page 45 note 1. Sino-Portuguese Trade from 1514–1644, A Synthesis of Portuguese and Chinese Sources; pp. 38–61 and 64–68.Google Scholar

page 45 note 2. This is the view of Paul Pelliot in his posthumous article “Le Hôja et le Sayyid Husain de l'Histoire des Ming” in T'oung Pao Vol. XXXVIII (1948).Google Scholar

page 46 note 1. A Malay mission was probably in Canton at the time of the Portuguese visit. According to Barros (Decada 3, Liv. 2, pp. 7–13), the exiled king of Malacca had sent to China Tuan Mahamed before Tomé Pires (diante de Thomé Pires). The same Malay ambassador was also in Nanking when Tomé was there. What Barros says can not be confirmed by any Chinese source. We know, however, that the Malay envoy, Wei-hsi-ying () arrived in Peking after the Portuguese; see infra.

page 46 note 2. “” see Ch'ou hai t'u pien by Hu Tsung-hsien (), 1624 edit. ch. 13, p. 31. Ku, Secretary () to the Kwangtuhg government, was the acting Hai-tao (), the full title of which is Hai-tao fu shih ()- Hu, a contemporary of Ku, 1483–1565, was governor of thecoastal province of Chekiang, and later, Vice-President of the Board of War under the reign of Shih-tsung (1522–1566), and was acclaimed for his many achievements in pirate suppression He sponsored and supervised the compilation of Ch'ou hai t'u pien which was completed in 1562.

page 46 note 3. Pelliot, Ibid, and T'oung Pao, Vol. XXXI (1935), p. 64.Google Scholar

page 47 note 1. , the Tamão of the Portuguese.

page 47 note 2. A IIha da Veniaga (or Beniaga). Malay Beniaga, (to) trade, from Skr. vanijaka, merchant, vânijya, traffic. The word veniaga has found its way into the Portuguese vocabulary to mean “merchandise”, while its verbal form, veniagar, means “to sell”, “to traffic”.

page 47 note 3. They were commanded by the Portuguese, but not all of them owned by them; the three junks of the squadron belonged to two native merchants of Malacca.

page 47 note 4. My account of Fernão's visit to Canton is based, unless otherwise indicated, on the valuable documentary works of Castanheda, História, Liv. 4, caps. 27–31, 40–41; Correa, Lendas da India, Tom. 2, pp. 523–530; and Barros, Decada 3, Liv. 2, caps. 6–8. As historian, Correa is not so reliable as Castanheda and Barros. About the career and work of Correa, see Encyclopaedic-artikelen v. Dr. G. P. Rouffaer in Bijd. tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenk. v. Nederl.-Ind., Dl. 86 (1930). About Barros and Castanheda and their works, see Encyclopaedic v. Nederl.-Indië, 2de druk (1917), Dl. I, pp. 173–174, 442–443.

page 47 note 5. i.e. Frange, Frangi, Frangue, Franco, Feringhee, Feringi etc., terms used in South Asia for Europeans, esp. Portuguese. Corruption of Frank, a person of Western nationality in Levantine usage.

Fo-lang-chi continued to be the name for the Portuguese in all Chinese records throughout the Ming dynasty. In the Ming shih, or the official History of Ming, ch. 325, there is a section on Fo-lang-chi, the Fo-lang-chi chuan ( ) The name P'u-li-tu-chia ( ), a transliteration of “Portugal”, became known to the Peking Court in 1565, when a report was received from the Governor of Liang Kwang (), i.e. the administrative area of Kwangtung and Kwangsi under the same governor, that “a foreign chief of the name Ya-jê-li-kuei () had come by sea, requesting to bring tribute. At first, he said he was of Malacca, but later he changed to refer to P'u-li-tu-chia. The matter was referred to the Li pu (), the Board of Rites, which was of the opinion that, as there was not one of that name among the Southern countries, it might be just a false pretence of the Fo-lang-chis. The Governor should be ordered carefully to investigate the matter.” Shih-tsung shih lu () by Chang Chü-chêng () etc., ch. 545, Peking National Library copy; see Chang Wei-hua (), A Commentary of the Four Chapters on Portugal, Spain, Holland and Italy in the History of Ming Dynasty, Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies, Monograph Series no. 7, p. 59. Chang Chü cheng, 1525–1582, a noted scholar, is well known for his good administration as chief minister in the fifteen seventies The Shih lu of an emperor is a continuous register of events concerning the throne in order of time. In both the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties, a special office was created to do the work. The Shih-tsung Shih-lu was compiled after 1566 from court records. In 1577 Chang etc. took over the work and completed it.

