|   | Ian Inkster (ed.),  History of technology, volume  29 (Dec. 2009). 
 London / New York: Continuum International Publishing Group
 215 pp. (covering two special issues), ISBN 9781441136114
 
 Special Issue: Kent Deng and Jerry Liu (eds.), Chinese Technological  History: The Great Divergence., pp. 1-101
 
 Abstract: The common question from the western point of view is of the  sort; why did China lose its early leadership of productive technologies  to Europe during the early modern period? Answers to this seemingly  clear enquiry vary from general cultural inwardness to the interferences  of imperial governance. This collection surveys such theories but  alters the issue by raising the notion that Chinese technologies did not  so much fail as move along a path different from that of Europe.
 
 Table of contents:
 
 pp. 1-2: Deng and Liu, “Editorial Introduction”
 
 pp. 7-28: Patrick K. O'Brien,  “The Needham Question Updated: a  Historiographical Survey and Elaboration”
 
 pp. 29-55: Jerry C.Y. Liu, “Cultural Logics for the Regime of Useful  Knowledge during the Ming and early Qing China c. 1400-1700”
 
 (p. 44: Ricci; p. 46; Kong Zhenshi, preface to Dias’ Tianwen lüe; p.  46/47: Wu Weizhong, postscript to Schreck’s Qiqi tushuo;
 p. 50: “it is probably an understatment that there was never a pure  transfer of useful knowledge from Europe to China during
 the Ming and early-Qing times. The Jesuit activities in China may  serve as an important indicator here ...”).
 
 
 pp. 57-79: Kent G. Deng, “Movers and Shakers of Knowledge in China  during the Ming-Qing Period”
 
 Abstract: The period of 1600-1910 is commonly viewed as one of decline  in Chinese science and technology in world history. This article  examines the movers and shakers of knowledge to show how the Chinese  tried to catch up with the advancing West. They were not as stubbornly  conservative as one might think. However, a degree of openness did not  guarantee China’s ability to modernize.
 
 pp. 57-62: The Jesuit period, c. 1600-1840;
 1) pp. 57-59: How did it all begin?;
 2) pp. 59-62: Why did Western knowledge not take China by storm  before 1800?;
 pp. 63-74: The Westernization period, 1840-1910; pp. 74-79, notes and  references
 
 
 pp. 81-101: Harriet T. Zurndorfer, “China and Science on the Eve of the  'Great Divergence' 1600-1800: A review of recent revisionist scholarship  in Western languages”
 
 Abstract: The first part of this study considers both general and  specific publications that have re-framed the way China specialist and  others have conceived Chinese science and attempts to relate these  representations to diverging patterns of economic development between  China and Europe before the 19th century. In the second part, this essay  focuses on the Jesuit transmission of European science to China, and  its consequences. It argues that the Ming and Qing governments’ efforts  to control the Jesuit-transmitted knowledge in these fields stimulated  ever more interest among local scholars in Chinese traditions of  mathematics and astronomy, which culminated in the 18th-century  ‘evidential research’ movement. But because the scientific knowledge the  Jesuits conveyed was already out of date, before their arrival in  China, local scholars never had the possibility to make a complete  reassessment of their own mathematical and astronomical practices. As  the primary and – at times, the only – translators of Western scientific  thought to China, the Jesuits had an enormous historical impact on how  Chinese scholars became trapped in a pre-Copernican universe in which  Chinese natural philosophy, with its focus on metaphysical  interpretations of the natural world, remained entrenched until the 19th  century.
 pp. 81-86, Introduction to the histiory of Chinese science in a global  perspectives: Old and new debates
 pp. 86-91, Jesuit scientific mission in China: Flattery as strategy
 pp. 91-93, Helping to make the earth stand still: The Jesuit agenda  and Chinese priorities
 pp. 93-96, The significance of the first encounter: Intellectual dead  end?
 pp. 97-98, Some further observations; pp. 98-101, Notes and  references.
 |  |