Jesuit Interpretations of Marvellous Births

226 Chapter 4

Chapter 4 Jesuit Interpretations of Marvellous Births

Nos voyageurs missionnaires rapportent, avec candeur, que lorsqu’ils parlèrent au sage empereur Kangxi des variations considérables de la chronologie de la Vulgate, des Septante, et des Samaritains, Kangxi leur répondit : « Est-il possible que les livres en qui vous croyez se com- battent ? » Voltaire, La Philosophie de l’histoire (1969), p. 153.

Our missionary travelers relate, with candour, that, when they spoke to that sage emperor, Kangxi, of the great chronological variations of the Vulgate, of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritans, Kangxi asked them, if it were [really] possible, that the books in which they believed, contra- dicted each other? Voltaire, The Philosophy of History (1829), p. 107.

⸪

Introduction

The fourth chapter shifts the focus from conversations between texts within Chinese language and culture to the transfer of these conversations to and between texts of European languages and cultures. More concretely, various interpretations by Jesuit missionaries of the historical texts on marvellous births mentioned by the Chinese classics will be discussed in order to investi- gate some characteristics of intercultural hermeneutics. It will be shown that this transfer was to a large extent shaped by the interpretations that were made by Chinese commentators before the transfer. Moreover it will become clear that the diversity of Chinese interpretations was echoed in a diversity of Jesuit interpretations. Regarding this diversity of Jesuit interpretations, Virgile Pinot proposes in his major study La Chine et la formation de l’esprit philosophique en France (1640–1740), a very useful thematic and subsequently regional distinction between the French Jesuits who were studying China’s ancient past: one group consisted of those who believed in the antiquity of China as a nation

(Dominique Parrenin, Jean-Baptiste Régis, Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla, Alexandre de La Charme and Antoine Gaubil) and those who did not (Joachim Bouvet, Joseph de de Prémare, and to a certain extent Jean-François Foucquet).1 After the death of the Kangxi emperor and the subsequent expul- sion of 1724, the first group could remain in Beijing, while the other, with the exception of Bouvet, had to move to Canton and Macao. That is why Pinot calls the former the “Beijing” group and the latter the “Canton” group. At times there was a good deal of (personal) animosity between them, including some of their superiors, though they did not write as extensively on these topics as the main participants in the discussions. The divisions received then the labels of the French regions of Lyons and Paris, with Vincent de Tartre and François-Xavier Dentrecolles as the “Lyonnais” opposed to Joachim Bouvet and Jean-François Foucquet belonging to the Parisian group.2 These geographic delineations can only function as a metaphor, because they are not entirely correct. Bouvet, for instance, never left Beijing, while Foucquet had to leave China before 1724.3 Moreover, there were also differences within the different groups. Still, in this essay we will often use the terms “Beijing” and “Canton” group to delineate two major approaches in historiographical writing by Jesuits missionaries in China. Both groups aimed at promoting the diffusion of Christianity in the best possible way, and both were of the opinion that the best way to do that was to show the Chinese that the Judaic traditions could be accepted by them and that the books of Moses were not in contradiction with the canonical writings of China. There was, however, a major difference in their attitude towards the Chinese past. The “Beijing” group accepted ancient Chinese history, as it was established by tradition, and tried to insert the history of China into the gen- eral history of humanity, as reported by the Bible. The “Canton” group denied that one could find the earliest history of China in the canonical writings of China. They considered these writings books containing “symbols” and therefore they were rather searching for the traces of the first humans and the announcement of a Messiah in these Chinese texts. Therefore regarding their methods, the former are called by Pinot “Historians,” the latter “symbolist theo- logians,” or “Figurists.”4 In this essay the same labels will be adopted. Virgile Pinot also refers to a third group: the Jesuits in Paris, who never went to China but edited the works of the French Jesuits. As already shown in chapter two regarding Jean-Baptiste Du Halde’s modification in “Fastes de la

1 Pinot (1932), pp. 251–252. 2 Rule (1986). 3 See critical remarks by Witek (1982), pp. 333–334. 4 Pinot (1932), pp. 149, 251–252.