The Chinese Rites
Controversy
As
a means of connecting the ideas we discussed in our workshop to the E.S.L.
teaching issues which I have described, Dr. Woodbridge has encouraged me to
examine the Chinese Rites Controversy, which occupied the attention of the
Catholic church from 1643 to 1742.
I will begin by outlining the history of that controversy[1],
after which I will present the most important insights which I obtained from
reading about it.
A. Background of the Chinese Rites
Controversy
Traditionally,
three religious "ways" have been practiced in China. Of these, Confucianism is more of a
theory of social relationships and duties than a religious system. The Confucian "classics" were
compiled by Kung-Fu-tze (Confucius, d. 479 b.c.), and were themselves for the
most part a codification of older texts, some of great antiquity. Confucianism became the cult of the
state and ruling class, and the Confucian teachings about mourning for the dead
and honoring one's ancestors were observed at all levels of society. The Confucian concept of hsiao (filial piety) was regarded as the
basis of all morality. Confucian
norms of social conduct (li)
attempted to regulate every aspect of human behavior.
"Neo-Confucianism," which arose in the 11th century, was an
attempt to elaborate Confucian teachings into a complete philosophical and
religious system. Taoism (the
teachings of Lao-tze, a near-contemporary of Confucius) is explicitly
religious. It is an elaborate
system of animistic teachings, emphasizing paranormal experiences and
manipulation of spiritual forces.
In many ways, Taoism was a systematization of much older animistic
beliefs, its appeal was to the lower classes and to eccentrics who sought to
obtain magical powers and an extended span of life. In Chinese society, Taoism functioned as a counterbalance to
the staid and respectable Confucian teachings. The third religious system of China, Buddhism, was brought
by missionaries from India, perhaps as early as the first century a.d. Buddhism offered a fully-elaborated
religious and philosophical system.
Its emphasis was on doing good works with a view to obtaining a
favorable incarnation in the next life.
Northern (Mahayana) Buddhism, as practiced in China, was also influenced
in many ways by folk religion and earlier animistic beliefs.
It
is not known exactly when the first Christian missionaries entered China. The first documented missionary in
China was the Nestorian A-lo-pen, who reached the Chinese capital in 635 a.d. He succeeded in establishing a church
there which flourished for some time, even receiving financial support from the
state. However, in 845 a.d., the
Taoist emperor Wu Tsung issued an edict banning both Buddhism and Christianity,
and both religions suffered severe persecution. Buddhism survived this era of persecution, but Nestorian
Christianity did not. In 987 a.d.,
it was reported that no Christians were to be found in China, although small
communities of Nestorian Christians continued to exist on the Chinese border in
Central Asia. In the 13th
century, China was conquered by the Mongols, some of whom were Nestorian
Christians; during that same period, papal emissaries succeeded in reaching
China and were received at the imperial court. Some of the Mongol ruling class were converted to
Catholicism, and a bishop was appointed.
However, with the collapse of the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty in 1368, all
forms of Christianity appear to have been again eradicated from China.[2]
By
the 14th century, China was the most populous nation on earth, and
arguably the most civilized. Its
rate of literacy was higher than that of any European nation. By this time, enough accurate
information about China had reached Europe to make some Europeans became aware
of China's great significance. The
avowed purpose of Columbus' voyages of discovery was to reach China and convert
the Chinese to Christianity. He
and others believed that the conversion of China and the destruction of Islam
were the two remaining obstacles to the return of Christ.
As
trade with the Chinese became more commonplace, Europeans became fascinated
with the high level of Chinese civilization. In particular, Chinese history was studied with a view to
reconciling it with the Bible; Chinese books were brought back to Europe, and
the Chinese language was avidly studied by scholars who believed that Chinese
was the primeval language of mankind, that its grammar might be reduced to a
set of logical algorithms, or that its written characters represented a
language of pure symbols. In a letter
of 1689, Leibniz conveys some of this excitement about China: "Europe and
China are like two worlds separated by an enormous distance; may they mutually
instruct and enlarge each other."[3]
Sustained
contact between Europe and China began during the late Ming dynasty. This was a remarkable period in Chinese
history, with a marked openness to new ideas. Neo-Confucianism dominated the thinking of the educated classes,
but many Chinese were eclectic in their beliefs. The 16th century novelist Wu Cheng-en went so far
as to suggest that "The three teachings [i.e. Confucianism, Taoism,
Buddhism] are one." Thus,
Catholic missionaries found Ming society open to at least listen to foreign
religious teachings.
However,
there were some serious obstacles to Christianity's taking root in China. First, Eastern and Western thought had
developed along completely different lines. Jacques Genet has suggested that Christianity could not be
assimilated into Chinese society because of fundamental East-West cultural differences,
linguistic differences which prevented true comprehension of important concepts
(e.g. the lack of Chinese words for "be" and "being"), and
philosophical differences:
Europeans thought in terms of "transcendant and immutable
realities", while the Chinese saw reality in sensory terms, as transitory
and ever-changing.[4] While Buddhism taught that all
appearances are illusory, European thought was dominated by Aristotelianism,
with its clear-cut categories and precise logical procedures. The Christian concepts of an omnipotent
God, a created world, and the immortality and indestructibility of the human
soul had no Eastern parallels.
Thus, "Chinese assumptions about life, death, good, evil, progress,
history, society, and individuals were totally different."[5]
The second obstacle to Christianity
was the state cult of Confucianism.
The rites of Confucianism (funerary customs, veneration of the emperor,
of one's parents, and of one's ancestors) were seen as the glue which held
Chinese society together. Any
attack or attempt to modify these rites "would mean at least the partial
recasting of the family, and this would be condemned as revolutionary, impious,
and subversive to morals"—as an attack on both the family and the state.[6]
B. History of the Chinese
Rites Controversy
The first Jesuit missionaries to
arrive in China were part of an organization already known for its adaptive
approach. Founded in 1540, the
Society of Jesus is "generally credited with the revival of the tolerant
spirit" in Christianity.[7] Jesuit missionaries in Ireland and in
Ethiopia had been instructed to adapt themselves to local conditions. St. Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit
missionary to India and Japan, had taken the (then unprecedented) step of
seeking to learn the local languages, and had even translated the Christian
catechism into Japanese.
