The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View ofHistory: A Point of Convergance with Zhang
Xuecheng’s Wenshi tongyi＊＊＊

Tao De-min

Abstract
An important feature of Naitō Konan’s historiography is his progressive
view of history. The development of this progressive view came not only
from modern Western scholarship but also from early-modern Chinese andJapanese traditional scholarship. Examples of such Chinese scholarship are
Du You’s Tong dian, Zhu Xi’s Zhuzi yu lei, Wang Yinglin’s Kunxue jiwen andZhang Xuecheng’s Wen shi tong yi, which were all works that Naitō liked toread. This essay will show Naitō’s points of convergence with Zhang
Xuecheng’s scholarship, in particular, his advocating that the Six Classics are
all historical works, and will evaluate Naitō’s attempts to find spiritual similarities between Chinese and Western scholarship.
Key words: Naitō Konan, Hu Shih, Zhang Ertian, Jin Xingxiang, Zhang
Xuecheng, Du You, Tominaga Nakamoto, Wenshi tongyi

On January 26, 1931, the well-known East Asian historian Naitō Konan（1866–1934）gave a lecture to Emperor Hirohito in the Imperial Palace aspart of the New Year’s celebrations. He lectured on historical changes incustoms concerning preparation of a corpse for sacrifice, following a lord indeath, marriage within the same family name, etc., as found in volume 48 ofTongdian（A Comprehensive Collection of Laws and Regulations）, by Du
You（735–812）, a grand councilor during the Tang dynasty. In Naitō’s notes
for the lecture, there is the following comment:* The original Japanese version was published in Ajia yūgaku（Intriguing ASIA）
No. 93, 2006, and this English tarnslation was done by Dr. Alan Thwaits.
** Director, Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies; Professor, Faculty of Letters,
Kansai University.

34

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

Selected in his prime [for office in the central government] by Yang Yan,
the mid-Tang grand councilor who extensively reformed finances andmade epochal changes in the tax system, Du You, in my opinion, was thefirst Chinese historian after Sima Qian to be thoroughly familiar withpractical affairs. Hence, his reasoning was always well founded, and henever lapsed into specious argument. . . . As a historian, Du You really
excelled in giving clear expression to the outlook that denigrates the past
and affirms the present. In particular, he regarded China as superior tothe countries around it because it had advanced its traditional culture,and this, he thought, was because the Chinese, a racially superior stock,continually produced talent that gradually reformed pernicious customs.
Moreover, Du You’s views were not limited to recognizing advancesin culture, but also encompassed superior Chinese methods of research.
When studying the rites mentioned in the classics, which had been
revered in China since ancient times, Du You would compare them with
the native customs of peripheral peoples. Thus they used the researchmethods of modern ethnology; that is, already more than 1,200 years ago
they used the very same scientific methods that contemporary French
Sinologists use in studying China. Such brilliance is truly admirable.
Hence, I would like respectfully to present to Your Majesty passages inwhich Du You repeatedly argued for this view of his and passages inwhich Zhu Xi and Wang Yinglin too draw attention to this idea.1
As is well known, Tongdian, on which Du You spent over 30 years arduously compiling, is a 200-volume work describing in detail historical changes
in the economy, the selection process, offices of government, rites, music, themilitary, punishments, administrative divisions, border defense, etc. Up untilthat time, most of the imperial lectures on Chinese works were on Confucianclassics, but Naitō, late in life, selected this famous work on the history of theChinese early-imperial system, and he praised Du You for the practical scholarship, progressive view of history, and pioneering methodology anticipating
the methods of modern Western ethnology that appeared in this work.
Come to think about it, the strong points that Naitō praised in Du You’s
scholarship were, in a sense, also the stance adopted by Naitō, who spent a
lifetime explaining Chinese classics and history. Well, how did Naitō arrive at
this stance? In particular, how did he come to develop his progressive view of
1 “Shōwa roku nen ichi gatsu nijūroku nichi Gokōsho hajime Kansho shinkō an”（Draft of a New Year’s Imperial Lecture on a Chinese Book, January 26,
1931）, in Naitō Konan zenshū（Complete Works of Naitō Konan）（Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobō: 1970）, vol. 7, p. 228.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

35

history? Below I will look at Naitō’s education in his youth and his contact
with Zhang Xuecheng’s scholarship in his prime, in order to find the clues toresolve these questions.
Ⅰ. Initiation into Chinese and English Studies in His Youth

