經(jīng)由中國的比較研究：論竹內(nèi)好對魯迅的解讀和武田泰淳對司馬遷的解讀

石井剛 東京大學(xué)

Historical Narrative without Eschatology

Takeuchi Yoshimi竹內(nèi)好（1908-1977）was not satisfied with Takeda Taijun’s武田泰淳（1912-1976）masterpieceSima Qian司馬遷（Shiba Sen，1943）as he found that this work lacked an eschatological view of history.Instead of a vertical chronological history，Takeda depicted a horizontal one that provided a spatial recognition of world history，lacking an eschatological view in the end.According to Takeuchi，this shortage can be attributed to Takeda’s literary style and philosophy.Takeuchisays：

InSima Qian，the idea of the continuing worldview by which he switches a temporal continuity into a spatial one turns out to be a theory of historical narrative.However，I have to point out that the prototype of this idea originally lurks in Takeda’s identity as a writer.I had written an essay before，in which I said that his writing lacks Japanese taste.This characteristic of his writing style was molded out of the characteristic of his philosophy.1（日）竹內(nèi)好：《『武田泰淳全集』第9巻解説》，《竹內(nèi)好全集》第12巻，東京：筑摩書房，1980年，第161頁。［Takeuchi Yoshimi，“Takeda Taijun zenshūdai 9 kan kaisetsu”（A Commentary on the Complete Works of Takeda Taijun，vol.9），in Takeuchi Yo‐shimi Zenshū（The Complete Works of Takeuchi Yoshimi），vol.12，Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1980，161.］Translation mine.

Takeuchi complained about Takeda’s lack of an eschatological view because it showed a lack of a revolutionary prospect in Chinese history.Therefore，if this lack could be attributed to Takeda’s writing style and thought，we may argue that for Takeuchi，Takeda was not entirely sympathetic to the Chinese Revolution.The lack of Japanese taste，originally“wabun chō”（he wendiao和文調(diào)）in Japanese，naturally means that Takeda’s writing has a much more classical Chinese taste.Wabun chōmust be juxtaposed withkanbun漢文，or classical Chinese writing.Hence，Takeuchi’s criticism of Takeda’s literature is targeted at classical Chinese writing，which was still dominating Sinologyin Japan.

It is difficult to imagine that Takeuchi was not aware that Takeda drew a clear image of the end of the world，although it was not necessarily an eschatology.Takeda’s well-known essay，“On the Extinct”（Metsubōni tsuite滅亡について，1948），is one of the most significant works worth reading together withSima Qian，wherein Takeda demonstrates his apocalyptic imagination.In this essay，Takeda mentioned that there were two types of extinctions：one partial and the othertotal.Takedastates：

The true meaning of the extinct is no more than total extinction.The nature of it can be depicted as the whole extinction with sulfur，fire，smoke，poisonous beasts，and venomous snakes.Compared with this major extinction，extinctions in reality are smaller.This fact provides extinguishing people with consolation.As only two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese land，we are still alive in the world.It gives a condition for Japanese people to restart.If dozens were dropped，there would have only been silent ashes remaining.Then，regardless of sorrows，regrets，or democratization，nothing could have been meaningful.A very limited extinction of Japan，or the existence of something remained，means survival without being digested.From the view of theworldas an organic system，these remainders might be a sort of disgusting，sinewy food.2（日）武田泰淳：《滅亡について》，《武田泰淳全集》第12巻，東京：筑摩書房，1972年，第94頁。［Takeda Taijun，“Metsubōni tsuite”（On the Extinct），in Takeda Taijun Zenshū（The Complete Works of Takeda Taijun），vol.12，Tokyo：Chikuma Shobō，1972，94.］

Literally，the extinct is total.The temporal view would be like a scene of theApocalypse.However，it seems that Takeda does not want to define this as the end of the world.“Sulfur，fire，smoke，poisonous beasts，and venomous snakes”are assorted things that would bring about extinction and dominate the world after the extinction.This means that the extinction is not necessarily about the whole world.The extinction is always meant for certain specific entities，but not for the world as a whole.SinceTakeda imagines the world as an organic body，the extinction of a people or a state on ly means the process of digestion and nutrition by the world：

The world itself understands its own necessity of metabolism very well.Hence，for it，the disappearance of some individuals and peoples in its body is not a phenomenon that renders it depressed or gloomy.3Ibid.

