Appendix
I
Political Organism of Japan
This article is intended to explain the salient points of the political organism of the Japanese Empire, a subject on which many people have expressed to me their wishes to be informed. The chief sources of my authority are, of course, the Imperial Constitution and the Imperial House Law promulgated February 11, 1889, but I have also made use of several other important laws and known facts bearing on the subject.
The Emperor
The emperor is sacred and inviolable according to the constitution. His majesty is the sole depository of sovereignty. Legislative power is given to the Imperial Diet, but the theory of our constitution is that the emperor himself exercises that power with the concurrence of the Diet. Other attributes of the emperor, such as the authority for convoking or dissolving the Diet, sanctioning or vetoing laws, promulgating the same, declaring war or making peace, ordering amnesty or pardon, or conferring honours, such as titles of nobility, etc., are much the same as those of the most of the Western monarchical countries. One important feature which is without a parallel in the constitution of almost all other countries (except perhaps some resemblance in the Austrian constitution) is that in Japan the emperor has the power to issue 'Urgency Ordinances' which have the same force as the law when urgency requires such enactments in order to maintain public safety or to avert public calamity, and it happens that the Diet is not sitting, though such ordinances have to be submitted to the Diet and its ex-post-facto consent obtained in the next session, and they lose their force in case such consent is withheld by the Diet. Another important feature is that in Japan, unlike several constitutional countries, all matters relating to the organisation of the army or navy or the determination of the number of the standing army are entirely within the sphere of the Imperial prerogative and beyond interference by the diet though the latter has an indirect voice by reason of its participation in matters of 'supply.'
The Imperial Succession
The established usage in respect of the Imperial succession of Japan has always been in the main that of primogeniture on male lines. There had been, however, no hard-and-fast restriction similar to the Salic Law before the promulgation of the Imperial House Law of 1889, and, accordingly, we have had several empresses on the throne of Japan, though there was never an instance of a reigning empress having a consort. The Imperial House Law has prevented for ever any female succeeding to the throne. We can therefore sum up the order of succession to the Japanese throne as that of the male primogeniture, viz., from the father to the eldest son, then to the eldest grandson and so on, in the direct line, in default of which, to the collateral line. The order of all these is similar to that which appertains to European primogeniture. The ceremony of coronation is always to take place at Kioto, the old capital, so also is the Daijo-Sai, the grand festivity, which is celebrated but once in a reign. The full age of the emperor, the crown prince, and the eldest son of the crown prince, who has become direct heir to the throne owing to the early death of the crown prince, is fixed at full eighteen years, whilst with all the other members of the Imperial family it is full twenty years, like ordinary subjects of the emperor. When the emperor is a minor, a regency is to be instituted. When the emperor is incapacitated by grave causes from discharging his functions, the same thing also takes place. The order in which the regency may devolve upon members of the Imperial family is as under:
(1) The crown prince.
(2) The Imperial grandson, being already direct heir-apparent.
(3) Other princes.
(4) The empress.
(5) The empress-dowager.
(6) The grand empress-dowager.
(7) Princesses who have actually no consorts. Precedence amongst the princes is determined by the order in which they stand for succession to the throne, and that of princesses is determined in a similar way.
During the minority of the emperor, a grand guardian (Taifu) is appointed. In case no person for that office be named by the will of the departed emperor, he is to be appointed by the regent after having consulted the Imperial family council and the Privy Council. He cannot be removed unless the matter first be submitted to the consideration of the above-named councils. When a prince or princess is appointed regent, he or she shall not, during the tenure, abdicate in favour of any one except in the case where the crown prince or his eldest son, who had already become direct heir to the throne, has become qualified for the function on account of his attaining full age.
The Government
The administrative affairs of the empire are discharged by a minister-president of state, and a number of the ministers of state. The ministers of state as they stand at present are: (1) The Interior. (2) The Foreign. (3) Finance. (4) War. (5) Navy. (6) Justice. (7) Communications. (8) Education. (9) Commerce and Agriculture. The chiefs of these ministries, viz., the ministers of state, form the cabinet under the presidency of the minister-president. The system and actual working of the cabinet is similar to those of the advanced Western nations. A cabinet meeting is held usually once a week, and important affairs of state are discussed therein. The cabinet as a body is responsible to the emperor for those affairs, though each minister has great latitude of action in matters which fall exclusively within the sphere of his ministry. There are many matters which do not require personal discussion. These are circulated among the ministers in the form of documents for their signature. Matters discussed or considered in document by the ministers, and which require Imperial sanction are submitted to the emperor by documents, or personally explained to his majesty by the minister-president or other ministers as the case may be; but when very important matters are discussed in the cabinet, it is always in the actual presence of the emperor. There is a minister for the Imperial household, but neither he nor his ministry have anything to do with state affairs, i.e. politics; consequently, the minister of the Imperial household is not a member of the cabinet.
There is a Privy Council, which consists of a president, vice-president, and about two dozen councillors, and these form the supreme consultative council of the emperor. It discusses and considers important state affairs when it is commanded by the emperor to present its views on any given matter.
The Ministry of Justice has control of the administrative sections of judicial affairs, but law courts have their distinctive organisation, and the judges are quite independent of administrative interference. They are appointed for life and can be dismissed only for grave causes indicated by law.
Besides the War Ministry, there is a General Staff Office, and in addition to the Naval Ministry there is the Naval General Staff Office. The demarcation of the spheres of their competency is that administrative affairs relating to the army and navy are controlled by the ministries, and those relating to technical and strategic matters, or such like, are controlled by the staff office. Both staff offices have a chief and a vice-chief. They are naturally not members of the cabinet. In time of war a special Imperial headquarters under the direct control of the emperor is constituted.
All officials in Government service have before their appointments to undergo a requisite examination, except when the appointment is for the position of the Ministership of State.
The Diet
The Imperial Diet consists of two houses: the House of Peers and the House of Representatives. There is no difference of privilege between the two houses, except that the annual budget is to be first submitted to the House of Representatives, and that the latter may be dissolved, while no law exists for the dissolution of the former; further, that the president and vice-president of the Upper House are appointed by the emperor from amongst the members, whilst those of the Lower House are appointed by the emperor out of three candidates for each elected by the House.
The Representatives are elected by direct votes of electors. Until recent years the country was divided into many small electoral districts (nearly three hundred, in fact). Each district elected one representative, and a few elected two representatives, the difference having arisen from the difficulty of demarking the Sphere uniformly, on account of the local peculiarities and the number of the population. The total number of the representatives amounted to just three hundred. A great change was introduced in recent years in the system of election. Each prefecture now forms one large electoral district, except that all the cities, although they are all situated within the prefecture, form separate districts, each independently. Each district elects a certain number of representatives allotted to it by law, based upon the number of the population of such district. (In cases of extremely small cities the allotment is only one representative.) Each elector may vote for only one candidate whatever may be the number of representatives allotted to that district. Men who have polled the largest number of votes are picked out to the allotted number, and they are regarded as elected, but in all cases the elected must have polled one-fifth of the number obtained by dividing the whole number of the registered electors by the number of the representatives allotted to the district. This mode of election is called the 'large-district single-vote-system.' It easily enables the minority of the district to have themselves represented in the Diet. When any vacancy occurs within a year from the election, the one who has polled the largest number next to the elected takes his seat, provided that he had also polled the requisite quorum of votes as above mentioned. The voting is by ballot (anonymous). There are, of course, some disqualifications for being an elector or a candidate, including the disability of titled noblemen for taking part in the matter. The actual number of the representatives is three hundred and seventy-six. The qualifications of the electors are that they shall be male subjects of twenty-five years old or above, paying ten yen (M 20) of direct taxes and having a year's residence in the district. The qualifications of the candidates are that they shall be male subjects thirty years old or above, and their terms are four years.
The composition of the House of Peers is somewhat complicated. The Japanese name for it is 'Kizoku-in.' 'Kizoku' is generally translated as peers, and it certainly means noble or high families, but not in the strict sense of titled people in the West. For the strict equivalent of peers or nobility, in the Western sense, we have another term 'Kwazoku.' Our House of Peers consists of the following members, who must always be males:
(1) Male members of the Imperial family who have attained their full age.
(2) Princes (dukes) and marquises who have attained the age of twenty-five years.
Both these classes (one and two) sit in the House by their inherent right.
(3) Representatives elected by counts, viscounts, and barons from amongst themselves, each grade separately.
The numbers of such representatives is previously determined, always not exceeding one-fifth of the total number of each grade. They must be twenty-five years old, and their terms are seven years.
(4) Life members appointed by the emperor by virtue of distinguished services rendered to the state, or of intellectual distinction. They all of them must be fully thirty years old; nearly all of those who are thus nominated do not belong to the nobility in the strict sense of the term.
(5) Members elected, one for each prefecture, by mutual election of fifteen highest direct-tax payers of each of the respective prefectures. Such tax payers must be thirty years old, and their paying the taxes must be on account of the lands they hold or of industry or commerce. Therefore, one who simply lives on an income derived from state-bonds would hardly be entitled to claim this privilege. The terms of these members are also seven years. The total number in classes four and five may not exceed the total number in classes two and three, viz., members belonging purely to the nobility.
The Diet is to be convoked once a year for an ordinary session, the length of which is three months, and can be prolonged when necessary. Special sessions may be instituted when necessary. All members of both Houses, except those belonging to classes number one and number two of the Upper House, or those who are in the government service, receive two thousand yen (M 4000) a year, whilst presidents and vice-presidents receive five thousand yen and three thousand yen respectively.
Army and Navy
The recruiting and organisation of the Japanese army are very much like those of the European continental powers, especially those of Germany, from whom we have learned much. Those of the Japanese navy are like those of England, except that our sailors are taken not only from volunteers, but also by obligatory service; in other words, youths who have to serve as soldiers by the universal service system may be taken for sailors, considerations of course being given to their personal inclination. These latter, i.e. obligatory ones, form about half the total number in the navy.
Local Administration
The whole of Japan proper is divided into forty-five prefectures. The prefectures of Tokio, Kioto, and Osaka are called Fu, whilst all others are called Ken. The difference is more a matter of sentiment than anything else, for there is no difference whatever for any practical purposes. The administrative systems of Hokkaido, Okinawa, and Formosa each diverge from those of Japan proper to some extent, though they are gradually being made similar to those of the main islands. I therefore put those three Islands, Hokkaido, Okinawa, and Formosa, outside the scope of the present paper for the sake of convenience. Each prefecture is presided over by a governor appointed by the central Government. It is partly an administrative district of the state and partly a communal district having its communal administration supported by local taxes. For this latter aspect each prefecture has a local assembly, members of which are elected by direct votes of electors of the prefecture. Each prefecture is divided into counties, and the counties (Kreis) into rural and urban village communities (Gemeinde). Larger urban communities are incorporated as cities and are made independent of counties. Counties are prefectures on a small scale. Each of them is presided over by a Gun-cho, whose office is very similar to that of a French sub-prefect. But counties also have their communal sides like prefectures and have representative assemblages. The communal side of counties, however, is not very important, because communal affairs on a large scale are discharged by prefectures, and ordinary communal affairs are mostly discharged by village communities. Cities and village communities are the real 'self-governments' of the people. Each of them has a representative assemblage, and elects its own executive officials. The composition of these officials differs in cities and village communities; that in the cities is, of course, more complicated. Even amongst the cities there is a great difference in the degree of importance, because there are many cities which are extremely small, inasmuch as a town having a population over twenty-five thousand could as a rule be incorporated as a city. The existing ordinances for the constitution of these local governments are very much like those of Prussia—in fact, the ordinances for those of the cities and village communities are in a great measure founded upon those of Prussia. The chief points of difference are that, unlike Prussia, our prefectural governments subordinate direct to the central Government, with no intermediary which represents the latter and superintends the former, and that, unlike Prussia, there is in Japan no 'Gutsbezirk' (signorial community) side by side with ordinary communities.
The Conclusion
Such is the political organism of Japan. My description, however, is only the merest skeleton of it. That such a skeleton should be endowed with the proper spirit requires that the whole nation from the sovereign down to the lowest member of the community should be animated by sincerity and loyalty and supported by a liberal and tolerant régime. That Japan is doing her best in those respects, I can only ask my readers to infer from their own observation of the admitted progress that she has been fortunate enough to accomplish so far.
I may, however, explain some of the more important points bearing on the question. The emperor is extremely popular amongst his people at large. I may say that it is not mere popularity in the ordinary sense of the word, but a popularity which is more of the nature of reverence. This reverence for the emperor on the part of the people is manifested in their extreme loyalty. On the other hand, the emperor has not the least inclination to take advantage of it and abuse it for selfish purposes. His majesty entertains the keenest sense of duty in regard to his position, not as a person privileged to do whatever he may choose, but rather as a person to whom is intrusted the great task of taking care of the people over whom he reigns. Thus there exist between the sovereign and his subjects mutual confidence and love, which cannot fail to prove the greatest blessing to the country in any hour of national emergency.
As to the position of the Diet versus the Government, party landmarks are not so strong in Japan as among most of the Western nations. True it is that in Japan also there are several political parties, but the Government is not 'a party government' as it is in England or America. In that respect the Government of Japan most resembles that of Germany. According to the constitution, the Ministers of State are responsible only to the Emperor, but every practical statesman knows that no government can be satisfactorily carried on without concurrence of the Diet so long as there is such a body, and therefore in Japan, also, every Ministry has to do its best to count on such good relations with the parties as it can secure; but, nevertheless, party feeling does not run so high, and party struggles are not so severe as to make the formation of a Cabinet depend on party issues.
The cause of all this is plain so far as we are concerned. The emperor does not interfere with politics, but when at the hour of supreme necessity he manifests his will, his subjects, one and all, instantaneously obey it, and rally around the throne, forgetting for the time being any differences of personal opinion. It was so at the time of the Sino-Japanese war, and again in the Russo-Japanese war. This state of things is due, amongst others, to the liberal administration of the Imperial régime. The press, speech, and right of meeting are for all practical purposes entirely free. Personal freedom is guaranteed by the constitution. Taxes are levied, but no abuse of authority is known. The people at large have no real grounds of complaint or grievance against the Government as such, and have absolutely none against the Emperor. Moreover, Japan knows no difficulty in matters of religion, and consequently no party based upon religious notions exists to give trouble to Government. If this or that section of the people has any disputes with the Government or between themselves, those are essentially questions of some temporary and passing character. Hence in Japan it is not a difficult matter for the people at large to unite themselves under a common national policy in a time of national emergency.
II
Japanese Education [1]
In this paper I shall sketch something of the systems of education in Japan, especially that of elementary education. My readers, however, must not think I have anything wonderful to show to them; for, as a matter of fact, I have nothing to take them by surprise. All that I can sum up is, that we are doing those things with the utmost sincerity, as we do other things which are already manifest to the Western public In days gone by, that is to say, during the feudal period, there was one college in the capital town of every feudal lord, in which the children of the retainers of Samurai were educated. There were some hundreds of such lords, some great and some petty. Their ranks and importance differed considerably, and naturally the number of their retainers differed; in consequence the scale and magnitude of such colleges also varied. The most famous of them were those of Mito, Chosiu, Kumamoto, and others belonging to great lords. Above all, there was one such belonging to the Shogunate itself. It may be here noted that institutions where the young Samurai practised the use of swords, or spears, or firearms, or the art of jiujitsu, were established sometimes in connection with, and sometimes independently of, these colleges. There were also many plebeian colleges in different parts of the empire. These were mostly private institutions founded by savants. The founders were generally of plebeian origin; but there were among them many who were originally Samurai, and who betook themselves to such occupation from love of independence, or some other causes. But it must be remembered that, though they did not belong officially to the cadre of Samurai, yet the social respect paid to them was great. In such a private institution, the founder himself was the master, assisted by those of his pupils who were more advanced than others. The master taught the advanced pupils, or gave general lectures for the benefit of all; and the advanced taught and gave lectures to the less advanced. The pupils were generally youths of plebeian gentry, but not exclusively so, because many of the youthful Samurai from all parts of the empire enlisted themselves as pupils, especially when any such institution had become famous on account of the achievements of the master and of the general work of the institution.
The curricula of such colleges, both of the official ones of feudal lords and of private ones, were diverse, but generally comprised elementary as well as higher education. There was, of course, no uniform course of study to restrain the method of teaching; and every inventive faculty was employed in each college, so that many special characteristics were observable. But one thing which is undeniable was, that ethical training formed one of the most important branches everywhere.
The chief feature of the college institutions of those days, especially of private institutions, was enforced privation and hardship. I can never forget the days when I, in common with all others, of course, ate meals only twice a day, and those, too, of the simplest diet. The food often consisted of nothing else than a little rice with a very little salt, or the like. We ourselves were cooks in turn. We swept and washed out, not only our own rooms, but those of the master also. We often used cold water in the depth of severe winters for the purpose of washing, and suchlike. We heated the water in turn for the baths of our fellow pupils. We sometimes sat up whole nights in winter with scarcely any fire to warm us, in order to accustom ourselves to rigid discipline. In those days no idea of sanitation in the modern sense entered the minds of the master or of ourselves; neither did any outward show of appearance trouble us, nay, the more one was regardless of those things, the more was one thought strong in character. It is, no doubt, due to the training of those days that I, personally, for instance, cannot bear the trouble of appearing like a grandee, or a fashionable person. Thus, for example, I, who never used gloves in my boyhood, cannot endure the discomfort of wearing them, even on winter days.
Amongst the lower classes (peasants or shopkeepers) there was generally one or other private person, in village or town, who could teach elementary writing and reading, and who taught the children in his neighbourhood by establishing a sort of private school. This was very commonly done by a priest of the Buddhist or Shinto temple of the place. It seems that at one time this was done almost universally by the priests of Buddhist temples; so much so, that we have the term Tera-ko-ya. Tera means a Buddhist temple, Ko means children, and Ya means a house—Tera-Ko came generally to mean children who go to learn elementary writing and reading, and Tera-ko-ya to mean the place where such children were taught. We have a famous tragedy, one act of which is called The Scene of Terakoya. There is a translation in German of that act by a German scholar. It is a scene which represents a tragic incident taking place in the tenth century A.D., in a private school for children opened by an old retainer of a nobleman. It has nothing to do with a temple; and yet it is called The Scene of Terakoya.
It was, however, only after the inauguration of the Meiji era that education became thorough and universal. In the earliest days of this era there was an officer called Daigaku-Betto (Chancellor of the University), who was a functionary of great dignity. In the course of a few years a special Ministry was instituted for education, with a Minister of State, who, of course, had a chair in the Cabinet; and that system has ever remained the same. The Minister of Education controls the educational affairs of the whole country. At first the sphere of direct control of the central Government was naturally limited to higher education; but, with the abolition of the feudal system and the gradual consolidation of local administration, the sphere has extended step by step, and has culminated in the present system of universal education.
