Joseph Needham and His Rivals

7/29/2019 Joseph Needham and His Rivals

1/6

Joseph Needham and his Rivals: Japanese Yabuuti School and others

December 8, 2000, 15.00-15.40 Keynote Speech at Joseph Needhams

100th Birthday, Kao Hshung in TaiwanNAKAYAMA Shigeru () AcademicLack of exact science of calendar in Needham

When I visited Joseph Needham for the first time in 1957, Volume 3 of Scienceand Civilisation in China (Cambridge U. P. since 1954, hereafter abbreviatedas SCC) was in the galley-proof stage. It provided me the starting point of my

work in the history of Chinese science. I corrected some mistakes of thepronunciation of Japanese names and more importantly I noticed a gravehiatus; that is he overlooked the significance of Chinese calendrical science,by saying "Although there is a very large literature, still growing almost daily,on the Chinese calendar, its interest is, we suggest, much more archaeologicaland historical than scientific" and "The whole history of calendar-making isthat of successive attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and the numberlesssystems of intercalated months, and the like, are thus of minor scientific

interest." (p.390, vol. 3 SCC.)

I said to him that calendrical science is located at the center of Chinese exact

science, on which Yabuuti Kiyosi () in Japan spent his whole life toexplore by thoroughly working on the calendrical chapter of each dynastichistory. Needjham's response was that it was too late at this galley-proof stage

to include his works.

A book review criticized the earlier volumes of his SCC that he was notutilizing Japanese and Russian contributions on the history of Chinesescience. Needham then became serious to get someone who can read Japanese

works and provide him the English translations. Lu Gwei-djen () who

came to work with Needham in late 1957 was assigned to study Japaneselanguage; she did but she was too old to master it. Then, he often consultedme to get hold of translators for him. At one time, he said he found an

appropriate lady, who was born in Japan and able to translate for him. But itwas not successful to this day perhaps because of the lack of fund.

Since then, Needham had, busying himself working on the later volumes ofSCC, never come back to astronomy again. In the Introduction of my book, AHistory of Japanese Astronomy: Chinese Background and Western Impact(Harvard, 1969, p.3), I put, "Chinese calendar-making has been almostentirely overlooked, as in Needham's volumes, despite the fact that calendar-making held a central position in Chinese exact science." Needhambookreviewed it on Science (3 October 1969, p.95) nicely; while reading thebook, he came across the above-stated phrase and put a comment on margin

by pencil, saying "fair enough" and then, for the following phrase of mine "Thisneglect is probably because of its technical complexity and the lack of aWestern counterpart" he said "No" and " but difficult to get hold of YK's


2/6

(Yabuuti Kiyosi) work." This indicates that he thought he should have to coverYabuuti's works. (This copy is now available at the East Asian History of

Science Library at the Needham Research Institute, Cambridge, UK).

But Needham never had chance to work on Chinese calendrical science

himself. For another place of my book "The art of calendar calculation wasChina's most genuine contribution to exact science" (Ibid., p.65), he put onmargin "doubtful statement."

Mikami (), Shinjo () and Noda's () works were translated intoChinese or English and often referred by Chinese scholars. But Yabuuti'swork, like many other Japanese contributions to Chinese science, was nottranslated, except an extremely sketchy history of Chinese calendrical science(almost a chronological table of successive Chinese calendar) in English.Looking at what Chinese historians of astronomy are doing, I guess thatYabuuti's works were not known among them. While Chinese scholars aremore knowledgeable about various source materials, Yabuuti's strong point is

his analytical power with the background in modern astronomy and celestialmechanics. While historians of mathematics like Li Yen () and Cheng

Paotsung () deals the problems arising from the solution of calendarcalculation mathematically, it was Yabuuti who made them a thorough historyof Chinese astronomy. He is, in another way of comparison, Otto Neugebauer

of the East.

