23
Knowledge of nature and craft
Researching the history of science,
mathematics, and technology in Japan
before 1600
Kristina Buhrman
The recent popularity of historical novels on pre- Meiji Japanese “scientists”—heroic men who
strove to understand the natural world, before the word “scientist” or a Japanese equivalent had
come into popular use—attests to public interest in the history of science in Japan.^1 Ubukata Tō’s
2009 Tenchi meisatsu, which retold the life of Shibukawa Shunkai (1639–1715) and his 1684
Jōkyō calendrical reform, won the 2010 Bookseller’s Award (Hon’ya taishō) and was adapted into
a movie and a manga; more recently Ōedo kyōryūden by Yumemakura Baku and starring the
historical figure Hiraga Gennai (1728–1780), known for his experiments with electricity, was
serialized in a newspaper, then published in five volumes.^2 On the subject of science (or related
fields) in early modern Japan, a number of recent notable works have appeared, covering the
influence of optical instruments on the visual arts, the role of a tradition of “objective” natural
illustration for the reception of photography, and the continuity between honzōgaku or “nature
studies” in Edo- period Japan and the biological sciences after the Meiji Restoration.^3
Such recent attention has not, however, been reflected in general histories of science in pre-
Meiji Japan. Comprehensive histories have been slow to appear, despite calls and plans for their
production. In the 2013 introduction to works in English on the history of science in Japan,
Morris Low implies that such works may exist in Japanese but have yet to be translated. It is more
accurate, however, to say that such histories have indeed been slow to appear even in Japanese, at
least since an initial burst of activity in the 1960s. Many of the works available to English- speaking
scholars, furthermore, reiterate the same basic material for the period before 1600 as can be found
in these old histories.^4
Few general overviews focus on the period before 1600; many, in fact, begin their coverage
from around that time. And while studies of individual topics in the history of science in the pre-
modern period have appeared, these new approaches have not yet been synthesized into a general
work. Furthermore, many works that cover the premodern period often do so briefly and only
as precursor to later developments. For this reason, older works have remained authoritative on
this subject, in spite of paradigm shifts in historians’ conceptualization of other aspects of the
premodern era.^5