Remarks on the Study of Meiji Literature

Author(s): Masanobu Oda

Source: Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1942), pp. 203-207
Published by: Sophia University
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382709
Accessed: 01-05-2020 20:24 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sophia University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Monumenta Nipponica

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIEF NOTES

Remarks on the Study of

Meiji Literature
By Masanobu Oda,* Tokyo.

It may be doubted whether students of Japanese literature sufficiently

the immense change that occurred in Japanese letters with the Meiji Resto
The present writer, born at the beginning of this century, can without ex
ion say of himself-and this is equally true of the greater part of his generation-
that he can read any early Victorian writer with greater ease than the average work
of a compatriot of his prior to the Restoration. To such an extent Japanese as a
vehicle of literary expression has changed in the course of a few decades. It may
well be asked whether there is a language in the world that within barely half a
century has undergone a similar transformation. Nor is it the language alone; the
very subject-matter of literature has passed through the same revolutionary phase.
Yet while Japanologists have produced any amount of reliable studies on the rapid
and radical changes of Meiji cultural life as a whole, they do not seem to have
undertaken enough adequate research in the literature of the period. The valua-
ble histories of Japanese literature by Aston, Florenz, Revon or Gundert unfor-
tunately stop short at the modern period; other works by non-Japanese authors
that deal with later literature are sometimes as inaccurate as to approach the ridi-
culous.1) However if the extraordinary phenomenon of a civilization which, while
absorbing foreign cultural factors yet preserved in the main its originality, is to be
fully understood, the literary evolution of the stormy latter half of the last century
ought to be one of the first objects of interest. Especially at the present time, when
in Japan a new phase of self-reflection and re-valuation has set in and the study of
Meiji literature from being a pastime of the dilettanti has become a subject of seri-
ous research, the moment seems to have come for a new assessment of its import-
.ance by Japanologists at large.
The specific character of Meiji literature may be understood from a glance
on the 'Essence of the Novel'2) (Sh6setsu Shinzui zJ=RT7*f) by Tsubouchi Shoyo

* K&FTii
1) Typical examples of the latter sort are J. Ingram Brant's (No. 142) Th
-of Japan in 'The Home University Library' (No. 142) or the article 'Japane
in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. There exist howeve
helpful books in English. The Kokusai Bunka Shink6kai has brought out
Japanese Studies (Toky6, 1937) with a chapter 'Orientation in the Study of M
ese Literature' by Tanikawa Tetsuzo -JVT4j--. The same society published an ex-
tremely creditable volume Introduction to Contemporary Japanese Literature (Tokyo 1939)
which contains selected translations from the work of some seventy representative authors
-together with good introductory and explanatory notes.
2) The book is easily accessible in the Iwanami Bunko edition (No. 1354-1355).
It contains besides Tsubouchi's essays on the novel a good introduction by Yanagida Izumi.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 204 Masanobu Oda

TiFfi~7M (1859-1935), the fir

sensation at its publication and its influence was to last for a long time. When its
first tracts came out in 1885, the author was still a student of 25 years of age, and
the first stimulus to write had, in fact, come to him in the lecture-room. His
American teacher at the Imperial University, William Addison Houghton,3) had
set as an examination task the question of what to think of Gertrude's character in
Hamlet. Young Tsubouchi in his paper had placed himself on the traditional
Confucianist point of view, and had received bad marks for his effort. It was
then that he realized for the first time the difference of literary standards in the
West and East, and his book is nothing but the endeavour to harmonize the two.
He resolutely rejected the only norm which the Confucianist morality of Tokugawa
feudalism had known, the principle of Kanzen ch6aku ('Punishing vice and re-
warding virtue') and, passing beyond the melodramatic conception of letters which
had characterized the bourgeois Edo epoch, he advocated an objective description
of human life from an aesthetic point of view. His theory had been inspired by
Ernest Fenollosa,') then professor at his university, but it was also deeply influenced
by Motoori Norinaga's Tama no Ogushi c and John Morley's Essay on

