An Encounter of Two Elite Groups: Jesuit Missionaries and Provincial Governors in the Post-Matteo Ricci Era (1610–1644)

Abstract

This article examines the interactions between Jesuit missionaries and provincial governors in late Ming China during the post-Ricci era (1610–1644). Previous scholarship largely focused on Matteo Ricci and the converted literati, leaving the role of provincial governors insufficiently explored. Drawing on a systematic comparison of Chinese and Western sources, this study reconstructs, for the first time, the concrete relationships between four governors—Zhu Dadian, Cao Erzhen, Fang Kongzhao, and Liu Yikun—and Jesuit missionaries, thereby filling an important historiographical gap. The analysis shows that the Jesuits’ “top-down strategy”, initially focused on the literati, persisted after Ricci’s death in a more decentralized provincial form. In each case, gubernatorial support directly facilitated the establishment, protection, or expansion of local missions, demonstrating the decisive influence of provincial authority on missionary fortunes. Methodologically, this study employs close textual reading and cross-referencing of missionary reports, official records, and local sources. It concludes that the late-Ming Catholic mission relied on a multilayered protective network in which provincial governors constituted a crucial but previously underrecognized component. These findings call for more scholarly attention to provincial power-holders in the study of Christianity in late imperial China.

1. Introduction

After Matteo Ricci (利玛窦, Li Madou, 1552–1610) entered China, the so-called “top-down strategy” became the principal approach applied by Jesuits in their missionary work. This strategy, which primarily focused on evangelization and interaction among members of the upper social strata (the literati)1, has been criticized frequently both within and outside of the Society of Jesus. However, it was precisely this approach that enabled the Jesuits to establish a lasting presence in China during the Ming and Qing periods. Even missionaries such as Niccolò Longobardi (龙华民, Long Huamin, 1559–1654), Giulio Aleni (艾儒略, Ai Rulüe, 1582–1649), Étienne Faber (方德望, Fang Dewang, 1598–1659), and Michel Trigault (金弥格, Jing Mige, 1602–1667)—who spent extended periods working at the grassroots level and converted many common people—continued, alongside their community-based evangelization, to cultivate relationships with local gentry by offering gifts such as clocks, globes, and Western paintings. In doing so, they carefully maintained the Church’s relationship with officialdom and local society.

Interactions between Jesuit missionaries and Chinese literati began as early as Ricci’s arrival in China. In Ricci’s memoirs, as well as in the Jesuit annual letters of the seventeenth century, a substantial portion of the narrative is devoted to accounts of encounters between missionaries and Chinese scholar-officials. Since the nineteenth century, with the rise of apologetics, church historians have focused their research on converted Chinese literati. Representative works include those by Auguste M. Colombel, Joseph Hsiao, Pierre Hoang, Louis Pfister, Joseph Dehergne, and Fang Hao.

In addition to converted literati such as Xu Guangqi (徐光启, 1562–1633), Yang Tingyun (杨廷筠, 1557–1627), and Li Zhizao (李之藻, 1565–1630), Jesuit social engagement in China involved another important group: the so-called “friendly literati (奉教士大夫)”, who were not baptized but nevertheless maintained a favorable attitude toward Catholicism and Jesuit missionaries. Since the twentieth century, research on this group has developed significantly. Rowbotham argued that the success of the Jesuit mission in China was achieved largely through winning the favor of high-ranking Chinese officials, a pattern fundamentally different from that of Protestant missions, which relied on political backing from the British and American governments (Rowbotham 1942, p. 63). In contrast, Dunn emphasizes that the Jesuits’ strength in social engagement stemmed chiefly from their personal learning and moral integrity. He further argues that from the time of Matteo Ricci onward, Jesuit interaction with Chinese officials centered on Beijing as a starting point for building a nationwide network of high-ranking friendly elites, within whose protective framework missionary expansion was made possible (Dunne 2014, p. 81).

At a more concrete level, Huang Yinong’s study of friendly literati in the late Ming period demonstrated that examination-based social networks played a crucial role in the formation of this group (Huang 2006, pp. 271–72). Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, in his analysis of the transformation of Ricci’s missionary strategy during his time in Nanchang, emphasized the indispensable protective role of “high-level social connections”, such as local high officials and princely households (Hsia 2011, p. 175). Song Liming, focusing on the cases of Wang Pan (王泮, 1535–?), the prefect of Zhaoqing (肇庆), and Liu Jiwen (刘继文, 1531–1592), the governor-general of Guangdong and Guangxi (两广总督, Liangguang Zongdu), argued that the personal preferences of local governing officials often played a decisive role in determining whether missionaries were allowed to remain or were expelled (Song 2011, pp. 18–59). Building on these studies, Liam Matthew Brockey further explored the protective influence of the Chinese emperor and court missionaries on local missionary activities (Brockey 2017, p. 177). Xiao Qinghe (Xiao 2014) and Zhang Xianqing (X. Zhang 2009) also conducted an in-depth exploration of the relationship between the official authorities and the Catholic Church.

With the publication of an increasing number of Jesuit documents and Chinese sources, source-based studies verifying the historical interactions between Jesuit missionaries and friendly literati have become abundant. Among the earliest and most influential contributions is the three-volume Fonti Ricciane by Pasquale M. D’Elia, which made extensive use of both Chinese and Western archival materials to identify most of the Chinese personal names, official titles, and place names appearing in Ricci’s memoirs, thereby laying the foundation for modern Ricci studies (D’Elia 1942–1949). Drawing on more than four hundred sources, Tang Kaijian’s work constituted another large-scale effort to verify historical interactions between Jesuits and Chinese literati (Tang 2017). In addition, scholars such as Liu Geng (Geng Liu 2018) and Zhou Xiaolei (Zhou 2021) employed both Chinese and Portuguese sources to verify numerous historical facts concerning Ming-dynasty literati closely associated with the Jesuits.

In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have examined Jesuit patterns of social engagement within the broader political and factional context of the late Ming period. Dunn was among the first to observe that the rise and decline of the Jesuit mission exhibited an inverse relationship with the fortunes of the eunuch faction (阉党), although his analysis did not fully account for the complex conflicts between the Donglin faction (东林党) and other groups—such as the Qi (齐党), Chu (楚党), and Zhe (浙党) factions—prior to the eunuchs’ ascendancy or their impact on the Jesuits (Dunne 2014, p. 205). Jacques Gernet further developed this perspective, arguing that the missionaries’ principal opponents were largely adversaries of the Donglin faction, while their main allies tended to be located within Donglin circles (Gernet 2001, pp. 566–67). From a cultural and religious perspective, Huang Yinong contended that Donglin scholars and converted literati generally believed that the essential doctrines of Catholicism were largely compatible with Confucianism and therefore viewed Christianity in a positive light (Huang 2006, pp. 126–29). This interpretation has also been supported by scholars such as Sun Shangyang (Sun 1994, p. 10) and Fan Shuzhi (Fan 2003, pp. 193–200). Nevertheless, this line of argumentation has clear limitations. Many studies lack comprehensive examination and systematic statistical analysis, relying instead on a small number of representative figures to infer broader patterns of Jesuit–elite group relations. Addressing this issue, Su Xinhong conducted a statistical analysis of 362 late-Ming literati who interacted with Jesuit missionaries and demonstrated that factional affiliation bore no relationship to attitudes toward Jesuit engagement. Among the Jesuits’ contacts were members of the Donglin and Fushe factions, as well as officials associated with the eunuch faction and the Zhe faction (Su 2004).

Overall, although a substantial body of scholarship has examined Jesuit missionaries and friendly literati, most existing studies have focused on Ricci himself and his social circle. Jesuit interactions with friendly literati after Ricci’s death during the Ming dynasty (1610–1644) have not been systematically examined, leaving many historical relationships and figures unexplored. Moreover, there has been little specialized research on the relationship between Jesuit missionaries and provincial governors as a group, despite the decisive influence these officials exerted over missionary activities at the local level.

In the late Ming period, following Ricci’s death, four provincial governors—Zhu Dadian (朱大典, 1581–1646), Cao Erzhen (曹尔桢, ?–?), Fang Kongzhao (方孔炤, 1590–1655), and Liu Yikun (刘一焜, 1567–?)—maintained close relationships with Jesuit missionaries. For different reasons, they established favorable relations with the Jesuits and provided substantial assistance in the establishment of Catholic communities within their respective provinces. To date, these relationships have not received sustained scholarly attention; therefore, this study was conducted to seek and verify the historical facts of interactions between Jesuits and these four governors. Examining these interactions, it further clarifies how the Jesuits’ “top-down strategy” operated at the provincial level after Ricci’s death. The aim of this study, which employed a case-study approach, is not statistical representativeness but rather to illuminate the mediating role of provincial administrative authorities between central policy and local missionary practice.

