What We Cannot See | Metaglossia: The Translation World | Scoop.it

"What We Cannot See
Eh bien, éteignez donc un peu la lumière, pour voir.
By Colin MarshallNovember 7, 2026
Memoir & Essay


Did you know LARB is a reader-supported nonprofit?
LARB publishes daily without a paywall as part of our mission to make rigorous, incisive, and engaging writing on every aspect of literature, culture, and the arts freely accessible to the public. Help us continue this work with your tax-deductible donation today!


Donate


IN THE 1960S, many readers of Japanese literature in English translation were drawn in by the “Big Three” living novelists: Yasunari Kawabata, Yukio Mishima, and Jun’ichirō Tanizaki. Tanizaki died first, in 1965, a year after being favored to win the Nobel Prize (it went to Jean-Paul Sartre instead; Kawabata would win it three years later, becoming the first Japanese writer to do so). Born in 1886, Tanizaki was the oldest of the Big Three and the most rooted in the civilization of a Japan that was, by that point, almost completely effaced by the process some would call modernization, and others Westernization. Tanizaki’s relationship to that process followed a familiar arc for that particular generation, which came of age at the turn of the 20th century. For him, an early, undiscriminating preference for all things new and Western—practically equivalent terms at the time—eventually gave way to a mournful, somewhat defensive, and even ostentatious reverence for the old ways of life being cast off by his homeland.


“Most Japanese picture the author as a kimono-clad literary giant expounding on the essence of Japanese culture,” writes the celebrated architect Kengo Kuma in his foreword to Gregory Starr’s 2017 English translation of Tanizaki’s extended essay In Praise of Shadows. More so than Kawabata or Mishima, “our impression of Tanizaki is of a larger-than-life figure—a member of an older generation who lived in another universe and had an appreciation of the deepest aspects of the cultural milieu.” Indeed, by the time Kuma was born, in 1954, Tanizaki had already written virtually all the work on which his reputation rests, including the novels Naomi (1925), Some Prefer Nettles (1929), and The Makioka Sisters (1948). Those books treat seriously, if sometimes luridly, the theme of Japan’s transformation in a world dominated by the West. By comparison, In Praise of Shadows (1933), originally commissioned by a magazine and published in serial form, may at first seem insubstantial. And yet, some consider this brief meditation on domestic architecture, restaurant lighting, theater costumes, and wooden outhouses Tanizaki’s true masterpiece.


Take, for instance, the Japanologist René Sieffert, who in the preface to his French translation calls it a book “que je ne suis pas le seul à tenir pour son chef-d’œuvre” (“which I am not the only one to consider his masterpiece”). Éloge de l’ombre was the first version of Shadows—or rather, In’ei Raisan, to use its Japanese title—to appear in that language in 1977, the same year an English translation was first published in book form. The latter is the work of two translators: Edward G. Seidensticker, one of the notable American Japanologists originally brought east by the war and subsequent occupation, and the Australian scholar of Japanese literature Thomas J. Harper. Seidensticker’s first translated excerpts of Tanizaki’s essay ran in the Japan Quarterly in 1954 (two decades after it was published in Japan) and were picked up the following year by The Atlantic Monthly. Harper translated the remainder for the book that appeared in 1977, which, despite its patchwork assembly, has remained the gold standard among In Praise of Shadows’ English translations, due not least to the highly crafted quality of its prose.


Seidensticker and Harper’s version opens thus:


What incredible pains the fancier of traditional architecture must take when he sets out to build a house in pure Japanese style, striving somehow to make electric wires, gas pipes, and water lines harmonize with the austerity of Japanese rooms—even someone who has never built a house for himself must sense this when he visits a teahouse, a restaurant, or an inn.


That first line carried me along to read the rest of the slim, nondescript brown volume in its entirety, which I first discovered in the little-frequented Japanese literature stacks high up in my university’s library. At the time, I had no particular knowledge of Tanizaki’s work, nor of anything written by the Big Three. If memory serves, I was there in search of books by Kōbō Abe, the imaginative, obscenely jokey existentialist whose most widely known novel inspired the sixties art-house phenomenon Woman in the Dunes. But In Praise of Shadows has a way of capturing the non-Japanese imagination, as evidenced by its continuing reference and retranslation in the West. Since the 1977 version, two more translators have brought it into English: Starr in 2017, and now Michael P. Cronin, whose collection of translated Tanizaki pieces, In Praise of Shadows and Other Essays, came out this year.


