [N.o 5] 2.o In lib. Símlí 26 pag.a 8 dicitur102 Præfatum Táikiˇe aut præfatam Lì esse causam, ob quam cælum semper movetur, terra vero semper firma sistit atque homines /187r/ et res agunt suas operationes semper incessanter. + Huius ratio est, quod Ly vel Táikiˇe est intra prædictas res tanquam gubernator, et illarum Rector. Vala.103 Quod quidem idem munus est ac id quod spiritibus attribuitur, idemque Auctor ille prænominatus Chîm idemmet ipsum ponit in definitione illius sui Altissimi Regis seu Dominatoris vocati Xámtí, dicens sic quidem appellari, quia regit seu gubernat ett.a . [N.o 6] 3.o Eodem Símlì lib. 1 pag.a 31104 ostenditur quod præfata Lì seu ratio universalis totius naturæ prædominatur utique in rebus totius universi, ideoque in illis nondum deficientia aliqua adhuc invenitur. Itaque æstu recedente, succedit frigus; sole se elongante luna appropinquatur: In primo vere germina oriuntur; in medio veris coalescunt; in autumno perficiuntur; porro in hieme retrahuntur. In rebusque initiandis, coalesecendis, 100 = a 太極只是一箇理字. 101 = b 太極只是以理言也理緣何又謂之極極至也以其在中有樞極之義如皇極北極等皆

有在中之義不可便詞極為中.

102 = c 若太極云者乃是就理論天之所以萬古常存人物之所以萬古生生不息不是各自恁 地都是理在其中為之主宰便自然如此就其為天地萬物主宰處論恁地渾淪極至故以太極名之 盖搃天地萬物之理到此凑合更無去處及散而為天地為人為物又皆一一停勻無少欠缺所以 謂之太極. 103 This sentence is found at the top of the page, with the name of Valat next to it. However, it flows with Longobardo’s text, and the two Portuguese manuscripts do not indicate any break in the text. Therefore, we consider it as part of Longobardo’s text. 104 = d 天道流行自古及今無一毫之妄暑徃則寒來日徃則月來春生了便夏長秋殺了便冬 藏元亨利貞終始循環萬古常如此皆是真實道理為之主宰.

254

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

perficiendis, atque retrahendis principium cum earum fine gyrant versantia quasi in rota: et ab initio antiquitatum omnium sic visum semper fuit, propterea quod assistit eis regimen ac prædominium veræ illius ac solidæ Lì quæ ratio intrinseca universalis totius rerum naturæ est. [N.o 7] 4.o Eodem Símlì lib. 26 pag.a 9 dicitur de illo Taíkiˇe seu primogenio Aëre, ipsum esse originem et causam productionis finisque totius universi his verbis105 : Antequam produceretur mundus, Taíkiˇe id est Aër prædictus fuit causa ut esset chaos. Post mundi productionem ipsemet Taíkiˇe etiam causa fuit ut esset cælum et terra, homines atque cæteræ res. Post finem autem mundi, Taíkiˇe erit quoque causa ut tam res quam homines penitus finiantur, et cælum ac terra iterum reuniantur in suo primo chaos. Porro ipsemet Taíkiˇe semper stat ac permanet eodem modo tam in principio quam in fine. Propter hos similesque librorum Sinarum discursus iuxta præfatam Lì et suum Taíkiˇe colligi potest quod in eorum conceptu neque est, nec esse potest præfatis alia maior res. Possunt tamen hic aliqua non parvi pendenda dubia occurrere, ideoque cum suis solutionibus infra proponam. [N.o 8] 1.um Dubium si præfata Lì aut Taíkiˇe, ita quid maximum sunt ut dictum est; qua de causa Sinæ eis nondum sacrificant, nec se illis recommendant, sicut faciunt alijs multo minoribis rebus? Respondetur 1.o Cum sacrificia quippe instituta sint pro bono populi regimine, convenientius visum fuit, ut sacrificia illa offerrentur quidem rebus quæ a populo videri ac intelligi possent, qualia sunt cælum, terra, montesque ett.a simul cum spiritibus aut virtutibus operativis, quas in rebusmetipsis recognoscunt. Quoad Taíkiˇe autem absque aliquo cultu illum relinquunt, a nulloque Sinarum colitur, eo quod occultissima res est, quæ secundum regulam Confucij a gente vulgari investigari non oportet. Respondeo 2.o ex litteratis Jûkia¯o id est de Sinica schola sapientiores, aut nihilo ducunt præfata sacrificia, ea putantes tanquam cæremoniam politicam dumtaxat, aut sunt satis contenti ea offerre privatis spiritibus, intelligentes quippe eos esse tamquam membra ac partes illius universalis spiritus. Itaque quadam die quidam Doctor (nomine Û puèn jû Tutao de Leaòt¯um, id est magnus cuiusdam Provinciæ Præfectus) dixit nobis, se quidem adorare 105 = e 開物之前渾沌未始混元之如此者太極為之也開物之後有天地有人物如此者太極 為之也閑物之後人銷物盡天地又合為渾沌者亦太極為之也太極常常如此始終一般無增無減 無分無合故以未判已判言太極者不知道之言也. The character underlined 未 is a mistake for 太.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

255

posse quoddam vas quod tunc cum potu tenebat in manibus, sciebat quippe (dixit ille) intra ipsummet vas esse suum Taíkiˇe et contineri eadem forma qua est in cælo ac in alijs partibus universi. [N.o 9] 2.um Dubium: quomodo intelligitur præfatum Taíkiˇe spiritum esse universalem; spiritus autem cæli et terræ aliarumque partium universi esse tamquam membra aut partes eius? Respondetur: posse quidem (secundum doctrinam Jûkia¯o seu litteratorum) varias afferri comparationes. 1.a V.g. ut aqua in communi comparata cum aquis particularibus /187v/ maris fluminum puteorum ett.a 2.a ut anima nostra, quæ in communi regit totum corpus, et in particulari omnia membra eius. 3.a ut essentia et natura universalis abstractive in se considerata, et in concreto suorum individuorum. 4.a ut materia prima, quæ cum sit entitas generalis distribuitur in plures materias secundas iuxta diversitatem qualitatum quibus actuatur et induitur. 5.a denique ut quædam ceræ massa, quæ liquata transmutari in varias potest figuras Arborum, foliorum, animalium ett.a post compactasque figuras, semper immanens est eadem originalis cera sicut antea. Per has igitur comparationes potest bene intelligi quemadmodum ille Taíkiˇe est substantia spiritusque universalis totius universi, simulque spiritus particularis omnium partium eius. De quo expressa auctoritas est in lib. 1 Símlì pag.a 6 dicens sic106 omnes res sunt utique unus idem Taíkiˇe: ubi commentum adhuc addit individuanter dicens107 quamlibet rem suum in se habere Taíkiˇe. Idem in terminis dicitur de præfata sua Lì. lib. 26. Símlì pag.a 1. hoc modo108 : Lì id est ratio seu substantia illa universalis totius naturæ una quidem est, sed partes suæ plurimæ. In communi loquendo de cælo, de terra, de omnibusque rebus non plus est quam una Lì, id est, quam una ratio generalis totius naturæ universi. At loquendo de hominibus, de cæterisque rebus individuatim, quæque earum suam habet Lì, hoc est suam propriam rationem specialem habet. [N.o 10] 3.um Dubium ex auctoritatibus ac comparationibus præmissis probatur solummodo unam eamdemque substantiam esse in toto orbe in omnibusque partibus eius; adhuc vero non videtur clare quomodo spiritus ille universalis unus idem sit cum spiritibus particularibus, idcirco quæritur nunc in quo utique consistat ratio formalis spiritus secundum

106 = a 萬物一太極. 107 = b 是萬物各一太極. 108 = c 理一分殊合天地萬物而言只是一箇理及在人物又各自有一箇理.

256

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

Sinas? Respondeo: probato iam quod in toto orbe una dumtaxat sit substantia consequenter probatum est unum solummodo esse spiritum. Ratio est quoniam substantia cum spiritu non sunt duæ res, sed una eadem cum duabus considerata formalitatibus. Altera est formalitas suæ propriæ entitatis: altera vero formalitas suæ operationis: vel eadem entitas quatenus principium est suæ operationis. Nunc igitur cum substantia sit una in toto orbe et in qualibet parte illius, ita spiritus est æqualiter unus idem. Etiamsi quatenus regit universum sit universalis, et quatenus suas regit partes sit particularis. Hanc ergo doctrinam, vidi excellenter disputari ` et a Doctore Che¯u m˘o a Doctore Hoâm iún tái Præfecto de T˘ai p˘o sü, ki¯en Præfecto de Lìpú, ab alijsque satis versatis in trium Sectarum materijs. [N.o 11] 4.um Dubium: supposita hac de spiritu universali doctrina: quæritur nunc de spiritu cæli vocato Xámtí id est Altissimo Rege, quam proportionem ille habeat cum alijs terræ, montium, aquarum, similiumque rerum privatis spiritibus? Respondeo quod in aliquibus conveniunt; differunt vero in aliquibus. 1.o conveniunt in entitate substantiali, quæ in omnibus eadem est cum entitate primi principij. Unde quantum ad hoc, inter illos non est differentia maioris aut minoris nobilitatis, plus aut minus perfectionis ett.a quinimmo omnes sunt æquales. 2.o conveniunt in suo origine; omnes quippe producti fuerunt a Taíkiˇe seu ab aëre illo primogenio, quando cælum terraque producta sunt cum cæteris rebus in quibus ipsi resident. Ita quod cum illis unum idem sunt, non possuntque ab illis seiungi. 3.o conveniunt in termino finali; omnes quippe isti spiritus finem suæ ultimæ consummationis habituri sunt, quando res quarum illi sunt spiritus ultimate finientur; quod quidem in fine generali orbis erit, completo tempore a Sinis dicto Tá súi, ut supra declaratur secundum Sinensium litteratorum opinionem. [N.o 12] Differunt autem spiritus præfati: 1.o ex locis quibus ipsi præsunt iuxta maioritatem aut minoritatem ipsorummet locorum, qui maiores aut minores loci sunt. 2.o differunt in qualitatibus alijsque accidentalibus dispositionibus, quæ quidem locis suis aut rebus ad quas pertinent conformes sunt. 3.o differunt in operationibus, quæ plus aut minus perfectæ sunt iuxta loca, res et qualitates, a quibus dependentes sunt. Sufficiat igitur hoc ad ostendendum quemadmodum omnes /188r/ spiritus Dijque Sinarum ad unum reducuntur dumtaxat, quod utique est suum primum universi principium ab illis excogitatum, vocatumque Lì seu Táikiˇe. Quod cum non aliud quam materia prima sit, seu ipsemet Aër secundum Jûkia¯o seu litteratorum Doctrinam: in conclusione denique est

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

257

quædam viva imago Jupiter Europæi: itaque de utroque possunt optime dici versus illi Valerij Sorani: Juppiter omnipotens Regum, rerumque Deumque Progenitor, genitrixque Deum, Deus unus et omnes.

14.um Præludium De varijs nominibus et attributis quæ Sinæ attribuunt huic suo primo orbis Principio substantiæque universali illius.

Ut melius huius primi Principij natura conditionesque intelligantur, in hoc Præludio indicare intendo varia nomina atque attributa, quæ litterati prædicant de illo secundum suæ scholæ Jûkia¯o doctrinam. [N.o 1] In primis vocatur Lì109 : sub quo nomine significantur utique ipsummet esse aut substantia et entitas rerum omnium in communi, imaginantes esse, substantiam immensam, infinitam, æternam, ingenerabilem, et incorruptibilem, sine principio et sine fine. Hæcque secundum Sinas non solum est principium Physicum cæli et terræ aliarumque rerum corporalium, sed et morale virtutum, habituum, cæterarumque spritualium rerum: unde oritur suum celebre Axioma Vuán voˇe iˇe tí: id est omnia sunt unum; aliudque simile Kˇe voˇe ki˘um lì: id est rerum naturam proprietatemque exhaurire, hoc est: rerum esse intelligere usque ad ultimum quod sic. [N.o 2] 2.o Vocatur vûkiˇe,110 id est principium invisibile; quia illa substantia universalis considerata dumtaxat in se ipsa antequam visibilis fieret mediante mutationis alicuius qualitate, prorsus invisibilis erat. Adhucque nunc invisibilis est in sua abstractione metaphysica considerata secundum solam entitatem ab omnibus qualitatibus eam individuantibus expeditam. [N.o 3] 3.o Vocatur Taíkiˇe,111 hoc est Principium primum et summum; eo quod ex eo omnia per emanationem efluxere; iterumque ad illud in fine mundi omnia penitus reducentur. Taíkiˇe quoque vocatur propterea

109 = a 理. 110 = b 無極. 111 = c 太極.

258

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

quod in se summum quid omni genere perfectionum in summo gradu perfectum est. [N.o 4] 4.o Vocatur Taíhiu112 : id est Permagnum vacuum; summaque capacitas eo quod in illa essentia universali, omnium specialium rerum essentiæ continentur, sicut in uno fonte diversorum fluminum aquæ; et sicut in Arboris radice, stirpes, rami, folia, flores, fructusque continentur. [N.o 5] 5.o Vocatur Taíiˇe113 : id est, summa unitas: sicut enim in numeris, illorum omnium Principium est unitas, ipsaque indivisibilis in se est eorum principium: ita in essentijs huius universi una essentia summe una est dumtaxat, quæ incapax divisionis alicuius est quantum ad suam entitatem; estque principium aliarum, quæ in rerum natura sunt et possunt esse. [N.o 6] 6.o Vocatur hoêntún114 : hoc est mixtum seu aggregatio: in entitate quippe huius primi Principij, omnium rerum essentiæ collective sunt; /188v/ non in actu, sed virtualiter tamquam in semine. Itaque quando in productione universi illud aggregatum distribuebatur, substantia pura et levis sursum ascendens fecit cælum: crassa vero et gravi descendente deorsum terra compacta est. [N.o 7] 7.o Vocatur Hoênlûn115 : id est, conglobatum aut sphericum: quia ante mundi productionem; substantia primi Principij tamquam rotundissima sphera erat, quæ nec initium habet neque finem. [N.o 8] 8.o Vocatur Hûm mûm116 : id est maximum inane, eo quod in se recipere atque colligere potest omnes res: quinimmo ultra illud nulla res quidem est. [N.o 9] 9.o Vocatur iuên kí117 : id est, originalis aut primogenius Aër qui utique illa prima substantia universalis est; sed disposita et præparata cum illis quinque mutationibus (ut in 5.o Præludio n.o 3 dictum est) ad hoc ut operari posset. Itaque ille primogenius Aër tum denotat primam illam qualitatem quæ de prima causa Lì vocata pullulavit: tum etiam significat entitatem ipsammet eius dispositam ad operandum per præfatum

112 = d 太虛. 113 = e 太乙. 114 = f 混沌. 115 = g 渾淪. 116 = h 鴻濛. 117 = i 元氣.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

259

Aërem tamquam suum instrumentum, siquidem secundum regulas bonæ Philosophiæ: Actiones sunt suppositorum. [N.o 10] 10.o Vocatur Ti¯ençái118 : id est, res quæ in cælo existit, vel quæ a cælo continetur: eo quod prædicta substantia universalis primi principij etiamsi in omnibus rebus sit tamquam in suis individuis, dicitur vero quod præcipue in cælo est, eo quod cælum sit totius universi excellentisssima, in quo plus quam in alia re sua magna causalitas et efficentia resplendet. [N.o 11] 11.o Vocatur Tienmím119 : hoc est, cæli donum, quia cum cælum ex causis secundis sit causa generalissima, quæ in rerum productione maiorem partem habet efficientiæ, consequenter dicitur naturam et rationem illius primi principij rebus e cælo communicari: idcirco venit vocari cæli donum. [N.o 12] 12.o Vocatur Tientáo120 : id est, cæli Regula seu conditio naturalis; quatenus agit, ut omnes res sua debita regantur proportione seu ducantur: sed hoc absque aliqua intelligentia ac sine discursiva electione, nisi cum quadam propensione ordineque naturali dumtaxat. [N.o 13] 13.o Vocatur Voˇesím121 : hoc est, rerum essentia seu natura: quod utique est in quantum illa primi Principij natura univeralis a rebus particularibus participatur sicut esset v.g.a si alicuius metalli aut luti materia consideretur quatenus in diversis vasis est compacta ac distributa. [N.o 14] 14.o Vocatur Chíchîm,122 id est, summa soliditas aut plenitudo, eo quod natura entitasque illa prima unversalis omnia implet immo et ipsa est entitas et ipsummet esse omnium rerum. De hoc igitur fuse agitur in lib. Ch¯um iûm: præcipue a cp. 20 usque ad 25. ubi notandum est prædictam primi Principij naturam extensam esse tam intra quam ultra universum, constituens omnium rerum esse tam Physicum quam morale. [N.o 15] Huic igitur soliditati prædictæque entitati universali tres ab illis attribuuntur quas nos attribuimus enti in communi proprietates: scilicet unum verum; et bonum. Quoad unitatem autem in lib. Símlì 34. pag.a 19 dicunt123 quod in orbe non plus est quam una Lì, id est quam una 118 = k 天載. 119 = l 天命. 120 = m 天道. 121 = n 物性. 122 = o 至誠. 123 = p 天下只是一箇理.

260

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

natura seu essentia universalis. Eodemque loco /189r/ superaddunt124 quod entitas cuiuslibet rei particularis est ipsamet entitas omnium rerum. Unde pag.a 20 inferunt125 quod causa dicendi omnia sunt unum, est quidem propter hanc eamdem entitatem. Hoc totum clarius confirmatur lib. 26 Símlì pag.a 7 his verbis126 : Omnes res suam entitatem habent, omnes entitates ex uno prodeunt principio quod est ille Taíkiˇe. Iste vero Taíkiˇe, id est, origo omnium rerum est nomen universale, quod in se omnes comprehendit entitates. [N.o 16] Attribuunt quoque illi aliam entis proprietatem, quæ est veritas: et sic commentum ordinarium super lib. Ch¯um iûm pag.a 19 inquit127 quod illa soliditas naturæ universalis est quædam vera res sine uni atomo vani aut falsi; immo quod illa est ipsamet veritas, et quod hoc est proprium esse ac naturale cæli. [N.o 17] Attribuuntque illi bonitatem, quæ est entis ultima proprietas, sicut in libr. 1 Símlì pag.a 19 videtur, ubi dicitur, illud Táikiˇe seu primum Principium necessario et simpliciter128 esse bonum. In lib. autem 26 pag.a 9 aiunt129 quod summa bonitas est Hi¯u: id est, inanis et vacua ab omni impuritate. Hi¯u autem quod est purissimum et inane aiunt esse cæli terræque parentem, si quidem cælum ac terra ab eo profluxere. [N.o 18] Eidem igitur naturæ universali attribuunt illi omnia genera tantæ perfectionis, qua maior alia non sit quidem imaginabilis: ac de hoc loquuntur pluribus in locis suarum doctrinarum. Sed ad nostrum intentum sufficiat unum referre ex lib. 26 Símlì pag.a 7 ubi ait130 Causa igitur ob quam prædictum Taíkiˇe primum Principium est quoddam summe maximum ac sublime, ideo est, quia illud utique est natura universalis, et ita est summum medium, summaque rectitudo; est summa perfectio; summa puritas; summeque spirituale; ac summe imperceptibile, seu inexcogitabile: in conclusione tandem est summe perfectum; nec possibile est ei aliquid aliud superaddi.

124 = q 天下之理即萬物之理. 125 = r 所謂萬物一理者皆有此理. 126 = s 萬物各具一理萬理同出一原所謂萬物一原者太極也太極者乃萬理統會之名. 127 = t 誠者真實無妄之謂天理之本然也. 128 = v 太極固純之善. 129 = x 至善者虛也虛者天地之祖天地從虛中來. 130 = y 太極之所以為極至者言此理至中至正至精至粹至神至妙至矣盡矣不可以復加矣.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

261

[N.o 19] Propter hæc igitur speciosa attributa et perfectiones, quas Sinæ litterati prædicant de præfata natura universali consequenter de ea dicunt131 quod ipsa est sublimis; talis superexcellentiæ ac dignitatis incomparabilis, quod non habet simile nec æquale, sicut videtur in libr. 2 Lún iù pag.a 5. Et quamvis loco prædicto hoc idem encomium cælo etiam applicatur; ideo est quatenus cælum est una eadem res cum illa Lì natura universali. Proptereaque stylus litteratorum in suis libris Sectæ de Jûkia¯o, notari debet, quod quando extollere verbis volunt illum suum Altissimum vocatum Xámtí, dicunt utique eum eamdem rem esse cum æthereo cælo: quando cælum vero volunt magnficare, dicunt etiam cælum utique unum idem esse cum præfata Lì, natura universali, omnium rerum origine prima. At quando de hac Lì, seu natura prima loquuntur, dicunt eam quidem per semetipsam, ex se, et a se quid maximum esse. Quod ab æterno semper fuit per se, in æternumque erit sine fine, estque primum principium, ultimusque terminus et finis omnium rerum, immo et ipsiusmet Altissimi Domini seu Imperatoris Xámtí, ipsiusque cæli, ut supra ostensum est. [N.o 20] Hic mihi videtur aliquem forsan cogitare posse, num Sinæ litterati sub præfata Lì aut Taíkiˇe indicare voluerint rerum omnium creatorem nostrumque verum Deum; siquidem tam speciosa præfata attributa soli nostro vero Deo et non alteri alicui competere possunt. Sed huic respondeo: cave, cave; latet quippe Anguis sub herba, mollique sub unda dirus Leviathan: Nullus ergo a tot speciosis titulis allici patiatur, sed scrutetur prius ac /189v/ radicitus, obiectum Sinicum cui talia tam speciosaque attribuuntur, quid? Quæve res sit? Et cito inveniet non aliud quidem esse quam nostram Physicam materiam primam: illa enim speciosa verba, fucata utique apparentia sunt. Quod ex doctrina ipsa Sinica probatur satis clare, non obstantibus tot prædictæ Lì entitati universali attributis perfectionibus, plures quoque ei imperfectiones attribuunt, sicut nostri fecere Philosophi. Inprimis enim ei non attribuunt substantiam propriam, sed potius indigere sustentari a suo Kí, id est ab illo primogenio Aëre coævo, qui nostræ æquivalet coævæ quantitati. 2.o dicunt de illa, rem quamdam in se stupidam esse sine consilio, sine intelligentia et sine vita. 3.o dicunt eam non posse aliquid operari nisi mediante illo suo aëre coævo, alijsque qualitatibus ab ea emanantibus a casu. 4.o

131 = z 其尊無對.

262

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

dicunt eam dumtaxat esse subiectum omnium generationum et corruptionum indutam aut exutam e diversis qualitatibus, ex quibus tamquam ex accidentalibus formis eam inducentibus sive actuantibus constituitur ac distinguitur esse omnium rerum. 5.o dicunt seu dicere tenentur ex suæ Philosophiæ principijs, omnes universi res materiales esse, neutiquamque dari aliquam posse, quæ proprie ac realiter spiritus purus sit, sicut noster Deus est, Angeli, Animaque rationalis. Hæ aliquæ proprietates de materia prima ac primo principio a Sinis Philosophis excogitato videri possunt in lib. 26. Símlì, hoc est, in Sinensi Physica in Tractatibus de primo orbis principio vocato Lì et Taíkiˇe: Item in lib. 34 in speciali Tractatu de ipsamet Lì ratione generali totius naturæ. [N.o 21] Respondeo 2.o A prima antiquitate in Sinis neutiquam aliquem fuisse qui præfatum orbis principium dictum Lì aut Taíkiˇe adoraverit; neque qui ei aliquod obtulerit sacrificium; eo quod tam sapientes quam insipientes omnes putant cultum Religionis exhiberi non debere nisi visibilibus rebus dumtaxat iuxta doctrinam de lib. 8. Lìkí pag.a 42. Vere deduci potest Philosophos Jûkia¯o seu scholæ Sinensis vel stultissimos fuisse, vel in exteriori Religionem finxisse; quam intus non habuere. Quia si sua Lì seu Taíkiˇe putata quidem origo prima mundi nullam secundum illos habet divinitatem, cælum quod effectus illius est multominus poterit eam habere multoque minus ille Altissimus vocatus Xámtí potest divinus esse, qui secundum eos est virtus, cæli operativa seu dominativa dumtaxat: Adhucque multominus poterunt divini putari alij sui Dij, suique spiritus inferiores, qui ad montes pertinent et ad aquas, ad reliquasque partes universi. 15.um Præludium. Quid sit vita, quid ve mors secundum sectam litteratorum Sinensium; ad videndum si Anima nostra sit immortalis quonamque modo.

[N.o 1] In primis ex Sinica doctrina, quædam supponenda sunt Axiomata: 1.um omnes res unam eademque entitatem seu substantiam universalem esse inter se non diversam nisi ex figura exteriore ex qualitatibusque particularibus. 2.um substantiam entitatemque universalem prædictas producere qualitates per emanationem, ab ea tamquam a causa materiali, itaque separari nequeunt ab ea absque suimetipsarum passiva

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

263

corruptione. 3.um substantiam eam universalem tam dispositam et qualificatam cum illo suo primogenio aëre distribui quidem in secundas causas, quales sunt cælum, terra, et elementa: et ita quando causæ secundæ operantur, substantia quoque universalis quatenus causa primo prima cooperans est intra illas et concurrens, etiamsi denominatio operationum non a substantia universali, sed a causis secundis desumatur, quemadmodum fit inter nos, quod quando elementa couniuntur, corporaque mixta componunt, mentionem nullam facimus de materia prima, quamvis intra ipsamet elementa sit. [N.o 2] Supponantur quoque quatuor termini aut formalitates quas substantia universalis habet quatenus nunc ad nostrum attinet intentum. 1.a Quod considerata illa quoad suam propriam entitatem, seu quatenus in cælo est vocatur Lì132 (id est, ratio totius naturæ). 2.a quatenus infusa, seu derivata a cælo, quod inter secundas causas est causa generalissima vocatur Mím133 (id est, e cælo mandatum). 3.o quatenus a rebus /190r/ recipitur vocatur Sím134 : id est quiditas vel essentia. 4.a quatenus intra ipsasmet res suas agit operationes vocatur Chu,135 vel Chu çai,136 id est: Dominatrix aut Præsidens. Hominique applicata hac ultima formalitate dicitur quod hominis cor est suum proprium Chù çài: id est hominis Præsul, eo quod cor est hominis prædominator regens totum quod in homine est tam in Physicis quam in moralibus. [N.o 3] Dico 1.o vitam hominis (secundum Sinicam doctrinam) consistere in eo scilicet quod partes cæli et terræ concordes ac unitæ in homine sint: entitas cæli est quidam purrissimus et levisimus aër ex natura ignea, ex quo anima hominis formatur: seu spiritus vitales et animales, qui hoên137 seu anima vocantur. Entitas autem terræ est quidam crassus seu ponderosus aër ex terrea natura, ex quo hominis corpus compaginatur cum omnibus suis humoribus et vocatur pˇe,138 id est cadaver.

132 = a 理. 133 = b 命. 134 = c 性. 135 = d 主. 136 = e 主宰. 137 = f 魂. 138 = g 魄.

264

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 4] Dico 2.o Mors hominis consistit in eo scilicet quod pars cælestis et terrestris ex quibus compactus ille erat disiungantur inter se, reducanturque in sua ad quæ pertinent loca. Unde hoên seu Anima ascendit in cælum, Pˇe seu cadaver descendit in terram. De hoc agitur lib. 1 X¯uk¯ım pag.a 16 ubi Regis nomine Yaô describitur mors his verbis çû l˘o139 : quæ verba in suo commento sic explicantur: ascendit ac descendit: hoc est, migravit e vita: quia quando homo moritur, entitas ignea seu aërea redit in cælum; compositumque corporeum redit in terram. Unde notetur Sinas aërem vocare animam nostram: sicque denominant eam multis in locis doctrinarum suarum: et sic excedere non potest ultra spheram corporeitatis etsi subtilissima putetur, pura, invisibilis, imperceptibilisque sensibus externis. [N.o 5] Dico 3.o quantum autem ad immortalitatem eius iam a corpore separatæ: tam illa quam corpus suum formale esse (quod prius habebant) penitus amittunt, remanentibus dumtaxat cælesti et terrestri entitatibus sicut erant antea quam unirentur ad hominis compositionem. Unde immortalitas aut permanentia (quæque illa sit apud Sinas) iam non pertinent ad partes hominis qui fuit, nisi ad duas cæli terræque entitates, quæ tamquam causæ generales permanent semper in suo substantiali esse: et solummodo mutantur quantum ad formam accidentalem. Idemque multo plus intelligi debet de illa Lì substantia universali, quæ alicuius mutabilitatis detrimentum nunquam pati potest, nec quoad suum esse substantiale, nec quoad tempus seu locum, sed semper intra causas generales indemnis immobilisque sistit. Totum hoc expresse videtur lib. 28 Símlì pag.a 41 in Tract. de vita et morte. Unde solum referam dictum auctoris nomine Chîm çü` sic dicentis140 Quando homo generatur et nascitur (quod utique fit ex coniunctione reciproca entitatum cæli et terræ) natura illa universalis nullatenus venit. Quando vero moritur (quod quidem fit ex reciproca disiunctione duarum prædictarum entitatum) eadem universalis natura nullatenus vadit: sed quia aër purus: qui entitas cæli est redit in cælum, compactumque corporeum, quod est entitas terræ redit in terram, idcirco dicitur quod natura universalis vadit quidem. [N.o 6] Ex huius Auctoris doctrina colligi potest litteralis sensus illius loci de libro Xík¯ım pag.a 1 ubi ait141 quod Vên Vuâm (est quidam rex

139 = h 殂落死也死者魂氣歸於天故曰殂體魄歸於地故曰落. 140 = i 合而生非來也盡而死非徃也然而精氣歸於天形魄歸於地謂之徃亦可矣. 141 = k 文王陟降在帝左右.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

265

antiquissimus) ascendens in cælum sistit a dextris et sinistris Altissimi Regis vocati Xámtí. Imprimis igitur litterati Sinæ nullatenus intelligunt, nec putant, quod præfatus Rex aut eius anima vivens et formalis illic sit aut assistat (ut verba sonant) nisi pars aëris cælestis, qui alio tempore fuit Anima Regis Vên Vuâm. 2.o de hoc aëre dicitur quod ascendit ac descendit, sistitque vel est ad lævam et ad dexteram; ad denotandum quod est /190v/ eiusdem conditionis et naturæ cum toto cæli aëre. Eademque ratione Animam separatam vocant ieû hoên,142 id est, Animam errantem. Huc illucque vagantem, sicut Aër regionis cælestis qui vagatur ubique. 3.o Aër cæli in hoc loco vocatur etiam Xámtí, id est prædominator et rector ad ostendendum eam similitudinem quam habet cum Aëre Animæ. Sicut enim ille Aër cælestis prædominatur ac gubernat in æthereo corpore cæli, ita iste Animæ Aër prædominatur et gubernat in corpore humano, et est formalitas ipsa, ex qua rei substantia vocatur spiritus, ut supra dictum est in 11. Præludio n.o 12. [N.o 7] Dico 4.o Immortalitatem veram a litteratis Sinensibus non alteri attribui nisi præfatæ universali naturæ vocatæ Lì, quæ omnibus rebus præcessit post ultimamque consummationem, et finem earum postremum, illa indemnis permanebit dumtaxat, sicut de materia prima nostri quoque dicebant Philosophi. Quantum autem ad Altissimum illum vocatum Xámtí, ad aliosque spiritus montium, Terræ, et Aquarum ett.a in fine mundi omnes finiendi quoque sunt in rerum consummatione, in quibus illi resident. Tunc enim non aliud aliquid permanebit nisi sola præfata prima natura universalis, penitus iam expedita ab omnibus figuris, formis, et qualitatibus, sicut ipsamet erat ante omnia, antequam inciperet ex illis indui et actuari. Quare igitur Sectæ Jûkia¯o litterati omnes suasi sunt post mortem utique ad Kum iterum reducendos fore; id est ad permagnum illud vacuum primi principij unde profluxere. 16.um Præludium. Profitentium Sectam Jûkia¯ o litteratorum Sinensium Sapientores pro ultimo fine perducuntur ad pelagum Atheismi

Hoc punctum tam de litteratis antiquis quam de modernis utique intelligi debet: idcirco in hoc præludio agam de utrisque.

142 = l 游魂.

266

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

[N.o 1] Quoad litteratos modernos Pater Mathæus Rictius in Sinica Historia libr. 1 cp. 10 clare asserit quasi omnes eos Atheistas esse quidem dicit ut infra: Labentibus [deinde] sæculis primum illud lumen ita obscuratum est, ut si fortasse ab inani[um] Deorum cultu abstinent, ex ijs pauci sunt qui non in Atheismum lapsu graviore degenerent.

Idemque confirmat in fine cp. dicens: Porro his temporibus sapientissimi cuiusque hæc est receptissima sententia has tres leges (sunt tres principaliores Sectæ Sinarum: una litteratorum, et duæ Idolorum) in unam coalescere, ac simul omnes observari posse ac debere. Quare non ipsi se minus quam cæteros perturbatissime in fraudem inducunt, arbitrati has de religione quæstiones eo utilitati publicæ utiliores, quo plures fuerint de ea loquendi modi. Et ad extremum alia omnia quam quæ speraverant consequuntur. Dum enim tres illas leges se simul omnes observare posse confidunt, exleges esse reperiuntur. […] Atque ita cum pauci tandem suam ingenue irreligionem agnoscunt, et qui falsa credulitate seipsos fallunt, æque omnes maxima ex parte in errorum profundissimo Atheïsmo versantur.

Hæc P. Rictius de modernis in quo omnes absque differentia concordamur. [N.o 2] Quoad antiquos vero auctores, ait P. Mathæus Rictius eodem loco, unum supremum numen agnovisse atque honorasse, vocantes illud Xámtí (hoc est Altissimum Dominum seu Imperatorem) aliosque inferiores illo spiritus, putatque non solum Atheos nondum fuisse, quinimmo de vero Deo notitiam utique habuisse. At ego venia habita tam boni Patris quam aliorum de nostris idem /191r/ sentientibus suasus in me sum Auctores antiquos Atheos quoque fuisse, vel eo declinasse, ut principia suæ doctrinæ indicant, quæ in suis videntur scriptis. [N.o 3] Quod probatur 1.o ex suo universalissimo principio omnia esse unum, vel unam eamdemque substantiam. Ex quo convinci possunt magistri huius sectæ, aut suasos eos esse nullum esse Deum; aut Vice Dei unam Chimericam rem atque monstruosam posuisse, quod idem est ac Deum utique non ponere. 2.o Probatur ex alio litteratorum scholæ receptissimo principio: omnia videlicet quæ in mundo sunt ab illo primogenio Aëre Taíkiˇe profluxisse: ad ultimumque in ipsummet resolvenda fore. Unde necessarie infertur tam

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

267

suum præfatum Xámtí quam omnes alios ab eis vocatos spiritus (de quibus iam visum est secundum suam doctrinam unam eamdem esse essentiam cum rebus ubi sunt) initium habuisse, ac finem quoque habituros esse: quæ utraque alijs omissis opposita sunt valde tam divinitati ex utraque parte quam spiritibus ex ultima finali. Quando Auctores Sectæ vice Deorum præfata proposuerunt (rationabiliter loquendo) prorsus videtur fuisse intuitu populum coercendi, in paceque bona gerendi Rempublicam non quod illi antiqui tales crederent esse Deos aut spiritus. Ad hoc etiam concernunt Confucij præallegata loca, ubi ostendit non sibi placere, declarare, quid spiritus essent, quatenus qui secum sentiebat non faciliter a quovis satis intelligente approbari posse. [N.o 4] 3.o Probatur ex litteratorum communi persuasione hunc mundum productum fuisse a casu, omniaque fato gubernari: Item homines post obitum ad Kum seu inane primi principij reduci: præmium nec pœnam bonis malisque non esse. Deducitur ex hoc litteratis Sinensibus nullum Deum esse viventem, intelligentem, nec liberum ett.a et sic Dij adinventi pro Reipublicæ regimine a litteratis omnibus putati sunt vana esse simulacra, Deosque saxeos et ligneos ett.a non plus habentes quam divinitatis apparentiam. [N.o 5] Ad probandum denique Antiquos litteratos de Jûkia¯o etiam Atheos fuisse, dicere sufficit modernos idem esse, ut fatetur Pater Rictius, quia moderni non aliud sunt quam una veluti norma vivaque imago antiquorum in suis doctrinis, in quibus ipsi fundantur, cum quibus allegant in omnibus quæ agunt, tam in suis scientijs quam in virtutibus moralibus, et in materia cultus et religionis. Ut autem videatur quanto fundamento id ipsum dicatur, referam quod in praxi inveni cum diversis agens litteratis ac Præfectis ut in sequenti Præludio patebit. 17.um Præludium De Testimonijs diversorum graviumque Litteratorum iuxta præfatam materiam de suo Altissimo Xámtí ac de Spiritibus.

