摘要
本文主要目的是，說明Philologie如何傳到日本，並被翻譯為「文獻學」，又如何被國文學、日本思想史學和中國學領域的學者理解、運用的過程與相關問題。首先，筆者分析本居宣長的《古事記》研究與其方法論，並比較其方法論與徂徠學的異同與關聯。接著，分析芳賀矢一如何將「文獻學」理解為一種探究日本國民性的方法以打造「日本文獻學」。其次，討論村岡典嗣如何更進一步將「文獻學」理解為「被認識的哲學的再認識」方法，並以之論述本居宣長的方法論。透過上述分析，本文主張芳賀和村岡所謂的「文獻學」不重視Philologie中具有比較語言學方法論面向，這致使在近代日本的國文學和日本思想史學等領域中，不重視與中國、朝鮮等其他使用漢字漢文的國家的語言和文學、思想比較的方法論。與此相關，他們在與「日本文獻學」的對比下，也將江戶漢學理解為「支那文獻學」，但不積極分析其江戶漢學和傳統中國經史之學的關聯。最後，本文探究透過中國學的學者吉川幸次郎如何以清朝學術為主來理解「支那文獻學」，並展開其本居宣長研究的過程，從而指出其宣長論除影響吉川自身的江戶漢學論和中國學研究外，也引導我們應不要過度依賴歐洲知識框架，認識到從東亞漢學和江戶知識脈絡來重新理解宣長學乃至江戶國學的必要性。
This paper aims to explain how the methodology of Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801), a representative thinker of “Kokugaku” (“National Learning”), was interpreted as well as how Philologie (philology) was apprehended and translated as “Bunkengaku” in Japanese by scholars of Japanese literature, Japanese intellectual history, and Sinology from the perspective of global history. First, I discuss Norinaga’s research of Kojiki (Records of Ancient Matters) and his related methodology by comparing the latter to that of Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728), considered one of the most influential Tokugawa Confucian scholars. Based on this discussion, I then examine how the methodology employed by Norinaga was later interpreted by modern Japanese scholars. For example, the present paper indicates that Haga Yaichi (1867–1927) regarded Kokugaku as Japanese philology and used it to explore the spirit or national character of the Japanese; Muraoka Tsunetsugu (1884–1946), however, adopted the key points of August Böckh’s (1785–1867) theory of philology, taking it as a device to understand things that had once been understood as well as expounding the similarities and differences between Norinaga’s scholarship and Philologie. This paper thus argues that the philological methodology which Haga and Muraoka used to interpret the work of Norinaga fails to emphasize comparative philology, a notable aspect of the methodological thinking within Philologie. Consequently, this missing element led modern scholars of Japanese literature and intellectual history to pay little attention to comparative methods, failing to make comparisons with Qing China and Chosŏn Korea—states which also used the Chinese written language—when interpreting Norinaga’s thought. Furthermore, they deemed the methodologies of Edo Confucian scholars to be “Chinese philology” (“Shina bunkengaku”) without, however, exploring the relation between the study of the traditional Confucian Classics in China and Edo Confucianism. Finally, this paper discusses how the modern Japanese Sinologist Yoshikawa Kōjirō (1904–1980) attempted to understand Norinaga’s methodology within the traditions of Confucianism and Qing evidential learning, and argues that Yoshikawa’s works on Sinology may have been directly influenced by his understanding of Norinaga, prompting us to rethink the study of Norinaga within the contexts of traditional knowledge of East Asia.
關鍵詞
文獻學 本居宣長 國文學 日本思想史學 中國學
philology; Motoori Norinaga; Japanese literature; Japanese intellectual history; Sinology