¹ Beixi, Chen, ziyi, Xingli (hereafter, XLZY); Chan, Wing-tsit, trans., Neo-Confucian Terms Explained (hereafter NCTE), (New York, 1986)Google Scholar. I cite Chan's translation, but the version of the Ziyi I base my analyses on is the 1632 Japanese edition, which generally includes less material than Chan's translation. Also, John Hugh Berthrong, “Glosses on Reality: Chu Hsi as Interpreted by Ch'en Ch'un”, Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1979. Abstract in the Bulletin of Sung and Yüan Studies, XV (1980), pp. 124–6Google Scholar

² Sokō, Yamaga, “Short Preface”, Seikyō yōroku (Tokyo, 1970), Nihon shisō taikei (hereafter, NST), vol. 32, Tawara Tsuguo and Morimoto Junichirō, eds., pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

³ Isao, Hori, Yamaga Sokō (Tokyo, 1968), Jinbutsu sōsho, vol. xxxi, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁴ Tsuguo, Tawara, Yamaga Sokō, (Chūōkōron sha, 1971), Nihon no meicho, vol. 12, p. 15.Google Scholar

⁵ Sokō, Yamaga, Haisho zampitsu, NST, vol. xxxii, pp. 323Google Scholar; Uenaka, Shuzo, translator, “Last testament in exile: Yamaga Sokō's Haisho Zampitsu”, Monumenla Nipponica, xxxii, no. 2, pp. 137–8Google Scholar. Hori, , Yamaga Sokō, pp. 31, 92.Google Scholar

⁶ de-Bary, Wm. Theodore, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart (New York, 1981)Google Scholar. Also, Liu, James, “How did a Neo-Confucian school become the state orthodoxy?” Philosophy East West (10 1973), XXIII, no. 4, pp. 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Chan, Wing-tsit, translator, Reflections on Things at Hand (New York, 1967), p. 5. Translation slightly adapted.Google Scholar

⁸ Lu Xiangshan, Xiangshan quanji (Complete Works of Lu Xiangshan), (2:6a–b; 2:9a–b; 3:Ib–2a); in Chan, Wing-tsit, A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, 1963), pp. 577–8.Google Scholar

⁹ Chan, Wing-tsit, “Chu Hsi and Taoism ”, and “ Chu Hsi and Buddhism”, Chu Hsi: New Studies (Honolulu, 1989), pp. 486–536Google Scholar. de-Bary, Wm. Theodore, The Liberal Tradition in China (New York, 1983), discusses Zhu Xi as a Confucian teacher whose curriculum of study was quite “liberal”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Kōshirō, Haga, “Muromachi jidai ni okeru gakugei no hatten”, Rekishi kyōiku, XVIII, no. 5 (1970), pp. 31–7Google Scholar

¹¹ Yoshio, Abe, Nihon Shushigaku to Chōsen (Japanese Neo-Confucianism and Korea), (Tokyo, 1965).Google Scholar

¹² de-Bary, Wm. Theodore, “Sagehood as a secular and spiritual ideal in Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism”, Principle and Practicality: Essays in Neo-Confucianism and Practical Learning, ed. de-Bary, W. T. and Irene Bloom (New York, 1979), pp. 133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Cf., de-Bary, Wm. Theodore, “Introduction”, Principle and Practicality, pp. 17–26Google Scholar. Also Collcutt, Martin, “The legacy of Confucianism in Japan”, The East Asian Region: Confucian Heritage and Its Modern Adaptation, ed. Rozman, Gilbert (Princeton, 1991), pp. 129–32.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Isao, Hori, Yamaga Sokō, pp. 213–21.Google Scholar Also, cf. Ooms, Herman, Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570–1680 (Princeton, 1985), p. 225. But earlier in Tokugawa Ideology Ooms inconsistently suggests (p. 77) that Sokō's exile did not reflect the bakufu's commitment to Neo-Confucianism. Later (p. 199), he states that Sokō's exile was part of an attempt at propagating an orthodoxy of sorts. Also Ooms seems to belittle the impact of Sokō's exile on his later years (p. 208 n. 36). Finally, in his “Conclusion”, Ooms suggests that historians have misapprehended the significance of Soko's exile, taking it as an indication of “an enduring bakufu concern with orthodoxy”.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kunio, Wajima, “Kambun igaku no kin”, Nihon sōgakushi no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1988), pp. 460–1Google Scholar; Hori, , Yamaga Sokō, p. 216–18.Google Scholar Hori states that Japanese scholars accept this as the teisetsu, or definitive explanation, of Sokō's exile. Also, Yōichi's, Gotō “Kumazawa Banzan no shogai to shisō no keisei”, Kumazawa Banzan (Tokyo, 1971)Google Scholar, ed. Yōichi, Gotō and Ryūichi, Tomoeda, NST vol. 30, p. 551. Gotō suggests that Masayuki and Ansai were behind the exile of Banzan from Kyoto in 1667.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Soko, Yamaga, Haisho zampitsu (Last Testament in Exile), NST, xxxii, pp. 328–31Google Scholar; Uenaka, Shuzo, trans., “Last testament in exile”, Monumenta Nipponica, pp. 142–5.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Isao, Hori, Sokō, Yamaga, pp. 304–16.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Susumu, Inoue, ”Hohikei Jigi hampon kō”, Tōhōgaku, LXXX (07 1990), pp. 111–25. Inoue was not, however, familiar with either (I) the 1553 Korean edition at the Harvard—Yenching Institute which, given its kambun punctuation, undoubtedly travelled to Japan, or (2) the Seiri jigi genkai by Hayashi Razan, published in 1659. Though Inoue's study is the most recent publication on the textual history of Beixi's Ziyi in East Asia, it does omit these crucial texts. In the “Appendix” to my dissertation “Pei-hsi's Tzu-i and Tokugawa philosophical lexicography” (Columbia University, 1990), I show that the Harvard-Yenching copy of the 1553 Korean edition was the one which the Naikaku bunko kambun manuscript of the Ziyi refers to as “Razan's text”, and that most probably it was Razan who wrote the kambun punctuation onto its pages.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Beixi, XLZY, (1632 ed.), p. 51a. Chan, , trans., NCTE, p. 105Google Scholar. Sokō, , Seikyō yōroku, NST, xxxii, p. 17.Google Scholar

²⁰ Beixi, , XLZY, p. 19bGoogle Scholar; Chan, , NCTE, p. 67Google Scholar; Sokō, , Seikyō yōroku, p. 26. The Gomō jigi and the Bemnei repeat the same statement.Google Scholar

²¹ Beixi, , XLZY, pp. 9b–10aGoogle Scholar; Chan, , NCTE, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

²² Beixi, , XLZY, p. 59aGoogle Scholar; Chan, , NCTE, p. 115.Google Scholar

²³ Beixi, , XLZY, p. 64aGoogle Scholar; Chan, , NCTE, p. 121.Google Scholar

²⁴ Sokō, , Seikyō yōroku, pp. 21–2Google Scholar; Beixi, , XLZY, pp. 73a–88bGoogle Scholar; Chan, , NCTE, pp. 142–68.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sokö, Yamaga, Yamaga gorui, iv (Tokyo, 1911), pp. 171; 178; 187; 197; 201; 222; 330; 335; 339–40; 359; 362–3; 383; 397; 406; 410; 415. This list is not exhaustive.Google Scholar

²⁶ Inoue, “ Hokukei jigi hampon kō”, Tōhōgaku, p. 118. I think that this edition appeared later than Inoue suggests. Since it was apparently based on the Naikaku bunko handwritten kambun version, the collophon of which is dated 1621 (and refers to “Razan's text” as its basis), it surely post-dated that work.

²⁷ Inoue's “Hokukeijigi hampon kō” (Tōhōgaku, p. 118) mentions the 1628 edition, citing Kikuya's, Nagasawa Wakokubon kanseki bunrui mokuroku (Classified Bibliography of Japanese Editions of Chinese Texts), (Tokyo, 1986), p. 105Google Scholar, as his source. However Inoue admits that he has never seen a copy of this edition, nor does he know of any Japanese library with a copy of it.

²⁸ Kumagai Reiton, “Postscript to the 1670 Japanese edition”, Seiri jigi kashiragaki [The Annotated Beixi Ziyi], (Kyoto), ch. 2, p. 77. The text that I follow is in the Library of the Faculty of Letters, Kyoto Univ. Also Chan's, , “Appendix I”, NCTE, pp. 223–4, translates Reiton's “Postscript”.Google Scholar

²⁹ Razan, Hayashi, “Preface”, Seiri jigi genkai (1659), pp. Ia–4b.Google Scholar

³⁰ Razan, , Seiri jigi genkai, kan 2, pp. 3a–5a.Google Scholar

³¹ Yamashita, Samuel, “Compasses and carpenters’ squares: a study of Itō Jinsai (1627–1705) and Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728)”, Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1981Google Scholar. Also, Yamashita, Samuel, “The early life and thought of Itō jinsai”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XLIII, no. 2 (12 1983), pp. 453–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Shigeru, Shimizu, “Hochū” (Supplementary notes to jinsai's Comō jigi), in Itō jinsai (Tokyo, 1971)Google Scholar, NST, xxxiii, ed. Kojiro, Yoshikawa and Shigeru, Shimizu, p. 513Google Scholar; Taichirō, Nishida, “Hochū” (Supplementary notes to Sorai's Benmei), in Ogyu Sorai (Tokyo, 1973)Google Scholar, NST, xxxvi, ed. Yoshikawa Kojiro, Maruyama Masao, Nishida Taichiro, and Tsuji Tatsuya, p. 588.

³³ Razan, Seiri jigi genkai, kan 2, p. 12bGoogle Scholar; jinsai, Itō, Comō jigi (Tokyo, 1971)Google Scholar, NST, xxxiii, ed. Kōjirō, Yoshikawa and Shigeru, Shimizu, p. 139Google Scholar; Sorai, Ogyū, Benmei (Tokyo, 1973), NST, xxxvi, ed. Yoshikawa Kōjirō, Maruyama Masao, Nishida Taichirō, and Tsuji Tatsuya, p. 148.Google Scholar

³⁴ Sorai, , Benmei, NST, xxxvi, p. 128.Google Scholar

³⁵ Razan, , Sciri jigi genkai, kan 8, p. 13a.Google Scholar

³⁶ Pollack, David, The Fracture of Meaning: Japan's Synthesis of China from the Eighth through the Eighteenth Centuries (Princeton, 1986), pp. 15–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Ansai, Yamazaki, Yamazaki Ansai zenshü (Complete Works of Yamazaki Ansai), (Tokyo, 1936), i, p. 167. Ansai's remarks reiterate points which Wu Cheng's (1249–1333) “Essay on honoring the moral nature” (Wu Wencheng gong ji [Complete Works of Wu Cheng], Siguquanshu zhenben ed., 1756, 23:2a) had made much earlier in China.Google Scholar

³⁸ Jinsai's Nikki is quoted from Shimizu Shigeru, “Kaidai”, ltō Jinsai/ltō Tōgai, NST, xxxiii, pp. 622–3; a'so see Shigeki, Kaizuka, “Nihon jukyō no sōshisha”, Itō jinsai (Tokyo, 1979)Google Scholar, meicho, Nihon no, xiii, pp. 14–18. Kaizuka contends that Beixi's Ziyi was “the starting point” from which Jinsai launched many of his own accounts of Confucian terms. In 1684 (Jōkyō 1), the year after Jinsai gave him a copy of the Gomō jigi, Inaba Masayasu killed the tairō, or “first minister to the shogun”, Hotta Masatoshi (1631–84), in the shogun's palace. For that offence, he was beheaded. Jinsai's reluctance to publish his Gomō jigi may have issued from this rather unfortunate connection.Google Scholar

³⁹ Shigeru, Shimizu, “Kadai”, in ltö Jinsai/ltö Tögai (Tokyo, 1971)Google Scholar, ed. Kōjirō, Yoshikawa and Shigeru, Shimizu, NST, xxxiii, pp. 622–7Google Scholar. The most complete discussion of the textual history of the Gomō jigi is in Masahiko, Miyake, “Gomō jigi no seiritsu katei to sono kōi”, Kyoto chōshü Itö jinsai no shisōkeisei (Kyoto, 1987), pp. 348–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Taichirō, Nishida, “Kaidai”, Ogyū Sorai, NST, xxxvi, p. 619.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Olof Lidin, G., The Life of Ogyū Sorai: A Tokugawa Confucian Philosopher (Sweden, 1973), p. 92.Google Scholar

⁴² Kōjirō, Yoshikawa, “Sorai gakuan”, in Ogyii Sorai, NST, xxxvi, p. 699Google Scholar, quotes a letter Sorai wrote to his disciple Yamagata Shūnan stating that those in power (Hakuseki) “now keep a watchful eye on us, and have come to ostracise me more than ever”. Translation from Kōjirō, Yoshikawa, Jinsai, Sorai, Norinaga (Tokyo, 1983), p. 197Google Scholar. Lidin, , The Life of Ogyū Sorai, p. 105. Lidin states that Sorai kept his philosophical writings top secret while composing them, not even allowing his favourite disciples to collaborate with him.Google Scholar

