bloomed. Those were the days of her glory in architecture, literature,
and art. But a blight fell upon her from which she is only now
recovering. The causes of this blight will receive attention in a
subsequent chapter. Let us note here only one aspect of it, namely,
official repression of originality.
Townsend Harris, in his journal, remarks on the way in which the
Japanese government has interfered with the originality of the people.
"The genius of their government seems to forbid any exercise of
ingenuity in producing articles for the gratification of wealth and
luxury. Sumptuary laws rigidly enforce the forms, colors, material,
and time of changing the dress of all. As to luxury of furniture, the
thing is unknown in Japan.... It would be an endless task to attempt
to put down all the acts of a Japanese that are regulated by
authority."
The Tokugawa rule forbade the building of large ships; so that, by the
middle of the nineteenth century, the art of ship-building was far
behind what it had been two centuries earlier. Government authority
exterminated Christianity in the early part of the seventeenth century
and freedom of religious belief was forbidden. The same power that put
the ban on Christianity forbade the spread of certain condemned
systems of Confucianism. Even in the study of Chinese literature and
philosophy, therefore, such originality as the classic models
stimulated was discouraged by the all-powerful Tokugawa government.
The avowed aim and end of the ruling powers of Japan was to keep the
nation in its _status quo_. Originality was heresy and treason;
progress was impiety. The teaching of Confucius likewise lent its
support to this policy. To do exactly as the fathers did is to honor
them; to do, or even to think, otherwise is to dishonor them. There
have not been wanting men of originality and independence in both
China and Japan; but they were not great enough to break over, or
break down, the incrusted system in which they lived--the system of
blind devotion to the past. This system, that deliberately opposed all
invention and originality, has been the great incubus to national
progress, in that it has rejected and repressed every tendency to
variation. What results might not the country have secured, had
Christianity been allowed to do its work in stimulating individual
development and in creating the sense of personal responsibility
towards God and man!
A curious anomaly still remains in Japan on the subject of liberty in
study and belief. Though perfect liberty is the rule, one topic is
even yet under official embargo. No one may express public dissent
from the authorized version of primitive Japanese history. A few years
ago a professor in the Imperial University made an attempt to
interpret ancient Japanese myths. His constructions were supposed to
threaten the divine descent of the Imperial line, and he was summarily
dismissed.
Dr. E. Inouye, Professor of Buddhist Philosophy in the Imperial
University, addressing a Teachers' Association of Sendai, delivered a
conservative, indirectly anti-foreign speech. He insisted, as reported
by a local English correspondent, that the Japanese people "were
descended from the gods. In all other countries the sovereign or
Emperor was derived from the people, but here the people had the honor
of being derived from the Emperor. Other countries had filial piety
and loyalty, but no such filial piety and loyalty as exist in Japan.
The moral attainments of the people were altogether unique. He
informed his audience that though they might adopt foreign ways of
doing things, their minds needed no renovating; they were good enough
as they were."[AG]
As a result of this position, scholarship and credulity are curiously
combined in modern historical production. Implicit confidence seems to
be placed in the myths of the primitive era. Tales of the gods are
cited as historical events whose date, even, can be fixed with some
degree of accuracy. Although writing was unknown in Japan until early
in the Christian era, the chronology of the previous six or eight
hundred years is accepted on the authority of a single statement in
the Kojiki, written 712 years A.D. This statement was reproduced from
the memory of a single man, who remembered miraculously the contents
of a book written shortly before, but accidentally destroyed by fire.
In the authoritative history of Japan, prepared and translated into
English at the command of the government for the Columbian Exposition,
we find such statements as these:
"From the time that Amaterasu-Omikami made Ninigi-no-mikoto to descend
from the heavens and subject to his administrative sway
Okini-nushi-no-mikoto and other offspring of the deities in the land,
descendants of the divine beings have sat upon the throne, generation
after generation in succession."[AH] "Descended in a direct line from
the heavenly deities, the Emperor has stood unshaken in his high place
through all generations, his prestige and dignity immutable from time
immemorial and independent of all the vicissitudes of the world about
him."[AI] "Never has there been found a single subject of the realm
who sought to impair the Imperial prestige."[AJ] It is true that in a
single passage the traditions of the "age of the Deities" are
described as "strange and incredible legends," but it is added that,
however singular they are, in order to understand the history of the
Empire's beginnings, they must be studied. Then follows, without a
word of criticism or dissent, the account of the doings of the
heavenly deities, in creating Japan and its people, as well as the
myriads of gods. There is no break between the age of the gods and the
history of men. The first inventions and discoveries, such as those of
fire, of mining, and of weaving are ascribed to Amate rasu-Omikami
(the Sun Goddess). According to these traditions and the modern
histories built upon them, the Japanese race came into existence
wholly independently of all other races of men. Such is the
authoritative teaching in the schools to-day.
