Paper short abstract:

Shingeki was a tool in learning to become modern in the beginning of the 20th century, during the occupation it was regarded as an efficient instrument in spreading democratic ideals. How did shingeki and translated drama adapt to the stricter political control in more authoritarian times?

Paper long abstract:

While the new theater movement (shingeki), relying heavily on translated drama was a tool in learning to become modern in the beginning of the 20th century, during the occupation it was regarded as an efficient instrument in spreading democratic ideals. This paper asks the question what role shingeki, with special focus on translated drama, was allowed to play when the political climate shifted from liberal to more restrictive during the interwar period.

The beginning of the 20th century witnessed the import en masse of Western literature, in the mid-1920s the Tsukiji Little Theatre opted for a repertoire consisting of only translated drama the first years of its existence. “Modern girls” cruised the streets of Ginza imitating the latest fashion from Paris and New York. Matsui Sumako became a star after performing in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House in 1911. The authorities reacted to this questioning of traditional gender roles and the year after, in 1912, Sudermann’s Heimat, also with Matsui Sumako in the leading role, was banned.

What was the reason for censorship? If liberal ideas were deemed not worthy of promoting, what topics could result in warnings, deletions or publishers’ use of fuseji to hide objectionable words? If the censors still based their decisions in line with the tradition of kanzen chôaku (encouraging virtue and chastising vice), at a time when literature and drama were departing from didactic themes, and adhering more to “arts for arts’s sake,” how did theaters still manage to stage translated drama to such an extent?

The point of departure for this investigation of censorship and extralegal methods of controlling publication will be the staging of foreign drama at the Tsukiji Theatre 1924-1926 with foremost attention given to dramas depicting the battle between the sexes and the possible conflict these could cause in relation to traditional values concerning gender.

Paper short abstract:

Mugen nō conventions are used in the play Usuki to depict a recent event: a warrior’s death in the battle of Mimigawa (1579). Three other non-canonical nō dramatize battles of 1583 and 1590. What features do these plays share with each other or with second-category plays in the canon?

Paper long abstract:

The spirit of a warrior returns to the mortal world, describing his past death in battle and his present sufferings in asura hell. Many famous mugen nō re-enact deaths in clashes of the distant past—the Abe brothers at Koromogawa (1062), the Heike at Ichinotani (1184), Kusunoki at Minatogawa (1336), for example—but during the late Sengoku period, variations on the plot and topoi were used to re-enact violent events of the present or immediate past, always with a focus on a single individual. This paper looks at how the battle of Mimigawa (1579) is re-enacted in Usuki. The non-canonical play makes effective use of the classic tropics of warrior spirit plays to retell an individual’s experience of war, before his death and afterwards. As in earlier mugen nō, there is a tripartite temporal structure: present (encounter with the traveling monk), past (the final moments of his life), and eternal (condemned to battle forever in the shuradō). While the treatment of the topic and its language are indebted to the warrior plays of Zeami’s time, the play should also be read in the context of other plays about the same turbulent period: Shibata on the death of the Echizen warlord Shibata Katsuei (1583), Nagaharu on Hideyoshi’s siege of Miki Castle (1590), and Ujimasa on the fall of Odawara in the same year, all featuring protagonists who take their own lives when the battle is lost. In each case, the protagonist is the vanquished leader, whereas Usuki focuses on a relatively minor character, a retainer of Ōtomo Sōin, rather than the daimyō himself. Usuki is perhaps the most accomplished of the plays, but Nagaharu is also notable in its treatment of the vanquished lord’s love of his wife and concern for his people.

Paper short abstract:

In 1879, a new kabuki Gosannen Ōshū gunki dramatizing the Gosannen War, was staged to welcome General Grant. The play was also influenced by Henry V. The play’s message was like Grant and Henry V, the leaders of the Meiji Government won Japanese civil wars because they were virtuous.

Paper long abstract:

Meiji government established itself by winning two civil wars, Boshin War in 1868-69 and Seinan War in 1877. In 1879, former President of the United States, U. S. Grant, who was visiting Japan as a part of his World tour, was invited to a special production at Shintomi-za, the most important kabuki theater in Tokyo. The play produced was Gosannen Ōshū gunki [A Chronicle of the Latter Three-Year Campaign in the Far Province], which depicts Gosannen War in the Heian period, fought between powerful military lords, Minamoto no Yoshiie and Kiyohara no Takehira. The play also praises Grant’s military achievement in American Civil War, using a technic of recasting a historical episode within the framework of another historical episode, a device often used by Tokugawa playwrights to avoid the bakufu’s censorship.

In Gosannen Ōshū gunki, playwright Kawatake Mokuami used this device to transform Grant’s military campaign into an adventure of the popular Japanese hero Yoshiie, with Grant as Yoshiie, and General Lee represented by the rebel leader Takehira. The playwright used many devices to emphasize the parallelism between Yoshiie and Grant. The last scene reflects the dignity and kindness with which Grant treated the defeated Lee. Takehira‘s last speech, which praises Yoshiie saying “You are the president [daitōryō, the great lord] of Japanese samurai!” also emphasizes the parallelism.

It is also likely that the play was inspired by Henry V, which the members of the Iwakura mission had witnessed in Manchester in 1872. Fukuchi Ōchi, a renowned Journalist who was an adviser to Mokuami in writing the play was also a former member of the Iwakura mission. Actually, Yoshiie’s transformation from a foolish youth to a heroic lord does resemble Henry’s transformation from the irresponsible Prince Hal to an ideal king.

I would argue that by producing the play in front of Grant, Ōchi, who was a close friend of a leader of the Meiji government, Itō Hirobumi, tried to convey the message to Grant that like Yoshiie, Grant and Henry V, the leaders of the Meiji Government won two civil wars because they were brave and virtuous.