While a Japanese scholar can read Chinese, a Chinese scholar does not seemto read Yabuuti's work in Japanese. There are not much citation of Yabuuti'swork yet but I think there are still lots of work to be done on the history ofChinese calendrical science by taking his doctoral dissertation published

during the wartime Zui T? Rekih?shi no Kenky? ( Research onthe History of Calendrical Science during Sui and Tang Period).

Needham and Yabuuti

Needham and Yabuuti maintained a very friendly, often mutually supportive,relationship for whole their life. From Japanese view point, we are thankful toNeedham as his SCC provided us a good account of preceding Westernsinologists' works, such as those of Maspero, Chatley and Forke.

Yabuuti visited Needham at Cambridge, England in 1959 and Needham came

to Japan for the first time in 1964 and gave a talk at Yabuuti's Jinbun KagakuKenky?sho ( Research Institute of Humanistic Sciences), Kyoto

University. Since then, Needham visited Japan seven times and welcomed by

Yabuuti or members of his school.

Yabuuti used to say that he would like to live up to the same age as Needham.Actually, Yabuuti passed away in the year of 2,000 at the age of ninety four,same age as Needham. I heard that his school (organizer would be Prof. Yano)is planning to have a symposium on Yabuuti, at the next InternationalCongress of the History of Science to be held at Mexico City in July 2001.

At the time when mainland China was still paralyzed from the CulturalRevolution, Needham and Yabuuti managed the two centers of the history ofChinese science, at Cambridge, England and Kyoto, Japan. Their style made a


3/6

remarkable contrast. While Needham divided his volumes according todiscipline of modern science, such as mathematics, astronomy, physics,chemistry and so on and pursued within the discipline diachronically, Yabuuti

arranged his project synchronically (), Han,. Medieval, Sung and Yuan,and Ming and Ch'ing. In the opening chapter, Yabuuti provided an overview of

the age and followed by articles on various specialty by his collaborators,mostly the same generation as Yabuuti and then later joined by Yoshida

Mitsukuni ( )and Yamada Keiji (). In his specialty of

astronomy, he trained Nakayama, HashimotoKeizo (), Miyajima (),

Kawahara (), and Yano (). At the moment, there was no central figure

as Yabuuti but Yano is trying to maintain the tradition by organizing a groupof study on calendrical science to follow Yabuuti's paradigm now withcomputer at hand.

It is always an arguable subject to write synchronically or diachronically whenone writes a considerably wide and long history. Each has its own merit anddemerit, usually combining them together. It seems that Yabuuti's synchronictreatment is rather normal of historical description to catch the characteristicfeatures of the age. Needham's diachronic treatment is often applied to thehistory of science, in which a single measure stick of progress holds.Diachronic approach to disciplinary history of science often leads to acomparison between the Western and Eastern level of achievement by applyinga same single yardstick. Thus, Needham, especially in his early stage,emphasized Chinese priority in discovery and invention, as he was fascinatedby new findings one after another. Nowadays, sociology of science do notemploy such a simple yardstick but tried to evaluate discovery and inventionvis-a-vis each different social and cultural context. After all, the aim ofWestern and Eastern sciences (for instance astronomy) was different, heading

for different directions. How can we compare by applying a simple yardstick ofpriority? Needham might have been aware of it but he was deliberatelyemployed a simple yardstick in order to persuade the significance of Chinese

achievements to average Western readers who were totally ignorant about it.

AnecdotalNeedham's first visit to Japan in 1964 was purely on his own, unlike laterseven occasions, with two clearly formulated purposes for the preparation ofSCC. One is to take photography of a Chinese architectural style that is lost inChina but preserved in Japan. He enthusiastically took photos of H?ry?ji in

particular points, the way of combining timber to support the heavy weight ofroof. He said to me, "Cambridge University Press never accepted unoriginal

photo for publication. That's why I am here to take them."

