まゆの部屋

Atutane Hirata

The Ascendancy of
Hirata Atsutane and the Invention of Kokugaku

Kokugaku was one of the most important intellectual movements of the Tokugawa and early Meiji periods. Put simply, it represented an attempt to study Japanese antiquity and to apply its lessons in the rectification of an epoch that many believed was mired in decline. The interest in Japan's remote past has provoked most Western scholars to translate Kokugaku as "nativism."1 The fact that scholars of the late Meiji, Taisho, and early Showa periods

1. I use the term "Kokugaku" to refer specifically to the scholarship of Atsutane and the members of the Norinaga School during the nineteenth century. I have chosen this usage because the term itself was not widely used prior to 1800 and to emphasize Atsutane's role in its systemization. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, scholars used various terms to signify nativism, such as Wagaku. Norinaga called his scholarship `ancient learning' (Kogaku or inishie manabi); Atsutane followed Norinaga's example, but he also used the term Kokugaku. Thus, for classical literary studies prior to 1800, and for the various forms of Shinto scholarship of the nineteenth century other than Kokugaku, I use the term nativism. In the Japanese secondary literature, scholars use the term Kokugaku to signify nativist scholarship of the entire Tokugawa period. One of the themes of this study is the process by which Atsutane and the members of the Ibukinoya narrowly defined their nativist scholarship as Kokugaku, a definition that specifically excluded the Edo Faction and the Mabucli School. This narrow definition of Kokugaku contributed to its nineteenth-century institutional character, which was absent during the eighteenth century. It is for this reason that I maintain the more specific definition advocated by Atsutane and his students.

p.2
used the scholarship of Tokugawa nativists to further their own ideological agendas has inspired some modern researchers to think of Kokugaku as a form of proto-nationalism. Whether as nativism or nationalism, the centrality of Kokugaku in the minds of modern scholars is undeniable.
Nativists of the Tokugawa period turned their attention to the production of authentic interpretations of Japanese antiquity in response to the pervasive influence of Confucianism, and especially its impact on Shinto teachings. The eminent political scientist and intellectual historian Maruyama Masao argued that nativism grew to a point during the eighteenth century that it actually displaced Confucianism as the "hegemonic movement in the intellectual world" of Tokugawa Japan.2 Although it is clear that Maruyama's interpretation of nativism was somewhat exaggerated, his recognition of its influential position within Tokugawa intellectual history was correct.
For Maruyama, nativism was a predominantly literary phenomenon that emerged from the "private side" of the Confucian school of Ogu Sorai (1666-1728). Motoori Norinaga and Kamo no Mabuchi (1697-1765) occupy prominent positions in his analysis for this reason. Although he acknowledged the importance of Hirata Atsutane for the nineteenth century, Maruyama viewed Atsutane's 3 scholarship as a radical break with Norinaga and Mabuchi.
　Maruyama recognized that there were two forms of nativism during the Tokugawa period. Rather than account for this differentiation, he chose only to acknowledge the differences while emphasizing its eighteenth-century literary incarnation.
Atsutane himself, however, was also aware of the different forms. For much of his career, he spent his mental energies in an attempt to reconcile the two in such a way as to validate his own scholarship. In some ways, his efforts were successful; he was able

2. See his Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan, p. 143. Although this work is dated, it is still one of the best books in English on Tokugawa intellectual history.
3. Throughout this study I use the given names of pre-Meiji and early Meiji figures, in order to avoid confusion over those with the same family name. For modern persons, I use the family names.

p.3
to assert the validity of his own teachings while preserving the memory of his classicist predecessors, Norinaga and Mabuchi. Thus, the literary aspect of nativism was maintained by Atsutane and his followers. By the end of the Tokugawa period, however, the nature of Atsutane's scholarship and his role in the development of Kokugaku was misunderstood and even forgotten. Puzzled by much of his research, his modern interpreters have not realized the nature of Atsutane's contributions to the institutional form of Kokugaku, knowing that his scholarship fell short of the scholarly standards of his eighteenth century predecessors. An important goal of the present study is to re-examine Atsutane's scholarship in an effort to restore historicity to the study of Kokugaku. Atsutane was neither an advocate of classicism, nor was he a nineteenth-century aberration. Instead, he was a central figure in the creation and perpetuation of an intellectual tradition that is still a significant part of Japanese history and culture.
　　　　　　　　　　　　*
Atsutane is one of the most interesting and influential figures in Tokugawa intellectual history. Since his death more than 160 years ago, his scholarship has signified different aspects of intellectual life in Japan's early modern period. The noted scholar of Tokugawa intellectual history Koyasu Nobukuni argues that Atsutane's concern for practical ethics in an indigenous religious idiom, namely Shinto, was a distinctive and significant contribution to nineteenth-century intellectual history.' Koyasu responded to the reluctance of mainstream Japanese academics to evaluate Atsutane's impact on Tokugawa intellectual history seriously. Postwar scholars, especially scholars of Shintoism at Kokugakuin University and Kogakkan University, wrote sparingly about the proto-nationalists and cultural chauvinists of the Tokugawa period. Thus, Koyasu's scholarship represented an attempt to restore Atsutane to his prewar intellectual stature.
Ideologues of the i93os and i94os saw in Atsutane's scholarship an opportunity to resurrect a figure from the Tokugawa period who had formulated ideas useful to their nationalist agendas. Atsu-

