Citation Source: Albert Chan, S.J., Chinese books and documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, pp.524-531.
Jap-Sin IV, 5 E

6. Letter of Joachim Bouvet to Father Jean-Joseph Guibert, Peking, 24 November 1721.
Written in French, Chinese ink on Chinese paper.
Two folios (incomplete). 24.4 x 17 cm.

Bouvet complains that his fellow Jesuits went against his writings without understanding what they are about. On folio 3 he writes:

Il est bien aise d’ecrire d’ici en Europe mes interpretations ne seront point reçuës ici de doctes Chinois. Mais ceux qui osent ecrire ces choses avant d’en avoir fait l’epreuve doivent ils en estre sur leur paroles. Et c’est parce que je ne pretens pas non plus estre cru sur la mienne que j’ay sollicité ici si long temps en vain la liberté necessaire de consulter les chinois de que j’insiste aujourdhui si fortement dans une lettre a n. R.P.G^nal pour obtenir cette liberté si necessaire pour faire connoistre la verité.

On dit que les Missionaires flamans, italiens, portugais, et françois ne sont tous tant qu’ils sont nullement pour ma doctrine, quoy que la plus part en jugent sur la traduction et non sur le chinois. A cela je responds qu’aucun d’eux n’a jamais pu jusqu’a ici ni du prononcer ma doctrine, dont il n’ont vu que quelques propositions preliminaires mais si infidelement traduites, que le P. Foucquet tres capable d’en juger les traita en les voyant de ce nom flagitiosae versions, ce qui m’enpescha de continuer de rien produire devant les juges si pleins d’iniquité en cette matiere.

Au ajoutte, que le P. de Premare qui auparavant estoit dans mes sentiments proteste qu’il s’estoit trompé et qu’il a changé. Mais ce n’est pas les Adversaires du P. de Premare qu’il en fut croire, et qui furent cause du changement, apparent qu’il fist paroistre pendant quelques mois apres s’estre laissé seduire; mais c’est le P. Premare lui mesme a qui l’on doit s’en rapporter, et, aux ecrits qu’il a envoyes depuis en Europe et dont il m’en addressé plusieurs.

. . . j’espère avec l’aide de N. Sgr que tout le fond de doctrine que j’ay envoyés jusqu’ici a V^e R^ce auroit un jour toute approbation que je souhaite pourvu [folio 4] que V^e R^ce veuille bien m’aider (comme je n’en puis douter) de tout son credit auprès de N.R.P.G^nal pour obtenir la permission et la liberté que je lui demande avec tant de justice.

Bouvet tries to defend his writings pointing out that he has full support from both Foucquet and Gollet who consider his writings as the best shortcut for the conversion of the whole of China.

Speaking of the Ode Jiang yuan 姜嫄 in the Book of Songs (詩經), Bouvet writes: “Anni 1707 misi ad P. Placidum Hervieu . . . it ut P. Hervieu in provinciis, et ego Pekini, illud ut ait Auctor commentarii offenderemus incredulis, id est Patribus Lugdunensibus & ceteris, qui non possunt sibi persuadere ulla posse referiri vestigia sublimiorum mysteriorum in omnibus sinorum monumentis” (f. 2r). Bouvet then states that de Prémare agrees with his interpretation and quotes de Prémare’s comment written in French. He begs the General of the Jesuit Order to appoint men of learning to examine his writings (f. 3r). Once more he affirms his support from Foucquet and Gollet.

8. A letter of Joachim Bouvet to the General of the Jesuit Order, Peking, 25 November 1716.
Two folios written in Latin; Chinese ink on Chinese paper. 32.5 x 24.5 cm.

Folio 1r bears a Latin inscription (in European ink), which gives a summary of the whole letter:

Missio Sinensis ￜ Pekini 25 Nov. 1716 ￜ P. Joachimus Bouvet missus ￜ ad reparandam [..]adem quam religioni ￜ intulit publicatio ultimi Decreti pontifi ￜ cii, multum confere potest executio ￜ operis a se suscepti a multis annis pro ￜ indaganda et elucidanda Doctrina in ￜ Libris sinicis contenta hoc opus, ut ￜ sperat, habebit apud Sinas vim ￜ demonstrationis Evangelicae proprie dictae, ￜ et plurimum valebit ad conversionem ￜ totius imperii Sinensis. ￜ Subjungit quandam operis idem ￜ ait se magna cum claritate compense ￜ antiquos Libros Sinarum esse libros in ￜ quibus ante et post diluvium servabantur ￜ sacrae et primitivae Legis traditiones, et ￜ librorum illorum authorem fuisse ￜ patriarcham Henoch, et post fuisse ab ￜ aquis diluvii ereptos cura patriarchae ￜ Noë et per Semum aut eius filios imperii Sinis fundatores fuisse ad Sinas translatos. Totam canonicorum librorum doctrinam revocat ad triplicem ￜ mundi statum, mundi scilicet a Deo primum ￜ creati deinde per [ptrem] corrupti ad demum ￜ per deum incarnatum reparatio qui ￜ triplex status demonstratur in traditionibus ￜ sinicis, ut ipse putat. Caeterum illud ￜ opus suscepit jussu Imperatoris, qui eius ￜ ideam constanter approbavit, et de ￜ conversione ope huius operis ￜ obtinendo bene sperat. ￜ Mittet anno proximo scriptum magis prolixum.

There is no date given; since the letter is substantially the same as no. 8 (only the wording varies a little), someone added in European ink on top of folio 1: “25 Novemb, 1716.”

10. Joachim Bouvet’s letter to Jean-Joseph Guibert, Assistant of the French Province in Rome. Peking, 26 May 1719.
Written in French. Three and one-half folios; Chinese ink on Chinese paper. 33.4 x 24 cm.
Folio 3v bears the address as above.

This letter was addressed to Giovanni Laureati (利國安 ，若望, 1666–1727), then Visitor to the Chinese and Japanese missions. Bouvet made a second copy which he sent to Jean-Joseph Guibert. On the left top corner of folio 1 there is an inscription in French that reads: “(Au R. P. Jean Laureati ￜ Visiteur) ￜ avec un long cahier ￜ d’extraits de lettres ￜ du P. Premare, qui ￜ font voir qu’il ne differe ￜ en n’en d’essence et, de moy ￜ sur toute la doctrine des ￜ livres Chinois.” The letter points out that:

1. The quarrels between Portuguese and French Jesuits in China are not good for the Church or for the Jesuit Order.
2. The Kangxi emperor had taken interest in his (i.e., Bouvet’s) work and the General of the Jesuits also wished him success.
3. For many years he had been studying ancient Chinese writings in relation to Catholicism.
4. Some of the French Jesuits in China underestimated his writings by saying that they were all imaginative; as a result it might diminish the prestige of the French both in China and in Europe; furthermore the Portuguese Jesuits in China were afraid that if the French Jesuits in China succeeded in their publications they might lower the reputation of the Portuguese Jesuits in the missions.
5. He finally decided to give his writings, the work of twenty-five years, to his superiors for their consideration, hoping to obtain permission for publication.
6. Finally, Bouvet begs Laureati to petition the General to appoint three intelligent men who will be able to pronounce a fair judgment on his writings. These three men whom Bouvet had in mind, were Hervieu, Foucquet and de Prémare. According to him they were well versed in theology and had acquired profound knowledge in ancient Chinese studies.

The last folio of this document bears a short note:

Au tres R. Pere Assistant.
Mon Reverend Pere.
Cette lettre apres avoir esté luë par le R. Pere Laureati Visiteur de ces Missions, avec tous les extraits des lettres du P. De Premare que je lui presenta en mesme temps: Sa R^ce, qui avant de venir ici avoit esté etrangement prevenu par le R. Pere Dentrecolles; a son arrivée a Pekin ayant esté comme obsedé par les PP. de Tartre [1669–1724], Parrenin [1665–1741], Régis [Jean-Baptiste Régis, 1663–1738], de Mailla [1669–1748], Jartoux [1669–1720], qui notoirement depuis une 12^ne d’années se sont montrés si contraires a toutes mes etudes et ecritures S. R^c dis je a montré depuis en toute occasion tellement favoriser leur disposition qu’il me rendit ensuite froidement cette lettre avec tous ces extraits de lettres sans daigner y faire seulement un mot de reponse ni de vive voix ni par ecrit. Comme je l’en sollicite plusieurs fois.

Twenty-two pages plus two title pages with the address: “A mes RR. Peres Jesuites François miss^res ￜ dans les diverses Provinces de la Chine.” 32.3 x 23.3 cm.

Bouvet tells that he entered the Society of Jesus with the intention of going to the Chinese mission, and had prepared himself with ancient languages in order to compare the histories of these countries with that of China and the ancient Chinese books. After fifteen years of assiduous studies of Chinese books he came to the conclusion that the contents of these books are also in the books of Moses and the Prophets and in the teaching of Holy Scriptures. He affirms that even Chinese scholars of high standing (e.g., Li Guangdi 李光地, 1642–1718) would agree with him in his interpretations (p. 2, last paragraph, and p. 3, top lines).
He laments that even his superior, Dentrecolles, did not understand him, instead of helping he wrote to the General to hinder his work (p. 4).
Bouvet suggests that censors of his writings should be men of learning; otherwise they would be of no help. His own choices are Gollet and de Prémare. He tells that the Kangxi emperor takes great interest in the Jesuits who are studying ancient Chinese writings. Formerly the emperor summoned J.-F. Foucquet to Peking precisely to help him (Bouvet) to do the research (p. 5).
Bouvet expresses the difficulties he had in mind. Because of the command of his superiors he felt embarrassed when several times the emperor asked to see his writings. He had to excuse himself by saying that he needed more time for research before he could start to write. It happened that one day he presented one of his short essays to the emperor and after having finished reading it the emperor sought the opinion of the Visitor, something that Bouvet never expected (pp. 6–11).

Nine of the Jesuits in Peking, headed by Kilian Stumpf (紀理安 ，雲風, 1655–1720), Visitor of the China and Japan Missions, signed a document, which they presented to the emperor in the absence of Bouvet. This occasion made the emperor suspicious that Bouvet was timorous. Eventually he lost interest in the work of Bouvet. An edict issued in April or May 1716 reads: “Bai Jin’s [Bouvet] work on the Yijing is not obligatory; he may do it or leave it. If he intends to do it let him do it by himself. There is no need to get help from anyone or to trouble his head about the subject. When his work is accomplished, let him give me notice.” Seemingly the emperor had followed the suggestion of the missioners who thought they might discourage Bouvet by cutting off help from outsiders (p. 12). All this time Bouvet insists on the study of the Yijing:

qui est un livre d’un assez petit volume, mais qui semble comprendre sous les nombres mysterieux et sous le style figuré de ses charactères hieroglyphiques (où tout paroit avoir quelque chose de devin) ce qu’il y a de plus sublime dans la sagesse et philosophie Theologique des anciens Patriarches, je veux dire dans cette science toute celeste, que Dieu selon l’anciennes traditions des Hebreux et des chinois mesme, enseigna par le ministère des Anges, a ceux qu’il destina des les premiers siècles du monde, pour estre les premiers maistres du genre humain; et qui selon l’idée qu’en donne le sage, et St. Augustin (de lib. arb. 2° cap. 11) a tres bien comprise, se trouva renfermée toute entiere sous ces deux termes, nombre & sagesse. (p. 14)

12. A letter from Joachim Bouvet to Jean-Joseph Guibert, Peking, 1 November 1720.
Written in French; Chinese ink on Chinese paper.
Eight pages. 32.8 x 24.5 cm.

The first page (which bears no number) has an inscription that reads: “A mon Tres Reverend Pere ￜ Le tres Reverend Pere Guibert de la ￜ Compagnie de Jesus, Assistant de France ￜ A Rome: 1ª via.” The last page (which bears no number) is a postscript. The main body of the letter consists of six pages in Bouvet’s handwriting.

