Marcon, Federico. 2015. The Knowledge of Nature and the Nature of Knowledge in Early Modern Japan. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Review by Michael Beach
In this work, Marcon traces the study of nature (what we not refer to as science) beginning in shogunate Japan. The early part of the story parallels, and at times intersects, the scientific revolution in Europe. Initially Japan received most of its scientific knowledge from Chinese scholars. It came in the form of imported encyclopedias depicting fauna and flora. Japanese feudal lords decided it did not want to be dependent on China and commissioned its own scholars to created something uniquely Japanese. The effort eventually morphed into works collectively known as Honzogaku.
The Honzogaku is as much a system of classification as it is a specific book, though it is that too. Depending on who was in power, scholars evolved through various groups sometimes including monks, government officials, independent tutors, and eventually more modern university professors. Once Europe began interacting with Japan there were efforts to compare and contrast Japanese and European classification system along with naming conventions. One of the real struggles was the Japanese language itself was not homogenous. Often plants and animals had different names depending on which province the description was captured in.
The idea of the Neo-Confucianists who became scholars-for-hire hearkens to the early Greek system. In this case, they combined book publication, teaching, and appeals to power for patronage in order to secure their positions, often as lower Samurai, or Ronin, in the Shogunate court, Ekiken for example. This idea of a Samurai being something other than a warier broadens an understanding of how the Shogun court system was not that different from European courts. In this case there were military, intellectual and priestly groups in competition with each other within the court system. The Neo-Confucianists juxtaposed themselves as direct opposition to the Buddhist monks of their day.
Marcon speaks to the turning away from the Honzogaku during the Meiji era, but also notes how some of the form of it continued. In some aspects the supporters of western-focused Japanese scientists have 'socially homogenized backgrounds' (p. 302) that focus studies on a form of service to the state. Marcon notes how some of this westernization has created a bit of backlash and regrowth of Honzogaku in opposition to western pharmacology in favor of 'traditional' medicine.
The Honzogaku and later works also incorporated ever-improving drawings of its documented subjects. One defining question was whether to depict a specimen with individual characteristics and ‘flaws’. Generally, drawings become more of an idealized form. Today, Honzogaku survives in at least two ways. Its drawings are in themselves great works of art as well as historical depictions. In addition, as mentioned earlier, some of its traditional medical information continues as an opposition to modern western pharmacology.
Review by Michael Beach
In this work, Marcon traces the study of nature (what we not refer to as science) beginning in shogunate Japan. The early part of the story parallels, and at times intersects, the scientific revolution in Europe. Initially Japan received most of its scientific knowledge from Chinese scholars. It came in the form of imported encyclopedias depicting fauna and flora. Japanese feudal lords decided it did not want to be dependent on China and commissioned its own scholars to created something uniquely Japanese. The effort eventually morphed into works collectively known as Honzogaku.
The Honzogaku is as much a system of classification as it is a specific book, though it is that too. Depending on who was in power, scholars evolved through various groups sometimes including monks, government officials, independent tutors, and eventually more modern university professors. Once Europe began interacting with Japan there were efforts to compare and contrast Japanese and European classification system along with naming conventions. One of the real struggles was the Japanese language itself was not homogenous. Often plants and animals had different names depending on which province the description was captured in.
The idea of the Neo-Confucianists who became scholars-for-hire hearkens to the early Greek system. In this case, they combined book publication, teaching, and appeals to power for patronage in order to secure their positions, often as lower Samurai, or Ronin, in the Shogunate court, Ekiken for example. This idea of a Samurai being something other than a warier broadens an understanding of how the Shogun court system was not that different from European courts. In this case there were military, intellectual and priestly groups in competition with each other within the court system. The Neo-Confucianists juxtaposed themselves as direct opposition to the Buddhist monks of their day.
Marcon speaks to the turning away from the Honzogaku during the Meiji era, but also notes how some of the form of it continued. In some aspects the supporters of western-focused Japanese scientists have 'socially homogenized backgrounds' (p. 302) that focus studies on a form of service to the state. Marcon notes how some of this westernization has created a bit of backlash and regrowth of Honzogaku in opposition to western pharmacology in favor of 'traditional' medicine.
The Honzogaku and later works also incorporated ever-improving drawings of its documented subjects. One defining question was whether to depict a specimen with individual characteristics and ‘flaws’. Generally, drawings become more of an idealized form. Today, Honzogaku survives in at least two ways. Its drawings are in themselves great works of art as well as historical depictions. In addition, as mentioned earlier, some of its traditional medical information continues as an opposition to modern western pharmacology.
RSS Feed