These days, anyone with an interest in architecture who wants to build a traditional Japanese house will find themselves going to great pains to come up with ingenious means to install electricity, gas, water and other modern facilities in ways that will not disturb the austere harmony of the zashiki, the formal tatami room. If they have spent any time at all in traditional structures like teahouses, restaurants or inns, even a rank amateur will sense the challenge.


So begins Starr’s translation, which wastes no time in reflecting the difference in Western awareness of Japanese culture over the preceding six decades: notice that he doesn’t shy from including the word “zashiki,” in whose explanatory aside the bamboo mats known as tatami are assumed to be familiar enough to go without italics. Cronin renders the same passage as follows:


When someone with an interest in architecture has a new house built these days, it’s fashionable to install the electricity, gas, water and other conveniences in such a way as to harmonize with traditional Japanese tatami-mat rooms; even those who have not built their own homes notice similar efforts when they enter a traditional room in a restaurant or inn.


Like Seidensticker and Harper, and unlike Starr, Cronin preserves Tanizaki’s single opening sentence, employing a semicolon rather than an em dash. Tanizaki uses no such punctuation in the original: only commas separate clause after clause, all of which pile up to what can feel to modern readers like a great length. It may not have to his educated domestic audience of the mid-1930s, especially those who read it in monthly installments. Still, some must surely have been intimidated by In’ei Raisan’s full text, composed as it is of just 16 massive paragraphs. (They certainly look formidable to most non-native readers.) While no translator in any Western language, to my knowledge, has wholly resisted the temptation to break up its sentences, Cronin, like Eduard Klopfenstein in his 1987 German translation, leaves the paragraphs intact. However uneasy on the eyes, especially in our age of screen-scrolled text, it does lend a degree of visual logic to what at first seems an unpredictable drift from subject to subject. One block of text starts by comparing Chinese and Japanese paper with its Western equivalent, and ends with a consideration of dentists’ offices; another starts by comparing Japanese and Western ghosts, and ends with an image of women of olden times emitting darkness itself straight from their bodies, “like the Demon Spider.”


As that image suggests, while In Praise of Shadows may be essayistic in form, it remains the work of a novelist. Tanizaki has an evocative way of sketching a scene, an ability especially well conveyed by Seidensticker and Harper. Despite his prejudice against electric lighting, he admits that, “seen at dusk as one gazes out upon the countryside from the window of a train, the lonely light of a bulb under an old-fashioned shade, shining dimly from behind the white paper shoji of a thatch-roofed farmhouse, can seem positively elegant.” In the largest room of a remembered Kyoto teahouse, “an elderly waitress with shaven eyebrows and blackened teeth” kneels by a candle whose light gives way to a “lofty, intense, monolithic” darkness :different in quality from darkness on the road at night. It was a repletion, a pregnancy of tiny particles like fine ashes, each particle luminous as a rainbow.” And in his favorite kind of now-unbuildable bathroom, “with its long, narrow windows at floor level,” one can “listen with such a sense of intimacy to the raindrops falling from the eaves and the trees, seeping into the earth as they wash over the base of a stone lantern and freshen the moss about the stepping stones.”


These are not the elements of an argument, exactly, but if Tanizaki does make one, it goes something like this: by the early 1930s, Japan’s zeal for Western technology and aesthetics had made it difficult even to build a satisfactory traditional house, so poorly do accoutrements like glass windows and telephones comport with the ascetic nature of the structure itself. Bathrooms have become all but impossible, given the inevitable clash between bright ceramic tile and weathered wood. Like all such imported tools invented and refined to meet the needs of foreigners, the Western toilet inherently fails to suit Japanese sensibilities, or indeed the Japanese soul. Had Japan stayed its own course of development, however slowly, rather than being intimidated into rapidly assimilating the elements of a “superior” civilization, these problems could have been avoided. That would also have saved countless forms of vanishing traditional beauty, especially those predicated on the seductive partial concealment of weak illumination by candles and oil lamps: the soft shine of a lacquerware soup bowl; the whitened face (and, in Tanizaki’s childhood, blackened teeth) of a hostess; the majestic costumes of Buddhist priests and Noh theater performers; the mystery of a home’s recessed tokonoma alcove and the scroll painting and flower arrangement it frames, which direct lighting renders utterly banal.


