Within the domain of historical inquiry, determining what counts as the 19th century proves an intricate endeavor. For the Europeans, perhaps, the period spanning from Napoleon’s downfall in 1815 to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 belongs to the 19th century. Western historians delve into the transformative ramifications of the Industrial Revolution on humanity, while others seek nodal points or paradigm-shifting boundaries in the annals of human development through economic data. For the Chinese, despite the missionary-introduced concept of a century defined by the birth of Christ, the incessant cycle of dynastic succession circumscribes their familiar sense of time. Chinoiserie[1], which bore the influence of China and the Far East, surfacing in Europe in the 14th century and reaching its zenith in the 18th century, manifested Europeans’ fascination with China. However, when the Macartney Embassy arrived in China in 1793, what these Englishmen from the faraway British islands witnessed was not the mystical and poetic China that Europeans had portrayed:
The ultimate result exhibits to the mind a grand and curious spectacle of so large a proportion of the whole human race, connected together in one great system of polity, submitting quietly, and through so considerable an extent of country, to one great sovereign; and uniform in their laws, their manners, and their language; but differing essentially in each of these respects, from every other portion of mankind; and neither desirous of communicating with, nor forming any designs against, the rest of the world.[2]
Meanwhile, disquieting undercurrents are mounting in the Qing Empire: the nine-year-long uprising of White Lotus Sects[3], though suppressed, symbolized the impending turbulences. In today’s terms, we could say that such unrest signals an approaching century of mounting anxieties. The focal points for dividing historical periods, indeed, vary considerably.
From a historical perspective, the young Liang Qichao (1873-1929), in “Discussions on Chinese History (Zhong Guo Shi Xu Lun)”(1901), classified China’s history into “the ancient, the medieval, and the modern” using principles derived from Western historical studies. He depicts the “modern” history as follows:
Modern history, from the end of Qianlong’s reign to the present, represents the era of China as a nation in the world, in solidarity with all nations of Asia, engaging in competition and negotiations with the West. Simultaneously, the waning of monarchy paves the way for the emergence of constitutional governance after millennia of stagnation; this is indeed a time of great change. This nascent epoch, though brief, engenders internal and external transformations hitherto unseen over two millennia.
Liang highlights the distinction between the medieval and modern eras, pinpointing the transition time as the “end of Qianlong’s reign.” This choice stems from the portrayal of this historical period as the age of “competition and negotiations with the West” and “internal and external transformations hitherto unseen over two millennia.” Indeed, for intellectuals and scholars of the late Qing history and the early 20th century, the necessity of renovating China’s traditional customs with Western modern civilization becomes prominent. Consequently, it is not difficult to understand and imagine that the Western impact altered the Chinese perspective and approach to painting, an integral part of human civilization. As modern historiography emerges, traditional Chinese discourse and literature on painting gradually cede ground to Western humanities and the methodologies of art history[4]. This shift challenges scholars solely versed in traditional Chinese thought and cultural classics.
On historical considerations, I view the year 1793 as the inception of Chinese 19th-century painting history. Chinese historical records perceive the Macartney Embassy to China merely as a diplomatic event: it is widely known among those familiar with late Qing history that the Emperor and most officials regarded such visits from foreign countries as ceremonial formalities. The Chinese Emperor showed limited interest in foreign civilizations and their products. A passage in Emperor Qianlong’s edict to King George III clearly upset the British and European merchants seeking business opportunities with China:
In fact, the virtue and power of the celestial Dynasty has penetrated afar to the myriad kingdoms, which have come to render homage, and so all kinds of precious things from “over mountain and sea” have been collected here, things which your chief envoy and others have seen for themselves. Nevertheless we have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need of your country’s manufactures. Therefore, O king, as regards your request to send someone to remain at the capital, while it is not in harmony with the regulations of the Celestial Empire we also feel very much that it is of no advantage to your country.[5]
We know that the Emperor (and most high-ranking officials) maintained such attitudes until the Qing court’s defeat by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900. During this period, attempts to change the insular mindset of the Chinese, undertaken by those who understood the West and worried about the future of the Chinese Empire, often proved futile.
The primary objective of the Macartney Embassy was commerce, as the British deemed the pre-existing trade between the British Empire with China, compared to that of Portugal and the Netherlands, which arrived earlier than other European nations, to be inadequate. In fact, it was only in 1637 that the English commence vessel London was allowed to anchor at Macao, initiating direct trade with China. This proactive and urgent stance of the British underscores the persistent and prevalent imagination and yearning for China in Europe even in the latter half of the 18th century. Indeed, The Travels of Marco Polo by Marco Polo (1254-1324) contributed to the earliest and enduring fantasies of the European mind, wherein China was regarded as a symbol of material and spiritual wealth. Thus, Europeans attempted to simulate and replicate China in all aspects, from literature, drama, philosophy, architecture to artifacts: undoubtedly, painting stood as a prominent medium for such representation. In the 18th century, this atmosphere pervaded Europe and Britain. The influence of civilization is never unidirectional. For example, as early as 1600, some Westerners had settled in China[6], and by 1687, Shen Fuzong (1657-1692), proficient in Latin, was already in Europe. Although Shen Fuzong never returned to China to tell his tales of Europe, in that same year, the Latin version of The Analects of Confucius was published. However, once the Macartney Embassy revealed their firsthand accounts of China to the Europeans, and as a plethora of subsequent information about China found its way to Europe, Europe’s imagination of China ceased. The trend of “Eastern Wind Influencing the West” was gradually replaced by “Western Wind Influencing the East.” In the 18th century, French painters incorporated Chinese multi-panel screens into their oil paintings, while in the 19th century, Chinese painters began to use perspective to depict courtyards, employing oil paints as their medium.
