Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies
LIU Yuebing*Introduction

In China in the twentieth century, scholarly interest in research on Naitō
Konan was limited to a few “fragmentary bits of knowledge” by individual
scholars.1 But in the twenty-first century, after the publication of Qian 2004,2
Naitō’s main works were successively translated into Chinese and published,3
an increasing number of various studies of Naitō appeared, and the newest
Japanese research results have been quickly translated and published in
China.4
In recent years there have appeared two distinct trends in Chinese studies
of Naitō. The first is that with the greater scholarly interaction between China
and Japan, some Chinese scholars are studying in Japan and then returning to
China. As a result, their scholarly ways of thinking and their methods ofresearch are heavily influenced by the Japanese academic world, and theystrongly respect and identify with the Japanese view of how to carry out
research. In the field of Naitō studies, Naitō Konan Kenkyūkai 2005 is atypical example. All the authors of this work, members of the Naitō Konan	  * Liu Yuebing is a professor at the Institute of Japan Studies of Nankai University.
He specializes in the history of Japanese thought and the history of SinoJapanese intellectual and cultural interaction.
1 Yan Shaodang, in the Forward to Qian 2004.
2 In the Forward to Qian 2004, Yan Shaodang gives the following positive assessment of the significance of this work: “This book is the first work by aChinese scholar to thoroughly examine the scholarship of a Japanese scholar
having considerable authority in the Japanese field of China studies and, atnearly the same level of scholarship, to state his judgment of the culturallegacy of Naitō’s substantive and fair-minded scholarship.
3 These translations include Naitō 2005 (his history of Chinese painting), Naitō
2007 (his travel description of China), Naitō 2008 (his history of Chinese
historiography), Naitō 2012 (his studies in the history of Japanese culture),
and Naitō 2009 (a collection of his Chinese poetry and essays).
4 For example, in 2005 Sanqin Chubanshe published Naitō 2005.

40

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

Kenkyūkai, greatly admire his scholarship, and according to Tanigawa Michio(in the Preface to the Chinese translation), all the translators of this work are“scholars influenced by the Kyoto School, initiated by Naitō Konan himself.
One of the translators, Hu Baohua, in his introduction of this work, describes
in detail the postwar criticism of Naitō’s “China thesis” and the reaction of
Tanigawa in his 2001 essay. After explicitly pointing out that criticisms ofNaitō were mostly biased, superficial remarks and that Naitō was not an
advocate of Japan’s invasion of China, Hu asserts that this book was aninevitable product of Japan’s punctilious academic environment, and that
Naitō’s methodology is still influential in twenty-first-century historicalresearch.5 Moreover, in his preface written specifically for the Chinese editionof this book, Tanigawa stresses that the originality of Naitō’s thesis on
Chinese history springs from his high evaluation of Chinese culture, and hepoints out that “Naitō’s suggestions, because they arise from this perspective,
may seem like advice to China, though from today’s vantage point they may
not seem advantageous to China.” 6 Tanigawa thus strongly defends Naitōagainst charges of advocating a thesis contrary to China’s interests.
In contrast to this trend, another trend is to criticize Naitō’s views on
China as intellectually fomenting a fascist Japanese desire to invade China.
An example of this view is Yang Dongliang 2012. This essay takes the viewthat Naitō’s China thesis, at its core, supported Japan’s mission in China withsuch proposals as division of the Chinese nation, international control ofChina, and abandonment of its national defense, along with such contentions
as its stimulation by another race, a change in the center of culture from
China to Japan, and the outside development of its economy. The essay
stresses that the striking features, as well as fatal flaws, of Naitō’s China
thesis are not only that it denigrated China but also, on the whole, that it
underestimated the abilities and potentials of the Chinese people, and that it
fed the colonial ambitions of the Western powers and Japan. In its conclusion, the essay states, “Naitō Konan was an accomplished Sinologist, butwhen he degenerated into the ‘wise man’ in favor of Japan’s prewar national
policy of invading China, his intuitive sense of right and wrong appropriate toa gentleman and scholar was swallowed up by narrow racial interests, and his
extensive knowledge became a tool for justifying Japan’s expansion in China.
As a great prewar Japanese scholar, Naitō, through his knowledge and statements about China, had an influence on the Japanese government and publicthat was mostly negative. This bitter lesson is well worth remembering.”7
5 Hu Baohua 2006.
6 Naitō Konan Kenkyūkai 2005, p. 4.
7 Yang Dongliang 2012.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

41

These criticisms strike at the Achilles heel of Naitō’s relevant views, but if
we can clarify the inherent connections between Naitō’s “negative” views andthe whole of his historiography, these criticisms will perhaps be more persuasive. For this project, the writings of Matsubuchi Tatsuo and Tao Demin arehighly worth consulting.8
I selected the topic “Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies” not only becauseof my interest in “modern Hunan Studies and Japan,”9 but also because
Hunan Studies 湘 学 began as a school of Neo-Confucianism in the Song
(960–1279) and Ming (1368–1644) dynasties called the Hunan School 湖 湘
学. But with the passage of time, “Hunan Studies” came to have different
meanings. Broadly construed, “Hunan Studies” refers to the study of the
Hunan region and of individuals born in the Hunan region who came under
the influence of Hunan Studies.10 Though Naitō laid the foundations for the
Kyoto school of Japanese Sinology, it is also possible to place him in theeclectic school of traditional Japanese Sinology.11 Hence, I wish to study theconnection between Naitō and Hunan Studies, not just to deepen our understanding of him, his associations, and the influence he had on other areas ofstudy, but also to reacquaint ourselves with the origins of Hunan Studies.

1

Naitō’s Interest in Hunan Studies and His Avid Purchases of Worksby Hunan Scholars

Scholars like Tao Demin and Qian Wanyue have already done considerable research on Naitō’s associations with Chinese literati. Tao (2009) has
given us many important leads for discovering Naitō’s associations with
Chinese literati. Among the items listed are a poem autographed by Wang
Kaiyun 王 闓 運 and a hanging-scroll painting painted by Ye Dehui 葉 德 輝,
which Tao explained as follows:
Around the time of the 1911 Revolution, Naitō, for a time, had a greatinterest in Hunan Simple Learning [ 樸 學, a Qing school of exegetical
study of the Confucian classics], especially that of Wang Kaiyun and Ye
Dehui. For Wang Kaiyun’s Xiangjun zhi 湘 軍 志 (Annals of the Hunan
Army), Naitō had these words of high praise: “His writing excels. In thelast 500 years, one can say, no one has exhibited comparable literary
8 Matsubuchi Tatsuo 1983 and Tao Demin 2007. Qian Wanyue, in his 2008 review,
introduces and evaluates the major arguments and historical contribution of thelatter book under such headings as “Repaying One’s Mentors,” “Annotations
and Supplementations,” and “Stages and Schools.”
9 See Liu Yuebing 2010.
10 See Fang Keli and Chen Daixiang 2007.
11 Aoe Shunjirō 1966, pp. 339–340.