Along with this notion，the so-called extinctions，in most cases，are partial ones，while the total ex tinction of the whole world is not coming. Furthermore，Takeda says that the reason why the worldhas maintained its life so far is that it has experienced partial extinctions regularly. The total or thetrue extinction，then，by his definition，is almost impossible，let alone eschatological.An eschatol ogy is only meaningful when the end of the world brings a messianic message. If that is the case forTakeda，who rejects an eschatological narrative of history，is there any room for messianism in histhought？In“On the Extinct，”he does not neglectto respond to this inquiry：

TheJātaka，a southern Buddhist text，records three warnings raised before Buddha’s advent.The first is the extinction that would be carried out by heavenly people who belong to the world of desire.4Ibid.，96.

TheJātakais a text compiling episodes on Bodhisattva’s goodness in saving people.According to Takeda，Bodhisattva was regarded as a previous incarnation of Buddha.TheJātakasays that the world experienced extinction before Buddha was born.In other words，the world where we live now is one after extinction，as Buddha had already gone away a long time ago.It reveals thatall of us are already salvaged from the very beginning of history.Therefore，it does not seem strange thatTakeda’s thought lacks an eschatological view of history. However，in contrast to Takeuchi’s opin ion，the lack of eschatology was not necessarily Takeda’s weak point；rather，this lack itself is an in dispensable element of his worldview. He once dreamed of cultural restoration emerging from a ru ined park when he was in China，where he was dispatched as a soldier. His experience at the sitesdevastated by Japanese military operations，where he was involved，also provided him with anidea of how culture emerges. For him，who believed that human culture emerged from ruin，theidea of the world ending would be unacceptable.5（日）武田泰淳：《支那文化に関すtf手紙》，《武田泰淳全集》第11巻，東京：筑摩書房，1971年，第243頁。［Takeda Taijun，“Shina bunka ni kansuru tegami”（A Letter on Chinese Culture），in Takeda Taijun Zenshū（The Complete Works of Takeda Taijun），vol.11，Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1971，243.］

LuXun and Modern Chinese Revolution for Takeuchi Yoshimi

Intriguingly，Takeuchi Yoshimi attributes Takeda’s lack of eschatology to a lack of Japanese style in his writing.But for Takeda，Takeuchi’s writing appeared too modernized，or too sympathetic to the Chinese Revolution.In his postscript for Takeuchi’sLu Xun（Rojin魯迅），written in 1944，Takedawrites：

I have been a good friend of Mr.Takeuchi for more than ten years.I hope I will be a thinker whom Takeuchi appreciates.But I am also afraid that I will fail to be one whom he dislikes.Perhaps there are few youths in China who would feel happy to be the ones whom Lu Xun dislikes.It is，however，difficult to be one whom Lu Xun would appreciate.6（日）武田泰淳：《竹內(nèi)好『魯迅』跋》，《武田泰淳全集》第11巻，東京：筑摩書房，1971年，第377頁。［Takeda Taijun，“Takeuchi Yoshimi Rojin batsu”（APostscript for TakeuchiYoshimi’s Lu Xun），in Takeda Taijun Zenshū（The Complete Works of TakedaTaijun），vol.11，Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1971，377.］

Takeda adopts the classical Chinese writing style to write this postscript，which accompaniedLu Xun’s first version.After completing this masterpiece，Takeuchi was sent to China as a drafted soldier.When he later looked back on the sentiment，Takeuchi said that writing this work was like writing his last will.We can detect a kind of ambivalence in Takeda’s thoughts on Takeuchi’s literature and on Lu Xun魯迅（1881-1936），a representative of Chinese modernization，although Takeda praises the work.Takeda expresses his expectation that because the author put his heart and soul into tackling Lu Xun，who was a“gigantic Other confronting him，”7Ibid.，vol.12，277.Takeuchi’s work would become a starting point for young literary researchers who would devote themselves to studies of Lu Xunand Asian Literature.

