EMERSON AND KITAMURA

TÔKOKU

Mitsuharu Fukuda

In April of 1894, Kitamura Tôkoku’s critical biography of Emerson was posthumously published in Tokyo as the sixth volume of “The Twelve Men of Letters” series by the Minyüshya. This is the first publication on Emerson in Japanese language, and it is of special signifi­cance in the history of introduction of Emerson into Japan with the first translation of “Civilization” by Shigenori Satô published in book form in 1890. In the middle years of the Meiji period (1868-1912), more than surface contact with Emerson’s ideas was made by the young Japanese pessimistic poet Tôkoku, and he took a step forward toward the attitude of accepting Emerson’s ideas. In this respect it gives a deeper significance of a literary figure who prepared the way for the next generation to attempt an understanding of new voice of America. The Meiji Restoration in 1868 directed the eyes of Japanese people to foreign culture, and in less than three decades after the Restoration, “the Sage of Concord” was received in this Oriental soil. The first contact of Japanese with Emerson may be traced back to an earlier date. At the end of July, 1872, Emerson deliverd a special speech about Japan and Bushido or “The Way of the Warrior,> at a reception to the Japanese envoys, led by Tomomi Iwakura, at the Reverse House in Boston. He was present at the dinner with Oliver Wendell Holmes and “expressed noble sentiment” about the subject. However deep his interest in the Orient, he had little knowledge of Japan, especially traditional warrior spirit peculiar to Japan. It serves simply to illustrate the direct relation on Emerson with Japan.

As Tôkoku himself said in his critical biography, “I hear ‘Compen- sation’ is one of favorite essays of the late Mr. Keiu Nakamura”， we can find some references to Emerson in some volumes of Nakamura^s Seiyô

H inkôron ( = Essays on Western Behavior) published in 1878. It is presu­mable, however, that this shows only Emerson's passages first appeared

i

in Japan since it is a Japanese translation of Samuel Smiles, Character. But it should be noted here that he played an important role at the earlier stage of Westernization in Japan and had an uplifting influence over young minds. Besides this Nakamura contributed “Compensation” based upon the speech he had delivered before to G akushikaiin Z asshi [T h e jo u rn a l o f

the Ja p a n Academy) in 1888. He advised his deciples to learn passages of Emerson by heart and to make -them a motto of conduct in life. No matter how often he read “Compensation,” it is said, he never wearied of reading it at all. As in the case of Nakamura, of course, there were some scholars and leading Christians who tried to absorb Emerson:s thought. It is doubtful that anyone had more familiarity with Emerson than Masa- kazu Toyama, the editor of reprinted edition in 1883 selected from Conduct

o f L ife , Naibu Kanda who had a chance of listening to Emerson’s lecture during his Amherst College days and after his return to Japan used some works of Emerson in class, Soho Tokutomi, the founder of the Minyüshya, Kanzô Uchimura, and Masahisa Uemura. It will be able to say that Emerson who was received among Japanese intellectuals in the midst o î

transitional period to attempt to touch foreign culture was the one not as a leading exponent to improve one’s utmost self but as an advocator of ‘New Civilization’. As we can see in the trend of , selecting Emerson’s works, it clearly shows inevitable and striking peculiarities at the dawn of

the open-door policy.

Following these pioneers of Emerson in what way did Tôkoku contact with Emerson? As shown in Tôson Shimazaki^ novel E arly S p rin g which describes the unquenchable enthusiasm of young literary figures in Japanese romanticism, Tôkoku was apparently attracted more deeply to the world of Goethe than that of Emerson, In answer to Suga’s 〔=Shü，

kotsu Togawa〕 question “that w o rk 〔 =his critical biography of Emerson〕

will be interesting, won’t it ?” he says, “The fact is I wanted to analyze Goethe.” Aside from the novelist^ word> however, there is no evidence which shows greater influence of Goethe on Tôkoku than that of Emerson throughout his works. Uulike his interest in Shakespeare, Carlyle, and Byron, his concern with the world of Goethe should be considered upon

