Pathway to Japanese Literature

Author: Mori Ōgai

As you can see, among the committee members, I alone am wearing a military uniform.
Although I am attending this meeting in a personal capacity, as I have also gathered opinions from the Army Ministry, I intend to present them when appropriate.
“First, I would like to address what I consider kana usage to be, and then wish to present some remarks regarding its history.”
“Already up to today, Dr. Ōtsuki, Mr. Fujioka, and other venerable senior scholars, as well as specialists like Dr. Haga, have thoroughly addressed such issues, so the matter has largely been exhausted.”
“Furthermore, those from the authorities such as Mr. Watanabe, who has been involved in this matter since the beginning of the investigation, have also provided detailed explanations.”
“There were also discussions from other wise individuals such as Mr. Yano.”
“Moreover, among those scheduled to speak after me, there are experienced individuals such as Mr. Izawa.”
“Moreover, there are other distinguished scholars present.”
However, for me to discuss such matters here is truly reckless and, I myself feel, rather crow-like in its presumption.
“However, since my observations thus far differ slightly from what I have heard, and since my perspective consequently diverges, I find that unless I first articulate this, it will prove difficult to express my views thereafter.”
“Therefore, I must reluctantly present my views.”

“Did the term ‘kana usage’ originate from what we call Teika kana orthography?”
“Therefore, regarding this matter, I wish to refer to it simply as kana usage.”
“When I say ‘kana usage’ in this simple manner, I am referring to what you gentlemen term historical kana orthography—that is, the kana usage established by scholars of antiquity.”
“Moreover, I affirm that this kana usage shares precisely the same essential nature as foreign Orthographie.”
“According to Dr. Haga’s remarkably incisive address, it was asserted that ours differs from foreign systems—yet on this point, I hold a somewhat divergent view.”
“The principal basis for claiming this difference lies in the fact that foreign Orthographie is broadly employed by the populace, whereas our nation’s kana usage remains the province of a minority.”
“However, this distinction between whether kana usage is widely practiced or not may also correlate with a nation’s level of educational attainment.”
“Furthermore, it relates to the orientation of education—the direction in which educational efforts are channeled.”
“Fundamentally speaking, when considering their essential nature, foreign Orthographie and our kana usage are identical—I believe we may regard them as such without reservation.”
“To designate kana usage as ‘historical’ from the outset amounts to imposing a verdict upon it—a practice I find objectionable.”
“When examining kana usage holistically, I believe we may observe it from three distinct perspectives.”
“The first is the historical perspective.”
“The second is the phonetic perspective—what we might term *Phonetik*.”
“There also exists an etymological perspective through *Etymologie*, though I consider this fundamentally intertwined with historical considerations.”
“When a nation’s language—initially existing solely as speech—assumes written form through phonetic characters like Japanese kana, its orthography must inevitably begin as phonetic.”
“Yet spoken language undergoes gradual transformation over time.”
“Once written forms lag behind these transformations, they become historical.”
“Thus emerges what we call ‘historical’ orthography.”
“Therefore, it follows naturally that any nation’s kana usage inherently possesses conservative characteristics.”
“I maintain that Japan’s case is no exception.”

When viewed in this light, it was only natural that movements for reform would arise against this—indeed, an inevitable trend.
Moreover, that in attempting to reform it, one would consider reforming it in a phonetic direction—this too was an inevitable trend.
The arguments of this side—particularly Dr. Ōtsuki’s theory—were heard by me most clearly and purely.
Suppose that today a certain kana were to be newly established phonetically.
If that were done, this new kana usage would itself soon become historical.
If I were to explain here what is meant by “etymological,” this was intimately related to the historical aspect.
In the Orthographie of other countries, the term “etymological” had been imbued with a particular specialized meaning.
“To give an example: when writing the national language’s ‘sū’ as ‘sue,’ one uses the Wa-gyō ‘we’ character.”
“To take an example from Germany: in German there exists the verb ‘lieben,’ meaning ‘to love.’”
When converted into an adjective, this becomes ‘lieb.’
“However, instead of writing the character ‘pu,’ they write ‘bu.’”
“In this sense, the points where kana usage differs from pronunciation are primarily referred to as etymological in foreign countries.”
“It was this aspect that Mr. Fujioka explained in his phonetic-semantic theory by referencing the Fifty-Sounds Table.”
“When considering the state of this council as a whole, the very existence of kana usage itself is being questioned.”
“There exists a debate over its very existence—whether it exists or not—and furthermore, an esteemed debate over its stability: whether it is established or remains unsettled.”
“The authorities, in any case, acknowledge that there exists an established kana usage.”
“However, regarding someone like Dr. Haga—if we examine his response to Dr. Miyake—while he does acknowledge the existence of kana usage with certain qualifications, I heard him state in effect that it remains hardly settled.”
“That it remains unsettled—I heard this was meant to signify that only a minority employs it.”
“Regarding this, I will later present my own opinion.”
“I acknowledge kana usage as something that clearly exists.”

