V rámci svého zkoumání Françoisa Noëla jsem narazil na vynikající knihu Franklina Perkinse Leibniz and China. Leibniz (1646–1716) byl současníkem Noela s hlubokým, celoživotním zájmem o věci čínské. Měl jsem za to, že u Leibnize to bylo dáno (mylným) dojmem, že mu čínština pomůže v hledání univerzálního jazyka, niméně Perkins hájí tezi, že Leibnizův zájem se týkal nejrůznějších aspektů čínské civilizace a byl mnohem hlubší; vyplýval nejen z jeho etiky a teologie, ale i ontologie a epistemologie. Leibniz se v tomto bodu lišil od jiných novověkých autorů jako je Descartes, Locke či Spinoza, kteří o čínskou kulturu zájem nejevili. Uvádím zde pár citátů, které mne zaujaly a které se mi hodí do prezentace o Noelovi (vlastní mezititulky).
Leibniz a interkulturní výzva
"With this as the goal of this book as a
historical study, the other goal is more directly philosophical. Perhaps the
greatest challenge of this new century is the set of issues clustered around
“multi-culturalism,” particularly in how to negotiate the similarities and
differences between cultures and how to balance universal ethical claims with
the diversity of world cultures. Yet contemporary philosophy seems particularly
ill equipped to address these problems, unable even to address its own
relationship to culture. Contemporary philosophers have oddly ended up in a
position like that of Spinoza or Locke, happy to concede an abstract equality
to other cultures but showing no interest in the thought generated by those
cultures. I present Leibniz here partly as one model for a philosophical
concern with cultural exchange and partly as an early but powerful voice
calling for such exchange. At the same time, I hope to show that Leibniz’s
philosophy provides a foundation for pluralism absent in his contemporaries,
and through this point to show that Leibniz’s philosophy might still provide
elements of a foundation for cultural exchange." (Preface xi)
Čínská chronologie v Evropě
"The impact of the encounter with China on
Europe is difficult to assess. Perhaps the best example of the need to
accommodate China was in world history. ... The conflict over chronology powerfully
shaped Europe’s approach to China. All sides took for granted the extreme
antiquity of Chinese culture and the unusual thoroughness of Chinese historical
records. The antiquity of these records led many to expect hidden insight in
the language and ancient books of China." (p. 25)
Spor o rity - dvě témata (idolatrie a terminologie)
"The focus in accommodating China was the
so-called “Rites Controversy,” which developed out of the attempt to introduce
Christianity into Chinese culture. The Rites Controversy was one of the
leading intellectual debates in Europe during Leibniz’s lifetime, involving
such thinkers as Pascal, Arnauld, Leibniz, and Malebranche. The controversy
arose from two questions. The first was the question of rites, in particular
the rites to ancestors and Confucius. If these rituals were religious, they
were idolatrous, and no Christian could practice them. The question was – are
these rites religious? The second issue concerned what words could be used to translate
the word “God.” In particular, the Jesuits used two words we have seen in the
early Chinese classics, Shang Di and tian. The question was whether these terms
could be used for “God.” The two questions, of rites and of terms, are not
necessarily linked, and seem in tension. If the Chinese had a concept of God,
so that their native terms could be used, we would also expect their rituals to
be religious, and thus not allowed; while if the Chinese were atheists, the
rituals would be secular. The opposing position was even more problematic,
forced to claim that the Chinese were materialists with no term for God, while
also claiming that their rituals were religious. Most Jesuits supported accommodation on
both questions, but a few of the Jesuits held what seems the most
natural position – accommodation on rites but not on terms. Thus, for example,
Nicholas Longobardi, one of Leibniz’s main sources on the Rites Controversy,
held that the Chinese had no conception of God, that Shang Di and tian referred
to natural principles, and that the rites were consequently civil and free of
religion or superstition. The way the two questions held together shows that
deeper issues connect them. The Rites Controversy marks an attempt to deal with
how Christianity can mix with other cultures. On one side, it asked how far the
essence of Christianity could be separated from European culture. On the other
side, it asked equally difficult questions about Chinese culture: is “Confucianism”
a religion?; did the ancient Chinese believe in a single, personal, God?
Europeans disagreed on how the Chinese beliefs should be evaluated and
categorized but even more on how to strike the balance between the essence of
Christianity and its European cultural forms Leibniz and almost all of the Jesuits, were
united in their more favorable view of the Chinese and greater trust of pagan
thought. They were also united in practical concerns – accommodation on both
questions seemed most beneficial to the acceptance of Christianity in China. In
contrast, those who opposed accommodation on both questions were united in
their low appraisal of the Chinese and their distrust of pagans, and often in
their dislike of the Jesuits. This opposing group included most of the Dominican and Franciscan missionaries
operating in Asia, the Jansenists, the theological faculty of the Sorbonne,
and, ultimately, the pope." (26-27)
Matteo Ricci a "přizpůsobení"
"Accommodation was established as a method
of the Jesuit mission in China by its founder, Matteo Ricci. Before that time,
missionaries had promoted Christianity with European cultural forms, often by
means of economic or military force. Such an approach was judged inappropriate
in China. Ricci set the tone by integrating himself into the scholarly class. Practical concerns motivated this approach,
as the Chinese were more open to a philosophical natural theology than to the
details of Christianity, and Ricci believed that the ancient Chinese had a
natural theology of their own,writing:
Of all the Pagan sects known to Europe, I
know of no people who fell into fewer errors in the early ages of their
antiquity than did the Chinese. From the very beginning of their history it is
recorded in their writings that they recognized and worshipped one supreme
being whom they called the King of Heaven, or designated by some other name
indicating his rule over heaven and earth.
