Canadian Academy Discover, Publish, Thrive
Philipp Franz von Siebold’s notes on acupuncture, unlike earlier European accounts, gained little attention upon his return to Holland in 1828. Siebold focused on the theories of Japanese acupuncturist Ishizaka Sōtetsu, who aimed to bridge Western and Sino-Japanese medicine. This essay explores Siebold’s encounter with Ishizaka, analyzes developments in Japanese acupuncture in the early 19th century, and discusses how Ishizaka integrated Western anatomy into acupuncture theories, influencing Siebold’s interest and contribution to spreading these ideas in Europe.
Introduction:
In 1826, during the Dutch’s quadrennial visit to the Tokugawa Shogun’s court in Edo, imperial acupuncture physician Ishizaka Sōtetsu met German surgeon Philipp Franz von Siebold in Nagasaki. Siebold, intrigued by acupuncture, requested Ishizaka to perform it on him, leaving a lasting impression. In return, Siebold offered to demonstrate a Western medical technique by cutting Ishizaka’s arm and stitching it up. This encounter initiated a significant academic relationship between a Western-educated doctor and an acupuncture expert.
Despite their collaboration, Siebold’s notes on acupuncture and moxibustion did not receive the same attention as earlier European descriptions. The article explores the overlooked contribution of Siebold and Ishizaka to the transmission of Sino-Japanese medicine to the West. Historically, acupuncture and moxibustion knowledge reached early modern Europe through Japan, facilitated by the Dutch East Indian Company physicians, while Chinese Jesuit writings transmitted other aspects of Chinese medicine.
The article uses rare materials from Leiden University Library, Leiden National Museum of Ethnology, and the Ishizaka family to reconstruct Siebold’s encounter with Ishizaka. It also examines the developments in Japanese acupuncture around the nineteenth century, focusing on Ishizaka’s integration of Western anatomy into Chinese acupuncture theories. This methodological shift allowed Ishizaka to engage in Japanese medical debates since the late seventeenth century. The article concludes by exploring Siebold’s interest in Ishizaka’s theories and his role in promoting acupuncture’s diffusion in Europe.
Siebold’s encounter with Ishizaka Sōtetsu:
In 1796, Siebold was born into a family of doctors in Würzburg, Bavaria. After studying medicine at the University of Würzburg, he joined the Dutch army as a surgeon in 1822 and was sent to Batavia. Recognized for his erudition, he was later dispatched to Dejima, an island in Nagasaki, to gather information on Japan. Siebold spent seven years collecting scientific data on Japanese culture, including acupuncture practices.
Siebold’s interest in Japanese acupuncture began when he encountered Ishizaka’s text, “Chiyō ichigen,” during a Dutch delegation trip in 1822. Ishizaka initially hesitated but eventually shared acupuncture principles with Siebold. The two corresponded, and Ishizaka gifted acupuncture needles to Siebold.
In 1826, they finally met in Edo during the Dutch Delegation’s trip to the Shogun court. Siebold aimed to introduce Ishizaka’s acupuncture theories to the Western audience, and the Dutch translation was published in 1833. Ishizaka believed in the potential for European adoption and improvement of acupuncture.
After their meetings, Ishizaka sent Siebold a manuscript on the moxibustion method and exchanged knowledge on medical practices. The last letter in their correspondence was in 1826, and Siebold likely focused on other aspects of Japanese culture after collecting enough material.
Siebold’s interest in Japanese medicine centered on acupuncture and moxibustion, particularly Ishizaka’s theories. To grasp Siebold’s interest, it’s crucial to explore Ishizaka’s theories in the context of developments in Japanese medicine in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
New knowledge as a means to recover ancient knowledge:
In 1774, Sugita Genpaku’s publication of “Kaitai shinsho” challenged traditional Japanese views on the human body rooted in Chinese medicine, marking a shift toward anatomy in medical practice. This influenced the development of Western medicine in Japan and established Edo as a center for Dutch studies. Ishizaka, a physician in the early 19th century, showed an early interest in Western medicine, self-teaching due to a lack of Dutch language proficiency. He later integrated Western anatomy into Chinese medicine, aiming to revive ancient medical traditions.
Ishizaka criticized Chinese commentators for corrupting medical texts and blamed Japanese peers for focusing too much on individual words. He also targeted Dutch medicine-trained physicians and acupuncture specialists. Ishizaka used Western anatomy to identify speculative theories and make invisible parts of the Chinese conceptualized human body visible. Unlike Suganuma’s critical approach to the Chinese tradition, Ishizaka adopted a more eclectic position, incorporating Western anatomy for new methodological tools.