To summarize the characteristics of Takeuchi’sLu Xun，it is nothing other than the“awareness of being a slave.”It is the painful and fearful awareness of“no way to go forward，”as though one is awakened from comfortable sleep in an iron room that has neither a door nor a window.Lu Xun decided to play the role of a wise man to enlighten people in the iron room to open the door for Chinese modern literature.According to Takeuchi，however，Lu Xun’s decision could never lead to the liberation of slaves.Slaves would reject being slaves，but at the same time，they would also have to reject the liberation，for the liberationisillusory.Takeuchisays：

Though there is no way to go，one has to move forward.Nay，one must move forward just because there is no way to go.That was the situation［in which Lu Xun’s literature began］.He rejected being himself，but at the same time，he was also rejected by someone else.This is the meaning of the desperation that constitutes Lu Xun’s literature.Desperation appears as resistance insofar as one must move forward where there is no way to go.Resistance appears as an act formed by desperation.As a state，it is desperation.As a motion，it is resistance.Here there is no room for humanism.8（日）竹內(nèi)好：《中國の近代と日本の近代》，《日本とアジア》，東京：筑摩書房，1993年，第41頁。［Takeuchi Yoshimi，“Chūgoku no kindai to Nihon no kindai”（Chinese Modernity and Japanese Modernity），in Takeuchi Yoshimi，Nihon to Ajia（Japan and Asia），Tokyo：Chikuma Shobō，1993，41.］

Although in his“My Old Home”（Guxiang故鄉(xiāng)），Lu Xun says that“hope cannot be said to exist，nor can it be said not to exist.It is just like roads across the earth.For actually the earth had no roads to begin with，but when many men pass one way，a road is made”9Lu Xun，“My Old Home，”in Call to Arms，trans.YANG Xianyi and Gladys Yang（Beijing：Foreign Languages Press，1981），65..Takeuchi pays more attention to another desperate notion expressed in a famous phrase from Sandor Petofi，as quoted by Lu Xun： “Desperation is as illusory as hope.”Therefore，if we could find some possibility forhope，the way only to see it would beto despair of desperation.However，it seems that Takeuchi intends to reject anyway to find hope，ashiswritingappearsnihilistic：

The only way for someone who has despaired of desperation is to be a writer.Without relying on anyone，without support from anything，he has to possess everything.Lu Xun as a writer was born in this way.10（日）竹內(nèi)好：《魯迅》，東京：未來社，1961年，第129頁。［Takeuchi Yoshimi，Rojin（LuXun），Tokyo：Miraisha，1961，129.］

To be a writer means to be a resister.Nevertheless，the word“resist”here has little to do with the courageousness that usually comes to mind.Lu Xun，in his depiction by Takeuchi Yoshimi，strongly refused humanism.This image would haunt Takeuchi when he discussed Japan.He argues that Japanese modernization was a process similar to that of a slave liberating the mself to become the master.It means that the Japanese people rejected being themselves and rejected resisting as well.A slave is the same as a master of the slave because they equally reject identifying themselves as slaves.Takeuchi holds that there could never be a possibility of Japanese people having a thinker like Lu Xun.By the same token，it is possible to say that China was almost destined to generate Lu Xun.For Takeuchi，Lu Xun is identified with Chinese culture，which Takeuchi utilizes in turn as a means to criticize Japanese culture.Of course，China is not always ideal for him.He admits that“Lu Xun was isolated in Chinese literature.”11（日）竹內(nèi)好：《中國の近代と日本の近代》，op.cit.，46.［Takeuchi Yoshimi，“Chūgoku no kindai to Nihon no kindai”（Chinese Modernity and Japanese Modernity），in Nihon to Ajia（Japan and Asia），46.］Nevertheless，Takeuchi believed that Lu Xun’s isolation is recognized because he is within Chinese culture.Both the Xinhai Revolution in 1911 led by Sun Yat-sen孫中山（1866-1925）and the Communist Revolution led by Mao Zedong毛澤東（1893-1976）successfully inherited something from Chinese culture，an inheritance also shared by Lu Xun.In short，Lu Xun for Takeuchi is a figure who attempted to overcome the worldview expressed in classical Chinese language to create a new modern China with his desperate resistance to the pre-modern culture.The May Fourth Movement，claiming to overthrow Confucianism，wasthe very expression of such an effortto modernize China.

For Takeuchi，the success of the Communist Revolution led by Mao Zedong realized China’s modernization.The moral stance of the Communist Party of China（CPC），which took modernization forward，is determined by its nature as“a total anti-traditionalist”party.12（日）竹內(nèi)好：《日本人の中國観》，《竹內(nèi)好全集》，東京：筑摩書房，1980年，第11頁。［Takeuchi Yoshimi，“Nihonjin no Chūgokukan”（The Image of China for Japanese People），in Takeuchi Yoshimi Zenshū（The Complete Works of Takeuchi Yoshimi），Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1980，11.］In his“The Image of China for Japanese People”（Nihonjin no Chūgokukan日本人の中國観）written in 1949，the same year the People’s Republic of China was founded，Takeuchi writes：

If you look at the generating process of modern consciousness in China in terms of their confrontation with tradition，you will find that this stream had been constantly flowing with a serious denial of past authorities，or simply，Confucianism.Firstly，the Neo-Confucianism of the Song dynasty was denied；secondly，exegesis in the Han dynasty was denied；at last，they denied deifying Confucius.These sequential denials were completed at last in the May Fourth cultural movement，which was seen as the turning point of the modern period.AsOn New Democracy［by Mao Zedong］puts it，the May Fourth Movement was the source of the revolutionary energy that directly led to CPC’s current movement.13Ibid.，10-11.

This narrative of sequentially denying“past authorities”is in keeping with Liang Qichao’s梁啟超（1873-1929）thesis of“l(fā)iberation with restoration”from his 1921Introduction to the Scholarship of the Qing Dynasty（Qingdai xueshu gailun清代學(xué)術(shù)概論）.However，Takeuchi goes one step further to see that the aforesaid revolutionaries accomplished the denial of“deifying Confucius”in the Chi nese Revolution by themselves，while Liang shows his regret about the bad habit of“modeling af ter great predecessors”repeated throughout the intellectual history of China. For Liang，the histori cal trend of“l(fā)iberation with restoration”generated in Qing scholarship is key to the modernizationof Chinese scholarship；he juxtaposes this trend in the Qing period with the Renaissance in theWestern world，which accomplished modernization by restoring the Greek humanism tradition.However，Liang could not be satisfied with a mere restoration，as it means that people still utilizetheir predecessors as their models to move forward. Without overcoming such a dependence onpast authorities，he argues，it is not possible to realize true scientific spirit. Liang regards Confu cius as the center of those past authorities. Takeuchi，however，has a different view on the historyof Chinese modernization；he clearly says that the de-deification of Confucius was carried out inthe May Fourth Movement. Intriguingly，in the 1920s，after coming back from a long journey inEurope，Liang Qichao diverted his thought toward revaluating Confucian values. Due to this intel lectual change，Liang was reappraised as a master of national learning in the 1990s，when the clas sical turn of intellectuals became an intellectual trend，thanks to the massive economic growth inEast Asian nations，including the marketization of China beginning in the 1990s. It is obvious thatclassical values，represented by Confucianism，have undergone a revival in China in the past de cades.Takeuchi’s judgment of Mao’s revolution as a major achievement of Chinese modernizationmust be re-examined from today’s viewpoint.Things will appear more complicated if we pay moreattention to Takeuchi’s understanding of the Chinese tradition.When he says that the“denial of past authorities”in Chinese historical development is an“expression of the radical innate energy，”he was aware of the complicated implication of the word“tradition”as descriptive of Chinese intellectual history.Takeuchi argues that the CPC managed to be“a total anti-traditionalist”party，not because they destroyed traditions in a radical sense，but because the denial of tradition itself is deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition.14Ibid.，11.The conclusion is ironic：The revolutionary history constituting the foundation of the People’s Republic of China is not simply a denial of past cultures，but an inher itance of the tradition insofar asthe tradition is self-negating.This kind of irony may be representedby Lu Xun’s literature of“awareness of being a slave，”in Takeuchi’s terms. The tradition in Chi nese history，for Takeuchi，is none other than the manifestation of the literary attitude of Lu Xun，who tried to resist the situation of moving forward with no way to go，who tried to resist being aslave as well as the liberation from the identity of a slave. Needless to say，Japanese modernizationis on the opposite side，as it denies admitting its state of being a slave while pursuing institutionaldevelopments.

How，then，does Takeuchi evaluate Japanese modernization？In the same essay，he says that he was“struck by a miserable sentiment”when he learned that Kōtoku Shūsui幸徳秋水（1871-1911），an anarchist thinker executed for suspicious treason in 1911，agreed with Nakae Chōmin中江兆民（1847-1901），a distinguished progressive philosopher known as“the Oriental Rousseau，”that educational reforms should be implemented to nourish virtues according to“the way of Confucius and Mencius.”15Ibid.，15.Why was Takeuchi shocked？It was not because he refused Confucianism，which after all was overthrown by the May Fourth Movement.What is at stake here is Takeuchi’s empha sison the necessity of theindependenceof Japaneseculturefrom China：

To get rid of Japan’s contempt of China，it is necessary for Japanese culture to become independent from Chinese culture.16Ibid.，16.

