CopyRight YANABU Akira
CopyRight YANABU Akira
§４．美 (bi, beauty)
−Trick by Mishima Yukio
'There is a beautiful flower, but there is no bi (beauty) of a flower.' which is the famous thesis by Kobayashi Hideo *. Surely there
has scarcely been the expressing way of beautiful things through abstract ideas like 'beauty of flower' and such way of thinking either. What has taught us the way of expression and thought like 'beauty of flower' was the imported Western words and their translating words as well.
In the Dutch-Japanese dictionary "Haruma wage" (1796), the adjective of Dutch schoon was rendered as 'bi rei * (beautiful), yoshi * (good)' and the noun of schoonheid was 'bi rei'. In "Oranda jii (Dutch words)" (1855-58), schoon was 'rippa naru * (splendid) and bi bi shi * (handsome), kiyoraka naru * (clean)' and schoonheid was 'utsukushisa * (beauty), kirei naru koto * (beautifulness)'.
The pioneer of French science Murakami Hidetoshi published "Sango binran # (Reference book of three languages)" (1857), in which beaute, beauty, schoonheid were rendered as 'bi (in Chinese character, and read into Japanese, 'utsukushisa')', which may have been the first instance of the translating word using one Chinese character bi. Murakami also in "Futsugo meiyo (Elucidation of French)" translated beaute as 'bi jin # (beautiful woman), bi ', this character may have been read as 'bi '.
W.Lobsheid in his "Eika jiten (English-Chinese dictionary)" translated beautiful as '美, 美麗, 秀麗 (excellent) etc.' and beauty was '色 (sensuality), 美, 艶麗 (brightness)'.
Thus the translating word bi was used since about the last days of the Tokugawa era, however a word made of one Chinese character may have been rather unstable, soon after in the beginning of the Meiji era,bi rei * was mostly used. For instance, Nishi Amane published "Bi myo gakusetsu * (the theory of esthetics)" (about 1877) introducing esthetics, and he said in it 'the elements of the science of bi myo' is both 'bi myo of things' and 'our imagination'. Until the first half of the Meiji era in the dictionaries of Western languages bi rei was used more than bi , but soon bibecame chiefly employed.
People sometimes speak of for instance 'Japanese traditional sensibility for bi' or 'bi science (esthetics) of Zeami * ', I will call attention however that these manners of questioning unwillingly let induce the thinking ways of translation. The reason of which is very simple, namely, that the word bi had never been spoken before modern ages as we think of present day by the word bi. Beauty, beaute and Schonheit are spoken by Western poets and painters when they stop working and think over on the process of creating concretely their works. Zeami and Basho * naturally did not know such a Western word and of course its meaning, that is, they did not know its translating word bi.
It is not true however, that there have never been any word, accordingly any thinking similar to bi . For example, Zeami told 'hana # (flower)' and 'yuugen # (the subtle and profound), to which he entrusted with some similar to abstract idea. 'wabi # (the simple and quiet)' of Rikyu # , 'fuga # (elegance) and sabi # (the elegant simplicity) of Basho and 'mono no aware # (sensitiveness to beauty)' of Motoori Norinaga etc. are thought to be the same sort of instances too. These words are similar to bi of Western esthetics to some extent.
From the viewpoint of the abstractness of meaning, Zeami told about 'yugen': For instance, speaking of man, nyogo (a court lady), koui (an attendant court lady), yujo (a harlot), kousyoku (a sensualist) andbi nan (a handsome man), and speaking of vegetation, flowers, these are the types of yugen. ("Fushi kaden" $ )
Rikyu told about wabi to be spirit common to tea ceremony and poem. ("Nambouroku" * ) And Basho said:
The poem of Saigyou * , the linked verse of Sougi * ,the painting of Sesshuu * and tea ceremony of Rikyu, through all of which there exists an essence. ("Oi no kobumi * (writings in a bag)" )
But how are they comparing them with the thinking introduced by Nishi Amane in "bi myo gakusetsu (esthetics)"?
In the West, these are thought to be art today; painting, statue carving, sculpture, industrial arts, and moreover, poetry, prose, music and calligraphy in China too, all above ought to be objects of esthetics, and still more, dance and drama too are in these sorts.
Nishi thought of bi rei thus as concept abstracted from more thoroughly wide fields.
Next, we will research the ideality of the meaning. For example, Zeami told on 'hana (flower)': And when one have mastered the secrets of this way, hana is nothing particular. There is no hana other than having mastered the limit and knowing every precious thing."Fuushi kaden"
He said thus except for the concrete behavior to 'mastered the limit' there would have been no 'hana'.
