Abstract
In modern Japan, Ogyū Sorai is the best-known Confucian thinker of the Edo Period (1600–1868). The question I want to address in this article is, whether Sorai was as famous before the opening of the country as he became after World War II, and what he was famous for in his own time. It is difficult to measure popularity and influence, but if we go by such indications as number and quality of disciples, number of books in print, and the number and contents of the critical reactions from contemporaries, it should be possible to get a fairly good idea – at the same time of the measure of someone’s popularity (or notoriety) and of the nature of his appeal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Nihon kyōikushi shiryō vol. 8, resp. pp. 57–66 for Sorai, and pp. 53–57 for Jinsai. N.B. Jugaku genryū was compiled by Sugiura Masaomi 杉浦正臣; the batsu is dated Meiji 17 (1884). Masaomi studied with the Kyoto scholar Iwagaki Gesshū 岩垣月洲 (1808–1873; KGS 609) . He is represented in NKSM) with two titles, undated; no further details are known.
- 2.
They may have attended Sorai’s school on the principle of “know thy enemy,” but the more probable reason is that they wanted to learn Chinese in order to be able to compose Chinese poetry.
- 3.
See appendix in Iwahashi, Sorai kenkyū.
- 4.
See Ichikawa, Jugaku shi vol. 5, p. 239.
- 5.
Itan Sorai gakka (Seidō 120–6) is kept in the archive of the Confucius Temple in Nagasaki. It is undated and not signed. As one of the three third-generation students who are mentioned, Wakatsuki Taiya 若月大野 (KGS no. 4869) , lived 1721–1790, this should put the terminus post quem for the completion of the list somewhere around 1755.
- 6.
NKSM lists six titles, four of which apparently are no longer extant. See also the printers’ announcement of Genbun 2 (1737), that mentions two titles edited by him, next to Sorai-shū, Bendō , Benmei , and Rongo-chō ; quoted Hiraishi, Kaidai , p. 16.
- 7.
NKSM lists fourteen titles s.v. “Daichō.”
- 8.
After it had become public knowledge that on Tsushima they were doctoring the state letters exchanged between Seoul and Edo (the so-called Yanagawa Incident, 1635), the bakufu sent a priest selected from the large Zen monasteries in Kyoto to Tsushima to keep an eye on the diplomatic correspondence and other contacts with Korea. The office goes by a number of names: Chōsen shūbun shoku 朝鮮修文職, Chōsen shokei goyō 書契御用, or Taishū shoyaku 対州書役. Because the monks were stationed on Tsushima for periods of one to two years, the system is known as the Iteian rinban 輪番 system. Daiten was located in the Shōkokuji (Kyoto), so he probably met Sadanobu during the latter’s visit to the Kansai in 1788.
- 9.
Jurin-hyō , quoted from Nihon Jurin Sōsho vol. 3, separately paginated. A comparable account is given in Nawa Rodō 那波魯堂, Gakumon genryū 学問源流 16b-28a.
- 10.
Tansō does not explain what poisons he had in mind, but the remark will at least partially refer back to what he wrote earlier: “In those days students of Ancient Studies went in for frivolity and debauchery; this was exclusively a vice of followers of Sorai.” (Nihon Jurin Sōsho vol. 3, p. 4.)
- 11.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , p. 5. Who the “someone” is, is unclear.
- 12.
Hōtan studied at the Enryakuji and was ordained as a Tendai monk. He wanted to travel to China and India, but that was, of course, impossible in those days. Instead, he studied widely in various monasteries in the Kansai. He took an interest in the Kegon 華厳 School and spent the remainder of his life trying to revive it. From 1704 till 1723 he was in Edo, teaching Kegon doctrine and writing about it. In 1723, he returned to Kyoto and founded the Daikegonji in Matsuo. He continued to be active in his discussions with monks of other sects, esp. those of the Pure Land and Nichiren Sects. In NKSM he has fifty-two titles to his name.
- 13.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , pp. 5–6.
- 14.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , p. 6.
- 15.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , p. 6.
- 16.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , pp. 6–7.
- 17.
The point is that Shūnan came from Nagato and was the rector of the fief academy Meirinkan in Hagi.
