Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Ernest Schaal, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
AN INTRODUCTION TO
THE HISTORY OF JAPAN
BY
KATSURO HARA
YAMATO SOCIETY PUBLICATION
[Illustration]
G. P. Putnam's Sons
New York and London
The Knickerbocker Press
1920
COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY
THE YAMATO SOCIETY
OBJECTS OF THE YAMATO SOCIETY
The military achievements of Japan in the last twenty years have done
much to make the world appreciate and acknowledge the intrinsic worth of
the Japanese nation. It is, however, very doubtful whether the other
nations find in us many other things to admire besides our military
excellence. Some of them, indeed, without fully investigating their
deeper causes, have entertained serious misgivings as to the probable
consequence of our military successes. The continual occurrence of
anti-Japanese movements in the various States of America and in the
dependencies of Great Britain and Russia, countries with which Japan is
most intimately connected, has been chiefly due to this want of
knowledge as to the real state of affairs in Japan, the progress in the
arts of peace, in science, literature, art, law and economics.
Japan has a brilliant civilisation of which we can justly be proud. In
fine art, we have painting, sculpture, architecture, lacquer-work,
metal-carving, ceramics, etc.,--all of striking quality; in literature,
our poetry, fiction and drama are worthy of serious study; in music and
on the stage our progress has been along lines which accord with the
development of our distinctive national character, and is by no means
behind that of Europe.
Europeans and Americans, however, have failed as yet to appreciate the
essential worth of Japan's civilisation. Some foreigners, it is true,
speak highly of Japanese fine art, praising Japan as a country devoted
to art; but the works that they admire are not always essentially
characteristic of Japan, nor are they representative works of Japanese
fine arts. The number of foreigners aware of the existence of an
influential literature in Japan is extremely limited.
For such regrettable ignorance, however, we can blame no one but
ourselves; for we have made very little effort to promote the
appreciation of our civilisation by other peoples. If Japan, in her
eagerness to learn the best of European civilisation, continues to
disregard the necessity of making known her own civilisation to peoples
abroad, the world's misconception of Japan will forever remain
undispelled. It is our duty, indeed, to demonstrate to the world the
fact that Japanese literature and art have foundations not less deep
than those of our Bushido.
On the other hand, we must have the broadness of mind to recognise and
correct our faults, so that we may make ours a civilisation that will
compel the admiration of the world. Whether or not European
civilisation, which we have to some extent adopted, is really good for
the wholesome development of our nation is a question which still
awaits our mature consideration. In order to enjoy unrestricted the
future possibilities of the world, we must look at things not only from
a national, but also, from a world-wide point of view, abandoning the
present Far Eastern exclusiveness and endeavouring to improve our
position in the family of nations not by military achievements but by
pacific means. This is, indeed, the surest way to make Japan one of the
First Powers both in name and in reality.
To accomplish the above purpose is no doubt a task of no small magnitude
and one which will require a great deal of time and labour; but as our
conviction is that we should not hesitate because of difficulties, so we
have undertaken the organisation of this Society to help towards the
attainment of this ideal.
RULES OF THE YAMATO SOCIETY
ART. I. The Society has for its object to make clear the meaning and
extent of Japanese culture in order to reveal the fundamental character
of the nation to the world; and also the introduction of the best
literature and art of foreign countries to Japan so that a common
understanding of Eastern and Western thought may be promoted.
ART. II. In order to accomplish the object stated in the foregoing
Article the Society shall carry on the following enterprises:
1. Publication in foreign languages of works relating to various
branches of Japanese history.
2. Translation of Japanese literary works.
3. Publication in foreign languages of works of Japanese literature and
art.
4. Publication in foreign languages of a periodical relating to Japanese
literature and art.
5. Such steps as may be necessary for the introduction into Japan of the
best literature and art of foreign countries.
6. Exchange exhibitions of foreign and Japanese art objects to be
arranged between Japan and other countries.
7. Investigation and application of means necessary for the maintenance
and improvement of Japanese art.
8. Despatch to foreign countries of qualified persons for the study and
investigation of important matters relating to or arising out of the
purposes of the Society.
9. Investigation and application of means necessary for the improvement
of the customs and ideals of the Japanese people in general.
ART. III. A Standing Committee shall be elected by the members.
ART. IV. The Standing Committee shall have power to appoint or dismiss a
Secretary and clerks.