the premise that he had an intention of trying to approach Goethe more

• ii —

closely if he was offered a favorable opportunity for the writing of his biography. uManfred and Faustv published in Jogaku-Zasshi [The Women’s Journal) after Tôkoku’s death is considered to have been written in 1890 or 1891, and his dramatic poem Hôraikyoku published in 1890 also reflects Goethe^ Faust in however a slight degree. His journal dated August 30, 1893 tells us when Tôkoku began to write the critical biography. But it does not mean that he began to approach Emerson at that time. It means that he set to systematic preparations for writing the biography. His essay “Enseishika to Josei” or “Pessimistic Poet and Women” （Feb. 1893) in Jogaku-Zashi has a faint reflection of Emerson^ aLove.>， Accordingly his interest in a New England philosopher was already aroused probably slightly before the publication of the essay not only through his prede­cessors but also through the founder of the Minyüshya. He concludes his critical biography of Emerson with the word “I earnestly hope an introducer of Emerson will appear. I have no intention of having intro­duced him, and it will rather be better to say that I have discussed him.,> Aside from the author^ word itself, his biography is generally considered subjective. Such a tendency can be seen in some parts of his work. Besides the treatment of biographical facts or the explanation of works, Emerson^ idea is discussed chiefly based upon his works although they are quite limited. It cannot be said that the subjective element pervades all his critical biography. In this article the writer attempts to investigate how Tôkoku owes to foreign predecessors in writing his critical biography and to cast a brief glance at the idea of representative romanticists in both the East and West. As a result the first half is chiefly devoted to the basic problems of materials to which Tokoku owed.

“I must frankly confess,” Tôkoku says， “I have not read all the works of Emerson This is an excuse for the rough treatment of Emerson’s works. But it will also reveal his bitter struggle with difficult works of Emerson. Depressed both spiritually and economically, he had to wrestle with a great prophet of Concord. As Tokutomi himself said, Tokutomi was indebted to Cabbot, Morley, Arnold, Holmes, Nichols, and others

for his brief introductory remarks on Emerson prefixed to Letters of Emerson

published by the Minyüsha in 1901. It contains Emerson’s portrait and

、 iii -

the picture of his grave at Sleepy Hollow which were presented by one

of Emerson’s sons. Although it was published after Tôkoku’s death, it

will insidiously suggest what kind of books were read in the latter half

of 1880’s. This is the abridged translation of C. E. Norton^ Letters from

Ralph Waldo Emerson to a Friend, 1899. It was sent to Tokutomi by the

editor with whom he became acquainted during his visit to Shady Hill in

Cambridge, Massachussetts. Nothing could show more clearly the great

wave of enthusiasm for Emerson that swept over the founder of the

Minyüsha than his intentions expressed in the Preface. Trying to interest

as large a public as possible in Emerson, he probably made a staff member

translate some of Emerson’s letters. In this way most of them appeared

serially in the newspaper edited by himself. After that it was published

with corrections and additions of five letters which had not appeared

before. At the same time it necessarily leads to personal relationship be­

tween Tokutomi and Tokoku, and to the part played by the Minyüsha. In

addition to this Tôkoku shared a common interest in Emerson with him.

As far as the writer investigated, there is no evidence that Tôkoku used

J. E. Cabbot^ A Memoir of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1887) and O. W. Holmes,

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1885). The most marked of all his indebtedness in

writing the critical biography — it is restricted to some part, though —

will be to John Morley and Matthew Arnold. Although he did not tell

us, it was John Morley in whom he found the basis for the biographical

fact. Only one example will suffice to show how Tôkoku referred to

Morley in some biographical part. And it will helpful to know his unique

style and phraseology. He wrote :

“Sononochi kare wa atarashiku yügu (Kare no mizukara ieru) o agana-

ukoto o etari. So wa hokanarazu oyoso 40 eikurubakari no sôrin nishite

Warudenike to shôsuru hanmairu no kôbô o moteru koike no suitô ni ari.