- 18.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , p. 7.
- 19.
Hirose , Jurin-hyō , p. 8.
- 20.
I use the facsimile edition in Kinsei Juka Bunshū Shūsei vol. 3, edited and introduced (kaidai ) by Hiraishi Naoaki.
- 21.
Compare this with Hayashi Razan 林羅山, whose sons published a Shishū and a Bunshū of seventy-five fascicles each, or with his son Gahō 鵞峰, whose Collected Works count 150 fascicles of poems and 150 of prose.
- 22.
The source is Ken’en zatsuwa 蘐園雑話, quoted by Hiraishi, Kaidai , p. 9. Hiraishi mentions by name Nankaku, Shundai, Miura Chikkei 竹渓 (1689–1756; KGS 4189), one Kentaku 堅卓, Takami Sōkyū 鷹見爽鳩 (1690–1735; KGS 2657) , and Tanaka Ranryō 田中蘭陵 (1699–1734; KGS 2535) as the students who collaborated on the compilation of the Bunshū. See also his conclusion, ibid., p. 17.
- 23.
Hiraishi , Kaidai , p. 10.
- 24.
Hiraishi , Kaidai , p. 2, pp. 18–19.
- 25.
Tadamune was suggested by Shundai in a letter to Nankaku (Shisen ni atauru sho 與子遷書); see Shishien kōkō 紫芝園後稿 12:9a-10b (pp. 242–243): “You have received the command of our late Master and have compiled his remaining writings. The work is already being printed. This is truly something great. The only thing I especially regret is that you have not placed a preface by a noble man at the beginning of the [first] fascicle. ... You are close to Lord Iran 猗蘭 (= Tadamune). Because I suffer from a slight cold, I cannot now visit his lordship. That is why I say this to you.” Cf. Hiraishi, Kaidai , p. 16.
- 26.
My general contention, for which I have no direct evidence, is that Kanbun texts were not a commercially viable product, and that a printer or bookshop had to be subsidized in order to undertake the printing of such texts. The obvious sources of money were the pupils of the private academies, or the authorities.
- 27.
The Senkō 先考 Shūnan-sensei gyōjō 行状 (Shūnan-sensei bunshū 10, separately paginated), p. 1b, says “at the age of nineteen” (Japanese style). Hiraishi, Kaidai , p. 5, says that Shūnan entered Sorai’s school “in the beginning of the Hōei Era,” so 1704–1705. Anyway, as a student he was senior to Shundai and Nankaku.
- 28.
See Senkō Shūnan-sensei gyōjō 行状 (fasc. 10, separately paginated), pp. 4b-5a. N.B. The preface of Shūnan-sensei bunshū is dated 1755 (Hōreki 5); the printer’s colophon is dated Hōreki 10 (1760). The Bunshū contains three letters to Sorai, two of which Shūnan wrote on behalf of his father; see op. cit., 10:5b-10a.
- 29.
On the other hand, no letters from Sorai to him are included in Sorai-shū, probably (Hiraishi’s surmise) because Sorai and Shundai were estranged in Sorai’s final years; see Hiraishi, Kaidai , p. 20.
- 30.
See Ichikawa, Jugaku shi vol. 5, p. 241; Bitō, Kaidai , NST 37, p. 491. The original locus is Bunkai zakki 文会雑記 1b.
- 31.
This passage from Seigaku mondō (2 fasc.; pr. 1736) is quoted in Inoue Tetsujirō, Nihon Kogakuha no tetsugaku, p. 691; see also the edition in Sorai gakuha, NST 37, p. 95.
- 32.
A reference to Mengzi 4B14. The text is 「取之左右逢其原」; Lau translates this as “he finds its source, wherever he turns.” (Mencius, p. 130.)
- 33.
Seigaku mondō 1 (Sorai gakuha, NST 37, p. 65).
- 34.
Shishien kōkō 10:33a-34b (pp. 222–223).
- 35.
For more details, see Kojima, Sorai-gaku , pp. 194–201. These pages are exclusively concerned with Shundai’s criticisms of Sorai. See also Lan, “Dazai Shundai to Sorai-gaku no sai-kōsei.”