Takeuchi states that Japanese people still look down upon China even after Japan’s defeat in World War II.For him，even progressive intellectuals such as Maruyama Masao丸山真男（1914-1996）were not innocent in this regard.Takeuchi referred to the view of China held by John Dewey，who stayed in China during the May Fourth Move men tin1919 afterhe visited Japan：

According to Dewey，Japan effortlessly succeeded in introducing European technology because the pressure of its tradition was weak；eventually，it preserved its old culture.China fell behind in modernization due to the strong reaction from its tradition；hence its reforms were more thorough，and eventually they managed to establish a radical basis for reforming the national mind.17Ibid.，13.

Here，borrowing Dewey’s observation，Takeuchi depicts Japanese modernization and its attempt to escape slavery to become the master.Perhaps we can say that Japan’s“old culture”can be juxtaposed with the“historical old substratum”in Maruyama Masao’s sense.However，Takeuchi might not agree with Dewey.Takeuchi insists that Japanese people，unlike Chinese people，do not have their own cultural products；rather，their innate habits cause them to learn from and imitate others.18Ibid.，14.Takeuchi regards it as“miserable”that even Nakae and Kōtoku，the two most progressive figures in Meiji Japan，still insisted that traditional thoughts borrowed from China should constitute the moral basis of modern Japan.What is the right way，then，for Japanese people to modernize themselves，just as the Chinese people succeeded in modernization？How should Japanese people tackle the lack of a clear direction to go with their“self-awareness of being a slave”？Apossible answer is that they must consider Japan’s tradition as the nation’s moral basis，instead of borrowing a foreign tradition，such as“the ways of Confucius and Mencius.”Historically，Motoori Norinaga本居宣長（1730-1801）had tried to go in this direction during the Edo period.However，it is difficult to imagine that Takeuchi would have intended to follow him.Takeuchi admits that“Japanese culture has never been independent even in the past or today，while the problem is to construct our own independent culture in the future.”19Ibid.，15.Indeed，this reminds us of Takeda Taijun’s opinion inSi?maQian.

The World in the Records of the Grand Historian

In the postscript to the first version ofSima Qianpublished in 1943，Takeda refers to the decentralizing nature of theRecords of the Grand Historian（Shiji史記）to conclude that the world depicted in this work makes him“uneasy.”Takeda criticizes Sima Qian（145BC-86BC）for constructing a worldview that appears“extremely disloyal”to Japanese people，who“believe that Japan is the center of the world.”20（日）武田泰淳：《司馬遷》，《武田泰淳全集》第11巻，東京：筑摩書房，1971年，第113頁。［Takeda Taijun，“Shiba Sen”（Sima Qian），in Takeda Taijun zenshū（The Complete Works of Takeda Taijun），vol.11，Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1971，113.］Translation mine.Takedawrites：

To believe Japan is the center while you are aware of yourself being in the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historian：This is what loyalty means.Not to be fearful even if you are nakedly in the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historian：That is what courage means.The asymmetry between loyalty and courage shows an attitude of a man who dares to go forward even though he knows that he is surrounded by the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historian.21Ibid.

Noticing thatSima Qianwas published in 1943，we can imagine the specific historical background，namely Japan’s war against the US，which at the time was already unfavorable for Japan.Takeda says that he wrote this postscript with“envy”toward“the faithful young pilots who flew over Pearl Harbor.”22Ibid.

The historical narrative in theRecords of the Grand Historianstarts from the“Basic Annals”（benji本紀），namely the chronological history of ancient kings and emperors.According to Takeda’s interpretation，Sima Qian thought it necessary for human history to establish the center of the world.In short，the“Basic Annals”are located at the center of world history.However，history inevitably betrays one’s desire to settle a center.The real history witnessed by Sima Qian deviated from the notion of centralization.The notion of an unbroken lineage of emperors set at the center of the world is typically expressed in the Japanese emperor system established in the Constitution of the Empire of Japan.In a sense，we might say that Takeda intends to write the story for the sake of demonstrating the inexorable failure of the Japanese emperor system.

