Mitsuda Ikuo, in his essay "Shigeharu's Mokichi Notes"(Bungaku, January, 1980-June, 1981), focuses on the evolution of Nakano Shigeharu's study of Saito Mokichi's Notes and asseses it from a positivist standpoint. Mitsuda holds that the core of the Notes is constituted by the shasei(sketch)theory and beyond that, by the theory of the development of individuality. However, if we hold that both Mokichi and Shigeharu represent a literature of the individual, their differences are obliterated, and Shigeharu's identity as a communist is completely lost. Shigeharu's critique of the legacy of modern Japanese literature, including Mokichi's work, had as its purpose the building of a resilient modern proletariat. Why, then, did he single out Mokichi? Probably because Shigeharu followed the suggestion of his teacher, Akutagawa Ryunosuke. The mid-30's was a period of reappraisal for "things Japanese." Shigeharu regarded "things Japanese" as constituting a school, best represented by the mutual criticism of teacher and disciple as they pursued their creative endeavors. Shigeharu saw this ideal exemplmed in the theoretical conflicts between Mokichi and his teacher Ito Sachio The Notes neglect to recount the history of Mokichi's poetry and their methodological structure, the structure whereby the realistic and the nonrealistic are conjoined in one poem.
抄録全体を表示