Geographical survey and cartography of Northeast in early 18th century: French missionary Mailla and his map of East Sea

Long CHENG*

This paper exams the changing process of the names from Sea of Japan to East Sea on the Atlas of China by European missionaries and geographers in early 18th century and explains the reasons behind the change. French Missionary de Mailla played a critical role in replacing Sea of Japan, a name first used by the pioneer missionary Matteo Ricci, with East Sea, on which most missionaries, who visited the coastal area of Sea of Japan/East Sea, such as Gerbillion, reached a consensus on its accuracy. The geographical survey in Northeast China carried out by Jesuits also offered them an opportunity to collect first hand information on the sea area, and confirmed them to put East Sea, instead of Sea of Japan, on their maps and atlas.

In 1779, a Map of East was published in with the cartographer indicated as Joseph-Francois-Marie-Anne de Moyriac de Mailla, a French missionary stationed in China. “Ocean Orientale” (East Sea) was clearly marked on the water body between Korean Peninsula and Japan archipelagos. This paper intends to discover the story of the missionary and his map-making. Further study reveals that interest of Chinese emperor on the cartography of and in early 18th century had arisen from the clashes with and the following boundary demarcation in 1680s. European missionaries Gerbillon and Pereira in Qing imperial court who were involved in the negotiation with Russia proposed the survey and mapping, and Régis and his team planed and put the project of into practice. Mailla played an important role in the map- making for Manchuria and Siberia, and the name East Sea reflected the first-hand knowledge about the sea area off the coast of Siberia. Mailla’s prominent sinology research, geographical survey, map-making, as well as his connection with French cartographers and publishers made the name East Sea the most popular one on European maps for the water body in 19th century

* Professor, Alexander College, Canada.

Long CHENG 1

EAST SEA IN CHINESE DOCUMENTS AND MATTEO RICCI`S SEA OF JAPAN

Even though a map attributed to Meatto Ricci (1552-1610), the famous Italian missionary to China in late 16th century, indicates Manchuria, Siberia and water body off the seashore, the above mentioned areas had not been surveyed until early 18th century by European missionaries following Meatto Ricci to China. These missionaries who first set their feet on the coast of East Sea or Sea of Japan brought back firsthand knowledge of the sea and put them on the maps which included not only the latitude and longitude of some places, but also the name of the water body. Being used by both Han- Chinese and non-Han nomadic groups at the north of the Great Wall, the name of East Sea has a history of more than one thousand and five hundred years. The name appeared on the atlas and maps published in Europe, after it being introduced to French Imperial Geographer d’Anville through his contact with French missionaries in China. For Han-Chinese people, East Sea was a general name for the sea area off the , particularly when Chinese early civilization emerged and concentrated on the Yellow River valley, or North China. It referred to the sea areas that include, what we call today, Bo Hai, Yellow Sea, and East China Sea. When expanding their domain to South China in Qin Dynasty (221BC), Han Chinese began to apply South Sea to the water body south to the mainland, whose popular name today is South China Sea. In ancient China, Chinese attempted to find North Sea and West Sea to match the East and South ones, in order to certify their ancient view toward the world that they were in the center of the world. Lake Baikal and Qinghai Lake had been identified as North Sea and West Sea respectively around the first century. However, it took more time for Chinese to know about the East Sea, or Sea of Japan. Since most of the non-Han nomadic groups of Chinese empire lived at the margin or inland of the country, they seldom had a chance to go to the coast or learn of the sea. But one exception was the people in Manchuria, or northeast of China. Those living at southern Manchuria found themselves on a peninsular with seas to three sides, while the residents at north Manchuria or of Siberia near the coast of ocean. For hundreds of years, the nomadic groups in Manchuria and Siberia, such as Xianbe in 8th century and Jurchen in 11th century blocked the way of Han Chinese to the coast of East Sea, or Sea of Japan. Several names for the same water body, like Jianghai (鯨海, Sea of Whales), Donghai (東海, East Sea) and Dahai (大海, Great Sea), appeared in Chinese documents from 8th to 11th century, which might have their origins in different nomadic nationalities. More work need to be done to identify the connection between each term and a specified nomadic group. Even though the names of the sea area had been introduced into China, but less record and few maps about it suggest that, Chinese still had a very vague picture about north Siberia and its coastal . The situation didn’t turn any better during the time of Yuan Dynasty, or Mongolian Empire, because Mongolians focused much more on horses rather than ships. They brought very little information on East Sea, or Sea of Japan into central China. It seemed that the ambiguity of the names had confused the Italian missionary Matteo Ricci, who marked the water body as Sea of Japan for the first time in history on his