For the system of education, also, we are indebted to Europe and America; for the method of its practical working is, like many other new institutions, borrowed from the Occidental nations. The only difference perceptible, perhaps, lies in the fact that in Japan the moving force of the whole system is manipulated by the central Government to a greater degree than it is in any other country—certainly far more so than it is in England. The question of how far popular education should be interfered with by the state, or rather what difference of advantage exists between the system whereby the state takes upon itself far-reaching responsibility and one whereby a great margin is left to an independent development of private institutions, is a matter which admits many pros and cons. It is not, however, my business to discuss this problem in this place. The fact remains, that with us the state exercises conspicuous influence in the matter. Almost all the educational institutions of Japan are official or public; for they belong either directly to the state or to the local administrations (Prefectural or Communal), and they are all controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Ministry of Education. There are some private institutions also, it is true; but their number is very small when compared with the others, and even those must abide by the general direction of the state. The reason of this is, that private undertakings for elementary education have to be similar to the compulsory education imposed by the state, and such similarity can only be acquired by following the general direction of the state. In those of a higher standard, it is because there are many things in which certain privileges are given to those persons who possess certain educational qualifications. For instance, in obtaining a postponement of actual enrolment for military service, or in becoming a candidate for civil service examinations, such educational qualifications are generally measured by the standard of certain public institutions; so that private institutions of higher standard have to conform themselves to the direction of the state, if they wish to avail themselves of the aforesaid privileges. The chief reason why in Japan the state takes upon itself so much responsibility in education is, apart from the intrinsic merit per se of the system, that the country, under the circumstances of the period, could not afford to wait patiently the natural growth of extensive private enterprises.
Putting aside special and technical educational institutions, as well as those of a private nature, the grades of our educational institutions are: (1) the Universities; (2) High Colleges, which may be regarded as preparatory Almæ Matres for universities; (3) Middle Schools; (4) Higher Primary Schools; (5) Common Primary Schools.
The first two belong to the state itself. The last three belong to local administrations—in fine, there is one or more of the Middle Schools in each Prefecture, supported by the prefectural taxes, the number varying according to the requirement of the locality; and one or more Higher Primary Schools in each county, and one or more Common Primary Schools in each village-community, all supported by local rates. The case of cities is similar to that of a county and its village-communities put together. The system is thoroughly carried out throughout the country; for I can say that there is no community where a Primary School is not provided. In populous towns there are Kindergarten for the benefit of little boys and girls under school age, though the number of such Garten is still only a few hundreds in all.
Elementary education is compulsory for both boys and girls: the school age begins at six. Common Primary Schools are the places where compulsory education is given. The course is four years. Excuses for absence are taken only in certain cases. According to the official report of the school year of 1901-2, the percentage of the boys receiving requisite elementary education was 93.78, and that of the girls 81.80, the average being 88.05.
The present system of our writing, which is more commonly used than another which consists of phonetic letters only, is very cumbersome, because it consists of a mixture of Chinese ideographs and our phonetic letters. It is a great drawback to our education, nay to our national life. Boys and girls, however, have to learn it; and, therefore, the poor children of Japan have to take more pains than those of other countries, which are blessed with the common use of a phonetic alphabet only.
Boys and girls of all classes attend the same schools—children of rich merchants and county gentry side by side with those of coolies or humblest peasants. Our schools are essentially national institutions for all classes on an equal footing. No class distinction is to be found in them. This holds good with higher institutions. There exist, of course, no longer any colleges like those of former days, which belonged to feudal lords, and were more or less exclusively used by the Samurai class. The emperor and empress have established, out of special interest for the education of nobility, a peers' school and a peers' girls' school in Tokio. But even these schools are not exclusively attended by boys and girls of the nobility; for children of the commons who possess a satisfactory social standard are admitted to them. On the other hand, too, children of the nobility do not necessarily join those schools only; for many such children are sent to ordinary schools, from convenience of locality or from some particular inclination of the parents. The zeal for education has been carried to such an extent, that primary education was made universally free, by a recommendation of the Diet. Without questioning the means of the family to which the children belong; although, under some special circumstances, trifling fees, almost nominal, may be imposed by special permission of the proper authorities.
The method of teaching in Primary Schools has developed itself in the following manner. A few years after the abolition of the feudal system, namely in 1872, the first Normal School was established in Tokio; and some seventy young students were collected. An American school teacher was engaged to train these youths for the purpose. They were divided into two classes, those who acquitted themselves with greater credit at the entrance examination having been given a place in the first class. The American teacher taught the first of these two classes exactly in the same manner as he did in America, the students having become as mere children. One or other of the students belonging to the class so taught, taught in turn the other class in a similar manner, though somewhat modified to suit our requirements. In conjunction with this practice, charts and simple text-books were prepared by some officials of the Ministry of Education who were attached to the school. This was soon followed by an establishment of five more Government Normal Schools in different parts of the empire, and a Women's Normal School in Tokio. In the course of a few years each Prefecture came to establish its own Normal School under subsidy of the Government; and the Government Normal Schools were abolished, except those established in Tokio, which were maintained as before, as a model for the local Normal Schools.
In the development of this scheme the graduates of the first Normal School inaugurated in Tokio played an important part, of course. Since then the system has remained the same in the main; but the method of teaching has been gradually improved by our inventions to meet our own requirements, supplemented by new intelligence brought back from the West by officials or students sent abroad for studying such matters.
The mode of making teachers at present is as follows. There is a High Normal School and a High Women's Normal School established in Tokio by the state; and another has been recently established in Hiroshima, also by the state. Their chief object is to train teachers for higher local institutions, viz., teachers of Prefectural Normal Schools, Middle Schools, and suchlike. In each Prefecture one or more Normal Schools are established. The maximum of accommodation of the Prefectural Normal Schools, together with the numbers of the students to be trained therein, is determined by an ordinance of the central Government, and is made obligatory upon the Prefectures. The students who are trained in Normal Schools, both High and Prefectural, are supported by the State or by the Prefecture, as the case may be, on condition that they serve as teachers for a certain number of years. Teachers thus trained in Prefectural Normal Schools become teachers of all elementary schools. Teachers of this kind are not, of course, quite sufficient in number to fill up all the positions in all schools; so that the want, for instance, of assistants of minor importance is filled up by those to whom certificates are given on certain examination for qualification to take up such position. And, moreover, teachers of some special subject, for instance, drawing, or cutting and sewing, are appointed from amongst those who hold special certificates from the proper authorities. I may here add, that a system of additional emolument for long services and pensions on retirement of teachers, to the local funds of which the state contributes a certain quota, was promulgated some fifteen years ago, as an inducement for their devotion.
Rigidity of physical training, in the way of privation and hardship, has become a thing of the past. But in its place physical training of a sportive and gymnastic character, after the Western style, is much practised. To this, in the case of boys, training of a military character (jiujitsu, fencing, and military drill and manœuvre) has been added in the case of higher grades. This begins from Higher Primary Schools, varying according to age. The credit of the introduction of military drill and manœuvres into our schools and colleges is due to the late Viscount Mori, who was at one time Japanese Minister in London. Moreover, school children are often taken out by their teachers for so-called 'distant excursions'; and, in the case of the higher grades, this often takes place during summer vacation for many days or weeks, in the shape of camping out and manœuvring, or of round trips to places of historic interest, something like a pilgrimage. Such trips of Large numbers of students, which are called 'educational excursions,' are personally conducted by the masters.
I do not propose here to describe in detail the curriculum of the Primary Schools, still less those of all institutions of higher grades, as this would only weary my readers. All these curricula are in the main similar to those of the Western nations. There is, however, one branch of which they would like me to say something: it is the teaching of morality. In former days in Japan, moral teaching meant more than half of education. Even under the altered circumstances of recent time, this notion is still kept very vividly. Especial stress in this respect, however, is laid in Primary Schools. One thing noticeable is, that with us the morality taught in the public schools is entirely secular. Some vague notion of heaven or of a supreme being or gods, in a vague sense, might occur here and there in the course of it; but morality never has any colour of a religious, still less of a denominational character. The main principle of morality is laid down in an Imperial injunction commonly called the 'Imperial Educational Rescript,' which is reverenced by teacher and student alike; but, besides this, there are several text-books, based upon the principles laid down in the Rescript, and written in a style to suit the requirements of the grades, indeed, of each class, on a progressive method. The entity of the Rescript and the text-books form an embodiment of practical ethics illustrated by practical examples. They teach how to be honest, how to be straightforward, how to be loyal, how to be patriotic, to honour one's parents, to be truthful to friends, and suchlike. On this point, however, I must refer my readers to my article entitled 'Moral Teaching of Japan,' in which I have given a detailed account of the subject.[2]
Nevertheless, I may add a few words. In Japan all virtues are mainly viewed as a point of duty of those upon whom the conduct of those virtues is incumbent. Thus to be loyal to the emperor is the duty of a subject; to be patriotic is the duty of a citizen to his country; truthfulness is the duty of a friend; and reverence is the duty of a child to its parents; and so on. In teaching morality to children, the sense of duty is constantly kept in view. Then again, in Oriental ethics the term 'name' has an important bearing. It may often be translated as 'fame'; but it has in reality a wider and more pious signification. We have a proverb: 'Tigers leave skins behind when dead, and men leave (or should leave) names.' Here the term 'name' may certainly be translated as 'fame'; but we often say that 'we must not disgrace the name,' meaning that we must not disgrace ourselves or our family by committing any unworthy action. In Japan, to acquire fame and not disgrace one's family name are concurrent thoughts. Fame does not mean a satisfaction of vanity. The trend of thought is something like this 'Do not commit any bad act, for it will disgrace your name, which is the greatest shame to one's self and to one's family. If your name shines out, so much the better, as it is a sure sign that you have behaved well or have done something good, something worthy of yourself, your family, or your ancestors; but to seek notoriety out of mere vanity is despicable, for it is not good conduct and does not deserve a good name,' This notion of 'name' permeates very widely in our idea of morality, which fact will explain many cases wherein a Japanese prefers death to life. Perhaps the word 'honour' may convey the nearer meaning of the word 'name'; in fact, the Western word 'honour' is generally translated in Japanese by a combination of the words name and fame, as 'Meiyo.' This notion of 'name' is impressed in one way or other upon the minds of our youths from childhood, that is to say, from their days of elementary education; and it exercises a great influence in after life.
[1] The Independent Review, August 1905.
[2] See The Risen Sun.
III
Anglo-French Diplomacy in Japan Forty Years Ago [1]
It is now some forty years ago since there took place in Japan some very interesting episodes of English and French diplomacy, which are little known to the Western public.
It was during the last days of the Shogunate and before the restoration of the Imperial régime. The Western powers with whom Japan had treaty relations were still few in number at that time. The principal of them were: The United States of America, England and France. Holland, though secondary, as she is, had some semblance of equality with the others from the fact that she was a nation which had had commercial relations with us for a longer time than they. Russia and Germany were already in treaty relations with us also, but in the practical sphere of diplomacy they had not played much part. It was England and France who displayed the greatest activity in that sphere. They were both represented by very interesting characters: England by Sir Harry Parkes and France by Léon Roches. It is needless to comment on what an interesting character Sir Harry Parkes was, as doubtless his biography is well known to my readers. I will give here, however, a concise outline of his life.
At the early age of fourteen years he was attached to an English consulate in China. He soon acquired the Chinese tongue, and his extraordinary activity and ability gave him good chances of advancing his position. At the time of the Anglo-French expedition to Peking he was attached to the English army, and many adventurous and romantic incidents are told about him in connection with it. After that expedition he was made English Consul-General at Shanghai, and soon afterwards transferred to Japan as minister, in succession to Sir Rudford Alcock. Sir Harry may be regarded as an adventurer.
Léon Roches was of a similar character; he began his career in Algeria in a most adventurous and romantic manner. He was subsequently made French agent in Tunis and thence was transferred to Japan, as minister, by Napoleon III. It was through his influence that France succeeded in drawing the Shogun's government into her confidence. Military instructors were sent from France, the Yokosuka dockyard was constructed with French materials, a young brother of the Shogun was sent a little later on to Paris, where he stayed for many years as the favourite of the court of Napoleon. In other words, French influence was paramount in Yedo, the present Tokio, the site of the Shogun's government.
Parkes arrived in Japan at that juncture. In the Crimean war, England and France, needless to say, were allies; so also were they in the Chinese war. At home the Courts of St. James' and that of the Tuileries were on intimate terms. Besides, in Japan, their interests, broadly speaking, were identical, and, therefore, their policy did not diverge very much, as far as their national interests were concerned, and yet their views concerning the domestic politics of Japan presented a marked difference. It was the time when, as every one knows, Japan was divided into two camps of public opinion. On one side the Shogunate partisans and on the other the Imperialists, amongst whom Chosiu was the most prominent. France sided with the Shogunates, whilst England gradually gave her sympathy to the Imperialists. Several reasons seem to have existed in connection therewith. At home, though Napoleon was apparently still at the height of his power, he seems to have felt the necessity of making some pompous display of power abroad, in order to appease the growing discontent among the people. Léon Roches was just the sort of man who would have done things which would suit Napoleon's secret designs, and therefore, when the conflict between the Shogunate and the Imperialists reached an acute state, it is said that France offered to help the Shogunate with her money and even with her military forces. On the other hand England, or rather Harry Parkes, thought that the Imperial cause was more just, and, therefore, deserved more sympathy.
It is now pretty well known to Western readers that, though in the administrative authorities the Shogunate appeared potent, in the question of the legitimacy of the title, that is to say, the sovereignty, the Imperial court was viewed as the only lawful head by the Japanese in general, nay, it was so in the point of fact. But in those days, foreigners used to say and to think that the emperor was only the spiritual head and the Shogun was the temporal chief of Japan, and they were unable to see what turning movements were approaching, the result of which would be the restoration of the Imperial authority and the consolidation of the country under one single head in the person of the emperor, as the sovereign de facto as well as de jure. It was only natural for onlookers to fail to penetrate such matters, and Léon Roches, sagacious as he was, was unable to differ from others. With Harry Parkes the case was different. He had grown up in the Far East: he was well acquainted with the Chinese ideographs; he understood Oriental thought contained in books and documents, written with those ideographs. Besides, several of his countrymen already in Japan had kept keen observation of the true situation and had intercourse with several Imperialist patriots, and their counsel could not fail to be valuable to Sir Harry. He was soon able to realise the relative positions occupied in the organic composition of Japan by the Imperial court and the Shogunate respectively. Thus the English policy, that is Parkes, came to differ from that of France, that is Léon Roches. Roches's sympathy continued to be on the side of the Shogunate, even after the latter had suffered defeats, which may be shown by the fact that when Admiral Enomoto left the Bay of Yedo with his fleets after the submission of the Shogun and went to Hakodate, several French military instructors went with him. It is true they left the troops of Enomoto before the latter was brought to submission, but they would not have gone with him at all if the French representative had ceased to sympathise with the Shogunate's cause. Roches's influence had been gradually eclipsed by that of Parkes. It is imaginable, however, that should the advisers of the Shogunate have accepted Roches's offer as to money and forces, the course of the history of Japan might have presented some difference, although the ultimate end would have been just the same. Nevertheless, thanks to the loyalty and patriotism, before which there is no difference of sentiment and opinion amongst the Japanese, no countenance had been given to the policy of Roches by the Shogunate, which preferred its own downfall rather than an acceptance of foreign assistance.
As to Parkes, although his sympathies were elsewhere than with the Shogunate from the beginning, officially speaking he was a minister accredited to the court of the Shogunate. Nevertheless, he had sufficient foresight how to protect English interests, and, moreover, several other causes made him incline towards the Imperial court.
A year or two before, Ito and Inouyé returned from England to Chosiu. They were thoroughly changed from fierce anti-foreign partisans to pro-foreign propagandists. On account of this visit to and return from England, they became acquainted with several Englishmen who were then in Japan, such as Lowder, Glover, and Satow. When they, together with Takasugi and Yamagata and others, revolted against the then government of Chosiu, which temporarily had gained the power and favoured more conciliatory policy with the Shogunate, and established a new one in defiance of the Shogunate, Takasugi held an opinion that the time would soon come when the question of Chosiu versus the Shogunate would become one of Japan versus Western nations, and that it would be better for him to prepare himself for the future eventuality, leaving domestic affairs in the hands of his friends. He communicated this idea to his intimate friends, Ito and Inouyé, who agreed with him. He asked Ito to accompany him. Together they left their homeland of Chosiu and went to Nagasaki with the full intention of going to Europe, which would be the second voyage for Ito and the first for Takasugi, though the latter had once been abroad as far as Shanghai a few years before.
This was just the time when Parkes was appointed English minister and expected to arrive at Japan from Shanghai before long. At Nagasaki, Takasugi and Ito met with Glover and Lowder. They were told by them that Parkes was a person of interesting character, and that by effecting communication with him some great work might be done. Besides, they were told, it was not time for them to leave their home for Europe. Time was important, and it would be far more interesting if they were, for instance, to take up a plan for opening Shimonoseki to foreign trade. They agreed and returned to Chosiu. In no time the government of the Shogun despatched the second expedition to Chosiu, and war commenced, the result of which was a total repulse of the Shogunate troops.
Here I must say something about Satsuma. Kagoshima, the capital of Satsuma, had been bombarded by the English fleet a few years before. When peace was made, some kind of friendship began to be felt between the English and Satsuma men. Several young and promising Samurai of Satsuma repeatedly visited Nagasaki, and in one way or another they were also acquainted with the Englishmen whom Ito knew. Before the war with the Shogunate, Ito went to Nagasaki several times, chiefly for purchasing war materials, but it may be presumed that a good deal of diplomatic conversation took place between him and the Englishmen as well as Satsuma men. From these circumstances, and also from the circumstances which brought Sakamoto of Tosa into close contact with Ito and his friends, an understanding soon began to grow between Satsuma and Chosiu, which ultimately resulted in their secret alliance. In the course of a few years the tide of events turned greatly in favour of the Imperialists, and the Shogunate at last came to an end.
Soon after the battle of Fushimi no time was lost in intimating at the initiation of Ito the restoration of the Imperial Government to foreign representatives, who were at the time staying at Osaka. It may be presumed that an early acceptance of this situation was largely due to an understanding existing previously between the English representative and the Chosiu and Satsuma, through such men as Ito, Inouyé of Chosiu and Godai and Komatsu of Satsuma who were also frequenters of Nagasaki. Soon after that event the first audience was given at the Imperial Palace of Kioto to English and French ministers. At that time there were still many anti-foreign fanatics: on the way taken by Parkes from his quarters in a temple to the Imperial Palace, he was attacked by a fanatic. Several of his mounted English escort were injured. Goto and Nakai, whose names are well known in Japan, were escorting Parkes. They did their utmost in defending him, and killed the assassin on the spot, in consequence of which Nakai received severe injuries on his forehead. Parkes returned to his quarters; it was a critical moment for the Imperial cause. Ito was at the Palace: it was his duty to introduce the ministers to the emperor. Roches arrived at the Palace, but not Parkes. Presently a note addressed to the French minister came from Parkes, and also the tidings of the occurrence. Ito put the note into his pocket for a moment and told Roches to have his audience first, because it was no use to wait for Parkes. The audience ended and the note was handed to Roches, but it was too late for him to say anything. As to Parkes, Ito and others found no great difficulty in pacifying him, especially because the sincerity of the Government was demonstrated by the action of Goto and Nakai. Parkes had an audience of the emperor next day; and thus the foreign relations between the Imperial court and those of the Treaty Powers were formally established.
