Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to give a brief description of two important theoretical concepts in the history of classical science, namely the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements1 (Τα τέσσερα στοιχεία) and the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases (五行), and then focus on an analysis of a historical comparison that has been made between these two concepts by the Jesuit scholar Matteo Ricci, who went to China in the late sixteenth century, during the time of the “Great Encounter” between China and the West, in order to preach the Christian Gospel.
There are certainly some similarities in both the fundamental orientation of the two theories and the historical roles they played. In both cases an important aim of the theory is to offer a basic and fundamental description and explanation of the phenomena in the universe, and in history both theories reached a level of great importance in the West and in China respectively. In the centuries after Aristotle’s formulation of the classical Greek concept of the Four Elements, it became the scholastic orthodoxy in both Europe and the Islamic world for a very long time, until the rise of early modern science discredited this theory and other ideas from the classical age in Europe just a few centuries ago. A similar kind of evaluation can also be offered for its Chinese counterpart. The theory of the Five Phases was largely finalised and became intellectual orthodoxy during the Western Han Dynasty (202 BC – 9 AD) and remained important in the Chinese world ever since. Even today this theory is still very important in the practice of traditional Chinese medicine.
Yet despite these important similarities, there are certainly also many crucial differences between these two theories in ancient natural philosophy. In this essay I will both comment on the differences between them in a more abstract and philosophical sense, and more importantly I shall also describe an important historical encounter between these two world-views of East and West, and more specifically how the Jesuit scholar Matteo Ricci compared these two concepts and offer an analysis of this historical comparison within its cultural, social and historical context. In order to achieve this I shall firstly provide a brief description of the basic theoretical ideas associated with these two concepts and some historical background information. Then I will briefly offer a philosophical comparison between these two theories. In the second part of this thesis the focus will be fully shifted to Matteo Ricci, first I shall describe the historical background of Ricci’s involvement with ancient Chinese scholarship, and finally I will comment on and analyse Ricci’s own interpretation of the Five Phases theory and his comparison of this Chinese concept with its Greek counterpart.
Ancient Greek Theories of the Four Elements
Historically, the concept of Elements in ancient Greek natural philosophy goes back to a very early time. The ancient Greeks had already begun to speculate about this kind of concept as early as the first half of the first millennium BC. By the seventh century BC there was already some recognition of three basic Elements. (Though strictly speaking at this time the term “Element” was still not explicitly used) The concept of “water” in the theories of Thales, and the concept of “air” in the theories of Anaximenes, which were thought to be the “material cause” of all things as later interpreted by Aristotle, can be seen as an early conceptual form of the fundamental Elements as the building blocks of matter. However, at this early stage the idea was not systematically developed and remained somewhat vague. The first ancient Greek philosopher to propose a more formal theory of the Four Elements was Empedocles (492 – 432 BC). Strictly speaking even he did not use the actual term “Elements”, however, he did speak of four fundamental “roots” that are the fundamental substances in the universe.
According to the Four Elements theory of Empedocles, every substance in the universe is made from the mixture of four fundamental Elements or “roots”. These “roots” are eternal, not created by anything, simple and cannot transmute into one another. These fundamental Elements are Earth, Water, Air and Fire. They mix in different proportions to produce different kinds of substances, with a particular substance always consisting of a particular proportional mixture of the Elements. The two principles or “forces” that govern how the Elements move together or apart are “love” and “strife”: “Love” causes the Elements to move closer to each other and combine, while “strife” causes them to separate apart from each other. Very approximately Earth, Water and Air correspond to matter in its solid, liquid and gaseous forms respectively.
Later on Plato (427 – 347 BC) developed the theory of the Four Elements further, providing a more mathematical and quantitative account. He identified each of the four simple Elements with one of the regular solids in geometry. Fire is identified with the tetrahedron, which has four faces. Air is identified with the octahedron with its eight faces. Water is identified with the icosahedron with twenty faces, while Earth is identified with the simple cube, which has six faces. The only regular solid in geometry that is not identified with any simple Element is the dodecahedron. All of these four regular solids can be constructed geometrically from just two basic types of planar triangles, the right-angled isosceles and the half equilateral. Since each regular solid is identified with a particular fundamental Element, it follows that in a mathematical sense all of the Four Elements, and hence everything in the universe, fundamentally consists of just two basic types of triangles. (Therefore strictly speaking one can say that in Plato’s version of the Four Elements theory, the Elements are not really “elemental”. It is the right-angled isosceles and the half equilateral triangles that are truly “elemental”) Plato probably introduced this geometrical aspect into the theory of the Four Elements in order to make it mathematically more elegant. As well as introducing this mathematical aspect into the theory, Plato also made the suggestion that the Elements can actually transmute and change into one another.
