Soseki (1867–1916), one of the representative novelists of modern Japan, has the reputation of a great reader. The fact that he really read deep and wide can be proved by his library containing penciled comments interspersed among pages. Thus his marginalia become material on which one can construe how he has reacted to the impact of his reading. Moreover his marginalia serve as a clue to his creativity. The fact that he read Gissing’s Veranilda is ascertained by the diagram of his own drawing and his interspersed comments. This invites us to probe into the relation between Mon (The Gate) and Veranilda especially from the viewpoint of plot-construction.

　Since its publication Mon has been said to have a grievous fault in its rather unexpected plot development. Some critics, we find, both attack the alleged weak point and defend it by throwing light on it from individual angles. Viewed from the angle of comparative literature, particularly from that of Sōseki's reading of Veranilda offers a good example of “influence”. Both heroes in their predicament wish to find their way out rather unexpectedly with the help of religious people. Their impulsive urge to throw themselves into a religious order bears a close resemblance. Sōseki’s diagram on the flyleaf is proof enough that Mon and Veranilda have the relation of influenced and influencer. The fundamental difference between the two works is that, while Gissing’s hero succeeds in finding his peace of mind, Sōseki’s fails in the attempt. This difference is subjected to further scrutiny and the conclusion drawn is that Sōseki is too handicapped by his idiosyncratic, modernistic way of thinking to give his hero a penetrating, religious consciousness in weaving a natural, yet powerfully moving plot.

　Arthur Waley (1889–1966) was silent about The Tale of Genji after he completed the English translation from the original Japanese in 1935, except for his book review on Professor Kazuo Oka’s Genjimonogatari no Kisoteki Kenkyu (1954, Tokyo).

　This was in striking contrast to his voluminous and numerous achievements in the Chinese field made after he completed the translation of Genji. However, we are able to understand Waley’s views of The Tale of Genji in his closing days, by his book reviews on Ivan Morris’s The World of the Shining Prince — Court Life in Ancient Japan — (1964, Oxford). In this book review, Waley still holds fast to his own views which appeared in 1935, that the ending of The Tale of Genji is perfect. In opposition to Professor Morris’s conclusion, Waley thinks that it is quite definite that The Tale of Genji is complete. He considers that the last line of The Bridge of Dreams appearing in the last chapter of this Tale is a perfect ending to which the wavering and suspicious character of of Kaoru comes into effect. Waley suggests that if The Bridge of Dreams was continued by the authoress in order to make readers “know something more about Kaoru’s and Niou’s reactions to Ukifune’s retirement to a nunnery”, as Professor Morris thinks, The Tale of Genji should have become like one of the works of Wilkie Collins.

　It may be said in the conclusion that if the points of the technique in The Tale of Genji consisted in the elasticity of time, for instance, “flash back”, “anticipation”, “digression”，and “sudden acceleration” in the time sequence of plot, which characterize the turn of Western novels in this century, Waley’s views on The Tale of Genji being perfectly complete must have appeared under the atmosphere of his Bloomsbury group.

　In writing this paper, I am indebted to Madly Singing in the Mountain — An Appreciation and Anthology of Arthur Waley, edited by Professor I. Morris in 1970.

　Sōseki Natsume stayed in London to study English literature from 1900 to 1902. He had a plan to write a book which was later published as The Bungakuron (Literary Theory). He seems to have read Tolstoy’s What is Art ? in those days. In this book, Sōseki wrote down in English his impressions and opinions and made underlines for memory. These “notes” rather than Tolstoy’s influence on him represent clear connection with his later works.

　They have four aspects. First, Sōseki had long been puzzled about how to define the nature of literature. This problem was what he could not forget long afterwards, and the writing of the “Bungakuron” did not mean that he had clearly resolved the problem. He had this problem by reading Tolstoy’s work. Secondly, Sōseki thought that the essential quality of literature is emotion, and the value of literature is determined by the intensity of emotion the reader gets. On the other hand, Tolstoy thought it is “feeling”, and the intensity of the reader’s feeling that is affected by the artist decides the value of the work. Though direct influence of Tolstoy on Sōseki is not seen, it is interesting to see the similarity of the two writers. Thirdly, Tolstoy said that the appreciation of art is universal without distinction of nation or the ability of man. Sōseki expressed disapproval of this. This came about because Sōseki had strongly felt the distinction between Chinese literature and English literature in his early days, and he was long annoyed in identifying them. Fourthly, he criticized the civilization of Europe in the 19th century. As for this, Sōseki’s opinion is the same as Tolstoy’s. While Tolstoy appreciated the European civilization yet became critical of it, Sōseki was distressed about the difference between European and Japanese culture. They, however, have similar opinions, that is they both esteem wholesome humanity.

　As shown above, Sōseki made his thought clear by commenting in the Tolstoy work. Though these raw “notes” are not put in order, they serve to give us information about his early thought.

　Gekko TAKAYASU (1869–1944) fut avant tout un poète: “Yatô-Shû [Les Vagues dans la Nuit] (1900), “Shunsetsu-Shû [La Neige du printemps] (1903) etc., et il composa également des pièces: “Oshio-Heihachiro” (1902), “Edo-jô-Akewatashi” (La Remise du Château d’Edo) (1903), “Sakura-Shigure” [La Giboulée de Fleurs de Cerisiers] (1906) etc.

　Etant à la fois poète et dramaturge, Gekkô écrivait aussi des articles sur la littérature et il traduisait des pièces étrangères; il fut le premier à présenter des oeuvres d’Ibsen au Japon. Pourtant il nous faut le classer parmi les comparatistes, parce qu’il publia, en 1916, un livre intitulé “Tôzai-Bungaku-Hikaku-Hyôron” [Etudes Critiques et Comparatives des littératures japonaise et européenne], qui était, dans son esprit, un manifeste de la littérature comparative (non comparée! étant donné que sa méthode ne consistait qu’à confronter surtout....), et dans lequel il appliquait les procédés de l’étude comparative, a l’aide de ses connaissances fécondes et profondes de la littérature européenne. Gekkô traita, du point de vue de l’étude comparative, des phénomènes littéraires analogiques dans les littératures du Japon et des autres pays, sans considérer les influences les unes sur les autres.

　Son étude comparative eut pour but de développer et d’enrichir la littérature japonaise en tenant compte des différences existant entre la littérature japonaise et les autres.

　Sous l’influence de “Hihyô-Bungaku” [La Littérature Comparative] de Shôyô TSUBOUCHI, ou plus exactement, du livre de H.M. Posnett: “Comparative Literature”, Gekkô fut un des premiers spécialistes de littérature comparative au Japon.

　With the serious disease in Shuzenji as the turning point, Sōseki’s view of life changed from the philosophy of W. James to Bergson’s.

　At first he believed the theory of James’s subconsciousness. James showed him that we could commune with God’s consciousness outside of us through the subconsciousness which was the same as God’s consciousness and full of ideals, and that if we died we could join God.

　If this had been true, therefore, when he was dying of the disease, for a while at that time he should have had the same consciousness as subconsciousness because he could join God after death, but, in fact, he had no consciousness whatever.

　This fact disappointed him. After that he became a believer of Bergson. I want to tell how his new view of life, “Sokuten Kyoshi”, developed in relation to the theory of Bergson.