George Elliot.6) Other books he quotes are all, apart from a few Japanes
English novels.7)
If Tsubouchi had not quite succeeded in reconciling two conflicting literary
conceptions, he had at any rate with his challenging manifesto provoked a healthy

3) Houghton (1852-1917), a graduate of Yale university, came to Japan in 1877 and

exerted, as teacher of English literature at the Toky6 Imperial University, a great influence
on the literary life of the early Meiji era. Not only Tsubouchi, the renowned translator
of Shakespeare, was his disciple but also Okakura Kakuz6 Jt ftfin author of the famous
Book of Tea (1906).
4) Fenollosa (1853-1908), a Harvard graduate, entered Japan in 1878 and taught
philosophy and economics at T6ky6 Imperial University. He is, of course, chiefly re-
membered for his outstanding achievement in the re-discovery of Japanese Art. The
T6kyo School of Fine Arts (Bijutsu Gakk6) was founded by him and Okakura Katsuz6 in
1888.
5) How near some of Norinaga's precepts were to the spirit of the Meiji literary
renascence may be gauged from the following passage which Tsubouchi quotes, among
others, from Tama no Ogushi "The task of any kind of fiction is to describe almost every
worldly affair, the behaviour and the heart of men of all descriptions, so that the reader can
fully realize the actual state of things in the world and grasp well the inner truth of man's
deeds and thoughts. Such ought to be the main fruit of reading fiction." (p. 66 ff.).
6) Morley's .Studies in Literature appeared in 1891. The essay on George Elliot
Tsubouchi has in mind may have been a magazine contribution.
7) In later years Tsubouchi told in a revealing passage which literature he had con-
sulted while writing the Shosetsu Shinzui. "My reference books were mainly two or three
histories of English and American literature - I have forgotten their names -, a few
journals such as The Contemporary Review, The Nineteenth Century, The Forum,
furthermore a few philosophical books by Bain etc. I did not come across a single volume
on aesthetics. History of philosophy I had studied under Fenollosa but only in the brief-
est outlines. Lectures on anything like the theory of literature I have never heard."
Cf. Nippon Bungaku ni oyoboshitaru Seiy6 Bungaku no Eiky6 Elo * CA X L, t_ AX 9i3
4&VDVM in "Iwanami Koza" ; (Sekai Bungaku :R3), p. 12.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remarks on the Study of Meiji Literature 205

reaction against the then prevailing stagnant ideas on art. In contrast to his pro-
gressive and consciouslv Western outlook stands the narrowly conservative and

more or less exclusively Eastern work of Ariga Nagao ;tR-AAt (1860-1921) whose
Bungakuron , which appeared in the same year, was conceived in a synthe-
tic spirit as compared with Tsubouchi's analytical trend of thought. Ariga's work
has not been of much effect on his age; it reveals nevertheless a tendency of the
Meiji period which, although it did not always appear on the surface, must not
therefore be overlooked.8) Meiji culture as a whole was prone to contrast Western
with Japanese things. But while extremists went as far as to urge the abolition of
everything Japanese,9) the general tendency was rather that of reforming and de-
veloping an ancient tradition with the help of newly acquired knowledge. The
story of Meiji literature is indeed not that of a smooth and easy evolution but ra-
ther of a continuous hard struggle which, even now, is not closed. "We are liv-
ing in an age of doubt", are the words that Tokutomi Soho {ttgdE10) in 1881
addressed to the youth of his day; they are as true now as they were then.
The alternating currents of doubt and affirmation produced changes so
sudden and fast that what happened in Europe in ten years was, as it were, lived
through in Japan in the course of half a year. There have been quite a number of
reliable works to guide the student through the bewildering chaos of these de-
cades since the first comprehensive 'History of Meiji Literature' Meiji Bungakushi
SSS gt by Iwaki Juntar6 `JAtlPrF'1) first appeared in 1906. Of those
serious scholars who express the attitude of the present generation, three deserve
to be mentioned especiallyv Kataoka Ryoichi , Yfuchi Takashi j?M X-