The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. Section 2 discusses the institutional and political importance of provincial governors in the Jesuit missionary strategy and explains why these officials became key figures in the success or failure of local missions. Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 present four case studies that reconstruct, for the first time, the previously overlooked relationships between Jesuit missionaries and four provincial governors. Section 3 examines the relationship between Francesco Sambiasi and Zhu Dadian, and analyzes how their interactions facilitated missionary activity in the Huai’an region. Section 4 focuses on Alphonse Vagnoni and Cao Erzhen, highlighting the role of the governor’s patronage in the establishment of the Shanxi mission. Section 5 investigates António de Gouvea’s encounter with Fang Kongzhao and explores how official favor enabled the Jesuits to gain a firm foothold in Wuchang. Section 6 analyzes the relationship between Jesuit missionaries and Liu Yikun, Governor of Zhejiang, particularly his role in mitigating anti-Christian tensions and protecting the Hangzhou residence. The Section 7 summarizes the findings and reflects on the broader significance of provincial governors in shaping the development of the Jesuit mission in late Ming China.

2. Governors: Key Protectors of the Jesuit Mission Across Ming China’s Provinces

Jacques Gernet observed that missionaries frequently complained about the strong interest Chinese elites showed in various forms of religious syncretism. This tendency stemmed from a widespread belief that all religions and doctrines could be harmonized and that truth itself was a matter of approximation rather than absoluteness (Gernet 2003, p. 47). This attitude stood in clear contrast to the missionaries’ insistence on absolute and exclusive doctrine. Although this traditional Chinese inclination toward harmonization was not necessarily conducive to the conversion of literati to Catholicism, it nonetheless enabled them to engage with missionaries in a more open and receptive manner. Consequently, since Matteo Ricci entered China, the so-called “top-down strategy” became the principal missionary approach adopted by the Jesuits.

The Jesuit strategy of cultivating relations with political elites and adapting to local cultural contexts can be grounded in broader Christian theological traditions. The Pauline injunction to be subject to governing authorities (Romans 13:1) and to pray for rulers (1 Timothy 2:1–2) reflects an early Christian orientation toward engagement with political power. At the same time, Paul’s well-known statement that he became “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22) provides a key scriptural foundation for cultural accommodation in missionary practice. Together, these theological elements offer a coherent framework for understanding Jesuit strategies of elite engagement and cultural adaptation in late Ming China. At the same time, from a practical perspective, the social background of the Jesuits who came to China also endowed them with distinct advantages in their interactions with the Chinese literati. According to statistical data, among the 247 Jesuits who arrived in China between 1582 and 1776, 64 were of noble origin and 134 came from middle-class backgrounds (Geng 2009, pp. 31–33). This social composition meant that many missionaries had already been trained within elite cultural environments prior to their arrival in China. Jesuits of elite or educated backgrounds were thus particularly well equipped to engage with the Chinese literati. Their training in rhetoric, philosophy, and the sciences, combined with modes of elite sociability, enabled them to communicate with the literati on relatively equal intellectual and cultural footing.

The basic spirit of this strategy may be understood on two levels. First, the Jesuits sought to cultivate relationships with central and local literati elites, aiming to win their goodwill toward Western learning or Christianity and to foster a sympathetic and friendly intellectual disposition toward Catholicism. Once achieved, the political status of these elites could then be leveraged to facilitate missionary activities. Second, when individual literati demonstrated a concrete interest in Catholicism, the missionaries would proceed to evangelize them directly, thereby gaining high-status converts whose authority and influence could be used to expand the reach of Christianity. These two modes of engagement produced two corresponding elite groups: friendly literati, such as Ye Xianggao (叶向高, 1559–1627), Feng Yingjing (冯应京, 1555–1606), Zhang Wenda (张问达, 1554–1625), and Feng Qi (冯琦, 1558–1603), and converted literati, such as Xu Guangqi, Yang Tingyun, and Li Zhizao. In quantitative terms, the friendly literati far outnumbered the converted literati. During the Ming dynasty, only one converted literatus—Xu Guangqi—attained a rank of vice-second grade or above, whereas no fewer than forty friendly literati reached that level (Zhou 2021). This clearly demonstrates that the establishment of the friendly literati constituted one of the most significant outcomes of the Jesuits’ top-down strategy.

Within this group of friendly literati, provincial governors and governors-general2 (hereafter collectively referred to as “provincial governors”) were a particular focus of Jesuit attention. As the highest-ranking local authorities, provincial governors held comprehensive administrative, supervisory, and military power. Their personal attitudes toward Catholicism directly affected the security and survival of missionary activities within their jurisdictions. This reality was already keenly felt during the earliest phase of the Jesuit mission, when Michele Ruggieri (罗明坚, Luo Mingjian, 1543–1607) and Matteo Ricci first entered China. In 1583, by bribing the gatekeepers of the Guangdong–Guangxi governor-general Guo Yingpin (郭应聘, 1520–1586), Ruggieri and Ricci obtained permission to reside in Zhaoqing and to establish a residence there (Ricci 2014, pp. 94–100). During this period, the Jesuits constructed their first residence—the Xianhua Monastery (仙花寺, Xianhua si)—which quickly attracted visitors from various social circles and became a center of active missionary work. Ricci also established friendships with officials such as Wang Pan, Liu Chengfan (刘承范, ?–?), and Huang Shiyu (黄时雨, ?–?), who provided protection for his activities.

This favorable situation abruptly ended in 1589, when a single directive from the newly appointed governor-general Liu Jiwen resulted in the confiscation of the Zhaoqing residence. The officials with whom Ricci had previously cultivated relationships were powerless in the face of the orders issued by the highest provincial authority (Ricci 2014, pp. 139–45). Forced to abandon Zhaoqing, Ricci moved on to Shaozhou (韶州), and the achievements accumulated over six years were effectively lost, as described next.

The Zhaoqing episode dealt Ricci a severe blow. This experience also prompted a significant shift in his missionary strategy: while his early efforts had focused primarily on cultivating relationships with literati, Ricci increasingly recognized the importance of establishing ties with powerful provincial governors. Even three years later, in a letter to the Jesuit authorities in Rome, he expressed his lingering anguish:

when years of effort were undone in a single day, and when the few remaining converts came to the residence in tears like orphans, the emotional toll was profound.

(Ricci 2018, p. 84)

As a result, Ricci placed exceptional emphasis on cultivating relationships with provincial governors in his subsequent missionary activities. In Jiangxi, he composed Western Methods of Memory (西国记法) for the son of the Governor of Jiangxi (江西巡抚), Lu Wangai (陆万垓, 1533–1599), in order to gain access to him; in return, Lu facilitated Ricci’s establishment of a residence in Nanchang (南昌) (Ricci 2014, pp. 208–9). In 1598, during his first journey to Beijing (北京), Ricci detoured to Jurong to visit Zhao Kehuai (赵可怀, 1541–1604), Governor of Nanjing (应天巡抚), and presented him with sacred images intended as a tribute (Ricci 2014, pp. 222–25). In 1600, during his second journey to the capital, Ricci met the Grand Canal governor (河道总督) Liu Dongxing (刘东星, 1538–1601) in Jining (济宁), who assisted him in revising an eloquently worded memorial for presenting tribute objects (Ricci 2014, pp. 271–73). Apart from Beijing, Ricci maintained good relations with provincial governors in both Nanchang and Nanjing, where he successfully established Jesuit residences.

From his time in Nanchang onward, Ricci fully recognized the pivotal role of provincial governors as the central axis of local power. He understood clearly that without the protection of these officials, Jesuit efforts could be suppressed at any moment. Conversely, once a governor’s support was secured, local missionary work could expand rapidly: hesitant officials no longer barred missionaries from their doors, and those interested in Western learning became willing to engage openly with them. Ricci proudly recorded that after meeting Governor Lu Wangai, he was welcomed by officials at every level of the Jiangxi administration. Once the governor’s approval was known, officials throughout the province felt free to visit him and form friendships:

With this meeting and the governor’s reply, my activities were secured. I therefore proceeded to visit all the high-ranking officials of the province and its cities, including the Provincial Administration Commissioner, the Judicial Commissioner, the Educational Intendant, and the prefects. I informed the prefect of the governor’s permission for me to remain; the prefect, who may be regarded as the chief authority of Nanchang, then reported this matter to the county magistrate. Although the magistrate had been ill the previous day, he sent someone to invite me to his office, where he received me warmly and treated me in the same manner as a learned scholar. All the magistrates of Shaozhou taken together did not show me as much respect as he did. After my visits to the governor and the other high officials, all the officials felt free to visit me and to cultivate friendship with me.