- 36.
For Nankaku, see Hino, Nankaku denkō, and Hino, “Kaidai: Hattori Nankaku no shōgai to shisō,” Sorai gakuha, NST 37, pp. 515–531.
- 37.
His grandfather from his mother’s side was Yamamoto Shunshō 山本春正 (1621–1682). According to Hino, Nankaku denkō, p. 34, Shunshō came from a family of lacquerers, but he also studied waka with Matsunaga Teitoku 松永貞徳 (1571–1653) and Kinoshita Chōshōshi 木下長嘯子 (1569–1649) . He was spotted by Tokugawa Mitsukuni 徳川光圀 (1628–1700) , who invited him to come to Edo. Ichikawa adds to this, that Shunshō formerly had gone to Edo at the invitation of Mito to edit the Man’yōshū (Ichikawa, Jugaku shi vol. 5, p. 258). In fact, he has a Man’yōshū tokkai 万葉集特解 (21 kan) to his name (ID 4065003), which is no longer extant.
- 38.
Hino , Nankaku denkō, p. 68
- 39.
Sources are conflicting in regard to the year: see Hino, Nankaku denkō, p. 65.
- 40.
Hino , Nankaku denkō, pp. 106–107, 109–113. N.B. In his kaidai of Sorai gakuha, NST 37, Hino had put the dates much more precisely: 1701 – entry into the service of Yoshiyasu; 1712 – entry into Sorai’s school (see NST 37, p. 516, 518), but in his kaidai of Nankaku-sensei bunshū, he dates the latter event to 1711 (Hōei 1; op. cit., p. 5).
- 41.
Ichikawa, Jugaku shi vol. 5 p. 258. N.B. Hino puts the date of Nankaku’s dismissal from the service of the Yanagisawa in the spring of 1718 (Kyōhō 3); see Sorai gakuha, NST 37, p. 520; Nankaku-sensei bunshū, Kaidai , p. 7. In Kyōhō 4 (1719) Asaka Tanpaku 安積澹泊 (1656–1737) invited him to come to Mito, as is proven by a letter from Nankaku to Tanpaku (Bunshū shohen 9). See Hino, Nankaku-sensei bunshū, Kaidai , p. 3, for an overview of the relations between Mito and Nankaku’s family.
- 42.
See the discussion in Hino, Nankaku denkō, pp. 116–117.
- 43.
Quotation from Mengzi 6B2. Yao 尭 was one of the ancient Chinese kings.
- 44.
Quotation from Zhongyong 25. The original has 合外内, not 合内外, and Zisi is not talking about acquired habits, but about the virtues of Benevolence and Wisdom. Apparently, for Nankaku, that was neither here nor there.
- 45.
Hori Keizan ni kotau 答堀景山, quoted from Hino’s kaidai , NST 37, p. 524. Cf. the article by Kojima in the present volume for the similar argument made by Sorai.
- 46.
Ichikawa, Jugaku shi vol. 5, p. 259; Hino, Kaidai , NST 37, p. 526. Cf. supra, note 25. He was jealous, concludes Hino, and also appalled at Nankaku’s blithe obliviousness of the main task of scholarship: “bringing peace to the empire.”
- 47.
Hino , Nankaku-sensei bunshū, Kaidai , p. 7. See also Hino, Kaidai , NST 37, pp. 526–527. N.B. Ken’enroku kō (2 fasc.) was compiled by Usami Shinsui and published in Kyōhō 12 (1727).
- 48.
Dazai-sensei bohi 墓碑, in Nankaku-sensei bunshū, 4th set, 8:1a-3a (pp. 393–394).
- 49.
Based on Hino, Nankaku-sensei bunshū, Kaidai , p. 8. Nankaku’s list in Nankaku-sensei bunshū 4th set, 6:3b-8a. It is interesting to notice that Seidan and Taiheisaku are missing. I have not been able to locate Shinsui’s list. Contrary to Nankaku’s list, it has no separate entry in NKSM.
- 50.
See Nankaku-sensei bunshū, 4th set, appendix, p. 2b.
- 51.
See Kojima, Sorai-gaku , pp. 201–203
- 52.
