Muro Kyûsô and his Contemporaries
--- A portrait of Tokugawa intellectuals ---
Masaomi Yanagisawa[1]
Introduction
Today’s presentation is entitled ‘Muro Kyûsô and his Contemporaries- A portrait of Tokugawa intellectuals -‘. I will begin by introducing the outline of my studies (see the outline). First, Muro Kyûsô and his contemporaries are called for into the room, then, the period when those players were active will be examined. After those precursory works, the thought of Muro Kyûsô will be scrutinized, with reference to both (1) the current body of scholarly works within and outside of Japan and (2) historical records that document words and deeds of the man in question and views on him written down by his contemporaries. Following this work, once again the figure will be put into the revised historical context. However this will be continued as my mid-term project.
I will begin by keeping any factual accounts to the minimum so as to concentrate on the main points of Muro Kyûsô’s actual thought as interpreted from his writings. The thought of Muro Kyûsô is, as a matter of course, the focus of studying political thought.
1 Confucian Scholars and the Historical Background
Those who are introduced to the stage are the scholars of Confucianism in the Edo period. They are known as Jusha.[2] The chart shows the leading figures in Confucian study during the early to mid- Tokugawa period. The main personality in this paper is, of course, Muro Kyûsô(室鳩巣).
He was active from Genroku(元禄), through Hôei(宝永) and Shôtoku(正徳), to Kyôhô(享保) period, i.e., around 1700, when Arai Hakuseki(新井白石) and Amenomori Hôshû(雨森芳洲) were also active. They all studied under Kinoshita Jun-an (木下順庵). At that time Ogyû Sorai(荻生徂徠) was also active as the competing intellectual giant.
During that period Shogun changed from the fifth, Tsunayoshi, to Ienobu, Ietsugu, then to eighth, Yoshimune. The Confucian scholars are overlaid to shogunate periods as shown in the next chart. With regard to the role of the Jusha scholars to the Tokugawa shogunate, Maruyama Masao’s opinion is in contestation with the views of Bitô Masahide.[3] A detailed investigation of their arguments and analyses will be a matter of future study.
The period also experienced the revenge by the Ako loyal, which not only attracted general attention but also shook the Tokugawa shogunate. Jusha scholars expressed their views on the incident. The Tokugawa government did ask the Jusha scholars how to handle the issue. Visits of Korean envoys to Japan in Shôtoku and Kyôhô also presented major political and diplomatic issues for the shogunate as the country had closed its doors toward almost all of outside world. Again the scholars of Confucianism were deeply involved in these national events. Therefore, despite the argument about the role of Confucianism and its scholars in the shogunate, it would be reasonable to say that they were heavily involved in Tokugawa government policy-making through those issues.
2 Muro Kyûsô as an orthodox
The impact of Maruyama’s work, ‘Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan’, has been so influential that we tend to regard Ogyû Sorai as the most prominent scholar, and the only intellectual giant of the time. This is borne out by the predominantly high number of scholarly works on him. Arai Hakuseki is also the subject of many scholars. On the other hand, up to now, Kyûsô has been considered as ‘pure neo-Confucian’[4] or ‘defensive, not innovative’[5], with the result that fewer studies have been done on him.
Muro Kyûsô was born in 1658 and studied under Kinoshita Jun-an when he was young. Jun-an highly praised Kyûsô’s ability. Subsequently, Kyûsô spent a number of years in both Kaga and Kyoto, following Jun-an, before settling down in Kaga, where he served Lord Maeda for 19 years. In 1711 (Syôtoku 1), recommended by Arai Hakuseki to the Tokugawa shogunate, he came to Edo at the age of 54. An official residence in Surugadai (Sundai) was provided for him in 1713 (Syôtoku 3).
In 1716 Yoshimune became eighth shogun and Arai Hakuseki was dismissed. In 1719 (Kyôhô 4) Yoshimune ordered the opening of a college, the Takakura Yashiki, at which Kyûsô was responsible for presenting lectures on the Analects, Jôgan seiyô, Daigaku, Mencius and, later on, the I Ching. In 1721 (Kyôhô 6), Kyûsô became one of four lecturers to serve Yoshimune directly. Their responsibility was not only to give lectures to Yoshimune but also to advise him on important political issues. Kyûsô’s opinions and advice were often acted upon when compared to colleague scholars’.[6] In 1725 (Kyôhô 10), he was appointed tutor to the heir of Yoshimune. In 1727 (Kyôhô 12), he submitted a letter of resignation, due to illness, but was persuaded to remain in the post while being allowed to stay at home until he died seven years later in 1734.
Glancing at his career, Kyûsô appears to have been well-treated by the government as an indispensable scholar to the Tokugawa shogunate. Despite the current high reputation of Sorai, it was Kyûsô who was prominent in academic circles and influenced the government. At the time, Kyûsô was regarded to have formed a thick luxuriant forest[7], in opposition to Sorai’s Ken-en school.