Another version of the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements was developed by Aristotle (384 – 322 BC). Unlike Plato, Aristotle went back to a qualitative account of the Elements. He treats each of the Four Elements as a combination of two of the four primary opposite qualities: hot, cold, wet and dry. (Though one needs to be somewhat careful here, as the original Greek terms do not correspond exactly to these translated terms in English) Earth is described as cold and dry, Water as cold and wet, Air as hot and wet, and Fire as hot and dry.
In addition, Aristotle also introduced another very important concept: The heavenly bodies beyond the sublunary region (that is, the terrestrial region below the level of the moon) are not made from any of the Four Elements but rather consist of a fifth Element, called Aither. One reason for Aristotle to introduce this theoretical idea is in order to account for the apparent natural motion of the heavenly bodies. The natural motion of the other Four Elements is either straight upwards (Air and Fire) or straight downwards (Water and Earth). They can move in other ways but only when they are forced. The heavenly bodies, on the other hand, naturally move in circles. Therefore to account for the eternal, natural, unvarying circular motion of the heavenly bodies, a fifth Element that naturally moves in a circle, namely Aither, needs to be introduced.
Another reason for Aristotle to introduce the concept of the fifth Element is that since the four terrestrial Elements are either hot or cold, wet or dry, and the heavenly realm is vastly larger than the sublunary terrestrial region, if the heavenly realm were consisted of any of the Four Elements, there would be a huge imbalance between the quantity of the various Elements, and therefore some of the Elements in the terrestrial region will be cancelled out and simply cease to exist altogether, as the fundamental opposite qualities of hot and cold, wet and dry tend to cancel each other out. So for all of the four terrestrial Elements to continue to exist there must be a balance between them, so the heavens must be made of something completely different from the Four Elements, something that is neither hot nor cold, neither wet nor dry, in order to keep the balance of these opposite qualities in the universe.
Aristotle’s formal theory of the Four Elements was to gain a great influence and importance in Medieval Europe, and be raised to the status of scholastic orthodoxy. Aristotle’s natural philosophy, including his theory of the Four Elements, remained the orthodoxy in European universities and intellectual circles during Matteo Ricci’s time in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (Though by this time like many other classical ideas, it was challenged by the rise of new scientific ideas in Europe)
It should be noted that there isn’t really a single theory of the Four Elements in ancient Greece, as different versions of the Elements theory of different philosophers take very different forms. As I have already pointed out in this essay so far, the views of Empedocles, Plato and Aristotle all significantly differ from each other. The Four Elements in Plato’s theory are not even really “elemental”, and in Aristotle’s version of the Elements theory, there is an fifth Element that exists in the heavenly realm. In addition, strictly speaking the Greek “element” theories are actually more extensive than just the versions proposed by Empedocles, Plato and Aristotle, which are essentially based on the four basic Elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire. For instance, the ancient Greek theory of atomism proposed by Democritus can also be seen as a form of “element” theory, in which atoms are the “elements” that exist in a void. However, for the purposes of this essay, since I shall be describing Matteo Ricci’s comparison of the Greek and Chinese theories, and Aristotle’s Four Elements theory was considered to be orthodoxy by the Roman Catholic Church in Ricci’s time, when I compare the Chinese and Greek theories in this essay I shall be mainly referring to Aristotle’s version of the Four Elements theory on the Greek side.
The Ancient Chinese Theory of the Five Phases
Most historians believe that the theory of the Five Phases was first proposed during the Warring States Period (475 – 221 BC) of China’s Eastern Zhou Dynasty (771 – 256 BC), a time when many different philosophical schools flourished. (Usually these are referred to as the “Hundred Schools of Thought”) The concept does appear in one of China’s earliest texts, in the chapter Hong Fan (“Great Plan”) of the classical text Shang Shu (“Book of Ancient Documents”), the oldest parts in which probably date back to either the late second millennium BC or the early part of the first millennium BC. In Hong Fan the Five Phases, Water, Fire, Wood, Metal and Earth, are described as follows:
“Water is moistening and descending, Fire flares up, Wood is straight and can be bent, Metal comes from transformation, Earth can be sowed and reaped.”
