Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Social Satire in Kappa: Akutagawa Ryūnosuke’s Political Sensibilities

Here's another great piece just in from part-time Japonologist and full-time dandy Leopold Adelgonde Hauspie III, of Belgium:
Abstract:
In Kappa (1927), Akutagawa Ryūnosuke (1892-1927) takes the reader on a journey into a subterranean land inhabited by a species of eerie-miened water sprites that carries the same name as the novella’s title. Borrowing from a longstanding literary tradition of travelogue-inspired, satirical utopias initiated by Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1735), Akutagawa presents a human protagonist embarking on a series of encounters with Kappas who, despite their amphibian appearance, are endowed with a character, behavior, and society that in many respects closely resembles that of humans. Claiming to see the author’s shadow looming over almost every corner of the work, critics have often regarded Kappa as being, above all, a lampoon of Akutagawa’s personal life and mental anguish around the time he composed it. However, considering the type of novels upon which it is modeled, in addition to the abundance of grotesque magnifications and absurdist inversions of aspects of contemporary Japanese society that Akutagawa lets his protagonist witness in Kappaland, the story should be considered as least as much as a piece of scintillating social satire. In this respect, Kappa can perhaps be interpreted as Akutagawa’s answer to the writings of the then-in-vogue proletarian literature movement. In this paper, I will first try to place Kappa in the long line of (mainly Western) utopian works and social satires that antecede it, also briefly situating the novella in its contemporary Japanese literary context. In the second part, I would like to explore in some detail Akutagawa’s attitude toward the political turmoil of his time and his outlook on the feasibility and desirability of a literature dealing with political or social problems. In the last part, finally, I will explore the dimension of social satire in Kappa.

Introduction
‘Oh, by the way, you’re a socialist aren’t you?’
With no hesitation, I replied, ‘Qua’ (This is the Kappanese for our ‘yes.’)
(Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Kappa, 1927)
During his lifetime, and even more so after his suicide, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介 (1892-1927) was incessantly the target of the vitriolic criticism from adherents of the proletarian literature movement. These writers and critics accused him of being a petty bourgeois disengaged from social and political reality, or an ivory-tower intellectual utterly unconcerned with the ordeals of the working-class masses. In this paper I would like to provide evidence that this assessment of Akutagawa, if not totally wrong, is at least a gross exaggeration. As I will show, Akutagawa’s own attitude toward the proletarian literature movement that was rising in 1920s Japan was far more benevolent than vice versa. This can be noticed, for example, in some essays in which he took up the defense of the notion of politically inspired literature. Moreover, with the novella Kappa 河童 (1927), he even provided a work himself that deals with themes at the time monopolized by proletarian literature.

In Kappa, which was inspired by Gulliver’s Travels, a mental patient visits the land of the Kappas, a species of water imps from Japanese folklore, and becomes witness of a whole range of outrageous social wrongs that are inversions or exaggerations of Japanese societal problems. Hayashi Fusao 林房雄, one of Japan’s most prominent proletarian writers, confessed to be both intrigued and displeased by the fact that a piece of “satirical literature that integrated criticism of all possible social phenomena into a single work was written first by Akutagawa before a socialist writer could venture to do such a thing.” (Yoshida 1942: 319) Yet Akutagawa’s reputation of total self-absorption has induced many scholars to interpret Kappa as being essentially the author’s own caricature portrait, instead of an attempt at social satire. Though it is certainly not my intent to deny Kappa’s many striking parallels with Akutagawa’s personal life, I nevertheless think it would be unfair to reduce the work to mere self-expression and to ignore the profusion of sparkling, witty satire that tackles numerous aspects of contemporary Japanese society.

In this paper, I will first contextualize Kappa in the long line of utopian and satirical novels that anteceded it, also providing some information on the background of its contemporary literary scene. Next, I would like to examine to what extent Akutagawa was really as unconcerned with societal problems and their reflection in literature as he was often accused of. Finally, I will try to controvert the claim that Kappa is almost exclusively about the author himself, and have a closer look at the dimension of social satire which, as I will argue, is an equally crucial aspect of the novella.
Kappa‘s literary precursors and contemporaries
“Gulliver in a Kimono”
(Anonymous Time reviewer, 1947)
Akutagawa, who had studied English Literature at university, was an avid reader of Western fiction, and, as we can glean from his autobiographical works, until the very last months of his life he spent a great deal of his time rummaging through the bookshelves of the Maruzen bookstore, Tokyo’s mecca of foreign-language literature at the time. Naturally, this absorption with Western writings showed through in his own works, to the extent even that people have criticized them for being mere patchworks pieced together from a motley range of sources. Kappa, too, betrays influences of a wide variety of Western novels, but the closest affinity that can be noticed is with Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) and Samuel Butler’s Erewhon (1872), works which are rooted themselves in a longstanding ‘utopian tradition’ of stories dealing with imaginative lands.

This tradition was initiated by Thomas More’s Utopia (1515-16) and Tommaso Campanella’s Civitas Solis (1623), both of which described ideal societies. A considerable innovation to the genre was made by Jonathan Swift in his Gulliver’s Travels, as he added a critical quality to it by making the non-existing lands depicted in the work satirical versions of the society he lived in. This is exactly was Kappa does too, which should not surprise us since, as Tsuruta Kin’ya pointed out, “Akutagawa admitted in his letter to a poet friend, Saitō Mokichi, that he was writing … Kappa after the fashion of Gulliver’s Travels.” (Tsuruta 1982: 37) For his use, in Aesopean fashion, of nonhuman creatures to lampoon certain the evils of humanity, Akutagawa was indebted to Swift as well, and perhaps also to Goethe’s Reineke Fuchs (1793). As Yoshida Sei’ichi (1955: 125) has shown, similarities with Erewhon, a social satire by Samuel Butler (a writer of whom Akutagawa had no less than nine works in his possession (Ishizaki 1990: 332)), are rather conspicuous too. In both stories, the protagonist chances upon another land during an excursion deep into the mountains and, even more strikingly, in Erewhon as well, children enter this world voluntarily, having moreover to sign a document to assume full responsibility for their choice to be born. Ideological inspiration for his critique of capitalism in Kappa Akutagawa might have found in News from Nowhere (1890), a socialist utopia authored by William Morris, whose life and work, incidentally, had been the subject of his graduation thesis at university.

Still many other possible Western influences have been mentioned by critics (including Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward and Anatole France’s L’Île des Pingouins and Balthasar), but somewhat less often noticed are the precursors Kappa may have had in classical Japanese and Chinese literature. In both traditions, we find an age-old genre sometimes labeled as senkyō tairyū setsuwa 仙境滞留説話 (‘Tales of a Sojourn in an Enchanted Land’) with which Kappa has certain motifs in common. The traveler of Tao Qian’s 陶潜fifth-century classic Tōkagen-ki 桃花源記 (‘The Peach Blossom Spring’), for instance, like Kappa’s protagonist enters the enchanted land through a hole in the ground (in this case in a mountain), and with both Tōkagen-ki and the old Japanese legend of Urashima Tarō 浦島太郎, Kappa shares the figure of the fisherman as an agent who is able to commute between the normal and fantastical world.

But whatever influences of foreign and classical Chinese and Japanese literature Kappa might have had, it was extremely innovative in that it revalued, and helped to reintroduce, both the fantastical and the satirical in contemporary Japan, two features which had been largely dormant in a literary world reigned for nearly half a century by seriousness and verisimilitude, the desiderata of Tsubouchi Shōyō’s 坪内逍遥 brand of realism. Save for a few exceptions (among which is Natsume Sōseki’s 夏目漱石 Wagahai wa neko de aru 吾輩は猫である (‘I am a Cat’, 1905-06)), Japanese literature had almost completely lost its sense for satire after the great gesaku masters of the Edo period, with Kanagaki Robun 仮名垣魯文 as their last representative in early Meiji. Rare exceptions like the literary products of the Ken’yūsha coterie and isolated works as Natsume Sōseki’s Yumejūya 夢十夜 (‘Ten Nights’ Dreams,’ 1908) notwithstanding, purely imaginative and fantastical aspects in fiction had been generally suppressed as well during the four decades when verisimilitude and introspection became the domineering values. Until Tsubouchi Shōyō rejected the genre, however, Japan had known a kind of literature that was set in the future (mirai-ki 未来記) and that, albeit in a way very different from Kappa’s, also described imagined social and political systems. Scholar Kyōko Kurita has called these mirai-ki, which flourished especially in the second decade of the Meiji period (1868-1911), ‘futurological novels,’ (as opposed to ‘futuristic novels’) and maintains that they are “clearly extrapolated from present realities and … dialectically concerned with social and political issues.” (2000: 7) Yoshida Sei’ichi (1955: 122) mentions as examples of this type of literature: Sudō Nansui’s 須藤南翠 Shinsō no kajin 新粧の佳人 (1886), Hirotsu Ryūrō’s 広津柳浪 Joshi sansei shinchūrō 女子参政蜃中楼 (1887), Suehiro Tetchō’s末広鉄腸 Nijūsannen miraiki 二十三年未来記 (which he mistakenly ascribes to Fukuchi Ōchi 福地桜痴), and Yano Ryūkei’s 矢野竜渓 Shinshakai 新社会 (1902).