The peoples of the West passed through their own long eras without electric lights or indoor plumbing. Why, then, did they not cultivate the same appreciation for shadows and darkness as the Japanese? Tanizaki offers two explanations. First, the Japanese, unlike drivingly progressive Westerners, have always lived more by reconciling themselves to their conditions than by attempting to “improve” those conditions, choosing to conceal deficiencies rather than eliminate them. (“What we cannot see, we assume does not exist,” as Cronin translates.) Second, their penchant for muted colors and dim lighting arises, to an extent unconsciously, from a desire to set off the tone of their skin. “[N]o matter how white a Japanese person may be, their whiteness is always slightly dusky,” writes Tanizaki in Cronin’s translation (henceforth quoted unless specified otherwise). Even heavily powdered women “cannot smother the dark shade at the base of their skin. You recognize it just as you recognize the bottom of a clear, blue lake when you survey it from a great height.” (Seidensticker and Harper: “as plainly visible as dirt at the bottom of a pool of pure water.”) A sole Japanese participant amid a gathering of white foreigners “is like a spot of ink on a sheet of white paper, and even the rest of us find it uncomfortable to see, considering that person to be rather an eyesore.”


This brings to mind Natsume Sōseki, the most acclaimed novelist of the generation before Tanizaki’s, who wrote about his self-perception while studying abroad in London: “I see a dwarf coming, a man with an unpleasant complexion—and he happens to be my own reflection in the shop window. I don’t know how many times I have laughed at my own ugly appearance right in front of myself.” Sōseki liked to describe his mind as “half-Western and half-Japanese,” and though he wrote that he was “impressed by the appropriateness of the term ‘yellow race,’” his time abroad may well have inspired a renewal of his own appreciation for Japanese culture. Shadows offers a paean to the ambience of the kawaya, or traditional latrine, in which Tanizaki notes how “Mr. Sōseki counted his morning bowel movement among the pleasures of life.” Later, discussing culinary matters, he cites praise for “the color of yōkan red-bean jelly” in Sōseki’s 1906 novel Kusamakura, or The Three-Cornered World. “Such depth and complexity of color is absolutely unknown in Western sweets. How naïve and one-dimensional whipped cream seems, by comparison!”


Tanizaki’s remarks on the consequences of Japanese skin and its coloration would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the thirties, and that sort of commentary isn’t limited to his own countrymen. In taking his country to task for its profligate use of electricity, he also includes an anecdote about Albert Einstein touring Japan. Apparently, Einstein pointed out the wastefulness of streetlights turned on at midday, as seen from the window of a train. When telling the story later, the Japanese publisher who accompanied him “added that Einstein was very attentive to that sort of thing, being Jewish.” Some readers will be bothered by what they see as stereotyping, and others by interruption of the piece’s flow. “His descriptions of lacquerware under candlelight and women in the darkness of the house of pleasure are perfect jewels; but would they not stand out to better advantage removed from the company of that murmuring bowl of soup and Einstein’s trip to Kyoto?” asks Harper in his afterword. “Yet to do so would drain the life of In Praise of Shadows, for Tanizaki’s ‘essay’ works in ways different from the Western essay, and demands the freedom of his seemingly haphazard style.”


