江戶語言文獻中「中華」意識的消長

The Vicissitudes of the Concept of ''China' in the Edo-Period Documents-by Contract between Two Books

江戶時代是近代日本的文化爆發期，許多觀點影響了近代東亞學 術。其中，江戶時期流行的《韻鏡》學、唐話學之學術風潮與當時的 韻學／語學有關。本文的焦點是，江戶學者的語言觀如何在中國及日 本的文化意識中折衝？上述問題在江戶中期以後較為顯著，提供我們 不少觀察的依據。 江戶中期的韻學往往隨著學派或者學術群體而發展，因此本研究 挑選較具影響力的韻學家及其著作來進行觀察，分別是文雄的《三音 正譌》（寶曆 2 年刊，1752）、本居宣長的《漢字三音考》（天明 5 年， 1785），比較二書對於吳音、漢音、唐音（華音）的立場及解釋方法， 藉此了解兩位韻學家對於日本漢字音的看法，同時凸顯二人之漢字音 理論對中國、中華的態度。根據既有的研究基礎及本論文的觀察，我 們以為文雄的韻學以《磨光韻鏡》（1744 刊）為中心，同時迎合了江 戶古文辭學派的立場以及江戶流行的唐話學風潮，鞏固了江戶以來的「韻鏡學」傳統，且文雄的語言觀中潛藏了一個深刻的中國；然而本居宣長的態度有別於此，本居雖然部分接受了文雄的漢字音觀點，但於字句中展現出了對日本皇統的強調。從文化傳播來看，語言著作中的他者意識，直接影響了文化接受的狀況，給了我們良好的研究題材。承上所述，本文透過資料整理，來為江戶中後期的韻學／語學史觀進行爬梳，有助我們對域外漢學更進一步的了解。

There were cultural boom during the Edo period of Japan when the study of traditional phonology was prevailing. Under the traditional phonology study, it was not negligible that the Yun-Jing(韻鏡) study and the Tanghua(唐話，regarded as a kind of Chinese language) learning have made a huge effect to language concepts at that time. However, Yun-Jing is known a Chinese rime chart and Tanghua is a kind of Chinese language, therefore how Chinese ideas influenced Japanese language/ phonology study, is a thought-provoking question. We observed two main articles in this study, which are ''San'on seika''(三音正譌) written by Mon'nō(文雄) and ''Kanji san'onkō'' written by Motōri Norinaga(本居宣長). Both are classics of traditional phonology created by the leading lights of the scholar in Edo period of Japan. We can discover the differences between them, especially the thought on the language of Chinese and Japanese. Mon'nō convinced that Tanghua/Tō'on(唐話 or 唐音) was sort of Chinese language or dialect, so he called it Huayin/Ka'on(華音), which gave prominence to the concept of 'China'. However, the latter scholar Motōri Norinaga had absolute faith to define that Tanghua/Tō'on was already adapted to the framework of Japanese, which meant it was a sort of Japanese kanji pronunciation, not Chinese'. The variation can be collated from their books, and that is the main work of this paper. We expect that it can improve our understanding to the Sinology in Edo Japan by the contrast of the two books above.