CHAPTER XV.

FAMILY RELATIONS.

The family the unit of society—Adoption—The wife’s family relations—The father—Retirement—The retired father—The mother-in-law—A strong-willed daughter-in-law—Tender relations—Domestic discord—Sisters-in-law—Brothers-in-law—The wife usually forewarned—The husband also handicapped—His burdens—Old Japan’s ideas of wifely duties—The Japanese wife’s qualities—Petticoat government—The wife’s influence.

When a woman marries, her union with her husband is not more considered than her entry into his family. Marriage, it is true, has in all countries this twofold character; but it is especially the case in Japan where but a few decades separate us from the feudal times when, as in medieval Europe, the family was the unit of society; and it is only in recent years that the individual has begun to receive equal consideration with the family as an element of society. The Chinese sages laid down with great emphasis that the primary object of marriage is the perpetuation of the family line and that nothing is more unfilial than the failure of issue. Thus, feudalism and Confucianism combined to impress upon the nation the importance of the family succession. Moreover, every man has a natural desire to preserve his blood from extinction; and there is a still greater incentive towards the same end in the ancestor-worship which lies at the root of Shintoism. It is every man’s duty, according to that cult, to keep alive the memory of his ancestors, a duty which naturally devolves upon the head of the family; whence arises the necessity for every house of having a recognised head. And consequently, under the old regime primogeniture flourished in its strictest form; and younger sons and brothers were held of no account. In the feudal times the offices in the central government and in the daimiates were conferred only on the head of the family, the rest of which were merely his dependants. Cadets, therefore, could only acquire independence by being adopted into other families and becoming their heads, or in rare cases by founding branch families.

This system of adoption prevailed largely in the feudal times, and still exists, though not to so great an extent. For whereas adoption was formerly almost the only means of procuring independence open to the subordinate members of a family, now no one who is able to shift for himself would care to be adopted and to assume another’s surname unless some great advantage were to be gained thereby. Yet families without male issue must resort to adoption to prevent self-extinction. They adopt therefore from a family on a lower social level or one afflicted with too large a progeny. It is often a little child they undertake to bring up and so have a claim on its gratitude. A man who has daughters but no son, adopts a young man as his eldest daughter’s husband and makes him in due course the head of the family. Sometimes, the adoption and the marriage take place at the same time, when the bridegroom comes to the bride’s house and the usual relations between the two are reversed. The husband naturally assumes the wife’s surname. His position is not an enviable one; for though as the head of the family, he has a legal right to its property, still he is constantly reminded that he is an outsider and has to ingratiate himself with the members and relatives of the family. It is always possible to convene a meeting of these persons; and this council is all-powerful in the disposal of family affairs. In the old times, if a member of the family misbehaved himself disgracefully, the family council met and took measures for his punishment. It would act even against the will of the head; indeed, the head himself was not always exempt from its censure, and there are many instances of his being forced to retire in favour of a son or another member, and in military families, of his being required to wash away with his own life-blood the stain he had brought upon the family name. If one who had become the head by birth was so powerless in the presence of the family council, it will be readily surmised that the head by adoption would often be in a far worse plight than the other; he could be divorced from his wife if she was the daughter of the house, and driven out of the family. He would naturally be more liable than any other member to the censure of the family council.

If the adopted head of the family sometimes finds his position an irksome one, the wife who marries into another family has often, if it is a large one, as hard a time of it with her husband; she must not only put up with his whims and caprices, but she may have to bear with equal patience the humours of the rest of the family, who have her at their mercy as any one of them might by false representations easily prejudice her husband or his parents against her. She is constantly put on her mettle and has to guard against giving umbrage to any of her husband’s numerous relatives. Of course he may not happen to have a member of his family with him; but if he is living in his native place, a parent or some other near relative would probably be with him. Those who have come up from the country and made their way in the metropolis would more likely be by themselves as their parents would prefer to live at home and content themselves, if need be, with monthly remittances from their sons. If a man from the country has any one with him, it is commonly some young fellow, a relative, who lives with him to complete his education. Hence, as chances of discord increase with the size of the family, a girl or her parents not seldom stipulate, in looking for a husband, for a countryman rather than for a native of the capital. But as that condition cannot always be satisfied, the girl finds herself saddled with a father, mother, and other connections by marriage with whom she has to reckon if she would get on with her husband. Of these the most important are, needless to say, the parents.