In 1582, two Jesuit missionaries,
Matteo Ricci and Michele Ruggieri, settled in the coastal city of Chaoking,
disguised as Buddhist monks.
Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) was a truly remarkable man, whose influence was
to shape the future of Christianity in China. A brilliant linguist, Ricci soon mastered the Chinese
language and writing system to such a degree that he was able to compose
numerous books in Chinese (beginning as early as 1583). His chief work, T'ien-chu shih-i, a presentation of Christianity, became well-known
among all educated Chinese.
Another work, Chi-jen shih-p'ien
("10 paradoxes"), went through several printings during 1607-08, and
was also widely discussed. Ricci
used mnemonic devices to commit the Confucian classics to memory verbatim, a feat which greatly impressed
the Chinese.
Ricci and other Jesuits in China
made use of the early Christian concept of arcana (startling
doctrines which were to be withheld from pagans and catechumens).[8] Thus, he never discussed the doctrines
of Original Sin or the Trinity, even with Chinese converts who had been
Christians for some years, only stating that "God once descended to become
Yeh-su to save the world."[9] In 1600, Ricci was detained while
traveling to Peking because a crucifix was discovered in his baggage and was
interpreted by the Chinese as an object of black magic aimed at the Emperor. After that, he never displayed it in
public. When he learned that the
Buddhist monks were held in contempt by the Chinese ruling class, Ricci adopted
the silk robes of a Confucian scholar.
In every way possible, sought to become completely assimilated into Chinese
culture: "He would raise and
answer questions of a philosophical or religious nature, pass around
literature, pay courtesy calls, attend literary gatherings or banquets . . .
Quietly and modestly, he would allow his broad learning and virtuous behavior
to be known. Soon people would
make further inquiries, and then the more direct work of doctrinal instruction
could begin."[10]
The purpose of this quiet
infiltration of Chinese society was to convert the ruling class, and ultimately
the Chinese emperor. Ricci felt
that if this could be accomplished, the conversion of the entire Chinese nation
was assured. The open proclamation
of the Gospel might jeopardize this plan.
"I do not think that we shall establish a church," Ricci wrote
in 1596, "but instead a room for discussion and we will say Mass privately
. . . because one proceeds more effectively and with greater fruit here through
conversations than through formal sermons."[11] Again in 1598 he wrote, "The hour
had not yet arrived to begin preaching here the holy Gospel."[12]
In 1601, Ricci was finally successful in obtaining
permission to live in Peking. He
presented two chiming clocks to the Chinese emperor, and was requested to
adjust and maintain them in the future.
Ricci impressed the Chinese with his knowledge of mathematics and
astronomy, and by displaying an accurate world-map, drawn with China in the
center. He succeeded in making
several influential Chinese converts, including Xu Ganggi, the most powerful
official at the Chinese court. The
Ming History states: "Those who
came from the West were intelligent and were men of great capacity. Their only purpose was to preach
religion, with no desire for government honors or for material gain. For this reason those who were given to
novelties were greatly attracted to them."[13]
Ricci soon had to confront the
problem of how to deal with the Confucianism which pervaded Chinese society
from top to bottom. Unlike
Buddhism, which was early identified as fundamentally opposed to Christianity,
Confucianism's specifically religious teachings were only implicit. This made Confucianism less readily
identifiable as a pagan religion, and suggested to Ricci and others that some
kind of compromise might be workable.
Ricci believed that Christianity
and Confucianism (in its "original", not its Neo-Confucian form)
could be reconciled to stand against Buddhism and Taoism. He obtained a good grasp of
Neo-Confucian metaphysics so that he could argue for an interpretation of Confucianism
which could be reconciled with Christianity. Thus, he used passages in the Confucian classics to
demonstrate the immortality of the soul and the existence of hell.
In his approach to ethics, Ricci
tried to show the parallels between Confucianism and Christianity. For example, he related the concept of hsiao (filial piety) to the Ten
Commandments, and noted the similarity between Confucius' version of the Golden
Rule and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:12.
He also sought to show how the Confucian values of pao (reciprocity) and te
(personal virtues) could be incorporated into Christianity. Ricci believed there was no essential
contradiction between the two systems of thought, but that the ethical
teachings of Confucianism could be supplemented and perfected by those of
Christianity. Thus, while
Confucius taught that the expression of love should be differentiated in
accordance with its object, Christianity taught universal love for all men.
Ricci's understanding of and respect for Confucian ethical
teachings won him many admirers among the educated Chinese. At the same time, he did not hesitate
to attack Chinese practices which could not be reconciled with Christian
ethics. He was outspoken in his
condemnation of homosexuality (widely practiced among the educated elite in
Ming times), and he insisted that converts dismiss their concubines before he
would consent to baptize them.
Ricci
believed that he had found evidence in the Confucian classics that the ancient
Chinese had once known and venerated the God of the Bible, to whom the classics
referred as Shang-ti ("The Lord
on High") or T'ien
("Heaven"). He claimed
that the Chinese were a branch of the people of Judaea who had migrated to the
East in ancient times. Ricci
assured the Chinese that all of their ancient sages had been believers in the
One God and hence were in Heaven, but that subsequent generations had forgotten
God's existence.
So
great was Ricci's admiration for Confucianism that he came to believe that the
teachings of Confucius should be incorporated into Christian ethics. "Ricci's Chinese writings suggest
he had become a convert to Confucianism in the process of teaching
Christianity."[14]
Some
Confucian practices were harder to reconcile with Christian beliefs,
however. These included the solemn
rites in honor of Confucius, at which animals were sacrificed, the rites of
veneration for the emperor, and the rites associated with the dead, including
the preservation of ancestor-tablets designated shen wei ("seat of spirit") which were venerated with
candles, incense, and the k'out'ou (prostration
with the head touching the floor), and with food offerings and the burning of
paper money. All of these
practices were deeply embedded in Chinese culture, and the Jesuits were
hesitant to attack them because their meaning was uncertain. Ricci was assured by his friends among
contemporary Chinese scholars (who, as Neo-Confucian rationalists, denied the
immortality of the soul, as well as any form of divinity in Confucius' person)
that all of these rites were merely civic rituals, devoid of any religious
content.[15]
Nevertheless, the issue of how to
deal with the Confucian rites caused much debate among the Jesuits. In their
efforts to accommodate Christianity to the Chinese situation, the Jesuits had
to consider, on one hand, the danger of going so far in their accommodation as
to compromise essential Christian doctrines, and, on the other hand, the danger
of Christianity being rejected by the Chinese if their accommodation did not go
far enough. Some of the Jesuits
(including Ricci) favored a total adaptation of Christianity to Confucianism,
while others argued for making more limited concessions. Conferences were held in 1603 and 1605,
resulting in the first enunciation of a general Jesuit policy on the matter. It was decided that certain of the
rites were of a superstitious nature and should be forbidden to Christian
converts. These included
prayer to the dead, the burning of paper money, and the belief that the dead
were nourished by food offerings.