8) Two small but valuable publications that bear on this subject have just appeared:
'Shoki MVeiji Bungaku no Rinkaku m Mit6 by Yanagida Izumi Ip7 (Nip-
pon hoso shuppan ky6kai El , 1941. Y0.50) an easily written but well-
planned outline of early Meiji literature. Yanag,ida is also the author of a number of
scholarly wvorks on several aspects of Meiji Literature, which need not be quoted here as
they are contained in the carefully selected bibliographies by Kataoka and Shiota to be
mentioned later. Nippon Kindai Bungei E * by Okubo Toshiaki J
(Mikasa Shobo 6 1939, Y 0.90), less well arranged but suggestive because of the
prominence it gives to the Sh6setsu Shinzui.
9) The following passage from Tsubouchi's manifesto gives a good example of
these tendencies: "One thing that we plan for an everlasting future is, in order to unite
all countries of the world into something like one great republic, to make into one all cus-
toms and usages, political systems, languages. If this is not feasible there is nothing left
but choosing one of these two: either to try to improve our own language by bringing
it into line (onaju2 suru) with those of the West or the Western languages with ours. But
as, needless to say, the enlightened culture of the Occident is superior to our civilization,
it would be altogether too much to expect them to adapt their languages to Japanese.
Therefore all those interested in universal knowledge ought to establish a Romaji So-
ciety as one step to bring Japanese nearer the languages of Europe and America."
10) In his book 'Shin-Nihon no Seinen X El * -, Tokyo 1888. - Tokutomi was
the editor of one of the most Westernized magazines of the day Kokumin no Tomo 4 L, 0

11) The book has still a reputation. It is available in a new edition: Tokyo, Shiu-
bunkan f-C, 1927, Y2.20.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 206 Masanobu Oda

and Shiota Ryohei LE1flA*.12

Mr. Kataoka's excellent 'Survey of Modem Japanese Literature' Kindaf
Nippon Bungaku no Temb6 LA El * MD,g13) which appeared in May 1941
contains, among its various essays, an 'Introduction to Meiji Literature' which
is a masterpiece of terseness and precision. If a critical point should be made, it
is perhaps that one might have wished for more chronological detail with regard
to authors and their works. The volume touches on a number of subjects, includ-
ing the latest literature, but the chapter on the 'History of Modern Japanese Prose'
is of particular interest. There follows a welcome 'Guide to the Study of Modern
Japanese Literature' which gives a critical analysis of the outstanding studies in
the field. Together with the author's Kindai Nippon no Sakka to Sakuhin 3{-
tffRtf7SW, ('Modem Japanese Writers and Writings')'4) the present vo-
lume will by indispensable to the student. Not only are such representative

writers as Ozaki K8yo , J:,, Koda Rohan 5E_p@f4 , Masaoka Shiki E-T5,
Kosugi Tengai 4J<I, Tayama Katae jt1ffI, Shimazaki Toson ,
Natsume Soseki AHRE treated in detail, his book is perhaps even more help-
ful for a general introduction to the study of the matter. Although Mr. Kataoka
does not write in the easyveinof aliteraryessayist but conducts his inquirythrough-
out as the serious scholar that he is, he never becomes dull - a quality that is
perhaps his chief merit. A danger of his method may be an all too conceptual
classification which can be misleading if such terms as 'Naturalism' or 'Neo-real-
ism' are not specified. Thus the author obviously does not take 'naturalism' in
the meaning of Zola's school but in the delicate and not easily definable sense in
which the term is employed in the traditional Japanese 'Literaturwissenschaft'
(kokubungaku FRZ).
A typical representative of the academic kokubungaku is Mr. Ycuchi. His
latest book Gendai Bungaku Kansh6 Genron ft-,fi ('Modemn Lite-
rature. Principles of Appreciation')15) is the thorough and illuminating account
of a specialist. The non-Japanese reader who desires to acquaint himself with the
signicficance and use of technical terms as employed in the academic teaching of
Japanese literature will find this work especially useful.
Mr. Shiota is an able and competent critic of the period who, so far, has not
produced much but from whom one may expect great things. His recent work on
'The Modern Novel' Kindai Shosetsu LrtJ\-Nk16) is a lucid, concise and accurate
survey of Meiji literature that can only be recommended.
Besides the indispensable works of these three scholars the student of Meiji
literature will need a few books of reference17) among which Dr. Hornma Hisao's