See Kojima, Sorai-gaku , pp. 201–219.
- 53.
Sorai’s letter, Itō-sensei ni yosuru sho, signed Ogyū Mokei Sō’emon 茂卿宗右衛門, is to be found in Jinsai’s Gyōjō, pp. 26a-27b.
- 54.
For details, see the kaidai by Takayama Daiki in this book.
- 55.
Itō Tōgai 東涯 (1670–1736). He succeeded his father as head of the family academy Kogidō 古義堂 and, with 281 titles to his name in NKSM, was a prolific author in his own right.
- 56.
Hi Chō 1:2a-b; Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, pp. 45–46.
- 57.
Lunyu 2.3: 「子曰、『道之以政、齊之以刑、民免而無恥。道之以德、齊之以禮、有恥且格。』」 The English translation is Legge’s.
- 58.
See Matsudaira, Rongo-chō shūran 2:5b-6b.
- 59.
See Zhongyong 33. In the phrase『詩』曰:奏假無言、時靡有爭, Zhu Xi glosses 奏 as 進 and 假 as 格, which explains how we arrive at the standard translation of this phrase in Zhongyong: “It is said in the Book of Poetry, ‘In silence is [the offering] presented, and [the spirit] approached to; there is not the slightest contention.’” N.B. The poem quoted is Shijing 302.
- 60.
蓋感格声音相通. This seems to be a ridiculous statement. The fanjie of the two characters are completely different.
- 61.
Reference to Shujing : Da Yu mo 21: 禹拜昌言曰: 『兪。』班師振旅。帝乃誕敷文德, 舞干羽于兩階, 七旬有苗格。 – “Yu did homage to the excellent words, and said, ‘Yes.’ (Thereupon) he led back his army, having drawn off the troops. The Di set about diffusing on a grand scale the virtuous influences of peace – with shields and feathers they danced between the two staircases (in his courtyard). In seventy days, the lord of Miao came (and made his submission).”
- 62.
Reference to Shujing : Jiong ming 冏命 1. The phrase is also quoted by Zhu Xi in his commentary on this section, specifically to illustrate “one theory” that holds that ge means “to rectify.”
- 63.
The definition of “avoiding cruel punishments” derives from Lunyu 5.2. The other passages Sorai refers to are Lunyu 6.16, 6.19, and 8.3.
- 64.
See Hi Chō 1:41b-1:43a.
- 65.
Shujing : Shun dian 2: 舜讓于德, 弗嗣 – “Shun wished to decline in favour of some one more virtuous, and not to consent to be (Yao’s ) successor.”; Lunyu 4.25: 子曰: 『德不孤, 必有鄰。』」 – “The Master said, ‘Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbours.’”; Lunyu 9.18: 子曰: 『吾未見好德如好色者也。』」 – “The Master said, ‘I have not seen one who loves virtue as he loves beauty.’”
- 66.
Hi Chō 1:42b, lines 6–7: 是則権時之制、漢唐中主之治也. N.B. 「権時」 is explained, in a commentary on Hou Han Shu (“History of the Later Han Dynasty”) , as “[the times when] they did not rely on the Rites,” but on expediency 権; cf. Mor. VI: 15926–53.
- 67.
Hi Chō 1:43a.
- 68.
Chikuzan refers to Zhu Xi’s commentary in Sishu jizhu and another, unidentified commentary.
- 69.
For unexplained reasons, Goi Ranshū does not discuss this section in his Hi Butsu hen . Of course, in his criticism of Sorai’s interpretation of Lunyu 2.1 he has already said that Sorai’s interpretation of “virtue” as “men of virtue” is wrong; see Hi Butsu hen 1:25a-25b.
- 70.
For a general discussion of “heart” in Neo-Confucian doctrine, see W.J. Boot, Adoption and Adaptation, Ch. III, pp. 146–156, 170–174.
- 71.
For this translation, I have followed Tucker; see his Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks, p. 157. I have only substituted “heart” for “mind” as the translation of 心 (J. shin; Ch. xin). Cf. also Tucker’s introduction in Sources of Japanese Tradition vol. I, 2 (2006), p. 193.
- 72.