In the Huang Ming shih fa lu ()by Chên Jên-hsi () 1581 1636, a scholar and official, and in the Huang Ming hsiang hsü lu () preface date 1629, by Mao Jui-chêng (), doctor 1601 and official of the early 17th century, we also find the name P'u-li-tu-chia. The P'u-tu-li chia () in Ming shih is evidently an error. The error comes from a draft by Wang Hung-hsü (). 1645–1723, which the editors of Ming shih used. Wang was President of the Board of Revenue and Population ) under the reign of K'ang-hsi, 1662–1722). Wang's draft, to be found in the Hêng-yün shan-jén shih kao (), is a revision of an earlier draft in the Ming shih kao, or Draft of Ming History, by Wang, Szŭ-t'ung (), 1638–1702Google Scholar, known for his incomparable knowledge of the Ming historical records.

page 48 note 1. The full title is Pei-wo tu-chih-hui (). an officer whose function was originally to guard the coast against Japanese piracy.

page 48 note 2.

page 48 note 3. See Ch'ou hai t'u pien, loc. cit., quoting Ku Ying-hsiang.

page 48 note 4. See Tung hsi yang k'ao ()by Chang Hsieh() Hsi-yin-hsien ts'ungshu () edit., ch. 5, p. 5., quoting Kwangtung t'ung chih () probably of Tai Ching () and compiled c. 1535. Tai was Governor of Kwangtung. Chang lived in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

page 49 note 1. the Pu-Chêng-shih () The Pu-chêng-shih was originally a civil Governor, but later on positions were created above him, so that his functions became essentially those of a treasurer. Wu was also the Hai-tao. See Ming shan ts'ang (), by Ho Ch'iao-yüan (), ch. on Malacca, 1640 edit. Ho received the doctorate in 1586. His book is probably posthumous.

page 49 note 2.

page 49 note 3. “”. see Ch'ou hai t'u

page 49 note 4. Decada 3, Liv. 2, cap. 8, p. 214. pien, loc. cit.

page 49 note 5. See Lin Fu's memorial to the throne () of 1529. Lim was Governor of Kwangtung. The text of his memorial is to be found in the T'ien-hsia chün kuo li ping shu (). by Ku Yen-wu (), a great scholar who lived from 1613 to 1682.

page 49 note 6. Probably only a selected few accompanied the envoy on that day. According to Chinese sources, it was a 30-man mission. See Ming shan ts'ang, loc. cit.; Huang Ming hsiang hsü lu, ch. 5, section on Fo-lang-chi; Hsien chéng lu () by Chiao Hung (), 1616 edit., ch. 120, pp. 162–163; Shu yü chou tzŭ lu () by Yen Ts'ung-chien (), 1583 edit., ch. 9, p. 17; Nai-hai hsien chi (), by Liu T'ing-yüan () etc., Wan-li () edit. ch. 11. Chiao was a famed scholar who lived from 1541 to 1620. Yen was a 16th century scholar and an official in a government department in charge of foreign envoys' travel, the Hsing-jén ssŭ hsing jên (). His book has as preface date 1574. Liu was a magistrate of the district of Nan-hai in late 16th century. Vieyra, however, reports a mission of 24 persons — 6 Portuguese, 1 Persian, 5 interpreters and 12 lads.

page 50 note 1. Vieyra, , f.112Google Scholar, text in Indian Antiquary, Vol. 30.Google Scholar

page 50 note 2. Text of Vasco Calvo's letter is also to be found in Indian Antiquary, Vol. 30.Google Scholar

page 51 note 1. Alguns Domumentos do Archivo National da Torre do Tombo, 1892, Lisbon, pp. 194–195Google Scholar The same text is also to be found in Maritimos e Coloniaes se. 3 (1843), p. 490.Google Scholar

page 51 note 2. In 1518 the Chinese Lantern Festival fell on February 24th.