⁴³ Lidin, , The Life of Ogyū Sorai, pp. 20–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Nobuyasu, Kurata, “Jinsaigaku hihan ni miru Soraigaku no kōzō”, Daito bunka daigaku kangakkai shi, XXIII (03 1984), pp. 54–64Google Scholar. Kōjirō, Yoshikawa, “Sorai gakuan”, in Ogyii Sorai, NST, xxxvi, p. 719Google Scholar; translated in Yoshikawa, , Jinsai, Sorai, and Norinaga, p. 226.Google Scholar Yoshikawa does not mention the Ziyi's impact on the Benmei. Lidin's The Life of Ogyū Sorai does not discuss Beixi's impact on either Jinsai or Sorai.

⁴⁵ Wangjia, , “Preface”, Seiri jigi (1668 ed.), kan 1, p. 4a.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Sorai, Ogyū;, “Letter to Itō Jinsai”, Soraishū, NST vol. xxxvi, pp. 525–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Boot's, W.J. The Adoption and Adaptation of Neo-Confucianism in japan: The Role of Fujiwara Seika and Hayashi Razan (Leiden, 1982)Google Scholar, disputes Abe Yoshio's conclusion that the introduction of Korean editions of Chinese texts had a major impact on the rise of Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism. This study of the origins of the kogaku lexicographical methodology supports, on a small scale, Abe's thesis. Boot mentions Beixi's Ziyi a few times, but he does not see it as a work of cardinal importance to Tokugawa philosophising.

⁴⁸ Backus, Robert L., “The Kansei prohibition of heterodoxy and its effects on education”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XXXIX (1979), pp. 55–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Kunio, Wajima, Nihon sōgakushi no kenkyū (Research on the History of Song Neo-Confucianism in Japan) (Tokyo, 1988), pp. 445–63.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Asami Keisai's Seirijigi kōgi (Lectures on Beixi's Ziyi, c. 1706–07) is in the Mukyūkai library in Tamagawa gakuen, Tokyo. The Seiri jigi shisetsu (My Teacher's Accounts of Beixi's Ziyi, c. 1728), written by an anonymous disciple of Keisai, is in the Kyoto furitsu toshokan sōgo shiryōkan (Historical Resources Centre of the Kyoto Prefectural Library, Kyoto). The Seiri jigi kōgi (Oral Lectures on Beixi's Ziyi) is in the Fuzoku toshokan (Auxiliary Library) at Kyoto University.

⁵¹ Masahide, Bitō, “Introduction”,Jinsai, Sorai, Norinaga, by Kōjirō, Yoshikawa (Tokyo, 1983), p. 1.Google Scholar

⁵² Cf., Henderson, John B., Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis (Princeton, 1991), pp. 165–6; 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Henderson discusses Beixi's Ziyi as a commentary. While surely the Ziyi can be so construed, it differs from the mainstream Confucian tradition of commentary writing, which focused on a particular text or set of texts. Henderson does not see the Ziyi as founding a genre of its own.

⁵³ Nosco, Peter, “Introduction”, Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture, ed. Nosco, Peter (Princeton, 1984), p. 13.Google Scholar Also, cf, Masao's, Maruyama Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan (Princeton, 1974), p. 76 n. 12. There Maruyama suggests that Sorai was influenced by Li Panlong (1514–70) and Wang Shizheng (1529–93), but credits Sorai with the idea of a “philological examination of the Six Classics”. This study claims that idea may not have been as original to Sorai as Maruyama assumed.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Harootunian, H. D., Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism (Chicago, 1988), p. 352.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Shigeki, Kaizuka, “Nihon jukyō no sōshisha”, ltō Jinsai, pp. 25–6.Google Scholar Kaizuka notes how Jinsai invited questions and discussion of the views he presented to his Dōshisha students. Also Jinsai allowed his disciples to present lectures of their own at Jinsai's academy. Kaizuka suggests that a free, democratic atmosphere prevailed at Jinsai's Dōshisha academy. For a detailed discussion of Jinsai's pedagogical ideas and techniques, see Nihei, Katō, Itō Jinsai no gakutnon to kyōiku (Tokyo, 1940).Google Scholar