(Ricci 2018, p. 133)

Although local officials possessed decisive authority over the presence or expulsion of missionaries, Jesuit–official interaction was not always a matter of missionaries seeking audiences. In some cases, the officials themselves took the initiative to visit the Jesuits. As Ronnie Po-chia Hsia has noted, Ricci’s growing reputation in Beijing made visiting him a fashionable form of elite social interaction (Hsia 2011, p. 133). This phenomenon was not limited to Ricci personally; after his death, Jesuit residences across the provinces continued to attract visits from high-ranking officials and prominent local elites.

From Ricci’s death in 1610 to the Ming–Qing dynastic transition in 1644, the Chinese Jesuit mission entered a new phase, defined here as the “post-Ricci era”. Its defining feature was a shift toward the decentralization of missionary leadership: no single figure possessed Ricci’s overarching authority, nor did missionary activity coalesce around a single individual. Ricci’s former central role gave way to a pluralistic configuration characterized by multiple active agents. Although each missionary was formally subject to the authority of successive mission superiors or vice-provincials, this authority was limited primarily to ecclesiastical governance rather than day-to-day missionary interaction at the local level. Missionaries such as Lazzaro Cattaneo (郭居静, Guo Jujing, 1560–1640), Giulio Aleni, Alfonso Vagnoni (高一志, Gao Yizhi, 1566–1640), and Francisco Furtado (傅泛济, Fu Fanji, 1589–1653) pursued differentiated strategies in regions such as Jiangnan (江南), Fujian (福建), Shaanxi (陕西), and Shanxi (山西). This coexistence of multiple actors and strategies marked a historical transition from a personality-centered model of evangelization to one based on institutional coordination.

During Ricci’s lifetime, the number of Jesuits in China rarely exceeded single digits, and most missionary, social, and translation activities were undertaken by Ricci himself. In the post-Ricci era, however, younger missionaries who had arrived during Ricci’s time—such as Diego de Pantoja (庞迪我, Pang Diwo, 1571–1618), Manuel Dias Jr. (阳玛诺, Yang Manuo, 1574–1659), Lazzaro Cattaneo, Niccolò Longobardi, and Giulio Aleni—had matured into experienced missionaries with deep knowledge of Chinese culture, capable of independently assuming responsibilities in evangelization, elite engagement, and authorship. At the same time, converted literati—especially the so-called “Three Pillars (三柱石)”—not only provided political protection and financial support but also participated to varying degrees in advisory and decision-making roles concerning missionary policy, elite cultivation, and practical guidance. The simultaneous emergence of numerous accomplished missionaries and prominent converted literati constituted one of the most distinctive features of this period.

Jesuit interaction with provincial governors during this era exhibited several new characteristics.

First, the difficulty of establishing contact with provincial governors was significantly reduced. In Ricci’s time, both the literati and governors were often wary of foreign missionaries. Governor-general Guo Yingpi, for example, permitted Ricci to reside in Zhaoqing but never granted him an audience or accepted gifts, a situation Ricci found perplexing (Ricci 2014, pp. 99–100). Similarly, Governor Lu Wangai initially reacted with concern to Ricci’s arrival in Nanchang and only relaxed after official investigations (Ricci 2014, p. 210). By contrast, in the post-Ricci era, Jesuits in Beijing consolidated their position at court through contributions such as assisting with troop recruitment, artillery, calendar reform, and city defense. Their status gradually shifted from that of tributary foreigners to culturally assimilated subjects, reinforcing a sense of legitimacy (Zhou 2021, p. 8). Jesuits and converted literati also used their influence at court to facilitate local missionary activities, making engagement with provincial governors considerably easier.

Second, the geographical scope of Jesuit–governor interaction expanded. Building on the original residences in Shaozhou, Nanchang, Nanjing, and Beijing, the Jesuit mission extended along the southeastern coast and into the northwestern interior. Excluding Guangxi (广西), Yunnan (云南), and Guizhou (贵州), Jesuits established sixteen new residences across both capitals and provinces such as Beijing, Nanjing, Shandong (山东), Shanxi, Henan (河南), Shaanxi, Sichuan (四川), Jiangxi, Huguang (湖广), Zhejiang (浙江), Fujian (福建), and Guangdong. In regions where missionary activity flourished—such as Fujian, Zhejiang, Nanjing, Shaanxi, and Shanxi—experienced priests with strong skills in evangelization and elite engagement were typically appointed as resident superiors and were tasked with interacting with provincial governors.

Third, provincial governors not only possessed the authority to grant Jesuit missionaries the right of residence within their jurisdictions but also acted as crucial arbiters in the resolution of local missionary incidents. In the Post-Matteo Ricci era, although Jesuits in Beijing were repeatedly honored by the imperial court, local attitudes toward missionaries varied considerably across regions, and such imperial favor was insufficient to prevent or resolve all conflicts. When missionary incidents arose at the provincial level, governors who maintained amicable relations with the Jesuits were often able to issue rulings favorable to them, thereby significantly reducing the risks faced by local residents and ensuring a degree of institutional stability for missionary activities. This form of protection, however, was largely confined to incidents of limited scope. In cases of empire-wide persecution, such as the Nanjing incident of 1616, even governors closely associated with the Jesuits were unable to intervene in judicial decisions issued by the central court. Nevertheless, they could still exercise a measure of discretion within their own jurisdictions by offering informal protection. For instance, the Zhejiang governor Liu Yikun tacitly permitted Jesuit missionaries to take refuge in the residence of the convert Yang Tingyun, thereby mitigating the immediate impact of anti-Christian measures at the local level (Furtado 1620, p. 378).

Fourth, Jesuit interaction with provincial governors tended to be concentrated in the early stages of missionary activity in a given region. Jesuit sources from the post-Ricci era, including annual letters and the Asia Extrema, follow a consistent narrative pattern: early accounts emphasize interactions with local elites and the establishment of residences under official protection, whereas later reports focus on missionary results, such as itinerant preaching, converted gentry, exemplary lay believers, confraternities, and miracles. This narrative logic accords with the general dynamics of the top-down strategy, in which engagement with provincial governors is most intensive during the initial phase of missionary expansion. Although not absolute, later references to governors typically concern their role in resolving conflicts involving Christianity, such as the intervention of the Zhejiang Governor (浙江巡抚) Wang Qia (王洽, 1569–1630) in the so-called missionary incidents (教案) in Hangzhou of 1624 or the Fujian Governor (福建巡抚) Xiao Yifu (萧奕辅, 1580–1644)’s mediation in the Fujian incidents of 1639 (de Gouvea 2005, pp. 219–20; 2018, p. 268).

3. Francesco Sambiasi and His Relationship with Zhu Dadian, Governor of Grain Transport

Zhu Dadian, a prominent official of the Southern Ming Dynasty (南明), is one of the most important friendly literati and has been neglected for a long time. This neglect may be attributed to two main factors. First, Chinese Catholic sources contain only scattered and fragmentary references to him. Second, although Western sources record his interactions with missionaries such as Francesco Sambiasi (毕方济, Bi Fangji, 1582–1649), they do not mention his name explicitly.

Zhu Dadian, courtesy name Yanzhi (延之) and sobriquet Weihai (未孩), was a native of Jinhua (金华) in Zhejiang. In his early years, he repeatedly failed the imperial examination, remaining a Licentiate (生员, Sheng Yuan) for more than twenty years. He finally obtained the provincial degree (举人, Ju Ren) in 1615 and the metropolitan degree (进士, Jin Shi) in 1616. He was initially appointed magistrate of Zhangqiu County (章丘) and later promoted to Supervising Secretary in the Ministry of War (兵科给事中). After submitting memorials impeaching Wei Zhongxian (魏忠贤, 1568–1627), Zhu was reassigned as Provincial Administration Vice Commissioner in Fujian (福建参政), where he participated in the Penghu campaign against the Dutch under the direction of Governor Nan Juyi (南居益). He was subsequently promoted to Vice Commissioner of the Zhangnan Circuit (漳南道副使). Following the execution of the so-called “Six Gentlemen of the Donglin” (东林六君子) by the eunuch faction, Zhu retired to his native Jinhua. After the Chongzhen (崇祯) emperor ascended the throne, he was recalled to service and successively held posts including Military Commissioner of Tianjin (天津兵备), Governor of Dengzhou–Laizhou (登莱巡抚), and Governor of Shandong(山东巡抚). In 1635, he was appointed Governor of Grain Transport (漕运总督), concurrently holding the rank of Vice Minister of Revenue (户部侍郎). After being impeached, he returned to his hometown. During the Southern Ming period, he was recalled by the Prince of Fu (福王) as Vice Minister of War (兵部侍郎), later promoted to Minister of War (兵部尚书) and Governor-General of the Upper Yangtze region (总督上江). He was subsequently appointed Grand Secretary of the Eastern Pavilion (东阁大学士) by the Prince of Tang (唐王). After the fall of Nanjing, Qing forces attacked Jinhua. Zhu commanded the defense of the city, and when it fell, he committed suicide by self-immolation (Gong and Qiu 2021, p. 12224; Wang 1733, pp. 26a–27a; Guoguang Liu 1879, pp. 12a–16b).

Some scholars have attributed Zhu Dadian’s familiarity with the Jesuits to examination networks formed when Xu Guangqi served as a co-examiner (Huang 2006, pp. 270–71)3. This interpretation is incorrect. Zhu obtained his metropolitan degree in 1616, the same year as Qian Shisheng (钱士升), Wang Xian (王先), Lian Guoshi (练国事), Fang Kongzhao (方孔炤), Bi Gongchen (毕拱辰), Ruan Dacheng (阮大铖), Wang Bingyuan (汪秉元), and Zeng Ying (曾樱)—figures who were all familiar with the Jesuits. Qu Shisi (瞿式耜, 1590–1650), in particular, was baptized by Giulio Aleni in 1624 while observing mourning in Changshu (常熟), and the following year, he met Sambiasi when the latter came to preach there. Qu recorded the following:

In the years of 1624–1625, the virtuous Western missionaries Giulio Aleni and Francesco Sambiasi arrived successively in Changshu (Yushan). At that time, I was living in seclusion with little to occupy me, and thus was able to question them in detail about the origins and principles of their learning.

岁在子、丑，泰西上德艾公、毕公相继来虞。余忧居无事，得详叩其学术之原委。

(Y. Zhang 2000, p. 367)

Zhu himself became acquainted with Aleni around 1625 and later met Sambiasi in 1638, though it remains unclear whether Qu Shisi played an intermediary role.

Zhu Dadian’s early contact with Catholicism is attested only sporadically in Chinese sources. His friendship with missionaries began during the Tianqi reign (天启). Around 1625, when Giulio Aleni first entered Fujian, the two became acquainted, a relationship later recorded by the Catholic Li Sixuan, who noted that Zhu was among a group of officials who maintained close and respectful ties with missionaries. (前漳南道令司徒朱公未孩，此数十公者，或谊笃金兰，或横经北面) (Li n.d., p. 25b) After the Chongzhen emperor’s accession, Xu Guangqi sought to recruit a group of converted and friendly literati to participate in the defense of the capital and in calendar reform, thereby providing institutional support for the Jesuits in Beijing. Zhu Dadian was repeatedly recommended by Xu for this purpose. In 1631, Xu submitted a memorial recommending personnel for the defense of the capital, listing Zhu—then serving as Military Commissioner of Tianjin—alongside converted officials such as Sun Yuanhua (孙元化) and Wang Zheng (王徵) (G. Xu 2010, p. 141). Zhu was appointed Governor of Shandong the following year. In 1632, Xu again recommended converted officials Li Tianjing (李天经) and Jin Sheng (金声), as well as friendly literati such as Zhu Dadian and Wang Yinglin (王应麟), for service in the Bureau of Astronomy (历局). Zhu was unable to take up the post, however, due to his military responsibilities in suppressing the rebellion of Kong Youde (孔有德) (G. Xu 2009, pp. 1595–96). These two recommendations demonstrate not only Xu Guangqi’s recognition of Zhu’s military and calendrical expertise but also the broader trust placed in him by the Chinese Catholic leadership.

After Xu Guangqi’s death, Sambiasi continued to maintain close relations with Zhu Dadian. In 1635, Zhu was appointed Governor of Grain Transport, an office headquartered in Huai’an (淮安) in Southern Zhili (南直隶). The full title of the post combined authority over grain transport, military affairs, regional administration, and river conservancy, with jurisdiction extending across multiple prefectures and sub-prefectures in several provinces (总督漕运兼提督军务巡抚凤阳等处兼管河道).

The close relationship between Sambiasi and Zhu began in 1638. As superior of the Nanjing residence, Sambiasi sought to extend missionary activity to Huai’an. Located in northern Southern Zhili, Huai’an was a major transportation hub linking Nanjing and Beijing and a key node along the Grand Canal system. At the time, Johann Adam Schall von Bell (汤若望, Tang Ruowang, 1591–1666) had recently been honored by the court for his services in city defense inspections, and churches across the provinces were displaying plaques commemorating this recognition. Taking advantage of Schall’s growing reputation, Sambiasi visited the governor’s residence in Huai’an. According to Western sources, Zhu received Sambiasi warmly and invited him to stay at the governor’s residence for several days, during which a close friendship developed. Zhu’s favorable treatment of Sambiasi had immediate effects. An official who had previously rebuffed Sambiasi arrogantly hastened to apologize and request forgiveness upon learning of the governor’s patronage (de Gouvea 2018, p. 236).

With Zhu Dadian’s support, missionary work in Huai’an advanced rapidly. In 1638, Sambiasi stayed in Huai’an for thirty-five days, residing at the home of the convert Chen Youhan (陈酉函, baptized Paul), who later served as a Director in the Ministry of War. During this period, Sambiasi baptized 110 people, including three officials, twenty-seven literati, and eighty women (Zhao 2021, p. 44; Tang 2018, p. 146). When Sambiasi returned in 1639 with the intention of establishing a church, Zhu immediately instructed a converted official named Estevão to purchase land and allocated public funds for construction. He also appointed an official surnamed Li from Qizhou (蕲州) in Huguang (湖广) to oversee the building work. According to António de Gouvea (何大化, He Dahua, 1592–1677), missionary activity in Huai’an surged that year, with more than 300 baptisms—nearly half the number recorded in Nanjing and exceeding those in Changshu. Sambiasi hoped to establish a permanent residence in Huai’an, but due to a shortage of personnel, missionaries could only visit annually from the Nanjing residence (de Gouvea 2018, p. 236).

During Zhu Dadian’s tenure as Governor of Grain Transport, Huai’an became an important missionary center. From 1638 to 1643, Sambiasi traveled there annually. Zhu also presented a commemorative plaque entitled “Yumuzhengzong” 于穆正宗 to the Shanghai residence and provided sixteen taels of silver as financial support (Anonymous 2013, p. 82). Beyond assisting Sambiasi in Huai’an, Zhu twice used his personal networks and official authority to facilitate Jesuit activities elsewhere.

First, he played a key role in resolving the Fujian missionary incident. Beginning in 1637, local authorities in Fujian launched an official anti-Christian campaign, issuing proclamations that identified Giulio Aleni and Manuel Dias, Jr. as principal offenders and ordered their arrest (C. Xu 1996, pp. 132–36). Churches were closed, and the missionaries were forced to seek refuge in Xinghua (兴化) (de Gouvea 2018, p. 269). In 1639, while Sambiasi was in Huai’an, he learned that the newly appointed Fujian governor Xiao Yifu would pass through the city on his way to Fuzhou. Sambiasi therefore requested Zhu’s assistance in explaining the background of the incident. Zhu arranged for Sambiasi to meet Xiao, who promised to protect the missionaries after assuming office and later confirmed this commitment in writing. With the intervention of high-ranking officials in Fujian and Nanjing, the campaign gradually subsided (Monteiro 1639, p. 365).

Second, Zhu facilitated the entry of new missionaries into China. Auguste M. Colombel attributed this assistance to the Jiangnan governor (Colombel 2009, p. 258), but this account is incorrect. According to the Jesuit annual letter of 1640, it was Zhu Dadian, in his capacity as Governor of Grain Transport, stationed in Huai’an, who secured the necessary travel permits. Through his assistance, missionaries such as Francesco de Ferrari (李方西, Li Fangxi, 1608–1671), Gabriel de Magalhães (安文思, An Wensi, 1609–1677), and José Estevão de Almeida (梅高, Mei Gao, 1611–1648) entered China via Macao, accompanied by Simão de Cunha (瞿洗满, Qu Ximan, 1590–1660), who also transported missionary funds inland (Magalhães 1640, p. 62).

Zhu Dadian stepped down as Governor of Grain Transport in 1640, after which his interactions with the Jesuits are no longer recorded in the sources. Although his relationship with Sambiasi lasted only two years, it laid a solid foundation for missionary activity in Huai’an. From 1640 to 1643, missionaries from the Nanjing residence continued to visit the city annually (Dehergne 1957, p. 54). After Zhu’s departure, Sambiasi promptly established relations with his successors, Shi Kefa (史可法, 1602–1645) and Lu Zhenfei (路振飞, 1590–1647), thereby maintaining continuity in official support; that year, 150 people were baptized. In 1641, Sambiasi displayed three commemorative plaques at the Huai’an church, including one entitled Imperially Commended Learning of Heaven (钦褒天学, Qinbao Tianxue), which was bestowed by the Ministry of Rites (礼部) (Monteiro 1642, p. 360). In 1643, he remained in Huai’an for two months and baptized more than one hundred people, most of whom were literati and officials (de Gouvea 1644, p. 128). In early 1644, Sambiasi was dispatched to Macao by Shi Kefa, and no missionary visits were made to Huai’an that year. The Jesuit annual letter lamented that, due to warfare and unrest, Sambiasi was unable to visit the Huai’an community, where he had previously achieved such successful results (de Gouvea 1644, p. 185).

