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 () Academic Lack of exact science of calendar in Needham When I visited Joseph Needham for the first time in 1957, Volume 3 of Science and Civilisation in China (Cambridge U. P. since 1954, hereafter abbreviated as 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 the pronunciation of Japanese names and more importantly I noticed a grave hiatus; 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 archaeological and historical than scientific" and "The whole history of calendar-making is that of successive attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and the numberless systems 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 to explore by thoroughly working on the calendrical chapter of each dynastic history. 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 not utilizing Japanese and Russian contributions on the history of Chinese science. 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 Japanese language; she did but she was too old to master it. Then, he often consulted me 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 it was not successful to this day perhaps because of the lack of fund. Since then, Needham had, busying himself working on the later volumes of SCC, never come back to astronomy again. In the Introduction of my book, A History of Japanese Astronomy: Chinese Background and Western Impact (Harvard, 1969, p.3), I put, "Chinese calendar-making has been almost entirely overlooked, as in Needham's volumes, despite the fact that calendarmaking held a central position in Chinese exact science." Needham bookreviewed it on Science (3 October 1969, p.95) nicely; while reading the book, 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 "This neglect is probably because of its technical complexity and the lack of a Western counterpart" he said "No" and " but difficult to get hold of YK's

(Yabuuti Kiyosi) work." This indicates that he thought he should have to cover Yabuuti'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 was China's most genuine contribution to exact science" (Ibid., p.65), he put on margin "doubtful statement." Mikami (), Shinjo () and Noda's () works were translated into Chinese or English and often referred by Chinese scholars. But Yabuuti's work, like many other Japanese contributions to Chinese science, was not translated, 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 that Yabuuti's works were not known among them. While Chinese scholars are more knowledgeable about various source materials, Yabuuti's strong point is his analytical power with the background in modern astronomy and celestial mechanics. While historians of mathematics like Li Yen ( ) and Cheng Paotsung () deals the problems arising from the solution of calendar calculation mathematically, it was Yabuuti who made them a thorough history of 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 seem to read Yabuuti's work in Japanese. There are not much citation of Yabuuti's work yet but I think there are still lots of work to be done on the history of Chinese calendrical science by taking his doctoral dissertation published during the wartime Zui T? Rekih?shi no Kenky? ( Research on the 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 to Needham as his SCC provided us a good account of preceding Western sinologists' 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 Kagaku Kenky?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 International Congress 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 Cultural Revolution, Needham and Yabuuti managed the two centers of the history of Chinese science, at Cambridge, England and Kyoto, Japan. Their style made a

remarkable contrast. While Needham divided his volumes according to discipline 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 group of study on calendrical science to follow Yabuuti's paradigm now with computer at hand. It is always an arguable subject to write synchronically or diachronically when one writes a considerably wide and long history. Each has its own merit and demerit, usually combining them together. It seems that Yabuuti's synchronic treatment is rather normal of historical description to catch the characteristic features of the age. Needham's diachronic treatment is often applied to the history of science, in which a single measure stick of progress holds. Diachronic approach to disciplinary history of science often leads to a comparison between the Western and Eastern level of achievement by applying a same single yardstick. Thus, Needham, especially in his early stage, emphasized Chinese priority in discovery and invention, as he was fascinated by new findings one after another. Nowadays, sociology of science do not employ such a simple yardstick but tried to evaluate discovery and invention vis-a-vis each different social and cultural context. After all, the aim of Western and Eastern sciences (for instance astronomy) was different, heading for different directions. How can we compare by applying a simple yardstick of priority? Needham might have been aware of it but he was deliberately employed a simple yardstick in order to persuade the significance of Chinese achievements to average Western readers who were totally ignorant about it. Anecdotal Needham's first visit to Japan in 1964 was purely on his own, unlike later seven occasions, with two clearly formulated purposes for the preparation of SCC. One is to take photography of a Chinese architectural style that is lost in China 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 of roof. 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 the Chinese knowledge of the West was more precise and detailed than the Western knowledge of China. When we were introduced to the map room and the big map was displayed on the floor, he immediately lied down on the floor totally absorbed himself in looking at in details for more than half an hour without 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 often compared with Toynbee's A Study of History.