The“Basic Annals”soon encounter a deadlock where a single emperor’s line splits，showing the inevitable contradiction between the desire to establish a center in and for history，on one hand，and how history unfolds，on the other.The deadlock comprises the“Basic Annals of Xiang Yu項羽（232-202BC）.”Needless to say，Xiang Yu competed with Liu Bang劉邦（？-195BC），tthe found ing emperor of the Han dynasty，to conquer the world and was defeated by Liu Bang，eventually be coming the only protagonist figure of the“Basic Annals，”although he was not an emperor. Thus，the narrative of theRecords of the Grand Historianis—as pointed out by Takeda—as complicated ashuman astronomybecause of Xiang Yu’s presence，which meant two“suns”—Liu and Xiang—appeared in the world simultaneously.The Basic Annals are followed by other genres including the“Hereditary Houses”（Shijia世家）and the“Ranked Biographies”（Liezhuan列傳），where we can see various human dramas taking place one after another.Such a decentralizing process，with proliferating complexity，of thishuman astronomydepicted in theRecords of the Grand Historian of the GrandHistorianleaves no room for eschatology in TakeuchiYoshimi’s view.

Takeda’s worldview is also expressed in his“On the Extinct，”where he argues that“a line for non-extinction”is maintained in a partial extinction.23（日）武田泰淳：《滅亡について》，Takeda，op.cit.，95.［Takeda Taijun，“Metsubōni tsuite”（On the Extinct），in Takeda Tai‐jun Zenshū（The CompleteWorks of TakedaTaijun），vol.12，95.］Achapter of the“Tables”（Biao表）in theRe?cords of the Grand Historianreveals such a spatial and horizontal continuity of the world.How，then，istheend of thisdecentralized，horizontally continuousworld depicted？

The Problem of“Xiongnu”

In the last chapter of theRecords of the Grand Historian，Sima Qian wrote on the world of Xiongnu匈奴.The world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historianbetrays the author’s attempt to set up the center of the world，but the text eventually comprises a much more complicated human universe，which Takeuchi calls a spatially，absolutely continuous world.The spatial continuity in theRecords of the Grand Historianextends from the territorial border of the Han Empire to its outside，namely the area occupied by Xiongnu.The people living a nomadic life in the Gobi and grasslands outside of the Great Wall threatened the Han Empire while they interpenetrated each other with no regard to political or economic concerns.In“The Problem of Xiongnu，”Sima Qian’s last chapter，Takeda Taijun describes the relationship between the Han Empire and Xiongnu as follows：

Xiongnu is not merely barbarian.They have their own world totally in conflict with the Han Empire in terms of culture and life.Moreover，from Xiongnu to Han，from Han to Xiongnu，people and commodities are constantly moving and flowing.As a Han general may surrender to Xiongnu，so does a Chanyu［the title of Xiongnu rulers］as well.When Xiongnu suffered a political disturbance in their society，Han also got disturbed，and vice versa.Although they are confronting each other as two different worlds，a disturbance on one side always influences the other.24（日）武田泰淳：《司馬遷》，op.cit.，107.［Takeda Taijun，“Shiba Sen”（Sima Qian），in Takeda Taijun zenshū（The Complete Works of TakedaTaijun），vol.11，107.］

Xiongnu was another world for the Han people；however，it is inescapable for Sima Qian to write about them because of their interactive relationship.They were two parts of the same world.Xiongnu people had their way of life and culture different from those of the Han people，but it was impos sible to conclude if the Xiongnu culture was inferior or superior.

Our major concern is to think about Takeuchi’s criticism of Takeda，according to whichSima Qianlacks an eschatological worldview.The problem of Xiongnu provides crucial clues for thinking about it.At the end of“The Problem of Xiongnu，”Takeda summarizesSima Qian’s long story asfollows：

Unconcealable sadness.Sima Qian kept his eyes on the Xiongnu problem with unconcealable feeling of sadness.

What he witnessed with sad feeling was not only this problem，but also the whole world.25Ibid.，112.

How should we understand these two short paragraphs？If Xiongnu inSima Qianis an analogy of China for Takeda，as Isoda Kōichi磯田光一（1931-1987）says，then what kind of“sadness”did Takeda feel？Let us see how Isoda understands the issue：

Takeda is the only talent in Japan who is able to write on the Chinese Revolution in the very way in which he wroteSima Qian.However，without anguish in his heart，he probably cannot make full use of his genius.［...］The“China that should have been”is Jesus Christ for Takeda Taijun.In other words，it is something thatshould exist just because it does not ex?ist.I am somehow attracted by him who is seemingly reluctant to talk on the Chinese Revolution.26（日）磯田光一：《非革命者のキリスト——武田泰淳論——》，《増補武田泰淳研究》，東京：筑摩書房，1980年，第173~174頁。［Isoda Kōichi，“Hi kakumeisha no kirisuto——Takeda Taijun ron——”（Jesus Christ for Non-Revolutionaries：On Takeda Taijun），in Zōh(huán)o Takeda Taijun kenkyū（An Enlarged Edition of Researches on Takeda Taijun），Tokyo：Chikuma shobō，1980，173-74］；emphasis added.Translation mine.

