Home > Documents > Imagining Harmony - Global Chaletlibrary.globalchalet.net/Authors/Poetry Books...

Imagining Harmony - Global Chaletlibrary.globalchalet.net/Authors/Poetry Books...

Date post: 09-Sep-2018
Category:
Author: ngonguyet
View: 231 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Embed Size (px)
of 304 /304
Transcript
  • Imagining Harmony

  • Imagining Harmonyp o e t r y , e m p a t h y , a n d c o m m u n i t y i n m i d - t o k u g a w a c o n f u c i a n i s m a n d n a t i v i s m

    Peter Flueckiger

    s t a n f o r d u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s

    s t a n f o r d , c a l i f o r n i a

  • Stanford University PressStanford, California

    2011 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

    No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-tronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written permission of Stanford University Press.

    Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    Flueckiger, Peter, 1970 Imagining harmony : poetry, empathy, and community in mid-Tokugawa Confucianism and nativism / Peter Flueckiger. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-8047-6157-4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Japanese poetry18th centuryHistory and criticismTheory, etc. 2. Literature and societyJapanHistory18th century. 3. Nativism in literature. 4. Culture in literature. 5. Philosophy, Confucian. I. Title. pl733.4.f58 2011 895.6'13209355dc22 2010013338

    Typeset by Bruce Lundquist in 11/14 Adobe Garamond

  • In memory of my father

  • Contents

    Acknowledgments ix

    Introduction 1

    1 Nature,Culture,andSocietyinConfucianLiteraryThought:ChineseTraditionsandTheirEarlyTokugawaReception 33

    2 TheConfucianWayasCulturalTransformation:OgySorai 61

    3 PoetryandtheCultivationoftheConfucianGentleman:TheLiteraryThoughtofOgySorai 90

    4 TheFragmentationoftheSoraiSchoolandtheCrisisofAuthenticity:HattoriNankakuandDazaiShundai 116

    5 KamonoMabuchiandtheEmergenceofaNativistPoetics 145

    6 MotooriNorinagaandtheCulturalConstructionofJapan 173

    Epilogue 210

    Character List 215

    Notes 233

    Bibliography 263

    Index 279

  • Acknowledgments

    IwouldliketothankfirstofallHaruoShiraneatColumbia,whoencour-agedme topursuepremodernJapanese literary studies, andguided thisprojectateverystage.IalsoreceivedinvaluableguidancefromKurozumiMakotoat theUniversityofTokyo,whosharedhisbroadknowledgeofOgySoraiandTokugawa intellectualhistory throughhis seminarsandcountlesspersonalconversations.MyunderstandingofSoraiisdeeplyin-debtedaswelltoHiraishiNaoakisrigorousseminarsonBendandBenmeiattheUniversityofTokyo.SeminarswithNagashimaHiroaki,attheUni-versityofTokyo, andSuzuki Jun, at theNational Institute for JapaneseLiterature,contributedtomyknowledgeofeighteenth-centurywakaandliteraticulture.IhavelearnedmuchaboutDazaiShundaifrommydiscus-sionswithKojimaYasunoriofInternationalChristianUniversity.

    TheperspectivesonmodernJapanthatIhavegainedfromPaulAnderer,KarataniKjin,andTomiSuzukihaveinformedmyinterpretationsofhowTokugawaliteratureandthoughtrelatetovariousmodernJapanesepoliti-calideologiesandconceptionsofculturalidentity.IowemuchaswelltoMartinKern,PaulRouzer,andWeiShang,whoprovidedthetraininginClassicalChineselanguageandliteraturethatmadeitpossibleformetopursueresearchonChineseliterarythoughtandTokugawaConfucianism.

    SinceIcametoPomonaCollegein2003,mycolleaguesintheDepart-mentofAsianLanguagesandLiteraturesandtheAsianStudiesProgramhaveprovidedasupportiveenvironmentformydevelopmentasateacherandscholar.IamparticularlyindebtedtoSamYamashitafornotonlybeingavaluablementorandcolleague,butalsosharinghisexpertiseonOgySoraiandTokugawaintellectualhistory,andpainstakinglyreviewingmyentiremanuscript.

  • a c k n o w l e d g m e n t sx

    ThecommentsfromthereadersforStanfordUniversityPresswereveryhelpfultomeinrevisingmymanuscript.IwouldalsoliketothankCarolynBrown,StacyWagner,JessicaWalsh,andtheotherstaffatStanfordwhosteeredmethroughthepublicationprocess.EileenCheng,AriLevine,KiriParamore,andMorganPitelkaallreviewedportionsofthemanuscriptatvariousstages,andIamgratefultothemfortheircandidfeedbackandsug-gestionsforimprovement.

    Portions of Chapters 1 and 3 appeared in The Shijing inTokugawaAncient Learning, in Monumenta Serica 55 (2007). Portions of Chap-ter5 appearedinReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry:KamonoMabuchisKokuik, inMonumenta Nipponica63, no.2 (Autumn2008).Iamgratefultotheeditorsfortheirpermissiontousethismaterial.

    ResearchonthisprojectinJapanfrom2000to2002wasfundedbyaFulbrightIIEFellowship.Inthesummerof2004Iwasabletoconductfur-therresearchinJapanthankstoagrantIreceivedthroughPomonaCollegefundedbytheFreemanFoundation.AJapanFoundationShort-TermRe-searchFellowshipmadeitpossibleformetoreturntoJapanagaintoworkonthisprojectinthesummerof2006.

  • Imagining Harmony

  • Introduction

    Adistinctive featureofmucheighteenth-century Japanesephilosophicalandpoliticaldiscourseistheprominentplaceitgavetopoetryinimagin-ingtheidealsociety.TheoriesaboutpoetryhadlongbeenusedinJapantotalkaboutissuesbeyondthecompositionofpoetryitself,butthistendencybecameespeciallypronouncedintheeighteenthcentury.Manywritersofthistimeviewedemotionalityastheessentialtruthofhumannature,andclaimed thatpoetryhadaunique capacity to express andcommunicateauthenticemotions.Theyalsovaluedpoetryasavehicleforaccessingthelanguagesandculturesofthepast.Theylookedtoidealizedvisionsofan-cientChinaorJapanasthesourceofaWay(michi)thatcouldbeusedtogiveordertosociety,andinvestigatedthesehistoricalculturesthroughthephilologicalanalysisofancienttexts.Theysawpoetry,specificallyclassicalgenresineitherChineseorJapanese,asthepurestformofancientlanguage,makingthestudyandcompositionofsuchpoetryacrucialcomponentofphilological training.Theyvalued such languagenotonly as a scholarlytool,butalsoforhowitembodiedaestheticqualitiesandculturalformsthatcouldputpeopleofthepresentintouchwithnormativelycorrectculturesfromthepast.Theiremphasisonpoetryasawaytobecomeimmersedin

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    ancientlanguagesandculturesgaverisetowhatcouldbecalledaneoclassi-calapproachtocomposition,inwhichtheycomposedpoetrybyimitatingcanonicalmodelsfromthepast.

    This study investigates how eighteenth-century Japanese writers, bydescribingpoetryasbothavehicleforemotionalexpressionandasourceoflinguisticandculturalknowledge,integratedpoetryintotheirvisionsofpoliticalcommunity.ItwasaboveallinthephilosophyoftheConfucianscholarOgySorai(16661728)thataninterestinhistoricalcultureswascombinedwithanemphasisonemotionalityinthisway.Sorai,thesubjectofChapters2and3,arguedthatConfucianismshouldbeunderstoodasaphilosophyofrulership,ratherthanameansforpersonalmoralcultivation,andhenotonlygeneratednovelandinfluentialinterpretationsoftheCon-fucianclassics,butalsoformulateddetailedproposalsforpoliticalreform.HesawthestudyandcompositionofclassicalChinesepoetrybythegov-erningeliteaskeytothepracticeoftheConfucianWay,andhisviewswereinheritedandmodifiedbyhisdisciples,whomIdiscussinChapter4,suchasDazaiShundai(16801747),whofurtherdevelopedhisideasonConfu-ciangovernment,andHattoriNankaku(16831759),whowasmostfamousasapoet.TheSoraischoolsawChinaasthesourceofcultureandciviliza-tion,andtheywerecriticizedintheeighteenthcenturybyscholars,oftenreferredtoinEnglish-languagescholarshipasnativists,whoarguedforthesuperiorityofancientJapanesecultureandsawChinaashavingcorruptedJapansoriginalvirtues.1Thetwomostprominenteighteenth-centurynativ-istswereKamonoMabuchi(16971769),whomIwriteaboutinChapter5,andMotooriNorinaga(17301801),thesubjectofChapter6,bothofwhomsharedwithSoraiabeliefintheimportanceofpoetryinachievingaharmo-nioussociety,butarguedthatonlyJapanesepoetrycouldplaysucharole.

    Whenexaminingthesefiguresliterarythought,itisnotonlythegreatimportance they place on poetry that stands out, but also the diversityofrolesthattheyassigntoit,evenwithinthetheoriesofasinglewriter.Theserolescanattimesevenseemtorepresentconflictingvisionsofpoetry,especiallywhenitcomestohowtheemotionalexpressivenessofpoetryre-latestoitsotherroles.Thesamewriterswhoextolledauthenticemotionsoftendemandedthattheseemotionsconformtoanarrowsetofclassicalpoeticmodels,andwhiletheyrejectedtheapplicationofmoraljudgmentstotheemotionsexpressedinpoetry,theystilltiedpoetrytoanormativeWaymeant togiveorder tosociety.Manymodernscholars, as Idiscussbelow,haveviewedthesejuxtapositionsofidealsascontradictionsthatarose

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    fromtheincipientbutincompletemodernityofeighteenth-centuryliterarythought.Suchinterpretationsidentifythecentralityofemotionsasachar-acteristicallymodernaspectoftheSoraischoolandnativism,whiletakingtheirneoclassicalliteraryidealsandtheirpoliticalapplicationsofpoetryasdetractionsfromthisemphasisonemotions,andsignsoftheirfailuretoentirelycastoffpremodernrestrictionsonemotionalexpression.

    ItakeadifferentapproachinthatIseethecombinationofthesediverseelementsintheoriesofpoetryfromthistimenotasacontradictionorasignofthesetheoriesincompletedevelopment,butinsteadasaproductofaspe-cifictypeofdiscourseineighteenth-centuryJapanontheroleofcultureasaunifyingforce.WhenJapaneseintellectualsofthistimelookedtoancientculturesasthesourceofanormativeWay,theytypicallydefinedthevalueofsuchaWayintermsofitsabilitytostructuresocietyasawholethatex-ceedsthesumofitsparts,sothatindividualsandtheirrelationshipstakeonmeaningthroughtheirincorporationintoatotalitythattranscendsthem.Thisvisionofsocietywasmotivatedbyanuneasethesefiguresexpressedwithlivinginaworldtheyperceivedasfragmented.Suchaperceptionhadmuchtodowiththetransformationsbroughtaboutbyurbanandcom-mercialgrowthintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,whichmadeitincreasinglydifficulttogoverneffectivelywiththepoliticalstructuresoftheTokugawaregime,premisedastheywereonafeudalagrarianeconomypresided over by the samurai class. Urban commoners (chnin), despitetheireconomicprosperity,lackedpoliticalpower,whilesamurai,whohadthemselvesbecomeurbanized,foundtheirfixedricestipendsnoguaranteeoffinancialstabilityinacomplexcommercialeconomy,asthepurchasingpowerofthesestipendsfluctuatedgreatlydependingonmarketconditions.Bothcommonersandsamuraisearchedfornewwaysofdefiningthebasisofaharmoniousandwell-governedsociety,andtheyoftenframedtheiref-fortsintermsoftherestorationofalostwholenessthattheyimaginedhadexistedinancientChinaorJapan,whenhumanrelationshipswereassumedtobemorestableandmeaningfulthaninthedegradedpresent.

    Thisnotionofaculturalunitywasanalternative to themetaphysicalunityofferedbytheConfucianismoftheSongdynasty(9601279)scholarZhuXi(11301200),acommontargetofcriticismamongtheeighteenth-centurywritersIdiscuss.2AccordingtoZhuXisphilosophy,allthingsinthecosmosareunitedinasinglemoralorder(theWay)throughtheirpos-sessionofauniversalprinciple(Ch.li,Jp.ri ).PrincipleisequatedwithHeaven (Ch.tian, Jp.ten), thehighest sourceof authority,while at the

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    same timebeing inherent in the originalnature (Ch.benran zhi xing,Jp.honzen no sei )ofeachindividualhuman.Thisoriginalnatureisthees-sentialcoreofwhatitmeanstobehuman,andischaracterizedbyperfectvirtue.ZhuXisnotionofuniversalprinciplethuslinksthehumannatureofeachindividualtothenormsthatgovernthevarioustotalitiesfamilial,political,andcosmicwithinwhichtheindividualissituated.ManyofhisTokugawacritics,though,arguedthatsocialandpoliticalunitycouldonlycomeaboutthroughthemediationofculturalnormsexternaltoandtran-scendinghumannature.ZhuXisideaofauniversalprincipleinherentinhumannature,theycharged,merelyencouragedpeopletoasserttheirownsubjectiveprejudicesasuniversallyvalid,leadingtothefragmentationandstrifethatplaguedtheirworld.

