‘국민작가’가 스쳐간 만주와 ‘무명작가’가 발견한 만주 — 나쓰메 소세키와 기야마 쇼헤의 경우—

Abstract

After the Russo-Japanese War, Japan commercialized its newly gained ideal territory, Manchuria, expecting major expansion of its empire. For this, many literary writers' travels were called for. The writer who took the first step on the land was Soseki Natsume. Later on, many writers with a free pass, 'Manchurian Railroad Pass,' in their hands travelled across Manchuria and introduced the undeveloped land to their homeland. By their writings, Manchuria settled as a sacred land that symbolized the Japanese Empire. After thirty years, when the empire's expansion reached its limit and the footsteps toward Manchuria became infrequent, another writer, Kiyama Shohei visited the land. For him, Manchuria was a place for a travel to search for 'one's inner self' and to experience the limit of 'the empire.' This thesis aims to, by comparing two symbolic writers, one standing at the start and the other at the end of the hallmark of Manchuria, illustrate what the essence of Japanese perception of Manchuria was, and what the travel reports suggested differently. The gap shown in their attitudes and the directions of their views, starting from their motivation for the travel to Manchuria, indicates different weights even in the same one period of 'the modern times.' Also, through contrast of them, we can understand the change in consciousness and attitude of Japanese literary writers, and the development of the Japanese 'modernity.' The process and contents of disintegration illustrated by placing on the same line the two contrasting writers at the two ends suggest the view necessary for approaching the reality of the Japanese 'modernity.' If Soseki's travel report was a postwar byproduct of the Russo-Japanese War, Kiyama's travel report was a postwar outcome after a defeat in another war. Manchuria symbolically stands on the line connecting the two opposing extremities, the two completely different 'postwar' outcomes. Comparing Soseki and Kiyama who travelled Manchuria in the two symbolic contrasting periods implies the start and the end of 'the empire.' Thus, 'Manchuria' depicted by two Japanese literary writers, one being a 'national writer' and another being an unknown writer, reflected spacial consciousness of the modern Japan along with its structure and social image. While being 'national' contributed to the mechanism that built the 'empire,' the potential that unpowered it started from being 'unknown.' Unlike Soseki, who was a 'national writer' made along with the 'empire,' being 'unknown' of Kiyama with the spare room in the heart coming from a painful memory suggests the potential of 'the modernity' along with the potential of literature to today's readers.