+ All Categories
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 poetry—18th century—History and criticism—Theory, etc. 2. Literature and society—Japan—History—18th century. 3. Nativism in literature. 4. Culture in literature. 5. Philosophy, Confucian. I. Title. pl733.4.f58 2011 895.6'13209355—dc22 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:OgyūSorai 61

3 PoetryandtheCultivationoftheConfucianGentleman:TheLiteraryThoughtofOgyūSorai 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,whosharedhisbroadknowledgeofOgyūSoraiandTokugawa intellectualhistory throughhis seminarsandcountlesspersonalconversations.MyunderstandingofSoraiisdeeplyin-debtedaswelltoHiraishiNaoaki’srigorousseminarsonBendōandBenmeiattheUniversityofTokyo.SeminarswithNagashimaHiroaki,attheUni-versityofTokyo, andSuzuki Jun, at theNational Institute for JapaneseLiterature,contributedtomyknowledgeofeighteenth-centurywakaandliteraticulture.IhavelearnedmuchaboutDazaiShundaifrommydiscus-sionswithKojimaYasunoriofInternationalChristianUniversity.

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

SinceIcametoPomonaCollegein2003,mycolleaguesintheDepart-mentofAsianLanguagesandLiteraturesandtheAsianStudiesProgramhaveprovidedasupportiveenvironmentformydevelopmentasateacherandscholar.IamparticularlyindebtedtoSamYamashitafornotonlybeingavaluablementorandcolleague,butalsosharinghisexpertiseonOgyūSoraiandTokugawaintellectualhistory,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 appearedin“ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry:KamonoMabuchi’sKokuikō, 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-cientChinaorJapanasthesourceofa“Way”(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.ItwasaboveallinthephilosophyoftheConfucianscholarOgyūSorai(1666–1728)thataninterestinhistoricalcultureswascombinedwithanemphasisonemotionalityinthisway.Sorai,thesubjectofChapters2and3,arguedthatConfucianismshouldbeunderstoodasaphilosophyofrulership,ratherthanameansforpersonalmoralcultivation,andhenotonlygeneratednovelandinfluentialinterpretationsoftheCon-fucianclassics,butalsoformulateddetailedproposalsforpoliticalreform.HesawthestudyandcompositionofclassicalChinesepoetrybythegov-erningeliteaskeytothepracticeoftheConfucianWay,andhisviewswereinheritedandmodifiedbyhisdisciples,whomIdiscussinChapter4,suchasDazaiShundai(1680–1747),whofurtherdevelopedhisideasonConfu-ciangovernment,andHattoriNankaku(1683–1759),whowasmostfamousasapoet.TheSoraischoolsawChinaasthesourceofcultureandciviliza-tion,andtheywerecriticizedintheeighteenthcenturybyscholars,oftenreferredtoinEnglish-languagescholarshipas“nativists,”whoarguedforthesuperiorityofancientJapanesecultureandsawChinaashavingcorruptedJapan’soriginalvirtues.1Thetwomostprominenteighteenth-centurynativ-istswereKamonoMabuchi(1697–1769),whomIwriteaboutinChapter5,andMotooriNorinaga(1730–1801),thesubjectofChapter6,bothofwhomsharedwithSoraiabeliefintheimportanceofpoetryinachievingaharmo-nioussociety,butarguedthatonlyJapanesepoetrycouldplaysucharole.

Whenexaminingthesefigures’literarythought,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.

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

Thisnotionofaculturalunitywasanalternative to themetaphysicalunityofferedbytheConfucianismoftheSongdynasty(960–1279)scholarZhuXi(1130–1200),acommontargetofcriticismamongtheeighteenth-centurywritersIdiscuss.2AccordingtoZhuXi’sphilosophy,allthingsinthecosmosareunitedinasinglemoralorder(theWay)throughtheirpos-sessionofauniversal“principle”(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.ZhuXi’snotionofuniversalprinciplethuslinksthehumannatureofeachindividualtothenormsthatgovernthevarioustotalities—familial,political,andcosmic—withinwhichtheindividualissituated.ManyofhisTokugawacritics,though,arguedthatsocialandpoliticalunitycouldonlycomeaboutthroughthemediationofculturalnormsexternaltoandtran-scendinghumannature.ZhuXi’sideaofauniversalprincipleinherentinhumannature,theycharged,merelyencouragedpeopletoasserttheirownsubjectiveprejudicesasuniversallyvalid,leadingtothefragmentationandstrifethatplaguedtheirworld.

ThisreplacementofametaphysicalWaywithaculturalonewasaccom-paniedbyashiftfromZhuXi’sviewofamorallydefinedhumannaturetoanotionofhumannatureasbeingatcoreemotional.InZhuXi’ssystem,moralityandemotionalityareinterpretedthroughthenotionsofprincipleandmaterialforce(Ch.qi,Jp.ki).Inthisschema,universalprincipleisthesourceofallthings’participationintheWay,butonlyexistsonthelevelofabstractvalue;whatallowsthingstocomeintobeingintheirphysicalconcretenessisthematerialforcewithwhichtheyareendowed,whichisdifferentforallthings.Principlecannotexistwithoutmaterialforce,butat thesametimeprinciplemaintainsaphilosophicalpriorityovermate-rialforce,asprincipleisthesourceofnormativecorrectness,whilematerialforceisonlygoodtotheextentthatitfacilitatestheexpressionofprinciple.Inhumans,principleisrepresentedbysuchvirtuesashumaneness(Ch.ren,Jp.jin)andrightness(Ch.yi,Jp.gi ),whilematerialforceisrepresentedbytheemotions(Ch.qing,Jp. jō).Emotionsareanecessaryvehicleforthemanifestationofvirtues,buttheyareatthesametimepotentiallydanger-ous,asunregulatedemotionscanobscurepeople’sinnervirtueandpreventitfrombeingputintopractice.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,inwhichtheemotionsnurturedbyaculturalWayareinturnasourceofthisculture’scohesiveness.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,suchaswithSorai’sargumentthathumanshaveanin-natetendencytowardmutualaffectionandcooperation,atendencythattheWayofthesagesharnessesanddevelopsinordertoachieveformsofsocietythatpeople,despitetheirgenerallyvirtuousinstincts,wouldnotbeabletoarriveatoftheirownspontaneousaccord.

Iseetheprominenceofpoetryineighteenth-centurydiscourseasowingmuch tohow itwasviewedascapableof simultaneouslyembodyinganemotionalhumannatureandculturallydefinedsocialnorms.Bystraddlingthedividebetweenhumannatureandculture,poetrycametoserveasasiteofcontestationforquestionsofhowpeoplearemeanttobecultivatedbyculturalnorms,wherethesourceofthesenorms’legitimacylies,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,suchaswithSorai’sideaofpoetryasameansofeducat-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 isÉcriture, lecture et poésie,byMarguerite-MarieParvulesco,who,whiletouchingonsomeofthephilosophicalissuesthatIdiscuss,analyzesthispoetrymainlyfromaliterarystandpoint.5

Myapproachputsmyworkinasomewhatambiguouspositionbetweenliterarystudiesandintellectualhistory,butIwouldarguethatthesedisci-plinarydivisionsofthemodernacademyareabarriertograspingthefullimportofTokugawadiscourseonpoetry.Acentralcontentionofthisbookis thatweneed to take seriously theways inwhichwritersof this timecombinedpoetrywithculturalandintellectualpursuitsthattothemodernreaderlieoutsidetherubricof“literature,”ratherthandismissingsuchef-fortsasevidenceofthesefigures’failuretograspsomepurportedessenceofwhatpoetryorliteratureshouldbe.Thesewriterssawpoetryasembodyingqualities thatcontributedtotheidealsociety,anditwasonlynatural tothemtointegratepoetrywithothermeansforachievingsuchasociety,suchashistoricalstudy,theexegesisoftheConfucianclassics,music,ordevotiontotheShintogods,andtousediscourseonpoetrytoengageinphilosophi-calexplorationsofthebasisofgoodgovernanceandsocialharmony.

Ogyū Sorai and his Tokugawa Antecedents

OgyūSoraiisfamousfordeclaringthattheConfucianWay“wascreatedbytheancientkings,andisnottheWayexistingspontaneouslyinHeaven-and-Earth,”andthatitwascreatedforthepurposeof“bringingpeacetotherealm.”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.

WhileSorai’s 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(1653–1724)depicturbancommonercharacterswhofindtrueloveinsociallyprohibitedrelationships,bringinghumanemotions(ninjō)intoconflictwiththedemandsofduty(giri ).Chikamatsu’splayspresentsuchconflictsasirresolvableinthisworld,leavingthecharacterswithnochoicebuttoseekescapeinlovesuicide,withthepromisethattheloverscanatleastbetogetherinthenextworld.Alatergenrethatstresseshumansentimentistheninjōbon(“booksofhumanemo-tions”)of theearlynineteenthcentury,themost famouswriterofwhichwasTamenagaShunsui(1790–1843).Unlikethetragicfiguresoflovesuicideplays,though,the lovers inninjōbonareabletoresolvetheconflictsthatkeepthemapart,providingafantasyworldinwhichemotionsdonotneces-sarilyhavetobesuppressedinfavorofsocialcompliance.

InTokugawaphilosophicaldiscourse,positiveviewsofhumanemotionswereoftenpresentedascritiquesofthephilosophyofZhuXi.AnumberofearlyTokugawaConfucianscriticizedhimforputtingtoomuchempha-sisonprincipleattheexpenseofmaterialforce,andasaresultfailingtorecognizetheimportanceofactivityandvitality,includingtheemotionallivesofhumans.InhisTaigiroku(1713),forexample,KaibaraEkiken(1630–1714)writes,“Principleandmaterialforcearenecessarilyasinglething.The

i n t r o d u c t i o n

reasonIcannotfollowZhuXiisbecauseofhowhemakesprincipleandmaterialforceouttobetwoseparatethings.”9HearguesthatSongConfu-cians“makenothingnessthebasisofexistence”(p.13),andinthisregardtheirtheories“arenotbasedonConfuciusandMencius,butrathercomefromBuddhismandDaoism”(p.14).ItōJinsai(1627–1705)attacksZhuXi’sideaofprinciplealongsimilarlines,writing,“Theterm‘theWay’isalivingword,asitdescribesthewonderofconstantgenerationandtransformation.Termslike‘principle’aredeadwords....ThesagestakeHeaven-and-Earthtobealivingthing.. . .LaozitakesemptinesstobetheWay,andviewsHeaven-and-Earthasadeadthing.”10JinsaitakesissuewithZhuXi’sviewofhumanemotionality,arguingthatitisinfactnotanauthenticConfucianteachingatall,butrathercomesfromtheDaoistbeliefthat“allthingscomeintobeingfromnothingness,”andthattoreturntothisnothingnessitisnecessaryto“extinguishdesiresandreturntotheinbornnature.”11BothJinsaiandEkikenclaimedthatZhuXi’stheorizingdistortedtheConfucianWaybymakingitabstruseandlofty,wheninfact,theyargued,itwassome-thingthatanyonecouldeasilypractice.Jinsaiwasfromamerchantclassbackground,andEkiken,whileofsamuraioriginshimself,producedmanyworksgearedtowardapopularaudience.Theirinterestinhumanemotionsandeverydaylifecanbeseen,then,muchlikeChikamatsu’splays,asanat-tempttovalidatethelivesofcommonersandtochallenge,evenifnottheactuallegitimacyoftheTokugawaregime,atleastitsclaimtoauthorityoverallaspectsofitssubjects’lives.

SoraisharedthebeliefoffigureslikeEkikenandJinsaithattheConfucianWay,properlyconceived,treatshumansasactive,emotionalbeings,andlikethemcriticizedZhuXifordefiningtheWayintermsofastaticpurity.HeexpresseddissatisfactionwithJinsai,though,forthinkingthattheWaycouldbeachievedthroughtheoutwardextensionofqualitiesinherentintheself.JinsaihadsoughttoremedytheperceivedsolipsismandsubjectivismofZhuXi’sphilosophybyreplacingitsinwardorientation,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(1368–1644)dynastyConfucianism,oneemphasizingquietudeandprinciple,andtheotheractivityandemotionality.

Sorai’spresentationoftheproblemofsubjectivismreflectsadifferentat-titudefromJinsai’stowardtheemergenceofanurbancommercialcultureintheTokugawaperiod.WhileJinsai’scritiqueofZhuXi’s subjectivismwaspartofanattempttodefinethisdynamicurbansocietyasalocusofethicalcultivation,Sorai’sappealtothenormsofthesagekingsreflectshisprofounduneasewiththissameurbansociety,ashesawtheWayofthesagesasacorrectivetotheinfiltrationofmerchantvalues.SoraiwasoneofanumberofTokugawaintellectualswhotriedtosolidifythepositionofthesamuraiasagoverningelite,andprovideamorepragmaticvisionofruler-shipthanthatofferedbythemoralidealismofZhuXi.KumazawaBanzan(1619–1691),inhisDaigaku wakumon,proposesanextensiveseriesofpo-liticalandeconomicreformsthathesawasnecessarytorescueTokugawasociety,andemphasizestheneedforrulerstogobeyondjustmoralpurity:“Eventhougharulermayhaveahumaneheart, ifhedoesnotpracticehumanegovernment,thisisemptyvirtue.”13Healsopointsouttheneedtorelyonnormspasseddownfromtheancientsages,commentingthatjustasevenahighlyskilledcarpentermustmakeuseofacompassandsquare,greatrulerstoomustgraspthe“methodsoftheancientkings”(sen’ō no hō)iftheyaretogoverntherealmeffectively(p.416).Atthesametime,thesemethodsneedtobeappliedwithaneyetothespecificcircumstances inwhich they are tobepracticed,whichBanzanexpresses as “time,place,and rank,” and “historical changes and human emotions” (p. 416). Forthisreason,eventhough“themethodsoftheancientkingsarerecordedintheclassicsandcommentaries,”theyareultimately“difficulttoexpressonpaper”(p.416).AlthoughBanzan’sconcernforpolicymakingisquitediffer-entfromthephilosophiesofEkikenandJinsai,then,heisliketheminhisconcernforengagingwiththedynamicrealityofsociety.14

YamagaSokō(1622–1685),anotherfigureconcernedwithproperruler-ship,adaptedConfucianismtodefinetheroleofthesamuraiasamilitaryelite.Hewroteatatimewhenthesamuraiclasswasbeingtransformedintoacivilbureaucracy,butsawitasimportantforsamuraitoupholdmartialvaluesinordertomaintaintheirdistinctiveroleasmoralleadersinsoci-ety.Sokō,likethefiguresdiscussedabove,madeapointofaffirmingtheemotionalnatureofhumans,notingthat“theoriesofbeingwithoutdesires

i n t r o d u c t i o n

forthemostpartcomefromBuddhismandDaoism.”15Heisalsosimilartotheseotherfigures inrejectingtheideaofConfucianismasaformofesotericmetaphysics,arguingthat“theteachingsofthesagesconsistsimplyoftheeveryday.”16HefaultsZhuXiforpresentingadistortedviewofCon-fucianism,andwritesthatintheSong“thelearningofthesageschangedgreatly,andwhilescholarswereConfucianonthesurface,inrealitytheydeviatedfromConfucianism.”17SokōseesthislossoftrueConfucianteach-ingsastheculminationofaprocessthathadbeengoingonsincetheHandynasty(206b.c.–a.d.220),andhisdesiretoreturntopre-Haninterpreta-tionsofConfucianismisapointhehadincommonwithbothJinsaiandSorai,whichhasledtothethreeofthembeinglabeledasadvocatesof“An-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(1514–1570)andWangShizhen(1526–1590).TheseMingwritersstrovetoenterintothelanguageof thepastbyclosely imitatinganarrow literarycanon,anap-proachthatSoraifollowedinhisownpoetry,whichwasbasedheavilyontheHighTangpoetryextolledbytheAncientPhraseologypoets.19MingAncientPhraseologyhadbeenaprimarilyliterarymovement,butSoraiex-tendedthesewriters’viewsonlanguagetothestudyoftheConfucianWay,portrayingthelinguisticconsciousnessgainedthroughpoeticcompositionasameanstoaccessingthehistoricalculture,recordedintheConfucianclas-sics,thathesawasthesourceoftheWay.Sorai’sscholarlyparadigmwasthendevelopedinnewdirectionsbyeighteenth-centurynativistssuchasMabuchiandNorinaga.WhilenativistswerecriticalofSorai’sadulationofChinese

i n t r o d u c t i o n

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

Maruyama Masao on Sorai’s Modernity

SoraiwasbroughttoprominenceinpostwarscholarshipprimarilythroughMaruyamaMasao’sseminalNihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū(StudiesintheHis-toryofJapanesePoliticalThought),andvirtuallyallpostwarinterpretationsofSoraiengageinsomewaywithMaruyama’swork.20Maruyamaarguesthatbyseeingsocialnormsashumanlyconstructed rather thannatural,andshiftingthecontentoftheConfucianWayfrommoralitytopolitics,SoraicreatedthebeginningsofamodernpoliticalconsciousnessinJapan.HedoesnotgosofarastoclaimthatSoraicreatedafullymodernpoliticalphilosophy,andinfactstresseshowSoraiidealizedfeudalsocialrelation-shipsandstrove tobuttress theTokugawa regime.Hispoint, though, isthatSorai,inhisefforttoupholdanincreasinglyfragilefeudalsocialorder,unwittinglyintroducedapoliticallogicthatwasforeigntothisorder,andwouldultimatelyworktoundermineit.AlthoughhemainlytreatsSoraiasapoliticalphilosopher,healsodiscusseshowSorai’spoliticalphilosophygivesrisetowhatMaruyamaportraysasacharacteristicallymodernvisionofliterature,oneinwhichliteratureisconceivedofasthefreeexpressionoftheemotionalinteriorityoftheindividual.

MaruyamaapproachesSorai’spoliticalmodernityfromtwomaindirec-tions.First,hearguesthatthenotionofthepoliticalorderas“invention”(sakui )ratherthan“nature”(shizen)isthedecisivebreakthatSoraimadewithZhuXi, forwhomthepoliticalorder, thecosmicornaturalorder,andtheinnermoralvirtueofhumansareallregulatedbyasingleuniversal“principle.”Maruyamaargues thatZhuXi’s systemadheres toa logic inwhichsocialhierarchiesandothernormsgoverninghumansocietyareman-ifestationsofastaticnaturalorder,andthusarenotsubjecttochangebyhumanagents.Bydepictingsocialnormsashumanconstructs,Maruyamamaintains,Soraiintroducesapoliticallogicinwhichsocialbondsareseenascontingentratherthannecessary.MaruyamausesthesociologicalnotionsofGemeinschaftandGesellschafttointerpretthiscontrastbetweenZhuXiandSorai,arguingthatSorai’spoliticalphilosophyrepresentsamovement

i n t r o d u c t i o n

awayfromaconsciousnessofsocietyasGemeinschaft,inotherwordsasanorganiccommunityofimmutablesocialarrangementsthatareexperiencedbytheindividualasanecessarygiven,towardaconsciousnessofsocietyasGesellschaft,inotherwordsasmadeupofcontractualbondsenteredintofreelybyautonomousindividualsforthepursuitofparticularinterests,aviewthatMaruyamaseesascharacteristicofmodernbourgeoissociety.21

InhissecondargumentforSorai’smodernity,MaruyamaemphasizeshispoliticizationofConfucianism,bywhichhemeansnotjustthatSoraiseesConfucianismasatoolforgovernment,butmorespecificallythathetakesuppoliticsasanautonomoussphereofactivity,ratherthanasanextensionofmorality.22PartandparcelofthisiswhatMaruyamacallsSorai’sexternal-izationoftheConfucianWay.InonesensethisreferstohowforSoraitheWayisembodiedininstitutionsthathavetheiroriginsoutsideofhumannature,butmoreimportantly,MaruyamaarguesthatSoraiseestheWayasonlyconcernedwiththeexternalbehaviorofpeople,andnotwiththeirinnerprivatelives,suchastheiremotionsortheirpersonalmoralvalues.Hemaintainsthatthisisanimportantcriterioninthedevelopmentofamodernpoliticalconsciousness,writingthat“nonmodern,ormoreproperlyspeakingpremodernthoughtdoesnotgenerallyrecognizetheoppositionbetween thepublicand theprivate,”and that“the independenceof thepublicsphereinallareasofculturalactivity,whichatthesametimeentailstheliberationoftheprivatesphere,issurelyanimportantdistinguishingcharacteristicofthe‘modern.’”23

Maruyamaconnectsthisdepictionofmodernizationtoliteraturebyas-sertingthatafterSoraishiftedtheConfucianWayawayfromZhuXi’sideaofmoralnormsrootedinhumannature,andtowardpoliticalnormsthatlieoutsidehumannature,“theonlythingthatcouldrushintofillthisinterior,privatespherethathadbeenemptiedoutbytheexternalizationoftheWaywasthenaturalhumanemotionalitythathadbeensuppressedbythemoralrationalismofZhuXi”(pp.109–10).Thisaffirmationofemotionsismani-fested,heargues,intheSoraischool’sstronginterestinliterarycomposi-tion:“Asonewouldexpect,thenaturalemotionsthatwereliberatedfrommoralrigorisminthephilosophyofSoraiwentinthedirectionofa‘carefreeeleganceandliterarytalent.’ItisnotwithoutreasonthatSorai’sacademyhadareputationforgivingprimacytotheliteraryarts”(p.111).

MaruyamaarguesthatwhileSoraihimselfincorporatedboththepublicandtheprivateinhisscholarship,thesetwoaspectsofhisphilosophybe-camedetachedintheworkofhisfollowers.HeseesDazaiShundaiashaving

i n t r o d u c t i o n

inherited the public, political side of Sorai’s philosophy, while HattoriNankakucarriedonitsprivate,literaryside.MaruyamadepictsthisdivisionintheSoraischoolasaprocessoffragmentationanddegeneration,writingthateventhoughShundaiandNankakueachgraspedonlyapartofSorai’slearning,andlackedtheirteacher’scapacityforintegratingdiversefieldsofstudy,“inthetypicalmannerofepigones,theyeitherconsciouslyoruncon-sciouslytooktheparticularaspectthattheyinheritedandabsolutizeditastheessenceofSorai’slearningitself ”(p.143).

MaruyamafindsamoredynamicdevelopmentofSorai’sthoughtinnativ-ism,especiallythephilosophyofMotooriNorinaga.Firstofallhearguesthat,likeNankaku,“Nativisminheritedtheprivate,apoliticalsideofSorai’sphi-losophy,whilecompletelyrejectingitspublicside”(p.178).HeseesNorinagaasgoingfurtherthantheSoraischool,though, inthatNorinaga’s literaryidealofmono no aware(“thepathosofthings”)activelyaffirmedemotions,ratherthanmerelygrantingthemanegativefreedomaswhatisleftunregu-latedwhentheConfucianWayconfinesitselftothepublicsphere(p.169).WhileMaruyamadepictsNorinagaasexercisinganonpoliticaloptionwithinthestructurecreatedbySorai’sphilosophy,heseescertaindifferencesbetweenNorinaga’searlywork,whichfocusedalmostentirelyonclassicalJapaneseliterarystudies,andhislaterscholarship,whichattemptedtoelucidateJapan’s“AncientWay”(kodō)or“WayoftheGods”asanalternativetoConfucian-ism.Inhisearlyliterarythought,Maruyamamaintains,Norinagadidallowthattheexpressionofemotionsthroughliteraturecouldhavecertainsocialbenefits,apositionSoraihadtakenaswell,butMaruyamacharacterizessuchideasasperipheral to thebasic importofNorinaga’s (andSorai’s) literarythought,whichwastofreeliteraturefromethicsandpolitics(p.172).HeclaimsthatinNorinaga’slaterthought,though,thepure,unregulatedemo-tionsexpressedinpoetrybecamethemselvesequatedwiththeShintoWay,sothat“literature,whichhadbeenliberatedfrombeingusedforself-cultivationorgovernment,onceagainappearstohavetakenonasocialandpoliticalcharacter”(p.173).Maruyamaseesthisviewofliteratureasultimatelydamag-ingtopolitics,though,as“thefactthatliterature,whileremainingliterature,waspoliticizedmeant,tolookatitfromtheotherside,thatpoliticswasmadeliterary;toputitsomewhatparadoxically,thisisnothingotherthanthede-politicizationofpolitics”(p.174).InthecontextofMaruyama’smoderniza-tionnarrative,then,Norinaga’sabandonmentofpoliticsasanactivepursuitrepresentsastepbackwardsfromtheincipientmodernityofSorai.

OneproblemwithMaruyama’sreadingofSoraiisthattheideaofthe

i n t r o d u c t i o n

ConfucianWayassomethingcreatedbyhumansforthepurposeofgov-ernancehasalongtraditioninConfucianism,goingbacktosuchphiloso-phersasXunzi,makingitdifficulttousethisideaasanindexofmodernity.WhilesuchhumaninventionoftheWaybysageswasseeninearlierConfu-cianismasbackedupbyandanswerabletoHeaven,meaningthatthesagesarenotcompletelyautonomousactors,Soraiisnodifferentinthisregard.24TheroleofHeaveninSorai’sphilosophywillbeanimportantaspectofmyanalysis,andIstresshowSoraiusesHeavennotjustasanauthorityonhightobeobeyed,butalsoasasourceforcriticalreflectiononhumanlycreatedgovernmentsandsocialnorms.

TheprimaryfocusofmycritiqueofMaruyama,however,isaquestion-ingofhispictureofSoraiashavingopenedupaprivateinteriorityinwhichemotionswerefreedfromnormativedemands.Evenifweacceptthatasepa-rationofthepublicandprivate,andofpoliticsandmorality,ischaracteristi-callymodern,itisquestionablewhetherSoraireallyproposedthisinthewayMaruyamaclaimshedid.WhileMaruyamamaintainsthatSorai’sexternal-izationandpoliticizationoftheWayentailsaretreatoftheWayfrommak-inganyclaimsonpeople’sinneremotionsormoralvalues,Soraidefinesthemusicofthesagesas“theWayofgoverningtheinbornnatureandtheemo-tions,”25andarguesthatthepromotionoftheeverydaymoralitythathede-finesasthecontentofthe“Mean”(Ch.zhongyong,Jp. chūyō)—virtuessuchasfilialpiety,brotherlyobedience,loyalty,andfaithfulness—isanimportantpartofgovernment.26WithNorinaga,too,thereisreasontoquestiontheexistenceofanunregulatedsphereofprivateemotionality.MaruyamaarguesthatNorinagafreedemotionsfromallnorms,buteventuallypoliticizedthisemotionalitybyequatingitwiththeShintoWay.Whatsuchaninterpreta-tionoverlooks,though,ishoweveninhisearliestliterarywritingsNorinagadepictedemotionsasinneedofregulationandsocialization,presentingclas-sicalJapaneseliteratureasatoolforinstillingcorrectemotionalresponses.

CertainproblemswithMaruyama’sclaimsabouttheliberationofemo-tionalityinSorai’sphilosophyarealludedtointhelaterinterpretationsofSoraidiscussedbelow,butthefullimplicationsofareconsiderationofthispoint forourunderstandingofeighteenth-century literary thoughthavenotbeenfullyexplored.Thisbookattemptstofillthisgapbypresentinganalternativeframeworkforunderstandingeighteenth-centurywriters’viewsonemotionalityandpoetry,onethatrecognizestheimportancetheyplacednotonlyonemotionsthemselves,butalsoontheincorporationofemo-tionsintosystemsofsocialnorms.

i n t r o d u c t i o n

Sorai as Philosopher of Culture

SomescholarshavecounteredMaruyama’spositiveportrayalofSoraibyarguing that the authoritarian aspects of Sorai’s philosophy, such as hisdemandthatpeoplehavetotal faithinthesages,arenotmerelyaprod-uctofhispolitical logicnotbeingcarriedthroughto itsproperconclu-sion,butareanintegralpartofthislogicitself.Wm.TheodoredeBary,forexample, in“SagehoodasSecularandSpiritual Ideal inTokugawaNeo-Confucianism,”reversesMaruyama’s judgmentof therelativemodernityofSongConfucianismandSorai,writingofSorai’s“fearfulreactiontotheliberalhumanismoftheSongandMing,”ahumanismthatdeBaryde-finesintermsof“Neo-Confucianidealismandegalitarianism,”27arefer-encetotheideathatallhumansinnatelypossesstheWaywithintheirin-bornnature.JohnTucker,intheintroductiontoOgyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks, likewisecontrastsSoraiunfavorablywiththeegalitarianismoftheNeo-Confuciantradition,andwritesthat“Sorai’sthoughtwasnotamodernizingforce,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,andSorai’sconceptionofthesagesisinfactaconstrictionofNeo-Confucianism’sassertionoftheuniversalpotentialforsagehood,asrepre-sentedbyhumans’innatecapacityforthemoralcultivationoftheselfandtherationalinvestigationoftheexternalworld.

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

i n t r o d u c t i o n

HecomparesSorai’sformulationofcommunitywiththekindofideologythatconstructslanguagesasclosedsystemsofmeaningthatareseparatedfromotherlanguages,whileallowingimmediatecomprehensiontoobtainamongtheirnativespeakers.ThekindofculturalinteriorityproposedbySorai,Sakaiargues,admitsnointernaldifferenceorconflict,creatingasoci-etyinwhich“thereisabsolutelynoroomfortheothernessoftheOther.”29HeconnectsthisnotionofinterioritytoSorai’svisionofsocialcontrol,inwhichinstitutionsare“completelyinternalizedandconsequentlyrenderedinvisibleandtransparent”(p.280),sothat“themotivationforsocialac-tionappearstooriginateinthespontaneousparticipationofeachsubject”(p.281).Incontrast,then,toMaruyama’sdescriptionofSoraiasliberatingtheinteriorlifeofindividualsbylimitingtheWaytoexternalcompliance,SakaimaintainsthatforSoraitheWayismeanttopermeateindividualsonthedeepestlevel,sothatindividualinteriorityisfromthestartcompletelydeterminedbyandidenticalwithacommunalinteriority.

While I share this view thatSorai envisions theConfucianWay as aframeworkofculturalvaluethatshapespeoplefromwithin,IdifferfromSakaiinthatIseeSoraiasinfactquiteconcernedwiththedangersofat-temptingtoeradicateallformsofdifferencewithinsociety,andofdefiningthecultureofthesagesasatotallyclosedsystem.Sorai’sbeliefintheimpor-tanceofvaluinghumandifferencesisapointemphasizedbyTetsuoNajita,whoportraysSoraiasseekingsocialunitythroughthepoliticalintegrationofdiversecapacities.InTokugawa Political Writings,NajitacallsattentiontohowSoraiinsistedonthemaintenanceofthespecificqualitiesthatpeoplewereendowedwithbyHeaven,ratherthantryingtoforcepeople intoasingle mold. He characterizes Sorai as an essentially optimistic philoso-pher:“Ratherthananoppressivebureaucraticpolity,itwouldappearthatSoraiheldtoaromanticanddynamicvisionofpeoplelivingandworkingtogetherina ‘humancommunity’(ningenkai).Sharingacommonlivingplace,peoplewouldbringtogethermanydifferenttalents(unyō ei’i no sai )andbuildaflourishingsociety.”30NajitaseesthisvisionoftheConfucianWayasaprofoundlyethicalone,andrejectsMaruyama’sclaimthatSoraiproposedaseparationofethicsfrompolitics(pp.xvi,xxiv–xxv).Onemani-festationofSorai’sideaofdiversehumancapacitiesishisinsistenceonthenecessityofsocialhierarchy,andNajitareadilyacknowledgesthiselitismasanegativeaspectofhisphilosophy,mentioningthatitwasrecognizedandcriticizedeven in theeighteenthcentury (p. liii).Still,Najitaultimately

i n t r o d u c t i o n

findspositivevalueinSorai’sideaofanethicalcommunitybuiltupontherespectforandnurturingofthediversecapacitiesofitsmembers.

OlivierAnsart,inL’empire du rite,similarlywritesabouttheimportanceofdiversehumancapacitiesinSorai’spoliticalphilosophy.Atthesametime,heoverlapswithSakai inportrayingSorai’sWayasa systemof symbolicvaluethatpeopleinhabitandarestructuredby,onethatAnsartdescribesasdefinedbytheritesas“anexhaustive,totalizingsystemofmeaning.”31Ansartusestheterm“Nature”(withacapital“N”)torefertothissystem,achoiceofterminologythatdistinguishesthisworldofhumanlycreatedvaluefromthenaturalworld(whichhesimplycalls“nature”),whileatthesametimecallingattentiontohowpeoplearemeanttointernalizetheritestothepointthattheyareas ifnatural.IncontrasttoMaruyama’sviewofSorai’sprivatesphereasaninviolablepersonalinteriority,AnsartarguesthatforSoraithe“private” simplyconsistsof therawmaterialof “nature” thathasnotyetbeenintegratedinto“Nature.”Hecomments,“Inthissense,withSoraithereisnottheslightest‘discontinuity’betweenthepublicandprivatedomains.Privatecapacitiesandsentimentsdonotexistexceptasmaterialthatmustbeforciblyorganizedandintroducedintothepublicdomain”(p.149).AnsartnotesthesimilarityofSorai’sconceptionoflearningtheWaytotheherme-neuticcircle,inthatSoraiportraystheWayassomethingthatpeoplemustbeplacedwithinandacceptas anentiretybefore theycangrasp specificelementsofit,aprocessthatnecessarilyinvolvesanactoffaith,astheWayasawholecannotbecomprehendedfromanoutsideperspectivethroughrationalanalysis(p.85).Ansartdoesnotseesuchforcedinternalizationaseradicatingthedifferencesbetweenindividuals,though,ashearguesthatSoraidemandsthatsuchdifferencesbemaintainedevenwhenpeoplehaveinternalizedtheWay.HenotesthatincontrasttoSongConfucianism,wherethepossessionofauniversalprinciplebyallindividualthingsandpeoplemeansthatthepartcanstandinforthewhole,forSorai,“apoliticalcapacity,humaneness,mustassurethecoherenceandguaranteethesenseofasystemmadeofprofoundlyheterogeneouscomponents”(p.81).Morespecifically,people’sspecifictalentspredisposethemtowarddevelopingdifferentvirtues,whichthenallowthemtoservesocietyindifferentways.

MyreadingofSoraiissimilartoAnsart’sinthatIseeSoraiasconceivingoftheConfucianWayasavehicleforassimilatingpeopleintoacommonframeworkofsymbolicvalue,whileatthesametimepromotingtheindi-vidualdifferencesthatallowpeopletocontributetosocietyinthemannermostsuitedtotheirparticular inbornqualities.Iputgreaterimportance

i n t r o d u c t i o n

thanAnsartdoes,though,onSorai’streatmentoftherelationshipbetweennatureandtheWay.Ansartclaimsthat forSorai theritesarecreatedbyhumans“withoutowinganythingtonatureortoHeaven”(p.23),and“theWayisnothingotherthantheartificialandautonomousorderofpolitics,devoidoftheleastanchoringinnature”(p.65).IagreewithAnsart’sasser-tionthatSoraipositsaqualitativegapbetweennatureandtheWay,butIcontendthatSoraineverthelessdoesseetheWayasneedingtorespondtoanaturethatliesoutsideit,suchaswithhow,asInotedearlier,hemakestheWayanswerabletoHeaven.AnumberofinterpretersofSoraihavepointedouttherelationshipbetweenhisWayandabroadlyconceivednotionofnature,suchaswhenSamuelYamashitaarguesthat“Sorai’sthoughtwasdistinguished...byitsaffirmationofbothnatureandartifice,”andnotesthatthis“nature”includes“heaven,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 themostordinaryaspectsofpeople’sbeing.Ultimatelythesedifferentnotionsofnatureareconnected,though,inthatSoraiseeshumannatureasbestowedbyHeaven,sothattoignoreorviolateitisinfactanoffenseagainstHeavenitself.SuchexternalreferencepointstotheWayaresignificant,Iargue,becausetheypreventSorai’sWayfrombecomingacompletelyself-validatingandtotal-izingsystemofvalue,insteadplacingconstraintsonwhattheWaycandoandhowitcanshapepeople,andallowingforadegreeofcriticalreflectiononexistingpoliticalstructures,somethingthatreadingssuchasdeBary’sandSakai’sdonotfindinSorai.MyinterpretationthereforerecognizesacertainelementofthepoliticalagencythatMaruyamahadfoundinSorai,butitdoessofromadifferentperspective.

Onewaytodefinetheterm“culture”isintermsofthekindofworldof symbolic value I have described, and in discussing Sorai and othereighteenth-centuryfigures Iuse thenotionsofcultureandnature as analternativetoMaruyama’sschemaofinventionversusnature.33Maruyama’scontrastbetweennatureandinvention,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.Aseconddefinitionofthetermrelevanttothisstudyis“culture”inthesenseofrefinedformsofliteraryexpression,music,andritualtraditionallyassociatedwithsocialelites.ThesetwokindsofcultureareconnectedinSorai’sphilosophy,inthatheseeselegantformsof lan-guage,literature,ritual,andmusicasnecessaryforinternalizingthenormsthroughwhichsocietycanberegulated.AlthoughIamnotusing“culture”asatranslationforanyonesingleterminSorai’swritings,itdoesoverlapwiththerangeofmeaningsoftheChinesetermwen(Jp.bun),whichcanrefertobothsensesof“culture”mentionedabove,indicatingliteraryorar-tisticrefinement,aswellasthe“patterning”throughwhichsocialrelation-shipsaregivenorderandintegratedintoasystemofsymbolicvalue.34

InMaruyama’smodernizationnarrative, inventionisamoreliberated,advancedstageofpoliticalconsciousnessthannature.Indrawingacontrastbetweennatureandculture,however,Isimplyseetheseasdifferentphilo-sophicaldiscoursesforlegitimatingsocialstructures,anddonotseeoneasinherentlymoreliberatingthantheother.ApointthatsomescholarshavemadewithregardtoZhuXi’ssystemisthatitembodiesatensionbetweenoptimismandrigorism;itisoptimisticinthatitportraystheWayasinher-entinhumannature,butitisrigoristinthatthepositingofsuchamorallypurevisionofhumannature,andthelinkingofthispuritytoanobjectivenaturalorderthatmustbeconformedto,createsastrictdemandforhumanperfection.35Onewayto judgethepossibility for thepositiveexerciseofsubjectivityamongfollowersofZhuXi,then,isbytheextenttowhichtheydeveloptheliberating,optimisticsideortheauthoritarian,rigoristsideofhisphilosophy.WithaculturalparadigmofConfucianism,though,theques-tionisnotsomuchoneofoptimismversusrigorismasitisoneoftheextenttowhichculturalframeworksareseenasengagingwithsomeexteriorpointofreference,asIarguedabovethattheyarewithSorai,asopposedtoviewsthat seecultureasaclosed systemthatdeterminesall aspectsofpeople’sbeing,thusprecludingthedevelopmentofanyindependentsubjectivity.Iseeeighteenth-centurydiscourseonpoetryasanimportantarenainwhichwritersofthetimedefinedtheboundariesbetweencultureandwhat liesoutsideit,andthereforeascrucialtotheirarticulationsofhowcultureismeanttofunctionasameansofregulatingsociety.

i n t r o d u c t i o n

Emotions and Linguistic Form in Sorai’s Poetics

ModernscholarshaveoftenpraisedSorai’sliterarythoughtforitspositiveviewofhumanemotions,buttheyhavetypicallybeencriticalofhisimita-tivepoetry,faultingitfornotlivinguptoanidealofliteratureasthefreeexpressionoftheindividualselfthroughthetransparentmediumofcollo-quiallanguage.AnearlyexampleofthiskindofcriticismofSoraiistheas-sessmentofhimbyInoueTetsujirō,who,writingin1902,attackshispoetrybycomparingitunfavorablywiththeMeijiidealofgenbun itchi(the“uni-ficationofthespokenandwrittenlanguages”):“ItwouldhavebeenbetterifSoraihadusedgenbun itchi,ratherthanancientphraseology.Hismethodofliningupdifficultcharactersandphrasesinanefforttodisplayancienteleganceisnothingmorethanaridiculousvanityonhispart.”36

MorecomplexistheanalysisofHinoTatsuo,whooffersanexplanationofwhySoraiwouldsimultaneouslypromoteemotionalityinpoetryandanimitativeapproachtocomposition:“Weneedtounderstandthattheimita-tivenessandclassicismof[Sorai’s]AncientPhraseologyschoolwasadetourthatnecessarilyhadtobetakenaspoetryinChinesebrokefreeofthemor-alismofZhuXi’sphilosophyandmovedtowardbecomingsomethinginwhichonecomposesfreelyonone’sownfeelings.”37HinoarguesthatSoraiclingstoclassicalmodelsofexpressionduetoaphilosophicalemphasisonregulationthroughexternalforms:“SoraidefinestheWayofthesagesasritualandmusic,whichareformsexternaltohumannature.Iftheformsofsociallifemakeuptheinstitutionsofthesages,whicharethecoreofSorai’spoliticalthought,thenhemusthave,consciouslyorunconsciously,madeuseofliteratureasaformfortheheartwithintheprivatesphere.”38

Hino’scomparisonofSorai’suseofclassicalliterarymodelstohisviewsontheritualandmusicofthesageshassomevalidity,butisnotwithoutitslimitations.HeisrighttofocusonhowSoraiturnstoculturalnormsfor emotionality as a replacement for themoralnormsofZhuXi, andliterarymodelsdohaveabasic similaritywith ritual andmusic in thatforSoraitheseareallculturalformscreatedatacertainpointinhistory,ratherthansomethinginherentinhumannature,andmustbemasteredthroughimitationuntiltheycometoseemnatural.Hino’scharacteriza-tionofritualandmusicasfunctioningforSoraiinthepoliticalorpublicsphere,though,andpoetryintheprivatesphere,ismoreproblematic.AsIdiscussinChapter3,poetryisforSoraiintegratedintoamatrixofcomple-mentaryandinterdependentculturalpracticesthatdonotallowforclear

i n t r o d u c t i o n

distinctionsbetweenthepublicandprivate,orthepoliticalandtheliterary.Hedepictsthemusicofthesages,forexample,asfunctioningtoregulatepeople’sinneremotions,anddescribespoetryasgivingtherulingclassafa-miliaritywithhumanemotions,whichallowsittogoverneffectively,aswellasmorespecificallyvaluingclassicalpoeticmodelsforthetrainingtheypro-videinthelanguageinwhichthecreationsofthesageshavebeenrecorded.

AnotheraspectofHino’sanalysisIfindproblematicishisrelianceonamodernnotionoffreeself-expressionastheauthenticessenceofliterature.Inhis emphasison thedifferentkindsofconstraints imposedon litera-ture,suchashisdescriptionofSorai’sliteraryformalismasamiddlepointbetweenmoraldidacticismandfreeexpression,IseeHinoasparticipatinginanarrativeinwhichtheachievementofmodernityisdepictedintermsoftheremovalofartificialdistortionsandimpediments,sothatthingsarefreetobewhattheynaturallyare.Hewrites,forexample,that“theanchoringoftheselfinexpressionisafundamentaldesireofhumans,”anddescribeshowwiththeSorai school,“theessentialmeaningthat literaturehas forhumansgraduallycametobediscovered.”39Inthisway,hedescribestheneedforself-expressioninliteraturenotastheproductofanideologicallyandhistoricallyspecificconstructionofmodernity,butsimplyassomethingthatassertsitselfspontaneouslywhenbarrierstoexpressionareremoved.AsimilarnarrativeispresentinMaruyama,asheportraystheprivatesphereofemotionalityashavingbeensuppressedinTokugawaJapanbyZhuXi’smoralviewofliterature,theremovalofwhichallowedpent-upprivateemo-tionstoburstforthintheirnaturalstate.

ApictureofSorai’sneoclassicalpoeticsasamorepurposefullychosenap-proachtolanguageandliteratureappearsinYoshikawaKōjirō’s“Soraigakuan.”40IncontrasttoHino’sargumentthatadesireforemotionalexpressionistheprimaryimpetusbehindSorai’sinterestinpoetry,YoshikawafocusesontheroleofpoetryinSorai’sphilologicalproject.HinodoesnotignorethisaspectofSorai’sliterarythought,buthedownplaysitssignificancewhenhecomments,“Itisdifficulttocompletelyexplain[Sorai’s]stronginterestinliteraturesimplythroughreferencetosuchutilitarianmotives.Onemustthinkthathehadadeep-rooteddesiretoanchortheselfinexpression.”41Yoshikawa,though,givesamorecentralplacetotheroleofpoetryinSorai’sphilologybystressingthelinguisticaspectsofhisviewoftheConfucianWay:“ThelanguageofancientphraseologyintheSixClassicsis[forSorai]initselfanexpressionoftheWay.Therefore,toapprehendthelanguageofancientphraseologyintheSixClassicsisatthesametimetoapprehendtheWayof

i n t r o d u c t i o n

theancientkings.”42YoshikawawritesofthisancientphraseologythatSorai“regardeditastheperfectedformoflanguage,andassomethingthatcanbegraspedthroughpoetryandprose,thatistosaythroughliterarylanguage”(p.653).HenotesthatforSoraiitwascrucialforscholarsofthepresenttobecomeonewiththelanguageoftheSixClassics,aprocessthatrequires“notjusttoreadancientphraseology,butalsotowriteitoneself ”(p.632).HealsocommentsonhowSoraivaluesthelanguageofhisfavoredpoeticcanonforitscapacitytoconveyemotionality,writingthatforSorai,“[Emotions]cannotbeexhaustedbylogic.Theonlythingthatcanexpressemotionsis‘languagewithgrace,rhythm,luster,andmystery’”(p.693).43ForYoshikawa,then,Sorai’sneoclassicalapproachtocompositionisnotmerelyanunfortu-nateappendagetoamoreessentialroleofpoetryasemotionalself-expres-sion,butiscentraltowhySoraiwasinterestedinpoetryinthefirstplace.

Myapproach is closer toYoshikawa’s than toHino’s,but I explore inmoredetailthanYoshikawatheroleofemotionalityinSorai’sphilosophy,andtheissuesthatarisenotonlyinSorai,butalsoineighteenth-centurydiscoursemoregenerally,fromthejuxtapositionofemotionalityandclas-sicalliterarymodels.Iarguedearlierthateighteenthcenturywriters’inter-estsinculturalformsandnaturalemotionalityareinterdependent,inthattheybothemergedoutofacommondiscourseonaculturallydefinedWaythatmustatthesametimeconnectwithhumannature.Therelationshipbetweenthesetwoaspectsofpoetry,asInoted,thenbecameanaxisalongwhichbroaderphilosophicalissueswerecontested.Sorai’sidealizationofthelanguageofacanonofChinesepoetryasuniquelycapableofmanifestinghumanemotionsisindicative,Iargue,ofacertainpoliticalstance,onethattakesthecultureoftheChinesesagesasinteractingwithandbuildinguponanemotionallydefinedhumannature,withoutcontradictingitorviolatingitsnaturalqualities.ThisisanessentiallyoptimisticviewoftheConfucianWayashumanerulership,butonethatwassubjectedtovariouscritiquesbySorai’sopponentsaswellasmanyofhisfollowers.Thesefigurespresenteddif-ferentvisionsoftherelationshipbetweenhumannatureandculture,whicharemanifestedintheirviewsofpoetrybyaproblematizationoftherelation-shipbetweenspontaneousemotionsandneoclassicalnormsofexpression.

Japanese Culture as Emotional Closure: Norinaga’s Poetics

Norinaga,likeSorai,rejectedtheSongConfucianideaofaWayrootedinnaturalprinciple,andturnedinsteadtoanotionoftheWayasacreation.

i n t r o d u c t i o n

HepositedtheJapanesegods,however,ratherthanSorai’shumansages,asthecreatorsoftheWay,andpromotedunquestioningobediencetothegodsaswell as theirhumandescendants, the Japaneseemperors.BeforedevelopinghistheoryoftheWayoftheGods,though,NorinagafocusedhisscholarshiponclassicalJapaneseliterarytexts,andtherelationshipofhisearlyliterarystudiestohismoreovertlypoliticallaterworkhasbeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate.WhilemostscholarshaverecognizedsomepoliticalcomponenttoNorinaga’sliterarythought,assessmentsofthena-tureandextentofhispoliticizationofliteraturehavebeenvaried.Thisrela-tionshipbetweenhisearlyandlatethoughthasbeenparticularlysignificanttoassessmentsofNorinagainthepostwarperiod,ashisemperor-centerednationalismwasdiscreditedafterthewar,butmanyscholarshaveturnedtohisliterarythought,whichtheydepictashumanisticandmodern,inordertorehabilitateaspectsofhislegacy.Others,though,haveseenhisearlyliter-arythoughtasitselfincorporatingpoliticallyproblematicelements.Itakethislatterview,anddevelopitbyexploringinmoredepthNorinaga’srela-tionshiptothebroadereighteenth-centurydiscourseonhumannatureandculturethatIseehimasparticipatingin.

ThemostpositiveassessmentofNorinaga’s literary thoughthascomefromthosewhosee it asessentiallyunconnectedtohis later thought.ApioneeringEnglish-languagestudyofnativism,forexample,PeterNosco’sRemembering Paradise,characterizesNorinagaasachampionofhumansen-timent,andasessentiallyunconcernedwithmakingliteratureservepoliti-calends.NosconotesthatNorinagaseesthecommunicationofemotionsinpoetryasaidingingovernment,butstresseshowNorinagadefinesthispoliticalroleasanindirectone,andnotaspartoftheessenceofpoetry.Hecommentsthat“thebasictoneofNorinaga’spoeticsisconsistentwithwhatothershavecalledthe‘emotionalism’ofNationalLearning,thatis,theun-restrainedaffirmationoftheaffectivedimensionsofhumanexperience.”44NoscodistancestheidealsexpressedinNorinaga’spoeticsfromhisAncientWaythought,arguingthat“thereisnowhollysatisfactorymannerinwhichtoreconciletheseapparentlycontradictorypreferencesotherthantorecog-nizethemascomplementaryandopposingfacetsofhisremarkableintellectanderudition”(p.161).

Maruyama,asdiscussedearlier,seesNorinaga’sliterarythoughtasbring-ingtocompletiontheliberationofemotionalitythatheseesascharacter-isticof theprivate sideofSorai’s literary thought.Heacknowledges thatNorinagafoundpoliticalusesforpoetry,butmaintainsthatthesewerenot

i n t r o d u c t i o n

theprimaryimportofhisliterarythought.Atthesametime,hedoesdrawaconnectionbetweenNorinaga’spoeticsandhisAncientWaythought,argu-ingthatNorinaga’svisionoftheAncientWayinvolvestheabsolutizationoffreeemotionsinhisliterarythought.MaruyamawritesthatwithNorinaga,“mono no aware,whichistheessenceofpoetry,iselevatedjustasit istobeingtheessenceofShintoitself,”andmaintainsthat“nativismgaveinterioremotions,purifiedofallnormativity,apositiverolebyequatingtheseemo-tions,justastheyare,withtheWay.”45HeseesNorinaga’sliterarythoughtaspraiseworthyforitsliberationofemotions,butiscriticalofNorinaga’seventualraisingofthisemotionalitytoapoliticalprinciple,asheseesthisascompromisingpoliticsasanarenafortheactiveexerciseofsubjectivity.

ManyotherscholarshavearguedforaconnectionbetweenNorinaga’spraise forpure emotionalityon theonehand, andhispoliticalpassivityandacceptanceoftheexistingTokugawaregimeontheother.MatsumotoSannosuke,inKokugaku seiji shisō no kenkyū,writes,“Thefactthat[nativ-ism]opposed thenormativismofConfucianism, andpromoted a valor-izationofemotions, is certainly somethingworthbeingproudof for itsfreshnessinthecontextofthattime.”46Hegoeson,however,tonotethat“valuingtheemotionsofthecommonpeoplebynomeansamountedtovaluingthecommonpeoplethemselves”(p.147).SaigōNobutsunamakesa similarpoint,writing inKokugaku no hihan that in contrast toSorai’stwo-partcriticismofZhuXi,whichinvolvesbothanaffirmationofhumanemotionsandapoliticalcritiqueofZhuXi’sphilosophy,“thepositionfromwhichnativismcriticizedZhuXi learningwasentirelypermeatedbythesingleelementofaffirmingprivatedesires.”47Heclaimsthatbecauseofhownativism“distancedtheselffromeverythingsocial,andsetitloose,human-ityendedupbeingexpressedasanirrationalitydevoidofintellect”(p.96).LikeMatsumoto,then,heseestheemotionalismofnativismasleadingtoanatrophyingofpoliticalconsciousness.

H.D.Harootunian,inThings Seen and Unseen,criticizesthiskindofneg-ativeassessmentofthepoliticalpotentialofnativism,andalsofindsamuchgreaterpoliticalcomponentwithinNorinaga’searlyliterarythoughtitself,ratherthanjustinitslatertransformationintothephilosophyoftheAncientWay.HestressesthecommunaldimensiontoemotionalityinNorinaga’spo-etics,areadingthatcanbecontrastedwithhowMaruyamadefinesNorinaga’sliterarythoughtintermsofprivateinteriority.HarootunianarguesthattheimmediacyofexpressionthatNorinagaimaginesinhispoetics,wherethereisnodisjunctionbetweenlanguageandlivedexperience,isconnectedtoa

i n t r o d u c t i o n

visionofacommunityunitedbyempathy,one“unboundbytheconstraintsofhistoryorsocialforms.”48Whileheacknowledgesthatatthisstagenativ-ismdidnothaveanactivepoliticalprogram,hemaintainsthatthenotionofcommunitythatNorinagaconstructedinhispoetics“createdaspaceforasubjectthatcouldbemobilizedforideologicalcontestationagainstthere-ceivedauthorityanditsformofrepresentation.”49HeseesNorinaga’sfocusonemotionalityasachallengetoexistinghierarchies,inthatinhispoetics,“ademonstrationofspontaneousandnaturalfeeling,ratherthanstudiedratio-nality,distinguishedthehighandthelow”(p.98).Forthisreason,heargues,“itwouldbewrongtoconcludethatMotooriwassimplyexactingpassivesubmissivenessfromcontemporarytownspeoplebyturningtheirattentiontoaestheticsandsensibilityratherthanpoliticalpower”(p.114).

ImakeamorecriticalassessmentofNorinaga’saffectivemodelofcom-munity,though,bycallingattentiontohowitdemandsconformitytospe-cificemotionalresponses,andindoingsosuppressestrueengagementwithothersasothers.AsopposedtotheviewsofMaruyamaandothersIdis-cussedearlier,IdonotseethepoliticallyproblematicaspectsofNorinaga’sliterarythoughtasderivingsimplyfromanabsolutizationofemotionality,or fromapassivityengenderedbyprivileging sentimentoverreason.In-stead,IemphasizehowNorinagadoesnotacceptallnaturalemotionsasvalid,butpositsasetofemotionalnormsbasedonthesentimentsexpressedin a canonof classical Japanesewaka andmonogatari.Kojima Yasunorimakesreferencetothisemotionalnormativitytocallintoquestiontheviewofmono no awareasemotionalpassivity,writing,“‘Knowingmono no aware’wasnotsomethingthatcouldbeachievedsimplythroughpassivefeeling.Itwasnecessarytoencounterthings,discerntheirrespectiveessences,andfeelinanappropriateforminresponsetothingsthatoughttoinspirefeel-ing. ‘Knowingmono no aware’ is somethingthatentailseffortandtrain-ing.”50MomokawaTakahitowritesalongsimilarlines:“Norinagadoesnotdoanythinglikeaffirma‘liberation’ofhumanemotions....Upholdingfeelingsof‘mono no aware’requiresconsiderableeffort.”51Iwouldagreewiththeseassessments,andaddthatthelossofpoliticalsubjectivitythatcomeswithNorinaga’spoeticshaslesstodowithpassivitythanwithademandtoactivelyadheretoemotionalnorms,andtointernalizethosenormstothepointthattheyareidentifiedasone’sownauthenticfeelings.

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.TheimplicationsofNorinaga’snormsoffeelingforhismodelofsocialityareemphasizedbyTomikoYodain“FracturedDialogues:Mono no awareandPoeticCommu-nicationintheTale of Genji,”whereshedescribeshowNorinagadownplaysthetensionanddissonancewithinpoeticexchangesintheGenji.ShenotesthatforNorinaga,“theparticularityofindividualinstancesofcommuni-cation...isneutralizedbytheuniformityofexperience(mono no aware)rooted in thenature of allhumanbeings.”52Shewrites thatbecauseofthisideathatpoetryonlyconveysuniversalemotions,aswellasNorina-ga’sdemandthatpoetrybetotallytransparent,“the‘communication’thatNorinagaevokesispatentlynon-dialogicornon-interactive”(p.541).ShedepictsNorinaga’sliteraryidealasakindofempathywithoutotherness,writing,“Mono no aware initspurestformmaybebestdescribedastheempathyofaspectatorwhoidentifieswiththeotherwithoutengaginginarelationofexchangeornegotiation”(p.541).

IagreewiththispictureofhowNorinagaconceivesofpoetryasfunc-tioningininterpersonalrelationships,andarguethatthelackofgenuinedialogueinhismodelofcommunicationisconnectedtoaviewofculturethat,unlikeSorai’s,doesnotrecognizeanyreferencepointoutsideofcultureitself.Harootuniancontendsthatbyprivilegingemotions,ratherthanratio-nalityandmorality,asthebasisforknowledge,Norinaga“avoidedpreciselythekindofclosuredemandedbyNeo-Confucianism”(p.105).Iwouldsay,onthecontrary,thatNorinagareplacestherationalandmoralclosureofZhuXiwithanemotionalclosure,onethateliminatesanyrealothernessbydemandingconformitytonormsoffeeling,andexcludingfromlegitimatesocialintercoursethosewhofailtoconformtosuchnorms.Norinagaclaimsthattheemotionalnormshepromotesrepresentauniversalhumannature,butheusesthisappealtohumannaturetocreateakindoftheoryofemo-tional falseconsciousness, inwhichthespontaneityofpeople’semotionsdoesnotexempttheseemotionsfrombeingcondemnedasinauthentic.Hemaintainsthataprocessofhistoricaldeclinehasintroducedagapbetweenpeople’snaturalemotionsandtheemotionsthattheyoughttofeel,andheseesthestudyofclassicalJapanesepoetryasameanstoclosingthisgap.

KoyasuNobukunihasdescribedNorinaga’sdiscoursesonlanguageandtheJapanesegodsasbeingconstructedthroughatautologicallogicthatof-fersno sourceofvalidationother than the superiorityof Japan itself.53 Iseeasimilarlyself-enclosedandself-validatinglogicatworkinNorinaga’s

i n t r o d u c t i o n

poetics,asthehomogenizationofexperiencethatheadvocatescanbeunder-stoodintermsofacollapseinthedistinctionbetweencultureandhumannature,orbetweencultureanditsoutside.ForNorinagaJapanesecultureisitselftheessenceofhumannature,makingtheemotionalandaestheticre-sponsesembodiedinclassicalJapaneseliteratureintouniversalimperatives,butwithoutanyjustificationotherthantheassertionthattheyarecorrect.ItisthroughtheirparallelconstructionsofJapanesecultureasaclosedsystem,then, that IconnectNorinaga’s literary thought tohisphilosophyof theAncientWay.BypresentingthepoliticalityofNorinaga’sliterarythoughtinthisway,IamtryingtomoveawayfromtheideaoftheliteraryNorinagaasa“goodNorinaga”whowasthentransformedintoa“badNorinaga”withhisformulationoftheAncientWay.SuchaviewisimpliciteveninmanyinterpretationsofNorinagathatarecriticalofhisliterarythought,astheydepictthepoliticalconsequencesofhisliteraryideasastheresultofagoodthing,namelyfreeemotionality,beingtakentoofar.IseeNorinaga’swritingsonwakaandmonogatari,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-timatelyseesemotionalityandpoliticsascontradictoryelementsofSorai’stheory, though, anddownplays the significanceof the connectionSoraidrawsbetweenpoetryandtheConfucianWay,arguingthathisviewsonpoetry“couldbesaidtostandontheouter limitofConfucianviewsof

i n t r o d u c t i o n

thearts.”54HepresentsSoraiasavictimoftheConfuciantradition’slasttenuousgrasponliterature,commentingthathisviewofpoetry“ofcoursecouldnotescapefromtheultimaterestrictionrepresentedbytheWayofthesages,”andthat“theremovalofthisfinalrestrictionwasonlycarriedoutwiththearrivalofnativism.”55

OtherscholarsoverlapwithMaruyamainviewingthefocusonemotion-alityamongSoraiandothersasfundamentallyatoddswiththeapplicationofpoetrytosocialandpoliticalends.WakamizuSuguru,forexample,afterdescribinganumberofdifferentaspectsofSorai’sviewoftheBook of Odes,andnotinghowhevaluesitfortheinsightitspoemsprovideintohumanemotions,concludesbywriting,“However,inallthreeoftheseviewsoftheBook of Odespoliticsshowsitsface,andSoraiwasnotabletocompletelysweepawaytheoldConfucianthought.ThiswasperhapsinevitablegiventheperspectiveofSoraiasaConfucian.AsSoraiwasunabletoseparatetheOdesfromthe‘Classics,’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,”andwritesthatSorai“fromthebeginningspeaksofliteratureasawayoflearningtoempathizewithandrelivetheexperiencesofothersandotherworlds.”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,butsawitasimportantthattheparticularityofindividuals’emotionsbemediatedinsomewaywithuniversalsocialstruc-turesthattranscendtheindividual.Forthesethinkers,poetrywasvaluableforhowitbroughtemotionsoutofthesphereofanisolatedsubjectivity,andintoaninterpersonalspacewherethecommunicationoftheseemo-tionscouldinspireempathyinothers,thusprovidingrulers,forexample,withtheknowledgeoftheirsubjectsneededtoenacteffectivepolicies,orgivingordinarypeoplethesensitivitytoothers’feelingsthatwouldmakethembehaveethicallyintheireverydaysocialinteractions.

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,Iamnotclaimingthatthesenativistsweresomehow“reallyConfucian.”Moreover,IamnotsimplytryingtoidentifyConfucian“influ-ences,”suchasthroughthefrequentcitingoftheAnalectsandothercanoni-calConfuciantextsbyeighteenth-centuryauthors.58

Myreasonforbringingupthe“Confucian”labelhaslesstodowithat-temptingtodefineitthanwithexamininghowithasbeenusedtogenerateacertainnarrativeofthehistoryofTokugawaliterarythought,onethatIcontendobscuresimportantaspectsofitsideologicalcharacter.Thisnarra-tivedepictsConfucianliterarythoughtasamonolithictraditionunchangingovertime,characterizedbysuchtraitsasmoraldidacticism,utilitarianism,andthepoliticizationofliterature,andthencreditsTokugawafigureslikeSoraiandNorinagawithbreakingawayfromthistraditionbyvaluinglitera-tureastheexpressionofauthentichumanemotions.59Interpretationsthatfollowsuchanarrativedonot ignore thepolitical aspectsof eighteenth-centuryliterarythought,buttheydissociatethispoliticizationofliteraturefromthenewideasaboutemotionalityemerginginthisperiod.Theydosobyassigningpoliticsandemotionalitydifferentrolesinateleologicalnarra-tiveoftheachievementofmodernitythroughtheovercomingofpremodern,andspecificallyConfucian,modesofthinkingaboutliterature.Thejuxtapo-sitionofthe“premodern”politicizationofliteraturewiththe“modern”valo-rizationofemotionalityisthenseenasindicativeofanintermediatestageinthemodernizationofliterature,inwhichtheseedsofmodernityaresown,butareunabletocometofruition.Keytosuchaviewistheideathattheso-calledmodernelementsaretheessentialcoreofatheoryandthesourceofitsoriginality,whiletheso-calledpremodernelementsaretobedismissedasvestigialhabitsofthoughtthatpersistbeyondtheirpresumedobsoles-cence.Thisdistinctionmakes itpossible toacknowledge theexistenceof“premodern”or“Confucian”elementsineighteenth-centuryfigures’literarytheories,whiledownplayingtheimportanceoftheseelements,andtocre-ateanarrativeofthemodernstrugglingtobreakfreefromthepremodern.Maruyama,forexample,presentsanimageofaninternaldivisionwithinSorai’sliterarythoughtwhenhewritesthatSorai“putprimaryimportanceonliberatingtheliteraryartsfromethicsandpolitics,onlytouchingasa

i n t r o d u c t i o n

secondary matteruponthepoliticalandsocialbenefitsof literature.”60Asimilardivisionbetweenthe“modern”elementsastheessenceofatheory,andthe“premodern”elementsasobstaclestobeovercome,canbeseenindiscussionsofeighteenth-centuryneoclassicalpoetry,suchasthestatementbyHinocitedearlierinwhichhedescribestheSoraischool’simitativeap-proachtocompositionasa“detour”ontheroadtotrulyfreeexpression.

IquestionthesupposedoppositionbetweenaunifiedConfuciantraditionandaneighteenth-centuryrepudiationofthistraditionfromtwodirections.First,byexaminingthe twomajorparadigmsfor interpretingtheBook of Odes,theMaotraditiondatingfromtheHanandZhuXi’sviewsfromtheSong,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,Iseethe“modern”emphasisonemotionalityineighteenth-centuryJapanasinseparablefromthe“premodern”useofliteratureforpoliticalends,ajudg-mentthatcallsintoquestiontheappropriatenessofthe“modern”and“pre-modern”labelstobeginwith,andthenarrativeofemotionalliberationthattheselabelsimply.Inthisway,Ipresentthehistoryofeighteenth-centuryliterarythoughtnotasagradualremovalofconstraintsonemotionality,butratherasaseriesofreconfigurationsoftherelationshipbetweenemotionsandnormativeconceptionsofthesocialorder.

AsJapaneseintellectualsintheseventeenthcenturyturnedtoConfucian-ismasaphilosophytodefinenormsforthenewsocietytakingshapeunderTokugawa rule, theydrewona rangeofChineseandKorean interpreta-tionsofConfucianism,particularlythoseoftheSongandMingdynastiesinChina,andofsixteenth-centuryKorea.ConfucianismhadlongbeenusedinJapanasasourceofideasaboutpoetry,withtheprefacestotheKokinshū(905),forexample,borrowingfromthe“Daxu”(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.1Thefirstoftheseistheviewthatliterature“transmitstheWay”(saidō).AsanexampleofthishecitesthestatementofHayashiRazan(1583–1657)ontherelationshipbetweentheWay(Jp.dō /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-muracitesisthatliteratureisuselessandharmfulbecauseitrepresents“toy-ingwiththingsandlosingthewill”( ganbutsu sōshi ),suchaswhenYamazakiAnsai(1618–1682)writes,“Thefactthatpeopleoftheworldgoforthinwan-tonness,knowingnopathofreturn,isbecauseoftheGenji monogatari(TaleofGenji)andIsemonogatari(TalesofIse).”3Thethirdviewisthatliteratureservesfor“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”(kanzen chōaku),thatis,thatitteachesmoralitybyprovidingexamplesofgoodbehaviorforpeopletomodelthemselveson,andbadbehaviortoteachthemtheconsequencesofvice.AnexampleofthisviewistheaccountofAndōTameakira(1659–1716)ofthefunctionoftheTale of Genji:“Thistalespeaksentirelyofhumanemo-tionsandsocialconditions,showsthemannersandcustomsofthoseofthehigh,middle,andlowranksofthearistocracythroughtheiramorousaffairs,andwithoutexplicitlypraisingorcensuring,causesthereadertomakejudg-mentsofvirtueandvice.”4

Theseviews,asdiscussedindetaillater,eachemphasizedifferentfacetsofZhuXi’sphilosophy,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).InordertohighlightthedistinctivecharacteristicsofZhuXi’sapproachtotheOdes,andtoliteraturemoregenerally,wewillfirstlookattheMaotraditionthatitdisplaced.Thiswillthenallowustosee,inourdiscussionofTokugawacriticsofZhuXi,hownewviewsofliterature,withanequalclaimtobeingConfucian,couldbegeneratedoutofcritiquesofZhuXi.

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

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

The Mao tradition was then carried on and expanded upon by theMaoshi jian(AnnotationsontheMao Odes),bytheEasternHandynasty(25–220)scholarZhengXuan(127–200),andtheMaoshi zhengyi (CorrectSignificanceoftheMao Odes),editedbytheearlyTangdynasty(618–907)scholarKongYingda(574–648).KongYingda’sworkwasoneofasetofcommentariesproducedbyTangcourtscholarsbetween631and653that

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 Odes”wasmorethanjustaneutralconduitforthetransmissionofearlierideas,asitsinterpretationsplayedaroleinactivelyconstructingtheMaotraditionasaphilosophicallycoherentapproachtotheOdes.

InadditiontotheMinorPrefaces,whichexplainthemeaningofindi-vidualpoems,theMaotextoftheOdesincludesa“GreatPreface,”whichprovidesmoregeneral theoretical statements aboutpoetry.11The“GreatPreface”presentsavarietyofperspectivesonthenatureandfunctionofpoetry,describingitasamanifestationofemotionality,atoolforpoliticalcritique,ameansforinstructingpeopleinmorality,andawayofconnect-ingwiththeworldofspirits,aswellasprovidingclassificationsofrhetori-caltechniquesandgenres.VanZoerendescribesanimportantdifferencebetweentheCorrect Significancecommentaryandthe“GreatPreface”itselfwhenhewrites:

The“Preface”wasabricolage,acompilationpatchedtogetherfromearliertextsandlogiathatwasanythingbutsystematic.Itaimedtobecomprehen-siveonlyinthesensethatitattemptedtobringtogetherwhatitscompilersthoughtthemostimportant,authoritativetraditionsconcerningtheOdes.TheCorrect Significance,ontheotherhand,undertooktopresentaunifiedandcomprehensive,evensystematic,accountoftheOdes.Itwasthereforeconstantlyforcedtoexplainthattherelativelynarrowandparticularclaimsmadeinthe“Preface”infactpresupposedorimpliedamoregeneral,uni-fiedvision.12

IwillexaminetwospecificareasinwhichtheCorrect Significancecommen-taryelaboratesonthe“GreatPreface”toprovideamoresystematicphilo-

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,thefirstofthesebeingthedivisionbetween“orthodox”(zheng)and“mutated”(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;the“LesserElegantiae”(“Xiaoya”)and“GreaterElegantiae”(“Daya”),whichappeartobeproductsofcourtcultureandinclude,amongotherthings,ac-countsofZhoudynasty(c.1027–256b.c.)historyandcelebratorysongsforeventssuchasbanquets;andthe“Hymns”(“Song”),whichconsistsmainlyofpiecestobeperformedatancestralritesoftheroyalhouse.IntheMaotradition,theAirsoftheStatesandtheElegantiaeareclassifiedaseither“or-thodox”or“mutated,”dependingonwhethertheyderivefromtheidealizedtimeinwhichthemoraltransformationeffectedbyKingWenheldswayorfromdegeneratelaterages.

The“GreatPreface”beginswithanexplanationofthedidacticroleofthefirstpoemoftheOdes,“Guanju”:

“Guanju”depictsthevirtueoftheQueenConsort.ItisthebeginningoftheAirs/moral instruction( feng).13It isthatbywhichtherealmis influ-enced( feng)andtherelationsbetweenhusbandsandwivesaremadecor-rect.Therefore it isusedamongthepeopleof thevillages, and it isusedbythefeudalstates.“Airs”( feng)means“influence”( feng)and“teaching.”Influencemovespeople,andteachingtransformsthem.

In its explicationof thispassage, theCorrect Significance emphasizes theconnectionofthesubjectofthispoem(thevirtuouscharacteroftheQueenConsort,whobythistimewasidentifiedspecificallyastheQueenCon-sortofKingWen)tothelargerprocessofmoralinstructionthattheOdespromotes:“Iftherelationsbetweenhusbandandwifearecorrect,thentherelationsbetweenparentandchildwillbeaffectionate.Ifrelationsbetweenparentandchildareaffectionate,thenrelationsbetweenrulerandministerwillberespectful.”14“Guanju”isincludedin“Zhounan,”thefirstsectionofthe“AirsoftheStates,”whichtogetherwith“Shaonan,”thesecondsection,constitutestheorthodoxAirs.Alaterpassageofthe“GreatPreface”com-mentsmoregenerallyaboutthesesectionsoftheOdes,“The‘Zhounan’and‘Shaonan’aretheWayofcorrectbeginning,andthefoundationofkingly

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

transformation.”TheCorrect Significanceexplains,muchasithadwithre-gardto“Guanju,”thatwhilethepoemsofthe“Zhounan”and“Shaonan”maydealwitheverydaymatters,theseexamplesofexemplarymoralbehav-iorarethebasisuponwhichthetransformationoftherealmisbuilt.

ThemutatedOdesarediscussedinthe“GreatPreface”asaformofpro-testagainstthedegradedtimesthattheircreatorslivedin:

WhenthekinglyWaydecayed,ritualandrightnesswereabandoned, theabilityofgovernment to teachwas lost, the states came to followdiffer-entmethodsofgovernance,andfamilieseachfolloweddifferentcustoms,thenthemutatedAirsandmutatedElegantiaewereproduced.Thehisto-riansofthestatesclearlyunderstoodthesignsofsuccessandfailure,werepainedbytheabandonmentofproperhumanrelations,andlamentedtheharshnessofpunishments and government.They sang their emotions inorder to influence ( feng) their superiors.Theywereawareofhowthingshadchanged,andlongedfortheoldcustoms.ThereforethemutatedAirsariseoutofemotions,butremainwithinritualandrightness.Thattheyariseoutofemotionsistheinbornnature(xing)ofthepeople;thattheyremainwithinritualandrightnessisbecauseofthebeneficenceoftheancientkings.

Initscommentaryonthispassage,theCorrect SignificancedescribeshowthemutatedOdesarecharacterizedbycritical reflection, in the formofpraiseandblame,onthegovernmentofthetime,andexplainshowthispracticeofpraiseandblameisdependentonacertainsetofhistoricalcir-cumstancesframedwithinahistoricalmetanarrativeofmoraldecline.

ThefirstconditionfortheemergenceofthemutatedOdesisthe“decayofthekinglyWay.”Thisisnotjustfortheratherstraightforwardreasonthatthisdeclinegivespeoplesomethingtocriticize,butalsobecauseitbringsaboutashiftinpeople’sconsciousness,ashiftthatisparticularlyimportantinexplainingwhypoemsofpraise,aswellasblame,onlycomeintobeingwiththemutatedOdes:“ThemutatedAirsandmutatedElegantiaearenec-essarilycreatedonlyafterthedecayofthekinglyWay.WhentheWayispresentintherealm,thenthecommonpeopledonotcritiquethegovern-ment.Peacegoesonforgenerationaftergeneration,sopraiseandblamedonotarise.Thereasonforthisisthatwhenoneisnotfamiliarwiththebad,thenonedoesnotknowthatthegoodisgood”(p.46).TheperfectionofthekinglyWayinthepastthusbecomesassociatedwithakindofblissfulignoranceofpoliticalmatters;nopowerofreflectionisneededonthepartofthepeople,becausetheyalreadyliveinaperfectsociety.

ThesecondconditionnecessaryfortheemergenceofthemutatedOdes

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

isthattherebeconsciousnessofsomepositivenormagainstwhichtojudgecontemporaryreality.Thecontinuationofthepassagequotedabovearguesthat,justasknowledgeofthebadisnecessaryinordertojudgethegood,knowledgeofthegoodisnecessarytojudgethebad:“Whenonehasneverknownanythingbutthebad,thenonedoesnotknowthatthebadisbad”(p.46).ThespecificsourceofthisknowledgeofthegoodisthelingeringmemoryofthekinglyWay.ThemutatedOdesarethenpresentedasemerg-ingoutofthedisjunctionbetweenthisidealWayandthelessthanidealcontemporaryrealitythatthecreatorsoftheseOdesfaced:“ThemutatedAirsandthemutatedElegantiaewerecomposedatatimewhenthekinglyWayhadbegun todecay andpropergovernmenthadbegun tobe lost,butwhenitwasstillpossibletocorrectandreformthese,andpursueandrecoverthem.Thereforethepoetstooktheoldexemplarsandusedthemasthebasisforremonstration”(p.47).ThemutatedOdesaretheproduct,then,ofakindofintermediatestageinmoralhistory,whenpeoplehavebeguntoreflectuponrightandwronginthefaceofanimperfectworld,butthingshavenotdeclinedsofarastomakethemcompletelylosesightofthepropernorms(whichexistedatadeterminatepointinthepast).

InexplainingtherelationshipbetweenthedescriptionsofthemutatedOdesas“arisingoutofemotions”and“remainingwithinritualandright-ness,”theCorrect SignificanceelaboratesfurtherontheideathatthemutatedOdescomeaboutfromthepoet’sawarenessofthedisjuncturebetweenthecurrentstateofaffairsandanidealpast.Itcommentsthat“arisingoutofemotions”referstohowthesepoemsdepicttheemotionsofthecommonpeopleofthepresent,while“remainingwithinritualandrightness”referstohowthecustomsofthepastserveasafixednormagainstwhichthepres-entismeasured.TheCorrect Significance alsonotesthatthepassagesaysthatthesepoems“remainwithinritualandrightness,”insteadofthatthey“areinkeepingwithritualandrightness.”ItexplainsthatthemutatedOdesdescribeactionsnotinkeepingwithritualandrightness,butthatthegoalofthesede-scriptionsistocriticizeimmoralityandreestablishritualandrightness,sothepoemsareultimatelyexpressionsofmoralintentions.Ritualandrightnessserveastheguidingnorms,then,evenifthethingsbeingdescribedviolatethem,suchasinpoemsthatdescribeillicitsexualliaisons.

To return to its commentary on thefirst line of the “GreatPreface,”theCorrect Significancemakestheinitiallysomewhatpuzzlingpointthat“Guanju,”whichisoneoftheorthodoxAirs,describes thevirtueoftheQueenConsort,butdoesnotexplicitlypraiseher.Tounderstandwhatthis

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

distinctionissupposedtomean,weneedtolookattherolethattheCorrect SignificanceseespraiseandblameasplayinginthemutatedOdes.ItiseasyenoughtounderstandhowthepoetswhocreatedthemutatedOdeswouldfindfaultwiththedegeneratesocietyaroundthem,butthecommentaryarguesthatthesamehistoricalenvironmentgivesrisetopoemsofpraiseaswell:“ThemutatedOdescomefromatimewhenpropergovernmentandteachingshadbeenlostandthereweremanypeoplewhodidbadthings,sowhentherewassomeonewhononethelesswasabletodosomethinggood,theywerepraised”(p.36).

“Guanju,”ontheotherhand,whiledescribingthevirtueoftheQueenConsort,“doesnotpraiseherforbeingabletoactas shedoes”(p.36).ThedifferenceisthatwhilethepraiseworthypeopleofthemutatedOdesgo against the grain of their fallen societies, orthodox Odes (such as“Guanju”)depictasocietyinwhich,duetotheinfluenceofKingWen,moralactioncomestopeopleautomatically.Inlightofthespecificwaythat“praising”istalkedaboutwithrespecttothemutatedOdes,wecanseethatwhentheCorrect SignificanceemphasizesthattheQueenConsortisnotpraised,thepointisnotthatsheisnotpraiseworthy,butthatheractionsarenotbasedonanydistinctivecapacityofhers toactmorally.Inotherwords,“Guanju”ismeanttoextolnottheQueenConsortasanindividualsomuchastheunderlyingethos(thatoftheidealizedcultureofKingWen)ofwhichhervirtueisamanifestation.WiththemutatedOdes,incontrast, thepoint is to singleout those individualswhorespondedproperlyevenwithinadegenerateworld(althoughtheultimatesourceofnorms,aswiththeorthodoxOdes,isthecultureofKingWen).

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

AnotherissuesystematizedmoreclearlyintheCorrect Significancecommen-taryistherelationshipbetweenthewordsoftheOdesandtheirmusic.Asmentionedearlier,theMaotraditionwasbasedontheextensiontopoetryofacapacityformoraltransformationthathadpreviouslybeentheprov-inceofmusic.Wecanseethismergingofpoeticandmusicaldiscoursesinthefollowingthreestatements,presentedoneaftertheotherinthe“GreatPreface,”ofhowpeopleexpressthemselvesinpoetry:

Poetryisthattowhichtheintention(zhi )goes.Intheheartitistheinten-tion;releasedinwordsitisapoem.

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

Emotions (qing) move on the inside, and take form in words. When words are insufficient, then we sigh our emotions. When sighing is insufficient, then we draw them out in song. When drawing them out in song is insuf-ficient, then unconsciously our hands dance them and our feet tap them.

Emotions are released in sounds (sheng). Sounds form patterning (wen), and this is called tones ( yin).

Thefirstoftheseisbasedonearlieraccountsofpoetryastheexpressionofintentions inwords,the thirddrawsonmusicaldiscoursewhen it speaksoftheexpressionofemotionsintones,andthesecondbridgesthesebyde-scribinghowemotionsaremanifestedfirstinwords,andtheninsonganddance.15Inthe“GreatPreface”thesethreeformulaeofexpressionaresimplylineduptogether,buttheCorrect Significancespellsouthowthereader ismeanttoformequivalencesbetweenthem,suchasbyequating“intentions”with“emotions,”andthuspositioningthesecondformulaasarestatementofthefirst:“‘Emotionsmoveontheinside’correspondsto‘intheheartitistheintention,’and‘takeforminwords’correspondsto‘whenreleasedinwordsitisthepoem.’”16TheCorrect Significancefurthersolidifiestherelationshipbe-tweenpoetry,song,andmusicwhenitdescribesthemaselementsofasinglecontinuousprocess:“IntheHan shu(HistoryoftheHan)itsays, ‘Whenwordsarereciteditiscalledpoetry.Whenthevoiceisintoneditiscalledsong.’Thatis,whenintheheartitistheintention.Whatcomeoutofthemoutharewords.Whenwordsarereciteditisapoem.Whenthisisintoneditissong.Whenthisisputtotheeighttypesofinstrumentsitiscalledmusic.Theseareallonlynamesfordifferentstagesofthesamething”(p.38).

Thesecondofthestatementscitedaboveisorganizedasaseriesofin-creasinglyexpressivestages,buttheCorrect Significancecommentaryonthethird statement introducesanewelementbydescribing theprogressionfromwordstotonesnot justasaquantitative increase inexpressiveness,butasashifttoaqualitativelydistinctmodeofexpression,onethatisfreeofthepossibilityforfalsehoodthatplagueslanguage:“Soundscandepictemotions,andthenemotionsbecomecompletelyvisible.Byhearingtones,onecanknowofgoodandbadgovernment....Whenpeople’swordsaredifferentfromtheirintentions,thisiscalleddissembling.Butwhenemo-tionsareseenthroughsounds,thenthisdissemblingcanalsoberecognized”(p.39).Thedangeroffailingtomakesuchdistinctionsisthatitwillbeim-possibleforpoetrytocarryoutitsroleasavehicleofmoraltransformation,asincorrectintentionscouldpresentthemselvesascorrectones,orcorrect

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

intentionscouldmistakenlybeseenas incorrect.Despite thepromiseoftransparencyofferedbytones,though,itstillrequiresacertainskilltodis-cernintentionsthroughtones,as“itisonlyonewhoisexpertinmusicwhocandistinguishwhetherthewordsareproperbuttheintentionisnot,orwhetherthewordsarewarpedbuttheintentionisstraight”(p.39).

AlthoughmanyoftheOdes,specificallytheAirsoftheStates,arede-scribedashavingorigins in thecommonpeople, theneed to accuratelyidentifyintentionsmeansthatpoetrycannotserveasateachingsimplybyhavingordinarypeoplelistentoeachother’scompositions.Instead,amusicofficial listens to the songs thatpeoplehavecreated,chooses thosewithproperintentions,andsetsthemtomusiccreatedbytheruler.Itisonlythenthatthesecompositionsaresuitableforuseinthemoralinstructionofthepeople.TheCorrect Significancenotesthatthisprocessofcollectingsongsfromthepeople,andtheninturnteachingthepeoplewiththem,involvestwodifferenttypesofrelationshipbetweenemotionsandtones.Inthefirst,“Sadnessandpleasureemergefromtheemotionsofthepeople.Musicaltonesfollowalongwiththepeopleandchangeaccordingly”(p.41).Inthesecond,though,“Musiciscreatedbytheking,andthepeoplechangein accordance with musical tones” (p. 41). In the first case, then, tonesemergespontaneouslyfrompeople’snaturalemotions,whilethesecondisaconsciousprocessofcreationbyrulersthatisdesignedtoregulatepeople’semotions.TheCorrect Significanceexplainshowthesetwoformsofrelation-shipbetweenmusicandemotionalitycoexist:“Musicoriginallyemergedfromthepeople,andthenitturnsbackandteachesthepeople.Thisislikehowcloudsemergefrommountains,andthenrainbackdownuponthesesamemountains”(p.41).Thepeoplearetaughtwithpoetrythatwascreatedbythepeopletobeginwith,then,butthisprocessisonlypossiblethroughthemediatingroleplayedbyrulersandofficials,whohaveexpertisethatthepeoplelack.

WhiletheCorrect SignificanceseesthemusicoftheOdesascrucialtotheirroleasaformofmoralinstruction,theproblemitfacedinitsowntimewashowtodealwiththefactthatthismusichadbeenlost.Thesolutionitoffersistopresenttheprefacestothepoems,whichgiveexplanationsoftheirmoralsignificance,assubstitutesfortheirlostmusic,allowingcontem-poraryreaderstogainperfectunderstandingoftheintentionsoftheOdes.17Inthisway,thecommentaryjustifiesitsownimportancebypresentingitselfasthesolutiontotheproblemoftextualopacity(partlysemantic,butmoreimportantlymoral)thatithadraisedearlier.

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

p o e t r y a s c u l t u r a l f o r m

DescribingthecultureoftheearlyTangcourt, inwhichtheCorrect Sig-nificancecommentarieswereproduced,PeterBolwrites,“Thecharacteristicassumptionofthis . . .worldview . . .was to thinkofvaluesasculturalforms.‘Xue,’learningasamoralactivity,meantmasteringtheappropriateculturalformssowellthatonecouldreproducethemandvarythemtofitthesituation.”18HethendescribeshowintheearlyTangviewtheseculturalformswereseenas inheritances froman idealpast,whichwasaccessiblethroughthetextualcanonoftheClassics.Incontrasttotheview(derivingfromZhuXi)thatwesawHayashiRazanexpress,inwhichtheculturalandliteraryformsrepresentedbythetermwenareseenassomethingappendedexternallytoaWaythatexistsautonomouslyoftheseforms,forearlyTangConfucianswenisconstitutiveoftheWayfromtheverystart.WecanseetheideaofvaluesasculturalformsintheCorrect Significancecommentaryonthe“GreatPreface,”whichportraysthecorrectnessoftheintentionsex-pressedintheOdesasderivingfromthecivilizingprojectofKingWen.Thedidacticpossibilitiesofpoetrythenbecometiedtoitscapacitytoserveasavehicleforcommunicatingtheseculturalforms.Thisisachievedbycom-municatingtothereader“intentions”thatareinfluencedbytheseculturalforms,whetherdirectly(inthecaseoftheorthodoxOdes)orasakindoflingeringculturalmemory(inthecaseofthemutatedOdes).TheprefacestotheOdes,whichexplaintheirmoralfunction,thenserveasreplacementsforthelostmusicoftheOdes,guaranteeingthetransparentcommunicabil-ityoftheintentionsinscribedintheOdes.

Zhu Xi’s Reading of the Odes and the Way as Natural Principle

TheMaotraditioncameunderattackfromvariousquartersduringtheTangandSong,andinthelateSongZhuXiproducedadefinitivenewparadigmforreadingtheOdes.19ZhuXi’smostcomplete theoretical statementonpoetryistheprefacetoShi jizhuan(CollectedTransmissionsontheOdes),hiscommentaryontheOdes.Thisprefaceopenswithadescriptionoftheemotionalprocessthatgivesrisetopoetry:

Somebodyasked,“Whyisitthatpoetryisproduced?”Iresponded,“Hu-mansarebornatrest;thisistheHeavenlyinbornnature(tian zhi xing).Theyfeelinresponsetothings,andtheirinbornnatureisputintomotion;thesearethedesiresoftheinbornnature(xing zhi yu).Whenpeoplehavedesires,

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

thentheycannothelpbuthavethoughts.Whentheyhavethoughts,theycannothelpbutputtheseintowords.Whenpeopleputthoughtsintowords,butthesecannotbeexhaustedbywordsalone,thentheywillbereleasedinaresonanceofsighsandexclamations,whichwillcomeoutinspontaneoustonesandrhythmsandbeunstoppable.Thisiswhypoetryisproduced.”20

Muchlikethe“GreatPreface,”ZhuXiseespoetryasaproductofthespon-taneousreleaseofpent-upemotionsthroughaseriesofincreasinglyexpres-sivestages.Thedescriptionofthisintermsofthe“Heavenlyinbornnature”andthe“desiresoftheinbornnature,”though,bringsinZhuXi’sowncon-ceptualframeworkforunderstandingtheemotions,inwhichemotionsaresomethingthatthreatenstodrawpeopleawayfromtheirmorallyperfecthumannature.

Thesentencesthatspeakofthe“Heavenlyinbornnature”andthe“de-siresoftheinbornnature”areadirectquotationfromthe“Yueji”(RecordofMusic)chapteroftheLi ji(RecordofRitual),acollectionoftextsrelatedtoritualthatdatebacktotheZhou,andwereassembledintheircurrentformintheHan.The“RecordofMusic”discussesnotjustmusicitself,butthesignificanceofmusicasatoolforregulatinghumanemotions,andwecanbetterunderstandZhuXi’suseofterminologyfromthistextbylookingathisessayentitledYue ji dongjing shuo(AnExplanationofRestandMo-tioninthe“RecordofMusic”),inwhichhediscussesthesamepassagethathequotesintheprefacetohiscommentaryontheOdes:

Inthe“RecordofMusic”itsays,“Humansarebornatrest;thisistheHeav-enlyinbornnature.Theyfeelinresponsetothings,andtheirinbornnatureisputintomotion;thesearethedesiresoftheinbornnature.”Thisspeaksofthemysteryoftheinbornnatureandemotions.Itdescribesthatwhichhu-manspossessinnatelyatbirth.AtbirthpeopleinnatelyreceivethecentralityofHeaven-and-Earth(tiandi zhi zhong).Whentheyhavenotyetfeltany-thing,theyarepurelygood,andareendowedwiththetotalityofprinciple(li ).Thisiswhatiscalledthe“inbornnature”(xing).Butwhenpeoplehavesuchaninbornnature,itwillnecessarilytakeonform.Whentheinbornnaturetakesonform,thentherewillbeaheart(xin),andthisheartwillbeunabletohelpbutfeel inresponsetothings.Whentheheart feels inresponsetothingsandmoves,thenthedesiresoftheinbornnatureemerge.Withthesethereisadivisionbetweenthegoodandthebad.Thedesiresoftheinbornnaturearenamelytheemotions(qing).21

InZhuXi’sphilosophy,theWayisrootedinauniversal“principle”thatin-heresinallthings.Becausethisprinciplerepresentsthenormativestandard

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

forthecosmos,itisalsoreferredtoaboveasthe“centralityofHeaven-and-Earth.”ZhuXi’scommentthatpeoplereceivethisinnatelycomesfromhisideathathumanspossessprincipleintheir“inbornnature,”alsoreferredtoasthe“Heavenlyinbornnature”orthe“originalinbornnature”(benran zhi xing),whichconsistsofsuchvirtuesashumaneness,wisdom,ritualpro-priety,andrightness.Theinbornnatureis“atrest”inthatprincipleexistsonanunchanging,abstractlevel.Thisautonomousexistenceofprincipleisreallyjusttheoretical,though,asprincipleisalwaysmanifestedinconjunc-tionwith“materialforce”(qi),whichiswhatallowsthingstoexistintheirconcretemateriality,takingthemawayfromastateof“rest”andputtingthemin“motion.”ZhuXidoesnotspecificallyusetheterm“materialforce”intheabovepassage,butitisthiscombinationofprincipleandmaterialforcethatheisalludingtowhenhewritesthattheinbornnature“necessar-ilytakesonform.”Forhumans,materialforceisrepresentedbythe“emo-tions” (or“desires”),andthe“heart” is thenwhatencompassesboththeemotionsandtheinbornnature.22Whiletheinbornnature,beingidenticaltoprinciple,ispurelygood,emotionscanbeeithergoodorbad,dependingonwhethertheyareinkeepingwithorviolateprinciple.

ApplyingthisphilosophicalframeworktothepassagefromZhuXi’spref-ace,wecanseethattheemotionalbasisofpoetrymeansthatpoetryresultsfromamovementawayfromtheunambiguousmoralvirtueoftheoriginalinbornnature.SincetheemotionsexpressedinpoetryareextrinsictotheWay,andthreatentodistractusfromit,wecouldconcludethatpoetryissomethingwearebetteroffavoiding,leadingtothekindofnegativeviewofpoetrythatwesawearlierexpressedas“toyingwiththingsandlosingthewill.”ZhuXidoesallowforthepossibilityofapositiveroleforpoetryinpromotingtheWay,though,suchasexpressedintheothertwoviewsofpo-etrypromotedbyfollowersofSongConfucianisminseventeenth-centuryJapan,which I examinebelow in termsofhow these relate toZhuXi’stheoryoftheinbornnatureandtheemotions.

e m o t i o n a l c o r r e c t n e s s a n d “ t r a n s m i t t i n g t h e w a y ”

ThoughZhuXiseestheinbornnature,andtheWaythatinheresinit,asabstracted fromhuman emotionality, and sees theparticularity of emo-tionsasmaking them liable to selfishnessandpartiality,hedoesnotseetheemotionsassomethingthatcanorshouldbeactuallyeliminated.As

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

hisfollowerChenChun(1159–1223)explainsinBeixi ziyi,alexiconofkeytermsofZhuXi’sphilosophy,“Emotionsaretheactivityoftheheart.Theyaresomethingthathumanscannotdowithout,andarenotsomethingbad.However,when itcomesto thecausesofemotions, theyeachhavetheirpropernorms.”23Whatisimportantisthatemotionsbemorallycorrect,sothattheyexpressratherthanobstructtheinbornnature,anditispoetrythatarisesfromsuchemotionsthatisconsideredto“transmittheWay.”EvenifsuchpoetryandtheemotionsexpressedinitarenotthemselvesconstitutiveoftheWay,thefactthattheWayalwaysneedssomeconcreteforminwhichtobemanifestedlendsvaluetopoetryasonepossiblevehicleforthis.