The great difference of this last type of works with Kappa is, of course, that the imaginative political systems in the former are cast in a very positive light, whereas that of the latter is presented as rather bleak and disturbing. Kappaland constitutes such an uninviting society that Susan Napier felt inclined to call Kappa “Japan’s first full-blown dystopian novel.” (1996: 191) The work shares this negative and critical portrayal of a society with another distinctly political genre: proletarian literature. Generally accepted to have been launched with the issuing of the magazine Tane maku hito 種蒔く人 (‘The Sower’) in 1921, by the time of Kappa’s publication in 1927, the proletarian literature movement was gaining ever more strength, to become Japan’s literary world’s dominant group only a few years later. Before I turn to the analysis of the outrageous society of the Kappas, I think it is opportune to have a closer look at Akutagawa’s attitude toward this burgeoning literary movement, as well as toward the relevance of social and political matters to literature.
Akutagawa, politics, and proletarian literature
You attack the present social system, why?
Because I see the evils born of capitalism.
Evils? I didn’t think you discriminated between good and evil. In that case, how about your own life?
– The discussion was with an angel. Impeccable. In a silk hat. …
(Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, A Fool’s Life, 1927)
Though Akutagawa, along with Miyamoto Kenji and other proletarian critics, placed himself squarely into the lower middle class, he was certainly not the petty bourgeois utterly unconcerned with his political and social environment they accused him to be. Critic Satō Tsuguo (2001) tries to retrace a budding political concern in Akutagawa’s college years, arguing that he was much influenced by the upheavals that came with the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku jiken 大逆事件) of 1910, in which a group of twenty-six socialists and anarchists was accused of conspiring to assassinate the emperor, and twelve, among whom Kōtoku Shūsui 幸徳秋水, were executed the following year. As Satō and other scholars demonstrate, Akutagawa more than likely attended the famous speech Muhonron 謀反論 (‘A Vindication of Treason’) that writer Tokutomi Roka 徳冨蘆花 delivered shortly after the incident at the First Higher School where Akutagawa was enrolled. In this speech, Roka fulminated against the actions of the government and maintained that history often proves the ones who are called ‘insurrectionists’ to be the real heroes. Another early indication of Akutagawa’s political and social consciousness is his short story Nikkō shōhin 日光小品 (‘A sketch of sunlight,’ estimated 1911), in which he expressed his sympathy for the humanistic slant of Pyotr Kropotkin’s socialist ideas. To Satō, the impetus for the young Akutagawa to write this work should be sought in Tokutomi Roka’s speech.

Upon the execution of Kōtoku Shūsui and the others, an unremitting repression of all ideologies deemed subversive followed, and the government succeeded in squashing the socialist movement for many years after. Around the end of the First World War, however, when the so-called “rice riots” forced the state to slightly relax its stranglehold, Japanese socialist and anarchist movements quickly awoke from their state of hibernation and seized the opportunity to regroup and launch new magazines (Crump 1998), among which there was one with literary ambitions, Tane maku hito (‘The Sower’). Issued for the first time in February 1921, the magazine is widely considered to be the start of the proletarian literary movement.

This ‘socialist surge’ does not mean, of course, that state repression had ended. In an attempt to more effectively prosecute dissidents and put a halt to the spreading of radical propaganda, a bill called Kageki shakai undō torishimari hōan 過激社会運動取締法案 (‘Radical Social Movements Control Bill’) was proposed in February 1922. (Mitchell 1973: 329-30) That Akutagawa’s political and social concern meanwhile had not waned in the least is clear from his reaction to this bill. In an entry to Chōkōdō zakki 澄江堂雑記 (‘Chōkōdō Scribblings,’ 1918-1924), a collection of notes he published in the course of six years, he expressed his sympathy for the socialists and his resentment toward the government’s tactics in no uncertain terms: “Socialism,” he starts, “is not a question of right or wrong. It simply is a necessity. Even the sight of a fire-walking ascetic could not rouse more astonishment in me than people who do not grasp this necessity. That ‘Radical Social Movements Control Bill’ truly is a good example of this.” (Akutagawa 1922: 97)
Another event that sent major shock waves throughout Japan was the beating to death of anarchist Ōsugi Sakae 大杉栄, his lover and his six-year-old nephew by a military police squad in the confusion following the Great Kantō Earthquake in September 1923. Naturally, this incident did not leave Akutagawa cold too. An entry to his Chōkōdō zakki called “Chaplin” illustrates well how outrageous and absurd he felt the killings were:
All who bears the name of socialist, whether a Bolshevik or not, appears to be considered a threat. Especially at the time of the recent Great Earthquake, many seem to have been cursed this way. But, if we are speaking of socialists, Charlie Chaplin was a socialist too. If we are to persecute socialists, shouldn’t we persecute Chaplin as well, then? Imagine that Chaplin was killed by a military police lieutenant. Imagine that, while doing his duck-walk, all of a sudden he was stabbed to death. No one who has gazed at his figure on the screen could possibly not feel indignant. If we were to project this indignation to the present situation… Anyway, the only thing that is sure is that you, dear reader, are on the black list too. (Akutagawa 1923a: 283)

But Akutagawa’s championing of socialism did not only apply to current politics-related events in Japanese society. He also seemed intent on defending the socialist movement’s literary spin-off: the burgeoning but heavily chastised proletarian literature movement. In ‘Kaizō’ puroretaria bungei no kahi o tou 「改造」プロレタリア文学の可否を問ふ (‘On the Pros and Cons of Kaizō’s Proletarian Literature,’ 1923), a short essay written early that year, he opens as follows: “Literature is not so unrelated to politics as many people suppose. It might more properly be said that the special characteristic of literature is that it can be related even to politics. Proletarian literature, which has finally got underway only recently, has been much too slow in making its appearance.” (Keene 1984: 576) In Akutagawa’s view, it could not be excluded that another Victor Hugo or Rai Sanyō would stand up among the proletarian writers. While he respected the opinions of writers who thought art was for art’s sake, he said he nevertheless thought it worthier to share the joys and grieves of the common people than to congratulate oneself with one’s minutely wrought but vain art. However, Akutagawa’s acclaim for the proletarian writers was not unequivocal. He was at the same time very critical of their fanaticism and black-and-white thinking, and insisted that not all bourgeois people are bad, just as not all proletarians are good. What Akutagawa said he valued most of all was, after all, “the freedom of the mind.” (1923b: 275-76)

Yet despite his approbation, on the whole, of proletarian literature, he in return only became the target of their continuous critique for being a member of an outmoded bourgeois intellectual class. We can hear a slightly bitter tone in Puroretaria bungaku ron プロレタリア文学論 (‘A Discussion of Proletarian Literature’), another short essay on the subject he wrote nearly two years later. “I do not mean to speak evil here of proletarian literature. I want to defend it,” he starts off. “However, as I am generally considered to be a bourgeois writer, probably they will tell me: ‘We don’t need you to defend us.’” (1924: 29) He counters the attacks on his person by arguing that it is absurd to automatically call everyone who is not explicitly proletarian a bourgeois. Just like there is not only black and white, but also red and blue, the world is not merely divided between capitalists and proletarians. He moreover exposes the irony that the practitioners and theorists of proletarian literature rarely came out of the ranks of the working class themselves: “As, in our present society, there exists no proletarian culture,” he says, “… proletarian literature should be considered just another form of literature born out of bourgeois culture.” (1924: 29) He proceeds by giving the example of socialist writer Bernard Shaw, who was leading a life in great luxury in a way he judges far more ‘bourgeois’ than the lifestyles of Japan’s so-called bourgeois writers. (1924: 29-30)

In this same essay, Akutagawa also puts his finger on one of the biggest flaws that is generally mentioned with respect to Japanese proletarian literature; that is, a lack of artistic value. “After all is said and done,” he concludes, “proletarian literature too should be of good quality.” (1924: 31) He strongly argues against the proletarian writers’ belief that for the moment a militant literature was needed to raise the political awareness in the people, so that, as soon as the working class was liberated, a splendid literature could emerge. Good proletarian literature has to be produced now, he insists. But to his frustration, despite all the fuss about proletarian literature for the last three or four years, not one proletarian work has thus far been able to really move him. Therefore, he decides, proletarian literature should be considered a still undeveloped terrain. (1924: 31-33) Perhaps his writing Kappa can be interpreted as his own attempt to make up for this lacuna in Japanese socio-politically inspired literature.

In Shuju no kotoba 侏儒の言葉 (‘Words of the Ignoramus,’1925a), a collection of aphorisms and random jottings he finished about two years before Kappa and which bears many thematic resemblances with it, Akutagawa again criticizes the rigid and unaesthetic approach of hard-core Marxist writers to literature: “Suppose that every single novelist’s depiction of life should be based on Marx’ materialistic view of history. Then likewise every poet’s verses about the sun and the moon, about mountains and rivers, should be founded on a Copernican heliocentric view. However, not to say “the sun goes down in the west,” but instead, “the earth revolves so-and-so many degrees,” is not necessarily aesthetically superior.” (1925a: 85-86)

Akutagawa was of course not a socialist, but neither did he neatly fit the image of the decadent bourgeois intellectual totally disengaged from the very society that proletarian writers and many a scholar of his work upheld. Contrary to numerous other artists and writers of his era who advocated an art for art’s sake devoid of all practical aims, Akutagawa did not exclude the possibility of good political literature. However, the one condition he imposed was that literature, political or not, should always maintain its artistic value. This was exactly the problem of proletarian literature, which was too belligerent, and too focused on liberating the masses, to be overly concerned with the kind of aesthetic principles Akutagawa held sacred. Kappa, which may well have been Akutagawa’s reaction to the continuous critique of his alleged political aloofness, precisely made up for what proletarian literature was lacking: finesse, humor, and, above all, artistic skill. Let us now take a closer look at the work itself.
Social satire in Kappa
There he was, legs straddling wide, peeping through his legs at every car and every single person as they passed. …
‘… Everything seemed so terribly gloomy that I thought I’d have a go at looking at the world the other way up. But it turns out to be just the same, after all.’
(Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Kappa)
Kappa begins with a short ‘Author’s Preface’ describing the visit of the apparent ‘author’ to a mental asylum. There he meets Patient No.23, a man who claims to have stayed several months in the land of the Kappas. In the course of the following seventeen relatively short chapters, the narrator tells us of his many adventures there and his numerous encounters with Kappa individuals. The personages and events that shape his account obviously reflect many stereotypical personalities and an array of social issues that can be traced back to contemporary Japanese society. Nevertheless, critics so far have tended to downplay these elements, focusing rather on the story’s numerous autobiographical aspects. Yoshida Sei’ichi, Akutagawa’s biographer, even went so far as to say that “the world of Kappa relates nothing but his own anguished mind.” (1942: 319)

Perhaps Akutagawa’s famous statement, made in a letter, that “Kappa was born out of my dégôut with respect to everything, especially myself” (Keene 1984: 580) may have formed the root of this rather biased approach. Admittedly, it would be hard not to recognize Akutagawa and his frame of mind in the last months of his life in descriptions of a fear of bad genes, of distressing family relations, of he-Kappas being chased by she-Kappas, of a commandment of the ‘Modernist’ religion saying “live vigorously,” or a fire incident well-covered by insurance. Who would not associate, furthermore, the depressed chain-smoking poet Tok, who kills himself and then, posthumously, makes inquiries about his fame and the well-being of the ones he left behind, with the melancholic and suicidal Akutagawa? Withal, either a fool or an ignoramus would be the critic who missed the resemblance of both the title and the aphoristic content of Kappa Mag’s work Ahō no kotoba 阿呆の言葉 (‘Words of the Fool’) with Akutagawa’s own Shuju no kotoba 侏儒の言葉 (‘Words of the Ignoramus,’1925a) and Aru ahō no isshō 或る阿呆の一生 (‘A Fool’s Life,’ 1927).

All the same, to neglect or trivialize the elements of social satire in Kappa so flagrantly as many critics have done, is to sell the work short and to disregard the author’s own ideas of what a novel should be. In the entry “Confessions” (1923) to Chōkōdō zakki, Akutagawa reveals to us his aversion to the all too candid confessional novels with which the literary scene of the 1920s inundated:
They often tell me ‘to write more about your life and make a bolder confession’. I too make confessions; my stories are confessions of my own experiences to a degree. What they want is for me to make myself the hero of a novel, write of actual events concerning me without reservation, and furthermore attach to the book an identification chart of the names of the characters and the real persons. Let it be clear that I have no intention of writing such a work. Firstly, it disagrees with me no end that I exhibit my private life to those curiosity-seekers. Secondly, it gives me no pleasure to turn such a confession into profit and fame. Let us suppose that I wrote my sexual experiences like Kobayashi Issa and published it in the New Year issue of, say, Chūō kōron. My readers would be thrilled; my critics would shower me with praise: Akutagawa’s great leap forward etc., and my friend would be happy, saying ‘Akutagawa is now naked and truthful,’ etc. Just thinking of it gives me bone-chilling shivers. (Tsuruta 1970: 23-24)

In “‘Watakushi’ shōsetsu ron shōken” 「私」小説論小見 (‘My View on the I-Novel’) he again unequivocally rejects his friend Kume Masao’s 久米正雄 claim that “the true way for prosaic art is the I-novel;” to admit that “a writer cannot express anything unless it already exists inside his mind” (1925b: 24) is about as far as Akutagawa in 1925 would go.

It is true that in the last two years of his life, spurred by the thickening shadow of the death he was doubtlessly foreseeing, Akutagawa wrote works that can positively be defined as autobiographical. Yet we have to agree with Donald Keene that “[e]ven then he was still reluctant to espouse the “I Novel” in the manner of Kume Masao.” (Keene 1984: 575) Moreover, since Kappa is so different from these other late works in its design, intention and content, it would be inapposite to indiscriminately throw all these literary creations into one and the same shady category. The following entry from Shuju no kotoba perhaps captures well how Kappa and its ‘personal aspects’ should be taken:
It is impossible for a person to confess the entirety of himself and it is impossible for him to engage in art without expressing himself. Rousseau was fond of confession but you will not see Rousseau stark naked in his Confessions. Mérimée abhorred confessions, but does not his Colomba reveal Mérimée between its lines? The borderline between literature of confession and others is not so clear as on might suppose. (Tsuruta 1970: 22)

As Kappa, which was intended neither as pure autobiography nor as undiluted fiction, belongs to the immense gray zone in between these two poles, it becomes all the more difficult and ultimately pointless to grope for that exceedingly hazy ‘borderline.’ This stated, for the remaining part of this paper, I will consider Kappa’s many elements of satire and parody, which are constructed mainly through inversions and distortions of Japan’s social and political reality.

From the initial descriptions of the Kappas’ appearance and practices, we learn that they wear no clothes at all, and are conversely amused at us, humans’, need to cover our nakedness. “The most puzzling of all,” says the bewildered narrator, “was the confusing Kappa way of getting everything upside down: where we humans take a thing seriously, the Kappa will tend to be amused; and, similarly, what we humans find amusing the Kappa will take in deadly earnest.” (Bownas 1970: 60) An extreme instance of inversion is the fact that, unlike humans, Kappa children are born as a result of their free will. When a child is about to be born, the father puts his mouth to the mother’s vagina and ascertains if it really wishes to enter this world. If not, the infant is aborted immediately. (61-62)

The first distinctly social issue that comes under Akutagawa’s satirical attack is the family system that is so typical for Japan. In Kappa, the family is portrayed literally as a burden: “[A] Kappa, who was still quite young was staggering along the street, gasping desperately for breath; draped round his neck were seven or eight Kappas, including two who looked like his mother and father.” (66) As Akutagawa had experienced himself, the many responsibilities that the social institution of the family entails can cause a lot of distress for an individual. According to Tok the poet, Akutagawa’s principal alter ego throughout the novella, “the family system was absurd beyond belief,” as “parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters – all spend their time indulging their sole pleasure, that of making life burdensome for each other.” (66)

The family even meddles in the love affairs of young Kappas, which at once brings us to the strange way courtship is practiced in Kappaland. There, it is the female Kappa who aggressively pursues the object of her lust. (70) However, before the reader thinks of the he-Kappa as fortunate, it should be added that a ‘kiss’ of a she-Kappa involves the risk of getting a ‘rotten beak,’ (71) an unmistakable allusion to the venereal diseases which were a widespread phenomenon in Taishō Japan. In their wanton chase, furthermore, she-Kappas are sometimes assisted by their families – an disguised critique, perhaps, of the Japanese omiai kekkon お見合い結婚, or arranged marriages, which still were the norm in late Taishō, ealy Shōwa Japan. In such marriages, it often was the family rather than the young candidates themselves who had the last word. Tellingly, also, Tok the poet was an advocate and practitioner of ‘free love.’ (65)

The inversion of gender patterns is not restricted the realm of love affairs, but is a consistent theme throughout the novella. So it is that in the Kappa-universe, God created the female Kappa first, and then, to dispel her tedium, “took her brain and made of it the male Kappa.” (122) Brainlessness certainly does not mean powerlessness, however. That wives are the masters of households – as is the case with Gael the magnate (89) and the elder Kappa of the Great Tabernacle (124) – might not surprise us so much, but what is more likely to do so is that a she-Kappa (again Gael’s spouse) is secretly in control of the Cabinet and, therefore, of the country (89). A she-Kappa, scheming to poison her husband but accidentally killing a prominent Otter of the neighboring country, even ends up starting a massive war. (90-91) But despite their pervasive authority, the overall picture that Akutagawa puts up of the female sex is not very positive: “looking quite out of [their] mind, [she-Kappas dash] pell-mell after the male (70);” they are seductive and alluring, but at the same time deceitful and crooked enough to concoct evil plots and have innocent he-Kappas killed (72); and they are said to be “more prone to jealousy than their male counterparts” (74). Even more importantly, save for the wife of the church’s elder, they are not given a voice throughout the novella, as it are always the males who do the talking. In précis, despite his ‘empowering’ of female Kappas in a sense, in the end we cannot say that Akutagawa is making the case for feminism.

Remarkably, artists do not escape becoming the target of Akutagawa’s lampoons either. On the contrary, just as he himself had been reviled by the advocates of proletarian literature for his “affectedness” and “decadence,” these same traits in the Kappa intelligentsia, and especially in the artists of the ‘super-Kappa-club,’ an art-for-art’s-sake circle, are what attracts some of Akutagawa’s most cutting satire. A detail that illustrates the affectedness of ‘cultured Kappas’ are the programs used at their music concerts, which “like ours in Japan are usually larded with a lot of German.” (76) Under the bright lights of the super-Kappa-club’s salon, which is attended by “poets, novelists, playwrights, critics, painters, composers, sculptors, as well as a fair number of amateur dabblers (67),” extreme decadence rules. Examples of their limitless debauchery are a sculptor publicly engaging in homosexual activities with a young Kappa, and a woman Kappa novelist standing on a table and gulping down as much as sixty bottles of absinth, to drop dead on the spot eventually. (67-68) By means of this kind of outrageous satire, Akutagawa obviously distanced himself from the image of the affected and decadent bourgeois intellectual that perpetually haunted him. Thus, Akutagawa’s grotesque caricature of exactly the same old traits the proletarian writers and critics attributed to himself, might be explained as his purposive undercutting of the argumentation used against him.

