Dr. David Murray: Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, 1873-1879 9780813595016

Citation preview

DR. DAVID MURRAY 

DR. DAVID MURRAY  Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, 1873–1879

B e n ja m i n D u k e

rutgers university press new brunswick, camden, and newark, new jersey, and london

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Duke, Benjamin C., author. Title: Dr. David Murray : superintendent of education in the empire of Japan, 1873–1879 / Benjamin Duke. Description: New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017054288 | ISBN 9780813594972 (hardback) | ISBN 9780813594996 (epub) | ISBN 9780813595016 (web pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Murray, David, 1830–1905. | Education—Japan—History—19th century. | Public schools—Japan—History—19th century. | Education and state—Japan—History—19th century. | Educators—Japan—Biography. | Rutgers College—Employees—Biography. | College teachers—New Jersey—Biography. | BISAC: EDUCATION / History. | BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY / Educators. | HISTORY / Asia / Japan. | EDUCATION / Educational Policy & Reform / School Safety & Violence. | HISTORY / United States / State & Local / Middle Atlantic (DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA). Classification: LCC LA2383.J3 M874 2019 | DDC 370.95209034—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017054288 A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. Copyright © 2019 by Benjamin Duke All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 106 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. The only exception to this prohibition is “fair use” as defined by U.S. copyright law. The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. www.rutgersuniversitypress.org Manufactured in the United States of America

C O N T E NTS

Introduction: In Memoriam of David Murray: A Pioneer of Modern Japanese Education 1 PA RT I

Encountering the Japanese in America: 1866–1873 1

Dr. David Murray’s Awakening to Japan: Befriending Samurai Students at Rutgers College, 1866–1873 11

2

The Samurai Invasion of New Brunswick: From Feudal Japan to New Jersey, 1865–1875

3 4

40

Murray’s Celebrated Class of 1868: The First Rutgers Educational Pioneers to Japan

72

Murray’s Employment in the Service of the Emperor: The Iwakura Embassy to Washington, 1872 97 PA RT I I

Murray’s First Period as Superintendent of Education in Japan and America: 1873–1876 5

Japanese Education before Murray’s Arrival: Confucian Schools for the Governing Samurai

137

6

Murray’s Introduction to Japanese Education: The Gakusei—The First Year of Universal Education, 1873 169

7

Murray’s 1874 Report: Setting the Direction of Modern Japanese Education, 1874–1875 202 v

vi

C on te n ts

8

The Japanese Educational Exhibit at the American Centennial: The Making of a Comparative Educator, 1876 243 PA RT I I I

David Murray’s Final Period in the Service of the Emperor: 1877–1879 9

10 11

Murray’s Controversial Report to the Ministry of Education: The Dispute over Control of Japanese Education, 1877 273 Murray’s Final Report and Departure: A Survey of Tokyo’s Public Schools, 1878–1879

303

David Murray’s Legacy for Japan: Setting the Direction of Japanese Education for the Twentieth Century 329 Acknowledgments Notes 359 Index 379

355

DR. DAVID MURRAY 

introduction



IN MEMORIAM OF DAVID MURRAY a pioneer of modern japanese education

In the histories of early Japanese-American relations, the roles of Dr. David Murray, professor of mathematics at Rutgers College in New Jersey, and of Rutgers College itself have not been appropriately recognized. Murray, appointed by the Japanese government as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan in 1873, served as a senior officer in the Ministry of Education for over five years when the first public school system in Japan, the Gakusei, was launched. The significance of the Gakusei is that it marks the beginning of modern education in Japan following the end of several hundred years of feudal Tokugawa government. The monumental goal of the restored Meiji government was to launch the nation’s first modern public school system to accommodate all children of elementary school age, a standard that no nation in the world had achieved by that time. With Murray as the Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education, then responsible for implementing the Gakusei, his unwavering commitment to its success under the Japanese director of the Ministry renders him as a pioneer of modern Japanese education. The incredible story of Murray’s awakening to Japan in America through his encounter in the 1800s with the many samurai youth from Japan who found their way to the small Christian-related Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey, remains untold in the histories of the period. By opening their home as a social center for sons of the warrior class in feudal Japan, the Murrays endured themselves to the lads who were so far from home and eager to learn the ways of the West. In the process, however, the Murrays became so fascinated by their new foreign friends, described as “models of courtesy, honor and diligence,” that David made an unwavering commitment to the future of Japan. Through a series of unexpected developments, Murray welcomed the offer from the Japanese government to become the Superintendent of Education in the service of the emperor of Japan. 1

2

Dr. Davi d Murray

Tsuchiya Tadao, eminent educational historian of Japan, was one of the first postwar scholars to pay tribute in memoriam of Murray in his book Kindai Nihon Kyōiku no Kaitakusha (Pioneers of Modern Japanese Education). For his opening chapter, he chose Murray from within that select group of educational pioneers for his outstanding contributions in the service of Emperor Meiji.1 He begins by describing the entrance hall of the prestigious Japan Academy in Ueno, Tokyo, as he observed it. Decorating the walls were the portraits of all the past presidents of the academy in order of their tenure from its foundation in 1879, with Fukuzawa Yukichi as the first one. A curiosity to visitors at the Japan Academy, over the mantelpiece also hung the portrait of a foreigner. Only by reading the inscription at the bottom could one learn that it is the portrait of Superintendent (Gakkan) Murray.2 The unlikely relationship between the modern Japan Academy of the twentyfirst century and Murray of the nineteenth century can be traced back to the mutual understanding of the terms of the contract between Murray and the Meiji government, signed in March 1873.3 Then on the mathematics faculty of Rutgers College, Murray was appointed Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education with the assignment to recommend to the Japanese head of the Ministry the best systems and practices of education in the West. They were intended to serve as models for the implementation of Japan’s first national public school system. As it turned out, the director of the Ministry of Education, Tanaka Fujimaro, was an uncommon ex-samurai who, as the senior officer in the Ministry, was ultimately responsible for the unprecedented mandate to develop the first public school system in the nation’s history. Murray quickly earned Tanaka’s respect, which led to a warm social relationship between the families in Tokyo that proved mutually enjoyable. Tanaka Fujimaro implemented as many of his foreign adviser’s recommendations as possible under the circumstances of a nation emerging from feudalism just five years previously. In Murray’s most important report, solicited by Tanaka in 1877 for a major reform of the new school system only four years old, he included a section at the end as an addendum not directly related to the main body of his recommendations. Murray took the opportunity to recommend in that section the foundation of a Japanese academy, a “board of learned men” under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, whose president would be appointed by the Ministry. Its purpose was to undertake research and prepare reports on the “momentous questions relating to education” as Japan was undergoing its transformation from feudalism to modernism.4 Although Tanaka was involved at that moment in a bitter dispute within the Ministry and with the imperial household over his educational reforms during Murray’s last full year at the Ministry in 1878, he nevertheless was able to launch the Tokyo Academy (Tokyo Gakushiin) within the guidelines of Murray’s

i nt rodu ct ion

3

recommendations on January 15, 1879.5 He appointed the nation’s leading intellectual of the day, Fukuzawa Yukichi, founder of the great Keio University, as the first president. Based on this historical background, the Japan Academy recognizes Fukuzawa first among its long line of presidents. The academy also recognized an American, David Murray, for his instrumental role in its foundation by placing his portrait alongside those of its distinguished Japanese presidents. In 1908, thirty years after Murray completed his second and final contract as Superintendent of Education in Japan and three years after his death, a distinguished group of Japanese joined in an unusual tribute in memoriam of Murray. The Japan Times reported that one hundred scholars, professors, and pioneer educators gathered at the prestigious Peers Club in Tokyo “to do posthumous homage to their common friend and perchance their benefactor.”6 Among them was Prince Iwakura, son of the late Iwakura Tomomi, one of the most powerful leaders of the early Meiji government, with whom the Murrays had developed a close personal friendship during his student days at Rutgers College that carried over to Japan. Also in attendance among the many dignitaries was the Minister of Education, Baron Makino, chairman of the meeting, who eulogized Murray accordingly: A man with such large experience in educational matters and gifted with wonderful talent for the organization of educational systems, as Dr. Murray acknowledgedly [sic] was, placed in such a position at such a juncture, could not have failed to do the most useful work. For nearly six years he set his heart and soul to the various tasks entrusted to him by the Japanese Government, such as the carrying out and in some respects remodeling the elementary school system, the outline of which had been drawn before his advent, nourishing the germ of the present Imperial Tokyo University, laying the foundation of women’s education in Japan, which saw its beginning in the establishment of Tokyo Women’s High Normal School, and so on.7

The following year Rutgers College named a newly constructed building on campus as Murray Hall in memoriam of David Murray, which remains in place today. The honor was posthumously bestowed on Murray as a former faculty member for ten years before he joined the Japanese government in 1873 and as college trustee after his return from Japan from 1892 until his death in 1905. He was particularly remembered for his instrumental role in establishing the Rutgers Scientific School and “with securing land-grant status for the college in 1864.”8 The first opportunity for the Japan Academy in its earlier form to officially pay its respects to Murray came in February 1910, five years after his death. Baron Kikuchi Dairoku, then President of the Imperial Academy (Teikoku Gakushiin; previously the Tokyo Academy),9 accompanied by Mrs. Murray, made appropriate

4

Dr. Davi d Murray

Figure I.1. Murray Hall, Rutgers College, 1909. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

remarks and placed a wreath on Murray’s grave. It was witnessed by the president and the Board of Trustees of Rutgers College. In a resolution passed by the academy in December 1909, the Minister of Education noted Murray’s critical role in the academy’s foundation. He also commissioned Baron Kikuchi to represent the Ministry itself in honor of its former ranking official for his “eminent services rendered to this country” decades earlier:10 At the general meeting of the Teikoku Gakushiin [Imperial Academy] held on the 12th of December, 1909, it was unanimously Resolved that, as Baron Dairoku Kikuchi, a member of this Academy and holding the office of president of the same, is about to proceed to America, he shall be instructed to visit, as the representative of this Academy, the grave of the late Dr. David Murray, some time Superintendent of Education in the Department of Education, at whose representation this Academy was established, there to pay proper respects to him. Many eminent services rendered to our county by Dr. D. Murray, who was invited to Japan as Superintendent of Education at the time when the basis of our educational system was not yet firmly established, are well known, and as I [minister of education] understand that you are going to visit his grave representing the Imperial Academy, I request you to act on that occasion also as the representative of the Department of Education, and to pay due respects to him. Yeitaro Komatsubara

i nt rodu ct ion

5

As reported in the New York Times and the Rutgers College student newspaper,11 final plans went well beyond a grave site visit. After placing the wreath, Baron Kikuchi gave a lecture in the magnificent Kirkpatrick Chapel, which was built in 1873, the year that Murray left for Japan. Fittingly, the baron gave his lecture near the portrait of David Murray that was displayed on the hallowed walls of the chapel among others recognized for their outstanding contribution to Rutgers College. Mrs. Murray had donated it to the college in 1907 in a ceremony at Kirkpatrick, where it hangs today.12 The baron’s lecture was entitled “The Intellectual and Moral Uplift of Japan,” in which he “reviewed the educational system from the earliest time up to the present day, showing how it was related to and was brought about by foreign influences.”13 The day’s activities continued with a reception given for Baron Kikuchi in the Alumni House by members of the faculty and friends of Rutgers College. It ended with dinner in honor of the baron by President Demarest of the college.14 The occasion was a fitting event in memoriam of Murray, the last time the Japanese government or Rutgers College participated in such an affair. Five years later in 1915, friends, colleagues, and former students of Murray’s at Rutgers College compiled testimonials and recollections of Murray in

Figure I.2. Baron Kikuchi (left), president of the Imperial Academy, with Martha Murray at the grave site of David Murray, February 21, 1910. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

6

Dr. Davi d Murray

a seventy-page document entitled In Memoriam: David Murray, PhD., L.L.D., Superintendent of Educational Affairs in the Empire of Japan, and Advisor to the Japanese Imperial Minister of Education 1873–1879. Published privately, it represented the first biography, however brief, of Murray. It included a biographical sketch covering his life, from his childhood education in the tiny hamlet of Bovina in the state of New York, to his professorship at Rutgers College, to his service in Japan and afterward. The introduction by a former colleague was a tribute to Murray reflecting the sentiments of all who knew the man:15 Dr. Murray was a man of the broadest interest, a rare and delightful personality, with a flavor of distinction which added charm to all he said and did. He was not only an educationist, but also a counselor of insight and wisdom, a strong public character, and withal a man so modest and so reserved that only those who penetrated beneath the surface knew what a unique character his was. The memory of a life of such generous and unselfish devotion to high ideals of service and of friendship is enshrined in many hearts. Those who loved and admired him will derive deep satisfaction from this Memorial Volume to Dr. David Murray.

The most recent recognition of Murray’s contribution to Modern Japanese Education in the early 1870s appears in the 1971 edition of the Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten (Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education), edited by a leading educational historian of postwar Japan, Kaigo Tokiomi. It remains the definitive work of the period. Indicative of the importance and magnitude of Murray’s role in modern Japanese education from the Japanese perspective, Kaigo included nine references on Murray throughout the 750-page encyclopedia. The first one appears on page 4, the last one on page 600. Of note, only two Japanese names appear in the encyclopedia before Murray’s extensive section. Ironically they are Mori Arinori, who sent the contract of employment to Murray in 1873, and Iwakura Tomomi. Iwakura was head of the Japanese government when the Murrays befriended his two sons studying at Rutgers and who participated in the hiring of Murray for government service on his visit to Washington in 1872 as head of the Iwakura mission, where he first met Murray. In contrast, the only Japanese to have more references listed in the encyclopedia than Murray is Mori, with eleven. He was the most powerful as well as controversial Minister of Education long after Murray left Japan. Noted above, Mori, as Japan’s chargé d’affaires in Washington, was instrumental in hiring Murray for his senior position with the Japanese government in 1872. Among the entries on Murray in the encyclopedia, the lengthy coverage at the beginning is of the greatest significance. Rather remarkably in an encyclopedia on modern Japanese education, the background of an American, Murray, as a child

i nt rodu ct ion

7

of a Scottish immigrant to America is followed by an account of his education from elementary school through college. His record of academic positions up to and including Rutgers College lays the basis for his employment by the Japanese government as Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education. Murray’s many contributions are then analyzed in various sections of the encyclopedia, including, for example, his special role in the beginning of female teacher training in 1874. He is also recognized as the author of the opening chapter and editor of the first history of Japanese education ever published in any language, titled An Outline History of Japanese Education.16 His role as an adviser in the establishment of the preeminent Tokyo University in 1877, for which he was chosen to give the congratulatory lecture at its first graduation ceremony, is also included in the section on higher education in Japan. Perhaps most surprisingly, an image of the cover page for In Memoriam is carried within the initial reference of the encyclopedia on page 4. Kaigo, the editor, quotes liberally from Murray’s first brief biography in describing his background before going to Japan. No other individual, Japanese or non-Japanese, is given the magnitude of personal coverage as Murray. It stands as a testimony to the accomplishments of this uncommon American recognized as a pioneer of modern education in Japan by one of the most prominent Japanese historians. The following biography is intended as the second In Memoriam of Murray. It is a tribute to his unprecedented role in early Japanese-American relations. It covers the period when Murray served as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan from 1873 to 1879, beginning at his home institution in 1866, when the first two samurai youth appeared unexpectedly on the campus of Rutgers College. The story ends with his departure from Japan in January 1879, which was marked by many farewell events and ceremonies put on by his Japanese colleagues and friends in appreciation, including the conferring of the Third Order of the Rising Sun by Emperor Meiji for Murray’s service to the imperial government. An analysis of Murray’s legacy to Japan into the twentieth century completes the biography.

PA RT I



ENCOUNTERING THE JAPANESE IN AMERICA

1866–1873

chapter 1



DR. DAVID MURRAY’S AWAKENING TO JAPAN befriending samurai students at rutgers college, 1866–1873 In November 1866, one year after the American Civil War ended, two young samurai brothers from Japan unexpectedly appeared on the campus of Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Dressed in Western attire with their topknots recently cut off and without the two swords that marked the warrior class of a feudal society, they had found their way to the United States on a special mission. As they explained it, they made the long journey “to study navigation to learn how to build big ships and make big guns to prevent European powers from taking possession of their country.”1 It was later characterized as the beginning of a “Japanese Invasion of New Brunswick.”2 Over one hundred samurai youth from Japan arrived in New Brunswick during the next ten years, eager for a Western education.3 Many of them enrolled in either the preparatory Rutgers Grammar School or the Scientific School of Rutgers College, where Dr. David Murray, professor of mathematics and natural philosophy, first met them. That fateful encounter would not only spark an awakening to Japan by Murray, it also initiated one of the most remarkable episodes in early Japanese-American relations. Rutgers College—the small Christian denominational institution on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, originally founded by the Dutch Reformed Church of America—exerted an influence directly and indirectly on modern Japanese education unsurpassed by any other educational institution outside of Japan. Moreover, David Murray’s encounter with the young Japanese samurai at New Brunswick led to his employment by the Japanese government as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan in 1873. As a senior officer in the Ministry of Education, he ranked only below that of the Japanese director. Murray was destined to play a significant role in launching Japan’s first modern 11

12

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

public school system in the 1870s as a pioneer of modern Japanese education in the service of the emperor. No other American would make a greater contribution to the foundation of modern Japanese education. The samurai brothers who found their way to America during the feudal Tokugawa era carried a cryptic letter of introduction from Reverend Guido Verbeck, a Dutch immigrant to America. In 1859 Verbeck had been assigned as a missionary from the Dutch Reformed Church of America in the southern Japanese port of Nagasaki. The two young Japanese were students from his English class. The letter was addressed by Verbeck to John Ferris, head of the Board of Missions of the Dutch Reformed Church in New York City, which had founded Rutgers College in nearby New Jersey.4 Nagasaki, 10 June 1866 Rev. J. M. Ferris 103 Fulton Street, N.Y. My dear Mr. Ferris: Allow this to introduce to your kind offices the brothers, Yokoi Saheida and Yokoi Daihei, two brothers from the country of Higo on this island, about which I shall further write you by mail. Yours very truly, Guido F. Verbeck The mysterious arrival of the two Japanese boys in New York City in 1866 set off a succession of eager samurai youth who enrolled at Rutgers College and its preparatory school through the office of John Ferris. As a result, the small town of New Brunswick, New Jersey, characterized as “the Mecca of the Japanese pilgrims for knowledge,”5 became the primary center in America for students from the ruling samurai class to continue their education beyond the training of warriors available to them in feudal Japan. At the time, “some jealous and envious Princetonians” disingenuously referred to New Brunswick as the “Japanese town.”6 William Elliot Griffis, a graduate of Rutgers College who first encountered the Japanese samurai as a fellow student both in the classroom and in the boarding house, described the impact of the samurai youth on the town of New Brunswick in quaint but revealing terms: It was a mysterious invasion, that of the Japanese of the old college town of New Brunswick on the Raritan. . . . They arrived at first by twos and threes . . . it was debated whether these new Asians were “colored people,” or could sit down side by side with white folks . . . they seemed not only very polite, but they wore their courtesy like an easy garment, to which they had long been

Figure 1.1. Yokoi brothers, 1866: Yokoi Saheida (standing), Yokoi Daihei (sitting). D. Clark, photographer, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

14

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3 used. It was too genuine, too much like native air, to have been “learned in America” or elsewhere than home . . . these brown boys had a hard finish of elegant manners that quite out shone that of the boys even of Sumerset County, fairest of the fair counties of New Jersey. The mystery deepened when, instead of two, there came ten, twenty, thirty Japanese lads, and still the wonder grew that they were all polite polished gentlemen. . . . It was great fun and constant delight in those days to watch the ways of the future admiral in the Japanese navy, the coming envoy of the Mikado at Washington or to European capitals, the governors of provinces, and the embryo captains and generals in the army. Perhaps all these lads, some of them with their top knots hardly cut yet, came to the capital of the Reformed Church in America because they did not know that there were in the great United States other schools and colleges.7

Indeed, the first “samurai lads” who arrived at Rutgers College from Japan in the mid-1860s did not know about other schools and colleges in America. They had come directly from a country that had experienced several hundred years of feudalism under the Tokugawa family regime virtually closed to the Western world. Nor were they aware that Rutgers College was a struggling institution emerging from one crisis after another since its founding. It was an unlikely place for young Japanese samurai educated in Confucian studies to “study navigation to learn how to build big ships and make big guns.” According to the history of Rutgers College, at the time the American Civil War ended, the institution seemingly had little to offer samurai youth from feudal Japan: “Rutgers College was a church-related institution, serving a small constituency and preparing a limited number of students for the older learned professions by means of a curriculum that rested heavily on the classics and that sought to develop discipline, inculcate piety, and inspire reverence for traditional values.”8

Figure 1.2. Rutgers College Campus, 1879, engraving, Photogens Co., New York. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

15

Originally founded in 1771 as Queen’s College by leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church in America, the institution had a limited purpose. The preamble to the charter of the new institution noted that “members of the Reformed Dutch Church believed it necessary that an institution should be established to supply the churches with an able and learned ministry because of the inconvenience involved in sending young men abroad for their education. Accordingly, the Trustees were empowered to erect a college for the education of the youth in the learned languages, liberal and useful arts and sciences, and especially in divinity, preparing them for the ministry and other good offices.”9 By the end of the eighteenth century, Queen’s College had not lived up to its expectations, with financial problems and dissension within the Dutch Reformed Church over its purpose, its location, its staffing, and so on, which kept the number of students low. With only two graduates in 1795, Queen’s College was closed. It was reopened in 1807, with students in attendance never exceeding thirty at one time. Finally in 1823, when Queen’s College presented a “forlorn, even desolate appearance,” a revival movement was launched to rename the institution after Colonel Henry Rutgers, one of the most prominent laymen among the Dutch Reformed Church membership. The classical curriculum remained virtually in place. The college under the new name faced continuing problems of funding, low enrollments, and disputes with the Dutch Reformed Church that sponsored it. When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, five years before the first Japanese students arrived, Rutgers College was desperately in need of reform. Totally oblivious of the state of affairs at Rutgers College, the Japanese students were not welcomed by some residents of the town, regardless of William Elliot Griffis’s most positive impression of them. In the absence of student dormitories, rooms had to be found for them in private homes within the community. Although John Ferris quickly found accommodations for the Yokoi brothers when “two excellent Christian ladies” welcomed them into their homes as an “important work for the Master and Japan,”10 it became more difficult to find homes for the Japanese students as the numbers increased. Ferris reported that he “once spent two days unsuccessfully endeavoring to obtain rooms in a private boarding house for a Japanese prince, a member of the Imperial family, and his three attendants, who were very courteous gentlemen.” Boarding house owners were concerned that the unpredictable Japanese students would provoke other boarders to leave. Nevertheless, the best homes in New Brunswick were gradually opened to the students from Japan.11 William Elliot Griffis, a student and then faculty member at Rutgers College’s attached preparatory school, had become deeply impressed with the young Japanese. He described them in terms not usually attributed to a warrior class—the Bushidoo known as samurai. His lauding of them as courteous, polite, polished gentlemen who “out shone the finest of the local boys from Sumerset County”

16

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

was intended to convey an image of an ideal student at Rutgers College. Griffis further described the Japanese invasion of New Brunswick in lofty terms: “Never before, on so large a scale and for so long a period, was there such a migration of elect young people, a body of real students, leaving their country, not for trade or gain, but for the definite purpose of mental culture.”12 Griffis, like Murray, experienced an awakening to Japan through his encounter with the samurai youth that was manifested later in his acceptance of a teaching position in Japan as well as by his voluminous writings on Japanese history and the imperial system. Griffis identified the uncle of the first two students who arrived at New Brunswick from Japan, the Yokoi brothers Saheida and Daihei, as Yokoi Heishiro (Shōnan), “the famous teacher of Oyomei philosophy.”13 A samurai activist for social and moral reform, the uncle motivated and financed his two nephews to seek an education in America with Guido Verbeck’s recommendation. He also brought about a reform in the thinking of the clan leaders in the remote province of Echizen, where he served as an adviser to the daimyo. It was the resulting progressive tendencies among the Echizen domain leadership that led to their request for an American to teach modern science and English in the hinterlands of Japan that attracted Griffis, dubbed as the first Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan in chapter 3, to fill the position in Echizen. The Yokoi brothers epitomized a special class of samurai warrior youth that followed them to New Brunswick. They did not originate from the average samurai family. Many came from progressive-minded samurai families like Yokoi Shōnan who were seeking to end the long period of international isolation under the feudal Tokugawa government. Their samurai fathers, although of a hereditary ruling warrior elite, had given up the sword years earlier. Sending their sons to the West for a modern education reflected the forward thinking of the fathers whose sons entered the Meiji government following the Imperial Restoration of 1868, which brought the feudal Tokugawa regime to an end. The samurai youth in New Brunswick in the mid-1800s represented the finest tradition of the governing samurai class in feudal Japan. David Murray, a member of the Rutgers College faculty since 1863, encountered the young samurai from Japan in his mathematics classes. When he joined the faculty three years before the first two Japanese students arrived, the single curriculum for all students centered on the classics deemed appropriate for the preparation of clergymen for the Dutch Reformed Church of America. The institution was then undergoing another crisis of finance, of the relationship to its founding organization, and of its leadership. It was, as noted, a struggling institution. The vivid description of Rutgers College in the early 1860s resembled, to some extent, that of the domain schools of feudal Japan, where the samurai youth who came to Rutgers from 1866 received their basic education. They learned moral values from the Confucian classics rather than Christian values from the Bible.

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

17

About half of the Rutgers graduates entered the Christian ministry, mostly in the Dutch Reform Church of America. The graduates of the domain schools of Japan entered the governing elite as their hereditary right. However, of historical relevance in the early relationship between Japan and America, Rutgers College entered an era of reform shortly before the first Japanese youth arrived on campus in 1866. In the official history of the college on its bicentennial celebration, the decade from 1862 is distinguished as the period when a transformation of Rutgers College took place. The radical changes unfolded under a new president, Reverend Dr. William H. Campbell, conservative in religious beliefs but “dynamic, even explosive” in his actions. He is considered as the “first effective head” of the institution.14 As former principal of the Albany Academy, a college preparatory school in Albany, New York, he established a strong relationship between Rutgers College and Albany Academy that David Murray, as a former principal at Albany Academy, continued at Rutgers from 1863 under President Campbell as professor of mathematics. In the decade after 1862 Rutgers College experienced such a burst of vitality as it has never exhibited before and would rarely exceed it in the next century. Within that brief span of time the assets of the College increased fivefold, relations with the Dutch Church were virtually severed, the Rutgers Scientific School was established and was designated the land-grant college for New Jersey, impressive new buildings were erected, a group of remarkably vigorous professors joined the faculty, the curriculum underwent profound changes, and undergraduate life suddenly took on new dimensions. Although the impetus did not carry forward to succeeding decades, the foundations were laid for a new Rutgers.15

By juxtaposing the period of the samurai youth at Rutgers, who numbered over a hundred according to Griffis’s count, with the period of the great internal transformation of Rutgers College in the decade from 1862, the historical significance of the period takes on a special connotation. It can best be understood in the context of Japanese educational development. The history of modern Japanese education is traditionally dated by Japanese historians as beginning in 1872–1873 with the launching of the first public school system, the Gakusei. Among those who distinguished themselves in the transition from feudal to modern education in Japan, as we will learn, were an impressive number of former students at Rutgers College befriended by David Murray during the most dynamic period of the Meiji era of enlightenment. When Murray first encountered the Japanese boys from the samurai class studying at Rutgers from 1866, he had no expressed interest in, or knowledge of, Japanese culture and education. The United States had just experienced the devastating Civil War, in which the country underwent the severest test of

18

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

nationhood. Few Americans had more than a superficial acquaintance with any country in Asia. During this unsettling period of American history, Murray never traveled beyond a small area of the state of New York and nearby New Jersey. His exposure to international affairs through travel and experience was nil. As a faculty member in the 1860s teaching mathematics at a small, obscure Christian college thousands of miles from Japan, Murray was an unlikely candidate for a senior administrative position with the Japanese government in the 1870s. From another perspective, however, Murray proved uniquely qualified for a ranking position in Japan’s educational bureaucracy and the fascinating challenges that it presented. By the age of thirty-six, when the young samurai first arrived at Rutgers, David Murray had attained academic distinction few Americans could aspire to, having graduated from one of the leading colleges in the United States.

Murray’s Education The education of David Murray began in the tiny hamlet of Bovina, Delaware County, in the state of New York, where he was born on October 15, 1830. It followed that of his older brother William, who was born ten years earlier. Their immigrant Scottish parents made every effort to have their children formally educated. David characterized their school life in a district log cabin school as “most delightful.”16 As he remembered it, an open fireplace provided the only heat. One window cut through the logs provided the only light. The benches were made of roughly hewn slabs each supported by four legs. The girls sat on one bench and the boys on another. During the winter months, the teacher was always a male when the older boys attended school along with the younger kids. During the summer, a young female teacher was hired when the older boys stayed at home to work on the farm. Murray listed the subjects he studied: “Reading, spelling, writing, and arithmetic were the subjects on which we were employed.” His religious and moral education at home was reflected at school: “The New Testament was the highest and chief reading book. The Sermon on the Mount and some of the chapters in the Gospel of John were read and reread until the reading was half of it reciting from memory.” Curiously, arithmetic was never taught in class. Rather, students proceeded on their own account to cipher through the textbook. The teacher’s business was to help the student in arithmetic only when appealed to. After two years at the district school, Murray was academically able to enter a local private institution, the Delaware Academy, to continue his education. Since the principal of the school was a minister, moral teachings of the Christian faith played a prominent role in the curriculum, along with the academic side as preparatory for the upper secondary level. The Rev. Daniel Shephard, founder of the

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

19

school, left a lasting impression on the young Murray that set a standard for him. Murray recalled Shephard’s “fine scholarship, his apt and attractive methods of teaching, his graceful and attractive personality, and his pure and manly character made him the idol of the students and the pride of the town.”17 That led to the acceptance of Murray at the private Fergusonville Academy, located in the neighboring rural community of Delhi and founded by clergymen of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was designed to train boys and girls, separated into two departments, in habits of virtuous living while preparing the boys for college. In comparison to Murray’s completion of the college preparatory school, his older brother William dropped out of formal schooling after completing the Delaware Academy.18 However, he would eventually become a judge on the New York supreme court. Murray’s precollege education was notable, since it was primarily conducted in private schools that attracted the more educationally inclined families characteristic of Scottish immigrants who could afford the tuition. In American educational history, the period from the Revolution of 1776 to the Civil War of 1861 is known as the “age of the academies,” all of which operated under some form of private control.19 In other words, the future Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education received his basic education primarily in rural American private schools. Moreover, Murray was educated in private schools that catered to males invariably with a male teacher. As far as can be determined, he never had a female as a classroom teacher nor studied in a coeducation classroom beyond the first two years in the local district elementary school. This in itself represents an unusual irony from a historical perspective. As Superintendent of Education in Japan, one of Murray’s major contributions to Japan’s modern school system involved the education of females, covered in a later chapter. Stemming in part from his strong recommendation, the first female teacher training school in Japan was inaugurated in 1874 by the Ministry of Education one year after Murray arrived as a ranking officer. As a result, Murray is recognized by contemporary Japanese historians as instrumental in founding female teacher education in Japan,20 although he never had a female teacher beyond the first or second grade in America. Upon completing his college preparatory course at Ferguson Academy, Murray had attained an academic standard that enabled him to enter Union College as a second-year sophomore student in 1849. In the 1800s, Union College—located in Schenectady, New York, about sixty miles from where Murray was born and received his early education—was one of the most illustrious institutions of higher education in the United States. For example, during the sixty-two-year tenure of the distinguished president Eliphalet Nott, which included the period when Murray was a student, Union College graduated one president of the

20

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Figure 1.3. Union College under President Eliphalet Nott. Photo courtesy of Union College Library.

United States, Chester A. Arthur; thirteen United States senators; ninety-one members of the House of Representatives; and eighty-six college presidents.21 It was one of the three big colleges in student enrollments in the United States. The influence of Union College and its progressive president, Eliphalet Nott, on David Murray was incalculable. It was here that Murray matured into an uncommon individual respected and appreciated by all who encountered him in and outside the classroom. Before he entered Union College, there is no evidence of him having a special interest in science or mathematical accomplishments. By the time he graduated with honors three years later, he was qualified to join the faculty of Albany Academy, one of the leading preparatory schools in America, to teach mathematics. Murray described his lasting impression of Union College and President Nott in vivid terms during a Nott Memorial Day in 1904: It is one of the most notable events in my life that I was graduated from Union College under the presidency of Dr. Nott. Other presidents of colleges have been eminent in scholarship and character and in their capacity of wise administration. But Dr. Nott more than all was pre-eminent in the sterling and versatile qualities of a great man. He was greater than his place, higher than his high position, superior to the lofty reputation he held among orators, educators and administrators.

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

21

We of the class of 1852 knew him only in the last years of his active presidential career . . . but nothing had dimmed the luster of his intellect or lessoned the alertness of his powers. I recall distinctly the scene of our class sitting around him in the old chapel room, listening to his lectures on Kames’ “Elements of Criticism.” His rich sonorous voice still rings in my ears. We heard the stories which were current about him, and which had been handed down as college traditions—about the chickens in the apple tree, about the dog which understood geometry. These, however, were mere embroideries and pleasant accessories of our admiration for this dear old man. We thought more of being his students, of listening to his words of wisdom, and of having his venerated name on our diplomas, than to have been the soldiers of Caesar or to have been interlocutors in Plato’s dialogues. We had a glorious category of professors at that time that we might well be proud. What a galaxy of learning and talent. But the greatest of all, by far the greatest, was our great president.22

One of the major achievements carried out by President Nott, a rare Christian clergymen competent in science, was the introduction of an alternative course leading to the bachelor’s degree in 1828. It was notable because it concentrated on science rather than the traditional classics curriculum. Henceforth, the dual curriculum that Nott introduced at Union College offered his students their choice between the traditional courses girded with the classics and a parallel course in the sciences for those who, he believed, would lead America in shaping “the Republic of the World.”23 The campaign by Nott to reform the curriculum at Union College took over two decades before the great option between science and classics was accepted by the faculty, such was the attitude toward classic education as the basis of higher education in America in the early 1800s. It prepared the graduates to enter the learned professions—particularly the clergy and teaching—with its emphasis on “the study of ancient languages, mathematics and metaphysics. An educated man was necessarily one who was familiar with Latin and Greek authors in the original, and was trained in subtle reasoning, and in the rhetorical arts.”24 The new alternate course at Union under Nott was designed to prepare students for the professions of engineering, medicine, law, mining, and so on as America entered the early stages of the great Industrial Revolution based on new science disciplines. Nott envisioned its encompassing requirements and was determined to adapt Union College to the needs of a new nation. According to his biographer, “Dr. Nott was in full sympathy with this new spirit of scientific inquiry, not only because he could discern the signs of the times, but also, and chiefly, because he himself was deeply interested in scientific problems.” For example, the “Nott Stove, which he not only invented but manufactured, came into general use.”25

Figure 1.4. Eliphalet Nott, President of Union College, 1804–1866. Photo courtesy of Union College Library.

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

23

The challenge of the future of America could not be met with Greek classics, according to this educational pioneer at Union College who David Murray greatly admired. It was within this academic environment that Murray excelled in mathematics, the basis of science, that rendered him uniquely qualified to serve in the Japanese Ministry of Education in the great transition from feudalism to modernism in the 1870s. The future of Japan under the Meiji Restoration would be dependent on the introduction of science education from the West. David Murray’s role in that process was set in place at Union College when he enrolled in the courses of algebra, calculus, geometry, chemistry, optics, electricity, and engineering mechanics, earning the highest score of 100 in each of them.26 Eliphalet Nott could not have foreseen how his radical reform of education at Union College would, in the latter half of the 1800s in the neighboring state of New Jersey, influence the reform of education at Rutgers College. As professor of mathematics, David Murray was instrumental in the establishment of the Scientific School at Rutgers, an alternative to the study of classics, the topic of chapter 3. In both instances, the new alternate course in higher education concerned the practical needs of a country entering the Industrial Revolution. David Murray had witnessed, and was deeply inspired by, the results of a great educational innovator—his master teacher, Eliphalet Nott. Neither Nott at Union College nor Murray at Rutgers College could foresee how the alternative science curriculum would appeal to the young Japanese samurai who found their way to Rutgers College during the late 1860s and early 1870s. They were seeking an education that would enable them to help modernize their country in order to preserve the nation and its culture. Greek and Latin studies, the staple of the traditional curriculum at Rutgers College when Murray first joined the faculty, did not interest them. The new Rutgers Scientific School, where Murray taught mathematics on the revolutionary pattern established at Union College by Nott, understandably did. Murray was particularly influenced by President Nott’s classroom manner. To develop a sense of independence and the desire to question the status quo, Nott, through questioning and face-to-face discussion, encouraged the students in both the classical and science courses to engage in problem solving. According to him, “It was the teacher’s aim to lead young men to think for themselves, to become self-reliant.”27 Nott’s treatment of students, in the words of one of them, “was marked by courtesy, by kindness, and by the evidence of a deep interest in the well-being of those who sat before him as learners. But the parental kindness was not of the lax and nerveless sort which invited insubordination. His pupils understood well the limits beyond which it is not safe to pass, and that the reins were held with a firm grasp, able and sure to check the least indecorum.”28 Nott took a parental view of Union College as “a family, and its government should be parental. These young

24

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

students are my children. I am to them in place of a father.”29 David Murray would follow in his footsteps when he entered the classroom at Rutgers College. According to a classmate at Union College, Murray was an exemplary student, with personal characteristics that endeared him to fellow students at Union and later to his American and Japanese students at Rutgers College: David Murray was a junior at Union College, and well established in college life when I first knew him, and had already become the acknowledged leader of college society, whom everyone regarded as easily first in all that goes to make a man attractive and distinguished in the college world. His was the personal influence which flows the union of genuine courtesy with quiet and composed self-control, and a warm and genial interest in his fellows. Every one carried to him any question of doubt or trouble with confidence in his sympathy and wisdom, and reliance on his advice and counsel. His example and influence were always on the side of right. With the admiration and affection of the students, he enjoyed the confidence and respect of the faculty, and won all the dignities and honors of college. President Nott had no fancy for prizes, and in our day none were offered, except such as were common for all—like an election to Phi Beta Kappa, which was a college honor, and which he won. Murray was president of his class at its meetings and other functions. He was president of the principal literary and debating societies. At graduation he was one of the commencement orators. Had there been a prize for the best student, the best scholar, the best fellow, the best man in college, I am sure he would have carried it off by the unanimous ballot of the president, faculty, and students.30

Murray’s accomplishments at Union College, including his academic performance as a straight-A student, were extraordinary in view of the caliber of the student body. He graduated with honors in 1852, having received an elite education at an outstanding institution recognized as among the finest available in America. It was an appropriate preparation for his advisory role in the formation of Japan’s first and foremost national institution of higher education, Tokyo University, exactly twenty-five years later. As Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education, he was recognized for his contribution to the nation’s most prestigious school by being chosen by his Japanese superiors to give the congratulatory address to the first class of graduates at the 1877 graduation ceremony at Tokyo University, considered later. One of the most distinctive features of Murray’s education was that it was overwhelmingly privately controlled and financed. There was little, if any, influence from the federal government in Washington on the schools he attended, including the district elementary school. During the 1800s, American public

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

25

education was one of the most decentralized systems in the West, with only minimum educational standards loosely applied by each of the state governments. For example, the financing of local public schools was determined in many states by local school committees or boards of education representing the community through an election process. There was no government bureau that remotely resembled a ministry of education in Washington, DC. Both public and private schools in the United States functioned independently from federal control and influence. The significance of the American tradition in educational administration and finance under which Murray was educated in the 1800s would arise when he became Superintendent of Education in Japan. As a ranking member of the Ministry of Education, his most significant recommendation for the modernization of Japanese education was, surprisingly, the central control of education. He forthrightly and persistently argued that the Japanese Ministry of Education should be empowered to set the curriculum for the newly organized public schools with an inspectorate to ensure that a nationwide mandatory curriculum was being implemented, analyzed in detail later. None of the American schools where he was educated or served as an administrator functioned under such conditions. Another distinguishing feature of Murray’s education in America concerns the Christian influence on the teachings and the moral standards of the schools he attended. Throughout his schooling, the Christian Bible set the foundation for morality and ethics of the school, it was often used in his early education as a textbook for the teaching of English. Perhaps it was understandable that years later, when Murray, as senior adviser to the Japanese director of the Ministry of Education, was asked by him for advice on teaching morality in Japanese schools, Murray simply replied that “the Bible was the only worthy authority on that subject.”31 Even more remarkable was the fact that in spite of Murray’s deep religious convictions, his professional advice to the Japanese government on modern education was devoid of religious connotations. It was characteristic of Murray’s respect for Japanese cultural sensitivities that endeared him to his Japanese colleagues. Upon graduation from Union College with honors in 1852, Murray was appointed as tutor in mathematics at Albany Academy in New York, a few miles south of Schenectady and only fifty miles from his birthplace. The principal of Albany College during Murray’s college days was Dr. George Cook, who had applied to nearby Union College for an assistant. Murray was recommended for the position. Albany Academy was among the more prestigious private schools in the eastern part of the United States that prepared bright boys for college. Its most eminent alumnus and ex-teacher, Joseph Henry—who became head of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington—at an 1851 meeting of the Association

26

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

of the Advancement of Science, described the school accordingly: “The Albany Academy was and still is one of the first, if not the very first, institution of its kind in the United States. Its system of education is more extensive and more thorough than that of many colleges in our country.”32 In 1857 Murray was appointed principal of Albany Academy. He succeeded Dr. Cook, guiding it for the next six years to even greater academic distinction and financial prosperity.33 This period provided Murray with educational administrative experience, the only opportunity he had in an administrative position before he became the Superintendent of Education in Japan in 1873. The role of George Cook in Murray’s assignment to Albany Academy, his first appointment in the academic world, was prophetic. Cook invited Murray to the academy. He succeeded Cook as principal of the school when Cook resigned in 1857 to take a position as a professor of chemistry at Rutgers College. Six years later, Cook invited Murray to join him on the faculty of Rutgers College, where the two of them brought about one of the major innovations in the curriculum with the founding of the Rutgers Scientific School. It would play a central role in Murray’s awakening to Japan when he encountered the Japanese samurai youth in his classes, the focus of chapter 3. Murray’s experiences as teacher and administrator at Albany Academy, in view of the fact that he championed central control of education in Japan from his senior position within the Ministry of Education, illustrate how sharply they differed from his subsequent recommendations for Japanese education. As a classroom teacher in America, he chose his textbooks and set the curriculum and his own academic standards without influence from the American government. As principal at Albany Academy, he had a free rein from federal influence in carrying out his administrative responsibilities in contrast to his advice for Japanese schools, an issue deserving special attention later in this biography. Two important developments in Murray’s illustrious academic career took place in 1863. First of all, he was awarded a PhD from the University of the State of New York.34 This was not an earned doctorate from a university but rather an honorary degree awarded by a state education office in recognition of outstanding academic accomplishments. During that year he was also offered the professorship in mathematics and natural philosophy at Rutgers College upon the recommendation of Dr. George Cook. Murray’s tenure on the faculty of Rutgers College from 1863 proved rewarding and productive, and he achieved recognition as an inspiring and effective teacher. From both the faculty and student perspective, he distinguished himself for “the nobility of his character, the fidelity and success of his service, and the affectionate regard in which he was held.” The students characterized him in their newspaper, the Targum, as “a most excellent instructor and an admirable disciplinarian.” The faculty considered him “an accomplished and successful teacher . . . who has endeared himself to us all.”35

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

27

One student described Murray’s classroom manner as revealing concerning not only the qualities of a master classroom teacher but the distinctive customs of student life in American higher education in the latter half of the 1800s. It was also reminiscent of Eliphalet Nott’s attitude and manner toward students at Union College: Our class numbered about sixty men, and was regarded by the college authorities as the most unruly in a generation. On this account we had been divided and only a part had come under Murray’s instruction. The unwritten law of the class was that we must duly measure the capacity of each new professor to maintain order. The first day was a prelude, the second witnessed a conflict of authority, and some of our boys were past masters at the art of unsettling classroom equilibrium. It took us but ten minutes to discover that Dr. Murray was both master of that situation, and of our subsequent behavior. What astonished us all was the perfect ease and courtesy with which he made us understand that order and close attention to work were necessities in his room. The next immediate lesson we learned from him was candor and good faith. In those days “cribbing” was generally practiced. It was said of Dr. Benson, Headmaster of Wellington, that it was a real treat to see the zealous satisfaction with which the future Archbishop of Canterbury chastised the boy found out in a lie. Of course we saw nothing of this in Dr. Murray, but he had his own way of correction, and it was both heartily administered and completely effective. What was most remarkable was that in doing this he never lost his poise. His tone was quiet, his manner gentle: no one ever saw him angry or even ruffled, and still he disarmed the most refractory. He rode with a light hand, but we knew that the rein was always there, and after a few days he never needed to even tighten it. . . . We felt it was a great privilege to be numbered among his students. Doubtless his peers valued his urbanity and natural kindness—we grew to glory in him.36

Murray carried on an active life outside Rutgers College. He was a founding member of the New Brunswick Historical Club, serving as its first president. He was also the founder of the Young Men’s Christian Association of New Brunswick and its first president. In addition, he cofounded the Alpha Beta Kappa Society of New Jersey.37 Murray’s commitment and devotion to the Christian faith stand out among all other interests. He was a devout Christian. His life reflected a deep personal religious belief. During his years as principal of the Albany Academy, he helped establish the State Street Presbyterian Church, teaching in the Sunday school. During his tenure on the Rutgers College faculty, as a member of the Second (Dutch) Reformed Church of New Brunswick, he took an active role in

28

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

church activities, serving as an elder of the church and superintendent of the Sunday school.38

Martha Neilson Murray: From New York City to Tokyo Among David Murray’s accomplishments during his tenure as a professor of mathematics at Rutgers College from 1863 to 1873, his marriage to Martha Neilson in 1867 proved to be one of the most consequential. Her role in Murray’s service to the Japanese government in both America and Japan, although little recognized, was extraordinary. Her upbringing proved to be a critical factor as a professor’s wife who became a surrogate mother of young samurai from feudal Japan. It was greatly amplified as the wife of a senior officer in the Japanese Ministry of Education from 1873, hosting at their home in Tokyo the leading figures of the Meiji Restoration that oftentimes included their wives, who thoroughly enjoyed Martha Murray’s hospitality. Martha Neilson Murray was born in 1833 into a prominent family of New York City. Her mother died at the age of twenty-two shortly after Martha’s birth, her father passing away several years later. As a consequence, Martha was taken into the family of her grandfather, Dr. John Neilson III, a physician practicing in an upscale New York City residential area, to be brought up alongside his own children. The Neilsons already had twelve sons and daughters when granddaughter Martha was brought into the family. She was raised as the thirteenth child amid her aunts and uncles still living at home, all older than she was.39 It was a gregarious and pleasant atmosphere within a vibrant set of extended family relationships worthy of consideration because, surprisingly, they would come into play from various perspectives with the advent of the Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868. As a child in a professional family in the great city of New York, Martha Neilson was, as her pastor at the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick recalled, educated in the fashionable schools of New York and made her debut in New York society. She was very fond of social life and never wearied of telling her experiences in New York in its earlier days. It was always a pleasure for her to tell of her childhood and girlhood days in New York when Chambers Street, where she lived with her grandparents, was decidedly uptown. As a matter of fact, it was then the residential section of New York. Again and again she told me how she and her nurse would walk down Broadway to the Battery almost every afternoon.40

The education of Martha Neilson in the fashionable schools of New York City proved to be a valuable asset for her challenging life in Japan as the wife of a

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

29

senior officer in the Ministry of Education during the great transition from the Tokugawa era to the Meiji era. The poise she gained while growing up in New York City served her well in witnessing one of the greatest social transformations under way in the modern history of the world. Not only did Martha Murray appreciate what was unfolding before her in Japan, she enjoyed the experience and made every effort to accommodate her lifestyle to the local situation. One of the major results of Martha Neilson’s education in the better schools of New York City in the 1840s and 1850s that catered to professional families like that of her grandfather was the ability to write English well. Her writing skills were revealed through a weekly routine of letters from Tokyo to close relatives from the Neilson family living in New Brunswick during Murray’s assignment with the Ministry of Education in Japan. She wrote several hundred descriptive letters of considerable length about their lives in Japan that proved to be a treasure trove from several perspectives. Unfortunately, fewer than 150 have been preserved. Through Martha’s letters, the poise and graciousness of a well-educated, sophisticated, American woman are revealed while providing a unique glimpse into the foreign culture of a people she knew little about but developed an attitude of respect for. For example, she frequently hosted the most outstanding leaders of the new Meiji government in her Tokyo home, treating them with respect and genuine friendship. Many reciprocated by inviting the Murrays into their homes. On separate occasions, Martha welcomed the wives of two of David’s colleagues at the Ministry of Education to move in with them for several months at a time. The purpose was not only to assist Martha in adjusting to life in the capital city of Tokyo undergoing a social transformation but also for the Japanese women to learn Western customs and a Western language. As it turned out, one wife who spent two months with the Murrays became a prime minister’s wife many years later when David’s former assistant, Takahashi Korekiyō, attained the highest office in government. Unfortunately, he is best remembered as the senior government officer assassinated in his home in Tokyo by a unit from the Japanese army in an internal military revolt in 1936. The other wife who lived with the Murrays on weekdays for several months was married to the director of the Ministry of Education, Tanaka Fujimaro, to whom David served as chief adviser. She was trained as a geisha with no other formal education. The former Japanese geisha and Mrs. Murray became the dearest of friends. Martha came to have the highest regards and deepest respect for her Japanese friend, as noted later in several of her letters. When Mrs. Tanaka with her husband visited the Murrays later in New Brunswick, she was warmly welcomed by the Murrays, who took their dearest Japanese friends to meet the various Neilson relatives, striking up a personal relationship with them that Martha encouraged to the fullest.

30

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Of great historical relevance, Martha’s letters describe life in the capital of a nation that had just emerged from several hundred years of feudalism. Her detailed descriptions of a local evening market as the lanterns were lit are pieces of historical literature, reflecting her educational upbringing. Her account of the passage of Emperor Meiji in the street in front of their home lined with local residents in complete silence preceded by several thousand soldiers was a memorable scene to her and surely enjoyed by relatives in New Brunswick reading her account of it. One letter by Martha has historical relevance. It concerns a former court noble in Emperor Meiji’s imperial household in feudal Japan, Iwakura Tomomi, to become a powerful leader of the Meiji government in modern Japan. It involves an unsuccessful assassination attempt on his life, an incident that shook the city and government with historical relevance. As recorded by Martha, it was revealed to the Murrays by the son of Iwakura, who they had befriended in New Brunswick as a student. He visited the Murrays at their Tokyo home shortly after the event to report on the incident. In this well-known episode of the attack on a leading political figure by disgruntled ex-samurai, Iwakura was thrown out of his carriage and survived by rolling down the steep embankment in the dark. However, the horse bolted off for the stable with a badly damaged carriage full of sword marks without the driver or the prime minister. The son, upon discovery of the empty carriage arriving home, immediately rushed to the palace to learn that his father had miraculously survived the assassination attempt. He returned home to report the good news to his distraught mother. The last part of the episode may only have been revealed in Martha Murray’s letter from Japan to her cousin in America. The letters home to New Brunswick also reveal the relentless schedule of events the Murrays attended at the homes of the leaders of modern Japan and the dinners she and David hosted for them and their wives in the Murray home. It is an astonishing list, perhaps unmatched by any other foreign couple in Japan during the early period of Japanese-American relationships, that has received little recognition by historians. One of the most illustrious events was a reception for the new American minister to Japan held at the Murray home during their first few months in Japan. According to Murray’s account of it in one of his few preserved letters to relatives, it included among the most distinguished guest list the Japanese prime minister and his son, the minister of naval affairs, a seniorranking privy councilor, the former Japanese Minister to Washington, and the Director of the Ministry of Education and his wife.41 Martha Murray confidently served as hostess. Another Japanese guest hosted by Martha in their home who was unlikely matched by any other foreigner was the most famous general of the era, who remains well known to this day not only in Japan but also in the West. Saigō Takamori stood out among his peers because of his position—he was one of

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

31

the three major leaders of the Meiji Restoration who turned against the Meiji leadership nearly a decade after the revolution—and his size. He was reputedly over six feet tall. Martha noted what a fine physical specimen he was among the other Japanese guests at her home one evening. Martha did not fully appreciate what a historical figure she had hosted at the time. However, she later wrote in another letter when the great general had just committed ritual suicide to end the rebellion against the government he once led that he had dined at the Murray household. She recalled that at that time when he was a “good old fellow,” he showed his appreciation for the dinner when he sent her a handsome set of Satsuma China.42 Ironically, it was in his beloved Satsuma homeland where his rebellion and his colorful career came to a tragic end. How and where David Murray first met Martha Neilson has not been discovered. Although Martha was brought up in New York, a number of the extended Neilson family members had settled in the greater New Brunswick area, where the descendants of Dutch families dominated from an earlier period. Her grandfather, John III, head of the family in New York City at that time, was born in New Brunswick. Even though his twelve children were all born and reared in New York City, where he practiced medicine, several of his children gravitated to New Brunswick. With Professor Murray on the faculty of Rutgers College for several years before he met and married Martha Neilson in 1867, New Brunswick became a natural home for the Murrays, a factor of immeasurable consequence upon their encounter with the Japanese students. When the first two samurai youth from Japan arrived in New Brunswick in 1866, David Murray had been living a pleasant and most rewarding life for three years in a pristine small college town setting. He was held in high esteem by students, colleagues, and friends among the community, both in the church and in academic circles. He had already achieved academic distinction as a graduate of a leading institution of American higher education. And he had completed a most successful tenure as principal of a well-known eastern preparatory school. In the mid-1860s, Murray seemed destined for an academic position of distinction in America—perhaps the presidency of Rutgers College. With David’s marriage to Martha in 1867, life in the small college town of New Brunswick became full of new challenges. The Murrays were surrounded by friends from Rutgers College and the Second Reformed Church and relatives from the Neilson side of the family living nearby. Martha’s pastor, who knew the family lifestyle well, since both David and Martha were active members of his church, described her passion to be with people that would continue from New Brunswick to Tokyo: “She loved people, enjoyed their companionship and fellowship, and was never quite so happy as when she could sit at the head of a large table surrounded by her friends. Her home was the symbol of hospitality.”43

32

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Befriending the Japanese Students With the arrival of the first two samurai youth in 1866, Murray’s future was henceforth destined to involve Japan. For the next five years, the numbers of Japanese students arriving at the Rutgers College campus increased annually, with a surge in 1869–1870 to nearly thirty at one time following the overthrow of the Tokugawa government. As the number of Japanese students increased, so did Murray’s interest in things Japanese. The Murrays encountered Japanese students in three venues: David Murray’s classroom at Rutgers College, the Murray living room in New Brunswick (supplemented on occasion by the living rooms of Martha Murray’s nearby Neilson relatives), and the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick. When considered together, they illustrate how deeply involved the Murrays became in the lives of these samurai youth. It would change the direction of Murray’s career as he developed a commitment to Japan and its future in the modern era. The encounter in the classroom between Murray and the Japanese was in itself an unusual one. From all reports, Murray was an outstanding teacher who stimulated his students to think for themselves. One of his American students described Murray’s classroom accordingly: As to his method of teaching, Doctor Murray certainly possessed what was then a rare art: he knew how to develop in his pupils the power of clear thinking for themselves. His explanations of difficult problems in physics always led us to set about solving them ourselves. . . . It was in the realm of higher mathematics that Doctor Murray was at his best as a teacher. It was then that the genius of Dr. Murray was displayed. He inspired us to really feel that a complete understanding of McLaren’s and Taylor’s theorems was the only true basis of a sound education. In less than a month they were as clear to us as the rule of three. . . . How Dr. Murray was able to keep our enthusiasm a constant quality is impossible to explain . . . but he certainly possessed the power of imparting analytical method to our work, and making us feel that we were equal to the hardest task. Probably the secret of his ability lay in his own complete absorption in the work in hand. While it was going on he had eyes and attention for nothing else. . . . So we gave back to him the best we had.44

Whether the Japanese students reacted to Murray’s teaching methods in the manner that his American students did cannot be determined. What is certain is that the teaching methods in the domain schools of Japan in the 1850s where the samurai boys at Rutgers received their basic education were not intended to develop within the students the “power of clear thinking for themselves.” Rather, they were based on rote memorization and repetition of the Chinese Confucian

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

33

classics until mastered. The teacher elaborated on the meaning of the text to be accepted by the student as truth. The conclusion can be made that Murray’s Japanese students were deeply impressed with his teaching not only according to the traditional Confucian morality of respect for the teacher by the student. Rather, it was the total dedication to the lesson at hand by Murray, the seriousness of the moment, that would appeal to the young samurai who came to America to study the most modern subjects underlying advanced Western societies that Japan had purposely ignored during several hundred years of seclusion during the feudal era. The samurai youth had come to Rutgers to learn, and Murray was dedicated to teaching them. Chapter 3 concerns Murray’s outstanding class of 1868 at Rutgers College, which included samurai students who not only deeply impressed him but were deeply impressed by Dr. Murray. With the Japanese students thousands of miles away from home in a foreign country strange to them in every way, David and Martha Murray, kind and generous people that they were, made a special effort to provide a home setting for them. On a fateful evening during this period, the Murrays invited the Japanese students into their living room for a social evening, surely with American-style refreshments prepared by Mrs. Murray. It marked the first of many such openhouse evenings for the young samurai at the Murray home, with Martha as the gracious hostess. The students were always welcomed with great kindness. The Murray home was described in a local newspaper as “a social center for the Japanese students” and “a symbol of hospitality.”45 David Murray’s attitude toward his students, including those from Japan, was reminiscent of his favorite professor at Union College, Eliphalet Nott. In Nott’s words, “These young students are my children. I am to them in place a father.” That motto certainly had an influence on the Murrays when they invited the young samurai into their home. In an act of generosity, the Murrays also introduced the Japanese students to their closest relatives. The Murray home was often visited by Neilson relatives who lived nearby in New Brunswick. In a letter Martha wrote to her aunt Helen from the American West on their initial trip to Japan, already reminiscing about their life in New Brunswick, she reveals how close her various Neilson relatives lived: “Now with you it is just about the time when Alice and Lena—or some of the Carpenders would drop in at our house.”46 Helen was Dr. John Neilson’s daughter with whom Martha grew up in his home in New York City. Alice and Lena were Helen’s daughters. Mrs. Carpender was Catherine, another married daughter of Dr. John Neilson who was Martha’s aunt. In a later letter David wrote to Martha’s cousin Lucy, he said, “I wish I could walk up the lawn and find you out on the veranda as I used to do.”47 Lucy was the daughter of Catherine Carpender. In other words, several of Martha’s closest Neilson relatives lived within walking distance of the Murray home in New Brunswick.

34

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Reflecting the thoughtfulness of the Murrays for the welfare of their dear Japanese friends, they took them to the nearby homes of Martha’s relatives to meet Helen and Lucy as well as the children in those families. We learn indirectly through letters from Martha in Japan to Helen and Lucy that close relationships had been developed between her Neilson relatives and a number of the Japanese lads. Through birthday parties and holiday events, for which the Murrays invited the Japanese students to join in the extended family celebrations, the bond between David and Martha with the samurai youth was further strengthened. The relevance of the Murrays’ attachment to New Brunswick not only through David’s position on the faculty of Rutgers College but through the personal relationships that Martha and David nurtured with Martha’s relatives among the Neilson family would all become part of their contribution to modern Japanese education. For example, the opportunity for some of the Japanese students to join the Murrays in their “walk up the lawn” to visit Lucy’s family and other nearby Neilson households provided them with a unique experience of American home life that they thoroughly enjoyed. Among those so fortunate were the future president of Japan’s premier institution of higher education and even a future commanding officer in the Japanese Imperial Navy. Moreover, when the Japanese Director of the Ministry of Education and his wife visited New Brunswick as guests of the Murrays, noted above, they too walked up the lawn and down the street to visit the various Neilson relatives. Martha made a concerted effort to introduce her dearest Japanese friends to her dearest Neilson relatives in New Brunswick, New Jersey. What profoundly impressed the Murrays with the Japanese students were not only the manners and politeness of the boys but the experiences of their upbringing in a feudal society. Among the topics most frequently discussed between the Murrays and their young Japanese friends during the home visits was the state of Japanese education as the boys knew it from their experiences in the domain schools for sons of the ruling class of samurai in feudal Japan.48 It became an increasing interest to Murray as he pressed the boys for the details of their education in a mysterious land the Murrays knew little if anything about. The educational background of the samurai students who received their basic education in clan schools in Japan around 1850 fascinated them. The following is a description by Murray of the social and educational background of one of them, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, as Murray learned it directly from him. The significance of Hatakeyama’s background in Japan before leaving for the West is that he, more than any other of the Japanese students with whom the Murrays came into contact at New Brunswick, exerted the deepest impression on them. It played a fundamental role in David Murray’s awakening to Japan in America. Hatakeyama was a native of Kagoshima, in the province of Satsuma. Before the abolition of the feudal system in Japan, his family belonged to the landed

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

Figure 1.5. Hatakeyama Yoshinari, ca. 1867. D. Clark, photographer, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

nobility, owing allegiance to the ancient Daimiate of Satsuma. In early times an ancestor of the family had rendered signal service to his Prince by saving his life in time of battle at the sacrifice of his own. In consequence of this the family had been endowed with special rights and privileges. Holding as the family did this important position in the province, the young Hatakeyama received, of course, all the advantages of education and culture which were at that time

35

36

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3 available. The College in Kagoshima [Zôshikan] where he was educated was one of the most celebrated of those institutions which lent a luster to the best age of Japanese learning. The most eminent professors were here gathered to give instruction in the various branches of Japanese and Chinese literature and philosophy. The curriculum of studies was both extensive and difficult. It included a knowledge of the history of their own country and its heroes and an extended course of study in the Chinese classics. The students were trained in the arts of prose and poetical composition, and in the elaborate etiquette and morals characteristic of their system of education. In addition to the intellectual culture imparted to them, they were also trained in those athletic and warlike exercises which were fitted to prepare them for a life of military service. Shooting with the bow and arrow, throwing the lance, riding on horseback, practicing with the foils and sword were among the means employed to harden and prepare the Japanese samurai for their future duties. Such were the scenes and activities in which the early life of Hatakeyama was spent, up to the time of his leaving his native country.49

As the discussions between the Murrays and the students deepened during the home visits, David and Martha’s admiration of and respect for the young samurai grew. The students’ admiration of and respect for the Murrays also deepened. In reaction to their kindness, the young samurai became devoted to their American mentor and his wife. Their educational background as samurai in feudal Japan, which fascinated the Murrays, played a powerful role in the deepening relationship between the Japanese students and their American professor and his wife at the turn of the 1870s. As former students in domain schools of feudal Japan, their core academic studies consisted primarily of the Confucian classics that extolled human relationships between child and parent, student and teacher, based on respect and loyalty in a filial bond between youth and their seniors. The politeness of the Japanese language then and now reflected that special relationship of respect by the student for the teacher, especially at the higher school levels. It’s expressed with the use of the word sensei—that is, “teacher.” David Murray surely became Murray Sensei among the Japanese students demonstrating the same sense of respect for their American teacher they had for their Japanese teachers in the clan schools of feudal Japan. The extraordinary opportunities arranged by the Murrays for the Japanese students to experience American-style family living at its warmest not only in the Murray home but in the various nearby Neilson households had a deep impression on them. They greatly appreciated those memorable moments and wrote wrote home about them to their parents, some of whom were among the highest officials of the Meiji government in Tokyo. The parents were understandably

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

37

eager to meet and welcome the Murrays upon their arrival in Japan in the summer of 1873, when David assumed his ranking position within the Ministry of Education as Superintendent. The first dinner party for them, surprisingly in the most lavish style as described by Martha in a letter home, took place at the “palace” of “Prime Minister Iwakura,” as they always referred to him, three weeks after their arrival. They were escorted to the event in the carriage of the prime minister’s son, who the Murrays had befriended at their home in New Brunswick.

Figure 1.6. The Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick, late nineteenth century. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

38

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The Murrays’ introduction to Japan was eventful, marked by a series of private dinners perhaps unmatched by any other foreign official in the service of the emperor. The third venue enabling the Murrays to develop a close relationship with a limited number of the Japanese students was the church sanctuary and Sunday School room of the magnificent Second Reformed Church. One of the more unusual settings in New Brunswick during the late 1860s and early 1870s, according to the pastor of the church at that time, was the Sunday-morning scene at their church. He recalled that “several Japanese boys were in constant attendance at our services due largely to the influence of Mrs. Murray.”50 David was involved as well, since he served as an elder in the church hierarchy.51 As devout Christians, David and Martha Murray reflected the ideals of Christianity in their daily lives and in the relationships with their young Japanese friends. It would have been unnatural for them not to encourage the samurai boys who were so inclined to join them in attending the Sunday services at their beloved church, where they took a very active role in its activities. The number of Japanese students who responded favorably was understandably small, since they were all brought up in Japan when Christianity was officially banned by the Tokugawa government during the feudal era. The Murrays were particularly devoted to the Sunday School classes that were convened before the main Sunday-morning church service in the sanctuary. As Superintendent of the Sunday School, David assumed administrative responsibility for its management and operation. He may have also taught Sunday School classes when needed. Martha was a regular Sunday School teacher. Class records are not available from that period to determine if the Japanese students learned about Christianity from the Sunday School lessons taught by David or Martha. However, records do show that among the Japanese students who attended the Sunday-morning services with the Murrays, the one who the childless Murrays came to treat as their virtual son, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, was baptized in that church and became a member of it.52 The conversion of Hatakeyama to Christianity had to be one of the most rewarding moments for David and Martha in their encounter with the Japanese students in America. It would be further appreciated when Hatakeyama became the first Japanese Christian president of the most prestigious national educational institution, Kaisei Gakkō, in 1873, when David was Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education. Both of the Murrays as well as Hatakeyama were still carried on the membership rolls of the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick at that time. Of some interest, Hatakeyama was recorded on the church list as Ko Zo Soogiwoora,53 the fictitious name he adopted when departing illegally from Japan for the West in 1865, considered in the following chapter.

Dr. David Mu rray’s Awa k ening to Japa n

39

As the number of Japanese samurai youth who came to study in New Brunswick increased from 1868 following the overthrow of the long-standing feudal Tokugawa government in Japan and the beginning of the Meiji era of enlightenment, the direction of David Murray’s academic career and personal lifestyle had unexpectedly and radically been transformed. Because of the historical consequences of the Murrays’ encounter with the Japanese students that inspired an awakening to Japan, the issue of where they came from in Japan and how they got to New Jersey in the latter half of the 1800s is of compelling significance and the topic of the following chapter.

chapter 2



THE SAMURAI INVASION OF NEW BRUNSWICK from feudal japan to new jersey, 1865–1875

The means by which a hundred or so samurai youth found their way to the small town of New Brunswick, New Jersey, from the final days of the feudal era into the beginning of the Meiji era of enlightenment is an important factor in David Murray’s awakening to Japan in America. They followed two unrelated routes from Japan. The main route that originated in the town of Nagasaki in southern Japan was direct and organized. The other was circuitous and unplanned, originating from the town of Kumamoto, also in southern Japan, via London to America. Of considerable historical significance, none of the students from either Nagasaki or Kumamoto were chosen by the ruling Tokugawa government in far-off Edo (Tokyo), which was purposely bypassed. The Japanese students from the warrior class of samurai who “invaded New Brunswick” in the latter half of the nineteenth century, as characterized by William Elliot Griffis who personally witnessed it, arrived through unauthorized private channels. The origin of the mainstream of Japanese youth from Nagasaki in 1866 can be traced back to the uninvited arrival of a squadron of four American warships near Tokyo waters in July 1853 under the command of Commodore Perry. Under orders from President James Fillmore, Perry brought gifts and a letter from the president to the government of Japan, urging the country to open its ports for supplies and trading purposes. The Tokugawa officials, as were the locals who witnessed the brief appearance of the so-called Black Ships, were baffled by the event. Japanese officials hesitantly accepted the gifts and the letter in a short ceremony hastily arranged on shore. A historical curiosity of the moment was the nature of the gifts brought from America by Perry for the Japanese government upon this initial contact. Included were air pumps, electric machines, a model locomotive and steam engine, a horseshoe magnet, and a mariner’s compass and barometer.1 In a feudal society 40

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

41

like that in Japan in 1853 under the Tokugawa family, there was no use for such scientific devices. Two years after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, relics from the Perry gifts were discovered hidden over one of the castle gates of the Tokugawa ruler in exile in Shizuoka, south of Tokyo.2 Curiously, the founder was Warren Clark, a former American student of David Murray’s who had become a “Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan” then teaching science to the Tokugawa youth in exile, considered in the following chapter. The American naval mission operating in far eastern waters far from its home port in 1853 illustrated the rise of the young nation of the United States in international affairs as well as an advanced standard in naval technology. This was particularly significant since the Japanese shogunate had no oceangoing vessels at the time. The event was intentionally staged, as powerful European nations were by then carving up much of the world, including Asia, into colonial empires. The Americans were determined not to be left behind. As planned, Commodore Perry pulled up anchors and left Japanese waters without a formal response, leaving his unintended hosts on notice that he would return the following year with a larger force for their expected positive reaction to his visit. The Tokugawa government that had rigidly exerted feudal control over Japan since the early 1600s by restricting virtually all contacts with the Western world faced a crisis of unprecedented proportions in the early 1850s with the sudden appearance of the American warships in Japanese waters. The exception to the long-standing ban on Western contacts was the establishment of a tiny manmade island in southern Japan directly off the port of Nagasaki. From there a small contingent of traders from Holland was allowed to conduct restricted contacts between the Dutch and Japan for several hundred years. It represented a tiny window to the West. Japanese interested in Western technology during this prolonged period necessarily studied the Dutch language. In 1853 the Tokugawa government found itself no longer capable of enforcing the ban on Western foreigners and unable to prevent the American ships from entering its waters off Edo without modern naval vessels. The regime recognized the inevitable. It could not maintain an isolationist policy. When the American commodore returned to Japanese waters the following year with a larger naval contingent, the Tokugawa government, however reluctant, signed an agreement that led to the opening of two ports, Shimoda and Hakodate. Subsequent negotiations by the first representative from America allowed on Japanese shores south of Edo resulted in further agreements, or treaties, between the two countries. In an 1859 provision, the Japanese agreed to open several more ports to American ships for trade and commerce in 1859, which included the southern town of Nagasaki with its long tradition of limited official contacts with the Dutch. Among the American organizations that reacted positively to this provision were several Christian denominations eager to spread the gospel of Christ in a nation that banned Christianity. One denomination that took a particularly

42

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

strong interest in the Japanese port openings was the Dutch Reformed Church of America, the founder of Rutgers College as a denominational institution. The goal of spreading Christianity in a non-Christian nation provided the opportunity for the most unlikely relationship between the tiny Christian college of Rutgers and the port of Nagasaki, Japan, six thousand miles away that played out in the most unexpected manner. It was one of the key historical factors in David Murray’s unexpected awakening to Japan in America. With the opening of several more selected Japanese ports to foreigners in 1859, officials of the Dutch Reformed Church of America seized the opportunity to dispatch several missionaries to Japan. Searching for someone capable in the Dutch language to send to the southern town of Nagasaki, where the Dutch had been allowed restricted access for trading purposes for many years during the Tokugawa era, denominational officers could find none among their clergy. Rather, they located a Dutchman, Guido Verbeck, an emigrant to America from Holland and an engineer by training, who described himself as “an Americanized Dutchman.”3 He had changed his profession and was about to complete religious studies for the Christian ministry in the Presbyterian denomination. Verbeck welcomed the offer by the Dutch Reformed Church in America to serve as one of its earliest missionaries to Japan. He and his wife arrived at Nagasaki in 1859 during the feudal era of Tokugawa rule.4 No one could have imagined

Figure 2.1. Guido Verbeck. From William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), preface; photo courtesy of Rutgers Seminary Library, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

43

at the time how the lives of Guido Verbeck from Holland and David Murray from America would later become inextricably intertwined in the service of the emperor of Japan. Verbeck abided by the long-standing ban on Christian proselytizing for the first several years in Japan, concentrating on learning the Japanese language instead. He became fluent, both oral and written, an accomplishment that would later earn him great respect by Japanese in powerful positions. His teaching career was initially launched in 1864 when Verbeck accepted an invitation by Nagasaki officials to offer an English class to a small class of samurai youth, an early indication that some local Japanese recognized the increasing importance of English in the world as the language of the great British Empire as well as the rising nation of America. It would compete with the Dutch language as a “window to the west” for the Japanese.5 In 1866 Verbeck was also asked by local Saga clan officials to teach English in their language school, thereby expanding his classes and the number of his students. Originally hired to teach English, he was soon encouraged to add a variety of other subjects in his classes that included political as well as economic subjects. He used the Bible and the U.S. Constitution as lesson material and made students familiar with the laws of Western countries.6 Showing respect for his students and sincere concern for their welfare, Verbeck earned their devotion and admiration. With his salary coming from the local government, Verbeck became a self-supporting missionary in Japan with the blessings of the Dutch Reform Church in America, a status that continued for well over a decade.7 During this feudal era of the samurai, Verbeck’s students, with few exceptions, originated from samurai warrior families. He quickly attracted a wider constituency among progressive-minded samurai youth and their fathers as his reputation spread well beyond Nagasaki. Within a short time, young samurai from distant clans numbering over a hundred were finding their way to southern Japan to enroll in Verbeck’s classes.8 They were among the most capable youth concerned about the future of their country. Many were destined to assume ranking positions in the Meiji government upon the overthrow of the Tokugawa regime in 1868.9 Not a few were destined to continue their education at Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In 1866, when two of Verbeck’s students, the Yokoi brothers from a distinguished family of scholars led by their uncle, Yokoi Shōnan, first sought assistance from their foreign teacher in Nagasaki to study in America, Verbeck understandably turned to the organization that sent him to Japan as a missionary, the Dutch Reformed Church of America. Without informing church officials, he responded favorably by assisting the two at their request to travel to America, where they appeared unannounced at the New York City office of the secretary of the Board of Missions for the Dutch Reformed Church, John Ferris, noted in the previous chapter. It was to Ferris’s office where Verbeck sent his

44

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Figure 2.2. Guido Verbeck with his samurai students in Nagasaki around 1865. From William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 123.

annual reports as a denominational missionary. Ferris—a name well known to contemporary Japanese, after which Ferris University in the greater Tokyo area was named—described how it all took place:10 Returning from an errand to the office of the Board of Foreign Missions at Fulton Street, New York, late in the afternoon in the autumn of 1866, I found there a plain-looking man and two young men who appeared to be Chinamen. The man proved to be the captain of the bark, the young men Japanese. They were clothed in American garments. They presented a letter from Rev. Guido Verbeck, then in Nagasaki, in which it was said only that they had been a few months in Dr. Verbeck’s school, had learned some English there, and picked up more on the long voyage of about six months. They wished, they said, to study navigation, to learn how to build “big ships” and make “big guns” to prevent European powers from taking possession of their country.

Explaining that they would first have to study many things before they could understand the science of navigation, Ferris personally took the two young samurai to New Brunswick. He made arrangements for them to enroll in the Rutgers Grammar School, a preparatory institution for Rutgers College, founded by his church. That initial process in 1866 set in place an expanding pipeline to America for highly motivated samurai youth. It originated with Guido Verbeck in Nagasaki, through the offices of John Ferris in New York City, terminating in New Brunswick at the rustic campus of Rutgers College and Grammar School, the educational institutions of the Dutch Reform Church in America.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

45

After the downfall of the Tokugawa government in 1868 and the inauguration of the Meiji Restoration under a reformist coterie of samurai leaders dedicated to modernizing all the nation’s institutions, the number of Japanese samurai students at Rutgers increased. Once again Guido Verbeck’s influence came into play as a result of an impressive number of his students at Nagasaki becoming high officials of the new Meiji government in Tokyo. In 1869 a ranking educational official of the reformist Meiji government, Ōki Takatō, invited Verbeck, his former teacher in Nagasaki, to move to Tokyo to become the titular head of the only national institution of higher education, Nankō. Later renamed Kaisei Gakkō, Nankō was frequently referred to by Verbeck, as well as by the English newspaper in Tokyo, as the Imperial University before it officially became Tokyo University in 1877. It was also increasingly referred to by Verbeck and others as the polytechnic school after basic science courses were added under Verbeck’s administration. This is the institution where David Murray, as Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education, was chosen to give the congratulatory address to the first graduating students upon its reformation into Tokyo University. From his new and influential post in the capital city of the newly restored Meiji government, Verbeck continued his practice originated in Nagasaki by arranging for an increasing number of his students from the elite Imperial University to travel from Tokyo to New Brunswick to study at Rutgers College. By the 1870s the process had taken on a distinct pattern after four successful years at both ends of the pipeline. Verbeck wrote a letter of recommendation from Japan to John Ferris in New York City for one or more of his students who wished to study in America. Sometimes the letter preceded them. Usually the students carried the letter with them. Among the correspondence that has been preserved in Verbeck’s handwriting, the following is typical.11 The students he introduced were not. Although the return address of this particular letter is Yedo, where Verbeck had recently arrived, it represents the transition under way, since Verbeck wrote the letter from his new position in Tokyo as head of the Imperial University. However, the recommendation was for five of his former students from his most recent class at Nagasaki before he was called to Tokyo: Yedo, 19 Mar. 1870 Dear Brother, This is simply to say that this trip brings five promising young men who will probably call on you. I crave your kind advice and directions on their way to N. Brunswick. Their names are Asahi, Tats, Orita, Hattori, and Yamamoto. The first two have been my and later Mr. Stout’s scholars. They are sons of

46

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

one of the first houses in the Empire, as their very good manners will show. Hattori is a fine fellow too. Altogether I think them the most promising of any that have come yet. They will of course be well provided with funds. Two or three speak English nicely. Hoping that they will not cause you much trouble, and under obligation for any kindness shown these young men, I remain very truly yours, G. F. Verbeck The two names of Asahi and Tats stand out from the others because Verbeck identifies them using only their first names as “sons of one of the first houses in the Empire.” The other three are identified by their family names. In a subsequent letter of explanation to Ferris, Verbeck made it clear who the father of Asahi and Tats was. He refers to his use of the family name of Iwakura as “the Prime Minister and most influential man in the Empire.”12 The identification of Iwakura Tomomi by Verbeck is relevant, since it notified Rutgers College officials that two sons of the “most influential man in the Empire” of Japan were coming to study at Rutgers. It also indirectly revealed that this influential figure had become so deeply impressed by an Americanized Dutchman, a Christian missionary as well, that he had previously sent his sons to the far south of Japan to study under Verbeck at Nagasaki. That decision in itself illustrated the extraordinary foresight and progressive nature of, according to Verbeck, the most important figure in the new Meiji government, Iwakura Tomomi. Iwakura was not a samurai. Rather, as a senior chamberlain in the imperial household confined to the city of Kyoto during the Tokugawa period, he had lived a life of a court noble in one of the most isolated institutions in the land. By sending his sons to America for study through Verbeck’s introduction, Iwakura demonstrated his confidence that Rutgers College was the appropriate institution for his sons to learn about Western modernization, since Verbeck, a trusted adviser to Iwakura by that time, personally endorsed it. Moreover, since the Murrays would develop a particularly close personal relationship with Asahi in New Brunswick that carried over to Japan, as seen in the first chapter, it meant that David Murray, upon becoming an officer of the Japanese government, had a direct relationship with the influential Iwakura Tomomi. In fact, during his first week as a ranking officer of the Ministry of Education, Asahi escorted Murray to his office in his carriage, described in a later chapter. It was another example of the direct and indirect role that Rutgers College played in the early relationships between Japan and America. One of the other names on the student list, Orita (Hikoichi), deserves consideration for his subsequent involvement with Murray in Japan as a close colleague

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

47

in his office at the Ministry of Education. Verbeck did not give him any special consideration in the letter, perhaps because of his unique role among the students. How all this came about can be traced back to the time when Iwakura Tomomi, during the Restoration, sponsored the education of Orita. Shortly thereafter, when Iwakura sent his two sons to Nagasaki to study under Verbeck, he called upon Orita’s family to have their son accompany his own, perhaps to look out for them from the family of a ranking government figure. Iwakura financed Orita’s travel to New Brunswick with his sons.13 Ironically, Orita did not continue his studies at Rutgers as did the Iwakura brothers. In a remarkable turn of events, he was able to enroll at nearby Princeton, then officially still under the name the College of New Jersey, with the assistance and encouragement of a pastor in New Brunswick, where he was baptized in the Christian faith. Upon graduation he returned to Japan to become Murray’s trusted assistant at the Ministry of Education, accompanying him on school visits as the first Japanese to graduate from one of America’s premier institutions.14 His role in Murray’s work at the Ministry will arise in later chapters. By October 1870, when Verbeck had been in position as the head teacher and titular president of the nation’s leading educational institution in Tokyo, then under the name of Nankō, long enough to renew the pipeline of samurai youth from Japan to Rutgers College, there was one major difference. The students who originated from Nagasaki were financed by their families, who could not always cover the expenses. At times local citizens of New Brunswick contributed funds to keep the Japanese students enrolled in their courses at Rutgers. From 1870 onward, however, most of the students recommended by Verbeck had government scholarships from Nankō, according to the explanation provided by Verbeck in the following letter of recommendation for three more students: Yedo, 20 Oct. 1870 Rev. John M. Harris Dear Sir, The bearers of this, Mess. Matsumoto Sooichiroo, Megata Tanetaroo, and Hasegawa Kisiroo, are students of the College with which I am connected. They are specially appointed and provided for by the Government to study in our country. The term allowed them is 3 years, with the prospect of a like term being granted them at the expiration of the first. They go under the auspices of the authorities of the College. Faithfully yours, G. Y. Verbeck

48

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

With the new source of students from Nankō recommended by Verbeck in Tokyo to John Ferris in New York for entry to Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey, an unusual set of circumstances had evolved. As the highest national institution under the new Meiji government following the overthrow of the feudal Tokugawa regime in 1868, Nankō attracted outstanding students committed to reforming the institution that had deteriorated during the civil war. A system (kōshinsei) was instituted whereby each domain was authorized to select a candidate for the school from among the most qualified candidates available, thereby raising the standards of the entering class of students.15 They were drawn overwhelmingly from the former samurai class of the feudal era when their domain schools were closed following the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate in 1868. Under this set of conditions, an unusual process evolved. As the leading national institution, Nankō sent students on government scholarships to Rutgers College through the personal connections of Guido Verbeck, a Christian missionary from the United States. John Ferris, secretary to the Board of Foreign Missions of the Dutch Reformed Church of America in New York, assumed responsibility for the students recommended by Verbeck by arranging for their enrollment in the Rutgers Preparatory School or Rutgers College, both Christian institutions. The pipeline of outstanding samurai students traveling directly from Japan to New Brunswick that originated in Nagasaki during the final days of the feudal era in 1866 was consequently continued during the opening of the Meiji era, with Verbeck recommending students from his elite national institution in Tokyo in 1870. With the new circumstances in Japan resulting from the restoration of Emperor Meiji to the head of government in 1868—essentially as a figurehead with victorious samurai leaders in control of the government—another unique feature emerged within the background of the students recommended by Verbeck for study at Rutgers College. A letter from Verbeck to Ferris in September 1870 reveals the identity of the third non-samurai student recommended by Verbeck in addition to the Iwakura brothers.16 Yedo, 21 Sept. 1870 Rev. J. M. Ferris Dear Sir: The bearers, His Highness Kachoo-no-Miya, and Messers Yagimoto, Shirane, & Takato have requested me to furnish letters of introduction to you. The officers of the high Government, too, who feel a deep interest in the welfare of these young men, & who know your good name & the interest you so obligingly take in their countrymen who come to the States for an education, have joined in the same request, being assured that they have the best guarantee for the future good of their students while under your patronage.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

49

Yours much obliged, G. Y. Verbeck P.S. 23rd Sept. The Kachoo-no-miya, whom in this introduction I style “his highness,” is a relation to the Mikado—the reigning Emperor. With this cryptic explanation, Verbeck put Ferris and officials at Rutgers College on notice that among the Japanese students at New Brunswick, in addition to all those from samurai families, would be one from the royal family of Emperor Meiji. It also illustrated the unique background of the samurai youth that David Murray encountered when he befriended them in his home as well as in his classroom and church. It not only awakened his interest in Japan and its cultural and educational heritage; it provoked within him a growing commitment to Japan and its future well-being.