Materia huius Præludij sufficiebat utique ad Librum unum integrum conficiendum, sed satis sit præcipua referre testimonia litteratorum eruditorum valde in sua Jûkia¯o secta, ideoque fide dignissimorum. Adverti vero in primis debet a Patre Visitatore bonæ memoriæ Francisco Viera ordinatum fuisse ut ad has definiendum controversias non solum Textus antiquos doctrinarum Sinarum sequeremur, sed scrutaremur quoque interpretationem authenticorum commentorum, observareturque

268

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

maxime sensus eorum communis, in quos huius temporis litterati præfatos Textus exponunt et intelligunt. Hanc inquisitionem propter divinam bonitatem magna diligentia sicut in principio dixi perfeci, et sic puto nos quidem in ijs materijs stare debere iudicio litteratorum, quos hic referam in duobus (pro maiore claritate) §.is divisos. 1.us §. erit de litteratis Gentilibus 2.us vero de litteratis Christianis. /191v/ 1.us §.us De Dictis et arbitrio Litteratorum Gentilium.

[N.o 1] In primis Doctor nomine Vû puèn jû de Provincia Nankim, qui alio tempore fuit Boncius (sacerdos Idolorum) post vero litteris vacans gradum çínsú, id est Doctoris assecutus est, Præfectusque de Tumchím, et nunc in præsenti de Provincia Leaotum. In diversis igitur sermocinationibus cum illo, cum audiret Tienchù, hoc est nostrum verum Deum, cælum et terram omniaque creasse, adhuc et ipsummet Taíkiˇe a Sinis putatum esse orbis universi principium, ostendit se utique valde compati nobis, quos acumine ingenij præditos ipse putabat: sed errabamus dixit a scopo Veritatis. Et sic in scriptis metrum quoddam dedit continens descriptionem primi Principij in forma sequentia143 : Quædam res est, quæ cælo terræque præcessit, figuram non habens, fundataque in requie, permagna, potensque esse Dominus omnium ac Præsul, neutiquamque a temporum vicissitudine detrimentum aliquod patiens. Si quis medijs coloribus videre voluerit, aut per sonitum eam inquirere, hic a scopo veritatis errabit, nunquamque invenire poterit Jûlái: id est primum illud Principium. Posteaque ostendit nobis nostrum Deum, quem Sinice nominamus Tienchù, hoc est, Dominum cæli ett.a supposito eum combinare cum illo Altissimo Rege vocato Xámtí, non posse aliud esse nisi facturum et tamquam Filium illius primi Principij vocati Taíkiˇe (secundum præcedentem in Præluidijs relatam doctrinam). Denique dixit nobis omnes res unam eamdem substantiam esse dumtaxat illius sui primi Principij vocati Jûlaî seu Taíkiˇe, hocque dixit esse spiritum cæli, terræ, omniumque

143 = a 有物先天地無形本寂寥能為萬物主不逐四時凋若以色見我以聲音求我是人行邪 道不能見如來.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

269

partium universi. Et quamvis in secta Litteratorum dicatur diversos spiritus esse, rebus diversis quibus præsunt adaptatos, porro in rei veritate non plus datur quam unus totalis spiritus, sicut non plus est in rerum natura quam una universalis substantia. Neque spiritus est aliqua res distincta realiter a substantia quinimmo ipsamet substantia est considerata cum formalitate actualiter operandi, regendi, seu gubernandi intra ipsasmet res. Cum autem ego hic quæsivissem ab eo, unde oriebatur differentia spirituum, supposito quod alij putabantur superiores, alij vero inferiores, alij nobiliores, minus nobiles alij? Respondit quoad substantiam entitatemque spirituum, una eadem erat tam in cælo quam in terra, tam in auro quam in luto: quoad operationem vero et efficientiam versabatur differentia secundum varias qualitates rerumque dispositiones: id ipsumque est illud Poëtæ supra relatum Præludio 13. n.o 2 prope finem. Igneus est ollis vigor, et cælestis Origo seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant terrenaque hebetant artus moribundaque membra.

[N.o 2] Doctor nomine Cheu m˘o kien de Pˇekim Præfectusque de Lìpú postquam legerat librum Patris Rictij intitulatum Xˇeí, quadam die nos interrogavit: sub nomine Ti¯enchù quod nos intelligebamus? Cum vero sicut solemus, diceremus utique Ti¯enchù esse Dominum cæli et terræ ett.a substantiamque intellectualem esse ac viventem sine principio et sine fine, cum alijs similibus perfectionibus, esseque omnium rerum creatorem, e cælo omnia gubernantem, quemadmodum unus Rex e suo Palatio totum suum gerit Regnum; ille nobis irrisit, dicens valde crassis nos uti comparationibus; siquidem Ti¯enchù, Dominus cæli aut Xámtí, Præsul Altissimus, in rei veritate non est quidem quasi homo vivens sedens in cælo, sed est virtus quæ prædominatur in cælo, sicut dominatur etiam et gubernat in omnibus alijs rebus, adhuc etiam in nobismet ipsis. Itaque imaginari debemus cor nostrum unam eamdemque rem esse cum ipsomet Ti¯enchù, Domino cæli, vel cum Xámti Rege supremo. Cum ergo non progredi niteremur in declaratione nostri Ti¯enchù seu nostri veri Dei, ille nos amplius fari non est passus, dicens se optime scire quid esset Ti¯enchù Dominus cæli, supposito idem esse ac suum altissimum Dominatorem Xámtí: et huic sermocinationi etiam noster Pater Vice Provincialis interfuit. [N.o 3] Doctor alius nomine Çiên lîn vû de Provincia Chèkiam Præfectus de Lípú châmx¯u, cum esset noster valde amicus, pluriesque

270

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

audijsset de nostro vero Deo /192r/ loqui, incarnatumque in mundum venisse ob hominum salutem ett.a numquam de illo alium potuit formare conceptum, nisi quod ipse fuerit144 sicut suus in Sina magister Confucius. Quod utique fundatur in errore suo, non plus in toto orbe esse quam unam universalem naturam, quæ ita omnium rerum est principium, ut omnes res ipsamet sit. Quantum ad homines attinet, qui vel ex sua bona indole, vel industria perfectiores sunt, repræsentant melius illam primi Principij naturam universalem. Itaque dicitur eos esse unum idem cum illa. Unde consequenter loquendo ad hanc suam Doctrinam, tantum supponit noster Jesus in Europa quantum Confucius in China, et Foˇe in India. Referre hic non omittam id quod mihi contigit. Cum in quadam Academia iuxta nostram domum simul præfatus Doctor nomine Ciên, Doctorque Michaël et ego convenissemus, ageremusque de diversis materijs de Taó, id est doctrinalibus, sicut litterati illic agere solent: post multa alia, agebatur utique, quomodo nos in Europa legem datam per Deum sequebamur; et præfatus Doctor nomine Ciên prorupit cum suo discursu dicens, quod esset utique sicut lex145 quam Sinæ habent datam per Confucium, supposito quod ambo legislatores sunt unum idem cum cælo, cum primoque principio. Huic replicare volui: sed Doctor Michaël submissa voce instetit mihi ut pro tunc dissimularem ne displicerem amico, maxime quod non posset sic faciliter refutari una tam recepta in Sinis opinio: et hoc punctum Doctoris Michaëlis notetur, infra enim serviet, dum de sua mente ac iudicio super has materias tractemus. [N.o 4] Doctor alius nomine Siû j˘o c˘o de Provincia Ki¯ams¯ı: olim Præfectus de T¯umchím, nunc autem T¯utáo de Provincia X¯ans¯ı: quæsitus a me quid ille sentiret de suo Altissimo Xámtí, ac de alijs terræ montiumque spiritibus ett.a num essent quid distinctum a locis illis, quibus ipsi secundum Sinas præsunt, aut quid essent? Absolute respondit asserens in universo non plus quam unam substantiam esse vocatam Lì seu Taíkiˇe, hancque substantiam immensam esse de se sine limite aut termino per omnes sex positiones, hoc est tam intra visibilium quam invisibilium 144 = a Ecce conceptus tam sublimis quem Sinæ habent de suo Confucio. Quid ergo erit si ministri Christi Domini Christianis sub prætextu politico permittamus cultum eius supra relatum Præludio 12. n.o 11? [Marginal note added by Caballero]. 145 = b Ecce opinio quam habent de doctrina Confucij: quid erit ergo si Ministri approbemus illam eius sententiam supra relatam, Præludio 12 N.o 11. Sacrificate vestris Parentibus defunctis tamquam si præsentes existerent [Marginal note added by Caballero].

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

271

sphæram. Itaque dici potest eam esse ubique sicut de nostro vero Deo dicimus; quasi unum circulum infinitum esse, cuius centrum ubique, et circumferentia nusquam. Hinc est quod cum prædicta Lì ratio universalis totius naturæ, quantum ad suam Physicam entitatem, sit semper in medio, ita quoque est in eodem quantum ad entitatem moralem. De quo intelligebat utique Confucius, quando dixit quod tota sua doctrina in uno puncto consistit, supposito igitur unam substantiam esse dumtaxat, necessarie sequitur illum Dominatorem Altissmum Xámtí cum cæteris simul spiritibus esse solummodo virtutem rerum operativam, seu earummet substantiam quatenus suas agit operationes. Item hic ab eo quæsivi: quis in hoc universo tot rerum varietates disposuit? Quisve eas regebat, præmiando, puniendo, aliaque agendo, quæ nisi ab aliqua mente vivente intelligente ac iusta provenire non poterant? Dixit totum hoc a præfata Lì (ratione universali naturæ) provenire tamquam a fonte totius esse Physici et moralis originali; in præfatisque operationibus, discursu aut electione non uti, sed omnia naturaliter necessarieque agere iuxta causarum universalium connexionem, subiectorumque particularium dispositionem: quod quidem est id quod illi proprie vocant Mím, nos vero fatum vocamus. [N.o 5] Doctor alius nomine Che¯u k¯em iû de Provincia Chekiam Præfectus Kòlì de Húpú, postquam cum illo plura egeramus de Ti¯enchù id est de nostro vero Deo, ipse admiratus nos ei tam innixos videre dixit: vester Ti¯enchù seu vester Deus in fine mundi universi etiam finiendus est; quomodo ergo dicitis homines cum illo gaudijs fruituros æternis? Quod /192v/ dixit ob duos respectus, tum quia putabat nostrum Deum seu Ti¯enchù idem esse prorsus ac suum Altissimum vocatum Xámtí, ob utrius nominis similitudinem; tum etiam quoniam sciebat præfatum Xámtí spiritum cæli in fine mundi simul cum cælo finem habiturum esse iuxta supradicta de spiritibus in communi. Tunc ego respondi, discursum suum optime concludere si Ti¯enchù noster Deus fuisset productus a suo Taíkiˇe a Sinis vocato primo principio, sicut in sua opinione productus est suus Altissimus Xámtí cum cæteris suarum doctrinarum spiritibus. Porro noster Ti¯enchù seu Deus neutiquam productus ab aliquo est, neque a suo Taikiˇe, quin imo iste et omnia tam visibilia quam invisibilia facta ac producta sunt a nostro Deo, dicto Ti¯enchù. Tunc ei declaravi, ea quæ dicimus de quatuor causarum concurrentia in rerum productione, ostendique nostrum Ti¯enchù vel Deum non esse causam materialem, sicut Sinæ putant de suo primo principio Taíkiˇe, sed nostrum Deum esse primam causam efficientem, quæ omnibus rebus præcessit, esseque valde diversam

272

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

substantiam, valdeque a rebus omnibus distinctam, sicut v.g. est artifex currus ab ipsomet curru. De qua doctrina ille gavisus valde dixit nunquam in Sina sic locutum fuisse de causa hac efficiente diversa in substantia a rebus ab ea productis; itaque videri sibi ait salvari huiusmodi posse ea quæ de nostro asserimus Deo. [N.o 6] Doctor alius nomine Lì súm i˘o de Provincia Hônân, Præfectus de Hûpú châmx¯u simulque T¯uch˘aiuén, aliquoties dixit nobis post mortem, neque præmium esse, neque pœnam, sed homines reducendos esse ad K¯um: id est ad inane seu vacuum unde processere. Cum nos igitur diceremus unum esse Deum immortalem, viventem, omnipotentemque in cælis, cuilibet remunerantem secundum quæ bene vel male operatus est, absolute negavit talem Deum esse, neque Paradisum dari, neque infernum, sicut res, quæ in secta litteratorum Sinensium nunquam auditæ fuerunt. [N.o 7] Doctor alius nomine Chím ti¯en fû de Provincia X¯ens¯ı Præfectus de Lìpú quæsitus a nobis, num secundum Litteratorum doctrinam gloria aut pœna aliqua daretur in alia vita, iuxta virtutes aut vitia cuiuslibet? In primis tanquam de vano quæsitu subrisit ac dixit; negari non potest virtutes ac vitia in hac vita esse, at finitis hominibus in quibus ea erant, etiam illa penitus finiuntur. Quantum autem ad pœnam et gloriam supposito post mortem non plus quam præfatam naturam universalem vocatam Lì permanere, certum quidem est (inquit) pœnam et gloriam locum non habere. Itaque non de futura vita, sed de præsente curandum esse dumtaxat. [N.o 8] Cum forsan obvius mihi fuisset de provincia Ki¯ams¯ı de civitate Jâoch¯eu quidam litteratus nomine Çe¯u iâm ti¯en in omnibus tribus præfatis sectis valde versatus; ideoque ubique pluribus aggregatis discipulis officium Kiàmhi˘o id est, munus docendi profitebatur, visus mihi sic eruditus mea dubia ei proposui, quibus clare ille respondit, ut infra. In primis quæsivi quidne esset ille Xámtí seu Altissimus Dominator, quem litterati in suis annuntiant scriptis? Respondit esse spiritum seu Deum, quem illi adorant, contradistinctum ab illo nomine I˘ohoâm, quem adorant Taosij, id est suæ sectæ ministri et distinctum etiam ab illo nomine Foˇe quem Boncij adorant, qui sui sunt Sacerdotes ac Ministri. 2.o quæsivi, num iste Xámtí esset cum cælo una eademmet res, an diversa? Respondit: unam eandem rem esse cum eo (ut relatum est Præludio 12. n.o 3). Idemque esse cum prima causa universali vocata

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

273

Lì146 : esseque idem cum Taí /193r/ kiˇe147 cum Iuên kí148 id est cum illo primogenio aëre (ut Præludio 5.o n.o 3). Idemque esse cum Ti¯enxîn149 et cum Ti¯enmím,150 id est cum spiritu cæli et cum mandato eius indito a natura. Idemque esse cum Nângîn,151 id est cum ipsomet cælo, quod quasi maritus terræ est, quia ab influentijs cælestibus ea fœcundatur. Et ita omnes istæ aliæque denominationes, non plus quam variæ formalitates sunt ipsiusmet entitatis substantiæ illius universalis quam dicunt esse primum principium omnium rerum. [N.o 9] 3.o quæsivi num Altissimus ille Xámtí152 fuerit ante hoc cælum visible, aut simul cum eo, vel post illud? Respondit: non antea, sed simul cum cælo fuisse, siquidem cælum et Xámtí ambo producta sunt ab illo primo aëre Taíkiˇe per emanationem ab eadem substantia universali ett.a ut dictum est 11. Præludio in primo notabili. 4.o quæsivi num Altissimus ille Xámtí sit quid vivens et intelligens, scire potens bona vel mala hominum opera, ut præmium aut pœnam immittat? Respondit: nec viventem, nec intelligentem esse sicut nos sed essentialiter esse ipsammet Lì et Kí, id est ipsammet entitatem, seu rationem universalem naturæ vocatum primum principium; sed operatur quasi esset intelligens ac vivens. Ad quod quidem alludit illud lib. X¯uk¯ım pag.a 35, scilicet quod cælum nec videt, nec audit, nec diligit, nec odit, sed quod omnia hæc mediante populo facit cum quo interius combinat in ipsamet Lì, ratione universali naturæ. [N.o 10] 5.o quæsivi, num ille Xámtí sive unus an plures? Quia Sinæ dicitur esse quinque Tûtís: id est quinque spiritus quinque famosiorum montium: Item hoc nomen Xámtí etiam datur Idolo Tausorum vocato I˘ohoâm alijsque similibus? Respondit: Altissimus Xámtí proprie esse unum dumtaxat, huncque esse spiritum cæli. Quinque autem Tûtís spiritus esse dixit quinque Montium illorum, sicut sunt etiam illi qui vocantur Tûtís seu spiritus Provinciarum ac civitatum, qui omnes valde inferiores sunt illo Xámtí, sicut montes aliaque loca valde inferiora cælo sunt. Quod titulus 146 BnF: 理. 147 BnF: 太極. 148 BnF: 元氣. 149 BnF: 天神. 150 BnF: 天命. 151 BnF: 男人. 152 BnF: 上帝.

274

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

Xámtí applicetur quoque ad I˘ohoâm ad Laòçü` alijsque similibus solum est ad eos honorandum, dicendo seu fingendo, virtutes eorum æquiparari posse virtutibus Xámtí, cum illi homines fuerint quos scimus. [N.o 11] 6.o quæsivi: quomodo intelligitur illud de lib. 4 I˘ek¯ım pag.a 2 scilicet Tí ch˘u jû çín153 ett.a id est, si datur aliquis Rex qui exeat ex illis cæli partibus; aut si solummodo denotantur aëris operationes cælestesque influentiæ? Respondit quod ille Tí id est ille Rex est ipsemet Aër qui procedit efficiens rerum generationes usque ad ultimum quod sic suæ perfectionis, sicut clare colligitur ex mutationibus eiusmodi Aëris factis per octo partes orizontis; et hic est sensus Physicus et litteralis illius libri I˘ek¯ım licet sub cuiusdam Regis metaphora ac similitudine. [N.o 12] 7.o quæsivi, si ille Xámtí non est quid vivens, sed ipsemet Aër, aut cæli virtus dumtaxat, quomodo in locis aliquibus suarum K¯ıms, seu doctrinarum dicitur prædictum Xámtí cum Regibus agere, qui in aliquibus gestis dicebant se sic agendi ordinem habere ab Altissimo Xámtí Rege Supremo?154 Respondit nunquam talem communicationem Xámtí fuisse cum Regibus terræ, sicut verba ipsa sonant, sed metaphoricum totum esse ac figurativum solummodo, eo quod prædicti Reges interius concordabant cum cælesti Lì id est cum recta ratione naturali indita a cælo, et sic omnia faciebant, ac si e cælo sibi fuisset mandatum. [N.o 13] 8.o quæsivi: quando Sinæ Rex sacrificat cælo singulis /193v/ annis, etiamne sacrificat illi Altissimo Xámtí? Respondit cælum et Xámtí neutiquam duas res esse realiter distinctas, sed potius unam eamdem entitativam substantiam sub duabus consideratam formalitatibus, ut dicitur in 2.o quæsitu, et in Præludio 12 n.o 3. Unde quando cælo sacrificatur simul et semel Altissimo Xámtí sacrificium offertur. Idemque est de alijs sacrificijs, quæ montibus fluminibus alijsque locis fiunt, quæ pariter offeruntur illarum rerum spiritibus. [N.o 14] 9.o quæsivi: qua de causa Confucius cum ægrotaret quidem ` cælum exoraret non passus est, ut quidam eius discipulus (nomine Çülu) pro eo? Respondit quia Confucius suasus in se erat semetipsum unam eamdemque rem esse cum cælo atque cum eius spiritu, præterea quod ipse nunquam contra rationem in aliquo deliquerat, ac sic pro eo exorare opus non erat.

153 BnF: 帝出於震. 154 BnF: 周公、召公, 何人乎? 其謂成湯、文王既崩之後, 猶在天陟降而能保佑國家.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

275

[N.o 15] 10.o quæsivi: si sectæ Jûki¯ao litteratorum sapientiores neutiquam credunt veros spiritus esse, ad quid eos in Republica introduxerunt? Respondit eo quod putaverint prætextu Religionis quamvis falsæ ac fictæ seu fucatæ populum ab inordinatis actionibus posse coerceri. Hucusque sunt quæ audivi a præfato litterato Çe¯u iâm ti¯en nominato. Ultra prænominatos Præfectos plures alios inveni qui plus minus iuxta subiectam materiam idem dixere, ut sunt Doctor Û Hêm ç¯o de Ho¯eiche¯u, Præfectus de Taí châm sú; Doctor Hoâm çí iûn de Hônân Præfectus de Taíp˘osú, Doctor Maô Jû ç¯o de Chè ki¯am qui postea fuit T¯utáo de Nânk¯ım, Doctor Chîn xaó fúm de F˘oki¯en Præfectus de Hîmpú, Doctor Hô fe ngô etiam de F˘oki¯en præfectus de Xìlám k¯um pú, Doctor Lieû ki¯am iù de Ki¯ams¯ı, Præfectus de Xám gaô su, Doctor Çaô ch¯ın iû de Provincia X¯ans¯ı Præfectus de T¯uch˘aiuén, Doctor Fum ç¯am ch˘o de P˘ech˘elì, Præfectus de T¯umchím. Alijque pariter docti, et claræ famæ in hac curia Regia, quos brevitatis causa omitto. Neque adhuc mentionem facio de magna turba Litteratorum ac Præfectorum, cum quibus egi in alijs Sinæ locis in tot annis quibus Sinæ steti; video quippe omnes magna uniformitate et consonantia in idem convenire. 2.us §.us De mente ac iudicio seu arbitrio litteratorum Christianorum

Non solum litterati gentiles, sed adhuc etiam et ipsimet Christiani (dum cathegorice interrogantur) supradictarum rerum opinionem confirmant, sicut videbitur ex aliquibus, quos hic quoque referam principaliores eorum. [N.o 1] In primis referam Doctoris Michaëlis mentem et arbitrium: quem utique cautela quadam quasi in campum, ut sic loquar adduxi, ut mihi quantum de præfatis in mente sua materijs sentiret clare manifestaret. Dixi enim ei quod nostri Patres, qui in partibus de Leste in Regno Cochinchina versabantur, libris studebant Sinensibus, sicut nos qui Sinæ sumus; cum autem eis aliqua occurrissent dubia, quæ declarare nesciebant proprij naturales illius Regionis, idcirco per epistolas suas illi rogaverant nos (sic fuit in rei veritate) ut hinc resolutionem talium dubiorum illuc mitteremus ad eos, quærentes eam a litteratis Jûki¯ao (id est de schola Confucij) satis in sua secta eruditis: ideoque me eum supplicare dixi, ut hanc resolutionem dignaretur mihi conferre, tamque præclari nominis

276

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

et famæ litteratus, sicut ipsemet erat: adverteret tamen prædictos Patres desiderare in hoc scire puram doctrinam legitimam, et communem de Jûki¯ao, id est de Secta litteratorum Sinensium absque mixtione expositionum, quas nos quatenus Christiani qui sumus ei adhibere solemus. Cum hæc audivisset ille, gavisus valde mihi /194r/ dixit, ut dubia mea proponerem, se enim præstum esse cito respondere secundum propriam communem, genuinamque mentem litteratorum. [N.o 2] In primis quæsivi: Jûki¯ao, id est, sectæ litteratorum authentici et classici libri, qui seu quales essent? Respondit quinque K¯ıms et Súx¯u, id est quinque libros esse suæ scientiæ doctrinæque Sinicæ, et quatuor libros Confucij cum suis commentis. Item est et sua Summa Philosophica Símlì declarans utique substantiam K¯ıms, id est, prædictorum doctrinalium librorum; item est et chronica T¯umkién tempora successionemque rerum Sinicarum describens. Ultra hos non datur liber alius, qui allegari et sequi possit in classibus litteratorum. Porro advertebat ijs Jûki¯ao seu Sectæ litteratorum libris, pluries uno fatur modo, alio tamen debet intelligi. In quo declarare volebat libros prædictos, uti figuris, ænigmatibus, ac metaphoris quas non omnes nisi eruditi, ac versati in mysterijs suæ sectæ intelligere possunt. [N.o 3] 2.o quæsivi: num prædictarum K¯ıms seu doctrinarum interpretes maxime imperij (vocati Súm) litterati hodie in Sinis authoritatem habeant, aut notentur utique in expositionibus suis errasse? Respondit magnam eos auctoritatem habere, siquidem antiquarum doctrinarum Textus ab illis correcti sunt, elucidatique cum suis commentis, sine quibus omnes quasi cæci utique essent: ac propterea rationabiliter statutum est, in examinibus litteratorum, compositiones eorum admitti nullatenus, quæ a communi interpretum expositione deviaverint. Et licet interpretes prædicti interdum inter se non conveniant; immo in aliquibus parvi momenti notentur errasse; porro in essentialibus de Jûki¯ao, id est, de Secta litteratorum sunt valde uniformes, conformesque menti antiquorum. Advertit etiam ipse litteratos Sinenses de rebus visibilibus excellentissime egisse, nempe de hominum ordinibus quinque, de quinque etiam virtutibus universalibus ac de gerenda Republica. De155 invisibilibus vero, ut de Angelis, de Anima rationali, de statu post mortem, de alijsque similibus 155 a = Cum Confucius doceat iuxta homines iam defunctos inserviri debere ac si adhuc essent viventes; tum etiam cultu sacrificiorum post funerationem eos debere honorari Çí ci ì li 祭之以禮 quod sacrificare illis signis significat: Cur nos Ministri Evangelij his sententijs inhærebimur? [Marginal note added by Caballero].

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

277

valde incerte, immo et ab scopo Veritatis valde aberrantes fuisse locutos: idcirco in ijs nullatenus oportet velle eis inhærere: Quæ omnia pro opportuna nostrarum controversiarum decisioni litteris maiusculis annotari debent.156 [N.o 4] 3.o quæsivi: si Sinenses de invisibilibus nondum scivere, quando sacrificant, cuine offerunt sacrificia? Huic quæsitui caput ille agitare cœpit subridensque dixit, Sinas cælo visibili proprie sacrificia offerre, simulque terræ, montibus ac cæteris partibus universi, quæ visibiles omnibus sunt, congratulantes beneficia, et utilitates provenientes ab eis. Quantum autem ad spiritus, necdum de certo sciunt an spiritus sint, sed cogitantes posse eos forsitan esse simul cum partibus universi prædictis reverentur honorantque eos, putantes quidem cum eisdem rebus unam eamdemque prorsus entitatem esse. [N.o 5] 4.o quæsivi: num litterati putassent post mortem præmium pro bonis, pœnam pro malis adesse? Respondit litteratos Sinenses de ijs neutiquam fari. Hicque ille suspirare cœpit, ac de professoribus Jûki¯ao sectæ litteratorum querelari valde diminutos eos fuisse, de rebus alterius vitæ nihil docentes: quapropter populus necdum habet, quibus ad veram anhelandam virtutem expergisci possit. Consequenterque professores Fo˘eki¯ao id est sectæ Idolorum laudare ipse cœpit, in hac quippe parte eos multo melius se habuisse dicens, siquidem Paradisi gloriam, pœnasque Gehennæ prædicant: ob quam causam animos ad se populi alliciunt sicut in cultu et veneratione Idolorum in toto Regno videtur. [N.o 6] 5.o quæsivi iuxta Animæ immortalitatem, quomodo intelligebatur locus ille libri 6. Xík¯ım pag. 1. quod ille Rex Vên Vuâm post mortem suam etiam stabat ad latus Altissimi Xámtí? Respondit secundum omnium interpretum expositiones non aliud ibi esse mysterium, nisi quod post obitum Regis Vên Vuâm partes suæ terrestres in pulverem redactæ sunt, partes Aëræ cælestes sursum ascensæ cum cælo ipso se connexere, et cum Altissimo Xámtí qui est utique ipsummet altissimum cælum reduplicative quatenus res sub cælo operatur et gerit. Itaque hoc encomio /194v/ Sinicus Poëta non plus quam Regem Vên Vuâm extollere, laudareque intendit, fingens utique æthereum corpus globumque cælestem tanquam quemdam supernum Imperatorem esse, illum vero tanquam fidelem vasallum ad latus eius existere.

156 BnF: 五倫之道:君臣父子夫婦兄弟朋友.

278

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

His igitur responsionibus optime Doctor declaravit secundum Sinæ litteratorum doctrinam, non esse Deum, neque Angelos, nisi per quemdam obscurissimam coniecturam, quæ semper tenebrosior imbeciliorque fiebat in conceptu Sinarum putantium spiritus quidem eamdem rem esse cum eisdem in quibus resident locis. De Anima quoque dixit, quod cum adhuc nondum sciebatur quidve ea esset, num si post hominis mortem illa permaneat vel non, multo minus intelligebatur. Quæ omnia ab eo extraxi tunc existente in Hâmche¯u, quando eum supplicavi, ut tamquam litteratus Sinensis mihi responderet abstrahens ab eis, quæ iam tamquam Christianus sciebat. [N.o 7] At postea dum in hac curia Regia de P˘ek¯ım præfatus Doctor Michael et ego simul convenimus, ille quosdam quos fecerat de rebus nostris Tractatus diversos nobis ostendit, maxime quamdam de decem præceptis legis Dei expositionem; ubi quamvis pertractat ea quæ a nostris Patribus audierat, passim tamen plura inserit et intromittit de sua adhuc Sinensi doctrina, quo quidem plus ac plus confirmatur, quæque vera opinio sit in conceptu litteratorum Sinarum: ex quibus hic aliqua ad exemplum referam. [N.o 8] 1.o in sua ad decem Decalogi præcepta introductione dicit omnes res unam esse eandemque substantiam, quæ est sua supradicta Lì putata ratio universalis totius naturæ, rebus non differentibus inter se nisi in externis figuris in qualitatibusque accidentalibus. Ex qua propositione omnia illa absurda necessarie sequuntur, quæ Europæi nostri deducunt ex illo Axiomate Omnia sunt unum. 2.o In eadem introductione dicit: Omnes sapientes antiquos Sinenses per continuationem unos post alios Angelos fuisse incarnatos: quod quidem iuxta Sinarum conceptum est huiusmodi: nempe quod illa Lì: putata primum omnium Principium, considerata quatenus suas agit operationes tum mirificas, tum etiam hominibus utiles vocatur Spiritus. Quia operationes autem eius observantur esse in cælo, in terra, in montibus, in aquis, in cœterisque partibus Universi, et adhuc quoque in hominibus, idcirco in prædictis rebus diversi assignantur spiritus, qui utique iuxta mentem saptientum unus tantummodo spiritus est, sicut rerum substantia est una dumtaxat ett.a . [N.o 9] Huic eidem conceptui alludit etiam alius nomine Y˘e c˘olaò in Proëmio quod fecit supra librum dictorum præceptorum quando dixit quod Xámtí, vel sicut nos vocamus Ti¯enchù (id est verus Deus) incarnatus fuerat, eo in nostra terra: quod utique ipse probat et approbat in hac forma: Ille Xámtí seu Altissimus Rex pluries olim incarnatus est in hoc

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

279

Oriente, apparens utique in personis de Yaô; de Xún,157 ac de Confucio; et in alijs pluribus tam Regibus, quam vassallis: igitur bene quoque poterat incarnare eo in Occidente, quemdamodum Patres dicunt quod iam fecit in persona Jesu Christi. Unde infertur, quod in conceptu Sinarum tam magnus debet esse Christus Dominus noster in Europa quam magnus est putatus Confucius aut alius similis sapiens hic in China. Hoc igitur fuit causa, ob quam Doctor Michael noluit me replicare Doctori nomine Çiên (ut supra dixi §. 1. n.o 3 in fine) propterea quod ipsemet quoque adhuc permanet in hac idea, vel ut melius dicam, cum hac chymera Babylonica. [N.o 10] 3.o In loco prædicto dicit Doctrinam Confucij penitus esse perfectam unam eamdemque cum Theologia legeque divina quam nos habemus in magno Occidente. Quod consequenter deducitur ex duobus præcedentibus punctis, scilicet omnes sapientes esse spiritus incarnatos: omnesque spiritus unam eamdemque esse substantiam; itaque etiam habere unum idem sapere, unam eamdemque potentiam. [N.o 11] 4.o In expositione primi præcepti dicit cælum ac terram revereri debere. /195r/ In declaratione autem Tertij dicit posse utique Sanctis nostris sacrificia offerri, sicut in China offeruntur Cælo ac terræ Magistrisque defunctis ett.a Quod omne fundatur in litteratorum opinione,158 quod omnes res una eadem substantia (scilicet sui Sinici primi principij) sunt aut partes illius, ut supra pluribus in locis dictum est. [N.o 12] 5.o Propterea quod hæc opinio sentiens omnes res unam eamdem substantiam esse communis est professoribus omnium trium sectarum (litteratorum scilicet ac Idolorum) idcirco conatur ille in his suis Tractatibus de omnibus illis bene loqui, ostendens eas omnes unum eumdemque finem habere, idemque intentum unum assignandi primum Universi principium, proptereaque cum nostra Sancta Lege eas combinare, esseque cum ea unam eamdemque rem in essentiali. At si aliquis obiecerit (ait ille) in sectis plures esse errores nostræ Sanctæ Legi repugnantes: Respondet ille tales errores in principio Sectarum non esse, quando Sectæ in sua vera puraque doctrina pollebant, sed

157 Yaô et Xun sunt duo antiquissimi Sinæ Reges, a Sinis putati sanctissimi aut excellentissimi viri. Confucius vero est Sinarum Protomagister vocatus pariterque magni ab omnibus æstimatus: ita ut sæpe 至聖 id est Sanctissimus aut excellentissimus per anthonomasiam dicatur: nam littera 聖 xím latitudinem habet in sua significatione [Marginal note added by Caballero]. 158 Sacrificia prædicta sic exhiberi in Sina, suis Avis, magistrisque defunctis iam curiæ clare ac vere informatum fuit anno Domini 1645 [Marginal note added by Caballero].

280

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

introducti postea fuere per commenta discipulorum mentem non assequentium antiquorum Auctorum.159 Unde pluries ille nobis consuluit, ut in rerum declaratione uteremur modo quodam Hu˘o túm tiˇe, id est, ambidextro seu amphibologico, qui faciliter utrique parti controversiæ accommodari posset; ita enim omnibus placere poterimus, omniumque corda attrahemus. Hoc utique consilium et forma a Doctore Michaele datum nobis est ad prædicandum Sanctum Evangelium in Sinis: nunc prudentes videant, quæ consequentiæ hinc deduci debent? [N.o 13] Quemadmodum quæsivi a Doctore Michaele, quæsivi etiam a Magistro nostro Athanasio de Provincia Ki¯ams¯ı, sciens eum versatissimum fuisse in doctrina litteratorum, quatenus qui plurimos legerat libros ex insignioribus Sinæ et ille mihi respondit in brevibus, compendiosisque propositionibus, in quibus repræsentatur una quasi Imago Sectæ Jûki¯ao litteratorum, et quia in scriptis mihi dedit, sua referam verba formalia ut sequitur.160 1. Agunt de hominibus non de cælo, vel de rebus humanis, non de cælestibus.161 2. Agunt de vita non de morte.162 3. Agunt de hoc præsenti sæculo, non de futuro.163 4. Agunt de corporeis, non de spiritualibus.164 5. Agunt de fundamento quod est unum dumtaxat, non vero de suis pluribus diversisque speciebus: id est dicunt illud non has magni esse ducendum.165 6. Dicunt agendas res esse absque aliquo intento, non darique neque præmium nec pœnam.166

159 Ecce quomodo Christiani Sinenses maxime litterati conantur nos ministros attrahere, ut suis doctrinis ritibusque sub prætextibus fucatis acommodemur, ut supra præludio 2 n.o

10. Cur non præsumendum est etiam eas velle nos attrahere ut ritibus et cultus Confucij et defunctorum assentiamus sub prætextu civili ac politico? [Marginal note added by Caballero]. 160 儒家通論. 161 論人不論天. 162 論生不論死. 163 論今世不論後世. 164 論有形不論無形. 165 論一本不論萬殊. 166 論無所為而為不論報應.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

281

7. Dicunt Cælum, cum hominibus unam eamdem esse Lì seu substantiam universalem, hominemque seipsum exhaurire, esse utique cælo ipsimet servire.167 8. Dicunt summam bonitatem, aut perfectionem esse summum naturæ: super naturamque quid superaddatur non esse.168 /195v/ 9. Dicunt cæli Taó, id est naturam cæli esse summæ bonitatis entitatem, quæ nec sonum habet nec odorem, hoc est imperceptibilis est.169 10. Dicunt naturam summe bonam esse, sine principio et sine fine, existereque intra corpus et cor hominis.170 11. Dicunt quod homines suam obligationem complentes et officium in prosperitate vivent, et in morte requiescent.171 12. Quoad supra dictas autem propositones ex decem partibus litteratorum Sinensium, novem partes eorum hæc supra scripta asserunt ac sentiunt172 : Proptereaque nostræ Theologiæ seu Doctrinæ revelatæ res non possunt quidem faciliter intelligi.

