Web
and Book design,
Copyright, Kellscraft Studio 1999-2015 (Return to Web Text-ures) |
Click
Here to return to
Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation Content Page Return to the Previous Chapter |
(HOME)
|
Feudal Integration In order
to understand the social condition, it will be necessary to consider the nature
of the paternal rule in its legal aspects. To modern imagination the old
Japanese laws may well seem intolerable; but their administration was really
less uncompromising than that of our Western laws. Besides, although weighing
heavily upon all classes, from the highest to the lowest, the legal burden was
proportioned to the respective strength of the bearers; the application of law
being made less and less rigid as the social scale descended. In theory at
least, from the earliest times, the poor and unfortunate had been considered as
entitled to pity; and the duty of showing them all possible mercy was insisted
upon in the oldest extant moral code of Japan, — the Laws of Shōtoku Taishi.
But the most striking example of such discrimination appears in the Legacy of
lyéyasu, which represents the conception of justice in a time when society had
become much more developed, its institutions more firmly fixed, and all its bonds
tightened. This stern and wise ruler, who declared that "the people are
the foundation of the Empire,” commanded leniency in dealing with the humble.
He ordained that any lord, no matter what his rank, convicted of breaking laws
“to the injury of the people,” should be punished by the confiscation of his
estates. Perhaps the humane spirit of the legislator is most strongly shown in
his enactments regarding crime, as, for example, where he deals with the
question of adultery — necessarily a crime of the first magnitude in any
society based on ancestor-worship. By the 50th article of the Legacy, the
injured husband is confirmed in his ancient right to kill, — but with this
important provision, that should he kill but one of the guilty parties, he must
himself be held as guilty as either of them. Should the offenders be brought up
for trial, lyéyasu advises that, in the case of common people, particular
deliberation be given to the matter: he remarks upon the weakness of human nature,
and suggests that, among the young and simple-minded, some momentary impulse of
passion may lead to folly even when the parties are not naturally depraved. But
in the next article, No. 51, he orders that no mercy whatever be shown to men
and women of the upper classes when convicted of the same crime. "These,"
he declares, "are expected to know better than to occasion disturbance by
violating existing regulations; and such persons, breaking the laws by lewd
trifling or illicit intercourse, shall at once be punished without deliberation
or consultation.1 It is not the same in this case as in the case of
farmers, artizans, and traders.”... Throughout the entire code, this tendency
to tighten the bonds of law in the case of the military classes, and to loosen
them mercifully for the lower classes, is equally visible. lyéyasu strongly
disapproved of unnecessary punishments; and held that the frequency of
punishments was proof, not of the ill-conduct of subjects, but of the
ill-conduct of officials. The 91st article of his code puts the matter thus plainly,
even as regarded the Shōgunate: “When punishments and executions abound in the
Empire, it is a proof that the military ruler is without virtue and degenerate.”...
He devised particular enactments to protect the peasantry and the poor from the
cruelty or the rapacity of powerful lords. The great daimyō were strictly
forbidden, when making their obligatory journeys to Yedo, “to disturb or harass
the people at the post-houses," or suffer themselves "to be puffed up
with military pride.” The private, not less than the public conduct of these
great lords, was under Government surveillance; and they were actually liable
to punishment for immorality! Concerning debauchery among them, the legislator
remarked that "even though this can hardly be pronounced
insubordination," it should be judged and punished according to the degree in which it constitutes a bad example
for the lower classes (Art. 88).2 As to veritable
insubordination there was no pardon: the severity of the law on this subject
allowed of no exception or mitigation. The 53d section of the Legacy proves
this to have been regarded as the supreme crime: "The guilt of a vassal
murdering his suzerain is in principle the same as that of an arch-traitor to the
Emperor. His immediate companions, his relations, — all even to his most
distant connexions, — shall be cut off, hewn to atoms, root and fibre. The
guilt of a vassal only lifting his hand against his master, even though he does
not assassinate him, is the same.” In strong contrast to this grim ordinance is
the spirit of all the regulations touching the administration of law among the
