Li Yindi 李尹蒂, Wan Qing nongxue de xingqi yu kunjing 晚清农学的兴起与困境 (The Rise and Dilemma of Agricultural Science in Late Qing Dynasty), Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe 科学出版社, 2021. ISBN 978-7-03-069998-5, 241 pages, 98 RMB.
Reviewed by Jörg H. Hüsemann (Universität Leipzig)
A series of crises made the 19th and early 20th centuries a turning point in Chinese history. Imperialist powers violently forced the empire to open its markets to the opium trade, the millenarian Taiping rebellion devastated large parts of southern and central China, millions died during the North China Famine of the 1870s, and the ruling house suffered humiliating military defeats in the Sino-Japanese War and the Boxer Rebellion, to name but the most infamous catastrophic events. While these crises challenged the Qing rulers’ claim to power and shook the political and social structures, they also created room for the development of new ideas. Scholars and state officials tried to promote “Self-Strengthening” to protect imperial rule from external attacks and internal strife. Against this historical background, the actors discussed in Li Yindi’s monograph introduced their approaches to modernizing Chinese agriculture.
While most previous studies on the modernization of late imperial agriculture focus on technical innovations,[1] Li Yindi, professor at the School of Marxism (马克思主义学院) of Hohai University 河海大学, has chosen a different path: using an impressive number of primary sources such as letters, journal and newspaper articles, petitions and regulations, she analyzes the development of agricultural science and agricultural education in the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Li Yindi has published on this topic before, however this monograph contains many new details and insights. She brilliantly describes the discourses of agricultural modernization in the late 19th century and shows that the development of modern agricultural science is not simply a story of progress but also a story of obstacles and conflicts; conflicts between the West and China, tradition and modernity, science and empiricism, theory and practice.
As Li Yindi points out in her lengthy introduction (pp. 1–22), the agriculture of the Qing Empire was fundamentally changed in less than 100 years. The impact on later agriculture was revolutionary since the development of modern agricultural science (nongxue 农学) not only affected agricultural practice (nongye 农业) but also influenced education, politics, and society as a whole.[2] As Li points out, the seeds of change were sown by Western missionaries and came to full bloom in the last twenty years of the dynasty. Four of the six chapters of the book focus on the last two decades of imperial rule and seek to present a complete picture of the major innovations and the key historical actors and institutions that contributed to the rise of agricultural science and the modernization of agriculture. After a detailed, though not exhaustive, review of previous research, Li concludes that a thorough study discussing the various elements that contributed to the development of agricultural science is still lacking. To fill this gap, she identified seven key aspects to discuss in her monograph: (1) the introduction and dissemination of scientific agricultural knowledge, (2) the scholar-gentry’s response to and interpretation of this new knowledge, (3) the roles of the agricultural association (Wunong hui 务农会) and the Journal of Agricultural Science (Nongxue bao 农学报), (4) the court officials’ thoughts on agricultural science, (5) the systematization of agricultural education, (6) the attempts to establish agricultural schools, and (7) the obstacles to the rise of scientific agriculture.
In the 19th century, European agriculture was gradually transformed into laboratory agriculture, and chemists in particular, such as the German Justus von Liebig (1803–1873), made significant contributions that eventually made it possible to increase soil productivity. Knowledge of agricultural chemistry reached China through Western missionaries, whose contributions to the dissemination of Western agricultural knowledge are discussed in the first chapter (pp. 23–36). Li Yindi focuses on three missionaries who lived in China for several years and published numerous writings in Chinese. The first is the German missionary Ernst Faber (Hua Zhi’an 花之安, 1839–1899), better known for his pedagogical and botanical writings and his studies of Chinese history and philosophy. Li shows that Faber also made an essential contribution to Chinese understanding of Western agriculture. In his writings, Faber introduced the various sub-disciplines of Western agriculture and showed how agricultural science was embedded in the Western educational system. The second important actor Li introduces is the well-known British missionary John Fryer (Fu Lanya 傅兰雅, 1839–1928). An avid translator and editor of scientific works, Fryer greatly influenced the dissemination of scientific knowledge in China. Here, Li Yindi focuses on one of Fryer’s early writings, published in the journal Gezhi huibian 格致汇编 (The Chinese Scientifical and Industrial Magazine), in which he discusses Western agricultural technologies. Remarkably, this article is the earliest writing in Chinese to mention Liebig and to emphasize the importance of agricultural chemistry. The third influential missionary discussed is Timothy Richard (Li Timotai 李提摩太, 1845–1919). He and his associate Cai Erkang 蔡尔康 (1852–1921) translated and published in 1893 the essay Nongxue xinfa 农学新法 (New Methods of Agricultural Science). This essay was written by American missionary William Preston Bentley (Bei Deli, 贝德礼, 1862–?), who had studied agriculture before deciding to spread the Christian faith in China. The essay was well received by Chinese intellectuals and further disseminated knowledge of agricultural chemistry in China.