Theabovequotation fromChenChuncomes fromadiscussionof apassageintheDoctrine of the MeanthatisoneofthekeypassagesusedbySongConfucianstodiscussemotionalcultivation.ThepassageisgivenheretogetherwithZhuXi’scommentary:

[Doctrine of the Meantext:]Whenjoy,anger,sadness,andpleasurearenotyetmanifested,thisiscalledcentrality(zhong).Whentheyaremanifestedandattaintheirpropermeasure,thisiscalledharmony(he).Centralityisthegreatrootoftherealm.HarmonyistheachievementoftheWayintherealm.24

[ZhuXicommentary:] ...Joy,anger,sadness,andpleasureareemo-tions.Theinbornnature indicatesthestate inwhichthesearenotyetmanifested.Inthisstatethereisnobiasinanyonedirection,sothisiscalled“centrality.”Whentheseemotions aremanifestedandall attaintheirpropermeasure,thisrepresentsthecorrectnessoftheemotions(qing zhi zheng).Inthiscasetheemotionsdonotcontradicttheinbornna-ture,sothisiscalled“harmony.”Thegreatrootistheinbornnaturebe-stowedbyHeaven(tianming zhi xing).Theprincipleoftherealmentirelyemergesfromthisinbornnature,anditistheessence(ti )oftheWay.The“achievementoftheWay”indicatesfollowingtheinbornnature.Itisthatwhichtherealmreliesoninbothpastandpresent,andistheapplication(yong)oftheWay.25

InZhuXi’sinterpretationofthispassagewecanseethebasicdichotomybetweentheinbornnatureandtheemotions,hereexpressedintermsoftheemotionsbeing“notyetmanifested”versusbeing“manifested.”

“Centrality”and“harmony”representtwodifferentformsofmoralper-fection,oneontheleveloftheinbornnatureandtheotherontheleveloftheemotions.Theperfectionrepresentedbycentralityisguaranteedsimplybythefactthatcentralityexistswithintheinbornnature,whichiscom-pletelyautonomousofanyemotionsthatwouldthreatentodrawitaway

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

fromitsoriginalgoodness.Theperfectionofharmonyismorecomplex,inthatitisachievedwithintheemotions,whichhavethepotentialtobeei-thergoodorbad.Harmony,ZhuXiargues,isachievedwhentheemotions“attaintheirpropermeasure,”aphrasethatChenChunexplainsasfollowsinthecontinuationofthepassagefromBeixi ziyi thatwasquotedearlier:

Forexample,tofeeljoyfulwhenoneshouldfeeljoyful,tofeelangrywhenoneshouldfeelangry,tofeelsadwhenoneshouldfeelsad,tofeelhappywhenoneshouldfeelhappy,tofeelcompassionwhenoneshouldfeelcom-passion,tofeelshameanddisapprovalwhenoneshouldfeelshameanddis-approval,tofeeldeferencewhenoneshouldfeeldeference,andtofeelrightandwrongwhenoneshouldfeelrightandwrong—thisisinaccordwithpropernorms,andiswhatismeantbyemotions“beingmanifestedandat-tainingtheirpropermeasure.”26

Whenwe feel the rightemotions at the right time, theemotions are in“harmony”withtheinbornnature,inthesensethattheseemotionsdonotcontradicttheinbornnature.

TherelationshipbetweencentralityandharmonyforZhuXicanthere-forebeseenasonebetweenanormandtherealizationorpracticeofthatnorm.AnotherwaythisrelationshipisexpressedinZhuXi’scommentaryontheDoctrine of the Meanpassageisthroughthepairedterms“essence”(ti )and“application”( yong).Theessenceofsomethingiswhatgivesitvaluethroughitsparticipationintheuniversalprinciplethatgovernsthecosmos,while theapplicationof something is theconcretemanifestationof thatessencewithin the realmofmaterial force.AsZhuXipointsout inhiscommentary,theWayisachievedbyfollowingprinciple,ortheessence,butthisachievementitselftakesplaceonthelevelofapplication.ZhuXihasareputationasanopponentofemotionality,ashedoesnotvalueemotionsinthemselves,butonlyseesthemasvalidtotheextentthattheyconformtoa(morallydefined)inbornnature.Itisalsoimportanttokeepinmind,though,thatheseesemotionsasthemediumthroughwhichtheWaygoesfrombeinganabstractpotentialitytobeingpracticedinsociety,withtheconsequence thatpoetry,whicharises fromemotions,canplaya role inexpressingandcommunicatingtheWay.

a p p r o v i n g v i r t u e a n d c h a s t i s i n g v i c e

OneofthemostradicaldeparturesthatZhuXimakesfromtheMaotradi-tionishisrejectionoftheideathatalltheOdesareexpressionsofmoral

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

intentions.IntheMaotradition,itwasthemoralcorrectnessoftheinten-tionsexpressedintheOdesthatmadethemappropriateasteachings,butZhuXi’stheoryof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”providesawayforexpressionsofbothmorallycorrectandincorrectemotionstoguidethereadertowardmorality.

ZhuXi’sintroductionofthepossibilityforimmoralOdescanbeseeninhisredefinitionofthedistinctionbetweenorthodoxandmutatedOdes,conceptsthatZhuXi,liketheMaotradition,appliestotwocategoriesofpoems,theAirsoftheStatesandtheElegantiae.ZhuXidefinesthemu-tatedElegantiaeinmuchthesametermsastheMaotradition,writingintheprefacetoShi jizhuanthatthemutatedElegantiae“wereproducedbywisemenandgentlemenofthetimewhowereconcernedabouttheirageand lamented itscustoms.”27DescribingtheAirs,ontheotherhand,hewritesthat“onlyinthe‘Zhounan’and‘Shaonan’wasvirtueachievedunderthegentletransformationofKingWen,makingitpossibleforallpeopletoachievecorrectnessintheirinbornnatureandemotions.”HedistinguishesthesefromtherestoftheAirs,inwhich“thereweredifferencesincorrect-nessandincorrectness,andrightandwrong”(p.2).

Despitetheinclusionofpoemsthatareexpressionsofmorallyincorrectemotions,ZhuXistillbelievesthatalloftheOdescanaidinthemoralcul-tivationofthereader,asheindicatesinhisaccountoftheprocessthroughwhichConfucius edited theOdes: “[Confucius] eliminated thosewhosevirtuedidnotsufficetoserveasamodelorwhosevicedidnotsufficetoserveasanadmonition....Theyhavethusallowedthosewhostudythemtoreflectonrightandwrong,sothatthevirtuoususethemasmodelsandthewickeduse themtoreformthemselves” (p.2).Healso takesupthisissueinhiscommentaryontheAnalectspassagethatstatesthattheOdescontain“nocrookedthoughts(si wu xie),”28explaining,“AsforthewordsoftheOdes,thosethataremorallygoodaresufficienttoevokeapprovalfrompeople’sgoodheart,andthosethataremorallybadaresufficienttoinspireastrongdesiretopunishsuchbadness.ThereforethefunctionoftheOdesallamountstocausingpeopletoachievecorrectnessintheiremotionsandinbornnature.”29TheOdesallhaveamoralcapacity,then,butthiscapac-ityliesintheresponsestheyinspireinthereader,andisnotintrinsictothepoemsthemselves,ortheculturalworldthatgaverisetothem.

Acentralassumptionhereisthatthereaderalreadypossesses,intheformofthepurelygoodinbornnature,aninnermoralcompassthatisabletodistinguishvirtue fromvice.Thismoral facultymaybeobscured,but it

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

isalwaysthereasalatentcapacity,andthepointofpresentingvariousex-amplesofvirtueandviceistoallowfortheexerciseandcultivationofthisinnatemoralfaculty.Thegoal,then,istounlockwhatthereaderinadeepersensealreadyknows,andnot,strictlyspeaking,toimpartanynewinfor-mation.Tothisend,theexamplesofvirtueandvicegivenintheOdesarechosenwithaneyetowardtheireffectivenessinawakeningthereader’sfac-ultyofmoraljudgment,whichcansubsequentlybeappliedtoanunlimitedrangeofpossibleexperiences,whichmayormaynotresemblethespecificexamplesgivenintheOdes.

ThisviewoftheeducationprovidedbytheOdes,whichseesitasapro-cessofuncoveringtheoriginalinbornnatureofthereader,alsohasconse-quencesforhowweinterprettherelationshipbetweentheinstructorintheWay(thesage)andthestudent(thenon-sagereader).Wehavealreadyseenhowonefunctionofthesageistoserveasasourceofparadigmaticemo-tions,butinthetheoryof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice,”theroleofthesageistochoosepoemsthatareeffectiveinarousingfeelingsofmoralapprovalanddisapproval.Thisroleisbasedontheideathatbothteacherandstudentsharethesameinbornnature,buthaverealizedthisnaturetodifferentdegrees,sothatthetaskoftheteacheristoguidethestudentinaprocessofuncovering,withinthestudent’sowninnermostnature,thatwhichbothstudentandteacherhavealwaysalreadypossessed.Whilethereisanasymmetricalaspecttothisrelationshiptotheextentthatthesagehasgreateraccesstothisnature,accessthatallowsthesagetotakeontheroleofteacher,therelationshiphasasymmetricalaspectaswell,inthatitisbasedontheexistenceofacommonnature.

“ i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i n g s ” t h r o u g h t h e o d e s

ZhuXi’s theoryofhowtheOdescanbeusedfor“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”canbeseenaspartofamoregeneralmodelofcultivatingtheWaythathereferstoas“investigatingthings”( gewu),inwhichpeoplecometounderstandprinciplebycloselyexamininghowitismanifestedinvariousexternalthings,suchasobjectsinthenaturalworld.Theterm“in-vestigatingthings”hasitsoriginintheGreat Learning,whereitisdescribedasthefirststepinself-cultivation:

Whenthingsareinvestigated,knowledgebecomescomplete.Whenknowl-edgeiscomplete,intentionsbecomesincere.Whenintentionsaresincere,theheartbecomescorrect.Whentheheartiscorrect,theselfiscultivated.

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

Whentheselfiscultivated,one’shousebecomesordered.Whenone’shouseisordered,thestateiswellgoverned.Whenthestateiswellgoverned,therealmismadepeaceful.30

InZhuXi’scommentaryonthispassage,heglosses“thingsareinvestigated”as“completelyextendingtothelimitsoftheprincipleofthings.”31ForZhuXi,thesameprinciplethatisdiscoveredinexternalthingsisthebasisfortheinbornnatureofhumans,sotheprocessdescribedintheGreat Learn-ingpassageisoneinwhichpeopleuncovertheirinbornnaturethroughtheinvestigationof things,andthenextendtheirperfectlycultivatednatureoutwardinanexpandingsphereofinfluencetoproperlyordertheself,thehousehold,andeventuallytherealmasawhole.

Thesameideaisextendedtotextualstudiesinthesectionon“MethodsofReading”(dushu fa)inZhuzi yulei(MasterZhu’sClassifiedConversations):

Readingisanexampleof“investigatingthings.”Atfirstonepursuesonesec-tion,savorsitscontentindetail,andrepeatsthismanytimes.Onemayspendadayortwoononlyonesection.Then,onceonecanusethissectionasafoundation,onestandsfirmlyonitandmovesontothenextsection.Inthisway,afteradvancingbyreadingthingsoverandoverinthepropersequence,andpursuingwhatonereadsindepth,andthoroughlyinquiringintoit,onlythenwillonecometoentirelyunderstanditsprinciples.32

Studyingtextsthenbecomesamatterofthereader’sowninnerprinciplegettingintouchwiththeprincipleembodiedinthetext:“Itisonlywhentheprincipleofthingsaccordswithone’sownheartthatonetrulyunder-stands.Inreading,itisnecessarythattheprinciplewithinoneselfextendeverywhere,sothatthingsbecomeclear”(p.162).Herewecanseehowthereader’sinnerprincipleisnotonlyrevealedthroughreadingasapracticeof“investigatingthings,”butalsorepresentstheconditionofpossibilityofpropertextualinterpretation.

Oneimplicationofthisviewofreadingisthatthepurposeoftextualstudyislesstoimpartnewknowledgethantoremindpeopleofwhattheyinasensealreadyknow:

Whenpeopleareborn,theyalreadypossesswithinthemselvesthetotalityofprinciple.Thereasontoreadbooksisthattherearemanythingsthatonehasnotexperienced.Sageshaveexperiencedmanythingsandunderstoodthem.Thereforetheyputthesedowninwritinginordertoshowthemtoothers.Theimportantthingwhenreadingistounderstandmanyprinciples.When

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

weunderstandthese,theyareallsomethingthatwaswithinusoriginally,andnotsomethingbroughtinfromoutsideandaddedon.(p.161)

Theroleofthesageastextualeditor,aswesawwithZhuXi’sdescriptionofhowConfuciuseditedtheOdes,istopresentreaderswiththingsthatbestservetoguidethemtowardanunderstandingoftheprinciplethatinfactalreadylieslatentintheirinbornnature.

Theapplicationofthemethodologyof“investigatingthings”tothestudyofpoetryisdescribedintheclosingsectionoftheprefacetoZhuXi’sShi jizhuan,whichispartofasectionrespondingtothequestion,“Howshouldonestudypoetry?”

Oneshouldlookatthegeneralframeworkofthephrasesofpoems,andalsogo intodetailedexegesisof individualwords.Oneshouldchantthem inordertobringthemtolife,andcompletelyimmerseoneselfintheminordertoembodythem.Oneshouldobserveinthemthehiddennuancesoftheemotionsandinbornnaturetheyexpress,andfindthedrivingforcebehindthem.Ifonedoesthis,thenwithoutneedingtoseekelsewhere,itwillbesufficienttoachievetheWayofcultivatingtheselfandthehousehold,andregulatingtherealm.33

Althoughthispassagecontainsnodirectmentionoftheterm“investigatingthings,”thedescriptionofthepropermethodofreadingpoetryechoesthepassagefromZhuzi yuleithatdiscusseshowreadingisaformof“investigat-ingthings,”andthefinalsentenceisanallusiontotheGreat Learningpas-sagethatisthelocusclassicusoftheterm.Approachingpoetryassomethingtobeinvestigatedforitsinnerprincipleisultimatelythesameasviewingitthroughthelensof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice,”asvirtueandvicederivefrombeinginaccordorconflictwithprinciple.Expressingthispro-cessas“investigatingthings,”however,callsattentiontohowZhuXidoesnotjustapproachpoetrymorally,butalsotiesthesemoraljudgmentstoaspecificdefinitionofthedynamicbetweentheexternalandtheinternal,inwhichtheexternalworldservesasastimulusforthecultivationoftheself,whichisthenappliedoutwardagaintobenefittheworld.

Itō Jinsai: Empathy, Ethics, and the Odes

Itō Jinsaiwasoneof themostprominentcriticsofSongConfucianisminseventeenth-centuryJapan,andhadalargeimpactonlaterTokugawascholars,especiallyOgyūSorai.JinsaicamefromaKyotomerchantfamily

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

ofmodestmeans,andinhisyouthstudiedthephilosophyofZhuXi.In1662heopenedaprivateacademyinKyotocalledtheKogidō(HallofAn-cientMeanings),whicheventuallyattractedmorethanthreethousandstu-dents,andthroughhisteachingandlecturinghebegantodevelophisowninterpretationsofConfuciantexts.Thesewerecollectedinhiscommen-tariesRongokogi(AncientMeaningsoftheAnalects),Mōshi kogi(AncientMeaningsoftheMencius),Chūyō hakki(AnExpositionoftheDoctrine of the Mean),andDaigaku teihon(TheAuthenticTextoftheGreat Learning).OtherofhismajortextsincludeGomō jigi(TheMeaningofTermsintheAnalectsandMencius),adigestofhiscommentariesontheAnalectsandMencius,andDōjimon(QuestionsfromChildren),acollectionofessaysonvarioustopics.

AsdiscussedintheIntroduction,JinsaiwascriticalofwhathesawastheabstracttheorizingofSongConfucianism,whichherejectedinfavorofanemphasisonemotionalityandonpracticalethicscultivatedbyordinarypeopleintheireverydaylives.InGomō jigi,hesinglesouttheprefacetoShi jizhuanasanexampleofZhuXi’sdenialoftheactive,emotionalcharacterofhumans,arguingthatsuchanattitudeisnottrulyConfucian:

The“RecordofMusic”says,“Humansarebornatrest;thisistheHeavenlyinbornnature.Theyfeelinresponsetothings,andtheirinbornnatureisputintomotion;thesearethedesiresoftheinbornnature.”ZhuXitookthisandputitattheheadoftheprefacetohisShi jizhuan,andbelievedittobetrulyinkeepingwiththeprinciplesofthesages.HedidnotrealizethatthisoriginallycamefromLaozi,andthatitisreallyfarremovedfromtheWayofthesages....ThemeaningofLaozi’stheoryisthatallthingscomeintobeingfromnothingness.Thus,theinbornnatureofhumansisinthebegin-ningauthenticandatrest,butonceittakesform,desiresspringintomotionandemotionstakeover,andpeopleareassailedbyimmorality.Therefore,hisWayisbasedonentirelyextinguishingdesiresandreturningtotheinbornnature....ThelearningofConfuciansisnotlikethis.34

ThisviewofemotionalityisreflectedinJinsai’scommentsonpoetry,whereherefusestosubordinatetheemotionsexpressedinpoetrytoanyunder-lyingmoralprinciple.Aswewill see, though,hestilldoes seepoetryascontributingtomoralcultivation,specificallythroughitscapacitytomakepeoplereachoutsidethemselvesandempatheticallygrasptheexperiencesofothers.

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

t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l s p a c e o f m o r a l c u l t i v a t i o n

BothZhuXiandJinsaiequatetheConfucianWaywithmoralvirtue,buttheypositdifferentrelationshipsbetweenthisvirtueandhumannature.ThisdifferencecomesthroughintheirinterpretationsoftheMenciuspas-sageonthe“FourBeginnings”(Ch. siduan,Jp.shitan),whichbeginsbystating,“Humansallhaveaheartthatcannotbearthesufferingofothers.”35Thisisdemonstrated,thepassagecontinues,bythefactthatuponseeingasmallchildabouttofallintoawell,nopersonwouldfailtofeelcompas-sion,asentimentthatmoreoverarisescompletelyspontaneously,andnotoutofanycalculatedmotive, suchasadesire tobepraisedor topleaseothers.Therefore,itsays,“wecanseethatwhoeverdoesnothavetheheartofcompassionisnothuman,whoeverdoesnothavetheheartofshameanddisapproval isnothuman,whoeverdoesnothave theheartofdef-erence isnothuman,andwhoeverdoesnothave theheartofrightandwrongisnothuman.”

Thispassageprovidesanargumentfortheessentialgoodnessofhumannature,andisoneoftheclassicstatementsonthisissueintheConfuciantextualtradition.Ithasgivenrisetovariousinterpretations,though,particu-larlywithregardtohowthespontaneousfeelingslistedabove,thecapacityforwhichisdepictedasanessentialpartofwhatitmeanstobehuman,relatetoConfucianmoralvirtues.Thecontinuationofthepassagecitedabovede-scribesthisrelationshipbysaying,“Theheartofcompassionisthebeginning(Ch.duan,Jp.tan)ofhumaneness(Ch.ren,Jp.jin).Theheartofshameanddisapprovalisthebeginningofrightness(Ch.yi,Jp.gi).Theheartofdefer-enceisthebeginningofritualpropriety(Ch.li,Jp.rei ).Theheartofrightandwrongisthebeginningofwisdom(Ch.zhi,Jp.chi).”

ZhuXi’scommentarymapsthepassageontohisschemaofthedivisionbetweenprincipleandmaterialforce,hererepresentedbytheinbornnature(Ch.xing,Jp.sei )versustheemotions(Ch.qing,Jp.jō):

Compassion,shameanddisapproval,deference,andrightandwrongareemotions.Humaneness,rightness,ritualpropriety,andwisdomarethein-bornnature.Theheart is thatwhichencompasses the emotions and theinbornnature.A“beginning”islikethetipofathread.Sowhenemotionsarereleased,onecanseetheoriginalstateoftheinbornnature,inthewaythatsomethinginsidecanbeknownthroughthepartofitthatisvisibleontheoutside.36

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

Inthisview,humanspossessthetotalityofvirtuebybirth,andthisinnatevirtueisthenmanifestedincertainemotions.InGomō jigi,JinsaicriticizesZhuXibyarguingthattheterm“beginning”refersnottoanoutermani-festationofsomethinghiddeninside,butrathertothefundamentaloriginofathing.Theimplicationisthatitisnotthatpeoplehave,forexample,aninnatevirtueofhumaneness,whichismanifestedoutwardlyintheemotionofcompassion,butratherthattheybeginwiththeinnatefeelingofcompas-sion,whichisthestartingpointforthecultivationofhumaneness.37Jinsai’scritiqueofZhuXireflectshisrejectionofZhuXi’sideathatpeoplecanfindtheWaybyreachinginsidethemselvestoasetofvirtuesthatareabstractedfromtheiractualpractice.Whenwelocatevirtuesinastaticinbornnature,Jinsaiargues, then“humaneness, rightness, ritualpropriety,andwisdombecomeemptyvessels.”38ForJinsai,theWaycanonlybeachievedbymeansofanoutwardmovementinwhich,throughpeople’severydaysocialinter-actionswithothers,theydevelopandexpandthequalitieswithwhichtheyareborn.AnotherwaytoputthisisthatforJinsaivirtueisnotaprinciplethatunderlieswhatwemightcallmoralsentiments,butisanextensionanddevelopmentofthesesentimentsthemselves.

Jinsaialsoemphasizesthatinordertocultivatevirtueproperlythroughsocialinteractions,theseinteractionscannotsimplybebasedonoutwardex-tensionsoftheself,butmusttakeintoaccountthefeelingsandperspectivesofothers.Thisideaisexpressedinhisdiscussionoftheterm“considerate-ness”(Ch.shu,Jp.jo)39inGomō jigi,wherehestresseshowconsideratenessinvolvestrulyencounteringothersasothers,andnotsimplyreachingouttothembasedonapointofviewthatisultimatelyonlyaproductofourownprejudices.Hewrites,“Peopleareveryclearabouttheirownlikesanddis-likes,butwhenitcomestothelikesanddislikesofothers,theseareindistinctandwedonotknowhowtoperceivethem.Thereforepeopleoftengrowdis-tantfromeachother.”40Thiscanbeovercome,though,ifwemakeagenuineefforttounderstandothersandempathizewiththem:“Ifwhendealingwithotherswehaveconsiderationforwhattheirlikesanddislikesare,aswellaswhatsituationtheyareinandwhattheydo,thenitwillbeasiftheirheartsareourownhearts,andtheirselvesareourownselves”(p.65).Thiswillthenlead,heargues,toatolerancefortheweaknessesofothers,aswewillrealizethat“people’smisdeedscomefromthingsthatareunavoidable,orfromsitu-ationsthataredifficulttobear”(pp.65–66).

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

e m p a t h y , c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f p o e t i c m e a n i n g

JinsaiseestheBook of Odesasonewaytolearnabouttheemotionsofothers,writing inDōjimon,“Poetryspeakstheemotionsand inbornnature.Al-thoughthepeopleoftherealmaremany,andthelivesofpastandpresentareinnumerable,whenwelookintothesourceoftheiremotions,theydonotdepartfromthethreehundredOdes.Whentheseare followedthentheworldwillbewellgoverned,andwhentheyareviolateditwillgointochaos.”41HissonandintellectualheirItōTōgai(1670–1736)makesasimilarpointinhisDokushi yōryō(EssentialsofReadingtheOdes)whenhewrites,“Poetryreflectshumanemotions.Ifyouarenotconversantinhumanemo-tions,thenwhenyougooutintotheworldyouwillbeincapableofinter-actingwithothers.”42

Jinsai’semphasisonpoetryasanexpressionofnaturalemotionscomesthroughinhiscommentaryonAnalectsII.2,wherehedepartsfromZhuXibyinterpretingthestatementthattheOdescontain“nocrookedthoughts”notasa commentonmoral virtue,but simplyasadeclaration that theOdesare“direct”(Ch.zhi,Jp.choku).43Atthesametime,hedoesnotdenythattheOdescanfunctionfor“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice.”InGomō jigi,heopenshissectionontheOdesbycitingZhuXi’scommentaryonthe“nocrookedthoughts”passage:“AsforthemethodofreadingtheOdes,itistruethatthosethatarevirtuousinspireapprovalfrompeople’sgoodheart,andthosethatexpressviceinspireadesiretocondemnsuchvice.”44StatementstothesameeffectappearinRongo kogi,suchasthattheOdes“aresufficienttoarouseaheartthatlikesvirtueanddislikesvice.”45

Despitehiswillingness to seemoral cultivationasat leastoneof thefunctionsoftheOdes,JinsaidiffersfrombothZhuXiandtheMaotra-ditionby refusing to attributeafixedmoral value to eachof theOdes,or evenafixedmeaning in thefirstplace. InGomō jigihewrites, “Theuseofpoetryliesnotintheoriginalintentionoftheauthor,butinwhatthereaderfeels.”46Becauseofthis,hecharges,“ThingslikeZhengXuan’sMaoshi jianandZhuXi’sShi jizhuanpointlesslystatethecircumstancesthatledtoapoembeingcomposed,anddonotknowhowancientpeoplereadtheOdes”(p.87).Henotes,forexample,“Inthelines,‘Mytroubledheartgrieves,Iamresentedbytheherdofpettymen,’ZhuangJiangofWeilamentsbeingneglectedbyherhusband.Menciusquotesthis,though,andusesittospeakofConfucius”(p.87).47Hepointsoutthatthemoralvalue

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

ofapoemcanevenbereversedthroughthiskindofquotation,writing,“Thepoemontheplumtree is licentious,butConfuciusquotes this toclarifythattheWayisverynearathand”(p.87).48Jinsaiextendsthisideaofthereaderlyconstructionofmeaningtothe“SixPrinciples”ofpoetry,which the“GreatPreface”describesas follows:“Thereare sixprinciples( yi )intheOdes.ThefirstistheAirs( feng).Thesecondisexposition( fu).Thethirdiscomparison(bi ).Thefourthisevocation(xing).ThefifthistheElegantiae( ya).ThesixthistheHymns(song).”49Jinsaiwrites,“Inmyview,theSixPrinciplesofpoetrylienotintheintentionsofthepoems’creators,butratherinhowreadersusethem”(p.87).Becauseofthis,hemaintains,thereisnofixedmethodofdefiningpoemsasbelongingtothesesixcat-egories:“EachindividualpoemencompassestheSixPrinciples,andtheSixPrinciplespermeatethethreehundredOdes”(p.88).

Jinsai doesnot provide an explicit theoretical account of theprocessthroughwhich theOdescancultivatea senseofmoral judgment inthereader,andtheabilityofreaderstoassignmoralvaluesatoddswiththoseofthepoems’creatorsmayseemtounderminetheabilityofpoetrytoserveasanykindofmoralteaching.HisreadingoftheFourBeginningspassageinMencius,though,suggestshowhisvalorizationofpoetryasdirectemotionalexpression,andhisdenialoffixedmeaninginpoetry,cancoexistwithhisbeliefintheroleofpoetryinmoralcultivation.InZhuXi’sreadingoftheFourBeginnings,heseestheemotionsrepresentedbytheFourBeginningsasvaluabletotheextentthattheymakepeopleawareofthemoralvirtuesthatunderlietheseemotions.Inthesameway,heconceivesoftheprocessofreadingtheOdesasoneofuncoveringthefixedmoralvalues,eithervirtu-ousorwicked,thatunderlietheemotionsexpressedineachpoem.ForJin-sai,however,theFourBeginningsarenotexpressionsoffullyformedmoralvirtues,butareinsteadtherawmaterialoutofwhichvirtuescaneventuallybefashioned.WecanseeaparalleltothisinhisviewoftheOdes,inthathefindsvalueintheprocessofactivelygivingmeaningtotheOdes,insteadofsimplytryingtodecodethemfortheirpreexistingmoralsignificance.

Thesecontrastingmodelsofself-cultivationalsohelpexplainwhyJinsai,despitehisemphasisontheOdesasdirectemotionalexpression,isactuallylesswillingthanZhuXitoreadthemasexpressionsofimmorality.Jinsai’sideaofthereaderlyconstructionofmeaningintheOdes isnotwithoutboundaries,ashegrantsthattheMinorPrefacesdohavesomevalue,andcriticizesZhuXifordiscardingthementirely.JinsaispecificallynoteshowwithouttheMinorPrefaces,thereareOdesthatwouldappeartobeexpres-

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

sionsofextremelewdness.ZhuXihadacceptedsuchreadingsundertherubricof“chastisingvice,”butJinsai,whilenotinsistingthattheOdesareexpressionsofperfectvirtue,finds it implausible thatpeoplewouldgivevoicetothekindsofsentimentsthatZhuXiattimesattributestothem.HeexplainshisobjectiontoZhuXiwithreferencetooneoftheFourBe-ginnings,arguingthatthe“heartofshameanddisapproval”wouldmakepeoplerefrainfromopenlyexpressingcertainemotions(p.89).50ZhuXi’stoleranceoflewdnessisrootedinhisviewofthereaderoftheOdesasajudgeofvirtueandvice,empoweredbythepossessionofaninnatemoralpurity.Jinsai’smodelofreading,incontrast,putsthereaderandthecre-atorsoftheOdesonamoreequalplaneintermsoftheirlevelofmoralcultivation,inthattheyarebothassumedtopossessabasicallygoodbutimperfectlydevelopedinbornnature.RatherthanjudgingandcategorizingtheOdes,thereaderismeanttoactivelyengagewiththeOdesandthesen-timentstheyexpress,withtheseinteractions,muchlikerelationshipswithotherhumanbeings,thenservingtofurtherdeveloptheseedsofgoodnesspresentinthereader.51

ThecreationofmeaningbyreadersoftheOdescreatesapotentialprob-lem,though,inlightofJinsai’sdeclarationoftheneedforpeopletoreachoutandgrasptheexperiencesofotherswhoaredifferentfromthemselves.Ifpeoplecanmakepoemsmeanwhattheywantthemtomean,thenitwouldseemthattheirstudyofpoetrywouldsimplyreinforcetheirexistingpreju-dices,leadingthemintothekindofsolipsismforwhichJinsaifaultsZhuXi.Thisproblemismitigated,however,bythefactthatJinsaiseespoetrynotjustasanobjectofstudyforisolatedindividuals,butassomethingtobeusedinthecontextofinterpersonalencounters.Hegivesgreatattention,forexample,topassagesintheAnalectswherequotationsfromtheOdesareusedasameansofcommunication.OneofthesepassagesisAnalectsI.15:

Zigongsaid,“Pooryetnotobsequious,richyetnotproud—whatdoyouthinkofthis?”TheMasterreplied,“Thatisfine,butitdoesnotmatchbe-ingpoorandjoyful,andbeingrichandlikingritual.”Zigongreplied,“IntheOdesitsays,‘likebeingcut,likebeingfiled,likebeingcarved,likebeingpolished.’Thishasthesamemeaningaswhatyousay.”TheMasterreplied,“WithonelikeZigongIcanbegintodiscusstheOdes.Itellhimonethingandheknowswhatremainsunsaid.”

HereZigongbeginsbydescribingagoalforself-cultivation,andConfuciusrespondsbyputtingforthanevenhigherideal.Zigongthenquotesfrom

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

theOde“Qiyu”(Mao#55),inwhichthequotedlinesareinthevoiceofasubjectpraisinghislord’srefinement,toechoConfucius’statementontheimportanceofconstantimprovement.AsimilarpassageisAnalectsIII.8:

Zixia asked, “‘Thedimples ofher charming smile / The clearlydefinedblackandwhiteofherbeautifuleyes/Theplaingroundforthepatterns’—Whatdoesthismean?”TheMastersaid,“Thecolorsgoonaftertheplainground.” “Do the rites then come afterwards?” The Master said “You,Shang,aretheonewhobringsoutmymeaning.NowIcanbegintodiscusstheOdeswithyou.”

ThelinesquotedarefromtheOde“Shuoren”(Mao#57),wheretheyde-scribethebeautyofabride,but theyareusedintheAnalectspassage tomakeapointaboutthenatureofritual.52

Inhisinterpretationsofthesepassages,Jinsaiemphasizesthatthelackoffixedmeaning in theOdesmakes itparticularlydifficult tograsptheintentionofonewhousestheOdesinconversation.InhiscommentaryonAnalectsI.15hewrites,“Poetryisalivingthing(Ch.huowu,Jp.katsubutsu).Itswordsfromthestarthavenofixedmeaning.Itsmeaninghasnofixedstandard.Itisfluidandchanging.”53Hisdescriptionofpoetryasa“livingthing”issignificantinthatheoftenusesthecontrastoflifeversusdeathtodescribehowthetrueConfucianWaydiffersfromDaoism,Buddhism,andZhuXi’sConfucianism,allofwhichheseesasvaluingemptinessandnoth-ingness.Wecanseethisinhisdiscussionoftheterm“principle,”whichheseesassimplytheregularitiesofinertobjects,andnotasthemetaphysicalsourceofvaluepositedbyphilosopherslikeZhuXi.Jinsaiwrites,“Theterm‘theWay’isalivingword,asitdescribesthewonderofconstantgenerationandtransformation.Termslike ‘principle’aredeadwords. . . .ThesagestakeHeaven-and-Earthtobealivingthing....LaozitakesemptinesstobetheWay,andviewsHeaven-and-Earthasadeadthing.”54

Jinsai’scharacterizationoftheConfucianWayassomething“living”re-ferstohowitinvolvestheactivesocialrelationshipsofhumans,andwithpoetryaswellheusesthenotionofa“livingthing”topointtohowpoetrytakesonmeaningonlywithinthecontextofitsactiveuse.Inhiscommen-taryonAnalectsIII.8hewrites:

Poetryhasnoform.Itchangesdependingonthethingsitencounters.Itcanbemaderound,ormadesquare.Dependingonwhatpeoplesee,sometimesitissadandsometimesitisjoyful.Dependingonwhatpeopleencounter,

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

asingleaffaircanextendtoathousandprinciples,andasinglewordcanachieveathousandmeanings.Thereforeifyouarenotonewhocanhearonethingandunderstandtwo,thenyouwillnotbeabletoexhausttheemotionsinpoetry.55

Becauseapoemcanhavemanymeanings,andbecausethesemeaningsdif-ferdependingonthepersonwhoencounters thepoem,themeaning tobegraspedinconversationisnotsomethingthatcanbearrivedatthroughscholarlyinquiry,orthroughmemorizingtheOdes.Inordertobequali-fiedtodiscusstheOdes,itisnecessarynotonlytohaveaknowledgeofthecontentoftheOdesthemselves,butalsotobethekindofpersonwhoisca-pableofempatheticallygraspingtheexperiencesofothers,andunderstand-ingwhataspecificpersonmeansinaspecificsituation.TheinterpretationoftheOdes,then,ispracticedwithinaninterpersonalspace,andnotjustbetweenasolitaryreaderandatext.

JinsaidoesnotprovideasingleunifiedtheoryoftheOdes,buthisdis-cussionsoftheroleoftheOdesarebroughttogetherbyaconcernforreach-ingouttoothers.ZhuXialsodiscussesthevalueofreachingoutsidetheself,suchasinhisideaof“investigatingthings,”buttheultimategoalofthisprocessistouncoverthemoralprinciplethatalreadyexistsfullyformedwithintheself.ForJinsai,incontrast,moralvirtuesonlycometocomple-tionasaproductofsocialinteractions,ratherthanbeingaprincipleunder-lyingtheseinteractions.Ethicalcultivationthereforerequiresthatpeopleencounterothersexplicitlyasothers,introducinganelementofuncertaintythatisabsentinZhuXi’smodelofinterpersonalrelations.Thisindetermi-nacythatJinsaiseesasinherentinsocialrelationsisthenmirroredintheindeterminacyhefindsinthemeaningoftheOdes.56ForboththeMaoschoolandZhuXi,theethicalfunctionoftheOdesrequiresthatafixedmoralvaluebeassignedtoeachoftheOdes,butforJinsai itispreciselybecausetheOdescanmeanmanythingsthattheyforcepeopletoactivelygivethemmeaning,andempatheticallygraspthemeaningsgiventothembyothers,processesthatprovidethefoundationforthecultivationofethi-calsocialrelations.

Conclusion

Itwouldcertainlybepossibletoreadthetheoriesdiscussedinthischapterasthestoryofthegraduallylesseninggripofmoralityonpoetry,starting

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

withtheMaotradition’sattempttoreadalltheOdesasmorallycorrect,progressing toZhuXi’s idea that eachOde ismorally goodormorallybad,butineithercaseservestocultivatemoralgoodnessinthereader,andfinallyarrivingatJinsai’sviewthattheOdesmaycultivatethereadermor-ally,butdonothaveafixedmoralcontentinandofthemselves.Whatsuchananalysisleavesout,though,ishowZhuXiandJinsai,whileprovidinglessliterallymoralreadingsoftheOdes,atthesametimeintegrateitintonewconceptionsoftheConfucianWay.Ifwecomparethedifferencesbe-tweenhowthetheoriesinthischapterenvisiontheeducationprovidedbytheOdes,wecanseeaparalleltothedifferencesintheirviewsonthebasisoftheConfucianWayasameanstoensuringethicalsocialrelationships.FortheMaotraditiontheOdesisavehicleforinternalizingthecultureoftheancientsagekings,forZhuXiitputspeopleintouchwiththeprin-ciplelatentintheirinbornnature,andforJinsaiithelpsspurontheac-tiveinterpersonalengagementsthatheseesascrucialtoConfucianmoralcultivation.

ItisthisconcernforactivesocialrelationshipsthatisatthecoreofmanyTokugawawriters’attacksonearlierConfucianideasonpoetry,especiallytheircriticismsofZhuXi.Whileononeleveltheircriticismsaredirectedathisdidacticism,thebroaderissueishowthisdidacticismresultsinafailuretoconnectwithothers.GiventhecentralityofsocialrelationshipsinCon-fuciantraditionsofethicalandpoliticalphilosophy,wecouldevensaythatTokugawawriterslikeJinsairejectedZhuXi’sviewofpoetrynotbecauseitwastooConfucian,butbecauseitwasnotConfucianenough.Inthechap-tersthatfollow,wewillseehowotherTokugawawriterspursuedasimilarcritiqueofZhuXi,inwhichtheyarguedfortheneedtorecognizeandover-comethegapsseparatingpeoplesocially,andsawpoetryasavehiclethroughwhichpeoplecouldbeboundtogethertoformawell-orderedsociety.

t w o

The Confucian Way as Cultural TransformationOgyū Sorai

OgyūSoraisoughttomakeConfucianismrelevanttomanagingTokugawasociety,leadinghimtorefusetoequatetheConfucianWaywithindividualmoralpurity,insteaddepictingitasatoolforgovernance.Moreover,hesawtheWayasahumancreation,ratherthananextensionofthenaturalorderofthecosmos.WhilehewasstronglycriticalofthosewhobelievedthattheWaycouldbeachievedthroughindividualcultivation,hisvisionof theWay stilldid, as discussed in the Introduction, involve a certainideaoftransformingpeoplefromwithin.InthischapterIexaminewhyhethoughtsuchatransformationwasnecessaryinearlyeighteenth-centuryJapan,andhowheenvisionedthecultivationoftheWaybyindividualsasaprocessofsocialization.IgiveparticularattentiontohisdepictionoftherelationshipbetweentheWayasaculturalsystemandtherawmaterialofhumannaturethatitworksupon,andhowhisconceptionofthisrelation-shipistiedtoavisionofgovernmentasthecoordinationofdistincthumanabilitiestowardacommongoal.

Sorai’s Life and Writings

SoraiwasborninEdoin1666intoafamilyofsamurailineage.Hisfatherserved aspersonalphysician toTokugawaTsunayoshi (1646–1709),who

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

wouldlaterreignasthefifthTokugawashogunfrom1680until1709.In1679SoraimovedtoKazusa(present-dayChibaPrefecture)whenhisfatherwassentintoexilethereforanoffensecommittedagainstTsunayoshi.Hestayedthereuntil1690,whenhisfatherwaspardonedbyTsunayoshiandthefamilyreturnedtoliveinEdo.Beforehisfamilywentintoexile,SoraiwasenrolledintheConfucianacademyrunbyHayashiGahō(1618–1680),thesonofHayashiRazan.TherelativeremotenessofKazusameantthatSoraihadfewopportunitiesforformalstudythere,buthewouldlatercredithisstatusasaself-taughtoutsiderwithgivinghimafreshnessofperspectivethatallowedhimtoseetheerrorsoftheconventionalscholarlymethodolo-giesofthetime.

UponhisreturntoEdo,SoraiopenedaprivateacademyandsethimselfupasateacheroftheChineseclassics.Hisinterpretationsoftheclassicswereconventional,basedonthecommentariesofZhuXi,buthealreadyatthisearlystagebegantodistinguishhimselfasaninnovativeteacheroftheChineselanguage.HislecturesonlanguagefromthistimewouldlaterformthebasisforYakubun sentei(AGuidetoTranslation),aChinese-JapanesedictionarythatfocusesontheproblemofhowdifferentChinesewordscansharethesameJapanesetranslation,sothatthetranslationtakenbyitselfcanobscureimportantnuances intheoriginaltext.Hisgrowingreputa-tionasascholareventuallyledtohimbeingbroughttotheattentionofYanagisawaYoshiyasu(1658–1714),Tsunayoshi’schamberlain(sobayōnin).Aninterviewwasarranged,andYoshiyasu,impressedwithSorai’sabilities,hiredhimasahouseConfucianscholar.

SoraiservedYoshiyasufrom1696until1709,whenTsunayoshidiedandYoshiyasu,havinglosthispatron,retiredfromthepoliticalscene.Tsuna-yoshiwasanactivesupporterofConfucianscholarship,givingtheHayashischoolanewhomeinanofficialbakufucenterforConfucianstudyandritual,andeven lecturingontheConfucianclassicshimselfonaregularbasis.ThistasteforConfucianismextendedtohispublicpoliciesaswell,suchasthepostingofsignboardsexhortingthepeopletofollowConfucianvirtues.Yoshiyasusharedhispatron’senthusiasmforConfucianismandforscholarshipingeneral,andhecreatedasalonatmosphereinhishousebygatheringtogethermanyofthemosttalentedscholarsoftheday,includingsomewhowouldlaterbecomedisciplesofSorai,suchasHattoriNankakuandAndōTōya(1683–1719).

Sorai’s official dutieswhile employedwithYoshiyasu involved a largeamountofrelativelyuninspiringeditingwork,buthegainedmuchfrom

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

thedebatesandother interactionshewasable tohavewiththescholarsinYoshiyasu’ssalon,andencounteredmanyscholarlytrendsthatmadeanimportantimpactonhisformulationofanoriginalphilosophylaterinhiscareer.HisinterestsduringhistimewithYoshiyasuweremainlylinguisticandliterary,andheextendedhisstudyofChinesebylearningtospeakcol-loquialChinesefromteacherswhoservedasinterpretersinNagasaki,wheretradewithChinawascarriedout.MostimportantperhapswasSorai’sdis-covery,towardtheendofhisservicewithYoshiyasu,oftheMingwritersLiPanlongandWangShizhen,leadersoftheso-calledAncientPhraseology(Ch.guwenci,Jp.kobunji)movementoftheMing.1Theneoclassicalstyleofpoetrychampionedbythesewriters,basedparticularlyonpoeticmodelsfromtheHighTang,hadanenormouseffectonSorai’sownpoetictaste.Beyondthematterof literarystyle, theirsensibilityforancient languageledSoraitodoubthisownunderstandingofancientChineseandseektograsp itmoredirectly.EventuallyhewouldcometotheconclusionthatlatercommentatorssuchasZhuXihadfundamentallymisunderstoodtheAnalectsandotherConfucianclassicsbecausetheyfailedtograspancientlanguageasancientlanguage,insteaddistortingitbyreadingitfromtheperspectiveofmodernlanguage.Inthissense,philosophywasalwaysforSoraiintimatelylinkedtoliteraryandlinguisticstudies.2

OneofthemostfamousepisodesinSorai’slifewashisunsuccessfulat-tempttoestablishadialoguewithItōJinsai.In1703SoraiwroteJinsaialetterpraisinghisscholarship,aletterthatremainedunansweredwhenJin-saidiedin1705.ItisunclearwhyJinsaineverresponded—perhapshewasalreadytooillatthetime,orperhapshesimplydidnotgivemuchatten-tiontounsolicitedmail—butinanycaseSoraitookgreatoffence,whichwascompoundedwhenhisletterwasincludedinacollectionofletterstoJinsaipublishedafterhisdeath.Sorai’sresponseto thisperceivedaffrontwastopenascathingcritiqueofJinsai’sphilosophyentitledKen’en zuihitsu(JottingsfromtheMiscanthusGarden),writtenin1709andpublishedin1714.Soraiwouldlaterrepudiatethiswork,whichattackedJinsaiessentiallyfromaSongConfucianstandpoint,buttogetherwithYakubun sentei,thefirstpartofwhichwaspublishedin1711,itwasresponsibleforcementingSorai’s reputation intheyears immediately followinghisdeparture fromservicewithYoshiyasu.

AfterleavingYoshiyasu’sserviceSoraionceagainsetupaprivateacad-emy,andoverthenextdecadeproducedhismostimportantoriginalphilo-sophicalworks.Someofthestudentsinhisnewacademywerecarryovers

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

fromhistimewithYoshiyasu,buthealsogainedimportantnewdisciplessuchasDazaiShundai,whojoinedhisschoolin1711.OneofthefirstworksSoraiproducedafterKen’en zuihitsuwasGakusoku(RegulationsforLearn-ing), abriefmethodologicalprimer.His twomost famousphilosophicalworks,draftsofwhichhecompletedby1717,areBenmei(OnDistinguish-ingNames)andBendō(OnDistinguishingtheWay).Benmeiisaphilosoph-icallexicon,inwhichaseriesoftermssuchas“virtue”(Ch.de,Jp.toku),“humaneness”(Ch.ren,Jp.jin),and“ritual”(Ch.li,Jp.rei )areexplainedthroughcitationsfrompassageswheretheyappearintheConfucianclas-sics.3BendōisakindofdigestofBenmei,madeupofaseriesofbriefsec-tions that eachmakeaparticularpointabout theConfucianWay.AfterBendōandBenmei,SoraiproducedcommentariesontheAnalects (Rongo chō,orClarification of the “Analects” ),theDoctrine of the Mean(Chūyō kai,or I nterpretation of the “Doctrine of the Mean” ), and the Great Learning(Daigaku kai,orInterpretation of the “Great Learning” ).

Sorai’swritingsinthe1720s,upuntilhisdeathin1727,weremoreori-ented towardpoliticalpolicy, and showhowheenvisioned thepracticalapplicationof theWayof theancientChinese sagekings in thecontextofcontemporaryJapan.Thisemphasisonpolicycoincidedwithareestab-lishmentoflinksbetweenSoraiandthebakufu,beginningin1721whenhereceivedarequestfromarepresentativeoftheshoguntopunctuateaQingdynasty(1644–1911) legal text, theLiuyu yanyi.Overthe followingyearshecontinuedtobechargedwithvariousscholarlyassignments,andalsopresentedtwoworksonpoliticstothebakufu,Taiheisaku(AProposalforGreatPeace),whichconsistslargelyofphilosophicalreflectionsonpoli-tics,andSeidan (ADiscourseonGovernment),whichoutlines inmuchmoredetailedandconcretetermsacomprehensiveprogramofreformfortheTokugawagovernment.4Whileneitheroftheseworkswaspublisheduntilmoderntimes,SoraialsodealtwithmanyissuesofgovernanceinSorai sensei tōmonsho(MasterSorai’sResponsals),awide-rangingworkpublishedin1727thatprovidesanaccessibleintroductiontohisphilosophy,andissaidtobemadeupofhisletterstotwodomainofficialswithwhomhewascorresponding.5Sorai’s respected role asanadvisor to thebakufu is evi-dencedbyaformalaudiencehewasgrantedwithYoshimunein1727,andcertainbakufupoliciesmayhavecomeaboutastheresultofSorai’ssugges-tions.6TherearealsosourcesthatsuggestthatSoraihadbeenofferedanof-ficialpositionwithYoshimuneanddeclined,andwasonthevergeofbeingaskedagainwhenhedied.7Sorai’sactivitieswiththebakufuandhisefforts

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

tohaveaneffectoncontemporarypolicyaresignificantinthattheycomeattheendofaperiodinwhichprominentJapaneseConfuciansstrovetofulfilltheroleoftheConfucianscholar-official.ThelossofthisroleamongSorai’sdiscipleswouldhaveaprofoundeffectonhowtheycarriedonhisteachings,leadingthemtosearchfornewkindsofmeaninginConfucian-ismandChineseliterarystudies.8

Crisis and Reform in Early Eighteenth-Century Politics

Sorai’searlycareerinEdo,firstasaprivateteacherandthenasamemberofthesalonofYanagisawaYoshiyasu,tookplaceduringtheGenrokuperiod(1688–1704),atimemarkedbytheemergenceoftheurbanmerchantclassasapowerfulforcebothfinanciallyandculturally.ThepeacebroughtaboutbytheconsolidationofTokugawaruleatthebeginningoftheseventeenthcenturyhadgeneratedconditionsconducivetocommercialgrowth,suchasbyallowingforthedevelopmentofareliabletransportationandcom-municationinfrastructure.Apartfromthegeneralroleofstabilityinfacili-tatingeconomicgrowth,theTokugawapoliciesofhavingthesamurailiveincastletowns(ratherthanscatteredthroughoutthecountryside),andofforcingdaimyotomaintainlavishresidencesinEdo,towhichtheycom-mutedfromtheirhomedomainsunderthesystemofalternateattendance(sankin kōtai),ledtothegrowthofurbancenterswithlargeconcentrationsofsamurai.Thesamuraiwererelievedbytheadventofpeacefromtheneedtoengageintheactualbusinessoffighting,andtheycametooccupythem-selvesmoreandmorewithciviladministration,whilebeingsupportedfi-nanciallybystipendspaidinrice.Itwasconsideredunseemlyforsamuraitoengageincommercialactivity,sotheincreasinglycomplexfinancialbusi-nessofthecountrywaslefttothemerchantclass,whichasaconsequencegrewinwealthandinfluencethroughouttheseventeenthcentury.

While the merchant class showed great economic and cultural dyna-mism,fromthepointofviewofthesamuraithiswasnotnecessarilyawel-comedevelopment;themerchantclassplayedanimportantfunction(onewhich the samuraihadno intentionof takingover themselves),but thewealthofthemerchantsthreatenedtodisturbtheofficialsocialhierarchyinwhichsamuraiwereatthetop,followedbypeasants,artisans,andfinallymerchantsatthebottom.Despitethestableincomesprovidedtosamuraibytheirstipends,thefactthatthesestipendswerepaidinricemeantthatfluctuationsinthericemarketcouldmaketherealvalueofstipendsvary

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

greatlyfromyeartoyear,andmanysamuraiendedupbecomingseverelyindebtedtomerchantclassfinanciers.Theostentatiousdisplayofwealthonthepartofmerchantswasanothersourceofconcern,andduringTsuna-yoshi’sreigntherewasasharpincreaseinthenumberofsumptuaryedictsdictatingexactlywhatclothes,houses,andotheritemswerepermissibletopeopleofdifferent statuses.Theseedicts,whichwere aimednotonly atmerchants,butalsoatsamurai,wereanattempttomaintainarigidsocialhierarchy, ifonlyonthe levelofappearance,aswellastocurbexcessiveconsumptioningeneral.Amoreextremesolutionthansumptuaryedictswassimplytoconfiscatethewealthofmerchants,suchaswhenin1705thebakufuseizedtheentireassetsoftheYodoyamerchanthouseofOsaka.

Another issue thebakufu facedduring theGenrokuperiod (and thereignofTsunayoshiingeneral)wasafiscalcrisisprecipitatedbythegrad-ualdepletionofthebullionreservesthathadoriginallybeenbuiltupbyTokugawaIeyasu(1542–1616)atthefoundingoftheTokugawaregime.Thebakufu’sresponsewastodebasethecurrencyin1695,meltingdowngoldandsilvercoinsandissuingnewcoinswithlowerpercentagesofpreciousmetalcontent.Thisnettedthebakufuaconsiderablesum,butwasonlyashort-termsolution,asitdidnottakelongforpeopletodiscountthevalueofthenewcoinagewhilehoardingtheoldercoins.

TsunayoshiwassucceededasshogunbyTokugawaIenobu(1663–1712,r.1709–1712),andthenbythechildTokugawaIetsugu(1709–1716,r.1713–1716).TsunayoshihadattemptedtoreformsocietybycommandingthroughexhortationandlegislationthatpeopleobeyConfucianmoralprecepts,butIenobueaseduponthesepolicies,particularlysuchunpopularmeasuresasTsunayoshi’slawsthatcalledforseverepunishmentofthosewhofailedtodisplaybenevolencetowardanimals.DuringthereignsofIenobuandIetsugu,themostinfluentialConfucianscholarwithinthebakufuwasAraiHakuseki(1657–1725),whosecontributionstopolicymakingduringthispe-riodincludedconvincingthebakufutoreverseTsunayoshi’spolicyofcur-rencydebasement.9

ThebriefreignsofIenobuandIetsuguwerefollowedbythemuchlongerreignofTokugawaYoshimune(1684–1751),whowasshogunfrom1716untilhisretirementin1745.Yoshimune’sreignwasnotableforaseriesofreformsknownastheKyōhōReforms(anametakenfromtheKyōhōperiod,whichlastedfrom1716to1736).Thisreformprogramaddressedthesamebasicis-suesthatthebakufuhadbeenconcernedwithsincethetimeofTsunayoshi,namelythefiscaldifficultiesofthebakufuandtheexcessiveinfluenceofthe

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

merchantclass.Specificpoliciesenactedaspartofthisreformprojectin-cludedsumptuarylaws,atemporaryreductionofalternateattendancedutyfordaimyo,tightenedcontrolovertheactivitiesofmerchants(includingpricecontrolsandrestrictionsonmoneylending),andreformsinthesystemforassessinglandtaxesthatweredesignedtoprovidemorerevenuetothebakufu.Intheareaofcurrency,Yoshimunebeganbyfollowingtherevalu-ationpolicyofHakuseki(eventhoughHakusekihadlosthispositioninthebakufuwiththedeathofIetsugu),althoughin1736thebakufurevertedtoapolicyofdebasementafteraseriesoffiscalcrisesprecipitatedbywildfluctuationsinthericemarket.

ItwasinthecontextoftheearlystagesoftheKyōhōReformsthatSoraiproducedhistreatisesongovernment,andhishopewasthattheseproposalswouldhavesomeinfluenceonthedirectionofYoshimune’spolicies.Soraiwasakeenobserverofthechangesgoingoninthesocietyaroundhim,andforhimtheeconomictransformations,expansioninpopularculture,andup-endingofsocialhierarchiesthathewitnessedwerenotsignsofavibrantanddynamicsociety,butwereratherindicationsofabreakdownintheproperorderofthings.Inordertoreversethistrend,SoraithoughtitwasnecessarytoputintopracticetheteachingsofthesagekingsofancientChina,anap-proachtoreformthatwasguidedbyhisbeliefthathumansocietywasorigi-nallygivenorderthroughthecivilizingprocessenactedbythesesagekings,whosecreationscontinuedtoprovidethebestguideforgoverningsocietyinthepresent.

Objectivity as Cultural Framework

OnethemethatshowsuprepeatedlyinSorai’swritingsisthedangerofrely-ingonone’sownpersonalopinionsandinclinations,suchaswhenhewrites:

Differentpeopleseethingsdifferently.ThisiswhathappenswhentheyeachusetheirownhearttodeterminethatthisistheMean,orthatisthenatu-rallypropercourse.Whenpeoplelookfromthenorth,theyseethesouth.Whatservesasastandard?...Thisis,forexample,likewhentwopeasantshaveadisputeoverapropertyboundary.Ifthereisnoofficialtoheartheircases,thenwhatcanserveasastandard?10

Aconcernforavoidingthesubjectiveandprivate,infavoroftheobjectiveandpublic,iscommonthroughoutConfucianthought,butSoraidefinesthis issue indistinctoppositiontobothZhuXiandJinsai.ForZhuXi,

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

subjectivismisonlyaproblemto theextent thatmaterial force(Ch.qi,Jp.ki ),whichhe equateswith the emotions (Ch.qing, Jp. jō), hasnotbeenproperlybroughtundercontrol.Oncepeoplehave regainedaccesstotheprinciple(Ch.li,Jp.ri )thatresidesintheiroriginalinbornnature(Ch.benran zhi xing, Jp.honzen no sei ),which is the innermostcoreoftheirbeing,thereisaperfectunityofthesubjectiveandtheobjective.OnereasonSoraiisskepticalaboutthiskindofinner-directeddefinitionofself-cultivationisthathedeniesthedualisticstructureofhumannaturepositedbyZhuXi,arguingforamonismofmaterialforce,inwhichmaterialforceisnotdescribedasanoutercoveringlaidovertheinbornnature(Ch.xing,Jp. sei ),but is instead seen as theonly inbornnature thatpeoplehave:“Theinbornnaturereferstothequalitieswithwhichpeopleareborn.ItiswhatSongConfucianscall ‘materialforce.’”11ZhuXiseestheindividualdifferences embodied inmaterial forceasanouter layerof the self, anddefines self-cultivationand the achievementof theWay in termsof theabilitytoregainaccesstotheoriginalinbornnature,whichisidenticalforallhumansandprovidesthemwithaperfectlyobjectivestandpoint.ForSorai,though,thisoriginalinbornnaturesimplydoesnotexist,andeachindividualisirreduciblydifferent.Whenpeoplelookinward,then,insteadofencounteringadeeplayeroftheselfinwhichsubjectivityandobjectivityareperfectlyunited,theysimplyfindmoreofthesameparticularmaterialforceofwhichtheyareconstituted.Toputitanotherway,alltheyfindistheirself,notsomegreaterandmoreprimaluniversal“Self ”thattranscendstheindividual.

AsdescribedinChapter1,Jinsaialsoarguedforamonismofmaterialforce,andcriticizedZhuXiforseekingtheWaybylookinginwardtotheoriginalinbornnature.InhiscritiqueofZhuXi’sreadingoftheFourBegin-ningspassageinMencius,forexample,JinsaideniesthattheFourBeginningsareoutwardmanifestationsofinnervirtueslatentintheinbornnature,anaturethatexistspriortoanyactualapplicationofthesevirtues,andinsteadarguesthatvirtuesaretheproductoftheactiveexerciseoftheinnatecapaci-tiesrepresentedbytheFourBeginnings.WhileSoraiagreeswithJinsaiontheneedtoavoidtheabstractionandnavel-gazingthatbothofthemseeascharacteristicofZhuXi,hefindsfaultwithJinsaiforfailingtoproperlyregulatethesphereofsocialrelationswithinwhichtheWayisrealized.TheMenciuspassagedescribestheFourBeginningsassomethingthatallpeoplepossess,justasallpeoplepossessfourlimbs,andJinsaiseesthedevelopmentoftheseintothefourcorrespondingvirtuesofhumaneness,rightness,ritual

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

propriety,andwisdomasbeinglikeextendingthefourlimbsoutward.12TheproblemSoraifindswiththis interpretation is thathesees itas ignoringthefactthattheFourBeginningscanonlybecultivatedthroughthemedia-tionofexternalnorms.Heexplains,“Thosewhodonotrealizethisseeaproblemwithhowritualandmusicaresomethingexternal,andarenotintheself.Suchpeopledonothavefaithintheteachingsofthesages,andtrytoachievehumaneness throughtheirownpersonal intelligence.”13WhileSoraiseesJinsaiashavingcorrectedcertainerrorsofZhuXi,then,heseeshimasultimatelyjustaspronetosubjectivism.

OnewaySoraidescribestheobjectivityprovidedbytheWayofthesagesisasasetofbehavioralnormsexternaltohumannature.BecausetheWayexistsoutsidehumannature,heisadamantabouttheneedtolooktothespecifichistoricalcreationsofthesages,criticizingthosewhowouldtrytobypassthesewiththeirownprivatespeculationsontheWay,commenting,“Ifonewereto lookinsideoneself inordertofindtheprincipleofhowthingsshouldbe,andcallthistheWayofthesages,itwouldbeanextremedelusion.”14Inonemetaphor,hecomparesthecreationsofthesagestothetoolsofacarpenter:

TofollowtheWayofthesagesiscalled“correctness”(Ch.zheng,Jp.sei ).TofailtofollowtheWayofthesagesiscalled“deviance”(Ch.xie,Jp.ja)....Thiscanbecomparedtothecompass,square,andlevel.Thesearetoolsformakingthingscorrect.Whenacompassisfollowedthenacirclewillbecor-rect,whenasquareisfollowedthenananglewillbecorrect,andwhenalevelisfollowedthenthingswillbecorrectlylevel.15

Just as it is impossible todraw a circle freehand, or determinewhethersomethingislevelsimplybyeyeballingit,peoplecannotfindthestandardstogovernsocietybyrelyingonwhatseemstothempersonallytoberight.

AmorecomplexformulationoftheroleofexternalnormscomesthroughinSorai’sideathatpeoplecanunderstandthingsonlybyassimilatingthem-selvestotheculturalframeofreferencewithinwhichthesethingsaregener-ated.16ThisideathatthingsbecomecomprehensiblethroughtheframeorsymbolicsysteminwhichtheyaresituatedcanbecontrastedwithhowinZhuXi’sphilosophy things takeonmeaningandvaluebybeing rootedinauniversalprinciple,andpeople’sabilitytounderstandthingsoutsideofthemselvesispremisedontheaprioripossessionofthisprincipleinhumannature.Sorai’sviewshouldalsobedistinguishedfromtheviewthatfindsnormsincultureratherthaninnature,butdefinesthesenormssimplyasa

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

setofrulesforpeopletofollow.ForSoraisuchrulescanonlybeunderstoodbyonewhohasinternalizedthesphereofculturalvaluewithinwhichtheyaresituated,aspherethatcanitselfneverbereducedtoasetofrules.

OneversionofthisideaofculturalframesofreferenceappearsinSorai’searlywritingsonlanguageandtheproblemoftranslation,suchasthemeth-odologicalintroductiontoYakubun sentei,inwhichhelaysdownaseriesofguidelinesforthestudyoftheChineselanguage.CentraltohisapproachishisrejectionofthepracticeofreadingChinesethroughwakun,thesysteminwhichJapanesepronunciationsareassignedtoChinesecharacters,whicharethenrearrangedtofittheorderofJapanesesyntax,andsupplementedwiththeparticlesandverbendingsneededtoproduceagrammaticallyJap-anesesentence.HearguesthatpeopleoverlooktheshortcomingsofwakunbecausetheyremainconvincedthatitisadirectrenderingoftheChinesetext,andfailtograspthatitisinrealityaformoftranslation(yaku).Bydefiningwakunastranslation,Soraiisinsistingthatpeopleseetheoriginaltextandthewakuntextasbelongingtotwodistinctlinguisticworlds,thoseofChineseandofJapanese.Asanalternativetowakun,hepromotestrans-lationintovernacularJapanese,amethodthatmakesnoefforttoconcealitstruenatureastranslation.

AnotherproblemhefindswithwakunisthatitisanartificialformoflanguagethatprovidesneitheraccesstotheoriginalChinesenoranad-equatetranslationintoJapanese.TheuseofordinaryJapanesetotranslatehasthebenefitthat“thecommoniseasyandclosetohumanemotions,sothatwhenweusethistotranslateChinese,weavoidgivingpeopletheimpressionof[theoriginalChinese]beinganythingoutoftheordinary.”17Inotherwords,vernaculartranslationcallsattentiontohowancientChi-neseisinfactnothingmorethantheordinarylanguageofitstime,andisnotanykindof loftyphilosophicalcodetobedeciphered,asthestiltedlanguageofwakunwould leadpeople tobelieve.At the same time,henotesthatthereisafundamentalasymmetrybetweenChineseandJapa-nese,sothattranslationintovernacularJapaneseshouldnotbetakenasasubstitutefortheoriginal.18Theresultisthatsuchtranslationis“neitheridentical tonorseparated from( fusokufuri)” theChineseoriginal.19Heconnectsthiskindofrelationshipbetweentranslationandoriginaltothemetaphorof the “fishtrap and rabbit snare (sentei)”used in the title ofYakubun sentei,whichcanberendered literallyas“afishtrapandrabbitsnareoftranslation.”Theideabehindthismetaphor,borrowedfromapas-sageinZhuangzi,isthatatranslation,likeafishtraporrabbitsnare,isa

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

meanstoanend,andshouldbediscardedonceithasserveditspurpose.20Justaspeopleputawayfishtrapsandrabbitsnaresafterusingthemtocatchfishandrabbits,vernacularJapanese isatoolthatcanbeusedtogainaholdontheChineseoriginal,butshouldeventuallybesetasideinfavoroftheoriginaltext,towhichitwillneverbecompletelyequal.

TiedtoSorai’spresentationofseparatelanguagesasdistinctspheresofmeaningistheideathattoknowalanguagemeanstoinhabit itsworld,ratherthantograspitasanexternalobjectofknowledge.Soraicallsatten-tiontowhatitmeanstobeoutsideversusinsidealanguagewhenhegivesthefollowingdescriptionoftheprocessoflearningChinese:

ThemostimportanttaskforscholarsisthattheycometoknowtheessentialcharacterofthelanguageoftheChinese.Moreover,thisessentialcharacterissomethingthattheChinesethemselvesarenotawareof.WhywouldthisbeanydifferentfromhowpeoplewholiveonMountLucannotseewhatitislike?21Itisbecauseweseekout[thefeaturesofChinese]fromtheperspec-tiveoftheJapaneselanguagethatwearethenabletoseehow[Chinese]isdifferent.Thisis,forexample,likehowasouthernerwhoalwaysstaysinthesouthisunawareofthecharacteristicsofhisregion,whereaswhenanorth-ernercomestothesouth,herealizeshowhotitisthere.22

InonesenseSoraiseesJapaneseashavingabetterknowledgeofChinesethantheChinesethemselves,inthatonlyaJapanesehastheoutsideper-spectivethatwouldbenecessarytoproducesomethinglikeatextbookofChinesegrammar.Inhisview,though,thekindoftheoreticalknowledgeofChinesethatisavailabletoanoutsidersuchasaJapaneseisnotreallyabetterformofknowledge.Whatheultimatelyvaluesistheknowledgeofthenativespeakerwho,althoughnotabletodescribetherulesofhislanguage,isnot inneedofsuchdescriptionseither.ThegoalofstudyingChinese,then,istoachievealeapofunderstanding,irreducibletoanysetofgram-maticalrulesormasteryofitemsofvocabulary,thatallowsthestudenttoenterintothelinguisticworldofancientChinese.

Thenotionof inhabitingworlds ofmeaning is also central to Sorai’spolicywritings,mostnotablyinhisemphasisoncustom(fūzoku),whichhedefinesasakindofgeneralframeworkwithinwhichpeopleoperateepis-temologically,determining the limitsofwhat is intelligible for them. InTaiheisakuhewrites:

Ifweweretotrytoexplainthecity toacountryperson,nomatterhowintelligenthewas...howcouldheunderstand?Itisonlywhenwebring

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

himtothecityandleavehimtherefortwoorthreeyearsthatatsomepointheischanged,andwithoutknowingitbecomesacityperson.Thenwhenhelooksbackathishometownitbecomescomicaltohim....Tobechangedinsuchaway,downtoone’sveryheart,issimplyamatterofthedifferencebetweenbeingimbuedornotimbued[bycustom],andhasnothingtodowiththemeticulousnessofone’strainingorone’singenuity.ToexplaintosomeonewhodoesnotstudytheWayofthesages,andtotrytogethimtounderstandit,islikespeakingofthecitytoacountryperson....Thisisbecausesuchapersonisimbuedwiththecustomsofhisownprovinceandtime,andneitherthestateofhisheartnortheworkingsofhisintelligencegooutsidetheirenclosure(kuruwa).23

Customisnotmerelyanaggregationofdiscreteitemsofknowledge,butis rather theconditionofpossibilityof thatknowledge,andthusalwaysexceedsthesumofitscontent.Thisiswhynomatterhowexhaustiveade-scriptionofthecitywemaygivetoapersonfromthecountry,wecannevergethimtounderstand thecity.AlthoughSorai’s contention thatpeoplecanneverseebeyondthelimitsoftheirownsphereofcustommayseemtoimplyapessimisticoutlookonreformingsociety,hemakesitclearinthepassageabovethateventhoughcustomdetermineswhatisintelligibletousatagivenpointintime,customcanneverthelessbechanged.Thetransfor-mationofcustomisacentralgoalofhisprogramforpoliticalreform,andwewillturnnexttohowthisismanifestedincertainofhispolicyproposals.

The Establishment of Institutions

InSeidan,SoraiclaimsthatitisonlypossibletoreformsocietybyturningbacktothesagesofancientChina:“WhenitcomestotheWayofgoverningtherealmandtheprovinces,thereisnothingbetterthantheWayofthean-cientsages.TheancientsagesYao,Shun,Yu,Tang,Wen,Wu,andtheDukeofZhougovernedtherealmwell, andbequeathed thisWay to laterages.WithoutrelyingonthisWay,itisnotpossibletoknowhowtoprovidereliefforthepeople.”24Thisisnotmeanttoimply,though,thatitisnecessaryorevendesirabletoliterallycopyancientChinesecivilization.Instead,hebe-lievedthatthefounderofeachdynastyneededtocreateinstitutions(seido)basedonthecreationsoftheancientsagekings,whilestilltakingintoac-countcontemporarycircumstances.

Institutionsaredesignedtoshapecustoms,andassuchtheyaredirectedtowarddefiningthebasicmodesofsocialorganization,ratherthanjustdic-tatingspecificbehaviors.Soraiwascriticalofattemptstocarryoutreforms

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

simplybypassing laws,withoutstrivingtochangepeople’smindsetandhabits.Anexampleofthisstanceishisattitudetowardthesumptuaryregu-lationsissuedbythebakufu,whichweremeanttostemthespreadofluxurygoodstomerchantsandlow-rankingsamurai.Soraiwassympathetictothegoalsoftheseregulations,asheconsideredthegrowthintheconsumptionofluxuriestobeamajordrainontheeconomy,aswellasadisruptionofthepropersocialhierarchy.Hesawthebakufu’slegalremediestothisprob-lem,though,asultimatelyfutile:

Whenwelookatthesituationofrecenttimes,thereareoftendecreesor-deringfrugality,buteventhoughextravaganceisprohibited,itdoesnotgoaway.Eventhoughtheft ispunished, theftdoesnotcometoastop,andeventhoughthepunishmentforbriberyissevere,briberydoesnotcease.Themilitaryartsarepromoted,butthewarriorsbecomeweakerbytheday;thepracticesofthesamuraiandthecustomsofthecommonpeoplebecomeworseeveryday.Pricesskyrocket,throwingbothhighandlowintopenury,andthefactthattherearenomethodsfordealingwiththisisbecausetheytrytocontrolitsimplybyissuingordersandpassinglaws.Thisis,forex-ample,likeorderingpeoplefromthemountainstolearntoswim,ororder-ingpeoplefromthecoasttoburncharcoal.Todosowouldbetosetasidethatwhichcustompermitspeopletodo,andtotrytogovernthroughlaws.Whenonedoesthisoneistryingtoforcewhatcannotbedone,sointheendthisisimpossible.25

Theonlywaytocreatelastingreforms,accordingtoSorai,istochangecus-toms.Insteadofthepiecemealmeasureofissuingsumptuaryrestrictions,hearguesthatexcessiveconsumptioncanbebroughtundercontrolonlybyalteringthefundamentalstructureswithinwhichpeoplelive.Thisideawasthebasisforhismostradicalproposal,whichwastohavethesamuraimoveoutofthecitiesandbacktotheland,wherehethoughttheywouldnatu-rallydevelopsimplertastesandoftheirownaccordstopdesiringluxurygoods.Heappliesasimilarlogictothequestionofhowtoprovidereliefforthepoor,arguingthatitisuselesssimplytohandoutmoneywithoutmak-ingmorefundamentalchangestosociety:“Evenifweweretotrytohelppeoplebydistributingevery lastcoin inthe treasury, thingswouldsoonreturntotheirformerstate.”26

Sorai followsChinesehistoriographical convention intakingthedy-nastyasthebasicunitofhistory,andhearguesthatitistheresponsibilityofthefoundersofadynastytoestablishappropriateinstitutions.Althoughalldynastiesmustcometoanendatsomepoint,as“faultswillemerge

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

eveninthecreationsofsages,andthesefaultsleadtotheworldbeingsentintochaos,”27thisdeclinecanbeforestalledifthefoundersofadynastycreateinstitutionsthatanticipatepotentialproblems:“Throughtheritual,music,and institutionsof thefoundingruler, theconditionsoftheageand the sourcesof troublescanbeknownseveralhundredyears inad-vance.‘Sages’referstothosefoundingrulerswhoconsiderthefuturewell,andestablishritual,music,andinstitutionsinsuchamannerthattherewillbefewfaults.”28Althoughhistory,inSorai’sview,isaconstantcycleinwhichdynastiesarecreated,descendintochaos,andthenarereplacedbynewdynasties,thisdoesnotmeanthatalldynastiesarecreatedequal,andheemphasizeshowproperlyestablisheddynastieslastlonger:“TheXialastedsixhundredyears,theYinsevenhundredyears,andtheZhoueighthundredyears,andthefacttheyheldupforsolongisasignoftheirbeingfoundedbysages.FromtheHanandTangonward,though,therewasnoritualandmusic.Thereasonthatnoneoftheselaterdynastieslastedmorethanthreehundredyearsisthattheydidnothavegoodinstitutions,andthereforetheworldquicklydeclinedanddescendedintochaos.”29

SoraiappliesthissamemodelofhistoryanddynasticchangetoexplainhowJapanhadarrivedatitscontemporarystateofdisorder,andtosituatehisownhistoricalmomentwithinabroadernarrativeoftheimportationofthecultureofthesagestoJapan.InSeidanhewrites,

InJapan,aswell,FujiwaranoFuhito[659–720]createdtheritsuryōsystembasedonthemethodsoftheTangcourt,andthiswasusedtogovernthecountry.Afterthreehundredyears,though,therealmpassedintothehandsofwarriors.Afterthat,theKamakuragovernmentdisappearedinahundredyears,andtheMuromachigovernmentcollapsedintogreatchaoswithinahundredyears.Thesewerebothlackinginlearning,anddidnotknowtofollowthegovernmentoftheancientkingsoftheThreeDynasties,andsotheirdurationwasextremelyancient.30

Inthisway,eventhedilutedversionoftheWayofthesagesthathadbeenborrowedfromtheTangdisappeared,andthecountrywasleftbereftofanyguidingprinciplesforgovernment.

Theestablishmentof theTokugawa regime successfullyput a stop tothewarfarethathadbeenragingsincethecollapseoftheMuromachi,butSoraicriticizeshowtheTokugawagovernmentfailedtocarryoutitstaskofestablishinginstitutions.DescribingtheestablishmentoftheTokugawabakufuinSeidan,hewrites,“Itcameafteraperiodofgreatchaos,andyetitdidnotreformthecustomsofthisworldthathadentirelylostinstitutions

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

ineverything,andinsteadsimplyleftthingsastheywere.Becauseofthis,todaytherearenoinstitutions,andithasbecomeaworldinwhichboththehighandthelowsimplydoastheyplease.”31HeisnotsomuchcriticalofthefounderIeyasu’sskillsatrulership,though,asofhisfailuretoprepareforthefuturebysettingupinstitutionsthatwouldguaranteegoodgovern-menteveninthehandsoflesserrulersthanhimself.Inonemetaphor,SoraiwritesofthefoundingoftheTokugawaregime:“Itislikeraisingthesailsofaboatinastrongwindandlaunchingit,butnothavingananchor.”32

Sorai’sdescriptionsoftheconsequencesofthislackofinstitutionsfocusonhowsocietyhasbecomefragmented,withpeoplelackinganyobjectivenorms.Thisconcernforsubjectivism,whichisalsoevidentinhiscritiqueofSongConfucianism,isparalleledbyanargumentthatpeoplehavecometointeractwitheachotherasisolatedindividuals,connectedonlythroughmonetaryexchangeandcontractualarrangements,ratherthanthroughfeel-ingsofmutualobligationorasenseofmembershipinafamilyorothercommunalbody.Forexample,hedeploresthereplacementofhereditaryservantswithcontractlabor,andarguesthatifservantsaregoingtobehiredforwages, thentheemployer shouldbeabletoobtainsolidbackgroundinformationon servantsdirectly fromtheirnativeplace, rather thanthecurrentpracticeofhavingservantsbackedupbyguarantorswhosimplyprovidetheirservicesforafee,anddonothaveanyactualconnectiontothepersonbeinghired.33

Theseproblemsarecausedaboveall,heargues,bytheTokugawapoliciesofremovingthesamuraifromthecountrysideandconcentratingthemincastletowns,andofsubjectingdaimyotothealternateattendancerequire-ment,makingitnecessaryforthemtospendvastamountsofmoneyandmaintainlargeretinuesinEdo.Livingapartfromthepeopletheygovern,hemaintains, samurai cometosee themselvesas individuals, andfail toconnect to thegovernedother thanas a sourceof tax revenue. In citiesthey“liveasifinaninn,”payingforeverythingincash,anddrivingthem-selvesintopoverty.34Healsocomplainsabouttheencroachmentofurbancommercialvaluesintothecountrysideandthepeasantry:“Whenthereisnoborderbetweenthecityandthecountry,thefarmersgraduallyturntocommerceandtherealmgrowsimpoverished.”35Whileheseescitiesandcommerceasnecessaryevils,heviewsthecountrysideasthesourceoftruewealth,aswellasanenvironmentthatencouragesfrugality,andarguesthattopreserveeconomichealthitisnecessarytopreventthecountrysidefrombeinginfectedbyurbanvalues.

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Itwas inresponse to thisdiagnosisofhis society’s ills thatSoraicameupwithhisproposal toresettlethesamurai inthecountryside,wherehebelievedtheywouldnaturallydevelopfeelingsofempathyforthecommonpeople,aswellasleadmorefrugallives,savingthemfromfinancialhard-shiponanindividuallevel,andonabroaderclasslevelfromsubordinationtothemerchantclass.Thisproposalisrelatedtohisidealizationoffeudal(Ch.fengjian,Jp.hōken)socialrelationships,where“feudalism”refersspecifi-callytothedecentralizedgovernmentcharacteristicoftheThreeDynastiesofancientChina,inwhichlocalrulershavepowerovertheirownfiefsandliveindirectcontactwiththepeopletheygovern.ThisarrangementisincontrasttothecentralizedbureaucraciesoflaterChinesehistory,inwhichterritoriesareadministeredbyofficialsappointedfromthecapital.Heseesthesedif-ferentformsofruleas leadingtodifferentformsofhumanrelationships,commenting,“IntheWayoffeudalism,therelationshiptothepeopleislikethatofafatherandsonwithinahouse.Ina[centralized]systemofprefec-turesandcounties(Ch.junxian,Jp.gunken),though,theyrelyonlyonlaws;everythingisexplicitandimpartial,butthereisnokindnessandaffection.”36

Sorai’sfearofurbanization,andnostalgiaforanimaginedfeudalpastofhumaneandempatheticrulership,indicatesareactionarystreakinhispo-liticalphilosophy.Thisimpressionisstrengthenedbyhisconcernforfixingpeopleinplacesocially,whichhebelieveswillultimatelyresultinamoraltransformationofthepeople:“Whennonefailtodevotethemselvestotheirfamilies’occupations,thenpeople’sheartswillallreturntosincerity,andallthevariousbadthingsoftodaywilldisappear.”37Heextendsthisdesiretocontrolmovementtothesphereofliteralphysicalmovementaswell.Whenpeoplearepermittedtomovearound,hewrites,they“havenolong-lastingfeelings; theydonotcareabout theirneighbors,and theirneighborsdonotcareaboutthem.”38Ontheotherhand,“Ifpeoplewereforbiddentomovefreelytootherprovinces,peopleallthroughoutJapanwouldbefixedintheirplaces,andwouldbeattachedtothelandthere.Thereforepeoplewouldalwaysbeundercontrol,therewouldbenonewhoabandonedtheirnativeplaces,andsotherewouldbenonewithnodefinedstatus.”39Sorai’sproposals,whicharedesignedtocounteract thesocialchanges thatwereoccurringinJapanatthetime,enduprelyingonadraconiancontrolofsocietyinanultimatelyfutileattempttostemthetideofhistory.Hedoes,however,recognizecertainlimitsontheabilityofrulerstomoldpeopleintoavisionofanidealsociety,asIexplorenextinmydiscussionofhisideaoftheneedfortheWaytorespondtohumannature.

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

The Way and Human Nature

Sorai’semphasisonthe framesof referencethroughwhichpeople’scon-sciousnessisstructuredisalsomanifestedinhisprivilegingofrelationshipsbetweeninsiderstoacultureorworldviewoverrelationshipsbetweenin-sidersandoutsiders.InBendō,forexample,hearguesthatitisonlyreallypossibletotalkabouttheWaytothosewhoinasensealreadyunderstandit.ThejoboftheteacherisnottoexplaintheWaythroughlogic,buttoinstillitinstudentsbyremakingthemfromwithin.Throughsuchateach-ingmethod,hewrites,“Afteralongperiodoftime,wetransformpeople’seyesandears,aswellastheirheartsandthoughts.Thereforewithoutevenawaitingourwords, theyspontaneouslyunderstand.”40Hecontrasts thiswiththeargumentativestyleofZisi(theauthoroftheDoctrine of the Mean)andMencius,whomhechargeswithpracticingwhathecallsthe“Wayofthelitigant,”insteadofthe“Wayofteachingpeople.”41Whatdrovethemtosuchapractice,heexplains,isthattheywere“disputingwithoutsiders,”42bywhichheisreferringtohowtheyweretryingtorefutetheattacksmadeon theConfucianWayby the likesof theDaoists.UnlikeSorai’svisionoftheteacher,whoinstructsbytransformingtheoutsiderintoaninsider,andonlythenexplaining,thelitigantdealswiththeoutsiderasoutsider,meaningthathecannotpresumethekindofspontaneousunderstandingthat is theprivilegeofthe insider,andmust lay thingsout logicallyanddiscursivelyinanattempttowinoverhisaudience,anattemptthatSoraiconsidersultimatelycounterproductive.

ThereisundoubtedlyanelementofauthoritarianisminSorai’sphiloso-phyofpedagogy,oratleastatendencytobeclosedofftootherperspectives.Althoughhearguesthatthenormsgoverninghumansocialinteractionsareculturalconstructs,thisdoesnotmeanthathetakesallsuchconstructsasequal,orthatheseesanythingproductiveaboutthedialogicencounterofspheresofconsciousnessgeneratedbydifferentframeworksofculturalas-sumptions.Farfromseeingdialoguewithoutsiders(suchasthedebatesofZisiandMenciuswithDaoists)asastimulustogainingnewperspectivesontheConfucianWay,Soraiisdeeplysuspiciousofsuchdebates,whichhebelievescausepeopletocompromiseanddistorttheirownviewsinanat-tempttomakethemconvincingtooutsiders.

Inhisdiscussionofthedifferencesbetweenthe“teacher”andthe“litigant,”forexample,hecriticizesthelitigantforpanderingexcessivelytothelistener:“ThefaultofZisi,Mencius,andthosewhocamelateristhattheyexplain

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

thingsingreatdetailinanefforttomakethemeasilycomprehensibletothelistener.ThisistheWayofthelitigant.Ithastilytriestosellitsarguments,andthusplacesauthorityintheother.TheWayofteachingpeopleisnotlikethis;itputsauthorityinoneself.”43Heexpressesasimilarattitudewhenhestressesthatfaithinone’steacheristhepreconditionforalllearning:

Thosewhotrytousewordstomakeotherssubmithaveneversucceededindoingso.Thosewhoteachconcernthemselveswiththosewhohavefaithinthem.Thesubjectsoftheancientkingshadfaithintheancientkings,andthedisciplesofConfuciushadfaithinConfucius;thisiswhytheirteachingscouldsinkin.Mencius,however,tookthosewhodidnothavefaithinhim,andtriedtogetthemtohavefaithinhimthroughhiswords.44

ThisideacanbeseenincertainaspectsofSorai’sviewsonthepracticeofgovernance,suchashisadvicenottoremonstratewithrulersunlessyouhavetheirtrust;heexplainsthat“itispointlesstotrytoreasonwithpeoplewhodonothavefaithinyou,”andthatsuchattemptswillalwaysdegener-ateintoanendlessconflictwhereneithersidewillgiveway.45Theseexam-plesshowalogicsimilartothatatworkinSorai’sdistinctionbetweencus-tomsandlaws.Justaslawscanonlybeeffectivewithpeoplewhosecustomshavealreadybeentransformed,wecanonlyreallycommunicatewiththosewhohavealreadybeenmadeintoinsiderstoourworldview.

Itmayseem,then,thatSoraiisreplacingtheallegedsolipsismofZhuXiwithwhatcouldbecalledaculturalsolipsism,thatistosay,anattitudethatrefusestoseeoutsidetheconfinesofitsownsphereofculturalassumptions,oraddressitselftoanyonewhodoesnotalreadysharethem.Whilethereiscertainlyroomforsuchcharges,theseaspectsofSorai’sphilosophyaremiti-gatedbyhisinsistencethattheculturallyconstructednormsofthesagesmustrespondtoapreexistinghumannature.Thehighestsourceofauthor-ityforSoraiisHeaven,andthedutytorespecthumannatureultimatelyderivesfromthefactthattheinbornqualitiesofhumansarebestowedbyHeaven:“Thematerial[nature]istheinbornnature(sei)fromHeaven.IfwetriedtogoagainstthisbyusinghumanpowertoprevailoverHeaven,thiswouldbeimpossible.”46ByexplicitlyidentifyingthematerialnatureasthatwhichisgivenbyHeaven,SoraiistargetingZhuXi’sideathatthereisanoriginalnature,distinctfromthematerialnature,thatconnectshumanstoHeaven,andthatself-cultivationinvolvestransformingthematerialna-turesothatitconformstotheoriginalnature.ForSoraisuchanotionof

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

theoriginalnatureisinfactanaffronttoHeaven,asitisbasedinadenialofwhatHeavenhasgrantedusashumans.

Therelationshipbetweentherawstateofhumannatureanditscultiva-tionbytheWayisthefocusofSorai’sinterpretationofthepassagefromtheopeningoftheDoctrine of the Meanthatstates,“ThatwhichHeavenmandatesistheinbornnature;thatwhichfollowstheinbornnatureistheWay.”47ZhuXi’sreadingofthispassagetakestheinbornnaturetobeequiv-alenttoprinciple,andsaysthattheWay“follows”theinbornnatureinthat“ifpeoplefollowthespontaneousstateoftheirinbornnature,theninmat-tersofeverydaylifetheywillneverfailtofindtheproperpath.”48Thatis,becausehumansareendowedfrombirthwiththenormativeprinciplethatgovernsallthings,alltheyneedtodoinordertodotherightthingisfol-lowthisinnerprinciple.ThisistheviewthatintheprevioussectionwesawSoraicriticizeforitsunstablesubjectivism,butthiscriticismdoesnotleadhimtorejecttheDoctrine of the Meanpassage.Instead,hearguesthattheproblemliesnotwiththeDoctrine of the Meanitself,butwithZhuXi’smis-interpretationofit,particularlyhismisunderstandingofwhatitmeansfortheWayto“follow”theinbornnature.

ThesourceofZhuXi’serror,Soraiargues,liesinhisfailuretotakeintoaccountthefactthattheDoctrine of the Meanisnotanautonomoustextthatcanbereadasanexpressionofabstractphilosophical truths,but isembeddedinaspecifichistoricalanddiscursivecontextwithinwhichitsstatementstakeonmeaningsdifferentfromthosetheywouldtakeonweretheytobereadincompleteisolation.InBendōheexplains,“WhenintheDoctrine of the Meanitsayssuchthingsas‘thatwhichfollowstheinbornnatureistheWay,’thisisbecauseatthattimethetheoryofLaozihadarisen,whichcondemnedtheWayofthesagesassomethingfalse.ThereforeZisiwrotethistext[theDoctrine of the Mean]inordertopromoteourConfu-cianWay.”49HegoesontoarguethatwhatZisiwastryingtosaywasnotthat the inbornnatureandtheWayareequivalent,or that theWay isadirectextensionoftheinbornnature,butsimplythattheConfucianWaydoesnotviolatehumannatureinthemannerchargedbyDaoists:

[TheDoctrine of the Mean]saysthattheancientkingscreatedtheWaybyfollowingtheinbornnatureofhumans.ItdoesnotsaythattheWayexistsnaturally(shizen)inHeaven-and-Earth,nordoesitsaythattheWaysim-plyfollowshumannaturejustasitis,withoutaddinganyartifice(sakui ).Thisis,forexample,likecuttingdowntreestobuildapalace.Youbuildit

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

byfollowingtheinnatequalities(sei )ofthewood.However,howcouldapalacebeconsideredthenaturalstate(shizen)ofwood?50

InresponsetotheDaoistchargethattheConfucianWayisaconstruct,then,Zisirespondsbyconcedingthatitisaconstruct,whiledenyingthatitisanarbitraryconstruct.

EventhoughSoraistressesboththeconstructedcharacteroftheWayanditsconnectiontohumannature,hedoesnotdescribethisintermsofatensionbetweennatureandartifice.Instead,heseesthefunctionoftheWay in terms of how it nourishes and develops the innate qualities ofthings,andintegratesthemintoabroaderorderinwhichtheyareputtouseforspecificends:

Theteachingsoftheancientkings,whichareritual,music,theOdes,andtheDocuments, are like thegentlebreezes and irrigating rains thatmakethemyriadthingsgrow.Althoughthequalitiesofthemyriadthingsaredif-ferent,theyareallthesameinhowtheygrowthroughreceivingnourish-ment.Bambooreceivesitandbecomescompleteasbamboo,treesreceiveitandbecomecompleteastrees,grassreceivesitandbecomescompleteasgrass,andgrainreceivesitandbecomescompleteasgrain.Whenthesehavebecomecomplete,thentheyprovideplentifullyfortheusesofbuildings,clothing,andfood.51

AsIexplorenext inmydiscussionofSorai’sconceptionof“virtue,”thisideaoftheWayassomethingthatrespondstothenaturalstateofthings,whileatthesametimedevelopingthemintosomethingthatgoesbeyondnature,carriesoverintohisviewsonhowtheWayshouldbecultivatedbydifferentindividuals,andhowindividualsshouldbeorganizedundertheguidanceofrulers.

“Attaining the Way” through Virtues

Onthelevelof individuals,SoraiarguesthattheWayinteractswiththeinbornnaturetogiverisetovirtues.Hebeginshisdiscussionoftheterm“virtue”(Ch.de,Jp.toku)inBenmeiwiththedefinition,“‘Virtue’means‘toattain.’ItreferstothatwhicheachpersonattainsintheWay.”52IntheprevioussectionwesawhowSoraidescribestheWayasbeingbuiltupontheinnatequalitiesofhumans.VirtuesthenrepresentforhimwhattheseinnatequalitiesdevelopintowhenpeoplearecultivatedbytheWay.OneofthecentralpointsSoraimakesinrelationtovirtuesisthatdifferentpeople

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

shouldcultivatedifferentvirtues,aviewthatderivesfromhisdenialofasingleuniversalhumannature:“Theinbornnaturediffersfrompersontoperson.Thereforevirtuesaswelldifferfrompersontoperson.”53AnotherreasonhegivesforwhypeopleshouldonlycultivatecertainvirtuesisthattheWayistoomultifacetedtobegraspedinitsentiretybyordinarypeople:“TheWayisvast,soifoneisnotasage,howcanonepossiblyunifyoneselfwiththevastnessoftheWay?Forthisreasontheancientkingsestablishedthenamesofvirtues,andcausedscholarstotakethatwhichisclosetotheirownparticularinbornnatures,basethemselvesonthisandmaintainit,andcultivateandelevateit.”54Thefunctionofvirtues,then,istoprovidecon-cretegoalsthatpeoplecanaspiretothatallowthemtoparticipateinandcontributetotheWay,whichitwouldbeimpracticalandcounterproduc-tiveforthemtoattempttograspinitsentirety.

For Sorai there are many different particular virtues, but there is noabstract,totalizingconceptofvirtuethateitherunderliesorencompassesthese.ThisaspectofhisphilosophyistiedtohisrejectionofZhuXi’sideathatsagesarethosewhohaveachievedcompletevirtue,andthattobecomesuchasageistheultimategoalofself-cultivation.Firstofall,Soraiargues,“Theancientkings’virtuesofintelligenceandwisdomarereceivedintheirHeaven-ordainednature,andarenotthingsthatordinarypeoplecanat-tain.Forthisreason,thetheorythatbystudyingonecanbecomeasagedidnotexistinthepast.”55Ontopofthis,hedeniesthatevensagespossessthetotalityofvirtues,andsaysthattheirstatusassagescomesfromtheiractofcreatingtheWay,andnotfromtheirattainmentofanyperfectandtotalvirtue:“Sagesaresimplyhumans.People’svirtuesdifferaccordingtotheirinbornnatures.Howcouldevensagesallhavethesamevirtues?Thereasontheyareallcalledsagesisbecauseoftheircreations.”56ZhuXimakesadoubleerror,then,inthatnotonlydoeshetrytoforcepeopletoattaintheimpossiblebyexhortingthemtobecomesages,hedoesnotevenunder-standwhatitisthatmakesasageasageinthefirstplace.

Oneaspectofpeople’snaturesthatSoraiemphasizesisthediversityoftalentstheyarebornwith:“‘Talent’(Ch.cai,Jp.sai )isthesameas‘capa-bility’(Ch.cai,Jp.zai ).Peoplehavecapabilitiesinthesamewaythattreesdo.57Sometreesareappropriateforbeingmadeintocrossbeams,whileoth-ersareappropriateforbeingmadeintorafters.Inthesameway,byfollow-ingthatwhichisdifferentintheirinbornnatures,humanseachhavethingstheycandowell.Thesearecapabilities.”58Thespecificgoalofdevelopingtalentsissothattheycanbeputtouse ingovernment:“Whenvirtueis

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

establishedandtalentisbroughttocompletion,thenthisisputtouseinanofficialpost.”59

ThecultivationofdiversetalentsisimportanttoSoraibecause,justasabuildingisconstructedfromdifferentcomponentsthateachplayacriticalrole,heseesthegovernanceofsocietyasrequiringthecoordinationofdif-ferentskillsandaptitudes.InBendōhewrites:

Thegovernanceoftherealmisnotsomethingthatcanbedonebyasinglepersonalone.Itsaccomplishmentnecessarilyrequiresmanyabilities.Thiscanbecomparedtohowitisonlywhenspring,summer,autumn,andwin-terarecombinedthatayearisbroughttocompletion,orhowcarpentrycanonlybepracticedwhenhammer,chisel,blade,andsawareallpossessedtogether.60

Thefunctionoftherulerinsuchasystemisnottobeaperfectindividual,buttobeaskillfulmanagerofothers,abletoidentify,cultivate,andemploythetalentslatentinthem.