page 51 note 3. Decada 3, Liv. 2, cap. 7, p. 202; also Galvano, , Discoveries of the WorldGoogle Scholar, from the first original unto the year of our Lord 1553, (with the original Portuguese text).

page 51 note 4. “” Ming shih, ch. 325. cf. Ming shan ts'ang, loc. cit.

page 51 note 5. The

page 52 note 1. Hsi-t'ang yü chi (), by Yu T'ung (), K'ang-hsi edit., section on Foreign Countries of the Ming shih (). Yu, a brilliant scholar, lived from 1618–1704.

page 52 note 2. Ming shih, ch. 325; Ku, , op. cit., ch. 119, p. 18bGoogle Scholar; Yen, , op. cit., ch. 9, p. 8b.Google Scholar

page 52 note 3. Yen, op. cit., pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

page 52 note 4. Decada 3, Liv. 6, p. 14; Ming shih, loc. cit.

page 52 note 5. Decada loc. cit.; Ming shih, loc. cit.; also Ku, , op. cit., ch. 119, p. 14aGoogle Scholar; and Yen, , op. cit., ch. 9, p. 8b.Google Scholar

page 52 note 6. “”, see Ming shih. loc. cit.

page 52 note 7.

page 52 note 8. Ming shan ts'ang, ch. on Malacca; and Ming shih kao, section on Fo-lang-chi. in which it is said that “Chiang Pin was liberally bribed)” () Pelliot is, therefore, wrong in saying that the bribery of Chiang Pin is mentioned nowhere else besides Ming shan ts'ang; see T'oung Pao, Vol. 38, p. 96Google Scholar, nots 18.

page 53 note 1. “Malenxam” “Miuylen” and “Moulem” in Portuguese. From Mei-ling Tomé wrote to Simão d'Andrade that the city of Canton was but a “pequena cousa” (small thing) in comparison with those he had seen in his journey. See Decada 3, Liv. 6, cap. 1, p. 4.

page 53 note 2.

page 53 note 3. August 20, 1519, by Wang Shou-jên () famous philosopher, who was at that time Junior Assistant President of the Board of Censors () and in charge of military affairs in South Kiangsi.

page 53 note 4. January 4th, 1520.

page 53 note 5. September 23, 1520.

page 53 note 6. This meeting with the Chinese monarch is confirmed by Vieyra who says that Tomé Pires saw the Emperor in Nanking, or Nãquy in Portuguese text, see f.122v.

page 53 note 7. Ming shih, ch. 325; Ming shan ts'ang, ch. on Malacca; Yen, loc. cit. We do not know when Tomé Pires began to assume the name Huo-chê Ya-san. It is probable, however, that he began to use the name after the resumption of the negotiations to go to Peking. The two names, Chia-pi-tan-mo and Huo-chê Ya-san, of Tomé must have already confused the scholars of the 16th century. Here is an example. The Biography of Leang Cho (see infra), in Nan-hai hsien chih, says “At this time Chia-pi-tan-ma and other Fo-lang-chi foreigners, thirty officials in all, coming to bring tribute, arrived in Nanking. Chiang Pin,… led Huo-chê Ya-san to see the Emperor.” Here the name Huo-chê Ya-san is abruptly introduced, and nothing is said of its relation to Chia-pi-tan-mo. We are tempted to think that the compilers of the Nan-hai hsien chih, who borrowed the passage from earlier works, were not clear about this relation. After Nanking, the name Chia-pi-tan-mo is hardly ever used again in Chinese records: so Tomé went to Peking with the new name.

page 54 note 1. Vieyra, , f.104.Google Scholar

page 54 note 2. Decada 3, Liv. 2, pp. 7–13.

page 54 note 3. “”, Ming shih, ch. 325.

page 54 note 4. Ming shih only mentions its arrival, ch. 16.

page 54 note 5. T'ing-ho, Yang (), 1459–1529Google Scholar, and Chi, Mao (), 1463–1545Google Scholar, both of them ta hsueh shih ().