Originally, he says, the rites were neither
idolatrous nor superstitious, but their meaning declined among the common
people. Given their origin, however, he believed they could be purified and
left largely intact." (p. 27-28)
Překlad termínů pro Boha a téma "spása pohanů" - sorbonské odsouzení
On the question of terms, the Jesuits
themselves split. On the surface, the controversy was on an issue of
translation. How could the Western idea of God be translated into Chinese? The
options were to create a new word, perhaps a transliteration of a European
term, or else to use and modify a Chinese word. The latter choice raised the
problem of easy misunderstandings. The former choice, however, had difficulties
as well. Would a novel term better avoid misunderstanding? More importantly, the Chinese were confident in their own
tradition, and suspicious of anything entirely new. ...
The use of Chinese terms established a
bridge to Chinese culture. We would expect a question of translation to be
settled by linguists and experts in the Chinese language; the fact that it was
not shows the stakes lay elsewhere. Virgile Pinot claims that the issue shifted
with Couplet’s publication of the Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, where defense
of the Jesuit position became defense of ancient Chinese thought, shifting the
debate from the Jesuits to the Chinese. Arnauld responded with an attack on the
Jesuits and with an attack on Chinese philosophy. The question became whether
the Chinese knew God under the name of “Shang Di” or “tian.” It became an issue
of natural theology and the possible salvation of pagans, questions debated throughout
the history of the Church. Leibniz and most supporters of accommodation also
supported the possibility of pagan salvation. The heart of the controversy can be seen in
the Sorbonne’s condemnation of the Jesuit position. Jansenist enemies of the
Jesuits presented six statements to the theological faculty of the Sorbonne for
condemnation, taken from two Jesuit books advocating accommodation. These
propositions were as
follows:
(1) The Chinese have preserved knowledge of
the true God from more than two thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ.
(2) They have had the honor to sacrifice
to Him in the most ancient temple in the universe.
(3) They have honored Him in a manner that
can serve as an example even to Christians.
(4) They have practiced a morality as pure
as their religion.
(5) They have had the faith, humility,
interior and exterior worship, priesthood, sacrifices, saintliness, miracles,
the spirit of God, and the purest charity, which is the character and the
perfection of true religion.
(6) Of all the nations of the earth, the
Chinese have been the most constantly favored by the grace of God.
These statements are so strong in their
praise for the Chinese that they make Leibniz’s praise seem moderate. They
illustrate again the extreme variation in how Chinese culture was welcomed or
condemned. All six statements were condemned by the Sorbonne on October 18,
1700.
Pro a proti "přizpůsobování"
Konec sporu o rity - konec čínské misie
"The Rites Controversy reached its peak and
end during Leibniz’s life. Leibniz watched the movement against the rites with
trepidation and puzzlement, although he maintained hope that Rome would come to
its senses. In 1704, after seven years of investigation, Pope Clement XI issued
a decree against accommodation, forbidding participation in the ceremonies for
Confucius and many aspects of the rituals for ancestors. The decree was kept
secret while the papal legate Charles Thomas Maillard de Tournon traveled to
China to announce and enforce the decision, which he did in a mandate on
February 7, 1707. He was banished from China shortly after, and the Chinese
emperor initiated the policy of requiring all missionaries to have a
certificate (piao), which could only be received by agreeing to follow the
position of Ricci. Kangxi was particularly offended by the decision because he
had officially endorsed the Jesuit view. ...
The pope’s decree against the rites was published in Europe in 1709. Although
other decrees followed, the decision against the rites was maintained until the
twentieth century. In 1724, a year after Kangxi’s death, his
son, Yongzheng, banished all missionaries except those needed for astronomy,
ending the Catholic mission in China." (p. 31-32)
Literatura:
Claudia von Collani, “Das
Problem des Heils der Heiden,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Missions Wissenschaft, 45 (1989), pp. 17–35, 93–109.
Mungello David E., ed. Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning (Loyola 1995). - Perkins doporučuje jako nejlepší knihu k tématu z filosofického hlediska. Knihu jsem neviděl. Je nicméně zajímavé, že Mungello, nejlepší odborník na téma jezuitské misie, zmiňuje Noelovu Philosophia Sinica ve své knize Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Hawai 1985). Proč?
Pinot, Virgile Chine et la formatio de l’esprit philosophique en France (1640-1740), 1932
- na str. 98 jsou uvedeny propozice odsouzené sorbonou
Sangkeun Kim, Strange Names of God. Peter Lang Publishing 2005
- Z obálky: "When the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) introduced the Chinese term Shangti as the semantic equivalent of Deus, he made one of the most innovative cross-cultural missionary translations. Ricci's employment of Shangti was neither a simple rewording of a Chinese term nor the use of a loan-word, but was indeed a risk-taking "identification" of the Christian God with the Confucian Most-High, Shangti."
