The Making of Hokusai's Reputation in the Context of Japonisme, Japan Review, No.15, pp.73-96.

Japan Review, 2003, 15:77-100

The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation

in the Context of Japonisme

INAGA Shigemi
International Research Center for Japanese Studies

Hokusai is undoubtedly the best-known Japanese painter in the world, espe-

cially in Western countries. Some scholars would hesitate to regard him as
the greatest master in Japanese art history, yet many studies have worked to
justify and consolidate his reputation. Most of this writing, however, fails to
note that Hokusai’s popularity is a historical product, or to examine the con-
texts in which his admirers first felt compelled to champion him as the pre-
eminent hero of Japanese art. By questioning the apotheosis of Hokusai in
the context of the vogue of “japonisme” in the second half of the nineteenth
century in Europe, this paper tries to elucidate some of the underlying social
and historical conditions that enabled and prepared the way for his glorifica-
tion. How was a simple Japanese ukiyo-e print craftsman transfigured into
the ultimate oriental master, comparable to such giants as Michelangelo,
Rubens, and Rembrandt, and why was he so much admired by such great
figures of modern art as Edouard Manet and Vincent Van Gogh? 1

Keywords: K ATSUSHIKA H OKUSAI , L OUIS G ONSE , W ILLIAM A NDERSON ,

T H É O D O R E D URET , E RNEST F ENOLLOSA , E DMOND DE G ONCOURT ,
HISTORIOGRAPHY, ART EVALUATION, AUTHENTICITY, CANON FORMATION

Hokusai’s reputation as the most eminent Japanese painter owes mainly to the inter-
pretations of French “Japonisants.” One of the first of these was Philippe Burty, a leading
art critic. In his Chefs-d’oeuvre des Arts industriels (1866), Burty evaluated Japanese prints
more highly than Chinese prints or European lithographs, and to exemplify Japanese
superiority, he cited “twenty-eight (sic) books by famous Hokousaï.” He was referring to
the Manga and other collections of Hokusai, with countless illustrations of specimens
from natural history, scenes from family life, caricatures, demonstrations of martial arts,
and depictions of pilgrimages to the sacred Mt. Fuji. Burty compared these sketches to

77
78 INAGA Shigemi

Watteau in their elegance, to Daumier in their energy, to Goya in their fantasy, and to
Eugène Delacroix in their movement. The French writer declared that Hokusai’s richness
of subject matter and dexterity in brush strokes are comparable only to Peter Paul
Rubens.2
Such a comparison was not as whimsical or gratuitous as it looks at first glance. On
the one hand, Burty insisted on Hokusai’s importance as a master. Being likened to great
European artists accorded Hokusai, a man from a non-Western nation, an honored sta-
tus; by extension, it acknowledged Japan’s competitiveness with European nations in the
realm of painting. On the other hand, let us remember that Burty’s book dealt with
industrial, or applied, arts, and he treated Hokusai in that context. Still, by comparing
Hokusai to European masters of “fine arts,” Burty, a republican, challenged the orthodox
views of the established hierarchy in Second Empire France. Paying high esteem to a
Hokusai implied criticism of the authority of the Académie des Beaux-Arts and the con-
servative professors of the École des Beaux-Arts.
In 1867, the year following the publication of Burty’s book, Japan participated at the
Exposition Universelle held in Paris. In a semi-official report of this world’s fair, Les
Nations rivales dans l’art (1868), Ernest Chesneau singled out Hokusai as “le plus libre et
le plus sincères des maîtres japonais.” Chesneau, another republican art critic, praised
Hokusai’s rapidity in sketching, his richness of expression, his incomparable vivid depic-
tion of human figures in every imaginable gesture, his variety of subject matter, his sure-
ness of skill, his keen and observant eye, and the truthfulness of the emotions grasped by
his simple lines of ink on paper. “All the virtues and vices, all the frankness and violence
are depicted there with a subtle tone of derision while betraying a mischievous, ironical
and philosophical smile, free from any rancour.”3
In Chesneau’s somewhat exaggerated and redundant description, four principal char-
acteristics of Hokusai’s work emerge: (i) his illustrated books have an encyclopedic
nature, (ii) the lives of the common people are depicted from a detached and somewhat
ironical viewpoint, (iii) his sketches are
slightly caricaturized but sharp and sponta-
neous, and (iv) the work is marked by a sim-
ple but skillful technique of fixing the image
and the effectiveness of its graphical repro-
duction. Almost certainly not coincidentally,
these four characteristics were what the
French realists and naturalists of the epoch
were searching for in the movement of
“Société des graveurs et aquafortistes,” for
example, which was organized as a reaction (1) Ichiyūsai Kuniyoshi, “Neko no hyaku-
to the mainstream academic hierarchy of mensō” (One Hundred Portraits of Cats),
Fine Arts.4 Tempō era (1830-1844). From Suzuki Jūzō,
Probably the most comprehensible exam- Kuniyoshi (Heibonsha, 1992), Pl. 369.
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 79

(2) Champfleury, “Portrait de l’auteur,” Les (3) Édouard Manet, “Le Rendez-vous des
Chats, 1869, p. 326; Confusing Hokusai with chats,” lithograph, 1868, 55x44 cm (with
Kuniyoshi, Champfleury had himself depicted Champfleury’s “portrait-charge” on the left in
himself as a cat “in Hokusai’s fashion.” a “medaillon.” Reproduced from Champfleury,
Reproduced from Champfleury, l’art pour le l’art pour le peuple, Les Dossiers du Musée
peuple, Les Dossiers du Musée d’Orsay, 39, d’Orsay, 39, 1990
1990.

ple of this tendency is found in Champfleury’s illustrated anthology of cats, Chats, pub-
lished in 1869. Novelist and caricaturist, Champfleury, known as one of Gustave
Courbet’s earliest defenders and a combative propagandist of Réalisme (ill. 2), inserted in
this popular encyclopedia several sketches of Japanese cats he believed to have been
drawn by “a Japanese extraordinary artist, dead about fifty years ago.” (Champfleury thus
killed Hokusai thirty years earlier than old age had in reality. His error betrayed that he
lacked precise biographical data. Still worse, he failed to distinguish Hiroshige and
Kuniyoshi from Hokusai) (ill.1). It is worth remembering that Edouard Manet’s famous
lithograph Le Rendez-vous des chats was executed as an advertisement poster for
Champfleury’s book (ill.3). The primitive brushwork, the contrast between black and
white, and the humorous caricature of the cats’ behavior “en chaleur” could be the artist’s
intentional imitation—Manet’s mané—of Hokusai’s illustrated books.
80 INAGA Shigemi