In the second chapter, Li discusses those intellectuals and members of the scholarly elite who were potential readers in China of missionaries’ writings (pp. 37–67). She identifies the most important and influential actors and their contributions to agricultural modernization, including Feng Guifen 冯桂芬 (1809–1874), Wang Tao 王韬 (1828–1897), Sun Yat-sen 孫中山 (1866–1925), Chen Chi 陈炽 (1855–1900), Kang Youwei 康有为 (1858–1928), and Liang Qichao 梁启超 (1873–1929). The chapter makes it clear that agricultural science was to be introduced in conjunction with general educational reforms, modelled after the systems of Japan and Western countries. However, some scholars also pointed out that the specific environmental and social conditions in China had to be taken into account, and therefore agricultural reforms would require more than simply adopting foreign methods. Thus, while numerous scholars were interested in Western agricultural technology, many still lacked a clear understanding of Western scientific concepts. As Li Yindi notes, scholars were aware of the benefits of agricultural schools but had not yet developed systematic plans for establishing such schools in China. She concludes that the Westernization of agricultural science was still in a nascent stage. It was not until the 1890s that more Chinese scholars began to emphasize agricultural education and took a special interest in agricultural chemistry.[3] At the same time, a conflict between different groups of scholars emerged. Li Yindi shows that, similar to the general discussions on Westernization and modernization, some scholars favored adapting Western methods, and some favored embedding Western science into traditional Chinese agricultural knowledge and practice. In contrast, others believed ancient writings such as the Zhouli 周礼 already contained all the relevant information. They all agreed, however, that scholars should pay more attention to agriculture.
More Western writings had to be translated into Chinese to improve the Chinese understanding of science in general and agriculture in particular. The Agricultural Association (Wunong hui 务农会) was founded in Shanghai in 1896 by Luo Zhenyu 罗振玉 (1866–1940) and others, and the Society’s publications on agriculture were central to introducing Western agricultural knowledge to China. In the third chapter (pp. 68–108), Li Yindi gives a detailed account of the establishment of the society, analyzing its statutes and members, how it was received by contemporaries and those who donated money to support the Society’s activities. Its main goal was to disseminate modern agricultural knowledge through the Journal of Agricultural Science (Nongxue bao 农学报). Li meticulously analyzes the history and influence of this journal, which was published from 1897 to 1906, first twice a month and later every ten days. The content of the journal was diverse and covered all aspects of agriculture. Most of the articles were translations of Japanese and Western journal articles, but the contents of traditional Chinese farming manuals (nongshu 农书) and articles on agricultural administration were also published. In addition to the journal, Li Yindi also analyzes a second important contribution of the Association, the book series Collection of Agricultural Sciences (Nongxue congshu 农学丛书), which appeared between 1898 and 1905 and comprised 235 writings in seven anthologies. As seen from the table of the collection’s content (p. 97), many of these writings were translations of Japanese and Western writings on agriculture and related topics, but traditional Chinese farming manuals were also included. Li Yindi shows that the editors were convinced that useful information from scientific Western and Japanese should be combined with traditional Chinese sources to improve Chinese agriculture. In addition, Li Yindi also emphasizes the importance of Luo Zhenyu to agricultural science in the late Qing period, a fact often overlooked in Western scholarship that tends to focus more on Luo’s paleographic research and his love for antiquities.[4]
However, the plans to modernize Chinese agriculture and agricultural education were difficult to implement due to a lack of support from government officials. Although the traditional idea of taking agriculture as the foundation (nongben 农本) still was widespread at the court and among government officials in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the central government did not have a clear strategy for improving the empire’s agriculture. In the fourth chapter (pp. 109–136), Li Yindi uses archival materials to examine how government officials discussed methods to improve agriculture, especially the problems that hindered the development of agricultural education and the establishment of agricultural schools. Li argues that, apart from the fact that no proper agricultural schools existed at the time, the central government also did not provide enough assistance for improving agricultural education and thus prevented faster reforms. Moreover, as she points out, proposals by important actors, such as Kang Youwei and Zhang Zhidong 张之洞 (1837–1909), to teach agricultural sciences according to Western methods were not well received by several of their contemporaries.
