Peking University Forum on the History and Philosophy of Science, Lecture 61
Time: Friday, November 28, 2008, 3:00–5:00 p.m.
Venue: Academic Lecture Hall, Center for Science and Society, Chengze Garden
Speaker: Professor Zhang Qiqun (Department of Philosophy, Peking University)
Topic: A Preliminary Exploration of the Shift from Ancient Chinese Astronomy to Astrology—Also on Why Jiang Xiaoyuan’s Theory of “Political Astronomy” Does Not Hold
http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=838&page=e#a
In my previous comment I took a little jab at Teacher Jiang, and I felt quite apprehensive about it; just then, by chance, I was immediately given an opportunity for “balance,” so I wrote a bit more than usual.
Sorry, I forgot to bring my camera today, so I didn’t take any photos……
I had once skimmed through Teacher Jiang’s book Astrology and Traditional Culture, and today I took it out again and looked through it for a while, thereby gaining a slight understanding of Teacher Jiang’s ideas about “political astronomy” and the like. I did not expect that Teacher Zhang’s own basis would also be only this little booklet, while ignoring Teacher Jiang’s related academic works and papers such as The True Origin of the Science of Heaven, The Unofficial History of the Science of Heaven, History of Astrology, and The History of Chinese Astronomy. This is hard to understand. Astrology and Traditional Culture is clearly only a popular general-interest book; on the footnote of the very first page of the main text, it hints that this book was prepared for readers who “feel unfamiliar with and weary of astronomy and mathematics”! It does not even have a bibliography at the end (of course, that point can indeed be criticized). And since Teacher Zhang had read many works by older generations of Chinese astronomers, why did he not consult more of Teacher Jiang’s academic writings?
Based on Astrology and Traditional Culture, Teacher Zhang thinks that Teacher Jiang is limited to astronomical literature after the Han dynasty, and even seems to believe that Teacher Jiang lacks sufficient familiarity with pre-Qin sources. This, of course, underestimates Teacher Jiang far too much. A casual look at Teacher Jiang’s other academic writings would show that he is well versed in the relevant materials from the Book of Documents and even oracle-bone inscriptions. The reason why sources such as the Xia Xiaozheng and the Book of Songs·Seventh Month are not cited in Astrology and Traditional Culture is, of course, not because Teacher Jiang overlooked them.
Teacher Zhang discovered that in texts from the Spring and Autumn period or earlier, such as the Xia Xiaozheng, the “astronomy” involved was unrelated to astrology and was mostly connected with agricultural affairs, and that only from the Warring States period through the Han dynasty did astronomy “turn” toward astrology. On this basis, Teacher Zhang criticized Teacher Jiang’s notion of “political astronomy” as untenable—because ancient Chinese astronomy was not entirely astrology, and astrology was not entirely in the service of politics.
Teacher Zhang’s criticism is, of course, riddled with problems. First, as Teacher Liu emphasized, Teacher Jiang himself never made a strong “universal judgment,” and the so-called theory of “political astronomy” certainly does not mean that traditional Chinese astronomy was from start to finish and in every respect merely in the service of politics, without the slightest significance for guiding agriculture and so on. Teacher Zhang’s criticism of Teacher Jiang takes Jiang’s position and exaggerates and distorts it to an extreme, which is certainly inappropriate. Second, and more importantly, even leaving aside the part of the criticism aimed at Teacher Jiang, Teacher Zhang’s own research has defects in both approach and method—namely, as Teacher Wu emphasized, it lacks reflection on the concept of “astronomy,” and in a Kuhnian manner directly borrows the Western concept of “astronomy” to look at China’s tradition. And transcending this simplistic and one-sided way of writing history is precisely the important contribution Teacher Jiang has made to the history of Chinese astronomy and indeed to the history of Chinese science and technology. Yet Teacher Zhang still uncritically enshrines the older generation of Chinese astronomers as authorities, which makes him seem overly out of his depth.