Kare ga Carlyle ni ataetaru shochü ni shirushite iwaku. ‘Keizitsu no

syunpütaitô no uchini oite yo wa wa ga shin-ryochi ni yuki，kaede，yanagi，

kashi，matsu no tagui no shinryoku nyüga no kan o susumite yo ga teono

o motte yabu o kiri michi o tsüji, chisui ni soute atarashiki shuchi o hira- kunari/ to.,? {Emerson, p. 31.J

iv

uAs time went on he was able to buy himself ‘a new play thing’ — a piece of woodland, of more than forty acres, on the border of little lake half a mile wide or more, called Walden Pond. (In these May days,, he told Carlyle, then passionately struggling with his Cromwell，

with the slums of Chelsea at his back, 'when maples, poplars, oaks, birches, walnut, and pine, are in their spring glory, I go thither every afternoon, and cut with my hatchet an Indian path through the thicket, all along the bold shore, and open the finest pictures’ （1845).” 〔 John Morley : “Introductory” prefixed to ザ 沙，a/ふ ⑽，

p. xvii.〕

The figure of 1845 at the end of Morley’s sentence should be corrected to 1854. Morley misstated also the year of Emerson’s trip to Europe which resulted in its erroneous treatment of “A Chronological List of Emerson” prefixed to Tôkoku^ Em erson. At any rate there is no slightest tinge of translation in the above quotation. It may be better to say that he expounded in a style of his own based upon Morley. It has force and brevity and refined color of literary language. Much the same thing can be said of most of his essays. It should be remarked, therefore, that Tôkoku paved the way for new style of <essay,. He sometimes used some words putting them together into combinations to express specific concepts. Morley’s ‘potent concentration’ is, for example, rendered successfully to Japanese enough to illustrate his unique choice of word. This tendency can also be seen in his explanation of Emerson’s poetry. Tôkoku had not so much interest in Emerson’s poetry as in his essays. According to him, Emerson^ poetry is excessively abstract and monotonous. And it is some­times ambiguous but has a kind of musical strain. After all he considers Emerson unbecoming to a poet on the ground that he had not good command of imagination. Arnold’s view of Emerson’s poetry is focussed upon the statement: aMilton says that poetry ought to be simple, sensuous, impassioned. W ell, Emerson’s poetry is either simple, or sensuous, or impassioned. In general it lacks directness ; it lacks concreteness ; it lacks energy.” It should be noted in this connection that r 〇K〇ku read Arnold’s aEmerson，y in Discourses in Am erica. From it he probably aroused sympathy with a critical attitude toward Emerson^ poetry. We can safely say that

V

he summarizes Emerson^ poetry largely from the common viewpoint to

Arnold’s. Although he gave his own views on Emerson’s idea especially

in the latter part of the critical biography and succeeded in communicating

Emerson’s attitude toward nature，the most marked shortcomings can be

pointed out in the portion of “Is He a Poet ? It will be difficult to

determine in what degree Tôkoku derived his view of Emerson’s poetry

from Arnold. In the case of the above portion, however, it can be said

at least that Arnold’s critical opinion contributes to his judgement. In

other words this will account for his failure to appreciate Emerson’s

poetry.

The relation of Tôkoku’s critical biography with foreign sources has

been so far illustrated to show iEmerson, at the earlier stage of his intro­

duction to Japan. Tôkoku contributed “Naibuseimei-ron” or “An Essay

on Inner Life to Bungakukai or The Literary Circle in May, 1893. Nature,

he says, never changes nor moves. The immobillity of nature comes solely from the absence of our mind. W e may consider it as hostile or

friendly, but such a different conception is determined by the attitude we

hold. Nature governs us, but at the same time we can govern it. His

interpretation of nature depends upon the relation which we assume

toward it. This eventually leads to the superiority of our mind over

nature. This constitutes, he continues, the spirit of freedom inherent

deeply in us. It rejects our obedience to nature. Man is the manifestation

of Universal Spirit as it should be with nature. The search for the

innermost self was an everlating quest for new ideal of existence in thetrue sense of the word. Tôkoku set forth his own ideas on almost the

same basis as Emerson. Before proceeding to his main idea, he brought

out the contrast between two representative religions of East and West.