4. Koyasu, Norinaga to Auutane no sekai, pp. 191-96.

p.4
tane wrote voluminously on the notion of Japan's uniqueness and superiority, the fundamental teachings of Kokugaku ideology. This close association between wartime scholarship and his ideas contributed to the postwar reluctance to study Atsutane, a reluctance that continues to be felt, despite Koyasu's efforts.
Folklorists at the turn of the century hailed Atsutane as an early-modern ethnographer for his use of information gathered in interviews with commoners. Thus, he had insights into the essence of a Japanese identity based in the everyday experiences of rural society. At the end of the Tokugawa period, his concern with rural society was a theme advocated by his posthumous followers in what has been called grassroots (somo) Kokugaku. Instead of considering the entirety of rural society, these scholars stressed the leadership roles of village elites in the benevolent administration of the countryside. Atsutane's scholarship was the main source for an ideology that legitimated the social and political dominance of rural elites.
Atsutane's teachings have been appropriated and reappropriated over the years since the end of the Tokugawa era. His prominence, if not infamy, within Japanese intellectual history is secure. Unfortunately, these uses and abuses of his scholarship have obfuscated important aspects of his scholarly life and career. Chief among these distortions is his place within the Kokugaku movement, which many believe began at the end of the seventeenth century and culminated in the writings of Atsutane and his students at the end of the Tokugawa period. In this study, I will focus on deconstructing two myths associated with Atsutane. First, I will carefully examine the notion of Kokugaku itself. It is clear that its institutional coherence as a scholarly movement (gakumon) was the result of Atsutane's efforts in the nineteenth century; it was a coherence he projected onto the past. I will examine his reasons for doing this, arguing that all historical accounts written by scholars of Kokugaku in the modern period have not fully appreciated either Atsutane's role in the shaping of Kokugaku or his sociopolitical context for doing it.
私はこのことをする彼の理由について調べたいと思う。近代の国学の学者によって書かれた全ての歴史的な記載は篤胤が国学を形づくった役割もそのことをするための反社会的な背景も十分には評価していないことを議論しながら進めていこうと思う。

They have accepted his version of Kokugaku history as valid.
彼らは彼の国学の歴史の解釈を正当なものとして受け入れた。

Second, the idea that Kokugaku culminated in Atsutane's scholarship obscures his interactions with nativist

p.5
scholars who had very different views.
二番目に篤胤の学問において国学が最高潮になったと言う考えはたいへん異なった考え方を持つ原住民保護主義の学者たちと彼との相互作用を覆い隠している。

Thus, I will highlight those scholars whose work has been overshadowed by treatises of Kokugaku slanted in Atsutane's favor.
このように私は篤胤の好みに傾いた論文によって影を投げかけられた学者達を強調したいと思う。

At the same time, I will look more closely at the nature of his contacts with fellow nativists during the first half of the nineteenth century, arguing that his centrality within historical depictions of Kokugaku ignores the profound resistance to his scholarship from contemporaries within the tradition itself.
同時に１９世紀の前半の原住民保護主義者と篤胤の関係の性質を詳しく見て生きたいと思う。
彼の国学の歴史的描写にある中心は歴史それ自体の中で同世代からの彼の学問に対しての深い反抗を無視している事を議論しながら見ていくことにしよう。？

Framing the Analysis: Ideas Versus Discourse
分析の骨格　Versus Discourseの考え方

While the number of articles and monographs on Kokugaku in Japanese is staggering, the same cannot be said of studies in any other language.
日本語の多くの国学に関する記事や研究書は十分ではない。

Studies of Kokugaku in English collectively rank second in number to those in Japanese, but they occupy a distant second place.
英語の国学の研究は集合的に（おしなべて）日本語での研究の中では二番手の物としてランクされている。しかしそれらはかなり離れた二番手を占めている。？

Of these studies, there are only two monographs in English that deal with the topics Both books have advanced the study of Kokugaku in the Western world and have also assumed the role of foundational works upon which other studies-this one included-can build.
これらの研究に関してたった二冊の英語の研究書があるだけであり、それらは西洋諸国で（二冊の本が）国学の研究を推し進めた内容を書き表している。またそれらの本は他の学問が打ち立てられる基本的な働きの役割をしたと思われてきた。