    ThisreplacementofametaphysicalWaywithaculturalonewasaccom-paniedbyashiftfromZhuXisviewofamorallydefinedhumannaturetoanotionofhumannatureasbeingatcoreemotional.InZhuXissystem,moralityandemotionalityareinterpretedthroughthenotionsofprincipleandmaterialforce(Ch.qi,Jp.ki).Inthisschema,universalprincipleisthesourceofallthingsparticipationintheWay,butonlyexistsonthelevelofabstractvalue;whatallowsthingstocomeintobeingintheirphysicalconcretenessisthematerialforcewithwhichtheyareendowed,whichisdifferentforallthings.Principlecannotexistwithoutmaterialforce,butat thesametimeprinciplemaintainsaphilosophicalpriorityovermate-rialforce,asprincipleisthesourceofnormativecorrectness,whilematerialforceisonlygoodtotheextentthatitfacilitatestheexpressionofprinciple.Inhumans,principleisrepresentedbysuchvirtuesashumaneness(Ch.ren,Jp.jin)andrightness(Ch.yi,Jp.gi ),whilematerialforceisrepresentedbytheemotions(Ch.qing,Jp. j).Emotionsareanecessaryvehicleforthemanifestationofvirtues,buttheyareatthesametimepotentiallydanger-ous,asunregulatedemotionscanobscurepeoplesinnervirtueandpreventitfrombeingputintopractice.Whileitispossibleforemotionstobemor-allygood,thisgoodnessisalwaysdefinedthroughtheconformityofemo-tionstoanunderlyingmoralprinciplethatfindsexpressioninthem.

    ProponentsofaculturalconceptionoftheWayineighteenth-centuryJapandeniedtheexistenceofthemorallyperfectoriginalnaturepositedbyZhuXi,insteaddefininghumannatureinemotionalterms,andtakingZhuXitotaskforsuppressingthisnature.3Atthesametime,thesecriticsofZhuXithemselvessawemotionsasinneedofregulationandsocialization,andtheirlackoffaithinaninnermoralperfection,whichhadplayedsuch

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    aregulatoryrole forZhuXi,madethemturn insteadtoculturalnormsexternaltohumannature.ThisshifttoaculturallydefinedWayandaviewofhumannatureasemotional,however,complicatedtherelationshipbe-tweentheWayandhumannatureforeighteenth-centurywriters.ItwasimportantforthemthattheancientculturestheyidentifiedwiththeWaybelinkedtohumannature,aswithoutsuchalinkthesecultureswouldbeartificialconstructsthatwouldruntheriskofalienatingpeoplefromtheirauthenticbeing.ForZhuXitherehadbeenadirectconnectionbetweentheWayandhumannature,astheuniversalprinciplethatdefinedtheWayforhimwasitselftheinnermostessenceofthisnature.Forhiseighteenth-centurycritics,though,theintegrationofhumannaturewiththeWayin-volvedbringingtogetherdissimilarthings.Or,totheextentthatculturalnormswereidentifiedwithhumannature,astheywerewithmanynativists,thiswasseenasanaturefromwhichpeoplehadbecomealienated,mean-ingthattheycouldneverregainitthroughtheirownnaturalemotions,butratherneededtosubjecttheseemotionstotrainingthroughexternalcul-turalforms.Thewaysinwhicheighteenth-centurywritersnegotiatedthegapbetweenanemotionallydefinedhumannatureandaculturallybasedWaythenrepresented,Iwillargue,differentmethodsoftheorizingthein-corporationofindividualsintoasocialwhole,entailingcertainvisionsofthebasisofcommunityandthepossibilitiesforpoliticalsubjectivitywithinsuchacommunity.

    Onetypeofconnectionthateighteenth-centurywritersdrewbetweentheWayandhumanemotionswastodepictthenormsoftheWayashav-ingbeencreatedbytakingintoconsiderationthenaturalemotionsofthosewhoaremeant to follow it. In this view, theWay isnot identical toordirectlyderivedfromtheemotionalnatureofhumans,butneithercanitcontradictthisnature.Inotherwords,whiletheWayiscultural,thiscul-turemustworkwithincertainlimitationsimposedbyahumannaturethatexistsoutsideofit.Another,morecomplexdimensiontotherelationshipbetweentheWayandhumanemotionsemergedoutoftheideathattheWaynotonlytakesaccountofpreexistingnaturalemotions,butalsotrans-formsandsocializestheemotionsofthosewhoareimmersedintheWay,turningtheiremotionsthemselvesintosomethingculturallyconstructed.Theculturalconstructionofemotions,moreover,worksthroughavirtu-ousfeedbackloop,inwhichtheemotionsnurturedbyaculturalWayareinturnasourceofthisculturescohesiveness.Sorai,forexample,believedthat livingwithin the feudal social arrangementsestablishedby the sage

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    kingscausespeopletodevelopfeelingsofaffectionforeachother,whichthenprovidesuchasocietywithanorganicunity lackinginimpersonal,law-basedsocieties.Evenwheneighteenth-centurywriterssawemotionsasculturallyformed,though,theystilltypicallyconnectedtheseinsomewaytonaturalemotions,suchaswithSoraisargumentthathumanshaveanin-natetendencytowardmutualaffectionandcooperation,atendencythattheWayofthesagesharnessesanddevelopsinordertoachieveformsofsocietythatpeople,despitetheirgenerallyvirtuousinstincts,wouldnotbeabletoarriveatoftheirownspontaneousaccord.

    Iseetheprominenceofpoetryineighteenth-centurydiscourseasowingmuch tohow itwasviewedascapableof simultaneouslyembodyinganemotionalhumannatureandculturallydefinedsocialnorms.Bystraddlingthedividebetweenhumannatureandculture,poetrycametoserveasasiteofcontestationforquestionsofhowpeoplearemeanttobecultivatedbyculturalnorms,wherethesourceofthesenormslegitimacylies,andwhatkindofagencypeoplecanexerciseinrelationtothem.Thisnegotiationoftherelationshipbetweenhumannatureandculturetookplacemostnota-blyinthefrequentdebatesoverhownaturalemotionsinpoetryrelatetobothpoeticstandardsfromthepastandpoliticalapplicationsforpoetry.Whilethesedebatesoftenshowaconcernforhowauthenticemotionalitycancomeintoconflictwithotherelementsandfunctionsofpoetry,Iarguethatitismisleadingtoviewsuchconcernssimplyintermsofaquestforemotionalliberation,asthisinterpretationoverlookshowastronginterestinbothemotionalityandthenormsthatregulateandsocializeitwereout-growthsofacommondiscourse,andthusinextricablylinked.Toputitan-otherway,valuingemotionsdidnotnecessarilyamounttoliberatingthem.

    Thesephilosophicaldiscussionsofpoetryaremyprimaryfocus,althoughtheywerenottheonlyreasonforthestronginterestinclassicalformsofChineseandJapanesepoetry in theeighteenth century.Formanyof itspractitioners,suchpoetryservedprimarilyasaformofculturalcapitalthatallowedthemtoimaginethemselvesasbelongingtoaworldofelegance,aswellastoformcommunitiesbasedonthissharedworldofelevatedliterarytaste,suchasthroughthecompositionofpoetryinvarioussocialsettings.Thesociologicalcontextofpoeticcompositionintheeighteenthcenturyisacomplextopicinvolvingsuchphenomenaasliteratinetworksandprivateacademies,afulltreatmentofwhichmeritsastudyofitsown.4Ido,how-ever,touchonthegeneraloutlinesofhowphilosophicalideasaboutpoetryintersectedwiththerolethatitplayedasculturalcapitalfordifferentfigures

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    andtheirfollowers,suchaswithSoraisideaofpoetryasameansofeducat-inganeliteclassofgentlemanscholarsandmakingthemfittogovern.

    Becauseofmyspecificfocusontheeighteenth-centurydiscourserepre-sentedbytheSoraischoolandnativism,Idonotattempttogiveacom-prehensiveaccountofTokugawatheoreticalwritingsonwakaorkanshi,orstylisticdevelopments in thesegenresduringthisperiod.A recentwork,Roger Thomas The Way of Shikishima, surveys waka poetry and poeticsovertheentireTokugawaperiod.Thisstudyoverlapstosomedegreewithmyown,butIwriteaboutanarrowergroupoffigures ingreaterdepth,particularly inmyexplorationof the relationshipofdiscourseonpoetryineighteenth-centuryJapantobothcontemporaryandearlierConfucianphilosophicalandliterarydiscourses.Astudythatprovidesabroadcover-ageofTokugawakanshi iscriture, lecture et posie,byMarguerite-MarieParvulesco,who,whiletouchingonsomeofthephilosophicalissuesthatIdiscuss,analyzesthispoetrymainlyfromaliterarystandpoint.5

    Myapproachputsmyworkinasomewhatambiguouspositionbetweenliterarystudiesandintellectualhistory,butIwouldarguethatthesedisci-plinarydivisionsofthemodernacademyareabarriertograspingthefullimportofTokugawadiscourseonpoetry.Acentralcontentionofthisbookis thatweneed to take seriously theways inwhichwritersof this timecombinedpoetrywithculturalandintellectualpursuitsthattothemodernreaderlieoutsidetherubricofliterature,ratherthandismissingsuchef-fortsasevidenceofthesefiguresfailuretograspsomepurportedessenceofwhatpoetryorliteratureshouldbe.Thesewriterssawpoetryasembodyingqualities thatcontributedtotheidealsociety,anditwasonlynatural tothemtointegratepoetrywithothermeansforachievingsuchasociety,suchashistoricalstudy,theexegesisoftheConfucianclassics,music,ordevotiontotheShintogods,andtousediscourseonpoetrytoengageinphilosophi-calexplorationsofthebasisofgoodgovernanceandsocialharmony.

    Ogy Sorai and his Tokugawa Antecedents

    OgySoraiisfamousfordeclaringthattheConfucianWaywascreatedbytheancientkings,andisnottheWayexistingspontaneouslyinHeaven-and-Earth,andthatitwascreatedforthepurposeofbringingpeacetotherealm.6HisideaofahumanlycreatedWaywhoseessenceliesintheprac-ticeofeffectivegovernancewasdirectedagainsttheideas,presentinmanyinterpretationsofConfucianisminJapanatthetime,thattheWayisthe

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    manifestationofacosmicornaturalorder,orofametaphysicalprinciple,andthatthepurposeoftheWayistopromotethemoralperfectionoftheindividual.7Sorai saw thequest formoralpurityasconstraininghumannature,ratherthanbringingittocompletion,andarguedthattheauthen-ticConfucianWaydidnottrytodenytheimperfectionsanddiversityofhumannature.

    WhileSorais interpretationofConfucianismrepresenteda significantnewintellectualparadigmineighteenth-centuryJapan,manyaspectsofhisphilosophywereprefiguredbyearlierdevelopmentsinTokugawaphilosophyandliterature.Soraiandothereighteenth-centuryfigures,forexample,werecriticaloftheapplicationofmoraljudgmentstotheemotionsexpressedinpoetry,astheybelievedsuch judgmentsmakeit impossibletoencounterpeopleinthefullrealityoftheirhumanity,insteadreducingthemtorigidcategoriesofgoodandbad.Indiscussinghumanemotionsinthisway,theywereparticipatinginawidespreaddiscourseonemotionsintheTokugawaperiod,onethatsoughtmoreauthenticformsofhumanexperience,inter-personalrelationships,andcommunalidentitybyappealingtoemotional-ityas thebasic reality thatwassuppressedbyexistingsocialconventionsandpoliticalstructures.8Inpopularliterature,forexample,thedomestic-lifeplays(sewamono)ofChikamatsuMonzaemon(16531724)depicturbancommonercharacterswhofindtrueloveinsociallyprohibitedrelationships,bringinghumanemotions(ninj)intoconflictwiththedemandsofduty(giri ).Chikamatsusplayspresentsuchconflictsasirresolvableinthisworld,leavingthecharacterswithnochoicebuttoseekescapeinlovesuicide,withthepromisethattheloverscanatleastbetogetherinthenextworld.Alatergenrethatstresseshumansentimentistheninjbon(booksofhumanemo-tions)of theearlynineteenthcentury,themost famouswriterofwhichwasTamenagaShunsui(17901843).Unlikethetragicfiguresoflovesuicideplays,though,the lovers inninjbonareabletoresolvetheconflictsthatkeepthemapart,providingafantasyworldinwhichemotionsdonotneces-sarilyhavetobesuppressedinfavorofsocialcompliance.

