Is Confucius a Philosopher or a Saint? Michele Ruggieri’s Views from His Translations of the Four Books

Abstract

Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607) was the first Westerner officially approved to reside in China. He promoted Chinese and Western cultural exchange, and he was especially noted for facilitating dialogue between Confucianism and Catholicism. His writings had an important impact in both China and Europe. During his sojourn preaching in China, Ruggieri not only wrote the Tianzhu shilu—the first catechism written in Chinese—but he was also the first Westerner to translate the Four Books into Western language and introduce them to Europe. Based on Ruggieri’s two translations of the Four Books—one translation into Spanish, and one into Latin—this article analyzes Ruggieri’s views of Confucius. In his translations, Ruggieri identified Confucius as a philosopher and a shengren, or saint, and he highlighted the status of Confucius in the Four Books. After analyzing Ruggieri’s treatments of Confucian concepts, this article discusses how Ruggieri’s translations imply that Confucianism had both rational and religious dimensions. After Ruggieri, other Jesuits who came to China gradually turned to emphasizing the rational aspects of Confucianism.

1. Introduction

Appropriately evaluating Confucius was one of the most important issues for missionaries who wanted to understand Confucianism. This issue revolved around several key questions: whether Confucianism could be considered as a philosophy1, and if it could be compatible with Catholicism. Meynard notes that Jesuits in late Ming and early Qing China introduced the concept of “philosophy” to China and brought the notion of “Chinese philosophy” to Europe. This intercultural exchange involved two approaches: one rooted in Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy, engaging Neo-Confucian scholars, and another influenced by Renaissance endeavors to revive classical knowledge, interacting with Chinese thinkers through rhetorical philosophy. (Meynard 2019, pp. 67–105). During the Ming and Qing dynasties, missionaries deliberated on the identity of Confucius, and debates over whether Chinese thought could be recognized as philosophy were prevalent from the early translations of the Four Books 四書 by Michele Ruggieri.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, Michele Ruggieri and Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) introduced Western learning to the East. Facilitated by the Jesuit strategies of “cultural accommodation” and “preaching by science”, Catholicism, together with philosophy and science, was introduced into China. Beginning with the translation work of the missionaries, hundreds of Western works were translated into Chinese. In exchange, Chinese classics were translated into Western languages. Among these classic works is a collection known as the Four Books, which is the subject of this article.

Cheng Hao (程顥) (1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (程頤) (1033–1107) separated the Daxue 大學 and Zhongyong 中庸 chapters from the Liji 禮記 and established them as independent texts, and Zhu Xi (朱熹) (1130–1200) grouped those two texts along with the Lunyu 論語 and Mencius into the compilation known as the Four Books. Since the Song era, these four texts have played an especially important role in the history of Chinese thought. After the Yuan Emperor Renzong (元仁宗) (r. 1311–1320) re-established the Imperial Competitive Examination in 1315, the Four Books were included in the content of the examination system and became foundational in public discourse in China.2

From early on, the Jesuits sought to translate the Four Books into Western languages, for they considered these works as a gateway for understanding Chinese culture. Their translations revealed their interpretations of Chinese culture, especially of Confucianism, to other Europeans. Investigating the missionaries’ translations of the Four Books and of other classics allows us to explore the missionaries’ intellectual environment and to examine intellectual issues current in the Late Ming. Examining translations of these classical texts allows us to investigate cross-cultural understandings of Chinese and Western culture in the Late Ming and to explore the dialogue between missionaries and Chinese intellectuals during that era.

Michele Ruggieri, to the best of our knowledge, was the first Westerner to translate the Four Books into a European language. The perspectives on Confucius that he expresses in his translations are noteworthy because they directly reveal how he identifies Confucius. This latter issue becomes a point of contention in the Chinese Rites Controversy. In order to approach this topic, it is necessary to investigate Ruggieri’s translations of the Four Books.

Recently, much effort has been focused into studying Ruggieri’s translations and studies of the Four Books. Previously, scholars have focused on one particular manuscript by Ruggieri, or they have investigated the background of a particular manuscript, or they have focused on translations of a certain concept (Luo 2015; Ruggieri 2016; Wang 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021; Meynard and Villasante 2018; Meynard and Wang 2018; Li 2018; Ruggieri 2019; Ferrero 2024)3. This article differs from previous research in that it focuses on depictions of Confucius in Ruggieri’s two translations of the Four Books.4 It commences with some preliminary analysis about Ruggieri’s identification of Confucius as a philosopher and a saint. This article contends that Ruggieri highlighted the rational elements of Confucianism while suggesting its religious5 aspects. It also posits that his translations and interpretations of the Confucian classics may have influenced other Jesuits. Additionally, examining these questions prompts a consideration of whether Confucianism should be regarded as a “philosophy”.

