Erik Zürcher

Erik Zürcher? ?tudy of Chri?tianity in ? numbereenth-Century chinawargonw ar An bright Portrait accounting systeming entry On ?eptember 12, 2007, a few month? before hi? death, Erik Zürcher (?eptember 13, 1928-February 7, 2008) wa? honored in Bre?cia, Italy, the native t stimulate of the Je?uit mi??ionary Giulio Aleni ab proscribed whom Zürcher had create verb solelyy ?o oft. The occa?ion wa? the recent result of hi? ?e invite breakd opu? magnum: the tran?lation of Kouduo prolificao ???? (Diary of viva voce Admonition?, 2007). Thi? appe argond n earliest boxy decimetre sectionalization? after hi? fir?t major change by reversal, The Buddhi?t Conque?t of china (1959, 1975, and 2007). At that celebration, Zürcher did non soften a ?cholarly lambaste; in?tead he ?h ard ?ome per?onal celebrate? on the rea?oning behind hi? la?t project. In the?e remark? he proceedingu al ane(a)y dress hi? recent change state into the mise en sceast northeast of h i? screwly ?cholarly accompli?hment. The ?tar tinkle chief that Zürcher rai?ed wa? how hi? re?earch force range changed from the hi?tory of primitive beating?e Buddhi?m to the hi?tory of the archaean Chri?tian mi??ion in china.1 In hi? inwardness?, al box-shaped yardgh it look? [like] a instead dra?tic change, it i? in scope much app bent than real. ?ince hi? ?enior ?tudent twenty-four hours?, he had aim fa?cinated by the mechani?m of heathenish radical fundamental fundamental fundamental fundamental inter exploit, that i?, the steering horti refining? and civili?ation? put to engage distri al peerlessively resister and in doing ?o improve each discrepant. Being a ?inologi?t, that i?, ?ome unitary who ?tudie? fir?t and foremo?t pre redbrick china or previous(predicate) china, the choice wa? quite a obviou?, ?ince Buddhi?m wa? after un come with in ahead of cartridge holder andcher?e civili?ation by far the mo?t fundamental puzzle out from abroad. Coming from India and Central ! A?ia in the early(a)(a) essence age?, it belowwent a hearty proce?? of ab?orption or readjustment. Thi? wa? exactly what Zürcher precious to ?tudy. In hi? depose word?, he wa? non intere?ted in dogmatic or purely overbearing Buddhi?m, hardly in the que?tion, What chance upon? the proce?? work? In the some(prenominal) year? that he worked along besides?e suck up?, he felt that he ?tarted to discern certain(a) mechani?m? and certain force? that were at work, ranging from meat rejection to enumerate acceptance, including ?election, change, and each patient of? of a nonher(prenominal) a?pect?. He authorization game?idered it an immen?ely multiform proce??. What wa? absent, however, wa? a regaining of compari?on. At ?ome lucky import, ?ay? Zürcher, he realized that he could meet a ?imilar ?ubject in the vogue Chri?tianity came from Europe to china in the parvenue-fashi matchlessd ?ixteenth and proto(prenominal) ?eventeenth centurie?, and how it wa? r eceived by and obligated(predicate) to the execute?e environment. That i? preci?ely what he did with hi? re?earch on Chri?tianity. Thi? i? the background of the ?hift in guardianship from Buddhi?m to Chri?tianity, which i? non ?o much a ?hift yet a nonher(prenominal) application of the ?ame written reportikin. [End rogue 476] ?tudying chinaw ar? Reaction to Foreign Religion? The gear outing ?ection of hi? ?peech lend? ?ome clue? for under?tanding Zürcher? choice for the ?tudy of Chri?tianity in chinaw be. Initi whollyy, he wa? intere?ted in uncomplete Chri?tianity nor Buddhi?m a? ?uch, and he wa? never genuinely tempted by the sight or even devotional work out of the?e righteousness?. He wa? rather fa?cinated by the phenomenon of ethnic interaction that the?e righteousness? provoked. In an interview ?erie? with We?tern ?inologi?t? in 1989 entitle When We?t bear? Ea?t, Erik Zürcher conceded that the ?ubject of hi? re?earch ?omehow had been when ea? t meet? we?t: My re?earch ha? master(prenominal)ly b! een on the hi?tory of the coition?hip amidst mainland china and the come turn out of the closet(a)?ide military personnel, non ju?t between China and Europe entirely between China and the upstanding world. When the interviewer a?ked, The hi?tory of both(prenominal) Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity in China f every? within the eye socket of devotion. Why did you choo?e thi? ?ubject? be you religiou? your? gremlin? Zürcher an?wered: Not real, non really whitely. I am non really that ideological and church expiration. hardly it? a payoff of intere?t and that i? what intere?t? me. E?pecially outside(prenominal) occasion?. And from the excite of view of China, both Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity argon noncitizen ho sop upss?. I study that pratfall?e stopping point ?how? it? guinea pigistic? mo?t all the look when it i? confronted with ?ome liaison from out?ide. It? like volume in skirmish-when youre quarrelling with your neighbour, you may ?ay intimacy? and ?how thing? approximately your character that you otherwise(a)wi?e never would. In the ?ame musical mode, the slaughter?e postulate ?hown certain characteri?tic sport? in their reception? to Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity. For in?tance, the slaughter?e have never believed in the base of heaven and man by the god?; thither wa? ju?t busyness ?, a force that came nigh and evolved. ?o when the Je?uit? came and ?aid that paragon created the world in ?even day?, they ?tarted penning, Youre crazy. How put up you believe that? And the ?ame with Buddhi?m. They reacted again?t Buddhi?m by putting forward all kind? of plunge? that they never would have expre??ed if they hadnt been challenged by it.2 Thi? interview and the Bre?cia magniloquence underline ?ome upgrade a?pect? of Zürcher? favorite intere?t. He cgrazing landrly define? him? hob a? a ?inologi?t a? he write? el?ewhere: ?inology i? pertain with (premodern) China. whatever we are doing, slaughter?e flori end ing (including the office chine?e customsal assimi! lation reacted to the intru?ion of Gordian ?y?tem? from abroad) ?hould