On the first page, Bouvet mentions the four packages of his writings which he sent to Guibert to illustrate that Christian vestiges can be found in ancient Chinese writing. He was surprised at the sudden recall of J.F. Foucquet to Europe: that a sick and feeble man had to make such a rough long voyage. He also regretted that so little preparation was given to the transfer of the small library of Foucquet: “sa petite bibliotheque chinoise des livres choisis, qui est comme un veritable thresor, d’ou avec l’aide de n. S^r il tirera de puissans secours pour la salut de cette mission desolée et pour la conversion des chinois . . . .”

On the second page, Bouvet felt that it was a pity that Pierre V. Tartre was made superior of the French house in Peking. As a result, both his and Foucquet’s work was hindered.
On pages 3–6, Bouvet repeated the unfortunate incident of the nine Jesuits who denounced his writing before the emperor (cf. Jap-Sin IV, 5 E, no. 11, pp. 4–5). He was disappointed that even de Prémare who had helped him previously had now gone over to his accusers.
The Postscript is about the news of the recall of Foucquet back to Europe. The order came from Rome to the Visitor in Canton. Accordingly, the Jesuit superior in Peking sent a messenger (un valet nommé Augustine) to inform João Mourão ( 穆敬遠，若望,1681–1726) and Dominique Parrenin to obtain permission from the emperor to release Foucquet from his services at the court. Bouvet was bitter because he was not informed until after the affair was accomplished.

13. A letter from Joachim Bouvet to Julien-Placide Hervieu (赫蒼壁,子拱 1671–1746), Peking, 10 August, 1721.
Written in French; Chinese ink on Chinese paper.
Fourteen pages in Bouvet’s handwriting. 32.8 x 24.4 cm.

This letter begins with: “Mon Reverend Pere” (giving no name of the person addressed). However, on pages 9–11 Bouvet makes mention of his own writing, the Gujin jingtian jian 古今敬天鑑 (A study of the worship of Heaven [God] in ancient and modern times) and its Latin translation. Page eleven reads: “ . . . alors le P. Gerbillon a ma priere, engagea V^e R^ce et les PP. De Premare et Mailla à faire un version latine de cette nouvelle piéce, vous laissant la liberté d’y changer et rentrancher a que vous jugeriez a propos, a quoy je consentis tres volontiers, a fin que rien ne vous fist de la peine dans ce travail.”

If we turn to Pfister (p. 438, n.8), we read: “De cultu celesti Sinarum veterum et modernorum, liber novus e Sinico idiomate in latinum versus a PP. Hervieu et de Prémare, S.J., auctore J. Bouvet, anno 1706, MS., à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris. Le titre chinois est: 古今敬天鑑 Kou kin king T’ien kien.”

Furthermore, Pfister in the biography of P. Julien-Placide says: “Il [i.e., Hervieu] persévéra dans ces travaux pendant plusieurs années et cueillit des fruits abondants, jusqu’à ce qu’il fût choisi, en 1719, pour être le quatrième supérieur général de la Mission; il succédait au P. d’Entrecolles” (p. 581). Bouvet on page eleven of the present document states: “ . . . V^e R^ce qui lui [i.e., Dentrecolles] a succede et a le mesme pouvoir en main.” Finally, Bouvet ends his letter with the phrase: “Votre tres humble et tres obeisant serviteur,” which implies the expression of a subject towards his superior.

With all this evidence we can quite safely conclude that this letter was addressed to Julien-Placide Hervieu. In this letter, Bouvet mentions that the Kangxi emperor greatly appreciates his assiduous studies of the ancient Chinese writings. At the three audiences given by the Kangxi emperor to the Papal Legate Maillard de Tournon, the emperor cited and praised Bouvet’s book, the Gujin jingtian jian, in the presence of the three Jesuit superiors of the three churches in Peking. Bouvet is convinced that the Rujiao 儒教 of the Chinese is closely related to Christianity. What they call Tian and Xam-ti [Shangdi 上帝] is in reality the true Creator of the universe. The teachings in the Jing 經 or Chinese Classics have the same source as the holy Scriptures.

He complained that many of his fellow Jesuits contradicted him on his interpretations, which he himself considered as important for the good of the missions and for the salvation of souls. He said he had shown the Gujin jingtian jian to de Tournon. Then he asked if the emperor would find some learned men to go through the text of this book and make suitable corrections. To this the emperor said that he would do it himself. Bouvet then states that since the Kangxi emperor had always been favorable to the missioners and their work, the missioners have an obligation to obey his orders. The fact that the emperor encouraged him (Bouvet) to study the ancient Chinese writings is a great help to missionary work and to the salvation of souls. Hence the order of Dentrecolles forbidding him to do his work was against the will of the emperor.

Bouvet goes on to state that his book, the Cou kim kien tien kim, for the past fifteen years had been approved by diverse superiors. In fact when J.-F. Gerbillon was superior of the French missioners he had given this book to Han Tan 韓菼 (1637–1704), President of the Hanlin Academy and a renowned scholar, who having read the book, wrote a preface in praise (cf. ECCP 1:275). Gerbillon then asked Bouvet to ask Hervieu, Prémare and de Mailla to make a Latin translation of it.

At the end (pp. 13–14) Bouvet gives a summary of a letter which P. Bertrand-Claude Tacherau de Linières S.J. (1658–1746, also Lignières or Linyères) wrote to him: Extrait d’une lettre du R.P. Delinyere, ecrite de Paris au P. Bouvet à Pekin, le 10 fevrier, 1720. It deals, among other items, with Bouvet’s studies of ancient Chinese writings and the views of French scholars about the subject.

Local access folder ARSI I-IV under Jap-Sin IV-5E.
Online on ARSI via Internet Archive.

Manuscript letter in two parts. Some pdf frames represent two leaves of the original.
Title from ARSI page link.

Jap-Sin IV, 5 D

[ Editors’ note: When the author described Jap-Sin IV, 5, its folder D was not in the usual place and folder E only contained the Bouvet letters numbered 6–13. At present folder D contains only one document at the end of which is written “collectionem hanc textuum Sinicorum eorumque versionem factam a Patre Joanne Alexio Gollet s.j. et novem paginas continentem, legi et approbo. Kieou Kiang, die 11 octobris 1725, Julianus Placidus Hervieu s.j. - Japonis Missionis PP. Gallorum in Sinis.” Folder E now also contains the Bouvet letters numbered 1–5, which formerly were in the then missing folder D and are not described in this catalogue. ]

Source: Albert Chan, S.J., Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, p. 524.