2. Ruggieri’s Spanish and Latin Translations of the Four Books

As far as is known to us, Ruggieri produced two sets of manuscript studies of the Four Books: one was produced in Spanish, and a second was produced in Latin. The Spanish manuscript contains three parts, as follows: (1) The Teaching of Men, the First of What is Generally Called the Four Books (Disciplina de los varones, libro primero de los que comunmente se dizen en la China los quatro libros); (2) Book Two, Titled Zhongyong, Meaning to be Always in the Middle (Libro segundo, inititulado chum, yum, que quiere qezir, estar semper en el medio); and (3) Chinese Book Titled Lunyu, that is, Necessity of Paying Attention to Words (Libro de la china intitulado lun yun, que quiere decir: que se deven considerer las palabras).

The Spanish manuscript was completed around 1590, when Ruggieri returned to Europe. At that time, the most powerful ruler of the European continent, Philip II (1527–1598), took the initiative to meet Ruggieri. Ruggieri gave his Spanish translation of the Four Books6 to the Spanish King. The original manuscript was first housed in the Alcazar of Madrid and was eventually moved to the Royal Monastery Library of San Lorenzo in El Escorial (real biblioteca de san lorenzo del monasterio del escorial) in 1601–1602.

Ruggieri (1591–1592a) also translated the Four Books into Latin. The Latin manuscript, written between 1591 and 1592, consists of 344 pages and is divided into five parts. The first part of the manuscript is titled “First Book—Human Institution” (Liber Primus Humana Institutio). The two Chinese characters da xue (大學) appear on the left corner of the first page together with the Chinese pronunciation “Tà Shio”. This part of the manuscript includes pages 1 to 14; page 14 is left blank. The second part is titled “Second Book—Always in the Middle” (Secundus Liber Semper in Medio). On the first page of this part, the two Chinese characters zhong and yong (中庸) appear on the left with the Chinese pronunciation “ciù yum”. This part includes pages 15 to 42; page 42 is left blank. The third part is titled “That is that Book about Consideration in the Rank of the Third” (Id Est De Consideratione Sit Liber Ord[in]e Tertius). Chinese characters Lunyu (論語) appear on the left, together with the Chinese pronunciation “luin iu”; this part ranges from pages 43 to 135, with pages 126–135 left blank. The fourth part is “Diverse Opinions out of Diverse Collecting Pieces, Translating from Chinese Language to Latin” (Diversorum Autorum Sententiae ex diversis codicibus collectae, è Sinensi lingua in Latina translatae), but there are neither Chinese characters nor pronunciation. This section comprises pages 1 to 34, with pages 32 to 34 left blank. The last part is titled “Book Mencius, nominally from those which are Generally called the Four Books” (Liber Mencius nomine ex iis qui vulgo quattuor libri vocantur), and there are no Chinese characters or pronunciation; this part comprises pages 1 to 174, with pages 152–174 left blank.7

Although the signature at the end of this manuscript is that of Michele Ruggieri, there are debates about the authorship of this translation. The first person who questioned the authorship was Pasquale D’Elia (1890–1963), an Italian researcher who considered Ricci the original author of the translations. His inference was based on Ruggieri’s poor Chinese (D’Arelli 1998, pp. 163–64), a notion that may be traced back to an incorrect judgment by Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606) (D’Elia 1942–1949, vol. 1, p. 250, n. 2). However, in his later work, D’Elia promoted the idea that Ruggieri was the real author (D’Elia 1942–1949, vol. 1, p. 43, n. 2). Francesco D’Arelli also considered Matteo Ricci to be the first translator of these books, and he believed that Ruggieri had, at most, copied these translations. However, the rediscovery of the Spanish manuscript easily proves that D’Alia was mistaken. According to the recent research (Meynard 2015a), the authorship of this Latin manuscript has been proven to be Ruggieri. The rediscovery of the Four Books’ Spanish translation further confirms that Ruggieri, instead of Matteo Ricci, was the first Jesuit who translated Confucian classics into a European language (Meynard and Wang 2018).

When comparing the Spanish and Latin manuscripts, it becomes clear that the translation style and the interpretations of the core concepts are extremely similar. Moreover, the Spanish manuscript may facilitate the understanding of the Latin translation: the Spanish manuscript is written clearly and beautifully, but the Latin one is full of abbreviations and omissions. Using these two translations together makes it easier for us to read them and to understand how Ruggieri translated the Confucian classics.