Born shortly before the Meiji Restoration, Naitō, like many of his contemporaries, received training in the Chinese classics and was initiated into
English studies. His father and his mother’s father were both teachers in local
rural schools. Hence, during his youth, Naitō was blessed with a good educational background. Late in life Naitō recalled his early education as follows:
At the age of five, with brush in hand, I began to learn to write. My
father wrote my copybook, and I began learning the numerals and thealphabet. . . . Also, shortly before my mother’s death, I began to learn
how to read. First I had to read the Twenty-four Filial Exemplars in
Chinese. My father would point to the character, and I would read.
Because I was a smart student, I remembered my lessons well. My father
had memorized many poems and would often recite them at night and atother times. The poems included descriptive poems of Rai Sanyo andeven such long poems as Bai Juyi’s “Changhenge”（Song of Everlasting
Sorrow）, all of which he recited by heart. Since he had a good voice, hewas especially pleased to do this. As I was at his side listening, I memorized many poems this way. . . . Next I learned from my father how toread the Four Books [Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, Analects,
and Mencius] by rote.2
Thus being uncommonly intelligent and willing to work twice as hard asothers, Naitō made smooth progress in his studies. After elementary school,
he took the entrance exam to the middle-school-teachers department of Akita
Normal School, scoring first in the exam. In 1885 he graduated from theschool’s high-school-teachers department. Soon thereafter he was hired as thedeputy head of the elementary school in Tsuzureko Village, Kita Akita
District（now Kita Akita City）.
In English studies, during his elementary school years, “Because Yochi
shiryaku [World History] included history in detail, I read this work in its
entirety. . . . The twenty-volume Modern Western History was the most detailed
book on world history, so I read through it.”3 At the normal school, “In the
2 “Waga shōnen jidai no kaiko”（Reminiscences of My Youth）, in Naitō Konan
zenshū, vol. 2, pp. 700–701.
3 Ibid., p. 705.

36

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011curriculum for teachers there was no English-language instruction, but among
the teachers was a kind one named Kawana Yōkin, who knew a little
nonstandard English and could teach from a reader. Together, Kishida Kichizōand I went to his house for instruction.” On the side, Naitō also attended
lessons in English studies under Mori Yoshitsugu, a middle-school teacher
who failed to get into Tokyo Imperial University and a friend of Miyake
Setsurei. Of the two teachers, Kawana had more of an influence on the young
Naitō. Later in grieving over the death of Kawana, Naitō said the following:
A benefit that I can never forget is that Mr. Kawana, through histeaching, opened up a new chapter in my academic development. Being
isolated, we had no way to learn of new scientific theories in those days,
but Mr. Kawana would kindly explain them to us and lend us books sothat we could read up on them. He covered the gist of the theory of
evolution, and I first learned English from him.4
Later during his stint as a teacher at Tsuzureko Elementary School, Naitō
picked up Rousseau’s Social Contract. It is said that a signed copy of theJapanese translation of this work has been preserved in the family of themayor of Tsuzureko Village.5
Western history and geography, English, the theory of evolution,
Rousseau’s Social Contract—the great wave of Western studies during the
Meiji Enlightenment thus washed ashore of even a remote area like Akita,
enabling the young Naitō to quench his thirst for knowledge. Once hebecame aware of the modern West, Naitō, throughout the rest of his career,
maintained a steady interest in Western scholarship and theories, especially inthe methods of the gradually emerging field of Western Sinology.
Ⅱ. Encounters with Qing Scholars and Scholarship on Trips toMainland China
Mitamura Taisuke, Naitō’s student and biographer, wrote, “From the Meiji
period on, it has been a practice of this country’s scholars and thinkers tolook to Western Europe for theoretical sustenance, but Naitō was unique inturning to Japan and China for intellectual sustenance and made himself agreat scholar.”6 A major Japanese scholar that Naitō turned to was the Osaka
merchant-scholar Tominaga Nakamoto （1715–1746）, who developed themethod of “augmenting and superseding” for classical study in such works of
4 Mitamura Taisuke, Naitō Konan（Tokyo: Chūō kōron sha, 1972）, pp. 87–89.
5 Ibid., p. 101.
6 Ibid., p. 127.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History37

his as Shutsujō kōgo（Emerging from Meditation）and Okina no fumi（Writingsof an Old Man）. Since I have already discussed Naitō’s research on Tominaga
elsewhere,7 I will omit further discussion here. The issue before us is what
Qing scholars and scholarship Naitō encountered on his trips to the AsianContinent.
As mentioned above, after graduating from Akita Normal School, Naitōsoon became the deputy head at Tsuzureko Elementary School, but in August
1887, a short two years later, he quit this position. For the next twenty years,
he worked as a prolific journalist, becoming well known for his Kinsei
bungaku shi ron（Essays on the History of Modern Literature, first appearing
as a series in the Osaka Asahi shinbun [Osaka Asahi News] under the title
Kansai bun’un ron [Essays on the Kansai Literary Movement]）. He worked
as an editor or columnist at a succession of newspapers, including theBuddhist papers Meikyō shinshi and Daitō shinpō, two papers of the Seikyōshagroup Nihonjin（the Japanese）and Ajia（Asia）, the Osaka Asahi shinbun, theTaiwan nippō（Taiwan Daily）, and Yorozuchōhō（Yorozuchō News）, finally
returning to the Osaka Asahi shinbun. From 1907, for nearly twenty years, heserved as lecturer and later professor of East Asian history at Kyoto Imperial
University, retiring in 1926. During this time he produced much research andpublished two influential books on modern China’s politics and culture: Shinaron（A Treatise on China）and Shin Shina ron（A New Treatise on China）.
Over the forty years of his career as a journalist and as a professor at Kyoto
Imperial University, he traveled abroad twice to Taiwan and once to Korea,
both Japan’s colonies, a total of nine times to Mainland China, and once toEurope. In October 1933, toward the end of his life, he traveled to Manchuria
for the founding of the Japanese-Manchurian Cultural Association.
Here I would like first to look at the circumstances of Naitō’s first two
trips to Mainland China, which played a key role in the formation of his
stance toward historiography.