This book describes a historical account of what we can broadly refer to as “art” today. For quite a considerable span, certain essential aspects of this historical narrative have eluded clear comprehension and, even now, remain unfamiliar to some art historians. From their perspective, either the traditional painting influenced by the “Four Wangs” during the early Qing Dynasty became the mainstream of late Qing painting, or one must await the 20th-century surge of the “Western-style” movement, arising in tandem with political and cultural movements, to emerge as the principal content in the annals of Chinese art history. This, consequently, renders the task of penning the history of painting specific to the 19th century a rather precarious undertaking. The tradition of the “Four Wangs” and the cultural value attributed trace back to the Song and Yuan dynasties: treating their tradition as the principal body of the last century of late Qing painting is an empty gesture. Meanwhile, the experiences of Xu Beihong, Liu Haisu, Lin Fengmian (and even Li Tiefu, Feng Kangbai, and Li Shutong) are stories of 20th-century Chinese art history. The list of painters from the Qing Dynasty is extensive. Yet, most of those who employed traditional tools (brush, ink, paper, inkstone) to create their works were indeed confined to the conventions of the “Four Wangs,” merely offering amusement for the literati or scholar-officials. Chen Duxiu reminds us that many traditional painters after the “Four Wangs” employed the four major skills of lin (free-hand copy), mo (copy made by tracing), fang (imitation), and fu (inventive fabrication), mainly to replicate paintings of the past[7]. He virtually dismissed the need for serious historical writing about the tradition of the “Four Wangs.” Those well-versed in traditional Chinese painting know that the skills highlighted by Chen Duxiu cannot be reduced to mere “replication”; they encompass distinct nuances of brushwork, imbuing their works with rich cultural allure and cultivation. Nonetheless, this tradition has yet to see much room for expansion in its continuation. As early as the beginning of the twentieth century, there was the view in the intellectual world that “in the three hundred years of the late Qing, there was no painting” (Chen Xiaodie, 1897-1989), which essentially regarded the 19th-century late Qing Chinese painting history as blank. The tradition of the “Four Wangs” clearly belongs to what we now call “art,” but in an art history that emphasizes “problems” and “methods,” materials, and shifts in conceptual paradigms, most painters adhering to the brush and ink tradition can be classified under the study of aesthetic tastes. Attempting to compose a history of 19th-century painting within the brush and ink tradition has proven exceedingly tasking. Conversely, the continuous impact of Western civilization on Chinese social life and cultural arts became more and more discernible. Through missionary activities, trade, or other means of Sino-Western exchanges, visual representations, production techniques, materials, and tools have furnished historical materials transcending the confines of the tradition of “brush, ink, paper, inkstone.”
The acceptance of foreign cultures and the ideas that underpin them constantly emerged and evolved, exemplified by Emperor Kangxi’s benevolent treatment and considerable trust in foreigners serving the Qing Empire through science and technology. This impels us to contemplate how to discern or ascertain artworks of historical significance to construct an understanding and narrative of art history. Beyond the subtle and continuous influence of foreign civilizations on traditional painting, the works that literati (or the elites of traditional culture) disdainfully labeled as “skilled but craftsmen” (Zou Yigui, Xiao Shan Hua Pu) were once widespread in the coastal cities of the 19th century. These works warrant the attention of contemporary art historians.
The examination of the influence of European painting on China should start with the early Italian missionaries’ activities in China[8]. Historical documents, though vast and extensive, lead contemporary scholars to believe that from Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) to Giuseppe Castiglione (1688-1766) forms a trajectory of research[9] on the mutual influence of East-West art that began during the Ming and Qing periods, which deserve further examination. This trajectory marks the start of renewed dialogue between ancient China and Western civilization after the Yuan Dynasty. Still, the influence of the continued efforts of missionaries remained confined within the Chinese imperial court. Unlike the 19th-century Europeans who, with “firm ships and powerful cannons,” knocked on China’s door, the missionaries in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, arriving in China with science and European culture, made great contributions to the ancient nation’s advancement to a new civilization. While missionary painters left impressive art legacies in the Chinese court—from the Western originals brought by Matteo Ricci to the balance of style and technique between Chinese and Western art maintained by Giuseppe Castiglione and other Europeans, along with the numerous historical records and historical-significant artworks they left behind—their works, comparing to the yangfenghua (Western-style painting) which appeared in coastal folk societies in the 19th century and their influences in terms of themes, starting-points, and methodologies, should roughly be regarded as the result of the forced cultural adaptation strategies of the missionaries. In terms of starting point and purpose, these works clearly do not belong to the same historical period as the influence of European painting on China and its results in the 19th century.