42

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

skill” (letter to Inaba Iwakichi dated December 11, 1908, Naitō 1969–
1976, vol. 14, p. 457). “From the time when the style of Wenxuan 文 選
entered the Western Han, Wang Kaiyun is the author whose style best
exemplifies that of Jia Yi 賈誼 [200–169 BCE] and Sima Qian 司馬遷 [145or 135–86 BCE]. Also, his scale is grander than that of Wang Zhong 汪中[1745–1794]. Indeed, he is the best in all of Qing China” (letter to Inaba
Iwakichi dated June 2, 1909, Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 462).
“Recently, the collected poetry and essays of Wang Kaiyun is popular in
Kyoto. His essays are just like those of the Western Han” (letter to Inaba
Iwakichi dated July 10, 1909, Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, pp. 463–464).
Hence, in 1910 he bought books by Wang and Ye through Ye Dehui’s
student, Matsuzaki Tsuruo 松 崎 鶴 雄, who lived in Changsha (letters to
Matsuzaki Tsuruo dated July 25, 1910; November 21, 1910, July 27,
1911; and August 1, 1911, Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, pp. 474, 480, 483,
484). And from Mizuno Baigyō 水 野 梅 曉 he acquired pictures of Wang
Kaiyun and Wang Xianqian 王先謙 (letter to Inaba Iwakichi dated July 1,
1911, Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 482). Naitō never met Wang Kaiyun
or Ye Dehui. All of his exchanges with these two scholars wereconducted through Mizuno Baigyō and Matsuzaki Tsuruo.12
When we read Naitō’s letters to Matsuzaki Tsuruo in detail, we can see
how enthusiastic he was about buying the works of Hunan scholars. In a
letter of July 27, 1911, he wrote, “I already received the book you sent,
Yantie lun jiaokan ji 鹽鐵論校勘記 (An Account of the Collation of Discourses
on Salt and Iron [81 BCE]), by Mr. Wang. I am still not clear on how many
works there are by Pi Xirui 皮 錫 瑞 [1850–1908]. For the time being, I am
sending ten yen. Please buy them all. If this is not enough money, please ask
for help from the new consul Mr. Okobira. Please also find some way topurchase Wang Kaiyun’s Lisao zhu 离騷注 (Qu Yuan’s Li sao, with Notes) andall of Ye Dehui’s printed works.13 In a letter dated August 1, 1911, he wrote,“I received three small packages. I got the 62 volumes in the collection by
Mr. Ye and the 19 works by Pi Xirui. I cannot thank you enough! Pi Xirui’s
study of the Gongyang commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋公羊傳 is quite interesting. Please purchase the rest of the books as well…. I am
again sending ten yuan. The remaining books that I want you to buy are
Jinwen Shangshu shuzheng 今文尚書疏證 (The Modern-Script Book of History,
with Commentary), Hanbei zheng jing 漢 碑 徵 經 (Principles of Evidence for
12 Tao Demin 2009, pp. 84–85.
13 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 483.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿43

Han Stelae), Xiaojing Zheng zhushu 孝 經 鄭 註 疏 (Classic of Filial Piety,
Annotated in the Henan Style), Chunqiu jiangyi 春秋講義 (Spring and Autumn
Annals Explained), and Shifutang pianwen shi 師伏堂駢文詩 (Parallel Poetryof Pi Xirui). In addition, I must also trouble you to buy Wang Kaiyun’s Lisao
zhu. If the money is not enough, as I said before, please ask for help from theconsul Mr. Okobira…. Recently, I find myself most interested in Hunan
Simple Learning, and I want to do as much as I can to do a thorough studyof it.”14 In a letter to Inaba Iwakichi dated February 25, 1913, he wrote, “Theversion of Shengwu ji 聖 武 記 [a military history of the Qing dynasty] that I
got from the bookstore Bunkyūdō is indeed the first edition. I thus have all
three editions [there were two versions of the third edition]. All three editions
differ on certain points, so I could not give up trying to acquire the firstedition.”15 On October 20, 1917, he wrote in a letter to Matsuzaki Tsuruo, “I
asked Mr. Kuhara’s research assistant, Yoshimura Heizō, to seek out a collection of Pi Xirui’s poetry, and he readily favored me with a copy. Later, healso gave me a copy of Ye Dehui’s Liushu guwei 六書古微 (Old Subtleties of
the Six Classics). Every time, I am the recipient of unstinting munificence. I
am most grateful…. I thought that I would like to travel in Hunan. I followed
up on your introductions, but unfortunately could not realize my desire.”16
From these quotes, one can see that Naitō in the 1910s consistently maintained a deep interest in the works of Hunan Studies scholars such as Wei
Yuan 魏源, Wang Kaiyun, Ye Dehui, and Pi Xirui.
At this time Naitō expressed his opinion of the general characteristics of
Hunan Studies, that is, the Hunan School of exegesis. In the lecture “Shina
gakumon no kinjō” 支那學問の近狀 (The Present State of Sinology), deliveredin Hiroshima on August 8, 1911, he positively appraised the rapid development of studies in China during the last three centuries, and said thatJapanese Sinology is a century behind China.17 He presented a table dividing
studies in China into the following several schools: the Western Zhejiang
School 浙 西 學 派 (which can be subdivided into the Wu School 吳 派 and theAnhui School 皖 派 ), the Eastern Zhejiang School 浙 東 學 派, the Changzhou
School 常 州 學 派 (known for its studies of the Gongyang commentary on the
Spring and Autumn Annals), the Yan Yuan and Li Gong School 顏李學派, andthe Hunan School 湖 南 學 派. He listed Wang Fuzhi 王 夫 之 and Zeng Guofan
曾 國 藩 as belonging to the Hunan School, but Wei Yuan, Wang Kaiyun, andPi Xirui he listed as belonging to the Changzhou School. He evaluated the
14
15
16
17

Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 484.
Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 499.
Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 516.
“Shina gakumon no kinjō” 支那学問の近状, in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 6, p. 53.