ART. V. Candidates for membership of the Society shall be recommended by
the Society.
ART. VI. The expenses of the Society shall be defrayed out of the
revenue derived from the contributions of members and of persons
interested in the work of the Society, from the sale of publications and
from other miscellaneous sources.
ART. VII. Meetings of the Society shall be held as occasion may require.
ART. VIII. The Standing Committee of the Society shall submit to the
members once a year an annual report of the revenue and expenditures,
accomplishments, and condition of the Society.
_Members of the Yamato Society_:
TAKUMA DAN,
BARON TORANOSUKE FURUKAWA,
SHIGENOBU HIRAYAMA, Member of the
House of Peers.
SHIGEZO IMAMURA,
JUNNOSUKE INOUYE,
YEIKICHI KAMADA,
BARON HISAYA IWASAKI, } Partners of the
BARON KOYATA IWASAKI, } Mitsubishi Goshi
} Kaisha, Tokyo.
CHOZO KOIKE, Director of Mr. Kuhara's
Head Office, Tokyo.
FUSANOSUKE KUHARA, President of the
Kuhara Mining Co., Tokyo.
BARON NOBUAKI MAKINO, Member of the
House of Peers.
SHIGEMICHI MIYOSHI, Member of the Mitsubishi
Goshi Kaisha, Tokyo.
BARON KUMAKICHI NAKASHIMA,
SAIZABURO NISHIWAKI,
JOKICHI TAKAMINE, President of the Takamine
Laboratory, New York.
SANAE TAKATA, Member of the House of Peers.
SEIICHI TAKI, Professor of Art History, Imperial
University, Tokyo.
MARQUIS YORIMICHI TOKUGAWA, Member
of the House of Peers.
YUZO TSUBOUCHI, former Professor of the
Waseda University, Tokyo.
KAZUTOSHI UYEDA, Dean of Literary College,
Imperial University, Tokyo.
BARON KENJIRO YAMAKAWA, President of
Imperial University, Tokyo.
_Members of the Standing Committee_:
SHIGENOBU HIRAYAMA.
CHOZO KOIKE.
SHIGEMICHI MIYOSHI.
SANAE TAKATA.
SEIICHI TAKI.
KAZUTOSHI UYEDA.
PREFACE
The principal aim of this work, written at the request of the Yamato
Society as the first of its projected series of publications, is to
furnish a synopsis, or perhaps rather to give a general sketch, of the
history of Japan. The public to which it is tendered is not those
professional historians and students of history now abounding in our
country, who are already perplexedly encumbered with, and engrossed by,
a superfluity of overdetailed materials and a plethora of contradictory
conjectures and hypotheses. In short, the book is, strictly speaking,
intended for those Europeans and Americans who would like to dip into
the past, as well as peer into the future, of Japan,--Japan, not as a
land of quaint curios and picturesque paradoxes only worthy to be
preserved intact for a show, but as a land inhabited by a nation
striving hard to improve itself, and to take a share, however humble, in
the common progress of the civilisation of the world.
Having such an aim on the one hand, it becomes on the other a matter of
urgent necessity for the author to exercise great caution against
extolling bombastically our national merits or falling into a coarse and
futile jingoism. To be ostentatious proves, after all, some lack of
sincerity and impartiality, and is the very vice which should be avoided
by historians worthy of the name. In order to guard against such a
blunder, however, and attain as far as possible the aim I have set
before me, I thought it wisest to approximate the standpoint from which
the book was to be written as nearly as possible to that of a foreigner,
free from our national prejudices and at the same time intensely
sympathetic with our country. Of course, it can hardly be disputed that
to place oneself unerringly on the standpoint of another, different
widely in thought as well as in nationality, is an affair very easy to
talk of, but exceedingly difficult to put into practice. I dare not
presume that I have been at all equal to the task. Still it may be of
some use for the reader to learn beforehand whither my earnest efforts
are directed.
There is some truth in the saying that the time is not yet ripe for a
conscientious Japanese scholar to write a history of our country
covering all ages, ancient and modern, especially if that history is to
be canvassed in a small volume of some three or four hundred pages. The
reason generally alleged is that too many important questions in the
history of Japan remain yet undecided. It is to be doubted, however,
whether there can be found any country in the whole world whose
historical problems are all definitely solved. Therefore it would be
folly to wait till the Yellow River becomes pellucid, as a Chinese
proverb has it. Since the opening of our country, we have had many
foreign scholars investigating ourselves, our origins and our history,
which in most cases have been misunderstood and misrepresented. By some
we are overestimated, flattered, caressed, and cajoled. By others we are
undervalued, despised, and condemned. We are sometimes elevated to a
rank so high that no earthly nation could ever deserve it, and sometimes
we are mercilessly relegated to a stage of savagery, to get back to
which we should have to forego our cherished long history, the
beginnings of which are lost in the myths of ages. Such an astonishing
oscillation of opinion as regards the estimation of the merits and
demerits of the Japanese nation and its history is more than to be
endured. Surely the cause of being undervalued at one time lies in being
overestimated at another, and vice versa. We must put an end to this
oscillation and must be fairly represented, and in order to avoid
misrepresentation we must portray ourselves as fairly as we can. We
ought not to wait for the appearance of foreign authors, capable,
unprejudiced, and deeply interested in our country.
It seems that there are not a few foreign publicists who suppose that
Japan is not yet sufficiently advanced in her civilisation to require
long years of study to understand her. This is why there is such a
number of tourist-writers, who skip over the whole country in a few
weeks, and are presuming enough to make sweeping assertions about all
sorts and conditions of things Japanese with which they come into touch
at haphazard. Again, there is another class of writers, who would like
to rate the Japanese nation and its history much higher than the
above-mentioned do, and who know that it is not such a very easy matter
to understand them. Unluckily, however, they are generally of the
opinion that it is only they, and not the Japanese, who are competent to
take up the task of interpretation, if those things are to be understood
at all. Standing upon this point of view, they would gladly accept any
kind of materials furnished by the Japanese, but flatly refuse to listen
to any theories or arguments devised by Japanese scholars, and
systematically repudiate almost all conclusions arrived at by the
latter. Writers of such a type think that the intellectual capacity of
the Japanese as a nation is not yet so high as to be able to elaborate
logical argumentations. These two sets of foreign writers mentioned
above sometimes praise us _sans phrase_, it is true. They are not,
however, with their eulogistic and gracious verdict, the sort of
champions to dispel the misrepresentations and misunderstandings under
which we suffer.
Moreover, for Japanese historians, the need has never been more urgent
than now to make a trial in writing a history of their own country for
the sake of foreign readers. On account of the Great War, the so-called
European Concert, that is to say, the Areopagus of a few nations, will
be superseded by the Concert of the World. The post-bellum readjustment
and reconstruction, national as well as international, of countries
belligerent and neutral will be an overwhelming task such as the nations
of the world have never before undertaken. Perhaps there will follow a
long period of peace, but the feeling of nations toward one another will
in all natural probability continue sensitive and acute, and will not
easily subside. And in such a nervous and critical age as that, Japan's
position will be an exceedingly difficult one. Hitherto every move she
has made, every feat she has achieved, has been made an object of
international suspicion, especially in recent times. Japan, however,
cannot help making progress in the future, whether welcomed by other
nations or not, for where there is no progress, there is stagnation.
Hence arises the imperative necessity, at the juncture, of an attempt by
the Japanese to explain themselves through telling their own history,
and by so doing procure thorough understanding of themselves, their
character and characteristics, not only as they now really are, but as
they used to be in the past. That is the one object which I have pursued
in this volume.
In preparing this work I acknowledge that I am greatly indebted to my
colleagues in our University of Kyoto. Warmest thanks are due to
Professor A. H. Sayce of Oxford, who, during his sojourn in our ancient
metropolis, kindly revised that part of my manuscript dealing with the
early history of Japan. It is also my greatest pleasure to acknowledge
my gratitude to Mr. Edward Clarke, B.A. (Cantab.), Professor of English
Language and Literature in this College, who went to a great deal of
trouble in revising my awkward English through the whole volume.
KATSURO HARA
_College of Literature,
Kyoto Imperial University,
October, 1918._
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE RACES AND CLIMATE OF JAPAN 21
III. JAPAN BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF BUDDHISM AND
CHINESE CIVILISATION 50
IV. GROWTH OF THE IMPERIAL POWER. GRADUAL CENTRALISATION 73
V. REMODELING OF THE STATE 104
VI. CULMINATION OF THE NEW REGIME; STAGNATION; RISE OF
THE MILITARY REGIME 128
VII. THE MILITARY REGIME; THE TAIRA AND THE MINAMOTO.
THE SHOGUNATE OF KAMAKURA 156
VIII. THE WELDING OF THE NATION. THE POLITICAL
DISINTEGRATION OF THE COUNTRY 194
IX. END OF MEDIEVAL JAPAN 221
X. THE TRANSITION FROM MEDIEVAL TO MODERN JAPAN 252
XI. THE TOKUGAWA SHOGUNATE,--ITS POLITICAL REGIME 282
XII. TOKUGAWA SHOGUNATE,--CULTURE AND SOCIETY 315
XIII. THE RESTORATION OF THE MEIDJI 355
XIV. EPILOGUE 382
INDEX 399
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF JAPAN
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF JAPAN
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The history of Japan may be useful to foreigners in several different
ways. If we do not take into account the serviceableness of detached
historical data or groups of data, that is to say, when we exclude those
cases where the historical data of Japan are studied not for the sake of
understanding Japan herself, but in behalf of some other scientific
purposes, then it can be said that Japanese history will serve
foreigners in two principal and distinct ways. Firstly, it will interest
them as the history of one special nation among many in the world.
Secondly, it may be useful to historical study in general, seeing that
it can be regarded as constituting in itself a microcosm of miniature of
the history of the world manifested in that of a small nation. The
former point is that which attracts most foreigners by the strength of
novelty, while the latter will be none the less suggestive to
comprehensive and reflective historians. Both points need some
explanations. Let me begin with the first.
Japan is a country inhabited by a people differing remarkably in racial
features from those who now occupy the greater part of Europe. She
remained for a long time shut up against the foreigners knocking at her
gate, and on that account her history, compared with that of other
nations, presents striking and unique characteristics. Many ancient
manners and customs, some of them having their origins in ages
prehistoric and unintelligible even to the present Japanese themselves,
are handed down almost unchanged to this day. On the other hand, the
history of Japan is not so simple as the histories of many
semi-civilised countries, which are generally nothing but incredible
legends and records of chronic disturbances arising out of some
inevitable natural causes. Full of charming oddities, which might
provide sources of wild speculations, and at the same time not lacking a
certain complexity,--a complexity indispensable if it is to become an
object of interest and investigation to any scientific historian, the
history of Japan should prove a very fascinating study. In this it
resembles the relation many rare indigenous flora and fauna bear to
foreign biologists. It should be noticed, however, that biologists may
safely remain constant as regards their points of view, whatever plant
or animal they happen to study, while historians ought always to bear in
mind that every nation and every age has its own criterion. In the
study of Japanese history the same truth must hold good. It is a very
regrettable fact, however, that many foreign Japanologists are too fond
of neglecting the Japanese point of view, and would like to apply the
western standard to the things Japanese they encounter in their
researches concerning our country. Frequently they are rash enough to
criticise before they have a proper understanding of those things which
it is their business to criticise. Sometimes they get at a truth to
which Japanese scholars have never attained, but they almost as a rule
forget that things Japanese too should be considered from many sides, as
occidental things should necessarily be, and inflexibly adhere to that
one line of insight which they were once fortunate enough to seize. Or
sometimes they attack pitilessly those legendary parts of our history,
which are to be found in some school text-books or are not yet entirely
expunged from some more scholarly works, on account of a national
reluctance to part with those cherished memories of our forefathers.
They blame us as if no country in the world were chauvinistic except
Japan, and Japan only. Such treatment of Japanese history, however, will
avail them nothing at all, not to mention that we suffer very much in
our outward relations from it. As chapter II. and the following,
however, are chiefly devoted to the purpose of showing that the history
of Japan may be interpreted side by side with that of many European
nations, I will cease dwelling further on this topic, and will directly
go over to the second point.
To consider Japanese history as a miniature of the world's history is
rather a new assertion, so that it requires conclusive justification. It
is now generally believed or assumed that every nation continues to
evolve as an individual does, till it reaches its climax of growth and
begins to decay. Hence many modern historians have successively tried to
extract certain principles by the process of induction from kindred
historical events which took place in different countries and ages, and
thus to raise the study of history to the rank of a science in the same
sense as that in which the word is used when we speak of natural
phenomena. It is a great pity, however, that every historical event is
of a very ephemeral nature, never to be repeated in exactly the same
form in which it once occurred. And if it passes away, it passes away
forever, not to be retarded in the midst of its course by the will of an
investigator. Often one can contribute with full consciousness to the
happening of an event, or can alter the course of it, but one cannot
undo by any means the event itself and wash the ground as if nothing had
taken place. Moreover, historical facts are very difficult to detach
from their environment entirely, however isolated they seem to be, and
on that account they are not fit to be made objects of laboratory
experiments. In a school classroom the pupils are taught to solve an
algebraic equation of a binomial expression by supposing the value of x
and y alternately to be equal to zero. How much the task of historians
would be lightened, if we could for some time trace the effect of a
certain cause exclusively, setting at naught other concurrent causes, as
if those causes might be supposed to be standing still for a moment of
observation or hypothetically cancelled for a necessary time!
Strictly speaking, the above device is out of the question in the case
of any historical investigation. Setting that aside, there is still
another greater difficulty to encounter in the study of history. Every
school-boy knows that there is a fundamental law in physics, that when a
body is set in motion by a certain impetus, it will move on continuously
in one direction with the same momentum, so long as it is left
uninfluenced by any other new force. It is true, however, that such a
case exists very rarely even in natural phenomena, and it would be quite
absurd to look for the like in the domain of history. More than one
cause acts conjointly upon individuals, families, tribes, or nations,
and before those causes cease to influence, other new causes generally
come into play, so that the influences of the latter are interwoven with
those of the former causes or groups of causes, and make discrimination
between them exceedingly difficult.
Summing up the above, one cannot entirely isolate a country from its
surroundings, in order to see what a country or a nation would be able
to achieve, if untouched by any outward influence, that is to say,
solely out of its own immanent evolving forces. Next, it is none the
less difficult to observe scientifically the effects of some outward
forces acting on a nation, by warding off the influx of subsequent
influences and thus giving to the forces in question the full scope and
time to exert their influence. It often happens, however, that what
cannot be done artificially may be found produced spontaneously, and
though we cannot make experiments, in the strict sense of the word,
while observing historical data, it is possible that the history of a
nation or of an age may be taken as a case or a phase of an experiment,
if such an experiment could ever be tried at all. And indeed the history
of Japan may be considered as one of a few such happy cases.
Here I need not talk much about the history of our country anterior to
the introduction of the Chinese civilisation. After the opening of the
regular intercourse between this country and China in the beginning of
the seventh century, institutions, arts, learning, and even the manners
of every day life continued for a long time to be brought thence by many
official emissaries and students, and copied faithfully here, though
generally with slight modifications. At that time, however, there being
no country far advanced in civilisation other than China near us, the
Chinese influence, the only exotic one, was allowed to take sole and
full effect. Besides this, that Chinese civilisation itself was not
encouraged to flow in endlessly. When, with the decay of the T'ang
dynasty and the setting in of the anarchical condition following it in
China, the highly finished culture attained during that dynasty, perhaps
the most perfect one China had ever seen, began to degenerate there, the
official intercourse between that country and Japan was interrupted. Of
course, I do not mean to say that even private and intermittent
commercial intercourse was also suspended at the same time, for the
geographical position of our country toward China does not allow the
former to remain entirely isolated from the latter. The suspension of
the regular intercourse itself, however, was enough to save Japan from
becoming entangled in the vicissitudes of the various dynasties
following the T'ang, and our forefathers were left to themselves to make
the best use of, that is to say, to digest, what had already been
brought in abundantly. In the succeeding period the quiet process of
rumination went on for several centuries. If we look back into the
Japanese history of that time, therefore, we can ascertain fairly
scientifically the effect of a high civilisation acting on a naive
population not yet sufficiently organised as a nation, as our country
was at that period, and likewise we can observe many traits of the old
T'ang culture, which is now difficult to trace in China herself. This
is our first experiment in Chinese civilisation.
Among the dynasties that followed the fall of the T'ang, that which
longest held the rule was the Sung, and between China under the latter
dynasty and Japan merchant ships plied now and then. Some Japanese
Buddhist priests followed the track of their predecessors, and went over
to China to study Buddhism. At the time of the Yuen dynasty founded by
the Mongols, China sent many Buddhist missionaries successively to
Japan, where religious innovations were in course of progress. This is
our second experiment in Chinese civilisation. In the first experiment
the religious element was of course not excluded. The essential
characteristic, however, of the culture of the T'ang dynasty was
politico-aesthetical, and as the result of the introduction of that
culture, Japan became enlightened in general. In other words, the first
experiment may be said to have been an aesthetical one, while the second
is one apt to be termed a religious one, and by the blending of the
results of the two experiments, we became a tolerably aesthetic and
religious people. Still there remained much to be wished for in respect
of national unification and social solidarity, and it is the culture of
the Sung dynasty itself which provided that very need, being
politico-ethical in its essential nature. By the introduction of that
culture the doctrines of the Confucian philosophers, which were made the
means of regulating the social and political organisation of Japan,
were inculcated widely and deeply, and forced into practice more
rigorously than they were in China herself. This is our third experiment
in Chinese civilisation. And when this experiment was almost finished,
we were faced by the inundation of western civilisation, which at last
made it impossible for us to continue the process of rumination, and
compelled us to plunge headlong into the maelstrom of world history.
It is rather derogatory to our national pride to have to aver that we
are so deeply indebted to Chinese civilisation. Yet the facts cannot be
denied, nor the truth falsified. Moreover, we need not be ashamed that
we brought in so much from China, while we gave very little to the
Chinese in exchange. How could we, who were very late in commencing a
civilised national life, initiate a new civilisation independent of that
of China, without imitating it? Was not the Chinese civilisation too far
advanced and too overpowering for the Japanese of that time, the
Japanese who were still at the outset of their evolutionary march? On
the contrary, justice should be done to the fact, that we not only
improved ourselves by availing ourselves of such a high civilisation,
but withstood it at the same time, being far from dwindling away as a
result of having come into contact with it, as many uncivilised races
have done in a similar case. No impartial historian would fail to
observe that there is some capacity not borrowed but inborn in the
Japanese people, by force of which they were able to consolidate
themselves as a compact nation, possessing striking characteristics
quite different from those of China. And it is especially to be noted to
the honour of the Japanese, that the more we helped ourselves to Chinese
culture, the wider became the divergence between the two countries.
Could such a way of introducing an alien civilisation be designated a
servile imitation? I am far from trying to embellish every phase of the
history of Japan, whatever its due merit may be, and would be content if
even a few of the wanton calumnies current vis a vis Japan be set aright
by making her real history understood, which is not very easy to grasp,
but yet not so sterile as it is reputed to be by some foreign
historians.
What I want to call attention to next is that the history of our country
is not that monotonous repetition of a certain kind of historical data,
however peculiar the data in themselves may be. Nay, the history of
Japan is full of varieties in the nature of its data. The history of
Greece is sometimes stated to be a miniature of the world's history on
account of the richness in variety of the historical phenomena which
occurred there, it being possible to find there also most of the
important subjects treated in history at large, though of course on a
much reduced scale. In this regard, too, the history of Japan closely
resembles that of ancient Greece. Our country had been disunited for a
long time, each section constituting itself a political quasi-unit
governed by a certain local semi-independent lord, like the tyrant of
Greek history. Those local potentates, however, were not so arrogant as
not to recognise the hereditary, political and spiritual sovereignty of
the Emperor. Not only that. They also reluctantly rejected the hegemony
of the Shogunate, though as a matter of fact this had but a nominal
existence. From this point of view, it might be asserted that our
country never ceased to be a united one. The bond of unity, however,
became very slack at intervals, so that the very existence of the unity
itself was often in doubt. In our history, therefore, there were many
obstacles to progress, especially in those lines of progress which
necessarily depend on the close unification of the whole country. At the
same time, however, advantages are not to be neglected, which might be
considered to result from the dismemberment itself. Japan had many small
centres at some periods. But it was, to some extent, owing to similar
circumstances that those centres came into existence, and for that
reason there was to be found much in common in all of them, in respect
of the tone of the culture fostered in the respective centres. That is a
matter of course. Among those centres, however, there arose naturally
much vying with one another in the promotion of their progress, and thus
the general standard of civilisation in Japan came to be raised to a
not inconsiderable height. Moreover, something like international
relations began to grow up between those units, which contributed
largely to the perfection of the culture within each of them. This is
the same interesting phenomenon, which we can trace not in the history
of Greece only, but in that of the Holy Roman Empire, nay, even in the
history of Europe itself. The difference is simply that in Europe the
same phenomenon developed on a grand scale, while it took place in Japan
in a very small compass. No wonder that as a result of having had a
national experience of the nature stated above, the history of Japan is
rich in varieties of data and deserves the attention of highly qualified
historians. So let me here submit to a hasty examination a few of the
important items in Japanese history, which even to European readers, may
be of no small interest, having their parallels in the histories of the
West.
The first and the most important item to be mentioned is feudalism. A
famous living French historian once told me that it was absurd to speak
of Japanese feudalism, since feudalism was a special historical
phenomenon originated by the Franks, and therefore not to be found
outside of Europe. How is the word "feudalism" rightly to be defined
then? May it not be extended to a similar system which prevailed in
western Europe, but not under Frankish authority? If it can be said that
feudalism also obtained in the Swabian, the Saxonian and the
Marcomanian land, surely it would not be absurd to extend it a bit
further so as to make it cover similar phenomena which arose in
non-European countries, for example in China and especially in Japan.
For centuries in Europe historians successively tried to solve the
question, What is feudalism? A great number of hypotheses has been
presented. Some of them held the ground against their antagonists in
bitter scientific controversies, but were soon obliged to give way to
clever newly-started theories, and no conclusive solution has yet been
given to the problem. The cause of the failure chiefly lies in the
mistaken idea, that feudalism is a kind of systematic legislation, which
originated in the elaboration of some rules put together by some
sagacious ruler, or in the time-honoured invention of some very gifted
tribe, and starting from this erroneous supposition some scholars have
believed that they would be able to generalise from those overwhelmingly
chaotic materials, and thereby to establish certain fundamental
principles applicable to the feudal relation of whichever country they
chose. Far from their assumption being true, however, feudalism is not
an invention of somebody, made consciously, nor a result of a
deliberately devised enactment. A few general rules may be extracted
perhaps by so-called generalising, but even these few would be provided
with exceptional conditions. Therefore, the truth we reach at last by
studying the historical sources concerning feudalism is rather the
general spirit pervading all kinds of feudalism, and not any concrete
rule applicable everywhere, as we see in the case of natural sciences.
If the granting of the usufruct of a certain extent of land in exchange
for military service is the essence of feudalism, it is indisputable
that feudalism existed in Japan too.
Feudalism is indeed a necessity, as a Chinese servant has said in a
memorable essay. It is a necessity which any nation must undergo, if
that nation is to become consolidated. Feudalism is often described as a
backward movement with respect to the political organisation. Primitive
races, however, cannot be described as having been either centralised or
decentralised, socially and politically, and the first stage which they
must pass is that of a vague centralisation. In this stage,
superficially observed, it appears as if the race were centralised at
one point, but the truth is that in so early a stage of civilisation, it
is not probable that more than one prominent centre would at once be
formed conspicuous enough to attract attention. And even that one centre
itself is formed, not because it is strong enough to centralise, but
because centripetalism actuates the environment, and no other force is
yet so strong as to compete with it. In early times, however, the degree
of prominency of a single centre over all others must have been very
slight. As time passes, lesser centres begin to distinguish themselves,
closely following the prominent first in strength of centralisation,
and become at last so powerful as to be able to challenge the hegemony
of the first centre. This state of affairs we generally denote as the
age of dismemberment, as if a true centralisation had been accomplished
in the age preceding. This view is utterly false. Without the power to
centralise, no political centre can be said to exist really, and without
any strong centre effective centralisation is not possible. The apparent
centralised, that is to say, unified condition of the ancient empires,
is nothing but a chaotic condition with one bright point only, and the
state of being seemingly dismembered is in truth a step toward the real
unification, centralisation _in partibus_ paving the way for
centralisation on a larger scale. This phase in the preparatory process
for the unity and consolidation of a nation is feudalism itself.
Feudalism is a test through which every nation must pass, if it aspires
to become a well organised body at all. There are some tribes, indeed,
which have never passed through the feudal period in their history, but
that is due to the fact that these tribes had certain defective traits
which hindered them from undergoing that experience, and on account of
that they have been unable to achieve a sound, well-proportioned
progress in their civilisation, which must necessarily be accompanied by
a well-organised political centralisation, whether it be monarchical or
democratic. Other nations have passed, it is true, the test of the
feudal regime, but very imperfectly, and for that reason have had great
difficulty in amending the defect afterwards.
By no means need we lament that we were under the feudal regime for a
considerable time in our history. On the contrary, I am rejoiced that we
were. Every political development must go side by side with the
corresponding social progress. The latter, unless sheltered by the
former, lacks stability, while the former, if unaccompanied by the
latter, is not tenable, and will break down before long and be of no
avail. Feudalism can be compared to a nut-shell, which protects the
kernel till it quietly consummates its maturing process within. Social
progress, of whatever sort it be, ought to be covered by a political
regime of a certain kind, especially adapted to discharge the task of
protection, and must be allowed thereby to prosecute its own development
free from disturbing influences. Feudalism is one of the political
regimes indispensable to perform such a function. Though it seems to be
fortunate for a nation not to tarry too long in the stage of feudalism,
yet it is not desirable for the nation to emerge out of this stage
prematurely.
To sum up, in order that a nation may continue in its healthy progress,
it should have feudalism once in its historical course, and must pass
that test fairly. And as passing a test can be fruitful only on
condition that that test itself be fair, it becomes necessary as a
natural consequence that a fair test must be passed fairly. Then how is
it with Japan? It cannot be safely said that we have passed the test
exceedingly well, but at the same time we can presume that we have not
passed it badly. If someone should say that the Japanese stayed
unnecessarily long in that condition and have not even yet entirely
emerged from it, he must have forgotten that even the most civilised
countries of Europe could not shake off the shackles of the feudal
system entirely until very recent times, the first half of the
nineteenth century still retaining an easily perceptible tincture of it,
as we see in the survival of the patrimonial jurisdiction in some
continental states of Europe. On the other hand foreign observers
generally fail to see that the regime of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which I
shall expatiate upon in a later chapter, is of a sort quite different
from that of the European feudalism in the middle ages, and are induced
to believe that the Japanese nation has been quit of the miserable
regime for only fifty years. These views are both totally mistaken. In
our relation to feudalism, we went through almost the same experience as
other civilised nations did, neither more nor less. Because, in so far
as we speak of the history of any nation ranging from its beginning till
our day, more than half of it can be held to have been occupied by
feudalism, the history of Japan may also be said to have in common with
other nations more than half of the essential elements which the
so-called history of the world could teach.
After having seen that our history is not totally unlike that of the
nations of Europe in its most essential trait, it is not strange that
the history of Japan should contain many other things, besides
feudalism, which can be reckoned as the typical items necessary to make
up the history of any civilised nation, that is to say, as the chief
ingredients not to be dispensed with in the world's history,--viz.,
various religious movements keeping pace with the social development at
large, economic evolution conditioning and conditioned by the changes of
other factors constituting civilisation in general, etc. As the foreign
influences can be traced comparatively distinctly, the history of Japan
can, to a large extent, be subjected to a scientific analysis. So if we
look for the history of a nation, which is fit to represent the gradual
evolution of national progress in general, Japanese history must be a
select one. It is in this respect that I said that the history of our
country is a miniature of the world's history. After all the history of
Japan is not so simple and naive as to be either an easy topic for
amateur historians, or a suitable theme for ordinary anthropologists,
ethnographers, or philologists, who are not specially qualified to deal
with histories of civilised times. Those whom I should heartily welcome
as the investigators of the history of our country, are those historians
in Europe and America, who, more than amply qualified to write the
history of their own countries, have continued to disdain extending
their field of investigation to the corners of the world, thought by
them not civilised enough to be worthy of their labour. If they care to
peep into the history of our country, perhaps the result will not be so
barren as to disappoint them utterly. The greatest misfortune to our
country at the present day is that her history has been written by very
few first-rate historians of Europe and America, those who have written
upon it being mostly of the second or third rank. Nay, there are many
who cannot be called historians at all. The best qualifications they
have are that, by some means or other, they can write a book, or that
they were once residents of Japan, and if they venture to write a
history about a country outside of their own, Japan seems to them to be
the easiest subject, the greater part of their compatriots being quite
ignorant of it.
I dwell thus long, however, on the significance of the history of Japan,
not in order to silence these quasi-historians, nor forcibly to induce
the first-rate foreign historian to study the history of Japan against
his own will. The former attempt is useless, while the latter may be
almost hopeless. The principal reason for having long dwelt on the
subject, is only to have it understood by foreigners, that the Japanese
nation, which has such an advanced historical experience in the past, is
not to be considered as one only recently awakened, and therefore to be
admired, patted, encouraged, feared and despised in rapid succession. If
once they happen to understand the true history of Japan, then the
fluctuations in their estimation of us will also cease; then, perhaps,
we shall not be feared, or rather, made an object of scare any more, as
now we are, but at the same time we shall be happy not to be disliked or
rejected.