II

During the Franco-Prussian War and the days of

the Paris Commune that followed, Edouard Manet
deposited his major paintings with a young republi-
can friend and art critic, Théodore Duret (ill.4). As
it happened, Duret would later become the first
French specialist on Hokusai. In 1872, Duret made
a world tour with Henri Cernuschi and stayed for
two months in Japan. In his Voyage en Asie, pub-
lished in 1874, Duret referred to “Hokousaï” as one
of the masters in Japan, famous for his fourteen great
illustrated books. Duret admired the gestures, the
behaviors, and even the grimaces of the Japanese
people, all marvelously rendered just as he had seen
them himself in Japan. As an early and privileged
eyewitness of Japan, Duret published an influential (4) Édouard Manet, “Portrait de
article “L’art japonais, les livres illustrés, les albums Théodore Duret,” oil on canvas,
imprimés, Hokousaï,” in a prestigious art magazine, 1867, 43x35 cm, Musée du Petit
Gazette des Beaux-Arts, in 1882 (ill.5). In that article, Palais, Paris
Duret, a follower of Herbert Spencer, recognized
Hokusai as the culminating figure of Japanese art,
incarnating by himself the whole evolution of its his-
tory. He declared, “Hokusai is the greatest artist that
Japan has produced.”5
At the Parisien Galerie Georges Petit the follow-
ing year, Louis Gonse, the chief editor of Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, organized a great retrospective exhibition
of Japanese art. Gonse also published a sumptuous
book, L’Art japonais, the first tentative synthesis of
Japanese art in the world (ill.6). Of ten chapters that
compose the book, one was devoted entirely to
Hokusai, this “viellard fou de dessins”(old man crazy
in drawing). Accepting Duret’s assertion about
Hokusai’s greatness, Gonse quoted Duret, adding
that Hokusai’s “works rise high in the domain of aes-
thetic Japanese art, and... they establish for it a
definitive formula.” “[A] talent so complete and so (5) Théodore Duret, “L’Art japon-
original should belong to all humanity,” Gonse ais,” title page, Gazette des Beaux-
maintained, as he offered the judgment that Hokusai Arts, 1882, 2ème periode, p. 45.
bears comparison to such European artists as
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 81

“Rembrandt, Corot,
Goya, and Daumier at
the same time (ill.7).”6
This high French
evaluation of Hokusai
gave rise to sarcastic reac-
tions and objections on
the part of Anglo-Saxon
specialists such as Ernest
F. Fenollosa, who pub-
lished a harsh attack in
his review of Gonse’s
book in Japan Weekly
Mail on 12 July 1884,
and William Anderson,
(6) Louis Gonse, L’Art japonais. (7) Louis Gonse, frontispiece for
author of The Pictorial
Paris: A. Quantin, 1883. the chapter on Hokusai, L’Art
Art in Japan (1885)
japonais
(ill.8). Four points in
this controversy are worthy of notice: (i) For both Anderson and Fenollosa, it was out of
the question to compare a simple print craftsman like Hokusai to fifteenth-century Zen
Buddhist master painters. For Anderson, it was no less scandalous to compare Hokusai
(ill.10) with Chō Densu, Sesshū (ill.9), or Shūbun than to draw a parallel between John
Leech, “Mr. Punch”(ill.12), and Fra Angelico (ill.11).
(ii) It is clear that these Anglo-Saxon specialists apprehend-
ed Japanese art and its history in line with the received
Japanese academic judgments, which they never doubted.
(iii) While these Anglo-Saxon connoisseurs, who had
resided in Japan for long periods, respected domestic Japanese
judgment, French amateurs insisted on their own aesthetic
judgment. Anderson and Fenollosa found French overestima-
tion of Hokusai not only ridiculous but also potentially
harmful to his posthumous reputation in his native country.
French critics, on the other hand, including Edmond de
Goncourt, were proud of having discovered Hokusai’s talent
when the Japanese still did not fully recognize or acknowledge
it. But Fenollosa found these Frenchmen’s attitudes arrogant,
and opined that they were “amazingly and amusingly” duped
by the Japanese merchants’ condescending flattery toward
(8) William Anderson, The them.
Pictorial Arts of Japan. (iv) While the “conservative” Anglo-Saxon specialists dis-
London: S. Low, 1886 dained the ‘‘‘vulgarity’ of Hokusai’s art, French avant-garde
82 INAGA Shigemi

(9) Unkoku Tōeki, “Portrait of (10) Attributed to Hokusai, “[Self]portrait,” ink on paper,
Sesshū,” Jōeiji temple, Yamaguchi. Musée Guimet, Paris. (Although this portrait was attributed
to Hokusai by Kobayashi Bunshichi and Hayashi Tadamasa,
specialists today suspect that the attribution may have been
tainted by the commercial tactics of the Japanese dealers who
wished to sell the work at a high price to Charles Gillot.)

critics praised Hokusai’s “vulgarité” precisely in order to attack the conservative, academic,
and aristocratic views that then predominated in the European art world. For Duret,
Gonse, and de Goncourt, “L’école vulgaire” was by no means a pejorative notion; rather,
they regarded it positively as a mark of anti-academic “avant-garde” in artistic achievement.
Significantly, the book Duret published in 1885 was titled Critique d’avant-garde. He dedi-
cated it to his late friend Edouard Manet, and included in it his defense of Manet, Monet,
and the Impressionist painters alongside his pioneering study of Japanese art and Hokusai.7

(11) Fra Angelico, “Annunciation,” Convento di (12) John Leech called “Mr. Punch,” “Mr.
San Marco, Florence, ca.1440-45 George and the Dragonflies.”
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 83

