● Article ●The Consequences of the Taisho Era’s
Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi’s Endorsement of the
School Drama Ban
Takeo FUJIKURA
Abstract
Shoyo Tsubouchi（1859-1935）was the first person in Japan who endeavored topromote child-participating drama with educational justification both through his writing
and demonstration activities during the Taisho Era. His main child drama concept,
Kateiyo Jidogeki or Child Drama for Domestic Presentation, was his unique strategic
configuration of child drama that attempted to divorce the image of child drama fromthat of the negative conventional adult theatre practice which was prevalent in Japan at
the time.
Tsubouchi s endeavor became a major impetus to the Taisho child drama trend,
especially in the school setting. However, the result of incorporating his theory into theJapanese school system ultimately led to a series of government interventions which
resulted in the Minister of Education, Ryohei Okada s prohibitive ordinance of 1924
which was known as the School Drama Ban. Surprisingly, Tsubouchi approved theminister s school drama ban.
This article investigates the content and the consequences of negotiations
surrounding the incorporation of Tsubouchi s dramatic activity into the schools among
teachers, government, and Tsubouchi himself in the midst of the Taisho school drama
trend. The article examines both the influence of Tsubouchi s child drama concept
and the conflicts within Tsubouchi himself that culminated in his approval of Minister
Okada s ordinance.

Background of the Issue
Child drama in Japan did not receive special attention as a fieldindependent of adult theatre until the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
25

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

It began with a production of adapted European fables in 1903 and grew
gradually, producing indigenous drama for an audience of upper middle
class families in a few major cities. Two of the obvious and importantcharacteristics of early Japanese child drama in the Meiji Era were 1）It
was always performed by adult professional actors with an infusion of adulttaste and national ideology, and 2）The content and the form were to a great
extent dictated by the mode and styles of Kabuki. This was due to Kabuki s
popularity during the Edo era under the government s isolationist policy.
One more important point to be remembered is the Japanese society s
strong antipathy against commoners dramatic activity despite Kabuki s
popularity. Shizuko Koyama illustrates the complex Japanese attitude toward
dramatic activity in that, though drama itself was looked at as a sign ofdeterioration, household conduct, such as taking children to see［whatwas thought to be］ vulgar plays or variety shows, singing worldly folksongs［usually of love affairs］or playing the shamisen or koto had been thecustomary habits of the Japanese at least until the late Meiji Era （130）.
Indeed, it was quite natural for Japanese people to see and discuss a dramatic
production with household members even though the production was
done by professional players who were labeled as kawara kojiki （riverbed
beggars - a derogatory term often applied to Kabuki players）. It is fair to say
that, in actuality, play appreciation was tacitly left to private pleasure withina family or to the discretion of an individual. However, it was not an issue tobe seriously discussed or encouraged in formal public context.
This attitude toward actors can clearly be seen in the definition of
Kabuki-mono or Kabuki people in the Kabuki Encyclopedia. This
source indicates that those people who were involved in theatre activity werereferred to as people who are prodigal ruffians or grotesquely fashioned
non-conformists who are outcasts of the feudalistic system （Hattori et al.
120）. They were the people who made a living exposing themselves, and,in Japanese connotation much influenced by Confucianism, disgracing
themselves In this sense, they were often compared to prostitutes who wereconsidered to make their living in the same way.1
Thus, it is quite understandable that there was a distinct boundary
between these outcasts and common people just as there was a distinct
difference between the social classes. Theatre activity by commoners,
26

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

especially by children, was considered appalling because those participants
went beyond the borders of the commoners life and into the world of
outcasts. It was unorthodox to pursue drama in the educational scene because
it was the business of outcasts, the riverbed beggar. It was quite naturalthat dramatic activities by children were out of the question.
In 1912, Japan entered the Taisho Era. During this era, there was anincreasing influx of contemporary foreign thought, and trends towards childcentered movements and women s liberation activities were enhanced andappreciated. Though the negative view on dramatic activity continued, there
was a gradual shift in people s view on the significance of child-centeredactivity and family education centering on women as the children s educators.
During this transition, Shoyo Tsubouchi（1859-1935）became the first
person who insisted upon the significance of child drama for educational
purposes in Japan. In 1921, he began endeavoring to disseminate child drama
designed to be performed by children using their own initiative without
adult direction. He also gave child drama a new position as part of homeeducation with mothers as the facilitating agent. His main strategic concept
for the promotion of child drama, called Kateiyo Jidogeki （Child Drama
for Domestic Presentation）, was his attempt to confine children s dramatic
activities to the home setting with parents and siblings as the only audience
thereby discarding all the ostentatious elements of conventional adult drama
and encouraging children s creative initiative. He also incorporated many
American and European predecessors theories to support his theories ofchild participating drama and protect them from social prejudice.2
In his first treatise on the subject, Jidokyoiku to Engeki（ Child
Education and Drama ）in 1923 , he elaborated on many advantages ofchildren s dramatic activities, frequently referring to American examples
while simultaneously warning against the risks of misleading children by
the conventionally negative Japanese conception of drama. Along with thistreatise, Tsubouchi created and published several play collections for children
so that his concept of child drama could be practiced by children. In addition
to his writing activities, Tsubouchi embarked on actual demonstrations of hischild drama using adult actresses and touring several major cities in Japan.
Due to his lack of practical experience with children and some of thesocial restrictions of the time, both his theories and practice kept vacillating.3
27

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

Nevertheless, as a result of his endeavor, school drama became extremely
popular and there arose a school drama trend throughout Japan. Many
teachers and leaders of child drama began to arbitrarily interpret his concept
to suit their own tastes and needs.
Eventually some of the schools began to assume an extreme
performance style. Several schools began producing large-scale extravagant
public performances with admission charges, while other schools began togive performances sponsored by companies. During each of these extravagant
public performances, government surveillance was conducted in order toprevent the schools deviation from educational principles. Subsequently,
these government interventions resulted in the Minister of Education,
Ryohei Okada, issuing in 1924 a government ordinance which wascommonly known as the School Drama Ban. Surprisingly, Tsubouchi, who
had been striving to promote child drama activity approved of the minister sschool drama ban.
In this article, I will investigate the content of the Taisho school drama
trend as ramifications of Tsubouchi s child drama endeavor and analyze
these hegemonic struggles among teachers, government, and Tsubouchi thus
clarifying the negotiations surrounding the incorporation of dramatic activity
into the schools. In doing so, I intend to reveal the conflicts within Tsubouchi
himself that culminated in his approval of Minister Okada s ordinance.

School Drama Trend: Its Contributing Factors and Influences
When Shoyo Tsubouchi s Kateiyo Jidogeki Dai Ni Shu（Child Drama
for Domestic Presentation II）was published in March 1923 and Jidokyoiku to
Engeki（Child Education and Drama）in April 1923, the popularity of school
drama production approached a climax.
In addition to Tsubouchi s activities, several other factors had
contributed to the popularity of school drama. In 1917, an elementary school
teacher, Kuniyoshi Obara, began incorporating drama into his elementary
school teaching in Hiroshima for students integral growth as humanbeings （Nihon Gakkogeki Kyokai 436）. He was later hired by Masataro
Sawayanagi at the Seijo Elementary School in Tokyo.4 In April 1923, thesame month as that in which Tsubouchi published his Jidokyoiku to Engeki,28