Isoda likens Takeda to Judas Iscariot and compares China，or Mao Zedong，to Jesus Christ.Adapting this comparison to the analogy of the relationship between Han and Xiongnu as compared to the relationship between Japan and China，we might establish an analogy between Xiongnu and Jesus.Is that possible？In the postscript to the 1943 version ofSima Qian，Takeda shows regret that the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historianmade him feel uneasy.If we agree with Isoda，then，it would be clear that for Takeda，Jesus is the world in theRecords of the Grand Historian；otherwise，it is very difficult for us to understand why Takeda feels“uneasy.”Therefore，it seems inadequate to compare Xiongnu to Jesus as Isoda does.We cannot narrow down the realm of this world into Xiongnu’sworld，but in reality，if we follow Isoda in seeing Takeda as a Judas，who betrayed Jesus，then the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historianas a whole，including both Han and Xiongnu，shouldbeJesusfor Takeda.

Consequently，the world in theRecords of the Grand Historianfrom which Takeda draws a totalizing picture rejects providing salvation.Takeuchi keenly and correctly points out that Takeda’s world lacks an eschatological view.For Takeda，China is not the Messiah at all.We have to recall the way he beginsSima Qian：“Sima Qian is a man who lived in shame.”27（日）武田泰淳：《司馬遷》，op.cit.，5.［Takeda Taijun，“Shiba Sen”（Sima Qian），in Takeda Taijun zenshū（The Complete Works of TakedaTaijun），vol.11，5.］In reality，Takeda lived in shame as a drafted soldier dispatched to China from 1937 to 1939.He assimilated himself to Sima Qian，who was sentenced to be castrated because of a speech defending Li Ling李陵（？-74BC），a general who failed to conquer Xiongnu and was eventually captured by them.For Sima Qian，writing history was the only way to soothe his feelings of shame.By the same token，for Takeda，drawing a totalizing picture from the de-centralized，spatially continuous world of Sima Qian’s writings was the only way to live in his shame.Their praxes as writers were not for the sake of seeking salvation，insofar as they were all excluded from the opportunity for salvation. Giving up the hope of sal vation is their common point from the very outset when they both decided to write.

Takeda could not stand upon the basis on which TakeuchiYoshimi applauded China’s revolutionary history from Lu Xun to Mao Zedong.He could not stand with the Japanese people either，who still wanted to maintain their loyalty to the notion of the center，even though the world depicted in theRecords of the Grand Historiangradually came to actualize after 1941.ThoughSima Qianwas repeatedly reprinted after World War II，the postscript in which Takeda emphasized the significance of the Japanese spirits of loyalty and courage has been deleted.Before the publication of theComplete Works of Takeda Taijun（Takeda Taijun zenshū武田泰淳全集）in 1980（after his death in 1976），it had been a forgotten secret of Takeda’s literature for a long time.

In short，the“sadness”expressed by Takeda at the end of“The Problem of Xiongnu，”is derived from the unerasable distance between the world in theRecords of the Grand Historian—a decentralized，absolute，unenclosed world—and himself.However，the absolute openness of the world could be enclosed only when Xiongnu got involved in it.Xiongnu was an indispensable element in the world ofRecords of the Grand Historian.At least，they were the“inner others”in the world.Therefore，Takeda，who witnessed it with“sadness，”must also be included in the same world.WritingSimaQian，hechallenged Sima Qian’sworldview butwasdefeated atlast.