44

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

Hunan School as follows: “Though this school does not have all the trappingsof a formal school, there was a scholar named Wang Fuzhi in Changsha,
Hunan, from the late Ming to early Qing period. At first his works were nottransmitted for a time and were not popular, but after Zeng Guofan put down
the Taiping rebels and the leaders of Hunan reestablished civil order, Hunan
Studies, which had already foreshadowed a return to prosperity, underwent
much development. Hunan thinkers naturally followed the style of thought of
the local scholar Wang Fuzhi. Hunan scholars coming after Zeng Guofan
included such notables as Wang Kaiyun and Wang Xianqian, and they all
esteemed Wang Fuzhi. Hence, his school of thought gradually became quite
influential.”18
Volume 14 of Naitō 1969–1976 contains a letter that Naitō wrote for CountŌtani Kōzui 大 谷 光 瑞 to Minister Qu Hongji,19 and the Naitō Collection of
Kansai University Library has drafts 1 to 4 of this letter. In this letter hewrote, “A certain gentleman [1–4: Kōzui] heard that Hunan has beautiful
scenery, rich land, and healthy people. Recently, lesser civil and militaryleaders—Wang Kaiyun and Wang Xianqian [1–4 also listed Ye Dehui]—were
previously active uniting followers.20 Now that your excellency, withfarsighted vision and renown reputation, is in a position of leadership, is there
any doubt that the people of the region will again prosper? Formerly, you set
the great agenda and gathered around you capable men, and all flocked to thecause. As a result, there are young men again in Hunan. Hence, the benefits
flowing from your excellency’s staff are great indeed!”21 One can thus see
18 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 6, p. 63.
19 Qu Hongji 瞿鴻機 (1850–1918), from Shanhua (now Changsha) in Hunan, had
the courtesy name Zijiu 子玖 and the sobriquet Zhian 止盦. A presented scholar
during the Tongzhi period (1862–1874). He successively held the positions ofAcademician Expositor-in-Waiting; Academician of the Grand Secretariat; andProvincial Education Commissioner of Henan, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Jiangsu.
In 1900 during the Eight-Nation Alliance’s occupation of Beijing, he fled with
the imperial court to Xi’an. Having gained the emperor’s trust, he served as
Minister of Public Works and Grand Minister of State. He also participated in
the work of drafting a constitution. After the Revolution of 1911, he served in
the Upper House of Parliament in Yuan Shikai’s government. His publishedworks include Shiyu riji 使豫日記 (Henan Diary) and Zhian shiwen ji 止盦詩文集 (The Collected Poetry and Prose of Qu Hongji).
20 Naitō, in his literary Chinese original, used courtesy names. Wang Kaiyun’s
courtesy name was Renqiu 壬秋, Wang Xianqian’s courtesy name was Yiwu 益吾, and Ye Dehui’s courtesy name was Huanbin 奂彬. It is not known why Ye
Dehui was dropped from the version of the letter appearing in Naitō 1969–
1976, vol. 14.
21 Letter to Minister Qu, for Count Ōtani Kōzui, Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 14, p. 256.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

45

how, in certain regards, Naitō had high expectations for the development of
Hunan Studies.

2

Why Was Naitō Interested in Hunan Studies?

As mentioned above, the reason that Naitō was interested in the publishedworks of Hunan scholars and wanted to thoroughly study them was that
Hunan Studies had the characteristics of Simple Learning and Simple
Learning was precisely the sort of learning that Naitō advocated.
In terms of his scholastic heritage, Naitō, as stated above, belongs to theeclectic school of traditional Japanese Sinology. This eclectic school has been
described as “not partial to Zhu Xi 朱 熹, Wang Yangming 王 陽 明, or theexegesis of ancient Chinese words. Rather, it selected among early Chinese
commentary and the philosophical theories of Song and Ming thinkers,
studied the legacy of past sages, and corrected the shortcomings of priorlearning.”22 Naitō himself thought to make Simple Learning into a paradigm
for scholarship, and he began to see this task as an important issue regarding
the quality of national scholarship at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1901 hepublished in the Osaka Asahi Shimbun the essay “Kyōto Daigaku to
bokugaku no shi” 京 都 大 学 と 朴 学 の 士 (Kyoto University and Scholars of
Simple Learning), in which he identified true scholars as “adherents of Simple
Learning.”23 Drawing a contrast with politicians and bureaucrats, he asserted,“All scholars are adherents of Simple Learning.” Taking the Qing scholarshipthat he revered as an example, he said, “During over two centuries of Qing
rule, adherents of Simple Learning have appeared in droves. This is something rarely seen in history. From Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 [1613–1682] of Kunshan
and Huang Zongxi 黄宗羲 [1610–1695] of Yuyao, who as holdovers from theMing dynasty lived in retirement without serving and pursued their noble
attainments, to Yan Ruoqu 閻 若 璩 [1636–1704] of Taiyuan, Hui Dong 惠 棟[1697–1758] of Wu District, Jiang Yong 江 永 [1681–1762] of Maoyuan, Dai
Zhen 戴 震 [1724–1777] of Xiuning, Wang Zhong 汪 中 [1745–1794] ofJiangdu, and the more recent Chen Li 陳 澧 [1810–1882] of Panyu—all ofthese scholars excelled at studying the classics, maintaining the tradition, andglossing ancient works because they were adherents of Simple Learning.
Carrying out the technical research of the West requires intensive study byexperts and thus precludes an ambitious individual from pursuing more than
one field. Hence, scholars [engaged in the humanities] are adherents of
Simple Learning.” Naitō though that in the new age, training scholars in the
tradition of Simple Learning was the natural mission of Kyoto University. He
22 Aoe Shunjirō 1966, p. 339.
23 Naitō 1901a.

46

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

hoped that the faculty of the university would “maintain the spirit of researchin the Simple Learning tradition, cease producing overfine studies filled withevidentiary minutia, and approach scholarship from the perspective ofcritiquing culture and reforming society. If we can develop the simple,
austere spirit of the study of former times, then, who knows, perhaps the newmodes of thought desired by the masses may arise from therein.” Perhaps“the spirit of study at Kyoto University” will rise even to “the level of issues
concerning the nation.”
Textual criticism 校 勘 學 is the most basic area of study within Simple
Learning, and it is an area that Naitō considered important. He wrote, “Mostpeople think that Japanese textual criticism fell out of favor after the
Tokugawa period, when the world entered the age of heroes, who did not taketo textual criticism. But in fact, that is not at all what happened. During the
Qing dynasty in China, He Zhuo 何 焯 [1661–1722], Qian Zeng 錢 曾 [1629–
1701], Lu Wenzhao 盧文昭 [1717−1793], Huang Pilie 黃丕烈 [1763–1825], Qin
Enfu 秦 恩 復 [1760–1843], and Gu Guangqi 顧 廣 圻 [1776–1835] establishedtheir expertise in the field of textual criticism. The renown scholar Qian
Daxin 錢 大 昕 [1728–1824], for example, achieved success primarily throughtextual criticism. In Japan, Yamanoi Tei 山 井 鼎 [1670–1728], Yoshida Kōton吉田篁墩 [1745–1798], Kariya Ekisai 狩谷棭齋 [1775–1835], Ichino Meian 市
野迷庵 [1765–1826], and Matsuzaki Kōdō 松崎慊堂 [1771–1844] left an solid
scholarly legacy that became the field of Sinology in the universities.
Likewise for European scholarship. Most studies on Indo-European languages
are efforts at textual criticism.” Methodologically, he affirmed that the contribution of Japanese national studies 國 學 stems from significant textual
critiques in the tradition of Simple Learning. He held that “Japanese national
studies from the time of Kamo no Mabuchi 賀 茂 真 淵 [1697–1769] have ahistory of less than two centuries, yet its methodology is nearly as advanced
as that of modern European science. One important factor, it must be said,
lies in the fact that Mabuchi initiated ancient Japanese language studies, andthat from Motoori Norinaga 本 居 宣 長 [1730–1801] on, scholars engaged inextensive textual criticism. The development of national studies over the past
century has greatly benefited from Motoori’s great wisdom.” In addition, he
noted that Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 [1715–1746] could develop his pathbreaking ideas because he was able to benefit from textual criticism. In
particular, because he did a textual critique of the sutras, he could produce
Shutsujō kōgo 出定後語 (Emerging from Meditation).”24
On the balance between scholarship and politics, Naitō consistently
expressed admiration of “Qing Simple Learning scholars who forsook
24 Naitō 1901b. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 4, p. 291.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