The first trip
From September to November of 1899, Naitō traveled around North China
and the Yangzi River region, visiting Yan Fu, Wen Tingshi, Zhang Yuanji, andLuo Zhenyu and conversing with them by exchanging notes. For example, “In
my conversation with Luo Shuyun [Luo Zhenyu], he pulled out various

7 Tao De-min, “Neiteng Hunan de Zhongji yanjiu”（Naitō Konan’s Research on
Tominaga Nakamoto）, in Tao De-min, Nihon kangaku shisōshi ronkō: Sorai,
Nakamoto oyobi kindai （Essays on the History of Japanese SinologicalThought: Ogyū Sorai, Tominaga Nakamoto, and the Modern Age）（Suita,
Japan: Kansai Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1999）.

38

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

rubbings, saying a little bit about this one and a little bit about that one.
Though we communicated well, the conversation included many minutiae andhence was difficult to record. Luo gave me volumes 1 and 2 of Miancheng
Jingshe zawen （Miscellaneous Writings of the Miancheng Study）, Dubei
xiaojian（Notes on Reading Stelae）, Cunzhuozhai zha shu（Philological Studies
on the Classics of the Cunzhuo Study）, and Yanxue oude（Things Learned
through Observation）, all of which he authored. I returned the favor by giving
him a copy of my Kinsei bungaku shi ron.”8 They also exchanged valuablerubbings and copies of calligraphy on bronzes and stelae, and gave theiropinions on the same. They thus formed a close friendship based on acommon interest.
Naitō, grasping the trends of Qing scholarship from this first trip to China,
reacted strongly to the state of Sinology in Japan. This can be seen in two of
his essays, written in March the following year.
In the first essay, “Shina chōsa no ichi hōmen: Seiji gakujutsu no chōsa”（An Aspect of China Studies: Investigation into Politics and Scholarship）,
Naitō, reflecting on the fact that Japanese scholars were not familiar with the
Qianlong code and the fact that they had to depend on Western sources tograsp the state of Chinese finances, advocated that the focus of politicalstudies of China should be on China’s financial institutions. And to reform
Japanese Sinology, which since the Edo period was limited to studies of theclassics and the masters（two of the four branches of traditional learning）, heemphasized the importance of a focus on history in surveys of Chinese scholarship, and encouraged the collection of materials, such as anecdotes and8 Naitō Konan, “Uiki kōsō ki”（Traces of China’s Past）, Enzan sosui（TheMountains of Yan and the Rivers of Chu）, in Naitō Konan zenshū, vol. 2, p.
105.
In “Shinajin no tokugaku”（The Chinese Devotion to Study）, Naito left thefollowing impression of this trip: “When it comes to the Chinese devotion to
study, Japanese have trouble matching up in some respects. . . . Zhang Jusheng[Zhang Yuanji], at home, had the massive Encyclopedia Britannica arrayed on
the table and various expensive scientific charts displayed on his four
walls. . . . Although he is not a specialist, I can feel his love of learning.
Leaving aside the great Guyi congshu [Unofficial Collection of Writings of the
Past], planned by Yang Shoujing and published by Minister Li Chunzhai [LiShuchang], there is also the Japanese bibliographic work Jingji fanggu zhi [ASurvey of Rare Books of the Past], published during the time of Minister Xu
Chengzu in the series Pangxizhai congshu, edited Pan Zuyin, who was theauthor of Riben jinshi nianbiao [A Japanese Chronology of Bronzes andStelae]）. It is thus most regrettable that a work that scholars of the late Edo
period devoted their entire careers to is known only by title by a few people
in Japan while it was already published in China”（Naitō Konan zenshū, vol.
2, p. 125）.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

39

records of events from the Qing dynasty on; bronze and stele materials; Han,
Tang, Jin, and Yuan inscriptions on stelae from outside the Great Wall; andinscriptions on ancient bronzes. In this essay Naitō’s starting point was his
understanding of movements in early-modern, especially late Qing, Chinese
scholarship:
In China, philosophy and ethics had been thoroughly researched by theSong and Ming dynasties, and textual criticism reached its most detailed
level during the Qianlong period. Hence, scholars turned to other fields
to exercise their cleverness. For example, they sought the spirit of theclassics in divination literature and Buddhist literature, and they engaged
in textual criticism of historical works. And in the areas of bronze andstele inscriptions （jinshi, not to be confused with mineralogy） andlinguistic studies （xiaoxue, not to be confused with the elementarystudies of Zhu Xi and Lü Zuqian’s Jinsilu [Reflections on Things at
Hand]）, scholars produced unprecedentedly thorough studies.9
In the second essay, “Dokusho ni kansuru hōjin no heishū, fu Kangaku
no monkei” （The Bad Reading Habits of Japanese, and a Method for
Traditional Chinese Studies）, Naitō pointed out the following:
Scholarship of the East and West are converging in Japan. No othercountry is better situated to gather such learning, find a happy medium,merge the traditions, develop new trends, and change the course ofworld civilization. . . . For the most part, our senior Sinologists weretrained in the zeitgeist of the end of the Tokugawa era, and except for
one or two insightful scholars, such scholars still do not know even thegeneral trends of modern Chinese scholarship. . . . Chinese traditionalism
notwithstanding, the development of scholarship is in spirit the same in
China as in the West. Hence, if someone familiar with the outlines of thedevelopment of scholarship in the West were to take up Chinese studies
and follow a sound approach, he would no doubt benefit considerably bycomparing differences and similarities in scholarship between China andthe West, making good use of his memory, and coming up with new
ideas.10
As can be seen from this passage, when observing the development of
9 Naitō Konan, “Uiki ronsan”（Essays on China）, Enzan sosui, in Naitō Konan
zenshū, vol. 2, p. 164.
10 Ibid., pp. 168–169.