The Indirect Route: From Satsuma to London to Rutgers College The alternate route by students from Japan to Rutgers College involved only three samurai youth who had no relationship to Guido Verbeck. They originated from the Satsuma domain, a site in southeastern Japan as unlikely a source of students for study abroad as the remote southwestern city of Nagasaki, from where Verbeck launched the first pipeline of Japanese youth to New Brunswick. The three samurai students who ended up at Rutgers College were among a delegation of fifteen from Satsuma who left Japan in 1865 bound for London one year before the first two Yokoi brothers departed for America from Nagasaki. The three from Satsuma arrived unexpectedly in New Brunswick in 1868, two years after the Yokoi brothers appeared unannounced at the New York office of John Ferris. In other words, it took three years before the three students who departed from Satsuma, Japan, arrived at Rutgers College in the United States. The importance of tracing in some detail the circuitous route to American from Japan via London followed by these three students stems from several sets of circumstances. The first and foremost is that David Murray’s encounter with the samurai youth at Rutgers College as professor of mathematics provoked in him such a powerful interest in Japan that he made an unwavering commitment to the well-being of its people by seeking a way to actively contribute to their progress. The second factor is that among the samurai youth he encountered at Rutgers, the student who had the greatest influence on Murray’s awakening to Japan, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, was one of the three from Satsuma. Finally, underlying this unique combination of unusual circumstances, the incredible experiences the three students from Satsuma underwent during the three years in the West before their arrival at Rutgers College captured the

50

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

imaginations of the Murrays. In particular, the adventures of Satsuma samurai youth during their first two years abroad as students in London, the virtual center of the Western world, inspired not only the Murrays but several of their American students at Rutgers. Among them were two who became the first “Rutgers education pioneers to Japan,” a model for Murray seeking a way to express his new commitment to a distant land and its people that he had no previous knowledge of or interest in. Although the education of the Satsuma students in feudal Japan was similar to that of the other samurai students who came directly from Nagasaki, the three adventurous lads from Satsuma had acquired a level of Western sophistication as students at a British university that was well beyond the other students recommended by Verbeck. It had great appeal to the Murrays. One can only imagine the reaction of the Murrays when they learned directly from the Satsuma students themselves how they finally reached Rutgers College in 1868, a destination not in their plans when they left Japan three years earlier. The circuitous and unplanned route from Japan to America experienced by the Satsuma students can best be characterized as steeped in danger. It was in direct defiance of the ban on unofficial foreign travel and punishable by death. For years Satsuma clan officials chaffed under Tokugawa restrictions imposed on them from the distant capital of Edo. Recent developments within the Satsuma han, or domain school for the sons of ranking samurai families, had motivated a growing desire of their progressive leaders, known for their passion for independence, to learn the secrets of a tiny island nation similar in size to Japan that ruled an international conglomerate of countries within the great British Empire. Through adroit maneuvering, they planned a secret mission of fifteen young samurai to study in London.17 The historical significance of this plan could not be fully appreciated at that time. Three years later, while many of the students were still abroad, the Tokugawa government was overthrown by a coalition of domains led by two of them, Satsuma and Chōshū, which consequently provided the largest number of the most powerful leaders of the new Japan under Emperor Meiji. When the Satsuma youth left for London in 1865, they could not envision that their unusual experiences in the West would prove invaluable in Japan from 1868 onward. It was part of the process of modernization based on modern Western societies led by the leaders from Satsuma and Chōshū, including those who had studied in Britain and the United States several years earlier. The plan for the Satsuma student contingent to England in 1865 originated from a well-known episode in Japanese history that occurred in August 1863. The major Satsuma coastal town of Kagoshima underwent a powerful naval bombardment by British warships in retaliation for the killing of a British citizen visiting near Tokyo at the hands of a Satsuma retainer the previous year. When a ranking Satsuma official was departing Edo in September 1862 on the long

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

51

journey home after paying required allegiance to the Tokugawa shogunate, a British visitor and party wandered dangerously close to his long military procession. It was taken as an insult to their lord by his samurai guards, who mortally slashed the defenseless foreigner on horseback, wounding his friends with their trusty swords. Satsuma clan leaders subsequently became acutely aware of the inability of both the clan forces and the central Tokugawa government to prevent the British Navy from bombarding Kagoshima in retaliation. Reacting independently from the central government, then in growing internal disarray, Satsuma leaders concluded that to preserve their independence from powerful Western nations, then in the process of dividing up much of the world into colonial empires, they must learn the secrets of Western military superiority. With unusual foresight and cunningness, they planned to dispatch a student mission to England to study modern military science from those who effectively demonstrated their military superiority against Satsuma, well aware of the illegality of their plan. The clan faced two major questions: Who would be sent to England and how would they travel halfway around the world to get there from Japan? In secret negotiations with a British merchant then seeking business connections throughout Asia, an agreement was made for the student mission to travel from Japan to London on British merchant ships from the Jardine Matheson company through their office in Nagasaki. The plan was fraught with danger from the beginning. When the scheme was drawn up during the waning days of feudalism, when every clan was still ruled by the hereditary samurai class, education beyond rudimentary studies was primarily restricted to the sons of samurai fathers. Consequently, when the local Satsuma officials, all samurai themselves, initiated the search for fifteen boys within their domain to study in London, the eligible candidates necessarily originated from samurai families. A symbol of the progressive nature of the Satsuma clan was the small school in the city of Kagoshima called the Kaiseijo. It was founded in 1864 essentially as a military school of Western studies—part of the reform of Satsuma education following the bombardment of Kagoshima by the British in 1863.18 It catered to a carefully selected number of boys who had completed the advanced han, the Zôshikan that Murray referred to in his historical description of Hatakeyama’s educational background included in chapter 1. At the lower age level, most samurai boys in the clan attended one of the district schools called Gōjū, where they studied Confucian texts that extolled filial piety and loyalty as well as learning the martial arts. One of the students recalled that the most important texts for young samurai were the nine Chinese classics, the Shiso (four books) and the Gokyo (five scriptures).19 The two curricula formed the unusual combination of the literary (bun) and the military (bu) that uniquely characterized the education of the Japanese samurai warrior.

52

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The higher-level samurai then sent their sons at around age twelve on to the Zôshikan, the domain school for advanced study of Confucian classics as well as advanced levels of swordsmanship of a samurai. Those bright students selected from the domain school, the Zôshikan, for the new Kaiseijo school of Western studies were required to study a foreign language, either Dutch or English, in order to learn modern Western theory related to military affairs. Satsuma officials necessarily turned to the students then enrolled in Kaiseijo as the most qualified candidates for the student mission to England. The number of students in the school totaled around seventy, with sixty in the Dutch department and the rest enrolled in the English department. Since English was critical for studying in England, most of the students in the English department were selected for the student mission. The rest came from the Dutch course.20 As fate would have it, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, Yoshida Kiyonari, and Matsumura Gunzō were students at Kaiseijo at that time who would find themselves arriving at Rutgers College three years later by way of London. A classmate named Mori Arinori, who did not enter Rutgers College but played a critical role in David Murray’s decision to go to Japan eight years later, covered in subsequent chapters, was also enrolled at Kaiseijo at that time. These four forged a close personal relationship as fellow students in Japan, first at the Zôshikan domain school and then at Kaiseijo for one year of Western studies before departing for England. The clandestine mission from Satsuma to England included fifteen students plus four leaders and an interpreter. Although Hatakeyama at first declined to go but finally consented under pressure, the spirit of adventure they displayed by accepting the challenge to be illegally smuggled out of Japan on penalty of death for travel halfway around the world to one of the most important cities in the West exemplified their courageous character. Hatakeyama later revealed to an American friend that his mother was very anxious about his trip westward, for she had heard stories about the barbarians who lived in England and America. She pleaded with him to take some rice, since she was told that people in the West “lived on snakes, frogs, and lizards.”21 In true samurai fashion, when facing great peril, the budding young warriors wrote poems expressing their feelings before departing Satsuma on their unprecedented and unauthorized adventure to the West. Hatakeyama’s mournful poem in particular captures the moment and its historical significance. It not only epitomized the attitude of the Japanese students who went to the West for study to contribute to their country; it exemplified the character that David Murray greatly admired in his young Japanese friends. It was all part of his growing fascination for Japan and its culture, which produced such uncommon youth like Hatakeyama, that awakened a deep interest in their country by Murray and his wife and endeared Hatakeyama to them.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

53

If it be for my country I may now endure This of all the countless journeys In these troubled times. If only the gods would help To know the path ahead And bend the journey’s end Like a bow of catalpa wood. How can I even bear Today’s last farewell? Only by knowing I must endure This voyage for my lord.22

The Japanese students from Satsuma who were destined to become involved in Murray’s appointment to the Japanese government could never have imagined that upon their departure for study in Britain in 1865, no matter the illegality of it, they would serve their country admirably during the next two decades. Mori Arinori not only became Japan’s first diplomat to the United States at the age of twenty-four; he was later appointed as the Meiji government’s ambassador to Great Britain and ultimately became Minister of Education in Japan. Hatakeyama Yoshinari was appointed president of Japan’s first modern university, Kaisei Gakkō, before it became Tokyo University. Yoshida Kiyonari served as an international diplomat as Minister to the United States. And Matsumoto Gunzō became an admiral in the Imperial Navy of Japan after graduating from the United States Naval Academy. Satsuma officials secretly conspired with a British trading company, Jardine Matheson—headquartered in Hong Kong and seeking commercial contacts in the Far East—for transportation of the student mission from Japan to England. All were conscious of the ban on unofficial travel. On the daring two-month trip to London starting from a remote island off southern Japan in April 1865, the boys visited Hong Kong, Singapore, Ceylon, Bombay, and Suez, where they saw the enormous construction project under way for the Suez Canal, before boarding a train for Cairo and Alexandria, viewing the great pyramids on the way. At each stop the boys were amazed with the local people as well as the Western ships that had pulled into the ports, some with modern Western-style buildings never seen before by the Japanese. After sailing through the Mediterranean Sea, they finally arrived in Southampton on June 21. The trip had taken sixty-five days.23 The adventures in Britain for the Japanese boys began upon their arrival in London, when a senior official from Jardine Matheson arranged for a professor of chemistry from the University College London, Alexander Williamson, to advise them. This marks the beginning of a series of unusual relationships

54

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

between distinguished British figures in the academic and political world and the samurai students from Kagoshima. Through Williamson, who took an immediate interest in the welfare of the young samurai, arrangements were made for English-language lessons and living accommodations with faculty members or others related to the university. Hatakeyama, according to Murray, “had the good fortune to find a home as well as opportunities for instruction in the family of Rev. Dr. Davidson of London. Toward the kind friends whom he there found he ever retained and expressed the warmest attachment.”24 To Murray, the good fortune for Hatakeyama in London was the opportunity to live in the home of a Christian clergyman. It was his introduction to Christianity. Williamson and several other eminent scholars from the university took the boys on tours of factories and shipyards in London and nearby communities before their coursework began. Their activities were reported in several British newspapers, including the prestigious London Times:25 On Saturday last a large party of Japanese, sent over by the princes of that country to gain a knowledge of the agriculture and manufacturers of Great Britain, paid a visit to the Britannia Iron Works. They were accompanied by Professor Williamson of the London University, by the Professor of Natural Philosophy at Glasgow University, and other eminent, scientific men, who have the direction of their investigations. The Japanese, whose remarkable physique caused considerable interest, the Mongolian type being very striking, took great interest in the machinery and various processes in operation at these important works, and seemed astonishingly quick in comprehending the various details.

Figure 2.3. Samurai students from Satsuma in London. From Benjamin Duke, Ten Great Educators of Modern Japan (Tokyo University Press, 1989), 41.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

55

In the fall of 1865, three years before the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese students enrolled in University College London, later to become the University of London. At the time University College London was the only secular institution of higher education among the three then in existence that included Oxford and Cambridge that did not discriminate according to race, class, or religion. The Japanese students enrolled as nonmatriculating students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences with the intent of taking a variety of courses related to military affairs, especially naval. However, they began their studies by enrolling in a basic laboratory course in analytical chemistry, which included chemistry, physics, and mathematics,26 under Professor Williamson, who submitted a petition to the university authorities for the course: “I should be glad to obtain the permission of the Council for a course of laboratory instruction of a somewhat exceptional kind which is now needed by a party of 14 Japanese students. These young men cannot avail themselves of the full laboratory course but wish to enter the laboratory as students for one year, working only 3 or 4 hours per day.”27 The first exposure to Western learning by the samurai youth from Satsuma in September 1865 took place under the supervision of Alexander Williamson, who was at the time president of the British Council of the Chemical Society. After three years as a student at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, he had completed his studies of chemistry at the University of Giessen, the European center for chemical teaching and research. Upon the recommendation of the great philosopher John Stuart Mill, Williamson then moved to Paris to study advanced mathematics under the famed scholar Auguste Comte for three years before joining the faculty of University College London in 1849.28 In one of the most noteworthy episodes in early modern Japanese history, the samurai youth from Satsuma, destined to make critical contributions to the future of their country, initially encountered Western science under one of the most distinguished figures in the field. Moreover, they enrolled in Williamson’s famed chemistry laboratory under a senior assistant who had graduated from the chemistry program. However, Williamson himself was known for spending hours “in the laboratory, going from one student to another, arousing and maintaining their interest in their work, and ready to discuss any point upon which they sought his help. In the laboratory he abounded in new devices.”29 How prophetic this turned out to be. Nine years later in 1874, when Hatakeyama was president of the country’s leading educational institution in Tokyo, then named Kaisei Gakkō, and David Murray the Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education, which was responsible for the institution, the two coordinated a request to Professor Williamson to recommend two professors of science for the Imperial University. Williamson’s choices turned out to be outstanding scholars who set Western standards in the science department at the nation’s premier institution of higher education,30 considered in some detail in a later chapter.

56

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The samurai youth who had come to London were suddenly thrust into the very center of Western civilization without any preparation or realistic expectations about what they would encounter—and at an impressionable age. Moreover, it would all unfold in a foreign language that most had never studied. The few who did for a very short time in the English section of the Kaiseijo in Satsuma studied with teachers in Japan who had little knowledge of the foreign language themselves. Meanwhile, in an unexpected and bizarre turn of events that would uproot the lives of the Satsuma boys in London, a distinguished member of Parliament (MP), Laurence Oliphant, had taken a genuine interest in them as a result of his continuing interest in, and fascination with, Japan. In 1859 he had visited Japan on a short stay with the Earl of Elgin’s Mission in an effort to develop British relations with the shogunate after treaties had been signed with the United States. Oliphant was favorably impressed by virtually everything he witnessed in Japan, concluding upon departure that “there exists not a single disagreeable association to cloud our reminisces of that country.”31 In 1861 Oliphant returned to Tokyo as the first secretary at the British Legation. One evening shortly after his arrival, antiforeign provocateurs wounded Oliphant in a sword-wielding attack upon breaking into the Legation. Barely escaping with his life, he was sent home for recovery from his wounds ten days later. Nevertheless, Oliphant never lost his admiration of the Japanese. In 1865, when he was introduced to the boys in London by a friend who was an official of the merchant company that brought them to England, he took an immediate interest in the young samurai and their welfare. One of the Satsuma students wrote home about the relationship they quickly developed with Oliphant: “He kindly assisted us in various ways by providing us with a great deal of information about schooling not just in Britain but elsewhere as well. He was also quite a writer and the author of a book called something like China and Japan. As a Member of Parliament, he was a man of some power. When we called at his house, a porter appeared at the door, turned out smartly in a white collar with an air of great self-importance.”32 Oliphant, who had traveled through Asia and beyond, was a man of the world who would play a major role in the experiences of the Satsuma boys in the West. For example, when his distinguished father, Sir Anthony Oliphant, was appointed chief justice in Ceylon, Laurence became his secretary.33 Later he served as a British official in Canada, enabling him to visit Washington, DC, before his travels to China and Japan. He also traveled widely in Europe. As a newly elected MP in 1865, and a celebrity in his own fashion, Oliphant was able to arrange meetings for the Satsuma samurai boys with government officials normally not available to foreign students. He advised them on travel, on study, and on countless other matters. Hatakeyama, destined to become David Murray’s trusted confidant in the Japanese Ministry of Education, had developed

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

57

Figure 2.4. Laurence Oliphant, British member of Parliament, confidant of the Satsuma students.

a keen interest in the volunteer militia in London, joining in their training program in the hopes of entering the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich near London, depending on Oliphant’s influence.34 Although Hatakeyama never had the opportunity to enter the academy, it was indicative of how the Japanese boys viewed their dependent relationship with the distinguished British MP. In the encounter with Laurence Oliphant, the young samurai had an extraordinary opportunity to gain insights into international affairs as well as Western culture and political life. They were developing a worldly perspective under his guidance. Oliphant was profoundly impressed with the boys in the same manner that David Murray became several years later. Likewise, they developed an admiration and trust in Oliphant as they did with Murray, who was destined to encounter the Satsuma boys at Rutgers College. It’s unlikely that Murray had heard of Laurence Oliphant by that time.

58

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

During the first summer vacation in 1866, the boys dispersed for sightseeing purposes. Since Professor Williamson had studied in Europe and MP Oliphant had traveled widely on the continent, the two of them were in a position to provide advice to the Japanese students in planning their summer travels. Their excursions added another unusual episode to their first experiences in the West. The European powers had undergone a great transition during the AustroPrussian War in early summer with the emergence of Prussia as a major player competing with France for hegemony, a conflict that was prominently covered in London newspapers. Hatakeyama, with the assistance of Williamson and Oliphant, took the opportunity to visit one of the great European cities. In August he traveled to Paris, where he spent several weeks enjoying the famous sites of the city.35 Noted above, Williamson had studied under the renowned scholar Auguste Comte in Paris. The significance of this trip would play out later when Hatakeyama arrived at Rutgers College. The summer travel plans of another Satsuma student in London would also have unforeseen repercussions at Rutgers College. With assistance from Oliphant, Matsumura Junzō and Mori Arinori, who were interested in naval affairs, arranged to serve as apprentices on a British ship carrying coal from Newcastle to St. Petersburg, then the capital of Russia, which they toured before returning to England.36 The two underwent the training of deckhands, an exhilarating experience that left a permanent impression, especially on Matsumoto. Upon his unexpected arrival at Rutgers College two years later, he pursued the possibility of fulfilling his desire to study naval affairs at the United States Naval Academy, from where he was destined to graduate, considered in the following chapter. All the Japanese students returned for their second year at University College, where Hatakeyama and his colleagues continued their studies of mathematics and natural sciences. It also turned out to be an unsettling year. First of all the situation back home in Satsuma was greatly altered as clan leaders assumed a leading role in planning a revolution against the Tokugawa regime. The central feudal government was unable to cope with foreign demands to further open the country to international discourse. At the same time, the shogunate faced increasing internal demands, led by the Satsuma and Chōshū domains, for the restoration of the emperor then confined to the city of Kyoto by the shogun, who ruled the nation from Edo. The financial support for the boys in England from their Satsuma clan slowly decreased and finally stopped as clan leaders increased their military activities against the central government in Japan. The boys in London found themselves in a desperate financial situation far from home.37 In a most dramatic episode during their second year in England, Laurence Oliphant abruptly resigned from Parliament, to the amazement of the British political establishment. The reason behind his widely publicized announcement

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

59

turned out to be not only unprecedented coming from an MP, it would have an impact on modern Japan of incalculable dimensions. Oliphant announced that he would resign his seat in Parliament to travel to America to join a tiny Christian sect, the Brotherhood of the New Life, led by a charismatic Welshman named Thomas Lake Harris. Further confounding the startling decision, Laurence’s mother, Lady Oliphant, planned to accompany her son.38 Deeply concerned about the future of his new friends from Japan from a moral as well as financial perspective, Oliphant introduced Harris to them during his visit to London from the United States. How the worldly, erudite MP Oliphant was drawn into the mystical and most controversial world of Thomas Lake Harris and his tiny religious commune in rural New York is revealing, since the Japanese lads, three of whom would encounter David and Martha Murray within a year, also initially became attracted to Harris’s teachings. After a number of opportunities to learn about Harris’s teachings during his visits to London, Oliphant had concluded that because “the world, with its bloody wars, its political intrigue, its social evils . . . was like a gigantic lunatic asylum,” he would retire from public life.39 He then planned to join the Harris commune in America under the belief that Harris had the answers to the world’s most serious problems. Oliphant invited two of the Satsuma students, Sameshima, later Japan’s first chargé d’affaires to England in 1870, and Yoshida, later Minister to the United States in 1876, to accompany him to Harris’s religious commune during their first summer at London, when Hatakeyama went to France and Mori to Russia. During the trip to America, Oliphant revealed to the boys his conviction that Harris was the “living Confucius of the present day.”40 It had a powerful influence on the students, which they conveyed to their friends upon returning to London. Realizing the possibility of proselytizing the Japanese boys as missionaries to non-Christian Japan, Harris, during his meeting with them in London arranged by Oliphant, invited them to join his religious colony in return for physical labor on behalf of the brotherhood. Under the financial burden facing the lads so far from home without adult supervision and the moral challenge that Harris offered them, six of them accepted the offer, withdrew from University College, and set sail for the United States in late June 1867, shortly after Oliphant and his mother left England to join the Brotherhood of the New Life in America. Mori, Hatakeyama, Yoshida, and Matsumoto were among them. The others returned to Japan as Satsuma clan leaders increased their anti-Tokugawa movement to restore imperial rule to Japan.41 For the next year, the Satsuma boys experienced a rugged and most unusual lifestyle in a remote Christian sect where hard work, frugality, and Christian morality as interpreted by the founder prevailed. Thomas Lake Harris set out to establish a utopian heaven on earth isolated from the rest of the world. In a classic study of the colony located in Brocton, New York, entitled A Prophet and

60

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

a Pilgrim, the authors describe the weird environment that the Satsuma boys experienced following their two fascinating years at a British university in the vibrant city of London. Labeling Harris as a “spiritualist,” the researchers added a subtitle that speaks for itself: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant; Their Sexual Mysticisms and Utopian Communities Amply Documented Confound the Skeptic.42 Harris attracted a strange mixture of followers to the colony in rural New York that included not only Lady Oliphant and son Laurence from the British elite but American clergymen, American ladies of social standing, and six young Japanese brought up in the samurai tradition of feudal Japan.43 Every member of the colony was required to contribute their labor for the welfare of all. The Japanese boys—who cleaned out the barns, watered the cattle, carried water for cooking, and washed dishes—encountered a lifestyle unimaginable to them as samurai in Japan.44 Sir Laurence Oliphant, also unaccustomed to such conditions as a British socialite, underwent the same grueling regimen. It was endured by all, as Hatakeyama was told by Harris, for the purpose of “crucifying the flesh that he might receive true knowledge.”45 Oliphant wrote a letter to a friend describing the lifestyle at the colony and how his dear Japanese friends were reacting to it: “I am at present living a sort of

Figure 2.5. Thomas Lake Harris, spiritual adviser of the Satsuma students.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

61

hermit life—trying to get rid of the terrible old worldly magnetic poisons out of my system without hurting or infecting my neighbors. I am therefore not allowed to hold intercourse with anyone. . . . For the same reason I cannot speak to the Japanese, though I see them, dear souls, every day hard at work with their countenances beaming with delight. They feel the effects of the sphere, and of the influx that comes from labour, and they say that they never knew what happiness was before.”46 A reporter from a local newspaper paid a visit to the Brocton colony, describing in a curious manner his meeting with one of the Japanese boys in the community whose name he did not reveal: We made a short call on one of them, who was engaged in his study (to wit, the corner of a workshop), after his day’s work had been done, studying the scriptures. The tawny Pagan actually seemed to have been born again, physically as well as spiritually. How happy he was! His face shone as though it were reflecting rays from the sun of righteousness. We will make a clean breast of it, and say that we went into the rough room with a sneer on our lip and cynical emotions on our bosoms, and we came out of it with tears in our eyes and with profitable humility of heart.47

For the next year, the samurai youth from Satsuma became immersed in the teachings of Thomas Lake Harris, which must have bewildered them. He preached to the members of the commune that “there is but one good, even God, and so but one Divine Man and we are the forms, images, likenesses of man.” He believed that God’s breath was breathed “interiorly” by the members of his brotherhood and that this manner of “open breathing” by “inspiration from above to respiration outwards” was the “social bond” that made them all organic members of the “Divine Man.”48 It was Harris’s mystical interpretation of Christian ideology that Hatakeyama and two others would reject before the year ended when they found their way to New Brunswick to enter the class of David Murray at Rutgers College. In 1868, when the Meiji Restoration took place in Japan, bringing an end to the Tokugawa era, Harris urged Mori Arinori and a fellow student Sameshima Naonobu to return home. It’s commonly believed that Harris, in his prophecy of Japan, was confident that these two had become devoted followers ready to spread Harris’s Christian teachings to the Japanese with the overthrow of the feudal government. Harris arranged to send them home as two samurai convinced that by serving God, they were serving their country.49 A letter they wrote to their Satsuma friends still at the Harris colony from the steamer home revealed not only their attitudes toward their home country and their spiritual mentor but the advanced level of English they had achieved during the past three years in the West, typical of their Japanese friends who had studied in London with

62

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

them: “The object of our going this time is nothing very special, but is simply to discharge our duty to our country. . . . We still feel, yea more and more, inexpressibly grateful towards the Lord our Heavenly Father, for He is through his beloved servant T. L. Harris working so infinitely and so mercifully for the salvation of all the inhabitants on the globe.”50 Harris could not have imagined that Mori would return to the United States three years later as the twenty-four-year-old Japanese chargé d’affaires in Washington who would be instrumental in hiring David Murray as Superintendent of Education in Japan and that Sameshima would return to London as the first Japanese chargé d’affaires to England. With their departure from the Brocton colony in 1868, the close friends from the Satsuma clan were no longer together in the West. At the same time, Hatakeyama, Yoshida, and Matsumura, who had by then become disillusioned with Harris, his spiritual teachings, and life in the secluded compound in rural New York that Murray characterized as “a Communist establishment” and a “mistake into which he [Hatakeyama] had fallen,”51 had also made a major decision. On their own accord, the three left the sect slightly before Mori and Sameshima left for Japan. Through a trusted friend, they were directed to Rutgers College. The three Satsuma samurai boys from University College London and the Harris colony in New York arrived on the campus of Rutgers College in the summer of 1868 to join the samurai youth already there from Guido Verbeck’s classes in Nagasaki.52 From that moment onward, there were essentially two branches of Japanese students in New Brunswick. The vast majority had come directly from Japan to America upon the recommendation of Verbeck. The other branch consisted of the three Satsuma students who arrived in New Brunswick after two years in London and one year at the Harris compound. Regardless of their distinctly different routes to Rutgers College, their common educational background as sons of the governing warrior class reared in domain schools of feudal Japan dominated by Confucian studies rendered the Japanese samurai students at Rutgers as a distinguishable group. There was, however, one major difference between the three Satsuma students who had come to Rutgers College via England and the Harris colony in nearby New York and the rest of the Japanese students who arrived directly from Japan. Their journeys from Japan to New Brunswick were so vastly different, both geographically and experience-wise, that David and Martha Murray could not help but become aware of the differences between the two groups. This difference, particularly between Hatakeyama from Satsuma and those recommended by Verbeck from Nagasaki and Tokyo, explains in part why the Murrays took a personal interest in him that went beyond that of nearly all the other students. First of all Hatakeyama and his two Satsuma classmates had been away from Japan in the West for over three years, while the others had traveled to America

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

63

directly from Japan in a trip that took at the most extreme instance several months. During the three years abroad, the Satsuma boys experienced life in England for the first two years as students in one of the premier Western universities while boarding with reputable families in London. Their classes at the University College London were all in English, with reading assignments in English. Murray describes Hatakeyama’s two years in London as being “earnestly engaged in mastering the language and the elements of an English education.”53 That was followed by a year in America at the religious colony of the Brotherhood of the New Life, where they were surrounded by Americans from a variety of backgrounds speaking English with somewhat varying degrees of accents and usage depending on their social levels. There was an intense daily study of the Bible followed by discussions of the teachings of a unique persuasion related to the mystical religious teachings of Thomas Harris. Hatakeyama and his friends from Satsuma had been immersed in English in an English-speaking country for three years. By that time they had become fluent. When David Murray met Hatakeyama for the first time in New Brunswick in 1868, he was able to carry on a normal conversation similar to that with an American student. William Griffis noted that “nothing pleased ‘Soogiwoora’ [Hatakeyama] more than to see and hear Rutgers students warmly disputing over differing local gods, men, or customs, or the relative merits of Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Griggstown, Millstown, or Paramus.”54 With the manners and personal demeanor of a samurai gentleman speaking excellent English and writing virtually native English, according to several surviving documents, Hatakeyama deeply impressed the Murrays. In contrast, many of the other Japanese students at New Brunswick had to first enroll in the preparatory school to Rutgers College to attain a minimum standard of English to qualify for Rutgers College. Not a few dropped out before doing so. The extraordinary experiences that Hatakeyama, Yoshida, and Matsumura had undergone during the previous three years in England and the peculiar Christian colony in New York distinguished them from the other students who had come directly from Japan in a variety of ways. For example, England was undergoing an industrial revolution when Hatakeyama and his close friends from boyhood days in Satsuma were studying in London. They visited factories and shipyards that produced the trains that revolutionized travel at a time when there were no trains in Japan and ships that could sail around the world, capable of bombarding hostile ports in Japan when Japan had no oceangoing vessels equipped with such lethal armament. The three lads from Satsuma had lived for two years in the city of London, the center of the great British Empire during the Victorian era, where revolutionary Western political and social movements were founded and/or nurtured, such as socialism and communism. Charles Darwin developed his famous treatise on evolution and Karl Marx on communism in the city of London not that many

64

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

years before the Japanese students arrived. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto were first published in London and widely debated when the Japanese students were enrolled in University College London. They were broadly exposed to these great Western movements, whereas the students that Verbeck sent directly from Japan had little or no knowledge of communism or evolution. In one of the ironies of the period, evolution was introduced into Japan by Edward Morse from Harvard University while teaching at Tokyo University in 1877, arranged in part through his relationship to David Murray, by then Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education, considered later. Consequently, Hatakeyama and his Satsuma friends were highly sophisticated in the ways of the modern Western world when they entered Rutgers College, in contrast to their fellow students from Japan. The students coming directly from a feudal society had to make an enormous adjustment to their new environment in New Brunswick, similar to what the Satsuma students underwent in London three years earlier. Hatakeyama, whose “diligence, capacity, and amiable character endeared him to his associates and instructors,” according to Murray, stood out among the Japanese students to the extent that he became their “guardian and superintendent.”55 With Murray as an adviser and friend of the Japanese students, the relationship between Hatakeyama and the Murrays grew deeper each year. There was, however, another development that endeared Hatakeyama to the Murrays. Considered in the first chapter, he became baptized as a Christian in the Second (Dutch) Reformed Church of New Brunswick, where David served as an elder and superintendent of the Sunday school and where Martha taught in the Sunday school.56 The role that the Murrays as devout, active Christians played in Hatakeyama’s conversion to Christianity can only be conjectured. Murray described the situation accordingly: “While in New Brunswick he became convinced of the truth of the Christian religion and was baptized. In the belief and practice of this faith with earnest but unostentatious fidelity he continued until his death.”57 The timing of Hatakeyama’s baptism is of interest. According to the records of the Second Reformed Church, the ceremony took place on December 3, 1868.58 It was only three months after he arrived from the Christian colony of Thomas Lake Harris. Hatakeyama’s formal conversion to Christianity shortly thereafter may have resulted from his reaction to the lives of David and Martha Murray as committed Christians who warmly befriended the non-Christian youth from Japan. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Hatakeyama’s religious convictions in America, his conversion to Christianity at the Murrays’ church was another factor in the deepening bond between them and Hatakeyama. Although David Murray’s awakening to Japan resulted from his encounter with the Japanese samurai youth who arrived in New Brunswick by two different

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

65

routes and vastly different experiences, the Japanese students reacted to both Murray and his wife in common regardless of the breath of sophistication and language ability among them. In what can only be understood as an expression of the admiration for, and appreciation of, Murray’s dedication to them in the classroom and the personal interest in their background and well-being by both David and Martha, shown during the many visits to the Murray home, ten of them joined together in April 1870 at a photographer’s studio in New Brunswick for a portrait as a gift to the Murrays. The picture provides an opportunity to identify the major characters in this story. Among the students in the portrait, those who later formed the closest working relationship with Murray at the Ministry of Education were Hatakeyama Yoshinari (standing third from the left) and Hirayama Tarō (seated first from the right), who served as a senior officer in the Ministry of Education in Murray’s office. Among the brightest students in Murray’s mathematics class was Katsu Kōroku (standing second from the right), son of the commander of the Japanese Imperial Navy, Katsu Kaishū, a prominent progressive figure in the new Meiji government. As the son of an admiral in the fledgling Japanese Navy, Kōroku

Figure 2.6. The Japanese Students in New Brunswick, April 19, 1870. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

66

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

was interested in pursuing a naval career. Several other Japanese students then at Rutgers College had the same goal, including the youngest of the Yokoi brothers, the first to arrive at New Brunswick from Japan eager “to study navigation to build big ships.” They had become interested in the possibility of going on from Rutgers to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, considered in the following chapter. Sometime after the first portrait of ten Japanese samurai youth studying at Rutgers was taken, seventeen others also gathered for a portrait picture, undated, perhaps inspired by the group picture of the ten dedicated to the Murrays. With Hatakeyama the only one to appear in both pictures, it proves that at least twenty-seven samurai youth in the two pictures were living in New Brunswick at the beginning of the 1870s. With such a large number in the one portrait, it also provides an opportunity to identify several of them in order to more fully appreciate how these youth exerted such a powerful impact on both David and

Figure 2.7. Japanese Students in New Brunswick, 1870–1871. D. Clark, photographer, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

67

Martha Murray. It also illustrates the role Rutgers College played in the higher education of not a few students who subsequently served in influential positions of the Meiji government in the great transition of Japanese society from feudalism to modernism in the 1870s. Among the students that David and Martha Murray befriended, two brothers were the only non-samurai. Iwakura Asahi (standing fourth from the left) and his brother, Tats (second row third from the right), were brought up in the pageantry of the imperial household in Kyoto, where Emperor Meiji was confined by the Tokugawa military government. Their father, Iwakura Tomomi, served Emperor Meiji as a chamberlain and trusted adviser. The Murrays developed a particularly close relationship with Asahi that carried over to Japan. For example, shortly after the Murrays arrived in Japan, Asahi escorted them to his home to introduce them to his mother, who was eager to meet the professor of her sons who treated them so warmly in their home, described in chapter 1. When their father, referred to as the prime minister by Guido Verbeck, later returned to Japan from an extended trip to the West, the Murrays were again invited to dine at the prime minister’s home. In Martha’s letters home to relatives, she notes on various occasions that Asahi was present at dinners in their home and elsewhere. It all originated in New Brunswick around the time when the portrait picture was taken. In the field of education, two of the students in the picture made particularly significant contributions to modern Japanese education as presidents of the nation’s premier institution of higher education. Hatakeyama Yoshinari (seated in the second row, fourth from the left), Murray’s closest friend and confidant, was appointed as head of Kaisei Gakkō in 1873, two months after returning to Japan after an absence of eight years. The institution became Tokyo University in 1877. The other student in the picture to achieve academic distinction as president of Japan’s premier institution of higher education was Yamakawa Kenjirō (seated first on the left). He arrived in New Brunswick with experience as a combat warrior that, as far as can be determined, none of the other young samurai had. Only two years prior to the picture, as a teenage samurai from a distinguished family, he was fighting for his life in the last great battle in feudal Japan, the siege of the Tsuruga Castle in the town of Aizu, a hundred miles north of Tokyo. The Yamakawa family was on the losing side between the forces struggling to preserve the Tokugawa military government against the Meiji forces led by Satsuma samurai determined to restore the emperor as the head of a new government. During a thirty-day siege of the clan’s castle, Kenjirō was posted outside to become engaged in hand-to-hand fighting against imperial units. The Tokugawa forces surrendered to the superior forces supporting the emperor. Kenjirō was captured and taken to Edo. The family was banished to the north. Two years later he was in New Brunswick, posing for a picture standing alongside the

68

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

sons of Iwakura Tomomi from the imperial household, whose loyal forces had captured him in a bitter battle ending the Tokugawa shogunate that he courageously defended as a loyal samurai. Kenjirō, described by Griffis as “a very diligent student,”59 left Rutgers early on to enter Yale University School of Arts and Sciences in New Haven. He graduated from Yale to return to Japan appointed as the first Japanese professor of physics at Tokyo University. When the institutional name was changed to Tokyo Imperial University, Kenjirō became the president of the most prestigious institution of higher education in Japan, the second one in the picture after Hatakeyama to do so.60 The two portraits of the Japanese samurai students in New Brunswick at the beginning of the 1870s, dressed elegantly in Western-style clothes of the modern era, contrast sharply with the picture shown previously of Japanese samurai students in warrior dress bearing swords and topknots in Guido Verbeck’s class in feudal Tokugawa Japan in the 1860s. It would appear that a transformation had taken place from the feudal to the modern, from the East to the West, when the samurai students arrived in the United States without the traditional swords of the warrior class to enter Rutgers College. That interpretation, however, fails to address the critical factor underlying David Murray’s awakening to Japan, which happened as a result of befriending the Japanese samurai youth. What fascinated David and Martha were the manners, the attitudes, and the character of the young Japanese. It was not their modern attire and immaculate grooming that awakened a compelling interest in Japan and its culture by the Murrays and Griffis as well. It was, in fact, the training common to all samurai in varying degrees in feudal Japan involving the study of Confucian classics in clan schools, which instilled loyalty, perseverance, and sacrifice, combined with the martial arts. The dress style had changed. The spirit of the code of the samurai tradition, minus the sword, had not.

The Murrays’ Favorites The final issue in the initial encounter between the Murrays and the Japanese students in America that would play out in Japan when David Murray assumed a senior position in the Ministry of Education in 1873 concerns the special relationships they developed with three of the students. As we have seen, Murray’s encounter with the samurai students at Rutgers College and its preparatory school from the late 1860s to the early 1870s awakened a compelling interest in Japan within him. It was, however, the very personal relationships that emerged between the Murrays and Hatakayama Yoshinari, Iwakura Asahi, and Katsu Kōroku that most deeply motivated Murray’s commitment to the future of Japan. Reflecting the genuine goodness, thoughtfulness, and warmth of the

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

69

Murrays, they drew these three young samurai led by Hatakeyama more closely into their extended family than the others. Drawing from letters sent home to relatives in New Brunswick after the Murrays settled into their life in Japan from 1873, we learn for the first time how intimate these three students had become with the Murrays themselves and also with Martha’s relatives. Using informal versions of their names indicative of a personal relationship with them, Martha uses the phrase “intimate relationships” that Soogiwoora (Hatakeyama), Asahi (Iwakura), and Kats (Katsu Kōroku) had developed with the Murray relatives during their school days at Rutgers College. The personal contacts in New Brunswick obviously went beyond the social gatherings of the Japanese students at the Murray home in the evenings. Considered previously, the Murrays had taken their closest young samurai friends on various occasions to the nearby homes of their relatives, where they enjoyed special occasions in the American custom. The experience of participating in an extraordinarily domestic environment brought out human qualities of the Japanese lads reared as warriors in a feudal society that endeared them not only to the Murrays but to the Murray relatives as well. These three Japanese students became so close to some of the younger relatives of David and Martha Murray that when they learned about their engagements or marriages after returning to Japan from Martha, who felt obliged to keep their Japanese friends aware of extended family developments in America, they sent their personal congratulations to them from Tokyo. For example, on learning that Lena, the daughter of Martha’s aunt Helen, had been recently engaged, Asahi, son of Iwakura, essentially the prime minister of Japan, asked Martha “to send his regards to all of you and congratulations to Lina.”61 In a letter to Martha’s cousin Lucy in January 1874, Martha described in great detail the fascinating visit of the family of Katsu Kōroku, whose elderly father had retired as head of the Japanese Imperial Navy. She noted that his son, “little Katz,” was “so intimate with all of you,” meaning Lucy and her family. At the time of the letter from Tokyo, “little Katz” had left Rutgers to become a student at the United States Naval Academy. On several occasions Martha offhandedly mentions in her letters the gifts she or her relatives received from their Japanese friends. Upon a visit to the Iwakura home, where Asahi introduced his sixteen-year-old sister—described by Martha as “beautifully dressed”—she adds in her letter to Lucy that the sister’s clothes were made of “material very much like Katz gave the girls [Lucy’s daughters] only softer and finer.”62 In another letter Martha recalls the set of cups given to her by Hatakeyama as “Satsuma ware.” What makes this relationship that Soogiwoora (Hatakeyama), Asahi, and Katz developed with the Murrays and their extended family members unprecedented is that they opened the most personal and intimate world of an extended

70

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

American family to the sons of the founders of Meiji Japan, who became leaders of the second generation. The Murrays not only wanted their relatives to meet the Japanese students they thoroughly enjoyed being with; they were confident that their young friends would enjoy the opportunity to meet the Murray relatives, which they did and greatly appreciated, recalling it years later with fondness. This set of intimate relationships can best be appreciated in their historical context. In Japanese history prior to World War II, the Boshin War of 1868 is considered the most momentous period, marking the end of feudalism with the defeat of the Tokugawa shogunate and its supporting daimyo in an uprising of opposing daimyo led primarily by the Satsuma clan. The goal was to restore the emperor, then confined to Kyoto. There were, consequently, three distinct factions involved in Japan’s civil war of the late 1860s. The ruling Tokugawa shogunate and its supporting domains were concentrated around Edo. The anti-Tokugawa domains were located mostly in the south of Japan. Finally, the imperial household was confined to the city of Kyoto by the ruling Tokugawa family. The prize was control of the Tokugawa headquarters at Edo, to become Tokyo, with military battles at several sites incurring considerable loss of life among both the Tokugawa and antiTokugawa forces. The uniqueness of the intimate relationships of the Murrays with the three samurai youth at Rutgers is that Hatakeyama Yoshinari came from a Satsuma family on the victorious anti-Tokugawa side, Katsu Kōroku came from a family on the defeated Tokugawa side, and Iwakura Asahi, a non-samurai, originated from the imperial household. As the war neared its climax in late 1867, the general of the most powerful Satsuma forces—the famed military figure of the period who Martha Murray was destined to host one day—Saigō Takamori, laid siege to the capital city. Katsu Kōroku’s father, Kaishū, senior official representing the ruling Tokugawa government, placed his life in danger when he negotiated a peaceful surrender of Edo to Saigō without any loss of life. He subsequently survived several assassination attempts from hardliners who had been determined to defend the city to the end.63 The negotiations between Katsu Kaishū and Saigō Takamori spared the city of Edo from potential destruction, setting the stage for the end of the feudal government in 1868 with the exile of the last Tokugawa shogun to the town of Shizuoka, where he was born. His chief negotiator, Katsu Kaishū, and family went into exile with him. Nevertheless, Kaishū, a progressive in the feudal government, was able to send his son Kōroku to Rutgers through Guido Verbeck’s recommendation shortly thereafter, where the Murrays took a special interest in him and vice versa. Emperor Meiji was then moved to Tokyo by the anti-Tokugawa forces led by Satsuma figures in the Meiji Restoration, which was hailed as the beginning of modernization. Accompanying the emperor to Tokyo from Kyoto was his senior

T he S amu r ai Invasion of New Brunswick

71

chamberlain, Iwakura Tomomi, who quickly became the ranking figure in the new government. It was then that Iwakura arranged to have his sons Asahi and Tatsū enter Verbeck’s class in Nagasaki, and from there they traveled to Rutgers in 1870. To add a further element of historic intrigue in which David Murray became inextricably involved, the details of the delicate negotiations between Katsu Kaishū and Saigō Takamori that spared the great city of Tokyo from potential destruction were made available in English through a book written by Edward Warren Clark. Clark was a student of Murray’s at Rutgers, where he became a close friend of fellow student Katsu Kōroku, son of Katsu Kaishū. Clark learned about the dramatic exploits of a leading figure of the Tokugawa shogunate, Katsu Kaishū, directly from him when Kōroku’s father hired Clark to come to Japan to teach science at the school for the sons of the Tokugawa retainers in exile south of Tokyo. Clark then wrote a book, using one of the alternate names used by Kōroku’s father, entitled Katz Awa, the Bismarck of Japan: Or, the Story of a Noble Life. It was written as an expression of profound respect for a progressive leader by Clark, a “Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan” from David Murray’s class of 1868 in the Rutgers Scientific School. Of some irony, Murray’s celebrated class of 1868 included Hatakeyama Yoshinari and the other two students from Satsuma Japan who arrived at Rutgers via London, considered in the following chapter.

chapter 3



MURRAY’S CELEBRATED CLASS OF 1868 the first rutgers educational pioneers to japan The academic year 1868 marks a pivotal period in the life of David Murray. As professor of mathematics in the Scientific School at Rutgers College that he had cofounded three years earlier, Murray encountered four outstanding samurai youth from Japan enrolled in the fall semester who deeply impressed him. It proved to be the initial venue for an awakening to Japan by Murray. It led to his appointment as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan five years later in 1873, fulfilling a commitment by Murray to contribute to the welfare of the nation in the service of the emperor. The following is a summary of the individual backgrounds of not only the four illustrious Japanese students in Murray’s class but their two American classmates who also experienced an awakening to Japan. Their encounter with the samurai youth in America led them to Japan from Rutgers as educational pioneers preceding their professor. The summary includes their education before 1868 and the destinies of all the students to fully appreciate the contribution that the Scientific School at Rutgers College made to the future of Japan. The Class of 1868 at the Rutgers Scientific School1 Hatakeyama Yoshinari: Satsuma domain samurai, two years at University College London, one year at a Christian colony in New York. Destined to become president of the leading institution of higher education in Japan, Kaisei Gakkō, that became the University of Tokyo; aide to the Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education (Murray); and adviser to Emperor Meiji. Matsumura Junzō: Satsuma domain samurai, two years at University College London, one year at a Christian colony in New York. Destined 72

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

73

Figure 3.1. David Murray, 1868. D. Clark Studio, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

to enter the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis from Rutgers, graduating as the first Japanese to do so, to become a vice admiral in the Imperial Navy of Japan and director of the Japanese Imperial Naval Academy. Yoshida Kiyonari: Satsuma domain Samurai, two years at University College London, one year at a Christian colony in New York. Destined to become Minister Plenipotentiary (Ambassador) to the United States in the Imperial Government of Japan from 1874 to 1882, the first two years during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Kusakabe Tarō: Echizen domain Samurai recommended by Guido Verbeck for study at Rutgers College. Destined to be recognized as one of the most outstanding students in arts and sciences in America, singled out in the official history of Rutgers College as “a fine scholar, an especially able mathematician”;2 was awarded the honor of membership in Phi Beta Kappa.3 He died shortly before graduation and was buried in New Brunswick. William Elliot Griffis: Senior student at Rutgers College from Philadelphia. Destined to become the first Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan, organizing science education at the former Echizen domain

74

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

school in rural Japan and later introducing modern science patterned after the Rutgers Scientific School as professor of chemistry and physics at Kaisei Gakkō, with part of his tenure under President Hatakeyama. One of the most prolific non-Japanese writers on Japan introducing Japanese culture and history to the Western world. Edward Warren Clark: Senior student at Rutgers College from Albany, New York. Destined to become the second Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan, organizing science education at a former domain school serving samurai youth from the Tokugawa regime in exile following the Meiji Restoration, and later joining Griffis to teach science at Kaisei Gakkō on the Rutgers Scientific School pattern under President Hatakeyama. In the history of modern Japanese education, David Murray and the 1868 class of students in the Scientific School of Rutgers College stand out for their significant contributions to the future of Japan. In no other institution in America did such an exceptional band of visionaries in an academic setting unite in a common goal: the advancement of Japan from feudalism to modernism. The year 1868 was a momentous year in Japan. The end of the Boshin Civil War in Japan brought about the overthrow of the feudal Tokugawa shogunate and launched the Meiji era of enlightenment. It was led by samurai warriors including the most famous General Saigō Takamori from the Satsuma domain who, along with fellow clansman, assumed leading roles in the new Meiji government. With three of the four Japanese students enrolled in the class of 1868 originating from the Satsuma domain, they were highly motivated by the potential opportunity to use their Western learning for the welfare of modern Japan, with many of their clansmen holding powerful positions in the Meiji government. The year 1868 was also a momentous year in the United States with the election of General Ulysses S. Grant, military hero of the American Civil War, as president. It was Grant who was in office when initial diplomatic relations between America and Japan were under consideration in Washington in 1872. Not only was one of Murray’s Japanese students from the class of 1868, Hatakeyama, serving with the Japanese negotiating team in Washington; Murray was chosen as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan by that same mission, the topic of the following chapter. The Scientific School at Rutgers College that brought Murray and the memorable class members of 1868 together was a unique institution within a denominational college dominated by the classics. Its founding three years earlier resulted from the inspiration of Murray and a colleague in the field of chemistry, Professor George Cook. The Rutgers Scientific School was made possible by a special bill signed by President Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the American Civil War on July 2, titled the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. It authorized the

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

75

sale of federal lands to finance the founding of institutions of higher education in the agricultural and mechanical arts in each state. The act brought about a revolution in American higher education with the proliferation of the great state universities throughout the nation. It was impossible in 1862 to foresee how the Morrill Land Grant Act would have any potential relationship to Japan, then under the Tokugawa feudal government. For example, at the time of the signing of the Morrill Act in Washington in 1862, three Japanese samurai students enrolled in the Satsuma domain school, the Kooshien in southern Japan, were destined to become greatly affected by it. Hatakeyama Yoshinari, Yoshida Kiyonari, and Matsumura Junzō were then studying the teachings of Confucius while learning the martial arts to follow in their fathers’ footsteps into the samurai ruling class. In a han school in Echizen domain, an exceptionally bright student by the name of Kusakabe Tarō was undergoing similar training. These four young samurai were destined to enroll in the class of 1868 at the Rutgers Scientific School.4 Meanwhile, in the United States two teenagers by the name of William Griffis and Warren Clark were going through secondary schools when the Morrill Act was passed. Griffis was the son of a Philadelphia coal merchant. Clark, son of a clergyman, was brought up in various communities mostly in the state of New York. They, as freshmen at Rutgers College, became attracted to the new Scientific School at its opening in 1865. They could not have envisioned how the Morrill Act would so profoundly influence their lives as students in the class of 1868. Nor could they have imagined that they, as educational pioneers to Japan, would introduce modern Western science at Japan’s Kaisei Gakkō as they had learned it at the Scientific School of Rutgers College. Because of the prominent role of the Rutgers Scientific School in David Murray’s decision to resign from the faculty of Rutgers College in 1873 and join the Japanese Ministry of Education to contribute to the advancement of Japan, tracing its formation and development is of considerable historical importance. Moreover, since it produced two young American educational pioneers who introduced Western science to several local schools in Japan as well as teaching science at the nation’s premier institute of higher education, it deserves serious attention. In addition, by providing educational opportunities for Japanese samurai youth in America who contributed to the welfare of their country, the Rutgers Scientific School stands out among American institutions from this unique perspective as well. It all began with the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act, defined as “an Act donating public lands to the several States and [Territories] which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.”5 The intent of the U.S. Congress was to provide funding to encourage and enable each state to “promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits in life the United States.” The method of financing was to be based on the sale

76

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

of federal lands located primarily in the sparsely populated western part of the United States. The portion allotted to the state of New Jersey at the rate of $30,000 per member of Congress had been allocated early on to the state government. However, it had not yet been granted to any potential recipient institution of higher education in the state deemed qualified to carry out the mandate in the bill when Murray joined the Rutgers College faculty in 1863 at the request of George Cook. The two who knew each other well from serving together previously on the faculty of the Albany College would launch a campaign to take advantage of the funds available to an institution certified by the state government of New Jersey. The founding of the Rutgers Scientific School and its development depended primarily on the relationship between Cook and Murray, which originated when Murray graduated from Union College in 1852. At that time Cook, a chemistry graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was principal of the reputable Albany Academy. He had just assumed that position when Rev. William Campbell resigned as principal of the academy, later to become president of Rutgers College. Cook was seeking someone to teach mathematics at the academy and made that known to appropriate officials at nearby Union College. Murray was recommended for the coveted position at the well-known Albany Academy, filling the post in 1853 under Cook’s administration. In 1856 Cook resigned as principal of the academy to join the faculty of Rutgers College as professor of chemistry and natural sciences at the request of William Campbell, who by then had developed close ties with Rutgers College on his way to the presidency. Murray succeeded Cook as principal of the academy. Six years later in 1863, Cook invited Murray to join him as professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Rutgers College, where the two professors in science were once again brought together under a new president, Rev. William Campbell. All three had been principals of the Albany Academy, and all were determined to bring about a transformation of Rutgers College.6 Murray and Cook shared a unique professional experience. They both deviated from their academic specialties in mathematics and chemistry, respectively, by becoming school administrators at the same institution. During their consecutive tenures as principals of the Albany Academy, they gave up the science classroom for the principal’s office. In other words, their interest in education was broadly conceived from early on in their careers. It was refocused on science when they joined the faculty of Rutgers College from the Albany Academy. Murray and Cook fit into the category of “remarkably vigorous professors” who sparked the transformation of Rutgers College in the 1860s under President Campbell.7 When Murray assumed his post at Rutgers College in 1863, it included mechanics, astronomy, electricity, and magnetism.8 Cook was responsible for teaching chemistry and natural science.9 At the time, however, classical studies dominated the curriculum as it had from the beginning of the institution.

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

77

All freshmen students were required to study Latin grammar and prose, Greek grammar and prose, mathematics, rhetoric, ancient history, biblical recitations, and elocutions.10 With two activist professors in the field of science on the faculty of a small Christian college with a classical curriculum, the first step toward an alternate scientific curriculum at Rutgers College emerged from their initiative. Murray’s interest in the issue stemmed from his experience as a student at Union College, where he studied mathematics and science in one of the earliest alternate science offerings at an American college under the illustrious president Eliphalet Nott. Murray was an outstanding example of the success of that historical episode in American higher education, covered in chapter 1. Cook’s interest in a scientific curriculum at Rutgers College originated from his studies at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, whose sole curriculum was devoted to science. However, it also derived from his growing attraction to geology, which led to his acceptance of a part-time position as assistant geologist for the state of New Jersey. According to his biographer, “Throughout the remainder of his life his concentration on the geology of New Jersey and his work in the related field of agriculture made him the outstanding nineteenth century figure in New Jersey in both fields and one of the most respected geologists and agricultural experts in the nation.”11 Cook’s primary interest in conducting geological surveys of New Jersey would not only bring him into contact with ranking state officials, it would indirectly have an influence on science education in Japan at a later date. As the only two members in the field of science on the small Rutgers College faculty in late 1863, Cook and Murray presented a proposal to their colleagues to create a Scientific Department at Rutgers College. As visionaries, they designed it to be financed by the unused funds allocated to the state of New Jersey under the Morrill Land Grant Act. They recommended that the courses be divided into three groups—agriculture, mechanics (engineering), and chemistry—to conform to the provisions of the Morrill Act. The faculty responded favorably by encouraging the two proponents to pursue the project. The following month Murray and Cook presented drafts of a resolution to the Rutgers College Board of Trustees and a proposed law to be submitted to the New Jersey legislature that had the authority to choose the recipient institution for the funds held in trust from the sale of public lands allocated to New Jersey. It amounted to $116,000. The faculty approved and sent the proposal to the board of trustees. Upon approval in January 1864, the trustees formally adopted a resolution petitioning the New Jersey state legislature for the funds from the Morrill Land Grant Act.12 A number of state legislatures in America were already planning new state colleges and universities of agricultural and mechanical studies with funds made available through the Morrill Act. The small state of New Jersey was not among

78

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

them. The New Jersey State Normal School and the College of New Jersey, to become Princeton University, also submitted proposals to receive the land grant funds from the state, contesting the proposal designed by Murray and Cook.13 The purpose of the Morrill Act, “to provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts,” seemed inappropriate for a small, private institution with a classical curriculum such as Rutgers College. During the deliberations Murray prepared a supporting pamphlet for distribution among state legislators. Professor Cook was particularly active in a vigorous campaign encouraging the legislators to choose Rutgers for the Morrill Act funds while also conducting a geological survey of New Jersey in his capacity as assistant state geologist.14 After much deliberation, in March 1864 the state legislature officially designated Rutgers College as the official land-grant college of New Jersey. In December the board of trustees adopted the faculty plan designed by Murray and Cook to apply the federal funds for the inauguration of the Rutgers Scientific School. The entire procedure took place before the first two Japanese samurai youth arrived on campus in 1866. When the Rutgers Scientific School opened in 1865, the freshman class consisted of seven students.15 Among them were William Elliot Griffis and Edward Warren Clark, who were destined to serve on the faculty of chemistry at Japan’s leading institution of higher education in Tokyo in the early 1870s, when Murray was Superintendent in the Ministry of Education, noted previously. Although unknown at the time, the education they received at the new Scientific School at Rutgers College under Professors Cook and Murray had consequences for the future of science in Japan, considered in a later chapter. Indicative of his personal interests, Cook accepted an additional appointment in 1864 as the surveyor of the state of New Jersey. In that capacity he launched a series of geological surveys of the state and the publications of the reports.16 In other words, from the time that the Rutgers Scientific School was opened in 1865, Professor Cook’s schedule was curiously divided among teaching chemistry courses at the college, conducting geological surveys involving detailed reports for the state of New Jersey, and even setting up and managing a farm purchased by Rutgers College to conform to the provisions of the Morrill Land Grant Act “for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.”17 Cook’s diversion from his professorship of chemistry had inevitable consequences, both immediate as well as future. Murray had to devote much time and attention to getting the project under way for the opening with the 1865 school year. However, the founding of the Scientific School represents the first manifestation of one of Murray’s greatest attributes since he joined the Rutgers faculty. He was a visionary in every sense of the word in his campaign to transform the institution he had recently joined to meet the needs of the time. Although the establishment of the Rutgers Scientific School had no relationship to the Japanese samurai students who had yet to arrive on campus, the

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

79

new science facility played a consequential role in Murray’s awakening to Japan. When Murray worked so diligently in the founding of the Scientific School in the early 1860s, he could not have imagined that his class of 1868 would contribute to the modernization of Japanese education. When the “invasion” of New Brunswick by Japanese samurai youth began cautiously in 1866 with the first two seeking a Western education at Rutgers College, their primary interest, “to study navigation to learn how to build big ships and make big guns to prevent European powers from taking possession of their country,”18 related directly to the new science curriculum at Rutgers rather than the traditional classical curriculum. Japan was emerging from several hundred years of feudalism under the Tokugawa regime. To modernize the country, Western science was essential. However, the standards in English and basic science of the first two Japanese students at Rutgers College were not sufficient for them to enter the new Rutgers Scientific School. Instead, they were directed to the Rutgers Grammar School. In contrast, the class of 1868 at the Rutgers Scientific School stands out as the first class to set an extraordinarily high standard for entry. The nucleus of the class was set in place during the summer when the three samurai boys from Satsuma—Hatakeyama Yoshinari, Yoshida Kiyonari, and Matsumura Junzō—unexpectedly arrived at New Brunswick after being alienated in the Christian commune in rural New York under the religious guru Thomas Lake Harris, covered in the previous chapter. With fluency after two years at University College London and one year at the religious colony in America, they were well prepared in English for the fall semester at Rutgers College as foreign students. Academically, the three had studied intensively for two years in a famous chemical laboratory in one of the most advanced science departments in the Western world at University College London under a leading British scholar in chemistry, Alexander Williamson. As a result the three Japanese samurai students from southern Japan were also well qualified from a science perspective to enroll in the new and untested Scientific School at Rutgers College. Kusakabe Tarō, a brilliant student who had come directly from the rural Echizen domain in Japan upon recommendation by Guido Verbeck, was also considered qualified to enroll as one of the most academically gifted and motivated applicants to enter Rutgers College.19 In addition, the two American students, William Elliot Griffis and Edward Warren Clark, qualified as senior students in the Rutgers Scientific School, where David Murray taught mathematics. It was a small but most unusual class of students, diverse in background and experience. From the beginning of the Rutgers Scientific School in 1865, the students— few in number and somewhat isolated from the main student body in classics— formed a distinct group.20 Likewise, the Japanese and American students in the class of 1868 developed a special relationship among themselves. Not only were the American students deeply impressed by the Japanese students, the

80

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

opposite was true as well. In an unlikely coalition of youth from Japan trained as warriors in a feudal society and American students brought up in the Christian faith, enduring relationships evolved. The commitments made among them in New Brunswick would carry over to Japan. By enrolling in the Scientific School at Rutgers, with its small number of students and faculty, the Japanese and American students came into a close relationship with David Murray. His classroom manner and attitude toward his students endeared him to them. Murray carried that relationship between professor and student to a deeper level by inviting the Japanese students into his home in the evenings, with wife Martha hosting the samurai youth as a surrogate mother. In a casual atmosphere where informal discussions centered on the educational background of the young samurai boys, interpersonal relationships between them and the Murrays, all visionaries under the unique circumstances, developed into lifelong commitments. Curiously, at the same time, a personal relationship between George Cook and the Japanese students did not take place as it did with the Murrays. As a parttime New Jersey state surveyor with an abiding interest in geology, which had no particular interest to the Japanese students, Cook spent considerable time conducting state surveys and preparing reports. Moreover, his heavy involvement in managing the Rutgers Scientific School farm made it necessary for students interested in chemistry to enroll in the curriculum of agricultural chemistry,21 which was of little interest to the Japanese students. As a result, Cook did not have the time or inclination to personally befriend the Japanese students. Early on during the 1868 class year, considered in a previous chapter, Hatakeyama Yoshinari made a decision that would deeply ingratiate him with his mathematics professor and his wife, both members of the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick. On December 3, Hatakeyama was baptized into the Christian faith and joined that church.22 He had only arrived in New Brunswick several months earlier. Hatakeyama’s decision to become a Christian also had a very positive reaction among his American classmates, who had become fascinated with their Japanese classmates. As devout Christian boys when they entered Rutgers College three years earlier, both Griffis and Clark were torn between studying classics, leading to a career in the Christian ministry, or studying science in the Scientific School, leading to a secular career field. It was natural under the circumstances that Griffis and Clark were drawn ever closer to Hatakeyama as fellow Christians, a relationship that would come into play in novel ways years later when Hatakeyama became president of the prestigious Kaisei Gakkō in Tokyo with both Griffis and Clark on his faculty. Clark considered Hatakeyama as his “warmest Japanese friend.”23 Another development in 1868 affected the future of one of the Japanese students, Matsumura Junzō, who had an interest in naval affairs. During the summer of 1866, between his two years at University College London, he and another

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

81

student from Satsuma, Mori Arinori, had hired on as deckhands on a ship delivering coal from England to Russia and thoroughly enjoyed the experience, noted in the previous chapter. Upon arriving at Rutgers College, Matsumura learned about a campaign already under way by several Japanese students at Rutgers to enable qualified Japanese to enter the U.S. Naval Academy, until then prohibited by federal regulations. Although there is no record of David Murray’s direct involvement, he had to become aware of the interest to enter the U.S. Naval Academy among several Japanese students during the evening social times in his home for them. Murray may have advised them on how to proceed in their desire to change the regulations prohibiting Japanese from entering the academy. The process began when several of the Japanese students approached John Ferris at the Board of Foreign Missions of the Dutch Reformed Church. According to Ferris, he responded to the request that as a Christian worker, he had practically no power to do anything in this matter but would endeavor to enlist the help of one of his friends—namely, Frederick Frelinghuysen, then U.S. senator from New Jersey. Senator Frelinghuysen was very favorably disposed to the proposition made by the Japanese students. It was through the personal influence of Frelinghuysen, endorsed by President Johnson, that the following resolution was approved by the U.S. Congress:24 Resolved that the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Secretary of the Navy be hereby authorized to receive for instruction at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, not exceeding six persons, to be designated by the government of the Empire of Japan. Approved July 27, 186825

One of the first Japanese to apply to the U.S. Naval Academy and be accepted was Matsumura Junzō.26 His interest in mathematics had to be deepened when he learned that the restrictions on Japanese entry into the Naval Academy had been lifted. His level of mathematics enabled him to graduate from the Academy.

William Elliot Griffis and Edward Warren Clark Emerging from the deepening relationships that were nurtured among the Japanese and American students at the Rutgers Scientific School was the “idea” of William Griffis and Warren Clark going to Japan as educational pioneers. It came about as a result of an awakening to Japan in their encounter with their Japanese classmates that could not be contained. Ironically, their professor, David Murray, was destined to undergo a similar experience from his encounter with the Japanese students. His American students not only set the precedent for Murray,

82

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

but their pioneering experiences in Japanese schools would become intertwined with Murray’s responsibilities as Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education. Warren Clark revealed in poetic terms the depth of the motivation that stimulated him and Griffis to dream about going to Japan: “The idea of going away off to Japan, t’other side of sun down, so lit up our imagination, at the outset, and caused our dreams to run wild in fairy-land, and our poetic fancies to soar to marvelous heights.”27 This is the first indication that the “idea” of Griffis and Clark going to Japan had become, in fact, a serious topic of conversation among Murray’s students. Griffis and Clark exemplified the vitality of the student body at Rutgers College during an era of transformation following the American Civil War. Like many other students in the history of the college, they were committed Christians. Clark grew up in the home of a clergyman. Unlike typical Rutgers students, however, the two did not enroll in classical studies to prepare for a career in the Christian church or a learned field such as law. With an interest in science, they enrolled in the newly established Scientific School of Rutgers College in 1865 to study chemistry. By enrolling in the Scientific School during its initial period in direct competition with the traditional classical curriculum that dominated private colleges in America, the decision in itself illustrated the unique qualities of both Griffis and Clark. They were not only adventurous but visionary. They had purposely made a choice for their future that was in contrast to the clergy that many Rutgers students prepared for. The small number of students in the new Scientific School was evidence that the alternate science curriculum in a private denominational college was an experiment in higher education that would attract visionaries. Since Griffis was destined in 1872 to teach Western science at Nankō, a review of how this transpired is relevant to an appreciation of David Murray’s fateful decision to become the Superintendent of Japanese Education in 1873. Upon graduation from the Rutgers Scientific School in 1869, Griffis immediately enrolled in the Rutgers Theological Seminary in preparation for the Christian ministry. By entering the seminary, Griffis revealed the predicament he faced. Rather than continuing advanced studies in science or searching for a position to teach science—perhaps in a private preparatory academy such as the nearby Albany Academy, where Murray taught mathematics after graduating from Union College—Griffis deliberately chose a path that would lead to the ministry. While enrolled as a theological student, Griffis concurrently taught in the Rutgers Grammar School that prepared students for Rutgers College. It provided him with an income, enabling him to remain as a full-time theological student. Among his students were several from Japan. He also privately tutored Kusakabe Tarō, to become his classmate in the Scientific School, who Griffis “had the honor of teaching . . . Latin.”28 The image of a Japanese brought up in the samurai

Figure 3.2. William Elliot Griffis, ca. 1865, first Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan. D. Clark, photographer, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

84

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

tradition in feudal Japan studying Latin while enrolled in a Christian college in New Jersey illustrated the unusual combinations of East and West cultures that transpired during this period. In the spring of 1870, a tragic episode took place. Kusakabe Tarō died shortly before he was scheduled to graduate. One of the Japanese students who exemplified the samurai tradition at its finest, and for whom Griffis had the highest admiration, Kusakabe had come to Rutgers College from the remote province of Echizen. He played an important role in Griffis’s awakening to Japan, who described his dear samurai friend as the “passionate pilgrim at the shrine of knowledge.”29 Kusakabe had been committed to the advancement of his country. While at Rutgers, according to Griffis, Kusakabe was determined to “learn all the languages, sciences, and phases of knowledge, and do it quickly.”30 Because of his complete devotion to his studies, which resulted in an extraordinarily high level of scholarship, Kusakabe was awarded the coveted gold key of membership in the Phi Beta Kappa for his outstanding grades. In such an environment, he virtually worked himself to death by concentrating on his studies to the neglect of all other activities, which weakened his body beyond recovery. He was the first among the Japanese students at New Brunswick to be buried in the local Willow Grove Cemetery. It would be a moment of historical symbolism when Griffis, who attended his former classmate’s funeral in New Brunswick, presented his Phi Beta Kappa key to his father over a year later when he, as the first educational pioneer to Japan from Rutgers College, accepted a teaching position in Kusakabe’s hometown of Fukui.31 The role of Christianity in Rutgers College as a denominational institution of the Dutch Reformed Church came into play in unexpected ways in the first death of a Japanese student from the Scientific School. Although Kusakabe showed an interest in Christianity during his tenure at Rutgers College, as Griffis reported, “on his deathbed he declined to embrace Christianity, but with noble motive. Not for him to offer the dregs of his life to one set before him as the Captain of salvation. For him to serve meant devotion in full loyalty.”32 Griffis recalled that when a classmate visited Kusakabe, “pallid and wasted with consumption from over-study,” in an effort to convert him to Christianity, his response as not worthy of the honor reflected that of a true samurai that endeared him to his fellow students and teachers. Among them, David Murray was as deeply influenced by his Japanese students. In Griffis’s great classic, In the Mikado’s Service, he described Kusakabe’s deathbed convictions about Christianity, further stimulating his classmates’ commitment to the future of Japan in their growing appreciation of the samurai spirit. He explained why Kusakabe would not convert to Christianity: “‘No,’ said the sick one, ‘Life is like a candle in the wind. Mine is nearly blown out, and I shall not offer to your God and Christ only the snuff of my existence. I never insult my friends, and if half of what I have

Figure 3.3. Kusakabe Tarō from Echizen, Japan, 1867. D. Clark, photographer, New Brunswick; photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

86

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

read about Jesus is true, then he is my friend, and I want my people to know him. If I had my life to live over again and had been taught, as you have been, I might believe and act differently.’”33 Indicative of the atmosphere prevailing at the time at Rutgers College, in spite of Kusakabe’s declination of Christian baptism, he was given a Christian burial service in the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick. Since the ceremony was held in the church where Murray served as an officer, he had to be involved in the funeral arrangements. Rutgers College, however, went one step further in honoring Kusakabe. According to Griffis, “free from uncharity or sectarianism, and without a shadow of bigotry, but rich in sympathy, the President of Rutgers College pronounced the funeral sermon.”34 It was illustrative of the importance given to the death of a young samurai from feudal Japan by Rutgers College that motivated Griffis, Clark, and Murray to become educational pioneers to Japan. At the very time that this set of relationships was being forged at Rutgers College among Murray, Griffis, Clark, Hatakeyama, and Kusakabe, another set of unique relationships was being forged in Japan that would greatly affect the ones at Rutgers. Just as Griffis and Clark graduated from Rutgers College in 1869, Guido Verbeck had been invited by a former student from his classes of samurai in Nagasaki who had become a senior official in the new Meiji government to move to Tokyo. Verbeck was appointed by the Japanese government to head Nankō, to become Kaisei Gakkō in 1873 and finally Tokyo University in 1877. In its reopening after the civil war of 1868 amid the confusion following the restoration of Emperor Meiji with the merger of several feudal schools, Nankō had fallen into disrepute. In the rush to begin classes with foreign faculty to meet the trends under way, the first “professors” were often “ex-bartenders, soldiers, sailors, clerks, etc.”35 Verbeck was essentially given free rein to reform the school as he felt necessary. He accepted the challenge that was made by the government led by Iwakura Tomomi, whose two sons had been in Verbeck’s classes at Nagasaki and were being recommended to study at Rutgers College in March 1870. With Verbeck in Tokyo from mid-1869 assuming responsibility for the reform of Nankō with the full support of the Japanese government based on personal contacts at the highest level, and having a close connection with Rutgers College, where he had been sending Japanese students for several years, the stage was set for a new round of international relationships. It would bring Verbeck into direct contact with Griffis, a recent graduate from the Rutgers Scientific School. Within this set of entangling circumstances in Japan and America, Griffis became the first of two students from Rutgers to become educational pioneers to Japan. In a speech at Rutgers College long after he returned to America from his pioneering adventure in Japan, Griffis described succinctly how he and Edward Warren Clark from the illustrious class of 1868 went to Japan as science teachers:

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

87

Prominent among the leading daimios who had taken part in the coup d’etat at Kioto, January 3rd, 1868, which had upset the old, and set up the new order of things, was Matsudaira, lord of the province of Echizen. Taking immediate advantage of the situation, he applied to Dr. Verbeck for a teacher of science at Fukui, the capital of his fief or principality. Directly and indirectly, this was the means of bringing out from Rutgers College two members of the (graduating) class of ’69. . . . Your speaker went as a pioneer and the first American to live inside the country beyond treaty ports. He is, perhaps, the only white man living who has seen from the inside the Japanese feudal system in its detail, its fullness, its glory, and its fall.36

Following a well-established line of communication, Verbeck forwarded the request from the domain leader of the mountainous Echizen province for a teacher of chemistry to John Ferris in New York. As was his custom with requests from Verbeck, trusted missionary of the Reformed Church in Japan, Ferris passed it along to Rutgers College, where it ultimately reached Griffis. By the time that Griffis received the open request from the Echizen school for sons of samurai, a carryover from the feudal era, he had become fascinated with all things Japan-related through his encounter with his fellow students from Japan. Griffis was, however, by then enrolled in the theological school in preparation for the clergy. He was faced with the dilemma of whether or not to interrupt his theological studies, perhaps permanently, to go to Japan to teach science. Although Griffis consulted with his professors at Rutgers about whether he should accept the offer, which had to include David Murray under the circumstances, accounts of discussions between Griffis and Murray on the issue have not been discovered. Nevertheless, Murray surely encouraged his former student to accept the offer to go to Japan, as did Griffis’s Japanese friends. Based on Hatakeyama’s concern for the future of his country and his interest in science from his studies at both University College London and the Rutgers Scientific School, he gave his strongest recommendation to his dear friend Griffis to accept the offer to go to Japan to contribute to the nation’s modernization. After agonizing over the options, Griffis finally accepted the offer, rationalizing that he could continue his studies for the Christian ministry by taking appropriate books with him and still fulfill a request to teach science in a land that had captivated him.37 Delighted over the decision, Hatakeyama could not have imagined at that time that he was destined to become the president of Kaisei Gakkō, referred to by Griffis as the Imperial University, several years later, with Griffis already a professor of chemistry on the faculty. His dearest student friend Edward Warren Clark was envious. He became more determined than ever to join Griffis as the second educational pioneer to Japan. Whether Murray had any thought about going to Japan when he bid farewell to Griffis in late 1870 remains unknown. Murray had the satisfaction of

88

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

contemplating that his tireless efforts in the founding of the Rutgers Scientific School could prove to be beneficial for a distant land and its people with whom he too had become fascinated. However, for the first time since Murray encountered the Japanese samurai youth at Rutgers College, he now had a personal contact in Japan who was in the process of making history. By tracing Griffis’s footsteps in Japan, the contribution of the class of 1868 in the modernization of Japan can be more fully appreciated. When Griffis arrived in Yokohama on December 30, 1870, he stayed for a few days in the port town before taking a carriage to Tokyo, where he met Guido Verbeck for the first time. He described Verbeck as “the American Superintendent of the Imperial College to whom I bear letters and credentials.”38 He remained at the Verbeck home on the campus of the elite institution for the next six weeks, finalizing contractual details in preparation for the demanding trip to the distant mountainous province of Echizen to assume his teaching duties. Verbeck served under the title of head teacher (kyōtō) at Nankō. From that position he completely revised the curriculum and staffed the institution with qualified foreign instructors. Simultaneously, he was also advising government officials. They consulted him as a trusted adviser about many issues they faced in setting up a new government. One of those who had established a close working relationship with Verbeck was Iwakura Tomomi. Griffis brought letters for Iwakura from his two sons, then at Rutgers College.39 The six weeks at the Verbeck home provided Griffis with an unexpected opportunity to meet a variety of ranking officials of the Meiji government. Griffis was privy to meetings in Verbeck’s parlor, observing firsthand history in the making that few foreigners experienced. He soon realized that Verbeck—trained as an engineer in Holland but ordained as a Christian pastor and sent to Nagasaki, Japan, during the feudal era as an American missionary from the Dutch Reformed Church in America—had already lived an incredible life in Japan for ten years. He had not only taught many of the current leaders of the Meiji government in his classes at Nagasaki, he had sent many of their friends to Rutgers College for study. Verbeck’s service to Japan during the feudal era, and to the emperor and his government in the early Meiji era, was unmatched by any other non-Japanese. Deeply impressed by Verbeck, Griffis later wrote the classic biography simply entitled Verbeck of Japan, one of his greatest contributions to the historical literature of the country. After nearly two weeks of a hazardous trip from Tokyo by horse over steep mountains and rushing rivers, Griffis arrived at his destination of Fukui, capital of Echizen, in early March 1871. He boasted later that he was “the only white man living who has seen from the inside the Japanese feudal system in its detail, its fullness, its glory, and its fall.”40 His contract stipulated that he would serve as the principal of the Echizen provincial school, originally the han school for

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

89

upper-level samurai youth, and teach chemistry and natural science at a salary of $3,600 per year, plus living accommodations in a European house.41 It had all been negotiated by Verbeck. The compelling story of Griffis’s firsthand experiences at the remote Echizen provincial school in 1871 has been broadly analyzed by Japanese and foreign scholars. A summary is sufficient to illustrate the state of Japanese education in one province far from the most modern cities in Japan at the beginning of the Meiji era. Of significance, David Murray was initially awakened to Japan in America by his encounter with samurai youth who were brought up in domain schools much like that in Fukui, where Kusakabe Tarō was educated as a samurai and where Griffis, Murray’s former student, was now the principal. In other words, Griffis had an opportunity to observe a feudal school in Japan similar to those from where the samurai youth who studied at Rutgers College, and who deeply impressed Murray, Griffis, and Clark, received their basic education. Griffis described his initial reaction of amazement upon arriving at his school in Fukui in early March 1871: I was surprised to find it so large and flourishing. There were in all about 800 students, comprised in the English, Chinese, Japanese, medical, and military departments. A few had been studying English for two or three years under native teachers who had been in Nagasaki. In the medical department, I found a good collection of old Dutch books, chiefly medical and scientific, and a fine pair of French dissection models, of both varieties of the human body. In the military school was a library of foreign works on military subjects, chiefly in English, several of which had been translated into Japanese. In one part of the yard young men, book, diagram, or trowel in hand, were constructing a miniature earth work. The school library, of American and English books—among which were all of Kusakabe’s—was respectable. In the Chinese school I found thousands of boxes, with sliding lids, filled with Chinese and Japanese books. Several hundred boys and young men were squatted on the floor, with their teachers, reading or committing lessons to memory, or writing Chinese characters.42

Although Griffis expected to remain in Echizen for three years, in fact, he taught basic science and elementary chemistry at the local school for less than one year. During that time he found his students “surprisingly eager and earnest in school. They learn fast and study hard. When important or striking chemical experiments are made, the large lecture room is crowded by officials as well as students. I spend six hours daily in the school.”43 The daily routine set in quickly. Griffis took pleasure in introducing Western science to the interior of Japan, where Westerners were rarely seen, using teaching materials ordered

90

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

from America. Although little is known of his teaching methods in science, he described them as “the blackboard system of instruction . . . by experiments and lectures verbally translated.”44 It was the traditional classroom out of America. One of the most poignant moments in Griffis’s life in Echizen was the day that the father of Kusakabe Tarō paid him a visit in memory of his son, who was the first Japanese student to die at Rutgers College. He entered through the rear gate of Griffis’s home rather than the front as an act of humility. Kusakabe’s mother had died of grief upon learning of her son’s death. Griffis described the moment respectfully: “I gave him the gold key of the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Rutgers College, into which his son had been elected, he having stood at the head of his class. His father received the emblem reverently, lifting it to his forehead.”45 Perhaps inevitably, a sense of loneliness in an isolated mountainous part of Japan appears early in Griffis’s letters home. Increasingly, he reveals a sense of discontentment with his lifestyle while recognizing that he is fairly effective under the circumstances in advancing the cause of modern science in a remote Japanese town. A desire to move to the capital city of Tokyo emerges as circumstances change with the official termination of feudal patterns of government and the reorganization of civil institutions. He describes the change in dramatic terms befitting the circumstances: July 18th [1871]—The thunder-bolt has fallen! The political earthquake has shaken Japan to its centre. Its effects are very visible here in Fukui. Intense excitement reigns in the homes of the samurai of the city today. . . . At ten o’clock this morning, a messenger from Tookiyoo arrived at the han-choo. . . . An Imperial proclamation just received orders that the hereditary incomes of the samurai be reduced, all sinecure offices abolished. . . . The property of the han is to become that of the Imperial Government. The Fukui Han is to be converted into a ken, or prefecture, of the Central Government. All officials are to be appointed direct from Tookiyoo.46

Griffis acknowledges that “loneliness having become intolerable, I have resolved to go to Tookioo.”47 He describes the dramatic change in Japanese society underlying his determination to move to Tokyo in a unique manner: “The Japan of the books, the Samurai’s Japan, was passing away. The new Japan of the people was coming in.”48 In another version, he notes that “tomorrow Fukui bids farewell to feudalism. On the next day we shall be in a province without a prince. The era of loyalty is passed. The era of patriotism has come.”49 Of considerable historical relevance, as the Japanese launched the great social transformation from feudalism to modernism, one of David Murray’s students from the Rutgers Scientific School was a participant at the local level. Griffis became aware of the immediate consequence. An exodus of the most ambitious

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

91

samurai from Echizen to Tokyo, eager to relocate from a rural community to the capital city, where the decisions that would determine the direction of the country would be made, was witnessed by a graduate of Rutgers College. Griffis’s classes quickly become depleted as the best students left to seek their fortunes in Tokyo. Many of the best teachers from his school were given positions in the national capital. During the summer of 1871, over seven hundred families left the city of Fukui for Tokyo. Griffis writes that the respectable samurai of influence supported the imperial proclamation as a necessity not for Fukui but for the nation. The times required it. They said, “Now Japan will take a position among the nations like your country and England.”50 In the midst of these dramatic social and political changes sweeping the country, provoking Griffis’s resolve to leave Echizen for Tokyo, as many of his best teachers and students had done, an unexpected development was playing out in Tokyo. In Guido Verbeck’s letter of November 21, 1871, to John Ferris, he reveals a predicament he encountered in recruiting faculty for Nankō.51 When he recently employed two men from San Francisco, he “had to get two plain school teachers.” He notes, “I am in the midst of reforming and revitalizing the school. It is likely that after all I shall call Mr. Griffis here to this school.” Upon the request of Verbeck, Griffis departed Echizen for Tokyo in late January 1872. Through Verbeck’s contacts he received an invitation to join the faculty of Nankō formally contracted by the Ministry of Education from the spring to teach chemistry and physics.52 He was part of the reform of the school. With Griffis as a graduate of Rutgers College, Verbeck had the confidence that Griffis was well qualified to set up a science department at the prestigious school based on Western standards. With the appointment of Griffis to the faculty of Nankō in early 1872, David Murray now had a confidant in a strategic position within the Japanese academic world. Not only had he followed Griffis’s activities in Japan, Murray began to correspond with his former student. It was all part of his awakening to Japan. Meanwhile, Edward Warren Clark, another 1868 graduate of the Rutgers Scientific School, was growing increasingly eager to go to Japan. Clark remembered one particular Japanese student in his class who “was very earnest in his desire that I [Clark] should go and help the cause of civilization in Japan.”53 Just before Clark started for Japan, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, who by this time had become the closest friend of the Murrays, traveled up to Albany, New York, where Clark was staying with his family to bid farewell to his dear friend: “We went to the depot near the Hudson River Bridge, and bade each other Saionara—goodbye; and as the train moved off, Hatakeyama said, ‘You go westward while I go eastward, and we will meet around the world in Japan.’”54 Clark and Hatakeyama did indeed meet in Tokyo in 1873, when Clark joined the science faculty of Kaisei Gakkō, formerly Nankō, on the very day that

Figure 3.4. Edward Warren Clark, the second Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan. Photo courtesy of Kenneth Lew Collection.

