1492年哥倫布跨過大西洋來到美洲，1521年麥哲倫從大西洋進入到太平洋，殞命菲律賓，1564年西班牙人從墨西哥發船殖民菲律賓，1565年西班牙航海家烏爾達內塔發現和建立起“中國之船”馬尼拉-墨西哥阿卡布爾科的絲銀貿易航線，同一年殖民者與華人的首次相遇竟是這樣的......
第一章 最初的相遇
從最開始， 西班牙人就在西方群島 － 即菲律賓群島- 碰到了天朝帝國的人。 黎牙實比 ( Migue1L6pezLegazpi) 的艦隊抵達呂宋 ( Luz6n， 1571 年 5 月 16 日) 的時候， 就已經有 40 名中國人帶著他們的妻子和兒女在馬尼拉生活， 他們是從日本過來的， 經曆了往返幾次和多災多難的朝聖之旅， 其中有兩個人， 安東和巴勃羅， 已經皈依了耶穌會， 從其神父給起的名字即可證實。 對於這些先驅， 典籍中均未再提及， 但是可以看出， 與未來移民的關係是受歡迎的。
另外一方麵， 西班牙人了解到， 在他們到達之前， 時常有一兩條來自中國的船抵達呂宋島向當地人出賣 ”一些粗糙的陶瓷、 樹枝和草製成的熏香、 鐵器和一些價值不高的零碎物品”。@ 當然， 中國人跟這裏的聯係要追溯到非常遙遠的年代 以趙汝適 《諸蕃誌》 中一份貿易合同為證＠ 中國船隻至少在宋代就已經航行到菲律賓群島一帶了。
最重大的事情就是， 當剛抵達菲律賓的時候， 西班牙人好幾次企圖謊稱自己是中國人以便進入， 即荒謬又愚蠢的偽裝。 也許其目的是不想被當地人把自己同從摩鹿加群島過來的殘忍的葡萄牙人混為一談。＠ 1565年一艘三脆船在宿務 ( Cebu) 對麵的群島進行偵察， 當時發生了偽裝異族的事， 我們聽聽領航員埃斯特班 羅德裏格斯 ( Esteban Rodriguez) 所講述的奇葩故事：
夜晚過後， 我們發現了一條大船， 上麵載著這個村鎮的很多人， ．．那船也看到了我們， 就朝我們喊話。 我們早已經感覺它朝我們過來了， 因為值更人員從很遠處就察覺到了。 我們通過土著人跟他們對答。 他們問我們是什麽人。 我們說從中國來， 來做生意， 帶來很多好東西。 他們講我們說謊， 從中國來的人， 他們的船不是這個樣子的， 在他們看來， 我們是住在附近的人， 是來偷竊的．．
我們來到一個村鎮附近， 在進去之前， 我們在稻田裏碰到一個土著人帶著兩個男孩， 他朝我們走過來， 問我們要幹什麽？讓我們走開。 我們說是來自中國的人， 來做生意。 他說我們胡說， 他見過中國來的人， 我們不是那邊的人， 我們是盜賊。
好一夥假扮中國人的西班牙人呀！
@ 黎牙實比1571 年8 月11 日給國王函 ( Patr.24， 23， ff.4r-4v) ”由於沒有油和聖油， 他們未經塗聖油儀式”， 黎牙實比補充寫到： ”除了畫十字外， 不了解任何教理； 見到十字架和聖母像亦會下跪。”
@ Patr.25.41 ( 自 1591 年 9 月 25 日驗證， 是在 Bomb6n 省的 Tac) 。
＠ 參見 Laufer， Relationes， pp.251 -252； J.Needham， Scienceand Civilisation， vo1.3.， p.536。趙汝適， 1209—1214 年間寫此書 ( 《諸蕃誌》) ， 書中簡短提到安達魯斯國 ( a1Anda1us a1moravide) ( Laufer， Ib{dem， p.249) 。
＠ 3 年前 ( 就是 1562 年) ， 8 艘來自摩鹿加的船隻洗劫了保和 ( Boho1) 島， 因此， 島上的居民見到黎牙實比的艦隊時， 不是過來與西班牙人交往， 而是望鳳而逃 (1565 年 3 月 25 日黎牙實比在保和島的報告提及此事 － Patr.23， 17.f.14ryss］ ) 。
選自《 馬尼拉的華人 (16—17 世紀) ( 上卷)》
Reviewed by Christina H. Lee， Princeton University
“ Los chinos en Manila. Siglos XVI y XVII”. Lisboa: Centro Científico e Cultural de Macau, I.P., Ministério da Educação e Ciência, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2011. xvii + 798 pp.
