The Jesuit Presence in China Before Kangxi
The relationship between China and the West during the Qing Dynasty presents one of history’s most fascinating cultural intersections. When the Kangxi Emperor ascended the throne in 1661, Jesuit missionaries had already been active in China for nearly eighty years, following Matteo Ricci’s pioneering work in the late Ming Dynasty. These European scholars brought with them not just Christian teachings but also Western science, mathematics, and astronomy, which they skillfully used as tools to gain access to the imperial court.
The Jesuits’ strategy of cultural accommodation, known as the “Ricci Rules,” involved adapting Christian teachings to Chinese traditions. They tolerated certain Confucian rituals, interpreting them as civil rather than religious ceremonies. This approach had proven remarkably successful, allowing Christianity to take root in Chinese soil while maintaining good relations with the imperial government. By Kangxi’s reign, Jesuit astronomers like Ferdinand Verbiest had become indispensable advisors, helping reform the imperial calendar and maintain astronomical instruments.
The Unexpected Discovery That Changed Everything
The year 1706 marked a turning point in Kangxi’s relationship with the Catholic missionaries. During an audience with Charles Maigrot, a French missionary who had been in China for over twenty years, the emperor made a startling discovery. Despite Maigrot’s long residence and his central role in the ongoing “Chinese Rites Controversy” in Europe, Kangxi had been completely unaware of his existence until their meeting.
This revelation shocked the emperor. As he later wrote to Cardinal Charles-Thomas Maillard de Tournon, the papal legate to China: “The Westerners who came to China earlier, apart from their religious practices, astronomy, and music, have lived quietly for many years without causing trouble. I have treated them generously and never once investigated those who came from Western lands.” The discovery that there were missionaries operating throughout his empire without his knowledge prompted Kangxi to implement a new system of control.
The Birth of the “Piao” Certification System
Three months after his meeting with Maigrot, in December 1706, Kangxi instituted what became known as the “piao” system. This certification, similar to the ordination certificates given to Buddhist monks, required all missionaries in China to pledge adherence to Matteo Ricci’s accommodationist policies and declare their intention to remain permanently in China.
The piao represented more than just bureaucratic control. For missionaries who obtained it, the certificate carried significant privileges. Issued by the Imperial Household Department rather than the Ministry of Rites, it signaled special imperial favor. As one Jesuit noted, the piao came with numerous “privileges” that elevated their status in Chinese society.
Kangxi actively encouraged missionaries to obtain the certification, even promoting its benefits like a modern salesman: “Thinking of you all, I want to give you these imperial documents. With this proof, local officials will know your background, and people will naturally be more willing to join your religion.” Far from restricting missionary activity, the emperor saw the piao as a way to legitimize and protect their work.
The Rites Controversy Comes to a Head
The piao system might have remained a minor administrative measure if not for the explosive intervention of Cardinal Tournon. In February 1707, acting as papal legate, Tournon issued a formal decree directly opposing Kangxi’s piao requirement. More significantly, he definitively ruled against the Jesuit accommodation of Chinese rites:
“When asked whether we can agree not to attack Chinese traditional teachings, laws, rites, and customs either verbally or in writing, we must reply: Only if they are compatible with Christian law. Otherwise, no.”
“When asked about offering sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors, the answer must be: No. We cannot offer such sacrifices. We cannot allow those who follow divine law to worship Confucius or ancestors.”
This uncompromising stance, particularly the rejection of terms like “Shangdi” (Lord on High) or “Tian” (Heaven) as names for the Christian God, created an impossible dilemma for missionaries in China. They now faced conflicting demands from their spiritual leader in Rome and their imperial patron in Beijing.
Kangxi’s Response: Pragmatism Over Dogma
Faced with this challenge, Kangxi demonstrated remarkable pragmatism. When five missionaries informed him they couldn’t accept the piao due to Tournon’s decree, the emperor didn’t immediately expel them. Instead, he sent them to Guangzhou to await further instructions, showing understanding of their difficult position.
