2008年10月14日 星期二

Yuan Weishi on wiki

Yuan Weishi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Yuan Weishi (袁伟时), is a professor of philosophy at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou, China. He was born in Xingning, Guangdong, December 1931.

In the January 2006 issue of Bingdian ,professor Yuan published an essay titled Modernisation and History Textbooks, criticizing the official theme of government issued middle schools history textbooks,claiming that they contain numbers of distortions of the historical accounts. Professor Yuan said:"The public,especially the students, have the right to find out the true historical facts." .[1]". [1][2],

* 1 Modernization and History Text Books
o 1.1 Was the burning of the Yuanming Garden(Old Summer Palace) unavoidable
o 1.2 The role of the Manchu ruler Xianfeng and Prince Sengelinqin
o 1.3 History,according to the school text books
o 1.4 Boxer rebels, murderers or patriots?
* 2 References

[edit] Modernization and History Text Books

Professor Yuan stated that China's early disastrous events such as Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, is the result of the 'drinking of wolf's milk' by the ordinary Chinese population. Recently when he was glancing through some high school textbooks, he "was stunned to find out: our youth are still drinking the wolf's milk!"[3]

[edit] Was the burning of the Yuanming Garden(Old Summer Palace) unavoidable

Professor Yuan asked:"Was the burning of thr Old Summer Palace unavoidable?" The Yuanming Garden was burnt by the British and French invasion forces during the Second Opium War.
Professor Yuan stated that Chinese middle school history textbooks "failed to mention the two basic root causes of this (opium) war".

o The Manchu ruler did not carry out Treaty of Jiangning, in which "an important clause was that the English officials and merchants be allowed to enter and leave Guangzhou city freely", Manchu official simply ignored this request by the British for about ten years, "until it had to be settled in the battlefield".
o The Manchu officials did not carry out the Treaty of Wangsha: "All trade and customs matters may be modified according to circumstances."

Chinese(Han ethnic 漢族 ) scholars and officials such as Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, Feng Guifen, Guo Songdao and others repeatedly sounded warnings to Manchu Imperial court:"do not let the small things create huge trouble" and to no avail.

[edit] The role of the Manchu ruler Xianfeng and Prince Sengelinqin

In 1858, the English, French, Russians and Americans forced the Manchu Court into submission by signing the Treaty of Tianjin, and in 1859 "to complete the legal procedure", letter of approval was to be exchanged in Beijing. Manchu officials instead chose to open fire on French and British envoys, who were there to exchange "letter of approval", resulting in the sinking of four gunboats and damaging six.
The Emperor Xianfeng and Prince Sengelinqin had committed major crimes. Unlike the inaccurate description presented by the school text books, Emperor Xianfeng and Prince Sengelinqin's intention was to have the English and French envoys taking the longer detour, so that ambush on the foreigners can be set up. On 10 April 1859, Prince Sengelinqin's aid Guo Songdao wrote:"Prince Yi has come to the camp....said he has the Emperor's secret order:If foreigners enter without following our rules, you can attack them in stealth, and then blame it on civilian armed forces, not us imperial soldiers. I then suggest, if we as imperial soldiers telling lies, it might not be that convincing; may be we need more discussion. Prince Yi just laugh at me.....Decision was then made for foreigners to enter at Beitong and then detour around to Tianjin. Guo Songdao revealed more details: "Prince Sen's stealth attack of the foreigners was the cause of the foreign disaster. From last year, the Emperor had issued more then a dozen imperial orders to get them to stay outside of the river, while waiting for instructions. When the foreign ships had entered the inner river for as long as nine days, Prince Sen did not make any effort to make contact or to give instructions. Instead, he ordered the soldiers to remove army uniforms, disguised as "armed civilians", then staged military attacks."
Zeng Guofan had told his aides: "In the ninth year(AD.1858) of Xianfeng, the foreigners came to exchange the treaty documents. Prince Sengelinqin set up a trap and sunk their boats, and the whole country celebrated. In the tenth year(1859), the foreigners returned ... the capital fell and the whole country was nearly taken over by the foreigners. I once said that Prince Sen was the cause of this humiliation, he should commit suicide in apology to the whole country." The eye witness account of Great Britian embassador coincide with the description of Zeng Guofan and Gao Songdao. It can be concluded:

+ Emperor Xianfeng had decided to order soldiers to stage stealth attacks on the foreign envoys while disguised as "armed civilians", and he repeatedly ordered that the foreigners must be made aware of the soldiers' intention and ability to attack.
+ Prince Sen carried out the Emperor's order of "stealth attack", but he chose not to demonstrate the intention to attack,and resolutely rejected his aides' advices.He was the sole designer of the plot to trap the foreign envoys.
+ This was a disaster that brought shame and the lost of integrality of the whole country. Many Chinese(Han) officials such as Zeng Guofan, Guo Songdao, Wu Rulun as well as Li Hongzhang, Feng Guifen made severe criticisms and parables towards this disaster.

[edit] History,according to the school text books

What is most shocking, in these 1990s era, our school history text books are still singing to the tunes of Emperor Xianfeng and Prince Sen. The following is the school text books' version of the 1858 Manchu soldiers' ambush of the foreigners:"The English ambassador and French ambassador led their respective fleets north to Daguhou in order to enter Peking to exchange diplomatic documents. The Manchu Court demanded that the treaty envoys land at Beitong and proceed to Peking through Tianjin, and also requested that the armed personnel on the gunboats not to disembark. The English and French ambassadors counted on their military power and insisted that they will land at Daguhou and would march towards Peking along the White River. When the rude and rough fleets invaded Daguhou, the defending soldiers at Daguhou batteries opened fire at the invaders.(note:the foreign diplomatic envoys were there to exchange diplomatic documents, had been delibilately labeled as 'invaders' by the text books editors).Shells were falling accurately on top of the invading arm forces, sinking four gunboats, damaging six gunboats, causing the remaining three gunboats to hoist white flags and flee.During the firefighting, 900 of the invading army try to come on shore, but they were all being fought back. The invading force's casualties came to a few hundreds. Folks from around Dagu ignored the raining bullets and forests of guns, bringing cakes and noodles to the defending warriors, and exhibiting high degree of patriotism." Under the pen of the history text book editors, the ambush was turned into a marching song of patriotic hero, the leading character is soldiers and plain folks. " Is it the true historical account? There are many questions to be asked.

Professor Yuan stated that Hong Kong middle school text books are "much better edited than those in the mainland". Hong Kong text books's "presentation matches the historical reality and does not damage national interests". When it was well known that the Hong Kong editors were better qualified historians, Professor Yuan asked: "Why couldn't the mainland colleagues learn to do the same?"

In the government issued history text books, the 1859's sinking of foreign gunboats are penned as patriotic and heroic act. Professor Yuan argued that the editors of history text books got it all wrong, and stated that had the "letter of approval" were to be exchanged smoothly, the nineteen century Chinese history would have to be rewritten.

o In 1860 British and French forces invaded Peking and Yuanming Garden was rooted and then burnt.
o The new Treaty of Peking impose additional penalties on the Manchu Court. "The compensation to England and France went respectively from the original 4 and 2 million taels(of silver) to 8 million taels(of silver) each".
o Kowloon district was conceded;
o "French missionaries can rent or buy land in all the provinces and build at will."

"Would it be better for China if the battle had not taken place?" Professor Yuan asked.

[edit] Boxer rebels, murderers or patriots?

Professor Yuan scrutinized the accuracy of school history text books, and established that "the United Armies of the Eight Nations entered Peking, arson, murders and looting was committed"; "The Russians committed the shocking massacre at Hailanpao and Jiangdong Liushisitun" Only the above statement is factual, the rest of the text books are full of errors.

o School text books fail to highlight the Boxers' barbaric and murderous hostility towards modern civilization and western foreigners and local Chinese christian converts. Among all the evils the Boxers did:
+ (1)cut down telegraph lines
+ (2)destroyed schools and churches
+ (3) demolished railroad tracks
+ (4)burned foreign merchandise
+ (5) murdered foreigners and all Chinese who had any connection of foreign culture.

Prosessor Yuan mourns:"these criminal actions brought unspeakable suffering to the nation and its people! These are all facts that everybody knows, and it is a national shame that the Chinese people cannot forget. Yet our children's compulsory textbooks will not speak about it."

+ School text books fail to condemn the Boxers' barbaric burning, killing and looting of innocent human beings.Professor stated that, not only the Boxers were savages,the Manchu official Yu Xian was no different. On 27/6/1856, he started with burning down the Taiyuan foreigner owned hospital, and went to a church to round up 210 women and children aged between 5 to 30 years old. Two weeks later, he went to foreigners area again, this time he caught 44 foreigners of all ages, plus 17 Chinese converts, and all of them were beheaded on market place watched by the public. One of the then newspaper even reported:"Foreigners were afraid when news about Peking massacre were reported. When foreigners went to official Yu Xian and asked for protection, but were tricked and round up and annihilated. Yu Xian personally killed a few foreigners using knife. "And Yu Xian was not alone. Dai Lan , Dai Xun , Gang Yi , who were all under imperial order(from Empress Dowager) to command the Boxers,were as savage and violent as Yu Xian,if not more.