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

Obara published Gakko Gekiron（Theory of School Drama）, in which helegitimized the effects of school drama on children. Along with Tsubouchi sbook, Obara s text became a leading force promoting school drama activities.
As Obara acknowledged later in an interview for Shonen Engeki, he wasmuch influenced by Tsubouchi s Child Drama for Domestic Presentation
Concept and used the content of Tsubouchi s articles as a source ofinspiration and guidance for his book（Ochiai Obara Kuniyoshi Sensei ni
30）.
Obara s Theory of School Drama, with its justification of drama activity,
paralleled Tsubouchi s child drama theory with a few exceptions. The majordifference was that Obara, coming exclusively from a school environment,
never considered confining the school drama to a closed environment. Thisdifference foreshadows the inevitable incorporation of parents and other
adults as audience, something Tsubouchi at first did not anticipate.
It was mostly at gakugeikai（school subject demonstration meetings）
or at some anniversaries where school drama was produced（Nagano 24）.
One of the original purposes of gakugeikai was to facilitate participationof parents as witnesses of school activities（Yamamoto and Konno, Kindai
Kyoiku 349）; its emergence reflected a new social recognition of katei s（home s）supplemental role to schools. Gakugeikai aimed at broadening
the communication between the school and katei（home）by having theparents participate in school activities （349-351）or, as Yamamoto andKonno stated, the government originally aimed at not only indoctrinating
the children but even their parents through gakugeikai （Taisho Showa
Kyoiku vol. 2 197）.
Since Japanese school drama evolved in close interconnection withparental participation, its tendency towards open performance in catering
to an audience of many parents was inevitable. Tsubouchi had initiallyenvisioned child drama performed privately in front of an intimate family
audience, but there were hundreds or even thousands of unfamiliar parents
present on occasions such as gakugeikai, and it could not avoid assuming an
air of a public open performance. Obara could anticipate this inevitability,
but Tsubouchi seemed unaware that eventually the audience would become ahuge obstacle to the realization of his published ideal for child drama.
Given Taisho New Education s main concern of the encouragement
29

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Banof children s self-initiated activities （Nakano 10）, drama came into thelimelight as one of the most meaningful activities of gakugeikai. Tsubouchis endorsement and demonstration productions satisfied Taisho New
Education s search for a legitimate new educational means, and childparticipating drama began to be practiced by such progressive teachers as
Obara, making school drama one of the most thriving activities in private
elementary schools. Beginning with Seijo Elementary School, many private
schools, especially in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, began energeticallyincorporating drama activities in gakugeikai. Gradually, this trend was
adopted in public schools as well.
Another major factor that influenced the trend toward school drama
was the rising popularity of Takarazuka Shojo Kageki（Takarazuka Girls
Operetta Company）. The Takarazuka Girls Operetta Company produced
many of Tsubouchi s child drama pieces. At first, Tsubouchi praised theircreed as an appropriate method to nurture and cultivate children s cultural
taste through their interest in operetta （ Airashiki Shojo Kageki 455）.
However, from the mid-Taisho Era on, this company gradually revealedcommercial entertainment enterprise characteristics, including the gaudy
theatrical elements typical of large-scale theatres（Nihon Gakkogeki Kyokai434）. In fact, though it was called a girls operetta, it was actually adultwomen s entertainment business. Witnessing them Tsubouchi criticized,
they are too erotic and grotesque without much innocence but filled withadult air and taste （ Nanigotomo OmotoshiteYonenki Kara 5）. Ironically,
this erotic and grotesque quality filled with adult air and taste satisfied
a certain demand of gakugeikai. Yamamoto and Konno maintained thatgakugeikai embraced a carnivalesque aspect as an emotional outlet for people
who often lived a routine life（Taisho Showa Kyoiku vol. 2 170-172）. The
gakugeikai was extremely popular among the local people and sometimes
its festivity went beyond the government s tolerance（170）5
Ordinances that banned school excesses, even in the Meiji Era, cited
gakugeikai s wild festive atmosphere. In 1909, the Minister of Education,
Eitaro Komatsubara, issued a major school drama ban. According to
the content of this ordinance, although drama was not a regular subject
demonstrated at gakugeikai in the Meiji Era, it had become a popularside activity produced for the purpose of enlivening the atmosphere30

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54（Komatsubara）. Gakugeikai was embraced as an outlet for people s potential

festive energy, and drama or drama-like activity was the most fitting means
for this emotional explosion. The ordinance also stated that this tendency
was not limited to urban areas, that cases were reported in local schools
as well （Komatsubara）.
The Takarazuka Company s extravagant stage sets and costumes
appealed to the popular desire for this kind of festivity, especially in the
Taisho Era, an age of consumption that enjoyed the influx of many Westerngoods and ideas. In contrast to Tsubouchi s original, somewhat ascetic andnon-decorative ideal of child drama designed only to encourage children s
imagination, Takarazuka Girls Operetta Company exerted great influenceby unleashing the desire for the extravagant visual aspects of dramatic
performance. Consequently, despite Tsubouchi s objections, the Girls
Operetta Company gained extreme popularity, impacting teachers andchildren all over the country. While in principle, Takarazuka s commerciallybased stage factors directly conflicted with Tsubouchi s ideal child drama
concept, the reality was that Tsubouchi s demonstrational performances, with
their elaborate rendering on the stage, looked no different from Takarazuka sluxurious productions.6 As a consequence, it is easy to imagine that many
Tsubouchi advocates used the Takarazuka stage as their school drama model,
complete with its gaudy costumes, heavy makeup, and product orientation,
sometimes even charging admission.

Ramification of School Drama Trend: The Child Drama Debate
The school drama trend, together with other free art movements,
inspired the formation of two major art education associations. In April
1923 , Geijutsu Kyoikukai（ the Committee for Art Education ）was
established in Tokyo, followed in July of 1924 by Geijutsu Kyoiku Kyokai（The Art Education Association）in Osaka.7 The Geijutsu Kyoikukai wasorganized with Masataro Sawayanagi as the chairman and Tsubouchi served
as a member of the advisory board. The committee dealt not only with drama
but with art education in general and began publishing the monthly journal,
Geijutsu Kyoiku（Art Education Journal ）. Similarly, the Geijutsu Kyoiku
Kyokai published Geijutsu to Kyoiku（Journal of Art and Education）. Although31

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

these two journals published articles on art education in general, school
drama was their major topic.
One significant phenomenon apparent in the articles was that childdrama, including school drama, was finally being discussed seriously andopenly from multiple perspectives. Not only had it become a topic for open
discussion, but a new alternative had arisen for its presentation: domesticstyle drama. Many constructive discussions went beyond simply listing thepros and cons of child drama, and this advancement was no doubt due inpart to the influence of Tsubouchi s Domestic Child Drama Theory.
In late November 1922, Tokyo Nichi Nichi Magazine published a special
serialized feature on the theme, Should Children be Encouraged to Perform
on Stage ? In one issue Sozo Kurahashi expressed a strong objection tochildren s participation in the public open stage.8 While appreciating thesubstantial significance of child drama and hoping that it be practiced
appropriately at schools and in katei（home）, he disapproved of expos［ing］children to the pleasure-seeking eyes of adult strangers （ Butai ni
Tataserukoto wa ）. His concern was that children experience unnecessarystress when confronting an audience of adult strangers. He offered six reasons
why open drama was not appropriate for children. 9 These were similar towhat Tsubouchi had anticipated in his book such as misleading them toimitate professional actors and fostering children s self-conceit. In conclusion,
Kurahashi expressed great respect for Tsubouchi s decision to include theword kateiyo （domestic purpose）in the name of his child drama concept
and opposed showcasing children not only in theatres but also in any public
performance. The only place where child drama can be beneficial, according
to Kurahashi, was within katei, kindergarten, elementary schools, and［among］familiar friends （ Butaini Tataseru Koto wa ）. The influence of
Tsubouchi s domestic drama concept was clearly reflected in this discussion.
Kurahashi s article was one of the earliest published discussions
wherein the alternative of closed drama, as opposed to open drama, wassuggested by a school teacher. This issue of child drama would be further
expanded, and a variety of other constructive opinions and observations
would be proposed.
For example, the journal Josei（The Woman）in March 1923 publishedarticles under the title, Jidogeki wo Jido ni Enzeshimeru kotono Kahi
32

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54（Pros and Cons of Children s Participation in Child Drama）. These fivearticles presented various alternatives, personal experiences, and objective
observations.10
Later they were reintroduced in an abbreviated form in the first issueof Geijutsu Kyoiku（100-106）and the discussion continued in several otherjournals. With Tsubouchi s new alternative of closed child drama on thetable, the content of the child drama debate was certainly enriched andbecame more constructive, leaning towards a better compromise than simply
criticizing all child drama.

