China after Japan’s“Dawn to the West”: Modern Japanese Literature through the Eyes of a Chinese Scholar*

ZHENG Guohe

Abstract: It may be argued that every reader of foreign literature is a comparatist.In his effort to interpret a foreign writer or identify the dynamics and characteristics of a foreign tradition,he cannot but proceed through the lens of his own cultural background.The title of Donald Keene’s Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era,for example,not only pronounces a central theme of the volume by the most prominent scholar of Japanese studies in the West,but also testifies to the fact that it is modern Japanese literature viewed by a“blue-eyed Tarōkaja.”This article approaches modern Japanese literature from a different perspective—through the eyes of a Chinese scholar—by considering three subjects: Kajin no kigū,a Meiji political novel by Shiba Shirō,Sekibetsu,a wartime novel by Dazai Osamu,and short stories by Shiga Naoya.Widely different from each other otherwise,these works share a common trait: they are all related to“China”in a broad sense.In examining them together,I intend to challenge some views of modern Japanese literature commonly accepted in the West.1 I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of the manuscript of this paper.The revision of the manuscript benefited much from their comments and suggestions.

Keywords: China after“Dawn to the West”;canon formation of Japanese literature;Kajin no kigū;Sekibetsu;Kinosaki nite;Seibei to hyōtan

1.Introduction

It may be argued that every reader of foreign literature is a comparatist.In his effort to interpret a foreign writer or to identify the dynamics and characteristics of that tradition,the reader cannot but proceed through the lens of his own cultural background.The title of

Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era

by Donald Keene (1922-2019), The book,first published in 1984 by Holt,Rinehart and Winston of New York,has two separate volumes,one being devoted to fiction and the other to poetry,drama and criticism.When the volume devoted to fiction was republished in 1998,now running 1329 pages,two pages longer than its 1984 edition and with a new preface by the author,it became volume 3 of a 4-volume series of a comprehensive history of Japanese literature by Keene.Volume 1 of the series is entitled and volume 2,-.Both of these books had been published separately before with the former appearing in 1993 and the latter in 1976.These 4 volumes have been translated into Japanese in a 18-volume series of history of Japanese literature.The series were published in 1994-1997 by Chūō kōron sha 中央公論社.This is the only comprehensive history of Japanese literature anywhere in the world.the most prominent scholar of Japanese literature in the West,is an example.It

not only pronounces a central theme running through this mammoth and monumental book—that modern Japanese literature is the product of“the changing Japanese responses to the challenge posed by ［Japan’s］inescapable encounter with the West,” Robert Torrance,review of (1987)and(1988),by Donald Keene,22,no.2 (November 1988): 196.——but also testifies to the fact that it is Japanese literature viewed by a“blue-eyed Tarōkaja.” The first book Donald Keene published in Japan in 1957 was entitled 碧い眼の太郎冠者(A Blue-Eyed Tarōkaja).The cover of the book features a photo of Keene playing the character Tarōkaja 太郎冠者 in a Kyōgen 狂言.But Donald Keene has not been the only“blue-eyed Tarōkaja”;as we shall see later in this paper,he represents a tendency of many Western scholars.This article approaches modern Japanese literature from a different perspective—through the eyes of a Chinese scholar—by considering three subjects:

Kajin no kigū

佳人之奇遇,a Meiji political novel

by Shiba Shirō (柴四朗，1852-1922),

Sekibetsu

惜別,a wartime novel by Dazai Osamu (太宰治，1909-1948),and short stories by Shiga Naoya (志賀直哉，1883-1971).Widely different from each other otherwise,these works share a common trait: they are all related to“China”in a broad sense.In examining them together,I intend to challenge some views of modern Japanese literature commonly accepted in the West.

2.Kanbun Style in the Meiji Political Novel Kajin no kigū5

I will first examine

Kajin no kigū

(Strange Encounters with Beautiful Women;serialized between 1885-1897),the most well-known of Meiji political novels,and the use of the

kanbun

漢文（classical Chinese) style in its composition.The novel tells the story of how Tōkai Sanshi 東海散士,a young Japanese studying in America,happens to meet two beautiful European women in early Meiji at Independence Hall,Philadelphia,and how their friendship develops due to their shared lamentation for the misfortunes of their respective countries and their determination to fight for freedom and independence against Western imperialist powers.While the story of the novel is set in Philadelphia,the stage of

Kajin no kigū

is global,and the thread of the romance between Sanshi and the two beauties serves only as a pretext for the author to weave together his numerous tales of weak nations that have fallen victim to Western imperialism.After Sanshi returns to Japan later in the novel,however,he becomes more and more involved in the crisis between Japan and China over the issue of Korea which eventually leads to the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895).By the end of the novel,Japan has emerged victorious from its war with China,but it has done so by adopting the policies of imperialist powers that Tōkai Sanshi vehemently condemns in the beginning of the novel.Ironically,in the last scene of the novel,the protagonist finds himself incarcerated due to charges that he has been involved in the assassination of Queen Min of Korea,a country whose independence he claims he was fighting for.When it first appeared in 1885,the novel became an immediate bestseller.In fact,it was so popular that it was said that there was no remote village in Japan where some young man did not have a copy in his pocket, See Kimura Ki 木村毅,日米文学交流史の研究 (A Study of the History of Literature Exchanges between Japan and the United States) (Tokyo: Kodansha 講談社,1982),247.See also George Bailey Sansom, (New York: Alfred a.Knopf,1949),412.A most vivid picture of how warmly was received by young people of the day is seen in a 1928 novel by Tokutoku Roka 徳富蘆花,a passage from which is to be quoted later in this paper.and contemporary critics even claimed that it had“raised the price of paper in the capital.” See Commentary to volume 16 of .While the novel has not lacked detractors in Japan since its publication,its numerous admirers acclaim the novel as one of the masterpieces of Meiji literature,with a style of language that is paricularly fitting for its theme. For the views of its admirers,see the following: Nakamura Mitsuo 中村光夫, ふたたび政治小説を (A Reevaluation of Political Novels) (Tokyo: Chūōkōron,May 1959),281-83;Nakamura Mitsuo 中村光夫,“Sakuhin kaisetsu”作品解説 (An Introduction) to ,,政治小説集,日本現代文学全集,vol.3 (Tokyo: Kodansha,1965),395-400;Yanagida Izumi 柳田泉,“to Tōkai Sanshi”佳人之奇遇と東海散士 (and Tōkai Sanshi) in the first volume of his three-volume 政治小説研究 (A Study of Political Novels).For the views of its detractors,see most of histories of modern Japanese literature.For a comprehensive review of the critical history of the novel,see 郑国和：《柴四朗〈佳人奇遇〉研究》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2000年。［ZHENG Guohe, (A Study of by Shiba Shirō),Wuhan: Wuhan University Press,2000.］In contrast,ever since the formation of the orthodox canon of modern Japanese literature in the West after World War II,Western critics share an almost unanimous opinion of this novel.For example,in his influential book

The Western World and Japan

,British diplomat and scholar Sir George Bailey Sansom characterizes it as a“deplorably bad novel”; George Bailey Sansom, (New York: Alfred a.Knopf,1949),413.similarly,Donald Keene calls it“hardly more than ［a curiosity］,” Keene,,87.and its language as“ornate,difficult and exceedingly conventional.”As such the novel has been categorically denied a place in the canon of modern Japanese literature in the West.More recently,some Western scholars have tried to defend the novel——as seen in the studies by John Mertz and Atsuko Sakaki——but only succeed in pointing out its transitionalor non-intrinsic value. Atsuko Sakaki,“The Meiji Political Novel and the Boundaries of Literature,”55,no.1 (Spring 2000),102.Moreover,no Western scholar has ever read the entire text of

Kajin no kigū

.Instead,they have either based their discussions of the novel on a summary of the story from certain dictionaries,or consulted an incomplete version of the novel with only the first ten of the sixteen volumes,resulting in many factual errors in their discussions. For a detailed discussion of this,see Guohe Zheng,“Politics of Canon Formation and Writing Style: A Linguistic Analysis of ,”223-26.In the Western orthodox canon,Tsubouchi Shōyō’s 坪内逍遙 critical thesis

Shōsetsu shinzui

小説神髄 (The Essence of the Novel,1885) has long been regarded as the manifesto of modern Japanese literature.According to this thesis,modern literature is more compatible with the genre of

shōsetsu

rather than with other genres;with the language style of

genbun icchi

言文一致 (unification of the written and spoken language) rather than

kanbun

;with the theme of

ninjō

人情 (human feelings) raher than politics;and with the

shasei

写生 (sketch) mode of representation rather than that of

shūji

修辞 (rhetoric).Given the clear preference in the above dichotomies,it is only to be expected that

Kajin no kigū

is excluded from the canon of modern Japanese literature: while it is a novel,it contains more history than fiction and,in the words of Sir George Bailey Sansom,is“crammed with information about four and twenty nations in revolt.” Sansom,,414.Moreover,it is written in the

kanbun yomikudashi

漢文読み下し style and is full of the author’s political aspirations but lacks realistic portraying or characterization.In short,that is the reason why

Kajin no kig

ū

has been excluded from the canon of modern Japanese literature in the West.Clear as the above logic seems to be,however,it has a serious problem: if

Kajin no kigū

was such a bad novel with such a poor language style,as Western scholars claim it to be,the tremendous popularity it enjoyed in Meiji Japan becomes a mystery.The gap between its reception in Meiji Japan and in the West today calls for an explanation.