Professor Yuan's research had also shown that most of the members of the Boxers were ignorant peasants, and a lot of them were plain robbers and thugs. Between 24 June and 24 July 1900, 231 foreigners were murdered by the Boxers, among them were 23 children. In Shanxii alone, there were 5700 Chinese catholic were murdered; mostly by the Boxers, some by the imperial army. In Liaonin , more then thousands converts were killed. In Hebei, killings were conducted all over the place, and cover every county. In some county thousands were being murdered, and houses were burned down. Even in Zhejiang, thousands of catholic families were burned and murdered. The worst massacre happened in Peking, and nobody will ever know how many, because there was no written record handed down. According to some eyewitness's account:16 June 1900, boxers bandits burned De Ji Drug Store , fire was spreaded to food shop, Lamp City Street , Kwang Yin Buddha Temple , Jewellery Market , about 4000 plus shops were burned down, and the fire continued into daybreak. The Boxers stopped any attempts of putting out the fire. The destroyed area was the capital's most busy districts. Peking city was being looted and burned for days, anyone whom the Boxers were unhappy of, would be called converts, and the whole family would be killed. At least hundreds of thousands of ordinary folks were murdered. Peking at its peak time, the population was near 4 millions.Ever since the start of the Boxers Rebellion, the whole city was being looted and burned, many houses were empty, foxes came out in the daylight, and people were like walking among cemetery. This was the result of the so-called Boxers Revolution.

[edit] References

1. ^ "Modernisation and History Textbook original Chinese text". Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
2. ^ "The High School History Textbook Debate in China By Charles W. Hayford Mr. Hayford is Visiting Scholar, Department of History, Northwestern University.". Retrieved on 2008-09-24.
3. ^ "History Textbooks in China", Eastsouthwestnorth. Retrieved on 2008-10-12.