3. Is Confucius a Philosopher?

Considering the differences between Chinese and Western cultures, it is likely that Ruggieri dealt with multiple problems during his translation process. One question was how one might understand the figure of Confucius. This question is related to broader debates about how one might understand the larger Chinese conceptual world: questions about whether Chinese thought is “philosophical”. In the 16th century, Portugal and Spain had plans to use force to open China’s doors and promote missionary work. However, they later abandoned these plans due to issues related to economic strength, military power, the power struggles among European nations, and internal disputes within the Catholic orders (Qi 2007, pp. 252–300). Among the many reasons, there is also a thread that the Jesuits, through their translation of the Four Books, to some extent, changed the perception of China and Chinese culture among European monarchs, the church, and intellectuals.

It is worth noting that in Ruggieri’s opinion, Confucius, like Plato and Aristotle, was a philosopher. In his Spanish manuscript study and translation of the Zhongyong, Ruggieri called Confucius a “philosopher” (filósofo) three times8; this was undoubtedly the first time Confucius was called a philosopher in his translations of the Four Books9. Every time Ruggieri uses “philosopher” to refer to Confucius in his manuscript, this is closely related to the religious issues. Ruggieri implies that Confucius was a rational thinker who could understand the existence of supernatural realities like God (tian) and spirits or angels (guishen) by reason. For him, the Confucian teaching includes the presence of religion, not as a revealed, but as a natural religion (Meynard and Wang 2018).

Ruggieri also emphasizes the relationship between Confucius and Mencius. The Mencius is filled with dialogues between Mencius and other people. As a result, Ruggieri believed that he must also explain and establish Mencius’ identity. In his translation of the Mencius, Ruggieri firstly identifies Mencius as a philosopher (philosophus) (Ruggieri 1591–1592d, p. 1), and this was the first time Mencius was identified as a philosopher by a European. Furthermore, Ruggieri uses the expression “wise man” (sapiens) (Ruggieri 1591–1592d, p. 1) to refer to Mencius. Ruggieri used the term “sapiens” to translate xianzhe (賢者) in his study of Mencius.10 Through this, Ruggieri not only affirms the importance of Mencius but also enhances the status of Confucius. In the Mencius, Confucius is a sage whom Mencius respected and imitated. Identifying Mencius as a philosopher could further confirm Confucius’s status as a philosopher. Moreover, affirming Mencius’ identity as a philosopher is tantamount to affirming the status of Chinese philosophy. Mencius’ thinking, moreover, had far-reaching influence on later Neo-Confucianism. Zhu Xi cited concepts from the Mencius to annotate the Four Books and to build his own philosophical system. Clearly, Ruggieri understands Zhu Xi’s commentarial endeavors and mentions them in corresponding notes about “the commentator” (el comentador) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, pp. 104, 112) in his Spanish manuscript.

It is worth noting that Ruggieri also used xianzhe (賢者) to refer to St. Augustine (354–430) in Tianzhu shilu (天主實錄) (Ruggieri 2002, vol. 1, p. 14). In comparison, Ruggieri used “the most divine and wise man” (sanctissimus et sapientissimus vir) to refer to St. Augustine in his report to Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) (Ruggieri 1580–1584, p. 11v). It can be seen that Ruggieri used xianzhe to strengthen Augustine as a philosopher11. By identifying Confucius and Mencius as philosophers, Ruggieri strengthens the rational aspects of Confucianism. For instance, Ruggieri translates gewu (格物) as to “know the reason of things” (conocer las razones de las cosas) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 84), and he explains that li (理) was “essence or nature” (esencias o naturalezas) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 84), which is different from the li in gewu qiongli (格物窮理), because in Neo-Confucianism, the term li encompasses the meanings of objective knowledge and ethical wisdom, but it is more that knowledge has a moral value from the perspective of Zhu Xi. Zhizhi (致知) is translated as “the perfection of knowledge” (la perfección de la sciencia) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 84), once more affirming that Confucianism also values the rational side of knowledge.

Although Ruggieri tried to stress the rational aspects of Confucianism, he still brought Catholic ideas into his work. This is reflected in his translation of ren (仁). After seeing Confucius as a philosopher, how did Ruggieri interpret Confucius’ main ideas? As is well known, ren has a very important position in Confucian thought. Investigating Ruggieri’s translation of this important concept helps us nuance his understanding of Confucianism. In general, Ruggieri translates ren as pietas and caritas. For example, he translates the Chinese phrase “xiudao yi ren. Ren zhe, ren ye, qinqin wei da” (修道以仁。仁者，人也，親親為大) as follows: “If you proceed on the road of virtue, you have accomplished the virtues of love and love to the greatest extent. The love connected with love begins from the nature of man” (Si per iter virtutis incedit; iter autem virtutis caritatem, maximè pietatem absoluit. Caritas cum pietate coniuncta homini insita est à natura) (Ruggieri 1591–1592b, p. 25). Ren in the sentence “xiudao zhi ren” (修道之仁) is translated as caritas and pietas; ren in the context “renzhe, renye” (仁者，人也) is translated as pietas, and here, Ruggieri also uses caritas to translate “qinqin” (親親). Michele Ruggieri uses pietas very clearly to refer to the reason why ren is human nature, while caritas mainly expresses family affection. Then, ren in “qinqin” is explained as caritas and pietas, and caritas supplements pietas. For another example, ren in “benevolence, wisdom, courage” (ren, zhi, yong, 仁、智、勇) is translated into pietas (Ruggieri 1591–1592b, p. 27). These two Latin words together explain the concept of ren. Later, the term agape is used to explain “neighbor for the love” in Catholicism, which enriches the meaning of ren with the love of God.