Polemical Black-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 US government because of the Black Paper incident. During the Korean War in 1952, the Chinese and North Korean governments charged that the UN (United States) army used bacteriological warfare to drop germ 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-wing scientists in the West was invited by Chinese and North Korean governments to prove the fact of bacteriological weapons. They visited the site, investigated and 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 where governments sprayed germs beforehand and thus the communist governments cheated 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 brief biography. For that purpose, I wanted to hear his view about it. Then, he showed a tense reaction, saying, "It should not be misunderstood. Let's talk about it at a quiet place. You just translate it to Japanese journalists, who were accompanied us, not to misinterpret." He had shown serious anguishes and explained what he believed in, in spite of the difficulty of proof. He said I was 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 photo during 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. No government would sacrifice so many of their people even if they want to cheat us. That is why I concluded that the US army dropped the germ bomb." The letter 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 as the invitational Hideyo Noguchi history of science lectureship at Johns Hopkins University. After the Korean War he had not visited and Joseph used to say "I am not willing to visit the USA until the Vietnam War is over." After the War is over, there were a number of invitations from American institutions for lectures and honorary degree conferring. In spite of Senator Fulbright's invitation, Needham was denied to obtain a visa to the USA. He showed a letter from the State Department, "according to the record preserved at the

Department," Needham was denied a visa because of "anarchist", "unless you want to waver". Joseph asked me what is "waver". Of course, I do not know either. Since he never joined the Communist Party, he was labelled under the classification of "anarchist." Anyway, it was twenty years past in between Korean and Vietnam War. Not many people still remembered about the BlackPaper incident. But the State Department computer remembered. His record was soon wavered and he accepted invitations. Only recently, I have read an academic 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 Harvard were rather reluctant. Some dubiously said to me "Do you really believe what he said?" My sponsor, the Rockefeller Foundation also tried to discourage my idea of visiting Needham but I dared to do it. Then, my Rockefeller fellowship was 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 in the air. The Rockefeller Foundation was particularly precautious, as McCarthy accused them for inviting left-wing scientists from abroad. In arriving Cambridge, I worked in room K at Caius College every day. I noticed that there were not much visitors to Needham but his left-wing friends such 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 published journal 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 Needham negatively. Later on, I tried to defend Needham at the occasion of the International Conference on the History of Chinese Science held at Chung Chi College of Hongkong in early 1968 The draft was originally entitled "Joseph Needham --anti-mechanical philosopher" I sent the draft to Needham before the Conference started and then he reacted immediately with a long substantial letter, in which he wanted to change its subtitle from anti-mechanic to organic." I adopted it in my article appeared in Japanese Studies in the History 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 chose Charles Gillispie as a representative of historians of science. I know him personally and enjoyed reading his Edge of Objectivity. He and his generation of historians of science, like Thomas Kuhn, were admirers of Alexandre Koyre and his way of intellectual approach to the history of science. During the 1950s when the discipline of the history of science was not yet well established in academia, those younger generation of historians of science was eagerly looking for the identity of the history of science within scientific community in the USA. The social history of science could be done better by general historians and what is more, it was a dangerous Marxist subject to be stayed out of. Purely internal history of scientific discipline could be better done perhaps by ex-scientists. Then, what a unique approach for a historian of

science only can do, they might find, was intellectual history as appeared in the 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, while Marxian approach was quite unorthodox and untrustworthy for him. Chinese science is also unorthodox subject to tackle from the orthodox viewpoint of Western science. Thus, Needham's approach was doubly heterodox from Gillispie's viewpoint. I defended Needham's love of unorthodoxy that will lead to the new search for unorthodox sources and into new directions of search. Having been exposed to Marxian literatures on the history of science in postwar Japan, and looking from outside of the quest of orthodoxy in the Western history of science, I was perhaps unable to understand what Gillispie would have deeply in his mind. At any rate, soon after in early 70s, en externalist sociological approach to the history of science became fashionable up 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 we met, he had something struck in his mind, saying, " I still don't believe the Marxist 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 of the SCC. After Volume III, the subject matter gets technical and less controversial. His argument had been so considerably modified as his research into the subject has broadened and deepened. However, not explicitly written criticism but a sort of malaise I here occasionally from historians of science who could not read Chinese. They said, "We cannot read Chinese and hence we had to depend on what Needham told us. 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 the history of Chinese science but Needham had never intended to write a textbook orthodoxy. Whenever he was hit with an untested idea, he dared to put it into SCC. The most famous one is his Taoist thesis as appeared in Volume 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.