Imperial Control and Western Learning: The Kangxi Emperor's Performance

According to the well-known story, as soon as the Manchus took Beijing in 1644, Johann Adam Schall von Bell S.J. (1592-1666), who had worked on the calendar reform for the Ming dynasty, offered them his services as an astronomer. He was thus providing the conquerors with a major tool of legitimization, that is, an accurate calendar. Not only the Jesuits' work at the Imperial Astronomical Bureau (Qintian jian) thereafter, but also their tasks as court savants, contributed to consolidating the dynasty's rule over China. Another striking example of their contribution is the survey of the empire (1708-1718) which resulted in the famous atlas Huangyu quanlantu (1718). ²

Much research has been done on Jesuit astronomy in early Qing China, and some on cartography. I will not attempt to repeat or summarise its results here. ³ Instead, I would like to focus on how the Kangxi emperor (r. 1662-1722) established imperial control over Western learning.

The study of scientific exchanges between Europe and China during the late Ming to mid-Qing, and in particular of the "King's Mathematicians" whom King Louis XIV (r. 1643-1715) sent to Kangxi in 1685, has led to comparing state-sponsored science in France and in China. The conclusion of this comparison is that the two sovereigns' sponsorship of science differed in one important respect. Indeed, like his French counterpart, Kangxi set up a new role for science within the state, by acting as a patron of specialised practice and scholarship within imperial institutions. But he granted little autonomy to these institutions: throughout his reign he remained the supreme arbiter of all matters related to science. This was in strong contrast with the autonomy gained by academies in European countries at the same time. ⁴ Louis XIV's policy to some extent allowed for a community to define its own rules and develop its activities accordingly, whereas there seems to have been little room for innovation in Chinese institutions during the Kangxi reign. ⁵

This conclusion, however, raises an important historiographical issue. Are we facing an imperfect version—imitation?—of a Western pattern? This is what the Jesuits suggested at the time, and this is how historians of science tend to rephrase the comparison, which is then used to highlight Europe's "uniqueness." Should one be content with concluding once more that China missed something which Europe had? ⁶ Instead, I propose to further the analysis of the relationship between science and the state in early Qing China, following an approach inspired by recent scholarship on academies and monarchy in Europe. Studies of the ways in which the former negotiated their—limited—autonomy from princely power, suggest a way to proceed. ⁷ These studies highlight the forms of sociability within which the academicians and other savants administered proof, thus turning their discourse and practice into commonly accepted science. In these studies, well-known sources have been read anew, focusing attention on the forms of narrative as well as on the actors' gestures and attitudes, rather than solely on their ideas and theories, innovations and shortcomings.

The relevance of applying this approach to sources of the Kangxi period was further suggested by one remark made by Licoppe in his discussion of the French Royal Academy of science. In his words, whereas the French King could not stand as a mere witness to indoor experiments, "the outdoor practices of observation and measurement interacted in a constructive manner with the absolutist power." ⁸ The parallel with the Jesuits' practice of astronomy and cartography in early Qing China is quite striking. Indeed this practice "interacted in a constructive manner" with the new dynastic order. But how did this interaction take place? In the sources I have used in order to trace the ways in which the various actors staged their discourses and actions, the main character seemed to stand out by himself. The Kangxi emperor, although no...