Panel Outline

The different representations and imaginings of East Asia that have appeared in modern Japanese literature show how various literary figures perceived time and history against the transnational background of the time. By exploring them in the “space between events and literature,” we believe it is possible to present a more detailed picture of the diverse and fluid representations of East Asia.

In the modern era, when the tributary system centered on the Chinese dynasties collapsed, Japan and the other East Asian countries, shaken by the encounter with the West, struggled to position themselves in East Asia while searching for a new order. During the tumultuous Meiji and Taishō eras, the Japanese people’s perception was shaped not only by major international conflicts, such as the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars and the First World War, but also by series of smaller “incidents” that marked the era. For example, the Maria Luz Incident of 1872 is remembered as a major turning point in Sino-Japanese relations. The Li Hongzhang sniping incident (1895), the assassination of Itō Hirobumi (1909) and the massacre of Koreans (1923) at the time of the Great Kantō Earthquake, among others, have also cast a shadow over the relations between the three East Asian countries. Kurokawa Sō’s Ansatsusha-tachi (Assassins, 2013), which recounts these turbulent times, shows that the numerous “incidents” did not stop at the political or social level, but strongly stimulated literary figures’ awareness of the times, as well as their literary creativity.

In the Meiji and Taishō periods, such examples can be identified in Tokutomi Sohō, who advocated for Japanese expansionism; Natsume Sōseki, who wrote Mankan Tokoro Dokoro (Travels in Manchuria and Korea); Masaoka Shiki and Kunikida Doppo, who went to wartime China as military reporters; Tayama Katai, who became a military reporter during the Russo-Japanese War; or Okamoto Kido and Nakarai Tōsui, who, among others, projected “incidents” into literature, writing about the state and the individual, Japan and the East Asia, and Japan and the world, and producing works in a wide variety of media. On the other hand, while not necessarily falling under the category of “historical events,” there were numerous other “incidents” that can be seen as significant in the eyes of the literary community.

If we are to consider the exchange of “knowledge” across borders as an “incident” in literary creation, then Akutagawa Ryūnosuke’s Shina Yūki (Travels in China), Tanizaki Jun’ichirō’s “Soshū Kikō” (Travels in Suzhou) and “Shanhai Kenbunroku” (Shanghai Observations), and Haruo Satō’s Nanpō Kikō (Travels in the South) clearly showcase the Japanese writers’ experiences and perceptions of Asia. It is significant to examine the discrepancies and connections between the “incidents” described in history books and the “incidents” as seen by literary figures, and to shed light on the actual conditions through which Japanese literary figures of the Meiji and Taishō periods perceived, represented, and recorded their times. By revisiting the way Japanese people in modern history imagined and perceived East Asia through such texts, we can also expect to gain some insights into the current chaotic situation in East Asia.

By tackling the above questions through a multifaceted and multitemporal view, we hope to shed new light on our understanding of the diverse relations between modern Japan and East Asia from a literary perspective. We aim to reexamine these relationships as experienced and/ or imagined by literary figures, focusing on political systems and the international order, as well as migration and intellectual exchange, in order to reconsider the future of modern Japanese literature and the East Asian world.

AMJLS Organizing Committee

Abstracts

Lecture

KUROKAWA Sō: The Process of the Emergence of a Shared “Modern Literature” in Far East Asia

Throughout the world, the confluence of oral and written language has been the genesis of “modern literature.”

The works written by the Russian poet Pushkin in the first half of the 19^th century eventually formed the basis of modern written language and orthography. Similarly, the Grimm Brothers’ collection of folk tales and the attempts to compile a German dictionary, or Vuk Karadzic’s collection of legends and folk poetry in Serbia, formed the basis of a standardized writing system of those languages. Such grasp of a grammar based on spoken language, emanating from sources from all over the world, forms the great surge of “modern literature” as a whole.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, in the Far East Asian city of Tokyo, Natsume Sōseki wrote a series of pioneering novels serialized in newspapers, using the impersonal, colloquial genbun-icchi style, and containing meticulous psychological descriptions. This was the period immediately after the end of the Russo-Japanese War (1905) and the annexation of Korea (1910), when it is said that there were as many as 10,000 Chinese students (including many revolutionaries) in Tokyo. Zhou Zhangshou, (later Lu Xun) was one of them. Among the students from Korea was Yi Gwangsu, who later became known as the founder of modern Korean literature. All of them were youths who read Sōseki’s works with great enthusiasm.