However, most modern historians believe that the Hong Fan chapter only dates back to the third century BC. It is usually suggested that the oldest ideas in the Five Phases theory were first proposed between about 350 and 270 BC, and a philosopher called Zou Yan (305 – 204 BC) was the first person who formalised this theory. Zou Yan belonged to the Yin-Yang school of philosophers, often translated in the West as the “naturalists”, as they seemed to have had a particular focus and emphasis on describing and explaining natural phenomena in terms of fundamental concepts such as Yin-Yang and the Five Phases. (Strictly speaking however, the term “school” of philosophy is an anachronistic word used by modern scholars, not what the ancient Chinese philosophers referred to themselves at the time. Although for some variants of the classical Chinese philosophies, such as the Mohists and the Legalists, the term “school” would be a rather accurate depiction, such is not the case for some other philosophical variants, notably the Confucians and the Daoists. The term “school” is strictly speaking not necessarily accurate for the Yin-Yang philosophers either, since modern scholars know very little accurate information about them)
Unlike the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements, the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases does not describe fundamental substances from which all other substances in the universe are made of, but rather fundamental phenomenal processes. (The etymology of the Chinese term Xing, which is translated as “Phases” in this essay, suggests “movement”) When Hong Fan says, “Water is…descending” for example, it is not really referring to the fundamental substance of water, but rather to the fundamental process of descending.
The Five Phases theory was finalised during the Western Han Dynasty (202 BC – 9 AD). In Han Dynasty natural philosophy (for example, in the Huainanzi, an important compilation of chapters describing various philosophical ideas from this period), which generally speaking can be considered as a theoretical syncretism of some of the various philosophical schools of the Warring States Period, the Phases are arranged into three important orders, two of which are cycles:
The Cosmogonic Order: (The order in which the Phases first came into being in the universe) Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, Earth
The Mutual Production Cycle: (The cycle in which the Phases give rise to one another) Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water, and then Wood again
The Mutual Conquest Cycle: (The cycle in which the Phases conquer their predecessors) Wood, Metal, Fire, Water, Earth, and then Wood again
Of these three orders, only the Mutual Conquest Cycle was originally proposed by Zou Yan, the other two were probably first introduced during the Western Han Dynasty.
The Mutual Production and Conquest Cycles can be associated with basic empirical observations of natural phenomena that played a kind of symbolic role in the theory of the Five Phases. For example, in the Mutual Production Cycle Wood is said to give rise to Fire because it is commonly observed that Wood catches Fire, and Fire gives rise to Earth because after a Fire burns out, ashes are left which become a part of the Earth. Similarly, in the Mutual Conquest Cycle Water overcomes Fire because it can extinguish it, while Earth overcomes Water as it can block its flow.
By the Western Han Dynasty the Five Phases became associated with a very large number of categories of things in the universe that can be classified in fives, for example, directions in space, different kinds of tastes, musical notes, planets, classification of animals and different kinds of colours. In popular culture this kind of associative thinking sometimes led to all kinds of speculative beliefs. However, one particular notable association of the Five Phases theory is with the five important organs within the human body. The spleen is associated with Wood, the lungs are associated with Fire, the heart is associated with Earth, the kidney is associated with Metal and the liver is associated with Water. This set of associations became a central theoretical principle in traditional Chinese medicine, which was also first standardised during the Western Han Dynasty. Even today traditional Chinese medicine, based on this theory of the Five Phases, is still used in China and other parts of the world and it does seem to have some empirical success.
By the early Western Han Dynasty (second century BC) the theory of Five Phases was finalised and became an important aspect of Han Dynasty orthodox Confucianism. In subsequent ages until the modern era it did not experience any significant changes. Like its Greek counterpart in the West, it became accepted as a scholastic orthodoxy in Chinese intellectual circles.