alway? be the primary focu? of re?earch.3 Within thi? intere?t in China, it i? characteri?tic of hi? climax to have cho?en the slaughter?e chemical reception to impertinent religious touch? a? the major axi? to under?tand China. Thi? i? al?o the simulacrum ?hift to which he contri unlessed in the field of the ?tudy of Chri?tianity in China. He de?cribed it a? a ?hift from the mi??iological nuzzle of Je?uit ?tudie? to re?earch on xixue ?? We?tern ?tudie?, that i?, the way? and the heathen environment in which a social unit range of theme? of We?tern origin wa? propagated and adapted to butcher?e ta?te, and the [End rapscallion 477] slaughter?e reply to it.4 In hi? opinion, with thi? ?hift, the field ha? re paradoxical to the rattling heart of ?inology: For the chine?e ?ource?, and e?pecially tho?e produced by chine?e pro- and anti-xixue seed?, deed over u? to contribute to an?wering a numbe r of mo?t e??ential que?tion? regarding slaughter?e literati socialisation it?elf. In ?ome succession? really un evaluate way? it quite a little ?hed light upon heavy i??ue? ?uch a? the map of per?onal godliness in the deportment and kibibyteght of member? of the elite; the routine childs play by ?in, wrong and confe??ion in a Confucian circumstance; the cognitive function of literati ne dickensrk? organi?ed a? religiou? congregation?; and the definition of orthodoxy (zheng ?) in deep imperial time?.5 The rea?on Zürcher cho?e godliness? a? ?ubject of ?tudy i? that, in hi? substance?, the ii field? of gardening and righteousness are affected: The?e devil field? can non be ?eparated. Every religion bleed? within a given heathenish con textual matter edition and expre??e? it?elf in depot? of that culture; each culture i? held to bring downher by a integrate ?et of feel?, dogma? and pre modelion?, religiou? or ideological. In my pre?ent talk [on tran ? ethnical imaging] I have tried to illu?trate how cu! lture and religion fuse into a ?ingle continuum.6 Thi? ?tatement reflect? a certain dialectic that i? al?o echoed in Zürcher? composition?. art object hi? focu? wa? a better under?tanding of chine?e culture, hi? musical composition?, in effect, al?o tell a hole well-nigh Chri?tianity or Buddhi?m through their impinge on with a unconnected culture. For in?tance, Zürcher? writing? on Chri?tianity regularly contain an explicit compari?on with Buddhi?m, to the extent that they both de?cribe in a ?ynthetic way e??ential characteri?tic? of Buddhi?t thought or answer. Thi? pertain? to a panoptic diverseness of proposition? ?uch a? ?ub?tance and function in Mahayana Buddhi?m, Buddhi?t ontology7 or Buddhi?t chanhui ?? (confe??ion).8 In certain ca?e?, Buddhi?m i? get outed through anti-Buddhi?t business line?, by both the Je?uit? and substitute?.9 U?e of slaughter?e Primary ?ource? in that respect i? ? manger some other(prenominal) rea?on, a?ide from the compara tive rea?on, wherefore Zürcher wa? fa?cinated by the bailiwick of Chri?tianity in China in the ?eventeenth and ordinal centurie?, and that i? the richne?? of the natural? of the registeration. In hi? opinion, on that point i? no other rimal ?mall opposed religion that ha? had thi? immen?e manageage10: The intere?t of the ?ubject a? a field of hi?torical re?earch therefore vigour? non lie in the magnitude of the phenomenon, nor in it? la?ting impact. It? unique obtain account lie? in the position that it probably i? the be?t documented ca?e of inter heathen contact in pre-modern butcher?e hi?tory (and probably in pre-modern world hi?tory). The richne??, and, above all, the piston?ity of the ?ource? of in brass i? extraordinary. In slaughter?e hi?tory of before the Opium fight there i? no religiou? campaign of foreign origin-Buddhi?m non excluded-that can be ?tudied and analy?ed from ?o man angle?.11 [End rapscallion 478] Zürcher belong to? to the European t radition in ?inology in which textual ?ource? are ver! y classical-a characteri?tic he ?hared with hi? instructor of chine?e Jan J. L. Duyvendak (1889-1954)-and wholeness find? a riches of stirence? to primary ?ource? in all hi? publication?. It i? hi? merit to have brought the splendour of the butcher?e ?ource? to the core of the field. Moreover, Zürcher ?aw the acqui?ition and compilation of a bibliographic ?urvey a? re?earch in it?elf.12 Hi? early draft? and bibliographical li?t? gave birth to the Bibliography of the Je?uit Mi??ion in China, ca. 1580-ca. 1680 (Leiden: Centre of Non-We?tern ?tudie?, 1991; with N. ?tandaert and A. Dudink) and to what ha? now become the chine?e Chri?tian Text? entropyba?e, which include? more than single thou?and chine?e primary ?ource? and four thou?and ?econdary ?ource? in variou? oral communication? on Chri?tianity in China in the ?eventeenth and ordinal centurie?.13 It i? preci?ely thi? concern and carefulne?? about ?ource? that al?o enabled him to take aim unique and peripheral ?our ce? to the economic aid of the field. Thi? i? ?hown by a ?ignificant number of expression?, each of which take angiotensin- transfigureing enzyme character take leaveakeenceicular ?ource a? their ba?i?: Li Jiugong? ??? accumulation of edifying and miracle ?torie? Lixiu yijian ???? (A Mirror of Earne?t ?elf-Cultivation, 1639 or 1645)14; ?hen?i lu ??? (A Record of surmise?, 1682), a unique ego-document by the ?ame author15; Renhui yue ??? (?tatute? of the Humanitarian ?ociety, ca. 1634), which are the ?tatute? of a chine?e Chri?tian likable a??ociation compiled by Wang Zheng ??16; Duo?hu ?? (Book of Admonition, ca. 1641), an attempt to inaugurate Chri?tian thinker? into the prescribed ?y?tem of Confucian indoctrination, the community pinch (xiangyue ??) compiled by Han Lin ?? and other?17; Pixue ?? (?cience of Compari?on, 1633), an expounding?ition on the importance, function, and ?tructure of the blandishment device of compari?on by the Italian mi??ionary Alfon?o Vagn single18; ?iji Ai xian?heng xingji ??? ???? (The Life! of Ma?ter Ai [?tyled] ?iji, c. 1650), Giulio Aleni? slaughter?e biography19; and hi? net work on Li Jiubiao? ??? Kouduo richao ???? (Diary of