Hucusque ille Athanasius loquens de mente litteratorum huius temporis, quos ait ille a nobis fortiter impugnari valde opus esse: Aliter enim Secta Jûki¯ao, seu Litteratorum nisi alijs expositionibus illustretur versus atheïsmum tendit directe. Idcirco, operi ille vacabat quemdam scribendi Tractatum super illum Xámtí intendens contra omnes Interpretes probare quis ille sit. [N.o 14] Doctor Paulus cum longe esset a me misi ad illum Fratrem Paschassium Mendez de ijs quæsiturum controversijs. Responditque ille plane ac sincere dicens putare se quidem præfatum Xámtí a Sinis putatum seu vocatum Regem altissimum (hoc enim verba sonant) nullatenus posse nostrum verum Deum esse cum attributis quæ nos Deo attribuere solemus, qualia sunt eum substantiam unam esse increatam ab omni alia creata valde distinctam ac diversam, quæ nec principium habet neque finem, estque Creator omnium tam visibilium quam invisibilium rerum, qui omnia fecit ex nihilo, estque omnium finis et principium, et qui suo

167 論天人一理盡人即所以事天. 168 論至善者為性之極性上無以復加. 169 論天道只是一至善之理無聲無臭. 170 論至善之性無始無終只在人身心之內; repeated twice in the Port. APF. 171 論人道盡則生順死安; the Port. APF stops here with the last page missing. 172 以上諸論儒者十分中有九分是這等所以天學未易得明.

282

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

solo nutu omnia disponit ac regit; cum cæterisque attributis divinis. Nec Sinæ utique cum attributis similibus suum adhuc concipiunt Altissimum Xámtí. Sicque putabat ille Sinas nunquam in antecedentibus sæculis Deum verum agnovisse, nec adhuc nunc eum agnoscere. At supposito quod Patres Deum nominabant hoc nomine Xámtí Altissimi Domini, propter iustos respectus, tum ut litterati Sinenses non reparassent, tum etiam quia nomen videbatur decens, iudicabat ille bonum ac valde opus esse omnia præfata attributa ei attribuere. Quoad Animam vero dixit sibi videri aliquam de ea Sinas habuisse notitiam quamvis non ita claram: et quod in particulari plus in hoc confirmabatur videns huius temporis homines tot fari de illa, totque pro ea agere, quamvis totum plenum erroribus. Hucusque Doctor Paulus, sicut mihi fideliter retulit prædictus Frater Mendez in epistola sua missa ad me tunc in Hâmche¯u existentem. [N.o 15] Doctor Leo simul cum licenciato Ignatio communiterque cæteri litterati Christiani ingenue fatentur omnes litteratos modernos /196r/ versus Atheïsmum tendere; insuperque fundantur in communi interpretum expositione sicut hucusque retulimus. Dicunt autem videri sibi dumtaxat quod ut Sinis accommodemur, debemus utique Textus sequi doctrinarum antiquarum, quæ nostro intento favorabiles fuerint, nihil curantes de modernorum opinione nec adhuc de expositionibus antiquorum interpretum. In hoc ergo totus harum controversiarum cardo consisit. In quo opus est quidem Spiritus Sancti lucem incessanter postulare, ut ponderari possit, ac firmiter decerni quod expedit. Ex mea autem parte cum hæc sit res tanti momenti adhuc aliquas mihi occurrentes considerationes proponam sicut in sequenti præludio videbitur. 18.um Præludium. Hucusque Pater Nicolaus Longobardus Societatis Jesu Sinæ Missionarius. Cætera autem in codice originali penitus deficiunt: folia ultima eius a codice decissa ad manum meam non pervenerunt. Consequenterque firma seu subscriptio Auctoris in fine Codicis non videtur, adest tamen in initio eius in primo folio Proëmij in parte superiori marginis dexteræ, iuxta titulum, quæ sic his formalibus litteris scripta est videlicet Auctor P.e N. Longobardo. Hoc transumptum de Lusitano idiomate codicis originalis versum in Latinum cum originali concordat, ut in eo videbitur. Cuius Auctorem Patrem Nicolaum Longobardum bis vidi in curia Regia Sinæ P˘ek¯ım nominata, et cum eo per aliquot dies distinctis annis qualibet vice conversavi. Codexque præfatus Originalis de sua propria manu scriptus est: et litteram

APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPTION OF CABALLERO’S LATIN …

283

Auctoris optime cognosco, quia alia scripta eius aliquoties vidi, et nunc etiam in manu mea habeo. Et ipsummet Auctorem scribere coram me aliqua alia vidi cuius litteræ forma eadem prorsus erat sicut quæ in præfato codice originali videtur, quæ omnia sub iuramento in verbo sacerdotis assero et affirmo. Auctor vero P. N. Longobardus prædictus plenus meritis senioque confectus nonaginta quatuor annis ætatis suæ completis obijt in Domino in Curia Regia P˘ek¯ım Anno Domini 1654. In Præludio 11. n.o 6 in fine et in Præludio 12. n.o 9 in codice originali, et in n.o 8 in hoc transumpto, et n.o 12 in originali, in hoc transumpto n.o 11 et in præludio 17. §.2 n.o 11 videbitur quidem in Sinis templa Antecessorum esse, sicque nominari, esseque sacrificia quæ de facto fiunt et offeruntur tam parentibus Avisque suis defunctis quam suo Confucio alijsque magistris defunctis. Eodem Præludio 17. §.1 n.o 3 et §.2 a n.o 8 usque ad numerum 10 inclusive videbitur conceptus, quem Sinæ habent de suo Confucio, alijsque Sapientibus Antiquis Christum Dominum æquiparentes cum eis, legemque ac Doctrinam Sanctam Christi cum secta doctrinaque Confucij: ut sic feratur iudicium (præfatis examinatis et visis) num liceat, etiamsi sub prætextu civili, ac politico, Christianis Sinensibus sive privatim sive publice, sive in Templis, sive in sepulchris, sive in domo, talem cultum tolerari ac permitti. Ex hoc Regno Sinarum die VIII. Decembris, Anno Domini MDCLXI Frat. Antonius de S.ta Maria Præfectus Apostolicus Ordinis Minorum Sinæ

Appendix 2: Transcription of Longobardo’s Portuguese Text

Transcribed and edited by Emanuele Landi and revised by Mário S. de Carvalho Below follows a transcription of Longobardo’s autograph Portuguese manuscript of the “Resposta breve.”173 Since the manuscript has suffered significant damage, parts of the text have been reconstructed with reference to the copy found in BnF.174 ABBREVIATIONS APF: Archives of Propaganda Fide (APF), SC India Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674. BnF: Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), Paris, Ms. Espagnol 409. []: modifications by the editors, such as corrections, expansion of abbreviations etc. []: parts salvaged from BnF. /: line change. 173 Archives of Propaganda Fide (APF), SC India Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 145r–168v. 174 Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BnF), Paris, Ms. Espagnol 409, f. 82r–101v.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5

285

286

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

||: variation between the two manuscripts. [unreadable]: unreadable words. [sic]: uncertain words. * The cursive is of the editors // 145r //175 Resposta breve sobre as Controversias do Xámtý, Tien Xîn, Lîm hoên, e outros nomes e termos sinicos: para se determinar quaes delles podem ou não podem usarse nesta [Crista]ndade. Dirigida aos Padres das Resid[enci]as da China, pera a verem, e depois enviarem com o seu parecer sobre ella ao nosso P[ad]re Visitador em Macao.

Proemio Pera se saber a origem destas Controversias, e as diligentias que se tem / feito nellas, por ordem dos Superiores maiores[.] 176

175 BnF adds an introductory note of the transcriber: “Trasladação liveram de hum tratado del Venerable P[adre] Nicolao Longobardo [unreadable] [unreadable] [unreadable] de los mas antigos y versados en lingua China sobre la secta de los letrados, y Philosophos (a suo modo) antiguos e modernos deste Reyno: Ilemada Sinice Ju Kiao. Declara en el, siendo mui visto en sus libros classicos, no ser [unreadable] de su doutrina lo que al nuestros ([unreadable] Xuangly Ministros) parece serlo seguirminos y modos de hablar de sus mas autenticos e classicos libros. Los ser un todo Infernal de finissimo atheismo; dissimulado en lo ay una apparencia de verdade siendo en lo interior de lo que ellos creen y entienden, una como liga viscosa del varcao [sic] del Dragon facil de pegar y difficil de solverse al que assen sus Pihuelas; persuadido no lo ser. Attente legas, ac patienter: et postea iudicet, ut placuens. Advirtese, que todo este titulo tão comprido he do Padre F[rei] Antonio de Santa Maria Religioso da Ordem de S. Francisco Serafico: o qual havendo as mãos este tratado do Padre Nicolao Longobardo, o trasladou todo de sua mão (e nos deste traslado por não termos o original, trasladamos este exemplar) e [unreadable] [unreadable] lhe acrescentou este elogio de scriba: sendo o proprio titulo do Padre Longobardo o seguinte” (f. 82r). 176 BnF, f. 82r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

287

[1.] 177 In primis são mais de vinte cinco annos, que o Xámtý da China começou a darme nos olhos, e a [fe] 178 - / -rirme o coração: porque depois de ter ouvido o179 suxu 180 como ¨costumamos de fazer todos ao prin[cipio] 181 / que ca entramos, fui observando que a explicação do Xámtý que davam diversos Interpretes, hera [mui] 182 / contraria e repunhante a Natureza divina. Mas como tivesse aprendido dos Padres mais [anciães da Mis-] 183 / -são que o Xámtý hera o nosso Deus, hia depondo o escrupulo, e formava conceito que por sorte errariam / algums dos Interpretes, como autores particulares que não se conformavam com as doutrinas antigas. / Com esta persuasão e ideia passei os prim[ei]ros treze annos que [morei] 184 em Xaucheu, sem poder conferir / de presentia, como ouvera de ser, com os Padres das maes [Residensias].185 2. Depois da morte do Padre Matthaus Ricio,186 [ficando] 187 eu em seu lugar com o cuidado universal desta / Missão, tive huma carta do Padre Visit[ado]r Fran[cis]co Pasio188 de Japão, na qual me avisava que algums livros / compostos pellos Nossos em lingua sinica,189 heram ali notados de combinarem com os erros dos gentios: de / [modo que] 190 os Padres e Irmãos daquella [Cristand]ade tinham grande trabalho em

177 BnF, f. 82r. 178 BnF, f. 82r. 179 BnF, f 82r, marginal note: “id est, los libros mas recebido en la China soa o Sú X¯ u

del Confucio.” 180 || “Síi X¯ u ” (BnF, f. 82r). 181 BnF, f. 82r. 182 BnF, f. 82r. 183 BnF, f. 82r. 184 BnF, f. 82r. 185 BnF, f. 82r. 186 || “Riccio” (BnF, f. 82r). 187 BnF, f. 82r. 188 || “Passio” (BnF, f. 82r). 189 || “em Sinica língua” (BnF, f. 82r). 190 BnF, f. 82r.

288

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

confutar os ditos erros, [por] amor que / os adversarios lhe[s] 191 allegavam logo192 com oque diziam os livros dos Padres da China. Por tanto me encomen- / -dou mui encarecidamente, que vissamos aqui muito bem o que passava nesta parte. Porque posto que / elle não podia facilm[en]te imaginarse, que os Padres que compunham livros na China e heram tão bons / Theologos, errassem na materia das Seitas: todavia lhe fazia grande força, ver que affirmavam / isso ali muitos dos Nossos, os quaes tinham feito part[icu]lar193 estudo nas Seitas, e mais heram intelligentes / dos livros sínicos. Com este aviso do Padre Pasio me confirmei na minha antigua duvida, e assi me puz a fazer / cadavez mais dilig[enti]a pera tirar a limpo a verdade. Alem disso indo por rezão do meu officio a Pekim, achei / que o Padre Sabatino da Ursis estava com os mesmos arrevos [sic] do Xámtý por onde tratamos mui de veras/ com o Doutor Paulo e outros que achavamos bem entendidos, do talho que podia darse a discrepantia que / havia entre os Textos e os seus Comentos. E todos disseram uniformiter, que não havia pera que tomarmos / tanto trabalho em concordar os huns com os outros; se não que seguissemos a doutrina dos Textos quando q[uer] 194 / que favorecessem ao nosso prop[osi]to e não tivessemos de ver com as exposições contrarias dos Interpretes. Esta / mesma resposta nos deram depois em diversos tempos e lugares os Doutores Miguel e Leão. Pello que algums [dos] 195 / nossos Padres tinham pera si que bastava esta dilig[enti]a para se decidir a causa, sem passar mais avante em [veri- / -ficar] 196 estas materias. Porem a mim com o Padre Sabatino e outros muitos, nos pareceo que não podíamos co[m isso] 197 // 145v // ficar quietos e seguros. Visto que os Letrados [Crist]ãos soem comumente acomodarse com nosquo, e expoem as suas Kins / conforme ao que entendem pareserse com a nossa Santa Ley: não advertindo quanto importa sairem a luz / as verdades destas Controversias, e que não se diga cousa alguma que cheira a falsidade ou fingimento. 191 BnF, f. 82r. 192 BnF omits: “logo” (f. 82r). 193 BnF, f. 82r. 194 BnF, f. 82v. 195 BnF, f. 82v. 196 BnF, f. 82v. 197 BnF, f. 82v.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

289

[3.] 198 Estando nos nestes debates, entrou ca dentro o Padre João Roiz, oqual pouco antes tinha vindo do Japão a / Macao, e desejava averigoar as mesmas Controversias. Esta vinda ca do Padre foi oportunissima, e por / quanto eu entendo foi ordenada [por] Deus, para bem d’ambas estas [Cristan]dades sinica e japonica. E posto que / aquelles Padres que julgavam estar a cousa ja clara e assentada, não quizeram porse em disputas com o dito / [Padre] 199 : os mais porem que sentiamos que a verdade estava ainda encuberta, folgamos grandem[en]te / [de re]ferir200 com elle as difficuldades que havia pro utraque parte; e assi puzemos em claro os fun- / -[damen]tos201 mais principaes das tres Seitas Jû, X˘e, Taú. Com que sera facil dar o talho que convem / [a estas] 202 Controversias. [4. Tornando] 203 o Padres João Roiz pera Macao, deu conta do que aqui passava ao Padre Valentim Carvalho / [responsavel] 204 então d’ambas as Prov[inci]as, oqual nos escreveo e encommendou o estudo das Seitas, como cousa / [importan]tissima205 e necessaria, pera não tomarmos erro[s] 206 nas opiniões e termos [que] himos introduzindo neste [Cristan-] / [-dade].207 Com que tambem nos mandou hum catalogo dos nomes que lhe pareciam duvidosos e perigosos, pera / examinarmos e assentarmos maduramente. Em particular apontou que se fizesse summa diligentia / [acerca] 208 do nome do Xámtý. E porque tinha entendido que muitos dos [que] estavamos na China, o tinhamos / [por] 209 errado e não podia tomarse pello nosso Deus, ordenou que ninguem usasse delle ate que a causa / [se] 210 definisse de todo.

198 BnF, f. 82v. 199 BnF, f. 82v. 200 BnF, f. 82v. 201 BnF, f. 82v. 202 BnF, f. 82v. 203 BnF, f. 82v. 204 BnF, f. 82v. 205 BnF, f. 82v. 206 BnF, f. 82v. 207 BnF, f. 82v. 208 BnF, f. 82v. 209 BnF, f. 82v. 210 BnF, f. 82v.

290

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

[5. Ap]os211 isto veyo per Visit[ado]r destas partes o Padre Fran[cis]co Vieira, e sabendo da ordem que nos tinha dado o Padre / [Va] 212 lentim Carvalho acerca destes nomes duvidosos, a confirmou, e nos encomendou de novo [por] suas cartas, / [que] 213 lhe mandassemos a resolução delles assertada com o parecer dos Mandarins [Crist]ãos. Esta reso- / -lução lhe mandei eu pello Padre Sabatino, quando foi com os mais Padres desterrados a Macao; e mais enc- / -[o]mendei214 ao mesmo Padre lhe referisse de bocca outras muitas particularidades destas materias, como / quem estava muito bem nellas. Fiz Padre com muita dilig[enti]a este officio e per palavra e per escrito. / Mas como o Padre Visit[ado]r visse que havia ali dous Padres de contrario parecer, Scilicet o Padre Diego Pantoja / com o Padre Affonso Vanhoni: julgou que estas Controversias não podiam deslindarse e decidirse, se não / fazendoas disputar em forma. Por tanto ordenou que os ditos tres Padres fizessem cada hum o seu / Tratado sobre elas. E pera proceder com boa methodo e clareça, lhes mandou que disputassem em / summa tres questo˜es. A p[rimei]ra de Deo, a [secund]a de Angelis, a [terceir]a de Anima rationali mostrando se nas dout[rin]as / da China havia algum rasto destas cousas, ou não: porque daqui dependia a resolução dos vocabulos sinicos, / que haviam de uzarse nesta [Crist]andade. Os Padres fizeram os Tratados dividindose em duas partes con- / -trarias. Porque os Padres Pantoja e Vanhoni se puzeram a provar a parte affirmativa, dizendo que os / Chinas alcançaram algum notitia de Deus, dos Anjos, e da nossa Alma: chamamdoos com os nomes / de Xámtý, Tien Xîn, Lîm hoên. O Padre Sabatino seguio totalmente a parte negativa, dizendo [que] os Chinas, / pellos principios que tem de sua Philosophia physica e natural, não conheceram Substantia Sp[irit]ual distin- / -ta da material como nos pomos; e per isso não souberam que cousa fosse Deus, nem Anjo, nem Al- / -ma rational. A opinião dos Padre Sabatino foi mui louvada e aprovada pellos Padres e Irmãos do / Japão [que] estavam em Macao, como mais fundada e adherente a doutrina sinica; e pouco faltou que o Padre / Visit[ado]r desse a sent[enti]a em favor della. Mas como se tratava de materia tão grave, e não podesse elle / ser tão bom juiz das autoridades sínicas, que se allegavam em favor de

211 BnF, f. 82v. 212 BnF, f. 82v. 213 BnF, f. 82v. 214 BnF, f. 82v.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

291

ambas as partes: se resol- / -veo a mandar os ditos Tratados ca dentro, pera os examinarmos não soo com os Letrados [Crist]aõs, mas ain- / -da com os Gentios, os quaes não tem sospeita de se conformarem com o gosto dos Padres, em dar o sen- / -tido das suas doutrinas. // 146r // 6. No mesmo tempo que os tres Padres Sinenses fizeram em Macao estes Tratados, fez tambem o Padre João Roiz outro / Tratado mui grande e copioso, em conformidade do que dissera o Padre Sabatino. De modo que d’ambas as partes / ouve dous Tratados. Este ult[im]o do Padre João Roiz foi visto igualmente do Padre Visit[ado]r e dos Padres mais graves da- / -quelle Coll[egi]o e acontentou a todos grandemente. Por onde queria o Padre mandarnolo ca em comp[anhi]a dos outros / tres, mas como não podesse fazello trasladar tão depressa, recopilou hum summario delle em huma carta que me / escreveu de tres folhas, a he assaz bastante pera resolver o que agora se [pre]tende destas Controversias. 7. Recebendo eu aqui estes quatro Tratados, posto que não duvidava punto que os dous dos Padres Sabatino e Roiz / davam no alvo das doutrinas sinicas, conforme ao que d’antes tinha tratado ca com elles, e mais ti[nha] 215 / feito informar la ao Padre Visit[ado]r todavia quis fazer ainda maior dilig[enti]a sobre isto, preguntando [de] 216 / novo aos Mandarins [Crist]aõs, e mais disputando [pera] vezes com os Padres desta Missão, e sempre achei que / a opinião destes dous Padres hera mais acertada e segura. Pello [que] tocca aos Letrados Gentios, não / pude preguntarlhes (como me tinha o Padre Visit[ado]r encommendado nominatim) per causa da perseguição / que não nos deixava tratar livrem[en]te com elles. E assi fui forçado a dilatar esta resposta mais do / que eu queria, a puro intuito que ninguem se podesse queixar, de dar a sententia, parte inaudita / altera.217 Em summa, valendome das conjunções que se offreceram de verme com diversos Letrados nos / annos derradeiros [que] estive no Sul, e sobre tudo nos dous que residi nesta Corte depois na nossa pub[li]- / -cação fiquo ja claro clarissimo da doutrina sinica, pello [que] pertence ao p[rese]n[t]e neg[oti]o. È assi propor- / - rei o que sinto distinta e succintamente nesta minha resposta. 8. Os Padres [que] ouverem de ver esta resposta, ha mister que vejam prim[ei]ro os quatro Tratados sobreditos, pois / eu aqui supponho muitas

215 BnF, f. 83r. 216 BnF, f. 83r. 217 || “altera inaudita” (BnF, f. 83r).

292

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

cousas das que se dizem nelles. Deve tambem advertirse que faço esta / resposta breve, [por] amor que trato com VV. RR.218 que estão tão vistos nas materias; e assi basta que se apor- / -tem as cousas mais principaes. A mesma rezão milita pera o Padre Visit[ado]r e outro Padres de fora da Chi- / -na, os quaes não desejam mais que ver huma breve decisão destas Controversias, aprovada pellos Padres / mais antigos e versados desta Missão. 9. Esta resposta vai dividida em tres partes[:] / A primeira he d’algums preludios sobre a doutrina sinica, os quaes são mui necessarios pera se melhor enten- / -der e fundar a nossa opinião. / A [secund]a contem a censura dos Nomes e termos sinicos, que podem usarse nesta [Crist]andade, explican- / -doos e apropriandoos219 ao nosso modo. / A [terceir]a, resposta as objeições que fazem os Padres da opinião contraria. Tudo ad maiorem Dei g[loriam].220 // 146v // Index221 da Primeira Parte.

[1°] Preludio. Dos livros classicos e authenticos da China, pellos quais havemos de decidir / estas Controversias. [2°] Preludio. Da discrepantia que as vezes se acha entre os livros authenticos: e que em taes casos mais / nos devemos regir pellos Comentos que pellos Textos. [3°] Preludio. Dos Symbolos que uzam na Seita dos Letrados d’onde nace terem duas maneiras de dou- / [-trina],222 huma verdadeira outra apparente. [4°] Preludio. Do modo de philosophar do Jukiao em geral. [5°] Preludio. Do si¯en ti¯en hi˘o, que he como se pruduzio o universo conforme a opinião dos Letrados. [6°] Preludio. Do heú ti¯en hi˘o, que he como se geram e corrompem as cousas neste Universo.

218 || “V.as R.as” (BnF, f. 83r). 219 BnF omits: “apropriandoos” (f. 83r). 220 BnF, f. 83r. BnF adds: “Hanc divisionem omisit Navarreta et cum illo interpres

Gallicus” (83r, marginal note). 221 BnF adds: “Hunc indiculum omisit Navarreta To. 1 p. 248-49” (83r, marginal

note). 222 BnF, f. 83r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

293

[7°] Preludio. D’aquelle Axioma celebratissimo entre os Chinas, Ván u˘oe yˇı tì, que responde ao nosso, / omnia sunt unum. [8°] Preludio. Que cousa seja geração e corrupção em sua doutrina. [9°] Preludio. Sendo a essentia e natureça de todas as cousas huma mesma, como differem humas de / outras conforme a elles. [10°] Preludio. Que não conheceram duas Substantias distintas, spiritual e corporal; mas huma soo / mais ou menos material. [11°] Preludio. Dos Spiritos ou Deoses, que os Chinas adoram segundo a Seita dos Letrados. [12°] Preludio. Varias autoridades de Autores Classicos, que tratam dos Sp[irit]os ou Deoses da China. [13°] Preludio. Que todos os Spiritos ou Deoses dos Chinas se reduzem a hum soo, que he o que / elles chamam L`y ou Tái kié. [14°] Preludio. De varios nomes e attributos, que os Chinas dão a este primeiro principio e Substantia / universal de todas os cousas. [15°] Preludio. Que cousa he a Vida e a Morte, segundo a Seita dos Letrados: pera ver se a nossa / Alma he immortal, e de que modo. [16°] Preludio. Que os professores mais sabios do Jûkiáo vão dar ultimamente ao Atheismo. [17°] Preludio. Do que disseram diversos Letrados graves, tratando eu com elles estas controversias do / Xámtý, Ti¯en Xîn, Lîm hoên etc. [18°] Preludio. Do proprio estado destas Controversias, que he ver se se pode seguir a doutrina apparen- / -te d’algums Textos antigos, contra a comum exposição dos Interpretes Classicos, e contra a / corrente dos Letrados Modernos.223 // 147r // Primeira Parte.

Naqual se poem algums Preludios mui necessarios, pera / Se melhor entender e fundar esta resposta.

[1°] Preludio. / Dos livros classicos e authenticos da China, pelos / quaes havemos de decidir esta Controversias. 223 BnF omits: “[18°] Preludio. Do proprio estado […] correntes dos Letrados Modernos” (f. 83v).

294

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

1. Posto que na China haja grande variedade de livros de diversas materias e profissões, nos / quais se tratam ou toquam muitos pontos desta nossas Controversias: todavia como não te- / -nham todos aquelle credito e autoridade que se requer pera resolver cousas tão graves; te- / -mos assentado com maduro conselho de nos servir somente dos livros classicos, que seguem / na Seita dos Letrados aqual como he aqui a mais antiga, que [por] espaçada de quatro / mil annos professaram todos os Reys e Mandarins Sinenses, assi he a mais florente e cele- / -bre de quantos ouve ate agora. / Os livros proprios e authenticos desta Seita se reduzem somariamente a quatro ordens. 2. A p[rimei]ra ordem he das kins ou doutrinas antigas, que são o Yekim, o Xukim, o Xikim, / o Lyki, o Chuncieu, e finalmente o Suxu.224 Estas doutrinas deixeram escritas [os] 225 prim[ei]ros / Reys e sabios da China, e assi per ellas se examinam e agradam os seus Letrados. 3. A secunda ordem he dos Comentos destas doutrinas, os quaes são de duas man[ei]ras. Hum he / o Comento breve, feito [por] hum soo autor, que vai sempre com o texto de cada doutrina, / como sua grosa ordenaria, aqual estudam os discípulos a declaram os Mestres. Outro / he o Comento grande, chamado tá çiu˘en: o qual mandou fazer agora são mais de 200 / annos226 o Rey Yum l˘o, escolhendo pera isso 42 Mandarins de grande fama na Seita dos Le- / -trados, dos quais boa parte heram da ordem dos Hanlins. Estes Mandarins primeiramente / reconhoceram e aprovaram o Comento breve227 do Suxu e de todas as Kins, e depois elles fize- / -ram tambem o Comento grande e copioso, aiuntando as exposições dos Interpretes mais princi- / -pais que tinham escrito sobre ellas [per] espaço de 1600 annos. Id est desde tempo da queima / universal dos livros sinicos, a qual foi feita no reynado Cîn, [por] mandado do Rey Chì hoâm. O numero destes Interpretes antigos he grande, porque soo no Suxu entram alguns / 107, no comento do Yekim entram 136,

224 || “Y˘e k¯ ım, o X¯ u k¯ım, o X¯ı k¯ım, o Lì kí, o Ch¯ un Ci¯eu, o finalmente o Síi xu” (BnF, f. 83v). 225 BnF, f. 83v. 226 BnF adds: “* On lit dans Navarrete et dans la traduction française publiée à Paris

en 1701 le millésime de 2500 ans, ce qui est une erreur énorme. Les années Yeung-le [Yongle] commencèrent en 1403. G.P. [Guillaume Pauthier]” (83v, marginal note). 227 BnF adds: “** Ce bref commentaire du Sse-chou [Sishu] que le 40 Han-lin choisit pour le long en 1403 †† celui de Tchou-hi que j’ai traduit et reposa †††. G.P. [Guillaume Pauthier]” (83v, marginal note).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

295

no do Xukim 166, e assi das mais Kins, como / se vee nos catalogos que andao impressos no princ[ipio] das mesmas Kins. E he pera pasmar, ver / como combinam e conspiram todos na intellig[enti]a das cousas fundamentaes e substansiaes das suas doutri- / -nas, que he huma imagem dos nossos Santos Padres e doutores na exposição da sa[gr]ada scriptu- / -ra. Por onde não sem rezão se faz na China tanto caso destes comentos, que não se admitem / as composições que fazem os Letrados sobre o Texto, se não forem conformes ao sentido que / lhe dão os Comentos. 4. A terceira ordem de livros são os que contem a summa da sua Phi[losophi]a assi Natural como Moral, / que chamam Syml`y . Esta summa aiuntaram os mesmos 42 Mandarins, recopilando nella / as materias que estavam espalhadas nas doutrinas antigas, com as que depois foram tratadas por / varios Autores, dos quaes nesta summa se poem o numero de 118. // 147v // [5.] A [quart]a e ultima ordem são os livros originaes destes Autores que floreceram depois da queima / universal; os quaes se empregaram parte em explicar as doutrinas dos prim[ei]ros Philosophos, / e parte em compor diversas materias ex proprio marte. / Este pois são os livros classicos que seguem na Seita dos Letrados, dos quaes nos poderemos col- / -ligir se os Chinas tiveram algum conhecimento do verdadeiro Deus, dos Anjos, e da Alma / rational. Neste lugar antes de passar avante, não deve deixarse de notar obiter a antiguidade / das doutrinas sinicas, que tiveram princ[ipi]o do prim[ei]ro Rey deste imperio chamado Fohi; o- / -qual pella chronologia dos Chinas vem a ser muitos annos antes do diluvio universal. / Porem como isto não possa admetirse, [por] ser contrario a Sagrada Scriptura, ao menos / he certo que foi proximo a divisão das linguas. E assi o Padre João Roiz no seu Tra- / -tado mais amplo que fez destas Controversias, prova com muita probabilidade que / o Fohi foi aquelle grande Zoroastres Rey da Bactriana e principe dos Magos Chaldeos, / o qual deu principio a todas as Seitas do Occidente, e depois veyo a este Oriente e fun- / -dou o Reyno da China com a Seita [que] chamam dos Letrados. Donde nace outros que / como esta Seita da China com as daquellas gentilidades sairam da mesma fonte, e por / obra do mesmo demonio: assi tem todas entra si grandíssima semelhança, e pella mes- / -ma traça e arte levam os homens enganados ao barathro infernal. Não me extendo / eu neste argumento visto [que] o dito Padre o tem feito larga e eruditamente naquelle seu / Tratado. Peço porem e exhorto a todos encarecidamente, o queiram ler

296

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

com diligentia, / porque lhe dara grande luz pera a boa intellig[enti]a e decisão destas Controversias. [2°] Preludio. / Da discrepantia que as vezes se acha entre os livros authenticos: e que / em taes casos mais nos devemos regir pellos Comentos que / pellos Textos.