III

It is quite clear that French Japonisant art critics were mainly responsible for
Hokusai’s glorification, and that declaring Hokusai a master was related to (or at least
was consistent with) liberal republican criticism of conservative academic aesthetics.
Hokusai’s reputation was solidified in a process related to the aesthetic program that
these Japonisant critics espoused. Both Duret and Edmond de Goncourt called their
beloved Japanese prints “impressions.” This suggests they saw an ideological affinity
between Japanese prints and the Impressionist aesthetics. Let us now take a closer look at
the significant role Hokusai would play in context of aesthetic renovation (or even revo-
lution, for some). Three points will be examined: (i) composition or lack of composi-
tion, (ii) drawing technique and brushstroke, and (iii) vividness of color.
First, in terms of composition, both Ernest Chesneau and Théodore Duret remarked
that the Japanese dislike symmetrical repetition. In 1869, Chesneau invented the term
“disymmetrie” to characterize Japanese aesthetics. This idea was implicitly borrowed by
an American artist, John Lafarge, in his “Notes on Japanese Art” in 1870, and it was
developed again by another American critic, James J. Jarves, in his A Glimpse at the Art of
Japan (1876).8 Duret remarked, “Following their caprice, the Japanese abandon them-
selves to fantasy, and freely throw around decorative motifs without any apparent system,
but thanks to their secret instinct of proportion, the result fully satisfies the visual taste”
(p.169). As Oshima Seiji has suggested, Auguste Renoir’s manifest of “irrégulariste” aes-
thetics (1884) might also be understood as an outcome of this conception.9
The most striking illustration Hokusai
offered to theorists of “disymmetrie” and
the “irrégulariste” approach is Mt. Fuji off
the Coast of Kanagawa, popularly known as
the “Great Wave”(ill.13). The view of Mt.
Fuji at sunrise was a marvelous scene for
foreigners traveling to Japan by ship.
Lafcadio Hearn treated it rhapsodically in
his “A Conservative,” and Duret himself
described it with some emotion in his (13) Katsushika Hokusai, “Kanagawa oki
Voyage en Asie. Still, it is an open question Namiura” (Mount Fuji off the Coast of
whether or not the dynamic contrast Kanagawa), Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji,
between the great wave in the foreground 1830-31.
and the small cone-like form in the back-
ground (the mountain) was a result of Hokusai’s free and exaggerated interpretation of
Western linear perspective.
Western linear perspective, reinvented during the Italian Renaissance, consists of
reducing the three-dimensional space into two dimensions by a series of geometrical
operations. As Naruse Fujio has proposed in the case of the Akita school of Western-style
84 INAGA Shigemi

painting, this Western technique was reinterpreted and transformed into an aesthetic
device of exaggerating the effect of contrast between the near and the far,10 which is clear-
ly suggested by the Japanese translations of the word “perspective”: enkin no dosū
(“degree of far-near”—Satake Shozan, 1778) and enkin no ri (“principle of far-near”—
Shiba Kōkan, 1799). Instead of implanting European rationalism in Japan, the Japanese
artists employed linear perspective as an element of design, editing the pictorial plane by
“assemblage,” “montage,” and “découpage.” This sense of arrangement “without apparent
system” (Duret), which Tsudzumi Tsuneyoshi would call the Rahmenlosigkeit (“frameless-
ness”) of Japanese aesthetics, finds its typical application in Hokusai’s landscape prints.
Paradoxically enough, what Duret and other French Japonisants regarded as typically
Japanese composition was in reality the result of recent European influence among
Japanese artists.”11
The free arrangement of the pictorial plane, clearly
deviating from the principle of linear perspective, is com-
monly observed in the compositions in Hokusai’s Manga
(ill.14). Duret observed that “in the first volume of
Manga, the human figures and objects have only one
inch or so, and are scattered here and there, from the top
to the bottom of the pages, without a ground to sustain
them or a background to put them forward. And yet
they are posed there with such convenience and econo-
my that each of them retains its movement and charac-
teristics of its own line and position.”12 This description
reveals the astonishment Europeans felt in observing a
page of Manga.
Curiously enough, contemporary critics censured
(14) Katsushika Hokusai, fron- Manet for a similar strangeness of “assemblage” and
tispiece, Ryakuga hayashinan “montage.” Borrowing freely from diverse sources rang-
(The Secret of Drawings), vol. ing from such classics as Titian, Velasquez, and Goya to
2, 1814. graphic illustrations and reproductions of prints, Manet
often created paintings made up of combined images.
Some unsympathetic viewers of his work found it lacking compositional skill, and said
that it distorted or miscalculated perspective and rendered human figures anatomically
disproportionate. Such shortcomings in Manet, however, can be perfectly defended in
terms of the Japanese aesthetics visualized in Hokusai’s Manga.
Secondly, a similar lack of perfection is also frequently seen in Manet’s violent brush-
strokes and sketchlike drawing techniques. Once again, Théodore Duret’s remarks on
Japanese art justified these apparent defects and turned them into Manet’s merit. “Using
exclusively the brush sustained by the hand, the Japanese artist, for whom no retouching
is possible, fixes his vision on the paper upon his first attack, with a boldness, graceful-
ness, and confidence that even the most talented European artists cannot attain. It is
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 85

thanks to this procedure, unfamiliar in Europe, along with their distinctive taste, that the
Japanese had been recognized as the first and the most perfect Impressionists.” 13
Already in 1874, shortly after Duret’s return from Japan, Manet was imitating this
oriental brushwork. A drawing preserved at the
British Museum of Art is a typical example (ill.15).
On the same sheet of paper appear the head of a
raven prepared as an illustration for Mallarmé’s
translation of Edgar Allen Poe’s poem “The Raven,”
some awkward imitations of Japanese painters’ seals,
and the head of the Japanese Spaniel “Tama” that
Duret had brought from Japan. The “tache hardi”
(bold dripping) of The Raven was applauded by
Ernest Chesneau in 1878 as a successful Japonisant
achievement. It is also well known that in his later
paintings, Manet avoided retouching, preferring
instead to repaint the whole canvas spontaneously.
To “fix a vision upon the first attack, with rapidity,
boldness, gracefulness and confidence” was what
Duret and Manet meant by “impressionistic” execu-
tion.14 (15) Édouard Manet, “Raven,
It is therefore no surprise that in his biography of Portrait of Tama, and Imitation of
Manet (1902), Duret drew a parallel between his Oriental Signatures,” 1875, brush
subject and Hokusai in order to convince his readers and pen with ink, transposed as lith-
that the “unfinished” quality of Manet’s work was a ograph, British Museum, London.
strength rather than a defect.