A satirical criticism that was also closely related to the practical concerns of the proletarian literary movement, was the one aimed at tyrannical censorship. In Kappa, a classical concert is suddenly interrupted by a policeman, which provokes the audience to vehemently oppose with shouting and the throwing of objects. (77-78) Mag, the philosopher among the Kappas, explains that painting and writing, because its message is supposed to be readily understood, is not subject to censorship. Music, however, only means anything to Kappas with “an ear for music,” and is therefore considered potentially subversive. That, says Mag, is why there is a prohibition on performance. Censorship, in other words, is exercised for the one and only reason that the authorities do not understand what it is about. Mag’s final comments directly attack the Japanese situation. When the narrator is appalled at so much political tyranny in Kappaland, Mag answers: “[O]urs is a much more progressive censorship than you find anywhere else! Look at Japan, for instance. There, only a month or so back, there was another instance of…” At this point, his speech suddenly breaks of because his head is hit by a flying bottle. (79-80) In short, it is implied that however oppressive and absurd the censorship of Kappaland may be, the situation is still better than that of Japan. In fact, it was not without reason that Mag (and Akutagawa) complained about Japanese censorship. Publication laws were very strict in pre-war Japan, and writings with sexual, religious, and especially political content were subject to rigorous scrutiny. In 1924, the Home Ministry had created a Publications Monitoring Department, which had separate sections for censorship, investigation and general affairs. Also, with the enactment of the Peace Preservation Law of 1925, the polity had obtained a new effective instrument to suppress political movements as socialism, communism and anarchism. (Mitchell 1973: 335-42; and Crump 1998) The incident of “only a month or so back” Mag refers to may have been the ban of the posthumous publication of female anarchist Kaneko Fumiko’s 金子文子 poems in January 1927. (Nihon anakizumu undō jinmei jiten 2004)

Revealingly, the bulk of Kappa’s satire was reserved for diverse themes related to capitalism and the predicament of the proletariat. The most important representative of the capitalist class was the Kappa Gael, called “the capitalist to end all capitalists.” (81) In not very flattering terms, the narrator says of him that “not even in this land of fat paunches was there one that sagged and bellied out quite as disgustingly as Gael’s.” (81) He lives in the utmost luxury, using golden spoons, and dwelling in a residence where every room, and even the furniture, is gold-rimmed. (86-87) Ironically described as a cordial fellow at first, it soon will become clear that this Kappa is a businessman of the most ruthless sort.

Gael gives the narrator introductions to various factories. In those he is faced with the rapidly proceeding automation that is taking place in Kappaland. Each month, for example, as much as seven or eight hundred new kinds of machines are being invented. (82-83) This clearly is an allusion to the booming mass production and consumption that characterized 1920s Japan. An interesting and thought-provoking case of mass production in Kappaland is the way books are manufactured. All that is needed, it is said, is paper, ink and a grey-looking powder, which is soon revealed to be ass-brain. These ingredients are poured into a funnel-mouthed machine, to be, in only a few seconds, “ejected as octavos, duodecimos, royal octavos and so on.” (82) It is left to the reader’s imagination what the quality and intellectual level of these books made up of ‘ass-brain’ must have been. Music and paintings, moreover, are produced in a similar fashion. Here, Akutagawa is obviously satirizing the tendency in 1920s Japan to commodify art and literature, a trend epitomized by the enpon 円本, literary collections sold at only one yen a volume. By using the ‘ass-brain’ metaphor, Akutagawa is evidently pointing to the danger of diminished quality that lies in the commodification of art.

Another consequence of this rashly proceeding automation is that constantly, huge amounts of Kappa labor force become redundant. We are told that at least fourteen, fifteen thousand laborers are being dismissed every month. Nevertheless, there are no strikes in Kappaland. Instead – and this is perhaps the most grotesque satire of the whole novella – redundant laborers are gassed, whereupon their flesh is used as meat. (83) That Akutagawa should reserve his most biting satire to criticize the situation of the proletariat shows once more how wrong his critics were when condemning his purported aloofness. Though of course not in the extreme degree as in Kappaland, in real Japan too, worker’s rights were very limited. All workers’ organizations and strikes had been outlawed by The Public Peace Police Law of 1900, and were even further restricted by the Peace Preservation Law of 1925. (Crump 1998) In Kappaland, there is the inversion, as it were, of the concept of workers’ rights. Our narrator, asking if the workers do not protest against their horrible fate, is answered by a character called Judge Pep: “It wouldn’t make any difference, however much trouble they made. You see, we have a statute covering the butchery of the worker [shokkō tosatsu hō 職工屠殺法].” (84) When the narrator, aghast, goes on expressing his strong disagreement to these practices, he is countered: “Tell me, isn’t it true that, in your country, the daughters of the fourth class are sold into prostitution? If this is so – and you’re bound to admit it is – then it’s sheer sentimentality on your part to get hot under the collar about something as trifling as eating workmen’s flesh as meat!” (84) Again, Akutagawa sarcastically exposes the flaws of Japanese society by suggesting that, in the end, it is no better than Kappaland.

The political world does not escape Akutagawa’s satire either. Not only are politicians in Kappaland not honest, but they are not even expected to be. The narrator points to the untruthfulness of a “distinguished statesman’s” public utterances, but is silenced by the dubious rhetoric of Gael the capitalist: “[E]veryone realizes that they are lies, so, in the end, it no doubt boils down to the same thing as the truth.” (87) The politicians, however, are not at the core of the problem, as they appear to be mere puppets whose strings are ultimately pulled by capitalists, or, more precisely, the wives of capitalists. The power hierarchy in Kappaland is most unusual. The Cabinet, we learn, is controlled by a “socialist” newspaper. However – and this is the purest irony – this “socialist” newspaper is itself also under the control of Gael, the biggest capitalist in the country. (87-88) In short, political parties and the press are just marionettes in the hands of capitalists, used to exert power over the working class. To emphasize their instrumentality, the names of political parties and newspapers consist of mere interjections with no meaning. (88)

It was mentioned earlier that there had been a war between the Kappas and their neighboring country, inhabited by the Otters. No less than 369,500 Kappas had lost their lives in that conflict. Gael seems fatalistic when he says: there will be war “as long as we have neighbours.” (89) The truth is, however, that this tycoon had shamelessly gained profit out the war, supplying coal cinders as food for the troops. This was no problem, Gael remarks, since “as long as our bellies are empty, we Kappas will get our teeth into anything under the sun.” (91) The narrator notes that this sort of thing would surely cause a scandal in Japan, but is again riposted with the most outrageous type of twisted rhetoric: “Here, too. Scandal and no mistake! But as long as I myself concede the fact of scandal, no one makes an issue out of it.” (91) No wonder, as he is in control of both the press and the political world.

The penal system of Kappaland is characterized by absurd laws, and knows the death penalty too, but again, Japanese legislation is presented as nothing better, or even worse, than Kappa law. When asked if there exists capital punishment in Japan as well, the narrator reluctantly admits that they have hanging, but then exclaims: “I suppose you’re going to tell me that capital punishment in this country is far more enlightened than it is in Japan!” The Kappa judge Pep answers: “Naturally, far more enlightened.” (108)

Obviously, Kappa was not born out of Akutagawa’s dégôut with himself alone, but, as he said, with everything. The last topic of Kappa I will touch upon here, religion, was described by Akutagawa in words dripping with cynicism. The prevalent creed of the Kappas is Modernism, also called Viverism. Ironically, despite the name Viverism and its adage ‘live life vigorously,’ the saints of this religion are all suicidal, insane, or die untimely. (119-22) The aged priest of the Great Tabernacle, moreover, admits that he does not believe in the ‘Tree of Life,’ their main object of worship. (124) Whether social, political, or religious, virtually no institution was spared from Akutagawa’s acerbic pen.
Conclusion

In the last years of his short life, Akutagawa’s physical and mental health was rapidly deteriorating. In Shuju no kotoba he called life “more hellish than hell itself” (1925a: 34), and in a letter he wrote on October 29, 1926, a little bit over three months before Kappa, he wrote: “My head feels so weird. … [E]ven the most futile matter … causes me to sink, inevitably, into a state of melancholy. When I ask myself how many New Years I will be able to welcome hereafter, I feel wretched beyond description.” (Ishizaki 1990: 339-40) Yet despite his mental agonies, within half a year from his suicide on July 24, 1927, he surprisingly still found the time and the energy to produce a work that is so concerned with the various problems that existed in Japanese society. Considering his anguish, which caused him to “subsist on opium extracts, strychnine, laxatives, and Veronal,” (Ishizaki 1990: 340) one cannot but marvel that he managed to write a ravishing work so full of scintillating satire as Kappa. Writing Kappa, however, appears to have been quite engaging to him. He said he wrote it with “a speed he had not known lately” (Yoshida 1955: 124), and revealed that after he had “finished the 106-page-manuscript of Kappa, [he felt] a little relieved.” (Yoshida 1955: 124)

Yet, as I explained earlier, his effort has not always been recognized justly. Seiji Lippit eloquently summarizes how Akutagawa’s literary work and his untimely death were perceived by the advocates of proletarian literature and the Japanese literary world in general:
A number of writers and critics … interpreted his death as marking the defeat of an intellectual (or aestheticized) literary practice disengaged from historical and social reality. This point was particularly emphasized by several prominent Marxist critics, who read his personal crisis as “one aspect of a collapsing bourgeoisie.” Miyamoto Kenji crystallized this sentiment in his landmark 1929 essay, “Haiboku no bungaku” (The Literature of Defeat), in which he wrote that Akutagawa’s late writings and death constituted a warning to bourgeois intellectuals of the inevitable and disastrous results of their aestheticism and hermeticism. (Lippit 1999: 27)

I hope that this paper has sufficiently shown that this kind of assessment of Akutagawa and his work is not exactly fair. Akutagawa was in fact not at all indifferent to the socio-political events that took place around him, and neither was he a diehard aesthete totally against the idea of engaged literature. On the contrary, with the essayistic jottings of Chōkōdō zakki, Shuju no kotoba, and Aru ahō no isshō, and especially with Kappa, he demonstrated that he himself was capable of producing literature that, albeit humorous and aesthetically pleasing, was also of a political nature.