AnotherimplicationofwhatSoraiissayingisthatpeoplearenotgoodorbadintheabstract,butonlyinrelationtothespecificrolestheyaretoperform.Inacontinuationofhismetaphorofcarpentry,henotes,“Anawlisgoodifitissharp,whileahammerisgoodifitisdull.”61InSeidanwecanseeanapplicationofthisideawhenSoraidescribeshow,forexample,thoseentrustedwithconveyingreportstorulersmustbegoodatcarefullypassingoninformationinanobjectivemanner,whilemilitarycaptainsinchargeofmanysubordinatesmustbegoodatmanagingpeoplefairly,andpoliceneedtobesticklersforrules.62Thespecificproblemheisdealingwithinthispassageisthatthefirsttwoclassesofofficialstendedtobepromotedfromtheranksofpoliceofficers,withtheresultthatthesepostswerecarriedoutinthemannercharacteristicofpoliceofficers.Hispointisnotthatthereisanythingwrongpersewiththestrictdispositionofpoliceofficers;itispre-ciselythekindofqualityrequiredofthosewhosejobitistocombatcrime.Whenpeopleofthisdispositionareassignedtootheroffices,though,theybecomeunabletocarryouttheirdutieseffectively.

Inadditiontotheattentionhegivestothedifferences inpeople’sna-tures,Sorai argues thatallpeople share abasic instinct toward sociality,whichistheultimatebasisuponwhichtheWayisbuilt:“Althoughthein-bornnaturesofpeoplearedifferent,peopleareallalikeinthatwhetherwiseorfoolish,superiororinferior,theyallhaveaheartofmutuallove,nourish-ment,aid,andaccomplishment,andacapacityforworkandproduction.

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Thereforewerelyonrulersforgovernment,andonthecommonpeoplefornourishment,andthefarmers,artisans,andmerchantsallworktogethertomaketheirlivelihoods.Itissimplyintheinbornnatureofhumansthattheycannotliveallbythemselvesinadesertedvillage.”63WhilethisassertionofasetofcommonhumaninclinationsmayseemtocontradictSorai’sviewthateachperson’sinbornnatureisdifferent,hisemphasisonthediversityofhumannatureisonlymeanttocombattheviewthathumannatureasawholeisuniversal,nottodenythattheremaybeuniversalelementstohumannature.64Inthesameway,hebelievesthathumannaturehasagen-eralinclinationtowardgoodness,butunlikesuchphilosophersasZhuXihedoesnottakethistothedegreeofsayingthathumannaturecontainswithinitthetotalityofgoodness.65

JustasSorai seescertainaspectsof the inbornnature tobeuniversal,heseesacertainsetofvirtuesasbeingappropriateforallpeopletopur-sue.ThisleastcommondenominatorofvirtueisrepresentedbytheMean(Ch.zhongyong,Jp.chūyō),whichforSorairefersto“virtuesthatarenotloftyandareeasytoperform,suchasfilialpiety(Ch.xiao,Jp.kō),brotherlyobedience (Ch. ti, Jp. tei ), loyalty (Ch.zhong, Jp. chū),andfaithfulness(Ch.xin,Jp.shin).”66ThedifferencebetweentheMeanandothervirtuesisthattheMeanplaystheroleofakindofeverydaymorality,whilethevirtuesdevelopedinaccordancewithpeople’sindividualtalentsaretobeputtouseingovernmentoffice.Thereisaclearmappingontosocialclasslineshere,asthevirtuesoftheMeanareallthatisrequiredofthecommonpeople,whiletherulingclassofgentlemen(Ch.junzi,Jp.kunshi )areexpectedtostudyanddevelopthemselvesonahigherlevel.AsSoraiwritesinBenmei,“eventhoughyoumayhavefilialpietyandbrotherlyobedience,ifyoudonotstudyyoucannotescapebeingarustic,”67and“eventhoughyoumayhavethevirtuesoftheMean,ifyoudonotstudytheWayitisnotenoughtomakeyouagentleman.”68

ThisisnottosaythatgentlemenarenotrequiredtopursuetheMeanaswell,justthattheMeanitselfisnotsufficientforthem,asexpressedinhiscommentsonAnalectsVI.16,whichstates,“Whensubstance(Ch.zhi,Jp.shitsu)exceedsculture(Ch.wen,Jp.bun),thenonewillbearustic.Whencultureexceedssubstance,thenonewillbelikeascribe.Itisonlywhensub-stanceandcultureareinbalancethatoneisagentleman.”Soraiinterpretsthedifferencebetween“substance”and“culture”intermsofthedistinctionbetweenthebasicvirtuesoftheMeanandthemoreelevatedteachingsthatgentlemenmustpursue:“‘Substance’isbasicbehavior.Thisreferstosuch

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

thingsasfilialpiety,brotherlyobedience,loyalty,andfaithfulness.‘Culture’referstostudyingtheOdes,theDocuments,ritual,andmusic,sothatone’swordsaredignifiedandsplendid....Thosewhohaveculture,butnotbasicactivities,areunabletoachievevirtueswiththeirstudies,andinsteadmerelymemorize.Thatiswhytheyarecomparedtoscribes.”69Whileitisculturalattainmentsthatdistinguishthegentlemanfromthecommonpeople,then,thesestudiescanonlyplaytheirappropriaterole intheformationofthegentlemanwhentheyarecombinedwiththepracticeofeverydaymorality.

TheideaofdiversevirtuesmobilizedtowardacommonendisexpressedinSorai’sinterpretationof“harmony”(Ch.he,Jp.wa),whichhedefinesinChūyōkaibyexplaining,“‘Harmony’referstowhenthingsaredifferentbutdonotcontradicteachother.Thisisliketheharmonyoftheeightnotesofthescale,ortheharmonyofthefiveflavors,orYanzi’sdiscussionintheZuo zhuanofharmonyversus‘sameness’(Ch.tong,Jp.dō).”70InthepassageSoraiciteshere,YanziexplainstotheLordofQithathissubjectZiyou,whoobeyshimcompletely,isinfactthe“same,”andnottrulyin“harmony.”Describinga“harmonious”relationshipbetweenlordandsubject,Yanzisays,“Whenthelordsayssomethingiscorrect,buttherearefaultsinit,thenthesubjectshouldputforththesefaults,sothatthepartthatiscorrectcanbeachieved.Whenthelordsayssomethingisincorrect,buttherearegoodpointsinit,thenthesubjectshouldputforththesegoodpoints,inordertodoawaywiththebadpoints.Throughthis,governmentbecomespeacefulandnothingisamiss,andthepeopledonothavedisputatioushearts.”HethencontrastsZiyou’sbehavior,whichhecharacterizesas“sameness”:“Whatyousaytobecorrect,healsosaystobecorrect,andwhatyousaytobeincorrect,healsosaystobeincorrect.Thisislikeaddingwatertowater.Whowouldwantsuchathing?Itislikeasingle-stringedlute.Whocouldbeartolistentoit?Thisiswhatiswrongwithsameness.”71SoraicitesthissameZuo zhuanepisodeinRongo chōtoexplainAnalectsXIII.23,whichstates,“TheMastersaid,‘Thegentlemanharmonizesbutisnotthesame.Thepettymanisthesamebutdoesnotharmonize.’”Inhiscommentaryonthispassage,whatSoraipar-ticularlyobjectstoistheideathat“harmony”referstoapacificationoftheindividual’sheart,ratherthanarelationshipbetweendifferentindividuals.Thisrelationalaspect,theintermixtureandmutualnourishmentofthingsthatremaindistinctfromeachother, isessentialtoSorai’snotionofhar-mony,andwithoutitthereisnothingbut“sameness.”72

InSeidan,SoraicitesthesepassagesfromtheAnalectsandtheZuo zhuantosupporttheideathatsuccessfulgovernmentreliesonthe“harmoniza-

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

tion”ofdiversetalents.Hecomparesthemixtureofdifferenttalentsamonggovernmentofficials,whichcomplementeachotherandmakeupforwhatislackingintheruler,tothemixtureofflavorsincooking.Hedescribessameness,ontheotherhand,asbeingwhen“everyonematchesthemselvestotheheartoftheruler,notdifferingabitfromhispreferences,”andcom-paresthisto“addingsugartosweetmiso,andthenontopofthisaddinghoney,andthenaddingsyrupontopofthat.”73

ForSorai,thequestionofhowtodevelopdifferenttalentsisrelatedtotheproblemofsycophancyandconformityofopinion(aspresentedintheZuozhuanpassage),inthatwhenpeople’sindividualtalentsarenotrecognized,theyareforcedtoconformtoarbitrarystandards,andtofalsifythemselvesinordertogainfavorwiththeirruler.InTaiheisakuhewrites,“People’sma-terialnaturesareeachdifferent,soeveniftherulertriedtomakethemcon-formtohisownpreferences,whocouldmakethemselvesthesame?Whentherulerwieldshisauthorityandtreatspeopleinsuchamanner,though,thosebelowwilltrytoconformtotheruler’sheart.Thisisthesourceofflat-teryandobsequiousness,anditcauseshumantalentstofailtodevelop.”74ThisideacanalsobeseenintermsofSorai’scritiqueofthesubjectivismofSongConfucians,whichheseesasleadingthemtofailtoseethecomplexityandrichnessoftheworldoutsidethem,andinsteadtotrytoforceitintothemoldoftheirownpersonalprejudices.InSorai sensei tōmonsho,Soraiadmonishestheaddresseeofoneletterforcomplainingaboutalackoftal-entedpeople,andexplainsthathisinabilitytolocatetalentedpeoplestemsfromarefusaltorecognizeanythingoutsideofhisownrigidpreconceptionsofwhatconstitutestalent,anattitudethatSoraicomparestothenarrow-nessofperspectiveofZhuXi’shistoricalworktheTongjian gangmu(OutlineoftheComprehensive Mirror),inwhich“notasinglepersonintherealm,inthepastorpresent,issatisfactorytoZhuXi.”75Itisthiskindofattitude,Soraibelieved,thatwasleadingtoanunderutilizationoftalentintheJapanofhisday,andpreventingeffectiverulershipbythesamuraiclass.

Ritual, Music, and the Cultivation of Virtues and Genuineness

ForSorai,themostimportanttoolsfortheachievementofvirtuesareritualandmusic.OnepassagehecitestoexplainhowritualandmusicrelatetotheaccomplishmentofvirtuesisAnalectsXIV.13,whichstates,“Ziluaskedwhatitmeanstobean‘accomplishedperson’(Ch.chengren,Jp.seijin).TheMasterreplied,‘TakeforexamplethewisdomofZangWuzhong,thelack

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

ofavariceofGongchuo,thebraveryofZhuangofBian,andtheartsofRanQiu—embellish(Ch.wen,Jp.bun)thesewithritualandmusic,andthiswillsufficetomakeoneanaccomplishedperson.”ZhuXiinterpretsan“accom-plishedperson”tomeana“fully-roundedperson”(Ch.quanren,Jp.zenjin),whichonecanonlybecomebycombiningthevirtuesofthefourpeoplelisted in thepassage.He explains the significanceof ritual andmusic inthepassagebysaying,“Whenweregulatethesewithritual,andharmonizethemwithmusic,wecausevirtuetobecompletedwithin,andembellish-mentwillbevisibleontheoutside.”76Jinsai,incontrast,doesnotreadthepassageasimplyingthatthevirtuesofallfourpeoplearecombined.Instead,hewrites,“Thestrongpointsofthesefourpeoplearesufficienttoestablishthemselvesintheworldandmakeanameforthemselves.Thenwhentheseareembellishedwithritualandmusic,thesepeople’sunbalancedaspectsarebroughtinline,andthatwhichtheylackismadeupfor,andthroughthistheybecomeworthyofbeingcalled‘accomplishedpeople.’”77SoraiagreeswithJinsaiinrejectingtheideathatthe“accomplishedperson”describedinthispassagehastohaveallofthevirtueslisted,buthedisagreeswithbothZhuXiandJinsaiintheirinterpretationsofwhatitmeansforvirtuestobe“embellished”byritualandmusic.

InBenmei,Soraiexplainsthefunctionofritualandmusicintheabovepassagebywriting,“Thissaysthatwhentheystudyritualandmusic,andaccomplishtheirvirtues,thenthesefourcanallbeaccomplishedpeople.An‘accomplishedperson’isonewhohasaccomplishedvirtue.To‘embellish’thisreferstohowvirtueisaccomplishedandissplendid.Thisdoesnotrefertopaintingsomethingonfromtheoutside.”78WhatheobjectstoinbothZhuXi’sandJinsai’sinterpretationsofthispassageishowtheytakeritualandmusictobesomethingaddedontovirtuesasakindofembellishmentorrefinementofthem.Hearguesinstead,inhiscommentaryonthispas-sageinRongo chō,“Thephrase‘embellishthesewithritualandmusic’referstobringingtheseintotheWay.”79

Sorai’sargumentherecanbesituatedinthecontextofthedistinctionwesawinChapter1betweentwoConfucianparadigmsfordefiningthetermweninrelationtotheWay,oneofwhichseeswenasanexternalembellish-menttotheWay,andtheotherofwhichseeswenasitselfconstitutiveoftheWay.ItisthesecondoftheseparadigmsthatSoraiisworkingwithin,sothatthewenofritualandmusicisnotanexternalembellishmenttovirtue,butratheriswhatallowsvirtue,asthatwhicheachindividual“attainsintheWay,”tocometocompletion(orbe“accomplished”)inthefirstplace.Itis

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

thisthatdistinguisheshisreadingofthisAnalectspassagefromthatofZhuXi,whodefinesthe“accomplishment”ofthevirtueslistedinthepassageintermsofanadditiveaggregationofthem,andJinsai,whointerpretsthis“accomplishment”asakindofpolishingupofroughspots.80

EarlierwesawhowSoraiarguesthatitisonlyreallypossibletospeakabouttheWaytothosewhounderstandit,andthatthefunctionoftheteachershouldbetotransformthestudentinsuchamannerthatthestu-dentcomestoinhabittheWay,onlyafterwhichitwillbecomepossibletospeaktothatstudentaboutspecificmattersoftheWay.TheimportanceofritualandmusicforSorailiesinhowtheyareabletoeffectsuchatrans-formation,andteachtheWayinamannernotpossiblewithmereverbalexplanationsandargumentation.InBenmeihewrites:

Whenyousaythingstopeopletheyunderstand,andwhenyousaynothingthentheydonotunderstand.Whyisit,then,thatalthoughritualandmusicsaynothing,theyaresuperiortolanguageininstructingpeople?Thereasonisthattheytransformpeople.Whenpeoplepracticetheseandbecomefullyimmersedinthem,theneventhoughtheymaynotyetunderstandthem,theirheartsandbodieshavequietlybeentransformedbythem.Therefore,dotheynotultimatelyunderstand?81

Within the contextof a given sphereofunderstanding,people come tograspthingsbyhavingthemexplainedverbally,butsuchverbalexplana-tionsalonecanneverallowthemtomaketheradicalleapfrombeingout-sidetobeinginsideasphereofunderstandingsuchastheConfucianWay.Itisonlyritualandmusicthatcaneffectsuchaleap,whichisdescribedintheabovepassageasa“transformation”(Ch.hua,Jp.ka)oftheself.

AnotherwaythatSoraidescribestheaccomplishmentofvirtueisastheattainmentofgenuineness(Ch.cheng,Jp.sei/makoto).HisdiscussionofthisterminBenmeibegins,“‘Genuineness’referstothatwhichcomesstraightfromtheheart,andrequiresneitherthoughtnoreffort.”82Heargues,forexample, that the inborn nature can bedescribed as “genuine” because“eventhoughcommonmenandwomenmaybefoolishandinferior,thatwhichtheyreceiveintheirinbornnaturestheyknowwithoutconsciouslythinking,andperformwithouteffort.”83Theissuethatariseshere,givenSorai’sdenialof the innategoodnessofhumannature, is that genuine-nessitselfbecomesnormativelyempty.Becausepeoplecanbegenuineevenwhendoingthewrongthing,hewrites,“genuinenesswasnotoriginallysomethingthatthesagesmadepartoftheirteachings.”84

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Why,then,doeshespeakoftheaccomplishmentofvirtuesintermsof“genuineness”?Theanswerliesinhowheusestheterm“genuine”torefernotjusttothatwhicharisesfromtherawnaturalstateofhumans,buttoanythingthatpeopledospontaneously,includingthingsthatarelearnedandinternalizedtothepointthattheybecomeas ifnaturalandinnate.Forexample,heinterpretsthephrasefromtheDoctrine of the Mean,“onewhoattainsgenuineness,”asreferringtohow“whenonestudiestheWayoftheancientkings,andistransformedbyitoveralongperiodoftime,sothatlearnedcustomsbecomeasiftheyweretheHeaven-endowedinbornnature,thenthatwhichatthebeginningcouldnotbeknownordonecannowbeachievedwithoutconsciousthought,andbecorrectwithouteffort.”85HerelatesthistothecultivationofvirtuewhenhewritesinChūyō kai,“Whenvirtueisaccomplished,thentheinsideandoutsideareunited.Thisiswhatiscalled‘genuineness.’”86BecausetheWayisaculturalproduct,andisnotinherentinhumannature,inthebeginningofpeople’sstudiesitwillappearartificial,andtheycanonlyfollowitbymakingconsciousefforts.WhentheytrulyhavebeeneducatedintheWay,though,itwillbecomesecondnature,andwhentheyactinkeepingwiththeWaythiswillbe“genuine,”inthatitwillcometothemcompletelyautomatically.

Soraiargues that theonlyreason thatgenuinenesscame tobespokenofinConfuciantextsinthefirstplacewasasadefenseagainsttheDaoistadvocacyofunfetterednaturalness,anaturalnessthatforSorairepresentsanabandonmentofallnormativestandards,whichforhimmustnecessar-ilybehumanlycreated.ThedescriptionofthecultivationoftheConfucianWayintermsofgenuineness,heclaims,ismeanttodemonstratethateventhoughthisWayisahumancreation,itdoesnot,astheDaoistscharged,corruptpeople’snatural state.Asheargues inChūyō kai,“If theWayoftheformerkingscontradictedtheinbornnatureofhumans,thenitwouldalwaysjustbeforced.Howcouldtherebegenuineness?”87ThefactthattheWaycanindeedbecomecompletelyinternalized,though,“clarifiesthatrit-ualandmusicarenotfalse.”88

Conclusion

ForSoraitheConfucianWayconsistsofinstitutionsandculturalnorms,initiatedbythesagekingsofancientChina,thatsubsequentagesmustfol-lowiftheyaretocreatepeacefulandprosperoussocieties.Heseestheprob-lemsofhisownage,inparticularthespreadofcommercialculturesince

t h e c o n f u c i a n wa y a s c u lt u r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

theGenrokuperiod,asstemmingfromtheTokugawafounders’failuretoestablishproper institutionsbasedon thecreationsof the sages, andhisproposalsforpoliticalreformaredesignedtobringTokugawaJapanbackinlinewiththeWayofthesages.WhilehedepictstheWayassomethingthatactsonpeoplebytransformingthemfromwithin,heisalsocarefultopointoutthattheWaymustalwaysrespondtotheempiricalrealityofhumannature,whichputsanouterlimitonwhattheWaycanrequireofpeople.AcrucialaspectofhumannatureforSoraiisthatitisdifferentforeveryperson,anideathatleadshimtoadvocatetheneedforleaderstodevelopthedistincttalentsofeachperson.Thisinturngivesrisetoavisionofsocialcohesionas“harmony,”aconceptthathedefinesintermsofaunityindi-versity,allowingforindividualstobeintegratedintoanorganicsocialwholethatexceedsthesumofitsparts,withoutdemandingthattheysacrificetheparticularitiesofthenaturalqualitiesthattheyarebornwith.Sorai’spolicyproposals,though,aresometimesatoddswithhistheoreticalopennesstotheempiricalworld.HisproposalforamassivereorganizationofJapanesesocietyshowsareluctancetoaccepttherealityofhistoricalchange,andheisdriventoresorttoauthoritarianregulationsinordertoenforcethesup-posedlygentleandnurturingteachingsofthesages.ThenextchapterturnstoSorai’sviewsonpoetryasacomponentoftheeducationoftheConfu-ciangentleman,examininghowhevaluespoetryasamethodforlearningtheancientlanguageinwhichthecreationsofthesageshavebeentransmit-ted,aswellasforgivingusknowledgeofthehumanemotionsthattheWayisbuiltuponandmustrespondto.

t h r e e

Poetry and the Cultivation of the Confucian GentlemanThe Literary Thought of Ogyū Sorai

OgyūSoraiwasaprolifickanshipoet,andhisprivateacademywasnotableforthecentralrolethatpoetryplayedinitseducationalandsociallife,suchasthemonthlygatheringshehostedcalledtheSōdōShōshū(LittleSocietyoftheGrassyHall),whichcombineddrinking,poetry,andmusicinare-laxedatmosphere.1Thisemphasisonpoetryisreflectedinthecareersofhisdisciples,mostofwhomwereknownmorefortheirliteraryoutputthantheirachievementsasphilosophersortextualcommentators.Inhiswritingshedescribesawidevarietyoffunctionsforpoetry,presentingitasawaytocultivateeleganceinexpression,mastertheancientChineselanguageoftheConfucianclassics,andgainaccesstothenuancesofhumannatureandhumanemotions.Whileheneverprovidesasingleunifiedtheoryofpoetry,withhisremarksonpoetryscatteredamongvarioustreatises,prefaces,let-ters,andcommentariesproducedatdifferentstagesinhiscareer,hisideasonpoetryarebroughttogetherbyacommonfocusonitsroleincultivatingtheConfuciangentleman(Ch.junzi,Jp.kunshi).

Inhisdiscussionoftheterm“gentleman”inBenmei(OnDistinguishingNames),Sorainotesthatitcanbeusedinthecontextofsocialrank,toin-dicatethosewhoholdpositionsasofficials,aswellasinreferencetovirtue,

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

todescribethosewhopossesssurpassingvirtue,eventhoughtheymaybeoflowerrank.Hegivesprecedencetothefirstoftheseuses,though,writingthattheachievementofthevirtueofthegentlemanismeanttobefollowedbyactualserviceasagoverningofficial:“Peopleofthepastachievedvirtuesthroughstudy,thenadvancedtobeingscholars(Ch.shi,Jp.shi),andthenar-rivedatbeingministers(Ch.daifu,Jp.taifu).”2Hecriticizesthosewhowoulddefine thegentlemanapart fromhumaneness,whichforSorai is avirtuespecificallyofrulers:“LaterConfucianswerepermeatedtothemarrowwithLaoziandZhuangzi’stheoryof‘innersagelinessandouterkingliness,’andintheendforgotthattheWayoftheancientkingsisaWayforbringingpeacetothepeople.Thereforewhattheycalla‘gentleman’isoftendiscussedapartfromhumaneness.”3Insteadofsimplytrustingthatgoodgovernmentwillspontaneouslyresultfromtheachievementofinnerpurity,heemphasizestheneedforelitestoactivelypursuethepracticalbusinessofgovernment.

Inkeepingwithhisemphasisongovernmentservice,ratherthanabstractmoralpurity,inhisdefinitionofthegentleman,SoraiseestheeducationofthegentlemanasnecessarilybasedontheartifactsleftbythesagesofancientChina,andnotsomethingthatcanbeachievedsimplythroughanextensionofthe“heart”(Ch.xin,Jp.kokoro)or“principle”(Ch.li,Jp.ri ),conceptsthatwereprominentinSongandMingConfucianism:

Generallyspeaking,ancientlearningconsistsoftheOdes,4theDocuments,ritual,andmusic.Gentlementhuscultivatetheirlanguage,becomeaccom-plishedingovernment,andembellishthesewithritualandmusic.Thisiscalledaccomplishingvirtue.Tospeakofaccomplishingvirtueapartfromthis, insteadspeakingintermsoftheheartandprinciple, isatoddswithhowthegentlemanwasdiscussedintheThreeDynasties.5

HerehebringsuptheOdesasafundamentalcomponentoftheeducationofthegentleman,andthischapterexploresthemultiplewaysheseesthestudyofboththeOdesandlaterpoetryascontributingtotheformationofanidealmemberofthegoverningelite.

Ancient Phraseology and the Cultivation of Language

Sorai’searlyviewsonpoetryweredeeplycoloredbyhisencounterwiththeAncientPhraseology (Ch.guwenci, Jp.kobunji )movementof theMing,fromwhichheinheritedapoeticcanonfocusedonthepoetsoftheHighTang, as well as a methodology for composing poetry that stressed the

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

imitationof classicalmodels.Heplayed an active role inpromoting theworksoftheAncientPhraseologymovementbyeditingsuchanthologiesasTōgo shi(PoetryaftertheTang),acollectionofAncientPhraseologypoetrypublishedin1720,andZekku kai(ExplanationofQuatrains),publishedinmultipleeditionsafterhisdeath,whichincludespoemsbyLiPanlongandWangShizhen,theMingpoetshelookeduptothemost.SoraiwasmorethanjustapassivefollowerofAncientPhraseology,though,asheapplieditsideasnotonlytoliterarycomposition,butalsototheconceptualizationandstudyoftheConfucianWay.Thisappearsmostnotablyinhisexten-sionoftheAncientPhraseologymovement’sstudiesofancientChineseintoamethodologyfortheexegesisoftheConfucianclassics,butwecanalsoseeotherparallelsbetweenSorai’sreceptionofAncientPhraseologyandhislaterphilosophy,suchasinhisideaofcultureasakindoforganicwholenessthroughwhichthingsbecomeintelligibleandtakeonmeaning,andhisviewofeducationasthetransformationoftheselfthroughtheinternalizationofculturalmodels.

t h e m i n g a n c i e n t p h r a s e o l o g y m o v e m e n t

TheAncientPhraseologymovementdominatedtheChineseliterarysceneinthesixteenthcentury.Literaryhistoriansoftendivideitsleadingpracti-tionersintotwogenerations,theFormerSevenMasters(qian qizi ),cen-teredonLiMengyang(1475–1529)andHeJingming(1483–1521),andtheLaterSevenMasters(hou qizi ),themostprominentofwhomwereLiPan-longandWangShizhen.6Thefiguresinthismovementwerebynomeansuniformintheirviews,butingeneraltheywerecommittedtotheimitationofanarrowcanonofclassicalmodels.TheyfavoredtheproseoftheQin(221–207b.c.)andHan(206b.c.–a.d.220)dynasties,particularlytheShi ji(HistoricalRecords)ofSimaQian(c.145–c.85b.c.),whileforpoetrytheircanonwascenteredontheverseoftheHighTang,withtheyuefuballadsoftheHanandWeiservingasasecondarysourceofinspiration.

ThepoeticcanonofMingAncientPhraseologyhasitsoriginsinCanglang shihua(Canglang’sTalksonPoetry),bythelateSongauthorYanYu.7YanYuwasinstrumentalinestablishingaviewofChineseliteraryhistorythatremainsinfluentialeventoday,inwhichtheHighTangisseenasthepinnacleofChinesepoetry,withearlierpoetryplayingtheroleofagradualdevelop-mentuptothispeak,andlaterpoetryrepresentingadegenerationandvul-garizationofthetradition.YanYuwasconcernedwithestablishingtheideaoforthodoxyinpoetry,whichhedevelopedbyborrowingfromthecontrastbe-

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

tweenorthodoxandheterodoxtransmissionsinZenBuddhism,comparingHan,Wei(220–265),Jin(265–420),andHighTangpoetrytoorthodoxZen,andlaterpoetrytoheterodoxZen.8Someofhisharshestcriticismsweredi-rectedtowardwritersofhisowntime,theSong,who“makepoetryoutofer-uditionandargumentation,”incontrasttothepoetsoftheHighTang,whosepoetry“hasalimpidityandclaritythatresistsfixedinterpretation;liketonesintheair,ortheexpressiononaface,orthemooninthewater,orareflectioninamirror,itswordsmaybelimitedbutitsmeaningisinexhaustible.”9

AncientPhraseologyeventuallycameunderattackbyYuanHongdao(1568–1610)andothermembersoftheso-calledGonganschoolforitslackof individuality andoriginality.10The Gonganpoets argued that poetryshouldarisespontaneouslyfromwithinthepoet,andthatitshouldfocuson“spirit”(xingling)ratherthanthe“formandrhythm”( getiao)valuedbyAncientPhraseology.TheyalsocriticizedAncientPhraseologyforfixatingonanarrowsetofmodels, andpresentedaviewof literaryhistory thatdidnotprivilegeanyoneparticularperiod.InthefaceofsuchcriticismsfromtheGonganschoolandothers,AncientPhraseologyfelloutoffavorinChinaintheseventeenthcentury,butthisdidnotpreventitfromlaterfindingfollowersinJapansuchasSorai.11Inaletterrespondingtoacon-temporaryJapanesecriticofLiandWang,Soraidefendstheirapproachtopoetrybyexplainingthatallstudyinvolvesimitation,givingexamplesofhowwelearnthingslikeritual,music,andcalligraphybycopyingcertainsetforms.MuchasinhisdiscussionofhowwelearntheWay,hearguesthatwhenwelearnthingslikepoetry,theformsthatweimitateeventuallyareinternalizedtothepointthattheycometoseemnaturaltous:

Inthebeginningofstudy,itcanbecalledplagiarismandimitation.Afteralongperiod,whenonebecomestransformedbyit,thenlearnedcustomsbecomeasiftheyweretheHeaven-endowedinbornnature.Althoughtheycome from theoutside, theybecomeonewith the self.This iswhyZisispeaksoftheWayofunitingtheinnerandouter.Tocomplainaboutimita-tion,then,istofailtoknowtheWayofstudy.12

a n c i e n t p h r a s e o l o g y a n d t h e p a t t e r n i n g o f l a n g u a g e

OneofSorai’sreasonsforvaluingthepoetryoftheAncientPhraseologymovementisbecauseofhowitallowspeopletocultivatetheculturedlan-guage appropriate to the Confucian gentleman. The specific quality he

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

identifiesinsuchlanguageis“patterning”(Ch.wen,Jp.bun),whichiswhathedescribesinalettertooneofhisdisciplesasbeingthequalitythatdistin-guishes“phraseology”(Ch.ci,Jp.ji )frommere“words”(Ch.yan,Jp.gen):“Phraseologyandwordsarenotthesame....Phraseologyisthepatterningofwords....Thereasonthatwordsseekoutpatterningisbecausetheyarethewordsofgentlemen.”13

In Chapter 1 we saw the contrast in Confucian philosophy betweenthosewhoviewwen,takeninthesenseofculturalartifactssuchasritualandmusic,asameansofexpressingaWaythatexistsautonomouslyasanabstractprinciple,andthosewhomaintainthatsuchculturalartifactsareactuallyconstitutiveoftheWayitself.ThesemethodsofrelatingwentotheConfucianWayreflectamoregeneraldifferencebetweenseeingwenasadecorativeembellishmenttosomethingthatisalreadycompleteinandofitself,andseeingitasa“patterning”throughwhichsomethinggainsco-herenceandcomestocompletiontobeginwith.MuchasSoraiseestheculturalartifactsofthesagekingsasthemselvesmakinguptheWay,inhiswritingsonlanguagehedescribeswenasakindoforganiccoherenceoflan-guagethatallowsforthecompactexpressionofcomplexmeanings.Inthisway,the“patterning”ofelevatedformsoflanguageactivelyfacilitatesex-pression,ratherthanmerelybeinganembellishmentaddedontolanguagethatalready servesasaneutral and transparentconduit formeaning. InYakubun sentei(AGuidetoTranslation),onewaySoraidiscussesthisissueisthroughthepairedtermstatsui(conveyingintentions)andshūji(cultivatingphraseology):“IntheWayofliterarywriting,beginningwiththewordsofthesagestherehavearisentwotraditions,thatof‘conveyingintentions’andthatof‘cultivatingphraseology.’Inreality,though,theyareinterdependent.Ifonedoesnotcultivateone’sphraseology,thenonecannottransmitone’sintentions.”14Hethengoesontospecificallyusethetermwentoindicatearefinedtersenessinlanguage,whichhecontrastswithvulgarprolixitytomapoutahierarchyoflinguisticformsarrangedalongthethreeaxesofan-cientversusmodern,elegantversuscommon,andChineseversusJapanese:“Ancientphraseologyisterseandhaswen;modernwritingisprolixandvul-gar.Elegant( ga)languageisterseandhaswen;common(zoku)languageisprolixandvulgar.ThelanguageofChinaisterseandhaswen;thelanguageofourcountryisprolixandvulgar.”15

Whileancientphraseologyhasspecialexpressivecapacities,itatthesametimemakesextraordinarydemandsonthereader.ForSorai,thedifficultyofreadingancientlanguagehasmuchtodowithhowitseconomyofex-

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

pressioncanonlybenavigatedbyareaderwhohascultivatedanintuitivesensibilityforthesubtletiesoflanguage.InYakubun senteihewrites:

Thelanguageofancienttextshasmanyimplicitmeaningsandresonances.Laterlanguagelaysitsmeaningcompletelybare,andlacksprofundity.There-forethosewhoareaccustomedtoreadingwritingsoflatertimesonlylookatasinglestrandofmeaning.Thosewhoaredeeplyversedinancientphraseol-ogy,though,areabletokeepmanystrandsofmeaningclearlyinfrontofthemselvessimultaneously,withoutlosingtrackofthelogicofthetext.Astheycontinuereading,theygraduallysetasidethesevariousmeanings,andbythetimetheyreachtheendofatext,theyarriveatasinglemeaning.16

TheemphasisonimplicitknowledgeoverlapswiththeattitudeofSorai’sdiscussedinChapter2inwhichheprivilegescommunicationbetweenin-siders(suchasthosewhoshareasetofculturalassumptions)overthatwithoutsiders.JustashelooksdownonattemptstoexplaintheWaydiscursively,insteadarguingthatitmustbeinternalizedinordertobetrulyunderstood,he describes ancient phraseology as requiring that we negotiate it fromwithin,incontrasttolaterlanguage,whichclearlyspellsoutitsmeaningforthebenefitofthereader.Thisdoesnotmean,though,thatforSoraiancientphraseologyismerelyaself-enclosedworldoflanguage;rather,hevaluesitforitscapacitytorecordandtransmitfacts,specificallythehistoricalrealityofthecreationsoftheancientsages,andcontraststhiscapacitywiththeemptyargumentativelanguageofSongphilosophers,whichdescribesnoth-ingmorethantheirownsubjectivementalconstructs.17

LiterarycompositionisimportanttoSoraiinpartbecauseofhowhebe-lievesthatactivelyproducingancientlanguageistheonlywaythatwecantrulyinhabititsworldfromwithin.HeseesthisasdoublyimportantforJapanesescholars,asChineseisaforeignlanguageforthemtobeginwith.InSorai sensei tōmonsho(MasterSorai’sResponsals)heexplains,

BecausethesageswereChinese,andclassicaltextsarewrittenintheChineselanguage,withoutagoodgraspofChinesecharactersitisdifficulttounder-standtheWayofthesages.ItisnotpossibletogainsuchknowledgeofChi-nesecharactersunlessyouareabletograspthemindsetoftheancientswhentheywrotethesetexts,sowithoutcomposingpoetryandproseyourselftherewillbemuchthatwillremainbeyondyourunderstanding.18

HerewecanseehowSoraitookanapproachtoancientlanguageinspiredbyMingAncientPhraseology,andextendeditfromatechniqueforcom-posingpoetrytoamethodologyforunderstandingtheConfucianclassics.19

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

ForSorai,then,thelinguisticsensibilityacquiredthroughcomposingpo-etrywasnotonlyamarkerofone’selevatedstatusasaculturedgentleman,butwas alsoan importantelementof learning to read the ancient textsthroughwhichgentlemenweremeanttogainknowledgeofpropertech-niquesofgovernance.

Sorai’s Poetry in Chinese

Soraishū,theposthumouslypublishedcollectionofSorai’spoetryandprose,containsover700poemsinChinese.Theseinclude32five-characterqua-trains(Ch.jueju,Jp.zekku),331seven-characterquatrains,124examplesoffive-characterregulatedverse(Ch.lüshi,Jp.risshi ),143ofseven-characterregulatedverse,42ancient-stylepoems(Ch.gushi,Jp.koshi ),14imitationyuefupoems(Ch.nigu yuefu,Jp.giko gafu),andseveralpoemsinmiscella-neousforms.ThroughthesepoemswecanseehowheattemptedtoaccessandreproducetheChinesepast,specificallythroughapplyingtheneoclassi-calpoeticsheinheritedfromMingAncientPhraseology.20

OnemanifestationofSorai’sneoclassicismappearsinpoemsthatpresentvignettesbasedonChineseliterarymodels.Anexampleofthisishisseven-characterquatrain“Shōnenkō”(SongaboutaYoungMan):

猟罷帰来上苑秋 Returnedfromthehunt,autumninShanglinpark風寒憶得鷫鸘裘 Chilledbythewind,helongsforhisfeatherrobeof

turquoisekingfisher分明昨夜韋娘宿 Clearinhismemory—lastnightatthehouseof

pleasureofWeiniang杜曲西家第二楼 ThesecondhousetothewestinDuqu

The“SongaboutaYoungMan”wasacommonpoetictopic(Ch.ti,Jp.dai )usedinyuefu,anditbecamepopularamongTangpoetsaswell.Thetypi-caltreatmentofthetopicistodepictawealthyyoungmanpursuingthepleasuresofthecapitalChang’an,apracticefollowedinSorai’spoemwithitsdescriptionsofhuntinginShanglinpark(aroyalparkinChang’an),theman’sluxuriousfeatherrobe,andhisvisittothehouseofpleasureofWei-niang,areferencetothefamousTangcourtesanDuweiniang.SimaXiangru(179–117b.c.)isdescribedaswearingafeatherrobeofturquoisekingfisherintheXijing zaji(MiscellaneousRecordsoftheWesternCapital),andthegarmentisalsomentionedin“Baitouyin”#2(WhiteHairSong#2)byLiBo(701–762):“Afeatherrobeofturquoisekingfisheroverabrocadescreen.”

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

DuquisascenicspotnearChang’an,andthe“du”ofDuweiniang’snamederivesfromthisplacename.Duweiniangismentionedin“ZengLisikongniang”(TotheCourtesanofMinisterLi),byLiuYuxi(772–842):“Asonginthespringbreeze—Duweiniang.”Whilethecontentofthispoemhaslittletodowiththepracticeofgovernment,itresonateswithSorai’sphilosophyoftheConfucianWayinhowitconstructsafantasyworldbasedontheChinesepast,andonanidentificationwithsocialelitesfromthatpast.

AnotherexampleofthistypeofvignetteisSorai’sfive-characterquatrain“Kyōkaku”(TheKnight-Errant):

飯罷溧陽媼 FedbytheoldwomanofLiyang前途日欲斜 Ontheroadahead,thesunissetting茫茫城市裡 Vastandwideisthecity莫有魯朱家 AZhuJiaofLuisnowheretobefound

Thispoemalludestothestoryoftheknight-errantWuZiXu,whosebiog-raphyintheShi jidescribeshowhewasforcedtobegforfoodwhilefleeingtoWufromhisnativestateofChu,whosekingwasplanningtoputhimtodeathtogetherwithhisfatherandbrother(heeventuallyachievedrevengeagainstthekingofChu,forwhichheispraisedbySimaQian).21ThedetailabouthimreceivingfoodfromawomaninLiyangisnotincludedintheShi jibiography,butappears intheaccountofWuZiXuinvolume1oftheYue jue shu,ahistoryofthestateofYuebytheHanscholarYuanKang.Thesecond line is takenverbatimfromthefive-characterquatrain“Fengxiazhe”(EncounteringaKnight-Errant)byQianQi(722–c.780).ThispoemisincludedintheTangshi xuan,ananthologyofTangpoetry,compiledbyLiPanlong,thatwashighlypopularinTokugawaJapanandwasespeciallyreveredbytheSoraischool.22ThislinealsoissimilartothelineintheShi jiwhereWuZiXustates,“Thedayisgrowingdarkonme,andtheroadislong,”althoughthiscomesfromalaterepisodeinthebiography,andnotthesectiondealingwithhisescapetoWu.Thefinallineisareferencetothe“Bi-ographiesofKnights-Errant,”abookoftheShi jithattellsthestoriesofvari-oussuchfigures,oneofwhomisZhuJiaofLu,whowasfamousforprovid-inggenerousassistancetothoseinhidingfromtheirenemies.23Thispoem,likethepreviousone,entersintotheworldoftheChinesepastthroughthemediumofaspecificcharacterwhoisatthecenterofthevignette.

AnothercommonformofneoclassicalcompositionpracticedbySoraiinvolvedmappingChineseplacenamesontoJapan,thuselevatingJapan

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

by incorporating it into thecultural andaesthetic sphereof the landofthesages.Anexampleof this ishisseven-characterquatrain“Shinsainogūsaku”(ComposedontheNewYear):

江城初日照芙蓉 NewYearintheriverbankcity,thesunshinesonLotusPeak

西望函関白雪重 LookingwesttoHanbarrier,piledwithwhitesnow無限武昌郡中客 LimitlessarethethrongswithinWuchang陽春一曲少相逢 Yetfewcanbemetwiththesong“BrightSpring”

The“riverbankcity”referstoEdo,andLotusPeak,anameusedforanum-berofmountainsinChina,referstoMt.Fuji.Inadditiontothebasiccom-parisonbetweenChineseandJapanesemountains,thisnameforMt.Fujicomesfromhowitssummitissaidtoresemblealotusflower.Inthenexttwolines,HanbarriercorrespondstoHakone(whichalsohadafamouscustomsbarrier),andWuchangtoEdo.Besidesbeinganalogousplaces(bar-riersinthefirstcase,citiesinthesecond),thesecorrespondencesarebasedonwordplaywiththecharacters,asthecharacterfor“Han”函canbereadas“hako” in Japanese, thusconnectingHanwithHakone (even thoughthe“hako”ofHakoneiswrittendifferently,withthecharacter箱),andthe“Wu”ofWuchangiswrittenwith武,whichisoneofthecharactersusedtowriteMusashi武蔵,thenameoftheprovincewhereEdowaslocated.ThefinallinealludestoanepisodeinapieceintheWen xuanbySongYu(290–223b.c.)entitled“DuiChuwangwen”(RespondingtotheKingofChu),whichtellsofatravelerwhogainsa largeaudiencewhenhesingscommonsongs,buthashisaudiencedwindlewhenhesingsthedifficultsongs“BrightSpring”and“WhiteSnow.”“BrightSpring,”then,indicatesaparticularlyelevated,refinedsong,andthefactthatitismentionedtogetherwith the song“WhiteSnow” intheWen xuanpiececreatesa linkage inSorai’spoembetweenthefourthlineandthesecondline,whichmentionsthewhitesnowinHakone.AlinesimilartoSorai’sfinallineappearsattheendofapoembyCenShen(715–770)thatisincludedintheTangshi xuan:“It isdifficult foranyonetoharmonizewiththesong‘BrightSpring.’”24CenShen’spoemwaswritteninresponsetotheworkofanotherpoet,andtheclosinglineisapoliteexpressionofhumilitytowardthatpoet.Sorai’spoem,though,islessanexpressionofhumilitythanastatementabouthowthespeakerbelongs toaselectgroupofthehighlyculturedand literate,sothattherearefewpeoplewhocanrelatetohimonhislevel.ThisideamatchescloselywithhisviewthatChinesepoetryandConfucianstudies

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

shouldbepursuedonlybyeducatedelites,andwithhisefforttocreateanexclusiveculturalcommunitythroughtheactivitiesofhisprivateacademy.

Soraialsooftencomposedpoetryinthecontextofsocialinteractions,suchastheseven-characterregulatedverse“Uhōshūnitowaruruoshasu”(ExpressingThanksupon theVisitofAmenomoriHōshū).AmenomoriHōshū(1668–1755) servedTsushimadomainasaConfucianscholaranddiplomat,inwhichcapacityhespenttimeattheJapanesediplomaticmis-sioninPusan,andwasfamousforhisstudiesoftheKoreanlanguage.SoraicomposedthefollowingpoemontheoccasionofHōshū’svisittohishouseinEdotoenrollhissonKen’ininSorai’sschool:

客有乗槎北海来 MyguestsailedfromtheNorthSea壮游曾使三韓廻 Withgreatpurposehehasgoneasemissarytothe

threeKoreankingdoms携将紫気行相映 Cradlingpurplevapors,heilluminatestheway弾罷朱絃歌自哀 Whenhefinishesstrummingthevermilionstrings,his

songisplaintive千里山川誰並駕 Whowouldjourneywithyouinacarriageovera

thousandliofmountainsandrivers?百年天地此銜杯 Toexchangecupswithyouhereisachancethatcomes

onceinahundredyears看君匣裏芙蓉色 Seeingthelotusinyourswordcase不但翩翩書記才 Youdonotmerelyhaveatalentforelegantwriting

The“NorthSea”isanothernamefortheBohaiSea,thegulfoftheYellowSeasurroundedbytheShandongandLiaodongpeninsulas,sothefirsttwolinesrefer toHōshū’sactivitiesasadiplomat.“Purplevapors”area signthatavaluedguestiscoming,areferencethatderivesfromthestoryofhowwhenLaoziapproachedHanbarrieronhiswaywesttobecomeimmortal,thebarrierguardrecognizedhisimpendingarrivalbythepurplevaporshesaw intheeast.Thisstory isalludedto in“Qiuxing”#5 (AutumnStir-rings#5),byDuFu(712–770), included intheTangshi xuan:“fromtheeastcomepurplevapors/andfillHanPass.”25Thereferencetovermilionstringsisfromthe“RecordofMusic”:“Thezithers(Ch.se,Jp.shitsu)inthepureancestraltemplehadvermilionstringsandwidelyspacedholes.Onewouldsingandthreewouldbemovedwithadmiration.”26These isanexampleof therefinedmusicof thesages, so this line ispraisingthecultivationoftheaddressee.TheplaintivequalityoftheseismentionedinastorycitedintheShi ji,whichtellsofhowitoriginallyhadfiftystrings,

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

butthelegendaryemperorFuXifounditexcessivelysadandsobrokeitinhalf,makingitintoaninstrumentoftwenty-fivestrings.27Alotusreferstoaprecioussword,asinLuZhaolin’s“Chang’anguyi”(AncientThoughtsonChang’an), includedintheTangshi xuan:“Theknights-errantmeetwiththeirlotusswords.”Theuseofpianpiantodescribeelegantwritingderivesfrom“YuWuzhishu”(LettertoYuWuzhi),byCaoPi(187–226),includedintheWen xuan:“YuWuzhi’swritingiselegant,anditsgraceoffersplea-sure.”Thetermalsoappearsin“ZengSuWanshuji”(ToSecretarySuWan),byDuShenyan(d.c.705),intheTangshi xuan:“Iknowthatyourwritingsaretrulyelegant.”Thelasttwolines,takentogether,aresayingthatHōshūfulfillstheidealofcombiningskillinboththecivilandthemilitaryarts.Thepoem,then,iswhatwemightexpectgiventhecontextofSoraiandHōshū’sinteraction,withSoraipraisinghisguestextravagantlyandexpress-inggratitudeforhisgoodfortuneinbeingabletomeetHōshū.

ThedenselyallusivequalityofSorai’spoetry reflectshis emulationofMingAncientPhraseology,asdoeshisheavyrelianceontheShi ji,theWen xuan,andHighTangpoetry(especiallytheTangshi xuan)forsourcepoemsandstories.Attimesthiseventakestheformofliftingentirelinesdirectlyfromsourcepoems,leadingtoakindofpatchworkapproachtocomposi-tion.Sorai’simitativeapproachtopoetryisaccompaniedbyastrongfic-tionalelement,bothinpoemsthatpresentscenesconjuredoutoftheworldofChineseliteratureandinthosewhereSorai’sownworldistransformedbybeingmappedontoChineseliteraryreferences.Inthisway,poetrybe-comesawaytoenterintotheChinesepastandtoliftupthevulgarworldofcontemporaryJapanbypassingitthroughthefilterofthispast.Moreover,Sorai’spoetryisintelligibleonlytothosewithasolidgroundinginclassicalChineseliterature,soitservestoconfirmthemembershipofbothpoetandaudienceinanelitecommunityofgentlemenversedinthecultureofthelandofthesages.

Poetry and Knowing Human Emotions

Inhisphilosophicalwritingsandpolicyproposals,Sorai’scommentsonpo-etrystresshowitsessenceliesinemotionalexpression,asconveyedinthefollowingdescriptionofthenatureandfunctionoftheBook of Odes:

AmongtheFiveClassicsisincludedtheBook of Odes.Thisissimplysome-thingalongthelinesofthewakapoetryofthiscountry.Itisnotsomething

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

fordiscoursingupontheprinciplesofgoverningtheheartortheself,norisitsomethingfordiscoursingupontheWayofgoverningtheprovincesandtherealm.TheOdesconsistofthewordsproducedbythesighsofpeopleofancienttimeswhentheyfeltjoyfulorsad,sotheyincludewordsthataccordwellwithhumanemotions,andtheyallowonetoknowofthecustomsoftheperiodandprovinceinwhichtheywereproduced.Forthisreason,thesageConfuciuscollectedthemandtaughtthemtopeople.Althoughstudy-ingthemdoesnotservetohelponegraspprinciple,theyuselanguageskill-fullyandexpresshumanemotionswell,sotheyhavethepowertopermeatetheheartnaturallyandtemperprinciple,andtomakeunderstoodthecus-tomsofdifferentcountriesandages,whicharedifficulttoperceivethroughprinciplealone.Theyallowourheartstoreachoutnaturallyandgrasphu-manemotions,sotheyhavethebenefitofallowingthoseofloftystationtoknowmattersofthelowly,mentoknowthedispositionofwomen,andthewisetoknowthemindsetofthefoolish.28

WhenSoraiarguesthattheemotionalvalueoftheOdesliesoutsideprin-ciple,heisimplicitlytargetingZhuXi,forwhomtheemotionsexpressedintheOdes,whethermanifestationsofvirtueorofvice,areultimatelysubor-dinatedtothemoralprinciplethattheyallowthereadertoperceive.SoraiupholdstheideathattheOdesconstituteaformofConfucianteaching,buthepresents this asanemotional teaching,anddenies that theOdesspeakofeithermorality(“governingtheheartortheself ”)orthepracticeofgovernment.29AlthoughheiscommentingspecificallyontheOdeshere,wecaninterprethiscommentsasamoregeneraltheoryofpoetry,givenhowhecomparestheOdestowaka,andelsewherewrites,“ThepoemsoftheOdesareinnowaydifferentfromthepoetryoflaterages.”30

Sorai’srefusaltoreadtheemotionalcontentofpoetryintermsofun-derlyingmoralvaluesissimilartowhatwesawinChapter1withItōJinsai.Also like Jinsai,he rejects theattempt to reduce theOdes toany singlemeaninginthefirstplace,commentingontheprefacesproducedbytheMao traditionofOdes commentary, “TheOdesoriginallyhavenofixedmeanings.Whyshouldwenecessarilyhavetoupholdwhattheprefacessay,andmaketheseouttobeimmutableexplanations?”31Sorai’semphasisonemotionalityinpoetry,Iwillargue,wasmotivatedbyaconcernforsocialrelationshipssimilartothatwhichinformedJinsai’scritiqueofZhuXi,butwasdistinctfromJinsai’sviewinthatSoraisituatedemotionalitywithinadifferentsetofassumptionsabouthowsuchsocialrelationshipsaretobegovernedbytheConfucianWay.

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

s o r a i ’ s c r i t i q u e o f “ a p p r o v i n g v i r t u e a n d c h a s t i s i n g v i c e ”

InChapter2wesawhowSoraicriticizesZhuXiforlocatingnormswithintheself,leadingtoanarrowsubjectivismthatfailstoengagewithexternalrealityinitsfullcomplexity.Heoftenpresentsstudy,especiallythestudyofpoetry andhistory, as awayof broadeningpeople’sperspectives byallowingthemtoseebeyondtheirownlimitedsphereofpersonalexperi-ence.WesawthisaboveinhisdiscussionoftheOdes,andhecharacter-izeshistoricalstudyashavingasimilarbroadeningeffectwhenhewrites:

XunzicalledlearningtheWayof“flyingearsandlongeyes.”Thefactthatwhileremaininginthiscountryonecanhearthingsofunseencountriesislikehavingtheearssproutwingsandfly.Thefactthatwhilebeingborninthisageonecanseethingsofthousandsofyearsagoasifbeforeone’sveryeyes iswhat ismeantby“longeyes.”Because learningconsistsofhavingone’ssightandhearingextendwidelyacrossempiricalfacts,thepinnacleoflearningliesinhistory.Ifoneisnotfamiliarwithpastandpresent,andJapanandChina,thenonewillonlyseethingswithintheconfinesofthecustomsofthepresentageandourowncountry,andwilltrulybeliketheproverbialfroginthewell.32

Soraiseespoetryasofferingcertainhistoricalknowledgeaswell,aspoetry“makesunderstoodthecustomsofdifferentcountriesandages,”33buthedistinguishestherolesofpoetryandhistoryinthatheseespoetryasuniqueintheinsightitprovidesintothemostintimateaspectsofhumannatureandhumanemotionality.

Study needs to be carried out with the proper hermeneutic stance,though,ifitistofulfillthispurpose.InSorai sensei tōmonsho,hedescribesthe harm that comes from the Song Confucian doctrine that knowingthingsinvolvesknowingtheirprinciple,aprinciplethatispresumedtoexistalsowithintheself:

The Song Confucian practices of “investigating things” and “extendingknowledge”involvedecidingforthemselvesthatsuch-and-suchmustbethisway,andsuch-and-suchmustbethatway,andthatthismustcertainlybetheWayofthesages.Butthisisjustpersonalopinion.Becausetheyfollowalongwithwhattheythemselvesdecideaheadoftimethatsomethingmustbelike,theyareunabletorealizethatmanythingsactuallyendupnotbeinglikewhattheyhadthought.34

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

Inotherwords,evenwhenSongConfucianslookoutsidethemselves,theyseeeverythingthroughthelensoftheirownprejudicesandpreconceptions,makingitimpossibleforthemtogainanygenuinelynewknowledge.

Fromthisstandpoint,ZhuXi’stheoryof“approvingvirtueandchastis-ingvice” (Ch.quanshan cheng’e, Jp.kanzenchōaku) is aflawedmodeofreading in thatmoral categories functionas aperceptual apparatus thatmediatesand limits the reader’s encounterwith the text. InonepassageinSorai sensei tōmonsho,Soraicritiquestheuseof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”inZhuXi’sTongjian gangmu(OutlineoftheComprehensive Mirror),acommentaryonthehistoricalworkbySimaGuang(1019–1086)entitledtheZizhi tongjian(ComprehensiveMirrorforAidinGovernment).SoraiarguesthatSimaGuang’soriginalworkcaptureshistoricalrealityinitsfullvitalityandcomplexity,whileZhuXi’scommentaryfiltersthisreal-itythroughareductionistconceptualframework:“TheargumentsoftheTongjian gangmuarelikeawoodblockprint—theyhaveafixedformandapredeterminedlogic,andapplythismethodtoeverything.ButHeaven-and-Earthisdynamic,asarehumans.Whenweviewtheseasiftheyweretiedupwithrope,thenthisistrulyauselessformofstudy.”35Aswithhiscritiqueoftheideaof“investigatingthings,”SoraiseesSongConfuciansasapproachingtheworldthroughasetofsubjectiveblinders;eventhoughtheymaylookoutintotheexternalworld,theydosothroughthelensofwhattheyalreadythinktobetheproperwaythingsshouldbe,withthere-sultthatthisexternalexperience(suchasthematerialencounteredthroughhistoricalstudy)doesnothingtoincreasetheirknowledge,andonlyrein-forcestheirpreexistingprejudicesthroughasolipsisticfeedbackloop.

AsimilarcontrastinmethodsofreadingcanbeseenincommentariesontheAnalectspassagethatstates,“[WiththeOdes]onecanobserve.”36ZhuXi interprets thisasmeaning“toconsiderone’smeritsand faults,”37butSoraicriticizesthisreadingforgraspingonlyanarrowconceptionofwhatitmeansto“observe”:

“Toconsiderone’smeritsandfaults” isonlyto lookatrightandwrong.Howcouldthisexhaustthemeaningof“toobserve”?Whenitcomestothevarioustypesofgovernmentsandcustoms,thevicissitudesofthefortunesoftheworld,andpeople’ssituations,whileinthecourtonecanknowthevillages,whileinprosperoustimesonecanknowoffallentimes,asagentle-manonecanunderstandpettymen,asamanonecanunderstandwomen,inordinarytimesonecanknowofchaos,andtheaffairsoftherealmareallgatheredinoneself—thisisthebenefitof“observing.”38

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

Again,heseestherigiddualismofrightandwrongaslimitingourfieldofvision,andunderminingthecapacityofpoetrytogiveusinsightintotheexperiencesofothers.Sorai’srejectionofmoralreadingsofpoetry,then,ismorethanasimpleaffirmationoftheautonomyofliterature,ashisgoalisnotjusttoliberatepoetryinanabstractsense,buttofree itfromonerolesothatitcanbemobilizedtoplayadifferentone.Hisnotionofpoetryasavehicleforunderstandingtheemotionsofothersiscloselytiedtohisformulationofhumaneness,which,asdiscussedbelow,iskeytohisvisionoftheidealruler.

h u m a n e n e s s a n d e m p a t h y

SoraiopensthesectionofBenmeion“humaneness”(Ch.ren,Jp.jin)bycallingit“thevirtueofbeingtheleaderofothersandbringingpeacetothepeople.”39Bydefininghumanenessspecificallyintermsofrulership,heisrejectingtheequationofthetermwithageneralizednotionofbenevolenceorcompassion,anideaheseesasaproductoftheadmixtureofConfucian-ismwithBuddhism.Whileherecognizesthathumanenesshassomethingtodowithloveandcompassion,hemaintainsthattheloveandcompassioninvolvedinhumanenessneedtobeunderstoodinthecontextoftheac-tivepracticeofgovernance,explaining,“WhenConfuciusspeaksof‘lovingothers,’thisreferstobeingthefatherandmotherofthepeople.Ifonedoesnotbringpeacetothepeople,thenhowcanonebethefatherandmotherofthepeople?”40

InthediscussioninChapter2ofSorai’sandJinsai’scommentariesonthe“FourBeginnings”passageinMencius,wesawhowSoraiagreeswithJinsaithatthecultivationofpropersocialnormsrequirestheactiveexerciseofhumannaturethroughrelationshipswithothers,andcanneverbeachievedthrougharetreatintoanykindofstaticinnerpurity.Atthesametime,Sorairejectstheideathatactivityandsocialinteractioncanbythemselvesleadtotheestablishmentof successful interpersonalrelationships,withoutthesebeingmediatedthroughproperexternalnormsderivedfromthehistoricalsages.AmongthefourvirtuesdiscussedintheMenciuspassage,heparticu-larlytakesJinsaitotaskforclaimingthathumaneness,whichforSoraiis“thevirtueofbeingtheleaderofothersandbringingpeacetothepeople,”canbeachievedbyextendingoutwardtheheartofcompassion.Hewrites,“Jinsai [defines humaneness as] ‘the virtue of benevolent love (Ch.ciai,Jp.jiai )reachingfarandnear,withinandwithout,fillingandpenetratingeverything.’HereheisconfusedbyMencius,andtriestoachievehumane-

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

nessbyextendingoutwardtheheartofcompassion.Hemakeshumanenessbelongnottotheancientkingsbuttopeopleingeneral.”41Fromthisper-spective,Jinsai’sflawisthatheseeshumanenessassomethingthatcanbeachievedfromthebottomup,aprocessthatinSorai’sviewleadstonothingmorethananaimlesssympathywithoutanyregulatingnorms.

SoraimakesasimilarpointinhiscriticismofJinsai’sreadingofthestate-mentsinAnalectsIV.15thatConfucius’Way“hasonethingrunningthroughit,”andthatthisWay“consistssimplyofloyalty(Ch.zhong,Jp.chū)andconsiderateness(Ch.shu,Jp.jo).”Soraiinterpretsthe“onething”runningthroughtheWayashumaneness,butdeniesthatloyaltyandconsiderate-nesscanleaddirectlytohumaneness,anideathatJinsaiexpresseswhenhewritesthat“whenweestablishloyaltyandpracticeconsiderateness,thenourheartsbroadenandwepracticetheWay,andhumanenessisattained.”42InRongo chō(ClarificationoftheAnalects),Soraiwrites:

“Loyalty”referstohavingconsiderationforothers,extendingbroadlyandingreatdetail,andnotfailingtoexhaustone’sownheart.“Considerateness”refersto“notdoingtootherswhatyoudonotwantdonetoyourself.”Allofthisreferstointeractingwithotherpeople.TherelationofhumanenesstotheWayalsoliesininteractionswithotherpeople,andiswhatleadsthemandnurturesthem,correctsthemandbringsthemtocompletion,andal-lowseachofthemtoachievetheirlivelihood.However,theWayofhumane-nessisvast,andisnotsomethingthat[Confucius’]disciplescanachieve.Thereforeheusesloyaltyandconsideratenesstosuggestit.43

Again,Soraifindsfaultwiththeideathathumaneness,whichforhimisavirtueofrulers,canbeachievedsimplythroughthemutualgoodwillofordinarypeople.Hedoesnotdenythatordinarypeopleshouldreachouttoeachother,butheseesthisasprovidingalowerlevelofsocialunitythanthatprovidedbythehumanenessofrulers,whichalwayscomesfromabove,andprovidestheculturalframeworkwithinwhichtheeverydayinteractionsoftheruledtakeonvalue.

AlthoughSoraidefineshumanenessasavirtuethatisnecessarilyembed-dedinsocialhierarchies,andrefusestoreduceittoasimpleextensionofcompassionorconsiderateness,hestillseesitasrequiringanemotionalun-derstandingofothers.Tobeginwith,hebelievesthattheWaywascreatedinresponsetohumannature,akeyelementofwhichisemotionality,meaningthatanunderstandingofhumanemotionsisimportantforthosewho,asmembersofthegoverningclass,areresponsibleforenactingtheWay.Morespecifically,aswesawinChapter2,heidealizesfeudalsocialrelationships

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

rooted infeelingsofmutualaffectionandobligationbetweenrulersandruled.Itispoetrythat,aswesawhimargueabove,allows“thoseofloftysta-tiontoknowmattersofthelowly,”makingitindispensabletothepracticeofhumanegovernment.Inthisway,hefollowsJinsaiinplacinggreatim-portanceonunderstandingothers,especiallyonunderstandingtheiremo-tions,butredefinestheinterpersonalspaceinwhichthisunderstandingispracticedfromthesymmetricalrelationshipbetweenfellowcommonerstotheasymmetricalrelationshipbetweentherulersandtheruled.Atthesametime,theultimatepurposeofthisunderstandingshiftsfromtheachieve-mentofspecificmoralvirtuesineverydaylifetotheeffectivegovernanceofsociety,whichforSoraiincludesthepromotionofeverydaymorality,butisbynomeanslimitedtoit.

The Odes among the Four Teachings and Six Classics

Aswe saw inhisdescriptionof the content of “ancient learning,”SoraioftensituatestheOdesamongthe“FourTeachings”(Ch.sijiao,Jp.shikyō)or“FourTechniques”(Ch.sishu,Jp.shijutsu)—theOdes,theBook of Docu-ments,ritual,andmusic.TheFourTeachingsareassociatedwithasubsetoftheConfucianSixClassics(Ch.liujing,Jp.rikukei ),whichconsistoftheOdes,theBook of Documents,theRecord of Ritual(Li ji ),theBook of Music(Yue jing),theBook of Changes(Yi jing),andtheSpring and Autumn An-nals(Chunqiu).44SoraiseestheSixClassicsasthefoundationofConfuciangovernmentduetotheiruniqueroleintransmittingthecultureofthesages,anddefinestheFourTeachingsmorespecificallyasthecoreoftheeducationoftheConfuciangentleman.OnethinghestressesabouttheFourTeachingsandtheSixClassicsisthateachofthemplaysadistinctandnecessaryrole.InhisdiscussionoftheFourTeachingsinBendō(OnDistinguishingtheWay)hewrites,“WhateachoftheseteachesdiffersfromClassictoClassic.LaterConfuciansinterpretthemthroughonegeneraltheory.Butthenwhywouldthereneedtobefourofthem?”45ThisisareferencetosuchtheoriesasZhuXi’sideathateachoftheSixClassicsisadifferentexpressionofaunitaryprinciple,withthecorollarythatanyofthemtakenalonecansufficeasavehicleforgraspingtheWayinitsentirety.ThisattitudeofZhuXi’scanbeseenintheclosingwordsoftheprefacetohisShi jizhuan(CollectedTransmissionsontheOdes),wherehewritesthatifonestudiestheOdesinthepropermanner,then“withoutneedingtoseekelsewhere,itwillbesufficienttoachievetheWayofcultivatingtheselfandthehousehold,and

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

regulatingtherealm.”46TheMaotraditionofOdesinterpretationreachesasimilarconclusionfromadifferentstandpoint,presentingthestudyoftheOdesassufficientinitselffortheinternalizationofthecultureofKingWen.InhisdiscussionsoftheFourTeachingsandSixClassics,though,Soraiem-phasizestheinterdependenceoftheirconstituentelements,anideathatIwillargueisrelatedtohisconceptionofhowtheConfucianWaycanonlyachieveacoherentunitywithintheactivepracticeofgovernment.

t h e o d e s a n d t h e d o c u m e n t s

AnexampleofhowSoraiseestheFourTeachingsascomplementingeachotherishisinterpretationofthephrasefromtheZuo zhuanthatstates,“theOdesandtheDocumentsaretherepositoryofrightness(Ch.yi,Jp.gi ).”47InBenmeihewritesthatthislabelappliesratherstraightforwardlytotheBook of Documents,inthatitpassesontheteachingsoftheancientkingsofChina,whichprovideuswithexamplesofwhatweshoulddo,inotherwords“rightness.”DescribingtheOdes,though,hewrites,“Theirwordsarebased inhumanemotions.Howcan theybespokenofwith reason-ing?ThoselaterConfucianswhosetuptheoriesof‘approvingvirtueandchastisingvice’allfailedtounderstandthis.”48Hethengoesontoarguethattherelationshipof theOdes torightness lies inhowtheyprovideakindofbackgroundknowledgeofthehumanemotionalityuponwhichtheWayisbased,withoutwhichitisimpossibletotrulygrasptheteachingsoftheBook of Documents:“TheWayoftheancientkingswasconstructedbyrelyingonhumanemotions.Ifonedoesnotunderstandhumanemotions,howcanoneextendthroughtherealm,withnothinginone’sway?ItisonlywhenscholarsunderstandhumanemotionsthattherightnessintheBook of Documentsbecomesclear.ThereforewhentheOdesisspokenofasastore-houseofrightness,thisisalwaysmeanttobeunderstoodinconjunctionwiththeBook of Documents.”49

Takenalone,neithertheOdesnortheBook of Documentscanprovideaknowledgeofrightness.ItisonlywhentherecordsofthegovernmentofthesagesdescribedintheBook of Documentsareunderstoodinthecontextofthehumanemotionalitytowhichtheyarerespondingthatwecangrasptheirtruesignificance,andlearnhowtoapplythemtothepracticeofgov-ernancetoday.ForSorai,itisspecificallyfeudalgovernmentthatismadepossiblebythiscomplementaryrelationshipbetweentheOdesandtheBook of Documents,ashearguesthatinfeudalismrulersempatheticallyunder-standtheirsubjects,whichallowstheserulerstoapplytheConfucianWay

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

togovernmentinahumaneandnuancedmanner,asopposedtothemech-anisticlegalismthatheseesascharacteristicofcentralizedbureaucracy.

t h e o d e s a n d m u s i c

Soraishowedastrongscholarlyinterestinmusic,producinganumberoftreatisesthatcombinetechnicaldiscussionsofmusicaltheorywithphilo-sophicalremarksonthefunctionofmusicasanelementoftheConfucianWay.TheseincludeGakuritsu kō(ReflectionsonMusicalPitches),Gakusei hen (OnMusicalSystems),andKingaku taiishō (AGeneralStudyof theKoto).ThemusicthatinterestsSoraiisspecificallythatcreatedbythean-cientChinesesages,andthefirsttwoworksmentionedaboveexaminethehistorical transformations of this music, arguing that in Japanese courtmusictherestillexisttracesoftheoriginalcourtmusicoftheZhouandHan,whichhadbeencompletely lost inChinaby thebeginningof theTang.InkeepingwithhisviewoftheWayasahistoricalcreation,hebe-lievesthattheproperstandardsformusicoftodayarerootedinconcretehistorical fact, suchas in the specifications for theoriginal “yellowbell”(Ch.huangzhong,Jp.kōshō),whichheseesasthebasisforrecoveringZhoucourtmusic.50Healsodescribesmusicasacrucialcomponentofthecul-tivationofthegentleman,commentinginKingaku taiishōthatinancienttimes“therewerenogentlemenwhodidnotplaythekoto.”51ThisidealwasreflectedinSorai’sownpursuitofnotonlythekoto,butalsotheshō,aswellasinthesociallifeofhisacademy,wheremusicplayedanimportantroleinsocialgatherings,andwaspracticedintandemwithpoetryinChinese.52

SoraidescribesdistinctrolesfortheOdesandmusicand,totheextentthattheOdesareviewedasacombinationofwordsandmusicaltones,hedifferentiatesbetweenthefunctionsofthelyricsoftheOdesandthetoneswithwhichtheywereonceaccompanied.PoetryandmusicdohaveacertainconnectionforSorai,inthat“inancienttimes,theinbornnatureandemo-tionswereonlydiscussedinrelationtotheOdesandmusic.”53Thedifferencehedescribesbetweenthem,though,isthattheroleoftheOdesistodepictemotionalityinitsnaturalstate,whilemusicismeanttoregulatetheemo-tions.54Describingtheneedformusic,hewrites,“Joy,anger,sorrow,andpleasurearethingsthatallpeoplehave.Butwhenthemovementsofthesegotoofarinonedirectionandtheylosetheirpropermeasure,thenthespiritofcentralityandharmonyisdamaged,leadingtoalossintheconstantinbornnature.Thismakesitdifficulttoachievevirtue.Thereforemusicwasestab-lishedinordertoinstructthese[emotions].”55Thisseparationofwordsand

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

tonescanbecontrastedwiththeviewoftheMaotradition,which,aswesawinChapter1,grewoutofanapplicationofmusicaldiscoursetopoetry,as-cribingtolyricsthemselvesamoralrolethathadpreviouslybeenseenasbe-longingtomusic.WhiletheMaotraditiondidmakeadistinctionbetweenexpressingemotionsandregulatingthem,itsawpoetryandmusicaswork-ingtogethertoplaybothofthesefunctions.Moreover,itsawtheknowledgeofemotionalitygainedthroughtheexpressivepowersofpoetryandmusicintermsofthemoralvaluesthatunderlietheseemotions,aswellaswhattheseemotionsrevealabout thequalityof thegovernmentinaparticulartimeandplace.Sorai’sviewofpoetry,incontrast,isbasedontheideathatrulersneedtounderstandemotionsinordertobecomefamiliarwiththenuancesofhumannature,aprocessthatheseesasunderminedbythereductionofemotionstomoraljudgments.

Sorai’sdescriptionoftherelationshipofmusictotheemotionsparallelshismoregeneraldiscussionofhowtheWayresponds tonaturalhumanemotions, while not being simply an extension of these emotions. InKingaku taiishōhecontrastsmusicwithlawsandpunishmentsasmethodsofcorrectingpeople’shearts,explainingthatlawsandpunishmentsmaybeeasytounderstand,butruncountertohumanemotions,andthereforearenotaseffectiveasmusic,whichcannotbegraspedintellectuallyandyet“inbringingpleasuretopeople’shearts, leadsthemtothecorrectWay.”56Atthesametime,hecautionsagainstmusicthatsimplypanderstopeople’semotions.When discussinghowmusic accompanies song, for example,hedrawsadistinctionbetween“responding”(ō), inwhichmusicexactlymatchesthesongthatitaccompanies,and“harmonizing”(wa):“Respond-ingishumanemotion,andharmonizingistheWay.Therefore,when[songandmusic]arematched,itisclosetohumanemotions,andsoitiseasytolistento.However,thingsliketheshamisenandthecommonsortofzitherarenotconversantwiththeWay”(pp.22–23).57Thereasonthatpeoplepre-fer these instrumentsover themusicof the sages is that in recent times“people’sheartshavebecomedegraded,andsotheyfinditpleasingwhentonesarecloselymatched”(p.23).Heexplicitlyrelatesharmonyinmusictohisidea,discussedinChapter2,oftheneedto“harmonize”differenttalentsinsociety:“WhenpeopledonotknowtheWay,theyonlyemploypeoplewhocatchtheirfancy,andonlydowhattheylike,sopeopleallbecomeself-ish,givingrisetochaos”(p.23).Themusicofthesages,then,muchliketheWayasawhole,drawsusoutsidethenarrowsubjectivismintowhichwefallwhenlefttoourowndevices.

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

ThedifferencebetweenhowpoetryandmusicrelatetohumanemotionsmeansforSoraithatwhentheOdesaredescribedinmoralterms,thisneedstobeunderstoodas referring to their tones,not their semanticcontent.InhiscommentaryonAnalectsIII.20,whichdescribes“Guanju,”thefirstpoemintheOdes,as“joyfulwithoutbeingdebauched,andsorrowfulwith-outcausingharm,”58Soraiarguesthatthis“speaksofits[musical]sounds,”andcriticizesZhuXiforinsteadfocusingon“themeaningofthewords.”59Hemakesa similarpoint inhis commentaryontheportionofAnalectsXV.10thatstates,“BanishthesoundsofZheng,anddistanceyourselffromclevertalkers.ThesoundsofZhengaredebauched,andclevertalkersaredangerous.”60HetakesthisasreferringsolelytothesoundsofthemusicofZheng,andnottothelyricsofthepoemsofZheng,andgoesontociteapprovinglytheargumentoftheMingpoetYangShen(1488–1559)that“itiswronghowthoseinlatertimestakeallthepoemsoftheAirsofZhengtobedebauchedpoems.”61

TheproperdifferentiationoftherolesofwordsandtonesisparticularlyimportanttoSoraibecauseofhow,aswesawinChapter2,hedescribesritualandmusicashavingthecapacitytomoveusinawaythatlanguagecannot.OneimplicationofthisforSoraiisthatmusicdoesnotenjoythesameexemptionfrommoraljudgmentthatpoetrydoes;justastherightmusicisnecessarytoregulatepeople’semotionsproperly,thewrongmusichasthepotentialtocauseharm.InhiscommentaryontheAnalectspassagecitedaboveonthesoundsofZheng,heexplains,“ThesoundsofZhengharmpropermusic,andclevertalkersharmritual....WhenthesoundsofZhengarepresentintheworld,thenthepeoplewillnottakepleasureinpropermusic.Thisisthereasonforbanishing[thesoundsofZheng].”62Thisconcern forprotecting thepeople fromthepernicious influenceofdebauchedmusicshowsthatSoraidoesnotsimplyadvocatealiberatedat-titudetowardhumanemotions.WhileherefusestoapplymoraljudgmentstotheemotionsexpressedinthelyricsoftheOdes,thisisbecauseheseessuchjudgmentsasinappropriatetothespecificroleoftheOdesinConfu-cianeducation,whichistogiveusanunderstandingofthefullrangeofhumanfeeling.

t h e w a y a s a “ c o m p o s i t e n a m e ”

Sorai’sargumentforthedistinctfunctionsofeachoftheFourTeachingsandSixClassicsreflectsabroaderbeliefofhisthattheConfucianWaycon-sistsofanaggregationofinstitutionsandculturalartifactsthatcannotbe

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

reducedtoanykindofunifyingprinciple.InBendōhewrites,“‘TheWay’isacompositename.Itbringstogetherunderasinglenameritual,music,punishments,politicaladministration,andingeneralallthethingsestab-lishedby theancientkings.Apart fromritual,music,punishments,andpoliticaladministration,thereisnothingthatcanbecalledtheWay.”63Inotherwords,theWayisnotanunderlyingprinciplethatthentakesforminthingslikeritualandmusic,butratheristhesethingsthemselves.Ifallthesethingswererootedinasingleprinciple(asZhuXiasserts), thenitwouldbepossibleforanyoneofthemtoplaytheroleofanyother,astheprincipleuncoveredthroughtheOdes,forexample,wouldbeidenticaltotheprincipleuncoveredthroughritual.ForSorai,though,eachoneoftheSixClassicsplaysauniquerole,makingitimpossibletoreplaceonewithanotherandstillmaintaintheWayinitsentirety.

SoraiexplainswhatunifiesthesediverseelementsinhiscommentaryonthestatementinAnalectsIV.15thatConfucius’Way“hasonethingrunningthroughit.”Soraitakesthis“onething”tobehumaneness,whichhede-finesasthevirtueofrulersinbringingpeacetothepeople.Hetakesgreatpains,though,todistinguishthekindofunityprovidedbyhumanenessfromthatprovidedbyZhuXi’sprinciple.Heexplains,“Humaneness isonevirtueoftheancientkings.Thereforeifweweretosaythathumane-nessexhauststheWayoftheancientkings,thiswouldbewrong.However,theWayof theancientkings isunited inbringingpeace to thepeople.Thereforehumanenessisthegreatvirtueoftheancientkings.”64Hegoeson toexplainwhy theAnalectspassage specificallymentions“one thingrunning through”theWay,insteadofsimply“onething,”byusingthemet-aphorofastringofcoins:“Humanenessislikethestring,andtheWayoftheancientkingsislikethecoins.Howcouldwesaythatthestringisthesamethingasthecoins?Thisiswhatitmeansfor‘onethingtorunthroughit.’”65ThecoinshererepresentthevariouscreationsofthesagesthatmakeuptheWay,suchasritual,music,andpunishments.ThehumanenessofrulersiswhatunifiesthesediversecomponentsoftheWaytowardacom-mongoal,buthumanenessitselfcanneverreplacethem,justasastringholdingtogethercoinscannotstandinforthecoinsthemselves.66

Sorai’sdescriptionofhumanenessastheforcethatunifiestheWayre-flectshisconcernfortheactiveapplicationoftheWaytogovernment,andhiscriticismofinterpretationsofConfucianism,likeZhuXi’s,thathebe-lievestrytodefinetheWayinabstractionfromitsactualpractice.ForSorai,thecreationsofthesagesareunitednotbywhattheyare,butbywhatthey

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

do.Thatis,theircommonalityliesnotinasharedunderlyingessenceorprinciple,butratherinhowtheycanallbeharnessedtothesinglegoalofgoverningtherealm,agoalthatisachievedthroughthevirtueofhumane-ness.Atthesametime,thevariouscreationsofthesagescontributetothisgovernanceindistinctways,whichSoraidescribesinamanneranalogoustohisideaofhowdiversetalentsneedtobe“harmonized”sothatpeoplecancontributetothesocialwholeinthecapacitymostappropriatetothem.InhisdiscussionsofboththeSixClassicsandtalent,Soraiconceivesofunityasaunityindiversity,withtheneedtorecognizetheexistenceofdiverseca-pacities(whetherinthesages’creations,orinindividualpeople)beingspe-cificallyrelatedtotheneedtoupholdthepracticalorientationoftheWay.

r e a s s e s s i n g t h e a u t o n o m y o f p o e t r y i n s o r a i

IfwesawSorai’sroleinthehistoryofTokugawaliterarythoughtintermsofhiscontributiontotheseparationofliteraturefrompolitics,thentherewouldseemtobeacontradictionintheinclusionoftheOdesamongtheSixClassics,whichSoraiseesasthebasisofConfuciangovernment.WecanseethisintheassessmentofSorai’sliterarythoughtbyWakamizuSuguruthatwasquoted in theIntroduction,whereheconcludes,“AsSoraiwasunabletoseparatetheOdesfromthe‘Classics,’andseeitpurelyasatextofhumanemotionality,itwasultimatelynotpossibleforhimtobreakfreeofthefettersofthepast,inotherwordstoseparateliteraturefromConfu-cianthought.”67TheassumptionhereisthatthereisaninherentconflictbetweenvaluingtheOdesasemotionalexpressionandvaluingitforitspo-liticalusefulness,andthatSoraimanagestodiscovertheOdesasatextofemotionalitytotheextentthathemovesawayfromviewingitasapoliticaltext,aprocessthatWakamizuseesSoraiashavingbegunbutnotcarriedthroughtoitsproperconclusion.IseetheimportancethatSoraiputsontheOdesasemotionalexpression,however,asinfacttheproductofnewwaysofimaginingthepoliticalroleoftheOdes,aswellastheroleoftheOdes asaConfucianClassic,making itmisleading to seehimas simplymakinginroadsonapreexistingConfucianviewofliterature.68

BoththeMaotraditionandZhuXiwereconcernedwiththedangertothesocialorderposedbyunregulatedhumanemotions,andsawpoetryasawayofeducatingtheemotionsmorally.FortheMaotraditionthisedu-cationinvolvedinternalizingthecultureofKingWenbystudyingpoemsthatexpressedtheemotionsofthoseinfluencedbythisculture.ForZhuXi,incontrast,theproperregulationofemotionscamefromuncovering

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

theapriorimoralfacultypossessedbyallhumansaspartoftheirinbornnature,andhesawtheexposuretocorrectandincorrectemotionsinpoetryasawayofbringingforththisfaculty.Soraidoesnotseepoetryasatoolforachievingcorrectnessinone’semotionsinordertocultivatevirtues,arolehearguesbelongsproperly tomusic,notpoetry.Hedoes,however,showacertaincontinuitywiththeMaotraditionandZhuXitotheextentthathestillseespoetryasadeviceformediatingtheparticularityofhumanemotionswiththeuniversalityofthesocialtotalityinstitutedthroughtheConfucianWay.ForSorai,thismediationtakesplacethroughhavingpoetryrevealhumanemotionstotherulingclass,whothenapplythisknowledgebyformulatinggovernmentpoliciesthatrespondtotherealityoftheseemo-tions,thusensuringaprosperousandharmonioussociety.Sorai’sdemandthatpoetrybereadaspureemotionalexpression,then,ispremisedonaveryspecificvisionofConfuciangovernment,namelythatofanempatheticpa-ternalismpracticedwithinthecontextoffeudalsocialrelationships.

ItcouldbearguedthatSoraidoesnotconnectpoetrytotheConfucianWayasdirectlyastheMaotraditionorZhuXi,butitisimportanttokeepinmindthatforSoraithisindirectnessisitselfessentialtohowtheConfu-cianWayisconstituted,andthusdoesnotrepresentamovementtowardmakingpoetryautonomousfromtheWay.Morespecifically,byseparatingoutthefunctionsoftheSixClassics,anddescribinghowtheycomplementeachotherinthepracticeofConfuciangovernment,SoraimakestheseeachcontributetotheWaywithoutindividuallyembodyingtheentiretyoftheWay.69Inotherwords,alloftheSixClassics,notjusttheOdes,canbesaidtocontributetotheWay“indirectly.”ThisopensupthepossibilityfortheemotionalexpressionandrefinedlanguageoftheOdestoplayanecessaryrole in theWay,withoutanydemand that thesequalitiesof theOdesbedirectlytranslatedintoamoralorpoliticalmessage.Itisinthebroadercon-textof the interactionof theSixClassicsthat thesequalitiesof theOdescontributetogovernment,soitisunnecessarythattheydosoontheleveloftheOdestakenasanisolatedtext.Notonlyisitunnecessary,itwouldactuallyunderminetheuniqueandessentialroleoftheOdesasaConfucianClassic.WhileontheonehanditseemsasifSoraiismakingtheOdesmoreautonomousasaliterarytextbyrefusingtomakeitintoadirectvehiclefortheWay,heisatthesametimemakingitmoreessentialtothestudyoftheWaythanZhuXiandtheMaotraditionhad,forwhomstudyingtheOdeswasoneoutofanumberofpossiblewaysto,intheformercase,cultivateasingleprinciple,andinthelatter,internalizethecultureofKingWen.The

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

emotionalandpoliticalrolesoftheOdesareforSoraiinterdependent,then,andcannotbeunderstoodsimplyasamodernizingmovementtowardaes-theticautonomyawkwardlyjuxtaposedwiththeremnantsofearlierConfu-ciantraditions.Or,totheextentthatwedefinetheindirectrelationshipoftheOdestotheWayasakindofaestheticautonomy,thisautonomyneedstobeconsideredasitselfinscribedwithinaparticularpoliticalconfiguration.

Conclusion

ThevarietyofrolesthatSoraiascribestopoetryreflectsthemultifacetednatureofhisconceptionoftheConfuciangentleman,whoismeanttobesimultaneouslyamasteroftheliteraryarts,ascholaroftheConfucianclas-sics,andagovernmentofficialwhoformulatespolicyandrelatesempatheti-callytothegoverned.Moreover,hepresumesthatsuchafigurewilloperatewithinacommunityofsimilargentlemenwhoformtherulingclassofasociety,boundtogetherbytheirinternalizationofacommonculturalandliterarycanon.Despite the rangeofways thatpoetrycontributes to theformationofthegentleman,Sorai’sdiscussionofthemutualinterdepen-denceoftheSixClassicsmakesitclearthatpoetryaloneisneversufficienttocreateagentleman,andthatforpoetrytofulfillitsproperrole,itmustbeintegratedintobothabroaderprogramofConfucianeducationandaworldofpoliticalpractice.

Sorai’svisionofpoetryascontributingtotheformationofarulingeliteofscholarofficialsremained,however,anunfulfilled ideal,as theroleofpoetryinhisacademywasessentiallythatofaliterarypastimeandavehicleforelegantandculturedsocializing.Moreover,histheoreticalwritingsonpoetryleaverelativelyunexploredcertainquestionsthatlaterwriterswouldsubjecttomuchgreaterscrutiny,especiallywithregardtotherelationshipbetween therolesofpoetryasavehicle forculturalknowledgeandasameansforknowingtheauthenticemotionsofothers.Inthefirstoftheseroles,poetryisvaluedforitsembodimentoftheculturalallusionsandel-egantlanguagethatareessentialtothecultivationofthegentleman,whileintheseconditislookedtoasasourceofinsightintounadulteratedhumannature,prior to itscultural formationthroughtheWayofthesages.Heexplains,forexample,thatbothauthenticemotionsandelegantlanguagearepresentintheBook of Odes,arguingthatConfucius’editingoftheOdesconsistedofpolishingtheirlanguage,andthat“ifthiswerenotso,thenhowcouldthewordsoffarminspectorsandweavingwomenbesobeautiful?”70

t h e l i t e r a r y t h o u g h t o f o g y u- s o r a i

TheideathattheOdesdonotliterallyconsistofthewordsofthecommonpeople,buthavebeenreworkedtomaketheirlanguagemorerefined,doesnotpreventSoraifromseeingthesepoemsasprovidinginsightintotheex-periencesandemotionsofpeoplefromalllevelsofsociety.HisconfidenceinthecapacityofthelanguageoftheOdestoexpressunalteredtheirorigi-nalemotionalcontentreflectshisoptimismregardingaConfucianculturalworldthatenhancesanddrawsoutthenaturaltraitsofthematerialthatitworksupon,bringingitintoaworldofhumanlycreatedvaluewithoutcompromisingitsoriginalbeing.Hisdisciples,though,didnotalwayssharethisoptimism,andinthefollowingchapterwewillexplorethedifferentsolutionstheyofferedtothecontradictionstheyfoundbetweenauthenticemotionsandhighlyformalizedmodesofliteraryexpression.

f o u r

The Fragmentation of the Sorai School and the Crisis of AuthenticityHattori Nankaku and Dazai Shundai

AfterOgyūSorai’sdeath,theleadershipofhisacademywaspassedontohisnephewandadoptedheirOgyūKinkoku(1703–1776).Kinkokuplayedmainlyapreservationistrole,however,anddidnotdisplaythekindofstrongleadershipandscholarlyoriginalitythat,forexample,ItōTōgaihadincar-ryingonhisfatherItōJinsai’sschool.Instead,itwasSorai’sdiscipleswhobecametheprimaryvehicleforthedisseminationanddevelopmentofhisideas.Twoofhismostprominentstudents,AndōTōyaandHiranoKinka(1688–1732),diedbeforeorsoonafterSorai,andtheactivitiesofathird,TakanoRantei (1704–1757),were limitedby the fact thathewentblindatageseventeen.Sorai’sfollowersmostactiveinpropagatinghisteachingswereDazaiShundaiandHattoriNankaku,bothofwhomoperatedinEdo,andYamagataShūnan(1687–1752),whospreadSorai’steachingstothefarwestofJapan,topresent-dayYamaguchiprefectureandKyushu.Thischap-terfocusesonNankakuandShundai,astheywerethetwofiguresmostin-fluentialindevelopingdifferentaspectsofSorai’steachings,withNankakucarryingonSorai’sliteraryidealsbasedontheMingAncientPhraseologymovement, andShundaidevelopinghisviewsonConfucianphilosophyandpoliticaleconomyinnewdirections.

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

Nankakuwasbornin1683intoaKyotomerchantfamily,givinghimabackgroundunusualwithintheSoraischoolandcontributingtohislackofinterestintheaspectsofSorai’sphilosophyrelatedtothepracticeofgov-ernment.Anumberofhisfamilymemberswereactiveaswakaandrengapoets,andhereceivedtraininginwakafromanearlyage.HemovedtoEdoin1696,afterthedeathofhisfather,andin1700wasbroughtintoserviceasawakapoetwithYanagisawaYoshiyasu,who,asdiscussedinChapter2,employedalargenumberofliteraryandintellectualfigures,includingSorai,andregularlyheldeventssuchaspoetrygatheringsandpubliclecturesonConfuciantexts.Yoshiyasuwentintoretirementin1709uponthedeathofTokugawaTsunayoshi,theshogunhehadserved,butNankakuremainedinYoshiyasu’sservice,andcontinuedtoservetheYanagisawahouseafterYoshiyasudiedin1714.WhilehehadbeendevotedtoYoshiyasuandgrate-fulforhispatronage,hedidnotgetalongwithYoshiyasu’ssuccessor,andendedupresigningfromhispositionwiththeYanagisawahousein1718.

Nankakuneverservedagaininanofficialcapacity,andsupportedhim-selfbyteachingpoetryinaseriesofprivateacademiesheoperatedinEdo.HehadalreadyenrolledasadiscipleofSoraiin1711,andhisstaturewithinSorai’scirclegraduallygrew,withhisspecialtynowbeingpoetryinChi-nese,ratherthanwaka.In1727NankakupublishedNankaku sensei bunshū(TheCollectedWritingsofMasterNankaku),acollectionofhispoetryandprose.Suchcollectionswereusuallyissuedposthumouslybyaprominentfigure’sdisciples,soitwasratherambitiousofNankakutopublishthisdur-inghisownlifetime.Hecontinuedtopublishcollectionsofhisworkperi-odically,withasecondinstallmentofNankaku sensei bunshūcomingoutin1737,athirdin1745,andafourthin1758,justayearbeforehisdeath.Hewrotelittleinthewayoftheoreticalworks,andtheclosestthinghewrotetoanexpositionofliterarytheorywasNankaku sensei tōka no sho(MasterNankaku’sJottingsundertheLamplight),publishedin1734.AnotherworkofhisisDaitō seigo(StoriesoftheEast),publishedin1750,acollectionofsetsuwafromsuchcollectionsastheKonjaku monogatariandtheUji shūi monogatari,renderedintokanbunbyNankaku.Healsoexercisedconsid-erable influenceontheliteraryworldthroughhispublication in1724oftheTangshi xuan(Jp.Tōshisen),ananthologyofTangpoetryeditedbytheMingAncientPhraseologypoetLiPanlong.Salesofthework,whichduetoitspopularitywasreissuedin1743,1745,and1753,helpedNankakufi-nancially,andthecollectionwasalsoresponsibleforestablishingacertaincanonofTangpoetryinTokugawaJapan,withoverthirtyeditionsofthe

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

workappearinginprintby1868.Thesecameinawidevarietyofformatsandwithdifferent typesofannotations, and includedTōshisen kokujikai(AnExplanationinJapaneseoftheTangshi xuan),publishedin1791,whichcontainedJapanesecommentariesonthepoemsthatweresaidtobebasedonNankaku’slectures.1

Shundai, unlikeNankaku, came froma samurai background, butheremainedonthemarginsofofficiallife,inpartbecauseofcircumstancesbeyondhiscontrol,butalsobecauseofhisrefusaltocompromisehisideals.Hewasbornin1680inIidadomaininShinanoprovince,butduetoanin-cidentwherehisfathercausedoffensetothedaimyoofIida,thefamilywasexpelledandforcedtomovetoEdoin1688.Reducedtorōninstatus,theylivedinpovertyinthemidstoftheflourishingurbancultureoftheGen-rokuperiod(1688–1704).Tohelpoutwithfamilyfinances,in1694Shundaitookupapost as supervisorofpages for thedaimyoof Izushidomain.Soonafter,in1696,hebeganstudyingZhuXiConfucianismunderNakanoKiken(1667–1720).In1700,afterthedeathofhismother,heresignedfromhispostwithIzushidomaininordertopursuescholarshipmoredeeply,anactthatenragedhisemployer,whopunishedhimbyissuingabanonhisemploymentwithanydomainforthenext tenyears.HespentmuchofthistimeinKyotoandOsaka,anddevelopedhisskillscomposingpoetryinChineseandplayingtheflute(fue).In1711,afterhisbanwasover,hereturnedtoEdoandwasemployedasasecretarybythedaimyoofOyumidomain.InthesameyearhemetSoraiforthefirsttime,throughthein-troductionofAndōTōya,withwhomShundaihadearlierstudiedunderKiken.Shundai resignedhisnewpostafteronlyfouryears,anddidnotserveinanofficialcapacityagainfortherestofhislife,insteadpursuingscholarshipwhilereceivingincomefromoperatingaprivateacademy.