1. Postoque na verdade não haja discrepantia entre os livros authenticos dos Letrados, se bem / se entenderem e penetrarem os seus principios: todavia porque algumas vezes parece ha- / -vela entre os textos das doutrinas, e as exposições dos Interpretes; [per] isto se poem este / Preludio, a fim de determinar de como nos havemos de regir nos taes casos. E prim[eiro] / porei alguns exemplos desta discrepantia. Como v. g. dizem as doutrinas ou mostram de quererem / dizer que ha hum Rey Supremo que chamam Xámtý, o qual esta no paço do Ceo, e dali go- / -verna o mundo, apremiando os bons e castigando os maos. Mas os Interpretes atribuem todo / isto ao mesmo Ceo, ou a Substantia e Natureça universal que chamam Ly, como depois se / dira em seu lugar. Dizem tambem as doutrinas que ha varios Spiritos que chamao Xîm, ou / Quèi, ou Quèixîn etc., os quaes presidem aos montes, aos rios, e as mais cousas deste Uni- / -verso. Porem os Interpretes expõem isso das causas naturaes, ou das virtudes operativas que / operam naquellas cousas. Finalmente falando as mesmas doutrinas da Alma do homem de / baixo do nome Lim hoên, dão a entender que fica vivendo depois do homem mor/ -rer. E de hum Rey antigo chamado Vêm vâm dizem que mora nas alturas do Ceo, / e esta a ilharga do Xámtý. Mas os Interpretes affirmam uniformemente, que / a Lîm hoên não he mais que huma entidade aerea ou ígnea, aqual depois de se / apartar do corpo, sobe ao alto, e torna a unirse com a Substantia do Ceo, / com aqual he huma mesma cousa. E esta he germana interpretação dos textos / quando dizem que o Rey Vêm vâm esta a ilharga do Xámtý. Porque como Xámtý // 148r // por elles he uma mesma cousa com o Ceo, quando a Alma se torna pera o Ceo, se diz / conseguintemente que vai a iuntarse com o Xámtý. Destas discrepantias e contradições quanto a apparentia, se acham muitos entre os / Textos e os seus Comentos. E como os textos parecem mais conformes e favoraveis / a nossa doutrina, [por] alguns Padres são de parecer que seguemos os textos, sem / ter de ver com o que dizem os Comentos. Mas os outros Padres tem pera si que / não basta seguir somente os textos, mas he necessario tomar tambem a exposição / dos

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

297

Comentos. E quando quer que ouver alguma duvida, regir nos antes pellos Comentos / que pellos textos. Supposta pois esta diversidade de pareceres (como seja de / tanto momento pera a resolução do que se pretende) ha mister deslindalla / logo neste principio. E assi porei as rezões e motivos, em que se fundam am- / -bas as opiniões. 2. Em favor da p[rimeir]a (que he aque seguem ag[o]ra nos seus Tratados os Padres Pantoja / e Vanhoni) podem allegarse as rezões seguintes. / P[rimeir]o nos textos das doutrinas esta a verdade de todas a Phi[losophi]a e scientias sini- / -cas, em que se funda a Seita dos Letrados. Por onde não ha duvida que são de / maior autoridade e força que os Comentos. 2°. Os Autores que fizeram os Comentos, foram pella maior parte do regnado Súm; / quando tinha vindo ca da India a Seita dos Pagodes; e assi tinham embebido m[ui]tas / opiniões novas e erradas da dita Seita. O que foi causa de se appartarem as ve- / -[zes] do verdadeiro sentido das doutrinas antigas. 3º. Os principaes [Crist]ãos que temos na China, e são mui graves Letrad[os] e / Mandarins, nos aconselham e exhortam a seguirmos a doutrina dos textos, / dandolhes a exposição que for mais chegada a nossa Santa Ley, na forma que / se tem feito pello passado, começando desde que entrou a Comp[anhi]a neste Reyno / parece pois que podemos antes devemos seguir o pareser delles. Tanto que / per huma parte são tam versados nas cousas sínicas, e por outra sabem o que / diz ou desdiz com a ley que professamos. 4º. Seguindo nos os textos no que forem favoraveis (como o são em mui- / -tas cousas principaes) viremos a unirmonos com a Seita dos Letrados, e assi / ganharemos as vontades dos Chinas, e facilitaremos a dilatação da nossa / Santa Ley em todo este Reyno. Visto maxime que os santos nos deram exemplo / disto, valendose de qualquer cousinha que achavam de bom nas gentilidades / com quem tratavam como fez Sam Paulo que estando no Areopago allegou / com o dito do Poeta: Ipsius enim et genus sumus. 3. Pello que tocca a [secund]a opinião (a qual aprovam e defendem os Padres Sabatino e Roiz) / ha razões muito mais forçousas e convincentes. / Prim[ei]ro as doutrinas antiguas são comumente obscuras, e em muitos luga- / -res tem textos errados, faltandolhe ou sobejandolhe palavras, como affir- / -mam os mesmos Letrados. Alem disso usam frequentemente de enigmas e para / -bolas para encubrerem os mysterios da sua Phi[losophi]a, como depois se vera em seu lugar. / Por tanto

298

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

se não ouver a luz e guia dos Interpretes, não podem entenderse, // 148v // ou aomenos não sera sem grandes erros. E esta foi a causa porque fizeram os Comentos com tanta / diligentia e escolha dos Interpretes, e mais se obrigam todos os Letrados a seguilos nas suas com- / -posições, como se disse acima no p[rimei]ro Preludio num[er]o 3. Hora se nas difficuldades dos textos / obscuros e duvidosos se regem os Chinas pellos seus Comentos, parece claro que muito mais / devem fazer isso os estrangeiros. 2°. Tomando nos os textos em diverso sentido do que lhe dão os seus Comentos, cuidaram / os Chinas que fazemos aquillo [que] não temos lido todos os seus livros, ou per não os entender- / -mos como devem entenderse. E assi de facto alguns Letrados notaram muitos lugares do X˘e / ý do Padre Mattheus Ricio; entre os quais foi hum aquelle bonzo famoso de Chekiam que / fez quatro Capitulos contra o mesmo X˘e ý, e no principio delles disse que podia perdoarse / ao Padre estrang[ei]ro ter dado sentido errado aos livros sinicos per não alcançar mais. O Kiû / tái s˘o tambem228 (homem tão amigo da Comp[anhi]a na China e particular devoto do dito Padre Ricio) / escreveu hum quaderno de sua mão, em que ajantou as cousas que deveriam dizerse das tres Sei- / -tas, visto não ter o Padre acertado com elles no seu livro. Deixo de trazer outros exem- / -plos, [por] saber [que] este ponto he noto a quasi todos os Nossos desta Missão. Quanto aos / Capitulos do Bonzo e o quaderno do Kîutais˘o / estão guardados no Cartorio de Hamcheu quem quizer os podera ver. 3°. He certo como disse ao prim[eir]o deste Preludio, que os Comentos não são con- / -trarios aos textos; e dizer o contrario, sera tido na China como [por] herezia visto / serem estes Comentos recebidos e estimados em todas as classes, na forma quasi que / são os textos. Mas lemos [que] em alguma cousa ouvesse entre elles contrariedades, / e na verdade os textos forem mais conformes a rezão do [que] são os Comentos: ainda / em tal caso nunca os Chinas se nos hão de regeitar expondolhes nos os seus tex- / -tos contra o que dizem os Comentos porque tem [por] cousa indubitada que os Comentos / não erram, nem dizem cousa contraria aos textos. E assi sera tomarmos hum / pleito infinito contra os Chinas, e [por] derradeiro ficaremos sempre com o pior de que / eu posso ser bom testemunho, pella muita experientia

228 BnF omits: “tambem” (f. 84v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

299

[que] tenho de mim e dos / outros, quando entramos nestas disputas com os Chinas[:] 229 porque ao princ[ipi]o ouvindonos / dizer v. g.230 que o Xámtý declarado na forma que soemos declarar, he o criador do Universo / etc., se riem elles de nos, sabendo pella doutrina do Jukiao que o Xámtý he o mesmo Ceo, / ou a sua virtude e dominio; e assi não podia ser antes do Ceo, se não quando ouve o / Ceo, ou ainda depois de haver o Ceo. E querendo nos proseguir a disputa, provando ao / nosso modo que prim[ei]ro havia de haver o artífice e depois a casa etc., não nos deixam / passar adiante, mas logo atalham a nossa apratica dizendo que pois o nosso Deus he o seu Xámtý, / não ha porque nos lho queramos declarar, porque elles o sabem melhor [que] nos. Em fim / [por] mais [que] porfiemos mostrando que os Interpretes não deviam expor o Xámtý daquella / man[ei]ra sempre nos sãe com a mesma cantiga [que] nos não entendemos os seus livros, / e muitos ha [que] se agastam e assanham contra nos, tendonos [por] importunos e impru- / -dentes; pois queremos ensinar aos Chinas, de como devem entender e interpretar / os seus Autores. 4°. Quando o Padre Visit[ado]r Francisco Vieira231 ordenou em Macao aos Padres Sinenses, que / disputassem as tres questões ditas acima no Proemio numero 5 preguntandolhe o Padre / Sabatino se queria sua Reverentia232 procedesse pello [que] mostram dizer os textos, como / tinham feito os dous Padres Pantojo e Vanhoni, ou pellos [que] resolvem os Interpretes: / reparou o Padre na pregunta, e como o Padre Sabatino o informasse que acirca disso // 149r // havia na China, conforme ao que tenho aqui riferido, respondeolhe com toda resolução / dizendo que queria saber o que sentem os Interpretes; pois assi se fazia em todas as classes / e profissões do mundo que não ha defenir v. g. da doutrina Platonica ou Peripatetica, / se não segundo o [que] afirmam os seus Comentatores classicos e recebidos. Presupposta pois / esta ordem do Padre Visit[ado]r fez o Padre Sabatino o seu Tratado, e provou [que] pello que di- / -zem os Comentadores authenticos da Seita dos Letrados, não podia o Xámtý ser o nosso / verdadeiro Deus, nem os Ti¯en Xîn os nossos Anjos, nem a Lîm hoên a nossa Alma. / E estas rezões parece

229 BnF, f. 84v. 230 BnF omits: “v.g.” (f. 84v). 231 || “Francisco Passio” (BnF, f. 85r). 232 || “se queria que se” (BnF, f. 85r).

300

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

[que] bastam pera se aprovar e seguir a [second]a opinião, que he de re- / -girmonos mais pellos Comentos que pellos Textos. Soo fica de responder aos argu- / -mentos da [primeir]a opinião. Ao p[rimei]ro concedo largamente todo lo [que] se diz da autoridade e força, [que] tem as Kins, sobre os / seus Comentos. Mas tambem digo que pera se poderem entender os lugares obscuros das Kins, / he necessaria a luz e direção dos Comentos. Nem deixarei de dizer neste passo que fiquo gran- / -demente admirado, de ver quanto estribam esses Padres nos textos das Doutrinas Sinicas, que / parece as tem quasi como Doutrina Revelada, em que não pode haver erro. E com tudo bem / sabemos [que] o Confutio emendou muitos erros nas Kins antigas, da man[ei]ra que fez o nosso Aristoteles / nos livros dos Ph[ilosoph]os seus predecessores, por onde como no Aristoteles se acharam com o tempo / muitas cousas [que] emendar, assi podem acharse no Confutio. Ao [secund]o respondo p[rimei]ro que os Comentos classicos dos quaes agora falamos, não são somente dos / Autores que escreveram depois de entrar ca a Seita dos Pagodes (o que foi pellos [annos] 65 depois da / Incarnação) se não de outros muitos [que] floreceram antes de vir a dita Seita [por] espaço / de 200 annos antes da Incarnação. E estes todos professaram de [seg]uir a doutrina pura / e propria da Seita dos Letrados, sem misturar opiniões de outras Seitas differentes: como / se vee inda hoje nos mesmos Comentarios. Quanto [vea a] 233 autor [escritores] 234 que escriveram / depois de entrar ca a Seita dos Pagodes e embeberam os seus erros, não nego serem mui- / -tos e mui celebres: mas estes não pertencem a Seita dos Letrados dos quais agora nos servimos, / se não a Seita dos mesmos Pagodes, dandose [por] alumnos e professores della. Resp[on]do [secund]o que / não ha Letrado na China, que sofra dizerse dos seus Comentos authenticos que se apartam em alguma / cousa do verdad[ei]ro sentido das Kins; antes tem pera si, que as mesmas Kins não sofrem outra / explicação diversa dos Comentos, se forem conferindose hums textos com os outros, e se medir / tudo pellos principios da sua Philosophia. Ao [terceir]o digo p[rimeir]o que os nossos [Crist]ãos Letrados nos dão aquelle conselho, parte [por] não / penetrarem quanto prejudique haver algum pe[que]no erro nas materias de que tratamos; e / parte

233 BnF, f. 85r. 234 BnF, f. 85r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

301

porque desejam encubrirse com a cappa, de que a nossa Ley combina com a sua Seita; / e assi evitam que os possam notar, de seguirem Ley estrang[ei]ra. Porem os nossos Padres / devem andar com outras ideas mais alevantadas, não se deixando guiar delles, se não / guiando a elles, como entenderem ser mais expediente pera ambas as partes. Digo [secund]o / que estes mesmos [Crist]ãos Letrados quando compõem sobre os textos das suas Kins, não lhe / dão outro sentido se não o que esta nos Comentos porque de outra man[ei]ra lhe ouveram235 de em- / -geitar as suas composições como erradas e anomalas na escola do Confutio. Pois / não vejo porque causa nos queiram persuadir a nos, [que] façamos o contrario do que elles / fazem. Ao [quart]o respondo que supõem falso, id est que os textos nos sejam favoraveis porque na ver- / -dade não são, se forem entendidos do modo [que] devem na Seita dos Letrados. E assim que- / -rer por força estribar nelles, contra o [que] dizem os Comentos, sera como fabricar sobre / area, ou voar com as asas de Icaro. Quanto ao exemplo [que] deram os Santos, deve ser / imitado onde pode fazerse com fundamento. // 149v// [3°] Preludio. / Dos symbolos que usam na Seita dos Letrados: d’onde nace terem duas / maneiras de doutrina, huma verdad[ei]ra e outra aparente.

1. Pello que tocca a p[rimei]ra parte deste Preludio, deve notarse que quasi todos os antigos Ph[ilosoph]os da / gentilidade inventaram varios symbolos, enigmas, e figuras; a fim de serem encuber- / -tos e escondidos os mysterios da sua Phi[losophi]a, de que falando o corso Conimbricense no p[rimei]ro / Livro dos Physicos, diz o seguinte[:] Vetus philosophantium consuetudo fuit, ab Aegyptijs et Chaldaeis, atque a Pherecide Py- / -thagorae magistro ducta; ut Philo[sophi]ae myst[eri]a aut non scriberent omnino, aut scriberent / dissimulanter: id est, implicita recedentium sensuum obscuritate, et mathematicis ima- / -ginibus atque aenigmatibus reconderent. Poëtae enim fabulis, Pythagorei Philosophi / Symbolis, Platonici mathematicis, Aristoteles orationis brevitate arcana Phi[losophi]ae obte- / -xuit et obscuravit. Nefas enim putabant, ad arcana

235 || “havieram” (BnF, f. 85r).

302

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

sapientiae profanum vulgus ad- / -mittere; et quae natura in abdito collocasset, ea desidi et ignavae multitudini comuni / care. Aristoteles vero etsi iudicaret / Phi[losophi]am passim evulgandam non esse: eam tamen / doctrinae rationem, quam cuncta in ambiguo relinqueret, et interdum inani falsitatis / specie veritatem obumbraret, minime probandam censuit.

2. Do mesmo modo os Ph[ilosoph]os da China que fundaram a Seita dos Letrados, tem seus symbolos assi de / varias figuras e numeros, como de palavras metaphoricas; tudo pera significar o Ser e / Essentia das causas universaes e suas causalidades. Os principaes symbolos são os nume- / -ros par e impar, riscas cortadas pello meyo e enteiras, pontos brancos e pretos, fi- / -guras redondas e quadradas, as seis posições dos lugares, entras236 palavras e termos / metaphoricos. Destas cousas estão [cheyos]237 os livros do Yekim, onde esta o speculativo da / Doutrina Sínica. Quanto aos mysterios e varias causalidades dos numeros, ha tambem / dous livros enteiros, que são o 11 e 12 do Siml`y : pelos quaes seria facil restituir a / scientia dos numeros Pytagoricos que se perderam la no grande Occidente. / Este uso dos symbolos na China se acha tambem nas Seitas dos Bonzos e dos Tausus. [Os]238 / Bonzos começaram a usar delles des que entrou ca a Seita dos Pagodes, e trouxe jontamente / os symbolos dos Gymnosophistas, os quais são de figuras humanas, de animaes, nuvens, / serpentes, demonios, espadas, lanças, arcos, frechas, e outros varios instrumentos materiaes, / acomodados aos seus intentos. Os Tausus tambem imitando aos Bonzos, se servem / quasi dos mesmos symbolos de figuras humanas, pera significarem o prim[ei]ro princ[ipi]o / as potentias da alma, os elementos de que o homem se compõe etc. De modo [que] fica / claro e notorio haver symbolos em todas as tres Seitas. Postoque não todos os conhocem / por taes, se não os que são mais versados nos principios e mysterios das ditas Seitas. 3. Quanto a [secund]a parte, deve igualmente notarse, que [por] causa dos symbolos em todas as na- / -ções desde antigo239 ouve duas sortes de doutrina, huma verdadeira e secreta, outra falsa / e aparente. A p[rimei]ra hera a Phi[losophi]a e scientia das causas naturaes que sabiam somente / os sabios, e tratavam secretamente entre si nas suas Classes. A [secund]a 236 BnF omits: “entras” (f. 85v). 237 BnF, f. 85v. 238 BnF, f. 85v. 239 BnF omits: “desde antigo” (f. 85v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

303

hera huma fal- / -sa apparentia da doutrina popular, que hera enigma da prim[ei]ra e o povo evi- / -dava ser verdadeira na forma [que] soavam as palavras, havendo240 [que] na realidade / hera totalmente falsa. E esta convertiam ao moral, e governo do povo, e ao culto / Divino; como diz Plutarcho de placit[a] philosophorum, e Pierio nos seus Hyerogli- / -phicos, e outros. Deste modo introduziram varios deoses, huns bons e outros maos. Os / bons heram os [que] tomavam pera significar a Materia prima, ou Chaos, e os quatro / elementos: como põe Empedocles referido per Plutarcho de placit. lib. 1 cap. 3 onde diz[:] //150r// Radices primum rerum tibi quattuor eadem. / Jupiter aethereus, Juno vitalis, ad hos dis, / Et Nestis, lachrymis humanos quae rigat álveos. / Iupiter idest Ignis et Aether Iuno vitalis, idest Aer Dis seu Pluto, idest Terra. / nestis sub humanorum canalium nomine, Aqua et semen.

Os Deoses maos e dan- / -nosos heram os [que] fingiam debaixo241 do nome de Furias, Diras, Parcas etc. Com que signifi- / -cavam as paixões principaes da alma, que interiormente inquietam e atormentam / o homem. E isto tem in terminis (como nota o Curso Conimbricense referindo [à] 242 Santo / Agost[in]o na mat[eri]a da anima) a Seita dos Gymnosophistas, os quaes pera denotarem / que os homens que se deixam levar das suas paixões, são semelhantes nos costu- / -mes aos animaes243 : fingiram que as almas pella morte se metiam em varios corpos / de animaes.244 D’onde o povo ignorante cuidava haver taes Deoses bons e maos, Anjos / e demonios, e que as nossas almas se transmigravam em varios corpos. / Diz tambem Plutarcho no mesmo livro de placit., que os que negavam a provid[enci]a divi- / -na no mundo, e a immortalidade da alma, por quanto soo com o meyo das / leys não podiam refrear os males secretos do povo: se puzeram a fingir divindade / e Religião 240 || “sendo” (BnF, f. 85v). 241 BnF omits: “debaixo” (f. 85v). 242 BnF, f. 86r. 243 BnF adds: “Aqui faltam algumas palavras para entender o sentido” (f. 86r, marginal

note). 244 BnF omits: “fingiram que as almas spella morte se metiam em varios corpos de animaes” (f. 86r).

304

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

de baixo de symbolos e enigmas, pera ter mão no povo, e governar / a Republica. Iulgando que não podiam viver quieta e pacificamente sem algum / modo de Religião e culto ainda que falso. 4. O bem aventurado Santo Agost[in]o mostra tudo isto claramente em muitos lugares dos / livros De Civitate Dei: Onde assinala tres generos [de] Phi[losophi]a dos antigos. Hum fabu- / -loso, de que usaram os Poetas. Outro natural, de que tratam os Phi[losoph]os. E o terceiro / Civil, que [andava entre] 245 o povo. No livro 6 refere a Varram [que] trata destes tres / generos desta man[ei]ra. Ait vero Varro [:] Primum, quidem quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam immortalium ficta. […] Secundum genus est, inquit, quod demonstravi, de quo multos libros philosophi reliquerunt; in quibus est, dii qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale ex quo tempore an ex sempiterno fuerint, an ex igni sint, ut credit Heraclitus, an ex numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut Epicurus. Sic alia, quae facilius intra parietes in schola quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures. […]. Tertium genus est, quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacerdotes, nosse atque administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos publice colere, quae sacra et sacrificia facere quemque par sit. Ita Varro.

Acerca doqual diz logo o mesmo Santo[:] “Nihil in hoc genere culpavit, […] tantum quod eorum inter se controversias commemoravit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo sectarum. Removit tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis; scholis vero et parietibus clausit.” / No livro 4 cap. 32 refere do mesmo Varraõ o seguite[:] Dicit etiam Varro de generationibus deorum magis ad poëtas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos, id est veteres credidisse Romanos et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique (ait divus Augustinus) non aliam ob causam factum fuit, nisi quia hominum veluti prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit populum in religionibus fallere et in eo ipso non solum colere, sed imitari etiam daemones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim daemones nisi eos, quos fallendo decipiant, possidere non possunt, sic etiam homines principes, non sane iusti, sed daemonum similes, ea, quae vana esse noverant, religionis nomine populis tamquam vera suadebant, hoc

245 BnF, f. 86r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

305

modo eos civili societati //150v// veluti arctius alligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent.

No livro 6 cap. 10 diz tambem o S[an]to falando de Seneca Philosopho[:] Omnem istam ignobilium deorum turbam, [quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit], sic, inquit adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere. […] colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat; quia videlicet magnum aliquid eum philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges civium moresque hominum non quidem ageret fingentem [scaenicum] in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quod illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret.

Finalmente no livro 4 cap. 27 depois de ser refererida a opinião de Scaevola pontífice, o qual dizia deverse encubrir ao povo muitas coisas tocantes aos Deos, põe esta conclusão[:] Expedire igitur existimat, falli in religione civitates quod etiam in libris rerum divinarum ipse Varro non dubitat. Praeclara religio quo confugiat liberandus infirmus et cum veritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credat expedire quod fallitur. /

5. O Sankiao da China segue totalmente este modo de philosophar, tendo duas man[ei]ras de doutrina / huma secreta que elles tem [por] verdadeira, que somente os seus Letrados entendem e profes- / sam, encuberta com symbolos e figuras enigmaticas. E outra vulgar (que he meta- / -phora de p[rimei]ra) aqual os seus Letrados tem [por] falsa no sentido que soam as palavras. / E desta se servem pera a politia exterior, e pera o culto divino civil e fabu- / -loso com que guiam ao povo ao bem, e o refrão do mal. E pera deixarmos agora / o que tocca ao Xekiáo e Taukiao, dos quaes não se trata nestas Cotroversias, na / Seita do Jukiao he cousa certa, que debaixo de numeros e outros symbolos (como / acima apontamos), representam as causas geraes com as suas efficientias e influ/ -entias: e debaixo do nome de Spiritos bons e maos, hum do Ceo, outro da terra, ou- / -tro das estrelas, dos montes, dos rios etc., significam assi as causas universaes deste / Universo, como as potentias e paixões da alma com os habitos das virtudes e / vitios, no modo [que] elles cuidam ser.

306

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

6. Em confirmação deste ponto que no Jukiao ha duas man[ei]as de doutrina, huma / secreta pera os sabios, e outra vulgar pera os rudes, referirei aqui algumas au- / -toridades dos seus livros authenticos, que mostram isso claramente. / Primeiramente no Lunyu lib. 3 pag. 5 hum discípulo do Confutio, por nome Çu- / -cúm diz como queixandose do seu Mestre, que nunca em toda a vida tinha / alcançado delle que lhe falasse da natureça humana, e da natural condição do / Ceo: se não depois no cabo. / [Secund]o, no mesmo Lunyu lib. 3 pag. 17 diz o Confutio que o modo conveniente de go- / -vernar o povo, he fazer que honra os Spiritos, e se afasta longe delles. Id est, que / não se ponha a escudrinhar delles que cousa sejam, que cousa façam ect. / [Terceir]o, no livro 6 tambem do Lunyu pag. 3 sendo preguntado o Confutio pello / Kilú seu discipulo, que cousa hera a morte, respondeolhe mui seccamente di- / -zendo quem não sabe que cousa he a vida, como sabera que cousa he a morte? / [Quart]o, no Lunyu lib. 4 pag. 6 se referem quatro cousas de que Confutio não costuma- / -va tratar entre as quaes huma heram os Spiritos. Onde o Comento da a rezão disto, dizendo / que não tratava dos Spiritos, [por] [t]emor que nelles ha muitas cousas diffíceis de entender, e / assi não convem tratarense facilmente com todos. / [Quint]o no livro chamado Kiayu, querendo o Confutio livrarse totalmente do trabalho de / responder as preguntas que muitos lhe faziam acerca dos Spiritos, ou da alma rational, / ou das cousas depois da morte: se resolveo a dar huma regra geral, dizendo. As cou- / sas [que] estam dentro das seis posições (id est que estam dentro deste mundo visível e são visiveis) //151r// disputanse, e não se duvida dellas. Mas as cousas que estão fora das seis posições (Id est / que estão fora do mundo visivel, ou são invisiveis) deixemse estar como estão, e não / se disputa dellas. 7. Por estes e outros semelhantes lugares da doutrina do Confutio, podem deduzirse tres ou qua- / -tro Corollarios mui importantes pera o fim que se pretende nestas Controversias. / O p[rimei]ro Corollario, que na Seita dos Letrados alem da doutrina vulgar e aparente que / sabem todos, ha outra philosophica e secreta [que] sabem somente os mestres da Seita. / O [secund]o Corollario que o Confutio fugia de tratar distinta e abertamente dos Spiritos, da Alma ra- / -tional, e das cousas da outra vida; por temor que sabendose pello povo a pura verdade do / que ha na sua Phi[losophi]a acerca destas cousas, viria a perderse toda a Religião e por conseguin- / -te a perturbarse o estado da Republica. / O [terceir]o Corollario que pellas palavras do Confutio allegadas na ultima autoridade,

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

307

se tem / fechado os olhos e escurecido o coração aos Letrados da China, pera não verem nem esti- / -marem se não as cousas visiveis e palpaveis. / O [quart]o Corollario que [por] esta via os mais sabios da China são levados altamente engannados pera o summo de todos os males, que he o Atheismo como se ver[á] melhor nos preludios seguin- / -tes, onde examinaremos os princípios e fundamentos da sua doutrina, assi physica co- / -mo moral. [4°] Preludio / Do modo de philosophar do Jukiao em geral. /

1. O modo de philosophar dos Letrados Sinenses [consiste em enccarigar] 246 o prim[ei]ro principio deste / Universo e de como sahiram delle assi as causas universaes como as particulares, com suas causali- / -dades e effe[c]tos. E em [particular] 247 em inquirir do homem, que cousa he quanto ao corpo e / a alma, do seu modo de entender e operar, dos habitos das virtudes e vitios, e do fado ou e- / -strella, e destino248 de cada hum, pello horoscopo do seu nascimento; pera que conforme a sua / sorte ordene suas operações. Destas cousas tratam em grande parte (como acima se / notou) debaixo de varias figuras, symbolos, numeros, e outros termos enigmaticos. / Este seu modo de philosophar contem duas partes. 2. A p[rimei]ra [he] 249 de discorer acerca do prim[ei]ro / princ[ipi]o e das mais causas universaes [que] delle procedem, quanto ao seu proprio,250 Ser e Subst[anti]a / com seus sitios e suas qualidades e virtudes operativas: não em quanto operam em actu / se não em quanto tem potentia de operar. A esta scientia chamam propriamente Si¯en / ti¯en hi˘o. E della tratou antes de todos o Fohi quando formou as Quas ou figuras do / Yekim.251

246 BnF, f. 86v. 247 BnF, f. 86v. 248 BnF omits: “destino” (f. 86v). 249 BnF, f. 87r. 250 || “seu principio, Ser e Substantia” (BnF, f. 87r). 251 BnF adds: “Voir Tchou-hi, Oeuvres compl[ètes], k. [juan] 26, f. 76. L’auteur fait

une fausse application des deux divinations† La première n’indique chez les Chinois que

308

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

3. A [secund]a he, que supporta esta prim[ei]ra produção, ordem e constituição do universo / com suas causas geraes, investigaram em que ponto do Zodiaco, conforme ao seu hemis- / -pherio e clima, començam as causas geraes efficientes a predominar com a sua virtude, e a produ- / -zir as cousas. E ate que ponto chegue o tal predomínio, pera as cousas se gerarem: / ou se torna a recolher, e as cousas se corrompam. Como se vee no corso dos qua- / -tro tempos do anno, com o accesso e recesso do Sol predominando o quente por / seis meses no verão e estio, e outros seis o frio no outono e inverno. A esta [secund]a / scientia chamam Heú ti¯en hi˘o. E della trataram mais ex professo o Vêm vâm com / o che¯ u c¯ um, e o Confutio com os outros Letrados de nome porque nesta scientia / consiste todo o seu fim que he imitar ao Ceo e a terra em suas operações e governo da / Republica nos quatro tempos do anno. D’onde vem que reynando o quente que / cria e produz, tratam elles seus neg[oti]os julgam etc. E dominando o frio que corrompe e //151v// destrue, executam as sententias de morte. Seguindo tambem estas mudanças dos quatro / tempos, investigam o Horoscopo de cada hum, conforme ao ponto em que naceo. E nesta / sua scientia de héu ti¯en ha entre elles varias opiniões e modos de explicar. Porque / huns dizem [que] as causas geraes começam a ter vigor em tal ponto do Zodiaco, e conforme / a isso se recebem dahi [por] diante taes qualidades na produção da cousa, e e tal sorte ou / fado. Outros dizem que em tal ponto etc. E assi ha varias Seitas, seguindo huns / as Quas de Vêm vâm, outros as Quas de yâm Xí, ou do Chu çiì, ou de outros. 4. A esta virtude ou predomínio das causas geraes chamam Tý, chù, Chù çài, Ki¯ un, Vâm, / Hoâm; o que todo significa predominar, imperar etc. E são as mesmas letras que si- / -gnificam Rey. O que esta dito da differentia das suas scientias, deve notarse como cousa importantíssima / pera o nosso intento por tanto quero explicalas ainda mais por extenso em dous / Preludios particulares. [5°] Preludio. / Do Sien tien hi˘o, que he como se produzio o Universo / conforme a opinião dos Chinas.

le † ou les Koua [gua] de Fou-hi [Fuxi] dans le Y-king [Yijing], et la seconde le ††. G.P. [Guillaume Pauthier]” (87r, marginal note).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

309

1. Primeiramente como não podessem imaginar do puro nihil se podesse produzir / cousa alguma, nem conhecessem poder infinito que de nada as podesse crear: e /vendo [por] outra parte que no mundo ha cousas, que hora são e hora não são, / e que não foram eternas: tiveram pera si que hera necessario haver huma cousa que / precedesse eternamente todas as cousas, e que fosse a origem e causa de todas / ellas.252 Entenderam tambem que esta causa hera huma entidade infinita, in- / -generavel e incorroptivel, sem princ[ipi]o e sem fim [: porque tem, que como] 253 ex nihilo / nihil fit, assi tambem o que tem princ[ipi]o ha de ter fim. E o fim se torna ao / princ[ipi]o. D’onde naceo a opinião tão recebida em toda a China, que este mun- / -do se ha de acabar e tornar a produzirse de novo. E ao espaço desque / começou ate acabar, chamam Tà súi, Id est anno grande. 2. E esta mesma causa conforme a elles não tem vida, nem saber, nem propriedade / ou actividade alguma: mais que ser pura, quieta, sotil, diaphana, sem corpo / e sem figura; que soo com o intendimento se pode perceber, no modo que di- / -zemos das cousas spirituaes. E posto que não seja spiritual, todavia não / tem em si estas qualidades activas e passivas dos elementos. 3. O modo de investigar como este mundo visivel procedeo do prim[ei]ro princ[ipi]o ou Chaos254 / foi desta maneira. Vendo elles [que] necessariamente havia de haver causa eter- / -na das cousas visiveis; e cuidando [por] huma parte que esta não tinha de si / efficientia nem actividade alguma, sem a qual não poderiam as cousas pro- / -duzirse della; e vendo [por] outra parte com a quotidiana experientia que / o com que as cousas se geram e corrompem, he o calor e o frio; e que estas / duas qualidades são causas efficientes de todas as gerações e corrupções: / forao busquando modo como deste Chaos ou p[rimei]ra materia, sahio a materia pro- / -xima com que as cousas se compoem; e o como se podia no mundo gerar o ca- / -lor e o frio, pera della se gerarem as cousas. E assi imaginaram que desta / prim[ei]ra materia infinita e immensa [por] cinco emanações que elles assinalam / naturalmente e a casu emanou esta Ar, ate se fazer material como agora //152r// he, ficando dentro daquelle

252 BnF adds: “a qual elles chamam ly, hoc est ratio seu fundamentum totius naturae” (f. 87r). 253 BnF, f. 87r. 254 BnF adds: “chamado ly” (f. 87r).

310

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

Chaos infinito feito em hum globo finito, a que chamam Tái /Ki˘e, Id este sumamente terminado ou limitado. E a este mesmo [chamam] Chaos, hoên / tún, hoên lûn etc. antes que delle saissem as cousas. Este Ar que emanou do prim[ei]ro / Chaos pellas [ditas] cinco mudanças, he tambem incorruptivel quanto a Subst[anç]a e do mesmo / Ser do dito Chaos, mas he mais material e alteravel per condensationem et rarefa- / -ctionem, per motum et quietem, per calidum et frigidum etc. Este [secund]o Chaos ou Táiki˘e (antes que delle saissem as cousas) o imaginam e pintam no / modo seguinte (Fig. A2.1).

Fig. A2.1 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

4. Como vessem que o quente e o frio são causa das gerações e corrupções das cousas, e / estas que se geram com o moto et quiete: imaginaram que a casu ou naturalmente, / Çíi gên como elles dizem, se fez hum movimento neste Chaos255 ou Ar conglobado, pello qual256 / se produzio o calor no mesmo corpo do Ar; e aquietandose este movimento 255 || “neste secundo Chaos” (BnF, f. 87v). 256 || “pello qual moto se produzio” (BnF, f. 87v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

311

Fig. A2.2 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

naturalmente,257 / pella tal quiete se produzio o frio ficando parte do dito Ar quente e parte fria, ex- / -trinsece porem, e não intrinsece ou de sua propria natureça. De modo que ficou o / Ar diviso em quente e frio, que he o Leâm yˆ , ou ¯ın yâm. O quente he puro, limp[o], / diaphano, e leve: e o frio he impuro, teneo, opaco e pesado. Como se vee nesta[s] / duas figuras (Fig. A2.2). // 152v // 5. De modo que as causas efficientes generalíssimas do Universo são motus et quies, calor et / frigus: que são Túm cím e ¯ In yâm. Este ¯ In 258 ou quente e frio se uniram / entre si [por] hum aiuntamento ou yâm concordia e amizade estreitíssima, como marido e molher ou pay / e may, e produziram o elemento da Agua, que pertenca ao in: e no [secund]o aiun- / -tamento produziram o elemento do Fogo, que pertence ao yâm. E assi foram produ- / -zindo os cinco elementos, os quaes são o mesmo Táiki˘e, ou ¯ın yâm, ou Ar qualifi- / -cado. Como são entre nos as qualidades com os seus elementos. Estes são Agua no Nor- / -te, Fogo no Sul,

257 || “aquietandose este moto, naturalmente” (BnF, f. 87v). 258 BnF omits: “Este in yam ou” (f. 88r).

312

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

Pao no Leste, Metal no Oeste, e Terra no meyo. Como se vee / abaixo na sua figura (Fig. A2.3).

Fig. A2.3 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 152v (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

In yâm e cinco elementos produzieram o Ceo e a Terra, o 6. [O] 259 ¯ Sol, Lua, as Estrellas, e os / Planetas. Porque sobindo o Ar puro, quente, diaphano, e leve pera cima, se / fez Ceo: e decendo o impuro, frio, opaco, e pezado pera baixo, se fez Terra. / Apos isto o Ceo e a Terra aiuntandose com a sua virtude no meyo, produziam / o homem e a molher: respondendo o homem ao Yâm e ao Ceo, e a molher ao / ¯ In e a Terra. 259 BnF, f. 88r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

313

Por isso el Rey se chama Tien çiì filho do Ceo, e sacrifica ao Ceo / e a Terra, como a Pays universaes. Tudo isto se mostra na figura seguinte. / Advertindo que nesta tres cousas Ceo, Terra, Homem estão todas as mais cousas, / como em sua fonte e origem. // 153r // (Fig. A2.4).

Fig. A2.4 APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, f. 153r (Reproduced with permission; copyright © Archivio Storico di Propaganda Fide)

7. Esta he a creação do Universo conforme aos Chinas, assi antigos como modernos. Ficando / formada a machina do Universo em tres cousas principaes, que são causa das / de mais. A p[rimei]ra o Ceo, debaixo do qual se comprende o Sol, a Lua, as Estrellas, os Planetas, e a / região do Ar que esta entre o Ceo e a Terra; onde estão os seus cinco elementos, que são mate- / -ria immediata de que se geram as cousas corporaes debaixo. Esta região do Ar se reparte / em oito Quas, que são oito partes do mesmo Ar ou elementos qualificados com varias quali- / -dades, que respondem as causas universaes efficientes [que] elles imaginam. A [secund]a he a Terra que / comprende os Montes, os Colles, os

314

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

Rios, os Lagos, o Mar etc. e todas estas tambem são causas univer- / -saes efficientes, que tem suas virtudes e efficientia. A Terra tambem esta repartida em suas / partes a modo de Quas, que comprende o C¯ am e Jeû.260 A [terceir]a he o Homem, do qual se geram / os de mais homens. 8. Notase aqui [que] esta produção do Universo foi totalmente a casu no modo sobredito. Porque as causas / efficientes prim[ei]ras que ouve desta Machina, foram motus et quies, calidum et frigidum. A mat[eri]a / proxima,261 o Ar corpo homogeneo. A produção do Ceo e da Terra tambem foi casual e / temeraria ou natural, e não feita com deliberação e conselho; pois se diz que o Ar puro / e leve sobio e se fez Ceo, e o impuro e pezado deceo e fiquou Terra. 9. A forma do universo he, que o Ceo he spherico; e por isso se move e influe in circulum. A / Terra he de figura quadrada, [por] isso esta quieta no meyo, e influe ou opera per quadrum, // 153v // E lhe respondem quatro elementos, hum em cada lado das quatro partes, e hum na superfície do meyo. Fora do Ceo imaginam aquella p[rimei]ra materia am, Hi¯ u, infinita,262 daqual emanou o Táiki˘e; e tambem a / chamam C¯ L`y , Taú, Vû, Vû Ki˘e, quieta, diaphana, e sotil em summo grão: sem vida, sem / saber, sem actividade, mais que huma pura potentia. Este Ar entre o Ceo e a Terra repar- / -tem em oito partes, como esta dito, pello hemispherio ou horizonte, que são oito partes ou / rumos 263 [sic]: quatro dos quaes atribuem ao Sul onde reyna o yâm, e quatro ao Norte onde rey- / -na o ¯ın. A cada parte destas responde huma porção de Ar, a que chamam qua, pella varia / qualidade que tem. 10. Esta produção do Universo poem o Fohi, aqual esta representada na figura do Yekim cha- / -mada Hô tû que tem os quadrados brancos e pretos, e sempre [por] tradição assi se enten- / -deo. Esta tambem expressa na figura do L˘o X¯ u que tem os pontos pretos e brancos, por / numeros impar e par. V[idelicet] cinco impars 1,3,5,7,9 e cinco pars 2,4,6,8,10, os quaes / respondem aos Quas ou causas geraes do Universo. O Confutio especificou isto [por] letra na / sua exposição do Yekim, começando do Táiki˘e nesta forma. O Chaos produzio o quente e frio,

260 BnF adds: “id est forte ac debile, seu durum ac molle, aut asperum ac suave” (f.

88v). 261 || “A materia proxima fez o Ar corpo homogeneo” (BnF, f. 88v). 262 BnF omits: “nomeada ly” (f. 88v). 263 || “rumbs” (BnF, f. 88v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

315

(que / comprendem os cinco elementos), estes se fizeram em quatro Scilicet em quente e frio, ambos em grao / entenso e remisso. Estes quatro produziram oito qualidades Scilicet quente, frio, forte, brando, e / estes em grao entenso e remisso. Estes oito suppoem pellas tres principaes cousas que / dizem ha no mundo, Ceo, Terra, Homem. S¯ an çâi, como diz o Yekim. E assi estas oito / ou estas tres produziram todas as cousas. De modo que tudo he pera armar este S¯ an /çâi que dizem são causa das cousas que se geram e corrompem no Universo. Os Letra- / -dos depois do Confutio em seus Comentarios e grosas especificam mais meudamente esta / produção do Universo, começando da prim[ei]ra origem ou materia infinita como esta / no principio da sua summa Phi[losophi]a, chamada Simly, a qual começa do Vû Kiê, a que tam- / -bem chamam L`y , Tau etc. O Laoçii cabeça da Seita dos Tausus poem expressamente o mesmo modo de produção do Universo no seu / livro Laoçii Kim, por numeros e termos metaphoricos neste modo. O Tau ou p[rimei]ro Chaos / produzio a unidade, que he o Táiki˘e ou [secund]a materia: a unidade produzio a dualidade, que / he Leâm yˆ : a dualidade produzio a trindade, que he Tien, Ty, qîn, ou San çâi, ou / P˘a quá: e a trindade produzio todas as cousas. E assi he a mesma doutrina com a / dos Letrados. [6°] Preludio. / Do Heú tien hi˘o, que he como se geram e corrompem as / cousas neste Universo.

