Matsumoto’s advocation of the Southern Theory and contradictions in Matsumoto’s ideas

Due to his interest in the South Seas under the diffusionist influence, Matsumoto became

an advocater of the Southern Theory which argued the importance of the South Seas for Japan.

At that time, the Southern Theory represented a minor stream in contradiction with the Northern

theory that emphasized the Japanese contacts with the Asian continent, especially with China and

Korea. However, Matsumoto’s teacher Yanagita Kunio claimed the importance of the Southern

culture. This situation enabled Matsumoto to follow Yanagita’s stance in Japan. Thus, this

section will examine Matsumoto’s advocation of the Southern Theory in Japan.

Matsumoto took the opposite stance against the Northern influence following his teacher

Yanagita Kunio. Yanagita who made the effort to establish the origins of the Japanese tradition in

Japanese territory disliked any reference to foreign influence on the Japanese culture as Ito Seiji

pointed out. ⁴⁴⁸ Matsumoto emphasized Yanagita’s anti-foreign approach: “Yanagita avoided the

discussion mentioning examples from abroad, avoided calling the tales ofKojiki andNihonshoki

myths and disliked calling the Japanese Mikodō [巫女道] by the name Shamanism from the

continent.”⁴⁴⁹ Thus, Yanagita was critical towards the Northern Theory that advocated the

influence of the Northern Asian continent on the Japanese culture.

Matsumoto became fully aware of Yanagita’s opposition to the Northern Theory

especially in 1930. In this year, Matsumoto presented a paper “The Tale of Potato Digger

Millionaire” in which he compared a Japanese tale with a Korean tale. On the basis of the

similarity between the Japanese and the Korean tales, Matsumoto claimed that “the old legend of

Hachimangū genealogy has quite a deep and logical connection with Korea” and that “we may

consider that these myths and legends were imported to Japan together with the crafts that

arrived from the continent.”⁴⁵⁰ This study by Matsumoto was diffusionist because he claimed

the Korean origins of the Japanese tale in his conclusion.

448 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Yanagita Kunio ‘Kainan shōki’ to ‘Kaijō no michi’ – minzoku to minzoku ni tsuite” Nihon minzoku bunka no kigen I: shinwa-densetsu, Kōdansha, 1978, pp. 336-338. Itō, Seiji,

“Matsumoto Nobuhito to imohiru chōsha no hanashi,” Nihon bunka no kigen, dai 3 kan, Geppō dai 3 gō, 1978, pp. 5-8. Itō, Seiji, “Sumiyaki chōsha no hanashi – Yanagita Kunio to Matsumoto Nobuhiro,” Shigaku, dai 75 kan, dai 2/3 gō, 2007, pp. 211-231. Yanagita, Kunio, “Kigenron kentō,” Minkan denshōron, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1934, pp. 69-73.

449 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kaisetsu,”Nihon bunka no kigen, dai 3 kan, “Minzokugaku 1,” Heibonsha, 1971, p. 12.

450 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Imohori chōsha” (1930), Nihon minzoku bunka no kigen I: shinwa-densetsu, Kōdansha, 1978, p. 310.

In this paper, Matsumoto proposed a hypothesis different from Yanagita’s theory who

argued that the origin of the tale of Potato Digger Millionaire is in Usa Hachimangū of

Kyushu.⁴⁵¹ Yanagita responded in anger to Matsumoto’s argument. Yanagita’s reaction had a

strong effect on Matsumoto. Matsumoto described this episode in his paper “Yanagita Kunio’s

‘Notes from South Sea’ and ‘The Sea Route’ – about the Race and the Folklore” ⁴⁵² and also Ito

Seiji discussed this problem in his writings “Matsumoto Nobuhiro and the Tale of Potato Digger

Millionaire”⁴⁵³ and “The Tale of Charcoal Burner Millionaire – Yanagita Kunio and

Matsumoto Nobuhiro.”⁴⁵⁴ In addition, Ito mentioned that Matsumoto hesitantly told his students

that he was scolded by Yanagita.⁴⁵⁵ Since Yanagita was Matsumoto’s life-long teacher,

Matsumoto had to accept Yanagita’s opposition. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining a good

relationship with Yanagita, Matsumoto took a critical stance towards the Northern Theory and

became prudent when claiming Japanese origins from abroad.

Matsumoto criticized the Northern Theory in his paper “Theories of Ancient Culture”:

“We should reconsider the attitude of researchers whose existing researches pay attention only to

the relationship with the Northern continent, and there is only one thing to say: we should

451 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Imohori chōsha” (1930), Nihon minzoku bunka no kigen I: shinwa-densetsu, Kōdansha, 1978, pp. 309-310.

452 Matsumoto Nobuhiro explained this Yanagita’s opposition as the opposition of ethnology and folklore studies. Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Yanagita Kunio ‘Kainan shōki’ to ‘Kaijō no michi’ – minzoku to minzoku ni tsuite”Nihon minzoku bunka no kigen I: shinwa-densetsu, Kōdansha, 1978, pp. 336-338.

453 Itō, Seiji, “Matsumoto Nobuhito to imohori chōsha no hanashi,” Nihon bunka no kigen, dai 3 kan, Geppō dai 3 gō, Kōdansha, 1978, pp. 5-8.

454 Itō, Seiji, “Sumiyaki chōsha no hanashi – Yanagita Kunio to Matsumoto Nobuhiro,” Shigaku, dai 75 kan, dai 2/3 gō, 2007, pp. 211-231.

455 Itō, Seiji, “Matsumoto Nobuhito to imohiru chōsha no hanashi,” Nihon bunka no kigen, dai 3 kan, Geppō dai 3 gō, 1978, p. 6.

consider [the Japanese] contacts with the South Seas.”⁴⁵⁶ Thus, he claimed importance of the

contacts of the Japanese culture and the Southern culture while admitting the influence of the

Northern culture.