To fill this gap,we must first of all historicize our notion of literature.In his study of literary style from the end of the Edo period through the Meiji period,Maeda Ai 前田愛 states the following:

One of the books in a series published in the 1880s and 1890s by Tokutomi Sohō’s 徳富蘇峰 Min’yūsha 民友社 was entitled

Jūni bung

ō

十二文豪 (Twelve Literary Masters).Among the foreign literary masters included in the book,which was compiled by Kitamura Tōkoku 北村透谷,Tokutomi Roka 徳富蘆花 and Yamaji Aizan 山路愛山,were Carlyle,Macaulay,Wordsworth,Goethe,Emerson,Hugo,and Tolstoy.On the other hand,the five people honored as Japanese literary masters were Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠,Chikamatsu Monzaemon 近松門左衛門,Arai Hakuseki 新井白石,Rai San’yō 頼山陽,and Takizawa Bakin 滝沢馬琴.It is perhaps puzzling to us today for the names of Carlyle,Macaulay,and Emerson to be listed next to those of Goethe and Tolstoy.Or,similarly,in the case of Japan,the three names of Sorai,Hakuseki,and San’yō should be more appropriately identified as scholars or thinkers rather than writers of literature.However,the Meiji period was a time when the tradition was still strong and deep-rooted to hold Confucian studies and

kanshibun

漢詩文 as the orthodox of literature. Maeda Ai 前田爱,近代日本の文学空間 (Modern Japan and Its Literary Space) (Tokyo: Shin’yōsha 新曜社,1983),231.Yamaji Aizan (1864-1917) was a Meiji period commentator.He published a large number of commentaries on politics,history,and literature.Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881),was a British social critic and historian.His major works include , and .Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859),British statesman and historian,was famous for his eloquent but prejudiced history work .Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882),was an American essayist,poet,and thinker.He is considered to be one of the most influential figures in American literary history.Ogū Sorai (1666-1728),was a Confucian scholar in the mid Edo period.Arai Hakuseki (1657-1725),was a politician and scholar of the mid Edo period.Maeda Ai’s point is supported by numerous accounts of how

Kajin no kigū

was received by Meiji readers.The most vivid of such accounts is seen in Tokutomi Roka’s (1868-1927) 1928 novel

Kuroi me to chairo no me

黒い目と茶色の目 (Black Eyes and Brown Eyes).The setting of the following passage from the novel is a college in Kyoto:Just about that time a novel titled

Kajin no kigū

appeared.Everyone who was literate read it ...And the beautiful writing style of

Kajin no kigū

was admired by everyone in Kyōshisha School.In particular,most of the numerous elegant

kanshi

poems in the novel were committed to memory.Keiji ［the protagonist in Tokutomi’s novel］had a classmate by the name of Ogata Ginjirō ...who,though a mediocre student in academic subjects,was recognized as the best reciter of poetry in the whole school.On frosty,moonlit nights,close to school bedtime,Ogata would start to recite in a loud voice ...along the sandy path between the dorm buildings.His voice was sonorous and forceful,like the sound made by striking metal with stones.At this,the 300 students,who had been quietly concentrating on their school work under the lamplight,would be enraptured by the recitation as if spellbound.On the tables here and there in Kyōshisha School,one would see copies of the novel in blue covers bound in Japanese style with string.The characters in the novel were printed in big woodblock letters mixed with katakana. Tokutomi Roka 德富蘆花,蘆花全集(Complete Collection of Tokutomi Roka),vol.10 (Tokyo: Shinchōsha 新潮社,1928),92-93.It is important to note here that

Kajin no kigū

was read as literature at the time.Even in the beginning of the Showa period,it was still read and admired as literature,as we can see in the childhood experience with

Kajin no kigū

as recollected by Ibuse Masuji 井伏鱒二 (1898-1993),author of

Kuroi ame

黒い雨 (Black Rain,1965),a novel on the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:Before I was old enough to go to school,I could recite from memory the opening passages of

Kajin no kigū

which begin“When I raise my eyes,I see the Liberty Bell ...”My father would tell the guests to our house:“This boy of mine is going to be a doctor in literature.” Ibuse Masuji 井伏鱒二,“Honkokuhon no omoshirosa: Kajin no kigū ni tsuite”翻刻本の面白さ：『佳人之奇遇』について (Strange Encounters with Beautiful Women),’ 春陽堂月報 (June 1930): 4.Clearly,

Kajin no kigū

was part of the literary main-stream literature when it first appeared.To judge it by Western notions of literature is not only unfair to the work,but leaves a gaping hole between its reception in Meiji-period Japan and in the West today.The next notion we must historicize is that of the

kanbun

style.In his comparative study of the histories of China and Japan,Chin Shunshin 陈舜臣 (Chen Shunchen in Chinese,1924-2015) notes how knowledge of

kanshi

漢詩 poetry was common among the Japanese in the Meiji period:Japanese newspapers still carried a column of

kanshi

poetry well into the teens of the Taisho period (1912-1926).Until that time

,kanshi

poetry contributed by readers was routinely carried in the newspapers in the same way

haiku

俳句 or

waka

和歌 poetry was published.This is particularly true of the beginning years of the Meiji period when it was common for men to compose

kanshi

poetry and for women to compose

waka

poetry.At the time there were many people who practiced

kanshi

poetry composition. See Naramoto Tatsuya 奈良本辰也 and CHIN Shunshin 陈舜臣 歴史対談日本と中国: 近代の幕明け (Dialogue: Japan and China,at the Dawn of the Modern Period) (Tokyo: Tokuma shoten 徳間書店,1986),187.Of course,people’s knowledge of

kanbun

-style writing was not limited to

kanshi

poetry: they were also well read in Chinese history.An example cited by Chin Shunshin lends support to this point:For example,there was a Meiji

shishi

志士 by the name of Hashimoto Sanai 橋本左内 who was executed at the age of twenty-four.Even when he was in prison,he never stopped reading Chinese history.It is recorded that by the time he was executed,he had finished

Shiji

史記 and had just started

Hanshu

漢書.In other words,he was taken to execution when he was deeply absorbed in

Hanshu

.Therefore,as his example illustrates,knowledge of Chinese history was common among intellectuals of the time and could be expected of everyone.In this connection,we should remind ourselves of the well-known fact that the friendship between the narrator and the protagonist in Mori Ōgai 森鴎外’s novel

Gan

雁 (The Wild Goose,1911-1913) develops because of their common interest in hunting for books in old bookstores,especially for classical Chinese novels.A sense of the extent to which readers in Meiji Japan were conversant with

kanbun

style writing is best captured by Nakamura Shinichirō 中村真一郎 (1918-1997) in his book

Rai San

’

yō to sono jidai

頼山陽とその時代 （Rai San’yo and His Times).He recalls an episode from his childhood:Born in the beginning of the Meiji period,my grandmother was literally an old woman from the countryside with little education.One day when I was in middle school,I had trouble reading my supplementary

kanbun

book—selected essays from ［Rai San’yō’s Japanese history］

Nihon gaish

日本外史.When she sensed my problem,my grandmother,still standing in the kitchen,recited loudly without any difficulty the part where I got stuck.It seems that memorizing

Nihon gaishi

was part of the elementary education for young girls in the countryside when she was young. Cited in Maeda Ai,,233-34.Maeda Ai comments on this episode:This episode gives us a rare glimpse into the linguistic life of a time remotely separated from our own.The fact that a young girl from the countryside who could retrieve the content of

Nihon gaishi

from her memory promptly and accurately at an old age testifies to the fact that during the Meiji period there was a language world that was an inseparable part of people’s life but that is at the same time entirely different from that of their daily life.Clearly,however old-fashioned

kanbun

-style writing might appear to Westerners

today

,or for that matter to the Japanese today,the harsh judgment passed onto

Kajin no kigū

by Western scholars reflects Western notions of modernity,a point that is poignantly clear to Chinese readers,like myself,to whom

kanbun

-style writings prove to be no more difficult than contemporary colloquial Japanese thanks to our own cultural background.Unfair as the above-mentioned harsh judgment may be,it stands unchallenged even today.This unchallenged marginalization has led to a series of consequences,the first of which is the commonly accepted theory that Japanese literature,both modern and pre-modern,is somehow unique in that it deals largely with aesthetic issues and is not concerned about Japan’s fate as a nation.For example,Ching-mao Cheng generalizes in the following way about modern Japanese literature:“Japanese writers were absorbed in discovering the meaning of literature and seeking emancipation,assertion,and perfection of

jiga

自我 (selfhood) at an abstract level.” See Ching-mao Cheng,“The Impact of Japanese Literary Trends on Modern Chinese Writers,”in ,ed.Merle Goldman (Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1977),76.Suzuki Shūji 鈴木修次 comments that“in the world of Japanese literature ...it is the concept of

mono-no-aware

物の哀れthat is the key to literary refinement.If politics is allowed to be involved,literature will only be made vulgar.” Suzuki Shūji 鈴木修次, 中国文学と日本文学 (Chinese Literature and Japanese Literature) (Tokyo: Tokyo shoseki kabushiki kaisha 東京書籍株式会社,1987),17.Similarly,Earl Miner remarks that“throughout recorded time Japanese have been patriotic and conscious of their national identify,but patriotism has not provided their poets with a literary option they cared to take up.” Earl Miner, (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1968),2.Obviously,the above generalization is made with no consideration given to politically motivated works such as

Kajin no kigū

and other Meiji political novels,and as such results in a one-sided and misleading view of modern Japanese literature. See the last chapter of Guohe Zheng’s for a more detailed critique of the theory.Also see 王向远：《“笔部队”与侵华战争》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，1999年。［WANG Xiangyuan, (“The Pen Units”and Japanese Invasion against China),Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe,1999.］The second consequence of the marginalization of

Kajin no kigū

is that it leaves Western scholars oblivious of the problems created by the ambiguous theorizing of Meiji political novels among some Japanese scholars.The Meiji period was the golden age of political novels,with more than two hundred of them published in the twenties and thirties alone.Many of these novels are devoted to the theme of Japan’s relations with other countries and represented the different roads for Japan in its pursuit of modernization.For example,some of the novels deal with Japan’s struggles to revise the unequal treaties imposed on Japan by Western powers;others propose Japan’s solidarity with other Asian nations against Western powers;some advocate that Japan should follow the example of Western powers and expand its territory by force.Clearly these novels are very different in their visions of the future of Japan in the world.Some Japanese scholars of Meiji political novels,however,lump all of these novels together under the rubric of“

kokken shōsetsu

”国権小説 (novels of national rights).” See Yanagida Izumi 柳田泉’s classification of Meiji political novels in 明治政治小説集 (2) (Meiji Political Novels),in 明治文学全集 (Complete Works of Meiji Literature),vol.6 (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房,1967).The problem with this label is obvious: the term“

kokken

”国権 blurs the vital difference between advocacy of patriotism,solidarity with other Asian nations against Western imperialism,and blatant imperialism.The label reminds one of the term

shinshutsu

進出 (going into and coming out of),used by Japanese rightwing ideologues to characterize Japan’s invasion of Asian countries.As such,its absurdity must be exposed and made known.Given the exclusion of Meiji political novels from the canon,however,the questionable theory of“

kokken shōsetsu”

is virtually unknown in the West,let alone subject to criticism.The third consequence is that,although the legacy of

Kajin no kigū

as political literature is still very much alive in Japan,it remains completely unexplored due to the marginalized status of political literature.The evidence for the legacy can be seen,for example,in the role Japanese literature played in Japan’s invasion of China,as eloquently argued by Wang Xiangyuan 王向远 in his 1999 book

Bibudui he qinhua zhanzheng

“笔部队”和侵华战争 (“The Pen Units”and the Japanese Invasion of China). 王向远：《“笔部队”与侵华战争》。［WANG Xiangyuan, (“The Pen Units”and the Japanese Invasion of China).］The best example of its legacy at work is perhaps seen in Kobayashi Yoshinori’s 小林よしのり 1998 bestseller

Sensō ron

戦争論 (On the War),a controversial

manga

漫画 book that attempts to justify Japan’s role in the last war. Kobayashi Yoshinori, (Tokyo: Gentōsha 幻冬社,1998).Interestingly enough,while both

Sensō ron

and

Kajin no kigū

are filled with the authors’ burning desire to revitalize Japan,the former employs a language style that is the exact opposite of the latter: Kobayashi Yoshinori’s extremely colloquial Japanese is liberally mixed with slang expressions popular among Japan’s younger generation today.