“The kana usage established by scholars of antiquity since Keichū, though rooted in past pronunciation, does not differ so markedly from contemporary speech when compared—or so I hold.”
“That is to say, the disparity does not appear so profound as to warrant demolishing it root and branch to rebuild anew.”
“Fundamentally, ‘where there exists a thing, there exists a rule,’ and such rules already emerge naturally within spoken language.”
“These rules attain even greater precision when elevated into literary form.”
“The most phonetically perfect kana systems in the world—if I may venture—are found in the ancient Sanskrit script of old and the Italian orthography of recent times.”
“Moreover, our kana usage stands as a system no less splendid than Sanskrit itself—a treasure beyond price, as I perceive it.”
“I earnestly entreat that we handle this precious artifact with utmost reverence; even should amendments prove necessary, let them be introduced by gradual degrees.”
“Max Müller once declared: ‘We forge literary language by harnessing spoken tongue with headstall and bridle.’”
“These are implements fitted to a horse’s head.”
“As for what we term kana usage in Japan’s literary language—this bridle shows no sign of decay rendering it unfit for service; I maintain it retains vigor ample for its purpose.”

“Therefore，regarding the history of kana usage，I would like to present two or three points where my observations differ.”
“Regarding ancient kana usage—particularly that prior to the Enryaku-era capital relocation—there were esteemed arguments presented by Drs．Ōtsuki and Haga and others．”
“The gist of their argument was that this constituted the common spoken language of the people at that time—that it had been written phonetically using newly devised kana，that all citizens employed it，and that this stood in direct opposition to the present circumstances；such were the nature of their esteemed arguments．”
“Thus，it was argued that kana usage employed by the entire nation in such a manner held true legitimacy，whereas in its current state—reduced to being used by a minority—it is no longer alive but has become a dead thing．”
“Now then，as time shifts，we enter the next period．”
“Let us limit it to the period from post-relocation of the capital through Tenryaku．”
“This was likely the first instance in Kojikiden where such boundaries were established．”
“Tenryaku，that is to say，around the tenth century．”
“The fact that euphonic changes emerged during this period was also present in the esteemed arguments thus far．”
“These euphonic changes are already a phenomenon of literary language’s decline．”
“Regarding that matter，even Motoori and others have referred to it as a ‘decayed thing．’”
“It is a phenomenon of decay．”
“However，that is directly written phonetically．”
“Now，up to this point，kana has been a common possession of the nation；hereafter，it is often observed to have become something used by a minority．”
“However，was such ancient-era kana usage truly employed by the people as a whole？”
“When it comes to this issue，if we compare it with examples from foreign countries，I believe there is considerable room for doubt．”
“Max Müller and others employ the term ‘Dialect’—that is to say，‘dialect’—in such contexts．”
“In ancient times，every country had an abundance of dialects．”
“When a certain one among them gains influence and becomes the literary language，the other dialects lose their influence and are consequently overwhelmed by that literary language．”
“While I acknowledge matters in this manner，I cannot help but wonder whether even in our nation’s antiquity there existed numerous dialects outside the language that became literary．”

“Thus considered,” I posited, “one might entertain the suspicion that kana usage—from its very inception—was never something compelling the majority to adopt a minority’s orthography.”
“As for things like old Latin—that was the language of Rome’s upper class within Latium.”
Through Livius Andronicus’s efforts, I noted how it had been systematized as a literary language, gradually spreading Latin across all Europe.
Might Japan’s own [system] too have been such an imposition from the start?
This line of reasoning cast doubt on the reformists’ claim—that historical kana deserved legitimacy through popular use while modern usage lacked it—as anything but an indisputable truth.
The medieval period saw the decline of this established literary language, its disorder sparking individual corrective movements.
Take Fujiwara no Mototoshi’s *Etsumokushō* from the Hōen era—the twelfth century—where kana placement in upper, middle, and lower positions within words first emerged.
Then came what we call Teika kana orthography.
The term traces to Lord Teika’s commissioning of Ōi no suke Chikayuki to produce a fair copy of *Shūi Gusō*, with Chikayuki devising its writing method—or so tradition holds.
The Teika orthography circulating today derives from Chikayuki’s grandson Gyōa and his *Kanamoji Tsukai*, extant in multiple editions.
Indeed, “kana usage” as a concept likely originated there.
Some have long maintained this Teika system reflected phonetic shifts in our national language—a view I find untenable.
However one examines it, the orthography was no straightforward phonetic product but bore convoluted rationales.
Consider their vigorous appeals to four-tone theory.
This tonal determinism struck me as thoroughly contrived—a point Dr. Haga had already deemed arbitrary, though I judged it far more so.
“When medical texts explain pathologies through Yin-Yang principles midway through,” I observed, “this orthography gives me precisely that impression—an artificial framework imposed post hoc.”
“The core question remains: Should we regard medieval Teika orthography as part of our language’s natural transition?”