Since the Northern theory argued mainly the Chinese influence on the Japanese

civilization, Matsumoto aimed at denouncing the importance of the Chinese influence by

claiming the importance of the South Seas. In his book The Research of the Japanese Myths,

Matsumoto wrote: “I do not think that gods expressing a relatively high philosophical thinking,

such as two gods Takamimusubi and Kamimusubi, were formed in Japan for the first time as a

result of the Chinese influence. The god like Io in the New Zealand’s myth exists as immortal

and myriad of things and he is a supreme god. If such a god can exist, then it is not necessary to

estimate that the Japanese spiritual ability at the time of creating the myth was so low; therefore,

I cannot think that the ability to believe in higher gods like Musubinokami did not develop until

the reception of the Chinese thinking.”⁴⁵⁷ Thus, the comparison of the Japanese and Southern

Pacific myths served Matsumoto as a counter-argument against the Northern Theory.

Yanagita’s attitude to the folklore studies had significant influence on Matsumoto’s

discussion on the Southern influence. Matsumoto did not specify Southern influence on the

Japanese culture although he argued for it twice in his bookThe Research of the Japanese Myths

456 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, p. 513. Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 94.

457 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, p. 177. “Kodai bunkaron” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, pp. 181-182.

published in Japan.⁴⁵⁸ He described the Southern influence only in his doctoral thesisAn Essay

on the Japanese Mythology published in France: “The myth of god Hikohohodemi presents a

local color that manifests influence of the southern civilization. … Moreover it guards the

maritime character. We cannot suppose that this myth was imagined by inhabitants of the

Yamato Province, the site of the imperial power, a country surrounded by mountains. It is

probable that the origins of this account come from a tradition transmitted by certain maritime

tribes of Kyushu, probably the Hayatos, and that it was later assimilated by official myths and

incorporated into the mythic history of the imperial family.”⁴⁵⁹ From this quotation, it is evident

that Matsumoto characterized the Southern influence as an influence of a maritime culture in his

book published in France. In this way, Matsumoto’s diffusionist argument was generally limited

on the proclamation of the Southern influence on the Japanese culture. Matsumoto did not

examine from where and how the Southern culture was transmitted to Japan or what influence it

specifically exerted on the Japanese culture.

Moreover, while pointing out the maritime influence from South on Japan, Matsumoto

also argued that the myths are a result of the environment of the country: “…the myths of a

nation are a specific product of its country and have close relations with the seasonal festival of

the region.” ⁴⁶⁰ He emphasized that the Japanese cults were compatible with the Japanese

458 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, pp. 165, 273.

459 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Essai sur la mythologie Japonaise, P. Geuthner, Paris, 1928, p. 212.

460 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, p. 177. “Kodai bunkaron” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 125.

land.⁴⁶¹ He thought that the belief of the primitive people was formed by various cults of the

natural gods or of the personified nature.⁴⁶²

These arguments reflect Yanagita’s approach from evolutionist ethnology by which he

interpreted Japanese folklore from the common people’s relation to their natural environment. In

addition, the argument of connection with seasonal festivals came from the sociologist

ethnologists. Matsumoto also specifies in his paper “Theories of Ancient Culture” that his

teacher and sociologist ethnologist Marcel Granet had preferred comparisons with various ethnic

groups living in a region with a similar climate.⁴⁶³ Thus, Matsumoto also had a hypothesis based

on evolutionist and sociologist ethnology that the oceanic character was the original Japanese

trait coming from the Japanese natural environment.

This contradiction in interpreting the oceanic character of the Japanese culture was

caused by the inconsistencies in Yanagita’s ideas and by contradicting ideas of Matsumoto’s

French teachers Mauss, Granet and Przyluski. Yanagita stood by his rule to interpret the Japanese

folklore as a national culture – in relation with the Japanese environment in accord with

evolutionism. Although he believed in the existence of Japan’s transoceanic connection with

Southeast Asia, he claimed the origins of the Japanese culture in the Southern parts of the

Japanese Empire. Thus, he argued the Southern genealogy in the Japanese culture, but rejected

461 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, p. 177. “Kodai bunkaron” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 125.

462 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, p. 148.

463 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 125.

the claim of its foreign origins. In addition, although Mauss suggested Matsumoto to compare

the Japanese myths with Southern Pacific myths, he did not support the theory of Southern

influence. On the contrary, Przyluski was known for promoting Austro-Asiatic (that is Southern)

influence. Thus, Mauss and Granet believed in the similarity of the Japanese and Southern

Pacific myths due to their hypothesis of the common primitive culture as a result of similar

natural environments. However, Przyluski thought that the similarity meant there was a Southern

influence in Japan. All these opinions caused contradictions Matsumoto’s writings since

Matsumoto tried to follow the opinions of all his teachers.

Thus, as previous researches have already argued, Matsumoto became an advocator of

the Southern Theory in opposition to the Northern Theory. However, the circumstances were

complicated. First of all, Yanagita’s critical attitude to the Northern Theory played a key role for

Matsumoto’s advocation of the Southern Theory in Japan. Second, Matsumoto could become

advocator of the Southern Theory owing to his studies in Western diffusionist ethnology

claiming the diffusion of Southern culture from Southeast Asia and from the Southern Pacific.

Third, Matsumoto did not argue for the origins of the Japanese culture abroad because it was

against the opinion of his main teacher Yanagita on Japanese culture. Thus, Matsumoto had to

compromise between his and Yanagita’s ideas in his advocation of the Southern Theory.

ドキュメント内 The Formation and Development of Matsumoto Nobuhiro’s Ideas on Southeast Asia in 1919-1945 1919 (ページ 161-168)