Using pietas to translate ren is an original creation of Ruggieri (Wang 2016), but the concept of pietas itself, which has many meanings in its Western contexts, is worth considering. One modern dictionary meaning of pietas is “sense of duty (to gods, family, country), piety, filial affection, love and patriotism” (Collins Latin Dictionary & Grammar (HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 2013, p. 162)). But the meaning of pietas is complicated and has changed across time. Aquinas argues that piety extends beyond worship of God to include filial duty towards parents and one’s country. He considers piety a specific obligation towards those who have conferred benefits, particularly life and education (Aquinas 1911, Second part of the second part, Q101, art.1). Pietas is also the source of the English word “pity”, and it contains the meanings of sympathy and compassion. In Ruggieri’s usage, the virtue pietas is more abundant and more connotative than sapientia (wise), fortitudo (courage), caritas (charity), amor (love), and even agape. Ruggieri chose pietas to translate ren probably because he considered ren as a virtue (tiandao renlun, 天道人倫). In Confucian tradition, wise and brave people are not necessarily benevolent, but the benevolent must present wisdom, as we see in the chapter Xianwen (憲問) in the Lunyu, or Analects.12 Ren has unquestionable priority and justification throughout the entire ethical system of Confucianism. Many Confucian concepts, such as the “Three Virtues” (sandade, 三達德), “Four Beginnings” (siduan, 四端), “five types of human relations” (wulun, 五倫), and “nine classics” (jiujing, 九經), are all based on ren; they enrich the inner resources of ren at different levels. Indeed, pietas does cover the meanings of sapientia, fortitude, and caritas to some extent, and it does express the meaning of ren in the sense of supreme virtue (zhide, 至德). Therefore, it seems that Ruggieri’s interpretations of Confucian core concepts were in-depth and proper, and his overall understanding of the meaning and concepts of the Confucian ethical system was comprehensive.13

However, it seems that Ruggieri did not abnegate interpreting ren through a Catholic lens. For example, in some chapters of his translation and study of the Lunyu, he translated “to respect parents and elders is the root of humanity” (Lau 2004, p. 3) (xiaoti ye zhe, qi wei ren zhi ben yu, 孝悌也者，其為仁之本與) into “this is why obedience to parents and submission to elders are the root and principle to reach the love for others” (por que la obediencia de los padres y la sujeció[n] a los mayores es la raíz y principio para alcançar el amor del próximo) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 113). Obviously, “amor del próximo” refers to “neighbour for the love” in Catholic thought, and it also is a philosophical extension of the five Confucian relationships.

Thus, it can be seen that in his translations that Ruggieri strengthens the rational side of Confucianism on the one hand, and on the other, he interprets the Confucian core concept ren in light of Catholicism. The similar way of interpretation can be seen not only in his identification of Confucius as a philosopher, but also as shengren.

4. Is Confucius a Saint?

Saints, in Christian tradition, are considered people who have exceptional holiness due to the glory of God. According to Lawrence Cunningham, there are four general categories of saints: godly people; the blessed ones who are in heaven; people publicly recognized for their holiness by the process of canonization in the Catholic Church; and the justified, as proposed in the scriptures of the New Testament (Cunningham 1980, p. 62). All the faithful deceased in heaven, in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, and Lutheran doctrines are regarded as saints, but some are worthy of great honor or emulation (Woodward 1996, p. 16). As Richard Gribble noted, Catholicism’s 2000-year history has seen the process for the proclamation of saints develop significantly. In the early years, Christians regarded all the baptized as saints, but dying for the faith was particularly noteworthy and was awarded with special veneration. The medieval period of Church history saw a significant centralization of canonization. Two favored categories were the learned cleric, on the one hand, and those servants of God who combined radical poverty, chastity, and obedience, on the other. Until Pope Urban VIII (1623–1644), the papacy had complete control over the declaration of saints (Gribble 2020).

