@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:02000111, author = {栗原, 悠 and KURIHARA, Yutaka}, journal = {JunCture : 超域的日本文化研究}, month = {Mar}, note = {1926 was a time of popular debate over the “Shinkyō-Shōsetsu” (meaning “novel of the state of mind”) and the “Honkaku-Shōsetsu” (meaning “authentic novel”) in literary circles. Among these, Arashi by Shimazaki Tōson, published in the journal Kaizō in September the same year, was highly acclaimed as a “Shinkyō-Shōsetsu” that perfectly depicted the author’s own subjectivity through the text. In contrast, the “Honkaku-Shōsetsu,” which problematizes the Oriental/Japanese style that holds the subjectivity of the “novel of the state of the mind” closely to oneself, models itself on Western novels and places the emphasis on objectivity to depict others and society. However, Arashi was also lauded from this perspective, and was ultimately appraised as an outstanding novel based on both of these contrasting standards. In order to first consider why this work was appraised in such an ambiguous way, this paper first focuses on the following points: that Matsuo Bashō’s name is frequently brought up as a model of the “novel of the state of the mind,” and that Tōson himself had expounded on the Bashō theory in an essay on his impressions during the same period. Taking these points into consideration, this paper then brings up the point that Toson’s argument covers Bashō’s argument with regard to humor and its affinity with children. At the same time, it affirms the contemporary context of the word “humor,” and picks up on how this has been woven into the motif of “arashi” (meaning “storm”) and the story structure as a line of reasoning for resolving the conflict between subjectivity and objectivity. In conclusion, while examining how this device functioned from the concrete reaction to Arashi, this paper returns to the point of how the debate over the “Shinkyō-Shōsetsu” and the “Honkaku-Shōsetsu” had also been a clash of civilizations. It points out the problem that while the humor that Tōson conceived of while referring to Bashō was intended to serve as a methodology linking Japan and the West and surmounting the debate, it could also have potentially disregarded the framework of the Orient.}, pages = {176--187}, title = {島崎藤村「嵐」における〈ユーモア〉の志向とその帰趨 : 松尾芭蕉評価を補助線として}, volume = {12}, year = {2021} }