However, it was decided to let the Chinese converts continue to venerate
the dead with food offerings, flowers, candles, ancestor-tablets, mourning
garments, and the k'out'ou[16] In addition, the "simple
rite" to Confucius was permitted, while the "solemn rite" (which
occurred several times a year and involved animal sacrifices) was condemned.
Ricci assumed that the original
meaning of the rites was to be found in Confucius' writings, and asserted that
they were not superstitious in their original
form . "This ceremony was
begun more for the living than for the dead," he claimed—"that is, to
teach the children and the ignorant ones to honor and serve their living
relatives . . . all this stands outside of idolatry"[17]
Ricci "looked with careful discrimination upon the rites as one would look
upon an apple which was not entirely bad but whose spoiled part has to be
rejected and whose good part could somehow be saved and accepted"[18] Nevertheless, his ultimate goal was to
gradually replace the rites with Christian practices like the giving of alms to
the poor.
Ricci and the Jesuits believed that
a form of natural religion existed in China, and that Confucius was perfect in
his moral teaching, lacking only the specific truths taught by revelation. The Jesuits made much use of a famous
passage in the Confucian Lu Yun
("Analects" 11:12), in which Confucius speaks of "avoiding
spirits." They took this lack
of religious emphasis as " a basis for blending its moral and social
strains with the explicity strains of Christianity"[19] They even suggested that Christian
teachings could be enriched from Confucianism, just as it had earlier been
enriched through its contact with Greek philosophy. Confucius was, they argued "the equal of the pagan
philosophers and superior to most of them"[20]
The conferences of 1603 and 1605
reaffirmed the Jesuit policy of accommodationism. Alessandro Valignano urged his fellow-missionaries "to
behave like the natives of the country . . . (to) become Chinese to win China
for Christ."[21]
Matteo Ricci continued to work
among the Chinese until his death at Peking in 1610. He had lived in China for 28 years, made numerous friends
for himself and his teachings, and become "one of the most respected
foreign figures in Chinese history."[22]
Even today, he is familiar to all Chinese as "Li
Ma-t'ou."
Ricci's
career in China set the precedent that Christianity was to be judged
from the Confucian perspective (i.e. by the behavior of its
adherents). His example created
the expectation that future missionaries would live according to Confucian
standards, an example which few of his successors were able to live up to. Even during Ricci's lifetime, the
Chinese writer Shen Te-fu described Diego Pantoja, one of Ricci's Jesuit
colleagues and the author of a very successful apologetic work in Chinese (Ch'i-k'o ta-ch'uan, 1614) as "far
from being equal to Ricci."[23]
At the end of his life, Ricci was
continually besieged by multitudes of callers who had heard of his broad
learning and wished to discuss various matters with this wise man from the far
West—illustrating the truth of Clement of Alexandria's claim that
"philosophy is like fish-bait to the pagans."
The breadth and depth of Matteo
Ricci's accommodation of his life and beliefs to an alien culture is amazing to
us even today. Apparently, like
Coluccio Salutati, Ricci was so certain that his primary allegiance was to
Jesus Christ that he had no fear or anxiety about "drinking from both
founts" (Christianity and Confucianism, in this case).
Two of Ricci's aristocratic
converts wrote tributes to him which are quite revealing of the impression he
made on the Chinese. Li Chih-tsao
wrote: "The Western religion
has its rules, which were received from the Lord of Heaven. . . . they are
unwilling to compromise on this to receive you. They want to reform this degenerate world, but they do not
dare dishonor the rules of their religion."[24]
Hsu Kuang-ch'i, in a preface to
one of Ricci's works, wrote:
"Ricci's learning touched on every subject, but the main precept
was to serve continually and openly the Divinity on High."[25] These comments tend to refute the
charges of those who accuse Ricci of lax accommodationism or syncretism.
Nevertheless, despite the example of Matteo Ricci and the
Jesuit policy of accommodation, many in China opposed Christianity. The missionaries were accused of
prohibiting the veneration of ancestors, of holding secret meetings, and of
links to subversive groups such as Pai-lien-chiao
(the "White Lotus Society").
They were suspected of using magic to control their followers, and of
practicing alchemy[26] (indeed,
many sought out the missionaries because it was believed that they possessed
the secret of transmuting base metals into silver!).[27] The doctrine of Jesus' crucifixion was
also extremely difficult for the Chinese to accept. One anti-Christian writer, Yang Guangxian, published a
woodcut of the crucifixion, arguing that this punishment confirmed that Jesus
had been a subversive and a rebel.[28] It was also believed by many that
European-style church with towers and crosses created bad feng shui for those who lived and worked in the vicinity.[29]
At the same time, a number of
influential Chinese converts continued to elaborate Ricci's idea of a synthesis
of Christianity and Confucianism, and to implement the Jesuit strategy known in
Chinese as "bu Ru yi Fo"
(supplement Confucianism and displace Buddhism).[30] Nevertheless, after Ricci's death,
there were few converts to Christianity from the highest levels of Chinese
society, and Chinese respect for the Christian religion diminished along with
the declining social status of those willing to espouse it.
The first persecution of Christians
in China occurred at Nanjing (1616-21), and arose out of accusations like those
just enumerated, and because of the association of the missionaries with the
Portuguese at Macau. A few Chinese
converts were martyred, but the missionaries were spared.
During the 1630's, Franciscan and
Dominican missionaries established themselves at Fukien. In 1633, the Dominican Juan Bautista
Morales (1597-1664) arrived in China.
