Фтабатэй Симэй (настоящее имя: Тацуносукэ Хасэгава) широко известен как знаменитый японский писатель и переводчик русской литературы в эпоху Мэйдзи. У Фтабатэя, однако, была и другая сторона – он являлся одним из основоположников научного изучения России. Располагая огромной информацией о России того времени, он исследовал не только русскую литературу, но и русскую политику, дипломатию, военное дело, общество, культуру и мысль.

　Несмотря на то, что Фтабатэй всю жизнь работал в области политики и дипломатии, а многие его статьи и эссе о ситуации в России вошли в полное собрание сочинений, большинство исследователей не уделяло достаточного внимания этому обстоятельству и не анализировало подобные тексты подробно. Представляется, что будет важным рассмотреть данный вопрос, так как многие японские литераторы в эпоху Мэйдзи были не только великие писатели, но и видные специалисты в иностранных делах.

　Одним из важных источников, по которому можно исследовать этот аспект деятельности Фтабатэя, является японский журналист Оба Како (настоящее имя: Кагэаки Оба). В настоящее время его имя почти забыто, но он был хорошо знаком с ситуацией в России в период с конца эпохи Мэйдзи до эпохи Тайсё. Фтабатэй и Оба познакомились у их общего учителя русского языка Цунэитиро Фрукава около 1895 года. Их дружба, усиленная общим интересом к России, продолжалась всю жизнь. Фтабатэй, вероятно, благотворно влиял на Оба в отношении реалистической точки зрения на японо-русские связи и собирания информации о России. Можно сказать, что благодаря Фтабатэю Оба мог играть более активную роль как исследователь России. В дальнейших исследованиях, посвященных Фтабатэю, необходимо учитывать эту сторону его деятельности и его отношения с Оба.

抄録全体を表示

This article examines three books by young Russian scholars on the topic of 1916 Russian-Japanese Alliance aiming to find out what implications their research may have for the present state of relations between Japan and Russia. The books under consideration are: E. Baryshev, The Period of Japanese-Russian Alliance of 1914–1917, The Truth about the ‘Extraordinary Friendship’ (2007); Yu. Pestushko, Japanese-Russian Relations during the First World War (2008) and D. Pavlov, The Forgotten Alliance, Japan and Russia in the Period of 1914–1918 (2014). One common feature of their research is the wide use of Russian and Japanese original sources, which sets their research apart from ideological inclinations usually characteristic to historical studies in the Soviet period.

Though the three authors concentrate on analysis of the same political process, they are different in accents the authors make and in what they add to the central topic of their books. For Baryshev, the rapprochement was supported by what he calls the “civilizational similarity” of the two countries, which were both latecomers in modernization and thus felt themselves antagonistic to the Anglo-Saxon world. His research may, indeed, be qualified not only as a history of diplomacy, but also of the social and political thought. Pestushko conducted a thorough study of political and economic processes emphasizing the difficulties of negotiations between Japan and Russia and highlighting the importance of the territorial issue, i.e. the transfer of the southern branch of the East Chinese Railway from Russia to Japan. Though the issue was not resolved to Japan’s entire satisfaction, this did not prevent the signing of the treaty because other considerations prevailed. Pavlov describes in details the process of weapons supply by Japan to Russia calling it the core of Russian-Japanese rapprochement. This article argues against such an assessment, because, though Russian money helped modernize the Japanese military industry, the establishing of zones of influence in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia was the priority for each negotiating party. Pestushko and Baryshev reject the previously dominant assessment of the 1916 Alliance as the anti-German one suggesting its anti-American nature. However, it may be more right to say that while for Russia it was anti-German, Japan saw the United States as the main threat to its interests in China.

The article also examines how the rapprochement influenced mutual Russian-Japanese images. It reviews the case of the writer Vas. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko who in 1916 had to make corrections to his book written in 1908 concerning the assessment of Russian-Japanese relations. The article brings to attention letters written by young Japanese to their Russian friends, which were published in Kokumin Shinbun in 1916.

On the whole, though the period of rapprochement was not long and ended with the 1917 revolution in Russia and Japanese intrusion into Siberia, the attention paid to it by Russian scholars is indicative of the trend towards seeing the relations between the two countries in a positive perspective. The three books demonstrate that in spite of many frictions and frequent differences in vision Japan and Russia are able to overcome them.

抄録全体を表示

This article is dedicated to the problem of how the Russian liberals considered their relations with Europe, and, in particular, how they learned from the UK, France, and other countries for carrying out total mobilization during the First World War. Inspired by the experiences in these countries, the liberals made a significant contribution to constructing a mobilization regime in the Russian Empire. An interesting material in this regard is Vladimir Nabokov’s From Warring Britain (Petrograd, 1916), a report by a prominent Russian liberal who had visited the UK and France for researching war efforts. His depiction on giant factories, the trenches of the Western Front, the talk with H. G. Wells on the war, the introduction of the conscription system in the UK and so on informed vividly the Russian readers of some cardinal issues of the total mobilization. Thus, the Russian liberals, with the moral support given by public opinion of the Entente, tried hard to make their Empire continue the war. Paradoxically, their efforts led to the prolongation of war experience in Russia, with the result of shaking social stability, to open a way for an anti-liberal development of the country.

抄録全体を表示

  Russia and Japan found themselves in similar historical situations in the second half of the nineteenth century. Domestic and international dynamism did not allow either country to maintain their traditional styles of government. However, the western world did not provide them with the effective models they needed for their urgent system change, because the West was in the middle of their own struggles for a new style of government during the wave of democratization and nationalism. As large-scale reforms took place one after another from the 1860s until the 1880s, Russia and Japan needed to scrutinize western precedents and search for their own paths to political development. Their chosen roads stood in marked contrast with each other. This paper highlights a few aspects of this contrast.
  Japan established a constitutional monarchy in 1889, fifteen years earlier than Russia. The central government of Japan meticulously connected local governments and national parliamentary systems. Prior to the national political reform, local bodies were given corporate status and entrusted with implementing an important part of state-related functions. Ito Hirobumi, the main architect of Japanese constitutional monarchy, actively tried to help China westernize its outdated political regime by following the Japanese precedent, though the Qing dynasty was ultimately unable to avoid the Revolution of 1911.
  Russia, more skeptical of the political and administrative reliability of its people, narrowly tolerated local self-government but rejected connecting it with a central parliamentary system. Unlike Ito, Russian political leaders did not have any interest in China's political reform, partly because the shift to a constitutional monarchy was a highly controversial issue for their own country. Even now, more than one hundred years after these drastic political changes, Russia and China consciously remain detached from the western way of political thinking, in contrast to Japan. The comparison between Russia and Japan in the late nineteenth century gives us insight into the varying levels of distance between non-western countries and western political life.

抄録全体を表示