47

government work for a life of scholarship.” He thought that “pursuing private
scholarship leads not to extravagant thoughts but to the unpretentious study ofthe classics and history,” and that “to propagate the Way in order to maintain
Confucian orthodoxy and thus to establish peace throughout the ages” is “amost noble ideal.”25 Yet at the same time, he was no ivory-tower scholastic,
especially with regard to the problem of China. In an essay commenting on
the appointment of Hattori Unokichi 服 部 宇 之 吉 as an instructor at Beijing
University, he wrote that he hoped that Hattori “would assume his post with
the intention of living in China over the long term,” since “the post of
instructor is the pinnacle of Qing education. The students trained there will
someday occupy important positions. Such influence and such potential
should not be forsaken for money or power.” He encouraged Hattori to“persevere,” to go “with the intention of being buried in China, in order tofulfill this great responsibility. Doing so would improve Chinese treatment ofJapanese and increase Japanese influence in China to a point where Japanneed no longer fear competition with other nations. This is my greatest wish
for Mr. Hattori as he goes to assume his post of cultivating young Chinese. I
would hope that others who work in China would do likewise. The Qing
government, I hear, also wants to hire a diplomatic consultant. Not only is
work in the very challenged Chinese diplomatic corps a natural fit for a
Japanese scholar; a position of such responsibility would also be a greathonor for such a scholar.”26 From what Naitō writes, his desire for practicalbenefit is readily apparent.
In his 1924 work Shin Shina ron 新 支 那 論 (A New Treatise on China),
Naitō distinguished high-level studies from low-level studies in Simple
Learning. “High-level studies are those that have a philosophical rationale forthe methodology employed, that greatly advance scholarship by means ofrigorous textual criticism, and that thus clarify poorly understood aspects oftraditional culture.” In contrast, low-level Simple Learning studies are thosethat tread a well-worn path, and that “make much of trivial textual
research.”27
Naitō also critiqued Hunan scholars in terms of the above tendencies of
Simple Learning and views of worldly affairs.

3

Naitō’s Appraisal of Hunan Scholars

Naitō’s evaluation of Hunan Studies focuses on Wang Fuzhi and later

25 Naitō 1916b; also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 4, p. 544. Naitō 1916a; also in Naitō
1969–1976, vol. 4, p. 532.
26 Naitō 1902. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 3, pp. 469, 470.
27 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, p. 536.

48

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

scholars. In his discussion of Song historiography in Shina shigakushi 支那史
學 史 (A History of Chinese Historiography), he appraised Hu Anguo 胡 安 國(1074–1138) and Hu Yin 胡寅 (1098–1156), his adopted son, as follows: “HuYin’s Du shi guanjian 讀史管見 (A Reading of History) is rather harsh among

historical treatises. He discusses everything from a moralistic vantage point,
and this shortcoming of his has been criticized. The reason for this point ofview is that historiography of the time was influenced by Chunqiu 春秋 (The
Spring and Autumn Annals). His father, Hu Anguo, rejected the threecommentaries on the Chunqiu and wrote his own commentary, Chunqiu Hu-shi
zhuan 春秋胡氏傳 (The Spring and Autumn Annals, with Commentary by Mr.
Hu), based on the classics. The Zhu Xi school used this commentary rather
than the three traditional commentaries. The viewpoint expressed in thiscommentary also infected Du shi guanjian, which follows Zizhi tongjian 資治
通鑑 (A Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government), a work that presents
and discusses history. Another book written with the same guiding principle,
but more prudently applied, is Zhu Xi’s Tongjian gangmu 通 鑒 綱 目 (Outline
and Digest of A Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government).”28 From thisquote we can see Naitō’s criticism of moralistic history and also the connection between the research of Hu father and son and that of Zhu Xi. Below I
will discuss relevant writings of Wang Fuzhi, Wei Yuan, Zeng Guofan, andother Hunan scholars of the late Qing and early Republican period.
3.1

Wang Fuzhi
Naitō thought that Wang Fuzhi (1619–1692) was such a respected Hunan
scholar on account of his noble character and outstanding knowledge. As an
illustration of his noble character, Naitō mentions an incident that occurred
during the revolt of Zhang Xianzhong 張獻忠 at the end of the Ming dynasty.
Because Wang refused Zhang’s summons to serve, Zhang arrested Wang’s
father. Wang then beat himself to show contrition and asked that his father bereleased. Naitō thought that it was this noble act on the part of Wang thatenabled both father and son to gain their freedom.
Naitō devoted a section of his Shina shigakushi to Wang’s scholarship.29
In it he focused primarily on the following two aspects: that Wang’s views ofhistory amounted to views of current events, and that Wang insisted on clarity
in his opposition to discussing the Confucian tradition. Naitō first affirmedthat “among scholars of the late Ming and early Qing period, Wang had especially strong views on history, having authored some well-known, systematic
28 Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p. 215.
29 Naitō 1949, chapter 12, “Qing Historiography,” section 4, “Wang Fuzhi and
Hu Chengnuo.” Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, pp. 306–310.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

49

works, to wit, Du Tongjian lun 讀 通 鑒 論 (A Reading of A Comprehensive
Mirror for Aid in Government) and Song lun 宋論 (On Song History).” Naitōthought that Wang had so many brilliant ideas on history because he was so
thoroughgoing in seeking the truth. In discussing Wang Fuzhi, Naitō would
often compare him to Gu Yanwu and Huang Zongxi. Naitō thought that someof Wang’s views of history “were an expression of his deep feelings about thecollapse of the Ming dynasty, that he borrowed events of the past to discusscurrent events. Many scholars of the time—men such as Gu, Huang, andWang—all advanced views of history arising from their strong feelings about
the present. In fact, we can say that their views of history approached viewsof current events.” Naitō also noted, “Some of Wang Fuzhi’s other works,
such as Huang shu 黃 書 (On the Yellow Emperor) and Emeng 噩 夢(Nightmare), are like Huang Zongxi’s Ming-yi daifang lu 明 夷 待 訪 錄 (ARecord of Ming Dealings with the Barbarians) in that they alluded to current
policies and hence are remarkable for their insights. Huang Zongxi argued
that the Ming dynasty collapsed because the emperor had too much authority,and Wang Fuzhi elaborated on Huang’s ideas from the basic perspectives ofthe land, people, and state. These ideas where no doubt part of the zeitgeist of
the time.
Naitō also pointed out that Wang did not discuss the Confucian tradition,
because he thought that the controversy over the Confucian tradition was
pointless. This attitude too arose from his deep feelings over the Ming dynasty’s succumbing to the barbarians. “He did not discuss the Confucian tradition, because he thought that the Confucian tradition ended with the Songdynasty. Here his mention of the Song dynasty is actually a reference to the
Ming dynasty. Publically mentioning the Ming dynasty might incur the wrathof the Qing court, so he dared to mention only up to the Song dynasty. But tosay that the Confucian tradition ended with the Song dynasty was a way of
obliquely saying that the Confucian tradition ended with the barbarian Qing
court’s conquest of the Ming dynasty.” In addition, in Shina shigakushi(1949), chapter 9, “The Development of Song Historiography,” in a section
devoted to the controversy over the Confucian tradition, Naitō uses Wang’s
thought to sum up. Wang thought that Ming patriots were claiming an end to
the Confucian tradition as a way of remaining loyal to the Ming dynasty, andhe saw this maneuver as a private matter, and not as a public debate. Naitōpraised Wang’s view, saying, “This is a rather open thesis rarely seen among
Chinese scholars. Unfortunately, such openness is not commonly practiced
among Chinese. Even with a view that one is highly suspicious of, like theextinction of the Confucian tradition at the end of the Song dynasty, in China
there are restrictions on what one can say, even today. To understand Chinese