Bibliography

Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “Hiwatari no gyōja” 火渡りの行者. Orig. pub. in 1922; repr. in vol.9 of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū 芥川龍之介全集. Iwanami Shoten, 1996, p.97.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “Chapurin” チャプリン. Orig. pub. in 1923; repr. in vol.10 of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū 芥川龍之介全集. Iwanami Shoten, 1996, p.283.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “‘Kaizō’ puroretaria bungei no kahi o tou” 「改造」プロレタリア文芸の可否を問ふ. Orig. pub. in Kaizō 改造 (February 1923); repr. in vol.9 of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū 芥川龍之介全集. Iwanami Shoten, 1996, pp.275-77.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “Puroretaria bungaku ron” プロレタリア文学論. Orig. pub. in Akita sakigake shinpō 秋田魁新報 (November 1924); repr. in vol.12 of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū 芥川龍之介全集. Iwanami Shoten, 1996, pp.29-33.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “Shuju no kotoba” 侏儒の言葉. Orig. pub. in Bungei shunjū 文芸春秋 (January 1923 – February 1925); repr. in Shuju no kotoba / Saihō no hito 侏儒の言葉・西方の人. Shinchōsha, 1995.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “‘Watakushi’ shōsetsu ron shōken” 「私」小説論小見. Orig. pub. in Shinchō (November 1925); repr. in vol.13 of Akutagawa Ryūnosuke zenshū 芥川龍之介全集. Iwanami Shoten, 1996, pp.20-26.
Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. “Kappa” 河童. Orig. pub. in Kaizō 改造 (March 1927); repr. in Kappa, hoka nihen 河童 他二篇. Iwanami Shoten, 2003.
Geoffrey Bownas, trans. Kappa, by Akutagawa Ryūnosuke. London: Peter Owen Ltd., 1970.
John Crump. “The Anarchist Movement in Japan.” Spunk library, 1998. [Online] Available at: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/japan/sp001883/japan.html.
Van C. Gessel. Three Modern Novelists: Sōseki, Tanizaki, Kawabata. Kodansha International, 1993.
Ishizaki Hitoshi 石崎等. “Yuganda jigazō: “Kappa” shiron.” ゆがんだ自画像:『河童』試論. In Sakkaron: Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 作家論:芥川龍之介. Sōbunsha shuppan, 1990.
Donald Keene. Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.
Kurita Kyōko. “Meiji Japan’s Y23 Crisis and the Discovery of the Future: Suehiro Tetcho’s Nijusan-nen mirai-ki.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 60:1 (2000), pp.5-43.
Seiji M. Lippit. “The Disintegrating Machinery of the Modern: Akutagawa Ryūnosuke’s Late Writings.” The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 58:1 (February 1999), pp.27-50.
Richard H. Mitchell. “Japan's Peace Preservation Law of 1925: Its Origins and Significance Source.” Monumenta Nipponica, 28:3, (Autumn 1973), pp.317-45.
Suzan Napier. The Fantastic in Modern Japanese Literature. London: Routledge, 1996.
Nihon anakizumu undō jinmei jiten 2004
“Kaneko Fumiko” 金子文子. Nihon anakizumu undō jinmei jiten 日本アナキズム運動人名事典, 2004. [Online] Available at: http://members2.jcom.home.ne.jp/anarchism/anarchism.html.
Will Petersen, trans. A Fool’s Life, by Akutagawa Ryūnosuke. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1970.
Satō Tsuguo 佐藤嗣男. Akutagawa Ryūnosuke: sono bungaku no, chikasui o saguru 芥川龍之介:その文学の、地下水を探る. Ōfū, 2001.
Time. “Gulliver in a Kimono.” 25 August 1947, p.24.
Tsuruta Kin’ya. “Akutagawa Ryūnosuke and I-Novelists.” Monumenta Nipponica, 25:1/2 (1970), pp.13-27.
Tsuruta Kin’ya. “Kappa.” In Approaches to the Modern Japanese Short Story. Waseda University Press, 1982.
Yoshida Sei’ichi 吉田精一. Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川龍之介. Orig. pub. Sanshōdō, 1942; repr. Nihon Tosho Sentā, 1993.
Yoshida Sei’ichi 吉田精一. “Kaisetsu” 解説. Orig. pub. 1955; repr. in Kappa, hoka nihen 河童 他二篇. Iwanami shoten, 2003.

Endō Shūsaku’s “Mothers” (Haha naru mono, 1969)

This just in from Saga Ittetsu. Van C. Gessel’s translation of “Mothers” can be found in The Columbia Anthology of Modern Japanese Literature: From 1945 to the Present:

l 七頁 上段二行目「あの島」、八行目「私が今から行く島」

 この作品の主な舞台となる島であるが、生月島・黒崎村(後述)・平戸島などの要素を混在させた架空の島だと考えられる。ただし、生月島の性格が強く付与されていると思われる。

l 八頁 上段二十三〜二十四行目「切支丹を背景にした小説」

 昭和四十一年三月に発表された『沈黙』を指すと思われる。二十一頁 上段十三行目「切支丹時代を背景にしたある小説」も同様。『沈黙』から『死海のほとり』に至るまでの遠藤周作の作品には、『沈黙』と思われるものを書いた「小説家」が登場することが多い。

l 八頁 下段八行目「長崎からバスで一時間ほど行つた漁村」

 長崎県にある黒崎村を指すと思われる。黒崎村周辺は、『沈黙』に出てくる「トモギ村」の素材となっている。作者遠藤周作は、この黒崎村でかくれ切支丹の爺役と出会った。それについては、エッセイ「弱者の救い」(『切支丹の里』所収)参照[1]のこと。

l 八頁 下段十六行目「プチジャン神父」

 宣教師。フランス生まれ。一八六〇年に日本布教を命じられ、一八六三年から長崎で生活を始め、大浦天主堂の建築に協力する。一八六五年三月十七日にキリシタンがこっそり聖堂を訪れたのを契機として、彼等の指導とカトリックへの復帰に努力する。しかし、当時はまだキリシタンは禁止されていたため、幕府が信徒を弾圧し、一八六七年には浦上四番崩れが起こる。彼に関連する遠藤周作の作品としては、『小さな町にて』『女の一生 一部・キクの場合』などがある[2]

l 九頁 下段十~十一行目「七年前に私は胸部の手術を受けて直った」

 前配り年譜からも分かるように、この作品が発表された昭和四十四年の七年前の昭和三十七年前後は、作者の遠藤周作が肺結核の病床に着いており、手術を行った頃である。

l 十二頁 上段十三~十四行目「この地域一帯の歴史を書いた本」

 片岡弥吉の『長崎の殉教者』(角川新書 昭和三十二年五月)を指すと思われる[3]

l 十二頁 下段二十三行目「南北十粁、東西三・五粁のこの島」

 作中の主な舞台となっている島が、地形的には生月島に近いことが分かる。以下、遠藤周作が目を通したと思われる片岡弥吉『長崎の殉教者』[4]の「ザビエルと平戸」における記述を引用する。

「生月島は平戸島の西北にある南北に細長い島。一島一町をなしている。人口一万三二四人(昭和四三年)南北一〇キロ、東西三・五キロ」

l 十三頁 上段一行目「カミロ・コンスタンツォ神父」

 平戸や生月で布教を行い、その後五島に渡ったところで五島藩の役人に捕らえられ、9月15日、平戸瀬戸に面した田平側の岬で、今日焼罪と呼ばれる地で火あぶりの刑に処された。

以下、『長崎の殉教者』の「ザビエルと平戸」における記述を引用する。

「火が燃え上がった。柱にしばられた神父の姿がもうもうたる黒煙にかくされた。しかし、火をはくような説教の声が、矢来を越えて人々の耳にひびく。火が着物につき、熱気が息をとめようとした。最後の声をしぼって、賛美歌「ラウダテ」をうたうのが聞こえて来た。賛美歌をうたい終わると「サンツス」(聖なるかな)の祈りを五度となえた。それが最後であった。」

l 十三頁 上段六〜七行目「岩島」

 平戸島近くの中江の島が素材となっていると思われる。中江の島では多くのキリシタンが殉教した。

l 十六頁 下段二十一〜二十二行目「一円札」

 作中の「私」のモデルを遠藤周作自身とすると、十六歳のときは昭和十四年にあたる。当時の成年女性の平均日給は1.016円(101.6銭)であり、たばこ一箱は0.182円(東京)であった。『昭和国勢総覧 下巻』(昭和五十五年十一月)参照。

l 十九頁 上段十七〜二十二行目「あの頃〜飛んできたのもここである。」※

 年譜と比較すれば明らかなように、遠藤周作や母郁の実人生とはかなり隔たりがある。

l 二十一頁 下段三〜八行目「むむ〜わが胸にあるぞやなア」※

 かくれキリシタンが酒宴で斉唱する「さんじゅあん様のうた」「じごく様のうた」のうち、後者の一部。皆川達夫『随想と対談 オラショ紀行』参照。

   さんじゅあん様のうた

 あー前はなあ泉水やなあ / 後ろは高き岩なるやなあ / 前もな後ろも潮であかするやなあ

 あーこの春はな この春はなあ /  桜な花かや 散るじるやなあ / また来る春はな 蕾ひ

らくる花であるぞやなあ

   じごく様のうた

 あー参ろうやな 参ろうやなあ / パライゾの寺にぞ参ろうやなあ / パライゾの寺とは申す

るやなあ / 広いな狭いは わが胸にあるぞやなあ

 あー しばた山 しばた山なあ / 今はな涙の先き(谷)なるやなあ / 先はな 助かる道で

あるぞやなあ

ただし、遠藤が目を通したと思われる『長崎の殉教者』の「ザビエルと平戸」においては、「サン・ジュワン様のうた」として次のように記されている。

前はなあ、泉水やなあ / うしろは高き岩なるやなあ / 前もな後ろも潮であかするや

この春はな、この春はなあ / 桜花かや、散るじゃろやなあ / また来る春はな / つぼみ

開くる花であるやなあ

まいろうやなあ、まいろうやなあ

  パライゾの寺にぞまいろうやなあ

  パライゾの寺とは申するやなあ

  ひろいなあ、せばいはわが胸にあるぞやなあ

l 二十三頁 上段八行目「おテンペンシャ」※

 資料四参照。作中ではあたかも当時でもおテンペンシャを「かくれ」が使っているように記されている(二十三頁 上段十三~十四行目「かくれたちはこの鞭で身を打つのである」)が、実際は当時すでにもう「民族的行事に必要な「お道具」」[5]だった[6]

l 二十三頁 上段二十四〜下段四行目「でうすのおんはあ〜むかわせたまえ」※

 生月島山田などで唱えられている「憐れみのおん母(さるべれいじなのおらしよ)」が素材となっていると思われる。以下、「現行オラショの復元」(田北耕也『昭和時代の潜伏キリシタン』)から引用する。引用部分は山田のかくれキリシタンの声を復元したものであり、改行は発表者による。