Ishizaka’s medicine represents the latest development in Japanese physicians’ symbolic struggles to reinterpret Chinese medical texts during the Tokugawa period. He sought to recover the original content of Chinese classics using Western anatomy instead of the evidential scholarship methodology. Despite his genuine interest, Ishizaka never considered Western medicine superior to the Chinese tradition and criticized peers favoring “Barbarian” medicine.
Blood circulation, the nervous system and vessels in Ishizaka Sōtetsu’s acupuncture:
Ishizaka’s groundbreaking theories included integrating the Chinese concepts of nutritive (ei) and protective (e) qi into the Western blood system, aligning with anatomical terms like arteries and veins. His understanding of the blood system was influenced by Sugita Genpaku’s Kaitai shinsho. Additionally, Ishizaka revised the traditional Chinese concept of qi, proposing a unified ancestral qi corresponding to the Western nervous system.
In his work, Ishizaka attempted to bridge the gap between ancient Chinese and European medical thought by linking his theories to the nervous system. His approach to acupuncture involved adopting Western concepts and adapting them to fit the Chinese vessel theory. Classical Chinese language played a central role in overcoming the challenge of adapting Western terminology.
Ishizaka’s acupuncture theory, foreshadowing modernization, emphasized the inflammatory reaction following needle insertion, stimulating living qi and blood to expel pathogens. This departure from traditional acupuncture was notable for its focus on local application and expulsion of harmful agents.
Notably, Ishizaka’s early form of “medical bilingualism,” the ability to comprehend both Chinese and Western medical languages, explains the interest Siebold had in introducing Sino-Japanese acupuncture to Europe using Ishizaka’s writings.
Ishizaka Sōtetsu’s theories in the writings of Siebold:
In 1828, Siebold, a Dutch physician, was caught by Japanese authorities with maps obtained from court astronomer Takahashi Kageyasu, resulting in his house arrest, known as the Siebold incident. After being banished from Japan in 1829, Siebold settled in Leiden, cataloging a collection of items from Japan. His observations on Japanese acupuncture were published in 1833, divided into three parts. Siebold’s understanding of acupuncture, based on Ishizaka’s teachings, highlighted its application for diseases, local and direct use on affected body parts, reliance on inflammatory reactions, and specific needle limitations. He disagreed with Ishizaka on the needle’s impact, proposing a theory based on blood circulation changes.
Siebold’s notes on acupuncture were included in the 1897 German edition of his work “Nippon.” Notably, his interest in acupuncture, particularly Ishizaka’s approach, aimed to blend Western anatomy with acupuncture theory. Unlike earlier sources like Kaempfer and Rhjine, Siebold’s contribution remained largely unknown to his contemporaries until the publication of “Nippon.” This contrasted with the popularity of Kaempfer’s 1727 “History of Japan,” a bestseller that included appendices on acupuncture and moxibustion, becoming a widely cited source despite its flaws. In summary, Siebold’s unique perspective and integration of Western anatomy with Japanese acupuncture distinguish his contribution, though it remained overshadowed by earlier works in his time.
Epilogue : Why Siebold’s writings on acupuncture made no impact in Europe:
Rhjine and Kaempfer gained prominence in 17th-century European medical circles for their documentation on moxibustion. It wasn’t until the early 19th century that European physicians reevaluated their account of acupuncture. Moxibustion, resembling cautery, drew European attention, while there was reluctance to experiment with acupuncture, an unfamiliar method in Western medicine. Buschoff’s 1675 book on treating gout with moxa piqued European interest, leading to the popularity of moxibustion for gout, a prevalent ailment in 17th-century Europe. However, its popularity waned in the early 18th century due to inefficacy. While Rhjine and Kaempfer’s contributions were acknowledged in 1820s-1830s France, Siebold’s work on acupuncture and moxibustion was overlooked, partly due to unfortunate circumstances and language barriers. European interest in acupuncture resurged in the 1920s, driven by George Soulié de Morant’s translations of Chinese acupuncture textbooks.
Source:
Vigouroux, M. (2017). The surgeon’s acupuncturist: Philipp Franz von Siebold’s encounter with Ishizaka Sōtetsu and nineteenth century Japanese acupuncture. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 70, 79-108. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal–2017-1-page-79.htm.