Sensō ron

’

s

manga form and its colloquial language style reflect its author’s attempts to target his readers’ educational background and their lack of interest in pure literature.But in its use of first-person narratives,its frequent citing of the author’s own experiences to appeal to its readers,and its ultranationalistic stance,it has something remarkably similar to

Kajin no kigū

which,as we have seen,demonstrates a change of its political views from patriotism to imperialism.In summary,in the eyes of a Chinese scholar,

Kajin no kigū

should be granted a due position in the history of modern Japanese literature as a piece of political literature whose legacy is still carried on today as Japan struggles to locate its proper place in twenty-first-century global society.

3.Dazai Osamu’s Sekibetsu and the Status of Wartime Literature

Japanese literature produced during“the Fifteen-Year War”(

jūgonen kan

十五年間

,

1931-1945) has often been deemed as unworthy of in-depth study.As a result,the war years have been characterized as“barren”and an interruption of Japan’s aesthetic tradition. For example,in the early 1960s Ozaki Hotsuki 尾崎秀樹noted that“when speaking of literature produced during the war,people often characterize it as ‘barren’.”See Ozaki Hotsuki,“Daitōa kyōdō sengen to futatsu no sakuhin”大 東 亜 共 同 宣 言と二つの作品 (The Declaration of the Greater East Asia and Two Literary Works), 文学29 (August 1961): 20.Later Donald Keene entitled his discussion of war literature as literature of“the Barren Years.”See Donald Keene,“The Barren Years: Japanese War Literature,”xxxiv (Spring 1978): 67-112.More recently,Michael Molasky and Steve Rabson comment that Japanese writers,from the mainland and Okinawa alike,“published comparatively little literature of interest from the late 1930s until the end of the Pacific War.”See Michael Molasky and Steve Rabson,eds., (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,2000),5.Katō Norihiro加藤典洋 likens the sudden blooming of postwar literature to water that rushes out of a dam that gives way.From the day of defeat,“where there was almost no water,a torrential flood rushed in from outside.”See Katō Norihiro, 敗戦後論 (Tokyo: Kodansha,1998).Quoted in Hara Hiroshi 原仁司,“Sensō to nashonarizumu: Katō Norihiro cho ”戦争とナショナリズム—加藤典洋著『敗戦後論』にふれつつ, 国文学 解釈と教材の研究44 (7) (June 1999): 32.This section challenges this view by examining Dazai Osamu 太宰治’s wartime novel

Sekibetsu

惜別 (Regretful

Parting,1945),a novel inspired by Chinese sources.In November 1943,the Japanese Cabinet Information Bureau (Naikaku jōhōkyoku 内閣情報局) and the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature (Nihon bungaku hōkoku kai日本文学報国会) decided to sponsor the writing of literary works that would help promote the five principles newly adopted in the Joint Declaration (Daitōa kyōdō sengen 大東亜共同宣言) of the Greater East Asia Conference (Daitōa kaigi 大東亜会議) just held in Tokyo.In 1944,Dazai Osamu was commissioned to write on one of the five principles,that of“Independence and Amity”(dokuritsu shinwa 独立親和).

Sekibetsu

,published in September 1945,is the result of this commission.

The novel tells of the life of the prominent Chinese writer Lu Xun 鲁迅,appearing as Shūsan 周さん in the novel,when he was a medical student in Sendai.The main story is set in 1904-1905,when Japan was at war with Russia,but the framework of the novel takes the form of a journal kept at the present time of early 1945 by the narrator,an old doctor who recalls his student days in Sendai when he was a schoolmate and friend of Lu Xun.The story traces the crises leading to Lu Xun’s decision to abandon a career in medicine to become a writer.At the end of the story,Lu Xun bids a“regretful parting”to Professor Fujino 藤野先生,his mentor and benefactor who showed him unusual encouragement and kindness.

Due to its commission during the war by the Japanese Cabinet Information Bureau and the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature ,

Sekibetsu

has received little critical attention. Many scholars have noted the lack of attention to this novel.Ozaki Hotsuki,“ Daitōa kyōdō sengen to futatsu no sakuhin,” 29 (August 1961): 20.Kamiya Tadataka 神谷忠孝,“ ,”collected in 作品論太宰治,eds.Tōgō Kokumi and Watabe Yoshinori 東郷克美,渡部芳紀 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha shuppan 双文出版,1974),249.Kawamura Minato 川村湊,“ ‘Sekibetsu’ ron:‘ daitōa no shinwa’ no maboroshi”「 惜別」論—「大東亜の親和」の幻 (On Regretful Parting: The Illusion of the Amity of the Greater East Asia),国文学 解釈と教材の研究 36 (4),(April 1991): 70.Nonomiya Noriko 野乃宮紀子,“ Sekibetsu”(Regretful Parting),ō 国文学解釈と鑑賞 64 (9),(September 1999): 121.To the best of my knowledge,other than Donald Keene’s three-page discussion of ,there is not a single serious study of this novel in English.See Donald Keene,,1056-1059.What attention it has received has been decidedly negative.For example,Takaki Tomoko 高木知子 and Akagi Takayuki 赤木孝之 believe that

Sekibetsu

is without question a novel that extols the war since it resulted from the commission of the two offices. See Takaki Tomoko’s 高木知子 article“Dazai Osamu: Teikō ka Kuppuku ka 太宰治-抵抗か屈伏か ,”collected in ō戦争と文学者: 現代文学の根底を問う,ed.Nishida Masaru 西田勝 (Tokyo: San’ichi shobō,1983),178-79.For Akagi Takayuki 赤木孝之’s comments,see his article“Senji ka Dazai Osamu no ichi sokumen 戦時下太宰治の一側面,”collected in 新編太宰治研究叢書1(Tokyo: Kindai bungei sha,1992),19.In his influential comments made shortly after the war,Japan’s leading Lu Xun scholar Takeuchi Yoshimi 竹内好 states that Dazai showed“little understanding of the humiliation Lu Xun received”in Sendai Takeuchi Yoshimi 竹内好,“Fujino Sensei”藤野先生 (Mr.Fujino),in 近代文学 (February and March 1947).and that the“Shū-san”character portrayed in the novel ends up being“the author’s self-portrait.” Takeuchi Yoshimi,“Kachōfūgetsu”花鳥風月 (The Beauties of Nature),in 新日本文学 (October 1956).Takeuchi’s comment influenced many later studies of this novel.For example,Ozaki Hotsuki 尾崎秀樹 thus criticizes

Sekibetsu

:“The hero that appears in it is not Shū Jujin 周樹人 the Chinese student but Dazai himself,a wounded young man.”Arai Takeshi 荒井健,Chiba Masaaki 千葉正昭,and Kawamura Minato 川村湊 approach

Sekibetsu

along the same lines. Arai Takeshi 荒井健 believes that Dazai was trying to impose his own view of life,namely“umarete sumimasen”onto the protagonist of .See Arai Takeshi,“Futatsu no Ro Jin zō”二つの魯迅像：竹内好と太宰治の場合 in 文学理論の研究,edited by Kuwabana Takeo 桑原武夫 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten 岩波書店,1967).Chiba Masaaki 千葉正昭concludes that the author of “only used the image of Lu Xun to portray Dazai’s own image.”See Chiba Masaaki千葉正昭,“Dazai Osamu to Ro Jin: ‘Sekibetsu’ o chūshin to shite”太宰治と魯迅—「惜別」を中心として (Dazai Osamu and Lu Xun), 国文学解釈と鑑賞 48 (9) (June 1983): 130.Similarly,Kawamura Minato comes to the conclusion that,“in the final analysis,the Lu Xun in turns out to be nobody else but Dazai himself.”See Kawamura Minato,“‘Sekibetsu’ ron: ‘daitōa no shinwa’ no maboroshi,” 36 (4) (April 1991): 75.While there are a few critics who come to Dazai’s defense,no detailed textual analysis is given to support their points. For example,Kamiya Tadataka 神谷忠孝 believes that should be judged as a fiction by Dazai and not be cast against the historical figure Lu Xun and evaluated on that basis.See Kamiya Tadataka,“Sekibetsu 惜別,”collected in 作品論太宰治,eds.Tōgō Kokumi 東郷克美 and Watabe Yoshnori 渡部芳紀 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha shuppan 双文社出版,1974),256.Nonomiya Noriko 野乃宮紀子 states that“ is an excellent piece ［...］Even if Dazai had never written any other piece,his name as a writer would still be well established with this one piece.”See Nonomiya Noriko,“Sekibetsu 惜別,” 64 (9),(September 1999): 124.The situation remained unchanged until studies by Kwon Sokuyon 権錫永,Takahashi Shūtarō 高橋秀太郎,and Fujii Shōzō 藤井省三 appeared.In particular,the studies by Fujii Shōzō,a scholar specialized in Chinese literature and Lu Xun,challenges Takeuchi Yoshimi’s view on