This impressive tome of almost eight hundred pages marks the culmination of Juan Gil’s scholarship on Early Modern Spanish-Chinese relations in the Philippines. Los chinos en Manila is the most comprehensive history of the Chinese presence in the Philippines to date. In writing the book, Gil consulted the Archivo Histórico Nacional, the Archivo General de Indias, the Biblioteca Nacional, Biblioteca del Palacio Real, and the Real Academia de la Historia. Although previous scholars have discussed many of the same primary sources in their investigations, Gil is the first to focus the discussion mainly from the point of view of the Spanish colonizers and missionaries in the Philippines. The book is composed by ten chapters, an appendix with a transcription of key documents, and a glossary with filipino terms often seen in the referenced manuscripts. It is organized chronologically; starting from the moment the Philippines became a Spanish colony under Miguel López de Legazpi in 1571 to the expulsion of the Chinese from the islands (which took place through a number of edicts, beginning in 1688). The number of Chinese residents in the Philippines during this period is believed to have reach up to thirty thousand.
Juan Gil’s main argument is that the relationship between Spaniards and the ethnic Chinese, known as sangleys, during the Early Modern period was “un fracaso múltiple” (xvi). As one reads Gil’s text, one gets the sense that the Spanish did not understand that any kind of fruitful relation with the Chinese would have entailed their recognition of the hegemonic economic power of China and the Chinese in Asia. The lack of cultural understanding of the dominance of China disposed Spaniards to miscalculate and make unsound policy and military decisions. One of the most memorable and little known anecdotes we find in Gil’s book regards a man named Esteban Rodríguez, one of the first Spaniards to arrive in the Philippines in 1565.
When Rodríguez encountered some filipino natives near Cebú, he told them that he and fellow travelers were Chinese and that they had come from China to sell some goods. The natives responded that they were lying, for they knew the Chinese and the Chinese did not look anything like them. The natives added that they (the Spaniards) were thieves from another area and had come to their territory to steal goods
A more serious error of judgment was the belief that Spain could conquer China without much effort. Gil reminds us of the better known but still compelling example of Governor Francisco de Sande’s unfulfilled plan of conquering China with four to six thousand armed men. We also learn from Gil’s book is that when the number of Chinese residents increased noticeably in Manila, the Spanish government led by Gonzalo Ronquillo in 1581, segregated them from the indigenous and the Spanish population in a controlled area outside the walls of Manila, Parián. Parián was overseen by Spanish civil and religious authorities, but it was internally ruled by a Chinese alcalde –trusted by the Spanish and probably hated by the Chinese– and had its own judicial system. The segregation of the Chinese helped the Spanish government keep some control over their activities and better manage the collection of tributes to which they were subject. In order to tell be able to separate Catholic sangleys and mestizos de sangley from the unconverted ethnic Chinese, the Spanish authorities designated another section close to Parián in which the converted were to reside, Binondo. Despite all the efforts of the Spanish officials and missionaries, most of the ethnic Chinese appear to refuse to identify and assimilate into the population of native indios. Some wealthy Chinese even dared to dress in Spanish fashion. Such behavior was intolerable to some missionaries who to emphasize the point sent memoranda and letters to their orders and to the Spanish Crown exaggerating Chinese cultural transgressions. Gil mentions, for instance, that Governor Niño de Távora wrote in 1628 “siendo los sangleyes estrangeros, obran y lo pueden todo como si fueran naturales; y los españoles mismos, naturales, ni saben ni pueden hazer nada, como si fueran estangeros” (447). The Dominican friar Victorio Ricci also complained that the sangleys acted as if “las Philippinas son sus Indias” (312) and that Spaniards ran the risk of becoming the indios of the Chinese. This type of hyperbolic rhetoric convinced the Spanish Crown to approve the first edict of expulsion, followed by others, in 1688. As Gil observes, the supporters of the expulsion cited many explanations for such measure. For Gil, Victorio Ricci’s discourse (1677) on the need to expel the sangleys from the island is representative of the stance of many of the Spaniards who promoted their expulsion. The Chinese were said to be atheists and idolaters. They were accused of mocking Christian beliefs and rituals, which prevented the conversion of the native indios or led them to become apostates. They were believed to have taught the native indios the practice of sodomy. They were said to be responsible for the death of governor Gómez Perez de Dasmariñas. They were also blamed for Chinese piracy in the islands, for leading their own uprisings (1603, 1639, 1662, and 1686), and for inciting natives to revolt (1660). Ricci, furthermore, argued that the Chinese had to be expelled because they controlled trade in the Philippines with money they had “stolen” from the Spaniards. Finally, Ricci was adamant that the expulsion of the Chinese would not affect the missions to China because he alleged that the Chinese depended heavily on Spanish trade.
Gil’s volume is a must-read for scholars and students of Hispanic Studies. Not only, is it a superbly researched survey of the history of the Chinese in the Philippines, but it also provides references to sources and compelling ideas for future investigations in the fields of Sino-Hispanic relations and transcultural studies. As an example, Gil compares –in passing– the treatment and perception of the Chinese to that of the Jews in the Middle Ages in Spain. The Chinese were indeed known as the “Jews of the East” by Europeans. This is an insight that might be worth further investigation.
ISBN: 978-99981-46-88-4, 978-99981-46-89-1
馬尼拉王城更多我的博客文章>>>