4. Alphonse Vagnoni and His Relationship with Cao Erzhen, Governor of Shanxi

Giulio Aleni’s initial mission to Shanxi at the end of 1620 resulted in the baptism of the Han (韩) and Duan (段) families in Jiangzhou (绛州) and the formation of a large and enthusiastic group of converts, which created highly favorable conditions for future missionary activity. However, due to a shortage of personnel, no resident missionary was stationed there, nor was a Jesuit residence established. This situation changed only in 1624. The Italian missionary Alphonse Vagnoni (王丰肃 Wang Fengsu/高一志 Gao Yizhi), who had been expelled to Macao following the Nanjing missionary incident, returned inland under the name of Gao Yizhi. In March 1624, he was dispatched by Vice-Provincial Manuel Dias Jr. to Jianchang (建昌) in Jiangxi. Xu Guangqi expressed concern about this arrangement, as Alphonse Vagnon had been widely known during his earlier mission in Nanjing and had been listed as a principal offender during the incident. Xu therefore feared that sending him to nearby Jianchang might expose his identity. As a result, Xu advised Dias to reassign Vagnoni to a remote and little-known province in order to minimize the risk (Margiotti 1958, p. 103). This seemingly incidental yet perceptive decision brought to Shanxi the future founder of its local Catholic community. During his fifteen years as superior, Vagnoni transformed Shanxi into one of the most active provinces for missionary work and laid the foundation for its residences, mission stations, and Christian communities in the post-Ricci era—many of which continued to flourish thereafter.

Having personally experienced the Nanjing missionary incident, Vagnoni was acutely aware that missionary activity was always at risk of suppression without the protection of high-ranking local officials. Consequently, after returning inland, he paid particular attention to cultivating relations with officials within his missionary jurisdiction.

According to the Asia Extrema, in the winter of 1626, shortly after Giacomo Rho (罗雅谷, Luo Yagu, 1593–1638) arrived in Jiangzhou, Vagnoni sent Western gifts to the provincial governor through Han Yun (韩云, ?–1644), reported the arrival of the two missionaries in Shanxi, and expressed a wish to pay a formal visit. Fortunately, the governor showed strong interest in the missionaries and responded with gifts and an enthusiastic letter, expressing his respect for “the two sages from the distant West” and his willingness to offer assistance within his means (de Gouvea 2005, p. 261). He further invited Vagnoni to visit Taiyuan, the provincial capital, in order to learn more about Western astronomy, an invitation that Vagnoni readily accepted.

Upon arriving in Taiyuan, Vagnoni was accommodated in the provincial examination compound with exceptionally generous hospitality. The governor provided lavish daily banquets and extended a high-level personal courtesy. Unfortunately, shortly before Vagnoni’s arrival, the governor received an urgent imperial order: a high-ranking eunuch inspector had been dispatched to the northern frontier, and local officials were required to reinforce border defenses against the Later Jin (后金) forces. Compelled to depart, the governor left gifts and money for Vagnoni before proceeding north (de Gouvea 2005, p. 262).

This episode constitutes the first phase of Vagnoni’s interaction with the provincial governor. During the Tianqi reign, four officials held governor-general or governor titles within Shanxi: the Governor-General of Xuan–Da (宣大总督), the Governor of Xuanfu (宣府巡抚), the Governor of Datong (大同巡抚), and the Governor of Shanxi (山西巡抚), whose respective seats were located in Yanghe (阳和), Xuanfu (宣府), Datong (大同), and Taiyuan (太原) (Wu 1982, pp. 103–73). Since the missionary records specify a visit to the Vice Rey in Taiyuan, this figure can be identified as the Governor of Shanxi, who at the time was Cao Erzhen.

Cao Erzhen, a native of Changzhou (长洲) in Suzhou (苏州) Prefecture with ancestral roots in Sanhe (三河), Northern Zhili (北直隶), obtained the metropolitan degree in 1598. Details of his early career remain unclear, but he served as Provincial Administration Vice Commissioner of Shandong (山东参政) in 1621, was promoted to Judicial Commissioner (按察使) in 1623, and then became Left Provincial Administration Commissioner (左布政使). In December 1625, he was appointed Right Vice Censor-in-Chief (都察院右副都御史) and Governor of Shanxi. He arrived in Taiyuan by mid-1626 and was promoted to Vice Minister of Revenue (户部侍郎) in May 1627 (T. Wen 1962, pp. 398, 1689, 3148, 3239, 3510, 4109). The Jesuit record of his departure from Taiyuan for the northern frontier must, therefore, predate this promotion.

From 1621 to 1625, Cao rose steadily from a third-rank provincial official to the second-rank governorship of Shanxi. While not meteoric, his advancement was notably smoother than the turbulent careers of many officials associated with the Donglin faction. This contrast can be attributed to his alignment with the eunuch faction. Cao left few biographical traces in local gazetteers, likely due to this political association. In 1627, he twice submitted memorials praising Wei Zhongxian and oversaw the construction of a shrine to him at Mount Wutai (T. Wen 1962, pp. 4023, 4101). After the Chongzhen emperor ascended the throne, Cao was swiftly denounced as a eunuch partisan, dismissed from office in 1628, and removed from official registers the following year (Tan 1958, p. 5422). When the “Imperially Sanctioned Register of Traitors (“钦定逆案”)” was compiled in 1629, Cao’s offenses were classified at the lowest level, consisting mainly of flattering eunuchs rather than substantive wrongdoing (B. Wen 2002, p. 65).

Due to this background, little is known from Chinese sources about Cao’s engagement with Western learning or his interactions with missionaries. Jesuit accounts, however, depict him as notably courteous and considerate toward Vagnoni. The convert Han Lin (韩霖, ca. 1598–ca. 1649) also appears to have enjoyed close relations with Cao. In The Complete Treatise on Border Defense (《守圉全书》), Han Lin included two of Cao’s military writings and praised his methods in remarkably positive terms—an extraordinary evaluation given the political climate of the Chongzhen reign:

When Minister Cao served in Jinan, he trained two thousand troops whose effectiveness was in no way inferior to the Beiwei troops of General Yue. Moreover, guided by the earnest teachings of the former sages and enlightened rulers, his methods surpassed even those of Sunzi and Wu Qi. If there were several dozen commanders like him holding military authority across the realm, the bandits would be pacified in the span of a snap of the fingers.

曹大司农参藩济南，练兵两千，不减岳家背嵬军。且以先师圣主谆谆诲之，出孙吴上矣。使有兵柄者，如公数十辈，落落然参错天下，崔苻潢池之盗，荡平弹指间耳。

(L. Han 2000, p. 725)

After Cao left Taiyuan, Vagnoni soon returned to Jiangzhou. Exhausted by travel and severe weather, he fell gravely ill, and the local Christians prepared his coffin while the convert Duan Gun (段衮, ?–?) organized communal prayers. Vagnoni ultimately recovered. Upon learning of his illness, Cao—then preparing to assume a higher office in Beijing—sent a letter expressing regret for having invited Vagnoni to travel under such conditions and asking for forgiveness. He also sent a gilded plaque to the small church, inscribed “Chum Kiaõ Chim Hio” (崇教敬学 “Revering the Faith and Honoring Learning”), affirming the orthodoxy of Christian teaching and its moral value (de Gouvea 2005, p. 262).

Regarding the matter of the inscribed plaque, the annual letter written by Manuel Dias Jr. in 1627 provides a more detailed account:

The Dutang instructed the county magistrate to arrange drums, flutes, and suona horns for the fathers, along with a long escorting procession that included villagers, patrol officers, clerks, and others. Marching ahead of the fathers, the display was quite grand as they proceeded toward the city gate, publicly demonstrating that the fathers were cultivating people according to the laws of the Catholic faith. They were not spies, nor were they involved in any rebellion (as some Chinese had suspected). Because they passed along the county’s main thoroughfare, the crowds witnessed and came to know the prestige and reputation enjoyed and displayed by the fathers’ religious discipline. Few—or none—dared to speak further against them. Some heterodox followers and Buddhists who had been whispering also fell silent. They had previously spread rumors locally that the fathers had been summoned by the Dutang or brought in for punishment. The Christians were greatly comforted (Dias 1627, p. 356).

