A Flower not in Bloom: Matteo Ricci’s Art of Memory in Late Ming China
- Format:
- Journal Article
- Year:
- 2011
- Journal Title:
- Chinese Cross Currents
- Volume:
- 8
- Issue:
- 1
- Language:
- Abstract:
Matteo Ricci was born in Macerata, Italy and died in Peking, China. This year marks the 400th anniversary of his death, which is being commemorated all over the world especially in Italy and China for his being a pioneer of cultural relations between China and the West. The Japanese writer Hirakawa Sukehiro referred to him as “the first giant in the history of humankind to embody all the knowledge of the European Renaissance and all the wisdom of the Chinese classics”. The time when he came to China as a missionary was at the end of the sixteenth century, during China’s Ming Dynasty and Italy’s Renaissance, and the “knowledge” brought to China included Western science, technology and arts. Some of the knowledge was brought to China in the form of books, while others were stored in his mind by his art of memory. His art of memory itself was also part of the knowledge which he wanted to pass to Chinese people.Although his art of memory inspired some Chinese elite’s interest and brought fame to him, compared to his knowledge in other fields, it didn’t blossom as he expected. By examining his book 西国记法 Western Mnemonic Arts written in Chinese in 1596, the art of memory in Western tradition and the social background of late Ming China, I endeavour to explore the reasons why Matteo Ricci’s art of memory didn’t flourish in late Ming China.First, there was a different understanding of memory between each culture. Matteo Ricci’s art of memory showed that memory happened in the mind and could be enhanced by learning and commanding the art of memory. Chinese people thought that memory occurred in the heart and extraordinary memory was a talent which could not be learnt. Second, the art of memory was born in Western culture and it was not easy to grow and blossom in a different cultural soil like that of the Chinese. Third, the art of memory did not cater for the demand of Chinese society and was impractical for them. Chinese people’s emphasis on practical learning and neglect of trivial techniques, and the boom of printing devalued the art of memory on Chinese cultural soil.In this paper I will focus on expounding the first two reasons by comparing and illustrating two patterns of memory: Matteo Ricci’s art of memory and the traditional Chinese pattern of memory.Traditional Chinese pattern of memory(1)things 事物 shiwu → perception 感知 ganzhi → recitation 背诵 beisong → heart 心 xinMatteo Ricci’s art of memorythings 事物 shiwu → perception 感知 ganzhi → building-up of images 立象 lixiang → image-printing 印象 yinxiang → brain 脑 nao(2)1. Principle of Matteo Ricci’s Art of MemoryThe Art of memory, which is also called artificial memory or mnemonic arts, was widely used in ancient times as a rhetorical device, and is explored by Frances A. Yates’s widely quoted and seminal book The Art of Memory(3) and Mary J. Carruthers’ Book of Memory: A Study in Medieval Culture.(4) It is known to us through three Roman sources: Cicero, an anonymous work Ad C. Herennium libri IV and Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria. The Greek orator Simonides of Ceos (556–468 B.C.) is widely considered to be the inventor of the art of memory, the components of which are images, order and location. Things and ideas to be remembered are attached to images by association and imagination. To attain an impressive effect, the images should be lively and striking, and can be ugly or beautiful. The images should be arranged in different places for recollection. Matteo Ricci’s art of memory is described in his book 西国记法 Western Mnemonic Arts, which follows the main rules of the Western tradition of the art of memory-images, location and order. As Matteo Ricci was “forced” to write this book and it was given as a present to the governor of Jiangxi—Lu Wangai, and to Governor Lu’s three sons who were going to attend the imperial examination, it was important to be understandable and practical. Matteo Ricci developed the Western art of memory by incorporating Chinese culture, as Lina Bolzoni says, it is “a parallel between Chinese ideograms and European images of memory”.(5)In the first section of his book “原本篇” yuanben pian [On Principle], Matteo Ricci illustrates how memory works and the principle of his art of memory. He states that memory works in the brain and explains two models of mind—“库藏” kucang, the warehouse metaphor and “以印印脑” yiyinyinnao, the wax tablet metaphor. Memory is like a storehouse storing images and images are formed by perception and stored like seals stamped in the wax tablet. These ideas were completely different to the Chinese understanding of memory. In Chinese tradition 心 xin heart is the place where memory works.At the last stages of the two patterns of memory, one is heart and the other is brain. Brain or heart?(6) That is the question. Before Matteo Ricci’s Western Mnemonic Arts, the heart was widely believed to be the place where memory works among Chinese people. Although in more ancient times, there were a few records mentioning memory in the brain, they were not given attention. From Chinese characters we may perceive how the heart is important in memory. The translation of memory in Chinese is 记忆 jiyi. 忆 yi also means “recall”. The left part of 忆 yi is 忄xin which means “heart”. “To forget” is 忘 wang which is also related to the heart. The upper part 亡 wang can mean “to die” or “no”; the lower part 心 xin means “heart”. So 忘 wang means “not in the heart”, that is, “to forget”. There are many other characters related to 心 xin, including thinking 思 si. 心 xin is a component of 思 si which means that the faculty of thought is closely related to the heart.It may seem striking that there is so much difference about how memory works between the Ming Chinese and the Renaissance West. But if we track the Western tradition, we find those two modes: heart-centred tradition and brain-centred tradition.(7)There are actually two distinct traditions that often interact and influence each other. The first holds the brain to be at the centre of perception and the cognitive process, whereas the second identifies the heart as the centre of life and the different faculties of the soul (this is the position of Aristotle and the Stoics). The first tradition goes back to the Hippocratic position. It is renewed and elaborated on by Plato, to whom we also owe the tripartite division of the soul: reason is assigned to the brain, while the heart is the seat of passions and the liver is the place of the faculties in control of nourishment. The tripartite model ultimately influences even those who, faithful to Aristotelian teachings, localize the soul and its principle functions in the heart.(8)
- Who (Jesuits):
- What (Subjects):
- Where (Locations):
- When (Centuries):
- Page Range:
- 70–80
- ISSN:
- 1810-147X