Basho, quoting from what Koubou Daishi # had said: 'One should not
search after the traces the ancients had searched, but search after what the ancients had searched. And he told that it was the same as 'Fuga', which did not exist other than the concrete being of the ancients. "Saimon no ji * (Speech of Saimon)" And on 'mono no aware', Norinaga explained:
All that are said 'aware' are, at first the voice of sighs for things seen, heard and felt. "Genji monogatari tama no ogushi * (An essay on Genji monogatari, named 'a pretty comb')".
He said thus that 'mono no aware' was together with the experience of the concrete feeling.
As mentioned above, these are words of more concrete concepts than bi as imported word, the concepts of which are hardly said to be ideas. However, although they laid stress on the concrete experiences, it is nevertheless important that they caught some meaning of the extreme limits with noun forms, which could be common to bi to some extent. Through these words, the thought corresponding to the idea of arts were spoken, and people who aspired after these fields were encouraged.
But the phase of the difference as I put above is also serious. And in my opinion, this should not be understood like the speciality of Japanese sensibility for bi, or like the difference between the Western bi and Japanese bi premising at first bi . I believe it is wrong at least as the fundamental way of thinking to assume bi to be a universal idea and to suppose Japanese bi as its special case.
The imported word bi seemed to be very valuable for one who could make it his supporter and his weapon. A kabuki player Ichikawa Danjuuro * was once said to play the part of Okaru in Chuusingura * in
1889, when he refused it insisting that playing the part of a mean prostitute was to make himself dirty. Some of public opinion in these days admired him saying that it was worthy of him, and vicious men in the world should model after him. However, in the magazine "Kokumin no tomo (Friends of nation)", a contribution under the name of Kyokugaisei (an outsider) commented this issue:
Does he say that a humble maidservant has not 'bi'? Does he think that playing the part of Okaru make vanish 'bi '? … Don't learn the foolishness of Danjuro. Don't be mocked by intellectuals. Don't let vanish 'bi' of art. The purpose of drama is bi , the character of the famous drama ought to have bi, therefore the behavior of Danjuro was wrong, this was his logic.
We see here the word bi and its thinking opened the new prospect of the world.
This incident was succeeded by the debate of 'literature and nature' between Iwamoto Zenji * and Mori Ougai * . The theme of the debate
was 'nature' first, bi was however important too. Iwamoto insisted 'The extreme bi of art cannot be together with vice, and thus defended the traditional view of literature and drama, namely Danjuro's attitude. Ougai, on the other hand, opposed to him saying 'The extreme bi of art can be sometimes together with vice.' The debate was held several times thereafter, not being concluded plainly, Iwamoto seemed to have no chance against Ougai however. That is because the word bi used by Iwamoto was the translating word of esthetics of Western idealism, and used in a manner against its theory.
Ougai studied and introduced the esthetics of Hartmann these days, while he spoke often in journalism like "Kokumin no tomo".
Mori Ougai argued the famous debate 'non-idea' with Tsubouchi Shouyou around this time, in which bi also played an important part.
This debate began with the utterances of Shouyou in 1890, Ougai objected to it next year, again Shouyou opposed, and they discussed each other afterwards. The theme of the debate was, simply speaking, Shouyou insisted there was no idea in the prominent works of literature,while Ougai claimed literature expressed the idea. The debate of these two who were famous literary men and the leaders of the literature of Japan was noticed in the public and noted in the history of literature. The conclusion of the debate seemed to be not so clear, if we reflex it however centering on the word bi, we notice that the debate was simply settled.
Shouyou, in "Preface to Macbeth" admiring the works of Shakespear, said as follows:
The colors of the flowers of sauls might be seen as 'shogyo mujo (all things flow, and nothing is permanent.)', however how a girl who does not know the trouble of the world may look upon it. In short, we cannot know the intention of Creator, we can only feel the sorrow of autumn from the heart, and enjoy the flowers and the birds of spring after our heart. The nature of creature must be innocent. The masterpieces of Shakespear are quite similar to the creature, … his masterpieces seem to be able to contain almost all ideas of the world.
Great works of literature are similar to 'creature', and 'able to contain almost all ideas of the world', we should not analyze them through an 'idea', which is common to Kobayashi Hideo's 'there is no bi (beauty) of a flower'.
Ougai, on the other hand, refuted him in his writing titled "Non idea of Waseda * literature" :
One who sees the colors of the flowers of sauls, no matter how one may feel shogyo mujo or only feel happy, common is that he feels bi of the colors. Saying this color is true bi or that color is true bi is not because he can feel with the ears or with the eyes, but because the apriori idea appears out of the dark exclaiming this voice is bi, or that color is bi.
What is in the beginning is not 'a beautiful flower' but 'bi of a flower', bi exists at first. That is, Ougai insisted that literature is art, art expresses bi , biis the apriori idea, therefore literature expresses idea, non-idea is thereby wrong.