In the world of modern thought, he says, they face a struggle between

Buddhist thought and Christian, or more accurately, they are engaged in

a struggle between a thought that enriches and deepens life and one thatdoes not. The fundamental basis of the conflict is conceived by Tôkoku

as a struggle between a philosophy of life and one of non-life. He

expresses a favorable view toward Christian thought as a religion which

preaches life. As Emerson rejected Oriental fatalism and especially quietism

—' v i —

of Buddhism although his knowledge of Buddhism was extremely limited,

Tôkoku also held an opposite view of evanescent aspect ot Buddhism,

Tôkoku’s generalization of Buddhism as non-life may be said to be derived

from the conventional over-emphassis of evanescence. There is no need

to go back to the medieval times of typical pessimistic world in Tales of

the Heike. There was a time when Jyakumetsu, namely nehan had been

considered to have a nihilistic conception. The former is the state that

worldly desires are completely extinguished, and the latter is the state

in which not even a mere fragment of such a desire appears. The idea

of Jyakumetsu is very far from being an idea of nothingness. Iraku is

freedom or perfect liberation from personal reincarnation. Teikan which is

now usually translated into ‘resignation’，shows originally ‘to see precisely and clearly.’ Accordingly it anticipates awakening of the self and its

elevation. Buddhist priests found it necessary to devote their whole life

to the attainment of the highest object in a secluded world, and thus they

broke down the barrier to their deepest thinking. At the base of these

terms, there must necessarily be not such a negative attitude as an escape

from the world but an seeking mind after trutn by throwing off the yoke

of worldliness. Moreover, the presence of an intellectual element in nature

gives us the new dimension oi duration as an aspect 〇£ the world, and

also the still greater one of an end-in-view. As seen from Tôkoku’s essay,

entitled aThe Blind and the Bigoted，>, published also in 1893 in Bungaku-

kai, it is to be noticed that he expresses his approval for intrinsic tenets

of Buddhism just as Emerson does for Christianity. It is needless to say

that Buddhism defined by Tôkoku as non-life must be considered the one

which betrays the awakening of the inner self. Emerson’s own account of the attitude toward prayer serves to show how important the awakening

of the inner self and how fundamental his reliance on the self within

him. Prayer is not the mere prostration of man before God, but in its

profoundest sense involves the highest realization of th self within him,

namely uthe contemplation of thé facts of life from the highest point of

view/' Praying to the Buddha vainly with a view to effect a private end

or worldly benefit is, of course, not true religious spirit. Likewise, prayer

as merely relying on God supposes dualism and not unity in nature and

—— v ii —

consciousness,J, in which man is not concerned with what is fundamentally

essential to human being, but only with what is the most superficial in

the phenomenal world. “There is a spirit in man，” says Tôkoku, “as well

as the universe.” “Man’s hope as an individual li s in the unity 〇f Uni­

versal Spirit. Thus, the ultimate hope man cherishes in this world is to

attain the unity with Universal Spirit.” （“The Blind and the Bigoted”)

Although this passage may conceivably owe more or less to Emerson’s

idea, it will be easily conjectured that Tôkoku stresses the perfect freedom

of the spirit by which the purification of the self can be achieved on the

similar basis to Emerson. Tôkoku sets forth his view of nature that man’s

spiritual experience, when he sees reverently the fundamental laws of

nature and its uncontained and intrinsic beauty, gives pantheistic impression

upon him. For Emerson athe power to produce delight does not reside in

nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both, and he put an emphasis,

to begin with，upon the awakening of man’s spirit, and then upon the

unity of spirit deeply inherent in both precincts, which leads to the

conception that man occupies the center of all existence in this phenomenal

world. Accordingly, based upon his emphasis upon the significance of

man^ existence, Emerson clarifies that man takes up the world into himself

in proportion to the energy of his thought and will. Here is the functional

link between man and nature to conciliate the diversity. There is a

harmony in it and unity in the midst of dispersity and man’s supremacy

over the changing environment, not merely seeking to flee from it but

fitting in with it.