“Fundamentally, what we call transitions in the national language should naturally exist solely in spoken language—that is to say, dialects.”
“This is not so; it constitutes merely a transient phenomenon of literary language.”
“Regarding what is termed transition, Mueller distinguishes two categories: true transition being when language genuinely grows, and a separate matter being when language undergoes decay. However, since growth inherently belongs only to spoken language and not to kana usage, it becomes evident upon examination that we are dealing with a phenomenon of decay.”
“Even within this decay, Teika kana orthography in particular appears akin to a disease peculiar to its era.”
Dr. Haga manifested some unwarranted apprehension concerning this matter.
His concern held that if one failed to acknowledge such medieval transitions in this period, might not post-Kamakura literature be summarily dismissed?
“The principal evidence purportedly lies in what is called ‘wordplay’ serving as proof.”
“I do not share this view.”
“‘Wordplay’ as such occurred infrequently in antiquity.”
“In works like the Man'yōshū, such instances prove exceedingly rare.”
“Examples like linking ‘a name becoming established’ (名が立つ) with ‘Mount Tatsuta’ (立田山)—these indeed rely on perfect homophony.”
“Without identical sounds, they cannot properly constitute ‘wordplay’.”
“Yet even prior to Lord Teika’s time, transformations had already emerged, giving rise to ‘wordplay’ employing altered sounds.”
“Lord Shunzei took ‘ahi’ from what was termed the wave-group and applied it to ‘ai’ (indigo) in the plant-group, while elsewhere associating ‘koi’ (love) with ‘kii’ (arboreal habitation).”
“Such ‘wordplay’ makes its appearance.”
“While it indeed proliferated following the establishment of Teika orthography, this remains purely a matter of rhetorical technique—of Rhetorik.”
“That antiquity knew homophonic ‘wordplay’ while later ages developed similar-sound variants—to acknowledge this suffices entirely.”
“Should posterity seek definitive rules regarding this matter, they need only determine whether to employ the upper kana or lower kana in notation. Establishing such modest regulations in orthographic practice would permit recognition without objection.”
“There exists no impediment in recognizing that similar-sound ‘wordplay’ has newly emerged as rhetorical artifice.”
“Furthermore, what we call Teika kana orthography has come to be understood as a system employed by a minority.”

“Some may perhaps raise objections to this.”
“In the Northern Court’s era names, there exists Bunna—around the fourteenth century during this Bunna era, Provisional Minor Bishop Naritoshi wrote colophons for the Man'yōshū.”
“The phrase ‘All under heaven largely adhered to that style, with not a single person deviating from it’ refers here to Teika kana orthography.”
“Though it claims universal compliance, this ‘all under heaven’ ultimately denotes only a certain educated stratum; we cannot conclude Teika’s orthography was used by the entire nation.”
“This was likely a minority practice.”
“Then came the kana usage of classical scholars.”
“Examining Naritoshi’s Man'yōshū colophons I mentioned earlier reveals attempts at orthographic restoration.”
“Though they modestly termed their old kana usage an ‘eccentric method,’ they nevertheless applied it consistently.”
Following that came Keichū’s *Waji Seiranshō*, bearing a Genroku 6 preface from the seventeenth century.
These marked the restoration movement’s inception; its subsequent history requires no elaboration here.
Dr. Haga characterized this as a Renaissance.
The comparison strikes me as apt indeed.
I perceive it sharing essential qualities with Western restoration movements.
This revived orthography was naturally not phonetically reformed.
Had Teika’s system represented linguistic evolution, this reactionary restoration would constitute profound irrationality.
But as stated earlier—since Teika’s orthography was an ephemeral contagion—I posit classical scholars arose to cure it.
Progressing further in analysis reveals the restored system appears markedly more phonetic than Teika’s when examined thusly.
This classical scholars’ usage—as you gentlemen acknowledge—remained confined to minority circles.
As for the general populace—some possibly followed Teika’s model while others doubtless wrote chaotically without principles.”
Such statistical verification proves virtually unattainable.

Those who wrote using Teika kana orthography were likely readers of tales or works like Kitamura Kigin’s *Kogetsushō*, while all others presumably wrote haphazardly.
Moreover, Confucian scholars who focused primarily on Chinese studies declared they cared not for kana usage and contented themselves with disorderly writing.
However, I consider that the reason these practices were not widely adopted might have been determined by educational policies or their limited dissemination.
Thus, movements to reject kana orthography had emerged only very recently.
Even in such movements, there long existed pioneer figures like Chen Sheng and Wu Guang.
As early as the Southern Court period, Fujiwara no Nagachika—also known as Myōgi Hōshi—had advocated writing kana freely as one pleased.
When we examine more recent times, numerous such examples appear.
Mr. Hoashi Banri, a scholar of Chinese studies—he passed away in the fifth year of Kaei [1852].
In his *Kajikō* was written:
“Current kana usage lacks rational foundation; yet being long accustomed to it, forcibly dismantling it would be unwise. Nor should deviations from its rules be unduly criticized.”
This might well be called the origin of permissive theory.
There was also a scholar named Inoue Fumio.
He died in Meiji 4 [1871], but authored a work titled *Kana Isshin*.
This too argued for writing kana freely while rejecting restored orthography and supporting Teika’s methods.
Then there was Mr. Inoue Kowashi’s Sino-Japanese kana usage—a matter the authorities had cited even in this assembly.
Having traversed such historical developments, the issue of contemporary kana reform emerged and grew into what I believe became an exceptionally robust movement.
Fundamentally, these are the historical developments as I understand them.

From this point forward, I intended to present my own views somewhat.
What I listened to with the most profound admiration was Dr. Ōtsuki’s esteemed lecture.
The breadth of his citations went without saying, and the fervor permeating his entire argument evoked in me a sensation akin to hearing one of Savonarola’s sermons from Italy’s Renaissance era.
I listened with respect.