Occidental scholars do not accept these statements or dates. That the
Japanese will evince historical and critical ability in the study of
their own early history, as soon as the social order will allow it,
can hardly be doubted. Those few who even now entertain advanced ideas
do not dare to avow them. And this fact throws an interesting light on
the way in which the social order, or a despotic government, may
thwart for a time the natural course of development. The present
apparent credulity of Japanese historical scholarship is due neither
to race character nor to superstitions lodged in the inherited race
brain, but simply to the social system, which, as yet, demands the
inviolability of the Imperial line.
Now that the Japanese have been so largely relieved from the incubus
of the older social order, the question rises whether they are showing
powers of originality. The answer is not doubtful, for they have
already made several important discoveries and inventions. The Murata
rifle, with which the army is equipped, is the invention of a
Japanese. In 1897 Colonel Arisaka invented several improvements in
this same rifle, increasing the velocity and accuracy, and lessening
the weight. Still more recently he has invented a rapid-fire
field-piece to superintend whose manufacture he has been sent to
Europe. Mr. Shimose has invented a smokeless powder, which the
government is manufacturing for its own use. Not infrequently there
appear in the papers notices of new inventions. I have recently noted
the invention of important improvements in the hand loom universally
used in Japan, also a "smoke-consumer" which not only abolishes the
smoke, but reduces the amount of coal used and consequently the
expense. These are but a few of the ever-increasing number of Japanese
inventions.
In the, field of original scientific research is the famous
bacteriologist, Dr. Kitazato. Less widely known perhaps, but none the
less truly original explorers in the field of science, are Messrs.
Hirase and Ikeno, whose discoveries of spermatozoids in Ginko and
Cycas have no little value for botanists, especially in the
development of the theory of certain forms of fertilization. These
instances show that the faculty of original thought is not entirely
lacking among the Japanese. Under favorable conditions, such as now
prevail, there is good reason for holding that the Japanese will take
their place among the peoples of the world, not only as skillful
imitators and adapters, but also as original contributors to the
progress of civilization and of science.
Originality may be shown in imitation as well as in production, and
this type of originality the Japanese have displayed in a marked way.
They have copied the institutions of no single country. It might even
be difficult to say which Western land has had the greatest influence
in molding the new social order of Japan. In view of the fact that it
is the English language which has been most in favor during the past
thirty years, it might be assumed that England and America are the
favored models. But no such hasty conclusion can be drawn. The
Japanese have certainly taken ideas and teachers from many different
sources; and they have changed them frequently, but not thoughtlessly.
A writer in _The Far East_ brings this points out clearly:
"While Japan remained secluded from other countries, she had no
necessity for and scarcely any war vessels, but after the country
was opened to the free intercourse of foreign powers--immediately
she felt the urgent necessity of naval defense and employed a Dutch
officer to construct her navy. In 1871 the Japanese government
employed a number of English officers, and almost wholly
reconstructed her navy according to the English system. But in the
matter of naval education our rulers found the English system
altogether unsatisfactory, and adopted the American system for the
model of our naval academy. So, in discipline, our naval officers
found the German principle much superior to the English, and
adopted that in point of discipline. Thus the Japanese navy is not
wholly after the English system, or the American, or the French, or
the German system. But it has been so constructed as to include the
best portions of all the different systems. In the case of the
army, we had a system of our own before we began to utilize
gunpowder and foreign methods of discipline. Shortly before the
present era we reorganized our army by adopting the Dutch system,
then the English, then the French, and after the Franco-Prussian
war, made an improvement by adopting the German system. But on
every occasion of reorganization we retained the most advantageous
parts of the old systems and harmonized them with the new one. The
result has been the creation of an entirely new system, different
from any of those models we have adopted. So in the case of our
civil code, we consulted most carefully the laws of many civilized
nations, and gathered the cream of all the different codes before
we formulated our own suited to the customs of our people. In the
revision of our monetary system, our government appointed a number
of prominent economists to investigate the characteristics of
foreign systems, as to their merits and faults, and also the
different circumstances under which various systems present their
strength and weakness. The investigation lasted more than two
years, which finally culminated in our adoption of the gold in the
place of the old silver standard."
This quotation gives an idea of the selective method that has been
followed. There has been no slavish or unconscious imitation. On the
contrary, there has been a constant conscious effort to follow the
best model that the civilized world afforded. Of course, it may be
doubted whether in fact they have always chosen the best; but that is
a different matter. The Japanese think they have; and what foreigner
can say that, under the circumstances and in view of the conditions of
the people, they have not? One point is clear, that on the whole the
nation has made great progress in recent decades, and that the conduct
of the government cannot fail to command the admiration of every
impartial student of Oriental lands. This is far from saying that all
is perfection. Even the Japanese make no such claim. Nor is this
equivalent to an assertion of Japan's equality with the leading lands
of the West, although many Japanese are ready to assert this. But I
merely say that the leaders of New Japan have revealed a high order of
judicious originality in their imitation of foreign nations.
XVIII
INDIRECTNESS--"NOMINALITY"
The Japanese have two words in frequent use which aptly describe
certain striking aspects of their civilization. They are "tomawashi
ni," "yumei-mujitsu," the first translated literally signifying
"roundabout" or "indirect," the second meaning "having the name, but
not the reality." Both these aspects of Japanese character are forced
on the attention of any who live long in Japan.
Some years ago I had a cow that I wished to sell. Being an American,
my natural impulse was to ask a dairyman directly if he did not wish
to buy; but that would not be the most Japanese method. I accordingly
resorted to the help of a "go-between." This individual, who has a
regular name in Japanese, "nakadachi," is indispensable for many
purposes. When land was being bought for missionary residences in
Kumamoto, there were at times three or even four agents acting between
the purchaser and the seller and each received his "orei," "honorable
politeness," or, in plain English, commission. In the purchase of two
or three acres of land, dealings were carried on with some fifteen or
more separate landowners. Three different go-betweens dealt directly
with the purchaser, and each of these had his go-between, and in some
cases these latter had theirs, before the landowner was reached. A
domestic desiring to leave my employ conferred with a go-between, who
conferred with his go-between, who conferred with me! In every
important consultation a go-between seems essential in Japan. That
vexatious delays and misunderstandings are frequent may be assumed.
The system, however, has its advantages. In case of disagreeable
matters the go-between can say the disagreeable things in the third
person, reducing the unpleasant utterances to a minimum.
I recall the case of two evangelists in the employ of the Kumamoto
station. Each secured the other to act as go-between in presenting his
own difficulties to me. To an American the natural course would have
been for each man to state his own grievances and desires, and secure
an immediate settlement.
The characteristic of "roundaboutness" is not, however, confined to
Japanese methods of action, but also characterizes their methods of
speech. In later chapters on the alleged Japanese impersonality we
shall consider the remarkable deficiency of personal pronouns in the
language, and the wide use of "honorifics." This substitution of the
personal pronouns by honorifics makes possible an indefiniteness of
speech that is exceedingly difficult for an Anglo-Saxon to appreciate.
Fancy the amount of implication in the statement, "Ikenai koto-we
shimashita" which, strictly translated, means "Can't go thing have
done." Who has done? you? or he? or I? This can only be inferred, for
it is not stated. If a speaker wishes to make his personal allusion
blind, he can always do so with the greatest ease and without the
slightest degree of grammatical incorrectness. "Caught cold," "better
ask," "honorably sorry," "feel hungry," and all the common sentences
of daily life are entirely free from that personal definiteness which
an Occidental language necessitates. We shall see later that the
absence of the personal element from the wording of the sentence does
not imply, or prove, its absence from the thought of either the
speaker or hearer. The Japanese language abounds in roundabout methods
of expression. This is specially true in phrases of courtesy. Instead
of saying, "I am glad to see you," the Japanese say, "Well, honorably
have come"; instead of, "I am sorry to have troubled you," they say,
"Honorable hindrance have done"; instead of "Thank you," the correct
expression is, "It is difficult."
In a conversation once with a leading educator, I was maintaining that
a wide study of English was not needful for the Japanese youth; that
the majority of the boys would never learn enough English to make it
of practical use to them in after-life, and that it would be wiser for
them to spend the same amount of time on more immediately practical
subjects. The reply was that the boys needed to have the drill in
English in order to gain clear methods of thought: that the sharp
distinctness of the English sentence, with its personal pronouns and
tense and number, affords a mental drill which the Japanese can get in
no other way; and that even if the boys should never make the
slightest after-use of English in reading or conversation, the
advantage gained was well worth the time expended. I have since
noticed that those men who have spent some time in the study of a
foreign language speak very much more clearly in Japanese than those
who have not had this training. In the former case, the enunciation is
apt to be more distinct, and the sentences rounded into more definite
periods. The conversation of the average Japanese tends to ramble on
in a never-ending sentence. But a marked change has come over vast
numbers of the people during the last three decades. The
roundaboutness of to-day is as nothing to that which existed under the
old order of society. For the new order rests on radically different
ideas; directness of speech and not its opposite is being cultivated,
and in absolute contrast to the methods of the feudal era, directness
of governmental procedure is well-nigh universal to-day. In trade,
too, there has come a straightforwardness that is promising, though
not yet triumphant. It is safe to assume that in all respectable
stores the normal price is charged; for the custom of fixed prices has
been widely adopted. If individuals are known to have the "beating
down" habit, special prices are added for their sakes.