lower classes. Forgery, incendiarism, and poisoning were indeed crimes
justifying the penalty of burning or crucifixion; but judges were instructed to
act with as much leniency as circumstances permitted in the case of ordinary
offences. "With regard to minute details affecting individuals of the
inferior classes," says the 73d article of the code, "learn the wide
benevolence of Kōso of the Han [Chinese]
dynasty." It was further ordered that magistrates of the criminal and
civil courts should be chosen only from "a class of men who are upright
and pure, distinguished for charity and benevolence." All magistrates were
kept under close supervision, and their conduct regularly reported by
government spies. Another
humane aspect of Tokugawa legislation is furnished by its dictates in regard to
the relations of the sexes. Although concubinage was tolerated in the Samurai
class, for reasons relating to the continuance of the family-cult, lyéyasu
denounces the indulgence of the privilege for merely selfish reasons: "Silly
and ignorant men neglect their true wives for the sake of a loved mistress, and
thus disturb the most important relation.... Men so far sunk as this may always
be known as Samurai without fidelity or sincerity." Celibacy, condemned by
public opinion, — except in the case of Buddhist priests, — was equally
condemned by the code. "One should not live alone after sixteen years of
age," declares the legislator; "all mankind recognize marriage as the
first law of nature." The childless man was obliged to adopt a son; and
the 47th article of the Legacy ordained that the family estate of a person
dying without male issue, and without having adopted a son, should be
"forfeited without any regard to his relatives or connexions." This
law, of course, was made in support of the ancestor-cult, the continuance of
which it was deemed the paramount duty of each man to provide for; but the government
regulations concerning adoption enabled everybody to fulfil the legal
requirement without difficulty. Considering
that this code which inculcated humanity, repressed moral laxity, prohibited
celibacy, and rigorously maintained the family-cult, was drawn up in the time
of the extirpation of the Jesuit missions, the position assumed in regard to
religious freedom appears to us one of singular liberality. "High and low
alike," proclaims the 31st article, "may follow their own
inclinations with respect to religious tenets which have obtained down to the present
time, except as regards the false and corrupt school [Roman Catholicism]. Religious disputes have ever proved the bane
and misfortune of this Empire, and must be firmly suppressed."... But the seeming
liberality of this article must not be misinterpreted: the legislator who made
so rigid an enactment in regard to the religion of the family was not the man
to proclaim that any Japanese was free to abandon the faith of his race for an alien
creed. One must carefully read the entire Legacy in order to understand Iyéyasu’s
real position, which was simply this: that any man was free to adopt any
religion tolerated by the State, in
addition to his ancestor-cult. lyéyasu was himself a member of the Jōdo
sect of Buddhism, and a friend of Buddhism in general. But he was first of all
a Shintōist; and the third article of his code commands devotion to the Kami as
the first of duties: — "Keep your heart pure; and so long as your body
shall exist, be diligent in paying honour and veneration to the Gods."
That he placed the ancient cult above Buddhism should be evident from the text
of the 52d article of the Legacy, in which he declares that no one should suffer
himself to neglect the national faith because of a belief in any other form of
religion. This text is of particular interest: — “My body,
and the bodies of others, being born in the Empire of the Gods, to accept
unreservedly the teachings of other countries, — such as Confucian, Buddhist,
or Taoist doctrines, — and to apply one's whole and undivided attention to
them, would be, in short, to desert one's own master, and transfer one's
loyalty to another. Is not this to forget the origin of one's being?" Of course
the Shōgun, professing to derive his authority from the descendant of the elder
gods, could not with consistency have proclaimed the right of freedom to doubt
those gods: his official religious duty permitted of no compromise. But the
interest attaching to his opinions, as expressed in the Legacy, rests upon the
fact that the Legacy was not a public, but a strictly private document, intended
for the perusal and guidance of his successors only. Altogether his religious
position was much like that of the liberal Japanese statesman of to-day, — respect
for whatever is good in Buddhism, qualified by the patriotic conviction that
the first religious duty is to the cult of the ancestors, the ancient creed of