Sekibetsu

. See Kwon Sokuyon 権錫永,“‘Jidaiteki gensetsu’ to ‘hijidaiteki gensetsu’: ‘Sekibetsu’ 〈時代的言説〉と〈非時代的言説〉—「惜別」,”ū 国語国文学研究 96 (September 1994): 30-43;Takahashi Shūtarō 高橋秀太郎“Dazai Osamu ‘Sekibetsu’ ron”太宰治『惜別』論 ō日本文学論考 (October 1999): 69-83;（日）藤井省三：《太宰治的〈惜别〉与竹内好的〈鲁迅〉》，董炳月译，见（日）太宰治：《惜别》，于小植译，北京：新星出版社，2010年，第153—160页。 ［Fujii Shōzō,“Taizai Zhi de ‘Xibie’ he Zhunei Hao de ‘Lu Xun’”(“Regretful Parting”by Dazai Osamu and“Lu Xun”by Takeuchi Yoshimi),trans.DONG Bingyue,in Dazai Osamu,“Xibie”(Regretful Parting),trans.YU Xiaozhi,Beijing: New Star Press,2010,153-60.］As a major figure of modern Japanese literature,Dazai Osamu has been much translated in the West. For example,his postwar novels Shayō 斜陽) and (Ningen shikkaku 人間失格) were published in 1956 and 1958 respectively,both translated by Donald Keene.Translations of Dazai’s other works did not appear until the 1980s and 1990s.These include James Westerhoven’s 1985 ,Phyllis Lyons’s 1985 ,James O’Brien’s 1983 and his1989 ,and Ralph F.McCarthy’s 1991 ’.It should be noted that some works have been translated more than once,as is the case of ,which has been translated by both Westerhovern and Lyons.It should also be noted that Dazai Osamu’s reputation in the West were based for the most part on the two novels translated by Keene because of its wider influence.However,

Sekibetsu

remains conspicuously absent from the list of Western translations or studies.Doubtlessly,this is partly the result of

Sekibetsu

being a commissioned work,but the absence is due more to the master narrative that the“Fifteen-Year-War era”was“barren.”It is only against this background that we can understand why Takeuchi Yoshimi’s remarks on

Sekibetsu

exert such a heavy influence on Western scholars on the novel.For example,Donald Keene says that in Dazai’s hands,“Lu Xun emerges as a slightly Sinicized version of Dazai himself,rather than as a pillar of independence and amity,” Donald Keene, (Tokyo: Kodansha International LTD.,1971),313.and that

Sekibetsu

is the“worst of Dazai’s longer works.” Keene,,1059.Similarly,James O’Brien comments that Lu Xun in the novel“scarcely represents the celebrated founder of modern prose writing in China.He exists,in some measure at least,as another Dazai surrogate in disguise.” Dazai Osamu,,trans.James O’Brien (Ithaca,New York: China-Japan Program,Cornell University,1983),5-6.To a Chinese scholar,the lack of attention in the West to

Sekibetsu

is particularly striking because the novel is not only one of Dazai’s major pieces but is also a rare example of“a literary master’s novel on the life of another literary master” Tai Zaizhi 太宰治, 惜别 (Regretful Parting),trans.YU Xiaozhi 于小植 （Beijing,Xinxing chubanshe 新星出版社,2010），inside front cover.To the best of my knowledge,a translation of in Chinese did not appear until YU Xiaozhi’s translation in 2010,a fact very revealing about problems in Japanese literary studies in China.It should be mentioned that,as critical attention began to turn to Dazai Osamu and his in recent years,Chinese scholar DONG Bingyue also challenged Takeuchi Yoshimi’s views on See her lengthy article collected in YU Xiaozhi’s translation,187-228.—it is a story of Lu Xun,the most famous modern Chinese writer loved and esteemed by every Chinese.This section argues,by detailed textual analysis,that there are in fact two agendas operating in

Sekibetsu

.The first is hidden,and harbors Dazai Osamu’s true feelings about the official media under the military authorities,about wartime censorship,and about the so-called“patriotic Japanese”at the time;the second is overt,and caters to the orders of the commissioning offices.If we read

Sekibetsu

carefully,we notice a series of elements that arouse the reader’s suspicions.The first suspicious element is seen in the postscript to

Sekibetsu

.Dazai opens the postscript in the following way:It is true that

Sekibetsu

is a novel resulting directly from the commission by the Cabinet Information Bureau and the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature,but even without the commission by the two offices I would still have written it someday,having been gathering materials and pondering long about its structure. Dazai Osamu,(Complete Works of Dazai Osamu) (Hereafter abbreviated as ),vol.7 (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,1990),129.Unless otherwise noted,all translations are mine.

Apparently Dazai is trying to convince his readers that the same novel as we see it today would have been written without the commission,and the commission merely accelerated the fulfillment of his long-existing plan.But one cannot help wondering whether the commission had also imposed prescribed elements on the work.We need only remind ourselves of the nature of the commission and the commissioning offices to find the answer to this question.

Jay Rubin characterizes the impact of the establishment of the Cabinet Information Committee in 1936,which was to be upgraded into a Bureau in 1940,on the publication of literary materials in Japan in the following way:

The establishment of the Cabinet Information Committee (Naikaku jōhō iinkai 内閣情報委員会) in July 1936 as an agency devoted to“positive”propaganda marked the beginning of the truly fanatical suppression of any but the most worshipful references to the imperial house. Jay Rubin, (Seattle: University of Washington Press,1984),256.As for the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature,Jay Rubin states the following:

［The Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature was］a corporate body founded on May 26,1942,under the direct control of the Cabinet Information Bureau...The association’s great goal,as spelled out in its charter,was to awaken the people to a new world view;specifically,to“establish our world view as writers of the Empire.”

...

If one hoped to function at all as a writer during those years,when the Cabinet Information Bureau kept a blacklist of undesirable authors,one had to be a member of the association.

Given the nature of the commission and the commissioning offices,how could it be possible for Dazai,or any other Japanese writer,to write anything with a free hand?

Another suspicious element about

Sekibetsu

is found in his letter to Yamashita Ryōzō 山下良三 on January 30,1944,shortly after the commission was finalized.In this letter,Dazai Osamu thus describes his feelings about being commissioned:

Soon after the New Year,I was asked by the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature to tackle the difficult task of writing a novel to embody the principles of the Greater East Asia Declaration.Feeling that this will also constitute a contribution to the country,I plan to postpone my other works and devote my heart and soul to this job. ,vols.11,244.

If Dazai had been planning on writing about Lu Xun someday,the commission should have been a happy coincidence and we would expect him to welcome the opportunity.Why did he characterize the task as“difficult”? The element that killed the pleasure of accepting the commission lies,perhaps,in its proviso that the novel must“embody the principles of the Greater East Asia Declaration.”What he left unsaid was that even though he had been thinking about writing a book on Lu Xun,he had never planned to write a novel to serve as propaganda for the military government.

Needless to say,what really matters is what the novel itself has to tell the readers.The narrator in

Sekibetsu

feels obliged to write the journal after a local newspaper reporter interviewed him on Lu Xun’s student life in Sendai and published an account of it on the local newspaper.As presented in the story,the reporter is one of those who spares no effort in playing the role of the mouth-piece for the military authorities.

The result of this interview is serialized in the local newspaper over several days under the title“The Predecessors of Sino-Japanese Amity.”Even though the serialized account is“rather interesting”as a story,the narrator is very upset after reading it because the images of Lu Xun and Professor Fujino have been drastically distorted there.Dazai’s attacks on Japan’s war-time propaganda is quite bold when he explains why the reporter wrote in the way he did.Through the mouth of the old doctor,Dazai says that the newspaper story is“socially and politically motivated”and as such the reporter probably“had no choice but to write it that way.”Ironically,however,art mirrors life: in real life,Dazai found himself in exactly the same position as the newspaper reporter.But in the novel,Dazai says via the narrator that he despises writings produced out of political and social motivation and that he intends to be faithful to Professor Fujino and Lu Xun as a respectful disciple and friend.I believe that the parallelism between art and life should not be taken merely as an irony.It is Dazai’s bold protest against the wartime propaganda as well.

If Dazai’s protest against the wartime propaganda is bold,his criticism against censorship is even more daring.One of the details created by Dazai is the

Nihongo fujiyū-gumi

日本語不自由組,or“the group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language,”whose members include the three main characters: Shū-san the foreigner,Professor Fujino who speaks Kansai-ben,and the narrator who speak with a Northeast accent.On the surface level,“the group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language”amounts to nothing more than a literary device to create some comic effect at the expense of people from places where the standard language is not spoken.But the persistent reference to the lack of freedom of speech at a time when no free speech was possible should ring a bell to us.I believe that this“group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language”in

Sekibetsu

represents Dazai’s most daring protest against the suppression of the freedom of speech in wartime Japan.Standing in contrast with“the group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language”is Tsuda Kenji 津田憲治,an allegorical figure in

Sekibetsu

.He is from Tokyo First College,the most prestigious school in Japan and the cradle of Japanese elite bureaucrats.He is arrogant and dictatorial.As if the allegory is not clear enough,Dazai emphasizes that he speaks Tokyo dialect,with no accent,in contrast with“the group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language.”

Indeed,Tsuda is glib,but he is severely caricatured in the novel.Caricaturization of this figure is yet another example of Dazai’s protest against the authorities.For example,when Tsuda introduces himself to the narrator,he gives the narrator a name card on which is written:“Sendai Medical College,Student Affairs Secretary,Tsuda Kenji.”On seeing this,the narrator ridicules Tsuda:

By this title,it is hard to tell whether he is in the faculty of the Medical College and only concurrently a secretary of Student Affairs Office,or whether he is simply a student,or the secretary to the student union of a certain class.Perhaps,this ambiguity is only intended...Though it was fairly common for students to carry name cards those days with their affiliated school names,a card with this sort of bizarre title was extremely unusual.

Then,when dragging the reluctant narrator to a restaurant,Tsuda keeps complaining that there is no good food to eat in Sendai.“The soba is too oily,”“the eels in Sendai have tendons in them,”“the cutlet is so tough that it tastes like the sole of a shoe.”But no sooner has this eccentric epicure made these strange pronouncements than the narrator looks deep into his mouth and discovers that Tsuda turns out to be,at such a tender age,already a denture wearer.

Furthermore,while Tsuda reprimands the narrator for failing to be a good Japanese host and diplomat by paying the bill for Shū-san when they stay at a Japanese inn and thereby possibly damaging Japan’s image,the next moment Tsuda becomes brazen-faced and forces the narrator to empty his wallet and pay the entire bill for their meal.The narrator is left speechless.