However, I did not agree with that esteemed theory.
The foundation of your esteemed theory lay in the assertion that matters used by a minority were scarcely worth discussing, and that [kana usage] must instead be something employed by the majority of the populace.
Yet if one were to observe all matters in such a manner, I feared it might result in partiality.
“In political terms—when grounded in the majority we have *Demokratie*; when grounded in a minority, *Aristokratie* emerges.”
“In recent intellectual currents, when one considers matters from the majority’s perspective and leans toward them, social theories exemplify precisely this tendency.”
“Then there are counterarguments like Nietzsche’s that base their advocacy on an exceedingly small minority.”
“By this view, the majority populace resembles fertilizer in a compost heap—within which a useful minority emerges as splendid plants might bloom—such is the shape of this conception.”
“If those who claim this kana usage serves only a minority were to reject it from such grounds, then adopting the opposing stance—one might articulate it thus.”
“It may indeed be that traditional kana usage has always been a minority practice.”
“Even when early modern restoration movements arose, their influence surely did not spread widely through society.”
“Yet in the movement where scholars since Keichū sought to establish kana orthography—those who responded, though a minority among the people—might we not call them the nation’s very essence?”
“I believe arguments seeking to expand such views into common public ownership could readily arise from opposing quarters.”
“In any event, I cannot endorse the doctrine that only majority usage merits recognition.”
“Next, while you authorities and gentlemen debate kana usage’s very existence, I understand you have also declared there exists no correctness or error in its application.”
“Though I arrived late on the first day and heard but half of Secretary Watanabe’s explanation, it proved an exceedingly meticulous presentation—one anticipating every conceivable rebuttal, fortifying all positions by demonstrating why such objections would crumble.”
“Much like an aged magistrate adjudicating a trial—or perhaps akin to a Sophist’s argument—it was crafted with consummate skill, and I fully appreciated the labor invested.”
“This too I heard with due respect—yet cannot assent.”
“To speak of right and wrong in this matter grates upon the ear, entangled as it is with what might be termed Dr. Haga’s patriotic arguments.”
“To give voice to moral imperatives is itself distasteful.”
“Nothing proves baser than verbal protestations of loyalty.”

“The philosopher Theodor Vischer once remarked that there exists the saying ‘das Moralische versteht sich von selbst’ (‘the moral is self-evident’).”
“Matters of morality require no words.”
Vischer had made this his habitual refrain.
“Such things need not be said at all.”
Yet it remained evident that the vicissitudes of national fortune bore relation to language—further connected to literary language as its essence—and consequently to kana usage.
In nations like Germany, movements advocating new kana orthography had arisen vigorously and come to be widely employed in schools; however, Bismarck throughout his lifetime had persistently rejected this new kana usage in official documents alone.
As he was such an extraordinary figure, one might speculate he possessed some profound rationale.
The authorities’ explanation had stated that while ethics recognized concepts of right and wrong, no such distinctions existed for kana usage.
“Yet even ethics undergo constant transformation—our ethical judgments regarding vendettas or seppuku differ markedly when comparing today with times past.”
“Should we refuse to acknowledge any Authority in ethics, I say, we would ultimately lack standards of good and evil—resulting in utter chaos.”
“I too make no claim that absolute right and wrong exist in kana usage.”
“However, as I previously stated, while spoken language indeed transforms, literary language knows no such metamorphosis.”
Since spoken language changes through this phenomenon of decline and decay, were we to perpetually observe its transitions—selecting solidified aspects to progressively revise kana usage—such gradual implementation might prove acceptable. Yet what had become established within literary language should, I believed, be recognized as correct and maintained as governing principle.
Dr. Haga too had presented arguments concerning this matter of correctness, invoking the metaphor of a river’s flow.
“The river’s present course differs from its ancient path—its direction must inevitably shift over time. We must consider kana usage through such transformations.”
In Mueller’s writings existed precisely this same analogy.
Language had been likened to a river.
Language resembled flowing water that must inevitably transform; were we to solidify it as literary language, it would become like stagnant pond water prone to decay. Once decay set in, those dialects initially rejected would linger somewhere—persisting like subterranean currents—until these very elements might someday rise up to birth revolutionary new literary forms.
He had cited such metaphors.
Therefore, while revising kana usage to prevent literary language from decaying like pond water remained necessary, I believed we should recognize that what had once become literary language constituted established rules—correct ones.

Mueller also employed another metaphor in the same manner. When the King of Turkey had playmates in his childhood, upon ascending the throne, he would strangle his friends and seize power alone. However, even when a certain dialect gained influence and became literary language, the dialects practiced nearby were not all eradicated; they survived somewhere—persisting until they would someday instigate a revolutionary movement. He stated that linguistic matters should be observed in this manner. In any case, when the King of Turkey became king, he was a legitimate king. To prevent revolutionary events from arising through present corruption, I thought it would be prudent to create new nobles—establishing fresh peers in such a way that decay might be gradually forestalled. When elements of spoken language that had come into wide use were observed, they should be progressively incorporated into kana usage. I believe steering the helm in such fashion might well prove the most suitable approach. "I wish to affirm both the concept of standard forms and the notion of correctness."

