‘Manchu Anatomy’: Anatomical Knowledge and
the Jesuits in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century
China
Daniel Asen*
Summary. Beginning in the last decade of the seventeenth century, the French Jesuits Joachim
Bouvet and Dominique Parrenin instructed the Kangxi Emperor in contemporary anatomical knowl-
edge. Parrenin’s instruction resulted in a Manchu anatomical atlas containing Harvey’s discovery of
the circulation of the blood. This paper uses this case to examine the role of anatomy in seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century European understandings of China and its medicine. I argue that the auth-
ority which Bouvet and Parrenin afforded anatomical knowledge gained from dissection informed
their comparisons of Chinese and European medical learning. I also examine ways in which illus-
trations of this atlas were made to demonstrate the certainty of European anatomy and its applica-
bility to Chinese bodies. Production of the ‘Manchu Anatomy’ was thus an important moment in the
process through which anatomy became a category in European understandings of China and its
medicine during and after the eighteenth century.
Keywords: anatomy; China; Jesuits; translation; visual representation
Beginning in the last decade of the seventeenth century, the French Jesuits Joachim
Bouvet (1656–1730) and Dominique Parrenin (1665–1741) instructed the Kangxi
Emperor (reigned 1662–1722) in some of the most current anatomical knowledge in
Europe.1 Bouvet had left for China in March 1685 as part of the ‘King’s Mathematicians’,
a group of six Jesuits affiliated with the Acade´mie Royale des Sciences.2 With assurances
that their data would conform to new Galilean methods of establishing geographical
data, they were expected to contribute to the scientific work of the Acade´mie. The
mission was also intended to counter the influence of Portuguese missionaries at the
Qing capital and bring praise to Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715).3 Before leaving for
*Fayerweather Hall 611, 1180 Amsterdam Avenue, Mail Code: 2527, New York, NY 10027-7039, USA.
E-mail: dsa2108@columbia.edu
1Clod-Hansen 1928; Johnsson 1928; Young 1974; Saunders and Lee 1981; Walravens 1996; Watanabe
2005.
2Hsia in O’Malley et al. (eds) 1999, p. 244. For biographical information on Bouvet, see Pfister 1932–4,
p. 433. For Parrenin, see Pfister 1932–4, p. 501. The spelling ‘Parennin’ appears often in the secondary
literature as well as in Lettres E´difiantes et Curieuses (1703–76). According to Pfister, he signed his name
‘Parrenin’. See Pfister 1932–4, p. 501.
3Swiderski 1981, p. 135; Han in Hashimoto et al. (eds) 1995, p. 489; Jami in Hashimoto et al. (eds) 1995,
p. 495–6.
& The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Social History of Medicine.
All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/shm/hkn097
Advance Access published 20 February 2009
Social History of Medicine Vol. 22, No. 1 pp. 23–44
China, the group prepared themselves in fields of knowledge thought to be of interest to
the Chinese, one of which was anatomy.4 Arriving in Beijing in February 1688, Bouvet
and Jean-Franc¸ois Gerbillon (1654–1707) were put into the service of the Kangxi
Emperor, instructing him in astronomy, mathematics and philosophy.5
When a ‘most dangerous distemper’ interrupted the Emperor’s studies in philosophy,
the Emperor grew interested in the workings of the human body. Bouvet responded
by producing materials based upon European studies of anatomy with illustrations of
the body. With lessons incomplete at the time of his departure from Beijing in 1693,
the Emperor requested that Bouvet return with other missionaries to serve at court.6 In
response, ten missionaries, five of whom would enter the Emperor’s service, were dis-
patched to China.7 One was Dominique Parrenin, who would continue the Emperor’s
instruction in anatomy. Providing various services to the Kangxi and Yongzheng
(reigned 1722–35) Emperors, Parrenin lived in China until his death in 1741. During
this time, he oversaw the translation into Manchu of a contemporary work of French
anatomy, which included William Harvey’s (1578–1657) discovery of the circulation
of the blood.8 Parrenin sent one of the four completed copies of his translation to the
Acade´mie in 1723 under the title Ge ti ciowan lu bithe ‘Complete Record of
Anatomy’. Nine copies in varying degrees of completion are the only evidence that
remains of the translated anatomy which emerged from this episode.9 Collectively,
they are known in English as the ‘Manchu Anatomy’.