Minagawa Kien, Meichū 6:1a.
- 73.
See also the translation by Samuel Yamashita, and my review of the same.
- 74.
Parts of it are reproduced in Takimoto, Nihon keizai taiten vol. 51, pp. 406–416, and in Inoue, Bushidō sōsho vol. 2, pp. 233–243. For a discussion, see Boot (2006), “Minagawa Kien: Kien tōyō to Meichū no kankei ni tsuite.” N.B. All quotations are based on the manuscript in the possession of Tokyo Toritsu Chūō Toshokan, no. 094508.
- 75.
Nariakira , who was a specialist in Japanese studies, wrote Hi narubeshi 非南留別志, which is a critique of Sorai’s Narubeshi. It was published in 1795; the preface, by his son Fujitani Mitsue 御杖, is dated 1786.
- 76.
In the original: 「論学之要、晰文之理、切乎至乎。… 吾理経芸之大法」; see Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, p. 359, p. 74. N.B. Keigei 経芸 in the sense of “studying or applying the Classics” is already attested in Shiji .
- 77.
The bow metaphor is taken from Mengzi 7A41.
- 78.
Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, p. 360; 76–77.
- 79.
Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, p. 376; 121.
- 80.
The same idea is found in the postface of Kien’s Kyoji-kai 虚字解 (1783). There, the compound 審名開物 is used, instead of benmei kaibutsu.
- 81.
Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, pp. 362–363, pp. 83–84.
- 82.
Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, p. 362, p. 83. It was commonly believed that King Wen had created the sixty-four hexagrams of the Yijing , together with the explanations of the hexagrams as a whole and of their individual lines.
- 83.
Or his student, who wrote the postface of Kyoji-kai, the phrase 審名開物 (“to clarify names and open up things”); cf. supra, n. 80.
- 84.
See e.g. Gakusoku 3: “The six classics describe physical realities. The Way exists in them in full” 夫六経物也、道具存焉. (Minear, “Ogyū Sorai’s Instructions for Students, p. 20). See also Minear’s discussion of “Physical Realities,” ibid., pp. 41–42, in reference to Benmei : “‘Physical realities are he concrete terms of the instruction. ...’ These physical realities are of two varieties. The first is events or actions 事, found in the rites and the music. The second category is elegant words 辞, found in the documents and the odes.”
- 85.
More precisely: “Do not use mouth or ear, but consider the texts with heart and eye; ponder them and ponder again, and as if by divine inspiration you will perceive their meaning 思之又思、神其通之. The ancient literature, records, proprieties, and music are Chinese words, and we must try to listen to them with our eyes.” (Quoted from Minear, “Ogyū Sorai’s Instructions for Students,” pp. 14–15.) Or: “I study the ancient words and study them, and finally I become one with them. Then my words, my tone, my spirit, and my intent all become similar to those found in the old literature. When words, tone, spirit, and intent all become similar to those of old, then there is no difference between the old on the one hand and what my eye sees and my mouth says on the other.” (op. cit., p. 18)
- 86.
Kien tōyō 1.11 (Shūeki no koto 周易之事).
- 87.
The best analysis of kaibutsugaku is Noguchi Takehiko, “Kaibutsu to seizō” (1993). See also Hamada, “Minagawa Kien ron” II (2002).
- 88.
Another text in which he explained his method was Ekigen 易原; this text was printed partly in Tenmei 6 (1786), and completely, i.e. including the second volume, in Kansei 5 (1793). Kien wrote quite a number of other texts regarding kaibutsugaku, but these were never published and have to be enjoyed as manuscripts.
- 89.
Meichū , Preface, 1b.
- 90.
An interesting article in this context is Miura Shūichi, “Bokumin to kami” (2007). It is an attempt to interpret one lemma of Meichū as actual advice to daimyō.
- 91.
Kien tōyō 1, 11: “Ekikyō no koto.”
- 92.
Kien’s own graphic representation, based on the hexagrams, is the kyūchū 九疇 (“Nine categories”) . See Nakamura, Minagawa Kien , Ōta Kinjō , p. 45; Noguchi, “Kaibutsu to seizō,” p. 4.
- 93.