Based on the analysis above, would Ruggieri cause ambiguity and arguments when choosing the term “saint”, a concept full of religious meanings, to describe Confucius to Westerners? Before answering this question, it is important to keep in mind that Confucius usually appears as a sage (shengren) in the Four Books, especially in the Mencius. Shengren is a very important concept in the history of Chinese thinking. According to research by Wu Zhen, in ancient times, sheng originally referred to those who had intellectual virtues. In the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, however, the term had a dual meaning: it implied both perfect moral personality and outstanding political position. As Wu Zhen noted, since Warring States times when Confucius was made a sage, a trend toward sacralizing sages developed. In the Song and Ming dynasties, under the widespread influence of the ideological slogan “learning can help one become a sage”, the learning and the Dao of sages became symbols for Confucian culture, and Confucianism focused on learning to become a sage (Wu 2013).

Although Confucianism emphasizes ethics and natural philosophy, it does not lack religious tendencies. This is particularly evident when we shift our focus from Confucianism as a school of thought and literary canon to its context as a ritual tradition. The religiousness of Confucianism, especially that of Confucius himself, becomes more prominent. Tu Weiming highlights that the religious aspect of the Confucian tradition lies in the dimension of “Heaven” (tian) or “God” (shen), or the transcendental. He particularly emphasizes that the text of the Zhongyong illustrates a process in which the transcendental aspect is inherent within the self, and through realizing one’s complete humanity, one simultaneously achieves the fulfillment of Heaven’s mandate (Tu 1989, pp. 93–102).

Furthermore, the veneration of Confucius himself has increasingly taken on a religious character. Huang Chin-shing’s Sages and Saints systematically analyzes this process. Initially, the worship of Confucius as an ancient teacher and “uncrowned king” was within the realm of human relationships, with little difference between the veneration of ancient sages and worthies. However, after the Tang dynasty, through the integration of the Confucian concepts of “Dao-tong” (the transmission of the Way) and “Zhi-tong” (the continuity of governance), the exclusivity of Confucian temples emerged. Worshiping Confucius became an act of venerating the legitimacy and sanctity of state governance (state cult) (Huang 2005, pp. 45–46). Huang argues that in terms of ritual ceremonies, exemplary effects, and the tradition of canonization, there are certain similarities between the Confucian “sage” and the Catholic “saint” (Huang 2005, pp. 144–46).

The notion of shengren changed subtly throughout the history of Chinese thought. The translation of shengren is an issue worthy of discussion, and it is related to the problem of whether performing rituals to Confucius is incompatible with Catholic faith. How did Ruggieri translate this changing concept? Here are some examples. In his manuscripts, Ruggieri translated shengren as “the saint” (el sancto) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, pp. 126–72) or “the saint and the wise” (el sabio y sancto) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, pp. 105, 109). Ruggieri mentioned once that someone who has reached such perfection “holds a quasi-divine power” (tiene un poder casi divino) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 101) or is a “divine man” (divino hombre) (Meynard and Villasante 2018, p. 118). However, the image of Confucius in Ruggieri’s manuscript seems somehow ambiguous. Ruggieri sometimes describes Confucius as a shengren based on the term’s philosophical meaning, but in other instances he does so from a religious perspective. Consider an example from his Latin translation of the Lunyu, when Zigong responded to a question about whether Confucius was a shengren. Ruggieri translated Zigong’s reply as “the divine has allowed by a special privilege that Confucius becomes saint” (Numen particulari privilegio permittit vir sit sanctus) (Ruggieri 1591–1592c, p. 80). Moreover, in Ruggieri’s translation of the Zhongyong 21, it is clear that shengren gain their ability from “the light from the heaven and divine” (caelesti divinoque lumine) (Ruggieri 1591–1592b, p. 27), which implies that ultimate power is derived from God. In his Spanish translation of the Zhongyong, Ruggieri used the word “arriba” to express where shengren gain their abilities. The reason why Ruggieri uses two different words, in my point of view, is to appeal to the two manuscripts’ different readerships: in the Spanish manuscript, a gift to the Spanish King, Ruggieri chose a more neutral word, while in the Latin manuscript, targeting the Pope and other European readers, he does not need to avoid the religious aspect of Confucianism.