Theoretical Comparison of the Four Elements and the Five Phases
In the last two sections of this thesis I have given brief descriptions of the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements and the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases respectively. In this part of the essay I shall attempt to compare these two concepts at the theoretical level, and describe some of their similarities as well as differences. In the introductory section I have already mentioned that both theories attempt to describe the universe and explain its phenomena in terms of a few basic fundamental concepts, and historically both theories were considered to be the orthodox position for many centuries in the West and in China respectively. Another important similarity is that in both cases, the theories have important quantitative elements. In Greece, Plato proposed an association between the Elements and regular solids in geometry, and hence introduced an important mathematical element into the idea. In Empedocles’ original theory, proportion is also very important as the Elements when mixed in different proportions give rise to different kinds of substances. In the Chinese theory of the Five Phases there are quantitative elements too. The Mutual Conquest Cycle of the Five Phases, for example, is regulated by the Principle of Control. According to this principle a particular process of one Phase overcoming its predecessor is controlled by the Phase that “conquers” the “conquering” Phase. For instance, the Phase of Fire controls the process of Metal overcoming Wood, as Fire can overcome Metal. This Principle of Control has a quantitative element in it as how much Fire controls the process of Metal “conquering” Wood would depend on how much Fire there is. There is also a similar principle for the Mutual Production Cycle. Additionally, philosophers of the Mohist school, which was founded by Mozi (470 – 391 BC), also mentioned that a Phase does not always overcome its predecessor in the Mutual Conquest Cycle, it can only do so when there is sufficient quantity present. (Strictly speaking one can argue that the Chinese theory of the Five Phases is not really “quantitative” as it is not explicitly based on numerical or geometrical elements. However, one can also argue that since traditional Chinese medicine does have explicit numerical aspects, and the theory of Five Phases is fundamentally important for traditional Chinese medicine, certain extensions of the Five Phases theory do exhibit numerical elements)
However, it is also self-evident that there are also some fundamental differences between the theory of the Four Elements and the Five Phases concept. The Greek theory attempts to account for the existence of the myriad things in the world by describing these as the product of the mixture of four fundamental substances in different proportions, so we can say that it is “substance-oriented”. On the other hand, the Chinese theory of the Five Phases describes five fundamental kinds of processes that can be used to account for the myriad phenomena in the physical world; therefore we can say that it is “process-oriented”. Another key difference is that whereas Aristotle’s theory of Elements was mainly a theory of natural philosophy, the Chinese theory of the Five Phases has significant political and social implications as well. It was used by the Chinese to explain the rise and fall of dynasties. Every dynasty is associated with a particular Phase according to this theory, and the dynasty that succeeds the previous one is represented by a Phase that overcomes the Phase that is associated with the previous dynasty. This kind of idea was used as a philosophical justification for political changes. For example, the Qin Dynasty (221 – 206 BC) was associated with the Phase of Water. In order to justify overthrowing the Qin Dynasty, the Han Dynasty was represented by the Phase of Earth, which overcomes Water according to the Mutual Conquest Cycle of the Five Phases.
Is it possible, however, to have a more direct comparison of these two theories, in a similar way to how we might compare two theories from the same general area of modern science (e.g. two competing theories attempting to describe the same general area in modern physics and cosmology, say the conditions of the very early universe)? The answer to this question would depend on whether the two theories describe ontologically different worlds or just offering different theoretical viewpoints on the same ontological world. In other words, whether the correct philosophical position to take regarding a comparison of these two theories is relativism or realism. If philosophical relativism is correct, and the theories do describe ontologically different worlds, then no direct comparison would be possible. On the other hand, if philosophical realism is correct, and these two theories do describe the same world, then comparison should be possible.
It should be quite obvious that the theories of the Four Elements and the Five Phases do not describe completely different and mutually incommensurable worlds. When one uses either theory to describe and explain a particular phenomenon in the natural world, no matter how different the approach and methodology is, and no matter how different the answer is, at the most basic level the two theories must still be referring to the same kind of event in objective physical reality. For instance, both theories were used (and the Five Phases theory still is) in the practice of medicine. No matter how different these medical theories based on the Four Elements and the Five Phases may be, fundamentally they must still be describing the same kind of objective medical conditions in many cases, even though the actual names of various illnesses may be different. Furthermore, the absolute relativist position would make everything depend on cultural, social and linguistic factors and nothing on objective physical facts. According to absolute relativists, the only reality is the social reality of different cultures. It is clear that at least for natural philosophy, this conception cannot be right, as natural philosophies, no matter how different they might be, fundamentally all seek to describe and explain something in the objective physical world, and therefore they cannot be completely determined by social and cultural factors. In addition, natural philosophies, such as the theory of the Four Elements and the Five Phases, usually have empirical and technological implications. At the very least these practical derivatives of natural philosophies are not significantly affected by cultural and social factors. For instance, the Chinese theory of the Five Phases is still used today in traditional Chinese medicine, and the medicinal substances would have some effects on patients regardless of which culture the patients come from.
On the other hand, the opposite extreme of absolute relativism, absolute realism, seems to be problematic as well. Absolute realism suggests that there is a single world for everyone, and reality is ultimately the same everywhere, with different cultures only offering different viewpoints and perspectives of the same world. The problem with this view is that there is simply no way to directly observe this supposed single objective reality that is the same for everyone everywhere, because every observation is theory-laden and must always be conducted through some sort of conceptual construct that varies from context to context. Since there is absolutely no way to directly view this supposedly completely objective reality that everyone inhabits in a direct way, one might argue that it does not really exist as in principle no one can really observe it.