40

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

early-modern Chinese scholarship, Naitō always compared it with developments in the West. In addition, he sought to make this approach a new paradigm for Sinology in Japan. Accordingly, it was no accident that when Naitōgave the above-mentioned lecture to Emperor Hirohito, he noted the similarity of Du You’s methodology for studying customs to that of modern
French scholars of East Asia carrying out ethnological research on China.

The second trip
In the autumn of 1902 Naitō was dispatched by the Osaka Asahi shinbun
to report on Manchuria. After completing this assignment, he met Shen
Zengzhi, Liu Tieyun, and Cao Tingjie in Beijing and inspected the copy of the
Siku quanshu（Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature）kept in
the Wenlan Pavilion in Hangzhou. Among these scholars, Shen Zengzhi was
the one who, through conversation, broadened Naitō’s scholarly vision.
Shen Zengzhi（1850–1922）was from Jiaxing in Zhejiang Provence, his
courtesy name was Zipei, and he became a presented scholar in 1880. He helda succession of local and central government posts, participated in importantlate-Qing domestic and diplomatic policy decisions, and was considered an
exemplary scholar-official of the period before and after the Russo-Japanese
War. In Qishishou xu, a congratulatory description of Shen’s accomplishments
in his seventieth year, Wang Guowei wrote as follows: “Mr. Shen is thoroughly familiar with the views of scholars of the early Qing, Qianlong, andJiaqing periods, all of which he read in his youth. In his prime, he mastered
the histories of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties, as well as the geography ofthe peripheral areas of the empire. And he also studied works by authors of
the Daoguang and Xianfeng periods. . . . Scholars, by fleshing out a passing
remark of his, could create a thesis and make a name for themselves.” A truly
great scholar, Shen brought together all the learning of the Qing dynasty into
one person. His major works were Han lü jibu（Han Dynasty Law, Collected
and Supplemented）, Jinshu xingfazhi bu （Supplement on the “Chapter on
Criminal Law” in the History of the Jin Dynasty）, Yuanchao mishi jianzheng（Commentary on the Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty）, Menggu yuanliu
jianzheng（Commentary on the Origins of the Mongols）, and Hairilou shiwenji（Poems and Prose of Hairi Tower）. Early in the Republican period, when
he was the chief editor of Zhejiang tongzhi（General Gazetteer of Zhejiang）,
he employed his juniors Wang Guowei and Zhang Ertian as subeditors. Not
only in Germany and Russia but also in Japan, he created a name for himself
in scholarly circles. In 1889 he taught Naka Michiyo how to pronounce theMongolian script, and in 1920 he explained the Book of Documents toThe Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

41

Nishimoto Shōzō.11 In his lecture Shina shigaku shi（The History of Chinese
Historiography） of the early 1920s, Naitō himself recalled, “The Secret
History of the Mongols, in Mongolian, first came to Japan when I was givena copy by Wen Tingshi, and Dr. Naka was the first to study it. . . . Wen
Tingshi, before he passed away, said that Shen Zengzhi was the best Chinese
historian of the age.” He also recalled, “Shen Zengzhi wrote a manuscript
titled ‘Menggu yuanliu shi zheng’ （Commentary on the Origins of theMongols）. I first asked him to send me a copy in 1899, but he has not sent it,
and the work is still unpublished.”12 Hence, it appears that Shen and Naitōbegan a correspondence as early as 1899.
According to Naitō’s journal Uiki kōsō kōki（Traces of China’s Past, Pt.
2）, in 1902 the 53-year-old Shen and the 37-year-old Naitō had the followinginteraction in Beijing:
November 15. At 11 a.m. I again visited Shen Zipei. [When Naitō first
visited Shen, Naitō could not see him, since he was not feeling well.]I spoke with him until the evening. Xia Suiqing [Xia Zengyou] also
happened to drop in. On my way back, I visited Cao Tingjie.
November 17. I sent a servant over to Mr. Shen Zengzhi’s place to give
him two pens, a Jakutō-hitsu brush and a Engi-hitsu brush.
November 23. . . . While I was out, Shen Zipei visited and gave me arubbing from Xixia Gantongta Bei （Western Xia Gantong Pagoda
Stele）.13
In late autumn in Beijing, evenings come early. Hence, a rough calculation
indicates that Shen and Naitō discussed a broad range of history from before
noon to evening, over seven hours. Kanda Kiichirō, Naitō’s student and ascholar known for his studies of the Dunhuan materials, has written that thetwo scholars, at their meeting on November 15, “really hit it off. [Shen] wasfamiliar with not just the geography of the Northwest but all fields ofChinese study. Naitō discerned that he was a great and perceptive scholar.
From that moment Naitō became enamored of Shen Zengzhi and otherthinkers of his ilk.” The man who dropped in on the conversation, Xia
Zengyou （1863–1924）, was a talented literatus who had just become apresented scholar in the spring of that year. Kanda and Kaizuka Shigeki
11 Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Yuan Jindai Shi Ziliao Bianji Bu（Chinese Academyof Social Sciences, Editorial Department for Modern Historical Documents）,
ed., Minguo renwu beichuan ji（Stele Inscriptions of Noted Persons of the
Republican Era）
（Chengdu: Sichuan Renmin Chubanshe, 1997）, pp. 367, 376.
12 Naitō Konan, Shina shigaku shi, in Naitō Konan zenshū, vol. 11, pp. 412, 414.
13 Naitō Konan, “Uiki kōsō kōki,” in Naitō Konan zenshū, vol. 6, pp. 359–360.

