momme, and the Australian, 22,413, while the Japanese, according to
Dr. Taguchi weighs 36,205. Taking the extremes, the largest English
male brain weighs 38,100 momme and the smallest 35,377, whereas the
corresponding figures for Japan are 43,919 and 30,304, respectively,
showing an astonishing range between extremes. According to Dr. E.
Baelz of the Imperial University of Tokyo, the lower classes of Japan
have a larger skull circumference than either the middle or upper
classes (1.8414, 1.7905, and 1.8051 feet, respectively), and the Ainu
(1.8579) exceed the Japanese. From these facts it might almost appear
that brain size and civilizational development are in inverse ratio.
Were the Japanese brain larger, then, than that of the European, it
might plausibly be argued that they are therefore inferior in brain
power. This would be in accord with certain of De Quatrefages's
investigations. He has shown that negroes born in America have smaller
brains, but are intellectually superior to their African brothers.
"With them, therefore, intelligence increases, while the cranial
capacity diminishes."[Y]
Those who trace racial and civilizational nature to brain development
cannot gain much consolation from a comparative statistical study of
race brains. De Quatrefages's conclusion is repeatedly forced home:
"We must confess that there can be no real relation between the
dimension of the cranial capacity and social development."[Z] "The
development of the intellectual faculties of man is, to a great
extent, independent of the capacity of the cranium and the volume of
the brain."[AA]
We may conclude at once, then, that Japanese intellectual
peculiarities are in no way due to the size of their brains, but
depend rather on their social evolution. Yet it will not be amiss to
study in detail the various mental peculiarities of the race, real and
supposed, and to note their relation to the social order.
In becoming acquainted with the Japanese and Chinese peoples, an
Occidental is much impressed with their powers of memory, and this
especially in connection with the written language, the far-famed
"Chinese Character," or ideograph. My Chinese dictionary contains over
50,000 different characters. The task of learning them is appalling.
How the Japanese or Chinese do it is to us a constant wonder. We
assume at once their possession of astonishing memories. We argue
that, for hundreds of years, each generation has been developing
powers of memory through efforts to conquer this cumbersome
contrivance for writing, and that, as a consequence for the nations
using this system, there is now prodigious ability to remember.
It is my impression, however, that we greatly overrate these powers.
In the first place, few Japanese claim any acquaintance with the
entire 50,000 characters; only the educated make any pretense of
knowing more than a few hundred, and a vast majority even of learned
men do not know more than 10,000 characters. Some Japanese newspapers
have undertaken to limit themselves in the use of the ideograph. It is
said that between four and five thousand characters suffice for all
the ordinary purposes of communication. These are, without doubt,
fairly well known to the educated classes. But for the masses, there
is need that the pronunciation be placed beside each printed
character, before it can be read. Furthermore, we must remember that a
Japanese youth gives the best years of his life to the bare memorizing
of these symbols.[AB]
Were European or American youth to devote to the study of Chinese the
same number of hours each day for the same number of years, I doubt if
there would be any conspicuous difference in the results. We should
not forget also that some Occidentals manifest astonishing facility in
memorizing Chinese characters.
In this connection is the important fact that the social order serves
to sift out individuals of marked mnemonic powers and bring them into
prominence, while those who are relatively deficient are relegated to
the background. The educated class is necessarily composed of those
who have good powers of memory. All others fail and are rejected. We
see and admire those who succeed; of those who fail we know nothing
and we even forget that there are such.
In response to my questions Japanese friends have uniformly assured me
that they are not accustomed to think of the Japanese as possessed of
better memories than the people of the West. They appear surprised
that the question should be raised, and are specially surprised at our
high estimate of Japanese ability in this direction.
If, however, we inquire about their powers of memory in connection
with daily duties and the ordinary acquisition of knowledge and its
retention, my own experience of twelve years, chiefly with the middle
and lower classes of society, has left the impression that, while some
learn easily and remember well, a large number are exceedingly slow.
