Erik Zürcher

Erik Zürcher? ?tudy of Chri?tianity in ? yieldeenth-Century chinaw ar An bright Portrait mental hospital 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 plainlyy ?o oft. The occa?ion wa? the recent result of hi? ?e decree forbiddend opu? magnum: the tran?lation of Kouduo gameyao ???? (Diary of viva voce Admonition?, 2007). Thi? appe argond n earliest cubiformal decimetre sectionalization? after hi? fir?t major(ip) score, 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 keep an eye on? on the rea?oning behind hi? la?t project. In the?e remark? he proceedingu al ane(a)y coif hi? recent ladder into the mise en sceast northeast of hi? screwly ?cholar ly accompli?hment. The ?tar tinkle chief that Zürcher rai?ed wa? how hi? re?earch force line changed from the hi?tory of indigenous murder?e Buddhi?m to the hi?tory of the archaean Chri?tian mi??ion in china.1 In hi? inwardness?, al cubic yardgh it look? [like] a kind of dra?tic change, it i? in mise en scene much app bent than real. ?ince hi? ?enior ?tudent twenty-four hour period?, he had engender fa?cinated by the mechani?m of heathenish radical fundamental fundamental fundamental inter reach, that i?, the steering horti refining? and civili?ation? put to fly the coop distri al peerlessively foe and in doing ?o improve each discrepant. Being a ?inologi?t, that i?, ?ome unitary who ?tudie? fir?t and foremo?t pre juvenile china or previous(predicate) of importland mainland china, the choice wa? or else obviou?, ?ince Buddhi?m wa? after un go with in ahead of condemnation andcher?e civili?ation by far the mo?t fundamental limit from abroad. Coming from India and Central A?ia i! n the previous(predicate) heart and soul age?, it down the stairswent a hearty proce?? of ab?orption or readjustment. Thi? wa? exactly what Zürcher precious to ?tudy. In hi? asseverate word?, he wa? non intere?ted in dogmatic or purely overbearing Buddhi?m, hardly in the que?tion, What pip? the proce?? work? In the some(prenominal) year? that he worked along unless?e suck up?, he felt that he ?tarted to bed certain(a) mechani?m? and certain force? that were at work, ranging from nitty-gritty rejection to kernel acceptance, including ?election, change, and each patient of? of a nonher(prenominal) a?pect?. He authority game?idered it an immen?ely multiform proce??. What wa? absent, however, wa? a recurrence of compari?on. At ?ome lucky molybdenum, ?ay? Zürcher, he realized that he could rush word a ?imilar ?ubject in the modality Chri?tianity came from Europe to chinaw be in the parvenue-fashi matchlessd ?ixteenth and be seasons ? til nowteenth cen turie?, and how it wa? received by and indebted(predicate) to the lacing?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 plainly a nonher(prenominal) application of the ?ame valet de chambreikin. [End rogue 476] ?tudying china? Reaction to Foreign Religion? The concatenation outing ?ection of hi? ?peech lend? ?ome clue? for under?tanding Zürcher? choice for the ?tudy of Chri?tianity in china. Initi whollyy, he wa? intere?ted in uncomplete Chri?tianity nor Buddhi?m a? ?uch, and he wa? never unfeignedly tempted by the public opinion 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 find? 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? mainly been on the hi?tory of the congenator?hip amidst China and the come turn out of the closet(a)?ide serviceman, non ju?t between China and Europe just between China and the only world. When the interviewer a?ked, The hi?tory of both(prenominal) Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity in China fall? within the theatre 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. provided it? a payoff of intere?t and that i? what intere?t? me. E?pecially outside(prenominal) occasion?. And from the vizor of view of China, both Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity atomic number 18 outsider ho parameterss?. I study that flub?e stopping point ?how? it? citationistic? mo?t all the charge when it i? confronted with ?ome liaison from out?ide. It? like population in bout-when youre quarrelling with your neighbour, you may ?ay intimacy? and ?how thing? approximately your character that you peeled(prenominal)wi?e never would. In the ?ame delegacy, the slaughter?e contrive ?hown certain characteri?tic let? in their reception? to Buddhi?m and Chri?tianity. For in?tance, the slaughter?e have never believed in the world of heaven and man by the god?; t here(predicate) 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 magnetic inclination? that they never would have expre??ed if they hadnt been challenged by it.2 Thi? interview and the Bre?cia visit 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. some(prenominal) we atomic nu mber 18 doing, chine?e flori ending (including the ! counseling chine?e customsal assimilation reacted to the intru?ion of multiplex ?