To other missionaries, Kangxi offered reassurance: “Those who have received the piao are just like Chinese people. You can set your minds at ease, don’t be afraid to take the piao.” At the same time, he ordered Jesuit missionary Claudio Filippo Grimaldi to write to Tournon, demanding his departure from China to prevent further trouble.
The emperor found an unlikely ally in Bernardino della Chiesa, the Bishop of Beijing. Though not a Jesuit, della Chiesa supported the accommodationist position and provided nineteen reasons why missionaries needn’t obey Tournon’s decree. His authority helped ensure most missionaries in China chose to accept the piao despite the papal legate’s opposition.
The Practical Impact of the Piao System
By May 1707, records show forty-eight missionaries had accepted the piao, while thirteen who refused were expelled. Five others remained in limbo in Guangzhou. On the ground, the piao proved surprisingly effective. Local officials, seeing the Imperial Household Department’s seal, treated certified missionaries as members of the emperor’s household, affording them greater respect and protection.
The system functioned much like modern driver’s licensing – a form of regulation rather than prohibition. Kangxi’s intention wasn’t to restrict Christianity but to maintain the status quo of Jesuit accommodation that had served both sides well for decades. As the emperor saw it, he wasn’t imposing change but resisting attempts by Tournon and others to alter the existing harmonious arrangement.
The Hidden History: Why Some Diplomatic Missions Went Unrecorded
The Kangxi-Tournon encounter sheds light on a curious historical puzzle noted by later scholars like John King Fairbank. Despite meticulous Qing record-keeping, certain foreign missions, including two papal legations to Kangxi and two of three Russian embassies, mysteriously disappeared from official histories.
The explanation lies in Kangxi’s unconventional handling of these affairs. Rather than treating them as state diplomacy conducted through the Ministry of Rites, the emperor managed them as imperial household matters. This private approach meant court historians never recorded them as official state business. When later emperors like Yongzheng handled similar missions through regular channels, they appeared properly in the historical record.
The Personal Dimension: Kangxi’s Unique Relationship with the Jesuits
At heart, Kangxi’s policies toward Christianity reflected deeply personal relationships. The Manchu emperor, who saw himself as both ruler of the state and patriarch of his household, viewed the Jesuits as part of his extended domestic circle. His remark about having “raised them like livestock” (using the term “豢养”) reveals this paternalistic attitude rooted in Manchu traditions of master-servant relations.
This personal bond explains Kangxi’s otherwise surprising trust in Jesuit advisors. When selecting envoys to Europe, he chose men recommended by his Jesuit confidants, sometimes based solely on their writings about Chinese rites. As one such envoy, Antoine de Beauvollier, expressed in his gratitude: the emperor’s trust seemed extraordinary even to its recipients.
Legacy of the Piao System and the Rites Controversy
While the immediate conflict ended with Tournon’s departure and most missionaries accepting the piao, the controversy had lasting consequences. The papal bull “Ex Illa Die” in 1715 formally condemned the Chinese rites, leading Yongzheng to ban Christianity in 1724. Yet this later prohibition shouldn’t obscure Kangxi’s original intentions.
The piao system represents a fascinating moment when China attempted to regulate foreign religious presence on its own terms. Kangxi sought not to suppress Christianity but to preserve the harmonious synthesis achieved by Matteo Ricci and his successors. In doing so, he revealed the Qing Empire’s capacity for selective engagement with the outside world – welcoming useful knowledge while maintaining cultural sovereignty.
This episode also highlights the complex interplay between personal relationships and state policy in imperial China. For Kangxi, the Jesuits weren’t just religious figures but trusted household advisors whose loyalty he rewarded with protection. Their eventual fall from favor stemmed not from imperial hostility but from the Vatican’s inability to appreciate the delicate cultural balance they had achieved.