Chen Mao’s 1717 Memorial to the Kangxi Emperor:
Perspectives on the Prohibition of Catholicism
in the Early-Qing Period
David P. Willard
Initial project submitted in fulfillment
of junior thesis requirement
Princeton University
Revised and extended version submitted while working as a
Saint Louis University Museum of Art
research intern, Summer 2006
1
Introduction
The ailing Kangxi Emperor was nearing the end of his days. As he awakened each
morning in late 1721, the proud Manchu ruler complained of weakness in his bones and
horrible intestinal pains, as he struggled with the delicate portions of food set before him.
His deteriorating memory made it difficult for him to manage the myriad affairs of state – a
striking contrast to the deft political and diplomatic skills he once possessed.
In March of 1718, the Kangxi Emperor had announced that he was considering a
proposal to proscribe Christianity. Three years later, on January 18, 1721, that intention
became a reality, and the Emperor officially prohibited further propagation of Christianity in
the Qing state.1 The Kangxi Emperor decreed:
The content of [Catholic doctrine] is identical with the heterodox teachings of the
Buddhist and Daoists. All these wild sayings are generally the same. Hereafter, to
avoid further problems, the westerners will be prohibited from practicing their
teachings in [our land].2
The Kangxi Emperor’s 1721 proscription of Christianity marked a turning point in
the development of Catholicism in China. Following the proscription, Catholic missionaries
throughout the Qing state were officially banished to Canton in 1724, and then subsequently
deported to the Portuguese enclave at Macao in 1732.3 During this period, Qing authorities
closed churches and converted many Catholic missions into temples and granaries. While
several small underground Catholic movements continued to exist in Qing territories, their
activities were severely limited and frequently faced severe persecution from local and
provincial authorities. It was not until the early 19th century, with the influx of European
1
Rosso, Antonio Sisto, O.F.M., Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century. South Pasadena:
Perkins, 1948, p. 364. While the Kangxi Emperor’s 1721 decree formally proscribed Christianity in China,
this policy was not effectively implemented until 1724 by his son and successor, Yin-ti, also known as the
Yongzheng Emperor.
2
Leung, Beatrice. Sino-Vatican Relations: Problems in Conflicting Authority, Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 29.
3
Standaert, Nicolas. Handbook of Christianity in China, Vol. I: 635-1800. Leiden: Brill, 2001, p. 521.
2
traders under the cover of “gunboat diplomacy,” that Catholic missionaries re-emerged as
vehicles of Christian propagation and conversion in China.4
The 1721 proscription was the culmination of an extended period of increasing
mutual apprehension between the papal authorities in Rome and the imperial court in
Beijing. While the Kangxi Emperor had initially demonstrated a conciliatory attitude towards
Catholic missionaries in Qing territories, he gradually became quite distrustful of them,
particularly in light of his personal encounters with the arrogant apostolic delegations that
visited his court and the Vatican’s corresponding attempts to dictate unilaterally the course
of missionary policy in the Qing state.5
Most scholarly literature on the Chinese Rites Controversy portrays the 1721
proscription as an event primarily (if not exclusively) instigated by (i) internal inner court
politics in Beijing; (ii) the acrid relationship between the Kangxi Emperor and the visiting
papal delegates; and (iii) the conflicting Beijing-Vatican claims of moral authority in
formulating missionary policy. However, there is an additional, albeit previously unexamined
series of events that directly impacted the development and implementation of the 1721
proscription. While issues of moral authority and cultural tensions between the Qing
imperial court and Rome were contributing factors that influenced the Kangxi Emperor’s
1721 decree, it is equally apparent that geopolitical and economic factors of the Qing state were
critical elements of consideration by the imperial court and the Kangxi Emperor. In
particular, prior to the 1721 proscription, the Kangxi Emperor had become increasingly
concerned with the rising geopolitical strength of the Europeans in the southern peripheral
Qing provinces. Before the Kangxi Emperor’s reign, the southern coastal region had
4
Ibid, 521-522.
The controversy over missionary policy in China was rooted primarily in the compatibility of ancestor
worship and Confucian doctrine with Catholic teachings. This controversy persisted throughout the lateMing and early-Qing period and is commonly referred to as the “Chinese Rites Controversy.”
5
3
developed into a critical center of trade and commerce; however, domestic economic
stagnation and protracted regional warfare threatened the vital southern regions.
Accordingly, to ensure the geopolitical and economic stability of the region, the Kangxi
Emperor ordered his provincial officials to monitor closely all activities of Catholic
missionaries and foreign merchants and to report directly to his imperial court in Beijing any
unusual events or threats.
In more fully examining the geopolitical and economic aspects of the Rites
Controversy and the 1721 proscription, one particular provincial official, Chen Mao, 陈昴,
(1651-1719), is found to have played an important role in bringing to the imperial court’s
attention the geopolitical threats of Catholic missions. Chen Mao served as a prominent
brigade-general of Guangdong province during the latter part of the Kangxi Emperor’s
reign. Most significantly, he was familiar with all maritime activities along the southern
coastal regions and had regular direct contact with Western traders and missionaries.
In January 1717, Chen Mao prepared a memorial to the Emperor imperial court that
detailed his concerns over the rising power of the Catholic missionaries and Western
traders.6 The most significant (and, to date, largely overlooked) aspect of his memorial was
his urgent request for an all-out prohibition of Catholic missionaries in the Qing provinces.
Chen Mao addressed the problem of Catholic missions not in the context of theological or
ideological conflicts, but rather in the larger context of the missionaries’ threatening
geopolitical power and relationship with European merchants. In addition, he expressed
specific concerns that these foreign merchants and missionaries were conspiring to exert
control over the entire region of the Qing’s southern provinces.
6
Wang, Zhongmin 王 重民, “Chen Mao Zhuan” 陈昴传, Tushujikan 图书季刊 xin 新, 7, 1-2 (January
1946); repr. In: Lenglu wensou 冷录文薮, Shanghai Guji, 1992, p. 212.
4
What makes Chen Mao’s memorial particularly significant is the role it played in
subsequent imperial deliberations regarding Catholic missions. Chen Mao’s memorial was
not approved initially by the Kangxi Emperor; however, Chen’s basic arguments against the
missionaries later were adopted by Yang Lin, Governor-General of Guangdong and
Guangxi, who re-submitted Chen Mao’s memorial to the imperial court in March 1718. The
Kangxi Emperor then agreed to what was characterized as Yang Lin’s proposal to proscribe
Christianity, a proposal that, in reality, was the original formulation of Chen Mao. An
imperial decree of proscription was formally declared in 1721 and implemented in 1724.
While Chen Mao’s original memorial was not the sole factor that led the Kangxi Emperor’s
decision to proscribe Christianity, Chen Mao’s initial analysis and thorough description of
the conditions and missionary activities in the southern regions had an influence on the
imperial deliberations and the Kangxi Emperor’s ultimate policy decision.
This paper examines the significance of Chen Mao and his memorial in the context
of the development and proscription of Christianity in the early Qing dynasty. First, I begin
with a brief examination of the development of the Catholic missions in the late-Ming and
early-Qing period. In this section, I focus on the promulgation of Catholicism in the lateMing and early-Qing eras, the development of the Chinese Rites Controversy, and the
corresponding tensions between Rome and Beijing. Second, I provide a critical summary of
the scholarship regarding the factors and motives that led to the 1721 proscription. Third, I
introduce Chen Mao and a complete English translation of his 1717 memorial, as well as a
textual analysis of the memorial. There are three specific aspects of his memorial upon which
I focus: (i) the geopolitical and economic context of the memorial, (ii) the fundamental
reasons for Chen Mao’s advocating proscription of Catholic missionaries, and (iii) the means
and rationale by which his arguments factored into the deliberations of the imperial court.
