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.
philology; Motoori Norinaga; Japanese literature; Japanese intellectual history; Sinology
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.