The drawings by Manet generally remain in the state of a sketch or a croquis. These
drawings were done in order to grasp a fleeting aspect, a movement or an eminent
detail. The slightest object or detail that interested him was immediately captured
on the paper. These drawings, which one can call instantaneous photographs, show
how surely Manet grasped the characteristics and the decisive movement to be sin-
gled out. To compare with Manet in this respect, I can find nobody else but
Hokusai, who knew how to combine simplification with a perfect determination of
character in his drawings, made upon first attack, in the Manga.15

Thus Manet’s “unfinished” brushwork was justified as an instantaneous fixation of

fugitive aspects of his subjects. Duret also explained his “impressionistic” manner in
terms of the “first attack” (“de prime saut”) of Hokusai. Of course, this explanation
would have lost much of its persuasive force if it had been known that Hokusai and oth-
er ukiyo-e craftsmen did not in fact make their drawings “de prime saut” or “saisi sur le
vif ” (by capturing life), but that their technique depended much more on “de chic,” that
86 INAGA Shigemi

is, a “memory of the hand” (as Baudelaire called it with deprecating intent). The appar-
ently improvised “dessin d’après nature” (sketches made after life) in the Manga were in
reality based more on the physical skill of the habituated hand, trained by the repetitive
copying of the master’s model, than on the direct observation of nature and the sponta-
neous capturing of its effects. In short, Duret’s attempt to authenticate “Impressionistic”
aesthetics by referring to Hokusai’s Manga proves to be baseless and positively mislead-
ing.
The third problem relates to color. Duret observed:

When we looked at Japanese images [in the prints], where the most contrasting and
harsh colors were laid side by side on the page, we finally realized that there was a
new procedure worth trying which would reproduce certain effects of nature that
we had neglected or thought impossible to render until then. For these Japanese
images which we had at first taken for a “bariolage”
were, in reality, quite faithful to nature. 16

“Bariolage” was the term chosen by the conservative

art critic Paul Mantz when he criticized in 1863 the vio-
lent tone of colors Edouard Manet had employed in his
Laura de Valence (ill.16). Here Duret tried to justify this
inharmonious combination of primary colors by insisting
on the faithfulness of the Japanese prints to nature. As a
privileged traveler to
Japan, Duret could
claim to be qualified to
testify to the “fidelité”
of Japanese landscape
ukiyo-e prints, in
(16) Édouard Manet, “Laura
which, as he put it,
de Valence,” 1862, oil on can-
“green, blue, red in vas, 125x92 cm, Musée
their brightest tones d’Orsay, Paris. (An example of
[were] juxtaposed “bariolage” as that was cri-
without any intermedi- tiqued by Paul Mantz.)
ate half-tone or transi-
tion.”17
Partly influenced by Duret’s debatable statement,
(17) Édouard Manet, “L’Argen- not only Monet, but also Manet went to Argenteuil to
teuille,” oil on canvas, 149x115 paint the landscape by juxtaposing “side by side,”
cm, Musée Tournay, Tournay. (An without attenuation, the most striking tones, just as
example of what Joris-Karl the Japanese saw nature with “vivid colors full of
Huysmans labeled “indigomanie.”) luminosity”(ill.17). The effect was so unnatural and
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 87

unfamiliar that even a friendly critic like J.-K. Huysmans ironically called it “indigo-
manie,” or an indigo-maniac disease.18 According to his diagnosis, the Impressionist
painters were suffering from a sort of “daltonisme”(color blindness). It was in the face of
such ill-natured criticism that Duret proposed the above-mentioned comparison of
Monet and the Japanese. In his opinion, it was not Impressionists’ eyes that were ill, but
that the European’s eye was too weak and too lazy to resist the truth of light effect experi-
enced in the “plein air” (open air). How valid is this statement?
Henry Smith has recently advanced the argument that without the importation of
the chemical pigment Berlin blue (Prussian blue), invented about 1706, the vivid color
expression in Hokusai’s Thirty-Six Views of Mt. Fuji would not have been possible.19 This
presents an example of interesting cross-purposes in cultural exchange. Contrary to
Duret’s fantasy, the blue of the “indigomanie” and the red of the “anilinmanie” (beni-
gurui) of the late ukiyo-e prints were by no means proof of the Japanese faithfulness to
color effects under open-air sunlight. Far from justifying the cause of Impressionist aes-
thetics, as Duret fancied, these chemical pigments, newly imported from Europe, bear
witness to the exotic color revolution Hokusai and his contemporaries were prepared to
undertake.

IV

In all respects that we have examined so far—

composition, drawing technique, and col-
oration—French Japonisant interpretations of
Hokusai proved to be strongly biased. Yet it can-
not be denied that these interpretations, however
distorted, did contribute to the development of
European art in the second half of the nineteenth
century.
We can identify some prominent fin de siècle
examples. Emile Bernard’s experimental
(18) Émile Bernard, “Les Bretonnes
composition, Les Bretonnes dans la prairie (1888)
dans la prairie,” oil on canvas, 1888,
(ill.18), which intentionally throws off the yoke 74x92 cm, Private Collection.
of linear perspective by scattering the human fig-
ures across the pictorial plane, is evidently an application of the compositional design we
observed earlier in the Manga pages (ill.19). Bernard himself complained that this
arrangement was plagiarized by Paul Gauguin in his La Vision après le sermon (1888),
where the composition is divided into two separate parts by the trunk of a tree (ill.20).
Gauguin inserted a sketch of this painting in a letter to Vincent Van Gogh in Arles.
Probably inspired by this spatial effect, the latter also created Le Sémeur (1888). Both of
these works have a strong affinity with the way Hokusai, and Hiroshige after him, rein-
88 INAGA Shigemi

(20) Paul Gauguin, “La Vision après le sermon,” oil on

(19) Katsushika Hokusai, “Sumō canvas, 73x92 cm, Scottish National Museum,
Wrestlers,” Manga, vol.1, 1814. Edinburgh.

(21) Katsushika Hokusai, “Kōshū Mishima goe”

(The Mishima Pass), Thirty-Six Views of Mount (22) Paul Cézanne, “La Montagne Sainte-
Fuji, ca. 1831. Victoire,” oil on canvas, 65.5x81.7 cm,
Metropolitan Museum. New York.

terpreted Western linear perspective. Even Paul Cézanne, who seems to have ostenta-
tiously opposed Gauguin’s japonisme, still bears some resemblance to Hokusai in his
transgression of academic linear perspective. Comparisons between La Montagne Sainte
Victoire (ill.22) and The Mishima pass (ill.21) or between Jas de Bouffan (ill.24) and
Hodogaya (ill.23) do reveal some parallels between the two artists in their efforts to
“destroy Renaissance pictorial space,” to use Pierre Francastel’s terminology.20
As for the juxtaposition of primary colors, it is evident that Van Gogh also suc-
cumbed to “indigomanie.” Le Pont de Langlois (ill.26), executed shortly after his arrival
in Arles, can be regarded as an application of the color effects Van Gogh had learned by
copying Hiroshige’s Evening Rainfall at the Bridge of Atake (ill.25), which he had mistak-
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 89

(23) Katsushika Hokusai,

“Hodogaya,” Thirty-Six Views of
Mount Fuji, ca. 1834.

