1) Soseki's Bungaku-ron (1910), consisting of five books, has been unanimously said to be without precedent. But if we closely examine its structure and contents, we can understand it was written under the influence of Western rhetoric. For example, the most important part of it, Book IV, titled "Mutual relationship of literary contents", is the re-organization of the "Figures of speech" on the principles of associationist-psychology. But it does not necessarily mean the lack of originality in the Bungaku-ron. If we compare Soseki's theory with that of Bain, we can easily find Soseki's far superior to Bain's in various points. It is chiefly owing to the difference of their aims, and Soseki's aim was to modify, or rather change, by the aid of modern psychology, the whole system of rhetoric into general theory of literature. This was a magnificient ambition indeed, but he could not transcend the intrinsic limit of rhetoric which prevented that art from becoming modern critical thoery. 2) The chief motive that awakened such an ambition in him was his dissatisfaction with the method of literary study prevalent at that period. According to him, it was merely to accumulate social and historical facts about an author or a work, and has nothing to do with the appreciation of it. On the other hand, mere appreciation is often apt to be arbitrary. So, he tried to start from his own sensibility cultivated in our long literary tradition and to proceed to build up a general theory of literature applicable to any piece of art, whether Western or Eastern, and at the same time highly convincing even to Europeans. His use of rhetoric as well as psychology was only the first step towards that ultimate goal. 3) The method against which Soseki rebelled was typical of the 19th century. If the main trend of the 20th century criticism, as is shown by the movement of New Criticism, can be said to be an revolution against what we may call historical method, Soseki's method is essentially characteristic of the 20th century. Paradoxically enough, it was by starting from his own sensibility as a Japanese that he could be a herald of the new trend in the 20th century Anglo-American criticism. Here lies the real significance of the Bungaku-ron, and even if Soseki afterwards had to admit the work to be a failure, we must call it a "glorious" failure with all respect.

View full abstract