He was scandalized by the "easy-going compromises" of the
Jesuits.[31] The Dominicans and Franciscans had an
entirely different approach to foreign missions. While the Jesuits concealed the crucifix lest it cause
offense, the Dominicans and Franciscans displayed it openly. Instead of spending years mastering
Chinese, they preached through interpreters. While the Jesuits taught that the ancient Chinese sages and
emperors had been worshippers of the true God, the Dominicans and Franciscans
proclaimed openly that Confucius and all the emperors were in hell.[32] While the Jesuits focused their
energies almost exclusively on the intelligentsia, the Dominicans and
Franciscans sought to convert the lower classes, and members of both orders
were willing to contemplate the possibility of martyrdom at the hands of the
heathen.
In 1637, a group of Franciscans and
Dominicans "decided to go to Foochow and tear down the edicts [of a local
governor against Christianity], and to preach publicly Jesus Christ
crucified." Holding the
crucifix in air, they loudly proclaimed "that this was the image of the
true God and Man, Savior of the world, creator of all things, who punishes
those who do not keep His law and rewards eternally those who keep it."[33]
This was an approach to evangelism "which had no place in China unless its
purpose was deliberately to antagonize.[34]
The missionaries were promptly
arrested, and all the Dominicans and Franciscans (including Morales) were
expelled from the province and had to go to Manila. In Manila, a conference was held, at which the Jesuit policy
of accommodation was condemned, and Morales was dispatched to Rome to make a
formal complaint about the matter to the pope.
From
the Dominican/Franciscan point of view, Ricci and the Jesuits in China had been
teaching "pure deism, without the Trinity, Incarnation, or
Redemption."[35] Many Chinese saw Christianity as just a
special version of Buddhism, while one modern scholar has suggested that the
form of Christianity taught by Ricci and his colleagues was diluted to the
point where it is best described as "Confucian monotheism."[36]
One
of Ricci's contemporary critics wrote as follows: "Being more a politician
than a theologian, he discovered the secret of remaining peacefully in
China. The kings found in him a
man full of complaisance; the pagans a minister who accommodated himself to
their superstitions; the mandarins a polite courtier skilled in all the
trickery of courts; and the devil a faithful servant, who far from destroying,
established his reign among the heathen, and even extended it to the
Christians." He went on to
accuse the Jesuits of "teaching the Christians to assist and cooperate at
the worship of idols, provided that they only addressed their devotions to a cross
covered with flowers, or secretly attached to one of the candles which were
lighted in the temples of the false gods."[37]
Among the Jesuit actions which the
Dominicans and Franciscans criticized were their failure to promote the laws of
the Church, their failure to preach the doctrine of the crucifixion, their
adoption of Chinese dress, their "intellectual apostolate," and their
refusal to say that Confucius was in hell.[38]
In February 1643, Morales arrived
at Rome and made his formal complaint in the form of 17 quaesita. These
included questions about contributions by Christians to pagan sacrifices and
festivals, the cult of Confucius, the veneration of ancestors, the feeding of
the dead as through they were living, the use of ancestral tablets, funerals,
about whether applicants for baptism should be informed that their new faith
forbade all idolatry and sacrifice, about the use of the Chinese term sheng (holy) in a Christian context, the
veneration of the Emperor, prayers and sacrifices for non-Christian relatives,
and whether, since some Chinese were scandalized by the crucifixion, was it
necessary to speak to them of it or to show them a crucifix?[39]
Morales' quaesita changed the focus of the discussion from the
"original meaning" of the rites to what the rites signified as
actually practiced in the 17th century.[40]
Meanwhile, in China, the Ming dynasty fell (1644) to the
invading Manchu dynasty. The
conquest of China by a foreign dynasty resulted in the decline of the "syncretic
spirit" of the late Ming period, and a "stricter sense of
orthodoxy" arose.[41] At the same time, the new dynasty
established a Bureau of Astronomy and, impressed by the scientific knowledge of
the Jesuits, placed it under the supervision of the Jesuits Johann Adam Schall
and Ferdinand Verbiest. Jesuit
Astronomers became a fixture at Peking from this time until the dissolution of
the order (1773). Schall enjoyed a
close and informal relationship with the first Manchu emperor, who nearly
consented to be baptized but was dissuaded by the eunuchs "who cultivated
his lusts."[42] Jesuits were also employed as
cartographers, and had mapped all the provinces of China by 1715.[43]
In Rome, after mature
consideration, Innocent X issued a decree forbidding ("until it shall be
decided otherwise") the cult of Confucius, ancestor veneration, and the
use of ancestral tablets by Chinese converts to Christianity. It was judged that "such public
acts of cult would not be in any way allowable to Christians," even if
attention were directed to a hidden crucifix in the same room, and even if
performed by "instructed Christians with carefully purified
intentions".[44]
This prohibition did not reach
China until 1649. By then, the
Jesuits, who resented the criticism of their work by those who had little
understanding of Chinese language and culture, had put aside whatever
disagreements existed among them about the accommodation of the Confucian
rites, and "appear eventually to have rallied almost solidly in support of
Ricci's views." Meanwhile,
"nearly all the Franciscans and Dominicans had been won to the Jesuit
position, and only the Dominicans continued as a body to stand against it."[45]
In 1651, the Jesuits dispatched
their own delegation to Rome, led by Martin Martini. They presented the Pope with four propositions
(corresponding to four of Morales' quaesita),
claiming that their practices had been grossly and deliberately misrepresented
by the Dominicans. The Jesuits
articulated Ricci's claim that the Confucian rites "were originally
instituted for an exclusively civil cult" and thus were not religious in
nature, although they employed "objects and gestures similar to those
which the Westerners reserved for religious worship."[46]
Alexander VII responded in 1656
with a papal decree permitting the four Jesuit propositions. The same pope granted permission to
Martini, in his published history of China (Sinicae
historiae decas prima res, 1658), to make use of a Biblical chronology
based on the Septuagint rather than the Vulgate, since this would harmonize
with the Chinese account of history, which dated the beginning of Chinese
history to 2952 b.c. (five years after the Septuagint date for the universal
flood, but several hundred years before the Vulgate date; to deny the earlier
date would have alienated the Chinese).