2008年9月14日 星期日

评西方传教士《论语》翻译的基督教化倾向 [引用 2008-06-06

  关键词 传教士 《论语》翻译 基督教化
  〔中图分类号〕B222;B975 〔文献标识码〕A 〔文章编号〕0447-662X(2008)02-0042-
  率先在中国本土将《论语》翻译成西方语言的是意大利耶稣会传教士利玛窦(Matteo Ricci,1552-1610)。早在1593年,他就把《四书》翻译成拉丁文,并把它寄回欧洲,取名为《中国四书》(Tetrabiblion Sinense de Moribus)。他在1594年11月15日致德&S226;法比神父的信中说:“几年前我着手翻译著名的中国‘四书’为拉丁文,它是一本值得一读的书,是伦理格言集,充满卓越的智慧之书。待明年整理妥后,再寄给总会长神父,届时你就可以阅读欣赏了。”(注:利玛窦:《利玛窦书信集》,罗渔译,台湾光启出版社,1986年,第143页。)
  艾儒略(J. Aleni)的《太西利先生行迹》上说:“利子[利玛窦]曾将中国《四书》译为西文,寄回本国,国人读而悦之。”(注:范存忠:《中国文化在启蒙时期的英国》,上海外语教育出版社,1991年,第10页。)虽然该译文经常在利玛窦的书信和述评中提及,但是并未出版,而且译稿早已失传。
  把《四书》译成拉丁文并出版的是意大利耶稣会士殷铎泽(Prospero Intorcetta, 1625-1696)和葡萄牙耶稣会士郭纳爵(Ignatius da Costa, 1599-1666)。他们合译了《大学》,取名《中国的智慧》(Sapientia Sinica),1662年用木板刻于江西建昌,后带往欧洲。殷铎泽又将《中庸》译出,取名《中国的政治伦理学》(Sinarum Scientia Politico-moralis),1667和1692年分别刻印于广州和印度果阿,1672年重版于巴黎,书末附有《孔子传》。《论语》的最早译本,也出于两人之手,刻于印度果阿,但未题刻年。
  《论语》最早在欧洲刊印的西文版本是1687年在巴黎出版的拉丁文本《中国哲学家孔子》(Confucius Sinarum Philosophus),由刚从中国回来的比利时耶稣会会士柏应理(Philippe Couplet,1624-1692)主持编译。柏应理1659年来华传教,于1662年和同伴共同以拉丁文翻译了《大学》和《论语》的前五章,书名为《中国箴言》(Sapientia Sinica)。《中国哲学家孔子》是来华耶稣会士的集体之作,参编者有殷铎泽、比利时耶稣会士鲁日满、奥地利耶稣会士恩理格等共17名传教士。中文标题为《西书四书直解》,书中有中国经典导论、《孔子传》和《大学》、《中庸》、《论语》的拉丁译文。其译文都是用殷铎泽、郭纳爵的译本,并附注疏。柏应理为此书写了一篇很长的序言,开宗明义地说明这本书是为了传播福音所做,是供来华的传教士使用的。为了这个目的,他们从中国文献中挑选出这些内容,以使到中国的传教士对中国文化有所了解。如果一些外行人看这部书,也应从传播福音的角度加以理解。所以他们在对《大学》、《中庸》、《论语》翻译中没有忠于原文的含义,而是从基督教的角度做了重新的说明。(注:张西平:《传教士汉学研究》,大象出版社,2005年,第141-142页。)该版本在欧洲产生了广泛的影响,还分别于1688年和1691年被翻译成了法文和英文。
  在18世纪早期,比利时耶稣会士卫方济(Francois Nol,1651-1729)神父出版了《中国六大经典》(Sinensis Imperii Libri Classici Sex),其中包括《大学》、《中庸》、《论语》、《孟子》和《孝经》、《三字经》的拉丁文译本。他基本采取直译方法,不仅翻译文本,而且选译历代注疏。该版本中含有许多背离孔子原意的解释性的评注,但它还是被当成是当时有关孔子的最好作品(注:Cheuk-Woon Taam. On Studies of Confucius. Philosophy East & West, 1953 (2): 147-165.)。
  法国传教士顾赛芬(Seraphin Couvreur,1839-1919)于1853年入耶稣会,1870年来中国传教。他是19世纪和20世纪法国汉学家中,翻译和研究中国典籍成绩最卓著者之一。他几乎翻译了所有的中国经典,包括《四书》(1895)、《诗经》(1896)、《书经》(1897)、《礼记》(1899)、《春秋左传》(1914)等等。他通常用双语(法语和拉丁语)同时对汉语进行翻译,几乎是逐字逐句地直译中文原文,避免个人的解释和评论,其译文准确优雅。
  马歇曼(Joshua Marshman,1768-1837)是英国浸礼会的一位传教士,于1809年出版了《论语》英文节译本(注:Joshua Marshman. trans. The Works of Confucius. Serampore: Mission Press, 1809.)。中国第一位新教传教士马礼逊(Robert Morrison,1782-1834)于1812年将《大学》翻译成了英语。英国伦敦会传教士柯大卫,第一个将《四书》译成英语,1828年在马六甲出版《四书译注》。柯大卫的翻译远远胜过其新教前任的译文,他提供了更加完全的《四书》译本,较少攻击孔子和儒教。
花之安(Ernst Faber,1838-1899)1865年受德国礼贤会派遣来华传教,并把《论语》、《孟子》、《列子》、《墨子》译成德文。他用英文撰写《史前中国》一书,还用英、德文著有《儒学汇纂》、《中国宗教学导论》等著作,被加拿大来华传教士季理斐誉为“十九世纪最高深的汉学家”,就连一向看不起外国汉学家的辜鸿铭对花氏也另眼相看。他指出:“儒学和基督教这两种体系有许多相似和相同之处,说明和了解这些有利于二者的信徒相互理解。”(注:陶飞亚:《边缘的历史――基督教与近代中国》,上海古籍出版社,2005年,第136页。)但是与17-18世纪的耶稣会传教士不同,花之安反对向儒家学说妥协的“文化适应 ”策略。他强调在孔子或儒家学说中存在“大量缺点或错误”,主张用基督教来补充和更正,并最终以基督教取而代之(注:孙立新:“评德国新教传教士花之安的中国研究”,《史学月刊》,2003年第2期,第45-54页。)。他呼吁中国改革,但是改革运动必须从接受基督教开始。若无基督教,所有努力都是徒劳。 
  理雅各(James Legge, 1815-1897)1839年受伦敦布道会派遣到马六甲任英华书院院长,从1840年开始学习《论语》并着手翻译。1843年随书院迁往香港后继续进行儒家经典的研究和翻译工作,经过二十余年的努力,终于完成“四书五经”的英译工程,书名为“中国经典”(The Chinese Classics),共分28卷,于1861-1868年出版。该译文大多采用直译,尽量遵循原文的思维形式和句法结构,用的是十九世纪书面语体英文,措词古雅,译笔严谨。理雅各的《中国经典》译本被公认为当时规模最为庞大、成就最为显著的汉学工程,被汉学家艾约瑟博士评价为“开创了汉学研究的新纪元”。 
  (注:James Legge. The Religions of China: Confucianism and Taoism Described and Compared with Christianity. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1880, pp.6-7.)他之所以在《中国经典》中把《论语》翻译放在第一篇,是因为觉得有必要一开始就把孔子的故事当成中国古典传统的模范圣人来讲述,就像福音书里开篇就是讲耶稣的故事一样。因此《中国经典》第一卷的前言大部分篇幅是通过间接地比较耶稣的传记来审视孔子的生平。他觉得孔子的教义缺乏神学信仰和宗教内涵,认为孔子的非宗教性导致了后代的中国人对新教福音的宗教热情反应如此冷漠。在1861年的版本里,他不把孔子当成一个伟人,认为孔子并没有超越时代,也没有对一些世界性的问题提出答案。尤其值得谴责的是孔子“没有推动宗教”,而且“不支持进步”。(注:James Legge. The Chinese Classics, Vol. I. Hongkong: At the Author’s, 1861, p.113.)基于强烈的基督教传教士立场,他认为基督教优于孔教,耶稣必将代替孔子。他宣称,中国肯定要与基督教文明强国发生冲突,其结果是中国一定会被打得支离破碎,中国古代的圣人也没有留下什么遗产来挽救这种命运;中国人的希望在于抛弃古代的圣人而转向西方的上帝。虽然理雅各在1893年《四书》修订版中对孔子表示了一定的理解和尊敬,但其宗教立场没有丝毫改变。
  理雅各的宗教倾向在翻译中表现明显。他坚持认为,中国典籍中的“ 帝”或“上帝”就等于西方基督教的“神”,所以他在《中国经典》中都把“帝”和“上帝”翻译成God。他还同样把“天”对应成Heaven,认为中国人的 “天”与西方的Heaven一样都是指God的思想和概念。在《论语》英译中把“孝”字都译为Filial Piety,添加了强烈的宗教意味。理雅各翻译和评注《论语》时经常与《圣经》和基督信仰类比,并不时表现出对孔子的偏见。在第一篇注解中的题名解释时,说这种把每篇开头两个字作为题名的做法与犹太人的习惯相似,他们也用《圣经》中第一个单词来作为很多书的题目。在诠释“我不欲人之加诸我也,吾亦欲无加诸人”(5.11)时,认为福音书中的那条金律Do ye unto others as ye would that others should do unto you比《论语》和《中庸》里的类似表述更加高明②③④⑤James Legge. The Chinese Classics, Vol. I. Hongkong: At the Author’s, 1861, p.41、89、114、152、190.)。在对“仁者不忧”(9. 28))进行评价时,他说这种“仁”只有虔诚地相信上帝才能实现②。在评注“克己复礼为仁”(12.1)一章时,他强调,“克己”是克制和抛弃自己的私欲,亦即人性中道德堕落的成分――这就构成了基督教义中“原罪”的基础③。在评注“以德报怨”(14.36)一章时,他感叹,孔子“以直报怨、以德报德” 的伦理明显不如基督教的标准④。在评注“天何言哉”(17.19)一章时,理雅各认为,孔子把自己比做“天”,未免有妄自尊大之嫌⑤。
  苏慧廉(William Edward Soothill, 1861-1935)1882年被英国联合卫斯理教会授以牧师职并被派到中国温州传教。他同样强调传教士们熟悉儒家经典的重要意义,着手翻译《论语》并于 1910年出版。他把理雅各看成是自己的“引路人”、“哲学家”和“友人”,对于其译著中表现出来的渊博的学术造诣、刻意求精的治学态度、孜孜不倦的研究精神以及清晰明白的表达方式感到钦佩不已William Soothill. trans. The Analects of Confucius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937, preface.)。但是,苏慧廉在肯定理雅各译本的学术价值和卓越贡献时,也批评其学究气过浓措辞过于正式,难以被普通读者所接受。所以出于普及儒家经典的目的,他认为有必要提供一个更现代的崭新译本。苏慧廉的译文简洁流利、通俗地道,非常贴近原文的风格。但是他对孔子的评判同样存在偏见,对孔圣人的诠释也没有什么新意。
  同理雅各一样,苏慧廉英译《论语》时也经常表现出强烈的宗教立场,并添加了许多基督教成分。他同样自始至终地把“天 ”译成Heaven,“帝”或者“神”译成God,“孝”译成filial piety(duty)。他还把“兄弟”(221)、“夫子”(628)、“圣人”(1912)、“社”(321)分别对应成brethren、 sage、Sage、altars to the tutelary deities。译文中常常附加了原文中没有的宗教色彩,如“敬事而信”(1. 5)译成there must be religious attention to business and good faith,“天命”(168)译成the Divine Will(Soothill,1937:182),“命”(203)译成the divine law ,“子罕言利与命与仁”(91)译成The Master seldom spoke on profit, on the orderings of Providence, and on perfection.“死生有命,富贵在天”(12. 5)译成Death and life are divine dispensations, and wealth and honours are with Heaven.这里中国人的“生死”命运就完全受控于西方的上帝或神,儒教的天命观就成了基督徒的救赎观。“女弗能救与?”(36)译成Can you not save him from this sin?原文中本来是指季氏严重违礼和犯上的行为,却在译文中比拟成了有待拯救的宗教罪过。而在下面一段中,上帝、罪人、赎罪等基督教观念更加明显:
  And Shun in like terms charged Yu. T’ang said: ‘I thy child Li, Dare to use a black ox, And dare clearly to state to Thee, O Most August and Sovereign God, That the sinner I dare not spare, Nor keep Thy ministers, O God, in obscurity, As Thy heart, O God, discerns. If I have sinned, Let it not concern the country; If my country has sinned, Let the sin rest on me.’
  卫礼贤(Richard Wilhelm,1873-1930)是德国新教同善会传教士,1899-1921年在青岛传教,1910年出版了《论语》的德文翻译(注:Richard Wilhelm. trans. Kungfutse: Gesprache. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1923.),书中提供了直译和意译两种对应的翻译方法,其译作准确而详尽,朴实而清晰。他相信基督教义在整个世界都能适用,其翻译中也显示出明显的宗教影响,如分别将“天”、“道”、“德”译成“上帝”、“上帝之言”、“神之力”。他还把《孟子》、《大学》、《中庸》、《礼记》、《列子》、《庄子》、《易经》、《老子》、《吕氏春秋》等中国经典译成德文,还写过《孔子:其人和其作品》以及《孔子和儒家》等书。他对孔子深怀敬意,最终成了孔子的信徒。 1926年出版专著《中国心灵》,该书多处讨论孔子和儒家思想,认为孔子及其学说体现着中国精神的精髓。卫礼贤相信:孔子思想中永恒的东西——自然与文化的和谐这样伟大的真理依然会存在。它将是新哲学和人类新发展的巨大推动力。从这个角度讲,孔子真正是不朽的(注:卫礼贤:《中国心灵》,中国国际文化出版公司,1998年,第79页。)。卫礼贤能够客观公正地看待中国和中国文化,提出综合东西文化的主张,倡导东西两种不同文化的平等交流,希望通过翻译、讲座和出版的方式在东西方之间架起一座桥梁。
  传教士翻译《论语》的动机是要从该典籍中找到基督教是真理且优于儒教的证据,并证明基督教和儒教有相通之处,进而用基督教代替儒教,以耶稣代替孔子。利玛窦说过:“我知我也模棱两可地翻译过几篇文章,拿来为我所用。”古莱神父在出版了自己翻译的孔子部分篇章的时候,也曾这么强调:“翻译的目的不在于把中国智慧带给欧洲学者,而是用来当着工具,使中国人皈依基督。”(注:马祖毅、任荣珍:《汉籍外译史》,湖北教育出版社,1997年,第35页。)教士们往往用基督教经院哲学穿凿附会的方法任意诠释中国经典,力图从中找出天主创造世界、灵魂不灭、天堂和地狱的存在并非虚构的依据。传教士们宣称,中国人信奉的上帝就是基督教中的神,他们在中国古代文献中寻找中国文化与基督教文化原为一体的依据,推行“孔子加耶稣”的传教策略。从利玛窦开始,耶稣会会士不断进行“合儒”、“补儒”、“ 益儒”、“超儒”的工作,强调儒家伦理与基督教真理间的一致性,“儒家这一教派的最终目的和总的意图是国内的太平和秩序。他们也期待家庭的经济安全和个人的道德修养。他们所阐述的箴言确实都是指导人们达到这些目的的,完全符合良心的光明与基督教的真理。”(注:利马窦、金尼阁:《利马窦中国札记》,何高济等译,中华书局,1983年,第104页。)耶稣会传教士和新教传教士们之所以对中国经典产生兴趣,主要是为了将基督教的意义,赋予古典文学作品和孔子的言行录里来为我所用。传教士们相信,中国人的“仁”类似于基督徒的“仁”,中国人的道德与基督教的道德没有什么差异,中国人的伦理和基督徒的伦理除动机外都相似。中国人的伦理完全是一种人道的伦理,完全出自理性;基督教的伦理则出自宗教教义和一种神的启示,但结果是产生了某些相似的道德。理雅各等十九世纪新教传教士认为,《以赛亚书》49:12中所说的地方Sinim应该就是指中国,上帝早就有计划要把中国人包括在“上帝的天国”之中,上帝的圣灵将会通过其基督首领的影响来完成这项基督化的工作(注:James Legge. The Land of Sinim. London: John Snow, 1859.)。美国公理会传教士明恩溥(Arthur H. Smith)把接受基督教文明看成是中国社会“唯一的迫切的需要”。传教士安保罗在教会报刊中鼓吹“儒教之差谬,儒书中不胜枚举”,宣扬《旧约圣经》“实较中国一切经传更古且确”,进而大言不惭地说:“儒教、孔子,人也;耶稣,上帝之子也。……当今之时,孔子若再生于中国,必愿为耶稣之徒也。”(注:安保罗:“救世教成全儒教说”,《万国公报》,光绪二十二年(1896)十二月。)林乐知、李佳白、花之安、理雅各、丁韪良、李提摩太等新教传教士发表了不少研究基督教与儒学关系的著作,以论证基儒相似相合,并不抵触。
  传教士翻译《论语》的策略是对儒学作“神学化”诠释,用基督教神学附会儒学。他们在译介中国典籍时突出强调中国宗教的内容,即其古代儒学与基督教有天然吻合性。他们也极力论证中国的古老历史是圣经传统的一支,中国人虽然没有明确的基督教教义指导,但他们所遵从的儒教道德为个人修养和社会管理带来的益处一如基督教义。他们反复搜罗引证中国古代关于“上帝”的语句,认为《尚书》和《大雅》中的上帝就是《圣经》中的造物主上帝,进而推导出“吾天主乃古经书所称上帝也。历观古书,而知上帝与天主,特异以名也。”(注:利玛窦:《天主实义》第二篇,北京大学宗教研究所,2000年。)。耶稣会士将中国人祭拜的无形之天等同于基督徒尊奉的人格化上帝,认为中国人所称的“天”、“上天”、“ 上帝”和“皇上帝”与欧洲人称呼上帝时所用的Lord,Almighty,Most High恰相对应。赫伯特&S226;芬格莱特指出,在孔子思想的早期翻译者当中,有博学的天主教学者和神父,以及虔诚的新教传教士。他们认为,孔子孜孜以求的东西,是只有基督启示才能够带来的果实。在西方,《论语》最初可能是被当做近似基督伦理箴言的东西来阅读的,或者由于预示了基督教神学,孔子因此被发现是值得尊崇的。与其说在翻译中这种解读常常受到支持,毋宁说它更为恰当地适应了当时的目的(注:
  )。无论如何,当初,西方人是以其本能的或直觉的方式来解读《论语》的,而且还不自觉地受到了用基督教术语、用欧洲思想的术语来思维的束缚。如把“天 ”、“道”、“命”、“上帝”、“圣人”、“小人”分别翻译成Heaven、the way、fate、God、Saint、sinner,就把“造物主、灵魂、原罪、天国、来世”等基督-耶稣意象强加到中国文化里。在诠释孔子核心概念“ 仁”时,将原本限于人事、人际多重含义的“仁”,既减少其丰富内涵又增添其神学信条内容,只选定“爱”以与天主教的“爱”(Agape,爱筵,上帝对人之爱)相类比,进而推演出“爱天主”为“仁”之至。孔子的仁主要是指一种道德情感,而利玛窦则将其改造为人对天主的宗教情感。将“孝、忠、敬”三种道德与宗教情感加上天主教宗教情感涵义,说它们只有在圣人那里才能得到完美的统一;并进而诠释孔子的“敬鬼神而远之”,说明孔子不仅认定有鬼神,而且还认定鬼神听命于天主,故敬畏与爱都是人对天主的两种基本情感,将之演绎成为天主教徒的道德情操说。Jane Leonard发现,新教传教士麦都(Walter H. Medhurst)和米怜(William Milne)等人还改写《三字经》以加入基督教内容。哈佛-燕京图书馆收藏了很多基督教版本的《三字经》,里面都加入了上帝、耶稣、伊甸园、天堂和地狱等《圣经》故事;孔子的《论语》同样被他们篡改,以传播基督教的福音信息(注:Jane K Leonard. W. H Medhurst: Rewriting the Missionary Message. Suzanne W. Barnett and John K. F. Christianity in China: Early Protestant Missionary Writings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985, p.56.)。
标签: 哲学思辨 进入哲学思辨吧