page 54 note 6. Wu-tsung shih lu () by Fei Hung () etc., ch. 19, Peking National Library copy, see Wei-hua, Chang, op. cit. p. 20Google Scholar, Fei (died 1535) was Wu-tsung's President of the Board of Revenue and Population. In the same reference, the receipt of a dispatch from the country of Malacca (or rather the exiled King of Malacca) is also mentioned. Vieyra, f.105, also refers to a letter “from the Malays” accusing the Portuguese. No Malay mission was yet in Peking at that time. The Grand Secretaries were calling the attention of the Government tothe urgent nature of these matters.

page 55 note 1. Ming shih, ch. 325. Wu-tsung returned to Peking on January 18th. Vieyra is wrong when he says “in February the King entered Peking”.

page 55 note 2.

page 55 note 3.

page 55 note 4. Shu yü chou tzŭ lu, ch. 9, p. 18Google Scholar; cf. Nan-hai hsien chih, ch. 11, Biography of Liang Cho (see infra). The false accusations should have more to do with Sayyid Ḥssain who had many enemies in the Capital and in Kansu. Husain had been charged with, and found guilty of, conspiring against China, but was saved from punishment through the intervention of his friends, the powerful Ch'ien Ning () in particular. He even found favour in the eyes of Wu-tsung, and brought counter-charges against the civil and military authorities of Kansu province.

page 55 note 5. He was a chu-shih () of the Board of Rites, and the t'i-tu () or Super-intendent of the Hui-t'ung Hall. A doctor of 1514, Liang was known for his straight-forwardness and fearlessness.

page 55 note 6. Ming shih, loc. cit.; Ming shan ts'ang, ch. 9, p. 18; Nan-hai hsien chih, ch. 11.

Much has been said about Huo-chê Ya-san as an assumed name of Tomé Pires let us now turn to the contentions of Paul Pelliot in his article “Le Hōja et le Sayyid Ḥusain de l'Histoire des Ming” in T'oung Pao, Vol. XXXVIII, 1948, pp. 81–292Google Scholar, already mentioned at the beginning of this paper.

In Pelliot's article as well as in his review of my book “Sino-Portuguese Trade” in T'oung Pao, Vol. XXXI, 1935Google Scholar, he is sure that the name Huo-chê Ya-san “ramòne à Xwājah Asan (Xòja Asan)”, is a Moslem name (see pp. 63–64). Pelliot is probably right But it did not occur to him that, like Chia-pi-tan-mo, Huo-chê Pa-san could be another assumed of Tomé Pires. I have already pointed out the circumstances which should have made a change of name desirable, even necessary.

To regard Huo-chê Ya-san or Hōja Asan as a Mohammedan person, it becomes difficult, in fact hardly possible, to explain the fact that in the Ming records and works he is the envoy, and even the arch criminal, of the Fo-lang-chis. Pelliot considers (see T. P. Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 154–157) the text which links up Sayyid Ḥusain and Hōja Asan as a piece of faking; the events mentioned did not take place in January to April, 1521, but in 1518–1519, and the “two foreigners,” who lived at that time in Hui-t'ung Hall, were not Sayyid Ḥusain and Hōja Asan, but Sayyid Husain and the son of his sister, Mīr Muḥammad; the sentences concerning Hōja Asan are an addition to an original text. He is of opinion that the text in ch 117, p. 4, of the T'ien-hsia chün kuo li ping shu preserves the original. In this text, Sayyid Ḥusain and Mīr Muḥammad, instead of Hōja Asan, are mentioned.

The difficulty, however, is to prove that the original text is preserved in T'ien-hsi chün kuo li ping shu, and not in shü yü chou tzu lu completed 87 years earlier, and by an official who had access to the archives of a government department in charge of foreign envoys' travels. Anyway the three foreigners lived in the Hui-T'ung Hall, though not all at the same time, they were friends and protegés of Chiang Ping and Ch'ien Ning, and had more or less the same way of life and enjoyment. What was done by Sayyid Ḥusain and Mīr MuḤammad in 1518–1519 would probably be repeated by Hōja Asan and Sayyid Ḥusain in 1521. It should be no surprise, therefore, to read similar accounts of what they did.

