Missionary Writings during the Canton Exile (1666–1671): Crisis in the Manchu-Christian Relationship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting topic, sources, questions, and fascinating insights into the experiences and literary productions on the “Canton Jesuits” 1666-1671. The article needs more structure though, especially in terms of a fuller introduction and fleshing out the conclusion (which could be substantially longer).

 

The article begins with some loosely structured narrative that stretches over several pages (interrupted by a table); some of this appears in very short paragraphs.

 

—> Offer a more substantial introduction. It would be good to add a literature review in the beginning and to clearly state what this article demonstrates and contributes. Briefly contextualise the Calendar Case in the introduction so as to open the discussion and lend the text more unity.

 

The text does not really begin to center on the missionaries’ texts until around page 6, but here again, there is no discernible structure, and the narrative continues without much indication as to why what is named when (an example of this style is on page 6: “We should also mention the Dominican Luo Wenzhao 罗文炤”).

 

—> It might be helpful if the author/s could announce the structure and methodological progression of the article at the outset and then build relevant pointers into the text.

 

In terms of the actual sources treated: perhaps the author/s can introduce these more clearly. In different places, documents are mentioned that cannot be easily found in the references because the exact title are missing. Some texts mentioned (for example Yang Guangxian’s anti-Cristian texts) are missing from the references entirely. When theological issues that the Jesuits mentioned are raised (pages 10-11), it would help if the text could offer some direct quotations, or at least point to the exact texts in which these questions are dealt with. This would make the discussion more precise. The questions are very interesting! 

 

The controversy about what the text designates the “unholy alliance of Christianity with the Manchus” is intriguing. Overall, there is much interesting information - and surely much worth pondering - in this article that scholars and students will be interested in and might benefit from. However, the information simply needs to be organised in a more structured way, particularly the first half of the article.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some sentences the word order is not idiomatic; some minor errors can easily be fixed with copy-editing. 

unidiomatic use of articles (the...) in some places

inappropriate colloquial wording ("huge")

Another point: The font changes on pages 12-13, and Magalhães is always written in a different font.

Author Response

1. I have added explanations in the general introduction, in the beginning of each section, and in the conclusion, that help the reader to follow better the structure of the paper.
2. When I start discussing the writings of the missionaries in sections 3 and 4, I have added introductions to explain the content.
3. In terms of resources, I have explained that the bibliography at the end comprises the texts written in Canton, with all the other resources mentioned in footnotes.
4. I have dropped the expression of “Manchu-Christian alliance” as I found it now improper because it may wrongly suggest a kind of official recognition. I replaced for “Manchu-Christian relationship.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a focused study of the previously underexplored writings by the Jesuits and friars in exile at Canton immediately after the Calendar Case. It offers a well-researched survey of the backgrounds, relationships, and exchanges on various religious matters among the 25 exiled missionaries. There are also a great amount of details based on a close reading of the original reports and books to reveal how some of the missionaries took a different narrative pattern in writing on the Calendar Case and voiced out their distrust of the relationship between the Church and the Manchu political power.

 

Though the article examines more relevant sources and brings forth new interpretations of the missionary writings about the Calendar Case, it falls short of strong arguments due to problems in the following two major aspects:  

 

I. Problems with argumentation:

The article does not provide sufficient background information and solid contextual analysis of the key sources being discussed.

 

1. Missionary writings during the Canton exile (1666–1671) consist of a wide range of texts on various issues related to the Catholic missions in early Qing China, including the controversies on the Chinese rites, the debates on liturgical matters (e.g., wearing a hat during Mass), the discussions about native religions and practices (esp., Buddhism, baptism of vegetarians), etc. This article addresses mainly the letters, reports, and books on the Calendar Case (and early Qing history) by some of the exiled missionaries, yet their writings need to be examined against a broader picture of all relevant sources produced in Canton at that time. A comprehensive review of the recent research on these sources (by scholars such as Thierry Maynard, Marina Torres Trimállez, etc.) shall be given, and the value of the present study and its contribution to existing scholarship shall be highlighted.  

 

2. The Calendar Case is given priority in the discussions on various missionary works during the Canton exile, but surprisingly, except a few mentions of Yang Guangxian and his accusations of Adam Schall, the author does not provide much background information about the event. The selected missionary writings are read largely without the historical context. Yang did play a key role in the process, but the incident entailed more complex issues beyond the acts of one person, in particular Qing court politics and the conflict between the Jesuits and Chinese astronomers at the Bureau of Astronomy. Without a clear account on the causes, the different parties involved, the major episodes in the process, and the aftermaths, it may be difficult to make a good sense out of the reading of those writings by the exiled missionaries at Canton. For example, could the natural disasters listed as omens in several reports be possibly related with the omens of comet and earthquake at the capital, a crucial factor that Schall and a few missionaries in prison were spared from death penalty? Another issue could be whether the group of missionaries in exile held the same view on the key figures who were not hostile to Christianity at the Qing court, and in this light the author needs to explain why the Kangxi Emperor is barely mentioned in the discussion.  