Takeda’s“shame”was not erased but strengthened.For example，in an article published in 1947，he portrays himself as one of“theYin殷people.”28（日）武田泰淳：《『経書の成立』と現(xiàn)実感覚》，《武田泰淳全集》第12巻，東京：筑摩書房，1972年，第56頁。［Takeda Taijun，“Keisho no seiritsu to genjitu kankaku”（The Birth of Confucian Classics and the Sense of Reality），in Takeda Taijun Zenshū（The Complete Works of TakedaTaijun），vol.12，Tokyo：Chikuma Shobō，1972，56.］The article was written to review Hiraoka Takeo’s平岡武夫（1909-1995）Birth of Confucian Classics（Keisho no seiritsu経書の成立）.Hiraoka，a professor of Chinese philosophy and literature at Kyoto University，elaborates how the Zhou周Kings accomplished the dynastic transition from theYin dynasty through establishing a new world view of“all-under-heaven， tianxia天下.According to Hiraoka，the Zhou Kings utilized a novel concept of tian天（heaven）to legitimate their sovereignty in order to successfully establish a new feudal state system that replaced the clannish rule of the Yin dynasty.The term“all-underheaven，”commonly used by EastAsian nations to indicate the world，was coined for the first time.Under the rule by kings representing heaven，the Yin clan was allowed to survive as a feudal lordship.All-under-heaven as a world system would potentially include everything whatsoever.It would be an unenclosed system in its ideal.Being Yin people under the Zhou dynasty naturally meant living their lives after their political extinction.Although，at the same time，they would have more motivations to defend the value of heaven just because they were not able to enjoy a good reputation among their contemporary neighbors.As the Records ofthe Grand Historian suggest，Confucius is also one of the Yin people’s descendants.The reason Confucius had such a strong will to restore the ideal ritual and music established by the Zhou dynasty could be explained according to this background.Takeda also identifies himself with the Yin people defeated by heavenly will.His feeling of“sadness”can be heard as an echo of theYin people’s grief and Confucius’s struggle with his existential crisis in a harsh reality.

Eschatology for Takeuchi

What about Takeuchi，then？As we have already examined，he emphasizes that Japan has to admit“that Japanese culture has never been independent in the past or present”；thus，Japan has to make efforts to construct its own independent culture in the future.To do so，he rejects learning from Confucius or Mencius，just as the May Fourth intellectuals did.However，this is not the path on which people could go forward.At least，Takeda gave up going along this path，as he deleted the postscript from post-war versions of Sima Qian.Since Takeuchi was a loyal follower of Lu Xun，the path on which people cannot go forward became just the path he had to take.This attitude appears opposite to Takeda.Even if Takeuchi feels“uneasiness”in a confrontation in the world of Re?cords of the Grand Historian just like Takeda，does he also feel“sad”？The answer is perhaps“no.”Moreover，hasTakeuchi ever noticed that the ways of Confucius and Mencius were originally generated by Yin descendants，and as a result，Confucianism is indeed a philosophy that has the potential to upset rulers by disturbing the world order with a view of what politics should be？In the Re?cords，Sima Qian depicts Confucius，who traveled through countries successively，as a“stray dog.”Confucius and his disciples wandered the world with no settled home in order to persuade feu dal lords to embrace the rituals and music established by the Zhou founders，although they werejust outsiders. Their image as wandering nomads is far from the usual image of Confucianism.They are more similar to Xiongnu than Han in Takeda’s writing，people who lived in a differentworld from the mainstream but raised innumerable conflicts with the Han people. Like the world in theRecords of the Grand Historian，the all-under-heaven world is a world of the inter-penetratingand inter-dependent relationship with one another and with the outsiders’world.

Indeed，Takeda lacks an eschatological view. But for people who have to survive extinction，eschatological salvation has no room from the very beginning. Takeuchi also criticizes Takeda’swriting for its lack of Japanese taste. This is also correct. Takeda prefers to identify himself as a“stray dog”and a disgraced historian. His Chinese style of writing is the natural consequence ofsuch an identification.

Then again，Takeuchi devotes himself to the Chinese modernity represented by Lu Xun’s literature and manifested by the Communist Revolution led by Mao.His sympathy toward Chinese modernization，however，sometimes shows a kind of contradiction.For a typical instance，we know well his 1941 article“The Greater EastAsia War and Our Resolution”（Dai Tōa sensōto ware?ra no ketsui大東亜戦爭と吾等の決意）.In this article，he praises Japan’s declaration of war against the US.I think this is not a mistake that young Takeuchi made，but an expression of the same desire to praise the Communist Revolution led by Mao after World War II.Unlike his selfidentification as a man who deeply understands China，Takeuchi is much more distanced from the world of China，at least from the China that he imagined，where there is always a distinct“center”of tradition，morality，and resistance.China，or the all-under-heaven world，has already gone far beyond eschatology because itincludes countless extinctions in its spatially continuous history.

Takeda might say that if Takeuchi still has a chance to be saved，salvation will take place only by way of negating salvation.As Takeuchi strongly embraces Chinese literature，he fails to understand that another China still exists after the revolution，a China that had already experienced extinctionsmany times.