Idiosyncratic though they may seem to Western readers, these qualities accord with a long-acknowledged literary genre in Asia: “zuihitsu or ‘following the brush,’ a Song-dynasty (960–1276) Chinese form characterized by seemingly random observations on everyday life,” as Wellesley professor of modern Japanese literature Eve Zimmerman explains in her afterword to Starr’s translation. “The zuihitsu’s startling and at times paradoxical depictions perfectly suited Tanizaki’s purposes.” Unable to rely on the solidity of the prose’s structure, the practitioner stands or falls on his control of its tone, the aspect of In Praise of Shadows with which translators have the most evident difficulty. In Japanese, it’s as if Tanizaki is thinking out loud, confidently yet tentatively. He displays a measured restraint even when accumulating detail after detail, admitting various qualifications and contradictions, or relating his frustrations, all with the lightest touch of irony, though translations usually make his voice more literary or emphatic. Seidensticker and Harper turn him into a 19th-century English essayist; Sieffert turns him into a 19th-century French one, though with enough syntactical loyalty that he often sounds Japanese nonetheless. Klopfenstein’s Tanizaki sounds like a serious, Horkheimer-style cultural philosopher; Atsuko Ricca Suga’s Italian version (in 1982’s Libro d’ombra, the title Elogio dell’ombra having already been used for a Jorge Luis Borges poetry collection) engages in more flights of lyricism, with the word “chiaroscuro” naturally at her disposal.


The Japanese poet Ryoko Sekiguchi, long active in France and the French language, tried her hand more recently. In collaboration with her translation partner Patrick Honnoré, she produced the often unsettlingly idiomatic, even conversational Louange de l’ombre in 2017, the year of Starr’s almost equally free English interpretation. It’s tempting to describe Cronin’s new In Praise of Shadows as aiming, in formality, above Starr but below Seidensticker and Harper. It is, in any case, the most scholarly English translation so far, which stands to reason given the translator’s résumé. An associate professor of Japanese studies at William & Mary, he previously published a translation of Tanizaki’s final novel The Maids (1962–63), as well as a study of early midcentury Osaka as represented in film and literature. His apparent fascination with Japan’s comparatively uncosmopolitan “merchant capital” may originate in the years he lived in the wider Osaka-Kobe conurbation, known as Hanshin, before beginning his academic career. Tanizaki’s life, too, can be divided into pre- and post-Hanshin periods: a Tokyoite born and raised, he moved west in middle age after the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake devastated the capital. There he discovered, or claimed to have discovered, the old-fashioned Japan of his childhood still carrying rustically on, far from the whirlwind of imported trend and fashion that was Tokyo.


As with many of Tanizaki’s perceptions, it wouldn’t do to take this at face value. As Cronin writes in his introduction, “The region was in fact an entry-point for modern popular culture and imports from the West—cinema, jazz, coffeehouse culture and more,” citing a critic who described it as “Japan’s America” in 1929. Along with Shadows, Cronin also includes translations of earlier pieces in which Tanizaki offers his observations of Osaka and Hanshin, as well as his memories of Tokyo. These do something to place the central essay in not just geographical but also historical context, which can become somewhat hazy in the more modernizing translations. That Tanizaki was writing before the war would be obvious to any Japanese reader from his vocabulary (and, trickier for the translator, the Chinese characters, or kanji, with which he represents it) alone: “kawaya,” for example, which Cronin suitably renders as “privy” where previous English translations had simply used “toilet.” He also restores Tanizaki’s attitude of speaking for not merely his countrymen but his entire race: “we Orientals” in Seidensticker and Harper became “Easterners” in Starr, while Cronin has both “we Easterners” and “we Asians.”


To be sure, the condition diagnosed by In Praise of Shadows hardly afflicted Japan alone. It was practically inevitable that I would start thinking about the essay again while living in South Korea, where I’ve spent more than 10 years now, and whose households routinely keep their fluorescent lighting on full blast well into the night. Tanizaki may have regarded his homeland as technologically disfigured by a combination of foreign coercion and genuine infatuation (of a kind he himself had experienced, despite never having traveled to the West). But here, Japan is seen as a country whose modernization proceeded comparatively on its own terms. Korea’s more harried transformation, many aspects of which were initiated under Japanese colonial rule in the first decades of the 20th century, offered not even the pretense of choice: especially after the Second World War, Korean civilization had to adapt or die, with economically revolutionary but culturally and intellectually deranging consequences. “Our thinking and way of life were borrowed,” said an anonymous Korean official quoted in The New Koreans: The Story of a Nation (2017) by longtime British expatriate Michael Breen. “Most majors we study were not created by us. Nor are the sports we play, the music we listen to, the movies we watch, or even the food we eat.” In sum, “it’s like we’re wearing shirts and pants that don’t fit.”


