This article was published in the journal Yasei hankyō on June 20, 1891.
………
(Outline of a speech delivered at the Chidori-za Theater in Shizuoka on April 3rd)
On this day, which marks the anniversary of the passing of Emperor Jimmu, the first sovereign of our nation, who journeyed westward from Hyuga to pacify the Chugoku region, then in a state of utter chaos, it is by no means futile for us to articulate the principle of loyalty to the sovereign. Looking back to the third of November the year before last, a day of national celebration, Mr. Uchimura Kanzo, a scholar whom I regard as a genuine nationalist and an honest patriot, stood in the auditorium of the Toyo Eiwa School. With an eloquence that was sincere, fervent, and entirely unadorned, he spoke with great conviction. He began by noting that there is much in our nation of which we may be proud before the world. He pointed to Mount Fuji, standing tall against the heavens and surveying the Pacific Ocean, as a sight of such sublime beauty that it is surely something to be boasted of to all nations. (Furthermore, being an exceptional naturalist, he turned his attention to the chrysanthemums blooming in the garden, radiant as if made of gold, and remarked that such flowers are found nowhere else in the world, and should thus be counted among the unique treasures of our national character.) Having discussed various beauties unique to our country, he suddenly shifted his tone. With a solemn expression, his high cheekbones accentuated by eyes that flashed like lightning, he clenched his fist, struck his chest, and declared: “And yet among all the quintessentially Japanese elements that we might proudly proclaim to the entire world, surely the greatest are the Imperial House, with its unbroken, eternal lineage, and the profound devotion to the Throne held by our people.” His speech was so stirring that it left me, quite literally, beside myself with excitement.
The Papacy, too, may be considered an ancient institution. Macaulay, in his discussion of the Papacy, remarked: “Is it not the oldest of all existing institutions? Compared to it, even the proudest of other dynasties seem but of yesterday. When one considers the unbroken lineage, stretching from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century, back to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth, and further still to the very origins of the Papacy, is this not truly a remarkable fact?” Yet, when compared to the unbroken, eternal lineage of our own Imperial House, it hardly warrants discussion. Consider the First Emperor of China, he who proclaimed himself the ‘First Emperor’, decreeing that his line should continue through a second, a third, and on to the ten-thousandth generation. Despite his immense ambition and formidable power, he who unified China, his dynasty perished by the third generation. As for the Great Wall, which he constructed through such titanic effort, it now serves only to draw tears from the eyes of travellers who behold it. Across the vast, trackless seas, a million-strong host, emboldened by grand, sweeping ambitions and holding no regard for Japan, was defeated by the Hōjō clan. Their leader, Kublai Khan, perished with his aspirations unfulfilled, and his dynasty, too, vanished like a fleeting bubble. Who is to say what the future holds? In the ever-changing tides of time, perhaps that colossal northern empire will one day be fractured into a multitude of smaller states; perhaps the statue of Peter the Great in St. Petersburg will be swallowed by moss, and the city of Moscow will fall into ruin, becoming a desolate, overgrown wasteland. Yet, our Imperial House shall continue to reign over the Eastern Sea.
Perhaps a time will come, a thousand years hence, when London Bridge lies in ruins, the banks of the Thames are overgrown with white, flowering weeds, and the scene is one of ancient, forgotten revelry, where only the birds of twilight flit about, a sight to evoke a mournful song. Yet, our Imperial House shall endure, indeed, it may even grow more refined, for its history, spanning more than two thousand five hundred years, stands as irrefutable proof.
My only concern is the potential emergence of unscrupulous, narrow-minded individuals who might exploit the name of the Imperial House to further their own selfish ends, or perhaps short-sighted educators who might abuse the principle of ‘revering the Emperor’ in a way that misleads both the Imperial House and our people. Before I, as a Christian, set forth my views on the principle of loyalty to the sovereign, I must first take the trouble to offer a few words in refutation of these stubborn, misguided notions. Just as gold only shines once the mud has been washed away, it is my sincere hope that by dismantling these erroneous arguments, the true significance of loyalty to the sovereign may be made all the more clear.
One common misconception is the belief that the principle of ‘revering the sovereign’ is the exclusive property of a single faction or group. This stems from a failure to understand the true source of a sovereign’s exalted status. In reality, the dignity of a sovereign lies in the immense breadth of his virtue, his capacity to embrace all.
Mencius, in his counsel to King Xuan of Qi, remarked: “If Your Majesty implements policies such that those in the realm who seek employment desire to serve in your court, those who farm wish to till your fields, merchants seek to trade in your markets, travellers desire to journey upon your roads, and those who suffer under their own rulers yearn to turn to you, if this is the case, who could possibly stand against you?”
An aloof, rigid, and narrow-minded disposition, one incapable of accepting those who differ from oneself, is merely the petty, self-serving trait of a small-minded man; it is by no means the public virtue befitting a sovereign.
Indeed, the extraordinary achievements of the world’s wisest rulers and most brilliant statesmen are, in truth, the direct result of their magnanimity and breadth of spirit. Discussing Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty as he practiced archery, it is said:
“A heroic ruler must possess a method to win over the hearts of the people, a strategy that transcends ordinary foresight. Upon what, then, does the acquisition of the realm depend? It depends on whether the hearts of the people are drawn toward the ruler; if they gather around him, he gains the realm; if they scatter elsewhere, he loses it. When the path is open, hearts converge; when it is blocked, they disperse, this is an inevitable principle. … In my view, the pursuit of counsel and the practice of archery are, in essence, the same art.”
Indeed, the reason Emperor Taizong was able to lay the four-hundred-year foundation for the Tang Dynasty was precisely because he possessed the magnanimity, symbolized by his focused dedication to archery, to embrace others.
Thus, the greatness of a ruler lies in the breadth of his capacity to embrace; the greater this capacity, the more effectively he can guide and elevate those around him. When Ziling placed his feet upon the abdomen of Emperor Guangwu of the Eastern Han, it did not diminish the Emperor’s exalted status. Furthermore, the noble tradition of valuing ‘reputation and integrity’ during the Eastern Han era served to steady the state and avert collapse during times of crisis. Was it not said in ancient times that an enlightened ruler always has those among his subjects whom he does not treat merely as ‘subjects’ (in the conventional, subordinate sense)? If even such individuals, who transcend the standard ruler-subject relationship, can exist, then surely there is no need for concern over mere differences in personal views or minor disagreements. However, those who delude themselves into believing that only their own faction possesses a monopoly on loyalty to the sovereign, and who, by recklessly invoking the name of the Imperial House, seek to harm other groups, can truly be described as ignorant fools who fail to grasp the inherent dignity of human beings. In a poem by Matsu Saya-ba regarding a visit to a shrine, it is written:
“Though the shrines to which people go may differ, the heart that offers prayers remains the same.” (I recall this from memory, so there may be some inaccuracies.)
Who could possibly find fault with a heart that prays for the well-being of the world? Such a sentiment should serve to put an end to all such strife.
A second misguided notion lies in the attempt to coerce others into expressing their reverence for the sovereign through rigid, prescribed, and mandatory forms. In general, when a person harbors certain thoughts or feelings within, they inevitably manifest outwardly; and if the external form is solemn, the inner state must likewise be solemn. Yet, when one attempts to impose such expressions upon others, one must exercise the utmost care and consideration for the human heart.
Those who truly understand modern developmental approaches do not necessarily demand that their children observe the minute formalities of etiquette, such as how to clean or how to greet others. Instead, they seek to foster a natural bond of affection between parent and child through freedom, love, and counsel. This is because commands often poison the well of affection and can even lead to outcomes contrary to what was intended. As a poem by Ōta Dōkan goes:
“In the spring fields, by the marsh where the young shoots sprout, the unbridled colt does not wander away.”
If a ruler possesses a truly magnanimous and inclusive spirit, the natural bond between sovereign and subject will remain warm and harmonious; there is no need to wait for specific commands regarding one’s posture or movements for the principle of loyalty to take root. The Book of Rites notes that when the Shang people introduced specific forms of ritual conduct, the common folk began to grow resentful; and when the Zhou people established regulated markets, the people began to harbor suspicion. If there are educators today, shortsighted as they may be, who attempt to impose rigid, formalistic displays of deference upon our inherently loyal and sincere people, we cannot help but pity their profound lack of insight. Do they not realize that commands can only alter a person’s outward behaviour; they are powerless to change the heart within? In the past, King Charles sought to guide his subjects into a specific mould, a particular vision of the English order, and while they may have initially complied, it was not a true transformation of the heart. And what was the result? The ‘reward’ Charles received from the very people for whom he had cared like a father was the loss of his own head.
Cromwell’s government established its own chosen religious sect as the cornerstone of state policy. It dealt harshly with those of liberal leanings, consigned ‘idolatrous’ paintings to the flames, prohibited extravagant attire, shuttered theatres, suppressed novels, and decreed that no one could hold public office without first swearing a solemn oath to the Puritan cause.
A sombre, puritanical world descended. Yet, the only real outcome was the creation of a class of hypocrites, men who merely wore a mask of virtue, which ultimately triggered a violent reaction: the ‘Restoration’ era, a period defined by unbridled debauchery that has left later historians utterly aghast. Just as a cold-hearted father often raises cold-hearted children, and a rigid, puritanical zealot rarely inspires genuine loyalty in his associates, the attempt to enforce devotion through mere outward forms serves only to foster hypocrisy and indifference, in this case, toward the Imperial House.
Thus far, my discussion regarding loyalty to the sovereign and Christianity has been largely negative, that is, critical in nature. Now, I wish to offer a positive perspective, examining the concept of loyalty to the sovereign from the standpoint of a Christian. I am convinced that the spirit of loyalty to the Emperor is not a matter of sectarian affiliation. Just as one cannot claim that true loyalty is the exclusive province of Buddhists, neither can one assert that such sincere devotion is the unique product of Christians. Indeed, to quibble over such distinctions is hardly the mark of a wise person. Even if some fool were to sound a trumpet, proclaiming that reverence for the Emperor and patriotism belong solely to their own sect, or if rumours were to spread that a particular group holds a monopoly on loyalty to the throne, I remain entirely unperturbed. This is because I follow the teaching of our founder, Christ, who instructed us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
I wish to state only this: Christians are those who affirm the reality of all human moral obligations, grounding them in the concept of an eternal God. Fortunately, the recent intense public scrutiny directed toward Christianity has compelled its adherents to engage in deeper study; this has provided them with multiple opportunities to demonstrate to the world that, far from being adversaries of loyalty to the sovereign, they are, in fact, those who foster and strengthen such loyalty. Many of our predecessors have already addressed this subject, so there is no need for me to dwell upon it at length. I shall simply cite 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the king”, and leave the rest unsaid.
I would, however, pose this question to those who oppose us: Can a person who loves humanity fail to love the monarch who stands at the head of their own nation? Can someone who upholds the principle of valuing the spiritual and material well-being of others fail to love the sovereign who bears the lives and property of the entire nation upon his shoulders? As a Swedish poet once sang: “Fear is the virtue of a slave, while love springs from a free will.” Of all the countless words spoken throughout history and across the globe regarding the merits of various moral systems, none can compare to this single, clear insight: Christians do not serve their sovereign out of a servile, fear-ridden disposition. Rather, they serve out of love. Because they love their sovereign, they cannot bear to see him fall into unrighteousness, nor can they endure seeing him become the target of public resentment and lamentation. How, then, could Christians ever be considered disloyal? On the contrary, it is those sycophants, those who, like foxes lurking in the ruins of a castle, cunningly hide behind the hem of the sovereign’s robes to further their own selfish interests, who are the true scoundrels leading the nation astray.
Rise, brothers and sisters! As a German poet once sang: “Hold the laws of the nation in high esteem, and, above all, the righteous principles of God.” Let us, together with our brothers and sisters, reverently celebrate this day. By singing, “O God, bless our nation, Japan,” let us demonstrate before the public the spirit of loyalty to the sovereign that is inherent in the Christian faith. Rise, brothers and sisters!