5
Finally, I explain how Chen Mao’s memorial relates to the larger context of the Chinese
Rites Controversy and ongoing scholarly debates regarding the early eighteenth-century
development of Catholicism in the Qing state.
Historical Context and Development of Catholicism in Late-Ming Early-Qing China
In the early 17th century, the Ming state experienced a steady increase in the number
of Catholic missionaries. In furtherance of Rome’s edict to expand the domains of
Christianity, Catholic missionaries sought to propagate Christian teachings throughout all
provinces in the Ming empire.7 This required the collective effort of various Catholic
religious orders and congregations, the most influential (and ubiquitous) of which was the
Society of Jesus – the Jesuits. Inspired by the teachings and experiences of the Jesuit priest
Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), the Jesuits set out to formulate a missionary doctrine that
attempted to reconcile Catholic teachings with existing Confucian doctrine, Chinese rituals,
and Chinese notions of the supernatural.8 This “accommodation” strategy, at least initially,
proved effective, as it enabled Catholic missionaries to ingratiate themselves into the social
establishments of Ming communities and to convert individuals from various strata of Ming
society to Catholicism.9 The Jesuits in the early years of their missions concentrated their
initiatives within urban centers and pursued a “top-down” missionary policy, with the goal of
first converting elite upper gentry and literati.10 However, they gradually began to conduct
mass conversions of Ming commoners and expanded into more remote areas in the Chinese
7
In 1622, Pope Gregory XV founded the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (The Holy Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith). The aim of this organization was to remedy the shortage of mission
priests by providing the basic framework for the development of “indigenous clergy and hierarchy” in
Catholic missions around the world. – Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China. p. 289.
8
Ricci, Matteo, S.J., The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (T’ien-chu Shih-ji). Translated by Douglas
Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen, S.J. St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1985, pp. 5-9.
9
Mungello, David E. The Great Encounter of China and the West: 1500-1800. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999, p. 26.
10
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China,, pp. 386-387.
6
countryside. The increasing influence of Catholic missions soon evolved into an intricate set
of relationships, or guanxi 关系, and networks among Jesuit missionaries, sympathizing Ming
(and later, Qing) literati and officials, and indigenous catechists and clergymen.11
With these Catholic individuals and institutions becoming firmly embedded in
Chinese society, the number of Chinese converts and the geographic scope of Catholic
missions grew substantially in the late-Ming and into the early-Qing period. From 16111620, several permanent Jesuit residences and missions were founded in eastern Jiangnan
near Shanghai and Hangzhou. From 1621-1630, Jesuits and their converts achieved
considerable territorial expansion of Catholic strongholds in Zhejiang, Jiangxi and Fujian
provinces. The years 1631-1640 marked a dramatic increase in the number of missions in
Fujian province, with an influx of Dominican and Franciscan missionaries.12
The fall of the Ming dynasty and subsequent military conflicts between the Qing and
“rebel” Chinese armies slowed the growth of Catholic missions. Nevertheless, the
development of missions soon resumed with new expansions into Shaanxi and Shanxi
provinces. By the beginning of the 18th century, the most highly concentrated macroregions
of Catholic missions were the eastern coastal provinces of Zhejiang and Fujian, and the
capital region of Beijing.13 Numerous first-hand reports from missionaries indicated that by
1701, there were approximately 200,000 baptized Christians and over one hundred and thirty
missionaries living in the Qing provinces.14
Catholic missionaries not only exerted religious authority, but also substantial
political influence in towns and cities, as well as within the imperial court. In fact, imperial
11
Wang, Xiaochao Christianity and Imperial Culture: Chinese Christian Apologetics in the Seventeenth
Century and their Latin Patristic Equivalent. Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 218-224.
12
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China,, pp. 534-562.
13
Ibid, 560.
14
Ibid, 383.
7
officials and the Kangxi Emperor welcomed missionaries into the highest levels of state
bureaucracy because of the perceived benefits of learning the Europeans’ scientific
knowledge.15 In addition, Catholic missionaries relished the possibility of converting the
emperor, the so-called Son of Heaven and the ruler of two hundred million Chinese. Johann
Adam Schall von Bell, S.J., for example, served as an influential court astronomer for the
young Shunzhi Emperor in the 1640s and 1650s.16 Ferdinand Verbiest, S.J., educated the
young Kangxi Emperor in Western mathematics, music, and calendar techniques.17 Thus, the
missionaries’ presence and interactions with the imperial court were seen as mutually
beneficial to the missionaries and the Qing court.
Notwithstanding these positive initiatives and relationships, there were periods
during the late-Ming and early-Qing eras when missionaries suffered periods of persecution,
and even expulsion. The primary opposition came from literati and Buddhist clergy, who
frequently petitioned provincial and state officials to restrict missionary activities and the
propagation of Catholicism. While this opposition to Catholic missionaries did not develop
into widespread anti-Christian movements, animosity towards the missionaries persisted as
various individuals and publications openly denounced the missionaries’ beliefs and
activities.18
In 1607, twenty-seven literati in Jiangxi submitted a lengthy petition to provincial
officials, accusing the missionaries of spreading heretic teachings and “destroying statues of
15
Wang, pp. 167-169.
Malek, Roman. Western Learning and Christianity in China: The Contribution and Impact of Johann
Adam Schall von Bell, S.J. (1592-1666). Monumenta Serica XXX, Vol. 1, Sankt Augustin: Germany:
Institut Monumenta Serica, 1998, pp. 32-36.
17
Lin, Jinshui, “The Influence of Ferdinand Verbiest on the Policy of the Kangxi Emperor towards
Christianity,” In: Witek, John W., ed. Ferdinand Verbiest: (1623-1688) Jesuit Missionary, Scientist,
Engineer and Diplomat. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica; Leuven: Ferdinand Verbiest
Foundation, 1994; Monumenta Serica Monograph Series, 30, 1994, pp. 56-72.
18
Mungello, David E. The Forgotten Christians of Hangzhou. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994,
pp. 123-139.
16
8
deities.”19 In 1616, Shen Que, the Minister of the Nanjing Ministry of Rites, submitted
memorials against missionaries in Beijing and Nanjing, accusing them of “[causing] great
damage to Confucianism.”20 Thereafter, an imperial edict of February 3, 1617 authorized
Ming authorities to arrest several Jesuit priests in Nanjing, who were subsequently expelled
to Macao.21 Opposition in the 1630s and 1640s was presented in anti-Christian texts,
Yuandao pixie shuo (1636), Poxieji (1640), Pixie ji (1643), which were published by Buddhist
literati in Fujian and Zhejiang provinces.22 In 1664, the prominent literatus Yang Guangxian
attacked the Jesuit faction in the imperial court for subverting “Chinese ideology” through
propagation of specious astronomical theories and anti-Confucian teachings.23 Thereafter,
several missionaries were sentenced to confinement in Canton, churches were closed in the
provinces, and Christianity was forbidden in parts of some provinces.24
One of the primary issues that contributed to the tenuous position of Catholic
missionaries in the provinces was the controversy over Chinese rites. While the Jesuit
“accommodation” policy allowed for Chinese Christians to continue with “civil” practices of
ancestor worship and veneration of Confucius, Dominican and Franciscan missionaries took
a much more dogmatic approach and prohibited Chinese rites from being included in any
form of Catholic ceremony and liturgical practices.25 These disparate views on missionary
policy directly affected the development of Catholic communities. Under the Dominican
approach, natives who wanted to convert to Catholicism were required to abandon all forms
of Confucian ritual; conversely, under the Jesuit approach, Confucian ritual and Catholic
19
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, p.509.
Kelly, Edward Thomas. The Anti-Christian Persecution of 1616-1617 in Nanking. Ann Harbor,
Michigan: University Microfilms; Columbia University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1971, p. 277.