On the whole, I am inclined to believe that, although the Japanese may
be said to have good memories, yet it can hardly be maintained that
they conspicuously exceed Occidentals in this respect.
In comparing the Occidental with the Oriental, it is to be remembered
that there is not among Occidental nations that attention to bare
memorizing which is so conspicuous among the less civilized nations.
The astonishing feats performed by the transmitters of ancient poems
and religious teachings seem to us incredible. Professor Max Müller
says that the voluminous Vedas have been handed down for centuries,
unchanged, simply from mouth to mouth by the priesthood. Every
progressive race, until it has attained a high development of the art
of writing, has manifested similar power of memory. Such power is not,
however, inherent; that is to say, it is not due to the innate
peculiarity of brain structure, but rather to the nature of the social
order which demands such expenditure of time and strength for the
maintenance of its own higher life. Through the art of writing
Occidental peoples have found a cheaper way of retaining their history
and of preserving the products of their poets and religious teachers.
Even for the transactions of daily life we have resorted to the
constant use of pen and notebook and typewriter, by these devices
saving time and strength for other things. As a result, our memories
are developed in directions different from those of semi-civilized or
primitive man. The differences of memory characterizing different
races, then, are for the most part due to differences in the social
order and to the nature of the civilization, rather than to the
intrinsic and inherited structure of the brain itself.
Since memory is the foundation of all mental operations, we have given
to it the first place in the present discussion. And that the Japanese
have a fair degree of memory argues well for the prospect of high
attainment in other directions. With this in mind, we naturally ask
whether they show any unusual proficiency or deficiency in the
acquisition of foreign languages? In view of her protracted separation
from the languages of other peoples, should we not expect marked
deficiency in this respect? On the contrary, however, we find that
tens of thousands of Japanese students have acquired a fairly good
reading knowledge of English, French, and German. Those few who have
had good and sufficient teaching, or who have been abroad and lived in
Occidental lands, have in addition secured ready conversational use of
the various languages. Indeed, some have contended that since the
Japanese learn foreign languages more easily than foreigners learn
Japanese, they have greater linguistic powers than the foreigner. It
should be borne in mind, however, that in such a comparison, not only
are the time required and the proficiency; attained to be considered,
but also the inherent difficulty of the language studied and the
linguistic helps provided the student.
I have come gradually to the conclusion that the Japanese are neither
particularly gifted nor particularly deficient in powers of language
acquisition. They rank with Occidental peoples in this respect.
To my mind language affords one of the best possible proofs of the
general contention of this volume that the characteristics which
distinguish the races are social rather than biological. The reason
why the languages of the different races differ is not because the
brain-types of the races are different, but only because of the
isolated social evolution which the races have experienced. Had it
been possible for Japan to maintain throughout the ages perfect and
continuous social intercourse with the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxon
race, while still maintaining biological isolation, _i.e._, perfect
freedom from intermarriage, there is no reason to think that two
distinct languages so different as English and Japanese would have
arisen. The fact that Japanese children can accurately acquire
English, and that English or American children can accurately acquire
Japanese, proves conclusively that diversities of language do not rest
on brain differences and brain heredity, but exclusively on social
differences and social heredity.
If this is true, then the argument can easily be extended to all the
features that differentiate the civilizations of different races; for
the language of any race is, in a sense, the epitome of the
civilization of that race. All its ideas, customs, theologies,
philosophies, sciences, mythologies; all its characteristic thoughts,
conceptions, ideals; all its distinguishing social features, are
represented in its language. Indeed, they enter into it as determining
factors, and by means of it are transmitted from age to age. This
argument is capable of much extension and illustration.
The charge that the Japanese are a nation of imitators has been
repeated so often as to become trite, and the words are usually spoken
with disdain. Yet, if the truth were fully told, it would be found
that, from many points of view, this quality gives reason rather for
congratulation. Surely that nation which can best discriminate and
imitate has advantage over nations that are so fixed in their
self-sufficiency as to be able neither to see that which is
advantageous nor to imitate it. In referring to the imitative powers
of the Japanese, then, I do not speak in terms of reproach, but rather
in those of commendation. "Monkeyism" is not the sort of imitation
that has transformed primitive Japan into the Japan of the early or
later feudal ages, nor into the Japan of the twentieth century. Bare
imitation, without thought, has been relatively slight in Japan. If it
has been known at times, those times have been of short duration.
In his introduction to "The Classic Poetry of the Japanese" Professor
Chamberlain has so stated the case for the imitative quality of the
people that I quote the following:
"The current impression that the Japanese are a nation of imitators
is in the main correct. As they copy us to-day, so did they copy
the Chinese and Koreans a millennium and a half ago. Religion,
philosophy, laws, administration, written characters, all arts but
the very simplest, all science, or at least what then went by that
name, everything was imported from the neighboring continent; so
much so that of all that we are accustomed to term 'Old Japan'
scarce one trait in a hundred is really and properly Japanese. Not
only are their silk and lacquer not theirs by right of invention,
nor their painting (albeit so often praised by European critics for
its originality), nor their porcelain, nor their music, but even
the larger part of their language consists of mispronounced
Chinese; and from the Chinese they have drawn new names for already
existing places, and new titles for their ancient Gods."
While the above cannot be disputed in its direct statements, yet I can
but feel that it makes, on the whole, a false impression. Were these
same tests applied to any European people, what would be the result?
Of what European nation may it be said that its art, or method of
writing, or architecture, or science, or language even, is "its own by
right of invention"? And when we stop to examine the details of the
ancient Japanese civilization which is supposed to have been so,
slavishly copied from China and India, we shall find that, though the
beginnings were indeed imitated, there were also later developments of
purely Japanese creation. In some instances the changes were vital.
In examining the practical arts, while we acknowledge that the
beginnings of nearly all came from Korea or China, we must also
acknowledge that in many important respects. Japan has developed along
her own lines. The art of sword-making, for instance, was undoubtedly
imported; but who does not know of the superior quality and beauty of
Japanese swords, the Damascus blades of the East? So distinct is this
Japanese production that it cannot be mistaken for that of any other
nation. It has received the impress of the Japanese social order. Its
very shape is due to the habit of carrying the sheath in the "obi" or
belt.
If we study the home of the laborer, or the instruments in common use,
we shall find proof that much more than imitation has been involved.
Were the Japanese mere imitators, how could we explain their
architecture, so different from that of China and Korea? How explain
the multiplied original ways in which bamboo and straw are used?
For a still closer view of the matter, let us consider the imported
ethical and religious codes of the country. In China the emphasis of
Confucianism is laid on the duty of filial piety. In Japan the primary
emphasis is on loyalty. This single change transformed the entire
system and made the so-called Confucianism of Japan distinct from that
of China. In Buddhism, imported from India, we find greater changes
than Occidental nations have imposed on their religion imported from
Palestine. Indeed, so distinct has Japanese Buddhism become that it is
sometimes difficult to trace its connections in China and India. And
the Buddhistic sects that have sprung up in Japan are more radically
diverse and antagonistic to each other and to primitive Buddhism than
the denominations of Christianity are to each other and to primitive
Christianity.
In illustration is the most popular of all the Buddhist sects to-day,
Shinshu. This has sometimes been called by foreigners "Reformed"
Buddhism; and so similar are many of its doctrines to those of
Christianity that some have supposed them to have been derived from
it, but without the slightest evidence. All its main doctrines and
practices were clearly formulated by its founder, Shinrah, six hundred
years ago. The regular doctrines of Buddhism that salvation comes only
through self-effort and self-victory are rejected, and salvation
through the merits of another is taught. "Ta-riki," "another's power,"
not "Ji-riki," "self-power," is with them the orthodox doctrine.
Priests may marry and eat meat, practices utterly abhorrent to the
older and more primitive Buddhism. The sacred books are printed in the
vernacular, in marked contrast to the customs of the other sects.
Women, too, are given a very different place in the social and
religious scale and are allowed hopes of attaining salvation that are
denied by all the older sects. "Penance, fasting, prescribed diet,
pilgrimages, isolation from society, whether as hermits or in the
cloister, and generally amulets and charms, are all tabooed by this
sect. Monasteries imposing life vows are unknown within its pale.
Family life takes the place of monkish seclusion. Devout prayer,
purity, earnestness of life, and trust in Buddha himself as the only
worker of perfect righteousness, are insisted on. Morality is taught
as more important than orthodoxy."[AC] It is amazing how far the Shin
sect has broken away from regular Buddhistic doctrine and practice.
Who can say that no originality was required to develop such a system,
so opposed at vital points to the prevalent Buddhism of the day?
Another sect of purely Japanese origin deserving notice is the "Hokke"
or "Nicheren." Its founder, known by the name of Nichiren, was a man
of extraordinary independence and religious fervor. Wholly by his
original questions and doubts as to the prevailing doctrines and
customs of the then dominant sects, he was led to make independent
examination into the history and meaning of Buddhistic literature and
to arrive at conclusions quite different from those of his
contemporaries. Of the truth and importance of his views he was so
persuaded that he braved not only fierce denunciations, but prolonged
opposition and persecution. He was rejected and cast out by his own
people and sect; he was twice banished by the ruling military powers.
But he persevered to the end, finally winning thousands of converts to
his views. The virulence of the attacks made upon him was due to the
virulence with which he attacked what seemed to him the errors and
corruption of the prevailing sects. Surely his was no case of servile
imitation. His early followers had also to endure opposition and
severe persecution.
Glancing at the philosophical ideas brought from China, we find here
too a suggestion of the same tendency toward originality. It is true
that Dr. Geo. Wm. Knox, in his valuable monograph on "A Japanese
Philosopher," makes the statement that, "In acceptance and rejection
alike no native originality emerges, nothing beyond a vigorous power
of adoption and assimilation. No improvements of the new philosophy
were even attempted. Wherein it was defective and indistinct,
defective and indistinct it remained. The system was not thought out
to its end and independently adopted. Polemics, ontology, ethics,
theology, marvels, heroes--all were enthusiastically adopted on faith.
It is to be added that the new system was superior to the old, and so
much of discrimination was shown."[AD] And somewhat earlier he
likewise asserts that "There is not an original and valuable
commentary by a Japanese writer. They have been content to brood over
the imported works and to accept unquestioningly politics, ethics, and
metaphysics." After some examination of these native philosophers, I
feel that, although not without some truth, these assertions cannot be
strictly maintained. It is doubtless true that no powerful thinker and
writer has appeared in Japan that may be compared to the two great
philosophers of China, Shushi and Oyomei. The works and the system of
the former dominated Japan, for the simple reason that governmental
authority forbade the public teaching or advocacy of the other.
Nevertheless, not a few Japanese thinkers rejected the teachings and
philosophy of Shushi, regardless of consequences. Notable among those
rejecters was Kaibara Yekken, whose book "The Great Doubt" was not
published until after his death. In it he rejects in emphatic terms
the philosophical and metaphysical ideas of Shushi. An article[AE] by
Dr. Tetsujiro Inouye, Professor of Philosophy in the Imperial
University in Tokyo, on the "Development of Philosophical Ideas in
Japan," concludes with these words:
"From this short sketch the reader can clearly see that
philosophical considerations began in our country with the study of
Shushi and Oyomei. But many of our thinkers did not long remain
faithful to that tradition; they soon formed for themselves new
conceptions of life and of the world, which, as a rule, are not
only more practical, but also more advanced than those of the
Chinese."
An important reason for our Western thought, that the Japanese have
had no independence in philosophy, is our ignorance of the larger part
of Japanese and Chinese literature. Oriental speculation was moving in
a direction so diverse from that of the West that we are impressed
more with the general similarity that prevails throughout it than with
the evidences of individual differences. Greater knowledge would
reveal these differences. In our generalized knowledge, we see the
uniformity so strongly that we fail to discover the originality.
As a traveler from the West, on reaching some Eastern land, finds it
difficult at first to distinguish between the faces of different
individuals, his mind being focused on the likeness pervading them
all, so the Occidental student of Oriental thought is impressed with
the remarkable similarity that pervades the entire Oriental
civilization, modes of thought, and philosophy, finding it difficult
to discover the differences which distinguish the various Oriental
races. In like manner, a beginner in the study of Japanese philosophy
hardly gives the Japanese credit for the modifications of Chinese
philosophy which they have originated.
In this connection it is well to remember that, more than any
Westerner can realize, the Japanese people have been dependent on
governmental initiative from time immemorial. They have never had any
thought but that of implicit obedience, and this characteristic of the
social order has produced its necessary consequences in the present
characteristics of the people. Individual initiative and independence
have been frowned upon, if not always forcibly repressed, and thus the
habit of imitation has been stimulated. The people have been
deliberately trained to imitation by their social system. The
foreigner is amazed at the sudden transformations that have swept the
nation. When the early contact with China opened the eyes of the
ruling classes to the fact that China had a system of government that
was in many respects better than their own, it was an easy thing to
adopt it and make it the basis for their own government. This
constituted the epoch-making period in Japanese history known as the
Taikwa Reform. It occurred in the seventh century, and consisted of a
centralizing policy; under which, probably for the first time in
Japanese history, the country was really unified. Critics ascribe it
to an imitation of the Chinese system. Imitation it doubtless was; but
its significant feature was its imposition by the few rulers on the
people; hence its wide prevalence and general acceptance.
Similarly, in our own times, the Occidentalized order now dominant in
Japan was adopted, not by the people, but by the rulers, and imposed
by them on the people; these had no idea of resisting the new order,
but accepted it loyally as the decision of their Emperor, and this
spirit of unquestioning obedience to the powers that be is, I am
persuaded, one of the causes of the prevalent opinion respecting
Japanese imitativeness as well as of the fact itself.
The reputation for imitativeness, together with the quality itself,
is due in no small degree, therefore, to the long-continued dominance
of the feudal order of society. In a land where the dependence of the
inferior on the superior is absolute, the wife on the husband, the
children on the parents, the followers on their lord, the will of the
superior being ever supreme, individual initiative must be rare, and
the quality of imitation must be powerfully stimulated.
XVII
ORIGINALITY--INVENTIVENESS
Originality is the obverse side of imitation. In combating the notion
that Japan is a nation of unreflective imitators, I have given
numerous examples of originality. Further extensive illustration of
this characteristic is, accordingly, unnecessary. One other may be
cited, however.
The excellence of Japanese art is admitted by all. Japanese temples
and palaces are adorned with mural paintings and pieces of sculpture
that command the admiration of Occidental experts. The only question
is as to their authors. Are these, properly speaking, Japanese works
of art--or Korean or Chinese? That Japan received her artistic
stimulus, and much of her artistic ideas and technique, from China is
beyond dispute. But did she develop nothing new and independent? This
is a question of fact. Japanese art, though Oriental, has a
distinctive quality. A magnificent work entitled "Solicited Relics of
Japanese Art" is issuing from the press, in which there is a large
number of chromo-xylographic and collotype reproductions of the best
specimens of ancient Japanese art. Reviewing this work, the _Japan
Mail_ remarks:
"But why should the only great sculptors that China or Korea ever
produced have come to Japan and bequeathed to this country the
unique results of their genius? That is the question we have to
answer before we accept the doctrine that the noblest masterpieces
of ancient Japan were from foreign lands. When anything comparable
is found in China or Korea, there will be less difficulty in
applying this doctrine of over-sea-influence to the genius that
enriched the temples of antique Japan."[AF]