    InTokugawaphilosophicaldiscourse,positiveviewsofhumanemotionswereoftenpresentedascritiquesofthephilosophyofZhuXi.AnumberofearlyTokugawaConfucianscriticizedhimforputtingtoomuchempha-sisonprincipleattheexpenseofmaterialforce,andasaresultfailingtorecognizetheimportanceofactivityandvitality,includingtheemotionallivesofhumans.InhisTaigiroku(1713),forexample,KaibaraEkiken(16301714)writes,Principleandmaterialforcearenecessarilyasinglething.The

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    reasonIcannotfollowZhuXiisbecauseofhowhemakesprincipleandmaterialforceouttobetwoseparatethings.9HearguesthatSongConfu-ciansmakenothingnessthebasisofexistence(p.13),andinthisregardtheirtheoriesarenotbasedonConfuciusandMencius,butrathercomefromBuddhismandDaoism(p.14).ItJinsai(16271705)attacksZhuXisideaofprinciplealongsimilarlines,writing,ThetermtheWayisalivingword,asitdescribesthewonderofconstantgenerationandtransformation.Termslikeprinciplearedeadwords....ThesagestakeHeaven-and-Earthtobealivingthing.. . .LaozitakesemptinesstobetheWay,andviewsHeaven-and-Earthasadeadthing.10JinsaitakesissuewithZhuXisviewofhumanemotionality,arguingthatitisinfactnotanauthenticConfucianteachingatall,butrathercomesfromtheDaoistbeliefthatallthingscomeintobeingfromnothingness,andthattoreturntothisnothingnessitisnecessarytoextinguishdesiresandreturntotheinbornnature.11BothJinsaiandEkikenclaimedthatZhuXistheorizingdistortedtheConfucianWaybymakingitabstruseandlofty,wheninfact,theyargued,itwassome-thingthatanyonecouldeasilypractice.Jinsaiwasfromamerchantclassbackground,andEkiken,whileofsamuraioriginshimself,producedmanyworksgearedtowardapopularaudience.Theirinterestinhumanemotionsandeverydaylifecanbeseen,then,muchlikeChikamatsusplays,asanat-tempttovalidatethelivesofcommonersandtochallenge,evenifnottheactuallegitimacyoftheTokugawaregime,atleastitsclaimtoauthorityoverallaspectsofitssubjectslives.

    SoraisharedthebeliefoffigureslikeEkikenandJinsaithattheConfucianWay,properlyconceived,treatshumansasactive,emotionalbeings,andlikethemcriticizedZhuXifordefiningtheWayintermsofastaticpurity.HeexpresseddissatisfactionwithJinsai,though,forthinkingthattheWaycouldbeachievedthroughtheoutwardextensionofqualitiesinherentintheself.JinsaihadsoughttoremedytheperceivedsolipsismandsubjectivismofZhuXisphilosophybyreplacingitsinwardorientation,whichlocatedtheWayinthepurificationof the individual self,withanexternalorientation, inwhichtheWaycouldonlyexistwithinactualinterpersonalrelationships.12SoraipraisedJinsaiforhiscriticismsofZhuXi,butthoughtthatJinsaididnotgofarenough,andstillfellwithinthesamesubjectivisttrapasZhuXi.Totrulyescapesubjectivism,Soraibelieved, itwasnecessarynotonly tocultivatetheWaythroughactivesocialrelationships,butalsotostructuretheserelationshipsthroughtheobjectivestandardsprovidedbythehistori-calexamplesof theancientChinesesagekings.Inthisway,Soraiframes

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    hisownviewsinrelationtothoseofZhuXiandJinsai,eachofwhommore-overrepresentsforhimbroadertendenciesinSongandMing(13681644)dynastyConfucianism,oneemphasizingquietudeandprinciple,andtheotheractivityandemotionality.

    Soraispresentationoftheproblemofsubjectivismreflectsadifferentat-titudefromJinsaistowardtheemergenceofanurbancommercialcultureintheTokugawaperiod.WhileJinsaiscritiqueofZhuXis subjectivismwaspartofanattempttodefinethisdynamicurbansocietyasalocusofethicalcultivation,Soraisappealtothenormsofthesagekingsreflectshisprofounduneasewiththissameurbansociety,ashesawtheWayofthesagesasacorrectivetotheinfiltrationofmerchantvalues.SoraiwasoneofanumberofTokugawaintellectualswhotriedtosolidifythepositionofthesamuraiasagoverningelite,andprovideamorepragmaticvisionofruler-shipthanthatofferedbythemoralidealismofZhuXi.KumazawaBanzan(16191691),inhisDaigaku wakumon,proposesanextensiveseriesofpo-liticalandeconomicreformsthathesawasnecessarytorescueTokugawasociety,andemphasizestheneedforrulerstogobeyondjustmoralpurity:Eventhougharulermayhaveahumaneheart, ifhedoesnotpracticehumanegovernment,thisisemptyvirtue.13Healsopointsouttheneedtorelyonnormspasseddownfromtheancientsages,commentingthatjustasevenahighlyskilledcarpentermustmakeuseofacompassandsquare,greatrulerstoomustgraspthemethodsoftheancientkings(sen no h)iftheyaretogoverntherealmeffectively(p.416).Atthesametime,thesemethodsneedtobeappliedwithaneyetothespecificcircumstances inwhich they are tobepracticed,whichBanzanexpresses as time,place,and rank, and historical changes and human emotions (p. 416). Forthisreason,eventhoughthemethodsoftheancientkingsarerecordedintheclassicsandcommentaries,theyareultimatelydifficulttoexpressonpaper(p.416).AlthoughBanzansconcernforpolicymakingisquitediffer-entfromthephilosophiesofEkikenandJinsai,then,heisliketheminhisconcernforengagingwiththedynamicrealityofsociety.14

    YamagaSok(16221685),anotherfigureconcernedwithproperruler-ship,adaptedConfucianismtodefinetheroleofthesamuraiasamilitaryelite.Hewroteatatimewhenthesamuraiclasswasbeingtransformedintoacivilbureaucracy,butsawitasimportantforsamuraitoupholdmartialvaluesinordertomaintaintheirdistinctiveroleasmoralleadersinsoci-ety.Sok,likethefiguresdiscussedabove,madeapointofaffirmingtheemotionalnatureofhumans,notingthattheoriesofbeingwithoutdesires

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    forthemostpartcomefromBuddhismandDaoism.15Heisalsosimilartotheseotherfigures inrejectingtheideaofConfucianismasaformofesotericmetaphysics,arguingthattheteachingsofthesagesconsistsimplyoftheeveryday.16HefaultsZhuXiforpresentingadistortedviewofCon-fucianism,andwritesthatintheSongthelearningofthesageschangedgreatly,andwhilescholarswereConfucianonthesurface,inrealitytheydeviatedfromConfucianism.17SokseesthislossoftrueConfucianteach-ingsastheculminationofaprocessthathadbeengoingonsincetheHandynasty(206b.c.a.d.220),andhisdesiretoreturntopre-Haninterpreta-tionsofConfucianismisapointhehadincommonwithbothJinsaiandSorai,whichhasledtothethreeofthembeinglabeledasadvocatesofAn-cientLearning(kogaku).18

    IhaveprovidedonlyaveryroughsketchofearlyTokugawaConfucianswhoseideasoverlapwiththoseofSorai,butwecanseethathisconcernforpropergovernmentas thecontentofConfucianism,hisemphasisontheactiveandemotionalcharacterofhumans,andhisphilologicalorientationwerefarfromunprecedentedintheTokugawaperiod.Muchofhisoriginal-itylayinhowheelaboratedthephilosophicalconceptsdescribedaboveinnewdirections,suchasinhisviewsontherelationshipbetweenhumanna-tureandsocialnorms,arelationshipinwhichpoetry,asavehicleforeducat-ingrulersintheemotionsofthosetheygovern,playedanimportantrole.HewasalsodistinctiveinTokugawaJapanforthestrongliteraryconsciousnessthatinformedhisphilology.HisearliestrenownasascholarcamethroughhisstudiesoftheChineselanguageandtheproblemoftranslation,andhisviewson ancientChinesedeveloped further throughhis encounterwiththewritingsoftheMingliterarymovementknownasAncientPhraseology(Ch.guwenci,Jp.kobunji),theleadersofwhichwereLiPanlong(15141570)andWangShizhen(15261590).TheseMingwritersstrovetoenterintothelanguageof thepastbyclosely imitatinganarrow literarycanon,anap-proachthatSoraifollowedinhisownpoetry,whichwasbasedheavilyontheHighTangpoetryextolledbytheAncientPhraseologypoets.19MingAncientPhraseologyhadbeenaprimarilyliterarymovement,butSoraiex-tendedthesewritersviewsonlanguagetothestudyoftheConfucianWay,portrayingthelinguisticconsciousnessgainedthroughpoeticcompositionasameanstoaccessingthehistoricalculture,recordedintheConfucianclas-sics,thathesawasthesourceoftheWay.Soraisscholarlyparadigmwasthendevelopedinnewdirectionsbyeighteenth-centurynativistssuchasMabuchiandNorinaga.WhilenativistswerecriticalofSoraisadulationofChinese

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    culture,arguingthatitwasancientJapan,notChina,thatshouldbeturnedtoformodelsofgovernmentandliteraryexpression,theysharedwithSoraiabeliefintheneedtoaccessancientculturesbyinhabitingtheirlinguisticandliteraryworlds,andanemphasisonthestudyandcompositionofancientpoetryasameanstosuchacommunionwiththepast.

    Maruyama Masao on Sorais Modernity

    SoraiwasbroughttoprominenceinpostwarscholarshipprimarilythroughMaruyamaMasaosseminalNihon seiji shisshi kenky(StudiesintheHis-toryofJapanesePoliticalThought),andvirtuallyallpostwarinterpretationsofSoraiengageinsomewaywithMaruyamaswork.20Maruyamaarguesthatbyseeingsocialnormsashumanlyconstructed rather thannatural,andshiftingthecontentoftheConfucianWayfrommoralitytopolitics,SoraicreatedthebeginningsofamodernpoliticalconsciousnessinJapan.HedoesnotgosofarastoclaimthatSoraicreatedafullymodernpoliticalphilosophy,andinfactstresseshowSoraiidealizedfeudalsocialrelation-shipsandstrove tobuttress theTokugawa regime.Hispoint, though, isthatSorai,inhisefforttoupholdanincreasinglyfragilefeudalsocialorder,unwittinglyintroducedapoliticallogicthatwasforeigntothisorder,andwouldultimatelyworktoundermineit.AlthoughhemainlytreatsSoraiasapoliticalphilosopher,healsodiscusseshowSoraispoliticalphilosophygivesrisetowhatMaruyamaportraysasacharacteristicallymodernvisionofliterature,oneinwhichliteratureisconceivedofasthefreeexpressionoftheemotionalinteriorityoftheindividual.

    MaruyamaapproachesSoraispoliticalmodernityfromtwomaindirec-tions.First,hearguesthatthenotionofthepoliticalorderasinvention(sakui )ratherthannature(shizen)isthedecisivebreakthatSoraimadewithZhuXi, forwhomthepoliticalorder, thecosmicornaturalorder,andtheinnermoralvirtueofhumansareallregulatedbyasingleuniversalprinciple.Maruyamaargues thatZhuXis systemadheres toa logic inwhichsocialhierarchiesandothernormsgoverninghumansocietyareman-ifestationsofastaticnaturalorder,andthusarenotsubjecttochangebyhumanagents.Bydepictingsocialnormsashumanconstructs,Maruyamamaintains,Soraiintroducesapoliticallogicinwhichsocialbondsareseenascontingentratherthannecessary.MaruyamausesthesociologicalnotionsofGemeinschaftandGesellschafttointerpretthiscontrastbetweenZhuXiandSorai,arguingthatSoraispoliticalphilosophyrepresentsamovement

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    awayfromaconsciousnessofsocietyasGemeinschaft,inotherwordsasanorganiccommunityofimmutablesocialarrangementsthatareexperiencedbytheindividualasanecessarygiven,towardaconsciousnessofsocietyasGesellschaft,inotherwordsasmadeupofcontractualbondsenteredintofreelybyautonomousindividualsforthepursuitofparticularinterests,aviewthatMaruyamaseesascharacteristicofmodernbourgeoissociety.21

    InhissecondargumentforSoraismodernity,MaruyamaemphasizeshispoliticizationofConfucianism,bywhichhemeansnotjustthatSoraiseesConfucianismasatoolforgovernment,butmorespecificallythathetakesuppoliticsasanautonomoussphereofactivity,ratherthanasanextensionofmorality.22PartandparcelofthisiswhatMaruyamacallsSoraisexternal-izationoftheConfucianWay.InonesensethisreferstohowforSoraitheWayisembodiedininstitutionsthathavetheiroriginsoutsideofhumannature,butmoreimportantly,MaruyamaarguesthatSoraiseestheWayasonlyconcernedwiththeexternalbehaviorofpeople,andnotwiththeirinnerprivatelives,suchastheiremotionsortheirpersonalmoralvalues.Hemaintainsthatthisisanimportantcriterioninthedevelopmentofamodernpoliticalconsciousness,writingthatnonmodern,ormoreproperlyspeakingpremodernthoughtdoesnotgenerallyrecognizetheoppositionbetween thepublicand theprivate,and thatthe independenceof thepublicsphereinallareasofculturalactivity,whichatthesametimeentailstheliberationoftheprivatesphere,issurelyanimportantdistinguishingcharacteristicofthemodern.23

    Maruyamaconnectsthisdepictionofmodernizationtoliteraturebyas-sertingthatafterSoraishiftedtheConfucianWayawayfromZhuXisideaofmoralnormsrootedinhumannature,andtowardpoliticalnormsthatlieoutsidehumannature,theonlythingthatcouldrushintofillthisinterior,privatespherethathadbeenemptiedoutbytheexternalizationoftheWaywasthenaturalhumanemotionalitythathadbeensuppressedbythemoralrationalismofZhuXi(pp.10910).Thisaffirmationofemotionsismani-fested,heargues,intheSoraischoolsstronginterestinliterarycomposi-tion:Asonewouldexpect,thenaturalemotionsthatwereliberatedfrommoralrigorisminthephilosophyofSoraiwentinthedirectionofacarefreeeleganceandliterarytalent.ItisnotwithoutreasonthatSoraisacademyhadareputationforgivingprimacytotheliteraryarts(p.111).