Thus we see that France once backed a wrong horse, but it was not in any way due to her fault. We have soon entirely forgiven and forgotten, nay more, good friendship soon began to be felt between the two nations. Military instructors, as well as jurists, were invited from France. The army was organised and distributed after the French system. The Code Napoleon was studied and translated into Japanese. The French language was studied in the schools. Even a special school was instituted by the Government for studying the French language and law. Of recent years, I am sorry to notice things have not gone so satisfactorily. Some sorts of coldness of feeling have entered between the two countries, compared with the Anglo-Saxon races. It is natural enough that there should exist more sympathy between Japan and England and America, because the latter two have a far more extensive intercourse with us—the greatest number of foreign residents in Japan being first English, next American. And yet I do not see why French and Japanese friendship should not be restored to the warmth of former days, or indeed be made warmer than in those days. Let us hope France does not repeat too often her errors of backing wrong horses—for on our part we have no thought of remembering long other people's errors which may be committed against us.
[1] L'Européen, July 15, 1905.
IV
Sketches of Some Chief Figures of Actual Japan
Ito, Yamagata, Inouyé, Matsukata, Katsura, Okuma, Saionji
It is impossible to give a comprehensive account of the lives of these personages, because to do so would be to write a history of Japan of the last half century. I will, however, give you the chief points.
Marquis Ito is considered by common consent of the Japanese as the greatest statesman of Japan at this moment; there is scarcely a single political institution of modern Japan in which he has not shared the initiation. Many people in the West call him the 'Maker of New Japan,' and it is not far from fact. In other words, I may say that the greatest service which he has rendered to Japan is her Europeanisation, for it has been done more by his efforts than by those of any other. It is, however, a remarkable fact that he was in his youth one of the most ardent participators of the anti-foreign party. Not quite fifty years ago, when but a young man of seventeen or eighteen, Japan was in a state of internal commotion; the country was divided into two camps of opinion, one pro-foreign, and the other anti-foreign. The Prince of Chosiu belonged to the latter. There were many young men in Chosiu who were ardent in the anti-foreign propaganda, and young Ito was one of them. It was they who occasionally tried to attack foreigners, and on one occasion actually set fire to the buildings just completed to be used as foreign legations. Most of these young men were pupils of Yoshida Shoin, who was known as a pioneer of the new Imperial régime which resulted in the unification of Japan under one single sovereign, and therefore is sometimes compared with Mazzini of Italy. Shoin held anti-foreign sentiments and imbued the men of his day with his views. But it must not be understood that Shoin was an anti-foreign à outrance, because we can see from his writings that his views were not opposed to foreign intercourse altogether, but he did not like the manner in which the Europeans forced their way into the Far East in those days. In one of his essays he states 'let us first consolidate the empire and then let us send our ambassador, say, for example, to San Francisco, and there conclude a treaty.'
His primary object was to restore the Imperial authority to its ancient condition, and thus consolidate the empire. However it may be, the fact remains that Chosiu was the foremost of the feudal clans who adopted the anti-foreign action. Even at that time, however, there were some even in Chosiu who had the foresight to make some 'live machines,' as they called the young men of talent who were to meet future necessities when the empire might ultimately be opened to the West, and some of the young men referred to above also saw the necessity of making of themselves such machines. In consequence of this, five young men of Chosiu sailed to England contrary to the then existing prohibition of the Shogun government Two of these five were the present Marquis Ito and Count Inouyé. They got on board an English ship at Yokohama, with some difficulty and risk, of course. At Shanghai they separated. Ito and Inouyé went on board one sailing vessel and the other three on board another. They knew little English then. One of the words they knew was navigation. On board the English ship Ito and Inouyé told the captain of the vessel that they wished to learn navigation, and he set them to work as common sailors. They all reached London after several months' voyage round the Cape of Good Hope. I may here mention that Yoshida Shoin, when Commodore Perry came to the coast of Uraga, had tried to get on board one of his ships and be taken to America in order that he might personally see the Western countries, but was refused, and in consequence he suffered imprisonment on account of his venturesome attempt. It is, however, mentioned in Perry's Expedition, commenting on Shoin's attempt very favourably, that 'a nation which produces such a youth had a great future before it.' Of course, Yoshida's name was not then known to Americans, and they, therefore, knew nothing of his character. Regarding this incident, we may say that the five youths who left Japan in the above manner were in a measure fulfilling the cherished desire of Shoin.
Ito and Inouyé soon perceived what kind of people the Western nations were and what kind of civilisation they possessed. In the meantime the internal commotion of Japan accelerated to a very acute degree. The troops of Chosiu bombarded several European merchantmen in the strait of Shimonoseki from their fortifications, and soon afterwards some troops were sent from Chosiu to Kioto, where much political complication prevailed at the time, between the partisans of the Shogunate and Chosiu. When the news of the bombardment of Shimonoseki reached England, Ito and Inouyé thought that anti-foreign policy would be futile, and that it would be better to devote the national energy more to the internal consolidation of the empire. To this end they determined to go back to Japan in order to persuade their Prince and government to their newly acquired views, and on leaving the other three behind in England, they told them to finish their education so that they might realise their hope of becoming 'live machines.'
The history of what they did when they reached Japan is recorded in the contemporary diplomatic documents of England and some other countries, and also in some English books on Japan, so I need not dwell upon it here. I may, however, state that they ultimately reached Chosiu with much difficulty, having been first conveyed to an island near Chosiu by an English man-of-war. Just at that time the troops of Chosiu, which had been stationed in the neighbourhood of Kioto for some months, fought against the troops under the Shogunate and were defeated. In the meantime, the combined fleets of England, France, the United States, and Holland, made their entry into the straits of Shimonoseki. Before the youthful Ito and Inouyé had succeeded in persuading their Prince and compatriots to adopt pro-foreign policy, Shimonoseki was bombarded. Peace was concluded, which was greatly due to the endeavours of Ito and Inouyé and their bosom friend Takasugi. Soon after the Shogun government decided on an invasion of Chosiu, and surrounded it on all sides with the troops of the Shogunate under its immediate command, and also those of the feudal lords who were partisans of the Shogunate. The government of Chosiu underwent a crisis, and a more moderate party, which did not approve the daring policy of the previous government, came into power. Many members and supporters of the previous government were ordered to put an end to their lives, and submission was made to the Shogunate. Inouyé had been attacked by assassins shortly before, and lay in a dying condition resulting from several wounds which he had received. Takasugi, who was on the point of being arrested, fled to Chikuzen. Ito remained in Shimonoseki, where his services were indispensable to the government of the town on account of the constant calls of foreign vessels, but he was daily in danger of assassination.
In the meantime there arose some difference amongst the partisans of the Shogunate, by reason of one section thinking that the terms imposed upon Chosiu for its submission were too lenient, and therefore would be injurious to the prestige of the Shogunate, and they insisted on recommencing war operations.
It was a critical time for Chosiu. It was then that Takasugi returned from Chikuzen and determined to revolt openly against the government of Chosiu. At that moment Kawasé[1] had a group of voluntary soldiers under his command. Ito also had a certain number of like troops stationed in the neighbourhood of Shimonoseki, and these three with their troops uniting in one common cause, took possession of Shimonoseki in open defiance of the government. Almost simultaneously Yamagata and others, who had each a similar troop of soldiers under their command, openly revolted against the government. The leaders soon effected a junction and quickly defeated the partisans of the government, and thus Chosiu was made once more an open foe of the Shogunate. At that time Inouyé recovered from his wounds, and he also, putting himself at the head of a large band of volunteer troops, took part in the civil strife within the clan which has just been mentioned. A little after this the forces of the Shogunate once more surrounded Chosiu, but they were all defeated by the spirited troops of Chosiu. The Shogunate now found its position very precarious. Before the war it had thought itself all-powerful, and had been of the opinion that Chosiu would simply be frightened at the sight of its troops, or if any battle were to be fought, one coup de main would be enough to crush the whole of Chosiu. But as events turned out, it was quite the contrary. There was much hesitation on the part of the Shogunate whether to push on the war or to make peace. It was powerless to continue fighting, but at the same time thought they would lose prestige by asking for peace. Affairs were then allowed to drift, which brewed discontent among its own partisans. In the meantime many powerful feudal clans, which the Shogunate regarded as friends and supporters, began to sympathise with Chosiu on account of its singleness of purpose and fidelity to chivalry. Among others, Satsuma went so far as to conclude a secret understanding with Chosiu against the Shogunate. In the course of a few years the Shogunate came to an end, after the battle of Fushimi, which was fought between the Imperialists and the partisans of the Shogunate. In this engagement Chosiu and Satsuma took the most important parts on the Imperial side. War still continued in the eastern and northern parts of Japan for some time, the Imperialists being always triumphant. Thus the Imperial régime of our days was inaugurated.
During this state of transition, Ito, Inouyé, and Yamagata played their parts in different capacities, the latter more as a soldier and the two former as politicians and diplomatists, I may here add a few words. Takasugi died a little before the battle of Fushimi, without seeing the consummation of his cherished ideal, being not quite thirty years of age. Yoshida Shoin was the same age as his distinguished disciple when he was put to death some years before. Young men did wonderful things in those days. At the very beginning of the new government Ito was governor of Hiogo (Kobe), which was then with Yokohama the centre of foreign relations. It was then that he formulated and presented to the Imperial Government his plan for the future policy of the empire, the chief object of which was the unification of all systems, namely military, educational, economical, and suchlike. His views were regarded as being too radical at the time, but created some sensation and gave rise to the term 'Hiogo opinion.' Ito has continued practically ever since to occupy one or another, or even several high positions simultaneously in the Government. He made several trips to Europe and America. It was in 1871 that he went to America chiefly to investigate the banking systems of America, because it was thought that the economical system adopted by America after its civil war might be utilised by Japan. Later on, in the same year, he visited America and Europe as one of the ambassadors headed by Iwakura. On their return to Japan the Korean question was at a climax. Most of the statesmen who had remained at home were for war, while those who had returned from Europe were for peace. As the result of this difference of opinion the formation of the cabinet was modified. The great Saigo and some others resigned, while Ito was appointed a cabinet minister with the portefeuille of public works. It was the first great trial which the new Government had to undergo, but it managed to tide over the difficulties. Okubo was now the backbone of the new Government, and Ito his chief collaborator. The administration of the Japanese Government was now carried on more and more on the lines of Western enlightenment. In 1875 a Japanese gunboat was fired at off the Korean coast. Early next year an embassy, with the late Count Kuroda as chief and Count Inouyé as second, was sent to Korea to settle the matter. It was then that I accepted for the first time governmental service, and went to Korea as a member of the staff. We concluded a treaty of peace with Korea and made her open the country to foreign trade: we preferred peace to war.
In 1877 the civil war of Satsuma broke out, in which the great Saigo was made by the rebels their chief. During the struggle Okubo and Ito were the strong supports of the Government, whilst the command of the Imperial troops at the front was chiefly in the hands of Yamagata. I may perhaps mention that during the first half of the war I contributed my services to the Government in a pure civil capacity, and during the latter half of the war was attached to Yamagata's staff. The war lasted nearly nine months, with the result that the rebellion was suppressed and the new régime of the progressive administration was placed on a firmer basis.
In 1878 Okubo, who was then Minister of the Interior, was assassinated, and Ito succeeded to his place, not only as Minister of the Interior, but in his capacity of being the moving factor of the Government.
In 1882 Ito was despatched to Europe to study the constitutional systems of the various governments, with a view to preparing a constitution for Japan; he returned home the next year. In 1884 another difficulty arose with regard to Korea and China. Early in 1885 Count Inouyé was despatched to Korea, where he concluded a new treaty, and soon after Ito was despatched to China, where he concluded the well-known Tientsin treaty, which had a very important bearing upon Korea. In the latter part of that year a great reform was made in the administrative system, and Ito was appointed Minister President of the State. In 1888 Privy Council was instituted, and Ito was appointed its President and his former office was taken by Count Kuroda. The first and most important task the council had before it was the elaboration of the Imperial Constitution. The materials which it had to work upon was chiefly those which Ito had brought back from Europe, and which he had been maturing ever since his return. Early next year the Imperial Constitution and the Imperial House Law, together with several other laws in connection with the constitutional régime then in contemplation, were promulgated, with all solemnity and to the great joy of the whole nation. In 1890 the first session of the new Diet instituted by the Constitution met in Tokio, and Ito was appointed the first President of the House of Peers.
Since then he has held the post of Minister President of the State several times. It was during his premiership that the Sino-Japanese war took place ten years ago. Ito's present post is President of the Privy Council. It may be said here that even when he is out of the cabinet, his influence is felt and his services are rendered to the state. There are a few persons who are called 'elder statesmen,' At present they are Ito, Inouyé, Yamagata, Oyama, and Matsukata. Elder statesmanship is not an institution recognised by a written law. It is a unique position, more of a personal nature, and therefore it cannot be called a council or assembly, but the members are collectively or individually taken into the emperor's confidence. The privilege to this honour may only be looked for by those whose meritorious services to the state stand out above others, and the fact of their occupying such a position is contentedly acquiesced in by the general public. Ito is the principal of these elder statesmen. Another of Ito's great services, was his constant endeavour during many years to keep harmony, in other words, prevent the oft-threatened conflict between men of different clans, especially those of Sutsuma and Chosiu, though few people are aware of that fact.
Such, as I have given it, is a brief sketch of Marquis Ito's life, which necessarily brings in some of the general history of the time. Particulars it would be impossible to give, owing to the fact that that period of our history being so eventful, they are far too numerous.
From what I have narrated above, glimpses of Yamagata and Inouyé may be gathered. I would, however, add a little more.
Yamagata is also a Chosiu man, and was at one time also a pupil of Yoshida Shoin. He is more of a soldier, though he ranks also very high as a statesman. He fought the battle of Shimonoseki at the head of a band of voluntary soldiers of Chosiu, when bombarded by the combined fleets of the four powers. He took a very important part in the civil war in Chosiu, and in the war which took place when Chosiu was surrounded by the Shogun troops. After the battle of Fushimi, when the Imperialists made the expedition to the northern and eastern part of Japan, he commanded the troops of Chosiu in the province of Echigo. After that war he visited Europe, and on his return initiated the adoption of the European system of universal service. At first, of course, there was much difficulty in the matter, but his energy and sagacity won the point Since that time he has almost always occupied some position connected with the army, with the exception of occasional intervals when he fulfilled some civil offices. He has been Minister of War, Chief of the General Staff, and suchlike. Roughly speaking, we may say that the completion of the organisation of the Japanese army is due to him. At the time of the civil war of Satsuma he held the chief direction of the campaign, though the title of Commander-in-Chief was intrusted to a prince of the Imperial family. In that war it was proved that the new troops formed on the system of universal service were more efficient with regard to discipline and cohesive power than the Samurai force of one of the strongest feudal clans. In the Sino-Japanese war he commanded an army in the Liaotung Peninsula, though he had in the middle of the war to return home on account of illness by a pressing order of the emperor.
At present he is once more the Chief of the General Staff. His predecessor was Marquis Oyama, but as the latter's presence as Commander-in-Chief in Manchuria became necessary, Yamagata took his place. I may also add that Yamagata was Prime Minister several times, besides holding from time to time other ministerial portfolios.
Count Inouyé is also a Chosiu man, but he was not a pupil of Shoin, as he was born in Yamaguchi and not in Hagi, where Shoin lived. He was in his early age attached to the court of the Prince of Chosiu, as a sort of companion to the heir of the Prince. When, however, the political atmosphere became heated, he was one of the youths who formed the bands of the anti-foreign party, and as such became a bosom friend of Takasugi and Ito. He was one of those who set fire to the new buildings for the legation. We have already seen how he visited England with Ito and others, and in what circumstances he went home. Their experience after returning to Chosiu was of the most exciting and varied character. It is often most thrilling to recount the incidents connected therewith. But of course I cannot describe them in the space of this article. I may, however, say that the political part of the affairs in connection with Chosiu which resulted in turning the attitude of Chosiu against the Shogun and at last effecting an alliance with Satsuma, with the results of the overthrow of the Shogunate, are greatly due to Takasugi, Ito, and Inouyé, who were eventually supported by Kido, the great Chosiu statesman. The decision which brought about the decisive battle of Fushimi, though the Imperialists were inferior in number to the Shogunate troops, was chiefly due to the determined counsel which Inouyé offered at the Imperial court on behalf of Chosiu.
He held many high posts in the Government, but not so many as Ito or Yamagata, which was perhaps due to his character being more impetuous than the others. It was Ito who initiated the abolition of the feudal system, which idea was taken up first by Kido and then by Okubo, both of whom were the principal statesmen in the new Imperial régime; and it was Inouyé who, when the system was finally abolished a few years afterwards, carried out the measure and wound up the most complicated and difficult affairs of all the governments of feudal lords, who numbered several hundreds, thereby consolidating the new régime. Inouyé was then the acting Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance of those days had a far wider sphere of action than at the present time, as there had not been instituted as yet the Ministry of the Interior. He still exercises great influence in the political and economical affairs of the empire, as one may see from the fact that he is one of the few elder statesmen.
The life of Matsukata is not so striking as those of the preceding figures, but he is also one of Japan's able statesmen. He is a Satsuma man. He took up civil service from the early stage of the new Imperial régime, and gradually advanced his position from a local governor to the rank of cabinet minister. Distinguishing himself as a financier, he was Minister of Finance for a long time, and it was he who succeeded in adopting the gold-standard system in Japan. He also occupied premiership several times, and has also been Minister of the Interior. He is now a privy councillor and president of the Red Cross Society of Japan, and as elder statesman is still rendering valuable services to the state.
I may here interpose some words about the present premier, Count Katsura, who is a Chosiu man. He was a boy soldier at the time of the civil war in Chosiu. When the Imperialists were sent to the north and east of Japan to suppress the combinations of the feudal lords in those parts who had arisen against the new Imperial régime, he, though under age, was placed at the head of a detachment of the Chosiu troops which escorted an Imperial envoy to persuade some of the lords to submit to the Imperial summons. The lords, however, did not obey the summons; on the contrary, they assumed an offensive attitude to the Imperial messenger and harassed his escort. Katsura and his men, as well as men of some other clans who were among the escort, had a very hard time, having been obliged to fight their way out. At last reinforcements arrived, and the fighting was turned in their favour. During that time Katsura distinguished himself and was an object of admiration. After a few years he was made a military attaché to our legation in Berlin, where he devoted his energy to the study of military science and organisation. He stayed there during many years, and therefore was absent during the Satsuma war. On his return he devoted his services to the organisation of the army, chiefly under Marquis Yamagata in the ministry of war, in which he was made vice-minister in course of time. He was, before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war, chief of the garrison at Nagoya, and in that war had the command of a division in Liaotung, where he distinguished himself as a practical and strategical general. He was at one time Governor-General of Formosa, at another Minister of War, and on the resignation of the Ito cabinet in 1901 he was appointed Minister President of State, which office he now holds.
I will now give an account of Count Okuma. He is a Hizen man: he talks well and is possessed of a good memory. He is, no doubt, one of the ablest Japanese in our day. His life has not been so striking as that of Ito, Inouyé, or Yamagata in the pre-restoration period, because the clan to which he belonged was a peaceful one in those days, and did not offer any opportunities for adventurous youth. A little before the restoration he was a student at Nagasaki, where he studied English to some extent. There is no doubt, however, that he was considered clever among his fellow-clansmen. It is to be remembered that the clans that did the greatest work for the restoration, and produced most of the able men, were Chosiu and Satsuma and then Tosa. Therefore we often say Satcho, which is a term made by a combination of Satsuma and Chosiu, and sometimes Satchoto, which is a term standing for Satsuma—Chosiu—Tosa when Tosa is added to them. But we sometimes include Hizen, which is the province to which Okuma belonged, and say Satchotohi. It came about in this way. Saga in the province of Hizen was also one of the great feudal clans. Soon after the restoration the Imperialist party, of which the Satchoto were the important element, enlisted on their side the support of Saga, which was only too glad to identify its cause with that of the Imperialists. Besides, the Prince of Saga was an able man and was not likely to let the chances slip. Hence Saga soon became a force in the Imperial politics of Japan, and able men coming therefrom found their way to the central political arena of Japan. It was thus that Count Okuma was brought on to the political stage. His natural ability soon made him conspicuous among politicians, and he rose to high positions. The Prince of Saga had had a predilection for European civilisation even before then, and European ideas had already been introduced in the clan previously. Thus, for instance, an iron factory, though not successful, was established in the province. Such surroundings, as well as his stay at Nagasaki, had made young Okuma familiar with European ideas. He was a great gain to men like Ito and Inouyé. They soon formed a sort of combination among young statesmen of their own type, and thus they began the work of introducing European ideas in Japan. The first railway between Tokio and Yokohama, for instance, was constructed chiefly through the efforts of Ito and Okuma, despite many prejudicial objections which still existed.
Okuma is a man of great energy, and also a man who can stir up youth to do that which he wishes to be done, thus qualifying himself as a good party leader. He is also a good financier, and has done much for the state for many years, side by side with Ito, though for consummate ability and profound and constructive statesmanship greater credit is, by common consent, given to Ito. In 1881 serious differences of political opinions arose in the cabinet, in consequence of which Okuma resigned. He then organised a political party called 'progressionists in opposition to the Government on one hand, and on the other hand to the Liberal party which had been organised by Count Itagaki two years previously. Since then he has been out of office for many years, but has kept his party together in a creditable manner. In 1888 he was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Kuroda cabinet. In the next year, on account of the revision of the treaties, an attempt was made against his life, and he lost one of his legs by the explosion of a bomb thrown at his carriage. He resigned office; his party remained and still remains faithful to him, though he has never been a member of the Diet.
Since then he has once more occupied the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs and also that of Premier, but the tenure of his office on both occasions was short, and his official career not particularly brilliant. He does not enjoy much popularity among other statesmen, and his influence in the Government circle is not great. This was, perhaps, the chief cause of his failure in recent years. He exercises, however, great influence among the people at large, and his personal ability is undoubted. His patriotism is also not to be questioned, because on any occasion of emergency he gives up his personal prejudices and supports the Government. It was so during the Sino-Japanese war, and also since the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. His memory is almost wonderful, and his perception is very quick. Although he has never left Japan, he knows Europe almost better than many who have made it their special study. He can also remember figures very well. Regarded in the light of sonorous tone and weighty argument, he is not a great orator, but he is a very fluent speaker and an excellent conversationalist.
I will now give you a sketch of the life of Marquis Saionji, the leader of the Constitutional party, which is the greatest political organisation in and out of the Diet. His name also appears in the Western papers from time to time. He succeeded Marquis Ito in the leadership of that party when the latter had accepted the Presidency of Privy Council, and was obliged to give up the leadership of the party which owes its creation to him. Marquis Saionji was a companion in his boyhood to the present emperor. At the time of the restoration, when but fifteen years of age, he was despatched to the northern provinces of Japan, at the head of an Imperial army, to subjugate those provinces. He was afterwards a resident in Paris for many years, and, therefore, he must be remembered by many Parisians. He was for some years our Minister in Berlin, and was also Minister of Education, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and President of Privy Council at different times. He was Minister President of State ad interim at one time. Though a scion of a high court noble, his sentiments contain a strong democratic element, side by side with refinement and nobleness of aristocracy.
In the above sketches I have employed the titles of nobility while speaking of those celebrities, but it may be observed that they were, except Saionji, originally men of comparatively insignificant origin, and their titles are the gift of the emperor in recognition of the services rendered to their Imperial master and their beloved country.
[1] The present Viscount Kawasé, who was Japanese Minister in London.
V
An Old Speech by the Marquis Ito
In a recent number of the Japan Times I came across the following account of a speech made by the Marquis Ito in Washington, some thirty-four years ago, when he was there on a mission. The speech gives a very good outline of the great change which had then already been effected in Japan and the broad forecast which was aimed at by her for her future. One who reads that speech would at once perceive what ennobling aspirations Japan had then on the lines of occidental civilisation, and how far she has succeeded in that aspiration, as has been shown by the war between her and Russia. I therefore incorporate the accounts of it, borrowed verbatim from the Japan Times, which may also be regarded in a measure as a supplement to the preceding article.—K.S.
Marquis Ito in Washington
Thirty-Four Years Ago
Marquis Ito recently received from Mr. Hioki, Secretary of our legation at Washington, a package containing interesting reminders of his sojourn in the American capital thirty-four years ago, when he spent a few months there for the study of the financial system of the Republic. In his work of investigation he received most valuable assistance from Mr. H.J. Saville, the Chief Clerk of the Treasury, and it was from this gentleman that these interesting relics of the distinguished statesman's visit were originally obtained by Mr. Hioki. Mr. Saville is still living in Washington, and preserves a most vivid recollection of the Marquis's visit. The documents relate to a farewell dinner given by Marquis Ito at Welcker's, Fifteenth Street, on April 28, 1871. Among the guests on the occasion, we find the names of President Grant, Vice-President Schuyler, Speaker Blaine, Secretary Fish, and other members of the cabinet, and a number of senators and congressmen. Among the Japanese present, besides the host, were the late Count Mutsu, the late Viscount Mori (then our Minister at Washington), the late Baron Nakashima, and Mr. Genichiro Fukuchi. On that occasion the Marquis delivered a speech in English, which, apart from the interest derived from the personality of the speaker, deserves attention on account of the light it throws upon the liberal aspirations of the makers of New Japan—aspirations which have since been so successfully realised. We reproduce below the speech exactly as it stands in the copy before us:—
'Taking advantage of the opportunity afforded me by the assembling here of so many of the gentlemen who have assisted me to accomplish the object of my coming, I desire to extend to them my sincere thanks for the many courtesies received at their hands, and to assure them that I return fully satisfied with the result of my mission, and with an abiding faith that all they have taught me will bear good fruit in due season.
'It seems to me that an examination of the past as well as the present condition of the world will show that civilisation has not reached its highest development, but that progress in that as in other things is possible in the future. As an evidence of this I would instance the fact that this nation, which less than one hundred years ago was unknown, now ranks second to none in civilisation and in importance. This fact tends strongly to encourage the oriental nations to efforts towards a higher civilisation than they now possess.
'The inquiry naturally is: What is the reason the oriental peoples have not reached the same degree of civilisation as the European? Are the material resources of the oriental countries insufficient? Is the native force of the people deficient? No: these questions we put aside, and we find the explanation mainly in the character of the government. You ask whence came this peculiar character? I can only answer, I think from education. It seems to me that all the highest order in modern civilisation derives its strength from the development of the intellect, and the improvement of the scientific knowledge and accomplishments of men. It is further strengthened by development of the inherent principles of natural law, the encouragement in the people of a high ideal of right and wrong, and the strong political organisation made possible by such a foundation; so that we may conclude that the highest degree of civilisation belongs to that nation which has most developed a high order of general education and broad principles of political liberty.
'I doubt if the question of strength materially influences the destiny of nations. As an illustration of this we know that the civilisation of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome has not been lost, but has been merely transferred from those countries to the West, as the star of the empire travels. The loss of civilisation in these nations sprang not from the fact that they were physically weak, but from the more subtle one that within themselves they contain an inherent weakness.
'A more modern instance is the late Franco-Prussian war. None of us doubt the strength of the French nation, the skill of its generals and ability of its soldiers, and yet how have our hearts been wrung with sympathy for poor France when brought in contact with the more superior force of Prussia—superior not only in material strength, but in skilful soldiers, in able generals, and in wise counsellors. So I say strength has very little to do with the development of civilisation, strength is merely relative; civilisation is the quality which is never lost, and never can be conquered.
'I find very erroneous ideas prevail in America as well as in Europe in relation to my country. The Empire of Japan consists of numerous islands in the Oriental Sea, along the coast of the Asian continent. I think the recorded existence of the nation extends over something more than two thousand five hundred years, during which time its intercourse with foreign nations has been exceedingly limited. In the seventeenth century intercourse began with the Portuguese, Spanish, and some other European nations, but the decline of these led to its decay. Our people have not been ambitious. They have been satisfied when they have reached that competency which gives support, and as a result they have not sought foreign intercourse.
'Seventeen years ago the American Government sent an envoy to our country, with instructions to advise us to open our ports to foreign intercourse, and this advice so kindly given was acted on. Since that time our intercourse with foreign nations has been growing, until at present Japan bids fair to be as well known as America.
'With the commencement of this intercourse, the Japanese people began to realise that they had not reached the highest stage of civilisation, and they began the investigation of what constituted European and American civilisation. Beginning by the introduction of some of the most useful of the foreign arts, sciences, and mechanical inventions into their country, they have so far progressed as to have at this time reached the necessity for sending missions abroad to obtain a knowledge of the foreign systems of finances, and we have come to America to study your financial system as well as to obtain additional knowledge in other branches of civilised government, which will be of benefit to us in our efforts to reach that high estate which you have already attained. And this we hold as strong evidence of the progress of Japan in civilised ideas. I wish I could express to you how great that advancement has been.
'But to return to the history of my country. About seven hundred years ago the power of the commanding general became so great that he was enabled to usurp the authority of the emperor proper; and from that time, descending through father and son, this power became stronger, until at last the government of Japan had virtually fallen into their hands; and instead of the Government being spoken of as the Mikado's government, it came to be known as the government of the Tycoon, who was in reality the powerful ruler of the people.
'But no one family enjoyed the power of the Tycoonety in peace. During the existence of what is known as the Tycoon's government six of the principal ducal families of the empire contended for the position of Tycoon, and each in his turn came into possession of the reins of government.
'Out of the quarrels of these ducal families grew a system somewhat resembling the feudal system of Europe. The constant fighting of these antagonistic elements made this possible. About three hundred years ago the Tokugawa family came into possession of the power and dignity of the Tycoon. From this time the feudal system founded in the necessities and strengthened by the wars of the many as aspirants for power came to be a fixed institution, and the reign of the Tokugawa family proving to be a peaceful one, its hold on the country became thoroughly well established.
'Before the usurpation of the Tycoon the form of government was absolutely monarchical, with no independent princes or powers.
'As a result of the Tycoon's rule, not alone the Tycoon's position became hereditary, but also all the highest governmental positions—generals, ministers, and princes, the latter being originally merely governors. With the establishment of intercourse with foreign countries, and the consequent development of the progressive people of Japan, they began to realise their unsatisfactory form of government under which they were living. They became dissatisfied with the rule of an authority which did not encourage ability, and whose strength lay in hereditary claims to power. This sentiment growing stronger and stronger, they at last resolved to abolish the power and office of the Tycoon and return the real power to the hands of the emperor. This resolution on their part has given rise to the stories of revolution in Japan, the revolution being in reality only the efforts of the better people to form a stable and reliable Government with the proper and respected power at its head, assisted in its control of affairs by ability, integrity, and faithfulness wherever found.
'This came to be an accomplished fact four years ago, and to-day, as a result, we have the former vassal and servant of the prince sitting in the high seats by his side, and counselling with him in the affairs of the nation.
'But the Japanese people do not mean to stop here. There is now a growing sentiment in Japan which strongly favours constitutional monarchy, a growing feeling against hereditary power, hereditary rank, and hereditary possessions. It may be that the bright hopes of some of my people will not be realised at once, but if the past is taken as an index of what is to come, I am encouraged to say that the progress of the future will find Japan, in a very few years, in the front rank of advanced and civilised nations, with a Government as liberal in form and generous to its citizens as that of any monarchy under the sun.
'In Japan, as in other parts of the world, there must necessarily be differences of opinion. We have among our people radical and rapid progressists; conservatives, always making haste slowly, always studying the situation, always moving with great caution and circumspection, often unwisely wasting their opportunities for advancement by too great caution or timid fear; others timid because of the fear that they will lose their property or position by any change; others, the selfish Utopian, who builds an impossible castle, hoping that the foundation stones may be precious jewels, resting in his land only; and, lastly, there are yet a few who are opposed to foreign intercourse, and who believe that its strength lies in closed ports and selfish sufficiency unto themselves.
'To the outsider in Japan all these differences may appear as elements of weakness, when in fact they are elements of strength; and, perhaps, in no country can this be so well appreciated as America, where the strength and success of the Government depends so much on the agitation of questions by the people. The time is coming when Japan will stand among the first in its civilisation and progress. The question with us is: "How can we most rapidly reach this high state of development?" To my mind the best answer is by educating the people and developing the country.
'We are grateful to realise that the American people understand our efforts, and more especially that the distinguished company of gentlemen here assembled understand them. The prevailing sentiment in America, it seems to me, is in favour of the brotherhood of nations; and feeling this when we left Japan, we felt that we were coming among a people who would encourage and assist us in every way possible. We have not been deceived. Every assistance has been rendered us; every facility for study afforded us, and we will return to our country freighted with knowledge, and, as we hope, equal to the test, which we confess is a great one, of putting in motion such reforms and improvements as shall place us upon a footing equal to the best of nations.
'In the years to come it is to be hoped that the intercourse between Japan and America, the sister nations on each side of the great Pacific Ocean, may be founded upon that strong feeling of brotherly love which so unite distant peoples, that through storm and sunshine they will ever be true friends and earnest assistants—co-workers in the great cause of humanity and the development of the world in its moral, social, intellectual, and material aspects.
'In conclusion, I desire to extend to all of the gentlemen here present, and to thousands who are unavoidably absent, my sincere thanks for the great courtesy and kindness which I have received at their hands; and if it shall ever be my pleasure to meet any of you in my country, it will afford me the greatest happiness imaginable to extend to you the warm hand of fellowship, and to give you such a reception as will prove how entirely and truly I appreciate all you have done for me.'
VI
The Commercial Morality of the Japanese [1]
In accordance with your request that I should write an answer to Mr. Joseph H Longford on the commercial morality' of the Japanese, which has appeared in the Contemporary Review, I venture to write these lines for your perusal. I do so rather hesitatingly, as I have no desire to enter upon a dispute with that distinguished writer.
There is, it seems to me, a great deal of truth in what Mr. Longford says; but, at the same time, it is, I think, painted blacker on the side of the Japanese and brighter on the side of the foreigners out there than the facts warrant.
To begin with, it is true that in Japan we had the classification of the people into four, viz. soldiers, farmers, artisans, and traders, and thus traders stood the last. From this fact ordinary critics make a hasty conclusion that Japanese traders—in which term big merchants are included—occupied in every respect a position which was inferior even to that of common peasants; but this is not fair. In social matters they often occupied very good positions; in fact, there were many to whom special considerations similar to Samurai were accorded. The above classification has much deeper meaning than a mere social caprice, and it is derived from a theory of political economy of the classical China.
According to that theory, agriculture is considered the foundation of a nation, and commerce is a mere act of transportation of things already made, and, therefore, comparatively of little value. That such a theory should have existed in China is a matter of no surprise, for even in the Europe of a little more than one hundred years ago there flourished physiocracy, the doctrine of which was almost identical with that of the Chinese. The Japanese classification of the former days was considerably due to the influence of that theory, and therefore the relative positions of the Samurai, farmers, artisans, and traders were more of theoretical notion than a social fact. This is a distinction very important to be kept in view when one discusses things Japanese.
That the Samurai as a class despised dealings in matters of profit is an undoubted fact, but a trader's position was not so degraded as Mr. Longford represents. He says:—
'Just as the training and social precedence of his ancestors for hundreds of years and of himself have made the Japanese soldier a model without flaw of loyalty, devotion, and courage, ready to sacrifice at any time life or property for his sovereign and his country, so have oppression and social degradation combined to make the merchant a no less striking model of dishonesty and timidity, unwilling and unable to make the smallest monetary sacrifice for his own or his country's fair fame.'
Surely this is sweeping assertion. If we take individual cases into account, striking characters in the ranks of merchants are abundant in records and in memory. Even in the movement which resulted in the restoration of the present Imperial régime, countless men whose origin belonged to mercantile circles may lay their claim of participation to it. True, they were men who generally cast off their original occupation and enrolled themselves in the ranks of patriots, so that they may be considered as exceptions. But even as a class in the ordinary sense of merchants they scarcely deserve that kind of condemnation. Osaka in former days had some resemblance to free cities of the West, and every one well acquainted with things Japanese knows what a well-developed mercantile system it possessed. So also the so-called Omi merchants. Even with regard to merchants and tradesmen of all parts of the country there was little room for them to be so dishonest as the writer describes. Under the feudal system commercial occupations were almost hereditary. They had almost no freedom of removal from their accustomed abode. Their customers were the children or grandchildren of those who were customers of their fathers or grandfathers. If a merchant under such circumstances made dishonesty his customary trade, and expected prosperity, he would surely be totally disappointed, and would suffer a deserving penalty. Besides, in those days social sanction, from the very nature of the conditions under which they found themselves situated, was most severe. Yes! Merchants and traders of those days were honest, far beyond one can imagine. If any dishonesty or any shortcomings in respect to commercial probity have become observable, it is necessary evil produced by the changed circumstances of the time, chiefly on account of foreign intercourse.
Mr. Longford speaks of the early Japanese traders who flocked to the newly opened ports as being 'without exception adventurers with neither name nor money to lose, with keen wits and the determination to exploit to the utmost.' This is, in a measure, undoubtedly true, and accounts for the lamentable condition which for a long time existed in the trades at the open ports. But this is not the only cause. On the parts of foreign merchants who came out there to trade, there was much to be criticised; I mean to say, they were also mostly adventurers in a measure; they were also inconsiderate, even arrogant. A Western merchant who, leaving China, was passing through Japan, violated intentionally time-honoured etiquette against one of the most powerful 'Daimio,' saying, 'I know how to manage these Orientals,' and was murdered in consequence. It is a good illustration of the kind of conduct of the Europeans of those days towards us; hence no sympathy existed between them and our traders—the dealings were viewed, naturally, very differently from those which they were wont to carry on with their native customers of several generations' standing. Business is business, so the common saying goes, but even in business mutual respect and friendly feeling go a long way. How can a model trade be expected to be created under such circumstances?
Then, again, in Japan commercial goods were, and are still, to a great extent made by hand on small scales. No big industrial factories existed where one could order a large number of articles identical in every respect as one could do in Europe. Foreign traders, not taking these conditions into their serious consideration, often gave similar orders as they were used to do in Europe, and when articles delivered to them were found to be not perfectly identical, they often took advantage of that fact, and gave much trouble to the native contractors, who did not expect to meet with so much severity. There existed also very bad customs among foreign traders; the essence of those customs was known by the name of 'Haiken,' or 'Kankan.' These terms, literally meaning 'to see,' were used to veil the facts of detaining goods at their storehouses, often for an unreasonable length of time; in the meantime ascertaining the commercial conditions of their home, and returning the goods when they found the transaction was not likely to be beneficial to them. Native traders had serious grounds of complaint against those customs. As a matter of fact, at one time the matter was brought to a very acute state, and the native traders began to try to get rid of them by combination, but with little success. I imagine Mr. Longford will remember the incidents which occurred in connection with that matter in Yokohama years ago. I can also state on good authority that there were even some cases wherein foreign traders themselves practised, toward their compatriot at home, some actions which appear not to have been in unison with Western honesty, and taking advantage of our unfortunate reputation attributed the fault to the Japanese when matters were discovered. The notorious case wherein a large foreign firm dealing in silk, who took off the labels of native manufacturers and changed them into a single kind which he liked, was boycotted by them when the matter came to broad daylight, may also be recollected by him. Another thing which foreign traders were wont to do was that they often ordered things direct from small manufacturers at a cost far less than their real value. Japanese merchants often said that they could not compete with foreign traders, inasmuch as foreign merchants often got things at less expense than they themselves could. This is surely an extraordinary phenomenon. But the fact was that those foreign traders often succeeded in making that kind of contract either by giving some tempting inducement at the beginning or canvassing several manufacturers one after another, always showing the last most advantageous offer, and bringing down the price by bargaining in a skilful and cunning manner. Under such circumstances it was not surprising if those contracts were often unfulfilled, simply on account of the inability of fulfilment by the contractors. There was also another circumstance which caused commotion and disorder in all commercial dealing in Japan. It is to be remembered that the new order under the new system of government, especially the abolition of the feudal system, widely changed the accustomed occupations of the Japanese at large. Chances for making wealth and for entering upon various enterprises almost entirely changed their hand. Besides, four hundred thousand families (2,000,000 capita) of Samurai, who gave up their hereditary allowances, now had to make their earnings chiefly by becoming traders or sometimes agriculturists, occupations to which they were entirely unaccustomed. They naturally experienced failure after failure. It was then that a new term, 'Trades of Samurai,' meaning thereby an undertaking which is precarious or even doomed to failure, came into existence. In one sense it was sad to think about, but the fact was so. Under such circumstances one can well imagine that dishonesty, or rather failure of fulfilment of promise, although against one's conscience, it maybe presumed, was often experienced even among our own community. This also might have had some indirect effects upon foreign trade.
Critics say that commercial probity in China is better than in Japan. It may be true; I shall not dispute. The Chinese are excellent traders, and besides, as every one knows, no such social revolution, as was the case with us Japanese, has ever taken place. That accounts for the difference between Chinese and Japanese traders in the first place, but that is not all. The Chinese are, individually speaking, very docile; they would not think of quarrelling with foreign traders, under whatever humiliating circumstances they might find themselves placed, so long as they could make some profit. But this is very different with us Japanese. Take, for instance, the case of a 'Rikisha' man; if he were a Japanese, and suppose a foreign rider whipped him, as they often do, because he did not run quick enough, the probability is, he would ask to be excused carrying the rider any further, or turn round to the rider and ask for an explanation. He would do so no matter whether or not he would get his fare; but if it were a Chinaman, the probability is that he would calmly suffer the treatment, and proceed just at the rate he could run, his thoughts being concentrated on obtaining as good a fee as he could get, and would be looked upon as an honest man in consequence. This state of things exists in the matter of trade at large. Chinese tradesmen would suffer without anger, any arrogance or unreasonableness of foreign traders, and exert such wonderful patience in order ultimately to attain their objects, whilst Japanese merchants would sooner break the contract than suffer such treatment with such patience. The consequence is that Japanese merchants are viewed in rather a bad light.
The effects of the Great Change, both political and social, have been subsiding already for some time, and the order of things at large has also begun to settle down. The condition of our mercantile circle is, in consequence, much changed; so also the attitude and characters of foreign traders have begun to alter considerably. I am, therefore, most sanguine that all complaints of foreigners against our commercial probity will soon become a thing of the past.
I am sorry to speak about foreigners in this manner, but I am sure impartial observers will admit that what I say is not far from fact. At all events, their conditions were not so bright as Mr. Longford pleases to represent them to have been. Unfair criticisms are not calculated to promote the friendly feeling of nations, and my statements, which I believe no other than those of true fact, are hereby made more for promoting in future the goodwill which has already begun to exist between us and the Western traders of late years.[2]
[1] The Magazine of Commerce, August 1905.
[2] See the note at the end of the volume.
Supplement
There appeared an interesting letter, written by the Manager of the Publication Department of the Times, in the columns of that paper, October 7, 1905. As it has important bearing on the preceding subject, I take the liberty of subjoining it in full.—K.S.
The Character of the Japanese People
To the Editor of the "Times"
Sir,—In last Monday's issue of the Times there was a long letter from the Right Rev. William Awdry, Bishop of South Tokio, Japan, in which he says that 'in general a Japanese would value the promise of an Englishman more than the bond of a Japanese'; and that the Japanese are deficient in a certain group of qualities, including honesty in trade. It seems to me that it would be unfair for the Times to allow such a charge against Japanese integrity, endorsed by a bishop, to go unchallenged, when the Times has, in its own office, records that prove a promise made by a Japanese to be at least as trustworthy as a promise made by an Englishman. During the past eight years the Times has sold, in almost every country in the world, sets of the Encyclopædia Britannica on the instalment plan, giving credit for periods of two, three, and four years. The regularity with which such payments are made is certainly a fair test of the average honesty of any nation, and a much more severe test in the case of Japan than in the case of England, because it is more difficult there than here to enforce payment by legal proceedings. Ninety-five per cent. of the encyclopædias sold in Japan were sold to Japanese, not to foreign residents, and the statements I am about to make refer exclusively to purchases made by the Japanese themselves. In Japan, as elsewhere, each purchaser, when he signs his 'order-form,' promises to pay, on certain dates, certain sums of money. In Japan the monthly payment was 10 yen, equal to about a sovereign, while in this country the amount was a guinea. In Great Britain less than half the payments arrived on the day promised. In Japan less than 1 per cent, of the payments were even one day late, and more than one-half of the payments were made the day before they were due, because the Japanese did not like to run the risk of any accidental delay that might make them even one day late. The cost of collecting these instalment payments in Japan is less than half as much as in England, simply because the Japanese are so punctilious that clerical labour and postage are not expended in reminding them that their payments are overdue. They seem to look upon every debt as a debt of honour, which must not be forgotten for even a day. There is certainly no such delicacy of feeling in this country about commercial transactions.
I find it difficult to believe that the Bishop of South Tokio is right when he says that the Japanese do not trust one another; and I know that he is wrong if he in himself believes, as he implies, that the Japanese are not 'honest in trade.' But I quite admit that Englishmen who have long resided in Japan did not believe that it would be prudent for the Times to adopt in Japan the instalment system of selling books, previously unknown there. When the representative of the Times arrived in Japan to sell the Encyclopædia, he naturally asked English residents there what they thought of the project. With one exception the answer was: 'You cannot sell the Encyclopædia Britannica here because almost every English and American resident has already obtained a copy from England, and, of course, the Japanese will not buy—fortunately for you, because if they did they would not pay.' The only English resident who did not say this said: 'Of course you can sell any number of Encyclopædias to the Japanese, but you will never be able to collect the payments when they have once got the books. No Japanese will pay for the Encyclopædia when he finds he can get it without payment.' In the face of this advice, the instalment plan of sale was adopted, with the results above described. I many add that the Japanese bought five times as many Encyclopædias as were sold in France and Germany combined, fifty times as many as in Russia, more than in any other country except India, Australia, and the United States.
When I see a bishop of the Church of England, who has lived in Japan since 1898, write with so little appreciation of the Japanese, I wonder whether some of our countrymen are not as blind as the Russian statesmen who, in the early days of the war, described the Japanese as 'yellow monkeys,' and as blind as the Ambassador of the Tsar who made the statement in Tokio, before the war, that the mobilisation of one army corps in Russia would frighten the Japanese into immediate submission. No one in the Times office, at any rate, can doubt that the standard of integrity among the Japanese is so high that when young men, who have bought the Encyclopædia, abandoned their employment to go to the front, their families promptly paid the instalments due, under circumstances of the utmost difficulty.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,
The Manager of Your Publication Department.
Printing-house Square, E.C., October 5.
VII
Japan and Foreign Capital [1]
Japan, far from becoming antagonistic to the occidental nations, as it was prognosticated by some of the Continental journalists, has given another proof of her readiness for the identification of her economic interests with those of the occidental people.
Hitherto in Japan there has been no law which regulated the mortgaging of a railway, or a mining enterprise, or a factory, together with its working system, as a corporation, that is to say, mortgaging the whole system of a railway, a mining enterprise, or a factory as an economic whole, comprising not only each particular material object but also all the organic components of its working system as the subject matter of mortgage. A radical change has now been effected in the matter.
According to the Japanese laws there are two methods for a commercial company in contracting a debt. One is the ordinary borrowing of money from a creditor, and the other is borrowing in the shape of debentures by public subscription. Now in ordinary borrowing of money the liability may be secured by mortgage, but the debentures could not be secured by mortgage, although of course the liability extends to the whole property of the company.
The first effect of the new change is the provision which enables companies to guarantee debentures by mortgage, and the second effect is the provisions which relate to the creations of economic corporations of railways, mining works, or factories for the special purpose of instituting mortgages of their economic entity.
To make the matter easier to comprehend, I will first explain it with regard to railways.
The permission of the Government originally given to the company is in the nature of a licence or concession which is to be viewed more in the light of a personal matter of the original company, and therefore it could not be a subject matter of a public auction, and therefore according to the old law, if a railway company becomes bankrupt, all the material property, either movable or immovable, would go to new hands, but the licence itself cannot but become extinct with the dissolution of the original company, viz. the original grantee.
This being so, if a railway company fails to fulfil its liability for debenture and goes into bankruptcy, the ultimate result would be that the railway system would be broken up, and the creditors would get their satisfaction only from the sale of each piece of the material property sold by public auction. Even in the case of ordinary debt, whereby all the material property can be mortgaged, the result would be practically the same.
All these inconveniences have now been removed by a series of new laws passed by the last session of the Imperial diet and promulgated on March 13, 1905, by the Imperial Government. The articles of the laws are very numerous and minute, so that it would be unnecessary to dwell upon them here in detail, but the more important parts may be summarised as follows:
(a) The economic entity of a railway company may be constituted a special economic corporation for the purpose of mortgage.[2]
(b) In default of payment of the mortgage liability, the whole, i.e. the corporation, may be subjected to auction. This provides the means for transferring, together with the material properties, the original permission of the Government, namely, the licence, to the purchaser, viz. a new company.
(c) A company, which in reality may be taken as a syndicate, may be formed for advancing money by means of debentures. Such company may acquire legal recognition and may represent the creditors of debentures. It forms a particular kind of commercial company, and is called 'trust company.'
(d) At the option of the creditors, means of compulsory control of the railway in the interest of creditors are also provided for in the laws.
(e) Special provisions are made to meet the cases where the syndicate and investors are of foreign nationality: namely, the means of recognising foreign syndicates by the Japanese Government, and also the means of affording convenience for foreign investors.
(f) Further provisions are made for facilitating the registration of constituting the said corporation, and the registration of the mortgage thereof, for these affairs, as far as railways are concerned, are now entrusted, by the new laws, to the Minister of Communications, to whose control the railways belong, and not to the local courts of law, as is the case with all other kinds of mortgages.
This change of our laws gives very great facility to foreign investors who may be willing to lend money on railway securities.
The case of mining enterprises were similar because they are also based on licences. For them also much the same changes have been effected by the new laws, so that their economic entity may now be mortgaged in the interests of either an ordinary creditor or investors in debentures.
The cases of ordinary factories differ in origin from those of the railways or mines, they not being based on a concession or licence like railway or mining enterprises. But for them also the new laws have made provisions for the means of constituting corporations for the purpose of guaranteeing debenture by mortgage. Provisions have also been made for guaranteeing debenture by mortgaging ships, any definite property either immovable or movable, or any legal claims which are secured by written instruments.
[1] The Outlook.
[2] The law also permits the companies constituting such a corporation of a part of the whole for a similar object. But as its general purport does not materially differ, I omit its account in order to avoid confusion.—The Author.
VIII
The Languages of China and Japan
People often ask me if there is any affinity between the Chinese language and ours. I can at once say there is no affinity whatever, but this requires much explanation before I can clearly show it.
The written language of China, viz. ideographs, is the same all over the extensive sphere of China proper, but its pronunciation is different almost in every province. The spoken language of the Chinese is, roughly speaking, the same as the written language, as is the case in the Western nations. Therefore, the Chinese residing in different provinces do not understand each other colloquially, except those educated in the Mandarine Chinese, which is in fact the pronunciation used in Peking amongst the Mandarins and studied by all Mandarins in provinces as well as those in Peking.
The first difference between Chinese and Japanese is that the former is monosyllabic, whilst the latter is polysyllabic. The second difference, which is a natural consequence of the first, is that in Chinese there is no declension of nouns or conjugation of verbs, whilst in Japanese there are conjugations of verbs and a method of the formation of the cases of nouns which is in purport similar to declensions. The third difference is the position or order of words in sentences. The fourth difference is the difference of pronunciation of the Chinese ideographs, viz. characters, even when they are used in our writing in their original shapes.
I will now explain in detail all these points in the succeeding pages.
To begin with, Chinese is monosyllabic, as I said. Each word, which always has one signification, be it a noun or a verb, has only one sound. Thus a harbour in Chinese is kong, whilst it is minato in Japanese; and a man in Chinese is jen, whilst it is hito in Japanese. It is the same with verbs. The sound of each word of Chinese never changes, whatever position it may stand in relation to other words in the same sentence, that is to say, there is no declension and no conjugation. Each word is represented by a distinct ideograph, and, from what I have just said, it follows that the form of the ideographs also never changes, in the same way as the sounds do not change.
In Chinese different shades of meaning as to the actions and agents are expressed by the position of the words, by addition of some other words. In simple sentences, therefore, it resembles English very much; thus, for instance, when a Chinese says: 'John likes Paul,' it is plain, like English, that he who likes Paul is John, and he who is liked is Paul. When a Chinese wishes to express the same idea in the passive voice, he would say, 'Paul by John is liked,' which is the same as 'Paul is liked by John,' Neither has Chinese any preposition like English or French, nor any post-position like Japanese, to designate the cases, except a few which resemble prepositions meaning 'from,' 'to,' and 'by,' but even these are very sparingly employed and by no means with any regularity. When a verb is used as a substantive the form is still identical; thus one identical ideograph, 'like,' may represent a verb 'to like' or a substantive 'liking.' Of course there are many terms designating one thing or one action consisting of more than one sound; such are, however, combinations of two or three distinct words, like the English word 'firearms' or 'seesaw,' and therefore none of them could properly be called one distinct polysyllabic word.
In Japanese, unlike Greek, Latin, or German, there is no proper declension in nouns. In this respect it is more like English or French, but it has a method of forming the cases, so that in this respect it differs from Chinese. Our cases are formed by putting after them the so-called ga—no—ni—wo—thus:
| Hana ga saku | - | Flowers blossom |
| Hana no Kage | - | The shade of flowers |
| Hana ni chikazuku | - | Approach the flowers |
| Hana wo Miyo | - | See the flowers (imperative). |
Ga is generally omitted in writing. It is more like the Greek Ge, which is often suffixed to the nominative substantives. Ni is equal to the English to and the French à; but such ideas as the English by or in, or the French en or par, are generally expressed by it. There is another particle wa for the nominative, its position is the same.
Made (until, jusqu'à) and yori or kara (from, de) are also put after the substantives. In fact, all equivalents to English or French prepositions are put after the substantive, and therefore they are more appropriate to be called the post-positions.
In Chinese the idea of time is generally very vague, it is mostly left to the conjecture of the hearers or readers, as the case may be, from the context of the whole sentence. But when it is necessary to express it, it is also done by addition of some words, such as 'already' or 'once.' Thus a Chinese would say, 'John once like Paul,' meaning 'John once liked Paul,' or 'John already come,' meaning 'John has already come.' But this is very different in our language. We have regular declensions of verbs in both the active voice and the passive voice and their form is accordingly changed. Thus, for instance:
| Kitaru | - | come |
| Kitaran | - | shall come |
| Kitarishi | - | has come |
| Kitare | - | come (imperative). |
I shall here develop my dissertation a little further, and make some comparison between our language and some of the European languages.
In Japanese there is no gender in nouns, for grammatical purposes, although some words from their very nature signify male or female; thus, for instance, otoko = man, onna = woman, ondori = cock, and mendori = hen. To us it sounds very odd that the Germans give feminine gender to the sun and masculine to the moon, whilst the French do vice versa, or that both the French and German give masculine gender to 'regiment' or 'battalion,' but feminine gender to 'company.' In this respect the English method of dividing into masculine, feminine, and neutral, allowing only on rare occasions, for poetical purpose, personification of inanimate objects, sounds more rational and comprehensible to our ears. It follows, therefore, that our nouns do not modify their forms on account of the gender, and that it is more like English in this respect.