In September of 1892, about nine months before the publication of

“An Essay on Inner Life”, Tôkoku published his basic idea under the

tide of “Kakujin Shinkyu-nai no Hikyu” or “The Holy of Holies within

Heart in the magazine Heiwa (Peace). The deeply hidden element in

human nature which the hikyu conveys is the one that he continued to

maintain throughout his life as a foundation to transcend his limitations

and remove his bondage. Setting up two sanctuaries figuratively in man^

heart just as the Temple in Jerusalem, he tried to stress the profoundest

spheres of man’s heart. The gate to the first sanctuary is always wide

open to anyone, whereas the gate to the second sanctuary is very tightly

—— v i i i ——

closed. The <truth, which enters the first sanctuary has not yet the power

to furnish man with life. The only person who can enter the second

sanctuary can really preach the fundamental tenets of Christianity, other­

wise his voice will end in an empty talk. In the light of his principles,

we can reasonably affirm that Tôkoku is justified in concluding that the

hikyu compared to the second sanctuary in human heart is an essential

character of all men and all spiritual activities have their origin in that

deepest sphere. There is something in it by which man’s life seems to

be capable of being constantly renewed and of entering the realm of

eternity through the process of change and diversity. Conscious of the

source of spiritual activities and eternal life, Tôkoku made no attempt to

define it clearly in this essay, rather insisting on the significance of the

immutable self in reference to the faith in Christianity. But it is apparent

that the conception of the hkyu corresponds accurately to naibu seimei or the

inner self, although the former essay is chiefly discussed from the viewpoint

of religious attitude because of the character of the magazine. In a somewhat

different way, however, various aspects of spiritual activities are more

precisely taken up in “An Essay on Inner Life” mainly from a literary

point of view. According to Tôkoku, a poet and a philosopher should aim

to asay and solve the inner life”，the implication of which is equally

evident in Emerson’s definition of poet as a “sayer”. “The sole purpose

of a poet”，he states more concretely, “to observe various manifestations

of humanity.” Humanity is, says Tôkoku in his critical biography of

Emerson, one for which Emerson held the highest esteem and it should

be considered to imply not the external facts of humanity but the inner

self within. It is here in the inner self, he continues, that all strength of

human activities springs up and thus we can grasp the absolute and

infinite in this ephemeral world. Hence the essence of religion lies not

in its creed, sacrament, or baptism but in humanity itself. It is to be

noted here, however, that the conception is explained solely from the

standpoint of man as an agent of acquiring the true life of eternity. As

can be seen from his staiement, humanity Tôkoku defines here is, of course,

not an emotional one, and it has a close kinship with a kind of divine

influence spontaneously exerted upon the mind of a man. Even more

—— i x ——

important and concrete an idea than this is his view of inspiration which

is defined by him as the mystical union of God or universal spirit with the inner life or human spirit. Through this mystical experience man’s life or more strictly the inner life is re-created in its profoundest sense. The barriers between the self and the ultimate reality disappear. In the moment of its highest insight, the self becomes aware of omnipresent

spirit. There is something mystical and deeper than the intellect, which is akin to the Absolute, in the self of man, in other words at the very center of his being. To borrow Emersonian terminology, it may be replaced by imagination or vision in its literary or religious sense respectively. For Emerson art is ua nature passed through the alembic of man’’， and herelies the emphasis on the inner self of man viewed from Tôkoku^ way of thinking. This leads to Tôkoku’s critical attitude toward the utilitarian school of literature in the Tokugawa period. He attacked them on the ground that they never concentrate on 4the fundamental law of life’. The similar tendency can also be found in Emerson’s judgement on the poetry of Tennyson. He is opposed to Tennyson’s personal preference for form to thought although he acknowledges the rhythmical tune of his poetry. Ironically enough, however, Emerson’s poetry is, as we have already seen, disapproved by Tôkoku.

^Emerson absorbed/' says Tôkoku, l(kokoro which has objectivity from the Oriental conception of God. Moreover, attaining the union of subject and object...he conceived kokoro as the center of all o b je c ts .In fact, the same manifold facts in nature may be looked at materially or ideally with the eye of ‘the first sanctuary" or with the eye of the hikyu or innermost sanctuary. We must discriminate between the real and the unreal, and renounce the names and thus establish the absolute oneness in the depth of mind. Tôkoku’s emphasis is essentially put on self-realization and on the inner self. Viewed from the innermost self, the objective external things are not considered unreal but real in a relative sense, a manifesta­tion of universal spirit. Thus the natural objects are grasped in different ways in proportion to the response of the perceiver to them. Expressing his view “In the depth of distinction lies in disdnctness. At the bottom of unequilibrimn lies equilibrium” in “Voice of All Objects and Poet”,