Ruggieri’s identification of Confucius as a saint can be seen in his Latin manuscript study of the Mencius as well. To a certain extent, the sanctification of the sage is performed by Mencius himself. In the history of Confucianism, Mencius plays an important role in identifying Confucius as a sage. Mencius 2A discusses whether Confucius is a sage: “Tzu-kung said, ‘Not to tire of learning is wisdom; not to weary of teaching is benevolence. You must be a sage to be both wise and benevolent.’ A sage is something even Confucius did not claim to be. What an extraordinary thing for you to say that of me” (Lau 2004, p. 34) (Zigong yue: ‘xue bu yan, zhi ye; jiao bu juan, ren ye. Ren qie zhi, fuzi ji sheng yi’ fu sheng, Kongzi buju, shi he yan ye, 子貢曰：‘學不厭，智也；教不倦，仁也。仁且智，夫子既聖矣’夫聖，孔子不居，是何言也). When translating these sentences, Ruggieri chose “sanctus vir”.14 Namely, Confucius is a saint, wise man, and perfect man (perfectus vir)15. Sometimes, Ruggieri just used “saint” (sancto) to refer to Confucius: “Confucius truly was a saint of all time” (Confucius vero erat sanctus omnium temporum) (Ruggieri 1591–1592d, p. 29).16

In Catholicism, humans become saints due to the glory of God. On the contrary, in Aristotle’s Metaphysics the divine being can be the best part of the human being. In this sense, Ruggieri used “saint” to refer to the highest perfection of human nature. However, Ruggieri’s translation of shengren might lead to controversy in the Catholic Church, which officially denied that Confucius could be called a saint because he did not receive supernatural grace from Christ. But some Confucian Catholics never stopped calling Confucius a sage, or shengren. Yan Mo (嚴謨), for example, argued that Confucius was originally called a sage in the sense that he achieved a kind of perfection; that sense still held some appeal to him, even though he realized that Western notions of sainthood differed from his own views of sagehood.17

Ruggieri, then, ambiguously translated shengren as “saint”, a term that has multiple meanings in the history of Chinese ideas. For Confucius, shengren is the ultimate ideal personality in Confucianism. However, to some extent, the sanctification of shengren was performed by Mencius, who made significant efforts to describe Confucius as shengren. Zhu Xi, based on Cheng Yi, considered that humans could become shengren due to our good nature (renxing benshan, 人性本善); thus, the possibility of becoming a shengren depended on practical work, and this meant that becoming a shengren was an objective learned through measures external to oneself. Ruggieri’s translation of shengren, on the one hand, reflects the pursuit of ethical wisdom in Confucianism, and on the other hand, does not contradict Aquinas’ thought, namely, human beings can potentially reach perfection with the aid of God’s grace.

Equating the term “sanctus” with the Chinese character “sheng” (聖) is not straightforward. It involves a semantic transformation of “sheng” (聖) following the introduction of Catholicism. This process of adopting and reinterpreting indigenous terminology is also part of Catholicism’s approach to understanding Chinese religions, particularly Confucianism. As Xiao Qinghe points out, “The missionaries’ equation of Sanctus with ‘sheng’ (聖) not only altered the meaning of the Chinese character ‘聖’, enriching the content associated with ‘sheng’ since the Ming and Qing dynasties, but also changed the European understanding of Sanctus within the Christian tradition. This led to a mutual integration and transformation of the intellectual and spiritual worlds of both sides.” (Xiao 2019).

5. How Did Ruggieri Translate and Interpret the Four Books?

As analyzed above, Michele Ruggieri’s understanding of Confucius is closely related to his interpretation of the Four Books, and this is moreover linked to the issue of whether Confucianism is a “philosophy”. When Ruggieri came to China in the Late Ming, he realized the important status of the Four Books in Chinese thought and began to read and study them.

Ruggieri seized the moment to learn about Chinese culture though the Four Books. We may discover evidence of Ruggieri’s learning about the Four Books from his Chinese poems.18 The Four Books became the texts through which the early Jesuits learned Chinese language and culture. Not only did Ruggieri highly affirm Confucius’ thought, but he also praised the Four Books in their Chinese environment. This can be seen in Ruggieri’s interpretation of the Four Books. In his manuscripts, Ruggieri tried to interpret and portray Confucianism as a philosophy. By weaving Western philosophy into his translation, Ruggieri pointed to similarities between Confucianism and Western philosophy. For example, he translated the seventh chapter of Zhongyong (according to Zhu Xi’s division) using the metaphor of the cave, which is not present in the original classical text nor in the later Chinese commentaries: “Every men say, “I am a wise man”; when they go forward, they fall into traps and are wrapped in a net, which is spread at the entrance of the cave, and there is no one who can escape from it. Every men say, “I am a wise man”, and when they have once grasped the middle in which virtue always resides, they do not persist in it even for a month” (Omnes homines dicunt ego sapiens sum; cum progrediuntur, in plagas incidunt et sese reti involvuntur, quod cavernae ostio obtenditur nec est qui inde possit evadere. Omnes homines dicunt: ego sapiens sum, et cum semel medium in quo semper virtus consistit arripuerunt, in eo nec mensem quidem persistunt) (Ruggieri 1591–1592b, p. 17). Ruggieri’s translation is more often associated with the metaphor of the cave in Plato’s ideas.19 In my opinion, by introducing Plato’s thought into the Four Books, Ruggieri implies that Confucianism is comparable to Western philosophy.