In this way, information brought from China actually came to have an
influence on the criticism of the Biblical text, and on European
historiography.[47]
In
1659, the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide
issued a set of instructions for missionaries, asking them to adapt
Christianity to indigenous cultures and to avoid imposing European customs on
converts to Christianity:
"Make
no endeavor and in no way persuade these people to change their rites, habits
and mores as long as these are not very manifestly contrary to religion and
good mores. Indeed, what would be
more absurd than to introduce Gaul, Spain, Italy or some other part of Europe
to China? Bring not these things
but the faith, which neither rejects nor harms the rites and customs of any
nation provided they are not perverse, but which rather desires them to remain intact.
. . It will be more prudent not to bear judgment or at least not to condemn
blindly and excessively; what remains truly perverse must be eradicated more by
nods and silence than by words . . ."[48]
A new persecution of the
missionaries and of Chinese converts to Christianity arose in 1664, at the
instigation of the court official Yang Guanxian. Most of the missionaries were arrested and exiled to
Canton. Johann Adam Schall, the
court astronomer, was imprisoned and sentenced to death, but was saved when an
earthquake occurred on the eve of his execution. As a result, Schall was freed, and Yang was disgraced and
exiled from court.
The missionaries expelled to Canton
included 19 Jesuits, 3 Dominicans, and one Franciscan. While waiting for permission to reenter
China, they held a 40-day conference (ending 26 January 1668), which resulted
in the adoption of 42 articles.
The 41st of these articles was a statement in support of the
papal decree of 1656: "the
door of salvation must not be closed on the countless Chinese people who would
be kept away from the Christian religion if they were prohibited from doing
what they can licitly and in good faith do, and what they could not be forced
to omit except with the greatest inconvenience."[49]
Later that year (1668), the
Dominicans in Manila dispatched Juan Polanco to Rome to ask whether Alexander
VII's permission of 1656 reversed Innocent X's prohibition of 1645.
In the following year (1669),
Clement IX issued the third papal decree to date bearing on the Chinese Rites
question. He stated that both 1645
prohibition and the 1656 permission remained in force. In effect, this decree left the matter
to the missionaries' discretion, a situation which favored the Jesuits.
In 1681, the Jesuits requested a renewal
of the papal approval (granted 1615, but never used) to translate the liturgy
into Chinese for use by native priests.
This request was denied, since "Rome believed . . . that only
through Latin could the Chinese clergy be kept in touch with the life of the
Church and be prevented from drifting off into heresy and schism."[50]
In 1687, the Jesuits issued their
monumental Confucius Sinarum philosophus,
a Latin translation of the Confucian classics. This work was a collaborative effort of 17 Jesuits who had
spent a combined total of 442 years of residence in China.[51]
In 1692, the Chinese emperor Kang Hsi
issued a Toleration Edict, granting freedom of worship to Christians in
China. At this time, there were 75
priests in China, including 38 Jesuits and nine Dominicans. Six of the Jesuits were native Chinese
converts. There were missionaries
and native Christians in every Chinese province except Kansu in the far West.[52] By 1700, 300,000 Chinese had been
converted to Christianity.[53] The Franciscan Antonio Caballero alone
baptized some 5,000 peasant converts in Shandong between 1650 and 1665.[54]
In the following year (1693), Charles
Maigrot of the French Missions Etrangeres,
Vicar Apostolicus of Fujian, issued a mandate containing seven articles. This mandate banned the use of the
Chinese terms T'ien-chu and Shang-ti as names for God, banned the use of
ancestral tablets by Christians, and forbade the use of the 1656 papal
permission, which Maigrot claimed had been fraudulently obtained by the
Jesuits. He also condemned as
"false, temerious, and scandalous" the proposition that the cult
which Confucius rendered to the spirits was political rather than religious.[55]
Maigrot's mandate resulted in an
uproar from the Jesuits, who had been lulled into a sense of security by the
decree of Clement IX (1669). In
1697, they reopened the Chinese Rites case at Rome, and the Innocent XII
ordered the Inquisition to examine the entire question. Numerous books and pamphlets were
published by European scholars, supporting both sides of the debate. Leibniz wrote in defense of the
Jesuits. In 1700, the Sorbonne (where the theological faculty was then
dominated by Jansenists) condemned five propositions drawn from the writings of
the Jesuits Louis Le Comte and Charles Le Gobien, including the statements that
"the people of Chine preserved for more than 2000 years a knowledge of the
true God, and honored him in a manner which can serve as an example and as
instructive even to Christians," that "God's Spirit was active in
China for 2000 years," and that "Christianity is not foreign to
China, but was professed there earlier, when they worshipped the same God as
the Christians worshipped and recognized as well as they the Lord of
Heaven."[56] Le Comte had also made the
shocking statement that the Chinese had possessed "knowledge of the true
God and practiced the purest maxims of morality, while Europeans and almost all
the rest of the world lived in error and corruption."[57]
The Jansenists argued that since
grace was irresistible, the Chinese had clearly demonstrated through their
failure to convert to Christianity that they had not been recipients of God's
grace. They found the Jesuit
tendency to make compromises in God's name "incomprehensible and
repulsive." [58]
While Europeans were debating these
matters, four Jesuits approached the Chinese emperor (30 Nov 1700) in the hope
of obtaining from him an "authentic statement" on the meaning of the
rites. They submitted to him a
copy of their own definition of the rites as "civic rituals," and
requested his "instruction or correction." The emperor replied on the following day, endorsing the
Jesuit definition without corrections.[59] This statement was dispatched to Rome,
along with two Jesuit experts on Chinese civilization, Caspar Castner and Francois
Noel.