2 SESSION II map of Asia, while neglecting so many Chinese names. Ricci could well read and write Chinese language and he did a lot of research on Chinese history and geography. However, the accelerating clashes between Ming and Manchu at the turn of 17th century prevented him from visiting Manchuria or Far East Siberia to collect any first hand materials before his drew the map. Neither could he make any effort to clarify those different names. What he could rely on was either the Chinese documents, the accounts of Western explorers and the correspondence of missionaries in Japan and Southeast Asian countries. It is obvious that he borrowed the name Sea of Japan from other sources, but was not quite familiar with the issue, and he never mentioned Sea of Japan again in his abundant records on China and Asia.

GERBILLON`S TRIPS TO NORTH MANCHURIA AND EAST SEA IN HIS TRAVEL LOGS

Despite of Matteo Ricci’s status as pioneer Sinologist, his followers, Jesuit missionaries to Qing China, quickly dropped the term Sea of Japan and replaced it with East Sea, which showed that they had discovered more reliable sources for the sea name and was very confident to make the change. French missionaries Jean François Gerbillon (張誠, 1654-1707) and Thomas Pereira (徐日昇, 1645-1663) were the first Europeans to travel in Amur River valley and coast of East Sea, or Sea of Japan, and brought back firsthand knowledge of the sea area. In late 17th century, Russian expansion into Amur River (called Heilongjiang in China, which means Black Dragon River) met strong resistance of Qing Empire. When the conflict Figure 1. Du Halde’s Description brought truce in 1688, both sides sent a Géographique, Historique, delegation to negotiate a treaty for a fixed border. Chronologique, Politique, et Among Chinese delegates, Gerbillon and Pereria Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et acted as interpreters and counsellors. Gerbillon de la Tartaries Chinoise and had a detailed journal on his trip to Nerchinsk and published in 1735 the negotiation, which was incorporated into Du Halde’s Description Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise and published in 1735. Gerbillion had collected a lot of information about Far East Siberia, probably requested by his job of assistance for demarcation and negotiation. Instead of Sea of Japan, he began to use the term of East Sea throughout his journals. He gave a brief introduction to Amur River in his account: Saghalien ou la (Manchurian Language for Black River), or Black River as it is called by Tartars, or Amur River, as it is named by Muscovites, origins in the mountains

Long CHENG 3

between Selenga River and Nerchinsk, running from west to east providing navigation of five hundred Lis (distance unit, about 500 meters) for big boats. It flows into the East Sea at the point between 53 or 54 degree in latitude. (Du Halde, 230) On Aug. 26th, 1689, Gerbillion also wrote: The representative of Russian ambassador came to our camp to learn our Commissioners’ final decision. One of our ministers presented him with a great map and showed him the border. A small steam named Erbichi had its origin near a great range, which extends from north of Saghalian into East Sea. It joins Saghalian River 30 or 40 miles below Nerchinsk. The lands west of Erbichi River and north of that range belongs to Russian, while the land of the other side belongs to Chinese. (Du Halde, 232-233)

