In this feature’s overview article and the Chapter 2 overview, we saw that Chapter 3 redraws the argument of “men’s script and women’s script” through the names of actual writers, Ōgai and Kyōka. In this article we check, in the original, how Mishima himself puts that connection into words. (Page numbers follow the edition described in the overview article. English renderings of the quotations are ToL translations.)
Mishima’s own reveal
At the end of the “Two Kinds of Models” section, Mishima states plainly why he placed Ōgai and Kyōka at the opening of this chapter.
私がこの二つを冒頭に引用したのは、序説の男文字と女文字の伝統、論理的世界と情念の世界との対立が、同じ近代文学と言われるもののなかに、いかにも尖鋭な形で相対しているところを示したかったからであります。
(My reason for quoting these two at the outset was to show how the introduction’s tradition of men’s script and women’s script, the opposition between the logical world and the world of passion, faces off in a sharply pointed form even within what is called the same modern literature.)
“The introduction” refers to Chapter 2, “Men’s Script and Women’s Script.” Mishima goes on:
他の作家の文体はいずれもこの二つの極の間に、それぞれ星座のように位しているのであって、その間には様々な折衷主義もあれば、また変種もあります。
(The styles of other writers are all positioned, like a constellation, somewhere between these two poles; between them lie various eclecticisms, and various variants too.)
That is: Ōgai and Kyōka do not represent the whole of modern Japanese literature — they are chosen as reference points marking its two poles. Every other writer, in Mishima’s sketch, falls somewhere between these two poles.
Reused in “The Prose of the Long Novel”
This structure crosses sections and shows its face again in “The Prose of the Long Novel.”
日本ではヨーロッパ的なロマーンはなかなか生れませんでした。これは序論で言ったように、日本文学の男文字と女文字の区別からもきていることは、ロマーンこそは男性の論理的世界と女性の情念の世界との一大綜合であり、男性的理念と女性的理念との完全なジュンテーゼでなければならないからです。
(In Japan, the European-style roman was slow to appear. As I said in the introduction, this comes partly from Japanese literature’s division of men’s script and women’s script — because the roman must be a great synthesis of the masculine world of logic and the feminine world of passion, a complete synthesis of the masculine idea and the feminine passion.)
Here Mishima takes the “men’s script and women’s script” distinction (Chapter 2) and reuses it directly, as an explanatory tool. The words “as I said in the introduction” follow immediately, and “the two kinds of models” (Ōgai and Kyōka) are called back here too, as grounds for the argument.
Breaking down the argument
Laid out step by step, Mishima’s argument runs as follows.
- Chapter 2: Since the Heian period, Japanese prose has split between men’s script (logic, intellect) and women’s script (feeling, passion).
- Chapter 3, Two Kinds of Models: This split lives on within modern literature too. Ōgai (logic, simplicity) and Kyōka (passion, splendor) stand at its two poles.
- Chapter 3, The Prose of the Long Novel: The roman must be a “complete synthesis” of these two poles. Because Japanese writers have leaned to one side or the other, no true roman has appeared yet.
What to keep in mind when reading
First, this argument is a consistent structure, reusing one premise (the division of men’s and women’s script) across several chapters. It shows that Mishima’s Bunshō Tokuhon is not a loose collection of one-off essays, but has a structure visible only when read straight through.
Second, this consistency does not, by itself, guarantee the strength of the argument. As we confirmed in the Chapter 2 verdict article, the premise itself — the essentializing generalization that logic is masculine, passion feminine — is Mishima’s own view, not a proven claim. If the premise is weak, the conclusion drawn from it — “Japan has no roman” — inherits that same weakness.
Third, while Mishima calls Ōgai and Kyōka the “two poles,” he describes other writers as a “constellation.” This is a figure of speech; it is not offered as empirical proof that every writer in modern Japanese literature can actually be placed along this single line.
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Mishima’s own explanation | Ōgai and Kyōka are quoted at the opening to show the opposition of men’s and women’s script |
| Where it is reused | In “The Prose of the Long Novel,” the same division explains the absence of a roman |
| The three-step argument | ① the division of men’s/women’s script → ② Ōgai and Kyōka as examples of the two poles → ③ the claim that a roman requires their synthesis |
| Caution | Consistent in structure, but a weak premise passes its weakness on to the conclusion |
In a nutshell — Mishima repeatedly recalled Chapter 2’s “men’s script and women’s script” within Chapter 3’s argument, carrying a single thread from Ōgai and Kyōka’s two poles through to the conclusion that Japan has no roman.