In November 1704, after seven years
of exhaustive study, Clement XI issued a "earnest and painstaking"
decree summarizing the history of the controversy up to that point and upholding
Maigrot's mandate; further, it
banned Christian participation in the "simple rite" to Confucius
(which Maigrot had permitted). It
found both the Confucian cult and the ancestral cult to be essentially
religious in nature, and bishops and vicars apostolic to "strive gradually
to remove and replace all pagan practices with those recognized and followed by
the Roman Catholic Church."[60]
Meanwhile, the papal emissary Carlo
Tommaso Maillard de Tournon had departed for China. Although he had not seen the 1704
decree, he was familiar with its general content. In China, Tournon found the Jesuits supporting themselves by
means of usury (though at a lower rate than customary in China), and quickly
put a stop to this.[61]
Tournon received a cordial welcome
to the imperial court on 31 December 1705. He was granted two further audiences with the emperor (29-30
June 1706), but avoided discussing the Confucian Rites question because he knew
it was no longer negotiable. Maigrot
(whose mandate of 1693 had resulted in the recent papal decree) acted as
Tournon's interpreter. At one
point, the emperor, disgusted by Maigrot's poor spoken Chinese, asked him to
interpret four Chinese characters written on a scroll hanging behind the
throne. Maigrot was able to read
only one of them; moreover, he was unable to recognize Matteo Ricci's Chinese
name in written form, and admitted that he was unfamiliar with Ricci's T'ien-chu shih-i (which all educated
Chinese had read). The emperor
warned Tournon against any interference with the Chinese rites and dismissed
him from court, expressing his astonishment "that such dunces should claim
to decide the meaning of texts and ceremonies of several thousand years'
antiquity."[62]
Maigrot was banished, Tournon
departed for Nanjing, and the emperor issued a decree expelling all Christian
missionaries who opposed the Confucian rites, and requiring that all
missionaries obtain a p'iao (permit)
to reside in China. This was
followed (1707) by a further decree, forbidding all preaching against the Rites
on pain of death. Thus K'ang Hsi,
the same emperor who had issued the Toleration Edict of 1692, reversed his
previously favorable attitude toward Christianity.
That same year (1707), Tournon
issued his own mandate, threatening excommunication to any missionary who
disobeyed the papal decrees concerning ancestor veneration or the Confucian
rites. Anticipating objections, Tournon
specifically disallowed the pretexts of "great danger" or of
adherence to the papal decree of 1656.
Tournon's mandate was based on a secret decision made at Rome in
November 1704, in anticipation of just such an emergency. In consequence, Tournon was escorted to
Macau, where he remained until his death in 1710.
Thus, the missionaries had to choose
between obtaining the emperor's p'iao
(and thereby agreeing not to oppose the Confucian rites), or obeying Tournon's
mandate (and risking death at the hands of the Chinese authorities). Many of them chose to disobey Tournon,
claiming that he had exceeded his authority. In any case, the result of the 1704 decree, although not
published at Rome until 1709 or promulgated at Peking until 1715, was to polarize the missionaries.[63]
In 1710, Clement XI reiterated his
1704 decree and upheld Tournon's mandate; in addition, he forbade any
unauthorized publication about the matter of the Chinese rites, threatening
excommunication in case of disobedience.
This was followed in 1715 by the
papal bull Ex illa die. In it, the pope claimed that the
resolution of the Chinese Rites controversy had been the main concern of his
papacy from the outset. He enumerated
the various subterfuges which had been used by the contending parties to evade
the prompt observance of the papal decrees, "with grave damage to our
pontifical authority, scandal to the faithful, and detriment to the salvation
of souls."[64] The bull reiterated the decrees of 1704
and 1710, as well as Tournon's mandate of 1707, and included the formula of an
oath of observance to be taken on the Bible by all missionaries.
Ex
illa die was promulgated in Peking in 1716, and all the missionaries appear
to have complied with it, however reluctantly. When the emperor learned of it, he ordered the vicar general
of Peking to recover all copies of the bull and return them to Rome, and a new
persecution of Christians ensued.
In 1719, another papal emissary, Carlo
Ambrogio Mezzabarba, was dispatched to the Chinese court. Like Tournon, Mezzabarba had received
secret instructions at Rome.
During 1720 and 1721, he had several audiences with the emperor, to whom
he disclosed that he was authorized to grant "certain permissions,"
and to convey the Emperor's thoughts directly to the Pope.[65]
In 1721, Mezzabarba issued a
pastoral letter to all missionaries.
In it, he reaffirmed Ex illa die;
however, with a view to the "eventual removal of all pagan
practices," he included eight permissions concerning the Chinese
rites. These included permission
to use funeral tablets, as long as they were inscribed only with the name of
the deceased, with name only, permission to participate in ceremonies in honor
of Confucius or of the dead, as long as they were "not superstitious or
suspected of being so," and the use of candles, incense, food offerings,
and prostration at funerals and before memorial tablets and tombs. In order to keep these permissions from
becoming publicly known, Mezzabarba stipulated that they not be translated into
Chinese or Manchu "unless necessary or practical."[66]
In 1724, with the death of emperor
K'ang Hsi, a new and particularly severe persecution of Christians was
undertaken by his son and successor, Yung Cheng. With the exception of the astronomers employed at Peking,
all the missionaries were exiled to Macau (they were allowed to return in
1736). The new emperor issued an
edict declaring Christianity a "heterodox sect," closing the
churches, and specifically canceling the Toleration Edict of 1692. This edict
set the tone for the remainder of the 18th century. Since Christians were no longer
permitted to participate in traditional Chinese ceremonies, Christianity was
now viewed as a foreign intrusion, and became the target of increasingly severe
persecution, culminating in the early decades of the 19th century
when a number of Catholic missionaries were executed for repeated defiance of
imperial edicts.[67]
In 1733, Francois de la
Purification affirmed Mezzabarba's permissions in two pastoral letters, but these
(and the permissions) were subsequently annulled by Clement XII in 1735.
Finally,
in 1742, Benedict XIV issued the bull Ex
quo singulari. Identifying
China as the Holy See's "mission of predilection," this bull
reiterated the papal decrees of 1704, 1710, and 1715 (Ex illa die), nullified all permissions or exceptions ("the
aforesaid permissions are to be considered as if they never existed, and we
condemn them and their practice as altogether superstitious"), and
prohibited all future discussion of the matter. Again, an oath of observance was imposed on all missionaries
in China.
