SAKATANI SHIROSHI  (1822-1881)

ON CONCUBINES

The wise men of Japan, China, and the West are agreed in holding that mar­riage is the foundation from which the fine qualities of nations emerge, since it is the basis of morality and the source of propriety as well as the institution upon which the conduct of the people rests. Even though secular ethical teach­ings (seikyo) are the source of the morals of marriage, the damage to customs from the concubine system is great, and the vice of concubines is rife in modern society. I am not resorting to idle theory apart from human feelings. Yet some will smile without becoming angry and think me impractical and unenlight­ened when I discuss concubines. Extreme persons claim boastfully and without shame that they are emulating Western ways when they ride with their concu­bines in the same carriage shoulder to shoulder and hand in hand, or when they walk with these ladies down the main streets in broad daylight.

Ah, how can the concubine system be attributed to the West? It is false to the West to ascribe such ugly and barbaric conduct to Western tutelage. For­tunately, however, distinguished scholars in Western studies are advocating re­form [in this area]. Mori [Arinori]'s discourses on wives and concubines are clear and just, while Fukuzawa [Yukichi] is equally instructive to society when he felicitously calls even a lofty mansion the hut of beasts [if it is a house of but one father and many mothers]. Both gentlemen have washed out the eyes and ears of the pseudo-enlightened and left them speechless. . . .

When husband and wife enjoy equal rights, it would seem that the wife should also have the right to take additional mates if her husband keeps con­cubines. A woman is also a person. Women are by nature strong and weak, some being able to live without husbands all their lives, while others are not satisfied with several men. Morality is destroyed when men and women alike become so lustfully dissipated that they are no more than beasts. Thus the advocates of equal rights for men and women promote the establishment of morality by employing these rights to impose mutual restraints. Yet men stand above women, and husbands are above wives. Women are weak; men strong

The husband deals with the outside world while the wife manages domestic matters. Such occasional exceptions as the queen of England notwithstanding, it is generally the invariable custom throughout the five continents that men are above women. The true principle of equal rights, therefore, appears to be limited only to the prevention of sexual license by establishing mutual restraints in the bedchamber. . . .

What we should honor are the enlightened ideas of Europe and America according to which husband and wife equally love and help each other. Even though the European and American customs contain the reasonable intention that the weak female shall be protected by the strong male like a child, however, I must deplore the prevailing ugly way in which their men have practically all become slaves to women. This is exactly the same as the ugly situation in which wives are oppressed by the husband's rights in China and Japan. Looked at reasonably, even though it is naturally proper for the strong man to protect the woman, it is also right for the woman obediently to serve the man.

The words "equal rights," therefore, should not establish equality in life generally, although they may provide equality in the bedchamber. If today we establish this equality between the sexes in all aspects of life, we shall reach the point where the men will strive to oppress the women while the women attempt to oppress the men. In America, women's parties have gained the right to agitate for prohibition of drinking by men. Even though their intentions may be fine, how are their acts fine? How is such conduct for the benefit of those [women] who should obediently receive protection? Such women probably resemble the wives in the back streets of Tokyo. In sum, the word "rights" includes evil. There is a tendency for the advocacy of rights to generate opposing power. This was never the intention of the wise men of Europe and America, and the translation [of the word "right" as ken] is not appropriate. Instead, it would be well to speak of preserving the spheres of men and women (danjo shubun) or of the har­monious bodies of husband and wife (fufu dotai). Further, from the point of view of rights, the man should stand slightly above the woman, just as elder brother takes precedence before younger brother. We naturally cannot discuss as typical a case such as England in which the husband's rights are necessarily inferior to those of the wife, who is queen and empress. Such a situation thus should not be regarded as the normal shape of things.

[Braisted, Meiroku Zasshi, pp. 392-96]

TSUDA MAMICHI (1829-1903)

DISTINGUISHING THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES

Why is it that the phrase "the equal rights of husbands and wives" (fufu token), having recently come into circulation, is scattered through the press as well as mistakenly uttered by accomplished gentlemen? Now "the equal rights of men and women" (danjo doken) are words that previously have been intoned quite often in the countries of Europe and America, and they correspond exactly to the position of Western men and women from the point of view of civil rights (minken). For example, there is absolutely no discrimination or differentiation between the rights of men and women when one consults the stipulations in Western civil codes that establish personal rights, property rights, and the rights and duties of contract. Yet there are naturally distinctions between the public rights of men and women that relate to national political affairs. After all, women are unable to share these public rights as they have been customarily monopolized by men. This is for the reason that women have not yet partici­pated in the three great rights of legislation, justice, and administration. Even though there have been suggestions that women should also share in these public rights, this has not yet actually been practiced.

On the other hand, there has been absolutely no provision even in civil law for what might be called "the equal rights of husbands and wives." This is because the husband is the person who controls the family's affairs as head of the household. A women possessed of a husband, being a wife, is not allowed by civil law to manage the family's affairs except under extraordinary circum­stances. Not only this, a wife also has not the right to manage even her private property, and a woman possessed of a husband does not have the right to insti­tute civil suits in her own name. These are areas in which the provision of Western civil codes differentiate between the rights of husbands and wives. This ought to be entirely understandable from one reading of the writings of West­erners on civil law. I am incredulous, therefore, when I hear references from time to time to "the equal rights of husbands and wives."

Even though husbands and wives do not possess the same rights under the law, they are naturally equal without distinction as to high or low in their traditional marital intercourse. After all, none doubt that husbands and wives should employ the proprieties of equals as was indeed the case in our ancient Japanese customs. Asians, however, debased womanhood to such an extreme degree that they do not enjoy what is called equal rights of men and women even under civil law. Especially, there is the evil among the Chinese in which wives, like criminals, are all shut up in their courtyards and forbidden any contact with outsiders. This is an extremely outrageous custom. Without ap­preciating this [great evil], gentlemen in society vainly discuss the minor abuse in which the frailty of wives is protected under Western custom. I also fail to understand the reason for this. How do [these gentlemen] hope to overtake the far higher level of European and American civilization and enlightenment? After all, this not being their intent, they have finally fallen to the evil of ca­pricious progress. Let us reflect on what in the final analysis will be their situ­ation if they are moved to attempt the establishment of a popularly elected assembly? Undoubtedly, uneducated and unskilled fellows, with tumultuous clamor, will want to do things that have not yet been done in the countries of Europe and America. How will this achieve happiness for the people and the nation? As the proverb goes, "Superficial tactics are the source of great wounds." I would just say that superficial enlightenment is the cause of rebellion. Should we not be prudent? As I fear that I have reached the point of redundancy in elucidating the error of "equal rights of husbands and wives," I beg your kind indulgence.

[Braisted, Meiroku Zasshi, pp. 435-36]