1. O outro modo de philosophar do Chinas, he (supposta a p[rimei]ra creação do Universo e ordem de suas / causas geraes) investigar a causa das gerações e corrupções que todos os annos se fazem / nos quatro tempos verão, estio, outono, inverno. E indagar as influentias celestes que nos / mesmos quatro tempos, meses, dias, horas, e signos do Zodiaco influem nos corpos; pera dahi / tirarem o fado ou destino e inclinação natural de cada hum pera conforme a isso sa- / -ber como se ha de regrar em suas operações, cooperando com o seu fado, e não indo con- / -tra elle. 2. Os principaes Autores desta scientia do Heú ti¯en foram Vêm vâm e seu filho Che¯ u c¯ um: os / quaes como vissem [por] experientia que com o calor se geravam as cousas, e se sostentava / a vida dos animaes, plantas, hervas, e com o mesmo exercitavam suas op[er]ações pera / conseguirem seus fins; e pello contrario que com o frio, faltando o calor, se corrumpiam

316

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

/ e em hum certo modo morriam: deram [por] causa das gerações e corrupções o quente e o frio / e que o quente se gerava com o movimento com o accesso do Sol a elles, e com a clari- / -dade e lume: e o frio com o quiete, com o recesso do Sol e com a escuridade. Vendo tam- / // 154r // -bem que as cousas se começavam a gerar e a ter vigor da primavera [por] diante, e estavam / florecentes e em seu vigor ate o fim do estio; e que do outono, [por] diante começavam a / fazer mudança mortificandose e recolhendose e cessando das suas op[er]ações ate o fim / do Inverno: deram os prim[ei]ros dous tempos a o quente, e os dous ultimos ao frio. E / conforme a isto repartiram o Zodiaco pello horizonte em oito partes como oito pontos, que / são as Quas de Heú ti¯en: das quaes quatro são do quente, e quatro do frio. E confor- / -me a isso dizem que a efficientia das causas agentes geraes, ou o predominio e actividade / Em seu hemispherio começa no qua chamado chín que responde ao oriente, e co- / -meça no ponto da sua primavera, conforme ao curso solar que he ordinariamente / aos cinco au seis de Fevreiro. E a esta actividade, predomínio, e influxo cha- / -mam Tý, chù, chù çài, que he o predominio do quente nos prim[ei]ros seis meses, e se torna / a recolher no tempo contrario que he pello outobro etc. pera significarem o / sair e começar deste predominio, com o seu recolherse e acabar: usam das pala- / -vras ch˘o g˘e sair e entrar, Ki˘o Xin encolherse e extenderse, Vam Laî ir e vir, as quaes todas tem o mesmo sentido. E como isto se faça pello accesso e recesso / [do] Sol, o qual lhes anda sempre pella banda do Sul: tem que a parte do sul he quen- / -te, que he Tái yâm; e a do Norte he fria, que he Tái in. [7°] Preludio. / D’aquelle Axioma celebradissimo entre os Chinas [Ván v˘oe] 264 y˘e tì, / que responde ao nosso, Omnia sunt [unum.] 265

1. E entre os mais principios da Phi[losophi]a Sinica, [que] devemos [notar conforme a boa resolução] 266 / destas Controversias, hum principal[issimo he o axioma de serem tod] 267 / -as causas huma s[oo]

264 BnF, f. 89r. 265 BnF, f. 89r. 266 BnF, f. 89r. 267 BnF, f. 89r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

317

Substantia. E porque esta opinião combina enteiramente com a d’alguns / Ph[ilosoph]os antigos daquellas nossas [partes;] 268 os quaes diziam Omnia esse unum, sera bom mo- / -strar aqui [brevemente] 269 [o] modo como elles isto entendiam e declaravam. / Arist[otel]es tomando em diversos lugares das opiniões dos Ph[ilosoph]os de fama, faz menção / dos que disseram[:] / “Omnia esse continua et penitus unum ens natura et ratione, plura / vero secundum sensum, nulloque modo diversa”. 2. O curso Conimbricense, e o padre Fonseca, e outros Comentadores, tirando tudo do texto de Aristoteles / dizem que aquelles prim[ei]ros Phi[losoph]os não conheceram das causas mais que a material, / nem ainda essa como ella he, se não em hum modo mais grosseiro. Porque tiveram / pera si que a mesma materia hera toda a essentia das cousas naturaes, e que to- / -das heram huma soo cousa continuada, e muito conforme aos sentidos exterio- / -res sem terem entre si differentia alguma essential. Como hum que dissesse / que os princ[ipi]os das cousas natures são Agua ou Ar, necessariamente ha de / confessar que todas as cousas quanto a sua essentia são Agua, ou Ar; mas que / se distinguem ou são diferentes quanto aos accidentes, como são denso ou raro, quen/ -te ou frio etc. como costumamos dizer que as cousas artificiaes feitas de pao, quanto / a essentia são pao, mas differem nas figuras feitas [por] arte. E nesse sentido affir- / -maram Parmenides e Milisso que todas as cousas são huma soo cousa, e conforme / a isso os refere Aristoteles e os refuta. / O Padre Fonseca na grosa que fez sobre o p[rimei]ro dos Physicos, diz o seguinte[:] Philosophi antiqui rudi adhuc et balbutiente Physica solam ferme causam materialem attigerunt nec vero ut ipsa est sed rudi quodam modo putaverunt totam essentiam rerum naturalium esse materiam ipsam. Unde hi qui dicebant principia rerum naturalium esse aquam, eo cogebantur fateri omnia secundum essentiam esse // 154v// aquam, differre tamen accidentibus ut densitate, raritate, calore, frigore; atque ita in caeteris quemadmodum nos artefacta omnia quae ex ligno fiunt, dicimus esse ligna secundum substantiam, sed differre figuris inductis per artem. Secundum hos igitur Philosophos dicit Aristoteles270 non differre hanc quaestionem,

268 BnF, f. 89r. 269 BnF, f. 89r. 270 BnF adds: “Densum aliquid: nam sensus non est integer” (f. 89v, marginal note).

318

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

sint ne principia unum an plura, ab hac quaestione sint ne entia naturalia unum an plura, et in reliqua subdivisione, sint ne finita an infinita. Ratio est, quoniam principium et principiatum apud eos nulla ratione distinguebantur secundum essentiam. Ita Fonseca

3. Os Phi[losoph]os deste tempo e outros depois de Aristoteles, pello conceito [que] tem daquelles prim[ei]ros Ph[ilosoph]os, não / se persuadem que homens de tanto ingenio (posto que suas palavras soam o que todas as cousas / são huma Substantia continuada, e assi não differem entre si se não conforme a os senti- / -dos exteriores os quaes se enganam) ouvessem de querer falar no sentido em que / Aristoteles os refuta e reprende por onde os interpretam de varios modos. Mais dizem que [Aristotels os reprende naquella forma, / pera si ser as palavras, e não por cuidar que in se elles sentiam aquillo. / Outros notam Aristoteles que] 271 / lhes impos o que elles não quizeram dizer no sentido em que os refuta. Mas na verdade ambos se ingannam, por ser certo que elles tinham aquella opinião e / a disseram no sentido em que Arist[ote]les os refuta. E que Aristoteles não lhes impos tal / cousa, pois os louva e aprova quando entre as cousas erradas disseram algumas acer- / -tadas. Em fim, [que] elles tivessem esta opinião neste sentido se prova claramente p[rimei]ro pello texto de Aristoteles, e isso mesmo são as palavras de que elles usam. / [Secund]o pellas rezões que elles trazem porque como elles não conhecessem o criador todo po- / -deroso que [creou como primeira] 272 causa efficiente tudo o Universo, e assi se regessem [por] / aquella [regra geral ex nihilo nihil] 273 fit; não podiam deixar de dizer aquello, provan/ -do [sua sententia deste modo] 274 (como diz o Fonseca na sua grosa tirada do texto). [Scilicet,] 275 [Quidquid factum est habet principium durationis:] 276 ergo quidquid non est factum, / non habet tale principium, et per consequens non finem durationis; sed ex se est infinitum duratione et essentia; et per consequens

271 BnF, f. 89v. 272 BnF, f. 89v. 273 BnF, f. 89v. 274 BnF, f. 89v. 275 BnF, f. 89v. 276 BnF, f. 89v.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

319

[prorsus unum] 277 et immobile. Item quidquid est praeter ens quod ex se habet esse, est non [ens] 278 et nihil. Et ita cum ens ex se habens esse unum tantum sit, efficitur ut ens tale, ens [unum omninò] 279 sit dumtaxat.

[Terceir]o provase porque outros Autores a fora de Aristoteles fazem tambem menção / do que estes tiveram que todas as cousas são huma soo cousa. Galeno na hist[ori]a / natural diz que Xenophanes Mestre de Parmenides ensinou aos seus discipulos[:] / “de rebus omnibus ambigere praeterquam de hac una, Omnia esse unum, et hoc / ipsum esse Deum”. Et Crassus Ciceronianus lib. 3 De Oratore ad Quintum fratrem ait[:] Ac / mihi quidem veteres illi maius quiddam animo complexi, plus multo etiam vidisse videntur, quam quantum nostrorum ingeniorum acies intueri potest, qui omnia haec quae supra et subter, unum esse, et una vi atque una consensione naturae constricta esse dixerunt.

[Quart]o finalmente, provase não ser isto cousa nova, que outros Autores mais anti- / -gos que os sobre nomeados não tivessam, pois a Seita dos Gymnosophistas Indianos / o tem abertamente, e o professam os Bonzos da China que delles emanaram. O mesmo / tem o Laoçu com os seus Tausus, e sobre tudo os professores do Jukiao desde maior / ate o minor, assi antigos como modernos. Estas tres seitas são mais antigas / [que] os Ph[ilosoph]os ditos acima, e todas tem origem de Zoroastre Mago e principe dos Chal- / -deos, que assi o ensinou e semeou pello mundo, pondo o Chaos eterno etc. / D’onde fica claro de como os ditos antigos e os do San Kiáo entendem, Omnia esse unum Natura et ratione. E que a opinião de todos aquelles e estes he a mesma in terminis. //155r// [8°] Preludio / Que cousa seja geração e corrupção em sua Doutrina.

1. Duas sortes houve de materia, de que o mundo se compos, ambas incorruptiveis. A prim[ei]ra / o Chaos infinito que he a L`y . A [secund]a o Ar primigenio que he o Táiki˘e, dentro do qual / intrinsecamente esta o Ser e Substantia da prim[ei]ra materia, e pello conseguinte esta em todas 277 BnF, f. 89v. 278 BnF, f. 89v. 279 BnF, f. 89v.

320

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

/ as cousas e nunca dellas se aparta. Depois de produzido o Ceo e a Terra, este Ar / que esta entre o Ceo e a terra, he a materia proxima de todas as cousas corruptiveis, / (ao modo que entre nos os elementos), e delle se compõem pella geração, e nelle se / resolvem na sua corrupção. Por onde elle he o Ser, Essentia, e Natureça de todas / as cousas: gerandose delle per condensationem d’alguma figura corpulenta e actuan- / -dose com varias qualidade por virtude de Ceo, Sol, Lua, Estrellas, Planetas, elemen- / -tos, terra, e mais causas universaes, conforme ao tempo, hora, dia, mes, e signo, em que / se produzio a tal cousa. As quaes cousas são como formas e princ[ipi]o das opera- / -ções interiores e exteriores dos compostos. 2. Ha logo geração nesta sua Phi[losophi]a, receber o Ser e Substantia do Ar ou Chaos, actuado / com figuras e qualidades mais ou menos puras, penetrantes ou obtusas, que / lhe servem como de forma: concorrendo o Ceo, Sol, Lua, Estrellas, Planetas, ele- / -mentos e como causas universaes: e as causas particular que se aplicam e dispoem a materia. 3. Corrupção ou morte, he destruirse a figura exterior, e as qualidades, humores, / Spiritos vitaes com que se sostentava o vivente, e resorverse outra vez na Sub- / -stantia do Ar: sobindo o puro e leve, e quente pera cima: e o impuro, pezado, / e frio de[s]cendo pera baixo. Onde o subir responde ao Xîn e hoên, e o de[s]cer ao / quèi e pa˘e.280 [9°] Preludio / Sendo a essentia e natureça de todas as cousas huma / mesma, como defferem humas das outras conforme a elles.

1. Como façam toda a essentia da cousa o Ar, dizem que todas as cousas são huma / soo Substantia e Natureça: mas que differem entre si pella figura de fora, e / pellas qualidades, do mesmo Ar, e isto com que differem chamam Kí ch˘e. Quan- / -to a figura, são as varias figuras exteriores de todas as especies corporeas. / Quanto as qualidades, imaginam que este Ar pode qualificarse de hum de quatro / modos, scilicet Chím, 280 BnF adds a “Scholium” in Latin: “Hic notetur: quod sub nomine xîn intelliguntur spiritus, qui pari putantur a Sinis; et aliud non sunt, secundum eorum doctrinam, quam purioris aëris physicae qualitates sub nomine Hoên animae ho[min]um separatae, quae secundum Sinas litteratos nec aliud sunt quam aetherei aëris similes qualitates, ut supra. Sub nomine autem Quéi intelliguntur sp[irit]us, qui putantur impuri, et non sunt aliud, nisi impurioris aëris [unreadable] qualitates. Sub no[m]i[n]e autem P˘e cadavera humana in [unreadable] volubilia, ut ex infra [unreadable] patebit” (f. 90r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

321

Pi¯en, T¯ um, S˘e. O Chím he recto, constante, puro etc. O Pi¯en / he torto, inconstante, curvo etc. O T¯ um he penetrante, sotil. O S˘e obtuso, crasso. / Destes quatro, os dous Chím e T¯ um são bons, e os que os recebem ficam homens: os / outros dous Pi¯en e S˘e são roins, e os que os recebem ficam animaes brutos, plan- / -tas, hervas, etc. 2. Os dous Kí bons Chím e T¯ um tornam a dividir. O Chím em ǯım e ǯ u, id est / perfeito e imperfeito. E o T¯ um em C¯ım e Ch˘o; Id est limpo e turvo. Os que / recebem o perfeito do Chím e o limpo do T¯ um, dizem que são Xingins, [id est] / Sapien- / -tes e Heroes, os quaes nacem taes, e naturalmente sabem a rezão e a seguem, / e nunca vão contra ella per onde excedem totalmente aos mais homens, e assi são / tidos em grande veneração e estima. Os que no nacimento recebem o imper/ -feito do Chím e o curvo do T¯ um, são homens rudes, de maa vida e desordenados / nas obras e costumes; e nestas chamam Yu gins: os quaes281 soo de homens tem a figura //155v// e no de mais são semelhantes aos animaes. Entre estes dous géneros de / homens ha outros de meya condição e natureça, aos quaes chamam Hiengins, / Id est varões prudentes e virtuosos. 3. Do mesmo modo os outros dous Kí roins Pi¯en e S˘e, dividem em perfeito e imper- / -feito, em limpo e turvo. Os que recebem os dous primeiros, fiquam ani- / -maes; e os que recebem os dous ultimos, fiquam plantas e hervas. E ain- / -da nestes ha variedade de mais e menos em suas species e generos. 4. Donde se vee claramente que não soo não alcançaram creação de puro nihil / per poder infinito, mas nem ainda conheceram verdadeira geração de ma- / -teria e forma Substantial; se não somente alteração e mudança acciden- / -tal de figura e qualidades, praesupposita communi omnium materia homoge- / -nea, que he o mesmo Ar, eterno,282 ingeneravel e incorruptivel em sua Substantia mas alteravel per motum et quietem, calidum et frigidum, rarum et den- / -sum etc. sendo elle soo o Ser de todas as cousas, como dizia Aristoteles / daquelles Ph[ilosoph]os, que igualmente philosophavam deste modo. [10°] Preludio. / Que não conheceram duas Substantias distintas, spiritual / e corporal, mas huma soo mais ou menos material. /

281 BnF adds: “são taes que” (f. 90r). 282 BnF adds: “(dizem elles)” (f. 90r).

322

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

1. Supposto que per elles todas as cousas são huma mesma Substantia Ván va˘e y˘e tì, fica claro que / não conhoceram duas Substantias distintas realiter, Scilicet, huma spiritual distinta da corpo- / -ral como são Deus, os Anjos, e a Alma rational. O que se confirma muito mais / visto não terem notitia da creação ex nihilo per infinitam potentiam. / Conhoceram somente huma Substantia universal, immensa e infinita, daqual emanou o / Táiki˘e, ou Ar primigenio que compreende em si a mesma Substantia universal, e vestin- / -dose per motum et quietem de varias qualidades e accidentes vem a ser a ma- / -teria imediata de todas as cousas. 2. Esta Substantia dividem em dous membros, Scilicet, Yèu e Vû. A p[rimei]ra he toda Substan- / -tia corporal com corpulentia e figura material, que tem cor, e he densa e so- / -lida, de modo que sendo batida resista e faz som. A [secund]a he huma Substantia menos / material, como he esta Ar, que imaginam não tem corpulentia, nem figura, nem cor, nem voz, e assi não se pode ver nem palpar. D’onde vem que o chamam nada e / vacuo, Id est Vû, hi¯ u, c¯ um, vû hîm, vû s˘e etc. E passando mais adiante na considera- / -ção desta Substantia em quanto diz somente a sua entidade abstracta de tuda qualida- / -de e acidente, a chamam Tái vû, tái cum, tái hiu, ed outros283 modos semelhan- / -tes, que mostram ser simplicissima, purissima, e solidissima, como dizemos nos da / Substantia Spiritual. 3. Ninguem porem imagine que esta Substantia que poem os Chinas, possa ser spiritual no sentido / que nos tomamos o Ser spiritual, porque in primis non potest per se exsistere nisi in illo Kí / primigenio,284 a quo numquam potest separari. [Second]o, porque sostenta285 todas as qualidades e / accidentes materiaes, e assi impõe o Ser de todas as cousas, ou por melhor dizer he / o Ser e Substantia de todas ellas. / [Terceir]o porque as cousas [que] parecem spirituaes, como são / Quèi xîn, Li˘en ho˘en, Tien xîn etc.286 assi os antigos como os modernos os chamam Kí / e nomeadamente o Confutio sendo preguntado de hum seu discipulo que cousa fossem / os Quei xins, lhe respondeu Kí yê. Vejase o capitulo 16 do

283 BnF adds: “nomes” (f. 90v). 284 || “illo Ki, ou primigenio, aquo” (BnF, f. 90v). 285 BnF adds: “em si” (f. 90v). 286 BnF adds: “(que tudo isso significa o que os Chinas comprehendem sub nomine Spiritum)” (f. 90v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

323

Chum yum, que trata disto / amplamente. Em livro 28 do Siml`y o trattado particular que fazem dos Quei xins / e do hoên po˘e, onde todas estas cousas reduzem ao Ar, ou a virtude e actividade287 delle. //156r// Por onde se pode concluir seguramente que, na doutrina du Jukiao, não ha mais que / huma Substantia, e esta material no modo que esta declarado. [11°] Preludio. / Dos Spiritos ou Deoses que os Chinas adoram segundo a Seita dos Letrados.

1. Posto que pellas cousas ditas ate agora pode facilmente entenderse, quaes sejam os Spiritos que / os Chinas tem ao seu modo como Deoses: todavia como este ponto he o mais prin- / -cipal nestas Controversias, convem tratalo hum pouco mais per extenso e de per si; / e assi o farei no presente Preludio, propondo em summa o que se diz no Jukiao destes / Spiritos, toccante ao nosso proposito. 2. Note[se] p[rimei]ro que quanto ha e pode haver neste Universo, conforme a doutrina dos Le- / -trados tudo sae da officina do Táiki˘e, o qual comprende em si a L`y e o Kí, id est,288 / a Substantia universal com o Ar primigenio as quaes cousas ambas andam sem- / -pre conjuntas, sem se poderam apartar huma da outra, na forma [que] nos dizemos da / materia prima e da289 quantidade coaeva.290 O modo como se se produzem as cousas he, que da L`y em quanto L`y emanam as cinco virtu- / -des,291 com os seus habitos e mais cousas spirituaes: e da mesma Ly em quanto he quali- / -ficada com o Kí 292 emanam os cinco elementos, com todas as mais qualidades e figuras / corporaes. De modo [que] pera os Chinas assi o physico como o moral tudo nace da / mesma fonte que he a L`y , e ella (como se tem dito acima) [he o Ser de] 293 todas as cou- / -sas. D’onde teve origem aquelle dito

287 || “actividade aerea delle”. 288 BnF adds: “a ja nomeada primeira materia” (f. 90v). 289 BnF adds: “sua” (f. 90v). 290 || “coeva” (BnF, f. 90v). 291 BnF adds: “quae secundum Sinas sunt: Pietas, Iustitia, Cultus, Prudentia, et Fides”

(f. 90v). 292 || “qualificada com o dito Ar primigénio Tai Ki” (BnF, f. 90v). 293 BnF, f. 90v.

324

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

celebre do Confutio, que a sua doutrina toda se / reduzia a hum ponto, que hera a L`y , rezão e Substantia universalíssima. 3. Notese [secund]o que como a L`y não [produz] 294 as cousas deste Universo se não [per] meyo do Kí que he / seu instrumento coniunto: assi não as governa se não pello mesmo Kí. D’onde nace / que as operações toccantes a produção das cousas, como ao governo das mesmas, / se [attribuem] 295 comunemente ao Kí, como a causa instrumentaria e formal da L`y . Como / v.g. se soe dizer que o entendimento entende, e a vontade ama: sendo que na / verdade a Alma he a que entende e ama [por] estas suas potentias. 4. Notese [terceir]o ser doutrina do Jukiao, que depois de comprido aquelle numero de annos que / elles chamam Tá súi, se ha de acabar este Universo com todas as cousas que nelle esti- / -vecem, reduzindose tudo ao seu prim[ei]ro principio d’onde tinham emanado de man[ei]ra / que não fique mais [que] a L`y pura e ingreme, acompanhada somente do Kí seu coetaneo. / E depois disto a mesma L`y ha de tornar a produzir outro Universo pella mesma or- / -dem, o qual acabado sussederam outros e outros in infinitum. 5. Notase [quart]o que a origem [que] ouve na China de por os Spiritos (como ouve tambem em outras / partes da gentilidade) foi [por] dous rispeitos. O p[rimei]ro por [veram] 296 que o Ceo e a terra com / as mais cousas principaes do Universo faziam suas operações com grandissima ordem e / certaça sem nunca falharem. E assi vieram a congeiturar que devia haver algum Au- / -tor e principio invisivel que governava dentro dellas; a que chamaram Chù, Chu çài, Xîn, Guèi, Guei xîn, Tý, Ki¯ un etc.297 vejase acerca disto o capitulo 16 do Chum yum. O [secund]o resp[ei]to / foi [por] verem os grandes proveitos, [que] [por] via daquelles Spiritos os homens recebiam. E assi se de- / -ram [por] obrigados a os horar e reverentiar com varios sacrifícios como diz o Ly Ki / lib. 8 pag. 47.298 //156v//

294 BnF, f. 91r. 295 BnF, f. 91r. 296 BnF, f. 91r. 297 || “a que chamam chù, id est, Dominus, Chù çài, id est, Praesidens, Xîn quèi ou Quèi xîn, id est, Spiritus Vadens et rediens, an Spiritus exeuntes et redeuntes, ty, Kiun, id est, Rex aut Imperator etc.” (BnF, f. 91r). 298 || “lib. 8 pag. 48” (BnF, f. 91r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

325

6. Notese [quint]o que os Chinas desde prim[ei]ra antiguedade do seu Imperio, que começou / propriamente / do Yâo e Xún, adoraram estes Spiritos, como se vee no Xukim lib. 1 pag. 11 onde se põem / quatro generos de sacrifícios que faziam a quatro maneiras de Spirito. O p[rimei]ro sacrificio / chamado Lúi, se fazia ao Ceo e iontamente ao seu Spirito que he o Xámtý. O [secund]o cha- / -mado ¯ In, se fazia aos Spiritos das seis cousas principaes, Id est, dos quatro tempos / do anno, da calma e do frio, do sol, da lua, das estrellas, da chuva e da seque- / -dade. O [terceir]o chamado Vám, se fazia aos Spiritos dos montes e rios afamados. / O [quart]o chamado Pién, se fazia a toda a turba dos de mais Spiritos que pertenciam as / outras partes pequenas do Universo, e aos homens insignes na Republica. 7. P[rimeir]a Conclusio. Todos os Spiritos que adoram os Chinas, são huma mesma Substantia com as cousas em que / elles estão. Provase p[rimei]ro [por] aquelle299 Ván va˘e y˘e tì, Omnia sunt unum. [Secund]o porque / do Xámtý (Spirito do Ceo) diz o Chîm çiì expressamente ser hum mesmo com o Ceo pois / a fortiori, vel saltem a simili, o mesmo deve dizerse dos Spiritos das mais cousas. [Terceir]o por- / -que o Confutio no Chum yum pag. 21 diz de todos os Spiritos que constituem o Ser e / Substantia das cousas, e não se podem apartar dellas; que se assi fosse, ficariam as / cousas destruidas. Se alguem aqui quizesse oppor, que estes Spiritos se tornam muitas vezes pella virtude / operativa ou entelekia e actividade das cousas: e assi mais veriam a ser a / qualidade ou propriedade, que a Substantia das cousas.300 Respondo p[rimei]ro ser verdade / que as vezes assi se tornam, mas não se nega [por] isto que se tomem tambem pella Sub- / -stantia [ornada com aquella] 301 virtude operativa: antes este sentido he o mais ordena- / -rio tanto que [como dissemos] 302 de mente Confutij constituem o Ser das cousas. Respondo [secund]o / que tomandose os Spiritos pella pura virtude ou actividade das cousas, fica o con- / -ceito delles cada vez mais abatido, como de qualidade e accidente que non potest per se exsistere.

299 BnF adds: “axioma” (f. 91r). 300 BnF omits: “e assi mais veriam a ser a qualidade ou propriedade, que a Substantia

das cousas” (f. 91r). 301 BnF, f. 91r. 302 BnF, f. 91r.

326

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

8. [Secund]a Conclusio. Todos estes Spiritos tiveram princ[ipi]o [probatur] 303 porque sairam [do Táiki˘e] 304 e daquella Substantia / universalissima (como se disse de todas as cousas no p[rimei]ro Notan.) e assi que [ficam] 305 poste- / -riores e inferiores a ella. Em conformidade disto o Doutor Û Puèn jû que agora / he Tutão de Leaotum, disse do Xámtý que hera filho ou creatura do Táiki˘e, / e o mesmo se havia de dizer do nosso Ti¯enchù 306 se hera hum mesmo com o Xámtý.307 9. [Terceir]a Conclusio. Todos os Spiritos hão de acabarse, quando acabar este Universo, reduzindose / todas as cousas ao seu prim[ei]ro principio. Provase isto pella doutrina do 3 Notan. / e confirmase pello que disse o Doutor Che¯ u k¯em yú, C¯ oli do Húpú, que assi / o Ti¯enchù como o Xámtý com todos os mais Spiritos se hão de acabar, ficando em pee somente a L`y Substantia universalissima. D’onde ele inferio que pellas doutri- / -nas Sinicas não havia cousa maior ou melhor que a dita L`y . 10. [Quart]a Conclusio. Todos os Spiritos ou Deoses da China, são de igual perfeição quanto a sua propria enti- / -dade; soo tem differensia de maior ou minor, [por] respeito dos lugares ou cousas em que / presidem. Provase com o exemplo da agua que esta em diversos vasos de ouro de / cobre, de pao, de barro etc. a agua he a mesma, somente he differensia dos vasos. O mesmo / se diz dos Spiritos que são huma mesma L`y , ou Kí, ou Táiki˘e, mas postos em diversos Subiectos, / como são Ceo, terra, montes, rios etc. 11. [Quint]a Conclusio. Todos estes Spiritos são sem vida, sem saber, sem liberdade.308 Provase p[rimei]ro porque todos / saem da quella subst[anti]a universaliss[im]a a qual conforme aos princ[ipi]os da Ph[ilosophi]a Sinica carece / de todas estas cousas, como se disse acima no [quint]o Preludio numero 2. [Secund]o porque no Xukim //157r// lib. 1 pag. 35 dizem expressamemte que o Ceo (que he a mais cousa que ha no Universo) / não vee, nem ouve, nem entende, nem ama, nem 303 BnF, f. 91r. 304 BnF, f. 91r. 305 BnF, f. 91r. 306 BnF adds: “Id est, do nosso Deos” (f. 91r). 307 BnF adds: “Patet igitur evidenter, que o que os Chinas concebem sub hoc

no[m]i[n]e xámtí nequaquam pode ser o nosso verdadeiro Deus, qui increatus est, aeternitateque praecedens ante o[mn]ia, est, et erit absque fine in saecula aeterna ante et post” (f. 91r). 308 BnF adds: “sem intelligentia” (f. 91v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

327

abhorrece: mas todas estas cousas faz / por via do povo.309 Pois d’aqui se infere [que, ou não ha no] 310 Ceo algum Spirito, ou he [huma mesma Substantia] 311 com elle, e assi [não va, nem ouve] 312 nem entende etc. [Terceir]o porque o Ceo e a Terra (como se diz no Simly lib. 26 pag. 16 et 17) / não tem coração, Id est, vontade e deliberação, se não que tudo obram [por] huma certa / propensão natural, na forma [que] o fogo queima, e a pedra dece pera baixo. [Quart]o / porque disputandose destas materias, se equipara o Ceo com a Terra. Quanto a terra / he certo que não entende, nem tem vida etc. pois o mesmo ha de ser do Ceo. E como / se trata disto em ordem as operações que pertencem propriamente nos Spiritos: fica claro que / dizendose [que] as suas operações não se fazem [por] eleição e vontade rational, se deve tambem / concluir [que] os Spiritos do Ceo, da Terra, e das mais cousas são todos sem vida, sem intendimento / sem liberdade. O que outro si se confirma pella persuasão universal dos Chinas, que, / quem fazer bem, sera natural e necessariamente apremiado: e quem fizer mal, sera / igualmente castigado como, [por] exemplo, quem se chega ao fogo se aquenta, e quem / se chega a neve se esfria. O que he dizer que as cousas deste mundo não se go- / -vernam [por] alguma suprema provid[enz]a se não a casu, ou conforme ao curso das cau- / -sas naturaes. 12. Aqui podem fazerse algumas preguntas acerca destes Spiritos, e assi as proporei com as / suas respostas, pera maior clareça da doutrina Sinica. / Preguntase p[rimei]ro se os Spiritos são huma mesma Substantia com as cousas em que estão, pera / que se poem este appellido de Spirito a fora das ditas cousas. Respondo que este appellido / se poem pera denotar a formalidade de operar, em quanto a tal operação pro- / -cede de hum princ[ipi]o [occulto, que com hum] 313 certo [modo governa] 314 dentro das cousas a ma- / -neira de Spirito. As vezes tambem denota a mesma Substantia das cousas, em quan- / -to he huma entidade pura, sotil, e mui chegada ao incorporeo d’onde nace / que as operações sejam cada vez maravilhosas e investigaveis. 309 || “povvo” (BnF, f. 91v). 310 BnF, f. 91v. 311 BnF, f. 91v. 312 BnF, f. 91v. 313 BnF, f. 91v. 314 BnF, f. 91v.

328

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

13. Preguntase [secund]o se os Spiritos quanto a sua essentia são a mesma L`y universal, como / se diz que foram produzidos della. Respondo que foram produzidos como as mais / cousas que procedem da dita L`y : que ha a acrecentarse sobre a L`y alguma formaacci- / -dental, ou formalidade, com que se constitua outra cousa distinta315 formaliter da mesma L`y .316 E assi ao presente o Spirito diz de novo a virtude operativa que emana / da L`y universal,317 e isso basta pera [que] se diga ser produzido della. O mesmo modo / de philosophar he acerca do [que] se diz que os Spiritos se hão de acabar; que he de/ -struirse ou cessar a virtude operativa da L`y 318 no fim do mundo, e então / ficara somente a Substantia da L`y despida de todas as qualidades e formali- / -dades que tinha. 14. Preguntase [terceir]o se a L`y (como acima se descriveu no [quint]o Preludio numero 2) não tem / de si nenhuma actividade, como pode dizerse que he hum mesmo com o Spirito, [cuja] / natureça he ser operativo? Respondo que a Substantia da L`y posto que considerada em / si, não tinha actividade nenhuma, começa porem a tela depois de produzir / o Kí, id est, o Ar primigenio que he seu instrumento coniunto. E assi as operações / dos Spiritos fundamentaliter pertencem a L`y , instrumentaliter ao Kí, e for- / -maliter aos mesmos Spiritus. 15. Preguntase [quart]o se dentro das cousas não esta algum Spirito distinto da Substantia dellas, quando / se sacrifica ao ceo, a terra, aos montes etc. a quem se offerecem estes sacrifícios? //157v// Respondo que os Chinas ordenariamente procedem segundo o costume que acharam deixado dos seus / Maiores, sem se tomarem cuidado de examinar a quem sacrificam, scilicet, se as cousas que vem, / ou a sua virtude operativa, ou a algum Spirito que per sorte esteja nellas. Tanto que o / Confutio lhes deu per regra universal, que não se puzessem a escudrinhar as cousas que / se não veem. Respondo [secund]o que os Letrados mais versados e eruditos na sua Seita, / não reconhecem nas cousas a quem sacrificam, mais [que] a Substantia da L`y e do Kí seu / instrumento coniunto. Como se vee claramente pella doutrina do

315 || “divinem” (BnF, f. 91v). 316 BnF adds: “universal” (f. 91v). 317 BnF omits: “E assi oa presente o Spirito diz de novo a virtude operativa que emana da ly universal” (f. 91v). 318 BnF adds: “que emana da ly” (f. 91v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

329

Confutio no capitulo / 16 do Chumyum, onde depois de ter mostrado como os Spiritos são partes componen- / -tes do ser das cousas, e assi não se podem apartar dellas, sem ellas se destruirem / diz logo dos mesmos Spiritos que se fazem respeitar e reverenciar dos homens, in/ -duzindos a que se componham interior e exteriormente, e lhe offereçam sacrifi- / -cios.319 Este ponto deve notarse grandemente como fundamento principal do Jukiao.320 16. Preguntase [quint]o tanto que muitos cuidam haver estes Spiritos, e serem causa vivente e / intelligente; e isto não somente depois de entrar na China a Seita dos Pagodes, / se não muito antes desdes primeiros Reys Yâo e Xún, e assi se fala delles nas / doutrinas antigas como se vivessem, e tivessem cuidado das cousas humanas sup- / -postas pois estas cousas, que resolução que lhe dão os Letrados? Respondo que todos [os] / Letrados de autoridade assi antigos como modernos, negam unidamente haver Spiritos / viventes e de diversa Substantia dos lugares ou cousas em que estão porque isso impli- / -caria contradição nos princípios da sua Philosophia, pella qual Omnia sunt unum, / como se tem declarado em diversos lugares. Quanto tocca a opinião da gente / vulgar, e aos modos de falar [que] se acham nos livros authenticos deve advertirse que se poem / duas maneiras de Spiritos, huns [que] chamam das gerações e corrupções, e outros que chamam dos / sacrifícios. Os primeiros são Spiritos philosophicos, pellos quaes vem significadas as causas naturaes321 / das gerações e corrupções que ha no universo. e estes hora se tomam pella substantia / das cousas operantes, hora pellas qualidades e sua formalidade de operar. Os [secund]os / são Spiritos civys, os quaes foram introduzidos na Republica a fim de ter mão no povo / que se não desmande, cuidando [que] ha diversos Spiritos no ceo, na terra, nos montes, nos / rios etc. os quaes podem fazer bem ou mal aos homens, como diziam la antigamente / dos joves e vejones. Em summa he necessario estarem todos os nossos no ponto / tão essential destas Controversias, que assi na Seita dos Letrados, como nas dos Bon- / -zos e Tausus, ha doutrina secreta pera os sabios a qual tem [por] verdadeira e doutrina / apparente pera os rudes aqual tem [por]

319 BnF adds: “como a quem seorsum atque a dextris et a sinistri” (f. 92r). 320 BnF adds: “id est, da Seita dos Letrados Sinenses” (f. 92r). 321 BnF adds: “das gerações e corrupções que ha no Universo; e estas hora se tornam

pella Substantia das cousas operantes” (f. 92r).

