New Additions to the Sorai Library

John Tucker's complete translation of Bendō and Benmei is a tour de force—a masterwork, to borrow the word that he uses himself in reference to these two writings by Ogyū Sorai (1666-1728). It is both voluminous and a solid piece of work. The two translations as such, covering two hundred pages (pp. 137-337), are accompanied with copious notes (pp. 339-447) and a lengthy introduction (pp. 3-134). As Tucker specifies in the preface, he has translated the Chinese text of Bendō and Benmei that was published in 1740, not the kakikudashi version in volume 36 of Nihon shisō taikei, or the translations into modern Japanese made by Maeno Naoaki and Kanaya Osamu .¹ This is as it should be: Sorai wrote in Chinese, not in Japanese. Translations, including Tucker's own into English, are useful, as they give an informed scholar's considered interpretation of a text, but they are no substitute for the real thing.

I am glad to say that Tucker's translation is on the whole reliable. There are, of course, a number of things—choice of words, stresses, division of sentences and paragraphs—one could quarrel about, but errors are few. To amplify this statement a little, let us take a look at how Tucker has dealt with some of the issues implicit in chapter 7 of Benmei, yi (Jp. gi), which title Tucker has translated as "Ritual Principles" (pp. 210-21). This translation immediately raises two questions: First, is it correct to translate yi as "ritual principles," and, second, is it wise to do so, defying the standard translation of this term as "righteousness"? I think that everyone will in principle agree that it would be preferable not to use several different English words to translate the same Chinese term. Doing so complicates intratextual comparisons and, within a single text, it obscures the texture of the argument. On the other hand, the differences between the two languages being what they are, sometimes it cannot be helped.

As Tucker used "righteousness" in his 1998 translation of Itō Jinsai's Go-Mō jigi,² we may conclude that the reason for his shift to the new translation "ritual principles" must lie in the argument Sorai makes in Benmei . The first few sentences of the chapter on yi show this supposition to be correct:

"Ritual principles" is also a name referring to the way that the early kings founded. Now the early kings founded the rites to make their teachings as universal as possible.³ Still, while rites have a definite form, circumstances below heaven are infinite. Therefore, the early kings also founded ritual principles in relation to them. (p. 210)

The position Sorai takes here is that "rites" (li, Jp. rei) and yi are complementary; in those cases in which the rites are inapplicable because they are too formalized, yi steps in. Because Sorai wants to clarify the ontological status of yi, he states that yi is a part of the Way to govern the realm, thereby already implying (he works this out later in more detail) that yi is not a virtue (de, Jp. toku) and, contrary to Neo-Confucian orthodoxy, not an innate capability of the human heart. Sorai also wants to quash the suggestion that one can decide by oneself how to behave when confronted with circumstances for which the formalized rites do not provide guidance. Hence, he says that the rites are part of the Way, which was instituted by the ancient kings. As the ancient kings established the rites, they also established yi, and they are the only ones who can do so. In view of Sorai's argument, Tucker needs to convey the idea that yi is something formulated by "someone." If he had translated yi as "righteousness," this implication would have been absent. "Righteousness" is too vast and amorphous a concept; one is inclined to assume that "it just is there," and it does not...