아쿠타가와 류노스케 『사이고 다카모리(西鄕隆盛)』의 ‘아름다운 역사소설’

Akutagawa Ryunosuke’s Saigo Takamori The Suppression of Free Speech and Historical Perceptions

芥川龍之介の『西鄕隆盛』(1918.1)は、自分で‘へんてこなもの’と紹介した通り、従来の芸術至上主義の作ではなく、日本帝国の言論弾圧や歴史歪曲を批判したものである。この中で媒体役として登場する‘西鄕隆盛’は明治維新の功臣でありながら明治政府の逆賊となった歴史的な大物である。また、‘西鄕隆盛’に関しては‘誤傳が沢山ある’と指摘されたように、彼の‘戦死説’や‘征韓論’には異説が多い。ことに問題になるのは、明治や大正期にわたって彼の位相が侵略戦争の煽動戦略で用いられ、‘征韓論’の先覚者、国民の英雄としてより浮かび上がったことである。西鄕の‘征韓論’に対してはいまだその是非が決まっていないが、ともかく今は西鄕が‘征韓論’を主張したと知られている。そのような軍国体制の状況から、芥川は‘西鄕隆盛’に喩えて、‘政治上の差障りさへなければ’とか、‘万一秘密の洩れた事が、山県公に知れて見給へ’とか、‘実は甚だ當てにならない’、‘実際我々は目前の事さへわからない’などと書いた。これはまさに當時の言論弾圧や歴史歪曲がそのまま反映されたものである。だから、『西鄕隆盛』は言論弾圧や歴史歪曲に対した批判を目指し、暴力のない‘美しい歴史’や言論の‘真実’を求めた作である。これは中国視察以前には芥川の歴史認識がなかったという従来の低評価と正面に背馳する。

Akutagawa referred to his 1918 work Saigo Takamori(『西鄕隆盛』) as “unique”; it is not simply an art for the sake of art but a work that criticizes the suppression of speech and the distortion of history by the militaristic government at that time. The character of Saigo Takamori, a medium in this fictional account, was based on a real figure in Japanese history-a samurai who contributed to the Meiji Restoration(明治維新) but later rebelled against the Meiji government. As Akutagawa writes, there are many “incorrect criticisms” about Saigo Takamori and also several theories about the invasion of Korea and his eventual death. Furthermore, Saigo’s significance in Japanese history had been used as a justification for Japanese invasions of Korea. He, therefore, was elevated to the status of a national hero and pioneer of the invasion of Korea. Although Saigo’s words have not been proven to be either right or wrong on the subject of invading Korea, it is generally known that he was in favor of it. In Saigo Takamori, Akutagawa wrote phrases such as “if there were no political obstacles,” “I can’t believe the truth at all,” and “In fact, we don’t even know what’s in front of us.” The work accurately reflects the suppression of speech and the distortion of history that were prevalent at that time. Akutagawa criticizes the militaristic government s oppression and distortion of the press using the analogy of Saigo Takamori and demands the “truth” of the media and “beautiful history” without violence. Akutagawa’s criticism contradicts the existing theories that he did not have historical awareness before he visited China in 1921.