    MaruyamaarguesthatwhileSoraihimselfincorporatedboththepublicandtheprivateinhisscholarship,thesetwoaspectsofhisphilosophybe-camedetachedintheworkofhisfollowers.HeseesDazaiShundaiashaving

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    inherited the public, political side of Sorais philosophy, while HattoriNankakucarriedonitsprivate,literaryside.MaruyamadepictsthisdivisionintheSoraischoolasaprocessoffragmentationanddegeneration,writingthateventhoughShundaiandNankakueachgraspedonlyapartofSoraislearning,andlackedtheirteacherscapacityforintegratingdiversefieldsofstudy,inthetypicalmannerofepigones,theyeitherconsciouslyoruncon-sciouslytooktheparticularaspectthattheyinheritedandabsolutizeditastheessenceofSoraislearningitself (p.143).

    MaruyamafindsamoredynamicdevelopmentofSoraisthoughtinnativ-ism,especiallythephilosophyofMotooriNorinaga.Firstofallhearguesthat,likeNankaku,Nativisminheritedtheprivate,apoliticalsideofSoraisphi-losophy,whilecompletelyrejectingitspublicside(p.178).HeseesNorinagaasgoingfurtherthantheSoraischool,though, inthatNorinagas literaryidealofmono no aware(thepathosofthings)activelyaffirmedemotions,ratherthanmerelygrantingthemanegativefreedomaswhatisleftunregu-latedwhentheConfucianWayconfinesitselftothepublicsphere(p.169).WhileMaruyamadepictsNorinagaasexercisinganonpoliticaloptionwithinthestructurecreatedbySoraisphilosophy,heseescertaindifferencesbetweenNorinagasearlywork,whichfocusedalmostentirelyonclassicalJapaneseliterarystudies,andhislaterscholarship,whichattemptedtoelucidateJapansAncientWay(kod)orWayoftheGodsasanalternativetoConfucian-ism.Inhisearlyliterarythought,Maruyamamaintains,Norinagadidallowthattheexpressionofemotionsthroughliteraturecouldhavecertainsocialbenefits,apositionSoraihadtakenaswell,butMaruyamacharacterizessuchideasasperipheral to thebasic importofNorinagas (andSorais) literarythought,whichwastofreeliteraturefromethicsandpolitics(p.172).HeclaimsthatinNorinagaslaterthought,though,thepure,unregulatedemo-tionsexpressedinpoetrybecamethemselvesequatedwiththeShintoWay,sothatliterature,whichhadbeenliberatedfrombeingusedforself-cultivationorgovernment,onceagainappearstohavetakenonasocialandpoliticalcharacter(p.173).Maruyamaseesthisviewofliteratureasultimatelydamag-ingtopolitics,though,asthefactthatliterature,whileremainingliterature,waspoliticizedmeant,tolookatitfromtheotherside,thatpoliticswasmadeliterary;toputitsomewhatparadoxically,thisisnothingotherthanthede-politicizationofpolitics(p.174).InthecontextofMaruyamasmoderniza-tionnarrative,then,NorinagasabandonmentofpoliticsasanactivepursuitrepresentsastepbackwardsfromtheincipientmodernityofSorai.

    OneproblemwithMaruyamasreadingofSoraiisthattheideaofthe

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    ConfucianWayassomethingcreatedbyhumansforthepurposeofgov-ernancehasalongtraditioninConfucianism,goingbacktosuchphiloso-phersasXunzi,makingitdifficulttousethisideaasanindexofmodernity.WhilesuchhumaninventionoftheWaybysageswasseeninearlierConfu-cianismasbackedupbyandanswerabletoHeaven,meaningthatthesagesarenotcompletelyautonomousactors,Soraiisnodifferentinthisregard.24TheroleofHeaveninSoraisphilosophywillbeanimportantaspectofmyanalysis,andIstresshowSoraiusesHeavennotjustasanauthorityonhightobeobeyed,butalsoasasourceforcriticalreflectiononhumanlycreatedgovernmentsandsocialnorms.

    TheprimaryfocusofmycritiqueofMaruyama,however,isaquestion-ingofhispictureofSoraiashavingopenedupaprivateinteriorityinwhichemotionswerefreedfromnormativedemands.Evenifweacceptthatasepa-rationofthepublicandprivate,andofpoliticsandmorality,ischaracteristi-callymodern,itisquestionablewhetherSoraireallyproposedthisinthewayMaruyamaclaimshedid.WhileMaruyamamaintainsthatSoraisexternal-izationandpoliticizationoftheWayentailsaretreatoftheWayfrommak-inganyclaimsonpeoplesinneremotionsormoralvalues,SoraidefinesthemusicofthesagesastheWayofgoverningtheinbornnatureandtheemo-tions,25andarguesthatthepromotionoftheeverydaymoralitythathede-finesasthecontentoftheMean(Ch.zhongyong,Jp. chy)virtuessuchasfilialpiety,brotherlyobedience,loyalty,andfaithfulnessisanimportantpartofgovernment.26WithNorinaga,too,thereisreasontoquestiontheexistenceofanunregulatedsphereofprivateemotionality.MaruyamaarguesthatNorinagafreedemotionsfromallnorms,buteventuallypoliticizedthisemotionalitybyequatingitwiththeShintoWay.Whatsuchaninterpreta-tionoverlooks,though,ishoweveninhisearliestliterarywritingsNorinagadepictedemotionsasinneedofregulationandsocialization,presentingclas-sicalJapaneseliteratureasatoolforinstillingcorrectemotionalresponses.

    CertainproblemswithMaruyamasclaimsabouttheliberationofemo-tionalityinSoraisphilosophyarealludedtointhelaterinterpretationsofSoraidiscussedbelow,butthefullimplicationsofareconsiderationofthispoint forourunderstandingofeighteenth-century literary thoughthavenotbeenfullyexplored.Thisbookattemptstofillthisgapbypresentinganalternativeframeworkforunderstandingeighteenth-centurywritersviewsonemotionalityandpoetry,onethatrecognizestheimportancetheyplacednotonlyonemotionsthemselves,butalsoontheincorporationofemo-tionsintosystemsofsocialnorms.

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    Sorai as Philosopher of Culture

    SomescholarshavecounteredMaruyamaspositiveportrayalofSoraibyarguing that the authoritarian aspects of Sorais philosophy, such as hisdemandthatpeoplehavetotal faithinthesages,arenotmerelyaprod-uctofhispolitical logicnotbeingcarriedthroughto itsproperconclu-sion,butareanintegralpartofthislogicitself.Wm.TheodoredeBary,forexample, inSagehoodasSecularandSpiritual Ideal inTokugawaNeo-Confucianism,reversesMaruyamas judgmentof therelativemodernityofSongConfucianismandSorai,writingofSoraisfearfulreactiontotheliberalhumanismoftheSongandMing,ahumanismthatdeBaryde-finesintermsofNeo-Confucianidealismandegalitarianism,27arefer-encetotheideathatallhumansinnatelypossesstheWaywithintheirin-bornnature.JohnTucker,intheintroductiontoOgy Sorais Philosophical Masterworks, likewisecontrastsSoraiunfavorablywiththeegalitarianismoftheNeo-Confuciantradition,andwritesthatSoraisthoughtwasnotamodernizingforce,butrather[was]oneappealinganachronisticallytothefundamentalsofanarchaicpoliticaltraditionforthesakeoffashioninganideologyofshogunalabsolutism.28MaruyamadepictsZhuXiasnegatingpolitical agencybymaking theWay inherent innature, andargues thatSoraitakesthefirststepinescapingthiskindofstatic,apriorivisionoftheWaybyimaginingalimitednumberofsagesasactivecreatorsofsocialnorms, an intermediate stage thathe sees as analogous to theperiodofabsolutemonarchyinEuropeanhistory.AccordingtodeBaryandTucker,though,politicalsubjectivitywasthereallalongintheNeo-Confuciantra-dition,andSoraisconceptionofthesagesisinfactaconstrictionofNeo-Confucianismsassertionoftheuniversalpotentialforsagehood,asrepre-sentedbyhumansinnatecapacityforthemoralcultivationoftheselfandtherationalinvestigationoftheexternalworld.

    IalsoportraytheauthoritarianaspectsofSoraiasintegraltohisphilo-sophicallogic,butdosofromadifferentdirectionbyinterpretinghishu-manlycreatedWayasakindofsymbolicorideologicalsystemthatfunctionsonatranscendentalleveltostructureandlimittheconsciousnessofthosewhoinhabitit,andmediatetheirperceptionofandengagementwiththesocialworld.NaokiSakaireadsSoraialongtheselinesinVoices of the Past,wherehearguesthatSoraienvisionstheidealcommunityasaculturalandlinguisticinteriorthatisradicallyincommensurablewithwhatliesoutsideit,whilemakingthosewhoinhabititcompletelytransparenttoeachother.

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    HecomparesSoraisformulationofcommunitywiththekindofideologythatconstructslanguagesasclosedsystemsofmeaningthatareseparatedfromotherlanguages,whileallowingimmediatecomprehensiontoobtainamongtheirnativespeakers.ThekindofculturalinteriorityproposedbySorai,Sakaiargues,admitsnointernaldifferenceorconflict,creatingasoci-etyinwhichthereisabsolutelynoroomfortheothernessoftheOther.29HeconnectsthisnotionofinterioritytoSoraisvisionofsocialcontrol,inwhichinstitutionsarecompletelyinternalizedandconsequentlyrenderedinvisibleandtransparent(p.280),sothatthemotivationforsocialac-tionappearstooriginateinthespontaneousparticipationofeachsubject(p.281).Incontrast,then,toMaruyamasdescriptionofSoraiasliberatingtheinteriorlifeofindividualsbylimitingtheWaytoexternalcompliance,SakaimaintainsthatforSoraitheWayismeanttopermeateindividualsonthedeepestlevel,sothatindividualinteriorityisfromthestartcompletelydeterminedbyandidenticalwithacommunalinteriority.

    While I share this view thatSorai envisions theConfucianWay as aframeworkofculturalvaluethatshapespeoplefromwithin,IdifferfromSakaiinthatIseeSoraiasinfactquiteconcernedwiththedangersofat-temptingtoeradicateallformsofdifferencewithinsociety,andofdefiningthecultureofthesagesasatotallyclosedsystem.Soraisbeliefintheimpor-tanceofvaluinghumandifferencesisapointemphasizedbyTetsuoNajita,whoportraysSoraiasseekingsocialunitythroughthepoliticalintegrationofdiversecapacities.InTokugawa Political Writings,NajitacallsattentiontohowSoraiinsistedonthemaintenanceofthespecificqualitiesthatpeoplewereendowedwithbyHeaven,ratherthantryingtoforcepeople intoasingle mold. He characterizes Sorai as an essentially optimistic philoso-pher:Ratherthananoppressivebureaucraticpolity,itwouldappearthatSoraiheldtoaromanticanddynamicvisionofpeoplelivingandworkingtogetherina humancommunity(ningenkai).Sharingacommonlivingplace,peoplewouldbringtogethermanydifferenttalents(uny eii no sai )andbuildaflourishingsociety.30NajitaseesthisvisionoftheConfucianWayasaprofoundlyethicalone,andrejectsMaruyamasclaimthatSoraiproposedaseparationofethicsfrompolitics(pp.xvi,xxivxxv).Onemani-festationofSoraisideaofdiversehumancapacitiesishisinsistenceonthenecessityofsocialhierarchy,andNajitareadilyacknowledgesthiselitismasanegativeaspectofhisphilosophy,mentioningthatitwasrecognizedandcriticizedeven in theeighteenthcentury (p. liii).Still,Najitaultimately

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    findspositivevalueinSoraisideaofanethicalcommunitybuiltupontherespectforandnurturingofthediversecapacitiesofitsmembers.