Shundai’sscholarshipwaswide-ranging,coveringsuchtopicsaspoliti-caleconomy,Confucianphilosophy,linguistics,andpoetry.HismainworkonpoliticaleconomyisKeizairoku(ARecordofPoliticalEconomy,1729),whichhesupplementedlaterwithabriefaddendumentitledKeizairoku shūi(GleaningsfromA Record of Political Economy,1744).InBendōsho(ATreatiseontheWay),writtenin1732andpublishedin1735,hearguesforthesupe-riorityofConfucianismoverShintoandBuddhism,apositionthatearnedhimmanyenemiesamongnativists.OtherofhisworksonConfucianphi-losophy includeSeigaku mondō (Dialogueon theLearningof theSages,1736),whichincludesdetailedexpositionsonsuchtopicsastherelation-shipbetweenhumannatureandtheWay,andRikukei ryakusetsu(AGeneral

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

OutlineoftheSixClassics,1745),whichdiscussestheroleofeachoftheConfucianSixClassics inthepracticeoftheWay.His linguisticsstudiesfocusespeciallyonhowtoreadChinesecharactersinJapanese,withoneofhismostimportantworksinthisfieldbeingWadoku yōryō(GuidelinesforReadinginJapanese,1728).HistwomaingeneralworksonliterarytheoryareBunron(ADiscourseonLiteraryWriting)andShiron(ADiscourseonPoetry),whichwerepublishedtogether in1748.Shushi shiden kōkō (TheFatalErrorsofZhuXi’sTransmissions on the Odes),writtenin1730andpub-lishedin1746,dealsmorespecificallywithrefutingZhuXi’sreadingofthe Book of Odes,andisprecededbyanintroductoryessayentitledDoku Shushi shiden(ReadingZhuXi’sTransmissions on the Odes).Commentsonpoetryalsoappearintwopiecesthatcoveravarietyofmiscellaneoustopics,Sekihi(PointingoutErrors),publishedin1745,andDokugo(SolitaryRamblings),whichremainedunpublished,butcirculatedwidelyinmanuscriptform.

OneofShundai’smostfamoustraitswashisdemandforstrictadherencetoritualproprietyinallmatters,whichledhimtosabotagehisownofficialcareerbyrefusingtoengagewithanybodywhodidnotconformtohisrigidstandards.AfterleavingservicewithOyumidomain,heannouncedthathewouldnottakeapostforlessthantwohundredkoku,whichhadbeenhisfather’sstipend,andwhichShundaideclaredwastheminimumnecessarytomaintaintheaffairsandritualsappropriatetoascholar-official(shi ).ThreedaimyowhoadmiredhisscholarshiparrangedtosupportShundaibysend-inghimrice,withouthisevenhavingtotakeupanofficialpost,butShun-daiwasoffendedwhenoneofthedaimyowrotealettertohimthatdidnotfollowtheprescribedformsofsalutation,andendeduprefusingthericeasaconsequence.Inanevenmoreshockingexample,afterthepublicationofKeizairoku,Shundairefusedarequesttopresentacopyofittotheshogun,onthegroundsthattherequesthadbeenmadethroughaninappropriateintermediary.2Hisdifficultpersonalitycontributedtoacontentiousrela-tionshipwithSorai,andhewasalwayssomethingofanoutsiderwithinSorai’sschool,evenmoresoafterSorai’sdeath,whenShundaienteredintoaheatedrivalrywithNankaku.3

Inverydifferentways,then,bothNankakuandShundai shiftedawayfromthepoliticalengagementthatSoraihadseenas theproperapplica-tion of Confucian learning.They instead retreated into idealizedworldsoftheirownmaking,inNankaku’scasebyconstructingaliteraryandaes-theticsphereremovedfrompolitics,andinShundai’sbycreatinganimageoftheConfucianscholar-officialthatwastoorigidandpuristtosurvivean

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

engagementwithreality.AlthoughShundaidid,aswewillsee,developapragmatisminhiswritingsonpoliticaleconomy,hedidsobydeclaringtheimpossibilityofpracticingConfuciangovernmentinthesocietyofhisday,astancethatcanbecontrastedwithSorai’soptimisticfaithinthepotentialtorevivetheorganiccommunitythathebelievedwasmadepossiblethroughtheinstitutionsofthesages.ThemoreskepticalattitudesofbothNankakuandShundaitowardSorai’svisionofConfucianculturearereflectedintheirliterarythought,Icontend,inaquestioningofthenotionofauthenticityinpoetry.Soraihadbeenabletoacceptunproblematicallythatauthenticemo-tionscouldbeexpressedthroughimitativemodesofcomposition,anideathatwaspartofabroadertendencyofhistoseeConfuciancultureasculti-vatinghumannaturewithoutcomingintoconflictwithit.BothNankakuandShundaisubjectedthenotionofauthenticitytogreaterscrutiny,though,withNankakurespondingbyembracingtheideaofpoetryasfiction,andShundaitakingtheoppositeapproach,demandingthatpoetrybereturnedtoauthenticitysothatitcouldplayitsproperroleinConfuciangovernance.

Nankaku on Poetic Elegance

Inaletter,Nankakusumsuphisapproachtocomposingpoetry:“ThewordsIusehavealreadybeenusedbytheancients,andtheconceptionsIexpresshavealsobeenexpressedbytheancients.WhenItrycomparingmyownpo-etrywiththepoetryoftheancients,theyaresosimilarthatitisdifficulttotellthemapart.ItislikethisnotbecauseIimitatetheancients,but,rather,becausemyveryselfisaproductoftheirwritings.”4TheideaexpressedhereofthetransformationoftheselfthroughthestudyandinternalizationofculturalmodelsissimilartowhatwehaveseeninSorai.NankakudiffersfromSorai,though,inthathedoesnotdiscusspoetryasawaytogainaccesstotheauthenticemotionsofpeoplefromallelementsofsociety.Instead,hepresentspoetryassomethingexplicitlyfictional,andarguesthattheclassicalChinesepoeticcanonthatbothheandSoraiidealizeissimplyanexpres-sionoftheculturedworldofaneducatedelite,ratherthanawindowontoabroadersocialreality.

InNankaku sensei tōka no sho,Nankakuemphasizeshowpoetryneedstobeelegant,andmaintainacertaindistancefromtheordinaryandevery-day.Hedescribes thisonthe levelof linguisticexpressionbydrawingadistinctionbetweenelegant( ga)andvulgar(zoku)language,writing,“Be-ginningwiththeSixClassics,elegant languageisallembellished,andis

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

notthelanguageinordinaryuseinthecommonworld.”5Asexamplesofvulgarlanguage,helistsstatutes(ritsuryō),collectedsayings( goroku),tex-tualexplanationsincolloquiallanguage(chokkai ),popularhistoricaltales(engi ),andfictionaltales(shōsetsu)(p.49).Heexplainsthatthestudyofvulgarlanguageisausefuladjuncttothestudyofelegantlanguage,asvul-garlanguageallowspeopletounderstandthecustomsofChinainmoredetail,aswellashelpingthemgraspwhatmakeselegantlanguagedistinc-tive.Hewarns,though,againstthedangersofstudyingvulgarlanguageex-clusively,andarguesthatitisonlypeoplewhoalreadyhavesomelearningwhoshouldstudyvulgarlanguage(p.50).Hedescribeselegancenotonlyintermsoflanguage,butalsoinrelationtoemotions,givingahistoryofChinesepoetryinwhichthepoetryofdifferentperiodsisjudgedbasedonwhetheritexpresses“elegantemotions”( fūga no jō).HeseestheseelegantemotionsasexistinginpoetryfromtheearliesttimesuntilthelateTang,whenpoetrybecameexcessivelydetailed,andbegantoveertowardthenar-rowrationalismofSongpoetry(p.58).HeseesthisprocessofdeclineashavingbeenreversedintheMing,althoughhecautionsthatnotallMingpoetryisthesame,andsaystostudyonlyMingpoetrythattakesaftertheTang,areferencetotheAncientPhraseologymovement(p.65).

Toillustrate“elegantemotions,”Nankakuwrites,“Forexample,whenpartingfromafriend,werecallthepleasuresthatwehavehadandlamentthesorrowsthatwillfollowourparting,andtogetherwithourfriendweshed tearsand speakofourpathos (aware). In theeyesof thoseof theSongandlater,attunedonlytothestudyofprinciple,suchbehaviorap-pearslikethatofundisciplinedwomenandchildren,butinrealitythesearetheemotionsofelegantpeople( fūjin no jō)”(p.59).Thereferencetothe“emotionsof elegantpeople” (in the same sectionhealso expressesthisasthe“emotionsofpoets”[shijin no jō])suggeststhattheemotionsexpressedinpoetryarethoseofaculturedelite.Thisideaisreinforcedbyhowhedescribestheseemotionsassomethingthatdonotcomenaturally,butneedtobelearnedandinternalizedthroughstudy:“Atfirsttheemo-tionsofelegantpeoplewillbeveryunclear,anditwillcertainlybedifficulttomakethemone’sown.Thereforeitisgoodtostartbytakingaftertheancients”(p.61).Heconnectsthiscultivationspecificallytothefigureofthegentleman(kunshi)whenhewrites,“Allpoetryand literarywritingarethewordsofgentlemen,sotheyarenotsomethingforcommunicatingtocommonmenandwomen....Theyaretrulythewordsofgentlemen,anditislikewisegentlemenwholistentothem.”6Heevengoessofaras

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

torepudiatetheideathattheOdesprovideaccesstotheemotionsofthecommonpeople,commenting,“Whatdoes itrefertowhen[the“GreatPreface”]speaksof‘chantingtheinbornnatureandemotions’and‘puttingprimacyonpatterning’(Ch.wen,Jp.bun)?Theserefertotheintentionsofgentlemen.Howcouldtheybethesongsofruralvillages?”7

ForSorai,theusefulnessofpoetrytorulerswastiedtoitsabilitytopro-videawindowontotheemotionsofthegoverned,aknowledgeofwhichheconsiderednecessaryforthepracticeofhumanegovernance.It isnotsurprising,then,thatNankaku’sabandonmentoftheideaofpoetryasadepictionofauthenticemotionalitywasaccompaniedbyaretreatfromthekindsofpoliticalclaimsSoraihadmadeforpoetry.ForSorai,thepresenceofbothculturalformsandnaturalemotionsinpoetryreflectedhisviewoftheConfucianWayaspoliticalpractice,inwhichthecultureofthesagesmustinteractwiththenaturalrawmaterialthatitworksupon.Nankaku,though,movesawayfromSorai’sviewofpoetryasencompassingbothnat-uralandculturalelements,insteadmakingpoetryintosomethingpurelycultural,goingsofarastosaythateventheemotionsexpressedinpoetryareculturalconstructs.

NankakudoescarryonSorai’sideaofpoetryasatoolforbondingto-getheracommunityofsimilarlyeducatedelitegentlemen,butunlikeSoraihedoesnotinsistthatthegentleman’sliteraryandartisticaccomplishmentsbecombinedwithgovernmentservice.Heinsteadlooksdownonserviceinanofficialpostasa“vulgar”(zoku)activity,andthusincompatiblewiththegentlemanlyideal.AfterleavinghispostwiththeYanagisawahousein1718,hewroteinalettertoAndōTōya,“Youalwayssaythatofficialservice(kan)isavulgarthing,andnowIhavecometothesameconclusion....Lettingourhairhangfreelyandsittingwithlegsoutstretched,inareveriewewillforgeteachotherontheriversandlakes,andafterthatwewillmoreandmorecometorealizehowvulgarwasourdraggingofofficialrobesinfor-merdays.”8Nankakualludesheretothe“Dazongshi”(GreatandVenerableTeacher)chapterofZhuangzi,inwhicharatherun-ConfucianConfuciusappearsinconversationwithhisdisciples,wherehepraisestheDaoistWayasahigherlevelofunderstandingthanthatprovidedbyhisownphiloso-phy.Regardingthosewho“paynoattentiontoproperbehavioranddisre-gardtheirpersonalappearance,”Confuciussays,“Suchmenastheywanderbeyondtherealm;menlikemewanderwithinit.”9Helaterdeclares,“Fishthriveinthewater,manthrives intheWay.. . .Forthosethatthrive intheWay,donotbotheraboutthemandtheirliveswillbesecure.Soitis

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

said,thefishforgeteachotherintheriversandlakes,andmenforgeteachotherintheartsoftheWay.”10Nankaku,then,issuggestingthathisaban-donmentofservicewill leadhimintoahigherrealmthanthemundanestricturesofproprietywouldallow,anattitudeinstarkcontrasttothatofShundai,whoserefusaltoservewasmotivatedbyaquestforapureradher-encetoConfucianritualthanhethoughtpossiblewithinthecompromisedenvironmentofanofficialpost.

Nankaku’suseofpoetrytocreateacommunityunitedthroughaworldoffictionaleleganceischaracteristicofthebunjin,atermthatcanbetrans-latedas “literati”or “peopleofculture,” and that isused in the contextoftheTokugawaperiodtorefertoeducatedindividualswhoturnedtheirbacksoncontemporarysociety,insteadusingpoetry,painting,andotherelegantpursuitstocreatealternativeworldsinwhichtheycouldcraftnewidentitiesandcommunities.11BunjinculturebecameespeciallyprominentinJapanduringthelateeighteenthcentury,andrepresentativebunjinin-cludethepainterandhaikaipoetYosaBuson(1716–1783),TakebeAyatari(1719–1774),famousparticularlyforhispoetryandfictionalprosewritings,andthepainterIkenoTaiga(1723–1776).12Whilebunjinwerebynomeansall followersofSorai, they sharedwithhiman interest in the formativepower of culture,while restricting, aswe sawwithNankaku, the socialsphereinwhichsuchcultureismeanttoholdsway.

Nankaku’s Poetry in Chinese

ManyofNankaku’spoemsfollowpracticesthatwesawinSorai’spoetryinChapter3.Forexample,Nankakupresentsafictionalvignettebasedona traditional yuefu topic inhis five-character quatrain “Chōandō” (TheChang’anRoad):13

躍馬長安道 GallopingalongtheChang’anroad春風向冶遊 Inthespringbreezes,headingtothebrothels五陵花落尽 InWulingtheblossomsarescattered公子不知愁 Buttheyounglordknowsnosorrows

Muchlikethe“SongaboutaYoungMan”topic,anexampleofwhichwesawfromSoraiinChapter3,the“Chang’anRoad”topictypicallydepictsawealthy,pleasure-seekingyoungman.InNankaku’spoem,thisassocia-tion is strengthenedby thereferencetoWuling,anarea in thenorthofChang’anthatwashometomanyaristocratsduringtheWesternHan.The

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

Tangshi xuancontainsthefollowingpoemonthe“Chang’anRoad”topicbyChuGuangxi(fl.742):“Crackinghiswhiponthewaytothedrinkinghouse/Splendidlydressed,heamuseshimselfatthebrothel/Althoughhespendsamillioninasingleinstant/Nonegranthimawordspokenwithtruefeeling.”Nankaku’spoemalsoshowssimilaritiestoLiBo’s“SongaboutaYoungMan”#2:“TheyoungmanofWuling,eastof thegoldencity/Silver-tippedsaddleonawhitehorse,traversingthespringbreezes/Step-pingacrossfallenblossoms,offsomewhereforamusement/Withlaughterheenters thedrinkinghouseof thewomen fromthewest.”LikeSorai’s“SongaboutaYoungMan”poem,Nankaku’s“Chang’anRoad”providesafictionalcharacterforpoetandaudiencetoidentifywith,andallowsthemtoimaginethemselvesasmembersoftherulingclassofChina’spast.

Inoneofhismostfamouspoems,theseven-characterquatrain“Yoru,bokusuiokudaru”(GoingdowntheSumidaRiveratNight),NankakutakesthemundaneworldofEdoandtransformsitintoanotherworldlysetting:

金龍山畔江月浮 OnthebanksbyGoldenDragonMountain,themoonfloatsontheriver

江揺月湧金龍流 Thewaterisrippled,themoonspringsforth,thegoldendragonflowson

扁舟不住天如水 Myskiffkeepsmoving,skyandwatermerge両岸秋風下二州 Autumnwindsonbothshores,Ifloatdownbetween

thetwoprovinces

“Kinryūsan”(GoldenDragonMountain) isapoeticnameforMatsuchi-yama,asmallhilllocatedwithinthegroundsofHonryūinintheAsakusaKannontemplecomplex,onthewestbankoftheSumidaRiver.ThefinallinereferstohowtheSumidaRiverformstheboundarybetweenMusashiandShimōsaprovinces.NankakudrawsontwopoemsfromtheTangshi xuan;thesecondlineborrowsfromtheline“Themoonspringsforth,thegreatriverflowson,”inDuFu’s“Lüyeshuhuai”(WritingMyFeelingswhileTravelingatNight),andelementsofNankaku’spoemalsooverlapwithLiBo’s“Emeishanyuege”(SongontheMoonatMountEmei):“AtMountEmei, the autumnhalfmoon / Its light reflectson thePingqiangRiverandfollowsitscurrent/AtnightIdepartQingqiandheadfortheThreeGorges/Ithinkofyoubutcannotseeyou,floatingdowntowardYuzhou.”BymediatinghisdescriptionofcontemporaryEdowithpoetryfromtheChinesepast,NankakuaffirmstheculturalauthorityofChina,whilealso

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

suggestingthatothercountriescan,byassimilatingthemselvestotheproperculturalnorms,participateinChinesecivilization.

Inthenextpoem,theseven-characterregulatedverse“Hitonokyōniyukuookuru”#2(SendingSomeoneofftotheCapital#2),NankakumapsancientChinaontomodernJapanmoreexplicitlybycomparingKyototothecapitaloftheZhoudynasty:

好向西京試遠游 Makeyourwaytothewesterncapitalonyourdistantjourney

巍巍文物満宗周 TheflourishingartifactsofculturefilltheZhoucapital前王清廟迎琴瑟 Inthepureandstillancestraltempleoftheformer

kings,theyplaylutesandzithers中士明堂擁冕旒 IntheIlluminedHall,themiddleofficialssurround

theoneswearingcrowngems正朔従来臨万国 Therulerissuesthecalendarasalwaystothemany

provinces干城猶自錫諸侯 Hechargesthefeudallordswithdutiestoprotectthe

land請看永鎮南山色 Observethecolorofthesouthernhills,longatpeace不改千秋古帝州 Unchangedforathousandyears,intheancient

imperialcapital

“PureandStillAncestralTemple”(Mao#266)isthetitleofthefirstpoeminthe“Zhousong”(HymnsofZhou),acategorywithinthe“Song”(Hymns)sectionoftheBook of Odes.AnotherOdesreferenceisthephrase“southernhills,”whichisusedinthepoem“Tianbao”(HeavenProtects;Mao#166)asasymboloflongevity.TheIlluminedHallwasapalacebuildingwheretherulercarriedoutaffairsof state in theZhoudynasty.TheZhouwastraditionallyseenasatimeofidealgovernment,andthehistoricalmodelsprovidedbyZhougovernmentwereparticularly important to the Soraischool.NankakufollowsthisideabydescribingtheritualsofZhougovern-mentinidealizedterms,fromtheelegantmusicofthesagestotheruler’sperformanceofactsthroughwhichhisauthorityissymbolicallymanifested,suchasthepromulgationofthecalendar.ThecomparisonofKyotowiththeZhoucapitalistransparentlyfictional,though,especiallyinthedescrip-tionofitasapoliticalcenter,whichdidnotreflectanyactualadvocacyonNankaku’spartfortherestorationofimperialrule.

Nankaku’suseoffictionintheabovepoemssuggestsadesiretoescapeintoalternativeworlds,andmanyofhisotherpoemspresentmoreexplicitly

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

escapistideals,especiallyhismanypoemsthatdrawupontheworksofTaoQian(365–427),whomNankakuvaluedforhisidealsoffreedomandsim-plicity,aswellashisenthusiasmforusingalcoholasameansofliberation.AnexampleofapoemthatreferencesTaoQianistheseven-characterregu-latedverse“Kyookōhokuniutsusu”(MovingtotheNorthoftheCity):

十載衡門赤水西 Fortenyearsmyhumblegatehasstoodwestoftheredriver

移居仍自傍幽溪 Ihavemovedhouse,andstillamwithinthesecludedvalley

犬鶏不隔知窮巷 Thenearbydogsandchickensknowtheshabbystreets燕雀相随安旧棲 Swallowsandsparrowsfollowalong,yetroostinmy

formerhome欲避風塵難遠跡 Iwanttoescapethedustoftheworld,butitishardto

avoidcompany羞栽桃李易成蹊 Iamchagrinedthatbyplantingpeachesanddamsons,

thepathhasbecomeeasytopass只憑春樹漸遮断 Ifthespringtreeswouldjustgraduallyblockitoff定似花源使客迷 Itwouldsurelybelikehowtheblossomspring

confoundeditsvisitor

The“redriver”mentionedinthefirstlinereferstotheAkabaneRiverinthenorthernpartofEdo.ThispoemdrawsespeciallyonTaoQian’s“Taohua-yuanji”(RecordofPeachBlossomSpring),whichtellsofhowafishermanwandersthroughapeachgroveandfindsautopiansocietymadeupofthedescendantsofpeoplewhohadfledthechaosofanearlierdynasty.Afterreturninghomehetriestofindhiswaybacktotheworldhehaddiscov-ered,butdespitecarefullymarkinghisway,heisunabletofinditagain.InthefinaltwolinesofNankaku’spoem,then,thespeakerisexpressinghisdesiretobeclosedoffinanisolated,idealworld.Nankaku’sborrowingofspecificwordsandphrasesreinforcestheidealofreclusion.Thewordusedfor“humblegate”comesfromapoemintheBook of Odes,itselfcalled“TheHumbleGate”(Mao#138),thatdescribesthepleasuresofthesimplelife,andthesoundsofdogsandchickensarementionedindescriptionsofidealsocietiesinboth“PeachBlossomSpring”andtheDao de jing(chapter80).Thereferencetoplantingpeachesanddamsonsalludestoasaying,“Withpeachesanddamsons,evenwithoutsayinganything,apathwillnaturallyform,”meaningthatapersonofvirtuewillattractadmirersevenwithoutseekingthemout.Nankakuisnotnecessarilyboastingofhisownvirtue

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

here,though,asthephraseissimplyawayofdescribinghowpeoplehavecometoinvadehisprivatespace,andofsettingupthereferenceto“PeachBlossomSpring”thatfollowsinthenexttwolines.

Anotherpoemthatmakesreferencetoutopianidealsistheseven-characterregulatedverse“Kajitsunokankyo”(IdlenessonaSummerDay):

夏日清風臥草堂 Onasummerday,lyingdownamidstthecoolbreezesinmythatchedhut

無端牽睡到羲皇 Ichancedtodriftofftosleep,andcameuponEmperorFuXi

思玄昔夢崑崙上 Ponderingmysteries,longagoIdreamtofthesummitofMt.Kunlun

遺世還遊華胥郷 Leavingtheworldbehind,IamusemyselfinthelandofHuaxu

窓下寤来仍撫枕 Wakingupbythewindow,Ileanonmypillow庭陰浴罷更移牀 Ibatheintheshadowsofthegarden,andmovemybed暑天不厭昏時促 Ipaynomindasthewarmdaygiveswaytothe

gatheringdusk回首園林已夕陽 Turningmyheadtowardthetreesinthegarden,the

sunisalreadysetting

ThefirsttwolinesareareferencetoTaoQian’s“YuziYandengshu”(Me-morialforMySonYan):“Ilaydownbeneaththenorthwindow,andaf-terthecoolbreezecameuponmeforsometime,IthoughtmyselftobeEmperorFuXi.”Thephrase“ponderingmysteries”alludestoapiecefromtheWen xuanentitled“Sixuanfu”(FuonPonderingMysteries),byZhangHeng(78–139).ThedreamworlddescribedinNankaku’spoembeginswiththelegendaryEmperorFuXi,whowassaidtoruleoveranidealsocietyofArcadiansimplicity.ItthenmovestothemythicalMt.Kunlun,whichwasassociatedwiththemysticalandsupernatural.Finally,thespeakerarrivesatthelandofHuaxu,whichaccordingtotheLieziwasseenbytheYellowEmperorinadream,andisautopianlandwhoseinhabitantsarefreeofallgreedorselfishness,where“therearenoteachersandleaders;allthingsfol-lowtheirnaturalcourse.”14

NankakuissimilartoSoraiintakinganimitativeandallusiveapproachtopoetry,andhebasesthisapproachinaliterarycanonthatisalsolargelysharedbySorai.Nankakuisespeciallynoteworthy,however,fortheextenttowhichheusespoetryasawaytoconstructalternativeworldsandturnhisbackoncontemporaryreality.Poetry forSorai,even ifnotexplicitly

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

politicalincontent,wasmeanttobeintegratedintoabroaderprogramofculturaleducationdesignedtopreparemembersoftheelitetocarryoutthebusinessofgovernment,whichwastobebasedonthemodelsprovidedbythesagekingsofancientChina.Nankaku,though,whileusingthegovern-mentofthesagekingsasafictionaldevicetoelevatecontemporaryJapanaesthetically,doesnotaccompanythiswithanyprogramtotransformthemodelsofthesagesintocontemporarypoliticalpractice.Nankaku’saban-donmentofpolitics isalsoevident inhis frequentexpressionofescapistfantasies inhispoetry, includingthe idealizationofDaoist-inspireduto-pias.15Nankaku’spoeticsisnotwithoutasocialelement,ashisemphasisonclassicalnormsistiedtotheconstructionofacommunityofeducatedgentlemen,butthiscommunityisintheendaself-enclosedonethatavoidsengagementwiththebroadersocietyinwhichitissituated.16

Shundai’s Moral and Political Philosophy

ThebroadoutlinesofShundai’sinterpretationoftheConfucianWayareinheritedfromSorai.HeechoesSoraiwhenhebeginstheintroductiontoKeizairokubydeclaring,“TheWayofConfuciusistheWayoftheancientkings.TheWayoftheancientkings is theWayofgoverningtherealm.TheWayoftheancientkingsexistsintheSixClassics.”17AlsolikeSorai,heseesSongandMingConfuciansashavinglostthetruemeaningoftheWay:“WhenitcametotheSong,thelearningoftheChengsandZhuex-plainedtheWayofthesagesentirelyintermsofmethodsoftheheart....AtthesametimeasZhuXitherewasLuXiangshan[1139–1192],andthenintheMingtherewasWangYangming[1472–1529].Althoughtheirtheo-riesweredifferentfromZhuXi’s,theywerethesameinhowtheyfocusedonmethodsof theheart.Becauseof this, theWayof the sagesbecameobscured.”18CentraltoShundai’scriticismofSongandMingConfuciansishisbeliefthattheyaredeludedinseekingnormsintheself.AccordingtoShundai,“ritualandrightnessaretheWayoftheancientkings,andarenotsomethingthatisintheoriginalheartofhumans.”19BecausetheWayhas its originsoutsideof humannature, hewrites, “Confuciusdidnotparticularlyconcernhimselfwiththeinbornnature,andjustsawlearnedhabitsasimportant.”20ShundaiwasmorethanjustapassivetransmitterofSorai’sphilosophy,though,ashedevelopedsomeofhisteacher’sideasindirectionsthatdifferedinmeaningfulwaysfromSorai’soriginalformula-tionoftheseissues.

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

OneofShundai’sdeparturesfromSoraiishismorepessimisticviewofhumannature.OnthemostbasiclevelheagreeswithSoraithatitiswrongtodefinetheinbornnatureaseithergoodorbad,arguingthat“althoughMenciusandXunziareatoddswitheachotherintheirexplanationsoftheinbornnature,theyarealikeinviolatingtheintentionsofthesages.”21AswesawinChapter2,though,thisrefusaltodefinehumannatureaspurelygoodorpurelybaddoesnotpreventSoraifromassertingthatpeoplehaveacertaininnatedispositiontowardcooperation.Shundai,however,empha-sizesthenegativeaspectsofhumannature,describingtheworldbeforetheemergenceofthesagesasabrutalHobbesianstateofnatureinwhich“peo-plewerehumaninform,buttheirheartswerenodifferentfrombeasts,”22and“thestrongseizedthefoodandclothingoftheweak.”23TheConfucianWaythenappearsmoreasadisciplinarymechanismforsavingpeoplefromtheirworstinstinctsthanasthegentlynourishingforceenvisionedbySorai.

ThedifferencebetweentheirviewsofhumannatureisreflectedinhowShundaishowslessfaiththanSoraiintheabilityoftheWayofthesagestotransformpeoplefromwithin,insteademphasizinghowtheWayallowspeopletomaintainsocialharmonyevenintheabsenceofsuchatransfor-mation. Inametaphor thatShundaiuses todescribe the functioningofritual,hewrites,“Controllingthepeoplewithritualandrightnessislikeholdingbackwaterwitha levee.”24HisuseofthisimageistellingwhencontrastedwithhowSoraiemploysasimilarmetaphorinTaiheisakutoil-lustratethefutilityoftryingtocontrolpeoplewithlaws,withoutchangingtheunderlyingcustoms( fūzoku)throughwhichtheirbehaviorisgeneratedinthefirstplace.Soraiwrites,“Thisislikenotstoppingaflowofwateratitssource,andinsteadputtingaleveedownstream.Thewaterwillgrowhigherandhigher,andintheendtheleveewillsurelycollapse.”25FromSorai’sper-spective,Shundaiwouldappeartobesimplysettinguppiecemealmeasures,withoutgettingattherootoftheproblembychangingpeople’sattitudesandconsciousness.

ThesamelogicthatunderliesShundai’smetaphoroftheleveeappearsinhow,inSeigaku mondō,hefamouslydefinesthegentlemanaccordingtostrictlyexternalcriteria:“Onewhoupholdstheritualsoftheancientkingsinhisactions,andmakesuseoftherightnessoftheancientkingsinhan-dlingaffairs,andhastheappearanceofagentlemaninhisexternalaspect,iscalledagentleman.Thereisnoconcernforthestateofsuchaperson’sinter-nalheart.”26Itisthisabilitytoconceptuallyseparatehumanemotionsanddesiresfromtheactionsthatarisefromthemthatheseesasthekeytothe

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

superiorityofConfucianoverBuddhistmoralphilosophy.WhiletheBud-dha“eventookittobeasintohave[desirousthoughts]ariseintheheart,”heexplains,“intheWayofthesages,evenifonelooksatanother’swife,andthinksinone’sheartabouthowbeautifulsheis,andtakespleasureinherappearance,aslongasonedoesnotviolateritualthenoneisconsideredagentlemanwhoupholdsritual.Thisiswhatismeant[intheBook of Docu-ments]bythephrase‘withritualcontroltheheart’”(p.126).The“control”thatritualexercisesovertheheartdoesnotinvolveanyinnertransforma-tionoftheheart;theheart iscontrolledsimplytotheextentthatwedonotactonanyimmoraldesireswemayhave.27Itisthisdistinctionthatal-lowsShundaitocombineaseeminglypermissiveacceptanceoftherealityofhumanemotionswithastrongdemandformoraluprightness,arguingthat“tobewithoutemotionsisnottobehuman”(p.74),andthatthe“greatdesires[forfood,drink,andsex]arenodifferentbetweensagesandordinarypeople”(p.106),whileatthesametimewarningthatifpeople’strueemo-tions“arenotsuppressed,andarejustleftastheyare,thentherewillbenoendtochaosintherealm”(p.80).

Shundaidoes,however,seethefollowingofexternalnormsasultimatelyleadingtoaninternalizationofcorrectattitudes.HefollowsSoraiindefin-ing“genuineness”(sei /makoto)aswhen“theouterandinnerarematched”(p.99),andinseeingsuchastateasarisingfromtheinbornnature,aswellasfromhabitsthatare learnedtothepointwheretheybecomeasauto-maticastheinbornnature.Thefactthathumannatureisnotinherentlygoodorbad,though,andthatpeoplecanmoreoverlearneithergoodorbadhabits,meansthat“thereisgenuinenessinthegood,andthereisalsogenuineness in thewicked”(p. 101),makinggenuineness itself anorma-tivelyemptyconcept.Genuineness isonlyvaluablewhenpeopledotheproperthingsgenuinely,whichisthegoalofcultivationintheWay:“Theteachingsof the sagescome fromtheoutsideandenter into the inside.Whentheseteachingshavebeencompletelyabsorbed,thentheouterandinnerarematched.Thisisconsideredaccomplishment,andiscalledthe‘attainmentofvirtue’”(p.95).Shundai,then,isnotasunconcernedwiththeinternalasheappearsatfirstglance.Wecanseefurtherevidenceofthisinhow,despitehisstatementthattheWayofthesages“doesnotquestionwhethertheemotionsarevirtuousorwicked”(p.95),heargueselsewherethatthesagescreatedmusicinordertogiveordertotheemotions,“sup-pressingwhatisinexcess,aidingwhatislacking,andmakinghumanemo-tionsbeinkeepingwithcentralityandharmony.”28

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

ThedifferencebetweenhowShundaiandSoraiviewtheinternalizationoftheConfucianWayistoalargedegreeamatterofemphasis.Shundaiagrees that theultimategoal is tomaketheWaypermeateour interior,tothepointthatwedonotevenrecognizeitassomethingforeigntoourinbornnature,buthealsocallsattentiontohowit ispossibletofollowtheWayevenintheabsenceofsuchcompleteinternalization,whentheconflictbetweendesiresandmoraldutiespersists.Thisfocusonthein-ternalconflictspeopleexperienceinfollowingtheWaysuggestsacertainlossoffaithinSorai’soptimismregardingthepossibilityofre-creatingtheWayinTokugawaJapan.RatherthanseeingthetransformationofpeoplebytheWayasanautomaticprocessthatresultsfromimmersingthemintheproperinstitutionsofsagelygovernment,Shundaistressestheneedforindividual cultivation through intensepersonal effort.29 In thisway,histurntoamoreproblematicvisionofConfuciancultivationisaccompa-niedbyashiftfromsocietyasawholetotheindividualasthelocusofthiscultivation.30

ThisisnottosaythatShundaiisunconcernedwiththeapplicationofConfucianismtogoverningsociety,buthealsoarguesfortheneedtobeopen to non-Confucian methods of governance.31 The ideal society hedescribes inKeizairoku is very similar to that envisionedbySorai,withafeudal(ratherthancentralized)government,andafour-classsystemofsamurai,farmers,artisans,andmerchants.Hehasanagrarianfocus,argu-ingthatalthoughalltheclassesarenecessary,“inthetasksofthecommonpeoplethere istherootandtherearebranches; farmingistheroottask,andtheactivitiesofartisansandmerchantsarebranchtasks.”32Heiscriti-calofthepracticeofsamurailivingincastletowns,writing,“TheWayofgoverningthecommonpeopleisbasedinbeingattachedtotheland,”andcomplainingthatinhisownday,“theonlypeoplewhoareattachedtothelandarefarmers,whileallothersareseparatedfromtheland,andarelikeguestsataninn”(p.260).ShundaialsoechoesSoraiwhenheemphasizeshow“ingoverningtherealmandprovinces,inallmatterstheforemosttaskistoestablishinstitutions(seido)inallmatters”(p.248),andhowritualandmusicmovepeopleonamuchdeeperlevelthanmereverbalteachingsorlaws,sothat“theWayofritualandmusicishow[theancientsages]unitedtheheartsofthepeopleoftherealm”(p.33).

Whileheholdsuptheseideals,hearguesthatwhenitisimpossibletopracticetheWayofthesagesinitspureform,itisacceptabletomakeuseofotherWays, suchasLegalismandDaoism.InKeizairokuheexplains

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

thisbycomparingtheConfucianWaytothefivegrains,andotherWaystomedicines.Althoughnormallypeoplearenourishedbythefivegrains,hewrites,whentheybecomeilltheyneedtorelyonmedicines,whichachieveresultspreciselybecauseoftheirunbalanced,poisonouscharacter:

Suchmedicinesarenotthingsthatoneoughttoconsumeordinarily,buttheireffectivenessincuringillnessissomethingthatthefivegrainscannotachieve,sodoctorsmakeuseofthese.TheWaysofpeoplelikeLaoziarelikethis.TheyarenottheordinaryWayforgoverningtherealmandprovinces,butinlaterages,whenvariousillnesseshavearisenintheland,theWayspro-poundedbythevariousphilosophers,includingLaozi’snon-action,Mozi’suniversallove,andShenBuhai’sandHanfeizi’spunishmentsandlaws,allhavetheiruses.Whentheseareusedwell,theyareallgoodmedicines,andwillnotfailtocuretheillnessesofthecountry.(p.287)

AnexampleofthisishisqualifiedembraceofLegalism:“TheWayofLordShanguses laws inorder togovernthecountry, so it is calledLegalism.AlthoughitisatoddswiththeWayofthesages,itcanbeusefulingovern-inginlaterages”(p.220).Thisisbecauseeventhough“thegovernmentoftheancientkingsentruststhingstopeople,andnottolaws,”inlatertimes“itisverydifficulttofindtalent”(p.221).InthefinalbookofKeizairoku,hepresentsanevenmoreradicalpositionontheusefulnessof“medicines.”DescribingtheroleofDaoism,hewrites,“Withthenon-actionofLaozi,neitherthoseabovenorthosebelowcarryoutanyactions,andtheyleaveeverythingtothenaturalcourseofHeaven-and-Earth.Theydonotmeddleatallinmattersoftherealm,andjustletthingsruntheircourse.FromthepointofviewofConfucians, this seemsto lackhumaneness,but in factthisisnotthecase.ThisistheWayappropriateforadecayedage”(p.283).Laterhearguesthathisowntimeispreciselysuchanage:“Inthepresentage, sinceGenroku,boththesamuraiandthecommonpeoplehavebe-comeimpoverishedthroughouttherealm,andthevitalityofthecountryhasdecayed,sonowisatimewhenweshouldstopeverything,andentirelypracticenon-action”(p.287).33

InKeizairoku shūi,though,heusesthenotionof“medicines”inamorepositive,proactiveway.OnesectionofthistextisanaddendumtobookfiveofKeizairoku,whichdealtwithfoodandmoneyasthebasis fortheeconomy.ThespecificproblemtakenupinKeizairoku shūiistheimpover-ishmentofthesamuraiclass,whichheattributestothefactthattheyliveincitiesandareforcedtopurchasethingsinacurrencyeconomy.Ideallytheseproblemsshouldberesolvedthroughthecreationofinstitutions,without

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

which“customswilldecline,andthecountry’sfinanceswillbeinthered.”34Henotes,though,that“itisbeyondthepowerofasingledomaintotrans-formthe institutionsof theentirerealm”(p.300).Therefore,heargues,“justas inanemergencyadoctorcuresonly the symptoms,one shouldlookatwhat iscritical intheillnessofthepresent,andseekdeliverancefromthis”(p.301).Thewaytodothis,heproposes,isforthesamuraiclasstoearnmoneythroughtrade:“Whenitcomestotechniquesforamassinggold,nothingisbetterthantoprofitthroughtrade.Asafeudallord,toseekprofitthroughtradeisnottheoptimalpolicyforgoverningthecountry,butitisonetechniqueforfindingsalvationfromthecurrentemergency”(p.305).Specifically,headvocatescultivatingtheproductsthattheclimateandothercharacteristicsofaparticulardomainmakeitmost suitedfor,andtradingthesewithotherdomains.Whilehestillcastssuchactivitiesinsomewhatnegativeterms,heshowsagreaterwillingnessthanSoraitoflexiblyadapttheConfucianWaytorespondtotheeconomicandsocialchangesofhisday.

Thispragmatic approach to economicproblems endedupbecomingcentral to certain later thinkers inspired by Sorai, most notably KaihoSeiryō (1755–1817), who studied under Sorai’s disciple Usami Shinsui(1710–1776).ForSeiryō, trade isnot justanecessaryevil,a second-bestsolutionwhentheidealsocietyofthesagesisnotpossible,butisrathertheveryessenceoftheteachingsofthesages.InhisKeikodan(ConversationsaboutLearningfromthePast,1813),hearguesthatthedenunciationsofprofit(Ch. li,Jp.ri )byConfuciusandMenciusneedtobeunderstoodinthecontextofthechaosoftheirtimes,whenprofit-seekingwasgivingrise tovariousproblems.35Hemaintains that inapeacefulage like theTokugawa, though,profit isperfectlyacceptable.Hedescribes the rela-tionshipbetween rulersand subjectsasat roota relationshipofmarketexchange,inwhich“[rulers]givesalariestosubjectsandmakethemwork,andsubjectsselltheirlabortorulersandcollectrice”(p.222),andarguesthat“whenthecalculationsofbuyingandsellingareachievedtotheut-most,thentherealmwillbeinapeacefulageofthesages”(p.224).WhilesuchavisionissharplyatoddswithhowSorailamentedthedeclineofor-ganicfeudalsocialrelationshipsandtheirreplacementbyrelationshipsofmarketexchange,thisdoesnotstopSeiryōfromseeingSoraiasoneofhisintellectualforebears,praisinghimandAraiHakusekiforbeing“peoplewhoarguedbyputtingrealthingsintheforefront,”andfor“puttingmeth-odsofachievingprofitfirst”(p.230).36

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

Shundai on Poetry and the Confucian Way

MuchofwhatShundaihastosayaboutpoetryechoesSorai’sviewsontheroleofpoetryintheeducationoftherulingclass.Firstofall,heseestheOdesasprovidingamodeloftherefinedlanguageappropriatetothegentleman,writinginRikukei ryakusetsu,“ThewordsoftheOdesarecorrectandgentle,sothosewhostudythemnaturallyhavebeautifullanguageandattainthestyleofthegentleman.ThisiswhatConfuciusmeantwhenhetoldBoyu,‘IfyoudonotstudytheOdes,thenyouwillnotbefittospeak.’”37Hisexplana-tionofwhytheOdes,manyofwhicharetheproductsofcommonpeople,canservesuchapurpose,isthattheywerecreatedby“collectingthepoemsofthevariousprovinces,takingthemtotheMusicBureauoftheroyalcourt,andchoosing fromamongthemthosewhoseexpressionwasrefinedandnotvulgar.”38TheideathattheOdesliterallycontainthewordsofthecom-monpeopleisclearlydistinctfromNankaku’sviewthattheOdesareallthewordsofgentlemen,andalsosubtlydifferentfromSorai’sinterpretationoftheeditingoftheOdes,whichhearguesinvolvednotselectingasubsetofalargercorpusofsourcematerial,butactuallybeautifyingthephrasingofthepoems,albeitinawaythatdidnotcompromisetheircapacitytocommuni-catetheoriginalsentimentsoftheircreators.Shundai’sdifferencefromSoraihereisrelativelyminor,butittakesongreatersignificanceinlightofhow,aswewillseelater,ShundaiwasmuchmoreadamantthanSoraiabouttheneedforpoetrytobetrulyauthentic.

AnotherwayShundaiseestheOdesascontributingtotheeducationofthegoverningclassofgentlemen isby allowing them tounderstand theemotionsandexperiencesofpeoplefromalllevelsofsociety.Hedescribeshowpeople’semotionsdifferaccordingtotheirindividualexperiences,so-cialstatus,gender,andpositionwithinsuchrelationshipsasfatherandson,orelderandyoungerbrothers.TheOdesserve toovercome thesediffer-ences,heargues,becausethey“containallthemattersoftherealm,theex-ternalandinternalandpublicandprivatedeedsofeveryonefromtherulerdowntothecommonpeople.”39Shundaigivesparticularattentiontohowitisdifficultforpeopleofthehighestlevelsoftherulingclasstoknowtheemotionsofthelowerclasses,andhowpoetrycanhelptoovercomethisgapinknowledge:

Whenonelivesdeepwithinthepalace,howcanoneknowtheemotionsofcommonmenandwomen?Yetifoneblindlyissuesproclamationswithoutknowingtheemotionsofthecommonpeople,thentherewillbethingsthat

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

goagainsttheemotionsofthepeople,andwhenthisisthecasesuchorderswillnotbecarriedout.Thereforethosewhogovernmustmakeanefforttoknowtheemotionsofthepeople.Forthosewhooccupyaloftyplaceintherealm,andwhowanttoknowtheemotionsofthepeople,thereisnothingbetterthantostudypoetry.40

ThisisverysimilartotheideawesawinSoraithatpoetryallowsrulerstomovebeyondtheconfinesoftheirownsubjectiveexperience,whichmakespossiblenotonlyempathybutalsotheeffectivepracticeofgovernment.

ThisconcernforunderstandingtheemotionsofthegovernedispartofabroaderideaofShundaithatrulersneedtorespondtothedynamiccon-ditionsof society. In thefirst volumeofKeizairoku,he includeshumanemotionsamonga listoffourthingsthatneedtobeknowninordertogovern,theotherthreebeing“thetimes”(toki ),“principle”(ri ),and“force”(ikioi ).41Hediscusses“thetimes”intermsofthechangesinsystemsofpo-liticalorganizationthroughouthistory,particularlytheshiftsbetweenfeu-dalandcentralizedinstitutions,cautioning,“Ifyoudonotknow[ofthesechanges],andindiscriminatelytrytocarryouttheancientWaytoday,itwillclashwiththetimesandnotwork”(p.24).UnlikeZhuXi,Shundaidoesnotraise“principle”tothelevelofametaphysicalnorm,andinsteadseesitsimplyastheregularitiesexistinginthings.Anexamplehegivesofthisisthegrainofwood,andheexplainsthatallthingshavea“grain”thatisdif-ficulttocutagainst.Thisappliesnotonlytomaterialobjects,hegoeson,butalsoto“affairsoftherealm,”andhearguesthat“thepeople,nomatterhowlowlytheymaybe,willalwaysrefusetofollowgovernmentthatgoesagainstprinciple”(p.25).Hethendescribes“force”asatemporaryover-comingofordinaryprinciple,suchashowwaterputsoutfires,butasmallamountofwaterwillbeoverwhelmedbyalargefire,orhowwindgenerallyfansflames,andyetwillblowoutthesmallflameofacandle(pp.25–26).

Shundai describes human emotions in an analogous manner to thetimes,principle,andforce,inthatheseeshumanemotionsasarawstateofaffairsthatrulersneedtorespondtoinordertobeeffective,suchaswhenhecomments,“Inenactingmattersofgovernment,ifoneisinkeepingwithhumanemotionsthenitwillbeeasytogetpeopletofollow,whileifonerunscountertohumanemotions,thenthepeoplewillnotfollow”(p.26).Inhisdiscussionofhumanemotions,aswellasthetimes,principle,andforce,ShundaiechoesSoraiinemphasizinghowthenormsoftheConfu-cianWaycanonlybeputintopracticebyinteractingwithacomplexempir-icalreality.Whatsetsaparthumanemotionsfromtheotherelementsofthis

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

realityisthat“thetimes,principle,andforceareeasytoknow,whilehumanemotionsaredifficulttoknow;thereasonforthisisthathumanemotionshaveelementsthatlieoutsideofordinaryreasoning”(p.27).Whilethelikesofprinciplecanbeknownthroughthestudyofordinarybooks,hegoesontoargue,thecomplexityanddiversityofhumanemotionsdonotlendthemselvestosuchanalysis,andrequireinsteadthatpeopleputthemselvesintheplaceofotherstounderstandwhattheyfeel,somethingthatonlytheOdesmakepossible.

ShundaiattacksZhuXi’sreadingoftheOdesdirectlyinShushi shiden kōkō,whichconsistsofline-by-linerefutationsofspecificpassagesinZhuXi’sShi jizhuan,andinDoku Shushi shiden,whichdealswithZhuXi’scom-mentaryasawhole.Shundai isespeciallycriticalofZhuXi’sdivisionofpoemsintorightandwrong,whichisthebasisforreadingtheOdesinthemodeof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice.”Oneofhisobjectionstosuchareadingisthat“theOdeshavenofixedmeaning,soifyoutakethemtobeencouragementstovirtue,thenallthreehundredcanbeencourage-mentstovirtue,andifyoutakethemtobecondemnationsofvice,thenallthreehundredcanbecondemnationsofvice.”42ShundaialsoarguesthatZhuXidoesnotrealizethatwhenlewdnessisdiscussedinrelationtotheOdes,thisproperlyappliestothemusicoftheOdes,andnottheirlyrics:“Eventhepoemsofthe‘Zhounan’and‘Shaonan’sectionswouldbecomelewdmusiciftheyweresunginlewdvoicesandaccompaniedbylewdin-strumentalsounds.AndifweweretotakethepoemsofZhengandWei,andgivethemcorrecttones,thentheywouldbecomepropermusic.”43LikeSorai,hedoesnotdenythatcertainOdesmayhavelewdwords,butheseestheapplicationofmoraljudgmentstothewordsoftheOdesasadistortionoftheirrealfunction,whichistoallowustounderstandhumanemotions.

ThisdistinctionbetweentherolesofpoetryandmusicisrelatedtothebroaderpointthateachoftheSixClassicsplaysadistinctandnecessaryfunction,anideawealsosawinSorai.InadiscussionoftheroleoftheOdesamongtheSixClassics,ShundaicriticizesZhuXiforfailingtorec-ognizethateachClassichasauniqueuse,andforclaimingthatanyoneClassicissufficientforachievingtheWay,anerrorthatShundaisaysderivesfromtheBuddhistideathatenlightenmentcanbegainedthroughanyoneofthesutras:

SongConfuciansbelievethatifonemastersanyoneoftheSixClassics,thenthisoneClassicalone,withoutanyoftheothers,willbesufficienttoachieveeverythingfromcultivatingtheself,toorderingone’shousehold,togovern-

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

ingtheprovincesandrealm.SuchatheorycanbeseenintheprefacetoZhuXi’sShi jizhuan....ThisislikehowwiththosewhoestablishBuddhistsects,thosewhomakeuseoftheLotus SutrasaythattheLotus SutraexhauststhelawoftheBuddha,andthosewhomakeuseoftheKegon SutrasaythattheKegon Sutra exhauststhelawoftheBuddha.44

ShundaiactuallydoesnotseesuchanapproachasinappropriatetoBud-dhism:“ThelawoftheBuddhaisalawforgoverningasingleheart,soifonestudiesandmastersanyoneofthesutras,thiswillbesufficienttogoverntheheart.”45ForShundaitheConfucianWay,incontrast,needstobeabletogovernacomplexsocialrealitythatcanneverbereducedtoasingleprin-ciple,orbeachievedthroughtheoutwardemanationofasingleinwardlycultivatedheart.

Thisconcernthattherulingclassnotbecomeisolatedisalsoreflectedinhiscriticismofthosewhopursuepoetryattheexpenseofgovernment,retreatingintoaself-enclosedaestheticworldratherthanconfrontingtheproblemsoftheirsociety.AlthoughheseespoetryasanessentialelementinthecultivationoftheConfuciangentleman,hemaintainsthatafocusonpoetryalonedetractsfromsuchcultivation.InKeizairokuhewrites,“TheWayofthesageshasnopurposeotherthangoverningtherealmandprov-inces....Thosewhodiscardthisandfailtostudythesematters,insteadpassingtheirlivesoccupiedpointlesslywithliterarywritings,arenottruescholars.Theyarenodifferentfromthepractitionersofsuchminorartsasthelute,go,calligraphy,orpainting.”46WecanalsoseethisattitudereflectedinhisassessmentofDuFuinShiron.HesinglesoutDuFuasthebestoftheTangpoets,butexpressessomeambivalenceabouthimbecauseofhowhemadepoetryhissoleoccupation:“AlthoughDuFuisconsideredthesaintofpoetry,poetryisallhedid.Hespenthisentirelifewithoutengaginginanyotheractivities....Thereforehecannotescapebeinganarrow-mindedperson(kyokushi).Howcouldheaspire tobea ‘gentlemanwho isnotautensil’?”47Shundai’scommentonbeinga“gentlemanwhoisnotautensil”isacitationfromtheAnalects(II.12),andhisassessmentofDuFureflectsabeliefthattheConfuciangentlemanisdefinedthroughhisroleingovern-ment,sothateventhebestpoetsfailasgentlemeniftheyneverputtheirlearningtouseingovernmentservice.HeismakingthesecommentsatatimewhenSorai’sfollowershadlargelyturnedawayfromthestudyofgov-ernmentandtheeconomyinfavorofsuchpursuitsaspoetryandpainting,soheisdenyinghiscontemporariesthestatusofgentleman,andaccusingthemofhavinglostsightofthetruemeaningofConfucianscholarship.

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

Shundai on Music

Shundaiwasanaccomplishedflutist,andalsogaveconsiderableattentiontomusicinhisphilosophicalwritings.OnatheoreticallevelhisviewsonmusicaresimilartoSorai’s,inthathesituatesmusicamongthecreationsofthesages,andseesitashavingthepowertotransformpeopleinawaythatverbalteachingscannot.InRikukei ryakusetsuShundaidescribestheuniquefunctionofmusicbywriting,“Itismusicalonethatcanregulateandim-provetheheart;othertechniquescannotdothis.”48Thetransformativepow-ersofmusiccanworktowardeithergoodorbadends,though,andtheuseofmusicasacivilizingforcerequires,heargues,thatthismusicbe“propermusic”( gagaku)andnot“lewdmusic”(ingaku):“Whenpropermusicispracticed,thenthecustoms( fūzoku)ofthepeoplewillimprove,butwhenlewdmusicispracticed,thecustomsofthepeoplewillgrowworse.Thisissomethingthatisbeyondthepowerofpeopletocontrol.”49Itisbecauseofhowmusicfunctionsonalevelthatisbeyondourcontrol,then,thatitissoimportanttohavetherightmusicandnotthewrongmusic,withtherightmusicdefinedasthatcreatedbytheancientsagekingsofChina.50

Shundailocatestheoriginsofmusicinsungpoetry,butseesthemusicofthesagesasprovidinganormativecorrectnessthatisabsentfromspontane-ouslyproducedsong.HebeginsthesectionofRikukei ryakusetsuontheOdesbydrawingonthe“GreatPreface”todescribepoetryasthespontaneousout-burstinsongofemotionsinspiredbyourencounterswithexternalstimuli:“Poetryissomethingsung....Whenpeoplefeelinresponsetothings,inaccordancewithvariouseventstheyfeeljoy,oranger,orsadness,orpleasure,orlove,ordislike.Joy,anger,sadness,pleasure,love,anddislikearetheemo-tionsofhumans.Whentheseemotionsariseinside,theytakeshapeinwordsandarereleasedinthevoice.”51Hethenarguesthatthereasonthesagescre-atedmusicwastogiveordertothissong.AshewritesinDokugo:

Whenpeopleareborn,whiletheyarestillinfantstheycryout.Fromtheageoftwoorthreetheyscream,andfromtheageoffourorfive,evenwithoutbeingtaught,theyatsomepointlearnsongs,andchantclumsychildren’sditties.Thisisallnatural(shizen),aspeoplecouldnotgetbywithouthavingawaytoreleasetheirvoicestospeakoftheirsorrows....Butifthiswerejustleftasitis,thenitwouldnaturallytendtowardthevulgar,andendupde-scendingintodisgracefullylewdsounds.Theancientsagesforesawthisandcreatedmusic,sothatsonganddancecomforttheheartwiththerhythmofmusicalinstruments,allowingpeopletoletouttheirpent-upfeelingsofsorrow.52

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

MuchasSorai sees theConfucianWayasnurturingandcultivatingtheinbornqualitiesofhumans,whichwithout thisWaywould lackproperdirection,Shundaidescribesthemusicofthesagesasacivilizinginfluencethatelevatesnaturalsongandbringsitinlinewithanormativeworldofculturalvalue.

InRikukei ryakusetsuShundaigivesabriefoutlineofthehistoryofmusic,toldasthestoryofthegraduallossofthepropermusicofthesages.InthecaseofChina,hewritesthattheancientmusicofthesageswaslostbytheQindynasty(221–207b.c.),butthatelementsof itwerepreserveduntilthebeginningoftheSuidynasty(581–618),whenmusicchangeddrasticallyandtheancientmusicwaslostcompletely.JapanimportedChinesemusicpriortotheSui,heexplains,andinearlytimesinJapanpeoplefromalllevelsofsocietypracticedpropermusic.DuringtheKamakuraandMuro-machiperiods,though,newformsofmusicsuchasdengakuandsarugakuemerged,firstamongthelowerclasses,andthenspreadtothewarriorswhogovernedJapanatthetime.53Finally,helamentsthatinthemostrecenttimes (that is, theTokugawaperiod), lewdmusichas spreadcompletelyamongboththecommonpeopleandthesamurai.Thereisstillanoteofoptimisminthisnarrativeofthedeclineofmusic,though,inthatShundai(likeSorai)arguesthatbecausethemusiciansoftheimperialcourtinKyotohavepassedonthemusicoriginallyimportedtoJapanfromChinapriortotheSui,itispossibletogainaccesstotheremnantsofthesages’musicthroughthesecourttraditions.54

WhereShundaidepartsfromSoraimostsharplyisinhistranslationofthistheoreticalframeworkintoactualpoliciesforreformingsociety.WhileSorai had acknowledged the moral effects of music, this never featuredprominentlyinhispoliticalwritings.Shundai,however,showsadeepcon-cernfor thesocialdisintegration thathebelievedtobe theresultof im-propermusic.InDokugohelaunchesintoafull-scaleattackonthepopularmusicofhistime,declaring,“Amongthemanytypesoflewdmusicintheworldtoday,amonginstrumentsitistheshamisen,andamongsunggenresitisjōruri,thathavethelewdestsounds.”55Whileheseesboththeshamisenandjōruriasdefinitivelycutofffromthemusicofthesages,hedoescon-cedethatintheiroriginalformstheywerenotdeeplylewd,andonlybe-camesothroughaperiodofdeclineduringtheTokugawaperiod,inwhichtheGenrokuperiodrepresentsakindoftippingpoint,afterwhichboththeshamisenandjōruribecameirredeemablylewd.Heseesthepopularityofsuchdegradedformsofmusicasdirectlyrelatedtoadeclineinmoralsin

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

recenttimes:“Eversincethiskindofjōruribegantoflourish,therehavebeencountlesscasesoflasciviousrelationsbetweenmenandwomeninEdo.BythetimeoftheGenbunperiod[1736–1741],therehavecometobein-numerableincidentsofadultery,theftofothers’wives,andincestuousrela-tionships....Thisistrulytheharmfuleffectoflewdmusic.”56ThesolutionShundaiproposestothisistobanlewdmusic.Or,ifitisimpossibletobanitentirely,hesuggeststhatitsdamagecouldbeminimizedbylimitingitsperformancetooutcasts,andthusdrivingittothemarginsofsociety.57

Shundai’s Critique of Ancient Phraseology

Shundai’smaindeparturefromSorai’sliterarythoughtishiscriticismoftheimitativeapproachtocompositionderivedfromMingAncientPhraseology.WhileSoraihademphasizedthecapacityofpoetrytomanifestauthenticemotions,Shundai showsmuchmoreconcern for thepotentialways inwhichthisauthenticitycanbecompromised.InShiron, forexample,hetellsthehistoryofChinesepoetryasthestoryofagraduallossofgenuine-ness,andtheriseofpoetryasaspecializedprofession.ThisnarrativecanbecontrastedwithNankaku’s,whereitisthelossofpoeticelegance,whichheexplicitlyidentifiesasthepurviewofaclassofspeciallycultivatedpoets,thatheblamesforthedeclineofpoetry.

IntheThreeDynasties,Shundaibegins,“thosewhocomposedpoemsalwayshadthoughts;thosewhodidnothavethoughtsdidnotcompose.”58HedrivesthispointhomebyremindingusthatthereareonlytwoinstancesrecordedofConfuciusburstingintosong,andnorecordofanypoetryhav-ingbeenproducedbyanyofhisdisciples.IntheHan,hecontinues,therebegantobeprofessionalpoets,buttheywerelimitedinnumber,sothesitu-ationwasnotthatdifferentfromtheThreeDynasties.HearguesthatamoreimportantturncamewithCaoCao(155–220)andhissonsCaoPi(187–226)andCaoZhi(192–232),who“becausetheytookpleasureincomposingpo-etry,didnotwaittohavethoughtsbeforecomposing”(p.6).FromtheWei(220–265)andJin(265–420)dynastieson,hewrites,peopletookaftertheCaosandcomposedmoreandmorepoetry,adevelopmentthatculminatedinthefloweringofpoetryintheTang.

HegivesagenerallypositiveevaluationofTangpoetry, sayingthat itis“inspiredwithoutusingpoetictopics(dai ),andemergesoutofactualevents,andbecauseofthishasawondrousnaturalquality”(p.7).HepassesoverSongpoetryasbeingbeneathmention,andmovesontoMingpo-

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

etry(especiallythatofAncientPhraseology),whichhedescribesasartificialandforced,apaleimitationofthepoeticmodelsitstrivestoemulate.HesumsupthedifferencebetweenTangandMingpoetrywiththefollowingmetaphor:

Thepoetryof theHighTangis liketheflowersinthegardenof theem-peror.Therearepreciousspecimensofdifferentvarieties,andtheirbrilliancedazzlestheeye.ThepoetryoftheMiddleTangisliketheflowersinthegar-denofawealthyman.Althoughtheydonotattainthelevelofthoseoftheemperor’sgarden,theystilleachhavetheirparticularattractions.ThepoetryoftheLateTangislikewildflowers.Althoughtheydonotcatchtheeye,theyhaveanaturalbeauty.Allthreeoftheseareproducedbynature,anddonotrelyonhumanartifice.Mingpoetry,though,islikecutflowers.Althoughtheirbrilliancedazzlestheeye,theyarelackinginvitality.Thisisbecausetheyarecreatedthroughhumanartifice.(p.8)

TheMingpoetrythatheattacksherewasidealizedbytheSoraischool,soheisveryconsciouslybreakingranksonthispoint.Heinsists,though,thathisviewsarealogicalextensionofSorai’sphilosophy,declaringattheendofShiron,writtenelevenyearsafterSorai’sdeath,“Alas!IfMasterSoraihadlivedtenyearslonger,hesurelywouldhavecometodespiseMingpoetry....Iamnotestablishingdevianttheoriesthatgoagainstourteacher”(p.29).

HedevelopstheseideasfurtherinBunron,whereheemphasizestheneedforwritingtohaveanorganicwholeness,aqualityhefindslackingintheworksofAncientPhraseology.Describinghowtextsarebuiltupofprogres-sivelygreaterunits,hewrites,“Thosewhoproduceliterarywritingassemblecharacterstomakephrases,assemblephrasestomakechapters,andassem-blechapterstomakeawork.Allfourofthese[characters,phrases,chapters,andworks]havetheirmethods,andifanyoneofthesemethodsislacking,apieceofwritingwillremainincomplete.”59JudgingtheAncientPhraseol-ogywritersaccordingtothesecriteria,heconcludes,“Althoughtheirwrit-ingisnotwithoutcraft,theyonlyuseappropriatemethodswithwordsandphrases,andlackpropermethodsforchaptersandworks”(p.10).WhereAncientPhraseology falls short, then, is in thehigher levelsofunityre-quiredtocreatealiterarywork,afailurethatheattributestoitscollage-likeapproachtocomposition.

Heseesthislackofunityasultimatelycausedbytheabsenceofanunder-lying intentionality on thepart of thepoet.Describinghow characters,phrases,sections,andchaptersareintegratedinproperlycomposedliteraryworks,heexplains,“Asingleintentionalitypermeates[theseworks],sothey

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

havenogaps.Thiscanbecomparedtothehumanbody.Althoughithasjointsandarticulations,itsbloodvesselsarenotdisordered,asasinglelifeforcepermeatesthem”(p.10).Hedoesnotobjecttoemulatingthepoetryofthepast,butdrawsontheideasofHanYu(768–824)toarguethatpeopleshouldmodelthemselvesonthemethodologiesofthesepoets,ratherthanjustcopyingthewordsoftheirpoems.Hecomparesthisacceptableformofimitationtoweavingclothonaloomusedbypeopleinthepast;althoughyouareusingthesamemethods,youarecreatingsomethingnewanddis-tinctlyyourown.HecomparesthemethodsofAncientPhraseology,incon-trast,toclothingthat ismadebysewingtogetherfragmentsofdiscardedgarments(p.7).Aswithhismetaphorofthesinglelifeforcethatanimatesthebody,hisemphasishereisontheneedforaliteraryworktoconstituteanorganicwhole.

WhenweconsiderShundai’scritiqueofAncientPhraseologytogetherwithhisassertionsabouttheimportancetorulersofknowinghumanemo-tions,wecanseethefundamentallypoliticalcharacterofhisconcernforauthenticity inpoetry.Ifpoetrybecomesaself-enclosedworld,referringtonothingbutpoetictraditionsthemselves,thenitcanprovidenoinsightintotheempiricalrealityofhumannature,knowledgeofwhichisessentialtotheformulationofeffectivegovernmentpolicies.ThefactthatShundaiassociatesthelossofgenuinenessinpoetrywiththeriseofthespecializedpoetalsoconnectshiscritiqueofAncientPhraseologytohispoliticalphi-losophy,asheviewsspecializedpoetsasproblematicspecificallybecauseofhowtheypursuepoetryattheexpenseofgovernmentservice.

Conclusion

AsdiscussedintheIntroduction,MaruyamaMasaoclaimsthatSoraimadetheConfucianWaysomethingentirelypoliticalandexternal,thusliberat-ingtheinterior,emotionallivesofpeople,whichfoundexpressioninlitera-ture.HethenexplainsthesplitintheSoraischoolbysayingthatShundaiinheritedthepoliticalandexternalhalfofthisdivision,andNankakutheinteriorandemotionalhalf.WhiletheideaofasplitbetweenpoliticsandliteratureintheSoraischoolisvalidonthelevelofthegeneralemphasisofShundai’sandNankaku’steachings,Iseeitasmisleadingtoframethisintermsofaphilosophicaldistinctionbetweenpoliticsasthesphereoftheexternalandpublic,versusliteratureasinterior,privateemotionality.OnethingthatMaruyama’sanalysis failstoaccountfor isthat itwasactually

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

Shundaiwhoinsistedmoststronglyonemotionalauthenticityinpoetry,whileNankakuopenlyembracedpoetryasfiction.Inthisway,Nankaku’sundoubtedlygreaterinterestintheactivityofcomposingpoetrywasinfactaccompaniedbyamovementawayfromMaruyama’scharacterizationofpureliteratureastheexpressionofnaturalemotions.

Shundai’s greater emphasis on genuine emotions makes more sense,though,whenweconsidertheinterdependenceoftheSixClassicsinSorai’sphilosophy.ThisinterdependencemeansthatthevalorizationoftheOdesasauthenticemotionalexpressionisinseparablefromtheirpositionwithinabroadermatrixofculturalpracticesdesignedto“bringpeacetotherealm”;rulersaremeanttousetheOdestounderstandtheemotionsofthepeopletheyrule,andthisunderstandingiscompromisedwhentheemotionsex-pressedintheOdesarenotauthentic.TheideathattheSixClassicsperformdistinctbutcomplementaryfunctionsiswhatmakesitpossible,forexam-ple,forShundaitocombineastrongdemandthatpoetryexpressauthenticemotionswithanequallystrongdemandthatdeviantemotionsbebroughtundercontrolwithpropermusic.Inthisway,the“modern”demandforemotionalauthenticity is intertwinedwith“premodern” ideasof thepo-liticalusesof literature,andof theneedforpeople’sprivateemotions tobesubjecttogovernmentregulation.WhenweturntoNankaku,itmakessensethathisisolationoftheOdesfromtheotherculturalpracticesrepre-sentedbytheSixClassicswouldbeaccompaniedbyanabandonmentoftheideathattheOdesmustrepresenthumanemotionalityinitsunadulteratedstate.ForNankaku,theOdesandotherpoetryplayanimportantroleintheformationofcommunity,butthisisacommunityofliteratiwhoareunitedbytheelevatedsentimentsand linguisticelegancetheyhave internalizedthroughthestudyandcompositionofpoetry.Suchliteratikeepalooffromsocietyatlarge,unlikeSorai’sandShundai’simageofthegentleman,whoismeanttoachieveacertainelegancethroughpoetry,butalsoapplythistogoverningtherealm.

AkeyaspectofSorai’sphilosophyhadbeenhis focuson societyasawholeas theproperfieldinwhichtopracticeConfucianism,anideahepresentedinoppositiontothefocusonindividualcultivationthathebe-lievedtobeaflawofSongandMingConfucianism.WithNankakuandShundai,though,thereisashiftbacktomoreindividual-centerednotionsofcultivation,whichtheypresent in thecontextofa skepticismtowardthepracticeofConfuciangovernmentasenvisionedbySorai.Nankakure-jectsgovernmentservice in favorofconstructingafictional self through

t h e c r i s i s o f a u t h e n t i c i t y

poetryandotherelegantpursuits,whichhedefinesasthepurviewofaneducatedelitethatremainsatadistancefrommundanesociety.Shundai,whileacknowledgingSorai’smodelofgovernmentasanideal,seesthisidealasimpossibletopractice,andinsteadfavorsamoreflexibleandpragmaticapproachtogovernment,while insistingonarigidadherencetoConfu-cianritualinone’spersonallife.Inthefollowingchapterswewillseehoweighteenth-centurynativists reintegrated,albeit inadifferent formfromSorai,manyoftheelementsofhisphilosophythathadbecomefragmentedwithNankakuandShundai,presentingpersonalcultivationthroughpoetryas seamlesslyconnectedtobroadersocialends,aunity theyachievedbyimaginingtheJapanesepastasaworld inwhichemotionalauthenticity,classicalpoeticelegance,andpropergovernmentaremutuallyreinforcingratherthancontradictory.

f i v e

Kamo no Mabuchi and the Emergence of a Nativist Poetics

WhenTokugawaConfucianscholarsdiscussedpoetryinrelationtopoliti-calandethicalphilosophy,theydidsoforthemostpartwithreferencetopoetry inChinese.A similar interest in thephilosophical significanceofpoetrycanbeseen,however,ineighteenth-centurydiscourseonwaka.1AgrowingnumberofscholarsinthisperiodidealizedJapanesecultureandtheJapanesepast,andrejectedChineseculture,especiallyConfucianism,whichtheychargedwithcorruptingJapanandleading itastray fromitsoriginal virtue.They sawwakanotonly as thepurest formof the Japa-nese language,butalsoasuniquelysuitedtotheexpressionofauthenticemotions,andarguedthattheemotionalcommunicationmadepossiblebywakagaverisetoaformofharmoniouscommunityuniquetoJapan.ThesescholarsalsoarticulatedtheirviewsinoppositiontoearlierinterpretationsoftheJapaneseclassics,particularlythoseproducedbytheschoolsofaris-tocraticcourtpoetsinKyoto.Thischapterexamineshowanewdiscourseonwakaemergedintheeighteenthcentury,andhowthisdiscoursedefineditselfinrelationshiptobothConfucianismandcourtpoetics.ItfocusesontheworkofKamonoMabuchi,whowasapivotalfigureinthesystematiza-tionofideasaboutwakaanditsrelationshiptoJapaneseidentity.WhilethenotionofwakaasdistinctivelyJapanesewasnotnew,eighteenth-centurywriterslikeMabuchitookthisideainanewdirectionwiththeirtheoriesof

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

wakaasavehiclefortheformationofinterpersonalrelationshipsmarkedbycompletetransparency,whichtheybelievedwouldspontaneouslygiverisetothevirtuesthatConfucianismunsuccessfully triedto impose throughartificialrulesandrationalisticmodesofthinking.

MabuchiwasborninHamamatsuintoafamilywithcloseconnectionstoShinto;althoughhisimmediatefamilyappearstohavebeenengagedinfarming,theyweredescendedfromtheKamofamilythatservedasheredi-tarypriestsattheKamoshrineinKyoto(Mabuchi’sfamilynameatbirthwasOkabe,buthelaterchangedittoKamo).Hisfamilyassociatedwithlocalshrinepriests,andtheseconnectionswereinstrumentalindeterminingthecourseofhiseducationandscholarlycareer.In1707hestartedlessonsinreadingandwritingwithSugiuraMasaki(1690–1754),nieceoftheShintoscholarKadanoAzumamaro(1669–1736)andwifeofSugiura Kuniakira(1678–1740), a local shrine priest in Hamamatsu who was a student ofAzumamaro.TheSugiurahousewasacenterofscholarlyandliteraryac-tivityinHamamatsu,withafocusonShintostudiesandwaka.MabuchireceivedinstructioninChinesestudiesfromamemberofSugiura’scircle,WatanabeMōan(1687–1775),whohadstudiedtogetherwithDazaiShundaiunderNakanoKiken.2AtapoetrygatheringatKuniakira’shousein1722MabuchimetAzumamaroforthefirsttime,andhegraduallydeepenedhisrelationshipwithAzumamaro,formallyenrollingashisstudentin1728andgoingtoKyototostudywithhimonamorelong-termbasisin1733.

Azumamaro’sintellectualheirs,hisyoungerbrotherKadanoNobuna(1685–1751) and his adopted son (Nobuna’s biological son) Kada noArimaro(1706–1751),werelivinginEdoatthetime,andMabuchimovedtheretojointhemin1737afterAzumamaro’sdeath.MabuchihadlecturedontheHyakunin isshu(HundredPoemsbyaHundredPoets)atAzuma-maro’shousein1735,andcontinuedlecturingontheJapaneseclassicswhileinEdo.InadditiontotheKadafamily,otherimportantcontactsMabuchimadeinthisperiodwereKatōEnao(1692–1785),asamuraiemployedbythemachibugyō(Edocitymagistrate),andMurataHarumichi(?–1769),awealthymerchant.BothofthesemenhadaninterestinclassicalJapa-neseliterarystudies,andtheirsons,KatōChikage(1735–1808)andMurataHarumi(1746–1811),bothtutoredbyMabuchifromayoungage,wouldbecometwoofthemostinfluentialinheritorsofMabuchi’steachingsafterhisdeath.

Mabuchi’s reputationasa scholarwasgrowing inthisperiod,as evi-denced, for example, by his taking on his first formal student, Ono

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

Furumichi (1697–?), in 1738, andhis servingas judge forapoetrycon-test atArimaro’shouse in 1741. In 1742heproducedhisfirst studiesofpoetry, Man’yōshū Tōtōmi uta kō (Reflections on theTōtōmi Poems intheMan’yōshū) andKokin wakashū sachū ron (AStudyof theMarginalNotes in theKokinshū).Hewrote the secondof these in response to arequestfromTayasuMunetake(1715–1771),thesecondsonoftheshogunTokugawaYoshimune,andMunetake’spatronagewastoplayakeyroleinadvancingMabuchi’scareer.AtthetimeArimarowasservingMunetakeasanofficialscholarofJapanesestudies(wagaku goyō),andin1742hewrotea textentitledKokka hachiron (EightEssaysonJapanesePoetry)which,asdiscussedbelow,gaverisetoadebatebetweenArimaroandMunetake,withMabuchieventuallycalled in toprovidehisownviews. ItbecameclearthatMabuchihadmoreincommonwithMunetakethanArimarodid,andin1746ArimaroresignedhispostandwasreplacedbyMabuchi.Mabuchicarriedoutvariousscholarlyprojects forMunetake,aswellascompletinganumberofimportantworksofhisownconception,includ-inganinfluentialworkonmakurakotoba(poeticepithets)entitledKanjikō(ReflectionsonPoeticEpithets,1758),andtextualcommentariessuchasMan’yō kai(ExplanationoftheMan’yōshū,1749),Ise monogatari ko’i(An-cientMeaningsoftheTales of Ise,1753),andGenji monogatari shinshaku(NewInterpretationoftheTale of Genji,1758).

MabuchiretiredfromservicewithMunetakein1760,andthenextde-cade,untilhisdeathin1769,washismostproductiveintermsofscholarlyoutput.Healsocontinuedtobeactiveteachinginhisprivateacademy,whicheventuallyenrolledoverthreehundredstudents.Hisstudentscamefromawidevarietyofbackgrounds,includingsamurai,merchants,Bud-dhistmonks,andShintopriests,andaboutathirdofthemwerewomen.Hismostsignificantworksfromthe1760sareKa’ikō(ReflectionsontheMeaning of Poetry, 1764) and Niimanabi (An Introduction to Learn-ing,1765),bothtreatisesonJapanesepoetry,Kokuikō(ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry,1765),whichattacksConfucianismandarguesforthesuperiorityofJapan’snativevalues,Man’yōkō(ReflectionsontheMan’yōshū,1768),anothercommentaryontheMan’yōshū,Noritokō(Re-flectionsonNorito,1768),astudyofnorito(Shintoprayers),andGo’ikō(ReflectionsontheMeaningofLanguage,1769),alinguisticstreatise.Hiswritings from this periodwere important ingiving a systematicphilo-sophical expression tohis viewsonancient Japan,withMabuchi argu-ingthatancientJapaneselanguageandliteratureweremanifestationsofa

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

nativeJapaneseWay,whichmadepossibletheidealgovernmentandsoci-etythatheclaimedhadexistedinancientJapanandcouldberevivedinthepresent.3

The Kokkahachiron Debate

ThequestionoftherelationshipofpoetrytopoliticsandethicswasatthecoreofthedebateoverArimaro’sKokka hachiron,aworkthatgaverisetooneofthemostsignificantliterarycontroversiesoftheeighteenthcentury,orforthatmattertheTokugawaperiodasawhole.Thisdebatebeganintheeighthmonthof1742,whenMunetakeaskedArimarotowriteatrea-tiseexplaininghisviewsonwaka.ArimarorespondedwithKokka hachiron,which,asthetitleimplies,consistsofeightsections,eachdealingwithadifferentaspectofpoetry,entitled“Kagenron”(OntheOriginsofPoetry),“Gankaron”(OnTakingPleasureinPoetry),“Takushiron”(OnSelectingWords),“Hishiron”(OnWordstobeAvoided),“Seikaron”(OnCorrectingErrors),“Kankaron”(OnCourtNobles),“Kogakuron”(OnAncientLearn-ing),and“Junsokuron”(OnPoeticStandards).Arimaro’sworksparkedacriticalresponsefromMunetake,whoeventuallycalleduponMabuchiforhisopinionontheissuesbroughtupinKokka hachiron, leadingtoase-riesofrebuttalsandcounterargumentsbetweenthethreefiguresthatlasteduntil1746.4

TheKokka hachirondebatecontinuedanddevelopedtwotendenciesthathadbeengainingprominenceindiscourseonwakathroughouttheearlyTokugawaperiod.Oneofthesewas theideathatwaka istheexpressionofauniversalhumannature,andtheotherwasthebeliefthatwakafromthepast canbeunderstoodby anyonewhoapplies theproper scholarlymethodologies.ThesecondoftheseassertionswasspecificallyachallengetotheKyotocourtnobles(tōshō)whohaddominatedtheworldofwakauptothattime.Thesefiguresbelongedtovariouspoetichouses,suchastheReizei,Karasumaru,andAsukai,whichconstitutedexclusivesocietieswithinwhichwakawascomposedandtaught.Thesehouseshadtheirori-ginsinthecompetingheirstothemedievalpoetFujiwaranoTeika(1162–1241),andeachofthehousesclaimedtobetheorthodoxbearerofTeika’steachings.Theyonlydeignedtoteachpoetrytoanexclusivecircleofinsid-ers,andknowledgeofpoetrywaspassedonfrommastertodiscipleintheformofjealouslyguarded“secrettransmissions”(hiden).5

Intheseventeenthcenturyanumberofscholars,suchasTodaMosui

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

(1629–1726)andKeichū(1640–1701),begantoquestionthevalidityofthesesecrettransmissions,arguingthatknowledgeofpoetrycouldbepursuedbyanyonewhoappliedthepropertechniquesofphilologicalanalysis,andthattherewasnoneedtoreceivetheesotericteachingsofanysecretivepoeticcult.Atthesametimetherewasagrowthininterestintheeighth-centuryMan’yōshū,whichfelloutsidethepurviewofthecourtpoets’secretteach-ings.Akeyfactor inthedevelopmentofthesenewscholarlyapproacheswasthespreadofprintinginJapanfromthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury,whichallowedtextsonpoetrytocirculateindependentlyofthein-stitutionalstructuresandmaster-disciplerelationshipsofthepoetichouses,creatinganewreadingpublicthatsoonbegantomakeitsownclaimstointerpretiveauthority.6

ArimarocarriedontheskepticalattitudeofMosuiandKeichūtowardthecourtpoets,complaininginKokka hachironaboutthosewho“arbitrarilyusetheircourtierstatustolorditovercommoners,”7and“donotunder-standthenatureofpoetry,andsoconsider it somethingforcourtiers tocompose,andthatcommonerscouldn’tpossiblygrasp”(p.555).Criticizingthesecrettransmissionsofpoetichouses,hewritesthatinjudgingpoetry,“itisunnecessarytorefertowhowetakeourfoundertobe,orwhatschoolwebelongto;instead,wecanpursuethissimplythroughnaturalprinciple(tōzen no ri )”(p.549).8Arimaro’sattacksonthecourtpoetsweremetwithapprovalbybothMunetakeandMabuchi,butotherofhisassertions,es-peciallyabouttheroleofpoetryinpromotingpropersocialandpoliticalrelationships,weremore controversial.The ensuingdebate on this issuesupplementedthenewphilologicalapproaches towakawithavarietyofmoresystematicaccountsofitsphilosophicalsignificance,explainingitsroleinpromotinggoodgovernmentandcementinginterpersonalrelationships.

a r i m a r o o n t h e p o l i t i c a l u s e l e s s n e s s o f p o e t r y

ThesectionofArimaro’sessaythatwouldgeneratethegreatestdisagreementwastheoneentitled“OnTakingPleasureinPoetry.”Arimaroopensthissectionbyarguing,“Becausepoetrydoesnotbelongamongthesixarts,itisbynatureofnouseingoverningtherealm,norisitofanyaidineverydaylife”(p.540).9HespecificallytakesaimattheprefacetotheKokinshū,inwhichthefunctionofpoetryingovernanceisdescribedintermsofitsabil-ityto“effortlesslymoveHeaven-and-Earth(ametsuchi),causeinvisiblespir-itstofeeldeepemotions,moderatetherelationsbetweenmenandwomen,andcalmtheheartsoffiercewarriors.”10Arimarocountersthisbysaying,

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

“WhentheprefacetotheKokinshūspeaksof‘movingHeaven-and-Earth’and ‘causingspirits to feeldeepemotions,’ this comes frombelieving inbaselesstheories.Althoughpoetrymaydosomethingtocalmtheheartsoffiercewarriors,howcoulditdothisaswellasmusic?Andthoughpoetrymaymoderatetherelationsbetweenmenandwomen,doesitnotalsoservetoencouragelicentiousness?”(pp.540–41).Therefore,heconcludes,“po-etryisnotsomethingtoberevered”(p.541).The“baselesstheories”thatArimarospeaksofareareferencetothe“GreatPreface”totheBook of Odes,andwhiletheKokinshūprefaceislessstrictlymoralthanthe“GreatPref-ace”initsdefinitionofthesocialandpoliticalfunctionsofpoetry,Arimarocriticizestheideathatsuchfunctionsshouldbeattributedtopoetryatall.11

Arimarodoesgrantthatpoetrycanserveasapersonalconsolation,andheconnects this ideaspecifically to the sungcharacterofpoetry.Hebe-ginsthesectionentitled“OntheOriginsofPoetry”bydeclaring,“Poetryissomethinginwhichwordsarelengthenedandtheheartiscleared”(p.533),andsaysthat“trulyifonedoesnotsingitisimpossibletocleartheheart”(p.534).Hearguesthatalthoughpoetryoriginallycameintobeingassong,aprocessofhistoricalchangehasresultedinthetransformationofpoetryfromsonginto“playingwithwords,”withacorrespondinglossinitscapac-itytoconsoletheheart.AlreadyinthetimeoftheMan’yōshū,“thereweresomepoemsthatweresungandsomethatwerenotsung;thosethatwerenot sung justplayedwithwords” (p. 539).By the timeof theKokinshū,“apart fromthePoetryBureauSongs(Ōutadokoro no uta)andtheSongsof theEast (Azuma uta),noneof thepoemsappears tohavebeensung”(p.539).12AftertheKokinshū,hewrites,poetrybecamemoreandmoreoc-cupiedwithskillfulexpression,andfinallythestyleofthethirteenth-centuryShinkokinshū“broughttoanextremethisfloweringbeauty”(p.540).

Arimaro’s literaryhistoricalnarrative is thestoryof the lossofacer-tainauthenticity,buthedoesnotportraythisinnegativeterms,ortrytoturnbacktheclockandrecoveranidealizedpast.Heacceptsthefactthatinhisown timepoetryconsistsof“playingwithwords,”andextols theShinkokinshū as themostappropriatepoeticmodel,writing,“There aremanyscholarswhoconsidertheShinkokinshūtobeexcessivelydecorativeandtolacksubstance,butIdisagree.Literarylanguageshouldbynaturevaluedecorativeness.ThereforeIcannotseewhyonewouldmakethecriti-cismofthispoetryasbeingtoodecorative”(p.564).Todaypoetrymainlyfunctionsasasourceofpleasure,heargues,andwhenwecomposeaskillfulpoemthisgivesusakindofpleasuresimilartothatwegetfrom“produc-

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

ingagoodpainting,orwinningagameofgo”(p.541).Hedoesconcedethat there isgoodreasonfor scholars todevote themselves topoetry,as“poetryaloneuses thenatural soundsofourcountry” (p.541),preserv-ingsomethingpurelynativeevenafterallotheraspectsofJapaneseculturehavebeeninfluencedbyChina.Hecriticizesthosescholars,though,whoelevatewaka to thestatusof“theWayofJapan”(Shikishima no michi ),arguingthat“notonlydoesthisfailtorecognizethenatureofpoetry,butitisanabsurditythatcomesfromnotunderstandingthemeaningoftheterm‘Way’”(p.542).13

t h e d e b a t e b e t w e e n a r i m a r o a n d m u n e t a k e

InKokka hachiron yogen(MyViewsontheEight Essays on Japanese Poetry,1742),hisrebuttaltoArimaro’spiece,MunetakebeginshiscritiqueofAri-maro’spositiononthesocial functionofpoetrybyassertingthatpoetrybelongswithintherubricofmusic,andthereforeofthe“ritualandmusic”(reigaku)thattheancientChinesesagekingsemployedtoruletherealm:

It is said thatKingShunstrummed thefive-stringed lute, sang the song“Nanfeng”(SouthernWind),andgovernedtherealm.ItistrulytheWayofpoetrythatservestomoderatepeople’shearts.Thereforeinthereignsofthesagekings,theyvaluedritualandmusic.Withinthecategoryofmusicareincludedpoetry/song,14dance,stringedinstruments,windinstruments,andpercussioninstruments.Thereforesplendidpoetryaidspeople,andbadpoetryharmspeople.15

MunetakeacknowledgesArimaro’spointthatpoetryisnolongerjoinedtomusic,butheusesZhuXi’stheoryof“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”(Ch.quanshan cheng’e,Jp.kanzenchōaku)toarguethatpoetrycanexerciseapositivemoralinfluenceevenintheabsenceofanymusicalquali-ties:“However,whenwerecognizethatbadpoemsarebad,thentheycanserveasanadmonition.Thereforeevenafterthedeclineofpropermusic,thesage[Confucius]editedtheBook of Odesinordertoguidepeople.Eventhoughinlatertimesthesemaynotbesung,theyarevastlysuperiortoor-dinarylanguageinmoderatingpeople’shearts”(pp.99–100).Forpoetrytoservethisfunction,Munetakestressesthatitmustbegenuine,aqualitythathefindslackinginChinesepoetryoftheTangdynastyandlater,aswellasinrecentJapanesepoetry.HeseesJapanesepoetryasinherently“notaspro-foundinmeaningasthatofothercountries,”butstillseesitashavingsomevalueinthatit“hasarhythmthatcangentlycommunicatewithpeople’s

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

hearts”(p.100).ThelatestJapanesepoetry,however,“iscomposedwithoutanysignificanceatall,simplytakingpleasureinbeingunusualanddecora-tive,sothatintheenditcannotserveasaguidetogoodandbadatall,andevenleadstolicentiousness”(p.100).ThisistheverykindofpoetrythatArimarohadpraisedinhisjudgmentoftheShinkokinshū,butMunetakeinsteadseeksareturntothepoetryoftheMan’yōshū,sayingthat“byfollow-ingtheancientstyle,andlearningfromtheancientstyleofothercountries,poetrycanbemadeintosomethingthattrulyaidspeople”(p.100).

ArimarorespondedtoMunetake’scriticismsinKokka hachiron sairon(ARestatementoftheEight Essays on Japanese Poetry,1742).HiscriticismofMunetake’sattempttoincludepoetryamongthe“ritualandmusic”oftheancientChinesesagekings isthatMunetakefailstodistinguishbetweenthewordsofpoetryandthetoneswithwhichitwasonceaccompanied,anargumentthatechoesthecommentswesawOgyūSoraiandDazaiShundaimakeinChapters3and4:16

Thereasonthesagesvaluedritualandmusicisthattheyusedritualtoregu-late,andmusictoharmonize.Thereisnothingbetterthantoneswhenitcomestoharmonizingthehumanheart.Thereforewhenpeoplespeakofmusicitisitstonesthattheyreferto,andpoetry/songanddanceaccompanythismusic.Withsuchpoetry/songaswell,itisthetonesthatmatter,andnotthewords.Andyetwhenyouspeakofsplendidpoetryaidingpeople,andbadpoetryharmingpeople,you seemtobe indicating that it is thewordsthatdothis.17

InhisoriginalessayArimarohadalreadymadethepointthatmusicandpoetryplaydifferentfunctions,buthereheclarifiesfurtherwhatkindofrelationshippoetryhastomusic.FromhisoriginalstatementonthisissueitseemedthatArimarosawmusicsimplyashavingnothingtodowithpoetry,butherehesaysthatmusicindeedisconnectedtosungpoetry.Hemain-tains,however,thatthisconnectionliesinthetonalaspectofsungpoetry,notitswords,thusupholdingtheideathatpoetry,takeninthesenseofthewordsalone,hasnosocialorethicalrole.

k a m o n o m a b u c h i ’ s r e s p o n s e t o k o k k a h a c h i r o n

InMabuchi’sfirststatementonKokka hachiron,hisKokka hachiron yogen shūi(GleaningsfromMy Views on the “Eight Essays on Japanese Poetry,”1742),hedescribesthreebasicwaysinwhichpoetryaidsgovernance.Firstofall,poetrycanbeusedtomakepeoplewillinglysubmittotheruler,afunction

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

thatreliesontheabilityofpoetrytoreachdeepintopeople’sheartsandchangetheirbehavior.Poetry“notonlycomfortsone’sownheart;theheartoftheonewholistensistouchedaswell.”18Heseespoetryandmusicfunc-tioningsimilarlyinthisregard:“Ingovernmentitisimportanttomakethepeoplespontaneouslyfollow.ThereforewhenthesagesgovernedinChina,theytookintoconsiderationthatwhichcannotbereachedbyprincipleandrules,andsocreatedmusic,anduseditamongthehouseholdsandamongthefeudalstatesinordertochangethecustomsofthepeopleandharmo-nizetheirhearts”(p.117).19Thesecondfunctionheattributestopoetryisitsabilitytoallowtherulertoknowthefeelingsoftheruled.Theruler“usuallydoesnotdirectlywitnesstheconditionswithinsocietyandthevariousprov-inces,muchlessisheconversantwiththeemotionsofthepeople”(p.117),butbecausepoetrydirectlyexpressesemotions,itcanserveasasubstitutefortheruleractuallyobservingthesituationoftheruledwithhisowneyes.Thethirdfunctionofpoetryhelistsisitsabilitytoregulatepeople’semo-tions.Hearguesthatpeoplenaturallyhaveatendencytolettheiremotionsgetoutofcontrol,leadingtostrifeandchaos,butthatbycomposingandlisteningtopoetrythesedesirescanbemoderated(pp.117–18).Whatallofthesepolitical functionsthatMabuchidescribeshaveincommonisthattheyarerootedinthespecialrelationshipofpoetrytoemotionality,whichheseespoetryasabletobothexpressandcontrolinawaynotpossiblewiththeSongConfucian“principle”thatMunetakesawasattherootofpoetry.

In one of his later contributions to the debate over Kokka hachiron,Futatabi kingo ni kimi no kotaematsuru fumi(AnotherReplytoTayasuMu-netake,1744),MabuchiframeshispositioninrelationtothetwoparadigmsforreadingtheOdesthatwerediscussedinChapter1,the“oldcommentar-ies”(kochū),inotherwordstheMaotradition,andthe“newcommentaries”(shinchū), that is Zhu Xi’s Shi jizhuan (Collected Transmissions ontheOdes).20Mabuchiseesbothoftheseasoffering inadequatesolutionstotheproblemposedbythedisappearanceofthemusicoftheOdes:“TheoldcommentariesareexcessiveintheirglorificationoftheOdes,leadingtomanythingsthataredifficulttobelieve.Thenewcommentariesclingto the ideaofprinciple in everything, somanyof their explanationsdonotmakesense,andruintheflavorofthepoems.”21AswesawinChap-ter1,theCorrect SignificancesawthemusicoftheOdesasguaranteeingper-fecttransmissionoftheintentionsinscribedintheOdes,andarguedthatoncethismusicwaslost,itsfunctionwastakenoverbytheMinorPrefaces,whichexplainedthemoralimportofeachOde(thegoaloftheseprefaces

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

specificallybeingtoshowthatalloftheOdes,eventheseeminglyimmoralones,wereinfactexpressionsofmorallycorrectintentions).Inthepassagequotedhere,MabuchichargesthattheseprefacesdistorttheOdesbypro-vidingexaggeratedandimplausibleclaimsabouttheirmoralsignificance.WealsosawinChapter1howZhuXiattemptedtodoawaywiththeneedfortheseprefacesbyclaimingthatallhumanspossessthe“principle”withinthemselvesthatallowsthemtomakemoraljudgmentsabouttheOdes,butMabuchirejectsthisviewaswell.

