Changes

Members of the scholar-bureaucracy in the Ryûkyû Kingdom were well-educated in Chinese language, and well-read in the Chinese classics, reading them in the original Chinese. Zhu Xi's commentaries likely entered Ryûkyû no later than Japan, and due to the close ties between Ryûkyû and Ming China, we can presume that developments in Neo-Confucian thought in China would have been transmitted to Ryûkyû quite consistently.

Members of the scholar-bureaucracy in the Ryûkyû Kingdom were well-educated in Chinese language, and well-read in the Chinese classics, reading them in the original Chinese. Zhu Xi's commentaries likely entered Ryûkyû no later than Japan, and due to the close ties between Ryûkyû and Ming China, we can presume that developments in Neo-Confucian thought in China would have been transmitted to Ryûkyû quite consistently.

However, as in mainland Japan, it was not until the publication of Tomari Jochiku's Bunshi-ten texts that scholars in Ryûkyû knew how the texts were read in Japanese. Jochiku himself brought a number of copies to the Ryukyuan court in [[1632]] when he traveled there to become an official tutor to the court, and before long it came to be the standard form of the text used in the scholar-aristocracy's schools. Those in [[Kumemura]] taught the Japanese readings of the texts alongside the original Chinese, while those in [[Shuri]] taught only using the Japanese Bunshi-ten texts.<ref name=takatsu263>Takatsu, 263-264.</ref>

However, as in mainland Japan, it was not until the publication of Tomari Jochiku's Bunshi-ten texts that scholars in Ryûkyû knew how the texts were read in Japanese. Jochiku himself brought a number of copies to the Ryukyuan court in [[1632]] when he traveled there to become an official tutor to the court. It was soon afterward officially authorized by the king, and came to be the standard form of the text used in the scholar-aristocracy's schools. Those in [[Kumemura]] taught the Japanese readings of the texts alongside the original Chinese, while those in [[Shuri]] taught only using the Japanese Bunshi-ten texts.<ref name=takatsu263>Takatsu, 263-264.</ref>

Members of the [[1842]] [[Ryukyuan embassy to Edo]] attempted to buy nearly one hundred copies of the Bunshi-ten commentaries in [[Osaka]] - so many that more had to be printed.<ref name=takatsu263/>

Members of the [[1842]] [[Ryukyuan embassy to Edo]] attempted to buy nearly one hundred copies of the Bunshi-ten commentaries in [[Osaka]] - so many that more had to be printed.<ref name=takatsu263/> Historian Takatsu Takashi identifies this ''Dakui sishu jizhu'', deriving from a version published in the late 16th or early 17th century by [[Yu Mingtai]] in [[Fujian province]], and today surviving only in Japanese reprints (and not in China), as "the most important text when we investigate the circulation of the teaching of Zhuzi in seventeenth century East Asia."<ref>Takatsu, 265.</ref>

{{stub}}

{{stub}}