unwritten Admonition?, 1630-1640).20 The?e title? ?how the wide configuration of topic? that were touched upon: moral and meditative text?, per?onal biographie? and ?ocial disposal?, and miracle? ?torie? and grandiloquence device?. Noteworthy i? that tran?lation wa? occasion of thi? encounter with the ?ource and that mo?t of the?e term? are accompanied by lengthy tran?lation? of the primary ?ource, the full tran?lation of Kouduo richao cosmos the culmination. ?ome tran?lation? are al?o into Dutch, ?uch a? the tran?lation of both of Xu Guangqi? ??? (1562-1633) metrical composition?, Zhengdao tigang ???? and Guijie zhenzan ????,21 or the tran?lation of fragment? from the chine?e de church doctrine document? concerning Kangxi and the papal legate? (1707-1721).22 De?pite hi? p course credit for Chine?e ?ource?, Zürcher ?ometime? in any casek the juxtapo?ition of We?tern with Chine?e ?ource? a? hi? primary object of re?earch. Thi? wa? the ca?e with the Relação da perda e de?tituição da Provincia e Chri?tiandade de ?u Chuen e do que o? pe? (1649), a manu?cript on the ma?? killing? in [End pageboy 479] ?ichuan in the 1640? by the Je?uit mi??ionary Gabriel de Magalhãe? (1609-1677). In the hold yield to it, Zürcher in?i?ted on the complementarity of hi?torical ?ource?: There i? every rea?on to accept the report a? ba?ically reliable. A ?trong argument in favour of it i? the fact that the Je?uit ?tory in all e??ential?, and ?ometime? in ?urpri?ing detail, i? confirmed by the Chine?e ?ource?. In quite a a number of ca?e?, an incidental remark nurse by Magalhãe? still reveal? it? received ?ignificance if matched with in composition from Chine?e account?; ?ometime? di?parate data come to form a crystalline picture if they are complemented with outer in arrangement.23 It ?hould be pointed out tha t Erik Zürcher al?o compensable caution to vi?ual ! and material ?ource? in the Chine?e-We?tern exchange. star of the Chine?e adaptation? of the Nadal grade? u?ed to hang in hi? office at the ?inological In?titute in Leiden. The topic of vi?uality wa? fraction of hi? cour?e called Vi?ual Pre?entation of Chine?e Hi?tory. He al?o given over unmatched condition to print? and painting.24 Further intricacy of sign Intuition? Zürcher? ?elf- formula in Bre?cia may give the impre??ion that hi? afterwards work on Chri?tianity wa? notwithstanding a repetition of hi? early work on Buddhi?m. A clo?er look at hi? writing?, however, reveal? that he elaborated on hi? sign perception? con?iderably. In order to ?how how hi? paper? developed, the pursual page? result pre?ent an reason portrait of Erik Zürcher, by focu?ing on hi? ?tudy of Chri?tianity in ?eventeenth- snow China. For biographical data, sensation may refer to ?everal obituarie? written by hi? swain? or ?tudent?.25 With regard to Zürcher? publication? a? a wh ole, iodin may notice that about fractional of ?ome ?ixty total publication? by hi? hand are consecrate to Chri?tianity in China. They can be ?ituated in the by and by break-dance of hi? ?cholarly life, ?ince well-nigh two- third base? were publi?hed after hi? h conceitway in 1993. It i? evidently impo??ible to ?ummarize them in a ?hort article, and, therefore, thi? part will merely try to de?cribe ?ome major line? in the not bad(p) strain of topic? treated and system? diligent by Zürcher. Echoing the excellent article by ?tephen F. Tei?er, mainly devoted to Zürcher? ?tudy of Buddhi?m in early medieval China and included in the third stochastic variable of The Buddhi?t Conque?t of China,26 thi? article trace? Zürcher? parcel in three domain? of ?tudy: the interaction between culture?, the ?ocial hi?tory of religion, and the phenomenon of a living religion. Mechani?m? of Cultural fundamental interaction An initial way to look at Zürcher? ?tudy of Chri?tianit y in China i? through hi? endeavor to take apart it ! a? a ca?e of interaction between culture?.27 In hi? effort to under?tand China, he con?ciou?ly cho?e the Chine?e reply to the come along of foreign religion? a? hi? major axi?. Moreover, he attempted to derive ?ome [End rascal 480] mechani?m? of cultural interaction from the concrete ca?e? of China? reception to Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity. In hi? Bre?cia ?peech, Zürcher referred to hi? early intere?t in the?e mechani?m?. In thi? regard, hi? athletic supporter?hip and common intere?t? with Patrick Edward de Jo??elin de Jong (1922-1999), profe??or of cultural anthropology, cannot be undere?timated.28 P. E. de Jo??elin de Jong (born of a ?inologi?t in Beijing) became the mo?t prominent repre?entative of the Leiden tradition in ?tructural anthropology and author of a assign in Dutch titled Contact of the Continent?: appoint to the Under?tanding of Non-We?tern ?ocietie?, through which a generation of anthropologi?t? in the Netherland? wa? form.29 Zürcher? fir?t and mo?t obviou? choice for ?tudying the?e mechani?m? wa? Buddhi?m, and, therefore, it i? germane(predicate) to e?tabli?h a draw between hi? work on Chri?tianity and that on Buddhi?m. Thi? link can be found in an overview titled Buddhi?m in a Pre-Modern Bureaucratic empire: The Chine?e Experience, to which Zürcher indirectly refer? in hi? Bre?cia talk. herein Zürcher ?tate? that in hi? eye? the ?tudy of Chine?e Buddhi?m i? large(p)ly a ?tudy in acculturation. taken a? a whole, Chine?e Buddhi?m can be regarded a? a cla??ical illu?tration of the proce?? of cultural tran?mi??ion and adaptation. Zürcher fir?t distill? on the Chine?e cultural environment, the Chine?e matrix in which Buddhi?m came to function. Cautiou?ly but at the ?ame time audaciou?ly, he de?cribe? in hi? characteri?tically ?ynthetic way the major element? that were in?trumental in ?haping foreign religion?. They spawn five-spot field?, for each of which he give? ?everal illu?tration?: the policy-making ?y?tem and ideology (e.g., the per?i?ting estimationl of a unif! ied, ab realized bureaucratic empire), ?ocial f operator? (e.g., the family and well-ordered family life a? the ba?i? of ?ociety), economic factor? (e.g., the ?carcity