21
Ibid, 278-282. This event is typically referred to as the 1616-1617 Nanjing Incident. Jesuit priests in
Beijing were allowed to remain.
22
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China. p. 511.
23
Malek, pp. 314-317.
24
Ibid, 335-336.
25
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, pp. 323-325
20
9
beliefs were not deemed to be mutually exclusive, but rather were allowed to exist
harmoniously as part of Catholic doctrine.26
In the 1680s and 1690s, the various Catholic orders dispatched procurators to Rome
to advocate their respective theological and missionary policies to the Pope. 27 It soon
became clear that the Kangxi Emperor, irrespective of Vatican policy, endorsed the Jesuits’
“accommodation” policy.28 He saw the benefits of learning Western science from the Jesuits
and admired the work of Matteo Ricci.29 In addition, the Kangxi Emperor saw diplomatic
advantages from closer relations with the Jesuits, as several Jesuits had assisted in
negotiations between the Qing state and Russia in the wake of costly military conflicts along
the Qing’s northern borders.30 These positive developments led to a period of “tacit
toleration” of Catholic missions in Qing provinces during the 1680s and 1690s.31 The
Kangxi Emperor sought diplomatic relations with Western countries and sent several
representatives of the Qing state to Rome. In 1692, the Kangxi Emperor issued an “Edict
of Toleration,” which officially recognized all Catholic missions (not just the Jesuits) as
legitimate institutions and authorized the missionaries to preach more widely32:
The Westerners admired our sacred culture when they sailed to [our land] from
ten thousand li away…They have offered many services to this nation. The Westerners
who live in the provinces have not committed crimes or behaved badly. They do not
commit the heresy of luring people to their church, or causing trouble…We should order
that the Catholic churches in all the provinces be preserved as usual.33
26
Ibid, 310-313.
Ibid, 356-357.
28
Fu, Lo-shu. A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations (1644-1820). Tucson, Published for the
Association for Asian Studies by the University of Arizona Press, Vol. 1-2, 1966 p. 105.
29
Ibid, 105-106.
30
Spence, Jonathan. “The Kangxi Reign,” The Cambridge History of China, edited by Denis Twitchett and
John Fairbank; Cambridge (Eng.); New York: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 9, The Ch’ing Empire
Dynasty to 1800; 2003, p. 152.
31
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, pp. 515-516.
32
Ibid, 516.
33
Fu Loshu, p. 105.
27
10
Nevertheless, relations between the Kangxi Emperor and Rome soon worsened. The
Vatican, seeking to reaffirm its Counter-Reformationist stance, sought to align its foreign
missionary policy with the more rigid and dogmatic approach of the Dominican order of
missionaries. As a result, and beginning in 1700, a series of apostolic delegations from Rome
set out for Beijing to reinstate the new missionary policy and to abolish observance of any
Chinese rites as part of Catholic practices in the Qing provinces. One of the most significant
delegations was the Tournon delegation. In 1705, Pope Clement XI sent Charles-Thomas
Maillard de Tournon (1668-1710) as an apostolic delegate to Beijing.34 Tournon’s first
audience with the Emperor was successful, as the Emperor agreed to “Tournon’s wish to
install relations between the Pope and the Court of Beijing.”35 However, at his second
audience, Tournon conveyed the Pope’s demand for (i) the prohibition of Chinese rites, (ii)
the nullification of Jesuit “accommodation” policy, and (iii) the reinstatement of the
Dominican approach. The Kangxi Emperor immediately and unequivocally rejected this
proposal. The Emperor soon became openly hostile towards Tournon, whom the Emperor
believed showed no respect for Chinese customs and culture.36 In December, 1706, the
Emperor decreed that all missionaries who wanted to stay in the provinces of the Qing state
would need a state-approved certificate, or piao 票, that confirmed their identity and purpose
of engaging in missionary practices. Moreover, this piao was to be granted only to those
missionaries who agreed “with the [Jesuit] method of Matteo Ricci.”37
Bitter disagreements between Beijing and Rome immediately ensued, and many
missionaries left the provinces, thereby stifling the growth of additional Christian
34
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, pp. 358-359.
Ibid, 359.
36
Ibid, 359.
37
Mungello, David E. The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Nettetal, Germany:
Steyler, Monumenta Serica, Monograph Series, XXXIII, 1994, p. 31.
35
11
communities.38 In 1716, Rome reaffirmed Tournon’s decree with Apostolic Constitution Ex
illa die.39 This papal decree was perceived by the Emperor as a direct threat to his authority. 40
On September 18, 1719, Carlo Ambrogio Mezzabarba, a papal delegate, appeared before the
imperial court in an effort to ease tensions between the Vatican and the Kangxi Emperor,
while at the same time attempting to encourage the Emperor to accept the Pope’s decree of
1716. Despite Mezzabarba’s efforts, the Emperor flatly rejected his proposal, as well as the
1716 Ex illa die.41 Just two years later, in 1721, the Kangxi Emperor formally proscribed
Christianity in China.
The magnitude of the proscriptive decree cannot be overstated. For over half a
century, the Kangxi Emperor had been in contact with the Western missionaries. During this
period, the Emperor developed close relationships with Jesuits in the imperial court, learned
techniques in Western science, used the missionaries for diplomatic assistance, and sought to
forge stable relations with Western representatives. In addition, Catholic missionaries,
despite periodic resistance and persecution, had developed important religious and social
institutions under the Manchu rulers. Nevertheless, the growing hostility between Rome and
Beijing and the bitter disagreements over Chinese rites and missionary policy in the Qing
state were simply too divisive, culminating in the failed apostolic delegations and the 1721
proscription.
38
39
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, pp. 517-518.
St. Sure, Donald F. S.J., trans. 100 Roman Documents Concerning the Chinese Rites Controversy (1645-
1941). (Chinese). Zhongguo li yi zhi zheng 中国礼仪之争: xi wen wen xian yi bai pian 西文文献一百篇,
1645-1941, Su’er 苏而, Nuo’er 诺而 bian 编; Shen Baoyi 沈保义, Gu Weimin 顾洧民, Zhu Jing 朱静 yi
译; Shanghai: Shanghai guji chuban she 上海古机出版社, Ed. I, 2001, p. 9.
40
Ibid, 9-10.
41
Vermilion Decree to Legate Mezzabarba, January 31, 1721, Submitted to the Provincial Government of
Beijing on January 31, 1721. Primary document of full text found in Rosso, Antonio Sisto, O.F.M.,
Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century. South Pasadena: Perkins, 1948, p. 388.
12
Current Scholarship Regarding Catholicism in the Early-Qing Period
Analyses and interpretations of the development of Catholicism in the early-Qing
period and the eighteenth-century proscription have been undergoing revision in recent
years. Access to archives and research centers in China, Taiwan, Europe and the United
States have enabled researchers to study significant primary documents related to the
dynamics of the Chinese Rites Controversy. These materials span a broad range of sources:
memoirs of Jesuit priests, decrees of the Kangxi Emperor, publications by Chinese literati,
among others. The circumstances surrounding the Kangxi Emperor’s 1721 proscription of
Christianity and subsequent expulsion of Catholic missionaries have been the subjects of
particular scrutiny. The resulting literature has provided a more nuanced look at the various
factors that played a role in the imperial decision-making process surrounding the 1721
proscription.
In assessing this literature, there are several themes that emerge. First, the
proscription is often characterized as the result of theological intransigence and antagonism
between the Qing imperial authorities and the papal delegations. Secondly, some scholars
contend that the proscription was an unfortunate culmination of disagreements between two
conflicting political authorities; in short, Rome and Beijing were simply unable to reach
mutually compatible policies that would guide and direct the course of Catholic missionary
policy in the Qing state. Thirdly, a common argument is that fundamental cultural
differences between the Chinese and Europeans unavoidably produced religious, linguistic,
and philosophical differences; thus, the Qing state’s rejection of Catholicism was inevitable.
Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, many scholars view the proscription as almost
exclusively instigated by events in Europe. In particular, the Reformation in Europe caused
Rome to pursue a more assertive and Counter-Reformationist approach to its missionary
13
activities, including in the Qing provinces, which, in turn, provoked the Kangxi Emperor to
pursue a similarly hard-line policy against Catholic missionaries.
In assessing the 1721 proscription, Beatrice Leung argues that “the ultimate motive
for banning Catholicism rested on the fact that Kangxi could not accept that his authority
over the Chinese rites should be undermined by the Catholic authorities, whose papal legates
repeatedly ignored his suggestions and refused to give him the chance to have his final word
on the decision.”42 Leung’s analysis suggests that the central factor for proscription was the
single-minded arrogance of the European delegations and the manner in which the attitudes
(real or perceived) of these delegations affected the Kangxi Emperor’s perception of the
Catholic missionaries. Implicit in Leung’s argument is the notion that the Europeans’
behavior in the imperial court provoked ethnocentrism and that this attitude particularly
aggravated the ailing Emperor. The Europeans, in discarding the Jesuits’ “accommodation”
policy and excluding indigenous rituals from Catholic practices, insisted on a religion that, at
its ideological core, was perceived as subversive to existing Confucian doctrine and the
ultimate authority of the Qing state.
Other analyses of the motives for proscription emphasize cultural differences
between Europe and Qing society and the impact of the external European Reformation
movement. The French Sinologist, Jacques Gernet, views the proscription as rooted
primarily in the Sino-European differences in language and philosophy. He argues that the
Qing rejection of Catholicism in 1721 can be attributed to the fact that Catholicism was
unable to be assimilated into Qing culture because of “irreconcilable differences in the ways
[the Qing] and Europeans thought, [which were] produced by linguistic differences in the
42
Leung, p. 29.
14
Chinese and Indo-European languages.”43 According to Gernet, the Chinese were unable to
grasp the transcendental nature of Catholic teachings simply because they did not have
proper words with which to comprehend Catholic concepts of spirituality. The Dutch
Sinologist Erik Zurcher argues that Catholic missionaries were rejected from the Qing state
because of the “overly centralized manner in which the Jesuits were directed by a CounterReformation church and because of the incompatibility in China of the Jesuit dual roles of
scholar and priest.”44
While the failed delegations, religious developments in Europe, and manifest
“cultural differences” between the Europeans and Qing were, in varying degrees,
contributing factors to the 1721 proscription, these assessments each over-simplify a much
more complex process. Much of scholarship on the Rites Controversy and the 1721
proscription focuses on the narrow stream of information regarding interactions and
communications that occurred among individuals in the Qing imperial court and the various
papal delegations. These analyses overlook several critical questions. For example, what was
the Qing perspective outside of the imperial court? Were there domestic security reasons for
the Kangxi Emperor’s decision to proscribe Christianity? More specifically, to what extent
did the Kangxi Emperor rely on the word of his provincial officials – those directly involved
with the Catholic missions in the provinces - to reach his decision to prohibit mission
activities? Were provincial officials more acutely aware of a possible geopolitical threat that
Catholic missionaries posed?
43
Mungello, David E. The Great Encounter of China and the West: 1500-1800. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999, p. 45.
44
Ibid, 46.
15
The Role of Chen Mao in the 1721 Proscription
There is one individual, Chen Mao 陈昴, whose role in the 1721 proscription was
relevant to these questions. Chen Mao was a prominent brigade-general in Guangdong
province. Skilled in military and maritime affairs, Chen Mao served as one of the prime
overseers of commercial and naval activities in the Guangdong region during the latter part
of the Kangxi Emperor’s reign. Chen Mao was familiar with Catholic missionary activities in
the region and interacted directly with Jesuit priests as they arrived in the ports of Canton
and Macao. He emerged as a significant figure in the imperial deliberations regarding the
status of Catholic missionaries in the Qing’s southern provinces. In January of 1717 (four
years before the proscription was actually issued), Chen submitted a memorial to the Kangxi
Emperor and the imperial court in Beijing. In the memorial, Chen harshly criticized the
westerners in Guangdong and advocated a complete proscription of Catholic missionaries in
Qing provinces.
Several new aspects of the events leading up to the 1721 proscription are revealed in
Chen Mao’s memorial. First, the memorial shows that Chen, a provincial military official,
perceived Catholic missionaries in Guangdong province as a direct threat to the geopolitical
and economic stability of China. For Chen, the debate over Catholic missionaries was not a
question of Jesuit policy versus Dominican policy, or papal claims of “universality” versus
Qing imperial court authority. Instead, it was a question of Catholic missionaries challenging
the regional and economic status quo and autonomy of Guangdong. Secondly, while Chen’s
recommendation was not adopted initially, further deliberations on his memorial in the
imperial court revealed that his memorial was a factor and consideration in the process
leading up to the formal proscription declaration in 1721 by the Kangxi Emperor. Finally,
the disposition of Chen Mao’s memorial demonstrates that the controversy over Chinese
16
rites and the eventual expulsion of Catholic missionaries cannot be viewed exclusively as the
culmination of an ideological or theological contest between Rome and Beijing.
Translation and Textual Analysis of Chen Mao’s Memorial to the Kangxi Emperor:
To date, there are no reported English translations of Chen Mao’s 1717 memorial to
the Kangxi Emperor and the imperial court in Beijing. It has been translated previously into
Latin and French. I have completed the following English translation of the full text of
Chen's memorial45:
As part of my usual responsibilities, I inspected all the islands. In six months time,
I traveled along the western coastal territories, and in the second month observed
Nangao Island off the eastern seashore. In a year’s time, I had inspected the island’s
regional jurisdiction. There was not a bay or strait that I did not personally inspect. I
discovered that Your Majesty’s wisdom and prestige have made the regions of the most
remote domains of the empire enjoy tranquility and peace. But once I arrived at Macao
in the jurisdiction of Xiangshan County, I was shocked to find in the harbor over ten
European warships that were only navigating for the purpose of engaging in trade in
Guangzhou. I immediately considered this to be an extremely worrisome matter, and
considered writing a memorial to Your Majesty to report the situation of these naturally
mischievous, inferior and malicious people. Recently, Your Majesty issued a decree on
the 18th day of the twelfth month saying: “The coastal territories are to be watched
closely, with special attention given to the intentions of foreigners. To achieve this
requires a strict prohibition of our ships from traveling to the Southern Sea. This
precautionary measure will restrict trade relations with foreigners and will prevent a
disaster from occurring.”
When the Esteemed Emperor handles these matters, Your Majesty should not only
consult the high-ranking officials of the cabinet, but also listen attentively to the opinions
of lower-level officials. If it were not for Your Majesty’s wisdom surpassing that of Yao
and Shun, how could we enjoy such peace and prosperity in this day and age? If one did
not personally carry out an inspection, who would dare approach the Emperor to discuss
the matters of foreign countries? I have been personally involved in commercial affairs,
and I once went on overseas travels to Japan, Xianluo, Jiaozhi, Dongjing, Batavia,
Manila, etc. I know the customs and habits of these races and the various strategies of
I obtained the Chinese version of Chen Mao’s memorial from Duhalde’s Lettres edifiantes et curieuses,
ecrites des missions strangers memoires de la chine. Memoires de la Chine. (Chinese). Yesu hui shi
45
Zhongguo shu jian ji 耶稣会士中国书简集: Zhongguo hui yi lu 中国回忆录/ Duhede bian杜赫德编;
Zheng Dedi郑德弟, Lu Yimin, Shen Jian yi; Zhengzhou Shi: Da xiang chuban she 大象出版社, Xifang
zaoqi Hanxue jing dian yi cong 西方早期汉学经典译丛 Ed. 1, Vol. II, 2001, pp. 184-187.
