Origins and development of a “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif in writings of Tanizaki Jun’ichiro

Tanizaki Jun’ichiro (1886-1960) is one of the most prominent representatives of Modern Japanese literature, whose creative life reflects the turbulence of the historical period he happened to live in. He was a witness of the reign of three emperors and experienced the effects of such complicated processes as modernization and westernization of Japan, which drastically changed the country. These changes deeply affected Tanizaki, but still there are some distinguishing constants present in his writings.

Tanizaki was a well-known admirer of the West in the beginning of his literary career, but at a certain age the writer came back to his cultural roots - the phenomenon known as “Return to Japan” (Nihon kaiki). M. Long notes that at this period of Tanizaki’s life “he is supposed to have abandoned his youthful interest in crime fiction, stage plays, cinema and novels about sexual perversion in favor of traditional Japanese genres, allusions and settings”¹. Although Tanizaki’s “Return to Japan” became obvious in the middle of the 1920’s, he didn’t abandon every single characteristic detail used in his early writings. One of the best examples that demonstrates the consistency and continuity in the writer’s work is a “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif.

The motif of a woman who is undergoing drastic transformation in the hands of the male “creator” is quite frequent in Tanizaki’s writing and widely referred to by Japanese and Western researchers with terms “Pygmalion” and “Galatea”. However, whether Tanizaki was in fact aware of the classic Greek myth about Pygmalion and Galatea retold by Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-AD 17) in his “Metamorphoses” (8 AD) can’t be confirmed with all certainty. G. Miles states that “a continuous line of inheritance and influence connects ancient Greece and Rome with the modern “western” world, shaping our arts, our institutions and our philosophies”2. The tale of Pygmalion is re-narrated continuously in Western literature and art3, but Japan for the greater part of its existence was separated from the West. Hence the classic Greek and Roman mythology or literary works influenced by them could not become a source of inspiration for Japanese authors, at least until Meiji era (1868-1912), when Japan started to discover cultural values of the Western civilization.

“Rebellious Galatea” - the Western pattern

Tanizaki belongs to the generation of Japanese writers whose creative life coincided with the peak of interest in Western culture. As Y. Hirata notes, “living in a rapidly “modernizing” society, many writers sought inspiration from the latest literary trends of the modern West. Of literature in English that exerted an influence, the works of Whitman, Dickens, Thackeray, Kipling, Shaw, and of course Wilde are especially noteworthy”4. The mention of Shaw and Wilde 162

is particularly important regarding Tanizaki’s probable introduction to “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif common for English literature.

English was the only foreign language for Tanizaki and he started to read in English from quite a young age5. Tanizaki borrowed the copy of “The Picture of Dorian Grey” (1890) from a friend, made notes on it and told a friend “it was fascinating”6. In 1918 Tanizaki translated Wilde’s play “Lady Windermere’s Fan” (1892) in Japanese. Wilde is often mentioned as a key influence on Tanizaki’s early writings because his Western language was English, and because there is references to Wilde in his works7.

Tanizaki’s first widely acclaimed short story “The Tattooer” (Shisei, 1910) tells about a tattoo artist Seikichi and a girl who undergoes a striking transformation after Seikichi creates his masterpiece of a tattoo on her skin. The same year Tanizaki publishes “Kylin” (Kirin) where “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif also can be traced but to less extent than in “The Tattooer”. The main conflict of the story is the battle between wisdom and demonic beauty represented by Confucius and Duke Ling’s consort Nan-tzu. Confucius goal is to teach Duke Ling how to be a virtuous ruler for his people, not to create a “Galatea” out of Nan-tzu. Figuratively speaking, Duke Ling is a “Galatea” to Confucius’ “Pygmalion”. Nan-tzu is a perfect embodiment of cruel beauty, she doesn’t need a “Pygmalion” to improve her. Beauty defeats Wisdom, and Confucius leaves the dukedom of Wei, failing the “Pygmalion” mission to “carve” an ideal ruler out of Duke Ling.

The origins of both stories are usually connected with the influence of European aestheticism and one of its leaders - O. Wilde8. A “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif in Wilde’s works is very common for two main reasons: 1) he belonged to the literary tradition where authors could use a common stock of mythological stories, motifs and characters and be confident that their readers will recognize and understand their allusions9; 2) the Greek and Roman mythology was a source of inspiration for the representatives of European aestheticism10. The “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif is particularly strong in “The Portrait of Dorian Grey”, where “Pygmalion and Galatea” relations occur between the male characters as in “Kylin”. The phenomenon of the work of art which destroys its creator - as seen in Wilde’s novel on the example of Dorian Grey and Basil Hallward - is a kind of the culmination Tanizaki chooses for “The Tattooer”. When Seikichi finishes the tattoo his model says to him: “I completely lost all the fear I had in my heart. And you are the first I regard as a manure”11. She doesn’t kill Seikichi, but takes his masterpiece with her leaving the artist devastated.

D.A. Dominguez states that “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif in Tanizaki’s novel “Naomi” (Chijin no ai, 1926) appears partly due to the possible influence of Shaw’s play “Pygmalion” which was first presented on stage in 1913 and had a great success around the world12. There is no doubt that Tanizaki knew Shaw’s work well enough. In essay “About Art” (Geidan, 1933) he used quite unpleasant words about Shaw who visited Japan in 1933. Tanizaki was displeased with Shaw because English author gave some “superficial” remarks about a Noh theatre performance he attended and posed for a photograph wearing a Noh “old man” mask (okino)13. It is quite possible that Tanizaki knew about Shaw’s “Pyg- malion” when he started writing “Naomi”, but the “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif appears in his works before the play was first performed in 1913.

Whether it was due to Shaw’s influence or not, this motif is a core element in the story of a young girl Naomi and her much older suitor and then husband Joji. The original name of the novel Chijin no ai means “A Fool’s Love”. The novel is a first-person narrative, so Joji himself asserts that he is a “fool” because the quest for “Galatea” damaged his career, left him almost broke and destroyed his self-esteem.

“Naomi” paves a way for Tanizaki’s “Return to Japan”. He descripts Joji as a “fool” because this “Pygmalion” tries to create his “Galatea” using Western patterns. Naomi has a Westernesque name, she resembles American actress Mary Pickford and Joji tries to intensify this resemblance by dressing her in Western outfits, teaching her Western music and dances. But when the “creative” process is over, Joji is disenchanted by his “Galatea” as much as was Tanizaki by his adoration of the West. Hence the word “fool” in the title of the story could have a whiff of a self-critique regarding the author himself.

As for parallels with Western examples of “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif, Tanizaki sets the novel in the modern age and describes the protagonists as types of people who could be easily found in real life in contrast to the exotic settings and characters of “The Tattooer” and “Kylin”, and that makes “Naomi” quite reminiscent of Shaw’s “Pygmalion”. C. Ueno notes that “Naomi” indeed tells the story of “Japanese Pygmalion” and stresses the difference in social positions of Naomi and Joji14. The social gap between Higgins and Eliza does have a significance in Shaw’s “Pygmalion”. According to D. Fishelov, “Shaw anchors the mythical tale in a concrete social reality, exploiting the mechanisms of the English class system and the role of language registers and dialects in maintaining social differentiation and social order”15. Naomi and Joji’s relationship lacks the sense of “social experiment” in educating a lower-class girl by an upper-class man. Her social position is significant for Joji only because it makes easier for him “to take her to my place and take care of her... educate her and maybe later marry her”16. Joji wants to educate Naomi for himself, he has no need or desire to prove that he can create an exquisite lady out of a common girl.

However, Tanizaki would not have become one of the leading figures in Modern Japanese literature if he had merely copied Wilde or Shaw - the very essence of his uniqueness as a writer lies in his deep knowledge of both classic Japanese literature and Western literature and his ability to use their peculiar characteristics for the advantage of his own writings. Tanizaki had the “sense of balance, an important ability in novelist”17 which helped him to escape the trap of becoming only a banal imitator.

“Obedient Galatea” - the classic Japanese pattern

The writer lived in the epoch when Japanese intellectual just could not avoid the influence of Western ideas of different kind. As K. Ito explains, “no educated Japanese with literary interests could have escaped exposure to such currents of thought. These ideas would have been ever present in works read in 164

foreign languages, in translated materials, and in the writings of Japanese introducers”18. “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif is an example of such an “idea” - it is possible to point out the certain Western authors and writings which contributed to introduction of this motif to Tanizaki, but this motif is used in Western literature and art so widely that it will be unreasonable to attribute its genesis in Tanizaki’s writings just to the influence of Wilde or Shaw.

Furthermore, the motif reminiscent of “Pygmalion and Galatea” one can be found in classic Japanese literature as well. “The Tale of Genji” (Genji mo-nogatari, 1008), which Tanizaki translated in modern Japanese language, tells the story of Hikaru Genji and Murasaki no Ue. Genji meets Murasaki when she is just a child and reflects on how wonderful it would be to take this girl with him and teach her the way he pleases as she grows up. Murasaki is “Genji’s private discovery and his personal treasure. Her fate in life depends so entirely on him that she might be a sort of shadow to him, without a will of her own”19. Genji wants to teach Murasaki to guarantee that she will acquire the qualities he values and “one way to guarantee those qualities was to fashion a woman, Pygmalion-like, to fit one’s own preferences... the best sort of Galatea was the lovable, teachable woman”20.

Joji in Tanizaki’s “Naomi” express almost the same desire: “I thought that the best way was to take a girl like Naomi, observe her growing up, and marry her if I like. I didn’t want to marry a girl from a rich family or an educated woman. To make a girl my friend, to watch her grow day and night that what filled me with excitement”21. Considering the shift in Tanizaki’s preferences from all the things Western to Japanese tradition, which was happening around the time when “Naomi” was written, his goal in creating an ideal wife reminds more of Genji and Murasaki than Higgins and Eliza. Therefore, Joji failed to create his “Galatea” probably because he chose wrong pattern in raising his perfect wife. Joji was trying to make Naomi as Western as possible, when he should have taken an approach suggested by Japanese classics.

That mistake was avoided in Tanizaki’s novel “Some Prefer Nettles” (Tade kuu mushi, 1928), where “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif represents obvious connection to Japanese tradition. The novel was written when Tanizaki entered the peak phase of his “Return to Japan” - “Some Prefer Nettles” was “the first to address explicitly the notion that traditional aesthetics could serve as the answer to the “problem” of modernity”22. The novel describes the struggle of the protagonist Kaname trying to find his lost bond with traditional culture. Kaname lost interest in his wife Misako who favors Western things - she wears Western clothes, listens to Western music, reads translations of Western books. While Kaname’s frustration with Misako grows strong, his attraction to the traditional culture flourishes due to Misako’s father, who plays a role of “Pygmalion” to his young mistress O-Hisa.

Kaname’s father-in-law “carves” his “Galatea” in such a way that she resembles a Koharu doll in traditional puppet theatre performance of Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653-1724) play “The Love Suicides at Amijima” (Shinju tenno Amijma, 1721). Watching the performance Kaname reflects on the traditional “doll-like” beauty: “The classic beauty was withdrawn, restrained, careful not to show too much individuality, and the puppet here quite fitted the requirements. A more distinctive, more colorful figure would only have ruined the effect. Perhaps, indeed, to their contemporaries all the tragic heroines, Koharu, Umegawa, Sankatsu, O-Shun, had the same face. Perhaps this doll was the “eternal woman” as Japanese tradition had her”23. And then Kaname looks at O-Hisa: “Her face was turned a little so that the line of her cheek showed round, almost heavy, like that of a court beauty in a picture scroll. He compared her profile with Koharu’s”24. O-Hisa seems to be an unanimated object of art in the hands of her “Pygmalion”, who teaches her to play shamisen, classic songs and sutras, explains the rules of etiquette to her, makes her wear traditional clothing.

As a true native of Kyoto - the cradle of traditional Japanese culture - O-Hisa is obedient and meek disciple of her “Pygmalion”, which makes her different from the previous “Galateas” in the writings of Tanizaki. The culmination of the “creative” process is devastating for “Pygmalions” in “The Tattoer” and “Naomi” as “Galateas” rebel against their “creators”. The shift to the tradition in Tanizaki’s writings makes O-Hisa almost ideal material for “Galatea” because she represents an idealized, artifactual femininity linked with an authentically Japanese heritage25, her individuality is suppressed and she seemingly present no danger to her “Pygmalion”. Traditional patterns of raising a companion - as in “Genji and Murasaki” case - make O-Hisa seem ideal, as if she is “a shade left behind by another age”26.

Such a wide range of probable sources for “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif in Tanizaki’s writings is not surprising. Since the beginning of the literary career the writer had a tendency of what S. Dodd describes as “conscious eclecticism of literary influences”27. Tanizaki’s profound knowledge of Western and Japanese literature allowed him to use this motif in a way he needed on the certain stage of his creative life. In the beginning of his literary career the writer preferred Western variant of “Pygmalion and Galatea” motif as he was infatuated with the Western culture and literature, particularly with the writings of O. Wilde. That infatuation led to the creation of a “rebellious Galatea”, who breaks free from her “creator”. However, when Tanizaki neglected his pro-Western interests, this motif began to fall in a traditional pattern of “obedient Galatea”. Whatever the sources of the motif, it is undeniable that Tanizaki did not use it blindly, but masterfully described its various dimensions to intensify the main conflicts in his writings such as tradition and modernity, West and Japan, art and artist.

NOTES

• 1    Long M. This Perversion Called Love: Reading Tanizaki, Feminist Theory and Freud. Stanford, 2009. P. 13.

• ²    Miles G. The Myth-kitty // Classical Mythology in English Literature: A Critical Anthology / ed. by G. Miles. London, New-York, 1999. P. 3.

• ³    Tompkins B. Calvino and the Pygmalion Paradigm. Kibworth Beauchamp, 2015. P. 17-18.

• ⁴    Hirata Y. Oscar Wilde and Honma Hisao, the First Translator of De Profundis into Japanese // Japan Review. 2009. № 21. P. 243.

• ⁵    Sato T. Tanizaki Jun’ichiro no gikyoku sakuhin ni mirareru Osuka Wairudo no

  eikyo // Kenkyu kiyo gakushuin kotoka. 1966. № 2. P. 125.

• ⁶    Kanagawa Kindai Bungakukan. Tanizaki Jun’ichiro ten. Yokohama, 1998. P. 22.

• ⁷    Ito K. Visions of Desire: Tanizaki’s Fictional Worlds. Stanford, 1991. P. 54.

• ⁸    Takada M. Nihon kindai sakka no bishiki. Tokyo, 1987. P. 142-147.

• ⁹    Miles G. The Myth-kitty // Classical Mythology in English Literature: A Critical Anthology / ed. by G. Miles. London; New-York, 1999. P. 3.

• ¹⁰    Мелетинский E.M. Поэтика мифа. M., 2000. С. 254.

• ¹¹    Tanizaki J. Shisei. Kirin. Tokyo, 1996. P. 17.

• ¹² Dominguez Arrieta D. El mito de Pigmalion a la japonaise: un estudio de Chijin no Ai de Tanizaki Junichiro a traves de la intertextualidad у la psicologia cognitive // 1616: Anuario de Literatura Comparada. 2013. № 3. P. 161.

• ¹³    Tanizaki Jun’ichiro zenshu. Tokyo, 1966-1968. Vol. 20. P. 435-436.

• ¹⁴    Ueno C. Ueno Chizuko ga bungaku wo shakaigaku suru. Tokyo, 2000. P. 22.

• ¹⁵    Fishelov D. Dialogues with/and Great Books: The Dynamics of Cannon Formation. Brighton, 2010. P. 150.

• ¹⁶    Tanizaki J. Chijin no ai. Tokyo, 1993. P. 8.

• ¹⁷    Tsuruta K. Images of Westerners in Tanizaki Jun’ichiro and Nakazato Tsuneko // Images of Westerners in Chinese and Japanese Literature. Proceedings of the XVth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association “Literature as Cultural Memory”. Leiden, 16-22 August 1997 / ed. by T. d’Haen, M. Hua, S. Hirakawa. Amsterdam; Atlanta, 2000. P. 155.

• ¹⁸    Ito K. Visions of Desire: Tanizaki’s Fictional Worlds. Stanford, 1991. P. 55.

• ¹⁹    Royall T. The Disaster of the Third Princess: Essays on the Tale of Genji. Can-berra, 2009. P. 15.

• ²⁰    Okada R.H. Figures of Resistance: Language, Poetry and Narrating in The Tale of Genji and Other Mid-Heian Texts. Dinham; London, 1991. P. 258.

• ²¹    Tanizaki J. Chijin no ai. Tokyo. 1996. P. 10

• ²²    Galley G. Tanizaki Junichiro: The Art of Subversion and the Subversion of Art // The Journal of Japanese Studies. 1995. Vol. 21. № 2. P. 66.

• ²³    Tanizaki J. Tade kuu mushi. Tokyo, 1993. P. 27.

• ²⁴    Tanizaki J. Tade kuu mushi. Tokyo, 1993. P. 28.

• ²⁵    Galley G. Tanizaki Junichiro: The Art of Subversion and the Subversion of Art // The Journal of Japanese Studies. 1995. Vol. 21. № 2. P. 395.

• ²⁶    Tanizaki J. Tade kuu mushi. Tokyo, 1993. P. 133.

• ²⁷    Dodd S. History in the Making: The Negotiation of History and Fiction in Tanizaki Jun’ichiro’s Shunkinsho H Japan Review. 2012. № 24. P. 165.