X —

Tôkoku put forth his idea of Unity in Variety or of the One and the

Many. The entire apparent world is subject to the categories of space,

time, and causation. But the manifold world firmly grasped by the hikyu

is spaceless and timeless. It is not to subject to causality but in depen­

dent of all restrictions. It is in the inner self that varieties are completely

absorbed into the oneness and freedom of the spirit in the true sense of

the word can be obtained. It is by obeying the law within himself that

man attains the purification of the self in the highest degree. In "Kokoro no

Keiken” or “Spiritual Experience’’ published in 1893, he vitally interpreted this profoundest aspect of mind and laid a great stress upon the faithful

obedience to inochi no uchi no inochi or ‘life within life. Tôkoku himself,

as is perhaps suggested by the foregoing, secured what he believed to be

essential to man by the affirmation of monistic spiritualism. The commu­nion of the self with natural objects is also explained by the identity of

the two elements in “Itsseki-kan，or “Thought on an Evening” published

six months before the publication of the above essay. At the same time,

however, his sincere and persistent struggle with the inner self weighs

heavy upon him even in serene contemplation on nature. Although nature

for Tôkoku, as for Emerson, supplies representatives of an order discov­

ered by mind, his affliction can be seen through the inner struggle to concil­

iate the strife between actuality and ideal. It may be partially ascribed

to his resignation from a certain magazine company because his feeble cast

of mind is always reflected upon his essays. According to Emerson, to

contradict oneself is stressed m “Self-Reliance” in order to “bring the past for judgement into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day."

It is wholly of no importance for him to contradict oneself provided that

one always relies upon the self. In case of Tôkoku, however, he had to

incur a contradiction of his idea in a varying sense. It may also be due

in part to the difference of their character, but perhaps the most impor­

tant factor is, indeed, impossible to explain without considering climatic

and social environment that affected their mind. Optimistic pioneer spirit

which pervaded American soil helps to explain this. On the contrary feudal

system in Japan had suppressed the liberation of the self. It will be able

to say that the self in contemporary sense was indeed established by

X I

Tôkoku at the dawn of new era in Japan. Throughout “His〔= Emerson’s〕

OptimismJ, in his critical biography Emerson, written in later years in an

attempt to ‘discuss rather than to convey7 Emerson’s idea, even a faint

shadow of denial of optimism can not be perceived at all.

Emerson was opposed to the strife between good and evil. As he ad­

mits that dualism underlies the nature and condition of man in his state­

ment, for example, uEvery sweet hath its sour; every evil its goo<ï\ he

does not deny the existence of evil. Evil is one that crosses against the

inner self and assumes merely appearance. And it is a negative aspect

of good, and is finally absorbed into the category according to our

mental attitude. This way of thinking leads to optimism and through indi­

vidualism which puts the most significant value on the inner self. Truly

good and evil exist, but the diversity or plurality is of necessity non-ex­

istent from the standpoint of the inner self. According to Emerson, evil

should be constructively conceived to be helpful to the elevation and the

free expansion of human experience. Only in this sense the existence of

evil is denied. It is to be noted here that the transformation of good to

bad is made by penetrating into the inner self. Tôkoku tells us in

his Emerson that Emerson could settle the problems successfully through

bitter experience in actual life. But Tôkoku admits clearly the opposition

of duality. If evil is in the mere relationship of correspondence or of

obverse and reverse, Tôkoku thinks that the‘strife’ between good and evil

lasts perpetually. Unlike Emerson the shadow of inner struggle is mir­

rored in Tôkoku^ mind that was not able to manage to be free from the

consciousness of original sin. Conversely it may be said that Emerson

did not pay much attention to the application of his idea to actuality and

herelie the limit and pecurialities of Emerson^ thought. It is on this point

that although he succeeded to establish the conception of the self this

young Japanese romantist Tôkoku could not show his whole-hearted sym­

pathy for the new voice of New England.

(Rikkyo University)

— xii —-