On Maruyama Noboru's Research About Lu Hsǖn

Maruyama Noboru's research about Lu Hsün is praised as"Maruyama-Lu Hsün"by both Chinese and Japanese academic circles.Takeuchi Yoshimi's studies on Lu Hsün are regard as an insurmountablepeak in the history of Japanese researches on Lu Hsün, whereas MaruyamaNoboru's researches function as the connecting link between thepreceding and the following efforts in studying Lu Hsün by Japanesescholars. Maruyama Noboru adhered to the height of the question, thebreadth of vision and the philosophical depth of Takeuchi Yoshimi'sstudies on Lu Hsün by way of resisting Takeuchi Yoshimi's Lu Hsün Studies.Meanwhile, he made a blueprint for the future studies on Lu Hsün, andcreated the"tradition"for the continuation of Japanese Lu Hsünstudies, from which many subsequent scholars got benefits. His brilliantviews and discussions on Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist"are so farirreplaceable."Maruyama-Lu Hsün"got the name for its achievementsrather than the methods. Therefore, in order to realize the presence of"Maruyama-Lu Hsün"in our academic context, we should focus ourattention on reviewing the important researches.Maruyama Noboru explored Lu Hsün's hometown in the memories of LuHsün and other people, looking at the world which Lu Hsün perceived inhis boyhood. The most intolerable things in the world were thedistortions of people as well as the damp and wretched interpersonalrelationships. In contrast, Lu Hsün was deeply attracted by the natureand the myths which were full of original vitality and imagination. Andthe distorted reflection of these in the real world made the perceptionof this contemplative youth increasingly complex. This would be the sprout of Lu Hsün's unique literary and revolutionary concepts.Maruyama Noboru believed that Lu Hsün selected revolution as wellas literature in his action of abandoning medicine. Lu Hsün called for"individual"awakening through literature and art, while the sign ofawakening was to become the Subject of political revolution. Maruyamatold the readers that Lu Hsün, who could move towards literature, hada strong literary concept which was not empty or purely theoretical.Instead, his seemingly conceptual representations were closely relatedto the living and current revolution. The situation after"theRevolution of 1911"resulted in Lu Hsün's"loneliness".After clarifying Lu Hsün's"frustration of revolution"whichmeans the word of"loneliness"in Preface to Call to Arms, what MaruyamaNoboru tried to seek was Lu Hsün's"resurrection of revolution".Literary revolution revived Lu Hsün's old dream of youth. However, thedivisions of the literary revolution once again made him have no choicebut think independently about the Chinese Revolution. The Event of thePeking Female Normal University pushed Lu Hsün to the front of the realspecific controversy. These, after all, had a meaning of combating withthe old dark remnants. It was"The March Eighteenth Tragedy"thathighlighted the significance of Chinese political revolution in LuHsün's heart and contributed to the revival of the revolution to Lu Hsün.Lu Hsün criticized"Revolutionary Literature"during"Purging theParty"period of Kuo Min Tang as the literature of singing the praisesfor the slaughterers. By means of discussing the revolutionary literarytopics, Lu Hsün politically protested the absurd of naming the"suppression"as"revolution", the absurd of regarding theliterature of singing the praises for those in power as the"revolutionary literature", as well as the fickleness andshamelessness of the political figures. The Creation Society and the Sun Society were political enemies of life and death struggles with the"Purging the Party"clan of the KMT, but their logic of"revolutionaryliterature"shared similarities with what"Purging the Party"clanpromoted, namely, regarding"revolution"as the charity from the powerand as the external authority, denouncing the literary revolution as theobjects to be"rescued"or the relics of the era which had nothing todo with themselves. They also launched a fierce attack on Lu Hsün'sliterary career. All these prompted Lu Hsün to clarify his own literaryconcepts with an unprecedentedly systematic and practical sense in the"Controversy of Revolutionary Literature". Lu Hsün disapproved the"revolutionary literature"which centered only on the light and fearedto depict the dark reality. He also rejected the"revolutionaryliterature"which applauded and sung the battle hymn indiscriminately.However, he denied neither revolution nor the relationship betweenliterature and revolution. On the contrary, what he denied was those whoput on airs to stay away from the revolutionary literature. MaruyamaNoboru believed that the"literary"Lu Hsün was rooted in the"revolutionary"Lu Hsün. It was because Japanese literature could notexplain such a Lu Hsün that Lu Hsün was a great literaturer.Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist"was such a man whose ultimate subjectof life was revolution. If a movement happened to be the cause of smallsplit in the hard shell of the entire world, generating the new elementsof equality and freedom, even though it was only one movement in the field,it was called"revolution"in Maruyama Noboru's studies of Lu Hsün.These revolutions shared the following characteristics: firstly, takingthe seemingly unshakable status quo as the object of their resistance;secondly, taking justice, dignity, reality and other values as theirgoals. The purpose of"reforming the national character"advocated byLu Hsün was to transform the society, and it was reflected in social behaviors. Maruyama Noboru called the action of"reforming the nationalcharacter"as"revolutionary". Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist"did notlie in his participation in the revolutionary movements, but wasreflected in his"life". The ideas of"survival rather than livingon in degradation","having adequate food and clothing rather thanluxury", and"development rather than indulgence", were to resist theexisting foul interpersonal relationships by means of life."Revolutionist"had been able to"live with the revolution as theultimate subject", because he was fully aware of his position as theintermediate in the chain of evolution. In this sense, all the"revolutionists"were revolutionists who came from"the oldfortress", and who were the people in the process of evolution.In Japanese history of studying Lu Hsün, Maruyama Noboru's imageof Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist"could be regarded as a development ofTakeuchi Yoshimi's studies on Lu Hsün. Maruyama Noboru explored the realform of"resistance"through"revolution". In fact, itunintentionally extended and promoted Takeuchi Yoshimi's ideas of"Conversion"and"Diversion", which were the big problems of themodern Asian culture. The biggest revelation for today's research fromthe image of Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist"was that the distinctive andunrestrained style of Lu Hsün's literary works came from his attitudetoward life in the historical situation of modern China. We should alsobe aware of the exploring border of the image of Lu Hsün as a"revolutionist". Once the border of the image was overstepped, we wouldbe trapped in difficulty and misunderstanding.Presenting the vitality of history and venerating the meaning ofideal were Maruyama Noboru's academic tenets and interests in studyingLu Hsün. However, the most important academic tenet and interest ofMaruyama Noboru's studies on Lu Hsün was the inquiry of the unyielding dignity of literature in the surging revolutionary era when people triedto seize the day.In summary, Maruyama Noboru's research on Lu Hsün was such a worldof criticism, with the main body of restoring Lu Hsün's revolutionaryexperience and analyzing Lu Hsün's literary argument in the"Controversy of Revolutionary Literature", with the clue of exploringthe formation of Lu Hsün's literary concepts, taking the image of LuHsün as a"revolutionist"as the researching core and using the dignityof history, ideals and literature as tenet and interest. The largestharvest of our dialogue with"Maruyama-Lu Hsün"was our acquisitionof the new awareness of problems and new perspectives. Since we foundnew significance and new academic growth point in reading Lu Hsün'sworks, we would gain new strength from Lu Hsün's life footprint andspiritual heritage.