Local access dig. pdf. in folder ARSI Jap-Sin I-IV folder under Jap-Sin IV-5D.pdf]
Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.

Bouvet, Joach. Gozani Io. P ￜ or lat. ￜ Examen examinis, seu responsum ad scriptum censoris anonymi (Examen aliquot Propositionum ad R. P. Sup. PP. Gall.)
Manuscript copy, not in Bouvet’s own handwriting, written on Chinese paper in Chinese ink. 32.5 x 22.5 cm.

Cf. Witek 1982, p. 205, n. 128.

Source; A. Chan, Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, pp.522-523.

Local access in folder ARSI Jap-Sin I-IV under Jap-Sin IV-5B.pdf]
Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.

Jap-Sin IV, 5 F

Expositio ￜ unius odae propheticae ￜ libri canonici Xi-kim, ￜ in qua ￜ clarè, distinctè et veluti historice sub unico typo ￜ praenunciatur Christi Salvatoris Incarnatio, nativitas, ￜ infantia, vita privata et publica, praedicatio, passio, ￜ mors, eiusque sacrificium tum cruentum tum incruen ￜ tum pro remissione peccatorum et perpetua omnium ￜ populorum salutate oblatum.
By Joachim Bouvet.
Manuscript, Chinese ink on bamboo paper.

A label with the following inscription (most probably written by Van Hée, S.J.) is given before page 1: “Liber famosissimus. ￜ Incredibiles insaniae. ￜ Tous les textes ￜ detournés de leur ￜ vrai sens. ￜ On prouve que N.S. ￜ dut rester 3 jours ￜ dans le tombeau, ￜ parce que les anciens ￜ Chinois abstenaient ￜ d’aliments cuits ￜ durant 3 jours, ￜquand quelqu’un ￜ de la famille ￜ était mort . . . ￜ etc.”

Bouvet takes the chapter Sem mim (Shengmin 生民) in the third part (the Da Ya 大雅 of the Shijing (Book of Songs) as a messianic text. According to him, Houji (Heu çie) 後稷, son of emperor Ku 嚳, was the founder of the Zhou 周 dynasty. He was the brother of the emperor Yao 堯. After the Deluge Houji taught the people agriculture (p. 1):

nemo possit in eo non agnoscere veluti perspectam et adaequatam veri Melchisedechi seu Messiae Redemptoris figuram quod ne quis cum insolenti exaggeratione a me dictum existimet, nunc ideae singularum stropharum odae explicatione ostendamus adherendo quoad fieri poterit antiquoribus et melioris notae interpretationibus et commentariis.

The assiduous studies Bouvet made of the ancient Chinese writings eventually gave rise to a new explanation which he claimed to have been able to trace back to Christian traditions. It will suffice here to quote a few paragraphs as an illustration of his thoughts:

經 (VIII) 八章: 卬盛於豆，于豆于登，其香始升，上帝居歆，胡具亶時，后稷肇祀，庶無罪悔，以迄于今。

. . . hac Heu çie sacrificantis allegoriâ clarè agnoscamus et veluti manu palpemus cruenti et incruenti sacrificii factum a Christo oblationem; hic praemittenda est quattuor litterarum expositio hieroglyphica, quarum prima est littera Kiam 姜, prior scilicet ex duabus, quibus constat nomen matris Heu çie, vocata Kiam yuen 姜嫄 ; quae littera Kiam juxta analysim hieroglyphicam significat ovem virginem. Unde eius filius verè dici potest agnus. Est ideo in 2^a strophâ Kiam yuen dicitur hunc peperisse sicut ovis parit suum agnellum. 2^a littera exponenda est tem 登, quae proprie significat vas luteum sacificio destinatum, quod est symbolum hieroglyphicum corporis sacri secundi Adami, in Incarnatione ex lato virgineo conficti; sicuti corpus primi Adami in prima formatione ex terrâ virgine et illibata fuerat configuratum; et quod ad praesens mysterium non minus facit, haec littera olim scribebatur cum charactere seu figura crucis. 3^a littera exponenda, est teu 豆, quae significat vas ligneum similiter sacrificio conservatum, nempe ex materia propria crucis seu instrumenti redemptionis. 4^a littera Kem 㚠 羹 , quae significat agni assati seu torrefacti purum et sine alio condimento iusculum, verum symbolum hieroglyphicum praetiossimi sanguinis agni immaculati nempe Christi salvatoris. (pp. 18–19)

Quae cum ita sint, facile non est excogitare, quid in mystica illâ Heu çie persona deesse possit, ut a quovis Theologo sive europea sive sinâ merito spectetus, tamquam verus et sacer Messiae Salvatoris Typus, aut ut figura divino modo symbolica et prophetica mysteriorum, quae faciunt essentiam et veluti objectum fidei nostrae adaequatum. (p. 22)

. . . qualis pariter est Ven vam, qui etsi numeretur in capite Regum eiusdem dynastiae Cheu; cum similiter existimetur a Sinis, habere etiam originem mere caelestem, et esse vera caeli proles seu coeli filius, imo Vulgo eum confundant cum ipso Xam ti seu coelo, nec ponant ullum inter utrumque discrimen, hunc expresse vocantes tien coelum, Xam ti coeli monarcham appellant Heu çie, coeli et terrae dominum tien ti chi chu. Et ea de causâ, et propter plures alias, videtur pariter nobis spectari debere veluti altera messiae Salvatoris figura vere sacra et prophetia. (p. 24)

Source: Albert Chan, S.J., Chinese books and documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, pp. 532-533.

Local access ARSI I-IV folder under [Jap-Sin IV-5F.pdf].
Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.

"...In Gujin jing Tian jian (Bouvet) argued that ... Chinese were not atheists and he supported this theory with 179 quotations from the Rijiang 日講 (Daily Explanations), records from the Classics Colloquium, a gathering of the Kangxi emperor with eminent officials for the purpose of reading and discussing classical and historical texts. --(Cf. Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 1, p. 670)

Cover illustration: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Courant 7161
明末清初耶穌會思想文獻匯編 = An expository collection of the Christian philosophical works between the end of the Ming dynasty and the beginning of the Qing dynasty in China ; 第19冊.

