嗔秤戻幣�哉膵�云利匈嬉蝕湊蛸賜�塋床四衲���萩晦編報炎嘔囚^泡仟 ̄云利匈��
the soul of the far east(垓叫議痩至)-及19何蛍
酔楯荷恬: 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈 梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何! 泌惚云慕短嗤堋響頼���誅卒亮茂�俊彭堋響��辛聞喘貧圭 "辺茄欺厘議箝誓匂" 孔嬬 才 "紗秘慕禰" 孔嬬��
45
´ Page 46´
The Soul of the Far East
man�察�the more imperative the discriminating name。 Hence human beings
possessed a fair number of such special appellatives�察 �for a man is a
palpably different sort of person from his grandmother�察�and a mother´in´
law from a wife。 But it is noteworthy that the artificial affinities of
society were as carefully differentiated as the distinctions due to sex�察�while
ancestral relationships were deemed more important than either。
Animals�察 �though treated individually most humanely�察 �are vouchsafed
but scant recognition on the score of sex。 With them�察�both sexes share
one common name�察 �and commonly�察 �indeed�察 �this answers quite well
enough。 In those few instances where sex enters into the question in a
manner not to be ignored�察 �particles denoting ;male; or ;female; are
prefixed to the general term。 How comparatively rare is the need of such
specification can be seen from the way in which�察�with us�察�in many species�察�
the name of one sex alone does duty indifferently for both。 That of the
male is the one usually selected�察�as in the case of the dog or horse。 If�察�
however�察�it be the female with which man has most to do�察�she is allowed
to bestow her name upon her male partner。 Examples of the latter
description occur in the use of ;cows; for ;cattle�察─�and ;hens; for ;fowls。;
A Japanese can say only ;fowl�察─�defined�察�if absolutely necessary�察�as ;he´
fowl; or ;she´fowl。;
Now such a slighting of one of the most potent springs of human
action�察 �sex�察 �with all that the idea involves�察 �is not due to a pronounced
misogynism on the part of these people�察 �but to a much more effective
neglect�察 �a great underlying impersonality。 Indifference to woman is but
included in a much more general indifference to mankind。 The fact
becomes all the more evident when we descend from sex to gender。 That
Father Ocean does not�察 �in their verbal imagery�察 �embrace Mother Earth�察�
with that subtle suggestion of humanity which in Aryan speech the gender
of the nouns hints without expressing�察�is not due to any lack of poesy in
the Far Oriental speaker�察 �but to the essential impersonality of his mind�察�
embodied now in the very character of the words he uses。 A Japanese
noun is a crystallized concept�察 �handed down unchanged from the
childhood of the Japanese race。 So primitive a conception does it
represent that it is neither a total nor a partial symbol�察 �but rather the
46
´ Page 47´
The Soul of the Far East
outcome of a first vague generality。 The word ;man�察─ �for instance�察�
means to them not one man�察 �still less mankind�察 �but that indefinite idea
which struggles for embodiment in the utterance of the infant。 It represents
not a person�察�but a thing�察�a material fact quite innocent of gender。 This
early state of semi´consciousness the Japanese never outgrew。 The world
continued to present itself to their minds as a collection of things。 Nor
did their subsequent Chinese education change their view。 Buddhism
simply infused all things with the one universal spirit。
As to inanimate objects�察�the idea of supposing sex where there is not
even life is altogether too fanciful a notion for the Far Eastern mind。
Impersonality first fashioned the nouns�察�and then the nouns�察�by their
very impersonality�察�helped keep impersonal the thought and fettered fancy。
All those temptings to poesy which to the Aryan imagination lie latent in
the sex with which his forefathers humanized their words�察�never stir the
Tartar nor the Chinese soul。 They feel the poetry of nature as much as�察�
indeed much more than�察 �we�察 �but it is a poetry unassociated with man。
And this�察 �too�察 �curiously enough�察 �in spite of the fact that to explain the
cosmos the Chinamen invented�察 �or perhaps only adapted�察 �a singularly
sexual philosophy。 For possibly�察 �like some other portions of their
intellectual wealth�察�they stole it from India。 The Chinese conception of
the origin of the world is based on the idea of sex。 According to their
notions the earth was begotten。 It is true that with them the cosmos
started in an abstract something�察�which self´produced two great principles�察�
but this pair once obtained�察 �matters proceeded after the analogy of
mankind。 The two principles at work were themselves abstract enough to
have satisfied the most unimpassioned of philosophers。 They were
simply a positive essence and a negative one�察�correlated to sunshine and
shadow�察 �but also correlated to male and female forces。 Through their
mutual action were born the earth and the air and the water�察�from these�察�in
turn�察�was begotten man。 The cosmical modus operandi was not creative
nor evolutionary�察�but sexual。 The whole scheme suggests an attempt to
wed abstract philosophy with primitive concrete mythology。
The same sexuality distinguishes the Japanese demonology。 Here the
physical replaces the philosophical�察 �instead of principles we find
47
´ Page 48´
The Soul of the Far East
allegorical personages�察�but they show just the same pleasing propensity to
appear in pairs。
This attributing of sexes to the cosmos is not in the least incompatible
with an uninterested disregard of sex where it really exists。 It is one
thing to admit the fact as a general law of the universe�察�and quite another
to dwell upon it as an important factor in every´day affairs。
How slight is the Tartar tendency to personification can be seen from a
glance at these same Japanese gods。 They are a combination of defunct
ancestors and deified natural phenomena。 The evolving of the first half
required little imaginati
酔楯荷恬: 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈 梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何!
梁椣戻幣�� 梁心弌傍議揖扮窟燕得胎��傍竃徭失議心隈才凪万弌誌育断蛍�輌臆惨軼僑〃�燕慕得珊辛參資誼持蛍才将刮襲潜��範寔亟圻幹慕得 瓜寡追葎娼得辛參資誼寄楚署衛、持蛍才将刮襲潜填��