In the interactive discussion, and under the support that the teachers gave Teacher Jiang in various ways, Teacher Zhang’s criticism of Teacher Jiang eventually shrank into a rhetorical nitpicking over wording, and in the end it concluded by getting entangled in a punctuation mark (Teacher Zhang said: how can he write “astronomy and astrology” here and then write “astronomy—astrology” there; what on earth does this “—” mean……). It is really somewhat that…… On this point, there is no need for me to comment further.
As for the significance of the concept of “political astronomy,” I personally think it can be understood by reference to how “mathematical astronomy” functions in relation to ancient Greece. Of course, ancient Chinese astronomy also included “mathematical astronomy,” and it was inevitably bound to include the function of guiding agricultural work. Just as Western astronomy also includes observing phenomena to determine the calendar, includes astrology, and includes certain political functions. But just as we can use “mathematical astronomy” to mark an important feature of ancient Greek astronomy, the term “political astronomy” can also directly mark the core characteristic of traditional Chinese astronomy.
Obviously, the feature of “political astronomy” is used to describe the overall, mainstream characteristics of the Chinese astronomical tradition; it is not saying there are no exceptions, and still less that the characteristics of Chinese astronomy were like this in antiquity or even in remote antiquity. It is like saying that if you discover ancient Greek astronomy in remote antiquity lacked the later mathematical features, then you thereby negate the characterization of ancient Greek astronomy.
In fact, as the teachers mentioned, even if we speak of antiquity, setting aside the astronomy that was supposedly unrelated to astrology, had astrology itself not already existed long before? On what grounds can one say that there was a turning point from astronomy to astrology? Teacher Zhang mentioned that a distinction should be made between “astrology” and “astrological practice”: astrological practice in antiquity was fragmented and crude, and only after the Han dynasty did it become systematized into a discipline of “astrology.” But the problem is: if that is so, then how can one say that “astronomy” has existed since ancient times? Wasn’t the “astronomy” of antiquity also fragmented and unsystematic? Therefore, although one can find some ancient records of celestial phenomena that seem unrelated to astrology, this merely shows that the entire Chinese astronomical-astrological system had not yet taken shape.
And in other works by Teacher Jiang (such as the jointly authored The History of Chinese Astronomy), he also mentioned that the system of traditional Chinese astronomy laid its foundation during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and that by the Han dynasty all aspects of traditional Chinese astronomy had become complete, “a system of astronomy with Chinese characteristics had already been established” (pp. 17, 20). As for the origins of astronomy in antiquity and even remote antiquity, there is some evidence suggesting that it may have been influenced in some way by West Asian astronomy, or perhaps was simply introduced from the West, but the exact circumstances remain undecided.
Therefore, since Teacher Jiang wanted to discuss the distinctive features of traditional Chinese astronomy, of course he had to begin from the era when traditional Chinese astronomy at least had begun to take form. As for antiquity, not only had “astronomy” not yet taken shape, even the concept of “China” itself, and its corresponding regional, cultural, and political system, had not yet coalesced into a settled form. So where would “Chinese characteristics” come from?
Thus Teacher Zhang’s argument also precisely confirms Teacher Jiang’s insight: Chinese astronomy and astrological science, from the time they laid their foundations until the entire subsequent process of development, were united and inseparable. “Politics,” rather than theoretical or agricultural demands, has always been the main concern through which Chinese astronomy was further perfected and developed.
The possible significance of Teacher Zhang’s lecture lies mainly in his reference to Zou Yan and the theory of the Five Phases. Teacher Zhang believes that it was precisely the popularity of the Five Phases theory that brought about the shift from astronomy to astrology. I know nothing about the relevant history or texts, so I am not in a position to comment much. Still, thinking about it, the establishment of the yin-yang and Five Phases theory does indeed seem to have been a rather important event. Just as the various early ontologies of ancient Greece were brought into a grand synthesis in Aristotle, the various scattered and chaotic metaphysics of ancient China were likewise given some kind of synthesis in the yin-yang and Five Phases theory, forming a mode of thinking with tremendous inclusiveness and explanatory power, thereby stimulating and shaping the development of the entire history of Chinese thought. So what role, exactly, did the establishment of the Five Phases theory play in the history of the development of Chinese astronomy? It seems there is not much discussion of this in Teacher Jiang’s work?
November 28, 2008
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply