Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
none who noticed his achievements in geographical research and, after his death,
there was no one to follow his footsteps or continue his studies. Even his topic of
such a mine of geographical wealth was ignored and it was not until recently that its
value in geography was discovered. Isn't it most absurd and unreasonable?
I would like to point out that even before the time of Hsü Xia-Ke, science and
technology had developed steadily in China. There had been important inventions
by the ancient Chinese, such as the compass for sea travelling, the method of printing
in block types, etc. These inventions were fi rst used by the Chinese and then they
were taken up by the world at large. Their infl uence on world culture and civiliza-
tion is great and important. And even in Hsü Xia-Ke's time, there were important
scientifi c writings and literature, such as
Ben Cao Gang Mu
(
The Principles and
Index of Herbs and Minerals for Medicine
) by Li Shi-Zhen (1518-1593). Its infl uence
on botany, mineralogy and pharmacology is undeniably great. There was also the
topic written by Sung Ying-Sing (born ca. 1600)
Tien Gong Kai Wu
(
Exploitation of
the Works of Nature
). We know that its fi rst edition dated to 1637 and it was a very
important work on agriculture, textile weaving, pottery, foundry and casting and
other contents concerning the making of tools and instruments.
2
These two topics
and the one written by Hsü Xia-Ke were the forerunners in the scientifi c research in
old China. They opened up new paths for the people after them. Their achievements
were undoubtedly among the most advanced in their age and also in the world.
Nevertheless, the development of Chinese scientifi c research after the time of
Hsü Xia-Ke lagged far behind that of the West. Thus, even until recent times, to
learn from the advanced science and technology of the West is still our problem
which we must acknowledge. How did it happen?
As a student of historical geography I do not have the ability to answer this
question in full. However, from the angle of the development of natural sciences,
there are some few points which we ought to notice when we look into this problem.
Since we know that as production of social development, natural science and
technology also develop accordingly. And as early as the third century B.C. ancient
China had already been in the state of feudalism, a feudalistic kingdom of centrali-
sation of states and sovereignty. In China, the authority of the Emperor is supreme
and unquestionable. Since then and for a long time of feudalism of more than 2,000
years, the society of China had been built on the economy of small-scale farming;
then out of this grew the handicraft workshops. In the early part of feudalism in
ancient China, such mode of production developed and with it, the fi eld of science
and technology yielded new inventions and discoveries. When it came to the latter
part of feudalism, productivity in China continued to develop, but management of
individual craftsman workshops gradually changed into that of small workshops
with hired labourers. This became the soil for the growth of capitalism.
In Hsü Xia-Ke's time, the districts along the middle reaches and the estuary of
the Yangtze River, especially the region of its delta, developed greatly in the capacity
2
For an English-language edition, see
T'ien-kung K'ai-wu: Chinese Technology in the Seventeenth
Century
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1966).