Another was to look at a map preserved at Tenri () Library to prove theChinese knowledge of the West was more precise and detailed than theWestern knowledge of China. When we were introduced to the map room andthe big map was displayed on the floor, he immediately lied down on the floortotally absorbed himself in looking at in details for more than half an hourwithout paying attention to those who were accompanied. The Director

Tominaga () of the Library then told me, " I know another person who

is as well energetic. It was Arnold Toynbee."

Needham's SCC was oftencompared with Toynbee's A Study of History.


4/6

PolemicalBlack-Paper Incident

When I first visited him in 1957, Needham looked rather isolated from his

Cambridge milieu. It was certainly true that he was in bad terms with USgovernment because of the Black Paper incident.

During the Korean War in 1952, the Chinese and North Korean governmentscharged that the UN (United States) army used bacteriological warfare to dropgerm bombs in North Korea and Manchuria area. It has never been accepted

by most Western diplomacy.

An international scientific commission consisting of a group of left-wingscientists in the West was invited by Chinese and North Korean governmentsto prove the fact of bacteriological weapons. They visited the site, investigatedand concluded that the US had been using such weapons, writing the Black

Paper of Germ Warfare. Needham was one of them.

According to Western diplomacy, they were introduced to the site wheregovernments sprayed germs beforehand and thus the communist governmentscheated Needham and others. It was called among Western diplomatic people

"doctrine of plausible denial."

Then, Needham was denied visa to enter the USA with a charge of "anarchist",even though American institutions invited him. Needham on the other hand

told me that unless Vietnam War is over, I do not wish to visit America."

When Needham made his third visit to Japan, I was writing his briefbiography. For that purpose, I wanted to hear his view about it. Then, heshowed a tense reaction, saying, "It should not be misunderstood. Let's talkabout it at a quiet place. You just translate it to Japanese journalists, whowere accompanied us, not to misinterpret." He had shown serious anguishesand explained what he believed in, in spite of the difficulty of proof. He said Iwas not only a man who signed the Black Paper but he was the most famous

biochemist in the group who was exposed to most serious charge.

In his last year of 1995, my Japanese publisher asked me to get a photoduring his team investigation to North Korea. Then, he wrote me back in his

last letter to me, "I found the germ was spread in considerably wide area. Nogovernment would sacrifice so many of their people even if they want to cheatus. That is why I concluded that the US army dropped the germ bomb." Theletter was signed with his trembling handwriting, sent together with a big

panoramic photo sitting together with Mao Tsedong and Chou Enlai.

Before the Korean War, Needham visited the USA often in such occasions asthe invitational Hideyo Noguchi history of science lectureship at JohnsHopkins University. After the Korean War he had not visited and Joseph usedto say "I am not willing to visit the USA until the Vietnam War is over." Afterthe War is over, there were a number of invitations from American institutionsfor lectures and honorary degree conferring. In spite of Senator Fulbright'sinvitation, Needham was denied to obtain a visa to the USA. He showed aletter from the State Department, "according to the record preserved at the


5/6

Department," Needham was denied a visa because of "anarchist", "unless youwant to waver". Joseph asked me what is "waver". Of course, I do not knoweither. Since he never joined the Communist Party, he was labelled under theclassification of "anarchist." Anyway, it was twenty years past in betweenKorean and Vietnam War. Not many people still remembered about the Black-Paper incident. But the State Department computer remembered. His recordwas soon wavered and he accepted invitations. Only recently, I have read anacademic paper to prove that the US troops dropped it as many American

generals were in the opinion to use germ bombs.

Anti-Needham feelings

When I was thinking to work with Needham in 1957, my teachers at Harvardwere rather reluctant. Some dubiously said to me "Do you really believe whathe said?" My sponsor, the Rockefeller Foundation also tried to discourage myidea of visiting Needham but I dared to do it. Then, my Rockefeller fellowshipwas cut out on the day when I departed New York port for England. It was the

time when MacCarthy's influence was declining but still fear for purge was inthe air. The Rockefeller Foundation was particularly precautious, as McCarthyaccused them for inviting left-wing scientists from abroad.