The presentation of the plaque, conducted through an official and highly visible ceremony, dispelled local suspicions toward the missionaries. With the trust and friendship of the highest provincial authority secured, the Jesuits in Shanxi were then able to proceed naturally toward establishing a permanent residence. In the case of Cao Erzhen, it can be seen that his initiative in befriending the missionaries stemmed from his personal interest in Christian doctrine. His motivation for engaging with them was primarily to seek knowledge and understanding, rather than for political or utilitarian considerations.

5. António de Gouvea and His Relationship with Fang Kongzhao, Governor of Huguang

Wuchang Prefecture, known as the “thoroughfare of the nine provinces (九省通衢)”, was a major hub of land and water transportation in the Ming dynasty and occupied a central position within the Jesuit missionary geography of China. The Jesuits had long intended to establish a residence there, yet this objective was not realized until the Portuguese Jesuit António de Gouvea succeeded after considerable difficulty.

In 1637, the calendar reform project had largely been completed. The convert Wu Mingzhu (邬明著, U Jacobe, ?–?), who was serving in the Bureau of Astronomy, prepared to return to his native Wuchang. At the same time, his younger brother Wu Mingchang (邬明昌) had just obtained the metropolitan degree. Mingzhu therefore proposed that the Jesuits dispatch a missionary to open the mission in Huguang, with Wu Mingchang providing protection (Dong 2012, pp. 135–37). Under Wu Mingzhu’s guidance, Vice-Provincial Francisco Furtado assigned the newly arrived missionary Gouvea to Wuchang.

The difficulty of opening the mission, however, far exceeded Gouvea’s expectations. In the Asia Extrema, he recorded the process in detail:

While in Zhejiang, Father Gouvea was designated to open the mission in Huguang. According to the vice-provincial’s arrangements, he first traveled to Nanjing, where he happened to arrive on the same day as Furtado. Without prolonged delay, he soon set out by boat for Wuchang together with a student and two young companions. After roughly one month of travel, the party finally reached the provincial capital of Wuchang on the Feast of the Three Kings (6 January 1638), an auspicious beginning for the forthcoming missionary enterprise.

Upon arrival in Wuchang, Gouvea discovered that the conditions previously promised by Jacobe could not be fulfilled, though the situation did not force the abandonment of the mission. He was compelled to erect a crude thatched shelter to withstand the winter snow and spent the entire season there. He later succeeded in purchasing a house and constructing a church. From that point forward, he began visiting local officials, including a governor surnamed Fam (Vice Rei), with notable success. The governor (Tú Tam) unexpectedly granted permission for foreigners to preach in the region.

The governor treated Gouvea with marked courtesy. He inquired about Europe and accepted several small gifts. On the same day, he dispatched two yamen runners to return the visit, deliver a monetary return gift, and convey his apologies for not visiting in person, which protocol forbade. With this promising beginning, Gouvea began preaching more openly. Within two years of the establishment of the Wuchang residence, more than three hundred catechumens had been enrolled, and the residence and church flourished under what the missionary described as powerful protection.

(de Gouvea 2018, pp. 138–39)

From the Huguang section of the Asia Extrema, it is clear that the decisive factor enabling Gouvea to gain a firm foothold in Wuchang was the unexpected favor of the region’s highest official, the governor surnamed “Fam”. After establishing the residence in 1638, Gouvea visited the governor, expecting possible rejection or at most a perfunctory meeting. The outcome, however, exceeded his expectations. The governor proved highly cordial, showed strong interest in Western gifts and European affairs, and even sent subordinates to return the visit with monetary gifts.

Why would a provincial governor receive a foreign missionary who spoke imperfect Chinese and lacked the backing of local elite networks so warmly? Who exactly was this Governor Fam?

Consultation of the “Chronological Tables of Ming Governors” (《明督抚年表》) shows that the governors of Huguang in 1637–1638 were Wang Mengyin (王梦尹, ?–?), Yu Yinggui (余应桂, 1580–1649), and Fang Kongzhao (方孔炤, 1590–1655) (Wu 1982, p. 545). The surname “Fam” clearly corresponds to “Fang”, confirming that the official who received Gouvea was Fang Kongzhao, Governor of Huguang.

Fang Kongzhao (courtesy name Qianfu (潜夫), sobriquet Renzhi (仁植)) was a native of Tongcheng (桐城) and came from a family with a strong scholarly tradition. His grandfather Fang Xuejian (方学渐, 1540–1615) was a leading figure in Tongcheng learning and lectured for more than twenty years, including at the Donglin Academy, where he founded the Fang school of Yijing 《易经》 studies.

His father, Fang Dazhen (方大镇, 1560–1629), obtained the metropolitan degree in 1589 and served successively as judicial secretary in Daming Prefecture (大名府推官), Censorate (御史), as salt commissioner in Zhejiang (两浙盐课), and as Minister of the Court of Judicial Review (大理寺卿, Dali si qing). He lectured at the Shoushan Academy (首善书院) with the Donglin leaders Zou Yuanbiao (邹元标, 1551–1624) and Feng Congwu (冯从吾, 1556–1627). It is clear that Fang Kongzhao’s grandfather and father were both figures who maintained close and friendly ties with the Donglin faction.

Fang Kongzhao himself obtained the metropolitan degree in 1616 and held a series of local and central posts. After offending eunuch faction leaders Wei Zhongxian and Cui Chengxiu (崔呈秀, 1574–1627), he was dismissed in 1625 but was reinstated in 1628 following the recommendation of several officials, including the convert Qu Shisi. On 30 July 1638, he succeeded Yu Yinggui as Governor of Huguang. Fang was also a prolific author. His son, Fang Yizhi (方以智, 1611–1671), later became well-known for his close engagement with Western learning (Tan 1958, pp. 5302, 5497; Wan 2002, p. 35; Dai 2002, p. 32).

The Fang family’s exposure to Western learning began with Fang Kongzhao and Fang Yizhi. In 1619, the Western-learning enthusiast Xiong Mingyu (熊明遇, 1579–1649) took office in Funing (福宁), where the young Fang Yizhi accompanied his father. During this period, Xiong showed the Fang family his forthcoming Zecao (《则草》) (Hsu 2010b, p. 266), which incorporated knowledge acquired through interactions with Jesuits such as Diego de Pantoja, Manuel Dias Jr., Francesco Sambiasi, and the convert Xu Guangqi (Xiong 1644–1661, p. 1b). Fang Yizhi later recorded that his father had already encountered such materials in the late Wanli period. He also noted his own reading of Tianxue chuhan (《天学初函》) and his contacts with Sambiasi in Nanjing (Y. Fang 1888, pp. 25–26).

Overall, Fang Kongzhao appears to have been less actively engaged with Western learning than his son (Hsu 2010a, p. 416). Nevertheless, his attitude toward it was distinctly positive. He explicitly endorsed the idea of “seeking lost ritual knowledge in the periphery (礼失而求诸野)” (Q. Han 2007), reflecting the late-Ming intellectual current that perceived underlying unity between Chinese and Western learning. This intellectual disposition helps explain why Fang treated Gouvea with unusual warmth and even questioned him about European matters:

During the Wanli reign, the European Matteo Ricci crossed the seas and arrived in China. In his country, great importance was attached to the study of Heaven; what they called the “motionless Heaven” accords with the profound principle of cosmic order. The ninefold heavens envelop the terrestrial globe like a membrane enclosing a seed—this is their measured understanding of its substance. As the Master said, “When the Son of Heaven loses the officials, learning is preserved among the four barbarians”—this indeed seems credible. If ritual is lost and one must seek it in the periphery, might this not be an appropriate case?

万历中, 有欧逻巴人利马窦, 浮海历诸国而至, 其国重天学, 所云静天, 即于穆之理也。九重天包地球, 如脬气鼓豆, 其质测也。子曰: “天子失官, 学在四夷”, 犹信。礼失而求诸野, 不亦可当野乎？

(K. Fang 1997, p. 273)

Fang Kongzhao’s open and receptive attitude toward Western science and technology was also transmitted within his family and was later further developed by his son Fang Yizhi, who wrote the following:

During the Wanli period, when the Central Land was flourishing, Western scholars arrived from afar. Their globes and diagrams made underlying principles suddenly clear. Those accustomed to conventional views were startled and regarded them as strange, not realizing that these ideas had already been articulated by the sages. Only their instruments and numerical methods are exceptionally precise; in expounding the subtle principles, however, their terminology is somewhat inadequate, and thus those attached to empty speculation reject them. As the Master said, ‘When the Son of Heaven loses the officials, learning is preserved among the four barbarians’—this indeed seems credible. They establish the immobile heaven to conduct measurements and fix the two axes of the ecliptic and equator, all under the governance of the Heavenly Lord; such methods pose no fundamental contradiction. To draw upon them as did Tanzi—is this not acceptable?

万历之时，中土化洽，太西儒来。脬豆合图，其理顿显。胶常见者，駴以为异，不知其皆圣人之所已言也。特其器数甚精。而于通几之理，命词颇拙，故执虚者辟之。子曰：“天子失官，学在四夷，犹信。” 立静天以考度，定黄赤之两轴，穆天心主之，冒如斯也，原不碍也，资为郯子，不亦可乎?

(Y. Fang n.d., pp. 36–37)

On the basis of the foregoing examination of Fang Kongzhao’s and Fang Yizhi’s attitudes toward Western learning, it is not difficult to understand why Fang Kongzhao displayed such marked friendliness in his interactions with António de Gouvea and even took the initiative to inquire about European matters. These actions may be seen as a concrete expression of Fang’s commitment to the principle of “seeking lost ritual knowledge in the periphery”. At the same time, the Jesuits’ recent achievements—especially their role in calendar reform in the early Chongzhen reign and how they assisted Beijing in resisting the Qing army in 1636—had, by this period, become widely known throughout the empire. The favorable imperial treatment of court Jesuits helped create a relatively permissive local environment, enabling Fang to interact with missionaries without undue political risk.

The governor’s favor quickly dispelled local suspicions toward the Western priest, and visitors began arriving at the Wuchang residence in increasing numbers. In the annual letter of 1638, João Monteiro (孟儒望, Meng Ruwang, 1602–1648), drawing on Gouvea’s reports, recorded the rapid development of the mission following the governor’s reception:

We purchased a residence into which the Father then moved. He frequently exchanged visits with local literati, in accordance with local custom and etiquette. More than three officials came to call on him, and he returned their visits in turn. The Father also maintained regular contact with the provincial governor, who showed him exceptional courtesy. Subsequently, the Father presented the governor with gifts, which were accepted, and the governor in return granted him a substantial monetary reward.

Through these successful interactions with the governor and other officials, the Father gained honor and reputation locally, and public suspicion and hesitation toward him largely disappeared. Taking advantage of this favorable beginning, he proceeded to preach the law of God openly among the populace. In the remaining months of that year, the Father administered baptism to ninety-nine individuals, including several members of the local literati and elite. As the Father himself reported, there was every reason to expect that even more Christians would emerge in the following year.

(Monteiro 1638, p. 300)

News of Fang Kongzhao’s favorable treatment had an immediate impact on the Wuchang mission: local suspicions “vanished completely” (de Gouvea 2018, p. 139). Fang had been appointed Governor of Huguang on 30 July 1638 while still in Nanjing. Since Gouvea’s journey from Nanjing to Wuchang had taken approximately one month, Fang likely arrived in Wuchang in late August, and the missionary’s visit must have occurred thereafter. According to Gouvea’s own report, ninety-nine baptisms were administered within the remaining months of the year. For a newly opened mission lacking an established Christian base, such results within only a few months strongly indicate the catalytic effect of gubernatorial patronage on the rapid expansion of local missionary activity.

6. The Jesuits and Their Relations with Liu Yikun, Governor of Zhejiang

In the post-Ricci era, the first Jesuit residence established in China was the Hangzhou residence. In 1611, at the invitation of the Hangzhou native Li Zhizao, the Jesuits Lazzaro Cattaneo and Nicolas Trigault went to Hangzhou to open the mission. The most significant outcome of this initial effort was the baptism of the local literatus Yang Tingyun (Ding 1996, p. 218). In 1612, again at the invitation of Li Zhizao and Yang Tingyun, the Nanjing residence dispatched Cattaneo, Felicia da Silva (林斐理, Lin Feili, 1578–1614), and the brother Francisco de Lágea (石弘基, Shi Hongji, 1585–1647) via Songjiang (松江) to Hangzhou, where, with Yang Tingyun’s financial support, the Hangzhou residence was formally established.

At the beginning, however, the Jesuits were far from confident about opening the mission in Hangzhou. Álvaro de Semedo (曾德昭, Zeng Dezhao, 1585–1658) observed that “although the provincial capital was among the most prosperous cities in China, renowned for its magnificent temples and buildings, it was also one of the least disposed to accept Christianity” (Semedo 1998, p. 248). In other words, the region’s economic prosperity and the flourishing of Buddhism made it difficult for Catholicism—well-known for its anti-Buddhist stance—to gain a firm foothold. After Cattaneo and Trigault returned to Nanjing, some missionaries proposed abandoning Hangzhou and redirecting their efforts elsewhere. Niccolò Longobardi neither explicitly supported nor opposed this view but instead left the decision to the missionaries of the Nanjing residence, who were more familiar with the Jiangnan region. After deliberation, the nine Jesuits in Nanjing unanimously decided to persevere patiently, largely because of the support of Li Zhizao and Yang Tingyun (Semedo 1998, pp. 248–49).

From its establishment, the Hangzhou church consistently relied on the protection and patronage of these two Hangzhou natives, who functioned as its principal pillars. From the opening of the mission in 1611 until Yang Tingyun’s reinstatement in 1622 as Vice Surveillance Commissioner of Henan (河南按察使司副使) (T. Wen 1962, p. 1142), he provided eleven years of continuous service to the church in Hangzhou. He subsequently served as Vice Surveillance Commissioner of Huguang (湖广按察使司副使) and Vice Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices (光禄寺少卿). In 1625, while serving as Vice Prefect of Shuntian (顺天府丞), he offended the eunuch faction, was impeached, and was forced into retirement, returning to Hangzhou (T. Wen 1962, p. 2623). During Yang’s absence from Hangzhou between 1622 and 1625, Li Zhizao filled the gap. In 1623, Li—then serving as Vice Minister of the Imperial Studs in Nanjing (南京太仆寺少卿)—was likewise forced into retirement due to attacks from the eunuch faction and was not reinstated until the Chongzhen reign (Anonymous n.d., pp. 89–97).

Yang and Li were thus the Jesuits’ most important financial supporters and the key intermediaries between the mission and local officials, literati, and society. At the same time, much of the Jesuits’ early social activities in Hangzhou were, in fact, undertaken by Yang Tingyun and Li Zhizao. Nevertheless, although the two men served as important local protectors of the church, their official ranks were relatively modest and thus insufficient to command decisive authority within the province. In practice, the figure capable of providing truly effective protection for the mission was the provincial governor.

In the early years of the Hangzhou residence, the highest-ranking official with whom the Jesuits cultivated a relationship was Liu Yikun, Governor of Zhejiang. Liu Yikun (courtesy name Yuanbing (元丙), sobriquet Shilü (石闾)) was a native of Nanchang, Jiangxi Province. He obtained the metropolitan degree in 1592. He was first appointed Messenger in the Office of Transmission (行人司行人), successively serving as Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel (吏部主事), Vice Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices (太常寺少卿), and Superintendent of the Bureau of Interpreters (提督四夷馆) (Gu 1962, p. 7996). After a period of mourning leave, he was appointed in 1614 as Governor of Zhejiang (浙江巡抚).

Liu enjoyed a strong administrative reputation in Zhejiang. The Mingshi praised him as “upright, frugal, and attentive to essentials”, noting that the province was governed well during his seven-year governorship (Wan 2002, p. 24). In the second month of 1619, he was falsely accused of corruption by the censor Shen Xun (沈珣, 1565–1634) (Gu 1962, p. 10960). Although the charge was not formally pursued, Liu nevertheless chose to resign and never returned to office (Wan 2002, pp. 24–25). His father, Liu Yuecai (刘曰材, 1523–?), rose to the position of Left Administration Commissioner of Shaanxi (陕西左布政使). His second younger brother, Liu Yiyu (刘一煜, ?–?), served successively as Prefect of Guangzhou (光州知州) and Vice Director in the Ministry of War (兵部员外郎). His youngest brother, Liu Yijing (刘一璟, 1567–1635), was an important Donglin leader in the Wanli and Tianqi reigns and later served as Grand Secretary.

Liu Yikun and Yang Tingyun both belonged to the 1592 metropolitan cohort (同年), which likely constituted their most important personal connection. Chinese sources record relatively limited direct interaction between the two. In 1618, Yang Tingyun wrote a preface to Liu Yikun’s “Zhouyi lüeyi qiankun zhi bi bagua” 《周易略义乾坤至比八卦》 (Jiao 1826, p. 5). Likewise, when the Shaoxing 绍兴 student Zhang Boshu 张伯枢 (?–?) compiled works on the Yijing, Yang Tingyun and Liu Yikun jointly contributed prefaces (Y. Xu 1936, p. 7a).

