Your search

This confidential diplomatic note, dated 13 July 1907, from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Colonies, concerns the protracted ecclesiastical negotiations between France and Portugal over missionary jurisdiction in southern China, particularly regarding Hainan Island. Originally under the French Apostolic Vicariate of Kwangtung, Hainan was transferred in 1874 to the Portuguese Bishop of Macao pursuant to a bilateral agreement ratified by the Holy See and later formalized in the 1886 Franco-Portuguese Concordat. In 1898, France sought to reassert influence by proposing an exchange: relinquishing its protection of the Chantong mission at the Holy See’s request in return for control over Hainan’s Christian communities. Negotiations culminated in a 1903 agreement to transfer Hainan to French ecclesiastical authority in exchange for the Tchao-King district, though disputes emerged due to a clerical error in the Vatican’s decree that ambiguously described territorial boundaries. Portugal exploited this discrepancy to claim additional sub-prefectures—San-ning, San-Ui, and Shun-Tack—but these claims were rejected by the Holy See in January 1904, which reaffirmed the original terms. Despite ongoing Portuguese resistance, Rome maintained its position, supporting French oversight. The document outlines France’s diplomatic and ecclesiastical efforts to implement the transfer, including direct episcopal negotiations, leading to a finalized agreement effective 15 October 1906, contingent upon the completion of asset inventories and financial compensation. This correspondence offers significant insight into the interplay of colonial ambition, religious authority, and diplomatic negotiation within the context of European imperial competition and Catholic missionary policy in early 20th-century China.

On November 17, 1884, during the seventh year of Pope Leo XIII's pontificate, Dom Antonio Joaquim de Medeiros, formerly the titular Bishop of Thermopylae, was appointed Bishop of Macau. This appointment was facilitated by King Luís I of Portugal, who presented Medeiros for the position. The Diocese of Macau, under the patronage of the Portuguese king, became vacant upon the transfer of Bishop Emmanuel Bernard de Souza Ennes to the Diocese of Bragança. Financial records from November 14, 1884, detail the expenses related to Medeiros's appointment, totaling 757.57 and 959.53 florins in two separate computations. Papal bulls issued on November 13, 1884, officially document Medeiros's appointment, his absolution from prior vows, and his transfer to Macau. These documents also address the jurisdiction of the Macau Diocese, including territories under Portuguese rule and those overseen by the previous bishop. Further instructions outline Medeiros's responsibilities, including appointing a theologian and penitentiary, overseeing palace repairs, and establishing a mount of piety in Macau. The papal bulls also call upon the Chapter, clergy, people, and vassals of the Macau Diocese to show obedience and reverence to their new bishop.

This 18th-century manuscript, compiled in Macau between 1742 and 1745, comprises transcribed administrative and ecclesiastical records concerning the dispute over Ilha Verde (Green Island) between the Jesuit Company of Jesus, Macanese municipal authorities, and Chinese mandarins from 1622 to 1745. Based exclusively on original documents preserved in the Secretariat of the Jesuit Province of Japan at the College of Madre de Deus in Macau and the Procuratorate of the Province of India in Lisbon, the text details the historical claims, financial expenditures, and legal arguments surrounding the Jesuits’ occupation and development of Ilha Verde. It includes formal declarations, protest letters, financial accounts up to 1745, and references to earlier events beginning in 1622, when the Jesuit Visitor Alexandre Valignano initiated the use of the island for convalescence and agricultural purposes. The document outlines the Jesuits’ acquisition of burial rights from local Chinese landowners, their construction activities, and subsequent conflicts with Cantonese mandarins who ordered the demolition of buildings, citing concerns over fortification. It further records interventions by high-ranking Chinese officials such as Haitao Si and Haitao Lo, municipal responses from the Macau Senate, and correspondence involving Jesuit figures including Gabriel de Mattos, Nicolau Longobardo, and António Leite. The compilation also contains notarial certifications, legal justifications grounded in Chinese land customs, and assertions of Portuguese sovereignty in Macau, supported by historical treaties, tribute payments, and mutual commercial agreements. Financial summaries detail expenditures exceeding 17 million taéis on fortifications, housing, and maintenance of the island up to 1745. As a composite historical record, this manuscript provides critical primary evidence on colonial-administrative dynamics, Sino-Portuguese relations, and the role of religious orders in early modern maritime Asia.

This collection, catalogued as JAP. SIN. 141, comprises documents pertaining to the Chinese Rites Controversy spanning from 1720 to 1737. The documents offer a multifaceted view of the dispute, incorporating perspectives from various individuals and religious orders involved. The collection includes transcriptions of diaries concerning the Mezzabarba legation from Emperor Kam Hi, summaries of Roman decisions and concessions related to the rites (1645-1720), and testimonies regarding the innocence of the Jesuit order in China. Correspondence within the collection sheds light on the Jansenism in Cocincina and developments in missions across China and other Eastern territories. Furthermore, the series contains a historical overview of the mission in China from 1583 to 1737, highlighting the initial acceptance and subsequent extinction of Christianity before its re-establishment by Jesuit missionaries . It also delves into the examination of Chinese customs and the ensuing debates regarding the compatibility of certain rites with Christian doctrine. The documents reflect the differing viewpoints and resolutions concerning the rites, including papal decrees and the positions of various religious orders such as the Franciscans and Dominicans. They also touch upon the implications of these controversies on the Chinese mission and the challenges faced by missionaries in administering sacraments and navigating imperial mandates.