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

93

Hatakeyama became president of the institution. That historic day took place several months after David Murray, their former professor, assumed the position of Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education. How Clark found a position in Japan is a fascinating story in itself and another factor in Murray’s decision to follow both Griffis and Clark to Japan. After graduation from Rutgers, Clark made known to Griffis and others of his passionate desire to go to Japan as an educational pioneer whose “experiences and feelings were in a measure wrapped up in your [Griffis’s] experiences and feelings.”55 The process that followed, in which Clark was invited to Japan as the second educational pioneer from Rutgers College, emerged from a set of unusual circumstances involving Griffis. It can be traced back to the end of the Boshin War in 1868 with the defeat of the Tokugawa regime by Meiji forces led by the Satsuma and Chōshū clans. Upon the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the Tokugawa family and its retainers were exiled to their former domain territory in Shizuoka, south of Tokyo. Among them was Katsu Kaishū, progressive thinker of the Tokugawa government involved in naval affairs who sent his son Kōroku to Rutgers College through Verbeck. The Murrays developed a particularly close relationship with Kōroku, who appears in the 1870 picture dedicated to the Murrays (see chapter 2). It was Kōroku’s father, Katsu, who negotiated a peaceful surrender of Edo (Tokyo) on behalf of the Tokugawa government in 1868, described previously.56 Katsu Kaishū was one of the principal figures in the founding of a school of Western studies, Denshūjo, in Shizuoka after the Boshin Civil War. Its purpose was to serve the sons of the former ruling samurai of Tokugawa Japan.57 Indicative of his progressive persuasion, Katsu was determined to find a qualified non-Japanese to manage the school and introduce Western learning to the sons of the Tokugawa family. In one of the most revealing episodes, Katsu Kaishū, apparently having learned about Griffis at Echizen from Verbeck in Tokyo, sent a message to ask for Griffis’s assistance in locating an appropriate foreigner for the position. Griffis recorded the event in his diary of July 25, 1871. The date is highly significant. July 25th—This afternoon, one of the ken officials, Mr. Tsutsumi, who had just come from Tokyo, called to see me. . . . He bore a message from Mr. Katsu Awa [Kaishū]. An American teacher is desired for the school at Shidzuoka, in Suruga. In his letter, Mr. Katsu said, “I desire a professional gentleman, regularly educated, not a mechanic or clerk who has taken to teaching to pick up a living; and, if possible, a graduate of the same school as yourself.” Evidently Mr. Katsu understands the difference between a teacher and a “teacher.” I immediately wrote to my former classmate and fellow-traveler in Europe, Edward Warren Clark, offering him the job.58

94

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The timing of this event illustrates once again both the direct and indirect influence of David Murray on modern Japanese education well before he left Rutgers College to take up his ranking position in Japan in 1873. When Katsu Kaishū specifically asked for a recommendation of “a graduate of the same school as yourself,” he knew exactly what he wanted. By July of 1871, Katsu was well aware of the Rutgers Scientific School and, in particular, knew a great deal about Murray, since his son Katsu Kōroku had studied under Murray from 1870. Katsu Kaishū was informed by his son of the personal kindnesses bestowed on him by both David and Martha Murray. His parents greatly appreciated Murray’s kindness to their son, as revealed in a later chapter. Moreover, in early June 1871, well over a month before the request from Katsu Kaishū reached Griffis in Echizen, Kōroku had entered the famed U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis as a first-year student upon transferring from Rutgers.59 He was following in his father’s footsteps, preparing to enter a career in the Japanese Navy. His preparation in mathematics under Murray at Rutgers was sufficient for him to pass the entrance requirements for a course of study noted for its technical emphasis. Kōroku graduated from the American institution. When Katsu Kaishū contacted Griffis, he was not only familiar with Griffis’s background as a graduate of Rutgers College in the Scientific School, he was most likely familiar with Griffis’s reputation as a successful science teacher at Echizen. That would have come from Verbeck, who had been instrumental in the recruitment of Griffis for the position in Echizen and who was considering asking Griffis to come to Tokyo to join the faculty of Nankō, then under his administrative control. Although Edward Warren Clark knew Katsu Kōroku at Rutgers, it is unlikely that his father had Clark specifically in mind when he asked Griffis for a recommendation for a graduate of the same school where he had studied under Murray. With an offer from Katsu Kaishū through Griffis to teach at the Denshūjo, Clark departed for Japan in October 1871. Upon arrival in Tokyo, he met with Katsu to amicably settle the provisions of his contract, in which, at Clark’s insistence, restrictions on teaching Christianity were removed.60 That would begin a friendship between the elderly Kaishū brought up in feudal Japan and the young Clark brought up in a Christian home in America that took on a father-son relationship. Katsu Kaishū made every effort possible for the successful contribution to modern Japanese education by one of Murray’s students in the class of 1868. In November Clark became virtually an instant educational pioneer at the age of twenty-two and without any experience in teaching. He describes his life at the Denshūjo school in vivid terms: I never worked so hard as I did during the months of exile in the interior of Japan. With an institution of nearly one thousand students under the supervision of a single foreigner; with fifty Japanese assistants to direct and

Mu rr ay’s Cel ebrated Cl ass of 1868

95

instruct; with classes in various scientific departments, both theoretical and practical; with interpreters to be drilled, regulations to be enforced, experiments prepared, and lectures given through the three-fold medium of English, French, and Japanese, you may believe I had my hands full. My regular duties at the school began on Christmas-day.61

Clark taught chemistry and physics to the more advanced students in the afternoon. He described his students in those classes in laudatory terms: These young men were nearly all about my own age, enthusiastic in their pursuit of science, and diligent in their studies to a degree that astonished me. They mastered with facility textbooks that had taxed all the energies of American college students, and were so thorough and devoted to their work that it was a pleasure to teach them. . . . One may easily imagine with what astonishment and delight these people viewed for the first time the wonders of electricity, the steam engine, the air pump, the startling results of chemical combinations, and all the powers of modern physics.62

Clark spent two years in Shizuoka, Japan, experiencing one of the most fascinating episodes in Japanese-American relationships. In 1872 Clark was confronted with what Griffis faced in Echizen. The best and brightest students and teachers in their schools were attracted to the increasing opportunities in Tokyo as the country centralized the educational interests at the capital under the new Meiji government. In contrast to the experiences of his dear friend Griffis at Echizen, slightly overlapping that of Clark at Shizuoka, their clientele were different, as were the conditions. Griffis taught science to samurai students in an obscure rural han isolated from the mainstream of Japanese city life; Clark taught science to samurai students who were brought up in families that ruled Japan for centuries from Edo until the overthrow of the Tokugawa feudal government and their banishment in exile to Shizuoka. Griffis envied Clark as “extremely fortunate in having so many cultured gentlemen, famous characters, and intelligent helpers” in his school.63 In a curious turn of events seldom recognized, according to Clark, some of the victorious leaders among the Meiji government in Tokyo found themselves inadequately prepared to govern the country. They “sent to Shizuoka and called away my friends and my brightest students, assigning them important positions at the capital.”64 The result at both Echizen with Griffis and Shizuoka with Clark was a sharp reduction in the number of students in their schools. That situation provoked Griffis to accept a new position in Tokyo at the so-called Imperial University offered by Verbeck in 1872, providing an opportunity for him to stop on the way at Shizuoka to visit his old friend from Rutgers College. In 1873, after the elderly Katsu Kaishū had also been called to Tokyo to help develop the new

96

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

Imperial Japanese Navy, Clark too was called to join the faculty of science with Griffis at “the Imperial College in Tokio.”65 In both instances David Murray’s two American students experienced the beginning of the transition from the han schools from feudal Japan to the modern schools of Meiji Japan. Clark, as did Griffis slightly before him, observed the final stages of the education of the samurai who Murray had become fascinated with in his awakening to Japan as a result of befriending the Japanese students at Rutgers College. After going through the excitement and the preparation of two of his American students to go to Japan as educational pioneers, Griffis in 1870 and Clark in 1871, Murray was increasingly drawn into the Japanese orbit in New Brunswick. That was further intensified by the increase in the number of Japanese students studying at Rutgers in 1870–1871, reaching nearly thirty at one time. During the beginning of the 1870s, several years before Murray was hired by the Japanese government, he was already making an important contribution to the modernization of Japanese education from his position at Rutgers College. He was teaching mathematics to Japanese students who were destined to assume responsible offices of the Meiji government, including that of Murray’s office of Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education. The Murrays were also opening their home as a social center for the Japanese students endeavoring to learn English and Western studies to contribute to the modernization of their country. The samurai youth were being drawn into the warmth and cordiality of the Murray home while undergoing a social as well as cultural transformation of unprecedented proportions. It was made more agreeable with the personal friendship and concern for their well-being by both David and Martha, who purposely brought their nearby relatives into the widening network of friendships that were formed in New Brunswick. At the same time, two American students were teaching Western science and mathematics to Japan. It was Murray more than any other Rutgers faculty member who not only founded the Rutgers Scientific School as the landgrant college of New Jersey but took a special interest in the Japanese students enrolled in it. Without their background in science from Rutgers, it is unlikely that either William Griffis or Edward Warren Clark would have been offered teaching positions in Japan. Consequently, Murray’s contributions to modern Japanese education were well under way before he too was hired as a pioneer of Japanese education in 1872 to serve as a senior officer of the Japanese Ministry of Education, the topic of the following chapter.

chapter 4



MURRAY’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE SERVICE OF THE EMPEROR the iwakura embassy to washington, 1872

The New York Times carried a front-page article in the December 18, 1871, edition from its San Francisco reporter entitled “The New Japanese Embassy.” It was the first newspaper report in America announcing the impending arrival of a fifty-member diplomatic delegation of ranking Japanese political leaders to San Francisco on their way to Washington, DC. Although the main purpose was to negotiate revisions of a treaty between the two countries, the Iwakura Embassy was destined to play the critical role in the employment of David Murray as a senior official in the Ministry of Education. The powerful mission from Japan was headed by Iwakura Tomomi, whose sons, Asahi and Tats, had been enrolled at Rutgers College since 1870 and were befriended by the Murrays. A non-samurai, Iwakura had served as head chamberlain in the imperial household in Kyoto before the Imperial Restoration of 1868. The Embassy which sails from Yokohama today, which is due here [San Francisco] January 18, will be the most important that has ever left an Oriental nation for America or Europe. It is sent out by order of the Japanese Parliament and the Mikado, that the ruling classes must study for themselves Western civilization and not depend upon the reports of informers, as hitherto. The head will be Iwakura, late Minister of Foreign Affairs, the new Prime Minister of Japan, assisted by Kido, Chief of the Emperor’s Privy Council, who, with the Chief Minister of Public Works, Chief Minister of Finance, and Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, compose the Embassy proper. They will be

97

98

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3 accompanied by eight secretaries, twenty-one officers of rank, and twenty-one noblemen traveling for information. They will proceed to Washington overland, visit the principal cities of America, then go to Europe and around the world.

Murray may have learned about the Iwakura Embassy’s travel plans to America before the article appeared in the New York Times. In a letter of November 21, 1871, to John Ferris, secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church of America in New York City, Guido Verbeck informed Ferris of a major decision recently made by the Japanese government to dispatch a high-powered delegation of Japanese officials to the West.1 He prefaced the revelation with a note that he spent six hours the previous day with the American minister to Japan and the Japanese prime minister, ostensibly working on the details over the embassy’s first destination, the United States. It may have been Verbeck, a Dutchman, who first used the misleading word embassy in translating the name of the mission to the West from the Japanese shisetsudan: Yesterday morning I arose as the clock struck four, was engaged all day, finishing off with an interview with the U.S. Minister & the Prime Minister of Japan, which lasted from 5 to 11 P.M.—On Friday last, I had the honor of an audience with the Emperor. The government is going to send a very superior Embassy to America and Europe. I shall give some of the members letters (special) to you. The ambassadors expect to sail on the 22d December for San Francisco. The chief of the embassy is the father of Tatsu and Asahi (of New Brunswick), the Prime Minister and most influential man in the empire.

This cryptic report by Verbeck revealed that, unexpectedly, conditions for Murray’s second encounter with Japanese in America in the early 1870s had unknowingly been set in place. In contrast to befriending the Japanese students from the samurai class at Rutgers College in 1866, Murray would soon have the opportunity to meet the highest-ranking samurai leaders of the new Meiji government. Iwakura was accompanied by four cabinet officers as vice ambassadors. In effect, most of the ranking officials in the new Meiji government were appointed to the Iwakura Embassy. The well-known top two were Kido Takayoshi from the Chōshū domain and Ōkubo Toshimichi from the Satsuma domain. Along with the celebrated Saigō Takamori, also from the Satsuma domain, who remained in Tokyo in charge of governing, these three were the most prominent leaders of the famous Sat-Chō Alliance of domains that had overthrown the feudal Tokugawa government to form and lead the Meiji government. Kido was technically responsible for educational matters in the mission but was primarily involved in diplomatic affairs. Ōkubo was minister of finance. Itō Hirobumi, younger than the others, was Minister of Works who would become the leading political figure

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

99

of the later Meiji period.2 All were brought up as samurai during the Tokugawa feudal era from different clan schools. Murray, then professor of mathematics at Rutgers College, would within several months be discussing in Washington the future of Japanese education and the nation itself with the most influential leaders of the country, including, according to Verbeck, the head of it, Iwakura Tomomi. It would initiate an unprecedented relationship between Murray and Japan’s senior government officials that would carry over to Japan a year later. Little could the Murrays have imagined they would be hosting the most powerful figures in the Meiji government in their Tokyo home in the near future. Verbeck’s letter to Ferris once again brings into historical perspective the role that Rutgers College and its sponsoring body, the Dutch Reformed Church in America, played in the early stages of American-Japanese relations. Outlined previously, Verbeck, the missionary to Japan from the church that founded Rutgers College, was instrumental in sending scores of samurai youth from Japan, including two sons of Iwakura Tomomi, to study at Rutgers College, which

Figure 4.1. Leaders of the Iwakura Embassy. From Akiko Kuno, Unexpected Destinations: The Poignant Story of Japan’s First Vassar Graduate (Kōdansha International, 1993), 112.

10 0

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

awakened the initial interest in Japan by Murray. Verbeck was also a key figure in designing a proposal in 1869 to dispatch a Japanese mission of senior government officials abroad for a prolonged investigation of modern Western institutions. He labeled it simply as a “brief sketch.”3 After a decade of teaching in Nagasaki, when Verbeck was invited to move to Tokyo in 1869 by one of his former students in government seeking advice on educational reforms, an official mission to the West was already being considered among government circles. There was a variety of concerns underlying the urgency to look to Western countries for solutions to the problems facing the new government after the long feudal rule by the Tokugawa government. The most immediate concerns were several treaties with major Western countries considered unequal when the feudal Tokugawa government, in the absence of a modern navy capable of keeping the uninvited Westerners out of Japan, reluctantly signed them under duress in the 1850s. A number of senior officials advocated sending a delegation from the new government to those countries to renegotiate the terms of the treaties governing Meiji Japan’s relationships with powerful Western nations. The other general category of factors underlying a growing movement to send a major mission of Meiji leaders to the United States and Europe stemmed from the realization of progressive thinkers led by Fukuzawa Yukichi that Japan had failed to modernize in virtually every category of society. The growing demands for reform under various popular slogans, such as bunmei kaikaku (civilization and enlightenment), fukoku kyōhei (rich country, strong army), and gakumon no susume (advancement of learning), the title of Fukuzawa’s most famous book, could not be met without observing firsthand the conditions of modern Western countries that enabled them to achieve a level of economic development far surpassing that of Japan. A government mission to the West could serve as the first step in the modernization of Japan on the road to parity with militarily powerful Western nations then carving up much of the world into empires. In Verbeck’s reply of August 1, 1872, to a letter from Ferris requesting “something for publication” about Verbeck’s role in the origin of the Iwakura Embassy that had just visited New York City on its way to Europe, he outlined the procedure that took place and his role in it. Verbeck could not have imagined that a professor of mathematics at Rutgers College—that is, David Murray, was, at the time he was writing that letter in Japan, being seriously considered for the post of Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education by one of the leaders of the Iwakura Embassy. The irony was that Verbeck originally recommended the formation of an embassy to the West that led to Murray’s appointment with the Japanese government, thereby replacing Verbeck as the primary foreign adviser to the Ministry of Education a year later. He described how it all took place:

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

101

When I came to Yedo in 1869, a strong anti-foreign feeling pervaded the nation. But influential friends spoke to me of an embassy abroad as among the possibilities of that fall or winter. This suggested to me the composition of the paper, which on or about the 11th June, 1869, I privately sent to my friend Ōkuma (a former pupil of mine), one of the leading men at the time and now. Satisfied with its having reached his hands, I left the matter there, never spoke about it, and not hearing about it from the parties addressed. On the 26th October, 1871, Iwakura requested me to call on him. “Did you not write a paper . . . a good while ago that you sent to Ōkuma? . . . I have not seen the paper yet, only heard of it three days ago. I’m having it translated tomorrow. But please tell me all you remember about it now.” We finally appointed an interview three days later to go over the ground once more, paper in hand . . . clause by clause. At the end he told me it was the very and only thing for them to do, and that my programme should be carried out to the letter. A number of interviews followed. Some of them till late at night. The embassy is organized according to my paper. It sailed in two months from the date of my paper becoming known to Iwakura and the emperor. . . . I laid out the route for them to follow.4

Verbeck took the opportunity to specifically recommend a commission to study Western education in his brief sketch, originally, as he described it, “sent to Ōkuma (a former pupil of mine)” in June 1869. Indicative of the powerful figures in the Meiji government who studied under Verbeck in Nagasaki was Ōkuma Shigenobu.5 He was destined to become prime minister of Japan on two occasions and the founder of the prestigious and private Waseda University in Tokyo years later. As it turned out, Verbeck’s recommendations were closely followed by the Ministry of Education, perhaps, in part, from the influence of Ōkuma in the process that set the stage for Murray’s employment in the Empire of Japan: “A commission of three Officers and a Secretary to examine the various systems of National and high schools, the laws in regard to popular education, the manner of establishing and supporting public schools, school regulations and branches of learning, school examinations and diplomas. The officers of this commission ought to visit and see in full operation Universities, Public and Private schools, as well as special schools such as Polytechnic and Commercial schools.”6 Indicative of the creativeness and idealism sweeping through governmental offices during this period, when the proposal for sending the Iwakura Embassy to the West was under consideration in mid-1871, the most important educational plan in the history of Japanese education was in the initial stage of development at the Ministry of Education. Following 250 years of feudal government under the Tokugawa family, when educational provisions were primarily made

102

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

available for the sons of samurai families, the Ministry of Education, established on July 18, 1871, under progressive-minded leadership, concentrated its efforts from the beginning on developing a plan for a national public school system.7 It was intended to replace the feudal schools of the Tokugawa era that catered to the samurai class with a universal system of education to serve all children to be modeled on a modern, although undetermined, school system in the West. Accordingly, Ministry officials agreed on the need for the employment of a Western educational adviser from the United States, England, France, or Germany to assist the Ministry in the implementation of this grandiose plan in its early of development.8 Titled the Gakusei, the “school system,” the magnitude of the first plan for a public school system throughout the nation defied rationality. No nation in the world had a universal school system serving all children. The concept was simple. The implementation was inconceivable. One historian dubbed it “a desk plan,”9 implying that insufficient attention had been given to how such a monumental project drawn up in an outlined form could be carried out, the topic of a later chapter. When the unexpected opportunity arose in the latter part of 1871 to assign a representative to the Iwakura Embassy from the Ministry of Education for a prolonged mission to America and Europe, it provided officials responsible for drawing up the plan for a national school system, mostly Western-oriented,10 with the opportune moment to advance their project. An official was hastily appointed to the Iwakura Embassy from within the Ministry of Education shortly before it departed for America in late December with the assignment to search for an appropriate Western educational system as a model for modern Japan. During that process, a qualified Westerner was also to be found to serve in the Ministry of Education as an adviser to the head of the Ministry responsible for the development and implementation of a plan for the nation’s first public school system for all children. That was the setting for the emergence in the educational history of Japan of Tanaka Fujimaro, destined to head the Ministry of Education during much of the first decade of Japan’s modern school system with David Murray as his senior adviser. Tanaka was chosen by the newly appointed Minister of Education to represent the Ministry with the Iwakura mission to the West. Why Tanaka, a relatively obscure official with the title of mombu daijō (ministry secretariat),11 was chosen for this historical assignment has never been adequately analyzed by historians. A midlevel samurai during the feudal era, Tanaka came out of obscurity three years after the Meiji Restoration to assume the most demanding responsibility in the field of education. He had neither experience in educational affairs nor foreign-language skills. Originating from the Owari han in central Japan, Tanaka had no connection to any of the prominent hans that led the revolution that led to the Meiji

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

103

Restoration. History texts of the era simply record without elaboration that Tanaka joined the new Ministry of Education as a middle-level official less than a year before the Iwakura Embassy departed Japan for the United States.12 As it turned out, the samurai-turned-government-bureaucrat proved to be an excellent choice to head the Ministry of Education during Japan’s first decade of modern education, with Murray as Superintendent of Education to advise him. By November 9, 1871, the final decision to send a government mission to the West had been decided by the Japanese government. Forty-nine officials were assigned to the Iwakura Embassy, the first delegation to the United States and Europe from the young Meiji government, for a lengthy assignment—ostensibly to negotiate revisions of treaties previously signed by the Tokugawa government during the feudal era. However, it was also to visit countries with which Japan had entered into treaties and raise its profile there, to inspect institutions in advanced countries that would be helpful for Japan’s modernization, and to begin soundings for the revision of treaties and present the Japanese viewpoint.13 The immediate goal was to provide an opportunity for the new leaders to observe firsthand the institutions and practices undergirding modern Western societies. The ultimate goal was to replace a feudal society that existed for several centuries under the Tokugawa government with a modern society under the Meiji government commensurate with Western countries. The Iwakura Embassy set sail on December 23, 1871, and was scheduled to travel to Washington and then to the capitals of European countries. It was anticipated that Japan’s first mission to the West since the Meiji Restoration would return home within a year.14 Emperor Meiji outlined the hope of the mission in a farewell speech: After careful study and observation, I am deeply impressed with the belief that the most powerful and enlightened nations of the world are those who have made diligent effort to cultivate their minds, and sought to develop their country in the fullest and most perfect manner. . . . If we would profit by the useful arts and sciences and conditions of society prevailing among more enlightened nations, we must either study these at home as best we can, or send abroad an expedition of practical observers to foreign lands, competent to acquire for us those things our peoples lack, which are best calculated to benefit this nation.15

The Search for a Western Educational Adviser There were four Japanese officials, three with the Iwakura Embassy, who participated in the search for a Western educational adviser for the Ministry of Education in the implementation of the Gakusei. It was intended that Tanaka Fujimaro, assigned to the embassy from the Ministry, would be most directly involved. He had not only been hastily chosen to conduct the search for a Western system of education as a model for Japan and a Western educational adviser to assist in its

104

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

implementation, he was given an additional responsibility. Adding a surprising condition to the already challenging assignment, Ministry officials chose Tanaka to head the Ministry of Education responsible for the Gakusei upon his return from the West. It was assumed that he would carry out that task with his chosen foreign adviser at his side, even though neither would be directly involved in drawing up the Gakusei, scheduled for completion by the Ministry of Education after the departure of the Iwakura Embassy.16 The second figure to become directly involved in the search for a Western adviser was one of the leaders of the embassy, Vice Ambassador Kido Takayoshi, although his primary concern was diplomatic. A leading figure of the Meiji Restoration as head of the Chōshū military forces that joined with Saigō Takamori and Ōkubo Toshimichi, both from the Satsuma forces in overthrowing the Tokugawa government, Kido was destined for a leading position in the new Meiji government of Japan. At the time of his departure for America, he was one of the four members of the most powerful Council of State, the Sangi.17 As part of his responsibility with the Iwakura Embassy, he was assigned to oversee the search for an appropriate Western authority to advise Tanaka Fujimaro when he assumed control of the Ministry of Education upon his return from the West. A third member of the embassy to become involved directly, indirectly, or both in the search for a Western adviser was Hatakeyama Yoshinari, the samurai student at Rutgers College who had become the closest and dearest friend of both David and Martha Murray. He was hastily and unexpectedly assigned to the Iwakura Embassy upon its arrival in Washington as a member of the secretariat. Precisely how this took place from being a student at Rutgers College is unclear. Japanese historians have given it various interpretations. The report in a local newspaper of Hatakeyama Yoshinari waiting at the train station in Washington on February 29, 1871, to greet the embassy remains a curiosity. What makes it more intriguing is that Hatakeyama joined his childhood friend from Satsuma, Mori Arinori, then the young chargé d’affaires to America, in welcoming the mission to Washington. This issue is of considerable importance because of the close relations between Murray and Hatakeyama that will be pursued later. The fourth Japanese official involved in the search for a foreign adviser, Mori Arinori, played a controversial role in the selection of a Western educational adviser for the Ministry of Education by independently initiating the search process. The last time that Hatakeyama and Mori were together was in the summer of 1868 in Brocton, New York, at the Thomas Lake Harris religious colony. Mori was about to return to Japan with Harris’s blessing as the Tokugawa government collapsed earlier in the year with the restoration of Emperor Meiji. Hatakeyama had already decided to leave the colony in protest against Harris’s bizarre Christian teachings, finding his way to Rutgers College, where he enrolled in the Scientific School in 1868. Ironically, one of Mori’s responsibilities as chargé d’affaires in Washington in 1871 was to oversee the welfare of the Japanese students in

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

105

America, which included his childhood friend Hatakeyama, then enrolled at Rutgers College. How Mori Arinori was chosen for the post of Japan’s first diplomat in Washington at the age of twenty-four, from where he would indirectly initiate the process that led to the employment of an American professor of mathematics as the senior adviser to the Japanese Minister of Education, is a compelling story in itself. When Mori departed for Japan from the Brocton colony shortly after the fall of the Tokugawa feudal government in 1868, there was some hope by his Christian benefactor that he would spread the word of God in Japan as he learned it in the religious colony, covered in a previous chapter. Rather, Mori became absorbed in the challenges of the new Meiji government’s determination to modernize the country after the long period of feudalism. As a young samurai from Satsuma with excellent English, having lived in both England and America, upon arriving back in Japan, he immediately received an appointment appropriately in the foreign ministry.18 It was the beginning of lifelong government service to his country. Mori’s activities in government brought him into close contact with Iwakura Tomomi, who had become the most influential officer of government as the senior adviser to the emperor, which is why Verbeck and others referred to him as the prime minister of Japan. When William Griffis first arrived in Tokyo from Rutgers College in January 1871 to take up his duties as a teacher in the mountainous Fukui area, covered in a previous chapter, Mori came calling, dressed in samurai attire and wearing the traditional two swords.19 He may have learned about Griffis’s plan to come to Japan from their mutual friend Hatakayama, then at Rutgers. Griffis described Mori as “a great friend of Iwakura.” He had somehow learned that Mori, along with Sameshima, who left the Brocton colony with Mori to return to Japan in 1868, “stood so high in the confidence of Iwakura that they were dubbed, in the political slang of the capital, ‘the legs of Iwakura.’”20 At the time of the meeting between Mori and Griffis in Tokyo, Mori had recently received his appointment as Japan’s chargé d’affaires to the United States.

The Process of Employing Murray The employment process of David Murray as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan can be traced, however indirectly, back to March 2, 1871. On that fateful day, the young Mori Arinori presented his diplomatic credentials to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish in Washington as the first Japanese representative to the United States.21 Of some interest, Fish, former governor and U.S. senator from the state of New York, who showed a special concern for the vigorous but inexperienced diplomat from Japan, had only one sister, who was the aunt of Martha Murray by marriage. The young Japanese official in Washington

10 6

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

had an insatiable curiosity about American customs and institutions, particularly educational. Fortunately for him, his American aide, Charles Lanman, who was introduced to Mori by Joseph Henry, director of the Smithsonian Institution,22 was well versed in American history and government, having served in the War Department, State Department, and House of Representatives before joining the staff at the Japanese Legation in Washington.23 Mori Arinori quickly familiarized himself with the system of American education that would unexpectedly draw him into the search for a Western adviser for the Japanese Ministry of Education. He learned that the historical foundation of the American education system had been formed primarily in the two New England states of Massachusetts and Connecticut during the mid-1800s. The two figures most responsible as architects of American education were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Horace Mann served as the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1837 to 1849. During that twelve-year period, a state system of common elementary schools was established through Mann’s efforts as a democratic institution to serve all children.24 It became a model for other states. Henry Barnard became the Secretary of the Connecticut State Board of Education in 1839, quickly becoming acquainted with Horace Mann, who held a similar position in the neighboring state of Massachusetts.25 The two exchanged ideas on the role of the common school in American society. Under Barnard the elementary common school spread throughout Connecticut as it did under Mann in Massachusetts. It too became a model for other states to follow. The significance of Mann and Barnard as founders of the American common elementary school is that they both served as secretaries to the boards of education in their respective states. As such, they held the highest position responsible for education at the state level. Since the federal government in Washington, devoid of a ministry of education, had virtually no power over local education, the secretary or superintendent of education in each state became by default responsible for education upon approval of the state legislature, not the central government in Washington. With this knowledge, Mori traveled to New England several times, assisted by Lanman. In the process he met Birdsley Northrop, who held the position of Secretary to the Connecticut Board of Education since 1867, following in the footsteps of the first secretary, the great Henry Barnard. Northrop, a graduate of Yale College and a Christian minister, took an interest in Mori, the inquisitive diplomat in his early twenties in charge of the Japanese Legation in Washington. Sometime in the fall of 1871, when Mori learned about the plan by the Japanese Ministry of Education to hire a foreign educator as senior adviser to the head of the Ministry, he realized that Northrop would be the ideal candidate for

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

107

the position. As the distinguished Superintendent of Education in Connecticut, with its well-developed system of public schools, Northrop had the experience necessary to advise the Japanese Ministry in reaching the same goal for Japan that Connecticut had already achieved. In addition, as a graduate of one of the most prestigious colleges in America, Northrop’s educational credentials for the Japanese position were impeccable. Without informing officials in Japan, Mori, well known for his impulsive behavior, encouraged Northrop to consider filling the position of senior adviser well before the Iwakura Embassy arrived in Washington. The next step in the process of hiring David Murray for the position in the Japanese Ministry of Education, again indirectly, took place on January 12, 1872. On that day Mori sent the following message to the U.S. Department of State. It put the American government on notice that a distinguished Japanese delegation was planning to visit the nation’s capital: I have the honor of informing you that I have received dispatches from my Government communicating the information that a special Embassy from the Tenno of Japan to the Government of the United States would soon arrive in this country. On what particular day they are to sail I do not know; but I presume they will reach Washington about the close of the present month. . . . The object to be obtained by this Embassy will be fully stated on a future occasion; but in the meantime, I may remark that one of them will be to increase the friendly relations already existing between Japan and the United States.26

The Japanese mission arrived at San Francisco on January 15, 1872. On their first full day in the United States, Iwakura sent a telegram to his sons in New Brunswick, notifying them of his safe arrival. A reply was received just as he completed his first address given in Japanese with translation to an American audience assembled to welcome the mission.27 With the close relationship between the Iwakura brothers and the Murrays, David and Martha surely learned of the arrival of Iwakura Tomomi and his powerful entourage in America from his sons at Rutgers College. After spending nearly three weeks in California, the Japanese delegation boarded the transcontinental train headed for Washington. There were a number of stops on the way, including a snow delay of two weeks in Salt Lake City. At the final stop in Chicago, the Iwakura sons welcomed their father to America. The embassy arrived in Washington on February 29, 1872. Waiting to welcome the mission at the Washington train station was Japan’s first diplomat to the United States, Mori Arinori. With Mori, according to the local newspaper, The Evening Star, was a student named Hatakeyama Yoshinari.28 The revelation that Hatakeyama, Mori’s close friend from their childhood days,

10 8

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

was in Washington on this date has great relevance in considering his role in the process of employing Murray. Some time before the arrival of the embassy, Hatakeyama had been called home from Rutgers College for government service and happened to be in Paris when he was contacted by telegram when the Iwakura Embassy arrived in California. He was ordered to report to Washington “to accompany the Embassy around the world.”29 The uniqueness of the circumstances surrounding this sudden appointment should not be missed. It must be remembered that Mori and Hatakeyama were fellow samurai students in Kagoshima who illegally traveled to London in 1865 before joining the Harris religious colony in America, from where they separated. Mori returned to Japan to serve in various positions within the new Meiji government. At the same time, Hatakeyama found his way to Rutgers College,

Figure 4.2. Mori Arinori, chargé d’affaires in Washington. From Portraits of Modern Japanese Historical Figures (National Diet Library).

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

10 9

where he developed a close friendship with the Murrays. Unexpectedly, Mori and Hatakeyama found themselves together once again—although in an unusual relationship in Washington. At the age of twenty-three, Hatakeyama was assigned to the Iwakura Embassy as a secretary. At the same time, Mori had been chosen to represent Japan in Washington in 1871 as an initial step in establishing formal diplomatic relations with the United States. The inexperienced diplomat had a keen but restless mind and a visionary perspective sharply honed by his three-year experience as a student in Europe and America before the 1868 Meiji Restoration, as did Hatakeyama. By 1871 Mori was Japan’s senior diplomat in Washington as Hatakeyama terminated his studies as a student at Rutgers College.

Letters to Mori Arinori Meanwhile, when the Iwakura mission was still in the American West, Mori Arinori sent a letter of inquiry to a curious mixture of Americans including several presidents of famous colleges and universities seeking their advice on education for Japan. Not only did it exemplify the inquisitiveness and ingenuity of the young diplomat, it initiated one of the most unusual as well as consequential episodes in modern Japanese education. It also indirectly led to David Murray’s encounter in America with leading Japanese statesmen, all but Iwakura from the samurai class. From the tone of the letter that may have been set by Mori’s American assistant, the resourceful Charles Lanman, as well as the timing, Mori was soliciting ideas for members of the Iwakura Embassy, who were unaware of his action. His stated purpose of the letter was “to assist my countrymen in the efforts to become instrumental in advancing civilization in the East” without mentioning the forthcoming visit of the powerful embassy to Washington. As it turned out, he had privately revealed that matter only to Birdsley Northrop, referred to in a subsequent letter quoted later: Legation of Japan for the United States of America Washington D.C., February 3, 1872 Dear Sir: Having been especially commissioned, as a part of my duty in this country to look after the educational affairs of Japan, and feeling personally a great interest in the progress of that empire, I desire to obtain from you a letter of advice and information bearing upon this subject, to assist my countrymen in the efforts to become instrumental in advancing civilization in the East. In a general way, I wish to have your views in reference to the elevation of the condition of Japan, intellectually, morally, and physically, but the particular points to which I invite your attention are as follows:

1 10

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The Effect of Education— Upon the material prosperity of a country. Upon its commerce. Upon its agricultural and industrial interests. Upon the social, moral, and physical condition of the people; and its influence upon the laws and government. Information on any one, if not all, of these points, will be gratefully received and appreciated by me, and the same will soon be published, both in the English and Japanese languages, for the information of the Japanese government and people. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, Arinori Mori30 The significance of the responses and those who responded, which curiously included Murray, although in an indirect process, could only be appreciated when the decision to hire Murray as Superintendent of Education in Japan was made. It was greatly influenced by Murray’s most thoughtful response to Mori in comparison to the other responders in the following list who were consulted by Mori as “prominent Americans”:31 George S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury Peter Cooper, founder of the Cooper Union Charles W. Elliot, president of Harvard College James A. Garfield, congressman from Ohio and later president of the United States Joseph Henry, director of the Smithsonian Institution Mark Hopkins, president of Williams College James McCosh, president of the College of New Jersey William Campbell, president of Rutgers College Birdsley G. Northrop, Secretary of the Connecticut State Board of Education Octavius Perinchief, episcopal clergyman Julius H. Seelye, professor of philosophy, Amherst College William A. Sterns, president of Amherst College Theodore D. Woolsey, former president of Yale College Among the college presidents of eminent institutions such as Harvard and Amherst who received the inquiry, the relatively unknown Rutgers College appears incongruous. However, Mori had to be fully aware of the peculiar circumstances at Rutgers, where more Japanese students were studying than at any

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

111

other institution in America. President Campbell at Rutgers College understandably turned Mori’s letter over to Murray, well known on campus for his close relationship with the Japanese students, for a reply. It was forthcoming a month later, shortly after the Iwakura Embassy arrived in Washington: New Brunswick, N.J., March 7, 1872 Hon. A. Mori, Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a communication in answer to your request recently sent me. The paper has been drawn up at my request by Prof. David Murray, Ph.D., of our faculty, and is, in my judgment, a very able statement of the necessity and advantages of education. I feel the deepest interest in the wonderful energy and wisdom which the Japanese Government is exhibiting, and am certain that the success which awaits your nation will astonish the world. With great respect, Your obedient servant, Wm. H. Campbell Rutgers College32 Upon the request of President Campbell, Murray took the opportunity to articulate one of the finest essays on education and society ever written. In his 1872 reply, Murray prepared a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the effects of education in modern societies—precisely what Mori was seeking. It revealed the depth of understanding of the nature of man and the purposes of education in the modern Western world that only an individual of great intellectual capacity could express in such a thoughtful manner. It was Murray’s first communication with Japanese government officials. The initial paragraphs in Murray’s reply to Mori set the tenor of his underlying thesis, revealing the thoughts of a truly extraordinary man applicable to all nations that transcend the times:33 The problem of education is justly regarded by statesmen as the most important in all the circle of their duties. All other functions of government, such as the repression and punishment of crime, the encouragement of national industries, the development of commerce, the defense against enemies, all are inferior in importance to that training of the young which determines the character of the nation. The nations which have in modern times exerted the greatest influence on the world’s history, those which have made the most rapid progress in wealth and power, are those which have made education their special care, and have furnished the most general and the most thorough culture to their citizens. The two nations which in the past century have advanced most in wealth,

112

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

population, fame, and influence, are the United States and Germany. In these nations if there is any one feature in which their systems of government excel, it is in the liberality and profusion with which the means of education have been provided. Differing widely in other circumstances, they have still shown this common aim in their efforts to render education universal, and to leave no human soul within their territory without the opportunity for development.

Murray then divided his thoughtful reply according to the divisions outlined in Mori’s letter, several of which deserve special consideration. Under “The Effect of Education upon the Material Prosperity of a Country,” he includes three: It stimulates in the mind of the individual a desire to improve present conditions, and aides him in devising ways and means. It teaches what has been done in other lands, and by other men in like pursuits. It opens up to him the principles which underlie his vocation, and gives him a sure scientific basis for his future efforts.

Murray elaborates on the relationship between industrial development which constitutes the wealth and material prosperity of a nation, and education: “The nation which proposes to develop its resources must begin by providing for its young men the necessary education to appreciate and conduct these enterprises.” Reasoning with keen foresight that Japan is “rich in all agricultural and mineral resources,” it stands as “the conspicuous advance-guard of the Eastern world, it has unrivaled facilities for founding and developing a great system of industries, which will render it as eminent in national wealth as it is already eminent in a spirit of political progress.” Under the “Effects of Education on the Social, Moral, and Physical Condition of the People,” Murray divides the subject into three components: Education in its best sense is the training of the whole man, physically, intellectually, and morally. To satisfy perfectly the great ends of his being, he must be vigorous and healthy in body; he must have a mind well stored with knowledge, and ready for any emergency, and he must be so established in honorable principles that he will use his powers for the best interests of his fellow men. Education, then, if it attains even in a feeble degree these ends, must tend to the improvement of the human race. Wherever education has been extended, and as fast as it has been extended, society has been elevated in comfort and happiness.

Among Murray’s many recommendations, the most memorable ones appear near the end of his lengthy treatise under the heading of “The Effect of Education on Laws and Government.” He begins with an introduction to the topic by

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 13

briefly comparing the effects of education on major Western countries, indicating that he had done some research on the topic and had already formed a favorable opinion of German and American education as well as a critical opinion of British education: England has been experimenting since the days of Alfred the Great, and her testimony is that, as she has advanced in culture and education, she has increased in wealth and power, and that her mistake has been in not making education sufficiently free and extended. Germany, since the days of Frederick the Great, has been patiently perfecting her system of education, so that every German child, whether peasant or noble, may receive a thorough education; and it was Germany’s education, Germany’s universal culture, which triumphed over France in their recent struggle. If there is any one circumstance in the government and the policy of the United States of which she may be proud, it is her free and almost universal education. Every child may find within its reach a school in which the essentials of an education may be obtained.

Murray then continues his thoughts on education and nationhood, which deserve recognition as some of the most profound statements on education ever written. It resonated positively with the Japanese for whom it was intended, as evidenced by their reaction: Every nation must create a system of education suited to its own wants. There are natural characteristics which ought properly to modify the scheme of education which would be deemed the most suitable. The culture required in one nation is not precisely what is required in another. There are traditional customs which it would be unwise to undertake to subvert. There are institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system. Every successful school system must be a natural outgrowth from the wants of the nation. If, therefore, changes are to be made in the educational system of any country, wisdom would suggest the retention, so far as admissible, of those institutions already in existence. This is but a proper concession to national self-respect, and will go far to make any new features acceptable. In this respect Japan has no reason to wish for radical and sweeping changes. Her schools are already an integral part of the national life. Her young men trained in the schools bear a favorable comparison to those of other lands. Her public men in their intercourse with other nations have shown by their sagacity and energy that education is not neglected in their ancient empire.

The closing paragraphs reflect Murray’s personal reaction to the many sessions he had with the Japanese samurai youth in his home at New Brunswick

114

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

during the previous years. He was obviously impressed not only with them but with the institutions in which they were educated. Since the Japanese students at Rutgers received their basic education restricted to boys from samurai families during the feudal Tokugawa era, Murray essentially recognized and commended the educational standards achieved by the han schools for samurai youth in feudal Japan. Ironically they were, in fact, the very institutions Murray would be hired to replace with modern, Western-type schools. Murray’s reply to Mori in 1872 is of great historical significance. It represents the first opportunity to learn about Murray’s understanding and appreciation of the Japanese people and their culture. It had been six years since the first two samurai youth arrived in New Brunswick in 1866. During that period, many more followed as the Murray home became the social center of the Japanese students who responded with affection and loyalty to their American professor, who in turn displayed a deep interest in their country and its cultural institutions. What motivated Murray to devote many hours to preparing his lengthy and detailed letter to Mori on education in Japan can only be conjectured. First of all, it was the single reply from prominent Americans consulted by Mori that expressed an appreciation and admiration for Japanese culture and educational institutions. Considering the timing of the letters, it would be understandable if Americans—no matter how prominent—had little knowledge of Japanese educational traditions. Japan had been a hermit nation virtually secluded from the Western world for several hundred years. Nevertheless, Murray’s letter displays a remarkable perspective of Japanese history from an American professor of mathematics, which was due to his interactions with the samurai youth at Rutgers College. There was also critical evidence that appeared later in a letter from Murray to a former colleague reporting his acceptance of the offer of employment by the Japanese government revealing that it marked the successful culmination of a plan to do so. Apparently Murray had already developed an interest in becoming an educational pioneer to Japan like his two students William Griffis and Edward Warren Clark. When the Iwakura mission arrived in Washington in 1872, Griffis was on the science faculty of Kaisei Gakkō, the leading national educational institution in Tokyo, and in correspondence with Murray at Rutgers College. Clark was the director of a large school for samurai youth of the Tokugawa regime in exile. They were both contributing to modern Japan in the field of science, of which Murray was well aware. By the time of Murray’s response to Mori’s letter, he may also have somehow learned of the search for a Western adviser by the Iwakura Embassy, whose members would read his letter. From that perspective the recommendations he made seemed designed specifically for them, carefully written by someone who was deeply committed to what was truly best for their constituency and who had a vested interest in their reaction. In other words, Murray’s letter of twenty

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 15

handwritten pages could be characterized as the first step in his plan to go to Japan as an educational pioneer to contribute to the nation’s great transformation from feudalism to modernism. At the time Murray wrote this reply, one student with whom he and Martha had developed a close relationship, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, had been ordered to return to the United States to join the Iwakura mission in Washington. Hatakeyama may have been the one who informed Murray unofficially of the impending arrival of the embassy and its educational purposes. Documents to confirm this have not been discovered, although one Japanese historian has made the assertion that Hatakeyama had a major role in Murray’s employment by the Japanese government.34 The specifics of this role are unclear, but there are several indisputable conditions. David and Martha had developed a very close relationship with Hatakeyama during the three years he studied at Rutgers College. Their mutual membership in the Second Dutch Reformed Church of New Brunswick was a binding factor. When Hatakeyama first learned that the Ministry of Education was searching for a Western adviser in the establishment of a modern public school system for all children under the Gakusei, he could have considered Murray an ideal candidate for the position. The question that remains unanswered is, When did Hatakeyama first learn about the search for a Western adviser by the Ministry of Education being undertaken by Tanaka Fujimaro with the Iwakura mission? He may have learned it from his close friend from childhood, Mori Arinori, who was aware of the impending search before the embassy left for the United States and had offered the position to Birdsley Northrop. If that occurred before Hatakeyama left Rutgers College for Japan via Europe, it’s possible that he found out about the search for a Western adviser from Mori and passed it on to Murray with his encouragement to seek the position. Thus Murray’s interest in going to Japan could have been part of the motivation for his extraordinarily long and detailed response to Mori’s letter for advice on the advancement of Japanese education. Murray’s understanding of and appreciation for the samurai tradition in education that deeply impressed him came from students like Hatakeyama. Considered previously, Hatakeyama received his samurai education as a student in the Kaiseijo school in Satsuma. This was the same school that Mori attended when they were chosen among fifteen students to travel to England for study at the University of London in 1865. Consequently, when Murray wrote to Mori that there are “institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system,” he was basing his conclusion on the Kaiseijo school, where both Mori and Hatakeyama received their basic education as samurai. Murray’s growing admiration toward the Japanese and their cultural traditions in the 1870s was unique. This was an era of Western hegemony led by the

1 16

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

British, the French, the Germans, and the Americans with their common historical and cultural background immersed in Christianity. The great writers and composers such as Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Chopin emerged from Western culture. Eastern societies, in contrast, were viewed throughout the West as heathen and inferior to Western societies and culture. As the Industrial Revolution swept through Western countries, particularly after the 1850s, modern armies and warships capable of operating throughout the world produced vast colonial empires controlled by small and distant European nations. The samurai tradition of Japan that revered the sword and the ancient Confucian texts was not only curious to the western world, it was symbolic of a feudal era that the modern Western world had long surpassed, both militarily and culturally. The new leaders of Meiji Japan who were brought up in the samurai tradition in feudal Japan had arrived at the same conclusion. Japan was a backward country. Britain, France, Germany, and America were viewed as modern countries. Consequently, the Iwakura Embassy had been sent westward to learn about modern societies. The mission itself was a recognition by the Japanese government that Japan was inferior to Western nations. In contrast, Murray’s letter to Mori argued persuasively that the Japanese had already accomplished impressive academic achievements by producing young men like the samurai youth with whom he had become acquainted in New Brunswick. They were evidence to him that Japan’s “young men trained in schools bear a favorable comparison to those of other lands”—that is, America. When Murray reasoned that “every successful school system must be a natural outgrowth from the wants of the nation,” his logic defied developments under way in Japan after the feudal Tokugawa government had recently been overthrown. The next step to the new Meiji government was a natural progression to modernism that could only be found in the West. That was precisely why the Iwakura Embassy was given a prolonged assignment to travel throughout the major Western nations to gain an understanding of modern Western educational institutions as models for Japan. As that very process was getting under way one week after the embassy arrived in Washington, Murray’s letter essentially advised Iwakura Tomomi and his high-level entourage to reevaluate the consequences of their mission to the West. Murray’s cautionary advice that “there are traditional customs which it would be unwise to undertake to subvert” was a profound assertion. It implied that in the modernization process, Japan should not slavishly copy Western customs and institutions. Rather, it would be wise to preserve “traditional customs” as the nation undergoes the modernization process. In other words, modernization must follow a gradualist approach that recognizes the customs and institutions that produced the impressive young samurai who Murray and his wife had befriended at Rutgers College and for whom he had developed great admiration.

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 17

It was through this last paragraph in Murray’s first letter to the Japanese government officials that characterized him in historical studies as a “cultural relativist.” Another distinguishing feature of Murray’s letter is the absence of a concern for Christian morality and teachings in education. The prominence of Christianity in education in the other letters of response was understandable at the time, since half of the respondents were related to distinguished private colleges in America deeply influenced by Christian denominations. Although that also included Murray at Rutgers College, he had become aware through the many discussions in his home with his Japanese students of the sensitivity of Christianity in Japanese culture with a history of being forbidden. He may have purposely avoided the topic as a sign of respect. Many of the other respondents had no hesitancy to promote the role of Christianity in national development as they interpreted it from the American experience. Murray then concludes his response by cautioning the Japanese leaders about making drastic revisions to modernize their society. It must have provoked mixed reactions among them: “If changes are to be made in the educational system of any country, wisdom would suggest the retention, so far as admissible, of those institutions already in existence.” This advice to the Japanese government by an obscure American professor had to impress them, since it went counter to educational trends already under way in Japan. Murray’s reply, dated March 7, arrived at the Japanese Legation in Washington about a week to ten days after the Iwakura Embassy arrived on February 29. It had to be translated and given to the commission members responsible for education, which included Kido Takayoshi, who was officially responsible for educational matters but quickly became consumed with difficult treaty negotiations with American diplomatic officials. The other member directly related to education, Tanaka Fujimaro, unskilled in English, and the official assigned by the Ministry of Education from among its ranks, was scheduled to head the Ministry upon his return from the mission to the West. A translated version of Murray’s reply was necessary for Tanaka. Several days after Murray’s letter arrived in Washington, Birdsley Northrop’s response also arrived. Since it turned out that both Northrop and Murray would be considered for the position of a ranking officer of the Japanese Ministry of Education by Japanese government officials, Northrop’s letter has a special significance. In contrast to Murray’s detailed letter, Northrop’s response was concise and matter-of-fact. In nine brief paragraphs under the heading “The American System of Public Education,” he briefly commented on various aspects of the schools, such as “state action indispensable, the schools are free, private schools are allowed,” and so on. In one paragraph he specifically referred to the role of the American government in local education: “The national government has hitherto done little or nothing to direct and control public education. The several

1 18

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

States mark out, each for itself, the general principles to be followed; subordinate districts or towns determine and carry out the details of the system.” Northrop made no mention of Japan or Christianity in his letter.35 The cover letter from Northrop to Mori is most revealing. It shows that Northrop was aware that Mori had written the letter requesting advice in preparation for the Iwakura Embassy. He wrote that “I have prepared the enclosed statement for your use either with the embassy or for circulation in Japan.” His closing sentence, moreover, reveals that Mori, infamous for his rashness, had already recommended to Northrop that he accept the position before the embassy had arrived. Northrop’s aside that “I am seeking information about Japan from every source, and most seriously considering your proposal” can be understood in that way. Japan’s chief representative in Washington was, in fact, in negotiations with a distinguished American educator in his search for an educational adviser for a senior position with the Japanese Ministry of Education without consulting Iwakura Embassy officials—that is, Kido and Tanaka, charged with that assignment. On March 1, prior to the replies by Murray and Northrop to Mori arriving at the Japanese Legation, a Washington newspaper reported that Mori had invited Northrop “to go to Japan and assume control of the system of public instruction in that country.”36 It can be assumed that the origin of that piece of information of immense significance acquired by a reporter from the Evening Star of Washington was a source within the office of Mori Arinori—perhaps Charles Lanman, Mori’s assistant. From the timing of the newspaper article, it was confirmation that Mori was aware of the Iwakura Embassy’s plan to hire a foreigner at the Ministry of Education. As the replies to Mori’s letter arrived at the Japanese Legation in Washington during the month of March, the embassy settled into the negotiations with the U.S. State Department on a revision of the U.S.-Japan treaty signed in 1854 during the feudal Tokugawa era. Although the Japanese delegation was treated with dignity, respect, and hospitality by President Ulysses S. Grant and his secretary of state, Hamilton Fish, as well as leading politicians, the treaty discussions did not proceed satisfactorily to either party. In the midst of the negotiations, it became necessary for two of the five ranking officers, Itō Hirobumi and Ōkubo Toshimichi, to make the long trip back to Japan for precise instructions before further discussions could take place. It greatly delayed the mission’s plans for moving on to Europe in the second phase of its itinerary. Ōkubo and Itō left Washington on March 20 and 21, respectively.37 Mori continued his efforts to convince Northrop to accept the position with the Japanese Ministry of Education. Kido noted in his memoirs on March 27 that “this evening Mori brought by a scholar named Northrop.”38 Confirmation that Mori had invited Northrop to Washington for an interview was provided by Niijima Jō, a Japanese student then studying for the Christian ministry at a New England conservatory, who became distinguished as the founder of the great

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 19

Doshisha University years later. He had been invited to Washington by Mori to serve as Tanaka Fujimaro’s translator during his forthcoming educational survey of American and European education. With the arrival of Niijima on the scene in Washington on March 8, a new source of information through letters that he wrote to his American benefactor during this period becomes available. According to his letter of March 28, he “was requested by Mr. Mori to be present when Mr. Northrop had his first interview with the embassy. Mr. Mori had many questions to Mr. Northrop concerning the national and universal education for the Embassy, and I took notes of Mr. Northrop’s plain and practical talking.”39 From this cryptic note, it’s not possible to definitively conclude that Tanaka Fujimaro was at that interview with Northrop, although it would seem most unusual if he were not. Since the position of senior adviser in the Ministry of Education was ranked directly under Tanaka, scheduled to head the Ministry upon his return home, Mori’s lead in the questioning of Northrop is understandable, since Tanaka could not speak English, whereas Mori was fluent. It would be appropriate for Mori to ask Niijima to be present in order to translate the interview for Tanaka. Two days later, according to Niijima, “Mr. Northrup, his daughter, and her friend Miss Page, accompanied us to Mt. Vernon,”40 the famous site of George Washington’s home near Washington, D.C. Since Niijima had accepted the position as translator for Tanaka, the implication is that Tanaka was in the sightseeing group with Northrop, requiring translation services. Tanaka had already reacted to Mori’s efforts to hire Northrop. On March 20 he sent a letter to the head of the Ministry of Education, Ōki Takatō, on the latest developments since his arrival in Washington. Ōki held that position when Tanaka was selected from the Ministry staff to join the Iwakura Embassy. Tanaka had been empowered by Ōki to head the Ministry upon his return to Japan. The letter revealed that a disagreement was already brewing between the mission members and the diplomatic corps assigned to Washington from Japan. Tanaka frankly states his displeasure with Mori’s efforts to hastily select an American foreign adviser—that is, Northrop: Mori asserted that it is best for Japanese education to have an American educator as an advisor, and that we should hire that person as soon as possible. He insists on complying with due formalities on the part of the Embassy for hiring an American, and some officers follow Mori’s opinion. We are quite at a loss with his behavior. My intention is, as I told you before leaving Japan, to make a final decision concerning hiring a foreign educator after I travel and observe many countries and reach a conviction of my own about who is the best among them. I believe that the establishment of an educational system holds sway over the destiny of a nation. Therefore I should not make a decision by observing education in only one country.41

120

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

This letter has historical relevance. It confirms the original plan conceived by the Ministry of Education when it chose Tanaka to represent the bureau with the Iwakura Embassy. Major decisions concerning the appropriateness of Western practices in education as models for Japan would be made only after an analysis of twelve Western countries was completed by Tanaka. Of considerable significance, Tanaka, brought up as a local samurai with no notable achievements, educational or otherwise, nevertheless remained firm in his convictions in a confrontation with the erudite, multilingual Mori. By April 2, when Tanaka and Niijima separated from the Iwakura Embassy in Washington, headed for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to meet the state Superintendent of Education, David Murray’s name does not appear in any discovered sources. If Murray had been invited to Washington during March for an interview, as was Northrop, either Kido or Niijima would have most likely referred to it in their letters or memoirs. The importance of this conclusion is that Tanaka did not meet Murray in Washington in 1872 and did not confer with Kido again until they met in London nine months later. That was the first opportunity the two had to discuss Murray’s candidacy for the ranking position in the Ministry of Education, considered later. Nevertheless, Tanaka must have read Murray’s profound response to Mori’s letter of inquiry sent out to many prominent Americans. That letter arrived at the Japanese Legation in Washington approximately two weeks before Tanaka separated from the main body of the Japanese delegation to begin his independent survey of American education. Otherwise, Tanaka Fujimaro, destined to head the Ministry of Education with Murray as his senior adviser during the launching of Japan’s first public school system, had no direct involvement in the interviews between leaders of the Iwakura mission and Murray that took place in Washington and from which emerged the initial impetus to hire Murray as the Superintendent of Education in Japan. Under this set of circumstances, the conclusion can be made that Kido played the central role in Murray’s employment, since Tanaka had already left Washington before the decision was made to invite Murray for an interview. It was Kido who apparently made the invitation.42 This was appropriate, since Kido was officially in charge of the education sector within the Iwakura Embassy, noted previously. In a truly remarkable historical development, another individual who had a role either directly or indirectly in Murray’s employment was Hatakeyama Yoshinari, Murray’s closest Japanese friend, who was waiting for the Iwakura Embassy to arrive in Washington in order to join it. Throughout this period, however, his name surfaces only in the newspaper reporting his presence at the train station when the embassy arrived on February 29, 1872.43 When Hatakeyama, virtual confidant of his American professor of three years at Rutgers College, joined the embassy, various possibilities became obvious. As

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

121

noted previously, it is still unknown exactly how Hatakeyama learned about the search for an educational adviser. Another important question, also unanswered, concerns what role Hatakeyama, with his well-known friendship with Murray, played in the ultimate decision by Kido and Tanaka to hire Murray as the superintendent of education in the Empire of Japan. Writing years later in memory of Hatakeyama, Murray clarifies Hatakeyama’s schedule upon his departure from Rutgers College in late 1871. After three years in close association with the Murrays at Rutgers College—at their home and at their church—the farewell of Hatakeyama was surely an emotional one. They could not have imagined that Murray and Hatakeyama would meet so soon in Washington under the most unusual circumstances. Murray summed it up accordingly: “Mr. Hatakeyama was summoned home [from New Brunswick] to assist in the active measures which were being taken to reorganize the government and to place it upon a more liberal and satisfactory footing. He had reached Paris in his homeward journey when he was recalled to America by the Embassy of His Excellency Iwakura, which reached Washington in the winter of 1872. He entered the service of this embassy as secretary and continued with them not only during their negotiations at Washington but also in their subsequent visits to the capitals of the European powers.”44 One Japanese historian writing about Murray claims that Hatakeyama was assigned to the embassy to take charge of the search for a Western adviser to the Ministry.45 In that case, Hatakeyama would have played a strategic role in Murray’s eventual employment as Superintendent of Education in Japan. Unfortunately, the proceedings that took place in Washington in the fateful decision to hire Murray can only be pieced together through juxtaposing dates from letters, diaries, and travel schedules, since no records have emerged revealing the precise series of events. Whatever the facts concerning Murray’s interviews with officials from the Iwakura Embassy in Washington in 1872 were, the presence of Hatakeyama with the mission had to have a positive influence on the reaction of the leading figures of the Japanese delegation toward Murray. To the leaders of the Iwakura Embassy, the well-traveled and erudite Hatakeyama, with his gentle manners, earned their respect. Kido’s diary shows that he spent many an evening with Hatakeyama during their prolonged stay in Washington. During the interlude when treaty negotiations were suspended while two of the leaders were sent back to Tokyo for further instructions, Hatakeyama undertook the translation of the American Constitution, with Kido taking a strong interest in his work. One could assume that David Murray’s name came up in conversation on more than one occasion during those sessions. In other words, Hatakeyama had ample opportunities to convey his personal opinion of Murray to Kido in Washington. During the three years at Rutgers College, the childless Murrays treated Hatakeyama virtually as a member of their family, covered in previous chapters.

122

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

They had the greatest admiration for the kind and gentle Japanese who spent much time with the Murrays in their home and in the homes of their nearby relatives. It can be assumed, therefore, that when the topic of Murray as a potential adviser to the Japanese Minister of Education arose within the Iwakura Embassy, the most favorable opinion by Hatakeyama would have considerable influence on the senior leaders of the Japanese government beyond Kido. In addition, Hatakeyama may have provided some of the translation for Murray’s responses to questions in the interviews with the Japanese leaders, which would be comforting to Murray, knowing that his truly profound ideas on education were being properly conveyed to powerful figures of the Japanese government. In the meantime, shortly after Tanaka began his independent survey of American education on April 2 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, there was another indication that an internal division of personalities had taken a turn for the worse between the Iwakura Embassy and the Japanese diplomatic corps in Washington headed by Mori Arinori. The first, referred to previously, revealed Tanaka’s annoyance with Mori’s insistence on hiring an American as his adviser before his investigation of European education was completed. The second appears in Kido’s memoirs. On April 7, he wrote a contentious account of the day’s event: The Chief Ambassador [Iwakura] headed up our discussion of the provisions of the treaty draft. The present mission is of supreme importance to our Empire; and we considered how we can avoid doing harm to our country and its people. . . . But there have naturally been a great many disputes over what is important and what is not. . . . I advocated that we should express our innermost thoughts today holding nothing back. . . . In the end Mori stomped out of the room. That was incomprehensible conduct; it must be considered the height of discourtesy. Although we settled the matter privately, I fear that word of our internal dissension may leak out. I regret no end what this does to our country.46

A week later on April 15, Kido continued his criticism of the young Japanese diplomat: In recent days Mori’s behavior has been appalling. By contrast Americans understand our feelings very well, and know our customs. It is talked about that Mori, who is the Minister of our country here, scorns the customs of his own land indiscriminately in the presence of foreigners. In addition to him a number of our mission officials who have traveled in the United States briefly, and learned about the country superficially, have expressed contempt for our country. . . . Why do these young men adopt everything indiscriminatingly without regard for whether it is good or bad? Anyone who loves his country, and has concern for its people, must view this development with grave apprehension.47

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 23

Within a week, Kido’s diary reveals that he was not the only member of the embassy who had become critical of Mori, indicating that the dissension among the Japanese officials in Washington had reached a serious level. He wrote, “Tonight Mori came by to talk about the treaty problem. Our discussion lasted several hours. Chief Ambassador Iwakura reproached Mori for his lack of patriotism. Our argument tonight was overheard by other people. It was 3 in the morning when we went to bed.”48 Two comments by Kido stand out in this set of diary notes. First was his incomprehensible comment that “Americans understand our feelings very well, and know our customs,” inferring that Japan’s chief representative to America, Mori Arinori, did not. By this time, Kido had to have read the letters in response to Mori’s letter of inquiry from Murray and Northrop. He may also have been aware of Mori’s first choice of Northrop for the position, since Mori had invited Northrop to Washington for an interview and introduced him to Kido. Kido had to be deeply impressed with Murray’s understanding and appreciation of Japan’s educational heritage. However, he was, without doubt, grossly mistaken when he concluded that “Americans understand our feelings very well, and know our customs.” In that regard, Murray was the exception. Regardless of his exaggeration of American opinion toward Japan, Kido may have taken a special interest in Murray’s candidacy for the educational post in Japan in part to counter Mori’s first choice of Birdsley Northrop. Kido’s displeasure with his country’s ranking diplomat in Washington, who “scorns the customs of his own land indiscriminately in the presence of foreigners,” was understandable. Even during the six months that the Iwakura Embassy spent in Washington, Mori had already formed a radical position on the future of the Japanese language. He included it in an English book published by an American company entitled Education in Japan that became available less than five months after the Iwakura Embassy left Washington for Europe. Mori’s attitude toward his native language was contained in the introduction to the series of letters that included David Murray’s reply to Mori’s letter of inquiry, in which the American claimed that “Japan has no reason to wish for radical and sweeping changes” to its educational traditions. Mori reasoned otherwise in his essay: The march of modern civilization in Japan has already reached the heart of the nation—the English language following it suppresses the use of both Japanese and Chinese. The commercial power of the English-speaking race which now rules the world drives our people into some knowledge of their commercial ways and habits. The absolute necessity of mastering the English language is thus forced upon us. It is a requisite of the maintenance of our independence in the community of nations. Under the circumstances, our meagre language, which can never be of any use outside of our islands, is doomed to yield to the domination of the English tongue, especially when the power of steam

124

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

and electricity shall have pervaded the land. Our intelligent race, eager in the pursuit of knowledge, cannot depend upon a weak and uncertain medium of communication in its endeavor to grasp the principal truths from the precious treasury of Western science and art and religion. The laws of state can never be preserved in the language of Japan. All reasons suggest its disuse.49

Within this background of entangling circumstances, sometime during the spring or most likely early summer of 1872, Murray was invited to Washington by Kido for an interview concerning the position of Superintendent of Education in Japan.50 One reason for the invitation, even though Northrop had already been offered the job by Mori, may have been the growing opposition to Mori himself by Kido and Iwakura himself, who held one of the most prestigious positions within the Japanese government, far outranking the youthful Mori as chargé d’affaires. The attitude of the venerable Iwakura Tomomi, leader of the powerful mission to the West, must have exerted an influence on the final decision. Not only had Iwakura become highly critical of Mori’s actions in America; Iwakura had a direct relationship to Murray and his wife as well. Noted frequently, Iwakura’s two sons had become very close to the Murrays while students at New Brunswick. Like Hatakeyama, they too influenced Murray’s awakening interest in Japan that ultimately led to his assignment in the service of Emperor Meiji. Precisely when Murray’s visit to Washington took place may never be discovered. Moreover, Murray never indicated in his letters or writings when he first became aware of the Japanese government’s plan to hire a foreigner for a senior position in the Ministry of Education. Regardless of the details of his visit, the professor from Rutgers College was surely welcomed to the Japanese Legation in Washington in mid-1872 by Iwakura, Kido, and Hatakeyama with great expectations. One of the major consequences of Murray’s meetings in Washington was that it gave him an opportunity to meet several of the most influential officials in the Japanese government. His initial impression of the leaders of Meiji Japan from the samurai class was similar to his reaction to the Japanese students he had befriended at Rutgers College—all but Iwakura’s sons from samurai families. This was confirmed after the interviews in the letter of August 14 by Murray to William Griffis, Murray’s former student in the class of 1868, then teaching in Japan: “I have seen a good deal of Kido & Itoo and something of Iwakura.” Murray also reveals his impression of them: “Indeed those who have been in this country conducting the negotiations with our government are certainly of great intelligence and have a perfectly clear insight into the wants of their country and the difficulties to be encountered in regard to them.”51 The significance of this letter cannot be overstated. Murray confirms the fact that he met with two of the most distinguished political leaders of the early Meiji era, Kido and Itō, several times while they were in America in 1872 when

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 25

he wrote that “I have seen a good deal” of them. He apparently met with the head of the mission, Iwakura Tomomi, fewer times. Murray’s personal relationships that developed in America with three of the most powerful leaders of the Meiji government nearly a year before he became a ranking official of the Japanese government clarify the basis for the lifestyle of the Murrays in Japan. Because of their importance to the success of David Murray’s tenure as Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education, his contacts with the senior leaders of the Meiji government in Japan, both officially and socially, will be considered in some detail in subsequent chapters. The unusual opportunity for Murray to meet with several of the most prominent figures in the Japanese government to discuss the problems of modern education confronting Japan emerging from feudalism had two main results. Murray was able to gain some understanding of their “insights into the wants of their country and the difficulties to be encountered” in the process of educational reform, in which he was destined to participate. He was also able to present his views to the most distinguished Japanese leaders, which convinced them that he was the right candidate for the job. In the following letter to Griffis, Murray writes about his convictions that he conveyed to the Iwakura mission delegates so that when they left America for Europe, they were convinced that Murray would make a major contribution to Japanese education and society in the service of the emperor. It reveals once again the profound thoughts of an uncommon American on the modernization of Japan in the Meiji era: By this time you [Griffis] must have caught what I think no one from an outside position can get, something of the national spirit of the Japanese people. You know by this time what are their national aspirations and in what directions their efforts at advancement are likely to be successful. . . . The work of navigating a country must be slow and must be accomplished by agencies working from within and not without. They must work out their own navigation. Foreigners can do very little to help them. That is the idea I have tried very hard to impress upon those of the Embassy I have met. Their own laws, forms, institutions must be the basis on which any new superstructure is to be built.52

Murray returned to New Brunswick after the interviews in Washington to await the results of them. Precisely what took place among Kido, Iwakura, Mori, and Hatakeyama before the Iwakura Embassy left Washington on July 7 is unknown. Two months earlier on May 2, Tanaka and Niijima once again met Birdsley Northrop during a visit to New Haven. As Superintendent of Education for the state of Connecticut, Northrop hosted the Japanese visitors. Niijima reported that he was “a most hasty gentlemen I very seldom meet” who

126

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

scheduled an exhaustive series of visits over several days including Yale College, a deaf and dumb asylum, a high school, a normal school, and a state reform school. Northrop even arranged for his Japanese guests to participate in the inauguration ceremony of the new governor, “riding in an open carriage nearly four hours.”53 During the visit, which may have been initially planned when Northrop visited the Japanese Legation on March 28 for an interview for the post in Japan, the issue apparently did not arise. Niijima did not mention it in his letter that included details about their visit to New Haven under Northrop’s guidance. That could have indicated that Northrop had already decided not to take the position in Japan. In addition, since Tanaka and Niijima left Jersey City by steamer for England on May 10, the timing would indicate that Murray had not yet been interviewed by the embassy in Washington and that an initial decision to pursue his candidacy had not yet been made. Otherwise Kido would have contacted Tanaka in the United States before he and Niijima left for Europe for the next stage of their study of Western education and the search for a Western adviser. Kido was sufficiently impressed by the profound thoughts of David Murray, expressed in his reply to Mori Arinori’s letter of inquiry and in the interviews, to take further measures to hire him. In comparison to the actions by Mori, which appalled Kido and Iwakura as well, Murray’s appreciation for Japanese customs and institutions stood in sharp contrast. With Kido’s growing dissatisfaction with Mori, who was supporting Northrop for the position with the Ministry, the assumption can be made that Kido overrode Mori and placed his support behind Murray for the job. Evidence of this conclusion is the fact that Kido arranged to meet Murray in Boston for another interview. It took place as Kido sailed for England with the Iwakura Embassy from Boston on August 6, 1972. In Murray’s letter of August 14 to Griffis, he revealed that a second meeting with members of the Iwakura Embassy had indeed taken place in Boston. Although Mori Arinori accompanied the embassy to Boston to see the members off,54 Murray does not mention him: “The Embassy sailed from Boston about a week ago. In answer to a telegram I went from here down there and saw them off. They expect to return to Japan next spring or summer.”55 When Kido reached London on August 17, 1872, Tanaka and Niijima, who had visited schools from Scotland to London since mid-June, had already been on the Continent for weeks and were heading for St. Petersburg, Russia. Consequently, the first time that Kido had an opportunity to confer with Tanaka about Murray’s candidacy took place when Tanaka traveled from Berlin to London to meet Kido on November 25, 1872.56 The historical significance of the meeting between Kido and Tanaka in London in late 1872 deserves special recognition. First of all it was at this meeting that Kido and Tanaka agreed to offer David Murray the position of Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education. The decision by Tanaka Fujimaro to

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 27

support Murray as the senior adviser to Tanaka himself upon his return to Japan the following year fulfilled the commitment he had made prior to leaving Japan with the Iwakura Embassy. His mission was to make a final decision on a foreign adviser after completing his firsthand investigation of twelve Western countries. That was one of the reasons he had rejected Mori’s choice of Northrop at the beginning of Tanaka’s investigation in March 1872. By the end of November 1872, Tanaka had essentially completed his search for the best system of education in the West for Japan to adopt as a model for its first public school system in the nation’s history. By approving Murray as his senior adviser in the reformation process that would begin upon Tanaka’s return home in 1873, he clarified the results of his lengthy investigation: American education would become the model for Japan. Obviously Tanaka had changed his opinion of American education as unsuitable for the model for Japan, as expressed in his letter from Washington to the head of the Ministry of Education in March, quoted above. When he wrote that letter, he felt that the decentralized system of education in America, which had no ministry of education, was inappropriate for his country. Tanaka’s concern was understandable, since the Japanese government had recently set in place a new policy aimed at unifying the country after the bitter civil war that toppled the feudal Tokugawa government. However, after comparing the American system of educational administration and control with that of Britain and the other European countries, he concluded that the American system was the best model for Japan after all. When Kido presented his positive reaction to Tanaka in London concerning his interviews with Murray while in Washington, it coincided with Tanaka’s position. Tanaka was now ready to return to Japan to become the head of the Ministry of Education, determined to implement the first national plan for a public school system, the Gakusei, with American education as the major source of reference. With an American who displayed a keen interest in Japan and its traditions as his adviser, Tanaka was confident that he could carry out the heavy burden placed upon him by his country. With the final agreement between Kido and Tanaka in late November, supported by Iwakura and undoubtedly Hatakeyama as well, Mori Arinori was instructed by Tanaka to draw up an employment agreement: Jan 10, 1873 Professor David Murray New Brunswick, New Jersey Dear Sir: I have been requested by Mr. Fujimaro Tanaka to cause to be conveyed to you the enclosed papers in relation to your engagement in the educational service

128

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

of Japan. I take pleasure in complying with Mr. Tanaka’s request and beg the favor of your acknowledgement. Respectfully yours, Arinori Mori57 Upon receiving the letter and contract from Mori, Murray immediately wrote his old friend Arthur Swain on the faculty of Albany Academy, where Murray had served as principal, with a surprise revelation. Murray had been actively pursuing a position in Japan for quite some time: New Brunswick Jan 13, 1863 Dear Arthur: I must tell you a little surprise. This morning like a thunderclap, my commission to go out to Japan, all duly signed and dated, arrived. I had had no intuition of its coming and instead two months ago given up all expectation of anything further coming of my Jap. project. I am appointed to “take charge of all affairs connected with schools and colleges,” and under the Department of Education to introduce new systems, etc. A very broad commission and a very honorable one, I think. They pay my expenses both ways and give me a salary of $600 per month and a home in European-style in Edo. They also pay me $400 in Mexican dollars before starting additional. The terms are pretty favorable I think. They would be as good as $10,000 to me here or in Albany. What do you think, had I better go?58 The contract with the Japanese government that Murray was eager to sign was apparently the culminating step in what he referred to as his “Jap. project.” In other words, Murray had participated in the yearlong process conducted by the Iwakura Embassy to hire a foreign adviser for the Japanese Ministry of Education with the intent of filling that position himself. Precisely when Murray first learned that the position was being created may never be known. What is clear is that when the contract was offered to him with very attractive terms, there was no doubt that he would accept them. The contract, “Entered into by and between Fujimaro Tanaka, Commissioner of Education, acting under instructions from the government of Japan, party of the first part, and Professor David Murray of the United States of America, party of the second part,”59 is a curious document. First of all it was prepared in Washington under the responsibility of the young chargé d’affaires Mori Arinori and based on the agreement between Tanaka Fujimaro and Kido Takayoshi made in London on November 25, 1872. By January 10, it was in the mail to Murray in New Brunswick. It would appear that Ministry of Education officials in Tokyo were not directly involved in this major decision to hire a senior officer—a foreigner

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

1 29

at that—for the Ministry as the senior adviser to the Minister. Kido and Tanaka made the final decision in England with its broad ramifications for the Ministry. Another unique feature about Murray’s contract is the absence of legal protections for either party in case the other side failed to abide by the terms of the agreement. It would appear that both parties had developed a level of trust in the other that such wording was considered unnecessary. The following provisions are taken from the records of David Murray at the Library of Congress in Washington: 1. That the party of the first part engages the party of the second part to proceed to the City of Tokei in Japan; that the party of the second part hereby agrees to arrive in the City of Tokei not later than the first of May 1873, and on his arrival he will take charge of all affairs connected with schools and colleges, and will use all diligence to advance knowledge and science, organizing for this purpose the best systems, with the consent and cooperation of the head of the Educational Department. 2. While he is in discharge of his duty he shall have the right to state or explain his opinions in a frank manor, with the understanding that he is responsible to the head of the Educational Department. 3. The party of the first part agrees to pay the party of the second part after his arrival in the City of Tokei a monthly salary of Six Hundred Yen or its equivalent (about $600, gold) and in addition the party of the first part agrees to provide for the use of the party of the second part an unfurnished house, in European Style. 4. The term of the present contract shall commence when the party of the second part arrives in the City of Tokei and shall continue three years (European Reckoning).

Among the provisions of the contract, several stand out. The first is the monthly salary of “Six Hundred Yen or its equivalent (about $600, gold).” The Japanese government offered Murray an annual income for three years that ranked him among the highest-paid officials in the field of education in the country, including that of Tanaka Fujimaro, officially Vice Minister of Education, to whom Murray was responsible. In fact, Murray’s salary compared favorably with that of the head of government at 800 yen per month.60 In another relevant comparison, faculty members at Japan’s Kaisei Gakkō, the ranking national institution of higher education, earned between 200 and 300 yen per month.61 Even by international standards, Murray’s salary—the equivalent of $7,200 per year—was far higher than his salary of $2,700 per year that he received at Rutgers College as a full professor.62 Considering the cost of living in Japan in 1873, with a rent-free, Western-style house constructed for the Murrays, they were able to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle in Tokyo.

130

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

The favorable financial terms of the contract illustrated the eagerness of the Japanese to hire Murray for government service. Although their only direct contact with him up to that moment involved his thoughtful essay on education and nationhood and several interviews, the officials nevertheless were confident that he was the right person for that position. Moreover, by making such a heavy financial investment in Murray, government leaders were signaling the importance of the position being offered and their high expectations of the man chosen to fill that position. Accordingly, in good faith they designed the conditions of his contract so attractively, including the grand title of Superintendent of Education (gakkan), that Murray would find it difficult to decline the offer. Murray was, in fact, eager to sign the agreement. On the other hand, the opposite was true as well. Murray was not only confident that he could carry out his responsibilities at the Ministry of Education, he was equally confident that the Japanese government would fulfill its contractual obligations to him. In 1873, when the American government was in the process of establishing diplomatic relations with Japan, there were no legal means for Murray to hold the Japanese government liable for contractual agreements. Murray signed the contract with the Japanese government in good faith. Without doubt the confidence and good faith that Murray placed in the Japanese officials with whom he had little direct contact grew out of his relationships with and admiration for the Japanese samurai youth he befriended as students in New Brunswick and the senior government officials in the Iwakura Embassy he had briefly met in Washington and Boston, virtually all educated in samurai schools during the feudal era. Another critical statement in the contract that Murray accepted as intended concerned his advice to the head of the Ministry of Education. He had “the right to state or explain his opinions in a frank manner.” In view of the fact that Japanese culture does not encourage frankness in communications, with all sorts of linguistic devices to mask one’s true opinion in vagueness, this may have been included to ensure that the Japanese were getting advice based on Murray’s true convictions. The enormous responsibility technically placed on Murray to “take charge of all affairs connected with Schools and Colleges” was expected to be mutually understood by both parties as impossible under the circumstances. Murray knew little about Japanese educational traditions other than what he learned primarily from the Japanese students he befriended at Rutgers College. In addition he had no facility in the Japanese language. The intent of the contract was that Murray was responsible as the senior adviser (saikō komon) to the head of the Ministry of Education,63 with the responsibility to provide advice on “all affairs connected with Schools and Colleges.” He was not “to take charge of them.” Murray was contractually “responsible to the head of the Educational Department,” Tanaka Fujimaro, who was in charge of and responsible for Japanese education.

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

13 1

Finally, the assignment to “organize the best systems to advance knowledge and science” was mutually understood as providing advice on organizing the best possible system of education for Japan. However, it went beyond that obvious purpose. Murray was to select from modern Western school systems the best practices to advance knowledge and science in Japan so that it could take its place among the leading nations in the world. And that was precisely what Murray enthusiastically committed himself to do. By signing the contract with the Japanese government, David Murray entered into the service of Emperor Meiji at the most critical moment in the history of modern Japanese education. To what extent Murray was aware of the significance of the first plan for a universal school system, the Gakusei, which had been drawn up by Ministry officials in late 1871 and early 1872 and officially published only months before Murray’s arrival in Japan that stipulated that every child would attend the local public school, will never be known. Nevertheless, the Japanese government specifically chose Murray to play a key role in the modernization of Japanese education with the implementation of the Gakusei. They placed enormous expectations on an American professor of mathematics and astronomy. Murray submitted his resignation from Rutgers College shortly after signing the contract with the Japanese government. After some reluctance on the part of college officials, both sides agreed to a leave of absence of three years instead, the period of Murray’s appointment to Japan.64 On May 2, 1873, the New Brunswick Historical Society held a farewell party for Murray, one of its original founders. His departing remarks were deeply influenced by his contacts with the Japanese students with whom he and his wife had grown fond over the past six years at Rutgers College as well as the discussions in Washington held with senior government officials with the Iwakura Embassy. They reveal once again the perceptiveness of an extraordinary figure who played an extraordinary role in early Japanese-American relations: Those who have regarded Japan from an outside viewpoint have supposed it to be an uneducated nation and that consequently the whole fabric of education would require to be revised from the foundation. Nothing could be more erroneous. On the contrary. Japan stands today among the nations where education is held in the highest regard, and where it is nearly universal. The exclusive policy pursued for so many centuries by the government has permitted other nations to surpass her in many branches of education. In science, in the industrial arts, in the learning which bears on trade and commerce, the Western nations which have had the advantage of intercommunication of ideas and discoveries, have outstripped the Eastern. Of this Japan has become conscious. And the eagerness with which they are today stretching out their hands to receive from us the new ideas, and the

13 2

Part I : 1 86 6 – 1 8 7 3

perfect trust and confidence with which they have come to our shores to be taught, are both touching and beautiful. Americans were their earliest western friends, and they have never ceased to show their partiality to us and our institutions. Hundreds of their young men have been educated in our institutions, and of all that number, I have yet to hear of one who has departed in the slightest degree from the strictest views of integrity. A civilization which is capable of furnishing such proofs of its efficiency must not be condemned as without elements worthy of highest consideration. It is in the interest of this movement to improve their educational system that I go to Japan. Like all who have been in any way connected with the education of the young Japanese in this country, I have been most deeply interested in the efforts of the nation to connect itself with the great march of modern progress, and when summoned to aid in this great work, I did not feel it in my heart to decline. That there are difficulties and embarrassments connected with this work nobody knows better than I. I go, however, with an earnest purpose to use whatever power I have, whatever experience I have gained in my previous labors in education, for the best good of the nation. I go with fears and misgivings, but yet with a trust that I shall have the sympathies of the friends I have left behind, and of that divine help without which all efforts are futile. But I go not only to impart to Japan the results of our system as far as I can, but I humbly confess that I go to learn from them what is good in theirs. I own that for one I am not so sure that we have reached perfection that we can learn nothing from our neighbors. I am anxious to study the institutions of an Empire which has held on its way so many centuries; that has had fewer wars and revolutions than any Empire nation; that from its own inherent vitality is capable of initiating the most astounding changes; reforms with less disturbance than attends a Presidential election. I am anxious to see the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career, which has sent to our institutions a body of young men, who in quickness of powers, in aptness for learning, in integrity of purpose, have placed themselves here among the very foremost of our American students. I want to see how lads are trained who when grown to be young men are such models of courtesy, honor and diligence. I do not expect to renounce my confidence in American institutions, but I trust I shall never belong to that class who think that there is nothing to be seen or learned beyond our own shores.65

From this most reflective farewell, the convictions of David Murray that appealed to the Japanese emerged even before he left for Japan. He was attracted to the great social and educational revolution under way in Japan that he had

Mu rr ay’s Empl oym ent in the Service of the E mpe ror

133

first learned about from his Japanese students and committed himself to contribute to the success of it. Murray, deeply impressed by the demeanor and abilities of the samurai youth at Rutgers, expressed another purpose in accepting the challenge to work in a foreign country in the Far East. There were elements of Japanese education that emerged from the feudal era worthy of respect in the West. The final revelation that emerged from Murray’s farewell speech appeared at the very end. He closed his remarks with a Japanese fable that he had gone to great lengths to turn into a long verse, which is not included in the quotation above. It was taken from a classic of the period, Tales of Old Japan by A. B. Mitford, considered an excellent introduction to the customs of old Japan. In order to better prepare himself for his forthcoming duties in the service of the emperor, Murray had been reading reference books on the culture and traditions of the country that had placed its confidence in him. One week later David and Martha Murray boarded the transcontinental train for San Francisco, to include a tour of the magnificent sites of the American West on the way. On June 5, 1873, they boarded the steamer Quang Se headed for Yokohama, Japan, where David would enter in the service of the emperor at the Ministry of Education as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan. Indicative of his status, their state-room was, according to Martha, “the best on the steamer,”66 at the expense of the Japanese government.

PA RT I I



MURRAY’S FIRST PERIOD AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION IN JAPAN AND AMERICA

1873–1876

chapter 5



JAPANESE EDUCATION BEFORE MURRAY’S ARRIVAL confucian schools for the governing samurai David Murray’s farewell speech from New Brunswick in June 1873 expressed his heartfelt desire to contribute to the advancement of Japanese education. It also revealed that he was unaware of a historic ordinance promulgated by the Japanese Ministry of Education several months before he signed a contract to become the Superintendent of Education in Japan. Titled the Gakusei, literally the “school system” frequently referred to as the Fundamental Code of Education of 1872, it was intended to launch a social transformation of epic proportions. It called for a universal system of public schools compulsory for all children in the nation. It was designed to replace the clan schools of feudal Japan that catered exclusively to the ruling hereditary samurai families during the long reign of the Tokugawa government and the terakoya temple schools, among others, that appealed to many non-samurai parents with their moral teachings. As a result of the Gakusei, the “institutions of an Empire which has held on its way so many centuries” that Murray was eager to learn about and “the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career” that he was “anxious to see” had been abolished before he arrived in Japan in July 1873. The clan schools of feudal Japan, where the samurai statesmen and students who awakened Murray’s interest in Japan were educated in the ways of the warrior, had been closed by governmental decree in July 1871, with the abolition of the hans and the establishment of prefectures.1 They were, according to the provisions of the Gakusei, to be replaced by a national system of compulsory public elementary schools patterned after Western models under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education beginning with the 1872–1873 school year. Murray could not have realized the magnitude of the educational and social reformation getting under way in Japan when he arrived in the summer of 1873 137

13 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

to become an integral part of it for the next five and a half years. It was unprecedented. No nation in the world had provided educational opportunities for all children by the 1800s. The Japanese samurai who shaped the visionary provisions of the Gakusei for Meiji Japan were ahead of the times. They were the precursors of the educational reformers in modern Western democracies, where basic education provided by the state became recognized as the right of every citizen years later. The relevance of the Gakusei to Murray’s position as the Superintendent of Japanese Education is that historians refer to the fifth year of the Meiji era, 1872, when an educational revolution was promulgated in September, as the beginning of modern education in Japan.2 It was to be implemented as Tanaka Fujimaro returned to Japan in the spring of 1873 after a year and a half in the West with the Iwakura Embassy to assume control of the Ministry of Education, and the new Superintendent of Education from America assumed his duties in the Ministry in the summer. When Murray signed the three-year employment contract with the Japanese government in January 1873, he unknowingly put in place an unforeseen set of conditions. He committed himself to becoming the Superintendent of Education in the Japanese Ministry of Education six months later with little if any knowledge of the purposes and provisions of the new Code of Education, the Gakusei. Four months prior to his appointment, the Ministry of Education had promulgated it as the beginning of a universal school system under the administrative control of the Ministry in a transformation of Japanese education from the feudal to the modern. Murray’s final address from America indicates a different understanding of the contemporary state of affairs in Japanese education: “Those who have regarded Japan from an outside viewpoint have supposed it to be an uneducated nation and that consequently the whole fabric of education would require to be revised from the foundation. Nothing could be more erroneous.”3 Murray reveals his misunderstanding of Japanese education at that moment in definitive terms. He assumed a senior position within the Ministry of Education in 1873 with the firm belief that modern Japanese education should be based on “institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system.”4 Without identifying “institutions already founded” as those established to educate the samurai during the feudal era in premodern Japan—the clan schools, or hankō—that was what he meant. However, the Gakusei, motivated by ranking officials of the Japanese government who led the revolution against the Tokugawa regime, including those Murray met in Washington with the Iwakura Embassy, interpreted the situation differently. They called for the abolishment of the feudal clan schools where they were educated, to be replaced by modern schools serving all children in the nation based on a Western model.

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

139

Murray’s knowledge of Japanese education that awakened his interest in Japan and motivated his earnest desire to “see the machinery of that system of education” was limited primarily to what he had learned in casual conversation with Japanese samurai youth who he had befriended in New Brunswick. They had all undergone an exceptional educational experience of the samurai warrior of Confucian studies combined with the martial arts during the feudal era in the clan schools that were limited to sons of the ruling samurai class. Their understanding of Japanese education conveyed to Murray was shaped by it. The hankō, one in each castle town of the feudal hans or clans, resembled a national school system restricted for samurai consisting of about 5 percent of the population, although with widely varying facilities and standards according to local conditions. The hankō in the capital of Tokyo (Edo), Shōheikō of Confucian studies restricted for the ruling Tokugawa shogunate families, became the model for all.5 Because of the educational prominence of the clan schools in the 1850s, they were “the machinery of the system of education” that Murray longed to see. They underlay his “project” to go to Japan to become part of that machinery he came to admire. The missing ingredient in Murray’s initial perspective of Japanese education was, understandably, that available for the non-samurai population of about 95 percent during the long feudal era. The primary educational opportunity for the commoners took the form of the terakoya, or “temple school,” a name attached to a variety of private schools for boys—and to a much lesser extent, girls—from non-samurai families who could afford them. The name originated from the site where the earliest ones were located when Buddhist priests taught local children the moral beliefs that were influential in the local community. Afterward, they were gradually expanded throughout the country. Commoners as well as lower-ranking samurai seeking an income to supplement their meager support from the domain opened private terakoya schools in their homes for children, mostly males. By the time of the Meiji Restoration of 1868, it’s estimated that around 40 percent of Japanese boys and 10 percent of girls attended some form of formal schooling outside the home.6 The terakoya formed the mainstay of education for both rural families and commoners in the towns as private elementary schools. The other category of schools primarily for non-samurai youth were the shijuku, an amorphous category of private schools beyond the elementary level where subjects ranging from the practical to the classical Chinese to Western studies were offered to meet the growing needs of an increasingly complex society. Although designed to meet the needs of commoners, the name was used on occasion to include advanced-level educational institutes or academies taught by distinguished samurai thinkers for bright samurai students beyond the clan school level. One of the most famous, Shoka Sonjuku, was led by Yoshida Shōin, a leading reformist of the late Tokugawa period who was executed by

140

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

the government for his radical teachings and actions. One of his most famous students was Itō Hirobumi.7 Itō, as a member of the Iwakura Embassy, deeply impressed David Murray upon their first meeting in Washington. Since both types of schools, the terakoya and the shijuku, were privately run and uncoordinated—with a wide variety of purposes, from moral to practical, serving a broad spectrum of needs primarily for commoners—Murray had little knowledge of them before he went to Japan. His informants on the state of Japanese education would have been familiar with terakoya in their communities, but only from afar. The distinguishing feature of Japanese society was its stratification between the hereditary class of samurai, with the upper ranks educated in han schools, and the non-samurai majority left to fend for themselves in terakoya and shijuku, which many did. Murray never mentioned the latter in his writings up to that time, since he had not encountered Japanese below the samurai class in America, although he was aware of the advanced state of literacy among all classes. His focus, and motivation for accepting a senior position within the Ministry of Education, was concentrated on the clan schools where the Japanese students he encountered at Rutgers College had been educated. When Murray assumed his post in mid-1873, newly responsible for administering the Gakusei designed to replace the clan schools he held in the greatest respect and the terakoya schools he knew little about, he found himself in a challenging environment. In order to more fully appreciate the unprecedented challenge Murray faced, tracing the growth and demise of the han schools and the development of the Code of Education can be instructive. Moreover, reviewing the role of the social reformers of the nineteenth century in Japan who laid the basis for the Gakusei is instructive as well, since Murray was awakened to Japan by some of the most outstanding among them. It brings into historical perspective how the samurai leaders of modern Japan were themselves products of the feudal schools, an era of Japanese history that Murray greatly appreciated. Murray had the rare opportunity to meet several of the prominent leaders of Meiji Japan in 1872 precisely at a crucial time for them, having recently completed stage one of the movement for reform. They had secured positions of power within the new Meiji government with the overthrow of the old feudal institutions. They were preparing for stage two, the determination of modern institutions to replace the old in order to preserve the national sovereignty of their country in the modern era. At this stage, and through unusual circumstances covered in the previous chapters, Murray encountered several of the most powerful leaders of the Japanese crusade for modernization. Demonstrating one of his primary attributes, the ability to recognize the inherent abilities of others, American or not, Murray came away with the highest regards for them and the institutions that educated them. Of equal significance and importance in the history of modern Japanese education, among the samurai who led the movement to modernize their country

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

141

were several key figures who recognized the uncommon traits of Murray. It was their selection of him to assist them in their great endeavor that not only demonstrated their perceptiveness but illustrated the major contribution to the future of their country that the clan schools of feudal Japan made in educating the early leaders of modern Japan. Among the samurai committed to educational reform, three stand out for their extraordinary foresight and contributions. Murray was a rare American who encountered all three, two in America and the third in Japan. They envisioned a sovereign Japan existing amicably among modern Western nations while adapting the native value system necessary to achieve that coveted status. Through their writings and actions, they laid the basis for a modern education system that emerged from the Gakusei just months before Murray was hired to provide advice for administering it. Kido Takayoshi and Itō Hirobumi, as influential government officials, contributed revolutionary ideas in the process of social reform, developing a close relationship with Murray that began in Washington and matured in Japan. Fukuzawa Yukichi, however, exerted the greatest influence on educational modernization among all samurai, reportedly setting the tenor of the preamble to the Gakusei, without official status within the Meiji government. Nevertheless, he exerted a strong influence on officials in the Ministry of Education during Murray’s tenure in it. How Murray responded to the revolutionary proposals for modern educational reforms advocated by these historic Japanese figures was the supreme challenge to the American professor of mathematics from Rutgers College when he arrived in Japan in the summer of 1873.