    OlivierAnsart,inLempire du rite,similarlywritesabouttheimportanceofdiversehumancapacitiesinSoraispoliticalphilosophy.Atthesametime,heoverlapswithSakai inportrayingSoraisWayasa systemof symbolicvaluethatpeopleinhabitandarestructuredby,onethatAnsartdescribesasdefinedbytheritesasanexhaustive,totalizingsystemofmeaning.31AnsartusesthetermNature(withacapitalN)torefertothissystem,achoiceofterminologythatdistinguishesthisworldofhumanlycreatedvaluefromthenaturalworld(whichhesimplycallsnature),whileatthesametimecallingattentiontohowpeoplearemeanttointernalizetheritestothepointthattheyareas ifnatural.IncontrasttoMaruyamasviewofSoraisprivatesphereasaninviolablepersonalinteriority,AnsartarguesthatforSoraitheprivate simplyconsistsof therawmaterialof nature thathasnotyetbeenintegratedintoNature.Hecomments,Inthissense,withSoraithereisnottheslightestdiscontinuitybetweenthepublicandprivatedomains.Privatecapacitiesandsentimentsdonotexistexceptasmaterialthatmustbeforciblyorganizedandintroducedintothepublicdomain(p.149).AnsartnotesthesimilarityofSoraisconceptionoflearningtheWaytotheherme-neuticcircle,inthatSoraiportraystheWayassomethingthatpeoplemustbeplacedwithinandacceptas anentiretybefore theycangrasp specificelementsofit,aprocessthatnecessarilyinvolvesanactoffaith,astheWayasawholecannotbecomprehendedfromanoutsideperspectivethroughrationalanalysis(p.85).Ansartdoesnotseesuchforcedinternalizationaseradicatingthedifferencesbetweenindividuals,though,ashearguesthatSoraidemandsthatsuchdifferencesbemaintainedevenwhenpeoplehaveinternalizedtheWay.HenotesthatincontrasttoSongConfucianism,wherethepossessionofauniversalprinciplebyallindividualthingsandpeoplemeansthatthepartcanstandinforthewhole,forSorai,apoliticalcapacity,humaneness,mustassurethecoherenceandguaranteethesenseofasystemmadeofprofoundlyheterogeneouscomponents(p.81).Morespecifically,peoplesspecifictalentspredisposethemtowarddevelopingdifferentvirtues,whichthenallowthemtoservesocietyindifferentways.

    MyreadingofSoraiissimilartoAnsartsinthatIseeSoraiasconceivingoftheConfucianWayasavehicleforassimilatingpeopleintoacommonframeworkofsymbolicvalue,whileatthesametimepromotingtheindi-vidualdifferencesthatallowpeopletocontributetosocietyinthemannermostsuitedtotheirparticular inbornqualities.Iputgreaterimportance

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    thanAnsartdoes,though,onSoraistreatmentoftherelationshipbetweennatureandtheWay.Ansartclaimsthat forSorai theritesarecreatedbyhumanswithoutowinganythingtonatureortoHeaven(p.23),andtheWayisnothingotherthantheartificialandautonomousorderofpolitics,devoidoftheleastanchoringinnature(p.65).IagreewithAnsartsasser-tionthatSoraipositsaqualitativegapbetweennatureandtheWay,butIcontendthatSoraineverthelessdoesseetheWayasneedingtorespondtoanaturethatliesoutsideit,suchaswithhow,asInotedearlier,hemakestheWayanswerabletoHeaven.AnumberofinterpretersofSoraihavepointedouttherelationshipbetweenhisWayandabroadlyconceivednotionofnature,suchaswhenSamuelYamashitaarguesthatSoraisthoughtwasdistinguished...byitsaffirmationofbothnatureandartifice,andnotesthatthisnatureincludesheaven,spirits,andnaturalphenomena,aswellas,onahumanlevel,thephysicalnature,emotions,anddesires.32Iwouldagree,andinthisstudyIfocusparticularlyonhowSoraiusespoetryasamethodofrelatingtheWaytothenaturalqualitiesofhumans.

    In thecaseofHeaven thisnature is a sourceofauthority thatcomesfromabove,butbydemandingthattheWaytakeaccountofempiricalreal-ity,particularlytherealityofhumannatureandhumanemotionality,Soraialso requires that theWay reachdown to respond to themostordinaryaspectsofpeoplesbeing.Ultimatelythesedifferentnotionsofnatureareconnected,though,inthatSoraiseeshumannatureasbestowedbyHeaven,sothattoignoreorviolateitisinfactanoffenseagainstHeavenitself.SuchexternalreferencepointstotheWayaresignificant,Iargue,becausetheypreventSoraisWayfrombecomingacompletelyself-validatingandtotal-izingsystemofvalue,insteadplacingconstraintsonwhattheWaycandoandhowitcanshapepeople,andallowingforadegreeofcriticalreflectiononexistingpoliticalstructures,somethingthatreadingssuchasdeBarysandSakaisdonotfindinSorai.MyinterpretationthereforerecognizesacertainelementofthepoliticalagencythatMaruyamahadfoundinSorai,butitdoessofromadifferentperspective.

    Onewaytodefinethetermcultureisintermsofthekindofworldof symbolic value I have described, and in discussing Sorai and othereighteenth-centuryfigures Iuse thenotionsofcultureandnature as analternativetoMaruyamasschemaofinventionversusnature.33Maruyamascontrastbetweennatureandinvention,andtheshiftfromtheformertothelatter, indicatesaprocessof liberationthroughwhichthenormsgovern-inghumansocietygofrombeingseenasgivenand immutable tobeing

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    somethingthatindividualscanactivelyshapetoservetheirowninterests.Culture, though,understoodas something that structurespeopleonatranscendental level,necessarily involvesanelementthateludesthecon-trolofindividuals.Aseconddefinitionofthetermrelevanttothisstudyiscultureinthesenseofrefinedformsofliteraryexpression,music,andritualtraditionallyassociatedwithsocialelites.ThesetwokindsofcultureareconnectedinSoraisphilosophy,inthatheseeselegantformsof lan-guage,literature,ritual,andmusicasnecessaryforinternalizingthenormsthroughwhichsocietycanberegulated.AlthoughIamnotusingcultureasatranslationforanyonesingleterminSoraiswritings,itdoesoverlapwiththerangeofmeaningsoftheChinesetermwen(Jp.bun),whichcanrefertobothsensesofculturementionedabove,indicatingliteraryorar-tisticrefinement,aswellasthepatterningthroughwhichsocialrelation-shipsaregivenorderandintegratedintoasystemofsymbolicvalue.34

    InMaruyamasmodernizationnarrative, inventionisamoreliberated,advancedstageofpoliticalconsciousnessthannature.Indrawingacontrastbetweennatureandculture,however,Isimplyseetheseasdifferentphilo-sophicaldiscoursesforlegitimatingsocialstructures,anddonotseeoneasinherentlymoreliberatingthantheother.ApointthatsomescholarshavemadewithregardtoZhuXissystemisthatitembodiesatensionbetweenoptimismandrigorism;itisoptimisticinthatitportraystheWayasinher-entinhumannature,butitisrigoristinthatthepositingofsuchamorallypurevisionofhumannature,andthelinkingofthispuritytoanobjectivenaturalorderthatmustbeconformedto,createsastrictdemandforhumanperfection.35Onewayto judgethepossibility for thepositiveexerciseofsubjectivityamongfollowersofZhuXi,then,isbytheextenttowhichtheydeveloptheliberating,optimisticsideortheauthoritarian,rigoristsideofhisphilosophy.WithaculturalparadigmofConfucianism,though,theques-tionisnotsomuchoneofoptimismversusrigorismasitisoneoftheextenttowhichculturalframeworksareseenasengagingwithsomeexteriorpointofreference,asIarguedabovethattheyarewithSorai,asopposedtoviewsthat seecultureasaclosed systemthatdeterminesall aspectsofpeoplesbeing,thusprecludingthedevelopmentofanyindependentsubjectivity.Iseeeighteenth-centurydiscourseonpoetryasanimportantarenainwhichwritersofthetimedefinedtheboundariesbetweencultureandwhat liesoutsideit,andthereforeascrucialtotheirarticulationsofhowcultureismeanttofunctionasameansofregulatingsociety.

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    Emotions and Linguistic Form in Sorais Poetics

    ModernscholarshaveoftenpraisedSoraisliterarythoughtforitspositiveviewofhumanemotions,buttheyhavetypicallybeencriticalofhisimita-tivepoetry,faultingitfornotlivinguptoanidealofliteratureasthefreeexpressionoftheindividualselfthroughthetransparentmediumofcollo-quiallanguage.AnearlyexampleofthiskindofcriticismofSoraiistheas-sessmentofhimbyInoueTetsujir,who,writingin1902,attackshispoetrybycomparingitunfavorablywiththeMeijiidealofgenbun itchi(theuni-ficationofthespokenandwrittenlanguages):ItwouldhavebeenbetterifSoraihadusedgenbun itchi,ratherthanancientphraseology.Hismethodofliningupdifficultcharactersandphrasesinanefforttodisplayancienteleganceisnothingmorethanaridiculousvanityonhispart.36

    MorecomplexistheanalysisofHinoTatsuo,whooffersanexplanationofwhySoraiwouldsimultaneouslypromoteemotionalityinpoetryandanimitativeapproachtocomposition:Weneedtounderstandthattheimita-tivenessandclassicismof[Sorais]AncientPhraseologyschoolwasadetourthatnecessarilyhadtobetakenaspoetryinChinesebrokefreeofthemor-alismofZhuXisphilosophyandmovedtowardbecomingsomethinginwhichonecomposesfreelyononesownfeelings.37HinoarguesthatSoraiclingstoclassicalmodelsofexpressionduetoaphilosophicalemphasisonregulationthroughexternalforms:SoraidefinestheWayofthesagesasritualandmusic,whichareformsexternaltohumannature.Iftheformsofsociallifemakeuptheinstitutionsofthesages,whicharethecoreofSoraispoliticalthought,thenhemusthave,consciouslyorunconsciously,madeuseofliteratureasaformfortheheartwithintheprivatesphere.38

    HinoscomparisonofSoraisuseofclassicalliterarymodelstohisviewsontheritualandmusicofthesageshassomevalidity,butisnotwithoutitslimitations.HeisrighttofocusonhowSoraiturnstoculturalnormsfor emotionality as a replacement for themoralnormsofZhuXi, andliterarymodelsdohaveabasic similaritywith ritual andmusic in thatforSoraitheseareallculturalformscreatedatacertainpointinhistory,ratherthansomethinginherentinhumannature,andmustbemasteredthroughimitationuntiltheycometoseemnatural.Hinoscharacteriza-tionofritualandmusicasfunctioningforSoraiinthepoliticalorpublicsphere,though,andpoetryintheprivatesphere,ismoreproblematic.AsIdiscussinChapter3,poetryisforSoraiintegratedintoamatrixofcomple-mentaryandinterdependentculturalpracticesthatdonotallowforclear

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    distinctionsbetweenthepublicandprivate,orthepoliticalandtheliterary.Hedepictsthemusicofthesages,forexample,asfunctioningtoregulatepeoplesinneremotions,anddescribespoetryasgivingtherulingclassafa-miliaritywithhumanemotions,whichallowsittogoverneffectively,aswellasmorespecificallyvaluingclassicalpoeticmodelsforthetrainingtheypro-videinthelanguageinwhichthecreationsofthesageshavebeenrecorded.

    AnotheraspectofHinosanalysisIfindproblematicishisrelianceonamodernnotionoffreeself-expressionastheauthenticessenceofliterature.Inhis emphasison thedifferentkindsofconstraints imposedon litera-ture,suchashisdescriptionofSoraisliteraryformalismasamiddlepointbetweenmoraldidacticismandfreeexpression,IseeHinoasparticipatinginanarrativeinwhichtheachievementofmodernityisdepictedintermsoftheremovalofartificialdistortionsandimpediments,sothatthingsarefreetobewhattheynaturallyare.Hewrites,forexample,thattheanchoringoftheselfinexpressionisafundamentaldesireofhumans,anddescribeshowwiththeSorai school,theessentialmeaningthat literaturehas forhumansgraduallycametobediscovered.39Inthisway,hedescribestheneedforself-expressioninliteraturenotastheproductofanideologicallyandhistoricallyspecificconstructionofmodernity,butsimplyassomethingthatassertsitselfspontaneouslywhenbarrierstoexpressionareremoved.AsimilarnarrativeispresentinMaruyama,asheportraystheprivatesphereofemotionalityashavingbeensuppressedinTokugawaJapanbyZhuXismoralviewofliterature,theremovalofwhichallowedpent-upprivateemo-tionstoburstforthintheirnaturalstate.