of manpower ?ubject to taxation and corvée labor), worldview and religion (e.g., diffu?e and ritualized religion), and literary and educational factor? (e.g., ?tandardization of literary and ?chola?tic training due to the scrutiny ?y?tem).30 Next he concentrate? on case? of integration. If Chine?e Buddhi?m can, to a large extent, be dissectd in term? of re?pon?e to environmental factor?, thi? vigour? not humble that wizard can do ?o on the ba?i? of virtuoso ?ingle model of integration. The whole proce?? i? far too complicated to be explained by ace ?ingle mechani?m of cultural tran?mi??ion. That i? why, for the purpo?e of analy?i?, he delimit the variou? ?elective mechani?m? that were at work in the formation of Chine?e Buddhi?m, ranging from total ab?orption to total rejection, with all the intermediary t ypesetters case? of acceptance, ?election, and change of empha?i?, re?tructuring, compartmentalization, hybridization, and ?timulated development.31 Zürcher amply admitted that the analytical treatment of Chine?e Buddhi?m in term? of cultural interaction and type? of re?pon?e i? a ?omewhat sensation-?ided approach that will never be able to ?upplant other type? of de?cription. [End Page 481] By it? empha?i? on environmental a?pect? it i? bound to ?tre?? function rather than content. If employ mechanically, it can ea?ily lead to barren determini?m, and it deliberately overlook? the influence that bulky individual mind? and per?onalitie? may have on the cour?e of event?. It may, however, have ?ome u?e a? an in?trument for comparative analy?i?.32 It i? preci?ely the ?earch for a comparative ca?e of cultural interaction that encouraged him to engage in the ?tudy of Chri?tianity, thi? other foreign religion in China, a? clear ?tated in hi? Bre?cia talk. And within the ?tudy of Chri?tianity, hi? primary attention went to the C! hine?e cultural environment and the Chine?e reaction that had ?o often been underexpo?ed.33 Thi? approach i? a curve through all hi? writing? on Chri?tianity. Hi? very fir?t article on the anti-Chri?tian faecal matter of Nanjing (1616-1621) end? with the remark that the per?ecution may ?erve a? a clear illu?tration of ?ome authoritative a?pect of the mechani?m of acculturation.34 And the opening ?entence? of hi? final examination work are as illu?trative: Among the dozen? of text? by late Ming and early Qing convert? it [= Kouduo richao] ?tand? out a? the only ?ource that allow? u? a glimp?e of Je?uit mi??ionary design-accommodation in action-and of the variou? re?pon?e? of their Chine?e audience, both convert? and intere?ted out?ider?. It al?o ?how? u? the working of the underlying proce??e? of ?election, adaptation and integration by which, in the milieu of local anaesthetic anesthetic Confucian elite?, the foreign creed wa? tran?formed into a marginal Chine?e minorit y religion.35 In Bre?cia, after all the?e year? of ?tudy, he came to the following conclu?ion: More essentially, to my ?ati?faction I ?aw that I recogni?ed more or le?? the ?ame mechani?m?, the ?ame model of cultural interaction [a? in the ca?e of Buddhi?m]. It wa? a? if unitary model could be applied to distinct way?. Thi? ?earch for the mechani?m? and the corre?pondence with the ca?e of Buddhi?m explain? why in legion(predicate) an(prenominal) of Zürcher? article? 1 find? a wide variety of key concept? that explain the multifactorial proce?? of tran?mi??ion of Chri?tianity in China. ?ome concept? are exactly the ?ame a? the one? expo?ed in hi? article on Buddhi?m in a Pre-Modern Bureaucratic Empire36: (total) ab?orption or (complete) acceptance,37 adoption,38 ?election and change of empha?i?,39 hybridization,40 (total) rejection.41 Other? are clearly moreover elaboration? of the typology: adaptation or accommodation,42 contextualization,43 redefinition,44 ?pontaneou? diffu?ion and guided propagation,45 contact expan?io! n,46 reach??-cultural ?edimentation,47 in?titutional channeling,48 and cultural equivalence.49 The?e concept? of mechani?m? of cultural interaction, however, do not function on their own. What i? characteri?tic of Zürcher? approach i? the clo?e interplay between the ?ource? and the?e analytical concept?. He did not limit him?elf ? require to de?cribing hi?torical event?; he al?o analyzed and link up them to an furnishative ?cheme or concept of cultural interaction. Likewi?e, he would seldom propo?e an interpretation of a general type without freehanded a concrete [End Page 482] ensample. It i? unbowed that he expre??ed re?ervation toward theorie? becau?e what pre?ent? it?elf a? a supposition frequently la?t? a unusually ?hort time.50 In hi? text?, one will, therefore, seldom find reference? to major theoretical writing?, although in the field of ?ocial hi?tory, he felt at ea?e with mood? of ?cholar? ?uch a? C. K. Yang51 or Max Weber.52 He dealt with theory by providing ?c holar? with analytical concept? that initiated a sweet way of feeling at thing? and ?o opened people? eye? to ?tudy phenomena, relation?hip? and ?tructure? that until then had not received much attention.53 In fact, the?e conceptual and analytical in?ight? are not trammel to the mechani?m? of cultural interaction. They al?o pertain to the field? of Chine?e culture and religion, and of Chri?tianity in China. A puritanical example of ?uch interplay between ?ource and analytical concept i? Zürcher? article The noble of heaven and the lusus naturae?: ?trange ?torie? from a recent Ming Chri?tian Manu?cript. After a detailed typology of the unfitting ?torie? in Li xiu yi jian and ?even page? of tran?lation? (with only marginal annotation, according to Zürcher), he come? to a conclu?ion that i? relevant not only to the ?tudy of ?eventeenth-century Chri?tianity but al?o to the ?tudy of religion in China a? ?uch. In hi? eye?, the empha?i? on practical applicability a? reveal ed by the?e text? i? one of the mo?t ?alient feature?! of late Ming Chri?tianity a? a whole: The idea that the excellence of Chri?tianity lie?, above all, in it? ?uperiority a? a tool for the improvement of ?tate and ?ociety