The case of the ‘Manchu Anatomy’ in many ways demonstrates the complexities of late
seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century ‘Jesuit science’ as it was practised and con-
sumed in both Europe and China. The anatomical projects of Bouvet and Parrenin were
part of an effort to spread the gospel in China through conversion of the Kangxi
Emperor. Proficiency in Manchu and expertise in knowledge which piqued the Emperor’s
interest gave the Jesuits the access needed to bring about this goal. Bouvet and Parrenin
presented their anatomical works as important bodies of knowledge which the Emperor
either lacked or possessed in imperfect form. The Jesuits used illustrations with textual
explanations to demonstrate anatomical facts and argue that their own anatomical knowl-
edge was applicable to Chinese bodies and essential for progress in Chinese healing.
As we will see, Parrenin implicitly made Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the
blood the basis of his claims to true knowledge of the workings of the body. While
Bouvet did not discuss the sources of his anatomical certainty as explicitly, we can infer
from his use of Joseph-Guichard Du Verney’s (1648–1730) anatomical work10 and the
terms in which he described his conception of the body that he too grounded his
4Le Comte 1698, p. 483.
5Treutlein 1941, p. 438; Bouvet 1699, pp. 57–8.
6Bouvet 1699, p. 102.
7Treutlein 1941, p. 438.
8Walravens 1996 suggests that the project was completed by 1715.
9Hanson 2003, p. 24.
10See Guerrini 2003, p. 590 for a brief discussion of an example of Du Verney’s anatomical work which
explicates purpose. As Cunningham (2003, p. 57). argues, it was inquiry into the teleologies informing
parts of the body which could give anatomy the status of a ‘science’. For more on this point, see my
discussion of Bouvet’s anatomical instruction below.
24 Daniel Asen
knowledge-claims in the philosophical and, ultimately, teleological modes of inquiry into
the body which Andrew Cunningham has broadly classified as ‘old anatomy’.11 In their
writings and in the translated anatomy which they helped to produce, assertions of
the certainty of their own anatomical knowledge were made through direct claims,
subtle rhetorical devices, and visual representation of Chinese bodies in anatomical terms.
Of course, the shape that their anatomical instruction took and the meanings of the
translated texts and images which they produced must be viewed as negotiated and
potentially multiple.12 The Kangxi Emperor played an active role in producing the
‘Manchu Anatomy’ and then managing its circulation, doing so in order to further his
own imperial ends.13 Even if the illustrations of the ‘Manchu Anatomy’ manifest ways
of knowing the body which the Jesuits were attempting to transmit, the Emperor’s
own ‘reading’ of the images is not knowable through the Jesuits’ writings, a fact
which exemplifies the ‘multifaceted’ nature of the Kangxi–Jesuit encounter.14 I will
return to this point in my discussion of the techniques of visual representation used in
the ‘Manchu Anatomy’.
Even if the Kangxi Emperor’s instruction in anatomy does represent what Florence Hsia
calls ‘science in service to religion’ as a strategy which informed the Jesuits’ China mission,
the religious implications of the episode appear slightly differently when viewed from
outside the walls of the Qing court.15 The Jesuits’ accounts of the Kangxi Emperor’s
study of anatomy and the translated atlas which resulted were disseminated through
Bouvet’s Portrait historique de l’empereur de la Chine (1697) as well as Parrenin’s contri-
butions to Lettres E´difiantes et Curieuses (1703–76). Viewed within the context of the
broad attempts of the Jesuits to ‘[win] or [retain] the cultural allegiance of the learned’
in Europe through published genres which provided knowledge of natural phenomena
and foreign lands, the writings of Bouvet and Parrenin appear also as implicit assertions
of the relevance of the Jesuits, their foreign missions, and their Catholic theology.16 In
their writings both claimed varying degrees of success at court, producing at times
awkward accounts of the Kangxi Emperor’s acceptance of their anatomical truth claims.
Finally, even though Bouvet and Parrenin operated (and published) at a time when the
authority of Jesuit natural philosophers was becoming increasingly vulnerable, both seem
to have been viewed as legitimate sources of scientific and, more broadly, ‘cultural’
knowledge by intellectuals in Europe.17 Their writings formed part of a growing edifice
of knowledge in the form of travel accounts which were becoming important sources
11Cunningham 2003.
12See, for example, Standaert in O’Malley et al. (ed.) 1999, pp. 359–60 on this point.
13Jami 2002.
14Jami 2002, p. 45.
15Hsia in O’Malley (ed.) 1999, p. 247.
16Harris 1996, pp. 307–8.