(24) Paul Cézanne, “Les Maronniers au Jas de

Bouffan,” 1885-86, oil on canvas, 73x92 cm, Art
Institute, Minneapolis.

(25) Vincent Van Gogh, “Copie

d’après une estampe japonaise,” (copies
after Utagawa Hiroshige’s “Ohashi
Atake no Yūdachi” (Evening Rainfall at
the Bridge of Atake, in One Hundred
Views of Edo), 1887, oil on canvas,
(26) Vincent Van Gogh, “Le Pont de Langlois,” oil on
73x54cm, Vincent Van Gogh Fond-
canvas, 54x65 cm, Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo.
ation, Amsterdam.
90 INAGA Shigemi

en to be a print by Hokusai. Van Gogh might have been inspired not only to contrast
the vivid blue of the water and the yellow of the bridge, but also to identify the Japanese
climate with the Midi in France, by the following passage on Monet that Théodore
Duret published in his Critique d’Avant garde:

It was not until the Japanese albums came into our hands that painters could juxta-
pose on the canvas a roof of audacious red, a yellow road, and the blue of water.
Before the model was provided by the Japanese, it was impossible. . . . Every time I
contemplate the Japanese albums, I say to myself, yes, it was just in that way that
nature appeared to my eye, in a luminous and
transparent atmosphere. . . without attenuation
or gradation, [just as] in the Midi of the France,
where every color appears glaring and intense in
summer.21

Finally, as for the “oriental” brushwork that Manet

tried to master, some of the sketches by Vincent Van
Gogh in which he accentuated dots suggest his appro-
priation of Hokusai’s vocabulary, which was accessible
to him in illustrations published in the monthly Le
Japon artistique (ill.27). As Ursula Perucchi Petri has
observed, these expressive brushstrokes were tactfully
transposed into lithographs by Toulouse Lautrec,
Edouard Vuillard, and Pierre Bonnard.22 Members of
the Nabis group are known to have subscribed to Le (27) Le Japon artistique, vol. 1 cov-
Japon artistique, and Bonnard himself was known by er (May 1888).
the sobriquet “Nabi très japonard.”

This inquiry into Japonisme finally suggests a new hypothesis about the spiritual
inspiration that Hokusai and other Japanese print craftsmen provided to Vincent Van
Gogh. In a famous passage sent to his brother Théo, Van Gogh wrote:

If we study Japanese art, we see a man who is undoubtedly wise, philosophic, and
intelligent who spends his time doing what? In studying the distance between the
earth and the moon? No. In studying Bismarck’s politics? No. He studies a single
blade of grass (“un seul brin d’herbe.”) But this blade of grass leads him to draw
every plant, then great views of the countryside in every season, then animals, then
human figures. So he passes his life, and life is too short to do the whole. Come
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 91

now, isn’t it a true religion that these simple

Japanese teach us, who live in nature as though
they themselves were flowers.23

Dr. Kōdera Tsukasa has demonstrated that the “blade

of grass” refers directly to the words in the “programme”
written by S. Bing for the first volume of Le Japon artis-
tique (May 1888), which Théo sent to Vincent in Arles.
An anonymous illustration inserted in the same issue
(ill.28) must also have been the source of direct inspira-
tion. Bing says, “There is nothing in creation, not even
the smallest blade of grass, which does not deserve a
place in the elevated conception of art.”24 The encyclo-
pedic view of nature, ranging from natural history to (28) Unknown Japanese artist,
human figures in the countryside, may reflect the idea “Un brin d’herbe,” reproduced
shared by the European Japonisant circle in their view of in Le Japon artistique (May
the Manga, as we have already seen. The name of 1888).
Hokusai represented for Vincent this image of Japanese
artist as a philosopher.
In addition, an illustration of crabs attributed to Hokusai in the same issue of Le
Japon artistique was also borrowed by Vincent. The image of a crab thrown upside down
has been interpreted as a metaphor of Vincent’s own personal struggle for existence.25
Along with this idyllic image of Japan, Vincent fancied that Japanese artists lived in
an idealized community sustained by
mutual emulation and brotherhood.
He wrote to Emile Bernard,

For a long time I have thought it

touching that Japanese artists
often used to exchange works
among themselves. It certainly (29) Vincent Van Gogh, album of drawings, sketch
proves that they liked and sus- in letter 492, Rijksmuseum Vincent Van Gogh,
tained each other, that a certain Amsterdam.
harmony reigned among them,
and that they were really living in
some sort of fraternal communi-
ty, quite naturally, and not beset
with intrigues.26 (30) Utagawa Hiroshige II, Shinsen kachō no kei
(Glimpses of Newly Selected Flowers and Birds),
The exchange of works that Van 1850s (copy owned by Vincent Van Gogh,
Gogh believed Japanese artists to have Rijksmuseum Vincent Van Gogh, Amsterdam).
92 INAGA Shigemi

practiced remains a mystery among Japanese spe-

cialists. Dr. Kōdera mentioned one copy of
Shinsen kachō no kei in Vincent’s possession as a
possible source of inspiration27(ill.29-30). That
album of birds and flowers, however, was painted
by a single artist, and therefore it does not hint at
“exchange” among artists. I would like to
advance the hypothesis that Vincent Van Gogh
might have had the occasion to see examples of
surimono prints put together and bound as an
album. One such specimen is still preserved
intact today at the Cabinet des estampes in the
Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (ill.33). This
example, comprising three albums (Ten
[Heaven], Chi [Earth], and Jin [Man]) assembled
by the satirical kyōka poet Nagashima Masahide,
is a memoir of his collaboration with other poets.
It contains rare surimono prints made by such (31) Katsushika Hokusai, “Billing for a
famous contemporary ukiyo-e designers as Kitao Kabuki Play,” 19.6x13.7 cm, 1804, con-
Masanobu, Kubo Shunman, Torii Kiyonaga, tained in the album assembled by
Kitagawa Utamaro and (especially)Hokusai Nagashima Masahide (see ill. 32).
(ill.31). This album was rediscovered by Kondō
Eiko and has been studied in detail by Asano Shūgō, but I am responsible for the
hypothesis that it had been seen by Van Gogh.28
Van Gogh might have seen this set of albums while he was in Paris, because it