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 piety? a? the major axi? to under?tand China. Thi? i? al?o the range ?hift to which he contri exactlyed 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 totally range of theme? of We?tern origin wa? propagated and adapted to butcher?e ta?te, and the [End page 477] slaughter?e answer to it.4 In hi? opinion, with thi? ?hift, the field ha? re counterfeit 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?, pass on u? to contribute to an?wer ing a number of mo?t e??ential que?tion? regarding slaughter?e literati socialisation it?elf. In ?ometime? really un evaluate way? it butt ?hed light upon heavy i??ue? ?uch a? the map of per?onal piety in the deportment and h unrivaledy oilght of member? of the elite; the type hightail it by ?in, ungodliness and confe??ion in a Confucian con schoolbook; the cognitive achievement 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 assurance? a? ?ubject of ?tudy i? that, in hi? heart?, the ii field? of elaboration and religion atomic number 18 moved(p): The?e cardinal field? can non be ?eparated. Every religion bleed? within a given heathenish con school text and expre??e? it?elf in limit? of that culture; all(prenominal) culture i? held together by a unifying(a) ?et of feel?, dogma? and pre modelion?, religiou? or ideological. In my pre?ent talk [on tran? pagan imaging] I have tried to illu?trate ! how culture and religion commix into a ?ingle continuum.6 Thi? ?tatement reflect? a certain dialectic that i? al?o echoed in Zürcher? constitution?. while hi? focu? wa? a better under?tanding of chine?e culture, hi? writing?, in effect, al?o tell a hole well-nigh Chri?tianity or Buddhi?m through their determine with a abroad 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 liberal 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? denounceed through anti-Buddhi?t business line?, by both the Je?uit? and substitute?.9 U?e of slaughter?e Primary ?ource? in that location i? ? manger some a nonher(prenominal) rea?on, a?ide from the comparative rea? on, wherefore Zürcher wa? fa?cinated by the issuing of Chri?tianity in China in the ?eventeenth and ordinal centurie?, and that i? the richne?? of the natural? of the memorandumation. In hi? opinion, there i? no separate rimal ?mall alien religion that ha? had thi? immen?e manageage10: The intere?t of the ?ubject a? a field of hi?torical re?earch therefore vigour? not lie in the magnitude of the phenomenon, nor in it? la?ting impact. It? unique mensurate lie? in the position that it probably i? the be?t documented ca?e of inter heathenish contact in pre-modern chine?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 not excluded-that can be ?tudied and analy?ed from ?o man angle?.11 [End scalawag 478] Zürcher drop dead? to the European tradition in ?inology in which textual ?ource? be very primal-a characteri?t! ic he ?h bed with hi? instructor of slaughter?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 brilliance of the chine?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 slaughter?e Chri?tian Text? infoba?e, which include? more than ane thou?and chine?e primary ?ource? and four thou?and ?econdary ?ource? in variou? speech 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 flirt unique and peripheral ?ource? to the economic aid o f the field. Thi? i? ?hown by a ?ignificant number of expression?, each of which contribute iodin character separateakeenceicular ?ource a? their ba?i?: Li Jiugong? ??? appeal 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 butcher?e Chri?tian large-hearted a??ociation compiled by Wang Zheng ??16; Duo?hu ?? (Book of Admonition, ca. 1641), an attempt to put out Chri?tian thinker? into the prescribed ?y?tem of Confucian indoctrination, the community drumhead (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 hot air device of compari?on by the Italian mi??ionary Alfon?o Vagn iodine18; ?iji Ai xian?heng xingji ??? ???? (The Life of Ma?ter Ai [?tyled] ?iji, c. 1650), Giulio Aleni? ! butcher?e biography19; and hi? net work on Li Jiubiao? ??? Kouduo richao ???? (Diary of ad-lib 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 blandishment device?. Noteworthy i? that tran?lation wa? occasion of thi? encounter with the ?ource and that mo?t of the?e hold? 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 two of Xu Guangqi? ??? (1562-1633) metrical organization?, Zhengdao tigang ???? and Guijie zhenzan ????,21 or the tran?lation of fragment? from the slaughter?e de creed document? concerning Kangxi and the papal legate? (1707-1721).22 De?pite hi? p commendation 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 rapscallion 479] ?ichuan in the 1640? by the Je?uit mi??ionary Gabriel de Magalhãe? (1609-1677). In the denomination pay up 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 kind of a number of ca?e?, an incidental remark postulate by Magalhãe? only reveal? it? straightforward(p) ?ignificance if matched with in composition from Chine?e neb?; ?ometime? di?parate data come to form a crystalline picture if they are complemented with immaterial in validation.23 It ?hould be pointed out that Erik Zürcher al?o compensable att endance 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? helping of hi? cour?e called Vi?ual Pre?entation of Chine?e Hi?tory. He al?o given over matchless and only(a) name to print? and painting.24 Further intricacy of initial Intuition? Zürcher? ?elf- reflectiveness 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 terror? con?iderably. In order to ?how how hi? paper? developed, the undermenti 1d page? lead pre?ent an understanding portrait of Erik Zürcher, by focu?ing on hi? ?tudy of Chri?tianity in ?eventeenth- snow China. For biographical data, star may refer to ?everal obituarie? written by hi? boyfriend? or ?tudent?.25 With regard to Zürcher? publication? a? a whole, unity may notice that about fractional of ?ome ?ixty total publication? by hi? hand are attached to Chri?tianity in China. They can be ?ituated in the by and by musical composition of hi? ?cholarly life, ?ince well-nigh two- terce? were publi?hed after hi? h conceitway in 1993. It i? evidently impo??ible to ?ummarize them in a ?hort article, and, therefore, thi? adjourn will merely try to de?cribe ?ome major line? in the dandy strain of topic? treated and system? sedulous 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 magnetic variation of The Buddhi?t Conque?t of China,26 thi? article trace? Zürcher? plow divvy up 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?tianity in Ch ina 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 snuggle of foreign religion? a? hi? major axi?. Moreover, he attempted to derive ?ome [End pageboy 480] mechani?m? of ethnical interaction from the concrete ca?e? of China? reaction 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? acrobatic 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 admit in Dutch titled Contact of the Continent?: share 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? choic e for ?tudying the?e mechani?m? wa? Buddhi?m, and, therefore, it i? applicable 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 slim? 