17For example, Hsia argues that Thomas Gouye’s (1650–1725) compilation and publication of the astro-
nomical observations made by the members of the 1685 mission shows that ‘the evaluation and revision
of the Jesuits’ work in terms of Academy specifications and concerns emphasized the assimilation of
French Jesuit science to French academic science’. See Hsia in O’Malley et al. (eds) 1999, p. 248. The
general observations made by Bouvet and Parrenin were cited in numerous works, including those of Vol-
taire (1694–1778) and Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755). See, for
example, Swiderski 1980–1 and Rowbotham 1932, p. 1052.
‘Manchu Anatomy’: Anatomical Knowledge and the Jesuits 25
of information about China.18 It is in this sense that the case of the ‘Manchu Anatomy’
can be viewed as part of the larger story of early modern European knowledge of China
and Chinese medicine. The writings of Bouvet and Parrenin fuelled the perception of
European observers that Chinese knowledge of anatomy was confused, imaginative or
completely false.19 Beyond the intentions of their religious mission, the written accounts
of Bouvet and Parrenin were thus productive of China and Chinese medicine as objects of
European knowledge and of anatomy as part of the framework in which comparison
would occur.
Anatomy Lessons of Joachim Bouvet
Bouvet’s account of the Kangxi Emperor’s study of anatomy appeared in his Portrait
historique de l’empereur de la Chine (1697). In this work, Bouvet provided a panegyrical
description of the Emperor and discussions of Chinese customs, Jesuits at court, and the
Manchu conquest. Bouvet argued that the Kangxi Emperor was a ruler unparalleled in
abilities and intellectual achievements and that the conversion of the Emperor and the
Chinese to Christianity was possible. A major theme of the work was that the Kangxi
Emperor intended to return China to its ancient flourishing position in the sciences and
to bring about its renaissance. Bouvet’s work was part of a broader trend in contemporary
European writing on China which asserted European superiority in the sciences.20 It was
in this context that Bouvet described his instruction in anatomy. Bouvet emphasised to his
readers that while he used the opportunity of the Emperor’s distemper to initiate lessons
in anatomy, this development was a product of the Emperor’s ‘present disposition and
particular inclinations’ and one that had not been planned by the Jesuits.21 Bouvet
recorded progress in developing a treatise on anatomy and instructing the Emperor in
Manchu—the same method used for mathematics and philosophy. The content of
Bouvet’s lesson was drawn from Acade´mie anatomists including Joseph-Guichard Du
Verney, a talented dissector of animal and human bodies and member of the Acade´mie
since 1676.22 Du Verney was also affiliated with the Jardin du Roi and presided over
popular anatomical demonstrations after 1682 as professor of anatomy. As he would
be again during his instruction by Parrenin, the Kangxi Emperor was exposed to anatom-
ical knowledge which was current and popular in contemporary Europe.
The Emperor’s instruction in anatomy occurred at a time when modes of anatomical
and physiological investigation (along with natural philosophy) were undergoing great
change in Europe. Before experimental physiology, the disciplines of anatomy and
18Adas 1989, p. 69.
19Barnes 2005. While there were some exceptions, European observers from the late seventeenth century
onwards consistently espoused this view. Interestingly, assertions about Chinese lack of accurate anatom-
ical knowledge span a period when fundamental changes were taking place in the study of anatomy in
Europe.
20Bouvet 1699, p. 61. Like his contemporaries, Bouvet praised Chinese attainments in government and
‘moral philosophy’ while heavily criticising achievements in fields of scientific knowledge such as astron-
omy. Adas 1989, pp. 81–7.
21Bouvet 1699, p. 63.
22Bouvet 1699, p. 64. Guerrini 2003, p. 580; Watson 1939, p. 566.
26 Daniel Asen
physiology divided inquiry into structures and functions of the body in various ways. Aca-
demic inquiries into the body as well as therapeutics were informed by Galenic claims,
despite the fact that these were being dismantled throughout the late seventeenth
century.23 Metaphors of colonial geography informing late Renaissance attempts to
know the body’s interior yielded to mechanistic conceptions of physiology.24 Neverthe-
less, as the case of William Harvey and the circulation of the blood shows, experimental
methods and older views of the body rooted in Aristotelian and Galenic conceptions of
causality coexisted.25
The content of Bouvet’s anatomy instruction focused on function as well as structure.
His description of the Emperor’s interest in anatomy as being about ‘knowledge of the
structure of the human body, upon its various operations and most surprising motions’
suggests a physiological focus: ‘operations’ and ‘motions’ were keywords of physiological
inquiry.26 Bouvet’s description of the measures which were necessary to ensure adequate
instruction further reveals this physiological orientation:
But because the Chinese, for all their great reputation of having for many years past,
had the ablest physicians, have at present but a very confused knowledge in
anatomy. . . . [W]e were forced to extend this treatise to a much larger bulk, than
we at first intended, and to give a true idea, first of all the parts of the humane
body in general, and to treat of each afterwards in particular; and to represent
the several relations and connexions betwixt them, to give them a right idea of
the whole occonomia animalis.27
Bouvet does not write more about the relationship between anatomy and physiology.
Nevertheless, his description of the content of his instruction suggests the basic assump-
tion held by those engaged in contemporary anatomical and physiological inquiry that
knowledge of structure leads to knowledge about function.28 In France, as in Europe
more broadly, physiological inquiry into the body was classified as a science.29 In this
context, ‘science’ referred to a field of knowledge dealing with causes as opposed to
an art, which pertained to applications.30 While, as Cunningham shows, some viewed
anatomy as a manual art which supported the physiologist’s scientific reasoning into
causes of structures accounted for by dissection, others classified anatomy as a science
because of its concern with teleological implications (or final causes) of physical
structure.31
That anatomy became a ‘bone of contention’ in European assessments of Chinese
medicine reflects at least in part its cultural and epistemological significance in
23Brockliss 1987, p. 403.
24Sawday 1995, p. 22.
25Cunningham 1997, p. 183.
26Bouvet 1699, p. 63
27Animal oeconomy was another term for physiological concern with the functioning of the living body
and, according to Cunningham, was interchangeable with ‘physiology’. Cunningham 2002, p. 641.
28Bynum 1973, p. 446.
29Brockliss 1987, p. 391. Cunningham 2002, p. 640.
30Brockliss 1987, p. 1.
31For more on anatomy as a branch of natural philosophy, see French 1994 and Cunningham 2003, p. 57.
‘Manchu Anatomy’: Anatomical Knowledge and the Jesuits 27
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe.32 As a field of inquiry which had grown in
importance during the Renaissance, anatomy continued to see many important
discoveries during this period. Regardless of whether anatomy was classified as an art
or science, knowledge of structures of the body produced by dissection was considered
to be certain. It was for this reason that data gained from anatomical investigation could
support physiology—itself a theoretical foundation of academic medicine.33 Beyond the
scope of its limited medical applications, anatomy was also certain enough to serve as
evidence of a divine creator.34
Bouvet’s instruction was about more than simply teaching the Emperor the discoveries
of particular anatomists. It was about teaching him a way of knowing the body which
was more certain than that which the Chinese already possessed. It was for this reason
that Bouvet wrote that he would provide the Emperor with a ‘true idea’ of the anatomical
body and a ‘right idea’ of its physiology. Bouvet employed a number of images with
textual explanations to convey this ‘true idea’ to the Emperor. After seeing 12 to 14 of
these, the Emperor was ‘so extreamly [sic] pleased with them, that, to shew how
much he was delighted with them, he ordered his chief painter, who is a great master
of his art, to lay aside all other things, and to make it his whole business to draw these
figures with all the exactness he could’.35 While Bouvet’s ‘propositions’ are not extant,
images produced during Parrenin’s instruction have been preserved beautifully in existing
copies of the ‘Manchu Anatomy’. In the final section, I will explore the ways that these
images might have supported the Jesuits’ anatomical knowledge claims.
Bouvet’s assumption that European anatomy represented certain knowledge funda-
mentally informed the narrative of the Emperor’s instruction in his Portrait historique.
His claim that Chinese ‘knowledge in anatomy’ was confused established ‘anatomy’—
a body of knowledge which for him was grounded in epistemological and disciplinary
contexts specific to Europe—as capable of accounting for knowledge of the body pro-
duced under quite different circumstances in China. This is not to argue that the term
‘anatomy’ cannot apply to Chinese knowledge of the body, or that there exist no
grounds for comparison. Rather, it is to point out that in the context of encounters of
the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, ‘anatomy’ became a durable field
of comparison. It served as a particular way of establishing comparability between
Chinese and European learning and, ultimately, China and Europe.36 Writing about
Chinese knowledge of the body in this way made it knowable within Bouvet’s own tra-
dition of learning, while implicating it in an assessment of value which found Chinese
knowledge lacking.
Similar questions surround Bouvet’s description of the Emperor’s initial interest in
anatomy. It was the Emperor’s own ‘disposition and particular inclinations’ towards learn-
ing about the ‘knowledge of the structure of the human body, upon its various ope