Regarding Huo-chê Ya-san's stay in the company of the Emperor, Pelliot only says, without mentioning his authority, that the compilers of Ming shih borrowed the information from Ming shan ts'ang, of which “the information was never invented, but often distorted”. It should be remembered that the compilers of Ming shih had at their disposal government archives. Pelliot says nothing about Ming shih wai kuo chuan, or Foreign Countries of the Ming shih, which also mentions Huo-chê Ya-san's joining the imperial tour. As to Ming shih's statement of Wu-tsung's learning Huo-chê Ya-san's language, Pelliot thinks that the Emperor might have picked up a few foreign words for fun from Sayyid Ḥusain and Mīr Muḥammad. Concerning the accident at the Hui-t'ung Hall, thie foreigner involved, says Pelliot, must be also Sayyid Ḥusain, for the Portuguese were not averse to kneeling.

Pelliot sees in the name Huo-chê Ya-san “Cojação”, read Cojação, name of a Malay ambassador in. Vieyra's letter. Here are his own words; “je suis convaincu que la forme, “Cojação” adoptée accidentellement par Tchang T'ien-Tsö est correcte, et que “Cojação”, c'est à dire Cojasan, n'est qu'une forme contracte de Hōja Asan. avec un Ḥasan déaspiré comme dans le cas de Houotchë Ya-san.” (T. P. Vol. XXXVIII, p. 111).

The Malays were in China to lay a charge against the Fo-lang-chis, it is hardly possible for the Chinese authorities to mistake one of their men for a Portuguese ambassador. Moreover, there are many copyist's errors in names; we can not be sure that the form “Cojação” is a correct one.

Pelliot is of opinion that Huo-chê Ya-san can not be Tomé Pires, because Tomeé was called Chia-pi-tan-mo, and died several years after Huo-chê Ya-san who was executed in 1521. (T. P., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 109.)

I pointed out above that Tomé could change his assumed name, when it suited him. And he did. As to the year of Huo-chê Ya-san's death, it is not clearly mentioned in Ming shih, which does say that “Ya-san was taken into custody” in 1521. From Governor Lin Fu's () memorial to the throne in 1529, we know that Huo-chê Ya-san was executed in Canton as “chief criminal” of the Fo-lang-chis. Though no date of his death is mentioned, from the sequence of events referred to in the document, it must have taken place after 1521.

As a whole, Pelliot's interpretation of certain Chinese texts, and of the circumstances of the time of the Portuguese visit, is interesting, and even challenging; but, unless corroborated, it will remain hypothetical and not convincing. On the other hand, Lin Fu's memorial, submitted only several years after the expulsion of the Portuguese, and by a man so well placed (he was the Governor of Kwangtung) as to know the truth, and a statement in the Shih-tsung shih lu, 1529Google Scholar, recalling the execution of Huo-chê Ya san, prove conclusively his leading position among the Portuguese, a position which can only be held by a Portuguese in their mission.

page 57 note 1. Vieyra, , ff. 105–106Google Scholar; Ming shih, ch. 325.

page 57 note 2. Vieyra, loc. cit.

page 57 note 3.

page 57 note 4.

page 58 note 1. Ming shih, loc. cit.

page 58 note 2.

page 58 note 3. Wu-tsung shih lu, ch. 194.

page 58 note 4. Chiang was put to death on the 11th of July, 1521; Ming shih, ch. 17.

page 58 note 5. Vieyra, , f.104.Google Scholar

page 58 note 6. Decada 3, Liv. 6, cap. 2, p. 18; a briefer account is to be found in Cbrrear, Liv. 2, p. 678, and Castanheda, Liv. 5, cap. 80, pp. 292–293.

page 59 note 1. See Wu-tsung shih lu, ch. 194. We are not sure that the Emperor's decisions had not been made known to Canton even before his death. It is quite possible, of course, that the orders had been delayed in view of Wu-tsung'g lenient attitude toward the Portuguese, and of Chiang Pin's friendship for the Portuguese Ambassador, Huo-chê Ya-san.