    ApictureofSoraisneoclassicalpoeticsasamorepurposefullychosenap-proachtolanguageandliteratureappearsinYoshikawaKjirsSoraigakuan.40IncontrasttoHinosargumentthatadesireforemotionalexpressionistheprimaryimpetusbehindSoraisinterestinpoetry,YoshikawafocusesontheroleofpoetryinSoraisphilologicalproject.HinodoesnotignorethisaspectofSoraisliterarythought,buthedownplaysitssignificancewhenhecomments,Itisdifficulttocompletelyexplain[Sorais]stronginterestinliteraturesimplythroughreferencetosuchutilitarianmotives.Onemustthinkthathehadadeep-rooteddesiretoanchortheselfinexpression.41Yoshikawa,though,givesamorecentralplacetotheroleofpoetryinSoraisphilologybystressingthelinguisticaspectsofhisviewoftheConfucianWay:ThelanguageofancientphraseologyintheSixClassicsis[forSorai]initselfanexpressionoftheWay.Therefore,toapprehendthelanguageofancientphraseologyintheSixClassicsisatthesametimetoapprehendtheWayof

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    theancientkings.42YoshikawawritesofthisancientphraseologythatSorairegardeditastheperfectedformoflanguage,andassomethingthatcanbegraspedthroughpoetryandprose,thatistosaythroughliterarylanguage(p.653).HenotesthatforSoraiitwascrucialforscholarsofthepresenttobecomeonewiththelanguageoftheSixClassics,aprocessthatrequiresnotjusttoreadancientphraseology,butalsotowriteitoneself (p.632).HealsocommentsonhowSoraivaluesthelanguageofhisfavoredpoeticcanonforitscapacitytoconveyemotionality,writingthatforSorai,[Emotions]cannotbeexhaustedbylogic.Theonlythingthatcanexpressemotionsislanguagewithgrace,rhythm,luster,andmystery(p.693).43ForYoshikawa,then,Soraisneoclassicalapproachtocompositionisnotmerelyanunfortu-nateappendagetoamoreessentialroleofpoetryasemotionalself-expres-sion,butiscentraltowhySoraiwasinterestedinpoetryinthefirstplace.

    Myapproach is closer toYoshikawas than toHinos,but I explore inmoredetailthanYoshikawatheroleofemotionalityinSoraisphilosophy,andtheissuesthatarisenotonlyinSorai,butalsoineighteenth-centurydiscoursemoregenerally,fromthejuxtapositionofemotionalityandclas-sicalliterarymodels.Iarguedearlierthateighteenthcenturywritersinter-estsinculturalformsandnaturalemotionalityareinterdependent,inthattheybothemergedoutofacommondiscourseonaculturallydefinedWaythatmustatthesametimeconnectwithhumannature.Therelationshipbetweenthesetwoaspectsofpoetry,asInoted,thenbecameanaxisalongwhichbroaderphilosophicalissueswerecontested.SoraisidealizationofthelanguageofacanonofChinesepoetryasuniquelycapableofmanifestinghumanemotionsisindicative,Iargue,ofacertainpoliticalstance,onethattakesthecultureoftheChinesesagesasinteractingwithandbuildinguponanemotionallydefinedhumannature,withoutcontradictingitorviolatingitsnaturalqualities.ThisisanessentiallyoptimisticviewoftheConfucianWayashumanerulership,butonethatwassubjectedtovariouscritiquesbySoraisopponentsaswellasmanyofhisfollowers.Thesefigurespresenteddif-ferentvisionsoftherelationshipbetweenhumannatureandculture,whicharemanifestedintheirviewsofpoetrybyaproblematizationoftherelation-shipbetweenspontaneousemotionsandneoclassicalnormsofexpression.

    Japanese Culture as Emotional Closure: Norinagas Poetics

    Norinaga,likeSorai,rejectedtheSongConfucianideaofaWayrootedinnaturalprinciple,andturnedinsteadtoanotionoftheWayasacreation.

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    HepositedtheJapanesegods,however,ratherthanSoraishumansages,asthecreatorsoftheWay,andpromotedunquestioningobediencetothegodsaswell as theirhumandescendants, the Japaneseemperors.BeforedevelopinghistheoryoftheWayoftheGods,though,NorinagafocusedhisscholarshiponclassicalJapaneseliterarytexts,andtherelationshipofhisearlyliterarystudiestohismoreovertlypoliticallaterworkhasbeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate.WhilemostscholarshaverecognizedsomepoliticalcomponenttoNorinagasliterarythought,assessmentsofthena-tureandextentofhispoliticizationofliteraturehavebeenvaried.Thisrela-tionshipbetweenhisearlyandlatethoughthasbeenparticularlysignificanttoassessmentsofNorinagainthepostwarperiod,ashisemperor-centerednationalismwasdiscreditedafterthewar,butmanyscholarshaveturnedtohisliterarythought,whichtheydepictashumanisticandmodern,inordertorehabilitateaspectsofhislegacy.Others,though,haveseenhisearlyliter-arythoughtasitselfincorporatingpoliticallyproblematicelements.Itakethislatterview,anddevelopitbyexploringinmoredepthNorinagasrela-tionshiptothebroadereighteenth-centurydiscourseonhumannatureandculturethatIseehimasparticipatingin.

    ThemostpositiveassessmentofNorinagas literary thoughthascomefromthosewhosee it asessentiallyunconnectedtohis later thought.ApioneeringEnglish-languagestudyofnativism,forexample,PeterNoscosRemembering Paradise,characterizesNorinagaasachampionofhumansen-timent,andasessentiallyunconcernedwithmakingliteratureservepoliti-calends.NosconotesthatNorinagaseesthecommunicationofemotionsinpoetryasaidingingovernment,butstresseshowNorinagadefinesthispoliticalroleasanindirectone,andnotaspartoftheessenceofpoetry.HecommentsthatthebasictoneofNorinagaspoeticsisconsistentwithwhatothershavecalledtheemotionalismofNationalLearning,thatis,theun-restrainedaffirmationoftheaffectivedimensionsofhumanexperience.44NoscodistancestheidealsexpressedinNorinagaspoeticsfromhisAncientWaythought,arguingthatthereisnowhollysatisfactorymannerinwhichtoreconciletheseapparentlycontradictorypreferencesotherthantorecog-nizethemascomplementaryandopposingfacetsofhisremarkableintellectanderudition(p.161).

    Maruyama,asdiscussedearlier,seesNorinagasliterarythoughtasbring-ingtocompletiontheliberationofemotionalitythatheseesascharacter-isticof theprivate sideofSorais literary thought.Heacknowledges thatNorinagafoundpoliticalusesforpoetry,butmaintainsthatthesewerenot

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    theprimaryimportofhisliterarythought.Atthesametime,hedoesdrawaconnectionbetweenNorinagaspoeticsandhisAncientWaythought,argu-ingthatNorinagasvisionoftheAncientWayinvolvestheabsolutizationoffreeemotionsinhisliterarythought.MaruyamawritesthatwithNorinaga,mono no aware,whichistheessenceofpoetry,iselevatedjustasit istobeingtheessenceofShintoitself,andmaintainsthatnativismgaveinterioremotions,purifiedofallnormativity,apositiverolebyequatingtheseemo-tions,justastheyare,withtheWay.45HeseesNorinagasliterarythoughtaspraiseworthyforitsliberationofemotions,butiscriticalofNorinagaseventualraisingofthisemotionalitytoapoliticalprinciple,asheseesthisascompromisingpoliticsasanarenafortheactiveexerciseofsubjectivity.

    ManyotherscholarshavearguedforaconnectionbetweenNorinagaspraise forpure emotionalityon theonehand, andhispoliticalpassivityandacceptanceoftheexistingTokugawaregimeontheother.MatsumotoSannosuke,inKokugaku seiji shis no kenky,writes,Thefactthat[nativ-ism]opposed thenormativismofConfucianism, andpromoted a valor-izationofemotions, is certainly somethingworthbeingproudof for itsfreshnessinthecontextofthattime.46Hegoeson,however,tonotethatvaluingtheemotionsofthecommonpeoplebynomeansamountedtovaluingthecommonpeoplethemselves(p.147).SaigNobutsunamakesa similarpoint,writing inKokugaku no hihan that in contrast toSoraistwo-partcriticismofZhuXi,whichinvolvesbothanaffirmationofhumanemotionsandapoliticalcritiqueofZhuXisphilosophy,thepositionfromwhichnativismcriticizedZhuXi learningwasentirelypermeatedbythesingleelementofaffirmingprivatedesires.47Heclaimsthatbecauseofhownativismdistancedtheselffromeverythingsocial,andsetitloose,human-ityendedupbeingexpressedasanirrationalitydevoidofintellect(p.96).LikeMatsumoto,then,heseestheemotionalismofnativismasleadingtoanatrophyingofpoliticalconsciousness.

    H.D.Harootunian,inThings Seen and Unseen,criticizesthiskindofneg-ativeassessmentofthepoliticalpotentialofnativism,andalsofindsamuchgreaterpoliticalcomponentwithinNorinagasearlyliterarythoughtitself,ratherthanjustinitslatertransformationintothephilosophyoftheAncientWay.HestressesthecommunaldimensiontoemotionalityinNorinagaspo-etics,areadingthatcanbecontrastedwithhowMaruyamadefinesNorinagasliterarythoughtintermsofprivateinteriority.HarootunianarguesthattheimmediacyofexpressionthatNorinagaimaginesinhispoetics,wherethereisnodisjunctionbetweenlanguageandlivedexperience,isconnectedtoa

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    visionofacommunityunitedbyempathy,oneunboundbytheconstraintsofhistoryorsocialforms.48Whileheacknowledgesthatatthisstagenativ-ismdidnothaveanactivepoliticalprogram,hemaintainsthatthenotionofcommunitythatNorinagaconstructedinhispoeticscreatedaspaceforasubjectthatcouldbemobilizedforideologicalcontestationagainstthere-ceivedauthorityanditsformofrepresentation.49HeseesNorinagasfocusonemotionalityasachallengetoexistinghierarchies,inthatinhispoetics,ademonstrationofspontaneousandnaturalfeeling,ratherthanstudiedratio-nality,distinguishedthehighandthelow(p.98).Forthisreason,heargues,itwouldbewrongtoconcludethatMotooriwassimplyexactingpassivesubmissivenessfromcontemporarytownspeoplebyturningtheirattentiontoaestheticsandsensibilityratherthanpoliticalpower(p.114).

    ImakeamorecriticalassessmentofNorinagasaffectivemodelofcom-munity,though,bycallingattentiontohowitdemandsconformitytospe-cificemotionalresponses,andindoingsosuppressestrueengagementwithothersasothers.AsopposedtotheviewsofMaruyamaandothersIdis-cussedearlier,IdonotseethepoliticallyproblematicaspectsofNorinagasliterarythoughtasderivingsimplyfromanabsolutizationofemotionality,or fromapassivityengenderedbyprivileging sentimentoverreason.In-stead,IemphasizehowNorinagadoesnotacceptallnaturalemotionsasvalid,butpositsasetofemotionalnormsbasedonthesentimentsexpressedin a canonof classical Japanesewaka andmonogatari.Kojima Yasunorimakesreferencetothisemotionalnormativitytocallintoquestiontheviewofmono no awareasemotionalpassivity,writing,Knowingmono no awarewasnotsomethingthatcouldbeachievedsimplythroughpassivefeeling.Itwasnecessarytoencounterthings,discerntheirrespectiveessences,andfeelinanappropriateforminresponsetothingsthatoughttoinspirefeel-ing. Knowingmono no aware is somethingthatentailseffortandtrain-ing.50MomokawaTakahitowritesalongsimilarlines:Norinagadoesnotdoanythinglikeaffirmaliberationofhumanemotions....Upholdingfeelingsofmono no awarerequiresconsiderableeffort.51Iwouldagreewiththeseassessments,andaddthatthelossofpoliticalsubjectivitythatcomeswithNorinagaspoeticshaslesstodowithpassivitythanwithademandtoactivelyadheretoemotionalnorms,andtointernalizethosenormstothepointthattheyareidentifiedasonesownauthenticfeelings.

    Norinagavalueswakaasawaytocommunicateemotionsandthuses-tablishbondsofempathy,butIarguethatoneconsequenceofhisnor-mative model of emotions is that he sees such communication as only

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    possiblebetweenthosewhohavealreadyinternalizedthecorrectemotionalresponsesthroughimmersioninaspecificliterarycanon.TheimplicationsofNorinagasnormsoffeelingforhismodelofsocialityareemphasizedbyTomikoYodainFracturedDialogues:Mono no awareandPoeticCommu-nicationintheTale of Genji,whereshedescribeshowNorinagadownplaysthetensionanddissonancewithinpoeticexchangesintheGenji.ShenotesthatforNorinaga,theparticularityofindividualinstancesofcommuni-cation...isneutralizedbytheuniformityofexperience(mono no aware)rooted in thenature of allhumanbeings.52Shewrites thatbecauseofthisideathatpoetryonlyconveysuniversalemotions,aswellasNorina-gasdemandthatpoetrybetotallytransparent,thecommunicationthatNorinagaevokesispatentlynon-dialogicornon-interactive(p.541).ShedepictsNorinagasliteraryidealasakindofempathywithoutotherness,writing,Mono no aware initspurestformmaybebestdescribedastheempathyofaspectatorwhoidentifieswiththeotherwithoutengaginginarelationofexchangeornegotiation(p.541).