In arriving Cambridge, I worked in room K at Caius College every day. Inoticed that there were not much visitors to Needham but his left-wing friendssuch as J. D. Bernal, J. G. Crowther and also Chinese scholars visiting from

mainland China, with whom I enjoyed accompanying of.

His first two volumes of SCC was unfairly criticized not only on publishedjournal but in casual conversation of scholars. I felt that under the political

circumstance in the USA and UK also, it was safer to say about Needhamnegatively.

Later on, I tried to defend Needham at the occasion of the InternationalConference on the History of Chinese Science held at Chung Chi College ofHongkong in early 1968 The draft was originally entitled "Joseph Needham ---anti-mechanical philosopher" I sent the draft to Needham before theConference started and then he reacted immediately with a long substantialletter, in which he wanted to change its subtitle from anti-mechanic toorganic." I adopted it in my article appeared in Japanese Studies in theHistory of Science, no.6, which was duplicated in S. Nakayama & N. Sivin

(eds.), Chinese Science: Exploration of an Ancient Tradition. (MIT Press, 1973).

Among various critical reviewers on the first two volumes of SCC I choseCharles Gillispie as a representative of historians of science. I know himpersonally and enjoyed reading his Edge of Objectivity. He and his generationof historians of science, like Thomas Kuhn, were admirers of Alexandre Koyreand his way of intellectual approach to the history of science. During the1950s when the discipline of the history of science was not yet well establishedin academia, those younger generation of historians of science was eagerlylooking for the identity of the history of science within scientific community inthe USA. The social history of science could be done better by generalhistorians and what is more, it was a dangerous Marxist subject to be stayed

out of. Purely internal history of scientific discipline could be better doneperhaps by ex-scientists. Then, what a unique approach for a historian of


6/6

science only can do, they might find, was intellectual history as appeared inthe Journal of the History of Ideas and particularly of Koyre's fashion. Thus,by pursuing intellectual history, they believed that they could legitimise the

history of science discipline.

Gillispie wanted to establish an orthodoxy of the history of science, whileMarxian approach was quite unorthodox and untrustworthy for him. Chinesescience is also unorthodox subject to tackle from the orthodox viewpoint ofWestern science. Thus, Needham's approach was doubly heterodox fromGillispie's viewpoint. I defended Needham's love of unorthodoxy that will leadto the new search for unorthodox sources and into new directions of search.Having been exposed to Marxian literatures on the history of science inpostwar Japan, and looking from outside of the quest of orthodoxy in theWestern history of science, I was perhaps unable to understand what Gillispiewould have deeply in his mind. At any rate, soon after in early 70s, enexternalist sociological approach to the history of science became fashionableup to now among young generations, who forgot about the booming of the

intellectual approach of the 50s.

I met several times with Gillispie personally. He was friendly but whenever wemet, he had something struck in his mind, saying, " I still don't believe theMarxist approach is reliable." On the other hand, he said, " I admire

Needham's literary style. He put right words in right place."

Malaise on Needham

The Volume II dealing with scientific thought was most controversial part ofthe SCC. After Volume III, the subject matter gets technical and less

controversial. His argument had been so considerably modified as his researchinto the subject has broadened and deepened.

However, not explicitly written criticism but a sort of malaise I hereoccasionally from historians of science who could not read Chinese. They said,"We cannot read Chinese and hence we had to depend on what Needham toldus. Is it OK?" I respond, "Sorry for you but we can read and check Chinese

texts whenever we find something dubious in his hypothesis."

Such a gigantic treatises as SCC functions as a reference book. Certainly,Needham's SCC provided a starting point when one had an idea to work on thehistory of Chinese science but Needham had never intended to write atextbook orthodoxy. Whenever he was hit with an untested idea, he dared toput it into SCC. The most famous one is his Taoist thesis as appeared inVolume II. It excited people but was not well-tested and perhaps disappears

later. He is not a textbook writer but remained a life-long researcher.

Documents

Joseph Needham and His Rivals