Local access dig.pdf. in folder: [Andrew Chung Series].

Nova Demonstratio, quâ ￜ ex 30. primi principii seu veri ￜ omnium Domini nominibus ￜ probatur Deus Christianorum notum distincte et cultum fuisse ￜ a sapientibus antiquis Sinarum.
29.2 x 20.2 cm.

天地人物真宰，乃萬有之根本，本乃人之要務，各子弟必先明識其本，而後時時事事尊敬向之。千世萬方之民，皆係同胞兄弟，由一原祖而出，原為一家，一理，一教，初則明識根本。故上古先師立各等尊號，載在經書。
而詳釋之，率人敬向一真宰。自分方而成萬園，理教亦分，根本漸不明矣。 我西土先時亦大不宰，根本甚不明，後蒙造物主開捕，幸得 天主聖教真經， 後明天本，識認真宰精微
。 中華自遭秦火，典籍失傅，論根本諸文之原意，混睛不明，然經書猶概 尚存。今據天主聖經之旨，讀中華經書，凡古今論天主真宰之文號，擇其極 精粹者，一一集列之，成一復識根本真宰明鑒焉。

The verso of folio 1 v gives thirty-one names for the Supreme Lord 根本真宰尊號 which appeared in ancient Chinese writings:

帝 。 古蒂 。 上帝 。 天地 。 帝天 。上皇 。皇天 。 昊天 。 上天 。 天 。 天之主宰 。 主宰 。 眞宰 。 宰。 主。 造物者。 道理 。 道。 理 。 自然 。 無名 。 神 。 陰陽 。 乾坤 。 父母 。 天地 （古主字）。 唯一 。 太極 。 太一 。 三一 。

Cf. J. Gatty,“Les recherches de Joachim Bouvet (1656-1730)，" in Actes du Colloque international de Sinologie (La mission française de Pékin aux XVIIe et XVIIe siècles), Paris 1976, pp. 141-162 ; p. 145 (no. 20- 22).

Local access folder ARSI Jap-Sin I-IV under Jap-Sin IV-5C.pdf.
Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.

Keywords: Figurism, French Jesuits, Jesuit cartographers, Jesuit mathmaticians, Hongpiao 紅票.

Jap-Sin IV, 5 H

a. Sapientia hieroglyphica ￜ seu ￜ theologia symbolica priscorum Sinarum, ￜ cuius expressione sac^mm legis naturalis syste ￜ ma, & propheticum veritatis evangelicae mys terium, sub parabolarum et enigmatum cortice ￜ pluribus annorum millibus sepultum incipit ￜ in lucem prodiri.

Manuscript written in Latin, in the handwriting of Bouvet’s scribe. Chinese ink on Chinese paper. Eighteen pages in Chinese folding. 31.3 x 24.2 cm.

Post disserturnas et acerrimas inter missionarios controversias de genuina priscorum Sinarum doctrina e diversis ordinibus, atque imprimis Jesuitae post P. Matthaeum Ricci, in eo prae ceteris gentibus fortunatos praedicerunt, quod non solum sinceram ac distinctam veri dei notitiam; sed etiam coeteras saltem praecipua legis naturalis notiones, per aliquod annorum millia semper servaverunt; ita ut multi inter ipsos, per tam longam generationum seriem potuerunt salutem suam operari; cum episcopus Cononensis cum parvis asseclis, impugnata hac communi veterum missionariorum — sententia aussu incredibili conatus sit eripere toti sinarum etiam priscorum genti, omnimodam notitiam tum messiae salvatoris, quam tamen ex ipso — textu sacro constat fuisse. Expectationem gentium, atque adeo mille prorsus ignotorum; tum etiam ipsiusmet Dei creatoris; indubitanter asserens, vel veterissima Sinarum monumenta; imo et canonicos ipsorum libros, non continere nisi purum putumque Atheïsmum; atque nova haec opinio videatur jam veluti praevaluisse; quis inspecto solo praesentia operis titulo, non intueatur propositum hic nobis consilium, tamquam inanem hominis plane temerarii conatum.

At quoniam hoc nostrum consilium eruendi veritatem evangelicam ex vetustis gentium Sinarum monumentis, videtur omnino consonum praxi sanctorum Patrum et doctorum catholicorum usi constat ex diversis aeque solidis ac eruditis utrorumque operibus, magnifico demonstrationis Evangelicae titulo, aut multiplici alio simili insignitis; & aliunde sinarum traditiones, saltem illae, quae vulgo habentur pro canonicis, certo sint ex magis pura et antiqua origine quam aeternarum traditione; jure considimus, quicumque & rationum ponderi, et communi Ecclesiae sensui imprimis attendunt, eos adeo non offensum iri specioso hoc nostri operis titulo, in Ecclesia minime obsoleto: ut potius omnes judicaturus scriptum de tanti momentis argumento; non missionariorum tantum lectione dignum videri, sed etiam serio ipsius Sanctae Sedis examine et judicio; cum illud tam directe tendere videatur ad promovendam cum majori facilitate sinarum conversionem; quam sententia episcopi Cononensis huic argumento opposita, videtur et est certissime tam sancto fini contraria.

Manuscript written in Latin; Chinese ink on Chinese paper.
Forty-three pages (page 17 is divided into 1° and 2°; pages 21 and 22 are combined into one page). 31.8 x 24 cm.

The first paragraph (page 1) reads:

Duobus annis proxime elapsis, ad obsequendum per grato Paternitatis vestrae ad^m R^dae mandato, iam misi Romam partem utrumque huius speciminis; nondum tamen cum eo stylo methodo et claritate, quam novitas et excellentia materiae postulabat . . . nunc quo suppleatur utrumque huic defectui, simulque subjiciantur oculis virorum vere eruditorum et primaevae sapientiae mysteria hieroglyphica non os pernantium, physicae et mathematicae rationes, quibus videtur niti totum hoc symbolicum [..]etque judicio vere divinum systema, aliunde manifeste fundatum in miro consensu communis Sinarum traditionis, cum maxime recepta in toto orbe christiano traditione et omnino aptum ad retegendos insulsos errores totius fabulosae traditionis . . .