    IagreewiththispictureofhowNorinagaconceivesofpoetryasfunc-tioningininterpersonalrelationships,andarguethatthelackofgenuinedialogueinhismodelofcommunicationisconnectedtoaviewofculturethat,unlikeSorais,doesnotrecognizeanyreferencepointoutsideofcultureitself.Harootuniancontendsthatbyprivilegingemotions,ratherthanratio-nalityandmorality,asthebasisforknowledge,NorinagaavoidedpreciselythekindofclosuredemandedbyNeo-Confucianism(p.105).Iwouldsay,onthecontrary,thatNorinagareplacestherationalandmoralclosureofZhuXiwithanemotionalclosure,onethateliminatesanyrealothernessbydemandingconformitytonormsoffeeling,andexcludingfromlegitimatesocialintercoursethosewhofailtoconformtosuchnorms.Norinagaclaimsthattheemotionalnormshepromotesrepresentauniversalhumannature,butheusesthisappealtohumannaturetocreateakindoftheoryofemo-tional falseconsciousness, inwhichthespontaneityofpeoplesemotionsdoesnotexempttheseemotionsfrombeingcondemnedasinauthentic.Hemaintainsthataprocessofhistoricaldeclinehasintroducedagapbetweenpeoplesnaturalemotionsandtheemotionsthattheyoughttofeel,andheseesthestudyofclassicalJapanesepoetryasameanstoclosingthisgap.

    KoyasuNobukunihasdescribedNorinagasdiscoursesonlanguageandtheJapanesegodsasbeingconstructedthroughatautologicallogicthatof-fersno sourceofvalidationother than the superiorityof Japan itself.53 Iseeasimilarlyself-enclosedandself-validatinglogicatworkinNorinagas

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    poetics,asthehomogenizationofexperiencethatheadvocatescanbeunder-stoodintermsofacollapseinthedistinctionbetweencultureandhumannature,orbetweencultureanditsoutside.ForNorinagaJapanesecultureisitselftheessenceofhumannature,makingtheemotionalandaestheticre-sponsesembodiedinclassicalJapaneseliteratureintouniversalimperatives,butwithoutanyjustificationotherthantheassertionthattheyarecorrect.ItisthroughtheirparallelconstructionsofJapanesecultureasaclosedsystem,then, that IconnectNorinagas literary thought tohisphilosophyof theAncientWay.BypresentingthepoliticalityofNorinagasliterarythoughtinthisway,IamtryingtomoveawayfromtheideaoftheliteraryNorinagaasagoodNorinagawhowasthentransformedintoabadNorinagawithhisformulationoftheAncientWay.SuchaviewisimpliciteveninmanyinterpretationsofNorinagathatarecriticalofhisliterarythought,astheydepictthepoliticalconsequencesofhisliteraryideasastheresultofagoodthing,namelyfreeemotionality,beingtakentoofar.IseeNorinagaswritingsonwakaandmonogatari,though,asfromthestartincorporatinganotionofcommunitybasedontheregulationandhomogenizationofemotions,andfinditproblematictoturntohisliteraryideasasanexampleofamoreliberatedvisionofJapaneseculturalidentity.

    Confucianism and the Discourse of Emotions in Eighteenth-Century Literary Thought

    Inquestioningtheviewofeighteenth-centuryliterarythoughtasthedis-coveryoffreeemotionality,IamalsoreconsideringtherelationshipoftheSoraischoolandnativismtoearlierConfucianviewsofpoetry.Acontrastbetween instrumental and emotional views of literature plays a centralroleinmanyinterpretationsofTokugawaliterarythought,withamodernliberationofemotionalitydepictedintermsofacastingoffofConfuciantradition,whichisseenassuppressingemotionalitybysubordinatingittopoliticalanddidacticends.Maruyama,forexample,notesthatSoraisawemotionalexpressioninpoetryascontributingtotheWayofthesages,asSoraidescribedtheWayasbeingoriginallyconstructedbasedonhumanemotions,whichpoetryallowsustobecomeconversantin.Maruyamaul-timatelyseesemotionalityandpoliticsascontradictoryelementsofSoraistheory, though, anddownplays the significanceof the connectionSoraidrawsbetweenpoetryandtheConfucianWay,arguingthathisviewsonpoetrycouldbesaidtostandontheouter limitofConfucianviewsof

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    thearts.54HepresentsSoraiasavictimoftheConfuciantraditionslasttenuousgrasponliterature,commentingthathisviewofpoetryofcoursecouldnotescapefromtheultimaterestrictionrepresentedbytheWayofthesages,andthattheremovalofthisfinalrestrictionwasonlycarriedoutwiththearrivalofnativism.55

    OtherscholarsoverlapwithMaruyamainviewingthefocusonemotion-alityamongSoraiandothersasfundamentallyatoddswiththeapplicationofpoetrytosocialandpoliticalends.WakamizuSuguru,forexample,afterdescribinganumberofdifferentaspectsofSoraisviewoftheBook of Odes,andnotinghowhevaluesitfortheinsightitspoemsprovideintohumanemotions,concludesbywriting,However,inallthreeoftheseviewsoftheBook of Odespoliticsshowsitsface,andSoraiwasnotabletocompletelysweepawaytheoldConfucianthought.ThiswasperhapsinevitablegiventheperspectiveofSoraiasaConfucian.AsSoraiwasunabletoseparatetheOdesfromtheClassics,andseeitpurelyasatextofhumanemotionality,itwasultimatelynotpossibleforhimtobreakfreeofthefettersofthepast,inotherwordstoseparateliteraturefromConfucianthought.56Thisinterpre-tationispremisedontheideathatConfucianismisunnaturalandoppressiveinhowitfailstomakeliteratureautonomousofpoliticalconcerns,afailurethatkeepsliteraturefromplayingitsproperroleasuninhibitedemotionalexpression.Inthisview,SoraishowssomesignsofmovingawayfromCon-fucianismbytakingapositiveviewofhumanemotions,butisstilltrappedwithinpoliticalviewsofliteraturethatstubbornlypersistfromthepast.

    IdepartfromthesekindsofinterpretationsbyquestioningthenotionofasimpleoppositionbetweenemotionalityandsocialutilityinConfucian-ism.Instead,IfinditmoreappropriatetocharacterizeConfucianviewsofliteratureintermsofhowtheydepicthumansasemotionalbeingswhoseemotionalitymustbesocializedthroughsomekindofnorms,andhowtheytheorizepoetryascontributingtothisprocessofsocializationthroughitscapacitytoconveyemotions.Fromthisperspective,Iargue,wecanseetheSoraischoolandnativismasworkingwithinabasicparadigmsharedwiththeearlierChineseviewsof literaturethattheycriticize,evenwhiletheyconceiveofemotionalityanditsregulationinnewways,andrejectoutrightcertainprominentfeaturesofearlierviews,mostnotablythedirectapplica-tionofmoraljudgmentstopoetry.

    OnepointImakewithregardto theeighteenth-centuryfigureswhoarethefocusofthisbookisthatwhentheybringuptheimportanceofemotionalexpressioninpoetry,theydosointhecontextofinterpersonal

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    relationships,suchasbystressingtheneedtoknowtheemotionsofothers,and communicateour ownemotions toothers.KurozumiMakoto, forexample,notesthatforSorai,whiletheliteraryartspertaintotheinteriorof individuals,theyat thesametimereachout intosociety,andwritesthatSoraifromthebeginningspeaksofliteratureasawayoflearningtoempathizewithandrelivetheexperiencesofothersandotherworlds.57Norinagadescribesasimilarinterpersonaldimensiontopoetrybyinsistingthatemotionalexpression isonlymeaningful to thepoet if thisexpres-sioniscommunicatedtoandunderstoodbyanother.Eighteenth-centurywritersdefinedtheproblemsoftheirsocietyintermsofsubjectivismandself-absorption, anddevotedmuchofboth theirphilosophicalwritingsandtheircommentariesonTokugawasocietytotheproblemofhowtoconnecttootherpeople.Inordertoformmeaningfulinterpersonalbonds,theyargued,weneedtounderstandothersonanemotionallevel,anun-derstandingmadepossiblebythecommunicationofemotionsinpoetry.Contrary, then, to thecommonassumptionthatavalorizationofemo-tionalityisinherentlyademandforindividualself-expression,IapproachtheemphasisonhumanemotionsamongtheTokugawafiguresIdiscussasfundamentallyasocialandpoliticalconcern.Thissocialaspecttotheirinterestinemotionalitymeantthattheydidnotsimplyvalueemotionsasexperiencesofindividuals,butsawitasimportantthattheparticularityofindividualsemotionsbemediatedinsomewaywithuniversalsocialstruc-turesthattranscendtheindividual.Forthesethinkers,poetrywasvaluableforhowitbroughtemotionsoutofthesphereofanisolatedsubjectivity,andintoaninterpersonalspacewherethecommunicationoftheseemo-tionscouldinspireempathyinothers,thusprovidingrulers,forexample,withtheknowledgeoftheirsubjectsneededtoenacteffectivepolicies,orgivingordinarypeoplethesensitivitytoothersfeelingsthatwouldmakethembehaveethicallyintheireverydaysocialinteractions.

    WhileIseethisinterestinthesocialaspectsofemotionalityasacommonthreadunitingeighteenth-centuryJapanesetheorieswithearlierConfucianviews,mypointisnottodefineasingleauthenticallyConfucianviewofpoetry,ataskthatisinherentlyproblematic.TherearemanypossibleCon-fucianviewsofpoetry,dependingonwhichelementsofConfucianliterarythought we choose to emphasize, as well as how we define Confucian-ismitselfasatradition(suchasthroughreferencetotheSixClassics,theAnalects,WarringStatesphilosophy,oranynumberoflatercommentarialapproaches,metaphysicaldoctrines,orbodiesofsocialpractice).WhenI

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    speakofaconcernwithemotionalityanditsregulationastypicallyConfu-cian,then,thisismeantasadescriptiveaccountofthetheoriesIexamineofwriterswhoidentifyasConfucian,andnotanessentialiststatementaboutwhatdefinesConfucianismasConfucianism.Alongthesamelines,whenIarguethatnativistsparticipatedinadiscoursesharedbytheConfucianstheycriticized,IamnotclaimingthatthesenativistsweresomehowreallyConfucian.Moreover,IamnotsimplytryingtoidentifyConfucianinflu-ences,suchasthroughthefrequentcitingoftheAnalectsandothercanoni-calConfuciantextsbyeighteenth-centuryauthors.58

    MyreasonforbringinguptheConfucianlabelhaslesstodowithat-temptingtodefineitthanwithexamininghowithasbeenusedtogenerateacertainnarrativeofthehistoryofTokugawaliterarythought,onethatIcontendobscuresimportantaspectsofitsideologicalcharacter.Thisnarra-tivedepictsConfucianliterarythoughtasamonolithictraditionunchangingovertime,characterizedbysuchtraitsasmoraldidacticism,utilitarianism,andthepoliticizationofliterature,andthencreditsTokugawafigureslikeSoraiandNorinagawithbreakingawayfromthistraditionbyvaluinglitera-tureastheexpressionofauthentichumanemotions.59Interpretationsthatfollowsuchanarrativedonot ignore thepolitical aspectsof eighteenth-centuryliterarythought,buttheydissociatethispoliticizationofliteraturefromthenewideasaboutemotionalityemerginginthisperiod.Theydosobyassigningpoliticsandemotionalitydifferentrolesinateleologicalnarra-tiveoftheachievementofmodernitythroughtheovercomingofpremodern,andspecificallyConfucian,modesofthinkingaboutliterature.Thejuxtapo-sitionofthepremodernpoliticizationofliteraturewiththemodernvalo-rizationofemotionalityisthenseenasindicativeofanintermediatestageinthemodernizationofliterature,inwhichtheseedsofmodernityaresown,butareunabletocometofruition.Keytosuchaviewistheideathattheso-calledmodernelementsaretheessentialcoreofatheoryandthesourceofitsoriginality,whiletheso-calledpremodernelementsaretobedismissedasvestigialhabitsofthoughtthatpersistbeyondtheirpresumedobsoles-cence.Thisdistinctionmakes itpossible toacknowledge theexistenceofpremodernorConfucianelementsineighteenth-centuryfiguresliterarytheories,whiledownplayingtheimportanceoftheseelements,andtocre-ateanarrativeofthemodernstrugglingtobreakfreefromthepremodern.Maruyama,forexample,presentsanimageofaninternaldivisionwithinSoraisliterarythoughtwhenhewritesthatSoraiputprimaryimportanceonliberatingtheliteraryartsfromethicsandpolitics,onlytouchingasa

  • i n t r o d u c t i o n

    secondary matteruponthepoliticalandsocialbenefitsof literature.60Asimilardivisionbetweenthemodernelementsastheessenceofatheory,andthepremodernelementsasobstaclestobeovercome,canbeseenindiscussionsofeighteenth-centuryneoclassicalpoetry,suchasthestatementbyHinocitedearlierinwhichhedescribestheSoraischoolsimitativeap-proachtocompositionasadetourontheroadtotrulyfreeexpression.