More examples may be cited,but the ones given above should be sufficient to suggest what is in Dazai’s hidden agenda in

Sekibetsu

.We should not forget,on the other hand,that

Sekibetsu

is,after all,a novel brought into being directly by the two agencies.As such it is only to be expected that it contains elements that meet the specifications of the authorities.To obtain a balanced view,it is necessary to examine the overt agenda of the novel as well.

One way Dazai caters to expectations of the authorities is to have his characters parrot wartime slogans.For example,at one point,Tsuda Kenji lies to the narrator by saying that Professor Fujino has warned Japanese students against associating with Shū-san because,while Japan and Russia were at war,anyone from a third country might be a spy.This prompts the narrator to confront Professor Fujino and ask why he held such groundless suspicions against Shūsan.Instead of answering the narrator’s blunt question,Professor Fujino cites one of the buzzwords in wartime Japan:“The great virtue of our polity—should I call it this way?—is that I feel all the more confident in it during times of war.”The“polity”in question,of course,refers to Japan’s so-called unique and superior political system in which the country is ruled by ten thousand generations of unbroken lines of emperors—a myth employed by the military government during the war.

A better example of the open agenda is found in the change of Shū-san’s views on Japan.We are told that,one snowy night,Shū-san reveals his changed view of Japan to the narrator who comments thus on Shū-san’s change:

Japan’s glorious victory ［over Russia］gives even Shū-san,a foreigner,a shock so strong that it is beyond our imagination...It seems that he made a renewed effort at the study of Japan...

“In Japan,there is such a thing called the power of polity,”he would say with a sigh.

Although there seems to be nothing extraordinary in what Shū-san had discovered,I feel that this is a point I wish to emphasize with all the strength I have...He started saying that the Meiji Restoration was by no means initiated by scholars of the Dutch Learning...The fountainhead of the thought of Restoration,in the final analysis,must be traced back to none other than the National Learning...Together,the scholars who were studying the thoughts of our remote ancestors showed us the broad road to saving our country.Namely,realization of the polity of our country and the Emperor’s ruling.Amaterasu the Sun Goddess laid the foundation of our country first,and then,following the Divine generations,Emperor Jimmu 神武天皇 carried on the heritage.Japan is a divine country ruled majestically by ten thousand generations of unbroken lines of royal blood.It is the revelation of this true essence of Japan that is the motivating power behind the Meiji Restoration.

At this point in the novel,we might as well be reading the editorial of wartime Japanese newspapers of the day.

It must be pointed out that the contrast in literary value is striking between elements from the two agendas.Those parts that relate to the overt agenda are very thin in literary value: they contribute virtually nothing to either the construction or the development of the story.For example,Shū-san does not have to realize that“Japan is a divine country ruled by ten thousand generations of unbroken lines of royal blood”in order to turn from medicine to literature: As Dazai himself argues quite convincingly in the novel,Shū-san has always loved literature.Otherwise,he would not be able to be a writer even if he wanted to pursue that profession.Similarly,Professor Fujino does not have to cite“the great virtue of ［Japan’s］polity”in order to dismiss Tsuda Kenji’s blatant lie,nor does the narrator have to emphasize the philosophy of Japanese imperialism“with all the strength”he has in order to restore the true images of his teacher and friend.By contrast,what is involved with the hidden agenda has been carefully designed and forms the organic and indispensable dynamics of the novel.For example,the introduction of the newspaper reporter makes the narrator feel compelled to restore the true images of Professor Fujino and Shū-san,and this arrangement,in turn,provides the framework for the entire novel.Similarly,the creation of“the group lacking in the freedom of the Japanese language”serves not only to bring Professor Fujino,Shū-san and the narrator together,but it serves also to set them apart from the“mouth pieces”of the times such as Tsuda Kenji.One could even go so far as to say that without the carefully designed structure and plot,the story line of the novel itself would collapse.

When the second edition of

Regretful Parting

was published after the war in 1947,Dazai cut over thirty manuscript pages, See“Editor’s Notes to vol.12,375.including one passage consisting of twelve consecutive printed pages. ,vols.7,484.,Given the differences between the overt and the hidden agendas,it is not surprising that all the parts quoted above from the open agenda were cut from the 1947 edition of the novel.There is no doubt that Dazai cut these passages because they became politically incorrect after the war.However,the very fact that

it is possible to cut so much without killing the novel

speaks volumes about the entirely different natures of the two agendas in the novel.

Before Dazai’s commission was finalized,he was asked to write a proposal to lay out the outline of his novel and to explain how it might promote the principle of“independence and amity.”His proposal includes the following statement:

The author has no interest whatsoever in the literary theories of Lu Xun in his later years.Therefore,Lu Xun in his later years won’t be touched on at all in my novel.Instead,I will concentrate only on portraying Shū-san,the pure-minded and sensitive young student from China. ,vols.10,282.

As was mentioned above,Dazai claims that he had intended to write about Lu Xun even without the commission.It is futile today to speculate what Dazai might have written

without

the commission.It would be more productive if we simply ask why,

under

the commission,Dazai chose to limit his topic to Lu Xun’s life in Sendai.The answer should be obvious: Dazai knew that when Lu Xun died in 1936,he was revered as“the soul of the Chinese nation”and a steadfast fighter for the independence of China against Japanese aggression. See Oda Takeo 小田岳夫, 魯迅伝 (Lu Xun: A Biography) (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房,1941),10,295-96.Also see Takeuchi Yoshimi 竹内好, 魯迅 (Lu Xun) (Tokyo: Nihon hyōron sha日本評論社,1944),1.These two books are the major sources Dazai consulted in writing .As such,Lu Xun in his later years would hardly be a fitting topic for the promotion of the Japanese Empire’s“Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”or the principle of“Independence and Amity.”However,even Lu Xun’s experience in Sendai proves to be a double-edged sword.On the one hand,the historical Lu Xun was indeed treated by Professor Fujino with unusual kindness in Sendai,for which Lu Xun was grateful for the rest of his life;on the other hand,it is in Sendai that Lu Xun suffered the unspeakable humiliation which,according to his own account,led to his turning from medicine to literature. Lu Xun wrote specifically about this on at least three occasions: his“Preface to ,”and his two essays entitled“Tengye xiansheng”藤野先生（Professor Fujino） and“Wo zenme zuo qi xiaoshuo lai”我怎么做起小说来（How I Came to Write Novels).But Dazai could hardly let Shū-san leave Sendai in humiliation;—that would run against the principle of“amity,”part of the prescriptions by the commissioning offices.The incident could not be ignored either,since it was such a well-known part of Lu Xun’s Sendai experience and—is documented in great detail in Lu Xun’s famous essay“Professor Fujino.”Here Dazai found himself in a predicament.The only option available,it seems,was to somehow minimize the impact of the incident on Lu Xun.That is what Dazai did.And he did it by creating,towards the end of the novel,a scene of a farewell party for Shū-san in the apartment of the narrator.At this party,Tsuda Kenji is presented as someone who,more than anyone else,is sad to see Shū-san leave and is the first to burst into tears. ,vols.7,121.Yashima,who harassed Lu Xun by accusing him of cheating on school exams in an anonymous letter,is also presented as a good person,“only too serious.”Yashima’s harassment letter is said to have been written out of sheer reverence for the bright Chinese student.I feel that this scene of“farewell party”is the weakest part of the novel.It is self-contradictory to reverse the course and say Tsuda and Yashima are both good,after all they have said and done to Shū-san.It seems that Dazai could not find a way out of the predicament and to avoid keeping the two agendas apart to the end.Here lies the limitation of the novel as a piece of subversive literature.At the end of

Sekibetsu

,the author Dazai Osamu comes to the fore and quotes at length from Lu Xun’s“Professor Fujino”essay,“for readers’ reference,”including the following passage:

At the end of my second year,I called on Professor Fujino to tell him that I was going to stop studying medicine and leave Sendai.A sad shadow crossed his face and he seemed on the point of saying something,but ended up saying nothing...

A few days before I left he called me to his house,gave me a photograph of himself on the back of which he had written“Regretful Parting (

sekibetsu

),”and said he hoped I would give him one of mine.Since I had no photographs at that time,he told me to send him one later when I had one taken,and to write to him from time to time to tell him how I was doing.

After leaving Sendai I did not have a photograph taken for many years,and since I was drifting rather aimlessly and telling him that would only disappoint him,I did not even dare to write to him.As the months and years slipped by,there was so much to tell that I did not know where to start.So though sometimes I wanted to write I found it hard to begin,and I ended up having written him not a single letter nor sent him a single photograph.From his perspective,I have disappeared for good.

But somehow or other I still remember him from time to time twenty years from then.Of all those whom I consider to be my teachers,he is the one to whom I feel most grateful and who gave me the most encouragement...In my eyes he is a great man,and I feel this in my heart even though his name is not known to many people.

I had the class notes he corrected bound into three thick volumes and kept them as a permanent memento.Unfortunately seven years ago when I moved,a case of books broke open on the way and half of the contents were lost including these notes.I asked the transport company to make a search,but to no avail.So all I have left is his photograph which hangs on the east wall of my Beijing lodging,opposite my desk.At night if I am tired and want to take it easy,when I look up and see his thin,dark face in the lamplight,as if about to speak in rhythmic tones,my better nature asserts itself and my courage returns...

Dazai adds that when the

Selected Works of Lu Xun

were to be published in Japan in Japanese translation,Japanese editors asked Lu Xun which works should be included.Lu Xun told them that it only mattered to have his essay“Professor Fujino”included,and that everything else would be left to their discretion.Reading these lines,we are reminded of the true meaning of“amity”and are deeply touched to see how genuine friendship can—and did—develop between the Japanese and the Chinese.At the same time,we feel a deep sorrow that Shū-san and Professor Fujino had to part in the deeply troubled times of Sino-Japanese relations.In a sense,Dazai’s choice of the two characters“惜別

(

sekibetsu

,

Regretful Parting”as the title of the novel spells out the most unmistakable subversion of the principle of“Independence and Amity”adopted by the Joint Declaration of the Greater East Asia Conference.In summary,it is unfair to jump to the conclusion that

Sekibetsu

falls below the notice of criticism because of its alleged complicity with the military government.Despite its limitations,the skillful use of irony,humor,and facetiousness—as well as the author’s courage to use these subversive devices—makes this novel a work deserving a more careful reading than has been undertaken in the West;equally,its author deserves a reevaluation as a wartime writer.The commission of the novel by the two agencies,the novel’s subversive dimension,and its limitations—in short,the subtle and complicated dynamics between politics and literature—lend this piece multiple layers of interpretation and strengthen the case for the initial contentions of this section: that the war years were perhaps not as“barren”as have been believed,and that Japanese literature produced during this period deserves more critical attention than has been warranted by the master narrative.

