日本山崎闇齋學派的「中國／華夷」論探析

山崎闇齋學派對於「華夷名分」的問題，開展過熱烈的討論，也因而在闇齋學派的學者手中留下許多「中國」或「華夷」的相關論述。因此，學界一般認為日本國家主義的淵源主要發生於闇齋學派，亦即闇齋學派才是真正發揚以日本為主體的「國體思想」。但其中令人玩味的是，闇齋學派的學者對於「中國∕華夷」觀的論述其實並沒有統一，甚至有互相矛盾、對立之處，以此圍繞著「中國∕華夷」的相關議題便在闇齋學派內部開展了辯論。於是，本文探討和分析山崎闇齋以及其三位高足佐藤直方（1650-1719）、淺見絅齋（1652-1712）、三宅尚齋（1662-1741）的「中國論」與「華夷論」，闡明闇齋學派學者中各自的「中國∕華夷」觀的特色。透過本文的分析將獲得以下的結論：闇齋學派中所產生的「中國∕夷狄之論」，有三種見解和主張。第一：「文化優劣論」的立場，亦即認為　華夷關係是由道德、風俗的優劣來決定的，第二：「名分論」的立場，亦即認為華夷關係是由主客、自他的關係來決定的，第三：「地理注定論」的立場，亦即認為華夷關係是由地理、地形來決定的。闇齋與絅齋的屬於第二「名分論」的立場，直方屬於第三「地理注定論」的立場，尚齋屬於第三「地理注定論」與第一「文化優劣論」的混雜。其中，闇齋與絅齋是從「名分論」的立場，將中國脈絡的華夷關係顛倒，提倡以「日本」為主體（「中國」）的「日本主義」。同樣屬於日本主義，但絅齋卻批判日本神道，反對盲信本國文化，可以說闇齋與絅齋的日本主義，明顯存在性質上的差異。另外，直方與尚齋直接接受中國「儒書」中的「中國」觀、「華夷」秩序，反對日本主義。如此，同樣屬於闇齋學派，但其「中國∕華夷」觀上卻有如此明顯的差距。由此可知，關於「中國∕華夷」觀的論述，闇齋學派是不可不分青紅皂白地加以評論。另外，一般認為在闇齋學派之中，淺見絅齋是特別強調日本文化的優越性中最激進的國粹主義者，但根據本文的分析，絅齋的「日本主義」只是從「名分論」的角度來提倡，與文化的優劣完全無關的。「名分論」脈絡裡的華夷關係不是絕對固定的，而是相對流動的。換言之，世界有多少的國家，就存在著多少的中心，亦即有多少的「中國」。在這個意義上，絅齋的立場是以「文化多元」觀為基礎的「日本主義」，並不是「國粹主義」。

關鍵字

山崎闇齋學派；中華意識；華夷之辯；大義名分；日本主義

並列摘要

Yamazaki Ansai School have enthusiastically discussed on the discourses of ＂Hua Yi Ming Fen＂ in Japan, and they have left many discussions of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ theory in hands. Generally speaking, in the origins of Japanese nationalism, most scholars believed that it was occurred mainly in Yamazaki Ansai School, and this school had really developed the main body which based on the Japanese ＂Kokutai Thought＂. But it was interesting that the discourses of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ theory in Yamazaki Ansai School's scholars were actually not uniform, and even had some contradictions of their opinions. In the interior of this school, these scholars revolved around this subject and also argued the points to each other. This paper discusses and analyses the discourses of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ theory by Yamazaki Ansai and his three disciples: Sato Naokada (1650-1719), Asami Keisai (1652-1712), Miyake Shosai (1662-1741), and clarifies the characteristics of each discourses of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ theory in the Yamazaki Ansai School. Through the analysis of this article will get the following conclusions: there are three kinds of views and propositions about the discourses of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ theory in this school. First is the position of cultural supremacy theory: they considered that the relationship of ＂Hua Yi＂ is determined by the merits and drawbacks of ethics, customs. Second is the position of ＂Ming Fen＂ theory: they considered that the relationship of ＂Hua Yi＂ is determined by the connections of subject and object, self and other. Third is the position of geographic destiny theory: they considered that the relationship of ＂Hua Yi＂ is determined by the geography and topography. In these views, Yamazaki Ansai and Asami Keisai are belonged to the second part-＂Ming Fen＂ theory, and Sato Naokada is belonged to the third part─geographic destiny theory, and Miyake Shosai is belonged to the complex of the third and first part─geographic destiny theory and cultural supremacy theory. Among them, Yamazaki Ansai and Asami Keisai had reversed the relationship of ＂Hua Yi＂ in the Chinese context from the ＂Ming Fen＂ theory. They advocated that Japan was the main body which based on the Japanese nationalism. However, Asami Keisai agreed with this view, but he had criticized the Shinto and opposed to its own culture in blind. In other words, both of them only had the same term about the Japanese nationalism, but the discourses in them had existed the obviously essential differences. In addition, Sato Naokada and Miyake Shosai had directly accepted the ＂China＂ concept and ＂Hua Yi＂ order in Confucian books, and they opposed to the Japanese nationalism. Although these scholars were in the same school, their discourses about the concepts of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ were obviously different. It can be seen that their discourses about the concepts of ＂China＂ and ＂Hua Yi＂ in this school cannot be indiscriminately in comments. It is generally considered that Asami Keisai was the most radical right-wing supporter and he was especially emphasis on the superiority of Japanese culture among the Yamazaki Ansai School. According to the analysis of this article, however, Asami Keisai's views in the Japanese nationalism was only advocated from ＂Ming Fen＂ theory, and it was completely unrelated to the merits and drawbacks of the culture. In his opinions, the relationship of ＂Hua Yi＂ was not absolutely steady but relatively flowing in the context of ＂Ming Fen＂ theory. In another word, it is said that how many countries existed in the world, and how many numbers of center were here, and how many numbers of ＂China＂ were here. In this point, Asami Keisai's position in Japanese nationalism was based on the multi-cultural view but not on nationalism.