12) These three authors are also responsible for the commentaries and appreciat-
ions in the Introduction to Contemporary Japanese Literature (cf. note 1).
13) Chui6k6ron-sha [P tE, Y2.80.
14) Iwanami Wa, Y4.
15) Sankaido t1IBj, 1937, Y5.50.
16) In the collection Nippon Bungaku Taikei Et * Kawade ShobO tff? #
, 1938, Y 1.20 -His paper on the influence of Western literary style on Japanese lite-
rature (in the Iwanami Koza series) must be mentioned in this context as a specimen of
his sober and trustworthy views.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remarks on the Study of Meiji Literature 207

*r$Ja Meiji Bungaku-shi MF,tZjp8) must be mentione

torical approach may be somehow old-fashioned, but for its wealth of material and
its subtle delicacy of analysis the book is still unequalled. The 'Chronological
Table' Nippon Bungaku Nempy6 E *t $?fi19) published jointly by Dr. Homma
and Dr. Takano Tatsuyuki -,>T,; is equally valuable, one of the most reliable
well-chosen lists. The problem of the scientific study of Meiji literature at pre-
sent is that, although there is no lack of scholars well enough trained in kokubun-
gaku proper, there do not seem to arise any who at the same time possess an expert
knowledge of the huge foreign literature that has influenced Japan since the Resto-
ration. At the moment there are practically two camps. In the case of Natsume
Soseki e. gr. the recognized point of view of the kokubungaku professor would be
that Soseki, soaked in English letters as he is, has built up on this basis an original
type of literary art. The present writer, on the other hand, whose speciality is
English literature, would maintain that S6seki, although a scholar in English
yet as a creative writer is essentially Eastern and in all important points un-influ-
enced by Western thought. Future historians of the literary life of this epoch will
have to overcome this apparent deadlock. Nor will a profound knowledge of
English alone equip them for their task. Without sufficient acquaintance with
German, French and Russian literature, the essence of Japanese letters after Meiji
cannot be perfectly grasped. But such a task is enormous. If ever, as is at pre-
sent contemplated, a list of all the foreign books translated into Japanese and
commented upon, were compiled, the reader would be startled at their incredible
number. But it is not so much the width of appreciation as its depth, not the
vastness of the material but its excellent quality of which Japanese men of letters
may be justly proud.
However, while the history of contemporary literature is still waiting for the
genius capable of surveying and assessing it, contemporary Japanese letters them-
selves may still be on the eve of the day that will see creations embracing in a per-
fect synthesis the best elements of an old native tradition with the best that decades
of foreign influence have brought. A glance through the big collections of
modern literature20) will convince the foreign reader that, as far as technique goes,
a perfection has already been obtained which need not shirk comparison with the
literature of any country.

17) Dr. Georges Bonneau's Bibliographie de la Litteraturejaponaise Contemporaine,

(Paris and T6ky6, 1937) is a very instructive but somewhat arbitrary list of general and
special works of reference which can still be improved upon.
18) Volume twelve in the collection Nippon Bungaku Zenshi E1 * T6ky6do

19) In the same collection. The fourth impression came out in 1941.
20) Gendai Nippon Bungaku Zenshu' TR,1 El (Kaizo-sha ?&aiL) and
Meiji Taish6 Bungaku Zenshu ; (Shunyodo M) - These two col-
lections are of course not the last word in textual criticism or scholarly presentation.
But they are indispensable as they contain a number of less popular but noteworthy works
not otherwise available. Iwanami Bunko includes only the masterpieces of the period,
and not all of them.

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.208 on Fri, 01 May 2020 20:24:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms