conception shown everywhere. Here I will give another example of
this kind which necessarily associates with them; that is the art of
landscape gardening. This also has its origin with certain Corean
who invented the art at the time of Suiko, the emperor of the sixth
century. But there is not any evidence that such an art had existed in
Corea, and it seems to me that the art of miniature landscape gardening
is an outcome of the scenic nature of the country. The abundance of
hills and waters, rocks and trees gave naturally the rise to the unique
scenery in inland as well as the sea coast. The tasteful imitation of
this scenery is an involving idea of this accessory art, and at the
later period of Tokugawa Shōgun it had taken a systematic form of an
art, and peculiarly connected with the _Chashitsu_ architecture, for it
has unique, odd, picturesque conception in common with both. Manifold
formulas, traditions, and classifications made it so difficult for
one to attempt the art that he cannot place even a single stepping
stone without knowing the name given, and the meaning accorded to it.
It is true that one cannot manage the garden so as to make it look
picturesque without knowing how to arrange appropriate objects in
appropriate places and the nomenclatures of them, for instance “the
moon shade stone”, “the three body stone”, “the twilight woods” etc.,
make it more interesting and poetical. The idea is quite oriental. A
well, a stone basin, a stone post lantern, a flat-top stone, all these
necessary elements of Japanese miniature landscape gardening have
poetical nomenclature referring to history, religion and tradition.
To the bystanders it may merely seem quite an odd, unsymmetrical,
picturesque and artful imitation of natural scenery, but profound
spiritual meaning which only educated Japanese can understand permeate
each of the elements of a garden. It is altogether too practical as
European landscape gardening is too scientific. Here I show just one
type of gardens which is said to correspond to the Roman type of
lettering (Plate 18); Roman, Gothic, Italic etc. are classification
of lettering, so Japanese classify the work of landscape gardening
according to the style of treatment in referring to the style of
lettering.
[Illustration: PL: 18
Drawing of garden, reproduced as a blueprint.]
[Illustration: PL. 19
Photograph of house with garden.]
[Illustration: PL. 20
Photograph of a lake, with garden and castle in background.]
If the governing art of the twentieth century the “art nouveau” has
more or less connection to the fanciful products of Japanese art as
some American writer asserts, the amalgamation of accessory art like
landscape gardening of Japanese with that of European may succeed in
producing some thing which is acceptable to the whim and fantastic
thought of modern architects.
If the influence of social habits and manners is the most important
in the effects on domestic architecture as one of the writers of “Our
Homes” puts it, it will be interesting to compare our houses to those
of England whose social organization is more like ours than any other
nations in Europe. We have had four classes in society until just
immediately before the abolition of the feudal system in 1867 above
referred to. England had also four classes in society at the period
immediately following the Norman Conquest; they were nobles and small
landowners, the clergy, the townfolks, and the agricultural classes.
The English nobles correspond to our Daimio and small landowners
to _Samurai_, the townfolks to our artisans and merchants, and the
agricultural classes to our soil tillers. Our clergy not being
enumerated in the social classes they were considered as recluse.
English nobles’ castles like the Tower of London, Rochester, Dover
etc. are of the same nature as our castles of Nagoya, Kumamoto and
others which are scattered all over the country as the seats of
Daimio. Sub-feudatories’ houses in England were frequently constructed
of wood and in cases of danger they took refuge in their lords’
castles. Their houses rarely contained more than two or three rooms.
Our small _Samurai_ houses were probably not larger than those of
sub-feudatories, and unquestionably they were made of wood. But
fortunately, our smallest _Samurai_ houses were not so wretched as
English villeins’ houses which were “commonly rude hovels of mud and
thatch, in the one apartment of which the whole family slept. Some
times two apartments existed, one of which was allotted to the cow. The
floors were either of mud or roughly paved with pebbles”.
The development of English domestic architecture is of the same nature
as ours; this is particularly noticed by comparing the idea of “an
assize” of 1189 the first “Building Act” of England to our first
building ordinance of Shōmu dynasty in 768 A.D. The house in these
times in England being mostly built of wood had roofs of straw, reeds,
and similar materials, and frequent fires compelled the adoption of a
new mode of building. Therefrom, the stone houses covered with thick
tiles was one of the requisites of “an assize”. The Imperial decree
of 768 A.D. we can hardly call a building act, as it only consists of
a few lines concerning the regulation of building an imperial palace
and the houses of subjects; for instance “officers and laities who can
afford to build their own houses should use tiles to cover roofs, and
the walls are to be decorated with red and white earth”. Before this
period thatched roofs had mostly been used. It is evident that the fear
of a calamity of conflagration was the cause of the forthcoming of the
first building acts of both nations. In England the building act having
passed revision after revision, the domestic architecture was improved
slowly, but steadily keeping pace with other continental nations in
Europe. Improvements of domestic architecture partly owe their cause to
the command of materials to be used. In the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, England was not much ahead of us in the use of building
materials. Before the assize of 1189 the outside of houses was covered
with reeds or rushes, but after the issue plaster was used both outside
and inside of the houses and tiles, wooden shingles, and lead were used
as roof coverings. Windows, before the thirteenth century, were mere
holes having frames on which oiled paper and canvas were stretched
until glass was used for the first time in this period.
English houses of the twelfth century were certainly no better than our
_Shinden_ type. Let me give an example of what condition the English
houses were in in the twelfth century. The following quotation well
explains it: “the floor was frequently of earth, and strewn with rushes
or straw. When it is considered that refuse from the table was, as a
matter of course, thrown on to the floor; that dogs, hawks and other
domestic animals lived in the hall, it will scarcely be wondered at
that the state of the floor became highly offensive. It is related as
an instance of the extreme refinement of Thomas Becket that he ordered
his floors to be covered with fresh straw in winter, and in summer
with fresh rushes, in order that such of his guests as could not find
room at the tables might not get their clothes soiled by sitting on a
dirty floor.” This may be an example of an extreme case. Every student
of architecture knows that the thirteenth century in England is a
zenith of Early English Gothic, why is it that the manor-house and the
great landowner’s residence did not come under the influence of art
then flourishing in the country? Perhaps they did to a certain extent,
but not until as late as the Tudor period. One should not imagine that
the splendid painted glass of Westminster Abbey was found everywhere
in England. It was a costly luxury in this period; for it was imported
from abroad and still more expensive because skilled workmen were rare.
It is said that in these days common dwelling houses had glass in the
upper part of windows and wooden shutters in the lower part.
It was during the time of Elizabeth’s reign, the sixteenth century,
that English houses assumed a character altogether different from that
of the middle ages. This is a result of commerce and navigation which
has ever since been making England so pre-eminent. “The long galleries,
the projecting oriels and bay windows, the broad terraces and stately
flights of stairs, mark a new departure in domestic architecture”. Once
the lavish use of glass called forth the protest of Lord Bacon, and the
use of carpets, except on extraordinary occasions, was considered a
mark of extreme luxury and foppishness. This was the state of things in
the sixteenth century in England.
At the same time that the beautiful fan-vaulting of Westminster Abbey
astonished the world with splendor and delicacy of detail, an order
was given by Henry III to make “a certain conduit through which the
refuse of the king’s kitchen at Westminster flows into the Thames;
which conduit the king ordered to be made on account of the stink of
the dirty water which was carried through his halls, which was wont to
affect the health of the people frequenting the same hall.” And in the
reign of the same sovereign the royal kitchens at Oxford were blown
down by a strong wind. If the house of the sovereign was in such a
condition in sanitation and construction, it may be inferred that the
houses of the lower classes were utterly miserable. I do not wonder
that the plagues, pestilences and leprosy of the middle ages checked
the increase of population in England. England of the present period,
when compared with that of seven hundred years ago, is like another
world: and what difference is there between the houses of the present
day and those of seven hundred years ago in our land?
When the four classes of society were firmly established in former
ages, the plans of the houses were much modified by the vocation,
though not much difference in architectural aspect. In the time when
domestic manufacturing was in general a predominant feature of trade,
and the co-operative system of business was in an undeveloped state,
a factory, a store, and a dwelling house were one and the same; a
store in front and a factory in the rear of a house was a general
feature of the house of a merchant and a mechanic. This kind of
house should of course not be treated under the heading of dwelling
house proper. We have such houses everywhere in the city at present
and cannot expect to exterminate them in the near future. But the
advancement of civilization may not allow such varied forms of houses
to exist; the rise of land value and increase of lease bring forth the
co-operative system of business or compel a man to work on a large
scale and thereby drives the good natured hamlet dwellers, gratifying
themselves with a beautiful world of their own, out of the field of
fierce struggle for existence. No one can afford to indulge in luxury
by dwelling at the centre of a city unless he is exceptionally wealthy
and has little regard for the quietness of home life. Wonderful
power of organs of communication shortens the distance, thereby
forming two distinct type of dwelling houses that is the city and
the suburban, the real classification of domestic architecture. The
flats, apartment or tenement houses which are classed among the city
houses are the outgrowth of an advancement of communication organs,
and the cottages of the suburbs are peaceful homes of strugglers for
life sustenance. Thus the circumstances do not permit the existence
of houses which consist of stores in front and factories in the rear.
The classification of houses according to the classes of society,
as formerly in vogue, has no meaning in this time of enlightenment.
The plan of a house necessarily becomes narrower in front in the city
dwelling as we often notice in houses at Kioto and Osaka. London and
New York and all other Western great cities lay examples before us,
but it is curious to note that Tokyo furnishes many examples which are
contrary to this fact. Domestic architecture develops in this direction
only not in any other way. I do not wonder at the subject much talked
of of late about the tax to be levied on gardens belonging to houses
within urban district. Fortunately the proposition was not carried
into effect; but the searching eyes of wise, inquisitive politicians
have already been turned to the virgin soil for resource, it is almost
certain that sooner or later they will succeed. The alteration of
Japanese houses has been necessitated from even a political stand
point. At any rate, as to the laying down of principles and the
printing out of methods of carrying out the alteration of the plan,
Japanese architects are fully responsible.
Dwelling houses are divided, according to an architectural treatment,
into two classes viz. city and suburban houses. The characteristics
of the two and the reasons why they should be so classified need no
explaining here; only a few illustrations of the two different types of
dwelling houses are sufficient to remind us of the truth.
I have pointed out six elements and a few principles which govern
the erection of dwelling houses. It is more convenient to treat
negatively than to attempt positively the discussion of domestic
architecture. In order to protect or fulfill the established principles
all hindrances from all sides should be overcome. What I cite in the
following has reference only to the Japanese and does not refer at
all to the foreigners. It is an appeal made only to the Japanese.
I consider prejudice one of the impediments in the way of progress
which we have to strive to remove. So long as we are adhering to it no
advancement can be expected and improvement of our houses is entirely
hopeless. There is in Japan a certain prejudice which amounts even to
superstition among weak minded people. They choose a place for water
closet according to a superstitious notion. They think that a water
closet is the most impure or unholy place, and that the reckless choice
of the place for it in a house causes misfortune to the family who
occupies the house. They select a place for the well, the entrance
etc. according to the same groundless superstition. And they say that
thus the national character should be retained through all ages.
“The roofs should always be covered with tiles otherwise be thatched
or shingled. The shape of roofs should be “_Chidori-hafu_” if not
“_Mukuri-hafu_” or “_Kara-hafu_”. A gate should be “_Kabuki-mon_” if
not “_Heijiu-mon_”. The wall should be plastered if not finished with
“_Sasarako-shitami_”. (thin, wide weatherboarding over which vertical
narrow strips are nailed) The posts are invariably square in section,
and the ceiling should necessarily be “_Go-tenjō_”. (panelled ceiling)
or “_Saobuchi-tenjō_.” (same as “_Sasarako-shitami_” only horizontal,
the strips being deeply chamfered) Such and such parts should be so
and so; this is the national style of architecture handed down from
our forefathers. If we change it at random, how can tell that we are
Japanese. This is a house just suited to the people of this peculiar
land; we cannot feel comfort or enjoy convenience but for this peculiar
house”. There is nothing more absurd than these peculiar ideas. I cited
in the introduction that the importance of freedom of design should
always be kept in mind and here will not speak further any more than
that the overthrowing of those prejudices which lie across the royal
road to civilization is always necessary.
[Illustration: PL. 21
Photograph of front of a house with chidori-hafu gable.]
[Illustration: PL. 22
Photograph of front of a house with chidori-hafu gables.]
[Illustration: PL. 23
CHIDORI-HAFU]
[Illustration: PL. 24
Photograph of a house with karu-hafu gable.]
[Illustration: PL. 25
KARU-HAFU]
[Illustration: PL. 26
Plan of a house
FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN and FRONT ELEVATION.]
[Illustration: PL. 27
MUKURI-HAFU]
[Illustration: PL. 28 A DWELLING HOUSE
SIDE ELEVATION and FRONT ELEVATION]
[Illustration: PL. 29 SECTION OF A HOUSE]
I have dwelt so much on the reservedness and seclusion of Japanese
dwelling houses. Once again I take up this point and call the attention
of all Japanese. Works of art, no matter what they are, should express
the sentiment or impression of the artist. The work which has beauty
as its object should call forth the sentiment or impression of beauty
to the observer or hearer. If the aim and object of any work of art
cannot be recognized by others the work is nothing but failure. As
the work of domestic architecture is a part of architecture, which
has beauty as one of its objects, all possible efforts to beautify a
house are quite rational. One might say that our houses being far from
gaudiness do not aim to attract attention by showy colors like European
houses. Still if attractiveness is an important element to be observed
in domestic architecture, our way is one of the methods of treatment
which is sufficient to charm admirers. This might be true if a house
be built with the aim, among many other aims, to give pleasure to the
eye. Japanese houses are uniformly of the same pattern and it seem as
though they were not intended to beautify. Well, we might call them
beautiful, yet if one get used to one thing continually he will get
tired; variety is necessary to give pleasure to the eye.
I must add one more word in regard to the love of nature and
simplicity. “In fact, Art”, says Goethe, “is called Art simply because
it is not Nature”. A bird, a flower, we use them as materials to give
a sensation of pleasure to the eyes, there the fine arts exist. To
treat them with taste and refinement needs experience and an educated
eye. Japanese domestic architecture, in a word, is, I believe, good
in its spirit but leaves a large field to be cultivated in its
treatment. If the remark that “Art nouveau” has its source partly in
Japanese art is true, why may it not be true that the general adoption
of straight lines, which has lately been much preferred by certain
European architects in interior decoration, owes its origin to Japan?
We furnish a spirit and general idea of treatment to European artists
and they well digest them completing in perfect shape, and are kind
enough to teach us how to imitate; just as we furnish raw materials of
manufacture to Europe and she export them back to this country after
working them up into manufactured goods. Most of the imitations of
European houses in Japan which have been produced of late like shoots
of plants are mostly of the nature of hybrid works and fail in the
design; no truth being noticeable in their features; it is altogether
too expensive to do such a ginger-bread work with cement and plaster.
My object is not to suggest the imitation of palatial European
houses which are beyond every man’s reach: but to propose certain
plans, though they may be commonplace character, under the guidance
of principles involved in the house planning, which I presume to be
practicable in this time of transition: and also I would aim to bring
our houses more nearly up to the universal stand.
[Illustration: PL. 30
ELEVATION OF DOZO, DOOR, WINDOW]
[Illustration: PL. 31
SECTION OF DOZO.]
[Illustration: PL. 32
A MODEL SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOZO]
Our houses are peculiar in many respects when compared to the Western
houses as the result of difference in customs, yet there are many
things in common to both if names were changed. But the most singular
feature is a “_Dozō_” (a treasure house of a half fire-resistance
construction) whose necessity is never felt in any foreign house. In
all civilized countries valuable articles can be insured for the
fear of fire. The system is also provided in this country; then why
the necessity of a “_Dozo_”? The Japanese as a nation who observe the
reverence of ancestors to the utmost as stated before, the treasures
collected by ancestors are carefully kept by their posterity; these may
be cloths, objects of fine arts, household utensiles, gold and silver
ware, no matter what these are the owner would not give away for any
price if the family is in high standing in society. And moreover the
custom of avoiding to display these things necessitates a place in
which these valuables may be kept. The number of “_Dozo_” is the pride
of a family; thus the “_Dozo_” is the outcome of the custom of Japan.
The construction of it is shown in the plates. Wood and earth are the
chief materials for construction. The thickness of earth put on the
wall is nine or ten inches suspended by the lattice work of bamboo of
small diameter, say half an inch, tied together in place with the rope
made of fibres of the palm tree. The work is exceedingly tedious, for
one coat of earth is to be done after another had been dried. Lastly
the black or white coating of plaster which is made of mixture of lime
paste, (generally the mixture of lime and calcined oyster shells)
fibres of hemp, boiled sea weeds, and the pulp of Japanese paper is put
on as the finish. If one cannot content or feel safe without a “_Dozo_”
or big earthen safe I have no strong reason to object to the use of it.
But constant attention to the new materials which are making appearance
from time to time in the market is necessary though the new materials
and appliances cannot always be said to be exclusively good. And I
believe there may be a variety of designs to make it look better to
assume an aspect of monumental character.
There is no house in the world in which more mechanical energy has been
utilized in the house building than the American house. Considering a
house as a commodity there is no other way of producing it economically
than to use mechanic power. The Americans have broadest view, wisest
choice, and most practical ideas in this respect. They will understand
the subject and manage it with wonderful skill while we are discussing
on the definition of fine arts and commenting on the subject of
nationalism. Architects and house owners need to consider why, taking
our standard of living into consideration, our houses cost so much
more than those of America. What cost seventy five dollars a “_tsubo_”
(a “_tsubo_” is six feet square which is a unit of measuring the
buildings and grounds) in the United States will cost more than one
hundred and fifty yen (one yen is about fifty cents of U.S. money)
in this country. If its cause be attributed to the lack of mechanical
appliances to the production of the building materials, why cannot we
use machinery in order to get better houses at lower cost? We could
not do it at present; the reason is manifold and very complicated, but
in a word the labor saving machine is not labor saving, labor is still
cheaper than machinery. Why then do the things made by hands which
are cheaper than machinery cost more than the things made by machine?
This is a most important question to be solved by present Japanese
architects and is one after which they are striving. According to my
own view, the love of nature, admiration of simplicity and irregularity
which are so much a part of the national taste or character are the
greatest barriers to the way of progress of our domestic architecture,
if the mechanical appliances to house building is called a progress.
Most economical questions concerning houses depend on this and decide
the future development of our houses. And our endeavor as architects is
to so guide the people that they may not deviate from sound common
sense on dwelling houses.
[Illustration: PL. 33]
[Illustration: PL. 34]
Plates 33 and 34 are proposed plans for Japanese dwelling houses.
[Illustration: PL. 35]
[Illustration: PL. 36]
[Illustration: PL. 37]
Plates 33 and 34 are proposed plans for Japanese dwelling houses.
Plates 35, 36 and 37 are examples showing a method of treatment of
Japanese parlor.
Transcriber’s Note
The title page was fully typeset. This was followed by a typeset form
which was filled in by hand. On these two pages the typeset words are
all in uppercase, and the handwritten words are in lowercase.