In fine harum observationum super huius anni et praecedentium annorum scriptis, unum est de quo admondendus est lector nempe, cum in Europa non possit fieri judicium certum de fidelitate interpretationes textuum sinensium sed solum hic a viris in huius literaturae notitia longo studio exercitatis sive missionariis sive neophytis christianis, et coram doctoribus * [on the margin: etiam si gentilibus] primi ordinis; ea de causa me in omnibus praedictis scriptis parum admodum sollicitum de sensu literari et verbali plaerorumque textuum sinensium ibi allegatorum. In hoc potissimum ac veluti unice intendisse ut substantialem intimum et proprium redderem, quantum satis esse mihi visum est, ut magistri nostri possint aequum et competens ferre judicium de tota serie expositionis Sapientiae hieroglyphicae librorum Sinensium, a nobis per partes hucusque propositae, et deinceps proponendae si deus optimus dies et vires ulterius protraxerit, et definitive pronuntiari quid in ea reprobatione, quid approbatione dignum esse videatur.

De cetero veniam peto, si haec scripta sunt tam incondite et tam parum methodice deproperata, et manu ac penicillo Sinensi exarata. Huius causa fuit adhuc perseverans missionis in proximo ruinae suae periculo status, (non obstante Legati Stae Sedis adventu,) cuius saluti certe sicuti facili totius gentis conversioni, non videtur medium ullum magis idoneum et necessarium, quam brevis aliqua et generalis beneque concinata expositio dogmatum legis naturalis, ex bene selectis Sinarum traditionibus messiam salvatorem, et eius S. Legem spectantibus, qualis videtur facile confici posse Romae aut Parisiis ex diversis magisque elaboratis aliquot sociorum scriptis ibi ut suppono, recens acceptis; et ad quod, ut ego plus materiae saltem conferre possem, necesse habui accersere unum aut alterum amanuensem sinam, pro transcribendis cum majori claritate quam plurimis locis et diversis et tensioribus meis elumbrationibus. Cum interim delineatio paulo plurium mysticarum figurarum sapientiae hieroglyphicae expositioni omnino necessariarum me totum postularet.,p>

qua scilicet tai kie produxit duo y, haec duo y produxerunt quatuor imagines, et hae produxerunt octo sortes, seu qua, difficile tamen est clare percipere quid veniat nomine y, quaenam determinate sint quatuor imagines, et octo qua; ignorem enim per ignotium libri sinici videntur explicare, hinc factum puto, ut in usu libri Ye kim Sinenses aliquitam longe a vero aberraverint. Nomine tai kie non dubito quin se pictissimi Prisci Deum prima rerum omnium definire voluerint, ut patet ex supradictis [the italicized words are written in red ink] nomine in, yam [陰，陽] praecipue terram et coelum significat; attamen ita deinde miscerent, confundunt, ut vix scias quid rerum sint.

Source: Albert Chan, Chinese books and documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, p.535-538.

Local access ARSI I-IV folder, Jap-Sin IV-5H.pdf.
Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.

Citation: Albert Chan, S.J., Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome, pp. 518-522.

Jap-Sin IV, 5

Some manuscript writings of Joachim Bouvet. Eight folders (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H) in one case. Written in Chinese ink on Chinese paper. Wieger's catalogue (WH) gives: “Fouquet, Bouvet etc., MS (ineptiae).”

Jap-Sin IV, 5 A

Specimenￜ Sapientiae hieroglyphicae ￜ seu Theologiae Symbolicae priscorum Sinarum, ￜ proponendum ￜ omnibus viris Apostolicis ￜ & ceteris nationum orientalium conversionem, ardenter desiderantibus.
Six fascicules, 189 pages. 33 x 24.2 cm.

On the first page there is a Latin inscription: “Admodum Reverendo in Christo Patri ￜ P. Michaëli Archangelo Tamburino ￜ Societatis Jesu praeposito generali.”

Bouvet was one of the five Jesuits sent by Louis XIV to China as mathematicians and astronomers. Both he and Jean-François Gerbillon were kept in the imperial court as tutors to the Kangxi emperor. They not only learned Chinese but also the Manchu language. The emperor seemed to be fond of Bouvet and considered him as the better student of the Chinese language among the foreign missioners then in China. Both Bouvet and Jean-François Foucquet had an idea of finding traces of Christianity in ancient Chinese monuments and writing. They even tried to identify the ancient Chinese kings with patriarchs in the Scriptures. For this they were known as “figurists” and their theory as “figurism.”

To begin his studies, Bouvet took up what he considered as the most ancient documents from the Classics , namely, the Yijing 易經 (Book of Changes) and the Shijing 詩經 (Book of Songs). He seemed to have paid special attention to the Yijing. When he revealed his project to the emperor, the latter gave his full support and followed his studies with enthusiasm.

This undertaking of Bouvet, however, did not please his confreres; in fact, it had caused uneasiness among many. Cyr Contancin, then superior of the French residence in Peking, writing to the General of the Order had this to report on Bouvet: “. . . sed post vinginti annos et amplius tali studio deditos nihil quidquam aliud consecutus est Pater, quam ut ab ipsamet sua majestate diceretur tandem bonum senem hallucinari et circa sui operis negotium non esse sanae mentis (Jap-Sin 177, f. 72v). F.-X. Dentrecolles, then superior of the French missioners in Peking, ordered Bouvet not to show his writings on ancient Chinese studies to any outsider (not even the emperor), unless these writings had been approved by censors who had been appointed by the superior. In a moment of distress Bouvet wrote to the General of the Order trying to justify his own position. J.-F. Foucquet meanwhile wrote a long letter to Jean-Joseph Guibert about the ins and outs of the conflict and sided with the views of Bouvet. The following is the summary of Bouvet’s letter to the General:

The first paragraph (pp. 7–39) bears the title: “De origine et antiquitate nationis Sinensis totiusque eius literaturae, in notitia Dei unius et Trini, Creatoris et Reparatoris, ac legi Decalogi ab initio fundata” with the following contents:

1. De monumentis praediluvianis, per Noe devolutis ad Sinas (p. 12).
2. De antiquitate librorum canonicorum sinensium (p. 13).
3. De caeteris libris majoris auctoritatis: 道德經，淮南子，太極圖 (on the Trinity) (p. 15).
4. De vera significatione vocis ye, unus (p. 25).
5. De vera significatione vocis Tai-kie, primum principium (p. 26).
6. De vera significatione vocis tai-ye [太一], ter maximus (p. 28).
7. De mystica sigificatione vocum vu [無], non ens; yeu-vu [有無], ens et non ens; et tai-hiu [太虛] — inane ter maximum, vel ter maximum immateriale (pp. 30–34).
8. Blank sheet (p. 40).