Figure 2. Gerbillon’s record of East Sea

Gerbillion’s journals on Spet.1st and 2nd confirmed the usage of East Sea. “According to the minute of the meeting, the border was marked along a range, which runs from the source of Erbichi River to northeast and eventually down to the East Sea and North Sea” (Du Halde, 238). The ocean between Siberia and Japan is again referred to as East Sea, and Gerbillon called Ocean as North Sea. In the record of Sept. 2nd, Gerbillon pointed out the latitude of the range as 80 degree, which perfectly matches the latitude of the Mountains in Sebiria. Gerbillon certainly had contacted some people from the seashore in order to gather information. In his account, he noted a special fish that was the favorite of Tartary fishermen, because the teeth of the fish were pursued to make rings for shooting arrows (Du Halde, 239). Pereria’s journal echoed the uses of the name East Sea in Giberllon’s travel logs. Russians discovered in the East Sea a kind of big fish and made profit by selling it, whose white teeth are as long as one meter, and very solid, looks like Jade.(It might be walrus.) (Joseph Sebes, S. J, Proface) Apart from the diplomatic delegation, Qing Government had also sent someone to the coastal area of West Siberia to collection geographical information and Gerbillon apparently got what they had brought back to the imperial court. Gerbillon recalled that he learned from Emperor Qianlong during their conversation, that someone returned from the mouth of Amur River and reported to have seen ice on the sea in July. This

4 SESSION II shows Gerbillon had three sources for his accounts: 1) his own observation during the trip; 2) his direct contact with the people of coastal area during his trip; 3) indirect information he got from those who had investigated the coastal area by the order of the emperor. These sources made his accounts very reliable and convinced most of the Jesuits missionaries to abandon the term Sea of Japan from Matteo Ricci and preferred the name EAST SEA. Gerbillon had detailed itinerary of his eight expeditions to Manchuria and Siberia during 1688 to 1699, which turned out to be an invaluable material for Jesuits in Peking including de Mailla to compile their own works on history and geography of East Asia. Gerbillon`s travels and accounts of Manchuria and Siberia earned him the credits to be the pioneer European missionary of using East Sea (Mer Orientale) as the name for water body between Korean Peninsula and Japan. When Du Halde incorporated Gerbillon`s journal into his famous book Description Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise, the name East Sea became well known to European geographers and cartographers. And it was very likely that even before 1735, the year of the publication of Du Halde’s book, the name East Sea had been introduced to Europe through the correspondence between Jesuits missionaries in Peking and their colleagues in Paris. Besides Gerbillon’s accounts, what consolidated the usage of East Sea was the survey and cartography of Manchuria the Jesuit missionaries in China carried out in 1710s, which was prompted by the clashes with Russia and Mongolian tribes.

JESUITS SURVEY AND CARTOGRAPHY IN MANCHURIA IN 1710S

Shortly after the dispute settled with Russia, the Qing Empire began another warfare with Dzungar, a Mongolian tribe beyond the Great Wall. In 1696, led by Emperor Kangxi himself, the imperial troops advanced farther north into the heartland of Mongolia and Manchuria. Several European missionaries including Gerbillon followed the emperor with his expedition and constantly suggested a geographical survey and cartography of the borderland in purpose of military defense. Due to the significant assistance the European missionaries had offered in the dispute with Russia and the campaign to crack down Mongolian rebellion, Emperor Kangxi accepted the advice. In 1708, the land surveys initiated, and several teams were set out to map Manchuria, Mongolia, and 15 provinces of China proper. Astronomical observations and methods of triangulation were both used during the survey and mapping. Jean-Baptiste Régis (1663-1738), a French Jesuit who came to Peking in 1698, headed the team dispatched to Manchuria, reaching as far as Amur River valley. He spent five months from July to December in 1710 travelling around Northeast China and Siberia. The materials and statistics collected were brought back to Peking, where more missionaries joined into the work of compiling and map-making. The flurry of map-making activity lasted for 10 years and the regional maps were eventually combined into a great atlas in 1718, known in Chinese as Huangyu Quanlantu 皇與全覽圖 [Overview Maps of the Imperial Territories], while Western scholars preferred the name Jesuit Atlas, or Kangxi Atlas (Theodore Foss, 140).