i? found all over in the writing? of prominent Chri?tian literati. Here, at a much lower take aim of expre??ion, we find the ?ame conviction that a religion prove? it? worth by the immediate energy (you xiao ??) of it? ritual?. In mo?t ca?e? the proven efficacy of the?e ritual?, the happy di? get welly that they work, push through? to be the primary motive for conver?ion. It i? yet another manife?tation of the general Chine?e aspiration to reduce a religion to a method, a proficiency (?hu ?).54 It i? preci?ely Zürcher? acquaintance with the early ?tage? of Buddhi?m in China, and even with Buddhi?t-Taoi?t exchange?, that allowed him not only to analyze mechani?m? of cultural interaction in Chri?tianity, but al?o to elaborate concept? of thi? interaction that are reasoned for the con?i?tent Chine?e reacti on to the other foreign religion? a? well. Probably the be?t illu?tration of thi? approach with implication? for other field? (in ?inology) i? hi? Je?uit Accommodation and the Chine?e Cultural Imperative. Thi? article can be con?idered a unavoidable yarn for anyone intere?ted in the topic of foreign religion? in China. It wa? hi? contribution for the ?ympo?ium ?ignificance of the Chine?e Rite? Controver?y in ?ino-We?tern Hi?tory (October 16-18, 1992), at which he wanted to di?cu?? matter? other than the apologetic que?tion of whether Ricci wa? right.55 In contra?t, hi? article rai?e? the que?tion whether late Ming and early Qing Chri?tianity wa? an anomaly in defining and redefining it?elf vi?-à-vi? the dominant, serious tradition of Confuciani?m, or whether it did fit into a [End Page 483] (?tructural) designing.56 Four concept? emerge from hi? analy?i?, which pure tone to the fore in many another(prenominal) of hi? other writing?. Fir?t, he call? Chri?tianity-like Juda i?m, I?lam, and early Buddhi?m, to which he compare? ! it-a marginal religion.57 In fact, he never gave a clear definition of thi? term: it sure comely refer? to the fact that in quantitative term? the?e religion? were an ab?olutely marginal phenomenon,58 but it al?o refer? to the fact that they were, to a certain extent, on the margin of Chine?e ?ociety.59 In other ca?e?, Zürcher u?e? the term minority religion,60 and, in at lea?t one ca?e, both expre??ion? come in in the ?ame text: tran?formation into a marginal Chine?e minority religion.61 In thi? Rite? Controver?y article, the ?earch for conventionalism? i? not limited to the ca?e? of Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity but al?o extended to Judai?m and I?lam. At other occa?ion?, he dealt with Judai?m a? well,62 while hi? compari?on? with I?lam remained rather limited.63 In a further ?tep, by analyzing the form? of re?pon?e of the?e religion? to Chine?e ?ociety, Zürcher di?cern? the phenomenon typical of China that he call? cultural pressing64: [N]o marginal religion precipitous f rom the out?ide could expect to take root in China (at lea?t at the ?ocial level) unle?? it conformed to that figure of speech that in late imperial time? wa? more clearly specify than ever. Confuciani?m repre?ented what i? zheng ?, orthodox in a religiou?, ritual, ?ocial, and political ?en?e; in order not to be brand a? xie ?, heterodox and to be treated a? a ?ubver?ive ?ect, a marginal religion had to prove that it wa? on the ?ide of zheng. A? ?uch Zürcher ?ynthe?ize? their re?pon?e in one general analytical concept. Next, thi? imperative find? expre??ion in ?ome pattern? that belong to a deep ?tructure in Chine?e religiou? life in late imperial China: (1) empha?izing the unanimity and complete compatibility between the minority religion and Confuciani?m; (2) the arrest of complementarity, the foreign creed ?erving to enrich and fulfill the Confucian pattern; (3) the tendency to ba?e the exi?tence of the foreign doctrine upon hi?torical precedent, ?ometime? reaching bac k to the very beginning of Chine?e civilization, and ! (4) the adoption of Chine?e more? and ritual?, commute with a few fundamental dogma? and practice? belong to the foreign religion (in other word?, a give chase tendency toward reductioni?m a? far a? the foreign religion and way of life are concerned).65 Zürcher bonk? the?e pattern? in the way in which ?inicized marginal religion? of foreign origin adapted them?elve? to the central ideology of Confuciani?m. Finally, Zürcher al?o conceptualize? ?pecific trait? of Chri?tianity in China. He con?ider? Confucian monothei?m66 one of the e??ential characteri?tic? of late Ming and early Qing Chri?tianity. Thi? expre??ion refer? to the fact that in the writing? of Chine?e literati, the Lord of Heaven play? an all-important role. Convert? fully accepted the idea that the belief in a per?onalized deity i? rooted [End Page 484] in authorized Confuciani?m, which i? a variety of original monothei?m, and that thi? con?titute? the common point of departure for both creed?.67 A? a re?ult, in their text? the per?on of Je?u? i? over?hadowed and only a ?econdary role i? played by the Incarnation.68 There are al?o ?ome ca?e? of what Zürcher call? legitimate Tianzhu-i?m69 in which the per?on of Je?u? vigor? not play any role at all. Thi? Confucian monothei?m i? the way Chine?e Chri?tian literati accommo successiond the Je?uit scuttlebutt with their own traditional univer?e of di?cour?e. Therefore, Zürcher feel? that we are ju?tified in treating thi? Confucian monothei?m a? a phenomenon ?ui generi?, a recontextualized Catholic trustfulness and we ?hould interpret their writing? a? document? of a Chine?e marginal religion, in their own right.70 In hi? ?tudie? of writing? of Chine?e convert?, Zürcher ?how? how thi? conversation between Chine?e and mi??ionarie? produced a ?ophi?ticated and passing original hybrid: a monothei?tic and puri?t ver?ion of Confuciani?m, ?trongly oppo?ed to Buddhi?m, Taoi?m, and popular ?uper?tition.71 Wa? there, then, nothing ?pecific t o Chri?tianity in China compared to Buddhi?m? Zürche! r in?i?t? that Chri?tianity i? a monopoli?tic Mediterranean religion.72 The Confucian concept of zheng i? of another order than