The second paragraph (pp. 41–70) bears the title: “De veteri chronico sinarum ubi demonstratur. 1.° Fohi 伏羲 1um Sinarum legislatorum, eundem ac S. Patr. Enochum. 2.° Diluvium Sinis notum, idem esse ac diluvium Noeticum.” On page 43, Bouvet draws a diagram where he presents Adam as Pan cu 盤古, Seth as Tien hoam 天皇, Enos as Ti hoam 地皇, Cain as Gin hoam 人皇, Malaléël as Yeu chao 有巢, Jared as Sui gin 燧人, Enoch as Fohi 伏羲, Mathusala as Xin num 神農, Lameth as Hoam ti 皇帝, Noe as Ti yao 帝堯. This is followed by “Diluvium in traditione sinensi memorandum idem ac diluvium Noëticum” (pp. 50–70), and four blank sheets (pp. 71–74).

The third paragraph (pp. 75–106) is entitled “De genuine priscorum sinarum doctrina ubi demonstratur. 1.o In eorum Libris canonicis non agi nisi de sapientia divina & eius sancta Lege nomine Tao [道] appellata. 2.o Divinam legem in libris canonicis contentam complecti notiones essentiales triplicis mundi status, i.e. mundi initio a Deo creati cum summa perfectione, deinde per Angeli & hominis inobedientia corrupti, ac demum a Deo ipso Incarnato reparati.” Page 75 starts with “Totam librorum canonicorum doctrinam voce tao comprehendi, nec esse diversam a Lege divina, et habere pro objecto eius divinum Auctorem.” At the end there are two blank sheets (pp. 107–108).

The fourth paragraph (pp. 109–148) bears the title: “De tertio mundi statu, seu de reparatione generis humani ac Domino eius Reparatore. Iuxta veteres sinarum traditiones” with the following contents:

1. Heutien [後天] seu caeli posterioris formator, id est: mundi Redemptor est Deum homo. 周易大全圖說 (Zhouyi daquan tushuo) (p. 109).
2. Diversa Xim gin [聖人] seu sancti nomina clare designant mundi Redemptor (p. 113).
3. Sanctus omniscius 論衡 : 世無聖人，不能知天 (Lunheng) (p. 118).
4. Sanctus Altissimus et humillimus. 易或 ： 謙謙坤德, 聖人之至德也 (Yihuo) (p. 119).
5. Unus affectuum dominus perfecte sanctus, et principuum justitiae hominum. 禮記 ： 中心安仁者，天下一人而已矣 (Liji) (p. 120).
6. Immunis ab omni peccato, satisfacit pro omnium peccatis. 易 ：無咎者，善補過也 (Yijing) (p. 121).
7. Sancto coelitus imposita paciendi neccesitas. 孟子： 故天將降大任於斯人也 (Mengzi), etc. (p. 123).
8. Mortis sancti Salvatoris. 易損卦 ： 損上益下，民說無疆，自上下下，其道大光 (Yijing) (p. 125).
9. Sancti in poenis invicta constantia. 事文類聚：斷火三日，謂去冬至，一百四日，五日，六日也。起於周舉，至唐時盛興之 (Shiwen leiju) (p. 126).
10. Triduum eius passionis et mortis. 禮記：親始死，水槳不入口，三日不舉火，又 … 三日而後斂者，以俟其生也 (Liji) (p. 127).
11. Sancto in coelum regresso, publicatio evangelium, omnium gentium convertio et via coeli aperta. ([Yiwei] Qianzuodu and Yijing) (p. 130).
12. Publicatio evangelii et gentium per operationem Spiritus Sancti. (Yijing)(p. 132).
13. Regeneratio per baptismum. (Yijing) (p. 135).
14. De immortalitate animae et aeternitate aut mortis iustorum et peccatorum, iusto sancti iudicio, in fine singulis decernenda. (Guanyinzi) (p. 138).

The fifth paragraph (pp. 149–189) bears the title: “De ratione symbolica & hieroglyphica libri Ye kim 易經 et caeterorum librorum canonicorum ubi de praecipuis symbolis messiam Salvatorem praefigurantibus; Necnon de stella prodigiosa, quae eius nativitatem, et de eclipsi portentosa, quae eius mortem universo orbi annuntiaverunt.” The contents are:

1. Mysticum libri Ye kim systema, est veluti compendiosum totius naturae exemplar sub technicis hieroglyphorum figuris recondes easdem Sanctae Legis notiones, quas prisci sapientias in immenso universi volumine olim contemplabantur sub symbolis rerum naturalium rationibus (p. 149).
2. Rationes symbolicae coeli, polis, stellis et planetis annexae (p. 155).
3. Quatuor animalia coelestia symbola Salvatoris. 十三經：麟鳳五靈，王者之嘉瑞也。疏：麟鳳與龜龍白虎，五者神靈之鳥獸，王者之嘉瑞也 (Shisanjing) (p. 164).
4. Unicornis Kilin symbolum Salvatoris (reference from Lushi 路史: 麟難紀) (p. 167).
5. Stella Epiphaniae in Sinarum monumentis veluti propheticis oraculis clare consignata. 綱鑑大全：舜帝時景星出，慶雲興 (Gangjian Daquan) (p. 178).