Diversified Implementations of Child Drama
While heated discussion continued over potential compromises in
the child drama debate and as more and more schools began to incorporate
dramatic activity into their school events, another important issue, how
to define educational, began to emerge. While most educators agreed
on the educational significance of child drama and the need to divorce its
image from that of professional acting, no agreement on the definition of
educational was reached in any of their discussions.11 The definition of
educational eventually became a crucial point of dispute that led to thedisintegration of school drama activity.
On the one hand, Genzo Ichikawa, the principal of the Fuchu Daiichi
Girls School, contended, As far as it［child drama］follows the directionof teachers and their principal, there should be no problem （ Ni Jouken ga
Soroeba ）. Others similarly implied that what is educational most likely
depends upon the judgment（or interpretation）of each school teacher and/or principal. As a result, among the school drama productions promoted as
educational, there was a variety of approaches and renderings, some ofwhich were considered questionable. As Geijutsu Kyoiku commented in Juneof 1923:…there are many productions whose purpose is questionable… weshould keep in mind that if we take this phenomena as a fashionablerage and deal with it simply as a carnival-like event, an important
aspect of this art education will be forgotten inducing harmful effects（ Gakkogeki no Mondai ）33

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

In fact, this kind of arbitrarily rendered definition of child drama led bothto a series of governmental interventions and a drastic shift in Tsubouchi s
attitude about child drama. But before an examination of these two results,
we should take a closer look at some of these teachers interpretations.
At the pinnacle of school drama, in June of 1924, Kyoiku no Seiki（TheCentury of Education）published a special issue titled Gakko Geki no Riron
to Jissai （The Theory and the Practice of School Drama ）. Among thearticles contributed by teachers, there was a great range of opinion regarding
the direction child drama should take. Entaro Noguchi, for instance, reported
that while he insisted upon educational consideration for school drama, otherteachers argued that there is no need because it would spoil drama andthat the sole act of seeking to achieve the essence of drama will inevitably
yield educational effects （ Shin Kyoiku to Gakko Geki 18）.
Teachers such as Haruo Chiba often interpreted school drama strictly
as an art-pursuing（or art-oriented）endeavor. Chiba was extremely movedby the artistry achieved in Tsubouchi s child drama demonstration at the
Yurakuza Theatre and insisted that child drama should aim at pursuing［Genuine ］Art for children （17）. Chiba even criticized Tsubouchi semphasis on ten favorable effects of child drama in Child Education andDrama, contending that these effects were unessential（16）. He argued
against Tsubouchi s remarks: Ideal child drama for children should be
pursued from more genuine and pure motivation［than what Tsubouchi
discussed］. We should depart from his［Tsubouchi s］discussion and rather
draw on his demonstration performances （16）.
Another teacher, Seishi Shimoda12 strongly advocated kyoshitsugeki （drama as a classroom method）, or gakushu-geki （learning throughdrama）insisting that teachers should expand drama from a conventionallyliterature-based art form to one that embraces all subjects. Drawing onHarriet Finlay-Johnson s Dramatic Method of Teaching, he concluded that
drama should be utilized to teach all school subjects（ Jido no Seikatsu to
Gakkogeki 44）.
In contrast, Hiroshi Shigaki, an initiator of kyoshitsu geki, （drama
as a classroom method ）, insisted that genuine school drama should be
totally distinguished from kyoshitu geki and handled as an art（Shigaki,
et al, Getsurei Yawa Kai- Gakkogeki wo Chushin to Shite 132）.
34

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

Acknowledging the significance of kyoshitsu geki, he contended thatit［drama as a classroom method］should not be called drama but be
distinguished as dramatized education and that one should not expect any
artistic aspect from kyoshitsu geki. （132）.
Thus, child drama or school drama came to be divided into various
opposing orientations. Reinforced by the ongoing interpretations ofeducational-ness, child drama became further split within each group;
its complexity seemed endless. In a discussion among elementary school
teachers led by Yasaburo Shimonaka under the title, Kodomono Shibai
Gokoro （Dramatic Spirit of Children）, the participants agreed that there isvalue in children s dramatic, playful spirit. Comparing this spirit with that ofa carnival, they then further agreed to identify educational dramatic activity
with carnivals:
Shimonaka: …It is a mistake to overemphasize the intellectual aspectof children by ignoring their emotion and instinct.
Sakurai: Gakugeikai and undokai（athletic meeting）, all these names
already sound too formal. They all should exist simply as
carnivals.
Shimonaka: That would truly be educational. Such events could truly
help promote children s life energy.
Yamaguchi: There should be such a school carnival among annual
events（140）Thus, the examination of educational-ness led some to define gakugeikai
as a carnival event, an outlet for children s emotional outbursts, and to treat
educational drama as a means to create merrymaking. This definition was
perhaps most responsible for eventually inciting government surveillance.

A Struggle Over Educational Hegemony: The Government’sStance Toward School Drama
As school drama diversified, government officials began to see friction
between their policies and some of the ways school drama was handled,
and their concern about it increased. Many schools began producing theirschool dramas outside the school setting, opening them to the public. Someadvertised their productions in newspapers. In turn, the government began to35

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

negotiate with school drama advocates.
A close examination of the development of gakugeikai illustrates
what the government envisioned as the ideal demonstration as well as thegoal of gakugeikai: the reproduction of a particular character that we mightcall the faithful agent of national ideology based on the spirit of Rescriptof Education as described in nationally assigned textbooks which aimed topromote an Emperor-centered nationalistic system. In this system, there wasno place for children s freedom of self-assertion or emotional manifestation;
seriousness and sincerity in children s attitudes were the essential factors.
With the dissemination of the new education movement in the late
Taisho Era（ early 1920 s ）, these regimented demonstrations had been
gradually replaced by school drama wherein educational significance wasdefined by intellectuals calling for child-centeredness, genuine emotional
liberation, and self-initiated activities. Of course, the conservative factionof the government took a wary attitude towards this change. When school
drama presented at gakugeikai was merged with a local recreational spirit,
it began to generate the air of a local carnival entertainment. The resulting
emotional outbursts were regarded by the totalitarian government as
dangerous signs of deteriorating behavior. The government began to watch
for any festive activity that might induce children s emotional liberation;
eventually it began to exert a strict surveillance on some of these productions.
On March 17, 1923, the Toyo Kasei Girls School held Doyo Geki
Taikai （Fairy Tale Drama Concert）at the Yurakuza Theatre in Tokyo.
This performance featured the students of the Girls School, including
kindergarten children. According to the May issue of Geijutsu Kyoiku, thehouse was packed to the doors and the performance was received quite
successfully （ Doyo Geki Taikai 22）. However, the article also stated:
Because they encouraged children to perform on a public stage with anadmission charge, it seemed as if they were exploiting the children to make aprofit （22）.
According to Geijutsu Kyoiku, on the day after the performance, theprincipal of the school, Fukuo Kishibe, was summoned to the Ministry of
Education and reprimanded for this event. Kishibe, a leading advocate of art
education insisted that children should have pure motivations for acting on
stage. Clearly the government disapproved of his educational perspective
36

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

which encouraged children s excitement in front of a public audience. This
intervention warned that the government would pay more serious attention
to school drama in the future.
In the May issue of Shakai to Kyoka,（Society and Edification）, a journal
published by Monbusho Shakai Kyoiku Kenkyukai（the Social Education
Study Group of the Ministry of Education）, the government surveyed
prominent teachers and other key figures on the advisability of school drama
and introduced the responses under the title, Gakko Geki ni Kansuru
Iken, （Opinions on School Drama）. The questions were: 1）Is school
drama acceptable or not ? 2）What are the negative effects of school drama
and things that should be improved ? and 3）Are there other points ofconcern you wish to express ? （Monbusho Shakai Kyoiku Kenkyukai 43）.
Among the twelve respondents to the questionnaires, only one,
Masanori Ohshima, an assistant professor at the Tokyo Imperial University,
fully objected to school drama because he witnessed that Children did notseem to be enjoying their experience and I［Ohshima］felt sorry for them（44）
. However, Kuniyoshi Obara of the Seijo Elementary School totally
approved of it. While acknowledging the fact that there were still some
defects in school drama practice, he insisted, Everything has certain defects
and if school drama is not approved, other subjects cannot be approved either（45）.
The other ten also acknowledged the educational effects of school
drama and expressed approval of it. The situation was very different fromthat in 1909 when the last major ordinance against school drama wasdelivered and drama was thought to be something that would definitely
lead to the demoralizing of school life promoting the air of frivolousness（Komatsubara, Gakko Fuki ）. This difference could be attributable to the
publication of Tsubouchi s and Obara s books endorsing school drama s
educational significance.
On the other hand, the majority of the respondents endorsed school
drama only on the condition that it be conducted appropriately andeducationally. They identified the defects of school drama as: 1）lackof appropriate leaders; 2）inappropriate quality of material; 3）its open
performance with accompanying commercial orientation; 4）elaborate sets,
costumes and makeup; and 5）poor quality of audience. At the same time,37

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

four of these people, including Ohshima, confessed that they had either
never or only once or twice seen school drama, and were unfamiliar with theactual activity（44-47）.
Thus, in this government journal, school drama was discussed andjudged idealistically by inexperienced people from a conventional Confucianbased view who denounced it so far as it was identified with professional
entertainment. Supplementing the survey results, Seishiro Aoki, a literati
entrusted by the Ministry of Education, contributed an article titled,
Jidogeki to Jido （Child Drama and Children）, wherein he elaborated on
the essence of child drama. Drawing upon Tsubouchi s 1922 article, Jidogeki
no Sanshurui （Three Kinds of Child Drama）, he described the ideal childdrama as utilizing 1）age-appropriate content; 2）child-participating drama
rather than child drama for appreciation; 3）child-centered orientation rather
than audience-catering orientation; and 4）simple sets, costumes and makeup
so that drama can maximize expression by children. Aoki maintained,
As far as these principal grounds are preserved, I am certain that childdrama should be valued as a necessary means to promote children s holistic
cultivation （53）. Here, too, Tsubouchi s strategic conception of educationalchild drama was clearly endorsed. Although Aoki offered no information
about his familiarity with child drama, it is clear that Tsubouchi s words
about its effects had influenced him.
The survey results and Aoki s article were reflected in subsequent
government regulation of school drama. Toukyou Shi Gakumuka（The
Educational Affairs Section of Tokyo City Office）issued an official noticein May of 1923 to public elementary schools within the Tokyo district,requiring them to formally request its permission before producing any
more school drama performances. The notice was titled, A Notificationon the Rehearsal and Performance of Children s Song/ Children s Drama
in Elementary Schools. Admitting the popularity of dramatic activities inschool environment, it read in part:…It is a fact that these（dramatic）activities should not necessarily be
prohibited depending upon their motivations and goals; however, sinceelementary education has its own standards and boundaries at the sametime, conducting such activities by blindly following the fashion of thetime might not only revolt against the educational goal of elementary38

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

schools but also bring about some regrettable result. Therefore, this is
to request that in case there is a necessity of conducting such events,
the principal of the city elementary school in the district should
consult with supervising staff of the local government in advance andmake a careful decision with much discretion（qtd. in Gakkogeki no
Mondai Kyoiku Jiron）
Kyoiku Jiron（ Educational Review）, one of the major educational
journals featured a discussion on this official notice in its June issue. Chisato
Narita, a supervising staff official from the Tokyo City Office, contributed anarticle on the notice titled, Korobanu Sakino Tsue （Prevention is Better
than Cure）pointing out some of the negative aspects that had been observedin recent performances.13 Narita said that the City Office acknowledged theeffect of art education and has no intention whatsoever to ban school drama
as long as it is executed seriously （10）. He insisted that the Office criticized
only those schools which conducted school drama by blindly following
its popularity without much consideration on its significance and thoseencouraging open performances in public. He contended that, even within
the school setting, the City Office would not approve performances that were
decorated like a professional stage with gorgeous curtains and rented gaudy
costumes because these would in effect lead into serious regrettable results
against the mission and goals of elementary education （10）.
The government s policy had remained unchanged in principle since
the last major school ban in a 1909 ordinance which had prohibited making
pupils put on makeup and disguise with costumes because it would promote
an air of frivolousness （Komatsubara）; but there was a slight, yet crucialchange in the tone and attitude toward school drama both in the Tokyo City
Office s notice and in Narita s remarks. Both acknowledged the value ofschool drama, whereas the 1909 ordinance had made the blanket-statementthat drama-like activities would lead to the demoralizing of school life bypromoting an air of frivolousness （Komatsubara）. It is clear that, perhaps
partly due to the responses of teachers and scholars as well as the opinionof Aoki described earlier, school drama had won some recognition of its
educational significance even by the government. This shift in government
rhetoric may also be due to the direct and/or indirect influence of Tsubouchi.
However, despite the pretext that his ordinance was not meant to39

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

be a school drama ban, Narita was tacitly warning that any school drama
conducted against the City Office s educational policy could provokecountermeasures. The July issue of Geijutsu Kyoiku（Art Education）reported
on this official notice, criticizing it as effectively functioning as a school
drama ban since the government issued the notification without providing
appropriate guidance for this new rising art education and thereby
negatively influencing school teachers（ Zappou 103）.

Tsubouchi’s Disappointment and Shift of Attitude
At this time, Tsubouchi similarly complained about the flippant
attitude of Japanese school teachers in their incorporation of child drama（ Jido Geki ni Kansuru Jakkan no Gimon 478-9）. Tsubouchi, who hadenvisioned using child drama as a disciplinary device to regain what had
been lost by Japan s Westernization, expressed much disappointment in
the Japanese people s acceptance of a new trend based only on their sheer
instinct and he lamented the fact that the Japanese people understood only apart and never digested the whole of his vision（479-480）.
Re-emphasizing the importance of his original ideas of childcenteredness and closed orientation, Tsubouchi insisted that if these
ideal principles were not preserved, the most important significance of childdrama will be lost and it will fall into an activity of mere entertainment for
adults （479）. Thus, although their perspectives were not exactly the same,
both Tsubouchi and the government shared similar concerns regarding
school drama s tendency to become a mere pleasure-seeking entertainment.
This agreement may be a key to understanding Tsubouchi s reaction to the1924 School Drama Ban.
Faced with the arbitrariness of each school s interpretation of his
concept, Tsubouchi concluded that discrepancies were attributable to thelack of model performances and competent leaders who knew the right way
to handle child drama（ Jidogeki no Mohanjitsuen no Hitsuyou 832-4）.
Tsubouchi s attitude inclined more towards a mission of providing model
performance demonstrations and model scripts. Tsubouchi s remark on June4, 1923, clearly indicated his disappointment in popular interpretations of hiswork, as well as his belief in the need for demonstration: After all, in this40

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

hectic society, I suppose no one has time to carefully read my explanation
on how to handle child drama. I am convinced that there is no other choice
but to demonstrate an actual model directly and concretely （ Kateiyo no
Jidogeki wo Gekijode ）.
Beginning in June 1923, Tsubouchi s Tokyo production, supported by
the Asahi Newspaper Company, assumed a more demonstrational nature
with the mission of presenting an ideal child drama model for inexperienced
local teachers and children.
In the meantime, an unforeseen complication arose for Tsubouchi,
a by-product of the Great Kanto Earthquake in September 1923, whichchallenged the quality of child drama by further complicating school
teachers arbitrary interpretations of the term educational significance.
According to some of his lectures, Tsubouchi was repelled and made anxious
by a trend of promoting child drama in the name of charity. This trend
clearly shaped the activity into a more superficial entertainment for theearthquake victims, thus threatening to encourage children s self-conceit.
In his November 1923 article, Fukkoki Geijutsu ni Kansuru Yosoku（Prospects on the Art during the Period of Recovery）, Tsubouchi expressed
his concern that hope for the reconstruction of legitimate art, child drama
was deteriorating because people were exploiting child drama under theexcuse of charity for entertainment purposes. He continued:
As hungry people are not selective of their food, the victims of theearthquakes do not question the quality of charity art. And the carefree
applause from this kind of audience tends to spoil players…if children
fall into this trap and get spoiled, they are finished.（868-9）
Thus, Tsubouchi expressed his concern that the quality of child drama wasbeing undermined by irresponsible encouragement, over-praise, and lack oflegitimate objective criticism. In other writings too, Tsubouchi reiterated thedanger of a carnival entertainment atmosphere in which children receive
carelessly excessive flattery.
Confronted by this development, Tsubouchi s demonstrational
performances began to assume an ascetic and serious nature, incorporating
more rigidly fixed choreography and movement, thus stressing its disciplinary
aspects at the expense of children s self-initiated creation. Furthermore, as helectured and witnessed local child drama during his tours, Tsubouchi began
41

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

to question the competency of the entire contemporary children s creative
engagement, claiming that since the children had grown up in the culturally
backward Japanese environment, they lacked access to competent creativemodels appropriate for children（ Jissaijo kara Mita Jidogeki 820）.
Ultimately, Tsubouchi shifted from his original faith in child-initiatedcreative output to favoring models for children created by others, admitting,
It is necessary that children first appreciate something relatively creative,
pure, educational, and at the same time, artistic before they get engaged intheir own creative endeavor （820）. For the purpose of producing creatively
competent models for inexperienced people, Tsubouchi discarded the mostbasic principle of his child drama, the priority of child-initiated creative
engagement, for the sake of familiarizing children with exemplary drama.
He confessed: …though it might sound like a contradiction to the spiritof pure child-centered drama, we cannot help imposing a model example［during the rehearsals of demonstrations］on participating children who
do not have any background knowledge （819-20）. Prior to these remarks,
in December 1923 , Tsubouchi had published his play collection titledGakkoyo Sho Kyakuhon（A Short Play Collection for School Presentation）which
demonstrated child drama for children s appreciation. It consisted of six
stories for demonstrational purposes, most of which were either derived frommythology or biographies of great historical or legendary figures, done in
operetta style with dance and songs accompanying dialogues.14 Tsubouchi
referred to his shift to this kind of play in his 1924 article, Jidogeki no
Mohanjitsuen no Hitsuyou （A Need for Child Drama Demonstration）:
I am quite aware that some people might reproach me because manyof the plays［in the collection］are beyond even the acting skills ofstudents in middle schools or in girls higher schools.… I cannot help
but believe in the necessity of demonstrational performances for thetime being, though it contradicts my initial intention（835）
In addition to acknowledging the contradiction between demonstration
performance vs. child-initiated drama, Tsubouchi acknowledged that,from his observations, he had concluded that it was a few years too early
to start child drama activity in the katei environment in Japan and that,instead, Education in the field of dramatic arts had to begin in the school
environment （Gakkoyo Preface）. Tsubouchi ended up shifting direction
42

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

so much that, at a practical level, his original ideal for child drama, Child
Drama for Domestic Presentation had to be abandoned.
Tsubouchi s drastic shift in attitude may have been an attempt tocounter the diverse interpretations of his theories, especially against thosethat permitted his concept to be identified with the entertainments that
had provoked government surveillance. When we look at his child drama
endeavor in the light of his goal to create legitimate theatre with children,
as well as to regain the lost Japanese cooperative spirit, it seems natural that
he would resort to protecting the more artistic and ascetic aspects of drama.
However, it is also clear that almost none of the concepts he had originallypublished remained in his demonstrations and that, to many people, thesedemonstrations must have seemed no different than other professionalchildren s theatre productions, including those of the Takarazuka Girls
Operetta Company.

Consequences of the Kuzuryu Incident
As the school drama trend accelerated under the influences of both the
Takarazuka Girls Operetta Company and the sudden increased demand for
drama after the Kanto Great Earthquakes, there were many who produced
large-scale extravagant public performances with admission charges under
the pretext of a charity activity.
Among the many schools that were noted for their open performances,
the Kuzuryu Shuga Jogakko,（ Kuzuryu Girls School for Needlework
Painting）, a vocational-technical school in Tokyo, would become the case forthe next major government intervention. The school had about 400 studentsof whom approximately 150 were provincial students boarding at the school.
According to a newspaper interview, the principal, Senmatsu Kuzuryu,
encouraged music and drama activity because he believed that doing sowould enrich the girls lives （ Jogakusei no Kageki ）.
According to Kuzuryu s wife, Chiyo Kuzuryu, these activities were at
the same time Principal Kuzuryu s own personal hobby （Ochiai, Kuzuryu
Shuga Jogakko 35）. Kuzuryu cast and directed all the dramatic pieces
although He himself was a complete layman without any special knowledgeof drama or music （32）. In June 1922, he incorporated musical drama as
43

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Banpart of the school s regular curriculum and even built an auditorium with aseating capacity of 900. The school performed open musical dramas in theirauditorium twice a year and these performances always received much media
exposure. The Yomiuri Newspaper described their elaborate performances:
Their musical drama is in no way like those amateurish stages ofnormal girls schools. Theirs are like professionals in terms of theircostumes, sets, and lighting effects created by the girls themselves andmuch better in quality than those of the Asakusa district（ Jogakuseino Kageki ）As one former student recollected, Though it started like a gakugeikai
performance first, it gradually assumed a style like a Takarazuka Company（Ochiai, Kuzuryu Shuga Jogakko 39）. In addition, not only did the stage
rendering assume the look of a professional entertainment, some students
even began to be treated as star players by the media. The Yomiuri Newspaperon March 1, 1923, for example, featured one student as a star dancer withher solo picture and the heading, Ishigawa Takeko, A Promising Genius
Dancer – Now She Even Takes Charge of Choreography （ Buyo no Tensai
toshite ）.
This lavish, pomp-filled student-production began being performed
outside the school, as Chiyo Kuzuryu recollected: Because of the aftermathof the（Great Kanto）earthquake, there was no entertainment and myhusband［Senmatsu Kuzuryu］was encouraged to go out［to perform forpeople］（Ochiai, Kuzuryu Shuga Jogakko 34）. At the same time, school
officials announced through various newspapers that in-school performances
would charge an admission with profits going to charity.
Announcements of their performances became ubiquitous in the
Yomiuri Newspaper around this time.15 In addition to their own performances,
the student troupe was also hired by such companies as Kanegafuchi
Boseki,（Kanegafuchi Spinning Company）and Ueno Seiyoken Restaurant,
according to the recollection of Chiyo Kuzuryu（Ochiai, Kuzuryu Shuga
Jogakko 34）.
Although Kuzuryu was not a typical normal school whose curriculum
was strictly controlled by the Ministry of Education, and these performanceswere for the sake of charity （38）, it is still amazing how busy these young
students were with performing, particularly considering the additional time44

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

needed for rehearsal. When they began performing at the Teikoku Hotel,
the boundary between professional theatre groups and amateurs began to
be blurred. The government expressed its view on these performances in
the April issue of Geijutsu Kyoiku（Art Education Journal）stating, Theirs
was like a professional theatre business which totally contradicts school s
educational purpose （qtd. in Kido, Gakko Geki Kinshi Kunrei no Zengo
218-9）. Thus, Tsubouchi s apprehension had come to reality.

Consequences of the Accelerated School Drama
Confronted by this increasing tendency of public open school drama
despite his efforts to correct its direction, Tsubouchi s enthusiasm for childdrama diminished. Shortly after the publication of his Gakkoyo Sho Kyakuhon（A Short Play Collection for School Presentation）, Tsubouchi began to express
his discouragement about child drama in his personal diary. This period
coincided with the mass media s frequent reference to Kuzuryu s showy
charity performances.
Another factor in Tsubouchi s loss of interest in child drama was that
he had placed himself into a corner by contradicting his own original concept
in order to make adjustments in response to deviant school drama activities
like those of Kuzuryu. Although he attempted to return to his original
child drama concept by creating short, age-appropriate plays with a small
number of roles for children in Kateiyo Jidogeki Dai San Shu（Child Drama
for Domestic Presentation III）, his original enthusiasm was lost. By the time
Kateiyo Jidogeki Dai San Shu was published in July, he had already withdrawn
from child drama activity including his demonstrational performances in the
Kyushu area（September 27 - October 15）. They were, instead, directed by
one of his students, Toshitaka Furukawa under the publicity, Child Drama
Performance with Dr. Tsubouchi s direct advice （Date and Omura 20）.
Heightened surveillance by the government was another major
ramification of the Kuzuryu development. It was reported that the
Educational Section of Tokyo City Office had been accused by the Ministryof Education of not having imposed strict control over these Kuzuryu
productions and it［the Tokyo City Office］was ordered by the Ministryof Education to conduct an investigation on this case （ Kogyoteki na
45Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

Gakkogeki ）. The pressure from the Ministry of Education reinforced
the Tokyo Office s attitude on school drama, making it hypersensitive todrama s public nature. In the April issue of Geijutsu Kyoiku, the Chief ofthe Educational Section of Tokyo criticized the Kuzuryu School for its lackof proper student management and poorly equipped educational facilities
compared to its drama activity and well-built performing auditoriums.
Chief Kondo announced, From now on, we intend to ban this kind of［academically unbalanced］activity aggressively whether it be a girls schoolor elementary school （qtd. in Kido）.
Thus, Kuzuryu s performances at the Teikoku Hotel had provided asignificant stimulus to the government s aggressive intervention in public
open performances. Consequently, more relentless and indiscriminate
interventions followed no matter how much educational significance theschools claimed.
For example, the Takinogawa Elementary School, led by Principal
Kikujiro Yamazaki, held an open performance at the Banzai Movie Theatre
on February 20.16 Yamazaki was preparing this performance for the purposeof demonstrating to other teachers and parents the result of his experimental
drama classes with the school s fifth graders. According to an interview in
the Tokyo Asahi Newspaper, Yamazaki had based the dramatic sketches on theschool textbook and everything from sets to props had been made manuallyby teachers and students（ Shogakko ga Kamoku nishite Shibai wo
Oshieru ）. Another article reported that admission was free and every child
was dressed in a daily kimono （ Subarashii Gakkogeki no Makuaki ）.
Thus, other than its publicly open nature, the performance seemed simple,
serious and well prepared, even utilizing the school textbook.
Nevertheless, Yamazaki was summoned both to the Tokyo City officeand the Ministry of Education and given a verbal warning. The interrogation
he and his colleagues received at the Educational Section included thequestion: Why did you present the performance in public to parents
and specialists without confining it to children ? （Kido 221）. Here the
Educational Section is seen to be sensitive specifically to its publicly open
nature.
It is clear that the government had identified the effect of open
performance with the act of entertainment, of catering to the stranger
46

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

audience whose attitude was regarded counter to the attitude of sincerity
and seriousness . Confronted with a tacit threat from the Ministry of
Education, Yamazaki shifted his pedagogical direction and discarded drama
activity.17
Having witnessed both Kuzuryu s and Yamazaki s cases, Teikoku
Kyoiku Kai（Imperial Education Committee）and Geijutsu Kyoiku Kai（Art
Education Committee）held the Geijutsu Kyoiku Taikai（Art Education
Conference）at Ueno Jiji Kaikan Hall for three days in May 1924 after
several months delay due to the earthquake. Entaro Noguchi reported
that the 275 participants were from all over Japan and mainly consisted ofelementary school teachers involved in art education（Noguchi, Hokoku ）.
According to Geijutsu to Kyoiku（Art and Education）, the main agenda was
the issue of school drama （qtd. in Kido 212）.
For three days, heated discussions continued among the participants.
According to the discussion report in Geijutsu to Kyoiku, the school drama
committee after much discussion came up with a set of resolutions.18 It is
impressive that the resolutions reiterated much of what Tsubouchi previously
had proposed in his Jidokyoiku to Engeki（Child Education and Drama）.
Directives such as the simple rendering of the stage with suggested costumes
as opposed to realistic renderings, and warnings against drama s tendency
to provoke children s self-conceit and decorating the stage with showy
elements had been the main pillars of Tsubouchi s Child Drama Concept.
It is worth noting that the committee had resorted to Tsubouchi s original
child drama concept in its desperate appeal to the government.
Unfortunately, the work of the conference came too late. Despite theirefforts, when a conservative Minister of Education, Ryohei Okada, wasassigned in June 1924, he reinforced government intervention in an evenmore direct way. In August, he gave discretionary instructions on educational
administration at a governors conference. Regarding the issue of school
drama he stated:… Dramatic instinct in each child should be acknowledged and the
manifestation of the instinct at such occasions as family gatheringsand pastimes should not necessarily be reproached. Nevertheless, it
is without doubt that children should never be allowed to cater topublic s entertainment pleasure engaged in drama-like business with47

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

makeup and disguise especially in the school settings, because it is arevolt against the nation s spirit of Shitsujitsu Goken, （austerity
and hardihood）. It is strongly requested that each school authority be
extremely thoughtful about this issue（ Monsou no Kunji Enzetsu
32-33）
Following this statement, an official notification was issued by the ViceMinister of Education to principals of the public schools. It was areinforcement of Minister Okada s warning against drama-like activities
with makeup and disguise, requesting the principals to assert further
control. Okada s instruction and this official notification make up what is
generally acknowledged as the School Drama Ban of the Taisho Era. As
Hiroyuki Tomita contended, Although they［both the instruction and thenotification］never used the word to ban, they certainly had an effect ofbanning the school drama （Nihon Jido Engeki Shi 136）.
Many teachers and journalists expressed their objections to Minister
Okada s action and brought forth counter arguments in several journals andnewspapers. The October issue of Geijutsu Kyoiku（Art Education Journal）
featured this topic under the title, Gakkogeki wa Shitsujitsu Goken no
Kifu ni Hansuruka （Does School Drama Really Vandalize the Ethos of（43-59）.
Austerity and Hardihood ?）At the beginning of the journal issue, Minister Okada explained theintention behind his notification under the title, Zettaini Kinshi Shitawake
dewa nai （ I Never Meant to Ban［ the School Drama ］）, wherein he
maintained that he never banned the whole school drama but only targeted
the school drama that was carried too far （43-44）. Surveying both Okada sJune instruction and the September notification from the Vice-Minister of
Education, it is notable that in response to teachers attempts to propose
reconciliatory ground with the government using Tsubouchi s principles andconcerns, Okada used Tsubouchi s language and rhetoric as the reason for his
instruction.
Acknowledging children s dramatic instinct and approving of its
manifestation within the private environment, Okada still criticized school
drama s frivolity with its elements such as makeup and costumes. Tsubouchi s
child drama concept was utilized and interpreted from both teachers andgovernment s sides as evidence to support their opposing goals.
48

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

Many prominent advocates of school drama criticized theMinister s ambiguous wording of his instruction.19 But among protests anddenunciations by school teachers and other intellectuals, Tsubouchi actually
supported the Minister Okada s instruction. It was an opportunity for him
to clarify his disapproval of the status quo of the contemporary treatment ofchild drama, as well as to reclaim his original concept that had disintegrated
under his desperate adjustments. On August 11, 1924, Tsubouchi contended
that Minister Okada s instruction was correct: …I do not approve of today s
school drama in this country. In child drama, children need not be powderedor be exposed in public…Since these elements embrace much harmful effect,
I take the Minister s decision as quite natural and rightful （ Watashi wa
Monsono Kunji wa Touzenno Kototo Omou ）Inevitably, Tsubouchi s endorsement of Minister Okada s attitude
reinforced school principals careful and nervous policy toward their school s
dramatic activities. Thus, Tsubouchi had to reap what he had sown. While hewas the initiator of school drama, he ended up becoming an advocate of thegovernment s School Drama Ban Policy.
Clearly, there were many complicated conditions and obstacles,
both accidental and inevitable, that hampered the smooth promotion ofschool drama. Taisho School Drama Trend was ended by governmental
intervention; however, during the trend, many important concepts were
openly and enthusiastically discussed and disputed among the government,teachers and critics like Tsubouchi.
One school teacher, Shimoda introduced an impression on the Taisho
Era s school drama as narrated by his fellow researcher of the past school
drama theories, Mr. Kato: Researching［the theories and discussion on］
school drama at its prime in the Taisho Era, it seems that every issue on childdrama we discuss and study today has already been thoroughly thrashed out
during that period （qtd. in Shimoda, Gakkogeki no Hensen 413）.
It is indeed true that some of the issues hold true even today andremain unsettled. Consequently, I believe that it is imperative that we take acloser look at both Tsubouchi s experience and the content of the discussions
and disputes of his time related to the school drama trend, and listen closely
to their voices so we can build constructive views upon these issues for ourchild drama activity both at present and in the future.
49

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban
1

For example, in 1907 issue of Jokan, a women s magazine in the Meiji Era, tableau
vivant was actually referred as the business of prostitutes that are most likely staged
in the pleasure quarter（Terao 79）.
2
For the detailed formation process of Tsubouchi s child drama concept, refer to
Fujikura Cultural Assimilation .
3
For further discussion, refer to Fujikura Between Theory and Practice4
The Seijo Elementary School was, in many ways, a protected environment; not only
was it less affected by the government because it was a private school, but also theprincipal, Sawayanagi, was a former Minister of Education and a strong advocate of
Taisho New Education. Sawayanagi encouraged Obara to pursue his ideal for drama
education.
5
For an example of these controversial school plays, refer to Fujikura, Reevaluation
Chapter II.
6
See Fujikura, Between Theory 79.
7
These English names, The Committee for Art Education and The Art Education
Association, are my translation for the sake of distinguishing the two groups.
8
Kurahashi was a teacher at the Tokyo Joshi Koutou Shihan Gakko（Tokyo Girls
Higher Normal School）and at the same time known as the leading authority ofkindergarten education. He was the founder of preschool education and an editor of
Yojino Kyoiku（Preschool Education）.
9
For details, refer to Fujikura, Reevaluation 164-5.
10
For the details of their discussion, refer to Fujikura, Reevaluation 165-9.
11
For this discussion, see Fujikura, Reevaluation 168-170.
12
Shimoda was one of the founding members of Geijutsu Kyoikukai（Art Education
Committee）. He also translated Finlay-Johnson s Dramatic Method of Teaching.
13
For the content of the complaints the Office had received from parents of the school
children, refer to Narita 10.
14
For the titles of the six stories in Gakkoyo Sho Kyakuhon, refer to Fujikura,
Reevaluation 189.
15
For the details of these newspaper articles, refer to Fujikura, Reevaluation 193-4.
16
Since many of the public schools did not have a large auditorium appropriate in size, it
was not unusual to hold gakugeikai in this kind of movie theatre.
17
For the detailed report of Yamazaki s visit to the Ministry of Education, see Kido 219222.
18
For the details of the resolution see Fujikura Reevaluation 197-9.
19
For the details of their contention, see Gakkogeki wa Shitujitsu Goken no Kifu ni
Hansuruka 43-59.
Bibliography

Aoki, Seishiro. Jidogeki to Jido ［Child Drama and Children］. Shakai to Kyoka［Society.
: 48-53.
and Edification］3. 4（1923）
50

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

Buyo no Tensai toshite Shokubou Sareru Ishigaya Takeko san – Imadewa Jibunde
Furitsuke Mademosuru ［Ishigawa Takeko, A Promising Genius Dancer – Now She
Even Takes Charge of Choreography］. Yomiuri Newspaper 1 Mar. 1923: 4.
Chiba, Haruo. Subeteni Jinsei no Haikei wo Egaite ［Always Depicting Real Life in.
: 12-17.
the Background］. Kyoiku No Seiki［The Century of Education］2.6（1924）
Date, Minoru, and Hiroyoshi Omura. Kateiyo Jidogeki Oyobi Peijent Joen Tenmatsu［Record of Child Drama for Domestic Presentation and the Pageant Performances］.
Shoyo Senshu［ Shoyo Anthology ］Vol. 9 . Supplement. Tokyo: Shunyodo, 1926 .
Supplement 1-32.
Doyo Geki Taikai ［On Fairy Tale Drama Concert］. Geijutsu Kyoiku［Art Education
Journal］. May（1923）. 22.
Fujikura, Takeo. Between Theory and Practice: Contradictions and Substantial Effectsof Shoyo Tsubouchi s Child Drama. Youth Theatre Journal 24 No. 1（2010）:77-95.
---. Cultural Assimilation of American Child Drama Concept by Shoyo Tsubouchi:
The Formation Process of the First Treatise on Child Drama in Japan. Waseda
Global Forum No. 6（2010）: 75-106.
---. Reevaluation of the Effects of Shoyo Tsubouchi s Theory of Child Drama: Child
Drama for Domestic Presentation. Ph. D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
2006.
Gakkogeki no Mondai ［ An Issue of School Drama ］. Kyoiku Jiron［ Educational
Review］Vol. 1375（1923）: 1.
Gakkogeki no Mondai ［An Issue of School Drama］. Geijutsu Kyoiku［Art Education
Journal］June（1923）: 26-27.
Gakkogeki wa Shitsujitsu Goken no Kifu ni Hansuruka ［Does School Drama Really
Vandalize the Ethos of Austerity and Hardihood ?］. Geijutsu Kyoiku［Art Education
Journal］Oct.（1924）: 43-59.
Hattori, Yukio, Tetsunosuke Tomita, and Tamotsu Hirosue, eds. Kabuki Jiten［Kabuki
Encyclopedia］. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1983.
Ichikawa, Genzo. Ni Jouken ga Soroeba ［The Two Conditions］. Tokyo Nichi Nichi
Magazine no. 40, 26 Dec. 1922. 2.
Jogakusei no Kageki- Asakusa Atarino yori Minna Ojozu ［Operetta by Students at
Girls School- They Are More Skilled Than Those of Asakusa］. Yomiuri Newspaper
25 Oct. 1921: 5.
Kido, Wakao. Gakko Geki Kinshi Kunrei no Zengo ［The Before and After the School
Drama Ban］. Taisho Jidai no Kyoiku Jyanarizumu［Educational Journalism in the
Taisho Era］. Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppannbu, 1985. 211-226.
Kogyoteki na Gakkogeki wo Genjuni Torishimaru Hoshin de Zenkoku Jogakko ni
Kunrei ［An Official Instruction Given to Girls School Throughout the Country
Imposing Strict Controls Over School Drama in Public］. Yomiuri Newspaper 7 Mar.
1924: 5.
Komatsubara, Eitaro. Gakko Fuki Torishimari Kunrei ［An Official Instruction for51

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban

School Moral Order］. qtd. in Tokyo Asahi Newspaper 16 Jan. 1909: 3.
Koyama, Shizuko. Kodomotachi no Kindai: Gakko Kyoiku to Katei Kyoiku［Modern Age
for Children: School Education and Home Education］. Rekishi Bunka Raiburari 143.
Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2002.
Kurahashi, Sozo. Butai ni Tataseru Kotowa Kodomono Tameni Warui – Hantairon wo
Teijishita Tachiba Kara… ［Participation in Public Open Performance Is Harmful
to Children – From An Opposing Position］. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Magazine no. 40, 26
Nov. 1922. 2.
Monbusho Shakai Kyoiku Kenkyukai［the Social Education Study Group of the Ministryof Education］, ed. Gakko Geki ni Kansuru Iken ［Opinions on School Drama］.
.
: 43-47.
Shakai to Kyoka［Society and Edification］3.4（1923）
Monsou no Kunji Enzetsu ［Instruction by the Minister of Education］. Kyoiku Jiron［Educational Review］Vol. 1410（1924）.
: 32-33.
Nagao, Minoru. Gakkogeki no Mokuteki ［The Goal of School Drama］. Geijutsu
Kyoiku［Art Education Journal］May（1923）: 24-31.
Nakano, Akira. Taisho Jiyu Kyoiku no Kenkyu［A Study of Taisho Free Education］. Tokyo:
Reimei Shobo, 1968.
Narita, Chisato. Korobanu Sakino Tsue ［Prevention Is Better than Cure］. Kyoiku Jiron［Educational Review］vol. 1375（1923）.
: 10.
Nihon Gakkogeki Kyokai, ed. Gakkogeki Jiten［School Drama Encyclopedia ］. Tokyo:
Shogakukan, 1953.
Noguchi, Entaro. Hokoku ［Report］. Geijutsu Kyoiku［Art Education Journal］July（1924）: 5.
---. Shin Kyoiku to Gakko Geki ［New Education and School Drama］. Kyoiku no.
: 18-33.
Seiki［The Century of Education］2.6（1924）
Ochiai, Sosaburo. ed. Kuzuryu Shuga Jogakko no Engeki Katsudo ［Dramatic Activities
at Kuzuryu Girls School for Needlework Painting］. Shonen Engeki［Youth Theatre］.
: 30-41.
Vol. 1（1967）---, ed. Obara Kuniyoshi Sensei ni Nihon no Gakkogeki no Oitachi wo Kiku ［AnInterview with Mr. Kuniyoshi Obara on the Growth of School Drama in Japan］.
.
. 24-36.
Shonen Engeki［Youth Theatre］Vol. 2（1968）
Shigaki, Hiroshi, et al. Getsurei Yawa Kai- Gakkogeki wo Chushin to Shite ［Monthly
Discussion – Centering on School Drama ］. Kyoiku no Seiki［ The Century of.
: 124-133.
Education］2.6（1924）
Shimoda, Seishi. Gakkogeki no Hensen to Gakkogeki no Shorai ［History of School
Drama and Its Future Perspective］. Nihon Gakkogekishu［Collection of Japanese School
Drama］. Tokyo: Kyobunsha, 1938. 413-423.
---. Jido no Seikatsu to Gakkogeki ［Children s life and School Drama］. Kyoiku no.
: 34-44.
Seiki［The Century of Education］2.6（1924）
Shimonaka, Yasaburo, et al. Kodomono Shibai Gokoro ［Dramatic Spirit of Children］.
.
: 134-140.
Kyoiku No Seiki［The Century of Education］2.6（1924）
52

Waseda Global Forum No. 7, 2010, 25−54

Shogakko ga Kamoku nishite Shibai wo Oshieru ［Elementary School Teaches Drama
as a Subject］. Tokyo Asahi Newspaper 18 Feb. 1924: 3.
Subarashii Gakkogeki no Makuaki ［Wonderful School Drama Opens］. Tokyo Asahi
Newspaper 21 Feb. 1924: 2.
Terao, Toru. Joshi no Fuzoku ni Tsuite ［On Women s Fashion］. Jokan 17. 1（1907）:
78-79.
Tomita, Hiroyuki. Nihon Jido Engeki Shi［History of Children s Theatre in Japan］. Tokyo:
Tokyo Shoseki, 1976.
Tsubouchi, Shoyo［Yuzo］. Airashiki Shojo Kageki ［An Adorable Girls Operetta
Company］. Takarazuka Shojo Kageki Kyakuhonshu［Play Collection of Takarazuka
Girls Operetta Company］Vol. 1916. qtd. in Takarazuka Oitachi no Ki ［TheRecord of the Growth of Takarazuka］. Kobayashi Ichizo Zenshu［Complete Works of
Kobayashi Ichizo］. Tokyo: Daiyamondo Sha, 1961. 455-456.
---. Fukkoki Geijutsu ni Kansuru Yosoku ［Prospects on the Art during the Period
of Recovery］. Waseda Bungaku 215（1924）: 2-10. Rpt. in Shoyo Senshu［Shoyo
Anthology］Vol. 9. Tokyo: Shunyodo, 1926. 861-872.
---. Gakkoyo Shou Kyakuhon［A Short Play Collection for School Presentation］. Tokyo:
Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1923.
---. Jidogeki ni Kansuru Jakkan no Gimon ［My Concerns about Contemporary
Child Drama］. Shukan Asahi 3. 22.（1923）: 3-4. Rpt. in Shoyo Senshu［Shoyo
Anthology］Vol. 9. Tokyo: Shunyodo, 1926. 477-483.
---. J idogeki no Mohanjitsuen no Hitsuyou ［ Need for Child D rama
Demonstration］. 1924. Shoyo Senshu［Shoyo Anthology］Vol. 9. Tokyo: Shunyodo,
1926. 831-835.
---. Jidogeki no Sanshurui ［Three kinds of Child Drama］. Waseda Bungaku 202（1922）: 2-13. Rpt. in Shoyo Senshu［Shoyo Anthology］Vol. 9. Tokyo: Shunyodo,
1926. 461-475.
---. Jidokyoiku to Engeki［ Child Education and Drama ］Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku
Shuppanbu, 1923. Rpt. by Koguma Sha, 1975.
---. Jissaijo kara Mita Jidogeki ［Child Drama on Actual Stage］（1923）. ShoyoSenshu［Shoyo Anthology］Vol. 9. Tokyo: Shunyodo, 1926. 809-822.
---. Kateiyo Jidogeki Dai Ni Shu［Child Drama for Domestic Presentation II］. Tokyo:
Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1923.
---. Kateiyo Jidogeki Dai San Shu［Child Drama for Domestic Presentation III］Tokyo:
Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1924.
---. Kateiyo no Jidogeki wo Gekijo de Joen Sasuru Riyu ［ The Reasons for
Presenting the Child Drama for Domestic Presentaion on Public Stages］Tokyo
Asahi Shinbun Getsuyou Furoku［Tokyo Asahi Newspaper Monday Supplement
Page］. Tokyo, 4 June 1923. 1.
---. Nanigotomo OmotoshiteYonenki Kara ［Everything Should Start at Infancy］.
（1924）: 2-6.
Geki to Sonota［Drama and Et Cetera］Soukango［Inaugural issue］
53

Takeo FUJIKURA：The Consequences of the Taisho Era s Child Drama Trend and the Resulting
Causes of Tsubouchi s Endorsement of the School Drama Ban---. Watashi wa Monsono Kunji wa Touzenno Kototo Omou ［I Take the Minister s
Instruction as a Quite Rightful One］. Yomiuri Newspaper 11 Aug. 1924: 7.
Yamamoto, Nobuyoshi, and Toshihiko Konno. Kindai Kyoiku no Tennosei Ideorogi: Meijiki
Gakko Gyoji no Kosatsu［Ideology of the Emperor-System in the Modern Education
System: A Study of School Activities in the Meiji Era］. Tokyo: Shinsensha, 1973.
---. Taisho Showa Kyoiku no Tennosei Ideorogi Vol. 2: Gakko Gyoji no Gunjiteki, Gijijichiteki Seikaku［Ideology of the Emperor-System in Education System in the Taisho
and Showa Era Vol. 2 : Militaristic and Pseudo-autonomous Characteristics of the School
Activities］. Tokyo: Shinsensha, 1977.
Zappou ［Miscellaneous］. Geijutsu Kyoiku［Art Education Journal］May 1923: 103.

54