LikeArimaro,MabuchicriticizesZhuXiforattemptingto locatethemoralfunctionofpoetryinitssemanticratherthanitsmusicalqualities:“Inancienttimeswhenpeoplediscussedpoetrytheydidsoonlyinrelationtothetones,butSongConfuciansspeakofitwithrespecttothewords.Itseemsthattheywereforcedtorelyonthewordsbecausetheancientmelo-dieshavebeenlost.Thereforewhatemergedfromthiswasverydifferentfromwhatthemeaningofpoetrywasinancienttimes”(p.155).MabuchigoesbeyondArimaro,though,inmakingtheadditionalcriticismthatZhuXifailstoseethathumanexperiencecannotbereducedtoamorallyde-fined“principle”:“WhenitcametotheSongConfucians,theydiscussedpoetryentirelywithreferencetoprinciple,andsaidthatitwassolelyforthepurposeofapprovingvirtueandchastisingvice.Buteventhoughprincipleiswhatgenerallyholdsswayintheworld,theworldcannotbegovernedthroughprinciplealone.Poetryspeaks thetruth(makoto)ofhumans,socanweexpectthatalloftheserealemotions( jitsujō),expressedjustastheyarefelt,willbeinkeepingwithprinciple?”(p.155).Whatpoetryisuniquelysuitedtoexpressing,hewrites,are“irrepressibleyearnings”(warinaki negai ):“Ifsuchanunbearableheartwerejuststatedoutright,whowouldtakeittohavepathos(aware)?Itisbysingingwithgentlewordsandwithpathosinthevoicethatitispossibletogooutsideprincipleandmakehumanemo-tionsfelt”(p.155).ZhuXi,aswesawinChapter1,didnotclaimthattheemotionsexpressedinpoetryhadtobeinkeepingwithprincipleinorderfor thispoetry toserveanethical function.Hedid,however,argue thatemotionsshouldbecultivatedsothattheyharmonizewithprinciple,andthatpoetrythatexpressesemotionscontrarytoprincipleisonlyusefultotheextentthatthereaderofsuchpoetry,byexercisingthepowerofmoraljudgmentrepresentedbytheoriginal inbornnature,recognizes that thispoetryviolatesprinciple.Mabuchi’sdifferencefromZhuXi,then,isnotsomuchthatZhuXifailstorecognizethathumansareemotionalbeings,butratherthatheusesamorallydefinedprincipleasthenormaccordingto

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

whichemotionsaretoberegulatedandjudged.Mabuchidoesseepoetryashavingvariousregulativefunctions,buthedefinessuchregulationasoc-curringonthelevelofemotionalityitself,notthroughtheconformityofemotionstoamoralprinciplethatexistsoutsideofthem.

Mabuchi on Poetry and the Ancient Way

Inaseriesofworksheproducedinhisfinalyears,MabuchiarticulatedavisionofanativeJapaneseWaythroughwhichhebelievedancientJapanhadbeengovernedprior to the introductionofcorrupting foreignvaluesystems,especiallyConfucianism.HesawthisJapaneseWayasrootedinthenaturalworkingsofHeaven-and-Earth,whichhecontrastedwiththehumanlyconstructedcharacterofConfucianism.Moreover,hemaintainedthatJapaneseformsofliteraryexpression,aswellastheJapaneselanguageitself,weremanifestationsofHeaven-and-Earth,andthatitwasthroughlit-erature,specificallyancientJapanesepoetry,thatpeopleofthepresentcouldregaintouchwithJapan’sAncientWay.HeexpressedthisphilosophyofanaturalJapaneseWayinoppositiontotheSoraischool’sviewoftheWayasaculturalconstruct,aswellaschargingthattheSoraischoolobscuredJapan’snativevirtueswith itsdoctrine thatonlyancientChina,andnotJapan,couldserveasasourceofnorms.

m a b u c h i ’ s k o k u i k ō a n d t h e c r i t i q u e o f c h i n e s e c u l t u r e

InKokuikō,MabuchidepictsJapanesecultureasinharmonywiththework-ingsofHeaven-and-Earth,andcontrasts thiswithConfucianism,whichheseesastrappedwithinthelimitationsinherentinhumancreationsandhumanreasoning.OnewayMabuchicharacterizesthisqualityofConfu-cianthoughtisbyhowitreducesthefluidityofnaturalphenomenatoasetofrigidcategories.Hewrites,“Justasintheprogressionoftheseasons,springgraduallybecomesmildandsummerlikewisegraduallyturnshot,theworkingsofHeaven-and-Eartharegradualandsmooth.If itweretobeastheChinesesay,onthefirstdayofspringitshouldsuddenlybecomewarmandon thefirstdayof summer immediately turnhot.”22Healsodepictsthiskindofreasoningassappingtheworldofvitality:“Totrytodefinethingsunequivocallyintermsofprincipleistotreatthemasdeadobjects.Itisthethingsthatoccurnaturally(onozukara),inaccordancewithHeaven-and-Earth,thatarealiveandactive”(pp.377–78).

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

HearguesthatthevastnessofHeaven-and-Earthmakesitunfathom-ablebythehumanintellect,andattributesthespreadofConfucianisminJapantoitsseductivepromiseofaneasilycomprehensibleworldview:“ThelearningofChinaisfromthebeginningsomethingcreatedbyhumansonthebasisoftheirownhearts,soitisfabricatedwithsharp,squareanglesandiseasytograsp.TheAncientWay(inishie no michi )ofourImperialLand is roundand smooth inaccordancewithHeaven-and-Earth,anditcannoteasilybedescribedexhaustivelywiththemeaningsandwordsofhumans, so it isdifficult forpeopleof later times tounderstand it”(p.384).Heiscriticalofthehumantendencytotrytounderstandthingsthrough reasoning,arguing that this alienatespeople from the sponta-neousworkingsofnature:“InChinatheyplacegreatvalueonhumansasthe loftiestofall things,but inmyopinionhumans shouldbecon-sidered theworst of all things. Just asHeaven-and-Earth, and the sunandmoon,continueonunchanged,birds,beasts,fish,plants,andtreesall remainas theywere in thepast.Humans,however,with theirhalf-bakedunderstandingofthings,pursuetheirownreasoning.Asaresult,variouswickedintentionsarisebetweenpeople,andtheworldbecomesdisordered” (p.379). Mabuchi’s arguments show similarities to DaoistcritiquesofConfucianism,anddespitehisantipathytowardthingsChi-nese,heacknowledgesthegeneralvalidityofDaoistideaswhenhewrites,“Laozi’ssayingthatoneshouldsimplyactinkeepingwithHeaven-and-EarthsurelyaccordsbetterwiththeWayoftheworld”(p.382).Mabuchi’sdescriptionofhowHeaven-and-Earthexceedsthepowersofhumanrea-soningissimilartoSorai’sviewthatHeavenisunknowable,aviewthatrepresentedadenialofZhuXi’sequationofHeavenwithprinciple.SoraiandMabuchihaveverydifferentattitudes,though,towardhowsuchanunknowable realm should connectwith thehumanworld;whileSoraiseesthesagesashavingusedHeaven’sauthoritytocreatethehumancul-turalinstitutionsoftheWay,Mabuchirejectssuchhumanculture,insteadseeking an immediate communionofhumanswithHeaven-and-Earththroughtheabandonmentof rationalmodesof thinking.EventhoughSoraiandmanyotherTokugawaConfucianssharedMabuchi’smisgivingsaboutSongConfucianism,MabuchisawSongConfucianismnotasade-parturefromtheauthenticConfuciantradition,butinsteadmerelyasthedeepeningofanoverreachingofhumanreasonthatwasalreadypresentinearlierformsofConfucianism,making“thealreadyextremelynarrowConfucianWayevennarrower”(p.382).

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

ThespecificTokugawaConfucianwhomMabuchitargetsmostdirectlyisDazaiShundai.Kokuikōismadeupofaseriesofanswerstoquestionsfromanimaginaryinterlocutor,andmanyofthequestionsrepresentideasputforthinShundai’sBendōsho(ATreatiseontheWay,1735).OneofShundai’smostcontroversialclaimsinBendōshoisthatJapanwasoriginallyaprimitiveandbarbariccountry,andthatitwasonlyrescuedfromthisstatewhen“theWayoftheChinesesagescametobepracticedinthiscountry,andinallthingsintherealmtheylearnedfromChina.Fromthatpointonpeopleinthiscountryknewritualandrightness,becameawareoftheWayofhumanethics,anddidnotcommittheactsofbeasts.”23ShundaigivesaprominentpositiontotheroleofPrinceShōtoku(ShōtokuTaishi)(574–622)inthisprocess,describinghisactivitiesasanalogoustotheactsofculturalcreationcarriedoutbythesagekingsofancientChina:“Heestablishedcourtofficesandregulateddress,promotedritualandmusic,governedthecountryandledthepeople,andcarriedoutacivilizingtransformationintherealm.TheachievementsofUmayato[Shōtoku]inourcountrycanbeconsideredactsofcreationbyasage”(p.204).

OneofShundai’sexamplesofwhatJapangainedfromChinaismoralvalues:“ProofthattherewasoriginallynoWayinJapancanbeseeninthefactthattherearenonativeJapanesereadings(wakun)fortheChinesechar-acters‘humaneness,’‘rightness,’‘ritual,’‘music,’‘filialpiety,’and‘brotherlyobedience’”(pp.223–24).InKokuikōMabuchiresponds,“Acertainpersonscornedourcountry,saying,‘Inancienttimeshumaneness,rightness,ritualpropriety,andwisdomdidnotexistinourcountry,sotherewerenoJapa-nesewordsforthem.’Thisisanimmatureargument.InChinatheyestab-lishedthesefivevirtues,anddeclaredthatanythingthatdivergedfromthesewaswicked.Thesefivevirtuesexistnaturallyintheworld,though,justlikethefourseasons”(p.383).24Hegoesontosaythatthecreationofnamesforvirtuesactuallybackfires,arguing,“Thingsendupbecomingconstrainedbecausehumans...createparticularnamessuchashumaneness,rightness,ritualpropriety,andwisdom.ItisbettertodowithoutsuchnamesandjustgoalongwiththeheartofHeaven-and-Earth”(p.384).

Mabuchi argues that the ancient Japanese acted in accordance withHeaven-and-Earth,andthuswereabletoachieveakindofnaturalmo-rality,evenwithoutelaboratemoralteachings.ThequalityoftheancientJapanesethatmadethispossible,hemaintains,isthattheywere“straight-forward” (naoshi ), but he is careful to explain that straightforwardnessis not an absolute moral perfection. Instead, he sees it as definedby a

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

completetransparency,inwhichpeopleareexactlywhattheyseemtobe:“Whenpeopleare straightforward,occasionally thereare thosewhodobadthingsorwanttoseizepower,butbecausethesedesiresariseoutofastraightforwardheart,theyarenotconcealed.Becausetheyarenotcon-cealed,theyarequicklystampedoutanddonotresultinanyseriousdis-turbance”(p.386).HeseesthistransparencyashavingbeenobscuredinJapanbytheintroductionofConfucianism,afterwhich“onthesurfaceeverythingbecameelegant, [while] therecame tobemanypeoplewithwickedhearts”(p.377).

AnotherexampleMabuchigivesoftheharmcausedbyConfucianidealsistheideathatrulersshouldbechosenbasedontheirvirtue,avirtuede-terminedbyhumanjudgment.Hearguesthatthisidea,whilesuperficiallyattractive,isinfactresponsibleforConfucianism’sfailuretoprovidealast-ingbasisforgovernmentinChina.GoingbacktotheearliestChinesesagekings,hecriticizeshowYaopassedonthethronenottohisownson,butinsteadtoShun,whomYaoselectedforhisvirtue.Heseesthisashavingsetadangerousprecedentbymakingthethroneintosomethingtobecon-tested,ratherthanbeingdeterminedthroughafixedandstablehereditarysuccession.HegoesontonotehoweveryChinesedynastyeventuallyde-scendedintochaos,andsurveyingthepantheonofChinesesagerulers,hefindsflawseveninsuchreveredfiguresastheDukeofZhou,whomhede-pictsasaruthlessseekerofpower.HeconcludesthatinChina,“theworldwasdisorderedineverygenerationandwasnevergovernedwell”(p.376).Hewrites that incontrastto thepoliticaldisorderofChina,Japan“wasoriginallygovernedwellinaccordancewiththeheartofHeaven-and-Earth”(p.377).HemaintainsthataftertheintroductionofConfucianism,though,Japanbegantoexperiencevariouspoliticaldisturbances,leadinghimtoas-sertthatConfucianism“hasnotonlybroughtaboutdisorderinChina,buthasalsodonethesameinthiscountry”(p.377).

Mabuchidiscussesnotonlytheproperbasisforchoosingrulers,butalsohowtomakepeoplefollowthem.Hearguesthatrulerswholeadsimplelivesinspirereverence,andinfluencetheruledaswelltohavefewdesires,alineofreasoningthatagainechoescertainDaoistideas.25Rulerswhoflaunttheirwealth and status, though, give rise to envy among their subjects,whichinspiresrebellioussentiments.HepresentsanidealizedimageoftheemperorsofancientJapan,writingthat“theemperor’sdwellinghadashin-gledroofandearthenwalls,andhewentouthuntingwithabowandarrow,wearingmulberryfiberandhempenclothes”(p.385).Thisisincontrastto

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

China,where“thoseinhighpositionsmakeadisplayoftheirpowerandstatus”(p.385),atendencythatheclaimsspreadinJapanwiththeintroduc-tionofChinesecourtpracticesintheNaraperiod,precipitatingpoliticalstrifeandcorruptingtheoriginalgoodgovernmentoftheemperors.

Despitehispraiseforancient imperialrule,hisdiscussionsofgovern-mentintheJapanofhisowndayfocusnotonanyformofimperialrestora-tion,butonrulebythewarriorclass.HeisquitebluntabouttheoriginsoftheTokugawarulingclass,pointingoutthatpeople’scurrentrankisafunctionofhowsuccessfultheywereatkillingduringtheperiodofwarfarethatprecededtheTokugawapeace.Hevalueswarriorrule,though,writing,“Asameansofshowingauthority,nothingsurpassestheWayofthewarrior(mononofu no michi )“(p.385).26HedescribesthisnotastheostentatiousdisplayofwealthandstatusthathedecriesasaChinesetrait,butasakindofuprightmartialvalorthroughwhichwarriorsinspirebothgratitudeandfearinthosetheygovern.TheWayofthewarriordoesnotrelyondiscursiveteachingsthatinstructpeopleinrightandwrong,as“howeverreasonablepeoplemayfindthis,unlessthereissomepromiseofreturn,suchteachingswillnotpenetratetothedepthsoftheirheartsanddrawthemin”(p.391).EarlierwesawhowMabuchidistinguishesbetweenrationalisticConfucianmoralityandtheJapaneseethicof“straightforwardness,”andheappliesthisdistinctiontohisdiscussionofwarriorruleaswell,arguing,“Beingstraight-forward,thetrueWayofthewarrior(bu no michi)isnotlackadaisicalorselfish,soitallowsonetogovernbothhouseandrealmeffortlessly”(p.391).ThiswarriorgovernmentisdifferentfromtheimperialrulethatheidealizesinhisdiscussionsofancientJapan,butwecanseeanoverlapinthequalitiesofhonestyanddirectnessthatheattributestobothformsofgovernment.Hispraiseofwarrior ruledoesnotmean thathe sees thecontemporarypoliticalsituationasideal,asattheendofKokuikōhediscussestheneedforreform.Hearguesthat“themultitudesaregovernedaccordingtotheheartoftheruler”(p.392),andallthatpeoplecandoishopefortheemergenceofagoodruler,afterwhich,heoptimisticallypredicts,“alltheworldwouldbecomestraightforwardwithinthespaceoftenortwentyyears”(p.393).

ThemainobjectsofMabuchi’sscholarshipwereancientJapanese lan-guageandliterature,andinKokuikōheconnectsthesetopicstothehar-monioussocietyofancientJapananditscorruptionbyforeigninfluences.ThecontrasthedrawsbetweentheduplicityofChinesecivilizationandtheoriginalstraightforwardnessofJapanismirrored,forexample,inhowhecontrastsChinesecharacterswithJapanesephoneticwriting.Oneproblem

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

hepointsoutwithChinesecharactersissimplythattherearesomanyofthem,makingthemunnecessarilyburdensome,andhenotesthatChinaistheonlycountrythatusessuchasystem,whileIndiaandHollandusepho-neticwritingsystems.HethendescribestheadoptionofChinesewritinginJapanthroughanarrativeofinfiltrationandcorruption,inwhichChinesecharacterswerefirstusedonlyfortheirphoneticvalue,servingasatrans-parentmediumtorepresenttheexistingJapaneselanguage,buteventuallycametochangethelanguageitselffromtheinside,aprocesshelikenstopo-liticalusurpation:“[Atfirst]thewordswerethemastersandthecharactersweretheservants,sopeopleusedcharactersastheysawfit.Later,though,itwasasifthewords,whichhadbeenthemasters,losttheirpositionandwerereplacedbythecharactersthathadbeentheservants”(p.381).27Herelatesthisprocess tohis earlierdiscussionofChina’spolitical instability,com-menting,“SuchadevelopmentshowstheinfluenceofthewickedChinesecustomoflowlypeoplebecomingtheruler”(p.381).HerewecanseehowMabuchidiscusseslanguageandpoliticsthroughacommondiscourse,andwewillturnnexttohowpoetryisincorporatedintothisdiscourseaswell.

p o e t r y a n d t h e r e c o v e r y o f t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d h e a r t

Inhisdiscussionsofpoetryinhislaterwritings,Mabuchicontinuestoargueformanyofthefunctionsofpoetrythathehadbroughtupinhiscontribu-tionstotheKokka hachirondebatetwodecadesearlier,butdevelopstheseinnewdirections.Forexample,inKokuikōhepresentspoetryasofferinganunderstandingofsocietyusefultorulers,commentingthat“whenoneunderstandspoetry,onewillalsonaturallyunderstandthecausesofpeaceanddisorder”(p.377).HeacknowledgestheoverlapofthiswithConfuciantheoriesofpoetrywhenhegoesontosay,“ItmusthavebeenforthisreasonthatevenConfuciusdidnotdiscardtheOdes,butmadeitfirstamongthebooks”(p.377).Thisideaofpoetryasprovidingaspecialkindofknowledgeaboutsocietybearssomeresemblancetotheidea,whichhehadexpressedintheKokka hachirondebate,thatpoetryallowsrulerstounderstandtheemotionsoftheruled,andthusgovernthemproperly.

AnotherroleforpoetryMabuchihadpresentedintheKokka hachirondebatewasitsabilitytoregulatepeople’semotions.Hecontinuesthisideainhislaterwritings,describinginKokuikōhowpoetrypromotesagentle,magnanimousdispositionthatfacilitatesproperinterpersonalrelationships:“Thehumanheartisselfish,sopeoplequarrelwithothersandjudgethings

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

onthebasisof reasoning(kotowari),butwhentheypossess thespiritofpoetry,theygobeyondreasoningandemploygentleness,sotheworldisgovernedwellandpeopleareatpeace”(pp.391–92).Hedepictstheself-cultivationachievedthroughpoetrynotonlyasamoderationoftheemo-tions,butalsointermsofachievingtheidealof“straightforwardness.”HebeginsKa’ikōbydeclaring:

Inancienttimes,people’sheartsweredirectandstraightforward.Becausetheirheartsweredirect,theiractionswerefew,andbecausetherewerefewthings, thewords they spokewerealso few.When feelingsarose in theirhearts they would put them into words and sing, and they called this“poetry”(uta).28Whentheysangtheydidsodirectlyandwithasingleheart.Theirwordswereinstraightforwardordinarylanguage,sotheyflowedandwererhythmicalwithoutanyconsciousefforttomakethemso.29

Thepristinesimplicityofancientpoetry,inwhichthingswerestatedexactlyastheywere,wasthendestroyedbytheintroductionofforeignthought:

ButthentheideasandwordsofChinaandIndiawereblendedtogetherandintroducedtoourcountry,wheretheymixedinwithourownideasandwords.Thingsbecamecomplex,sotheheartsofthoseherewhousedtobestraight-forwardwereblownbyawindfromtheshadowsandturnedwicked.Theirwordsbecamedisorderedlikedustontheroad,andgrewinnumerablydiverse.Thusinthemostrecenttimesthefeelingsandwordsofpoetryhavecometodifferfromordinaryfeelingsandwords.Inpoetrypeopledistorttheproperheart,andseekoutwordstoexpresssuchadistortedheart.30

HereagainweseetheideaofChinesethoughtasintroducingaduplicitythatsulliesanoriginalJapanesehonestyandtransparency.Healsodescribesthecorruptionofpoetry ingendered terms,asa shift fromthe“manly”(masurao)tothe“feminine”(taoyame)style.31Mabuchioffershopetopoetsofhisownday, though,byarguingthatpeoplecanrecover thestraight-forwardheartbycomposinginthestyleoftheMan’yōshū:“Becausepeopleoftodayareintheiressencethesameaspeopleofthepast,whentheycarryoutsuchpracticetheirheartsbecomepolishedmirrors.”32

AnewelementweseeinMabuchi’slaterdiscussionsofpoetryishisar-gumentthatthestudyofpoetryprovidesuswiththetoolstoinvestigatetheJapanesepast.InKokuikōhewrites,“Throughancientpoetrywecometoknowtheancientmeaningsandwords,andthroughthesewecanthenknowthestateof theworld inancient times.Fromknowingthecondi-tionsofancienttimes,wecangobackfurtherandconsidermattersofthe

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

AgeoftheGods.”33Hecontraststhismethodofknowing,whichreliesoninhabitinglinguisticandculturalworlds,withthe theoreticalknowledgeofConfucians(especiallyfollowersofSongConfucianism),whotrytousetheirindividualpowersofreasoningto“constructtheoriesabouteverythingandgivethingsdeepmeaning.”34Hespecificallytargetsthose,likeYamazakiAnsai,whousedtheSongConfuciancategoriesofprinciple(Ch.li,Jp.ri )andmaterial force (Ch.qi, Jp.ki ) toexplaintheNihon shokiandothertextsfromancientJapan.35Mabuchicriticizesthisinterpretivemethodol-ogyforhowit“explains[mattersoftheAgeoftheGods]asiftheycouldbedeterminedexhaustivelybythehumanheart.”36Sowhileononelevelpoetryhelpspeopleunderstandancienttextsbyprovidingthemwiththenecessary linguisticknowledgeaboutancientJapanese,onadeeper levelpoetrycultivatesinthemtheproperhermeneuticstance,oneinwhichtheyopenthemselvesuptoenteringthemindsetoftheancientJapanese,ratherthanjudgingthingsfromwithintheconfinesoftheirsubjectiveprejudices,whichhavebeenshapedbythedegradedagetheylivein.

TheultimatesourceofthevalueofancientJapanesepoetryforMabu-chiisthatitconnectspeopletothegoverningforcesofnature.Hemain-tainsthesoundsoftheJapaneselanguagearethe“naturalfiftysoundsofHeaven-and-Earth,”37andthattherhythmofJapanesepoetryisthe“nat-ural rhythm (shirabe) ofHeaven-and-Earth.”38Moreover, he emphasizesthattherhythmofJapanesepoetryissomethingthatemergesspecificallywhenpeoplesing,openingNiimanabibydeclaring,“Inancientpoetryitisrhythmthatisprimary,andthisisbecauseitissung.”39Aswehaveseeninthe“GreatPreface”andelsewhere,theideathatthesungcharacterofpoetryisaproductofitsemotionalauthenticityisanideawithalonghistoryinConfuciandiscourseonpoetry.TheseConfuciantheories,however,seethissongasneedingtobeintegratedintoeitherametaphysicalsystem(inthecaseofZhuXi)orabroaderstructureofculturalvalue(inthecaseoftheMaotraditionandtheSoraischool)inorderforittoplayanormativefunc-tion.Shundai,thetargetofMabuchi’sharshestcriticisms,isdeeplysuspi-ciousoftheunstructuredandvulgarcharacterofnaturalsong,contrastingitwiththecorrectnessofthemusicofthesages.ForMabuchi,though,itisthroughthespontaneousactofsingingitselfthatpeoplegainaccesstoandreproducethenormativeforcesofHeaven-and-Earth.Songnotonlytrans-parentlyexpressesfeelings,then,butalsounitesthesingerwithauniversalnaturalorder,anorderthatisinturnreflectedintheharmonioussocialre-lationshipsthatthetransparentcommunicationoffeelingsmakespossible.

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

s i t u a t i n g m a b u c h i ’ s a n c i e n t w a y t h o u g h t

Mabuchiproducedhislaterwritingsatatimewhenphilosophiesthatseri-ouslychallengedthelegitimacyofTokugawarulewerebeginningtoemerge.The most radical of these was the utopian agrarianism of Andō Shōeki(1703?–1762?),whowasactiveintheTōhokuregionanddirectedhimselfto-wardaruralaudience.ShōekisharedMabuchi’sviewthatpeopleoriginallylivedinpeaceandharmony,andthatthisnaturalstatewasdisruptedbythepoliticalinstitutionsandculturecreatedbytheChinesesages,aprocessthatShōekidescribesasamovement fromthe“livingtruth”(kasshin)ofnaturetothehumanlycreated“worldoflaw”(hōsei ).Shōeki’sidealizationofnatureoverculture is similar toMabuchi’sAncientWaythought,butShōekigoesastepfurtherinthathepointstotheemergenceofeconomicinequalities as akey elementof thecultureof the sages. In theirnaturalstate,Shōekiargues,humansallcultivatedtheland,andtherewere“nodi-visionsofhighandlow,nobleandbase,orrichandpoor.”40Hethende-scribeshowtheexploitativeeconomicrelationsoffeudalismemergedaspartofthelargermatrixofculturalinstitutionspromotedbythesages:“[Thesages]livedidlywithoutengagingincultivationoftheland.TheystoleandgreedilydevouredtheproductsoftherightcultivationoftheWayofnaturalprocessesandtheWayofhumanity....Theyestablishedthedistinctionsbe-tweenthekingandthecommonpeopleandthehighandthelow.Theyalsoestablishedthefiverelationships,thefourclasses,andsystemsofgoverningthroughrewardsandpunishments. Intheirarrogancetheyplaced them-selvesaboveothers,makingthosebelowenvythem.”41Heproposedaradi-calrestructuringofsocietytoreversetheeffectsofthecreationsofthesages,arguingthatallpeopleshouldbemadetoengageinthelaborofcultivatinggrains,theuseofcurrencyshouldbeeliminated,andsuchluxuriesasalco-hol,tobacco,meat-eating,andartisticentertainmentsshouldbebanned.

While Shōeki presented his ideas from the perspective of the ruled,YamagataDaini(1725–1767)approachedtheweaknessesoftheTokugawaregimefromthesideoftherulers.Bornintoasamuraifamily,DainiservedinthebakufugarrisoninKōfu,butlosthispostin1751becausehewassus-pectedofaidingtheescapeofhisbrother,whohadcommittedamurder.In1754hewashiredbyŌokaTadamitsu(1709–1760),juniorcounciloroftheshogunTokugawaIeshige(1711–1761,r.1745–1760),forwhomheservedasaphysicianandscholaruntil1760.42ItwasduringthisperiodthatDainiwroteRyūshi shinron(MasterRyū’sNewThesis,1759),hismostimportanttreatiseongovernment.Inthiswork,Dainidescribestheneedforgovernmentin

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

termssimilartoSorai,andisparticularlyclosetoShundaiinhisemphasisonthebrutalandchaoticstateofhumanspriortotheirtransformationthroughproperculturalinstitutions.Writingofhumansinthestateofnature,Dainicommentsthat“lackingdistinctionsofnobleandbase,theyscrambleforfoodandgivefreereintotheirdesires,andassucharenodifferentfrombeasts.”43Togiveordertohumansociety,“ritualswereinstitutedtocreatedistinctionsinrank,dutiesweredecreedtoestablishofficialposts,andcloth-ingwasmadesotherewouldbegradationsincourtcapsanddress;thosewhocreatedallthesearecalled‘sages’”(p.396).LikeShundai,DainipraisestheaccomplishmentsofPrinceShōtoku,butDainidiffersfromSoraiandShundaiinattributingsagelyruletotheJapaneseimperiallinefromtheear-liesttimes,evenbeforetheimportationofChineseteachings,suchaswhenhecommentsthat“[EmperorJinmu’s]radiantvirtueilluminatedthefourquartersforoverathousandyears.”(p.392).Hewritesthataftertheestab-lishmentofthemilitarygovernmentoftheKamakurashogunateinthelatetwelfthcentury,though,“theancientkings’ritualandmusicwerecastaside”(p.392),andappliesthesamejudgmenttothemilitarygovernmentoftheTokugawaperiod,lamentingthelossoftheproperritualandmusicofsagelygovernment.HeissimilartoMabuchi,then,inidealizingthegovernmentoftheancientJapaneseemperors,butthesimilaritystopsthere,ashevaluesthisgovernmentforachievingthekindofculturaltransformationoftherealmthatiscentraltoSorai’sconceptionofsagelygovernment.

Dainiwaswritingatatimeofincreasedgovernmentconcernoversocialunrest,andsuspicionsofrebelliousintenteventuallyledtohisdownfall.Onemanifestationofanti-bakufu sentimentwasagrowthof interest inimperialrestoration.Inthe1750s,TakenouchiShikibu(1712–1767)taughtinhisschoolinKyotothattheemperorshouldhaveprecedenceovertheshogun,andhewasbanishedfromKyoto in1758when itcameto lightthatsomeyoungercourtnobleshadbeeninspiredbyhisteachingstostarttraininginthemilitaryarts,withthepresumedaimofrebellingagainstthebakufu.44Anothersignificantincidentwastheso-called“post-horserebel-lion”(tenma sōdō)of1764,whichstemmedfromdissatisfactionwiththein-creaseddemandsplacedon“assistingvillages”(sukegō),villagesalongmajorhighwaysthatwererequiredtoprovideportersandhorsesfortravelersasaformofcorvéeduty.Thepost-horserebellionarosefromrequirementsforsukegōdutyinrelationtoashogunalpilgrimagetoNikko,andtheprotesteventuallygrewtoincludearoundtwohundredthousandpeople.Thepro-testersmarchedonEdo,andwereonlystoppedwhenthebakufuagreedto

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

rescindtherequirementsforextrasukegōduty.Thisdidnotputastoptothedisturbance,though,astheassembledmobproceededtoattackvari-ousotherperceivedenemies,suchaswealthypeasantsandmoneylenders.45Dainiwasnotdirectlyinvolvedinthepost-horserebellion,buthewasin-directlytiedtoitbythefactthatanumberofhisstudentswerevassalsofObatadomain,whereithadoccurred.Thereweremassivebakufucrack-downsinthewakeoftheincident,andsoonafter,in1766,accusationsofplottingrebellionwereleveledagainstDainiandastudentofhis,whowasalsoadiscipleofShikibu.Theywerefoundinnocentoftheoriginalchargesbroughtagainstthem,butwerefoundguiltyofdiscussingstrategiesforat-tackingshogunalcastles,leadingtodeathsentencesforbothofthem.46

Mabuchi’scontemporariespositionedthemselvesinrelationtothekindofidealofsagelyrulethathadbeenpromotedbySorai,andbycritiquingthisviewofthesages—inShōeki’scasebydenyingthelegitimacyofthesagesentirely,andinDaini’scasebyclaimingthattheemperorswerethetruebear-ersofsagelyruleinJapan—envisionedalternativestotheTokugawasystem.SoraitoohadbeencriticalofmanyaspectsoftheTokugawasystem,buthepresentedhisproposalsforreformlessaschallengestotheTokugawaregimeitselfthanaswaysforthisregimetomoreperfectlyrealizeitstrueessence,whichheequatedwiththefeudalgovernmentofthesagesofancientChina.Mabuchi’scritiqueofSorai’sWayofthesageswas,likeShōeki’s,basedonautopianidealofasocietyrootedintheprocessesofnature,butunlikeShōekihedidnotdenythelegitimacyofsocialhierarchy,insteadsimplyarguingoveritsproperbasis,claimingthattheConfucianvirtues,mostnotablytheproperrelationshipbetweenrulerandruled,hadexistednaturallyinancientJapan.InhisidealizationofancientimperialruleMabuchioverlappedwithDaini,buthedidnotpresentthekindofharshcriticismoftheTokugawaregimethatDainihad,insteadfindingawaytodefinewarriorruleasaman-ifestationofthe“straightforwardness”thatheidealizedinancientJapan.Ma-buchi’sphilosophyoftheAncientWay,then,whilegrowingoutofasimilarsenseofdissatisfactionwiththecontemporaryworldthathadmotivatedfig-ureslikeShōekiandDaini,representedacomparativelytamepoliticalvisionwhencomparedwiththeseotherthinkers.

Mabuchi as Poet

Mabuchiproducedwakathroughouthisadultlife,andhiscareerasapoetwascloselytiedtohisparticipationinscholarlyandliterarycircleswhose

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

activities includedbothpublic lectureson the Japanese classics and thecompositionofwakainagroupsetting.WhilestillinHamamatsu,Ma-buchiwasaregularparticipantinmonthlywakagatheringsthatSugiuraKuniakirabeganhostingin1720,andaftermovingtoKyotoin1733,heparticipatedinsimilareventsheldbyAzumamaro.47InEdo,Mabuchihim-selfbeganholdingwakagatheringsin1740,shortlyafterstartingastudygroupontheTale of Genji.48SuchwakagatheringswerearegularfeatureofMabuchi’slifeinEdo,andinadditiontohostingthemhimself,heat-tendedthoseheldbyotherprominentscholarlyandliteraryfigures,suchasArimaroandMunetake.Lookingat thevariousgroupswithinwhichMabuchicomposedwaka,wecanseecontinuitynotonlyintheassociationthatmanyofhisfellowpoetssharedwithAzumamaro,butalsointhebasicformofthesocialspaceinwhichwakawascomposed, inwhichgroupsofdisciplesgatheredregularlytocomposepoetryattheprivatehomeofateacherorotherrespectedfigure.ThecompositionofwakaforthesefigureswenthandinhandwiththeirstudyofclassicalJapaneseliterarytexts,andwakagatheringswerealsooftenconvenedtomarksignificantevents,suchastocelebratetheconstructionofanewhouseormournthepassingofafriend.MabuchialsopresentedwakainthecontextofapoetictraveldiarywithhisOkabe no nikki,anaccountofatriphetookfromEdotoHama-matsuandbackin1740thatcombinesprosesectionsdiscussingthefamousplaceshevisitedwiththirty-threetankaandchōka.49AfterhisdeathMa-buchi’swakawerepublishedbyhisdisciplesinanumberofanthologies.In1790UedaAkinari(1734–1809)arrangedforthepublicationoftwosuchanthologies,Agatai no kashū, editedearlierbyKatōUmaki (1721–1777),andAgatai no shūi,editedbyAkinarihimself.Anotherimportantanthol-ogywasKamo-ō kashū,publishedin1806andeditedbyKatōChikageandMurataHarumi.

AzumamaroshowedastrongscholarlyinterestinancientJapanesetexts,andlikesuchearlierfiguresasKeichūandTodaMosuiproducedanumberofstudiesoftheMan’yōshū.Hisownpoetry,though,drewonthewakaoftheHeianperiodandlater,andMabuchiinitiallyfollowedhiminthis.Ma-buchi’spoetrytookamajorturn,though,afterhebeganhisemploymentwithMunetakein1746.FromthistimeonhebegantoemulatethestyleoftheMan’yōshūinmuchofhispoetry,atendencysharedbyMunetake,who,aswesawearlier,hadpromotedtheMan’yōshūasanidealinhiscon-tributionstotheKokka hachirondebate.WhileearlierTokugawafigureshadpioneeredtheuseofnewmethodologies intheirscholarlycommentaries

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

ontheMan’yōshū,then,MabuchiwasrevolutionaryintheextenttowhichhemadetheMan’yōshū intoamodel forhisactualpoeticcompositions.BecauseitisMabuchi’spoetryfrom1746onthatplayedthegreatestroleinhisreputationasapoetandhisimpactonlaterTokugawapoets,thisisthepoetryofhisthatIwillfocusonhere.50

OneexampleofapoemfromMabuchi’speriodofemploymentwithMunetakeis“Arashi”(TheStorm),composedin1752:

Shinanonaru/Suganoaranoo/tobuwashinotsubasamotawani/fukuarashikana

[TheragingstormstrainseventhewingsoftheeaglethatsoarsovertheruggedmoorofSugainShinano]51

TheexclamatoryendingkanaischaracteristicofpoetryoftheKokinshūandlater,butthestrongimagesoftheragingstorm,thesoaringeagle,andtheruggedmoorcombinetocreatethekindof“manly”stylethatMabuchiide-alizedintheMan’yōshū,andfoundlackinginlaterpoetry.Also,thepoemreferencesaspecificMan’yōshūpoemfromthe“Azumauta”section,whichmakesupbook14oftheanthology:“WhenIhearthecuckoocryontheruggedmoorofSugainShinano,Ifeelthepassageoftime.”52

SomeofMabuchi’sbest-knownpoemsfromhislateryearsareasequenceoffivepoemshecomposedatamoon-viewingpartyheldon1764.9.13tocelebratehismovingtoanewhouse.Thefinalpoemofthesequenceis:

niodorino/Katsushikawaseno/niishiborikumitsutsuoreba/tsukikatabukinu

[Whiledrinkingthefreshlybrewedsake,madefromtheearlyriceofKatsushikaofthegrebe,themoonhasset]

Niodori(grebe)isamakurakotobausedwithKatsushika(locatedinShimōsaprovince),aconnectionbasedonhowthegrebedives(kazuku).Mabuchibor-rowsspecificallyfromapoeminthe“Azumauta”sectionoftheMan’yōshū:“ThoughitisthenightformakingofferingsoftheearlyriceofKatsushikaofthegrebe,Iwillnotkeepyou,mypoorlove,standingoutside.”53ThefinallineistakenfromanotherMan’yōshūpoem:“Ontheeasternplain,thelightofdawnbecomesvisible;lookingback,themoonhasset.”54

AnimportantaspectofMabuchi’spromotionoftheMan’yōshūstylewashisrevivalofthechōkaform,suchasinthepoem“Yoshinonohanaomite

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

yomeru”(ComposedonViewingtheBlossomsinYoshino),fromatriphetooktoYoshinoin1763:

kotosaegu Eveninbabbling hitonokuninimo foreigncountries kikoekozu itisunheardof. wagamikadonimo Eveninouremperor’srealm5 taguinaki itiswithoutparallel. Yoshinotakaneno Whenthecherryblossoms sakurabana ofthehighpeakofYoshino sakinosakariwa areinfullbloom, umanabete takingahorse10 tōkumomisake andgazingatitfromafar, tsuetsukite aidedbyawalkingstick, minenimonobori climbinguptothepeak, miruhitono theonewhoseesit katarinisureba speaksofit,15 kikuhitono sotheonewhohearsofit iimotsugaite passesonwordofit. amagumono Totheedgeoftheheavenlyclouds mukabusukiwami thatstretchoutinthedistance, tanigukuno evenasfaras20 sawatarukagiri thetoadranges, medenuhito therewerenonewho koinuhitoshimo didnotlove nakarikeri oryearn. shikawaaredomo Andyet25 yononakani oldmen sakashiraosuto withintheworld hokoraeru whopridethemselves okinagatomowa ontheircleverness, yaoyorozu alwaysreject30 yorozunokotora allthe kikishiyori myriadthings, minootoruzoto goingonandonabout iizurai howtheysufferincomparison arinamisuruo towhattheyhaveheard.35 minemireba Butuponseeingthepeak, yaeshirakumoka andseeingtheeight-foldwhiteclouds tanimireba orthevalley, ōyukifuruto itlookslikeagreatsnowfall.

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

ametsuchini WithinHeaven-and-Earth,40 kokoroodoroki heartsareastonished; yononakani withintheworld, kotomotaetsutsu wordscannotdoitjustice. yukuushino Theoldman, osokiokinaga ploddinglikeawalkingcow,45 utsuyūno withaheartthatishemmedin, sakarishikokoro likehollow-spunsilk, kuimokuitaru pilesregretuponregret.

Lines17–20borrowfromachōkaintheMan’yōshūbyYamanouenoOkura(660–733?):“Onearth,ourgreatlordrules.Beneaththisshiningsunandmoon,totheedgeoftheheavenlycloudsthatstretchoutinthedistance,evenasfarasthetoadranges,isthegreatlandherulesover.”55Lines33–34borrowfromanotherMan’yōshūpoem,whichcontainsthelines“iizurai / arinami suredo” (“although they goon andon, and goon rejecting”).56Mabuchiusesthemakurakotoba“kotosaegu”(“babbling”),usuallyattachedtosuchnamesofforeigncountriesas“Kara”and“Kudara,”inline1,and“utsuyū no”(“likehollow-spunsilk”),typicallyusedwithphrasesindicatingnarrownessorconfinement,inline45.Healsoshowshislinguisticinven-tivenesswiththephrase“yuku ushi no”(“likeawalkingcow”),inline43,whichheusesmuchlikeamakurakotoba.Althoughthis isnotanestab-lishedmakurakotoba,itissimilartosuchmakurakotobaas“yuku kawa no”(“likearushingriver”)and“yuku tori no”(“likeflockingbirds”).57Ononelevel,thischōkaisakindoflinguisticexercise,demonstratingMabuchi’svirtuosityinancientJapanese.ItalsocommunicateshisphilosophyoftheAncientWay,criticizingthosewhoarenarrow-mindedand incapableofopeninguptheirheartstoaestheticwonder.Thepoemcontainsastrongelementofnativistpride,whichiscontinuedintheenvoy:

Morokoshino/hitonimisebaya/MiyoshinonoYoshinonoyamano/yamazakurabana

[I’dliketoshowittopeoplefromChina—themountaincherryblossomsofMountYoshinoinfairYoshino]

Yoshinowasthemostfamousplaceforviewingmountaincherryblossoms,andheretheblossomsarepresentedasasupremesymbolofJapan’sbeauty,which,asMabuchidescribesintheopeninglinesofthechōka,is“unheardofinbabblingforeigncountries.”

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

An extreme example ofMabuchi’s archaism is his “Umazakenouta”(PoemonDeliciousSake):

umaranioyarafurukaneya/hitotsukifutatsukieraeranitanasokouchiagurukaneya/mitsukiyotsukikotonaoshikokoronaoshimoyo/itsutsukimutsukiamatarashikunitarasumoyo/nanatsukiyatsuki

[Drinkingittastily—onecup,twocupsLaughingandclappinghands—threecups,fourcupsWordsandheartarestraightforward—fivecups,sixcupsHeavenlyandearthlyrealmsareatease—sevencups,eightcups]

ThepraiseofdrinkinginthispoemoverlapsthematicallywiththeseriesofpoemsondrinkingbyŌtomonoTabito (665–731) in theMan’yōshū(book3,poems338–50).MabuchievokestheevenearlierformsofverseoftheKojikiandNihon shoki,though,suchasbynotalwaysadheringtothestandard5/7meterthatdevelopedinlaterpoetry.HealludesspecificallytoasongattributedtoEmperorKenzō(r.485–487)intheNihon shoki,whichcontainsthelines,“Wehavebrewedsake./Withgustoletusdrinkit....Totheclearringofhand-palms/Yewillrevel.”58Also,theuncomplicatedsentimentsandrepetitivephrasingreinforcetheidealofartlessnessassoci-atedwithMabuchi’snotionofbeing“straightforward.”

Mabuchi’spoetryattimesprovidesaratherdirectexpressionofcertainideasfromhisphilosophyoftheAncientWay.Moresignificantly,though,hispoetryrepresentsanattempttoreproducetheworldofancientJapanonanaestheticandlinguisticlevel,andtobringittolifeagaininhiscon-temporaryworld.ThefactthathesawitasimportanttoactuallycomposepoetryintheMan’yōshūstyle,ratherthanjustmaketheMan’yōshūintoanobjectforscholarlyexegesis,reflectshisideathattherecoveryoftheWayisaformofactiveself-cultivationinwhich,throughcontinuedeffortandpractice,werecovertheoriginalstraightforwardheart.Hisneoclassicalstyleofcomposition,whichnotonlydrewuponpoeticformsandvocabularyfromearlierpoetry,butattimeseveninvolvedliftingentiresectionsoutofotherpoems,isverysimilartowhatwesawearlierinSorai’sandNankaku’spoetry.ThisimitativenesswasrootedinabeliefthatthespiritofancientJapanwasconnectedtospecificliteraryandlinguisticformsthatpeopleofthepresentmustreconnectwithinordertocreateaharmonioussociety.Ifpeople followed theirownpersonal inclinations incomposingpoetry,withoutrelyingonformsinheritedfromthepast,theywouldremainmired

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

inthedegradedpresent.Itwasonlybycopyingtheformsofancientlan-guageandliterature,Mabuchibelieved,andallowingthemtopermeateandtransformone’sheart,thatitwaspossibletorecovertheAncientWayandreenactitinthepresent.

Conclusion

MabuchisharedmanyofSorai’sviewsontheroleofpoetry,valuingitnotonlyasamanifestationofhumanemotions,butalsoasawaytoachievetheknowledgeofancientlanguageneededtodecipherancienttexts,whichbothMabuchiandSoraisawasthesourceofthepoliticalnormsnecessarytobringordertoTokugawasociety.AlsolikeSorai,Mabuchistressedtheneedforscholarstocomposepoetrythemselves,andstrovetocreatepoemsthatresembledhisidealizedpoeticmodels,liberallyborrowingwordsandphrasesfromsourcepoems.

OnewayMabuchidifferedfromSoraiandhisfollowerswasinlookingtoancientJapan,ratherthanancientChina,ashissourceofliteraryandpo-liticalnorms.Moreover,herejectedtheartificeofhumanlycreatedculture,whichSoraihadseenasnecessaryinordertoraisepeopleupfromtheirnat-uralstateandunitetheminaharmonioussociety.Heinsteadidealizedanimmediatecommunionwiththeprimalsimplicityofnature,claimingthattheintroductionofthekindsofhumanculturalconstructspromotedbyConfucianslikeSoraionlyservedtogeneratesocialdiscord.Hewasdeeplycommittedtospecificcultural formsderivedfromancientJapan,butheinsistedthatthesewereinfactmanifestationsofnature,incontrasttotheartificialityofbothChinesecultureandlaterJapaneseculture.ManyCon-fucianstoo,ofcourse,hadseentheWayasexistinginnature,andMabuchi’sidealoftheselfasa“polishedmirror”thatisunitedwithHeaven-and-EarthhassimilaritieswithZhuXi’svisionofself-cultivation,thegoalofwhichisapurifiedoriginalnaturethatperfectlymanifeststheuniversalprincipleofthecosmos.MabuchidiffersfromZhuXi,though,inthatherefusestodefinethepurifiedheartintermsofasetofdefinedmoralvalues,leavinghimcloser,ashehimselfacknowledges,toaDaoistidealofself-cultivation.

Anotherwayof thinkingabout thedifferencesbetweenMabuchiandSoraiisintermsofhowtheyconceivedoftherelationshipoftheindividualtotheWay.SoraicriticizedZhuXifordefiningtheConfucianWayassome-thingthatcouldbeattainedontheleveloftheindividual,andstressedthattheWayofthesageswasamethodforcoordinatingthesocialinteractions

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a n a t i v i s t p o e t i c s

ofpeoplewithdiverse inborn characteristics,uniting them into a socialwholewithoutsacrificingtheirparticularindividualnatures.InChapter4wesawhowthisvisionoftheWaybegantobreakdownamongSorai’sstu-dents,astheyquestionedtheabilitytomaintainbothindividualauthentic-ityandaholisticvisionofthecultureofthesages.ForMabuchi,though,thepurificationoftheindividualheartthroughpoetryallowsforperfectsincerity,whileatthesametimeunitingtheindividualwiththeuniversalityofHeaven-and-Earth.Moreover,socialharmonycomesnotfromtheactiveengagementofindividualswithpeopledifferentfromthemselves,butfromthecommoncultivationofasinglestraightforwardheart.Mabuchi,then,showsa certainbackingoff fromthe interest inactive social andpoliti-calengagementthathaddominatedthephilosophyofnotonlySorai,butalsoJinsai.WhileheespousedthesuperiorityofJapaneseimperialrule,forexample,heshowednointerestinactuallypursuinganykindofimperialrestoration.InthenextchapterwewillseehowMabuchi’sfollowerMotooriNorinagapresentedamorecomplexvisionofpoeticauthenticity,onethatrevealedmoreconcernthanMabuchihadwiththedifficultiesofconnectingtootherpeople,whilestillultimatelyfindingawaytouseJapaneseculture,morespecificallyJapanesepoetry,toeliminateinterpersonalconflicts.

MotooriNorinagaisoneofthemostinfluentialaswellasmostcontrover-sialfigures inJapanese literaryand intellectualhistory.His textualcom-mentariesestablishedparadigmsforunderstandingtheJapaneseclassicsthatcontinuetoexercisearoleininterpretationsofthesetextstoday,andhislinguisticstreatiseswereinstrumentalinsystematizingthestudyofJapanesegrammar.Atthesametime,hisproclamationsonthesuperiorityofJapantoallothercountriesandhis advocacyof totalobedience to theShintogodsandJapaneseemperorscanmakehimappearmorelikeanextremistideologuethanacarefulscholar.AsdiscussedintheIntroduction,manyhavefoundamorehumanisticsidetoNorinagainhiswritingsonwakaandmonogatari,inwhichherejectsamoralapproachtoliteratureinfavorofanemphasisonhumanemotionality.Inthischapter,though,Iarguethathiswritingsonliterature,whilelessblatantlyideologicalthanhisworksonShintoandtheemperor,neverthelesssharewiththemcertainideasabouthowculturalformsinheritedfromtheJapanesepastshouldstructureandmediateinterpersonalrelationshipsinthepresent.

NorinagawasbornintoafamilyofcottonmerchantsinMatsusakainIseProvince,aregionalcityfamousforitsmerchants,whoexercisedapowerful

s i x

Motoori Norinaga and the Cultural Construction of Japan

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

influencenotonlylocallybutalsothroughtheirbranchesintheshogunalcapitalofEdo.WhenNorinagawaselevenhisfatherdied,andwhenhewasnineteenhewassenttobetheadoptedsonofalocalfamilyofpapermerchants.Hefoundhedidnotenjoytheworkofamerchant,preferringto spendhis timecomposingpoetryand reading,andhe soonreturnedtohisoriginalfamily.Norinagahadbeensentoutforadoptionbecauseitwashiselderbrotherwhowasthedesignatedheirofthefamilybusiness,butwhenNorinagawastwenty-twohisbrotherunexpectedlydiedofill-ness,thrustingNorinagaintothepositionofheadofthefamily.Hismotherrecognized,though,thathewasnotsuitedtotakeoverthefamilybusiness,andinsteadsenthimtoKyototostudytobeadoctor.

NorinagastayedinKyotofrom1752to1757,wherehestudiednotonlymedicinebutalsotheChineseandJapaneseclassics.HisChinesestudiesteacherHoriKeizan(1688–1757)introducedhimtotheworkofOgyūSoraiandKeichū,whoweretobeimportantinfluencesinthedevelopmentofNorinaga’sownscholarship.Norinagahadenjoyedcomposingwakasincehisteens,andwhilestudyinginKyotohecontinuedtostudyandcomposewaka,ofteninthecontextofpoetrygatheringsthatwereasmuchsocialasliteraryoccasions.

AfterreturningtoMatsusakain1757,Norinagasetupamedicalpracticewhereheworkedbyday,while intheeveningshe lecturedtoaudiences,madeupmostlyof localmerchants,on texts suchas theeighth-centurypoetryanthologytheMan’yōshū,HeianprosewritingssuchastheTales of IseandTale of Genji,andtheHyakunin isshu(HundredPoemsbyaHundredPoets),ananthologycompiledinthethirteenthcenturythatwasoneofthemostwidelyreadcollectionsofwakaintheTokugawaperiod.Heproducedtwomajortreatisesonwakaduringthistime,Ashiwake obune(ASmallBoatPuntingThroughtheReeds),writtenaround1757,andIsonokami sasamegoto(AncientWhisperings),writtenin1763.1In1763healsowroteShibun yōryō(EssentialsoftheTale of Genji),ananalysisoftheTale of Genji.

NorinagasoonshiftedhisfocusfromHeianliteraturetothemostan-cientJapanesetexts,amovethatowedmuchtohismeetingin1763withKamonoMabuchi.MabuchiencouragedNorinagatoworkontheKojiki(RecordsofAncientMatters), the eighth-centurymythohistory thatde-scribesthecreationofJapanbythegodsandthedescentoftheJapaneseimperiallinefromthesesamegods.NorinagamadethestudyoftheKojikihismainscholarlypursuitfortherestofhislife,andspentthirty-fiveyearsonamassivecommentarycalledtheKojikiden(TransmissionoftheRecords

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

of Ancient Matters),whichhefinallycompletedin1798.NorinagabelievedthattheKojikicontainedthekeytounderstandingandrecoveringanativeWaybestowedbytheJapanesegods,whichhepresentedasanalternativetosuchforeignWaysasConfucianismandBuddhism.HethoughtthattheKojikihadbeenmadeobscurebytheChinesecharactersinwhichthetexthadbeenrecorded,anddevotedmuchofhiscommentarytoattemptingtouncovertheoriginalphonetictext,inpureancientJapanese,thathesawaslyingunderneaththeseChinesecharacters.

NorinagaalsoproducedanumberofimportantworksonJapaneselin-guistics,suchasKotoba no tama no o(WordsonaStringofJewels,1771),agrammaticalstudy,andKanji san’on kō(ReflectionsontheThreeModesofPronouncingChineseCharacters,1784),aworkonphonology.OtherimportanttextsofNorinaga’sincludeGenji monogatari tama no ogushi(The Tale of Genji,ASmallJeweledComb,1796),anexpansionandrevisionoftheearlierShibun yōryō,andUiyamabumi(FirstSteps intheMountains,1798),apedagogicalessaythatputsforththephilosophicalprinciplesandhabitsofscholarshipformakingthestudyoftheJapaneseclassicsintoalifetimepursuit.2

ThischapterfocusesprimarilyonNorinaga’stheoreticalwritingsonwaka.Thesehavereceivedconsiderableattentionfrommodernscholars,buttheywererathermarginaltohisreputationinhisowntime,whichwasrootedmoreinhisinterpretationoftheKojikiandhisstudiesoftheJapaneselan-guage.Oneofhistwomajorpoeticstreatises,Isonokami sasamegoto,wasnotpublisheduntil1816,whenthefirsttwovolumesofitappearedinawood-blockedition,andtheother,Ashiwake obune,wasnotevendiscovereduntil1916.3Ifocusontheseearlyworksbecauseofhowtheydevelopthediscourseonpoetryandemotionalitydescribed inthepreviouschapters. IamnotclaimingtopresentacomprehensiveaccountofNorinaga’sphilosophyorhisinfluencewithintheintellectualworldofthelateeighteenthcentury.Itshouldbenoted,though,thathisinterestinwakawasbynomeanslimitedtohisearlyyears,ashewasanactivewakapoetthroughouthis life,andhelpedpromotewaka amongnon-specialistswithhisKokinshū tōkagami(AKokinshūTelescope),avernaculartranslationoftheKokinshūpublishedin1797.Also,hisviewsofwakaoverlappedconsiderablywithhisframeworkforinterpretingtheTale of Genji,whichhedidpresentinaworkpublishedinhisownlifetime,Genji monogatari tama no ogushi.BeyondthefactofNorinaga’scontinuedinvolvementwiththecompositionandinterpretationof literarytexts,histheoreticalwritingsonpoetryaresignificantforhow

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

theyoutlineavisionofJapaneseculturalidentitythatIwillcontendcarriedoverintohisstudiesofJapan’snativeWay.WhileinonesenseIamconcen-tratingonarathernarrowaspectofhisoutput,then,Iseehisearlywritingsonwakanotmerelyasanabandoneddirectioninhisscholarship,butratherasverymuchofapiecewithhislaterwork.

Communicating Emotions through Patterned Language

IntheopeningsectionofIsonokami sasamegoto,Norinagadefinessong(uta)accordingtotwobasiccharacteristics:first,itmustbebasedinemotions(jō),andsecond, itmustpossess“patterning”(aya).Hearguesthatsongcanbeproducedbyanyanimatebeing(ujō no mono),not justhumans,butthatonlytheirpatternedsoundscanproperlybeconsideredsong;theunpatternedutterancesofhumans,forexample,aremerely“ordinarylan-guage”(tada no kotoba).4Inanimatethings(hijō no mono),incontrast,can-notbesaidtoproducesong,evenifthesoundsthatcomefromthemdoindeedhavepatterning.Asexamplesofsuchinanimatethings,helistsnotonlyphenomenaofnature,suchaswindandwater,butalsomusicalinstru-ments,thusdrawingaclearlineseparatingsongfrommusic(p.254).

AlthoughNorinaganotesthatbirds,insects,andotheranimalscanpro-ducesong,heisprimarilyconcernedwiththesongproducedbyhumans,namelypoetry,whichisdefinedbytheformsofemotionalityandpattern-ingparticulartohumans.5Inexaminingtheemotionalbasisofpoetry,hearguesthathumansareatrootemotionallyweakandfragile,andthattodenythisfactistolosetouchwithourtruehumannature.InIsonokami sasamegotohewrites,“Nomatterhowintelligentpeoplemaybe,whenwelookintothedepthsoftheirhearts,theyarenodifferentfromwomenandchildren”(p.408).Inresponsetotheobservationthatfathersappearstoicuponthedeathofachild,henotes,“Thewaythatfathersarerespectablycalmindeedappearsmanlyandsplendid,butthisisanoutwardappearancetheyputonbysuppressingtheirfeelingsofsadnessandforcefullymakingthings seemfine,which theydobecause theyhesitatebefore theeyesofothers,andareashamedofhowtheywouldappeartotheworld.Thewaythatmotherspaynoheedtotheeyesofothers,drenchingthemselveswithtears,mayappeartobewomanlyandshameful,butitisthisthatconsti-tutesunadorned,trueemotions”(p.412).ForNorinaga,theroleofpoetryistoexpressthesefragileemotions:“Poetry,unlikeotherwritings,isnotsomethingthatshouldpostureabouteverything,sayingitshouldbelike

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

thisorthat.Instead,itshouldsimplybethefeelingsintheheartjustastheyare,whethergoodorbad”(p.413).HepraisesJapanesepoetryforhavingremainedtruetotheessentialcharacterofpoetryasemotionalexpression,incontrasttoChinesepoetry,whichhasdescendedintoargumentationanddidacticism.Hewrites,“WhenwelookatthethreehundredpoemsoftheBook of Odes,althoughthewordsareChinese,theirspiritisnotabitdiffer-entfromthepoetryofourcountry”(p.403).Inlatertimes,though,Chi-nesepoetrycametobetransformedbythecharacteroftheChinese,whose“heartsallreverecleverness,andinallmattersmakebothersomeargumentsaboutpeoplebeinggoodorbad”(p.404).

Norinagadescribes theemotionality thatgives rise topoetrymost fa-mouslywiththetermmono no aware.6HisearlieststatementonthisideacameinashortpieceentitledAware ben(AnExplanationofAware),datingfrom1758,inwhichheexplainshowthetermsawareandmono no awareindicateaformofemotionalitythatisatthecoreofwakaandmonoga-tari: “TheWayofpoetryhasno significanceapart fromthesingleword‘aware.’AllthewakathathavebeencomposedfromtheAgeoftheGodsdowntothepresent,reachingeventothelatestdays,canbesummedupbythesingleword‘aware.’ThereforetheonlywaytoinquireintothetruemeaningofthisWayisthroughtheword‘aware.’Also,whenwelookintotheessenceoftheTales of Ise,theTale of Genji,andothermonogatari,thisessencecomesdowntothesingleword‘aware.’”7Healsodrawsaconnec-tiontoConfucianviewsofpoetry,commenting,“WhenConfuciussays,‘ThethreehundredOdescanbesummedupbyasinglephrase:nocrookedthoughts,’8thisissimilartowhatIamtalkingabouthere.”9InIsonokami sasamegoto,hegoesthroughanextensivelistofappearancesofawareinavarietyofJapanesepoetryandprosetexts,andsumsuptheseexamplesbycommenting,“Inthisway,theword‘aware’hashadvariousdifferentus-ages,buttheirmeaningisallunitedinhowtheyrefertofeelingdeepemo-tionsinresponsetothingsseen,heard,ordone.”10Hepresentsawareasaprimalformofemotionalitybynotingthatitderivesetymologicallyfromthesoundofasigh,andissimilarinthisregardtosuchexclamatorywordsasana,aya,andaa(p.285).Also,hemaintainsthatthelaterusageofawaretoreferspecificallytosadnessisanarrowingoftheword’soriginalmeaning,whichencompassedalltypesofemotions(p.284).

PoetryisnotjustemotionalexpressionforNorinaga,though,butalsoemotional communication. In Isonokami sasamegoto, he describes howwheneverpeoplefeeldeepemotions,thiscreatesakindofblockageinthe

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

heartthatcanonlyberelievedbyexpressingthesedeepemotionsinpoetryandhavingthembeunderstoodbyanother.Hedescribestheindispensabil-ityofthelistenertothecatharticprocessofpoeticcompositionasfollows:

Poetryisnotjustsomethingthatwecomposewhenweareunabletobearmono no aware,andthatnaturallyrelaxes theheart.Whenwefeelawareverydeeply,justbycomposingbyourselvesourheartcannotbesatisfied,sowehaveapersonlistentousandarecomforted.Whenanotherhearsthisandfeelsaware,itgreatlyclearstheheart....Forexample,ifapersonfeelsdeeplyaboutsomethingthatisdifficulttokeepbottledupinhisheart,evenifhetalkstohimselfaboutitingreatdetailhisheartisnotcleared,sohetellsittosomeoneelseandhasthemlisten,andthenhisheartiscleared.Andifthepersonwhohearsagreeswithwhathesaysandcommiserates,thepoet’sheartwillbeclearedevenmore....Havingsomeonelistenistrulythees-senceofpoetry,andisnotanaccidentalaspectofit.(pp.312–13)

Emotionalexpressionmustalwaysbedirectedtowardanother,andthelis-tenerdescribedhere ismorethanjustapassiveobjectatwhichthepoetdirectshimself;thelistenermustunderstandthepoetandrespondonanemotionallevel,providingthepoetwithsomeconfirmationthatasuccess-fulactofcommunicationhastakenplace.

Norinagalatergoesontoexplainthatthecommunicationofemotionsservesnotonly tocomfort thepoet,butalsohasbroadersocialbenefitsduetotheemotionalconnectionsitcreatesbetweenpeople.Oneofthesebenefits is thatpoetry allows rulers tounderstand theemotionsof theirsubjects.InIsonokami sasamegotohedescribes,intermsverysimilartoSoraiandShundai,howthoseofhighstatusleadshelteredlives,whichmakesitdifficultforthemtounderstandthesufferingsordinarypeoplemustendure.This leads rulers to lackempathy for the commonpeople, and to enactunnecessarilyharshandcruelpolicies.Bystudyingpoetry,though,rulerscanunderstandtheneedsanddesiresofthecommonpeople,givingrisetoempathyfortheruledandleadingtoamorehumaneformofgovernance(p.444).Hethenarguesthatpoetrycanalsoimproverelationsamongcom-monersthemselves:

Thisdoesnotpertainonlytothosewhogovern,though.Inpeople’severy-daydealingswithoneanotheraswell, thosewhodonotknowmono no awareshownoconsideratenessinanythingandareoftenhard-heartedandcruel.Becausetheyhavenoencounterswithvariousmatters,theydonotunderstandthem.Therichdonotknowtheheartsofthepoor,theyoungdonotknowtheheartsoftheaged,andmendonotknowtheheartsof

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

women....Butwhenpeopledeeplyunderstandtheheartsofothers,theynaturallyactsoasnottoharmsocietyorotherpeople.Thisisanotherben-efitofmakingpeopleknowmono no aware.(pp.444–46)

Asanexample,heexplainshowchildrenareonlyunfilialbecausetheyfailtounderstandtheemotionsoftheirparents,butwhenemotionsareper-fectlycommunicatedbetweenparentsandchildren,unfilialbehaviorwilldisappear(p.445).Thecommunicationofemotionsgivesrisenotonlytoempathy,then,butalsotoethicalbehavior.

ThereasonNorinagaseesitasnecessarythatpoetic languagebe“pat-terned”is,firstofall,becauseitisonlywithsuchlanguagethatitispos-sibletofullyexpressemotions.InIsonokami sasamegotohewrites,“Therearedeepemotionsthatcannotbeexhaustedwithordinarylanguage,nomatterhowlengthyanddetaileditmaybe.However,whenwegivepatterningtoourwordsandsinginadrawn-outvoice,thenduetothepatterningofthewordsandthepatterningofthevoice,evensuchdepthofemotionalitywillbemanifested”(p.307).Healsorelatestheneedforpatterningtothecom-municativefunctionofpoetry.Followingthepassagequotedearlierontheneedforpoetrytobedirectedtowardalistener,hecontinues,“Peoplewhodonotunderstandthissaythatatruepoemconsistsofsimplysayingwhatonefeelsjustasitis(ari no mama),whetherwellorpoorly,andthattheaspectthatrelatestothelistenerisnottruepoetry.Althoughthisseemstrueasfirstglance,itfailstounderstandthetrueprincipleofpoetry....Becauseitisimportantthatanotherhearpoetryandfeelaware,itisthenatureofpoetrytocreatepatterninginone’swords”(p.313).Thedistinctionbetweendirect,spontaneousexpressionandcraftedlanguage,then,ismadenotonlyoutofanaestheticconsiderationforwhatconstitutesbeautifulpoetry,butisalsoconnectedexplicitlytotheissueofhowtomakeothersunderstandwhatwefeel.

The “Patterning of Language”

WhenNorinagabringsup“patterning”asanessentialcharacteristicofsongintheopeningsectionofIsonokami sasamegoto,heatfirstsimplydescribessongashaving“wordsthatarewellorderedandhavepatterning”(p.251),withoutindicatingwhatexactqualitiesoflanguagethisrefersto.Elsewhere,though,he ismore specific.Onewayhedescribes the“patterning” thatmakesthecommunicationofdeepemotionspossibleisintermsofcertainrhetoricaltechniquescommonlyusedinwaka,suchasthemakurakotoba

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

(pillowword,orpoeticepithet),whichhenotesisused“forthepurposeofmakingwordspatternedandrhythmwellordered”(p.314),andthejokotoba(poeticpreface),ofwhichheprovidesthefollowinglovepoemfromtheKokinshūasoneofaseriesofexamples:

Shikishimano/Yamatoniwaaranu/karakoromokoromohezushite/auyoshimogana11

[Ilongforawaytomeetyouconstantly,asconstantastheChineserobesthatdonotexistinJapan]

Commentingonthispoemandthoselikeit,hewrites,“Thesespeakwhattheheartfeelsinonlytwolines,andtheremainingthreelinesareallthepattern-ingofwords.Therearesomewhowouldthereforesaythatthosethreelinesaresuperfluous,butthroughsuch‘useless’patterningofwords,theawareoftheothertwolinesisgivengreaterdepth”(p.315).Thetwolinesthathereferstoas“speakingwhattheheartfeels”arethefinaltwolinesoftheoriginal,“Ilongforawaytomeetyouconstantly.”Thefirstthreelinesthenfunctionasajokotoba,orpoeticpreface,thatconnectstothephrase“koro mo hezu shite”(constantly)andpresentsanimageofsomethingelsethatisconstant.Thepoemalsousesamakurakotoba,“Shikishima no,”tomodify“Yamato”(Japan)(Ihaveleftthemakurakotobauntranslated).SuchtechniquesasmakurakotobaandjokotobahaveaspecialpowerforNorinagainthateventhoughtheyaddnothingtothesemanticmessageofapoem,theyareabletomakeapoemcommunicatedeepemotionsmoreeffectivelythaneventhemostexhaustivedescriptionofthepoet’sfeelingsinordinary,non-poeticlanguage.

Whilethesetechniquesareonlyusedincertainpoems,amorefunda-mentalaspectof“patterning”forNorinagaistheadherenceofpoeticlan-guagetoaspecificmeter,namelythatofalternatinglinesoffiveandsevensyllables.AfterbringingupinthefirstsectionofIsonokami sasamegototherequirementthatthewordsofpoetrybewellorderedandhavepatterning,heopensthenextsectionbyfurtherclarifyingthispoint:

Question:Whatareyoureferringtowhenyouspeakof“wordsthatarewellorderedandhavepatterning”?Answer:Iamspeakingofwhen,insinging,thenumberofwordsisappropri-ate,andthewordssoundappealingandflowunhindered.“Havingpattern-ing”iswhenwordsarearrangedwellandnotdisordered.Inbothpastandpresent,andinboththeelegant(ga)andthecommon(zoku),thearrange-mentoffiveandsevensyllablesisappropriate.Thereforeboththepoetryof

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

thepastandthepopulardittiesoftodayareallinpatternsoffiveandsevensyllables.Thisisawonderofnature.(p.255)

Herewecanseeanarrowingofthedefinitionofthepatterningoflanguage,fromageneral ideaofbeingwellput together to the specificpatternofalternatingphrasesoffiveandsevensyllables.Thisfocusonthefive/sevenmetermakesthe“patterning”oflanguagerelyonadherencetoaparticularculturalform,inthatthismeteristhatofJapaneseformsofsong.12

ForNorinaga,then,certainformalstructuresconnectedtoJapanesepo-etictraditionshaveanapriorivalidity,andarenotmerelycontingentprod-uctsofhistory.ThisattitudeisreflectedinhisinterpretationoftheirregularsyllablepatternsofthemostancientJapanesepoetry,muchofwhichdidnotfollowafive/sevenmeter.Thiswouldseemtomakeitdifficulttoargueforthetranshistoricalnatureofthefive/sevenmeter,butNorinagaclaimsthatevenwhentheseancientpoemsarerecordedinwritinginwhatap-pearstobeanirregularmeter,whentheywereoriginallysungthelineswerelengthenedorshortenedtomakethemconformtothefive/sevenmeter(pp.255–56).Or,becauseNorinagaseestheoralsongitselfasprimary,andthewrittenrecordingofitassecondary,itwouldperhapsbemoreaccuratetosaythatwhenthewordswererecordedinwriting,thesewordswerelength-enedorshortenedfromtheoriginalfive/sevenpatterninwhichtheyhadbeensung.Inthisway,thefive/sevenmeterceasestobesomethingarrivedat througha longperiodof refinement andpoeticpractice, and insteadcomes to functionasa transcendentnormthatprecedesanyhistoricallyspecificinstancesofitsmanifestation.Itisaculturalform,butonethatisatthesametimenaturalanduniversal.Aswesawearlier,Norinagalinkstheneedfor“patterning”inpoeticlanguagetohisassertionthatwecannotjustexpressourselvesaswepleaseandexpecttobeunderstood,butmustmakeconsciouseffortstoreachouttoothers.Hethussuggeststhatcommunica-tion(andbyextension,theconnectionbetweenselfandother)issomethinginherentlyproblematic,whosesuccesscannotbetakenforgranted.13Inthislight,his emphasison “patterning” as involving certain stable,universalnormsofexpressioncanbeseenasanattempttoovercomethisuncertaintyinawaythatwouldnotbepossibleifpoetsmerelyreliedontheirownper-sonalideasofwhatconstitutesproperlyorderedlanguage.14

ThenotionofthestabilizingpowersoftheformalpropertiesofwakaispresentedmoreexplicitlyinNorinaga’sdescriptionoftheabilityofwakatopreservetheJapaneselanguageinitspurestate.Hearguesthattheformal

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

characteristicsofJapanesesong,particularlyitsmeter,areunsuitedtofor-eignwords,sothataslongasonefollowsthismetertherewillbenodangerofincorrectforeignsoundsinfiltratingtheJapaneselanguage:

InlatertimeseverythinginJapanhasendedupbecomingmoreandmorelikeChina,andyetpoetryaloneeventodayretainsthenaturalheartandwordsofouraugustcountryfromtheAgeoftheGodsjustastheywere,withouttheslightestadmixtureofanythingforeign.Isthisnotterrificallysplendid?Thereasonforthisisthatifonecomposessongwiththebother-someandmuddledheartand soundsof foreigncountries itwillbeveryunbecoming.Itwillgrateupontheearandsoundstrange,soifevenasingleChinesesoundisintroducedtoapoem,itwillalwayssoundfilthy.Thisisasignofhowtheheartandwordsofthelanguageofouraugustcountryareuprightandelegant,andsupremelywondrous.(p.416)

Chinese soundsproduce adissonant effectwhenpeople try tofit themintoJapanesepoetry,soevenifpeoplehaveatendencytoallowthemtoslipintotheireverydayspeech,aslongastheyareexpressingthemselvesintheformofJapanesepoetrythesesoundswillinstantlymakethemselvesknown,allowingpeopletopurgethemfromtheirlanguage.Japanesepo-etry,then,playstheroleofakindofdisciplinarymechanism,preservingtheuniquecharacteristicsoftheJapaneselanguagefromthepullofexternalforcesthatwoulddrawitawayfromitstrueessence.

ForNorinaga,threatstothepurityandcorrectnessoftheJapaneselan-guagecomenotonlyfromforeigncultures,butalsofromtheunreliabilityofpeople’sownsubjectiveinclinations.Hepursuesthisideainhiswritingsonlinguistics,suchasinhisfamousdebatewiththefictionwriter,wakapoet,andscholarUedaAkinari,whohadstudiedunderMabuchi’sdiscipleKatōUmaki.InadiscussionofhistoricalchangesinthepronunciationofJapanese,Norinagaconcedes thatsuchchangesarenatural,butcautionsAkinariagainsttakingtheirnaturalcharacterasevidenceoftheirnormativecorrectness:“Themodification(namari)ofsoundsandwordsissomethingentirelynatural.Thereisaprinciplethatdetermineshowmodificationoc-curs,andthusmodificationsoccurnaturally.However,itisagreaterrortosaythat,justbecausethereisanaturalprincipletothis,thecorruptionandmodificationofpronunciationissomethingcorrect.”15Norinagadescribesthekanasyllabaryasprovidingobjectiveevidenceofproperpronunciationfromthepast,anddenouncesasunreliablesubjectivismtheideathatpeoplecanusethenaturalinclinationsoftheorgansofspeechasevidenceforhowwordsshouldbepronounced.CriticizingAkinari’suseofsuchamethodol-

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

ogy,heargues,“Itisextremelysubjective(watakushi)nottobelieveinkana,andtotrytoestablishancientsoundsthroughyourownmouthandtongue.Themouthandtonguearethingsthatareeasytodrawastrayandchange,so theycannotserveasa standard”(p.389).Norinagadescribeskana asprovidingakindofritualcorrectness,andattributesthenaturaltendencytowarddriftinpronunciationtoalazinessakintothatwhichmakespeopleabandonpropermodesofdress:“Theancientpronunciationkamukazeislikesittinguprightincourtdresswithcap,whilethelaterpronunciationkankaze is like lyingdown inordinary clothes.Lyingdown inordinaryclothesiscomfortable,buthowcanitbesaidtobecorrect?”(p.389).

Norinaga’semphasisontheneedforreliablestandardsfromthepast,andhisskepticismregardingpeople’sabilitytousetheirownpersonalreason-ingorinclinationsasabasisonwhichtoseekknowledge,isverysimilartowhatwesawwithSorai,andNorinagaechoesSoraiinhiscriticismofSongConfucians’useofasubjective“principle,”towhichhecomparesAkinari’sattempttousetheorgansofspeechasabasisforknowledge:

Thereisnowaytoknowthesoundsofancientlanguageapartfromthroughkana.Totrytodeterminethesebyextendingthe“principleofhowthingsshouldbe(tōzen no ri )”andusingone’sownmouthandearsisthemethodoftheSongConfuciansofChina,andiscompletelyatoddswiththees-senceoftheancientlearningofthisImperialLand.Onwhatstandardisthe“principleofhowthingsshouldbe”established?Itisnothingbutpursuingthingsbasedonone’sownheart,andallsucheffortstodeterminethingswithone’sownheartaresubjective.(p.396)

NorinagaiscriticaloftheuseofChinesecharacterstorecordancientJapa-nesetexts,buthedoesnotmerelydiscardwritinginfavorofnaturalspeech,asheseesphoneticwritingas important forhowitpreserves theproperformsthatspeechmustfollow.

Norinaga’sdescriptionoftheroleofpatternedlanguageinpoetryhaspar-allelstocertainConfucianviewsonwen(writtenwiththesamecharacterthatNorinagauses for theJapanese termaya), in thatheseespatterningnotonlyasanaestheticqualityoflanguage,butalsoasrepresentingbothauniquecapacityfortheexpressionofemotionandanormativecorrectnessthatintegratessuchexpressionintoasphereofsocialvalue.Hisassertionthatpatterningmakesitpossibletoexpressemotionsthatcannotbeexhaustedinordinarylanguageissimilartohowthe“GreatPreface”states,“Emotionsmoveontheinside,andtakeforminwords.Whenwordsareinsufficient,thenwesighouremotions.Whensighingisinsufficient,thenwelengthen

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

andsingthem.Emotionsarereleasedinsounds(sheng).Soundsformpat-terning(wen), andthis iscalledtones (yin).”Norinagapresentsa similarideaofpatterningasaspontaneousoutgrowthofdeepemotionswhenhewrites,“Whenexpressingthingsthataredifficulttobear,wenaturallyhavepatterning in ourwords, anddraw them out.”16Moreover,much as theMaotraditionseestonesasnecessarytoreliablyconveytheintentionsoftheOdes,Norinagaarguesthatitisonlythroughpatterningthattheemotionalcontentofpoetrycanbeeffectivelycommunicatedtoalistener.NorinagaseesthebenefitsofsuchcommunicationinlessexplicitlymoraltermsthantheMaotradition,butstillarguesthatpatternedlanguageiscrucialintheformationofsocialbonds.Closertohisowntime,heshowssimilaritiestoSorai,forwhomwenisthequalitythatgivesancientphraseologyitscapacitytoconveyprofoundmeaningswithaneconomyofwords.

NorinagashareswithboththeMaotraditionandSoraiaconcernforthedistancethatseparatespeopleofthepresentfromtheculturalformsthatprovidenormativestandards for linguisticpatterning,and like themseesthe investigationof texts fromthepastasanecessarymeans forrecover-ingthislanguage.Hediffersfromthem,though,inthathedefinesthelin-guisticpatterningembodiedinthesetextsasinfactaspontaneousproductofthetimelessanduniversalemotionalnatureofhumans,ratherthanasahistoricalcreationofsagelyrulers.Ineffect,hemergestheexpressiveandnormativenotionsofpattering,arguingthatwhenemotionsaresufficientlyprofound,thentheseemotionsarethemselvescapableofengenderingthepatterningnecessarytobindpeopletogetherinaproperlygovernedsociety.InAshiwake obuneheargues,“Inthepast,evenordinarylanguagehadan-cientelegance.Moreover,whentheycomposedpoetryitwaswellordered,soitwasnaturallybeautiful.Also,people’sheartswerefullofgenuinenessandtheirhumanemotionswereprofound,andontopofthistheirwordswerebeautiful,sotheirpoetrywasdeepandfullofmeaning,andnaturallyachievedanindescribableeffect.Butastimeschanged,ordinarylanguagechangedgreatlyandbecamefilthy.”17Inthepast,then,peoplenaturallypro-ducedappropriatelypatternedlanguage,buttodaytheymustactivelygivepoeticqualitiestotheirlanguagetoachievethesameeffect.WhilethiskindofconsciouscreationofpoeticlanguageisacceptabletoNorinagaasapro-visionalsolution,hisultimategoal istomakesuchlanguagecomeaboutspontaneouslybyreunitingpeoplewiththeirauthenticemotionalnature.Hedefinessuchanemotionalnaturethroughtheterm“knowingmono no aware,”whichweturntonext.

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

“Knowing MononoAware” and Emotional Correctness

OneofthemoststrikingaspectsofNorinaga’swritingsonpoetry,especiallywhencomparedtothenaïvenaturalismofMabuchi,ishisexplorationofthemultiplewaysthatpoetrycanbedefinedasemotionallygenuine.ThecomplexityofthenotionofgenuinenessisoneofthemainissuesheexploresinAshiwake obune,whereheacknowledgesthat,contrarytohisassertionthattheessenceofpoetryliesinspontaneousemotionalexpression,peopleofhisowntimedonotcomposesimplybyblurtingoutwhatevertheyfeel.Heexplains,though,thataslongaspeoplecomposewhattheyintendtocompose,thisqualifiesasthe“genuineemotions”( jitsujō)thatpoetryissup-posedtoexpress:“Forexample,supposeyouseeblossoms,andeventhoughyoudonotfindthemparticularly striking,yougoaheadandcomposeapoemaboutthemasiftheyinfactwerestriking,becauseitisthecustomtodoso inpoetry.Even though it is false (itsuwari) tosay that theyarestriking,thedesiretocomposeonthemasiftheywerestrikingrepresentsgenuineemotions.”18Herehedecouplestheintentionalityofthepoetfromthespontaneityofnaturalemotions,andassertsthateitherofthesecanbelegitimatelylabeled“genuine.”

AlthoughNorinaga’sdiscussionofthegenuinenessofpoeticintentional-ityatfirstmakesitseemasifanythingwedesiretocomposecanbecon-sideredgenuine, later inAshiwake obunehearguesthat it isonlycertainsentiments,namelythosepresentinthewakaofthepast,thatcanbecon-sideredgenuine.HediscussesthiswhenhecontraststhefalsenessofwakawiththatofChinesepoetry:

Wakasincemiddleantiquitydoesnotcontaingenuineemotions; it isallfalse.ButthisfalsenessisdifferentfromthatofChinesepoetry,asthefalse-nessofwakaiscomposedfromlearningthegenuineemotionsofthepast.While it is false, then, it is the truthof human emotions (hito no jō no makoto)....ThefalsenessofChinesepoetrydoesnotlearnfromthegenu-inenessofthepast,andsimplyspeaksthepoet’sownfalsehood,andsoisfalsefrombeginningtoend,andinsipid.(pp.350–52)

The emotions expressed in classical Japanese poetry represent for Nori-naga the truthofhumannature, a truth thatpeoplehavebecomealien-atedfromovertime.Inthepast,“genuineemotions”inthesenseofwhatpeoplespontaneouslyfeltwereunitedwith“genuineemotions”inthesenseofthetruthofhumannature.Today,though,thereisadiscrepancybetweenthesekindsof“genuineemotions,”andthetaskofstudentsofpoetryisto

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

eliminatethegapbetweenwhattheyexpressinpoetryandwhattheyspon-taneouslyfeel.Thewaytodothisisto“immerseourheartsinthepoetrycomposedbytheancients,andbecomeaccustomedtoitonadailybasis,sothatouremotionswillnaturallybetransformed,andtheelegantintentionsoftheancientswillariseinourownhearts”(p.306).Hemaintainsthatpo-etryneedstobelearnedprimarilythroughtheimitationofclassicalmodels;itispointlesstosimplytrytobesincere,asifpeopleoftoday“justcomposedbasedonthestateoftheirownheart,thiswouldcreateextremelyvulgarpo-etry”(p.303).Theimitationofmodelswillatfirstbeamechanicalexerciseinacademiccorrectness,butintimethesentimentsexpressedinthepoemspeopleimitatewillbeinternalizedandcometoinhabittheirownhearts.ThisissimilartoSorai’sdescriptionofhowpeoplelearntheConfucianWay,andSorailikewisewarnedagainstasinceritypracticedwithoutreferencetoanysetofnormativestandards.ForSorai,though,theWaythatisinternalizedthroughthisprocessisahumanconstruct,andnotanapriorihumannature.

This conception of how people should learn poetry is reflected inNorinaga’s idealizationoftheShinkokinshū,whichhepraises inAshiwake obuneforhow“itspoemsarecomposedbyimmersingtheheartinthestyleofthepast”(p.267).InkeepingwiththisreasonforvaluingtheShinkokinshū,heactuallydoesnotadvocatedirectlycopyingit,insteadarguingthattheproperwaytoemulateitspoetryisbyreproducingthemethodologythroughwhichitwasproduced,specificallybyimmersingoneselfinthepoetryofthefirst three imperial anthologies, theKokinshū,Gosenshū, andShūishū(p.267).Anexampleofwhatheisreferringtoisthetechniqueofhonkadori(allusivevariation),commonlyemployedintheShinkokinshū,inwhichtheexperienceofthepoetisnotstateddirectly,butinsteadisexpressedthroughquotingandreferencingearlierpoetry.Onamoregenerallevel,Norinaga’sviewsoverlapwiththoseofFujiwaranoShunzei(1114–1204),acompileroftheShinkokinshū,whowritesinKorai fūteishō(SelectionsfromPoeticStylesfromAncientTimestothePresent,1197),“Whenvisitingspringblossomsandviewingautumnleaves,wereitnotforpoetrynonewouldknowoftheirbeautyandfragrance.”19Inotherwords,people’sappreciationofbeautyisal-waysmediatedthroughtheexpectationsandaestheticpreferencesgeneratedbytheirknowledgeofpoetry.“Genuineexperience”itselfthereforeinvolvesanelementoffictionality.Norinagasimilarlyseesthepoetryofthepastasadevicethatmediatespeople’sexperienceoftheworld,andforhimthegoalofstudyingpoetryistolearnthesetofapprovedresponsestotheworldthatareembodiedinacertaincanonofpoetry.20

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

InShibun yōryō and Isonokami sasamegoto,Norinaga furtherdevelopsthisideaoflearningemotionsfromthepoetryofthepastthroughhisex-planationofwhat itmeansto“knowmono no aware”(mono no aware o shiru).Earlierwesawhimusemono no aware toreferbroadlytodeeplyfeltnaturalemotions,butheintroducesanormativeelementtothisemo-tionalitywhenhewritesaboutwhatitmeansto“know”mono no aware.InShibun yōryōhedescribes“knowingmono no aware”asinvolving“knowingtheessenceofthings(mono)andknowingtheessenceofevents(koto).”21Knowingtheessenceofthingsreferstoanabilitytorespondintheproperway toobjectsofbeauty in thenaturalworld: “Forexample,when see-ingbeautifulcherryblossomsinfullbloom,toappreciatetheblossomsasbeautifulistoknowtheessenceofthething.Discerningthattheblossomsarebeautiful,wefeelhowbeautifulindeedtheyare.Thisismono no aware.Butnottofeelthattheblossomsarebeautiful,nomatterhowbeautifultheymaybe,istofailtoknowtheessenceofthething.Suchapersonisnotaffectedbythebeautyoftheblossomsatall.Thisistofailtoknowmono no aware”(p.125).Knowingtheessenceofevents,ontheotherhand,isanabilitytorespondappropriatelytoeventsinthehumanworld,inparticulartorespondempatheticallytothesufferingsofothers:“Whenencounteringthedeepgriefofothersandwitnessingtheirgreatsorrow,itisbecauseweknowabouttheeventsthatoughttomakeonesadthatwerealizethattheymustbesad.Thisistoknowtheessenceofevents....Thosewhodonotknowmono no awaredonotfeelanythinganddonotdiscerntheessenceofeventsthatoughttomakeonesad.Thereforenomatterhowmuchtheywitnessthesorrowofothers,theyseeitasunconnectedtotheirownheart,sotheirheartisentirelyunmoved”(p.126).Empathyisseenhereasrootedinthefactthatallhumansaremadesadbythesameevents(suchasthedeathofalovedone),whichmakesitpossibletocomparetheexperiencesofotherswiththeirown.CentraltoNorinaga’sideaof“knowingmono no aware,”then, istheneedforpeopletoalignthemselveswithauniversalhumanemotionality.Heargues,forexample,thatmonogatarivaluefol-lowinghumanemotions,but immediatelygoesontoclarify,“Followinghumanemotionsisnotthesameasjustactingaccordingtowhatonefeelsoneself....Toseehowanotherissorrowfulandtofeelsorrowoneself,ortoseehowanotherisdelightedandtofeeldelightedtogetherwithhim—thisisnamelytobeinkeepingwithhumanemotions,andtoknowmono no aware”(p.84).MuchlikeJinsaiandSorai,Norinagaisconcernedwith

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

escapinganarrowsubjectivestandpoint,andseesaconnectionwiththeemotionsofothers,whichpoetrycanprovide,asameanstothisend.

In lightof thenormativeapproach thatConfucianism typically takestowardemotions,itissignificantthatNorinagaborrowsheavilyfromCon-fuciansources,specificallyConfuciandiscussionsoftheneedtoregulateemotions,whenhediscusses“knowingmono no aware.”Heexplainsthatalllivingthingshaveemotions,andbecausetheyhaveemotions,feelingsarearousedinthemuponencounteringthingsintheexternalworld.Becausethesefeelingsarearoused,alllivingthingsproducesong(uta)(p.281).Thisaccountofhowsongcomesaboutechoes the“RecordofMusic,”whichstates,“[Thehumanheart]feelsinresponsetothingsandmoves,andthere-foretakesforminsound.”22Hecontinuestodrawonthe“RecordofMusic”whenheframeshisdiscussionthroughthevocabularyofemotionsbeing“atrest”or“inmotion,”andconnectsthiswiththeideathatemotionsneedtobeguidedincertaindirections,sothatpeoplefeelwhattheyshouldfeelontheappropriateoccasions:

Because there aremanyevents in theworld,wheneverpeople encountertheseevents theiremotionsareput inmotionanddonot remainat rest(kokoro wa ugokite shizuka narazu).Asfortheemotionsmoving,thiscomesfromfeelingvariousthings,suchassometimesfeelingjoyful,sad,aggravated,delighted,pleased,diverted,fearful,distressed,affectionate,hateful,fond,orrepelled.Thisisnamelymovingbecauseofknowingmono no aware.Movingbecauseofknowingmono no awareis,forexample,feelingjoyfuluponen-counteringaneventthatshouldmakeonefeeljoyful—oneisjoyfulbecauseofdiscerningtheessenceoftheeventthatshouldmakeonefeeljoyful.Orfeelingsadbecauseofencounteringaneventthatshouldmakeonefeelsad—oneissorrowfulbecauseofdiscerningtheessenceoftheeventthatshouldmakeonesad.Soknowingmono no awarereferstodiscerningtheessenceofeventsthatshouldmakeonefeeljoyfulorsaduponencounteringtheseevents.(pp.281–82)

Theideaofemotionsbeing“atrest”or“inmotion”appearsinthe“RecordofMusic”passagethatbegins,“Humansarebornatrest;thisistheHeav-enlynature.Theyfeelinresponsetothings,andtheirnatureisputintomo-tion;thesearethedesiresoftheinbornnature.”23AsdiscussedinChapter1,thispassagegoesontodescribethesocialchaosbroughtaboutwhenthereisnothingtoregulatetheemotionsthatariseinpeopleuponcontactwithexternalthings,andpresentstheritualandmusicofthesagesasregulatorymechanismswithwhichtoremedythischaos.

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

Norinagarejectsthecreationsofthesagesasmeanstoregulateemotion-ality,butashisconceptof“knowingmono no aware”indicates,hedoesseeemotionsintermsofsomekindofcorrectnessandincorrectness.Norinagaborrowsfromthesame“RecordofMusic”passagesthatZhuXihadalludedtointheprefacetohisShi jizhuan(CollectedTransmissionsontheOdes),andinhisdescriptionofemotionalcorrectnessaswell,hespeaksintermssimilartothesummaryofZhuXi’sideaofemotions“attainingtheirpropermeasure”givenbyhisfollowerChenChun.ThepassagebelowwasalreadyquotedinChapter1,butitisworthrepeatingheretocallattentiontoNori-naga’ssimilaritiestoit:

Emotions are the activityof theheart.Theyare something thathumanscannotdowithout,andarenotsomethingbad.However,whenitcomestothecausesofemotions,theyeachhavetheirpropernorms.Forexampletofeeljoyfulwhenoneshouldfeeljoyful,tofeelangrywhenoneshouldfeelangry,tofeelsadwhenoneshouldfeelsad,tofeelhappywhenoneshouldfeelhappy, to feel compassionwhenone should feel compassion, to feelshameanddisapprovalwhenoneshouldfeelshameanddisapproval,tofeeldeferencewhenoneshouldfeeldeference,andtofeelrightandwrongwhenoneshouldfeelrightandwrong—thisisinaccordwithpropernorms,andiswhatismeantbyemotions“beingmanifestedandattainingtheirpropermeasure.”24

There is an importantdifferencebetweenZhuXi andNorinaga in thatNorinagarejectstheideathatsuchemotionalregulationshouldbeseenex-plicitlyintermsofmorality.Still,aswesawearlier,heseesthecommunica-tionofemotionsasleadingtoanaturalmorality,inwhichpeopletreateachotherethicallybecausetheyempathizewitheachother.AlthoughononelevelNorinagadefendshumanemotionsagainstConfucianmoralism,weshouldkeepinmindthatinConfucianethicalphilosophiesitiscommonformoralityandemotionalitytogotogether,inthatbeingamoralpersonisdefinedintermsofhavingtherightmoralsentiments.Byappealingtobothemotionalityanditsproperregulationasessentialtohumansocialinterac-tions,then,NorinagaisverymuchonacontinuumwithConfucianviewsofemotionality.

AnotherwayNorinagaoverlapswithConfuciantraditionsofthinkingaboutemotionalityisthedistinctionhemakesbetween“emotions”( jō)and“desires”(yoku).InIsonokami sasamegoto,hewritesthat“feelingsofpityortendernessforothers,orfeelingsofsadnessorpain,arecalled‘emotions,’”while“feelingsofcovetingwealthare ‘desires,’” and thengoesonto say

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

thatitisemotions,andnotdesires,thatgiverisetopoetry(p.421).25Hisdescriptionof“emotions”asinvolvingreachingouttoothers,and“desires”asamerequestforselfishgain,echoesthedistinctionthatConfuciansoftenmakebetweenthoseformsofemotionalitythatarepubliclyacceptableandcontributetothesocialgood,andthosethatharmsociety.

SomeofwhatNorinagacalls“emotions”canbesociallydisruptive,buthisacceptanceoftheseemotionsinpoetryandmonogatariispremisedontheirbeingfictional.Ontheonehand,hearguesthattheemotionsthatcomefrom“knowingmono no aware”arenottobesubjecttomoraljudg-ment,andevengoessofarastosaythatimmorality,particularlyillicitlove,isparticularlyconducivetobringingoutdeepfeelingsofmono no aware.WhilethiswouldappeartosuggestthatNorinaga’sideaof“knowingmono no aware” represents a negation or inversion of Confucian morality, inShibun yōryōhedefendshimselfagainstchargesthatheispromotingim-moral amorousness, writing, “I do not value amorousness as somethingwonderful,butrathervalueknowingmono no aware”(p.159).Heexplainsthisbycomparing themono no aware thatarises fromamorousness toalotusthatgrowsinamuddypond:“Onekeepsamuddypondbecauseitisthematerialinwhichoneplantslotusesinordertolookattheirflowers.Althoughonedoesnotvaluethemuddypond,onevaluesthegreatpurityofthelotusflowers,soonesetsasidethefactthatthemuddypondisclouded”(p.159).Themuddywaterisstillmuddy,justastheamorousnessdepictedintheTale of Genjiisstillimmoral.TheGenjiisfiction,however,andNorinagaisnotsuggestingthatpeoplebehavelikeGenjicharactersintheirreallives.Whathewantsthemtodoistocultivatetheiremotionalsensibilities,in-cludingasensitivitytotheemotionsofothers,byreadingthe Genji,whichwillthenleadthemnaturallytobehaveproperly.