Matteo Ricci’s arrival in China was motivated and arranged by Alessandro Valignano (1539-1606), the Jesuit visitor who arrived in Macao first. Ricci was instructed to study the Chinese language and related subjects for his missionary work. High standards were expected of Jesuit members; their training encompassed a wide range of topics, including philosophy, ethics, logic, mathematics, physics, and even painting. Villa in a Forest (early 17th century), housed in the Liaoning Museum, is suspected to be Ricci’s work. Regardless of the influence of traditional Chinese painting on the style of this artwork, the use of perspective in the composition makes it distinct from traditional Chinese painting. The apparent European influence in a painting from the early 17th century is undoubtedly linked to the missionaries. Ricci taught Xu Guangqi how geometry could be applied to create perspective in paintings:
By observing the eyes and the visual angles, we can use the distance, height, and horizontal differences to determine the proportions of erect circles and cubes on a flat surface, allowing us to measure objects from afar and reproduce their true forms. For small paintings, the viewer’s gaze makes them appear larger; for near paintings, the viewer’s gaze makes them appear farther away; when painting circles, the viewer’s gaze makes them appear spherical; when painting portraits, there are concave and convex features; when painting rooms, there is light and shadow.[10]
Entirely driven by the proselytizing agenda, spurred on by Ricci and other priests who brought replica paintings of altar scenes to China, the original oil painting depicting the Virgin Mary was sent from Europe to Macao and eventually taken by Ricci to the city of Zhaoqing in Guangdong. These Renaissance paintings, imbued with the knowledge of humanities, though still rooted in religious themes, were supposed to be more accessible to viewers. Experts today describe them as having visual illusion effects, but they carry a potent persuasive force, for the figures depicted therein closely resemble real-life individuals, thereby minimizing any pronounced cultural dissonance for the Chinese populace and making them more receptive to religious conversion. At last, Ricci presented European paintings of the Virgin Mary and God as tributes to the Chinese emperor.[11]
The unwavering efforts of missionaries have forged a grand historical narrative imbued with the spirit of sacrifice; there are countless figures and events of evangelism through paintings and cartography. However, the existing literature and physical artifacts concerning the artwork and cartography of that era are relatively scarce today. The curiosity of the Chinese people, who once gazed with fascination upon the religious images in newly established churches or sites, has gradually faded away over time. As a testament to the influence of Western painting on Chinese artists, only the works of two assistants of Matteo Ricci, Manuel Pereira Yeou (1575-1633) and Jacques Niva (1579-1638), serve as exemplars. Portrait of Matteo Ricci (1610, preserved at the headquarters of the Jesuits in Rome), painted by Manuel Pereira Yeou, was brought back to Rome by Nicolas Trigault (1577-1628) as early as 1614. Although the Macau Catholic Art Museum retains the painting Archangel Michael by Jacques Niva, the extensive decorative paintings of the artist of mixed Chinese and Japanese heritage, along with the churches themselves, were eventually destroyed over time.[12]
It is not an exaggeration to describe the missionaries’ proselytization efforts through images as subtle, like scattering stars and flowing waters; they brought numerous religious books from Europe, replete with copperplate engravings and illustrations that influenced Chinese people’s visual interpretation habits. Given the limited number of missionaries and the risks involved in travel, one can surmise that the influx of European books to China must have been meager. Moreover, their usage was subject to attrition, owing to the exigencies of the proselytizing cause. Consequently, the missionaries replicated the biblical images with their hand or by commissioning Chinese painters. Imaginably, such commissions fostered mutual influence between the commissioners and the commissioned painters. In most cases, Chinese painters altered the forms and even the predilections of the source images provided by the missionaries. The extant illustrations found within Cheng Dayue’s Cheng’s Ink Garden (Cheng Shi Mo Yuan, post-1605), collected at the National Library of China, were meant to illustrate the Passion of Jesus. Yet, they exhibit forms that appear to have been intentionally or unintentionally modified. The participating painters were from Anhui, China, including Ding Yunpeng, Wu Tingyu, Huang Lin, Huang Yingdao, and Huang Yingtai. These painters may have accepted Ricci’s suggestions for modifications[13]. Additionally, with the limited realism craft of Chinese painters at the time and the inferior precision of woodblock printing compared to copperplate engravings, the woodblock printing effect was inherently more Chinese. The rendering by Chinese artists might naturally exhibit variations in temperament and aesthetic preferences due to their habits and skills, even though they tried to retain the formalities of European art in their depiction of figures and surroundings. In a later period (circa 1619-1624), in Rules for Reciting the Rosary, the earliest known Chinese Catholic doctrinal illustration, perhaps students of Dong Qichang boldly pursued imaginative reinterpretations, transforming European copperplate engravings into Chinese woodblock prints: houses, furniture, and rocky terrain veered towards a Chinese aesthetic in their forms and treatment, celestial angels conveying messages through clouds were changed into birds, and