Apart from the question of the continuation of the family line, the father and, more especially, the mother are naturally anxious to see their son married and fondle their grandchildren before they die. They have, moreover, as a rule, another motive in his marriage; which is, to make over the care of the household and live free from all anxiety. The father, if a samurai in the old days, would retire from his office in favour of his son, for many of the offices in the central and provincial governments were hereditary, unless he forfeited it by his own fault or through the caprice or displeasure of his lord. A merchant or tradesman would also, by making his son the head of his family, transfer to him his business and his name, himself assuming another name; for it was the rule in the old times, and still is to some extent, for a merchant to have a business-name, so to speak, which was handed down from father to son, each being distinguished from the rest by the degree of descent. This retirement is a long-established custom in this country and makes our habit of taking life easy such a contrast to the strenuous, hard-working ways of the western peoples who pride themselves upon dying in harness.

In the middle ages it was a common custom with the Emperors to abdicate. Many of them resigned their high office in the prime of manhood. Some retired to a monastery and lived in complete seclusion, while others resigned in name only and, putting upon the Throne a son or a near relative who was amenable to their will, exercised the authority without the responsibilities of sovereignty. This political retirement was imitated by many of their subjects. Among the most powerful leaders, both warriors and statesmen, not a few left their marks upon their times in nominal retirement from active life. There were men, also, who were, really or nominally for some fault or indiscretion committed, compelled to retire and make room for others more pleasing to the authorities. Many retired of their own will completely from the world. In short, retirement might be due in those days to four causes, namely, weariness of the world which led men to seek repose in the solitude of a hermitage or monastery, political reasons which left men better able to work their ambition under cover of retired life, official orders which imposed retirement as a disciplinary measure, and physical infirmities which disabled men from taking an active part in life. Among the military class all these causes were at work; but nowadays only the first and the last may be said to be effective.

In ancient times the officially-recognised minimum age-limit for retirement was seventy years; but later, in the feudal days, the limit was lowered to fifty years. Subsequently, however, such limits were ignored and men retired at what age they pleased. The usual pretext among the people was that they were compelled to retire by reason of physical infirmities; but not unfrequently the real reason was indolence and love of ease, to which they could yield the more readily since they knew that their sons would provide for them, serve them, and treat them with respect and reverence as all dutiful sons should, so that they could pass the rest of their lives free from care and anxiety. The retired father, who nowadays hardly ever withdraws into solitude, is a harmless old gentleman who takes to innocent amusements, such as playing chess or _go_ with his friends or entering into prize contests for Chinese poems or Japanese odes; he is contented so long as he is provided with his _menus plaisirs_. At worst he sits up late at home or at tea-houses with his cronies. He appears to be calmly awaiting his end with such little pleasures as his means permit; and if he is a sensible old fellow and can afford it, he will, while his wife is with him, live apart from his son and daughter-in-law so as not to give any occasion for family differences.

The mother, too, is harmless generally if she is over sixty; and even when under that age, she can do little mischief if she lives apart with her husband, beyond complaining perhaps to her neighbours that her daughter-in-law or son-in-law, as the case maybe, does not treat her with the consideration that is her due. Of course she thinks like all mothers that no partner however unexceptionable in disposition, ability, or personal appearance, can be good enough for her child; and her complaint is taken for what it is worth by her neighbours unless they really detect any flagrant breach of filial duty. But it is the widow ranging in age from forty to fifty who is the greatest disturber of domestic peace. She is too old to attract, and yet not old enough to realise that fact and abandon hope; and jealous of a younger woman in the house, she rebukes her in a dog-in-the-manger spirit for any demonstration of love when she is with her husband. She is the worst of mothers-in-law; but others run her hard. A widow under forty cannot readily acquiesce in the relegation of household authority to another woman and often wreaks vengeance for thus supplanting her by an ill-natured tongue and the imposition of degrading work; for mistress as she is of the house, the young wife has in all things, as a matter of filial duty, to submit to her mother-in-law’s will.

In the present stage of Japanese society, the lack of sympathy between a man’s wife and mother is aggravated by the difference in their education. The older woman, being separated from the younger by the yawning gulf which divides Old from New Japan, cannot perceive why the ideas in which she was herself brought up should not be good enough for the other and finds fault with what are in her eyes outlandish ways introduced by the new era. She is loud in praise of the old, harping upon the ideal state of things that would have prevailed if the world had remained unchanged, and thinks that it has retrograded socially, morally, and even physically in the interval, grumbling that the weather itself has been affected by the innovations of these latter days and refuses to bring storm and sunshine in the good old downright fashion. Such women cannot be reasonably expected to get on with those of the younger generation who have passed the primary school and probably the girls’ high school and acquired a smattering of western knowledge. The instinctive antipathy between the mother-in-law and the son-in-law, which is a stock joke with the European comic press, dwindles into insignificance when compared with the feeling which sometimes arises between the former and her daughter-in-law.