Norinaga on the Autonomy of Poetry

In a letter fromhis studentdays inKyoto,Norinagawrites to a friend,“Yourejectmytasteforwaka,andIrejectyourtasteforConfucianism.ThereasonIrejectConfucianismisthatitistheWayofthesages.TheWayofthesagesisaWayforgoverningthecountryandrealm,andbringingpeacetothepeople. It isnot something forprivatepleasure.Now,we arenotonestogovernthecountryorbringpeacetothepeople.SowhatusecanwemakeoftheWayofthesages?”26Norinaga’scharacterizationofConfucian-ismistakenfromSorai,whodescribestheWayinBendō(OnDistinguish-

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

ingtheWay)bystating,“TheWayofConfuciusistheWayoftheancientkings.TheWayoftheancientkingsisaWayforbringingpeacetothepeo-ple.”27ForNorinagathisassociationofConfucianismwithrulershipmakesitirrelevanttothose,likehimself,whobybirthareprecludedfromholdinggovernmentoffice.HethensuggeststhatwakaisanalternativetoConfu-cianism,andbelongstoarealmseparatefromthatofthepublicbusinessofgovernment.ThisdissociationofwakafromgovernmentisalsoexpressedintheopeningsectionofAshiwake obune,wherehewrites,“Theessenceofpo-etryisnottoaidingovernance,norisitforpersonalcultivation.Rather,itconsistsofnothingbutsimplyexpressingwhatisfeltintheheart”(p.245).

Aswesawearlier,though,Norinagadoesseepoetryashavingcertainsocialandpoliticalbenefits.Althoughthismayseemtocontradicthisinsistencethatpoetryissimplysomethingforexpressingemotions,hereconcileshisdifferentstatementsaboutpoetrybydrawingadistinctionbetweenthe“es-sence”ofpoetryandits“applications”:“Inall thingsthere isadistinctionbetweentheiressentialcharacterandthebenefitsthatcomefromtheiruse.This iswhat isreferredtoinChinesewritingsas ‘essence’(Ch. ti,Jp. tai)and‘application’(Ch.yong,Jp.yō).28Ifwelookintotheoriginalcharacterofpoetry,itisnothingmorethansomethingtoexpressmono no aware.Ihaveal-readyexplainedthisingreatdetail.Butwhenitcomestoitsapplication,ithasmanyapplicationsforbothoneselfandothers.”29Hethendescribeshowthese“applications”ofpoetryincludeitsabilitytoconsoletheheartofthepoet,toallowrulerstoknowtheheartsoftheirsubjects,andtogiverisetoempathy,whichcausespeopletospontaneouslytreateachotherinanethicalmanner.

Althoughpoetryhasthesevariousapplications,Norinagainsistsontheautonomyof its “essence” from its “applications.” InAshiwake obunehewritesthat“wakaisnotcreatedwithamindtobeingappliedtomajororminor,orgoodorbadpurposes”(p.340),andexplainsthisthroughacom-parisonwiththedifferencebetweenatreeitselfandtheusestowhichitcanbeput:

Althoughtreesdonotgrowoutofanyintentiontobeusefultohumans,oncelargetreeshavegrowninthemountains,peopleseethem,realizethattheywillmakegoodlumber,andsocutthemdowntousethem.Theuseofthislumberliesinvariousmajorandminor,andgoodandbadthings.Whenonemakesahouse,itbecomesmaterialforahouse.Whenonemakesavessel,itbecomesavessel.Butatthetimetheystandinthemountains,apineissimplyapine,andacypressissimplyacypress....Wakaislikethisaswell.Touseitforgovernmentisamajorapplication,likeusingcypressas

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

materialforahouse.Butcypressisnotlimitedtobeingusedasmaterialforhouses,nordiditoriginallygrowassomethingthatwastobeusedassuch.Still,whenweuseitthiswayitisbeautiful,soweuseit.Theuseofpoetryasanaidtogovernanceisalsolikethis.(pp.340–41)

Inthisway,Norinagamaintainsthenotionofpoetryasthespontaneousex-pressionofemotion,whilestillallowingforthepossibilitythattheproductsofsuchexpressionmayhappentoservepoliticalends.

OnereasonNorinagaseesitassoimportanttokeepemotionalexpres-sionindependentofitsapplicationsisthattheseapplicationsarethemselvesdependentonthetruthfuldepictionofemotions. Ifpoetry iscomposedwiththeexplicitintentofbeinguseful,thenitisnolongeraspontaneousexpressionofemotion,thusunderminingtheusefulnessthatitaspiresto.InhisKokka hachiron sekihi hyō(ACritiqueofA Rejection of the “Eight Essays on Japanese Poetry,”1768),30hedescribesthisdilemmathroughaframeworksimilartothedistinctionbetween“essence”and“application”thathehademployedinAshiwake obune:“Thedisplayingofhumanfeelingsisnottheoriginalcharacter(honbun)ofpoetry,butratherhowitisapplied.Theap-plication comes last.Theoriginal characterof poetry consistsmerelyofsinginginalengthenedvoicetheoverflowingfeelingsinone’sheart.Oneneversingspoetrywiththeintentionofapplyingittosomething.Ifonesingswiththeintentionofapplyingit,itwillnotbeone’struefeelings,andwilljustbeafalsefront.Thusitwillbeofnouseinknowinghumanfeel-ings.Confuciansdonotunderstandthis,andsimplytaketheapplicationtobetheoriginalcharacter.”31Somewhatparadoxically,then,wecanonlyachievetheapplicationsofpoetrybytemporarilysuspendingourinterestintheseapplications.ForNorinaga,theproblemwithConfucianviewsofpoetryisnotthattheyputpoetrytopoliticaluse,butthattheydemandthatpoetrybecomposedforthepurposeofbeingusefulfromtheoutset.Althoughhesimplyspeaksof“Confucians”ingeneralhere,hiscriticismismostdirectlyapplicabletoZhuXi’sConfucianism,particularlytheidea,discussedinChapter1,thatpoetryshould“transmittheWay.”

DespiteNorinaga’sinsistencethatemotionalexpressionbekeptseparatefromitspoliticalandsocialapplications,acloserlookathowheconceivesofthisexpressiongivesusreasontoquestionwhetherheisreallymakingitasautonomousfromitsapplicationsasheclaims.Whenweconsiderthattheessenceofpoetryconsistsofsimplyexpressingemotions,whileitsappli-cationsinvolvebenefitsthatcomefrommakingtheseemotionsunderstoodbyothers,wecanseethatitisspecificallycommunicationthatprovidesthe

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

linkbetweenessenceandapplication.Thisappliesnotonlytotheempathythatpoetrygivesriseto,butalsotothepersonalconsolationthatpoetryprovidesforthepoet,whichonlycomeswhenthepoethasbeenunderstoodbyanother.Norinaga’sassertionthattheessenceofpoetryisindependentofitsapplicationsthenimpliesthatcommunicationisextraneoustotheorigi-nalactofexpression.Aswehaveseen,though,hetakesgreatpainstoshowhowpeople’sdeepest,mostauthenticemotionsareinfactthemanifestationofuniversalnormsoffeeling,andhowthepatternedlanguagethatemergesspontaneouslyfromsuchdeepemotionsisstructuredaccordingtouniversalnorms.Inthisway,theformsoffeelingandexpressionthatguaranteetrans-parentcommunicationarealreadyinscribedwithinpeople’sspontaneousex-pressionfromtheoutset,providedthattheyareproperlycultivatedthroughimmersioninclassicalJapanesepoetry.TranslatedintoNorinaga’sschemaof“essence”and“application,”wecouldsaythattheapplicationsofpoetry,whichareaproductofitsabilitytocommunicateemotionstoothers,arealreadyinscribedinitsessence,whichliesinspontaneousexpression.

ThisunityofessenceandapplicationisconnectedtoNorinaga’smergingofexpressiveandnormativeconceptionsoflinguisticpatterning,which,asInotedearlier,removesthemediatingroleplayedbysagelyrulersincertainConfucianphilosophies.TheMaoschoolandSoraidonotusetheterms“essence”and“application,”buttheyaresimilartoNorinagainseeingpo-etryasatcoreaspontaneousoutgrowthofemotionality,whichthencanbeputtovarioussocialuses.Theyinsistontheneedforrulersasalinkinthisprocess,though,asrulersobservetheemotionalexpressionofordinarypeople,andthenusetheknowledgegainedfromthistoputintopracticepoliciesorteachingsthatwillproperlysocializethepeopleonanemotionallevel.Norinaga,however,eliminatestheneedforsuchamediatingrolebydefiningculturalnormsasconstitutiveofhumannatureitself.

WhenNorinagadeclaresthattheapplicationsofpoetryareindependentofitsessence,thissuggestsagapthatmustbeovercomebetweenthepoetandothers;poetryissimplytheexpressionofemotions,andthismayormaynotleadtoanykindofconnectiontoothers.Butbydefiningthecul-turalnormsofclassicalJapanesepoetryasthemselvesnatural,heimpliesthatthosewhodonotunderstandthemarenotfullyintouchwiththeirauthentichumannature,andabsolvesthepoetoftheresponsibilitytoreachbeyondthesenorms.ThisattitudecanbecontrastedwithSorai’sdescriptionoftheConfucianWay,asdiscussedinChapter2,wherehearguesthattheConfucianWaymustbetakenonfaith,butatthesametimeemphasizes

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

that thisWayneeds to respondtoanexternal reality thatexistsprior toitsstructuringbytheWay.ThishelpsSoraiavoid,Iargued,aviewofthecultureof thesagesasaclosedworldthatanswers tonothingbut itself.Norinaga,though,byequatingtheculturalnormsofJapanesepoetrywithhumannature,doesfallintosuchaself-referentialvisionofculture.Asaconsequence,despitehisconcernforreachingoutempatheticallytoothers,heultimatelyplaceslimitsonhowfarthisempathyextends.

Norinaga’s Way of the Gods and Its Critics

Norinaga’sturntothestudyoftheKojiki inthe1760swasaccompaniedbyanefforttoarticulatethephilosophicalfoundationsoftheAncientWay(kodō),orWayoftheGods,thathebelievedwastransmittedbythistext.He refinedhis ideason theWayof theGods througha seriesofworksthat,despitetheirdifferenttitles,canessentiallybethoughtofasdraftsofasingleworkinprogress.Thefirstofthese,Michi chō mono no ron(ATrea-tiseontheThingCalledaWay),waswrittenbefore1767,andthesecond,Michi chō koto no ron(ATreatiseontheMatterCalledaWay),waspro-ducedsometimebetween1767and1771,whenthethirdversion,Naobi no mitama(TheUprightSpirit),appeared.AnonlyslightlymodifiedversionofNaobi no mitamawasthenusedaspartoftheintroductiontoNorinaga’sKojikiden,thefirstpartofwhichwaspublishedin1790.32

InNaobi no mitama,Norinagaargues that theWay is thecreationoftheJapanesegods,andis“notthenaturalWayofHeaven-and-Earth...norisitaWaycreatedbyhumans.”33ThefirstoftheseviewsherejectsismeanttorefertoDaoism,ashecomments,“Donotmistakenlythink[thisWay]tobethesameastheideasofthosesuchasLaoziandZhuangziinChina”(p.57).Hedoesnotgiveanyexamplesofproponentsofthesecondview,butgiventhehistoricalcontext inwhichheiswriting, it issafetoassume thathe is targetingOgyūSorai andhis followers.Following theKojiki,Norinagasees theJapaneseemperorasdescendedfromthegods,specificallyAmaterasu,andbasedonthisdivinedescentpositstheemperorasthesupremeearthlypoliticalauthority.Theonlylimitimposedontheemperoristhathemustobeythegods,astheyaretheultimatesourceofauthority:“Inallmatters,theemperordoesnotactaccordingtohisownaugustheart,butcarriesthingsoutandgovernsaccordingtohowthingswereintheAgeoftheGods.Whenhehasdoubts,heinquiresbymeansofaugustdivinationintotheaugustheartsoftheHeavenlygods”(p.49).

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

AcentraltenetofNorinaga’svisionoftheWayoftheGodsisthathu-mansmustpassivelyacceptwhateverthegodsdo,whethergoodorbad.Hewrites,“AllaffairsinHeaven-and-Earthareinaccordancewiththewillofthegods.Allaffairsinthisworld,suchasthechangingoftheseasons,thefallingoftherain,andthegustingofthewind,aswellasthevariousgoodandbadthingsthathappentocountriesandpeople,allareentirelytheworksofthegods.Amongthegodstherearegoodonesandbadones.Theirworksareinaccordancewiththeirdifferentnatures,sotheycannotbeunderstoodwithordinaryreason”(pp.53–54).AnyattempttounderstandtheworksofthegodsisforNorinagaamanifestationofthe“Chineseheart”(karagokoro),whichtriestoextendhumanreasoningtoallmatters.

Anexamplehegivesofsucha“Chineseheart”istheideaofrulershipbeingbasedina“mandateofHeaven”(Ch.tianming,Jp.tenmei ).WhilethemandateofHeaven,whichcanbelostbyrulerswhoareunjust,issup-posedtoprovideamoralbasisforgovernment,NorinagacitestheideaofthemandateofHeaventodepictConfucianismasnothingmorethananideologytomasktheexerciseofpower:“ThemandateofHeavenisapretextconcoctedbythesagesofancientChinainordertobeabsolvedoftheircrimeofkillingrulers andseizingcountries” (p.54).WhileheconcedesthatthekingsofancientChinahadspecialskills,heseestheseasoperatingpurelyonthelevelofacruderealpolitik,anddeniesthattheycanprovidenormativestandardsforpeopletoday.Morespecifically,heseestheskillsdisplayedbytheChinesekingsashavingvalueonlyinthecontextofade-gradedcountrylikeChina:

[Inforeigncountries]thereweresomewhodisplayedauthorityandintel-ligence,wonover thepeople, seizedcountriesheldbyothers, tooksuc-cessfulmeasurestoavoidbeingoverthrownthemselves,governedwellforsometime,andservedasmodelsforlaterages.InChinatheyrefertosuchpeopleas“sages.”Intimesofchaos,peoplebecomepracticedatwar,andthereforeitisonlynaturalthatmanygreatgeneralsemerge.Inthesameway,whenpeoplemakegreateffortstogovernacountrythathaswickedcustomsandisdifficulttogovern,ineachgenerationtheydevisevariousmethodsandbecomepracticedinthem,leadingtotheemergenceofcleverrulers.Butitismistakentoimaginetheseso-calledsagestobeassuperiorasthegods,andtopossessmiraculouspowers.(pp.50–51)

Intheend,heconcludes,“Whenoneconsiderstheessenceofwhatiscalleda‘Way’inChina,onefindsthatitconsistsofnothingmorethanthetwo

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

elementsoftryingtoseizeothers’countries,andtryingtokeepone’sowncountryfrombeingseized”(p.51).

MuchlikeMabuchi inKokuikō,NorinagaarguesthatJapanhasbeendrawn away from its original goodness by the corrupting influence ofChineseculture.Hewrites,“InancienttimesinourImperialLand,eventhoughtherewerenosuchbothersometeachings,therewasnodisorderatall,andtherealmwasgovernedpeacefully”(p.52).Henotes,forexample,“Such things ashumaneness, rightness, ritualpropriety,deference,filialpiety,brotherlyobedience,loyalty,andfaithfulnessareallthingsthathu-mansnecessarilypossess,andthereforewithoutneedingteachings,peoplenaturallyknowthem”(p.59).ThenaturalmoralityandgoodgovernmentofancientJapanweredisrupted,hemaintains,whenChinesebookswereimported,andcametoinfluencethecustomsandgovernmentofJapan:“Abandoning the splendidWay of our august country, they valued thecleverandbothersomeideasandactionsofothercountries.Becausetheytookafterthese,theheartsandactionsthathadbeenstraightforwardandpurebecameentirelyfilthyandtwisted”(p.53).

Norinaga’sattackonthenotionofahumanlycreatedWayoriginatinginancientChinaisclearlyopposedtoSorai’sviewoftheWay.WhiletheSoraischoolwasconsiderablyweakenedbythetimeNorinagawroteNaobi no mitama,afollowerofSorai’sphilosophy,IchikawaKakumei(1740–1795),wrotearefutationofNorinaga’sideasentitledMaganohire(DispellingDe-lusions,1780).34KakumeiattacksfromtheangleswewouldexpectgivenhisaffiliationwithSorai,criticizingNorinagaforbelievingthatnormscanexistintheabsenceofthecreationsofthesages.KakumeiseesNorinaga’sheresyasthesameasthatoftheDaoists,whomheclaimsNorinagatakesafterwithhisviewthatConfucianvirtuesaresomethingthatareforcedonpeopleartificially,andthattheywereonlygivennamesinthefirstplacebecauseof thebreakdownofanoriginal spontaneousgoodness.35Kaku-meigoesafteranumberofotherideasofNorinaga’s,andtakesaimathisidealizationoftheKojikiasoraltradition,arguingthatoraltraditionsareactuallylessreliable,andthatitisonlywiththeinventionofwritingthattherecametobeaccuratehistoricalrecords(p.183).AnotherwayhecastsdoubtontheveracityoftheKojikiisbyarguingthatitwassimplywrittentosuitthepoliticalneedsoftheemperoratthetime(p.184).Norinagathenpennedarejoindertothiscritique,entitledKuzubana(Arrowroot,1780),inwhichhedefendshimselfagainstKakumei’scharges,particularlystressinghowtheinventionsofthegodsdifferfromthepurenaturalismofDaoism.36

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

Chapter2discussedhowSorai’sdemandthattheWayrespondtoempir-icalreality,particularlytherealityofhumannature,preventstheWayfrombecomingacompletelyself-enclosedandself-validatingsphereofculturalvalue.Thismethodof relatingtheWaytoempirical reality isconnectedtohisemphasison“harmony”(Ch.he,Jp.wa),definedasthecoexistenceofdissimilarthings,asthediversityandcomplexityofrealitycanneverbeforced intoa singleuniformmold.Soraiwarnsagainst the reductionofharmonyto“sameness”(Ch.tong,Jp.dō),andinterpretsthispairoftermswithreferencetoaZuo zhuanpassageinwhichthetermsareappliedtotherelationshipbetweenlordandsubject,withtheunreflectiveagreementof“sameness”contrastedwiththeproductivecriticismofrulersthat ispos-siblewhen subjects “harmonize”with their lords.Norinaga, incontrast,advocatesunconditionalobediencetotheemperor:“InthetrueWay,onediscardsargumentsoverwhether[theemperor]isgoodorbad,andinsteadcompletelyfears,reveres,andobeyshim.”37InMaganohire,Kakumeicriti-cizesthisattitudeofNorinaga,writing,“Theroleoftheruleristocareforthepeople,butifheneglectsthisrole,thisisaselfishact.Ancientpeoplesaidthatsubjectsshouldnotfollowaruler’sselfishness....Todismissques-tionsofwhethertherulerisgoodorbad,andsimplytostandinaweofhim,islikebeingaservingwoman.”38

BothNorinagaandSoraiseeearthlyrulersassubjecttoahigherauthor-ity;thisauthorityisrepresentedbytheJapanesegodsforNorinaga,andbyHeavenforSorai.UnlikeNorinaga’sviewoftheindissolublelinkbetweentheemperorsandthegods,though,SoraiseesitaspossibleforpeopletobypassearthlyrulersandconnectdirectlytoHeaven:“Menciusspeaksofthe‘officerofHeaven(Ch.tianli,Jp.tenri).’Thistermisusedinthecontextoftimesofchaos.Whenthereisa[true]rulerintherealm,thenthepeopletreattherulerasHeaven,andtheruleraloneservestheHeavenlymandateandcarriesitout.Whenthereisno[true]rulerintherealm,though,thenthereisnobodytoreceivethemandate.ThereforethegentlemandirectlyservesthemandateofHeaven.Thisiscalledbeingan‘officerofHeaven.’This iswhywhenTangattackedKing Jie, andwhenWuattackedKingZhow,theyinvokedHeaven.”39TheprimaryunitofChinesehistoriographyisthedynasty,andSoraiacceptstheideaofthereplacementofonedynastywiththenextwhentheolddynastyhaslostthemandateofHeaven.ForNorinaga,however,theonlyacceptabledynastyisaneternalone,specifi-callytheJapaneseimperialline.Whileheoffersalegitimatecritiqueofhowthe ideaof themandateofHeavencanbeused tomask the exerciseof

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

power,theforceofthiscritiqueisweakenedbythefactthatheatthesametimeabandonstheveryrealcriticalpotentialofthemandateofHeaven.AworldgovernedbyNorinaga’sWayoftheGods,then,isoneinwhichbothconflictandpoliticalsubjectivityhavebeeneliminated,renderedunneces-sarybythefactthatpeopleliveinasocietyuncorruptedbythestrifeandselfishnessthathebelievedtobetheproductofforeigncultures.

ContemporaryoppositiontoNorinaga’sAncientWaythoughtcamenotonlyfromConfucians,butalsofromotherswho,likeNorinaga,weretryingtodefineaplaceforthestudyandcultivationofJapaneseculture,butob-jectedtohisabsoluteelevationofJapanaboveallothercountries.Akinari,forexample,attackedNorinaga’sideathatthesungoddessAmaterasuisauniversalsourceoflighttoallcountriesoftheworld,andthatthefactsheisnativetoJapanmeansthatJapanissuperiortoallothercountries.AfterdescribingaDutchmapoftheworldthatportrayscountriesaccordingtotheirtruerelativesizes,Akinariargues:

Ifweweretolookforwhereourcountrywasonthismap,wewouldseethatitismerelyasmallisland,likeatinyleaffallenontoalargepond.Ifwetoldpeopleofothercountriesthatthistinyislandcameintoexistencebeforeallothercountries,andthatitisthecountryinwhichthesunandmoonthatilluminatetheentireworldfirstappeared,andthatforthisreasonallothercountriesbenefitfromtheilluminationofourcountry,andthattheyshouldthereforepaytributetoourcourt,thereisnotasinglecountrythatwouldbeconvincedbythis.Notonlythis,buttheywoulddoubtthisbecauseinresponsetotheancientlegendsofourcountry,theywouldsaythattheyhavethesamekindoflegendsintheircountries.Whenpeopleengageindisputes,eachsayingthatitwasintheancienttimesoftheirowncountrythatthesunandmoonfirstappeared,thenwhocanadjudicateamongtheseclaims?40

HethengoesontodescribemythsfromIndiaandChinathataresimilartothoseofJapan,andarguesthatsuchmythsbelongonlytothecountriesfromwhichtheyderive,andcannotbeusedtomakeargumentsaboutothercountries.NorinagarespondsbychargingAkinariwithseekingrefugeinanoncommittalskepticism,ratherthanseekingthetruth:“Allcountrieshavetheirown legends,andtheseallhaveelements that resembleeachother,butamongthesetherecanonlybeoneancientlegendthatistrue.Therestareallfalse.ButintheargumentthatUedaAkinariismaking,hesaysthattheselegendsareallfalse....Althoughitappearsclevertoknowthattheyareallfalse,andthusnotbefooled,hefailstorealizethatoutofallofthemonemustbetrue.”41

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

AnotherofNorinaga’scriticswasMurataHarumi,whotogetherwithKatōChikageformedthecoreofthe“Edoschool”(Edo-ha)ofMabuchi’sdisciples. In contrast toNorinaga, themembersof theEdo schoolwereprimarilydevotedtoliteraryactivities,whichtheysawasthetrueessenceofMabuchi’slegacy,anddidnotoccupythemselveswithShintomythorwithelucidatingauniquelyJapaneseAncientWay.42InadebatebetweenHarumiandNorinaga’sfollowerIzumiMakuni(?–1805)in1803–1804,latercollectedbyMakuniunderthetitleMeidōsho(AClarificationoftheWay,1804),Harumimocks themythsof theKojikiandNihon shoki,writing,“ThetracesoftheAgeoftheGodsthatarethebasis[ofNorinaga’stheories]areallnonsensical,orwereaddedonfromelsewhere.ThemanywritingsNorinagacreatesthatargueabouttheWayofourcountry,then,alloughttoberegardedasafoolspeakingofhisdreams.”43

InhisdebatewithMakuni,HarumievenreferstohimselfasaConfu-cian( jusha)(p.139),butthisbynomeansamountstoarejectionofthestudy of Japan. In a short piece entitled Wagaku taigai (An Outline ofJapaneseLearning,1792),hecriticizesJapaneseConfuciansofhisdayforconcerningthemselvesonlywithChinesematters,butseesthisasafail-uretograspwhatConfucianismisreallyabout,ratherthananinevitableoutgrowthoftheirConfucianism:“TheoccupationofConfuciansconsistsentirelyofmethodsofgoverningthecountry,sosuchlearningcannotbepracticedwithoutknowingaboutthegeneraloutlinesoftheestablishmentofgovernmentinthiscountryfromancienttimes,aswellasthevicissitudesininstitutionsandthechangesinhumanemotionsandsocialconditions.Therefore,Japanese learning(wagaku) isanurgenttask.”44Hethengoesontodescribeadivisionof“Japaneselearning”intothreemaincategories:nationalhistory,thestudyoflaws,andthestudyofancientlanguage.WhileHarumiiscriticalofthesinophiliaoftheSoraischool,hestilladoptscer-tainofitspremises.HetakesConfucianismintheSoraischool’ssenseofatoolforgovernance(ratherthanjustpersonalmoralcultivation),andac-ceptstheimportanceofsuchanendeavor,butseekstomakeitmoreappli-cabletotheparticularcircumstancesofJapan.HisemphasisonthestudyofhistoryandlawsisverymuchinlinewithSorai’sideaoftheneedforpeopletobroadentheirperspectivethroughtheempiricalstudyofthepast,butHarumiissayingthatthisisincompleteifpeoplearbitrarilylimitthisstudyonlytoonecountry,which isnoteventheirowncountry.Whatdistin-guishesfigureslikeAkinariandHarumifromNorinaga,then,isthatwhiletheyvalueJapanandwhatisdistinctivetoJapan,theyseeJapanmerelyas

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

onecountryamongmany,eachofwhichhasitsowncustomsandculture,ratherthanasadivinecountrysuperiortoallothers.

Norinaga on Contemporary Society

ForthemostpartNorinagastayedawayfromcommentingoncontempo-rarypoliticsandsociety,buthisfameasascholarledhimtobecalleduponin1787byTokugawaHarusada(1728–1789),thedaimyoofKii,topresenthisviewsonpoliticalreform,arequestthatNorinagarespondedtowithHihon tamakushige(TheSecretJeweledCombBox).Oneofthemostbasicproblemsthatdaimyohadalwaysfacedwashowtoextractmaximumtaxrevenuefromthepeasantswithoutdrivingthemtorevolt,butthis issuetookonanewurgencyinthe1780s,ascropfailuresbetween1782and1787resultedinaperiodofwidespreadstarvationknownastheTenmeifamine.Thedesperateconditionsofthetimeledtolevelsofpeasantprotestunprec-edentedintheTokugawaperiod,aswellasriotsinEdo,Osaka,andothermajorcities.Theshogunatewasinupheavalaswell,as1786sawthefinaldownfallofTanumaOkitsugu(1719–1788),whohaddominatedtheshogu-nalgovernmentduringthe1770s,butwasnotoriousforhiscorruption,andfacedincreasingoppositionashefailedtodealadequatelywithfiscalprob-lemsthataroseinthe1780s.Therewasalsoturnoverintheofficeofthesho-gun,asTokugawaIeharu(1737–1786,r.1760–1786)wassucceededbytheteenagedTokugawaIenari(1773–1841,r.1787–1837),afterwhichTanuma’sremainingfollowerscontendedwiththeadherentsofMatsudairaSadanobu(1758–1829)forcontrolwithinthenewadministration.

OneofthefundamentalprinciplesofgoverningthatNorinagalaysoutistheneedtogobeyondsurfacemeasuresanddealwithproblemsattheirsource:“Theideasofthosewithout learningoftendeal justwithwhatisclosetothemandrightbeforetheireyesatthemoment.Theymakeschemesbasedonthis,andoftendonotgiveattentiontotheroot....Ifonedoesnotcorrecttheroot,thennomatterwhatschemesonecomesupwith,andevenifonehasgoodideas,itwillbelike,astheproverbsays,brushingawayflies fromrice.”45Healsowarnsagainstbecomingcaughtup intheoriesthathavelittlecorrespondencetoreality,aqualityheseesascharacteristicofConfucianideasaboutgovernment.HeacknowledgesthatConfucianlearningisbetterthannoneatall,especiallywhenitgoesbeyondthestudyoftheFourBooksandFiveClassics,andextendsbroadlytohistoryandothermatters.Still,hecautions,“ConfucianshaveacertaintypeofConfu-

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

cian-likethinking,andwhilethetheorizingtheyemployintheirargumentsmaysoundreasonable,whentheyactuallytrytoapplytheirideastogovern-ment,manybadthingscomeaboutthatruncountertotheirexpectations”(p.330).BecauseofConfucians’failuretoengagewithreality,“DuringthemanyagesofChinawhenpeoplecarriedthingsoutwithcleverarguments,therewasnoinstanceofpeacefulgovernmentlastinglong”(p.330).MuchofhischaracterizationofConfucianismoverlapswithideaswesawMabu-chiexpressinKokuikō,whereMabuchidepictsConfuciansasofferingsu-perficiallyenticingbutultimatelyuselesstheories,whichgainmuchoftheirpowerfromhowtheyappealtopeople’sdesireforeasy,logicalexplanations.

Norinaga’smoreconcretecommentsonTokugawasocietyfocusoneco-nomicissues,particularlychangesbroughtaboutbythespreadofacur-rencyeconomy.Heiscriticaloftheincreasingluxurythatheseesaroundhim,writing,“Peoplebuyuselessthingsthattheyshouldnotbuy,anddouselessthingsthattheyshouldnotdo,sotheynaturallybecomepracticedinextravagance,whichbecomesthecauseofimpoverishment.Allpeople,bothhighandlow,onlysettheirsightsonmoney,sothewarriors,farmers,andpriestsoftodayhaveallcometohavethebaseheartsofmerchants”(p.353).Healsocommentsonhowtheprevalenceofmoneylendingexacerbatesthegapbetweentherichandthepoor:“Therearemanypeoplewhoborrowmoney,so therichoften lendmoneyandreceiveprofits,while thepoorborrowmoneyandpayoutinterest,andsuffermoreandmore”(p.346).Toavoidthis,“Inallmatters,peopleshouldactinaccordancewiththeirstation”(p.348).Despitehisconcernaboutthegapbetweentherichandthepoor,then,heisnotsomuchinterestedinbringingaboutequalityasheisinmaintainingpeopleintheirpreexistingstatusrelationships.Healsoproposesthatrulersshoulddotheirbesttoreducepeople’suseofcurrency,afterwhich“people’sbasehearts,aswellasfrivolouscustoms,willsurelybecorrected”(p.353).

CertainofNorinaga’sideasaresimilartoSorai’s,suchashiscriticismofspendingonluxuries,hisdesiretomaintainfixedsocialhierarchies,andhisbeliefintheimportanceofpayingattentiontotheunderlyinghabitsandcustomsthatlieattherootofsocialproblems,ratherthanjustpursuingsurfaceremedies.Heiscriticalof theapplicationofChinese learningtogoverningJapan,butevenherehesharescertainattitudeswithSorai,asNorinaga’sobjectiontoConfuciansisthattheybasetheirideasinemptytheories,andfailtoengagewithreality,acriticismSoraihimselfmadeofSongConfucians(althoughnot,ofcourse,ofConfucianismasawhole).

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

OneimportantpointwhereNorinagadiffersfromSorai,though,isinhisreluctancetorecommendanactiveprogramofpoliticalreform.SoraihadurgedaradicalrestructuringofJapanesesociety,andlaidoutdetailedplansforhowtogoaboutthis.Norinaga, incontrast,writes,“Howevercleverpeoplemaybe,affairsoftheworldaregenerallythingsthataredifficulttograspwithhumanintelligenceandefforts,sooneshouldnothastilyinsti-tutenewwaysofdoingthings.Inallaffairs,ifonedoesnotgoagainsthowthingsaredoneintheworld,andgovernsbypreservingtherulesthathavebeenpasseddown,theneveniftherearesomeminorbadthings,therewillbenogreatharm”(p.332).HecontraststhisattitudewiththattakenbyChinese,who“justthinkaboutthingswiththeirownprivateintelligence,andchangeeverything”(p.331).

AnexampleofthisattitudetowardchangeisNorinaga’spositiononthetaxationofthepeasants.Heexpressesconcernforthesufferingofthepeas-ants,andjudgesthetaxratesleviedonthemtobetoohigh,buthearguesthatanyabruptloweringofrateswouldcausetoomuchdisruptiontothesamuraiwhorelyon these taxes for their income(p.339).Commentingonhowthepeasantswouldbeimpactedbykeepingtheexistingratesoftaxation,heconcludes,“Thisistheannualtaxthatthepeasantshavegrownaccustomedtoovermanyyears.Theybelievethatitwillcertainlygoup,sotheydonotfinditexcessive.Therefore,miserableastheymaybe,theannualtaxshouldremainwhereitisfixednow.Still,youshouldat leastconsiderwhatIsaidearlier,anddayandnightneverfailtorememberthatthepeasantsoftodayexertthemselvesinbodyandspiritmorethaninthepast,andsuffergreatlyfromtheannualtax”(pp.339–40).Movingontothespecificproblemofhowtoavoidpeasantrevolts,hearguesthatcurrentpoliciesfailbecausetheydonotaddresstherootoftheproblem.Hecon-tinues,“Tofixtherootisnamelytostopunreasonabletreatment,andhavepityonthecommonpeople.Howevermuchtheymaybesuffering,aslongasthoseabovetreatthemwell,these[revolts]willnotarise”(p.342).Whilehisdemandtogettotherootofsocialproblemsmayseemtopromiseradi-calchange,hisactualproposalsaretamer,asputtingastopto“unreasonabletreatment”doesnotinvolvealleviatingtheburdenoftaxation.Norinaga’slessproactiveapproachtopoliticalreformisinlinewithhisviewthattheexistingstateoftheworldshouldsimplybeacceptedasthewillofthegods,whoarebothgoodandbad,andwhoseactionscannotbe fathomedbyhumanreasoning,orsubjectedtohumanjudgmentsofrightandwrong.46

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

Norinaga as Poet

InTamagatsuma (The JeweledBasket), a collectionof brief essays onawiderangeoftopicswrittenduringhisfinalyears,Norinagadescribeshisearlyattractiontowaka:“Frommyseventeenthoreighteenthyear,adesirearoseinmetocomposepoetry.Ibegantocompose,butIdidnotlearnbyfollowingateacher,anddidnotshowmypoemstoanyone,butrathersimplycomposedbymyself.”47Hisfirstformalinstructioninwakacamein 1749,whenhebegan tohavehis poems evaluated and correctedbyaBuddhistpriestfromalocaltemplewhowastrainedincourtpoetics.DuringhistimeinKyoto,hebeganstudyingwakain1752withMorikawaAkitada(1670–1762),ashrinepriestandstudentofthecourtpoetReizeiTamemura (1712–1774), and attended monthly poetry gatherings atAkitada’sforaboutayear.ForawhileNorinagawasmoredevotedtoChi-nesepoetrythanwaka,butin1756hetookupwakainearnestagain,thistimeundertheguidanceofArugaChōsen(1717–1778),afolloweroftheteachingsofMatsunagaTeitoku(1571–1653),whohadspreadcourtpoeticstoacommoneraudience.Norinagaparticipatedinmonthlypoetrygather-ingsheldbyChōsen,andcontinuedtosendhiswakatoChōsenforcor-rectionsevenafterreturningtoMatsusaka.Hisearlyeducationinwaka,then,wascarriedoutwithinaworldstronglyinfluencedbycourtpoetics.48LikeMabuchiandtheotherparticipantsintheKokka hachirondebate,hewascriticalofthesecretteachingsofthecourtpoets,invokingthebasisofpoetryinnaturalemotiontodenythecourtpoets’claimstospecialau-thority:“Poetryisnotlikethevariousotherarts(gei).Itissomethingthatemergesfromone’sownheart,sothereshouldnotbeanysuchthingaspoetichouses(ie).”49However,unlikeMabuchi’sandMunetake’sattemptstodefineanewaestheticbasedontheMan’yōshū,Norinaga,evenasheexpandedhispoetrytoincludetheMan’yōshūstyle,continuedtovaluetheconservativeaestheticsoftheTokugawacourtpoets,whosepoetryadheredtoanarrowrangeoflanguageandsubjectmatter.50

AfterreturningtoMatsusakaandopeninghismedicalpractice,Norinagacontinuedtobedevotedtowaka.Inadditiontowakagatheringsathisownacademy,hewasamemberofmanylocalgroupsthatmetregularlytocom-posewaka.In1758hejoinedtheReishōinpoetrygroup,whichhadbeeninexistencesince1723andincludedanumberofhisrelatives.Thisgroupmettwiceamonthtocomposepoetry,andsomeofitsmemberswereamongNorinaga’searlieststudentsathislecturesontheTale of Genji.Otherwaka

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

groups thatheparticipated in regularly includedoneheld from 1764 attheHenjōji,alocalBuddhisttemple,andoneheldfrom1765atthehomeofSugaNaoiri(1742–1776),astudentofNorinagaandamemberoftheReishōingroup.51

Norinaga,unlikeMabuchi,israrelyjudgedtohavebeenanythingmorethanamediocrewakapoet,buthewascertainlyprolific,withhislargestcollectionofwaka,Isonokami kō,containingalmosteightthousandpoems.Thiscollectionwasnotpublished,buttheSuzunoya shū,acollectionofhispoetryandprosepublishedbetween1798and1803,containsovertwenty-fivehundredwaka.His interest inpoetrywasaconstantthroughouthiscareer,evenasthemainfocusofhisscholarshipshiftedfromliterarystud-iestotheAncientWay.InUiyamabumi,writtenjustthreeyearsbeforehisdeath,hearguesfortheimportanceofstudyingbothpoetryandtheAn-cientWay,andnotneglectingoneattheexpenseoftheother.Ontheonehand,hecommentsdisapprovinglythat“somepeoplecomposepoetryandproseandhaveafondnessforthepast,butaresimplycaughtupinsurfaceelegance,whileneglectingtheWayandpayingnoattentiontoit.”52Ontheotherhand,hecriticizesthosewho“concentrateonstudyingtheWay,”but“dismissthecompositionofpoetry,consideringitamerefrivolity”(p.539).

AlthoughNorinagamaintainedaninterestinwakathroughouthislife,hedefinedthefunctionofpoetryinnewwaysashedevelopedhisscholar-shipontheAncientWay.Firstofall,hearguedthattheelevatedemotionalandaestheticsensibilitylearnedthroughpoetrywasvaluablenotonly,ashehadarguedinhisearlyworks,becauseofhowitallowspeopletoempathizeandcommunicatewithothers,butalso forhow it isaprecondition forgraspingtheAncientWay.InUiyamabumihewrites,“Allpeopleshouldknowtheelegantstyle.Thosewhodonotknowitdonotknowmono no awareandareheartlesspeople.Suchknowledgeoftheelegantstylecomesfromcomposingpoetryandreadingmonogatari.Knowledgeoftheelegantemotionsoftheancientsandofeverythingabouttheeleganceoftheworldinancienttimesisastepping-stonetoknowingtheAncientWay”(p.539).He sees themost ancient Japanesepoetry as providingpeoplewith theknowledgeofancientlanguagenecessarytodecipherthetextsinwhichtheAncientWayistransmitted,inparticulartheKojikiandNihon shoki.De-scribingtheimportanceofstudyingtheMan’yōshū,hewrites,“Whenonehasgraspedancientlanguageandancientpoetry,andthenreads[theKojikiandNihon shoki],themeaningoftheirWaywillnaturallybecomeclear”(p.527).Moreover,heemphasizesthatwemustactuallycomposeinthe

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

ancientstyleourselvestoachievesuchknowledge:“Inallmatters,thereisadifferencebetweenmattersthatwethinkofinrelationtoothers,andmat-tersthatwethinkofasourown.Thisisadifferenceofdepth....Poetryisalsolikethis.Nomatterhowdeeplyweponderancientpoetry,itisanaffairofothers,andsostilltherearepointswhereitdoesnotreachdeeply.Whenwecometocomposeourselves,though,itbecomesourownaffair.There-forewegiveparticularattentiontoit,andgraspitsdeepmeaning”(p.528).MuchaswesawinNorinaga’searlierwritingsonpoetry,hestressestheim-portanceoffullyinternalizingthenormsembodiedinpoetry,aprocessthatinvolvesbeingtransformedbypoetry,ratherthanmerelycontemplatingitfromadistance.HisattitudetowardtheMan’yōshūhaschanged,though,asinhisearlierwritingshehadarguedthat“theMan’yōshūcomesfirstinpoeticstudies(kagaku),”andyethadwarnedthat“itisagraveerrortoat-tempttocomposebyimitatingtheMan’yōshū.”53

Oneof thedistinguishing featuresofNorinaga’swaka,at least in thelaterpartofhiscareer,ishowheself-consciouslypursuestwodistinctstyles,onemodeledaftertheMan’yōshūandtheotherafterlaterwaka.Heiscriti-calofthosewhoadhereonlytotheMan’yōshūstyle,andarguesthateachstyleshouldbeappreciatedforwhatithastooffer:“Theancientstyleislikewhiterobes,andthelaterstyleislikerobesdyedwithcrimsonandpurple.Whiterobesaresplendidforhowtheyarewhite,butdyedrobesarealsosplendidinvariouswaysdependingonhowtheyaredyed.Sojustbecausewhiterobesaresplendid,thisdoesnotmeanthatweshouldtakedyedrobesalltobebad.”54Atthesametime,heisadamantthateachstylebekeptdistinct:“Whilecomposingtheancientstyleandthelaterstylesidebyside,Icleanlyseparatethese,anddonotconfusethemwitheachother.”55ThisdivisionofstylesisapparentintheSuzunoya shū,wherethepoetrysectionsarelabeledaseitherthe“recentstyle”(kinchō)orthe“ancientstyle”(kofū).

ThefollowingexampleofarecentstylepoemreflectsNorinaga’sidealofmediatingexpressionthroughcanonicalpoeticmodels:

koreyakono/harutatsukyōno/toshinokureyukumokaerumo/Ōsakanoseki

[Onthisfirstspringday,whichcomeswithintheoldyear,isthisthebarrierofOsaka,wherepeoplemeetcomingandgoing?]

Theideaofspringbeginningduringtheoldcalendaryearismostfamouslyexpressed in the opening poemof the Kokinshū: “Springtime has come

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

withintheoldyear;whatoftheyearthen—arewetospeakof‘thisyear,’orarewetosay‘lastyear’?”56NotonlyisthebasicthemeofNorinaga’spoemborrowed,butfourof itsfive linesaretakendirectly fromotherpoems.ThesecondlinecomesfromthesecondpoemoftheKokinshū:“Onthisfirstspringday,arewarmbreezesmeltingthefrozenwatersIscoopedupinmyhand,soakingmysleeves?”57Thefirst,fourth,andfifthlinesarethenfromtheGosenshūpoem:“IsthisOsakabarrier,wherestrangersandfriendsmeet,whilethosecomingandgoingseparate?”58Thiskindofborrowingfromearlierpoemsisknownashonkadori,or“allusivevariation,”atech-niquecommonintheShinkokinshū,andNorinaga’spoemcanbeseenasanattempttoemulatetheShinkokinshū,which,aswesawearlier,hevaluesforhowitspoetryistheproductofanimmersionintheearliestimperialanthologies.Still,evenFujiwaranoTeika,aneditoroftheShinkokinshūandanadvocateofhonkadori,decrees,“Whencomposinganewpoembybor-rowingfromoldones,itisexcessivewhenasmanyasthreeofthefivelinesareborrowed.”59

AnexampleofoneofNorinaga’sancientstylepoems,composedonthetopicoftravel,is:

ōkimino/mikotokashikomi/tamamonasunabikineshikoo/okitekinikeri

[Theemperor’scommandisawe-inspiring,soIcame,leavingbehindthegirlIsleptwith,sheyieldinglikejeweledseaweed]

Liketheprecedingpoem,thisusesallusivevariation,drawingonapoemfromtheMan’yōshūbyKakinomotonoHitomaro (7–8thc.), composedwhenhelefthiswifebehindinIwamitogotothecapital:“becauseIcame,leaving mywife behind, she who slept yielding tome like jeweled sea-weed,”60Onceagain,Norinaga’suseofallusivevariationtakesonsomethingoftheformofanacademicexercise,asheaddslittletothesourcepoem.ThethirdthroughfifthlinesofNorinaga’spoemareborrowedmoreorlessverbatimfromHitomaro’spoem,andthefirsttwolinesexpressthesameideaasthesourcepoem,astraveltothecapitalimpliesgovernmentbusi-ness,andhenceanimperialcommand.

InadditiontoseeingpoetryasamediumforinternalizingthelinguisticandaestheticworldsthatallowustograsptheAncientWay,Norinagacom-posedpoemsthatdirectlyexpresshisviewsontheWay.HismostnotableexampleofthisisTamaboko hyakushu(AHundredPoemsontheJeweled

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

Sword),acollectionofpoemsontheAncientWaythatwaspublishedin1787.61Someexamplesofpoemsfromthiscollectionare:

ametsuchino/kiwamimiterasu/takahikaruhinoōkamino/michiwakonomichi

[ThisWayistheWayofthegreatSunGoddess,whoshinesfromonhigh,augustlyilluminatingthefarthestreachesofHeaven-and-Earth]

momoyasoto/kuniwaaredomo/hinomotonokorenoYamatoni/masukuniwaarazu

[Althoughtherearemanycountries,thereisnocountrythatsurpassesthisJapan,whichliesattheoriginofthesun]

Karazamano/sakashiragokoro/utsuritezoyohitonokokoro/ashikunarinuru

[ItisaftertheimportationofthecraftyheartoftheChinesethattheheartsofpeopleintheworldhavebecomewicked]

Norinaga’srecordsthesepoemsinman’yōgana,lendingthemanauraofar-chaismthatisinkeepingwiththemessagetheyaremeanttoconvey.Takenasawhole,Tamaboko hyakushuconstitutesakindofprimerontheWay,pre-sentingNorinaga’scentralideasabouttheWayineasilydigestiblesnippets.

Norinaga’smostfamouspoempresentshisidealimageofJapaninlessprosaictermsthanthepoetryofTamaboko hyakushu:

Shikishimano/Yamatogokoroo/hitotowabaasahininiou/yamazakurabana

[IfIwereaskedtoexplaintheJapanesespirit,Iwouldsayitiswildcherryblossoms,glowinginthemorningsun]62

Norinagaaffixedthispoemtoaself-portrait,suggestingthathesawitassummingupthemeaningofhisscholarship.Cherryblossomswereoneofhisfavoritetopicsforpoetry,andin1800hecomposedaseriesof315poemsoncherryblossoms,whichwasentitledMakura no yama,andwaspublishedin1802,theyearafterhisdeath.

Norinaga’sbasicapproachtocomposingpoetryissimilartothatoffig-ureslikeSoraiandMabuchi,whocomposedbyemulatingclassicalmod-els, sometimesessentiallypatchingtogether lines fromearlierpoemsandrearrangingthemintoanewpoem.AlsolikeSoraiandMabuchi,Norinaga’s

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a p a n

imitativeapproachisbasedonabeliefthatimmersionincanonicalpoeticmodelsfromthepastcancultivatepeopleinsuchawayastoallowthemtoformamoreperfectsocietyinthepresent.Norinagawentfurtherthantheseearlierfigures,though,inhiswillingnesstousepoetryasavehicleforthedirectexpressionofhisphilosophicalviews.Also,whilehewasnottheonlyonetocomposeinavarietyofstyles,hewasnotablefortheexplicitdivisionhemadebetween“ancientstyle”and“recentstyle”poetry,eachofwhichwasmeanttoputthepoetintouchwithacertainaspectoftheJapanesepast.

Conclusion

Norinaga’sliterarythoughtprovidesacertainresolutiontoproblemsraisedbyearlierthinkers.Soraihadlinkedthepoliticalimportanceofpoetrytoitsabilitytoprovideaccesstotheunadulteratedstateofhumannatureandhumanemotions,andassumedthatthisfunctionofpoetrywasinnowaycompromisedbyitsadherencetoculturallyprescribednormsofexpression.HisdisciplesNankakuandShundai,though,problematizedtherelation-shipof culturalnorms tonatural emotions.Nankakumadepoetry intosomethingthatwasfirstandforemostcultural,anddefinedthecommunitycreatedthroughpoetryasanelegantculturalelitethatremainedalooffromsocietyatlarge.Shundai,incontrast,inordertoupholdthepoliticalroleofpoetryasdefinedbySorai,wasledtodenounceSorai’simitativeneoclassi-cism.MabuchithencriticizedSoraiandShundaibyappealingtoaprimitiv-istnaturalismthatwasmeanttoavoidtheduplicityofhumanlyconstructedculturealtogether.Norinaga,though,grappleswiththecontradictionsthatNankakuandShundaisawbetweenhumannatureandculture,andsynthe-sizestheirpositionsbydeclaringthatthewakatradition’snormsoffeelingandexpressionareinfactnaturalanduniversal,andthatpeople’sfailuretoperceivethemassuchisaresultofhavinglosttouchwiththeiroriginalhumannature.ThissynthesisallowsNorinagatoadvocatetheculturalcon-structionoftheselfthroughpoetry,likeNankaku,whileatthesametimedenyingthatpoetryismerelyanelegantgame,andinstead,likeShundai,seeingitasofferingtheaccesstohumannatureneededtoupholdapoliticalroleforpoetry.

ThevisionofpoliticsthatemergesfromNorinaga’sresolutionoftheseissues,though,bringswithitalossofSoraiandShundai’seffortstoengageactivelyandcriticallywithsociety.SoraiandShundaihadvaluedthestudyofpoetryforhowitallowsustoreachoutsideourselvesandencounterthe

t h e c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f j a pa n

fulldiversityandcomplexityofhumannature.Norinagaalsovaluespoetryasawaytoforminterpersonalbonds,butbydemandingthatsuchrelation-shipsbebasedoncommonadherencetotheemotionalnormsofacanonofJapanesepoetry,heultimatelybacksawayfromseeingpoetryasawaytoengagewithothersaspeopletrulydifferentfromourselves.ForSorai,thedemandthatwedealwithothersastheyare,ratherthanthroughthepro-jectionsofourownsubjectiveviewpoints,isrootedintheideathatpeople’sinbornnaturesarebestowedbyHeaven,sothattoignoretheirnaturesistoshowdisrespectforHeaven.HeavenalsoplayedamuchbroaderroleforSorai,ashesawitastheultimatesourceofpoliticalauthority,andarguedthatintimesofbadgovernment,itwasacceptabletodisobeyexistingrul-ersandconnectdirectlywithHeaventoinstituteanewgovernment.ForNorinaga, though, it is the Japanesegods thatare thehighestauthority,andhe takesaverydifferentstance towardthemthanSoraihadtowardHeaven,advocatingabsoluteobediencetothegods,andtotheemperorsastheirdescendants.WhileNorinagahadnotyetfullydevelopedhistheoryofthegodsatthetimeheproducedhisearlyworksonpoetics,wecanseeacertaincontinuitybetweenhisearlyandlatework,inthattheybothcreateaself-validatingsphereofculture,onethatprovidesanormativestructureforsocialrelationshipswhiledenyingpeopletherighttostepoutsideoforreflectuponthevalidityofsuchnorms.

Epilogue

InthisstudyIhavereexaminedeighteenth-centuryJapanesetheoriesofpoetrybybringingtotheforefronttheirtreatmentofpoetryasameansfor the formationof communitiesheld togetherby culturalnorms,anapproach that ismeantasanalternative to themore commonviewofeighteenth-centurypoeticsasaquestforfreeemotionalexpression.Irec-ognizetheimportanceofemotionsandtheirexpressionindiscourseonpoetryfromthistime,butIseethisinterestinemotionalityasinseparablefromaconcernfortheintegrationofemotionsintovariousstructuresofculturalvaluethatwerethoughttogiveorderandharmonytosociety.Byappealingtoclassicallinguisticandaestheticstandardsasprerequisitesforproperpoeticcomposition,anddemandingthatpoets internalizethesestandards through long study and practice, eighteenth-century writerspresentedthespontaneousexpressionofemotionsinpoetryasatthesametimethereproductionofapoetictradition.Theyalsoarguedthattheex-pressionofemotionsonlytakesonitsfullmeaningthroughtheinterper-sonalbondsitgeneratesbyinspiringempathyinareaderorlistener.Theimportanceofcommunication in their theorieswasconnectedto theiridealizationofclassicalnormsofexpressionandfeeling,asthecultivation

e p i l o g u e

ofbothpoetandaudience inthese sharednormswaswhatmadesuchcommunicationpossible.

Byexploringhowanemphasisonbothemotionsandtheirculturalregu-lationaroseoutofasinglecoherentdiscursivefield,Ihavepresentedanalternativetoseeingthecoexistenceoftheseelementsmerelyasacontradic-tion,oranintermediatestageintheachievementofmodernity.Giventhecommonassociationofnativismwithpureemotionality,andConfucianismwithpolitical andmoral viewsof literature,myapproachalso implies aquestioningoftheboundarybetweenConfucianandnativistapproachestopoetry.Moreover,thisquestioningdoesnotjustinvolvearguingthatfigureslikeSoraiweremovingawayfromConfucianismbyvaluingemotions,orthatnativistsshowedlingeringremnantsofConfucianviewsbyfindingpo-etrysociallyuseful;mypoint,rather,istoquestionthedichotomythatsuchjudgmentsarebasedoninthefirstplace.

Viewingconceptionsofculturalnormsascentraltoeighteenth-centurydiscourseonpoetryisparticularlyrelevanttoassessingNorinaga’splaceinrelationtoConfucianviewsofpoetry,especiallyhisrelationshiptoSorai.IfweweretoseeSoraiashavingfreedemotionsfromConfucianmoralism,thenNorinaga’s extollingof fragilehumansentimentswouldappearasadeepeningofSorai’sliberatedattitudetowardemotions,andhisdeclarationsaboutthesocialbenefitsofpoetrywouldseem,likeSorai’s,tobelittlemorethanaholdoverfromstubbornConfuciantraditions.Comparingthesetwofigures’viewsbyfocusingonhowtheyconceiveofpoetryasaculturalform,however,yieldsadifferentpicture.BothSoraiandNorinagaconnectpoetrytovisionsofacommunalculturalinteriority,butNorinagapullsbackfromcertainmethodsthatSoraihadtheorizedofmaintainingacriticalperspectiveonthisinteriority.Theresult,Ihaveargued,isamoreself-enclosedandself-validatingidealofcultureasaforceforsocialization.WhileMaruyamaandmanyotherscholarshavedescribedthetransitionfromSoraitoNorinagaasinvolvingaforeclosureofpossibilitiesforpoliticalsubjectivity,IdistinguishmyinterpretationfromtheirsinthatIseethisforeclosureasappearinginNorinaga’searlyliterarywritings,andnotjustinhisformulationofhisphi-losophyoftheAncientWay.

Anotheroutgrowthofmyapproach,then,isamoresympatheticread-ingofConfucianliterarythought,asIattempttogobeyondwhatIseeasacommoncaricatureofitasofferinglittlemorethanacrudedidacticismorutilitarianism.Ihavenointentionofmakingnostalgicappealstoanessen-tializedimageofConfucianismasasourceofauthenticEastAsiantradition,

e p i l o g u e

butit is importanttopayattentiontohowConfucianismhasbeencon-structedasafoilfornarrativesofbothmodernizationandtheunfoldingofJapanesenationalidentity.WhenweoverlookhowmanyConfuciansviewedpoetrynotmerelyasadidactictool,butalsoasameansforcriticallyreflect-ingonsocialnorms,thisobscureshownativistslikeNorinagaturnedawayfromcertainpossibilitiesthatConfucianshadfoundinpoetry,evenwhilethesenativistsdiscoverednewwaysofdepictingpoetryasamanifestationofemotionality.

Throughoutthisstudy,Ihaveemphasizedthatthepoliticizationofpo-etrybyeighteenth-centuryJapanesewritersiscentraltowhytheyweresointerestedinpoetrytobeginwith,andisnotmerelyasignoftheirimper-fectgraspofpoetryas“literature,”acategorythatisitselfproblematic.Totheextentthatwejudgepoetryaccordingtoitssuccessinachievinganidealof thefreeemotionalexpressionofthe individual, thenthis studycouldperhapscomeacrossasadowngradingof the importanceofeighteenth-centurytheoriesofpoetry.Byexploringthecomplexwaysinwhichwritersofthistimevaluedpoetry,though,mygoalhasbeentoshowthatitinfactplayedamuchricherandmoreintegralroleforthemthanhasoftenbeenacknowledged.

Reference Matter

Character List

Agatai no kashū 県居歌集Agatai no shūi 県居拾遺Akabane 赤羽Amaterasu 天照AmenomoriHōshū 雨森芳洲ametsuchi 天地AndōShōeki 安藤昌益AndōTameakira 安藤為章AndōTōya 安藤東野AraiHakuseki 新井白石ArakidaHisaoyu 荒木田久老“Arashi” 嵐ArugaChōsen 有賀長川AsakusaKannon 浅草観音Ashiwake obune 排蘆小船Asukai 飛鳥井aware 哀れAware ben 安波禮辨aya 文Azuma uta 東歌“Baitouyin” 白頭吟“Baizhou” 柏舟bakufu 幕府Beixi ziyi 北渓字義Bendō 弁道Bendōsho 弁道書Benmei 弁名benran zhi xing 本然之性bi 比bian 変Bian 卞

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

BianGong 辺貢Bohai 渤海BoJuyi 白居易Boyu 伯魚bun 文bunjin 文人bu no michi 武の道Bunron 文論cai(talent) 才cai(capability) 材Canglang shihua 滄浪詩話CaoCao 曹懆CaoPi 曹丕CaoZhi 曹植CenShen 岑参Chang’an 長安“Chang’anguyi” 長安古意ChenChun 陳淳cheng 誠Cheng 程chengren 成人ChenLiang 陳亮chi 智ChikamatsuMonzaemon 近松門左衛門“Chōandō” 長安道chōka 長歌chokkai 直解choku 直chōnin 町人Chu 楚chū 忠ChuGuangxi 儲光羲Chunqiu 春秋chūsei 中世chūyō 中庸Chūyō hakki 中庸発揮Chūyō kai 中庸解ci 辞ciai 慈愛dai 題daifu 大夫Daigaku kai 大学解Daigaku teihon 大学定本Daigaku wakumon 大学或問

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

Daitō seigo 大東世語dao 道Dao de jing 道徳経“Daxu” 大序Daxue zhangju 大学章句“Daya” 大雅DazaiShundai 太宰春台“Dazongshi” 大宗師de 徳dengaku 田楽dō (Way) 道dō (sameness) 同Dōjimon 童子問Dokugo 独語Dokushi yōryō 読詩要領Doku Shushi shiden 読朱氏詩伝duan 端DuFu 杜甫“DuiChuwangwen” 対楚王問Duqu 杜曲DuShenyan 杜審言dushu fa 読書法Duweiniang 杜韋娘Edo 江戸Edo-ha 江戸派Eiga no taigai 詠歌大概Emei 峨眉“Emeishanyuege” 峨眉山月歌engi 演義feng 風fengjian 封建“Fengxiazhe” 逢侠者fu 賦fue 笛fūga 風雅fūga no jō 風雅の情fūjin no jō 風人の情FujiwaranoFuhito 藤原不比等FujiwaranoShunzei 藤原俊成FujiwaranoTeika 藤原定家fusokufuri 不即不離Futatabi kingo no kimi ni

kotaematsuru fumi 再奉答金吾君書FuXi 伏羲

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

fūzoku 風俗ga 雅gagaku 雅楽Gakuritsu kō 楽律考Gakusei hen 楽制篇Gakusoku 学則ganbutsu sōshi 玩物喪志“Gankaron” 翫歌論gei 芸gen 言Genbun 元文genbun itchi 言文一致Genji monogatari 源氏物語Genji monogatari shinshaku 源氏物語新釈Genji monogatari tama no ogushi 源氏物語玉の小櫛Genroku 元禄getiao 格調gewu 格物gi 義giko gafu 擬古楽府GionNankai 祇園南海giri 義理Go’ikō 語意考Gomō jigi 語孟字義Gongan 公安Gongchuo 公綽goroku 語録Gosenshū 後撰集“Guanju” 関雎Guanzi 管子gunken 郡県“Guofeng” 国風gushi 古詩guwenci 古文辞Hachijōjima 八丈島haikai 俳諧Hakone 箱根Hamamatsu 浜松Han(dynasty) 漢Han(schoolofOdescommentary) 韓Han(nameofbarrier) 函Hanfeizi 韓非子Han shu 漢書HanYu 韓愈

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

HattoriNankaku 服部南郭HayashiGahō 林鵞峯HayashiRazan 林羅山Hayashi Razan bunshū 林羅山文集he 和“HeGuZhisherenzaochao

daminggongzhizuo” 和賈至舎人早朝大明宮之作Heian 平安HeJingming 何景明Henjōji 遍照寺hiden 秘伝Hihon tamakushige 秘本玉くしげhijō no mono 非情の物HikitaYakara 疋田族HinoTatsuo 日野龍夫HiranoKinka 平野金華“Hishiron” 避詞論hito no jō no makoto 人の情のまこと“Hitonokyōniyukuookuru” 人の京に之くを送るhōken 封建honbun 本分honkadori 本歌取りHonryūin 本龍院honzen no sei 本然之性HoriKeizan 堀景山hōsei 法世hou qizi 後七子hua 化huangzhong 黄鐘Huaxu 華胥huowu 活物Hyakunin isshu 百人一首IchikawaKakumei 市川鶴鳴ie 家Iida 飯田IkenoTaiga 池大雅ikioi 勢ingaku 淫楽inishie no michi 古への道InoueTetsujirō 井上哲次郎Ise 伊勢Ise monogatari 伊勢物語Ise monogatari ko’i 伊勢物語古意IshikawaJōzan 石川丈山

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

Isonokami kō 石上稿Isonokami sasamegoto 石上私淑言ItōJinsai 伊藤仁斎ItōTōgai 伊藤東涯itsuwari 偽りIwami 石見IzumiMakuni 和泉真国Izushi 出石ja 邪ji 辞jiai 慈愛Jie 桀jikoteki kansei 自己的完成Jin 晋jin 仁Jinmu 神武jitsujō 実情jo 恕jō 情jokotoba 序詞jōruri 浄瑠璃jueju 絶句JuMeng 劇孟“Junsokuron” 準則論junxian 郡県junzi 君子jusha 儒者ka 化KadanoArimaro 荷田在満KadanoAzumamaro 荷田春満KadanoNobuna 荷田信名kagaku 歌学“Kagenron” 歌源論KaibaraEkiken 貝原益軒KaihoSeiryō 海保青陵Ka’ikō 歌意考Kaiyuan 開元“Kajitsunokankyo” 夏日の閑居Kakaika 呵刈葭KakinomotonoHitomaro 柿本人麻呂Kamakura 鎌倉KamonoMabuchi 賀茂真淵Kamo-ō kashū 賀茂翁歌集kan 官

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

kana 仮名kanbun 漢文KangHai 康海Kanjikō 冠辭考Kanji san’on kō 漢字三音考“Kankaron” 官家論kanshi 漢詩kanzen chōaku 勧善懲悪Karasumaru 烏丸kasshin 活真KatōChikage 加藤千蔭KatōEnao 加藤枝直KatōUmaki 加藤宇万伎katsubutsu 活物Kazusa 上総Keichū 契沖Keikodan 稽古談Keizairoku 経済録Keizairoku shūi 経済録拾遺Ken’en zuihitsu 蘐園随筆Ken’in 顕允Kenzō 顕宗ki 気Kii 紀伊kinchō 近調Kingaku taiishō 琴学大意抄KinoTsurayuki 紀貫之Kinryūsan 金龍山kinsei 近世kō 孝kobunji 古文辞kochū 古註kodō 古道kofū 古風Kōfu 甲府kogaku 古学“Kogakuron” 古学論Kogidō 古義堂Kojiki 古事記Kojikiden 古事記伝KojimaYasunori 小島康敬Kokinshū 古今集Kokinshū tōkagami 古今集遠鏡Kokin wakashū sachū ron 古今和歌集左注論

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

Kokka hachiron 国歌八論Kokka hachiron sairon 国歌八論再論Kokka hachiron sekihi 国歌八論斥非Kokka hachiron sekihi hyō 国歌八論斥非評Kokka hachiron yogen 国歌八論餘言Kokka hachiron yogen shūi 国歌八論餘言拾遺kokoro 心kokoro wa ugokite shizuka narazu 情は動きて静かならずkoku 石Kokugaku 国学Kokugaku no hihan 国学の批判Kokugaku seiji shisō no kenkyū 国学政治思想の研究Kokuikō 国意考KongYingda 孔穎達Konjaku monogatari 今昔物語Korai fūteishō 古来風躰抄koshi 古詩kōshō 黄鐘koto(event) 事koto(typeofstringedinstrument) 琴Kotoba no tama no o 詞の玉緒kotowari 理りKoyasuNobukuni 子安宣邦KumazawaBanzan 熊沢蕃山Kunlun 崑崙kunshi 君子KurozumiMakoto 黒住真Kuzubana くず花Kyōchūkikō 峡中紀行Kyōhō 享保“Kyōkaku” 俠客kyokushi 曲士“Kyookōhokuniutsusu” 居を巷北に移すLaozi 老子li(principle) 理li(profit) 利li(ritual) 礼li(measurementofdistance) 里LiangYouyu 梁有誉LiBo 李白Liezi 列子Li ji 礼記LiMengyang 李夢陽LiPanlong 李攀龍

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

liujing 六経LiuYuxi 劉禹錫Liuyu yanyi 六諭衍義Liyang 溧陽Lu(state,schoolofOdes

commentary) 魯Lu(mountain) 廬Lunyu jizhu 論語集注lüshi 律詩LuXiangshan 陸象山“Lüyeshuhuai” 旅夜書懐LuZhaolin 廬照鄰machi bugyō 町奉行Maganohire 末賀乃比礼makoto 誠makurakotoba 枕詞Makura no yama 枕の山mana 真名man’yōgana 万葉仮名Man’yō kai 万葉解Man’yōkō 万葉考Man’yōshū 万葉集Man’yōshū Tōtōmi uta kō 万葉集遠江歌考Mao 毛Maoshi 毛詩Maoshi jian 毛詩箋Maoshi xu 毛詩序Maoshi zhengyi 毛詩正義Maoshi zhuan 毛詩伝MaruyamaMasao 丸山真男masurao 丈夫Matsuchiyama 待乳山MatsudairaSadanobu 松平定信MatsumotoSannosuke 松本三之介MatsunagaTeitoku 松永貞徳Matsusaka 松坂Meidōsho 明道書Mengzi jizhu 孟子集注michi 道Michi chō koto no ron 道云事之論Michi chō mono no ron 道テフ物ノ論Ming 明miyabi 雅MizunoGenrō 水野元朗

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

MomokawaTakahito 百川敬仁mono 物monogatari 物語mono no aware o shiru 物のあはれを知るMorikawaAkitada 森川章尹Mōshi kogi 孟子古義MotooriNorinaga 本居宣長Mozi 墨子MurataHarumi 村田春海MurataHarumichi 村田春道Muromachi 室町Musashi 武蔵NakamuraYukihiko 中村幸彦NakanoKiken 中野撝謙namari 訛り“Nanfeng” 南風Nankai shiketsu 南海詩訣Nankaku sensei bunshū 南郭先生文集Nankaku sensei tōka no sho 南郭先生灯下書Naobi no mitama 直霊naoshi 直しnigu yuefu 擬古楽府Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū 日本政治思想史研究Nihon shoki 日本書紀Niimanabi 邇飛麻那微Nijō 二条ninjō 人情ninjōbon 人情本norito 祝詞Noritokō 祝詞考ō 応Obata 小幡OgyūKinkoku 荻生金谷OgyūSorai 荻生徂徠Okabe 岡部Okabe no nikki 岡部日記OnoFurumichi 小野古道ŌokaTadamitsu 大岡忠光ŌsugaNakayabu 大菅中養父ŌtomonoTabito 大伴旅人Ōutadokoro no uta 大歌所の歌Oyumi 生実pianpian 翩翩Pingqiang 平羌

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

qi 気Qi 斉QianQi 銭起qian qizi 前七子Qin 秦qing 情Qing 清Qingqi 清溪qing zhi zheng 情之正“Qiuxing” 秋興“Qiuzhongyouma” 丘中有麻“Qiyu” 淇奥quanren 全人quanshan cheng’e 勧善懲悪RanQiu 冉求rei 礼reigaku 礼楽Reishōin 嶺松院Reizei 冷泉ReizeiTamemura 冷泉為村ren 仁renga 連歌ri(principle) 理ri(profit) 利rikugei 六芸rikukei 六経Rikukei ryakusetsu 六経略説risshi 律詩ritsuryō 律令Rongo chō 論語徴Rongo kogi 論語古義rōnin 浪人Ryūshi shinron 柳子新論sai 才saidō 載道SaigōNobutsuna 西郷信綱sakui 作為Sakushi shikō 作詩志彀“Sangzhong” 桑中sankin kōtai 参勤交代sarugaku 猿楽se 瑟sei(genuineness) 誠sei(inbornnature) 性

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

sei(correctness) 正Seidan 政談seido 制度Seigaku mondō 聖学問答seijin 成人“Seikaron” 正過論Seikyō yōroku 聖教要録Sekihi 斥非sen’ō no hō 先王の法sentei 筌蹄setsuwa 説話sewamono 世話物shamisen 三味線Shang 商Shanglin 上林“Shanyoufusu” 山有扶蘇“Shaonan” 召南ShenBuhai 申不害sheng 声Sheng’an waiji 升菴外集shi(poetry) 詩shi(scholar-official) 士Shibun yōryō 紫文要領Shigaku hōgen 詩学逢原Shigen 詩源Shihō seigi 詩法正義Shi ji 史記Shi jing 詩経shijin no jō 詩人の情Shi jizhuan 詩集伝shijutsu 四術Shika shichiron 紫家七論Shikishima no michi 敷島の道shikyō 四教ShimizuYoshitarō 清水吉太郎Shimōsa 下総shin 信Shinano 信濃shinchū 新註Shinkokinshū 新古今集“Shinsainogūsaku” 新歳の偶作Shiron 詩論shitsu(zither) 瑟shitsu(substance) 質

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

shizen 自然Shizen shin’eidō 自然真営道shō 笙Shōnai 庄内“Shōnenkō” 少年行shōsetsu 小説ShōtokuTaishi 聖徳太子shu 恕Shūishū 拾遺集shūji 修辞Shu jing 書経Shun 舜“Shuoren” 碩人Shushi shiden kōkō 朱氏詩伝膏肓sijiao 四教SimaGuang 司馬光SimaQian 司馬遷SimaXiangru 司馬相如sishu 四術si wu xie 思無邪“Sixuanfu” 思玄賦sobayōnin 側用人SōdōShōshū 草堂小集Sōju 宋儒“Song” 頌Song 宋SongYu 宋玉“Soraigakuan” 徂徠学案Sorai sensei tōmonsho 徂徠先生答問書Soraishū 徂徠集Sugagasa no nikki 菅笠日記SugaNaoiri 須賀直入SugiuraKuniakira 杉浦国頭SugiuraMasaki 杉浦真崎Sui 隋sukegō 助郷Suzunoya shū 鈴屋集Tabi no nagusa 旅のなぐさtada no kotoba ただの詞tai 体taifu 大夫Taigiroku 大疑録Taiheisaku 太平策TakanoRantei 高野蘭亭

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

TakebeAyatari 建部綾足TakenouchiShikibu 竹内式部“Takushiron” 択詞論Tamaboko hyakushu 玉鉾百首Tamagatsuma 玉勝間TamenagaShunsui 為永春水tan 端Tang(king) 湯Tang(dynasty) 唐Tangshi xuan 唐詩選tanka 短歌TanumaOkitsugu 田沼意次“Taohuayuanji” 桃花源記TaoQian 陶潛taoyame 手弱女tatsui 達意TayasuMunetake 田安宗武tei 悌ten 天tenma sōdō 伝馬騒動Tenmei 天明tenmei 天命tenri 天吏ti(brotherlyobedience) 悌ti(poetictopic) 題ti(essence) 体tian 天Tianbao 天宝“Tianbao” 天保tiandi zhi zhong 天地之中tianli 天吏tianming 天命tianming zhi xing 天命之性tian zhi xing 天之性“Tixishanbishi” 題西山壁詩TodaMosui 戸田茂睡Tōga 東雅Tōgo shi 唐後詩toki 時toku 徳Tokugawa 徳川TokugawaHarusada 徳川治貞TokugawaIeharu 徳川家治TokugawaIenari 徳川家斉

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

TokugawaIenobu 徳川家宣TokugawaIeshige 徳川家重TokugawaIetsugu 徳川家継TokugawaIeyasu 徳川家康TokugawaTsunayoshi 徳川綱吉TokugawaYoshimune 徳川吉宗tong 同Tongjian gangmu 通鑑綱目Tōshisen 唐詩選Tōshisen kokujikai 唐詩選国字解tōshō 堂上tōzen no ri 当然の理Tsushima 対馬UedaAkinari 上田秋成“Uhōshūnitowaruruoshasu” 雨芳洲に訪わるるを謝すUiyamabumi 宇比山踏Uji shūi monogatari 宇治拾遺物語ujō no mono 有情の物Umayato 厩戸“Umazakenouta” うま酒の歌UsamiShinsui 宇佐美灊水uta 歌wa 和Wadoku yōryō 和読要領wagaku 和学wagaku goyō 和学御用Wagaku taigai 和学大概“Waiwu” 外物waka 和歌WakamizuSuguru 若水俊wakun 和訓WangJiusi 王九思WangShizhen 王世貞WangTingxiang 王廷相WangYangming 王陽明watakushi 私WatanabeMōan 渡辺蒙庵Wei(state) 衛Wei(dynasty) 魏Weiniang 韋娘wen 文Wen 文Wen xuan 文選Wu(king) 武

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

Wu(state) 呉Wuchang 武昌WuGuolun 呉国倫Wujingzhengyi 五経正義Wuling 五陵WuZiXu 伍子胥Xi 僖Xia 夏xiao 孝xiaoxu 小序“Xiaoya” 小雅xie 邪XieZhen 謝榛Xijing zaji 西京雑記xin(faithfulness) 信xin(heart) 心xing(inbornnature) 性xing(evocation) 興xingling 性霊xing zhi yu 性之欲xue 学Xunzi 荀子XuZhenqing 徐禎卿XuZhongxing 徐中行ya 雅yaku 訳Yakubun sentei 訳文筌蹄Yamaga gorui 山鹿語類YamagaSokō 山鹿素行YamagataDaini 山県大弐YamagataShūnan 山県周南YamamotoHokuzan 山本北山YamanouenoOkura 山上憶良Yamashiro 山城Yamato 大和Yamato shōgaku 大和小学YamazakiAnsai 山崎闇斎yan 言Yan 燕YanagisawaYoshiyasu 柳沢吉保YangShen 楊慎YanYu 厳羽Yanzi 晏子Yao 堯

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

yi 義Yi jing 易経yin 音Yin 殷yō 用Yodoya 淀屋yoku 欲yong 用“Yoru,bokusuiokudaru” 夜、墨水を下るYosaBuson 与謝蕪村YoshikawaKōjirō 吉川幸次郎“Yoshinonohanaomiteyomeru” よし野の花をみてよめるYu 禹YuanHongdao 袁宏道YuanKang 袁康YuanZhongdao 袁中道YuanZongdao 袁宗道Yue 越yuefu 楽府“Yueji” 楽記Yue ji dongjing shuo 楽記動静説Yue jing 楽経Yue jue shu 越絶書“YuWuzhishu” 与呉質書Yuzhou 渝州“YuziYandengshu” 与子儼等疏zai 材ZangWuzhong 臧武仲zekku 絶句Zekku kai 絶句解“ZengLisikongniang” 贈李司空娘“ZengSuWanshuji” 贈蘇綰書記zenjin 全人ZhangHeng 張衡Zhao 趙zheng 正Zheng 鄭ZhengXuan 鄭玄zhi(substance) 質zhi(intention) 志zhi(wisdom) 智zhi(direct) 直zhong(loyalty) 忠zhong(centrality) 中

c h a r a c t e r l i s t

zhongyong 中庸Zhongyong zhangju 中庸章句Zhou 周“Zhounan” 周南“Zhousong” 周頌Zhow 紂Zhuang 荘ZhuangJiang 荘姜Zhuangzi 荘子ZhuJia 朱家ZhuXi 朱熹Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類Zigong 子貢Zilu 子路Zisi 子思Zixia 子夏Ziyou 子猶Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑zoku 俗zokugaku 俗楽ZongChen 宗臣

Zuo zhuan 左伝

Introduction1. “Nativism”has oftenbeenused inEnglish-language scholarship simplyas

a translation for the Japanese term“Kokugaku,”but some recent scholarshavesoughttodifferentiatetheterms.InProving the Way,forexample,MarkMcNallydrawsadistinctionbetweenKokugakuandnativismbyusing“Kokugaku”to“referspecificallytothescholarshipofAtsutaneandthemembersoftheNorinagaSchoolduringthenineteenthcentury,”asopposedto“nativism,”whichheuses“forclas-sicalliterarystudiespriorto1800,andforthevariousformsofShintoscholarshipof thenineteenthcenturyother thanKokugaku” (McNally,Proving the Way,p.1n1).InareviewarticleonProving the WayandSusanBurns’Before the Nation,MarkTeeuwentakes adifferentapproach to the term“nativism,”defining itas“theambitiontoreviveorperpetuateaspectsofindigenouscultureinresponsetoaperceivedthreatfromothercultures”(Teeuwen,“Kokugakuvs.Nativism,”p.227).Hearguesthatweneedto“layasideourownorthodoxyaboutKokugaku:thatKokugakuisnativism,andthatnativismisKokugaku,”andinsteadpayattentiontotheexistenceofnon-nativistformsofKokugaku,andnon-Kokugakuformsofnativism(p.240).LikeTeeuwen,Iuse“nativist”toindicatethoseTokugawafigureswhosoughttopurifyJapanesecultureofforeigninfluences,whetherornottheybelongtowhatisnormallylabeledas“Kokugaku”(whichisitselfacategorywithflexibleboundaries,definedvariouslyby such factorsas thesefigures’objectsofstudy,scholarlymethodology,orinstitutionalaffiliation).AlthoughMabuchiandNorinagawouldfallwithinanymodernscholar’sconceptionofKokugaku,Iprefertospeakoftheirpoetictheoriesas“nativist”ratherthan“Kokugaku”theories,asIamprimarilyinterestedintheirdevelopmentofideasofJapanesesuperiorityandculturalpurityintheirwritingsonpoetry.

2. IndescribingTokugawafiguresascriticsofZhuXi,Iamnotsuggestingthattheyalwayspresentedabalancedpictureofhisphilosophy,orthattheirinterpre-tationswereunaffectedbylaterreadingsofZhuXi.Toacertainextent,then,the“ZhuXi”or“SongConfucians”(Sōju)criticizedbythewritersIdiscusshavetobeconsideredadiscursiveconstructthatplaysaparticularroleasafoilforphiloso-phiesbeingdevelopedinTokugawaJapan.Whilethisisnotanarbitraryconstruct,

Notes

n o t e s t o i n t r o d u c t i o n

asitiscertainlybasedinthewritingsofZhuXiandotherSongphilosophers,itisnottheonlypossibleinterpretationofthem.TheideaofZhuXi’sConfucianismasastaticandmonolithictraditionplaysamajorroleinMaruyamaMasao’sNihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,aworkIdiscusslater.Maruyamahasbeencriticizedonthispointby,amongothers,Wm.TheodoredeBary(see,forexample,hisIntroductiontoPrinciple and Practicality),andMaruyamahimselfacknowledgesthevalidityofsuchcriticismsinhisintroductorynotestotheEnglishtranslationofNihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū(Maruyama,Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan,pp.xxxv–xxxvi).

3. AttimestheywentsofarastoaccuseZhuXiofwantingtoextinguishemo-tionsaltogether,aviewthatis,asIdiscusslater,anoversimplifiedinterpretationofZhuXi’sviewofemotionality.AmongTokugawafollowersofZhuXi,itwasYamazakiAnsai(1618–1682)whosereadingofhimmostcloselyconformedtotheSoraischoolandnativists’pictureofhimasanextrememoralrigoristandoppo-nentofemotionality.InhisearlyyearsSoraihimselfwasafollowerofZhuXi,andWakamizuSuguruhasnotedthatSorai’sreadingofZhuXi’sviewofhumanemo-tionswasmuchmorenuancedinhisearlierwritings,suggestingthatSorai,oncehedevelopedhisownphilosophyinoppositiontoZhuXi,intentionallypresentedapolemicalreadingofhimassimplyhostiletowardemotionality(Wakamizu,Sorai to sono monjin no kenkyū,pp.37–45).

4. ThisaspectoftheSoraischoolandnativismhasbeenbroughtupinanum-berofEnglish-languagestudies.Norinaga’sschoolisdiscussedinRubinger,Pri-vate Academies of Tokugawa Japan,pp.158–73.InBonds of Civility,EikoIkegamiexplorestheextensionofaestheticcommunitiestoabroadrangeofsocietyintheTokugawaperiod (seepp.232–35 forherdiscussionofKokugakuconstructionsof“Japaneseness”).MarkMcNally’sProving the Way,whichfocusesondevelop-mentsafterNorinaga’sdeath,appliesPierreBourdieu’stheoriesofthesociologyofculturetoanalyzehowcompetitionbetweenvariousschoolsandfactionsaffectedthedevelopmentofnativism.Sorai’sacademyisthesubjectofYamashita,“SchoolRelationsinOgyūSorai’sMiscanthusPatchAcademy.”

5. ThepoetryoftheSoraischoolandnativism,andparticularlythatofSoraiandNorinagathemselves,hasbeenrelativelyneglectedbyscholars,asitisgener-allyseenasprimarilyofinterestasanillustrationofcertainphilosophicalideals,ratherthanforitsliterarymerit.ThepoetryofSorai’slessphilosophicallymindeddisciples,suchasNankaku,hasbeengivenmoreattentionthanthatofSoraihim-self.ForParvulesco’sdiscussionofthepoetryoftheSoraischool,seepp.91–130.ShetranslatesanddiscussesanumberofpoemsbymembersoftheSoraischool,althoughshedoesnotincludeanyofSorai’sownpoetry.Therearenumerousstud-iesinJapaneseofthepoetryoftheSoraischool,mostnotablyHino,Sorai gakuha.AworkthatsituatesNankaku’spoetryinabiographicalcontextisHino,Hattori Nankaku denkō.Turningtonativistpoetry,MichaelMarra’sThe Poetics of Motoori Norinagacontains,inadditiontotranslationsofNorinaga’sessaysonpoetry,trans-lationsofapoetictraveldiaryofhis,Sugagasa no nikki(TheSedgeHatDiary)(pp.33–95),andselectionsfromhispoetrycollectiontheSuzunoya shū (pp.96–101).

n o t e s t o i n t r o d u c t i o n

Mabuchi enjoys ahigher reputation thanNorinagaas apoet, andmanybook-lengthstudiesofMabuchicontainsectionsonhiswaka.ThemostcomprehensivestudydevotedentirelytoMabuchi’spoetryisTabayashi,Kamo no Mabuchi kashū no kenkyū.AnotherbookthatfocusesonMabuchi’spoetryisOkumura,Kamo no Mabuchi: den to uta,whichpresentshispoetryinabiographicalcontext.WithinMabuchi’sschool, likeSorai’s,itisthelessphilosophicallyorientedfigures,suchasMurataHarumi(1746–1811)andKatōChikage(1735–1808),theleadersoftheso-calledEdoschool(Edo-ha)ofMabuchi’sdisciples,whohavehigherreputationstodayaspoets.ApioneeringworkontheEdo-haisUchino,Edoha kokugaku ronkō.TheEdo-hahasreceivedincreasedattentioninrecentJapanesescholarship,andtwomajorstudiesareTanaka,Murata Harumi no kenkyū,andSuzuki,Tachibana Chikage no kenkyū(TachibanaChikageisanothernameforKatōChikage).ThepoeticactivitiesofanotherfollowerofMabuchi,ArakidaHisaoyu(1746–1804),arethefocusofTeeuwen,“Poetry,Sake,andAcrimony.”Inthisarticle,Teeuwenrightlystressestheroleofpoeticpractice,ratherthanideologicaltheoriesaboutwaka,inthegrowthinpopularityofKokugaku.WhilethephilosophicalconcernsthatIdealwithwereadmittedlynotofprimaryimportancetomanystudentsofKokugaku,IstilldomaintainthatthetheoreticalwritingsonwakaoffigureslikeMabuchiandNorinagaaresignificantasmorethanjustoutgrowthsoftheiractivitiesaspoets.

6. OgyūSorai,Bendō, p. 14.CompleteEnglish translationsofBendō canbefoundinLidin,Ogyū Sorai’s “Distinguishing the Way”;Najita,ed.,Tokugawa Politi-cal Writings;andTucker,Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks.

7. SoraiparticularlysingledoutZhuXiandhisTokugawafollowersforsacri-ficingpragmatic issuesofgovernmenttothepursuitof individualmoralpurity.ThiscriticismofZhuXihadprecedentsinChineseConfucianism,mostnotablywithZhuXi’scontemporaryChenLiang(1143–1194).ImanakaKanshidiscussesthesimilaritiesbetweenSoraiandChenLianginSoraigaku no shiteki kenkyū,pp.253–65.ForanaccountinEnglishofChenLiangandhisrelationshipwithZhuXi,seeTillman,Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy,pp.145–86.

8. Aclassicstudyofthisphenomenon,coveringbothGenrokuliteratureandthephilosophyofItōJinsai,isNakamuraYukihiko’s“Bungakuwa‘ninjōoiu’nosetsu,” inKinsei bungei shichō kō,pp.56–94.HinoTatsuo’s“‘Mononoawareoshiru’nosetsunoraireki”discusseshowtheemotionalismofNorinaga’sliterarythoughtrelatestobroadertendenciesinTokugawaliteratureandculture.

9. KaibaraEkiken,Taigiroku,p.17.10. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.31.ForanEnglishtranslationofGomō jigi,seeTucker,

Itō Jinsai’s “Gomō jigi.”11. ItōJinsai,Gomōjigi,p.53.12. ZhuXi’sphilosophydoesallowforcertainoutward-orientedformsofculti-

vation,asprinciplecanbefoundinexternalthings.Suchaprocessofinvestigatingexternalthings,however,isstillorientedtowarduncoveringtheprinciplethatal-readyexistsintheselfapriori,anotionthatJinsaifoundproblematic.

13. KumazawaBanzan,Daigaku wakumon,p.411.14. ForamoredetailedaccountoftheseandotherissuesinBanzan’sthought,see

n o t e s t o i n t r o d u c t i o n

McMullen,“KumazawaBanzanandJitsugaku:TowardPragmaticAction.”Banzanalsohadagreatinterestinliterature,specificallytheTale of Genji,asexploredindepthinMcMullen,Idealism, Protest, and the“Tale of Genji.”FordiscussionsofhowSorai’splansforreformcomparetoBanzan’s,seeMcEwan,The Political Writ-ings of Ogyū Sorai,pp.27–28,andKoschmann,The Mito Ideology,pp.14–15.

15. YamagaSokō,Yamaga gorui,p.177.16. Ibid.,p.27.17. Ibid.,p.15.18. WhilethetermkogakuwasinuseintheTokugawaperiod,itwasintheMeiji

period,withInoueTetsujirō’sNihon kogakuha no tetsugaku,thatthetermcametobeusedconsistentlytogrouptogetherSokō,Jinsai,andSorai,andtopresentthemasasinglecoherentmovementinoppositiontofollowersofZhuXi.

19. The“HighTang”refersspecificallytotheKaiyuan(713–741)andTianbao(742–755)eras.

20. Thisbook,publishedasasinglevolumein1952,consistsofthreeessaysorigi-nallypublishedseparately inKokka gakkai zasshibetween1940and1944. IthasbeentranslatedintoEnglishbyMikisoHaneasStudies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan.

21. MaruyamaborrowsthisframeworkfromtheGermansociologistandpoliti-calscientistFerdinandTönnies(1855–1936).

22. Maruyamawasinnovativeingrantingpositivevaluetoadisinterestinper-sonalmorality.Earlier interpretersofSoraihad seen this exact samepoint as asignificantflawinhisvisionofConfucianism(Inoue,Nihon kogakuha no tetsugaku,pp.509,583;Iwahashi,Sorai kenkyū,p.461).

23. Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.107.ThephilosophicalsignificanceMaruyamagivestothepublic/privatedistinctioncomesfromHegel.MaruyamafollowstheHegelianviewofChinaasrepresentingahistoricalstageinwhich“theelementofSubjectivity—thatistosay,thereflectionuponitselfoftheindividualwillinantithesistotheSubstantial(asthepowerinwhichitisabsorbed)...isnotfound....TheuniversalWilldisplaysitsactivityimmediatelythroughthatoftheindividual:thelatterhasnoself-cognizanceatallinantithesistoSubstantial,posi-tivebeing,whichitdoesnotyetregardasapowerstandingoverit”(Hegel,The Philosophy of History,p.120).Thiscompleteabsorptionoftheindividualintothepowersbywhichitisdominated—somuchsothatdominationisnotevenrecog-nizedassuch—istheHegelianbackgroundforMaruyama’sdiscussionofthefusionofthepublicandprivatespheresinZhuXi.HethenseesSorai’sseparationofthepublicandprivateastheintroductionofa“dividedconsciousness”thatisawareoftheoppositionbetweenitselfandothers.AccordingtoHegelthisrecognitionofop-positionisthepreconditionforSpirit’sforwardmovement,propellingitoutofthestagnationcharacteristicofthehistoricalstagerepresentedbyChina.

24. ThisisapointthathasbeennotedbyanumberoflaterinterpretersofSorai,suchasKojimaYasunori,whobringsupSorai’sconceptionofHeavenspecificallytocounterMaruyama’sreadingofhimasanadvocateofamodernnotionofpoliti-calinvention,andarguesthatwhileSorai’sWaywasnotitselfmetaphysical,itdid

n o t e s t o i n t r o d u c t i o n

havetoanswertoametaphysicalsourceoflegitimacy(Kojima,Soraigaku to han Sorai,pp.5–25).

25. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.140.ForacompleteEnglishtranslationofBenmei,seeTucker,Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks.PortionsofBenmeiaretranslatedinNajita,ed.,Tokugawa Political Writings.

26. Inhis“Senchū•sengoSoraironhihan”(pp.81–98),HiraishiNaoakidis-cussestheseproblemswithMaruyama’sdichotomiesofpublicversusprivateandpoliticsversusmorality.Hiraishiarguesthateverydaymoralityisinfactveryim-portantforSorai,andthatthepromotionofthismoralityispartofthebroadsenseofgovernanceforSorai(sogovernanceisnotlimitedtotherestrictednotionof“politics”thatMaruyamaattributestoSorai).

27. deBary,“SagehoodasSecularandSpiritualIdealinTokugawaNeo-Confu-cianism,”p.172.

28. Tucker,Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks,p.11.TuckerdoesallowthatSoraihasacertain“modern”charactertohisphilosophy,butdefinesthisintermsofSorai’sinterestinlinguisticanalysisasthekeytosolvingphilosophicalproblems(p.1).

29. Sakai,Voices of the Past,p.239.30. Najita,ed.,Tokugawa Political Writings,p.xxxvii.31. Ansart,L’empire du rite,p.24.32. Yamashita,“NatureandArtificeintheWritingsofOgyūSorai,”p.138.33. My framework is related to the contrastbetweenhistory andnaturepre-

sentedbyTetsuoNajitain“HistoryandNatureinEighteenth-CenturyTokugawaThought,”butmyuseof“culture”issomewhatdifferentfromNajita’s“history.”Najita’scategoriesarerelatedtohisfocusontheepistemologicalquestionofhowhistoryandnaturewerelookedtoassourcesofreliableknowledgeintheeighteenthcentury.Iuse“culture,”though,torefernotonlytoaconcretehistoricalsourceofknowledgethatcanbeputtouseinthepresent,butalsotoacertainmodeofstructuringsubjectivityandsociality.

34. Idonotaimforaconsistenttranslationofwen,asittakesondifferentmean-ingsindifferentcontexts,butIdomakeanefforttocallattentiontocaseswhenthisterm,ortheassociatedJapanesetermaya,isbeingused.Itshouldalsobenotedthatbothsensesof“culture”thatIdescribeherearenormative,andnotmerelyde-scriptive,forSorai,inthattherearecorrectandincorrectformsofsocialorganiza-tion,music,language,etc.Whendiscussingsocialpracticesinapurelydescriptivesense,Soraiusesthetermfūzoku,whichItranslateas“custom.”

35. See,forexample,Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.27,andHino,“Jugakutobungaku,”p.209.

36. Inoue,Nihon kogakuha no tetsugaku,pp.492–93.37. Hino,“Soraigakuhanoyakuwari,”p.66.38. Hino,Sorai gakuha,p.9.39. Ibid.,p.28;Hino,“Jugakutobungaku,”p.223.40. Thispiecefirstappearedinvolume36of theNihon shisō taikei, and this

isthesourceofmycitations.ItwaslaterreprintedinYoshikawa,Jinsai • Sorai • Norinaga.

n o t e s t o i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c h a p t e r 1

41. Hino,Sorai gakuha,p.8.42. Yoshikawa,“Soraigakuan,”p.632.43. Thequotedphrasewithinthispassageisfroma1712letterofSoraitoacer-

tainTanabeinNagasaki.44. Nosco,Remembering Paradise,p.170.45. Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,pp.173,178.46. Matsumoto,Kokugaku seiji shisō no kenkyū,p.146.47. Saigō,Kokugaku no hihan,p.89.48. Harootunian,Things Seen and Unseen,p.49.49. Ibid.50. Kojima,Soraigaku to han Sorai,p.315.51. Momokawa,Uchi naru Norinaga,p.254.52. Yoda,“FracturedDialogues:Mono no awareandPoeticCommunicationin

theTale of Genji,”p.541.53. Koyasu,‘Norinaga mondai’ to wa nani ka,p.81.54. Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.112.55. Ibid.,p.111.56. Wakamizu,Sorai to sono monjin no kenkyū,p.80.57. Kurozumi,Fukusūsei no Nihon shisō,p.275.58. ReferencestotheConfucianclassicsarecommon,asonewouldexpect,in

thewritingsofSoraiandhisdisciples,butalsoshowupfrequentlyinnativistwakapoetics.AstudythatcataloguesthemanyreferencestoConfucianandotherChi-nesewritingsinTokugawawakapoeticsisUsami,Kinsei karon no kenkyū.