Long CHENG 5

Regarding the name of the sea off Siberian Coast in Far East, updated information from Regis presented no contradiction to what Gerbillon had recorded. East Sea was the only name that Regis took back with other statistics of geographical investigation. Nevertheless, in the atlas, the water body between Korea and Japan was left blank without a name. It is quite hard to figure out the reason of the absence of the name. The Jesuit map-makers apparently had Matteo Ricci’s map in their hands; however, the survey and investigation in the region suggested East Sea as a better name than Sea of Japan. The blank could manifest the subtle feeling of the Jesuits, who refused to follow Matteo Ricci’s mistake, but were reluctant to refute the pioneer on their maps. Another possibility might be that the Jesuits needed deeper research on the name to choose a better one between them, but the heavy work of survey prevented them from spending more time on it, and the blank was much safer before they reached any conclusion. Had Gerbillon not die in 1707, one year before the mapping project began, he should have taken part in the survey and map-making of Manchuria and Siberia, given his great experience of travelling in the area. And it was very likely that he would support the name East Sea which had appeared in his journal so many times.

Figure 3. Carte générale de la Tartarie chinoise et des royaumes de Corée et de Iapan in 1732. Gerbillon’s record of East Sea

D’ANVILLE’S MAP AND EAST SEA

Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, the Jesuit in Paris, received the atlas from China shortly after it was published, but it was until 1730s, more than a decade later, that he decided to publish it Europe with the huge volumes of China. He asked Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville (1697-1782), the French imperial geographer and cartographer, to redraw the maps for his book. Although d’Anville had added more geographical information into the French version atlas, he discarded the name Sea of Japan and maintained blank for the water body off

6 SESSION II the Far East coast of Siberia and west of Korean Peninsula, because he considered Gerbillon’s Journal the basic material for his map of Tartary and Manchuria, in which East Sea was clearly used. In fact, before Du Halde’s book was printed, d’Anville had already published a map Carte générale de la Tartarie chinoise et des royaumes de Corée et de Iapan (D’Anville , 1732) in. He credited the map to Gerbillon’s journal: Observation of Tartary. Therefore, d’Anville must know that Gerbillon used East Sea for the water body, but he kept silent for the name of the sea in the atlas for Du Halde, because he had no more materials than the Jesuits that could help him to make the choice. However, there is one thing for sure to him, that is, the name Sea of Japan had been dropped by the Jesuits who had travelled much closer to the sea than Matteo Ricci. The book of Du Halde gained a great deal of fame, so did d’Anville’s atlas. A few years later, it was translated into English. However, on the maps of the English version, the publisher put the name Sea of Japan again on the blank. How did this happen? It was easy for the publishers of the English version to find someone to translate the book, but hard for them to get the original plates of the map for reprinting. They had to redraw the maps by themselves. d’Anville was never involved in any editing of the maps in English version, or any other language version. The change had been made, obviously, by the publishers who wanted to attract more readers with more information. They of course didn’t know why the Jesuits and the French imperial geographer had left a blank on the map. Besides the maps of the English version, a Dutch publisher also made a new atlas in 1737 in name of d’Anville, Nouvel atlas de la Chine, de la Tartarie chinoise et du Thibet, claiming it to be the extraction from Du Halde’s book, which was in fact drawn by the publisher itself.

Figure 4. Map of China in English Version of Description Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise

Long CHENG 7

D’Anville opened fire to these maps which had not been made according to his original ones in 1776, nearly 40 years after the maps were published. Almost all of these maps are not only terribly inferior to the original ones in terms of execution, but also very badly engraved in all respects. The mountains on the Dutch map are in very bad taste: they are little hills, detached and randomly scattered, without being joined together in order to express the natural; the typeface is puny and of equally bad taste. We even find some rivers that are not depicted on the original map as they are on the Dutch copy, and if we would take pains to scrutinize it and submit all copies to a careful examination, there is no doubt that we would find many more mistakes of this sort(D’Anville, 1776:8). D’Anville’s statement shows that any map other than in the original version (French version) of Description Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise in 1735 cannot be considered as d’Anville’s work and was full of mistakes. Therefore, Sea of Japan on the map in English version was not the name d’Anville had agreed to use.