42

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

recalled the following about him: “Professor Naitō regarded Xia Zengyou
very highly.” “For premodern history, [Naitō] recommended that one first read
Xia Zengyou.”14
Ⅲ. Encounter with Zhang Xuecheng’s Wenshi tongyi

Naitō’s second trip to the Mainland had an important result. This was his
chance encounter with Zhang Xuecheng’s Wenshi tongyi （The General
Meaning of Literature and History）and its basic methodology for research in
the humanities. In “Shō Gakusei no shigaku”（The Historiography of Zhang
Xuecheng）, an essay written twenty years later, Naitō tells of his firstencounter with Zhang’s writings and subsequent developments:
I first read his essays Wen shi tong yi and Jiaochou tong yi [The General
Meaning of Textual Studies] in 1902. At that time, because I thought it
was very interesting, I bought two copies in Hangzhou, one of which I
gave to Dr. Kano [Naoki], who at the time was a foreign student in
China. Later I strongly commended Zhang’s scholarship at universities
and in other forums, and as a result, his writings became relatively
widely read in Japan. More than ten years ago I unexpectedly got hiscomplete works prior to publication. After reading through his works I
compiled and published a chronology of his career. On the basis of thischronology, a Chinese scholar by the name of Hu Shi revised andexpanded my chronology and published his results. As a result, young
scholars in China began to notice Zhang. Though previously Chinese
scholars trained in traditional scholarship, people such as Zhang Ertianand Sun Deqian, favored his style of scholarship and studied him extensively, recently, in addition to Hu Shi, scholars such as Yao Mingda, whotrained at Qinghua Academy, and Liu Xianxin, a Sichuan scholar, arepursuing studies of Zhang with greater vigor and are publishing theirresults. While today there is no need to commend Zhang’s scholarship,
formerly the outstanding features of his scholarship were not generally
appreciated, or if they were appreciated, they were seldom correctly
understood. Hence, I took it upon myself to commend his scholarship.15

14 Kanda Kiichirō and Kaizuka Shigeki, “Naitō Konan hakase”（Dr. Naitō Konan）,
in Sengaku o kataru (1)（Discussion of Pioneers, Pt. 1）, vol. 1 of Tōhōgaku
kaisō（Recollections on East Asian Studies）, edited by Tōhō Gakkai（Instituteof Eastern Culture）（Tokyo: Tōsui Shobō, 2000）, pp. 96, 94 respectively.
15 Naitō Konan, “Shō Gakusei no shigaku” （The Historiography of Zhang
Xuecheng）, in Naitō Konan zenshū, vol. 11, an appendix to Shina shigaku shi,p. 472.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

A precious copy of Wenshi tongyi that Naitō possessed and studied.
From the Naitō Collection, Kansai University Library（ KUL ）.

A Chronicle of Mr. Zhang Shizhai’s Life by Hu
Shih, presented to Naitō in 1922 with Hu’s
acknowledgements. From the Naitō Collection,
KUL.

43

Zhang Xuecheng’s
handwriting, from Naitō
Konan zenshū. vol. 7.

Jin Xingxiang’s comment on Naitō’s obtaining of
the precious copy of Wenshi tongyi, written in 1922.
From the Naitō Collection, KUL.

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 201144

湖南先生有道 一昨由弘文堂寄到

承賜史學

華甲壽言各書，並書示 嘉章，祗領感
論叢 ‧謝。區々 不腆之文 荷先生獎納，汗顔無地。惟益祝

先生神明湛固，永爲吾黨泰斗耳。 田年二十餘與東‧孫隘堪同學，得章實齋六經皆史之説，好之。彼時

國内學者頗無有人注意及之者，而豈知

先生於三十年前在海外已提唱此學，且於竹汀

原諸家，無不博采兼収。覃及域外，較諸實齋

更精更大。即以文藝論淵雅遒逸，亦遠在北宋之上。此非 田一人之私言，實天下之公言也。 田生平無他嗜

好，惟以學問爲生涯，以朋好爲性命。此後先生耄學日勤，續有纂述，無吝鄙賜，尤所盼也。寫

呈近作小詞一章，變雅之音，固與鼓吹承平六籍者不同。
張爾田先生讀之，倘亦哀其志乎。専此肅復。敬頌
起居康泰。不一

Zhang Ertian’s Letter to Naitō Konan, dated July 8, 1930. From the Naitō Collection,
KUL. Transcribed by Tao De-min. For details, see Tao’s article in The Kansai University
Bulletin of Chinese Studies, No. 28, 2007.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