the linear composition erased all layers of three-dimensional space from the original work. These modifications seem to have been made to facilitate the propagation of the doctrine in China, and the painters were actively involved in the transformation of Western painting methods. There were, nevertheless, other cases. Under the impetus of Giulio Aleni (1582-1649), another Jesuit priest, illustrations in Life of Jesus bore a striking resemblance to Evangelicae Historiae Imagines, with painters meticulously emulating Western techniques in aspects of form, architecture, figures, and landscapes. In these illustrations, the painters almost fully adhered to Western painting methods, employing techniques such as chiaroscuro and perspective. The forms they created were relatively accurate, and modification traces remained negligible. This indicates that, at the time, Chinese painters were already proficient in their imitation of Western paintings. However, this does not imply that Chinese painters had a deeper understanding of European art from the Renaissance, particularly in geometry, mathematics, and perspective. The extent to which Chinese painters modified foreign engravings clearly depended on the strategies and requirements of their missionary commissioners. Largely dismissed by the majority of literati and elites of the time, this type of painting practice received the emperor’s favor thanks to the efforts of Italian missionary Matteo Ripa (1682-1745). The primary reason for this favor was that the missionary used Western materials and methods to imitate traditional Chinese painting, yielding results that closely resembled the original, leading to the emperor’s acceptance of the Western copperplate method[14]. It was the copperplate engraving of Matteo Ripa, Thirty-Six Views of the Mountain Resort (1711), that advanced the transformation of European painting themes toward secular content through the imitation of traditional Chinese paintings[15]. Particularly during Emperor Qianlong’s reign, the main theme of all paintings was the emperor’s achievements; thus, the copperplate engravings from the 18th century mainly focused on imperial life and political accomplishments. On the other hand, when Matteo Ripa’s Thirty-Six Views and the subsequent Kangxi Imperial Atlas of China (Huang Yu Quan Lan Tu) were brought to European courts, the accurate cartography of Chinese gardens of the copperplate engravings made a significant impact on European garden design, making these copperplate engravings an important part of Chinoiserie. As with that of other missionaries, the paintings completed by Matteo Ripa certainly influenced Chinese painters. Nevertheless, it was the devout missionaries who continued to perpetuate European traditions effectively. For instance, the Copper Engravings of Qianlong’s Military Campaign into the Western Regions (around 1765-1774) were works of missionaries such as Giuseppe Castiglione, Jean-Denis Attiret (1702-1768), Joannes Damascenus Salusti (?-1781), and Ignatius Sichelbart (1708-1780). Of course, the paintings by these Europeans were inevitably influenced by Chinese traditional painting due to the emperor’s preferences and requirements.
The basic situation of “East-West Convergence” in China is as follows. The general public initially saw Western oil paintings brought by Matteo Ricci during his missionary efforts. This is believed to have influenced the Ming-dynasty Chinese painters’ incorporation of Western painting tastes and techniques. The impact was first evident in portrait paintings: Zeng Jing (1564-1647), who had direct contact with Matteo Ricci, was one of the first painters to learn from Western influence. This led him to found the “Bochen school,”[16] a style of painting characterized by its unique technique of using light ink to render shadows and contours. During the early Qing Dynasty, particularly under the reign of Kangxi (1662-1722), the Western missionaries Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592-1666) and Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688) introduced Western oil paintings directly to the imperial court, bringing forth the emergence of court portraitists such as Jiao Bingzhen, Leng Mei (c. 1669-1742), and Mang Heli (1672-1736), who had all adopted Western painting methods. Chinese artists recognized the Emperor’s appreciation of Western painting’s precision in anatomical representation and worked hard to learn from Western paintings. The 17th century bore witness to the resolute endeavors of Western missionaries in forging a path and attaining notable achievements. Their efforts yielded a substantial congregation of tens of thousands of adherents[17], including high-ranking government officials, literati, and the general populace. Even though the “Four Wangs” still hold a prevalent influence over Chinese painters[18], missionaries’ impact on culture and art was so profound that Qing scholars categorically coined the term “Haixi School” to denote the portrait style they adopted. This designation signified the recognition of a distinct departure from traditional Chinese painting methods, exemplified by the work of Giuseppe Castiglione. The term “Haixi”[19] originally referred to the territory of the Roman Empire, and it was used to denote foreign lands, particularly those of the Western region. Whether it be the emperor, ministers, or court-appointed painters, the transition from Italian Renaissance influences to Baroque styles remained uncharted territory for the Chinese, underscoring their limited exposure to Western art trends. Moreover, the religious paintings introduced by missionaries most likely adhered to the broader spectrum of Renaissance influence; as Jesuits’ usage of paintings was confined mainly to depicting and reproducing religious narrative themes, there were no stylistic requirements. This fluidity in styles and proclivities, evident in all paintings the missionaries produced or brought to China, afforded them the versatility to accommodate the demands of the Chinese emperor by adjusting their methods. Nonetheless, the vivid representation achieved through Western painting’s emphasis on anatomical form and chiaroscuro captivated the Chinese imagination. Historical accounts reflect the Qing emperors’ profound interest in technology, catalyzed by previous achievements like the emulation and enhancement of the Portuguese red barbarian cannon (hongyipao) in the conquest of the Central Plains. Emperor Kangxi was ardently invested in the technological aspect of Western knowledge, albeit theological elements were notably marginalized. A testament to this stance, the emperor articulated a resolute directive to missionaries:
Amongst you Westerners, should there remain those who persist in individualistic dissent and send out unauthorized communications, they are nothing more than agents of disorder. Such personnel finds no utility within the realm of China. With the exception of those artisans of technical prowess, all other Westerners must be systematically expelled without any hesitance.[20]
In terms of visual preferences, Emperor Kangxi showed limited interest in strong three-dimensional and chiaroscuro effects; at least, he did not develop a habit of appreciating them visually. Therefore, his expectations of missionary painters clearly stemmed from Chinese viewing habits and traditions. This directly influenced Castiglione’s approach to painting frontside portraits, downplaying volumetric effects and flattening them. Understandably, brushwork was not preserved. This smooth rendering method created images in line with the visual habits of the Chinese, marking the most evident transformation of Western painting. It was even recognized as a distinct style. Frenchman Jean-Denis Attiret and German-Bohemian missionary Ignatius Sichelbart both adopted such a strategy.
The adaptive stance of Castiglione and his colleagues when fulfilling commissions can be seen as an extension of Matteo Ricci’s adaptation strategy in painting. The superior living and working conditions of missionary painters in the imperial court sustained their remarkable patience. However, this does not imply that the paintings, conforming to the standards of the Emperor, are always products of joy. In this regard, these seemingly compromising paintings of the missionaries deviate from the evolution of European painting styles, such as the changes in Late Renaissance Mannerism or the emergence of Baroque art. Jean-Denis Attiret, who dedicated his life to missionary work, expressed his frustration with the Chinese imperial court very clearly in one of his letters:
I have not a Moment to spare; and am forced to borrow Time in which I now write to you, from my Hours of Rest. To which you may add, that for such a Work, it would be necessary for me to have full Liberty of going into any Part of the Gardens whenever I pleas’d, and to stay there as long as I pleas’d […] [T]he Emperor comes to see us work, almost every Day: so that we can never be absent. We don’t go out of the Bounds of this Palace, unless what we are to paint cannot be brought to us; and in such Cases, they conduct us to the Place under a large Guard of Eunuchs. We are obliged to go quick, and without any Noise; and huddle and steal along softly, as if we were going upon some Piece of Mischief.[21]
Attiret had more than once expressed his anger and despair at being unable to carry on missionary work within the Chinese imperial court[22]. Despite the missionaries’ enthusiasm for art—Matteo Ricci’s “extreme love” for painting, which he expressed to the superior general of the Jesuits in 1606, for instance—they also experienced frustration and anxiety akin to that of Attiret. The paintings of compromise of Castiglione and others were merely productions of missionaries’ last hope of proselytization and their ingratiation of the Emperor’s desire to boast his “grand achievements in such prosperous time.” They were introduced into the imperial court not for their theology but for their artistic talents. Castiglione, a gentle person whose artworks were admired by Emperor Qianlong, took the risk of applying for permission to carry on missionary work when the Emperor viewed his paintings. While he did not face punishment, the possibility of converting the Chinese people to Catholicism was firmly denied by Emperor Qianlong. Therefore, we should not interpret the Emperor’s leniency toward court missionaries as a form of indulgence but rather believe in Fang Hao’s assessment:
Emperor Qianlong was originally a monarch who harbored anti-foreign and anti-Christian sentiments. Therefore, his tolerance of missionaries within the palace was purely for his personal interests. They were employed for various tasks such as repairing clocks, constructing the Yuanmingyuan (Old Summer Palace), cartography, creating automatons, and depicting figures. Playing Western musical instruments was also one such task. Missionaries seeking to alleviate the difficulties of various provinces’ religious practices occasionally engaged in covert proselytizing. When caught, a few words of explanation could lead to their pardon, allowing them to spend their remaining years in the palace. Their experience was both lamentable and commendable. However, due to this arrangement, Western fine arts, including architecture, paintings, and music, failed to penetrate the broader populace promptly. Both Emperor Kangxi and Emperor Qianlong bear responsibility for this, as it hindered the broader dissemination of Western artistic influence.[23]