4.Classic Chinese Criticism and the Role of Illness in Shiga Naoya’s Short Stories

Western scholars sometimes find it difficult to understand the reception of Japanese writers among Japanese readers.A case in point is Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉 (1883-1971).For this article’s third topic,I will discuss how the confusion for Western scholars regarding the reception of Shiga Naoya’s short stories can be explained if we approach them with classic Chinese literary theory.

More than two thousand years ago,Sima Qian 司马迁 (ca.145-86 BCE),the Grand Historian of China,proposed a literary theory about the relationship between the adverse conditions of a writer’s circumstances and the literary achievement he made in Chinese history with the following examples:

It was when King Wen 文王 was in prison that he expanded the

Zhou yi

周易;when Confucius was in straits he wrote the

Spring and Autumn Annals

;when Qu Yuan 屈原 was banished he composed the

Encountering Sorrow

;Zuo Qiu 左丘 lost his sight and so we have the

Conversations from the States

;Sun Zi 孙子 had his feet chopped off,and

The Arts of War

was put together.A pattern in which writers achieve their artistic goals throughout history seems to have been captured by Sima Qian’s remarks,for amazingly similar ideas have been expressed again and again two thousand years later by many modern Japanese writers.For example,Tanizaki Jun’ichirō 谷崎潤一郎 (1886-1965) says,through the mouth of the character Sasuke 佐助 in his novella

Shunkin shō

春琴抄 (A Portrait of Shunkin),that“when you lose your sight you become aware of all sorts of things you never noticed before...However blessed with talent,she ［Shunkin,the blind woman musician and the protagonist］could scarcely have attained the ultimate mastery of her art without tasting the bitterness of life.” Tanizaki Jun’ichirō,,trans.Howard Hibbett (New York: Putnam Publishing Group,1963),80-81.Similarly,Shimazaki Tōson 島崎藤村 (1872-1943) writes in his novel

Hakai

破戒 (The Broken Commandment),by way of the character Tsuchiya Ginnosuke,that“plenty of famous men have had illness to thank for their success...It’s not so ridiculous...Illness is a philosopher,you might say.” Shimazaki Tōson,,trans.Kenneth Strong (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press,1974),36.In a more extreme way,Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介 (1892-1927) recorded how he began to view nature differently when he was determined to end his own life.He wrote in“Aru kyūyū e okuru shuki”ある旧友へ送る手記（My Will: To an Old Friend of Mine) before he committed suicide:“Nature is much more beautiful than it has ever been to me ［who is going to commit suicide］...However,nature is so beautiful precisely because it is seen by the eyes of a dying man.More than anyone else,I gaze at nature,I love it and I understand what it is.” Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介,芥川龍之介全集 (Complete Works of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke),vol.15 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten 岩波書店,1955),173-74.Adverse conditions also have a role to play in many works of Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉 (1883-1971),another modern Japanese writer who has been acclaimed as

shōsetsu no kamisama

小説の神様,or“the god of fiction.” See for example,Nishitsunoi Masayoshi,ed.,,in ,vol.15,ed.Obara Kuniyoshi (Tokyo: Seibundō shinkōsha,1960),346.In this section,I will analyze the underlying role illness plays in Shiga Naoya’s short stories,focusing especially on two of them:“Kinosaki nite”城の崎にて (At Kinosaki,1917) and“Seibei to hyōtan”清兵衛と瓢箪 (Seibei and Gourds,1913).

Speaking of the role illness plays in his early works,Shiga Naoya himself has the following to say:“One derives a certain élan from ...sickness—an excitement which permits one to experience and to express things not accessible under normal conditions of sanity.” Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉, 志賀直哉全集 (Complete Works of Shiga Naoya),vol.7 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店,1973),35.His short story“At Kinosaki”is a good example to illustrate his point.

This story is based on his personal experience and is told in the form of recollections in the first person.Not much happens in the story.The narrator has been injured in a traffic accident,and due to the possibility of a fatal development,his doctor advises him to be cautious and to take a good rest.To this end he goes alone to the hot springs of Kinosaki in Hyogo Prefecture in central Japan.Even though the fatal development was unlikely according to the doctor,the narrator suffers from wounds to his body and other symptoms:“My mind was not quite clear.I had become terribly forgetful.” Unless otherwise indicated,all the quotes from the two short stories under discussion in this paper are from William Sibley’s translation contained in his (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1979),198.Translations of all other works by Shiga Naoya are my own.To a sensitive writer these symptoms and his narrow escape are enough to be a sort of“out of body experience”that leads him to contemplate life and death from a new perspective.This can be clearly seen in the following lines:“It ［death］would happen some day.When? In the past,whenever I wondered about the ‘when,’ I had unconsciously thrust it far into the future.Now I had come to realize it could be anytime.”Yet he is not frightened by this new understanding of death.Rather,relaxing in peaceful Kinosaki,he says that“my spirit had grown so unaccountably tranquil.In one way or another,I had become intimate with death.”

Then the narrator goes on to describe the three different deaths he observed during his stay at Kinosaki: the tranquil death of a bee on the roof of the inn where he stayed,the violent death of a rat struggling for life in a turbulent river with a group of children and a rickshaw man chasing it and showering stones on it from the bank,and the accidental death of a salamander by the hand of the narrator himself with a single stone.In each case,the narrator identifies himself in one way or another with the animal.For example,seeing that death is so tranquil for the bee,the narrator says,“I felt a kinship with that stillness.”Then,upon observing the rat“struggling for all it was worth against its fate of certain death,”the narrator“could not help reflecting that indeed I had approached the ［same］state ［as the rat］after my accident...persisting in my will to survive and doing everything in my power to that end.”In this sense,“I would not then have acted so very differently from the rat.”In contrast with the first two deaths,the accidental killing of the salamander by the narrator makes him realize the unpredictability of death:“The salamander’s death was in a real sense quite accidental...I felt with equal force the gentle pathos of all living things.By chance I had not died and by chance the salamander had.”

At the end of the story,we read:“I left Kinosaki when my three weeks were up.I have in the end been spared the serious complications which could have developed out of my injury.”But the effect of the accident is far-reaching for the narrator,the alter ego of the author.He survived the accident with a changed view of a much more fundamental issue,that of life and death,as we can see from his highly philosophical reflections:“To be alive and to be dead were not opposite extremes.They were not far apart at all.”If we regard this statement as Shiga Naoya’s philosophy of life and death,this philosophy is born out of his own illness.

The above point can be supported if we compare“At Kinosaki”with“Dekigoto”出来事 (An Incident,1913),another of Shiga Naoya’s short stories that also deals with a traffic accident,this time involving an accident

witnessed

by the author.It tells of a little boy,who,at first thought to have been hit and killed by a streetcar on a drowsy summer afternoon,turns out to be unharmed;the half-asleep passengers in the vehicle are first alarmed and then relieved to see the turnout of things.As if a result of Shiga Naoya’s karma,the accident that inspired Shiga Naoya to write“At Kinosaki”took place on August 15,1913,the very day he finished“An Incident.”In his diary entry from this day,we read this:“After revising and finishing ‘An Incident,’ I took a nap.Then Satomi Ton came to visit.I got up and we read my ‘An Incident’ and played chess.In the evening,we went out for a walk...On my way back,I was hit from behind by a Yamanote Line streetcar which cut my head and hit my back.” This entry is cited in Kuribayashi Hideo 栗林秀雄 and Fukuda Kiyoto 福田清人, 志賀直哉 (Tokyo: Shimizu Shoin 清水書院,1968),141.Contrasting these two works on traffic accidents,Kuribayashi Hideo says that“although in real life the accidents referred to in ‘An Incident’ and ‘At Kinosaki’ were experienced one after another,there is an enormous difference in the two worlds depicted in the two works,in the author’s mental states,and in the tone of the works.”As the author was not directly involved in the accident,the former is no more than a minor piece commending the good nature of the ordinary folks.In contrast,the latter is a true masterpiece with a much more serious theme crystallized from the author’s personal experience of some lifethreatening mishap and his contemplation on the issue of life and death thereafter.

If Shiga Naoya’s physical injury motivated him to write“At Kinosaki,”his spiritual injury can be said to underlie“Seibei and Gourds.”This short story tells of Seibei,a twelve-year-old boy with a consuming passion for the art of gourd-making.He has been collecting gourds for some time despite his father’s contemptuous disapproval.One of his father’s colleagues expresses surprise at the simple,ordinary shapes the boy seems to prefer in his collection.By the same token,the boy is not in the least attracted to the rare and misshapen varieties that adult connoisseurs fuss over.At an exhibition of local arts and crafts,he takes but a single look at the famous“Bakin’s gourd”——named after the famous Edo-period popular writer Bakin 馬琴—and concluded that it was“ridiculous.”

One day Seibei comes upon a particularly fine specimen in the marketplace.Thoroughly enchanted with his find,he rushes home to fetch money and soon returns to buy it.He is so pleased with his new gourd that he is reluctant to part with it even when he is at school.Soon afterward,however,he is caught polishing his prized possession under his desk by a stern teacher of the“morals class,”who is an outsider to the town and utterly disdains the passion of local people for gourds.Seibei’s gourd is therefore confiscated and his“misconduct”reported to his parents.

Upon hearing the report from the“morals class”teacher,Seibei’s father sees in this consuming passion for gourds proof that his son“will never amount to anything.”He gives Seibei a sound thrashing,and then,taking up a sledge hammer,smashes all the remaining gourds Seibei has collected.

As for the confiscated gourd,the“morals class”teacher gives it for immediate disposal to the school janitor,who later secretly sells it,after some clever bargaining,to a local curio dealer for fifty yen,an equivalent of four months worth of his wages.The dealer,in turn,secretly sells the gourd to a local rich man for six hundred yen!

In the meantime,Seibei has long since forgotten about the incident and has forgiven his father.He now devotes all of his energy to painting——a pastime for which his father has already begun to show renewed disapproval.