According to Western sources, Liu’s contact with the Jesuits began in 1614, when a minor crisis arose at the Hangzhou residence. Previously, visiting literati had come in large numbers, but at one point, the visits suddenly ceased, as if local officials were deliberately distancing themselves from the missionaries. Perplexed, the missionaries sought Yang Tingyun’s assistance. Yang visited Governor Liu Yikun directly and learned that rumors that the missionaries maintained commercial ties with the Japanese were circulating in the city.

Zhejiang had once been one of the regions most severely affected by the wokou raids. Although the threat had largely subsided more than half a century ago, local officials remained highly sensitive. To avoid potential implications, they naturally reduced contact with the missionaries. Liu Yikun, however, remarked that, in his view, these Western scholars were men of high moral character and broad learning and that the religion they propagated gave him no cause for concern.

Seizing the opportunity, Yang requested that Liu inscribe a commemorative plaque (Páy Pién) for the missionaries. When the plaque was completed, the governor arranged for it to be ceremonially delivered to the church with drums and gongs. Several months later, the provincial surveillance commissioner (巡按御史), under Yang’s arrangement, also presented a plaque to the Hangzhou residence. These gestures by two senior provincial officials effectively signaled official approval of the missionaries and dispelled suspicions of illicit Japanese connections, allowing the residence to regain its former vitality (de Gouvea 2018, p. 373).

In missionary accounts, Liu Yikun’s resolution of the crisis appears to have depended largely on Yang Tingyun’s mediation. Chinese sources, however, record Liu handling related maritime cases in a similar manner, providing independent corroboration:

According to established practice, coastal defense commanders who captured a Japanese vessel, together with enemy heads taken in action, were eligible for rewards and promotion. In pursuit of such merit, some commanders failed to conduct proper interrogations and indiscriminately registered trading vessels as pirate ships, even when they were not genuine wokou. This often provoked conflicts with foreign peoples. Liu Yikun, however, invariably ordered interpreters to question them carefully; if they had merely been driven to the coast by storms and were confirmed not to be raiders, he released and repatriated them. The foreigners were thus subdued and caused no further trouble. During his ten years in Zhejiang, he restored order and combined authority with leniency, and his virtue reportedly won deep popular respect.

故事，防海将领获一倭船，及首卤一级以上功赏。如格主者希功赏不已，而倭船贸易者，不加诘问，即非眞倭，辄为执录。往往开衅外彝，一焜必令译者详译其语，或遭飓风飘集海岸，审非入寇者，皆纵遣之。外彝詟服，不为患。在浙十年，噢咻振刷，恩威并用，其德入人尤深云。

(Ma 1694, p. 5b)

This relatively open and rational approach to foreign affairs was closely related to Liu’s earlier experience, beginning in 1606, as Superintendent of the Bureau of Interpreters. That post not only familiarized him with foreign conditions but also equipped him with practical experience in handling complex external matters. Notably, Liu held this position during the period when Matteo Ricci enjoyed great prominence in Beijing, and Jesuits could even enter the palace to repair imperial clocks. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether Liu Yikun—then responsible for court foreign affairs—may also have been connected, directly or indirectly, to Ricci’s extensive network. This possibility, however, requires further documentary confirmation.

After the Nanjing missionary incident of 1616, the intensity of anti-Christian enforcement varied widely across the empire. Outside the particularly sensitive environments of Beijing and Nanjing, most regions did not implement especially severe prohibitions. In Hangzhou, under Liu Yikun’s protection, local authorities did not suppress the Jesuit residence as in nearby Nanjing. Consequently, missionaries from various regions temporarily took refuge at Yang Tingyun’s residence in Hangzhou, including Longobardi, Sambiasi, Aleni, Manuel Dias Jr., Cattaneo, Gaspar Ferreira (费奇规, Fei Qigui, 1571–1649), Pierre Van Spiere (史惟贞, Shi Weizhen, 1584–1627) and brother Shi Hongji (Furtado 1620, p. 378).

According to António de Gouvea, Hangzhou had formerly possessed a well-known literati society devoted to regular lectures, but it had long fallen into decline. In 1618, Liu Yikun decided to revive the association and deliberately appointed Yang Tingyun as its president, with Liu himself serving as vice-president. Thereafter, Yang subtly incorporated Catholic ideas into the lectures, thereby using the forum as a channel for evangelizing to the literati (de Gouvea 2018, p. 373).

Yang Tingyun himself later recorded the following:

In his administrative leisure, Liu invited the gentry to the academy to elucidate the learning of Kaoting Yaojiang, and gathered licentiates and students at the office to discuss the subtleties of the Yijing. Only when he was transferred to govern Wuzhou did these lectures cease. The discussions of the Eight Trigrams, from Qian to Bi, were all transmitted within the Hangzhou administrative offices.

石闾政事之暇，进缙绅先生于书院，发明考亭姚江之学，进孝廉青衿于幕府，专谈《易》蕴，会移镇婺州皋比始辍。所讲八卦，自乾至比，皆武林署中授受。

(Jiao 1826, p. 5)

The site of these lectures was most likely the Hulin Academy (虎林书院) in Hangzhou (Wan 2002, p. 25). As governor, Liu had already learned of Yang Tingyun’s Catholic identity when Yang visited him shortly after Liu’s arrival in 1614, yet during the missionary crisis, he nevertheless publicly appointed a Catholic leader to head the local literati society and allowed Catholic ideas to circulate within its lectures. These actions indicate that the Zhejiang provincial authorities under Liu did not align themselves with the anti-Christian faction led by Shen Que.

Liu Yikun’s tolerant stance toward Catholicism was rooted not only in his personal ties with Yang Tingyun but also in the complex factional politics of the late Wanli period. Liu’s younger brother Liu Yijing was a major Donglin leader. During the capital official performance evaluation (京察) of 1605, Shen Yiguan (沈一贯, 1537–1615), leader of the Zhejiang faction, sought to protect his subordinates. He attempted to intercede through Liu Yijing with Liu Yikun, who was then serving as Vice Director of the Evaluation Bureau in the Ministry of Personnel. Liu Yijing firmly refused. Subsequently, in the course of the evaluation, Liu Yikun assigned failing assessments to Shen Yiguan’s subordinates (T. Zhang 1974, pp. 6238–43), which seriously damaged the Liu brothers’ relations with the Zhejiang faction and foreshadowed Liu Yikun’s later position during the Nanjing incident. When Shen Que of the Zhejiang faction launched an anti-Christian campaign in Nanjing, Liu Yikun was therefore politically and personally disinclined to cooperate. This stance not only reflects his careful navigation of a complex political environment but also reveals the direct impact of late-Ming factional struggles on the fortunes of the local church.

7. Summary

This study explored the interactions between Jesuit missionaries and four late-Ming provincial governors—Zhu Dadian, Cao Erzhen, Fang Kongzhao, and Liu Yikun—through a close reading and cross-checking of Chinese and Western sources. The evidence shows that the Jesuits’ “top-down strategy” did not end with Matteo Ricci’s death. Rather, in the post-Ricci period, it continued to function at the provincial level in a more decentralized and locally mediated form.

The cases examined here make it clear that provincial governors played a structurally important part in the fate of local missions. Their personal attitudes could quickly create space for missionary work or, conversely, serious constraints. In each of the four instances examined, gubernatorial support directly facilitated the establishment, protection, or recovery of Jesuit residences. This finding suggests that, alongside converted literati, high-ranking provincial officials formed a crucial layer of the Jesuits’ protective network in late Ming China.

At the same time, the governors’ support for the missionaries arose from multiple considerations rather than from religious sympathy alone. Administrative rationality, concerns for local governance, intellectual interest in Western learning, factional circumstances, and personal connections all shaped their responses. Cao and Fang appear to have shown a degree of genuine goodwill toward Christianity and science, whereas the other governors’ assistance was largely pragmatic and political. Such variation cautions against overly confessional readings of late-Ming official–missionary relations.

By reconstructing the concrete contacts between the Jesuits and these four governors, this article also brings attention to a dimension that has been largely overlooked in previous scholarship. Studies of the Jesuit mission in China have tended to focus on Ricci and on the converted literati, leaving the collective role of provincial governors insufficiently examined. The evidence presented here indicates that governor-level patronage functioned as an important intermediary between court-level tolerance and local missionary practice.

More broadly, the late-Ming Jesuit enterprise advanced through a layered network that combined court support, mediation by literati, and provincial administrative accommodation. Understanding this multi-level structure helps clarify how the mission was able to expand despite an often uncertain political environment. Future research may profitably extend this approach by examining additional governors and by comparing regional variations more systematically.

Seen from this perspective, the post-Ricci Jesuit mission in China was not simply the achievement of individual missionaries but the outcome of sustained negotiations within the institutional and political framework of the late Ming state.