This criticism of Ougai may have been fatal to Shouyou. Preceding this debate, in 1855, Shouyou wrote the famous essay "Shousetsu shinzui (The essence of novel)", which led the novels of the new times, and in the beginning of this essay he wrote: 'To know that novel is bi jutsu *
(art), first we should understand what is bi jutsu.' The background of this word bi jutsu, there had been the Western esthetics descending from German idealism, which thought fine art, poem, drama novel and so on all pursuit and express bi. "Bi myogakusetsu" of Nishi Amane, "Esthetics of Veron" (1883-4) introduced by Nakae Choumin, and Ougai's Hartmann's esthetics were the same sort.
Shouyou did not think of bi so much, his argument on literature was however inseparable from such esthetics and supported by it. That bi is the apriori idea, which Ougai insisted may have struck a blow at him.
After one month from this objection of Ougai,in 1892 Shouyou wrote a short essay named "Thanks for Uyu sensei (Master Uyu)", in which he recognized his fault, and defended himself saying 'non-idea was namely having great idea', when their debate seemed to be almost decided. The insistence of Shouyou that the works of literature had not to be analyzed through 'the apriori idea' was, when reflecting on it again, thought to be somehow reasonable, however, he had to be defeated by the word bi, which Shouyou didn't know well, and Ougai understood well. Because it was the word that Shouyou had to use though he didn't know its meaning well.
The word 'idea' which Ougai and Shouyou used has two main meanings, one is the ordinary meaning of what comes into one's mind, and the other is the term of philosophy. And the idea Shouyou used was in the beginning of the debate the former one, though he confused these two meanings in the latter half of the debate, while Ougai thoroughly used it as the latter meaning.
Then if we look over the debate through this viewpoint of the meaning, Shouyou's non-idea and Ougai's thinking were not always contradictory. But Ougai said about the last part of the debate in "On 'after non-idea' of Waseda literature"(1892):
At first, if we think 'idea' to be usual meaning and 'non' to be so as well, then creature would be understood not to be eternal.… the word 'idea' that have been used by philosophers and estheticians should be used in the same way as they used,
Namely, he said that the meaning he used was 'usual meaning', and was used by 'philosophers and estheticians', or rather, he seemed to say because of being used by 'philosophers and estheticians' it was the 'usual meaning'. This was Ougai's fundamental way of thinking which was known throughout various debates and so on.
Generally speaking however, the meaning of a word is not to be determined by 'philosophers and estheticians'. A word exists at first, and grounded on its ordinary meaning, 'philosophers and estheticians' use it abstracting and defining it consulting their own conveniences. In Japan however, receiving this defined meaning as that of translating word, as the completed meaning thereby, people apt to understand reversing this order of the formation of the meaning.
This reversed view of language of Ougai, Shouyou could not object too.This showed well the feature of the translating words in Japan.
The word, bi is difficult to understand, and though it was difficult, as I researched so far, for instance Iwamoto Zenji mentioned it frequently, and Tsubouchi Shouyou could not hold up his head before this word. It is still such a sort of word for many Japanese even today.
As a token of the writer who utilized such a effect of bi, I will research the example of Mishima Yukio. He explained bi in two ways. One was talking on bi, and the other was making bi talk. The cases of talking on bi were in something like essays, and making bi talk were in his novels. Let's see first the former.
When Mishima talked on bi, he nearly always did in a manner despising it, or in a negative tone. For instances:
So called estheticism or art-for-art school were the names of literary works in the latter half of the 19th century, the end of the century in particular, which are already out of date today. And still more, for Baudelaire and Wilde who are ordinarily thought to be the representatives, bi was only relative relief and the absolute salvation of God was found at last.
("Estheticism and Japan" 1951)
In this journey I have already not looked foward to bi, there are so many explained bi, …
There is already nothing to astonish bourgeois in the area of bi. ("What revolts against bi" 1961)
Mishima 'As Mr.Kobayashi once wrote, so called bi is not so beautiful as people think, it is nothing beautiful at all, which I wrote in that work.' Kobayashi 'Really? '
("The form of bi" (An interview with Kobayashi Hideo) 1957)Every example is easy to find that Mishima spoke bi to be of little importance. The interview with Kobayashi was held in the next year when Mishima wrote his novel "Golden Temple * ", which was mentioned
by Mishima as 'in that work' quoted above.
Now, in "Golden Temple", Mishima made bi talk. First, when a young priest who was still in his apprenticeship would embrace a girl of the boarding house:
At last I had my hand slide into the hem of her skirt. … When the Golden Temple appeared. … The girl had flown away to a distance, little like dust.… How could I reach out for life, while being wholly wrapped with bi? … It is just the time when the eternal being of bi would really prevent and poison our life.At the crucial scene, bi appeared and removed and controlled him.