17
their governments, and therefore I courageously venture to make suggestions to Your
Majesty.
To our east, the most important country is Japan; another kingdom, Liuqiu, is
worth increasing our attention over. These countries’ rivers all flow towards the east.
Further south we control the island of Formosa’s province of Fujian, and on that border
there are no other countries.
In the west lies the kingdoms of Xianluo, Jiaozhi and Dongjing, and they lie
adjacent to our frontier city of Qin-zhoufu.
In the South there are many kingdoms of savage races, for example Roufo,
Malecca, Yaqi, and others. Although these countries’ domains are small, each has its
own legal system. However, they have never dared to seek control over other countries’
territories. For this reason, the imperial decree that I previously cited is only related to
the harbors of Batavia and Manila that were occupied by Europeans. At first Europeans
there only engaged in trade relations, after which they used this business to control all
surrounding regions.
In my opinion, among the overseas savage nations, Japan’s military force and
national power are second to none. During the Ming dynasty there were huge
disturbances, and certain evildoers of ours did unrestrained violence; however, we and
the people of Japan engaged in peaceful trade relations throughout. The kingdom of
Liuqiu learned the rule of law from our nation, and has accordingly maintained control
for as long as one hundred years. The island of Formosa has already pledged its
allegiance to us. Xianluo, Dongjing, and other kingdoms every year pay tribute to us;
they do not have any malicious intentions. Therefore, we may consider the Europeans to
be most vicious and the most difficult to handle.
“Red hair” is the general designation of these savage races, among which are the
English and the Dutch. Although these kingdoms of Europe and India are not wholly
identical, nevertheless their peoples are of the same rudeness. Among which the Dutch
are especially so; they are simply like tigers and wolves. They make their ships very
fearsome. No matter whether they are businessmen or barbarians, they are all like this,
and there is no one that can compete with them. As soon as they arrive at a certain place,
they first assess through what means they can control the region. Their warships could
survive the most severe storms. On each ship there are more than one hundred cannons.
Nothing could survive their attacks. They gave us a lesson in the harbor of Macao last
year. Only a single warship of this type produced tremendous panic. Now over ten ships
have arrived in Guangzhou. How could this not cause worry among people? These
people and the Europeans who arrived previously in Macao are of the same race, and
they come from the same nation, speak the same language, and have the same customs. In
addition, they have close relations with each other. If we don’t stop the evil before it gets
worse, it will be difficult to handle in the future. Therefore, I hope Your Majesty
commands the major officials in each province to implement preemptive measures. For
example, the Europeans can only be allowed to enter the harbor once the captains of
warships are forced to get rid of their cannons and disarm. Until the Europeans get rid of
their barbarian behavior, their activities should be limited to certain ports when they
conduct business in Macao, and they should not be allowed to arrive in great masses at
once, but rather arrive in certain intervals. This is the way to guarantee the security of
our dynasty.
18
Another matter concerns the problem of Christianity. This religion spread from
Europe to the Philippines. Previously, during the Ming Dynasty, the people of the
Philippines engaged in trade relations with Japan. Europeans used religion to change
the minds of Japanese people, and successfully won over many people by unfair means,
after which the Europeans almost completely controlled Japan. Only after facing strong
resistance did the Europeans return to the West. Nowadays they are still keeping an eye
on Japan, hoping to subdue them. Seeing that these matters are as such, I strongly
believe that these Europeans have no justification for constructing churches in our
country’s provinces. These people squander money, and certain days they will gather
great numbers of people to hold ceremonies. They study our laws, decrees and customs,
they survey and draw up maps of our mountains and rivers, and at the same time they
strain every nerve to win over the populace. Although I am not clear on their intentions
(this is not a matter I am able to comprehend fully), nevertheless I do know that
Christianity spread to the Philippines due to the Europeans, after which the Philippines
was conquered by Europe; I know that the nature of Europeans is barbaric, and they
used the banner of religion to control Japan, and I also know that after they seized the
Philippines, in Guangzhou and other places they constructed many churches, and have
won over the minds of countless persons. Besides, these Europeans belong to the same
race as those who come from the warships that I mentioned before. Nevertheless, I have
complete faith in the wisdom and resolve of the well-respected departments of the empire,
and I firmly believe that they will not allow this type of bad grass to grow wild. The
danger is tremendous; tiny, narrow streams can converge and become much larger
rivers. If we do not in this ripe time pinch off the branches, after awhile we will be forced
to use an axe to chop them down.
We have a responsibility to maintain our fortifications to counter attacks, and we
should thus increase our defense fortifications along the coast. I earnestly request Your
Majesty to examine my memorial. I ask to be notified of Your Majesty’s decision and that
also all the provinces are notified of the decision of the Imperial Court.46
In order to understand fully the various arguments in Chen’s memorial, it is
important to first review Chen’s background. From the memorial, it is apparent that Chen is
well acquainted with the geography of the southern Qing provinces. In fact, throughout his
life Chen was closely involved with the maritime and military activities in the southern
coastal regions and became quite knowledgeable of all aspects of the geography of those
regions. Chen was born in 1651 to a poor family in the coastal province of Fujian 福建. His
father, Jian-qian 健前, died when Chen was a young boy. In 1660, Chen’s family was
46
The full Chinese text of Chen Mao’s memorial is located in the Appendix Section.
19
ordered by the Qing government to be removed inland during the period of the prohibition
of coastal trade, which was ordered to prevent collaboration with Ming resistance in Taiwan.
Chen enrolled in a school but soon left his studies and traveled abroad, “fei shu xue mai”
废书学买,
where he observed many aspects of trade among foreign nations.47 During this
time, Chen also became acquainted with military affairs, and in 1686 he served as a staff
assistant and topography specialist in the Qing army during the conquest of Taiwan. After
this assignment, Chen Mao was sent on further expeditions to pursue remnant factions of
Taiwan’s Zheng family. He eventually was elevated to the rank of brigade-general of
Guangdong province in 1706.48
Given this personal background, particularly his extensive military and travel
experience, it is not surprising that Chen in the memorial seeks initially to establish his
credentials in order to underscore the credibility of his later charges against the Europeans.
Chen stresses the fact that he devoted extensive periods of time to examining the economic
and geopolitical situation in southern China. “As part of my usual responsibilities, I
inspected all the islands. In six months time, I traveled along the western coastal territories,
and on the second month observed Nangao Island off the eastern seashore. In a year’s time,
I had inspected the island’s regional jurisdiction.” His military and travel experiences to
neighboring regions enabled him to witness first-hand the policies of various governments
and regional commercial interactions. Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that
Chen “personally” undertook the responsibility of examining and overseeing maritime and
47
48
Wang Zhongmin, p. 212.
Ibid, 212-215. Other sources that offer summaries of the life of Chen Mao include: Aomen Ji lue
澳门记略, (1751), ch. I, p. 38b, Tong an xian zhi 同安现志, (1929) ch. 30, p. 5a, Xiangshan xianzhi
香山现志 (1827 ed.) ch. 4, p. 92a, Quan zhou fu zhi 泉州府志, (1870 ed.) ch. 56, p. 37b. The brief
biography of Chen Mao produced by Wang Zhongmin covers Chen’s life and his role as brigade-general in
Guangdong.
20
economic activities; this is a point that Chen stresses repeatedly. Notwithstanding his
subordinate position to other military leaders and provincial officials in Guangdong, Chen
seeks to affirm his reliability as an informed and active observer of the on-the-ground
realities unfolding in the ports and harbors of the southern provinces. “There was not a bay
or strait that I did not personally inspect.”