Here the controversy ended. The Church had "made it impossible
for a
scholar-official to be a Christian or for a Christian to
become a scholar, destroying the possibility of Jesuit peaceful penetration of
Chinese society. . . . If these consequences were fully
understood by the Holy See, it must have felt that the integrity of the faith
required payment of so high a price."[68] Latourette argues that although the
papal decrees tended to make the winning of nominal adherents more difficult,
they also maintained high standards for the Church.[69] According to Mungello, the Chinese
Rites Controversy "did great damage to the Christian mission in China but
may have been an inevitable part of the cultural encounter."[70]
As late as1930, the prohibition of
publication on the Chinese Rites was upheld.[71] However, in 1939, as a result of
persecution which resulted when Catholic students in Japan allegedly refused to
bow to a Shinto shrine, the bull Plane copertum
est was issued, reversing the Church's position on the Chinese Rites and
describing such actions as "purely civil . . . with no religious
significance."[72]
III. Insights for teaching
E.S.L. at Biola
The Jesuits clearly practiced a
model of accommodation (or "qualified accommodation," to use Douglass
Geivett's categories)[73]
in their approach to Chinese institutions, while the Dominicans used a
polemical approach. In the eyes of
his detractors, at least, Matteo Ricci followed the path of least resistance,
resulting in "a reconstruction of Christian belief that is in important
respects discontinuous with the tradition that gave it birth."[74] A more sympathetic (and perhaps more
accurate) statement about Ricci is that he did everything he could to avoid
conflict, but at the same time was unwilling to compromise what he regarded as
the essentials of the Christian faith.
The question as to whether or not the result was theologically valid was
argued for more than a century after his death.
In addition to the accommodationist
and polemical models, Geivett proposes a "redemptive model" which
"seeks to foster a new culture" in light of the "fundamental
human concern to acquire knowledge for
the sake of human flourishing."[75] Such an approach is reflected in a
statement of Giulio Aleni, one of the Jesuit missionaries in China. Aleni said (1627) that "he was
only a humble traveler who had gone through many mortal dangers for the
propagation of the teachings he held.
He had come to this land of superior culture to seek out persons in the
right Way to learn from them, so that together they might further this serious
business of avoiding perdition."
In saying this, Aleni admitted that he had much to learn from the
Chinese, that even as a Christian missionary, he did not have all the
answers. This seems to me to be a
proper attitude for any teacher, whether his students are Christian or
non-Christian. In our finite
knowledge and understanding, we all have a great deal to learn from each other.
Most of the historians of the
Jesuit missionaries in China and the Chinese Rites Controversy do not consider
the supernatural dimension of these matters. On one occasion, as Matteo Ricci was crossing a river on a
ferry, a "shadowy figure" appeared to him on the deck. The figure asked him, "So you are
traveling to destroy the ancient religion of this country and establish a new
one?" "Are you God or
the devil, that you know my secret?" Ricci cried. "I am not the devil." The figure answered. "I am God." Ricci fell on his
knees, and the mysterious presence promised to guide him in his mission.[76] Later, in 1600, while Ricci was on his
way to Peking, Xu Ganggi (a powerful offical whom Ricci was to baptize the
following year) dreamed of a temple with three chapels. The first contained a shrine to God,
the second a shrine to "a son," and the third one was empty.[77] Years later, Xu understood this as a
supernatural revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity (which Ricci had been
extremely reluctant to discuss with him).
Whatever
one chooses to make of these phenomena, they remind us that God is present and
active in this world, and profoundly concerned with the outcome of all that we
do, including our teaching.
However difficult or discouraging our task may seem, we know that God is
involved in it in ways that we may never see or understand in this life.
The Jesuit missionaries had to
struggle to understand the Chinese language and civilization and to make the
message of Christianity comprehensible to a completely unfamiliar culture. For perhaps the first time, Europeans
were forced to "separate what was essential to Christian faith from what
was cultural and secondary."[78] The task of the Jesuits was to
"disengage Christianity from the non-Christian ingredients in the Western
civilization and to present Christianity . . . not as the local religion of the
West, but as a universal religion with a message for all mankind."[79]
Yang T'ing-yuan, one of Matteo Ricci's converts, later described how he came
gradually to understand that "this Lord is not "of the far West"
but stands external to any particular place and time."[80]
Latourette observes that "in
the only countries where Christianity has triumphed over a high civilization, as in the older Mediterranean
world and the nearer East, it has done so by conforming in part to older
cultures."[81] Christ's kingdom is not of this world,
but Christianity always has cultural features. Not only must the universal message of Christianity be
distinguished from its cultural trappings, but also, ways must be sought to
adapt that message to fresh circumstances. These circumstances must be carefully analyzed and
understood, as the Jesuits (and eventually many others) sought to do in the
case of the Chinese Rites.
"The obscurity surrounding their origins, the contradiction between
their seeming preternatural implications and the professed materialism of many
of their most observant practitioners, the uncertainty of the extent to which
the people as a whole interpreted them in a superstitious sense, were the
elements which made the problem one of peculiar complexity." I face a problem of comparable
complexity as I attempt to understand my Asian students' behavior and religious
beliefs, and try to decide which of their presuppositions I ought to challenge,
and how to go about it. Great
caution is necessary here, and much careful thought.
Several observations from my
reading are particularly insightful about Asian culture. For example, the point was made (in
reference to the question of whether or not the Confucian rites are
"religious") that there is such a thing as "diffused
religion," as distinguished from "institutional religion."[82] Some form "diffused
religion," i.e. elements of Buddhism and shamanism, appears to be mixed in
with the Christianity of many of my students. Whether this is a harmful or a harmless form of
accommodation needs to be determined.
In his evaluation of the Confucian rites, Ricci considered them only in
"institutional" terms (their origin and purpose), but "failed to
adequately take cognizance of the rife superstition [i.e. "diffused
religion"] among the populace."[83]
Another cause of misunderstanding
is that in the West there is "an enormous . . . separation between the
living and the dead and between the profane and the holy."[84] We are trained to think in
Aristotelian categories, but we find that in Eastern thought the divisions
between things are far less clear.
Some of the conflicts and misunderstandings which we experience in
dealing with Asian students arise from (literally) different ways of
thinking.
At the same time, our students look
to us (and to the "Christian West") for guidance. It is for this reason that they have
chosen to attend a Western seminary instead of a seminary in Korea or
Taiwan. The West is regarded as
"closer to the source" of Christian thought, and has a Christian
tradition of much greater depth.
