Doshisha Literature was published as a monthly magazine in Kyoto for eight years from March, 1887 to April，1895 by Doshisha people. The merit and value of the magazine consists in its contribution to the enlightenment of the people in the early part of the Meiji Era in our country. It was the time when the Meiji Constitution was first established and the Diet was called for the first time. In those days few worthy books and magazines were published， and therefore Doshisha Literature is one of the rare magazines published in those days worthy of notice.

　The magazine published contributions chiefly by Doshisha people, but those who were in some way connected with them also had opportunities to contribute to the magazine. Among the contributors, we find such eminent persons as Joe Niishima, Yūzo Tsubouchi, Iichiro Tokutomi, Kenjiro Tokutomi, Hajime Ohnishi, Umpō Isogai, Kichirō Yuasa, Eigo Fukai, Saburō Takayasu and others. We also find such names of foreigners as Edwin Arnold, G.E. Albrecht, D.W. Learned, J.D. Davis and others.

　From this magazine we can obtain much knowledge of the cultural state of affairs as well as the political, philosophical, educational and religious situations of our country in the former half of the Meiji Era. But from the viewpoint of Comparative Literature, we find many materials for us to study， such as translations of literature and philosophy, comments on foreign authors and so forth. We find Japanese translations of Goldsmith, Washington Irving, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dickens, together with the translated poems of Byron, Tennyson, Schiller, Longfellow, Bryant and others. It is especially worthy of notice that works of Ibsen and Dostoevsky were first translated into Japanese in this magazine.

　There are also many essays which concern western literature and philosophy in this magazine. The most important are “A Lecture on Education” by Edwin Arnold, “The Influence of the Bible on English and English Literature” by C.M. Cady, “Reviews and Creation” by Yūzo Tsubouchi, “The Contrast between Japan and U.S.A.” by J.D. Davis, and other essays.

　At last the author wishes to mention that the magazine contains “Reviews” of new books published in those days, which also furnish many materials of study to the scholars of Comparative Literature.

　Lorsqu’il était lycéen à Sendai, Kaishu Kuroyanagi (1871–1921) s’est associé au groupe: «Yamagata-ken Kyodô-kai»，avec ses camarades，dont un était Chogyu Takayama，et il a lu dans leur bulletin un article intitulé: La Littérature Comparative. L’un des étudian ts qui ont suivi les cours de Shôyô Tstubouchi au collège de Tokyo Senmon Gakkô en a rapporté quelques extraits. En 1895，étant étudiant à l’université de Tokyo，Kuroyanagi est d’abord devenu un des rédacteurs de la revue Teikoku Bungaku (Littérature Impériale). Il a ensuite écrit，dans quelques revues，des articles sur les littératures japonaise et anglaise. Son meilleur livre: «Bundan, Kadan» (A propos des lettres et des fleurs)，contenant beaucoup de travaux comparatifs，a été publié en 1907 par les Editions Shunyô-dô. Cependant，un chapitre de son livre: La littérature comparative—non comparée!—s’inspirait clairement du livre Comparative Literature de M. Posnett，des théories de Spenser，de Taine et de Brunetière. Kuroyanagi était un des meilleurs initiateurs de la littérature comparée au Japon.

　The source of “Kumo-no-ito,” Ryunosuke Akutagawa’s famous work, was once believed to be a Russian folklore called “A Welsh Onion” appearing in Dostoyevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov,”　Ⅶ, iii. It was then considered that the originality of Akutagawa consisted in his creating a Buddhistic narrative from the said source.

　It was Prof. Sei’ichi Yamaguchi that, having denied the old theory, set up a new one that the source of “Kumo-no-ito” was “The Spider Web, ” a chapter of “Karma” by Paul Carus (1852-1919). Besides, it was ascertained that this “Karma” was published in English by Hasegawa Shôten (a publisher) in 1895.

　Then Prof. Tatsuro Katano proved in his article that the source used by Akutagawa was not the English version of “Karma” but the Japanese translation of it by Daisetsu Suzuki, “Inga-no-oguruma”, published in 1898 by the same publisher, in which a chapter called “Kumo-no-ito” appears.

　　Upon investigation the author of this article discovered that the “Inga-no-oguruma” reposited in the Library of the National Diet was bound in old Japanese way with an indigo cover. This fits in with Akutagawa’s words. It is, therefore, confirmed that the source of “Kumo-no-ito” is not the English version of “Karma”, but its Japanese translation titled “Inga-no-oguruma” . In addition， a short biography of Paul Carus is put at the end of the book which presents an interesting problem on the relationship between Japanese and Western modern cultures.