the race.... lyéyasu had preferences regarding Buddhism; but even in this he showed
no narrowness. Though he wrote in his Legacy, "Let my posterity ever be of
the honoured sect of Jōdo," he greatly reverenced the high-priest of the
Tendai temple, Yeizan, who had been one of his instructors, and obtained for
him the highest court-office possible for a Buddhist priest to obtain, as well
as the headship of the Tendai sect. Moreover the Shōgun visited Yeizan to make
there official prayer for the prosperity of the country. There is
every reason to believe that within the territories of the Shōgunate proper,
comprising the greater part of the Empire, the administration of ordinary
criminal law was humane, and that the infliction of punishment was made, in the
case of the common people, to depend largely upon circumstances. Needless
severity was a crime before the higher military law, which, in such cases, made
no distinctions of rank. Although the ring-leaders of a peasant-revolt, for
example, would be sentenced to death, the lord through whose oppression the uprising
was provoked, would be deprived of a part or the whole of his estates, or
degraded in rank, or perhaps even sentenced to perform harakiri. Professor Wigmore, whose studies of Japanese law first shed
light upon the subject, has given us an excellent review of the spirit of the
ancient legal methods. He points out that the administration of law was never
made impersonal in the modern sense; that unbending law did not, for the people
at least, exist in relation to minor offences. The Anglo-Saxon idea of
inflexible law is the idea of a justice impartial and pitiless as fire: whoever
breaks the law must suffer the consequence, just as surely as the person who
puts his hand into fire must experience pain. But in the administration of the
old Japanese law, everything was taken into consideration: the condition of the
offender, his intelligence, his degree of education, his previous conduct, his motives,
suffering endured, provocation received, and so forth; and final judgment was
decided by moral common sense rather than by legal enactment or precedent.
Friends and relatives were allowed to make plea for the offender, and to help
him in whatever honest way they could. If a man were falsely accused, and
proved innocent upon trial, he would not only be consoled by kind words, but would
probably receive substantial compensation; and it appears that judges were
accustomed, at the end of important trials, to reward good conduct as well as
to punish crime.3... On the other hand, litigation was officially
discouraged. Everything possible was done to prevent any cases from being taken
into court, which could be settled or compromised by communal arbitration; and
the people were taught to consider the court only as the last possible resort. The
general character of the Tokugawa rule can be to some degree inferred from the
foregoing facts. It was in no sense a reign of terror that compelled peace and
encouraged industry for two hundred and fifty years. Though the national
civilization was restrained, pruned, clipped in a thousand ways, it was at the
same time cultivated, refined, and strengthened. The long peace established
throughout the Empire what had never before existed, — a universal feeling of
security. The individual was bound more than ever by law and custom; but he was
also protected: he could move without anxiety to the length of his chains.
Though coerced by his fellows, they helped him to bear the coercion cheerfully:
everybody aided everybody else to fulfil the obligations and to support the
burdens of communal life. Conditions tended, therefore, toward the general happiness
as well as toward the general prosperity. There was not, in those years, any
struggle for existence, — not at least in our modern meaning of the phrase. The
requirements of life were easily satisfied; every man had a master to provide
for him or to protect him; competition was repressed or discouraged; there was
no need for supreme effort of any sort, — no need for the straining of any faculty.
Moreover, there was little or nothing to strive after: for the vast majority of
the people, there were no prizes to win. Ranks and incomes were fixed; occupations
were hereditary; and the desire to accumulate wealth must have been checked or
numbed by those regulations which limited the rich man's right to use his money
as he might please. Even a great lord — even the Shōgun himself — could not do
what he pleased. As for any common person, — farmer, craftsman, or shopkeeper, —
he could not build a house as he liked, or furnish it as he liked, or procure
for himself such articles of luxury as his taste might incline him to buy. The richest
heimin, who attempted to indulge himself
in any of these ways, would at once have been forcibly reminded that he must
not attempt to imitate the habits, or to assume the privileges, of his betters.