   憐れみのおん母

 万事かない給うあわれみの / おんはは/ こうにてまします

御身におんれをなしたてまつりて / 我等が一命かんめいたのみをかけたてまつりて

ろれんとなる様なえいわな / このみに / おんみに / しやきりなしをなし奉りて

このなみだのために / うみきなきして / おみーにねがいを / かけ奉りて

これによって / われらがおんとりなわしの / あわれみのおんまなこを / われらがめに

むかわせたもう / またこのるろーののち / ごたいなりは / おんみにて

ましませばでーうすわ / われらに見せ給う / 深くごにゅーように深くごはいりよーすぐれて

あまさましませばびりじんまりやかな / たっときでーうすの / おんはーさんたまりや

きりすての / おんやくそくを / うけたてまつりて / みとなる様にたもう

たまいやあんめーずす

傍線部(発表者による)は作中で「私」が耳にした部分であり、多少表現が違っているのは、併記してある「おらしよの翻訳」の言葉を借用したためと考えられる。

l 二十三頁 下段十二行目「マリア観音」

 キリスト教の聖母マリアが観音の姿をしているもの。かくれキリシタンが役人の目を盗んで拝むために作られた。

l 二十四頁 下段十六行目「四谷の下宿」

 吉満義彦が舎監を務めていたカトリック学生寮の白鳩寮が素材となっていると思われる。その周辺状況は、前配りの年譜を参照のこと。

l 二十七頁 上段十六行目「納戸神」

 遠藤が目を通したと思われる資料を見る限り、農婦の絵を描いたものは無かった。恐らく「マリア=農婦の姿」というのは遠藤による創作と思われる。


【解釈】(引用部分の文字表記は、旧かな・新字体とする。)

l 独善的な姿に込められた思いと、内なる批評性

()()(もの)」としての「私」

l 見知らぬ「私」への、島の住人の対応

六頁 九~十行目「ベンチの人たちは私に時々、探るような視線をむけながら、だまつて坐っている

七頁 下段二十三行目「こちらが恐縮するほど、頭を幾度もさげ」

八頁 上段五行目「いくら肩を並べて歩こうとしても、彼は頑なに一歩の距離を保つて

八頁 上段十八~二十三行目「うしろからは何の返事もきこえない自分の身を守る方策と考えているのかもしれない」

「私」に対して心を開いていない島の住人の様子が描かれている。

l 「私」の不案内さ(地理感覚・知識面での「他国者」)

六頁 十三~十四行目「どこかで犬が鳴いているがそれが島から聞こえるのかこちら側なのかわからない

六頁 十五~十六行目灯の一部だと思つていたものが、少しずつ動いている。それでやつと、こちらに来るフェリー・ボートだと区別がついた」

七頁 上段二~三行目「あの島では~半農半漁だと聞いている

七頁 上段十三~十四行目「二年前までは~往復していなかつたそうである

七頁 下段八~九行目「そういう繰りかえし~もう島の灯がすぐ眼の前にあつた

九頁 上段二十~二十四行目「それは私が迂闊だつた~存在だということを忘れていたわけだ」

十三頁 上段十八行目~下段二行目「私は彼女のことを~なんと、おばさんは~修道女だと知つて驚いた~おばさんも、その一人だそうである

十四頁 下段二十三行目~十五頁 上段三行目「どうして~こんな場所にあるのか、わからぬ~この浜のあたりで処刑されたのかもしれぬ

「私」は、舞台となっている島の地理感覚がいま一つ掴めていない。また、島の情報については伝え聞いたものでしかなく、島の情報・生活に不案内な「私」が描かれている。

※一方で、七頁 上段四~十行目「どの顔も似ている~宗門迫害とで苦しんできたからだ」から分かるように、島の住人を性格づける「私」の口調は確信を帯びている。だが、同時にあくまでそれは自分の「先入観」であることも自覚している。→このような二重構造については後に言及する。

l 精神的な「他国者」(「私」が感じる島の住人との精神的な距離)

十四頁 上段八行目~下段六行目「「今、信者の数は島でどのくらいですか」~次郎さんのかくれにたいする軽蔑がどこか感じられたが、私は声をたてて笑つた」

二十一頁 下段二十一~二十四行目「今日一日で~他国者意識を棄ててくれたのかも知れぬ~次第に好意を感じてくる」

八頁の次郎さんの様子と比較すると、「他国者意識」を島の住人が棄ててくれて、かなり打ち解けてくれていることが分かる。そして「私」も、彼らに好意を抱いている。

↓しかし

十八頁 上段二十一~二十三行目「私がさつきから思つているようなことは、同じカトリック信者の助役や次郎さんの意識には浮んではいないらしかつた」→十七頁 下段三~十行目で、次郎さんと助役(中村さん)が「私」に親切にしてくれているにも拘わらず、彼らと精神的な距離を勝手に感じている

十九頁 上段七~十行目「「あげん偏屈な連中に、先生、なして興味ば持たれるとですか」/助役さんは、ふしぎそうに私にたずねたが、私はいい加減な返事をしておいた」

二十二頁 上段四~五行目「この人たちはかくれを軽蔑し、見くだしているようである」

その後、二十三頁 下段十三行目まで「かくれ」への関心・思い入れを詳細に語る「私」

「私」は、島の住人に好意を持ってはいるものの、「かくれ」が意識に上ると、どうしても島の住人との精神的な距離を感じてしまう。特に、二十三頁 上段二十四行目~下段四行目で「かくれ」のオラショを暗唱している一方で、二十三頁 下段十五~十六行目「さつきから次郎さんが教えてくれた唄の曲を思いだそうとしたが無駄だった」というように、島の住人である次郎さんの唄を思い出せないことは、両者に対する「私」の距離感を如実に示している。

※註釈にもあるように、次郎さんが唄っているのは「じごく様のうた」(遠藤が目を通した文献の関係上、彼は「サン・ジュアン様のうた」と思っていたかもしれないが)という殉教の唄である。これは本来、生月島山田の「かくれキリシタン」が唄うものである(『昭和時代の潜伏キリシタン』や『長崎の殉教者』を読んだ遠藤周作は、当然そのことを知っているはずである)が、作中では「かくれ」を軽蔑するカトリックの次郎さんがこの殉教の唄を歌う設定にしている。一方で、二十三頁 上段二十四〜下段四行目「でうすのおんはあ〜むかわせたまえ」も山田の「かくれキリシタン」が唄う「憐れみのおん母」というオラショであり、こちらを「かくれ」のオラショという設定にしていることに、作者である遠藤周作の作為を感じざるを得ない。

l 「かくれ」と「私」との関係(「かくれ」への共鳴と、「かくれ」による拒絶)

二十一頁 上段七~十七行目「私にとつて、かくれが興味があるのは~それは彼等が、転び者の子孫だからである~かくれの中に、私は時として、自分の姿をそのまま感じることがある

二十八頁 上段二十~二十四行目「私は~母親の顔からしばし、眼を離すことができなかつた彼等もまた、この私と同じ思いだつたのかという感慨が胸にこみあげてきた

二十八頁 下段十四~十八行目「「この涙の谷~おまなこを」~オラショを心のなかで呟いてみた」

「かくれ」への共鳴=「母」への思慕

↕対照的に

二十八頁 上段十七~十九行目「次郎さんは苦笑している~心のなかでは笑つていたにちがいない」→カトリック教徒と自分との差別化を図る。

↓一方で

二十六頁 上段六~八行目からすはどこまでも追いかけてきた~まるで我々の来たことをここの人たちに警告しているようである」

二十六頁 上段十八~二十四行目「「厭がつているようですね、我々に会うのを」~返事はなかった

二十六頁 下段四~七行目「川原菊市さんは~どこか別のところを見つめているできれば、早く帰つてほしいような感じだつた

二十七頁 上段十七~十八行目「私は~眼は別の方向にむいたまま、返事がない

「かくれ」が「私」に心を開いていないし、「私」自身もそれを認識している

※「からす」の役割→「我々の来たことをここの人たちに警告している」かのような「からす」が、「かくれ」と会っている間、ずっと鳴いている(二十六頁 上段六~七行目、二十七頁 上段十三行目)。

l まとめ

以上のような分析から、『母なるもの』を図式的に読み解こうとすると、カトリックの島の住人対「かくれ」というものになり、「私」は後者と自分とを重ね合わせようとしているということが出来る。

しかし、「私」が精神的な距離を感じているカトリック教徒たちが「私」に「他国者意識を棄てて」接してくれているのとは対照的に、「かくれ」は「私」を拒絶している様子が窺える(少なくとも「私」はそう感じている)。そして、「「母」への思慕」という点において「私」が「かくれ」と共鳴した後も、「我々の来たことをここの人たちに警告している」かのような「からす」は鳴いている(二十八頁十三~十四行目)。

これらのことは、「かくれ」の世界には入り込めないものの一方的に彼らに思いを寄せる「私」の些か滑稽ともとれる独善的な姿が描かれているとも考えられないだろうか。自分に親切な対応をしてくれるカトリック教徒に対しては、その宗教観の相違があるが故に、距離を感じてしまう「私」。そして、「私」のその独善的な姿は、「母」と「私」との関係を「私」が回想する場面でも描かれている。次は、「母」と「私」との関係について分析し、考察する。

「母」と「私」との関係

l 「母」の視界に入れない「私」(合わない視線)