One can certainly argue however, that just because there is no construct-free and direct way to observe this supposedly common objective reality, does not necessarily imply that it does not exist, for in principle given any two particular theories in natural philosophy that describe a particular aspect of reality there is always, at least in principle, an empirical method to tell which of these theories corresponds more closely with objective reality, by finding out which theory gives predictions that are better confirmed by experimental evidence. For instance, in modern science two rival theories may offer competing views about what a particular aspect of reality is like, and in principle it is always possible to find out which one corresponds better with reality through the experimental method. Can we not apply the same principle to ancient natural philosophies (such as the theories of the Four Elements and the Five Phases) as well? If we can then since in principle there is a method by which one can tell which of these theories corresponds more closely with objective reality, then there does exist, in principle, a common objective reality that both theories refer to in this case.
However, this does not really solve the problem with absolute realism in this case. With rival theories in modern science, even though they do offer somewhat different perspectives about reality, they are still similar to each other enough for us to say that they do intend to describe approximately the same aspect of reality, and therefore direct empirical comparison between them becomes possible. (For example, two rival proposals for a theory of quantum gravity, which would theoretically unify quantum field theory with general relativity, would intend to describe approximately the same aspect of reality in theoretical physics, even though the two rival proposals themselves may be very different from each other) Yet natural philosophies from different ancient cultures, such as the theories of the Four Elements and the Five Phases, may be so different from each other that in many cases they are really not even referring to approximately the same aspect of reality at all. For instance, although at first glance both the Four Elements and the Five Phases seem to describe the fundamental nature of the universe, at a closer look we can see that they are not referring to the same kind of things. The Four Elements refer to the fundamental building blocks of matter, while the Five Phases refer to the fundamental processes in the universe. Furthermore, the Chinese theory of the Five Phases is partly a political theory as well, used to explain and justify dynasties replacing their predecessors, whereas the Four Elements theory of Aristotle was not used in this political sense. Therefore we cannot really say that they describe and refer to approximately the same aspects of reality.
So it seems although it is certainly not completely impossible to theoretically compare these two theories, for they do not describe worlds that are ontologically completely different and absolutely incommensurable, direct comparison would be very difficult as they don’t refer to approximately the same aspects of reality in many cases. There is a degree of “multidimensionality” in the same objective physical reality both theories describe so that direct comparison is not always possible. Whenever comparison is made between these two theories, one must never lose sight of the cultural and historical contexts in which these theories are situated. A certain degree of epistemological relativism would be unavoidable when any theoretical comparison is made between the theories of the Four Elements and the Five Phases.
The Historical Background of Matteo Ricci’s Work in China
In the previous sections of this thesis, I have mainly focussed on philosophical issues. I provided a brief description of both the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements and its counterpart the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases, as well as a brief theoretical comparison of these two ideas, and discussed a few philosophical issues associated with such a comparison. In the rest of this essay I shall focus on more historical issues. I will first offer a brief description of the historical background of Matteo Ricci’s Christian missionary work in China during the period 1582 – 1610 AD in this section of the essay, and in the next section I will describe and analyse Ricci’s own interpretation of the Chinese theory of the Five Phases.
Matteo Ricci (1552 – 1610 AD) was born in Macerata, Italy in 1552 AD. In 1571 AD he joined the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). The Society of Jesus was established by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1540 AD, as a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church that is in direct service to the Pope. Part of the reason for the Catholic Church to set up this religious order was due to its policy of Counter-Reformation as a response to the Protestant Reformation at that time. The Jesuits also had a special interest in preaching the Christian Gospel in countries far away from Europe, and in particular, there was a China Mission. The first attempt to reach China was made by St. Francis Xavier in 1552, but he died in that same year without having reached the Chinese mainland. Matteo Ricci was a part of the second attempt by the Society of Jesus to reach China. Ricci was assigned to the China Mission and in 1582 he arrived at Macao on the southern Chinese coast.
The China that Ricci arrived at was at this time in the last few decades of the Ming Dynasty (1368 – 1644 AD), which was a vast empire ruled by the royal house of Zhu since the first Ming emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang, drove away the Mongol occupiers from China in 1368 AD. The Chinese empire at this time was governed by a massive bureacratic system that was filled with Confucian scholar-officials and literati selected from official state-sponsored examinations. Economically China was quite prosperous at this time, though by the late sixteenth century the Ming Dynasty was beginning to have some economical difficulties. Among the populace religious beliefs, such as religious Daoism, (Daoism can in general be divided into a philosophical branch mainly for the intellectual classes and a popular religious version) Buddhism and folk religions, continued to play an important role as they had been for many centuries, but unlike Europe at this time, organised universal religions did not really play an important role among the officials and the intellectual elite in Ming China, except for some of their ritualistic significances. Intellectually China during the Ming Dynasty was dominated by the philosophy of Neo-Confucianism, which was developed in the Song Dynasty (960 – 1279 AD) and remained very influential in China ever since. The world-view of Neo-Confucianism is quasi-naturalistic, even though it does include some quasi-religious rituals, such as offering sacrifices for Heaven, Confucius and ones’ ancestors. However, the intellectuals and officials in Neo-Confucian China conducted these rituals primarily for their ritualistic importance rather than as a result of actual religious belief. The absence of a strong religious element in the upper classes of China at the time is a partial reason for the modest success of the Jesuits’ missionary activities conducted among the Chinese literati.
After Matteo Ricci reached China, he attempted to integrate into Ming Chinese society so that he could preach the Gospel more easily. One of Ricci’s aims was to convert some of the people in the higher classes to Christianity, as he thought these conversions would have a more influential effect on the country as a whole than conversions at lower levels. Even better it was hoped that if the emperor of China could be converted then Christianity would become a state religion and virtually everyone in China would convert as in principle every Chinese person obeyed the emperor. At first Ricci dressed himself as a Buddhist monk as monks would be the Chinese equivalent of European religious priests. However, he soon discovered that unlike his homeland, in China at this time organised religions such as Buddhism did not have a high status at all. It would be extremely difficult to reach the upper classes when one is dressed as a monk. Therefore Ricci changed his dress to that of a Ming Chinese Confucian literati, learned the Classical Chinese language, studied and developed some degree of acquaintance with the Confucian classics, and tried to integrate into Chinese high society and intellectual circles by presenting himself as a “Confucian scholar from the West”. (Xi Ru)
Ricci tried to persuade the Chinese intellectuals to be interested in the Christian religion primarily through two ways. Firstly, he used his scientific knowledge to gain the respect of the Chinese literati, and tried to interest Chinese intellectuals with scientific and technological marvels from the West. Since Ricci linked Western science and technology with the Christian religion, it was hoped that after the Chinese became interested in Western science, they would develop an interest in Christianity too. Ricci brought some European scientific ideas and technologies into China, such as theories of trigonometry and astronomy, as well as inventions such as the mechanical clock. Eventually he even showed a world map to the Chinese emperor for the first time. Many Chinese intellectuals did become quite interested in the scientific ideas and technologies Ricci brought with him, later on in 1607 Ricci, together with one of his most famous converts, Xu Guangqi (1562 – 1633 AD), even translated the first six books of Clavius’ Latin edition of Euclid’s Elements into the Chinese language for the first time. However, most of the Chinese literati who did develop an interest in Ricci’s science did not really show much interest in his religion.
The second way Ricci used to preach the Gospel was to associate fundamental Christian beliefs with principles from the ancient Chinese Confucian classics that Ricci had studied. Ricci identified the Christian God with Tian (Heaven) and Shangdi (Lord on High or Sovereign on High) in the Confucian classics, and drew many parallels between Christian and Confucian moral principles. According to one of books Ricci wrote in Classical Chinese for the purpose of spreading the Christian Gospel, Tianzhu Shiyi (The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven): “When one reads the ancient books, one understands that the Sovereign on High [i.e. Shangdi] and the Lord of Heaven [i.e. Tianzhu or God of the Christians] differ in name alone.” He tried to draw parallels between Christianity and the ancient Confucian tradition (what he called the Way of the Gu Ru, or “Ancient Confucians/Scholars”) as opposed to the later ideas of Neo-Confucianism that he thought were corrupted by Buddhist concepts. Ricci also accommodated the Confucian rituals (such as offering sacrifices for Heaven, Confucius and the ancestors) within his interpretation of Christianity so that Chinese converts could continue practicing the various rituals associated with Confucianism, as Ricci interpreted these rituals as secular instead of religious and so are ultimately in no conflict with the Christian faith.
Matteo Ricci did achieve modest success in China as far as his missionary work was concerned. Several important Chinese scholar-officials did convert to Catholicism, including prominent figures such as Xu Guangqi. However, there was also a lot of opposition against his preaching. A lot of these oppositions not surprisingly came from Buddhists, as Ricci was extremely anti-Buddhist and the Buddhists saw Ricci’s missionary activities as a threat to their religion. But there was also some opposition directed at Ricci from Confucian scholar-officials, who thought Ricci was spreading dangerous ideas to the general populace and corrupting traditional Chinese morals.
Despite these oppositions, Ricci’s method of preaching the Christian Gospel was copied by successive Catholic missionaries who went to China, (and indeed even today a significant number of both Chinese and Western Christian missionaries still use essentially the same kind of method – for those who are interested in this issue, please look at the books written by modern Christian missionaries such as David Marshall, Yuan Zhiming and Wang Jingzhi, in particular the books True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture, Shenzhou Chanhui Lu (China’s Confession) and Shangdi yu Zhongguo Guren (God and the Ancient Peoples of China) written by them respectively) and Catholicism was at least officially tolerated by the Ming and later Qing emperors until the “rites dispute” in the early eighteenth century. (The “rites dispute” started in the early 18th century when the Roman Catholic Church, in its typical “anti-Reformation” conservative mood, formally disagreed with the policy of accommodation started by Matteo Ricci, banned the practice of Confucian rituals by Chinese Catholics and insisted that the Chinese Supreme God Shangdi or Lord on High from the Chinese/Confucian classics is not the same Deity as the Christian Supreme God. This triggered an equally strong reaction from the Chinese emperor Kangxi who banned Catholicism in China) This period was the first “Great Encounter” between the Chinese and European worlds, when there was much dialogue between European and Chinese scientific, cultural and religious ideas. This was also when scientific ideas from the East and the West, such as the theories of the Four Elements and the Five Phases, encountered each other for the first time in history.
Matteo Ricci’s Interpretation of the Five Phases Theory
During this “Great Encounter” between European and Chinese civilisations, what was Matteo Ricci’s interpretation of ancient Chinese scientific theories, in particular the concept of the Five Phases?
It seems to be quite clear that although Ricci learned to write very high quality Classical Chinese, his understanding of Chinese scholarship in general was quite limited. He never seemed to have developed much understanding of ancient Chinese ideas beyond superficial levels in many cases. This might be due to the fact that whatever Chinese classics Ricci did study, he studied them primarily for the purpose of spreading the Christian Gospel, instead of for their own sake. Though I think it would also certainly be unfair to say that he never developed any appreciation of Chinese culture at all and simply utilised whatever he had learned solely for the purpose of preaching, as such an analysis would seem to go against some of his personal comments on certain aspects of Chinese culture. Nevertheless, whatever he found admirable in Chinese culture seems to be limited to ethical and religious elements in the Confucian classics (the Si Shu Wu Jing – “Four Books and Five Classics”), and certainly not ancient Chinese scientific theories such as the Five Phases.
From Matteo Ricci’s interpretation of the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases we can clearly see the superficial acquaintance he had with Chinese scientific and natural philosophical ideas. Ricci never seemed to have understood the Five Phases theory in its own terms and on its own merits, but rather he interpreted it within his own European and Aristotelian theoretical framework. He thought that the Chinese Five Phases were just like the Greek Four Elements, and only the names and number of Elements are any different. Indeed, he referred to the Five Phases as the “Five Elements”. This clearly shows his understanding of this Chinese theoretical idea was rather superficial as the Chinese Five Phases refer to fundamental processes instead of fundamental substances like the Greek Four Elements.
Matteo Ricci also incorrectly thought that the Chinese originally obtained the idea of the Five Phases from the Greeks, which later became “corrupted” in China. Ricci found some references to the Greek Four Elements in old Chinese Buddhist texts he read. We know that historically Buddhism reached China from Central Asia so the early Buddhists must have learned about the ancient Greek idea of the Four Elements in the Indo-Greek kingdoms in what is now the geographical region between India and2 Iran (known as Bactria), and from there the Buddhists reached the Central Asian oasis’s and later China, bringing their texts with reference to the Four Elements with them. Matteo Ricci assumed it was the Buddhists who first brought the theory of the Four Elements into China, “to which the Chinese, rather foolishly, add a fifth”.2 Matteo Ricci assumed the Chinese “Five Elements” theory must be wrong because according to Aristotle, which was the main intellectual authority on natural philosophy in the Catholic Church, there are only four terrestrial Elements.
Why did Matteo Ricci interpret the Chinese Five Phases theory as “Five Elements”, found it so straightforward to compare the Chinese concept with the Greek one, and automatically judged the Chinese theory to be wrong? We already explained that Ricci interpreted the Phases as “Elements” no different from the Greek ones because firstly Ricci never studied ancient Chinese natural philosophy in any great detail, and only had a rather superficial understanding of them, and secondly he was bound by the Aristotelian framework as Aristotle was such an important intellectual figure for the Catholic Church, and therefore he could only interpret other concepts within this Greek paradigm. As for why he so straightforwardly compared the Chinese and Greek concepts and judged the Chinese idea to be wrong, we can analyse this in two ways. Firstly, he was motivated to compare the two theories directly and judge the Chinese concept to be incorrect because he wanted to convert the Chinese to Christianity and wished to not only show that there are many parallels between Christian and Chinese/Confucian principles, but also that where they differ the Christian way is certainly better. Even though Aristotelian natural philosophy is not directly related to the Christian Gospel, it was still an important part of the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and for a Roman Catholic Jesuit like Matteo Ricci, Sacred Tradition could be just as important as the Holy Scripture. Indeed, in one chapter of Ricci’s book written in Classical Chinese, Tianzhu Shiyi (The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven), he devoted a significant section to describing the Aristotelian system of animal classification and how that was superior to the traditional Chinese system.
However, we can clearly see that philosophically speaking one can only claim that the Four Elements theory is better than the Five Phases theory if the Phases really are Elements and both theories do attempt to describe the same aspects of objective reality and are answers to the same sort of questions. But as I have already stated earlier on in this essay, this is clearly not the case as the Elements describe fundamental building blocks of matter while the Phases refer to fundamental processes in the universe. In fact, even if the Elements and the Phases really are answers to the same kind of questions and do actually refer to the same aspects of objective reality, it is certainly still not necessarily the case that the Four Elements theory is better. For one thing, there does not seem to be more empirical evidence for the Four Elements than there is for the Five Phases (indeed one can make an argument that there is probably more empirical evidence for the Five Phases since these concepts are still used in traditional Chinese medicine today which does have some empirical success), and additionally, theoretically speaking the Four Elements theory is not necessarily more obvious or solid than the theory of the Five Phases. For instance, the ancient Greek philosopher Theophrastus raised considerable doubts about the status of Fire as an Element. Indeed it does seem to be more logical to label Fire as a process, as the Chinese theory does, rather than as a fundamental Element or building block of matter.
Matteo Ricci did not just base his arguments for the superiority of Western natural philosophical ideas on the comparison of physical theories alone. Ricci also used mathematics to show that Western methods are logically demonstrative and can yield certainty, as the ancient Chinese did not have explicit demonstrative logic such as those found in Euclid’s Elements. He tried to show the inherent superiority of the Christian religion by demonstrating that many fundamental aspects of Christianity, such as the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and perfectly good God, can be affirmed by logic and reason. Perhaps one reason Ricci thought the Four Elements theory is better than China’s Five Phases theory was because he considered the Four Elements theory to be more quantitative and mathematical.
Secondly, ideologically speaking Ricci found it easy and straightforward to compare the Chinese and Greek theories, unlike modern scholars who have to worry about whether or not the worlds they describe are commensurable, because philosophically Ricci was clearly a realist. It was the same kind of realism, when applied to the religious context, allowed Ricci to propose the natural theological idea that the Chinese Shangdi is essentially identical to the Christian God. Indeed, as a religious realist who certainly believes in the actual existence of God, it was perfectly natural for Ricci to come to this conclusion. If there is a God, and the Chinese people are the children of Noah as well, then God must have interacted with the Chinese nation in some way during the 4000 years of Chinese history. The ancient Chinese too, must have had some collective cultural memory of the One True God, and their scholars must have discovered something about Him through natural theology, as the belief in God can be demonstrated by natural reason. A similar kind of philosophically realist stance also made it very straightforward for Ricci to directly compare the Five Phases (or the “Five Elements” according to him) and the Four Elements, and to conclude that the former must be wrong because it does not agree with the latter.
Conclusion
This thesis is essentially divided into two parts. In the first part of this essay I primarily dealt with philosophical issues, providing a brief and basic description of the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases and the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements, as well as offering a theoretical comparison between these two concepts, and a philosophical discussion on the question of to what degree are these theories comparable. In the second part of this essay I shifted my focus to more historical issues, first setting the historical background of Matteo Ricci’s work in late Ming Dynasty China, and then providing a brief description and analysis of Ricci’s own interpretation of the ancient Chinese theory of the Five Phases and how it compares with the ancient Greek theory of the Four Elements. I hope through my essay the reader can obtain a basic appreciation of these two important theories in the history of classical science, as well as develop some understanding of an important historical comparison that had been made between these two concepts by the famous Jesuit scholar Matteo Ricci, and how cultural factors can influence our interpretation of scientific ideas.
Bibliography
Gernet, Jacques, A History of Chinese Civilisation
Gernet, Jacques, China and the Christian Impact
Graham, A. C., Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China
利玛窦 (Ricci, Matteo)，天主实义 (The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven)
Lloyd, G. E. R., Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections: Philosophical Perspectives on Greek and Chinese Science and Culture
Lloyd, G. E. R., Early Greek Science
Lloyd, G. E. R., Greek Science After Aristotle
Lloyd, G. E. R., Sivin, Nathan, The Way and the Word: Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece
Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilisation in China, Vol 2
Ricci, Matteo, China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci, 1583 – 1610
Ronan, Colin, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, Vol 1
Ronan, Colin, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, Vol 2
Edited by somechineseperson, 02 May 2006 - 11:32 AM.
