日本德川時代古學派的王道政治論和革命觀－－以伊藤仁齋、荻生徂徠為中心

The Kingcraft and Idea of Revolution of Ancient Learning School in Tokugawa Japan: Ito Jinsai and Ogyu Sorai

本文探討日本德川時代古學派的伊藤仁齋（1627-1705）和荻生徂徠（1666-1728）二者的「王道政治論」及「革命觀」，分析二人皆信奉中華聖學，但核心的「王道」思想卻判如天壤之原因？第一節引文裡略述王道政治論是東亞儒家文化圈的重要課題，說明選擇日本德川時代的古學派之王道政治論作為研究課題，乃是為了了解日本儒學對中國儒學之轉變及其特殊性。為謹慎處理王道政治論，在第二節中，首先釐清仁齋與徂徠對於「王道」概念之界定，並以孟子思想為主軸，說明「王」與「道」之間所存在的辯證關係；由於仁齋與徂徠對「王道」思想所取決的經典互異，因此也分析二人思想中「王」、「道」與「經典」三者之間的關係，以闡明二人之「王道」思想何以差別如此懸殊。第三節即進入主題之分析，探討伊藤仁齋與荻生徂徠的王道政治論，首先陳述（1）仁齋的「王道」與徂徠的「先王之道」的比較，綜合比較二者的「王道」概念之異同，作為以下各節分析之基礎。（2） 分析仁齋、徂徠之王霸觀，首先揭示仁齋、徂徠所認為的「王者」，應具備的條件，以及二者對於「王霸」之關係的看法。（3） 針對仁齋與徂徠的「內聖外王」觀，從二者對於管仲論的肯定態度，認為徂徠是一種「去內聖而尊外王」，仁齋是「輕內聖而重外王」的思想。第四節則分析仁齋與徂徠的湯武放伐論與革命觀，二人皆認為湯武放伐是合理之行為，徂徠特強調「天命」，無關乎桀、紂之無道，只是天命轉移，並有強烈的尊君意識；仁齋則不重「天命」課題，強調以「順民之欲」的「天下同然觀」之民本思想。二者之湯武放伐論均隱藏對幕府政權的危險性與顛覆性。最後在第五節提出綜合性的結論。

This essay explores mainly the 'kingcraft' and 'idea of revolution' as articulated by Ito Jinsai (1627-1705) and Ogyu Sorai (1666-1728) in Tokugawa Japan, and the reasons why they, as believers in Chinese Confucianism differed, so greatly in their core thought of kingcraft? The kingcraft, an important theme in the Confucianism of East-Asia, is briefly introduced in section I . I also explain why I choose the kingcraft of Ancient Learning School as focus of my analysis, and discuss Japan's transformation of Chinese Confucianism and its particularity. In section II , I have distinguished both scholars' idea of kingcraft, and have investigated the dialectical relationship between 'king' (王) and 'craft' (道) . Since Jinsai and Sorai exposed the 'kingcraft' in the context of different classics, an analysis is also made to the interrelationship among their thoughts of 'king', 'craft', and 'classics'. Thus, the differences between their 'kingcrafts' can be clarified. The section ill brings us to the analysis of the subject of this study. A discussion falls on the kingcraft of both scholars. I first describe 1) the comparison between Jinsai's kingcraft and Sorai's Ancient kingcraft, and illustrate synthetic differences on which the following sections were based. Further analyses are made to clarify 2) both scholars' idea of kingcraft and hegemony, which conditioned what a king should be marked their perceptions of the relationship between 'kingcraft' and 'hegemony.' It is concluded that Sorai excluded 'inner sagacity' and venerated 'outer kingcraft,' while Jinsai underestimated 'inner sagacity' and esteemed 'outer kingcraft.' This difference is attributable to 3) both scholars' positive attitudes toward Kuan Chung 管仲) . In section IV, I analyse the image of T'ang-Wu 湯、武) and Idea of Revolution as perceived by Jinsai and Sorai. They all rationalized this revolution. Sorai stressed the alternation of 'heavenly mandate,' regardless of any atrocity, remaining strong loyalty to the ruler; however, Jinsai highly valued democracy in spite of 'heavenly mandate'. Hence, both scholars' revolutionary thought threatened to overthrow Bakufu.