(33) Santō Kyōden, alias Kitao Masanobu,

(32) Surimono Album assembled and com-
“Crossing the Sumida River,” 40.2x50.9 cm
posed by Nagashima Masahide. Ancient
with original calligraphy by Yomo no Utagaki
Collection of Théodore Duret, Od. 171,
on the upper part. Ancient Collection of
Cabinet des éstampes, Bibliothèque nationale
Théeore Duret, Od.171, Cabinet des éstam-
de France, Paris.
pes, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 93

belonged to Théodore Duret, who purportedly had his collection deposited with
Maurice Joyant. Joyant was to take over the direction of the Montmartre branch of the
Société Goupil after the death of Théodore Van Gogh. It is difficult to imagine that
Vincent would have missed the chance to view this collection while he was in Paris. The
Van Gogh brothers would also have had the chance to examine similar specimens at
Bing’s shop, to which they had free access. One glimpse at such an album might well
have been enough to convince Vincent that the Japanese exchanged work with each oth-
er, as many prints of different sizes by several artists were assembled on the cover and in
the leaves of the albums (ill.32). Van Gogh expressed his desire to realize such an album
in his letter to Théo: “The albums of six or ten or twelve pen sketches, are like the
Japanese albums of original sketches. I really want to make one like this for Gauguin,
and another for Bernard” (492) 29(ill.29).
Here we can see two related reasons why Vincent repeatedly declared that “the future
of new art (‘art nouveau’) is in the Midi.” On the one hand, the climate and light effects
in Arles were said to be comparable to that of Japan; on the other hand, the ideal com-
munity of artists was now under construction in Arles at Vincent’s own initiative, follow-
ing what he thought to be the Japanese model. From this conjunction—possibly suggest-
ed by Duret’s writing—Arles was finally identified with
Japan. “Here in Arles, I am in Japan” (letter to Wilhelmina
W.7). Was Vincent dreaming of becoming a Dutch
“Hokousaï” in Arles, disguising himself as a Buddhist
monk?

VI

In 1896, Edmond de Goncourt published his last book,

Hokousaï, as a series of “biographies des impressionnistes
japonais.” It must be noted that shortly before, S. Bing had
publicly protested in La Revue blanche that his project of
publishing a translation of a life of Hokusai had been
hijacked by Hayashi Tadamasa (ill.34) and Edmond de
Goncourt.30 That a controversy arose over precedence in
publishing such a book suggests two things. First, Hokusai
was of considerable importance in the fin de siècle
European art market. Second, the biography of Hokusai,
initiated by Kobayashi Bunshichi and completed by
Kyoshin Iijima Hanjūrō, published in Japanese in 1893, (34) Portrait of Hayashi
was central to this dispute from the outset.31 It turns out Tadamasa, 1900, reproduced
from these circumstances that the first serious historical in Bulletin de la Société fran-
research on the life of Hokusai in Japan had been under- co-japonaise à Paris, 1903.
94 INAGA Shigemi

taken at the instigation of French requests.

In the same year, 1896, Michel Revon published the doctoral dissertation he had pre-
sented to the Faculty of Letters of l’Université Sorbonne as Étude sur Hokousaï. While
Edmond de Goncourt’s biography of Hokusai represented the end of Japonisant interpre-
tation, the latter signaled a change in perspective. Goncourt had enthusiastically com-
pared Hokusai’s erotica, identified as Kinoyé no Komatsou, to a sketch of a hand attrib-
uted to Michelangelo, using such emotional expressions as “cette force...cette énergie de
la linéature qui fait du dessin d’un verge un dessin égal à la main du Musée du Louvre,
attribuée a Michel Ange.” 32 In contrast, Michel Revon sought to rectify French
Japonisants’ excessive praise of Hokusai, saying in his conclusion that cultivated Japanese
were no less astonished by French admiration of Hokusai than the French would be if
informed that the Japanese put Gavarni at the summit of
French Art.
The world’s fair held in Paris in 1900 contributed to
relativizing the Japonisant interpretations of Hokusai.
L’Histoire de l’Art du Japon, the first “official” version of
Japanese art history, published by the Japan Imperial
Commission for the Universal Exhibition in Paris, listed
forty or so ukiyo-e designers. Hokusai was treated much
as the others, in a short biographical summary of twelve
lines illustrated by a single plate. There was no discussion
at all of his significance in Japanese art history. The gap
between this “official” survey of Japanese art, which gave
pride of place to “national treasures” transmitted from
antiquity, and the European Japonisant amateurs’ view, (35) Portrait of Henri Focillon,
which privileged “vulgar” ukiyo-e and applied arts, was ca. 1935, reproduced in Relire
made decisively clear, even for the European public.33 Focillon, École nationale
In 1914, Henri Focillon(ill.35) published his supérieur des Beaux-Arts, Paris,
Hokousaï, and in the introduction he recapitulated the 1998
debate over evaluations of the artist’s place. Focillon was
not satisfied with maintaining a neutral position between the European view and
Japanese view. Nor did he agree with German scholar Woldemar von Seidlitz’s view,
which he criticized as a deviation from “historical sense” attributable to a confusion of
“outdated Japonisant principles” with a German “idealist preference.” Instead, Focillon
proposed to rehabilitate Hokusai by reaffirming his value as an artisan, thereby refusing
to yield to the “literary culture” of Japan’s most sophisticated connoisseurs.34
In the second edition of Hokousaï, published in 1925, Focillon added a new preface.
In order to justify his view of Hokusai, in the midst of these oscillating estimations,
Focillon refers to Okakura Tenshin. At first glance, the choice is surprising, for Okakura
had been largely responsible for the conception of L’Histoire de l’Art du Japon, which con-
spicuously ignored Hokusai and denied the appropriateness of the high esteem he
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 95

enjoyed in Europe. But Focillon believed that Okakura had, in his book The Ideals of the
East, “rescued a probably fictive but nonetheless specific (“génial”) continuity—as a
structure—of an organic thinking” of the idea of Asia “as a common heritage, constitut-
ing the patriotism of the continent” (pp. i-ii). In this context, Focillon attempted to por-
tray Hokusai as the genius, representative of all Asian peoples, who made “Asian virtue
communicable to all human beings.” The words of this cosmopolitan art historian of the
interwar period stand as a testimony of the heyday of “world art history”