There are instances in Chen’s presentation that might lead one to view Chen as an
opportunist, an official seeking merely to obtain favor and thus a higher military rank from
the imperial court. For example, Chen affirms the greatness of the Kangxi Emperor and the
Emperor’s ability to bring unprecedented prosperity to the various regions in the Qing state.
“If it were not for Your Majesty’s wisdom surpassing that of Yao and Shun, how could we
enjoy such peace and prosperity in this day and age?” Chen also compliments the Kangxi
Emperor’s 1716 decree, which called for extensive maritime reforms, improvement in
southern naval defenses, and a crackdown on the “evil misconduct” of pirates and foreign
merchants.49 In his 1948 book Apostolic Delegations to China, Sinologist Antonio Rosso asserts
that Chen was an opportunist in submitting his memorial. Rosso states: “Chen Mao…took
the opportunity of decline of the missionaries’ prestige and favor to accuse them of
conspiracy with foreign merchants against the safety of China.”50 Thus, in Rosso’s
assessment, Chen’s motive for issuing the memorial was primarily – if not solely - instigated
by his realization that the Kangxi Emperor had grown increasingly distrustful of the
missionaries in Beijing. Rosso contends that Chen was more concerned with advancing his
own military career than with assessing the threat of Catholic missionaries and Western
militaries.51
49
Fu Lo-shu, p.122.
Rosso, pp. 193-194.
51
Ibid, 194.
50
21
In my assessment, Rosso oversimplifies the context of Chen’s memorial. While there
are phrases in the memorial that can be taken out of context and viewed as “opportunistic,”
Chen was not predominately motivated by personal advancement. The sixty-three year old
Chen had already achieved a relatively high rank in the Qing military. Moreover, in the
memorial Chen does not request higher military rank, nor does he even allude to this
possibility. More importantly, a fundamental aspect of Chen’s memorial is his intent to change
existing Qing policy towards Catholic missionaries. It is thus important to recognize that
Chen’s flattering references should in no way negate or lessen the critical substance and
concerns expressed by Chen, particularly his specific accusations against the merchants and
missionaries.
Another central theme of the memorial is Chen’s warning that the Qing state was
threatened by the growing presence of Europeans in the ports along the southern ports. “At
first Europeans there only engaged in trade relations, after which they used this business to
control all surrounding regions.” Here, it is important to recognize that Chen first seeks to
diminish the perceived threat from any neighboring country, particularly Japan. It is clear
that Chen’s traveling experiences enabled him to understand the dynamics of the Qing
government’s interactions and relationships with other countries and kingdoms. Chen
demonstrates that while these countries possessed substantive military capabilities that could,
if employed, threaten the Qing borders, the benign military posture of these governments
and their constructive diplomatic and economic relations with the Qing state showed that
they had no intention of attacking. “(O)ther kingdoms every year pay tribute to us; they do
not have any malicious intentions.”
Chen stresses that the Europeans posed the gravest threat, both militarily and
economically, to the stability of the Qing state. “Therefore, we may consider the Europeans
22
to be most vicious and the most difficult to handle.” The military and technological
superiority of the European warships not only generated fear among the coastal populace
and provincial officials, it also demonstrated to Chen that the Qing state would be unable to
withstand a foreign invasion by European powers. In addition, Chen realized that the
Europeans’ increasing commercial influence in the ports could lead to European territorial
control over the coastal regions. “They are simply like tigers and wolves. They make their
ships very fearsome. No matter if they are businessmen or barbarians, they are all like this,
and there is no one that can compete with them. As soon as they arrive at a certain place,
they first assess through what means they can control the region.” Chen’s concern over the
Europeans’ commercial influence stemmed from his understanding that coastal trade was of
critical importance to the Guangdong provincial officials and the Qing government.
In fact, during the Kangxi reign, the Qing state was undergoing rapid economic
change.52 Thus, one of the most significant challenges that confronted the new Qing
government was maintaining stability in the peripheral regions and provinces of the empire
in the wake of this economic tumult. The protracted War of the Three Feudatories (16731681) brought economic strife to southern provinces and provoked additional mutinous
coalitions in opposition to the new Qing authorities.53 In addition, piracy plagued the coastal
regions, as “merchants of contraband” disrupted commercial activity in the ports and in the
neighboring seas.54 Moreover, the new Qing government suffered humiliating naval defeats
at the hands of Ming loyalists and pirates who controlled significant portions of the South
China Sea.55
52
Kishimoto-Nakayama, Mio. “The Kangxi Depression and Early Qing Local Markets,” Modern China
(Beverly Hills, CA) 10, no. 2 (April 1984), pp. 45-47.
53
Spence, p.122.
54
Fu Lo-shu, p. 122-123.
55
Ibid, pp. 122-123.
23
Contemporaneously, a severe global economic depression significantly disrupted the
flow of silver into the Qing state, which, in turn, stifled economic growth in the main trading
ports in Canton and Macao.56 To reinstate control over the trading ports, the Kangxi
Emperor established an extensive intelligence network to gather information on foreign
traders and assigned coastal military positions to his most trusted military commanders. 57 In
addition, he instituted large-scale reforms to consolidate power within the Beijing
bureaucracy and to solidify control over the key coastal provinces in the southern regions,58
which provided the empire with a steady flow of commerce and revenue.59 Thus, Chen
warns in his memorial that officials in Beijing must institute more rigid maritime reforms to
tighten control over foreign traders and to prevent them from causing economic instability
in an already fragile coastal market. “Until the Europeans get rid of their barbarian behavior,
their activities should be limited to certain ports when they conduct business in Macao, and
they should not be allowed to arrive in great masses at once, but rather arrive in certain
intervals.”
Chen’s memorial also reveals his opinions towards the character of the Europeans,
whom Chen bluntly classifies as “red-haired barbarians,” or hong mao 红毛. Chen was
intensely hostile towards Europeans and despised European customs, habits and behavior.
“Although these respective European kingdoms are not wholly identical, nevertheless their
peoples are of the same rudeness.” One can speculate on the source of Chen’s racist
attitudes. Given his position as one of the prime overseers of the commercial and maritime
56
Kishimoto-Nakayama, p. 48.
Dai, Yingcong, “To Nourish a Strong Military: Kangxi’s Preferential Treatment of His Military
Officials,” War & Society (Canberra) 18, no.2, October 2000, p. 71.
58
Calanca, Paola. “From a Forbidden Ocean to an Ocean Under Close Watch: The Ming and Early Qing
Governments and the Maritime Problem,” Ming Qing Yanjiu (Napoli, Roma), 1998, pp. 27-32.
59
Gao, Xiang; Huang Shiqi; Yu, Sheng; Liston, Mike, trans., “On the Trends of Modernization in the Early
Qing Period,” Social Sciences in China (Beijing) 22, no. 4, (Winter 2001), p. 108.
57
24
affairs in Guangdong, it is reasonable to assume that his direct interaction and conversations
with foreign merchants resulted in bitter disagreements with foreign merchants over the
limited trading access given to them in the Qing ports. Perhaps the mere sight of the
European warships, commanded by light-skinned, raucous foreign men, angered the proud
brigade-general. In any event, Chen’s purpose in addressing the problem of the “red-haired
barbarians” is to convey the sense that all Europeans, no matter their religious, national or
commercial affiliations, were colluding to undermine the security and coastal trading system
in Guangdong.