59. In scholarshiponTokugawa literary thought, anotable exception to thisrathercaricaturedimageofConfucianliterarythoughtisMcMullen,Idealism, Pro-test, and the “Tale of Genji,”whichdiscusseshowKumazawaBanzanusedtheimageofHeianJapanasanidealConfuciansocietyinordertocastacriticallightontheregimeofhisownday.

60. Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.172.61. ThediversityofConfucianviewsonliteratureisexploredinmuchscholar-

shiponChineseliterarythought,suchasVanZoeren,Poetry and Personality.Schol-arshiponTokugawaliterarythought,however,tendstoeitherreferto“Confucianviews”withoutspecifyingwhichConfuciansthesecomefrom,orelsetotakeZhuXiasrepresentativeofConfucianismasawhole.

Chapter 11. “Bakusho Sōgakushatachi no bungaku kan,” in Nakamura, Kinsei bungei

shichō kō,pp.1–31.2. FromHayashi Razan bunshū.QuotedinNakamura,Kinsei bungei shichō kō,

p.13.3. From thepreface toYamato shōgaku.Quoted inNakamura,Kinsei bungei

shichō kō,p.22.4. AndōTameakira,Shikashichiron,pp.431–32.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 1

5. TheotherthreeschoolsweretheLu,Qi,andHanschools.Theirteachingshaveforthemostpartbeenlost.

6. VanZoeren,Poetry and Personality,p.52.IuseBook of OdesorOdestorefertothebookitself,and“Odes”torefertothepoemsthatmakeupthebook.Attimesthedistinctionisirrelevant,butsometimesitdoesmatter,suchaswhenitisacertainsubsetofthepoemsinthecollectionthatisbeingreferredto.Also,inthetextsIdealwithitisoftenambiguouswhethershi(Jp.shi)referstotheOdes/Odes,orsimplytopoetryingeneral.TheambiguityisrootedinthefactthatConfucianscholarstendtoseetheOdesasthesourceofalllaterpoetry,andasembodyingtheessenceofpoetry,withtheresultthattheOdesisusedtoillustratepointsaboutpo-etryingeneral.Thereisnowaytomakeacleardistinctioninmeaninginallcases,andIhavesimplytranslatedaccordingtowhattheauthorseemstobeemphasizinginagivenpassage.

7. Ibid.,pp.78–79.8. TheMaotextactuallyconsistsofacombinationofthreetexts:theMaoshi

(MaoOdes),whichconsistsofthetextsofthepoemsthemselves,theMaoshi xu(PrefacestotheMao Odes),andtheMaoshi zhuan(CommentaryontheMao Odes).Bydescribingthecommentariesasexplainingthemeaningsofthewordsofthepoems,andtheprefacesasexplainingtheirmoralsignificances,Idonotmeantoimplythatthesearecompletelyseparateinterpretivetasks,astheMaocommentar-iesoftenattributemeaningtoindividualwordsandphrasesinsuchawayastogenerateacertainmoralsignificance.

9. TheFiveClassicsaretheBook of Odes,Shu jing(BookofDocuments),Chunqiu(SpringandAutumnAnnals),Li ji(RecordofRitual)andYi jing(BookofChanges).

10. Bol,This Culture of Ours,p.79.11. The“GreatPreface”actuallyincludeswithinittheMinorPrefacetothefirst

poemoftheOdes,“Guanju,”andtherearenumerousexplanationsastotherela-tionshipbetweenthisMinorPrefaceandthe“GreatPreface.”

12. VanZoeren,Poetry and Personality,p.133.13. Asindicatedinmytranslation,thetermfengcantakeonmultiplemeanings,

andtherhetoricofthe“GreatPreface”reliesondrawingconnectionsbetweenthesedifferentmeanings.

14. KongYingda,Maoshi zhengyi,p.36.Ihavebenefitedgreatly fromanan-notatedtranslationintomodernJapaneseoftheMaoshi zhengyicommentaryonthe“GreatPreface,”inOkamura,Mōshi seigi yakuchū.IhavealsoreferredtoStevenVanZoeren’sdiscussionofthefirstpartoftheMaoshi zhengyicommentaryonthe“GreatPreface”inhisPoetry and Personality,pp.136–45,aswellastheexplanationsofthe“GreatPreface”inOwen,Readings in Chinese Literary Thought,pp.37–49,andinSaussy,The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic,pp.75–83.SaussyinparticularfocusesontheinterpretationsofKongYingdaandZhengXuan.

15. ThefirstofthequotedstatementsechoesthedeclarationintheBook of Docu-mentsthat“Poetryspeakstheintention”(Part2,Bk.1,paragraph24).Thethirdisrelatedtothepassageinthe“Yueji”(RecordofMusic)chapteroftheRecord of Ritualthatstates,“Emotionsmoveontheinside,andsotakeforminsounds.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 1

Sounds formpatterning, and this is called tones” (“Yue ji,”558).The second isamodificationofanother“RecordofMusic”passage:“Whenwearejoyfulthenwespeakofit.Whenwordsareinsufficient,thenwelengthenourwords.Whenlengtheningwordsisinsufficient,thenwesighit.Whensighingisinsufficient,thenunconsciouslyourhandsdanceitandourfeettapit”(“Yueji,”p.606).

16. KongYingda,Maoshi zhengyi,p.38.17. My analysis here owes much to Steven Van Zoeren’s discussion of this

sectionof theCorrect Significance commentary.VanZoerendescribeshow thecommentary makes a distinction between what he calls the word-meaningsandthemusic-meaningsoftheOdes;whileword-meaningsareprovisionalandopaque,music-meaningsprovideaperfectknowledgeoftheintentionsinscribedintheOdes,aswellasofthepoliticalcircumstancesthatgaverisetotheseinten-tions(Poetry and Personality,pp.139–45).

18. Bol,This Culture of Ours,p.76.19. For a discussion of developments in Odes interpretation between Kong

YingdaandZhuXi,seeVanZoeren,Poetry and Personality,pp.145–217.20. ZhuXi,Shi jizhuan,p.1.AcompleteEnglishtranslationofthisprefaceis

includedinLynn,“ChuHsiasLiteraryTheoristandCritic,”pp.344–46.21. ZhuXi,Yue ji dongjing shuo,p.94.22. ZhuXiisnotcompletelyconsistentinhisuseoftheterms“emotions”and

“desires.”Sometimestheyareusedassynonyms,whileatothertimestheterm“de-sires”isusedtospecificallydenotethoseemotionsthatdamagemorality.

23. ChenChun,Beixi ziyi,p.57.24. Doctrine of the MeanI.4.25. ZhuXi,Zhongyong zhangju,p.18.26. ChenChun,Beixi ziyi,pp.57–58.Theemotionsofjoy,anger,sadness,and

pleasurearementionedintheDoctrine of the Meanpassagecitedearlier.Thefeelingsofcompassion,shameanddisapproval,deference,andrightandwrongcomefromMenciusBk.2,Pt.1,Ch.6,whichwillbediscussedlaterinthischapter.AlthoughChenChun lists theemotions fromthese twopassages together,commentatorshavetypicallyidentifiedtheMenciuspassagewithamorepositiveviewofemotions,andtheDoctrine of the Meanpassagewithaviewofemotionsassomethingthatneedstobebroughtundercontrol.

27. ZhuXi,Shi jizhuan,pp.2–3.28. AnalectsII.2.29. ZhuXi,Lunyu jizhu,p.53.30. Great Learning,“TheTextofConfucius,”Sect.5.31. ZhuXi,Daxue zhangju,p.4.32. ZhuXi,Zhuzi yulei,p.167.33. ZhuXi,Shi jizhuan,p.3.34. ItōJinsai,Gomōjigi,p.53.ForacompleteEnglishtranslationofGomō jigi,

seeTucker,Itō Jinsai’s “Gomō Jigi.”35. MenciusBk.2,Pt.1,Ch.6.36. ZhuXi,Mengzi jizhu,p.238.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 1

37. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.54.38. Ibid.,p.43.AlthoughJinsaiiscriticalofhowZhuXidepictsemotionalityin

thisMenciuspassage,ZhuXi’sdescriptionofemotionsasoutwardmanifestationsofvirtuecanbeseenasamoreaffirmativestancetowardemotionalitythanthattakenbyhiscommentariesonsuchtextsastheDoctrine of the Meanandthe“Re-cordofMusic,”whichfocusmoreonhowemotionscanbeeithergoodorbad,andthusneedtoberegulated.Howtoconceiveoftherelationshipbetweenthesetwoperspectivesonemotionalitybecameatopicofconsiderabledebateamonglaterfol-lowersofZhuXi,mostfamouslyintheso-calledFour-SevenDebateinsixteenth-centuryKorea.ThenameofthisdebatereferstotheFourBeginningsinMenciusandthesevenemotionslistedintheRecord of Ritual(theemotionslistedintheDoctrine of the Meanpassagediscussedearlierareasubsetoftheseemotions).ForadiscussionoftheFour-SevenDebate,seeChung,The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T’oegye and Yi Yulgok.ThemaintextsfromthedebatearetranslatedinKalton,The Four-Seven Debate.

39. ThistermappearsmostfamouslyinAnalectsXV.23:“Zigongasked,‘Isthereonewordthatonecanactuponforone’sentirelife?’TheMastersaid,‘Isnotcon-sideratenesssuchaword?Whatyoudonotwantdonetoyourself,donotdotoothers.’”Thistermisoftenrenderedas“empathy”inEnglishtranslationsofCon-fuciantexts.Iavoidthistranslationhere,despiteitsrelevancetomyargument,asshucanhavearangeofmeanings,andIwanttocallattentiontohowJinsai,byexplicitlyequatingthistermwiththeideaofaccessingtheexperiencesofothers,isconsciouslysteeringitsmeaningtowardanotionofempathy.Inotherwords,Iamtryingtokeepmytranslationitselfasneutralaspossible,soasnottoobscureJinsai’sroleincreatingtextualmeaningasacommentator.

40. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.65.41. ItōJinsai,Dōjimon,pp.154–55.42. ItōTōgai, Dokushi yōryō, p. 12. Lawrence Marceau discusses this text of

Tōgai’s in“NinjōandtheAffectiveValueofLiteratureattheKogidōAcademy,”pp.52–55.

43. ItōJinsai,Rongo kogi,p.15.44. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.86.45. ItōJinsai,Rongo kogi,p.191.FromthecommentaryonAnalectsXIII.5.46. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.86.47. TheMenciuspassageisBk.7,Pt.2,Ch.19,whichdescribeshowsuperior

mentendtobesubjectedtounfaircriticism.TheOdequotedis“Baizhou”(Mao#45).

48. Thispoemdoesnotappear intheOdes,butJinsai isreferringtoAnalectsIX.30:“‘Theflowersoftheplumtreeflutterabout.HowcouldInotbethinkingofyou?Yetyourhouseisdistant.’TheMastersaid,‘Itisthatonehasn’tthoughtofit.Howcoulditbedistant?’”

49. TheAirs,Elegantiae,andHymnsarecategoriesofpoemswithintheBook of Odes,whileexposition,comparison,andevocationarerhetoricaltechniquesusedintheOdes.ItisnotentirelyclearwhythecategoriesofpoemsintheOdesarelisted

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r s 1 a n d 2

togetherwiththeserhetoricaltechniquesasthesixprinciples;commentatorshavegivenavarietyofexplanationsforthis.

50. TheOdesthatJinsaidiscussesthispointinrelationtoare“Sangzhong”(Mao#48),“Qiuzhongyouma”(Mao#74),and“Shanyoufusu”(Mao#84).

51. MyanalysishereowesmuchtoNoguchiTakehiko’sdiscussionofthisissuein“ItōJinsainiokerubungakuronnoseiritsukatei.”NoguchiwritesabouthowJinsaistartedoutasafollowerofZhuXi,butthendevelopedtheoriesofhumannatureandself-cultivationbasedontheideaofvirtueassomethingthatneedstobeac-tivelydeveloped,ratherthansimplyuncovered.NoguchithenrelatestheseviewsofJinsai’stohisideaoftheactiveroleofthereaderincreatingmeaningintheOdes,andhisrejectionofZhuXi’sinterpretationsofcertainOdesaslewd.

52. Itisactuallyonlythefirsttwolinesinthequotationthatarefrom“Shuoren.”Thesourceofthethirdlineisnotclear.

53. ItōJinsai,Rongo kogi,p.13.54. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.31.55. ItōJinsai,Rongo kogi,p.34.56. KurozumiMakotodescribesthisaspectofJinsai’sliterarythoughtwhenhe

writes,inthecontextofadiscussionofhowJinsaiviewstheOdesasoneoftheSixClassics,“JinsairecognizesintheSixClassicsacertaindimensionofexpres-sionthatdiffersfromdisputationandproof,andthatcannotbereducedtosimple‘meanings’and‘arguments.’IfwearetofindinJinsaithe‘literary’orthe‘poetic,’itisinthismoment.Whenpeoplemovebeyondthenormativeone-to-onecorre-spondencebetweenpeopleandpeople,orpeopleandthings,thentheyarriveatanimaginativedimension....Itisinsuchaplacethattheliteraryandthepoeticaremanifested”(Kurozumi,Kinsei Nihon shakai to jukyō,p.275).

Chapter 21. Hecameacrosstheirwritingsamongalargecollectionofbooksthathepur-

chasedin1705(Hiraishi,OgyūSorai nenpu kō,p.57).2. ForadiscussionofSorai’sactivitieswhileworkingforYoshiyasu,andhow

thesetiedintothedevelopmentofhisnewviewsonlanguage,seePastreich,“Grap-plingwithChineseWritingasaMaterialLanguage.”

3. BenmeicanbereadasaresponsetoJinsai’sGomō jigi(TheMeaningofTermsintheAnalectsandMencius),whichwasinturnrespondingtoChenChun’sex-positionofZhuXi’sphilosophyinhisBeixi ziyi(MasterBeixi’sLexicon).There-lationshipofBenmeitotheseearlierworksisemphasizedbyJohnTuckerintheintroductiontoOgyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks.

4. Theseworkswerewritteninsecret,whichmakesitdifficulttopindownpre-cisedatesforthem.InOgyū Sorai nenpu kō,HiraishiNaoakigives1721asadateforTaiheisaku(pp.132,229–39)and1726forSeidan(pp.159,254–63).

5. Theofficialsarenotmentionedbynameintheletters,butwerelateridentifiedasMizunoGenrōandHikitaYakara,bothfromShōnaidomain.ForadiscussionofSorai’srelationshipwiththem,seeYamashita,Master Sorai’s Responsals,pp.8–16.

6. SeeLidin,The Life of Ogyū Sorai,pp.63–65,foradiscussionofSorai’spos-

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 2

sibleroleintwopolicies.Thefirstwasasystemprovidingfortemporaryincreasesinstipendsforlower-rankingsamuraiwhotookuppositionsthatwouldnormallybeconsideredabovetheirrank.Previously,officesthatcarriedacertainstipendcouldonlybefilledbysamuraiwhoreceivedanequivalenthereditarystipend,thusimpedingthepromotionoftalentedpeoplefromlowerranks.Thenewsystemallowed forgreaterflexibility, aspeoplecouldbepromotedandgivenahigherstipendduringtheirtimeinoffice,withouttheneedtomakethenewstipendapermanenthereditaryright.TheotherpolicyLidinbringsupinvolvednewmea-suresforfirepreventioninEdo.LidinarguesthatSoraiprobablydidplayasignifi-cantroleinthefirstofthesepolicies,butthathisroleinthelatterhaslikelybeenexaggerated.

7. SeeIwahashi,Sorai kenkyū,pp.165–66.8. FormoredetailedbiographicalinformationonSorai,seeLidin,The Life of

Ogyū Sorai,andYamashita,“CompassesandCarpenter’sSquares.”9. ForadiscussionofHakuseki’spoliticalthought,seeNakai,Shogunal Politics.10. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.28.11. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.136.12. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.39.13. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.56.14. Ibid.,p.43.15. Ibid.,p.106.16. NaokiSakaiusesthisnotionofframingtodiscussSorai’sphilosophyinVoices

of the Past,especiallywithregardtoSorai’sideaofinhabitinglinguisticworlds,andIdrawonSakai’sanalysishere.

17. OgyūSorai,Yakubun sentei,p.551.ForanEnglishtranslationoftheintro-duction toYakubun sentei, seePastreich,“GrapplingwithChineseWritingas aMaterialLanguage.”

18. NotonlydoesSoraiseethetwolanguagesasdistinctinvocabularyandsyn-tax,healsojudgesvernacularChineseasuperiorlanguagetovernacularJapanese.Hisemphasisonthevernacular,then,shouldnotbeconfusedwithanapproachthattakesallnaturallanguagestobeequallyvalid.

19. OgyūSorai,Yakubun sentei,p.549.20. Themetaphorof thefishtrapandrabbit snarecomes fromchapter26of

Zhuangzi, entitled “Waiwu” (ExternalThings): “The fish trap exists because ofthefish;onceyou’vegottenthefish,youcanforgetthetrap.Therabbitsnareex-istsbecauseoftherabbit;onceyou’vegottentherabbit,youcanforgetthesnare.Wordsexistbecauseofmeaning;onceyou’vegottenthemeaning,youcanforgetthewords.WherecanIgetamanwhohasforgottenwordssoIcanhaveawordwithhim?”(TranslationfromWatson,trans.,Chuang Tzu,p.140.)Basedonitsuseinthispassage,thetermsenteicametohavethemeaningofaprovisionaltoolusedtoachievesomegoal,oranintroductionorguidetosomething.Soraiisnotreallytryingto“forgetwords”entirely,sohe isborrowingsomewhat looselyfromthesourcepassage,butheisadheringtoittotheextentthatheseestranslationasatoolfortheultimategoalofmasteringtheChineseoriginal.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 2

21. FromSuShi’s“Tixishanbishi”(PoemontheCliffoftheWesternMoun-tain):“TheydonotknowthetruecharacterofMountLu/Theyonlyrelyontheirplacewithinthemountain.”

22. OgyūSorai,Yakubun sentei,p.548.23. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,pp.448–49.24. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.304.ForanEnglishtranslationofSeidan,seeLidin,

Ogyū Sorai’s “Discourse on Government.”25. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,p.462.26. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.304.27. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,p.459.28. Ibid.29. Ibid.30. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.305.31. Ibid.,p.311.32. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,p.475.33. OgyūSorai,Seidan,pp.290–91,pp.267–69.34. Soraioftenusesthecomparisontolivinginaninntodescribethelifeofthe

samuraiincities.See,forexample,OgyūSorai,Seidan,pp.305–6.35. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.265.36. OgyūSorai,Bendō,pp.21–22.37. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.276.38. Ibid.,p.275.39. Ibid.,pp.274–75.40. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.25.41. Ibid.42. Ibid.,pp.25–26.43. Ibid.,p.25.44. Ibid.45. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.456.ForanEnglishtranslationofSorai

sensei tōmonsho,seeYamashita,Master Sorai’s Responsals.46. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.24.47. Doctrine of the MeanI.1.48. ZhuXi,Daxue zhangju,p.17.49. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.14.50. Ibid.,pp.14–15.51. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.137.52. Ibid.,p.48.53. Ibid.54. Ibid.55. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.15.56. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.67.57. Soraiisplayingonthemultiplemeaningsofcai/zai,whichcanmeannot

only“capabilities,”butalso“lumber.”58. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.143.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 2

59. Ibid.,p.49.60. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.24.61. Ibid.62. OgyūSorai,Seidan,pp.360–61.63. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.54.64. InJapanische Anthropologie,GerhardLeinssfocusesonthedifferencesbe-

tweenthetheoriesofthe“inbornnature”putforthbyZhuXi,Jinsai,andSorai.HeexplainshowSoraideniestheuniversalityofhumannaturethatiscentraltobothZhuXiandJinsai,butonethinglackinginhisanalysisofSorai’sviewofhumannatureisthathedoesnotdiscussSorai’s ideaofauniversalhumantendencytosocialityandcompassion.

65. Sorai’sviewofhumannatureashavingcertaingoodtendenciesthatwerethenharnessedandcultivatedbythesagesisanaspectofhisphilosophythathassometimesbeenoverlooked,especially inprewar interpretationsofSorai.InoueTetsujirōclaimsthatSoraihasableakviewofhumannature,andcompareshimtoXunziandHobbes(Inoue,Nihon kogakuha no tetsugaku,p.529).Inoueiscriticalofsuchaviewofhumannature,andarguesthateveninthestateofnaturehu-manshavesomebasicaltruistictendencies,andthatgovernmentisbuiltonthesetendencies(pp.633–37).Whatheignores,though,isthatthisispreciselytheviewthatSoraihimselfhadputforth.NomuraKanetarōmakesanargumentsimilartoInoue’s,claimingthatSoraifollowedXunziinseeinghumannatureaswicked,incontrasttoJinsai’sview,followingMencius,thathumannatureisgood(Ogyū Sorai,p.53).IwahashiJunsei,ontheotherhand,whilenotingcertainsimilaritiesbetweenSoraiandHobbes,arguesthatSoraiseeshumannatureasneitherentirelygoodnorentirelywicked,andpointsouthowSoraiseeshumansasinherentlysocialbeings(Iwahashi,Sorai kenkyū,pp.268,276).MaruyamaMasaosimilarlyrejectsanequa-tionofSorai’sandXunzi’sviews(Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.86).IwouldagreewiththosewhonotethatcomparisonsofSoraitoXunziandHobbesfailtotakeintoaccounthisdescriptionofhumans’socialinstinctandtendencytowardmutualaid.BitōMasahidecontendsthatthisemphasisofSorai’sonmutualaidandloverepresentsamovementawayfromtheChineseConfucianemphasisontheindividualastheprimaryunitofcultivation.BitōseesSorai’sfocusonthesocialwholeovertheindividualasanadaptationofConfucianismtoaJapanesemodeofsocialconsciousness,andclaimsthatthisdistinctivelyJapaneseaspectofSoraiiswhatledtohimhavingsuchagreatinfluenceonnativismandMitoLearning(“OgyūSoraiandtheDistinguishingFeaturesofJapaneseConfucianism,”p.159).Idonotseesuchaclearbreak,though,betweenSorai(ornativism)andChineseConfucianism.

66. OgyūSorai,Chūyō kai,p.403.67. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.85.68. Ibid.,p.109.69. Ibid.,p.174.70. OgyūSorai,Chūyō kai,p.408.71. ThispassageisintheDukeZhou,Year20sectionoftheZuo zhuan.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 2

72. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.2,pp.176–77.73. OgyūSorai,Seidan,p.375.MydiscussionofSorai’sideaof“harmony”owes

muchtoKurozumiMakoto’s“Nihonshisōniokeru ‘wa’nogainen.”Kurozumimakesapointofstressinghowtheideaof“harmony”promotedbySoraiisverydif-ferentfromthecommonusageof“harmony”(wa)inmodernJapanesetoindicateasmoothingoverofalldifferencesintheinterestofcreatingahomogeneouscom-munity(anideathatSoraiwouldseeas“sameness,”theoppositeof“harmony”).

74. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,p.470.75. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.442.76. ZhuXi,Lunyu jizhu,p.151.77. ItōJinsai,Rongo kogi,p.208.78. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.49.79. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.2,p.190.80. ThisdiscussionofwenisslightlydifferentfromSorai’scommentaryonAna-

lectsVI.16,whereheisconcernedwithwenasaqualitythatpeoplepossessasaresultoftraininginsuchthingsasritualandmusic(asopposedtowenasaqualityofritualandmusicthemselves).Thereisabasicsimilarity,though,inhowinhisreadingofAnalectsVI.16aswellhedescribeswen(or,atleast,properlyemployedwen)asjoinedtosomekindofrawmaterial,whileintegratingitintoahigherlevelofculturalvalue.

81. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.70.82. Ibid.,p.92.83. Ibid.,p.93.84. Ibid.,p.94.85. Ibid.,p.93.86. OgyūSorai,Chūyō kai,p.423.87. Ibid.,p.424.88. OgyūSorai,Chūyō kai,p.403.Hedoesexplainelsewherethatitispossible

forpeopletointernalizebadthingsaswell:“Whenonebecomesaccustomedtowickednessandmakesitasiftheinbornnature,thenwickednessisalsogenuine”(OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.94).Sorai’saccountofhumannature(forexample,hisas-sertionthathumansarenaturallysocialbeings)impliesthattherearecertainlimitstowhatwecaninternalize,buthedoesnotseehumannatureasfullygoodorfullybad,whichiswhyitispossibleforbothgoodandbadthingstofulfilltheminimalrequirementofnotcontradictinghumannature.Thefactthatritualandmusiccanbeinternalizedisnotmeanttobefinalproofoftheirnormativecorrectness,then,butratherarefutationofthespecificDaoistcriticismofritualandmusicasaviola-tionofthenaturalstateofhumans.ThisiswhySoraistressesthatthediscussionofgenuinenessonlyrosetoprominenceamongConfucianswithinthecontextoftheirdebateswithDaoists.UltimatelywhatmattersinConfucianism,accordingtoSorai,isthatweinternalizetherightcustomsandnormsratherthanthewrongones,andourabilitytodistinguishwhicharerightcanonlycomefromfollowinghistoricaltraditions,notmerelybydoingwhatfeelsright.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 3

Chapter 31. Lidin,The Life of Ogyū Sorai,p.128.2. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.181.3. Ibid.,pp.181–82.SoraibringsupthesameDaoistphraseinBendō,comment-

ingthatit“slightstheexternalandvaluestheinternal”(OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.12).4. Asinpreviouschapters,IuseOdes(italicized)torefertotheBook of Odesas

atext,and“Odes”torefertotheindividualpoemsthatmakeupthecollection.5. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.182.6. Inaddition toLiMengyangandHeJingming, theFormerSevenMasters

includeWang Jiusi (1468–1551), BianGong (1476–1532),Kang Hai (1475–1541),WangTingxiang(1474–1544),andXuZhenqing(1479–1511).TheotheroftheLaterSevenMastersareXieZhen(1495–1575),XuZhongxing(1517–1578),LiangYouyu(1520–1556),ZongChen(1525–1560),andWuGuolun(1529–1593).ForanaccountinEnglishof theAncientPhraseologymovement,seeYoshikawa,Five Hundred Years of Chinese Poetry, 1150–1650,pp.137–76.ThedefinitivetreatmentinJapaneseoftherelationshipbetweenMingandTokugawatheoriesofpoetryisMatsushitaTadashi’smassiveEdo jidai no shifū shiron.ThemajorityofthebookistakenupbydiscussionsoftheinfluenceofMingpoeticsonindividualfiguresfromTokugawaJapan,andthefinalpartofthebookcontainsanoutlineofthemainpoetictheoriesoftheMingandQing.ForMatsushita’sdiscussionofLiPanlongandWangShi-zhen,seepp.847–915.

7. ApartialEnglish translationofthis text,withcommentary, is includedinOwen,Readings in Chinese Literary Thought,pp.391–420.

8. This idea isdevelopedintheopeningsectionofthetreatise.SeeYanYu,Canglang shihua,p.21.Thisispartofabroaderextendedmetaphoraroundwhichthetreatiseasawholeisstructured,inwhichthemasteryofpoetryiscomparedtothequestforZenenlightenment.

9. Ibid.,p.36.ThisjudgmentofHighTangpoetryisrepeatedalmostverbatiminSorai’sShigen(OriginsofPoetry),acollectionofcriticalcommentsonpoetryfocusedonthesamedistinctionbetweenHighTangandSongpoetrythatfiguresinYanYu’streatise(OgyūSorai,Shigen,p.559).Canglang shihuawasamajorin-fluenceonTokugawapoeticsofverseinChinese,anditsappropriationwasbynomeans limited to theSorai school.TwoauthorswhodrawheavilyonCanglang shihua intheirpoeticstreatisesareIshikawaJōzan(1583–1672), inhisShihō seigi(CorrectMeaningsofPoeticMethods),andGionNankai(1676–1751),inhisNan-kai shiketsu(Nankai’sPrinciplesofPoetry)andShigaku hōgen(EncounteringtheOriginsofPoetry).

10. The central figures of this school were Hongdao and his brothers, YuanZongdao(1560–1600)andYuanZhongdao(1570–1624).“Gongan”isthenameoftheplacewheretheywerefrom.TheGonganschoolisdiscussedinYoshikawa,Five Hundred Years of Chinese Poetry, 1150–1650,pp.181–84,andMatsushita,Edo jidai no shifū shiron,pp.916–85.

11. ItisnoaccidentthatwhenthepoeticsoftheSoraischooleventuallycameundercriticisminJapaninthelateeighteenthcentury,theargumentsagainstit

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 3

drewheavilyonthewritingsoftheGonganschool.ThemostnotableexampleofthiscriticismoftheSoraischoolisSakushi shikō(ThoughtsonComposingPoetry,1783),byYamamotoHokuzan(1752–1812).

12. OgyūSorai,Soraishū,p.531.FromalettertoHoriKeizan(1688–1757).13. Ibid.,p.503.14. OgyūSorai,Yakubun sentei,p.563.15. Ibid.,p.564.HerepeatsthispointinalettertoHoriKeizan.SeeOgyūSorai,

Soraishū,p.530.16. OgyūSorai,Yakubun sentei,p.562.17. Forexample,hecommentsinalettertoHoriKeizanthattheancientphrase-

ologyofLiandWang“focusesonrecordingfacts,anddoesnottakepleasureinargumentation,andsocorrectedtheflawofSong[writers]”(OgyūSorai,Soraishū,p.529).YoshikawaKōjirōdiscussesSorai’sideaofthecapacityofancientphraseol-ogytorecordfactsin“Soraigakuan,”p.675.

18. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.460.19. ForSorai’sowndescriptionofhowheextended the teachingsofLiPan-

longandWangShizhentotheinterpretationoftheSixClassics,seeOgyūSorai,Soraishū,p.530andp.537.Also,intheopeningsectionofBendōhecreditsLiandWangwithopeninghiseyestoancientlanguageandallowinghimtograsptheSixClassics(OgyūSorai,Bendō,pp.11–12).

20. MyinterpretationsofSorai’spoemsinthissectionhavebenefitedfromthenotesinIkkaiandIkezawa,eds.,Jusha.

21. ThebiographyofWuZiXuisinbook66oftheShi ji.AnEnglishtranslationisinNienhauser,The Grand Scribe’s Records,vol.7,pp.49–60.

22. TheentirepoembyQianQiis:“ThegentlemenofYanandZhaosingmanylaments/ImetJuMenginhishome/Ipouroutmyheart,butthingsremainun-said/Ontheroadahead,thesunissetting.”

23. The“BiographiesofKnights-Errant”isbook124oftheShi ji.AnEnglishtranslationisinWatson,Records of the Grand Historian of China,pp.452–61.ThesectiononZhuJiaisonpp.455–56ofthetranslation.

24. From“HeGuZhisherenzaochaodaminggongzhizuo”(HarmonizingwithRetainerGuZhi’sWork‘MorningAudienceatthePalaceofGreatLight’).

25. TranslationbyStephenOwen,inOwen,An Anthology of Chinese Literature,p.437.

26. “Yueji,”p.560.27. Watson,Records of the Grand Historian of China,vol.2,p.55.28. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.460.29. ItisdifficulttoacceptSorai’sviewthattheOdesdoesnotdealwithgover-

nance,asmanyoftheOdesintheGreaterElegantiae,forexample,quiteexplicitlydiscusstheidealgovernmentofKingWen.Forourpurposes,though,thescholarlyaccuracyofhisaccountoftheOdesislessimportantthanthebroaderdiscourseonpoetrythatheistryingtopromote.

30. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.484.31. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.31.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 3

32. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,pp.432–33.AsSamuelYamashitanotes,thephrasethatSoraiattributestoXunziisactuallyfromGuanzi(Yamashita,Master Sorai’s Responsals,p.44n18).

33. OgyūSorai,Sorai sensei tōmonsho,p.460.34. Ibid.,p.477.35. Ibid.,p.432.36. AnalectsXVII.9.37. ZhuXi,Lunyu jizhu,p.178.38. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.2,p.289.39. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.53.40. Ibid.,pp.55–56.41. Ibid.,p.56.42. ItōJinsai,Gomō jigi,p.68.43. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.1,pp.165–66.44. BecausetheBook of Musichasbeenlost,thesearesometimesreferredtoin-

steadastheFiveClassics.WhenSoraidiscussesmusicasoneoftheFourTeachings,whathehasinmindistheactualpracticeofmusic,notatextaboutmusic.Thisap-pliestoritualaswell;theritualthatisoneoftheFourTeachingsisforSoraiaformofpractice,anddoesnotjustrefertotheRecord of Ritualasatext.

45. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.30.46. ZhuXi,Shi jizhuan,p.3.47. FromtheDukeXi,Year27section.48. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.80.49. Ibid.50. Theyellowbell is thebasetoneinaChinesescale, sotherecoveryofthe

originalyellowbellusedbythesageswouldmakeitpossibletoderiveallthetonesoftheirmusic.

51. Kawashima,“OgyūSoraicho‘Kingakutaiishō’honkoku,”p.18.52. ForadiscussionoftheroleofmusicinSorai’sacademy,seeChang,“Ken’en

gakuhatoongaku,”pp.158–62.53. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.140.54. ThisisdifferentfromtheviewheputforthearlierinKen’en zuihitsu,where

hewrites,“Ifyoufromtimetotimechant[poetry],itnourishestheinbornemo-tions.Aftermusichasdisappeared, [poetry] takeson the roleofmusic” (OgyūSorai,Ken’en zuihitsu,p.181).While inhis laterwritingshecontinuesto implyaroleforpoetry incultivatingtheemotions,aswearemeantto internalizetheelegantsentimentsexpressedbythepoetsofthepast,thisisdifferentfromtherolethathedescribesmusicasplayingincultivatingvirtue.

55. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.140.56. Kawashima,“OgyūSoraicho‘Kingakutaiishō’honkoku,”p.18.57. Thisdistinctionbetween“responding”and“harmonizing” isdiscussed in

Takahashi,Edo no barokku,pp.149–50.58. AnalectsIII.20.59. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.1,pp.131–32.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r s 3 a n d 4

60. AnalectsXV.10.AlsoseeAnalectsXVII.18:“TheMastersaid,‘Idislikehowpurple takesaway fromthebrillianceofvermilion. Idislikehowthe soundsofZhengdestroycorrectmusic.Idislikehowthosecleverofspeechoverthrowstatesandhouses.’”

61. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.2,p.233.ThepassagethatSoraiquotesisfromYangShen’sSheng’an waiji.

62. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.2,pp.232–33.63. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.13.64. OgyūSorai,Rongo chō,vol.1,p.165.65. Ibid.66. OlivierAnsartmakesasimilarpointwhenhenotesthatforSorai,“Apoliti-

calcapacity,humaneness,mustsecurethecoherenceandguaranteethesenseofasystemmadeofprofoundlyheterogeneouscomponents.”ThisisincontrasttoSongConfucianism,inwhich“itisthemasteryofonepart,ofonevirtue,forexample,thatallowsonetograspthewhole:coherenceisgivenaprioriwhenthesmallestthingsoftheworldareimpregnatedwiththeimmanentprinciplesoftheinfinitenaturalorder”(Ansart,L’empire du rite,pp.81–82).

67. Wakamizu,Sorai to sono monjin no kenkyū,p.80.68. AlthoughIdevelopthispointinadifferentdirectionbyemphasizingSorai’s

viewoftheinterrelationshipsbetweentheSixClassics,myargumentissimilartothatmadebySawaiKeiichi,whonotesthatwhile“Sorai’stheoryhasgenerallybeenevaluatedashavingliberatedtheOdesfrombeinganobjectofclassicalstudiesorpolitics,insteadopeningupthewayforittobeperceivedas‘literature’thatex-presseshumanemotions,”inrealitySoraidoesnotdenythestatusoftheOdesasaConfucianClassic.Instead,Sawainotes,“BetweenZhuXiandSoraiachangecameaboutintheunderstandingofboththeConfucianWayitselfandthesignificanceofclassicaltexts”(“‘Giko’nosekaininshiki,”pp.4–5).

69. NaokiSakaimakesasimilarpointwhenhewritesofSorai,“Itwasassumedthatsocialandcultural institutions,ofwhich the interiorsupposedlyconsisted,wereregularitiesofasimilarnature.Ritesandthelegalsystemwereamongthem,aswerepoetryandmusic.Yet,noneoftheseheldoverallsupremacy.Together,theyconstitutedawhole,andonlyinreferencetothewholecouldeachofthemfunc-tionasitought”(Sakai,Voices of the Past,p.233).

70. OgyūSorai,Soraishū,p.503.HebringsthisupspecificallyinthecontextofrejectingthetheorythattheOdeswereeditedbyselecting300fromanoriginal3,000poems.

Chapter 41. Mysource forbiographical informationonNankaku isTajiriandHikita,

Dazai Shundai • Hattori Nankaku.2. MysourcesforbiographicalinformationonShundaiareTakebe,Dazai Shun-

daiandTajiriandHikita,Dazai Shundai • Hattori Nankaku.3. Thetense,evenborderingonhostile,relationshipbetweenShundaiandSorai

isdiscussed inYamashita, “SchoolRelations inOgyūSorai’sMiscanthusPatch

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 4

Academy.”Yamashitabringsupanunsent letter fromShundaitoSorai,writtenjustbeforeSorai’sdeath,inwhichShundaimentionsthatSoraihasaccusedhimofbeingnarrowandpetty,anddefendshimselfbysayingthatthisissimplyhisnaturebestowedbyHeaven,andnotsomethingheshouldbeexpectedtochange.

4. HattoriNankaku,Nankaku sensei bunshū,p.227.5. HattoriNankaku,Nankaku sensei tōka no sho,p.49.6. Ibid.,p.61.GionNankaiexpressesasimilarideainhisShigaku hōgen(En-

counteringtheOriginsofPoetry)whenhewritesthat“poetryisavesselforel-egance (fūga),” andgoeson to criticizeBo Juyi (772–846) for trying tomakepoetrythatevencommonpeoplecouldunderstand:“BoJuyioftheTangbelievedthatbecausepoetryisamanifestationofhumanemotions,todosuchthingsasrefer toevents fromthepast,usewords skillfully,andmakeversesdifficultbygivingthemmysteriousdepth,istomakepoetrydistantfromtheearsofthecom-monpeople.Hethoughtthatthetrueessenceofpoetrywastobesomethingthatanyonecouldhearandunderstand,andthatexpresseswelltheemotionsofcom-monpeople.Everytimehecomposed,hewouldstrivetomakeitclearandeasytounderstand,soitcouldbegraspedbyvulgarpeople.Ifeventheoldwomanwholivednextdoorthoughtitinteresting,thenhewouldbepleasedthathehadsuc-ceeded,butifshedidnotunderstandit,hethoughtitwasnogood,andwoulddiscard it.Althoughthismaysoundreasonable, infact it isridiculous” (GionNankai,Shigaku hōgen,p.247).

7. Hattori Nankaku, Nankaku sensei bunshū, p. 197. AsayamaYoshirō noteshowNankaku’sdescriptionoftheOdesasallbeingtheproductofgentlemendif-fersfromSorai’sviewoftheOdesascomingfromalllevelsofsociety(Asayama,“HattoriNankakuno‘shi’noishiki,”p.152).

8. HattoriNankaku,Nankaku sensei bunshū,p.202.9. TranslationadaptedfromWatson,trans.,Chuang Tzu,p.83.10. Ibid.,p.84.ThephrasethatNankakucitesalsoappearsearlierinthesame

chapterofZhuangzi:“Whenthespringsdryupandthefishareleftstrandedontheground,theyspeweachotherwithmoistureandweteachotherdownwithspit—butitwouldbemuchbetteriftheycouldforgeteachotherintheriversandlakes.InsteadofpraisingYaoandcondemningJie,itwouldbebettertoforgetbothofthemandtransformyourselfwiththeWay”(ibid.,p.76).“Yao”referstothesageking,and“Jie”tothefamouslycruellastruleroftheXiadynasty.

11. AclassicstudyoftheroleofNankakuasapioneeringbunjinisNakamuraYukihiko’s“BunjinHattoriNankakuron,”includedinKinsei bungei shichō kō,pp.155–91.

12. ForadiscussionofTakebeAyatariasbunjin,aswellasthebunjinphenom-enonmoregenerally,seeMarceau,Takebe Ayatari.

13. InmyinterpretationsofNankaku’spoemsinthissection,IhavebenefitedfromthenotesinYamamotoandYokoyama,eds.,Hattori Nankaku, Gion Nankai.

14. Graham,trans.,The Book of Lieh-tzu,p.34.15. HinoTatsuodiscussesNankaku’sDaoistleaningsin“HattoriNankakuno

shōgaitoshisō,”pp.528–30.OlofLidinhasnotedthepresenceofDaoistideals

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 4

inSorai’searlywritings,suchashistraveldiaryKyōchūkikō(ReportfromaJour-neytoKai,1710).ThiswasbeforeSoraidevelopedhisowninterpretationofCon-fucianism,whichwascriticalofDaoism(“OgyūSorai’sPlaceinEdoIntellectualThought,”p.571).

16. AsayamaYoshirō,contrastingNankaku’stheorywiththepoliticalrolethatSoraifindsforpoetry,describesNankakuasfindingthepurposeofpoetryaslyinginakindof“self-completion”( jikoteki kansei )(Asayama,“HattoriNankakuno‘shi’noishiki,”p.147).Ibasicallyagreewiththisassessment,althoughwiththeaddedobservationthatself-completionforNankakuisatthesametimeachievedthrough cultural completion, as the completed self is one that is constructedthroughculture.AsayamaexpressesideasalongtheselineswhenhenotesthatNan-kaku’spoeticsdoesnotidealizeamodernidealofindividualself-expression.HinoTatsuodrawsasimilarcontrastbetweenSorai’ssocialorientationandNankaku’sindividualorientationwhenhewrites,“ForSorai,theritualandmusicestablishedbythesageswerepoliticalformsforrealizingorderinsociety.Nankaku’sritualandmusic,though,weremediumsforaffirmingtheself ”(Hino,“HattoriNankakunoshōgaitoshisō,”pp.524–25).

17. DazaiShundai,Keizairoku,p.9.18. Ibid.19. DazaiShundai,Seigaku mondō,p.82.20. Ibid.,p.67.21. Ibid.,p.71.22. DazaiShundai,Bendōsho,p.215.23. Ibid.,p.216.24. DazaiShundai,Seigaku mondō,p.125.25. OgyūSorai,Taiheisaku,p.462.26. Dazai Shundai, Seigaku mondō, p. 95. InoueTetsujirō criticizes Shundai

stronglyforthisattitude,sayingthat itamountstoholdinguphypocrisyastheidealtowhichgentlemenaretostrive(Inoue,Nihon kogakuha no tetsugaku,p.692).

27. MaruyamaMasaousesthepassageIcitetosupporthisideaofSorai’smod-ernliberationoftheprivateinteriorsphere(Maruyama,Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū,p.247).TheproblemwithhisexplanationisthatheconflatesShundaiandSoraibyusingaquotefromShundaitomakeapointaboutSorai’sphilosophy,wheninfactSoraineverpresentssuchanideahimself.

28. DazaiShundai,Rikukei ryakusetsu,p.317.29. ThisdifferencebetweenSorai’sandShundai’svisionsofcultivatingtheWay

isdiscussedinBitō,“DazaiShundainohitotoshisō,”p.503,andTajiriandHikita,Dazai Shundai • Hattori Nankaku,pp.58–59.

30. KojimaYasunori, forexample,arguesthatwhileSoraiseestheritualandmusicofthesagesasculturalandpoliticalmechanismsforregulatingsocietyasaunifiedwhole,Shundaiputsgreateremphasisontheirroleastoolsforregulatingtheindividualheart(Soraigaku to han Sorai,p.72).BitōMasahidemakesasimilarpoint,notingthatSoraiuses“ritualandmusic”asabroadtermtorefertosocialin-stitutions,whileShundaiusestheterminamoreconcretesense,torefertospecific

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 4

rulesofproprietyandtheactualperformanceofmusic(“DazaiShundainohitotoshisō,”p.504).

31. AnaccountinEnglishofShundai’sphilosophyofpoliticaleconomyisNa-jita,“PoliticalEconomismintheThoughtofDazaiShundai(1680–1747).”NajitastressesthepragmaticcharacterofShundai’sthoughtandhisemphasisoneconom-icsaboveallelse.

32. DazaiShundai,Keizairoku,p.115.33. ShundaialsonotesherethatConfucianismhasitsownkindof“non-action,”

butthatitisdistinctfromthatofDaoism.InConfuciannon-action,accordingtoShundai,apoliticalsystemisputinplace,andthenthingsareallowedtoruntheircoursewithintheboundsofthissystem.

34. DazaiShundai,Keizairoku shūi,p.300.ForanEnglishtranslationofKeizai-roku shūi,seeNajita,ed.,Tokugawa Political Writings,pp.141–53.

35. KaihōSeiryō,Keikodan,p.217.36. ForadiscussioninEnglishofSeiryō’sdevelopmentandtransformationof

theSoraischool’s thought,seeNajita,“MethodandAnalysis intheConceptualPortrayalofTokugawaIntellectualHistory,”pp.23–34.NajitaarguesthatSeiryōtooktheinstrumentalistpoliticaleconomyofSoraiandShundaiandshifted itsfocusfromthesamuraiaristocracytothemerchantclass,creatingavisionofsoci-etyasaneconomicunionbasednotonhereditaryclassdistinctions,butratheronpropercalculationandmeasurementineconomicexchange.HehasalsowrittenabouthowSeiryōradically redefinedtheconceptofvirtue,casting itasaprin-cipleofeconomiccalculation(Najita,“HistoryandNatureinEighteenth-CenturyTokugawaThought,”pp.647–48).

37. DazaiShundai,Rikukeiryakusetsu,p.310.TheAnalectsquoteisfromXVI.13.38. DazaiShundai,Rikukeiryakusetsu,p.308.39. Ibid.,p.309.40. Ibid.,p.310.41. DazaiShundai,Keizairoku,p.21.42. DazaiShundai,Doku Shushi shiden,p.2.43. DazaiShundai,Shushi shiden kōkō,pp.17–18.44. DazaiShundai,Rikukei ryakusetsu,p.305.45. Ibid.46. DazaiShundai,Keizairoku,p.19.47. DazaiShundai,Shiron,p.7.Shundai’sclaimthatDuFuwassolelyoccupied

withpoetry,andneverbecameinvolvedinofficiallife,isanexaggeration.48. DazaiShundai,Rikukei ryakusetsu,p.318.49. Ibid.InmodernJapanese,gagakureferstothemusicaltraditionsoftheim-

perialcourtinKyoto,butShundaialsousestheterminamorephilosophicalsense,inwhichitdenotesmusicthatis“proper”inthesenseofbeinginaccordwiththeWaycreatedbythesagesofancientChina.Aswillbediscussedbelow,though,heseesthecourtmusicofKyotoasderivedfromthemusicofthesages,sothereisultimatelyanoverlapbetweenthesetwosensesofgagaku.

50. AlthoughShundaihasareputationasa strictmoralist,a reputationonly

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r s 4 a n d 5

strengthenedbyhiscriticismoflewdmusic,weshouldnotoverlookthathesawmusicaspotentiallyhavinganurturing,upliftingpotentialaswell.NoguchiTake-hiko,forexample,arguesthatShundai’sinterestinmusicrevealsamorepassionatesidetohischaracter(Noguchi,Edo bungaku no shi to shinjitsu,p.196).

51. DazaiShundai,Rikukei ryakusetsu,p.307.52. DazaiShundai,Dokugo,p.279.53. Dengaku(“fieldmusic”)hasitsoriginsinmusicusedinplantingrituals.Sa-

rugaku(“monkeymusic”)beganasacomicperformingartandistheancestorofNohandKyogen.Bothdengakuandsarugakuinvolvedanceandperformanceaswellasmusic,butShundaiisparticularlyconcernedwiththemusicalaspectsofthemhere.InDokugohegoesintosarugakuinmoredetail,sayingthateventhoughitis“vulgarmusic”(zokugaku),itisnotasbadasothervulgarmusicinthatitisnotlewd.Hedescribessarugaku,then,asakindofintermediatestageinthedegenera-tionofmusic(DazaiShundai,Dokugo,pp.277–79).

54. DazaiShundai,Rikukei ryakusetsu,pp.320–22.55. DazaiShundai,Dokugo,p.273.56. Ibid.,p.274.57. Ibid.,p.276.58. DazaiShundai,Shiron,p.6.59. DazaiShundai,Bunron,p.10.

Chapter 51. Theterm“waka”refersmostnarrowlytothe31-moraforminclassicalJapanese

verse.Iusetheterminthischapterandthenexttorefernotonlytothe31-moraform,butalsotootherformsthatappearintheMan’yōshūandtheimperialan-thologies,suchasthechōka.MotooriNorinagawasactuallyopposedtotheterm“waka,”whichtranslatesliterallyas“Japanesesong,”andarguedthatitisonlyfromthestandpointofanoutsider(suchasaChinese)thatonewouldhavetospecifythatitwasJapanesesongthatwasbeingreferredto.Instead,hesaidthatweshouldsimplyspeakof“song”(uta)(Isonokami sasamegoto,p.348).UtaisinfactthetermmostcommonlyusedinthenativistwritingsonJapanesepoetrythatIdiscussinthischapterandthenext.Igenerallytranslatethistermas“poetry,”ratherthan“song,”althoughIdocallattentiontoplaceswhereitisspecificallythesungcharac-terofpoetry,ratherthanitssemanticcontent,thatisbeingemphasized.

2. MōanwrotetheprefaceforShundai’sShushi shiden kōkō(TheFatalErrorsofZhuXi’sTransmissions on the Odes),whichwasdiscussedinChapter4.

3. MysourcesforbiographicalinformationonMabuchiareSaigusa,Kamo no Mabuchi,andNosco,Remembering Paradise.

4. AdetailedaccountofthecontributionstothisdebatecanbefoundinToki,Tayasu Munetake,vol.1,pp.509–754.Ratherthanpresentingeachtextseparately,TokigiveseachsegmentofArimaro’soriginaltextfollowedbythevariousresponsestothatspecificportionofhisessay,aformatthatisusefulinshowinghowthede-bateoneachparticularpointunfolded.AsummaryinEnglishofeachofthetexts

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 5

oftheKokka hachirondebatecanbefoundinThomas,The Way of Shikishima,pp.197–201.

5. The fact that the court poets continued to be influential well into theTokugawaperiodissomethingthatisdownplayedinmanymodernliteraryhis-tories.ThisomissionowesmuchtothecategoriesestablishedinNihonkagakushi,bySasakiNobutsuna(1872–1963),originallypublishedin1910,whichestablishedanarrativeofthehistoryofwakapoeticsthatcontinuestoinformscholarshiponthetopictoday.Sasakiusesthetermschūsei(medieval)andkinsei(earlymodern)notsimplytodesignatehistoricalperiods,buttorefertoparticularattitudestowardwaka.Hedefinesearlymodernwakapoeticsthroughitsspiritoffreeinquiry,versusthemedievalconformitytorigidtraditionssuchassecrettransmissions.Inthisway,heclassifiesthecourtpoetsoftheTokugawaperiodasmedieval,eventhoughtheywerelivingwithinthehistoricalperiodgenerallymarkedasearlymodern.WhileSasaki’sapproachmakesoutTokugawacourtpoetstobelittlemorethanananach-ronisticholdover,inrecentyearsscholarshavegivenmoreseriousattentiontothesepoetsandtheirroleinTokugawaliteraryculture.OnemajorstudyisSuzuki,Kinsei tōshō kadan no kenkyū.KinseiTōshōWakaRonshūKankōkai,ed.,Kinsei tōshō waka ronshūisacollectionofarticlesbyvariousscholars.AstudyfocusingspecificallyontheReizeihouseisKubota,Kinsei Reizeiha kadan no kenkyū.IntheEnglish-languagescholarship,discussionsofTokugawacourtpoeticscanbefoundinButler,Emperor and Aristocracy in Japan, 1467–1680,andCarter,Householders: The Reizei Family in Japanese History.

6. ForanaccountinEnglishofdevelopmentsinTokugawapoeticspriortotheKokka hachirondebate,seeThomas,The Way of Shikishima,pp.1–44.

7. KadanoArimaro,Kokka hachiron,p.553.8. Theterm“naturalprinciple”comesfromSongConfucianism.WhileArimaro

doesnotuseitwiththefullphilosophicalbaggageofSongConfucianism,thereisacertainoverlaptotheextentthatheusesittosuggestauniversalcapacityforreasoningthatisinherentinhumannature.

9. The “six arts” (rikugei ) refers here to the six arts to be mastered by theConfucian gentleman: etiquette,music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, andmathematics.

10. AlthoughtherearetwoprefacestotheKokinshū,thekana(Japanese)andthemana(Chinese)prefaces,whenIspeakofthe“Kokinshūpreface,”Iamreferringtothekanapreface.

11. PeterNoscodiscussesthedifferentattitudesoftheparticipantsintheKokka hachirondebatetowardthepoliticalandmoralroleofpoetryin“Nature,Inven-tion,andNationalLearning.”NoscoarguesthatArimaro’spositionissimilartoSorai’sviewofpoetry,whichNoscocharacterizesasvaluingpoetryassomethingartistic,ratherthandidacticandnormative.SuchacomparisonofArimaroandSorai,though,doesnottakeintoaccountthestronglypoliticalcharacterofSorai’spoetics.WhileSoraidoesnot takeastrictlydidacticapproachtopoetry, in thesenseofviewingpoemsasmoralteachings,neitherdoesheseepoetryasdivorcedfromsocialconcerns.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 5

12. ThePoetryBureauSongsandtheSongsoftheEast,bothincludedinthetwentiethandfinalbookoftheKokinshū,consistofadaptationsoffolksongsandarethussomewhatatvariancewiththedominantaestheticoftheanthology.

13. ThetermShikishima no michiwasusedbythecourtpoetstorefertowaka.Shikishima noisamakurakotobafor“Yamato”(Japan).

14. SeeNote 1, above,on the translationofuta.Here Iuse the translation“poetry/song”inordertohighlighthowthedisagreementsbetweenArimaroandMunetakearerelatedtoambiguitiesinwhichaspectsofutaallowittobesociallybeneficial;asIdiscussinwhatfollows,ArimarochargesMunetakewithfailingtoproperlydistinguishtherolesofthelyricsofsonganditstones,andasaresultcom-ingtofaultyconclusionsaboutthesocialroleofpoetry(takeninthesenseofthewordsalone).

15. TayasuMunetake,Kokka hachiron yogen,p.99.Thefirstpartofthispassagequotesthe“RecordofMusic”chapteroftheRecord of Ritual:“Inancienttimes,KingShunstrummedthefive-stringedlute,andsangthesong‘Nanfeng’”(“Yueji,”p.571).

16. UsamiKisohachipointsoutthisaspectoftheArimaro/MunetakedebateinKinsei karon no kenkyū: kangaku to no kōshō,pp.51–53,82–83,88–90.UsamiseesArimaro’spositionasinfluencedbythewritingsofItōJinsaiandhissonItōTōgai,andwritesthattheSoraischooldidnotpaythatmuchattentiontotheissueofwordsversustonesinitscritiquesofZhuXi’sreadingoftheOdes.JinsaiandTōgaidid,asUsamipointsout,criticizeZhuXiforignoringthewords/tonesdistinction,butasIshowedinChapters3and4,SoraiandShundaiputconsiderableemphasisonthisissueaswell.Moreover,IseethispointashavingdeepersignificanceinthecontextoftheSoraischool’scritiqueofZhuXi,asSorai(andespeciallyShundai)gaveamore importantplace tomusiconaphilosophical level thanJinsai andTōgaidid.

17. KadanoArimaro,Kokka hachiron sairon,p.108.18. KamonoMabuchi,Kokka hachiron yogen shūi,p.117.19. Thelastpartofthispassagequotesfromthe“GreatPreface.”UsamiKiso-

hachicommentsonhowMabuchiexplainsthefunctionofpoetryintermsofmusi-caldiscourseinKinsei karon no kenkyū,pp.180–82.

20. MabuchiisspecificallydiscussingOdescommentarieshere,buttheterm“oldcommentaries”isusedmoregenerallytorefertoHanandTangcommentariesontheConfucianclassics,and“newcommentaries”torefertoZhuXi’scommentaries.

21. KamonoMabuchi,Futatabi kingo no kimi ni kotaematsuru fumi,p.155.22. KamonoMabuchi,Kokuikō,p.383.ForanEnglishtranslationofKokuikō,

seeFlueckiger,“ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry.”ThereisalsoaGer-mantranslation,inDumoulin,“KamoMabuchi:Kokuikō—Gedankenüberden‘SinndesLandes.’”

23. DazaiShundai,Bendōsho,p.224.Mabuchiwasoneofanumberofeigh-teenth-centuryfigurestocriticizeShundaialongsimilarlines.Idiscussthecontro-versybroughtaboutbyBendōsho,andMabuchi’srelationshiptoearliercriticsofShundai,inFlueckiger,“ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry,”pp.218–30.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 5

SeealsoOgasawara,Kokuju ronsō no kenkyū,pp.9–82,andMogi,“Kokugakutojukyōnoronsō,”pp.210–21.

24. Mabuchionly lists fourvirtues,eventhoughhethenrefers to“thesefivevirtues.”Itranslatereias“ritual”inBendōsho,but“ritualpropriety”inKokuikō,becauseShundaiispairingthetermwithmusic,implyingthatheisspeakingofactualritualsthemselves,whileMabuchiisusingreiasoneofanumberofvirtues.MabuchiisnotstrictlyquotingfromBendōsho,then,andhedoesnotmentionthetextbyname,butgiventheprominenceofBendōsho,itissafetoassumethatthisisthetextMabuchihasinmind.

25. Forexample,theDao de jingstates,“Nottohonormenofworthwillkeepthepeoplefromcontention;nottovaluegoodswhicharehardtocomebywillkeepthemfromtheft;nottodisplaywhatisdesirablewillkeepthemfrombeingunsettledofmind”(translationfromLau,trans.,Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching,p.7).

26. Mononofu no michiisoneofanumberofsimilartermsMabuchiuses,allofwhichItranslateas“theWayofthewarrior.”

27. Mabuchi’sargumenthereissimilartoacommentAraiHakusekimakesinTōga,wherehewrites,“TheobscuringanddisappearanceofthemeaningoftheancientwordsofourcountryappearstobelargelyduetohowChinesecharacterswereused,andtheancientlanguagewasdiscarded.Toexplainthisinmoredetail,thewordsfromhere[Japan]andthecharactersfromthere[China]arenecessar-ilyinarelationshipofmastertoguest.Thewordsofourcountry,astransmittedfromearliestantiquity,arenamelythemaster,andthewordsofforeigncountriesarenamelytheguest.WhenChinesecharacterscametobecommonlyused,themeaningsofthetwowerematchedupwitheachother,andtheyalwaysfollowed[theChinesecharacters].Afterthat,theguestsintheendbecamethemasters,andthemastersbecametheguests”(Tōga,p.121).KateWildmanNakaidiscussesHaku-seki’sviewsonancientlanguageinShogunal Politics,p.243,andbringsupthispas-sagefromTōgaonp.381n17.

28. AlthoughItranslateutaas“poetry”here,themeaningof“song”isalsocru-cialtoMabuchi,asIdiscussbelow.

29. KamonoMabuchi,Ka’ikō,p.349.BothKa’ikōandNiimanabihavebeentranslatedintoGerman,inDumoulin,“ZweiTextezumKadōdesKamoMabuchi.”

30. KamonoMabuchi,Ka’ikō,p.349.31. Kamo no Mabuchi, Niimanabi, p. 358. In this passage he attributes the

changeinpoetryfromtheNaratotheHeianperiodtothequalitiesoftheregionsinwhichthecapitalwaslocatedatthesetimes,claimingthatYamatoprovincehasamanlycharacter,whileYamashiroprovincehasafemininecharacter.

32. KamonoMabuchi,Ka’ikō,p.350.ThelanguageMabuchiusestodescribethecultivationofanoriginalnaturehasmuchincommonwithbothBuddhistandSongConfuciandescriptionsofself-cultivationasthepurificationoftheheart.

33. KamonoMabuchi,Kokuikō,p.381.34. Ibid.,pp.381–82.35. For a discussion of Ansai’s interpretation of the Nihon shoki, see Ooms,

Tokugawa Ideology,pp.227–44.

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 5

36. KamonoMabuchi,Kokuikō,p.382.37. KamonoMabuchi,Goikō,p.395.TheintroductoryportionofGoikōhas

been translated into German, in Dumoulin, “ZweiTexte Kamo Mabuchis zurWortkunde.”

38. KamonoMabuchi,Kanjikō,p.1.39. KamonoMabuchi,Niimanabi,p.358.40. AndōShōeki,Shizen shin’eidō,p.631.ForapartialEnglishtranslationofShi-

zen shin’eidō,seeYasunaga,Ando Shoeki.Thisbookalsoincludesbiographicalback-groundonShōekiandanintroductiontohisthought.ArecentWestern-languageworkonShōekiisJoly,Le naturel selon Andō Shōeki,andanolderstudyisNorman,“AndōShōekiandtheAnatomyofJapaneseFeudalism.”

41. AndōShōeki,Shizen shin’eidō,p.650.42. Wakabayashi,Japanese Loyalism Reconstrued,pp.30–31.43. YamagataDaini,Ryūshi shinron,p.395.AcompleteEnglishtranslationof

Ryūshi shinronisavailableinWakabayashi,Japanese Loyalism Reconstrued.44. Webb,The Japanese Imperial Institution in the Tokugawa Period,pp.248–50.

Heviolatedthisban,leadinghimtobeexiledin1767toHachijōjima,enroutetowhichhedied.

45. Totman,Early Modern Japan,pp.325–28.46. Ibid.,p.340.47. Saigusa,Kamo no Mabuchi,pp.83,166.48. Ibid.,p.187.49. Anearliertraveldiaryofhis,Tabi no nagusa,whichisbasedonatriphetook

in1736fromKyototoHamamatsu,discussesmanyfamouspoeticplaces,butdoesnotactuallycontainanypoetry.

50. InmyinterpretationsofMabuchi’spoemsinthissection,IhavebenefitedfromthenotesinTakagiandHisamatsu,eds.,Kinsei waka shū.

51. BasedonmytranslationinShirane,ed.,Early Modern Japanese Literature,p.607.

52. MYS3352:“Shinanonaru/Suganoaranoni/hototogisu/nakukoekikeba/tokisuginikeri.”

53. MYS3386:“niodorino/Katsushikawaseo/niesutomo/sonokanashikio/tonitatemeyamo.”

54. MYS48:“himugashino/nonikagiroino/tatsumiete/kaerimisureba/tsukikatabukinu.”

55. MYS800:“tsuchinaraba/ōkimiimasu/konoterasu/hitsukinoshitawa/amagumono/mukabusukiwami/tanigukuno/sawatarukiwami/kikoshiosu/kuninomahorazo.”

56. FromMYS3300.Thispoempresentsmajorproblemsofinterpretation,andmoderncommentariesdonotprovideanyconsensusonhowtoreadit.InMabu-chi’scommentaryonthispoemintheMan’yōkō,heinterpretsiizuraias“difficulttosay,”andarinamias“toconstantlybetogether,”sothattheborrowedlinesmean,“althoughitisdifficulttospeak[ofourlove?],wearealwaystogether”(Man’yōkō,p.232).Anothermeaningsometimesgivenforiizuraiis“togoonandon,”and

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r s 5 a n d 6

anotherpossiblereadingofarinami is“togoonrejecting.”ThelattermeaningsmakemoresenseinthecontextofMabuchi’spoem,soIhavefollowedtheseinmytranslation,despitethefactthattheyareatoddswithhiscommentaryontheMan’yōshūpoemitself.

57. MabuchidiscussesthesetwomakurakotobainKanjikō,pp.263–64.58. TranslationfromAston,trans.,Nihongi,vol.1,p.381.

Chapter 61. TranslationsofexcerptsfrombothoftheseworksareincludedinMarra,The

Poetics of Motoori Norinaga, pp.136–200.2. Mysources forbiographical informationonNorinagaare Jōfuku,Motoori

Norinaga,Nosco,Remembering Paradise,andMatsumoto,Motoori Norinaga.3. Ashiwake obunewasdiscoveredamongNorinaga’spapersbythescholarSasaki

Nobutsuna,whointroduceditinapieceentitled“‘Ashiwakeobune’toNorinaganokaron,”includedinSasaki,Kamo no Mabuchi to Motoori Norinaga,pp.225–48.

4. MotooriNorinaga,Isonokami sasamegoto,p.254.5. Asintheprecedingchapter,Igenerallytranslateutaas“poetry,”ratherthan

“song,”butIdonotewhereNorinagaisstressingtheimportanceofthesungquali-tiesofpoetry.

6. Ileavemono no aware(andaware)untranslatedinthischapterbecauseitissuchawell-knownterm,andissostronglyidentifiedwithNorinaga.

7. MotooriNorinaga,Aware ben,p.585.8. AnalectsII.2.9. MotooriNorinaga,Aware ben,p.585.10. MotooriNorinaga,Isonokami sasamegoto,p.297.11. KKS697,byKinoTsurayuki(872?–945?).12. SomeformsofChinesepoetryalsouselinesoffiveorsevensyllables,but

Norinagadoesnotconnect these totheJapanese formsthathewritesabout.AstudythatgivesparticularattentiontoNorinaga’sviewofayaasafixedlinguisticformuniquelycapableofmanifestingdeepemotionisKanno,Motoori Norinaga.Seeespeciallythediscussiononpp.143–68.

13. MomokawaTakahitopointsouthowNorinagaandMabuchidifferonthispoint.Hewrites,“ForMabuchi,theotherisalreadygivennaturallyasaself-evidentexistencethatdoesnotrequireanyparticulareffort.Norinaga,ontheotherhand,lacksacertainconfidenceintheexistenceoftheother.Forhim,theotherisanexistencethatcanonlybebelievedinthroughadifficultprocessofmutualunder-standing,andisagoalthathastobeconsciouslyattained”(Momokawa,Uchi naru Norinaga,p.92).MomokawaseesNorinaga’sproblematizationoftheotherasre-flectinganacceptanceoftheinevitabilityofmediationbothincommunicationandintheformationofcommunity,andinterpretsthedifferencebetweenNorinagaandMabuchionthispointintermsofacontrastbetweenMabuchi’sidealoftheorganiccommunityofthevillageandNorinaga’sorientationtowardthemediatedcommunityofthecity.

14. MichaelMarrapointsouttheroleoflinguisticpatterningasapreexisting

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 6

structure,andtheimplicationsofsuchastructurefortheimaginingofinterper-sonalrelationships,whenhecomments,“InamovereminiscentoftheDerrideancritiqueofWesternphonocentrism,Motooriarguedthattheformationofthese-manticfieldof‘patternwords’precededtheactofvocalarticulationinasmuchasayaalreadystructuredthesingingvoice(kowe)ofthelivingrealm(ujō).This‘spe-cialized’language—thelanguageofcreationspokenbyalllivingcreatures—pro-videdacommon,universalgroundthattamedtheviolentthreatofdifferenceandbroughttheotherbacktothesourceofsignification”(Marra,“NativistHermeneu-tics,”pp.24–25).

15. MotooriNorinaga,Kakaika,p.381.16. MotooriNorinaga,Isonokami sasamegoto,p.306.17. MotooriNorinaga,Ashiwake obune,p.303.Thereisacompletetranslation

intoGermanofAshiwake obuneinBuck-Albulet,Emotion und Ästhetik,pp.211–375.18. MotooriNorinaga,Ashiwake obune,p.248.19. FujiwaranoShunzei,Korai fūteishō,p.273.20. ForadetailedaccountofNorinaga’sappropriationoftheShinkokinshū,see

Takahashi,Motoori Norinaga no kagaku,pp.55–75.21. MotooriNorinaga,Shibun yōryō,p.125.22. “Yueji,”p.556.23. Ibid.,p.561.24. ChenChun,Beixi ziyi,pp.57–58.25. Inadditiontothisusageof“emotions”and“desires”ascontrastingterms,

Norinagamentionsinthissectionthat“emotions”issometimesusedinabroadersense todescribeeverything felt intheheart, inwhichcase“desires”would fallwithintherubricof“emotions.”InthewritingsofConfuciansaswell,theterm“emotions”isnotalwaysusedconsistently,andcantakeoneitherthebroadorthenarrowsensesdescribedbyNorinaga.

26. Motoori Norinaga, Shokanshū, p. 19. The letter is addressed to ShimizuYoshitarō(1742–?).

27. OgyūSorai,Bendō,p.12.28. Aswesaw inChapter 1,ZhuXiuses thesetermsto indicatethedistinc-

tionbetweentheessentialnatureofsomething,asitexistsonthelevelofprinciple(Ch.li,Jp.ri ),anditsactivityintherealmofmaterialforce(Ch.qi,Jp.ki).

29. MotooriNorinaga,Isonokami sasamegoto,p.441.30. This text is a critiqueofKokka hachiron sekihi (ARejectionof theEight

Essays on Japanese Poetry,1761),byŌsugaNakayabu(1712–1776),inwhichNaka-yabu,muchlikeTayasuMunetakebeforehim,attacksArimaro’sessayfromaSongConfucianstandpoint.AsthesecommentariesbyNorinagaandNakayabusuggest,Arimaro’sessaywasasubjectofdebateforsomedecadesafterthe initialdebatebetweenArimaro,Munetake,andMabuchi.

31. MotooriNorinaga,Kokka hachiron sekihi hyō,p.499.32. MycitationsofNaobi no mitamaarefromthisfinal1790version.33. Motoori Norinaga, Naobi no mitama, p. 57. For English translations of

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 6

Naobi no mitama,seeNishimura,“TheWayoftheGods,”andWehmeyer,Motoori: Kojiki-den, Book 1,pp.213–47.

34. ThespecificversionofNorinaga’stextthatKakumeiwasrespondingtowasMichi chō koto no ron.

35. IchikawaKakumei,Maganohire,p.186.36. ThedebatebetweenNorinagaandKakumeiisdiscussedinMogi,“Kokugaku

tojukyōnoronsō,”pp.221–33.37. MotooriNorinaga,Naobi no mitama,p.56.38. IchikawaKakumei,Maganohire,p.191.39. OgyūSorai,Benmei,p.135.KingJiewasthefinalruleroftheXiadynasty,and

KingZhowwasthefinalruleroftheShang(Yin)dynasty.JieandZhowarefamousexamplesoftyrants,andtheirtyrannicalruleistakenasasignthatthey(andtheirdynasties)hadlostthemandateofHeaven,makingitacceptabletooverthrowthem.(IusetheRomanization“Zhow”todistinguishthisrulerfromtheZhoudynasty.)

40. MotooriNorinaga,Kakaika,p.403.41. Ibid.,p.406.ForadiscussionofthedebatebetweenNorinagaandAkinari,

seeBurns,Before the Nation,pp.102–30.Burns’analysisisparticularlyvaluableforshowinghowAkinari,unlikeNorinaga,sawcommunityassomethingcontingent,aviewtiedtohowAkinarireadtextsliketheKojikiasproductsofpoliticalconflict,incontrasttoNorinaga’sreadingofthisworkastheexpressionofgodsthattran-scendallhumannegotiationsforpower.

42. TheexistenceofKokuikōwasinconvenientfortheEdoschool’spictureofMabuchi,butHarumidownplaysitscentralitytoMabuchi’steachings,explainingthatitwassimplytheproductofMabuchi’sfrustrationwith“vulgarConfucians,”andshouldbeconsidered“aslipofthetongue”(IzumiMakuni,Meidōsho,p.159).Idiscuss thedisagreements amongMabuchi’s followersover the significanceofKokuikōin“ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry,”pp.230–38.

43. IzumiMakuni,Meidōsho,p.158.TheMeidōshodebateisdiscussedinMc-Nally,Proving the Way,pp.69–78.

44. Murata Harumi, Wagaku taigai, p.448. Modern scholars sometimesusetheterm“Wagaku”toindicatealessideologicalformofJapanesestudiesintheTokugawaperiod,andcontrastthiswiththenativistideologyof“Kokugaku.”ThisisinlinewithHarumi’suseof“Wagaku”inthistext,butitshouldbekeptinmindthattheuseof“Wagaku”and“Kokugaku”ascontrastingtermsisnotcompletelyconsistent,eitherinmodernscholarshiporintheTokugawaperioditself(forexam-ple,modernscholarstypicallyidentifyHarumiasafollowerofKokugaku,despitehiscriticismsofNorinaga).

45. MotooriNorinaga,Hihon tamakushige,pp.329–30.46. DiscussionsofNorinaga’spoliticalproposals inEnglish-languagescholar-

shipcanbefoundinNosco,Remembering Paradise,pp.225–29,andMatsumoto,Motoori Norinaga,pp.136–56.

47. MotooriNorinaga,Tamagatsuma,p.68.48. Heidi Buck-Albulet writes about Norinaga’s interactions with Akitada,

Chōsen,andtheKyotowaka scenemorebroadly, aswellas the relationshipof

n o t e s t o c h a p t e r 6

Ashiwake obunetohisearlyencounterswithcourtpoetics,inEmotion und Ästhetik,pp.37–61.SeealsoJōfuku,Motoori Norinaga,pp.27–52.

49. MotooriNorinaga,Ashiwake obune,p.356.50. KannoKakumyōhasarguedthatNorinaga’sbreakingdownandreconstruc-

tionofthenotionofauthenticityinpoetrywasawaytomaintaintheaestheticsoftheconservativeNijōschoolofcourtpoetry,whileprovidingitwithanewtheo-reticalbasis(Kanno,Motoori Norinaga,pp.67–106).KannocharacterizesNorinaga’scriticismsoftheNijōschoolascriticismsfromwithin,asopposedtohowmanyotherTokugawafigures,suchasMabuchiandMosui,criticizedcourtpoeticsfromwithout(pp.90–92).WatanabeHiroshi,describingNorinaga’sidealofinternalizingpoeticelegancefromthepast,notesthatasaresultofthisprocess,“Inacertainsense,onebecomesevenmorearistocraticthanthearistocratsthemselves,whoatthetime,justastheyhadinthepast,maintainedauthorityoverthetraditionalWayofpoetry.Oneperhapstakesonanexistenceevenmorecourtly(miyabi)thanthearistocratswhomakeupthelifeofthecourt”(Watanabe,“Michitomiyabi,”p.502).

51. Jōfuku,Motoori Norinaga,p.110.52. Motoori Norinaga, Uiyamabumi, p. 539. For an English translation of

Uiyamabumi,seeNishimura,“FirstStepsintotheMountains.”53. MotooriNorinaga,Ashiwake obune,p.267.54. MotooriNorinaga,Uiyamabumi,p.533.55. Ibid.,p.534.56. KKS1:“toshinouchini/haruwakinikeri/hitotoseo/kozotoyaiwan/

kotoshitoyaiwan.”57. KKS2:“sodehijite/musubishimizuno/kōreruo/harutatsukyōno/kaze

yatokuramu.”58. GSS1089:“koreyakono/yukumokaerumo/wakaretewa/shirumoshi-

ranumo/Ōsakanoseki.”59. FujiwaranoTeika,Eiga no taigai,p.494.60. MYS138:“tamamonasu/nabikiwaganeshi/shikitaeno/imogatamotoo/

tsuyushimono/okiteshikureba.”ThisisavariantofMYS131,whichcontainsthesimilarlines:“tamamonasu/yorineshiimoo/tsuyushimono/okiteshikureba”[becauseIcame,leavingherbehindlikedewandfrost,shewhosleptclosetome,clinginglikejeweledseaweed].

61. Thetitleofthecollectioncomesfromhowtamaboko noisamakurakotobaformichi(theWay).

62. FrommytranslationinShirane,ed.,Early Modern Japanese Literature,p.613.

Bibliography

Abbreviations Used in the BibliographyKMZ Kamo no Mabuchi zenshū.Vols.1–14,16–17,19,21,23,26–27to

date.EditedbyInoueMinoru.ZokuGunshoRuijuKanseikai,1977–1992.

MNZ Motoori Norinaga zenshū.23vols.EditedbyŌnoSusumuandŌkuboTadashi.ChikumaShobō,1968–1993.

NJS Nihon jurin sōsho.14vols.EditedbySekiGiichirō.TōyōToshoKankōkai,1927–1938.Reprint:ŌtoriShuppan,1971.

NKT Nihon kagaku taikei.10vols.EditedbySasakiNobutsuna.Ka-zamaShobō,1956–1963.

NMSCZ Nihon meika shisho chūshaku zensho. 13 vols. Edited by SekiGiichirō. Tōyō Tosho Kankōkai, 1922–1930. Reprint: ŌtoriShuppan,1973.

NRI Nihon rinri ihen.10vols.EditedbyInoueTetsujirōandKanieYoshimaru.Ikuseikai,1901–1903.

NSS Nihon shiwa sōsho.10vols.EditedbyIkedaShirōjirō.BunkaidōShoten,1920–1922.Reprint:ŌtoriShuppan,1972.

OSZ(Kawade) Ogyū Sorai zenshū.Vols. 1–3,5–6 todate.EditedbyImanakaKanshiandNaramotoTatsuya.KawadeShobō,1973–1978.

OSZ(Misuzu) Ogyū Sorai zenshū.Vols.1–4,13,17,18todate.MisuzuShobō,1973–1987.

Primary TextsAndōShōeki.Shizen shin’eidō.InKinsei shisōka bunshū,Nihonkotenbungakutai-

kei,no.97,editedbyIenagaSaburōetal.,591–666.IwanamiShoten,1966.AndōTameakira.Shika shichiron.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihon

shisōtaikei,no.39,editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,422–41.IwanamiShoten,1972.

AraiHakuseki.Tōga.InArai Hakuseki,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.35,editedbyMat-sumuraAkira,BitōMasahide,andKatōShūichi,101–44.IwanamiShoten,1975.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

ChenChun.Beixi ziyi.InYingyin wenyuange siku quanshu,709:1–61.Taipei:Tai-wanShangwuYinshuguan,1983.

DazaiShundai.Bendōsho.InNRI6:204–30.———.Bunron.InNJS12.———.Dokugo.InNihon zuihitsu taiseiseries1,vol.17:261–88.Yoshikawa

Kōbunkan,1976.———.Doku Shushi shiden.InNJS11.———.Keizairoku.InNihon keizai daiten,editedbyTakimotoSeiichi,9:9–295.

MeijiBunken,1967.———.Keizairoku shūi.InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.37,editedbyRai

Tsutomu,45–56.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Rikukei ryakusetsu.InNRI6:301–30.———.Seigaku mondō.InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.37,editedbyRai

Tsutomu,57–135.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Sekihi.InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.37,editedbyRaiTsutomu,

137–92.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Shiron.InNSS4:285–316.———.Shushi shiden kōkō.InNJS11.FujiwaranoShunzei.Korai fūteishō.InKaronshū,Nihonkotenbungakuzenshū,

no.50,editedbyHashimotoFumio,AriyoshiTamotsu,andFujihiraHaruo,271–465.Shōgakukan,1975.

FujiwaranoTeika.Eiga no taigai.InKaronshū,Nihonkotenbungakuzenshū,no.50,editedbyHashimotoFumio,AriyoshiTamotsu,andFujihiraHaruo,493–510.Shōgakukan,1975.

GionNankai.Nankai shiketsu.InNSS1:5–32.———.Shigaku hōgen.InKinsei bungakuron shū,Nihonkotenbungakutaikei,

no.94,editedbyNakamuraYukihiko,221–62.IwanamiShoten,1966.HattoriNankaku.Nankaku sensei bunshū.InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.

37,editedbyRaiTsutomu,193–231.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Nankaku sensei tōka no sho.InNSS1:47–66.———.Tōshisen kokujikai.EditedbyHinoTatsuo.3vols.Heibonsha,1982.HoriKeizan.Fujingen.InJinsai nissatsu, Tawaregusa, Fujingen, Mukaukyō,Shin

Nihonkotenbungakutaikei,no.99,editedbyUetaniHajime,MizutaNori-hisa,andHinoTatsuo,135–246.IwanamiShoten,2000.

IchikawaKakumei.Maganohire.InMNZ8:183–200.IkkaiTomoyoshiandIkezawaIchirō,eds.Jusha.Edoshijinsenshū,vol.2.Iwa-

namiShoten,1996.IshikawaJōzan.Shihō seigi.InNSS10:337–56.ItōJinsai.Chūyō hakki.InNMSCZ,Gakuyōbu 1.———.Daigaku teihon.InNMSCZ,Gakuyōbu 1.———.Dōjimon.InKinsei shisōka bunshū,Nihonkotenbungakutaikei,no.97,

editedbyIenagaSaburōetal.,49–199.IwanamiShoten,1966.———.Gomō jigi.InItō Jinsai • Ito Tōgai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.33,editedby

YoshikawaKōjirōandShimizuShigeru,11–113.IwanamiShoten,1971.———.Mōshi kogi.InNMSCZ,Mōshibu 1.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

———.Rongo kogi.InNMSCZ,Rongobu 1.ItōTōgai.Dokushi yōryō.InNihon shishi, Gozandō shiwa,ShinNihonkotenbun-

gakutaikei,no.65,editedbyShimizuShigeru,IbiTakashi,andŌtaniMasao,1–29.IwanamiShoten,1991.

IzumiMakuni.Meidōsho.InKokugaku undō no shisō,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.51,editedbyHagaNoboruandMatsumotoSannosuke,125–219.IwanamiShoten,1971.

KadanoArimaro.Kokka hachiron.InKaronshū,Nihonkotenbungakuzenshū,no.50,editedbyHashimotoFumio,AriyoshiTamotsu,andFujihiraHaruo,532–66.Shōgakukan,1975.

———.Kokka hachiron sairon.InNKT7:108–15.KaibaraEkiken.Taigiroku.InKaibara Ekiken • Muro Kyūsō,Nihonshisōtaikei,

no.34,editedbyArakiKengoandInoueTadashi,9–58.IwanamiShoten,1970.KaihōSeiryō.Keikodan.InHonda Toshiaki • Kaihō Seiryō,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.

44,editedbyTsukataniAkihiroandKuranamiSeiji,215–346.IwanamiShoten,1970.

KamonoMabuchi.Futatabi kingo no kimi ni kotaematsuru fumi.InNKT7:147–55.———.Goikō.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.39,

editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,394–420.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Ka’ikō.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.39,

editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,348–56.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Kanjikō.Vol.8ofKMZ.———.Kokka hachiron yogen shūi.InNKT7:116–26.———.Kokka ron okusetsu.InNKT7:127–37.———.Kokuikō.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.39,

editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,374–93.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Man’yōkō.Vols.1–5ofKMZ.———.Niimanabi.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.

39,editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,357–73.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.Okabe no nikki.InKinsei kabunshū 2,ShinNihonkotenbungakutaikei,

no.68,editedbySuzukiJunandNakamuraHiroyasu,127–53.IwanamiSho-ten,1997.

———.Tabi no nagusa.InKinsei kabunshū 2,ShinNihonkotenbungakutaikei,no.68,editedbySuzukiJunandNakamuraHiroyasu,107–26.IwanamiSho-ten,1997.

KongYingda.Maoshi zhengyi.6vols.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,1957.KumazawaBanzan.Daigaku wakumon.InKumazawa Banzan,Nihonshisōtaikei,

no.30,editedbyGotōYōichiandTomoedaRyūtarō,405–63.IwanamiShoten,1971.

MotooriNorinaga.Ashiwake obune.InKinsei zuisō shū,ShinpenNihonkotenbungakuzenshū,no.82,editedbySuzukiJunandOdakaMichiko,243–404.Shōgakukan,2000.

———.Aware ben.InMNZ4:583–88.———.Genji monogatari tama no ogushi.InMNZ4:169–524.———.Hihon tamakushige.InMNZ8:327–73.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

———.Isonokami sasamegoto.InMotoori Norinaga shū,ShinchōNihonkotenshūsei,no.60,editedbyHinoTatsuo,249–504.Shinchōsha,1983.

———.Kakaika.InMNZ8:375–413.———.Kanji san’on kō.InMNZ5:375–433.———.Kokinshū tōkagami.InMNZ3:1–291.———. Kokka hachiron sekihi hyō.InMNZ2:491–507.———.Kuzubana.InMNZ8:121–81.———.Naobi no mitama.InMNZ9:49–63.———.Shibun yōryō.InMotoori Norinaga shū,ShinchōNihonkotenshūsei,no.

60,editedbyHinoTatsuo,11–247.Shinchōsha,1983.———.Shokanshū.Vol.17ofMNZ.———.Tamagatsuma.InMotoori Norinaga,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.40,editedby

YoshikawaKōjirō,SatakeAkihiro,andHinoTatsuo,7–483.IwanamiShoten,1978.

———.Uiyamabumi.InMotoori Norinaga,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.40,editedbyYoshikawaKōjirō,SatakeAkihiro,andHinoTatsuo,511–40.IwanamiShoten,1978.

MurataHarumi.Wagaku taigai.InKinsei shintōron • zenki kokugaku,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.39,editedbyTairaShigemichiandAbeAkio,448–51.IwanamiSho-ten,1972.

OgyūSorai.Bendō.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawaKōjirōetal.,9–36.IwanamiShoten,1973.

———.Benmei.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawaKōjirōetal.,37–185.IwanamiShoten,1973.

———.Chūyō kai.InOSZ(Kawade)2:401–59———.Daigaku kai.InOSZ(Kawade)2:367–99.———.Gakuritsu kō.InYamagata Daini isho.KōyōToshoKankōkai,1924.———.Gakusei hen.InYamagata Daini isho.KōyōToshoKankōkai,1924.———.Gakusoku.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawa

Kōjirōetal.,187–97.IwanamiShoten,1973.———.Keishishi yōran.InOSZ(Misuzu)1:497–534.———.Ken’en zuihitsu.InOSZ(Kawade)1:129–212.———.Rongo chō.EditedbyOgawaTamaki.2vols.Heibonsha,1994.———.Seidan.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawa

Kōjirōetal.,259–445.IwanamiShoten,1973.———.Shigen.InOSZ(Misuzu)1:559–61.———.Sorai sensei tōmonsho.InOSZ(Misuzu)1:421–86.———.Soraishū.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawa

Kōjirōetal.,487–546.IwanamiShoten,1973.———.Taiheisaku.InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshi-

kawaKōjirōetal.,447–86.IwanamiShoten,1973.———.Yakubun sentei.InOSZ(Misuzu)2:543–71.ŌsugaNakayabu.Kokka hachiron sekihi.InNKT7:167–86.TakagiIchinosukeandHisamatsuSen’ichi,eds.Kinsei waka shū.Nihonkoten

bungakutaikei,no.93.IwanamiShoten,1966.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

TayasuMunetake.Karon.InNKT7:156–61.———.Katei yakugen.InNKT7:162–66.———.Kokka hachiron yogen.InNKT7:99–107.———.Okusetsu jōgen.InNKT7:138–46.YamagaSokō.Seikyō yōroku.InYamaga Sokō,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.32,editedby

TaharaTsuguoandMorimotoJun’ichirō,7–28.IwanamiShoten,1970.———.Yamaga gorui.InYamaga Sokō,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.32,editedby

TaharaTsuguoandMorimotoJun’ichirō,29–315.IwanamiShoten,1970.YamagataDaini.Ryūshi shinron.InKinsei seidōron,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.38,ed-

itedbyNaramotoTatsuya,391–419.IwanamiShoten,1976.YamamotoHokuzan.Sakushi shikō.InKinsei bungakuron shū,Nihonkotenbun-

gakutaikei,no.94,editedbyNakamuraYukihiko,263–347.IwanamiShoten,1966.

YamamotoKazuyoshiandYokoyamaHiroshi,eds.Hattori Nankaku, Gion Nankai.Edoshijinsenshū,vol.3.IwanamiShoten,1991.

YanYu.Canglang shihua.IchinosawaTorao,ed.Sōrō shiwa.MeitokuShuppansha,1976.

“Yueji.”InRaiki,Shinshakukanbuntaikei,no.28,editedbyTakeuchiTeruo,556–607.MeijiShoin,1977.

ZhuXi.Daxue zhangju.InSishu zhangju jizhu,1–13.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,1983.———.Lunyu jizhu.InSishu zhangju jizhu,41–195.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,1983.———.Mengzi jizhu.InSishu zhangju jizhu,197–337.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,

1983.———.Shi jizhuan.FukinoYasushiandIshimotoMichiaki,eds.Shuki Shishūden

zenchūshaku.9vols.MeitokuShuppansha,1996.———.Yue ji dongjing shuo.InShushi bunshū 2,vol.5ofShushigaku taikei,edited

byTomoedaRyūtarōetal.,94–96.MeitokuShuppansha,1983.———.Zhongyong zhangju.InSishu zhangju jizhu,14–40.Beijing:Zhonghua

Shuju,1983.———.Zhuzi yulei.8vols.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,1994.

Secondary WorksAbeYoshio.Nihon Shushigaku to Chōsen.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1965.AmagasakiAkira.En no bigaku: uta no michi no shigaku II.KeisōShobō,1995.———.Kachō no tsukai: uta no michi no shigaku I.KeisōShobō,1983.Ansart,Olivier.L’empire du rite: la pensée politique d’Ogyū Sorai, Japon 1666–1728.

Geneva:LibrairieDroz,1998.AokiMasaru.Shina bungaku shisō shi.IwanamiShoten,1943.ArakiYoshio.Kamo no Mabuchi no hito to shisō.Kōseikaku,1943.AsayamaYoshirō.“HattoriNankakuno‘shi’noishiki—SoraitoNankakuno

Shikyōkanomegutte.”Jōchi daigaku kokubungaku ronshū18(1985):143–60.Aston,W.G.,trans.Nihongi.1896.Reprint(2vols.in1),Rutland,VT:Tuttle,1972.Bellah,RobertN.“BaiganandSorai:ContinuitiesandDiscontinuitiesin

Eighteenth-CenturyJapaneseThought.”InJapanese Thought in the Tokugawa

b i b l i o g r a p h y

Period, 1600–1868: Methods and Metaphors,editedbyTetsuoNajitaandIrwinScheiner,137–52.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.

———.Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-industrial Japan.Glencoe,IL:FreePress,1957.

BitōMasahide.“DazaiShundainohitotoshisō.”InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.37,editedbyRaiTsutomu,487–514.IwanamiShoten,1972.

———.“OgyūSoraiandtheDistinguishingFeaturesofJapaneseConfucianism.”InJapanese Thought in the Tokugawa Period, 1600–1868: Methods and Metaphors,editedbyTetsuoNajitaandIrwinScheiner,153–60.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.

Black,AlisonHarley.Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-chih.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1989.

Bloom,Irene.Knowledge Painfully Acquired: The K’un-chih chi by Lo Ch’in-shun.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1987.

Bol,PeterK.“This Culture of Ours”: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1992.

Boot,W.J.“JapanesePoeticsandtheKokka Hachiron.”Asiatica Venetiana4(1999):23–43.

Bourdieu,Pierre.Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.TranslatedbyRichardNice.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1984.

Brownlee,JohnS.“TheJeweledComb-box:MotooriNorinaga’sTamakushige.”Monumenta Nipponica43,no.1(Spring1988):35–61.

Buck-Albulet,Heidi.Emotion und Ästhetik: Das “Ashiwake obune”—eine Waka-Poetik des jungen Motoori Norinaga im Kontext dichtungstheoretischer Diskurse des frühneuzeitlichen Japan.Wiesbaden:HarrassowitzVerlag,2005.

Burns,Susan.Before the Nation: Kokugaku and the Imagining of Community in Early Modern Japan.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2003.

Butler,Lee.Emperor and Aristocracy in Japan, 1467–1680.Cambridge,MA:Har-vardUniversityAsiaCenter,2002.

Caddeau,Patrick.Appraising“Genji:”Literary Criticism and Cultural Anxiety in the Age of the Last Samurai.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2006.

Carter,StevenD.Householders: The Reizei Family in Japanese History.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2007.

Cassirer,Ernst.The Logic of the Cultural Sciences.TranslatedbyS.G.Lofts.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2000.

Chan,CharlesWing-hoi.“OnOgyūSorai’sCritiqueofChuHsi’sProgramofLearningtoBeaSage.”Monumenta Serica46(1998):195–232.

ChangSumei.“Ken’engakuhatoongaku.”Nihon shisōshi gaku37(2005):155–72.Chin,Ann-pingandMansfieldFreeman.Tai Chen on Mencius: Explorations in

Words and Meaning.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1990.Chou,Chih-p’ing.Yüan Hung-tao and the Kung-an School.Cambridge,UK:Cam-

bridgeUniversityPress,1988.Chow,Kai-wing.The Rise of Confucian Ritualism in Late Imperial China: Ethics,

Classics, and Lineage Discourse.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1994.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

Chung,EdwardY.J.The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T’oegye and Yi Yulgok: A Reappraisal of the “Four-Seven Thesis” and Its Practical Implications for Self-Cultivation.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995.

deBary,Wm.Theodore.“Introduction.”InPrinciple and Practicality,editedbyWm.TheodoredeBaryandIreneBloom,1–36.NewYork:ColumbiaUniver-sityPress,1979.

———.Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1981.

———.“SagehoodasaSecularandSpiritualIdealinTokugawaNeo-Confucian-ism.”InPrinciple and Practicality,editedbyWm.TheodoredeBaryandIreneBloom,127–88.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1979.

Derrida,Jacques.Of Grammatology.TranslatedbyGayatriChakravortySpivak.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1976.

Dumoulin,Heinrich.Kamo Mabuchi: Ein Beitrag zur japanischer Religions- und Geistesgeschichte.Tokyo:SophiaUniversity,1943.

———.“KamoMabuchi:Kokuikō—Gedankenüberden‘SinndesLandes.’”Monumenta Nipponica2,no.1(January1939):165–92.