Afterwards bi sometimes appeared and little by little lead him to the climax of the incendiarism.
Bi in detail was in full of anxiety. Having dreamed completion and not reaching to it, I was seduced into the next bi, unknown bi. An omen succeeding the other omen, every omen of bi not existing there came to be so to speak the theme of Golden Temple.
Bi was again going to bind me by force which has attacked me several times with an impotent feeling. My limbs weakened.
……
'I have been ready just before another step.' I murmured.
Bi existed against me as if it were separated from the Golden Temple, appeared in front of him, commanded him and was going to lead him. Bi existed always over there, and 'I' was situated only looking upon its appearance. Its real being itself was not at last revealed.
On the other hand, Mishima talked of bi however to be something trivial, in a despising tone.
Clearly Mishima was conscious of these two ways of talking bi. Through these proper use of bi, he effectively manipulated bi against readers. Readers are made felt bi to be crucial and even awful in his novels, while in his essays he talked bi to be trivial as if he had shown its reverse side. After all readers cannot understand the real being of bi looking at it from either side. Hence they are all the more attracted to it, as if bi looked like further meaningful, concealing itself in a bottomless abyss.
Such a trick of bi was realized through the character of this word after modern ages in Japan. And it has been the important character of the translating words in general in our country.
I have explained such a phenomenon of translating words for us with the term 'cassette effect'. Here laying it aside however, I will introduce the research of C.Levi-Strauss in his book "Sad Tropics (Triste Tropiques)", in which he expounded how writing in the beginning appeared for uncivilized people, and what the letters are in general.
When Levi-Strauss lived together with Nambikwara people in South America, he gave them pencils and paper and tried to let them write. People who had never written letters nor painted pictures, however soon got tired. But a chief was interested in it.
No doubt he was the only one who had grasped the purpose of writing. So he called me for a writing pad, and when we both had one, and were working together, if I ask for information on a given point, he did not supply it verbally but drew wavy lines on his paper and presented them to me, as if I could read his reply. He completed a line, he examined it anxiously as if expecting the meaning to leap from the page, and the same look of disappointment came over his face. But he never admitted this, and there was a tacit understanding between us to the effect that his unintelligible scribbling had a meaning which I pretended to decipher; his verbal commentary followed almost at once, relieving me of the need to ask for explanations.
(Translated by John and Doreen Weightman, 1955, Penguin Books)
Writing in the beginning on the whole was finely caught here. At first the shape of 'lines' were, sometime someone who may have been highly sensible and curious to know was mysteriously impressed by the shape, and soon searched after the meaning there.
The meaning became created among people who held it in common.
There are two ways in the formation process of the meaning of letters. One is the meaning among people who write together and show together, for instance, it is the meaning which was understood tacitly, gradually, here between Levi-Strauss and the chief, not completely however. And the other is between one who exclusively writes and shows and the others who do not write and are mostly shown. The former is so to speak the democratic meaning, and the latter is the authoritarian, hieralchical meaning.
As for the latter, Levi-Strauss wrote after the citation above, he gave gifts to the Nambikwara people, and the chief delivered the objects pretending to read something written on the paper:
This farce went on for two hours. Was he perhaps hoping to delude himself? More probably he wanted to astonish his companions, to convince them that he was acting as an intermediary agent for the exchange of the goods, that he was in alliance with the white man and shared his secrets. (op. cit.)
Having considered thus, Levi-Strauss thought of letters in general, and said they are the tools of authoritarianism, which is the shrewd criticism of civilization. Certainly, for instance even in our country, on the rulers' swords and so forth excavated, we have often found Chinese characters carved.
People who had carved characters did not always understand their meanings, which is known because so called mirror writings which are written turned right and left have been sometimes found. These writings must have been treasured by people and monopolized by rulers, not because of their meanings but because of their 'wavy lines'.
If these historical experiments are regarded as so called phylogeny in term of biology, the experiment that we have received foreign letters since ancient days may be like ontogeny, living in everyone of Japanese people even today.
Bi is something difficult word even for Japanese intellectuals of today. It is important that this word had existed before it was spoken as a Japanese word, namely, it is a translating word. People who think it to be able to be understood, may be inevitable the peculiar effect of the translating word.
Mishima Yukio's trick of bi was based on such a background. In this novel, bi surprisingly appeared in this book without explanation, and appearing in a crucial scene distinguished itself. On the other hand, expecting that the readers were to read it too, Mishima spoke so as to extract the meaning from bi in his essays and so on. Thus 'cassette effect' peculiar to the translating word was utilized and created artificially. Mishima performed like the chief of Nambikwara, acted a play, controlled the effect of the word from his stand where he was seemingly superior to the readers.