In his kaidai of Kinsei kōki juka shū, NST 47, Nakamura Yukihiko points out that Sorai’s (and Jinsai’s) philological methodology was continued and rendered obsolete 発展的解消 by the Kochūgaku and Setchūgaku scholars. On the other hand, political thought 経世論 became a wide-spread preoccupation; as an example, Nakamura mentions Hirose Tansō’s Ugen 迂言 (“widely read by daimyō”), and indicates how it branched out into the Kaibōron, Kaikokuron, and Jōiron of the Bakumatsu Period (pp. 488–489).
Bibliography
Bitō Masahide 尾藤正英. 1972. “Kaidai: Dazai Shundai no hito to shisō,” NST 37. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Boot, W.J. 1983. The Adoption and Adaptation of Neo-Confucianism in Japan: The Role of Fujiwara Seika and Hayashi Razan, PhD dissertation, Leiden. (See the homepage of the Netherlands Association for Japanese Studies <ngjs.nl> – Specialist).
Boot, W.J. 1996. Review of Samuel Hideo Yamashita, Master Sorai’s Responsals: An Annotated Translation of Sorai-sensei Tōmonsho, Hawai’i, 1994. Journal of Japanese Studies 22.2: 430–435.
Boot, W.J. 2006. “Minagawa Kien: Kien tōyō to Meichū no kankei ni tsuite,” Dai-29-kai tokushū. Kaigai kara mita Nihon bungaku no kenkyū: uchi to soto o nori-koete. Kokusai Nihon Bungaku Kenkyū Shūkai Kaigiroku. Tokyo: Kokubungaku Shiryōkan Shuppan.
Boot, W.J. 2014. “Chinese Scholarship and Teaching in Eighteenth-Century Kyoto.” In M. Hayek and A. Horiuchi, eds. Listen, Copy, Read. Popular Learning in Early Modern Japan. 226–250. Leiden: Brill.
Dazai Shundai 太宰春台. 1986. Shundai-sensei Shishien kō 紫芝園稿. Kinsei Juka Bunshū Shūsei vol. 6. Tokyo: Perikansha.
Hamada Shū 浜田秀. 2000, 2002. “Minagawa Kien ron I” 皆川淇園論. Yamabe no michi 44: 1–15; “Minagawa Kien ron II: ‘Kyūchū’ gainen o chūshin ni”「九籌」概念を中心に. Yamabe no michi 46: 25–51.
Hino Tatsuo日野龍夫. 1972. “Kaidai: Hattori Nankaku no shōgai to shisō” 解題:服部南郭の生涯と思想. Sorai gakuha, NST 37. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Hino Tatsuo, ed. & introd. 1985. (Kaidai), Nankaku-sensei bunshū 南郭先生文集, Kinsei Juka Bunshū Shūsei vol. 7, Tokyo: Perikansha.
Hino Tatsuo. 1999. Hattori Nankaku denkō 伝攷, Tokyo: Perikansha.
Hiraishi Naoaki 平石直昭, ed. & introd. 1985. (Kaidai), Sorai-shū, Sorai-shū ishū. Kinsei Juka Bunshū Shūsei vol. 3. Tokyo: Perikansha.
Hirose Tansō 廣瀬淡窻. 1978. Jurin-hyō 儒林評. Seki Giichirō 関儀一郎, comp. Nihon Jurin Sōsho vol. 3. Rpt. Tokyo: Ōtori Shuppan.
Ichikawa Mototarō 市川本太郎. 1995. Nihon Jugaku shi 5: Kinsei-hen, ge: Kogaku-ha, sono ta no gakuha. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin.
Inoue Tetsujirō井上哲次郎. 1906–1909. Bushidō sōsho 武士道叢書. 3 vols. Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Inoue Tetsujirō. 1927. Nihon Kogakuha no tetsugaku. 25th pr. Tokyo: Fusanbō.
Iwahashi Junsei 岩橋遵成. 1934 Sorai kenkyū. Tokyo: Sekishoin.
Kojima Yasunori 小島康敬. 1994. Sorai-gaku to han-Sorai 徂徠学と反徂徠, Tokyo: Perikansha.