45

Zhang Xuecheng（1728–1801）, whose courtesy name was Shizhai, wasfrom Shaoxing in Zhejiang Provence. He became a presented scholar at theage of 41, but he never assumed office, devoting himself instead to education
and writing. Though living through the Qianlong period（1736–1795）, theheight of the textual-criticism movement, he devoted himself to constructing
his own distinct theory of the humanities, writing Wen shi tong yi and
Jiaochou tong yi. Zhang’s influence was sparse, both during his lifetime andafter, but toward the end of the Qing dynasty, supporters did eventuallyappear, for example, Tan Xian （1830–1901）. But Tan’s support was not
expressed publically. Rather, it was limited to what he wrote in his diary,
Futang riji（Futang’s Diary）, Futang being his sobriquet.
Well, how did Naitō come to know about the theories of Zhang Xuecheng?
On June 23, 1972, the conference “Sengaku o kataru: Naitō Konan sensei”（A Discussion of Pioneers: Prof. Naitō Konan）was held at the Prince Hotelin Kyoto under the auspices of the Tōhō Gakkai （Institute of Eastern
Culture）. Participating were the above mentioned Mitamura Taisuke, Kanda
Kiichirō, and Kaizuka Shigeki, as well as Yoshikawa Kōjirō, Miyazaki
Ichisada, and Naitō Kenkichi. The issue before us（how Naitō came to know
about the theories of Zhang Xuecheng）was also discussed at that time. Kanda
proposed the Tan Xian route as one hypothesis, but this view cannot becorrect, because Naitō got a hold of Futang riji toward the end of the Meiji
period or the beginning of the Taishō period, that is, after 1902.
Later Prof. Joshua Fogel, a well-known scholar in the field of Naitō studies,inferred that Naitō came to know about Zhang Xuecheng perhaps throughShen’s students Zhang Ertian（1874–1945）and Sun Deqian（1873–1935）, or
perhaps through Shen Zengzhi, whom he had already met in 1902.16 Fogel’sbasis for this assertion may be the conference proceedings and a passage from
Naitō’s “Shō Gakusei no shigaku.”
However, if we look at a letter from Zhang Ertian to Naitō dated July 8,
1930, which I recently found in the Naitō collection of Kansai University
library, it seems unlikely that Zhang Ertian or Sun Deqian introduced Zhang
Xuecheng to Naitō. For in this letter appears the following self-introduction
and praise of Naitō:
Having studied together for over twenty years, Sun Aikan [Sun Deqian]and I learned Zhang Shizhai’s thesis that the six classics [the Book of
Changes, Book of History, Book of Songs, Book of Rites, Book of Music,
16 Joshua Fogel, “On the ‘Rediscovery’ of the Chinese Past: Cui Shu and RelatedCases,” in his Cultural Dimension of Sino-Japanese Relations（Armonk, N.Y.:
M. E. Sharpe, 1995）, p. 16.

46

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

and Spring and Autumn Annals] are all historical works, and we liked it.
At the time, Chinese scholars took hardly any note of his thesis. How
could one anticipate that you, though residing abroad, would alreadyadvocate this thesis thirty years ago? Moreover, you have absorbed all
there is to Zhuting [Qian Daxin] and Dongyuan [Dai Zhen], and havespread the thesis to Japan in more detail and to a greater extent than
Shizhai [Zhang Xuecheng]. Literarily, you argued elegantly and vigorously, much more than even the Northern Song writers. This is not justmy personal opinion but the received opinion of all of China.
Since both Zhang Ertian or Sun Deqian were born in the early 1870s, thatwould mean that they learned Zhang’s thesis in the late 1890s. That is, these
two scholars learned and accepted the thesis that the six classics are all
historical works before Naitō bought Zhang Xuecheng’s works in 1902.
However, the two scholars probably admired Zhang Xuecheng but werecautious about publically expressing sympathy and support for the thesis.
Naitō saw the reason clearly. Namely, the thesis of the six classics being
historical works was “a considerable shock to the ordinary Chinese scholar.”“At the time, it was easy to invite misunderstanding and opposition fromclassicists and others. Since classicists regarded the classics as at a level
above all other works, viewing the classics as histories would be to sully
them, for it would be placing the classics, which convey the assertions of thesages, on the same level as histories, which were written by scholars and literati who came later. Such would be the misunderstanding of the classicists.”17This was the social and cultural zeitgeist of China during the Qing dynasty.
Hence, it is unlikely that Naitō got hints about Zhang Xuecheng from Zhang
Ertian and Sun Deqian, whom he never met. If I may add a postscript, in theletter where Zhang Ertian wrote that Naitō had already advocated the thesis
thirty years ago, he was only speaking roughly. The letter was dated 1930.
Since thirty years ago would be the end of the nineteenth century, Naitō, who
first got Zhang Xuecheng’s works in 1902, could not have advocated thethesis in the late 1890s.
Well, what about Prof. Fogel’s hypothesis of a Shen Zengzhi route oftransmission? My own view is that this route is possible. First, Naitō andShen definitely met in Beijing in 1902, and they had sufficient time toexchange views on history. Moreover, both Shen Zengzhi and Xia Zengyou
were from the eastern portion of Zhejiang Province, and since Naitō planned
to go to Hangzhou soon and Zhang Xuecheng was a revered intellectual
17 Naitō Konan, “Shō Gakusei no shigaku,” Naitō Konan zenshū, vol.11, pp.
476–477.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History