2008年9月13日 星期六



可以说,利玛窦的《天主实义》(1603年北京)是东西思想互相适应而成的杰作。根据利玛窦的说法,基督教所追求的道理也是儒家之伦理理想:“仁义”而已。但内容上,他所述的“仁”是人类对天主的爱。其说明方式更是积极适应于儒家文化的基本观念。然而,利玛窦批判宋明理学,而引起若干难题如下:1)强调精神与肉体分立的二元论,使人人追求属“神性 ”的灵魂之永久幸福,因而明显地否定在现世的人生价值;2)在利玛窦看来,理只不过是附属于万物(即自立者)的“依赖者”而已。所以,理(依赖者)不能成为自立者(万物)之元。3)按照宋明儒学之说法,道德修养是纯属于道德的问题。虽然利玛窦也强调以自由意志进修“习善”的功夫,他的修养功夫毕竟非与上帝身后的奖罚结合不可。因而这种态度被儒学视为非以成就道德为目的的一种功利论而受到排斥。因此,笔者认为:从一面看《天主实义》是个基督教适应于儒家文化之明显的表现,但从另一面看它是个否定宋明理学之明显的批判。


就东西哲学思想之交流来说,笔者认为利玛窦(Matteo Ricci 1552——1610)的《天主实义》具有两种意义:



《天主实义》可以说是由东西思想文化互相适应而成的杰作。这一文化适应主义路线原是沙勿略(St. Francisco Xavier l506——1552)所开拓的。他早在1549年抵达日本鹿儿岛之后,在传教方面有相当的成就,但却有个问题时常困惑着他:


沙勿略认识到在属于高级文化地区如日本中国的传教事业需要具备博大的学问和高尚人格的传教士。他过世25年之后,范礼安(Alessandro Valignano 1538——1606)当了巡按使,继承沙勿略的文化适应主义路线。罗明坚(Michele Ruggieri 1543——1607)和利玛窦开始在中国居住并传教(1583.9.10,在广东省肇庆)。起初他们以在日本传教之经验为根据,模仿佛教说法,称自己为 “西僧”,教堂名为“仙化寺”。1584年出版的第一部“汉文天主教教理书”《新编西竺国天主实录》(1584年11月刊行)。“其书富有佛家语,不为士人所喜,……为纯教理之行,文理不甚清顺,名辞常多牵强附会,且于儒家思想不能引证。”[3]



“ 天主实义,大西国利子及其乡会友与吾中国人问答之词也。天主何?上帝也。实云者,不空也。……是书也,历引吾六经之语,以证其实而深诋谈空之误,以西政西,以中化中。……乃乾父之为公,又明甚。……语性则人大异于禽兽,语学则归于为仁,而始于去欲。时亦或有吾国之素所未闻,而所尝闻而未用力者,十居九矣!”[6]




二篇:把佛道之空无看成纯无,否定它们。将物类分为两者:自立体(自立者)和依赖体(依赖者)。太极,即理也。理“或在人心,或在事物”(上卷,第二篇,页 16上)。理不能脱离“心”或“物”。因此,决不是独立存在的“自立者”(自立体)。太极只不过是“依赖者”(依赖体)。所以,太极不能成为“万物之原 ”。


四篇:首先将与肉体结合的人类之灵魂和没有肉体的鬼神分别为二。然后,引用中国古书(诗、书、易),证明中国古人也相信过“人魂死后为不散泯”之说(上卷,第四篇,页38下)。还有,激烈地否定儒家传统思想所谓“内心即上帝”之说。最后,对于中国人不分天主(即创造主)与万物(被创造物)之间的区别,因而说 “万物一体”的观点。利玛窦也把它否定。


六篇:利玛窦将人类定义为具有灵才的存在物。灵才具有“意志”(rational appetite 即will,意),而由“自由意志”的选择(“纵止其意”,下卷,第六篇,页18下)才成立人类行为的“善恶德慝”之区分。(“善恶德慝,俱由意之正邪 ”,下卷,第六篇,页17上)。还有,天主必须按照个人之善行如何,判定其赏罚。由此,利玛窦要引证“天堂与地狱之存在的必然性”。