330

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

falsa. Por onde não ha [que] acribar nos / textos das suas doutrinas, nas quaes de industria falam de maneira que o povo / possa imaginar haver Spiritos ou Deoses viventes, e assi os reverencie e tenha medo / delles mas ha mister estar fixos nos principios da sua Ph[ilosophi]a, entendendo tudo como o / entendem os mestres das Seitas, conforme a luz e guia [que] dão os Interpretes classicos. / E pera que se veja ser esta a verdade da doutrina Sinica, referirei alguns Au- / -tores de fama que tratam este artigo ex professo, e concluem não haver outros / Spiritos a fora das causas naturaes. [12°] Preludio. / Varias autoridades de Autores classicos, que tratam dos Spiritos ou Deoses Sineses.

1. O Chîm çiì sobre o Chum yum pag. 11 declarando o ser e natureça dos Spiritos, diz que / //158r// são as operações do Ceo e da Terra; ou huns sinaes ou vestigios das gerações e corrupções / naturaes. Onde deve advertirse [que] debaixo do nome das operações, comprende a virtude / ou potentia operativa: e debaixo do nome dos vestigios, entende tambem a essentia / e entidade das causas naturaes. 2. O mesmo Chîm no livro 28 do Siml`y pag. 37322 diz que os Spiritos de que fala o Yekim, / são as gerações e corrupções. Id est, são as causas das gerações e corrupções, que he o / proprio obiecto daquella Kim. 3. No mesmo lugar propoem esta pregunta. Que cousa são as nuvens e a chuiva, / que saem dos montes e das aguas? E risponde dizendo que são effeitos dos fumos ou / vapores dos Ar. E supposto este princ[ipi]o vai / inferindo que quando os homens sacrificam / ao Spirito da chuiva, não sacrificam mais [que] ao Ar que he a propria causa della. E mais / prova ser grande ignorantia, ir pedir chuiva aos templos e as estatuas de pao e de / terra, que não tem chuiva; e deixar os montes e as aguas, que são proprio lugar / della. Pello [que] se veo claro [que] o Chîm não reconhece outros Spiritos que o Ar, do qual / se constitue a Substantia dos montes e das aguas. 4. Este mesmo Autor no Simly lib. 26 pag. 11 trata da differentia que ha entre o / Ceo e o Xámtý, e diz desta maneira. Considerandose quanto a sua figura e corpulentia,323 / se chama Ceo: quanto ao seu governo, 322 || “lib. 87” (BnF f. 92r). 323 BnF adds: “celeste” (f. 92v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

331

se chama Governador ou Regedor: quanto / a sua summa subtileza, se chama imperceptivel: quanto as suas operações, se / chama Spirito: quanto a sua natureça e propriedade, se chama forte. Estas cousas / todas na realidade324 são huma [soo cousa: e soo diferem quanto aos nomes e formalidades].325 Este / lugar deve summamente notarse, porque dizendose que o Xámtý, Spirito do Ceo, he huma mesma /cousa com elle, deve a simili dizerse o mesmo dos Spiritos dos montes, aguas, e mais cou/ -sas, que são huma mesma Substantia e entidade com ellas. 5. O Ch¯ amçiì no lib.28 do Siml`y pag. 38 diz que os Spiritos não são outra cousa que a / solideça e plenitudo: id est, a Substantia universal que he immensa e infinita, e assi enche todas / as cousas. Por isso o Interprete Liû Ki¯en ch¯ um lhes aplica aquillo do Chum yum / scilicet, pag. 11 que estão no alto, e na banda esquerda e banda dereita. Id est, ubique. / 6. O mesmo Ch¯ am no Comento do Chum yum pag. 11 diz que os Spiritos são poder, / ou actividade natural do Ar quente ou frio, que chamam ¯ In yâm, e são / as causas geraes das gerações e corrupções que ha no Universo. 7. O Ch¯ u çiì no Simly lib. 28 pag. 2 faz esta pregunta. Os Spiritos são per sorte / o Ar? E responde dizendo, que parece são a entelekia ou vigor e actividade que / esta dentro do Ar. 8. O mesmo Ch¯ u no mesmo livro pag. 3 diz que a chuiva, o vento, o orvalho, o corisco, / o sol, a lua, o dia, a noite: todas estas cousas são rastos e effeitos dos Spiritos. E estes são / Spiritos claros, universaes e rectos. Quanto aos que se diz silvam nas pontes, e batem nos pei- / -tos (como são os dos energumenos) estes são os que chamam Spiritos tortos, falsos e obscuros; / os quaes agora os ha, agora os não ha: agora se vão, agora vem: agora se ajuntam, / agora se espalham. Ha tambem alguns Spiritos, dos quaes se diz que sendo rugados, respo- / -dem e sendo requeridos, outorgam. Estes igualmente se chamam Spiritos, e são huma mesma / L`y (Id est, a Substantia e entidade universal de todas as cousas). Visto que todas as cousas deste / Universo são esta mesma Substantia e soo ha entra ellas differentia, de ser huma sotil e outra //158v// grosseira, huma grande e outra pequena. 9. O mesmo Ch¯ u tambem no mesmo livro pag. 38 mostra que ha os Spiritos, e o prova com / este discurso. Se não ouvesse os Spiritos, os

324 BnF adds: “e verdade” (f. 92v). 325 BnF, f. 92v.

332

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

antigos não lhe ouveram de pedir cousa alguma. / Hora vemos que [por] sete dias se abstinham do matrimonio, e por tres dias jejuavam, a fim / de fazer suas deprecações ou as cousas que se veem ou as cousas que se não veem; pois / ha mister [que] se entenda que os ha. Agora o Imperados sacrifica ao Ceo e a Terra; logo / he certo que ha o Ceo e Terra. O Principes e Duques sacrificam aos montes fumosos / e aos rios celebres que estão dentro do seu distrito; logo he certo que ha os montes famosos e os rios celebres. Os Fidalgos offerecem os cinco sacrifícios, logo he certo que ha a porta / grande de duas taboas, ha o caminho, ha a porta pequena de huma taboa, ha o fogão, / ha o pateo do meyo. Quando agora nos templos dos antepassados se vee alguma cousa ma- / -ravilhosa, não he mais que o Ar dos montes e das aguas [que] esta ali aiuntado. Depois de / passado muito tempo se forem estes templos desmanchados e destruidos pellos homens, então / não se veram aquellas meravilhas. A causa disto sera, que o Ar dos taes lugares estara ja / acabado. Desta autoridade pode colligirse evidentemente que os Spiritos não são mais / que a actividade do Ar, e a este se dirigem os sacrifícios que se fazem ao ceo, a terra, aos / montes, aos rios, as portas, ao fogão, aos templos dos antepassados, etc. 10. O mesmo Ch¯ u no mesmo lugar propõe esta pregunta. Quando se sacrifica ao Ceo / e a terra, aos montes e as aguas, e se usa de victimas que se matam, de peças que se / queimam, e de vinho [que] se derrama: faz se isto pera mostrar o effeito do nosso cora- / -ção, ou porque na verdade ha o Ar que se chega pera receber taes ofertas? Respondo / dizendo, se disser que não ha cousa alguma, que venha a326 receber o que se offe- / -rece, pois a quem sacrificamos? E que cousa he a que esta la no alto causando reve- / -rentia, e fazendo que os homens lhe offereçam sacrifícios e lhe tenham medo? Todavia / se dissermos que na verdade ha algum coche de nuves, em que ella venha pera baixo: sera grande falsidade e mentira. 11. O mesmo Ch¯ u, ibidem, pag. 39 tratando da ethymologia do Spirito do Ceo que he / a mesma cousa que o Xámtý, diz que se chama Xin, porque o Ar do Ceo sempre se extende. / Onde se vee claramente que não ha no Ceo algum Spirito vivente e inteligente, se não a / Substantia do Ar com a sua actividade e efficientia. 12. Item, o mesmo Ch¯ u no mesmo lugar faz esta pregunta. Os filhos quando sacrificam / aos seus pays e avos defuntos, he certo que os busquam pello propria Ar de si mesmos / (Id est, os consideram como

326 BnF adds: “baixo per” (f. 93r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

333

huma mesma cousa com o Ar que tem em si). Quando sacrifi- / -cam aos Spiritos de outras pessoas ou cousas: então como se faz isso? he por ventura / que venham a receber os sacrifícios, ou não? A isto responde dizendo que os filhos / com os seus pays e avos tem indubitadamente a mesma Substantia imudavel. Quando sa- / -crificam a outras pessoas ou cousas, estas tambem são a que devam [por] algum iusto titulo / sacrificar. Por onde disse o Confutio: sacrificai aos vossos pays defuntos, como se / elles estivessem presentes. Sacraficai aos outros Spiritos,327 tambem como se estivessem presentes. Quando o Imperador sacrifica ao Ceo, o Ceo he cousa a quem deve sacrificar, e tem / semelhança do mesmo Ar com o Imperador328 ; pois como deixar de vir e aceitar o / sacrifício? Quando os Duques e Principes sacrificam aos Deoses penates e aos Deo- / -ses dos cinco mantimentos: lhes sacrificam igualmente pella semelhança do mesmo / Ar que ha entre elles; pois como podem deixar de vir e aceitar aquelles sacrifícios? //159r// Agora tambem se sacrifica ao Confutio, mas isto não se faz se não na escolla da Universida- / -de, pera que se possa imaginar a semelhança do seu Ar. Se alguem disser que o Ceo / e a terra, os montes e as aguas são cousas permanentes e consistentes; e assi sacrifican- / -dolhes, pode fazerse [que] venham os seus Spiritos ao sacrifício. Quanto tocca aos homens / defuntos o seu Ar esta ja espalhado, pois pode fazerse vir pera que receba o sacrifi- / -tio? Respondo que não ha mais que hum mesmo Ar, o qual desde prim[ei]ro principio / se comunicou aos avos e aos pays, e [por] estes aos filhos e netos. Todo isto he do Ch¯ u çiì, com que se mostra claro que na Seita do Jukiao todos os Spiritos assi dos / homens, como do Ceo, terra, e mais partes do Universo, não são mais que o Ar, corpo / homogeneo, e entidade communa de todas as cousas e per conseguinte que não conhe- / -ceram Substantia Spiritural distinta da corporal, per se existente, vivente e intelligente. 13. O Chîn P˘ae K¯ı no mesmo Simly lib. 28 pag. 40 diz que quando os antigos faziam sacrifício / ao ceo e a terra, aos montes e as aguas, sempre propunham huma estatua. A causa disto / hera, porque o Ceo e a terra, os montes e as aguas não são mais que a entidade do Ar quente / ou frio, que chamam ¯ In yâm. E assi usando da estatua, pretendiam que o Ar quente ou frio / se viesse aiuntar naquella estatua; pera que o sacrifício não se

327 || “Pays” (BnF, f. 93r). 328 BnF omits: “pois como deixar de vir e aceitar o / sacrifício?” (f. 93r).

334

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

offerecesse em vão. Quando pois / derramavam o vinho, queimavam o cheiro, matavam as victimas, e offereciam as peças de / seda: tudo isto hera querer esgotar a verdadeira veneração do seu coração tendo esgota/ -do a verdadeira veneração do seu coração logo o Ar do ceo e da terra, dos montes e das / aguas de si se aiuntava, pera corresponder aos desejos do / sacrificantes. 14. O Chu cum cien no Comento do Tá ciuêm [sobre o Chum] 329 yum libro 3 pag. 48 diz que os Spiritos, / de que trata o Jukiao, se reduzem a duas ordens. A p[rimei]ra he dos Spiritos que chamam das ge- / -rações e corrupções naturaes, e esta he a propria e genuina significação dos Spiritos. / A [secund]a ordem he dos Spiritos que chamam dos sacrifícios, e esta denominação he impropria / e anomala. O que em outra linguagem, he dizer que na Seita dos Letrados ha Spiritos phi[losophi]cos, / que denotam a actividade e efficientia das causas naturaes: e Spiritos civys ou popu- / -lares, os quaes introduziram pera o bom governo da Republica; fazendo [que] o povo / os reverencie e tema, como se fossem cousa vivente. Sendo [que] elles na verdade não creem / haver tal cousa, mas somente haver a Substantia universal da Ly a Táiki˘e, com as suas / operações naturaes. Este ponto he de summa importantia, pera os nossos não se deixa- / -rem levar da apparentia d’alguns textos quando falam do Xámtý [e] de outros Spiritos, como / se fossem viventes, e de diversa Substantia dos lugares com [que] residem: visto que tudo he fa- / -lar metaphorico e figurado. [13°] Preludio. / Que todos os Spiritos ou Deoses dos Chinas se reduzem a / hum soo, que he o que elles chamam L`y ou Táiki˘e.

1. Neste preludio devemos advertir, que a idolatria Sinica proceda em grande parte como / a idolatria europea. E pera deixar agora outras combinações que ha entre ambas, porei / somente o que tocca a por hum soo Deus, que imaginam ser a Substantia e entidade de / todo o Universo. Santo Agostino lib. 4 De Civitate Dei cap. 10, 11 et 12 mostra pellos escritos dos antigos Roma- / -nos e Gregos e Egyptios, que varios Deoses [que] os Ph[ilosoph]os antigamente introduziram vem / todos a ser huma soo cousa, Id est, [que] elle he hum e todas as cousas, e todos os 329 BnF, f. 93r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

335

Deoses, e //159v// a Alma do mundo, ou o mesmo mundo. D’onde se collige que os antigos tiveram tudo / sair do Chaos infinito, como elles imaginavam ser o p[rimeir]o princ[ipi]o material e a Materia / prima: persuadindose que hera huma mesma cousa com os partes do mundo, antes / que fora della não havia outra cousa. E assi nestas rezões physicas fundavam / toda sua turba de Deoses e Idolatria. E consta, como diz o mesmo Santo, que esta / opinião foi recebida e corrente na Asia,330 e que della se comunicou aos Gregos / e Egyptios, e destes aos Romanos. Diz pois o Santo assi[:] Quotquotlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus disserant, modo sit Iupiter corporei huius Mundi animus, qui universam istam molem ex quattuor vel quotquot eis placet elementis constructam atque compactam implet et movet: modo inde suas partes sorori (id est Junoni) et fratibus (id est alijs elementis) cedat; modo sit aether, ut aërem Iunonem subterfusam desuper amplectatur, modo totum simul cum aëre sit ipse caelum, terram vero tamquam coniugem eademque matrem […] fœcundis imbribus et seminibus fœtet; modo [autem] deus unus, de quo multi a poeta dictum putant: ‘deum namque ire per omnes / Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum’. Ipse in aethere sit Iuppiter, ipse in aere Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus, in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia, in terra Pluto, in terra inferiore Proserpina, in focis domesticis Vesta, in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus, in sideribus sol, luna et stellae, in divinantibus Apollo, […] Saturnus in tempore, Minerva in ingenijs, ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeorum deorum; […] Haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum), hi omnes dii deaeque sit unus Iupiter, sive sint, ut quidam volunt, omnia ista partes eius sive virtutes eius, sicut eis videtur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animam, quae sententia velut magnorum multorumque doctorum est.

E mais [abertamente] 331 no cap. 12 diz desta maneira[:] si mundi animus Deus est eique animo mundus ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore, atque iste Deus est sinus quidam naturae in se ipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima, qua vivificatur tota

330 || “esta opinião, ou erro foi recebida communmente, e corrente na Asia” (BnF, f.

93v). 331 BnF, f. 94r.

336

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

ista moles, vitae atque animae multorum viventium pro cuiusque nascentis sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere posse, quod non sit pars Dei.

2. Sobre este passo Ludovico Vivez diz que esta hera a opinião de Pythagoras, todas / as cousas serem partes de Deus; que vem a ser não haver no Universo mais que / huma soo causa, que he o Chaos ou Materia prima, a que chamaram elles Deus ou / Mente. Diz pois Haec fuit sententia Pythagorica, quam expressit Virgilices 6 Aeneadi [his sequentibus versibus:]332 Principio caelum ac terras camposque liquentes / lucentemque globum lunae Titaniaque astra / spiritus intus alit totamque infusa per artus / mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet. / Inde hominum pecudumque genus vitaeque volantum / et quae marmoreo fert monstra sub aequore pontus. / Igneus est ollis vigor et caelestis origo / seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant / terrenique hebetant artus moribundaque membra.

//160r// Et in 4° Georgicorum333 [:] His quidam signis, atque haec exempla secuti, / Esse apibus partem divinae mentis, et haustus / Aetherios dixere: Deum namque ire per omnes / Terrasque, tractusque maris, coelumque profundum. / Hinc pecudes, armenta, viros, genus, omne / ferarum, / Quemque sibi tenues nascentem arcessere vitas. / Scilicet huc reddi deinde, ac resoluta re- / -ferri / Omnia: nec morti esse locum; sed viva volare / Sideris in numerum, atque alto succedere coelo.

Bem claramente se vee de todo isto o que estas tiveram, acerca de todas as cousas / serem huma soo, e della procederem e nella se resolverem. D’onde se moveram / a chamala deus, porque não conheciam outra cousa maior. 3. O mesmo conceito formam os Chinas da sua Ly ou Táiki˘e imaginandose que he / a Substantia de todos os cousas, e Spirito universal que enche e governa todo o Univer- / -so. Deste argumento dizem em seus

332 BnF, f. 94r. 333 BnF adds: “inquit ipse” (f. 94r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

337

livros mil cousas; nos aqui referimos somente / tres ou quatro pontos mais principaes.334 Primeiramente pera não haver equivocação nos nomes, deve advertirse / que a Ly com o Táiki˘e são huma Substantia e entidade do p[rimei]ro princ[ipi]o, soo se differen- / -ciam em certa formalidade propria de cada hum. Porque a L`y denota a entidade / de por si [sem outro respeito] 335 : e o Táiki˘e denota a mesma entidade em quanto he fundamento e cardo de todas as cousas, estando no meyo dellas da maneira que o polo / do Norte esta no meyo do Ceo, e o Rey no meyo do Reyno. / [Secund]o o Táiki˘e ou L`y , no livro 26 do Simly pag. 8, se diz ser causa porque / o Ceo sempre se move, a Terra sempre esta firme, os homens e as cousas sem- / -pre fazem suas gerações sem cessar. E dandose a razão disto, se diz que a L`y ou / Táiki˘e esta dentro das ditas cousas, como governador e regidor dellas que he o / proprio officio [que] se atribue aos Spiritos; e Chîm poé na definição do Xámtý, di- / -zendo [que] se chama tal, [por] amor [que] governa etc. [Terceir]o, no mesmo Simly lib. 1 pag. 31 se mostra que a L`y predomina nas cou- / -sas do Universo, [por] isso não se acha nellas falta alguma. E assi indose a calma, / vem o frio: affastandose o Sol, a lua se chega. Na Primavera as cousas nacem, / e no Verão crecem: no Outono se acabam de perfeiçoar, e no Inverno se / conservam.336 Ha começar, ha crecer, perfeiçoar as cousas,337 ha conservalas.338 / O principio como o fim andam em roda e isto desde todas as antiguidades / sempre assi foi, [porque] ouve o predominio o governo da verdadeira e solida L`y . [Quart]o, tambem no Simly lib. 26 pag. 9339 se diz do Táiki˘e que he a origem / e causa de se produzir e acabar o Universo por estas palavras. Antes / de se produzir o mundo, o Táiki˘e foi causa, [que] ouvesse o Chaos.340 Depois341 de / produzindo o mundo, o mesmo Táiki˘e foi 334 BnF omits: “Bem claramente […] quatro pontos mais principaes” (f. 94r). 335 BnF, f. 94r. 336 || “no Outuno se marchitam; e no Inverno se encubrem etc.” (BnF, f. 94v). 337 || “marchitarse” (BnF, f. 94v). 338 || “e acabarse” (BnF, f. 94v). 339 BnF omits: “pag. 9” (f. 94v). 340 BnF omits: “Antes de se produzir o mundo, o Tai kia foi causa, [que] ouvesse o Chaos” (f. 94v). 341 || “Antes” (BnF, f. 94v).

338

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

causa [que] ouvesse o Ceo e a Terra, os / homens e as mais cousas. Depois de o mundo acabasse, tambem o Táiki˘e / sera causa [que] os homens e as cousas se acabam, e o Ceo e a Terra se tornem aiun- / tar outra vez no Chaos. Mas elle Táiki˘e sempre esta do mesmo teor: assi he //160v// no principio como no fim: não ha acrecentarlhe nem ha tirarlhe etc. / Por estes e outros semelhantes discursos que ha nos livros Sinicos acerca da L`y e Táiki˘e, / pode colligirse que pera os Chinas não ha nem pode haver cousa maior. Aqui podem occorrer algumas duvidas de momento, [por] isso as proporei e soltarei brevemente. [4.] Primeira duvida. Se a L`y e ou Táiki˘e he tão grande como esta dito, [porque] causa os Chinas / não lhe fazem sacrifícios nem se lhe encomendam como fazem a outras cousas muito meno- / -res que elle? Respondo p[rimei]ro que como os sacrifícios se instituiram pera o bom / governo do povo, pareceo expediente que se offerecessem as cousas que se podem ver e / entender do mesmo povo: como são o ceo, a terra, os montes etc. com os Spiritos ou / virtudes operativas [que] reconhecem nas ditas cousas. Quanto aos Táiki˘e o deixam de / parte sem nenhum genere de culto, [por] ser cousa ocultissima que pella regra que deu / o Confutio não deve investigarse da gente ordenaria. Respondo secondo que os mui sabios / do Jukiao ou não se dão por achados destes sacrifícios tendo que são pura cerimonia / politica; ou se contentam de os fazer aos Spiritos particular, entendendo [que] são com / partes e membros do Spirito universal e assi nos disse hum dia o Doutor Û puèn / Jû, Tutao de Leaotum, que elle ouvera de poder adorar a porcelana de / Châ (que então tinha nas mãos), [por] saber que dentro della estava o Táiki˘e; da maneira que esta / no Ceo e nas mais partes do Universo. [5.] [Secund]a duvida. Como se entende que o Táiki˘e he o Spirito universal, e os Spiritos do Ceo, Terra, e mais partes do Universo são como suas partes? Respondo que conforme a doutrina do Ju- / -kiao podem darse varias comparações. A p[rimei]ro a comparação da agua em comum, / comparada com as aguas particular como do mar, dos rios, dos tanques, dos poços etc. / Secundo a comparação da nossa Alma, aqual governa em comum todo o corpo, e em particular todas os seus membros. Terceiro a comparação da essentia e natureça / universal, aqual pode considerarse no Ser abstracto de si mesma e no Ser con- / -creto dos seus individuos. Quarto a comparação da materia prima, aqual com ser huma entidade geral, se reparte em muitas materias secundas conforme / a diversidade das qualidades de que

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

339

se vai vestindo. Quinto a comparação / de uma Massa de cera, aqual deretendose pode mudarse em varias figuras de arvores, fulas, animaes ect. e depois de se desfazerem a ditas figuras, fica sempre a / mesma cera original como d’antes. Por estas comparações pode entenderse / facilmente como o Táiki˘e he Substantia e Spirito universal de todo o Universo, e o / mesmo he Substantia e Spirito particular de todas as partes delle. Do que ha huma auto- / -ridade expressa no livro 1 do Siml`y pag. 6 que diz assi. Todas as cousas / são hum mesmo Táiki˘e. Onde o Comento acrecenta huma clausula mais uni- / -versal dizendo, isto he que cada cousa tem o seu Táiki˘e. O mesmo inter- / -minis se diz da L`y no livro 26 do mesmo Simly pag. 1342 deste modo. A L`y / he huma, mas as suas partes são muitas. Falando em comum do Ceo, da Ter- / -ra, e de todas as cousas, não ha mais que huma L`y : mas falando dos ho- / -mens e das mais cousas em particular, cada huma dellas tem a sua L`y .343 [6.] [Terceir]a duvida. Pellas autoridades e comparações referidas acima somente se / prova haver huma mesma Substantia em todo o Universo e em todas as partes delle / não se vee ainda tão claro, como o Spirito universal seja hum mesmo com os //161r// Spiritos particulares. E isto agora se pregunta, em que consiste a razão formal do Spirito / conforme aos Chinas? Respondo que provando-se haver huma soo Substantia em todo o / Universo, fica logo provado haver hum Spirito universal. A razão he porque a Substantia / com o Spirito não são duas cousas, se não huma mesma considerada com duas formali- / -dades; huma da propria entidade, e outra da sua operação, ou da mesma entidade / em quanto he principio da sua operação. Hora como a Substantia he huma em todo / o Universo e em qualquer de suas partes, assi o Spirito he igualmente hum mesmo. Po- / -stoque em quanto governa o Universo seja universal, e em quanto governa as suas / partes seja particular. Esta doutrina vi eu tratar bellamente ao Doutor Huân yún / tái Mandarim do taí p˘o síi, e ao Doutor Che¯ u m˘o kiên Mandarim do L`ypú, / e outros bem entendidos nas materias das tres Seitas. 7. [Quarta] duvida. Supposta a doutrina ja dita do Spirito universal, preguntase agora do Spirito / do Ceo chamado Xámtý que proporção tenha com os outros Spiritos particulares da / terra, dos montes, das

342 || “pag. 6” (BnF, f. 95r). 343 BnF adds: “Voir Tchou-tseu kuan-chou [Zhuzi quanshu] K. [juan] 49, 1, où se

trouve qq. [quelquechose] difficile ††. G.P. [Guillaume Pauthier]” (95r, marginal note).

340

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

aguas, e semelhantes? Respondo que em algumas cousas com- / -binam em outras discrepam. / Combinam primeiro na entidade Substantial, aqual em todos he a mesma com a / do primeiro principio. Por onde não ha entre elles quanto a esta parte quem seja mais / ou menos nobre, mais ou menos perfeito etc. se não que todos são iguaes. Secondo na / sua origem, porque todos foram produzidos do Táiki˘e, quando foi produzido o Ceo e a Terra com as mais cousas em que elles residem: [tanto] 344 que são hum mesmo com / ellas, e assi não se podem apartar dellas. Terceiro no termo final, porque todas / hão de acabarse, quando se acabarem as cousas das quaes foram Spiritos. O que sera / no fim do Mundo concluindose o anno grande Tá súi, como acima fica de- / -clarado conforme a opinião dos Letrados Sinenses. / Discrepam depois primeiro nos lugares em que presidem porque huns são maiores, outros / minores. Secundo, nas qualidades e outras disposições accidentarias, as quaes são conformes aos lugares aque pertecem. Terceiro, nas operações as quaes são mais / ou menos perfeitas, conforme aos lugares e qualidades d’onde dependem. / Isto basta pera mostrar como todos os Spiritos e Deoses da China se reduzem a hum soo, / que he o primeiro principio chamado L`y ou Táiki˘e. Oqual como seja a materia / prima, ou a Ar segundo a doutrina do Jukiao: vem a ser huma viva imagem do / Iupiter europeo; e assi podem dizerse muito bem d’ambos aquelles versos de Vale- / -rio Soriano[:] “Jupiter omnipotens regum, rerumque, Deumque / Progenitor genitrixque Deum: Deus unus, et omnes ”. [14°] Preludio. / De varios nomes e atributos, que os Chinas dão a este / primeiro principio e Substantia universal do Universo. /

1. Pera melhor entenderse a natureça e condições do primeiro principio e Substantia universal de / todas as cousas, quero aportar neste preludio os varios nomes e atributos, que lhe / dão os Letrados segundo a doutrina do Jukiao. //161v// In primis o chamam L`y pello qual nome significam o Ser ou Substantia e entidade das / cousas em comum. Imaginandose que haja huma Substantia immensa, infinita, eterna, inge- / -neravel e incorruptivel, sem principio e sem fim. Esta Substantia pera os Chinas / não he somente o principio physico do Ceo, da terra e das mais cousas corporeas: mas 344 BnF, f. 95r.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

341

ainda he o principio moral das virtudes, habitos, e mais cousas spirituãles. D’onde / naceo aquelle axioma tão recebido entre elles, Ván ua˘e y˘e tì, Omnia sunt unum.345 / E aquelle outro, K˘e ua˘e Kiûm l`y : chegar ao intimo das cousas, e esgotar a / sua essentia e natureça. 2. O chamam Vûki˘a, Id est, principio invisivel porque aquella Substantia universal, / considerada [por] si soo, antes que se fizesse visível [por] meyo de alguma mudança / e qualidade, hera totalmente invisivel. E ainda agora o he, se a quizermos / considerar com huma abstração metaphysica, em quanto diz somente a sua / entidade, despida de todas qualidades e condições individuantes. 3. O chamam Táiki˘e, Id est, principio p[rimei]ro e summo porque delle saíram per emanationes todas as cousas, e a elle se hão de reduzir na fim do universo. Chamase tam- / -bem Táiki˘e, [por] amor que he em si perfeito em summo grao e em todo o género / de perfeições. 4. O chamam Tái hi¯ u, Id est, grande Vacuo e summa capazidade porque naquella essentia universal estão todas / as essentias das cousas particulares como em huma fonte estão as aguas de diversos rios, em huma raiz esta o tronco com todos os ramos e folhas e fruitos da arvore. 5. O chamam Tái y˘e, Id est, summa unidade porque como nos numeros a unidade he / principio de todos elles, sendo ella sem principio e indi[vi]sivel: assi nas Substantias / e essentias deste universo ha huma summamente huma, aqual não he capaz de di- / -visão alguma quanto a sua entidade, e he principio de todas as mais essentias que ha / e pode haver in rerum natura. 6° O chamam Hoên tún, Id est, mixto e aggregado porque na entidade deste p[rimei]ro principio / estão juntas as essentias de todas as cousas; postoque non actu sed virtualiter tam- / -quam in semine. E assi quando este aggregado se repartio na produção do / Universo, a Substantia pura e leve sobio para riba e fez o Ceo, e a Substantia grosseira e pezada deceo para baixo e fez a terra. 7. A chamam Hoên lûn, Id est, conglobado e redondo porque antes da produção do / mundo, estava a Substantia do primeiro principio como huma bola retonda que não tem / principio nem fim. 8. O chamam Hum mûm, Id est, grande Vacuo ou Inane porque pode receber e aga- / -salhar em si todas as cousas; antes fora delle não ha cousa nenhuma. 345 BnF adds: “una eademque ratio essendi, seu una eademque essentia entitativa” (f.

95v).

342

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

9. O chamam Yuên Kí, Id est, Ar primigenio ou original, oqual he aquella primeira / Substantia universal, disposta porem e preparada com as cinco mudanças que os / Chinas imaginam (como se disse acima no quinto preludio numero 3) pera poder ope- / -rar. De modo que o Ar primigenio per huma parte denota a primeira qualidade que emanou / da Substantia da L`y , e lhe serve como de instrumento coniunto: e per outra significa a mesma / Substantia da L`y disposta ja pera operar tanto que pellas regras da boa Philosophia, / Actiones sunt suppositorum. //162r// 10. O chamam Ti¯en çái, Id est, cousa que esta no Ceo, ou he conteuda do Ceo porque a Substantia / universal do primeiro principio que he a L`y ou o Táiki˘e posto que esteja em todas as cousas / do Universo como em seus individuos: com tudo se diz que esta principalmente no Ceo, [por] / amor [que] he a cousa mais exellente do Universo, naqual mais que em outra qualquer re- / -spledece a sua grande causalidade e efficientia. / 11. O chamam Ti¯en mím, Id est, dadiva du Ceo porque como o Ceo seja causa geralíssima / (falando das causas secundas) que sempre entra e tem a maior parte da causalidade na / produção das cousas: se diz que lhes comunica a Substantia e natureça universal da Ly ou Tái / Ki˘e, e assi vem a chamarse davida do Ceo. 12. O chamam Ti¯en táu, Id est, natural condição ou regra do Ceo. Em quanto faz que / Todas as cousas sejam governadas e guiadas com a sua devida proporção e conve- / -nientia. No que porem não ha proceder com alguma intelligentia e eleição discur- / -siva, se não somente com huma certa propensão e ordem natural. 13. O chamam Vo˘e sím, Id est natureça das cousas, que he em quanto aquella natureça uni- / -versal do primeiro principio he participada das cousas particulares. Como seria v.g. / se a materia de algum metal ou barro, se considerasse em quanto esta empregada / em diversos vasos. 14. O chamam Chí chîm, Id est, summa solideça ou plenitudo porque a natureça e entidade / universal enche todas as cousas, antes he ser e entidade de todas ellas. Deste argu- / -mento se trata [por] extenso no livro do Chum yum, espe[cia]lmente no capitulo 20 et seqq. / ate o 25. Onde deve notarse que a dita natureça universal do primeiro principio esta ex- / -tendida dentro e fora do universo, dando ser a todas as cousas, assi quanto ao phy- / -sico como quanto ao moral. 15. A esta solideça e entidade universal atribuem os Chinas as tres propriedades, que nos / atribuímos ao Ente em comum; que são Unum, Verum, Bonum. E pello [que] tocca / a Unidade, dizem no Siml`y lib. 34

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

343

pag. 19 que no mundo não ha mais que huma L`y . / E no mesmo lugar aiuntam logo que a entidade de qualquer cousa particular, he a entidade de todas as cousas. D’onde inferem depois na pag. 20 que a causa / de dizerse, Omnia sunt unum, he [por] amor desta mesma entidade. Tudo isto se confir- / -ma mais clara e expressamente no lib. 26 do mesmo Siml`y pag. 7 [por] estas palavras. / Todas as cousas tem a sua entidade,346 todas as entidades saem de hum principio que / he Táiki˘e. E este Táiki˘e he nome universal que comprende em si todas as / entidades. 16. Atribuemlhe tambem a outra propriedade do ente, que he a Verdade. E assi diz o Comento / ordenario do Chum yum pag. 19 que a Solideça e entidade universal, he huma cousa / verdadeira que não tem punto de vão ou falso. E isto he o ser proprio e natural / do Ceo. 17. Finalmente atribuemlhe a Bondade, ultima propriedade do ente como se vee no Siml`y / lib. 1 pag. 19 onde dizem que o Táiki˘e he cousa boa necessario et simpliciter. E no livro / 26 pag. 9 dizem [que] a summa bontade he a Hi¯ u, Id est, o Vacuo e Inane do primeiro principio. / O Hi¯ u 347 he o primeiro pay do Ceo e da terra. Visto [que] o Ceo e a terra saíram delle. 18. A mesma natureça universal atribuem os Chinas todo género de perfeição daqual não se / pode imaginar maior e disto falam em muitos lugares das suas doutrinas; mas pera o nosso / proposito bastara referir hum passo do Simly libro 26 pag. 7 o qual diz assi. A causa //162v// porque o Táiki˘e he cousa summamente grande e sublime, he porque elle he a natureça e Substantia / universal. E assi he o summo meyo e a summa rectidão, he summa limpeça e summa / pureça, he summamente spiritual e summamente imperceptivel.348 Em fim he em tudo / summamente acabado, sem que se lhe possa acrecentar de mais cousa alguma. 19. Por amor destes atributos e perfeições, que os Chinas acham na Natureça universal, dizem / della que he de excellentia e dignidade incomparavel, sem ter igual como se [vee] no / Lun yu lib. 2 pag. 5. E posto que naquelle lugar se da este encomio ao Ceo, com tudo / deve advertirse, que se lhe da [per] quanto he huma mesma cousa com e L`y e natureça / universal. E com tal occatião deve notarse o estilo dos Letrados

346 BnF omits: “Todas as cousas tem a sua entidade” (f. 96r). 347 || “Kiu” (BnF, f. 96r). 348 || “e assy he o summo meyo, a summa rectidão, summa pureza, summa perfeição, he summamente spiritual, summamente inperceptivel” (BnF, f. 96r).