Peter Nosco's 1990 monograph, Remembering Paradise, dealt with the intellectual beginnings of Kokugaku, especially the scholarship of Norinaga. Nosco's study is important for several reasons.
ピーター.ナスコの１９９０年の研究書”Remembering Paradise”は国学の知的な始まりを扱っている。

First, it is a highly detailed look at the major Kokugaku figures of the eighteenth century.
最初にそれは１８世紀の主な国学の学者に関してかなり詳しい見解を示している。

Nosco's thorough research by itself is a major contribution to the literature, furnishing scholars with the kind of data that many Japanese works lack. Nosco analyzes the development of Kokugaku within the context of nostalgic movements that emerged during the Genroku period (that is, the late

5. There is a third monograph published in English, one that predates both Nosco and Harootunian. Sajja A. Prasad published his own study of Kokugaku, The japanologist: A History (Andhra Pradesh, India: Samudraiah Prakashan, 1984). Prasad's work, however, was too polemical and vitriolic to be seriously considered by the academic community in either the United States or Japan. In addition, Matsumoto Shigeru published a book in English entitled Motoori Norinaga, 1730-1801. It is an intellectual biography that focuses not only on Norinaga's scholarship but also on the ways in which it was a product of his `sociocultural setting' (Matsumoto, Motoari Narinaga, 1730-1801 , p. 2).

p.6
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries). Second, Nosco's study is also significant because of his new interpretation of Norinaga, the central figure of his book. He asserts that Norinaga's interests in Japanese antiquity were not simply motivated by scholarly curiosity alone. Norinaga's passion for Kokugaku stemmed from a deep religious faith in Shinto.6 Nosco argues correctly that interpretations of Norinaga have emphasized the secular nature of his work, since most scholars view Kokugaku in an intellectual continuum with Confucian scholarship. This emphasis, however, ignores the fundamentally religious nature of Kokugaku, linked, as it was, to Shinto and the imperial institution.
Two years prior to Nosco, Harry Harootunian published the other major book on Kokugaku in English. Although there is some overlap between Harootunian's book and Nosco's, Harootunian focuses his study on the nineteenth century, especially the bakumatsu period (1830-67). He offers quite a novel interpretation of Kokugaku, arguing that it was one discourse among a handful of others whose adherents advocated local autonomy and even rural secession from the greater whole of the nation.' The early scholars of Kokugaku, most of whom are analyzed in quite a different way in Nosco's book, contributed to this Kokugaku discourse, and their bakumatsu followers tried to transmute the discourse into political action.
While these two monographs have significantly deepened our understanding of Kokugaku and of Tokugawa intellectual history in general, the two books are so unlike that they do not complement each other well. Nosco's study focuses on the foundational ideas of Kokugaku and the scholars who produced them. Thus, his book is more traditional in its approach to Tokugawa intellectual history. Harootunian, on the other hand, is more interested in the same ideas as they constitute an autonomous and disembodied discourse, one that is not necessarily the product of individual thinkers. Harootunian's analysis relies on a kind of Foucaultian episteme, a transcendental mental structure that determines the ideas

6. Nosco, Remembering Paradise, p. 231.
7. Haroomnian, Things Seen and Unseen, p. 407.

p.7
of a given ages Thus, Harootunian has nothing to say about the formative role of contact and interaction among Tokugawa scholars in the generation of that discourse. Moreover, Nosco ends his study with the death of Norinaga in 1801; Harootunian stresses developments during the nineteenth century. Harootunian, therefore, emphasizes the role of Atsutane and his followers; Nosco virtually ignores Atsutane.
The present study will bridge the conceptual gap between Nosco and Harootunian. First, its scope is broader than that of either scholar; it covers figures from the early seventeenth century through the end of the nineteenth century. Second, this study incorporates theoretical assumptions held by both scholars into a coherent methodological approach. For Nosco, Kokugaku cannot be understood without reference to the historical context within which it developed, which he argues is the Genroku era. Contextualization is important for the present study as well. Instead of a general historical context, a particular kind of context is important; specifically, a grasp of the sociopolitical context is crucial, but more on that later. The primary object of analysis in this study is discourse; this is also the case with Harootunian. Harootunian, however, is not concerned with analyzing the changes in discourse. This study stresses the developmental process of a discourse. Change originates not in the genius of individual thinkers, or in the vicissitudes of a transcendental episteme, but in the interactions of the Kokugaku scholars themselves.

Conflict, Practice, and Intellectual History: A Framework and Methodology

Invariably, interactions among scholars produce antagonism, leading to conflict. The sociologist Randall Collins argues that conflict not only gives scholarship vitality and dynamism but is also the principal force behind the production of ideas;' antagonisms among scholars produce intellectual change. In The Sociology of Philosophies, Collins opposes the notion that "ideas beget ideas," or
8. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, p. 191.
9. Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies, p. 1.

ジャンル別一覧