These aspects of Chen’s memorial are preliminary to his final and most forceful
argument: his call for the prohibition of Catholic missions. “The danger [of Catholicism] is
tremendous; tiny, narrow streams can converge and become much larger rivers. If we do not
in this ripe time pinch off the branches, after a while we will be forced to use an axe to chop
them down.” In assessing Chen’s accusations against the missionaries, it is important to note
that Chen viewed the threat of Catholic missions in economic and geopolitical contexts, not as a
religious or theological dispute. Chen seeks to convey to the bureaucrats and imperial court
officials in Beijing that the problem of Catholicism in the Qing provinces was not a question
of conflicting missionary policy towards Chinese rites, but rather a larger challenge and
threat to the Qing state’s commercial and territorial hegemony. Chen draws upon the
historical context of the development and propagation of Catholicism in other regions of the
world and explains how religion had been used by the Europeans to exert territorial control
over portions of Japan and the Philippines. “I do know that Christianity spread to the
Philippines due to the Europeans, after which the Philippines were conquered by Europe; I
know that the nature of Europeans is barbaric, and they used the banner of religion to
control Japan, and I also know that they indeed seized the Philippines.” In addition, Chen
25
links the “threat” of churches to a military threat by noting that missionaries and foreign
militaries shared similar customs and ethnicity. “In Guangzhou and other places [the
Europeans] have constructed many churches, and have won over the minds of countless
persons. Besides, these Europeans belong to the same race (minzu 民族) as those who come
from the warships that I mentioned before.”
To Chen, Catholic churches were institutions that occupied land and received direct
funding from “barbaric” foreign merchants and distant European rulers; Catholic churches
posed a fundamental threat to the national security of the Qing state. “We have a
responsibility to maintain our fortifications to counter attacks, and we should thus increase
our defense fortifications along the coast.” When Chen submitted the memorial in 1717, the
presence of Catholic missionaries in Guangdong province had become increasingly
noticeable. The 1692 Edict of Toleration allowed Catholic missionaries to preach more
widely, which resulted in an influx of priests into Guangdong province. While Guangdong’s
port towns previously had been stop-over destinations for Catholic missionaries who wanted
to travel more deeply into inner territories, the increased number of churches and priests in
Guangdong led to the establishment of many permanent Catholic missions along the
southern coast.60 In fact, in the first decade of the eighteenth-century, Guangdong had more
Catholic churches than any other province in the Qing state, with twenty-seven churches in
total within Guangdong, and eight alone in Guangzhou.61
In addition, Chen points to the fact that Catholic missionaries in Guangdong had
expanded the geographic scope of their missions, setting up numerous churches and holding
many church services in various municipalities. Chen further asserts that this geographic
60
61
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, pp. 560-563.
Ibid, 563.
26
expansion and permanent establishment of Catholic communities enabled missionaries to
become increasingly familiar with the legal and economic institutions of jurisdictions, as well
as the regional geography. “These people squander money, and on certain days they will
gather great numbers of people to hold ceremonies. They study our laws, decrees and
customs; they survey and draw up maps of our mountains and rivers, and at the same time
they strain every nerve to win over the populace.” Chen not only perceived these various
geopolitical developments and the growing influence of Catholic institutions as direct threats
to Guangdong, he also believed that these developments were an impetus for an even
greater Catholic propagation and further establishment of Catholic churches in other
provinces. Chen thus felt that it was imperative for the Qing state and Kangxi Emperor to
enact preemptive measures, in particular, a prohibition of all Catholic missionaries in the
Qing provinces to prevent the increasing territorial and commercial control of the Catholic
missions and foreign merchants. “Therefore, I hope Your Majesty commands the major
officials in each province to implement preemptive measures… This is the way to guarantee
the security of our dynasty (guojia 国家).”
Deliberations in the Imperial Court Regarding Chen Mao’s Memorial
Chen’s memorial arrived in Beijing in the early spring of 1717. The ailing Kangxi
Emperor, preoccupied with his squabbling sons and his deteriorating health, referred Chen’s
memorial to the imperial court’s State Council of Nine, a committee entrusted with the
responsibility of carrying out preliminary deliberations of provincial documents and
27
memorials. Chen’s accusations against the Catholic missionaries and recommendations for
maritime reform were initially well-received by the imperial court.62
On April 16, 1717, the State Council of Nine convened to discuss Chen’s memorial
and subsequently issued a preliminary verdict advocating Chen’s recommendations for
prohibition of Catholicism. Jesuit missionaries learned of the Council’s verdict and
immediately pleaded with Yin-t’ang, the ninth son of the Kangxi Emperor, to intervene and
persuade the Council to revoke the initial determination. On May 11, the Council
reconvened to discuss Chen’s memorial and the related pleas of the Jesuit missionaries;
however, despite the intervention of Yin-t’ang and the Jesuits, the Council issued a
supplemental and similarly harsh verdict calling for prohibition.63
Discussions of Chen’s memorial in the Council continued nevertheless. Soon
thereafter a third verdict was announced. It was much less drastic than the two prior
decisions. This final decision, issued by the Council on May 19, eliminated the prohibition
clause, citing as precedent the decrees of 1669 (semi-toleration of Catholicism in the
provinces) and 1706 (allowing missionaries who held a piao certificate to continue to
preach).64 Two days later, the Kangxi Emperor received this final deliberation from the
Council and ratified it. It was passed to the Beijing gazette for expedited publication and
distribution.65 On May 24, the Catholic priests Fr. Jose Suares, S.J., Fr. Dominique Parrenin,
S.J., and Fr. Joao Mourao, S.J., attended an imperial audience with the Kangxi Emperor. 66
They claimed that, despite its modified provisions, the final verdict essentially “banned”
Catholicism. The Kangxi Emperor explained that Catholicism was not banned, and that
62
Rosso, p. 194.
Ibid, 194-195.
64
Fu Lo-shu, pp. 123-124.
65
Rosso, p. 314.
66
Ibid, 321.
63
28
Catholic missionaries with the piao would be allowed to continue regular practices in the
provincial missions.67
While the imperial court’s final response to Chen’s memorial suggests that his impact
on the decision-making in Beijing was not significant, ensuing events revealed that Chen’s
accusations against the missionaries became important to the considerations that resulted in
the 1721 proscription and the subsequent deportation of missionaries in 1724. On March 9,
1718, Yang Lin, Governor General of Guangdong and Guangxi provinces, resubmitted
Chen’s memorial nearly in its entirety.68 Yang, who admits his direct use of Chen’s exact
arguments, accused foreign merchants and missionaries of conspiring against the Qing state
and called for the prohibition of Catholicism.69 The State Council of Nine convened to
reconsider this updated version of Chen’s original memorial. The Council adopted Chen’s
original recommendation that the Kangxi Emperor issue an imperial decree to proscribe all
Catholic missionaries in Qing provinces. The Kangxi Emperor ratified the Council’s
recommendation and decreed that a prohibition was necessary.70 In January 1721, eleven
months before his death, the Kangxi Emperor issued the formal decree proscribing Catholic
missionaries in the Qing state. Following the Kangxi Emperor’s death, his son and
successor, the Yongzheng Emperor, implemented this policy in October 1724, leading to a
massive deportation of Catholic missionaries to Canton and cessation of all official Catholic
missionary practices in Qing provinces.71
67
Ibid, 323.
Fu Lo-shu, p. 125.
69
Wang Zhongmin, p. 213.
70
Rosso, p. 375.
71
Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, p. 519.
68
29
Conclusion
Chen Mao and his memorial shed new light on the dynamics surrounding the 1721
proscription of Catholicism and the evolution of the Chinese Rites controversy in the earlyQing period. Recent scholarship has focused on the tensions between Catholicism and the
Qing state within the context of the ideological, religious, and linguistic differences that were
manifested in the Qing imperial court’s tenuous interactions with papal delegations and
Catholic missionaries. Moreover, while the discourse on the Chinese Rites Controversy has
attempted in recent years to expand upon the myriad (albeit inadequate) “Euro-centric”
interpretations of the development of early-Qing Catholicism, a common shortcoming of
this literature has been its narrow focus on how Qing imperial officials in Beijing interpreted
the religious and moral implications of the various missionary policies, the actions of the papal
delegations, and the corresponding decrees issued directly from Rome. These various issues
are important to an overall understanding of the perspectives of Beijing officials and the
manner in which they addressed the policies and philosophies of the meddling Europeans.