Figure 5. Sea of Japan on Map of China in Figure 6. Mémoire de M. D’Anville, English Version of Description Premier Géographe du Roi, Des Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Académies Royales des Belles-Lettres, & Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la des Sciences. Sur la Chine, 1776. Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise

8 SESSION II

DE MAILLA’S MAP OF EAST SEA

De Mailla was one of the Jesuits who broke the ice by replacing Matteo Ricci’s Sea of Japan with East Sea. Joseph-Francois-Marie-Anne de Moyriac de Mailla was born in France in 1669. He was dispatched to China in 1702 at the age of 33, two years after the survey had started. During his early years in China, he stayed in Jiangxi Province of southern China. Even though he missed the trip to Manchuria, de Mailla accompanied Regis to southeast coastal provinces such as Zhengjiang, Taiwan and Fujian for land survey. He quitted the job in 1714 and began to translate Tongjiangangmu, a Chinese history book into French. De Mailla didn’t go with the team to Manchuria, which made the way two years before his joined the survey work. Neither did he participate the map- making for Manchuria, which was done three years after his leave. But de Mailla turned his attention to the map of Manchuria during his translation and contact with other Jesuits, such as Antoine Gaubil (1689-1759), a great sinologist and geographer, who first introduced the name Diaoyu Island (Senkaku Island) into Europe (Gaubil, 216). It was likely that the maps with wrong names mentioned by d’Anville prompted de Mailla to make his own map of Manchuria and Siberia. The Jesuits in Peking quickly leaned the news that Du Halde had published the atlas in late 1730s, and both the original French version and English version or Dutch version were brought back to China. When de Mailla saw these maps, he blamed d’Anville for the mistakes and for not respecting the original work of Jesuits in China. He began his own map-making for Manchuria and Siberia, Carte de la Tartarie chinoise et des pays limitrophes(Mailla, 1779), and published it with the help of M. Brion de la Tour in 1779. On the map, de Mailla gave up the name Sea of Japan and replaced it with East Sea, a change that the Jesuits in China had long wished to make. Gerbillon’s legacy, the journal of eight trips into Manchuria and Skiberia, along with the information collected by Regis, became precious foundation for de Mailla’ work. In the second half of 18th century, the name of East Sea became more popular in both Chinese documents and European maps. In 19th century, the name of Sea of Japan still appeared on the pirated maps of d’Anville, but it had been discarded by professional geographers and cartographers.

Long CHENG 9

Figure 7. Carte de la Tartarie chinoise et des pays limitrophes (1779)

Figure 8. East Sea (Ocean Orientale) on Carte de la Tartarie chinoise et des pays limitrophes (1779)

10 SESSION II

REFERENCES

D’Anville, Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon (1732), Carte générale de la Tartarie chinoise et des royaumes de Corée et de Iapan, Paris:National Library of France, CPL GE DD-2987 (7271 B). D’Anville, Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon (1776), Mémoire de M. D’Anville, Premier Géographe du Roi, Des Académies Royales des Belles-Lettres, & des Sciences. Sur la Chine, Beijing. Du Halde, J. B. (1736), Description Géographique, Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de L’Empire de la Chine et de la Tartaries Chinoise, Paris:Tome Quatrième. Foss, Theodore (1994), ‘Jesuit cartography: a Western interpretation of China’, Review of Culture, 21(4). pp. 133–156. Gaubil, Antoine and Renée Simon ed. (1970), Correspondance de Pékin 1722–1759, Genève: Librarie Droz. Joseph Sebes, S. J.(1961), The Jesuits and the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk: The Diary of Thomas Pereira, Rome: Institutum Historicum. Mailla and M. Brion de la Tour (1779). Carte de la Tartarie chinoise et des pays limitrophes, Paris : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE D-17865.

Long CHENG 11