在宇宙上由“质料因”与“形式因”所构成的整个物体,无论有生的或无生的,按照欧洲中世纪的自然观说法,都是——有意识地或无意识地——为了实现超越各个物体之外的“终极的目的”(即上帝的意志),而不断地运动着的东西。根据这样的目的论的世界观,阿奎纳说明日月星辰在天上的运动,由重力作用所引起的“万有引力现象”以及植物之向光性等等的自然变化现象。因此,引导某物体的动力因(“作者”efficient cause)和决定其运动动机的目的因(“为者”final cause)存在于超越各个物体之外的“特殊存有物”。依阿奎纳看,这特殊存有物就是天主。



(1) 事物(A)之运动是由别事物(B)运动之结果所引起的。否则,别事物(B)运动就是事物(A)之运动所引起的。换句话说,A就是B之结果,或者是B之原因,而不能同时为他物(B)和自己本身(A)之运动原因者。为了证明万有之存在,我们不得不设定最原初的运动者。它的存在并没有任何运动之结果,而只是所有运动之原因者,这就是上帝。









人虽然是灵魂和肉体结合的存在,他的灵魂决不是被肉体束缚的。它是“有精神”(“神”spirit)的,可以了解“神”,即上帝的本性。灵魂是“脱形而神之 ”,故永远不能消灭的。依阿奎纳说,天主模仿自己的“无形的精神性”,而将它作为人的本性,因此,启发人的这种“无形的精神性”(即神性),以完善它,就是人人所要追求的最高的善。[10]



“ 司明(reason即理性)之大功在义;司爱(will即意志)之大本在仁。故君子以仁义为重焉。二者相须,一不可废。然!惟司明者明仁之善,而后司爱者爱而存之。司爱者爱义之德,而后司明者察而求之。但仁也者,又为义之至精。仁盛则司明者滋明。故君子之学,又以仁为主焉。”[11]










“现世者,吾所侨寓,非长久居也。吾本家室,不在今世,在后世;不在人,在天;当 于彼创本业焉!今世也,禽兽之世也。故鸟兽各类之像,俯向于地。人为天民,则昂首向顺于天。以今世为本处所者,禽兽之徒也。以天主为薄于人,固无怪耳!”[14]


“ 若太极者,止解之以所谓理,则不能为天地万物之原矣,盖理亦依赖之类,自不能立。曷立他物哉?中国文人学士讲论理者,只谓有二端,或在人心,或在事物。事物之情,合乎人心之理,则事物方谓真实焉。人心能穷彼在物之理,而尽其知,则谓之格物焉。据此两端,则理固依赖,奚得为物原乎?二者,皆物后,而后岂先者之原?且其初无一物之先,渠言必有理存焉。大理在何处?依属何物乎?依赖之情,不能自立。故无自立者,以为之托,则依赖者了无矣。如曰赖空虚耳,恐空虚非足赖者,理将不免于偃坠也。试问:盘古之前,既有理在,何故闲空不动而生物乎?其后谁从激之使动?况理本无动静。况自动乎?如曰昔不生物,后乃愿生物,则理岂有意乎?何以有欲生物,有欲不生物乎?”[15]

依笔者来看,毫无疑问利玛窦是将“理”看成在各个物体内的“形式因”。所以,他说理只不过是附属于事物(自立体)的“依赖体”而已。利玛窦对“理”的这种看法(或者“误解”)是依据亚里士多德之“四因说”而来的。因此,我们一定要注意到这种“误解”的来源就是与中国纯然不同的西方形上学之基本结构。归根究底,依四因说的根本假设来看,宇宙(世界Welt)是个“无魂无知觉”(上卷,第一篇,页3下)的物体。换句话说,世界就是无生命的物体。它无法主动地使自己引动而变化自己,除非超越它自己的外在者引导它。所以,使它运动的“动力因”(即efficient cause作者)以及规定其运动之目标的“目的因”(即final cause 为者)决不可能在它本身之内,而是由超越它的外在者,就是上帝的意志。因此,创造世界万物的上帝与被它创造的万物是绝然不同的品类,绝不可以把这两类混为一谈。













“ 宇宙之间,一理而已。天得之而为天,地得之而为地。而凡生于天地之间者,又各得之以为性。其张之为三纲,其纪之为五常,盖皆此理之流行,无所适不在。若其消息盈虚,循环不已,则未始有物之前,以至人消物尽之后,终则复始,始复有终,又未尝有顷刻之或停也。”(读大纪,朱子文集,七十)


依以上来看,“理”是宋明理学(道德形上学)的基本因素。它可以在各个事物里面存在着。不过,理就是使它们成为自己存在的“所以然之故”兼“所当然之则 ”(即形式因兼目的因),并且是使它们引动自己而发展自己的生命力量(即动力因)。因此,中国文人不能设想超越各个事物的动力因。所以,笔者认为他们难以接受利玛窦根据四因说对“理”所诠释的——理即“依赖体”的——道理。





“ 凡世物既有其意(sic!利玛窦意谓‘意志’will),又有能纵止其意者,然后有德有惠,有善有恶焉。意者,心之发也。金石草木无心,则无意,故镆铘伤人,复仇者,不折镆铘。飘瓦损人,首伎心者,不怒飘瓦。然!镆铘裁断,无与其功者。瓦蔽风雨,民无酬谢。所为,无心无意。是以,元德无慝,无善无恶,而无可以赏罚之。若禽兽者,可谓有禽兽之心与意矣。但无灵心(sic! rational intelligence)以辩可否。随所感触,任意速发,不能以理为之,节制其所为。是礼非礼,不但不得已,且亦不自知,有何善恶之可论乎?……惟人不然。行事在外,理心在内。是非当否,兼能知觉,兼能纵止,虽有兽心之欲,若能理心为主,兽心岂能违我主心之命?故吾发意从理,即为德行君子。天主佑之。吾溺意兽心,即为犯罪小人。天主且弃之矣。……则意为善恶之原,明著矣!……世俗大权重名声之利害,而轻身财之损益。故谓:‘春秋成,而乱臣贼子俱。’乱臣贼子,奚惧焉?非惧恶名之为害不已乎?孟轲首以仁义为题。厥后每会时君,劝行仁政,犹以‘不王者未之有也’为结语。王天下,顾非利哉?人孰不悦利于朋友,利于亲戚?如利不可经心,则何以欲归之友亲乎?仁之方,曰:‘不欲诸己,勿可诸人!’既不宜望利以为已,犹必当广利以为人?以是知利无所伤于德也。利所以不可言者,乃其伪,乃其悖义者耳。《易》曰:‘利者,义之和也。’又曰:‘利用安身,以崇德也。’……重来世之益者,必轻现世之利。轻现世之利,而好犯上,争夺,弑父,弑君,未之闻也。便民皆望后世之利,为政何有?”[18]


(龚) 大参曰:“子论人之报。人善恶苦乐,眇小,不能相称。眇小之中,又有法律所不能穷究者,是则然矣。然人与法律所不暨者,吾方寸中具有心君,觉是觉非,切报之。则报仍在已在今,不俟身后也。仁人有天堂,即本心。是心真为安土为乐地,自然快足,自然欣赏矣。汝若办一德心,即增福禄一品。备全德,即备全福乐。故谓仁者集神乐大成也。






众所周知,按照宋明理学的世界观,要点是如何培养存在于内心的“良知” 之判断力,或者,如何发扬由良知所悟到的“天理”。因而,宋明理学的特征在于强调人人启发自己的良知良能,而鼓励人人刻苦地修养道德,趋于完善。人本主义的道德论如此明显地刻印在宋明儒学。以这样的人本主义的道德论的观点视基督教的上帝,它不可能离开“人人内心之良心”而存在的。因此,在《天主实义》里出现的中国文人(中士)所强调的东西——几乎可与超越的上帝相对比——不外是人人内心之良知良能。以他们来看,基督教所讲的上帝只不过是“内心的上帝 ”[20]而已。








[2]Hans Haas,Geschichte des Christentums in Japan, 1. Bd. ,S.22l; Rene Laurentin, Chine et Christianisme, P115.


[4]D. Lancashire & Hu Kuo-chen(tr.), The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Pl5.胡国桢,简介《天主实义》,《神学论集》,56号,第256页。




[8]有关阿奎纳之天主证明的叙述,笔者参照,John F. Wippel, Metaphysics, Aquinas, Kretzmann/Stump(ed.),第


[9]Anthony Kenny,Aquinas On Mind,P45.

[10] Ralph Malnerny, "Ethics",Aquinas,ibid.,P200.














