Translation of Communist Manifesto by Shusui Kotoku(幸德秋水) is meaningful in that he took the initiative for the first time in Japan but it also calls for attention in that his ‘struggle with translation’ came from the fact that it could not be free from the influence of the Chinese context’(漢文脈). Translation of Communist Manifesto by Kotoku cannot be defined by Japanese translation of Chinese characters, pure Chinese text, or unity of speech and writing. However, the following should be considered first before making any judgment. The fact that he considered his translation as failure and also his style of writing as an old-fashioned one that should be corrected at that time, it should be asked whether he recognized responsibilities for translation, if so, what those responsibilities were, and also in what language norm these responsibilities with translation were possible. Shusui Kotoku was a fairly well-known writer who was good at writing Chinese poetry or writing in Chinese characters. He was knowledgeable with Chinese literature and even insisted on kindness and integrity as a subject of revolution. To be sure, since 1905 when he fled to the US, his ideology radically changed but Chinese literature had an influence on his ideology, as shown in his idea that fluent use of Chinese sentences is still important. However, his translation of Communist Manifesto was influenced by Chinese characters and written in sentences that are difficult to understand to people ‘who did not learn classic, high-level Chinese, which had to change because of unity of speech and writing that was established by tacit demand that it should go in different direction from Chinese literature. Therefore, translation of Communist Manifesto is an essential text when reviewing the externalization process of Chinese text. From the Sino-Japanese War, China began to have increasing interest in Japan, which brought about the birth of East Studies. At this time, Japanese books were actively translated as they shared same letters. However, many conceptual words used in translation showed regional differences in their combinations even though they were made up of the same letters. Therefore, regional ‘uniqueness’ is revealed. Also, instead of focusing on ‘uniqueness’ of canon that was based on ‘selection’ and ‘exclusion’ as mentioned by many critiques of modern national state theory, now, it is perhaps time to pay attention to the context in which such uniqueness was born. Shusui Kotoku preferred easy and readable style of translation while recognizing the long history and universality of Chinese characters and literature. This is where he shows irony in his attitude towards Chinese characters. Even though there is no clear distinction between unique Japanese language and Chinese characters, which come from the ‘outside’, he defines it as ‘letters of China’ and, hence, reminding readers of regional uniqueness. However, one cannot ignore that the ‘letters of China’ are suitable to translate Western theories. This conflict of perceptions led to his practical theory of translation. He insisted on style of translation that harmonizes various styles of writing with flexible attitude by assigning universality of Chinese letters to that of civilization. So far, there is little research on translation by Shusui Kotoku and it does not show how he struggled in the midst of language norm and responsibilities of translation during the Meiji period. Shusui Kotoku actively continued journalism until his death and discussed political issues at that time through the network in Japan and elsewhere, cautious about the possibility that his translation remains limited to his own nation.