The modern political consciousness of Japan cannot be understood without reference to the history of the Tokugawa period, the era between 1600 and 1868 that preceded Japan's modern transformation. Tetsuo Najita introduces the ideas of the leading political thinker of the period, Ogyu Sorai, a pivotal figure in laying the conceptual foundations of Japan's modernization. His basic thoughts about history and the ethical purposes of politics are presented, revealing the richness of the philosophical legacy of eighteenth-century Japan, a legacy which (...) cannot be seen through the perspective of 'westernization'. His ideas reveal a vision of human diversity and individual virtue which can be viewed in comparative perspective, as well as an insight into the history and politics of Japan. The texts are accompanied by a chronology of Sorai's life, a glossary, a guide to persons mentioned in the text, and a guide to further reading, as well as Professor Najita's introduction, which puts Sorai's work into philosophical and historical context. (shrink)

ONE INTRODUCTION: NEO-CONFUCIANISM AND TOKUGAWA DISCOURSE BY PETER NOSCO Modern scholarship on the intellectual history of the Tokugawa period ...

[FIRST PARAGRAPH] During the last decade of the nineteenth century, the Engineer was only one of many British and American publications that took an avid interest in the rapid rise of Japan to the status of a fully industrialized imperial power on a par with major European nations. In December 1897 this journal published a photographic montage of "Pioneers of Modem Engineering Education in Japan" (Figure I), showing a selection of the Japanese and Western teachers who had worked to bring (...) about this singular transformation.' The predominance of Japanese figures in this representation is highly significant: it is an acknowledgment by British observers that the industrialization of Japan-the "Britain of the East"-was not a feat accomplished solely by Western experts who transferred their science and technology to passive Japanese recipients. Yet in focusing primarily on native teachers active in Japan after 1880, this image excludes several of the very foreigners who had trained this indigenous workforce in the preceding decade. Rather than attempting to assess the careers of each of the many international experts involved in Western encounters with Japan before and after the Meiji restoration in 1868, we will focus on disaggregating the highly individualized responses of just some of the Englishspeaking characters. In documenting their diverse encounters with Japanese people and technologies, we will look at the complex phenomena of cultural exchange in which they participated, not always without chauvinism or resistance. (shrink)

The author examines some Confucian-trained Tokugawa Japanese scholars who were concerned about the deleterious impact of Buddhism on native Shinto thought and practice. Several leading Confucian-trained scholars appealed to Zhu Xi’s thought in various ways to reinforce and preserve Shintoism and its original spirit.

This article discusses the “contextual turn” in the interpretation of Chinese classics: the contextuality of Confucian classics in China was latent, tacit, and almost imperceptible; however, it became salient and explicit once the Confucian classics were introduced to Tokugawa Japan. Many a Japanese Confucian took ideas and values expressed in the Chinese classics and transplanted them into the context of Japanese politics and thoughts, in light of which the Japanese scholars staked out new interpretations of the classics. This “contextual turn” (...) involved issues of two levels: the material political order (especially the Chinese-barbarian distinction) and the abstract political thought (especially the ruler-subject relation). It is pointed out that the Chinese empire was the Japanese Confucians’ “political foreign country” and “cultural homeland,” and the tension was evidenced by their interpretations of the term “Zhong’guo” appearing in the Confucian classics. The usual strategy adopted by the Japanese Confucians in interpreting Chinese classics was to “de-contextualize” them and then to “re-contextualize” them in their own Japanese environment. (shrink)

Printing Landmarks: Popular Geography and Meisho Zue in Late Tokugawa Japan. By Robert Goree. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2020. Pp. 400. $65.

This study traces the impact of Ch'en Pei-hsi's Hsing-li tzu-i on the rise of philosophical lexicography in Tokugawa Japan . It suggests that the appearance of copies of the 1553 Korean edition of Pei-hsi's Tzu-i, brought to Japan in the wake of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea , crucially influenced both understandings of and reactions to Neo-Confucianism in Tokugawa Japan. Pei-hsi's Tzu-i, the study relates, served as the literary template for several early Tokugawa works, including Fujiwara Seika's Kana seiri , (...) and Hayashi Razan's Shunkansho and Santokusho . The Tzu-i also went through several Japanese editions, beginning with the 1632 Sino-Japanese edition, based on Razan's kambun rendition of the Tzu-i, a vernacular explication of the text by Razan, the Seiri jigi genkai, published in 1659, an annotated edition of the 1632 Sino-Japanese edition, printed in 1670, and the 1668 publication of a later, significantly variant, Chinese edition of Pei-hsi's Tzu-i. ;Razan's Seiri jigi genkai promoted Neo-Confucian learning as expounded in the Tzu-i, but also called attention to etymologically problematic terms of that learning. The dissertation suggests that Razan's Genkai influenced both the literary form and the philosophical content of Yamaga Soko's Seikyo yoroku , Ito Jinsai's Gomo jigi , and Ogyu Sorai's Benmei , thus linking Razan's critical promotion of Pei-hsi's Tzu-i to a series of conceptually based "School of Ancient Learning" critiques of Neo-Confucianism. (shrink)

Two Mencian political notions are examined: rebellion against tyranny and righteous martyrdom, as explored theoretically by prominent Japanese scholars of the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). It is argued here generally that Confucianism, as represented by the Mencius, was more than a feudal ideology legitimizing the hegemony of Tokugawa shoguns, since these two Mencian notions were advocated and/or opposed by both supporters and opponents of the Tokugawa regime. In the development of this argument, it is also revealed that the two notions were (...) important topics of Confucian debate among major Tokugawa scholars of all stripes throughout this period, and even in the early Meiji period. Without claiming that these two notions necessarily convey the central message of Mencius vis-à-vis political behavior, it is suggested that virtually all important Tokugawa scholars viewed them as crucial topics of debate, with most leaving a definitive statement or essay on them in their writings. (shrink)