344

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

nos livros do / Jukiao, que quando querem mostrar [que] o Xámtý he cousa grande dizem que he huma / mesma cousa com o Ceo: e querendo engrandecer ao Ceo, dizem que he hum mesmo com / a L`y . Mas quando falam da L`y , dizem que he grande [por] si mesma: pois imaginam / que foi sempre de por si ab eterno, e que sem[pre] o sera sem fim; e mais he o pri- / -meiro principio e ultimo fim de todas as cousas, e ainda do mesmo / Xámtý e do / Ceo. Como se tem mostrado atheagora em muitos lugares. 20. Pareceme aqui que poderia [por] ventura vir a alguem pensamento de ver se podesse / esta L`y ou Táiki˘e dos Chinas aplicarse ao verdadeiro Deus: pois lhe dão tantas / e tam excellentes propriedades, que so elle as pode / ostentar. Mas a este pen- / -samento respondo primeiro Cave cave, latet [enim] anguis in herba. Molli[que] sub vada dirus / cubat Leviathan. Não se deixe ninguem levar [por] estes titulos speciosos e honoríficos / na apparentia; mas examine de rayz a que cousa se atribuem, aqual em / summa não he mais [que] a nossa materia prima. O que se prova claramente / pella doutrina dos mesmos Chinas, os quaes não obstando que lhe atribuam / tantas perfeições, lhe atribuam tambem muitas imperfeições do modo / que o fazem os nossos Philosophos. Porque in primis dizem della que non pote / perse existere, mas ha mister [que] seja sostentada do Kí, Id est, do Ar pri- / -migenio que equival a nossa quantidade coeva. Secundo dizem que consi- / -derada em si mesma, he huma cousa stupida, sem comselho, sem intelligen- / -tia, sem vida. Terceiro dizem que não pode operar cousa alguma se não por / meyo do Ar e outras qualidades, que emanam della a casu. Quarto dizem que / ella soo he o sogeito de todas as gerações e corrupções: vestindose ou despin- / -dose de varias qualidades, das quaes como de formas accidentaes se constituem / e distingue o ser das cousas. Quinto dizem ou devem dizer conforme a estes princípios de sua Phi[losophi]a, [que] todas as cousas do Universo são necessariamente / materiaes, e não pode haver nenhuma que seja propria e realmente spiritual, / como nos dizemos de Deus, dos Anjos, e da Alma rational. Estas e outras / propriedades da materia prima e primeiro principio natural, podem verse na sum- / -ma da Phi[losophi]a sínica, Id est, no Simly lib. 26 nos trattados da L`y Kí, e do / Táiki˘e e mais no livro 34 no trattado proprio da L`y . / Respondo secondo que nunca na China desda primeira antiguidade ouve quem / adorasse a esta L`y ou a Táiki˘e, nem lhe offerecesse algum sacrifício; [por] en- / -tenderem todos assi sabios como ignorantes, que o culto da Religião não deve / darse se não as cousas

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

345

visiveis, conforme a doutrina do Ly Ki lib. 8 pag. 42 / d’onde pode inferirse hum corollário importantíssimo que os Phi[losoph]os do Jukiao ou foram //163r// mui stolidos, ou fingiram Religião no exterior não na tendo no seu interior porque se a L`y ou Tái / Ki˘e não tem [por] elles nenhuma divindade, muito menos poderá tela o Ceo, que he effeito / do Táiki˘e: e cada vez menos a poderá ter o Xámtý que he somente a virtude ope- / -rativa do Ceo: e ainda muito menos a terão os outros Spiritos e Deoses inferiores, que / p[er]tencem aos montes, aguas, e mais partes do universo. [15°] Preludio. / Que cousa he a Vida e a Morte, segundo a Seita dos Letrados: / pera ver se a nossa Alma he Immortal e de que modo. /

1. Supponhamse primeiro dous ou tres Axiomas da doutrina Sinica. O primeiro que todas as / cousas são huma mesma Substantia e entidade Universal. E não differem entre si mais / que quanto a figura exterior e as qualidades particulares. O [secund]o que a Substantia / entidade universal produz as ditas qualidades per emanationem, como cau- / sa material: e assi não podem appartarse della sem se corromperem. O [terceir]o / que a Substantia universal sendo qualificada e disposta com o seu Ar primigenio, esta / repartida nas causas secundas: que são o Ceo, a terra, os elementos etc. E assi quando operam as causas secundas esta tambem a Substantia universal operando dentro dellas, / como causa primo prima posto que a denominação das operações não se toma da / Substantia universal, se não das causas secundas como se faz entre nos, que quando os / elementos se aiuntam e compõem os corpos mixtos, não fazemos menção da / materia prima, ainda [por] estaja dentro dos elementos. 2. Supponhamse também quatro termos e formalidades, que tem a Substantia univer- / -sal, pello [que] faz agora ao nosso proposito. A primeira que considerandose em / quanto diz a propria entidade, ou em quanto esta no Ceo, se chama L`y . / A [second]a que em quanto he dada do Ceo, (que he causa generalíssima), se chama Mim. / A [terceir]a que em quanto he recebida das cousas que são produzidas do Ceo,349 se / chama Sím. A 4a que em quanto faz suas operações dentro das cousas,

349 BnF omits: “do Ceo” (f. 96v).

346

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

se chama Chù 350 ou, Chù çài.351 E aplicando esta ultima formalidade ao homem, / se diz [que] o seu Chù çài he o coração o qual governa tudo quanto ha no homem, assi toccante ao ao physico como ao moral. 3. Digo primeiro que a vida do homem consiste, em que as partes da entidade do Ceo e da terra / estejam unidas e concordes no mesmo homem. A entidade do Ceo, he hum Ar puríssimo / levíssimo e de natureça ignea: e assi delle se forma a Alma, ou os Spiritos vitaes e / animaes, [que] chamam Hoên.352 A entidade da terra he hum Ar grosseiro, pe- / -zado e de natureça terrea: e assi delle se forma o corpo com todas os hu- / -meres, que chamam Po˘e.353 4. Digo secundo. A morte do homem he que as ditas partes do Ceo e da terra das quaes hera / composto, se apartam, e tornam pera os lugares a que pertencem. Por onde o Hoên / ou Alma sobe pera o Ceo, e o Po˘e ou corpo dece pera a terra. Deste ponto se / fala no Xukim lib. 1 pag. 16 onde se descrive a morte do Rey Yâo [por] estas / palavras Çû l˘o, Id est, sobio e deceo. As quaes explica o Comento desta maneira //163v// sobio e deceo,354 hoc est morreu / porque quando o homem morre, a entidade ígnea ou aeria / se torna pera o Ceo; e o composto corporeo se torna pera a terra. Neste lugar deve / notarse que os Chinas chamam a nossa Alma com nome de Ar, e do mesmo modo a / chamam em outros muitos lugares de suas doutrinas per onde não pode sair / da esphera de cousa corporea, ainda que seja mui sotil, pura, invisivel, e imper- / -ceptivel aos sentidos externos. 5. Digo terceiro, quanto tocca a Immortalidade, depois de feita a separação da / alma e do corpo, perdem ambas as partes o ser que tinham de taes partes, e / ficam somente aquellas entidades do ceo e da terra, como heram antes que se aiun- / -tassem na composseção do homem. Por onde a Immortalidade ou permanentia / (quaequae sit illa apud Sinas ) não pertence ja as partes do homem qui / fuit, se não as duas entidades do Ceo e da terra: as quaes como causas ge- / -raes perseveram sempre no seu ser Substantial, e soo se mudam quanto a for- / -ma accidental. O

350 BnF adds: “4° em quanto faz suas operações dentro das cousas, se chama chu çai” (f. 96v). 351 BnF omits: “ou chu çai” (f. 96v). 352 BnF adds: “Id est, anima” (f. 96v). 353 BnF adds: “Id est, corpus humanum, seu cadaver” (f. 96v). 354 BnF omits: “As quaes explica o Comento desta maneira sobio e deceo” (f. 97r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

347

mesmo e muito mais deve entenderse da Ly e Substantia / universal, aqual esta sempre immovel dentro das causas geraes, e nunca pa- / -dece mudança alguma nem quanto ao ser, nem quanto ao tempo, nem quanto / ao lugar. Todo isto se vee expresso no Simly lib. 28 pag. 41. No trattado / de vita et morte d’onde referirei somente hum dito do Chim çiì, que diz de- / -sta maneira. Quando o homem se compõe e nace (o que se faz, aiuntandose / a entidade do ceo com a entidade da terra) a natureça universal não / vem. E quando elle se acaba e morre (o que se faz, partandose as ditas / entidades huma da outra) a mesma natureça universal não se vai. Porem / per quanto o Ar puro, que he a entidade do Ceo, se torna pera o Ceo: e o / composto corporeo, que he a entidade da terra, se torna pera a terra; po- / -de tambem dizerse que a natureça universal355 se vai. 6. Por esta doutrina do Chîm çiì, pode colligirse o sentido litteral do lugar do Xikim lib. 6 pag. [1] 356 / onde se diz que o Vêm vâm subindo e decendo esta as ilhargas do Xámtý, porque / in primis não esta ali o Vêm vâm, nem a sua alma ou Spirito vivente, se não a / parte do Ar celeste que hum tempo foi a alma de Vêm vâm. Secondo deste Ar se diz que sobe e dece, aque esta da banda direita e da banda isquer- / -da, pera denotar que he da mesma natureça e condição com todo o Ar do / Ceo. E pella mesma rezão chamam a alma do homem depois de se apartar / do corpo, Yeû hoên, Id est, Alma errante e vagabunda, da maneira que he o Ar / celeste, que anda [por] todas as seis posições. Terceiro chamase o Ar do Ceo neste / lugar pello nome do Xámtý, Id est, governador e regidor, pera mostrarse a / semelhança [que] tem com o Ar da Alma que como aquelle predomina e governa / no corpo celeste, assi esta predomina e governa no corpo humano. Tanto que / esta he a formalidade com que a Substantia da cousa se chama Spirito, como dis- / -semos acima no 11 preludio numero 12.357 7. Digo quarto, que a verdadeira Immortalidade não se atribue pellos Letrados se / não a L`y ou Substantia ou Substantia universal, aqual precedeo a todas as cousas, e / ficara depois dellas acabadas na forma que diziam os nossos Phi[losoph]os da materia prima. / Quando ao Xámtý, com os mais Spiritos da terra, dos montes, aguas etc todos as hão / de acabar no fim do Mundo, quando acabarem as cousas em que residiam.

355 || “entidade universal” (BnF, f. 97r). 356 BnF, f. 97r. 357 || “numero 15” (BnF, f. 97r).

348

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

/ E então não havera mais que huma Natureça universal despida de todas as fi- //164r// -guras e qualidades, como hera antes que começasse a vestirse dellas. Por isto todos / os Chinas estando na seita do Jukiao, tem pera si que depois da morte hão de / tornarse pera o Cum do primeiro principio, d’onde sairam. [16°] Preludio. / Que os Professores mais sabios do Jukiao vão dar / ultimamente ao Atheismo. /

1. Este ponto pode entenderse assi dos Letrados modernos, como dos Autores antigos. / Por tanto d’ambos tratarei neste preludio. / Quanto aos Letrados modernos afirma o Padre Mattheus Ricio mui abertamente na sua Historia / Sinica lib. 1 cap. 10 que quasi todos são Atheos, por estas palabras[:] Labentibus deinde saeculis primum illud lumen ita obscuratum est; ut si qui fortasse ab inani deorum cultu abstinent, ex iis pauci sint, qui non in Atheismum lapsu graviore degenerent.

O mesmo confirma no fim do Capitulo [per] termos mais claros e universaes, dizendo[:] Porro his temporibus sapientissimi cuiusque haec est receptiss[im]a sent[enti]a has tres leges (entende de todas as tres Seitas Jû, X˘e, Taú) in unam coalescere, ac simul omnes observari posse ac debere. Quare non ipsi se minus quam caeteros perturbatissime in fraudem inducunt arbitrati has de Religione quaestiones eo utilitati publicae utiliores, quo plures fuerint de ea loquendi modi. Et ad extremum alia omnia quam quae speraverant consequuntur. Dum [enim] tres illas leges se simul omnes observare posse confidunt, exleges esse reperiuntur, cum nullam syncere persequantur. Atque ita non pauci tandem suam ingenue irreligionem agnoscunt; et qui falsa credulitate se ipsos fallunt, aeque omnes maximam partem in errorum profundissimo Atheismo versantur.

Haec P[ate]r Riccius dos modernos, / noque todos combinamos sem nenhuma discrepantia. 2. Pello [que] tocca aos autores antigos, diz o Padre no mesmo lugar, que conheceram / e reverenciaram hum nome supremo chamado Xámtý, e outros Spiritos inferiores [por] / onde julga que não soo não foram

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

349

Atheos, mas ainda tiveram notitia do verda- / -deiro Deus. Porem eu com licentia do bom Padre, e dos mais nossos que seguem aquella / opinião, me persuado que tambem os Autores antigos foram Atheos ou la tiraram / conforme aos princípios da doutrina que deixaram. / Provase isto primeiro por aquelle principio universalissimo, que todas as cousas são huma mesma / Substantia. Por onde podem convencerse os Mestres desta Seita, que ou se persuadiram / não haver algum Deos, ou puzeram [por] Deus huma cousa chymerica e monstruosa, que / he como não possuem. Provase secundo por outro principio tambem recebido de toda a Seita dos Letrados, / que tudo quanto ha no Universo, sahio do Táiki˘e, e nelle se ha de resolver ultima- / -mente d’onde se enfere necessariamente que o Xámtý com todos os mais Spiritos (dos quaes / se tem provado ja serem huma mesma entidade com as cousas em [que] residem) tiveram / principio e terão fim as quaes cousas ambas, deixando agora de parte as outras, são / summamente contraria e repunhantes a divindade. E assi quando os Autores da Seita / os propuzeram [por] deoses (falando rationavel e conseguintemente) tudo devia de ser / com intuito de ter mão no povo, e assegurar a Republica: não que elles de si lhes / dessem credito. E a isto alludem os lugares [que] acima referimos do Confutio, nos quaes mo- / -stra que não folgava de declarar, que cousa fossem os Spiritos, como quem via bem, não / se poderiam facilmente aprovar de todo bom entendimento. //164v// Provase terceiro pella comum persuasão dos Letrados, que este mundo foi produzido a casu, / e que todas as cousas se governam pello fado. Item que os homens depois da morte se / tornam pera o C¯ um ou inane do primeiro principio se haver premio pera os bons nem / castigo pera os mãos. Das quaes cousas pode deduzirse, que pera os Letrados não ha ne/ -nhum deus que seja (como deveria ser) vivente, inteligente, livre etc. e assi os deo- / -ses [que]´puzeram pera o bom governo da Republica, são pera elles deoses de pao e de / pedra, que não tem mais [que] o nome e apparentia de divindade. Finalmente pera provar [que] os Antigos do Jukiao foram Atheos, basta dizerse / que o são os modernos, como confessa o mesmo Padre Ricio. Tanto [que] os moder- / -nos não são mais [que] hum echo dos Antigos; nos quaes se fundam e com os quaes / allegam em todas as cousas [que] tratam, assi toccantes as suas scientias como as virtu- / -des, e maxima na materia da Religião. E pera que se veja com quanto funda- / -mento se

350

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

diz isto, referirei aqui o que achei na praxi, tratando com diversos letrados e Mandarins; como se vera no seguinte preludio. [17°] Preludio. / Do que disseram diversos Letrados graves, trattando eu com elles / estas Controversias do Xámtý, Ti¯en Xîn, Lîm hoên etc.

A materia deste preludio, hera para fazer hum livro bem grande; mas bastara re- / -ferir em summa as cousas mais principaes, tiradas de pessoas bem vistas na Seita / do Jukiao e assi dignas de fee. E antes de tudo deve advertirse a ordem que ti- / -nha dado o Padre Visitador Vieira de boa memoria aqual hera que pera determinar / esta controversias, não [se seguiessem] 358 somente [os textos] 359 antigos se não que se vesse tam- / -bem a interpretação dos Comentos authenticos, e sobre tudo o sentido em que os tomam / comumente os Letrados deste tempo. Esta inquisição tenho feito pella bondade de Deus / com muita diligentia como disse ao principio e assi julgo que podemos estar pollo pare- / -cer dos Letrados [que] aqui aponterei; repartidoos [por] maior clareça em dous paragra- / -phos, hum dos Letrados Gentios, e outro Letrados [Crist]ãos. §1. Do parecer dos Letrados Gentios.360

1. Primeiramente o Doutor Û Puèn jû Nanchelista (oqual hum tempo foi bonzo e depois se / pos a estudar os livros dos Letrados, e alcançou o grão de Cinsú, e fez aqui o ufficio de T¯ um / chím, e ao p[rese]nte he Tutao [sic] no Leaotum) em diversas praticas [que] tivemos com elle da nossa / Santa Ley, vendo que diziamos que o nosso Ti¯enchù tinha criado o ceo e a terra com todas as / mais cousas, e ainda o Táiki˘e, que elles poem [por] primeiro principio do Universo: mostrou ter / grande doo de nos, dos quaes tinha conceito que heramos homens de grande engenho, mas não / acertavamos com a verdade. E assi nos deu [por] escrito huma trova, em que se descrive o / primeiro principio desta maneira. Ha huma cousa que precedeo ao Ceo e a terra. Não tem fi-/ -gura e está fundada em grande descanso pode ser senhor e governador de / todas as cousas e não se menoscaba pollos quatro tempos. Se alguem quizer vella por 358 BnF, f. 97v. 359 BnF, f. 97v. 360 BnF adds: “Multa hic omissa apud Nav. Tom. 1 Pag 382” (f. 98r, marginal note).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

351

vir das cores, ou busqualla pello som este tal andara [por] vias erradas, e nunca po- / -dera dar com o Jûlâi, Id est, com o primeiro principio. Apos isto nos mostrou que o nosso / Ti¯enchù (suposto que combinava com o Xámtý) não podia ser se não feitura e como / filho do Táiki˘e, conforme a doutrina [que] referimos nos preludios precedentes. Final/ -mente nos disse que todas as cousas são huma mesma Substantia do Jûlâi ou Táiki˘e / e este he o Spirito do Ceo, da terra, e das mais partes do Universo, e posto que se diga na //165r// Seita dos Letrados haver diversos Spiritos apropriados a diversas cousas em que residem; com tudo na / verdade não ha mais que hum Spirito total, como não ha mais que huma Substantia Universal. Nem / o Spirito he cousa distinta realiter da Substantia mas he a mesma Substantia considerada com a for- / -malidade de estar operando e governando dentro das cousas. Preguntandolhe eu aqui, d’onde nacia a differentia que se punha entre estes Spiritos, fazendo que / huns sejam superiores outros inferiores: huns mais nobres, outros menos etc. Respondeu que quanto / a Substantia e entidade dos Spiritos, hera a mesma assi no Ceo como na terra, assi no ouro / como no lodo porem quanto a operação e efficacia, havia differentia segundo as varias qua- / -lidades e disposições das cousas. O que tudo he in terminis o que referimos acima do nosso Poeta[:] Igneus est ollis vigor, et caelestis origo / Seminibus: quantum non noxia corpora tardant, / Terrenive hebetant artus, moribundaque membra.

2. O Doutor Che¯ u m˘o Kiên Paechelista Mandarim do L`y pú, da assistentia do Chù k˘e s¯ıi, depois / de ter lido o X˘e ý do Padre Ricio, nos preguntou hum dia que cousa entendíamos pollo Ti¯en / chù, e declarandolhe nos como soemos que hera huma Substantia vivente, intelligente, sem principio / e sem fim, com outras semelhantes perfeições; e mais que tinha criado todas as cousas, / e desdo Ceo as estava governando como governa hum Rey desdo seu paço a todo o Reyno: / riose elle de nos, e disse [que] uzavamos e comparações mui grosseiras: pois o Ti¯enchù ou / Xámtý não he na verdade hum como homem vivente que esteja essentado no Ceo, se / não a virtude que domina e governa no Ceo, como também domina e governa em to- / -das as mais cousas, e ainda em nos mesmos. E assi devemos imaginar [que] o nosso co- / -ração he huma mesma cousa com o Ti¯enchù ou Xámtý.

352

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

Chegando a cousa a estes ter- / -mos, por mais que quizessemos passar adiante com a declaração do nosso Tienchû, não / nos deixou fazello; dizendo que bem sabia elle [que] cousa fosse o Ti¯enchù, ja que dizíamos / ser hum mesmo com o seu Xámtý. Nesta pratica se achava presente o nosso Padre Vicepr[ovinci]al. 3. O Doutor Ciên Lîn vù natural de Chekiam, oqual ultimamente sobio a L`y pú Châmx¯ u, com / ser muito nosso amigo e ter ouvido muitas vezes praticas aos Nossos do verdadeiro Deus, que / veyo ao mundo pera nos salvar: nunca pode formar outro conceito delle, se não que se- / ria como o seu Confutio da China. O que se funda na erronea que´elles tem, de não haver mais que / huma natureça universal, aqual assi he principio de todos as cousas, [que] he todas ellas. E pello / que tocca aos homens, os que são mais perfeitos ou [por] sua boa índole ou por industria, re- / -presentam melhor aquella natureça universal do primeiro principio; e assi se diz que são / hum mesmo com elle. Por onde falando conseguenter a sua doutrina tanto mostra o nos- / -so Jesu em europa, quanto o Confutio na China e o Foe na India. Nem deixarei de refe- / -rir aqui o que me aconteceo hum dia, achandonos juntos em huma Academia perto da nossa / casa, o dito Doutor Ciên com o Doutor Miguel e eu, praticando [de diversas maneiras] 361 de / Taú: como [costumam fazer os] 362 Letrados naquele lugar. A cousa foi que post multa, vindose ao ponto / de seguirmos / em Europa a Ley dada [por] Deus, sahio o Ciên com o seu discurso, que / seria como a que tem os Chinas dada pello Confutio visto [que] ambos os Legislatores / são hum mesmo com o Ceo e com o primeiro principio. A isto queria eu replicar, mas / o Doutor Miguel me fez instantia (avisandome em voz baixa) que dissimulasse [por] então, / [por] não dar desgosto ao amigo maxime que não poderia confutar tão facilmente huma / opinião tão recebida na China. E notese este ponto do doutor Miguel, que servira / pera quando viermos atratar do seu parecer nestas materias. 4. O Doutor Siû J˘o c˘o Kiansimista, oqual foi aqui mandarim do T¯ umchím, e agora he Tutao [sic] / do Xámtý, / preguntandolhe eu que sentia elle do Xámtý, e dos mais Spiritos da terra, montes etc. / se heram alguma Substantia distinta daquelles lugares, como governadores

361 BnF, f. 98v, line 6. 362 BnF, f. 98v, line 7.

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

353

que presidem nelles, ou / que cousa heram. Respondeo mui asseveramente e absolutamente, que não havia no Uni- / -verso mais [que] huma Substantia, aqual elles chamam Lý e Táiki˘e: e que esta Substantia he de si //165v// immemsa sem algum termo ou limite [por] toda las seis posições: de modo que em toda a parte / se pode dizer que esta como no seu centro immobiliter; na forma que nos dizemos de Deus nosso Sinhor que he hum como circulo infinito, cuius centrum ubique et circum fe/ -rentia nusquam. D’aqui vem que como esta Ly esta sempre no meyo quanto a enti- / -dade physica, assi tambem esta no mesmo quanto a entidade moral de aqui se enten- / -de o Confutio quando disse que toda a sua dotrina consistia em hum ponto. Presu- / -posto pois que não haja mais que huma Substantia seguese necessariamente que o Xámtý com / os mais Spiritos são somente a virtude operativa das cousas, ou a Substantia das mesmas cousas / considerada em quanto faz as suas operações. Preguntandolhe eu aqui, quem ordenara tanta variedade de cousas neste Universo, e / quem as governava, e premiando, e castigando, e fazendo outras cousas, que não podem sair / se não d’alguma mente vivente, Intelligente, justa. Disse que tudo isso sahia da dita / Lý, como da fonte manancial de todo o ser physico e moral. Nas quaes operações não usa d’algum discurso ou eleição, mas faz tudo natural e necessariamente conforme / a coneixão das causas universaes, e a disposição dos sojeitos particulares que he o que / elles chamam propriamente Mím, e nos fado. 5. O Doutor Che¯ u K¯em yû Chekianista C¯ oli do Húpú, da pois de ter mostrado muitas / cousas do nosso Ti¯enchù, maravilhandose que estivessemos tanto nelle, me disse estas / formaes palavras. O Tienchu ha de acabarse na fim do Universo, pois como dizeis que / os homens hão de gozar delle e com elle in aeternum? Isto disse elle per dous / rispeitos. O primeiro porque concebia que o Ti¯enchù hera como o Xámtý: vista / a semelhança que ha entre ambos os nomes. O secundo porque sabia que o / Xámtý, Spirito do Ceo, ha de acabarse na fim do mundo jontamente com / o Ceo, conforme ao que dissemos acima trattando do Spiritos em comum. Respon- / -dilhe eu que o seu discurso podera concluir muito bem se o Ti¯enchù (segundo nos / o tomamos) fora produzido do Táiki˘e, como he o Xámtý com os mais Spiritos que elles poem / em sua doutrinas. Porem o nosso Ti¯enchù não soo não foi produzido do Táiki˘e, mas / produzio o mesmo Táiki˘e, e jontamente todas as cousas que ha e pode haver no Universo. / Com que lhe declarei o que dizemos

354

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

das quatro causas que concorrem na produção das cou- / -sas, mostrando como o Ti¯enchù não hera causa material, como elles fazem ao / Táiki˘e, se não causa efficiente, aqual precedeo a todas as cousas, sendo de / diversa Substantia como he v. g. o carpinteiro do carro. Daqual doutrina folgou / elle muito, e disse [que] na China nunca se tinha falado desta causa efficiente, / que he de diversa Substantia das cousas que produz. E assi lhe parecia que desta / maneira se podiam salvar congruentemente as cousas que dizíamos do nosso Deus. 6. O doutor L`y s¯ um y˘o natural de Honan, oqual he aqui Húpú châmx¯ u, e jontamente / T¯ uch˘ayuén, nos disse por vezes que depois da morte não havia nem premio nem castigo. / Se não que os homens se tornavam ao C¯ um ou inane d’onde vieram. E dizendolhe nos / que ha hum Deus Immortal, vivente, e todo poderoso no Ceo, oqual da a cada hum / o devido galardão do bem ou mal que faz: negou sempre a pees juntos, haver / este Deus, com o Paraiso e Inferno, como cousas [que] nunca se ouviram na Seita / dos Letrados. 7. O doutor Chím ti¯en fû da Provincia da Xensi Mandarim do L`ypú, preguntandolhe nos / se polla doutrina dos Letrados, havia darse algum premio ou castigo na outra / vida, segundo as virtudes ou vitios que se seguiam nesta? Primeiramente riose //166r// desta pregunta, como de cousa que lhe parecia excuzada; e depois resolveose a questão / dizendo, que as virtudes e vitios não se podia negar havelos nesta vida, mas que / na morte todos se acabam acabandose o homem noqual estavam. Quanto tocca ao / premio ou castigo, supposto [que] depois da morte não fica mais que a L`y ou Sub- / -stantia universal, he certo que não podem ter lugar. E assi não havia pera / que tomarse o homem cuidado da outra vida, se não da presente. 8. Encontreime a caso com hum Letrado de Kiamsi da cidade de Jaôche¯u [por] nome / Ce¯ u yâm tiên, oqual estava mui visto em todas as tres Seitas, e assi pro- / -fessava de fazer o officio de Kiàm hi˘o, aiuntando em toda parte muitos discipu- / -los. Vendoo, pois, tão erudito, lhe preguntei das duvidas mais principaes das nossas / Controversias, asquaes elle me respondeu mui facil e claramente na forma / seguinte. Primeiro preguntei, que cousa hera o Xámtý que põem os Letrados nas suas Kins ? Respon- / -deo que hora o Spirito ou Deus que elles adoram, contradistinto do Y˘ohoêm que adoram os Tausus, / e do Fu˘ que adoram os Bonzos. Secundo preguntei, se o Xámtý he huma mesma Substantia com o Ceo, ou he cousa diversa delle? / Respondeo que he huma mesma cousa

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

355

com o Ceo, conforme ao que referimos, do Chîm çiì / no 12 preludio numero 4. Item que he o mesmo com a L`y , com o Táiki˘e, com o Yuên / Kí, com o Ti¯enxîm, com o Ti¯enmím, com o Nângîn, Id est, marido da ter- / -ra. Tanto que todos estes appellidos e outros semelhantes, não são mais que varias / Formalidades da mesma Substantia e entidade. Terceiro preguntei, se o Xámtý, foi antes deste Ceo corporeo, ou jontamente com elle, ou depois / delle? Respondeo que não foi antes do Ceo, se não jontamente com elle pois ambos foram produ- / -zidos do Táiki˘e per emanationem da mesma Substantia etc. como se disse no 11 Pre- / -ludio n. 1. Quarto preguntei, se o Xámtý he cousa vivente e intelligente; de modo [que] possa sa- / -ber o bem e o mal que fazem os homens, pera os premiar ou castigar? Respondeo que não / he vivente e intelligente como nos: pois essentialmente he a L`y e o Kí mas opera co- / -mo se fora vivente e intelligente. Ao que allude aquillo do Xukim lib. 1 pag. 35 / que o Ceo não vee, nem ouve, nem ama, nem abhorece: mas todas estas cousas / faz [por] via do povo,363 com quem combina interiormente na mesma L`y . Quinto preguntei se o Xámtý he hum soo, ou são muitos: visto [que] na China se diz ha- / -ver os cinco Tys dos cinco montes famosos, e mais dão este appellido ao Y˘o hoâm dos / Tausus, e outros? Respondeo que o Xámtý, primeiramente he hum soo, e este he o Spirito do Ceo. / Os cinco Tys são Spiritos dos cinco montes, como são tambem os Tû tys que chamam / das Provincias e das Cidades; os quaes todos são mui inferiores ao Xámtý, conforme / a proporção em que os ditos montes e mais lugares são inferiores ao Ceo. Quanto / a darse as vezes o appellido de Xámtý ao Y˘o hoâm, ao Laoçiì, e semelhantes, / tudo he pera os honrar. Dizendo ou fingindo que [por] suas virtudes se aqui equiparam ao / Xámtý; sendo que na verdade foram os homens que sabemos. Sesto preguntei como se entende aquelle passo do Yekim lib. 4 pag. 2: Ty ch˘o yû chín etc. se he que / ha hum como Rey que sahe daquellas partes do Ceo; ou se denotam as operações do Ar e / as influentias celestes? Respondeo que aquelle Tý he o Ar, que vai causando as gerações das / cousas, ate acabalas como se collige claramente das mudanças que faz o dito Ar pellas oito / partes do Horizonte. Este he o sentido litteral e

363 || “povvo” (BnF, f. 99r).

356

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

physico do Yekim, posto de baixo //166v// da metaphora e semelhança de hum Rey. Sete preguntei, se o Xámtý não he cousa vivente, se não o Ar ou virtude do Ceo: co- / -mo se diz em alguns lugares das Kins, que tratava com os Reys, os quaes diziam [que] tinham / ordem delle pera fazerem algumas coisas? / Respondeo que nunca ouve tal trato do Xámtý / com aquelles Reys, na forma que são364 as palavras; mas tudo hera metaphorica e figu- / -radamente. Por quanto os ditos Reys combinavam interiormente com a L`y do Ceo: e / assi faziam tudo como se lhes fora mandado do Ceo. Oitavo prenguntei, se o sacrifício que el Rey faz cada anno ao Ceo, o faz tambem / ao Xámtý? Respondeo que o Ceo com o Xámtý não são duas cousas realmente diver- / -sas,365 se não huma mesma Substantia debaixo de duas formalidades, como se disse na secunda / pregunta. Por onde quando se sacrifica ao Ceo, se sacrifica jontantamente ao Xámtý. / E o mesmo he dos sacrifícios que se fazem aos montes, aos rios etc. os quaes se offerecem / igualmente aos Spiritos daquellas cousas. Nono prenguntei, porque causa o Confutio estando doente não quiz, que o Çulu seu / discípulo rogasse ao Ceo por elle? Respondeu, que porque tinha pera si, que elle hera huma / mesma cousa com o Ceo, e com o seu Spirito; e maes, que nunca fezera cousa contra a / rezão: por onde não havia, porque rogar. [Decim]o preguntei, se os Sabios do Jukiao não cream que haja verdadeiros Spiritos, / porque causa os introduziram na Republica? Respondeo que [por] entenderem que com / essa imagem da Religião se poderia ter mão no povo, que se não desanda. / Ate aqui o que tirei do Ce¯ u yâm tiên. Alem dos Mandarins sobre nomeados, achei outros muitos que disseram o mesmo sobre estes cou- / -sas, ou pouco mais ou menos. Como[:] / O doutor Û hêm ço de Hoêi che¯ u, que he aqui Mandarim do Tái châm síi. / O doutor Hoâm cý yûn natural de Honan, Mandarim do Tái p˘o síi. / O doutor Mâo jû ç¯ o Chekianista, que sobio ultimamente a Tutaõ de Nankim. / O doutor Chîn xáo fúm Fokianista, mandarim do Hîmpú. / O doutor Hô f¯ı ngô tambem Fukianista, que agora sobio a Xilam do C¯ umpú. / O doutor Liêu ki¯ am yû Kiamsinista, mandarim do

364 || “não” (BnF, f. 99v). 365 || “distintas ou diversas” (BnF, f. 99v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

357

Xám pâo s¯ıi. / O doutor Çâo ch¯ın yû da provincia de Xansi, mandarim do T¯ u ch˘a yúem. / O doutor Fûm ç¯ am ch˘o do Paechelý, mandarim do T¯ um chím. / E outros igualmente doutos e affamados nesta Corte, os quaes deixo por brevidade. Nem / tam pouco faço menção da grande multidão de Letrados e mandarins, com os quaes tratei / nas outras partes da China, em tantos annos [que] estive nella porque vejo que todos vão dar / ou mesmo, com summa uniformidade e consonancia. § 2. Do parecer dos Letrados [Crist]ãos.

Não somente os Letrados Gentios, mas ainda os[Crist]ãos (quando são preguntados categorice) / confirmam a opinião das cousas sobreditas: como se vera por alguns que aqui tam- / -bem porei dos mais principaes delles. E primeiramente porei o parecer do doutor Miguel, a quem fiz sair ao terreiro pera me dizer / quanto tinha no seu coração, sem elle o advertir, com este stratagemma. Deilhe conta de / como os nossos Padres no Leste e na Conchichina estudavam os livros sinicos, na forma que / fazem nos ca na China. E como lhes occorressem algumas duvidas, que não podiam ali tirar //167r// a limpo por via dos naturaes daquellas terras, nos pediram (como foi na verdade) / que lhes mandassemos de ca a resolução dellas, preguntando aos Letrados bem / entendidos do Jukiao. Por tanto rogava a sua merce, me fizesse charidade de / dar esta resolução como Letrado e Mandarim que hera de tanto nome. Mas advertisse que desejavam os ditos Padres de saber a doutrina pura e corrente do / Jukiao, sem mixtura das interpretações que nos lhe davamos como [Crist]ãos. / Ouvindo elle isto, ficou mui alborotado, e me disse [que] lhe propusesse as / duvidas, que logo me daria as respostas segundo a propria e genuina opinião366 / dos Letrados. Preguntei pois primeiro quaes heram os livros classicos e authenticos do Jukiao? / Respondeo que heram as cinco Kins e o Suxu com os seus Comentos. Alem destes / ha a sua summa philosophica do Siml`y que declara a Substantia das Kins, / e a chronica do T¯ um Kién que poem os tempos e successão das cousas Sinicas. / Afora estes não ha outro livro que se possa allegar e seguir nas classes dos / Letrados. Advertia porem que nestes livros do Jukiao muitas vezes se / fala de huma maneira e deve entenderse de outra. Com que pretendia declarar que / usando de

366 || “genuina interpretação ou opinião” (BnF, f. 99v).