Nevertheless, the general argument that agricultural policies could only be reformed by improving agricultural education gained strength. Despite many problems, the first agricultural schools were established towards the end of the 19th century, marking an important step in the development of agricultural science in China. However, Li Yindi shows that although many scholars and officials discussed scientific agriculture, they often did not understand the new methods correctly. Another obstacle to faster development was the lack of suitable teaching materials and capable instructors to teach agricultural science to Chinese students. Therefore, the early agricultural schools often had to recruit teachers from Japan. The establishment of these schools was not only a step from empirical to scientific agriculture but also helped to bridge the age-old gap between scholars and farmers (expressed in the traditional saying: “farmers do not learn and learned men do not farm,” 农者不学, 学者不农) (p. 155).[5]
The detailed overview of scholars’ discussions of agricultural education is followed by a closer look at the tension between ideals and reality in chapter five (pp. 137–178). This chapter explains how agricultural science became part of the educational system and describes those government agencies responsible for improving agricultural education. Li Yindi argues that introducing Western knowledge led to a new social atmosphere and forms of structuring knowledge. However, the integration of agriculture into these structures was not without problems. She demonstrates that scholars and officials continued to debate how agricultural sciences should be taught, which sub-disciplines should be included in the curriculum, how to balance theory and practice, where to find suitable teachers, and how to select the right talents for study in schools and colleges. Many of the students were not prepared to learn Western-style agricultural science. Some viewed their agricultural education only as a way to obtain an official position, which was still more beneficial than putting the newly acquired agricultural knowledge into practice. This was also true for the students who were sent abroad to study agricultural sciences in Japan, the United States, and Europe. Li points out several further challenges in agricultural education during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The curricula were not standardized or the teaching materials used in class. A further obstacle was the lack of qualified domestic teachers. Therefore, teachers from abroad were hired, who often had no proper knowledge of Chinese. In addition, no Ministry of Agriculture existed, so it was not always clear who was responsible for the development of agricultural education. Li Yindi points out that there was a constant conflict over power, resources, and responsibilities between different ministries, such as the Ministry of Education (xue bu 学部) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce (nong gong shang bu 农工商部) after the latter’s establishment in 1906.
Despite all the problems, the number of agricultural schools grew towards the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In addition, the establishment of institutions of higher education raised agricultural education to a new level. These institutions are analyzed in the sixth chapter (pp. 179–207). Taking two agricultural schools, the Hubei Agricultural School (湖北农务学堂), established by Zhang Zhidong in 1898, and the Zhili Agricultural School (直隶农务学堂), founded in 1902 by Yuan Shikai 袁世凯 (1859–1916), as case studies, Li Yindi discusses the challenges the founders faced when planning and establishing their schools. The obstacles Li presents do not differ significantly from those mentioned in earlier chapters, such as identifying the right location, recruiting able teachers and students, providing study materials, or integrating practical experience into the students’ training through tilling experiment fields. Li Yindi shows that Zhang Zhidong and Yuan Shikai drew much inspiration from Western and Japanese agricultural schools and hired teachers from abroad. However, teaching effectiveness was limited because of the students’ lack of language skills.
Another problem was the relatively high dropout rate among students. These schools were supposed to prepare students to attend higher agricultural science institutions, the highest of which was the University of Agricultural Sciences (农科大学). The history of this institution can be traced back to 1905, but it was not until 1909 when Luo Zhenyu was appointed its supervisor, that it began to operate properly. In addition to establishing schools, other measures to disseminate agricultural knowledge included forming associations and publishing journals. Li discusses in even greater detail the students who went abroad to study agriculture. Because the degrees earned from traditional examinations were still important, these university graduates could attend a special examination to receive degrees equivalent to those earned through traditional official examinations, such as the jinshi 进士 or juren 举人 degrees. As Li points out, several students who had studied in Japan, Europe, or the United States played an important role in agricultural education after their return to China.