A personal experience illustrates the point. My wife and I had priced
several lamps, had made note of the most satisfactory, and had gone
home without buying. The next day a domestic was sent to secure the
one which pleased us best. He was charged more than we had been, and
in surprise mentioned the sum which we had authorized him to pay. The
shopkeeper explained by saying that he always told us the true price
in the beginning, because we never tried to beat him down. In truth,
modern industrial conditions have pretty well banished the old-time
custom of haggling. A premium is set on straightforwardness in
business unknown to the old social order.
Roundaboutness is, however, closely connected with "yumei-mujitsu,"
the other characteristic mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
This, for the sake of simplicity, I venture to call "nominality."
Japanese history is a prolonged illustration of this characteristic.
For over a thousand years "yumei-mujitsu" has been a leading feature
in governmental life. Although the Emperor has ostensibly been seated
on the throne, clothed with absolute power, still he has often reigned
only in name.[AK] Even so early as 130 A.D., the two families of Oomi
and Omuraji began to exercise despotic authority in the central
government, and the feudal system, as thus early established,
continued with but few breaks to the middle of the present century.
There were also the great families which could alone furnish wives to
the Imperial line. These early took possession of the person of the
Emperor, and the fathers of the wives often exercised Imperial power.
The country was frequently and long disturbed by intense civil wars
between these rival families. In turn the Fujiwaras, the Minamotos,
and the Tairas held the leading place in the control of the Emperor;
they determined the succession and secured frequent abdication in
favor of their infant sons, but within these families, in turn, there
appeared the influence of the "yumei-mujitsu" characteristic. Lesser
men, the retainers of these families, manipulated the family leaders,
who were often merely figureheads of the contending families and
clans. Emperors were made and unmade at the will of these men behind
the scenes, most of whom are quite unknown to fame. The creation of
infant Emperors, allowed to bear the Imperial name in their infancy
and youth, but compelled to abdicate on reaching manhood, was a common
device for maintaining nominal Imperialism with actual impotence.
When military clans began to monopolize Imperial power, the people
distinctly recognized the nature of their methods and gave it the name
of "Bakufu" or "curtain government," a roundabout expression for
military government. There has been a succession of these "curtain
governments," the last and most successful being that of the Tokugawa,
whose fall in 1867-68 brought the entire system to an end and placed
the true Emperor on the throne.
But this "yumei-mujitsu" characteristic of Japanese life has been by
no means limited to the national government. Every daimyate was more
or less blighted by it; the daimyo, or "Great Name," was in too many
cases but a puppet in the hands of his "kerai," or family retainers.
These men, who were entirely out of sight, were, in very many cases,
the real holders of the power which was supposed to be exercised by
the daimyo. The lord was often a "great name" and nothing more. That
this state of affairs was always attended with evil results is by no
means the contention of these pages. Not infrequently the people were
saved by it from the incompetence and ignorance and selfishness of
hereditary rulers. Indeed, this system of "yumei-mujitsu" government
was one of the devices whereby the inherent evils of hereditary rulers
were more or less obviated. It may be questioned, however, whether the
device did not in the long run cost more than it gained. Did it not
serve to maintain, if not actually to produce, a system of
dissimulation and deception which could but injure the national
character? It certainly could not stimulate the straightforward
frankness and outspoken directness and honesty so essential to the
well-being of the human race.
Although "yumei-mujitsu" government is now practically extinct in
Japan, yet in the social structure it still survives.
The Japanese family is a maze of "nominality." Full-grown young men
and women are adopted as sons and daughters, in order to maintain the
family line and name.
A son is not a legal son unless he is so registered, while an
illegitimate child is recognized as a true son if so registered. A man
may be the legal son of his grandmother, or of his sister, if so
registered. Although a family may have no children, it does not die
out unless there has been a failure to adopt a son or daughter, and an
extinct family may be revived by the legal appointment of someone to
take the family name and worship at the family shrine. The family
pedigree, therefore, does not describe the actual ancestry, but only
the nominal, the fictitious. There is no deception in this. It is a
well-recognized custom of Old Japan. Its origin, moreover, is not
difficult to explain. Nor is this kind of family peculiar to Japan. It
is none the less a capital illustration of the "yumei-mujitsu"
characteristic permeating the feudal civilization, and still exerting
a powerful influence. Even Christians are not free from "nominalism,"
as we have frequently found in our missionary work.