[Special Feature: New Theory of Reading] "Classics" as Reading the Periphery: My Personal Classics / Yosuke Hashimoto

2020/05/11

When one hears the word "classics," the first things that come to mind are likely the classical Japanese and Chinese texts studied in school. Classical literature and Kanbun (Classical Chinese) are often regarded as representative of things that are useless, and their presence in the educational curriculum continues to be reduced.

On the other hand, I sometimes think that Japanese people actually like the classics. For example, books regarding the "Analects" are released every year in similar formats, and several of them are said to become bestsellers. Even in modern and contemporary literature, Dostoevsky has sold remarkably well in the Kobunsha Classical Chinese Literature in New Translation series.

However, it is said that among the Hundred Schools of Thought, nothing sells at all except for the "Analects," and foreign literature hardly sells either.

Perhaps the phenomenon of the "Analects" and Dostoevsky selling well is linked to a kind of authoritarianism or a dying sense of cultural elitism. One feels a sense of consciousness that they must, at the very least, read the "Analects" or Dostoevsky. I believe I can see that kind of awareness.

Since classics are works that have survived the weeding out of time, they are thought to have a certain value for that reason alone. However, thinking of them in advance as "valuable and precious things" also clouds our eyes. We become unable to read and evaluate them with a flat perspective. Furthermore, it leads to only a few particularly famous authorities, like the "Analects," being read. I believe it is more important to look at the periphery of the classics and evaluate them as a whole.

I once spent several years conducting a marathon reading of the "Hundred Schools of Thought." By reading them through, I was able to engage in a different kind of reading than simply reading selected "famous quotes" or general overviews. By reading the whole, I could understand the mutual relationships and the individual personalities became clear. Beyond the famous parts, I found subjects that piqued my own interest.

Mencius in the "Mencius" is arrogant and insolent. The parable of "Fifty Paces and a Hundred Paces" is a story he tells to a king who asks, "Why hasn't my population increased even though I govern better than other countries?" I often wonder how he could say such things and not get killed.

The "Han Feizi" shows an incredible distrust of humanity. It describes how one must not trust others. Its criticism of Confucianism is also harsh. The concept of "Contradiction" (Mujun) is a parable that appears in the context of criticizing the Confucian view that both Yao and Shun were sage-kings.

As one might expect from a work that advocated governance through ritual, the writing in "Xunzi" is stiff and bureaucratic. It is too serious and not very interesting to me. It asserts that the existence of spirits and supernatural phenomena are all lies. He is a realist.

On the other hand, "Mozi" attempts to prove that supernatural phenomena actually exist. Having preached proactive pacifism and having gone to protect the attacked side as a group, it also contains detailed civil engineering manuals. Nevertheless, it also contains strange and magical defense methods such as: "If the enemy comes from the west, meet them at the western altar. The altar shall be 9 feet high, the depth of the hall 9, and nine 90-year-olds shall preside over the ritual. Nine white flags with the God of Elements, 9 feet in length. Nine crossbows shall fire nine times and then stop." Such parts would likely never be included in an introductory book.

While "Mozi" preaches stoic frugality, "Zhuangzi" counters that life is not interesting that way. The writing of "Zhuangzi" is ironic and theatrical, differing in flavor from the poetic writing of "Laozi," with which it is often grouped. Ideologically, "Laozi" is political, but "Zhuangzi" is thoroughly individualistic.

The lineup of novels by authors who win the Nobel Prize in Literature could be called the "classics" of contemporary literature, but unfortunately, they are hardly read. I once conducted a marathon reading of all the works by authors who won the prize from the 1980s onward. They are a group of high-quality novels, but it is a great shame that they do not receive the same interest as Dostoevsky.

Regarding the Nobel Prize in Literature, I often see criticisms that it is political or biased. Since specific people choose based on specific values, there is certainly a bias, but even so, they seem to try to select various types of writers from all over the world. It is no reason not to read them.

Above, I have briefly mentioned the two "reading marathons" I conducted. Regarding things considered classics, there are indeed many that hold value worth reading even today. However, rather than reading only a specific, small portion, if you try reading them through, including the peripheral parts, you can make your own discoveries.