十頁 上段十八~二十頁「記憶にある限り~母から手を握られて眠つたという経験は子供時代にもない~烈しく生きる女の姿である」

十頁 下段一~六行目「母は~眼だけが虚空の一点に注がれ~たつた一つの音を掴みだそうとするようだった」

十頁 下段十六~二十一行目「彼女はソファに腰をおろしたまま石像のように動かない~うつむいたまま、額を手で支えて苦しんでいる彼女の姿」

十一頁 上段十三~二十三行目「母は~たつた一つの信仰を求めて、きびしい、孤独な生活を追い求めていた~眼をあけると、母の指が、ロザリオを動かしているのが見えた」

「私」が「母」の視界の中に入れていない

↕対照的に

十頁 下段八~一一行目「私はその顎に、褐色の胼胝がまるで汚点のようにできているのを知っていた」

十頁 下段十七~二十二行目「そうやって~体全体の神経を母に集中していた~どうしてよいのか辛かった」

十一頁 上段十六~二十三行目「冬の朝~母の部屋に灯がついているのをみた。彼女がその部屋のなかで何をしているかを私は知つていた母の指が、ロザリオを動かしているのが見えた

「私」が「母」に関心を寄せている

l 「母」への反発

十五頁 上段十~十二行目母に嘘をつくことをおぼえた母にたいするコンプレックスから出たようである」

十五頁 上段二十一~二十三行目「優等生から軽蔑されて~母にたいする仕返しがあつた」

十五頁 下段七~十行目「まぶたの裏に母の顔がうかんだ~私はそれを払いのけるために、さつきよりも深く、煙を飲みこんだ」

十六頁 上段五~七行目「私は息をつめ~母がそれを素直に信じた時、胸の痛みと同時にひそかな満足感も感じていた

「私」を寄せ付けないような厳しい「母」への反発

「母」と、彼女に近寄りたくても近づけない「私」、という図式が揺らぐ

↓同時に

十六頁 上段八行目~下段七行目「正直いつて、私には本当の信仰心などなかつた~もし神があるならば、自分にも信仰心を与えてほしいと祈つたが、そんなことで気持が変わる筈はなかつた~母が~教会へ出かける足音を、平気で寝床で聞いていた~日曜日の教会さえ、さぼるようになり~時間をつぶすのだつた」

信仰心がないことを告白。「私」に信仰心を与えることすら出来ない「神」を揶揄するかのような口ぶり。そして、それを言い訳にするかのように、開き直って教会に行くのをさぼる「私」。

l 「母」への思いの変化と、「妻」の排除

十七頁 上段二~九行目「玄関をあけると~物も言わず、私を見つめている。やがてその顔がゆつくりと歪み、歪んだ頬に、ゆつくりと涙がこぼれた~母はすすり泣いていた~私は後悔よりも、この場を切りぬける嘘を考えていた」→これまで「私」から逸らされていた「母」の視線が「私」に向く。しかし、「私」は「母」から逃れようとする。

二十頁 下段十三~十七行目「母の顔は牛乳のように白くなつていた~苦しそうな影がまだ残つていた~不謹慎にも、さつき見たあの暗い写真の女の表情を思いだした~自分のやつたことを自覚して私は泣いた」→恐らく「母」の顔にエロ写真の女の顔を重ねることは、「マタイによる福音書」第五章二十七~二十八の「『姦淫するな』と言われていたことは、あなたがたの聞いているところである。しかし、わたしはあなたがたに言う。だれでも、情欲をいだいて女を見る者は、心の中ですでに姦淫をしたのである」を踏まえている[7]。つまり、「私」がキリスト教おける「罪」を犯したという意味が付与されているのである。それは、この記述のすぐ後にある二十一頁 上段七~十九行目までの、「転び者」としての「かくれ」に共感を寄せる理由へと繋がっていくと思われる。

この出来事を回想する辺りから、「母」との精神的な密着度合いが明らかに変化する。それと同時に、「妻」を排除するようになる。

十九頁 上段二十三行目~下段二行目「今でも妻にさえ黙つてそつと詣でる~誰にも言いたくない私と母との会話の場所親しい者にさえ狎々しく犯されまいという気持が私の心の奥にある

二十頁 下段二十一~二十二行目「私もいつかはここに葬られ、ふたたび少年時代と同じように彼女と二人きりでここに住むことになるだろう

二十五頁 上段十九~二十一行目「母が、私に現れることを妻に話したことはあまりない。一度、それを口に出した時、妻は口では何かを言つたが、あきらかに不快な色を浮べたからである

十頁 上段六~十行目における、妻に対する「申し訳ない」という気持ちや、「に自分でも気づいていないような、私と母との固い結びつきが~厭だつたからである」という「私」の思いとは明らかに異なっている。

↓更に

九頁 下段十四~二十三行目と対応関係にある二十三頁 下段十八行目~二十四頁 上段一行目「夢を見た~医師も妻もいなかった」の後において、前者では語らなかった母と自分の密接な関係を語る。

二十四頁 上段二~一一行目「母が出てくるのはそんな夢のなかだけではなかった~妻さえ、絶対に書斎に入れぬ私なのに~ふしぎに母は邪魔にならない。気を苛立たせもしない」

「母」と自分との関係を語り変えていく「私」

二十四頁 上段十三~二十四行目「そんな時の母は~少し哀しげな眼をして見ている母なのである~そんな母のイメージをいつか形づくっていたのにちがいない~そのイメージは、母が昔、持っていた「哀しみの聖母」像の顔を重ね合わせているのだ」

二十八頁 上段二十三行目~下段十行目「彼等もまた、この私と同じ思い~母への思慕に変つてしまったのだ。私はその時、自分の母のことを考え、母はまた私のそばに灰色の翳のように立つていた。ヴァイオリンを弾いている姿でもなく、ロザリオをくつている姿でもなく、両手を前に合せ、少し哀しげな眼をして私を見つめながら立つていた

「母」のイメージを自分の中で変えていったこととその過程を語ってみせる

l 何故「母」のイメージを作り変えようとするのか

 以上分析したことから、「私」は、「妻」を叩き台としてまで、自分と「母」との関係を語り変え、「母」のイメージを作り変えていることが分かる。そして、その過程までも詳細に語ってみせる。「私」の行う、このような「母」のイメージの変換は、「実際」の「母」がそれと全く違ったことが示されていることにより、かなり強引なもののように感じられる。では、何故「私」は、このような「強引」なイメージ操作を行い、その過程までも語ってみせたのであろうか。

 その疑問に対する一つの考え方として、「母」を裏切り続けたことを許してもらうために「母」のイメージを変換させた、というものがある。そのような論文をいくつか引用する。

自分が決定的に罪を犯したものとの肉体的感覚的な接触による赦しと解放とは、

(中略)自分の犯した罪のために傷つけた一人の人に対して、自分が本当に赦され

るのは、当事者のその人が自分に赦しを表明してくれること以外にはないでしょう。

(奥野政元「遠藤周作とキリスト教」平成二十年八月)

   その存在の〈うしろめたさ〉のゆえに、不安と孤独に苛まれ、絶望的な者である

ことを実感せざるをえない者にとって、そこから解放と救いを可能にするものに、もし表現を与えるとするならば、それは(中略)〈両手を前に合わせて、私を後

から少し哀しげな眼をして見ている母〉にほかならないのである。

(宮野光男「文学のなかの母と子」昭和五十九年六月)

 恐らく、以上二つ挙げたような解釈が一番妥当であり、誰もが頷くものであろうし、発表者もその解釈自体には意義はない。しかし、先に述べたように、「私」が「母」に対して「強引」なイメージ操作を行い、その過程までも語ってみせたことと、「かくれ」に対して一方的に思いを寄せる「の自閉性という側面を考えてみると、両氏の論は、作品の表向きの主題に引きずられているように感じられる。これらの論は、遠藤の作品における「母」と「子」の関係について、作者の幼児期における家庭の問題や浪人を繰り返したことを突破口として、作者の「うしろめたさ」[8]に焦点をあててしまっているが故にぶつかってしまう限界を乗り越えられていない[9]

では、これら論のような、「私」が「母」に必死にすがっている、という解釈から離れることは出来ないのだろうか。「私」が、自分自身を客観・批判的にも見ている、といった解釈は不可能なのであろうか。

内なる批評家[10]としての「私」

l 「私」によって「語られる現在」と「語られる過去」

 発表者がここで主張したいのは、『母なるもの』における「私」が、「かくれ」の島にいる「現在」の「私」と、「母」と関わっている「過去」の「私」だけでなく、両者を語っている第三の「私」とも言うべき存在がいるのではないか、ということである。換言すれば、島にいる「私」も、「母」と関わる「私」も、その第三の「私」によって語られているものではないか、ということである。そして、その「私」は、「現在」からも「過去」からも離れて、「物語内容の時間」[11]外にいるのではないか。

 恐らく多くの読者は、『母なるもの』を島にいる「私」が、島の様子を語りながら、「母」との思い出を回想し、その中で「かくれ」に共感する、と読むのではないか。例を挙げる。

  九州の「かくれ切支丹」、いわゆる「かくれ者(転び者)」と呼ばれる人たちを訪ね

ての旅、いわばそのような「現在」の時間と、一方「母の夢をみた」という言葉で

書き起こされる、いわば「回想」の時間という二つの時間が交互に描かれていく。

(中略)

   一方〈私〉は、それら「転び者」を思う心情に呼応するようにして、自己の「母」

を思い起こしていく。

(川島秀一『遠藤周作〈和解〉の物語』平成十二年九月)

