Martino Martini’s Qiuyou pian (逑友篇, 1647): Introducing the Christian Understanding of Friendship in Early Modern China

Abstract

Martino Martini’s Qiuyou pian (逑友篇, 1647) represents a deliberate attempt to complement Matteo Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun (交友論, 1595) by introducing a deeper Christian understanding of friendship to China. Despite its rich content and scholarly value, Qiuyou pian has remained overshadowed by Jiaoyou lun. While scholars have noted Christian overtones in Martini’s work, no detailed analysis of its distinctive approach to friendship has been undertaken. Through close textual analysis, this study reveals that Martini’s conception of friendship is deeply rooted in the Christian notion of agape (love). The analysis illuminates both similarities and differences between the two works while drawing meaningful parallels between Qiuyou pian and Aelred of Rievaulx’s Spiritual Friendship, a seminal Christian text that adapts Ciceronian ideals of friendship. Martini’s reflections resonate with Aelred’s adaptation, suggesting a conceptual lineage that transcends temporal and cultural boundaries. Recovering this overlooked work reveals the complex dynamics of Jesuit cultural accommodation and religious transmission in early modern China.

1. Introduction

Martino Martini (1614–1661), a Jesuit missionary to China, was well aware of the enthusiastic reception that Matteo Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun (交友論, written in 1595)1 had garnered among the Chinese literati. In 1647, Martini authored a work entitled Qiuyou pian (逑友篇, 1647)2, which also deals with the theme of friendship. The Jesuits’ deliberate focus on friendship as a central theme reflects a strategic approach they employed to reach the souls of Chinese literati (Mungello 1985, p. 110)3. Far from being merely an intellectual or cultural exchange, the cultivation of genuine friendships with Chinese scholar-officials and literati became instrumental in the spread of Christianity in China. These relationships provided missionaries with social legitimacy, access to influential networks, and opportunities to present Christian teachings to audiences that would otherwise have remained inaccessible.

The preface of Qiuyou pian begins as follows:

In the past, Western Master Li [Matteo Ricci] compiled the Jiaoyou lun, but it was merely a discussion with Prince Jian’an about what he had heard in his youth, and it did not fully explore the profound and extensive meaning of friendship.4

This statement reflects the distinctive nature of Matteo Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun, a collection of 100 maxims on friendship that he selected and translated into Chinese, drawing on teachings he had encountered in his youth. Ricci composed this work as a step toward cultivating relationships with Chinese literati, with the ultimate goal of spreading the Christian faith. Around 1593, before writing this booklet, while translating the Four Books (Sishu 四書) into Latin, Ricci came across a passage from the Analects (12:24): “Master Zeng said, The gentleman uses the arts [文] in acquiring friends and uses friends in helping him to be humane [仁].”5 With this Chinese tradition of forming friendships through written exchanges in mind, Ricci wrote Jiaoyou lun as a means of establishing bonds with Chinese scholars. However, the booklet, which focused on bridging cultural gaps and honing translation skills, did not offer a comprehensive exploration of the concept of friendship. In response, about half a century later, Martino Martini wrote Qiuyou pian to provide a deeper and more nuanced concept of friendship, expanding and refining Ricci’s initial work.

This study seeks to answer two central questions: (1) What content did Martini seek to complement in Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun through his Qiuyou pian? (2) How did he convey this content to a Chinese audience? To answer these questions, I will first provide an overview of the Qiuyou pian and identify the shared content with Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun regarding friendship. On this basis, I will argue that Martini’s essential contribution was the introduction of a Christian perspective on friendship. Through close textual analysis, I will examine the specific content of Qiuyou pian and explore the strategies Martini used to adapt the Christian message to a non-Christian audience. Finally, I will assess why Qiuyou pian had a more limited impact compared to the success of Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun, particularly in light of the challenges of presenting a Christian concept of friendship in a non-Christian cultural context.

2. Overview of Qiuyou pian: Background, Purpose, and Structure

Martini’s most notable contributions lie in the fields of geography and history, with his Latin publications on these subjects gaining widespread readership across Europe (Mungello 1985, p. 133)6. In contrast, Qiuyou pian was written in Chinese, intended for a Chinese audience. According to Chu Shih (Zhu Shi 祝石), who penned the book’s foreword, the first draft was completed in 1647, during which Martini dictated hundreds of words to Chu over the course of several days. However, Qiuyou pian was not published until 1661, the year of Martini’s death, meaning he never saw the final printed version (Chan 2002, pp. 152–53). Unlike his other works on Chinese maps and history, it did not achieve significant success and has largely been overlooked by researchers until recently.7

As seen above, the preface to Qiuyou pian indicates that the book was intended to build on Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun and offer a more comprehensive exploration of the concept of friendship. It seems that Qiuyou pian serves as a sequel to Jiaoyou lun. The title of the book also resonates with an anecdote found in the last maxim of Jiaoyou lun (Maxim 100). In this anecdote, a respected ancient scholar, while splitting open a large pomegranate, was asked by a bystander what he would wish for if he had as many grains as there were seeds in the fruit. The scholar replied, “Loyal friends (忠友也).”8 The title of this book, Qiuyou pian 逑友篇,9 which means “The Book of Gathering Friends,” reflects the author’s intention to fulfill the wish expressed at the end of Jiaoyou lun, namely, to show how to make many “loyal friends.”