    IquestionthesupposedoppositionbetweenaunifiedConfuciantraditionandaneighteenth-centuryrepudiationofthistraditionfromtwodirections.First,byexaminingthe twomajorparadigmsfor interpretingtheBook of Odes,theMaotraditiondatingfromtheHanandZhuXisviewsfromtheSong,bothofwhichIdiscussinChapter1,IshowhowConfucianspriortotheTokugawaperiodarefarfromuniforminhowtheyconceiveofpoetryasfunctioningtocultivatepeopleintheConfucianWay.61Second,inmyreadingsofTokugawafigures,IarguethattheywerenotmerelyaffirmingemotionsinthefaceofavaguelyconceivedConfuciandidacticismorpolitici-zationofliterature,butwereengagingwithveryspecificphilosophicalpointsinearlierConfuciantheories,challengingthemodelsofsocializingemotionsthatthesetheoriesentail,whileatthesametimepresentingtheirownalterna-tivetheoriesforhowemotionsshouldbemanagedthroughpoetry.

    Inthisway,Iseeviewsofemotionalityanditssocialapplicationsasinter-dependentanddevelopingintandemintheeighteenthcentury,ratherthanasopposingforcesintheprocessofbreakingloosefromeachother.Insteadofspeakingofthepoliticalapplicationsthateighteenth-centurywritersfindforpoetry simplyas accidental appendages, inherited fromearlier tradi-tions,totheirnewemotion-basedtheoriesofliterature,Iarguethatthesefiguresactivelycreatednewpoliticalusesforpoetry,andIfocusonhownewwaysofvaluingemotionalityintheeighteenthcenturywereaccompa-niedbynewdemandsforhowemotionsweretoberegulatedandsocialized.Incontrasttothekindofmodernizationnarrativedescribedabove,then,Iseethemodernemphasisonemotionalityineighteenth-centuryJapanasinseparablefromthepremodernuseofliteratureforpoliticalends,ajudg-mentthatcallsintoquestiontheappropriatenessofthemodernandpre-modernlabelstobeginwith,andthenarrativeofemotionalliberationthattheselabelsimply.Inthisway,Ipresentthehistoryofeighteenth-centuryliterarythoughtnotasagradualremovalofconstraintsonemotionality,butratherasaseriesofreconfigurationsoftherelationshipbetweenemotionsandnormativeconceptionsofthesocialorder.

  • AsJapaneseintellectualsintheseventeenthcenturyturnedtoConfucian-ismasaphilosophytodefinenormsforthenewsocietytakingshapeunderTokugawa rule, theydrewona rangeofChineseandKorean interpreta-tionsofConfucianism,particularlythoseoftheSongandMingdynastiesinChina,andofsixteenth-centuryKorea.ConfucianismhadlongbeenusedinJapanasasourceofideasaboutpoetry,withtheprefacestotheKokinsh(905),forexample,borrowingfromtheDaxu(GreatPreface)totheShi jing(BookofOdes),theanthologyofpoetrythatwasoneofthecanonicaltextsofConfucianism.IntheTokugawaperiod,though,Confucianismcametoplayamuchmoreexpandedroleasaphilosophyfordefininghumanna-ture,self-cultivation,andsocialnorms,adevelopmentthatwasaccompaniedbyanincreasedengagementwithConfucianwritingsonpoetryinordertodiscusswhatrolepoetryshouldplayinpromotingmorality,socialharmony,andgoodgovernment,orwhetheritshouldplayanysuchroleatall.

    ItwasSongConfucianism, especially thephilosophyofZhuXi, thatmostoftenbecamethebasis forConfucianinterpretationsofpoetryandotherliterarywritingsintheearlyTokugawaperiod.NakamuraYukihikohas described three views of literature prevalent among earlyTokugawa

    o n e

    Nature, Culture, and Society in Confucian Literary ThoughtChinese Traditions and Their Early Tokugawa Reception

  • c o n f u c i a n l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t

    followersofSongConfucianism.1ThefirstoftheseistheviewthatliteraturetransmitstheWay(said).AsanexampleofthishecitesthestatementofHayashiRazan(15831657)ontherelationshipbetweentheWay(Jp.d /michi,Ch.dao)andbun(Ch.wen),atermthat,asdiscussedintheIntroduc-tion,canrefertocultureingeneral,ormorenarrowlytowritingorliterarywriting:WhenthereistheWay,thenthereisculture/literarywriting.Whenthere isnoWay, there isnoculture/literarywriting. . . .TheWay is therootofculture/literarywriting,andculture/literarywritingisabranchoftheWay.2Cultureandliterarywriting,then,onlyhavevaluetotheextentthattheyexpresstheWaythatliesattheirroot.ThesecondtheorythatNaka-muracitesisthatliteratureisuselessandharmfulbecauseitrepresentstoy-ingwiththingsandlosingthewill( ganbutsu sshi ),suchaswhenYamazakiAnsai(16181682)writes,Thefactthatpeopleoftheworldgoforthinwan-tonness,knowingnopathofreturn,isbecauseoftheGenji monogatari(TaleofGenji)andIsemonogatari(TalesofIse).3Thethirdviewisthatliteratureservesforapprovingvirtueandchastisingvice(kanzen chaku),thatis,thatitteachesmoralitybyprovidingexamplesofgoodbehaviorforpeopletomodelthemselveson,andbadbehaviortoteachthemtheconsequencesofvice.AnexampleofthisviewistheaccountofAndTameakira(16591716)ofthefunctionoftheTale of Genji:Thistalespeaksentirelyofhumanemo-tionsandsocialconditions,showsthemannersandcustomsofthoseofthehigh,middle,andlowranksofthearistocracythroughtheiramorousaffairs,andwithoutexplicitlypraisingorcensuring,causesthereadertomakejudg-mentsofvirtueandvice.4

    Theseviews,asdiscussedindetaillater,eachemphasizedifferentfacetsofZhuXisphilosophy,buttheysharetheideathatliteratureshouldbejudgedaccordingtoitscapacitytoeffectivelyconveythemoralvaluesthatZhuXiseesasthecontentoftheConfucianWay.Onewaytointerprethisideas,then,wouldbetoseethemasmanifestationsofatypicallyConfuciandi-dacticapproachtowardliterature.Itisimportanttokeepinmind,though,thathisviewson literaturedonotmerelyrepresentastaticandtimelessConfuciantradition,butaretheproductofaspecificsetofassumptionsabouthumannatureanditsrelationshiptotheConfucianWay,assump-tionstiedtoamajorreconceptualizationofConfucianismintheSong.Inotherwords,ZhuXiformulatesonevarietyofConfucianliterarythought,rootedinoneinterpretationofConfucianism.Morespecifically,hisread-ingoftheOdes involvesarethinkingofoveramillenniumofConfuciancommentarial tradition,as representedbytheMaoschoolofOdescom-

  • c o n f u c i a n l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t

    mentarydatingfromtheWesternHandynasty(206b.c.a.d.8).InordertohighlightthedistinctivecharacteristicsofZhuXisapproachtotheOdes,andtoliteraturemoregenerally,wewillfirstlookattheMaotraditionthatitdisplaced.Thiswillthenallowustosee,inourdiscussionofTokugawacriticsofZhuXi,hownewviewsofliterature,withanequalclaimtobeingConfucian,couldbegeneratedoutofcritiquesofZhuXi.

    The Mao Tradition of Odes Interpretation and the Culture of King Wen

    TheMaoschoolwasoneoffourschoolsofOdesinterpretationthataroseintheWesternHan,andisthesourceofthetextoftheOdesusedtoday.5IntheMaoschoolofinterpretation,aspecificmoralcontentwasattributedtoeachoftheOdes,creatingwhatStevenVanZoerendescribesasaherme-neuticthatsawthemoralsignificanceoftheOdestolieintheirinscriptionandpreservationoftheparadigmaticallynormativeaims,orzhi,oftheirau-thors.6VanZoerennotesthatthemusicaccompanyingtheOdeshadlongbeenseenashavinganormativefunction,specificallythroughitscapacitytoregulatetheemotions,andcharacterizestheMaoschoolasintroducinganewapproachtotheOdeswithitsideathattheiractualwordscanplaysuchanormativeroleaswell.7ThisviewthatthewordsoftheOdeshavemoralsignificanceinandofthemselvesnecessitatedastabilizationofthemean-ingoftheOdes,incontrasttotheolderpractice,prevalentparticularlyinformalizedspeechsituationssuchasdiplomaticencounters,inwhichthewordsoftheOdeswerequotedasakindofrhetoricalembellishmenttospeech,withoutregardforadheringtoanynotionofafixedoriginalmean-ing.ThisconcernforstabilizingthemeaningofthewordsoftheOdes,aswellasestablishingtheirmoralsignificance,isreflectedintheinterpretiveapparatusproducedbytheMaoschool,which includes interlinearcom-mentariesthatclarifythemeaningofparticularwordsandphrases,aswellasanoteknownasaMinorPreface(xiaoxu)that isappendedtoeachpoemtoexplainitsmoralimport.8

    The Mao tradition was then carried on and expanded upon by theMaoshi jian(AnnotationsontheMao Odes),bytheEasternHandynasty(25220)scholarZhengXuan(127200),andtheMaoshi zhengyi (CorrectSignificanceoftheMao Odes),editedbytheearlyTangdynasty(618907)scholarKongYingda(574648).KongYingdasworkwasoneofasetofcommentariesproducedbyTangcourtscholarsbetween631and653that

  • c o n f u c i a n l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t

    aretogetherknownastheWujing zhengyi(CorrectSignificanceoftheFiveClassics).9Thesecommentariesrepresentedanattemptbythenewlyascen-dantTangdynastytomatchitspoliticalunificationofChinawithauni-ficationandsystematizationoftheConfuciantextualtradition,aprocessthatPeterBoldescribesasfollows:ForeachClassicthecompilerschoseadefinitivecommentaryfromtherangeofpossibleHanandpost-Hancom-mentariesandappendedsubcommentariestoelucidatetheClassic,elabo-rateonthemaincommentary,notealternativeviews,andgenerallysurveytheexegeticaltraditionthathadgrownuparoundeachClassic.10Inthissense, theCorrect Significance projectwas a fundamentallypreservation-istone,concernedwithsynthesizingandunifyingwhatwasalreadythere,ratherthanwithgeneratingself-consciouslynewinterpretations.Despitethisstatedintentionofupholdingtradition,theCorrect Significance of the Mao Odeswasmorethanjustaneutralconduitforthetransmissionofearlierideas,asitsinterpretationsplayedaroleinactivelyconstructingtheMaotraditionasaphilosophicallycoherentapproachtotheOdes.

    InadditiontotheMinorPrefaces,whichexplainthemeaningofindi-vidualpoems,theMaotextoftheOdesincludesaGreatPreface,whichprovidesmoregeneral theoretical statements aboutpoetry.11TheGreatPrefacepresentsavarietyofperspectivesonthenatureandfunctionofpoetry,describingitasamanifestationofemotionality,atoolforpoliticalcritique,ameansforinstructingpeopleinmorality,andawayofconnect-ingwiththeworldofspirits,aswellasprovidingclassificationsofrhetori-caltechniquesandgenres.VanZoerendescribesanimportantdifferencebetweentheCorrect SignificancecommentaryandtheGreatPrefaceitselfwhenhewrites:

    ThePrefacewasabricolage,acompilationpatchedtogetherfromearliertextsandlogiathatwasanythingbutsystematic.Itaimedtobecomprehen-siveonlyinthesensethatitattemptedtobringtogetherwhatitscompilersthoughtthemostimportant,authoritativetraditionsconcerningtheOdes.TheCorrect Significance,ontheotherhand,undertooktopresentaunifiedandcomprehensive,evensystematic,accountoftheOdes.ItwasthereforeconstantlyforcedtoexplainthattherelativelynarrowandparticularclaimsmadeinthePrefaceinfactpresupposedorimpliedamoregeneral,uni-fiedvision.12

    IwillexaminetwospecificareasinwhichtheCorrect Significancecommen-taryelaboratesontheGreatPrefacetoprovideamoresystematicphilo-

  • c o n f u c i a n l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t

    sophicalframeworkforthinkingabouttheOdes,thefirstofthesebeingthedivisionbetweenorthodox(zheng)andmutated(bian)Odes,andthesec-ondtherelationshipbetweenthewordsandthemusicoftheOdes.

    o r t h o d o x a n d m u t a t e d o d e s i n t h e m a o t r a d i t i o n

    The Odes is divided into four main sections: the Airs of the States(Guofeng),whichcontainspoemsthatarethoughttohavefolkorigins;theLesserElegantiae(Xiaoya)andGreaterElegantiae(Daya),whichappeartobeproductsofcourtcultureandinclude,amongotherthings,ac-countsofZhoudynasty(c.1027256b.c.)historyandcelebratorysongsforeventssuchasbanquets;andtheHymns(Song),whichconsistsmainlyofpiecestobeperformedatancestralritesoftheroyalhouse.IntheMaotradition,theAirsoftheStatesandtheElegantiaeareclassifiedaseitheror-thodoxormutated,dependingonwhethertheyderivefromtheidealizedtimeinwhichthemoraltransformationeffectedbyKingWenheldswayorfromdegeneratelaterages.

    TheGreatPrefacebeginswithanexplanationofthedidacticroleofthefirstpoemoftheOdes,Guanju:

    GuanjudepictsthevirtueoftheQueenConsort.ItisthebeginningoftheAirs/moral instruction( feng).13It isthat


Recommended