The work does not lack in humor.For example,we can hardly help smiling when we read how one day Seibei,in his infatuation for gourds,mistakes the bald head of an old man for a splendid-looking gourd.Or when we read how excited he is when he finds the gourd,which he later turns into a masterpiece and which,unfortunately,causes the confiscation incident at school and cuts him off from gourds completely.

But the work has a serious side to it as well,as pointed out by Endō Tasuku in his introduction to the story contained in

Shiga Naoya shū

(Collected Works of Shiga Naoya):“If we change the gourd—the focus in the story—into the

shōsetsu

小説 (namely,literature or fiction),then Naoya's vehement sarcasm underlying the humorous story becomes obvious.” Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉, 志賀直哉集 (Collected Works of Shiga Naoya),eds.Shindō Junkō 進藤純孝 and Endō Tasuku 遠藤祐,日本近代文学大系 (Modern Japanese Literature Series),vol.31 (Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten 角川書店,1971),583.To understand the target of the sarcasm,we need to remind ourselves of the basic human relationship depicted in the story: the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed.The oppressed is of course Seibei the boy,the growing young artist;the tyrannical oppressing force,on the other hand,is represented by Seibei's father and the“morals class”teacher.Even though the story develops around Seibei the boy and his gourds,it really deals with a social issue: namely,what attitude a parent or a teacher should take towards children’s attempts at developing their natural talents in general,and their interest in art in particular.The father and the“morals”instructor not only disapprove of Seibei’s fascination with the art of gourd-making,they go so far as to forbid him to practice it by mercilessly confiscating and smashing Seibei’s gourds,and by ridiculing him for his interest in gourds.He is said to have“no future whatsoever”(the teacher’s words) and to be“a worthless punk...messing around with gourds”(the father’s words).When we read how Seibei“went pale”when the teacher confiscated his best gourd,and how,when the teacher appeared at his home and sharply criticized his mother for the alleged negligence in disciplining the son,Seibei“shrank into his corner at the man’s threatening,outraged tone,”or how he“looked on,pale and silent as before”as his father“fetched a sledge hammer and smashed them ［his finished gourds］into pieces,each and every one,”we cannot help but feel sympathetic to Seibei,the boy who is so helpless in front of such disproportionately more powerful oppressors.

The author’s sarcasm becomes clear when we read how Seibei is depicted as a true artist.While the father and the father’s friend admire“Bakin’s Gourd”because“it really was huge,”“very long,”and“had been a great success with the fair-goers,”Seibei thinks nature is most beautiful and prefers gourds that are fresh,simple,and uncut.He works on his gourds in his own style and sticks to his principle regardless of what others might say.The sarcasm is sharpest in the episode describing the sale of the confiscated gourd after“the incident.”We are told that the curio dealer offers the school janitor only five yen at first for the confiscated gourd,then the price goes up to ten yen.When it eventually changes hands,it does so at the price of fifty yen.And finally,it is sold at a staggeringly high price of six hundred yen,the worth of four full years of the school janitor’s wages! As the price of the confiscated gourd goes higher and higher,the absurdity of the situation becomes more and more striking: the value of true art is not recognized by the adults and the first earnest artistic attempt of a young talent is frustrated—while the second,painting,is also in possible danger.In this sense,“Seibei and Gourds,”while possessing a humorous and lighthearted side,is an effective piece of social criticism at the same time.

The effectiveness of the piece,however,is a result of Shiga Naoya’s personal experience with spiritual illness.In regard to this illness and“Seibei and Gourds,”Kuribayashi Hideo 栗林秀雄 makes the following comment:

The one big spiritual issue during Naoya’s younger days was the animosity between him and his father which stands prominently in his works...Because of the frequent open conflicts,the gap between him and his father became wider and wider.He had to suffer the spiritual oppression day after day.The escape from this suffering,he left home and went to live in Onomichi by himself after one of the conflicts.The story he wrote using materials he obtained from that town is this“Seibei and Gourds.” Hayashi Hideo,,132.

Shiga Naoya himself says the following in his“Sōsaku yodan”創作余談 (Reflections on Creative Writing) about how he came to write“Seibei and Gourds:”

I heard people tell a story similar to it in a steamboat on my way from Onomichi to Shikoku...Although that is the way the raw materials came about,the motivation behind my turning it into a story is the protest against my father who strongly disproves my writing novels.There is an episode in the story about Bakin 馬琴’s Gourd...［The reason I added this episode into the piece is that］before I left home for Onomichi,my father reprimanded me,saying“What kind of a career on earth are you going to pursue,writing novels and doing things like that?”To that I answered“Bakin is also a novelist.But he is only a lousy one,”knowing that my father was a fan of Bakin and was reading his

Hakkenden

八犬伝 (Biography of Eight Dogs,1814-1841). Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉,志賀直哉选集 (Selected Works of Shiga Naoya),in 《現代日本文学全集》第20卷 (Complete Collection of Modern Japanese Literature),vol.20 (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房,1954),402.In fact the verbal exchange in this real-life father-son clash is included almost verbatim in Shiga’s

Aru otoko,sono ane no shi

ある男、その姉の死 (A Certain Man,His Sister’s Death,1920),a novella that deals with father-son conflicts.The following is the relevant part of this work (the elder brother in the story is modeled on Shiga himself):

“What on earth are you going to do in the future,writing novels and doing things like that?”

My brother gave a sullen look but said nothing.

“Become a novelist? What kind of a person is that anyway?”My father continued in a contemptuous tone.

“Bakin was also a novelist.But he was only a lousy one.I want to be a real novelist.”In his excitement,my brother snapped back.He brought up the Edo period writer at such a time because he knew that my father was a fan of Bakin and was reading his

Biography of Eight Dogs

and the like.

The two of them were silent for a while.Then all of a sudden,my father said:“How about this——from now on you try and support yourself...”

As if knocked by someone on the chest,my brother looked at my father.Then he said:“Fine.I’ll support myself.” Keene,,462.

It is obvious from these passages that Shiga Naoya was deeply hurt when his desire to become a writer was contemptuously sneered at as worthless.If the author’s physical illness underlies“At Kinosaki,”we have reason to believe that his spiritual illness underlies“Seibei and Gourds”—a dynamic captured more than two thousand years ago by Sima Qian.

In the West,however,Shiga Naoya has received very different treatment.For example,while“At Kinosaki”is one of the most celebrated pieces of Shiga Naoya,Japan’s“god of

sh

ō

setsu

小説,”Donald Keene questions whether the piece deserves the honor.He states:Certainly,to describe such works as

shōsetsu

was to redefine the term: the author’s function was essentially to select,arrange,and present materials that owed nothing to the imagination.There are no dramatic incidents to lend excitement to the story,nor can it be said to probe deeply into the character of the narrator.

Obviously,Keene is puzzled by Shiga Naoya’s reception by Japanese readers.But his puzzlement originates from his perspective as a“blue-eyed Tarōkaja,”through which certain works of Japanese literature are seen in a negative light if they lack Western standards for literary quality.In contrast,if we apply classic Chinese critical standards to Shiga Naoya’s short stories,or to Tanizaki Jun’ichirō,Shimazaki Tōson and Akutagawa Ryūnosuke for that matter,a pattern that operates consistently in modern Japanese literature emerges with great clarity.

Conclusion

In conclusion,while the main dynamic of modern Japanese literature operates in its changing responses to its encounter with the West,“China”in a broad sense remains a force after Japan’s“dawn to the West.”This is seen,for example,in the widespread

kanbun

-style writing during the Meiji period,in works inspired by China-related sources,and in the literary tradition that adverse circumstances leading to great literary achievement,first stated by Sima Qian.My analysis of the Meiji political novel

Kajin no kigū

,written in

kanbun

style and devoted to the topic of Japan’s efforts to modernize itself,demonstrates the folly of viewing modern Japanese literature as solely aesthetically-oriented with no interest in political matters.It also shows how unfair it is to exclude

Kajin no kigū

from the canon of Modern Japanese literature,an exclusion that has several consequences in the West.One of these consequences is that it effaces the work’s legacy in Japan today;Another is that it conceals the absurdity of the ambiguous theory of“

kokken shōsetsu

(national rights novels)”proposed by Japanese scholars about Meiji political novels devoted to Japan’s nation-building.The term lumps together works totally different in nature: patriotic novels advocating the correction of unequal treaties imposed on Japan by Western powers,righteous novels proposing Japan’s solidarity with other Asian nations against Western aggression,and imperialistic novels promoting Japan’s expansion of its territory by force following the example of Western imperialism.Similarly,my examination of Dazai Osamu’s wartime novel

Sekjibetsu

,which is inspired by Lu Xun’s experience in Japan,challenges the claim that Japan’s wartime years were a“barren period”in literature.As my analysis reveals,literature and politics interacted both subtly and intensely during the war,lending another piece of evidence against Japanese literature being uniquely aesthetic and apolitical.Finally,as I have argued above,we do not need to“redefine”the term

shōsetsu

,as Doneld Keene suggests,to understand why Shiga Naoya has been acclaimed as“the god of fiction”in Japan and why his“

Kinosaki nite”

has been included in Japanese school textbooks as

sh

ō

setsu

.We simply need to remind ourselves of Sima Qian’s remarks on adverse conditions and a writer’s achievement and its deep-rooted tradition in Japan,as seen in similar remarks made by many Japanese writers.In short,this“China approach”provides an alternative perspective to modern Japanese literature with more explanatory power than Western appreach,at least as for as the three topice discussed above are concerned.

Bibliography参考文献

CHENG Ching-mao.“The Impact of Japanese Literary Trends on Modern Chinese Writers.”In

Modern Chinese Literature in the May Fourth Era

.Edited by Merle Goldman.Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1977.Dazai,Osamu.

Dazai Osamu: Selected Stories and Sketches

.Translated by James O’Brien.Ithaca,New York: China-Japan Program,Cornell University,1983.Keene,Donald.

Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature in the Modern Era (Fiction)

.New York: Henry Holt and Company,1984.——.

Landscapes and Portraits

.Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd.,1971.

Mertz,John.“Meiji Political Novels and the Origin of Literary Modernity.”PhD diss.,Cornell University,1993.

Miner,Earl.

An Introduction to Japanese Court Poetry

.Stanford: Stanford University Press,1968.Molasky,Michael,and RABSON,Steve.Edited.

Southern Exposure: Modern Japanese Literature from Okinawa

.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,2000.Rubin,Jay.