page 59 note 2. Wu-tsung shih lu, ch. 6.

page 59 note 3. Vieyra, , f.108Google Scholar; Decada 3, Liv. 6, cap, 2, p. 20.

page 59 note 4. Yüeh shan ts'ung t'an (), by Li Wen-fêng (). doctor of 1532, quoted in T'ien-hsia chün kuo li ping shu, ch. 119, p. 14.

page 59 note 5. T'ien-hsia chün kuo li ping shu, loc. cit.; Decada 3, Liv. 6, cap. 2, pp. 20–22Google Scholar; chou, Shu yü tzŭ lu, ch. 9, p. 9.Google Scholar

page 60 note 1. Decada 3, Liv. 6, cap. 2, p. 22.

page 60 note 2. Concerning Wang Hung's victory, see Tung-kuan hsien chih, () ch. 31, p. 12, quoting Wang kung i-ai-tzŭ chi (). by Ch'ên Wen-fu ().

page 60 note 3. Wei-hsi-ying is possibly the Malay name Yasin.

page 60 note 4. Shih-tsung shih lu, ch. 6.

page 60 note 5. Vieyra, , ff. 109–110.Google Scholar The name of the Ambassador is Tüão Mafame, which is evidently Tuan or Tun Mohammed. Both Tuan and Tun were titles of respect. Tun was the rank of a noble, or a title of respect for high officials. In another place of the letter (f.106), Healie is given as name of a Malay Ambassador who, in the latter part of 1521, or in 1522, was summoned by the authorities of Canton to state his country's case. Healie may be a copyist's error of Ali. Wei-hsi-ying, Mohammed and AH may be just the different parts of the name of the same Ambassador, which possibly reads Yasin Mohammed Ali. This may clear up the confusion.

page 60 note 6. Bintang.

page 61 note 1. Shih-tsung shih lu, ch. 6.

page 61 note 2. Vieyra, , f.106.Google Scholar

page 61 note 3. Vieyra, ibid.

page 62 note 1. See the Chang chih (), and Wang kung i-ai-tzü chi, quoted in Tung-kuan hsien chih, ch. 37, p. 12.Google Scholar Vieyra's opinion (f.121v), that with more men Nan-T'ou might be captured, may be construed as indicating the failure of a Portuguese attempt.

page 62 note 2.

page 62 note 3.

page 62 note 4. Pieh-tou-lu () in Chinese text. Pedro so distinguished himself in the battle that he was taken by the Chinese for the commander of the fleet.

page 62 note 5. A report of the battle and the Court's order is to be found in the Shih-tsung shih lu, on events recorded between March 17th and April 16th, 1923. The name of Martin is transliterated as Mi-erh-ting Fu-ssŭ to Mie-erh () Chang Wei-hua is doubtless right (op. cit., p. 26) in saying that in the shih lu must read . About this battle, see also Vieyra. f.109; and Ming shih, ch. 325.

page 63 note 1. For the text of the memorial, see T'ien-hsia chün kuo li ping shu, ch. 120, pp. 13–16.

page 63 note 2. ch. 106.

page 63 note 3. “”, ch. 325.

page 63 note 4. Vieyra, , f.112Google Scholar, “as molheres dos lingoas assi as de Tome piz que ficarão em esta cidade o anno presete forão vendidas como fazenda de Tredores”.

page 63 note 5. Vieyra, , f.112.Google Scholar

page 63 note 6. See his Introduction to his translation of Suma Oriental.

page 63 note 7. The passage quoting Ku Ying-hasiang is to be found in Ch'ou hai t'u pien, ch. 13, p. 31.Google Scholar It says that the Fo-lang-chi Ambassador was sent back, under escort, to Kwangtung, and expelled from Chinese territory. After the death of Wu-tsung, the Portuguese were ordered to leave Peking and to return to their country. But, as we have seen, they were later detained in Canton. Ku's reference to the expulsion of the Ambassador is, therefore, incorrect.

page 63 note 8. By Mayers, W. F. in Notes and Queries in China and Japan, Vol. 2, p. 129.Google Scholar

page 64 note 1. The opium War, 1840–42.