↓しかし

『母なるもの』は、「現在」の「私」と、その「私」による回想から成る、という根拠は何処にあるのか。むしろ、そのような立場からこの作品を考えようとすると破綻する。

九頁 下段二十三行目~十頁 上段四行目「そういう夢を~やつとここが三年間入院した病院のなかではなく自分の家であることに気づいて~何時ものことだつた」

十一頁 下段一行目「暗いうち、雨の音で眼がさめた」→その直前まで「母」の回想をしているので眠っていたわけではない。

「現在」の「私」が「母」との思い出を語っているのではない。

「現在」と「過去」を語り分けている、「物語内容の時間」外にいる「私」の存在が想定される。つまり、「現在」は「語られる現在」であり、「過去」は「語られる過去」である。

l 「物語内容の時間」外にいる「私」による、「語られる現在」と「語られる過去」の感応

以上のように、「物語の時間」外の「私」を設定すると、「語られる現在」が「語られる過去」[12]と感応するように、意図的に配置されているということが見えてくる。

「第二の語られる過去」(「母」に嘘をつく)

十八頁 上段五~六行目「西宮の盛り場~母親に嘘をついていた~心に甦った」

「第三の語られる過去」(「母」の死の際、後ろ暗いことをしていた)

二十一頁 上段十一~十二行目後悔と暗い後目痛さと屈辱とを感じつづけながら生きてきた」

「第四の語られる過去」(「母」の哀しそうな眼)

二十八頁 下段五~十行目「私はその時、自分の母のことを考え、母は~少し哀しげな眼をして私を見つめながら立つていた」

島での「私」の出来事(「私」の心の変遷)と、「母」との思い出とを感応させてみせている因みに、「第一の語られる過去」より前にある「語られる現在」においては、「母」は「私」の意識に上らない。

そして、先にも述べたように、「物語の時間」外にいる「私」は、「語られる過去」でかなり強引に「母」のイメージを語り変え、それを土台にして、「母親」にすがる「かくれ」に思いを寄せる「私」の姿を感応させてみせる。つまり、「物語の時間」外の「私」が、「語られる現在」と「語られる過去」の両方において「私」の独善性を示してみせ、その上で両方の「私」をつなぎ合わせようとしているのである。

l まとめ

『母なるもの』においては、何としても「母」に許しを乞いたいという「私」のどうにもならぬ強い思いと、現実の「母」を離れて独善的な解決へと走ってしまう「私」の姿の両方を提示されている。そして、作品の最後に至っても、「私」が「母」に関して、「ヴァイオリンを弾いている姿でもなく、ロザリオをくつている姿でもなく」(二十八頁 下段七~九行目)と述べているように、「実際」の「母」のイメージを意識してしまっていることも、「私」が自分自身に嘘をついていることを認識していることを暗示しているのであろう。これは、「私」が自分のことを批判的な観点から眺めていることではないのだろうか。「私」の宗教観の独善性を言外に含ませていることではないのだろうか。このレジュメの8ページで述べた「島の住人を性格づける「私」の口調は確信を帯びている。だが、同時にあくまでそれは自分の「先入観」であることも自覚している」という「私」の意識の二重構造は、「私」が、自分の先入観に確信を抱いているのと同時に、自分に対する批判的・客観的も保持していることに他ならない。

このような、「内なる批評家性」を遠藤の代表作『沈黙』の中に見て取った佐伯彰一氏の論を引用する。

  この人物[13]は、作中でもっとも明晰かつ的確に見ぬき、判断する蛇の眼の持ち主、

つまりは批評家的な存在に他ならない。冷徹に見わたし、裁きかつ処理するこの男

が、肝心の中心人物を押しのけかねまじき溌剌たる動きを示すというのは、一体何

を物語るものであろうか。この批評家的な人物に、作者はいささか説明をゆだねす

ぎているという不満もおぼえたのだけれど、同時にこの事実は、遠藤氏における内

なる批評家性の根ざしの深さを指し示すものに違いない。

(佐伯彰一「「哀しい眼」の想像力」昭和四十八年二月)

この佐伯氏の論において「不満」とされているように、『沈黙』においては、批評家の役割を果たす筑後守が説明を委ねられ過ぎているのかもしれない。しかし、『母なるもの』においては、ある人物が「私」に対して批評的役割を果たすという構造をとらずにいても、「私」の強引で独善的な姿を描いてみせることにより、「私」の宗教観の限界性をも示される(ただし、二十八頁 上段二十四行目~下段六行目「昔~もつとも日本の宗教の本質的なものである、母への思慕に変つてしまつたのだ」とにあるように、あくまで正統のカトリックの教えを日本人としての立場から相対化することは忘れていないが)。独善的だと分かっていながらも「母」のイメージが作り変え、「母」への許しを乞う「かくれ」へと繋がっていこうとする「私」の強い思いと、それを批評的に眺める視線の併存。それこそが、『母なるもの』の持つ特色ではないだろうか。そして、そのような「私」の宗教観の限界性を、遠藤周作は『母なるもの』の四年後に発表された『死海のほとり』において乗り越えようとするのである。

【参考文献】(注釈)

(著書・事典)

遠藤周作『切支丹の里』(人文書院 昭和四十六年一月)

遠藤周作「弱者の救い」(遠藤周作『切支丹の里』人文書院 昭和四十六年一月)

※ただし、発表者は『遠藤周作文学全集 第十三巻 評論・エッセイⅡ』(新潮社 平成十二年五月)の本文を参照した。

片岡弥吉『長崎の殉教者』(角川選書 昭和四十五年三月)

片岡弥吉『かくれキリシタン』(日本放送出版協会 昭和四十一年六月)

田北耕也『昭和時代の潜伏キリシタン』(日本学術振興会 昭和二十九年十月)

皆川達夫『対談と随想 オラショ紀行』(日本キリスト教団出版局 昭和五十六年三月)

日本キリスト教大事典編集委員会編『日本キリスト教歴史大事典』

(教文館 昭和六十三年二月)

『昭和国勢総覧 下巻』(東洋経済新報社 昭和五十五年十一月)

『遠藤周作文学全集 第十五巻 日記 年譜・著作目録』(新潮社 平成十一年十二月)

(新聞・雑誌)

遠藤周作「日本の沼の中で―かくれ切支丹考」

(「野性時代」角川書店 昭和五十四年一~六月)

下野孝文「遠藤周作「母なるもの」論」

(「国語国文 薩摩路」鹿児島大学法文学部国語国文学研究室 平成十七年三月)

(書籍・事典)

江藤淳『成熟と喪失―〞母〟の崩壊』(河出書房新社 昭和四十二年六月)

※ただし、発表者が目を通したのは講談社文芸文庫(平成五年十月)のものである。

遠藤周作 佐藤泰正『人生の同伴者』(春秋社 平成三年十一月)

川島秀一『遠藤周作〈和解〉の物語』(和泉書院 平成十二年九月)

宮野光男「文学のなかの母と子」(『文学における母と子』佐藤泰正編

笠間書院 昭和五十九年六月)

「マタイによる福音書」(『聖書』日本聖書協会 昭和三十九年)

(新聞・雑誌)

遠藤周作「異邦人の苦悩」(「別冊新評」昭和四十八年十二月)

※ただし、発表者は『遠藤周作文学全集 第十三巻 評論・エッセイⅡ』(新潮社 平

成十二年五月)の本文を参照した。

奥野政元「遠藤周作とキリスト教」(「キリスト教文学」日本キリスト教文学会九州支部

「キリスト教文学」編集室 平成二十年八月)

佐伯彰一「哀しい眼」の想像力」(「国文学」学燈社 昭和四十八年二月)

戸松泉「「小説家小説」としての「趣味の遺伝」」

(「文学」岩波書店 平成十九年九・十月)



[1] ただし、発表者は『遠藤周作文学全集 第十三巻 評論・エッセイⅡ』に収録された本文を参照した。

[2] この記述は、『日本キリスト教歴史大事典』の「プティジャン」の項に発表者が手を加えた。

[3] 下野孝文「遠藤周作「母なるもの」論」(「国語国文 薩摩路」平成十七年三月)を参照した。

[4] 正確には、遠藤が目を通したものは昭和三十二年五月発行の角川新書版であり、この引用は増補改訂されて昭和四十五年三月に発行された角川選書版であるので、念のため、付記しておく。

[5] 田北耕也『昭和時代の潜伏キリシタン』の「生月地方の納戸神」からの引用。遠藤はこの本に目を通していたため、おペンテンシャが既に実際には用いられていないことを知っていたと思われる。

[6] この指摘は、下野孝文「遠藤周作「母なるもの」論」(前出)にある。

[7] 遠藤周作は、作品の中に聖書で描かれている場面のイメージを織り込もうとする。「異邦人の苦悩」(「別冊新評」昭和四十八年十二月)から引用する。「私が『沈黙』の中で、司祭が踏絵に足をかけた場面の最後の行に「そのとき鶏が鳴いた」と書いたとしても、私の読者は、それが聖書の中でペトロがイエスを裏切ったときに、三たび鶏が鳴いたという言葉を決して思い出してはくれないだろう。したがってこの鶏が鳴いたというイメージは、単なる自然描写の一行にしか受け取られないかもしれない」

[8] 「母」へ裏切り、うしろめたさについては、遠藤周作自身が『人生の同伴者』(平成三年十一月)の中で自ら口にしている。

[9] 「母」への裏切りを悔やむ気持ちが作品に反映されているという視点の持ち方は、江藤淳『成熟と喪失―〝母〟の崩壊』に端を発するものであると考えられる。

[10] この言葉は、佐伯彰一「哀しい眼」の想像力」(昭和四十八年二月)に拠った。

[11] このような論は、戸松泉「「小説家小説」としての「趣味の遺伝」」(平成十九年九・十月)に拠る。

[12] 便宜上、九頁下段~十一頁上段を「第一の語られる過去」、十五頁上段~十七頁上段を「第二の語られる過去」、十九頁上段~二十頁下段を「第三の語られる過去」二十三頁下段~二十五頁上段を「第四の語られる過去」と呼ぶこととする。

[13] 発表者注。『沈黙』の主人公であるロドリゴに対して、「その言葉、まことの切支丹とは、この井上には思えぬ」「してみるとそこもと、やはり切支丹の教えを、この日本と申す泥沼の中でいつしか曲げてしまったのであろう」という言葉を投げかける筑後守井上を指す。