After stating his purpose for writing Qiuyou pian, Martini explains his reason for coming to China, which is “ninety thousand miles to the east” from his homeland of Italy, saying “Only with reverent prayers day and night, my wish is that all who belong to the list of my friends may know the one true Lord, the Most High, and take Him as their great parent, and serve Him very carefully and diligently, so that one day [China] may finally become a land of peace.”10 It is clear that the ultimate purpose of writing this book is missionary, that is, for the propagation of Christian faith.

In the preface, the author also introduces the content and organization of the book. The central theme is “The Way of Gathering Friends” (逑友之道).11 The book is divided into two parts: the first part explores what constitutes true friendship and the nature of true friends, while the second part describes the beautiful aspects of meeting and gathering with friends.12

Just as the beginning of the preface states that his purpose in coming to China was for Christian mission, he does not hide his Christian perspective in the last sentence of the preface, which reads, “those who know the essence of true fellowship are close to the Kingdom of Heaven.”13 Thus, Qiuyou pian demonstrates its difference from Jiaoyou lun from its very preface, revealing a distinctly Christian tone that is largely absent from Jiaoyou lun. Before examining these differences, however, it is appropriate to outline the common understanding of friendship in both works.

3. Similarities in the Understanding of Friendship in Jiaoyou lun and Qiuyou pian: The Western Classical Concept of Friendship

Qiuyou pian consists of a first volume (上卷) that covers 11 topics, a second volume (下卷) that covers 8 topics, and a letter to a friend at the end that demonstrates the essence of friendship. By contrast, Jiaoyou lun does not have a thematic structure, but lists 100 Western maxims about friendship. Although the two works have significant differences in form, they also have many similarities in content. In fact, there are many overlapping Western maxims on friendship that are quoted in both works. Representative examples of the same or similar content found in both works are presented in

Table 1. Representative examples of the same or similar content found in Jiaoyou lun and Qiuyou pian.

	Jiaoyou lun (交友論)	Qiuyou pian (逑友篇)
1	Maxim 2: My friend and I may be of two bodies, but within these two bodies, there is one heart. (友之與我, 雖有二身, 二身之內, 其心一而已) Sources: Diogenes Laertius, Vita philosophorum 5, 1, 20. EN 1157b36.	上卷 8.8: My friend’s heart is the same as mine, and though we are separated into two bodies, it is as if we share one heart. (眞友之寔 猶二身相離，一心同在。)
2	Maxim 7: Before making friends, we should scrutinize. After making friends, we should trust friends. (交友之先宜察, 交友之後宜信.) Source: Seneca, Ep. I, 3, 2.	上卷 11.4: It is a great error to gain a friend and not trust them as you would trust yourself. (…) Before making friends, you should consider it from various angles … (得一友而不信之如己，大謬矣。多方計量, 在未定交先, …)
3	Maxim 18: Virtues and intention must be aligned for a friendship to become solid. (德志相似, 其友始固.) Source: Cicero, De amicitia 21, 79.	上卷 4.1, 4.4: Only a virtuous person, when engaging in friendship, remains unchanging, steadfast, and sincere at all times. (惟有德者就論交時, (...) 一常不變, 恒堅篤也.
4	Maxim 20: Should a friend tolerate his friend’s evil? Admonish him, admonish him! (友者, 宜忍友之惡乎? 諫之, 諫之!) Source: Cicero, De amicitia 13, 44.	上卷 9. 4: How can one know a friend’s wrong doing and not speak up? (奈何知友不善而不言)
5	Maxim 24: The harm that comes from a friend’s excessive praise is greater than the harm that comes from an enemy’s excessive criticism. (友者過譽之害, 較仇者過訾之害. 猶大焉.) Source: Cicero, De amicitia 24, 90.	上卷 1.2: The intentions of an enemy is more profitable to me than the flattery of a flatterer. (讐之用心, 其益我, 猶愈於諂媚者.)
6	Maxim 29: All belongings of a friend should be shared together. (友之物, 皆與共.) Source: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum, 8.1, 10.	上卷 8.4 (in fine): A true friend shares everything. (眞友之物無不共。)
7	Maxim 33: Tolerating a friend’s misdeeds is equivalent to making those misdeeds your own. (忍友之惡, 便以他惡爲己惡焉.) Source: Publius Syrus, Sententiae 10.	上卷 9.7: Tolerating a friend’s misdeeds means seeing them as solely their own and ignoring that they are also a matter of your responsibility. This ignorance is harmful both to the friend and to yourself. (忍友之惡者，視爲彼惡，不知己任之爲吾惡，損友並損我矣)
8	Maxim 41: If I am constantly fortunate and never face adversity, how can I distinguish a true friend from one who is not? (如我恒幸無禍, 豈識友之眞否哉!) Source: Quintilianus, Declamationes maiores, 16.	上卷 2.2: Thus, the proverb says: “If there is never a disaster, how can one recognize a friend?” (故諺云: 常值無禍, 何以識友?)
9	Maxim 67: Living in a dye shop and associating closely with dyers, remaining near the dyeing process, one can hardly avoid staining one’s body. When befriending wicked people, one constantly observes their evil acts, inevitably acquiring their ways and corrupting one’s pure heart. (居染廛, 而狎染人, 近染色, 難免無汚穢其身矣. 交友惡人, 恆聽視其醜事, 必習之, 而浼本心焉.) Source: Plutarch, Moralia I, 6. On the Education of Children.	上卷 5: When good people associate with evil people, they cannot avoid becoming evil. (...) Therefore, one should not dwell in places like charcoal shops or dye houses. Black contaminates white, and for white to turn black is indeed very easy. (善與惡交，難免無惡。(…) 故煤肆、染舍皆不處，黑污白也，乃白之為黑也，甚易矣。)

.

The nine sentences quoted in the above table can be condensed into eight propositions:

(1) Friends share one mind; (2) friends should be chosen carefully, as associating with wicked people can easily lead to corruption; (3) trust is essential between friends; (4) the solid foundation of friendship is virtue; (5) flattery is a vice that harms friendship; (6) one should admonish when a friend is in the wrong; (7) friends should share their possessions; (8) a true friend can be recognized in times of adversity.

The shared understanding of friendship in Jiaoyou lun and Qiuyou pian is based on common references to Western classics. The maxims on friendship quoted in both books are drawn from texts by authors such as Cicero and Plutarch, which were included in the Renaissance humanistic education curriculum of the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum. This reflects the influence of humanistic education that Ricci and Martini received within the Jesuit order. The fact that Cicero’s On Friendship is the most frequently cited text in both works also indicates the importance of Cicero in the Jesuit educational curriculum. Among the 100 maxims in Jiaoyou lun, Cicero is quoted 25 times, while in Qiuyou pian, Cicero is cited 15 times out of 68 quotations.14

Ricci and Martini likewise introduced the classical Western understanding of friendship to the Chinese rather than the specifically Christian concept because they believed that the classical notion, based on natural reason, would appeal more effectively in the East. Indeed, “natural reason” is not limited to a particular civilization or age (Ambrogio 2018, p. 1199). The understanding of friendship outlined above has broad resonance in both Eastern and Western traditions, and in both past and contemporary contexts. Admittedly, some propositions, such as “friends should share their possessions,” may seem less applicable in modern capitalist societies. However, this principle is found in both Western sources (as cited above) and in classical Eastern texts, such as the Analects (Xiang Dang 10–14), which states: “When friends give a gift, even if it is a carriage or a horse, if it is not a sacrificial offering, it is not to be thanked with a bow.”15

4. A Christian Perspective on Friendship in Qiuyou pian and the Accommodative Approach

In order to examine the elements of the Christian perspective on friendship that Martini introduced in Qiuyou pian, as well as the strategies he used to do so, we must first carefully consider his sources and references to God. Before doing so, it is necessary to briefly review the divergent interpretations of previous scholars regarding the character of Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun.

4.1. Is Jiaoyou lun “Essentially Secular”?

In Jiaoyou lun, as Jiang Xiangyan suggests, Ricci dilutes the religious colors as much as possible to attract more Chinese readers, and presents friendship in a way that resonates with Chinese audiences (Jiang 2021). Timothy Billings characterizes Jiaoyou lun as “essentially secular,” interpreting that Ricci intentionally avoided incorporating a Christian perspective on friendship in the work (Ricci 2009, p. 11).

However, Ana Carolina Hosne disagrees with the labeling of Jiaoyou lun as a “secular” work, stating that “Ricci tentatively introduced certain Christian notions of friendship into his first work in Chinese” (Hosne 2014, p. 212). She bases her argument on, among other things, a passage in which Ricci asserts that “each man cannot fully accomplish every task, for which reason the Lord on high has commanded that there should be friendship, so that we may help one another.”16

Nonetheless, tracing the origin of friendship to God is not exclusive to Christian thought; it also appears in Cicero’s De amicitia (23, 47).17 In this context, the concept of ‘God’ Ricci uses could be understood in a more philosophical sense, compatible with non-Christian traditions. Of course, Ricci likely had the Christian God in mind, as distinct from the gods referenced by philosophers. Therefore, even if we follow Hosne’s argument and acknowledge that Billings’ use of the term “secular” may be somewhat overstated, the fact remains that in Jiaoyou lun, Ricci introduced concepts of friendship that were, as far as possible, devoid of religious—and specifically Christian—overtones.

4.2. Citations from Christian Literature: References to the Bible and Christian Authors

Unlike Ricci, Martini often quotes Christian literature. He explicitly refers to the Bible 13 times, using phrases such as “The Bible says” (聖經曰) and “The Psalms say” (聖詩云). This explicit citation style in Qiuyou pian contrasts with the way Jiaoyou lun cites sources without specifying them. Three passages (maxim 14, maxim 48, maxim 59) that Ricci quotes from Cicero’s On Friendship are almost identical to those found in the biblical books of Proverbs and Sirach. Billings attributes these sources to Cicero, while the Korean scholar Jeong Min attributes them to the Bible. According to Billings’ identification of sources, it would appear that Ricci never quoted the Bible.

However, it would be premature to judge Qiuyou pian as particularly embodying a Christian understanding of friendship solely on the basis of the number of biblical citations. Even in the three cases mentioned above, the similarity between the content found in the Bible and that found in Cicero’s De amicitia does not necessarily make them distinctly Christian. Therefore, rather than simply looking at the number of biblical references, we should examine whether the content specifically conveys a Christian perspective on friendship.

Nonetheless, the fact that Qiuyou pian, in comparison to Jiaoyou lun, contains an overwhelming number of references to Christian sources suggests that Martini intentionally sought to supplement a Christian concept of friendship to Ricci’s treatment of the topic. According to Giuliano Bertuccioli’s research, Qiuyou pian contains a total of 68 references, almost a third of which are Christian sources, 13 from the Bible and 4 from Christian authors (Martini 1998, p. 298). In contrast, out of the 100 maxims quoted in Jiaoyou lun, only about 10 are from Christian sources. This significant difference indicates Martini’s deliberate effort to incorporate a Christian understanding of friendship in the Qiuyou pian.

4.3. The Difference in the Use of the Divine Name in Jiaoyou lun and Qiuyou pian and Its Significance

In Jiaoyou lun, there are only two references to God, while in Qiuyou pian, God is mentioned 15 times. Beyond the frequency of references, there is also a difference in the terms used to refer to God in the two works. When translating the Christian God into Chinese, Matteo Ricci used the terms “Shangdi (上帝 = Emperor on High)” and “Tianzhu (天主 = Lord of Heaven).” The term “Tianzhu” was originally a Buddhist term.18 “Shangdi” is a classical Chinese term used in Confucianism and Taoism, meaning “Emperor on High.” In The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Ricci mentions that he had read in ancient Chinese texts that the noblemen of old revered Shangdi, the “Emperor on High,” saying, “The Lord of Heaven [whom we Christians believe in] is precisely the Shangdi mentioned in the ancient scriptures”(Ricci and Meynard 2016, p. 95). By equating Shangdi from ancient Chinese scriptures with the Christian personal God, Ricci interpreted Shangdi in these texts as referring to a monotheistic deity. In The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, he uses the term “Tianzhu” about 350 times and “Shangdi” 94 times (Ricci and Meynard 2013, p. XXXV). However, in Jiaoyou lun, he exclusively uses the term “Shangdi,” and only twice.

This choice of terminology indicates that when writing about friendship in Jiaoyou lun, Ricci deliberately chose “Shangdi,” a term from Chinese classical texts familiar to the literati, instead of “Tianzhu,” which had been used in Michele Ruggieri’s Tianzhu shilu (1584) to refer to the Christian God. This choice reflects Ricci’s intention to consider his non-Christian Chinese readers.

In contrast, in Qiuyou pian, the term “Shangdi” is not used; instead, “Tianzhu (天主)” appears four times, and “Shangzhu (上主)” is used ten times. Additionally, in the preface, the term “Zhenzhu (眞主),” meaning “True Lord,” is used in the phrase “咸認一至尊眞主, 爲我輩大父母” which translates to “We all recognize the One Supreme True Lord as our Great Father and Mother.” It is interesting to see how this phrase borrows Chinese expressions by referring to the one true Lord as “our Great Father and Mother.”

While Jiaoyou lun mentions God only twice among its 100 maxims, Qiuyou pian references God 15 times. This demonstrates a different approach from Martini, who chose to emphasize religious elements more than Ricci, who had deliberately avoided them. However, analyzing the content of Qiuyou pian shows that Martini also employed the Jesuit strategy of accommodation. So why did Martini not use the term “Shangdi,” which aligns with this strategy, and instead use “Shangzhu”? And where did the term “Shangzhu” originate?

The reason for not using Shangdi is related to the long and heated historical debate over the translation of Christian terms in China. Ricci used Shangdi as a translation for the Christian God, but after his death, opposition arose within the Jesuits. Ricci’s successor, Niccolò Longobardo (1565–1655), and other Jesuits, upon reviewing Neo-Confucian commentaries on ancient Chinese texts, concluded that “Shangdi” was unsuitable for expressing the Christian God. Additionally, the mendicant missionaries who joined the China mission after 1630 criticized the use of “Shangdi,” arguing that its strong association with Chinese traditional religions could lead to confusion. Even before the mendicants’ involvement, Jesuits at the Jiading conference in 1628 held divergent views on this issue, and no consensus was reached. After the conference, in 1629, the Jesuit visitor Palmeiro forbade the use of both “Shangdi” and “Tian.”19 The absence of the term “Shangdi” in Martini’s Qiuyou pian likely reflects the influence of this prohibition. It is also highly probable that “Shangzhu” was used as a substitute for “Shangdi.” The precise origin of “Shangzhu,” however, requires further investigation.

Although both Shangzhu and Tianzhu are used in Qiuyou pian, there does not appear to be a clear distinction between the two terms based on context. Even when quoting the Bible, these two words are used interchangeably without any specific difference. Unlike Ricci, who used the term “Shangdi,” familiar to the Chinese, Martini’s choice of “Shangzhu” and “Tianzhu” instead of “Shangdi” was influenced by the historical context in which the use of “Shangdi” was prohibited. “Shangzhu” was likely used as a substitute for “Shangdi,” while “Tianzhu” was clearly intended to refer to the Christian God, suggesting Martini’s aim to more explicitly convey the Christian concept of God.

4.4. The Christian Understanding of Friendship in Qiuyou pian

As noted above, much of the content in the two volumes of Qiuyou pian aligns with the concept of friendship found in the Western classical literature cited in Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun. In this analysis, we will examine Qiuyou pian in order to explore the Christian understanding of friendship that it conveys.

4.4.1. “Friendship Is the Most Difficult Sea of Love to Navigate”

“Friendship is the most difficult sea of love to navigate.” This is the opening sentence of the first volume of Qiuyou pian. The metaphor of the “sea” suggests that just as navigating the deep and vast ocean is challenging, forming, maintaining, and developing friendships is also not easy. The idea that true friendship is difficult is common in classical references to friendship. This idea is also present in Cicero’s De Amicitia, which Martini frequently cites, as well as in the Christian classic on friendship, De Spirituali Amicitia, composed between 1158 and 1163 by Aelred of Rievaulx (c. 1110–1167). For those seeking a work on Christian friendship, no work is more appropriate than Aelred’s De Spirituali Amicitia.20

Aelred of Rievaulx, a 12th-century Cistercian monk states that “a friend always loves, even when criticized, violated, cast into flames, or crucified, (...); as our Jerome says: A friendship that can end was never true” (Aelred of Rievaulx 1971, p. 293), emphasizing that true friendship requires this level of perfection. He mentions that Cicero’s claim—that throughout ancient centuries, only three or four pairs were recognized as true friends—is not surprising given the demands of true friendship (Cicero 2006, IV, 15). This comparison shows that the emphasis on the challenges of true friendship is rooted in both classical and Christian understandings.

Connecting friendship with love is not an original attempt unique to Martini. Cicero, for example, argues that the root of friendship (amicitia) is love (amor), and that love is the principle of goodwill that binds friends together.21 He states that both words, “friendship” (amicitia) and “love” (amor), derive from the verb “to love” (amare), and that the meaning of “to love” is nothing other than the feeling one has for the person one loves.22

What, then, is the difference between friendship and love, both derived from the act of “loving”? In fact, the meaning of words can vary according to socio-cultural influences and historical contexts. It is therefore fitting to compare Cicero’s concept of amicitia, which pertains to Martini’s cultural and educational background, with the Christian concept of love known as ἀγάπη. Cicero defines friendship as “omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum cum benevolentia et caritate consensio” (De amicitia, 6, 20), meaning “a consensus on all divine and human matters with goodwill and affection.” Thus, friendship, according to Cicero, encompasses not a universal love for all but reciprocal love. In contrast, ἀγάπη transcends the dimensions of reciprocal love, extending even to one’s enemies (as stated in Matthew 5:44).23

Given these meanings of friendship and love, one might wonder whether Martini, by using the metaphor “Friendship is the most difficult sea of love to navigate,” sought to express friendship as a high-level form of love, aiming to align the ideal model of friendship with the Christian notion of ἀγάπη. We will have the opportunity to explore this issue further below.

4.4.2. “True Friends Do Not Fear Each Other”

Section 3 of the first volume of Qiuyou pian states that a true friend is characterized by the absence of fear between them: “True friends do not fear each other (...) In love, there can be no fear.”24 This idea is found in 1 John 4:18.

Although Martini does not directly quote this biblical verse, anyone familiar with the Bible would immediately recall it. According to this verse, the reason there is no fear in love is that perfect love casts out fear. Martini emphasizes multiple times in Qiuyou pian the Johannine idea of perfect love and repeatedly connects the standard of true friendship to this idea.

4.4.3. “True Friends Can Be Gathered Through Love”

In Qiuyou pian (上卷, 6, 5) we read: “True friends cannot be obtained through arms or wealth, but can be gathered through love...”.25 While the idea of emphasizing love in friendship may not be unique to the Christian concept of friendship, it does reflect the particular emphasis of Christianity. Moreover, in this statement, we can observe the following point: the emphasis on making friends through love contrasts with the Chinese tradition of friendship as expressed in Zengzi’s saying: “The gentleman uses the arts(文) in acquiring friends and uses friends in helping him to become humane.”26

4.4.4. The Ultimate Degree of Friendship: Laying Down One’s Life for a Friend

Martini asserts that the power of true friendship is so profound that a true friend values his friend’s life above his own and would willingly sacrifice his own life without hesitation. He illustrates this with the example of Orestes and Pylades, two loyal friends in Greek drama who were willing to give up their lives to save each other.27 This story is also cited as an example of self-sacrifice for a friend in Cicero’s De amicitia (7, 24) and Aelred of Rievaulx’s De spirituali amicitia (I, 27).

In addition to this story, Martini refers to another anecdote popular among rhetoricians, found in Book III, De fortitudine 2, Ext. 9 of Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium by the first-century Roman historian Valerius Maximus. To these anecdotes, he adds, “How could giving up one’s life to save a friend not be the greatest proof of love?”28 This statement echoes John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

In De spirituali amicitia, Aelred asserts that laying down one’s life for a friend is the ultimate limit (meta) of friendship. He explores various perspectives on the limit of friendship.29 Aelred further asserts that Christ himself exemplified the meta of friendship, citing John 15:13.30 In John 15, Jesus commands his disciples to “Love each other as I have loved you” (verse 12) and declares that the greatest love is to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, calling them friends (verse 15). He demonstrates this love through his acts. Martini’s emphasis on the power of true love and the portrayal of self-sacrifice for a friend as the greatest proof of love aligns with Aelred’s Christian interpretation of friendship. This view follows Jesus’s statement, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” as exemplifying the ultimate limit of friendship.

4.4.5. One Should Not Be Angry with Friends: It Is a Sin Against God

In the second volume of Qiuyou pian, while discussing the proper way to associate with friends and gather virtuous people, Martini says, “Those who make friends should not be angry but should always be gentle and kind.”31 He argues that “one should restrain anger in friendship; for frequent wrath and resentment will inevitably bring about the calamity of mutual hatred and slander32. He then supports this claim by quoting Proverbs 22:24–25 from the Bible:

The Bible says, “Do not befriend a quick-tempered person, for they are like violent waves. Fear that you may adopt their temperament and harm the virtue and beauty of your own heart.” Therefore, in choosing friends, one must avoid hot-tempered companions, for they will lead you astray and you will imitate their behavior. The actions taken in anger are sure to bring regret when calm returns, but by then you will have already sinned against the Lord and caused harm to others—what good is regret then?33

Here, Martini emphasizes that friendship should be understood not only in ethical terms, but also from the perspective of Christian faith, emphasizing that being angry is a “sin against God (上主).34 In addition, Martini cites an anecdote from the Disciplina Clericalis by Petrus Alphonsus, a text frequently referenced by medieval preachers.35 This is an example of Martini’s extensive use of Christian materials in Qiuyou pian.