Therefore, with his talents and Emperor Qianlong’s fondness for Western tastes, Castiglione established himself in a unique period of time. However, when we examine his achievements and those of other missionaries, we find that efforts to accommodate the Emperor’s preferences in Chinese painting did not lead to a vibrant continuation and development of a distinct style. Subsequent paintings executed in collaboration with Chinese artists by individuals such as Joseph Panzi and Louis Poirot (1735-1814) can only be seen as continuations of the Castiglione style. In fact, in 1785 and 1811, both Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing issued punitive regulations against missionary activities. With the eventual cessation of missionary efforts and Emperor Jiaqing’s revival of traditional tastes, the Western painting style, which had been predominantly confined to the imperial court, gradually came to an end.[24]
The year 1798 marked the completion of the copperplate printing series Conquest of Miao Revolt in Hunan, Guizhou, and Sichuan (Ping Ding Xiang Qian Chuan Miao Zu Qi Yi), which celebrated Emperor Qianlong’s military achievements. It also marked the beginning of a reevaluation of China by Europeans, as evidenced by their reading of An Authentic Account of an Embassy from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China (published in 1797). The previously prevalent European fascination with the “Chinoiserie” aesthetic rapidly waned. While the Chinese emperor vigorously promoted and praised his own military accomplishments, European nations were gradually entering the era of the Industrial Revolution. This divergence cannot be simply attributed to differences in cultural and developmental models between countries but should be seen as a reflection of a nation and its people’s attitudes towards future survival and progress and the consequent outcomes they are prepared to face. Before 1793, Europeans, including George Macartney himself, were often swayed by the lavish praises of China by European intellectual elites such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and François-Marie Arouet (1694-1778). However, after 1793, members of the Embassy found that the imperial Chinese “ship” might “drift as wreckage for a while and then run aground, shattered; but she can never be rebuilt on the old foundation.” Even at this point, the Chinese still clung to the “old foundation” of their way of life, with the imperial court literati maintaining traditional brush-and-ink practices without studying Western painting techniques further. Nevertheless, it is evident that the interaction between China and the West, sparked by new maritime routes, never stopped. The missionary activities that brought Western painting into the Chinese court inevitably led to the dissemination of Western art through tribute channels and trade routes, permeating into the common populace. Subsequently, the evolution of Chinese art entered a more secular historical context. As suggested by Liang Qichao, whether willing or not, China had already entered the 19th century of continuous global integration. While missionaries within the imperial court cautiously juggled European art techniques and royal preferences, the Chinese comprehension and practice of Western painting underwent a significant historical transformation due to the escalating mutual trade and increasingly frequent interactions between China and foreign nations, which first emerged within coastal communities. This shift was marked by groundbreaking changes in themes, techniques, materials, and even artistic style. The mutual influence between Chinese and Western civilizations in the 19th century took on a distinct tone. Instead of the European fascination and respect for Chinese culture spanning the 14th to the 18th centuries, this era witnessed the Chinese increasingly learning from and admiring Western practices.
Notes:
[1] This European phenomenon, influenced by Chinese or Far Eastern culture, gave rise to the French term “Chinoiserie” (meaning Chinese style) in 1839. This term was later incorporated into the Oxford English Dictionary in 1883. British art historian Hugh Honour undertook the first in-depth exploration of this historical phenomenon in his work Chinoiserie: The Vision of Cathay (1961).
[2] Staunton, George. An Authentic Account of an Embassy from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China. Volume 2, London, G. Nicol, 1797, p. 547.
[3] This grassroots armed uprising lasted from 1796 to 1804, spanning the first to ninth years of Jiaqing’s reign, and mainly occurred in Sichuan, Hubei, Shaanxi, and Henan. The folk religious movement known as the White Lotus Society (evolved from a blend of various beliefs like Manichaeism, Maitreyism, Taoism, and Buddhism) originated from the Tang-era Manichaeism and was not recognized by the imperial court. The egalitarianism within this movement (such as the principle of mutual aid in times of trouble and shared hardships) was considered a key appeal for the participating masses. The uprising was primarily fueled by landless migrants grappling with famine and poverty.
[4] In the early years, the approaches of Jiang Danshu (1885-1962), Chen Shizeng (1876-1923), Fu Baoshi (1904-1965), and Teng Gu (1901-1941) were directly influenced by German art history. From 1949 to 1978, the writing of art history was heavily influenced by the ideological dogmas of materialism and idealism. Only from the 1980s onward did translations of Western art history works begin to find their way into Chinese art history. However, even today, the writing of art history for most of the 20th century, such as the Yan’an period, the “Cultural Revolution” period, and the contemporary period since 1978, continues to pose challenges for art historians. In fact, as a branch of history, the full development of art history in China still requires time and effort.
[5] Cranmer-Byng, J. L. ed. An Embassy to China: Lord Macartney’s Journal, 1793-1794. London, 1962, p. 340.