 

3. Some observations and statements in the article need further clarification. For example, on page 12 it states “In reframing the Calendar Case within the larger history of the Ming-Qing transition, Gabiani, Grelon and Rougemont make the case that the main reason for the proscription of Christianity is the hostility of the Qing court. The three Jesuits share the same dislike for the Tartars or Manchus, who are depicted as cruel and tyrannic.” The questions are:  Did these Jesuits simply claim a negative view on the Manchu regime in general, or they meant to target at the anti-Christian or conservative parties at the imperial court? Have they heard news about the release of Schall due to the request of Empress Xiaozhuangwen, and why did they (at least in the case of Rougemont) miss the Jesuits’ victory over Yang and his supporters in the astronomical contest ordered by the Kangxi Emperor, hence the end of the Calendar case?

 

The article refers to Chinese Catholics staying in the Canton residence, but only descriptive information is provided in one paragraph on page 6. Further information and discussion are needed to show what activities they have done and how missionaries interacted with them during the exile years. Did any Chinese Catholic (e.g., Luo Wenzhao) leave some writings comparable to the missionary works?

 

The article refers to letters and reports to show the unanimous stance of the exiled missionaries at Canton for a separation of the Vice-Province of China from the Japanese Province, or at least to stop the interference of the latter. How is this issue related to the main theme of the article? Did their claims leave certain impact on the later development of the Catholic Church in China?  

 

II. Problem with terminology:

The article applied the term of “Manchu-Christian alliance”, which sounds like a novel concept in research on this subject. Such usage may be questionable, if not problematic, simply because it does not match the historical reality. The word “alliance” suggests a close relationship—often in the form of an agreement or a treaty—between two parties with a common interest. In the case of Catholic Christianity in the early Qing, it is highly doubtful if any scholar would consider the Manchu government and the Catholic Church having an allied relationship in reality. Most of them would still take the hierarchical ruler-subjects pattern to describe the status/identity of Catholic missionaries within the imperial system of the Manchu Qing empire. Moreover, the phrase “unholy alliance” has been a commonly used geopolitical term, often with a negative implication. It is not appropriate to apply this term to the relationship between the Manchus and the Catholic Church in early Qing China. One may wonder if there any direct reference of “Manchu-Christian alliance” or an equivalent expression in the letters and reports of the exiled missionaries at Canton. If such an understanding could be proved with solid textual references, is it possible to use them to argue for a kind of church-state relationship in late imperial China and challenge the mainstream historical narratives?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language in the article is fair, but in some places there appear typos and format issues that need to be amended.

洪度貞, 鲁日漫, Calendar case (p. 10), etc.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, corrections and suggestions which are very helpful.

I.1 In the introduction I have added a general description of the missionary writings, and explained more clearly that my paper focuses only on two kinds of writings. I did not make a complete overview of all the missionary writings in Canton since it will go beyond the scope of this paper.

I.2 I initially wrote half-page giving a general background on the Calendar Case. Ss suggested, I have added more information. Because of the complexity, I cannot discuss much more, but I made reference to a paper by Catherine Jami on the topic (2015).

I.3 I have explained more precisely the chronology of the events in Beijing and the relation with the writings of Rougemont. Concerning the relationship of the Vice-Province with the Japanese Province, I agree this is loosely related to the main focus of the paper, and therefore I deleted most of the paragraph.

II.  I agree that the expression “Manchu-Christian alliance” is improper, and I replaced for “Manchu-Christian relationship.” I have made the stylistic changes as requested.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is based on solid archival research, as shown by the meticulous details presented in the content. The author has tried to describe all possible details of the 25 missionaries and their writings during the exile. The main problem of the article is the lack of a clear argument, which makes the reader wonder about the significance of presenting all these meticulous details. The Canton exile and the Calendar Case are both well-known events to researchers in the field. This article can be a good introduction to the historical event for general readers. If this article is written for researchers, its contribution to the scholarship is limited.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is written in mediocre English. In most places, it is clear in most places, but a bit repetitive. The biggest problem is the writing style. It's too wordy and the author uses too many unnecessary conjunctions like "As we just said," "As we can see," "As we shall see next," "As we saw," "As we have seen," ... The English needs to be revised to be accurate, concise, and succinct.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments which I found helpful.

1. I have added explanations in the general introduction, in the beginning of each section, and in the conclusion, that help the reader to follow better the structure of the paper. When I start discussing the writings of the missionaries in sections 3 and 4, I have added introductions to explain the content.
2. I have corrected the style, deleting unnecessary conjunctions, and making the style more concise.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has addressed the issues pointed out in the review report. The analysis and discussion still have room to improve, but the current version can be recommended for publication.