But armed as she is with the unlimited authority with which custom has invested parents, the mother-in-law has not always the best of it in the tussle with her daughter-in-law. She may be good-natured and submit to the other as readily as she has submitted all her life to her husband; or she may be accessible to flattery and be made the other’s tool by judicious coaxing. She is under the thumb of her superior in wit, will, or tact. She may be made to consent to live apart from the young couple if her husband is still living, or to content herself with the use of a single room in their house if she is a widow; and sometimes she becomes little better than an upper servant. A daughter-in-law who can make her a willing slave, exercises as great an influence over her husband and can persuade him to acquiesce in any proposal that she may make with respect to his mother.

It must, however, be admitted in justice to the mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law that there are many pleasant exceptions. Mothers-in-law there are in abundance who are willing to give the young wife any help in their power and afford her every chance of establishing herself in the household. They recognise the change in the times, and with the vague optimism of old age, hope for the best and cheerfully resign themselves to the lead of their sons’ wives. The wife too, on her part, is not insensible to these kindly advances and serves her mother-in-law with all her heart, ministers to her wants, and guides her gently as she totters to the grave. In many a household such peaceful relations subsist. Then, again, the child-birth pain is the purgatory out of which the young wife rises to be received with deeper love by the whole family, and by right of motherhood, strengthens her position in the household.

The child being, as a Japanese proverb says, the chain that binds the husband and the wife to each other, the latter’s hold on her husband’s affection becomes stronger when she is a mother; but a Japanese work on etiquette warns the wife that as her husband’s parents, brothers, and sisters, however well-intentioned they may be towards her, are not after all of her blood, she must be careful never to give cause for offence and be on her guard against any thoughtless deed or word likely to set their tongues wagging, and that she should consider herself to be in the enemy’s country and be prepared for surprises and ambuscades. The advice is no doubt sound; but it implies the possibility of family disturbances when too many of the husband’s near relatives live with him, and the inference is that however well-disposed such relatives may be, the wife cannot count for a certainty upon a life of unruffled calm, and their dwelling under the same roof with her must always be a factor, actual or potential, of domestic discord; in other words, so long as this custom holds, conjugal happiness must be more or less problematical.

Besides her husband’s parents, the wife has to reckon with his brothers and sisters. If he is the head of the family, he is probably the eldest child of his parents, and his sisters would have to treat his wife as an elder sister though she may actually be younger than themselves. Girls, however, being naturally impressionable, are, if they are well treated, easy to manage unless they are particularly ill-tempered or maliciously disposed; but if they think they are slighted, they become the most malignant of spies and exaggerate to their parents any fault she may be guilty of. The wife has therefore to win them over. Happily for her, the girls will be sooner or later disposed of in marriage; but her trials will be more than doubled if any of them leave their husbands and come home. They are then no longer innocent, chattering hobbledehoys; but having had an experience, unpleasant in all likelihood, of married life and lived in discord with their husbands or mothers-in-law, for otherwise they would not have been divorced, they look with envy upon any demonstration of conjugal affection and attempt to sow dissension in the family.

With her brothers-in-law the wife is on easier terms. They are not as a rule inquisitive; they treat her with indulgence; and in a quarrel they will cheerfully take her side against their brother. But she is put to her hardest task when there is a scapegrace among them. The trouble is of another sort than that which confronts her in dealing with a sister-in-law. The ne’er-do-well is usually, as in other countries, the youngest of the family and his mother’s spoilt child. His brother, knowing his evil ways, forbids his wife to have anything to do with him. But the scamp is smooth-tongued and, making up to her with offers of service, worms himself into her favour. The wife, too, knows that his enmity will certainly endanger her standing with his mother and, willing to give her pleasure, yields to his importunities and from time to time supplies him with money by cutting down the household expenses. Thus, with the best intentions she is placed in an awkward position; she must defraud her husband to please his mother, and if she is found out, she will be sharply brought round; and meanwhile, she lives in fear and trepidation.

With all these encumbrances in her home, the wife’s life may appear to be well-nigh intolerable. Fortunately for her, however, her husband’s family is not always so complete; it is not often that she finds there both parents, brothers and sisters in full force, and children by a former marriage. It would under such circumstances have been better, had she remained at home, though it may of course happen that the whole family are taken with her, or are easy-going and kindly-disposed, or are won by her tact, gentleness, and sweet temper. But even if they are not all that may be desired, the wife goes into the family with her eyes open; for when the proposal of marriage was informally made by the go-between, she could easily have ascertained through friends by inquiry in the neighbourhood the size and general character of the family with which her union was sought: and it was only by gross carelessness or wilful misrepresentation on the part of her agents that she could have been kept ignorant of the fate that awaited her.

