荻生徂徠批判宋學，並從歷史角度來理解「道」。這促使他在開放歷史視野中，思索、探究「聖人之道」與古代日本的關聯，並考證日本古史諸種問題。而且，其史論也引發其弟子去思考、探究日本上古史的問題。這一思路的發展結果與從文學研究發展出來的德川國學者的歷史認識發生衝突，進而產生他們對日本的「道」和上古史之論辯。然而，徂徠和其弟子太宰春台對於「聖人之道」，乃至「聖人之道」和古代日本關聯之理解並不相同，而許多國學者透過對春台思想之批判展開他們的日本古史論。本文的目的是，探究徂徠學派和德川國學的代表學者本居宣長間之思想論辯，論證宣長如何在春台《辯道書》等論述基礎上展開其論。其次，寫《末賀能比禮》批判本居宣長的市川鶴鳴也是本論文檢討的對象。在既有研究中，他僅是被理解為徂徠學派的一員，而未能被清楚梳理其思想特色。本文也將探究其思想與徂徠的異同後，再分析其日本上古史觀和其對本居宣長的批判。此外，本文也將探究同樣被歸類為徂徠學派的龜井昭陽如何在《蒙史》中展開其日本上古史的書寫，及如何在《蒙問》中展開對本居宣長之日本上古史論的批評。進而，論證徂徠學派在史學方面的發展，考掘出被遮蔽、遺忘的另一種江戶時代的日本上古史研究。
Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠 (1666–1728) criticized Neo-Confucianism and explained “Dao” from the perspective of history, leading him to explore the relationship between “the Way of the sage” 聖人之道 and ancient Japan from an open historical perspective as well as to examine various issues in the ancient history of Japan. Moreover, his theory caused his disciples to likewise think about and explore ancient Japanese history. Their thinking conflicted with the view held by Kokugaku 國學 (native Japan studies) scholars, who had developed their respective school from Japanese literary studies, a conflict which catalyzed their debates on “Dao” and Japanese ancient history. However, Kokugaku scholars largely formulated their theory of ancient Japanese history through their criticisms of Dazai Shundai’s 太宰春台 (1680–1747) thought, who was a disciple of Sorai but—when compared to his mentor—differed markedly in his understanding of both “the Way of the sage” and its historical connections. Therefore, the present paper aims to explore the debates between the scholars of the Sorai School and pivotal Tokugawa Kokugaku scholar Motoori Norinaga 本居宣長 (1730–1801) to demonstrate how Norinaga developed his theory on the basis of Shundai’s view in the latter’s Bendosyo 辯道書. Secondly, Ichikawa Kakumei 市川鶴鳴 (1740–1795), who wrote the book Maga no hire 末賀能比禮 to critique Norinaga, is also discussed in this paper. Within existing research, he is only understood as a member of the Sorai School, and the characteristics of his thought have thus not been clearly expounded. This paper compares his thought and that of Sorai, and then analyzes his view of ancient Japanese history and his criticism of Norinaga. Finally, this paper discusses how Kamei Shōyō 龜井昭陽 (1773–1836), who is also regarded as adhering to the Sorai School, started his writing of Japanese ancient history and his criticisms of Norinaga’s historical theory in Moushi 蒙史. By doing so, this paper demonstrates how in the mid and late Edo period, Confucian scholars of the Sorai School unfurled their imagined ancient Japanese history, thereby bringing to light another form of ancient Japanese history research in the Edo period that has been obscured and forgotten.
本居宣長 日本 上古史 徂徠學派 龜井昭陽
Motoori Norinaga; Japan; ancient history; Sorai School; Kamei Shōyō
