The Interweaving of Rituals: Funerals in the Cultural Exchange between China and Europe

4 / Funerals as Public Manifestation

118 4 / Funerals as Public Manifestation In the middle of the seventeenth century the practice of Christian funerals in China had apparently become more solidified, yet missionaries and Christian converts were still searching for practical agreements on the forms of actual funerals. The period of exile in Canton (1666–1671) represents a kind of caesura in the liturgical development of the mission. Missionary documents show that after the exile, the approach of missionaries and converts toward the embedding of rituals shifted from one of simple adaptation to one of incorporating more significant changes because the Chinese cultural tradition was so compelling—a “cultural imperative.” Moreover, they transformed their attitude into a real “policy” with regard to the public manifestation of funerals. the canton conference The Canton exile was the outcome of the “Calendar Case” that took place in Beijing in the years 1664–1665, in which a dispute about funerals played a role. In order to remove the foreigners in charge of the Astronomical Bureau, Yang Guangxian (1597–1669), in three petitions between 1660 and 1664, accused the Europeans of falsifying the calendar, promoting a heterodox sect, and preparing an invasion by Europeans. It was only in September of 1664 that a memorial submitted by Yang was accepted by the court, because it accused Johann Adam Schall von Bell of having selected an inauspicious date and site for the burial of Prince Rong, an infant son of the emperor’s favorite consort Dong.1 This selection had been made by the Water Clock Section (Loukeke), a unit in theAstronomicalBureau(Qintianjian)of whichSchallwasdirector.2 According to Yang, this unfavorable selection had caused the death of both the consort (September 1660) and the Shunzhi emperor (February 1661). These circumstances provided the regents with concrete evidence to substantiate Yang’s accusation that the missionaries were plotting a rebellion and subverting Chinese ideology, as their writings on Christianity and Western astronomy and geography already suggested. In April of 1665, after a seven-month-long investiga- funerals as public manifestation 119 tion of the matter, Schall and seven o‹cials in the Astronomical Bureau, five of whom were Christians, were sentenced to death. Although Schall was pardoned , the five Christian o‹cials, including one Li Zubai (baptized 1622), were executed on 18 May 1665.3 In addition, all missionaries in the country were to be exiled. Only four Jesuits remained in Beijing: Schall von Bell, who died in 1666; Lodovico Buglio, who would spend the years of isolation translating several Catholic prescriptive texts; Ferdinand Verbiest (1623–1688); and Gabriel de Magalhães (1610–1677). Except for a small number of missionaries hiding mainly in the Fujian and Jiangnan regions, all other missionaries who had been summoned to Beijing were sentenced to confinement in Canton.4 They arrived there on 25 March 1666 and remained until 1671. Meanwhile, the churches in the provinces were closed and Christianity forbidden. This exile was to a certain extent a turning point for liturgical praxis; the confinement of priests had a twofold consequence. First, the Christian communities were left all alone and had to maintain certain ritual practices on their own. Second, the missionaries of diªerent orders were enclosed in the same compound in Canton and thus compelled to negotiate with each other their disagreements about liturgy. While in exile, the missionaries staged an important event—the Canton Conference. For six weeks, from 18 December 1667 to 26 January 1668, nineteen Jesuits and four Dominicans discussed several practical issues concerning Christian liturgy and rituals.5 A tacit agreement to avoid major problems, however, explains why the conference’s forty-two final resolutions contain almostnoreferencetoanyissuerelatedtothepracticesatthecoreof theChinese Rites Controversy—namely, the sacrifice to Confucius and ancestral worship.6 After the Canton exile, funerals apparently became part of an explicit and conscious Christian policy. Certainly, before the exile, funerals had taken a certain shape but it is after the exile that funerals became a means for the public manifestation of Christianity. At first sight, however, funerals are not a major issue in the resolutions of the Canton Conference. Aside from the prohibition in article 40 against burning or making paper money,7 only one article, number 34, is devoted to funerary rituals: 34. Neophytes are encouraged to assist frequently at the funeral obsequies of Christians, and, as much as possible, to display a Christian procession (pompa) while in a decent way holding a funeral. In the church the minister should recite the usual responsorial prayers (Responsoria) before...