Injurious to Public Morals: Writers and the Meiji State

.Seattle: University of Washington Press,1984.Sakaki,Atsuko.“

Kajin no kigū

:

The Meiji Political Novel and the Boundaries of Literature.”

Monumenta Nipponica

55,no.1 (Spring 2000): 83-108.Sansam,George Bailey.

The Western World and Japan

.New York: Alfred A.Knopf,1949.Sibley,William F.

The Shiga Hero

.Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1979.Torrance,Robert.“Modernism and Modernity.”Review of

Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature in the Modern Era,Volume I: Fiction;Volume II: Poetry,Drama,Criticism

(1987)

and

The Pleasures of Japanese Literature

(1988),by Donald Keene

.Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese

22,no.2

(November 1988): 195-223.ZHENG Guohe.“Politics of Canon Formation and Writing Style: A Linguistic Analysis of

Kajin no kig

ū.”In

The Linguistic Turn in Contemporary Japanese Literary Studies

.Edited by Michael K.Bourdaghs.Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies,The University of Michigan,2010,221-43.

芥川龍之介：《芥川龍之介全集》第15巻,東京：岩波書店,1955。

［AKUTAGAWA,Ryūnosuke.

Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū

(Complete Works of Akutagawa Ryunosuke).Vol.15.Tokyo: Iwanami shoten,1955.］

千葉正昭：《太宰治と魯迅—「惜別」を中心として》，《国文学解釈と鑑賞》 48 (9) 1983年，第130-134页。

［CHIBA,Masaaki.“

Dazai Osamu to Ro Jin

”(Dazai Osamu and Lu Xun)

.

Kokubungaku kaishaku to kansh

ō (June 1983): 130-34.］

太宰治：《太宰治全集》全12巻。東京：筑摩書房,1989-1991.

［DAZAI,Osamu.

Dazai Osamu zenshū

(Complete Works of Dazai Osamu).12 vols.Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,1989-1991.］井伏鱒二：《翻刻本の面白さ：『佳人之奇遇』 につぃて》，《春陽堂月報》 1930年6月第4期。［IBUSE,Masuji.“Honkokuhon no omoshirosa: Kaijin no kigū ni tsuite”(Strange Encounters with Beautiful Women).

Shun’yōdō geppō

(

Shun’ yōdō Monthly

) (June 1930): 4.］

五木寛之：《弱者の視点から》，《国文学 解釈と教材の研究》 21 (4),1976年，第116-117页。

［ITSUKI,Hiroyuki.“Jakusha no shiten kara”(From the Perspective of the Weak).

Kokubungaku: kaishaku to ky

ō

zai no kenkyū

21 (March 1976): 116-17.］

川村湊:《「惜別」論—「大東亜の親和」の幻》，《国文学 解釈と教材の研究》 36 (4)，1991年，第68-75页。

［KAWAMURA,Minato.“‘Sekibetsu’ ron: ‘daitōa no shinwa’ no maboroshi”(On

Regretful Parting

: The Illusion of the Amity of the Greater East Asia)

.

Kokubungaku

(April 1991): 68-75.］

ドナルド·キーン：《碧い眼の太郎冠者》，東京：中央公論社、1957。

［KEEN,Donald.

Aoi me no Tarōkaja

(A Blue-eyed Tarōkaja).Tokyo: Chūō kōronsha,1957.

木村毅：《日米文学交流史の研究》，東京：講談社，1982。

［KIMURA,Ki.

Nichibei bungaku kōryūshi no kenkyū

(A Study of the History of Japanese American Literary Exchanges).Tokyo: Kodansha,1982.］

権錫永：《〈時代的言説〉と〈非時代的言説〉—「惜別」》，《国語国文研究》 (96)，1994年，第30-43页。

［KON,Sokuyon.“‘Jidaiteki gensetsu’ to ‘hijidaiteki gensetsu’: ‘Sekibetsu’”(The Discourses Fitting and Unfitting the Times).

Kokugo kokubun kenkyûū

96 (September 1994): 30-43.］

栗林秀雄：《志賀直哉》，福田清人編《人と作品》第30巻。東京：清水書院，1968。

［KURIBAYASHI,Hideo.

Shiga Naoya

.In

Hito to sakuhin

(People and Their Literary Works).Vol.30.Edited by Fukuda Kiyoto.Tokyo: Shimizu shoin,1968.］

桑原武夫: 《文学理論の研究》，東京：岩波書店，1967.

［KUWABARA,Takeo,ed.

Bungaku riron no kenkyū

(A Study of Literary Theories).Tokyo: Iwanami shoten,1967.］

前田愛：《近代日本の文学空間》，東京：新曜社，1983。

［MAEDA,Ai.

Kindai Nihon no bungaku kūkan

(Modern Japan and Its Literary Space).Tokyo: Shin’yōsha,1983.］

中村光夫：《ふたたび政治小説を》，中央公論 74 (6)，1959年，第281-291页。

［NAKAMURA,Mitsuo.“Futatabi senji shōsetsu o”(Reconsidering Political Novels.

Chūō kōron

(May 1959): 281-83.］

——.《作品解説》，《 政治小説集》,《日本現代文学全集》第3巻，東京：講談社，1965年，第395-400页。

［——.“Sakuhin kaisetsu”(Introduction to Works of This Volume) to

Seiji shōsetsu shū

(Collected Works of Political Novels).In

Nihon gendai bungaku zenshū

(Completed Collections of Modern Japanese Literature).Vol.3.Tokyo: Kodansha,1965,395-400.］

奈良本辰也，陈舜臣：《歴史対談日本と中国：近代の幕明け》，東京：徳間書店，1986.

［NARAMOTO,Tatsuya,and CHIN Shunshin.

Nihon to Chūgoku: kindai no makuake

(Dialogue: Japan and China,at the Dawn of the Modern Period).Tokyo: Tokuma shoten,1986.］

西田勝：《戦争と文学者：現代文学の根底を問う》，東京：三一書房，1983年.

［NISHIDA,Katsuru.

Sensō to bungakusha: gendai bungaku no kontei o tou

(War and Writers: Digging the Roots of Modern Literature).Tokyo: San’ichi shobō,1983.］

野乃宮紀子：《惜別》，《国文学解釈と鑑賞 64 (9)，1999年，第119-124页。

［NONOMIYA,Noriko.“Sekibetsu”(Regretful Parting).

Kokubungaku to kanshō

(September 1999): 119-124.］

小田岳夫：《魯迅伝》，東京：筑摩書房,1941.

［ODA,Takeo.

Ro Jin den

(A Biography of Lu Xun).Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,1941.］

尾崎秀樹：《大東亜共同宣言と二つの作品》，《文学》 29 (8),1961年，第20-38页。

［OZAKI,Hotsuki.“Daitōa kyōdō sengen to futatsu no sakuhin”(The Daclaration of the Greater East Asia and Two Literary Works).

Bungaku

29 (August 1961): 20-38.］

志賀直哉：《志賀直哉集》，進藤純孝、遠藤祐編《日本近代文学大系》第31巻，東京：角川書店,1971.

［SHIGA,Naoya.

Shiga Naoya shū

(Collected Works of Shiga Naoya).In

Nihon kindai bungaku taikei

(Modern Japanese Literature Series).Vol.31.Edited by Shindō Junkō and Endō Tasuku.Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten,1971.］

——.《志賀直哉选集》，《現代日本文学全集》第20巻，東京：筑摩書房,1954.

［——.

Shiga Naoya zenshū

(Selected Works of Shiga Naoya).In

Gendai Nihon bungaku zensh

ū

(Complete Collection of Modern Japanese Literature).Vol.20.Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,1954.］

鈴木修次：《中国文学と日本文学》， 東京：東京書籍株式会社,1987.

［SUZUKI,Shūji.

Chūgoku bungaku to Nihon bungaku

(Chinese Literature and Japanese Literature).Tokyo: Tokyo shoseki kabushiki kaisha,1987.］

高橋秀太郎：《太宰治『惜別』論》，《日本文学論考》， (1999.10),第69-83页。

［TAKAHASHI,Shūtarō.“Dazai Osamu ‘Sekibetsu’ ron”(On

Regretful Parting

by Dazai Osamu).

Nihon bungei ronkō

(October 1999): 69-83.］

太宰治：《惜别》，于小植译，北京：新星出版社，2010年。

［TAIZAI,Zhi.

Xibie

(Regretful Parting).Translated by YU Xiaozhi.Beijing: Xinxing chubanshe,2010.］

竹内好：《魯迅》，東京：日本評論社,1944。

［TAKEUCHI,Yoshimi.

Ro Jin

(Lu Xun).Tokyo: Nihon hyōron sha,1944.］

東郷克美，渡部芳紀:《作品論 太宰治》，東京：双文出版,1974。

［TŌGŌ,Kokumi,and WATABE Yoshinori,eds.

Sakuhinron: Dazai Osamu

(A Study of Dazai Osamu’s Works).Tokyo: Sōbunsha shuppan,1974.］

德富蘆花：《蘆花全集》，东京：新潮社，1928。

［TOKUTOMI,Roka.

Roka zenshū

(Complete Collection of Tokutomi Roka).Tokyo: Shinchōsha,1928,92-93.］

王向远：《“笔部队”与侵华战争》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，1999年。

［WANG Xiangyuan.

“Bibudui”yu qinhua zhanzheng

(“The Pen Units”and Japanese Invasion against China).Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press,1999.］

柳田泉：《明治政治小説集 (2)》，《明治文学全集》，第6巻，東京：筑摩書房，1967年。

［YANAGIDA,Izumi,ed.

Meiji seiji shōsetsu shū

(Meiji Political Novels).Vol.2.

In

Meiji bungaku zenshū

(Complete Works of Meiji Literature).Vol.6.Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,1967.］——.《佳人之奇遇と東海散士》，《政治小説研究 》第1巻，東京：春秋社，1967年。［——.ed.“

Kajin no kigū

to Tōkai Sanshi”(Kajin no kigū and Tokai Sanshi).In

Seiji shōsetsu kenkyū

(A Study of Political Novels).Vol.1.Tokyo: Shunjūsha,1967.］

郑国和：《柴四朗〈佳人奇遇〉研究》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2000年。

［ZHENG Guohe.

Chai Silang Jiaren qiyu yanjiu

(A Study of Strange Encounters with Beautiful Women by Shiba Shirō).Wuhan: Wuhan University Press,2000.］