If the wife is handicapped in her bid for conjugal happiness by the size of her husband’s family, he is under no less disadvantage for the same reason. If she finds it difficult to get on smoothly with all the members of his family, he encounters quite as much difficulty in feeding so many mouths; for the whole family are often dependent upon him, as in all probability his parents pinched themselves to find means for his education so that when he completed it and made his way in the world, he might make up for their sacrifices. But even if they had done nothing for him, he would still be expected to support them. The new Civil Code recognises this right on the part of the parents; and the head of the family has also to support his brothers and sisters and other members of his house, in addition to his wife and children. Besides these possible dependants whose claims are admitted by law, there are others whose appeals on the score of kinship however remote he cannot altogether ignore, as custom allows those related by blood or marriage to look for help to the least unfortunate among them. Thus, the father of a family has to spend the money he could otherwise save up for his children in maintaining his uncles, aunts, and cousins and some of his wife’s near relations, who, as long as he supports them, stick to him like leeches and follow him about with all the pertinacity of Sir Joseph Porter’s female relatives.

From the social point of view this is undoubtedly an excellent system, for the nation at large is not burdened with the support of its poor; only the comparatively few without relatives to whom they can turn have to be maintained at the public expense. We have not, therefore, so far been confronted by the pauper question, as the poor are provided for by their own people. But it cannot at the same time be denied that the system bears hardly upon the individuals on whom falls the duty of maintaining their poor relations; and especially is this the case with a young man at the threshold of his career. He marries, as we have already observed, not because he can support a family without embarrassment, but because he is in need of some one to manage his house. In the matter of marriage the Japanese is ordinarily improvident; he does not allow financial considerations to enter into his matrimonial plans. It is generally with great difficulty that he can afford to help his relatives. So that under the circumstances a young man married is often with us, if not actually a man that’s marred, at least one that is heavily handicapped and forced to struggle against great odds. A man who has to earn his own living must sweat and starve, slaving from morning till night, to support these drones; and whatever ambition he may have harboured in the flush of youth is ruthlessly dashed to the ground, and his life is frittered away in sordid cares and petty troubles.

The great authority for two centuries on the conduct of women who enter into matrimony was a work written by a Japanese scholar and based on the teachings of the Chinese sages. This book enjoins upon the wife unconditional obedience to her husband. She is told that she is in every respect his inferior, and she is expected to be so overwhelmed with the sense of her own unworthiness that she must in all things submit to her husband who is the absolute lord and master of her body and soul; whatever he may do, she is not to murmur against it, but she is to be humble when she is in the right; and all the while, over her hangs the Damocles’s sword of divorce. The position to which she is relegated by the Japanese guide to wifely conduct is merely that of an upper servant; for no matter how many domestics there may be in the house, she must do menial work. She must share with her husband all the hardships of grinding poverty; and when fortune smiles, he may live in luxury and entertain many friends, but she must not frequent public resorts or go sight-seeing. Wealth may bring her more conveniences, but not more pleasure; and until she is forty years old, she is not to be seen in company, but to remain at home minding her house and children.

Such are the injunctions of the Japanese authority on female conduct; but happily the practice is better than the precept. There may be, thanks to these teachings, furniture wives, as Lamb calls them, who are of little use beyond filling their places in their households; but human nature breaks even through the cast-iron rules which hold it down, and, the sages and moral guides notwithstanding, there are countless happy homes which are unfortunately less heard of than those in which dissensions are rife for the same reason as that our attention is always more drawn to careers of crime and adventure than to quiet, eventless lives. Had our women become what the old teachers wished them to be, it is certain that we should not have retained our vitality through the centuries of feudalism and burst out after ages of inert isolation into all the vigour and energy of a freshly-sprung nation. It is an indirect tribute to our women that the race has preserved unimpaired those high qualities which have since raised it to its present position among the nations of the world.

Japanese wives are gentle, docile, and obedient; but let not the western husbands who groan under petticoat government, imagine that Japanese benedicts always have it their own way, for even in Japan the grey mare is sometimes the better horse, as many a henpecked one knows to his cost. There are termagants and viragoes with us as in other countries; the only difference is that our scolds are not so obtrusive as those of the West, and yet do enough to convince the luckless wight that he has caught a Tartar. Just as the omission of honorifics in Japanese speech is as rude as the use of profane language in English, so the absence of those gentle manners with which we invariably associate our women is an even surer index of coarseness and vulgarity than the violence of a western shrew. The Japanese vixen can therefore, without any roughness of manners, nag and harass her husband quite as effectually, though her methods may be quieter than those of the occidental species.

Labouring as she is under many disadvantages, the Japanese wife does not get credit for her good qualities, because she always keeps in the background. Neither she nor her husband ever sings the other’s praises in public; on the contrary, mutual depreciation is the custom. And yet all her efforts are directed to her husband’s cutting a creditable figure among his acquaintances. A good, sensible, tactful wife is a jewel with us no less than with the wise man of yore; and her adroitness covers a multitude of defects in her husband. And for all his brave show, often, as our proverb says, “’tis the hen that tells the cock to crow.”