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

When people hear the word "classics," the first thing that comes to mind is likely the classical Japanese (Kobun) and classical Chinese (Kanbun) studied in school. Classical Japanese and Chinese are often seen as representative of things that are useless, and their place 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 has sold remarkably well in Kobunsha's "Classics New Translation Library."

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.

Perhaps the phenomenon of the "Analects" and Dostoevsky selling well is linked to a kind of authoritarianism or a dying sense of cultural refinement (Kyoyo-shugi). There seems to be a conscious awareness that one must, at the very least, read the "Analects" or Dostoevsky. I feel I can see that kind of mindset.

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

I once spent several years conducting a marathon reading of the "Hundred Schools of Thought." By reading them through, I was able to engage in a different kind of reading than simply reading selected "famous quotes" or general overviews. By reading the whole, I could understand the mutual relationships and their individualities became clear. I found subjects of personal interest outside of the famous parts.

The Mencius in the "Mencius" is arrogant and overbearing. The parable of "Fifty Paces and a Hundred Paces" 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 and not get 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.

Because the "Xunzi" advocated for governance through ritual (Li), the writing is stiff and bureaucratic. It is too serious for me to find interesting. It asserts that the existence of spirits and supernatural phenomena are all lies. He is a realist.

On the other hand, the "Mozi" tries to prove that supernatural phenomena actually exist. Since it preached proactive pacifism and sent groups to defend those being attacked, it also contains 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's height is 9 feet, the hall's depth is 9, and nine 90-year-olds shall preside over the ritual. White flags with the God of Elements, length 9 feet, nine of them. Nine crossbows fired 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 modern literature, but unfortunately, they are hardly read. I once conducted a marathon reading of all the works by 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 choose 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. It 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 hold value worth reading even today. However, rather than reading only a specific, small portion, you can make your own discoveries by reading them through, including the peripheral parts.