the monopoli?tic, all-inclu?ive, Mediterranean type of orthodoxy, of which Chri?tianity (in it? ?eventeenth-century, Roman Catholic, po?t-Tridentine form) wa? an out?tanding example.73 ?ince Confucian orthodoxy i? limited in it? coverage, it could be complemented (buru ??) by religiou? element? from out?ide: Buddhi?t devotion and ?oteriology, Taoi?t magic and eubiotic?, popular belief? and ritual?, and, no doubt, al?o by the doctrine of the Lord of Heaven. In thi? ?en?e Chri?tianity could then be a ?ub?titute for Buddhi?m (yifo ??). And he pertain?: But the adoption of Chri?tianity actually went far beyond taking the situation of Confuciani?m it?elf. It wa? not, like Buddhi?m, an external religiou? ?y?tem in it? own right, that wa? allowed to operate in the empty ?pace? not covered by Confucian orthodoxy; a? a monopoli?tic religion, it considered to cover the whole human experience. By merging with Confuciani?m, Chri?tianity became a part of zheng-in fact, it? claim that it had come to regurgitate Confuciani?m of later ?uper?titiou? accrual? and to re?tore original monothei?m implied that it wa? more zheng than anything contemporary Confuciani?m could offer. ?uch claim? had never been made by any other alien religion in China-in that re?pect it wa? a new phenomenon in the hi?tory of Chine?e thought.74 Zürcher? ?tudy of the mechani?m? of interaction ha? encountered ?ome critici?m. ?tephen Tei?er point? out that, de?pite the ?upple language adoptive by Zürcher, the concept of cultural conflict ? coin bank pre?ume? a fundamental oppo?ition or conflict between two di?tinct entitie?. In the ca?e of Chri?tianity in China, the?e are European Chri?tianity on the one hand and Confucian China on the other. He continue?: [End Page 485] Current? of thought in the ?ocial ?cience? and the humanitie? over the pa?t twenty year? have increa?ingly que?tioned the applicability of the mode! rn notion of the nation-?tate or national culture to pre-modern politie?, including India and China. The model of ?inification, no matter how refined, ?till relie? on a criterion of Chine?ene??. That i?, by defining the ?ubject a? the proce?? by which Buddhi?m [or any other marginal religion] wa? made Chine?e, the ?inification paradigm a??ume? rather than explain? what Chine?e esteem?.75 Thu?, likewi?e a? in the ca?e of Buddhi?m, further development? in the field of Chri?tianity will extend ?cholarly ?u?picion about the ?olidity of certain hypothetical entitie?. The reinforcement of Zürcher? approach, however, ha? been that the concept? he developed at lea?t help to di?cover variety and numerosity in the reaction? of a culture toward a foreign religion. In?titutional Approach A ?econd way to approach Zürcher? ?tudy of Chri?tianity in China i? to look at it from the point of view of ?ocial hi?tory. In hi? presentment to the third magnetic declination of the Buddhi?t Co nque?t of China, ?tephen F. Tei?er pleadd that it would be a mi?take to regard the ?ubject matter of the discussion a? ? require Chine?e Buddhi?m. The book ha? important thing? to ?ay about how to ?tudy religion, broadly conceived, and how to analy?e the interaction between culture?.76 Likewi?e one could argue that Zürcher? ?tudie? on Chri?tianity ?ay important thing? not only about the interaction between culture?, but al?o about how to ?tudy religion. What i? ?triking in thi? regard i? hi? intere?t in an in?titutional approach. Here the compari?on with another important ?cholar of both Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity in China may ?erve a? a ?tarting point. Zürcher wa? indeed not the only ?cholar of Buddhi?m in China who rancid to the ?tudy of Chri?tianity in China. According to hi? own word?, Zürcher him?elf encouraged hi? colleague Jacque? Gernet (1921-) to inve?tigate Chri?tianity.77 Zürcher knew Gernet from hi? ?everal period? of ?tudy of Buddhi?m under Paul Demiéville (18 94-1979) in Pari? (in 1955, 1956, 1958). In 1956 (thr! ee year? before The Buddhi?t Conque?t), Gernet publi?hed hi? major ?tudy on the economic a?pect? of Buddhi?m in Chine?e ?ociety from the fifth to the tenth century.78 He held the chair in the ?ocial and intellectual Hi?tory of China at the Collège de France from 1975 and 1992 and ?erved a? coeditor with Zürcher of the ?inological journal Toung Pao. In 1982 Gernet publi?hed Chine et chri?tiani?me: Action et réaction (later tran?lated into Engli?h, German, Italian, ?pani?h, and Chine?e). Zürcher, without doubt, admired the work of hi? colleague,79 but at the ?ame time wa? very critical of it. In an elegant way, he ?tated that Prof. Gernet? work i? a great contribution to the field, not only by it? intrin?ic hold dear and the quality of argumentation, but al?o becau?e part? of it are highly controver?ial. It? publication ha? ?tirred up an internationalistic ?cholarly di?cu??ion that i? ?till going on.80 [End Page 486] Gernet? main argument i? that the mo?t ba?ic religiou? and philo?ophical idea? and a??umption? of traditional Chine?e thought were exclusively incompatible with tho?e of Chri?tianity. Gernet de?cribe? a whole ?erie? of ?uch fundamental incompatibilitie?-ca?e? in which the ba?ic a??umption? are ?o wide apart, or even conflicting, that acceptance ?imply i? impo??ible. While acknowledging that Gernet i? certainly right when he empha?ized the conflict between the ba?ic Chri?tian a??umption? and the Chine?e tradition, Zürcher did not jeer that the limited ?ucce?? of Chri?tianity in ?eventeenth-century China could wholly be a?cribed to ?ome kind of intellectual horror. If one turn? to the writing? of ?ome well-informed Chine?e convert?, one ?ee? ju?t the oppo?ite, becau?e of their complete acceptance of tho?e idea? that in Gernet? vi?ion ?imply could not have been adopted. In addition, Zürcher turned to Buddhi?m in it? earlie?t pha?e in China, where Chine?e culture al?o ab?orbed idea? that were oppo?ed to the ba?ic a??umption? of that cult ure it?elf.81 In the introduction to the revi?ed and ! corrected magnetic declination of hi? Chine et chri?tiani?me (1991, now ?ubtitled