As mentioned earlier, at present while Sorai is enjoying a good reputation, Kyûsô is regarded as a pure neo-Confucian. But was he really an outmoded scholar, clinging obdurately to neo-Confucianism? Is it fair to let him sink into oblivion? And in a longer time span, had the teaching of neo-Confucianism remained unchanged over a 250-year period of Tokugawa dynasty? As early as 1967 Kinugasa Yasuki pointed out that ‘He was a true devotee of neo-Confucianism, however, he developed his unique thought, far removed from the orthodox neo-Confucianism and different in thought from either Hayashi Razan(林羅山) or Yamazaki Ansai(山崎闇斎)’.[8]
As far as the methodology is concerned, to read writings of the person in question is the first priority in the study of his thought.[9] Kokusyo sômokuroku of Iwanami records 136 works by Kyûsô in both book and manuscript form, which do not amount to Hakuseki’s 407 works or to Sorai’s 200 works, but are nevertheless sizeable in number. Among his major works, a large number are accessible in either reproduced facsimile or modern Japanese format. They are in either Kundoku format or Kanbun format.[10] Secondly, it is of great help to look at him from his contemporaries’ points of view, rather than judging him from that of authoritative scholars of the present time. Thus, the documented accounts of Jusha scholars as seen in Sentetsu sôdan and other similar books give light in this respect.[11] Furthermore, Kyûsô and Sorai are recorded in various documents. Finally, official chronology prepared by the Tokugawa shogunate is an essential resource for tracing these scholars in relation to the Shoguns and their governments.[12]
3 Muro Kyûsô as a thinker
(This will constitute the main body of my future study for the MST and beyond.) Concerning his scholastic ability, even those in Sorai’s Ken-en school paid respect to Kyûsô.[13] The foundation of Kyûsô’s thought is said to be orthodox Neo-Confucianism. As seen, he received his initial training under Kinoshita Jun-an. He was also indebted to Haguro Yôsen(羽黒養潜). (He studied under Yamazaki Ansai(山崎闇斎)and moved to Kaga in his later years).
However, Kyûsô says that the understanding of neo-Confucianism was not arrived at from their teachings. Kyûsô’s interpretation of neo-Confucianism came about solely on his own effort. It was not until he was nearly 40 years old that he really understood the teaching of orthodox neo-Confucianism.[14]
Although he had learnt neo-Confucianism from Jun-an and Yôsen, and even though he expressed his gratitude to both of them, Kyûsô carefully adopted different expressions for them. For bunji (文辞, phrases and wordings) he owes to Jun-an, for giri (義理, = Sôgaku or Sung neo-Confucianism) to Yôsen[15]. This may be an indication of his hidden fancy to something not neo-Confucianism at a relatively early stage.
Before World War 2, Suzuki argued that Kyûsô’s understanding of orthodox neo-Confucianism was not consistent. Such inconsistency stems partly from the inconsistency of the writings of neo-Confucianism itself. But he argues that Kyûsô’s writing is also inconsistent.[16] He may be correct if Kyûsô is understood as a pure neo-Confucian.
However, it is possible to see Kyûsô as an evolving thinker. Human beings develop ideas through their lives. Sundai Zatsuwa was written in his later years when he was freed from his duties of giving lectures, and was based on open discussions with close friends. This work had been widely accepted among a sophisticated reading public until recently. It contains interesting, historical stories narrated by a scholar with rich experience, among which there are numerous examples that are not understandable merely from the point of view of orthodox neo-Confucianism. The emphasis is rather on pragmatic common sense.[17] This is a quite difference from orthodox understanding of neo-Confucianism as it requires reading of sutras of sages as a matter of the first priority.
Another later work by Kyûsô, ‘Fubôshô’, has also an inclination to deviate from neo-Confucian doctrine.[18] Chugi, loyalty, is one of the basic doctrines under-pinning the feudalistic class system. In this work, Kyûsô does not necessarily advocate a fixed-status system. For example, he does not disapprove of employees changing their jobs. A person begins working at the request of a lord (the employer). If the lord does not appreciate his talent or work, it is time to leave.[19]
Fubôshô has a strong penchant for the Taoism of Lao-tse and Chuang-tse, in particular that of Lao-tse. It says that ‘their books had been regarded as heresy. Their sayings are not based on the sutras of the sage. Their teaching is different from that of Confucius and Mencius. However, Lao-tse was a great historian. His learning is so vast that it looks vain. He only points things out without relying on the sage’s books. Having said this, everything he says leads to the book of the sage.’[20]
Another example of his lenient attitude to Taoism can be seen from the book list for learners expressed in Sundai zatsuwa. He places Lao-tse and Chuang-tse in second place, after Shisho gokyô (四書五経).[21]
4 Next stage
Further research will consider Muro Kyûsô in a wider historical context. It will include (1) the interactive relationship between Sorai, Hakuseki, Kyûsô, Hôshû, (2) the role of Kyûsô in relation to Rin-ke, (3) the prohibition of different leanings at the Tokugawa shogunate’s official school, Shôhei-Kô, in the Kausei period and (4) education in the Hankô schools. Only after this can Kyûsô’s real standing be determined. Whether he was just swimming with the tenor of times, or whether he was already outdated remains to be answered. Or did he develop his own thought gradually away from neo-Confucian teaching?