358

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

figuras, enigmas, e metaphoras, as quaes não podem entender todos, / se não os Sabios e versados nos mysterios da sua Seita. Preguntei secundo se os Interpretes das ditas Kins, e maxime os Letrados do Reynado / Sum tinham grande autoridade hoje na China, ou havia conceito que andassem errados? Respondeo que tinham grande autoridade: pois elles tem dado os textos commendados das doutrinas / antigas, e mais lhe tem feitos os Commentos sem os quaes ouveram de andar todos as se- / -gas. E assi com rezão nos exames que se fazem dos Letrados, se ordena que não se admitam / as composições que não contra a comum exposição dos Interpretes. E posto que os ditos Inter- / -pretes variam as vezes huns dos outros, e mais ha errarem em algumas cousas pequenas: toda / via nas cousas essentiaes do Jukiao são mui uniformes, e acertam com a mente dos anti- / -gos. Advirtiu tambem o doutor neste passo, que os Letrados da China trataram por / exellentia das cousas que se veem, como são as cinco ordens dos homens, as cinco virtu- / -des universaes, o governo da Republica etc. Mas das cousas que se não veem, como / dos Anjos, da Alma rational, do estado depois da morte, e d’outras cousas semelhantes, / fallaram mui incerta e erradamente de modo [que] não ha que estribar nellas. O que tudo / deve notarse com letras maiusculas pera a boa decisão das nossas Controversias. Preguntei terceiro se os Chinas não sabem dar rezão das cousas invisíveis, pois quando fazem / os sacrifícios a quem os fazem? A esta pregunta começou elle a menear a cabeça e a sonr- / -irse, dizendo que os Chinas offerecem os sacrifícios propriamente a esse Ceo universal, e assi mes- / -mo a terra, aos montes, e as mais partes do Universo que todos veem; agradecendo-lhes os benefícios / e proveitos [que] delles recebem. Quanto tocca aos / Spiritos não sabem de certo [que] os haja, mas con- / -geiuturando [que] [por] ventura os pode haver, os reverenciam e honram jontamente com as ditas par- / -tes do Universo tanto [que] [por] derradeiro são huma mesma Substantia e entidade com ellas. Preguntei quarto se depois da morte cuidam os Letrados haver premio pera os bons, e casti- / -go pera os mãos? Respondeo que não falam destas cousas. E aqui se poz a suspirar e queixar / dos professores do Jukiao, que foram tão curtas, não ensinando as cousas da outra vida; / e assi o povo não tem367 com que se possa expertar pera de veras se dar a virtude. //167v// Com que tambem se poz a louvar os professorer do Foekiao

367 BnF adds: “cousa” (f. 100r).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

359

os quaes se ouveram nesta / parte muito melhor pois introduziram a gloria do Paraiso com as penas do Infer- / -no e assi abalam e atrahem os corações de todos os Chinas, como se vee no culto / e veneração que ha dos Pagodes em todo o Reyno. Preguntei quinto sobre a Immortalidade da Alma, como se entendia aquelle / lugar do Xikim lib. 6 pag. 1 que o Vên vâm depois da morte estava a ilharga / do Xámtý? Respondeo que conforme a exposição de todos os Interpretes não havia ali / mais outro mysterio, se não que depois de morrer o Vên vâm, as suas partes terrestres se / tinham tornado pera a terra, e as partes aerias e celestes tinham sobido pera o Ceo, / aiuntandose com elle e com o Xámtý, que he a Substantia do mesmo Ceo em quanto / opera e governa estas cousas inferiores. E assi com este encomio não pretende o Poe- / -ta mais que louvar e engrandecer o Vên vâm, fingindo que o corpo celeste seja / como hum Rey, e elle esteja a sua ilharga como vassalo fiel e bem quisto. Com estas respostas declarou o doutor muito bem, que pella doutrina dos Letrados não havia Deus ou / Anjos, se não [por] huma congeitura mui obscura: aqual ficava tambem cada vez mais tenue / e fraca pello conceito que tem os Chinas, de que os Spiritos são huma mesma cousa com os / lugares em que residem. Da Alma tambem disse que como não se sabia que cousa / ella fosse, assi muito menos se sabia se persevera no seu ser depois da morte. Tudo / isto tirei delle estando em Hancheu, quando lhe pedi que me respondesse como Letrado / Sinense, abstraindo do que sabia como Ch[rist]ão. Aiuntandonos depois neste Pekim, nos mostrou diversos Tratados que tinha feito das nossas / cousas e maxime huma declaração dos dez mandamentos da Ley de Deus. Onde ainda / que trate as cousas que tem ouvido dos nossos Padres, todavia sae a cada passo com muitas / cousas de sua doutrina [sinica] com que se confirma cada vez mais, qual seja a ver- / -dadeira opinião dos Letrados. Destas cousas referirei aqui algumas pera exemplo. / Primeiro na sua Introdução dos dez mandamentos diz que todas as cousas são huma / mesma Substantia que he a L`y , não differindo as humas das outras mais [que] na figura exterior, e nas / qualidades accidentarias. Daqual proposição se seguem necessariamente todos os inconvenientes / e absurdos, que os nossos Europeos deduzem daquelle Axioma, Omnia sunt unum ate / dar ultimamente no Atheismo. Secundo, na mesma introdução diz que os antigos sabios da China foram Spiritos ou Anjos encar- / -nados [por] continuação huns a pos

360

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

outros. O que conforme ao conceito dos Chinas vai desta maneira / que aquella L`y ou Substantia universalissima considerandose em quanto faz suas operações por huma / parte maravilhosas e por outra proveitosas aos homens, a chamam Spirito. E porque as suas / operações se observam no Ceo, na terra, nos montes, nas aguas, e nas mais partes do Univer/ -so, e ainda nos homens: per isso se poem diversos Spiritos nas ditas cousas, os quaes Spiritos pera / os sabios vem a ser hum soo, como he huma soo a Substantia368 etc. A isto mesmo alludio / o Y˘e Colao no proemio que fez sobre o livro dos ditos mandamentos quando disse que o Xámtý / (ou como nos chamamos Ti¯enchù) se tinha encarnado em nossa terra, e o prova ou / aprova nesta forma. O Xámtý antigamente se encarnou muitas vezes neste orien- / -te, apparecendo nas pessoas do Yâo, do Xún, do Confutio, e de outros muitos assi Reys / como Vassalos; pois nam [sic]369 podia tambem encarnarse la no occidente, como dizem / os Padres que fez ja na pessoa de Jesu Christo. D’onde se infere pera os Chinas que tão / grande deve de ser Christo nosso Senhor em Europa, quanto he o Confutio ou outro semelhante / sabio aqui na China. E esta foi a causa porque o doutor Miguel não quis que eu / replicasse ao doutor Ciên, como disse acima no num[er]o 3370 porque tambem elle fica ainda // 168r// com esta idea sinica, ou per melhor dizer, com esta chymera babylonia. / Terceiro diz tambem no dito lugar que a doutrina do Confutio, he de todo perfeita, e huma mesma cousa com a Teologia e Ley divina que temos no grande occidente. O que se / deduz conseguintemente dos dous pontos precedente. [Por]que todos os Sabios são Spiritos / encarnados, e todos os Sp[irit]os são huma mesma Substantia e assi tambem tem hum / mesmo saber, hum mesmo poder etc. Quarto. Na explicação do primeiro mandamento diz que deve fazerse reverentia ao Ceo e a / terra. E na declaração do terceiro que se podem offerecer sacrifícios aos nossos Santos / como se offerecem na China ao Ceo, a terra, aos mestres ja defuntos etc. O que tudo se funda na opinião dos Letrados, que todas as cousas são a mesma Substantia, / ou partes della como se tem dito acima em muitos lugares.

368 BnF adds: “universalíssima” (f. 100v). 369 BnF omits: “nam” (f. 100v). 370 || “no § 2 n. 4” (BnF, f. 100v).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

361

Quinto por quanto esta opinião de serem todas as cousas huma mesma Substan- / -tia, he comun aos professores de todas as tres Seitas: procura elle371 nestes tratados / de dizer bem de todas, mostrando como todas tem o mesmo fim e intento de por / hum primeiro principio do Universo; e que per isto combinam com a nossa Santa ley, vindo a ser huma mesma cousa com ella no essential. E se algun oppuzer os / muitos erros [que] ha nas Seitas, mui contrarios a nossa Santa Ley, responde elle que estes / erros não os havia no principio quando as Seitas floreciam na sua doutrina pura e / verdadeira; se não que vieram depois [por] via dos Comentos que lhe fizeram os [seus] 372 / [discipulos],373 não [alcançando a] 374 mente dos Autores antigos. Por onde nos deu muitas vezes / pera conselho, que na declaração [das] 375 cousas uzassemos de hum modo Hu˘o túm ti˘e, / Id est, ambidextro ou anfibologico, que possa facilmente accommodarse a am- / -bas as partes da Controversia. [Porque desta] 376 man[ei]ra poderemos dar gosto a todos, / e assi os ganharemos todos. Esta he a traça e conselho que nos deu o doutor / Miguel, pera a pregação do sagrado Evangelo na China. Vejam agora os pruden- / -tes que conseguentias podem e devem d’aqui deduzirse. / Da maneira que preguntei ao doutor Miguel, preguntei tambem ao nosso Mestre Athanasio / Kiansinista, visto que tinha feito tanto estudo na doutrina dos Letrados, lendo uitas livre- / -rias das mais insinhes da China. Ao que elle me respondeo com algumas proposições breves / e compendiosas, nas quaes se representa huma como imagem do Jukiao. E porque esta repo- / -sta me deu [por] escrito, quero referila pellas suas mesma palavras, que são as seguintes[:] 1. Tratam dos homens e não do Ceo: ou das cousas / Humanas e não das celestes.377 2. Tratam da vida e não da morte. 3. Tratam deste presente seculo, e não do vindouro. 4. Tratam das cousas corporeas, e não das incorporeas / ou spirituaes.

371 BnF adds: “El Doutor Miguel” (f. 100v, marginal note). 372 BnF, f. 100v. 373 BnF, f. 100v. 374 BnF, f. 100v. 375 BnF, f. 100v. 376 BnF, f. 100v. 377 || “ou do humano, não do divino” (BnF, f. 101r).

362

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

5. Tratam do fundamento o qual he hum soo, e não das / suas especies que são / muitas.378 Id est, dizem que d’aquelle / deve fazerse todo caso, e não destas.379 6. Dizem que sehão de fazer as cousas sem algum intento, / e que não ha darse premio nem castigo. 7. Dizem [que] o Ceo com os homens são huma mesma L`y ou Sub- / -stantia universal. E que o esgotar a si mesmo, he servir ao Ceo.380 8. Dizem que a summa bondade ou p[er]feição, he o summo da Natureça / e que sobre a Natureça não ha que / crecentar. [9. Dizem, que o Táo, a regra natural do Ceo he a entidade da summa bondade: a qual não tem voz nem sentido, Id est, he imperceptivel. 10. Dizem, que a natureza summamente boa he sem principio e sem fim e que soo tem dentro do corpo e coração de homem. 11. Dizem, que cumprindo o homem com sua total obrigação; a vida sera prospera e a morte descansada. 12. Quanto as proposições sobreditas, dos dez partes dos Letrados Sinenses, as nova dizem e sentem isso. Por esta rezão as cousas da nossa Theologia, ou doutrina revelada não podera facilmente entenderse. Tudo isso he do nosso Athanasio fallando do que dizem os Letrados de agora: os quaes (diz elle) he mister impugnarmos fortemente; porque de outra maneira o Jukiao, se não for illustrado com outras interpretações, hira a dar direito ao Atheismo. Por esta causa se puz a fazer hum grande discurso sobre o Xámtý; com que pretende provar contra todos os Letrados, que seja. (aqui parese faltar a palavra: Deus: d’outro modo o sentido desta ultima clausula não he perfeito: e esta palavra: Deus: acrecendo da conforme ao que diz acima.) 14.381 O doutor Paulo, (a quem por estar longe fiz preguntar destas Controversias pello Irmão Pascual Mendes) respondeu mui chaa, e singellamente dizendo, que tinha para sy, que não podia o Xámtý ser Deus com os atributos, que nos lhe soemos attribuir: como de ser huma substantia increada, diversa de toda substantia creada e que não teve principio ne tera fim: que he creador de todas as cousas invisíveis e visíveis: e que as creou do nada: item, que he principio e fim de todas ellas; e que todas as governa com sua providencia; com os maes attributos divinos. Que não os Chinas concebiam ao Xámtý com aquelles attributos. E assi cuidava, que elles nunca pello 378 || “Tratam do fundamento sao hum soo ou genere, não da diferencia das species” (BnF, f. 101r). 379 BnF omits: “Id est, dizem que d’aquelle / deve fazerse todo caso, e não destas” (f. 101r). 380 || “Dizem que o Ceo e os homens são huma mesma li, ou natureza; que esgotarse o homem a sy mesmo, he servir ao Ceo” (BnF, f. 101r). 381 BnF adds: “Aliter apud Nav. p. 287 n. 15” (f. 101r, marginal note).

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION OF LONGOBARDO’S …

363

passado tiveram conhecimento de Deus, nem agora. Mas supposto que, Padres chamavam a Deus por Xámtý por justos respeitos, scilicet, per os Chinas letrados não reparassem; e por ser esse appellido decente; julgava, que hera bom, e necessario darlle outros aquelles attributos. Quanto a alma disse, que lhe parecia que os Chinas tiveram alguma noticia della, ainda que não tão claramente 382 : e que em particular se confirmava maes nisto, vendo os homems deste tempo fazerem tanto casu della, e fazerem tanto por ella; ainda que tudo erradamente. Athe aqui o Doutor Paulo; como me referiu finalmente o Irmão Mendez por huma sua, que me offereceu stando em Hancheu. 15. O Doutor Leam, e o licenciado Ignacio, e comummente os maes letrados Christãos confessam ingenuamente] 383 [que todos os letrados modernos 384 atiram ao Atheismo: e maes, que se fundam na commua [sic] exposição dos interpretes; como temos referido athe agora. Somente dizem que lhes parece a elles, que pera nos accommodarmos aos Chinas, devíamos seguir os textos das doutrinas antigas que foram favoraveis ao nosso intento; sem que ter que ver com a opinião dos modernos, nem ainda com a exposição dos interpretes. E nisso consiste todo o cardo destas controvérsias: no que he mister pedir instantemente a luz, a favor do Spiritu Santo, para poder ponderar e assentar o que convem. Da minha parte, como esta he cousa de tanto momento, proporei ainda algumas considerações que me occorrem.] 385

382 BnF adds: “reliquae usque ad n. 15 desunt apud Nav. p. 289” (f. 101r, marginal

note). 383 BnF, f. 101r. 384 BnF, f. 101v: “[apud] Nav. to. 1 p. 27 a. todos son atheos”. 385 BnF, f. 101v. BnF adds: “Athe aqui o Padre Nicolao Longobardo. O P[adre] F.

Antonio (que tresladou de sua mão), acrescenta de seu, o seguinte. El tratado original (cuyo traslado es lo supra escrito) estava, aunque mui legible, ya mui descozido, y medio scisso: y ansi le faleavan las ultimas fojas, era que se contenian las consideraciones, que supra el diçe; y ansi no pudieron tresladarse aqui” (f. 101v).

Bibliography

Acta Cantoniensia authentica in quibus praxis missionariorum Sinensium Societatis Jesu circa ritus Sinenses approbata est communi consensu Patrum Dominicanorum, & Jesuitarum, qui erant in China; atque illorum subscriptione firmata. Paris, 1700. App, Urs. The Cult of Emptiness: The Western Discovery of Buddhist Thought and the Invention of Oriental Philosophy. Kyoto: UniversityMedia, 2012. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Thomas Gornall. 60 vols. London: Blackfriars, 1964. Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Modern Library, 2001. Battaglini, Marina, “The Jesuit Manuscripts Concerning China, Preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale - Vittorio Emanuele II in Rome.” In Actes du cinquième colloque international de sinologie, Chantilly 1986, 35–75, edited by Edward Malatesta and Yves Raguin. Taipei: Ricci Institute, 1993. Bayle, Pierre. Dictionnaire historique et critique. Vol. 13. Paris: Desoer, 1820. Bernard-Maître, Henri. “Un dossier bibliographique de la fin du XVIIe siècle sur la question des termes Chinois.” Recherches de science religieuse 36 (1949): 26–79. Biermann, Benno. Die Anfänge der neueren Dominikanermission in China. Münster: Aschendorff, 1927. Bodemann, Eduard. Die Handschriften der Königlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover. Hannover: Hahn, 1867. Bolzani, Pierio Valerianio. Hieroglyphica sive de sacris aegyptiorum literis commentarii. Basel, 1556. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5

365

366

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brockey, Liam Matthew. Journey to the East: The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579– 1724. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. ———. The Visitor: André Palmeiro and the Jesuits in Asia. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014. Caballero, Antonio de Santa María. “Declaratio sub iuramento,” APF, SC Indie Orientali e Cina 1, 1623–1674, fol. 198r–218v. ———. Traité sur quelques points importans de la mission de la Chine. Translated by Louis Champion de Cicé. Paris: Louis Guérin, 1701. ———. “Traité sur quelques points importans de la mission de la Chine.” In Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, edited by Christian Kortholt, 2:268–412. Leipzig, 1735. ———. Zhengxue liushi 正學鏐石. In Dongchuan fuyin 東傳福音, edited by Zhou Xiefan 周燮藩, 3:1–45. 25 vols. Vol. 3. Hefei: Huangshan shushe, 2005. Cambout de Pontchâteau, Sébastien-Joseph. La morale pratique des Jésuites. Vol. 6. Nancy: Nicolai, 1735. Celenza, Christopher S. “Pythagoras in the Renaissance: The Case of Marsilio Ficino.” Renaissance Quarterly 52, no. 3 (1999): 667–711. Chan, Wing-tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Cicé, Louis de. Lettre de M. Louis de Cicé, nommé par le S. Siège à l’évêché de Sabula, et au vicariat apostolique de Siam, du Japon, &c. aux RR. PP. Jésuites sur les idolâtries & sur les superstitions de la Chine. Cologne: Chez les Héritiers de Corneille d’Egmond, 1700. Collani, Claudia von. “Charles Maigrot’s Role in the Chinese Rites Controversy.” In The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning, edited by David Mungello and Edward Malatesta, 149–183. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1994. ———. “Did Jesus Christ Really Come to China?” In Religions and Missionaries Around the Pacific, 1500–1900, edited by Tanya Storch. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. ———. “The opposing views of Niccolò Longobardo and Joachim Bouvet on Chinese Religions.” In Leibniz and the European Encounter with China. 300 Years of Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, edited by Li Wenchao 李文潮, 69–103. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017. Commentarii collegii conimbricensis Societatis Iesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis stagiritae. Coimbra: Typis et expensis Antonii à Mariz Universitatis Typographi, 1592. Cooper, Michael, ed. João Rodrigues’s Account of Sixteenth-Century Japan. London: Hakluyt Society, 2001. ———. “Rodrigues in China. The Letters of João Rodrigues, 1611–1633.” In Kokugoshi e no michi: Doi Sensei sh¯ oju kinen ronbunsh¯ u 国語史への道: 土井先 o, 1981. 生頌寿記念論文集, edited by Tadao Doi, 352–224. Tokyo: Sanseid¯

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

———. Rodrigues the Interpreter: An Early Jesuit in Japan and China. New York: Weatherhill, 1974. Corradini, Piero. “La figura e l’opera di Nicolò Longobardo.” In Scienziati siciliani gesuiti in Cina nel secolo XVII , edited by Alcide Luini, 73–81. Rome: Istituto italo-cinese per gli scambi economici e culturali, 1985. Corsi, Elisabetta. “LONGOBARDO, Niccolò.” In Dizionario biografico degli italiani, edited by Mario Caravale, 65:716–20. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2005. Cummins, J. S. A Question of Rites: Friar Domingo Navarrete and the Jesuits in China. Aldershot, England: Scolar Press, 1993. De Fiores, Stefano, and Camillo Costanzo. Il beato Camillo Costanzo: con diciassette lettere inedite dal Giappone e dalla Cina. Vibo Valentia: Qualecultura, 2000. Dehergne, Joseph. Répertoire des Jésuites de Chine de 1552 à 1800. Rome: Institutum Historicum S.I., 1973. D’Elia, Pasquale M. Fonti Ricciane: documenti originali concernenti Matteo Ricci e la storia delle prime relazioni tra l’Europa e la Cina (1579–1615). 3 vols. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1942–1949. Dunne, George H. Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962. Dutens, Louis, ed. Gothofridi Guillelmi Leibnitii opera omnia. 6 vols. Geneva: Fratres de Tournes, 1768. Fu Dashi 傅大士. Guzunsu yulu 古尊宿語錄 [Recorded sayings of the ancient worthies, Song dynasty]. CBETA 68, no.1315. Gimm, Martin. Der Fall Prinz Rong im Prozeß gegen den Jesuitenpater Adam Schall in den Jahren 1664/65 in China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Diamond that Cuts through Illusion. Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1992. Ivanhoe, Philip J. “Whose Confucius? Which Analects?” In Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, 119–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kircher, Athanasius. China monumentis, qua sacris qua profanis, nec non variis naturae et artis spectaculis, aliarumque rerum memorabilium argumentis illustrata. Amsterdam: apud Jacobum a Meurs, 1667. La Croze, Maturin Vessière de. “Excerpta ex epistola Maturini Veyssiere La Croze ad Sebastianum Kortholtum scripta die XXII. IVLII MDCCXXI.” In Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, edited by Christian Kortholt, 2:502–504. Leipzig, 1735. Legge, James. Chinese Classics. Vol. 3.1. London: Trübner, 1865. ———. Chinese Classics. Vol. 4.2. London: Frowde, 1893.

368

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois. Edited by Li Wenchao 李文潮 and Hans Poser. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002. ———. “Lettre de Mr. De Leibniz sur la philosophie chinoise à Mons. De Remond.” In Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, edited by Christian Kortholt, 2:413–494. Leipzig, 1735. Li Tiangang 李天纲綱. “Long Huamin dui Zhongguo zongjiao benzhi de lunshu ji yingxiang 龍華民對中國宗教本質的論述及其影響.” Xueshu yuekan 學術月 刊 49, no. 5 (2017): 165–184. Li Tiangang 李天綱, ed. Mingmo Tianzhujiao sanzhushi wenjianzhu 明末天主 教三柱石文箋注 [Catholic Documents of Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao and Yang Tingyun]. Hong Kong: Logos and Pneuma Press, 2007. Li Wenchao 李文潮. “Long Huamin jiqi ‘Lun zhongguo zongjiao de jige wenti’ 龍華民及其 《論中國宗教的幾個問題》 .” Guoji hanxue 國際漢學 25 (2006). Longobardo, Niccolò. “A Short Answer Concerning the Controversies about Xang Ti, Tien Xin, and Ling Hoen (That Is, the King of the Upper Region, Spirits, and Rational Soul Assign’d by the Chineses) and Other Chinese Names and Terms; to Clear Which of Them May Be Us’d by the Christians of These Parts.” In A Collection of Voyages and Travels, edited by Awnsham Churchill and John Churchill, 1:183–224. London: H.C. at the Black-Swan in Pater-noster-Row, 1704. ———. “Exemplum epistolae a P. Nicolao Longobardo, anno 1598, ex China conscriptae ad Reverendum P. Claudium Aquavivam Societatis Iesu Generalem.” In Recentissima de amplissimo regno Chinae, 1–8. Mainz: Typis Ioannis Albini, 1601. ———. Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois. Translated by Louis Champion de Cicé. Paris: Louis Guérin, 1701. ———. “Traité sur quelques points de la religion des chinois.” In Viri illustris Godefredi G. Leibnitii epistolae ad diversos, edited by Christian Kortholt, 2:165–266. Leipzig, 1735. Makeham, John. Transmitters and Creators, Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the Analects. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2003. Malatesta, Edward, and Zhiyu Gao, eds. Departed, yet Present: Zhalan, the Oldest Christian Cemetery in Beijing. Macau & San Francisco: Instituto Cultural de Macau & Ricci Institute, 1995. Malone-Lee, Michael. “Cardinal Bessarion and the Introduction of Plato to the Latin West.” In Making and Rethinking the Renaissance: Between Greek and Latin in 15th–16th Century Europe, edited by Giancarlo Abbamonte and Stephen Harrison, 109–124. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Margiotti, Fortunatus, ed. Sinica franciscana. Vol. 9.2. Matriti: Tecnovic, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

Mensaert, Georgius, ed. Sinica franciscana. Vol. 7.1. Rome: Pax et Bonum, 1965. Merkel, Franz Rudolf. G. W. von Leibniz und die China-Mission. Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der protestantischen Missionsbewegung. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920. Metzler, Josef. Die Synoden in China, Japan und Korea, 1570–1931. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980. Meynard, Thierry. “Aristotelian Works in Seventeenth-Century China.” Monumenta Serica 65, no. 1 (2017): 61–85. ———. “Chinese Buddhism and the Threat of Atheism in Seventeenth-Century Europe.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011): 3–23. ———. “Leibniz as proponent of Neo-Confucianism in Europe.” In Leibniz and the European Encounter with China: 300 years of Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, edited by Li Wenchao 李文潮, 179–95. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017. ———. The Jesuit Reading of Confucius: The First Complete Translation of the Lunyu (1687) Published in the West. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Monumenta sinica cum disquisitionibus criticis pro vera apologia Jesuitarum contra falsam apologiam dominicanorum et pro recto totius causae sinensis iudicio, 1700. Mungello, David, and Edward Malatesta. The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1994. Navarrete, Domingo. Controversias antiguas y modernas de la mission de la gran China. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1679. ———. Tratados históricos, políticos, éticos y religiosos de la monarchia de China. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1676. Oort, Johannes van. “Augustine and Hermes Trismegistus: An Inquiry into the Spirituality of Augustine’s ‘Hidden Years.’” Journal of Early Christian History 6, no. 2 (2016): 55–76. Pan Feng-chuan 潘鳳娟, “Long Huamin Lun Zhongguo zongjiao de jidian wenti fanyi chutan 龍華民 《論中國宗教的幾點問題》 翻譯初探” [A Preliminary Investigation to Niccolò Longobardo’s Account on China]. Zhexue yu wenhua 哲學與文化 [Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture] 522 (November 2017): 29–43. Pfister, Louis. Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les Jésuites de l’ancienne mission de Chine, 1552–1773. 2 vols. Chang-hai: Imprimerie de la mission catholique Orphelinat de T’ou-Se-We, 1932. Pina, Isabel. “João Rodrigues Tçuzu and the Controversy over Christian Terminology in China: The Perspective of a Jesuit from the Japanese Mission.” Bulletin of Portuguese/Japanese Studies 6 (2003): 47–71. Pinot, Virgile. La Chine et la formation de l’esprit philosophique en France, 1640– 1740. Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1971.

370

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ricci, Matteo. The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. Edited by Thierry Meynard. Translated by Douglas Lancashire and Hu Guozhen. Chestnut Hill, MA: Institute of Jesuit Sources, Boston College, 2016. Rodrigues, João. Arte da lingoa de Iapam. Nagasaki: Collegio de Iapâo da Companhia de Iesu, 1604. Rosso, Antonio Sisto. Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century. South Pasadena: P.D. and Ione Perkins, 1948. Ruiz-de-Medina, Juan, ed. Documentos del Japon: 1547 –1557 . Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1990. Rule, Paul. K’ung-Tzu or Confucius?: The Jesuit Interpretation of Confucius. Sydney & Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986. Rummel, Erika, ed. Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Sarpetri, Domingo. De Sinensium Ritibus politicis Acta seu appendix ad scripta R.P. Sarpetri, … De Deo uno, vivo ac vero a veteribus Sinis per duo annorum millia cognito adversus scripta P. Longobardi S.J . Paris, 1700. Scheid, Bernhard and Mark Teeuwen, The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion. Abingdon: Routledge, 2006. Schurhammer, Georg. Das kirchliche Sprachproblem in der japanischen Jesuitenmission des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Naturund Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1928. ———. Die Disputationen des P. Cosme de Torres S.J. mit den Buddhisten in Yamaguchi im Jahre 1551. Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1929. Schütte, Josef F., ed. Monumenta historica Japoniae: textus catalogorum Japoniae aliaeque de personis domibusque S.J. in Japonia informationes et relationes 1549–1654. Vol. 1. Rome: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1975. ———. Valignano’s Mission Principles for Japan. Translated by John J. Coyne. 2 vols. St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1980–1985. ———. Valignanos Missionsgrundsätze für Japan. 2 vols. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1951–1958. Standaert, Nicolas, ed. Handbook of Christianity in China. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Standaert, Nicolas. Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in Late Ming China. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Nicolas Standaert, “Early Sino-European contacts and the birth of the modern concept of ‘religion’.” In Rooted in Hope: China – Religion—Christianity: Festschrift in Honor of Roman Malek S.V.D. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Barbara Hoster & Dirk Kuhlmann, 3–27. Oxford: Routledge, 2017.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

371

Streit, Robert. Bibliotheca missionum. Vol. 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1929. Treffer, Gerd, Beatrix Schönewald, and Ansgar Reiß, eds. Jesuitenmission in China: der Jesuitenfriedhof in Peking: Katalog zur Ausstellung 2016 im Bayerischen Armeemuseum, Neues Schloß Ingolstadt, 12. Juli bis 20. November 2016. Ingolstadt: Stadt Ingolstadt, 2016. Trigault, Nicolas, and Matteo Ricci. De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Iesu. Ausburg: Apud Christophorum Mangium, 1615. Valignano, Alessandro. Catechismus Christianae fidei, in quo veritas nostrae religionis ostenditur et sectae Iaponenses confutantur. Lisbon: Antonius Riberius, 1586. Vasoli, Cesare. “La critica di Francesco Patrizi ai ‘Principia’ aristotelici.” Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 51, no. 4 (1996): 713–787. Väth, Alfons. Johann Adam Schall von Bell S.J. Missionar in China, kaiserlicher Astronom und Ratgeber am Hofe von Peking 1592–1666. Nettetal: Steyler, 1991. Wang, Robin R. “Decoding the Philosophical DNA of the Yinyang Symbol.” In Symbols, Cultures and Identities in a Time of Global Interchange, edited by Paata Chkheidze, Hoang Thi Tho, and Yaroslav Pasko, 287–312. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2015. Wyngaert, Anastasius van den, ed. Sinica franciscana. Vol. 2. Quarrachi-Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1933. Wyngaert, Anastasius van den, ed. Sinica franciscana. Vol. 3. Quarrachi-Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1936. Zhang Dexin 張德信. Mingdai zhiguan nianbiao 明代職官年表. 4 vols. Hefei: Huangshan Shushe, 2009. Zhang Tingyu 張廷玉. Mingshi 明史. 332 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1974. Zheng Cheng 鄭誠, ed. Li Zhizao ji 李之澡集 [Collected writings of Li Zhizao]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2018.

Index

A Aristotle, 6, 48, 49, 51, 53–56, 68, 76, 77, 109, 111, 123, 132–134, 138 Augustine, 46, 47, 49–51, 113–116, 128, 155, 156, 163

B Buddhism, 3, 4, 7, 12, 50, 51, 62, 95, 105, 109, 112, 116, 182, 189, 192

C Caballero, Antonio de Santa María, 2, 10, 16–20, 22–26, 28, 70–72, 74, 84–88, 91, 92, 99, 100, 105, 109, 110, 124–127, 129, 131, 135, 144, 148, 149, 153, 159–161, 163, 167, 169, 177, 179, 185, 187, 188, 190, 196, 197, 286

Carvalho, Valentim, 5, 10, 95, 96, 289, 290 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 55, 116, 135 Civil theology, 7, 51, 148 Confucianism, 7, 45–47, 53, 55, 57, 61–63, 66, 69, 82, 95, 102, 103, 113, 173, 176, 177, 181, 193 Confucius, 13, 17, 26, 47, 52–54, 62, 63, 79, 82, 92, 99, 100, 102, 109, 110, 117–120, 129, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146, 147, 152, 153, 160, 175, 179, 180, 185–188, 190, 191, 197, 198, 276, 279

D De Pantoja, Diego, 5, 11, 38, 96, 97 De Ursis, Sabatino, 5, 10–12, 38, 94, 97, 108

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 T. Meynard and D. Canaris (eds.), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0451-5

373

374

INDEX

E Esotericism, 3, 4, 7, 50, 52, 112, 117, 148 Exotericism, 3, 7, 50, 52, 112, 117, 148

F Four books, or Sishu, 47, 65, 66, 92, 102, 117, 154, 187 Furtado, Francisco, 9, 15, 16, 24 Fuxi, 8, 47, 49, 67, 73, 76, 103, 119, 120, 128, 308

J Jesuit China mission, 2, 24, 187 Jiading conference, 12, 14 Jiayu, 52, 118

L Laozi, 55, 130, 135, 184 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, viii, 3, 22, 25, 26, 61, 89, 90 Linghun, 1, 4, 11, 14, 27, 80, 96, 100, 104, 105, 108, 139, 195 Li Zhizao (Leo), 7, 10, 14, 15, 94, 196 Longobardo, Niccolò, viii, 1–4, 8–16, 18–20, 22–36, 39, 40, 42, 45–59, 61–85, 89, 91–95, 97, 98, 100–105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 114, 117–120, 122–124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 135, 136, 141–154, 156, 158–161, 163–169, 171–173, 175–177, 181, 182, 185, 187–198, 241, 253, 285, 286 Lunyu, 52, 53, 62, 66, 117, 118, 141, 153, 168, 180, 185, 306

M Missions Étrangères de Paris (MEP), 2, 20, 23–25, 87

N Navarrete, Domingo, 22, 23 Non-Christian literati, 10, 42, 63

P Plato, 49, 54, 55, 113 Plutarch, 50, 113, 114, 215 Pre-socratics, 49, 51–56, 59, 76, 133, 138 Prisca theologia, 46–49, 53, 59, 103 Pythagoras, 49, 67, 111–114, 119, 156, 216, 304, 336

Q Qu Taisu (Ignatius), 107

R Ricci, Matteo, vi, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 32, 36, 38, 45–47, 53–56, 58, 59, 62–64, 68, 70, 78–82, 92–97, 103, 105–107, 109, 114, 135, 148, 160, 168, 171–176, 178, 184, 194, 195 Rites Controversy, 2, 18, 23, 25, 83, 93, 109, 110, 188 Rodrigues, Jerónimo, 12, 16, 92, 98 Rodrigues, João, 2, 4–7, 12, 15, 63, 67, 94, 95, 97, 103

S Shangdi, 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27, 39, 57, 58, 79, 82, 92–96, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 142–144, 149, 150, 152, 155,

INDEX

158, 162, 168, 169, 172–175, 177–181, 183, 184, 189, 190, 192, 194–196 Shao Yong, 49, 65–77, 79, 81, 112, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 129, 136, 141, 164 Shijing , 47, 78, 101, 102, 105, 110, 172, 189 Shujing , 47, 62, 65, 78, 101, 102, 142, 144, 171, 183

T Taiji, 23, 30, 35, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 75–77, 79–81, 100, 122–125, 128–130, 136, 138–140, 143, 144, 155, 157–164, 166–169, 175, 177, 180, 181, 183 Taoism, 68, 116, 122 Terms Controversy, 7, 8, 51, 92, 196 Tian, 4, 14, 15, 23, 62, 63, 73, 76, 126, 130, 168 Tianshen, 1, 4, 11, 14, 27, 96, 100, 108, 139, 183

V Vagnone, Alfonso, 5, 11–13, 96, 105, 108, 196 Varro, Marcus Terentius, 51, 114–116, 148, 216, 304, 305 Vieira, Francisco, 5, 11, 16, 96, 108, 176, 299

375

W Wen Wang, 67, 75, 76, 78, 81, 104, 105, 120, 121, 130, 172, 189 X Xingli daquan, 47, 49, 63, 65–67, 69, 76, 77, 79, 80, 89, 102, 103, 112, 117, 120, 129, 132, 137, 139, 142, 145, 149–154, 158, 159, 161, 166, 167, 169, 172, 187 Xu Guangqi (Paul), 7, 10, 15, 94, 106, 194, 195 Y Yang Tingyun (Michael), 7, 10, 30, 58, 94, 179, 180, 186, 189, 191, 192 Yijing , 47–49, 63, 67, 80, 101, 102, 111, 112, 119, 121, 128, 129, 149, 164, 184, 308 Z Zhang Zai, 65–68, 76, 80, 150, 151, 164 Zhongyong , 66, 78–80, 139, 142, 143, 147–150, 154, 166, 167 Zhu Xi, 52, 53, 65, 66, 70, 76–78, 80, 102, 117, 118, 121, 122, 137, 141, 149, 151–154, 158, 164, 167, 168, 185 Zoroaster, 8, 9, 47, 49, 56, 103, 135