This document is a series of ecclesiastical correspondence from the late 17th century, primarily dated between 1675 and 1685, originating from Jesuit missionaries in Siam (Thailand), Macao, and other regions within the Portuguese and Spanish colonial spheres. The letters, written in Latin and Italian, reflect administrative and doctrinal communications within the Society of Jesus, particularly concerning the authority of Apostolic Vicars, obedience to papal decrees, and internal disciplinary matters. Key figures include P. Rogerius Maldonado, P. Dominico Fucio, P. Francesco Saverio Filippo, and references to Pope Clement X, Innocent XI, and the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda Fide). The texts address tensions over jurisdiction between local vicars and Jesuit superiors, the enforcement of papal bulls such as those issued by Clement XI, and concerns regarding accusations against missionaries like P. Ferdinando Menchiet and Domenico Fucchi. Notable themes include adherence to obedience, the protection of missionary institutions, and the handling of calumnious reports. The documents also reference specific locations—Siam, Tungpin, Macao—and mention the role of the Roman Curia in overseeing missionary activities. The inclusion of sealed letters, references to secret instructions from predecessors, and appeals to canonical authority underscores their significance in understanding Jesuit governance and inter-institutional relations during the Counter-Reformation. These records provide critical insight into the operational dynamics of the Jesuit mission network and the complex interplay between religious authority, colonial administration, and papal oversight.

Padre Marcelo Mastrilli, a Jesuit, is remembered for his martyrdom in Nagasaki, Japan, and a miracle attributed to him by St. Francis Xavier. In 1636, en route to India, he foresaw his martyrdom in a letter to S. Antonio Tegliez de Silva. In 1634, while dying in Naples, St. Francis Xavier healed him and tasked him with preaching in the Indies, promising him martyrdom. Mastrilli journeyed through Madrid, Lisbon, Goa, Malacca, and Manila before reaching Japan, experiencing miracles along the way. Leaving Goa in April 1636, with twelve companions, Mastrilli's group split up, heading for Malacca. He, along with Padres Baldassarro Citadella, Antonio Capece, and Francesco Carola, sailed on Domenico di Camera's Galeotta, intending to reach Japan, China, and other areas. However, Dutch vessels forced them to Manila. En route, when the Galeotta sprung a leak, Mastrilli reassured everyone with an image of St. Francis Xavier, promising salvation. In Manila, Mastrilli faced difficulties entering Japan due to restrictions on religious figures. It was decided he would go alone, while his companions went to Macao. Before departing, he accompanied the Governor of Manila to conquer Mindanao. During a battle, he flagellated himself, provoking a demonic reaction and receiving a revelation that the victory would be his and that the Governor would facilitate his journey to Japan. Mastrilli, with ten Japanese men disguised as locals, sailed from Manila on July 13, 1637, reaching the Kingdom of Saxuma on September 19. Seeking the Emperor, he landed at Xiguiso but was discovered and arrested with his companions, then taken to Nagasaki. There, he declared his mission to convert the Emperor. Mastrilli endured tortures, maintaining his faith. Sentenced to death, he was thrown into a pit of filth on October 17, 1637. After four days, he was beheaded; an earthquake occurred at his death.

This document, "Titulo do Regimento do Ouvidor de Macáo nas partes da China," dated February 16, 1587, outlines the regulations for the Ouvidor (magistrate) of Macau, China. The Ouvidor will preside over civil and criminal cases, with appeals going to the Relação (high court) in Goa. Specific instructions are given for handling cases involving monetary or movable goods, real estate, and written contracts. Criminal cases will be heard jointly with the Capitão (Captain) of Macau, with a Vereador (councilor) acting as tiebreaker if needed. The Ouvidor also has jurisdiction over orphan's affairs, following established regulations. Two Escrivães (clerks) and a Meirinho (bailiff), who also serves as jailer, will assist the Ouvidor. Procedures are outlined for issuing legal writs (Cartas de Regimento), considering the distance to Goa. The Ouvidor's jurisdiction extends to cases involving up to 20,000 in movable goods and 20,000 in real estate, with appeals to the Relação for larger sums. Sentences involving capital punishment for individuals of noble rank require the Viceroy's approval. The Ouvidor can impose fines of up to 2,000 lees, and cannot imprison individuals without due process. The document also details administrative duties, salary (30,000 reis annually), staffing, record-keeping requirements, and interactions with Captains and the Viceroy. Jurisdiction over Chinese individuals within Macau is excluded. Finally, the document emphasizes the Ouvidor's authority, superseding any conflicting regulations, and mandates its registration in various official locations, including Goa.

This document, "Prolegomenes Sur Ly Kins", delves into an exploration of the ancient Chinese text, the *I Ching* (or *Ly King* as it's referred to herein), positioning it as a profound source of wisdom worthy of scholarly attention. The author outlines a method for European scholars to engage with the symbolism inherent in the *I Ching*, offering preliminary insights designed for ease of understanding and retention. The work critiques existing interpretations, particularly those that deviate from the core text, whilst also acknowledging the text's inherent obscurity and the need for detailed explication. The author touches upon the disputed origins of the *I Ching*, noting the common belief that the 64 figures and their names are ancient, with the text attributed to Ven vang, commentary to Tcheou Kong, and glosses to Confucius, though scholarly consensus is lacking. The document also references supplementary treatises like the Hy-tsée and Tchoüé Koüa tchoüen. A personal conviction is expressed that the *I Ching*'s core elements predate Noah, suggesting a more ancient origin, possibly reaching back to Irense or even Adam. The author also details the structure of the 64 hexagrams, reducing them to eight trigrams and explaining their symbolic associations, such as Kien representing heaven and Koien representing earth. Further, the text discusses the combinations and transformations of these trigrams and hexagrams, and the significance of individual lines within them. The author posits that the *I Ching* portrays the "dieu-homme," a concept linked to Jesus Christ, with the sun and moon symbolizing divinity and humanity respectively.