“However, there exists a tendency whereby old kana usage is treated most lightly—indeed, Authorities from Keichū downward are altogether looked down upon—but if one were to declare that what minority practitioners do is trivial, what would that imply?”
“In ethics as well, those who truly practice loyalty, filial piety, righteousness, and moral integrity have always been a minority; it is by becoming a model and widely propagating it that these virtues are made common to the nation.”
“I think it would be proper to place somewhat greater importance on what the minority is practicing.”
“While Authorities such as scholars of antiquity are rejected in this manner, Mr. Inoue Kowashi’s theory on Sino-Japanese kana usage is nearly elevated as an infallible doctrine—yet I cannot help but feel that this, too, is not entirely sound.”
“The argument that ‘writing Chinese characters in kana adopts the path of least resistance’ constitutes Mr. Inoue Kowashi’s theory.”
“However, I think we should not base our approach on the notion that writing in kana follows the path of least resistance.”
“In every country, foreign words enter the national language and become part of it.”
Therefore, in Japan, Chinese-derived words become part of the national language.
They become like post stations along the way, and works written in kana come to be used.
Among them are some that have fully assimilated into the national language.
Such as the well-known “fumi” for letter and “zeni” for coin.
Among them are terms like shōsoku (written as せうそこ), which have also nearly come to be used as part of the national language in kana.
“If such characters were written as ‘shiyousoko’ by abolishing kana usage, they would become difficult to understand.”
“Furthermore, I cannot help but feel that Mr. Inoue’s current argument aligning with modern Chinese pronunciation is not entirely sound.”
“In summary, I do not claim that there exists an absolute right or wrong in kana usage, but I believe there is a somewhat correct side to it.”
“In Western languages, the orthos in Orthographie signifies ‘correct.’”
“The method of writing correctly is called Orthographie.”
Since words and such things serve to express human thought, we employ terms deemed correct.
“I believe it is permissible to assert that it is correct.”
“Furthermore, in connection with this relationship between correctness and error, the metaphor of highways has been frequently employed within this council.”

“Historical kana orthography is akin to old highways; by bringing [the system] there, a new phonetic kana orthography is created—this constitutes a convenient side path. There is no need to designate the old highways as the righteous path and condemn the convenient new kana orthography as a heresy.”
"This account appears to diverge somewhat from the facts as I perceive them."
"It is by no means the case that such convenient new paths have been established."
"For instance, even if we examine the term 'tsukue,' the 'u' sound corresponding to this consonant does not resonate."
"If one were to write that non-resonant part phonetically, it stands to reason that anyone would write 'tsukue' using the a-row 'e'."
“If that were truly the case—if such a new path had indeed been formed—then its recognition would be permissible.”
"However, even when examining what people have actually written, for the 'we' in 'tsukue,' they sometimes use the a-row 'e,' other times the wa-row 'we,' or even the ha-row 'he'—employing all manner of kana."
When observing this practice, one sees the populace wandering haphazardly through fields and paddies without established paths, making no distinction between them.
"It is truly in a state of utmost chaos—utterly chaotic."
"Now, should the Ministry of Education implement new phonetic revisions and mandate the a-row 'e' as an official path, two distinct routes would emerge."
"I fear the people may again trample through fields indiscriminately without adhering to either path."
"On the contrary, this would compound the complexity."
"Such relationships exist not solely within kana usage but extend to grammatical particles as well."
"For example, there exists the particle 'eseshimu,' which the Ministry of Education has permitted."
"That is the term 'eseshimu'."
"However, spoken language contains neither 'eshimu' nor 'eseshimu'."
"In spoken language, they express it as 'esaseru' in this manner."
"It has become the term 'esasasu'."
Thus, the term "eseshimu" emerged independently of spoken language evolution—that is, linguistic change.
As for its origin—this stems not from linguistic evolution but from illiteracy.

“Someone who did not know the term ‘eshimu’ wrote ‘eseshimu’ instead.”
There existed a satirical song mocking such errors—one that derided claims like “Ise refined, Edo vulgar, Kyoto renowned—this passes for universal truth.”
This had gained temporary popularity through precisely such misunderstandings.”
“These phenomena are not limited to particles alone—they manifest in Chinese characters too.”
“I must confess complete ignorance; I cannot even read Chinese characters.”
“Yet consider ‘moko’—every newspaper writes the ‘mo’ with the rice radical, when it should properly use the tree radical.”
“If we were to recognize every such error as linguistic evolution, we would soon find ourselves compelled to invent entirely new characters.”
“Thus I suspect my initial assumption—that convenient new paths have emerged—may stem from flawed observation.”
Dr. Haga then countered our highway analogy with his own metaphor:
“These so-called old highways have become abandoned trails—overgrown with brambles that antiquarians might clear, yet still shunned by the people.”
He presented this imagery thusly:
“From our perspective, historical kana usage was never a thoroughfare for all citizens—even in antiquity, it began as a minority’s footpath.”
“One that gradually widened through use.”
“Even should Teika’s medieval orthography resurface to create setbacks—even if thorns regrow—might we not clear them again? By restoring and broadening the original path, could we not forge a road for all citizens? This may be delusion... yet such is my vision.”
“Every nation confronting linguistic reform begins by seeking purification of its national tongue.”
“From this purifying perspective, reviving traditional kana usage offers the soundest approach.”
“Revive classical orthography while judiciously adopting new forms.”
“To achieve this, we must first clear brambles from the old highway—make it traversable once more.”
“Thereafter—whether we pave it Macadam-style or asphalt it—either method would suffice under civilized standards.”

Furthermore, alongside the highway metaphor, this matter of tolerance had recently emerged as an issue.
I had heard this concept of "tolerance" explained as Tolerance.
For instance, consider a nation with an established religion that nevertheless tolerates its people adhering to other faiths.
That constitutes Tolerance.
When employing the term Tolerance, there must generally exist some recognized orthodoxy beforehand.
Without orthodoxy, Tolerance cannot exist.
When his teniwoha came to be tolerated, the original grammatical forms had already been established as orthodoxy.
They permitted teniwoha that deviated from it.
Thus it had come to pass.
“Since ‘eshimu’ stands as orthodox while ‘eseshimu’ is merely tolerated, I thoroughly comprehend the underlying principle.”
“This proportion became distorted once established as kana usage.”
“It would be proper to maintain the original kana usage as orthodox while tolerating newly devised phonetic variants.”
“However, establishing these newly created phonetic forms as orthodox for textbook use—that does not constitute tolerance.”
Regarding this matter, there had been frequent debates from various quarters.
“Though my words may sound somewhat vulgar, I must say this current approach to tolerance in kana usage strikes me as rather haphazard.”
“Concerning this tolerance policy—from our perspective—the esteemed recognition that convenient paths have emerged in society, thereby justifying tolerance, seems somewhat precipitous.”
“I perceive far too many instances where such determinations are made prematurely.”
“For example, when people write ‘eseshimu,’ authorities immediately adopt it—proclaiming linguistic evolution and convenient new pathways—then magnanimously grant official tolerance.”
“I see no necessity for such measures.”
“There exists an illiterate individual who, ignorant of the term ‘eshimu,’ writes ‘eseshimu.’”