50

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

thought, it is especially important to note this point.”30
3.2

Wei YuanIn Shina shigakushi, in a section on “Northwest Geography” in the chapter
on “Qing Historiography,” Naitō comprehensively discussed the thought of
the historian Wei Yuan (1794–1857). He evaluated Wei Yuan thus: “He has a
deep interest in research. Moreover, his historiography is not limited merely
to textual evidence for the facts. He can also discern the evolution of changes
in the society at large. In writing geographical and historical works, hepursues his interest in the rise and fall of states.” Naitō thought that Wei
Yuan’s Haiguo tuzhi 海國圖誌 (Illustrated Gazetteer of the Countries Overseas)“is not just a geography book. On the one hand, it is his considered view of
how China should deal with the world. On the other hand, it is a work ofhistory of great interest for research.” Commenting on Wei Yuan’s Shengwu ji
聖 武 記 (A Record of the Military Achievements of the Qing Emperors), a
history of contemporary Qing history, Naitō wrote, “Wei Yuan realized thatfrom the height of prosperity during the Qianlong period [1736–1795] toabout the time of the Jiaqing [1796–1820] and Daoguang [1821–1850]
periods, the Qing court, in its administration, gradually lapsed into decline,
and he noticed that the military system and finances gradually took a turn for
the worse. It was his great interest in historical research on this topic that led
him to write this work. Yet in places the work is somewhat careless in giving
textual evidence for the facts. On this point, the work does not match theprecision of Huangchao fanbu yaolüe 皇朝藩部要略 (A Concise Overview of
the Barbarian Tribes under Our August Dynasty), by Qi Yunshi 祁 韻 士. Yet
Huangchao fanbu yaolüe is a work that cannot excite any interest, whereas
Shengwu ji arouses in the reader a great interest in history.” While Wei Yuan’slack of care with regard to textual evidence detracts from the scholarship of
his work, he “represents an effort of the time to explore new avenues ofresearch.” In classical studies, Wei Yuan followed the Gongyang tradition ofscholarship on the Spring and Autumn Annals. “His works, like the chapters
titled ‘Additional Notes on Military Affairs’ in Shengwu ji, took an especiallysynoptic view of history, clearly stating the rise and decline of the Qing
court. The synoptic discussions of the Ming dynasty in his writings included
herein are especially brilliant, particularly where he compares the Ming andQing dynasties.” Naitō emphasized that Wei Yuan “was not only a scholar but
also an expert in statecraft.” Naitō saw that late in the Daoguang period, thesouthern Gongyang tradition thrived, while that of textual criticism was in
decline. “Northwest geography studies used this opportunity to develop. No
30 Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p. 227.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

51

longer content to engage in historico-geographical textual studies, it began to
pay attention to the world situation, in order to develop a new field of study.
Though such studies were rudimentary, the spirit of the time wasnoteworthy.”31 Naitō thus highly evaluated Wei Yuan’s interest in the world
situation, commanding grasp of the course of history, and boldness in leading
public opinion.
Naitō had more to say on Wei Yuan. On December 30, 1911, Naitō added
the following note to a lecture about to be published: “Among the friends ofGong Zizhen 龔 自 珍 was the famous historian Wei Yuan (courtesy name,
Moshen 默 深 ), who wrote Shengwu ji. This man was a close friend of
Dingan’s, and he was the most capable Gongyang scholar. But late in life hebecame a Buddhist. Among the books published by Jinling Kejingchu 金陵刻經 處 (Jinling Buddhist Publishing House) was the Yang Wenhui 楊 文 會
edition of Jingtu sijing 凈土四經 (Four Pure Land Sutras), a collection of three
Pure Land sutras together with the Huayan sutra Puxian xing yuan pin 普賢行
願 品 (The Vows of Bodhisattva Puxian [Samantabhadra]). The copyist andproofreader was none other than Wei Yuan, who wrote a preface for thecollection, which he signed ‘Wei Chengguan 魏 承 貫, disciple of the bodhisattva precepts.’ (This preface is not in Wei Yuan’s collected works.)”32 From
this one can see that the connection between the Gongyang tradition andBuddhism that often appeared in Chinese scholarship of the time stems inlarge part from the influence Wei Yuan. Naitō found it “hard to believe” that“the Gongyang school, while extremely reverential of Confucius, graduallydeparted from Confucius in belief.”33 One common view is that this expert instatecraft Wei Yuan, in his late years, became a Buddhist and traded a worldof earthly cares for the world of meditation because he was dissatisfied withand lost hope for the secular world and sought the opiate of religion.34 But
Wei Yuan, in the introduction to Jingtu sijing, states, “The kingly way operates
in the world, and the Buddhist way rises above the world. The narrowminded individual sees them as different, but the broad-minded individual
sees them as the same.” And again: “The sages of the East” can commend“the teachings of the West [Buddhism].”35 Thus, “the broad-minded” cancomprehend the common ground of Confucianism and Buddhism.

31
32
33
34
35

Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, pp. 408–410.
Naitō 1912. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, p. 245.
Naitō 1912. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, p. 244.
Li Hu 2002, pp. 82, 218.
Wei Yuan 2004, vol. 20, p. 315.