However, if an assessment stops here, a further element of the prohibition of Catholicism in
the early-Qing era is erroneously overlooked.
Chen’s memorial is particularly significant because it reveals a new dimension in the
interpretation of this period. In short, Chen Mao and his memorial are central to the
importance of provincial and security considerations in the context of the 1721 proscription
of Catholicism. Moreover, Chen Mao is a unique figure because he emerged from relative
obscurity in the Qing military ranks to influence directly the imperial decision-making in
Beijing and the policies of the Qing government. In contrast to the traditional focus on
theological events and tensions in Beijing and Rome, an examination of Chen Mao’s
background, military position, and his memorial’s various arguments provides valuable
30
insights into the much broader set of circumstances that led to the 1721 proscription. Chen’s
perspective on the presence of Catholic missionaries in Guangdong and their assimilation
into Qing society was the culmination of his first-hand experiences and observations in
Guangdong and the neighboring regions. And, most importantly, while Chen’s urgent
advocacy for the prohibition of Catholicism initially did not receive final approval from the
imperial court, his memorial was an important factor in the deliberations leading up to the
ultimate prohibition decision by the imperial court and the Kangxi Emperor.
Chen Mao died in 1719. A state funeral was conferred upon him in honor of his
military services to the Qing state.72 Thus, Chen did not witness the fruits of his own work.
72
Wang Zhongmin, p. 215.
31
Bibliography
Calanca, Paola. “From a Forbidden Ocean to an Ocean Under Close Watch: The Ming and
Early Qing Governments and the Maritime Problem,” Ming Qing Yanjiu (Napoli, Roma)
(1998).
Chan, Albert S.J., Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome: A
Descriptive Catalogue. Japonica-Sinica I-IV Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2002.
Dai, Yingcong, “To Nourish a Strong Military: Kangxi’s Preferential Treatment of His
Military Officials,” War & Society (Canberra) 18, no. 2, (October 2000)
Dudink, Ad, “The Japonica-Sinica Collections I-IV in the Roman Archives of the Society of
Jesus: An Overview,” Monumenta Serica 50 (2002).
Fu, Lo-shu. A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations (1644-1820). Tucson,
Published for the Association for Asian Studies by the University of Arizona Press, Vol. 1-2,
1966
Gao, Xiang; Huang, Shiqi; Yu, Sheng; Liston, Mike, trans., “On the Trends of
Modernization in the Early Qing Period,” Social Sciences in China (Beijing) 22, no. 4, (Winter
2001).
Jami, Catherine, “Imperial Control and Western Learning: The Kangxi Emperor’s
Performance,” Late Imperial China (Baltimore, MD) 23, no. 1 (June 2002).
Kelly, Edward Thomas. The Anti-Christian Persecution of 1616-1617 in Nanking. Ann
Harbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, Columbia University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1971.
Kishimoto-Nakayama, Mio. “The Kangxi Depression and Early Qing Local Markets,”
Modern China (Beverly Hills, CA) 10, no. 2 (April 1984).
Ku, Wei-ying. Missionary Approaches and Linguistics in Mainland China and Taiwan.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation, 2001.
32
Ladany, Laszlo. The Catholic Church in China: Perspectives on Freedom. New York:
Freedom House, 1987.
Lee, Thomas. China and Europe: Images and Influences in Sixteenth to Eighteenth
Centuries. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1991.
Lettres edifiantes et curieuses, ecrites des missions etrangeres memoires de la chine. Memoires de la Chine.
Chinese. Yesu hui shi Zhongguo shu jian ji耶稣会士中国书简集: Zhongguo hui yi
lu中国回忆录/ Duhede bian 杜赫德编; Zheng Dedi郑德弟, Lu Yimin, Shen Jian yi;
Zhengzhou Shi: Da xiang chuban she 大象出版社, Xifang zaoqi Hanxue jing dian yi cong
西方早期汉学经典译丛 Ed. 1, Vol. II, 2001
Leung, Beatrice. Sino-Vatican Relations: Problems in Conflicting Authority: 1976-1986.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Lin, Jinshui, “The Influence of Ferdinand Verbiest on the Policy of the Kangxi Emperor
towards Christianity,” In: Witek, John W., ed. Ferdinand Verbiest: (1623-1688) Jesuit Missionary,
Scientist, Engineer and Diplomat. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica; Leuven:
Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation, 1994; Monumenta Serica monograph series, 30, 1994.
Li Zubo et al. Tianxue chuan’gai (A summary of the spread of the Heavenly Teaching). 1664.
Reprinted in Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian xubian, edited by Wu Xiangxiang, 2, Taibei, 1966.
Malek, Roman. Western Learning and Christianity in China: The Contribution and Impact of
Johann Adam Schall von Bell, S.J. (1592-1666). Monumena Serica XXX, Vol.1-2, Sankt
Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 1998.
Minamiki, George, S.J., The Chinese Rites Controversy from Its Beginning to Modern
Times. Chicago, Loyola, 1985.
Mungello, David E. e.d., The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Nettetal,
Germany: Steyler, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series, 1994.
__________. The Forgotten Christians of Hangzhou. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1994.
33
__________. The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800. Lanham, Maryland,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999.
__________. The Spirit and the Flesh in Shangdong, 1650-1785. Lanham: Maryland:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2001.
Ricci, Matteo, S.J., The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (T’ien-chu Shih-li). Translated
by Douglas Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen, S.J. St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources,
1985.
Ronan, Charles E., S.J., Oh, Bonnie B. C. East Meets West: The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773.
Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988.
Rosso, Antonio Sisto, O.F.M., Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century.
South Pasadena: Perkins, 1948.
Standaert, Nicolas. The Fascinating God. Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, Roma,
1995.
_____________. ed., Handbook of Christianity in China. Volume One: 635-1800. Leiden:
Brill, 2001.
St. Sure, Donald F. S.J., trans. 100 Roman Documents Concerning the Chinese Rites
Controversy (1645-1941). (Chinese). Zhongguo li yi zhi zheng 中国礼仪之争: xi wen wen xian
yi bai pian 西文文献一百篇, 1645-1941, Su’er 苏而, Nuo’er 诺而 bian 编; Shen Baoyi
沈保义, Gu Weimin 顾洧民, Zhu Jing 朱静 yi 译; Shanghai: Shanghai guji chuban she
上海古机出版社,
Ed. I, 2001
“Vermilion Decree to Legate Mezzabarba,” January 31, 1721, Submitted to the Provincial
Government of Beijing on January 31, 1721. Primary document of full text found in Rosso,
Antonio Sisto, O.F.M., Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century. South
Pasadena: Perkins, 1948, p. 388.
34
Wang, Xiaochao. Christianity and Imperial Culture: Chinese Christian Apologetics in the
Seventeenth Century and Their Latin Patristic Equivalent. Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke
Brill NV, 1998.
Wang, Zhongmin 王 重民, “Chen Mao Zhuan” 陈昴传, Tushujikan 图书季刊 xin 新, 7, 1-2
(January 1946); reproduced. In: Lenglu wensou 冷录文薮, Shanghai Guji, 1992.
Wu, Silas H. L. Communication and Imperial Culture in China: Evolution of the Palace
Memorial System 1693-1735. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970.
35
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the research assistance from the following individuals:
Professor Willard Peterson, David Mungello, Nicolas Standaert, Joanne Chiang, Zhang Yue,
Martin Kern, Martin Heijdra, and the respective Staffs of Princeton University’s Gest
Library and Firestone Library. In addition, I would also like to thank the University of San
Francisco Ricci Institute for their helpful assistance in obtaining documents related to the
Chinese Rites Controversy.
36