“It is absolutely not that they write ‘eseshimu’ claiming ‘eshimu’ is inconvenient.”
“Then newspapers and novels will write it that way as well.”
That acted as a medium and gradually spread.
Even if these too, with time’s passage, became historical artifacts—terms born of fallacy that we must ultimately recognize—I could not help but think it unwise to hasten their recognition.
Consider a deranged person running through pathless wilds, with the masses following behind.
To immediately declare this a road—to proclaim it a road because multitudes tread it and promptly formalize it as such—I found such work rather misguided.
From our vantage, it seemed as though we walked trailing the footprints of people’s errors.
Proceeding thus, even those mistaken Chinese characters might gain currency through happenstance.
To pursue their traces would necessitate compiling a new dictionary of false characters.
I feared this might culminate in creating nothing less than a Compendium of Falsities.
In every nation, inquiries into the national language take linguistic purification as their foundational endeavor.
Contrarily, labor of this sort served only to befoul the national language.
Of course, even errors—as I stated earlier—that acquire antiquity’s patina through eras’ passage and naturally transmute into new linguistic forms ought unquestionably to be adopted.
This paralleled new peers arising within the kazoku’s hallowed ranks.
Precedent existed in our linguistic history.
Take the term ‘arata shi.’
This became ‘atarashi.’
Here we acknowledged new terms rooted in spoken language’s evolution.
As for particle usages under similar tolerance—such as replacing ‘sesasu’ with ‘sasu’—this had long prevailed in common speech.
Such instances deserved recognition as proper.

“Furthermore, regarding various Sino-Japanese character readings, examples of errors have been cited up to now. For instance, what is called ‘chikushō’ should originally be pronounced ‘kyūshyō,’ I must say.”
“Such instances should be recognized as the national language term ‘chikushō.’”
“Even when expressed through new terminology, we say ‘yushyutsu’ for ‘export’.”
“If it has solidified to this extent, there can be no objection to recognizing it as part of the national language.”
“However, I believe that refraining from making hasty recognitions and instead gradually acknowledging them little by little would be the most appropriate method.”
“In this manner, even if only a minority of people employ [certain usages], I hold the view that we should strive to extend what such a minority—one that may be called the nation’s essence—utilizes broadly across the nation.”

“This line of thinking inevitably comes into conflict with the esteemed theories of scholars such as Dr. Haga.”
“Dr. Haga discusses matters of necessity and superfluity.”
“‘There is no need,’ he states, ‘to force upon the majority things that the majority does not use.’”
“‘It remains doubtful,’ he asserts, ‘whether the Minister of Education possesses such authority.’”
“Dr. Haga’s entire discourse constitutes truly erudite arguments—arguments I deeply admire.”
“However, regarding this debate over necessity and the Minister’s authority—on these points I find myself unable to agree.”
“Linguistic change occurs within spoken language.”
“It proceeds naturally.”
“When we speak of literary language, this is something shaped by artifice.”
“The same applies to kana usage.”
“Yet only when becoming literary language does a language attain completeness.”
“Only through becoming literary language does it fully gain the capacity to adequately express thought.”
“Kana usage constitutes the rules governing that literary language.”
“Had our nation’s kana usage not been widely practiced among the people, this would stem from education’s failure to reach universally.”
“Therefore, just as ancient governments implemented kana usage when first devised, I consider it a legitimate right—nay, duty—for today’s Minister of Education to teach kana orthography universally.”
“It is not a right; it is an obligation.”
“I maintain it must be taught.”
“Conversely, those charged with education—beginning with the Minister—must never commit errors defying standard rules.”
“There exists an old tale where Emperor Tiberius of Rome once erred in grammatical case while speaking.”
“Then Marcellus, listening nearby, reproached him: ‘That was incorrect.’”

Then a man named Capito, who had been listening, declared: "The words from the Emperor's mouth constitute splendid Latin."
Marcellus responded: "Indeed, the Emperor may grant Roman citizenship to the people, but he cannot create a new language."
Thus he spoke, it is said.
Even an Emperor possesses no authority to defy standard rules.
This constitutes the debate on necessity and non-necessity.