47

where they were from, it is quite possible that they would mention him toNaitō. If this was the case, then Naitō’s purchase of Wenshi tongyi and
Jiaochou tong yi in Hangzhou was perhaps motivated by Shen and Xia’s
mention of Zhang Xuecheng.
Ⅳ. Naitō’s Evaluation of Zhang Xuecheng’s Progressive View ofHistoryWell, what did Naitō think of Zhang Xuecheng’s views? And what wasNaitō’s view of history as presented in his understanding of Zhang
Xuecheng? Below I would like to explore these issues by looking at Naitō’scomments on the progressive view of history found in Wenshi tongyi.
As I mentioned above, in considering early-modern Chinese intellectual
developments, Naitō regularly compared them with modern Western intellectual developments. Naitō’s consideration of Zhang Xuecheng was no exception. Naitō, on the one hand, appraised him as a scholar with a uniqueresearch program in the intellectual climate of textual studies of the Qianlong
and Jiaqing periods and, on the other hand, perceived his scholarship as
similar in spirit to modern Western scholarship. At the Kyoto conference
mentioned above, Kaizuka Shigeki recalled, “Prof. Naitō said to me that
Zhang Xuecheng was sort of like a sociologist, in Western terms, and that thesociological aspect of his research was quite good. That was really true. He
was quite sociological, in the vein of Herbert Spencer.” The “sociology” that
Naitō had in mind here was perhaps social Darwinism, and this is the main
point of Naitō’s appreciation of Zhang Xuecheng. A concrete example of thisappreciation can be seen in the following comment of his on the account of
the development of historiography in the chapter “Shu jiao”（Teaching on theBook of History）of Wenshi tongyi.
Works of history have gradually changed through the ages. The Book ofHistory, China’s earliest history [with chapters titled and organized by
topic], is the most ideal in terms of organization. . . . Later this formatchanged to that of the Zuo Commentary on the Spring and Autumn
Annals. The Book of History does not have a fixed format, but the Zuo
Commentary does, namely, the chronicle format. The chronicle format of
the Zuo Commentary then became the biographic format of Sima Qian’s
Records of the Grand Historian. . . . Still later, historians from Ban Gu oncontinued the biographic format divided into periods. During the Songdynasty, Sima Guang adopted the chronicle format of the Zuo
Commentary for his Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government（Zizhi
tongjian）. Then during the Southern Song period, a historian by thename of Yuan Shu reorganized Sima Guang’s work into Tongjian jishi

48

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

benmo （Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government, Topically
Arranged）. . . . Thus, in the development of historiography, even the workof this unimportant historian [i.e., Yuan Shu] naturally followed theoldest premodern history in historical format. Zhang Xuecheng’s view, tosummarize, naturally agrees with the format of the most recent histories.
Even well-known contemporary Western historical works are written in
the topically arranged format. Zhang Xuecheng, 150 years prior to thepresent, thought that historiography naturally takes on this format.18
In this quote, the description of changes in the format of histories—from
the indefinite format of the Book of History, to the chronicle format of the Zuo
Commentary, to the biographical format of the Records of the Grand
Historian, to the periodized biographical format of the History of the Former
Han （Hanshu） and later dynastic histories, to the chronicle format of theComprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government, and finally to the topicalformat of the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government, Topically
Arranged—summarizes Zhang Xuecheng’s argument, and the statement that
the Chinese topical arrangement matches the organization of well-known
modern Western works of history is Naitō’s comment. Referring to his points
on the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government, Topically Arranged in
the “Shujiao” chapter of Wenshi tongyi, Naitō then appraises Zhang
Xuecheng’s arguments as follows: In the topical arrangement, “the prose ismore concise than in the biographic format, and events are clearer than in thechronicle format.” “By sorting events topically, causal connections are linked
up.” This way of topically organizing history, “even today, is the most suitable way of presenting progress in history. It allows one to focus on theevents that occur in human society without being restricted by a person’s
biography or the calendar. What Zhang Xuecheng said here is true.”19
It is important to note that while Zhang Xuecheng and Naitō alike see
historiography as developing toward a progressive view of history, there aredifferences in their views. Thus, Zhang Xuecheng viewed the development of
the presentation of history from the Book of History to the Comprehensive
Mirror for Aid in Government, Topically Arranged as the latter work’s
returning to the format of the former. This is somewhat of a cyclical or
restorative view of history. This outlook was a limitation of the age and
18 Naitō Konan, “Shō Gakusei no shigaku,” Naitō Konan zenshū, vol.11 pp.
478–479.
19 Naitō Konan, “Sōdai ni okeru shigaku no shinten: Tsugan no eikyō”（The
Development of History in the Song Period: The Influence of theComprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government）, in Shina shigaku shi, in Naitō
Konan zenshū, vol. 11, pp. 217–218.

