In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introduction The interwar period (1919–1937) was, in a number of significant ways, the nadir of Sino-Japanese relations. The idealistic façade of Jazz Age abandon and “Taishō Democracy” of the twenties masked the systematic expansion of militarism in Japan that ultimately would threaten stability on the continent and stymie efforts at cultural interaction among Chinese and Japanese intellectuals. In China, the various manifestations of Japanese aggression and imperialism met with waves of stiff and increasingly well orchestrated resistance that led first to invasion by the Japanese and then to war in 1937. Given the severity of the political relations between the two nations it is ironic and surprising that there should have been such frequent and salubrious interactions between Chinese and Japanese writers during this period. The positive exchange that emerged between writers from the two literary communities proved to be an ultimately futile challenge to the Japanese militarist juggernaut. Nevertheless, it was an admirable and noteworthy essay at cultural bridge building between China and Japan where political and diplomatic measures had failed. For the first time in the long history of relations between these two East Asian neighbors, the cultural touchstone for both nations was no longer China and traditional Confucian values, but the West, and this in turn created increased opportunities for writers to interact in more equitable, less culturally bound ways than ever before, as both communities of writers sought to fashion a new modern literature based on Western models. This is the story of attempts on the part of writers from the two literary communities to overcome formidable historical, cultural, ideological and political obstacles in order to engage in dialogues emphasizing literary cooperation and mutuality. It is a story, or rather a series of stories, that was destined to end in failure, crushed beneath the moraine of inevitable forces. Nevertheless, it is a tale worth telling insofar as it provides an example of positive interaction between two countries whose modern history of relations has been marred all too often 2 Beyond Brushtalk by miscommunication, dogmatic adherence to ideological posturing and outright conflict. The Golden Age of Sino-Japanese Literary Exchange The “interwar period,” as defined in this study, lasted from the May Fourth Movement in China, which came about in the wake of the Versailles Treaty in 1919, to the formal declaration of war on China by Japan in 1937. A number of the writers who would eventually go on to become pivotal figures in modern Chinese letters studied in Japan and embarked on their literary careers while in Japan during the May Fourth period. The period under consideration in this study ends, tragically, with the breakdown in communications between the literary communities that was the result of Japanese imperialism of the 1930s. The writers examined in this book include a number of the most celebrated authors of the era from both China and Japan. Ultimately, although this study examines relations involving famous writers such as Lu Xun and Tanizaki Jun’ichirō, the figure who emerges as the unsung hero of Sino-Japanese literary relations was a little-known bookstore owner named Uchiyama Kanzō, whose bookstore in Shanghai became the hub of relations between writers in the two communities during the interwar period. The stories told here revolve around communication — face-to-face communication — and attempts at cultural understanding. For the first time in the long history of cultural relations between the two nations, intellectuals and artists attempted to transcend traditional biases and conventional assumptions about the other in order to communicate via a new Western aesthetic vocabulary. To the degree that historical rigidity and political exigencies allowed, they attempted to meet as equals and to communicate as modern artists who shared common aesthetic aspirations. In order to accomplish this goal they first had to go beyond the limitations inherent in the traditionally esteemed mode of cultural communication, written classical Chinese, and to literally lay their brushes aside and communicate directly to effectively confront a new array of cultural issues. In so doing, they were able to go beyond “brushtalk” in order to achieve a true meeting of the minds. Brushtalk: Traditional Cultural Communications in East Asia Traditionally, the ink brush had served as the chief tool of literary expression in East Asia and was valued as one of the “four treasures” of the scholar. Furthermore, written literary Chinese was the medium for intercultural exchange among intellectuals throughout East Asia. “Brushtalk” (Chinese, bitan; Japanese, [18.224.149.242] Project MUSE (2024-04-24 19...

Share