As a result of ongoing persecutions and the dissolution of the Jesuit
order (1773), the number of missionaries in China greatly declined. Left in the charge of native Christian
leaders, the Chinese church had suffered "marked decadence" by 1800.[85]
Another very important thing to
keep in mind is the Eastern assumptions about the role of the teacher. In the West, a teacher is seen as an
expert in his field who transmits what he knows to others, or as an experienced
scholar who guides the less experienced in their research. In the East, the teacher's character is
of equal or greater importance than what he knows. Asians are "easily scandalized by the very slightest
appearance of an imperfect example in persons who claim to teach others."[86] Before a teacher can pose a credible
challenge to Asian students' assumptions, he must earn the right to do so.
Finally, it must be remembered that
any challenge to what exists is a risky business, whether the challenge is to
existing paradigms of an academic discipline, vested interests, religious
beliefs, or cultural mores. As noted by the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (1659), "There exists no cause
of hatred and alienation more poignant than the tampering with national
customs, above all, of those which men have grown accustomed to from the memory
of their forefathers. Especially
is this true when you substitue and bring in the mores of your country in place of those you have removed."[87]
[1]
The summary which follows is based on the following sources: The Catholic
Encyclopedia, s.v. "Chinese Rites Controversy" and "Ricci,
Matteo"; Vincent Cronin, The Wise Man from the West (New York: EP
Dutton & Co. 1955); George H. Dunne, Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in
the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty (Notre Dame IN: U of ND Press 1962); Kenneth S.
Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1929); George Minamiki,
The Chinese Rites Controversy from Its Beginning to Modern Times
(Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1985); David E. Mungello, Curious
Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the
Origins of Sinology (Honolulu: University of Hawii Press 1989); David E.
Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800 (Lanham
MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 1999); Charles E. Ronan and Bonnie B.C. Oh (eds.), East Meets
West: The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773
(Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988);
John D. Young, East-West Synthesis: Matteo Ricci and Confucianism (Hong
Kong: Centre of Asian Studies,
University of Hong Kong, 1980).
[2]
It is recorded, however, that there was a persecution of Nestorian Christians
in China as late as 1540 (Latourette)
[3]
John D. Young, East-West Synthesis:
Matteo Ricci and Confucianism (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1980), i.
[4]
David E. Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800
(Lanham MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 1999), 45.
[5]
Young, 26.
[6]
Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (New
York: Macmillan Co., 1929), 41, 134.
[7]
Young, 2.
[8]
George H. Dunne, Generation of Giants:
The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming
Dynasty (Notre Dame IN: U of
ND Press 1962), 5.
[9]
Young, 38.
[10]
Bernard Hung-Kay Luk, "A Serious Matter of Life and Death: Learned Conversations at Foochow in
1627," in Charles E. Ronan and Bonnie B.C. Oh (eds.), East Meets
West: The Jesuits in China,
1582-1773 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988), 175.
[11]
Dunne, 46.
[12]
Dunne, 55.
[13]Albert
Chan, "Late Ming Society and the Jesuit Missionaries," in Charles E.
Ronan and Bonnie B.C. Oh (eds.), East Meets West: The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773 (Chicago: Loyola
University Press, 1988), 160.
[14]
Young, 43.
[15]
George Minamiki, The Chinese
Rites Controversy from Its Beginning to Modern Times (Chicago: Loyola
University Press, 1985), 22.
[16]
Minamiki, 19.
[17]
Minamiki, 18.
[18]
Minamiki, 17.
[19]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 37.
[20]
David E. Mungello, Curious Land:
Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Honolulu:
University of Hawii Press 1989), 57.
[21]
Young, 8.
[22]
The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Ricci, Matteo."
[23]
Young, 49.
[24]
Willard J. Peterson, "Why Did They Become Christians? Yang T'ing-yuan, Li Chih-tsao, and Hsu
Kuang-ch'i," in Charles E. Ronan and Bonnie B.C. Oh (eds.), East Meets
West: The Jesuits in China,
1582-1773 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988), 133.
[25]
Peterson, 145.
[26]
This was perhaps suggested by Christian teachings about the immortality of the
soul; alchemy was commonly practiced by Taoist adepts who sought the
"elixir of life."
[27]
Mungello, Curious Land, 71.
[28]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 45.
[29]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 41.
[30]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 16.
[31]
Latourette, 135.
[32]Vincent
Cronin, The Wise Man from the West (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.
1955), 280
[33]
Dunne, 257.
[34]
Ibid.
[35]
Young, 24.
[36]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 21.
[37]
Young, 24-25.
[38]
Dunn, 270.
[39]
The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Chinese Rites Controversy."
[40]
Minamiki, 28.
[41]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 24.
[42]
Ibid.
[43]
Ronan and Oh, 227.
[44]
Minamiki, 26-27.
[45]
Latourette, 135-138.
[46]
Minamiki, 11, 29-30.
[47]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 61; Mungello, Curious Land, 103.
[48]
Minamiki, 30-32.
[49]
Minamiki, 33.
[50]
Latourette, 133.
[51]
Mungello, Curious Land, 297.
[52]
Latourette 128.
[53]
Cronin, 279.
[54]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 18.
[55]
Minamiki, 38.
[56]
Mungello, Curious Land, 333-334.
[57]
Mungello, Curious Land, 338.
[58]
Mungello, Curious Land, 340.
[59]
Minamiki, 40-42.
[60]
Minamiki, 43-50.
[61]
Latourette, 142.
[62]
Cronin, 282.
[63]
Minamiki, 56.
[64]
Minamiki, 59-60.
[65]
Minamiki, 63.
[66]
Minamiki, 64-65.
[67]
Minamiki, x.
[68]
Dunne, 300.
[69]
Latourette, 154-155.
[70]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 21.
[71]
Minamiki, 93.
[72]
Minamiki, xi.
[73]
R. Douglass Geivett: "Christianity and the Plight of the Humanities"
(unpublished paper, 2003).
[74]
Geivett, 7.
[75]
Geivett, 11.
[76]
Cronin, 122.
[77]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 15-16.
[78]
Mungello, Great Encounter, 20.
[79]
Arnold Toynbee, quoted in Young, 54.
[80]
Peterson, 135.
[81]
Latourette, 154.
[82]
C.K. Yang, quoted in Minamiki, 3.
[83]
Minamiki, 23.
[84]
Minamiki, 11.
[85]
Latourette, 154.
[86]
Young, 6.
[87]
Minamiki, 30-31.
No comments:
Post a Comment