He could not even order certain kinds of things to be made for him. The
artizans or artists who created objects of luxury, to gratify æsthetic taste, were
little disposed to accept commissions from people of low rank: they worked for
princes, or great lords, and could scarcely afford to take the risk of
displeasing their patrons. Every man's pleasures were more or less regulated by
his place in society, and to pass from a lower into a higher rank was no easy
matter. Extraordinary men were sometimes able to do this, by attracting the
favour of the great. But many perils attended upon such distinction; and the
wisest policy for the heimin was to
remain satisfied with his position, and try to find as much happiness in life
as the law allowed. Personal
ambition being thus restrained, and the cost of existence reduced to a minimum
much below our Western ideas of the necessary, there were really established
conditions highly favourable to certain forms of culture, in despite of
sumptuary regulations. The national mind was obliged to seek solace for the
monotony of existence, either in amusement or study. Tokugawa policy had left imagination
partly free in the directions of literature and art — the cheaper art; and
within those two directions repressed personality found means to utter itself,
and fancy became creative. There was a certain amount of danger attendant upon
even such intellectual indulgences; and much was dared. Æsthetic taste,
however, mostly followed the line of least resistance. Observation concentrated
itself upon the interest of everyday life, upon incidents which might be
watched from a window, or studied in a garden, — upon familiar aspects of
nature in various seasons, — upon trees, flowers, birds, fishes, or reptiles,
upon insects and the ways of them, — upon all kinds of small details, delicate
trifles, amusing curiosities. Then it was that the race-genius produced most of
that queer bric-à-brac which still forms the delight of Western collectors. The
painter, the ivory-carver, the decorator, were left almost untroubled in their
production of fairy-pictures, exquisite grotesqueries, miracles of liliputian
art in metal and enamel and lacquer-of-gold. In all such small matters they
could feel free; and the results of that freedom are now treasured in the
museums of Europe and America. It is true that most of the arts (nearly all of
Chinese origin) were considerably developed before the Tokugawa era; but it was
then that they began to assume those inexpensive forms which placed æsthetic
gratification within reach of the common people. Sumptuary legislation or rule might
yet apply to the use and possession of costly production, but not to the
enjoyment of form; and the beautiful, whether shaped in paper or in ivory, in
clay or gold, is always a power for culture. It has been said that in a Greek
city of the fourth century before Christ, every household utensil, even the
most trifling object, was in respect of design an object of art; and the same
fact is true, though in another and a stranger way, of all things in a Japanese
home: even such articles of common use as a bronze candlestick, a brass lamp,
an iron kettle, a paper lantern, a bamboo curtain, a wooden pillow, a wooden
tray, will reveal to educated eyes a sense of beauty and fitness entirely
unknown to Western cheap production. And it was especially during the Tokugawa
period that this sense of beauty began to inform everything in common life.
Then also was developed the art of illustration; then came into existence those
wonderful colour-prints (the most beautiful made in any age or country) which are
now so eagerly collected by wealthy dilettanti. Literature also ceased, like
art, to be the enjoyment of the upper classes only: it developed a multitude of
popular forms. This was the age of popular fiction, of cheap books, of popular
drama, of storytelling for young and old.... We may certainly call the Tokugawa
period the happiest in the long life of the nation. The mere increase of
population and of wealth would prove the fact, irrespective of the general interest
awakened in matters literary and æsthetic. It was an age of popular enjoyment,
also of general culture and social refinement. Customs
spread downward from the top of society. During the Tokugawa period, various
diversions or accomplishments formerly fashionable in upper circles only,
became common property. Three of these were of a sort indicating a high degree
of refinement: poetical contests, tea-ceremonies, and the complex art of
flower-arrangement. All were introduced into Japanese society long before the
Tokugawa régime; — the fashion of poetical competitions must be as old as
Japanese authentic history. But it was under the Tokugawa Shōgunate that such amusements
and accomplishments became national. Then the tea-ceremonies were made a
feature of female education throughout the country. Their elaborate character
could be explained only by the help of many pictures; and it requires years of
training and practice to graduate in the art of them. Yet the whole of this
art, as to detail, signifies no more than the making and serving of a cup of
tea. However, it is a real art — a most exquisite art. The actual making of the
infusion is a matter of no consequence in itself: the supremely important
matter is that the act be performed in the most perfect, most polite, most
graceful, most charming manner possible. Everything done — from the kindling of
the charcoal fire to the presentation of the tea — must be done according to
rules of supreme etiquette: rules requiring natural grace as well as great patience
to fully master. Therefore a training in the tea-ceremonies is still held to be
a training in politeness, in self-control, in delicacy, — a discipline in
deportment.... Quite as elaborate is the art of arranging flowers. There are
many different schools; but the object of each system is simply to display sprays
of leaves and flowers in the most beautiful manner possible, and according to
the irregular graces of Nature herself. This art also requires years to learn; and
the teaching of it has a moral as well as an æsthetic value. It was in
this period also that etiquette was cultivated to its uttermost, — that
politeness became diffused throughout all ranks, not merely as a fashion, but
as an art. In all civilized societies of the militant type politeness becomes a
national characteristic at an early period; and it must have been a common obligation
among the Japanese, as their archaic tongue bears witness, before the
historical epoch. Public enactments on the subject were made as early as the
seventh century by the founder of Japanese Buddhism, the prince-regent, Shotoku
Taishi. "Ministers and functionaries,” he proclaimed "should make
decorous behaviour4 their leading principle; for their leading
principle of the government of the people consists in decorous behaviour. If
the superiors do not behave with decorum, the inferiors are disorderly: if
inferiors are wanting in proper behaviour, there must necessarily be offences.