It’s no surprise that Tanizaki eventually put on a kimono, nor that In Praise of Shadows has also been published in Korean translation. While keeping generally faithful to the shape of the original Japanese sentences, as one can do more easily in Korean than in any other language, the poet Go Un-gi performs certain localizations in his 2005 translation, as when he changes “tsukemono ishi,” a stone traditionally used to weigh down a pickling container, to a stone about as heavy as “gimjang dol,” or one that would be used in the making of kimchi. This comes in the essay’s final section, where Tanizaki (irrelevantly, so the zuihitsu-uninitiated will assume) provides a complete recipe for kakinohazushi, a simple persimmon-leaf-wrapped salmon sushi eaten by the hill folk of Nara. “I was impressed by the ingenuity of those mountain people, so poor in resources, to have come up with this way of eating salted salmon,” he writes. “But then, by inquiring into various local foodways, one discovers that country folk have much more reliable palates than city folk these days and enjoy luxuries we cannot imagine.” No other translator has come up with quite as nuanced a translation of “kyoudo ryouri” as “foodways”—but then, none of their choices evoke the bulletin board at the local co-op either.


Any translation inevitably reflects something of its time, and that several new versions of In Praise of Shadows have appeared in the past nine years suggests a renewed interest in the ideas it presents compared to a generation ago. “The stunning emergence of Japan in the last few decades as a world leader in technological innovation, as well as the recent industrial awakening of Taiwan and Korea, exposes the idealism of Tanizaki’s notions,” writes the poet (and onetime Japan resident) Brad Leithauser in a New York Review of Books piece from 1985. “Those processes and products that so discomfited him would now seem to spring from economic imperatives that know no national boundaries. It was not Wester[n] but moder[n] technology—with its demands for assembly-line production and fungible goods—that left him feeling so woeful.” At that time, with the Japanese economic bubble looking unburstable, it would perhaps have seemed fatuous, if not insane, to speculate on “how different everything would be if we in the Orient had developed our own science,” as Seidensticker and Harper translate Tanizaki. “[W]ould not our myriads of everyday gadgets, our medicines, the products of our industrial art—would they not have suited our national temper better than they do?”


However difficult it is to answer, the question still compels interest. Quite possibly, as the fluorescent light of ostensibly global 21st-century modernity bleaches the mystique out of more corners of the world than ever before, even a hypothetical alternative path captures the imagination. Tanizaki himself saw his cause as mostly lost, closing In Praise of Shadows with a declaration that he wants only to “extend the eaves of that sanctuary called literature, darken its walls, push back into the shadows those things that have been overexposed, and strip away useless decoration. It need not be done to every house—just one will do. To discover what it would be like, we must first try turning out the lights.” Seidensticker and Harper: “[P]erhaps we may be allowed at least one mansion where we can turn off the electric lights and see what it is like without them.” Sieffert: “Pour voir ce que cela peut donner, eh bien, je m’en vais éteindre ma lampe électrique.” Sekiguchi and Honnoré: “Eh bien, éteignez donc un peu la lumière, pour voir.” Klopfenstein: “Und um zu sehen, was dabei herauskommt, lösche ich probeweise einmal das elektrische Licht.” Ricca Suga: “Per cominciare, spegniamo le luci. Poi, si vedrà.” Each of these translators captures a certain aspect of Tanizaki’s characteristic rhetorical flourish, but many angles remain for others to illuminate.


LARB Contributor


Colin Marshall is a Seoul-based essayist on cities, language, and culture. He is the author of the books 한국 요약 금지 (“No Summarizing Korea,” 2024)...
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/junichiro-tanizaki-shadows-translations-cronin-starr-seidensticker-harper/
#metaglossia
#metaglossia_mundus