[6] Portuguese settlers had already established themselves in Macao in 1535 (the fourteenth year of Jiajing’s reign). By 1564, Macao had grown to the extent that “numerous houses had been erected and the number of foreigners had nearly reached ten thousand.” (As recorded in Pang Shangpeng, “Fu Chu Hao Jing Ao Yi Shu,” collected in Volume 1 of Bai Ke Ting Zhai Gao, published in the twelfth year of Daoguang’s reign. See also “Fo Lang Ji Zhuan,” History of Ming). On the other hand, in 1562, Jesuit missionaries settled in Macao. By 1578, when Francisco Álvares, an inspector sent by the Jesuit General, arrived in Macao, the missionary activities began to grow.
[7] See Lang, Shaojun. and Shui Zhongtian. ed. Selected Essays on Twenty-Century Chinese Art (Er Shi Shi Ji Zhong Guo Mei Shu Wen Yuan). Shanghai Paintings And Calligraphy Publishing House, 1999, p. 30.
[8] The earliest to arrive in China was St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), a Spanish-born Catholic missionary sent to Asia by Portugal. He reached Japan in 1549 and brought Christianity to the island of Shangchuan, China, in 1552. Unfortunately, he passed away on that island on December 2 of the same year.
[9] The first advocate of Matteo Ricci’s role in spreading Western painting was Xiang Da, who published “The Influence of the West on Chinese Art during the Ming-Qing Transition” in Volume 27, Issue 1 of The Eastern Miscellany in 1930. The article stated, “In 1581, Matteo Ricci arrived in China, followed by the establishment of Catholicism, through which Western learning was introduced. Western art also entered China, and it can be said that it started with Matteo Ricci.” The history of East-West communication prior to this, particularly overland routes, belongs to another research topic. Importantly, we lack specific materials in painting to confirm Western influence on China. For instance, the origins of Western-style intertwined floral patterns in ceramics (such as Greek and Roman rose motifs, palm motifs, and vine motifs) are not within the scope of this study.
[10] Xu, Guangqi. “Introduction to the Translated Euclid’s Elements.” Ming Qing Jian Ye Su Hui Shi Yi Zhu Ti Yao, edited by Xu Zongze, Shanghai Century Publishing Group, 2010, p. 258.
[11] “One timely painting of God, one antique painting of Virgin Mary, and one timely painting of Virgin Mary” as recorded in Volume Two of Xi Chao Chong Zheng Ji. Timely painting refers to the style prevalent during the 15th to 16th century Renaissance period, while antique painting refers to the transitional style from the Middle Ages to the early Renaissance in Italian painting, close to that of Cimabue. See Mo Xiaoye, Missionaries and the Eastward Spread of Western Painting in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Shi Qi-Shi Ba Shi Ji Chuan Jiao Shi Yu Xi Hua Dong Jian). China Academy of Art Press, 2002, Chapter Two.
[12] In fact, both Manuel Pereira Yeou and Jacques Niva were students of the painter and friar Cola Nicola Giovanni (1560-1626). Niccolo arrived in Macao with Matteo Ricci in 1581. In 1582, the Jesuits sent him to Japan as a professional art instructor. In 1614, he sought refuge in Macao from Japan and continued to train students.
[13] For instance, Matteo Ricci did not instruct Chinese painters to depict nail wounds on Jesus’ hands and feet, nor the scars from the Roman soldiers’ spear. This clearly indicates Ricci’s missionary strategy. He aimed to prevent the Chinese from experiencing the overly gruesome and stimulating portrayal of Christ’s suffering. In contrast, the original works of these images were copied from Evangelicae Historiae Imagines, created by European artists Bernardino Passeri (1540-1596) and Maerten de Vos (1532-1603), who undoubtedly adhered to the fundamental doctrines.
[14] Matteo Ripa wrote, “[The Emperor] commanded his Chinese painters to draw a landscape, in order that I might afterwards engrave it. As soon as it was done it was shown, together with the original, to his Majesty, who expressed considerable delight and surprise at finding the copy so perfectly similar to the original, without this being impaired; for this was the first time he had seen an engraving on copper…” (Memoirs of Father Ripa During Thirteen Years Residence at the Court of Peking in the Service of the Emperor of China. Selected and translated from the Italian by Fortunato Prandi. China, 1939, p. 66.)
[15] The original work was executed by the Chinese painter Shen Yu using landscape painting techniques. Interested in copperplate engraving, Emperor Kangxi requested Matteo Ripa to replicate the series. In the end, Emperor Kangxi saw that the copperplate engravings were closer to the original than the reproductions produced through traditional Chinese woodblock printing.
[16] In his “A Study on the Introduction of Foreign Paintings into China,” the Chinese art historian and painter Pan Tianshou wrote: “China was initially influenced by Western painting, and those who adopted Western techniques were known as the ‘Realist School.’ The pioneer of this school was the late Ming Dynasty painter Zeng Jing from Putian.” (Pan, Tianshou. Appendix. History of Chinese Painting, Commercial Press, 1982.)