We have, moreover, no number in the nouns. Whereas in European languages nouns which have no number are exceptions and very few, all the nouns in Japanese are without number without any exception. When we wish to express any particular numerical idea, we make use of a numerical adjective in a similar manner as the English would say 'a sheep,' 'ten sheep,' or 'numerous sheep.' Here again we can see that our nouns never change their form on account of the number. It is true, we also put after the nouns ra, tachi, or domo to signify plural, but it is rare, and the style becomes rather clumsy unless it is done very carefully.
Furthermore, there is no gender or number in our verbs. All conjugations are the same whatever gender or number they may relate to. It goes without saying that in Chinese also there is neither gender nor number in its nouns and verbs. It also goes without saying that in Japanese as well as Chinese there is, like English, no gender or number in adjectives. I may also add here that, like Latin, there are no articles either in Chinese or Japanese.
As to the adverbs in Chinese, they are as a rule identical with adjectives, the difference between them being only perceived by the context, although there is a certain form which always gives adverbial signification, and which is done by putting another word after an adjective (there are three or four words which are used for the purpose of thus forming adverbial terms). In Japanese adverbs are formed by suffixing ni and to, like the English ly and French ment. As shizukani (slowly) yuku (goes), and shizushizu to (slowly and slowly) yuku (goes). To may be written toshite according to euphony.
The use of conjunctions in Japanese and Chinese is much similar to that of the Western languages, except that in both Chinese and Japanese it is very commonly understood. Thus where the Europeans say, 'East and West' or 'black and white,' we both, Chinese and Japanese, would simply say, 'West East' or 'white black,' unless we have some particular reasons in giving emphasis to the distinction.
In Chinese the pronouns also have no gender, so also in Japanese. When we particularly wish to designate gender, we say, 'that man' or 'this woman,' which in reality is no longer a pronoun. As to the number of pronouns, it is formed by adding another word after it; but in Chinese this is by no means uniformly done, for in most cases where the meaning is plain enough, the same person as that of the singular number is also used for the plural. It is so especially with regard to the third person, but even in the first person this occurs sometimes, as for instance when two opposing objects, one of which is on one's own side, are collectively spoken of. There is something similar in English as far as the third person is concerned, but the Chinese carry it even into the first person. Thus in English may be written, 'When the enemy attacked us we have repulsed him,' but a Chinese would go further and write, 'When the enemy attacked me, I have repulsed him,' without meaning that he, the writer himself, did it alone, or did it at all, but that the army on his side did it.
In Japanese the number of the pronouns is far more precise than it is in Chinese. One thing which may be novel to the Western readers is that in Chinese there are many different I's and you's, and still more in Japanese. They all signify, when used, a certain difference in degree of politeness. It is one of the difficult points in our colloquial language. I may here note that in the West it is almost impossible to carry on a conversation for a few minutes without making use of so many I's, he's, and you's, but, like Latin, pronouns are used very sparingly in Chinese, still less in Japanese. In Latin the form of the verbs suggests very easily the person which is the substantive understood. In Chinese the context suggests it, while in Japanese the construction of sentences based upon conjugation does it.
Relative pronouns, who, which, qui, que, or dont, do not exist both in Chinese and Japanese. This is one of the great difficulties when we translate Western books. We must write the phrase governed by the relative pronouns as a distinct one or else must employ a clumsy method in rendering the whole sentence.
From what I have stated above, it would appear that Chinese is very simple as far as the analysis of the words is concerned, for they have no declension and conjugation. The difficulty of the students of Chinese does not lie in remembering different forms of declensions and conjugations, but first in remembering so many ideographs, one by one, and secondly to make head and tail of the agglomeration of ideographs, for one can never tell from their form which is a noun and which is a verb, or which is an objective or which is a possessive case. Definite meaning of Chinese sentences could only be appreciated by those who have accustomed themselves by long experience. But even such people often differ in their interpretation of some phrases, by giving different attributive to one or other particular ideograph in a sentence, not only in its meaning but in its position as regards the part of speech. This often occurs in interpretation of classical books. All this, however, does not signify that Chinese is a poor language, because its literal standard is really very highly developed.
The Japanese language is also simple enough as far as the analysis of words is concerned. Nouns never change their forms under any circumstances, except that their cases are made by the use of ga, no, ni, or wo, which is only an addition. Verbs are conjugated, but it is done simply to denote time and voice, and for no other reason. In a word, we may say that Japanese grammar is very easy. The real difficulty of Japanese is in the proper construction of phrases, for it is by it that many shades of meaning are suggested. True it is that this is more or less so with all languages. Difference of the degree of politeness or gracefulness is manipulated by difference of construction everywhere, but the variety of this difference is more complicated in Japanese than in any other language, and it can only be acquired by long practice and observation. This is why all foreigners who study Japanese think it is so easy at the commencement and so difficult after they have made a little progress. Nevertheless, colloquial Japanese is on the whole easy, because one can learn it easily so long as he is not sensitive of nicety or grace. There is in open ports even a new Japanese spoken between foreigners and natives, in which no ga—no—ni—wo is used, or no conjugation of verbs employed, and yet it is perfectly intelligible.
Now as to the difference of the order of words between Japanese and Chinese. Where in English one says, 'I cannot go,' in Chinese one would say, 'I not can go,' whilst in Japanese it would be, 'I go can not.' This order of Japanese has a slight resemblance to German, but the difference lies in that, whilst in German it is chiefly so in subordinate sentences, it is in Japanese uniformly so under any circumstances. In Chinese a verb which governs an object directly or indirectly always precedes the object; thus, like English, a Chinese would say, 'Girls eat cakes,' or 'he goes to Paris,' but in Japanese the verb succeeds; thus a Japanese would say, 'Girls cakes eat,' or 'he Paris to goes.' In this respect of order there is some resemblance between Latin and Japanese.
From all that I have said it is plain that there is no affinity between Chinese and Japanese so far as construction is concerned, but I may go further. There is no resemblance whatever suggestive of same origin between any Chinese and Japanese word, except those whose introduction into Japan at later ages is clearly known.
In speaking of the Japanese language in the foregoing pages, I have made no difference between the colloquial and the written one, but in fact there is much difference between them which requires some notice here. Even in the West written phrases can be, and are often, much shortened than spoken ones; but in Japan this difference is carried almost to the extreme, so much so, that they assume almost entirely different shape, the phrases of the spoken language being unsparingly curtailed in those of the written one. Of course, there are some old books which were written like the colloquial, and of late years much movement is made for an assimilation of the written and spoken languages, making the written one approach the spoken one. But as the matter stands at present the difference is still very great.
I am afraid my explanation is becoming too minute and consequently tedious, but I presume I must complete it. In the writings, too, there are in Japan two systems, one of which consists of our own phonetic letters, and the other consists of a mixture of our phonetic letters and Chinese ideographs. Unfortunately, the latter system is in common use. It is done in the following manner. The order of the words is not changed, but nouns and verbs, for instance, are written in the original ideographs with the significance of the cases or conjugations, which are written in the phonetic letters succeeding these ideographs. Let me take an example in the English word 'telegraphed' or 'telegraphing,' and let us write 'telegraph' in the original Greek letters, writing 'ed' or 'ing,' which is the part of the pure English, in the ordinary English letters. This will give you an idea of our using Chinese ideographs in our sentences. But our method is still more complicated. Besides the above examples we read very often the ideographs thus used, not according to their pronunciation but according to so-called 'kun' of the word, which is in reality a translation. In English books the term 'viz.' is used and is read as 'namely.' Here 'namely' is not pronunciation but translation. This is an example similar to our 'kun' of a word. When to read by pronunciation and when to read by 'kun' entirely depends upon the construction of the phrases, but one thing is certain, and it is that in Japan one has to know both the pronunciation and 'kun' of Chinese ideographs.
The Japanese pronunciation of Chinese ideographs is not the same as any kind of the modern Chinese pronunciation, and therefore even one simple word expressed by an ideograph is unintelligible between a Chinese and a Japanese, though they understand when it is written. In China the pronunciation of ideographs underwent much change; besides it has varied according to localities. In Japan the pronunciation of those Chinese ideographs, which is comparatively ancient, has been preserved on account of our possessing phonetic letters, by the use of which the preservation has been effected. But then there are two kinds of pronunciation of those ideographs, on account of its introduction into Japan at different periods from the different localities. This is an additional difficulty we have in reading Chinese characters used in Japan, though the usual customs where to use one or where the other are usually plain to educated people.
Japanese phonetics consist of fifty letters.[1] Five of them are vowels, being equal to a, e, i, o, u, and each of the rest represents the sound of two Roman characters, i.e. a consonant and a vowel; thus, for instance, the sound of ka or ke is represented by a single letter without spelling.
I said above that the modern Chinese pronunciation is different from the ancient one. It goes without saying that the style of phraseology is much changed, even in a greater measure than the modern English writing is different from that of the Elizabethan epoch. The Chinese, which has been studied in Japan indeed very commonly, is the ancient one, i.e. classical Chinese, and we are familiar with classical Chinese even more than the Chinese themselves. As a system of writing, that of the pure Japanese, which consists of phonetic letters, is in its quality far superior to the other one, which is in our common use, nay, even superior to the proper Chinese system itself. Our phonetic system, however, has not made sufficient progress on account of the introduction of the Chinese system, to which we had paid too high value and devoted too much attention, the result being the mixture of Chinese ideographs in our phonetic system, that is to say, the other system just mentioned. Even in the West there is some similarity to this. Take, for instance, some modern English books. One would scarcely find a few lines in which a large number of words which are Latin or sometimes Greek in origin is not contained. Are there not even now names for new inventions coined from Greek or at least from Latin? And is not all this due to the fact that such words sound more scholastic or else more concise or accurate? If it were not so, why does one call a horseless carriage 'automobile' instead of 'self-moving carriage'? Fortunately for the Western nations, however, there is no difficulty in transcribing Greek or Latin words in their modern letters, inasmuch as those letters are similar to, in fact evolved from, the Greek and Latin letters, and therefore, when once a Greek or Latin word is employed, it is easy to get naturalised, as it were. But, unfortunately for us, the Chinese method is ideographs, and our own is phonetic, and one cannot be directly transcribed from the other, except that either it be translated or merely phonetically represented, which in truth presents much ambiguity. For this reason the original ideographs themselves have come to be interposed between the phonetic letters as I have illustrated above, and the ideographs so interposed have never become thoroughly 'naturalised,' from the very nature of the case. Thus one would see that as far as the mechanical side is concerned, the deep study of Chinese has given much drawback to Japan. On the mental side, however, I may say that it has helped us in enriching our thoughts for many centuries, inasmuch as there is rich treasure for ethical teaching in the classical Chinese, although this is not the place for me to dwell on that topic.
I may add a few words. Philological researches of different Asiatic languages are still very incomplete, but I understand from what is stated by experts that there is some resemblance between our language and those of Korea, Manchuria, and indeed Mongolian tribes: first, in that all those languages are monosyllabic like ours; second, in the order of words in forming sentences. Moreover, it is said that there were already discovered several words which are much similar to ours. No satisfactory statement could be made as yet, but it would be a matter of no common interest if further researches be made. It goes without saying that there is much similarity, so it is said, between ours and the language of the Inoes, who are rapidly disappearing from the surface of the earth, despite our taking care of them. They once occupied the greater part of Japan and were a brave race. It is no wonder that there is that similarity in the tongues, though it is a matter of question whether they left their words behind them or we gave them those words. For example, Kami, which in the colloquial Japanese means god, superior, or upper part of anything, is Kamui in Ino, the meaning being the same. This word, then, must surely belong to the same origin. There are also many names of rivers and mountains in Japan which, beyond doubt, are of Ino origin.
[1] These phonetic letters were invented in Japan between the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., during which time they gradually became improved. As to their form they are a simplification of some simple Chinese ideographs, and as to the principle of their formation, it is based upon, the Sanscrit.
IX
Once More on Japan and France [1]
The French and the Japanese have some sort of resemblance in their character, and therefore they are not wholly antagonistic to each other by nature. France once committed a great error, it is true, together with another country, in backing Russia against Japan after the Sino-Japanese war, but Japan has forgiven her for it, and has even forgotten it long since. It therefore mainly depends on France if the friendly relationship subsisting between her and Japan shall be maintained.
There are two things which we have to examine in this connection: first, the question of Indo-China; second, the effect of the Franco-Russian alliance upon Far Eastern affairs.
Much has been talked about Japan's having designs upon Indo-China. It is, in truth, nothing more than a resuscitation in part of the old bogey of the Yellow Peril. According to that bogey, Japan is to pick quarrels with every civilised nation, and is ultimately to swallow up the whole world. Nothing can be more absurd than that; but at times it has been made use of by the Russians and Russophiles with a certain amount of success. To me it appears almost amazing that so great a psychological incongruity should exist simultaneously in the minds of some of the Occidentals, in that, while they exhibit almost unreasonable contempt of the Orientals on the one hand, they give credit for almost superhuman potentiality to the same people on the other. Whatever this may be, the question of Indo-China resolves itself into this:
The yellow peril alarmists began to talk about Japan as being intent upon seizing Indo-China. The Colonial party of France has utilised this theme for the promotion of its own object, and the Russophiles have utilised it for inciting the public to hate and detest Japan in favour of Russia. Surely an act of gross injustice and cowardice! For, as a matter of fact, on the part of Japan there is no such intention whatever. Indo-China is very different from Korea and Manchuria in respect of its relative position to Japan. There is nothing worth mentioning politically, strategically, historically, or economically in the mutual relations between Japan and Indo-China. All this I have shown in the utmost detail in an article which I have contributed and published in a well-known French review. Sensible French people have now begun to see the truth of it, so that they have almost ceased to pay serious attention to the false alarms of the yellow peril agitators. Indeed, the France of to-day appears to be very different from the France of this time last year. The lapse of one year has been sufficient to disclose many falsehoods by which the public was once taken in. It has also disclosed the relative merit of Russia and Japan in many things. Which government—the Russian or the Japanese—is the more enlightened? Which troops—the Russian or the Japanese—are more humane and orderly? Which people—Russia or Japan—is more compact as a nation? Which of them—Russia or Japan—has better ethics and morality? In which of them—Russia or Japan—are laws better administered and more loyally adhered to? In which of them—Russia or Japan—are philanthropical works, such as the Red Cross Society, better organised and more honestly carried out? Above all, in which of them—Russia or Japan—does the justice of its cause in the present war lie? All these things have now become very widely known to the public, hence the difference of their attitude. I do not think France ever will be foolish enough to stretch forward her fists against Japan on account of the yellow peril bogey concerning Indo-China. I am rather in hope that the day will come when those Russophiles will repent the mistake they made when they abused Japan contrary to the dictates of justice and equity.
The second question, namely, the effect of the Franco-Russian alliance upon Far Eastern affairs, is rather a delicate one to discuss. On the whole, however, I can say this:
Considering the delicate position in which she is placed, France has managed things well to the extent that we have not much to complain of (except one important matter, which I will elucidate presently). True it is that she has made many unfair accusations against us with regard to the commencement of the war and also with regard to the yellow peril bogey, but then the same, if not a harsher thing, has also been done or said in some other quarters where we might have expected more impartiality. Her general conduct as a neutral has not been very satisfactory. But then we remember that in some other quarters also very bitter pills were given us to swallow, altogether beyond our reasonable anticipation. We put up with all this unfairness, because we are quite confident that sooner or later the time will come when the world will clearly see how undeserving we are of such calumny.
The important exception I made above is the question of French neutrality concerning the treatment of the Baltic Fleet. In this respect Japan has grave reasons to complain of what France has been doing. As the whole world knows, the Russian Fleet has been obtaining abundant facilities from France all the way along from European waters to those of the Far East. It was abusing French hospitality in Madagascar for a very long period. Japan repeated her protest, or at least called French attention from time to time. When France pleaded her innocence at Madagascar on the pretext that the fleet was outside the territorial waters of France, Japan, relying on incontestable proof to the contrary, remonstrated. France was very tardy in executing what she said she would do, but Japan showed much patience, almost beyond common endurance. The same thing began to be repeated in the waters of Indo-China, the very door of the seat of the war. However moderate and good-natured Japan may be, this was more than she could endure. This was the real cause of the strain of an event which has been recently threatening the continuance of friendly relations between France and Japan.
According to some French papers, the view is held that France has not infringed her duty as a neutral, but Japan does not coincide. The French contention is that, according to the French law of neutrality, there is no time limit for affording asylum to a belligerent ship, and therefore, whatever length of time Russian ships may spend in French waters, France is under no obligation to tell them to quit the place (so long as they are not accompanied by prizes), and also they may be supplied with victuals and even coals. Japan contends that this is not a just interpretation of the laws of nations. Japan's view may be formulated as follows:
1. The twenty-four hours rule may not be a condition universally accepted, but justice and equity demand that in its spirit it should be followed by all nations. It has already been adopted by many nations, including Russia herself; as a matter of fact, the world has come to view it as though it were already a rule universally accepted, and it behoves every civilised nation to promote its adoption, or at least a practice similar to it in spirit, for the sake of consolidating international morality, viz. justice and equity. At the time when Russian ships, after the sea-battle of August 10th last year, sought asylum in the waters of Kiao-Chow and Saigon, both the German and French authorities respectively hastened to dismantle them, because the ships would not leave the place indicated at the prescribed time; this was done in exact accordance with the spirit of international law, and in reality it amounted almost to the same thing as observing the twenty-four hours rule. Why should France now say that no time limit can be made in the case of the Baltic Fleet, which requires all the more vigilance than would the case of a few solitary ships?
2. The so-called French law of neutrality is not in fact a law in the strict sense of the term. It is a sort of an instruction issued in the beginning of the present war by the French Minister of Marine, although based upon a similar document issued at the time of the Spanish-American war. It is immaterial whether or not it is a law in the strict sense, but we cannot deem it has a just rule if it were to be interpreted as has been done by some of the French papers. True it is that in that document no time is mentioned, but does it mean that France has to or must allow all belligerent ships to stay in her waters whatever length of time they like? Certainly not, I should think. If it is so, why should France adhere to that sort of interpretation even when its adherence is obviously contrary to justice and equity?
3. Even if we admit for a moment that the French rule as interpreted by those papers be applicable to the cases of some solitary ships seeking asylum; it is certainly not applicable to cases like that which we now have in view, because no such case as that of the Baltic Fleet has ever been within the contemplation of those who framed such a rule. As a matter of fact, however, it would be inapplicable even to the cases of a few solitary ships if it were to be interpreted in the way that was done by those journals.