Therefore it is that when lord and vassal behave with propriety, the
distinctions of rank are not confused: when the people behave with propriety,
the government of the Commonwealth proceeds of itself.” Something of the same
old Chinese teaching we find reechoed, a thousand years later, in the Legacy of
lyéyasu: "The art of governing a country consists in the manifestation of
due deference on the part of a suzerain to his vassals. Know that if you turn your
back upon this, you will be assassinated; and the Empire will be lost." We
have already seen that etiquette was rigidly enforced upon all classes by the
military rule: for at least ten centuries before lyéyasu, the nation had been
disciplined in politeness, under the edge of the sword. But under the Tokugawa
Shōgunate politeness became particularly a popular characteristic, — a rule of
conduct maintained by even the lowest classes in their daily relations. Among
the higher classes it became the art of beauty in life. All the taste, the
grace, the nicety which then informed artistic production in precious material,
equally informed every detail of speech and action. Courtesy was a moral and
æsthetic study, carried to such incomparable perfection that every trace of the
artificial disappeared. Grace and charm seemed to have become habit, — inherent
qualities of the human fibre, — and doubtless, in the case of one sex at least,
did so become. For it
has well been said that the most wonderful æsthetic products of Japan are not
its ivories, nor its bronzes, nor its porcelains, nor its swords, nor any of
its marvels in metal or lacquer — but its women. Accepting as partly true the
statement that woman everywhere is what man has made her, we might say that
this statement is more true of the Japanese woman than of any other. Of course
it required thousands and thousands of years to make her; but the period of
which I arn speaking beheld the work completed and perfected. Before this
ethical creation, criticism should hold its breath; for there is here no single
fault save the fault of a moral charm unsuited to any world of selfishness and
struggle. It is the moral artist that now commands our praise, — the realizer
of an ideal beyond Occidental reach. How frequently has it been asserted that,
as a moral being, the Japanese woman does not seem to belong to the same race
as the Japanese man! Considering that heredity is limited by sex, there is
reason in the assertion: the Japanese woman is
an ethically different being from the Japanese man, Perhaps no such type of
woman will appear again in this world for a hundred thousand years: the
conditions of industrial civilization will not admit of her existence. The type
could not have been created in any society shaped on modern lines, nor in any
society where the competitive struggle takes those unmoral forms with which we
have become too familiar. Only a society under extraordinary regulation and
regimentation, — a society in which all self-assertion was repressed, and
self-sacrifice made a universal obligation, — a society in which personality
was clipped like a hedge, permitted to bud and bloom from within, never from
without, — in short, only a society founded upon ancestor-worship, could have
produced it. It has no more in common with the humanity of this twentieth century
of ours — perhaps very much less — than has the life depicted upon old Greek
vases. Its charm is the charm of a vanished world — a charm strange, alluring,
indescribable as the perfume of some flower of which the species became extinct
in our Occident before the modern languages were born. Transplanted
successfully it cannot be: under a foreign sun its forms revert to something
altogether different, its colours fade, its perfume passes away. The Japanese
woman can be known only in her own country, — the Japanese woman as prepared
and perfected by the old-time education for that strange society in which the
charm of her moral being, — her delicacy, her supreme unselfishness, her
child-like piety and trust, her exquisite tactful perception of all ways and
means to make happiness about her, — can be comprehended and valued. I have
spoken only of her moral charm: it requires time for the unaccustomed foreign
eye to discern the physical charm. Beauty, according to our Western standards,
can scarcely be said to exist in this race, — or, shall we say that it has
never yet been developed? One seeks in vain for a facial angle satisfying
Western æsthetic canons. It is seldom that one meets even with a fine example of
that physical elegance, — that manifestation of the economy of force, — which
we call grace, in the Greek meaning of the word. Yet there is charm — great
charm — both of face and form: the charm of childhood — childhood with its
every feature yet softly and vaguely outlined (effacé, as a French artist would call it), — childhood before the
limbs have fully lengthened, — slight and dainty, with admirable little hands
and feet. The eyes at first surprise us, by the strangeness of their lids, so
unlike Aryan eyelids, and folding upon another plan. Yet they are often very charming;
and a Western artist would not fail to appreciate the graceful terms, invented
by Japanese or Chinese art, to designate particular beauties in the lines of
the eyelids. Even if she cannot be called handsome, according to Western standards,
the Japanese woman must be confessed pretty, — pretty like a comely child; and
if she be seldom graceful in the Occidental sense, she is at least in all her
ways incomparably graceful: her every motion, gesture, or expression being, in
its own Oriental manner, a perfect thing, — an act performed, or a look
conferred, in the most easy, the most graceful, the most modest way possible.