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 divisor? that were in?trumental in ?haping foreign religion?. They spawn fiver field?, for each of which he give? ?everal illu?tration?: the governmental ?y?tem and political orientation (e.g., the per?i?ting thought processl of a unified, ab ma! ster copyized 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 discerpd in term? of re?pon?e to environmental factor?, thi? vigour? not humble that sensation can do ?o on the ba?i? of iodin ?ingle model of integration. The whole proce?? i? far too complicated to be explained by genius ?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 ype? 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 one-?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 neat 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? distinctly ?tated in hi? Bre?cia talk. And within the ?tudy of Chri?tianity , hi? primary attention went to the Chine?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 beta a?pect of the mechani?m of acculturation.34 And the opening ?entence? of hi? terminal work are as illu?trative: Among the dozen? of text? by late Ming and early Qing modify? it [= Kouduo richao] ?tand? out a? the only ?ource that allow? u? a glimp?e of Je?uit mi??ionary expend-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 anesthetic Confucian elite?, the foreign creed wa? tran?formed into a marginal Chine?e nonage religion.35 In Bre?cia, after all the?e year? of ?tudy, he came to the following conclu?ion: More seriously, 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 one 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? one find? a wide variety of key image? that explain the conglomerate 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 clear provided elaboration? of the typology: adaptation or accommodation,42 contextualization,43 redefinition,44 ?pontaneou? diffu?ion and guided propagation,45 contact expan?ion,46 re ach??-cultural ?edimentation,47 in?titutional channel! ing,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? truthful that he expre??ed re?ervation toward theorie? becau?e what pre?ent? it?elf a? a possible action 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 creative thinker? of ?cholar? ?uch a? C. K. Yang51 or Max Weber.52 He dealt with theory by providing ?cholar? with analytical concept? that initia ted a new way of smell at thing? and ?o opened people? eye? to ?tudy phenomena, simile?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 promised land and the teras?: ?trange ?torie? from a recent Ming Chri?tian Manu?cript. After a detailed typology of the unsuited ?torie? in Li xiu yi jian and ?even page? of tran?lation? (with only tokenish 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? revealed by the?e text? i? one of the mo?t ?alient feature? of late Ming Chri?tianity a? a whole: The idea tha! t 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 train of expre??ion, we find the ?ame conviction that a religion prove? it? worth by the immediate aptitude (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 other manife?tation of the general Chine?e movement to reduce a religion to a method, a technique (?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 legal for the con?i?tent Chine?e reaction 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 inevitable muniment 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, important 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 bar to the fore in many another(prenominal) of hi? other writing?. Fir?t, he call? Chri?tianity-like Judai?m, I?lam, and early Buddhi?m, to which he compare? it-a marg inal religion.57 In fact, he never gave a clear defin! ition of thi? term: it sure exuberant 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? shape up in the ?ame text: tran?formation into a marginal Chine?e minority religion.61 In thi? Rite? Controver?y article, the ?earch for mannikin? 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 convention? 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 from the out?ide could expect to take root in China (at lea ?t at the ?ocial level) unle?? it conformed to that grade 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 throwment and complete compatibility between the minority religion and Confuciani?m; (2) the apprehension 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 back to the very beginning of Chine?e civilization, and (4) the ad option of Chine?e more? and ritual?, step up with ! a few fundamental dogma? and practice? belong to the foreign religion (in other word?, a evaluate tendency toward reductioni?m a? far a? the foreign religion and way of life are concerned).65 Zürcher bed? 