  天主教自明末利瑪竇傳入中國至今,大約可分為三個階段──自開始到康熙末年下禁教令為第一期,約一百三、四十年,也是開創期。可惜好景不長,到了康熙末年,因教會內部對中國禮儀起了爭端,即對祀孔、祭祖和使用「天」和「上帝」的名稱是否屬於異端的問題。康熙帝與羅馬教宗之間的「禮儀之爭」(或稱「教儀之爭」)[2] 愈演愈烈,羅馬教宗更下令禁止中國教民祭祖、祭孔,這一涉及中國禮俗的行動導致了康熙下諭禁傳天主教,由此也開始了第二階段,即是禁教期。接著雍正、乾隆、嘉慶、直到道光,相繼重申禁教令,天主教的傳播完全處於地下活動狀態,直到鴉片戰爭解除教禁為止,這一時期也約有一百三、四十年。此後,自道光末年開禁至今為第三期,這一階段可稱為天主教復興發展期。[3]

  本文主要探討雍正對天主教的態度,有關雍正禁止天主教一事,究竟是純粹繼承康熙的禁教令,還是另有政治因素存在,這也是許多論及天主教教難的相關論著中都會提及的。有說「雍正一朝,對教友總沒有向康熙那樣和善優容過,因此更加敵視教會。」[4] 尤其是雍正對同為宗室的蘇努一家因信奉天主教而受到的嚴重殘害,更是彰顯雍正對天主教的厭惡態度。但蘇努一族,除了信奉天主教,嚴重的違反《大清律》中「旗人不得信教」的律例外,又因蘇努曾助皇八子允祀(或作示異)謀取帝位,更為雍正所忌恨。兩種因素追根究底都與政治、權勢有關。




  雍正將蘇努全家治罪的原因,在天主教的相關論著中則多認為:「第一是據稱蘇努及其子曾幫助允祀謀取帝位,為雍正所忌恨。第二是因蘇努一家都虔信天主教,又為雍正所深惡痛絕。」[7] 撇開謀取儲位的政治因素不說,雍正真的如此厭惡天主教嗎?


  所以,西洋人只要沒有大惡,應從寬對待,不要繩之過嚴。因此,雍正禁止天主教傳教,用意是在不許中國人傳教,尤其不准滿人崇信。雖然蘇努因是允祀黨羽而遭到打擊,但雍正也多次指責他那些信教的兒子背祖宗、違朝廷的罪過。[9] 浙江巡撫李衛在上奏地方上信教情形時,還特地說明「駐防旗下亦染此風」。他們君臣怕人民信奉天主教後,而違背儒家的綱常大義。[10]





























[1] 參本文第二章第一節〈清朝前期的宗教策略〉。

[2] 明清之際,朝廷原本不反對天主教等西方宗教的傳播,是因為明代時期,以義大利人利瑪竇為代表的耶穌會傳教士,在中國逐漸了打開了局面,利瑪竇為了順應廣大漢民族原有的多神信仰與祭天、祭祖、祭孔等傳統的宗教習俗,而入鄉隨俗將「天主教儒學化」,使天主教的教義能適應中國的國情與宗教習俗,利用儒家經典的文字來解釋基督教義,平緩文字義理上的差異(此與東晉道安法師以老莊玄學解釋般若思想,而產生的『格義佛教』有雷同之處),減少西方宗教進入中國的阻力,使得天主教能在中國順利傳播。但利瑪竇去世後,龍華民接替了主教職務,他一改利瑪竇對中國傳統宗教順應的態度,多次著書說明中國人信奉的天並非基督教的上帝,而是自然神,一再挑明兩教間的差異與優劣,終於引發西方基督教文化與中國傳統文化之間的衝突,便是明朝歷史上有名的「南京教案」(明萬曆四十四年,公元1616年),成為中國教案之始。到清初時期,原本自明末基督教東傳以來,中國的傳教活動一直由葡萄牙支持的耶穌會控制。17世紀中葉以後,葡萄牙國是衰落,西班牙支持的多明我會、方濟各會,以及法國支持的外方傳教會相繼進入中國。這些傳教士多不懂中文,又不了解中國的國情,不能理解利瑪竇當時「天主教儒學化」的苦心,不滿耶穌會在中國的傳教策略,並對耶穌會的一些寬容措施提出了非難,堅持天主教一神教的教義,再加上羅馬教廷的僵硬政策,發布禁令禁止中國教徒祭天、祭祖、祭孔,以及其他一些涉及民俗的活動或祭祀禮儀,要求中國的天主教徒嚴守天主教戒律。羅馬教皇此舉無異宣佈中國的天主教徒必須放棄本民族的文化傳統與信仰。於是禮儀之爭演化成為兩種文化、兩個民族以致清廷與羅馬教廷的全面對抗。羅馬教皇的固執與傲慢,使得兩者間的衝突越演越烈,教皇一再的重申禁令,從而挑起了這場「中國禮儀之爭」。最後終於激起了康熙帝的憤怒,推行全面禁教的政策,這「禮儀之爭」即是天主教在中國招致禁教的起因;但很明顯,教義之爭的背後已帶上了列強爭奪勢力範圍的陰影。有關《康熙與羅馬使節關係文書》,對於中國的敬天、祭孔、祀祖等禮節習俗辯駁情形,以及諭旨和書信等等史料,由北京故宮博物院文獻館所輯之《文獻叢編》,曾刊選14件,俱為康熙處理天主教教案的原始資料。

[3] 參張澤著《清代禁教期的天主教》,台北:光啟出版社,1992,頁11~12。

[4] 參穆啟蒙.侯景文譯《中國天主教史》,台北:光啟出版社,1971,頁97。

[5] 張澤《清代禁教期的天主教》,1992,頁30。

[6] 對於蘇努一族所受到的殘害,筆者只是略為敘述而已,多數的天主教論著也都是站在「教友蒙難」的立場描述此事。詳見徐宗澤《中國天主教傳教史概論》(收錄於《民國叢書 第二編11哲學.宗教類》,上海書局據中華書局1933年影印本)頁245~253。以及張澤《清代禁教期的天主教》,1992,頁42~47;穆啟蒙.侯景文譯《中國天主教史》,1971,頁97。

[7] 參張澤著《清代禁教期的天主教》,台北:光啟出版社,1992,頁42;以及穆啟蒙.侯景文譯《中國天主教史》,1971,頁97;徐宗澤《中國天主教傳教史概論》(出版項目同上注)頁247。

[8] 參莊吉發〈清代教案史料的搜集與編纂〉,收錄於《清代史料論述》(一),台北:文史哲出版社,1979,頁142。原文引自《硃批諭旨》。

[9] 參馮爾康《雍正傳》,1992,頁467,原書引自《雍正朝起居注》,五年四月出八日摺;並參閱《陳垣學術論文集.雍乾間奉天主教之宗室》,中華書局,1980年版。

[10] 參馮爾康《雍正傳》,1992,頁467。

[11] 參雍正五年農曆四月初八上諭,另參張澤著《清代禁教期的天主教》,台北:光啟出版社,1992,頁32與46。

[12] 此封書信內容,筆者整理自張澤《清代禁教期的天主教》,台北:光啟出版社,1992,頁32~33。以及杜文凱編〈有關雍正和天主教的幾封信〉,收錄於《清代西人見聞錄》,中國人民大學出版社,1985,頁144~146。

[13] 杜文凱編〈有關雍正和天主教的幾封信〉,收錄於《清代西人見聞錄》,中國人民大學出版社,1985,頁144~146。

[14] 張澤《清代禁教期的天主教》,1992,頁31。

[15] 莊吉發〈清代教案史料的搜集與編纂〉,收錄於《清代史料論述》(一),台北:文史哲出版社,1979,頁143~144。

[16] 參董叢林著《龍與上帝──基督教與中國傳統文化》,北京:生活.讀書.新知三聯書店,1992,頁135~141。

[17] 本附錄資料整理自以下諸書:馮爾康《雍正傳》,1992,頁465~469。楊啟樵《雍正帝及其密摺制度研究》,1985,頁276~279。莊吉發〈清代教案史料的搜集與編纂〉,收錄於《清代史料論述》(一),1979,頁142~144。以及牟鍾鑒、張踐著《中國宗教通史》,2000,頁943~948、1002~1006。杜文凱編《清代西人見聞錄.有關雍正和天主教的幾封信》,1985,頁144~146。徐宗澤《中國天主教傳教史概論》,1933,頁245~253。張澤《清代禁教期的天主教》,1992,頁42~47。穆啟蒙.侯景文譯《中國天主教史》,1971,頁97。董叢林《龍與上帝──基督教與中國傳統文化》,1992,頁135~141。詳細出版項目參閱本文所附之【徵引暨參考書目】。感謝黃運喜老師提供部分有關天主教的相關書目。




2008年9月10日 星期三

The Diary of Matthew Ricci, in Matthew Ricci, China in the Sixteenth Century, trans Louis Gallagher, (New York: Random House, 1942, 1970)

from The Diary of Matthew Ricci, in Matthew Ricci, China in the Sixteenth Century, trans Louis Gallagher, (New York: Random House, 1942, 1970), as excerpted in Mark A. Kishlansky, Sources of World History, Vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 269-273

[Kishlansky Introduction] Matteo Ricci (1552-1610 CE) was born into a noble Italian family. At the age of 16 he was sent to Rome to study law but became more interested in the new science that was sweeping Western Europe. He studied mathematics and astronomy and then petitioned to join the Jesuits. He was sent on a Jesuit mission to the Far East and studied for the priesthood in east India. He was assigned the difficult task of organizing a mission to China, a task at which earlier Jesuit missionaries had failed. Ricci learned the Chinese language with such proficiency that he persuaded officials to allow him into the country where he taught Chinese intellectuals about mathematics and science and published the first six books of Euclid's Elements in Chinese. After a long delay he was finally allowed to enter the closed City of Peking in 1601, where he stayed for the rest of his life teaching science, mathematics, and Christianity to Chinese intellectuals.