The Clan Schools of Feudal Japan By the middle of the nineteenth century, the clan schools for the ruling hereditary samurai class had undergone many changes since their beginning. What were originally designed as institutions for military training to teach the arts of archery, swordsmanship, and horsemanship to samurai youth during the era of civil war of the sixteenth century had gradually become absorbed into centers of academic learning with the gradual spread of clan schools during the era of Tokugawa rule from the beginning of the seventeenth century. They were dominated by the teachings of Confucius from China and catered to about 5 percent of the total population in the several hundred fiefdoms throughout Japan.8 The early samurai warriors of the civil war period were appropriately immersed in the ways of the warrior. During an era when military training of samurai youth began at the age of twelve or thirteen to prepare inevitably for battle at the age of fifteen or sixteen, there was little time nor inclination for reading and writing or book learning. However, as the Tokugawa clan finally achieved

142

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

military supremacy over the other clans in the early 1600s, maintaining peace and social stability to preserve political power became of utmost concern. Tokugawa officials adopted and adapted Confucian teachings for samurai youth to learn the art of peace. In the process the way of the warrior, the Bushidoo, assumed an entirely different purpose. Rather than prepare inevitably for war, young samurai learned the art of maintaining peace based on Confucian teachings of loyalty and respect for one’s superiors in the rigidly stratified social order, with the samurai class at the pinnacle. The process began with learning calligraphy in order to study the Chinese classics. As a result there was a high degree of literacy among samurai throughout the country.9 The purpose of the clan schools in educating samurai youth was henceforth to prepare them to govern during peacetime according to the dictates of the ruling Tokugawa family, derived from Confucian principles. The way of the warrior began with the book, not the sword, even though each wore two swords to differentiate them from those they ruled. William Elliot Griffis described it from his post in remote Japan accordingly: “The Japan of the books is almost wholly the Japan of the Samurai.”10 The foundation of a literary education for the governing samurai warrior class produced the remarkable social and political stability that continued for several centuries under the Tokugawa family. In essence, Confucian education became an effective instrument to preserve the social and political order throughout the domains. It was maintained through strict regulations and ceremonial pomp and circumstance—as long as a policy of enforced seclusion remained effectively in place and unchallenged from abroad. As a consequence of feudal education as commonly practiced throughout Japan in the 1840s and 1850s, the samurai who David Murray met in the late 1860s and early 1870s in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Washington, DC, had a common educational background in the clan schools. These were the institutions that Murray was eager to see when he left for Japan in 1873, which trained their students to be, according to him, “models of courtesy, honor and diligence.” This was “the system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career.” When Murray penned those statements in New Brunswick in the early 1870s, he was unaware that the samurai institutions in feudal Japan that he greatly admired had entered a period of reformation to meet the changing demands of the time. This was precisely when the samurai youth destined to find their way to Rutgers College for advanced education in the 1860s and 1870s were enrolled in their domain schools. The movement to reform the long tradition of feudal education embedded in Confucian classics was led by the activists among the samurai class. They increasingly found the traditional teachings inappropriate and ineffective in solving the complex financial and administrative problems of an evolving social order.

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

1 43

Already under way within the country, the reform movement of han schools was invigorated by the unexpected arrival of Commodore Perry in Japanese waters commanding a squadron of warships from the United States. They sailed unimpeded into the greater Tokyo Bay in 1853 in spite of the longstanding isolationist policy of the Tokugawa government, demanding trading rights. Fukuzawa Yukichi, progressive samurai of the period, recalled that “the news of the appearance of the American fleet in Edo had already made its impression on every remote town in Japan. At the same time the problem of national defense and modern gunnery had become the foremost interest of all the samurai.”11 The fact that the startling news of the presence of American warships near Tokyo had reached “every remote town in Japan” was evidence that the governing class of samurai in each domain—including the young students in them who would travel to, of all places, Rutgers College in New Brunswick in the 1860s—had not only a common education steeped in Confucian classics but a common knowledge of major events outside their domains. Moreover, their common reaction, described by Fukuzawa as “the foremost interest of all the samurai,” would set the pattern of the modern era in which Murray would become deeply involved. National defense was the motivation. By the 1850s, many samurai throughout the domains had become conscious of their country as a nation. At the same time, few of the common people had a similar sense of national identity. For example, there was no national flag until 1854.12 As leaders not only trained in the literary arts of Confucianism, the samurai had also gone through the training of warriors—although with decreasing emphasis. Nevertheless, their common instinct was to react in warrior terms, recognizing the need for “modern gunnery” to protect not only their domains but their lifestyle as a hereditary governing class throughout the country. The sophistication of the governing samurai class of the 1850s, even after several hundred years of national isolation from the Western world, was sufficient for them to come to a fairly common understanding. It was modern science that enabled Western countries not only to develop modern gunnery but to build modern ships to carry the guns that could operate throughout the world, including Japanese waters. They realized that Japan had no defense against them. The most sophisticated, such as Fukuzawa Yukichi, Kido Takayoshi, and Itō Hirobumi, had also become aware of Western colonization of vast areas of the world due to their supremacy of the world’s oceans. To them the Japanese could no longer remain virtually isolated from the modern Western world. The first two Japanese samurai youth who David Murray encountered on the campus of Rutgers College in 1866 illustrated the trends already under way in Japan in 1853. The two Yokoi brothers from a progressive samurai family had gone to America to study science and mathematics in order to make “big ships” and “big guns” to preserve the independence of Japan from Western colonization.

144

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

The world of the samurai underwent an internal division of profound significance during the decade after the arrival of Commodore Perry’s naval squadron, spawning further anxieties and movements for change. Although most were nationalists with the preservation of the country as their ultimate goal, they split into three divisions. The first consisted of samurai who favored the continued dominant role of Confucian studies and thought in han schools that had successfully enabled the samurai class to rule the country, both at the national level as well as within each local domain, for several centuries. The second faction was made up of royalists who favored the restoration of the young Emperor Meiji as head of government based on Shinto beliefs related to the origin of the imperial family. And finally the third faction, the internationalists, called for Western learning—that is, science—to enable Japan to modernize in order to achieve a level of advancement on a par with that of leading industrial nations in the West. Among the most significant manifestations of the awakening period of the samurai from the 1850s to the overthrow of the feudal Tokugawa government in 1868 were the unique qualities of those who led the political revolution. They became leaders of the new Meiji government, determined to carry out a social revolution by blending the three entities that originally divided them. It was the unique product of that assimilation that David Murray admired and enabled him to work compatibly and effectively with the samurai of Japan who led their country out of feudalism into the modern world. As nationalists, the samurai who emerged as leaders of the reform movement in feudal Japan, bringing the first period to a close in 1868 with the civil war that brought them to power, immediately restored the emperor as head of government that they administered in his name as royalists. As internationalists, they then turned to the West for models to modernize their institutions, promoting a new school system as an instrument of social reconstruction with the primary purpose of preserving Japanese sovereignty during an era of Western colonialism. Through it all, however, they also remained true to the teachings of Confucianism, with its core values of loyalty and filial piety and the manners and etiquette that were associated with exhibiting those values in one’s daily life. As considered in chapter 1, it was precisely this unique combination of attributes from the past and the future of the samurai youth in New Brunswick that appealed to Murray and led him to Japan in 1873. Among the clan schools for samurai youth that Murray yearned to see, that of the Aizu fiefdom represents one of the most outstanding examples of han schools in feudal Japan, although it was undergoing reforms during the Bakumatsu period leading to the Meiji Restoration of 1868. The original han school of Aizu in Fukushima prefecture north of Tokyo has been faithfully rebuilt, providing the Japanese of today with an opportunity to gain an appreciation of how

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

1 45

one domain prepared its select samurai youth for leadership in feudal Japan. As it turned out, they became leaders of a country that shortly thereafter emerged from feudalism of the Tokugawa era on a path of modernism during the Meiji era. Murray was destined to encounter several of the outstanding graduates of the Aizu Nisshinkan clan school, both at the Rutgers College campus and later in Japan, who played an extraordinarily important role in the modernization of Japanese education and society. Sons of samurai families in the Aizu domain above a designated rank entered Nisshinkan at the age of ten to begin the arduous task of studying Chinese characters. The ultimate goal was learning the moral teachings contained in the Confucian Analects. It was the common goal of all clan schools, although many students did not reach a high level of literacy in Chinese. However, the method of teaching samurai students the Confucian teachings of jin (benevolence), gi (justice), rei (manners), chi (knowledge), and shin (trust) at Nisshinkan was standard.13 The formal class routine involved the repetition of passages with teacher explanations of the meaning of the texts. In this manner even those students who could not achieve a high level of literacy in the original Chinese script gained some understanding of the ethical teachings of Confucian thought that became official doctrine of the Tokugawa government. They played a significant role in maintaining a level of social harmony that Confucian teachings undergirded with its concern for the respect for one’s elders, being truthful in all relationships, and always acting in a proper manner. The classroom scene of a clan school in feudal Japan as depicted at Nisshinkan illustrates what David Murray, writing in New Brunswick in 1872, described as an

Figure 5.1. The Aizu Hankō Nisshinkan School for Samurai Youth. From Benjamin Duke, The History of Modern Japanese Education (Rutgers University Press, 2009), 14.

146

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Figure 5.2. A classroom—Aizu Hankō Nisshinkan clan school. From Benjamin Duke, The History of Modern Japanese Education (Rutgers University Press, 2009), 16.

institution where “lads are trained who when grown to be young men are such models of courtesy, honor and diligence.”14 Although never having observed a clan school classroom, the conclusions of a professor of mathematics from the campus of a small American college proved to be an accurate description of the graduates of the Nisshinkan hankō far beyond his imagination. For example, that institution produced the first professor of physics in the nation’s history, Yamakawa Kenjirō, included in the portrait of samurai students taken at New Brunswick in 1871, when Murray was on the faculty of Rutgers College, carried in chapter 2. Yamakawa studied physics at the Sheffield School of Science at Yale University before joining the faculty of Tokyo University where, coincidentally, Murray gave the congratulatory address to the first graduating class, considered in a later chapter. Yamakawa Kenjirō later became president of the nation’s most advanced institution of higher education when the name of Tokyo University was changed to the Imperial University. Sitting in the Nisshinkan clan classroom with Yamakawa Kenjirō during the Bakumatsu period was one of the most remarkable young samurai who Murray would encounter in both Japan and America. Takamine Hideo would go down in the history books of Japan as the founder of progressive education, introducing the most advanced theories in the world into Japan as developed by the great educational reformer Johann Pestalozzi in Switzerland. Murray, as Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education, was destined to play a critical role in Hideo’s professional education during the early Meiji period by

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

1 47

arranging for him to study at the Oswego Teacher Training School in Murray’s home state of New York, the center of Pestalozzi’s progressive education teachings in America, considered in a later chapter. The most famous samurai who led the social reform movement during the Bakumatsu period, and who exerted the most powerful influence on reforming Japanese education before and after Murray arrived in Tokyo in 1873, was Fukuzawa Yukichi. Although born in 1835 in the commercial city of Osaka, where his middle-level samurai father served his clan as a financial officer, Fukuzawa was educated at his Nakatsu clan school in rural southern Japan in Ōita prefecture, Kyushu, in 1850. He characterized his educational experience succinctly. Chinese classics were then the basis of all learning.15 In Fukuzawa’s autobiography he describes his early disillusionment with the samurai tradition of the 1850s that would reappear in an unlikely form in the introduction to the Gakusei of 1872. Little did Murray, who called for the retention of “institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations,” know of Fukuzawa’s unhappiness with the stratified institution of the samurai as a samurai child. The thing that made me most unhappy in Nakatsu was the restriction of rank and position. Not only on official occasions, but in private intercourse, and even among children, the distinctions between high and low were clearly defined. Children of lower samurai families like ours were obliged to use a respectful manner of address in speaking to the children of high samurai

Figure 5.3. Fukuzawa Yukichi. From Benjamin Duke, Ten Great Educators of Modern Japan (Tokyo University Press, 1989), 19.

148

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

families, while these children invariably used an arrogant form of address to us. Then what fun was there in playing together? In school I was the best student and no children made light of me there. But once out of the school room, those children would give themselves airs as superior to me; yet I was sure I was not inferior, not even in physical power. In all this, I could not free myself from discontent though I was still a child.16

Fukuzawa, the leading intellectual of the Meiji era, carried this sentiment into adulthood in one of his most famous books, the Gakumon no Susume (Advancement of learning), first published in 1872. It opens with the following statement, one of the best known in Japanese history: “Heaven did not create men above men nor put men under men, it is said. Therefore, Heaven’s aim is that all men are equal at birth without distinction of high and low or noble and mean.” Fukuzawa directly refuted the strict social order of feudal Japanese society imposed by the Tokugawa regime embedded in Confucian principles of loyalty taught in all han schools, the institution that Murray professed great admiration for prior to his employment by the Japanese government. Fukuzawa promoted the advancement of learning as a means to achieve independence and self-reliance of each individual, beholden to and dependent upon no one in a superior position. This sentiment, evidence of Fukuzawa’s influence within government circles as an outsider, appeared in the introduction of the 1872 Code of Education. Fukuzawa was deeply influenced by his travels as a translator on government missions to the West. That included trips to the United States on two occasions during the feudal Tokugawa period in 1860—to California for one month and to Washington and New York for six months in 1867 and a lengthy visit of nearly a year in Europe in 1862. Few, if any, Japanese had such experiences in the West during the feudal era of Japan. Among his most famous publications was Seiyō no Jijō (Conditions in the West), a virtual encyclopedia of things Western. The irony is that Murray would arrive in Japan as the senior Western adviser in the Ministry of Education absorbed in implementing the Code of Education when Fukuzawa’s influence was at its highest both within the Ministry and within the educational world. His private school of Western learning in Tokyo using English that became Keio University competed with the national Kaisei Gakkō under Murray’s protégé from Rutgers College, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, as president, considered in the following chapter. Among the leading statesmen of the new Meiji government, Kido Takayoshi stands out among them as exerting one of the most powerful influences not only in the political and diplomatic areas but also in the field of education. Kido was destined to play one of the most prominent roles in hiring Murray as the Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, analyzed in the previous chapter. After Murray was called to Washington to meet the leaders of the Iwakura

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

1 49

Figure 5.4. Kido Takayoshi. From Portraits of Modern Japanese Historical Figures (Tokyo: National Diet Library).

mission to the West in 1872, he wrote to his former student at Rutgers College, William Griffis then in Japan, that he had “seen a good deal of Kido & Itoo and something of Iwakura. . . . Indeed those who have been in this country conducting the negotiations with our government are certainly of great intelligence and have a perfectly clear insight into the wants of their country and the difficulties to be encountered in regard to them.”17 Whether Murray was aware of Kido’s critical role in the overthrow of the feudal Tokugawa regime and the restoration of the imperial government in 1868 and his impact on the crucial events that transpired immediately thereafter in

150

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

determining the direction of education before Murray arrived in Japan may never be known. Nevertheless, the fact that Kido, one of the most influential officials of the new Japanese government, was instrumental in the decision to hire Murray was indicative of Murray’s character and personality, which appealed to the ranking Japanese from the samurai class. It initiated an odd relationship of mutual respect and admiration between a devout Christian professor and a samurai leader. Kido’s power and influence in the Meiji government originated from his position as head of the Chōshū domain, which had formed an alliance with the Satsuma domain in opposition to the continuing rule of the increasingly ineffective and unpopular Tokugawa family in 1868. Joined by a coalition of other domains fighting to reform the government, appealing to the royalists by calling for a restoration of Emperor Meiji as head of government under their management, their military success placed Kido and his counterpart in the Satsuma domain, Ōkubo Toshimichi, in senior positions. They became responsible for determining how to unite the warring factional domains in order to preserve Japan’s sovereignty during the colonial period dominated by Western countries. They were confronted with an internal and external threat. In order to carry out political as well as educational reforms, Kido realized that the feudal domain system of government under samurai control, including the han schools restricted for samurai, could not be continued. This position put him at odds with Murray’s initial advice to the Japanese in March 1872, sent to their chargé d’affaires in Washington, Mori Arinori, that Kido surely read as a ranking member of the Iwakura mission: “There are institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system.” Amid a proliferation of conflicting ideas and overt actions among Confucian loyalists, royalists, and internationalists upon the overthrow of the Tokugawa government in the Boshin Civil War of 1868, Kido took a prominent lead. He was instrumental in the issuance of the Charter Oath of 1868 in the name of the fifteen-year-old Emperor Meiji. Among the five oaths, the fifth, “to seek knowledge from throughout the world,” set the focus of the new era of enlightenment.18 In effect it was intended to reorient the foundation of education in Japan from the East to the West, from Confucianism to modernism—that is, from the moral teachings of the Chinese sage to the science and mathematics of the industrialized West. To Kido, this was the only path forward for Japan to preserve its sovereignty. Shortly thereafter, Kido issued a statement advocating a truly revolutionary concept at that time—the call for universal education as essential for a strong and independent country. How one trained as a samurai during the feudal era could conceive of the following profound reasoning exemplifies the attributes of the Japanese samurai that few Americans recognized. David Murray was an

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

15 1

exception: “The strength and prosperity of a country lie in the strength and prosperity of its people. If ordinary people are held back by ignorance and poverty, the beautiful phrase ‘imperial restoration’ has no meaning and the effort of keeping up with the leading countries of the world must fail.”19 Kido revealed where he stood in the panorama of views that spread among the progressive samurai concerning the future of Japan in the modern world dominated by industrially advanced Western countries. Ignorance had to be eliminated by providing schools for all in order for Japan to develop into a strong nation capable of preserving its sovereignty and take its place in the modern world. Kido chose Murray to assist in achieving that monumental goal. The two would form a close relationship that began in Washington and was carried over to Japan. The other ranking official in the Iwakura mission who Murray encountered in Washington was Itō Hirobumi. He was one of the four leaders of the Iwakura Embassy, younger than Kido, who was destined to become the most influential prime minister of the Meiji government at a later date. Shortly after Kido submitted his ideas to the Meiji government for universal education, Itō Hirobumi submitted his opinion under the title of Kokuzei Kōmoku (National Imperatives). It reinforced Kido’s position, again illustrating the wisdom of Murray,

Figure 5.5. Itō Hirobumi. From W. G. Beasley, The Modern History of Japan (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1963), 181.

15 2

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

who recognized the uncommon traits of another leading Japanese samurai thinker. The purpose of education is to disseminate to all the people learning [gakujutsu] from throughout the world, and to introduce the knowledge of science and arts existent in other countries. Japan is now undergoing a cultural revolution [bunmei kaika] that western countries have already experienced. We now have the opportunity to abolish the old abuses [kyūhei] derived over hundreds of years, and to open the eyes and ears of the nation. If we fail to provide a basic education for all of our people, they will remain deaf and dumb, and without vision. That is why a great school system [daigakkō] should be established right down to an elementary school in every community. All of our people should be filled with knowledge.20

Precisely how Kido and Itō expressed their thoughts to Murray when they first met him in Washington in 1872 may never be known. Regardless of how they phrased their enlightened ideas, they were impressive enough to provoke Murray’s positive response in his letter to his former student, William Griffis, then on the faculty of the Imperial University in Tokyo, noted above: “Indeed those who have been in this country conducting the negotiations with our government are certainly of great intelligence and have a perfectly clear insight into the wants of their country and the difficulties to be encountered in regard to them.”21 This perceptive observation by Murray reveals his personal opinion about the positive attributes of the early samurai leaders of modern Japan. It deserves recognition as one of the most astute observations made by any contemporary non-Japanese. It illustrates Murray’s attitude toward, and respect for, the Japanese leaders he dealt with while in the service of the emperor. It governed his relationships with his Japanese colleagues at the Ministry of Education, which they greatly appreciated.

The Beginning of the Modern School System When David Murray arrived in Japan in June 1873, he became immersed in the problems of administering the revolutionary Code of Education, about which he knew little, if anything, of its provisions. To gain an appreciation of the challenges he faced under the unexpected circumstances in which he was to extend advice on a plan with which he was unfamiliar, a review of how the Gakusei was developed by the Ministry of Education and the consequences that resulted from their decisions can be helpful. It was all made possible with the formation of the Ministry of Education (Monbushō) on July 18, 1871, under progressive samurai leadership to take

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

153

responsibility for matters related to education under the Meiji government. From the Meiji Restoration in 1868 until the Ministry was formed, educational matters were handled by an office within the central bureau of government called the Daigakkō.22 It was the precursor of the Ministry of Education. With the motivation from the new political leaders of the country, particularly Kido Takayoshi and Itō Hirobumi, Ministry of Education officials set about to develop a plan for a public elementary school system (Gakusei) serving all children. It was the first project undertaken by the Ministry of Education in the Meiji era.23 On December 2, 1871, a committee (Gakusei Torishirabe Gakari) to draw up an educational plan for a public school system was appointed within the Ministry. Twelve members, nearly all Western specialists, were appointed under the chairmanship of a well-known Japanese scholar of French studies, Mitsukuri Rinshō.24 When that momentous decision was made in early December of 1871, plans for the Iwakura Embassy to the West had already been set. An official from each governmental ministry was to be chosen to serve as a representative to observe modern Western practices in that particular area. As noted earlier, for some still unexplained reason, Tanaka Fujimaro had been selected as the educational commissioner for the embassy. In a statement outlining the purpose of his trip, he affirmed his plan to collect data from Western countries on public and private education, administration and financing of education, teachers, salaries, examinations, school buildings, school fees, museums, and so on. It included virtually all aspects of modern systems of education in the West.25 The most important figure in the early days of the Ministry of Education was Ōki Takatō, the Minister of Education from the samurai class in the Saga domain, appointed to head the Ministry on July 28, 1871, ten days after it was founded.26 It was under Ōki’s administration that the process of developing the Gakusei by a committee of Western-oriented officials was set in place. It was under Ōki that Tanaka Fujimaro was appointed a deputy (mombu daijō) in October 1871,27 fourth in line to the Minister of Education.28 Tanaka was then chosen by Ōki as the representative on the Iwakura Embassy, with the responsibility to search for a Western adviser to the Ministry of Education. In a letter by Tanaka to Ōki from Washington, quoted in a previous chapter, he expressed his annoyance with the Japanese chargé d’affaires in Washington, Mori Arinori, who insisted that Tanaka choose an American adviser, Birdsley Northrop, for the position. Tanaka noted that it would go counter to the understanding he had with Ōki before leaving Japan that his choice of a Western adviser should be made after visiting all the major Western nations.29 One of the most important decisions made during Ōki’s tenure as Minister of Education was the selection of Tanaka Fujimaro not only as his successor but with the responsibility for implementing the Code of Education upon his return to Japan with the Iwakura mission, expected to take less than a year.30 Tanaka’s translator during the trip to the West, Niijima Jō, reveals the understanding that

15 4

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Tanaka had when he visited schools and interviewed teachers and administrators in the United States and Europe for well over a year from the beginning of 1872 to the spring of 1873. Tanaka repeatedly asked Niijima, who had interrupted his studies for the Christian ministry at an American college to serve as Tanaka’s translator, to change his plans for the future. He appealed to Niijima to return to Japan to “assist him in establishing a new school system in Japan.”31 Tanaka was well aware of the heavy responsibility placed on his shoulders by Ōki Takatō. Illustrating once again the extraordinary influence that Guido Verbeck exerted on the formation of modern Japanese education, Ōki frequently consulted with him in the process of making critical decisions that would have a major impact on the life of David Murray.32 This was a natural procedure for Ōki to follow, since he invited Verbeck to leave Nagasaki and come to Tokyo to serve as the head teacher of the nation’s only advanced educational institution, Nankō, to be renamed Kaisei Gakkō. During that period, various governmental officials consulted with Verbeck for advice. That included the senior-ranking Iwakura Tomomi, who sought Verbeck’s advice on his historical mission to the West. Ōki was also quite familiar with Verbeck, since he was one of his students in Nagasaki during the feudal era. According to the sequence of events, when Tanaka left Japan for the United States with the Iwakura Embassy in late December 1871, he had been an official of the newly formed Ministry of Education under Ōki Takatō as it focused its attention primarily on “a new school system in Japan.” A special committee had been appointed within the Ministry to begin the process of drawing up a plan for the most important project in the history of Japanese education. Under an unusual set of circumstances, the individual chosen to implement the Code of Education, Tanaka Fujimaro, departed for America to begin a firsthand study of modern Western systems of education and search for a Western adviser just as the officials within the Ministry of Education responsible for writing the provisions of the code were beginning their most challenging assignment. Coincidentally, this all took place when David Murray was undergoing an awakening to Japan through an encounter with the samurai youth studying at Rutgers College. Members of the committee to draw up the Gakusei had some idea of modern Western systems of education through Japanese publications, such as Fukuzawa’s Seiyō Jijō (Conditions in the West). However, the Gakusei was primarily based on a translation of the so-called French Gakusei (Futsukoku Gakusei). With the committee members involved in the process lacking firsthand knowledge of Western systems of education, the Japanese Code of Education was virtually a word-for-word account of the administrative structure of French education.33 Tanaka Fujimaro, who was in the United States and Europe visiting schools at the time the Gakusei was written, later criticized the choice of France as the model for the Japanese Gakusei, claiming that the primary reason for the decision was that it was easily understood.34

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

155

The major provision of the new ordinance that distinguished it from all other regulations stipulated that every child of school age must attend the nearest public elementary school, established and financed by each community at the rate of one per six hundred residents. Emperor Meiji, in his official proclamation of the Gakusei, clarified its purpose accordingly: “It is intended that henceforth education shall be so diffused that there may not be a village with an ignorant family nor a family with an ignorant member.”35 The preamble to the Gakusei outlined the purposes of the revolutionary plan. It was prepared under the auspices of the Dajōkan, the supreme body authorized to approve laws, thus reflecting the intent of the Meiji government.36 However, Fukuzawa Yukichi had a major role in the preparation of the preamble. At the time of its formulation, his influence among Ministry of Education officers and other high-ranking officials had reached the level that the phrase “Mita no Monbushō, Monbushō wa Mita ni” (Ministry of Education at Mita, where Fukuzawa’s private college was located in Tokyo) circulated among the educated classes. The role of education in developing independence was a central concept in Fukuzawa’s immensely popular Gakumon no Susume (Advancement of learning), first published the same year as the Gakusei was issued. That theme runs throughout the final version of the preamble to the Code of Education, indicative of Fukuzawa’s influence on policy makers when David Murray became a senior officer of the Ministry of Education.37 The acquirement of knowledge and the cultivation of talent are essential to a successful life. By education men learn to acquire property, practice learned professions, perform public services, and make themselves independent of the help of their fellow-men. Schools are designed to provide this essential education. In their various capacities they are intended to supply to all classes of men the knowledge necessary for a successful life. The simple forms of language, the methods of writing, the principles of calculation, the highest knowledge of law, politics, science and arts, the preparation of the officer for his duties, of the farmer and merchant for their occupations, the physician for his profession, all of these it is the proper function of schools to supply. Poverty and failure in the careers of life find their chief cause in the want of education. Although schools have been established for many centuries in Japan, yet so far as they have been provided by government they have been confined to the military retainers and to the upper classes. For the lower classes of society and for women, learning was regarded as beyond their sphere, and, if acquired at all, was of a limited character. Even among the higher classes the character of education was defective. Under the pretext of acquiring knowledge for the benefit of the state, much time was spent in the useless occupation of writing poetry and composing maxims, instead of learning what would be for their own benefit or that of the state.

156

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Recently an improved educational system has been formed, and the methods of teaching remodeled. It is designed henceforth that education shall not be confined to a few, but shall be so diffused that there may not be a village with an ignorant family, nor a family with an ignorant member. Learning is no longer to be considered as belonging to the upper classes, but is to be equally the inheritance of nobles and gentry, farmers and artisans, males and females.38

From any perspective, the preamble to the Gakusei of 1872 represented a revolutionary statement in defining the purposes of modern education in Japan. “Not a family with an ignorant member,” a clarion call for “education for all,” set a goal that was unattainable in the West in the 1870s. For example, in America four million slaves had been freed by 1865 at the end of the Civil War. Education for all of them was beyond comprehension. Although the Gakusei was not framed in political terms by the Japanese educational policy makers of the time, its basic premise became a fundamental principle of democratic societies throughout the West during the 1900s. The right to an education for all citizens was understood as the foundation of a democratic society. In the new society of Japan following the Meiji Restoration of 1868, democracy was an unknown concept to most of the leaders—in part because it was still in the making in the West. In contrast to the principle that later spread throughout the West that the right to an education for all was the foundation of a democracy, the new leaders of Japan interpreted education as “essential to a successful life. By education men learn to acquire property, practice learned professions, perform public services, and make themselves independent.” Independence of the individual was not only a revolutionary concept in the West at that time, it went counter to traditional Japanese customs distinguishable as a society of dependence. Education was interpreted in the Gakusei as a right to make a living, which sets one free from being dependent on others. The purpose of education to provide the individual a means to make a living was another element that characterized the Gakusei as a progressive document well ahead of its time. In modern terms, that was defined as practical education useful to the ordinary citizen underlying vocational education in the great progressive education movement in the United States in the 1930s. Sixty years earlier the Japanese progressive leaders were championing yet another revolutionary concept in education that no nation in the world had yet implemented. The Gakusei refers several times to the concept of knowledge as essential for a successful life.39 This set the stage for a historical reversal of the curriculum of the new school system from the feudal to the modern. Confucian morality of loyalty and filial piety that dominated the old clan schools for the ruling samurai class was to be replaced with learning essential “for a successful life” for all. To the authors of the Gakusei, overwhelmingly Western-oriented samurai, the dominance of the West throughout the world in the 1870s was attributed to

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

15 7

the rise of science. Consequently, science and mathematics were to replace Confucian morality as the primary concern in the new schools of modern Japan. It inevitably set the stage for an eventual confrontation between the traditionalists and the modernists concerning the priority between morals education versus science education in the new curriculum in the public schools. David Murray would have to contend with that issue as the Japanese officials in the Ministry of Education became divided over it. The Gakusei specifically recognized the inequalities of a feudal society that existed in Japan for hundreds of years. Whereas the old education primarily served the ruling samurai families in a strict stratification of social classes into four levels, the new education was intended to serve all equally. Modern education was interpreted as a means to provide equality of educational opportunities for every sector of the society, a concept that would become a rallying call for democracy in the West throughout the twentieth century. From this historical perspective, the Japanese Gakusei of the early 1870s was well ahead of its time. The Gakusei also focused on the challenge of the vast inequalities between the education of men and women in Japan. Formal education for women during the feudal era was restricted to a tiny minority geared to preparing them primarily to become dutiful wives and mothers. To educate women to become independent was one of the most radical goals of the Gakusei that provoked widespread resistance by the peasant classes. Like the upper classes, the lower classes in feudal Japan were dominated by males determined to preserve their privileged status within the family. And finally, the preamble to the Gakusei specifically criticized the teachings of the old clan schools that catered to the ruling classes during the feudal era: “Even among the higher classes the character of education was defective. Under the pretext of acquiring knowledge for the benefit of the state, much time was spent in the useless occupation of writing poetry and composing maxims, instead of learning what would be for their own benefit or that of the state.” This critique was aimed at the ruling samurai class whose sons were educated in samurai schools, where the memorization of ancient Confucian precepts and the writing of poetry was a unique part of the education of the warrior. It was the combination of the literary with the military that distinguished the education of the Japanese governing classes from their counterparts in the West. Nevertheless, it provoked criticism by the educational reformers in Japan who wrote the Gakusei, all originating from within the samurai class itself. This particular feature of feudal education was manifested during the clandestine departure of the young samurai, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, when he left Japan for the West in 1865, described in the first chapter. He composed a poem to express his deepest emotions as he headed into a world beyond his imagination, illustrating how he had been brought up in the way of the Japanese warrior in the Bushido tradition. Even as a teenage warrior, he found solace in poetry that

158

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

reflected the cherished Confucian principle of loyalty—in this case, to his country. It was one of the traits that David Murray and his wife found so enduring in Hatakeyama when he was befriended by them at Rutgers College three years later in 1868. Among the most vexing problems for the authors of the Gakusei was how to design an administrative structure and a method of financing a national school system. In a supreme example of simplicity, a complete school system from the elementary through the higher-education level was outlined in just a dozen of the forty-four handwritten pages of the Gakusei.40 The Japanese version of the French educational structure included 8 university districts, or “collegiate divisions,” to be located in major cities, each administering 32 middle school districts. Each middle school district then administered 210 elementary school districts. Without considering the actual population of the country, unknown at the time, the total number of public schools called for in the Gakusei came to 54,024, including 8 universities, 256 middle schools, and 53,760 elementary schools.41 When the Gakusei was written in 1872, Nankō, shortly thereafter to be renamed Kaisei Gakkō, was the only institution that could qualify as a public institution of education to head one of the eight university districts. There was also a limited number of middle and elementary schools run by local authorities. However, the tens of thousands of public elementary schools called for in the Code would have to be newly established. Under the prevailing circumstances, the authors of the Gakusei, who were all officials of the recently established Ministry of Education, had little recourse but to place responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the provisions within the Ministry itself. A sweeping article codified it as expressed in the official translation: “The management of educational affairs throughout the whole country shall be in the hands of one central authority, the department of education.”42 The Code of Education consequently placed enormous administrative power in the hands of the Ministry of Education just as David Murray arrived as a ranking member of it. He became part of the power structure of the Meiji government. When he left home for Japan, he was primarily “anxious to see the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career,” and he wanted “to see how lads are trained who when grown to be young men are such models of courtesy, honor and diligence.”43 However, those were not the issues that would confront Murray at the Ministry. On August 3, 1872, the Code of Education was issued by the Ministry of Education.44 There was one critical assumption concerning the financial basis. At a time when public financing was being solicited for all the new departments of government undergoing a radical transformation from the feudal era that ended less than four years previously, there were virtually no public funds to launch a

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

159

national school system of such magnitude. No country in the West, no matter how advanced, was capable of financing a public school system of four years that served every child of school age in the early 1870s. Consequently, funding for Japan’s first public school system became of necessity the primary responsibility of the local community. The rationale that those who benefited from the new school—that is, the local citizenry (minpi futan)45—should pay for it carried the day. Otherwise the Gakusei could not have been launched at that time, since little funding was forthcoming from the national treasury. Financing the Gakusei locally was problematic from the beginning. The vast majority of farmers, whose children the new elementary schools were primarily intended to serve, could barely eke out a living in an economy burdened by many years of feudalism. By placing responsibility for financing the new public elementary schools mostly at the local level, conditions were set with inherent difficulties of major proportions. Rural families in a society emerging from feudalism were not only unprepared to comprehend the ideals underlying the need to educate all children as outlined in the preamble to the Gakusei; they were also unprepared to pay for the schools decreed by a government bureau in the new capital of Tokyo. Inevitably, funding of the Gakusei emerged as a major issue from its inauguration, which became an intractable problem for those responsible for Ministry policies led by Tanaka Fujimaro, to whom David Murray was employed to advise. Moreover, the financial conditions among the many new school districts varied considerably throughout the country. Their capability to finance the construction of new elementary schools mandated in the Gakusei varied accordingly. It was consequently inherently impossible to achieve a nationwide uniform standard of education envisioned in the Gakusei, a problem never confronted before by government officials.46 The “unequally educated populace” at the time, with the spread of literacy among commoners being so diverse, proved to be another restrictive factor in implementing an elementary school system throughout the country with an appropriate common curriculum.47 The Ministry of Education, itself only one year old, was confronted with an enormous responsibility for implementing and administering the provisions of the new Code of Education under the prevailing circumstances shortly before Murray arrived in Japan. There was no modern curriculum to achieve the lofty goals outlined in the preamble. There were no modern textbooks at the elementary level to teach the knowledge necessary for every child to become independent. Nor were there teachers trained to staff the thousands of new elementary school classrooms stipulated in the Gakusei. The traditional social structure, the economic conditions in the rural areas, the lack of financial incentives from the central government, and the lack of an educational infrastructure made it virtually impossible to launch a modern school system as outlined in the Gakusei of August 3, 1872.48 Murray was not aware of these issues when he arrived in Japan

16 0

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

in the summer of 1873, just as the Ministry of Education assumed responsibility for getting the new national system of universal education under way.

The Training of Teachers Ministry of Education officials on the Gakusei committee were well aware of the absence of an educational infrastructure when they hastily formulated the provisions of the revolutionary plan during the early months of 1872. It was obvious that under the provisions of the Gakusei, a huge number of teachers would be required to staff the new elementary schools. An institution had to be set up promptly to begin the training of teachers in modern teaching methodology.49 A strategic decision was taken even before the Code of Education itself was completed. The urgency to launch the teacher training process was revealed when the Ministry of Education declared its intention on May 29, 1872, to open the nation’s first teacher training school in September. A unique stipulation called for one foreigner with a translator to be hired to teach modern teaching methodology from the West, based on a Western curriculum, to the first class of twentyfour male students.50 The success of the new training school depended primarily on the availability of a foreign teacher qualified to instruct Japanese students on how to teach in a modern classroom in the Western style. In one of the most consequential coincidences in Japanese history, an American by the name of Marion Scott had been employed by the Japanese government in 1871 to teach English in Tokyo at a preparatory school for Nankō. By then English had become one of the official languages of instruction under the school’s chief administrator, Guido Verbeck, the Dutch American missionary from the Dutch Reformed Church of America. Prior to his arrival in Japan, Marion Scott had been an elementary school teacher in San Francisco. He left his native Virginia to go west to California during the turmoil of the Civil War that raged throughout his state. Records have not been discovered that reveal whether he ever attended a teacher training school in America before resigning his teaching position, although he held an elementary school teaching certificate in California when he left for Japan. Contemporary Japanese historians believe that Scott was a graduate of a teacher training school in America, as did Ministry officials in the early 1870s.51 With the understanding that a foreigner having experience teaching at an American public school in California was at that moment teaching at a national institution in Tokyo, the Ministry of Education made arrangements to transfer Scott from the Nankō preparatory school to the new Tokyo Teacher Training School (Tokyo Shihan Gakkō) on August 18, 1872, just two weeks prior to the opening of the school. That decision would prove to be one of the most critical ever made by the Ministry in its early history.52 It effectively launched the first step in implementing the Code of Education before the new public school system was

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

161

Figure 5.6. Marion McDonald Scott. From Hirata Muneyoshi, M. M. Sucotto no Kenkyū (Kazama Shoten, 1995), preface.

scheduled to begin at the elementary school level. But of enormous consequence, conditions were thereby set in place for the first teaching methodology course in the nation to be patterned after American practices. Marion Scott turned out to be the right man at the right time when he accepted the unexpected challenge presented by the Ministry of Education to teach elementary school classroom teaching methodology to a class of twentyfour Japanese males around the age of twenty chosen by the Ministry. An indication of the interest generated by the new school, three hundred applicants took the entrance examination to study under Scott. Indicative of the times, the majority came from the samurai class who were educated in clan schools that were recently abolished, leaving large numbers searching for employment.53 In an artificially contrived classroom loosely patterned after his classroom in

162

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

San Francisco, the American taught the top twelve of his students how to teach an elementary school class of children exactly the way he taught his American students in California, dubbed by the Japanese as the San Francisco method. His lessons were translated into Japanese by an official translator to the top twelve students, who then taught the bottom twelve students in the first class of trainees the same lesson in Japanese.54 In one of the great moments in Japanese educational history, in order for Scott to demonstrate the teaching methods he followed in his San Francisco elementary classroom, he used the actual lessons for the Tokyo Teacher Training School based on the curriculum used in his classroom in San Francisco. In other words, Scott introduced the California elementary curriculum into Japan before the new public school system under the Gakusei was promulgated. In addition he had the textbooks used in his California classroom sent to Japan to be used with the lessons that were immediately translated into Japanese by the Ministry of Education. Designing a classroom to use a blackboard, visual teaching materials such as charts and graphs, and student desks arranged in the American pattern, Scott launched the first Western-style classroom in Japan under Ministry of Education auspices. The preliminary stage in implementing the Gakusei in Japan got under way when the American teacher Scott taught his class of young Japanese male adults how to read and write and calculate as he had taught American children in San Francisco. It proved to be a major departure for his Japanese students to learn, for example, how to calculate numbers using the modern blackboard, replacing the ancient abacus from China.55 The introduction of the common blackboard symbolized a transformation in the traditional teaching methods in the country. To appreciate how the blackboard initiated a major change in the Japanese classroom, a comparison with the classroom of the cherished temple school, the terakoya, serving a small number of local children, is revealing. In a typical terakoya classroom, six to ten students sat on a tatami-matted floor or around a table writing the characters adapted from the Chinese written forms used to write Japanese words. Students took turns in showing their written words and compositions to the teacher for correction and grading. It was a highly individualistic approach to teaching based on a one-to-one relationship between the teacher and each student. A classroom with more than eight or ten students reduced the effectiveness of the teaching. With the introduction of the blackboard by Scott, the Japanese classroom was destined to take on a different dimension. First of all the classroom now had a front where the blackboard was located and a back in the opposite direction. With the added introduction of the student desk in one form or the other from California, all students in the class now sat facing the front, concentrating their attention on the board work. As simple as that may appear, it nevertheless enabled the teacher to handle the class as a whole by teaching each lesson to

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

163

all students at the same time. It represented a transformation of the teaching process from the individualistic method used in the old terakoya schools in feudal Japan to the whole-class method used in the United States. A revolution of the Japanese classroom was just under way approved by the Ministry of Education when David Murray arrived as Superintendent of Education. In the process of introducing modern Western teaching methods into Japan, Merion Scott also introduced the modern curriculum and modern textbooks from California to accompany it. Ministry officials endeavoring to prepare for the many new schools under the impending Code of Education took advantage of the situation at the new teacher training school. They had translated into Japanese the lesson plans used by Scott as well as the textbooks accompanying the lessons from America to be circulated throughout the nation for use in the new schools as quickly as possible. For example, several months after the opening of the new schools stipulated in the Code of Education, a booklet entitled Shōgaku Kyōshi Hikkei (Essentials for elementary school teachers) describing the teaching methods used by Scott was officially circulated by the Ministry. It marks the first manual on teaching methodology in Japanese.56 Others quickly followed. One of the most important publications that came out of this period was a model elementary school curriculum with recommended textbooks to accompany it. Scott first drew up a model curriculum for use at the training school based on the curriculum of California schools. A virtual copy of it was circulated throughout Japan as a model.57 As a result the new teacher training school in Tokyo from 1872 became the conduit through which the American elementary school classroom and the lessons taught therein became the model for Japan at the very beginning of the modernization of Japanese education under the Code of Education. David Murray, then professor of mathematics at Rutgers College in America under consideration for employment by the Iwakura Embassy, was unaware that there was a new teacher training school in session in Tokyo in 1872 under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. Nor did he know that a reform of the classroom from the old feudal hankō schools, where his Japanese students at Rutgers were educated, was taking place based on the California model under Ministry of Education direction. As we will learn in the following chapter, shortly after Murray arrived in Japan, one of his first responsibilities was an inspection visit of the new teacher training school under Marion Scott for a report to Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry of Education. Already in Europe, Tanaka Fujimaro had just completed a tour of American schools, visiting classrooms where the teaching techniques being introduced by Scott in Tokyo were being used. He then set off on a tour throughout England and Europe, searching for the best system of Western education to use as a model for Japanese schools. He was also searching for a qualified Western educational specialist to advise him in the implementation of a modern curriculum. As he

164

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

had written to the Minister of Education from Washington, he would make a final decision on which country would be the best model for Japan only after he completed the full tour of over a dozen countries, which would take well over a year. Apparently not fully aware of the situation at home, having left Japan with the Iwakura Embassy before the Tokyo Teacher Training School was founded, Tanaka did not realize the consequences of Ministry officials employing Marion Scott from California to introduce modern Western teaching methods to Japan prior to the promulgation of the Gakusei.

Opposition to the Code of Ethics Of immense consequence to David Murray as he assumed a senior position in the Ministry of Education during the first year of the Code of Education, opposition to the Gakusei was already under way when both Tanaka and Murray arrived in Japan in 1873. Not only was Murray unaware of the provisions of the Gakusei before he arrived; he was consequently unaware of the causes for the opposition to them. Therefore during the first period of his tenure in office, his advice to the Japanese officials on implementing a modern school system based on Western practices was essentially of limited use to meet the actual circumstances. This was particularly critical in the rural areas where the educational reforms were primarily intended but where the opposition to them was concentrated. Consequently, to understand the challenges facing Murray when he arrived in Japan, a review of the causes of the opposition to the Gakusei is essential. There were many consequences of launching a public school system in 1872–1873 to serve all Japanese children that neither Tanaka nor Murray was prepared to deal with. Among them, finance, considered previously, posed a particularly critical problem, since the Ministry of Education could not provide adequate financial subsidies to carry out its mandate to organize a public school system to accommodate all children. Local financing was essential for the success of the Gakusei. Before the Gakusei, farmers decided for themselves whether to send their sons or daughters to a local terakoya school based on their ability to pay, their level of education, and expectations of the benefit to their family. Since the terakoya reflected the values and customs of the local area, parents were comfortable with what was being taught in them. However, under the Gakusei, the government in Tokyo made those decisions regardless of the wishes of the parents or their ability to afford the costs involved. The financial burden on the farmers was intensified under the Gakusei, requiring them to pay for nearly half of all costs for the local schools that provoked widespread opposition to them. Another factor provoking opposition to the new schools concerned the required curriculum set by the Ministry, which introduced new subjects completely foreign to rural communities and farm families. The study of science,

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

16 5

table 5.1 income sources for public elementary schools during the first year of the gakusei, 1873 Local taxes

43.2%

Student fees

6.3%

National subsidy

12.6%

Educational fund

19.1%

Interest income

13.4%

Miscellaneous

5.4%

Source: Ichikawa Shōgō, Kyōiku Zaisei [Educational finance] (Tokyo University Press, 1972), 90.

history, and geography introduced alien concepts that parents were unfamiliar with. In schools where the recommended subjects of music and health were also taught based on the curriculum from California, farm parents in particular became critical of what their children were being exposed to, provoking tensions within the family as well as within the community. In a land where 80 percent of all Japanese lived on farms, widespread opposition to the educational reformation under way was inevitable.58 Textbooks proved particularly challenging to the Ministry, since there were none available at the beginning of the Gakusei appropriate for a modern elementary school curriculum. Local teachers used what was available at the time. Among the most popular books of the day were those written by Fukuzawa Yukichi for an adult audience. Nevertheless, some teachers used his books as textbooks in the new local elementary schools under the Code of Education.59 Of necessity, the Ministry of Education had to rely on imported texts mostly from America that were originally designed for American children. The translated versions made available to local communities by the Ministry during this period did not appeal to farm families. This was especially evident with stories that contained Christian themes, common to most American readers of the period, in a non-Christian society. The translated versions with various substitutions to avoid direct references to Christianity proved awkward at best. For example, one of the most popular textbooks used to teach English in American elementary schools, the Wilson Reader, was one of the main textbooks in direct translation used to teach Japanese in the new schools. It was brought in from California by Marion Scott for use at the Tokyo Teacher Training School, where it was translated and widely used throughout the country.60 Designed for American children, many of the stories were inappropriate for Japanese children.

16 6

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Until the Gakusei was launched in 1872–1873, educational opportunities for girls in rural Japan were severely restricted. Girls were best taught at home the skills and knowledge needed for life on a farm. By decree the government in Tokyo stipulated that all local children of the village, regardless of gender, must attend the local public school, where boys and girls sat side by side and studied the same subjects together, such as science and mathematics. Predictably, many parents in the countryside became alarmed by these conditions that violated cherished local customs. With the coming of modern education, especially to a rural society under the direction of the Ministry of Education, the traditional way of life and thought was threatened. Moreover, it made life increasingly difficult, with taxes and fees required to finance schools that seemed irrelevant to the needs of farmers struggling to survive. It was foreign, with stories and concepts taken from Western texts, such as telling time with the day divided into twenty-four hours. For the older children, strange scientific principles such as magnetism and electricity were particularly perplexing to them and their parents as well. They had never encountered such concepts before the new public school system was established. Violent opposition to the first Japanese public school system of 1872–1873 was swift as Tanaka and Murray arrived in Japan to take up their senior positions within the Ministry of Education. It was not only provoked by the new schools and their teachings; a variety of other issues connected to modern trends such as Western hairstyles, foreign-language teachings, Western timekeeping, and so on stirred deep emotions of opposition. In frustration, farmers throughout many areas of the country spontaneously rioted in protest of the social revolution under way by burning down one of the most visible symbols of change within their community—namely, the new public elementary school building mandated by the Ministry of Education in the Code of Education. During the first full year of the Gakusei, riots broke out in many areas of the country in which the public schools were targeted for destruction. In Okayama prefecture twenty to thirty thousand farmers joined in a protest movement against a variety of changes brought about by government policy. Expressing their opposition to the new school fees imposed to finance the construction of elementary schools, they promptly destroyed forty-six of them.61 During that year, ten thousand farmers in rural Tottori prefecture conducted protest movements against the public schools and all they stood for.62 In early summer of 1873, thirty-four public elementary schools were destroyed by fire in Kagawa prefecture. Forty-eight elementary schools were burned to the ground throughout the year by twenty thousand angry citizens.63 The imperial city of Kyoto was not spared when two thousand demonstrators protested against the new school fees. The opposition was put down by soldiers from the new Japanese army.

Japanese Edu cation before M urray’s A rri val

167

One of the largest movements against modernization took place in the south of Japan in Fukuoka prefecture. Three hundred thousand farmers carried out acts of violence that included the destruction of twenty-nine elementary schools. In other instances—for example, in Tottori prefecture—teachers were assaulted, with one being killed when farmers burned down two elementary schools. In another case rioters burned down the new elementary school, the homes of the two teachers, as well as the local police station in protest.64 In the rural prefectures such as Aichi, Chiba, Mie, and Saitama, protestors also destroyed public schools in opposition to the policies of the Ministry of Education.65 Paradoxically, the farmers who opposed the policies of the Ministry of Education were themselves the very class that was intended to benefit from them. The Gakusei was designed to transform their lives, which were tied to the soil, through modern education. The protestors, however, were not rising up against oppressive governmental policies that kept them in bondage with little hope of improving their social class—typical of social and political revolutions in Western countries at that time. Rather, Japanese farmers opposed the educational policies under the supervision of the Ministry of Education primarily because they threatened their traditional customs and lifestyle, no matter how feudal they were. Although farmers formed the main opposition to the Gakusei, a faction of former samurai was also dissatisfied with the plan, which replaced traditional schools such as the hankō, or clan schools, for samurai youth. In response, private schools emerged in many communities taught by samurai, often in their homes. They catered to families from the former ruling class who were disillusioned with modern trends in education by offering lessons in Confucian classics and calligraphy taught in the traditional manner during the feudal era in Tokugawa Japan.66 In some cases, opposition to the Code of Education took a form other than overt protests. For example, to comply with the new regulations that local communities must open a public elementary school to accommodate all children of school age from six to ten years old, three-quarters of them chose the most convenient and inexpensive solution. According to the statistics published by the Ministry of Education, during the first year of the Gakusei, 42 percent were founded in local Buddhist temples, often where terakoya schools were previously located, and 31 percent were in private homes. Many were opened in old barns or warehouses built to store rice, such was the pressure on the local community leaders to launch the Gakusei. There were no means to determine how many of the new schools under the Code of Education resembled the traditional terakoya schools that had become widespread before the government mandated the new schools as compulsory. Many parents who objected to the new elementary schools in their communities simply kept their school-age children at home. Although the Gakusei stipulated that all children of school age must attend the nearest public elementary

16 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6 table 5.2 elementary schools during the first year of the gakusei, 1873 Buildings

Number

Percentage of the total

Buddhist temples

3,495

42.84

Private homes

2,531

31.02

New buildings

1,566

19.20

Others

384

4.71

Unknown

182

2.23

Source: Kaigo Tokiomi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education] (Heibonsha, 1971), 171.

school, the Ministry of Education had no means, financial or otherwise, to enforce it. During the first year of its implementation, the year when David Murray assumed his senior position in the Ministry of Education, school attendance reached less than 30 percent of eligible children. Although local officials made a heroic effort to induce parents to send their children to the local schools, in some cases rounding up kids and escorting them to school,67 the success rate had to be disappointing to Ministry officials. Moreover, the statistics do not reveal the rate of dropouts once the school year got under way. The low attendance rate of less than one-third of all eligible children during the first year of the Code of Education illustrates the problems that Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry of Education, and his senior adviser, David Murray, faced in the inauguration of Japan’s modern elementary school. Their primary responsibility was not only to administer the implementation of the Gakusei but to revise it as needed as Japan underwent the great sociopolitical transformation from feudalism to modernism. The following chapter concerns how Tanaka and Murray initially faced a challenge of unprecedented proportions in 1873. table 5.3 elementary school attendance during the first year of the gakusei, 1873 Eligible

Attendance at school

Rate of attendance

Children

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Total

4,205,341

880,335

302,633

39.9%

15.1%

28.14%

Source: Tsuchiya Tadao, Meiji Zenki Kyōiku Seisaku Shi no Kenkyū [The history of educational policy in the early Meiji period] (Kōdansha, 1962), 112.

chapter 6



MURRAY’S INTRODUCTION TO JAPANESE EDUCATION the gakusei—the first year of universal education, 1873 David Murray, accompanied by wife Martha, arrived at the Port of Yokohama on June 30, 1873, as a ranking official in the service of Emperor Meiji. Of the many foreign employees of the Japanese government, the oyatoi gaikokujin, none was more committed to fulfilling his responsibility than the professor of mathematics from Rutgers College, New Jersey. Murray was eager to begin his duties as Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education by learning about the institutions that fascinated him. He identified them in his farewell speech in New Brunswick as the institutions where the samurai students and government leaders he encountered in America were educated: I am anxious to study the institutions of an Empire which has held on its way so many Centuries; I am anxious to see the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career, which has sent to our institutions a body of young men, who in quickness of powers, in aptness for learning, in integrity of purpose, have placed themselves here among the very foremost of our American students; I want to see how lads are trained who when grown to be young men are such models of courtesy, honor and diligence.

Murray’s contract with the Japanese government stipulated that over and above his monthly salary, an unfurnished Western-style house would be provided in Tokyo not far from his office at the Ministry of Education. Since it was not completed by the time of the arrival of the Murrays, they were temporarily housed in a hotel in Yokohama. In fact, their new home was not completed until early September. 169

170

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Shortly after their arrival in Yokohama, Murray left for Tokyo to meet the director of the Ministry, Tanaka Fujimaro, to whom he was to provide advice and counsel for the next five and a half years. Murray was met at the Shimbashi train station in Tokyo by Iwakura Asahi and graciously taken to the Ministry in his carriage.1 Asahi, one of the Murrays’ favorite students in New Brunswick, had returned early to Japan from the Iwakura mission still in Europe, from where his father was expected to arrive home in mid-September. The fact that the son of the distinguished and most powerful Iwakura Tomomi had been a student of Murray’s in America and personally escorted him to his government office during the first week on the job in Tokyo surely impressed the staff at the Ministry. An unusual incident that took place during Murray’s initial week in Japan illustrated the special treatment he received from his new colleagues at the Ministry of Education: I well remember my first visit to the Department and of my experience of Japanese courtesy. On my arrival at Yokohama I went up to Tokyo to pay my respects to the Acting Minister of Education, Mr. Tanaka Fujimaro. His office was in a rambling yashiki which in feudal times had been the home of one of the smaller daimyos. I was conducted through a wandering passageway which

Figure 6.1. The First Ministry of Education, 1871. From the Ministry of Education, Gakusei Hajijūnen Shi [Eighty years of the Code of Education] (1953), 2.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

17 1

led under many partition beams into the simple rooms of my chief. These partition beams were designed for the sliding doors which separated one passage from another. Their height was exactly six feet, and my attendant noted that at each partition I, being a six footer, had to stoop in order to escape bumping my head. I had my interview and came away. But on the next occasion when I went to the office building, I found that every one of the beams under which I would be compelled to pass had been raised six inches for my benefit.2

Another indication of the treatment Murray received from Ministry officials from the beginning to the end of his governmental service also took place during their stay in Yokohama. Mrs. Murray referred to it in a letter to her cousin as the “great entertainment by Mr. Tanaka.”3 This was a splendid Ministry of Education welcoming party for Murray to formally introduce him to his Japanese colleagues. During the two summer months of 1873, Murray took the early train from Yokohama to his office in Tokyo every few days. It was Japan’s first railway engineered by a British company that ran between Yokohama and Shimbashi in Tokyo “each way on the hour, every hour.”4 He found that there was little activity at the Ministry during the school closure amid the notoriously hot days of summer in the capital city. On August 2 he wrote to his cousin in America that Mori Arinori, chargé d’affaires in Washington when Murray was hired at the beginning of the year, had returned home to Japan after a contentious relationship with the Iwakura Embassy. Murray had been told that Mori “is not in any great honor.” He also reported that Kido Takayoshi, who was instrumental in hiring Murray for the Ministry of Education, had returned home before the main body of the Iwakura Embassy.5 It was at the urging of Kido that Mori was replaced as Minister to Washington. Otherwise, the first two months passed pleasantly for the Murrays—mostly in Yokohama as they waited for the completion of their house in Tokyo. Martha Murray wrote home with her first description of life in Japan: “We are living in a very easy, lazy, sort of way—and very agreeable . . . I cannot tell you how we enjoy our horse and wagon. It comes twice every day. One drive here around Mississippi Bay is perfectly exquisite. I doubt if there is in the whole world more beautiful scenery. The country is very remarkable.”6 In her early correspondence from Japan, Martha set a positive tone that would run throughout her many letters to America until David ended his service to the emperor five and a half years later under the most amicable circumstances. The social life of the Murrays was well under way even before the couple moved from Yokohama to Tokyo. The relationship between Murray and the leading government figure of the period, Iwakura Tomomi, which began in America when Murray met him in Washington in early 1872, resumed—although indirectly—shortly after the Murrays arrived in Japan. Mrs. Iwakura wanted to

172

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

meet the Murrays, who had treated her two sons so kindly in New Brunswick, as soon as possible and could not wait for her husband’s return from Europe. Asahi arranged for the Murrays to visit his mother on July 19, three weeks after their arrival. Martha noted that “I had strong doubts before leaving home whether we should ever be invited to the Japs residences—especially Asahi’s—and you may imagine how pleased we were last week to receive a note from Asahi saying his mother was very anxious to see Mr. Murray and me and asking us to appoint a day when we could visit them. We fixed upon yesterday.”7 The first social event of David and Martha Murray in Tokyo at the home of the leading political figure in the country referred to by the Murrays as “prime minister” turned out to be unforgettable, as described by Martha in a letter to her aunt Helen the following day. It may be the only firsthand description of the unimaginable private living style of the senior officer of the Meiji government ever recorded. It opens with an aside that was most revealing: “Asahi has everything American style he possibly can.”8 The lavishness of it all, including an eleven-course dinner with champagne, in a nation emerging from feudalism was understandably surprising to the Murrays. Martha began the letter in a positive manner by putting the day in historical perspective: “My first visit to this wonderful city—Asahi’s familiar face greeted us at the car door. He had his pony wagon in which he drove me, and a horse for Mr. Murray to ride. We proceeded with Asahi to his father’s palace.” She continued, When we arrived at the entrance, six servants were there to show us in. As we passed through the hall we saw some seven or eight rooms all open, four of them carpeted and the others with fine white matting. At last we reached the dining room with a table very eloquently set but to our disappointment in American style. A superb set of silver and gold dishes with cake—even French China. After passing through this room we went into the parlor. This had fine matting. The furniture was covered with very eloquent embroidered covering. In the two alcoves was a bronze and silver ornament and flower pots—one with a dwarf apple tree with quantities of apples. Looking out the window a perfect fairy picture presented itself—a pond with an island in the center, behind which was a hill with rustic steps to the top. Asahi brought in his brother-inlaw and two nieces—9 and 10—children dressed in very handsome trim in rich silk—16 year old sister beautifully dressed—the material very much like Katz [Katsu Koroku, son of Katsu Kaishū] gave the girls [Helen’s daughters, Alice and Lena] only softer and finer—none of them spoke English but Asahi—The girls had sweet manners and were very graceful. We had dinner consisting of eleven (11) courses—champagne, sherry, sake. We were waited upon by five servants all nicely dressed. Their cook is Japanese but understands French cooking. Delicious shrimp salad and ice cream. After dinner we returned to

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

17 3

the parlor for coffee. After that we walked in the garden, over the little bridges, and fed the gold fish. The little girls took our hands and walked around . . . I suppose when we get to Edo we will become intimate. We spent 3 to 4 hours there and then Asahi drove us back to the train.

While at the hotel in Yokohama waiting for their house to be completed in Tokyo, the Murrays were also invited for dinner at the home of one of the great political leaders of the early Meiji period, Kido Takayoshi. As described in a previous chapter, he was the senior government officer responsible for the Ministry of Education when he joined the Iwakura Embassy to the West in 1871. It was Kido who interviewed David Murray for the position of Superintendent of Education both in Washington and later in Boston as Kido departed for Europe with the Embassy. Kido recognized the attributes of Murray for the post of Superintendent of Japanese Education early on. Kido invited the Murrays to a private dinner at his home in Tokyo that included other ranking government officials, all in traditional Japanese dress. In addition, Asahi, son of Iwakura Tomomi, was invited, perhaps as an interpreter. Martha did not attend the dinner for some undisclosed reason.9 Nevertheless, the fact that David dined at the home of one of the most powerful leaders of the Meiji Restoration illustrated the unusual circumstances in which he began his career as a ranking official of the Japanese government. The affair also illustrated the challenges Murray had to overcome in adjusting to Japanese customs—in this case, removing shoes upon entering a home. Martha described the scene that took place at the entrance to the Kido home in a letter to Lucy that revealed a sense of humor of Asahi that could only be displayed between close friends: “On entering they all dropped their shoes— poor Mr. Murray was looking with dismay at his boots—and Asahi saw him and relieved him by saying since he didn’t have the proper kind of socks to wear, therefore was not expected to ‘drop his boots.’”10 On September 2, over two months after the Murrays arrived at Yokohama, their Western-style house in Tokyo was finally ready for them to move into. Even the long-awaited move from Yokohama to Tokyo was unusual. They took the short train ride on September 2, although their furniture from America that had been stored in Yokohama would not reach Tokyo until a day or so later. Once again illustrating the special role that Rutgers College played in early JapaneseAmerican relations, the Murrays spent their first night in Tokyo at the home of William Elliot Griffis.11 Griffis, the first Rutgers College pioneer to Japan, had been deeply influenced by the Japanese samurai students who came to New Brunswick to study, as did the Murrays, noted in earlier chapters. When Griffis was invited to Japan in 1871, he accepted the offer to teach at a local school in remote Fukui prefecture. By the time Murray arrived in Japan, Griffis had been transferred to Nankō, the

174

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

major national college, at the request of Guido Verbeck, then head of the institution, and was living in Tokyo. Under such unusual circumstances, the Murrays were welcomed to Tokyo by a graduate of Rutgers College who happened to be David’s former student. Curiously, this is the first account discovered of Murray meeting with his student from the class of 1868 in the Rutgers Scientific School after his arrival in nearby Yokohama two months earlier. Immediately after moving into their new home, Mrs. Murray wrote a letter to her cousin describing the setting. The house was situated on a former daimyo estate, years later to become the campus of Tokyo University, noted to this day for a red gate (akamon) at the entrance that has survived since the Murrays lived within that compound: “Our grounds are all within the main enclosure which comprises 30 or 40 acres. There are many different gateways to this all guarded by Japanese and no one can enter without a pass. At night these gates are closed and we are quite safe from the outside city.” Asahi came to see them in their new home with a gift of “an old writing case, which has been a long time in their family. It is a lacquer box . . . raised and very eloquent.”12 The gift had to originate from the feudal era, when Asahi’s father served as chamberlain to Emperor Meiji in the imperial household confined to the city of Kyoto during the Tokugawa era. It was all part of the appreciation extended to the Murrays by the Iwakura family for their kindness in befriending the two Iwakura sons in New Brunswick. With the beginning of school in September 1873 following the summer vacation, David Murray’s daily schedule at the Ministry of Education was set. Since he could not speak or read Japanese, he needed a full-time translator. In one of the most fortuitous appointments of the period, Tanaka Fujimaro assigned Takahashi Korekiyō, a twenty-year-old ex-samurai who had spent a short period in America during the feudal period, as Murray’s first translator and assistant. The choice of Takahashi for this position proved providential, since he eventually became the president of the Bank of Japan, the Minister of Finance on several occasions, and the Prime Minister of Japan. However, he remains among the most famous personalities in modern Japanese history, included in all history books as the Minister of Finance assassinated by a Japanese army unit in a failed coup attempt in the infamous 2.26 Incident. On February 26, 1936, in retaliation for curbing the military budget, rebellious army troops sought out Finance Minister Takahashi late at night at his residence in Aoyama, Tokyo. His magnificent home has been preserved in the Edo-Tokyo Open Air Architectural Museum in Western Tokyo, in which visitors are guided to the second-story bedroom where Murray’s former assistant was brutally assassinated. In his autobiography Takahashi recalled how Murray, shortly after he arrived in Japan, was eager to meet a distinguished figure of the period, Katsu Kaishū, elderly admiral of the Japanese Navy who had served as a ranking official of the Tokugawa Shogunate before the Meiji Restoration. Takahashi was asked by Murray to arrange a meeting at the home of the elderly admiral, by then in retirement.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

17 5

The Murrays, noted previously, had formed an especially close relationship with several of the Japanese students studying at Rutgers. One was Katsu Kōroku, affectionately called Katz by the Murrays, who was the admiral’s son. Murray, as Takahashi recalled, wanted the opportunity to personally report to the parents on their son’s positive experiences as his student at Rutgers College. He wished to allay any concerns they may have had, which he did in great detail. It was a gesture of goodwill by Murray that was greatly appreciated by both the father and mother of Kōroku. By that time Kōroku had transferred from Rutgers College to enter the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, from where he would graduate and return to Japan to serve admirably in the Japanese Navy, as did his father. In his well-known memoirs, Takahashi described an incident that took place during the first meeting between Murray and the distinguished admiral of the Imperial Navy that impressed him about Murray’s respect for the Japanese he encountered. The elderly Katsu took the opportunity to ask the American mathematics professor how to solve an advanced mathematics problem related to naval affairs. Much to Takahashi’s embarrassment, he did not understand the problem and confessed that he therefore could not translate it. That prompted the admiral to write the problem on paper. Murray then solved the problem on paper, eliminating the need for a verbal translation. On the way back to the office, Takahashi apologized to Murray over his inability to translate the problem presented by the admiral. Murray’s simple but reflective response was that the problem came from a great man.13 The visit to the Katsu home gave Murray an opportunity to learn firsthand how traditional the environment in which his prize student at Rutgers College was brought up in feudal Japan. The Katsu family would pay a memorable visit to the Murray home in Tokyo within a short time. On September 12, Murray was granted the privilege of an audience with Emperor Meiji, arranged through the offices of Tanaka Fujimaro. It was a great honor for a foreigner to be presented to the emperor—in this case, not as a foreign diplomat or distinguished foreign guest. Rather, amid the pomp and pageantry of the palace, Murray was presented to Emperor Meiji as a high-ranking officer in the service of his imperial government of Japan. Martha Murray was intrigued by the event even though she did not attend it. From the description given to her by her husband, it followed the formalities of the court. Murray, dressed in swallow tail and white cravat, was ushered into the presence of the emperor, who rose from “a handsome chair apparently of ebony laid with ivory and gold. . . . The Mikado himself is a tall young man, not at all handsome. He wore a French military costume which they have adopted as their Court dress.” The master of ceremonies accompanied the interpreter, announcing Murray’s name in Japanese style so that “David was comparatively alone in his august presence. . . . After the bows were over the Emperor read his

176

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

speech.”14 The emperor’s brief personal greetings had previously been translated into English so that Murray could prepare a response:15 “I have been informed for a long time of your scientific reputation and character. It gives me great pleasure to have you in my country as Superintendent of affairs connected with schools, and I hope that your efforts in the official position which you have assumed may be successful in promoting education among my people.” Murray then replied to the emperor’s welcome, recalling that during the ceremony, “there were lots of people peeping through the cracks and doors all around.”16 The original response in handwritten form preserved among the Murray archives in the Library of Congress in Washington expresses the true feelings and commitment of the American Superintendent of Education in the service of his imperial majesty’s government: It gives me the most profound pleasure to be honored by being admitted to the presence of the Emperor of this people. My interest in their welfare and my desire to secure their greatest good by promoting education among them have brought me away from my country. The words which it has pleased your Imperial Majesty to address to me, and that the enlightened interest which you have manifested in the work of elevating your people, give me the greatest encouragement in the work entrusted to me. I trust that no efforts shall be wanting on my part to secure the good results so much desired, and that the hopes of your majesty may be more than fulfilled in the rapid advancement of education among your people.

Before leaving the imperial palace, according to Martha, her husband “was treated to tea and cigars in another room and so ended the grand ceremony.”17 The invitation to the imperial household reflected Emperor Meiji’s keen interest in educational developments as the nation entered an era of modernization with education as the foundation. He attended the opening of virtually every important educational institution, followed by classroom observations and interviews with administrators and teachers. The young emperor would soon undertake exhaustive visits, some of a month-long duration, to the rural areas of Japan, visiting classrooms in the new public schools mandated by the Code of Education. During David Murray’s five and a half years as Superintendent of schools and colleges, their paths would cross on a number of occasions at both opening ceremonial events as well as palace ceremonies such as the first one welcoming him to Japan. Three weeks later on October 8, Murray attended the first annual meeting of the Asiatic Society of Japan in Tokyo.18 This would initiate an association with prominent figures in Japan from abroad who had a special interest in and knowledge of Japanese culture. That included William Griffis. There was a strong

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

17 7

representation of Englishmen, such as the British Minister to Japan, Sir Henry Parkes, and Americans, including Ambassador De Long as well as American missionaries. The single Japanese member, Mori Arinori, was well known to Murray since he, as the Japanese chargé d’affaires in Washington when Murray met members of the Iwakura Embassy, sent Murray the employment contract from the Japanese government. Associating with these prominent figures from the very beginning of his tenure in Japan illustrated Murray’s interest in Japanese culture as one who had a limited knowledge of the historical foundation of Japanese society. During his first meeting, he heard lectures on the geography of Japan and the nature of the Japanese language, among other topics. Curiously, Griffis presented a paper entitled “The Streets and Street-Names of Yedo.” Not only would Murray attend nearly every meeting of the Asiatic Society when in Tokyo, he chaired the regular April meeting of the society in 1875. On that occasion the meeting was held at what Murray referred to as the Imperial College (Kaisei Gakkō), “which had been courteously tendered to the Society for the purpose by the Director, Y. Hatekeyama.”19 Murray may have had a role in securing the room for the meeting, which he chaired through his closest Japanese friend, Hatakeyama, who by then had become president of the most prestigious national institution. Hatakeyama became the second Japanese member of the Asiatic Society in addition to Mori, the two of them with close ties to Murray, having begun their samurai education together in the Satsuma han school of feudal Japan. Murray would become president of the Asiatic Society of Japan in 1878. On the following day after Murray’s attendance at his first meeting of the Asiatic Society, October 9, 1873, he met Emperor Meiji in a unique setting. Kaisei Gakkō, recently renamed from Nankō, had been moved into new buildings. A ceremony to commemorate the reopening of the college in the new complex was arranged by the Ministry of Education, which was responsible for this elite national institution. This would be Murray’s second meeting with the emperor since he arrived in Japan three months earlier. Because Murray was contractually “responsible for schools and colleges” at the Ministry of Education, he was scheduled to speak during the ceremony even though he had only been in position full time since he moved from Yokohama to Tokyo in September. With such an assignment so early in his tenure at the Ministry, it was indicative of the trust that Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry, placed in his senior adviser. Murray’s preparation for this governmental ceremony with the emperor in attendance would have taken a fair amount of his time during his initial period in Japan. Kaisei Gakkō, also dubbed the Imperial College in English newspapers in Tokyo, was an unusual institution. It had been under the administrative control of Guido Verbeck since 1870, then under the name of Nankō, the “southern

17 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

school.” Noted previously, a senior educational officer of the government, Ōki Takatō, a student of Verbeck’s in Nagasaki during the feudal era, invited his former mentor to become head teacher at Nankō in lieu of the presidency. Under Verbeck the school was reformed and upgraded. It was from the student body of this national institution that Verbeck recommended many for study at Rutgers College from 1870. Verbeck had recently resigned as head of the school to take an extended leave in the West before returning to Japan to become a senior adviser to the government.20 The participation of David Murray in this ceremonial event at Kaisei Gakkō in 1873 marked his initial involvement in the activities of Japan’s premier national educational institution. Little could he have imagined that one of his major contributions to the future of Japanese education would involve his role in the major reform of the science curriculum at the college within several months and its transformation from Kaisei Gakkō to the University of Tokyo four years later. At that moment in the history of this celebrated institution, Murray was once again invited to a major event where he gave the congratulatory address at the first graduation ceremony of the University of Tokyo in 1877, carried in a later chapter. One member on the Kaisei Gakkō faculty in attendance at the reopening ceremony in Tokyo in October 1873 was closely related to Murray. William Elliot Griffis was by then professor of chemistry at Kaisei Gakkō. He had already achieved distinction as an educational pioneer to Japan by teaching modern science at the nation’s leading college when he joined the faculty in 1872. It was, consequently, a historical event when a senior official of the Japanese Ministry of Education and the celebrated professor of science at Kaisei Gakkō, both from Rutgers College in America, attended a grand ceremony in the presence of the emperor of Japan. Emperor Meiji was invited to attend the grand affair, as was customary on such occasions, that included Iwakura Tomomi, the privy council, and senior officers of the Ministry of Education. With the emperor’s presence, the ceremony necessarily took on a royal atmosphere, with the six hundred students lined up before the entrance when the royal carriage arrived drawn by four horses with banners fluttering in the wind. As the emperor descended a band played with, as Murray described it, “some sort of pipes which squealed and squawked in a horrid sort of way.” With that the emperor entered the building, followed by the students and guests.21 Murray considered the event of major importance to the country and was excited to be a part of it. He began a letter to Lucy in florid terms describing the day’s event: “This has been a great day in Yedo and since I have been in the midst of the excitement all day, I am going to give you an account of it. The occasion of the excitement has been the inauguration of the new buildings of the Yedo College. In the first place being an affair of the Department of Education, I was with the other officials to repair to that place at 6:30.” He continued,

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

179

Figure 6.2. Kaisei Gakkō Imperial College, 1874. From William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 272.

At the gate we all saluted and then followed the Emperor and his suite into the building. He was conducted to a room in which was a chair on a raised platform. The Prime Minister and Council were seated on one side, and the Minister of Education and other officers stood on the other. I was of that group. Of course the ministers were all in full dress—white neck tie and gloves and swallow tailed coats. When everything was ready the Minister of Ed., Mr. Tanaka, presented the written regulations of the school plans of the building, and the keys to the Emperor. The Emperor addressed the Minister and officers in a little speech which he read from a paper and then returned the keys to the Minister of Education (who) made a little speech to the Emperor in which he promised faithfully to carry out his Emperor’s wishes about education. Then at a signal I came forward before the Emperor and delivered a little speech on behalf of all the foreigners engaged in the work of education in Japan, in which I told H. M. that the ruler who founded a university was greater than he who conquered a province. My speech was translated into Japanese by an interpreter.22

The emperor’s translated speech has been preserved among Murray’s papers in the Library of Congress, labeled as “Address of the Emperor to the Foreign Teachers at the Opening of the Kaisei Gakkō, October 9, 1873.”23 It had apparently been sent to Murray prior to the event so that he could prepare an appropriate response:

18 0

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

The construction of the new buildings of the Kaisei Gakkō having been completed, I have come hither with many officers of my household to preside over the ceremony of their opening. It (is) a great pleasure to me to learn of the rapid progress of sciences and arts in this school. I attribute this progress largely to your zeal and industry. I look for a more rapid enlargement (sic) among my people. May all these teachers understand this.

The Japan Weekly Mail of October 11, 1873, reported that “Professor David Murray, the Chief foreign officer of the Mom Bu Sho, then made a very appropriate speech, congratulating His Majesty, and pledging his best endeavors to advance the interests of education in Japan.” Murray’s speech to the emperor of Japan established him as an important figure in the Japanese educational world. It was also illustrative of his lifestyle in Japan that would continue to the very day he departed from Japan over five years later. With the appointment of a new American Minister to Japan in the fall of 1873, Martha Murray decided to hold a reception for him in early November at their home to introduce him to other American friends in the Tokyo area, since the new official still had his office in Yokohama. David wrote home about it to cousin Lucy: Last Thursday Martha had a little reception for the Binghams which turned out to be quite a nice little affair. She thought it would be a pleasant way to pay off her social obligations, so she invited the Binghams up to meet the Americans of Yedo—and invited the Americans here to meet them. We thought a little Japanese flavor would not hurt the entertainment. We added a sprinkling of very high Japanese. The whole thing went off to perfection. The day was a perfect autumn day. Mr. Iwakura, the Prime Minister and his son Asahi, Mr. Katz Awa [Katsu Kaishū], a Privy Councilor and Minister of Naval Affairs, Mr. Ōkubo, a Privy Councilor and one of the [Iwakura] Embassy, Mr. Mori, late Minister to the U.S., Mr. Soogiwoora [Hatakeyama], and Mr. Tanaka, the Minister of Education with wife. Mrs. Tanaka has never been in foreign society before and I suppose it was a painful ordeal for her. But she did get along perfectly well, and was so pretty and seemed so pleasant with everything that everybody was charmed with her. Mr. Kido could not come because of sickness [nor could] Yoshida who used to be in America under the name of Nagai and who is now the Assistant Minister of Finance. Martha was so concerned about running out of food that the Japanese caterer would have enough food that she multiplied the number expected by 2 or 3 to make certain of having enough. And he did. It fed abundantly a voracious a crowd I ever saw. The Japanese especially Old Katz crowned himself with glory. Iwakura showed himself a prime feeder as well as prime minister.24

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

181

This informal reception at the home of David Murray, which included several of the highest-ranking officials in the Japanese government, may have been unmatched by any other foreign employee. As a private party, it illustrates how the Murrays could send an invitation to the most powerful figures in the Meiji government and expect a positive response. It reflects the contacts with Japanese dignitaries that Murray made in America while on the faculty of Rutgers College. The most favorable impression he made with them in America was carried over to Japan. The reception at the Murray home hosted by Martha Murray also illustrates not only the confidence of this American woman in opening her home to their American friends in Japan but her thoughtfulness toward their Japanese acquaintances by including them in the festive occasion. It was reminiscent of Martha hosting the Japanese students at Rutgers College in their home for social events, which they greatly appreciated. The description of “Prime Minister Iwakura,” formerly chief chamberlain in the court of Emperor Meiji, thoroughly enjoying himself in the informality of the Murray home was an extension of the goodwill both Murrays extended to their Japanese friends. And the symbolism of “Old Katz,” former senior naval officer of the Tokugawa shogunate and father of Murray’s student at Rutgers College “crowning himself in glory” at the Murray home, implying he enjoyed himself to the fullest alongside the prime minister, exemplified the kindness of their American host and hostess. Murray made two revelations of great consequence in this letter. It marks the first time in the Murrays’ correspondence with their relatives in America that the wife of Tanaka Fujimaro is mentioned. She received more attention in the letter than any of the most distinguished guests: “Mrs. Tanaka has never been in foreign society before and I suppose it was a painful ordeal for her. But she did get along perfectly well, and was so pretty and seemed so pleasant with everything that everybody was charmed with her.” Three days later in a letter from Martha to cousin Lucy, she expressed a similar reaction: “Mr. Tanaka has a really beautiful wife and so bright and intelligent looking. She came to our reception last week.”25 Little could Martha have imagined at that time how close a relationship she, born into a socialite family in New York City, would develop with Mrs. Tanaka, a former geisha from central Japan. Nor could the two of them have envisioned the unlikely bond of friendship that would grow between the Murrays and the Tanakas not only in Japan but later in America that would include Martha’s extended family, considered in the following chapters. The other revelation in Murray’s letter of the greatest relevance to his life in Japan as Superintendent of Japanese Education is that Hatakeyama Yoshinari had arrived home from Europe with the Iwakura Embassy. This would enable Murray to take advantage of the close personal relationship that he and his wife had developed with Hatakeyama during his three years as a student at Rutgers

182

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

College. He would become Murray’s “most confidential friend and adviser,” joining the Ministry at Murray’s request.26 In that capacity he served as Murray’s language interpreter on special occasions. But of greater importance to Murray, Hatakeyama became an interpreter of his educational recommendations to his Japanese superior, Tanaka Fujimaro. Murray was henceforth much better prepared for his challenging assignment at the Ministry of Education with Hatakeyama playing a key role. Murray referred to it in an indirect manner while recognizing the accomplishments of Hatakeyama, his dear friend and now colleague, with multiple assignments: It is safe to say that no man had come back with sounder or more useful qualifications in education, in experience of the world, and in a knowledge of foreign institutions and affairs. Withal he had not lost his patriotic sentiments, but longed and was ready to labor with all the forces of his character for the good of his country. His abilities were immediately recognized by those who had the management of public affairs, and in addition to his duties of secretary of the returned embassy, he was appointed to a responsible position in the Department of Education. He was also appointed Director of the University of Tokyo [Kaisei Gakkō] and with the greatest earnestness and with consummate tact and judgment he entered upon the work of reorganizing and developing the institution. Not satisfied with employing his talents in these laborious positions, the government also appointed him an officer in the Imperial Household. In this capacity he regularly attended at the palace for the purpose of giving his Imperial Majesty information concerning the history and affairs of foreign countries, and the events which are transpiring in other portions of the world.27

The close relationship between the Murrays and Hatakeyama deserves special recognition, as it originated on the campus of Rutgers College. However, the relationship in Japan took on a new dimension even though the original ties could never be forgotten. For example, during a dinner with Hatakeyama at the Murray home several weeks after his return, “little Soogiwoora,” Martha, and David “tried to imagine [themselves] in New Brunswick,”28 such was the emotional attachment the three of them shared from their memorable days at Rutgers College. Conditions had changed drastically since then, but their personal relationship had not. The American professor had become the second-ranking official in the Japanese Ministry of Education. His former student was now his colleague and confidant at the Ministry while also serving as president of Kaisei Gakkō. Neither Murray nor his samurai student could have imagined that their first fateful encounter at Rutgers College in 1868 would result in that tiny institution in New

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

183

Jersey being so well represented in the hierarchy of Japanese education in 1873. As Murray settled into his new position at the Ministry of Education, Hatakeyama assumed the presidency of the nation’s highest educational institution. The Rutgers College factor was further magnified by the presence of William Griffis on the science faculty of Kaisei Gakkō at that time, although he was undergoing a controversial period in his relationship with the Ministry of Education, covered in the following chapter. Upon Hatakeyama’s appointment to head Kaisei Gakkō in Tokyo in late 1873, another former student from Rutgers College joined the faculty. Warren Clark, whose “warmest Japanese friend” from their time together as classmates at Rutgers College happened to be Hatakeyama, had been teaching science for two years at a government school in Shizuoka, south of Tokyo. Described previously, the school was under the direction of Katsu Kaishū, father of Katsu Kōroku, formerly in Murray’s mathematics class at Rutgers College and a good friend of Clark. When the school in Shizuoka was cut back in 1873, many of the staff were assigned to Tokyo, with Katsu Kaishū becoming an admiral of the Imperial Navy and Clark assigned to Kaisei Gakkō to teach chemistry.29 This brought Clark together with two of his dearest friends from the distinguished class of 1868 at Rutgers College, Hatakeyama and Griffis. As the Murrays got settled in their new home in Tokyo during the fall of 1873, they were treated to an unusual event arranged by Tanaka Fujimaro as an expression of goodwill. Martha characteristically described it as a “delightful event” in a letter to cousin Lucy. During one of the finest times of the year for sightseeing in Tokyo, Tanaka, along with several other officials from the Ministry, arrived one afternoon at the Murray home in two carriages. The Murrays were driven to Ōji, a suburb of Tokyo, to view the magnificent Japanese gardens featuring bonsai plants and uniquely shaped stones commonly used to decorate Japanese gardens. The Murrays were deeply impressed when Tanaka presented two bonsai evergreens to Martha. From there they went to a nearby tea house situated on a stream with a pretty falls that Martha described as: a most romantic spot. Here we had a sort of picnic lunch. Mr. Tanaka had brought a nice little lunch packed in a small wooden box for each. These were of light wood. They contained cold chicken. . . . Besides we were served with little lacquer bowls of soup and chopsticks to eat it with—also fish and seaweed. . . . After a pleasure and jolly hour—for they all enjoyed a joke and several spoke English, we returned home. Mr. Tanaka invited me to drive with him so I let David take a Jap instead of me. We made them all come in at our house and treated them to Egg-nog which they seemed to enjoy excessively, and so ended a very pleasant excursion—and they spoke of others in the future.30

18 4

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

This day trip to a well-known local site in Tokyo illustrated Murray’s relationship with his Japanese colleagues. First of all it exemplified the thoughtfulness of the Murrays when they continued the practice started many years earlier in America by inviting Japanese students into their home for social visits. On the first occasion when this was possible in Japan, they invited Japanese colleagues into their newly built home for eggnog. Obviously the Ministry officials other than Tanaka, who had never visited a foreign home or tasted American eggnog, thoroughly enjoyed it, as did the Murrays. The reference to other social occasions “in the future” indicated that Murray’s Japanese colleagues at the Ministry, particularly Director Tanaka, not only appreciated the kindness of the Murrays but were already considering future social occasions with them. The excursion to a famous sightseeing area in Tokyo arranged by Tanaka was also a foretaste of his consideration for Mrs. Murray. He would periodically include her in the social activities that involved Ministry officials. Through his thoughtfulness, he provided opportunities for the Murrays to become familiar with Japanese customs and cultural traditions that few foreigners experienced. Tanaka clearly realized that Murray, in order to carry out his duties as senior adviser to him in planning the nation’s first modern school system, should have an appreciation of Japanese cultural traditions. Martha greatly appreciated the opportunities presented to her. She confessed to Lucy that “from these various entertainments and excursions all of which we enjoy, you may think it is nothing but one string of pleasure. I have enjoyed everything and a great deal since being here.”31

The Initial Problems of Modern Japanese Education David Murray’s primary assignment as Superintendent in the Ministry of Education was to provide advice and counsel to Tanaka Fujimaro on the implementation and administration of the nation’s first public school system, stipulated in the Code of Education of 1872. It was essential for Ministry officials including Murray to become aware of its progress or lack thereof. Accordingly, Tanaka dispatched a core of inspectors from the Ministry to visit schools throughout the nation and report back to him on their findings. Since Murray could not read Japanese, it was Takahashi Korekiyō’s responsibility to translate the reports into English for Murray. Takahashi took his assignment very seriously. In his autobiography he wrote about his experiences working with Murray as his secretary at the Ministry in 1873–1874, during which time he developed a deep sense of respect for the American professor.32 He also recalled how important it was to Tanaka that he and his Japanese staff assigned to work with Murray learn about foreign customs and practices. Murray and his wife agreed with a magnanimous response. In a curious arrangement during a two-month period, Mrs. Takahashi moved in with the

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

18 5

Murrays to experience Western-style living and assist Mrs. Murray in adjusting to life in Japan. During those two months, Tanaka, Takahashi, and Hatakeyama were invited for dinner every Saturday evening at the Murray home. Mrs. Tanaka was also invited. During the festive occasions, Hatakeyama translated the conversations between Murray and Tanaka. Takahashi translated the discussions among the three wives. For one of the dinners, the Murrays also invited Itō Hirobumi, one of the most powerful figures in government (later to become prime minister), who Murray first met in Washington, along with his wife. Takahashi recorded that Mrs. Itō drank much sake,33 for which she was known to do on not a few occasions. There is no record of precisely when the first reports on the positive and negative aspects in the implementation of the Code of Education from the field inspectors from the Ministry of Education reached Murray’s desk in translation. An assumption is that it took place sometime in November of 1873. It would be the first time that Murray had the opportunity to systematically learn about the problems emanating from the Gakusei. Up to then he made no mention of the Code of Education or of school visits in his letters home. The letters from Martha record an impressive schedule of social events interspersed with official functions unrelated to the Gakusei. Since Murray became aware of the problems the Ministry of Education faced in implementing the provisions of the Gakusei through translated reports of the Ministry’s inspectors in the field, originally prepared for Tanaka, they could be considered as an accurate account of local educational conditions. In other words, Tanaka, Murray, and the Japanese officials at the Ministry of Education were all reading the same analyses of the local reactions to the revolutionary new school system. And much of it was negative, which may have been surprising to Murray. Up until that time, his understanding of Japanese education was quite positive. All his writings on Japanese educational institutions had been laudatory. He was for the first time learning the reality of Japanese education in the early Meiji period. For example, during the first year of the Gakusei, there were various approaches by local communities to circumvent the major provision that all children of elementary school age must attend the nearby public school, where a modern curriculum patterned after Marion Scott’s model at the teacher training school in Tokyo was set by the Ministry of Education. Since many local temples had sponsored terakoya classes that were cherished by the village parents, the old terakoya were often reported to the government as the new public schools of the village. With the same teachers from the terakoya who were untrained, not a few merely continued the classes as before under a new name.34 In reports from the field inspectors that were published in Ministry of Education journals, a common criticism of the new schools concerned teaching methods. In one report from rural Aichi prefecture, the inspector reported that in

18 6

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

the classes he observed, many teachers merely read from textbooks locally available although not on the recommended list drawn up by the Ministry. They were inappropriate for the new elementary school. In a report from Miyagi Prefecture, the inspector observed a lesson entitled mondoka, “question and answer,” apparently taken from Scott’s modern teaching methods at the new Tokyo Teacher Training School. Disregarding the title of the lesson, the teacher simply read aloud from the textbook. The students mimicked the teacher.35 The widespread opposition to the new schools was included in the reports. The Ministry of Education, upon Tanaka Fujimaro’s return from Europe in the spring of 1873, was already planning revisions of the Gakusei that had been written and promulgated in the summer of 1872. This was a natural consequence of the conditions in place when the code was written by Ministry officials who had no personal experience with Western schools. Moreover, at the time when the Code of Education was being drawn up in Tokyo, Tanaka was visiting Western schools in America and Europe. Upon his return to Japan, Tanaka had his staff translate many documents that he had collected during his visit to the West with the Iwakura Embassy. This was Tanaka’s first opportunity to have them published officially by the Ministry as a report of his travels with the Embassy, titled Riji Kōtei (Report of the commissioner). The topics were indicative of his primary interest during his prolonged visit to the West. From these reports Tanaka’s special interest in American education, among others, is first revealed.36 With the conviction that American education should serve as a model of Western education for modern Japan, he set out to revise the provisions of the Gakusei to conform to what he had personally observed while in America. Under these circumstances Tanaka and Murray had long and detailed discussions on the provisions of the Code of Education. As Murray described it, “We went over every part of it with pains-taking assiduity, the instructions proscribed for officers and teachers, the subjects assigned to each grade of school, and each class in the school, the fees of the pupils attending the schools, and the parts to be borne in the support by the fees of the pupils, by local governments and by the Department of Education.”37 From that moment onward, Murray turned his attention and interests from the samurai schools of feudal Japan, where his Japanese students at Rutgers had acquired attributes that Murray admired and fervently desired to observe when he left home for Japan. Henceforth he devoted his attention to the new schools prescribed by the Code of Education, providing advice intended to enable the Ministry to reform the new system of education where necessary. It was all reported in translation to Tanaka. In the process of planning revisions of the Gakusei recently promulgated, the frequent discussions between Murray and Tanaka covered a wide range of topics that revealed the broad perspective of Tanaka’s thinking, as Murray recalled them:

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

187

Figure 6.3. Tanaka Fujimaro, Vice Minister of Education. From Morikawa Terumichi, Kyōiku Chokugo no Michi (Sangensha, 1990), 17.

We had many conferences not only concerning education but on almost every subject pertaining to history and politics. I remember he asked me concerning the religions which prevailed in the most forward nations of the world; and he ended with this naïve statement, that his country had lost its faith in its old religions and had not yet acquired a better one. On another occasion we had a conversation concerning the early history of Japan, which is in great part legendary and must not be accepted as trustworthy. I asked him if the great ages of the early emperors as given in Japanese annals did not seem to him to throw discredit on the accounts of the courts during their reign. He answered me that these great ages of the Japanese emperor were no more remarkable nor more incredible than the great ages of the patriarchs as given in your Bible.38

18 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Murray, as he characterized it, was also “supposed to be an authority on every possible question, educational or other, as exemplified in my being asked by one of the officers to draw a design for a foreign baby’s cradle. I was glad to be able to do this, as a poor little Japanese baby’s cradling consists merely in being wabbled to and fro while tied on its mother’s back.” Murray was also asked how to plan a staircase in foreign style in a house that, by the way, “I found afterwards was intended for my own special comfort, to take the place of the bungalow at first provided for.” The challenge these long discussions with Tanaka presented to Murray stemmed from the fact that Murray’s education and teaching experience in America were overwhelmingly in private schools. They were designed for a select minority of academically qualified students who could afford the tuition. They had characteristics similar to the clan schools in feudal Japan reserved for a select clientele rather than the American public school system designed for children from all classes. Although Murray spent his first two years of schooling in local public schools in rural New York, from then on it was all in private schools. In addition, his teaching and administrative experience prior to Rutgers College was restricted to the private Albany Academy, which attracted bright students preparing for college entry. The first major assignment for Murray at the Ministry of Education in the fall of 1873 was to prepare a written report for Tanaka recommending the reforms of Japanese education under the newly promulgated Code of Education as he knew it. As part of his office’s responsibility, Murray was also expected to peruse foreign journals on education, selecting those articles on Western education practices that he considered beneficial to the Ministry of Education in the implementation of the Gakusei. They were then translated and published in the two Ministry of Education journals, Monbushō Zasshi (Ministry journal of education) and Kyōiku Zasshi (Education magazine). These were intended to provide reference materials to a broad audience throughout the country involved in the modernization of Japanese education. As it turned out, Murray’s official reports to Tanaka were also carried in translation in the Ministry’s journals, which were widely circulated.39 In fulfilling his primary responsibility to report to the head of the Ministry of Education on “all affairs connected with Schools and Colleges,” Murray prepared his first official report on Japanese education for Tanaka on December 31, 1873, exactly six months after his arrival in Japan. It was based in part on the English translations of reports by Takahashi Korekiyō, his assistant. It also incorporated some of the impressions of Japanese education that Murray gained from his encounters with the Japanese students at Rutgers College. The first sentence acknowledges his insufficient experiences in Japan, indicating that he may have not yet visited any of the new public schools that were founded under the

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

18 9

Code of Education of 1872. He does, however, reveal that he had visited the new teacher training school in Tokyo under the guidance of an American elementary school teacher from California, Marion Scott, who deeply impressed Murray. He had also visited Kaisei Gakkō, by then under the presidency of Hatakeyama Yoshinari, Murray’s closest Japanese friend and colleague, which predictably provoked a most positive reaction by the senior officer of the Ministry of Education.

David Murray’s First Report To the Honorable Fujimaro Tanaka Vice-Minister of Education December 31, 187340 (Excerpts) At the close of the present year I desire to submit some statements and suggestions in regard to the progress and prospects of education in this country. I am aware that my arrival in Japan is still too recent to justify me in claiming such a knowledge of its educational affairs as would entitle my conclusions to any considerable weight. In the subsequent years during which I may have the honor to serve the Japanese government I hope to be able to lay before the Department of Education the results of more mature observations and that these may be more worthy of consideration than the preliminary views which I now submit. It has been to me a great satisfaction, not indeed unexpected, to find so profound an interest in the cause of education among all classes of society and so earnest the determination on the part of the government to employ every means for its promotion. The encouraging words which it pleased His Imperial Majesty the Tenno to address to me on this subject, when I was honored with an interview, have been everywhere reechoed in all my conferences with members of the government since my arrival. I feel, therefore, that I cannot go beyond my imperial instructions, nor beyond the wishes of the government in my endeavors to press the claims of education upon the attention of those to whom this important work is entrusted. Murray then incorporates some of the profound ideas from his reply written in New Brunswick to Mori Arinori’s letter from Washington in 1872, characterized by his positive impression of the state of contemporary Japanese education referred to in earlier chapters. They include the following: The highest well-being of the nation can only be secured by educating its population. This function may fairly be considered the very highest belonging to a government. The physical comfort, the intellectual activity, and the moral

19 0

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

integrity of the individuals of a nation are dependent on their proper education. In its just sense education has to do with all parts of a man’s nature. It must, so far as possible, provide him with a sound physical constitution, by teaching him how to exercise and care for his body. It must develop and cultivate his intellectual and moral capacities; these constitute the educated man. In the first place, however, let it be premised that Japan is in no sense to be regarded as an illiterate nation. Tried by a standard which we apply to the western nations, Japan will not fall far behind the most favored. The number of persons in the population who cannot read the Kana is comparatively small. If the estimates which I have received from intelligent sources are even approximately accurate, Japan will rank in the general diffusion of education with the most advanced nations of Europe and America. It is well known that even the most degraded classes of the population are able to write the ordinary Kana and to read the books printed in that style, and that this is true of the women among them as well as the men. And when again the nation is tried by a higher standard, it must be conceded that the education which has given to the governing classes the wisdom to maintain an organized government for an unbroken period of twenty-five hundred years must have some title to our respect. It must have had its defects; it may have failed in giving to the nation that impulse towards material development and that strong sense of individual dignity and responsibility which western civilization has developed, yet it must be admitted to have shown a marvelous power of imparting stability to national institutions. Murray could not resist using his initial opportunity to advise Tanaka to remind him of the importance that the “twenty-five hundred years” of feudal education played in laying the foundation for the modern era. Although Murray had originally come to Japan “anxious to study the institutions of an Empire which has held on its way so many centuries,” the Code of Education was intended to replace those feudal institutions with modern institutions patterned after Western practices. Nevertheless, Murray urged the Japanese government not to ignore Japan’s past in planning for the future. Even though he concedes it “had its defects,” he reiterates to Tanaka and all those who had the opportunity to read his report that feudal Japan “must be admitted to have shown a marvelous power of imparting stability to national institutions,” thereby laying a firm foundation for modern Japan. Murray then lists four general recommendations in response to the translated reports he had read at the Ministry and the impressions of Japanese education he had formed before coming to Japan, reiterating the theme to incorporate the best from the past in planning the future. He ends his report with a brief reference to the problems confronting the Ministry of Education in implementing the Gakusei and the progress made at the Imperial College.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

191

Teaching Must Be in the Native Language In devising, therefore, a future educational system for Japan, we are not called upon to start from the beginning, but we have already a good foundation of national intelligence on which to build. Educational institutions are so much a matter of growth, dependent on external circumstances and national temperament, that it would be folly to ignore what has been done in the past when we make plans for the future. There are certain fixed elements in the problem which, whatever else may be changed, must remain essentially unchanged. In the present case, one of these is the language in which education is to be communicated. No system of universal education can be successfully carried out which shall not employ as its vehicle the common language of the people. It must be confessed that the Japanese language presents very serious difficulties in the way of using it as the medium for modern learning. And yet, until the means are provided for conveying this learning in the language understood by all, education can only be enjoyed by a favored few. It must, therefore, be fully understood that the efforts to carry forward the national education in the languages of Europe are only temporary expedients. Need of Japanese Textbooks While, therefore, institutions for teaching foreign languages and the sciences which are found only in these languages must for the present be considered an essential part of the educational system of Japan, and must be fostered and increased accordingly, the future aim of the department of education must be to naturalize education. There are two chief means at hand for effecting this object: the one is to prepare and introduce Japanese textbooks on the various branches of western learning. A beginning has already been made in this direction. A number of books have been translated and compiled from foreign sources and have already been quite extensively introduced into the schools. Many more books in the various branches of learning and science are required. Need of Schools for Training Teachers The second means which is at hand to be employed in reforming the system of vernacular instruction is the training of teachers. The work of a school teacher is one of the most difficult, as well as most dignified, of employments. . . . Normal schools for the training of teachers have invariably, in Europe and America, been found to furnish the most efficient means for improving the education of a nation. They have been extensively established, especially in France, Germany, and the United States, and have resulted in the most wonderful improvement of the primary and middle schools of these countries. They are even more necessary in Japan than in any of these countries, because

192

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

the new method of teaching and the new subjects to be taught differ in a greater degree here than elsewhere from those formally in use. It is therefore with great satisfaction that I refer to the work of the Department in this direction. The normal school established at Tokei has shown its usefulness by the excellent results already attained. Under the guidance of its efficient foreign principal, the students there are receiving training for their future profession of teachers which will give them an immense advantage over others. The methods of teaching children in classes instead of singly; the use of charts and blackboards for illustrating the subject of instruction; the method of classifying and grading the scholars of the school so as to economize time; the enforcement of rules in regard to order and punctuality; all these are matters which are being impressed upon the mind of the future teachers. And besides these things, which relate to the organization and management of schools, they are carried through a regular course of instruction in western learning, so far as it can be imparted in the Japanese language. From my observations of the operations of this institution and the wide field of usefulness in this direction, I unhesitatingly pronounce it the most promising work in which the department of education is engaged, and I bespeak for it the fostering care and the cordial support which it has received in the past. As the training of native teachers is, in my estimation, the most direct and the most rapid means for reforming the system of education in Japan, I may be pardoned for pressing earnestly the duty of making every effort for this end. It is possible, it seems to me, not only to train up by means of the normal schools a body of new teachers, thoroughly qualified with the new work required of them, but also to do something towards helping the present body of teachers to prepare themselves for doing in much better ways their tasks. To effect this we may employ a method which has been found efficient in other countries. This consists in calling together the teachers in any conveniently situated district of the country, and for a short time submitting them to a course of instruction in regard to ways of teaching and in new branches of study. The best graduates of the normal school under the supervision of the superintendents and inspectors might be employed to carry out this plan. Female Education I come now to a branch of my subject which I am well aware has already received from this department very earnest consideration. Yet its importance and urgent necessity for early action in reference to it will, I trust, justify me in referring to it here. I mean female education. The importance of educating the women of the country cannot be overrated. To them are necessarily entrusted the care and training of children in their earliest and most impressible years. The influence which they exert is not merely due to the direct

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

193

instructions which they give them, but the example which they present to them in their manners and conversation. If, then, the future men of the nation are to be inspired with the best motives and be guided by the best principles, the mothers must first be educated up to the standard. The home-life of the country depends upon the women. To make this happen, the women must be so educated that they may understand and sympathize with the plans and pursuits of their husbands and brothers. In Japan, as elsewhere, a distinction has always been made against her in distributing the benefits of education. It is time to place her upon the same level in privileges of education which the men of Japan have begun to claim for themselves. Hence present efforts to advance female education deserve the encouragement of all friends of Japan. As it has always been found in all western nations that females are the best teachers of children, it seems very desirable to make use of their agency in carrying forward the education of the country. They have more tact and patience than men in dealing with children and know better how to render them the assistance they need in their education. But, in order that women may be fitted to undertake the work of teaching, they must first be trained for it. And hence it becomes the duty of the Department of Education to provide some adequate means of preparing a corps of female teachers. Concerning the Code of Education, the Gakusei that launched the first modern public school system in Japan, it appears deep within Murray’s report, although in a short section. The new Superintendent of Japanese education was not yet familiar enough with the conditions of local education at the elementary school level, the major concern of the code, to comment further on it. The following is the complete version by Murray: The Code of Education (Gakusei) The Code of Education adopted by this department and published during the year 1872 has in its principal features commended itself to the nation. In foreign countries the nature and object of this code were to some extent misunderstood. It was in many cases regarded as a system which, having been once adopted, was immediately in all its details to be put in operation. Such a course would have been utterly impracticable, and was indeed never contemplated. The code was an outline of a system to be carried out as the circumstances of the empire would justify. The realization of the scheme in all its parts must necessarily be the work of many years, and experience may suggest many modifications in the practical working and details. Much has already been done. Seven of the eight grand school districts contemplated in the code have already been organized, and in each the superintendents and inspectors are engaged in hastening forward the organization

194

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

of schools and in introducing into them improved methods and apparatus of study. Their work thus far has chiefly had to do with the establishment of primary schools which must precede and create a demand for institutions of a higher grade. In this work there has been much to impede and discourage. The plans and objects of the education department have been in many places misunderstood by the people. The old teachers have in many cases been averse to the introduction of the new methods. Communities in some cases have been unwilling to submit to the additional burdens of taxation which the support of schools required and in other cases have shown an utter apathy in regard to the subject. These obstacles have required the utmost persistency of the superintendents to overcome, and they have been compelled to travel from ken to ken and from town to town to explain and encourage and assist in the organization of the schools. It only requires a consideration of the difficulties of the work to make the progress thus far made seem most encouraging and satisfactory. The future character of the work to be done can readily be foreseen. The work of establishing and remodeling schools throughout the grand school districts must go on as in the past year, and the use of improved textbooks and charts must be explained to the teachers, and their introduction pushed forward. The final section of Murray’s initial report is the most detailed of all. It begins with a lengthy rationale for the need of institutions of higher education throughout the country, included below in summary form. It ends with Murray taking the opportunity to submit his positive evaluation of the Kaisei Gakkō, referred to as the Imperial College. He was most familiar with Kaisei Gakkō, having recently participated in the ceremony dedicating the new buildings in the presence of the emperor, to which he refers. Moreover, at the time Murray submitted this report on the last day of December 1873, his closest confidant and dearest Japanese friend, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, had just become “director” of the institution, to whom Murray refers indirectly in his report as “exceptionally fit for the position.” The Establishment of Higher Schools The establishment of higher schools must be encouraged. There are many important centers of population where men of enterprise and wealth are to be found. Such communities must be encouraged to organize institutions of higher education. . . . Wherever schools of this kind are already in existence, it is the plain duty of the department of education to give them encouragement and help. . . . The presence of a college in a community stimulates a desire for education. While, therefore, it is without doubt a wise policy to establish

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

195

a small number of institutions of the very highest rank, it is equally a wise policy to distribute those of a second and lower rank in all localities. The Imperial College The growth and prosperity of the institutions of learning in Tokei [Tokyo] are justly a subject of pride and satisfaction to the department of education. Nearly one thousand students are now gathered in the Imperial College at Hitotsubashi. The organization and equipment are rapidly becoming what its position would demand. There are in it completely organized schools in all the three great languages—English, French, and German. The teachers are chiefly men devoted to their profession, and the progress of the students may be fairly compared with that in similar colleges elsewhere. The buildings into which it has only recently been removed, and whose inauguration was rendered memorable by the presence of His Imperial Majesty the Tenno, are among the finest in the empire. It is a conviction that under its present director, whose education and residence in America and Europe give him exceptional fitness for the position, the university will continue to win, in a higher degree, the respect of men of learning and the confidence of the nation. It will still require the continual care of the department in providing it with the best attainable professors, in procuring apparatus and the books, and in fitting up its laboratories and museums. Its internal regulations are already undergoing changes which will render its instructions more efficient, the health and comfort of its pupils more secure, and the intercourse of the students, professors, and directors more satisfactory. All of which is respectfully submitted. David Murray Superintendent of Schools and Colleges Department of Education, December 31, 1873 Several relevant issues stand out in this initial report. One of the most significant conclusions to be drawn is that it once again illustrates a profound understanding of Japan’s remarkable transition from feudalism to modernism by Murray. Few Japanese or non-Japanese of the period appreciated the positive influence of feudal education on the modernization of Meiji Japan as did Murray. Even before going to Japan, he recognized the critical role of the clan schools for samurai in the transition from the feudal to the modern, characterized by Murray as “the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career.” It was an uncommon perception by an uncommon American who first arrived at this thoughtful conclusion after his initial encounter with the samurai students who came to study at Rutgers College. It was reinforced from his meetings with government leaders,

19 6

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

nearly all from the samurai class, who came to Washington with the Iwakura Embassy, analyzed in previous chapters. After six months in Japan as a ranking official at the Ministry of Education and directly encountering “the statesmen who are now leading Japan on a daily basis,” Murray remained convinced of the correctness of his conclusion to include the concept in the introduction to his first report to the government. The education they received that prepared them to lead their country in the transition to a prosperous future should not be dismissed in the urgency to modernize. He was, once again, essentially recommending that modern institutions incorporate what was good from feudal institutions. There were other issues in Murray’s first carefully measured report to Tanaka of both a positive and negative nature. Beginning with the positive, among the broad recommendations that Murray made to Tanaka that would prove to be the most consequential for the future of the nation, those concerning the training of teachers to meet the demands of the Code of Education promulgated the year before stand out. He had learned that many of the new elementary schools that had been opened during the year were little different from the old terakoya temple schools of the feudal era, with the same teachers and, not infrequently, the same teachings with minor adjustments. Under the subheading of the “Needs of Schools for Training Teachers,” Murray takes the opportunity to register his unequivocal approval of the Tokyo Teacher Training School, the Tokyo Shihan Gakkō, under “its efficient foreign principal,” Marion Scott from California: It is therefore with great satisfaction that I refer to the work of the Department in this direction. The normal school established at Tokei has shown its usefulness by the excellent results already attained. Under the guidance of its efficient foreign principal, the students there are receiving training for their future profession of teachers which will give them an immense advantage over others. . . . From my observations of the operations of this institution and the wide field of usefulness in this direction, I unhesitatingly pronounce it the most promising work in which the department of education is engaged, and I bespeak for it the fostering care and the cordial support which it has received in the past.

Murray had been deeply impressed by his visit during his first six months in Japan to the only normal school for the training of teachers in the country. It proved to be one of the most consequential school visits during his time in the service of the emperor. The ironies involved deserve consideration, since the school visit that provoked such a positive reaction would have major repercussions on the modernization of Japanese education before Murray’s first year in office ended.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

197

It all stemmed from the new teaching methodology that Scott had introduced from California at the training school in Japan that can be characterized as progressive for the period, noted in an earlier chapter. Originating in the West at the experimental school of Yohan Pestalozzi in Yerevan, Switzerland, the most modern theories of teaching methodology had only reached America a decade previously. It found a home at a small state teacher training college in Oswego, New York, under the pioneering work of Edward Sheldon, the founder of the school. Scott, an elementary school teacher from Virginia teaching at a San Francisco school, had come across a copy of Sheldon’s book, A Manual of Elementary Instruction, which he used as a guide in his teaching. He had not personally been trained in the new methods but became deeply influenced by them, considered as revolutionizing the traditional classroom. They were not widely followed by American teachers when Scott was offered a teaching position in Japan first as an English teacher at the preparatory school for Nankō. When he was hastily transferred to the Tokyo Teacher Training School shortly before it opened in 1872, he simply taught his first class of teacher trainees exactly as he taught his elementary school students in California, applying Sheldon’s teaching techniques based on Pestalozzi’s theories. Murray summarized his impression of Scott’s efforts in his first report to the Minister of Education: “The methods of teaching children in classes instead of singly; the use of charts and blackboards for illustrating the subject of instruction; the method of classifying and grading the scholars of the school so as to economize time; the enforcement of rules in regard to order and punctuality; all these are matters which are being impressed upon the mind of the future teachers.” Murray had little interest in teaching methodology in American public schools before coming to Japan. He had to be aware of the controversial Pestalozzi methodology from Switzerland being introduced cautiously at the Oswego school in his home state of New York. From all the available evidence, the irony is that Murray’s first opportunity to observe the most progressive methods of teaching originating in the West took place at the Tokyo Teacher Training School in 1873 as applied by a young American from California. Within six months of the visit to the training school, Murray would become immersed in developing a plan for the modernization of Japanese education, with teacher training given priority. In another of his boldest declarations in the first report to the Ministry of Education in the section on teacher training, Murray wrote, “The training of native teachers is, in my estimation, the most direct and the most rapid means for reforming the system of education in Japan.” He could not have made his conviction more straightforward than that. He followed it up by adding a clarifying factor. Murray recognized that the success of the Code of Education depended on a teacher training system that would provide a corps of teachers trained in, as he characterized it, “the new methods of instruction.” That additional qualification may have been motivated by his visit to the teacher training school in Tokyo.

19 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Murray then takes the issue of teacher training into a new and progressive direction in his section on female education. He begins by relating the education of women to the advancement of the nation, in itself a radical idea in a nation emerging from feudalism. Murray makes it more acceptable by declaring that if “the future men of the nation are to be inspired with the best motives and be guided by the best principles, the mothers must first be educated up to the standard.” Accompanying his recommendation for the advancement of the education of girls in the new public elementary schools is his call for teacher training schools for girls, a revolutionary proposal. Buttressing his declaration on the significance of teacher training to the future of Japan, Murray places it in the context of the powerful influence of teacher education in the West. How he came to this sweeping conclusion as a former professor of mathematics can only be conjectured: “Normal schools for the training of teachers have invariably, in Europe and America, been found to furnish the most efficient means for improving the education of a nation. They have been extensively established, especially in France, Germany, and the United States, and have resulted in the most wonderful improvement of the primary and middle schools of these countries. They are even more necessary in Japan than in any of these countries, because the new method of teaching and the new subjects to be taught differ in a greater degree here than elsewhere from those formally in use.” Of all the recommendations made by Murray to Tanaka in his initial report as the senior adviser in the Ministry of Education, his reference to the role of normal schools in the West—that is, teacher training schools—proved to be among the most consequential to modern Japan. By relating the training of teachers to the standards of the nation’s schools and, by inference, to the cultural level of advanced Western countries that the leaders of Meiji Japan aspired to, Murray laid out a framework for the Ministry of Education to establish a national system of teacher training schools for Japan employing “the new methods of instruction.” The following chapter will analyze Tanaka’s response to Murray’s major recommendation and Murray’s role in the modern education of Japanese teachers. The negative section of Murray’s first report concerns the brief reference to the Code of Education near the end. The absence of a more thorough response

table 6.1 elementary school teachers, 1873 Male

Female

Total

26,696

411

27,107

Source: Ogata Hiroyasu, Gakusei Jisshi Keii no Kenkyū [Implementing the Gakusei] (Kōsō Shobō, 1963), 171.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

19 9

may have been due to Murray’s lack of personal familiarity with the code’s influence, which he was exposed to only through translated reports from Ministry inspectors from the field. The first reports would have become available in English translation just as Murray began his initial report to Tanaka. There is no indication that an opportunity to witness firsthand the conditions of the new elementary schools under the code had been made available to Murray by this time. In the section on the Code of Education itself, Murray begins with a positive statement that the Gakusei has “in its principal features commended itself to the nation.” As we will learn later, this was contrary to Tanaka’s position, who at the time was deeply troubled by the widespread opposition, some of a violent nature, to the Gakusei, especially in rural areas. Its “principal feature” that provoked the opposition was undoubtedly the stipulation requiring every community of six hundred residents to establish and finance a public elementary school with a curriculum set by the Ministry of Education. Murray referred offhandedly to the criticisms of the “new system” that he read about in the reports from the Ministry inspectors. In the endeavor to implement the new system, Murray concedes that “there has been much to impede and discourage” during its first year as he took up his senior position in the Ministry of Education. He was obviously aware of the local actions against the new modern elementary schools and their teachers. Nevertheless, Murray dismissed the protests, declaring that the new public school system was simply “misunderstood by the people.” Murray cites two reasons for the opposition: “The old teachers have in many cases been averse to the introduction of the new methods. Communities have in some cases been unwilling to submit to the additional burdens of taxation which the support of schools required.” His recommendations were equally simplistic: (1) “These obstacles have required the utmost persistency by superintendents to overcome . . . and to explain and encourage and assist in the organization of schools” and (2) “The new methods of instruction and the use of improved textbooks and charts must be explained to the teachers and their introduction pushed forward.” Murray had been in position for less than half a year when he wrote his first report on the state of Japanese education under the Code of Education as he understood it. As noted previously, there is no indication in personal letters home or in the preserved documents that Murray had visited any of the new elementary schools mandated by the Gakusei, even in Tokyo where he lived and worked. In other words, by the end of 1873, Murray had a superficial understanding of the monumental problems that the implementation of the Code of Education underlying a social transformation of epic proportions provoked at the local level, particularly in rural Japan. He was in no position to offer constructive advice for their solution.

200

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

In contrast to Murray’s lack of deep concern for the negative impact of the Code of Education in his first report, it was the primary concern of Tanaka. The major reason for employing Murray as his senior adviser was to advise him on the ways to revise and improve the original provisions of the code focusing on an elementary education for all children under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, with which neither Tanaka nor Murray had a role in formulating. Tanaka graciously received Murray’s report by having it translated and published in the Ministry of Education’s Kyōiku Zasshi.41 It was the first opportunity for the educational establishment in Japan to learn of Murray’s educational thought. It was also the first opportunity for most of them to learn that a seniorranking officer in the Japanese Ministry of Education was a non-Japanese. Few would have been aware of Murray’s academic background as a former professor of mathematics and astronomy at a small Christian college in America. As the year 1873 drew to a close and the Murrays prepared for their first Christmas in Japan, they described their personal life in a letter to relatives in America. Wistfully they wished they could join them on Christmas day in Japan and dine with us and our old Americo-Japanese friends Soogiura [Hatakeyama] and Asahi [Iwakura]. We owe them a great deal, and they are as nice and kind as possible, and come nearer to filling the place of American friends than almost any of the Americans out here. Soogiura has been permitted by government to assume his true name which at the time he left the country he had to drop. It is Yoshinari Hatakeyama. He is found so useful that he has been assigned to take charge of the Imperial College [Kaisei Gakkō]. He still remains with me as my principal aide and interpreter.42

This is one of the earliest revelations by Murray since Hatakeyama returned to Japan from Europe of the critical role, as his “principal aide,” that Hatakeyama was playing in Murray’s work at the Ministry of Education virtually from the beginning of his tenure in Japan. It will be subsequently seen that “interpreter” meant far more than Hatakeyama translating Japanese into English and vice versa for Murray. That was done daily by Takahashi Korekiyō. Murray relied on Hatakeyama to interpret his recommendations on educational reform—that is, to explain persuasively the meaning, the intent, and the purpose of them to his Japanese colleagues in the Ministry of Education, primarily the head of it, Tanaka Fujimaro. This brought Murray and Hatakeyama closer together than ever as Murray became dependent on his former student to carry out his responsibilities as the Superintendent of Education in Japan. Tanaka recognized the importance of the relationship between Murray and Hatakeyama. He formally approved of Hatakeyama dividing his responsibilities between the presidency of Kaisei Gakkō under the jurisdiction of the Ministry and as an aide to Murray in carrying out his duties at the Ministry of Education.

Mu rr ay’s Int roduction to Ja pa nese Educati on

2 01

As the year 1874 began, Murray would become drawn more closely into the unprecedented challenges of implementing what historians characterize as the most important period in the history of Japanese education, the implementation of a universal system of education appropriate for all. Coincidentally, Murray and Hatakeyama would work closely together in reforming science education at Kaisei Gakkō, labeled by Murray appropriately as the Imperial College of Japan. It marks the opening of the second stage of Murray’s responsibilities as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, the initial topic of the following chapter.

chapter 7



MURRAY’S 1874 REPORT setting the direction of modern japanese education, 1874–1875

When David Murray submitted his first report on the Code of Education to Vice Minister of Education Tanaka Fujimori on December 31, 1873, it marked the completion of his first six months in the service of the emperor. During that brief period, he was introduced to the code, the Gakusei, in the initial year of its implementation as a monumental plan for a modern public school system of elementary schools serving all children. Murray became familiar with the problems involved in that revolutionary undertaking through translated reports by inspectors in the field from the Ministry of Education. The next step called for Murray to visit the new elementary schools under the code in several distant prefectures in 1874. It would be his first opportunity as a Western adviser to personally observe the effects of the Code of Education in order to recommend appropriate revisions in his second official report to Vice Minister Tanaka. As the year 1874 opened, however, Murray became immersed in two separate issues concerning the modernization of Japanese higher education. His response in both instances illustrated the uncommon qualities of the former professor of mathematics from a Christian college in America. One concerned the reform of science education at Kaisei Gakkō, the senior national institution of education. In the other, teacher training, Murray was instrumental in setting the initial direction in the reform of the Code of Education that marks the beginning of modern education in the history of Japan. Because of the ramifications of Murray’s role in this issue that extend far beyond his tenure as Superintendent of Japanese Education, his recommendations in the reforms of teacher training will be considered first.

202

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 03

The Modernization of Teacher Education In Murray’s first report to Vice Minister Tanaka at the end of 1873, his single most emphatic recommendation for the successful implementation of the Code of Education involved teacher training. To Tanaka, it may have come somewhat as a surprise when his chief adviser unequivocally concluded that “the training of native teachers” was “the most direct and the most rapid means for reforming the system of education in Japan.” Murray offered a compelling reason for the Ministry of Education to give the highest priority to the training of teachers in normal schools. Teachers had proven to be “the most efficient means for improving education . . . especially in France, Germany, and the United States”—that is, in the most modern and powerful Western countries. That was precisely the ultimate status the Meiji government aimed to achieve for Japan. How Murray came to this conclusion, taken verbatim from his report in 1873 six months after his arrival in Japan, remains a mystery. The training of native teachers is, in my estimation, the most direct and the most rapid means for reforming the system of education in Japan. . . . Normal schools for the training of teachers have invariably, in Europe and America, been found to furnish the most efficient means for improving the education of a nation. They have been extensively established, especially in France, Germany, and the United States, and have resulted in the most wonderful improvement of the primary and middle schools of these countries. They are even more necessary in Japan than in any of these countries, because the new methods of teaching and the new subjects to be taught differ in a greater degree here than elsewhere from those formerly in use.1

A combination of three distinct ideas was brought together in this short passage by Murray that resonated with the head of the Ministry of Education. The first was the primary role of teacher training in the general reform of education. The second is that it has been proven so in the most advanced countries in the West. The third is that it involved “the new methods of teaching and the new subjects.” Upon receipt of Murray’s first report at the end of 1873, Tanaka promptly set out to follow the recommendations of his trusted American adviser as the year 1874 opened. He chose as the major concern of the Ministry of Education the issue of teacher education that was singled out in Murray’s report. The initial step by the Ministry was to develop a plan for modern teacher education in Japan based on Murray’s recommendation.2 Even before a basic plan for a modern teacher training system could be considered by the Ministry of Education, Vice Minister Tanaka took prompt action to put into effect Murray’s specific recommendation to establish a teacher training institution for females. Four days after Murray submitted that recommendation

2 04

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

in his first report—that is, on January 4, 1874—the Ministry of Education placed before the government a bill already under consideration to establish the first teacher training college for women.3 It was intended to correspond to the Tokyo Teacher Training School for men (Tokyo Shihan Gakkō) in existence since September 1872, when Marion Scott was chosen to introduce into Japan the teaching methods then in practice in San Francisco elementary schools. Murray acknowledged that the issue of educating girls “has already received from this department very earnest consideration.” Whether knowing that encouraged Murray to specifically give his full support in his report cannot be determined. Nevertheless, his recommendation hastened the procedure to establish the first normal school for women, with formal government approval received on January 20, 1874—three weeks after Murray’s report, extraordinarily quick for bureaucratic action. Plans for the new school were submitted to the Dajōkan, the highest decision-making body in government, on March 14 for final approval.4 The facilities and the selection of the first class of twelve girls to enter the Tokyo Teacher Training School for Women (Tokyo Joshi Shihan Gakkō) were completed for the grand opening on November 29, 1875.5 Indicative of the interest in educational developments by the imperial family, the empress attended the event, which was considered an important milestone in the education of Japanese women.6 Murray was not available to participate in the opening ceremony,

Figure 7.1. The First Class—Tokyo Teacher Training School for Women. From the Ministry of Education, Gakusei Gojūnen Shi [The fifty-year history of the Gakusei] (Ministry of Education, 1922), vol. 1, preface.

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 05

although he is attributed as playing an important role in the modern education of Japanese women in histories of the period. Two weeks prior to the opening of the school, he was sent to America by the Ministry on a new assignment, the topic of the following chapter. The next step under the Ministry’s plan to meet Murray’s recommendation for normal schools as “the most rapid means for reforming the system of education in Japan” took place in February 1874. In order to implement the Code of Education of 1872–1873, stipulating that each community of six hundred residents must establish an elementary school, the country had already been divided into seven grand districts to administer the new national school system. It was decided by the Ministry to establish a teacher training school in each district patterned after the Tokyo Teacher Training School in the first grand district under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. To meet that goal, the last four of the seven institutions were established in February of 1874.7 Since David Murray was involved in this plan from the beginning, he was aware of the process the Ministry went through in hastily finding qualified staff to administer the last of the regional teacher training schools to be opened. Among them, the Aichi Teachers Training School in the second grand district stands out from the others as a consequence of Isawa Shūji being chosen by the Ministry as the first principal of the new school at the age of twenty-four and his subsequent encounter with Murray. Isawa Shūji proved to be a progressive-minded Japanese whose basic education as a samurai took place in rural Japan during the feudal era. Two years after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, he was sent by his clan, the Takatō han in Naganoken, to Tokyo to study at Nankō, the highest national institution in the country, then under the administrative control of Guido Verbeck.8 Apparently Verbeck recognized the unique qualities of Isawa. For some reason he gave the student a

Figure 7.2. Isawa Shūji, first principal of the Aichi Teacher Training School. From Naka Arata, Nihon Kyōkashō: Kyōshi Shiryō Shūsei (Tokyo Shoseki, 1982), 1, 225.

206

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

copy of one of the latest and most famous texts in American teacher education, The Theory and Practice of Teaching by David Page, head of the normal school at Albany, New York. Isawa found it fascinating.9 Upon completing his studies at Nankō in 1872, Isawa found a position at the new Ministry of Works that did not appeal to him. He then entered the Ministry of Education about the time that David Murray arrived in Japan in mid-1873. Whether the then twenty-two-year-old Isawa had much contact with the new Superintendent of Education from America during that period remains unclear. Nevertheless, Tanaka Fujimori had apparently become aware of Isawa’s enthusiasm for modern ideas in education. In a decision with extraordinary ramifications, when the Ministry of Education opened the new teacher training school in Aichi in March 1874, Tanaka approved Isawa as the first principal.10 Isawa used The Theory and Practice of Teaching by Page as a text at the new school. It was considered innovative by advocating that the traditional teaching method of lecturing to passive students be replaced by questions from the teacher and answers by students who must think for themselves rather than memorize data. Not only did Isawa use this text in his teacher training classes, he translated it into Japanese and had it published as Kyōjū Shimpo (The modern teacher). It later became part of the teacher training materials for Japanese throughout the country.11 Among the most unusual measures taken by Isawa from the very beginning of the Aichi training school was the choice of music lessons in his class on teaching methods. Although music was one of the new courses listed in the first course of study under the Fundamental Code of Education in 1872, it was yet to be included in the curriculum in any of the new public elementary schools. In the attached school for children at Aichi, where the teachers in training practiced teaching methods, Isawa taught the children to sing a song from the West that he discovered in his search for modern teaching ideas. It marked the first time in the history of Japan that music was taught to children in school.12 In his first report to the Ministry of Education in mid-1874 as principal of the Aichi Teacher Training School, Isawa described the innovations he introduced from the West, including music education. David Murray learned about Isawa and his progressive practices in the classroom involving music education through this report, which deeply impressed him.13 It would prove to be the beginning of a series of developments that not only changed the course of Isawa’s career, it would have a positive impact on the modernization of teacher training during the early Meiji era. During this period when the Ministry of Education set in motion the first stages of expanding teacher training to the regional level, Murray maintained close contact with the Tokyo Teacher Training School for men. In mid-May 1874, the Ministry scheduled a second visit for Murray to the school on the occasion of the visit by Emperor Meiji.14 Once again Murray was given the privilege of

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 07

addressing the emperor, the first occurring at the opening of the new buildings of Kaisei Gakkō a year earlier. By the time of the emperor’s visit to the teacher training college in 1874, the influence of Marion Scott from America, the head teacher, had become pervasive. On his first visit to the school in October 1873, Murray gave his highest possible recommendation of Scott’s work in his report to Tanaka Fujimaro: “From my observation of the operations of this institution and the wide field of usefulness in this direction, I unhesitatingly pronounce it the most promising work in which the department of education is engaged.”15 On the occasion of the emperor’s visit to the school in 1874, Murray wrote to cousin Lucy that “I had the great satisfaction of standing before the Emperor . . . deputized to make an address to him. . . . It occupied only about a minute.”16 Murray took the opportunity to commend the school to the imperial visitor on behalf of the Ministry of Education: The interest which your Imperial Majesty continues to manifest in the education of your people fills our hearts with gladness. The institution which today you honor with your presence is justly regarded by your Minister of Education as among the most important in your empire. Here are explained and illustrated the methods by which the teacher best communicates to the young the rudiments of learning. In this and in other normal schools modeled after this are to be trained those who are to carry the advantages of education in the language of your people to every part of your Empire. Your Majesty’s presence here today brings with it a benediction upon the young men, who through the munificence of your government are here preparing for the responsible and honorable calling of teachers. They will feel it too, I am sure, that it lays them under a solid obligation to use their acquirements for the best interests of your people. As one of those who in your majesty’s service are endeavoring with imperfect efforts, yet honest hearts to advance the education of your people, I come today with our best wishes for your majesty’s long life and prosperity and for the success of your plans to benefit your people.17

A month later Martha wrote home about a royal gift that David received, most likely as a result of his meeting with the emperor at the teacher training school: “David yesterday received a present of photographs from the Emperor and Empress. These were sent to him from the Emperor’s household, and we were told that it is quite an honor to receive them. They cannot be bought and only Jap officers above the 3rd rank are allowed to have them.”18 Murray’s official visit to the Tokyo Teacher Training School in mid-1874 provided him with the opportunity to again publicly pronounce before the emperor of Japan and ranking officials of the Ministry of Education his highest evaluation of the institution. As far as can be determined, he had not yet visited an elementary school to observe a teacher trained in the new teaching methods

208

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

that had been introduced to Japan. Under Scott the institution played one of the most vital historical roles in modern Japanese education by essentially setting the first curriculum and textbooks from America to be used when the Code of Education, the Gakusei, was initially implemented in late 1872. As analyzed previously, Scott’s teaching methodology was based on Edward Sheldon’s A Manual of Elementary Instruction.19 Sheldon was principal of the Oswego State Teacher Training College in New York, the center of progressive education in America emanating from Yohann Pestalozzi in Switzerland. It was simple but effective. Based on Sheldon’s Manual, Scott taught lessons on English and mathematics to the Japanese teachers in training exactly as he taught them to his elementary students in San Francisco, using the same textbooks and teaching materials from home. It was all done in English with a translator. There were no lectures on the theory of modern teaching methodology by Scott. It was all carried out by demonstration. Whether the visit by Murray to the Tokyo Teacher Training School in 1874 motivated him to encourage Tanaka Fujimaro to take the next step in the Ministry of Education’s plan to modernize teacher training is unknown. One of the major problems confronting the Ministry was how to prepare large numbers of teachers in modern methods for the new regional teacher training schools. In a major decision that involved Murray directly, the Ministry of Education approved a plan to send three Japanese to the United States on government scholarships to study modern teaching methodology at select teacher training colleges. Upon completion of their studies, the plan called for them to return to Japan to assume influential positions in Japan’s teacher training system to raise the level of teaching at the training schools to the Western standard.20 In the development of this plan, Murray played a prominent role, since it was his responsibility to make arrangements for the student scholarships at appropriate teacher training schools in America. By this time the Vice Minister of Education had the confidence in his American adviser to successfully carry out this assignment. Precisely when Murray made his first contacts to search for the appropriate institutions in America is unknown. Murray, who majored in mathematics at Union College, distinguished for its classical studies, followed by the headmastership of an elite preparatory school in Albany, New York, and professor of mathematics at Rutgers College for ten years, had no experience with teacher training programs in America. He began the search for appropriate and cooperative teacher training colleges in America by contacting friends for recommendations. Among them was Niel Gilmore, Superintendent of Education for the state of New York, whose office was located in the state capital of Albany.21 Murray, who served as principal of the Albany Academy before joining Rutgers College, would have known that Gilmore was knowledgeable about state teacher training colleges not only in the state of New York under his official responsibility but in the eastern part of the United States.

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

209

Through Murray’s contacts in America and especially with the cooperation of Gilmore, arrangements were made to send one Japanese scholarship student each to the Bridgewater State Normal School near Boston, Massachusetts; the Oswego State Normal and Training School in northern New York; and the State Normal School in Albany, New York.22 Among them, the school at Oswego stood out from the other two. By 1874 the Oswego State Normal and Training School had acquired a national reputation as the leading teacher training college in America that employed the most progressive teaching methodology in the world as developed by Johann Pestalozzi in Switzerland.23 The principal of the school, Edward Sheldon, was well known throughout American educational circles for guiding the school that he founded to become a mecca for new ideas in teaching. To accomplish this goal, he had hired Hermann Krusi, the son of Pestalozzi’s first assistant in his experimental school in Yverdon, Switzerland, to teach educational methodology at the school.24 It was the purest form of Pestalozzian studies in America. Murray took the initiative in selecting a recipient by recommending Isawa Shūji, then principal of the Aichi Teacher Training School, as one of the scholarship students to America. It must have come as a surprise to Isawa, who attributed his selection by Murray to his very favorable reaction to Isawa’s first report to the Ministry on his activities at the Aichi school.25 It included the novel introduction of music education in the curriculum by Isawa, the first in the nation, considered above. To fill the second Ministry scholarship opening, Fukuzawa Yukichi, the most prominent scholar of the period whose private advice to the Ministry of Education was eagerly sought, recommended one of his outstanding students then enrolled in his private institution of higher education in Tokyo, Keio University.26 It was most likely the first time that Tanaka or Murray had heard of Takamine Hideo, a former samurai from the Aizu domain, well known as the last center of opposition to the Meiji Restoration. In fact, Takamine had been captured in the final assault on the Aizu Wakamatsu Castle by government troops in 1868 and sent to Tokyo as a prisoner to end the Boshin Civil War and launch the Meiji Restoration.27 Indicative of the personality and ambition of the young samurai, Takamine transitioned from prisoner to student, including some English teaching at the most famous private institution of higher education in Japan under Fukuzawa, where English played a prominent role in the curriculum.28 Tanaka welcomed the recommendation from Fukuzawa with the intent of appointing Takamine, several years younger than Isawa, to a senior position in the training of teachers upon his return to Japan from America. The third scholarship was awarded to a candidate who made no notable contribution to modern education. There seems to have been no particular reason for Murray and Ministry officials to assign Isawa to the Bridgewater school near Boston, Massachusetts,

2 10

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

and Takamine to the Oswego school in New York. It turned out, however, to be a decision of historical magnitude far beyond the expectations of Isawa and Takamine as well as Murray and Tanaka. A brief account of the experiences of Isawa and Takamine in America and their influence on Japanese education that followed best illustrates how Murray, who made it all possible as the American Superintendent of Education in Japan in 1874, had a profound impact on the modernization of Japanese higher education during the formative years of the Meiji Restoration. Isawa Shūji arrived on the campus of the Bridgewater State Normal School in the fall of 1875 to enroll as a regular student preparing to become a teacher in the public schools of Massachusetts. His English ability was sufficient for him to successfully pass the examination to pursue a degree in teaching. What made the choice of Bridgewater for Isawa’s study of the latest teaching methodology in America so unexpectedly providential was its location near Boston, Massachusetts. Apparently unbeknownst to Tanaka, Murray, or Isawa, America’s leading music educator, Lowell Mason, was the director of music for the public schools of Boston. He had already gained fame for his national music course designed for the Boston school system.29 Mason could not have imagined in 1875 that he was destined to become a historical figure in Japanese education who introduced Western music education to Japan in 1880 through a former samurai. Isawa’s uncommon interest in Western music came into play in a surprising manner. By chance he learned that the nearby Boston public school system was well known for having the leading public school music program in America under the supervision of Luther Whiting Mason, son of Lowell Mason. Isawa was able to arrange a meeting with Mason, who was impressed by the young Japanese with a peculiar interest in Western music. He befriended Isawa by giving him piano lessons on a weekly basis and taking him on visits to music lessons in the public schools of Boston. It was a fascinating experience for Isawa to unexpectedly become a friend of America’s leading music educator in Boston. What made the relationship between Isawa and Mason of even greater consequence was that Mason’s father, Lowell, had spent some time at the Oswego State College in New York years earlier, where he offered a course in music education to the teacher trainees at the request of a faculty member named Hermann Krusi, son of Pestalozzi’s first assistant in Switzerland. Mason’s father was drawn into the progressive Pestalozzi movement when he then published an article entitled “The Pestalozzian Music Teacher.” Lowell passed on his passion for the teachings of the famed Swiss educator to his son, who incorporated Pestalozzi’s modern principles of teaching into his music lessons in the Boston public school system.30 Ironically, Luther Mason’s experience in Boston was somewhat similar to Isawa’s experience at the Aichi teacher training school when he attempted to incorporate elements of modern teaching theory from America through David Page’s

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

211

book Theory and Practice of Teaching in his use of music to train teachers how to teach. By the time Isawa completed his course of study at Bridgewater and left for home in 1878, the foremost public school music teacher in America and the Japanese student from a samurai family had developed a relationship centered on music that would have repercussions on modern Japanese education. Meanwhile, Takamine Hideo arrived at the Oswego State Normal and Training School for teachers in Oswego, New York, in late August 1875 at the age of twenty-one. His precise arrival date was unknown by school officials, since Sid Gilmore, the New York State Superintendent of Education who made the contacts with school officials on behalf of Murray, had failed to notify the principal, Edward Sheldon, of the exact date of Takamine’s expected arrival. When Takamine showed up unexpectedly on campus, Sheldon graciously invited him to stay in his home temporarily until accommodations could be found elsewhere.31 Sheldon then approached Hermann Krusi, a faculty member he had hired as the leading proponent of Pestalozzi theory and a graduate of Johann Pestalozzi’s experimental school in Switzerland, about taking Takamine into his home, noted for its friendly environment.32 The Krusis agreed and history was made in the process. Takamine responded to the opportunity he had at Oswego in the same manner as Isawa did in Boston. He became immersed in Pestalozzi theory, as did Isawa in American music education. Noted above, Sheldon, who had founded the Oswego school, was a leading proponent in America for the progressive

Figure 7.3. Takamine Hideo. From Mizuhara Katsutoshi, Kindai Kyōin Yoosei Shi Kenkyū (Kazama Shobō, 1990), 418.

212

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

theories of education developed by Pestalozzi. It became known in America as the “Oswego movement in education,” in which Takamine became deeply involved and subsequently introduced into Japan. In the interpretation of Pestalozzi’s theories at Oswego, the role of the teacher was not confined to imparting information to the student but to awaken the senses and a spirit of inquiry. To this end pupils were encouraged to do most of the talking. They were also encouraged to draw their own conclusions and, if wrong, were led to correct them. Books were only to be used for reference. Each unit of instruction conformed to the “mental, moral, and physical development of the child.”33 For the next two years, Takamine Hideo lived in a home on a campus in America where the most progressive and radical ideas in education and teaching were the primary and somewhat controversial themes. Prominent Americans in modern teaching theories visited the Krusi home on a continual routine. Takamine met them all. Among them, James Johonnot stood out as the author of the authoritative The Principles and Practices of Teaching, which was based on the new methodology.34 Takamine attended all of the courses of Krusi and read the writings of the leading proponents of Pestalozzian theory. The relationship between Takamine and Krusi went beyond teaching methodology. The childless Krusi treated Takamine as a son. Takamine’s later letters to Krusi from Japan began with “My Dear Vater Krusi.”35 In Krusi’s memoirs he wrote that “in studying the character of this young Japanese, his earnestness for improvement, faithful disposition, and absence of frivolity, I obtained a higher idea of principles—whether proclaimed by Confucius or Buddha—which had been able to manifest themselves in action.”36 When Takamine completed his studies at the Oswego teacher training school, he had become an authority on the most modern theories of education in the West, which became available through the efforts of David Murray as senior adviser to the Ministry of Education. Isawa Shūji and Takamine Hideo returned to Japan in August of 1878 to join the Ministry of Education.37 It was Murray’s final year as Superintendent of Japanese Education. A decision about where to assign Isawa and Takamine in order to take advantage of their extraordinary experiences in America had to be made within the Ministry. Both had become the most knowledgeable Japanese authorities on modern Western teaching methodology. No data has been discovered concerning Murray’s precise role in the decision of where to place Isawa and Takamine in the Japanese educational world upon their return home. Nevertheless, Murray’s opinion would have been sought as Tanaka Fujimori’s senior adviser deeply involved in the plan to send the two to America. The assignments were appropriate. In October Isawa, at age twentyseven, was appointed principal of the prestigious Tokyo Teacher Training School, where Marion Scott had played the primary role during its first two years. Takamine, several years younger than Isawa at twenty-four, was appointed as the

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 13

assistant principal.38 The significance of the appointments can be appreciated, since by then the provincial teacher training schools set their curricula on the Tokyo model. Murray had to be pleased with the appointments. Upon the assumption of their new positions, Isawa and Takamine spent several weeks at a resort town south of Tokyo on a historical mission. They rewrote the curriculum of the Tokyo Teacher Training School based on the curricula of the Bridgewater State Normal School and the Oswego State Normal and Training School as their models.39 They wrote a letter to Hermann Krusi at Oswego reporting on their activities, signed by Isawa: “We have recently undertaken the task of revising the Course of Studies in our training school and the general plan being now made is to be submitted to the Minister of Education for his approval. When this system is practically introduced, then we Japanese can say we have such thing as Education even in this little corner of the world. This is only my view of the question, and I know not what others may think or dream of, but we shall use all our power and energy to introduce the true principle of education.”40 Among the most notable contributions to modern Japanese education by Isawa and Takamine after Murray returned to America, one stands out for each of them. Shortly after Isawa returned to Japan, he submitted a proposal to Tanaka Fujimaro recommending that the Ministry of Education invite Luther Mason from Boston to Japan to introduce modern music education into the curriculum of Japanese schools. Indicative of Tanaka’s progressive persuasions, he approved. Luther Mason, motivated by the idea of bringing modern music education to a nation recently emerging from feudalism, accepted the challenge, arriving in Tokyo in March 1880 to be welcomed by Isawa at the Tokyo Teacher Training School. He had signed a two-year contract in the service of the emperor. In an environment where Western music was virtually unknown and basic musical terminology nonexistent in the Japanese language, Mason immediately set out to organize the first course in Western music education for the Japanese school system. During his two years in Japan, an additional achievement of Mason was laying the foundation for the first school of music in Meiji Japan, the Tokyo Ongaku Gakkō, which became the preeminent Tokyo University of the Arts (Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku) of today. Through this sequence of events, Isawa became known in Japanese educational history as the progressive figure responsible for the introduction of modern music education from the West to Japan through the efforts of Mason. Takamine replaced Isawa as principal of the Tokyo Teacher Training School in 1881, when Isawa was transferred to the Ministry of Education in a senior position. Determined to firmly implant the teachings of Pestalozzi more directly into the teacher trainee program at the school, Takamine translated one of the great classics on Pestalozzian teachings, The Principles and Practices of Teaching by James Johonnot. Noted above, during Takamine’s studies at Oswego, he became friends with the distinguished author. Takamine titled Johonnot’s book

214

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

in Japanese appropriately as Kyōiku Shinron (The New Theory of Education). It served as the basic text in his courses at the Tokyo Teacher Training School.41 Through this sequence of events, Takamine became known in Japanese educational history as the founder of Pestalozzian educational thought in Japan. David Murray played a critical role in the process.

The Reform of Science Education at Kaisei Gakk Ō Before preparations for David Murray’s personal inspection of local educational conditions got under way in 1874, he was confronted with a contentious issue with far-reaching consequences unrelated to the new public system of elementary schools under the Code of Education. The future of modern science education at the highest level in Meiji Japan was at stake. Recent research sheds new light on this controversial affair and the extraordinary manner in which Murray responded to it. Because it involves a notable contribution by Murray seldom considered in the modernization of Japanese higher education exemplifying his selfless commitment to the welfare of the country, it deserves consideration in his biography. Kaisei Gakkō, the preeminent educational institution under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, provided the venue. The issue originated from a contractual dispute between Vice Minister Tanaka and a foreign professor on the faculty of Kaisei, then in the midst of teaching Western science at the highest level of education in the country. It also indirectly involved the Rutgers Scientific School, which Murray was instrumental in founding and in which he taught mathematics before taking a senior position in the Japanese Ministry of Education. The delicate nature of the dispute was exacerbated by the personalities of the individuals involved and their interconnected relationships. Tanaka Fujimaro, whose action initiated the case, was not only head of the Ministry of Education, responsible for all national institutions of education, but the government officer to whom Murray served as the senior adviser on virtually all educational matters. It was the official status of the participants as well as the venue of the case that drew Murray directly into Tanaka’s dispute with the foreign professor who happened to be William Griffis, Murray’s former student. To review the background of the so-called Griffis affair in late December 1871, according to Griffis, he was invited to Tokyo from a teaching position at the Echizen domain school in central Japan by Guido Verbeck. At that time Verbeck was head of the nation’s highest educational institution, Nankō, to become Kaisei Gakkō, and adviser to the Ministry of Education. Murray was still on the faculty of Rutgers College when Verbeck’s letter of invitation from Nankō reached Griffis:

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 15

We are about to begin, besides but connected with the present school, a polytechnic school, and as we should like to begin as soon as possible, the Minister of Education would like to have you come here as one of the Professors of Nat Phil and Chemistry. This now depends on the question whether you would accept the proposition or not. Your terms would of course be the same here as there. . . . We have a good collection of instruments & are expecting more ere long. . . . How do you like it? Do you ask my advice? I say, come by all means.42

When Verbeck made this offer to Griffis to come to Tokyo to teach at a polytechnic school that had yet to be opened, “besides but connected with the present school”—that is, Nankō—he was serving that institution under the title of head teacher. He had been given virtually unrestricted authority by the government from 1870 to reform the school, which had deteriorated markedly during the crisis of the 1868 Boshin Civil War, having undergone various structural changes. He was in the midst of replacing the Japanese and foreign faculty that had been quickly and haphazardly selected to keep the institution in operation in the aftermath of the change of governments. Few, if any, of the faculty had qualifications for teaching and none at a higher level. Why the Ministry was planning to open a polytechnic school during this complete overhaul of the Nankō faculty remains unclear. Griffis accepted the offer, eager to leave the hinterlands of Japan for the capital city, and arrived in Tokyo in early February 1872. He encountered a delay in the opening of the proposed polytechnic school. As a consequence, he reported that he “had been kept idle for months,”43 although continuing to receive his salary from the Ministry. Finally, upon learning that plans to launch a new polytechnic school by the Ministry of Education had been dropped, he wrote in a letter that he “volunteered to teach in Nanko as professor of chemistry and physics from the first day of the eighth month” in the year of 1872.44 Although Verbeck was not familiar with modern Western science, having been isolated in feudal Tokugawa Japan since 1859 at the remote town of Nagasaki, moving to Tokyo in 1869, he was confident that a graduate of the Rutgers Scientific School in America was well qualified for the assignment. As head teacher, Verbeck welcomed Griffis to the faculty of the prestigious national institution as another step in its reformation and modernization. Griffis was delighted to become a part of the transformation of the school. Through this sequence of events, Griffis found himself in an awesome position. He had become responsible for essentially introducing modern science at the premier institution of higher education in Meiji Japan. In the history of modern Japanese education, Griffis had truly become an educational pioneer, the first from Rutgers College, a distinction that he fully recognized and cherished.

2 16

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Little is known about the science program established at Nankō by Griffis in mid-1872. What is certain is that it was based on what he had learned at the Rutgers Scientific School under the only two faculty members, George Cook, professor of chemistry, and David Murray, professor of mathematics. Using elementary textbooks in science from America, it had to be an unprecedented challenge to lay the foundation in chemistry and physics to young men mostly from domain schools of feudal Japan brought up in Confucian studies, no matter how eager they were to learn. Griffis gave some indication of the restrictions he faced when he complained to Vice Minister Tanaka that he had been “patiently teaching chemistry for 18 months with very little apparatus.”45 In retrospect, Griffis had no choice but to replicate the science he learned at Rutgers College to the maximum extent possible at Nankō. The provocation of the controversy between Tanaka and Griffis originated from a difference in the interpretation of the length of Griffis’s original employment contract at Nankō.46 In a letter of July 15, 1873, only two weeks after David and Martha Murray arrived at Yokohama, Tanaka notified Griffis that his contract with the Ministry would not be renewed after January 5, 1874, exactly two years after he left his former position in rural Japan for Tokyo to teach at a polytechnic school yet to be opened. Whether Tanaka consulted with Murray about the terms of Griffis’s contract during Murray’s first two weeks in office when he traveled from Yokohama to the Ministry sporadically has never been discovered. It’s doubtful. Griffis was displeased by Tanaka’s letter, since his understanding of the terms of the end of his contract, which officially ended on January 5, 1874,47 differed from Tanaka’s. Griffis had expected to remain in his position at Nankō, which he felt was being successfully pursued in the long-range interest of modern science in Japan, for two years from the date when he began teaching at Nankō in July 1872. Many of his students vouched for him in a letter of support.48 Unfortunately for him, Guido Verbeck, who originally hired Griffis for the post, had already departed for Europe on leave with the understanding that he was resigning from the institution. Griffis, however, attributed Tanaka’s intransigency concerning his contract as a personal retaliation in response to Griffis’s central role in vociferously opposing the Ministry’s recent decision to replace Sunday holidays for foreign teachers with holidays scheduled every fifth day of the month. To a devout Christian like Griffis, this was unacceptable. He organized a movement among the foreign faculty against the Ministry’s decision. Griffis surmised that the Sunday teaching decision by the Ministry was a veiled form of punishment stemming from the actions of the American teachers’ celebration two weeks earlier on July 4, American Independence Day, with fireworks against the warning of local Japanese officials’ concern of the event as a fire hazard.49

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 17

A somewhat irascible figure, Griffis felt betrayed by Tanaka’s decision, which in effect notified him that in six months, his service to Japan would come to an end in spite of his dedication as an educational pioneer. He launched an intense campaign of a rather vitriolic nature against Tanaka, characterizing the Vice Minister of Education as “a petty underling” and as “the typical Japanese politician and spoilsman, about as closely resembling the American ‘boss’ as any creature ever met with.”50 As the contentious letters between Griffis and Tanaka continued during the fall of 1873, Griffis turned to acquaintances in powerful positions, including the American Minister to Japan and Iwakura Tomomi, a ranking government official, to intervene on his behalf. None did so.51 In the midst of the dispute, the Ministry of Education made a decision that was difficult to understand. In Warren Clark’s account in his Life and Adventure in Japan, he wrote, “At the close of the second year at Shidz-u-o-ka an official order came calling me to the Imperial College in Tokyo.”52 As the second educational pioneer to Japan from Rutgers College teaching science at a school for the defeated Tokugawa samurai youth south of Tokyo, he was called to Tokyo to join Griffis in teaching modern science at Kaisei Gakkō. Since this appointment came in the midst of the Ministry of Education’s dispute with Griffis, it may have been intended to have Clark replace Griffis. It was a smooth transition for Clark. Like Griffis, he had been trained in science at the Rutgers Scientific School under Professor Cook. The appointment of the second graduate from the Rutgers Scientific School further reinforced the influence of the college in the introduction of Western science to Japan at the highest level of education. The issue reached a decisive stage when Tanaka then appointed Hatakeyama Yoshinari to the presidency of Kaisei Gakkō in December 1873—after the institutional name change from Nankō was made—succeeding Verbeck, who had resigned. Hatakeyama had returned to Japan with the Iwakura Embassy in September, devoting much time translating the voluminous reports from the Embassy’s near two-year study of Western societies. Griffis, of course, was delighted with the appointment, since the two were close friends from their days together at the Rutgers Scientific School. He was emboldened in his efforts to prolong his tenure on the Kaisei faculty now that his dear friend Hatakeyama had become president of the institution where Griffis had been teaching. Clark was also delighted to learn that Hatakeyama had become president of the prestigious school where he had just been assigned to teach modern science. The first meeting in Japan between the two occurred when Clark appeared unannounced at the office of the president, Hatakeyama. It was indicative of their relationship that had been formed at Rutgers College among the celebrated class of 1868:

2 18

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

The officials sat around in dignified silence when the door opened and the new Director stepped in. He was greeted by my attendants and others with profound bows; and as I approached unobserved behind, and spoke his familiar name, he turned about with the same joyous bound as of yore, grasping my hands with the grip of bygone days, and burst forth with such a gleeful warmth of welcome as made the solemn officials look at one another with mingled awe and wonder that such a boisterous breach of etiquette should come from one who usually was so dignified and calm. We cared little what they thought, however, and enjoyed ourselves for some time as hilariously as we pleased.53

This scene that took place in Hatakeyama’s presidential office of Kaisei Gakkō at the end of 1873 epitomizes the depth of affection and camaraderie between the American and Japanese students in David Murray’s celebrated class of 1868 at the Rutgers Scientific School that carried over to Japan five years later. It also illustrates how difficult it had become for David Murray to find a solution to the controversy between Griffis and the Ministry of Education that he had to become familiar with by that time. Further complicating the interrelationships among those involved was the working relationship between Murray and Hatakeyama, who was concurrently assigned as Murray’s trusted assistant at the Ministry of Education. Murray not only welcomed Hatekayama’s appointment to head Kaisei Gakkō; he may have originated the idea in his advisory role to Tanaka. During the dispute that continued between Griffis and Tanaka throughout the autumn of 1873, there is no record of Murray’s direct involvement or of his knowledge that it was even taking place. However, with Murray serving as the senior adviser to Tanaka from his arrival in Japan on June 30, 1873, two weeks before the initial letter from Tanaka to Griffis setting the controversy off, and his personal relationship with Griffis as his student at Rutgers College, it’s unimaginable that he had no knowledge of the bitter disagreement between his two personal friends. Precisely how and when Murray was first made aware of the deteriorating relationship between Tanaka and Griffis may never be discovered, but some assertions can be made. For example, when David and Martha Murray moved from a hotel in Yokohama to Tokyo upon completion of their house on September 2, 1873, a little over two weeks after Tanaka wrote the first controversial letter to Griffis, they spent the first night at his home before their furniture arrived from Yokohama. With the Murrays visiting Griffis precisely at the time when Griffis was searching for backing from influential officials to support his case against Tanaka’s position, it would seem inconceivable that he would not have sought the help of his former professor at Rutgers, the new senior adviser to Tanaka Fujimaro no less, in his active campaign to prolong his coveted tenure at Kaisei. It would also be inconceivable that Tanaka would not have eventually

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 19

consulted with his senior and trusted American adviser about how to deal with Griffis and his strident demands. As far as can be determined, Murray never wrote about the controversy except in a final official letter to Griffis, bringing it to an end. Nevertheless, relevant research has revealed that Murray played a pivotal role in bringing the controversy to a close in 1874 and in the process set a new direction of great consequence for modern science at Japan’s highest educational institution. It all hinged on the personal and professional relationship between Murray and Hatakeyama that developed over the eight years since they first met when the Japanese student enrolled in the American professor’s mathematics class at the Rutgers Scientific School in 1868. A solution emerged when, fortuitously, the controversy between Griffis and Tanaka became entangled in the reformation of the science curriculum. In the annual report of the school for 1874, the challenges of the new president were clarified: “The organization of the school was totally transformed in 1874. Before that, Mr. Verbeck, the head teacher [kyōtō] serving as director, supervised foreign teachers as well as teaching methods. From that year the president [gakkōchō] became responsible for the employment of the foreign faculty as well as managing their teaching.”54 Hatakeyama, who had become the first head of the prestigious school under the title of president (gakkōchō), in contrast to Guido Verbeck’s title of head teacher, became concerned about the standards of the academic program, particularly in science education. Murray recognized this when he wrote that when Hatakeyama was appointed director of the University of Tokyo (Kaisei Gakkō), “with the greatest earnestness and with consummate tact and judgment he entered upon the work of reorganizing and developing the institution.”55 Murray did not reveal his own role in that endeavor. However, since his position at the Ministry of Education included responsibility for selection and hiring foreign teachers for national institutions, sometime during the end of 1873 and the beginning of 1874 as Hatakeyama assumed the new title of president of Kaisei Gakkō, he and Murray undertook a major effort to reform the science department at the nation’s premier institution. Griffis was apparently unaware of it. On December 22 Murray wrote to Lucy that although Hatakeyama “has been assigned to take charge of the Imperial College, he still remains with me as my principal aid.”56 This was evidence that the two were working more closely together than ever before without revealing that they were facing a critical decision for the future of science at the “Imperial College” with international repercussions. In retrospect, the primary concern of Murray and Hatakeyama as revealed many years later were the standards of modern science at Kaisei Gakkō under the responsibility of William Griffis and, later, Warren Clark. In particular,

220

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

chemistry courses, Griffis’s specialty, were the focus of their concern. That, in turn, indirectly brought into question the standards of science education at the Rutgers Scientific School, where both Griffis and Clark received their science training under professors George Cook and David Murray. In other words, the Griffis affair brought before Murray the sensitive issue of whether the standards of science education at the Rutgers Scientific School within Rutgers College that he and Cook founded as the land-grant college of New Jersey were appropriate as a model for modern science education at Japan’s premier national college. An intriguing question cannot be definitively answered: Which of the two, Hatakeyama or Murray, took the initiative in arriving at that advanced level of concern? Circumstances would point to Hatakeyama, who studied modern science at University College London under one of the leading scientists in the world, Alexander Williamson, for two years, followed by study at the Rutgers Scientific School for three years. He was in a knowledgeable position to judge the science standards under Griffis at Kaisei Gakkō. Of utmost significance, he was also able to evaluate and compare the standards of science education at the University College London in England and the Rutgers Scientific School in America as a former student at both institutions. Murray would have had to rely on Hatakeyama for this international perspective. A comparison of the standards of chemistry at the two institutions depended to a great extent on the standards of the two professors of chemistry in charge—that is, Professor Williamson at London and Professor Cook at Rutgers. For example, an indication of Williamson’s level of expertise and interests, according to his biographer, involved the “widespread skepticism regarding the atomic theory” within the Western academic world when Hatakeyama studied under Williamson, which became a prominent issue for the distinguished professor. Williamson gave a lecture asserting the truth of the atomic theory that received widespread attention when it was carried in the journal of the Chemical Society of Britain.57 In contrast, when Hatakeyama, Griffis, and Clark studied chemistry at Rutgers Scientific School under Cook in 1868, their professor was deeply concerned with the applicability of chemistry to agriculture.58 His official title, professor of chemistry and of the theory and practice of agriculture, “and with manifold duties as State Geologist and Director of the College Farm,” clarified the breadth of Cook’s responsibilities well beyond chemistry.59 Murray was also well aware of Cook’s primary interest and concern with geographical surveys as the chief surveyor of the state of New Jersey that kept him away from campus for long periods conducting the surveys. In addition, due to a lack of funds at Rutgers College when the Scientific School was opened, the science laboratory was poorly equipped.60 In other words, both Murray and Hatakeyama knew of the deficiencies and shortcomings of chemistry education at the Rutgers Scientific School when Griffis and Clark

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

221

received their training in chemistry under Cook. Hatakeyama, however, could view it from a comparative perspective with University College London. What began as a dispute over the interpretation of William Griffis’s contractual terms at Kaisei Gakkō with Tanaka Fujimaro at the Ministry of Education turned into a historic effort to reorient the direction of modern science in Japan from that being pursued under Griffis. This inevitably brought before Murray a potentially sensitive issue that he could not have imagined when he joined the Ministry several months earlier: Were the standards of science set by Griffis at Kaisei Gakkō in 1872, and his qualifications as professor of science as a graduate of the Rutgers Scientific School, appropriate for the future of Japan in the reforms being carried out by Hatakeyama and Murray? The immediate problem for Hatakeyama and Murray in the reform of science education at Kaisei Gakkō was to find a replacement for Griffis before his term was up by someone eminently qualified to introduce in Japan the most advanced standards in science in the Western world. Working closely together in their official capacities, Hatakeyama and Murray made a decision of historical consequence for the future of science education at the preeminent national school in the nation. During this period, Hatakeyama was for some unexplained reason staying at the home of the Murrays, where the two may have worked out the details in the Griffis case, indicative of the very close relationship they had developed. On January 3 Mrs. Murray, still using the name Hatakeyama chose when he illegally left Japan for England in 1865, wrote that “Soogiura has been staying here. It has been a great pleasure to me to find congenial persons to whom we are really attached. He is a first-rate fellow besides being very handsome and a thorough gentleman in character and manners.”61 Sometime during the month of January 1874, Murray and Hatakeyama came to the fateful decision to make a formal proposal, approved by Tanaka Fujimaro, to Alexander Williamson, still in position as professor of chemistry at University College London. It was discovered in a note found years later in the files of Professor Williamson’s wife, which sheds new light on the controversy between Griffis and Tanaka. Its importance as the source of the strategic role that Murray played in the reform of the science curriculum at Kaisei Gakkō should not be overlooked. Mrs. Williamson’s diary of February 20, 1874, records that “Mr. David Murray of the Ed. Dept, Tokio, wrote asking A [Alexander] to recommend and send to Japan a Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Technology [Engineering].”62 It’s reasonable to assume that Murray’s knowledge of Williamson’s impeccable academic credentials and the standards of his science program at the prestigious University College London, to become the University of London, was gained through Hatakeyama’s descriptions based on his personal experience as Williamson’s student in the mid-1860s. Consequently, the Japanese Ministry

222

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

of Education’s official request, signed by Murray, may have originated from Hatakeyama, whose goal was a science department for Kaisei Gakkō under his presidency patterned after the University College London. It would necessarily replace the then current science program at Kaisei Gakkō patterned after the Rutgers Scientific School by Griffis and Clark. In the succession of events, Murray revealed the depth of his confidence in his closest associate and dearest Japanese friend, Hatakeyama, to place his full support behind a most prophetic recommendation to reform science education at Kaisei Gakkō. This was in spite of the fact that it would necessarily replace both of his former students from Rutgers College, Griffis and Clark, and end their service in Japan. The conclusion can be made that Murray and Hatakeyama had become convinced that Griffis was not specialized in modern science sufficient for a national university in Japan. It was one of his most important decisions, however painful that may have been for Murray, in the modernization of Japanese science education in the service of the emperor. It was indicative of Murray’s commitment to the future well-being of Japan. Murray’s letter to Professor Williamson in 1874 revealed another aspect of the reform of the curriculum at Kaisei Gakkō that concerned Murray and Tanaka. From the cryptic note in Mrs. Wilkinson’s journal, we learn that Murray went beyond a single appeal for a British professor of chemistry to replace Griffis and Clark that deserves further analysis. The addition of an official request under Murray’s name from the Japanese Ministry of Education for a British professor of technology (engineering) for Kaisei Gakkō has great historical significance. There was no one on the Kaisei faculty qualified to introduce modern engineering. Murray’s letter shows that the underlying motive for contacting Professor Williamson was not only to find a replacement for Griffis in basic science. Rather, it illustrates that Murray and Hatakeyama had taken a broad perspective in reforming the science and technology curriculum of the nation’s most advanced school under the Ministry of Education. In other words, Murray’s letter to Williamson was evidence that the ultimate purpose of the Ministry’s request was not just to replace Griffis but also to raise the standards of science in general in Japan to that on a par with major Western countries. The termination of Griffis’s employment contract that initiated the affair was a necessary by-product of that goal. The response from Professor Williamson to Murray’s letter was swift and positive. In one of the great moments in the history of science education in Japan, Professor Williamson recommended Robert William Atkinson for the position as professor of chemistry at Kaisei Gakkō. Atkinson received his advanced education first at University College London under Professor Williamson and then studied at the Royal College of Chemistry and the Royal School of Mines before becoming Williamson’s assistant, a position he held before leaving for Japan. He

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 23

had also been elected a fellow of the British Chemical Society before his appointment to Kaisei Gakkō.63 According to a modern study of the period, Professor Atkinson, who arrived in Japan in September 1874, established the first chemical department at the Kaisei Gakkō “that proved influential in the development of higher education of science and technology in Japan.”64 Essential to the program was a laboratory in analytical chemistry patterned after Professor Williamson’s laboratory at the University College London, where Atkinson had once been an assistant. At the same time, Professor Williamson was instrumental in arranging for Robert Henry Smith, a graduate from his institution, to become professor of engineering at Kaisei Gakkō. As Smith recalled, “In 1874 I was selected by Professor Williamson, of University College London, on behalf of the Japanese government, for the post of Professor of Civil and Mechanical Engineering in the Imperial College in Tokyo, Japan.” As the first professor of engineering, Smith was responsible for the organization of the entire Engineering Department at the institution. According to Smith, it was “to the great satisfaction of the Principal, Yoshinari Hatakeyama.”65 As a direct result of David Murray’s letter to Alexander Williamson, a plan was put in place to reorient science education at Kaisei Gakkō from the Rutgers Scientific School model to the University College London model. That also brought the contractual dispute between Tanaka Fujimaro and William Griffis to an end. Due to a delay in the arrival of Professor Atkinson from London until September 1874, Hatakeyama proposed that Griffis’s contract be extended by six months to July 1874—in essence, to fill in during the interval.66 Griffis begrudgingly accepted the terms although they fell short of his proposed date of October as a compromise.67 The unexpected call by the Ministry of Education to Clark to come to Tokyo to join the faculty of science at this very time may have also been made to fill the gap before Professor Smith arrived from London. It’s unlikely that Murray ever revealed to Griffis his precise role in replacing him with a distinguished British scholar in chemistry. For the first time, however, Murray officially recognized that he was aware of the contentious “issue” between Griffis and the Ministry from a note to Griffis of January 24, 1874, in a letter with Department of Education letterhead. By this time Murray was passing letters to and from Griffis to Tanaka and other Ministry officials. He began by reporting to Griffis the reaction of those Ministry officials, primarily Vice Minister Tanaka, to the final understanding that Griffis’s service to the emperor would terminate in six months: “They also expressed their satisfaction at this method of terminating the pending question, and that they would regard all past differences as though they had not been. Allow me also to express the pleasure I feel in seeing the matters at issue are settled in an honorable and satisfactory matter, and on which must be regarded as highly complimentary to you, and I must add creditable to the Japanese officials.”68

224

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Griffis, the first Rutgers educational pioneer to Japan, made judicious use of his last six months in Japan in 1874. He began writing the manuscript for his most famous book on Japan, entitled The Mikado’s Empire. Although he was one of the very first foreigners to introduce Western science in Japan, initially at the rural Echizen school for young samurai and then at the most prestigious Kaisei Gakkō college in Tokyo, he would return to America to become the most prolific Western author on Japan. Griffis left Japan on July 18, 1874. Murray sent him a note of appreciation from the Superintendent of Education the day before his departure, bringing the “Griffis affair” to an official ending: “As you are about to leave the service of the Japanese government, and return to the United States, I desire to testify to you in the most emphatic manner of the high estimation in which I hold your services. For more than three years you have been a professor of Chemistry in the . . . National University at this place. The faithfulness with which you have performed your duties, and the success which has characterized your instruction must be your commendation.”69

The Social Life of the Murrays in 1874 As the year 1874 opened for the Murrays, their social life in Tokyo, already well under way during their first six months in Japan, took on a fascinating character. On January 3 Martha reveals in a letter to cousin Lucy how they had come to enjoy their life in the capital city in comparison to Yokohama, where they lived for two months before moving to Tokyo, although their new home in the Hongō district was in the suburbs at that time. She summed up their situation in quaint terms: “Even though we live so far from others and miss all the Yokohama gaieties, we much prefer Yedo to Yokohama—that city is too foreign to be pleasant. If we live in Japan it is much more interesting to be among the natives—we like becoming acquainted with the Japanese themselves—especially as we are thrown with those holding high rank and this we could not do in Yokohama—as all the best Japs live in Tokei [Tokyo].” Through the many letters home, primarily from Martha to Lucy, a rare opportunity was provided to learn about the social activities of the governing elite in the early Meiji era from an inside perspective. After nearly three hundred years of feudalism under the Tokugawa regime, the Murrays opened their home in Tokyo to their Japanese friends and colleagues in prestigious positions in a manner similar to their lifestyle in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Martha proved to be a warm and gracious host to many distinguished Japanese guests. Although it was the first time for many of the Japanese officials and their wives to enter a Western-style home, they greatly appreciated the opportunity to experience a home environment so different from their own. The Murrays had the opportunity to also visit the homes of the senior leaders of the country,

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 25

which was greatly appreciated and enjoyed by the Murrays. The level of sophistication of those Japanese officials with whom the Murrays became socially acquainted and their appreciation of the kindnesses extended to them by the Murrays proved to be one of the major reasons for the American couple to thoroughly enjoy life in a society so different from their own. The reaction of the Japanese officials, virtually all educated as samurai warriors in feudal Japan, to the Murrays’ social affairs also revealed a level of sophistication not usually associated with a warrior class. As the year opened, the Murrays had an opportunity to flavor the old Japan when the entire Katsu Kaishū family of twelve paid a visit to the Murray home bearing a gift of eggs, which must have been a curiosity. The visit may have been in return for hosting David when he paid a visit to the Katsu home to report on their son’s experiences at Rutgers College as one of his students. It illustrated how the Murrays treated Japanese guests unaccustomed to foreigners and foreign manners by making the Katsu family feel at home and enjoying their reaction themselves. In addition, it indirectly revealed that cousin Lucy’s mother had personally gotten to know son Katz well enough in New Brunswick that, according to Martha’s letter, she would have enjoyed meeting his mother: Tell your mother I wish she could have met Mrs. Katz and family here last Monday. Twelve of the family came. Mrs. Katz and the married daughter have black teeth. This was a purely Japanese family and the first time they had ever visited foreigners. Soogiwoora was here to interpret. They enjoyed seeing how we entertain and got along quite nicely with spoons and forks—although the first time they had ever used any. After lunch they went all around the house and seemed so interested in all our furniture that it was a pleasure to see them. I showed them my bonnet and red camels hair shawl and how we wear them. Oh how I wish you could have seen them. They were exceedingly lady-like and polite—altogether we had a very funny time. They stayed three hours and are going to give us a Japan entertainment. They brought a beautiful piece of white silk and a large box of eggs.70

The social life of the Murrays in Tokyo was centered on the personal relationship with Tanaka Fujimaro and his wife, Suma. It would prove to be one of the most fascinating as well as enjoyable experiences the Murrays had during their tenure in Japan. In a letter from Martha to Lucy on January 3, she wrote that “David called at the Tanakas and as he was out, his pretty little wife (who I wrote came to our reception) received him and Soogiura [Hatakeyama] and entertained them agreeably treating them to coffee.” This may have been a post–New Year’s Day visit intended by Murray as a courtesy gesture to the head of the Ministry of Education. It was also indicative of the social relationship developing between the Murrays and the Tanakas that

226

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

deserves consideration, since it played a unique role in the lives of both families. It represents one of the great human interest episodes from Meiji Japan between two unlikely couples from different worlds. It all began in earnest in late January 1874, when, according to Mrs. Murray, Last Monday we were invited by Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka to dine very socially with them. As they cannot speak English we were wondering where the sociability was to come in. However we left home about one and having a drive of about 8 miles reached there about 2:30. They have lately moved into what they consider a foreign house. As we did not have dinner until five o’clock we had a long time to be sociable, and really we enjoyed it. They had two gentlemen to interpret, both of whom we knew very well—(one was Soogiura) and Mrs. Tanaka is very pretty and lively and we get along very well. They gave us an elegant dinner—foreign style—Mrs. Tanaka presided at the head of the table. After dinner their little boy about four years old came in and bowed and shook our hands—he had evidently been trained to do this. He was dressed in a little foreign suit of black velvet. But Mrs. T I am happy to say retains her native costume.71

Mrs. Tanaka recalled that evening as revealed in a biography published many years later after her death. It seems that her husband had planned their new house from what he had seen during his trip to the West with the Iwakura Embassy, since there were no architects in Japan familiar with modern Westernstyle homes. The Murrays may have been the first guests invited to the Tanaka’s new residence. Tanaka had ordered the Western food described by Mrs. Murray as an “elegant dinner” from a nearby restaurant.72 The relationship between Tanaka and his wife and his attitude toward his American adviser and his wife both at the Ministry and in their social relations reveal the unique character of the man worthy of description. He was brought up in a lower-level samurai family in the Owari clan in the Nagoya area of central Japan during the last period of Tokugawa feudal government. Trained as a warrior in the Bushido tradition with its concern for Confucian classics, Tanaka lived the life of an undistinguished samurai struggling to exist. He had little contact with modern ideas and styles then slowly penetrating the social life in the distant capital of Edo, later to become Tokyo. In an antiforeign incident, he led a small group of young samurai in an attack on a local store that introduced Western goods, destroying many with their trusty samurai swords.73 Tanaka also revealed a progressive side to him that may have been motivated by his early encounter with his future wife, who proved to be a remarkable woman in her own way. During the feudal age of Tokugawa Japan, samurai frequented teahouses where geisha provided entertainment. Tanaka, during the period of unrest before the Meiji Restoration, met Suma at a teahouse near Nagoya, where

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 27

she was employed as a geisha. She had been brought up in the family of a lowerclass craftsman who made items for the entertainment industry such as combs, hair accessories, dolls, and handbags. It was a sacrifice financially for the family to arrange for the daughter to learn the art of the geisha, which included dance, tea ceremony, and playing the shamisen stringed instrument. It was also understandable for the father to arrange for his daughter to undergo the training of a geisha during the feudal period in Japan, when formal education for girls was uncommon. Consequently, Suma, destined to become the wife of the head of the Japanese Ministry of Education, ironically had no formal schooling as a child other than that of a geisha.74 Disregarding the strict social divisions between the ruling samurai class and commoners, Fujimaro and Suma developed a relationship during the feudal Tokugawa era based on love and respect that would last a lifetime well into the Meiji era. Following the Meiji Restoration overthrowing the Tokugawa regime in 1868, Tanaka was sent to Tokyo by his local clan, where he found a position with the newly organized Ministry of Education, taking his geisha friend with him. From then on, his progression from a recruit at the Ministry to his assumption of control of it five years later when David Murray joined him as his principal adviser is not only mysterious; it is baffling. Within a year of entering the newly established Ministry of Education, Tanaka was unexpectedly chosen by senior officials to represent the Ministry in the Iwakura Embassy to the West in late December 1871, the topic of chapter 4. With limited experience, no foreign-language skills, and no background in the field of education, the appointment defies reason. Moreover, Tanaka’s assignment when he left Japan with the Iwakura Embassy was, upon returning home, to assume responsibility for implementing the nation’s first modern school system as head of the Ministry of Education. It was to be based on the Code of Education, the Gakusei, and revised according to what he observed while visiting schools throughout the West for two years. The factors underlying Tanaka’s assignment of such historical magnitude have yet to surface. The historical influences that shaped his progressive nature and inclinations have also not been discovered. There are few other figures in modern Japan with such a responsible assignment who emerged from such a nondescript background. The close relationship that developed between Tanaka and Murray at the Ministry of Education blossomed into a unique social relationship in 1874 that included their wives. Further, the bond between the wives would prove to be as uncommon as that between their husbands. The bond of friendship and mutual respect between the Murrays and the Tanakas in Tokyo in the 1870s was unusual from the perspective of how the Japanese couple brought up in feudal Japan fit so comfortably into the modern era. This took place not only within Japan but in America, where the Tanakas spent six months during the 1876 centennial of American independence, the topic

228

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Figures 7.4 and 7.5. Tanaka Fujimaro and his wife, Suma.

of the following chapter. There were several particularly extraordinary aspects involved. Tanaka, as Vice Minister of Education responsible for implementing the Code of Education, the first public school system to provide schools for all children, was devoted to a woman with no formal schooling. In one sense the code was designed in part for females like Mrs. Tanaka who had no opportunity to attend any type of public schooling as a child during the feudal period. Second, as the wife of the head of the Ministry of Education, Suma unexpectedly found herself involved in a warm relationship with a distinguished foreign couple. Contrary to expectations, Mrs. Tanaka not only thrived on the relationship with the Murrays, she contributed positively to it. She quickly earned the respect and admiration of her new American friends, whose lives were made much more enjoyable in a foreign land because of her kindness toward them. It is unlikely that the Murrays ever learned that Suma had been trained as a geisha. A development that cemented the bond between the Murrays and the Tanakas took place in March of 1874, apparently through an arrangement worked out between the husbands. Martha Murray described it in a curious way in a letter to cousin Lucy: Tomorrow we are expecting my little Jap lady friend Mrs. Tanaka to come to stay with us—is not this a funny idea? But she is very anxious to learn foreign customs and manners and her husband has been asking David how she could become initiated. . . . She is very pretty and bright and I have no doubt that I shall have some very funny times with her. Her husband and interpreter are

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

2 29

coming with her tomorrow to dine and then she is to be left. We will dine out together and this will produce quite a new sensation to see a Jap and a foreign lady together.75

Mrs. Tanaka recalled years later in her memoirs that for several months, she moved in with the Murrays to help Martha learn Japanese customs while she learned about American customs. On the weekends Mrs. Tanaka returned home, where she was bringing up a son. Among the activities that the two women enjoyed together were the visits to famous Tokyo sightseeing areas such as Ueno. They traveled there by horse and buggy from the Murray home.76 Many years later, Tanaka’s son, who the Murrays met during their first dinner at the Tanaka home, fondly recalled the bond of friendship that developed between the Murrays and the Tanakas during his childhood. Because Mrs. Tanaka’s English ability was limited, he remembered she was often unable to adequately respond to Mrs. Murray’s questions.77 After two weeks at the Murray home by Mrs. Tanaka, Martha wrote home about how the relationship was going: This week has been devoted principally to Mrs. Tanaka who is visiting us. She comes for three or four days each week. We are getting along very pleasantly together. She is very intelligent and if a specimen of the generality of the ladies, speaks very well for their education and intelligence, for the more we see of her, the more we like her. We make each other understand quite well. We go out dining every day, when pleasant—she in Jap costume, and together we are, I suppose, very much admired from the constant looks of wonder of which we are greeted. Yesterday we visited a temple together, and we go shopping. I have to be jolly with Mrs. Tanaka, and we really do have some funny times together.78

Mrs. Tanaka, as described in her biography, revealed an episode in their daily lives that unfolded in her relationship with Martha, who began the custom of taking the Murray carriage to the Ministry of Education to pick up her husband at the end of the day. Apparently David rode to work on horseback in the morning, with the horse tied to the carriage for the trip home. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Tanaka began taking their carriage to the Ministry to pick up her husband. The wives waited together in the reception room for the husbands to finish the business of the day. The two carriages then headed home together for the Hongō district. The practice provoked some curiosity among government circles as well as the local press, criticizing it as rude for women to wait at a government office for their husbands.79 It was also not customary for ranking government officials to ride through the streets in a carriage with their wives. Mrs. Murray wrote home that Tanaka was “the first Japanese gentleman here who is taking his wife out in society and driving about with her just as foreigners do.”80

230

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Another example of their activities together impressed Mrs. Murray during the spring cherry blossom season of 1874. The Tanakas arranged for the Murrays to join them to view the blossoms in full bloom at Mukōjima, a historical area of Tokyo renowned to this day for venerable Buddhist temples as well as cherry blossoms. Those who have visited the area may recall with fondness the scene as described by Mrs. Murray in the 1870s: “Mukojima is on the other side of the large river. . . . The views from the bridges crossing this river are perfectly lovely—the name of the river is Sumida-gawa. Where we crossed the bank on one side was white with the cherry trees in full bloom. After crossing we drove along the side of the river and soon found ourselves on a high bank—the road leading under a complete arbor formed by the cherry trees on each side and these in full bloom.”81 The relationship between the Murrays and the Tanakas not only exemplifies the magnitude and generosity of both David and Martha Murray but also reveals the depth of their respect and admiration for the Japanese with whom they had been brought into contact in their daily lives both at home and at the Ministry of Education. Likewise, the relationship between these two couples exhibited the respect that the former samurai and his wife had for the American couple living nearby them in Hongō, Tokyo. It was the mutual trust and admiration that was fostered between the two families in their social relationships that greatly contributed to the effectiveness of Murray as Tanaka’s senior adviser at the Ministry. There was another government official of particular note with whom Murray developed a social as well as working relationship. Kido Takayoshi was one of the most powerful officials in the Meiji government. He was a key figure in the employment of Murray in America in 1872–1873 as a ranking member of the Iwakura Embassy. Kido was officially appointed Minister of Education in 1874. On January 25, he wrote in his memoirs, “At 10 this morning I went to the Imperial Court and the Emperor personally invested me with the additional office of Minister of Education. In this time of turmoil I was unable to stick to my resolve to withdraw from government service, and in the end accepted the orders. I obtained Imperial sanction to be excused from daily attendance at my post.”82 Even though the Ministry of Education officially had a Minister, conditions at the Ministry did not change. Tanaka continued as the senior officer in charge, as he had from the beginning of his tenure, with the title of Vice Minister. Kido continued his demanding duties in the government. Of considerable interest, however, was the comment Mrs. Murray wrote in a letter to her cousin one week after Kido’s appointment: “Today we have been to visit Mr. Kido who has lately been made Minister of Education. There were three Japanese ladies present—Mrs. Kido, Mrs. Tanaka, and Mrs. Nomura.”83 Two weeks later Kido noted in his diary that “I went to Murray’s house by carriage. Assistant Minister Tanaka and Sugiura Kōzō [Hatakeyama] were present.”84

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

23 1

The fact that the new Minister of Education hosted the Murrays at his home and then visited the Murrays at their home along with the Vice Minister illustrated the unique social relationship that Murray developed not only with senior educational officials but with the most powerful political leaders of the country. In addition, the presence of Sugiura Kōzō, the fictitious name that Hatakeyama chose when he illegally left Japan in 1865 for London and was curiously still used by Kido, once again illustrated the role he played in Murray’s life in Japan as his translator with powerful Japanese statesmen. The relationship with the Kidos continued, which the Murrays enjoyed. Sometime later David wrote to a relative, Mr. and Mrs. Kido dined with us last night and we had a very nice time. He is one of the chief advisors and actors in the new movements and spoke quite freely about them. They are establishing a sort of Senate or “Body of Notables” which is to have some share in making the laws. They are cautious and do not wish to advance too fast. Mrs. Kido is a bright little woman who cannot speak English but who gets along without any embarrassment. A nephew who spent four or five years in America and speaks English quite well came with them.85

Murray’s reference to Mrs. Kido’s lack of embarrassment over her deficiencies in English is curious, since both Dr. and Mrs. Murray made little effort to learn Japanese while living in Japan. David and Martha ingratiated themselves with ranking members of government. They also entertained David’s colleagues from the Ministry of Education as well—at times in large numbers—demonstrating their generosity. In a letter from Martha to Lucy, she acknowledged the recent arrival of a box of wedding cake sent by Lucy from New Brunswick following the wedding of a relative. The cake must have been in transit from America for a month or so. Martha reported to Lucy that “the day it arrived 10 Japs [Monbushō officers] were dining here—and the cake was cut up, handed round, and duly appreciated. . . . Quite a good way of entertaining the company.”86 Martha also described a moment of excitement in the streets near their home worthy of inclusion in historical accounts of the Meiji era. It illustrated her awareness and appreciation of the opportunity she and David had in experiencing life in a foreign country undergoing the great transition from feudalism to modernism, which they had become a part of and were contributing to: Yesterday afternoon there was a great excitement among the servants and we found the Mikado was to pass by our Yashiki. He had been out with some 3000 or 4000 troops on some inspection or review. So David took me out—I never having seen him. We drew our carriage up on a wide part of the street and waited for his approach. First hundreds of troops and officers came in detachments to clear the way. The streets were lined with the natives waiting to see

23 2

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

him but the utmost quiet and order prevailed and at last when he did come seated on horseback dressed in foreign cloth and gold and chapeau and white feathers, he was received in perfect silence. This struck me as being so very peculiar—but is always the custom here—they never cheer nor hurrah—nor wave handkerchiefs. David says their handkerchiefs are only little snips of paper. How could they wave them. But as David stood with his hat off and the Emperor gave an inquisitive look at me whilst I stared at him, I could hardly help waving my handkerchief. But as I do not know whether he fully appreciates foreign ladies, I thought it wisest not to make any demonstration. This public exhibition of the Mikado to the multitudes is the most wonderful change in this country and now too it is forbidden for the people to prostrate themselves to the ground as they did on his first appearance on the streets.87

One of the more intriguing social relationships that the Murrays developed during their second year in Japan was with the British Minister to Japan. Martha wrote home that they “gave a big dinner for Sir Harry and Lady Parkes in return for attentions rec’d from them” and that it was “a great success.”88 The significance of this relationship between the Murrays and the Parkes is that the professor of mathematics from America and the senior British diplomat knighted by Queen Victoria at the age of thirty-four had close relationships with the senior officials of the Japanese government. Parkes had been the British Minister since 1865. He had experienced life in Japan from the feudal era into the modern period of the Meiji era, when hundreds of British experts came to Japan to build railways, steamships, lighthouses, and even the Japanese Mint—many through the efforts of Parkes as an indefatigable promoter of British commercial interests.89 The two men from the West were brought together at the meetings of the Asiatic Society of Japan through their common interests in all things Japanese, beginning with the first annual meeting in October 1873. It would continue with Parkes serving as the president of the society in 1876–1878 followed by Murray as president in 1868–1869.90 The Murray’s relationship with Prime Minister Iwakura stands out among all others. During the Iwakura mission to the West in 1872, Murray was called to Washington for an interview for the position at the Ministry of Education, where he met Iwakura for the first time. It can be assumed that Iwakura expressed his deepest appreciation to Murray and his wife for befriending in their home his two sons then studying at Rutgers College. The next stop for the Iwakura mission was England, where they remained for four months. On that occasion Sir Harry Parkes, on leave from his Tokyo post as Minister to Japan, participated in many of the events scheduled for the Iwakura delegation.91 The topics of conversation, including their mutual ties with the Japanese prime minister, between the American academic and his wife

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

233

and the British diplomat and his wife at the home of David Murray in 1874 illustrate how David and Martha fit comfortably into diverse settings that rendered their tenure in Japan so fascinating for them. The active social life of the Murrays continued into the following year. Early in 1875 they held an evening event in their home that was thoroughly enjoyed by their Japanese guests from the Ministry of Education and their wives who were invited to a truly foreign event: “A very pleasant ‘musical’ we had at our home last evening—foreign friends who played piano, another cornet, our neighbor lent us her piano—quite a musical set—duets, solos—then dancing. It really was jolly—numbered forty—invited Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka and Mr. and Mrs. Nomura—these Japanese ladies never witnessed foreign dancing nor a musical entertainment before and they enjoyed it excessively.”92 Later in the year, Martha described three separate social occasions in one letter, each with its own uniqueness. In one of the most historical moments in their life in Japan, Mrs. Murray wrote about an unusual group of guests they had for dinner during the summer of 1875: “The Jap governors have been here on business from different cities and we gave them a dinner last week. Kido also came to it. . . . The old governor from Satsuma was in true Jap dress and a splendid specimen of a fine old aristocratic person.”93 The uniqueness of this particular social event that could not be recognized by the Murrays at the time was the place in history that the “old governor from Satsuma” occupies. It turned out to be Saigō Takamori, distinguishable for his size—reportedly six feet tall—described by Mrs. Murray as a “splendid specimen.” He would go down in history as the great samurai leader of the Meiji Restoration who then led a rebellion from Satsuma in the south against the new government two years after his visit to the Murray home. Upon his dramatic death by hara-kiri to end the rebellion in 1877, Martha remembered his visit with them in 1875. In the same letter to Lucy that summer, Martha described a memorable evening excursion in Tokyo that continues to this day as one of the most popular events in the Tokyo calendar: “On the 20th we went on a lovely moonlight water excursion—the most curious imaginable—opening of the river with fireworks—the boats thousands in number all illuminated.” The occasion was surely the great annual fireworks display over the Sumida River. The outing was most likely arranged by Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka. Mrs. Murray also noted in her letter of Saturday, July 22, 1875, that “Tuesday we set off on a trip to Nikko, a beautiful and interesting mountain district about 80 miles from here—the drive most of the way taking three days to go—stop at tea houses along the route—sleep on the floor—all charming to talk over when past.” The Murray entourage to Nikkō illustrated the lifestyle of David as a senior officer of the Japanese government. It was led by a packhorse loaded with

23 4

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

bedding, chairs, and canned food. It was followed by several jinrikisha with a chef, cook, maid, and baggage. Following that, a carriage with a coachman carried the passengers. It was, as the Murrays characterized it, “quite a cavalcade” as it passed through the magnificent cryptomeria trees leading to the great mausoleum.94 Indicative of Murray’s fascination with Japanese culture by this time, his description of the scene he witnessed on the arrival at Nikkō stands the test of time: “Imperial red lacquer temples embedded in magnificent trees rise above one another as you ascend the mountains. You ascend a wonderful stone staircase of two hundred steps, built in the mountains, which although the work of art it gives the appearance of having been planted by nature. The plain tomb on the peak of the mountain of granite enclosed with iron railing with the immense koro (incense burner), candlestick, and vase of flowers, all of bronze, was simplicity itself.”95 The social life of the Murrays in Tokyo was made more fascinating by the location of their home amid a yashiki, the extensive grounds where a wealthy daimyo had lived in feudal Japan. The facilities were constructed when the Tokugawa government ordered daimyos and their families to spend part of each year in the capital city so they could be kept under surveillance. The cost of building a residence for the family plus accommodations for their retainers had the added effect of draining financial resources from daimyo who were not committed supporters of the Tokugawa family. The Murrays enjoyed walking around the extensive grounds on Sunday afternoons following dinner, especially during late winter when weather in Tokyo can be pleasant. In a letter home, Martha describes what the city of Tokyo was like in the evenings in the early years of the Meiji Restoration. It illustrates the fascination and admiration the Murrays experienced living in a country so far from their beloved New Brunswick, New Jersey: Everyone who comes to this country seems perfectly fascinated with the place. A ride through the streets is one of the most novel sights—the Japs bring their various articles for sale out at dusk and spread them on the ground thus forming a double row of stores. These are the itinerant shopkeepers. They are lighted with lanterns and candles, and often kerosene lamps. Some put up a temporary bamboo stand and each is filled with its specialty—one with even a variety of sandal and clog—another every kind of fan—then a variety of wooden ware which they make beautifully—then a stand of teapots, etc. The street throngs with men—women each with a baby in his arms or on her back—and the jinrikashas rushing at full speed—each jinrikisha man is obliged to carry a lantern. All tend to make a wild and grotesque picture.96

It was around this time that David experienced an unusual incident that may have ingratiated him with his colleagues at the Ministry of Education even more

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

235

deeply. It took place on the very site of the former feudal Kaga daimyo estate, where their home had been built in the Hongō district of Tokyo: I came at one time very near ending my services to them whilst aiding some Department officials to select a suitable site for a new building to be erected. Large grounds of about one hundred and fifty acres had been appropriated for the buildings of the Education Department. These grounds had been formerly occupied by the Daimyo of Kaga and his retainers, and contained innumerable wells. These were now useless and concealed by the overgrowth of grass, etc. While walking round at this time I suddenly fell into one of these wells. It was twenty feet deep, but happily soft mud at the bottom received me and prevented any broken limbs. The shock dazed me at first, but I was soon able to relieve the consternation of the terrified group peering down upon me by calling out that I was alive and asking for a long ladder by which means I was soon extricated. A more frightened set of men I never saw, and the result was that within twenty-four hours these treacherous traps, nineteen of which I counted, were safely curbed and guarded.97

Martha wrote home about the incident that took place near their home. She was notified of the situation then in progress nearby and was terribly frightened until David was extricated. What neither David nor Martha could have imagined at the time was that the large site of the yashiki where they lived that had been appropriated by the Ministry of Education would later be chosen as the campus for the nation’s most prestigious educational institution, Tokyo University, formerly Kaisei Gakkō. Not only did David give the congratulatory lecture at the first graduation ceremony of Tokyo University in 1877, his home while in Japan was located behind the red gate (akamon) that is now the main entrance to Tokyo University. It was a fitting location to house the Superintendent of Japanese Education from America.

Murray’s Second Report During the latter half of 1874, Murray’s responsibilities at the Ministry of Education were increased with an internal reorganization on October 4 officially designating his office as Superintendent (gakkan).98 In a letter to a relative, he noted the change: “I am getting to be awfully busy out here now. We have just been reorganizing the Department so that I have much greater responsibilities and much more work. I am glad. It is pleasant to think that my services have received their confidence and that I can feel that what I do will be appreciated.”99 Since the major assignment given to Murray was to submit reports to Vice Minister Tanaka on the progress of education under the Code of Education with his recommendations for reform and improvement, it was considered necessary

236

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

for Murray to visit Japanese schools in session outside of Tokyo. They ranged from the new public elementary schools mandated by the code that was just getting under way when Murray arrived in Japan to institutions of higher education such as the new regional teacher training schools patterned after the Tokyo Teacher Training School. In a letter home in early October 1874, Murray wrote, “In about a month we are going to start on a trip to Nagasaki & Kioto, etc. We will make it partly a pleasure trip & partly business. I am to visit and examine the schools. . . . It is our first trip into the country. . . . We expect that Mr. Hatakeyama will go with us.”100 The delegation departed Tokyo on November 19. The Ministry of Education arranged a schedule of classroom observations that took Murray and his wife first to Kobe by boat and from there to Osaka by train for a week. Returning to Kobe the Murrays then set sail through the Inland Sea for the far southern port of Nagasaki for his first opportunity to visit schools in a remote area of the country. They would then return to Kobe and stop at the great historic city of Kyoto, which was closed to foreigners without special passports. Although the Murrays preferred to return to Tokyo from Kyoto by land, they were scheduled to take the two-day boat trip from nearby Kobe. Martha wrote to Lucy, “We would like to return home from Kioto by land to see ‘old Japan’ but that would take 12 or 15 days and all that time we would only have Japanese tea houses with little hibachis or fireboxes to make us comfortable and Japanese futons to sleep on.”101 Such was the state of transportation in Japan in the mid-1870s. The Murrays had an enjoyable experience throughout the six-week trip south. Everywhere they went, they were granted special treatment. For example, the governor of Osaka welcomed them, according to Mrs. Murray, with “a very swell entertainment.” The Inland Sea appeared like “a beautiful lake—exquisite scenery.” Nagasaki was described as “a lovely picturesque town.” Curiously David spent one entire evening during the Nagasaki stay “busy arranging some business about telegraph lines.”102 Apparently local officials took the opportunity to seek advice from the visiting American on issues well beyond education when it became available. Upon return to Tokyo, David wrote his second report to Tanaka Fujimaro on the results of his lengthy trip south. He submitted it to the Vice Minister’s office on February 19, 1875.103 The original English version of Murray’s second report to the Ministry cannot be found. The Japanese translation was divided into four sections, each devoted to one of the four locations where he observed schools— that is, Nagasaki, Hyōgo, Osaka, and Kyoto. Murray also divided the schools into two categories. The first were the new public elementary schools under the supervision of local education authorities mandated under the Gakusei. The second category concerned those schools under the direct control of the Ministry, which included English schools and the new regional teacher training schools patterned after the Tokyo Teacher Training School.

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

237

As Superintendent of Education representing the Ministry of Education, Murray’s primary purpose was to determine the extent of the implementation of Ministry regulations and guidelines under the newly implemented Code of Education, and the effectiveness of them, at the local level. Several factors at play would greatly influence his impressions. For example, in every instance of school visits, senior officers of the prefecture, including in one instance the prefectural governor, accompanied him. In the case of the visit to schools in Hyōgo, the distinguished scholar of Dutch studies Kanda Kōhei joined Murray as prefectural governor. He would later join the Ministry of Education as Murray’s colleague. Local officials as well as school administrators and teachers made every effort to impress Ministry officials from Tokyo led by the Superintendent of Education, an imposing American no less, as well as the prefecture governor and attending officials. The formality of it all in Japanese custom created an artificial classroom setting throughout that was unavoidable. Murray never mentioned this aspect of his visits to the new elementary schools of Japan. Murray reported that many of the classrooms he observed were using the teaching materials and textbooks published by the Ministry of Education, more so in the great metropolises such as Osaka and Kyoto than in the more rural area of Nagasaki. The teaching methods that originated at the Tokyo Teacher Training School under the guidance of Marion Scott had reached some of the local classrooms in some form. They had been passed down by graduates of the Tokyo school who in turn passed them on to the new local teacher training schools whose graduates, in a distinct minority, began using the new teaching methods in the local public schools. They included the new teaching techniques introduced by Scott using the blackboard and visual graphics. Murray had to appreciate the difficulties of maintaining the originality of modern classroom methodology as it was transferred from the Tokyo Teacher Training School to local teacher training institutes and finally to the new public schools. Moreover, he was surely aware that he was observing the best teachers in each school he visited—all carefully selected for the observation—teaching the best students in the school. Nevertheless, during the second full year of the Gakusei, Murray was impressed with the results as he observed them at the local level. Murray’s primary criticism of the schools throughout the four sites was the comparatively low rate of attendance of girls in the elementary schools. Depending on the prefecture, he felt that the public education of boys had progressed satisfactorily in contrast to the limited progress of education for girls. He noted that private schools had been founded to accommodate girls that often emphasized subjects such as needlework and embroidery. Murray was most impressed with the schools he visited in the old imperial city of Kyoto. Not only were girls well represented in the public schools, he concluded that Kyoto schools were the best in Japan. Ministry regulations

23 8

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

were being followed while teachers were employing the new methodology with charts, graphs, and so on. And most of all, education officials supported by parents were keenly interested in advancing the educational standards of the city. Throughout the trip, Murray appreciated the enthusiasm and dedication of the educational authorities he met and who accompanied him to the schools within their jurisdictions. In Murray’s report on the English schools under direct control of the Ministry of Education, he was most critical. As a native speaker of the foreign language being taught in those schools, he concluded that practical English conversation was ignored in the emphasis on the written forms. It was reminiscent of the criticism of English teaching in Japan’s public schools ever since. As a former professor of mathematics, Murray commented on the teaching of the subject at each site. He noted that the new texts adapted from the West had essentially replaced traditional Japanese mathematics in all the schools he visited, clearly to his satisfaction. However, he also recognized the wisdom of many of the teachers who retained the use of the soroban adapted from the ancient Chinese abacus in teaching the fundamentals of modern mathematics in the Japanese classroom. Murray summarized his recommendations from his trip to southern Japan under four categories: 1. Progress at the elementary school level has reached a stage where the development of middle or secondary schools should be planned in order to accommodate the many students completing the new elementary schools. 2. In order to recruit qualified teachers for the new middle or secondary schools, there are two tracks to accomplish this. The first are the national foreign language schools whose graduates would make good middle school teachers. The second is to develop the curriculum for the new schools at the government teacher training schools, first at the Tokyo Teacher Training School, where the students can be prepared to teach the new courses. The graduates of these schools should then be assigned to the new middle schools. 3. In order to improve the teaching of the Japanese language, better textbooks are needed. Improved textbooks for other subjects such as geography and mathematics are also urgently required. In order to meet this need, translations of foreign textbooks should be revised and edited more carefully. 4. English language schools under the control of the Ministry of Education should be made more effective utilizing oral methods for foreign language teaching modeled on Western methods.

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

239

By the time of Murray’s inspection trip to the south in late 1874, a division between him and Tanaka on the course of educational reform was slowly, almost imperceptibly, emerging. By reading between the lines, it first appeared in Murray’s initial report to Tanaka in December 1873 over his reaction to the widespread opposition to the new public school system through both violent protests and low enrollments of eligible school-age children. Murray referred indirectly to it deep within his report, recommending that in spite of the protests, the Ministry must “push forward” the provisions of the Code of Education without considering the reaction.104 However, in Murray’s report on his 1874 trip to Nagasaki, the subject of local unrest over the new school system that had been expanding was not mentioned, nor was the fact that school enrollments had only increased from 28 to 32 percent during the first two years,105 even though the code stipulated that all children should attend school. In contrast to Murray’s recommendation to “push forward” the modern educational reforms, Tanaka was growing increasingly concerned about local opposition to it. As noted previously, neither he nor Murray was involved in drawing up the Code of Education in 1872. When they arrived in Japan within a few months of each other in mid-1873, the code was already in place—although in its very early stages. In Murray’s first official report to Tanaka in December 1873, he acknowledged his lack of knowledge about Japanese customs and cultural institutions due to the fact that he had only been in the country for a few months. His second official report to Tanaka was written in late 1874 and early 1875, after he returned from his extensive trip to Nagasaki in the far south with visits to Kobe, Osaka, and Kyoto on the way. He had by then been in the country for a year and a half and had visited a number of schools and met with teachers and administrators in various areas of the country. In addition he was kept informed of developments by his Japanese staff, some of whom he had as students at Rutgers College. And of great importance, his closest confidant, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, was appointed president of Kaisei Gakkō, the leading national college, who nevertheless accompanied Murray on his official trips as translator and collaborator. In spite of his increasing awareness of local conditions, Murray’s apparent lack of concern over rural opposition to the new schools remains a mystery. One reason may have been that none of the four cities he visited on his tour can be considered as representative of rural Japan, where the opposition movements of farmers were primarily concentrated. In other words, Murray did not have the opportunity to witness the remains of one of the many new schools that were burned to the ground by angry protestors in, for example, rural Mie prefecture far from Tokyo. There were justifiable reasons for this. Travel in rural Japan in the 1870s was extremely difficult in part because of the rugged terrain in a land covered with steep mountains with rushing streams on over 80 percent

240

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

of the four main islands. Even when Emperor Meiji undertook his periodic royal visits to the countryside, they were often excruciatingly difficult trips, with the emperor on many occasions riding in a tiny palanquin carried long distances by humans. In the most remote villages, it was necessary at times for a local farmer to host the guest in his farmhouse when there were no other facilities to accommodate the royal visitor. Ministry officials could not arrange for Murray to visit rural Japanese schools under these conditions. Thus the closest the American Superintendent got to observing rural education in Japan—the heart of the opposition to the educational policies of the Ministry of Education—was mostly from the deck of a ship. Even during Murray’s school visits in the towns, it can be assumed that upon official notification of his day of arrival, he was directed to the best school with the best teachers and students. No local official would choose a poorer school in a poorer section of the city, where the new school system was intended to have its greatest social impact, to display before a senior official from the Ministry of Education—and a foreigner, no less. Years later Murray wrote about his classroom visits in glowing terms: “The scholars are so amiable and obedient, and the teachers are so good-tempered and unruffled that in all my experiences I never saw a scholar in a Japanese school either punished or who deserved punishment.”106 Manifestly, Murray observed Japanese education in early Meiji Japan under the best of circumstances. Living in the comforts of a Western-style home in a quiet area of Tokyo under guard twenty-four hours a day, enjoying sightseeing outings arranged by government officials in carriages, being entertained and entertaining senior government officials while earning an extraordinarily high salary, Murray was inevitably isolated to a considerable extent from the realities of the public school system he was hired to advise in reforming. It was a natural consequence of the contemporary situation, a factor of Japanese customs and psychology, as well as the geographical formation of the country. In contrast Tanaka was searching for an alternative to Murray’s basic recommendation that the Ministry must “push forward” with gradual reforms of education under way. He had become increasingly concerned by public reaction to Ministry policies as evidenced by the violent opposition movements or the inability to convince parents of two-thirds of school-age children to send them to the nearest public school. The discrepancies between the goals of the public school system as outlined in the Code of Education were evident to all concerned. In historical perspective, it can be concluded that rather than directing the Ministry to “push forward” with the provisions of the Gakusei, as recommended by his American senior adviser, Tanaka was already searching for a different solution. The Code of Education of 1872, heralded as the beginning of modern education in Japan, had to be replaced.

Mu rr ay’s 1 8 74 Rep ort

241

Unexpectedly, an opportunity for Tanaka to explore the possibilities of a major reform of Japanese education came about in 1875. The Japanese government received an invitation from the American government to participate in the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial International Exhibition to celebrate one hundred years of independence on July 4. On behalf of the Ministry of Education, Tanaka accepted the invitation to enter an exhibit on Japanese education. On July 19, 1875, Murray was notified that he would be sent to the United States in September or October on a special mission related to the American centennial scheduled to be held in Philadelphia from May 1876. This assignment was contingent on Murray’s acceptance of an extension of his three-year contract as Superintendent of Education, to expire in June of 1876. Martha wrote to her cousin that the senior Japanese government officials, “the Prime Minister & Ōkubo & Kido, the three head men, are all desirous to retain David in the country.” It was considered as a “compliment of asking him to spend two or three years as he chooses longer here” before his current contract expired “but wish him in the mean time to transact business in America for them. . . . The Japs seem to place great confidence in him and indeed it is quite unusual to ask anyone so long before their contract is finished to renew it.”107 The reference to “the three head men”—that is, the three political leaders of the Meiji government, including Iwakura Tomomi—being “desirous” of Murray retaining his senior position in the Ministry of Education for a second contract has historical inferences. These outstanding figures of modern Japan who first met Murray in Washington in 1872, when Kido took the initiative to employ Murray as a senior officer of the Meiji government, expressed their evaluation of his work less than three years later. By approving of Murray’s second contract, the most powerful political officials in Japan reinforced their support of Murray as Superintendent of Education in Japan. In mid-1875, with the decision by Tanaka to enter an educational exhibit from Japan in the 1876 Philadelphia centennial, Murray’s responsibilities were suddenly and drastically revised. From providing advice to Tanaka on the reform of the new public school system in Japan, his attention was redirected to preparing for the educational exhibit at the American centennial in Philadelphia. He also had to make travel plans, since his assignment called for his presence at the exhibit long before it opened. By that time, Hatakeyama, who had become seriously ill in June, was recovering. Martha wrote home that “dear little Hatakeyama is better but delicate—he will, I think, go to America with us.”108 The Murrays left Japan for the United States on October 11, 1875, two years and four months after they arrived to join the Ministry of Education, in order to prepare for the Japanese exhibit at the 1876 exposition. Four months later the delegation of Japanese officials from the Ministry of Education left for Philadelphia. With their departures, the initial period in the implementation of the first public

242

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

school system in Japan, the Code of Education, effectively came to a close—with mixed results. David Murray was now under a vastly different and unexpected assignment than when he signed the first contract to join the government of Japan in 1873. For the next year and two months, Murray would serve the Meiji imperial government as the Superintendent of Japanese Education in America, working out of New Brunswick, New Jersey. His attention would be focused on preparing for the Japanese educational exhibit at the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

chapter 8



THE JAPANESE EDUCATIONAL EXHIBIT AT THE AMERICAN CENTENNIAL the making of a comparative educator, 1876 In July 1875, when David Murray was notified that the Ministry of Education planned to send him to the United States in the fall, his wife, Martha, wrote a cryptic note to cousin Lucy: “Things now seem to say that we shall leave here in Sept. or Oct. at latest to spend about 8 to 10 months in America.”1 It was the first indication by the Murrays that the Japanese government had reacted favorably to an invitation by the American government to participate in the 1876 Centennial International Exhibition. The event celebrating the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence was scheduled to run from May through November in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Japan, along with governments from all over the world, were invited to enter exhibits in a huge display of national progress. Among the exhibits was a special area set aside for education. In an extraordinarily daring decision, Tanaka Fujimaro, as head of the Ministry of Education, proposed that the Ministry assume sole responsibility for entering an educational exhibit from Japan independent of a national exhibit.2 Since the plans called for Murray to spend over a half year in America prior to the opening of the centennial, the Ministry signaled that it was placing a heavy responsibility on its senior American official. It was also indicative of Tanaka’s increasing interest in American education. When Murray signed the first contract with the Japanese government in 1873 to “take charge of all affairs connected with schools and colleges,” he could not have envisioned how his duties would undergo such a drastic change over two 243

244

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

years later. Although his latest instructions by the Ministry were “to study the systems of education as illustrated by the Philadelphia Exhibition and to report to the Department such information and conclusions as might be useful,”3 his role took on a far more critical perspective. Murray unexpectedly emerged as an educational spokesman to the West for the Meiji government at the Philadelphia centennial. In the process, moreover, he became a comparative educator searching for the best system of education in the West as a model for Japan. When the Japanese government received the invitation to the American centennial a year and a half before the scheduled opening, it reacted positively.4 The early response to the invitation was indicative of the relations between the two countries that had been strengthening ever since the Iwakura Embassy spent nearly six months in Washington in 1872 negotiating treaty provisions. The American government, then under President Ulysses S. Grant, extended a warm hand of friendship to the earlier delegation, which was greatly appreciated by the Japanese government. Grant’s government, along with the state government of Pennsylvania, would serve the same function in 1876. Among the 1872 Iwakura delegation to America, the representative from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Tanaka, was given special treatment by the U.S. Commissioner of Education in Washington, George Eaton, with a tour of schools in the capital area. From there he began a series of meetings with educational officials and undertook school visits beginning in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and ending in Boston, Massachusetts, before traveling on to investigate European schools. Wherever he went in America, Tanaka was received with hospitality that left a lasting impression on him, considered in an earlier chapter. Among the results of Tanaka’s six months in America as a member of the Iwakura Embassy, several influenced his reaction to the opportunity for Japan to participate in the special exhibition on education planned for the 1876 centennial. First of all it would provide the Ministry with an opportunity to display the educational achievements of Japan that had occurred since the Meiji Restoration in 1868, which put an end to the long feudal era. Second, it presented the Japanese with an opportunity to gather educational materials from the exhibits entered by American states and foreign countries. In addition, since an extended International Conference on Education was also scheduled during the centennial to bring together educators from many countries, it provided an unusual opportunity for the Japanese delegation to participate in an international forum on education. Tanaka’s decision to enter a Japanese exhibit in the centennial was further influenced by the fact that his senior adviser and personal friend was an American. Murray was strategically positioned to advise and assist Tanaka in planning a Japanese educational exhibit appropriate for an American audience. Moreover, since Murray had become familiar with Japanese education as a senior officer in the Ministry of Education and had submitted reports to Vice Minister Tanaka for

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 45

school reform, he was uniquely positioned to apply his knowledge and experience at the exhibition on behalf of the Japanese government. Murray, wherever he went and in whatever endeavor he became involved both at home and abroad, earned the respect and confidence of those who worked with him. Beyond Murray’s knowledge of Japanese education, Tanaka had formed a close working relationship with his American advisor. He and his staff had developed a deep sense of respect and trust in him. Consequently, when Tanaka decided that the Ministry of Education would enter an educational exhibit in the centennial separately from the main Japanese government exhibit, he was confident that he could rely on Murray to effectively assist him through the process. In preparation for the exhibit, Tanaka decided to have the Ministry of Education prepare a publication in English on the history of Japanese education. It was titled An Outline History of Japanese Education and was to be published by an American company ready for display at the centennial. An indication of his confidence in Murray, Tanaka appointed his American adviser to carry out the project. Moreover, Tanaka commissioned Murray to write the first chapter covering the modern period that was initiated with the Gakusei, the Code of Education of 1872. Murray was appropriately positioned for this assignment, since he was part of that historical era in Japan from 1873. The preface noted his role accordingly: “The introductory chapter was prepared by David Murray, PH.D., L.L.D, the Foreign Superintendent of Education in Japan, who has also exercised editorial supervision over the publication.”5 Specialists from the Ministry of Education were assigned to write the chapters on premodern Japanese education in Japanese. The Dutch American missionary Guido Verbeck, who had retired from the head position at the nation’s top educational institution, Kaisei Gakkō, was hired to approve the final translated version of the Japanese chapters. Ironically, as we have seen, it was Verbeck who originally sent his Japanese students from Nagasaki to Rutgers College in America, which led to Murray’s awakening to Japan and employment with the Ministry of Education. In Murray’s opening chapter, he writes about modern Japanese education from his experience as a participant in it when he befriended the Japanese samurai youth at Rutgers College. For example, in the following quote, in which he refers to the role of the Japanese who had studied abroad and are now in responsible government positions, only those familiar with Murray’s past would know that he was describing the careers of the samurai youth he first encountered in the late 1860s. Among them was his most intimate Japanese colleague, Hatakeyama Yoshinari. When Murray wrote his chapter, Hatakeyama was serving as president of Kaisei Gakkō as well as an official assigned to Murray’s office at the Ministry of Education. He would later join Murray in Philadelphia with the delegation that included Vice Minister Tanaka.

246

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

The most important step was taken when [the government] resolved to send to foreign countries young men to be educated in the sciences and arts of the West. . . . They were the first to see that, if they were ever to compete with the power of Western nations they must be able to turn against them the weapons drawn from their own sciences and arts. The education of Japanese young men in foreign countries, although of recent date, has already been productive of the most important results. Many of the most responsible positions in the Government are now filled by the men who received their education and acquired their knowledge of foreign affairs in Europe and America. These men, and others equally enlightened and progressive, saw the necessity of establishing a system of education which should give to their country a knowledge of the languages and sciences of those nations with which in the future they were to be so intimately associated.6

Since the English manuscript had to be published in the United States in time for the centennial to open in May 1876, Murray worked on his chapter of the book before departing for the event with research assistance by Ministry personnel. It was then his responsibility to locate a publisher upon arrival in America in late 1875 to have the book ready for display at the exhibit. To meet the deadline, the Murrays departed for America in October 1875. The historical significance of this publication in English on Japanese education deserves recognition for several reasons. The book published by Appleton, with the full title of An Outline History of Japanese Education: Prepared for the Philadelphia International Exhibition, 1876, by the Japanese Department of Education, marks the first publication in any language on the history of Japanese education. The fact that an American, who knew little about Japanese education a few years previously, was the editor and author of the introductory chapter on modern Japanese education is without precedence. It illustrates the uniqueness of the historical context in which the book was published. It also exemplifies the uncommon traits of David Murray, whose education was confined to a narrow area between the tiny town of Delhi and the small city of Schenectady in the American state of New York. Moreover, he had served as a faculty member in mathematics at Rutgers College for ten years before becoming Superintendent of Education in Japan. An Outline History of Japanese Education also marks the first opportunity for Murray to assume the role of spokesman for Japan to the West. During his first two years with the Ministry of Education, his responsibility was to provide advice to Tanaka on the modernization of Japanese education with the implementation of the Gakusei, the first Japanese public school system. In contrast, he was now analyzing and interpreting the results of the past several years of it for a Western audience from his unique experience as a ranking official in the Ministry responsible for implementing the plan. The text represents the first

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 47

description of modern Japanese education available to a Western audience as well as to the Japanese.7 Tanaka’s decision not only to enter a major educational exhibit from Japan but to attend the 1876 centennial himself was based on his deep interest in American education as he had observed it in schools from California to Massachusetts to Pennsylvania during his lengthy visit to the United States in 1872 with the Iwakura Embassy. As a result of his firsthand observations, Tanaka had come to the conclusion that American education would be the best model for Japan to follow in developing its first modern public school system. Accordingly, in 1873 he set out to revise the new public school system in Japan on the American pattern. Writing about his father’s experiences at the Ministry of Education years later, Tanaka’s son confirmed his father’s intentions. He recalled how often his father talked about American education as the model for modern Japanese education. Consequently, when the invitation arrived from America for Japan to attend the Philadelphia centennial, Tanaka, according to his son, welcomed the opportunity to visit the United States again in order to study the latest developments in American education. During the six months in America, in addition to time spent at the Philadelphia centennial, Tanaka planned to visit schools and gather educational documents from various American states to further develop his educational reform plan for Japan.8 Among the features of education in the United States that deeply impressed Tanaka, which turned out to be the most controversial proposal of his plan to reform Japanese education during his last years as head of the Ministry of Education as analyzed in the following chapter, concerned the control and administration of education. Under the Gakusei, formulated by the Ministry in 1872 while Tanaka was abroad with the Iwakura Embassy, the French centralized model for educational administration was incorporated in it. Control of the fundamental aspects of the local public elementary schools mandated under the Code of Education came under the Ministry of Education empowered to set national standards through, among others, a common curriculum and the teaching methods to implement it. While central control of education loosely patterned after the French model was mandated in the 1862 Code of Education for Japan, Tanaka observed firsthand the contrasting approach to educational administration in America. It began with his meeting in Washington in 1872 with George Eaton, the highestranking educational officer in the American government who hosted Tanaka’s visit to Washington. Tanaka had no knowledge of American education before arriving in Washington, having been a lower-ranking samurai before the Meiji Restoration in 1868. In 1872 he unexpectedly found himself being assigned to the Iwakura Embassy from his new position at the Ministry of Education. Shortly thereafter he was being taken around Washington by Commissioner Eaton,

248

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

who, Tanaka would soon learn, had no authority over public schools not only in Washington but throughout the country. During Tanaka’s first week in the United States, he became aware that there was no Ministry of Education in Washington for him to visit. In lieu of an American Ministry of Education, the U.S. Bureau of Education had been established with a commissioner of education at the top. That position was held by Eaton when Tanaka visited Washington in 1872. President Ulysses S. Grant, former commanding general of the U.S. Army during the Civil War, had appointed Eaton, a former general of the army, to the highest educational position in government. However, the Bureau of Education was positioned within the Department of Interior under a secretary who served in President Grant’s cabinet. Not only was Commissioner Eaton’s position virtually powerless, the Bureau of Education itself existed in a precarious state from its origin. Tanaka discovered from the beginning of his first visit to America in 1872 that education was technically under the control of each of the American states. Within three weeks after he arrived in Washington as a member of the Iwakura Embassy, he wrote to the head of the Ministry of Education at home about his initial impression, considered previously: “Since school regulations in the United States are established by each state, the American system of educational administration is not suitable for our country centrally organized under a monarchy.”9 It’s unlikely that Commissioner Eaton explained the historical basis for this state of affairs concerning the administration of American education to his foreign guest—that is, since the U.S. Constitution contained no provisions on education, it automatically became a function of state governments from the beginning of nationhood. Tanaka quickly learned that the highest educational officer at the individual state level was the Superintendent of Education. Therefore he traveled directly from Washington to Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania, to meet Superintendent of Education James Wickersham in May 1872. For three days of meetings between the two, Tanaka asked many questions about the administration of education in the state of Pennsylvania, which deeply impressed him.10 Ironically, Wickersham was the official responsible for the educational exhibits at the 1876 Philadelphia centennial. When Tanaka set out for Philadelphia in May 1876, six months after Murray left Japan to prepare for the grand event, he had just completed three years as Vice Minister of Education, the ranking officer of the Ministry of Education, with Murray as his senior adviser. It had been a turbulent period as the first public school system in the nation’s history outlined in the Code of Education of 1872 was implemented. The stipulation that every community must establish and finance a public elementary school per six hundred residents and that every child of school age must attend set off widespread disturbances and violent acts of opposition, described previously.

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 49

As the senior government official responsible for the nation’s new public school system, Tanaka was searching for an alternate approach to education. For example, the German educational system, an outgrowth of the Prussian approach with its highly centralized organization, impressed Tanaka but appeared inappropriate for Japan that was recently unified from hundreds of years of local government under daimyo chiefs. By 1875 he was coming to the firm conclusion that the American approach to education was more appropriate for Japan at the stage of development after the long feudal era. He planned to go to America in 1876 to reconfirm his commitment to reform Japanese educational administration on the American pattern, with its decentralized control of education based on the locally elected lay school board. From mid-1875, David Murray was preparing for the educational exhibit and making travel plans. However, Hatakeyama had become seriously ill in April. In a letter to relatives, Murray reveals his deep concern over the health of his closest confidant, the first indication of the seriousness of his health problems: “Our worst news is that Hatakeyama is really quite ill with pulmonary affection and we feel afraid he may never be strong again. He is staying at our house and has good medical attendance, but he is very weak. . . . If he dies or is permanently disabled much of my interest out here will be gone. He was my chief reliance, and I can find nobody so able to carry out my views.”11 In May Martha reported on Hatakeyama’s condition in a letter to cousin Lucy, who met Hatakeyama during his student days at Rutgers College: “I have had my hands full lately. Hatakeyama does not improve as we could wish. He seldom leaves his room before one or two PM. He is so gentle and grateful for everything that it makes us feel very badly to see him so delicate.”12 By July he was apparently on the road to recovery. Although his condition remained “very delicate,” the Murrays anticipated that their dearest Japanese friend would “go to America with [them].”13 Murray had been given several major assignments to carry out while in America. They demonstrated the breadth of his contacts and the contributions to modern Japanese education that he made during his tenure with the Ministry of Education. First of all he was authorized to purchase up to $20,000 worth of materials for an educational museum and a library under consideration by Tanaka.14 In the 1870s this was a huge amount of money that would in modern terms be the equivalent of well over $100,000. There are no records to indicate how Murray physically handled this large sum of money when he purchased the materials in America and had them sent to Japan, where they formed the nucleus of the exhibits for Japan’s first educational museum in Ueno, Tokyo, covered in the following chapter. In addition to the $20,000 for materials for the proposed museum, Murray was also entrusted with $5,000 by Kaisei Gakkō, the premier national institution for higher education, to purchase educational materials, primarily books for the

250

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

library.15 The fact that this leading Japanese institution entrusted Murray with its funds reveals the fact that he had already developed a close relationship with the school then under the presidency of Hatakayama Yoshinari. It also fell within the terms of his contract, which stipulated that he would “use all diligence to advance knowledge and science” in Japan. In addition, it was a precursor of events to follow upon Murray’s return to Japan after the centennial when he played a critical role in the elevation of Kaisei Gakkō into Japan’s first Westernstyle institution of higher education, Tokyo University, in 1877, covered in the following chapter. The other major assignment given to Murray by the Ministry concerned the educational conferences planned in conjunction with the centennial. According to Murray, “The instructions furnished to me on my departure for America made it my duty to study the systems of education as illustrated by the Philadelphia Exhibition and to report to the Department such information and conclusions as might be useful. In accordance to this plan I gave much time to the examination of the Educational Department of the Exhibition, and by conferences with the representatives of education from different countries, and by observations on the educational establishments of the United States. I endeavored to collect such information as would enable me to meet requirements of my instruction.”16 Murray’s final responsibility while in America was unrelated to his position with the Japanese government. He represented the Asiatic Society of Japan. During his first two and a half years in Tokyo, he joined the privately organized society that consisted of learned figures, overwhelmingly foreigners, who met each month and presented papers on a variety of issues concerning Japan. The Asiatic Society provided Murray with an opportunity to meet leading foreign scholars of the period, such as the venerable Japanese authority Basil Chamberlain from Britain, and noted diplomats with great knowledge of Japan, such as Sir Henry Parks, also from Britain. Murray was authorized to act as the accredited representative of the society to corresponding societies in America. He set out to take every opportunity to do so in conjunction with his official duties.17 The Murrays departed from Japan on October 10, 1875, headed for New Jersey. They planned to stay with a close relative in New Brunswick, which they considered their hometown, using it as Murray’s headquarters, conveniently located about fifty miles from Philadelphia. In a strange twist of events, the office of the Superintendent of Japanese Education, second-ranking position in the Ministry of Education, had shifted from Tokyo, Japan, to New Brunswick, New Jersey, for the next fourteen months. Murray’s return to New Brunswick was greeted with great fanfare, as reported in the local newspaper.18 Although absent for several years, he was met by an enthusiastic group of students from Rutgers College led by a full band organized to “give a demonstration of welcome in honor of their former much-esteemed instructor and wife . . . the music of the band was followed with cheers of the

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

25 1

students.” It had been, as Murray recalled, exactly two and a half years since he left the college to take up his position in Japan. The article summarized Murray’s report to the students on his activities in Japan: Murray took the opportunity to explain to the welcoming students his attitude toward his initial period in Japan reflecting not only his enthusiasm for the challenges presented to him, but his commitment to fulfilling his assignment. He accepted the high position tendered, with the view of founding a system of instruction which had so long been in successful operation in this country. He had many difficulties to encounter but, no more than he expected in such a task, said he would be rewarded if the principles upon which the foundation of the system of education must rest was firmly established. He did not expect the system to show its results immediately, but tried to lay a good foundation, and then gradually but surely build upon it. It is for this reason that they had endeavored to lay out the system carefully after the pattern of the best American institutions . . . I will return to the task with renewed vigor. . . . While I am in this country, however, New Brunswick will be my headquarters.

From that day onward, Murray devoted his time in America to fulfilling his multiple assignments by the Japanese government, which were challenging as well as rewarding. He was, after all, an official delegate of the Japanese Ministry of Education on full salary recently increased from $600 to $700 a month, or $8,400 per year,19 much higher than his former colleagues earned on the faculty of Rutgers College. In addition, his expenses were covered by the Japanese government, enabling him to travel wherever necessary to carry out his duties. From his base in New Brunswick, he traveled to all the major cities of the eastern part of America, from Boston to Washington. Since Murray left Japan in October 1875, he may not have been directly involved in the selection of the materials shipped to Philadelphia by the Ministry of Education for the Japanese exhibit in time for display at the opening of the centennial in May 1876. Also, since the official delegation of Japanese officials was not scheduled to arrive until June 16—in time for the celebration on July 4, American Independence Day—the conclusion can be drawn that Murray assumed responsibility for setting up the Japanese educational display. He stayed in a hotel in Philadelphia when necessary. On May 10, 1876, Murray attended the grand opening of the Philadelphia centennial led by President Ulysses S. Grant. As the senior educational official of the Japanese government, Murray represented the Ministry of Education. Among the tens of thousands of visitors were virtually all the members of the U.S. Congress and dignitaries from throughout the world. President Grant gave a brief welcoming address, ending with an international flavor by extending “a hearty welcome” to “our foreign visitors.” He continued,

25 2

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

And now, fellow citizens, I hope a careful examination of what is about to be exhibited to you will not only inspire you with a profound respect for the skill and taste of our friends from other nations, but also satisfy you with the attainments made by our own people during the past one hundred years. I invoke your generous cooperation with the worthy commissioners to secure a brilliant success to this International Exhibition, and to make the stay of our foreign visitors—to whom we extend a hearty welcome—both profitable and pleasant to them. I declare the International Exhibition now open.20

As Murray described the scene, It is difficult by the mere enumeration of figures to give a conception of the magnitude of the scale on which this great international institution was conducted. The buildings covered a space of 75 acres. Within these buildings were gathered the productions of almost every nation under heaven, and it was impossible to travel through the miles upon miles of isles and transepts, crowded upon either hand with the fruits of human industry, without obtaining even imperceptibly an enlargement of ideas and the cultivation of the higher nature. Even a careless and inattentive visitor could not go away without receiving lasting and useful impressions.21

According to Murray’s instructions, he was to obtain materials for a museum designed “to furnish the means of education in science to the schools and colleges under the Monbusho [Ministry of Education].” Murray interpreted this as a duty that “would be best performed by making a collection illustrating as far as possible the several branches of natural history, the arts and manufacturers of western countries and the appliances of civilization.” As he recalled, “Immediately on the opening of the Exhibition I began a systematic examination of the different departments both with reference to the selection of material for the museum and also for the purpose of learning what would most benefit Japanese education and industry.”22 Murray’s mission as a collector of materials that would “most benefit Japanese education and industry,” covered in some detail in the following chapter, was well along before the delegation of senior Japanese officials from the Ministry arrived at the centennial. Led by Tanaka Fujimaro, the party departed from Japan on May 19, 1876. Tanaka’s scheduled absence for over six months as head of the Ministry was evidence that he had plans well beyond attending the exhibition. Noted previously, his son recalled years later that Tanaka was planning on using the opportunity to deepen his understanding of American education in order to bring about a major reform of Japanese education upon his return home in January 1877.23 Among the officials in the Ministry of Education delegation, Hatakeyama Yoshinari stands out as the one member with the broadest experiences in the

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

253

West and with the closest relationship with the Murrays. Covered in previous chapters, he had spent six years in Europe and America, including several as a student at both London and Rutgers College. During the latter period, he had been befriended by the Murrays. By the time of the centennial, he had become a confidant as well as a trusted colleague of Murray. Moreover, he served as the Murrays’ translator on official trips within the country and explained David’s ideas to Ministry officials, most of whom could not understand English. All these duties with Murray took place while Hatakeyama simultaneously served as president of Kaisei Gakkō. He had recovered sufficiently from an earlier illness when the Murrays took care of him in their Tokyo home to make the long trip to Philadelphia in May 1876. It was most likely at Murray’s request. In addition to Hatakeyama, three other Ministry officials were chosen for the trip due to their competency in English and/or experience in America. Among them was Abe Taizō, a former student at the distinguished private school Keio University, founded by the great intellectual Fukuzawa Yukichi. Abe’s record of the travels of the Japanese delegation provides the most complete account of their activities while in America. In addition to the delegation from Japan, several Japanese students who were studying in the eastern part of the United States under Ministry sponsorship were called to Philadelphia to assist with the exhibition. Some arrived early to assist Murray in setting it up. Among them were Isawa Shūji and Takamine Hideo, who Murray assisted in making the arrangements for their course of study in America, covered in the previous chapter. Finally, in one of Tanaka Fujimaro’s more controversial decisions, he took his wife, Suma, along with him to America for the entire time, disregarding protocol. Senior Japanese governmental officers did not take their wives with them on official trips. Indeed, as Mrs. Murray wrote in one of her letters home noted above, government officials did not take their wives on excursions with horse and buggy at home either, as Tanaka enjoyed doing in Tokyo. The unusual decision by Tanaka to take his wife to America was noted accordingly in a Tokyo newspaper with some reservations.24 Since Mrs. Tanaka had already formed a close relationship with Mrs. Murray in Tokyo when she lived with the Murrays for several months during the weekdays, learning Western customs while assisting Mrs. Murray in adjusting to life in Japan, it can be assumed that the two wives discussed at length their plans to travel to America with their husbands for the centennial. The unique friendship that had developed in Japan between this American and Japanese couple would be carried on in America. Tanaka’s son recalled that when his parents went to America, the Murrays welcomed them with great hospitality.25 An indication of the importance in Japan of the Japanese delegation to the centennial took place when it was received by Emperor Meiji on April 26 at the imperial palace for farewell words of encouragement. The event not only extended royal approval of the mission, it reaffirmed the binding relationship

25 4

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

between the palace and the Ministry of Education, which carried out its educational policies in the name of Emperor Meiji. It was also indicative of the young emperor’s continued interest in the progress of educational developments in the nation. The delegation left for America the following day.26 Upon arrival in San Francisco on May 19, the Ministry delegation visited the University of California at Berkeley before boarding the train for the east with stops in Ogden, Omaha, and St. Louis for local school visits. The Japanese then spent a week in New York City visiting the usual tourist sites, finally reaching Philadelphia in mid-June. The following day the team observed the Japanese education exhibit for the first time.27 Tanaka had to be impressed with his Ministry’s exhibit, the third largest on education following that of the United States, the host country, and Sweden, with its unique exhibition of a full-sized school building. The Pennsylvania School Journal reported on the Japanese educational exhibit to its readers from the perspective of American educators. Of some interest, reference is made indirectly to the contributions of Americans like Murray:28 Japan, it is well known, has made rapid strides toward a higher civilization within the last few years. With the aid, principally of American educators whom she has induced to engage in the work, she has established schools and organized systems of education that bid fair to rival in efficiency those of nations that had much the start of her. With all the zeal of a new convert, therefore, Japan has sent quite a large educational exhibit to the Centennial. In the collection there are several school desks and seats for scholars. These do not compare in make or finish with our best school furniture, but they are quite as good as the average desks and seats found in our country schools. A fair display is made of philosophical apparatus, in pattern not greatly different from our own, and of globes, maps etc. Some hundreds of volumes of books are nicely arranged on shelves, but our ignorance of the Japanese language and the warning, “hands off,” prevent us from reporting their contents or character. We noticed among them, however, volumes of school reports and a dictionary of the English and Japanese languages. As illustrative more directly of the school life of the nation, the exhibit contains views of schoolhouses, exterior and interior; views of teachers and scholars at work; records of examinations, much like our own, written by Japanese scholars in English, French and Japanese.

Several days after the Japanese delegation first visited the centennial, the Tanakas and Hatakeyama traveled to New Brunswick on June 20 to attend the graduation ceremonies of Rutgers College. A Japanese student on a Ministry scholarship was among the graduating class.29 It was also an opportunity for Hatakeyama to return to the campus where he first met the Murrays eight years earlier in 1868. Murray, reporting that Hatakeyama’s “talents and attainments were so well

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

255

recognized and his subsequent services to the cause of education were so conspicuous that his Alma Mater in 1876, when he visited New Brunswick as a member of the commission on education, conferred on him the well merited degree of Masters of Arts.”30 The assumption can be made that Murray was instrumental in arranging this ceremony. Living among his old colleagues and friends, he had the opportunity to make the arrangements with the president of Rutgers College to confer the honorary degree upon one of its former students. The historical relevance of the ceremony was further enhanced with the presence of Japanese Vice Minister of Education Tanaka. The ceremony was also a recognition by Rutgers College that one of its most illustrious alumnus had distinguished himself as president of the leading national college in Japan, Kaisei Gakkō, truly the Imperial College. The conferring of the master’s degree on a former Rutgers College student from Japan by the president of Rutgers College in 1876 in the presence of the two highest officials in the Japanese Ministry of Education, one a former professor from Rutgers, was full of symbolism. It illustrated the profound role that Rutgers College played in the modernization of Japanese education that no other institution in the West could boast of. It began precisely a decade earlier with the unexpected arrival of the first two samurai youth from Japan for a modern education. Over a hundred followed in their footsteps. This was also an ideal opportunity for the Murrays to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka to their beloved hometown of New Brunswick. Noted previously, Tanaka’s son recalled that since his mother was helpful to Mrs. Murray in adapting to Japanese life and customs, in return Mrs. Murray was very kind and helpful to Mrs. Tanaka while in America.31 The Murrays hosted the Tanakas by introducing their dear friends from Japan to their relatives. The mother of cousin Lucy, to whom Mrs. Murray wrote many letters from Japan, presented a gift to the Tanakas, a mosaic paperweight that later adorned the Tanaka parlor table in Japan. According to Mrs. Murray, the Tanakas also purchased a “good deal of handsome furniture and taken in foreign ideas” while in America.32 A week after the Rutgers College graduation ceremony, Tanaka attended the graduation ceremonies at Princeton, then under the official name of the College of New Jersey, where another Japanese scholarship student was among the graduating class. Orita Hikoichi had accompanied the Iwakura Tomomi sons to New Brunswick in the early 1870s at the request of their father, ranking leader of the new Japanese government, considered in an earlier chapter. Rather than remaining at Rutgers College, Orita was able to enter nearby Princeton, honored by being selected to present a graduating speech.33 In 1877 he was assigned to Murray’s office in the Ministry of Education to assist him in preparing his most critical report to Tanaka on the reform of the Code of Education. Orita also served as Murray’s primary assistant in his major survey of the public schools of Tokyo in 1878, the focus of chapter 10.

256

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

Among the most important activities in which both Murray and Tanaka took part during the centennial were the international conferences on education under various sponsorships. They were conducted throughout the centennial as adjunct events bringing together educators from throughout the world. Murray later recalled, “Fortunately I had many opportunities of meeting men, eminent as educators, from many countries. There were conferences of such men held for the mutual interchange of views and the explanation of national systems of instruction.”34 One set of educational conferences was convened at the beginning of June, two weeks before Tanaka arrived with the Japanese delegation. Since Murray had been in New Brunswick six months before the centennial opened, he presumably had been in contact with the sponsors, since both he and Tanaka subsequently presented lectures at them. The sponsor of this conference was the state of Pennsylvania under its Superintendent of Education, James Wickersham, who had hosted Tanaka at his Harrisburg office four years earlier during Tanaka’s visit to America with the Iwakura Embassy. The meetings were held in the magnificent Pennsylvania Educational Hall, built to display the huge Pennsylvania educational exhibit on the centennial grounds. Wickersham, who took great pride in the hall, which attracted over five thousand visitors each day, described the events accordingly: “Beginning about the first of June, international conferences have been held there twice a week, at which the educational systems of foreign nations and of our own States have undergone examination. They have been attended by

Figure 8.1. The Pennsylvania Educational Hall at the Centennial International Exhibition. From James Wickersham, A History of Education in Pennsylvania (Inquirer, 1886), 579.

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

25 7

both foreign and American educators, and are proving of great profit for all concerned. The more formal International Congress, whose proceedings attracted general attention, hold most of the sessions in the same place.”35 It was during the international conferences in the Pennsylvania Educational Hall that Murray made a major contribution to the American centennial as Superintendent of Education from the Japanese Ministry of Education. He became the spokesman on Japanese education to the West by presenting several major addresses on educational progress in Japan during the beginning of the modern era. Although Tanaka gave one report on education in Japan, he presented it in Japanese followed with a translation by an aide. It was nevertheless Murray who, in effect, first introduced Japanese education to the Western world at the Philadelphia centennial through the book on Japan under his editorship and his lectures that were given prominence in the coverage of the conferences. The following report of one of his speeches is summarized from the Pennsylvania School Journal, which contained errors in dates and misspellings of Tanaka Fujimaro’s name: Hon. David Murray of the Educational Department of Japan, was then introduced and made an address upon education in Japan. The world has been surprised at the rapid improvement made by Japan, which, he said, could only be accounted for by the fact that long before the opening of the ports of Japan there had been a system of education there. China was the mother country of Japan. Their arts, printed language and laws, were derived from that country. . . . The Japanese nation early began to feel an interest in education, and a national university was established at an early date with a view to education. This lasted until the fall of the Tycoon government. From 1600 until 1868 education formed one of the principal objects of this government. The national schools were for the training of only the retainers of the royal families and “landed gentry” of the country, but today almost the entire population of Japan can read and write. The Japanese language has a vast number of letters and at least 3000 characters are taught the scholars in the schools. . . . Along with learning to write the pupils are also taught to read, which consists mainly in going over the letters and explaining them. . . . The pupils are also taught composition from their earliest education, and particular attention is paid to letter writing. The books from which the pupils read are those on history, geography, and morality. When the Japanese came into contact with foreigners a new world was opened to them and new wants were created. They found that if they were to compete with foreign nations they must learn their language and study their arts. Only two years after the treaty with Commodore Perry a school of languages was established, and since 1869 when the old government of the tycoon was changed and new departments were established, one was a department of

258

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

education. The new department created at the time of the change in the government made education open to all classes and established schools all over the country, 8000 having been added since 1869. There is a normal school in the city of Yeddo, established like the normal schools in this country, from which the graduates are sent as teachers to different parts of the country. Education is carried on in the language of the country. Dr. Murray then presented Fujimare Tanaka, vice minister of the department of education in Japan, who read an address in the Japanese language, which was afterward translated by his interpreter. Fujimare said he and his companions were present in the interest of the system of education in Japan. He spoke of the progress that had been made in his country during the past few decades.36

Murray and Tanaka also attended a special International Conference on Education planned by U.S. Commissioner of Education George Eaton as an official event of the centennial on July 17 and 18. Representatives from eleven countries and twenty-three American states were in attendance.37 This conference rekindled a friendship between Eaton, who officially convened the meeting, and Tanaka. Eaton introduced Tanaka to the assembly in Philadelphia as a nominee for one of the vice president positions, presumably prearranged by Murray. Among the other nominees for vice president was Wickersham, who had hosted Tanaka during his three-day visit to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1872. Of some historical importance, among all the foreign guests, Tanaka may have had the closest relationships with the American officials in charge of the educational sector of the 1876 American centennial. During the first session, Eaton called upon Murray, “who represents the educational interests of Japan.” Murray essentially followed the outline of his previous lecture at the conferences sponsored by the state of Pennsylvania under Superintendent Wickersham: We have a common school system of education which attempts to give an education to every boy and girl in the empire. This is a new departure, a new idea. It is an idea that originated in Europe. It is not long since these western countries have learned to think that universal education is necessary for a nation. This idea of education, so far as government provision is concerned, pertained to the gentry of the country, to the nobility. But when it was found that this nation had to meet with nations who were universally educated, the idea of universal education also became necessary; so throughout the whole empire we have scattered schools which are intended to give the elementary education necessary for boys and girls.38

During the third session on the topic of educational supervision and inspection, Murray gave another lecture on Japanese education. He opened his remarks

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

259

with a general observation on the topic. Among his introductory comments, the one concerning educational administration takes on added significance, since he would expound on this theme in his recommendations to Tanaka as the foundation for the reform of Japanese education upon their return to Japan in early 1877. It also marks his first comment of an editorial nature in which Murray inserts his personal, and unequivocal, opinion on the administration of education: “It is well understood as a principle of successful educational administration that a proper inspection and superintendence of schools is the first requisite. There is no other way in which a government can so efficiently and thoroughly advance the interests of the school as by regular, systematic superintendence and inspection. This principle is well understood in Japan, and is incorporated in the system of education.”39 Murray’s rather lengthy lecture on Japanese education included in the official report of the conference published by the American government was taken essentially from his chapter in An Outline History of Japanese Education, prepared especially for the centennial. It was also summarized in some detail in the Pennsylvania School Journal of 1876, one month after it was given. The following excerpts are indicative of the image of Japanese education that eminent educators from throughout the world in attendance gained at the Philadelphia centennial as portrayed by Murray. It was essentially a positive one reflecting Murray’s perception gained during the two and a half years he had spent in Japan: The responsible head in Japan is the Emperor, from whom all laws and edicts are supposed to emanate, and to whom all officers are responsible. Under him, and appointed by him, are all the various responsible departments, amongst which that of education occupies an important place. There are three kinds of schools in Japan. One we may call the government schools which are under the direct control of the Department of Education. Next come the public schools, controlled by the local governments, and third the private schools. The government schools include the colleges, normal schools and universities at the capital, and are under charge of an officer appointed by the Department of Education. Inspectors visit the schools at appropriate times to see that all are properly conducted, and are also present at the examinations. Regarding the public schools, which are immediately under the control of the local governments, these are schools of an elementary character. They are established all over the country. There are thousands of them now which have been gradually, within the last few years, established at different points. For the superintendence and care of these schools there is in each one of these local governments a bureau, with an officer or officers who devote their time to the superintendence, care, organization, and inspection of the schools in that particular district. This officer is responsible to the head of that local government,

260

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

and through him to the educational department at the capital. In that way the inspection reaches down to all these local governments, and through them to the schools which they have under their charge. These schools are supported from three different sources. In the first place the department of education grants an annual allowance to each of them in accordance with the number of scholars which it contains. This allowance is granted on condition that it shall be made to conform to the regulations of the educational department, and that it shall follow the instructions that are given in regard to courses of study, examinations, and other matters appertaining to these schools; so that the department of education exercises control by the giving of this annual allowance to these schools over the kind of instruction that shall be their given. The second source of support of these schools is the tax laid on the inhabitants of each district, and this tax in almost all cases is cheerfully paid. A third source of income of these schools is the gifts of individuals who are interested in the schools of those particular localities. There are now seven normal schools, one principal one which has been in operation four or five years and which has sent out many students, and six others. These schools have sent out teachers who are now engaged in many of these local provinces in the immediate work not merely of teaching but of inspecting, organizing, and superintending the schools. This work that was demanded of the normal schools was required for the purpose of supplying one teacher for every district. And so for a long time the graduates of these normal schools were taken up as fast as they were sent out and put at work in these different localities in organizing schools, showing the old teachers how they should teach, how their classes should be organized, how new kinds of books, maps, apparatus, and so on should be made a part of their instruction and really acting as trainers of these teachers in the districts. The old teachers who were desirous of learning would gather together and spend a month or more under the instruction of one of the graduates of the normal schools. This system was of immense service in developing the schools much more rapidly than could have been done in any other way. Looking back, it seems astonishing that in four years from the time that this system began in Japan there is so good a system of education spread over the whole country and under reasonable superintendence and control.40

Following Murray’s presentation, an interesting and poignant interchange took place during the question-and-answer session. He was asked if education in Japan was in any way compulsory, to which he replied in the negative but “which will be resorted to as soon as possible.” However, in response to another question from the floor, Murray gave some statistical background on Japanese education. The official report revealed the unique conditions under which Murray gave

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 61

his lecture when he turned to the head of the Japanese Ministry of Education for confirmation: “Dr. Murray appealed to Hon. F. Tanaka, vice minister of the education department of Japan, who was present, as to the accuracy of this statement, which was verified by this gentleman.”41 In the midst of the centennial, the Japanese delegation faced a crisis that would have serious repercussions in the future on Murray both professionally and personally as well as on his wife: Hatakeyama Yoshinari fell ill again. Although he had experienced a potentially serious illness the previous year, doctors had approved his travel to America with the Japanese delegation. During the previous illness, Murray expressed concern for his life at that time. Hatakeyama’s sudden relapse in Philadelphia was cause for grave concern. Arrangements were made for Hatakeyama to rest in the nearby town of Bryn Mawr until a decision on his health condition could be made. The close relationship between the Murrays and Hatakeyama was manifested once again when Martha stayed at Bryn Mawr during the period to help look after him.42 David visited Hatakeyama from the centennial grounds to find that “it was painfully evident that his disease was progressing.”43 When Tanaka paid a visit of concern to the ailing Hatakeyama in mid-August, it was decided to send him home. In September, when the Murrays bid farewell to Hatakeyama, they feared they might never see him again. Murray later recalled, “As friends bade him farewell on board the steamer, they could not conceal from themselves the apprehension that it might be a last farewell.” Hatakeyama departed from New York for the long trip home via the Panama Canal.44 On August 25, during the heat of the summer, Tanaka left Philadelphia on a three-week trip to Canada accompanied by his wife and three Japanese officials from the Ministry.45 One of the reasons he wanted to personally attend the Philadelphia exhibition was to observe displays from foreign educational museums to plan one for Japan. At one of the sessions of the International Educational Conference, Tanaka met several educational officers from Canada who invited him to visit their country. He welcomed the opportunity.46 Since the Japanese exhibit had already been on display for months and the main events were over, Tanaka accepted the offer knowing that with Murray on the scene, the exhibit would be in able hands during his absence. Included in the itinerary for the Canadian trip was the city of Toronto, where Tanaka scheduled a visit to the well-known Toronto Educational Museum. Before coming to the United States, he had already planned to establish an educational museum in Japan. Tanaka now had the opportunity to see a prominent Western educational museum for himself. Tanaka took advantage of the trip to arrange a stopover at the famous Niagara Falls.47 Mrs. Murray may have played a role in planning their schedule. Niagara Falls was already a famous site for honeymooners, and Tanaka took the

2 62

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

opportunity to show his wife the honeymoon capital of America. It provided an opportunity for her to use English being taught to her by a young American woman she hired during the long centennial.48 The visit to the Toronto museum by Tanaka proved invaluable. Upon returning to Japan, he carried through on his plan to open an educational museum in Tokyo patterned, according to his son, after the museum in Canada.49 Many of the exhibits purchased by Murray during the centennial were placed on display at this museum in Ueno, Tokyo, considered in the following chapter. Following stopovers in Boston and New York, the Tanakas returned to Philadelphia to resume activities at the centennial.50

The Making of a Comparative Educator Among the most consequential outcomes of the Philadelphia centennial for David Murray originated from the opportunity to meet educators from around the world at the international conferences. The significance of his personal contacts with eminent educators from America and abroad not only concerns Murray’s unique role as a spokesman for Japan, it also relates to the evolving process of Murray’s perceptions of the best system of Western education for the Japanese model. As a mathematics professor at Rutgers College before becoming Superintendent of Education in Japan, he had no concern with such matters as the control and supervision of education in modern societies. On his return to America in 1875, that issue had become his preeminent concern. The centennial provided the first opportunity for Murray to meet educators from Europe and the United States—for example, James Wickersham—who were directly involved in forming educational policy in their respective countries precisely as Murray was in Japan. He took advantage of the opportunity. Noted previously, he reported that he “gave much time . . . to the conferences with the representatives of education from different countries.”51 The list of the vice presidents of the International Conference on Education, which included Tanaka Fujimaro from Japan and Wickersham from Pennsylvania, is instructive. It illustrates the range of the “eminent educators” with whom Murray associated during the centennial. They included Dr. Da Motta, Brazil; Dr. Hodgins, Ontario; Sir William Thompson, England; Professor Reuleaux, Germany; Señor Videla Dorna, Argentine Republic; Dr. Migerka, Switzerland; Professor Levasseur, France; Professor Geiger, Switzerland; and Dr. Mejerberg, Switzerland.52 Murray’s ideas on the critical issue of the administrative control and supervision of education in Japan were crystallized during the centennial. For the first time, his writings and speeches included references to the topic with conviction. As such, they set the stage for Murray’s second and final period as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan. Ironically, they would provoke an

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 63

inevitable division between him and Tanaka concerning the reform of Japanese education. The first indication of Murray’s evolving thought on educational administration emerged in a lecture at one of the centennial meetings, cited above, when he claimed that “a proper inspection and superintendence of schools is the first requisite.” The significance of this unqualified conclusion, in which he later made it clear that the Japanese government must be responsible for inspection and superintendence of public schools, was demonstrated when he returned to Japan. It became the basis of his most important recommendation to Tanaka, the focus of the following chapter. Precisely when and how Murray came to this fundamental conclusion on the essential need for the central control and administration of Japanese education cannot be determined. However, since he never mentioned it in his previous reports and writings before the Philadelphia centennial, the assumption can be made that he formed it at the centennial through the educational conferences and what he read during his fourteen months in America. By the time he left America to return to Japan in 1877, he was ready and apparently eager to make known his most important recommendation on educational administration. It conformed to the original employment contract written by the Japanese that encouraged Murray to “state or explain his opinions in a frank manner” on the “best system” for the reform of Japanese education. Murray’s “Report on the Educational Exhibits at the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876” was in part intended as a means to advance his growing convictions on the best system of administration for Japanese education. The first section of the report was devoted to a tedious description of the materials in the various exhibits, such as school buildings and desks, teaching materials, textbooks, teachers, and so on. The core of the report, however, was the section on “the relation of the government to education”—obviously a topic that had become of supreme interest to Murray during the centennial. He began with an introductory statement that illustrated the direction of his thinking on the role of government in education:53 It was my privilege while in America to attend many conventions of education from various countries, where questions relating to public instruction and the relations of the government to it were discussed. Without entering into the details about the proceedings of these conventions, I beg to submit some observations in regard to the different systems which have prevailed in different countries. Germany: It is the theory of the German system of education that all educational institutions and the general care for national education is under the Department of Public Instruction. The laws and usages of the different states of the German Empire are slightly different. But those of Prussia may

2 64

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

be taken as the type for all. While the government is the supreme authority on educational matters, it allows the local authorities to control and manage their own schools. This is done usually by a school board, part of which is always appointed by the Department of Public Instruction. The Department, however, prescribes certain subjects in which the schools are examined under its inspection. It also makes regulations in regard to the appointment, support, and dismissing of teachers. France: The government here exercises supreme control through the Department of Public Instruction over all educational matters. It prescribes a schedule of studies for each of the grades of schools and the books which are to be used. It makes laws for the education of teachers and for their licensure, support, and mode of return. Secondary education is equally with primary under the control of the Department of Instruction. All diplomas and academic degrees originate from and are by the authority of the Ministry of Public Instruction. England: By a system of inspectors whose duty it is to visit, advise with, and report on the schools within their district, the government has a direct and important control over the methods of education. United States: The general government is not entrusted except in an incidental way with affairs of education. It has established a Bureau of Education whose duty however is confined to the collection and diffusion of educational information. . . . The chief care of public instruction rests with the government of the several states. Although the laws are not perfectly uniform in this respect, yet the methods of administration and control which have been adopted are essentially the same. . . . The system is about as follows: Each state has a supreme educational authority consisting either of a school board or a state Department of Education. This central authority is charged with the general superintendence of schools and with the administration of the laws which have been enacted. By it the questions which arise in regard to the interpretation of laws are decided. The schools are inspected and reports in reference to educational matters are prepared by it. In each school district there is also chosen by the people a board of school trustees which manages the financial affairs of the district. It owns the school buildings and school apparatus, and repairs the same when necessary. It engages and pays the teachers. It receives the moneys for the support of the schools. In most states the public schools are entirely supported by taxation and no earned tuition fee is paid to the schools. The tax is partly local and partly a state tax. The conclusion to be derived from the experiences of different nations in the matter of public instruction is plainly that there is no absolute and definite system that is to be preferred to all others. Administration of schools, like the administration of other interests of a nation, may vary according to circumstances of the people. The method of supporting schools, for example,

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

265

may differ widely varying between an active support by the government, on one hand, and a voluntary support by the community in which a school is located, on the other. It is not possible, therefore, to lay down with precision what ought or what ought not to be provided for in a scheme of government administration of schools. In each particular case, we must study the genius of the nation, its form of government, its existing educational establishments, the communal relations of the population and their interest in learning, and the common and well-understood customs of the people.

David Murray then took the opportunity to express his personal opinion to his mentor and chief, Tanaka, concerning the role of the Ministry of Education in Japanese education. It was a precursor of what Murray considered his most important recommendation growing out of his experiences at the Philadelphia centennial of 1876: In a country like Japan where the people have been accustomed and rely much upon the guidance and assistance of government, more will be required of the governmental administration than in a country where the communities had been more accustomed to rely upon themselves. The deficiencies in the old system of education in the additions that have been required to the subjects of study have made the interference and assistance of the government much more necessary. It is evident that at least for the present not only elementary schools be encouraged and direction given to their organization and management but even higher education must receive help and direction from the Department. In doing this something may be done indirectly by encouragement and systems of careful inspection and supervision.54

Murray’s report reveals for the first time his bias toward the central control and administration of education as practiced in Europe—notably Germany—in contrast to the American system, as he understood it. His unequivocal conclusion, “It has always been found necessary for an enlightened government to take direct control of the education of the masses of the people,” henceforth set the tone of his recommendations to Tanaka for Japanese education. However, the implication of his conclusion is that, as an American, his own government was not “enlightened” in educational matters when he wrote in his report on American education that “the general government is not entrusted except in an incidental way with affairs of education. It has established a Bureau of Education whose duty however is confined to the collection and diffusion of educational information.” Murray was influenced by leading educators who participated in the conferences such as James Wickersham, who, as Pennsylvania Superintendent of Education, was responsible for the education exhibition at the centennial, since it was held in Pennsylvania. Wickersham’s report is, not coincidentally, similar

266

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

to Murray’s. For example, in the section on European schools, Wickersham contrasted the locally elected lay school board system in Pennsylvania with that of Prussia, by then part of Germany, indirectly criticizing the system in his own state: Like in our townships and towns, too, there are everywhere local school boards; but the citizens are seldom suffered to elect all the members of these boards, and the members they do elect are not often chosen or free to act without restrictions. The hand of the central government is always felt in the election of those who are to be interested with the management of schools; and it exercises a controlling power in the building of schoolhouses, the employment of teachers, the selecting of textbooks, in the arrangement of courses of study and the work of inspecting the schools. The Prussian is an example of a strong school organization . . . with officers free from the weakening influence of popular elections, secure in place during good behavior, united in a common cause, intelligent, skillful, earnest, can affect in a short time marvelous results for the school interests of a nation. No system of schools can reach a high degree of efficiency without close and constant supervision by competent officers. So strikingly true is it, indeed, that if informed of the character of the supervision exercised over the schools of a country, one acquainted with the subject can readily describe the condition of the schools.55

The reports by Murray and Wickersham have a common theme. Murray wrote in one, “It has always been found necessary for an enlightened government to take direct control of the education of the masses of the people,” and in another, “In more recent times experience has shown that the system of leaving education in the care of the local communities produces uncertain and unsatisfactory results. The poor and ignorant neighborhoods retain their ignorance, because of their inability or unwillingness to support the necessary schools.”56 Wickersham wrote approvingly of Prussian schools: “The hand of the central government . . . exercises a controlling power in the building of schoolhouses, the employment of teachers, the selecting of textbooks, in the arrangement of courses of study and the work of inspecting the schools.” He concluded with his personal conviction that “no system of schools can reach a high degree of efficiency without close and constant supervision by competent officers.”57 Murray’s recommendations to Tanaka from the centennial onward reflected this fundamental sentiment. The centennial exhibition closed on November 10, 1876, after a successful six-month run. During Murray’s period in America both before and during the centennial, he also carried out an assignment not directly related to the

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

2 67

Philadelphia event, revealing how demanding his multiple activities were. He had been accredited as the representative of the Asiatic Society of Japan to corresponding societies in America and bore them its greetings. In a report carried in the Asiatic Society’s minutes, his activities on behalf of the society while in America were summarized: It had given Murray great satisfaction to meet, whenever possible, the learned societies of the United States, and to convey to them the greetings of the Asiatic Society of Japan. He added that he found all greatly interested in matters pertaining to Japan and eager to obtain information regarding its moral and material history and development. At Washington he frequently attended the meetings of the Philosophical Society of which the venerable Professor Henry was the President; in New York he visited the Geographical Society, whose President, Judge Daly, and the principal leading members evinced the deepest interest in the Japanese people. He had the honor, also, of visiting the American Academy of Science, the Franklin Institute, the Society of Civil Engineering, the Society of Mining Engineers, and the Academy of Fine Arts, at Philadelphia; the museums of New York, Boston, Cambridge, etc.; from all of which he received, as the representative of this Society, and of the Japanese Department of Education, repeatedly marks of courtesy and kindness. He conveyed to the Society the hearty congratulations and best wishes for its prosperity of its friends and correspondents in America.58

Following President Ulysses S. Grant’s speech marking the end of the American centennial, the delegation from the Japanese Ministry of Education used the opportunity before departing for Japan to visit schools in several southern states, including Virginia and North Carolina. At one stop Tanaka was able to arrange a visit to a public school for colored children.59 Just prior to their departure for Japan, Tanaka and his wife were hosted by the Japanese Minister in Washington, Yoshida Kiyonari, one of the Samurai Students from Satsuma in the class of 1868 at the Rutgers Scientific School. Yoshida then accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka for a visit to the White House, where they met President Grant on November 22.60 The meeting was symbolic of the gracious attitude Grant displayed toward the Japanese throughout his tenure as president, for which they were grateful. It was, moreover, also symbolic of the status of Tanaka and his wife, who met during the feudal era in Japan as a nondescript samurai and a local geisha from rural Japan. A decade later the two were being ushered into the office of the president of the United States, where Tanaka, trained as a Japanese warrior and now head of the Japanese Ministry of Education, was introduced to Ulysses S. Grant, trained as an American warrior and now president of the United

268

Part I I : 1 8 7 3– 1 8 7 6

States. They then met the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish and were shown the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the first treaty between the United States and Japan of 1854.61 Of historical interest, it was Secretary of State Fish who hosted the Iwakura Embassy in Washington in 1872 when the Japanese chargé d’affaires Mori Arinori led the Japanese delegation to the meetings with him. Yoshida had replaced Mori as Japan’s senior representative in America. He was also a fellow student of Mori’s and Hatakeyama’s from Satsuma at University College London in 1865. Moreover, he was also a member of the class of 1868 at Rutgers College. The Tanakas’ farewell in Washington, marked by the visit to the White House, was surely a topic of conversation when the Murrays and the Tanakas renewed their social activities together in Tokyo upon their return to duty shortly thereafter. In the meantime, the Murrays returned to their beloved New Brunswick to bid farewell to their many friends and colleagues at Rutgers College. They arrived in San Francisco to depart for Japan on the steamer the City of Tokyo on December 2, 1876. They had been in America for well over a year, since October 1875. While waiting to depart for Japan, they received word that Hatakeyama, as feared, died several weeks earlier on October 20 onboard the ship as it neared Japan. It was devastating news for the Murrays. David wrote a passionate and heartwarming memorial of his dearest Japanese friend and colleague during the long voyage across the Pacific Ocean. It ends with the following deeply felt sentiments: To those who have known Mr. Hatakeyama either in America or in Japan no words are necessary to convey to them the impression of his noble and beautiful character. Those who have known the services he has rendered to his country in difficult and critical emergencies and the high and patriotic spirit in which these services were rendered, will be ready to record his name among those who have been if not her most conspicuous, at least her most efficient benefactors. As one who has had experience through years of intimate friendship of the purity of his character and the unselfishness of his motives, I desire to add the tribute of my respect and admiration to his memory. In the particular work in which it has been my lot to be engaged, Mr. Hatakeyama has been not only my most confidential friend and advisor but my most efficient ally and colaborer [sic]. His intimate knowledge of the traditions and institutions of his country fitted him in an eminent degree to aid in the reorganization of her educational system. He knew not only her present aspirations and wants, but also her past history to which her new career must be joined and adapted. He was familiar both with the resources and advantages of foreign science and arts and with the peculiar genius and capabilities of his own countrymen. His loss at this time is not only a serious one to his personal friends and to his family who looked to him with pride and hope but a calamity to the cause

T he Japanese Educationa l Exhibit

269

of education and civilization in his country. Many young men are today the patriotic and earnest promoters of measures for the good of Japan. Many have been educated in foreign lands and have returned to render valuable services to their country but I know of none who can take the place and do the work of Hatakeyama Yoshinari.62

As always, the Murrays traveled in luxury, with two large staterooms on the ship, courtesy of the Japanese government.63 They arrived in Tokyo on Christmas Day, 1876. Tanaka and his wife arrived in Japan on January 7, 1877.64 With the return of the Murrays and the Tanakas, the consequences of the 1876 Philadelphia centennial would soon come into play when the two senior officers of the Japanese Ministry of Education divided sharply in their recommendations for the reform of Japanese education in the modern era, the focus of the following chapter.