4. Even admitting for a moment that the interpretation of those French journals is correct as far as the strict letter of the rule is concerned, it does not give them the right to say that their doings are internationally correct. It must be known that in the laws of nations the spirit of international morality, namely, justice and equity, has greater weight than municipal laws, lex loci. If this were not so, how was it that England had to apologise to Russia a long time ago for an act—personal seizure of an ambassador—which had been done in a civil matter perfectly in accordance with her law? Therefore the mere fact that France has her own law of neutrality (in fact no law in a strict sense) is no defence for her doings unless its justice and equity can be maintained in the eyes of the law of nations. I may further add that the above is the raison d'être why prize courts of different countries make it their theory, unlike ordinary civil or criminal courts, that they administer prima facie the law of nations and not lex loci. It is another raison d'être why matters relating to neutrality, prizes, and cognate matters are generally dealt with in the shape of instructions (in other words, interpretations of the law of nations), and not in the shape of a law of the land in the strict sense. Japan, therefore, cannot submit to the ruling of those French instructions as interpreted by those journals, inasmuch as she does not think it internationally just and equitable.
5. And, moreover, that part of the French instruction which those journals so habitually quote is not the only part which has an important bearing on the question. In the instruction it is also mentioned that no belligerent may use a French port for purposes of war (dans un but de guerre); and also that belligerents sojourning in such ports may not make use of them as the base of operations of any kind against the enemy. Japan's insistence is that France should adhere to that spirit. My wonder is why those French papers which try to uphold one part of the instruction should totally ignore other parts of the same instruction.
6. The theory of asylum in the case of the ships is not so rigid as the case of an army. I admit it. Japan does not demand that it should be made on the seas as rigid as it is on land. But it must never be allowed to go beyond the limit which justice and equity allow. I take the theory of asylum on the seas to be this: No neutral is justified in helping either of the combatants, but the nature of the seas is such that the neutral may give a certain grace of time to combatant vessels which seek shelter in its neutral waters, before it proceeds to dismantle,—(no immediate internment as in the case of the land force),—and it may also give them certain victuals—even a certain amount of coals—as it would also be contrary to humanity if they were to hang about, or to cause starvation of the men on board in mid-voyage on account of the mere lack of coal or food. Beyond this, the spirit of the law of nations is that a neutral ought to allow nothing. Can any one boldly assert that the theory of asylum can be applied with fairness to a case like that of the Baltic Fleet, which is far from seeking asylum, but is deliberately endeavouring to administer coups to its adversary and proceeding to the very seat of war. If he can do so, where is the justice and equity of the so-called law of nations, which the Occidentals boast of, not without just title, and claim that it forms one of the essential parts of Christian morality?
7. As to the talk about the three-mile limit of the territorial waters, there is already much divergency of opinion even amongst the jurists. To put it forth as a defence in a case like that of the Baltic Fleet affairs seems to me too puerile. The matter, however, becomes all the more grave when even that limit is not observed, and it has been constantly ignored by the Baltic Fleet.
Such are the views which we Japanese have taken in the matter. Some French journals (erroneously basing their assertions on the views I have personally expressed) say that Japan has taken up English views of international law in opposition to the Continental views, so that France ought not to yield to Japan's protest. This contention is not correct. We do not hold these views because they are English ones: we do so because they are in our opinion the only views which are internationally just and equitable. We are now fighting against a foe so formidable, as the whole world knows, that to us it is a matter of life and death. We have sufficient patience and fortitude, but we cannot run the risk of sacrificing our very existence without some protest when we think that we are not being treated with justice and equity.
I am glad to add that the views we hold seem to have come at last to be shared by the more responsible part of the French amongst the governmental circle, as well as by the general public. The newspapers which are still sticking to their old contention are very few in number, and they seem to have some particular reasons of their own. I can never think a nation like France could consciously and wilfully offend against justice and equity, and the only thing we anxiously hope for is that the declaration of the French Government may be honestly and effectually followed up. Whatever may be one's intention, the drift of events often creates unlooked-for incidents, and that too often against one's will, when it is too late to avoid the consequences. Let all parties concerned be careful in this matter of vital importance.
[1] The Deutsche Revue, June 1905.
X
Japan and Europe [1]
You ask my opinion on the future of the Yellow Peril cry. From an ethical point of view it is an unjust and unreasonable accusation. From a practical point of view it is idle and useless talk.
I have spoken and written on these particular points so often that I do not feel inclined to reiterate any more. I will, however, consider the matter from a different point of view and solicit any answer which may be advanced against my conviction. I do not do this from any thought of vanity; I should be very sorry if it were ever taken in that sense. I would simply ask those who agitate and cry the Yellow Peril, the means they would suggest for the adopting of their propaganda, if their words are not to be empty ones.
Suppose any country wanted to subjugate Japan, and should want to send an army to fight on the soil of Japan, what number of men do they think would suffice? No general in the whole world would, I am sure, be bold enough to undertake the task with under one million men. I have reason to believe even that number would not suffice, but for a moment let it be that number. What country in the world can send that number over the broad ocean? Germany, France, England, or America? Russia seems to have the greatest chance, being nearer to Japan. But her experience is already known.
Suppose the idea of a land campaign be abandoned, and only a fleet be sent to intimidate Japan by sea battles, or by harassing her commerce. There would certainly be a better chance for any of the Occidental fleets than for the armies, in coping with the forces of Japan. Above all, I frankly admit that England would be the most formidable foe in that respect. But excepting England, is there any other country that can say with certainty that it can easily crush the Japanese navy? Is it Germany? is it France? or is it—America?
But supposing our navy were crushed; what next? It would, of course, be a very ugly thing for us, but it would not mean the subjection of Japan. Our sea-coast towns may be bombarded, our commerce may be harassed, but Japan will still subsist within her soil, for she can live without depending on any other country for food. And, besides, disturbance of commerce would not be a loss only to her.
Moreover, any country which should embark on such an enterprise would have need to think it over twice (or, indeed, three or four times) before undertaking it, and to calculate the probable benefit it could get therefrom, and the probable expenses it would incur; not to speak of the result of any possible failure. It may be presumed that Japan would not tamely be intimidated by any action undertaken by any country which is not based on justice and equity, and which, therefore, is not open to reason.
Further, is there any country which would willingly embark on such an enterprise single-handed? I think not. The reason is too obvious for me to elucidate.
Putting aside altogether any question of justice and equity, if such an enterprise is to be embarked upon at all, it would have to be by common action of all the Western Powers, somewhat similar to that when the combined forces of Europe rose against France some hundred years ago.
But let me ask if such a thing is possible under the present circumstances? The claims of Japan to the kind consideration of humanity have already become so widely spread that she could no longer be trampled upon easily. Man is, after all, a rational being. Do the writers of the articles on the Yellow Peril (articles which even now repeatedly make their appearance) not know the fact that even in France there is a large number of people who have recently purchased Japanese bonds, not to speak of Germany, where those bonds have been openly floated by banks of high standing? Even if all the governments of the West should be willing to agree to such an enterprise, I do not think the people at large would move with them.
Japan is modest enough, Japan is honest enough. Why does she deserve a general ostracism? She might become, it is possible, a Power of the world. She might become, it is possible, more civilised on the lines of occidental civilisation, after which she strives so earnestly. Are these to be blamed as her sins?
To me the Yellow Peril cry, which is so often revived in some quarters of the Continent, is either a sort of what we call 'guchi,' that is to say, useless repetition of complaint of some unreasonable disappointment, or a perpetuation of wicked instigation and selfish intention. In either case, it is not at all a laudable action; indeed, I may say it is wasteful calumny for no material good will come of it inasmuch as its object can never be achieved from the very condition of the world. The people who entertain that idea would be doing far better service to their country, to the progress of civilisation, to the general cause of humanity, if only they put aside such a silly notion, and busy themselves in teaching their fellow country-folks to accustom themselves to the changed circumstances of the time. It would be a far more manly and noble act if they revised their old notions, which in a measure may be called prejudice.
As to ourselves, the Japanese, we shall only be glad if we can enjoy a peaceful and harmonious life in the happy family of the world, as we are determined to do, in spite of all the obstacles which may be laid before us.
[1] Written for the Potentia Organisation, July 1905.
XI
The Indo-China Question [1]
Interview with the Baron Suyematsu
The eminent statesman, Baron Suyematsu, kindly dictated in English to one of our editors answers relating to certain questions with regard to the relation between Japan and Europe, especially France and Germany.
With the disclosure of the alleged Kodama report in view, how far may one give credit to the alleged Japanese plan of invasion of Indo-China?
I know all that has been written in France on the subject. All those rumours appear to me to have come originally from Russia, and to have been put into circulation in order to excite French opinion against Japan, in other words, it is nothing else than a mere repetition of the Yellow Peril cry.
Japan does not covet Indo-China. I have shown elsewhere that the French colonies in the Far East have no perceptible influence upon the situation of Japan, either from a political or an economical point of view. Japan has sufficient to do at home, she does not want to plunge into external adventures, such as meddling with Indo-China or picking a quarrel with a country like France. You may be sure that it would be more politic for France to cultivate amicable relations with Japan than irritate her by such accusations. Even if those accusations honestly represent the true sentiment of the French, the Japanese would only take them for malicious manœuvres directed to aid Russia, and they could not produce any good impression on the minds of the Japanese.
Is there any reason to believe that the so-called Kodama report was forged in Russia rather than in France?
I have demonstrated elsewhere that the document which was recently made public and attributed to Kodama containing some military indications on the plan of an invasion of Indo-China is a perfect forgery. I have exposed elsewhere several technical errors therein which would never appear in an authentic official document. But whether it is authentic or not, I do not attach any importance to the matter, from a political point of view at least. It is the duty of all the military and naval authorities to keep themselves ready for any emergency. For example, France ought to keep herself always prepared for any possible difficulties which may arise on her frontiers in the east, and in the south, and on the western coasts; the same with Germany, with Austria, with Italy, even with the United States.
It appears to me that, if the general staff-office of France or of Germany, or the military or naval authorities of any country whatever, were to remain without the least knowledge as to what measure should be taken in case of a danger, they would be neglecting their duty to their country. I can then say that all the Japanese officers, both in the army and in the navy ought to study constantly the measures which Japan should take in any emergency. I believe it is the same in every country in Europe. This, however, does not belong to the sphere of practical politics. It is the duty of statesmen and politicians to maintain a friendly relationship with all other countries as far as possible; and, consequently, to keep absolute control over their armies and navies. The army and navy ought to serve as instruments and machines in their hands, and not they, the civilians, become the instruments of the army and navy. You may be quite assured that in Japan the army and navy are the machines of the statesmen, and that the statesmen are not their machines.
Can the fabrication of the so-called Kodama report be demonstrated by a precise fact?
I shall not say whence the document emanated. I believe it was composed by some one who does not lack a certain knowledge of Japan, but who has drawn false deductions from his knowledge of similar matters of other countries. Here is the best example. The document speaks of the native contingents of Formosa. Now there exist no such forces in Formosa. The garrisons of Formosa are sent there from Japan. On the other hand, in the colonies belonging to other countries there are generally troops formed of native contingents. It is notably so in French colonies. The author of the document in question, reasoning from these facts, thought that it ought to be the same with Formosa.
Has Japan any fear of another alteration of the Treaty of Shimonoseki being imposed upon her?
The combined action of Russia, Germany and France, for imposing on Japan an alteration of the Treaty of Shimonoseki appears to us to have been a great error on their parts. I can positively say that there are many eminent persons in Germany and in France who regret that action. Even in Russia, in certain quarters, a belief seems to be entertained that, but for the fault then committed, the present misfortunes would not have happened. As to ourselves, we are not hypnotised by the errors then committed by those three powers. We intend to remain friends of France, of Germany, and even of Russia, in spite of the injustice we have suffered, provided, of course, those powers wish to keep friendship.
We do not overlook the possibility of another combination which those powers may have an idea of forming against us, and it behoves us to be watchful. Nevertheless, to tell you my candid opinion, it is scarcely possible that a similar intervention should be renewed. I do not think France would push her docility so far as to follow Germany a second time. It would be necessary that Germany should set the example, aided by Russia and France, to come out to the Far East, especially because the Russian fleets have ceased to exist. I admit that the German fleet is strong, but I do not believe it is powerful enough for one to say with certainty that it can easily crush Japan. At all events, what pretext has Germany to enter into war in the Far East? Among other things also she would have to count on the opinion and sentiments of two countries at least, I mean England and the United States. I do not, therefore, consider a new combination possible. Japan cannot be intimidated by mere barking.
If, however, Europe should choose to take such a course, we should gravely reflect. I do not believe your country for example would ever undertake an expedition against Japan. You have disapproved a small expedition to Tonkin and we are a little more serious than the Tonkinese. France might no doubt, if her honour demanded it, judge it worth the pain to engage in a war with Japan, but under no other circumstance do I believe her disposed to take such a part.
Japan will always continue to advance on the lines of occidental civilisation. I do not see the reason which will prevent Japan from acting in concert with France or Germany, provided of course these powers do not enter upon an action which may appear to her altogether unjust or iniquitous, in which case she may not be able to march with them hand-in-hand.
Would Japan be offended by France introducing civilisation into Indo-China?
We are not at all opposed to your introducing Western civilisation into your colonies. On the contrary we shall be quite contented, but in introducing your civilisation into your colonies you have to be prepared that it signifies an amelioration of the condition of the natives. If it were so, why should we make the least objection? But in the hypothesis that the introduction of civilisation has in view neither amelioration of the condition of the natives nor progress of commerce and industry, we might then conceive a sort of suspicion. Supposing that you augment the garrisons, the fortifications, the naval forces, one would see in it nothing but an expansion of your military power and not an introduction of civilisation in the sense understood in France. Even in that case we would not raise objections, unless it were done with a view to menace us; but here I shall offer you a suggestion. Is it really worth your while to develop there incessantly your military and naval forces in order to oppose Japan? Would not the enterprise be rather costly? Would it not be infinitely better to employ your energy in cultivating a good understanding between your country and ours instead of rivalling each other by crossing armaments?
[1] L'Européen, August 5, 1905.
XII
The Australian Question [1]
An Interview
Baron Suyematsu gave a Daily News representative his opinion of the 'Spectre of Japan' as conceived by many Europeans. The Japanese Baron, a burly, cheerful man, laughed heartily as he dealt with the alarmist fears of the 'Yellow Peril.'
Our talk began over Mr. Bruce Smith's notice of motion in the Australian Parliament.
'Yes, I have seen the proposal,' said Baron Suyematsu, 'and I am very glad an Australian representative has taken up the question. He proposes to amend the Immigration Restriction Act so as to permit Japanese to enter the Commonwealth. The reason given is that Japan has placed herself in the front rank of nations, has granted religious freedom, has established consulates, and become the honoured ally of Great Britain. I understand that Australian papers are saying there is no chance of the motion being carried. I care not whether the motion is carried or not this time. Of one thing I am certain—it will be carried eventually.
'What reason has Australia for shutting out the Japanese?'
'The dread of cheaper labour and of the "Yellow Peril," as it is called. Whatever there be in that, it certainly does not apply to the Japanese. This is already being realised in Australia, as Mr. Bruce Smith's motion shows. The Japanese are making it clear that they have to be regarded by Europeans in a different light from the rest of Asiatics. Europeans consider themselves superior to all other races. I do not blame them for thinking that, for of modern civilisations theirs is certainly the best. But with the exception of the British people, Europeans have not yet realised that modern Japan is built up on European methods. She has no more to do with the so-called "Yellow Peril" than America has. She takes her place by the side of the other powers, with very much the same civilisation as theirs. England having been the first to recognise the new Japan, I am certain her colonies will soon follow. That is why I feel it is only a question of time before Australia excludes Japan from its Restriction Act.'
A Mistaken Idea
'Yet Australia has been talking freely enough about the Japanese menace.'
'I know. It is quite a mistaken idea of the Australians that if Japan triumphs in the present war she would be a menace to Australia. They say that if we win we shall be masters of the East and the paramount power in Eastern waters. What, they ask, is to become of Australia, if we take it into our heads to make a descent upon their shores?'
Baron Suyematsu again laughed boisterously, as one who can afford to make merry at an extravagant idea.
'The whole thing is so utterly preposterous,' he went on, 'that it would not be worth considering were it not typical of what is being said all over Europe. Our fight for national existence against Russia has been misconstrued everywhere. We seem to have filled the Western world with all sorts of vague fears, France is saying that we shall soon deprive her of Indo-China. Germany declares we have designs on Kiao-chau. The Dutch say that Java is no longer safe from our machinations. Never was such nonsense talked of a country which, after all, is but fighting to preserve its national existence.'
'And you say Japan has no intention of arming the Asiatics against the Europeans?'
'The whole idea is absurd. Japan wishes to become one with the European nations. I might even say she aspires to become a member of the European family. It is a mistake to think that Japan is going to form a Pan-Asiatic Association. Japan is the only country in the East that can rise on European lines. Her example could not be followed by other Asiatic countries. We are said to be the successors of the Tartars, at one time the disturbers of the world's peace. Nothing of the kind. Russia would be more fittingly the successor of the Tartars. The Tartar races have been merged in the Russian Empire.
'I am sure,' added Baron Suyematsu, in a final word, 'that Europe will soon find its fears about the "spectre of Japan" are all ill-founded. England, I am glad to believe, never had those fears, and before long I hope to see her colonies in the same frame of mind. I hope the Commonwealth Parliament will lead the way.'
[1] The Daily News.
XIII
The Anglo-Japanese Alliance and America [1]
An Interview
'Our people,' said Baron Suyematsu, 'like the British people, favour the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. They also favour its extension. The nature of such extension demands careful thought, of course. I will not go into details, but I will say that a more effectual alliance is desirable from the standpoints of both England and Japan, and I also think from the standpoint of America. Japan's interest is too obvious to require mention; but England's interest, in my opinion, is equally real. Russia and England are in contact throughout Asia and friction is constant. England needs strengthening against Russia and also against other powers active in the Orient.
Monroe Doctrine of the Past
'America's relation to this problem is more difficult. Monroeism is thought to stand in the way. I appreciate the delicacy of venturing to discuss the policy of a nation other than my own, but I feel that Americans are too sensible to resent an honest expression of opinion. Monroeism is not part of the constitution, but the dictum of a statesman. This dictum was made when our planet was very large, before the development of steam and electricity. The nations were isolated and insulated by distance and non-communication.
'At that time American theory and practice relative to foreign affairs were in harmony. America was actually self-contained, but to-day the world is a tiny ball and America's flag and America's interests are on every sea. America is sovereign in Hawaii and the Philippines, and yet the American people cling to the idea of leaving distant matters alone. Nevertheless the state department is widely and intelligently active.
American Interest World-Wide
'Theoretically you do not participate, actually your participation bears upon international events everywhere. Witness Secretary Hay's initiative respecting the Jews, as well as despatch after despatch aimed at Russian aggression in Manchuria. The world's interests are becoming woven into a solid fabric. Great nations cannot escape the responsibility this involves. American theory and practice, in my judgment, will go on diverging until the notion of non-participation will be merely an antiquated abstraction.