In the midst of our oscillating preferences, Hokusai remains intact. That is, he con-
serves in himself some of the permanent and profound traits of Asiatic soul, takes
them up to the highest degree of their expressive power, and makes them commu-
nicable to the whole of humanity. Hokusai is not only one of the greatest creators
of the living forms in history, but he belongs to the heroic order, he is one of the
artists who, being visible from all the points of the horizon, lets us know simultane-
ously his own singular genius, and the genius of his race, as well as something of
the eternal man.35

REFERENCES

Bing 1888
S. Bing, “Programme,” Le Japon artistique, 1ère année, 1 (May 1888).
Bing 1896
S. Bing, “La vie et l’œuvre de Hok’saï,” La Revue blanche (1er février, 1896), pp.
97-101.
Burty 1866
Philippe Burty, Chefs-d’œuvre des Arts industriels. Paris: P. Ducorcq, 1866.
Chesneau 1868
Ernest Chesneau, Les Nations rivales dans l’art. Paris: Didier, 1868.
Chûgoku Shinbun 1997
“Sekai no naka no ukiyo-e” 世界の中の浮世絵, Chūgoku Shinbun 中国新聞,
16 October 1997.
Duret 1882
Théodore Duret, “L’Art japonais, les livres illustrés, les albums imprimés
Hokousaï,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1882, 2ème période).
Duret 1885
Théodore Duret, Critique d’Avant garde. Paris: G. Charpentier, 1885.
Duret 1906
Théodore Duret, L’Histoire d’Édouard Manet et de son oeuvre. Paris: Charpentier et
Fasquelle, 1902, 1906.
96 INAGA Shigemi

Focillon 1914
Henri Focillon, Hokousaï (Collection Art et esthétique). Paris, 1914.
Focillon 1925
Henri Focillon, Hokousaï (Collection Art et esthétique), deuxième édition. Paris,
1925.
Francastel 1954 (1978)
Pierre Francastel, Peinture et société, Lyon, 1951; Paris, 1978.
Goncourt 1896
Edmond de Goncourt, Hokousaï. Paris: Bibliothèque-Charpentier, 1896.
Goncourt 1986
Edmond de Goncourt, Outamaro, Hokousaï. Paris: Union générale d’édition, 1986.
Gonse 1883
Louis Gonse, L’Art japonais. Paris: A. Quantin, 1883.
Huysmans 1975
Joris-Karl Huysmans, “Les Expositions des Indépendants en 1880,” L’art
moderne/Certain. Paris: Union générale des livres, 1975.
Iijima 1893
Iijima Hanjūrō 飯島半十郎, Katsushika Hokusai den 葛飾北斎伝, 2 vols. 蓬枢閣,
1893).
Inaga 1983
Shigemi Inaga,“La Réinterprétation de la perspective linéaire au Japon (1740-1810)
et son retour en France (1760-1910),” Actes de la recherches en sciences sociales, 49
(1983).
Inaga 1993
Inaga Shigemi, “Van Gogh no mita surimono?” ヴァン・ゴッホの見た摺り
物？, Hon no mado 本の窓 (December 1993), pp. 16-19.
Inaga 1996
Shigemi Inaga, “Impressionist Aesthetics and Japanese Aesthetics,” Kyoto Conference
on Japanese Studies [1994], International Research Center for Japanese Studies/The
Japan Foundation, 1996, vo1. I, pp. 307-319.
Inaga 1997
Inaga Shigemi 稲賀繁美, Kaiga no Tasogare: Edouard Manet botsugo no tōsō 絵画
の黄昏―エドゥアール・マネ没後の闘争 (Le crépuscule de la peinture: la
lutte posthume d’Édouard Manet). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 1997.
Inaga 2002
Shigemi Inaga, “Cognition Gaps in the Recognition of Masters and Masterpieces
in the Formative Years of Japanese Art History, 1880-1900.” In Michael F. Marra,
ed., Japanese Hermeneutics. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2002, pp. 115-
126.
Jarves 1876 (1974)
James J. Jarves, A Glimpse at the Art of Japan. New York: Hurd and Houghton,
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 97

1876; reprinted Tokyo: Tuttle, 1974.

Juliet-Bareau and Mitchell 1989
Wilson Juliet-Bareau and Breton Mitchell, “Tales of a Raven, The Origins and Fate
of Le Corbeau by Mallarmé and Manet,” Print Quarterly, 6:3 (September 1989),
pp. 258-307.
Kōdera 1990
Tsukasa Kōdera, Vincent Van Gogh, Christianity vs. Nature. Amsterdam: John
Benjamin, 1990.
Kondō 1990
Kondō Eiko 近藤映子, “Pari kokuritsu toshokanzō Mi happyō surimono arubamu
sankan ni tsuite” パリ国立図書館蔵未発表摺物アルバム三巻について, Hizō
ukiyo-e taikan 秘蔵浮世絵大観, vol. 8 (Bibliothèque nationale and Kōdansha,
1990).
Lafarge 1870
John Lafarge, “Notes on Japanese Art,” in Raphael Pumpelly, Across America and
Asia. New York: Leypoldt and Holt, 1870.
Mantz 1863
Paul Mantz, “Exposition du Bd. des Italiens,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1863, pre-
mière période.
Naruse 1977
Naruse Fujio 成瀬不二雄, “Edo kara Paris e” 江戸からパリへ, Kikan geijutsu 季
刊芸術 (Winter 1977), pp. 86-115.
Ōshima 1996
Ōshima Seiji 大島清次, Japonizumu: Inshōha to sono shūhen ジャポニズム―印
象派とその周辺, Kōdansha Gakujutsu Bunko, 1996.
Peternolli 1978
Giovanni Peternolli ジォヴァンニ・ペテルノッリ, “1800 nendai no Furansu
ni okeru Hokusai hyōka no hensen” 1800年代のフランスにおける北斎評価の
変遷, Ukiyoe geijutsu 浮世絵芸術, no. 58, pp. 3-18, 1978.
Peternolli 1979/1980
Giovanni Peternolli, “Edmond Goncourt ate no Hayashi Tadamasa mikan shokan
ni tsuite” エドモン・ド・ゴンクール宛の林忠正未刊書簡について, Ukiyo-e
geijutsu 浮世絵芸術, nos. 62-63 (1979/1980).
Petri 1976
Ursula Perucchi Petri, Die Nabis und Japan. München, Prestel Verlag, 1976.
Seidlitz 1910
Woldemar von Seidlitz, Geschichte des Japanischen Farbenholzschnitts, Dresden:G.
Kuhtmann
Smith 1998
Henry Smith ヘンリー・スミス, “Ukiyo-e ni okeru ‘Burū kakumei’” 浮世絵に
おける〈ブルー革命〉, Ukiyo-e geijutsu 浮世絵芸術, 128 (July 1998), pp. 3-
98 INAGA Shigemi

26. Yamaguchi kenritsu Hagi bijutsukan 山口県立萩美術館, Kokusai sinpojiumu

“Ukiyo-e: Tōzai no kakehashi” 国際シンポジウム「浮世絵―東西の架け橋
―」.
Van Gogh 1990
Vincent Van Gogh, Correspondance générale. Paris, Gallimard, [1960], 1990.