———.“ZweiTexteKamoMabuchiszurWortkunde.”Monumenta Nipponica11,no.3(October1955):268–83.

———.“ZweiTextezumKadōdesKamoMabuchi:Utanokokoronouchi—Niimanabi.”Parts1and2.Monumenta Nipponica4,no.1(January1941):192–206;no.2(July1941):566–84.

Eagleton,Terry.The Ideology of the Aesthetic.Oxford:Blackwell,1990.Elman,BenjaminA.From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of

Change in Late Imperial China.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1984.Flueckiger,Peter.“ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry:KamonoMabu-

chi’sKokuikō.”Monumenta Nipponica63,no.2(Autumn2008):211–63.———.“TheShijinginTokugawaAncientLearning.”Monumenta Serica55

(2007):195–225.Foucault,Michel.The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.New

York:VintageBooks,1994.FujihiraHaruo.Karon no kenkyū.Perikansha,1988.Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Truth and Method.2ndrevisededition.TranslatedbyJoel

WeinsheimerandDonaldG.Marshall.NewYork:Continuum,1994.Graham,A.C.,trans.The Book of Lieh-tzu.London:Murray,1960.HagaNoboru.Edo kabunha no seiritsu to tenkai.KyōikuShuppanSentaa,1994.HagaYaichi.Kokugakushi gairon.Kokugodenshūsho,1900.Hall,JohnWhitney,ed.The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 4: Early Modern

Japan.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991.HaniGorō.Nihon ni okeru kindai shisō no zentei.IwanamiShoten,1949.Harootunian,H.D.“TheConsciousnessofArchaicFormintheNewRealismof

Kokugaku.”InJapanese Thought in the Tokugawa Period, 1600–1868: Methods and Metaphors,editedbyTetsuoNajitaandIrwinScheiner,63–104.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

———.Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988.

Harper,T.J.“NorinagaontheTranslationofWaka:HisPrefacetoA Kokinshū Telescope.”InThe Distant Isle: Studies and Translations of Japanese Literature in Honor of Robert H. Brower,editedbyThomasHare,RobertBorgen,andShara-lynOrbaugh,205–30.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganCenterforJapaneseStudies,1996.

Hegel,G.W.F.The Philosophy of History.TranslatedbyJ.Sibree.1899.Reprint,NewYork:Dover,1956.

HinoTatsuo.“BungakushijōnoSoraigaku•hanSoraigaku.”InSorai gakuha,Ni-honshisōtaikei,no.37,editedbyRaiTsutomu,577–89.IwanamiShoten,1972.

———.“Enginobungaku:kobunjihanitsuite.”Bungaku35,no.7(July1967):46–59.

———.Hattori Nankaku denkō.Perikansha,1999.———.“HattoriNankakunoshōgaitoshisō.”InSorai gakuha,Nihonshisōtai-

kei,no.37,editedbyRaiTsutomu,515–31.IwanamiShoten,1972.———.“Jugakutobungaku.”InEdo bungaku to Chūgoku,editedbySuwaHaruo

andHinoTatsuo,205–25.MainichiShinbunSha,1977.———.“‘Mononoawareoshiru’nosetsunoraireki.”InMotoori Norinaga

shū,ShinchōNihonkotenshūsei,no.60,editedbyHinoTatsuo,505–51.Shinchōsha,1983.

———.Norinaga to Akinari.ChikumaShobō,1984.———.“Reigakuenokie—bungakushijōnoSoraigaku•josetsu.”Parts1and2.

Bungaku36,no.7(July1968):25–37;no.8(August1968):86–98.———.Sorai gakuha: jugaku kara bungaku e.ChikumaShobō,1975.———.“Soraigakuhanoyakuwari.”InNihon no kanshi,editedbyNakamura

Yukihiko,33–67.KyūkoShoin,1986.HiraishiNaoaki.Ogyū Sorai nenpu kō.Heibonsha,1984.———.“Senchū•sengoSoraironhihan.”Shakai kagaku kenkyū39,no.1(1987):

63–136.———.“Soraigakunosaikōsei.”Shisō766(April1988):82–101.HisamatsuSen’ichi.Kinsei waka shi.TōkyōdōShuppan,1968.———.Kokugaku: sono seiritsu to kokubungaku to no kankei.Shibundō,1941.———.Nihon bungaku hyōronshi: kinsei • saikinsei hen.Shibundō,1936.Hobbes,Thomas.Leviathan.NewYork:Penguin,1985.Hume,David.A Treatise of Human Nature.2ndedition.Oxford:OxfordUniver-

sityPress,1978.IbiTakashi.Edo shiika ron.KyūkoShoin,1998.Ikegami,Eiko.Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of

Japanese Culture.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005.ImanakaKanshi.Soraigaku no kisoteki kenkyū.YoshikawaKōbunkan,1966.———.Soraigaku no shiteki kenkyū.Kyoto:Shibunkaku,1992.InoueMinoru.Kamo no Mabuchi no gakumon.YagiShoten,1943.———.Kamo no Mabuchi no gyōseki to monryū.KazamaShobō,1966.InoueTetsujirō.Nihon kogakuha no tetsugaku.Fūzanbō,1902.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

IshimotoMichiaki.“DazaiShundainoshikannitsuite—Soraigakunokeishōomegutte.”Nihon bungaku ronkyū44(1985):79–86.

ItōMasao.Kinsei no waka to kokugaku.KōgakkanDaigakuShuppanbu,1979.ItōTasaburō.Kokugaku no shiteki kōsatsu.ŌokayamaShoten,1932.IwahashiJunsei.Sorai kenkyū.SekiShoin,1934.IwataTakashi.Motoori Norinaga no shōgai: sono gaku to kiseki.Ibunsha,1999.JōfukuIsamu.Motoori Norinaga.YoshikawaKōbunkan,1980.Joly,Jacques.Le naturel selon Andō Shōeki. Un type de discourse sur la nature et la

spontanéité par un maître-confuceén de l’époque Tokugawa, Andō Shōeki (1703–1762).Paris:EditionsMaisonneuve&Larose,1996.

Jullien,François.La valeur allusive: Des categories originales de l’interprétation poé-tique dans la tradition Chinoise.Paris:ÉcoleFrançaised’Extrême-Orient,1985.

Kalton,MichaelC.etal.The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the Most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought.Albany:StateUni-versityofNewYorkPress,1994.

KamiyasuNagako.Keiseiron no kinsei.AokiShoten,2005.KannoKakumyō.Motoori Norinaga: kotoba to miyabi.Perikansha,1991.Kant,Immanuel.The Critique of Judgement.TranslatedbyJamesCreedMeredith.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1952.KatanumaSeiji.Jugaku to kokugaku—‘seitō’ to ‘itan’ to no seiseishiteki kōsatsu.

Ōfūsha,1984.Kaufmann,Walter.Musical References in the Chinese Classics.Detroit:Information

Coordinators,1976.KawashimaKinue.“OgyūSoraicho‘Kingakutaiishō’honkoku.”Tōkyō Seitoku

Tanki Daigaku Kiyō37(2004):17–28.KazamaSeishi.Kinsei wabun no sekai: Kōkei, Ayatari, Akinari.Shinwasha,1998.Keene,Donald.World Within Walls: Japanese Literature of the Pre-Modern Era,

1600–1867.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1976.KinseiTōshōWakaRonshūKankōkai,ed.Kinsei tōshō waka ronshū.MeijiShoin,

1989.KojimaYasunori.“DazaiShundaitoChōsentsūshinshi.”Kokubungaku kaishaku

to kanshō46,no.7(June2001):40–51.———.Soraigaku to han Sorai.Rev.ed.Perikansha,1994.Koschmann,Victor.The Mito Ideology: Discourse, Reform, and Insurrection in Late

Tokugawa Japan, 1790–1864.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987.KoyasuNobukuni.Edo shisōshi kōgi.IwanamiShoten,1998.———.‘Jiken’ to shite no Soraigaku.Seidosha,1990.———.Motoori Norinaga.IwanamiShoten,1992.———.‘Norinaga mondai’ to wa nani ka.Seidosha,1995.———.Norinagagaku kōgi.IwanamiShoten,2006.KubotaKeiichi.Kinsei Reizeiha kadan no kenkyū.KanrinShobō,2003.KurozumiMakoto.Fukusūsei no Nihon shisō.Perikansha,2006.———.Kinsei Nihon shakai to jukyō.Perikansha,2003.———.“Nihonshisōniokeru‘wa’nogainen.”Chiiki bunka kenkyū senkō kiyō

Odysseus6(2001):4–17.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

Lau,D.C.,trans.Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching.NewYork:Penguin,1963.Legge,James,trans.The Ch’un Ts’ew with The Tso Chuen.1872.Reprint,Taipei:

SMC,1991.———.Confucian Analects, The Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean.

1893.Reprint,NewYork:Dover,1971.———.The She King.1871.Reprint,Taipei:SMC,1991.———.The Shoo King.1865.Reprint,Taipei:SMC,1991.———.The Works of Mencius.1895.Reprint,NewYork:Dover,1970.Leinss,Gerhard.Japanische Anthropologie: Die Natur des Menschen in der konfu-

zianischen Neoklassik am Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts; Jinsai und Sorai.Wies-baden:HarrassowitzVerlag,1995.

Lidin,OlofG.The Life of Ogyū Sorai: A Tokugawa Confucian Philosopher.Lund:Studentlitteratur,1974.

———.Ogyū Sorai’s “Discourse on Government” (“Seidan”): An Annotated Transla-tion.Wiesbaden:HarrassowitzVerlag,1999.

———.Ogyū Sorai’s “Distinguishing the Way”: An Annotated English Translation of the “Bendō.” Tokyo:SophiaUniversity,1970.

———.Ogyū Sorai’s Journey to Kai in 1706, With a Translation of the “Kyōchūkikō.”London:CurzonPress,1983.

———.“OgyūSorai’sPlaceinEdoIntellectualThought.”Modern Asian Studies18,no.4(1984):567–80.

Liu,JamesJ.Y.Chinese Theories of Literature.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975.

Lynn,RichardJohn.“ChuHsiasLiteraryTheoristandCritic.”InChu Hsi and Neo-Confucianism,editedbyWing-tsitChan,337–54.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,1986.

MaezawaEngetsu.Dazai Shundai.Sūzanbō,1920.Marceau,Lawrence.“HoriKeizancho‘Fujingen’josetsu:ren’aironokoete.”

Nihon bungaku 42,no.11(November1993):47–52.———.“NinjōandtheAffectiveValueofLiteratureattheKogidōAcademy.”

Sino-Japanese Studies9,no.1(1996):47–55.———.Takebe Ayatari: A Bunjin Bohemian in Early Modern Japan.AnnArbor:

UniversityofMichiganCenterforJapaneseStudies,2004.Marra,Michael.“NativistHermeneutics:TheInterpretiveStrategiesofMotoori

NorinagaandFujitaniMitsue.”Japan Review10(1998):17–52.———.The Poetics of Motoori Norinaga.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,

2007.MaruyamaMasao.Gendai seiji no shisō to kōdō.Rev.ed.Miraisha,1964.———.Nihon no shisō.IwanamiShoten,1961.———.Nihon seiji shisōshi kenkyū.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1952.———.Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan.TranslatedbyMikiso

Hane.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1974.———.Thought and Behaviour in Modern Japanese Politics.Expandededition.

EditedbyIvanMorris.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1969.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

MatsumotoSannosuke.Kokugaku seiji shisō no kenkyū.Miraisha,1972.———.Tennōsei kokka to seiji shisō.Miraisha,1969.Matsumoto,Shigeru.Motoori Norinaga, 1730–1801.Cambridge,MA:Harvard

UniversityPress,1970.MatsushitaTadashi.Edo jidai no shifū shiron—Min • Shin no shiron to sono sesshu.

MeijiShoin,1969.McCullough,HelenCraig.Brocade by Night: ‘Kokin Wakashū’ and the Court Style

in Japanese Classical Poetry.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1985.McEwan,J.R.The Political Writings of Ogyū Sorai.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1962.McMullen,James.Idealism, Protest, and the “Tale of Genji”: The Confucianism of

Kumazawa Banzan (1619–91).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999.———.“KumazawaBanzanandJitsugaku:TowardPragmaticAction.”InPrinci-

ple and Practicality,editedbyWm.TheodoredeBaryandIreneBloom,337–73.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1979.

———.“ThePathosofLove:MotooriNorinagaandtheTale of Genji.”InKaigai ni okeru“Genji monogatari” no sekai: hon’yaku to kenkyū,editedbyIiHaruki,205–27.KazamaShobō,2004.

McNally,Mark.Proving the Way: Conflict and Practice in the History of Japanese Nativism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2005.

MinamotoRyōen.Tokugawa gōri shisō no keifu.ChūōKōronShinsha,1972.Minear,Richard.“OgyūSorai’sInstructions for Students:ATranslationandCom-

mentary.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies36(1976):5–81.MiyakeKiyoshi.Kada no Azumamaro.UnebiShobō,1942.MiyakeMasahiko.Kyōto chōshū Itō Jinsai no shisō keisei.Kyoto:ShibunkakuShup-

pan,1987.MogiMakoto.“Kokugakutojukyōnoronsō.”InNihon shisō ronsō shi,editedby

ImaiJunandOzawaTomio,206–33.Perikansha,1979.MomokawaTakahito.Uchi naru Norinaga.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1987.MuraiOsamu.Moji no yokuatsu: kokugaku ideorogii no seiritsu.Seikyūsha,1989.MuraokaTsunetsugu.Motoori Norinaga.IwanamiShoten,1928.MurayamaYoshihiro.“DazaiShundaino‘Shushishidenkōkō’:Soraigakuni

okeru‘Shikyō.’”Shikyō kenkyū1(1974):13–20.NagashimaHiroaki,ed.Motoori Norinaga no sekai: waka, chūshaku, shisō.Shinwa-

sha,2005.Najita,Tetsuo.“HistoryandNatureinEighteenth-CenturyTokugawaThought.”In

The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 4: Early Modern Japan,editedbyJohnWhitneyHall,596–659.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991.

———.“MethodandAnalysisintheConceptualPortrayalofTokugawaIntellec-tualHistory.”InJapanese Thought in the Tokugawa Period, 1600–1868: Methods and Metaphors,editedbyTetsuoNajitaandIrwinScheiner,3–38.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.

———.“PoliticalEconomismintheThoughtofDazaiShundai(1680–1747).”Journal of Asian Studies31,no.4(November1972):821–39.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

———.Visions of Virtue in Tokugawa Japan: The Kaitokudō Merchant Academy of Osaka.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987.

Najita,Tetsuo,ed.Tokugawa Political Writings.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUni-versityPress,1998.

Nakai,KateWildman.“TheNaturalizationofConfucianisminTokugawaJapan:TheProblemofSinocentrism.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies40,no.1(June1980):157–99.

———.Shogunal Politics: Arai Hakuseki and the Premises of Tokugawa Rule.Cam-bridge,MA:CouncilonEastAsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1988.

NakamuraShunsaku.“‘Kishitsunosei’noyukue—DazaiShundairon.”Hiro-shima Daigaku kyōiku gakubu kiyōpart2,40(1991):261–68.

NakamuraTakaya.Hakuseki to Sorai to Shundai.Banrikaku,1942.NakamuraYukihiko.Kinsei bungei shichō kō.IwanamiShoten,1975.NakanoMitsutoshi.Jūhasseiki no Edo bungei: ga to zoku no seijuku.IwanamiSho-

ten,1999.Nienhauser,WilliamH.Jr.,trans.The Grand Scribe’s Records.Vol.1andvol.7to

date.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1994–.Nishimura,Sey.“FirstStepsintotheMountains:MotooriNorinaga’sUiyam-

abumi.”Monumenta Nipponica42,no.4(Winter1987):449–93.———.“TheWayoftheGods:MotooriNorinaga’sNaobi no mitama.”Monu-

menta Nipponica46,no.1(Spring1991):21–41.Nivison,David.The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh-ch’eng (1738–1801).Stanford,

CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1966.NoguchiTakehiko.Edo bungaku no shi to shinjitsu.ChūōKōronSha,1971.———.“ItōJinsainiokerubungakuronnoseiritsukatei.”Parts1and2.Kokugo

to kokubungaku44,no.2(February1967):39–52;no.3(March1967):31–46.———.“Kobunjigakuhanoshitoshisō.” Kikan Nihon shisōshi21(1983):50–64.———.Ogyū Sorai: Edo no Don Kihōte.ChūōKōronSha,1993.———.“Shushigakuniokerubungakunogainen.”Parts1–4.Bungaku35,no.7

(July1967):33–45;no.8(August1967):56–69;no.9(September1967):62–73;no.10(October1967):74–91.

NomuraHachirō.Kokugaku zenshi.2vols.SekiShoin,1928–29.NomuraKanetarō.Ogyū Sorai.Sanseidō,1934.Norman,E.Herbert.“AndōShōekiandtheAnatomyofJapaneseFeudalism.”

Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan,3rdseries2(1949).Nosco,Peter.“Nature,Invention,andNationalLearning:TheKokka hachiron

Controversy,1742–46.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies41,no.1(June1981):75–91.

———.Remembering Paradise: Nativism and Nostalgia in Eighteenth-Century Ja-pan.Cambridge,MA:CouncilonEastAsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1990.

NozakiMorihide.Michi: kinsei Nihon no shisō.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1979.———.Motoori Norinaga no sekai.HanawaShobō,1972.OgasawaraHaruo.Kokuju ronsō no kenkyū.Perikansha,1988.OkadaTahehiko.“PracticalLearningintheChuHsiSchool:YamazakiAnsaiand

b i b l i o g r a p h y

KaibaraEkken.”InPrinciple and Practicality,editedbyWm.TheodoredeBaryandIreneBloom,231–305.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1979.

OkamuraShigeru.Mōshi seigi yakuchū.Fukuoka:ChūgokuShoten,1986.ŌkuboTadashi.Edo jidai no kokugaku.Shibundō,1963.OkumuraKōsaku.Kamo no Mabuchi: den to uta.TankaShinbunSha,1996.Ooms,Herman.Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570–1680.Princeton,NJ:

PrincetonUniversityPress,1985.ŌtaSeikyū.Nihon kagaku to Chūgoku shigaku.Kōbundō,1958.ŌtaniMasao.“ItōJinsainoshitogakumon.”Kokugo kokubun48,no.12(Decem-

ber1979):24–41.Owen,Stephen.An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911.NewYork:

W.W.Norton,1996.———.Readings in Chinese Literary Thought.Cambridge,MA:CouncilonEast

AsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1992.Palmer,RichardE.Hermeneutics.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1969.Parvulesco,Marguerite-Marie.Écriture, lecture et poésie: lettrés japonais du 17e au

19e siècle.Paris:PublicationsOrientalistesdeFrance,1991.Pastreich,Emanuel.“GrapplingwithChineseWritingasaMaterialLanguage:

OgyūSorai’sYakubunsentei.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies61,no.1(June2001):119–70.

Ricoeur,Paul.The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language.TranslatedbyRobertCzerny.Toronto:UniversityofTo-rontoPress,1977.

Rousseau,Jean-Jacques.A Discourse on Inequality.TranslatedbyMauriceCranston.NewYork:Penguin,1984.

Rubinger,Richard.Private Academies of Tokugawa Japan.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1982.

SagaraTōru.Itō Jinsai.Perikansha,1998.———.Motoori Norinaga.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1978.SaigoNobutsuna.Kokugaku no hihan: hōhō ni kansuru oboegaki.Miraisha,1965.SaigusaYasutaka.Kamo no Mabuchi.YoshikawaKōbunkan,1962.———.Kokugaku no undō.KazamaShobō,1966.Sakai,Naoki.Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century Japa-

nese Discourse.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1991.SasakiNobutsuna.Kamo no Mabuchi to Motoori Norinaga.Rev.ed.Yugawa

Kōbunkan,1935.———.Nihon kagaku shi.Rev.ed.Hakubunkan,1942.SasazukiKiyomi.Motoori Norinaga no kenkyū.IwanamiShoten,1944.SatōHitoshi,ed.,Shushigaku no kihon yōgo: Hokkei jigi yakukai.KenbunShuppan,

1996.SatōMiyuki.Ayatari to Akinari to: jūhasseiki kokugaku e no hihan.Nagoya:Nagoya

DaigakuShuppankai,1993.Saussy,Haun.The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniver-

sityPress,1993.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

SawaiKeiichi.“DazaiShundaino‘makoto’kaishaku.”Chūgoku koten kenkyū32(1987):48–61.

———.“‘Giko’nosekaininshiki:kobunjigakuniokeruhyōgenyōshikirikaiomegutte.”Nihon bungaku39,no.10(October1990):1–10.

———.‘Kigō’ to shite no jugaku.Kōbōsha,2000.ShigematsuNobuhiro.Kinsei kokugaku no bungaku kenkyū.KazamaShobō,1974.ShimadaKenji.Shushigaku to Yōmeigaku.IwanamiShoten,1967.ShimizuMasayuki.Kokugaku no tasha zō.Perikansha,2005.ShiraishiShinko.“DazaiShundai‘Bunron’kunshaku.”Kanbungaku kaishaku to

kenkyū1(1998):107–89.———.“DazaiShundaino‘dokushi’noyōryō.”Kanbungaku kaishaku to kenkyū

7(2004):133–61.———.“DazaiShundaino‘Shiron.’”Tōhōgaku114(July2007):84–100.———.“DazaiShundai‘Shishokoden’kō—sonoichi.”Kanbungaku kaishaku to

kenkyū6(2003):75–93.Shirane,Haruo,ed.Early Modern Japanese Literature: An Anthology, 1600–1900.

NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002.Smith,Adam.The Theory of Moral Sentiments.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,

1976.Reprint,Indianapolis:LibertyClassics,1982.Spae,JosephJohn.Itō Jinsai: A Philosopher, Educator and Sinologist of the Tokugawa

Period.NewYork:Paragon,1967.SuzukiEiichi.Kokugaku shisō no shiteki kenkyū.YoshikawaKōbunkan,2002.SuzukiJun.Edo wagaku ronkō.HitsujiShobō,1997.———.Tachibana Chikage no kenkyū.Perikansha,2006.SuzukiJun,ŌnakaMasayuki,andNakamuraKazumoto,eds.Motoori Norinaga to

Suzunoya shachū.Kinseisha,1984.SuzukiKen’ichi.Kinsei tōshō kadan no kenkyū.KyūkoShoin,1996.SuzukiTorao.Shina shiron shi.Kōbundō,1927.TabayashiYoshinobu.Kamo no Mabuchi kashū no kenkyū.KazamaShobō,1966.TaharaTsuguo.Motoori Norinaga.Kōdansha,1968.———.Soraigaku no sekai.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1991.———.Tokugawa shisōshi kenkyū.Miraisha,1967.TajiriYūichirō.“Ongaku•kannushitoSoraigaku.”Nihon shisōshi kenkyū14

(1982):16–30.———.“Soraigakunoreigakukan.”Nihon shisōshi kenkyū11(1979):16–27.TajiriYūichirōandHikitaKeiyū.Dazai Shundai • Hattori Nankaku.Meitoku

Shuppansha,1995.TakahashiHiromi.Edo no barokku: Soraigaku no shūhen.Perikansha,1991.———.“Soraigakuniokeru‘shi’nitsuite.”Nihon shisōshi kenkyū5(1974):32–41.TakahashiToshikazu.Motoori Norinaga no kagaku.Osaka:IzumiShoin,1996.TakanoToshio.Motoori Norinaga.KawadeShobōShinsha,1988.TakebeYoshito.Dazai Shundai.YoshikawaKōbunkan,1997.———.Dazai Shundai: tenkanki no keizai shisō.OchanomizuShobō,1991.TanakaKōji.Motoori Norinaga no shikōhō.Perikansha,2005.

b i b l i o g r a p h y

———.Murata Harumi no kenkyū.KyūkoShoin,2000.Teeuwen,Mark.“Kokugakuvs.Nativism.”Monumenta Nipponica61,no.2(Sum-

mer2006):227–42.———.“Poetry,Sake,andAcrimony:ArakidaHisaoyuandtheKokugakuMove-

ment.”Monumenta Nipponica52,no.3(Autumn1997):295–325.Thomas,RogerK.“‘High’versus‘Low’:TheFude no SagaControversyandBaku-

matsuPoetics.”Monumenta Nipponica49,no.4(Winter1994):455–69.———.“PlebeianTravelersontheWayofShikishima:WakaTheoryandPractice

duringtheLateTokugawaPeriod.”Ph.D.dissertation,IndianaUniversity,1991.———.The Way of Shikishima: Waka Theory and Practice in Early Modern Japan.

Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica,2008.Tillman,HoytCleveland.Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy.Hono-

lulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,1992.TōgōFukiko.“DazaiShundainokobunjihihantobunshōronnitsuite.”Kikan

Nihon shisōshi8(1978):44–52.TokiZenmaro.Tayasu Munetake.4vols.NihonHyōronsha,1942–1946.TomotsuneTsutomu.Shigen to hanpuku: Motoori Norinaga ni okeru kotoba to iu

mondai.Sangensha,2007.Totman,Conrad.Early Modern Japan.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993.Tucker,JohnAllen.Itō Jinsai’s “Gomō jigi” and the Philosophical Definition of Early

Modern Japan.Leiden:Brill,1998.———.Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks: The “Bendō” and “Benmei.”Hono-

lulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,2006.UchinoGorō.Edoha kokugaku ronkō.Sōrinsha,1979.———.Bungeigakushi no hōhō: kokugakushi no saikentō.Ōfūsha,1974.Ueda,Makoto.Literary and Art Theories in Japan.Cleveland:PressofWestern

ReserveUniversity,1967.Reprint,AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganCenterforJapaneseStudies,1991.

UsamiKisohachi.Kinsei karon no kenkyū: kangaku to no kōshō.Osaka:IzumiShoin,1987.

VanZoeren,Steven.Poetry and Personality: Reading, Exegesis, and Hermeneutics in Traditional China.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1991.

Wakabayashi,BobTadashi.Japanese Loyalism Reconstrued: Yamagata Daini’s “Ryūshi shinron” of 1759.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,1995.

WakamizuSuguru.Sorai to sono monjin no kenkyū.San’ichiShobō,1993.Waley,Arthur,trans.The Book of Songs: The Ancient Chinese Classic of Poetry.New

York:GrovePress,1987.Wang,C.H.The Bell and the Drum: “Shih ching” as Formulaic Poetry in an Oral

Tradition.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1974.WatabeOsamu.Kinsei waka shisō kenkyū.Jichōsha,1991.WatanabeHiroshi.Kinsei Nihon shakai to Sōgaku.TōkyōDaigakuShuppankai,1985.———.“‘Michi’to‘miyabi’—Norinagagakuto‘kagaku’hakokugakunoseiji

shisōshitekikenkyū.”Parts1–4.Kokka gakkai zasshi87,no.9–10(September

b i b l i o g r a p h y

1974):1–85;no.11–12(November1974):1–75;88,no.3–4(March1975):238–68;no.5–6(May1975):295–366.

Watson,Burton,trans.Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings.NewYork:ColumbiaUniver-sityPress,1964.

———.Records of the Grand Historian of China.2vols.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1961.

Webb,Herschel.The Japanese Imperial Institution in the Tokugawa Period.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1968.

Wehmeyer,Ann.Motoori: Kojiki-den, Book 1.Ithaca,NY:CornellEastAsiaSeries,1997.

Weinsheimer,JoelC.Eighteenth-Century Hermeneutics: Philosophy of Interpretation in England from Locke to Burke.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1993.

YamashitaHisao.Motoori Norinaga to ‘shizen.’Chūsekisha,1988.Yamashita,SamuelHideo.“CompassesandCarpenter’sSquares:AStudyofItō

Jinsai(1627–1705)andOgyūSorai(1666–1728).”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofMichigan,1981.

———.“TheEarlyLifeandThoughtofItōJinsai.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies43,no.2(December1983):453–80.

———.Master Sorai’s Responsals: An Annotated Translation of “Sorai sensei tōmonsho.” Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress,1994.

———.“NatureandArtificeintheWritingsofOgyūSorai(1666–1728).”InCon-fucianism and Tokugawa Culture,editedbyPeterNosco,138–65.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984.

———.“SchoolRelationsinOgyūSorai’sMiscanthusPatchAcademy:TheCaseofDazaiShundai(1680–1747).”Asian Cultural StudiesSpecialIssue3(1992):273–86.

YasuiShōtarō.Nihon jugaku shi.Fūzanbō,1939.YasunagaToshinobu.Ando Shoeki: Social and Ecological Philosopher of Eighteenth-

Century Japan.NewYork:Weatherhill,1992.Yoda,Tomiko.“FracturedDialogues:Mono no awareandPoeticCommunication

inTheTale of Genji.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies59,no.2(December1999):523–57.

YoshikawaKōjirō.Five Hundred Years of Chinese Poetry, 1150–1650.TranslatedbyJohnTimothyWixted.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989.

———.Jinsai • Sorai • Norinaga.IwanamiShoten,1975.———.Jinsai, Sorai, Norinaga: Three Classical Philologists of Mid-Tokugawa Japan.

Tokyo:TōhōGakkai,1983.———.Motoori Norinaga.ChikumaShobō,1977.“Soraigakuan.”InOgyū Sorai,Nihonshisōtaikei,no.36,editedbyYoshikawa

Kōjirōetal.,629–739.IwanamiShoten,1973.Yu,Pauline.The Reading of Imagery in the Chinese Poetic Tradition.Princeton,NJ:

PrincetonUniversityPress,1987.ZhangLongxi.The Tao and the Logos.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1992.

academies,private,52,116–18,147,234n4;poetryin,6,90,114,186;ofSorai,62–63,90,99,108,114,116,250n3

Agatai no kashū(anthology;KamonoMabuchi),166

Agatai no shūi(anthology;KamonoMabuchi),166

Akinari.SeeUedaAkinarialternateattendance(sankin kōtai )system,65,

67,75Amaterasu(sungoddess),194,198,207AmenomoriHōshū,99Analects(Lunyu),30–31,241n39;Jinsaion,52,

55,57–59,86,105;ontheOdes,48,55,57–58,103,110;onritualandmusic,85–87,110;Shundaion,137;Soraion,63–64,83–87,103–5,110–11,246n80;ZhuXion,48,86–87,103,110

ancientkings.SeesagekingsAncientLearning(kogaku),11,236n18.See also

ItōJinsai;OgyūSorai;YamagaSokōAncientPhraseology( guwenci;kobunji ),11,

21–23,63,247n6;andNankaku,116–17,121;andShundai,140–42;andSorai,11,63,91–96,248nn17,19

AncientWay(kodō,inishie no michi ):andMabuchi,155–65,169–71;andNorinaga,14,24–25,28,175–76,194–200,204,206–7,211;andpoetry,24–25,155–62,169–71,204,206–7

AndōShōeki,163,165AndōTameakira,34AndōTōya,62,116,118,122Ansart,Olivier,18–19,250n66“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”(quanshan

cheng’e;kanzen chōaku),34,47–49,51,55;Soraion,102–4,107;Shundaion,136;intheKokka hachirondebate,151,154.See alsomorality

AraiHakuseki,66–67,133,257n27ArakidaHisaoyu,235n5“Arashi”(TheStorm;KamonoMabuchi),167Arimaro.SeeKadanoArimaro

artisans,65,83,131ArugaChōsen,203,261n48AsayamaYoshirō,251n7,252n16Ashiwake obune(ASmallBoatPuntingThrough

theReeds;MotooriNorinaga),174–75,184–86,191–92,259n3,261n48

Atsutane.SeeHirataAtsutaneauthenticity:Arimaroon,150;ofemotion,

1–2,6,8,26–27,31,114–15,122,142–45,162,184,193;inhumannature,5,52,184,193;Norinagaon,26–27,31,184,193,262n50;inpoetry,1–2,6,120,122,134,140,142–43,145,150,162,172,262n50;Shundaion,120,134,140,142–43.See alsogenuineness

authoritarianism,16,20,77,89aware.See mono no awareAware ben(AnExplanationofAware;Motoori

Norinaga),177Azumamaro.SeeKadanoAzumamaro

Beixi ziyi(ChenChun),46–47,242n3Bendō(OnDistinguishingtheWay;Ogyū

Sorai),64,77,79,82,106,111,190–91,247n3,248n19

Bendōsho(ATreatiseontheWay;DazaiShundai),118,157,256n23,257n24

Benmei(OnDistinguishingNames;OgyūSorai),64,80,83,86–87,90–91,104,107,242n3

BianGong,247n6BitōMasahide,245n65,252n30BoJuyi,251n6Bol,Peter,36,43Book of Changes(Yi jing),106,239n9Book of Documents(Shu jing),80,84,91,130,

239nn9,15;andtheOdes,106–8Book of Music (Yue jing),106,249n44.See also

“RecordofMusic”Book of Odes(Shijing):“AirsoftheStates”

(“Guofeng”),37–39,42,48;Arimaroon,150;categoriesofpoemsin,37,241n49;editingof,48,51,114–15,134,151;andeducation,49,60,91;“elegantiae”(ya)in,37–39,48,56,241n49;

Index

i n d e x

Book of Odes(Shijing)(continued )emotionin,41–42,48,55–59,100–101,107–8,112–15,122,136,250n68;feng(Airs,moralinstruction)in,37,56,239n13,241n49;“GreaterElegantiae”(“Daya”),37;“GreatPreface”(“Daxu”)to,33,36–41,43–44,56,150,182–84,239nn11,13,256n19;“Guanju,”37–40,110,239n11;“Hymns”(“Song”),37,56,125,241n49;Jinsaion,55–60,101,242nn51,56;andtheKokka hachirondebate,150–51,153–54;languageof,101,113–15,134;“LesserElegantiae”(“Xiaoya”),37;Mabuchion,153–54,160;Maotraditionof,32,34–43,47–48,55,59–60,101,107,109,112–13,153,162,184,193,239n8;moralityin,35–43,47–49,55–60,101,107,109–10,112–13,136,151,153–54,239n8;andmusic,35,37,40–43,106,108–10,136,138,151–54,240n17,256n16;Nankakuon,122,125–26,134,143,251n7;Norinagaon,177;orthodoxvs.mutatedOdesin,37–40,43,48;“Shaonan,”37–38,48,136;Shundaion,119,134,136,138,143;andtheSixClassics,106–14,143,242n56;SixPrinciplesof,56,241n9;Soraion,29,80,84,91,100–103,106–15,248n29,250n68;andtheWay,60,113–14;“Zhounan,”37–38,48,136;ZhuXion,32,34–35,43–52,55–57,59–60,101,103,106–7,110–13,119,136–37,151,153–54,189,256n16

Bourdieu,Pierre,234n4brotherlyobedience(ti;tei ),15,83–84,157,196Buck-Albulet,Heidi,261n48Buddhism,175,257n32;Shundaion,118,130,

136–37;vs.Confucianism,9–11,58,104,118,129–30,136–37;Zen,93,247n8

Bunron(ADiscourseonLiteraryWriting;DazaiShundai),119,141–42

Canglang shihua(Canglang’sTalksonPoetry;YanYu),92,247n9

canon:ofAncientPhraseology,11,23,91–92,117,120,127;Confucian,31,33,43;Japaneseliterary,26–27,186,209;asmodel,2,114,205,208.See alsoFiveClassics;SixClassics

CaoCao,140CaoPi,100,140CaoZhi,140CenShen,98Changes.See Book of ChangesChenChun,46–47,189,240n26,242n3Chengbrothers,128ChenLiang,235n7ChikamatsuMonzaemon,8–9China:Japanesetradewith,63;Mabuchion,

155–61,169,171;asmodel,1–3,72;musicof,108,139;Nankakuon,121;andnativism,2,4–5,12;Norinagaon,195–96,201–2,207;portrayalinTokugawakanshi,96–98,100,

123–25;Shundaion,157.See alsoChineselanguage;particulardynasties

Chineselanguage,1;andJapanesepoetry,182;Mabuchion,159–60;Norinagaon,175,182–83;Shundaion,119;Soraion,11,62–63,70–71,90,92,94–95,243n18;vs.Japanese,62,70–71,94,243n18,257n27

“Chōandō”(TheChang’anRoad;HattoriNankaku),123–24

chōkaform,166–69,254n1ChuGuangxi,124Chūyō hakki(AnExpositionoftheDoctrine of

the Mean;ItōJinsai),52Chūyō kai(InterpretationoftheDoctrine of the

Mean;OgyūSorai),64,84,88classstructure.Seehierarchy,socialcommercialization,3,65;Norinagaon,201;

Shundaion,132–33;Soraion,10,75,88–89commoners,urban(chōnin),3,8–9,26community,2,5,145,210;Akinarion,261n41;

Mabuchion,259n13;Nankakuon,122–23,128,143,208;Norinagaon,26,28,259n13,261n41;Soraion,16–18,99–100,114,120

Confucianism:onemotion,28–32,162,188,190;andgovernment,15,199–201;Harumion,199;Jinsaion,58;Korean,33;andliterature,28–29,32–34,211,238n61;Mabuchion,147,155–58,162,165,171,201;andmodernity,28–29,31,211–12;andnativism,25,28–29,31,145–46,211–12,238n58;Norinagaon,27,175,188–92,195–96,200–201,211–12;Shundaion,118,129–30;Sokōon,10–11;andSorai,7–8,10–11,13,16,29,86,143,211;andtheTokugawashogunate,62;andTokugawasociety,33;vs.Buddhism,9–11,58,104,118,129–30,136–37;vs.Daoism,9–11,58;andwen,86,183.See alsotheWay;particularthinkers

Confucius,9,78,104–5,111,128,133,140,191;Daoistportrayalof,122–23;andtheOdes,48,51,55–58,101,114,134,151,160,177.See also Analects

considerateness(shu;jo),54,105,241n39courtpoetry,145,148–49,203,255n5,256n13,

261n48,262n50culture:andbunjin,123;Chinesevs.Japanese,

2,11–12,145,151,171,196;andemotion,5–6;andhumannature,4–6,21,23–24,28,61,88,120,193–94,208;Japanese,5,145,151,171,173,198–200;ofKingWen,40,107,112–13;Mabuchion,155–56,171;Nankakuon,122,143,252n16;andnativism,5,11–12;Norinagaon,27–28,173,181,184,193–94,196,198,208–9;andNorinaga’scritics,198–200;andobjectivity,67–72;andpoetry,6,20,43,114,122,172,181,208,210–12;popular,67;ofsagekings,60,74,94,106,157,163–64;Soraion,11,16–21,67–72,77–78,83–84,88,

i n d e x

92,106,110,114–15,120,122,237n34;urbancommercial,10;vs.history,237n33;vs.invention,19–20;vs.metaphysicalnorms,3–5;vs.moralnorms,21;vs.nature,19–20,163;andtheWay,3–6,11,23,43,61,88,110.See also wen

currency,66–67,132,163,201custom( fūzoku):Mabuchion,153;Norinaga

on,195,201;andreforms,72–74,201;Shundaion,129,133,138;Soraion,71–74,78,129,237n34;vs.laws,73,78

Daigaku kai(InterpretationoftheGreat Learning ;OgyūSorai),64

Daigaku teihon(TheAuthenticTextoftheGreat Learning ;ItōJinsai),52

Daigaku wakumon(KumazawaBanzan),10Daitō seigo(StoriesoftheEast;Hattori

Nankaku),117Dao de jing,126,257n25Daoism,11;Jinsaion,9,52,58;andMabuchi,

156,158,171;andNankaku,122,126,128,251n15;andNorinaga,194,196;Shundaion,131–32,253n33;Soraion,77,79–80,88,246n88,247n3,251n15;vs.Confucianism,9–11,58;andZhuXi,9,52,58

DazaiShundai,2,118–20,128–42;andAncientPhraseology,140–42;onBuddhism,118,130,136–37;criticsof,256n23;andDaini,164;onDaoism,131–32,253n33;ontheeconomy,131–33;onemotion,129–30,134–35,138,143,208;onthegentleman,129–30,134,137,143;ongenuineness,130,140–43;ongovernment,120,128,131–37,142–44,157;onhumannature,118,128–31,142;oninstitutions,131–33;andtheKokka hachirondebate,152;andMabuchi,157,162,256n23,257n24;onmorality,129–31,136,157,253n50;onmusic,118,130–31,136,138–40,143,157,162,252n30,254nn50,53;andNankaku,13–14,116,119–20,140;onnon–action,132,253n33;andNorinaga,178;onpoetry,118–19,134–37,140–43,208;onpoliticaleconomy,118,120,131–33,135,137;andpolitics,13–14,119–20,123,142;onritual,119,123,128–31,144,157,252n30;onthesagekings,128–32,137–39,157;andSeiryō,253n36;ontheSixClassics,118–19,128,136,143;onsocialhierarchy,131,134–35;andSorai,13–14,64,116,118–20,128–36,138–44,250n3,252nn27,30;ontheWay,118–19,128–33,136–37,157;onwordsvs.tones,136,256n16;andZhuXi,118–19,128,135–37

deBary,Wm.Theodore,16,19,234n2Doctrine of the Mean(Zhongyong ;Chūyō),46,

240n26;Jinsaion,52;Soraion,64,77,79,84,88;ZhuXion,47,79,241n38.See alsotheMean

Documents.SeeBook of Documents

Dōjimon(QuestionsfromChildren;ItōJinsai),52,55

Dokugo(SolitaryRamblings;DazaiShundai),119,138–40,254n53

Dokushi yōryō(EssentialsofReadingtheOdes;ItōTōgai),55

Doku Shushi shiden(ReadingZhuXi’sTransmissions on the Odes;DazaiShundai),119,136

DuFu,99,124,137,253n47DuShenyan,100

economy:intheGenrokuperiod,65;market,133;Norinagaon,201;andSeiryō,253n36;Shundaion,131–33;Soraion,73,75;intheTokugawaperiod,3,65–67;andtrade,133.See alsocommercialization

Edoschool(Edo-ha),199,235n5,261n42education:andtheOdes,49,60,91,106,110,

134;andpoetry,6–7,11,90–93,114,127–28,134;Soraion,6–7,11,90–93,106,110,114,127–28,134

elites,10,20;Nankakuon,120–22,124,143–44,208;Shundaion,134–35,137;Soraion,2,7,22,83,91,97–100,113–14,128.See alsogentleman;rulership;samurai

emotion(qing ;jō):ofcommonpeople,134–35,251n6;communicationof,26–27,30,177–79,184,189,192–93,204,210–11;andConfucianism,28–32,162,188,190;andculture,5–6;elegant,121;andtheFour-SevenDebate,241n38;andharmony,46–47;andhumannature,1,4–6,9–10,19,23,27,43–48,52–54,105,130,176,184–85,188,208;Jinsaion,9,52,55–57,106;Kokinshūprefaceon,149–50;liberationof,6,12–15,24–25,28–29,32,142,210–12;andMabuchi,153–55,171;andtheMaotradition,35–36,38–39,41–42,112;andmorality,4,8,22,27,31,44–48,54,109,154,189–90,240n22;andmusic,15,22,41–42,44,108–10,113,130,138,143,188;Nankakuon,120–21,142,208;andnativism,14,24–25,29,144–45,211–12;andneoclassicalform,3,21–23;Norinagaon,14–15,23–28,30–31,173,176–80,183–93,204,209,211,259n12,260n25;intheOdes,41–42,48,55–59,100–101,107–8,112–15,122,136,250n68;andpatterning,41,176,179–80,183–84,193,239n15,259n12;andpoetry,1–3,6,8,14–15,32,43–47,89–90,100–106,109–10,114–15,138,145,154–55,160–62,175,187,191–93,204,208–9,249n54,251n6;regulationof,4,6,15,21–22,26,28–32,35,42,44,46–48,68,108–10,112–13,130,138,143,153–55,160,185–90,209–11,241n38;andrulership,11,22–23,105–6,113,134–36,142–43,153,160,178,180,191;Shundaion,129–30,134–35,138,143,208;andsocialnorms,8,15,30,32,188,210–12;

i n d e x

emotion(qing ;jō)(continued )Sokōon,10–11;Soraion,8–9,11–15,19,21–23,28–29,31,89–90,100–102,103–10,112–15,208,211,249n54;vs.desires,189–90,240n22,260n25;vs.politics,13,31;andtheWay,5,12–15,25,28,45–47,89,105,107,109,130;ZhuXion,4,8,13,43–48,53–54,68,101,112–13,154,189,234n3,240n22,241n38

empathy:andconsiderateness,54,241n39;andpoetry,25–27,30,52,55,59,101,104,106,122,134–35,153,160,178,187–88,191;andrulership,11,22,106–8,113–14,122,133–36,142–43,153,160,178,191

emperor,Japanese:andDaini,164–65;Mabuchion,158–59,172;andNorinaga,24,173,194,197,209;restorationof,164

Europe,16

faithfulness(xin;shin),15,83–84,196feudalism,3,163;Shundaion,131,133,135;Sorai

on,5–6,12,76,105–8,113,165;vs.law-basedsocieties,5–6,76,107–8;vs.markets,133

fictionality,186,190;ofpoetry,120,123–25,128,143

filialpiety(xiao;kō),15,83–84,157,179,196FiveClassics,36,100,239n9,249n44.See also

SixClassicsfiverelationships,163FourBeginnings(siduan;shitan),53–54,56–57,

68–69,104–5,241n38Four-SevenDebate,241n38FourTeachings(sijiao;shikyō),106–7,110.See

alsoSixClassicsFujiwaranoFuhito,74FujiwaranoShunzei,186FujiwaranoTeika,148Futatabi kingo no kimi ni kotaematsuru fumi

(AnotherReplytoTayasuMunetake;KamonoMabuchi),153

FuXi,Emperor,127

Gakuritsu kō(ReflectionsonMusicalPitches;OgyūSorai),108

Gakusei hen(OnMusicalSystems;OgyūSorai),108

Gakusoku(RegulationsforLearning;OgyūSorai),64

genbun itchi(unificationofspokenandwrittenlanguages),21

gender,161,176,257n31Genji monogatari(TaleofGenji),34;and

Banzan,236n14,238n59;andMabuchi,147,166;andNorinaga,27,174–75,177,190,203

Genji monogatari shinshaku(NewInterpretationoftheTale of Genji;KamonoMabuchi),147

Genji monogatari tama no ogushi(The Tale of Genji,ASmallJeweledComb;MotooriNorinaga),175

Genrokuperiod(Japan),65–66,89,118,132,139gentleman(junzi;kunshi ),255n9;andAncient

Phraseology,93–94;educationof,91,106,134;andthemandateofHeaven,197;andmusic,91,108;Nankakuon,121–22,128,134,251n7;andtheOdes,91,121–22,134,251n7;andpoetry,7,89,96,100,114,121–22,137;Shundaion,129–30,134,137,143;Soraion,7,83–84,89–91,93–94,96,100,106,108,114,143

genuineness(cheng ;sei,makoto):Munetakeon,151;Norinagaon,184–86;Shundaion,130,140–43;Soraion,87–88,246n88.See alsoauthenticity

GionNankai,247n9,251n6gods,Japanese:andNorinaga,24,27,173–75,

194–200,202,209,261n41Go’ikō(ReflectionsontheMeaningofLanguage;

KamonoMabuchi),147Gomō jigi(TheMeaningofTermsinthe

AnalectsandMencius;ItōJinsai),52,54–56,242n3

Gonganschool,93,247n10,248n11Gosenshū,186,206government:Banzanon,10;Dainion,163–64;

bygentlemen,91,96,114,143;Harumion,199;ofKingWen,248n29;Mabuchion,148,152–53,158–60;andtheMaotradition,38–41;andmorality,15,106,195–96,235n7;andmusic,41,109,153;Nankakuon,117,122,128,143;andnativism,12,144;Norinagaon,24,178,190–92,194–96,200–202;andtheOdes,38–41,91,101,112–13,242n4;andpoetry,7,11,22,24,33,106,114,128,135,137,142–44,149,152–53,190–92;Shundaion,115,120,128,131–37,142–44,157;Soraion,11,13,15,22,61,64–65,67,72–76,78,81–85,91,96,104–8,111–14,144,165,209,237n26,242n6,248n29;andtalent,81–85;andtheWay,61,64,72,107,111–12,122,137.See alsopolitics;rulership

Great Learning(Daxue;Daigaku),49–52,64

Handynasty(China),11,44,74,92,97,108,123;Odescommentariesof,32,35–36;poetryof,92–93,140

Hanfeizi,132Han shu(HistoryoftheHan),41HanYu,142harmony(he;wa):andmusic,86,108–9;Sorai

on,84–85,89,108–9,112,197,246n73;andtalent,84–85,89,109,112;vs.sameness,84–85,197,246n73;ZhuXion,46–47,86

Harootunian,H.D.,25–27Harumi.SeeMurataHarumiHattoriNankaku,2,116–18,120–28;and

AncientPhraseology,116–17,121;onChina,121,124–25;oncommunity,122–23,128,143,208;onculture,122,143,252n16;onthegentleman,121–22,128,134,251n7;and

i n d e x

Mabuchi,170;andtheOdes,122,125–26,134,143,251n7;onpoetry,117,120–23,140,143,208;poetryof,123–28,234n5;andShundai,13–14,116,119–20,140;andSorai,14,116–17,119–20,122,127–28,142–43

HayashiGahō,62HayashiRazan,62;ontheWay,34,43heart(xin;shin,kokoro):ofancientJapanese,

158,161,170,182,184,196;andBuddhism,137,257n32;Chinesevs.Japanese,177,182,195,207;consolationofwithpoetry,150,153,178;cultivationofwithpoetry,101,151,161,171–72,186;oftheFourBeginnings,53,57,104–5;ofthegods,194;astheoriginofpoetry,40–41,161,177,180,192,203;regulationofwithmusic,87,109,151–53;ofrulers,85,159;subjectivismof,67,91,128,183;ZhuXion,44–46,49–50,53,91,128,189,257n32.See alsoemotion

Heaven(tian;ten),3,156;andhumannature,19,43–46,78–79,81,88,93,188,209;Soraion,15,19,78–79,197,209,236n24;andtheWay,3,15,19,236n24

Heaven-and-Earth:Jinsaion,9,58;Mabuchion,155–58,162,171–72,Norinagaon,194–95;Shundaion,132;Soraion,7,79,103;ZhuXion,44–45

Hegel,G.W.F.,236n23Heianperiod(Japan),166,174,238n59,257n31HeJingming,92,247n6hierarchy,social,65–67,253n36;and

humaneness,105–6;asinventionvs.nature,12;Mabuchion,165;andNankaku,123;andNorinaga,26,201;Shōekion,163;Shundaion,131,134–35;Soraion,17–18,73,76,83,131.See alsoartisans;commoners,urban;elites;gentleman;merchants;peasants;samurai

Hihon tamakushige(TheSecretJeweledCombBox;MotooriNorinaga),200

HikitaYakara,242n5HinoTatsuo,21–23,32,252n16HiraishiNaoaki,237n26HiranoKinka,116HirataAtsutane,233n1history,199–200;Soraion,73–74,102–3;vs.

nature,237n33“Hitonokyōniyukuookuru”#2(Sending

SomeoneofftotheCapital#2;HattoriNankaku),125

Hobbes,Thomas,129,245n65Holland,160honkadori(allusivevariation),186,206HoriKeizan,174,248nn12,15,17humaneness(ren;jin),10,23;Jinsaion,54,

68,104;Mabuchion,157;Menciuson,53;Norinagaon,196;andrulership,23,91,104–6,111;Shundaion,132,157;Soraion,18,64,69,91,104–6,111–12,250n66

humannature(xing ;sei ):andculture,4–6,21,23–24,28,61,88,120,193–94,208;diversityof,8,68,81–83,85,89;andemotion,1,4–6,9–10,19,23,27,43–48,52–54,105,130,176,184–85,188,208;andgenuineness,87–88,185–86,246n88;goodnessof,48,53,83,87,129–30,245n65,246n88;andHeaven,19,43–46,78–79,81,88,93,188,209;andtheinvestigationofthings,50;andJapanesepoetry,148,185,193–94,208;Jinsaion,52–54,57,242n51,245nn64,65;Mabuchion,257n32;Menciuson,129,245n65;moraldefinitionof,4,8,13,44–48,53,112–13,154;andmusic,246n88;andNorinaga,24,27–28,176,184–85,193–94,208;original(benran zhi xing ;honzen no sei ),4,45,49,68,78–79,154,171;andpoetry,19,55,90,102,109,113–14,142,148,193–94,208–9;andprinciple,3–5,44–45,51,60,68–69,79,171,255n8;Shundaion,118,128–31,142;Soraion,8,11,13,19,21,61,68–69,76–83,85,87–90,102,104–5,108–9,114,120,197,208–9,245nn64,65,246n88;andstudy,93;andvirtue,80–81;andtheWay,5,8,16,19–20,23,49,53–54,68,76–80,88–89,105,128–29;Xunzion,129,245n65;ZhuXion,3–5,44–54,60,68–69,78–79,83,112–13,154,171,245n64

Hyakunin isshu(HundredPoemsbyaHundredPoets),146,174

IchikawaKakumei,196–97Ikegami,Eiko,234n4IkenoTaiga,123inbornnature.SeehumannatureIndia,160–61,198InoueTetsujirō,21,236n18,245n65,252n26institutions(seido):Dainion,164;Shundaion,

131–33;Soraion,72–76,88–89,110investigationofthings( gewu),49–51,59,102–3,

235n12Ise monogatari(TalesofIse),34,174,177Ise monogatari ko’i(AncientMeaningsofthe

Tales of Ise;KamonoMabuchi),147IshikawaJōzan,247n9Isonokami kō(anthology;MotooriNorinaga),

204Isonokami sasamegoto(AncientWhisperings;

MotooriNorinaga),174–80,187–90ItōJinsai,11,172,187;ontheAnalects,52,

55,57–59,86,105;andAncientLearning(kogaku),11,236n18;onDaoism,9,52,58;onemotion,9,52,55–57,106;ontheFourBeginnings,53–54,56–57,68–69,104–5;onhumaneness,54,68,104;onhumannature,52–54,57,242n51,245nn64,65;andtheKokkahachirondebate,256n16;onmorality,52–60;ontheOdes,55–60,101,242nn51,56;onpoetry,52,55–60;privateacademyof,52,116;

i n d e x

ItōJinsai(continued )onritualandmusic,86–87;andSorai,9–10,51,63,67–69,86–87,104–5,242n3;andZhuXi,9–10,51–60,235n12,241n38,242n51

ItōTōgai,55,116,256n16IwahashiJunsei,245n65IzumiMakuni,199

Japaneselanguage:andMabuchi,147,155,159–60,162,169–71;andnativism,12,145;andnature,155,162;andNorinaga,173,175,181–83,204;Shundaion,119;Soraion,62,70–71,94,243n18;unificationofspokenandwritten( genbunitchi ),21; vs.Chinese,62,70–71,94,119,159–60,182,243n18,257n27;andwakapoetry,1,12,145,151,162,169–71,181–82,204;andwritingsystems,159–60,182–83,257n27

Japaneselearning(wagaku),199,261n44Jindynasty(China),93,140Jinmu,Emperor,164Jinsai.SeeItōJinsaijokotoba(poeticpreface),180

KadanoArimaro,146,166,255n8;andKokka hachiron,147–55,255n11,256nn14,16,260n30

KadanoAzumamaro,146,166KadanoNobuna,146KaibaraEkiken,8–9KaihoSeiryō,133,253n36Ka’ikō(ReflectionsontheMeaningofPoetry;

KamonoMabuchi),147,161“Kajitsunokankyo”(IdlenessonaSummer

Day;HattoriNankaku),127KakinomotonoHitomaro,206Kamakuraperiod(Japan),74,139,164KamonoMabuchi,2,11,145–72,182;onthe

AncientWay,155–65,169–71;onChina,155–61,169,171;onConfucianism,147,155–58,162,165,171,201;andConfucianviewsofliterature,153–55,160,162;andcourtpoetry,262n50;andDaoism,156,158,171;disciplesof,199,235n5,261n42;ontheemperor,158–59,172;andJapaneselanguage,147,155,159–60,162,169–71;andtheKojiki,170;andtheKokinshū,147,167;andtheKokka hachirondebate,149,152–55,260n30;ontheMan’yōshū,147,161,166–67,169–70,258n56;onnature,155–56,162,165,171,208;andNorinaga,174,185,196,201,203–4,207,259n13;onpoetry,147,152–55,160–62,171–72;poetryof,165–71,235n5;onrulership,153,158–60,165;andself–cultivation,170–72,257n32;andShundai,157,162,256n23,257n24;andSorai,155–56,162,165,170–72;onstraightforwardness,157–61,165,170,172;andZhuXi,154,156,162,171

Kamo-ō kashū(anthology;KamonoMabuchi),166

kanasyllabary,182–83KangHai,247n6Kanjikō(ReflectionsonPoeticEpithets;Kamo

noMabuchi),147Kanji san’on kō(ReflectionsontheThreeModes

ofPronouncingChineseCharacters;MotooriNorinaga),175

KannoKakumyō,262n50KatōChikage,146,166,199,235n5KatōEnao,146KatōUmaki,166,182Keichū,149,166,174Keikodan(ConversationsaboutLearningfrom

thePast;KaihoSeiryō),133Keizairoku(ARecordofPoliticalEconomy;

DazaiShundai),118–19,128,131–32,135–37Keizairoku shūi(GleaningsfromA Record of

Political Economy;DazaiShundai),118,132–33Ken’en zuihitsu(JottingsfromtheMiscanthus

Garden;OgyūSorai),63–64,249n54Kenzō,Emperor,170Kingaku taiishō(AGeneralStudyoftheKoto;

OgyūSorai),108–9kogaku.SeeAncientLearningKogidō(HallofAncientMeanings;academyof

ItōJinsai),52Kojiki(RecordsofAncientMatters):and

Mabuchi,170;andNorinaga,174–75,194,196,199,204,261n41;andNorinaga’scritics,199,261n41

Kojikiden(TransmissionoftheRecords of Ancient Matters;MotooriNorinaga),174–75,194

KojimaYasunori,26,236n24,252n30Kokinshū,150,256n12;andMabuchi,147,167;

andNorinaga,175,180,186,205–6;prefaceto,33,149–50,255n10

Kokinshū tōkagami(AKokinshūTelescope;MotooriNorinaga),175

Kokin wakashū sachū ron(AStudyoftheMarginalNotesintheKokinshū;KamonoMabuchi),147

Kokka hachiron(EightEssaysonJapanesePoetry;KadanoArimaro),147–51;debateon,147–55,160,166,203,254n4,255n11,256nn14,16,260n30

Kokka hachiron sekihi(ARejectionoftheEight Essays on Japanese Poetry;ŌsugaNakayabu),260n30

Kokka hachiron sekihi hyō(ACritiqueofA Rejection of the “Eight Essays on Japanese Poetry”;MotooriNorinaga),192

Kokka hachiron yogen(MyViewsontheEight Essays on Japanese Poetry;TayasuMunetake),151–52

Kokka hachiron yogen shūi(GleaningsfromMy

i n d e x

Views on the “Eight Essays on Japanese Poetry”;KamonoMabuchi),152–53

Kokka hachiron sairon(ARestatementoftheEight Essays on Japanese Poetry;KadanoArimaro),152

Kokugaku,233n1,234n4,235n5;vs. Wagaku261n44.See alsoKamonoMabuchi;MotooriNorinaga;nativism

Kokuikō(ReflectionsontheMeaningofOurCountry;KamonoMabuchi),147,155–62,196,201,257n24,261n42

KongYingda,35Konjaku monogatari,117Korai fūteishō(SelectionsfromPoeticStyles

fromAncientTimestothePresent;FujiwaranoShunzei),186

Korea,33,99,241n38Koreanlanguage,99Kotoba no tama no o(WordsonaStringof

Jewels;MotooriNorinaga),175KoyasuNobukuni,27KumazawaBanzan,10,235n14,238n59KurozumiMakoto,30,242n56,246n73Kuzubana(Arrowroot;MotooriNorinaga),196Kyōchūkikō(ReportfromaJourneytoKai;

OgyūSorai),252n15Kyōhōreforms,66–67“Kyōkaku”(TheKnight-Errant;OgyūSorai),97“Kyookōhokuniutsusu”(Movingtothe

NorthoftheCity;HattoriNankaku),126–27

language:andAncientPhraseology,11,21–23,93–96;elegantvs.vulgar,94,120–21;andemotion,23,179;ofgentlemen,91,93–94,114,134;andHarumi,199;andMabuchi,160;neoclassical,1–2,21–23,63,170;andNorinaga,27;oftheOdes,101,113–15,134;patterning(wen)of,93–94,176,179–84,193;Shundaion,119,134;Soraion,21–23,62–63,70–71,87,93–96,110,113–15,243n18;vernacular,21,243n18;vs.music,41,87,110.See alsoChineselanguage;Japaneselanguage

Laozi,99;Jinsaion,9,52,58;Mabuchion,156;Norinagaon,194;Shundaion,132;Soraion,79,91.See alsoDaoism

laws,66,199;Shundaion,131–32;Soraion,73,76,78,109,129,250n69;sumptuary,67,73;vs.custom,73,78,129

Legalism,131–32Leinss,Gerhard,245n64LiangYouyu,247n6LiBo,96,124Lidin,Olof,242n6Liezi,127Li ji.See Record of RitualLiMengyang,92,247n6LiPanlong,11,63,92–93,97,117,247n6,248n19literati(bunjin),6,123,143,251n12

literature,7,33–35;andculture,20;liberationof,12–15,22,24,28–32,104,112–14,142–43,211–12,250n68;popular,8;asself-expression,12,21–22.See alsomonogatari;poetry

LiuYuxi,97Liuyu yanyi,64Lotus Sutra,137loyalty(zhong ;chū),15,83–84,105,196LuXiangshan,128LuZhaolin,100

Mabuchi.SeeKamonoMabuchiMaganohire(DispellingDelusions;Ichikawa

Kakumei),196–97makurakotoba(pillowwords,poeticepithets),

147,167,169,179–80Makura no yama(anthology;Motoori

Norinaga),207mandateofHeaven(tianming ;tenmei ),195–98,

261n39Man’yō kai(ExplanationoftheMan’yōshū;

KamonoMabuchi),147Man’yōkō(ReflectionsontheMan’yōshū;Kamo

noMabuchi),147,258n56Man’yōshū,149–50,152,254n1;Mabuchion,147,

161,166–67,169–70,258n56;andNorinaga,174,203–6

Man’yōshū Tōtōmi uta kō(ReflectionsontheTōtōmiPoemsintheMan’yōshū;KamonoMabuchi),147

Maoshi jian(AnnotationsontheMao Odes;ZhengXuan),35,55

Maoshi zhengyi(CorrectSignificanceoftheMao Odes;KongYingda),35–43,153,240n17

Marra,Michael,259n14MaruyamaMasao,22,211,234n2,236nn22,23;

onmodernity,12–15,20;onNorinaga,14–15,24–26;onSorai,12–19,28–29,31–32,142–43,236n23,24,245n65,252n27

materialforce(qi;ki ),4,8–9,45,47,53,68,162,260n28

MatsudairaSadanobu,200MatsumotoSannosuke,25MatsunagaTeitoku,203MatsushitaTadashi,247n6McNally,Mark,233n1,234n4theMean(zhongyong ;chūyō),15,67,83–84.See

also Doctrine of the MeanMeidōsho(AClarificationoftheWay),199Mencius,9,55,133;onhumannature,129,

245n65;Soraion,77–78,197Mencius,240n26;FourBeginnings(siduan;

shitan)in,53,56–57,68–69,104;Jinsaion,52,56–57;Soraion,68–69,104;ZhuXion,53–54,241n38

merchants,65–67,83,253n36;Norinagaand,173–74,201;Shundaion,131;Soraion,10,73;vs.samurai,65–66,76

i n d e x

Michi chō koto no ron(ATreatiseontheMatterCalledaWay;MotooriNorinaga),194

Michi chō mono no ron(ATreatiseontheThingCalledaWay;MotooriNorinaga),194

Mingdynasty(China):Confucianismof,10,16,33,91,128,143;poetryof,11,63,91–93,95,100,110,116–17,121,140–41

MitoLearning,245n65MizunoGenrō,242n5modernity:andConfucianism,28–29,31,

211–12;andliteraryautonomy,3,13–14,22,28–29,31–32,104,114,142–43,211,252n16;Maruyamaon,12–15,20,142–43;ofNorinaga,24;ofSorai,12–16,236n24,237n28

MomokawaTakahito,26,259n13moneylending,67,165,201monogatari(tales),117;andNorinaga,26,

28,173,177,187,190,204.See also Genji monogatari;Ise monogatari

mono no aware(thepathosofthings),14,25–27,177–80,191,204;knowing,26,184–90.See alsoemotion

morality:andculturalnorms,21,43;andemotion,4,8,22,27,31,44–48,54,109,154,189–90,240n22;andfiction,190;andgovernment,15,106,195–96,235n7;andhumannature,4,8,13,44–48,53,112–13,154;Jinsaion,52–60;intheKokka hachirondebate,148–55,255n11;andliterature,31,34,211;andMabuchi,154–55,157,159,171;andtheMaotradition,35–43,112,239n8;Maruyamaon,12–15,22,236n22;andtheMean,83–84;andmusic,40–42,109–10,113,139–40,154;inNeo-Confucianism,16;Norinagaon,173,179,184,189–90,196;intheOdes,35–43,47–49,55–60,101,107,109–10,112–13,136,151,153–54,239n8;andpoetry,8,29,33,52,59–60,102–4,109–10,112–13,151,211;Shundaion,129–31,136,157,253n50;Soraion,7–8,12–15,61,76,83–84,101–4,106,110,235n7,236n22,237n26,255n11;vs.politicsascontentofConfucianism,2,7–8,12–15,17,61,91,106,199,235n7,237n26;ZhuXion,3–4,8,20,22,34,44–49,51,53–57,60,101–4,112–13,154,234n3,240n22

MorikawaAkitada,203,261n48Mōshi kogi(AncientMeaningsoftheMencius;

ItōJinsai),52MotooriNorinaga,2,173–209;andAkinari,

182–83,198–99,261n41;oncommunity,26,28,259n13,261n41;andConfucianism,27,175,188–93,195–96,200–201,211–12;andcourtpoetry,203,261n48,262n50;criticsof,196–200;onculture,27–28,173,181,184,193–94,196,198,208–9;andDaoism,194,196;onemotion,14–15,23–28,30–31,173,176–80,183–93,204,209,211,259n12,260n25;andtheemperor,24,173,194,197,209;andtheGenji,

27,174–75,177,190,203;ongenuineness,184–86;andHarumi,199,261n44;onhumannature,27–28,176,184–85,193–94,208;ontheJapanesegods,24,27,173–75,194–200,202,209,261n41;andJapaneselanguage,173,175,181–83,204;andtheKojiki,174–75,194,196,199,204,261n41;andtheKokinshū,175,180,186,205–6;andMabuchi,174,185,196,201,203–4,207,259n13;ontheMan’yōshū,174,203–6;onmono no aware,14,25–27,177–80,184,187–91,204;onmorality,173,179,184,189–90,196;onpatterning,176,179–84,193,260n14;onpoetry,24–28,30,172–81,190–94,203;poetryof,203–8,234n5,235n5;onreforms,200–202;onrulership,178,190–91,195–96;andShundai,178;onSongConfucianism,23,183;andSorai,11–12,14,174,178,183–84,186–87,190–91,193–94,196–97,201–2,207–9,211;andwaka,26,28,173–75,177,179–82,185–86,190–91,203–5,208,254n1;andtheWayoftheGods,14,23–25,28,175–76,194–200,204,206–7;andZhuXi,23,27,183,189,192

Mozi,132Munetake.SeeTayasuMunetakeMurataHarumi,146,166,199–200,235n5,

261n42MurataHarumichi,146Muromachiperiod(Japan),74,139music:Correct Significance of the Mao Odeson,

40–43,240n17;court,108,139,253n49;andemotion,15,22,41–42,44,108–10,113,130,138,143,188;andthegentleman,91,108;andgovernment,41,109,153;andhumannature,246n88;intheKokka hachirondebate,150–54;andtheMaotradition,35,37,40–43;andmorality,40–42,109–10,113,139–40,154;andtheOdes,35,37,40–43,106,108–10,136,138,151–54,240n17,256n16;andpoetry,40–43,108–10,113,136,138,150–54,162,249n54;popular,109,139;andritual,20–21,69,74,84–88,91,94,106,110–11,131,151–52,157,164,188,246nn80,88,252nn16,30,257n24;ofthesages,15,21–22,99,108–9,125,130–31,138–39,151–53,162,164,188,249n50,252nn16,30,253n49;Shundaion,118,130–31,136,138–40,143,157,162,252n30,254nn50,53;andsong,41–42,109,138–39,162,176;Soraion,15,21–22,69,74,80,84–88,90–91,93,99,106,108–11,113,252nn16,30,256n16;vs.language,41,87,110;andtheWay,86–87,111,139;andwen,20,84,94,246n80.See also“RecordofMusic”;song

Nagasaki,63Najita,Tetsuo,17,237n33,253n36NakamuraYukihiko,33–34NakanoKiken,118,146

i n d e x

Nankaku.SeeHattoriNankakuNankaku sensei bunshū(TheCollectedWritings

ofMasterNankaku;HattoriNankaku),117Nankaku sensei tōka no sho(MasterNankaku’s

JottingsundertheLamplight;HattoriNankaku),117,120–22

Naobi no mitama(TheUprightSpirit;MotooriNorinaga),194–96

Naraperiod(Japan),159nativism,2–3,7,234nn3,4;andConfucianism,

25,28–29,31,145–46,211–12,238n58;andculture,5,11–12;andemotion,14,24–25,29,144–45,211–12;andkokugaku,233n1,261n44;andpoetry,211–12,234n5;andShundai,118;andSorai,2–3,11–12,14,144,245n65.See alsoKamonoMabuchi;MotooriNorinaga

nature:andDaini,164;Mabuchion,155–56,162,165,171,208;asmetaphysicalprinciple,8,12,250n66;Norinagaon,176,181,187;Shōekion,163;Soraion,80;vs. artifice,19,80,141;vs.culture,19–20,163,237n33;vs.history,237n33;vs.invention,12,16,19–20,61;vs.Nature,18.See alsoHeaven-and-Earth;humannature

Neo-Confucianism,16,27.See alsoZhuXiNihon shoki,162,170,199,204Niimanabi(AnIntroductiontoLearning;Kamo

noMabuchi),147,162Nijōschool,262n50ninjōbon(booksofhumanemotions),8NoguchiTakehiko,242n51,254n50NomuraKanetarō,245n65Norinaga.SeeMotooriNorinagaNoritokō(ReflectionsonNorito;Kamono

Mabuchi),147Nosco,Peter,24,255n11

Odes.See Book of OdesOgyūKinkoku,116OgyūSorai,61–115;andAncientLearning,

236n18;andAncientPhraseology,11,63,91–96,248nn17,19;antecedentsof,7–12;authoritarianismof,16,77,89;andChineselanguage,11,62–63,70–71,90,92,94–95,243n18;oncommercialization,10,75,88–89;onculture,11,16–21,67–72,77–78,83–84,88,92,106,110,114–15,120,122,237n34;oncustom,71–74,78,129,237n34;andDaini,164;onDaoism,77,79–80,88,246n88,247n3,251n15;disciplesof,116;onemotion,8–9,11-15,19,21–23,28–29,31,89–90,100–102,104–10,112–15,208,211,249n54;onfeudalism,5–6,12,76,105–8,113,165;onthegentleman,7,83–84,89–91,93–94,96,100,106,108,114,143;ongenuineness,87–88,246n88;ongovernment,11,13,15,22,61,64–65,67,72–76,78,81–85,91,96,

104–8,111–14,144,165,209,237n26,242n6,248n29;onharmony,84–85,89,108–9,112,197,246n73;onHeaven,15,19,78–79,197,209,236n24;onhumaneness,18,64,69,91,104–6,111–12,250n66;onhumannature,8,11,13,19,21,61,68–69,76–83,85,87–90,104–5,108–9,114,120,197,208–9,245nn64,65,246n88;oninstitutions,72–76,88–89,110;andJinsai,9–10,51,63,67–69,86–87,104–5,242n3;andtheKokka hachirondebate,152,255n11;lifeof,61–65;andMabuchi,155–56,162,165,170–72;Maruyamaon,12–19,28–29,31–32,142–43,236nn23,24,245n65,252n27;onmorality,7–8,61,101–4,106,110,235n7,236n22,237n26,255n11;onmusic,15,21–22,69,74,80,84–88,90–91,93,99,106,108–11,113,252nn16,30,256n16;andNankaku,14,116–17,119–20,122,127–28,142–43;andneoclassicalform,21–23;andNorinaga,11–12,14,174,178,183–84,186–87,190–91,193–94,196–97,201–2,207–9,211;ontheOdes,29,80,84,91,100–103,106–15,248n29,250n68;onpoetry,2,6–8,11,90–96,112–14,208;poetryof,11,21–22,96–100,123,234n5;andreform,64,72–73,89,165;onritual,18–21,64,69,74,80,84–88,91,106,110–11,246n88,249n44,250n69,252nn16,30;onrulership,10–11,23,76,82,85,91;onthesagekings,5–7,9–10,15–16,21–23,64,67–68,72,74,78–81,88–89,91,94,99,104–9,111–12,122,128,156,252nn16,30;andSeiryō,253n36;andShundai,13–14,64,116,118–20,128–36,138–44,250n3,252nn27,30;ontalent,81–85,89,109,112;onTokugawasociety,10,30,67,73–76;ontranslation,62,70–71,243n20;onvirtues,15,18,80–88,90–91,106,108,249n54;onwordsvs.tones,110,256n16;andZhuXi,12–13,16,21,62–63,67–69,78,83,85,101–4,106,110–13,171,234n3,235n7,250n68

Okabe no nikki(traveldiary;KamonoMabuchi),166

OnoFurumichi,146–47ŌokaTadamitsu,163originalnature.SeehumannatureŌsugaNakayabu,260n30ŌtomonoTabito,170

Parvulesco,Marguerite-Marie,7,234n5patterning(wen;aya):andemotion,41,176,

179–80,183–84,193,239n15,259n12;inthe“GreatPreface,”41,239n15;Nankakuon,122;Norinagaon,176,179–84,193,259n12,260n14;Soraion,93–94.See also wen

peasants,65,75,83,131,200,202plays,domestic-life(sewamono),8poetichouses(ie),148–49,203,255n5

i n d e x

poetry:andtheAncientWay,24–25,155–62,169–71,204,206–7;autonomyof,3,6,13–15,21,24–25,28–32,112–14,149–55,190–94;Chinesevs.Japanese,2,145,151–52,177,185;andcommonpeople,251n6;andcommunication,27,30,57–59,177–79,184,192–93;andelegance,120–21,251n6;asemotionalexpression,1–2,14,23,41,44,55,100–101,138,140,154,176–77,185;andempathy,25–27,30,52,55,59,101,104,106,122,134–35,153,160,178,187–88,191;andgoverningelites,2,7,11,22,90–91,98–99,109,113–14,122,134–35,137,142–43,153,160,178;andhumannature,19,55,90,102,109,113–14,142,148,193–94,208–9;imitative,1–2,21–23,32,63,91–93,100,120,127,140–42,170,186,205,207–8;Jinsaion,52,55–60;aslinguisticmodel,1,23,90,93,151,162,170–71,181–82,204;Mabuchion,147,152–55,160–62,171–72;andtheMaotradition,36;meterin,170,180–81;andmorality,8,29,33,52,59–60,102–4,109–10,112–13,151,211;andmusic,40–43,108–10,113,136,138,150–54,162,249n54;Nankakuon,117,120–23,140,143,208;Norinagaon,24–28,30,172–81,190–94,203;aspatternedlanguage,179–81,183–84;Shundaion,118–19,134–37,140–43,208;socialcontextofcomposition,6,90,99,108,114,117,146–48,166,174,203–4;Soraion,2,6–8,11,90–96,112–14,208;studyof,1,51,57,93,102–4,135,149,161–62,186,204.See alsoBook of Odes; wakapoetry;particularpoets

politics:andConfucianism,12–15,28–32;andtheKokka hachirondebate,148–55;andliterature,22,24,31–32,112–114;Mabuchion,160,172;andtheMaotradition,36;andNankaku,119,122,128;andNorinaga,24–26,200–202,208;andtheOdes,29,112–14;andpoetry,3,6,32,112–14,128,149,208,212,255n11;andShundai,13–14,119–20,123,142;andSorai,2,14,29,31–32,64–65,237n26;vs.emotion,13,28,31;vs.morality,12–15,17,237n26;andtheWay,12–15,19.Seealsogovernment;rulership

post-horserebellion(tenma sōdō;1764),164–65principle(li;ri ):andhumannature,3–5,44–45,

51,60,68–69,79,171,255n8;andindividualdifferences,18;andtheinvestigationofthings,49–51,235n12;Jinsaion,9,52,54,58–59;intheKokka hachirondebate,149,153–55,255n8;andMabuchi,155–56,162,171;andmaterialforce,4,8–9,45,53,260n28;Nankakuon,121;Norinagaon,23,183;andtheOdes,60,101,113;Shundaion,135–36;andtheSixClassics,106;Soraion,8,69,79,91,102,111–12;vs.emotion,10,121;andtheWay,3,5,12,23,43–51

printing,149publicvs.privatespheres,13–15,18,21–22,25,

142,236n23,237n26

QianQi,97,248n22Qindynasty(China),92,139Qingdynasty(China),64

“RecordofMusic”(“Yueji”),44,52,99,188–89,239n15,241n38,249n44,256n15

Record of Ritual(Li ji ),44,106,239nn9,15,241n38,249n44,256n15

reforms,10,159;Kyōhō,66–67;Norinagaon,200–202;Soraion,64,72–73,89,165

Reishōinpoetrygroup,203–4ReizeiTamemura,203rightness(yi;gi ),4,45,53,196;Jinsaion,54,68;

andtheMaotradition,38–39;andtheOdes,107;Shundaion,128–29,157

Rikukei ryakusetsu(AGeneralOutlineoftheSixClassics;DazaiShundai),118–19,134–35,138–39

ritual(li;rei ):Analectson,58,85–87,110;andDaini,164;andhumannature,45,53,246n88;internalizationof,18,246n88;Jinsaion,54,68–69,86–87;andtheKokka hachirondebate,151–52;andtheMaotradition,38–39;Menciuson,53;andmusic,20–21,69,74,84–88,91,94,106,110–11,131,151–52,157,164,188,246nn80,88,252nn16,30,257n24;Norinagaon,196;Shundaion,119,123,128–31,144,157,252n30;Shundaivs.Mabuchion,157,257n24;Soraion,18–21,64,69,74,80,84–88,91,106,110–11,246n88,249n44,250n69,252nn16,30;andtheWay,86–87,111,130;andwen,86,246n80

Rongo chō(ClarificationoftheAnalects;OgyūSorai),64,84,86,105

Rongo kogi(AncientMeaningsoftheAnalects;ItōJinsai),52,55

rulership,2,42,193;andempathy,11,22,106–8,113–14,122,133–36,142–43,153,160,178,191;andhumaneness,23,91,104–6,111;Mabuchion,153,158–60,165;Norinagaon,178,190–91,195–96;Soraion,10–11,23,76,82,85,91.See alsogovernment;politics

Ryūshi shinron(MasterRyū’sNewThesis;YamagataDaini),163

sagekings:ascreatorsvs.moralexemplars,16,81;Dainion,164–65;intheKokka hachirondebate,151–53;Mabuchion,153,158,165;theMaotraditionon,38;musicof,15,21–22,99,108–9,125,130–31,138–39,151–53,162,164,188,249n50,252nn16,30,253n49;Nankakuon,125,128;Norinagaon,24,190–91,195–96;Shōekion,163,165;Shundaion,128–32,137–39,157;Soraion,5–7,9–10,15–16,21–23,

i n d e x

64,67–68,72,74,78–81,88–89,91,94,99,104–9,111–12,122,128,156,252nn16,30;vs.Japanesegods,24;Wayof,6,10,21–23,28–29,38–39,64,72,88–89,91,95,102,107,111,128–31,137,165,171,190–91

sages:Jinsaion,11,52,58;Seiryōon,133;ZhuXion,16,49–51,81,128.See alsosagekings

SaigōNobutsuna,25Sakai,Naoki,16–19,243n16,250n69samurai:Mabuchion,159;Norinagaon,202;

Seiryōon,253n36;Shundaion,131–33;Sokōon,10;Soraion,10,73,75–76,85;stipendsof,3,65–66,243n6;andtrade,133;vs.merchants,65–66,76

SasakiNobutsuna,255n5,259n3SawaiKeiichi,250n68scholar-officials(shi ),65,114,119Seidan(ADiscourseonGovernment;Ogyū

Sorai),64,72–76,82,84–85,242n4Seigaku mondō(DialogueontheLearningofthe

Sages;DazaiShundai),118,129–30Sekihi(PointingoutErrors;DazaiShundai),119self-cultivation:andConfucianism,2,16,33,

46,57–58,257n32;andtheinvestigationofthings,49,51,235n12;Jinsaion,56,242n51;andMabuchi,170–72,257n32;andtheOdes,106;andpoetry,144,161;Shundaion,131,136–37,143;Soraion,61,68,78,81,143

ShenBuhai,132Shibun yōryō(EssentialsoftheTale of Genji;

MotooriNorinaga),174–75,187,190Shigen(OriginsofPoetry;OgyūSorai),247n9Shi ji(HistoricalRecords;SimaQian),92,97,

99–100Shi jing.SeeBook of OdesShi jizhuan(CollectedTransmissionsonthe

Odes;ZhuXi),55,153;prefaceto,43–44,48,51–52,106–7,136–37,189

Shinkokinshū,150,152,186,206“Shinsainogūsaku”(ComposedontheNew

Year;OgyūSorai),98Shinto,14–15,25,118,146–47,173,199Shiron(ADiscourseonPoetry;DazaiShundai),

119,137,140–41“Shōnenkō”(SongaboutaYoungMan;Ogyū

Sorai),96,123–24ShōtokuTaishi(PrinceShōtoku),157,164Shūishū,186Shu jing. SeeBook of DocumentsShun,King:Mabuchion,158;Munetakeon,151;

Soraion,72Shundai.SeeDazaiShundaiShushi shiden kōkō(TheFatalErrorsofZhuXi’s

Transmissions on the Odes;DazaiShundai),119,136

SimaGuang,103SimaQian,92,97SimaXiangru,96

sixarts(rikugei ),149,255n9SixClassics(liujing ;rikukei ),30;Nankaku

on,120–21;andtheOdes,106–14,242n56;Shundaion,118–19,128,136,143;Soraion,22–23,106–14,248n19,250n68;ZhuXion,106,136.See alsoFiveClassics;FourTeachings

song:inthe“GreatPreface,”41–42;lyricsvs.tonesof,152,256nn14,16;andmusic,41–42,109,138–39,162,176;Norinagaon,176,179,181–82,188,254n1;andpoetry,150–52,254n1,257n28,259n5;Shundaion,138–40,162

Songdynasty(China):Confucianismof,3,9–11,16,18,23,32–34,43,45–46,51–52,63,68,75,85,91,95,102–3,121,128,136,143,153–54,156,162,183,201;poetryof,92–93,121,140.See alsoZhuXi

Sorai.SeeOgyūSoraiSoraischool,7,28–29,63–64,117,119,234n3,

253n36;criticsof,199,247n11;fragmentationof,14,116,142,234n4;andmusic,256n16;andpoetry,13,32,97,141,234n5;vs.Mabuchi,155,162;vs.nativism,2–3;vs.Norinaga,196.See alsoDazaiShundai;HattoriNankaku;OgyūSorai

Sorai sensei tōmonsho(MasterSorai’sResponsals;OgyūSorai),64,85,95,102–3

Soraishū(anthology;OgyūSorai),96Spring and Autumn Annals(Chunqiu),106,

239n9straightforwardness(naoshi ),157–59,161,165,

170,172subjectivism,30;Norinagaon,182–83,188;Sorai

on,9–10,67–69,75,79,85,102–3,109,209;ofZhuXi,9–10,57,78–79,85,102–3,235n12

Sugagasa no nikki(TheSedgeHatDiary;MotooriNorinaga),234n5

SugaNaoiri,204SugiuraKuniakira,146,166SugiuraMasaki,146Suidynasty(China),139sumptuarylaws,66–67,73Suzunoya shū(collection;MotooriNorinaga),

204–5,234n5

Tabi no nagusa(traveldiary;KamonoMabuchi),258n49

Taigiroku(KaibaraEkiken),8Taiheisaku(AProposalforGreatPeace;Ogyū

Sorai),64,71–72,85,129,242n4TakanoRantei,116TakebeAyatari,123TakenouchiShikibu,164–65talent(cai;sai ):Soraion,81–85,89,109,112Tamaboko hyakushu(AHundredPoemsonthe

JeweledSword;MotooriNorinaga),206–7Tamagatsuma(TheJeweledBasket;Motoori

Norinaga),203TamenagaShunsui,8

i n d e x

Tangdynasty(China),35–36,43,74,108;poetryof,11,63,91–93,96–97,100,117–18,121,137,140–41,151,247n9

Tangshi xuan(Tōshisen;anthologyofTangpoetry),97–100,117–18,124

TanumaOkitsugu,200“Taohuayuanji”(RecordofPeachBlossom

Spring;TaoQian),126–27TaoQian,126–27taxes,67,75,200,202TayasuMunetake,147,166–67,203;andthe

Kokka hachirondebate,148–49,151–53,256nn14,16,260n30

Teeuwen,Mark,233n1,235n5Thomas,Roger,7ThreeDynasties(China),74,76,91,140.Seealso

Xiadynasty;Yindynasty;Zhoudynastyti yong(tai yō;essenceandapplication),46–47,

191–93TodaMosui,148–49,166,262n50Tōga(AraiHakuseki),257n27Tōgo shi(PoetryaftertheTang;OgyūSorai),92TokugawaHarusada,200TokugawaIeharu,200TokugawaIenari,200TokugawaIenobu,66TokugawaIeshige,163TokugawaIetsugu,66–67TokugawaIeyasu,66,75Tokugawashogunate:challengesto,163–65;and

Confucianism,62;andNorinaga,25;reformsof,66–67;andSorai,12,64–65,73–75,89.See alsogovernment

TokugawaTsunayoshi,61–62,66,117TokugawaYoshimune,64,66–67,147Tongjian gangmu(OutlineoftheComprehensive

Mirror;ZhuXi),85,103Tönnies,Ferdinand,236n21Tōshisen kokujikai(AnExplanationinJapanese

oftheTangshi xuan),118Tucker,John,16,237n28,242n3

UedaAkinari,166,182–83,198–99,261n41“Uhōshūnitowaruruoshasu”(Expressing

ThanksupontheVisitofAmenomoriHōshū;OgyūSorai),99

Uiyamabumi(FirstStepsintheMountains;MotooriNorinaga),175,204–5

Uji shūi monogatari,117“Umazakenouta”(PoemonDeliciousSake;

KamonoMabuchi),170urbanization,3,10,65,75–76UsamiKisohachi,256n16UsamiShinsui,133utopianism,126–28,163,165

VanZoeren,Steven,35–36,240n17virtue(de;toku):andemotionality,4,45,53–54,

108,113,241n38;andthegentleman,90–91;Jinsaion,53–56,59,68,86,242n51;Mabuchion,157–58,165;andtheMaotradition,37–40;andmusic,85–86,108,113,249n54;Norinagaon,196;Seiryōon,253n36;Shundaion,130,157;Soraion,15,18,80–88,90–91,106,108,249n54;ZhuXion,4,12,45,53–54,86,241n38,250n66.See also“approvingvirtueandchastisingvice”;humaneness;morality;rightness

Wadoku yōryō(GuidelinesforReadinginJapanese;DazaiShundai),119

Wagaku taigai(AnOutlineofJapaneseLearning;MurataHarumi),199

WakamizuSuguru,29,112,234n3wakapoetry,7,145,235n5,238n38,255n5;and

aware,177;andtheBook of Odes,100–101;andcourtnobles,145,148–49,151,203,255n5,256n12,261n48;andhumannature,148,185–86,208;andJapaneselanguage,1,12,145,151,162,169–71,181–82,204;andtheKokka hachirondebate,148–55;andMabuchi,146,165–66;andNankaku,117;andNorinaga,26,28,173–75,177,179–82,185–86,190–91,203–5,208,254n1;rhetoricaltechniquesof,179–81;vs.Confucianism,191

WangJiusi,247n6WangShizhen,11,63,92–93,247n6,248n19WangTingxiang,247n6WangYangming,128WatanabeHiroshi,262n50WatanabeMōan,146theWay(dao;dō,michi ):andAncient

Phraseology,11,22,92;andancienttexts,1–2;ascompositename,110–12;culturalvs.metaphysical,3–5;andculture,3–6,11,23,43,61,88,110;inDaoism,79–80,88,122–23,131–32,156,194;andtheDocuments,107–8;andemotion,5,12–15,25,28,45–47,89,105,107,109,130;oftheGods,14,23–25,28,175–76,194–200,204,206–7;andgovernment,61,64,72,107,111–12,122,137;andHeaven,3,15,19,236n24;andhumaneness,105,111;andhumannature,5,8,16,19–20,23,49,53–54,68,76–80,88–89,105,128–29;andinstitutions,88–89,110;internalizationof,93,130–31;asinventionvs.nature,7–8,12–16,18–19,23–24,61,80,88;ofJapan(Shikishimanomichi ),151;Jinsaion,52,54,58,105;andliterature,34;andmusic,86–87,111,139;Nankakuon,122–23;andtheOdes,60,113–14;andpoetry,2,19,29,32,45–47,113,192;andpoliticsvs.morality,7–8,12–15,61,237n26;andprinciple,3,5,12,23,43–51;andpublicvs.private,12–15,17–21,237n26;andritual,86–87,111,130;ofthesagekings,6,10,21–23,28–29,38–39,64,72,88–89,91,95,102,107,111,128–31,137,165,171,190–91;

i n d e x

Shundaion,118–19,128–33,136–37,157;andtheSixClassics,106,111,136–37;Soraion,7–8,10–11,16,23,28,61,64,68–69,72,76–89,91,94–95,105–7,113–14,122,139,171–72,190–91,193–94,197,236n24;andvirtue,80–85;ofthewarrior,159;andwen,34,43,86,94;ZhuXion,3,5,9,12–13,16,20,34,43–44,53–54,68,79,111,128.See alsoAncientWay

Weidynasty(China),92–93,140wen(bun;culture,literarywriting,patterning),

20,34,237n34;Soraion,83–84,86,246n80;andtheWay,34,43,86,94.See alsopatterning

Wen,King,37–40,43,48,72,107,112–13,248n29

Wen xuan,98,100,127wisdom(zhi;chi ),45,53–54,69,81,85,157WuGuolun,247n6Wujing zhengyi(CorrectSignificanceoftheFive

Classics),36

Xiadynasty(China),74,261n39XieZhen,247n6Xijing zaji(MiscellaneousRecordsofthe

WesternCapital),96Xunzi,15,102,129,245n65XuZhenqing,247n6XuZhongxing,247n6

Yakubun sentei(AGuidetoTranslation;OgyūSorai),62–63,70–71,94–95

YamagaSokō,10–11,236n18YamagataDaini,163–65YamagataShūnan,116YamamotoHokuzan,248n11YamanouenoOkura,169Yamashita,Samuel,19,250n3YamazakiAnsai,34,162,234n3YanagisawaYoshiyasu,62–65,117YangShen,110YanYu,92,247n9Yao,King:Mabuchion,158;Nankakuon,

251n10;Soraion,72Yi jing.See Book of ChangesYindynasty(China),74,261n39Yoda,Tomiko,27“Yoru,bokusuiokudaru”(Goingdownthe

SumidaRiveratNight;HattoriNankaku),124YosaBuson,123YoshikawaKōjirō,22–23“Yoshinonohanaomiteyomeru”(Composed

onViewingtheBlossomsinYoshino;KamonoMabuchi),167–69

YuanHongdao,93,247n10YuanKang,97YuanZhongdao,247n10

YuanZongdao,247n10“Yueji.”See“RecordofMusic”Yue ji dongjing shuo(AnExplanationofRest

andMotioninthe“RecordofMusic”;ZhuXi),44

Yue jing.See Book of MusicYue jue shu(YuanKang),97

Zekku kai(ExplanationofQuatrains;OgyūSorai),92

ZenBuddhism,93,247n8ZhangHeng,127ZhengXuan,35,55Zhou,Dukeof,72,158Zhoudynasty(China),37,74,108,125Zhuangzi,91,194Zhuangzi,70,122,251n10;fishtrapmetaphorin,

243n20.See alsoDaoismZhuXi:authoritarianismof,20;criticismof,

4,8–11,35,52,54,57,60,233n2,235n7;andDaoism,9,52,58;onemotion,4,8,13,43–48,52–54,68,101,112–13,154,189,234n3,240n22,241n38;onharmony,46–47,86;onhumannature,3–5,44–54,60,68–69,78–79,83,112–13,154,171,245n64;influenceof,33–34;ontheinvestigationofthings,49–51,59,102–3,235n12;andJinsai,9–10,51–60,235n12,241n38,242n51;andtheKokka hachirondebate,151,153–54,256n16;andMabuchi,154,156,162,171;onMencius,53–54,241n38;andmetaphysicalunity,3–5;onmorality,3–4,8,20,22,34,44–49,51,53–57,60,101–4,112–13,154,234n3,240n22;andNorinaga,27,189,192;andtheOdes,32,34–35,43–52,55–57,59–60,101–3,106–7,110–13,119,136–37,151,153–54,189,256n16;optimismvs.rigorismin,20;onprinciple,3–4,8,12,44–45,69,79,101,111,154,156,260n28;andpublicvs.private,236n23;andritualandmusic,86–87;andShundai,118–19,128,135–37;ontheSixClassics,106–7,136;andSorai,12–13,16,21,62–63,67–69,78,83,85,101–4,106,110–13,171,234n3,235n7,250n68;subjectivismof,9–10,57,78–79,85,102–3,235n12;vs.AncientLearning,236n18;vs.theMaotradition,34–35,47–48;vs.nativism,25;ontheWay,3–5,9,12–13,16,20,34,43–44,53–54,68,79,111,128

Zhuzi yulei(MasterZhu’sClassifiedConversations;ZhuXi),50–51

Zigong,57,241n39Zisi,77,79–80,93Zixia,58Zizhi tong jian(ComprehensiveMirrorforAid

inGovernment;SimaGuang),103ZongChen,247n6Zuo zhuan,84–85,107,197,245n71


Top Related