La première brush in?tead of Action et réaction), Gernet indirectly re?ponded to thi? analy?i?. In hi? eye?, a ?low and complex phenomenon of mutual adaptation of Buddhi?m to China and China to Buddhi?m took placement between the ?econd and ?eventh centurie?. Yet, no analogou? adaptation of Chri?tianity to the Chine?e context wa? imaginable.82 Zürcher looked at the occupation of incompatibility from an in?titutional point of view. Thi? approach i? certainly one of hi? major contribution? to the field and qualify? one of hi? way? of ?tudying a religion. The lecture he gave in Pari? in 1988 at the invitation of Gernet, publi?hed in French and Dutch, and nearly completely in Engli?h i? wholly devoted to thi? topic. The main que?tion wa? why Buddhi?m had ?ucceeded in get into Chine?e ?ociety and Chri?tianity had not. In an?wering thi? que?tion, Zürcher looked at the in?titutional way? of expan? ion and di??emination in China. In contra?t with Buddhi?m, which drew ?trength from it? ?pontaneou? process and diffu?ion, Chri?tianity wa? characterized by a guided and planned expan?ion: it wa? not the Buddhi?t contact expan?ion but expan?ion at a di?tance; not a branching out but an snap; not a firm economic ba?i? but ?upply of fund? from out?ide, through a kind of umbilical cord cord by which the church remained attached to the out?ide world. In Zürcher? analy?i?, the?e element? paradoxically repre?ented a great weakne?? for the Je?uit mi??ion.83 Zürcher in other text? refine? the in?titutional a?pect? of the di??emination, de?pite thi? general in?titutional failure. For in?tance, he point? at feature? of the Chine?e bureaucratic ?y?tem that actually favored the quick comprehensive examination ?pread of Chri?tianity in the ?eventeenth century: the principle that formalised? were appointed for a three-year term of office, after which they would be ?hifted to another po?t; the long period? of retreat (e.g., for mourning), an! d the rule [End Page 487] of dodge (pre?cribing that an official mu?t not fill a po?t in hi? home obligation). A? ?uch, the mobility of their ?pon?or? on a nationwide ?cale allowed the Je?uit mi??ionarie? to gain footing in new territory. In addition, by an a??ociation with a powerful patron, mi??ionarie? al?o could become part of the last mentioned? guanxi network? of variou? kind?: jock?, colleague?, and ?ubordinate?, double-decker?, er?twhile fellow ?tudent? and fellow ammonium alum?, di?ciple?, and customer?. The Fujian mi??ion i? a cla??ic example of thi? way of di??emination.84 Another a?pect of the in?titutional approach i? Zürcher? in?i?tence on the level? of re?pon?e. In practice, the mi??ionary activity moved(p) disparate target group?, fire different type? of reaction?. For the purpo?e of de?cription, he di?tingui?he? at lea?t four component?: the ma?? of the population and the local gentry at the gra??-root? level; the ?cholar?; the official?; and the imperi al court.85 Thi? eminence of level? in Confucian China wa?, in fact, one of the mo?t important civilisation? he felt compelled to make during the farewell ?peech at hi? retirement (October 8, 1993), critically reflecting back upon hi? beginning(a) ?peech a? he accepted the chair of hi?tory of the far Ea?t more than thirty year? earlier (March 2, 1962). In the latter ?peech he called Confuciani?m the central tradition, and in 1993 he believed that it ?till de?erved that name.86 But thirty year? later, he al?o believed that the image of Confuciani?m (in Dutch with definite article: het confuciani?me) a? central monolith wa? no long-life ?u?tainable. A? any complex ?y?tem i? compo?ed of part? and layer?, it i? ?egmented and ?tratified. The de?cription of the?e different level? corre?pond? clo?ely to the one applied to the contact with Chri?tianity. He called it one of the original ?in? of ?inologi?t? in Ea?t and We?t to neglect thi? elementary fact, and thu? to mix up the level?: [ T]he greate?t light? of Confucian philo?ophy are drag! ged into the matter, in the ca?e of ?eventeenth-century ?choolma?ter? and lower official? who converted to Chri?tianity.87 It i? preci?ely thi? attention to the low-level literati, that i?, the humble bachelor?, ?chool teacher?, and clerk?,88 e?pecially in the Fujian state (?ee below), that make? hi? work on Chri?tianity ?o attractive. Thi? doe? not mean that he paid attention only to the?e lower level?. Be?ide hi? many reference? to the level of Chri?tian ?cholar? and official?, with the name? of Xu Guangqi ??? (1562-1633), Li Zhizao ??? (1571-1630), Yang Tingyun ??? (1562-1627), Wang Zheng ?? (1571-1644), and many other?, he al?o wrote about the attitude of the variou? reaction? of the late Ming and early Qing emperor moth? toward Chri?tianity89 or Kangxi? reaction in the Chine?e Rite? Controver?y.90 And he devoted a ?pecific article to the curiou? ?tory of the Je?uit? Ludovico Buglio (1606-1682) and Gabriel de Magalhãe?, who ? create verbally more than two year? (late 1644 to e arly 1647) in the ?ervice of the notoriou? dissent rule Zhang Xianzhong ??? (1601-1647) in ?ichuan.91 To thi? differentiation of level? corre?pond different role?, which i? the final a?pect of Zürcher? in?titutional approach. The variou? activitie? deployed by the Je?uit? at different level? al?o meant that they had to play a variety of [End Page 488] useful role?: foreigner?, ?cholar? from the We?t, adept technical?, chari?matic preacher?, and religiou? profe??ional?. Zürcher point? out that in the Chine?e context thi? particular mix of functional role? wa? ?elf-defeating in the end becau?e it contained in?oluble intrinsic contradiction?. The moral teacher wa? not expected to be a technical expert, and the ?cholar? role wa? incompatible with that of the provider of ?pell? and amulet?.92 Zürcher oddly pointed to the intermix by the Je?uit mi??ionarie? of the two role? of ?cholar and prie?t. In hi? eye?, it wa? a di??onant role pattern becau?e in traditional China the ro le of the ?cholar could not be combined with that of ! the prie?t or the religiou? expert.93 Thi? concept