[17] In 1664, the number of members of the Jesuits community alone had already reached 114,200 people. See Xu, Zongze. Zhong Guo Tian Zhu Jiao Chuan Jiao Shi Gai Lun (Introduction to the History of Catholic Missions in China). Commercial Press, 2015. Xu Zongze, a renowned scientist of late Ming China, is the descendent of Xu Guangqi, one of China’s earliest Catholics. He entered the Jesuit Novitiate and later pursued studies in Europe and the Americas, earning a doctoral degree. Upon returning to China, he served as the editor-in-chief of The Catholic Review (Sheng Jiao Za Zhi) and as the director of the St. Ignatius Cathedral Library. Also see Volume 1 of the Japanese edition of Letters of Jesuit Missionaries in China, p. 73-77.
[18] Three Chinese painters of the 17th century were documented by art historians for their distinctive styles. Wu Bin, active in the 16th and early 17th century, was known for volumetric effects in his landscapes that bear a resemblance to Western landscape painting. Though there is no documentation on Gong Xian’s interactions with missionary painters, his paintings demonstrated chiaroscuro techniques. However, from his writings, we gather that his techniques were products of his personal observation: “Paint the upper part of a rock white and the lower part black. White represents the light, while black signifies shadows. The upper surface of a rock is mostly flat and sunlit, hence white, while the sides with textures, moss, or shaded areas are dark due to lack of sunlight.” Another painter, Wu Li (1632-1718), though a Catholic priest with the Western name Simon-Xavier, retained a distinct stance from Western art due to his traditional education and guidance from Wang Jian and Wang Shimin, members of the “Four Wangs.” His sensitivity to Western painting was ultimately overshadowed by his profound literary and scholarly temperament.
[19] In ancient times, “Da Qin” referred to the Roman Empire. “Da Wan Lie Zhuan” from Records of the Grand Historian (Shi Ji) mentioned that “to the north lies the country of Yancai and Lixuan.” Zhang Shoujie’s commentary of Comprehensive Gazetteer (Kuo Di Zhi) states: “According to Weilüe, ‘Da Qin is situated west of Anxi and Tiaozhi, beyond the Western Sea. Thus it is called Haixi. Traveling directly from the borders of Anxi by ship to Haixi, with favorable winds, one can arrive in three months; if the winds were slow, it would take one or two years.’” In The Book of Later Han (Houhanshu), it is recorded in “Nan Man Zhuan” that “In the first year of Yongning, the King of Shan, Yongyou, dispatched envoys to the imperial court to offer congratulations... They stated that they were people from Haixi. Haixi is synonymous with Da Qin.”
[20] Liu, Lu. “Emperor Kangxi and Western Missionaries (Kang Xi Di Yu Xi Fang Chuan Jiao Shi),” Palace Museum Journal (Gu Gong Bo Wu Yuan Kan), 1981, Issue 3. In fact, subsequent Western individuals were not recruited for missionary work but were selected based on their technical skills. For instance, individuals like Joachim Bouvet (1656-1730), Jean de Fontaney (1643-1710), Louis Le Comte (1655-1728), Jean-Francois Gerbillon (1654-1707), and Claude de Visdelou (1656-1737), who were Jesuit missionaries from France, officially entered the Chinese imperial court as “Royal Mathematicians” appointed by the French King Louis XIV.
[21] Zhu, Jing. ed. Chinese Imperial Court in the Eyes of Western Missionaries (Yang Jiao Shi Kan Zhong Guo Chao Ting). Shanghai People’s Press, 1995, p. 199. The text comes from a letter by Jean-Denis Attiret, S. J. to M. d’Assaut in Paris, 1 November 1743. The French original was first published in 1749 in the Lettres édifiantes et curieuses écrites des missions étrangères par quelques missionnaires de la compagnie de Jésus (Paris: Guérin), 27:1-61. The English translation by Joseph Spence was published in 1752 in London (translator’s note).
[22] “Will this farce never end? So far from the House of God, deprived of all spiritual sustenance, I find it hard to persuade myself that all this is to the glory of God.” Attiret wrote in a 1754 letter to Joseph-Marie Amiot. See Sullivan, Michael “The Chinese Response to Western Art.” Art International, 1980, Vol. 24, Issue 3-4, p. 8-31.
[23] Fang, Hao. Zhong Xi Jiao Tong Shi. Yuelu Press, 1987, p. 960.
[24] The compromising strategies of Matteo Ricci and his contemporaries were replaced by a more orthodox approach of later Jesuit missionaries like Niccolo Longobardi (1559-1654). However, in the 17th to 18th centuries, the “Chinese Rites controversy” among Western Catholic missionaries about whether Chinese traditional rituals contradicted Catholic doctrine proved fruitless in upholding classic doctrines. In reality, the fusion of these two civilizations has always been a practical issue of political and cultural complexity, and it has yet to find a cultural resolution even to this day. This is evident in the field of painting, where the strategies employed by Castiglione and others to adapt to Chinese customs still reflect the dilemmas faced during their missionary activities. In this context, most of their techniques can be seen as results of compromise rather than the independent and preferred assimilation of Eastern elements, as seen in their European contemporaries like Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Jean-Antoine Watteau (1684-1721), and Francois Boucher (1703-1770).