52

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

3.3

Zeng Guofan
We can look at Naitō’s appraisal of Zeng Guofan (1811–1872) from several
angles. First, as Masabuchi Tatsuo writes, Naitō scholarship is an important
foundation for the study of Qing scholar-bureaucrats.36 Both in terms of intellectual sympathies and morality, Naitō identified with late-Qing scholarbureaucrats like Zeng Guofan, as he made clear when he expressed his views
during his tour of China. In 1917 Naitō toured China with Inaba Iwakichi 稲
葉 岩 吉 and Takahashi Motokichi 高 橋 本 吉, and on November 23 they met
Hubei Army Commander Wang Zhanyuan 王占元. When they asked about theruins of the memorial temple to Zeng Guofan and Hu Linyi 胡 林 翼 near the
Yellow Crane Tower in Wuchang, Wang Zhanyuan replied that young
members of the Chinese Revolutionary Party thought that Messrs. Zeng and
Hu sent out an expedition against the Taiping rebels to assist the Qing court
and thereby delayed the progress of the Chinese revolution, and that they
destroyed their memorial temple out of anger at these two men. Naitō said,“Regardless of whether it helped the other side, for them to so easily forgetthe relief that these two men brought to this region and its people in the past
just goes to show that Chinese have no reliable sense of integrity.”37 Several
days later, on November 28, upon arriving in Changsha and seeing that the
temple memorializing Zeng Guofan had become a temple memorializing
revolutionary martyrs, Naitō sighed and said, “It is truly surprising to see thepeople of Hunan forget the great efforts of Zeng Guofan in saving this region
from disaster fifty years ago, even going so far as to hate him, and come torevere the likes of Huang Xing 黃興 and Cai E 蔡鍔.38
Naitō praised Zeng Guofan as a politician, calling him a “gifted individual.” He thought that Zeng Guofan, whose thought embraced elements ofegalitarianism and democracy, offered solutions to the reform of China’s
political system. In his Shina ron 支那論 (On China), in a discussion of Zeng
Guofan’s life as a private secretary, Naitō noted that Zhen Guofan “led a life
equal to that of his comrades in the army secretariat. This is solid evidence ofequality in the army. Equally well known as Zhen Guofan at the time was thegovernor of Hubei, Hu Linyi. This man was even more magnanimous than
Zhen Guofan. He was always humble and respectful, never claiming credit forhimself, and always accepting of criticism, in carrying out the mission of
subduing the Taiping rebels. Yet subduing the Taiping rebels was not something that could be accomplished by issuing decrees. Rather, it could beaccomplished only with the cooperation born of democratic thinking and
36 Masabuchi Tatsuo 1983, p. 162.
37 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 6, p. 464.
38 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 6, p. 466.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

53

egalitarianism. This thinking on the part of Chinese can play a large role inbringing about constitutional government, I believe.”39 Explicating such“democratic thinking and egalitarianism,” Naitō went on to say, “Though [theHunan army] has well-known men like Zeng Guofan and Hu Linyi marshalling the men under them, circumstances are not like those in the Japanesearmy, where higher-ranking officers command lower-ranking officers. Rather,
officers are animated by a mutual spirit of cooperation. Hence, the Taiping
rebels were put down not by conscientious soldiers carrying out commands,
but by soldiers bravely fighting out of a commitment born of gratitude.”40
Naitō further elaborated in his 1924 Shin Shina ron, saying that by buildingon the relations of local organizations and teacher-student relationships, one
could do creative things. He wrote, “Even in as militarily ill-prepared acountry as China, one can develop a powerful army on the foundation of
local organizations, and even in as bureaucratic a country as China, one canpractice a creative politics by building on teacher-student relationships. Zhen
Guofan discovered these two maxims about Chinese society, maxims that canserve as a paradigm for organizing Chinese society in the future.” Naitō
hoped that China could again produce such a gifted individual as Zhen
Guofan, that China would not copy the politics of other countries, and that it
would create a new political system best adapted to its political needs.
Moreover, he believed that “if China could again produce such men as Zhen
Guofan and Li Hongzhang 李鴻章, Chinese politics, both in domestic administration and foreign policy, could be greatly improved.”41 Perhaps for just thisreason, Naitō listed, in his Shomoku tōmon (shibu) hosei 書目答問（史部）補正 (Questions and Answers on Chinese Books [History], Addendum), relevant
works about Zeng Guofan: Zeng Wenzheng gong dashi ji 曾 文 正 公 大 事 記(Major Events in the Life of Mr. Zeng Guofan), by Wang Ding’an 王 定 安;
Qiu Quezhai dizi ji 求闕齋弟子記 (The Followers of Zeng Guofan), by Wang
Ding’an; and Zeng Wenzheng gong shoushu riji 曾 文 正 公 手 書 日 記 (Zeng
Guofan’s Handwritten Diary), by Zeng Guofan.42
Naitō was mostly positive in his evaluation of the statesman and essayist
Zeng Guofan, but he was dissatisfied with the latter’s approach to Song
Neo-Confucianism43 and his disregard for textual criticism. Naitō wrote,
39
40
41
42
43

Naitō 1914a. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, pp. 428–429.
Naitō 1912. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, p. 211.
Naitō 1924. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 5, pp. 517–518, 519, 520.
Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 12, pp. 535, 538.
In his 1915 lectures (Naitō 1944), in a discussion of the Daoguang (1821–1850)
revival of Song Neo-Confucianism in the North by Tang Jian 唐 鑒 of Hunan
and the Mongolian bannerman Woren 倭仁, Naitō said, “When he heard of thisdevelopment, Zeng Guofan, who was from Hunan, was very glad. Scholars of54

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

“Generally, scholarship declined after the Taiping rebellion, especially in the
Jiangnan area. At this time, Zeng Guofan, noted for his military accomplishments, sought to revive scholarship, but because he was a Hunan man fromthe countryside, and because he followed Song Neo-Confucianism, he never
took up the excessive painstaking subtleties of textual criticism. Rather, he
tried only to increase the publication of general works. Hence, most publications of the government presses of the South during the Tongzhi (1862–1874)
and Guangxu (1875–1908) periods were general-interest books.”44
3.4

Other Hunan Scholars
Above, I have already discussed Wang Kaiyun, Wang Xianqian, Ye Dehui,and Pi Xirui in talking about Naitō’s purchases of Hunan scholars’ books.
Below, I will simply add to that discussion a little bit.
Wang Kaiyun was a superb writer and poet. In his 1915 lectures (Naitō
1944), Naitō said, “Wang Kaiyun, who is still alive and living in Hunan, and
who is over eighty this year, is a literary genius. He was born with the ability
to write. He combines parallel prose with the essay style to create limpid
prose.” “Wang Kaiyun is also a genius at poetry in the Wenxuan 文選 style.”45
In the field of history, Naitō highly appraised Wang Kaiyun’s Xiangjun zhi forboth its historical accuracy and its literary merit.46
About Wang Xianqian, Naitō was slightly critical. For example, Naitōthought that his Hanshu buzhu 漢 書 補 注 (Supplemental Commentary on the
History of the Han) “only uses the results of other scholars’ research.” And
Naitō appraised his Hejiao Shuijing zhu 合 校 水 經 注 (Critical Edition ofCommentary on the Waterways Classic) as “comparing all the available
editions of Commentary on the Waterways Classic. The strong points of thiswork are its emendations and its conscientious comparisons, but it contains
none of the author’s own research.” After the appearance of Donghua lu 東華
錄 (Records of East China), by Jiang Liangqi 蔣良騏, Wang Xianqian “wrote
this school of thought think that Sinologists seemingly study trivial details,
and not the great principles of morality. To study the great principles ofmorality, one must study Song Neo-Confucianism, that is, the philosophy ofCheng Hao 程 顥, Cheng Yi 程 頤, and Zhu Xi. Though Neo-Confucians like
Zeng Guofan and Luo Zenan 羅 澤 南 have carried out such study, with theoutbreak of the Taiping rebellion (1851–1864), they might better have encouraged men to apply Neo-Confucian principles to their individual characters,
rather than trying to effect such principles in scholarship, for scholarship fellby the wayside” (Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 8, pp. 372–373).
44 Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p. 434.
45 Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 8, pp. 403, 410.
46 Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p. 439.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿55

