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

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

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

The phenomenon of the "Analects" and Dostoevsky selling well is likely linked to a kind of authoritarianism or a fading sense of cultural elitism (Kyoyo-shugi). There seems to be a conscious feeling that one must, at the very least, read the "Analects" or Dostoevsky.

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

Some time ago, I spent several years conducting a "marathon" of reading through the "Hundred Schools of Thought." By reading them in their entirety, I was able to engage in a different kind of reading than simply reading selected "famous quotes" or general overviews. By reading the whole, the mutual relationships become clear, and individual personalities emerge. One finds objects of personal interest beyond the famous passages.

The Mencius in the "Mencius" is arrogant and insolent. The parable of "taking fifty steps to mock a hundred" is a story he tells to a king who asks, "Why hasn't my population increased even though I govern more benevolently than other countries?" I often wonder how he could say such things without being 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) appears as a parable in the context of criticizing the Confucian view that both Yao and Shun were sage-kings.

The "Xunzi," having advocated for governance through ritual (Li), features writing that is stiff and bureaucratic. It is too serious for me to find interesting. It sees through the existence of spirits and supernatural phenomena, declaring them all to be lies. He is a realist.

On the other hand, the "Mozi" attempts to prove that supernatural phenomena actually exist. Having preached proactive pacifism and led groups to defend those under attack, it includes 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 hall 9 feet deep, and nine 90-year-olds shall preside over the ritual. Use nine white flags with the god of elements, 9 feet in length. Use nine crossbows, fire nine times, and then stop." Such parts would almost never be included in an introductory book.

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

Regarding the Nobel Prize in Literature, I often see criticisms that it is political or biased. Since specific people are choosing 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. This is no reason not to read them.

Above, I have briefly mentioned the two "reading marathons" I conducted. Regarding what are considered classics, there are indeed many that possess value worth reading even today. However, rather than reading only a specific, small portion, one can make their own discoveries by reading through them in their entirety, including the peripheral parts.