Furthermore, Ruggieri used words from the Bible to explain the Four Books. For example, in his translation of the Zhongyong, he used the metaphor of salt: “Besides, if you might have preserved the words with this salt of truth, the troubles will not destroy” (Verba item si hoc veritatis sale condieris, negocia non excindent) (Ruggieri 1591–1592b, p. 29)20. In his Latin manuscript, he also interpreted some passages through a Biblical lens. For Ruggieri, the spirits Ao and Zao are considered idols that should not be worshiped at all. He translates the words of Confucius as “You should not make sacrificial rituals to idols”, which sounds like a Biblical commandment. Ruggieri, using the expression “to sin against Heaven” (peccare in caelum), refers to the words of the prodigal son to his father in the Gospel of Luke (Meynard 2015a).

Based on the analysis above, it seems that the Four Books were very important to Ruggieri. Since the Bible has been highly regarded through Western history, Ruggieri’s way of translating and interpreting the Four Books gives the Confucian classics a high status. On the other hand, we cannot neglect mentioning Ruggieri’s purpose for returning to Europe. Under the command of Valignano, Ruggieri went back to Europe to propose a papal embassy to China. For that, he needed to prove that Chinese thought was compatible with Catholic thought. Thus, it is likely that Ruggieri wanted to demonstrate that there was sound basis for the work of Catholic missionaries in China.

6. Conclusions: The Effect of Ruggieri’s View of Confucius on Other Jesuits

Ruggieri’s translation of the Four Books shows that, as early as 1590, Ruggieri had already made significant inroads in establishing Confucius’ identity and in understanding Confucian classics. Despite the fact that he used “saint” to translate shengren, he successfully conveyed his main point view that Confucius was a philosopher, a perspective that was subsequently carried on by Ricci and other Jesuits in China for more than 200 years.

During his stay in Zhaoqing, Ricci claimed that he had already begun to translate the Four Books into Latin under the command of Valignano.21 Although Ricci’s translation of the Four Books has not been found yet, we may still find glimpses of his understanding of Confucius from his other works. In Della entrata Compagnia di Giesu e Christianita nella Cina, Ricci held the opinion that Confucius was a philosopher in China and that he was considered “the most holy man who had ever existed” (il più santo huomo che mai fusse nel mondo) (Ricci 2000, p. 28). Ricci follows Ruggieri’s views about Confucius.22 The difference between Ricci and Ruggieri is that Ricci moves forward by refuting the religious aspects of the notion of the shengren and by talking about Confucius strictly from a philosophical perspective. That is, he emphasized that Chinese people perform rituals to Confucius only because they respect his great learning and virtue.

Ricci’s successor, Nicolò Longobardo (1559–1654), after reading the Four Books and the Five Classics, drew an opposite conclusion regarding why Chinese people perform rituals to everything: they are Deists. Furthermore, he rejects Ricci’s translation of Deus. Those questions drew the attention of other missionaries, who reported it to the Pope. In his work A brief response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun, Longobardo pointed out the Five Classics and the Four Books were left by the first kings and philosophers23, in other words, he regarded Confucius as a philosopher.24

These debates expedited the pace at which other Jesuits translated the Four Books. They translated them as textbooks to learn Chinese and to demonstrate their understanding of Chinese thought as being rational and civilized. This was the basis for their argument that Chinese are capable of accepting the Catholic faith. They made this argument in order to gain the support of the Pope for their mission career in China.

In 1662, Inácio Da Costa (1603–1666), together with Prospero Intorcetta (1626–1696), Christian Herdtrich (1624–1684), and François de Rougemont (1624–1676), translated and published the Daxue while learning Chinese. This translation is known as Sapientia Sinica, which contains a brief introduction to Confucius titled Vita Confucii, Principis Sapientiae Sinicae. These Jesuits continued Ruggieri and Ricci’s understanding of Confucius as a philosopher. They also translated five juan, first half of the Lunyu to describe Confucius in a specific and vivid way.25 It is worth noting that they also made up some details about Confucius: he was humble, acknowledged all his shortcomings, and waited for a Western saint, which for the Jesuits meant Jesus. Therefore, the Jesuits portrayed Confucius as a philosopher with rational ideas who looked forward to the coming of Jesus.