In her comprehensive conclusions (pp. 208–218), Li Yindi recapitulates the seven main aspects she addresses in the monograph. In addition to summarizing the previous chapters, she highlights the obstacles that slowed the development of agricultural science in China, such as the limited understanding of Western scientific methods or the lack of familiarity with chemistry. Li Yindi identifies institutional and administrative problems, sometimes resulting from an unwillingness to initiate change and reform traditional systems and orders. Only when agricultural science was integrated into a reformed educational system was it possible to bridge the gap between agricultural practice and education. Thus, agricultural science became a force for social change.
In addition to her thorough study, Li Yindi provides six useful appendices, four of which contain statistical data on the Nongxue bao, one lists all members of the Agricultural Association and a particularly valuable table with the names of Chinese students who had studied agricultural science abroad.
Li Yindi’s monograph is the most comprehensive study of the development of agricultural sciences and education in late imperial China. It clearly shows the new epistemologies that developed during the transformation of agricultural knowledge and that challenged traditional knowledge. By including actors with different positions and occupations, Li Yindi succeeds in showing the conflicts between modern and traditional knowledge that emerged during the introduction and spread of Western agricultural sciences. Li handles her primary source material masterfully, weaving archival content elegantly into her own narrative. At the same time, she sometimes neglects existing secondary scholarship. In particular, her study of the missionaries’ contribution to agricultural modernization would have benefited from a closer look at Western-language primary and secondary sources.
A strength of this monograph is the amount of detail Li Yindi provides. For example, on p. 203, she lists the names of all 42 students who graduated in agricultural sciences in 1913; elsewhere, she provides long lists of publications that were translated into Chinese or used in agricultural education (e.g., pp. 49–50, pp. 151–152). While these lists may be of great value for readers planning or working on their own projects on this topic, they might also distract readers with a more general interest. Since, in most cases, they do not add much to the argument, in this reader’s eyes, it would have been sufficient to include them in the appendix. Readers who do not have a profound knowledge of late imperial Chinese history might sometimes ask for more historical background and information about some of the less prominent historical actors. Although beyond the scope of this monograph, it would have been interesting to compare the development of agricultural science and education with the situation in other fields of knowledge and technical education to place the case of agriculture in an even larger context. The question of how the attempts to introduce agricultural science in China also affected agricultural practice remains largely unanswered. To be fair, however, this is not the focus of Li’s study.
In summary, Li Yindi’s study is an invaluable resource for readers interested in the development of agricultural science and the modernization of agriculture. Despite its narrow focus, this rich monograph will also be rewarding reading for those with a broader interest in the modernization of the educational system and technical education in late imperial China.
[1] An exception is: Wei Luling 魏露苓, Yang li chu geng Hanjia tian: Wan Qing xifang nongye keji de renshi chuanru yu tuiguang 洋犁初耕汉家田:晚清西方农业科技的认识传入与推广, Guangzhou: Shijie tushu chuban Guangdong youxian gongsi 世界图书出版广东有限公司, 2012. Others discuss agricultural education rather briefly, e.g. Zhang Kai 章楷, Nongye gaijin shihua 农业改进史话, Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe 社会科学文献出版社, 2012.
[2] Following the book title, the reviewer has decided to translate nongxue 农学 as agricultural science instead of e.g. agronomy. Accordingly, nongye 农业 is translated as agricultural practice.
[3] Li Yindi mistakenly wrote in the 90s of the 20th century (20 世纪90年代…) (p. 45).
[4] See for example: Yang Chia-Ling & Roderick Whitfield, Lost Generation: Luo Zhenyu, Qing Loyalists and the Formation of Modern Chinese Culture. London: Saffron Books, 2012. Note that on page 203 Li Yindi quotes Tachibana Giichi 橘义一, a Japanese teacher of agriculture in the early 20th century, who criticizes that with Luo Zhenyu, a scholar of epigraphy had responsibilities for organizing agricultural education.
[5] This is a quote from Liang Qichao, “Nonghui bao xu 農會報序”, in Shiwu bao 時務報 23 (11.03.1897), p. 4B.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Joerg Henning Huesemann (November 30, 2022). [Review] 李尹蒂《晚清农学的兴起与困境》(Li Yindi: The Rise and Dilemma of Agricultural Science in Late Qing Dynasty). European Research Centre for Chinese Studies. Retrieved November 11, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/oha3