'Therefore I refuse to regard as hopeless the idea of an American-Anglo-Japanese alliance, guaranteeing the peaceful development of the vast resources of the Far East. Such an alliance exists essentially now—an alliance springing from cognate ideas, wishes, purposes and principles. This is the best possible foundation for that formal compact which the evolution of industry and commerce seems to me unmistakably to foreshadow.'
[1] An extract from the Chicago Daily News.
Note to Dialogue V.
Since the bulk of the present work went to press, I came across the following communication printed in the Outlook. I take the liberty of subjoining it herewith, without any vain intention of flaunting the virtues of my countrymen.—K.S.
Japanese Character
To the Editor of the Outlook
SIR,—I have received during the last few weeks letters bearing such eloquent testimony to the nobility of Japanese character that I am sending you some extracts in the hope of your publishing them. The letters are from a friend of mine, who with her husband has lived in Yokohama for many years, and can therefore speak with considerable authority. The first extract is about the soldiers themselves—
Mine you know is a busy life, and I found work among the military hospitals and also among the brave wives of the soldiers so fascinating that from the New Year till early June I let all social duties slip, so much so that I had a nervous breakdown in June, and since then have had to go very slow.
We had a splendid time at our seaside cottage at Negishi this afternoon, any amount of our dear brown soldiers round us. There are five hundred quartered in that fishing village just now; they were resting, bathing, boating, washing their clothes or cooking their chow, but never a rude word or an uncouth action; no rowdyism, but all as civil, quiet, good-tempered, and alert as possible; they are a marvel; and my children go in and out among them and love them, like I do! I could kill white idiots when I hear them speak of those fine fellows as 'an inferior race.' Ye gods! 'inferior' with never a camp follower to their name, and rapine unknown even after the fiercest fight! What European race can show a record like that? I wish I could be home for six months and tell what the soldiers and their wives are—what miracles of cheerful patience and manly dignity the wounded men are as they lie hacked and maimed, sometimes till almost all semblance of manhood is gone, yet never a murmur does any one hear from their lips—no, not if they are armless, legless, and even blind. And you would not dare condole with them! They say and believe they 'are greatly honoured.' When they embrace Christianity, they shame the brightest Christian among us, and I come away from visiting the hospitals feeling so small, so humble, yet at peace with all the world. We have very, very much to learn from this great people.
This second extract, about a soldier's wife, may come home to your readers even more:—
I allow two families a small sum of money every week. One case is that of a young woman, under twenty years of age, who has a child and an aged parent to keep, and her husband went to the war a few weeks ago, leaving her penniless and on the verge of having another baby. A few days ago, when I went to take her weekly money, she refused to take it, saying she had got a little work to do and could now manage without any help, as there were so many in much greater need of help than herself; and she would not take the money, though she was earning even less than I was allowing her. That is what I call a real heroine.
How many at work amongst our poor last winter could give such evidence to character as that?—I am, sir, yours, etc.
ENGLISHWOMAN.
Note to Dialogue VIII.
Before the preceding pages had been printed two events worth mentioning here took place. One is the lamented death of Sir Henry Irving. The other is the public discussion which took place under the auspices of the London Shakespeare League, on the best method of presenting Shakespeare's plays on the modern stage. On the latter subject perhaps I may add a word. While in Japan the tendency is to introduce women-players into the company of male players, and improvement of scenery is much sought after on European lines, both of which are due to the occidental influence, it is curious to notice that exactly reverse movements, namely the dispensing with the female players and the returning back to the primitive simplicity of stage properties, are advocated in England by competent persons with regard to the representation of Shakespeare. I extract below among others a passage of the speech of Mr. Bernard Shaw on the occasion of the discussion referred to above:—
When Mr. Gilbert said that he would like to see the women's parts played by boys, he was not uttering a jest. In some of the performances at Westminster School, he had seen boys in women's parts much more effective than any professional actress. If women players had been proposed to Shakespeare, he would not only have been scandalised, but he would have pointed out that it was impossible to get the force from women that was obtained from boy actors.
Note to the Article on 'Commercial Morality'
In the October number of the Anglo-Japanese Gazette (London) is published a criticism by Mr. Curtis, editor and proprietor of the Kobe Herald, on 'the ridiculously sweeping assertions,' as he calls it, made by Mr. Longford in his article. I subjoin herewith a passage which relates to Mr. Longford's assertion that a 'cordon' is drawn by the Japanese round the trading centres of Yokohama and Kobe, and that foreign merchants are suffering under the 'thraldom':—
Well, let me say that no sane, fair-minded man who knows anything whatever of his subject would ever dream of accusing the whole Japanese people of a lack of commercial morality. All this talk about a cordon being drawn round the treaty ports is rubbish. No such barrier exists, save perhaps in the imagination of a few who cannot shake off the prejudices and disabilities of the past. The idea sounds absurd to me, knowing, as I do know, that all the go-ahead firms have been doing their utmost for some time past to open up connections in the principal cities. Mr. Longford seems to think that business is conducted in Japan to-day just as it was twenty years ago. He apparently does not know that some foreign houses have trusted clerks or travellers all over the country; that some foreign business men run up to Osaka and Tokio daily; and that business journeys to Maidzuru—the great, fortified naval base on the Sea of Japan—Nagoya Sasebo, Hiroshima, and other important centres, are matters of everyday experience now.
In the same number of the same journal is also published an important article from the pen of Sir Tollemache Sinclair, Bart., concerning Bishop Awdry's letter published in the Times. Sir Tollemache strongly repudiates the accuracy of the bishop's charge of dishonesty and immorality against the Japanese, which Sir Tollemache calls the bishop's 'utterly erroneous accusations,' basing his contention upon an elaborate comparison of the statistical facts of Japan and many other nations relating to several important subjects having bearing on the question. Among other things, he writes:—
This clerical censor, who endeavours to find a mote in his Japanese brother's eye, but does not see the beam in his English brother's eye, cut the ground from under his own feet on the subject of the imaginary dishonesty of Japanese traders, for he tells us that a house was built for him by Japanese tradesmen admirably without any contract, and at a moderate expense; and I should like to know, if any Englishman did the same thing in England, whether he would not be unmercifully fleeced. Bishop Awdry says he is a friend of the Japanese, but they will probably say to him, after reading his letter, 'Save us from our friends, as to our enemies we will take care of them ourselves.'
And he winds up the article with these words:—
What excuse has he to offer for the gross and discreditable and unfounded insults which he has heaped on the heads of those under whose protection, and in the enjoyment of whose hospitality, he resides.... In short, it may justly be said of the letter written by this superfluous bishop, 'what is true is not new, and what is new is not true.'
INDEX
Adoption, the custom of, 9.
Advance Japan, Morris's, 84.
Age, ways of counting, 72.
Aïda, the opera, 48.
Ainslie, Dr. Daniel, his mission to Nagasaki, 144, 145.
Aizu, Lord of, 52.
America's sympathy for Japan, 148.
American Press, views of war with Russia given to the, 192.
Anglo-French, Russo-Japanese entente, 127, 136.
Anglo-Franco Diplomacy in Japan, 266-272.
Anglo-Japanese Alliance and America, an interview, 325, 326.
Army, the Japanese, 47, 188, 189.
— state of, after fighting, 188.
Army and Navy, organisation of, 255.
Arisugawa, Prince, 78.
Art, Japanese, 12, 63, 100.
Ashikaga, 199.
Aston, Dr., 107.
Australian Question, the, 323-324.
Bank of Japan, 224, 225.
'Black Room President,' the, 9.
Books on Japan, 84.
Bracken, a talk about, 91, 92.
British East India Company, 144.
Buddhist Sects, 32, 33.
Budha, Amida, 32.
Bukum, 106.
Bushido, 6, 33, 41-47, 115, 134, 189.
— discourse on, 103.
— history of the term, 104, 105.
— its literature, 106, 107.
Bushiku, 107.
Bushi-Zoku, 106.
Calendar, the Japanese, 70-72.
Calumnies on Japan, 71.
Card-playing, 175-179.
Cards, description of, 175-179.
Character of the Japanese, 144.
Chastity, 74, 75.
Chauvinism, fear of, 188.
Chess-playing in China, 168; in Japan, 168-173.
Chiku-ba-sho, 106.
China, the difficulty of reform in, 200.
— the future of, 198.
— and Russia, secret treaty between, 137.
Chinese jurisprudence, 241.
— banking system, 226.
Chivalry, Japanese, 41, 42, 43.
Chokai, Gunboat, 31.
Chosiu, 196, 199, 201, 202, 212, 227, 232, 235.
— troops, 190, 191.
Christianity and Japan, 120, 128.
Chrysanthemums, the culture of, 162.
Climate in Japan, 161-163.
Code of honour, the Japanese, 182, 183.
Commerce and industry of Japan described, 220-226.
Commercial morality of the Japanese described, 291-298.
Communication, means of, in Japan, 222.
Corea, 49.
Currency, Japanese, 224.
Daidoji Yiuzan, 106.
Daimio explained, 108.
— and Samurai, difference between, 108.
Danjiuro, 246.
Deaf and dumb, the treatment of, 68, 69.
Death, the Japanese conception of, 132, 134.
Deutsche Revue, 129.
Diet, the, 157, 252-254.
Difficulty of distinguishing R and L, 78, 79.
Duels, 109.
Dwellings, details of, 57-59.
Earrings, remarks on, 188.
Eating fruit without peeling, 93
Education in Japan, 135.
— the system of, 258-266.
— common and military, 182.
Elementary Lessons on Budo, 106.
England, her political attitude, 4.
England and America, relations between, with regard to Japan, 136, 137.
English Press views on Japanese character, 193, 194.
— sympathy for Japan, 148.
Feeling and sentiment in Japan, 133.
Feudal system in Japan, 201-218.
Fiction, Japanese, 7.
Fighting, modes of, 228-232.
Finance of the Imperial Government at the beginning of the Great Change, 214-217.
Financial and Economical Annual, 101.
Financial system, progress of, 224-226.
Firearms, the first use of, in Japan, 229.
Flowers, art of arrangement of, 21.
— sale of, 65.
Food, Japanese, 49.
Forecast on the issue of the war, 3-5, 38.
France and her women, 72.
— relations with England, 4.
French Nationalists and Socialists with regard to Japan, 153-155.
Fushimi, battle of, 227.
Garden, a Japanese, described, 13, 14.
Geishas, their life, 8.
German policy, 4.
'Go,' the game of, 168, 169.
Government, the Japanese, 51, 52.
— described, 251.
'Great Change,' the, 147-150.
Greek and Roman comedies, 7.
— customs, 7.
Greek inspiration, 38.
Griffis, the Rev. W.E., 84.
Hakodate, 196.
Hana-karuta, 177.
Hanawa, 68.
Hearn, Lafcadio, 74, 75, 76, 84, 123.
— life of, 76.
— remarks on, 85, 86.
Hetaira, 7.
Hideyoshi, 206.
Hirosé, Commandant, 29, 160.
— Mrs., her letter to an English Admiral, 30.
Hizen, 283.
Hogen Monogatari, 105.
House of Representatives, 51.
Imperial Army Department, 191.
— Government and military reform, 226.
Imperial Japan, 84.
Imperial succession, 250.
— Troops, 226.
Independent Review, 135.
Indo-China Question, 319-323.
Inouyé, Count, 159.
— a sketch of his life, 280-281.
Intermarriages, Japanese, 159.
International Conventions and Japan, 129.
Irving, Sir Henry, and the Japanese stage, 246.
Ito, Marquis, 24, 50, 95, 122, 159, 190.
— an old speech by, 285-291.
— a sketch of his life, 272-279.
Izawa Hanrioshi, 107.
Jane Eyre and Japan, 11.
Japan after the war, 190
— Emperor of, his powers, 249, 250.
— and America, relations between, 137.
— and Europe, relations between, 317.
— and foreign capital, 299-301.
— and Russia, a priest's views on, 131.
Japan Times, 165.
Japanese, the age of, 15.
— as correspondents, 243, 244.
— love tale, a, 9, 10.
— reform, how brought about, 200-204.
— tariff, 220.
— Vendetta, 110, 111.
Jiujitsu, discourse on, 95-99.
— and wrestling, a comparison of, 97.
— the Willow Mind style, 99.
Kagoshima, 236, 237, 238;
— bombardment of, 231, 235.
Kaibara Yekken, 106.
Kataki-uchi, 110.
Katsura, Count, 281.
Kawakami, 247.
Kawasé, 190.
Kido, 190, 191, 203, 205.
Kikugoro, 246.
Kiusiu, 163, 212.
Kioto, 205, 227, 228.
Kite flying, 167.
Kites, 167.
Koizumi Yakumo, 76.
Kokkwa, a monthly on Art, 100, 102.
Komura, Baron, 136.
Kumazawa Banzan, 106.
Kuroda, 283.
Kuropatkin, General, 77.
Kwanto, plain of, 163.
Lady's opinion on Japanese women, A, 72, 73.
Languages, remarks on, 94.
Languages of China and Japan, 301-310.
Lays of Ancient Rome, 29, 30.
Le Matin, 35.
Lectures by Yamaga Soko, 106.
Legislation, evolution of, 240, 241.
Lines on hailstones, 67.
Little, Archibald, 124.
Local administration, 255.
Loti, Pierre, 180.
Macaulay, 29, 30.
Maritana, the opera, 248.
Marriage ceremonies, description of, 15-29.
Massage, 69.
Matoni, Monsieur, 27, 35, 59.
Matrimony, preliminary inquiries in respect to, 19, 20.
Matsukata, career of, 281.
Mikado's Empire, 84.
Military organisation, 46.
— training, 45, 46.
— for boys, 184.
— service, hereditary, abolished, 190.
Mongolian troops, 49.
Moon scenes, 67, 68.
Morality of Japan, compared with other nations, 116, 117.
Mothers and wives, Japanese, 29, 89.
Music, Japanese, 102.
Nagasaki, 167.
Nakaodo, a, 15, 16.
Nakaye-toju, 106.
Names, Japanese, 77.
Napoleon, 18, 19, 29, 46, 53, 109.
National banks, 255.
Nationality, abuse of Japanese, 160.
Navigation in the Japan Sea, 222.
Navy, the Japanese, 46;
— its history, 194-197.
Nelson, 183.
Neutrality question, the, 311-316.
'New Commoners,' and the history of their emancipation, 47, 48, 51.
Night fêtes in Japan, 63, 64.
Nobility, the Japanese, 52, 83;
— methods of addressing, 83.
Nogi, General, and religion's meaning, 130.
Notions of pardon and forgiving, 31-32.
Nozu, General, 238.
Occidental Civilisation, 119-121, 142.
— vulgarity, 124.
Okubo, 203, 204, 205, 233, 236.
Okuma, Count, 220;
— a sketch of the life of, 282-284.
Osaka, 223.
Oyama Marshal, 52, 238.
Paris, 1-15.
— a motor ride round, 14.
— by night, 143.
Peace prospects, observations of, 125, 126.
Physique, the Japanese, 61.
Political attitude of England, 4.
Political organism of Japan, 249-258.
Port Arthur, 29, 137.
Press, the, and the war, 3, 4.
Printing, the art of, 101.
Pronunciation of Japanese, 79-82.
Public baths, 180, 181.
Questions and Answers on Bun and Bu, 106.
Raffles, Sir Stamford, his appreciation of Japan, 144.
Railways, construction of, 222.
Red Cross Society, 129.
Religion in Japan, 41, 42, 130, 131.
— discussions on, 128.
Religion, Japanese meaning of, 130.
Restoration, the Japanese, 52, 53.
Revenge, Japanese, 109.
Revolution, discussion on the Japanese, 149.
Risen Sun, the, 90.
Rodjestvensky, Admiral, 77.
Romance, Japanese, 8.
'Ronin,'110.
Roosevelt, President, 136, 137, 148.
— and jiujitsu, 60, 61.
— his partiality towards Japan, 137.
Russia, Emperor of, 114.
— and Japan, a priest's views on, 131.
Russian defeat, the cause of, 184, 185.
Russian views of the Japanese, 129.
Russo-Japanese War, outbreak of, 137, 138.
Russophile papers, 71.
Sada-Yakko, 247.
Sadanji, 246.
Saga, prince of, 283.
Saigo, 203, 227, 233, 236-239.
Saionji, a sketch of the life of, 284.
Samurai, 43, 45, 50, 98, 103, 118, 190, 202, 204, 211, 215, 234.
— and Daimio, difference between, 108.
— and fighting, 110, 112.
— explained, 107.
— discipline of the, 17.
— the soul of, 112.
— mother illustrated by a drama, 9, 10.
Satcho, two powerful clans, 203, 227, 239, 240.
Satow, Sir E., 103, 107.
Satsuma, 201, 203, 211, 212.
— formation of the, 212.
— war, 224.
— the cause of, 233.
Scenery of Japan, 55.
Sekigahara, battle of, 212.
Self-Help, Smiles's, 183.
Semitic sympathy, 38.
Shido, 106.
Shikwan, 245-246.
Shimadai, 21.
Shimazu Saburo, 235, 237.
Shintoism, its sensitiveness to pollution, 50.
Shipbuilding yards, origin of, 195-198.
Shiwa Yoshimasa, 106.
Shizoku, the title, 47, 106.
Shogun, 204, 207, 210.
Shogunate, the, 195, 198, 199, 201, 227.
— financial system of, 213.
— troops, 191.
Simonoseki, treaty of, 140.
Singing insects, 65, and note.
Sino-Japanese war, 5, 226.
Sketches of some chief figures of actual Japan, 272-285.
Snow scenes, 65, 66.
Social morality, discussion on, 115-124.
Social condition of Japan, 239-240.
Socialism and Japan, discussion on, 147-155.
Sotsuibushi, or Police-master-general, 208.
Sports, Japanese, 164-169.
Stage, the Japanese, 245, 247.
'Standard of Living,' an essay, 122, 123.
Stoessel, General, 114.
Summer resorts of foreigners, 163.
Sumoo, 97.
Superstition, Japanese, 186, 187.
Swords, 111-113.
Taira, the, 208.
Takasago, 21-22, 24.
Takasugi, 190.
Takeda Shingen, 228.
Telegraphs in Japan, 223.
Telephones in Japan, 223.
Things Japanese (1898), 103.
Togo, Admiral, 193.
Tokio, 30, 55, 63, 64, 81, 97, 113, 150, 167, 191, 195, 222.
— the history of, 56, 57.
— the patois of, 80.
Tokugawa, 199, 200, 234.
— régime, 231.
— Feudatories under, 209, 211.
Tolstoy, Count Leo, 127.
Trans-Siberian Railway, 34.
Trip to Japan, details concerning, 33, 36.
Tsu-shima, battle of, 126.
Uta-Karuta, 175.
Utamaro, 100.
Washington, George, 182.
Weapons, Japanese, 229-232.