appear? already in hi? early work on anti-Chri?tian argument? a? a ?tructural phenomenon,94 a? ?omething impo?ed upon Chri?tianity in the Chine?e context.95 And in later article? he extend? thi? double role to Chri?tianity a? a whole. It i?, in hi? view, one of the mo?t important factor? for the failure of Chri?tianity.96 Chri?tianity wa? not ju?t an intellectual con?truct but a living minority religion, a complex of belief?, ritual?, prayer, magic, icon?, private piety, and communal celebration. In that whole ?phere of religiou? practice Chri?tianity wa? by no mean? a ?emi-Confucian hybrid; in fact, in mo?t re?pect? it came much clo?er to devotional Buddhi?m than to Confuciani?m. Thu?, in the Chine?e elite environment, Chri?tianity had to combine two role? that were almo?t incompatible. A? a doctrine, expre??ed at a high level of philo?ophical and theological articulation, it could act a? a complement to Confuciani?m: a? a reli gion, it wa? bound to ?how clo?e analogie? to preci?ely tho?e indigenou? belief? and practice? which they rejected a? ?uper?titiou?. It could not confine it?elf to one of tho?e ?phere? a? Confuciani?m and Buddhi?m did; true to it? nature a? a monopoli?tic Mediterranean religion, it had to encompa?? both. The two face? of early Chine?e Chri?tianity con?tituted an sexual contradiction that wa? never ?olved, and that no doubt ha? contributed to it? final breakdown in the early eighteenth century.97 In the field of hi? in?titutional approach, one may criticize Zürcher? analy?i? for e?tabli?hing a too ?trong ?eparation between the?e two role? and the denomination of one with Confuciani?m and the other with marginal religion?. unitary may al?o que?tion whether the failure or ?ucce?? of a religion in a culture can be academically e?tabli?hed without ?ome criteria on what ?uch failure or ?ucce?? mean?. But the concept? he employed and the in?ight? he brought forward, without doubt, he lp to look at Chri?tianity in China from new per?pect! ive and to que?tion commonly accepted pre?uppo?ition?. alive Religion A final characteri?tic of Zürcher? approach to religion i? hi? attention to what he called living religion. Thi? characteri?tic al?o join? hi? earlier work on Buddhi?m. ?tephen Tei?er rightly remark? in thi? regard: [End Page 489] The mo?t important the?i? of The Buddhi?t Conque?t of China i? not ?o much an hypothe?i? about it? ?ubject-although it doe? contain many ?uch propo?ition?-a? it i? a claim about how it? ?ubject ought to be approached. The book ?tre??e? the ?ocial environment (p. 1) of early Chine?e Buddhi?m. Thi? per?pective i? required, Zürcher rea?on?, not ?imply becau?e all religion? are more than a hi?tory of idea?. Buddhi?m in China wa? al?o a way of life (p. 1), a? ?een pre-eminently in the formation of the Buddhi?t ?angha. Thu?, rather than con?truing hi? ?ubject a? Buddhi?t philo?ophy in China in the fourth and early fifth centurie?, Zürcher de?ign? the book a? a ?tudy of a particula r ?ocial cla?? at a particular time and place.98 What i? ?aid here about Zürcher? former book can al?o be applied to hi? later book. The focu? of hi? annotated tran?lation of the Kouduo richao i? not Chri?tianity a? the doctrine of the Lord of Heaven pre?ented a? an ideal ?y?tem of belief? and moral rule?, but Chri?tianity a? a living religion.99 Thu? rather than con?truing hi? ?ubject a? Chri?tian theology or philo?ophy in China in the ?eventeenth century, Zürcher de?ign? the book a? a ?tudy of a particular ?ocial cla?? at a particular time and place: Fujian in the 1630?. In the pa?t, there had been ?everal ?tudie? of the implantation and evolution of Chri?tianity in one region or province in China.100 The very detailed and localized ?tudy in one place and rather limited time ?pan wa? innovative, and i? al?o indebted to the favored di?covery of ?ource? of an colossal nature. Zürcher? intere?t for the living Chri?tianity in Fujian date? from the earlie?t writing? on Chri? tianity in China: one ca?e ?tudy on ?trange ?torie?10! 1 and another devoted to the protagoni?t Giulio Aleni and hi? contact? in the milieu of Chine?e literati.102 ?everal other ca?e ?tudie? followed, al?o on Chine?e protagoni?t?. The mo?t important Chine?e Chri?tian text? coming forward from Fujian are al?o regularly quoted in Zürcher? thematical writing?.103Kouduo richao, however, i? a further development and added a ?pecial feature to the?e ?tudie?. For thi? choice, one can again refer to the reflection Zürcher made in Bre?cia. De?pite the richne?? of all the phenomena he de?cribed in hi? earlier writing?, he realized that there were ?ome lacking thing?, ?ome blank ?pace?. nonpareil of the?e wa? the Chine?e reaction de?cribed by the Chine?e them?elve? to the mi??ionary work. There wa? plenty musical accompaniment on Chri?tian doctrine, al?o by Chine?e, but very little about the actual work of mi??ionary practice and how the Chine?e looked at and reacted to it. At the moment of realizing thi? lacuna, he di?covered the Kouduo ric hao. It i? a unique text becau?e it i? the only extant fir?t-hand account of the practice of religiou? life and of mi??ionary activity in a ?pecific ?ocial milieu (the lower fringe of the literati-elite), a? recorded by the Chine?e convert?.104 In relations with thi? ?ubject, Zürcher cho?e a very traditional ?cholarly method: he made a tran?lation of the whole work, ?o a? to make it available to the larger ?cholarly world. Thi? tran?lation i? carefully annotated and cover? [End Page 490] about 400 page?. It i? preceded by an introduction of approximately 170 page?, which ?hould be recommended, without doubt, a? required reading for anyone ?tudying Chri?tianity in late Ming and early Qing China. A?ide from the nece??ary study about the text and the ?cene, it include? biographie? of all the actor? knobbed and a di?cu??ion of the doctrine, communal ritual? (?uch a? dedicated ma?? and funeral), the ?ocial a?pect?, and finally the We?tern ?tudie? (pre-hi?tory, -?cience, and -techn ology). Thi? text it too rich to be ?ummarized in a! few line?. One may r