　Le présent article a pour but de présenter d’abord la traduction anglaise présumée des deux pièces de Molière, traduction qui aurait servi à Kôyô OZAKI (1867–1903) à composer son Natsu-kosode (Vêtement ouaté pour l’été) et son Koi-no-yamai (Le mal d’amour), deux adaptations japonaises de 1892, avec lesquelles l’original du premier ouvrage l’Avare et celui du second le Médecin malgré lui y sont ensuite confrontés et examinés. L’auteur en arrive à éclaircir quelques-unes des caractéristiques de l’art de l’adapteur japonais.

　En ce qui concerne la traduction anglaise, l’auteur de présent article tient à supposer un ouvrage de la Collection Sôseki Natsume, appartenant à la Bibliothèque de l’Université du Tôhoku. Il est intitule: The Dramatic Works of Molière, translated into English prose, by Charles Heron Wall, 3 vols., 1883–1887, London: George Bell and Sons, York street, Covent Garden (Bohn's Standard Library).

　Après une confrontation et un examen de l’adaptation japonaise et de la traduction anglaise, l’auteur constate l’habileté avec laquelle Kôyô a réussi à introduire dans les répliques le comique qu’on trouve dans la marche des dialogues du texte original: l’amant et l’amante y s’expriment dans un japonais court et précis, au cours de l’échange étincelant de leurs paroles. Kôyô n’a même pas oublié d’y insérer le comique des jeux de mots (transposés en japonais) de l’auteur original, faisant preuve par là, avec son rare intérêt pour le langage et son soin minutieux du style, d’un réel talent dans la peinture des femmes,—autant de caractéristiques de Kôyô, réputé “humoriste”.

　Tout en rapportant dans ses œuvres le comique de l’original, il ne fait aucunement sentir l’“adaptation,” au point qu’il arrive à les présenter comme si elles étaient de sa propre inspiration. Cela ne veut-il pas dire que Kôyô s’est fait un adapteur idéal de J.-B.P. Molière?

　The ultimate concern of this essay is the clarification of the concept of Beauty， an idea of Organic Unity in Aesthetic，and also finding out how this traditional idea has been functionally transformed. My present purpose lies in revealing actual conditions which drove Coleridge and the Schlegels to advocating Romanticism; the place is set at Göttingen because Göttingen University seems to have played the important part in Romanticism.

　An explanation for choosing these critics as a theme is denoted in the Preface in view of their positions in each literary history they have occupied, and of their common background at Göttingen University where Heyne and Blumenbach gave stimulating lectures to them.

　In the article “Road to Göttingen”, the present writer takes Coleridge from England to Göttingen, describing his journey and mental attitude towards the new experiences in order to trail how Coleridge’s metaphysical passion came to be inflamed. The next article “At Göttingen University” shows the university atmosphere and tells where their consciousness of the problems lay and what kind of problems they had. The following article explains their “Approach to the Ancient and Mythology.” The problems of the Conscious and Unconscious, Memory, Reason, Imagination and Fancy are the products of mythological consciousness. They had learnt Ossian; Winckelmann’s method for the ancient, his theory on Art and Society from Heyne, and could have contact with Bürger. The last one treats the meanings and phases of the Organic Unity, describing their sense for the Unity respectively.

　This essay is nothing but an introduction to the whole theme, because their criticism on Shakespeare, their thoughts on Ossian and their consideration on the Eighteenth-Century have been left unsaid, which naturally need more intensive investigation in future.

　Shinichirō Nakamura (1918〜) is a scholar of French literature who studied at the French Literature Department of Tokyō University. He has been active as poet, novelist, critic, and translator.

　His publications include Recollections of Post-War literature (1963). The last chapter of this book deals with the history of his reading showing that his knowledge is very wide ranging and that his works are influenced in various and complicated ways by French literature, Japanese classics, Anglo-American literature, and German literature.

　In this study I should like to look into the relation between Shinichirō Nakamura and Anglo-American literature.

　According to the above-mentioned book, he read Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, G. Eliot, Gaskell, Meredith, V. Woolf, Joyce, A. Huxley, Pater, Hawthorne, by the end of the war.

　From these writers very interesting essays were written by Shinichirō Nakamura about Hawthorne and G. Eliot.

　“Novelty of Romance”(1965), his essay on Hawthorne, gives his personal view of Hawthorne and his own unique view of literature.

　Meanwhile in his essay, “The Mill on the Floss”(1951), he pointed out the quality of the descriptions common to G. Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss and Proust’s A la recherche du temps perdu and the peculiar plots of these novels.

　I think such characteristics are to be found in Shinichirō Nakamura’s Under the Shadow of Death (1947), too.

　I think that there are some relations between The Mill on the Floss and Under the Shadow of Death.