The Far East Asian countries of China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam formed the so-called “Sinosphere,” which used different spoken languages but shared a written language. In other words, even if they could not communicate directly, they could understand each other in writing, which made it easier for students from neighboring countries to come to Japan to study. Tokyo became a “hub” city in this cultural sphere by being one step ahead of other cities in the movement toward modernization; it became a crossroads where people of different nationalities came together.

In this city, Mori Ōgai continued to translate a wide variety of texts pertaining to foreign literature and arts (mainly indirectly, from German), making full use of the German language he had acquired during his studies in Europe. On the other hand, Lu Xun, after returning to China, continued to introduce various works from around the world to the Chinese public (mainly by translating them indirectly from Japanese), using the language skills he had acquired during his study in the country. This was not only the practice Shinbunka Undō (New Culture Movement) used to promote literary creation in the colloquial written language, but also an enlightenment activity to inform the public about global trends, as well as to create and accumulate a colloquial vocabulary for the new Chinese language.

It is worth mentioning that the tradition of using Chinese characters in Far East Asia was based on a strong “male culture” that excluded women. In contrast, women in Japan had developed their own literature and art using the kana script. In their writing—be it the Japanese literary style of The Pillow Book of the Heian period, or the elegant eclectic style adopted by Higuchi Ichiyō in Takekurabe (Growing Up / Child’s Play) and Nigorie (Troubled Waters / Muddy Bay) in the Meiji period— the “colloquial” style, unrestrained by literary formulae, remained strongly intact. Conversely, the free and vigorous tone of the women in Sōseki’s Sanshirō, Sore Kara (And Then), and Mon (The Gate), for example, could only be incorporated into a modern literary style by using the colloquial language.

During this period, i.e., after annexing Taiwan (1895) in the Sino-Japanese War, Japan further expanded its colonial rule to the Liaodong Peninsula and South Sakhalin (1905), Korea (1910), Micronesia (South Sea Islands), and Qingdao in Jiaozhou Bay, China (1914). In these regions, “Japanese language” education was promoted at the elementary level. Even in these “outer territories” (colonies and areas under Japanese rule), literary works in “Japanese” were written. Some works were written by newly arrived Japanese writers, while others were created by local writers who were compelled to write in Japanese. For the local writers, writing in Japanese, which was not their native language, was extremely difficult. However, they made every effort to depict what they could, including their struggles and resistance against the situation they found themselves in.

It is not only Japanese who use the Japanese language. In my talk, I would like to look at the history of “modern literature” written in Japanese over the past 150 years since the Meiji period from the perspective of its users, including non-Japanese. The most profound experience of creation in the Japanese language extends there.

Presentation 1

QI Jinying: Natsume Sōseki’s Representation of Manchuria and Ishimitsu Masakiyo’s Accounts of the Russo-Chinese War: “Subjects” in the Age of Intersecting Imperialism

Manchuria often appears in the works of Natsume Sōseki. One such example is the reference to the “poetic sentiment” of the “imperial subjects,” excited about the triumphant victory in the war in Shumi no Iden (The Heredity of Taste). In this text, Sōseki describes the scenes of carnage in Manchuria, the battleground of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). He also talks about feeling alienated from the “imperial subjects” who are excited about the triumphant victory. In Kusamakura (The Three-Cornered World), the artist criticizes the train that takes the volunteer soldier Kyūichi and the wandering “wild samurai” to the battlefields of Manchuria as the epitome of “twentieth-century civilization.” Furthermore, Yasui in Mon (The Gate) and Morimoto in Higan sugi made (To the Spring Equinox and Beyond) are described as drifters who leave for Manchuria after the Russo-Japanese War because they could no longer make a living in Japan. In these texts, negative imagery prevails, as protagonists “die by the roadside.” For Sōseki’s characters, Manchuria connotes “death,” and, in general, Sōseki’s representations of Manchuria are not pleasant.

Manchuria was not only the battleground of the Russo-Japanese War. It was also the battleground of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) and the Russo-Chinese War (1900). In Manchuria, at the end of the Qing Dynasty, relations of power revolving around Japan, China, and Russia were extremely complex. It was under such circumstances that Ishimitsu Masakiyo, who visited the Russo-Chinese border in 1899 for espionage purposes, “witnessed” the slaughter of Chinese residents in Russia by the Russians during the Russo-Chinese War, and approached the mounted rebels who resisted the Russians.

In Ishimitsu’s memoirs, Kōya no Hana: Shinpen / Ishimitsu Masakiyo no Shuki (2) Giwadan Jiken (Flowers of Wilderness, New Edition of Ishimitsu Masakiyo’s Memoirs (2): The Boxer Rebellion), documenting the Russo-Chinese War, we can see a certain “genuineness” that transcends national and ethnic borders and is communicated between nationalist “patriots” like Ishimitsu, Japanese “prostitutes” shipped to Manchuria, and Manchu mounted rebels who boast their “chivalrous” spirit.

In this presentation, while examining how “subjects,” “patriots,” and “rebels” faced the age of imperialism in East Asia at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the end of the Meiji period, I want to shed light on the various “peoples” who, disconnected from the framework of the “nation,” deviate from it but connect with each other, as can be glimpsed from Sōseki’s representations of Manchuria in his works and from Ishimitsu’s representations of mounted rebels during the Russo-Chinese War.

Presentation 2

WANG Yiyun: Shimamura Hōgetsu and Taiwan: Geijutsu-za Theatre Troupe’s Tour of Taiwan

Shimamura Hōgetsu was a man of letters who tried to formulate a theory for a new literature at the end of the Meiji period. He is also known for his initiative in reforming the theatrical movement. His decision to leave his former teacher Tsubouchi Shōyō due to a love affair with Matsui Sumako and establish the Geijutsu-za theatre troupe was a major incident that shook the literary and theatrical worlds of the time. Led by him, in 1915 the troupe toured not only in Japan but also Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and Vladivostok: that is to say, both Japan’s naichi (metropole) and gaichi (overseas territories).

This presentation will focus on the Taiwan tour of the Geijutsu-za. The activities of Hōgetsu, Sumako, and the rest of the troupe were covered in detail in Taiwan’s largest newspaper at the time, Taiwan Nichinichi Shimpō (Taiwan Daily). In addition to performances, Hōgetsu also gave a lecture in Taipei titled “Shingeijutsu ni tsuite” (On New Art). What was Hōgetsu’s thinking when he gave the lecture in colonized Taipei? And what did the people in Taiwan expect from him? With these questions in mind, based on previous research on theater history in both Taiwan and Japan, I will analyze articles in the Taiwanese literary magazine Kōjin (Red Dust) of the time, reports in Taiwan Nichinichi Shimpō, and Hōgetsu’s impressions about his tours abroad published in Waseda Bungaku (Waseda University’s Literary Magazine) after his return from Taiwan.

In 1915, Taiwan was a subjugated country. Hōgetsu’s new plays and new literature were brought to Taiwan by the dominant nation, Japan. It is thus necessary to carefully consider whether Hōgetsu’s activities could be seen as an exchange of “knowledge” that transcended national borders in the true sense of the word. Regardless, this presentation is significant as a small piece that fills a gap in the history of Taiwanese and Japanese theater history, and as a reminder of the importance of collecting materials held in various places in Taiwan.

Presentation 3

INDEN Masashi: The “Great Kanto Earthquake” as “War”: Yokomitsu Riichi and the Imperial State

Yokomitsu Riichi continued to write about the impact of the Great Kanto Earthquake of September 1, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the earthquake”) in his “literature” until the 1940s. Notably, Yokomitsu compares the “earthquake” to “war” in his lecture “Tenkanki no Bungaku” (Literature at a Turning Point) (1939) held at Tokyo Imperial University. Keeping in mind the so-called “First World War” and the “Sino-Japanese War,” which had then already begun at the time of the lecture, Yokomitsu stated that, in the case of Japan the “earthquake” was an event equivalent to a “war,” which provided an opportunity to “transform” the “consciousness” of the “youth.” By mobilizing “modern science,” “war” transforms human “consciousness” and “senses” into something “new,” and, for Yokomitsu, it is akin to the impact of the “earthquake.”

On the other hand, the “earthquake” was actually a “war” accompanied by “martial law” in the real sense of the word. Martial law turned the disaster areas into “war zones” to maintain public order. The targets of the martial law were primarily Koreans under the Japanese Empire, as well as Chinese, socialists, and anarchists, all of whom were seen as potential threats to the imperial state. In other words, the “earthquake” as a “war” was also a “war” in which those who might “transform” the imperial state were eliminated for the sake of maintaining public order.

When Yokomitsu parallels the “transformation” of “consciousness” and “senses” caused by the “earthquake” with the “war” in his text, was he aware that such a “transformation” had the power to shake the imperial state? Also, was he able to truly depict in his texts the entities and events that were the targets of maintaining public order—the same entities and events that had the potential to “transform” the “consciousness” and “senses” of the “people” of the imperial state into something else? In this presentation, I will critically read Yokomitsu’s and his contemporaries’ texts on the “earthquake,” drawing a comparison between Yokomitsu’s “earthquake-as-war” metaphor and the “earthquake” as  “war” in the imperialist state.