4.4.6. The Love for an Enemy: A Deeper Love than the Love for a Close Friend

While Martini emphasizes that one should not be angry with friends, he also argues that loving one’s enemies is a deeper form of love than loving a close friend. He critiques the saying, “If you do not avenge your enemies, people will look down on you for lacking courage,” by asserting that this is “a remark that slanders the virtuous who repay evil with virtue and praises those who harbor resentment and bring about disaster.” He argues further that “a gentleman knows that the honor of forgiving enemies is greater than the honor of defeating them. Although they hate wrongdoing, they do not hate the person who commits it,” and in support of this he cites Matthew 5:44–46:

The Bible says: ‘It is easiest to love those who love you; even wicked people can do that. If that is all you can do, what reward will you receive from the Lord?’ You should love those who hate you and show kindness to those who do you wrong. In doing so, you become children of God. God makes the sun rise equally on the good and the wicked and sends rain to both the guilty and the innocent, granting grace to all without distinction.36

In this passage, Martini refers to the command to “love your enemies” from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus calls for a love that surpasses the generosity of a gentleman who treats his enemies with leniency. Martini elaborates: “If you repay resentment with virtue, you will touch the heart of God and reconcile with your enemies, turning them into friends and helping them to correct their mistakes. He concludes by asserting, “The love for an enemy is deeper than the love for a friend,” reasoning that this is because “loving an enemy is the highest level of self-overcoming”.37

This discussion of the love that reconciles with enemies and turns them into friends emphasizes Jesus’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount—specifically, the dimension of love that fulfills the Old Testament law. Unlike Ricci, Martini explicitly refers to and emphasizes the Christian notion of agape when discussing friendship. While Ricci also quotes the words of a wise man in the maxim 99 of the Jiaoyou lun, which states that taking revenge on one’s enemies is not as virtuous as showing mercy to them and making them friends,38 he does not explicitly address the idea of loving one’s enemies.

4.4.7. Summary of the Christian Understanding of Friendship and the Strategy of Accommodation

The concept of Christian friendship presented in Qiuyou pian can be summarized in three points. First, Martini’s notion of Christian friendship is revealed by linking the essence of friendship to love (agape). Second, the depth of true friendship is such that a genuine friend is willing to lay down their life for another. This concept aligns with the Christian understanding of friendship articulated by Aelred of Riveaulx. Aelred asserts that laying down one’s life for a friend is the ultimate limit (meta) of friendship. Third, the love for an enemy surpasses the love for a friend. Martini argues that extending grace to one’s enemies and transforming them into friends represents the highest form of self-mastery. Achieving this level of self-mastery necessitates a profound level of love, as loving one’s enemies is the most challenging manifestation of love due to its inherent difficulty. The challenge of loving an enemy and converting him or her into a friend illustrates the meaning of the statement at the beginning of Qiuyou pian: “Friendship is the most difficult sea of love to navigate.”

Beyond these three points, the Christian understanding of friendship also becomes evident in Martini’s preface, where he states, “One who understands the essence of friendship is close to the Kingdom of Heaven.” A similar idea is found in Aelred’s De spirituali amicitia, where Aelred confesses that while living with his fellow monks, he experienced a great joy that transcends all worldly pleasures. This confession demonstrates that he foretasted the happiness of the afterlife through friendship (Aelred of Rievaulx 1971 De Spirituali Amicitia, III, 81–82).

What, then, was the accommodation strategy that Martini employed to introduce this Christian understanding of friendship in a way that would resonate with the Chinese? As previously mentioned, much of the understanding of friendship in Qiuyou pian is based on the classical Western concept of friendship, which can also be found in Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun. Like Ricci, Martini employed an accommodation strategy that appealed to a universal understanding of friendship shared by both Eastern and Western cultures, thereby engaging the Chinese within their non-Christian cultural context. Unlike Ricci, however, Martini did not hesitate to incorporate explicitly Christian perspectives on friendship into his work. As examined above, most of the Christian understanding of friendship that he introduced can be found in Aelred’s De spirituali amicitia, the most representative treatise on Christian friendship.

Aelred of Rievaulx confesses that while he was captivated during his youth by the depth of content and style of expression in Cicero’s De amicitia, he no longer felt the same taste for Cicero’s work after becoming a monk and dedicating himself to reading the Scriptures in the monastery (Aelred of Rievaulx 1971, prol.1–4). He attributed this change to the fact that Cicero’s writings lacked “the sweet name of Christ (mellifluum Christi nomen)” and “the salt of the heavenly writings (caelestium litterarum sal, Aelred of Rievaulx 1971, I, 7). Aelred discovered the true model of friendship in Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends. He believed that true friendship is born in Christ, sustained through conformation to Christ, and reaches its ultimate goal in Him. From this Christo-centric perspective on friendship, Aelred argued that Cicero, who did not know Jesus Christ, the beginning and end of true friendship, did not fully understand the value of true friendship (Aelred of Rievaulx 1971, I, 8). However, Aelred did not exclude Cicero’s De amicitia from his work De spirituali amicitia. Instead, he combined it with biblical teachings and Christian doctrines, supplementing it with a Christian perspective (Dutton 2005, p. 35).

Martini shows a similar approach to Aelred in Qiuyou pian. He, too, combines the classical Western ideas of friendship, such as those of Cicero, with a Christian understanding of friendship. He would have been well familiar with the concept of Christian friendship presented in Aelred’s Spiritual Friendship, even if he had not read the book himself.39

In his book, Martini incorporates the content of the Christian understanding of friendship and quotes Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. However, he avoids directly mentioning Christ. Not mentioning Jesus in a rational approach is the method that Thomas Aquinas used in his Summa contra Gentiles, and Jesuit missionaries, who were trained in theology based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, also followed this approach (Cf. Üçerler and Antoni 2009, p. 62). Thus, while Martini incorporates the Christian perspective on friendship into his work, he seems to avoid direct reference to the story of Jesus, unfamiliar to Chinese readers who did not know the Christian revelation. This shows his accommodating approach to the cultural context of his audience.

5. Conclusions: Reception of Qiuyou pian in China

In presenting the Western doctrine of friendship in Jiaoyou lun, Ricci emphasized its congruence with traditional Chinese notions, incorporating modifications and paraphrases to conform to Chinese cultural norms. In contrast, Martini not only emphasized these similarities, but also went beyond the classical Western concept of friendship, citing Jesus’ teachings from the Sermon on the Mount—which advocate love of enemies and sinners—to illustrate a deeper understanding of friendship rooted in the ideal of agape.

Martini’s Christian understanding of friendship parallels the approach of Aelred of Rievaulx, a 12th-century Cistercian abbot who, in his Spiritual Friendship, combined Cicero’s ideas on friendship with a Christian perspective, using the latter to complement the former. This aligns well with the theological axiom of Thomas Aquinas (“Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it”),40 the most emphasized theologian in the Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Iesu, the famous Jesuit educational program. However, unlike Aelred, Martini does not explicitly mention Jesus Christ. While Aelred wrote for a Christian audience within Christendom, Martini’s intended readership was the Chinese people living in a non-Christian context. Martini’s omission of explicit references to Christ may reflect his sensitivity to this different cultural environment, aligning with the Jesuit strategy of accommodation in mission work.

In late 16th-century China, at a time when people made friends for material gain and cared little about helping their poor friends, true friendship was rare. In this context, Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun was enthusiastically received by the Chinese people, who lamented the lack of true friendship (Lo 2006, pp. 221–41). At least 18 editions of the book have been published. It was considered a Chinese work, and was later included in the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries (Siku quanshu 四庫全書), the largest collection of books compiled by order of the Qianlong Emperor (1736–1796). Martini’s Qiuyou pian, by contrast, was not widely accepted and circulated only among a small circle of scholars.

What accounts for this difference in reception? Several factors likely contributed to the limited acceptance of Martini’s work. First, historical circumstances may have played a role, as the book was published during a period marked by the expulsion of the Jesuits from China. More fundamentally, however, the contrasting reception can be attributed to the different approaches taken by the two authors in addressing cultural distance. Ricci’s Jiaoyou lun was more readily accepted by the Chinese because of his deliberate strategy of minimizing cultural gaps and emphasizing compatibility with existing Chinese values. In contrast, while Qiuyou pian introduced a universal understanding of friendship that purported to transcend East–West distinctions, it also created considerable cultural distance from traditional Chinese concepts of friendship by incorporating distinctly Christian dimensions, particularly the agape ideal that positions the love of enemies as a deeper form of love than friendship itself. The concept of loving one’s enemies was profoundly foreign to Confucian teaching.

This cultural distance becomes evident when we consider that even within Chinese traditions that emphasized universal love, such as Mozi’s doctrine of jian ai (兼愛)—often translated as “universal love” or “impartial care”—there was no equivalent to the Christian ideal of loving one’s enemies. While Confucius’ notion of ren (仁) promotes a form of love that varies according to one’s degree of closeness to oneself, Mozi’s teachings advocate impartial and unconditional love for all people regardless of their relationship to oneself, yet do not include an exhortation to love one’s enemies.

While this Christian understanding of friendship may have been difficult to accept in the cultural context of China, and remains challenging even for Christians today, Martini’s vision opens up a radical horizon. Rather than dismissing such ideals as impracticable, engaging with the depth and universality of this love might lead us into a world of deeper and broader friendship and humanity. In this light, Qiuyou pian, despite its limited reception, represents not merely a failed accommodation but a bold invitation to transcend conventional boundaries of human affection and solidarity.