a supplement with the same title that adds to the Jiang version in that it ismore detailed. Indeed, the Wang version can replace the Shilu 實錄 (Veritable
Records) for the period, but this substitution comes at a cost of losing someof the interest of the other histories.”47
Pi Xirui, Naitō revered as “a master of research on the Shangshu 尚 書(Book of History).” In “Gyōten no ‘ge yong yan, sheng yi yong’ niku ni
tsukite” 堯典の歌永言声依永二句に就きて (On “ge yong yan, sheng yi yong”[Song lengthens the words, and the pitch depends on the length of the sound]in the “Canon of Yao”), an essay on the Book of History, Naitō discusses Pi
Xirui together with Wang Xianqian. He wrote, “The two recent works Jinwen
Shangshu kaozheng 今 文 尚 書 考 證 (Textual Criticism of the Modern-Script
Book of History), by Pi Xirui, and Shangshu Kong zhuan canzheng 尚書孔傳參 正 (A Critical Examination of the Kong Anguo 孔 安 國 version of the Book
of History), by Wang Xianqing, are primarily comparative studies of the realancient-script Book of History theory 真古文說 and the modern-script Book ofHistory theory 今 文 說 …. Messrs. Pi and Wang did a detailed analysis of theancient-script theory and various schools of thought on the modern-script
theory. But worth noting is that the recent modern-script school of thought(that is, the Gongyang school), from its founder Zhuang Cunyu 莊 存 與, has
not excluded the forged ancient-script Book of History from consideration. For
example, the recent master of research on the Book of History Pi Xirui, while
explaining why the Kong version of the Book of History is a forgery,…. statedthat if the ancient-script and modern-script versions are mutually consistent,
this only shows that the forged Kong version contains assertions of theearliest modern-script version of the Book of History, that transmitted by
Ouyang Sheng 歐陽生.”48
Ye Dehui, as mentioned above, was referred to in the four archive versionsof the letter for Count Ōtani Kōzui to Minister Qu Hongji but is missing fromthe final version of the letter in Naitō 1969–1976. The reason for this omission still needs to be resolved. Also as mentioned above, Naitō, in his
October 20, 1917, letter to Matsuzaki Tsuruo, wrote, “I thought that I would
like to travel in Hunan. I followed up on your introductions, but unfortunately could not realize my desire.” But in November he did tour Hunan. At
that time Wang Kaiyun and Wang Xianqian had already passed away, andonly Ye Dehui was still alive. Though there is a record of Naitō’s visiting the
Yuelu Academy on this trip, there is no record of his meeting with Ye Dehui.

47 Naitō 1949. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, pp. 353, 372, 437.
48 Naitō 1914b. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 7, p. 463.

56

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

Brief Conclusion

Shortly after Naitō passed away, Zhou Yiliang wrote an article introducing
his scholarly accomplishments and discussing his contributions to the field ofChina historiography. He pointed out that Naitō “was most impressed, among
all Chinese historians, by Du You 杜 佑 of the Tang dynasty and Qian Daxin錢 大 昕 and Zhang Xuecheng 章 學 誠 of the Qing dynasty. Naitō, I believe,
resembled Qian Daxin in having broad interests, and he inherited the mantleof Zhang Xuecheng in his focus on the revision of history and the history ofChinese historiography. Moreover, in his enthusiasm for visiting historic sites
in the Northeast, he reflects Du You’s avidly pursuing human events in his
works in order that men may bring good practices to management of the state
and thereby effect good government.”49 Significantly, this quote reveals the
key feature of Naitō’s historiography and the thread holding it together.
Naitō’s enthusiastic purchase of the works of Hunan scholars shows his loveof study, needless to say, but it also shows the influence that outstanding
contemporary Chinese scholars had on the foundations of his scholarship.
Moreover, his appraisals of Hunan scholars also reveal some features of his
scholarship. For example, his statement that Wei Yuan “was not only ascholar but also an expert in statecraft” also applies to Naitō himself. And his
uncovering the democratic strain in Zeng Guofan’s thought displays not onlya certain understanding of Chinese history but also a degree of hope for
China’s future development. In addition, Naitō’s frank criticism of some
49 Zhou Yiliang 1934. Also in Zhou Yiliang 1998, p. 468. Du You (735–812),
whose courtesy name was Junqing 君卿, wrote Tongdian 通典 (A Comprehen­sive Collection of Laws and Regulations), a work that initiated a section on“books on government” in the history books. On January 26, 1931, Naitō gave
a lecture to the Japanese emperor on a section of Tongdian. (Naitō’s Kenkishōroku 研 幾 小 錄 [Short Essays for Clarification] contains “Shōwa roku nenichi gatsu nijūroku nichi Gokōsho hajime Kansho shinkō an” 昭和六年一月廿
六日禦講書始漢書進講案 [Draft of a New Year’s Imperial Lecture on a Chinese
Book, January 26, 1931]. See Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 7.) Qian Daxin (1728–
1804), whose sobriquet was Zhuting 竹 汀, was widely read, knowledgeable,
and especially familiar with history. Naitō once wrote, “After Qian Daxin,
basic research seeking to develop Chinese history into the history of all of
East Asia has not produced another scholar who can take his legacy andcontinue such development” (Naitō 1949; also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p.
416). Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801), whose courtesy name was Shizhai 實齋 ,wrote Wenshi tongyi 文 史 通 義 (The General Meaning of Literature andHistory), his signature work. Among Naitō’s writings is Zhang Shizhai xiansheng nianpu 章實齋先生年譜 (A Chronicle of Mr. Zhang Xuecheng’s Life). In
his Zhang Xuecheng zhi shixue 章 學 誠 之 史 學 (Zhang Xuecheng’s Historiog­
raphy), Naitō praised him, saying, “The style of his scholarship has vitality
even today” (Naitō 1949; also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol. 11, p. 483).