NOTES

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Third International Hokusai Conference,
Obuse, Nagano Prefecture, 19-22 April 1998.

1
The basic article on the subject remains Giovanni Peternolli 1978, pp. 3-18.
2
Burty 1866, p.209.
3
Chesneau 1868, pp. 421-422.
4
Inaga 1997, p. 277 ff.
5
Duret 1882, pp. 113-131; pp. 300-318.
6
Gonse 1883, pp. 289-290, 269-270.
7
Duret 1885. For the precise analysis, see Inaga 1996, vo1. i, pp. 307-319. A part of this paper is
repeated hereafter.
8
Lafarge 1870; Jarves 1876.
9
Ōshima 1996 (this book includes a commentary by Inaga Shigemi).
10
Naruse 1977, pp. 86-115.
11
Inaga 1983.
12
Duret 1882, p. 125; Duret 1885, p. 197.
13
Ibid., p. 167.
14
Cf. Juliet-Bareau and Mitchell 1989, pp. 258-307.
15
Duret 1906, p. 211.
16
Duret 1885, p. 67.
17
Mantz 1863, p. 383; Duret 1885, p. 17.
18
Huysmans 1975, pp. 103-104.
19
Smith 1998. An English version is to appear as Henry D. Smith II, “Hokusai’s Thirty-Six Views of
Mt. Fuji and the ‘Blue Revolution’ in Edo Prints,” in Gian Carlo Calza and John T. Carpenter, eds.,
Hokusai and His Age (Venice: International Hokusai Research Center, University of Venice, forth-
coming).
20
Francastel 1951; cf. Inaga 1983.
21
Duret 1885, pp. 63-67.
22
Petri 1976.
23
Van Gogh 1990. Lettre à Théo, 542 (September 1888). The following letters by Vincent Van Gogh
are from the same edition (referred to by the number of the letter.)
 The Making of Hokusai’s Reputation in the Context of Japonisme 99

24
Bing 1888.
25
The message “life is too short to do everything” was picked up by Kurosawa Akira in the episodes on
the life of Vincent Van Gogh included in his film Dreams.
26
B. 17 September 1888 (letter to Émile Bernard).
27
Kōdera 1990, p. 54.
28
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des éstampes, cote Od. 171-173. Kondô 1990, pp. 300-334.
29
Inaga 1993, pp. 16-19.
30
Goncourt 1896; Goncourt 1986 reprints the body of the text but omits the preface and catalogue of
the original edition. Bing 1896, pp. 97-101. On this dispute, see Peternolli 1979/1980, which gives
transcriptions of Hayashi’s letters to de Goncourt, preserved at the Département des manuscrits at
the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris.
31
Iijima 1893.
32
Goncourt 1986, pp. 100-101, 240.
“Et je parlais alors de la peinture érotique de l’Extrême-Orient, de ces copulations comme
encolérées, du culbutis de ces ruts renversant les paravents d’une chambre, de ces emmêlements
des corps fondus ensemble, de ces nervosités jouisseuses des bras, à la fois attirant et repoussant le
coït, de ces bouillonnements de ventres féminins, de l’épilepsie de ces pieds aux doigts tordus
battant l’air, de ces baisers bouche-à-bouche dévorateurs, de ces pamoisons de femmes, la tête
renversée à terre, la petite mort sur leur visage, aux yeux clos, sous leurs paupières fardées, enfin
de cette force, de cette énergie de la linéature qui fait du dessin d’une verge un dessin égal à la
main du Musée du Louvre, attribuée à Michel-Ange.”
The paragraph including the quoted passage has been omitted in the pre-war period Japanese transla-
tions independently made by Yone Noguchi and Nagai Kafū, probably to avoid censorship for the
sake of “bon moeurs.” The erotica in question was first attributed to Utamaro, then de Goncourt rec-
tified the error and attributed it to Hokusai.
33
See Inaga 2002, pp. 115-126.
34
Focillon 1914; 1925, pp. 29-42.
35
Focillon 1925, pp. ii-iv. The following is the original:
A travers ces oscillations de nos préférences, Hokousaï demeure intact. C’est qu’il conserve en lui,
c’est qu’il porte à leur plus haut degré de puissance expressive, c’est qu’il rend communicables à
toute l’humanité quelques-uns des traits permanents et profonds de l’âme asiatique. Il n’est pas
seulement un des plus grands créateurs de formes vivantes qui furent jamais, il appartient à l’or-
dre héroïque, il est au nombre de ces artistes, qui, visibles de tous les points de l’horizon, nous
font connaître, en même temps qu’un génie singulier, celui de leur race et quelque chose de
l’homme éternel.
100 INAGA Shigemi

要旨

北斎とジャポニズム

稲賀繁美

北斎の評価は疑う余地のないものだが、彼の人気は歴史的産物であ
る。学者の中には、彼が日本美術史上最高位の大家だと認めること
を躊躇する向きもある。とはいえ北斎は、とりわけ西洋諸国におい
ては、間違いなく最も著名な日本人画家である。数多くの北斎研究
によって彼の評価が正当化され確固たるものとされてきた。ところ
がその一方でそれらの研究は、なぜ北斎が日本美術の最も傑出した
ヒーローとして評価されたのかに関する社会的、歴史的なコンテク
ストをきちんと把握せずにすませてきた。十九世紀後半にヨーロッ
パに「ジャポニズム」が流行する状況下で、なぜ北斎が神格化され
たのかを問うことによって、いかなる条件が北斎の栄光を可能にし
たのかを解明したい。即ち、如何にして一介の浮世絵職人が、西洋
のミケランジェロ、ルーベンス、レンブラントの如き巨匠にも匹敵
するような東洋きっての大家として理想化されたのか？ あるいは
何故に、マネやゴッホのような西洋近代美術を代表するような人物
までもが、北斎をあれほどまでに賞賛したのか？