The existence of such rich and complex issues suggests the abundance of the intellectual history of the period. This is also true to the thought of Muro Kyûsô. In reading those writings of his later years, is it unthinkable to conceive of a hint of heresy in his glorious orthodox neo-Confucianism?
●
1
Muro Kyûsô and his Contemporaries
The Intellectuals
Historical Background
Muro Kyûsô
Current view of those figures
Contemporaries’ view
Changing Tide of Confucianism
1
Muro Kyûsô as an orthodox
Ogyû Sorai vs. Muro Kyûsô
1658 born
studied under Kinoshita Jun-an
1711 53, came to Edo
1719 61, Takakura Yashiki
1721 63, Lecturer to Yoshimune
1725 67, Tutor to the heir of Yoshimune
1727 69, submit resignation
1734 76, died age is expressed in the western style
Muro Kyûsô as a thinker
Kinoshita Jun-an Bunji (文辞)
Haguro Yôsen Giri (義理)
Inconsistency and Deviation
赤穂義人録 Akô gijin roku,
明君家訓 Meikun kakun
楠木正成下諸士教 Kusunoki Masashige syosi ni kudasareshi oshie
六諭衍義大意 Rikuyu engi taii
献可録 Kenka roku
兼山秘策 Kenzan hisaku ＊
鳩巣先生文集 Kyûsô sensei bunshû ＊
駿台雑話 Sundai zatsuwa ＊
不亡鈔 Fubôshô ＊
太極図述 Taikyokuzu jutsu ＊
Herecy in Orthodoxy?
1
[1] LLB (University of Tokyo), applying for MST at the University of Oxford
[2] They are called Jusha in general, however the term includes not only scholars in Confucian studies but also various thinkers, such as Yamaga Sokô, the military thinker.
[3] Maruyama Masao, Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan, trans. Mikiso Hane, University of Tokyo Press, 1974. Bitô Masahide, Nihon hôken shisôshi kenkyû, Aoki Shoten, 1961.
[4] Inoue Tetsujirô, Nihon shushi gakuha no tetsugaku, Fuzanbô, 1905. Iwahashi Junsei, Kinsei nihon jugakushi, Tokyo Hôbunkan, 1927.
[5] Suzuki Naoharu, Muro Kyûsô to shushigaku, in Kinsei nihon no jugaku, Iwanami Shoten, 1939.
[6] Tokugawa Jikki (Utokuin dono gojikki) Kyôhô 4.10.28. His lectures seem to be clear, intelligible and popular judging from the fact that his lectures were praised by Yoshimune as clear and logical ( Letter to Aochi Kenzan, as of Kyôhô 7.3.9). In 1722 (Kyôhô 7),at the Takakura Yashiki college, attendants for his I Ching lecture were 40 to 50, whereas Kinoshita’s Shikyô attracted 20, Ogyû Kan’s Raiki saw just 7to 8. Kan is Sorai’s younger brother (Letter to Okumura Genzaemon, as of Kyôhô 7.4.9).
[7] Inoue.
[8] Kinugasa Yasuki, Secchu gakuha to kyôgaku tôsei, vol.12, Iwanami kôza Nihon rekishi, Iwanami Shoten, 1967.
[9] In this respect, those two books give instigative suggestions on thought. Maruyama Masao, Maruyama Masao kôgiroku, Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1998. Shibata Jun, Shisôshi ni okeru Kinsei, Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1991.
[10] A list of Muro Kyûsô’s work available at Bodleian Library is attached.
[11] Hara Nensai, Sentetsu sôdan, in Kinsei bungeisha denki shûsei, Yumani Shobô, 1988.
[12] Tokugawa Jikki,Shintei zôho kokushi taikei, Yoshikawa Kôbun Kan, 1964.
[13] An interesting interchange between Kyûsô and Ken-en school was recorded in Sentetsu sôdan Vol.1.
[14] Muro Kyûsô, Sundai zatsuwa, Vol.1, in Meika zuihitsu shû Vol.1, Yûhôdô Syoten, 1930.
[15] Muro Kyûsô, Haguro sensei ni kotaeru daini no syo, in Kyûsô sensei bunshû, in Kinsei juka bunshû shûsei Vol.13, Perikan Sha, 1991.
[16] Suzuki Naoharu, Muro Kyûsô to shushigaku, in Kinsei nihon no jugaku, Iwanami Shoten, 1939.
[17] He stresses the importance of daily life for learning, rather than reading which had been accepted as the right method for approaching Chichi (致知). Muro Kyûsô, Sundai zatsuwa, Vol.1. For understanding of Chichi, see Kuwabara Jitsuzô, Tôyôshi kyouju shiryô, in Kuwabara Jitsuzô zensyû, Vol.4, Iwanami Shoten. 1968.
[18] The deviation evoked a slight dout on its authenticity. Araki Kengo, Muro Kyûsô no shisô, Nihon shisô taikei Vol.27, Iwanami Shoten, 1970
[19] Muro Kyûsô, Fubôshô, Vol.2
[20] Muro Kyûsô, Fubôshô, Vol.1
[21] Muro Kyûsô, Sundai zatsuwa, Vol.5.