According to Waseda Bungaku, No. 38 (a literary magazine published on 25 April 1893), it is evident that Shōyō Tsubouchi, M. A., had already read Comparative Literature by Macaulay Posnett by that time. But it was not known until today whether Tsubouchi ever made public his opinions on comparative literature. It was in the spring of 1964 that I found a note on “ Comparative Literature ” a lecture given by Tsubouchi, among the miscellaneous old documents in the Library of Waseda University. The note has only the title : “‘Comparative Literature’, A Lecture by Tsubouchi, M. A.”, and it does not say when and by whom the note was taken down. But by tracing back the route by which it was acquired, I found that its writer was a student by the name of Yoshio Kino. His curriculum vitae shows that he entered the English Ordinary Course of Tokyo Semmon Gakko (Tokyo College, the present Waseda University) in October 1889 and completed the course in July 1890，and that in September of the same year, he entered the Literary Department of the same college and graduated from it in July 1893.

　Based on this fact, I concluded that Yoshio Kino attended the lecture on “Comparative Literature” by Tsubouchi sometime between October 1889 and July 1893. The English Ordinary Course of the school was, in fact, a preparatory division for students going on to the College, not a special course. For example, in this course, Tsubouchi lectured on “The English Constitution” by Walter Bagehot，Sanae Takada on “Representative Government” by Mill, and Sakae Tabara on physiology. Hence it may be presumed that Yoshio Kino attended the lecture on “Comparative Literature” by Tsubouchi after entering the Literary Department of the College, that is, between September 1890 and July 1893.

　The curriculum of the College of those days is stated in the old documents of Waseda University, but the titles of lectures are not mentioned in any of the papers. Judging from the curriculum，if “ Comparative Literature” was given, it must have been done in the course under the title of “ The History of English Literature,” given in the second semester of his first year, that is, between February or March 1891 and July 1891, or in the first semester of his second year，between October 1891 and July 1892, under the same title. In the curriculum for the other semesters, we cannot find any subject that was likely to include comparative literature. Therefore, the lecture by Tsubouchi on “Comparative Literature” must have been attended by Yoshio Kino during the above periods.

　—— View PDF for the rest of the abstract. ——

　It is said that “ Toshishun ” by Akutagawa was written under the influence of a Chinese folk story, but we find there are some fundamental differences in literary spirit between “ Toshishun ” and “ Toshishunden.”

　As for plot, both are stories of failure in which a man called Toshishun could not acquire a magic power. In the Chinese story the wizard regretted Toshishun’s failure, but in Akutagawa’s work the wizard was glad of the result. This is the great difference.

　The cause of Toshishun’s failure was that against the wizard’s command，he happened to utter a cry in the midst of his practice of silence. It was because he was overcome by emotion for his mother and son. The Chinese author of this story suggests that there is the limitation of human capacity. And the author wanted to emphasize Taoism through denying the desire of a human being.

　In case of Akutagawa’s work, the wizard did not blame Toshishun for crying out. It is because the wizard affirmed Toshishun’s human feeling and denied the unfeeling act of looking at the devil beating his mother without saying a word. The wizard said, “ If you had kept silence, I would have struck you dead.” These words, however, are contradictory to what he had said at first, because he had promised, “ If you keep silence in any circumstance, I will make you a wizard.” I believe the contradiction was brought by Akutagawa’s neglecting the theme of the original Chinese work in his changing the story to a fairy tale.

　If “ a translator, a traitor,” an English translator of Haiku must risk a great danger. Because Haiku persistently defies, in some of its characteristics, being rendered into any foreign language. A series of English translations of Basho’s piece “ Furu ike-ya .. ”, for example, will show the translators differ from each other in their expressions of the nuance. But I am not going to be a connoisseur of the English versions of Haiku ; I am more concerned here with the inevitable difficulties, the fundamental problems for English translators to encounter.

　My discussion covers the seventy-three years’ history of English translation of Haiku since 1889, but the examples are, for convenience sake, confined to those of Basho’s well-known pieces.

　Onomatopoeia and omission of personal pronoun of the Japanese language peculiarly lend themselves to Haiku,both of which arbitrarily taken do great harm. And the question of number is also puzzling. Is the “ semi ”（cicada) to be taken for singular or plural? The difference of word-order between Japanese and English is no less important.

　There has been a question whether or not a translated Haiku should conform to traditional English poetry. And several experiments to bring in rhyme and to preserve the syllable counts have not been quite successful.

　Though the fragmentariness of Haiku worries translators no longer, the difference of the environments seems almost fatal. There is an English equivalent to “ semi,” but I have met American students who could not even pronounce “ cicada.” Some insects and plants popular for Haiku have no English names at all. Latin substitutes are not commendable. Romanization of the Japanese names in not satisfactory, either. After a considerable achievement, translators are still indefatigably grappling with these problems.