PA RT I I I



DAVID MURRAY’S FINAL PERIOD IN THE SERVICE OF THE EMPEROR

1877–1879

chapter 9



MURRAY’S CONTROVERSIAL REPORT TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION the dispute over control of japanese education, 1877

When David and Martha Murray returned to Japan in late December 1876 after fourteen months in America for the Philadelphia centennial, David was immediately engaged in several assignments at the Ministry of Education. The first involved the reports to the various constituencies of his activities at the centennial, which turned out to have far-reaching consequences. The second concerned the preparations for the inauguration of Tokyo University, scheduled for April 12. The final assignment, to consume most of Murray’s time throughout the year, thrust him into the direct process of reforming the first public school system for Japan, the Code of Education of 1872–1873. Although he devoted most of his first two and a half years at the Ministry, from 1873 to 1875, to planning revisions of the code, in 1877 Murray became engulfed in a great controversy on the future direction of Japanese education that would continue through the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century. It grew out of a renewed urgency by Tanaka Fujimaro to replace the first Code of Education with a new public school law that sharply divided the Ministry of Education. It also marked one of the few times when Tanaka did not follow the advice of his senior adviser and close personal friend from America. Murray’s first year back at the Ministry after the centennial turned out to be his busiest and most controversial period in the service of the emperor. Shortly after the Murrays returned to Japan, David fulfilled an obligation of select senior government officers who had been sent abroad on official business. Once again he had an audience with the emperor that he described as “the 273

274

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

imperial recognition of my return from America.”1 The Murrays and Tanakas also deepened their social relationships. During the first month after returning to Japan, the Murrays hosted the Tanakas for dinner on two occasions. In return the Murrays hosted the Tanakas at their home. At these intimate dinners, they reminisced about their enjoyable experiences in America during the Philadelphia centennial. Mrs. Murray was impressed by how Mrs. Tanaka had “very tastefully exhibited the furniture and ‘foreign ideas’ she acquired while abroad.”2 David noted in a letter to a cousin that Mrs. Tanaka returned from America with a new status: “A Japanese lady who can speak English and who has been to Niagara Falls, and Boston and Washington is of course almost as much a marvel as Marco Polo when he returned from the court of Kublai Kahn.”3 The Murrays also became concerned about the uprising of disaffected samurai in the south of Japan. David wrote his cousin, “The rebellion in the South here still continues obstinately. I begin to fear lest other outbreaks may take place—and then there would be danger lest the government could not put it down.”4 Martha wrote to her cousin, “I must confess that for the first time I am somewhat nervous, not exactly for ourselves and I do not at all fear going about with David evenings or anytime, but when he is out alone in the evenings I am uncomfortable until he returns.”5 David experienced the consequence of the internal uprising in the south as Superintendent at the Ministry of Education. With the increased expenditure to contain the rebellion, governmental budgets were sharply reduced in other areas. David wrote his relative three weeks after returning from America that “the Department of Education has been reduced Y500,000, which is nearly one third of all they received. This is going to make a great difference in the work of the department for the coming year.”6

The Inauguration of Tokyo University Murray faced a new situation when he undertook his assignments upon returning to the Japanese Ministry of Education in January 1877. The recent death at sea of his dearest Japanese friend and colleague, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, proved particularly difficult, since he had played a major role in Murray’s work at the Ministry as his special assistant. He expressed his personal agony in a poignant letter home: “I miss Mr. Hatakeyama more and more. He was more useful to me than I knew. Nobody can take his place in explaining my ideas to the officers of the government.”7 What made the death of Hatakeyama even more painful to Murray concerned one of his earliest assignments in 1877. A decision had already been made by Tanaka to transform Kaisei Gakkō into Tokyo University on the Western pattern of universities. Murray had taken a deep interest in the institution in late 1875, in part because Hatakeyama was president of the school. It was through the

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

27 5

relationship between Murray and Hatakeyama that Murray was entrusted with $5,000 to purchase books and other educational materials while in America to form the nucleus of the Kaisei Gakkō library for the school. Murray’s relationship with Japan’s most advanced national institution of education had been close throughout his tenure with the Ministry of Education. To briefly review, it began three months after his arrival in Japan. In a ceremony on October 9, 1873, marking the reopening of the school in a new set of buildings, Murray’s initial exposure to the Japanese educational establishment took place. Representing the Ministry as well as Kaisei officials, Murray responded to the remarks made by the young Emperor Meiji, especially invited for the occasion, covered in a previous chapter: “I came forward before the Emperor and delivered a little speech on behalf of all the foreigners engaged in the work of education in Japan, in which I told H. M. that the ruler who founded a university was greater than he who conquered a province.”8 Murray could not have imagined at that time how closely related he would become to Japan’s most prestigious university of today. Two and a half months later on December 19, 1873, Hatakeyama became president of Kaisei Gakkō. No direct evidence of Murray’s role in this appointment has been discovered. Nevertheless, Tanaka, who made the appointment, was well aware of the personal relationship between Hatakeyama and the Murrays as well as the official role of Hatakeyama as Murray’s special adviser at the ministry. It was that relationship that instigated the official request by Murray to Professor Williamson at the University College London in January 1874 to select a professor of chemistry and a professor of engineering from his institution for positions at Kaisei Gakkō, covered in chapter 7. As we have seen, in response to Murray’s letter, Williamson arranged for one of his former students at the University College London, William Atkinson, to take the position at Kaisei Gakkō, where he established the first department of chemistry. It proved “influential in the development of higher education of science and technology in Japan.”9 Shortly thereafter Williamson arranged for another former student, Robert Henry Smith, to fill the post as professor of civil and mechanical engineering. Murray’s letter was instrumental in setting the pattern of modern science at the nation’s premier educational institution on the British model. In 1877, Murray was drawn into the plan for restructuring Kaisei Gakkō into Tokyo University by officials both at the Ministry of Education and at the Kaisei Gakkō under the new president, Katoo Hiroyuki, who replaced Hatakeyama. The goal was a modern academic structure based on a Western model appropriate for Japan’s leading national educational institution. Murray was asked for his advice in the process. The plan included the merger of a separate institution under the Ministry of Education, the Igakkō, the School of Medicine, deeply influenced by the German tradition, with Kaisei Gakkō. Each, however, was to function separately under a kōchō, or “president,” after the merger.10

276

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Murray gave advice in his usual manner by providing information on the departmental structure of American colleges and universities as he knew it. It was followed in redesigning Kaisei Gakkō into a modern Western-style institution. In an official history of the university, Murray is attributed with playing a critical role in the process that divided the institution into three departments (gakubu).11 As he later described the development, “The Foreign Language School in Tokyo [Kaisei Gakkō] had rapidly grown first into a central school of advanced learning, and then into a real University, with Departments of Literature, Science, Law and Medicine.”12 The Department of Medicine became virtually a separate entity, with the German language prevailing. English was the dominant language of the other three departments. The confidence in Murray held by Ministry of Education and Tokyo University officials was further confirmed when he was chosen to give the congratulatory lecture to the graduating class during the first year of Tokyo University. Students already enrolled in Kaisei Gakkō and Igakkō continued as Tokyo University students. Those scheduled to graduate in 1877 from the former institutions were recognized as the first graduating class from Tokyo University. It was presumed that Murray’s speech in English would be understood by the students. There is no indication that his lengthy address was translated. According to the Tokio Times, “Professor David Murray followed a carefully prepared and scholarly paper on the value and methods of education which commanded the close attention of the audience.”13 The profound nature of the topic and the use of “scholarly” English by Murray illustrated the level of the foreign language at Japan’s preeminent national institution of higher education. The following excerpt is taken from the introduction and the conclusion of Murray’s address. It exemplifies how he approached this historical moment after nearly four years in his position in the Japanese government: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the University: I hold it to be a high privilege to stand before you on this occasion and speak some words in the interests of learning. There are some decisive epochs in the career of a man from his birth to his death. Not the least important is that in which a young man finishes the curriculum of studies which he has been pursuing in institutions of learning, and is about to pass out into the world. What is past of his life may be looked upon as preparation, what is before his real work. In connection with such an epoch there are many reflections which spring up in the young man’s mind. If he is honest with himself and makes earnest a conscientious examination of his own heart, he will have many questions to ask about the past as well as a future. While such an occasion as this is a fitting time for the student to consider his past and future, and prepare to rectify mistakes, it is also an equally fitting opportunity for those who plan and direct the studies of such an institution

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

27 7

as this, to inquire into the nature of the task they have undertaken and carefully scrutinize and test the operations of the machinery which they have set in motion. The duties of the student and the educator are reciprocal. They form the obverse and reverse of one medal, which must be looked at on both sides. It is more particularly to these reciprocalities of educators towards those under their charge that I desire to confine my remarks. There is no work in the world more grand, more difficult, or more important than to train a human mind. Indeed all of the tasks shrink into insignificance when compared with this. What is it to explore the deserts of Africa, or the icy regions of the Pole; what is it to tunnel the Alps, or build an interocianic canal; what is it to search out little by little the laws of matter, and motion, and number, and force, compared with the task of undertaking to give to the human mind the knowledge, culture and will which will best fit it for its career. And yet this is what a system of education must attempt. This is the purpose for which schools and colleges and universities have been devised and founded. This public ceremonial which we have just witnessed, which has been held under the restored form of government, has great significance. It means much for these young men who have after years of faithful labor reached the conclusion of their university studies, and are here, as it were, crowned by their Alma Mater with her laurel crown. You are hereafter young gentleman, memorable in the history of this university; you are the first to receive her certificate of having faithfully completed a full special course of study. But this ceremonial has a reciprocal significance in regard to the system of education established by the government of Japan. It means that Japan is committed to the care of the education of her people. That as she provides the elementary school for the child, she provides the University for the man. That she is resolved to make learning honorable and reward with her highest distinctions those who by diligence and capacity earn for themselves a position on the role of scholarship. It means that while she honors those who fight in her defense and invests them with a well-earned decoration, she does not forget those who win distinction in the quieter but not less useful career of learning. This ceremonial signifies that from today there is a brotherhood of learning established in Japan, and that we have just seen the proposal by this university of the first candidates for its honors. Long may the brotherhood flourish, and may this University continue to contribute from her classes a long line of worthy successors.14

Murray played a further and unexpected role in the modernization of the Tokyo University’s curriculum when Professor Edward Morse, curator of the Boston Society of Natural History, showed up at his office in June 1877. During Murray’s fourteen months in America to attend the Philadelphia centennial

27 8

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

the previous year, he first met Morse in his quest for materials for a Japanese museum. By then he was considering exchanges. Murray described how the encounter with Morse came about in his 1877 report to Tanaka on the collections he made while in America: “A set of marine specimens properly named and collected from the waters of the U. S. seemed to me to be exceedingly desirable for the purposes of comparison with the corresponding specimens from Japanese waters. Accordingly I arranged with Professor E. S. Morse, the most eminent authority in this branch, to have a collection made under his supervision on the New England coast.”15 Under the heading of “Applications for Exchanges,” Murray also noted that “the Boston Society of Natural History, whose curator is Professor Morse, has undertaken to bring about exchanges.”16 Whether Morse reacted to “the exchange of specimens” with Japan after the centennial as a result of negotiations with Murray may never be known. The reason for his appearance at Murray’s office has not been clarified. Regardless of the motivation, the reuniting of the two Americans in Tokyo who first met in the United States on Japanese matters set off a breathtaking series of events that would leave an indelible imprint on Japanese higher education. When Morse arrived, he had just made a remarkable discovery. According to his biographer, on his way from the port to Tokyo by train, Morse had somehow spotted “on an embankment a quantity of bleached shells” that he could identify as an ancient shell mound.17 The discovery intrigued the eminent graduate from Harvard University, where he majored in zoology, an unknown discipline in Japan. At the meeting with Murray at the Ministry, Morse described his sighting from the train as an important scientific discovery. Murray then introduced Morse to Tanaka Fujimaro, who became fascinated with the American scientist and his amazing discovery of five-thousand-year-old Japanese shells during his first day in the country.18 Martha Murray wrote to Lucy shortly after Morse’s arrival that “David is contemplating a trip into the interior with Professor Morse.”19 The ten-day trip to Nikkō later in June, where the great Tokugawa Ieyasu mausoleum is located, may have been arranged by Murray to enable Morse to search for more Japanese marine invertebrates. Murray’s assistant who joined the party from the Ministry, Orita Hikoichi, graduate of Princeton, served as a translator.20 The unusual opportunity for Morse, virtually straight off the boat from America, to join Murray on a trip to the interior of Japan by what Martha described as “the stage which now runs a great part of the way to Nikko”21 surely played a role in Morse’s early fascination with Japan. During the trip, Tanaka consulted with university officials. Upon return of the Murray party from Nikkō, Morse was promptly offered a two-year contract to organize a department of zoology at Tokyo University and to found a museum

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

279

of natural history. Incredibly, he accepted the proposal on the spot with a generous salary among the highest among all foreign faculty upon the understanding that he would be given time off during the winter to return to America to meet certain obligations and bring his wife and children to Japan. As a result of these negotiations, a new subject was introduced into Japanese higher education. At the beginning of the next semester in September 1877, Morse established the first Department of Zoology at the newly designated Tokyo University and offered the first course on zoology in Japan. At the same time, he established the first marine biological laboratory in Japan on the nearby island of Enoshima.22 Morse quickly established a reputation among the Japanese educational world for his introduction of the Darwinian theory of evolution, then a most controversial issue in the West in its refutation of the Christian doctrine of the origin of mankind. Early on, Morse was invited to extend his classroom lectures on evolution to a public audience, which he described as a delightful opportunity “to explain the Darwinian theory without running up against theological prejudice as I often did at home.”23 In May 1877, Martha Murray wrote to Lucy, “We have some new neighbors. Professor Morse went home for his wife—He is a Darwinian of the strongest kind. She seems quite sensible and I rather like her.”24 Morse had moved next to the Murray home on a site that would later be chosen for the permanent location of Tokyo University.

The Founding of the National Museum of Nature and Science The brochure of the magnificent National Museum of Nature and Science (Kokuritsu Kagaku Hakubutsukan) in Ueno, Tokyo, which attracts over two million visitors a year, traces the founding of the institution to the year 1877.25 Although it makes no other reference to the historical event except the year of its opening, a document discovered in the papers of David Murray at the U.S. Library of Congress reveals that Murray was present at the dedication for government officials and dignitaries of Japan’s first educational museum under the auspices of the Ministry of Education.26 It took place on August 18, 1877.27 In one of the most unusual episodes in the history of modern Japanese education, a former professor of mathematics from Rutgers College in America was chosen to give the opening ceremonial address at the newly constructed Education Museum in the Ueno district in the capital city of Japan. The significance of the occasion was foreseen by Murray in his remarks, noted below. Through a series of name changes, the Education Museum of 1877 was destined to become the current National Museum of Nature and Science. Murray was chosen to speak on the momentous occasion by Tanaka Fujimaro in his capacity as the officer responsible for the Ministry of Education that

280

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

constructed the museum. Moreover, the major exhibits on display in Japan’s first educational museum had been collected by Murray during his fourteen months in America to attend the 1876 centennial of American independence at Philadelphia. Within a generous budget of $20,000 allocated by the Ministry of Education at the initiative of Tanaka, Murray purchased a wide variety of materials specifically for a Japanese educational museum yet to be built. In addition Murray had collected many items for a museum that were contributed by American organizations at his request after being displayed at the Philadelphia centennial. By August 1877, the materials had arrived in Japan and were arranged for the museum’s opening. It was, therefore, appropriate that Murray represent the Ministry in setting the scene for this grand occasion. Amid a civil war in the south of Japan led by the great Saigō Takamori, a disaffected leader of the Meiji Restoration who had once dined at the Murray home, the historical background was casually referred to by Murray in his opening statement as a “grave national event”: The opening of a Museum like this is an event of so much importance that even when the attention of the nation is absorbed by grave and exciting national events, it may appropriately demand recognition. It will be I trust not untimely if I give a brief explanation of the objects which are sought to be attained by its establishment. As its name implies it is designed strictly to serve the purposes of an Educational Museum, and lays no claim to be considered a general repository of science, literature, and art. Whatever has been collected and whatever it is proposed to collect in this building are intended to have a direct reference to the promotion of education in this country. This is the office and duty of the Department under whose auspices this institution is opened. To administer the affairs of education, to establish and maintain schools, to train teachers, to improve the methods and implements of instruction, to diffuse knowledge, to stimulate the intellectual life of the nation, are the important duties entrusted to it. To aid in this work this museum has been founded.28

Tanaka, in charge of the Ministry of Education during its formative years after the Meiji Restoration, was the Japanese official primarily responsible for the establishment of the nation’s first museum devoted to education. There were minor collections of educational materials held by the Ministry shortly after its inception in 1871 in a museum department before Tanaka’s arrival on the scene.29 For some unexplained reason, Tanaka, a midlevel samurai during the feudal era, took a special interest in the founding of a Western-style educational museum in his second year as head of the Ministry. In late 1875, when the Japanese government responded favorably to the invitation by the American government to enter an exhibit in the 1876 American

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

2 81

centennial in Philadelphia, Tanaka had the confidence to take responsibility for entering a separate exhibit sponsored by the Ministry of Education, covered in the previous chapter. Without precedent or facility to accommodate the collections, he nevertheless took the opportunity to have Murray collect materials he deemed appropriate for a Western-style educational museum. Moreover, Tanaka’s decision to allocate the large sum of $20,000 as a budget for Murray’s assignment defies a rational explanation but illustrates Tanaka’s extraordinary foresight. Murray’s acceptance of the challenge that Tanaka’s assignment presented illustrated the extraordinary qualities that distinguished him as a pioneer in modern Japanese education. In order to carry out his assignment, Murray consulted with eminent Americans in the field. He acknowledged “the kind assistance and advice freely rendered to me by Professors Henry and Baird, the learned secretaries of the Smithsonian Institution at Washington, by Dr. C. F. Chandler of the Columbia College School of Mines, by President J. O. Runkle, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by Professor E. S. Morse, the eminent naturalist at Salem, Mass., by Hon. John Eaton, Commissioner of Education, Dr. E. R. Beadle, mineralogist of Philadelphia, and Dr. George A. Cook, the State Geologist of New Jersey.” It may be recalled that Cook was Murray’s colleague from their days together at the Rutgers Scientific School, which they were instrumental in founding. Murray also used the months before the centennial opened as well as interludes during its run to visit various museums and factories on the East Coast of the United States. For example, while in Boston, Massachusetts, on museum business he visited the nearby city of Lawrence to tour the largest mill in the United States manufacturing ladies’ clothing. He received for the Japanese museum a “complete collection of articles illustrating the various processes of manufacture” from raw materials to the finished product as a gift from the company. To solicit materials for Japan, Murray sent official letters of requests to various organizations sponsoring exhibits as a result of his contacts made during his observation of the displays at the Philadelphia centennial. A surviving letter written to the director of the Society of Natural History illustrates his activities in this endeavor: As the Department [Ministry of Education] is engaged in collecting materials for a public library and an Educational Museum, the publications of your Society would be of special value. If the Society can furnish these publications to us, we shall endeavor to make such return by way of exchange as may be possible. If the Society possesses duplicates of specimens in any of its departments of Natural History, I would like very much on behalf of the Department of Education to make an arrangement by which in exchange for some of these

2 82

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

specimens of the natural History of Japan may be sent to the Academy. . . . An opportunity for the transport of the specimens to Japan will be affected at the close of the present International Exhibition.30

In addition to a wide variety of materials purchased with his generous budget, Murray also received gifts from the exhibits at the end of the centennial in November. He committed the Japanese Ministry of Education to provide materials for American museums in exchange for receiving materials from them. Murray took particular interest in the exchange method, since he “found all the museums in America exceedingly anxious to obtain Japanese specimens and ready to make very liberal exchanges. They want especially specimens of minerals, botanical specimens, wet specimens of fishes, and other marine animals . . . skulls and full specimens of the human race—and specimens of the manufactures and arts of Japan.”31 He was also able to obtain a splendid set of minerals for $400, “properly labeled and arranged,” from the American exhibit under the eminent mineralogist G. R. Beadle of Philadelphia. They included “many of the specimens from his own collection and furnished without charge.” During Murray’s visit to the centennial exhibit sponsored by the Columbia College School of Mines, he was attracted to the collection illustrating the arts connected with industrial chemistry. He paid $500 to the director to have one made for the Japanese museum, which demonstrated the arts of dyeing, glass and pottery, oil refinery, sugar refinery, printing, lithography, wood engraving, photolithography, and so on. There were over one thousand specimens, all cataloged and labeled. Murray purchased for the sum of $3,500 the full collection owned by a professor from Rochester, New York, that “attracted great attention” at the centennial, which included stuffed animals, skeletons, and plaster casts of extinct animals. It contained about two hundred specimens. Murray chose the collection “as a foundation for future collections in those departments.” The large expenditure for this collection was in contrast to only the “costs of the preparation of a lot of skeletons” for the Japanese museum from the famed Smithsonian Institution of Washington, DC. In the industrial sector, Murray was attracted to the “magnificent collection in metallurgy” displayed by the state of Connecticut that “justly attracted a great deal of attention. It seemed to me that a collection made on a similar plan, illustrating the origin, modes of manufacture and the commercial forms of the different metals would be not only of great interest in Japan, but also of great educational value.” It included over one thousand specimens of iron, steel, tin, lead, silver, nickel, copper, and zinc. Murray paid $1,000 for the entire collection. George Cook took great interest in Murray’s work at the centennial from the beginning. He agreed to provide a complete series of specimens illustrating

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

2 83

the geological formation of the state of New Jersey as well as its industrial resources. It was to be undertaken during the winter of 1876–1877 and shipped to Japan in the spring. The only expense to the Ministry of Education was the cost of transportation. Similarly, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology donated “more than 100 designs which will serve to illustrate the modes of making calicos, carpets, wall papers, etc.” In addition to the industrial and scientific specimens collected for a Japanese museum, Murray purchased “articles illustrating education” from a dealer who sold school materials that were on display. It consisted of large wall diagrams for teaching natural history, new patterns of globes, blackboards, a gymnastic apparatus, and so on. They were intended as models for “those organizing and equipping schools” in Japan. The cost was $535. He also ordered many contemporary books on education directly from well-known American book publishers. All these materials were shipped to Japan at considerable expense. While Murray was collecting the materials for a Japanese museum during the 1876 Philadelphia centennial, Tanaka Fujimaro took the opportunity to further his plan to begin the construction of an educational museum upon returning home. Reported in the previous chapter, when invited to visit the world-renowned Toronto Museum of Education by the Canadian delegation at the centennial, he accepted the invitation virtually on the spot.32 The size of the facility and the scope of the collections astonished him, further motivating Tanaka to carry out his plan the following year. Murray took the opportunity during his presentation at the opening of the Educational Museum in Tokyo in August 1877 to bring to the attention of the distinguished guests the various displays of the collections he had made at the 1876 centennial celebrations in Philadelphia: Look first at the collection of books. It is a small and inexpensive collection. It makes no pretense to be a library, nor is it to grow to be one. Here it is proposed to place books connected with the science of education. Next look at the school-room equipment and begin with the kindergarten material. Here will be gathered what will aid the teacher to awaken the young intelligence. . . . Here too you will find specimens of equipment of higher schools, such equipment as the best intelligence of educators in other lands has devised, and such as your own scholars have begun to provide for yourselves. I am sure it will interest you to inspect the maps and globes, the charts for language, for natural history, and for mechanics; the desks, seats and blackboards; the models and implements for drawing, the gymnastic apparatus and the numberless improved contrivances for instruction. You will find also what it is hoped will be a most interesting and valuable collection of apparatus for teaching the physical sciences. The teachers of science in all lands have been

284

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

busy contriving the means of illustrating the laws of nature. Here will be found what has best served the wants of elementary schools, and which here may be the models after which your own schools may be equipped. Finally look at what has been done and what it is proposed to do in the field of natural history. In these branches of education collections are indispensable. Book-study alone is worse than useless. The student must have the real specimen to examine. It is proposed to bring together in this Museum typical collections in the different departments of natural history. These by home collections and exchanges may vastly increase. When arranged, classified and labeled, these specimens will furnish both to the native and foreign students the means of study and comparisons, and we may hope will contribute in an essential manner to increase our knowledge of the great kingdom of organic nature. I think it may well be a just subject of pride with the officers of this museum that they are able at its first opening to make so credible an exhibit. To arrange and display these multiform articles is no easy task, and it well deserves thanks that so much has been done within so short a time. It will be pleasant to recall one circumstance in connection with these things opened today for public exhibition. Many of these are donations to this Museum from friends and institutions in foreign countries who look with friendly interest on the efforts you are making to develop the education and science of your country. I know something of the extent of this interest, and how heartily every step taken in this noble movement is welcomed. I can therefore on behalf of the foreign contributors to this Museum and the many friends of your country, tender to you their hearty congratulations, and their good wishes for the growth and perpetuity of this Educational Museum.

One month later the final step was taken in the founding of Japan’s first educational museum. Martha wrote about the occasion in a letter to cousin Lucy dated September 17, 1877:33 “On Monday of this week Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka had a reception at the new Ed Museum. It was the occasion of the opening to the public. It really is a very fine collection of specimens in Natural History, Botany, Mineralogy. Many of the things David collected last year have arrived and are opened, and also others Mr. Tanaka procured. The foreign ministers were all invited.” Six weeks later, David wrote a letter to Lucy revealing that the imperial household had learned of the new educational museum and had arranged a visit for Emperor Meiji and his wife to observe the collections that he had selected. It was appropriate as well as a great honor for David and Martha to be invited to attend the imperial occasion: “I had an audience the other day with the Emperor and the Empress Dowager. Martha also was presented to female dignitaries. The occasion was a visit of the Imperial Family to the Education Museum where we were the only foreigners present.”34

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

285

Although David envisioned the “growth and perpetuity of the new Educational Museum in Tokyo,” he could not have imagined how it would grow into the world-class National Museum of Nature and Science of today. Precisely ten years after the end of feudalism with the overthrow of the Tokugawa regime, Murray was the central figure in bringing museum collections to Japan from among the finest museums in the West, including the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. There was also a set of marine specimens collected from the waters of the northeastern United States by a distinguished professor from Harvard University, Edward Morse. Noted previously, Morse joined the faculty of Tokyo University a month later. When Murray collected two hundred specimens of “stuffed animals and skeletons in America”—as he described it, “as a foundation for future collections in those departments”—he foresaw a modern national science museum for Japan. It was a fitting moment for a pioneer of modern Japanese education. Tanaka Fujimaro took great pride in Japan’s first educational museum. It was often referred to as the “Showroom of the New Education in Japan.”35 According to his son, his father occasionally took him on walks past the museum in Ueno, Tokyo. He recalled that his father referred to the Japanese museum as patterned after the Toronto Museum of Education in Canada.36

The Controversial New Education Law Upon Murray’s return to Japan from the American centennial at the opening of 1877, he became immersed in a concentrated effort by Tanaka to overhaul the 1872–1873 Code of Education, the Gakusei, the first plan for a public school system that had been in effect for four years. In a report to Tanaka, Murray noted that “since the completion of the special report on the subjects connected with my visit to America which I had the honor to present to you at the beginning of 1877, I have been chiefly employed in investigations in regard to a revision of the educational code of Japan.”37 Murray had been given the assignment to recommend revisions of the code by Tanaka, who returned to Japan highly motivated by his experiences during the six months in America. Upon arrival at his office in the Ministry of Education, Tanaka was determined to bring about a major reform of Japanese education based more firmly than ever on the American model. Using a collection of laws and regulations gathered during his trip and published in Japanese by the Ministry as reference, he launched a campaign to replace the Code of Education with a new law on education.38 Among the many aspects of American education that particularly attracted Tanaka, the control and administration of education concerned him the most.39 Based on his experiences as head of the Ministry of Education during the first several years of the Code of Education, Tanaka realized that it had inherent

286

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

major deficiencies that had to be rectified. The fundamental goal of the Code was to lay the foundation of a strong and independent nation capable of preserving Japan’s sovereignty among nations. By providing an education for all citizens, it was intended that they would become independent and productive, as would the nation as a result. Tanaka’s experiences in America and Europe led him to conclude that the new school system under the Code of Education proved too rigid in applying the most critical provision. Each community of six hundred residents was compelled to establish and maintain an elementary school to accommodate every child of school age with a curriculum of studies set by the Ministry of Education. It was to fulfill the fundamental commitment stated in the preamble and translated into rather profound English that “education shall not be confined to a few, but shall be so diffused that there may not be a village with an ignorant family, nor a family with an ignorant member.”40 The English-language Tokio Times summed up Tanaka’s position succinctly when it editorialized in 1877 that the new schools under the Code of Education had “been found to be too stringent in their operation, too complicated in their scope, and here and there conflicting and diffuse. Above all, they assumed too much control over individual action. It has been felt that their tendency was toward destroying self-reliance which the government desires to foster.”41 Since the new system of public elementary schools had provoked widespread opposition among the peasant class virtually from the moment of its inception, Tanaka, the progressive that he was, had become deeply concerned about the opposition that was expressed through acts of violence in many rural areas. In response he had come to the conclusion that a modern society was an outgrowth of a people who have the freedom of thought (jiyū shisō). The American system of education, with its control of education under locally elected lay school boards reflecting the will of the community in its policies, was the epitome of freedom of thought to Tanaka. Accordingly, he set out to develop an educational reform plan that was patterned loosely on the American model in order to decentralize the control of education to the maximum extent possible.42 In the midst of the deliberations within the Ministry over reforming the Code of Education, a new political movement emerged known as the People’s Movement for Freedom (Jiyū Minken Undō). Until 1877 opposition to the government’s educational policies under the Code was primarily expressed through two means. The first were the scattered but widespread spontaneous acts of violence carried out often by farmers, not infrequently involving the destruction of school buildings. The other means of opposition was simply for parents not to enroll their school-age children in them. The following table illustrates the extent of the problem in 1876–1877, with only 38 percent of the total number of children attending the schools that were intended to serve all children in the nation. Only one in five girls was in attendance that year.

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

2 87

table 9.1 elementary school attendance rates, 1876–1877 Boys

Girls

Total

54.2%

21.0%

38.3%

Source: Horimatsu Buichi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi (History of modern Japanese education), Risōsha, 1979, 63.

With the growth of the People’s Movement for Freedom, the more sophisticated opponents had a new means to express their opposition. As the first fairly well-organized movement critical of the Meiji government since its inception in 1868, it was understandably viewed with concern by the leadership of the nation that had retained power and influence for a decade. It was interpreted as a potential source of social instability that could undermine the progress of modernization that was well under way. Educational policy in 1877 predictably became involved in the political movement that attracted leaders of the Jiyū Minken Undō. Among their writings, the call for educational reform of the Code of Education emerged as a contentious element. Many activist teachers joined the freedom movement, some heading local chapters, criticizing the government and its educational policies through writings and speeches.43 The problem confronting the government was how to interpret the motives of teachers who actively participated in the freedom movement. The more conservative leaders took the position that it was a political act when teachers began to agitate for freedom in the classroom. Their demands called for teachers’ rights to determine what they taught—that is, curriculum content. To many in government, this violated an unwritten understanding of the principle of the political neutrality of the classroom. The emergence of the movement for freedom of education in 1877 took place precisely as Tanaka Fujimaro was developing his new educational regulations to revamp the Code of Education of 1872. The demands of the movement coincidentally coincided to some degree with that of Tanaka’s position. It went, as we will learn, directly counter to David Murray’s basic convictions that the Ministry of Education retain broad powers of control over all public schools. It’s impossible to determine precisely how aware Murray was of the rise of the Jiyū Minken Undō or of its demands to respect the rights of teachers, which would greatly diminish the power of the ministry over the schools. In his writings both personal and professional, Murray never indicated that he was concerned about the political movement that Tanaka, the highest official in government responsible for the nation’s schools, could not ignore. As reference material for the reform process, Tanaka had the Ministry publish his education report on the 1876 American centennial in four volumes. In it he

288

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

devoted a large portion to American education as well as the American educational exhibit. He also brought back to Japan various reports on American education, including one, a collection of education laws, from three dozen states. The Ministry published them under the title of Beikoku Gakkō Hō (American school laws), providing the Ministry with the latest data on the American legal foundation for education.44 In order to carry out his reform plan in a systematic manner, Tanaka reorganized the Ministry in early 1877, appointing a special committee to draw up the reforms. Senior officers of the Ministry were essentially divided into two. Those working on a version from a Japanese perspective dispatched inspectors to various areas of the country to conduct firsthand investigations on the effects of the Code of Education after four years in operation. They were then to submit individual reports of their findings for committee consideration. At the same time, Murray and his staff were given the assignment to draw up a proposal from a Western perspective for a revision of the Code. The two reports were then to serve as reference materials for Tanaka himself to oversee the final version of the educational reform plan for government approval and ultimate implementation. In order for Murray to carry out his challenging assignment, Tanaka appointed a staff of Ministry officials to work with him in his new office who had a working facility in the English language, since Murray had little inclination to learn Japanese. Among them was Hirayama Tarō, who was befriended by the Murrays in New Brunswick appearing in the portrait of students dedicated to the Murrays in 1870 reproduced in chapter 1, and Orita Hikoichi, newly graduated from Princeton, who was also befriended by the Murrays when he was sent to New Brunswick with the Iwakura sons.45 However, the most important and influential Ministry official assigned to Murray’s office was Egi Kazuyuki, later to become Minister of Education. Egi’s memoirs not only provide invaluable insights into the operations of Murray’s office but expose the conflict that engulfed the Ministry of Education during Murray’s second period in Japan, which he could not avoid. Egi, of historical note, was one of the major provocateurs. To summarize Murray’s involvement in the reform of the Code of Education, he actively participated in planning revisions of it from the very beginning of his work in the Ministry of Education. That assignment was necessarily set aside during his fourteen-month interlude in America for the Philadelphia centennial. Upon instructions from Tanaka, the reform effort became intensified with Murray’s return at the beginning of 1877. Murray described the atmosphere surrounding the effort in descriptive terms: “We went over every part of it with pains-taking assiduity.”46 In his first report to the Ministry of Education in 1873, Murray recognized the obstacles faced by the educational authorities in implementing the nation’s first attempt to establish a public school system throughout the country. The following excerpt is recalled, providing a basis to evaluate whether Murray’s advice

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

289

to Tanaka for the reform of the educational system in 1877 was appropriate to meet the problems that Murray recognized in his 1873 report: The plans and objects of the educational department have been in many places misunderstood by the people. The old teachers have in many cases been averse to the introduction of the new methods. Communities have in some cases been unwilling to submit to the additional burdens of taxation which the support of schools required and in other cases have shown an utter apathy in regard to the subject. These obstacles have required the utmost persistency of the superintendents to overcome, and they have been compelled to travel from ken [prefecture] to ken and from town to town, to explain and encourage and assist in the organization of the schools.47

By 1877 the challenging task of educational reform had become entangled in controversy, dividing the senior Japanese officials within the Ministry and, for the first time, provoking a split between Tanaka and Murray. It continued up to the moment that Murray’s second contract ended in early 1879 and extended well beyond among the Japanese officials. The issue of contention was primarily an administrative one, although with broad ramifications for the future of Japanese education and society. The fundamental question was, in simple terms, At what level—the local, the prefectural, or the national—should the authority be vested to regulate the nation’s public elementary schools mandated by the Code of Education? It involved what courses should be required for all students; how many years of schooling should be required for all; how schools, teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and so on should be financed; and of great import, who should determine the course content.

Murray’s Fourth Report: The Revision of the Code of Education Murray took the opportunity in his fourth report to Vice Minister Tanaka in 1877 to submit his theoretical position on the reform of the Code of Education of 1872, the Gakusei. He begins with recognizing the historical relevance of Japan’s initial plan for a public school system. For the first time in Murray’s reports, he gave a brief résumé of the purpose and significance of the Code as he understood them and for which he had been hired to advise the Meiji government on its implementation four years earlier in 1873: The intercourse between this and foreign countries, each year becoming more intimate and extended, had brought the country face to face with western learning and civilization and made it necessary to teach in Japanese schools many branches of knowledge which were unknown or unvalued under the former state of things. It is plain therefore that the circumstances which existed

29 0

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

at the time of the issue of the first code have been greatly altered, and many things which it was then necessary to take into account may now be omitted, and many matters which at that time were not deemed worthy of consideration as being too remote have now become pressing as subjects of legislation. The experience of the interval has been full of instructive lessons to those engaged in administering the affairs of education. Changes in the government and conditions of the country have made necessary great changes in the mode of conducting the schools.48

In his “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan, 1877,” Murray began modestly with a surprising admission after four years on the job: Being only imperfectly acquainted with the laws and customs of this country, and therefore to a great degree ignorant of the circumstances for which such a law must provide, I have no claim to the ability or experience to decide finally what is the best form in which the code should be issued. . . . In the hope of aiding in this important but difficult work I have made a careful study of the educational systems of many countries and have tried to select from them what will be suitable to the wants of this county. I submit therefore as the result of my studies and comparisons the following . . . I regard this as the most important matter connected with the Code of Education. The administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education.49

In one succinct statement, Murray summarized his fundamental position that first appeared in his speech at one of the conferences on education at the Philadelphia centennial the previous year. He had become convinced that the “best system” for the administration of Japanese education was based on the principle of centralized control posited in the Ministry of Education. His rationale was stated in concise terms: “In order to secure anything like a system, properly graded and balanced, and to keep the standard of the schools and the character of the instruction at a suitable point, it is absolutely necessary to reserve to the Department of Education a power to prescribe schedules of study and to inspect buildings, equipments, and instruction in the school.” According to Murray, the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Education was to determine a suitable standard of education for the nation. Every school in the country, following this theory, must then aim for that national standard. Moreover, in order to determine whether the national standard is being met at each school, Murray recommended that the Ministry establish a system to inspect local standards: “Inspection is necessary because in no other way can a sufficient knowledge of the educational condition of the country be attained by the government, or the defects in the system, or a failure to carry out the established regulations by the local authorities, be discovered and remedied.”

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

291

Murray then advanced the role of the national government into the local public school system, at that time primarily concentrated at the elementary school level, one step further beyond the administrative level. Under his plan the Ministry of Education must supervise the public schools as well. He based his recommendation on the progress of popular education. By relating supervision of schools to national progress in every country where it has occurred, as he did in the following excerpt from his report, he indirectly infers that this process has taken place in all modern countries in the West and, likewise, should be followed in Japan: “In every country where popular education has made progress, it has been brought about by the thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration.” Murray predicted a disastrous consequence to a nation that does not uphold the principles that he advocates. Otherwise, the nation’s future is in jeopardy. The warning is so severe that it raises the question of whether Murray purposely resorted to hyperbole in order to counter Tanaka’s well-known attraction to American patterns of local educational control and supervision. He also used for the first time the concept of a uniform system of education—that is, standardization—the significance of which is the contrast between it and the pattern of education in his home country of America. It was reminiscent of James Wickersham’s concerns about Pennsylvania’s schools expressed at the Philadelphia centennial, as reported in the previous chapter. The following excerpt strikes at the heart of Murray’s recommendations: Without proper supervision a school system however perfect at the beginning will soon fall into endless irregularities, inferior teachers will be employed, and the instruction will become correspondingly inferior. Schoolhouses will be neglected, and the health of children will be imperiled. Each locality will pursue a plan of its own, and change the well considered scheme of instruction according to popular or individual caprice, so that in a very few years a system, meant to be uniform, will present every shade of difference. To provide against such dangers, to keep the standard of education sufficiently high, and to leave the way open for necessary improvements, the Department of Education must be vested with sufficient powers of supervision and control. To do less than this will be to go back to the feudal times, and undue much that has already been accomplished. These which follow seemed to me the essential powers to be vested in the Department of Education. To prescribe plans of study for all public schools. To prescribe the qualifications for teachers. To inspect all schools public and private and to have the means of correcting the abuses and enforcing compliance with the established regulations.

292

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9 To appoint (or nominate) for each fu and ken (city and prefecture) a superintendent of schools.

Murray then went one step further in delineating the powers of the Ministry of Education concerning the control and censorship of textbook content: In organizing a system of national education the subject of school books must not be neglected. Their preparation and selection cannot safely be left without control. If some sort of inspection or restraint be not retained over the use of books in the schools, they are sure to be deluged with wretched publications. Private enterprise when employed in producing books for the use of schools should therefore be subject to some sort of censorship. This should be so exercised, if possible, as to discourage the production of bad books, and encourage the good. It should therefore be an established law that no books should be used as textbooks in the public schools of the country until they have been licensed by the Ministry of Education.

Murray then extended his focus from the public elementary schools and the few secondary schools then in existence to the advanced level of education. Reflecting the times, he intended that higher education be reserved for men: In order to make the system of Higher Education uniform and of worthy character, it will be wise to retain it in the immediate control of the Department of Education. . . . Nothing is better settled than the principle that the education of young men ought to be conducted in their own country and surrounded by the circumstances and historical associations in which they are to spend their lives. To secure the uniformity and efficiency necessary in the highest grade of educational institutions, it is expedient to entrust their control to the Department of Education. Local ambition and inexperience often lead to the establishment of institutions where they are not wanted, and in numbers far beyond the wants of the country. There is more danger that there shall be too many attempts at university establishments, than too few. The essential condition of success is that whatever is begun should be of the required high character. To secure this the establishment of institutions of superior education is to be exclusively entrusted to the Department of Education.

For the first time since Murray assumed the position as Superintendent of Education and senior adviser to the head of the Japanese Ministry of Education, his advice to his personal friend on a critically important issue ran counter to Tanaka’s convictions.50 Murray’s recommendations can be characterized as adhering to the basic principles outlined in the Code of Education of 1872, which granted broad powers to the Ministry to establish the first public school system in the nation’s history. By 1877, in contrast, Tanaka had become determined to

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

293

replace the code with a new law. Moreover, he had become convinced that the American tradition in the administration of education was the best system for Japan to adapt in the process. After four years as the senior official responsible for education during the most critical period in the nation’s educational history, Tanaka was determined to replace the 1872 Code of Education with his own ordinance that went counter to the strongest recommendation Murray ever made. Murray was convinced, and rightly so, that the issue of contention between him and Tanaka was of enormous consequence to the future welfare of the nation. According to him, the educational standards of the country, essential for Japan’s sovereignty as a modern state during an era of unquestioned Western supremacy, could only be maintained with central government supervision and inspection. He specifically conjures up a future that “will go back to the feudal times and undue much that has already been accomplished.” The warning is obvious. What has “already been accomplished” refers to the modernization of Japanese education brought about by the Code of Education stipulating that every community must maintain a public school serving every child as mandated by the Ministry of Education which drew up the plan in 1872. In the process the clan schools of feudal Japan, which educated the samurai Murray encountered in America that he greatly admired and respected, were eliminated. Tanaka Fujimaro, responsible for the Ministry, reacted to the widespread opposition to the Ministry’s plan of 1872 led by the rural classes that provoked rioting. Many of the new public schools were purposely destroyed. Ironically the new schools were originally intended by the government as a means to enable the lower levels of the society to emerge successfully from the feudal past into the modern era. It was a grand endeavor intended as a social transformation. Murray disregarded rural opposition to the Code of Education in his 1877 report that he recognized however briefly in his earlier 1873 report to Tanaka. In his later report he forcefully recommended that the role of the central government in local education should be strengthened to assure that the gains already achieved can be sustained and advanced. In contrast, Tanaka reacted to the local opposition to Ministry policy by searching for an alternative to the Code. By 1877 he had become knowledgeable on education in Western countries through firsthand observations. As a member of the Iwakura Embassy he had visited schools in twelve Western countries from America to Britain through continental Europe to Russia from February 1872 to June 1873. In 1876 he returned to the United States to attend the Philadelphia centennial for another six months. During these two prolonged periods in the West, Tanaka took advantage of the opportunity to visit many schools, both public and private. He also interviewed teachers and administrators throughout the West. No other Japanese, or, arguably, Westerner as well, had such a wide perspective of Western education as did the former samurai from feudal Japan, Tanaka Fujimaro, in the 1870s.

294

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

For example, within three weeks after arriving in America for the first time in 1872, following meetings with the U.S. Commissioner of Education in Washington, Tanaka had already grasped the basic outlines of the American tradition of educational control. In a letter home to the head of the Ministry of Education dated March 20, referred to previously, he expressed his initial negative reaction to American education as a model for Japan. By interviewing the Superintendent of Pennsylvania Education, James Wickersham, he learned that individual American states rather than the central government in Washington, exercised the power in widely varying degrees to set minimum regulations for the public schools within that state. Tanaka initially concluded that American education was not the proper system for Japan, with its newly organized Meiji governmental structure, to use as a model for the country. Consequently when Murray wrote in his report to Tanaka in 1877 that, “In every country where popular education has made progress, it has been brought about by the thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration,” Tanaka knew from personal experience that this was decidedly not the case in America. Tanaka’s unique experiences in American schools during his six-month period as a member of the Iwakura Embassy in 1872, followed by a year visiting schools in Europe, provoked a change of mind from his original impression. In contrast to Tanaka’s unprecedented experiences in Western schools in twelve countries, his senior American adviser David Murray ironically had a very narrow educational background restricted to an elite sector of American society. Murray did not have the opportunity to observe a school in Britain or continental Europe. Moreover he may never have set foot in an American public school after a year or two as a child since his education and teaching were overwhelmingly confined to the private sector. When Murray forcefully argued in his report to Tanaka that the progress of popular education in the West was due to the “thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration,” Tanaka knew from personal experience that this was the case in certain European countries but not all. In the 1870s neither the United States nor England, two of the major Western nations, had a system in which the “central administration” carried out a “thorough supervision of the schools.” Curiously, David Murray was well aware that the American government did not have the power “to inspect all schools private and public” in the United States. He served from 1857 to 1863 as the principal of the private Albany Academy in the capital city of the state of New York, a wellknown institution that catered to the children of the leading families of the area. During his tenure as the chief administrator of the school, he never envisioned that an official from the “central administration” in Washington would “thoroughly supervise” the Albany Academy. Moreover, even though the State of New York set minimum regulations for education in that state, as Tanaka Fujimaro properly understood the American system, it is unlikely that Murray as the chief administrator of Albany Academy

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

295

felt that he was being thoroughly supervised by an officer of the state of New York when, for example, he hired an instructor for the school. In contrast, he advised Tanaka, as head of the Ministry of Education, to prescribe the qualifications for teachers at public and private schools. Although Murray was surely cognizant that the American tradition in education did not conform to his recommendation for Japan, he may not have been aware that his implication that British schools also had “a thorough supervision . . . by the central administration” was untrue. Six years before Murray made his recommendation for Japanese schools that they should conform to modern Western countries like America and Britain, a Ministry of Education was established in London with limited powers over public and private schools. On the contrary Tanaka had visited schools in several British cities after the Ministry was formed. With his keen interest in school administration, he surely became familiar enough with the restricted powers of the British Ministry of Education to understand that Murray’s sweeping rationale for centralized control of Japanese education did not apply to Britain as well as America. In reality, among the major Western countries where popular education had made progress by the 1870s, that is the United States, Britain, France, and Germany that by then incorporated Prussia, only Germany had instituted what could be described as a centralized school system where public education was supervised by the central government. In France the Catholic Church retained much influence over education, both public and private, so that Murray would not have suggested that France should be the best model for Japan. Murray’s advice for Japan was to primarily follow the German system by investing strong powers at the central level of government. Murray’s positive attitude toward German education was evident before he entered Japanese government service in 1873. In his 1872 reply to Mori Arinori’s request to a dozen American scholars on their opinion of the role of education in a nation’s development, Murray singled out the United States and Germany as two leading Western countries with a common educational purpose. He did not mention how they were diametrically opposites in the control of education by their central governments: “The two nations which in the past century have advanced most in wealth, population, fame, and influence, are the United States and Germany. In these nations if there is any one feature in which their systems of government excel, it is in the liberality and profusion with which the means of education have been provided. Differing widely in other circumstances, they have still shown this common aim in their efforts to render education universal, and to leave no human soul within their territory without the opportunity for development.” In this regard, Tanaka spent considerable time in Germany in 1872–1873 visiting schools, meeting educators, and collecting many reports for translation and reference for the reform of Japanese education. He remained in Berlin for several

29 6

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

months during the 1872–1873 winter, where many of the reports he had gathered in Europe were translated before his return to Japan. He had an opportunity to learn a great deal about German education from the Japanese students, most of whom were on Ministry of Education grants, in addition to his school visits with Japanese students studying in Germany providing translation. In contrast, Murray never visited a German school nor personally interviewed German teachers and local administrators. His initial knowledge and understanding of the German educational administrative system may have come through writings by American scholars and students who by the latter half of the 1880s had taken a deep interest in the German tradition in education. In addition, during his six months at the Philadelphia centennial when he had considerable time to attend the educational conventions with American and foreign educators, he had become drawn into the mystique of the German-Prussian tradition in education that many contemporary Americans had come to admire, including James Wickersham, State Superintendent of Education in Pennsylvania. There were several features of the German educational system that impressed American educators and scholars at that time. One was graduate education, which attracted thousands of Americans to enroll in German university PhD programs in the 1870s. Those who returned home with German doctorate degrees were held in high esteem further enhancing the reputation of German education among the American educated elite who wrote about the system in glowing terms. Among the other features of German education which particularly impressed some influential American educators was the centralized system of educational administration in which a national standard of education was determined by the Ministry of Education. Standardized textbooks, teacher qualifications, and teaching methods were the tools used to maintain that national standard. Powers of inspection enabled the Ministry to determine where and when national standards were not being met by local schools enabling central authorities to implement changes to eliminate the abuses of the national regulations, precisely as Murray recommended for Japan. The attraction to not a few American educators of the centralized administrative control of public education as practiced quite efficiently in Germany by the 1870s can best be appreciated when contrasted to the American approach. The locally elected school board in each American community was often the point of contention. For example, according to Superintendent of Pennsylvania Education James Wickersham, who befriended Tanaka both in 1872 in his office in the state capital of Harrisburg and in 1876 at the Philadelphia centennial in the largest city in Pennsylvania, the first obstacle to the progress of education in Pennsylvania concerned the locally elected school boards that had, in sharp contrast, favorably impressed Tanaka. Wickersham described the function of local boards of education consisting of elected laymen as responsible for determining the standards of teachers and their

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

297

salaries, buildings, textbooks, and the curriculum. That was based on their power to set local taxes on real estate to finance local schools. When the local community was conscious of the importance of education to the community, the school boards could set tax rates sufficient to maintain high academic standards of the public schools. Conversely when the local citizenry failed to appreciate the importance of education, a tax base sufficient to properly finance the local schools was difficult to achieve. The results produced inequalities in educational standards from community to community all within the state of Pennsylvania. Wickersham pointed out in one of his reports that Pennsylvania had a total population of ten million people with a school population of nine hundred thousand. The total school budget for the state came to $10,000,000 per year, about half of what was actually needed to finance the system adequately since the voting population would not support higher taxes. As a result teacher salaries were not sufficient to attract the necessary pool of qualified teachers who made a career in teaching. The average teacher was twenty-five years old with many positions being filled with females under twenty-five who most often resigned immediately upon marriage. Under the circumstances, Wickersham, as State Superintendent of Education, was powerless to solve the continuing problem of the shortage of qualified teachers in the public schools of Pennsylvania. It was the descriptions of German education invariably presented from a positive perspective by American educators that Murray was exposed to both before he went to Japan and at the American centennial, especially from James Wickersham. After four years as Superintendent of Japanese Education he had come to the conclusion by 1877 that essentially the German administrative system of education was the best for Japan. He strongly recommended it as the model for Tanaka Fujimaro to follow in his revision of the Code of Education. On the contrary, by 1877 Tanaka Fujimaro had become firmly convinced that the American tradition in educational administration based on the strategic role of the locally elected school board was the most appropriate system for Japan to adapt in spite of his American adviser’s recommendation to the contrary. The two close personal friends who had worked together harmoniously ever since they assumed their respective positions at the Ministry of Education in 1873 found themselves in sharp disagreement over the reform of Japanese education by the end of 1877. The crux of the division that emerged between the Japanese educational administrator and his American adviser derived from their seemingly incongruous perspectives on education. The Japanese head of the Ministry of Education favored the American system. His American adviser adamantly opposed it favoring the German system. The division between Tanaka and Murray as the two senior officers of the Ministry of Education reflected the division that took place among the Japanese officials within the Ministry itself. One group favored retaining the central powers over local education incorporated in the Code of Education of 1872 that

29 8

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Murray favored. The other supported a radical revision of the Code incorporating local school boards with broad powers of supervision and administration that Tanaka supported. Among the ranking Japanese officials who led the internal opposition to Tanaka was Egi Kazuyuki, destined to become one of the most powerful figures in Japanese education, the central figure in the final chapter of this biography.

Tanaka Fujimaro’s Proposed School Law By the end of 1877, Tanaka had decided to submit a new code of education for approval to the ruling body of the government, the Genrōin. It was intended to replace the Code of Education of 1872, the first plan for a public school system in Japanese history, with the second plan for a public school system titled simply the School Law (Kyōiku Rei). In the process, however, it set off a provocative dispute concerning the direction of Japanese education in the modern era. It presented an unprecedented challenge to David Murray as Superintendent of Japanese Education during this period. There were two interrelated issues in the controversy over modern Japanese education that came to the forefront at the beginning of the second decade of the Meiji era in which Murray became inextricably involved. Although Tanaka’s proposed law stipulated that the Ministry of Education was responsible for the educational affairs of the country in principle, it introduced into Japan the gakumuin, the locally elected school board system on the American pattern. It was empowered to supervise (kanri) the local curriculum. Officially, the Ministry of Education was granted the authority of curricula approval. Tanaka, however, intended it to be liberally applied. Private schools were given considerable freedom, since prefectural offices had little authority to compel curriculum revisions. The following articles were among the critical and most controversial provisions of Tanaka’s proposed School Law: “Each community shall be responsible for organizing a public elementary school administered [kanri] by a committee [gakumuin] elected by the citizens of the community. Each local public school will design its own curriculum subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education. Private schools may be freely opened. The curriculum must be reported to the prefectural education office.”51 Tanaka’s educational ordinance, consequently, went counter to Murray’s strongest recommendation that the Ministry “prescribe plans of study for all public schools” to set a standardized curriculum throughout the country. Further, Murray recommended that the Ministry be vested with the authority to inspect every public and private school. His goal was to ensure that a national standard of education be maintained, lest “a system, meant to be uniform, will present every shade of difference . . . [and will] go back to the feudal times, and undue much that has already been accomplished.”

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

29 9

Tanaka ignored Murray’s primary recommendations as well as those of the senior Japanese officials who supported the same position. He had become convinced that a standardized curriculum for the nation designed and enforced by the Ministry of Education would not rectify the problems brought about by the Code of Education. The violent reaction by thousands of farmers and the low rate of attendance at the newly established public schools with a Westernstyle curriculum and teaching methods proved to Tanaka that drastic reforms were required. Without any assurance that his law on education would produce positive reactions among the local citizenry, who would become more directly involved in local educational policy under the proposed law, Tanaka staked not only his reputation but his future and that of Japanese education on the American pattern of education. Critics within the Ministry characterized Tanaka as “America kabure”—that is, obsessed with America.52 By the time that Tanaka formally submitted his Education Law proposal to the government for approval on May 14, 1878,53 a second controversial issue emerged from Tanaka’s proposed education bill that took on a new and decidedly more provocative perspective. It would consume and further divide the Ministry of Education through the rest of the year and well beyond Murray’s tenure. Until then, the primary issue of controversy revolved around the structure of educational control—that is, at what level the control of educational administration should be posited. At this stage of development, Murray felt that he had a role to play as the senior adviser to Tanaka. However, when critics within government began to consider Tanaka’s proposed education bill more deeply as it neared completion, a new issue further broadened the division between the opposing sides. It related to Article 3 in Tanaka’s bill: the basic curriculum of the public elementary schools will include reading, calligraphy, mathematics, geography, history, and morals (shūshin).54 The contentious issue over this particular provision concerned the morals course. Some critics of the modern school system based on Western models, particularly the American model as envisioned by Tanaka, decried the absence of moral direction for the youth of Japan since the Meiji Restoration of 1868. They became increasingly alarmed about the imbalances in the subjects listed in the required curriculum of the new public elementary schools. The concern for science by the Meiji government in order for Japan to modernize to achieve a level of development that could preserve national sovereignty gave priority to subjects like mathematics. Conversely, it relegated the morals course (shūshin) to the bottom of the official list of required courses in the curriculum common to all schools. The issue that provoked controversy in the latter part of 1877 was focused initially on what should be taught in the required morals course during the new era of enlightenment championed by the Meiji government. During the several hundred years of the Tokugawa regime, Confucian morality from China

30 0

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

teaching respect for parents, elders, and those in authority through ethical lessons in the terakoya schools perpetuated a moral foundation of the society that was generally acceptable by all social levels, including the peasant class. Subjects such as reading and writing were interlaced with stories illustrating Confucian morality in a similar manner as Christian morality did in American schools and textbooks. The new modern schools in Japan mandated by the government in 1872 required all students to study mathematics, the basis of science as taught in Western countries, in which morality had no role. The call for traditional moral teachings to be included in the national curriculum provoked further controversy when the proponents demanded that the Ministry of Education rebalance the curriculum between Eastern morality and Western science. They advocated reversing the order of required subjects in the public schools of Japan, elevating the course on morals (shūshin) from the bottom to the top. It was symbolic of the proper role of Eastern morality in Japanese culture. Tanaka’s proposed Education Law that worked itself through the Ministry of Education in 1877 brought to the forefront the inherent limitations of a nonJapanese from the West serving as a senior adviser in the Ministry of Education. What should be taught in the required morals course in the nation’s public schools went beyond David Murray’s expertise and, as a foreigner, appropriateness to advise the Japanese Ministry. Murray recognized this by avoiding any recommendations related to morals education. However, since opponents of Tanaka’s Education Law argued that the morals course be elevated to the top of the curriculum in the public elementary schools and that it include traditional morals teachings imbedded in Confucian thought as determined appropriate by the Ministry of Education, it necessarily concerned an appropriate administrative structure to bring this about. To accomplish this major restructuring, critics of Tanaka’s Education Law claimed that the Ministry must be empowered to set the curriculum and course content as strongly recommended by Murray, not the locally elected school boards as Tanaka proposed.55 As a consequence Murray was indirectly drawn into the controversy when officials like Egi, an assistant to Murray in his office, joined the movement to promote traditional morals education in the modern school system while simultaneously promoting Murray’s recommendation for central control of education. In retrospect, since the Meiji government had not taken a position on morals education immediately after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, that policy was continued after the Ministry of Education was formed in 1871. Under Tanaka since 1873, the Ministry, reflecting the new enlightened era, avoided the somewhat contentious issue of morals education when modernization was the supreme concern. Therefore it was understandable that Murray was never asked for his advice on the matter, which has a certain delicacy related to it in Japanese culture.

Mu rr ay’s C on trov ersial Rep ort

301

Tanaka himself did not demonstrate a particular interest in Confucian morality or religion in his daily life as far as can be determined. Niijima, on leave from his studies to become a Christian pastor, who traveled with Tanaka for over a year throughout the West as his translator, noted in a number of his letters how broad-minded Tanaka was on religious and moral issues: He [Tanaka] said he knew something of Christianity and has begun to appreciate its goodness and value more and more since he came to this country seeing so plainly what the Christian people are doing here. He is almost awestruck with the schools, churches, and some charitable institutions supported by the Christian people or societies. Then he thought Christianity one of the best instrumentalities to govern a people or elevate a nation; but he said, “I do not know enough to say that we ought to love truth because it is truth and not use it as a mere Instrumentality.” He says the government has no right to interfere in any form of religion, for belief in any religion is in the heart and not in outward deeds. The duty of the government is to keep the people in good order, and it ought to let the religion be free to the people. Let them worship true God or heathen gods according to their consciences. If there is truth or goodness in one religion more than the others it will prevail after all.56

By the end of 1877, Tanaka had applied his belief in freedom from the area of religion and morality to the area of education. He proposed the replacement of the Code of Education with the Education Law (Kyōiku Rei), which incorporated the locally elected school board system within it. The intention was meant to introduce a much greater degree of freedom in the local administration of public education. The bill went down in educational history as the Freedom of Education Law (Jiyū Kyōiku Rei), precisely as, according to Tanaka’s son, his father wished.57 In the process, however, Tanaka had essentially rejected Murray’s most important recommendation concerning the Code of Education—namely, that “the administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education.” Simultaneously, a movement to incorporate traditional Japanese morality into a leading position in the curriculum to counterbalance the increasingly prominent role of Western science and mathematics in Tanaka’s law had emerged. Either by choice or by necessity, to the greatest extent possible Murray avoided becoming entangled in the ensuing controversy that wracked the Ministry of Education. He wisely made no attempt to offer advice on the delicate issue of the role of Confucian morality, deeply rooted in Japanese culture and history, in the public schools of Japan. As it turned out, Murray’s first year back at the Ministry of Education following the 1876 Philadelphia centennial proved to be a difficult one, as the Ministry became divided over one of the most perplexing problems in modern Japanese

302

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

education, the role of morals education. Curiously, Murray never referred to it in letters home or in articles after he returned to America. As he began the last year under his contract in the service of the emperor in January 1878, he looked for an alternative project to undertake unrelated to the dispute related to Tanaka’s Kyōiku Rei as it proceeded slowly through the governmental process, engulfed in controversy.

chapter 10



MURRAY’S FINAL REPORT AND DEPARTURE a survey of tokyo’s public schools, 1878–1879 By 1878, the final year of David Murray’s second contract as Superintendent of Japanese Education, his responsibilities had been sharply curtailed. The Ministry of Education, immersed in controversy over Tanaka Fujimaro’s Education Law (Kyōiku Rei), designed to replace the Code of Education of 1872 that launched the nation’s first public school system, had essentially bypassed Murray. His major recommendations were not included in the final version of the bill that reached the first stage of government consideration on May 14, 1878. The Political Bureau (Hōsei Kyoku) under the responsibility of Itō Hirobumi, rising star of the Meiji government, had to approve the bill before deliberation by the Dajōkan, the highest organ of government. On the very day that the proposed Education Law arrived at the Political Bureau, one of the most notorious incidents of the first decade of the Meiji era took place. By then the leading figure in the Meiji government, Ōkubo Toshimichi, was assassinated on the streets of Tokyo by disgruntled samurai. Martha Murray succinctly reported the incident in a letter to cousin Lucy the following day, revealing how the Murrays reacted to it: “Yesterday Japan had a terrible calamity in the assassination of Okubo. He is really the most important man in the government. The assassination has aroused a great deal of excitement. He will be a great loss to the government, and as we know him personally, we feel it also on this account. The assassins after committing the act delivered themselves up and were led to jail while singing through the streets.”1 This incident of historical proportions resulted in the delay of nearly a year until Itō finally gave his approval with minor revisions of Tanaka’s proposed Education Law. It was then sent to the Dajōkan for final consideration and approval in 1879, setting off a major reaction among powerful opponents, including the imperial household, that can be considered as a “reverse course” in early modern 303

304

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Japanese education. However, by that time the Murrays had already left Japan to return home. Consequently, the fate of the 1879 Education Law will be considered in the next and last chapter in Murray’s biography. The assassination of Ōkubo in May 1878 brought into play the interrelations of the major individuals who led Japan from the feudal era to the modern era, with whom David and Martha had a personal relationship. It can be appreciated through the life of Ōkubo, who, according to Martha’s letter, was personally known by the Murrays, as was Itō, then responsible for the fate of the Education Law. It presents an opportunity to briefly review the unprecedented critical relationships between an American professor of mathematics and the supreme leaders of the Meiji Restoration, culminating with the assassination of Ōkubo. Ōkubo, a samurai from the Satsuma domain, achieved fame in 1866 when he joined with his fellow clansman, Saigō Takamori, to forge an alliance with Kido Takayoshi from the Chōshū domain in rebellion against the Tokugawa regime. The famed Sat-Chō Alliance, led by this trio of disaffected samurai, then met with Iwakura Tomomi, court noble of the imperial family confined to Kyoto by the Tokugawa government in Edo (Tokyo). A non-samurai representing the emperor, Iwakura gave his full support and encouragement to the samurai leaders in the alliance with powerful military forces under their command. With the addition of several other smaller domains, the Sat-Chō Alliance carried out a successful rebellion in 1868 with the Meiji Restoration, in which Ōkubo, Saigō, Kido, and Iwakura took the most powerful positions in the new government dedicated to the modernization of Japan. The younger among them, Itō from Chōshū, took an active role in the rebellion and the new government but not at the level of the others. Three years later in 1871, when the Meiji government sent the most powerful delegation to the West, the Iwakura Embassy, three out of four of the original plotters in the overthrow of the feudal Tokugawa government—Iwakura, Ōkubo, and Kido—led the mission that arrived in Washington in January 1872. Only Saigō from the original Sat-Chō Alliance remained in Tokyo as titular head of government. The fourth mission leader, Itō, had by then achieved prominence in the Meiji government, warranting his selection to join his seniors on the prolonged observation tour of the West. Among the officials from the Japanese consulate in Washington waiting at the train station to greet the powerful Japanese delegation was chargé d’affaires Mori Arinori, samurai from the Satsuma domain welcoming his Satsuma senior, Ōkubo. In the greeting party was another Satsuma samurai, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, recently a student at Rutgers College who by then had established a close personal relationship with David and Martha Murray. By this time the head of the Iwakura Embassy was already familiar with the names of David and Martha Murray. Although Iwakura and David had not yet

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

305

met, Iwakura’s two sons had been Murray’s students at Rutgers College since 1870. The stage was set for the first direct relationship between the most prominent leaders of Meiji Japan and David Murray. It would take place in Washington to be deepened in Japan when Murray became Superintendent of Education in 1873. As analyzed in a previous chapter, the first encounter between Murray and three of the major leaders of Japan took place during the Iwakura Embassy’s visit to Washington. Murray had been called to the nation’s capital for an interview by Kido Takayoshi, representing the Ministry of Education in the Iwakura delegation. That meeting resulted in an offer to Murray of employment as senior adviser to the Japanese Ministry of Education in the implementation of the first national school system. Murray came away from the meeting deeply impressed with the leading members of the Japanese government. Shortly afterward, Murray wrote to his former student, William Griffis, by then teaching at the Kaisei Gakkō in Tokyo, that “I have seen a good deal of Kido & Itoo and something of Iwakura.”2 Upon the Murrays’ arrival in Japan during the summer of 1873, David renewed his relationships with the foremost leaders of the Meiji government through a combination of private dinners at his home and reciprocal dinners at the homes of the Japanese hosts. Murray also attended official meetings and events such as the ceremonial openings of institutions under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. On several of those occasions, Murray was chosen by Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry, to offer remarks before the celebrated guests that included Emperor Meiji. By 1878, Murray’s final year in the service of the emperor, he was well known by virtually all of the most outstanding leaders of the Meiji Restoration. Among them, however, his personal contact only with Saigō Takamori had been minimal, consisting of a dinner at the Murray home among a group of Japanese dignitaries who responded with “a handsome present of a dessert set of Satsuma China.”3 The assassination of Ōkubo Toshimichi was motivated by his leading role in the defeat of his former Satsuma comrade, Saigō, who had rebelled against the Meiji government he was instrumental in founding. Ōkubo led the military forces that broke the rebellion in early 1877, provoking Saigō to commit harakiri, the ritual self-immolation in the samurai tradition. It was in retaliation that stimulated samurai from another domain to carry out the assassination of Ōkubo in Tokyo on May 14, 1878. The assassination of Ōkubo motivated Murray to react in a compassionate manner. On May 17 Martha wrote to Lucy that “David has gone to Okubo’s funeral which is to be a state affair. David wanted to send some flowers so yesterday afternoon I went out to some gardens near our house and bought over 100 roses, all magnificent large white roses one cent each. I made a wreath—one mass

30 6

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

of roses.” The image of Murray carrying with him (presumably in his carriage) a large “mass of roses” arranged by his wife to the most formal state funeral of Ōkubo in Tokyo is indeed a memorable one. One can only imagine how the officials in charge handled roses that were handed to them by a rather tall Westerner who arrived perhaps unexpectedly at that state funeral. Nevertheless, the gesture was indicative of the relationship that Murray had developed with virtually all of the major leaders of modern Japan. Martha ends her report to cousin Lucy on the Ōkubo assassination with some interesting facts about “General Saigo,” referring to Saigō’s brother Tsugumichi. He remained loyal to the central government through this whole affair to become the nominal Minister of Education. David had worked closely with him during the Philadelphia centennial, when General Saigō Tsugumichi, then Minister of Education, arrived after the centennial opened to officially take charge of the Japanese exhibit. Martha’s comments, The only exciting item that I can think of is that the assassins of Okubo have been living quite near to us in a little house just outside our Yashiki. I walked with our little maid past their house not long ago. All the Prime Ministers and Members of the Imperial Council are now guarded by a mounted cavalry by day and their houses watched by night. General Saigo has been made one of these since Okubo’s death and has also been made Minister of Ed.—Mr. Tanaka was always Vice Minister although acting as Minister. He retains his old position and Saigo being Minister is only nominal as the Imperial Council must all be ministers.4

The Survey of Tokyo’s Public Schools During the Ōkubo affair, David Murray was deeply occupied by his last research study for the Ministry of Education. In March 1878, according to him, he “proposed to the Senior Vice Minister Tanaka to make a systematic inspection of the Public Schools of the city of Tokio.”5 It was intended by Murray as a means to judge the effectiveness of the Gakusei, the first public school system in Japan that was implemented under the responsibility of Tanaka and Murray in 1873. In his request to Tanaka, Murray recognized the unique feature of choosing Tokyo for the project, since it logically should “show the best results” of the new school system: It is acknowledged that the Public Schools of this city are among the best in the Empire. They have grown up under the direct influence of the government departments and institutions. It may fairly be expected that they should show the best fruits of the educational seed which has been sown in Japan. They may reasonably be supposed to show the wisdom and efficiency of the system

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

307

of education which has been inaugurated since the restoration. I was therefore deeply interested in making this inspection and I trust that this record of it may not be without its use to the Department.

As it turned out, Murray’s proposal resulted in one of his major contributions to modern Japanese education. It was the most systematic research on the state of education undertaken after the first five years of a social transformation under way from feudalism to modernism through a universal system of education. Understandably, an extensive investigation of this magnitude by a foreigner was restricted to the capital city, since travel in Japan at the time was extremely demanding in a mountainous country with many rivers. Murray’s extensive report on the progress of education in Tokyo in 1878 may be the only one of its kind anywhere in the world in the nineteenth century. The date of Murray’s proposal in mid-March is revealing. In spite of the opposition from powerful opponents, on May 14, 1878, Tanaka submitted the Ministry’s proposed Education Law (Kyōiku Rei) to the government for final approval.6 The project that Tanaka had assigned to Murray upon his return from the Philadelphia centennial at the beginning of 1877—that is, to recommend revisions of the Gakusei—was completed by March 1878. Tanaka’s bill, however, did not include Murray’s primary recommendation on the primacy of the Ministry of Education in the administration of public education. Preoccupied with defending the Education Law, which underwent a prolonged and contentious process for over a year, Tanaka was in no position to initiate any further assignments for Murray. He may have welcomed his American adviser’s proposal to inspect the public schools of Tokyo that would take him out of the office as the controversial education bill divided Ministry officials. Murray may also have designed his proposal to avoid the internal divisions that his close friend Tanaka had to contend with. Whatever the motive, Murray reported that Vice Minister Tanaka “very cordially seconded my proposal and arranged with His Excellency the Chiji [Tokyo governor] for my visits and for officers from the School Bureau of the city government to accompany me.”7 In retrospect, the proposal by Murray to inspect the schools of Tokyo could be interpreted as an attempt by him to undertake a project that could be useful at a time when he had no specific assignment from the Ministry of Education. Tanaka’s priority was focused on steering his education reform bill through government channels, which proved to be time consuming as well as provocative when the content of morals education became a prominent and controversial issue. Success was far from assured. Murray’s advice was no longer needed at this stage. Thus when Tanaka received Murray’s proposal, there was no reason not to endorse it. There was an additional factor involved. Murray’s second contract with the Japanese government was scheduled to expire at the end of 1878. Contrary to

30 8

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

the first three-year contract that ended on June 30, 1876, for which the Ministry proposed an extension well over a year before it expired, there had been no offer to extend Murray’s second contract. Both Murray and Tanaka assumed that Murray would end his assignment with the Ministry at the termination of his second contract. The proposal to inspect Tokyo schools could have been viewed by both sides as a worthy project to give Murray something appropriate to work on during his final year as Superintendent of Japanese Education. From another perspective there is no record that Murray had visited a Japanese elementary school mandated in the Gakusei since his southern tour to Nagasaki, Hyōgo, Osaka, and Kyoto in the spring of 1874. The following year he left for America to prepare for the Philadelphia centennial, returning to Japan after fourteen months abroad. During the year 1877, Murray was, in his words, “chiefly employed in investigations in regard to a revision of the educational code of Japan [Gakusei].”8 His investigations did not include the inspection of Japanese schools. Rather, he wrote, “I have made a careful study of the educational systems of many countries and have tried to select from them what will be suitable to the wants of this country.”9 Under the conditions prevailing at the Ministry of Education in 1878, the opportunity for Murray to visit Japanese schools during the fifth year of the Gakusei presented itself. As he reasoned, it provided Murray with an opportunity to observe schools acknowledged as “the best in the Empire” that “have grown up under the direct influence of the government Departments.” Murray’s survey of Tokyo schools was extensive. Out of 150 public elementary schools in the city, he and his entourage—both from the city educational bureaucracy and Murray’s assistants from his office in the Ministry—visited 43 of them. Although the largest number of schools visited were located in the more densely populated areas of Tokyo, schools located in remote areas and the suburbs were also included. Considering that transportation in Tokyo at the time was either by jinricksha (horse and carriage) or on horseback, the hours Murray spent “on the road” between home and office and 43 schools throughout Tokyo consumed much of his time for a five-week period beginning on April 1. He turned in his final handwritten report of well over a hundred pages in July 1878. Murray listed the colleagues from his office at the Ministry of Education who joined him in his research, alternating according to the schedule: “Mr. Orita from the Mombusho (Ministry) was my associate in nearly the whole of the visits made, his place being taken on various occasions by Messrs Egi and Hirayama.” Orita Hikoichi, it will be recalled, had met Murray in New Brunswick as a samurai youth who chose Princeton rather than Rutgers College for study, the first Japanese to graduate from one of America’s premier institutions. Hirayama Tarō was one of Murray’s samurai students at Rutgers College who appeared in the portrait taken at New Brunswick and presented to the Murrays in 1872, shown in chapter 2.

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

30 9

Murray’s other assistant, Egi Kazuyuki, stood out from both Orita and Hirayama in experience with no prior relationship to Murray. In contrast to the other two assistants, Egi was politically oriented and highly motivated by his aspirations to attain a leadership position. He would become the Minister of Education after Murray left Japan to achieve notoriety as one of the most powerful figures to assume that position. Egi is the central figure in the next and final chapter of Murray’s biography. Murray carefully listed each of the forty-three schools that participated in his survey at the end of his report. The following three were chosen as representative: Sakamoto Gakku, April 5, 1878 Grand District I, 15 Loanall District, Established May 1873 Teachers, Takahashi and eight others Scholars, 250 boys Eight classes in the lower course, upper course classes 5, 7, 8 Hisamitsu Gakku, April 8 Grand District I, 13 Small District, Established July 8, 1873 Teachers, Ishida, normal graduate, and eight others Scholars, 210 boys and girls Risshin Gakku, April 24 Grand District XI, Suburban school on the road to Konodai Teachers, Matsumura and four others, one female sewing teacher Scholars, 98 boys and girls School founded by Maruyama, timber merchant, called after him, but afterward in 1877, the name was changed. Fees 12½ to 6¼ yen per month, Monbusho grants 15 yen per month. Building defective in arrangement. Windows facing the eyes of the scholars. From the beginning of the survey, Murray recognized the difficulties of observing the actual state of affairs in the schools under the special conditions that were unavoidable: “Usually we only visited schools which had been before notified of our coming. They were, therefore, so far prepared for our visits as generally to have present the committees of citizens and almost always the kocho [principal] and kucho [leader] of the districts. But in regard to the instruction, we made it a special stipulation that it should go on according to the usual daily program. We wished to see, and in most cases we did see, the regular instruction of the classes.” The classroom observations proved revealing and instructive. Murray reported, “The quality of this [teaching] seemed to differ very widely from the bright enthusiastic instruction of the earnest and well trained teacher, to the dull and listless drudgery of the hired laborer. . . . Much of the instruction is done by

3 10

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

inexperienced teachers of little education. It cannot be, of course, of a high order. But in all the best schools, a well trained teacher is at the head, and his influence is felt throughout all the subordinate classes. . . . My impression certainly was that considering the great difficulty in obtaining competent teachers, the instruction was remarkably satisfactory.” Murray was particularly intrigued by one teacher he observed. He was presumably not among the few who had earned a teaching certificate at one of the new teacher training schools established during Murray’s tenure at the Ministry: We saw in one school a teacher with three classes in his room, which he was attempting to teach all at once. To one he was giving out examples in arithmetic and superintending their operations and results. Second class was reading Japanese history by turns, and he found time to turn an ear occasionally to the reading, and to direct the next in order to take up the task. The third class was writing and the teacher passed up and down the passages giving directions. It is great praise to him that he performed this almost impossible task in a most creditable manner; but the system cannot be praised.

For the first time in Murray’s reports, the actual conditions of the new public elementary schools mandated by the Gakusei drawn up and implemented by the Ministry of Education were described. The significance of this cannot be overestimated. Murray, as Superintendent of Education since 1873, had little in-depth opportunity until 1878 to observe the effects of the policies for which he was commissioned to advise from the beginning. The irony was that the opportunity was confined to the schools of Tokyo, “acknowledged as the best in the Empire.” Murray devoted a significant portion of his report to the administration of school affairs under a section that he referred to as the “Plans of Study,” essentially the curriculum, for the Tokyo public school system. He used the opportunity to once again advance his recommendations for the central control of education: “One of the chief objects in making an inspection of the schools of Tokio was to investigate the plans of study which were in use. Under the code of education [Gakusei] issued in 1872 the schedule of study for all classes of schools were prescribed.” This was a fundamental feature of the Gakusei, mandating each local school to follow the plan of study “prescribed” by the Ministry of Education. It was a feature of the Code that Murray vigorously recommended be retained in the revision that Tanaka had drawn up for his new Education Law. In the end Tanaka rejected Murray’s advice. Murray then recognized what had actually happened to the plans of study in Tokyo mandated by the Code of Education, where they should have been most successfully applied: Owing to a want of qualified teachers, and suitable schools books, it was impossible to carry out rigorously these schedules. The local authorities were allowed

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

311

with the approval of the Mombusho to make such changes as were necessary to adapt the studies to the condition of the people and the schools. In addition to this it has been found a matter of no little difficulty to contrive an elementary school course which could be used in common for the education of all classes of the community. Under the feudal system the education of the military class [samurai] differed almost entirely from that of the common people not only in the extent to which instruction was carried, but also in the curriculum of study. . . . It is easy to see that to make a plan of study which will be satisfactory to both these classes is a matter of some difficulty. There must be compromise somewhere. The Shizoku [samurai] boy and the heimin [common] boy must each make some change from his traditional mode of education.

For the first time, Murray confronted the reality of the problems of the Gakusei from a firsthand perspective as it was enforced at the local level. When the Ministry of Education drew up the first “Plan of Study” in 1872–1873, it proved impossible to implement in the capital city. Perhaps grudgingly, Murray recognized that “it has been found a matter of no little difficulty to contrive an elementary school course which could be used in common for the education of all classes of the community.” Although Murray does not refer to it, this was one of the results of the Gakusei that motivated Tanaka to recommend that it be replaced with a new code of education. His proposed law authorized the election of local school boards, granting them authority to develop plans of study to fit local conditions, the essence of the original purpose of the American school board system, after which Tanaka designed his Education Law. Although technically the plans required Ministry approval under Tanaka’s bill, the boards were to have broad discretionary powers in the process. Tanaka got the idea from his extensive visits to America in 1872 and 1876. Murray then offered his own analysis of the difficulties of creating a common curriculum for the children of former samurai and the rest: Both classes will be better fitted for their mutual responsibilities and their duties to their country if they have been trained together in the same subjects of study. The original plan of study issued by the Mombusho [Ministry of Education] aimed at such a compromise, but experience showed the necessity of making changes to suit different localities. These changes have been so great that the whole plan had at last been abolished and each fu and ken left to make its own plans subject to the approval of the Mombusho. The city of Tokyo as elsewhere great difficulties have been encountered. The common people objected to being compelled to study Chinese and Western learning. . . . They preferred the private schools where things went on in the old way and where

312

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

their boys and girls were taught in the same way as they themselves had been. In many localities the public school languished and in many others could not be established at all on account of the prejudice against the plan of study. The city school bureau struggled against this obstacle.

This is the first time that Murray specifically spelled out one of the major causes for the opposition by “the common people” to the new schools mandated by the Code of Education. They preferred “the old way.” He revealed that in many localities, new schools could not be established due to the local opposition to them. In spite of recognizing the obstacles facing the educational officials of Tokyo public schools, Murray remained convinced that his advice to the Ministry was correct in that all classes of society should be trained together in the same subjects as determined by the Ministry of Education. In the process, he confronts the issue from a less dogmatic perspective than before. Nevertheless, he brings this topic to a close with a dire warning to Tanaka even though the proposed Education Law was under review by the supreme governing body at that very moment: Before leaving the subject of Plans of Study it may not be inappropriate to consider where is the safest depositary of the powers to regulate them. 1. It may be left to the schools themselves, each one being empowered to make a plan for itself. 2. It may be entrusted to the local government. 3. It may be made the duty of the Mombusho. Considering the inexperience of those who usually control elementary schools, it does not seem prudent to put this power in their hands. Uniformity under such a system would be impossible. To ensure some degree of uniformity it must be placed outside the schools. . . . Anything like a national system, such as has been found most effective in European countries, would be impossible. It is in my mind very clear that it is the true policy to give to the Mombusho the control over the plans of study in all public schools. This will ensure uniformity. Greater educational experience and talent can be employed in a central department than in many local governments.

This was a reconfirmation of the advice Murray had included in his report to Tanaka the previous year, when the revision of the Gakusei was under way at the Ministry, included in chapter 9. He wrote, “In order to secure anything like a system, properly graded and balanced, and to keep the standard of the schools and the character of the instruction at a suitable point, it is absolutely necessary to reserve to the Department of Education a power to prescribe schedules of study.”10 A year later, after observing the results of his advice at the local level,

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 13

Murray realized that “it has been found a matter of no little difficulty to contrive an elementary school course which could be used in common for the education of all classes of the community.” He avoids offering any solution to the problem that Tanaka faced as the senior officer of the Ministry by concluding that “there must be compromise somewhere.” Murray and Tanaka were confronted with an inherent problem of public education faced by all nations: At what level, and by what body, should the teachings in a compulsory public school be determined? In a nation emerging from centuries of feudalism under the leadership of reform-minded products of the old system determined to modernize as rapidly as possible, this was a problem that the mathematics professor from America could not solve. During his tenure as Superintendent of Education, Murray could not find a compromise. Concerning the intractable problem of local school financing, Murray reports on how the schools of Tokyo handled the financial demands of providing public schools for all children under the section entitled “School Patrons.” Apparently his Japanese colleagues from the Ministry were unaware of the approach, as was Murray: It was a surprise and a pleasure to us to find in so many cases a large number of the best citizens taking an interest in the schools in their midst. We found that it was mainly due to the organization for each school of the board of school patrons. They are appointed by the chiji [Tokyo governor] on the nomination of the kucho [ward leader] and kocho [school principal]. There is no particular limit to their number. . . . The school patrons are selected from those who are contributors and they take a just pride in being enrolled in this order. Their contributions are not confined merely to supporting the school, but the expense for building and repairing school houses, fitting up grounds, [and] providing equipment. One school in the poorer portion of the city was entirely built by a rich timber merchant. . . . Many of the best sites for school buildings have been given or loaned by the ex-Daimio [feudal lords] . . . I was quite unprepared to find these donations so large in amount.