Ricci's most important published work was his History of the Introduction of Christianity into China. But the journals that he kept and edited for publication allow one of the few glimpses of an outsider's view of Chinese society and government during a period when China was closed to foreign visitors. In this selection Ricci describes Chinese government.

We shall touch upon this subject only insofar as it has to do with the purpose of our narrative. It would require a number of chapters, if not of whole books, to treat in full detail... Chinese imperial power passes on from father to son, or to other royal kin as does our own. Two or three of the more ancient kings are known to have bequeathed the throne to successors without out royal relationship rather than to their sons, whom they judged to be unfitted to rule. More than once, however., it has happened that the people, growing weary of an inept ruler, have stripped him of his authority and replaced him with someone preeminent for character and courage whom they henceforth recognized as their legitimate King. It may be said in praise of the Chinese that. ordinarily they would prefer to die an honorable death rather than swear allegiance to a usurping monarch. In fact, there is a proverb extant among their philosophers, which reads: "No woman is moral who has two husbands, nor any vassal faithful to two lords."

There are no ancient laws in China under which the republic is governed in perpetuum, such as our laws of the twelve tables and the Code of Caesar. Whoever succeeds in getting possession of the throne, regardless of his ancestry, makes new laws according to his own way of thinking. His successors on the throne are obliged to enforce the laws which he promulgated as founder of the dynasty, and these laws cannot be changed without good reason....


The extent of their kingdom is so vast. its borders so distant, and their utter lack of knowledge of a transmaritime world is so complete that the Chinese imagine the whole world as included in their kingdom. Even now, as from time beyond recording, they call their Emperor, Thiencu, the Son of Heaven, and because they worship Heaven as the Supreme Being, the Son of Heaven and the Son of God are one and the same. In ordinary speech, he is referred to as Hoamsi, meaning supreme ruler or monarch, while other and subordinate rulers are called by the much inferior title of Guam.

Only such as have earned a doctor's degree or that of licentiate are admitted to take part in the government of the kingdom, and due to the interest of the magistrates and of the King him self there is no lack of such candidates. Every public office is therefore fortified with and dependent on the attested science, prudence, and diplomacy of the person assigned to it whether he be taking office for the first time or is already experienced in the conduct of civil life. This integrity of life is prescribed by... law... and for the most part it is lived up to, save in the case of such as are prone to violate the dictates of justice from human weakness and from lack of religious training among the gentiles. All magistrates, whether they belong to the military or to the civil congress, are called Quon-fu, meaning commander or president, though their honorary or unofficial title is Lau-ye or Lau-sie, signifying lord or father. The Portuguese call the Chinese magistrates. mandarins, probably from mandando, mando mandare, to order or command, and they are now generally known by this title in Europe.

Though we have already stated that the Chinese form of government. is monarchical, it must be evident from what has been said, and it will be made clearer by what is to come, that it is to some extent an aristocracy. Although all legal statutes inaugurated by magistrates must be confirmed by the King in writing on the written petition presented to him, the King himself makes no final decision in important matters of state without consulting the magistrates or considering their advice....


Tax returns, impost, and other tribute, which undoubtedly exceed a hundred and fifty million a year, as is commonly said, do not go into the Imperial Exchequer, nor can the king dispose of this income as he pleases. The silver, which is the common currency, is placed in the public treasuries, and the returns paid in rice are placed in the warehouses belonging to the government. The generous allowance made for the support of the royal family and their relatives, for the palace eunuchs and the royal household, is drawn from the national treasury. In keeping with the regal splendor and dignity of the crown, these annuities are large, but each individual account is determined and regulated by law. Civil and military accounts and expenses of all government departments are paid out of this national treasury, and the size of the national budget is far in excess of what Europeans might imagine. Public buildings, the palaces of the King and of his relations, the upkeep of city prisons and fortresses, and the renewal of all kinds of war supplies must be met by the national treasury, and in a kingdom of such vast dimensions the program of building and of restoration is continuous. One would scarcely believe that at times even these enormous revenues are not sufficient to meet. the expenses. When this happens, new taxes are imposed to balance the national budget.

Relative to the magistrates in general, there are two distinct orders or grades. The first and superior order is made up of the magistrates who govern the various courts of the royal palace, which is considered to be a model for the rule of the entire realm. The second order includes all provincial magistrates or governors who rule a province or a city. For each of these orders of magistrates, there are five or six large books containing the governmental roster of the entire country. These books are for sale throughout the kingdom. They are being continually revised, and the revision, which is dated twice a month in the royal city of Peking, is not very difficult because of the singular typographical arrangement in which they are printed. The entire contents of these books consist of nothing other than the current lists of the names, addresses, and grades of the court officers of the entire government, and the frequent revision is necessary if the roster is to be kept up to date. In addition to the daily changes, occasioned by deaths, demotions, and dismissals in such an incredibly long list of names, there are the frequent departures of some to visit their homes at. stated periods. We shall say more later on of this last instance, which is occasioned by the custom requiring every magistrate to lay aside his official duties and return to his home for three full years, on the death of his father or his mother. One result of these numerous changes is that there are always a great many in the city of Peking awaiting the good fortune of being appointed to the vacancies thus created.

Besides the classes or orders of the magistrates already described and many others which we shall pass over because they differ but little from our own, there are two special orders never heard of among our people. These are the Choli and the- Zauli, each consisting of sixty or more chosen philosophers. all prudent men arid tried. who have -already given exceptional proof of their fidelity to the King and to the realm. These two orders are reserved by the King for business of greater moment pertaining to the royal court or to the provinces, and by him they are entrusted with the great responsibility of carrying with it both respect and authority. They correspond in some manner to what we would call keepers of the public conscience, inasmuch as they inform the King as often as they see fit, of any infraction of the law in any part of the entire kingdom. No one is spared from their scrutiny, even the highest magistrates, as they do not hesitate to speak, even though it concerns the King himself or his household. If they had the power of doing something more than talking, or rather of writing, and if they were not wholly dependent upon the King whom they admonish, their particular office would correspond to that of the Lacedemonian Ephors. And yet they do their duty so thoroughly that they are a source of wonder to outsiders and a good example for imitation. Neither King nor magistrates can escape their courage and frankness, and even when they arouse the royal wrath to such an extent that the king becomes severely angry with them they will never desist from their admonitions and criticism until some remedy has been applied to the public evil against which they are inveighing. In fact. when the grievance is particularly acute they are sure to put a sting into their complaints and to show no partiality where crown or courts are concerned. This same privilege of offering written criticism is also granted by law to any magistrate and even to a private citizen, but for the most part it is exercised only by those to whose particular office it pertains. Numerous copies are made of such written documents submitted to the crown and of the answers made to them In this way, what goes on in the royal headquarters is quickly communicated to every corner of the country. These documents are also compiled in book form, and whatever of their content is deemed worthy of handing down to posterity is transcribed into the annals of the king's regime.


Besides the regular magistrates there are in the royal palace various other organizations, instituted for particular purposes. The most exalted of these is what is known as the Han-lin-yuen, made up of selected doctors of philosophy and chosen by examination. Members of this cabinet have nothing to do with public administration but outrank all public officials in dignity of office. Ambition for a place in this select body means no end of labor and of sacrifice. These are the King's secretaries, who do both his writing and his composing. They edit and compile the royal annals and publish the laws and statutes of the land. The tutors of kings and princes are chosen from their number. They are entirely devoted to study and there are grades within the cabinet which are determined by the publications of its members. Hence they are honored with the highest dignity within the regal court. but not beyond it...


The Chinese can distinguish between their magistrates by the parasols they use as protection against the sun when they go out in public. Some of these are blue and others yellow. Sometimes for effect they will have two or three of these sunshades, but only one if their rank does not permit of more. They may also be recognized by their mode of transportation in public. The lower ranks ride on horseback, the higher are carried about on the shoulders of their servants in gestatorial chairs. The number of carriers also has significance of rank; some are only allowed four, others may have eight. There are other ways also of distinguishing the magistracy and the rank of dignity therein; by banners and pennants, chains and censer cups, and by the number of guards who give orders to make way for the passage of the dignitary. The escort itself is held in such high esteem by the public that no one would question their orders. Even in crowded city everyone gives way at the sound of their voices with a spontaneity that correspond to the rank of the approaching celebrity.

Before closing this chapter on Chinese public administration, it would seem to be quite worthwhile recording a few more things in which this people differ from Europeans. To begin with, it seems to be quite remarkable when we stop to consider it, that in a kingdom of almost limitless expanse and innumerable population and abounding in copious supplies of every description, though they have a well-equipped army and navy that could easily conquer the neighboring nations, neither the King nor his people ever think of waging a war of aggression They are quite content with what they have and are not ambitious of conquest. In this respect they are much different from the people of Europe, who are frequently discontent with their own governments and covetous of what others enjoy. While the nations of the West seem to be entirely consumed with the idea of supreme domination, they cannot even preserve what their ancestors have bequeathed them, as the Chinese have done through a period of some thousand of years....