In the last paragraph (p. 189), Bouvet says:

Cum vix nunc mihi supersit tantum temporis quamtum requirit compendium computorum totius systematis chronologici Regum predictorum numero 120. praedicti chronici, quorum Regni duratio exhausit cum perfecta praecisione integram periodum figurae rotundae 64. hexagrammatum libri Ye kim, quam periodum contendo continere verum annorum imo et dierum numerum a interjectorum inter diem creationis mundi et diem quo Christus morte sua Redempto genere humano in coelum ascendit: nunc omissa paragraphi 6.ti expositione; ne lector rei novitate attonitus, existimet eius argumentum non posse esse in nulla soliditate fundamentum; his scriptis subjungo pro ultimo quaternione, expositionem unius odae valde singularis de quodam Herae seu sancto nomine Heu çie 後稷, vulgo habito pro tuneo radicali dynastiae Cheu, cuius lectio suadebit confido, quemcumque, non hunc solum esse vere eximium messiae Salvatoris typum propheticum, sed etiam plures alios similes occurere in veteribus Sinarum monumentis.

If we look at the bibliography taken from this writing of Bouvet, there is no doubt that he had made a great effort to pursue his studies. They are not simply ‘ineptiae’ (absurdities), as Wieger called them. Bouvet was a scholar and a seeker of the truth. His writings as we have seen, had caused some of his confreres’ uneasiness, but at the same time there were others who were in his favor.

The Chinese books quoted in Bouvet’s manuscript are [in source's original Wade-Giles romanization]:

Tzu-chih t'ung-chien 資治通鑑， Chu-ching k'ao-i 諸經考異， T'u-shu pien 圖書編，Chou-I chuan 周易傅， Ta-hsüeh yen-i pu 大學衍義補， Hsün-tzu 苟子， Shih-chi 史記， Ch'un-ch'iu Tso-chuan 春秋左傅， Mo-tzu 墨子， Huai-nan-tzu 准南子，Ch'un-ch'iu ta-ch'üan 春秋大全， Li-chi 禮記， Tung-tzu 董子， Lao-tzui i 老子翼， Lao-tzu 老子， Chuang-tzu 莊子， Yü-chih Chou-I che-chung 御製周易折中， Lieh-tzu 列子， Ho-kuan-tzu 鵲冠子， Shuo-wen tzu-yüan 說文字原， I-huo 易或， Shu-ching 書經， Lü-shih ch'un-ch'iu 呂氏春秋， Tao-te ching chih-kuei 道德經指歸， Hsing-li cheng-meng chi-shih 性理正蒙集釋， P'ei-wen yün-fu 佩文韻府, Chou-I t'u-shuo 周易圖說， Liu-ching t'u 六經圖， Nan-hua fu Mo 南華副墨， Lu-shih 路史， Shuoyüan 說苑， Liu-shu ching-yün 六書精蘊， T'ung-chien kang-mu yüan-shih 通鑑綱目原始， Kang-mu ch'ien-pien pien-i 綱目前編辨疑， Li Kuang-ti tsou che 李光地奏摺， Tzu-hui 字彙， Huai-nan hung-lieh chieh 准南鴻烈解， Lu-shih hou-chi 路史後記， Kung-yang chuan 公羊傳，Ku-liang chuan 穀梁傳， Ssu-shu k'ao 四書考， Chia I Hsin-shu 賈誼新書， Chin-k'uei 金宜， Chu 朱子， T'ung-chih 通志， Shan-hai ching 山海經， Chung-yung 中庸， Hsi-yüan yüeh-yen 西原約言， I cheng-i 易正議， I-wei Ch'ien-tso-tu 易緯乾鑿度， Kuei-yen-tzu 桂巖子， Feng-su t'ung 風通俗， Ta-hsüeh 大學， Chou-I t'u-shuo shu 周易圖說述， Hsiang-hsiang kuan-chien 像象管見， Yen-tzu 晏子， Ch'ien-ch 'üeh lei-shu 潛確類書， Pao-p'u-tzu 抱朴子， Shuo-wen 說文， Hsüan-chung chi 玄中記， Ch'u-tz'u wai-kuo t'u 楚辭外國圖， Lun-yü 論語， Shao-tzu 邵子， Erh Ch'eng i-shu 二程遺書， Yang-tzu chu 揚子註， Kuei-ku-tzu 鬼谷子， Meng-tzu 孟子， Hsing-li hui-t'ung 性理會遇， Wang Pi /-chieh 王粥易解， Pai-hu t'ung 自虎通， T’ai-p’ing yü-lan 太平御覽，Shuo-fu 說邪， Lun-heng 論衡， Lao-tzu Su chu 老子蘇注， Pu-te-i pien 不得已辯，K'uai-shu 快書， Han-shih wai-chuan 韓詩外傅， I-t'ung chih 一統志， Shih-wen lei-chü 事文類聚， Chou-I ku-pen 周易古本， Ta-tsai li, nei-ching 大戴禮內經， I Lai Chih-te chu 易來知德註， Kuan-yin-tzu 關尹子， Han-shu i-wen chih hsü 漢書藝文志序， Yü-p'i ku-wen yüan-chien 御批古文淵鑒， Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao 文獻通考， Yen-t'ieh lun 鹽鐵論， Shih-wu yüan-shih 事物原始， Yüe-ling kuang-i 月令廣義， Jui-ying t'u 瑞應圖， Cheng-tzu t'ung 正字通， Ch'un-ch'iu yün-tou shu 春秋運斗樞， K'ung-ts'ung-tzu 孔叢子， Ch'un-ch'iu kan-ching fu 春秋感精符，Shih-wu kan-chu 事物紺珠， Hsing-ching 星經， P'i-ya 埠雅， Li han wen chia 禮合文嘉， Han-shu t'ien-wen chih 漢書天文志， Sui-shu t'ien-wen chih 隋書天文志， Erh-ya i 爾雅翼， Chan-shu 占書， Ch'un-ch'iu K'ung Yen t'u 春秋孔演圖and Hou Han-shu 後漢書.

Online at ARSI via Internet Archive.
Local access dig.pdf. in ARSI Jap-Sin I-IV Folder under: Jap-Sin IV, 5A