In 1669, another translation of the Zhongyong was created by Intorcetta; the first half was published in Canton, and the second half in Goa, India. It also contains a brief vita of Confucius, which is largely derived from Sapientia Sinica. In this book called Sinarum Scientia Politico-moralis Scientia, Confucius is considered the father of Chinese philosophy. Meanwhile, Intorcetta argued that worshiping Confucius was not idolatry but was instead an expression of the Chinese people’s respectful feelings toward Confucius (Meynard 2013, pp. 111–21). He also equaled Confucianism to Confucius and proposed a notion: “Confucian School” (schola confuciana) (Meynard 2019). In 1687, Philippe Couplet (1623–1693) published the Confucius Sinarum Philosophus in Paris. This work is comprised mainly of the Daxue, Zhongyong, and Lunyu. In accordance with Michele Ruggieri, this translation identifies Confucius as a philosopher doing philosophy (philosophus) (Meynard 2015b, pp. 57–60).

François Noël (1651–1729) published his Sinensis Imperii Libri Classici Sex in 1711 in Prague, which contains the Four Books, Xiaojing 孝經, and Xiaoxue 小學. In the same year, Noël also published his Philosophia Sinica tribus tractatibus. According to Henrik Jaeger, in the third part of this book, Noël linked the central topics of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to the Confucian classics (i.e., the classics are transformed into a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics and vice versa). In this “interweaving of texts” there is almost no theological argument or citation. Noël presented Chinese philosophy as philosophy: “We will consider ethics of the unbelieving Chinese from the perspective of the ethics of the unbelieving Aristotle” (ita considerabimus Ethicam Sinarum ad Ethicam Aristotelis Infidelis) (Jaeger 2018). Noël, unlike Ricci and Longobardo, linked Neo-Confucianism with Christian philosophy and courageously built up a Confucian Christian philosophy (Meynard and Wang 2017). In this sense, Noël accepted Neo-Confucianism as theism, which was part of the original Confucianism based on his interpretation of Chinese philosophy as philosophy.

By establishing the image of Confucius in the Four Books and affirming the position of the Four Books in Chinese philosophy, Ruggieri tried to show Westerners a rational Chinese philosophy centered on Confucius. As analyzed above, although Ruggieri tried to show the rational aspect of Confucianism in his translation of the Four Books, he still maintained that it had religious aspects, especially in his Latin manuscript. However, his understanding of Confucius is still ambiguous. After Ruggieri, other Jesuits attempted to highlight the rational aspects of Confucianism, considering Confucius as a philosopher. As Meynard says, other Jesuits changed the source of the Four Books from Zhu Xi to Zhang Juzheng (張居正) (1525–1582), because in Zhang Juzheng’s Sishu zhijie 四書集解 there was less complicated philosophical thought interpreted by Zhu Xi. In addition to other Jesuit thought, Zhang Juzheng tried to restore the ancient belief by religious thoughts such as “revering heaven” (jingtian 敬天), “the interaction between heaven and humanity” (tianren ganying 天人感應), and “gods and spirits” (guishen 鬼神)’ in Sishu zhijie. Through Zhu Xi’s and Zhang Juzheng’s interpretation of the Four Books, other Jesuits believed that in Confucius, religion and philosophy were consistent. Confucius was a great philosopher, and acknowledged the existence of tian and guishen by natural reason (Meynard 2019, p. 302).

Through the above analysis, it can be seen that before and after the Rites Controversy, there were subtle changes in the Jesuits’ interpretations of Confucius: their portrayal of Confucius became more rationalistic. Regarding the Rites Controversy, Ferrero presented insightful perspectives starting from the first Latin translation of li 礼 from the Analects of Confucius. For Ferrero, Ruggieri translated li 礼 basically with Latin words meaning “proper social behavior”, “good manners”, and “temperance in relationship”. However, the concept of li 礼 has complex meaning, which led to heated debates and painful consequences. The more the Jesuits and other missionaries understood the complexity and variety of “Confucianism”, the more this tradition became not so easy to reconcile with the Christian faith (Ferrero 2024). Other missionaries viewed rituals to Confucius as having religious significance, which they believed contradicted Christian beliefs. Consequently, they voiced opposition to the practice and sought to prohibit such ceremonies. On the contrary, for Jesuits, performing rituals to Confucius was a practice that paid respects and reverence to Confucius. Due to other missionaries’ opposition to the Jesuits in the Rites Controversy, it prompted the Jesuits to offer rationalistic interpretations of Confucius.

In conclusion, Michele Ruggieri’s identification of Confucius as both a philosopher and a saint implies that despite showing the rational aspects of Confucianism, the religiousness still exists in Confucianism. However, other Jesuits who came to China gradually turned to the rational aspects of Confucianism, which influenced enlightenment thinkers’ ways of approaching Chinese thought. Analyzing different views about Confucius’ identity helps us understand the characteristics of Chinese thought and the possibility of a Chinese philosophy.