Lan Hung Yueh 藍弘岳. 2016. “Dazai Shundai to Sorai-gaku no sai-kōsei: ‘Seijin no michi’ to Nihon hihan o megutte” 太宰春台と徂徠学の再構成—「聖人の道」と日本批判をめぐって. Shisō 1112: 51–68.
Matsudaira Yorihiro 松平頼寛. Rongo-chō shūran 論語徴集覧, 20+1 fascicles. Preface dated Kan’en 3 (1750); printed Hōreki 10 (1760).
Minagawa Kien 皆川淇園. Kien tōyō 答要. (Only manuscript copies available; consult NKSM.)
Minagawa Kien. 1972. Mongaku kyoyō 問学挙要. In Nakamura Yukihiko 中村幸彦 and Okada Takehiko 岡田武彦, eds. Kinsei kōki juka shū 近世後期儒家集, NST 47. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Minagawa Kien, Meichū 名疇, pref. 1784, printed 1788.
Minear, Richard H. 1976. “Ogyū Sorai’s Instructions for Students: A Translation and Commentary.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 36: 5–81.
Miura Shūichi 三浦秀一. 2007. “Bokumin to kami: Minagawa Kien Meichū no tōjisha-ron to sono shisō kiban” 牧民と神—皆川淇園『名疇』の当事者論とその思想基盤. Tasan-hak 茶山学 11: 281–313.
Nakai Chikuzan 中井竹山. 1972. Hi Chō 非徴 (excerpt). In Nakamura Yukihiko and Okada Takehiko, eds. Kinsei kōki juka shū 近世後期儒家集, NST 47. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nakamura Shunsaku 中村春作 et al. 1986. Minagawa Kien, Ōta Kinjō 太田錦城. Sōsho Nihon no Shisōka, vol. 26. Tokyo: Meitoku Shuppansha.
Noguchi Takehiko 野口武彦. 1990. “Kaibutsu to seizō: Minagawa Kien no ‘kaibutsugaku’ kaidoku no kokoromi”開物と声象—皆川淇園の「怪物学」解読のこころみ. Edo bungaku 1.2: 2–26. Reprinted in Noguchi Takehiko. 1993. Edo shisōshi no chikei 江戸思想史の地形, Tokyo: Perikansha.
Ogyū Sorai. 1973a. Bendō. In Yoshikawa Kōjirō 吉川幸次郎 et al., eds. Ogyū Sorai, NST 36. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ogyū Sorai. 1973b. Sorai-sensei tōmonsho 徂徠先生答問書. In Ogyū Sorai zenshū vol. 1. Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō.
Ogyū Sorai. Benmei 弁明. NST 36.
Ogyū Sorai. Gakusoku 学則. NST 36.
Sugiura Masaomi 杉浦正. 1969. Jugaku genryū 儒学源流. In Takei Kazuo 武井一雄, ed. Nihon kyōikushi shiryō vol. 8. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten.
Takimoto Seiichi 滝本誠一, comp. 1971. Nihon Keizai Taiten 日本経済大典. 54 vols. Rpt. Tokyo: Meiji Bunken.
Tucker, John A., trans. & introd. 2006. Ogyū Sorai’s Philosophical Masterworks. The Bendō and Benmei. Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies/University of Hawai’i Press.
Wm. Theodore de Bary, Carol Gluck, Arthur E. Tiedemann, comp. 2006. Sources of Japanese Tradition. Second edition, Volume two, Part 1, New York: Columbia University Press.
Yamagata Shūnan 山形周南. 1760. Shūnan-sensei bunshū 周南先生文集. 10 fasc., 6 vols. (N.B. I quote from the copy in the possession of Naikaku Bunko, 206-052.)
Yamashita, Samuel Hideo. 1994. Master Sorai’s Responsals: An Annotated Translation of Sorai sensei tōmonsho. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boot, W.J. (2019). “The Reception of Sorai’s Thought in the Second Half of the Edo Period”. In: BOOT, W., TAKAYAMA, D. (eds) Tetsugaku Companion to Ogyu Sorai. Tetsugaku Companions to Japanese Philosophy, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15475-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15475-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15474-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15475-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)