However, beyond the debate of necessity and non-necessity, there exists another argument.
There exists an argument that implementing kana usage among the general populace is impossible.
This position was present in Dr. Ōtsuki’s esteemed arguments.
As the most compelling argument among them, it was stated that although there are a great number of committee members here, there is not a single one among them who does not make mistakes in kana usage.
“Indeed, that is precisely the case—even someone like myself consistently makes errors. However, even when erring, I intend to listen to others and correct those mistakes, to teach even children not to err, and thus strive to steer things even slightly toward the standard.”
“The authorities do not go so far as to declare it impossible, but it has been stated to be difficult.”
“This is what is generally said.”
“If we speak of difficulty, it is a matter of degree and not impossible.”
Indeed, the authorities have stated that even in kana usage, there are parts that have entered people’s consciousness and parts that have not.
“This esteemed argument posits that we should carefully preserve those parts that have entered people’s consciousness while correcting those that have not.”
However, if one acknowledges that certain elements have entered consciousness, then I think it follows that even those parts not yet in consciousness might also become incorporated through appropriate methods.
Now, while classical scholars rigorously debate kana usage—as seen in works like Motoori’s Tōmegane—the fact that they never apply these rules when writing in colloquial language is cited as evidence that implementing kana usage universally in ordinary speech is impossible or difficult. However, I believe this misrepresents the nature of the matter.
Classical scholars considered literary language to be aristocratic in nature; thus, they conceived of the noble class with utmost rigidity—viewing it akin to India’s four varnas or similar systems—and regarded lower-tier people like the Shudra as entirely beyond consideration. It is precisely because they despised what is called colloquial speech that they acted recklessly when employing it.
If they had intended to apply kana usage to colloquial speech—if they had regarded what is called colloquial speech with slightly more importance—I believe they would not have done such things.
Therefore, regarding Dr. Haga’s assertion that if someone like Mr. Motoori were alive today, he would never advocate disseminating kana usage to the nation—I find myself unable to agree.
If Mr. Motoori were alive today, I believe he would surely have endeavored to teach kana usage to the nation.
Not only Mr. Motoori but also scholars like Mr. Horishigen—though it has not been long since their passing—had they been alive today, would have endeavored to implement kana usage among the nation, I believe.
In the early years of Meiji, the Ministry of Education employed kana usage in elementary schools.
Regarding this outcome as well, I hold a differing view.
If I recall correctly—was it Mr. Ehara?—it was stated that this kana usage had been unexpectedly welcomed by children.

"I was still half a child at that time myself, but I certainly welcomed it. Had the Ministry of Education’s policy from that era been firmly established and continued unchanged to this day, kana usage might have been considerably more widely practiced among the people by now. Reformists persistently cite examples of errors occurring once students reach middle school and beyond, attempting to present this as proof of inherent difficulty or impossibility. However, this stems from the prevalence of errors in their environment—whether reading newspapers or novels, all exhibit disordered kana usage; every text they encounter contains mistakes. Thus, no matter how thoroughly schools teach it, errors will inevitably persist. Yet had concerted efforts been made since the early Meiji era to properly instruct kana usage up to the present day, I believe we would now see a substantial increase in journalists and novelists versed in these rules, resulting in newspapers and novels employing correct kana with far greater frequency. Under such circumstances, those beyond middle school level would likely not commit so many errors in their writing."

Next came the question of methodology—if we were to teach kana usage to the nation, what would be the optimal approach? This was likely the method devised by someone like Kurozawa Okina-maro—beginning instruction with a small number of difficult kana, allowing easier ones to be naturally comprehended thereafter. Even today, those who teach kana usage generally employ such techniques. It constitutes a kind of mnemonic system. While this represents one mnemonic approach, I believe that through further research into these methods, our pedagogical techniques could be rendered more complete than at present.

Regarding the difficulties of kana usage, the primary issue raised concerns Sino-Japanese orthography. This matter of Chinese-derived readings presents truly formidable challenges—though when we speak of antiquity here, we refer to the eighteenth century—from Monk Bun’yū’s *Makyō Inkyō* through Motoori’s *Kanji Sangyōkō* and *Jion Kanazukai*, to Ōta Zen’sai’s *Kan Go On Zu* of the Bunsei era, and presently Professor Kimura Masashi’s *Kan Go On Zu Seigo*—such has been the lineage of research into these readings.

As Dr. Ōtsuki observed, this is indeed a headache-inducing text. His argument that “those who have never composed poetry cannot possibly master this” struck me as eminently reasonable. However, I believe even these most challenging aspects had been nearly exhaustively addressed in Dr. Ōtsuki’s distinguished lecture.

In any event, through such a comprehensive lecture, even these difficulties could be systematically covered—the remainder being relatively straightforward.

When considering how to approach kana usage for Sino-Japanese readings, we must first investigate the degree to which Chinese-derived vocabulary has become Japanized. As I mentioned earlier, there exist instances where these readings have fully assimilated into our national language.

Following closely behind these are terms like “bun” and “sen,” along with others belonging to equivalent categories. For example, the compound “heaven and earth” (天地) is more commonly written using “tenchi” (てんち) than “ametsuchi” (あめつち). When Japanized to this extent, such terms must be recognized as components of our national language.

Conversely, what we call Sino-Japanese readings concealed within kanji exhibit an extremely low degree of Japanization. While it has been argued that their hidden nature makes them easy to reform, one might equally contend that precisely because they remain so deeply embedded, there may be no need for alteration—a position not without merit.

By excluding these minimally Japanized terms and focusing instruction in elementary schools on fully assimilated vocabulary, the number requiring attention would naturally become limited. With such a reduced corpus, I believe even Sino-Japanese kana usage could feasibly be taught.