By ancient custom, she is not permitted to display her grace in the street: she
must walk in a particular shrinking manner, turning her feet inward as she patters
along upon her wooden sandals. But to watch her at home, where she is free to
be comely, — merely to see her performing any household duty, or waiting upon
guests, or arranging flowers, or playing with her children, — is an education
in Far Eastern æsthetics for whoever has the head and the heart to learn.... But
is she not, then, one may ask, an artificial product, a forced growth of
Oriental civilization? I would answer both "Yes" and "No."
She is an artificial product in only the same evolutional sense that all character
is an artificial product; and it required tens of centuries to mould her. She
is not, on the other hand, an artificial type, because she has been particularly
trained to be her true self at all times when circumstances allow, — or, in
other words, to be delightfully natural. The old-fashioned education of her sex
was directed to the development of every quality essentially feminine, and to
the suppression of the opposite quality. Kindliness, docility, sympathy,
tenderness, daintiness — these and other attributes were cultivated into
incomparable blossoming. "Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever:
do noble things, not dream them, all day long" — those words of Kingsley really
embody the central idea in her training. Of course the being, formed by such
training only, must be protected by society; and by the old Japanese society
she was protected. Exceptions did not affect the rule. What I mean is that she
was able to be purely herself, within certain limits of emotional etiquette, in
all security. Her success in life was made to depend on her power to win
affection by gentleness, obedience, kindliness —; not the affection merely of a
husband, but of the husband's parents and grandparents, and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, — in short of all the members of a strange household. Thus to
succeed required angelic goodness and patience; and the Japanese woman realized
at least the ideal of a Buddhist angel. A being working only for others,
thinking only for others, happy only in making pleasure for others, — a being
incapable of unkindness, incapable of selfishness, incapable of acting contrary
to her own inherited sense of right, — and in spite of this softness and
gentleness ready, at any moment, to lay down her life, to sacrifice everything
at the call of duty: such was the character of the Japanese woman. Most strange
may seem the combination, in this child-soul, of gentleness and force,
tenderness and courage, — yet the explanation is not far to seek. Stronger
within her than wifely affection or parental affection or even maternal
affection, — stronger than any womanly emotion, was the moral conviction born
of her great faith. This religious quality of character can be found among
ourselves only within the shadow of cloisters, where it is cultivated at the
expense of all else; and the Japanese woman has been therefore compared to a
Sister of Charity. But she had to be very much more than a Sister of Charity, —
daughter-in-law and wife and mother, and to fulfil without reproach the
multiform duties of her triple part. Rather might she be compared to the Greek
type of noble woman, — to Antigoné, to Alcestis. With the Japanese woman, as
formed by the ancient training, each act of life was an act of faith: her
existence was a religion, her home a temple, her every word and thought ordered
by the law of the cult of the dead.... This wonderful type is not extinct — though
surely doomed to disappear. A human creature so shaped for the service of gods
and men that every beat of her heart is duty, that every drop of her blood is
moral feeling, were not less out of place in the future world of competitive selfishness,
than an angel in hell. 1 That is to say, immediately put to death. |