The Development of Naitō Konan’s Progressive View of History49

society in which Zhang Xuecheng lived. Even if this outlook was not fundamental to his thesis, he had to develop his thesis within the logical confinesof an intellectual culture that revered the Confucian classics. In contrast,
Naitō, who was nourished in the intellectual climate of Meiji Japan, clearlylooked to modern Western styles of writing history as a standard for judging
whether the early-modern Chinese style of topical presentation matched thatof the West, and whether Zhang Xuecheng’s arguments contained precursorsof later views of historiography.
Zhang Xuecheng thought that the development of society brought not onlychanges in historiography but also a style of writing history that showed theformation and appearance of the Way in history. To explore this topic, let us
look at Naitō’s summary of the relevant passage in the chapter “Yuandao”（Finding the Source of the Way）in Wenshi tongyi:
He [Zhang Xuecheng] considered the order of the appearance of the Way
to be as follows: The Way is produced by Heaven. When Heaven andEarth produce humankind, this gives rise to the Way, but it is not yet
manifest. The Way begins to appear when three people are in a room.
When three people are together in a room, it becomes possible to divide
up responsibilities or work. Or each can tend to his own business. Or
they can take turns performing tasks. Then notions like equality andorder crop up. Because equality and order can be lost, elders need to
enforce them by adjudicating various claims. This situation gives rise todistinctions of elder versus youth and noble versus base. There is anincrease in numbers, and people divide into groups. Groups are led bypeople of talent, and from among them comes a charismatic individual tounite them. In this way we get rulers and teachers.20
Considering the intellectual currents that influenced Naitō—his Confucian
education, social Darwinism, and Rousseau’s Social Contract—it should nothave been hard for him to accept Zhang Xuecheng’s arguments concerning
the Way, and indeed it was not. Holding such views of societal evolution andcultural progress, he fully supported Zhang Xuecheng’s thesis in the “Yangong”（Words Are Public）chapter of Wenshi tongyi, as can be seen in thefollowing passage:
The first writings were words written on concrete objects to clarify theWay. Hence, they were not the expressions of any particular individual.
If the creator of a thesis wrote something down to transmit his way,
20 Naitō Konan, “Shō Gakusei no shigaku,” Naitō Konan zenshū, vol. 11, p. 473.

50

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

someone could come after him and add to what he wrote. If the latter’s
writing amplified the former’s, there would be no objection. . . . To
understand the development of an argument, one needs to pay attention
to the relationship of the thesis creator and the successors. . . . This isroughly the gist of the argument in the “Yan gong” chapter. Zhang
Xuecheng laid out the particulars of the six classics and other works andpresented a critique of premodern writing. This way of critiquing
premodern works was new and extremely important in the study of theclassics and history.21
The relationship of the “thesis creator” and “successors”（supplementers）
referred to in this passage is that of founder and augmenter （Tominaga
Nakamoto’s “augmenting and superseding”）, working on a common intellectual enterprise to advance culture. Viewed thus, one can see Naitō’scommending Zhang Xuecheng as parallel with his commending Tominaga
Nakamoto. That is, Naitō, as a historian, was not so limited in his vision thathe could not see the forest for the trees. Rather, this philosophically mindedhistorian could grasp the progress and causal connections in history as if froma bird’s-eye view. He approved of Sima Qian’s ideal of the historian who
could “penetrate the connections between Heaven and humankind, work out
the sequence of events past and present, and found a school of thought.” This
is no doubt the main reason for his praise of Zhang Xuecheng and Tominaga
Nakamoto for their originality in creating a logical methodology for studying
the classics. We must keep in mind that Naitō was not just a cultural historian
but also an institutional historian. This can be seen from his interest in thefinances of Taiwan, Manchuria, and Mainland China, as well as from thehandwritten manuscript “Shina zaisei shi hensan kōryō” （Guidelines for
Compiling a History of Chinese Finances）, in the Naitō Collection of the
Kansai University Library.22 All of these facts, taken together, indicate that itwas no accident that Naitō selected Du You’s Tongdian as the text for thelecture that Naitō gave to Emperor Hirohito.
21 Naitō Konan, “Shō Gakusei no shigaku,” Naitō Konan zenshū, vol.11, p. 476.
22 See Tao’s essays, “Naitō Konan ni okeru Shina ron no naritachi: Minkoku shoki
no Yū Kirei naikaku to no kanren ni tsuite”（The Formation of Naitō Konan’s
A Treatise on China: The Connection with the Xiong Xiling Cabinet in the
Early Republican Period）（Tōhōgaku, no. 108 [July 2004]）, and “Naitō Konanno Hōten chōsa ni okeru gakujutsu to seiji: Naitō Bunko ni nokoru 1905 nen
hitsudan kiroku ni tsuite”（The Scholarship and Politics of Naitō Konan’s
Mukden Survey: The Record of the 1905 Written Conversation in the Naitō
Collection）（Ajia bunka kōryū kenkyū [Kansai University], no. 1 [March2006]）.