Then what should be done about those sounds that had long been altered?
“For instance, consider how the current term ‘export’ has come to be written as ‘yushiyutsu.’”
“I hereby recognize ‘yushiyutsu’ as a new term within our national language.”
“This should not be treated as a phonetic reading—it suffices to regard it as a semantic reading.”
“The appropriate resolution would be to cease handling it under Sino-Japanese reading conventions.”
“Then how should we address instances where Sino-Japanese readings remain unexamined?”
“Dr. Ōtsuki raised the question of whether the character 烏 in ‘eboshi’ ought to be written with え or ゑ.”
“It is precisely such issues that I believe require the National Language Research Council to formulate an authoritative proposal—indeed, to establish a unified standard and secure its official recognition.”

However, the difficulties were not limited to Sino-Japanese readings alone; they also existed in the kana usage of the national language. In this case, by particularly researching the method of teaching from the small number of difficult kana and further perfecting that approach, I believed it might become possible to widely instruct kana usage. “In the consultation draft, it had been decided to preserve only those kana ‘derived from verb conjugations,’ and I considered this esteemed intention to be most commendable.” “However, I must say that what had actually appeared in the proposal did not seem sufficiently well-prepared.” “For example, if we examine the *wa-gyō* kana, the term ‘居る’ preserves its kana usage.” “When this becomes a noun—for instance, in kana spellings like 位 (‘rank’), 圓居 (‘residence’), or 芝居 (‘theater’) derived from 坐に居る—it appears to shift to using the ‘い’ from the A-gyō row.” “Furthermore, even in the word ‘sue’ (据う), the kana spelling ‘sū’ had been preserved.” “When it comes to the ‘tsukue’ in ‘tsukisue’ or the ‘e’ in ‘ishizue,’ these end up belonging to the A-gyō row.” “When we examine such instances, I found that the demarcation did not appear clearly defined.” “I could not help but think that this proposal had not yet fully matured.” “The opinions of what were called education groups had been appearing in newspapers lately, and there seemed to be many points worthy of reference.” “While I did not adopt the general argument, I believed there might be valid aspects in what were called the education groups’ opinions regarding this consultation draft.” “Furthermore, regarding unresolved matters in kana usage within the national language—such as whether to write *kujira* as くぢら or くじら, or *tawara* as たはら or たわら—I believed these too, like the Sino-Japanese readings discussed earlier, should be thoroughly researched by institutions such as the National Language Research Council and their conclusions officially recognized.” “In any case, while there were indeed difficulties in kana usage for both Sino-Japanese readings and the national language, I did not believe they presented insurmountable difficulties.”

Therefore, if I may further condense my own opinion, it is as follows.
First, kana usage is indeed inherently conservative in nature.
However, even when viewed from the phonetic perspective, I do not recognize significant inconveniences.
Therefore, in textbooks and such materials, it should indeed be employed as the standard for kana usage; on this point, the Ministry of War generally shares this opinion.
Second, kana usage can indeed undergo phonetic reform.
The government should conduct investigations with utmost prudence and implement changes gradually.
At that time, with due consideration given to purifying the national language, corrections should be made incrementally.
It is as I have stated.
Thirdly, prior to reforming this kana usage—given unresolved orthographic issues in both national language and Sino-Japanese readings—I would commission such matters to a body of scholars to establish provisional standards for official recognition.
It is as I have stated.
Therefore, I cannot help but think this consultation draft remains insufficiently matured.
I have an additional opinion I wish to present.
“I earnestly hope the government will deepen its research into purely phonetic methods of writing our national language—investigating ways to render it as phonetically complete as Western phoneticians (Phonetik) pursue through their varied studies—for it is thus that I hold this view.”
“I must observe that what are termed phonetic kana in the current amendment proposal contain non-phonetic elements.”
“Was it you, Mr. Yano, who remarked thus? ‘When writing variants like kō (かう), kou (こう), kafu (かふ), or kofu (こふ) as kō (こう), it would phonetically be more appropriate to write koo (こお) using the o character.’ I find this most reasonable.”
“In old saibara poetry and similar works, I believe there exist examples where A-row vowels were appended subsequently in writing.”
“In such cases precisely—from the perspective of phonetic writing—it would be preferable to employ the A-row ‘o’ for writing ‘koo’ (こお) rather than using ‘kō’ (こう).”
“Other necessary examples of phonetic research include foreign words—such as what in English would be ‘are’ and ‘L’—which remain indistinctly represented when written.”
Such cases too require representation through some form of notation.
“If realized, I believe we could separately denote the sounds of r and l.”

“If methods for writing the national language entirely phonetically are thoroughly researched in advance, I believe this would form the foundation for determining how much could be adopted from them into kana usage.”
“It is my wish to compile such a master ledger first and then undertake revisions methodically.”

“Another matter I wish to address is that teaching new phonetic kana in elementary schools will become a source of confusion.”
“It may be stated that there is no need to teach that.”
“By all means, correct kana usage should be taught from the very start in elementary schools.”
“I want textbooks to be written using standard kana usage.”
“Therefore, we let the children write something themselves.”
“When it comes to having them write, they might write phonetically.”
“At that time, we do not treat phonetically written text as an error; we permit it.”
“In such cases—for teachers’ reference—were an investigation into phonetic writing methods of the sort I just described conducted, they could utilize it.”
“We will proceed in this manner: not treating what is written phonetically as errors.”
“If we proceed thusly, there will be absolutely no issue.”
“This constitutes true tolerance.”
“Therefore, the term ‘tolerance’ is being employed appropriately here.”
“Consequently, everything meeting the eye will come to adopt true kana usage.”
“If implemented thusly—as students progress from elementary to middle school—they will gradually master kana usage.”
“These are my views in broad terms.”

(Meiji 41 [June 1908])