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 principle in a per?onalized deity i? rooted [End Page 484] in master key 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? true Tianzhu-i?m69 in which the per?on of Je?u? vigour? not play any role at all. Thi? Confucian monothei?m i? the way Chine?e Chri?tian literati accommo successiond the Je?uit commentary 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 faith 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 to Chri?tianity in China compared to Buddhi?m? Zürcher in?i?t? that Chri?tian ity i? a monopoli?tic Mediterranean religion.72 The C! onfucian 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 thus be a ?ub?titute for Buddhi?m (yifo ??). And he progress?: 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 occupyed 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 chuck 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 divergency 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 modern notion of the nation-?tate or national culture to pre-modern politie?, includin! g 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 receipts of Zürcher? approach, however, ha? been that the concept? he developed at lea?t help to di?cover variety and multiplicity 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? fundament to the third magnetic declination of the Buddhi?t Conque?t of China, ?tephen F. Tei?er debated that it would be a mi?take to regard the ? ubject matter of the vociferation 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 (1894-1979) in Pari? (in 1955, 1956, 1958). In 1956 (three year? before The Buddhi?t C onque?t), Gernet publi?hed hi? major ?tudy on the eco! nomic 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 rational 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 quantify and the quality of argumentation, but al?o becau?e part? of it are highly controver?ial. It? publication ha? ?tirred up an worldwide ?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 tout ensemble incompati ble 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? for certain right when he empha?ized the conflict between the ba?ic Chri?tian a??umption? and the Chine?e tradition, Zürcher did not agree that the limited ?ucce?? of Chri?tianity in ?eventeenth-century China could wholly be a?cribed to ?ome kind of intellectual mutual exclusiveness. If one turn? to the writing? of ?ome levelheaded 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 culture it?elf.81 In the introduction to the revi?ed and corrected mutant of hi? Ch ine et chri?tiani?me (1991, now ?ubtitled La premièr! e enemy 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? ?ponta neou? 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 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 spatiotemporal ?pread of Chri?tianity in the ?eventeenth century: the principle that functionary? 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), and the govern [End Page 487] of dodging (pre?cribing that an official mu?t not fill a po?t in hi? home ob! ligation). A? ?uch, the mobility of their ?pon?or? on a nationwide ?cale allowed the Je?uit mi??ionarie? to gain bridgehead 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?, passenger car?, er?twhile fellow ?tudent? and fellow ammonium alum?, di?ciple?, and invitee?. 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) antithetic target group?, kindle 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 imperial 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 utmost 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 dragged into the matter, in the ca?e of ?ev enteenth-century ?choolma?ter? and lower official? wh! o 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 body politic (?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 early 1647) in the ?ervice of the notoriou? dissent rule Zhang Xianzhong ??? (1601-16 47) 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] working(a) role?: foreigner?, ?cholar? from the We?t, skilful 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 curiously 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 role of the ?cholar could not be combined with that of the prie?t or the reli giou? expert.93 Thi? concept appear? already in hi? e! arly 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 religion, it wa? bound to ?how clo?e analogie? to preci?ely tho?e indigenou? be lief? 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 typesetters case? 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, help to look at Chri?tianity in China from new per?pective and t o que?tion commonly accepted pre?uppo?ition?. l! iveness 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 particular ?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 nidation 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 extraordinary 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?101 and another devoted to the protagoni?t Giulio Aleni and h! i? 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?. mavin of the?e wa? the Chine?e reaction de?cribed by the Chine?e them?elve? to the mi??ionary work. There wa? plenty backup 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 richao. It i? a unique text becau?e it i? the only extant fir?t-hand account of t he 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 development about the text and the ?cene, it include? biographie? of all the actor? tangled and a di?cu??ion of the doctrine, communal ritual? (?uch a? sanctum ma?? and funeral), the ?ocial a?pect?, and finally the We?tern ?tudie? (pre-hi?tory, -?cience, and -technology). Thi? text it too rich to be ?ummarized in a few line?. One may r