Another remarkable fact and quite worthy of note as marking a difference from the West, is that the entire kingdom is administered by the Order of the Learned, commonly known as The Philosophers. The responsibility for the orderly management of the entire realm is wholly and completely committed to their charge and care. The army, both officers and soldiers, hold them in high respect and show them the promptest obedience and deference, and not infrequently the military are disciplined by them as a schoolboy might be punished by his master. Policies of war are formulated and military; questions are decided by the Philosophers only, and their advice and counsel has more weight with the King than that of the military leaders. In fact very few of these and only on rare occasions, are admitted to war consultations. Hence it follows that those who aspire to be cultured frown upon war and would prefer the lowest rank in the philosophical order to the highest in the military, realizing that the Philosophers far excel military leaders in the good will and the respect of the people and in opportunities of acquiring wealth.

2008年9月9日 星期二

Wiki Christainity from Ming to Qing

Christainity in China,from Ming to Qing

Western missionaries paid visits to China started as early as 16 century.During Ming Dynasty , scholars such as Matteo Ricci, [1]Johann Adam Schall von Bell [2] and Ferdinand Verbiest, plus many others not as well known missionaries.Beside bringing christianity into China,they were bringing western knowledge as well,such as mathematic,geography, astronomy, metallurgy, and modern weapons making. All the prominent missionaries were given high positions in the Ming royal court, and were highly respected by Ming emperors and the bureaucrat, especially Matteo Ricci [3], who was being granted a burial place in the Royal Capital by the Ming Emperor[4] himself. Scientific books[5] brought into China by the missionaries were being translated into Chinese language. Vice versa, many books on Confucius teaching were being translated and introduced into the West.

However, when the Manchu conquerers took over the Forbidden City, they not only suspended all the cultural exchanges between East and west, they went much further by shutting down all the sea ports, burning every seagoing ships, and turning the whole coastal line into no man's zone. When Manchu was turning back the clock, England and Europe were going through Industrial Revolution and renaissance. In early 1700s, Great Britain[6] became a world power, an empire on which the sun never set.

When European powers were acquiring enormous riches through trading(including slaves trading)and conquests of various small countries, Manchu rulers had shut its door on the West for the next 200 plus years.

In 1743,British Commodore George Anson [7] was contemptuous of China's military power,and wrote: "in artifice, falsehood and an attachment to all kinds of lucre, many of the Chinese are difficult to be paralleled by any other people." which pretty much help shaped England's understanding of 16 century China.

In 1793,Lord Macartney,[8]had made another observation on the weaknesses and the falling apart of the Manchu Dynasty:"tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than 300 million of Chinese".

- After Napoleon was defeated,European powers then began the assault on Manchu Dynasty,whose military machine[9] was still consisted of bow and arrow,knife and spear,when Europeans were already using machine guns and high explosive shells on battle fields. On 1840-1843,with the first Opium War , Manchu suffered one of the most humiliating defeat in the hands of the Western powers; and it was the beginning of many more defeats to come.

By the middle to late 1800's, the "foreign devil" opponents were quite different. The English and French regulars and marines were much better discplined than the Russian cossacks of the 1600's. Muskets and Rifles of much higher rate of fire also were available. More importantly, the initial combat were done along the coast. The 74-gun third-rate line-of-battle ships like HMS Wellesley [10] (built in India) simply laid waste to Chinese coastal guns and troops near the shore. The return fire from Chinese coastal artilleries did not have the muzzle velocity to penetrate the couple feet of oak that made up the sides of the British/Indian ships. During the 1st Opium War, British troops did not venture much beyond the protection of their naval guns; the naval guns probably claimed the bulk of Chinese combat casulties. By the time of the 2nd Opium War, rifles with percussion cap cartriges became available, with even higher firing rate than flint-locks. So the Manchu/Mongol bannermen really did not have much of a chance even in-land. The Qing cavalry simply got shot to pieces before their crossbows were even in range.

By the time of the Boxer Rebellion, when the Qing troops fought both the rebels and the foreigners from time to time, the Allied army had gattling guns in addition to repeating rifles (like Winchester)[11] and artillery that fired shells (not just cannon balls). The fighting became even more lopsided. -

* Some eastern scholar suggest Opium[12] played a major part in the down fall af Manchu Dynasty. Ellen N. La Motte wrote:Opium was now contraband, but the fact had no effect on the quantity introduced into the country, which rose to 5,000 chests in 1820; 16,000 chests in 1830; 20,000 chests in 1838, and 70,000 chests in 1858." Such a large quantity of importation of opium would have require equally large amount of silver ingots in exchange.

Nearly 100% of the opium came from British East India Company in India,and the profit from the opium trade end up in the Bank of England.

10 Wednesday 09

[edit] References

1. ^ "Matteo Ricci""catholic encyclopedia on Matteo Ricci's life"
2. ^ "Johann Adam Schall von Bell""Another great missionary that went to china to spread the words of gosbel"
3. ^ "Chinese version of the first six books of Euclid's Elements""From about 1600 until the suppression in 1773, Jesuits were practically the sole source of Chinese knowledge about Western astronomy, geometry and trigonometry"
4. ^ "Geoff Wade""Southeast Asia in the Ming Shi-lu, Geoff Wade's translation of & commentary on texts from the Veritable Records of the history of Ming Dynasty"
5. ^ "Euclid's Elements""Euclid's Elements have been studied for centuries - in fact until the 20 th century it was the most common reprinted book after the Bible."
6. ^ "Great Britain"
7. ^ "Harry G. Gelber""a Professor of History and Political Science and Visiting Research Fellow, Asian Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Economy."
8. ^ [ http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1792macartney.html "Modern History Sourcebook"]"Lord Macartney told the Chinese legate that he would not perform the kowtow unless a high officer of state would kowtow before a picture of the King of England."
9. ^ [aer2.sbc.edu.hk/~wcc/China/DECLINE_1.DOC "Sweet Briar college history document"] "DECLINE OF THE QING DYNASTY,INFERIOR WEAPONS"
10. ^ "WOODEN WALLS""When she returned from this service, some 27 cannon balls were found embedded in her sides"
11. ^ "Winchester Repeating Rifle"

2008年9月7日 星期日

Wiki boxer rebellion long term short term cause.

*Western missionaries paid visits to China started as early as 16 century.During [[Ming Dynasty]] 明朝 ,great [[scholars]] such as [[Matteo Ricci]], (1552 – 1610) 利瑪竇,[[Johann Adam Schall von Bell]] (1591年-1666年), 湯若望 ,and [[Ferdinand Verbiest]],(1623-1688) 南懷仁 ,plus many others not as well known missionaries.Beside spreading the words of [[Christ]],they were spreading western knowledge as well,such as mathematic,geography,astronomy,metallurgy,and modern weapons making.All the prominent missionaries were given extreme high positions in the [[Ming]] royal court,and were highly respected by Ming emperors and the bureaucrat,especially Matteo [[Ricci]],who was being granted a burial place in the Royal Capital by none other than the [[Ming Emperor]] himself.

In less then 250 years,the high social status enjoyed by the western missionaries had turned from heaven to hell.The [[Manchu]] rulers,unlike the [[Ming]] emperors who were the true followers of [[Confucius]] Teaching,had stopped the interaction and exchange between two great cultures,that of the East and the West.

The Manchu rulers,whose ancestors were primitive tribal nomads and pastoral farmers and slaves chieftains,decided to permanently shutting the door on western culture and religion,by systematically killing foreign missionaries and their native converts,burn down the churches and Bibles,in the end causing the downfall and collapse of their own empire,which lasted only 260 years.

==Short Term Causes==

*'''Harry G. Gelber''' ,is the author[http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/China/gelber.html Harry G. Gelberis] "a Professor of History and Political Science and Visiting Research Fellow, Asian Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Economy."

of The Dragon and the Foreign Devils: China and the World, 1100 B.C. to the Present

In 1743,[[British]] Commodore George Anson was contemptuous of China's military power,and wrote: "in artifice, falsehood and an attachment to all kinds of lucre, many of the Chinese are difficult to be paralleled by any other people." which pretty much help shaped England's understanding of 16 century China,when [[Britain]] was on its way to becoming the [[Empire]] that the Sun never set.

In 1793,Lord Macartney,had made another observation on the weaknesses and the falling apart of the primitive Manchu Dynasty:"tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than 300 million of Chinese (read Han)".

After Napoleon was defeated,European powers then began the assault on this old and tired Manchu Dynasty,whose military machine was still consisted of bow and arrow,knife and spear,when Europeans were already using machine guns and high power cannons on battle fields.On 1840-1843,with the first Opium War , Manchu suffered one of the most humiliating defeat in the hands of the Western powers; and it was the beginning of many more defeats to come.