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿57

scholars without doubt serves as a useful reference on the strengths andweaknesses of Hunan scholarship. However, topics such as Wei Yuan’s and Pi
Xirui’s studies of the classics and ancient history, or again, the influence ofGongyang scholarship on Naitō’s scholarly thought, will have to await further
investigation in the future.
References
Aoe Shunjirō 青 江 舜 二 郎. Ryū no seiza: Naitō Konan no Ajia-teki shōgai 竜 の 星座：内 藤 湖 南 の ア ジ ア 的 生 涯 (The Dragon Constellation: Naitō Konan’s Asian
Career). Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1966.
Fang Keli 方克立 and Chen Daixiang 陈代湘, eds. Xiangxue shi 湘学史 (A Historyof Hunan Studies). 2 vols. Changsha: Hunan Renmin Chubanshe, 2007.
Hu Baohua 胡宝华. “Naitō Konan no sekai jieshao” 《内藤湖南の世界》 简介 (AnIntroduction to The World of Naitō Konan). Zhongguo shehui lishi pinglun 中国
社会历史评论 7 (2006).
Li Hu 李 蝴. Wei Yuan yanjiu 魏 源 研 究 (Studies on Wei Yuan). Beijing: Chaohua
Chubanshe, 2002.
Liu Yuebing 刘岳兵. “Jindai xiangxue yu Riben: Yi Yang Changji wei li” 近代湘学
与 日 本：以 杨 昌 济 为 例 (Modern Hunan Studies and Japan: The Case of Yang
Changji). In Xiangxue 湘 学, edited by Fang Keli and Chen Daixiang, vol. 5.
Xiangtan: Xiangtan Daxue Chubanshe, 2010.
Matsubuchi Tatsuo 增渊龙夫. Rekishika no dōjidaishi-teki kōsatsu ni tsuite 歴史家の 同 時 代 史 的 考 察 に つ い て (On Historians’ Studies of Contemporary History).
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1983.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. “Kyōto Daigaku to bokugaku no shi” 京都大学と朴学の士(Kyoto University and Simple Learning Scholars). Ōsaka Asahi Shimbun, August
14–15, 1901a. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 3, pp. 271–275.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. “Hyakunō go” 百衲語 (Buddhist Terminology). Ōsaka Asahi
Shimbun, October 23, 1901b. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 4.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. “Pekin Daigaku kyōtō no ōhei” 北京大學教頭の応聘 (Taking
Up a Position as Instructor at Beijing University). Ōsaka Asahi Shimbun, August25, 1902. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 3.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Shinchō suibō ron 清朝衰亡論 (On the Decline and Fall of
the Qing Dynasty). Tokyo: Kōdōkan, 1912. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976,
vol. 5.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. Shina ron 支 那 論 (On China). Tokyo: Bunkaidō Shoten,
1914a. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 5.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. “Gyōten no ‘ge yong yan, sheng yi yong’ niku ni tsukite”
堯 典 の 歌 永 言 声 依 永 二 句 に 就 き て (On “ge yong yan, sheng yi yong” [Songlengthens the words, and the pitch depends on the length of the sound] in the“Canon of Yao”). Geibun 藝文, September 1914b. Also in Naitō 1969–1976, vol.
7.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. “Shina shōrai no tōchi” 支那將來の統治 (The Future Ruleover China). Ōsaka Asahi Shimbun, February 28–March 3, 1916a. Also in Naitō
Konan 1969–1976, vol. 4.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. “Shina koku kore no konpongi” 支 那 國 是 の 根 本 義 (The58

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

Significance of China). Chūō Kōron, March 1916b. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–
1976, vol. 4.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Shin Shina ron 新支那論 (A New Treatise on China). Tokyo:
Hakubundō, 1924. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 5.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Shinchōshi tsūron 清朝史通論 (A General Discussion of Qing
History). Tokyo: Kōbundō Shobō, 1944. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol. 8.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. Shina shigakushi 支 那 史 學 史 (A History of Chinese
Historiography). Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1949. Also in Naitō Konan 1969–1976, vol.
11.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Naitō Konan zenshū 内藤湖南全集 (The Complete Works ofNaitō Konan). 14 vols. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1969–1976.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. Zhongguo huihua shi 中 国 绘 画 史 (A History of Chinese
Painting). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 2005. A translation of Shina ega shi 支那絵
畫史.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Yan shan Chu shui 燕山楚水 (The Mountains of Yan and theRivers of Chu). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 2007. A translation of En zan So sui
燕山楚水.
Naitō Konan 内 藤 湖 南. Zhongguo shixueshi 中 国 史 学 史 (A History of Chinese
Historiography). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2008. A translation of
Shina shigakushi 支那史學史.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Neiteng Hunan hanshiwen ji 内藤湖南汉诗文集 (A Collectionof Naitō Konan’s Chinese Poetry and Prose). Guilin: Guangxi Shifan Daxue
Chubanshe, 2009.
Naitō Konan 内藤湖南. Riben lishi yu Riben wenhua 日本历史与日本文化 (Japanese
History and Japanese Culture). Beijing: Shangwuyin Shuguan, 2012. A translation of Nihon bunkashi kenkyū 日本文化史研究 (Studies in the History of Japanese
Culture).
Naitō Konan Kenkyūkai 内藤湖南研究会. Neiteng Hunan de shijie 内藤湖南的世界(The World of Naitō Konan). Xi’an: Sanqin Chubanshe, 2005. A translation ofNaitō Konan no sekai 内藤湖南の世界.
Qian Wanyue 钱 婉 约. Neiteng Hunan yanjiu 内 藤 湖 南 研 究 (Studies on Naitō
Konan). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 2004.
Qian Wanyue 钱婉约. “Dangdai Riben hanxue yanjiu de qishi” 当代日本汉学研究的启 示 (Inspiration for the Study of Japanese Sinology of the Past). Zhongguo
tushu pinglun 中国图书评论 2008, no. 4.
Tanigawa Michio 谷川道雄. “Sengo no Naitō Konan hihan ni tsuite” 戦後の内藤湖南批判について (On Postwar Criticism of Naitō Konan). In Naitō Konan no sekai
内 藤 湖 南 の 世 界, edited by Naitō Konan Kenkyūkai 内 藤 湖 南 研 究 会. Nagoya:
Kawai Bunka Kyōiku Kenkyūjo, 2001.”
Tao Demin 陶德民. Meiji no kangakusha to Chūgoku: Yasutsugu, Tenshū, Konan no
gaikō ronsaku 明治の漢学者と中国: 安繹・天囚・湖南の外交論策 (Meiji Sinologists
and China: The Foreign Policy Theories of Shigeno Yasutsugu, Nishimura
Tenshū, and Naitō Konan). Suita, Japan: Kansai Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2007.
Tao Demin 陶徳民. Naitō Konan to Shinjin shoga: Kansai Daigaku Toshokan Naitō
Bunko shozō hinshū 内藤湖南と清人書画: 関西大学図書館内藤文庫所蔵品集 (Naitō
Konan and the Calligraphy and Paintings of Qing Artists: Works Held in the
Naitō Collection of Kansai University Library). Suita, Japan: Kansai Daigaku
Shuppanbu, 2009.

Naitō Konan and Hunan Studies﻿

59

Wei Yuan 魏 源. Wei Yuan quanji 魏 源 全 集 (The Complete Works of Wei Yuan).
Changsha: Yuelu Shushe, 2004.
Yang Dongliang 杨 栋 梁. “Minguo chuqi Neiteng Hunan de ‘Zhina lun’ bianxi” 民
国初期内藤湖南的 “ 支那论 ” 辨析 (A Critique of Naitō Konan’s “China Thesis” inthe Early Republican Period). Nankai xuebao 南开学报 2012, no. 1. Also appears
in vol. 1 of his Jindai yilai Riben de Zhongguo guan 近 代 以 来 日 本 的 中 国 观.
Nanjing: Jiangsu Renmin Chubanshe, 2012.
Zhou Yiliang 周一良. “Riben Neiteng Hunan xiansheng zai Zhongguo shixue shangzhi gongxian” 日 本 內 藤 湖 南 先 生 在 中 國 史 學 上 之 貢 獻 (Mr. Naitō Konan’sContributions to Historiography on China). Shixue nianbao 史 學 年 報 2, no. 1(September 1934). Also in Zhou Yiliang ji 周一良集, vol. 4. Shenyang: Liaoning
Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 1998.