This was a revelation to Murray that the financing of local schools in Tokyo depended to a considerable extent on private donations. In the capital city, there would be a substantial number of merchants and landowners who could afford to make donations “so large in amount.” It was only in the old capital, then named Edo, where all daimyos of local domains were required to maintain a household during the feudal era, some on grand sites. When the domain system was abolished, as Murray discovered, not a few ex-daimyo turned their properties over to the city or sold them for the new public elementary schools stipulated in the Code of Education. Although Murray did not comment on it in his report, he must have pondered how local communities in rural Japan, where opposition

314

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

to the new school system was most prevalent, managed to finance the required elementary schools. Murray devoted considerable attention to the issue of teachers and their qualifications to teach in the public elementary schools of Tokyo. With the elite Tokyo Teacher Training School leading the way in introducing modern teaching methods from the West, beginning with the San Francisco method introduced by Marion Scott in 1872, the expectation was that Tokyo public schools by 1878 would reflect this influence more than any other school district. Murray was disappointed in his findings: Out of the 404 teachers in the public [elementary] schools only 40 are reported as having regular certificates. The certificates intended in the report are those granted by the normal schools of the Mombusho [Ministry of Education] and the local normal schools of the city. Only 40 therefore, or less than 6 percent, are to be considered as really qualified for their places. The other teachers employed by the city are selected from the numerous applicants who seek these positions. Many of them go through a brief training in the city normal schools before entering upon their duties. They are often men well educated especially in the old Japanese learning. But they lack a knowledge of many of the subjects now taught in the elementary school, and they are without experience in the method of conducting schools and instructing classes.

After five years under the Gakusei and six years of the Tokyo Teacher Training School, the fact that only 40 of the 404 public school teachers of Tokyo had been trained to teach the new subjects using modern teaching methodology had to be a disappointment to Murray and Tanaka. Murray’s report is also instructive by pointing out that “in all the best schools, a well trained teacher is at the head, and his influence is felt throughout the school” and that many of the remaining 364 teachers who were not certified to teach—that is, those who had not gone through a recognized teacher training course—were nevertheless “well educated.” Murray does not elaborate on that seemingly incongruous conclusion. However, his aside had enormous ramifications for modern Japan, which he recognized. He was referring primarily to the class of ex-samurai who had been educated in clan schools during the feudal era in the literary and military arts. They all had studied the Chinese classics as part of the education of the samurai. These were the schools that educated the young samurai who came to Rutgers College. Murray wrote in his letter of reply to Mori Arinori in 1872, the year before his departure for Japan, that “Japan has no reason to wish for radical and sweeping changes. Her schools are already an integral part of the national life. Her young men trained in the schools bear a favorable comparison to those of other lands. Her public men in their intercourse with other nations

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 15

have shown by their sagacity and energy that education is not rejected in their ancient empire.”11 When the samurai status was officially abolished in 1873, many had no means of earning a livelihood to supplement a meager government subsidy. When the new public elementary schools were opened under the provisions of the Gakusei from 1872 to 1873 at the ratio of one school per six hundred residents, thousands of new teachers were required. Unexpectedly, an opportunity became available for the unemployed ex-samurai to earn a living by teaching, not uncommon to lower-ranking samurai during the feudal era as members of an educated elite. Desperate for teachers, local education officials turned to ex-samurai to fill the majority of the new classrooms as untrained but well-educated teachers. Even though they were untrained in modern teaching methodology, the corps of samurai provided a body of literate teachers for the nation’s first public school system. Murray noted that they were “well educated especially in the old Japanese learning. But they lack a knowledge of many of the subjects now taught in the elementary school, and they are without experience in the method of conducting schools and instructing classes.” From the experiences that Murray had with the many samurai youth at Rutgers College, he was in a position to recognize the importance of education in feudal Japan to the modernization of education in Meiji Japan. The overwhelming dominance of male teachers in the elementary schools of Tokyo under the prevailing circumstances in 1878 elicited the following response by Murray. It may have been the only reference to the lack of female teachers in any of the reports from the field inspectors to the Ministry of Education at that time. Murray indirectly revealed the state of education for girls in Japan at the beginning of modern education: Before closing this part of my report, I desire to refer to the female teachers of the city. In all the schools where girls attended we found at least one female teacher, sometimes several. Sewing was almost invariably taught to the girls by a female teacher. She also taught the girls manners and etiquette of good behavior. Writing also was often taught by female teachers. In several of the female schools we found female teachers whose skill and enthusiasm were all that could be desired. These favorable impressions are not without their value. Females are the natural teachers for young children and for their own sex. In the future it may be expected here as elsewhere that a large part of the instruction in the elementary schools will be performed by female teachers.

Murray’s report illustrates how difficult it was to attract competent teachers in the new public schools of Tokyo. It also indirectly reveals how lavishly he was being paid by the Japanese government as Superintendent of Education. His salary of 700 yen per month was over 25 times greater than the highest-paid

3 16

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

teacher in the public schools of Tokyo and 120 times that of the lowest, according to his statistics. Murray also had a rent-free house. One wonders if he ever reflected on the salary discrepancy between him and the public school teachers of Japan. He then reports on the effects of the salary scale on the teaching corps of the nation’s capital: About 30 teachers from the public schools resign every month and new teachers to that extent must be supplied. The average length of service of the elementary school teacher is only from 7 to 8 months. Such a state of things is of course to be deplored, and yet the remedy is not easy to suggest. No remedy can be immediate in its effects and years must elapse before the service can be put upon a proper basis. . . . For a time at least many teachers must be employed who are unfit to receive regular [teaching] certificates.

With around 300 teachers resigning each year out of a total of 440 in the system, approximately 75 percent of the public school teachers of Tokyo left the classroom annually in the late 1870s. Murray recognized the enormity of the problem in which “the remedy is not easy to suggest.” It was one of the few times that Murray acknowledged a specific problem that local school districts were confronted with when they attempted to comply with Ministry regulations. In contrast, Tanaka, the senior government official responsible for Japanese schools, was deeply concerned about these problems well before he rejected Murray’s long-standing recommendation to make gradual revisions in the Gakusei rather than replace it with a new education law. In a section on classroom discipline that impressed Murray, he covers the issue in one paragraph. He recognized the abnormal atmosphere of the classroom visits earlier in his report. Every school on the list had been previously “notified of our coming” and “prepared for our visits as generally to have present the committee of citizens and almost always the Kocho [principal] and Kucho [leader] of the district.” It was a classroom environment in which students would have been on their best behavior regardless of their natural habits. It had to be the first time that virtually all the students had seen a Western visitor, who happened to be a very tall one at that: The governance of Japanese schools is generally a very easy task. Habits of obedience and gentle quieter manners are natural to the Japanese children. The teachers therefore are not required to enforce discipline by severe measures. Corporal punishment is not allowed to be inflicted. The regulations issued by the city allows only three grades of punishment. The first and second only to be inflicted by the teacher. The first grade is personal reprimand; the second the performance of extra tasks after school or at recess time. The third is dismission [sic] from school. This is inflicted when a scholar is reported from the

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 17

school as incorrigible. Then the city school bureau authorizes his exclusion from the school.

Murray then turns to one of his findings that surprised him perhaps more than any other—the role of private schools in Tokyo. His statistics show the critical role that private schools still had to play in the elementary education of this city: “Out of 825 elementary schools, 684 are private schools. Out of 66,539 elementary scholars 46,553 belong to private schools. Out of 10,819 middle school scholars, all belong to private schools. Such facts show that thus far private schools are educating about 60% of the children. I confess that I was greatly surprised at this.” He continues, On reflection the causes are not difficult to ascertain. The private schools were in possession of the field before the public school system was organized. With the exception of the Daimio schools where the Samurai alone were educated, all the schools were private enterprise. . . . Some of these schools in Tokio are of considerable antiquity having descended by hereditary succession through many generations. They are well known in their vicinity and have the traditional respect of their patrons. The great body of private schools continue to teach their scholars in the same way, and the same subjects, which have been considered proper for generations. The people are satisfied to have their children instructed in the same manner as themselves, and have a natural distrust of the new and perplexing subjects which are introduced into the public schools.

Murray summarizes in one brief passage several of the enormous problems facing Tanaka and the Ministry of Education in its responsibility to carry out the provisions of the Gakusei. By introducing a foreign-type curriculum with the new teaching methods, textbooks, and subject matter, the Japanese public—not only in the rural areas where farmers led the opposition to the new schools but in the capital city itself—did not approve of modern education and all that it represented. Murray then reported that the disparity between the number of private and public schools was surprising, while the imbalances favoring private schools continued to expand. He explains the reason for the expansion: “The condition of many of the men of education and culture has made it necessary for them to do something to gain for themselves a livelihood. They have gathered from among their old friends and their new neighbors their little schools and hope by this calling to obtain for themselves a support.” Murray’s characterization of the founders of many of the private schools as “men of education and culture” once again refers primarily to the ex-samurai who lost their stipends in 1876, when the government terminated the program of

3 18

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

financial support for former samurai. Murray indirectly recognizes their unique background. Although the new private schools were being taught by teachers untrained in modern methodology, classes were being conducted by former samurai who themselves were trained in the Chinese classics to some degree during the recent feudal era. From this perspective it can be concluded that the private sector was not that much different from the public sector in Tokyo schools in 1878. Many of the public school teachers who had not gone through a teacher training institution were also ex-samurai who were able to secure a public teaching position after the new school system was launched in 1872–1873. However, teachers’ salaries, as Murray reported, were so low that the turnover was extremely high, requiring a constant recruitment of new teachers who necessarily were drawn in part from the large pool of unemployed former samurai. Consequently, teaching in many of the public and private school classrooms in Tokyo may not have differed to a great extent from the modern era that began with the Gakusei of 1872. Since Murray did not observe private schools, he could not make that comparison. Murray then recognized the critical and positive role that private schools played in Tokyo at the beginning of the modern system: “The private schools must not be regarded as evils to be eradicated, but as beneficent institutions for which the public schools should be profoundly grateful. They have fulfilled a most important mission while public schools were utterly inadequate.” Murray’s use of the descriptive phrase “utterly inadequate” was particularly aimed at the middle school level. He discovered that in 1878, there were no public middle schools in Tokyo. In sharp contrast there were 209 private middle schools with 491 teachers, a ratio of a little over 2 teachers per school, with 10,819 students enrolled. The private middle schools played a crucial role in the capital city of Tokyo, according to Murray, founded by “men of learning and progress”: “They [middle schools] have been opened by men of learning and progress with a view to meet the demand for higher education. When they began their work the city had not organized its school system and they are still performing a service in regard to education which the city as yet has no means of performing. . . . It is only when the city is prepared to replace these institutions by those greatly superior that it would have any right to dispense with its private schools.” The last section of Murray’s final report to the Ministry of Education was a curious product. The concluding 30 pages of the 110-page handwritten report turned from the topic of Tokyo public schools to a detailed and tedious section on “Schools and Equipment.” He takes the opportunity “to consider quite fully” how school buildings should be built and what form of equipment should be included in them: My first impression was one of surprise and gratification that so much progress had been made since the establishment of the present school system.

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 19

The buildings erected during the present and two preceding years show an immense improvement over those erected in the earlier years. The first school buildings under the new school system were built before the wants of the new schools were understood, and it is not surprising that they show many defects. My observations on the school buildings of the city lead me to consider quite fully the subject of the construction and equipment of school-houses. I have embodied the results in this report and trust that they may have some interest. The school room may be considered as the unit of the school house. To understand therefore what kind of school house we ought to build we ought to consider the proper form and size of the school room. This according to universal experience has been found to be between 30 and 50 scholars—not less than 30 for economy of instruction and not more than 50 lest the instruction should fail to be sufficiently particular. . . . Under no circumstance should scholars be compelled to sit with the light directly in front of them. . . . It is better to have the light only from one side of the room because cross lights are confusing. . . . The wood of the floor should be well seasoned so that it will not shrink. . . . The teachers desk should be at least 4 feet wide by 4 feet high. . . . Doors swinging on hinges make less noise than those which are made to slide but either form will do. . . . In order to give each scholar access to his desk without disturbing others the scholars must be seated either one at each desk, or two at a desk with a passage on each side. . . . The teachers should be elevated about the level of the floor so that he may more easily see and be seen.

In preparing this section, Murray cut out several illustrations he had come across in Western journals to paste in his report. For example, he included pictures of desks commonly used in American classrooms. He curiously sketched a detailed staircase for two-story buildings and sample layouts of schools and individual classrooms. The time and effort to draw the various sketches as well as handwrite the report indicates that Murray may have had little else to do at the time. Murray’s final report is of considerable historical significance. He wrote at the beginning of his report, as noted above, that “it is acknowledged that the Public Schools of this city are among the best in the Empire.” He then proceeds to describe the serious problems he observed and for which he had no remedies to overcome them. He surely had to realize that if such conditions—for example, a turnover of a majority of public elementary teachers each year or that less than 10 percent of the teachers were qualified to teach with certificates—existed in the Tokyo school system, recognized as “among the best in the Empire,” the conditions in much of the nation especially in rural areas had to be of greater concern. He did not mention this factor in his final report. After five years as Superintendent of Education in Japan, Murray finally had the opportunity to learn firsthand some of the major obstacles that confronted the

320

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Ministry of Education in implementing the first national public school system in Japan. His reaction can be appreciated: “The remedy is not easy to suggest.” In every one of the problems he observed in Tokyo schools during his forty-three school visits over a three-month period, he made little or no attempt to offer a solution for them. In several he noted simply that “the causes are not difficult to ascertain.” The transition that took place in the content of Murray’s reports during the five years in position illustrates the transition that his understanding of the problems facing Japanese education underwent. From his first report to Tanaka in 1873, to his speeches at the Philadelphia centennial on Japanese education to foreign audiences, to his most important report to Tanaka in 1877 on the great reform of the Code of Education, the tone reflects Murray’s convictions. His many recommendations are offered with confidence and certainty that they will, he resolutely believed, benefit Japan if followed. Murray’s initial understanding of Japanese education was publicly revealed in his farewell speech to the New Brunswick Historical Society on the eve of his departure for Japan in 1873. It stands in contrast to what he had personally observed in 1878. He claimed early on that “those who have regaled Japan from an outside viewpoint have supposed that it to be an uneducated nation and that consequently the whole fabric of education would require to be revised from the foundation. Nothing could be more erroneous. On the contrary Japan stands among the nations where education is held in the highest regard, and where it is nearly universal.”12 Murray also revealed in 1873 his hopes of learning from his experiences in Japan: I am anxious to study the institutions of an empire which has held on its way so many centuries, that has had fewer wars and revolutions than any Empire nation; that from its own inherent vitality is capable of initiating the most astounding changes; reforms with less disturbance that attends a Presidential election. I am anxious to see the machinery of that system of education which has trained the statesmen who today are leading Japan in her new career, which has sent to our institutions a body of young men, who in quickness of powers, in aptness of learning, in integrity of purpose, have placed themselves here among the very foremost of our American students.

Seven months later, in his first report as a ranking official in the Japanese Ministry of Education, he writes, “It has been to me a great satisfaction, not indeed unexpected, to find so profound an interest in the cause of education among all classes of society. . . . Let it be premised that Japan is in no sense to be regarded as an illiterate nation. Tried by a standard we apply to the western nations, Japan will not fall far behind the most favored. . . . Japan will rank in the

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

321

general diffusion of education with the most advanced nations of Europe and America.”13 Five years later in 1878, Murray spent six weeks visiting elementary schools in Tokyo—that is, “the machinery of that system of education” that he had been “anxious to see” when he departed for Japan in 1873. During his tenure in Japan, he never had the opportunity to “study the institutions of an empire” that he had come to respect as he learned about them from the young Japanese samurai students with whom he had befriended on the campus of Rutgers College. Those institutions, the han or domain schools, were already being replaced by modern schools based on Western models, primarily those of America, as Murray arrived in the country. Murray never comments in his speeches or writings while in Japan or afterward upon the fact that his initial understanding and appreciation of Japanese education were based on institutions that no longer existed upon his arrival. In other words, he was never able to observe a school like the Kaiseijo in Satsuma, where his dearest Japanese friend and colleague, Hatakeyama Yoshinari, received his basic education as a samurai warrior in feudal Japan. That institution, about which Murray wrote so positively in his memorial to Hatakeyama, and others like it were abolished by the Code of Education. Murray faced the reality of imposing a modern Western-type school system on a nation steeped in feudal patterns that emerged from the influence of Confucian teachings from China absorbed by the Japanese. Indeed, in his first official contact with the Japanese in America, Murray responded to Mori Arinori’s letter for advice on education with the most profound statement on education: “There are institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system. . . . If, therefore, changes are to be made in the educational system of any country, wisdom would suggest the retention, so far as admissible, of those institutions already in existence.”14 In contrast to that conviction, his survey of the modern school system of Tokyo in 1878 was most revealing. The educational institutions that had been established under the Gakusei had little similarity to the institutions “already in existence” that he had been “anxious to see.” Japan was in the midst of an unprecedented educational revolution intended to bring about a social revolution from the feudal to the modern. Murray never reveals any personal disappointment at being hired to advise the Japanese government on how to replace the very institutions he admired with what the Japanese leaders considered modern Western institutions. Murray’s public lectures on Japanese education at the 1876 Philadelphia centennial reveal how little Murray recognized the fundamental problems his Ministry of Education faced in implementing the nation’s first public school system. In one lecture to distinguished educators from many countries, he noted with

322

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

some pride that thousands of elementary schools have been “established all over the Empire.”15 In his explanation of how the country could finance such a vast undertaking, he explains that among the various sources, “a small local tax is levied, and is, in most cases, cheerfully paid.”16 To one earning over 100 times the salary of the lowest-paid teacher in those schools, the local tax levied on farmers may have seemed “small.” But to farmers struggling to exist with children in the schools compelling them to pay an additional tuition, the financial burden was so great that many joined in violent protests against the local schools, burning down not a few of them. Murray’s audiences at the Philadelphia centennial would have been surprised to learn about the educational protest movements in Japan, on which neither Murray nor Tanaka reported in their presentations. In the same lecture, Murray’s final analysis, expressed in very positive terms, impressed the audience according to the reporter writing on the international conference: “Dr. Murray concluded his remarks by saying that when he looked back at the work done during four years since the new methods were adopted and put into force, the result was astonishing even to him. A complete system has spread over Japan in this period, and now he estimated the number of schools at 30,000, and the pupils at 2,000,000.”17 Three years later, after observing fortythree of those schools in the capital city acknowledged as “among the best in the Empire,” Murray was somewhat critical with the reality of the results. As a foreign adviser to the Vice Minister of Education Tanaka Fujimaro, Murray was not responsible for the problems resulting from implementing the first public school system in Japan and could simply, as it were, review the causes without offering a solution. In contrast, Tanaka could not ignore the problems that resulted from them. Rather, he had to face them realistically. When Tanaka concluded that the American model was best for Japan, in which the local community through a locally elected lay school board was given greatly expanded responsibility for determining local educational policies to fit their particular conditions, it went counter to Murray’s primary recommendation. Murray was nevertheless respectful of his friend by not criticizing Tanaka when he ignored Murray’s advice. In particular, Tanaka’s fascination with the American model is never mentioned by Murray. In his report to Tanaka in 1877, he simply recommends that “the administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education.” Further, “I regard this as the most important matter connected with the Code of Education.”18 From that moment onward, Murray never again brings up the issues that divided him from Tanaka as his tenure as Superintendent of Japanese Education drew to a close.

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 23

Murray’s Departure from Japan One of the first indications that Murray’s service to the Japanese government was drawing to a close came in a letter he wrote cousin Lucy in September 1878 on his new typewriter imported from America. Obviously not yet accustomed to it, using all capital letters with mistakes in spelling, he reveals his ambivalence about terminating his work in Japan: “MARTHA IS COUNTING THE MONTHS WHICH REMAIN BEFORE OUR GOING HOME. LES THAN FOUR MONTHS NOW, AND I BELIEVE I SHAL NOT BE VERY SORRY. I ENJOY IT HERE STILL VERY MUCH AND MY WORK IS PLEASANT; BUT HOME IS BEST AFTER ALL.”19 On December 12, 1878, Martha wrote Lucy that “we leave our house two weeks from today. . . . We go to some entertainment almost every afternoon or evening.”20 Ten days later Martha wrote, We are completely used up with our farewell entertainments. It is impossible to enumerate them. With the exception of Sunday evening we have not had any evening at home together—it will be three weeks tomorrow. Tonight David is off alone and I am enjoying a rest. Last week Wednesday David had his farewell audience with the Mikado who bestowed upon him the “Order of Rising Sun,” a beautiful decoration with writing signed with his own handwriting. Saturday the Department gave us our farewell entertainment—a very elegant dinner and reception afterward. I wish you could have seen how becoming the decoration was to David. It was around his neck, a white ribbon with red edge from which hangs the decoration—a red ruby stone surrounded with rays in gold on a white ground above the emperor’s crest in green and gold enamel. I think it will make a lovely locket for me, don’t you? Really the Japanese are so kind, thoughtful and liberal. I feel like leaving a home full of sincere friends. The Department also gave David a handsome present in money and the Imperial College today have sent him a very elegant gold lacquer writing table, ink case and letter box, and the various personal presents are quite overwhelming.21

Murray kept a record of the speeches at farewell events and letters in handwritten form that has been preserved among his papers. They illustrate the high esteem the Japanese had for him and his contributions to their country as well as his admiration and affection for the Japanese with whom he served during his tenure as Superintendent of Education in Japan. They begin with his final audience with the emperor on December 18, 1878:22 On December 17, I received a request from the Bureau of Ceremony of the Household Department to appear before it on the following day. At 10 o’clock I repaired to the Imperial Palace, and was notified that it had pleased His Majesty to bestow on me the Decoration of the Order of Merit of the Rising

324

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Sun. Repairing at once to the Audience Hall the Vice Chancellor of the Order, Mr. Morioka, presented me the Declaration with suitable remarks and also a diploma of membership attested with the autographs of his Majesty, of Sanjo Daijo Daijin and other officers of the order. At 2 o’clock on the same day I was admitted to an audience by the Emperor, at which he addressed me as follows: It is now many years since you accepted the invitation of the Department of Education of my government to enter its service. You have performed your duties with great fidelity, and have given important aid to my subjects in the administration of education affairs. I am therefore greatly pleased with your services and appreciate highly your zeal and ability. I responded: I received the address of your Majesty with deep appreciation. I am conscious how little my labors in the service of your government deserve your commendation. And yet during my entire tour of service it has pleased your Majesty and your Majesty’s government to laud me with kindnesses and honors. Especially have I to express my acknowledgements for the distinguished honor of receiving from your Majesty the decoration of the Rising Sun. I return to my country, but I leave with sincere regret. I shall ever retain the most grateful recollection of my residence in your empire, and warmest wishes for the happiness and prosperity of your Majesty and your people. On the same day, His Excellency General Saigo, Minister of Education presented me with a letter in the following terms:

Dr. David Murray Mombusho, Tokio, Dec. 19, 1878 Dear Sir: It is now five and a half years since you accepted the invitation of the Department of Education, and entered its service in order to contribute your valuable assistance in managing the educational affairs of the country. It is chiefly due to your efficient labors that during this period great improvements in our educational system have been effected, and results so remarkable and satisfactory have been attained. In view of the approaching close of your service I beg to express to you my sincere thanks for the earnestness and ability with which you have discharged your duties, and to ask your acceptance of the present in the accompanying paper.23

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 25

The following reply was made by Murray: To his Excellency: Saigo Tsukumichi, Minister of Education Dear Sir: I have received your letter of yesterday’s date and the accompanying munificent present. I know not how to make a fitting response to its kind sentiments. During the five and a half years that I have been in the service of the department of education I have experienced nothing but the most courteous, considerate and generous treatment from every officer of the department. My official relations and my private life have been rendered alike delightful by this unremitting kindness. It will always be a source of regret to me that I have not been able to make a more adequate return, and that my efforts on behalf of education have not been more efficient and fruitful. But whatever have been the deficiencies of my efforts they have been more than supplied by the intelligent and active zeal of those who have been specialty charged with this branch of the administration. I have had the most abundant evidence of the thorough earnestness of the Japanese Government and people in regard to education. And so I have no apprehensions that this great intent of the country will be allowed to languish or to make less progress in the future than it has in the past. In closing my relations with the Department of Education, I desire through your Excellency to express my deep sense of obligation to the officers of the Department for their constant and active friendship. Especially I wish to make my grateful acknowledgements to Mr. Tanaka who was the acting Minister of Education at the time of my arrival, to Mr. Nomura who has been the head of the bureau to which I am attached and to the other heads of bureaus, all of whom have been constant in their kindness and assistance, as well as to Messers Orita, Egi and Hirayama, the able, scholarly, and obliging assistants in my bureau. Renewing to your Excellency my warmest thanks for the many kindnesses which I have received during my service in your department, and especially to the distinguished marks of favor which have marked its close, I beg to subscribe myself With sentiments of the highest consideration, Your Excellency’s Obedient Servant, David Murray On December 21, Mrs. Murray and myself were entertained by his Excellency the Minister of Education at Shubunkyan [the hall of the Department of Education], at

326

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

which besides the officers of the Department and others, there was present the Honorable D. W. Steven, Charge d’Affaires of the United States . . . Mr. Tanaka spoke as follows: Having the privilege of attending this farewell entertainment given in view of the departure of Dr. and Mrs. Murray for America, I avail myself of this opportunity to express, in common with all the ladies and gentlemen here present, my sincere wishes for their future happiness and prosperity, as well as the deep feelings of regard which this occasion of parting brings to my heart. Five and a half years ago Dr. Murray, having accepted the invitation of the Department of Education, entered on his duties the six month of the sixth year of Meiji [June 1873]. During the entire term of his engagement without the least interruption he has been busily occupied with his duties in connection with educational matters which he has fulfilled in the most faithful and efficient manner. It gives me great pleasure to testify to his courtesy and promptness in furnishing information when consulted and in advising the affairs of the Department. It will be interesting if I enumerate some of the most conspicuous results of our educational progress accomplished during his term of service. First, I will mention the development of the Tokyo University, which from a small beginning in 1873 has been brought to its present efficient condition, and thus the foundation laid for higher education in our country. Next, the establishment of the female normal school and of the kindergarten has been accomplished and thus female education has received a great impulse and the training of small children has been introduced. An educational museum has been established and a great variety of valuable and instructive material collected, and a means thus provided for showing our people the educational methods of other countries. All of these great works have been accomplished by his judicious advice and by his valuable cooperation. Besides all of this I must not omit to mention the fact that the establishment and the improvement of the regulations and regard to courses of study in our schools and colleges under the control of the Department have been mostly effected through his essential cooperation. In regard to the intercourse so longed maintained between Dr. Murray and myself, I can only say that both in official and private relations it has always been most satisfactory. His mild and graceful speech has left behind in my heart pleasing impressions, and I cannot but think that he, too, after he has left our country will often dream of our labors in behalf of education here. As for me, the recollection of his smiling face will never be forgotten.

Mu rr ay’s F inal Rep ort a nd Depa rture

3 27

I will conclude my remarks by saying that the brilliant results he has achieved in his service here will long continue to be felt in their influence on every literary and scholastic interest. They will shine in our Oriental Empire with the same brilliancy as the splendid decoration his Majesty the Emperor has bestowed on him for his special services, and which tonight he wears. And one of the most notable and gratifying facts in our educational history, a fact which will be perpetual in its importance and in our grateful remembrance, is the career which we have met to signalize and celebrate tonight.

Murray responded: Mr. Minister and gentlemen of the Department of Education, though I have been prepared for much kindness from my Japanese friends and associates, I confess I was not quite prepared for all this storm of generous attention which has burst upon me within the past few days. And especially am I deeply affected by the cordial and too favorable remarks which Mr. Tanaka has just made. It almost seems as if the old usage of Japan, of allowing nobody to leave its shores, was about to be revived in our case. It is no easy task, I assure you, to make our way through all this bulwark of public and private hospitality out into the outer world again. Like imprisoned rats, if we get out at all, we must eat our way out. To me this gathering of the officers of this department, and these pleasant reminiscences of Mr. Tanaka recall very distinctly my first landing in Japan and my first experiences in my new position. Well I remember my first visit to the old yashiki which then formed the home of the department. As I walked through its long corridors, I discovered that I have been built on too tall a model for its style of architecture, and found that Mr. Tanaka with characteristic courtesy, instead of requiring me to be cut down, had the beams of the passages raised to suit my height. I now see far better than I saw then the limitations which my ignorance of Japanese laws and customs imposed on my usefulness. I may as well confess, and it is a good time to confess, that most of my preconceived notions about education for Japan had to be thrown away. My plans for systematizing instruction and regulating schools, and teachers and school offices which I had laboriously woven out of my brain, had mostly to be unraveled again. I am very glad that some of my crude notions were not accepted, and my ill-adapted advice not acted upon. But I believe that there was some good, honest work done in that old Mombusho building. There was, thanks to the zeal and efficiency of the officers, some real progress effected, in bringing education home to the whole people, and in organizing and promoting institutions for higher education.

328

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

So far as I have been able to give any aid in this great work, and I know my share of the credit is small indeed, it is to me a matter of great satisfaction. But I wish to take this public occasion to express my great obligations to all these heads of bureaus, and other officers. I may without offence, sir, name Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Nomura who have been in the department during all my service, and who have given me that courteous consideration and friendship which it rarely is the lot of any man to receive. In closing, my relations with this department and with the work of education in Japan, I assure you of my full confidence in its future progress. I know the men who are entrusted with their branch of the administration and I am sure that everything that earnestness and efficiency can accomplish, they will succeed in accomplishing. Let me express both Mrs. Murray’s and my grateful thanks for this as well as for the numberless manifestations of your kindness. To you gentlemen, and to you ladies, we are under infinite obligations, and we shall cherish the remembrance of your friendship with lasting affection. Mr. Tanaka has referred to the declaration which it has pleased His Majesty to confer upon me. Sir, this honor was not necessary to bind me in grateful love to this land. But I would be ungrateful indeed, if I failed to appreciate His Majesty’s great favor to me. It will be to me a constant reminder of my long and happy life here, and will ever recall wishes for the happiness and prosperity of Japan and its Emperor.

Due to delays in the departure of their ship, the Murrays left Japan on January 21, 1879, headed for a trip through Europe on the way home to their beloved New Brunswick, New Jersey. Their departure brought an end to David Murray’s tenure as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan.

chapter 11



DAVID MURRAY’S LEGACY FOR JAPAN setting the direction of japanese education for the twentieth century A biography of David Murray would be incomplete without a critique of his legacies for modern Japan. Among them, the most critical one concerns the impact of Murray’s recommendation for central control of Japanese education on the Education Law of 1880, which set the direction of modern Japanese education into the twentieth century with long-range positive and negative consequences. The 1880 law is well known in Japanese educational history because it introduced imperial ideology into the public school classroom as morals education through the Imperial Will on Education. It transpired in Murray’s absence less than two years after his tenure as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan had ended. After a decade of searching for an appropriate modern system of education in the West as a model for Japan serving all children in the nation, 1880 marks a turning point. It’s appropriately designated as the beginning of a “reverse course” when traditional values from the feudal era became firmly rooted in education in the modern era. It was one of the most momentous and contentious periods in the history of Japanese education following the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Among the many individuals involved in that historic process, three stand out. With little in common except an unwavering commitment to the well-being of Japan, a college professor from America, David Murray, a Confucian tutor to the emperor, Motoda Eifu, and a bureaucrat from the Ministry of Education, Egi Kazuyuki, were instrumental in the formation of the historic Education Law of 1880. The two main issues that provoked controversy in the 1880 law concerned the administrative control of education at either the local or national level and the role of imperial-centered morals education in nation building for the future. 329

Figure 11.1. Egi Kazuyuki. From Portraits of Modern Japanese Historical Figures (National Diet Library).

Figure 11.3. David Murray, ca. 1900. Photo courtesy of Griffis Collection.

Figure 11.2. Motoda Eifu. From Portraits of Modern Japanese Historical Figures (Tokyo: National Diet Library).

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

33 1

There were two documents that played the most prominent roles in the formation of the Education Law of 1880. One was Murray’s 1877 report to Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry of Education, the focus of chapter 9. Tanaka was then engaged in developing a new education bill, dubbed the Freedom of Education Law, based on American practices in education. Even though Murray’s recommendations were not accepted by Tanaka for his Education Law of 1879, they unexpectedly emerged in the Revised Education Law of 1880. The other document of incalculable historical significance was the 1879 Imperial Will on Education by Motoda Eifu. Although the recommendations contained therein originated from the imperial household, they, like Murray’s recommendations, were rejected by Tanaka in his progressive Education Law of 1879. They, too, emerged in the Education Law of 1880 after Tanaka was transferred out of the Ministry of Education. The key figure who brought this epochal change about was Egi Kazuyuki. For some unknown reason Tanaka appointed Egi to serve in Murray’s office of Superintendent at the Ministry of Education shortly after both Tanaka and Murray returned to Japan from the Philadelphia centennial at the beginning of 1877. In contrast to several of the other officials attached to Murray’s office who were befriended by Murray at Rutgers College or had experience in America, Egi did not fit into either category. Moreover, Tanaka by then should have become aware of Egi’s conservative inclinations. Consequently, it’s difficult to understand why Tanaka appointed Egi to work closely with David Murray in the Ministry of Education. According to Egi’s memoirs, he recalls with pride his accomplishments as Murray’s assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Education in 1877 during the period when Murray drew up his most critical report on the control and administration of Japanese education. Since Murray could not read or write Japanese, it was one of Egi’s duties to translate Murray’s reports. Three years later after Murray’s departure, it became Egi’s responsibility as a rising officer of the Ministry to draw up the major provisions of the influential Education Law of 1880 and the various attendant codes to implement it. It is within those official regulations where the recommendations by both Murray and Motoda emerged through Egi’s hand in the great reverse course that set a new direction in Japanese education for the twentieth century, with both positive and negative consequences. When Tanaka submitted the Ministry of Education’s proposed Kyōiku Rei, the Education Law, to the bureau responsible for approving bills for final governmental deliberation on May 14, 1878, Murray was completing his final contractual year as Superintendent of Education. The law designed by Tanaka to replace the Code of Education of 1872 has been considered by historians as one of the most progressive among all educational bills in the history of the nation. In fact, one of the main reasons underlying this characterization concerns the omission

33 2

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

of Murray’s recommendation: “The administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education.” This was, however, described by Murray as “the most important matter connected with the Code of Education.”1 With Murray’s preeminent recommendation to the Ministry of Education included in his report, translated by Egi, titled “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan,” his assistant became the most knowledgeable Japanese in the Ministry concerning Murray’s thoughts on education. Egi formed his personal views on education from Murray’s, which deeply impressed him. Although Murray could not have foreseen that his young and inexperienced colleague was destined to play such a prominent role in determining the future of Japanese education by writing the Education Law of 1880, his office of the Superintendent of Education became a classroom for Egi, and Murray became his mentor in 1877. According to Egi’s revealing autobiography, he formed a special relationship with Murray while working under him on the reform of the 1872 Code of Education during Murray’s final period in Japan. They also carried on a social relationship according to a handwritten memo found in Murray’s papers in which the Murrays were invited to dine with Egi and his wife. The two would come to hold similar positions on the central role of the Ministry of Education in the supervision and administration of Japanese education. On the contrary, Egi and Murray had such dissimilar backgrounds, which makes it difficult to appreciate how their views on education coincided to any degree. In contrast to Murray, a distinguished professor of mathematics from an American college, Egi had a nondescript educational background as a local samurai in the rural Yamaguchi area during the feudal Tokugawa era. He arrived in Tokyo seeking employment during the early Meiji era. At first he entered private schools in Tokyo to study English. Through a mutual friend, he was offered a position at the Ministry of Education by Tanaka, who made the fateful appointment of Egi to work with Murray. The timing of Egi’s appointment to Murray’s office primarily as his translator could not have been more propitious. At the beginning of 1877, Murray had just arrived back to Japan from fourteen months in America, much of it spent as a member of the Japanese delegation to the 1876 American centennial of independence in Philadelphia. He returned to his duties fully confident that he had gained a new perspective on the best system of education for Japan, which was emerging from feudalism to modernism. Since Egi had no experience in, or knowledge of, the field of education when he entered the Ministry of Education, it was understandable for him to be greatly influenced by Murray’s ideas. It was through working with Murray that Egi became an advocate of Murray’s theory on the fundamental role of the Ministry in setting a national standard for all public schools. In addition, Egi had no

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

333

experience abroad as did Murray’s other Japanese assistants. He therefore had no opportunity to personally compare the educational traditions in, for example, America and Germany that emerged in his writings. Working daily with a wise and thoughtful American professor who had acquired a deep respect for Japanese traditions before coming to Japan, Egi accepted as doctrine Murray’s bold assertions that “in every country where popular education has made progress, it has been brought about by the thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration.” That theme was central to Murray’s lessons for Egi. Under these unusual circumstances, Egi became acutely aware of Murray’s convictions on education, which placed him in the opposing camp to Tanaka within the Ministry of Education. The following excerpts taken from Murray’s 1877 report, considered in some detail in chapter 9, are representative of the recommendations he made to Tanaka and the rationale behind them, which Egi translated into Japanese. It is contended that Egi then based many of the critical regulations in writing the historic Education Law of 1880 on these recommendations by Murray. Because that law set the direction of Japanese education for the twentieth century, considered by historians as a “reverse course” in modern education, they are included in their entirety. The administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education. In order to secure anything like a system, properly graded and balanced, and to keep the standard of the schools and the character of the instruction at a suitable point, it is absolutely necessary to reserve to the Department of Education a power to prescribe schedules of study and to inspect buildings, equipments, and instruction in the school. Inspection is necessary because in no other way can a sufficient knowledge of the educational condition of the country be attained by the government, or the defects in the system, or a failure to carry out the established regulations by the local authorities, be discovered and remedied. In every country where popular education has made progress, it has been brought about by the thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration. Without proper supervision a school system however perfect at the beginning will soon fall into endless irregularities, inferior teachers will be employed, and the instruction will become correspondingly inferior. Schoolhouses will be neglected, and the health of children will be imperiled. Each locality will pursue a plan of its own, and change the well considered scheme of instruction according to popular or individual caprice, so that in a very few years a system, meant to be uniform, will present every shade of difference. To keep the standard of education sufficiently high, and to leave the way open for necessary improvements, the Department of Education must be vested with sufficient powers of supervision and control. To do less than this

33 4

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

will be to go back to the feudal times, and undue much that has already been accomplished. These which follow seemed to me the essential powers to be vested in the Department of Education. To prescribe plans of study for all public schools. To prescribe the qualifications for teachers. To inspect all schools public and private and to have the means of correcting the abuses and enforcing compliance with the established regulations. To appoint [or nominate] for each fu and ken [city and prefecture] a superintendent of schools. Teachers when admitted into the system and at subsequent times must be examined as to their qualifications and character. The subjects of study to be pursued may be specified in the code, but the duty of preparing definite schedules in this case as in others should be left to the Department of Education, who will be able to adapt the requirements of the courses to the varying circumstances of the country. In organizing a system of national education the subject of school books must not be neglected. Their preparation and selection cannot safely be left without control. If some sort of inspection or restraint be not retained over the use of books in the schools, they are sure to be deluged with wretched publications. Private enterprise when employed in producing books for the use of schools should therefore be subject to some sort of censorship. . . . It should therefore be an established law that no books should be used as textbooks in the public schools of the country unless they have been licensed by the Ministry of Education. Courses of study being liable to regime changes as the country makes progress in knowledge, forms for official documents, methods of examination, inspection of schools, the establishment of government schools, and the enactment of suitable regulations—these and similar matters of administration cannot be provided in any code and therefore the Department of Education should be distinctly authorized to issue all necessary measures to carry into full effect the provisions of the Code.2

David Murray as Egi’s Mentor Although the reverse course of modern Japanese education was set in place with the Education Law of 1880, from the circumstances outlined above, it’s possible to trace the very first step in the process to Murray’s office three years earlier. It represents one of the most critical moments in the development of Murray’s legacy for Japan. It also marks a defining moment in the history of Japanese

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

335

education. A summary review of the circumstances within the Ministry of Education surrounding the formation of Tanaka’s Education Law of 1879 provides the background. Early in 1877 Tanaka initiated the procedure to reform the 1872 Code of Education by appointing a special committee within the Ministry of Education that was divided into two functional units. One consisted of the staff of Murray’s office of the Superintendent, which included Egi. The other was drawn from senior Japanese officials. Egi described in his memoirs the ensuing internal struggle between the two factions during the initial development of the education bill.3 Since Murray never wrote about the discord within the Ministry, it was not considered in an earlier chapter. According to Egi, when he received the first draft of the proposed bill drawn primarily from the other committee assigned to the project, he was alarmed with the liberal nature of it. It sharply reduced the power of the Ministry of Education to intervene in local education when necessary based on the American model, where there was no such ministry. It was opposite to Murray’s major recommendation for central control of education that his office had submitted. Egi immediately explained the situation to Murray. He then encouraged his mentor, over and above his official report to Tanaka, to elaborate more directly on the importance of the authority of the Ministry of Education in maintaining a national standard of education. This was intended by Egi to refute the authority of locally elected school boards that Tanaka favored on the American model. Murray initially hesitated but, upon Egi’s insistence, wrote a rather short memo on the subject of one or two pages, the original of which has not been discovered. Egi then elaborated in the translation from English to Japanese. According to him, he personally signed Murray’s name to the final version in Japanese and handed it directly to Tanaka himself. It went well beyond the original brief by Murray reaching over ten pages.4 Murray’s response incorporated in the lengthy Japanese version provoked suspicion that Egi had exceeded Murray’s original English version in order to strengthen his own opposing position, indicative of the controversy within the Ministry. When the Japanese version was finally compared by senior Ministry officials with Murray’s original brief in English, Egi had to account for the disparity. He responded that because of Murray’s modest disposition as a gentleman, he could not bring himself to be confrontational. Egi, in his defense, argued therefore that it was his responsibility to incorporate the full intent of Murray’s position in the Japanese version since he understood it so well from working closely with him. Murray never mentions this incident in his writings. The position paper written by Egi in Murray’s office had an unexpected historical relevance. It deserves to be appreciated as a first step, however limited,

336

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

in the reverse course of modern Japanese education from the liberal model of local control of education and diversity on the American pattern espoused by Tanaka. It was in stark contrast to the restrictive model, with the Ministry of Education’s central role in developing a national standardized school system on the Prussian-German model recommended by Murray in his official report to Tanaka. The historical importance of Murray’s response in Egi’s version derives from what it reveals in Egi’s transformation since he was assigned to Murray’s office that year. He entered the Ministry as a novice to become one of the most influential but little-known figures in modern Japanese education, eventually becoming Minister of Education long after Murray’s death. Egi’s ten-page brief explaining Murray’s primary recommendation marks the beginning of that transition. At first Egi served as the translator of Murray’s reports. However, in the translation of Murray’s brief response into a ten-page version, Egi for the first time used the opportunity to interpret Murray’s ideas by elaborating on them rather than simply translating them directly into Japanese. He had, in the process, become a spokesman for Murray. The Japanese version of Murray’s recommendation by Egi also revealed that he was not only a spokesman for Murray, he had become an advocate for Murray’s recommendations that he had made in his commitment to Japan. The urgency that motivated Egi to press Murray to write a protest statement against Tanaka’s proposed bill demonstrated that by then, Egi had become convinced that Murray’s position was best for Japan. Tanaka’s was not. Moreover, Egi was willing to place his own position at the Ministry of Education in jeopardy by purposely submitting a greatly expanded translated version of Murray’s original draft in English. It was a sign of Egi’s unwavering commitment to the well-being of his country. It was also an indication that Murray’s student had graduated from his class prepared to meet the challenge of writing the Education Law when given that responsibility unexpectedly in 1880. This episode within the Ministry of Education brought into focus the contrast between Murray’s vision for modern Japanese education and that of Tanaka, an issue referred to frequently in this biography. To briefly review the background circumstances, Tanaka had become convinced that the Education Code of 1872, the Gakusei, was too rigid in its stipulation that the Ministry of Education set a common standardized curriculum for the nation’s new public elementary schools, disregarding local conditions and customs. He attributed the widespread opposition to the Code, which included the destruction of local schools in not a few instances, to its lack of flexibility. He felt that it did not meet the desires of local communities in the law’s provision requiring every district of six hundred residents to establish an elementary school, adhere to a national standardized curriculum, and send their children to school for eight years of compulsory education.

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

337

As we have learned, after visiting the United States on two occasions, Tanaka returned to Japan determined to replace the Code of Education with a law patterned after American laws on education. He included various provisions in his proposed Japanese law on education that were taken directly from the school laws of California, Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois, among others, that he had collected while in America and had translated upon his return to Japan for reference. Accordingly, he designed an administrative structure for Japan based on the American model. Tanaka inserted in his Education Law the provision that called for each community to elect members of a school board with the authority to develop a curriculum and select the textbooks accompanying it and to determine the financing. It was intended to meet the will of the community, as in the American pattern. The Ministry retained the right to approve the local curricula, although it was intended to be liberally applied. In other words, under Tanaka’s proposed law, the administration of Japanese education was designed to become decentralized.

The Imperial Will on Education Turning to the other feature that became highly contentious in Tanaka’s proposed Education Law, the status of the morals course (shūshin) in the curriculum was the focus, referred to in a previous chapter. Among the six basic subjects included in the curriculum, morals education was placed at the bottom by Tanaka. It was indicative of his personal attitude toward teaching morals in the public schools. He considered issues of morality and religion primarily a matter of the home to be decided by parents rather than by the Ministry of Education in a course in the new public schools. To Tanaka, the role of the school was to teach knowledge, not morality. There were calls for reversing the official course list as determined by Tanaka, to recognize the “proper role of morals” by placing it at the top of the list. It would become the center of the controversy over Tanaka’s so-called Freedom of Education Law of 1879 after Murray returned home. He had avoided this topic completely while in office. With the delay of nine months by Minister of the Interior Itō Hirobumi in considering Tanaka’s bill in the aftermath of the assassination of Ōkubo Toshimichi, the most powerful government leader, on the very day that the Education Law arrived for Itō’s review, opposition to the progressive provisions of the bill had not yet become solidified. Itō merely rearranged the provisions into a fewer number, from seventy-eight to forty-nine sections. He then submitted it to the Dajōkan for deliberation and finally to the Genrōin for approval several months later in May and June 1879 essentially as he had received it. With Itō’s signature of approval, Tanaka’s Education Law was well on the path of approval.5 With Murray gone from the country since January 1879, he was not personally involved in the final disposition of Tanaka’s controversial law. Since his legacy for

33 8

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Japan depends to a considerable extent on the ultimate fate of Tanaka’s bill in Murray’s absence, it’s necessary to follow the path of the Education Law of 1879 and the consequences thereof into the twentieth century. At the final level of approval of the new law on education in mid-1879, opposition to the progressive features of Tanaka’s education bill was raised that reflected a growing concern about the direction of modern Japanese education within government circles. Tanaka’s model of American education with its decentralized system of administrative control was criticized as being inappropriate for Japan. By then the foremost concern expressed by members of the highest deliberative body of government, however, centered on the morals course. It was motivated by a new figure who entered the controversy over morals education representing the imperial household. It would set a new direction of modern education since the Meiji Restoration over a decade earlier. The provocative opposition to Tanaka Fujimaro’s education bill first appeared in the form of a powerful statement by Motoda Eifu, Confucian tutor to the emperor. Purportedly Emperor Meiji’s reaction to Tanaka’s bill, it went well beyond the provisions of the bill itself. It was titled simply Kyōgaku Seishi (Imperial Will on Education).6 It was first made public on August 10, 1879, several weeks before Tanaka’s bill was approved by the Genrōin and promulgated on August 29, 1879, with the abolishment of the Code of Education of 1872. The Imperial Will on Education is best understood in its overall historical context. In the initial period of educational modernization upon the Meiji Restoration from 1868 to 1880, the principal aim of the school was centered on the development of the individual to cope with the demands of a society undergoing a transformation from feudalism to modernism. In the goal of achieving a level of development commensurate with advanced Western standards in order to preserve the independence of the nation, little concern had been given to the opinion of the emperor and the imperial household in the great social transition under way in the name of Emperor Meiji. The Kyōgaku Seishi was intended to rectify that situation. As a revered elderly Confucian scholar unwaveringly committed to the wellbeing of modern Japan, Motoda took every opportunity to influence the attitudes of his imperial student, the emperor, in the virtues of Confucius moral values that dominated the feudal era. He was challenged by the so-called Enlightened era of early Meiji Japan symbolized by Tanaka’s proposed education bill patterned after American education practices. In one short document of enormous historical relevance, Motoda effectively laid out the case for a reverse course in the direction of the curriculum of studies in modern Japanese education, in contrast to Murray’s major recommendation for a reverse course in the administration of the education system from Tanaka’s Education Law. According to Motoda, traditional Confucian studies take precedence. Modern Western learning then follows. The Imperial Will on Education had a strong influence on Egi Kazuyuki,

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

339

still in his twenties, as did Murray’s recommendations on the administration of Japanese education. The Imperial Will on Education—1879 The essence of education, our traditional national aim, and a watchword for all men, is to make clear the ways of benevolence, justice, loyalty, filial piety, and to master knowledge and skills and through these to pursue the Way of Man. In recent days people have gone to extremes. They take unto themselves a foreign civilization whose only values are facts-gathering and technique, thus violating the rules of good manners and bringing harm to our customary ways. Although we set out to take in the best features of the West, and bring in new things in order to achieve the high aims of the Meiji Restoration—abandonment of the undesirable practices of the past and learning from the outside world—this procedure had a serious defect. It reduced benevolence, justice, loyalty, and filial piety to a secondary position. The danger of indiscriminate emulation of western ways is that in the end our people will forget the great principles governing the relations between ruler and subject, and father and son. Our aim, based on our ancestral teachings, is solely the clarification of benevolence, justice, loyalty, and filial piety. For morality, the study of Confucius is the best guide. People should cultivate sincerity and moral conduct, and after that they should turn to the cultivation of the various subjects of learning in accordance with their ability. In this way, morality and technical knowledge will fall into their proper places. When our education comes to be grounded on Justice and the Doctrine of the Mean, we shall be able to show ourselves proudly throughout the world as a nation of independent spirit.7

Motoda clarified his position in his lectures to the emperor as his personal tutor: “Japan promises to become exclusively an imitator of Europe and America, and all because we lack a sense of proportion in determining the aims of education. We must go back to the fundamentals at once.” Motoda’s prominent place in Japanese history was secured when he defined what the fundamental moral values of modern Japan should be: “The chief subject of study must be, of course, Confucius.”8 In a unique convergence of thought, two figures of the late nineteenth century, an elderly Confucian scholar and an American professor of mathematics, arrived at a similar and most profound conclusion on the future of Japan in the modern world. Simply stated, they both claimed that modern Japanese institutions must reflect traditional Japanese institutions. In the case of Motoda, senior adviser to the imperial household, his recommendation first appeared in the form of the 1879 Imperial Will on Education. In the case of Murray, as the senior adviser to the Ministry of Education, his recommendation took the form of his reply to the Japanese chargé d’affaires Mori Arinori in Washington in 1872,

340

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

considered in chapter 4. The similarities between the thoughts of Motoda and Murray are striking: David Murray’s Thesis on Education for Japan—1872 Every nation must create a system of education suited to its own wants. There are natural characteristics which ought properly to modify the scheme of education which would be deemed the most suitable. The culture required in one nation is not precisely what is required in another. There are traditional customs which it would be unwise to undertake to subvert. There are institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system. Every successful school system must be a natural outgrowth from the wants of the nation. If, therefore, changes are to be made in the educational system of any country, wisdom would suggest the retention, so far as admissible, of those institutions already in existence. This is but a proper concession to national self-respect, and will go far to make any new features acceptable. In this respect Japan has no reason to wish for radical and sweeping changes.9

These two diverse figures, one from the modern Western world and the other from a feudal Eastern country, contended that modern institutions should be founded on revered traditional institutions. The difference between the two theses is that Motoda, a Confucian scholar educated as a samurai brought up in the Confucian tradition, specifically identified Confucianism as the prime institution that Murray was referring to as being “already founded which are revered for their local and national associations, which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system.” The legacy of Murray originates in part from the similarity in his thinking in 1872 with that of Motoda in 1879. What distinguishes Murray’s conclusion is that it was conceived in America a decade earlier. Awakened to Japan in 1868 by the young samurai students who he encountered and greatly admired at Rutgers College, Murray did not identify their common educational background immersed in Confucian tradition as such. That, however, was precisely what he meant. In spite of the criticisms of Tanaka’s proposed Education Law, intensified by Motoda’s Imperial Will on Education, it was approved by the Genrōin and proclaimed on September 29, 1879.10 Murray, by then having departed from Japan, was unaware of the disposition of Tanaka’s law, which he had diligently worked on throughout 1877, offering major recommendations with compelling logic that were not compatible with Tanaka’s intent. When the controversial provisions of Tanaka’s new Education Law went into effect in September 1879, in which local communities were suddenly responsible for managing the local public elementary schools—including determining the curriculum, textbooks, and the means

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

341

of financing the program through locally elected school boards—there was a great deal of confusion. Intended by Tanaka as a means for local communities to adapt the new public schools to the needs of each community, the new school boards did not know how to design a curriculum for their community schools. Nor did they know how to go about choosing textbooks for each course. There was an immediate and sharp reduction in female students. In some communities public schools were closed due to inadequate financing. Private schools and traditional terakoya schools proliferated. In one town a new school building under construction required under the 1872 Code of Education was abandoned with the promulgation of Tanaka’s so-called Freedom of Education Bill. It provoked many prefectural governors to demand changes. At the same time, in many communities the morals course in the public elementary schools was simply dropped, since the purpose of the course had never been clearly defined by the Ministry of Education under Tanaka. In schools that offered the course where Western books in translation were used as textbooks, often inappropriate for elementary schools, the course was also discontinued. The confusion over the morals course effectively ended the practice of resorting to foreign books to teach morals in the modern schools of Japan. Although the progressive provisions of Tanaka’s Education Law went into effect with the 1879 academic year, opposition to local control of education and the lack of concern for traditional morals education in the public school system had by then solidified essentially into two separate camps. They coalesced into a powerful movement that brought about the great reverse course of modern Japanese education in 1880. On the one hand, the imperial adviser and Confucian scholar Motoda led the movement from the imperial household, providing the theoretical and compelling foundation for the reverse course through his Imperial Will on Education. In effect, Tanaka found himself pitted against the “will” of Emperor Meiji himself. Leading the opposition camp from within the Ministry of Education and forging an alliance with the imperial household was a coterie of strong-minded officials who also opposed Tanaka’s progressive ideas from the beginning. Among them, the most influential turned out to be Egi Kazuyuki, Murray’s assistant during the latter part of his tenure as Superintendent of Education. Egi, by then more knowledgeable about Murray’s ideas than any other Ministry officer, was confident in his understanding and appreciation of the American’s thoughtful recommendations, which were carefully designed for the future of Japan in the modern world. Egi attributed his own position on the central control of education for Japan on what he learned from Murray while working with him when Murray wrote his report for Tanaka. According to Egi, contrary to what many people assumed— that Murray held liberal educational ideas (jiyūshugi)—his convictions on

342

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

educational administration were the opposite. He advocated strict government control over education, with the Ministry of Education “intervening” (kanshōshugi) in local education to maintain a proper national standard. That was derived from the American pattern of educational administration that appears liberal with educational administration decentralized to the state and local level rather than at the central level. Nevertheless, compulsory laws on education (kyōsei kyōiku) are enforced at the state and local level in America, according to Egi’s understanding of Murray’s position.11 Egi used that analysis in support of his personal convictions. Moreover, Egi was impressed with Murray’s understanding of and appreciation for German education, with its strict central control. He claimed that based on Murray’s convictions, he advocated the same for Japan in his recommendations as senior adviser to Tanaka, which Egi translated but were purposefully excluded in Tanaka’s final version of the Education Law of 1879. Based on Egi’s interpretation of Murray’s position, he concluded that Murray’s outstanding educational plan for Japan was correct.

Implementing the Revised Education Law The first official step in the reverse course of modern Japanese education was the temporary appointment of Terashima Munenori as Minister of Education (munbukyō) on September 10, 1879.12 Tanaka Fujimaro served as head of the Ministry since 1873, although not with the title of Minister of Education, and was not replaced. Nevertheless, he was aware of the precariousness of his position. Terashima had traveled to London with the students from Satsuma in 1865. He was not known for conservative political activities. His appointment, for all intents and purposes, marks the end of the Tanaka era at the Ministry of Education. With the selection of the activist Kōno Togama as Minister of Education on February 28, 1880, replacing Terashima, the reverse course was finally set in motion.13 Kōno had served as chairman of the government committee that held contentious deliberations on Tanaka’s proposed Education Law, where he had become familiar with the issues in dispute. Two weeks later Tanaka was transferred to the Ministry of Justice, surprisingly as Minister, on March 13, 1880.14 That ended the long reign of Tanaka as the top official in the Ministry of Education since the first national system of education in Japan was implemented in 1873, with David Murray as his senior adviser for most of that time. Tanaka was later appointed as Japan’s Minister to France and Italy, providing an opportunity for him and his wife to travel together throughout Europe. Two months later Kōno appointed several ranking officials from the Ministry of Education to undertake an inspection tour of several prefectures to learn how effective Tanaka’s Freedom of Education Law was since its implementation

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

3 43

five months previously.15 Among them was Egi Kazuyuki, thereby solidifying his position within the Ministry under new leadership. Of some curiosity, among the participants on the field trip with Egi was Takamine Hideo from the Tokyo Teacher Training School. He had recently returned from the Oswego Teacher Training School in the state of New York, originally arranged by Murray, to study the most progressive Western teaching methodology under the son of Johann Pestalozzi’s principal assistant, reported in a previous chapter. The inspection trip to the countryside turned out to be a decidedly negative experience, with Egi reporting on a system of education in turmoil as a direct result of the Freedom of Education Law. He noted that in one mountain village where every house was simply built, the new public elementary school had a fancy roof at a high cost. He learned that in that school, every child had to memorize the birth date of George Washington and the date of the death of Napoleon.16 He reported that such useless teachings resulted from the lack of national standards set by the central government. Those circumstances provoked much criticism from local peasants. Shortly thereafter, Minister Kōno accompanied the emperor on a trip through the same provinces. Kōno’s report to the emperor was clearly intended to secure the support of the imperial household in changing the direction of Japanese education. He described the schools in turmoil. To illustrate the necessity of the central role of the Ministry of Education in the modernization of Japanese education under Emperor Meiji’s enlightened rule, Kōno pointed to the most advanced Western nations, such as Prussia, among others, which had attained a leading status in the world through a centralized school system administered by a powerful Ministry of Education.17 Since Kōno had little if any knowledge of Western education, his report to the emperor was without a doubt prepared by Egi, the only Ministry official on the inspection trip who was knowledgeable about Western education. Kōno’s reference to Prussia along with several other European countries was the ultimate proof that he did not personally prepare his report to the emperor. The conclusion is that Egi, who had no knowledge of Western education before joining the Ministry of Education, learned about it from Murray in translating his 1877 report to Tanaka. Even though Tanaka rejected Murray’s strongest recommendation he ever made in preparing the Freedom of Education Law of 1879, Egi was so impressed with Murray’s rationale for the future of Japan that he had, in effect, become a committed believer in the recommendations for Japan by the American professor. The reverse course in modern Japanese education took a major step forward in 1880, with Egi at the center. In August Minister Kōno appointed an extraordinary (rinji) committee for the revision of Tanaka’s Education Law. Egi was one of three members appointed to the committee and, according to him, was given the responsibility and urgency to write the draft.18 It can be assumed that he

344

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

welcomed the opportunity as Murray’s former student to now become an implementer of his mentor’s deeply held convictions. Four months later on December 28, 1880, the Education Law (Kyōiku Rei) was promulgated by the government.19 It replaced Tanaka’s Education Law, which was only in place for one year and three months. Egi played a major role in its formation, able to write the law in an impressively short period. He based it on his lessons from Murray and the writings of Motoda, which included discussions with various imperial household officials in the development of the morals course for the new curriculum of studies. The profound historical change in the course of modern Japanese education brought about by the Education Law of 1880 under the hand of Egi Kazuyuki can be divided into two distinct parts. The first one concerns the administrative structure of Japanese education. The issue under contention was whether the fundamental decisions governing the education system should be made at the local level by elected school boards under Tanaka’s bill or at the ministerial level as strongly recommended by Murray. Egi concluded that giving the local educational authority the power to set the curriculum was a mistake, since each local school is part of a national system of education and should follow a national curriculum for the welfare of the nation. The other sector in the redirection of modern Japanese education that would prove to be everlasting and controversial into the twentieth century concerned the role of morals education in the national school system of Japan. Motoda first set the parameters of the cause through his Imperial Will on Education that placed Confucian studies at the pinnacle. Egi codified it into law. Egi recognized that a fundamental reversal in Japanese education was under way with his law of 1880. He characterized it as a reverse course from the emphasis on knowledge (chishiki)—that is, Western science and technology—to traditional ethics and morality based on the Imperial Way (koodoo).20 The approach he took in carrying out his assignment proved to be effective. It began with the basic Education Law of December 1880. That was followed by a series of “guidelines” (kokoroe) covering virtually the entire school system that began with the first one issued on January 29, 1881.21 The series was completed with ten more by the end of the summer. The primary purpose of the Revised Education Law of 1880 and its guidelines was to set a national curriculum for the country’s public schools. By doing this, Egi returned the nation’s school system to the centralized control of education under the Ministry of Education as it was under the 1872 Code of Education but with increased powers. This was considered by Murray as his major recommendation to Tanaka, rejected in his 1879 Education Law, that “the Department of Education should be distinctly authorized to issue all necessary measures to carry into full effect the provisions of the Code.” From 1880 onward, it was, precisely as Egi designed it.

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

3 45

Egi’s ultimate goal of a national standard of education was set in place by empowering the Ministry, as Murray recommended, “to prescribe plans of study for all public schools, to prescribe the qualifications for teachers, and inspect all schools public and private and to have the means of correcting the abuses and enforcing compliance with the established regulations.” The role of the locally elected school boards that Tanaka championed as a means to diversify local education according to the will of the community was essentially replaced by prefectural governors. However, they required ministerial approval to deviate from the basic regulations set for the nation by the Ministry of Education. Local community influence on education was reduced to a bare minimum. The second issue of great historical significance concerned the repositioning of morals education from the bottom of the list of subjects to the top of the required curriculum. The intent was clarified by Egi and other like-minded officials, notably those from the imperial household, including the emperor himself. It was to officially recognize the importance of traditional values emanating from Confucian teachings from the feudal Tokugawa era into the modern era of the Meiji period. It indirectly conformed to Murray’s conviction that “there are institutions already founded which are revered for their local and national associations which without material change may be made the best elements of a new system.” Accordingly, for the first time in the modern system of education in Japan since the Meiji Restoration, morals education was listed at the top of the official curriculum set by the Ministry of Education, followed by reading, writing, mathematics, geography, and history.22

Introducing Imperial Ideology and Nationhood into the Classroom In the process of elevating morals education from the bottom to the top of the school curriculum in the Education Law of 1880, one of the great moments in Japanese educational history transpired. Egi was instrumental in introducing a new and ultimately highly provocative theme, imperial ideology and loyalty to the country, into the curriculum of the nation’s public schools through the morals course. Among the regulations Egi employed to enforce the provisions of the basic law, the Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers (Shōgakkō Kyōin Kokoroe), issued on June 18, 1881, was the most important one. It mandated the teachings of the Imperial Way (kōdōshugi) in Japan’s modern public school system. It came about through the adage that morals teaching took precedence over teaching information, reflecting Motoda’s dictum in his Imperial Will on Education that Confucianism take precedence over modern Western learning. Egi incorporated it into the Guidelines for the Elementary School Curriculum (Shōgakkō Kyōsoku Kōryō), issued on May 4, 1881, and into the Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers (Shōgakkō Kyōin Kokoroe) on June 18, 1881.23

Figure 11.4. Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers, June 18, 1881. From Kaigo Tokiomi, ed., Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [Dictionary of modern Japanese educational history] (Heibonsha, 1971), 203.

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

3 47

In the first section of the historically decisive Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers, Egi instructed teachers that their students must be taught loyalty to the imperial family and their homeland of Japan—that is, “Revere the emperor—love our country” (sonnō aikoku).24 In a single phrase, Egi integrated imperial studies and national studies into one teaching—that is, loyalty to the emperor as the foundation of nationhood. In modern terminology, it was a profound expression of Japanese nationalism. Its unprecedented significance is that it awarded a prominent role of the emperor in the classrooms of modern Japanese schools officially for the first time since the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Although it was under the most unusual circumstances whereby a young government bureaucrat had the opportunity to exert such a major impact on modern Japanese education, in fact, the critical figure in this process was the Confucius tutor to the young Emperor Meiji, Motoda. Egi had become drawn into the allure of the imperial household through Motoda’s Imperial Will on Education, inspired to incorporate the imperial teachings in the official regulations. According to his memoirs, Egi consulted with officials of the imperial household in drawing up the bill. It can be assumed that among them was Motoda. When Egi submitted a draft to the palace for a reaction that was passed on to the emperor, who approved, he expressed an interest in meeting the author.25 That set up Egi’s first meeting with Emperor Meiji, which deeply impressed him. At the time of Egi’s meeting with Emperor Meiji, he had just completed the revision of the curriculum of studies to be followed by all elementary schools in the nation. Within the changes, the critical ones involved the morals course that introduced imperial ideology and the history course centered on world history, which he dropped from the curriculum. In its place he inserted a new course on the history of Japan. It was designed to incorporate the historical development of the imperial institution in the long history of the country to conform to the revision of the morals course. It further reflected the nationalistic tendencies of Egi. Egi’s Education Law of 1880 and its guidelines for implementation consequently set the direction of modern education in Japan for the twentieth century from a nationalistic perspective. It conformed to the convictions of both of his mentors. Murray recommended that the Ministry have the power to set the course of studies for the nation’s public school system, and Motoda recommended that morals be at the top of the list, with imperial studies as the core teaching. Murray could never have envisioned that outcome when he advised chargé d’affaires Mori Arinori in Washington a decade earlier that in planning a modern school system for Japan, “there are traditional customs which it would be unwise to undertake to subvert.” It represents Egi’s great diversion from Murray’s recommendations to the Ministry by stipulating precisely the official attitude toward the imperial institution and its integral position in the nation’s cultural history that each child should learn in school.

348

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

The imperial presence in the public schools of Japan was further enhanced through the imperial household’s increasing influence. Shortly after the policy to “Revere the emperor—love our country” was implemented with sonnō aikoku teachings, a portrait of Emperor Meiji was distributed to each public school, often amid ceremonial trappings. It was intended to familiarize every student with the actual image of the emperor who they were being taught to revere in the morals classes.26 Egi took one further step in his regulations for teachers. Noted previously, by the early 1880s, much to the consternation of government leaders, a political movement was taking shape critical of government policies considered restrictive. It attracted activist teachers. In response, Egi took the opportunity to respond to it as a threat to the public schools if political teachings reached the classroom. In the Regulations Governing the Conduct of Teachers (Gakkō Kyōin Hinkō Kentei Kisoku), issued on July 21, 1881, teachers were not allowed to introduce political teachings in the classroom, violating the political neutrality of the public schools. In a move to restrict the political activities of public school teachers outside the classroom, Egi inserted the provision that teachers were not allowed to give public speeches of a political nature.27 It was viewed by some as an effort to intimidate teachers into following regulations stipulated by the Ministry of Education. It was a precursor of what would follow in the twentieth century. The selection of textbooks under the Education Law of 1880 fit into the pattern of the Ministry’s regained control of education and a new purpose in teaching morals in the modern school system. With Egi’s regulations empowering the Ministry to set course requirements with morals education at the top, a Textbook Bureau was promptly set up to draw up a list of textbooks to use in the morals class.28 From that list, those that were deemed inappropriate were banned. In schools that used texts in the morals class from abroad in translation, a common solution to the lack of appropriate morals texts in Japanese, they were all banned. One that was authored by the popular intellectual Fukuzawa Yukichi, who had written the book for an adult audience, was also on the banned list. The head of the new Textbook Bureau, Nishimura Shigeki, an authority on Confucian studies, prepared a book entitled Shōgaku Shūshin-kun (Elementary moral teachings), published by the Ministry of Education in May 1880. He had discussed the contents with Motoda from the imperial household. The text was ready in time as a textbook for the issuance of the regulation written by Egi.29 Through a series of actions by the Ministry of Education that were systematically put in place, textbook censorship first took place in Japan in the mid-1880s—after Murray returned home but in accordance with his recommendations for some form of textbook control in his 1877 report to Tanaka. Egi had translated the following section devoted to textbook selection for Tanaka to read. He was fully aware of Murray’s position on censoring public school textbooks that he adhered to in 1880: “In organizing a system of national education the

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

3 49

subject of school books must not be neglected. Their preparation and selection cannot safely be left without control. If some sort of inspection or restraint be not retained over the use of books in the schools, they are sure to be deluged with wretched publications . . . no books should be used as textbooks in the public schools of the country unless they have been licensed by the Ministry of Education.”30 By the mid-1880s, through the Revised Education Law of 1880 and the accompanying guidelines primarily prepared by Egi, the great reverse course in modern Japanese education was firmly in place. One by one, Murray’s recommendations were implemented by Egi. The one major revision of the curriculum implemented by Egi not on the recommended list of Murray was the introduction of imperial studies as a result of Motoda’s Imperial Will on Education.

A Critique of Murray’s Legacy for Japan One particular critique of Murray that deserves consideration in his biography concerns the negative consequences long after he died of the strongest recommendation he made to Tanaka Fujimaro for modern Japanese education. The indisputable historical outcome of the highly centralized administrative structure of education set in place by Egi Kazuyuki under the influence of Murray in 1880 marked the beginning of an emperor-centered system of education initiated by Motoda Eifu’s Imperial Will on Education. It could be argued that Murray’s recommendation provided the opportunity for ultra-nationalists to gain control of the government in the twentieth century, which provoked the rise of militarism in the name of the emperor. It ultimately led to disaster for Japan in World War II. In analyzing why Murray was so obsessed with the absolute necessity of a centrally administered school system for Japan, disregarding the potentially long-range negative consequences for the country, it could be argued that he was mistrustful of teachers and local administrators. His warning that “without proper supervision a school system however perfect at the beginning will soon fall into endless irregularities, inferior teachers will be employed, and the instruction will become correspondingly inferior,” was indicative of Murray’s fundamental sense of mistrust that pervaded his recommendations. The theme of skepticism is basic to this negative perspective of Murray’s most urgent advice for the implementation of a school system administratively controlled by the central government. It could be reasoned that Murray’s skepticism about local control of education may have been fueled by the widespread rioting and destruction of schools by peasants opposing the newly instituted Westernstyle public school system during Murray’s tenure at the Ministry of Education. Although his purpose of enabling the government to determine what was taught in the public schools of Japan had nothing to do with militarism and emperor

350

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

worship, it nevertheless could be contended that Murray’s passion for the centralized control of Japanese education in 1877 contributed to a dictatorial form of government in Japan in the twentieth century. There is, however, another approach from a positive perspective in analyzing Murray’s motives. Its historical importance cannot be overestimated, since it was purposely intended by Murray as his primary legacy for the future of Japan. A final review of how and why this most consequential recommendation was made by Murray can be instructive, especially in view of his unwavering commitment to the future well-being of Japan, which grew out of his admiration for its samurai leaders in the early Meiji period. The timing of Murray’s major recommendation for the future of Japanese education was a deciding factor in determining his legacy. Alluded to previously, among the three periods as Superintendent of Japanese education covered in this biography, during the first one from June 1873, when Murray arrived in Japan, until October 1875, when he left for the American centennial in Philadelphia, the issue of educational control rarely came up. In contrast, upon Murray’s return from the American centennial in January 1877, he made an unequivocal recommendation to Tanaka Fujimaro, head of the Ministry of Education: “The administration of all educational affairs in the Empire should be vested in the Department of Education,” qualifying it as “the most important matter connected with the Code of Education.” The conclusion can be made that Murray arrived at that fateful advice for Japan during the American centennial in Philadelphia in 1876. The circumstances under which Murray arrived at his most important recommendation revolved around his participation in the international conferences on education at the 1876 American centennial. These conferences provided Murray with the opportunity to meet and interact with distinguished educators from America and Europe. He later recalled how fortunate it was for him to meet many educators from foreign countries “for the mutual interchange of views and the explanation of national systems of instruction.”31 In one of the notable paradoxes of the moment, the Japanese delegation to the 1876 centennial included Tanaka, who had spent nearly two years visiting schools and meeting prominent educators throughout Europe in 1872 as a member of the Iwakura Embassy. In comparison, his senior adviser, Murray, assigned by Tanaka “to study the systems of education as illustrated by the Philadelphia Exhibition and to report to the Department such information and conclusions as might be useful,” had never visited a school in Europe. Moreover, he may have never visited a public school in America during his career as a teacher of mathematics in private schools. Consequently, the centennial proved to be the first opportunity for an awakening to the issues related to the administrative control of a national school system by Murray. Among the educators Murray met in Philadelphia who exerted a deep impact on his conviction of the necessity of a centralized school system for Japan was a

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

35 1

fellow American, James Wickersham, as reported earlier. As chance would have it, Wickersham had strong reservations about the administrative control of education in his home state of Pennsylvania. In the position of Superintendent of Public Instruction in the host state of Pennsylvania, he was responsible for conducting the international conferences that Murray attended. The sentiments expressed in Murray’s 1877 recommendations to Tanaka for Japan bear a close resemblance to those in Wickersham’s 1876 report from the Philadelphia centennial on the recommendations for Pennsylvania and America at large. That was understandable, since it was Murray’s first opportunity in his academic career to hear the personal opinions on school administration by a senior American school administrator. Wickersham’s report was intended as a critique of the decentralized administrative structure of Pennsylvania schools, which prevented him from properly addressing the academic imbalances and vastly divergent standards according to wealth and civic commitment among local school districts. It was a powerful and compelling discourse on educational administration by a leading American educational administrator. What made it even more consequential was that Murray would return to Japan with deep convictions on educational administration for Japan, markedly influenced by Wickersham but that went directly counter to those held by Tanaka. Wickersham’s influence on Murray is best illustrated by comparing the similarities in Murray’s 1877 report to the Ministry of Education with Wickersham’s report at the 1876 centennial. Throughout his presentations, Wickersham’s appreciation for a centrally controlled school system like that in Prussia cannot be mistaken: “Like in our townships and towns [in Pennsylvania], too, there are everywhere local school boards [in Prussia]; but the citizens are seldom suffered to elect all the members of these boards, and the members they do elect are not often chosen or free to act without restrictions. The hand of the central government . . . exercises a controlling power in the building of schoolhouses, the employment of teachers, the selecting of textbooks, in the arrangement of courses of study and the work of inspecting the schools.”32 In Murray’s 1877 report to Tanaka, he recommended the same role for the Japanese Ministry of Education that Wickersham admiringly described as the duties of the Prussian Ministry of Education: “In order to secure anything like a system, properly graded and balanced, and to keep the standard of the schools and the character of the instruction at a suitable point, it is absolutely necessary to reserve to the Department of Education a power to prescribe schedules of study and to inspect buildings, equipments, and instruction in the school.”33 Wickersham continues his report on the Prussian educational system in laudatory terms. He characterizes it as “a strong school organization” with “marvelous results for the school interests of a nation”: “The Prussian is an example of a strong school organization . . . with officers free from the weakening influence of popular elections, secure in place during good behavior, united in a common

35 2

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

cause, intelligent, skillful, earnest, can affect in a short time marvelous results for the school interests of a nation. No system of schools can reach a high degree of efficiency without close and constant supervision by competent officers.” Murray echoes Wickersham’s convictions about the virtues of education as in Prussia in his recommendations to Tanaka. He goes one step further than Wickersham by describing the “conditions of the schools” in a country that does not maintain “close and constant supervision by competent officers”—that is, from the Ministry of Education. His conviction reflects his impressions from the centennial’s international conferences on education, in which every national representative came from a country with a centralized school system except the United States, about which Wickersham expressed serious reservations. It provided Murray with uncontested evidence of the need for a similar educational structure for Japan in its quest to catch up to the West: “In every country where popular education has made progress, it has been brought about by the thorough supervision of the schools by the central administration. Without proper supervision a school system however perfect at the beginning will soon fall into endless irregularities, inferior teachers will be employed, and the instruction will become correspondingly inferior.” Wickersham concludes his report with a statement entitled “Lessons for Pennsylvania,” which he, as the senior ranking educational official for Pennsylvania, added as a warning to his fellow citizens of the state. It proved enlightening to Murray: “That the policy of placing so much power in the hands of local school boards as is done by our laws, has its weak as well as its strong points. Among intelligent citizens, alive to the interests of education, it is worthy of all praise; but where an ignorant people, or a people wanting in public spirit, elect school boards like themselves, no policy could possibly be worse.”34 As a ranking official in the Ministry of Education, Murray essentially applied Wickersham’s “Lesson for Pennsylvania” as “Lessons for Japan.” In support of his recommendation to Tanaka of the need for the central control of education for Japan, which contrasted with Tanaka’s plan to inaugurate a system of locally elected school boards with heavy administrative responsibilities, Murray’s reasoning reflects that of Wickersham’s: “In a country like Japan where the people have been accustomed and rely much upon the guidance and assistance of government, more will be required of the governmental administration than in a country where the communities had been more accustomed to rely upon themselves.”35

Murray’s Unwavering Commitment to Japan As superintendent of Japanese education, Murray’s unconditional assertion that a highly centralized school system was best for Japan reflected the unconditional commitment he felt for the well-being of Japan and its future. It was similar

David Mu rr ay’s Leg acy for Japa n

353

to the motivation of Tanaka, the former samurai who headed the Ministry of Education and who returned to Japan from the centennial with the opposite conclusion to Murray’s. In carrying out his assignment by Tanaka “to study the systems of education as illustrated by the Philadelphia Exhibition and to report to the Department such information and conclusions as might be useful,” Murray’s unwavering commitment to the progress of Japan was put to the test. Murray had to be pleased with the outcome of the American centennial upon returning to Japan in 1877, when he submitted his controversial recommendation of a centrally controlled school system on the German model to the Ministry of Education. He purposely characterized it as “the most important matter connected with the Code of Education.” Under the circumstances, there was no reason for him to conceive of the possibility of extreme Japanese nationalists in the name of the emperor distorting a centrally controlled school system in the pursuit of military power, leading the nation to destruction sometime in the future. Murray’s unwavering commitment in the pursuit of best practices in Western educational systems for Japan precluded him from contemplating the negative potential of his advice to Tanaka. Murray’s commitment to the future of Japan was dependent upon his confidence that Japanese government leaders were capable of carrying out his most demanding recommendation. Regardless of the complexities of administering a public school system, Murray had no doubt that the officials charged with that responsibility in Japan would conduct themselves in a manner beneficial to the country. As we learned, he was awakened to the potential for Japanese leadership through his encounter with the Japanese students who came to Rutgers College for a Western education shortly after the 1867–1868 civil war that brought about the Meiji Restoration and the end of the feudal Tokugawa government. With few exceptions, they originated from the samurai class. It was their common samurai upbringing in Japan that stimulated them to undertake the daring and dangerous trip to the West that fascinated Murray and his wife, Martha. Murray was thus fully confident that his recommendations would be carried out by competent leaders like those samurai students. He could not have envisioned a negative consequence. The awakening to Japan from Murray’s encounter with these outstanding examples of samurai youth at Rutgers College can be appreciated under the unusual set of circumstances that brought them together in New Brunswick. It deepened as Murray became increasingly fascinated with their unusual educational background in the making of a samurai. It was further strengthened as his expanding personal relationships with them revealed their courteous manners in which samurai warriors in the 1800s were educated in Japan. It was all motivated by their unwavering commitment to the future well-being of their country that produced a historic elite, the samurai leaders of early Meiji Japan.

35 4

Part I I I : 1 8 7 7 – 1 8 7 9

Few other non-Japanese had the opportunity to become intimately acquainted both socially and officially with so many of the future leaders of the early Meiji government as did David Murray. His personal experiences with them as revealed in this biography exemplified the extraordinary leadership qualities of the samurai who led Japan out of the feudal world into the modern world that David Murray came to admire. The historical significance of David Murray’s awakening to Japan in the late 1860s and early 1870s from which his unwavering commitment to the welfare of a feudal society emerged is that it transpired in the small town of New Brunswick, New Jersey, thousands of miles from the shores of Japan. After five years befriending the many young samurai from Japan at Rutgers College between 1868 and 1873, David Murray had become so deeply affected by his encounter with them that he was eager to make a commitment to the future well-being of their country. The admiration by both Martha and David Murray for the young Japanese students and the institutions in which they were brought up in the samurai tradition was the motivation behind Murray’s so-called Jap project, a plan to go to Japan to fulfill his commitment. To his delight, through his thoughtful response to the Japanese chargé d’affaires in Washington on the role of education in the advance of a nation, followed by interviews with senior leaders of the Meiji government visiting Washington on the Iwakura Mission to the West, the Japanese government offered him an employment contract as Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, which he welcomed. Through that act, however, David Murray displayed a fundamental attribute of a samurai he came to admire, loyalty in the Confucian tradition. It was a manifestation of his commitment to a country and its feudal background that he greatly appreciated through his encounter with the samurai students at Rutgers College. It was the loyalty of a samurai that appealed to David Murray that he took with him to Japan that underlay his commitment to the future of the nation expressed through his recommendations for educational reform. The Japanese could not have asked for anything more. The End

ACK N OW L E D G M E N TS

The biography of David Murray originated in Japan during the last twenty years of my forty-year tenure on the faculty of the International Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo—that is, from 1980 to 2000. It is a by-product of the research undertaken to write The History of Modern Japanese Education, a 425-page publication issued by Rutgers University Press in 2009 that covers the period beginning with the Code of Education, the Gakusei of 1872, ending with the Imperial Rescript on Education in 1890. It was amid that research when David Murray’s contribution to Japan’s modern school system as Superintendent of Japanese Education from 1873 to 1878 was uncovered. It was, however, not possible to devote a large section to Murray’s role in modern Japanese education in a manuscript that ran far beyond the original agreed-upon length that had to cover the contributions of so many Japanese figures. I decided early on in that research period that my writing career on Japanese educational history would end with a separate biography of David Murray, professor of mathematics at Rutgers College. It seems appropriate, therefore, to begin the acknowledgments for this book by identifying those individuals in Japan who provided the initial motivation to undertake this project. That can be traced back to the first dean of the ICU Graduate School of Education, Hidaka Daishiro, who served in that position when I joined the faculty in 1959. My first teaching course was in the graduate school with Dean Hidaka as chairman of our Department of Education. The elderly Dean Hidaka, former Vice Minister of Education, set out to guide this young American through the intricacies of Japanese education in the postwar era through his personal experiences. His confrontation with the left-wing, Communist-dominated Japan Teachers Union proved so fascinating that it was used as the topic of my PhD thesis at the University of London in 1969 on leave from ICU, published as Japan’s Militant Teachers: A History of the Left-Wing 355

356

Ack n owle d gme n ts

Teachers’ Movement by the University Press of Hawaii. It was my first academic publication in book form that instilled within me the confidence that it was possible to periodically publish works on Japanese educational history while carrying out the duties of a professorship in a Japanese university and bringing up a family with three children in a foreign country receiving their basic education in the public school system of Japan. The major research on Japanese educational history that led to this biography of David Murray also took place during my tenure as chairman of the ICU graduate faculty of education. During that time with heavy responsibilities, I relied upon graduate assistants to gather much of the material in Japanese concerning Murray’s role as Superintendent of Education in the Ministry of Education. Among them, my gratitude is especially extended to Arai Hajime, who spent a good many hours with me for a number of years poring over the role of David Murray in modern Japanese education as interpreted by Japanese scholars. The Japanese scholar who devoted so many hours discussing Murray’s contribution to modern Japanese education with me was Yoshiie Sadao, professor of Japanese history of education at Keio University. He is well known as the only Japanese historian who has specialized in David Murray’s role and influence on Japanese education in the Meiji era. He wrote the first biography of David Murray published in any language, in this case Japanese, in 1998 by an academic publisher. We spent countless hours together over a number of years exchanging opinions and interpretations at the Japanese Diet library, Keio University library, and Dr. Yoshiie’s home south of Tokyo. I shall always be indebted to him for his interest in my devotion to David Murray. Recognition is also due to the then head librarian at ICU, Nagano Yuki, and her staff during most of the research period on Murray in the latter part of the 1900s. Since Japanese history books and documents of the 1800s were necessary for this historical biography of David Murray, interlibrary loans were essential. The ICU library staff proved most effective in locating and obtaining by interlibrary loans critical material that proved invaluable. It was especially rewarding to me since I had a close relationship to the ICU library, having been appointed acting head librarian a decade earlier for a year or so during a crisis of leadership. Mention must also be made of those individuals in Japan who assisted in gathering materials, verifying facts, making relevant contacts, and so on for me while in America during the final period in the publication process, when authors of academic books submit pictures for the publication and make last-minute adjustments. Nagano Yuki again proved helpful during this period, working with the current archivist of the ICU library, Kubo Makoto. The other Japanese who made important contacts for me in Japan during this final period was Hayakawa Eichi, who lived with our family on the campus of our university during his student days at ICU. Finally, two colleagues on the ICU faculty who provided much encouragement were Dr. Tachikawa Akira, who taught the graduate course on

Acknow led gm ents

35 7

the history of Japanese education, and Dr. Onishi Naoki, codirector of American studies who shared that duty with me for a number of years. In the United States, the primary figure to play a critical academic role in the Murray biography was Dr. Thomas Havens, who taught Japanese history at University of California, Berkeley, and served as editor of the Journal of Asian Studies during my research period on Murray. He is also the author of a number of highly recognized books on Japanese history and culture. In part stemming from an unusual relationship that began on the beach of the magnificent Lake Mokoma, where both of our families had spent many summers enjoying the Endless Mountains of Pennsylvania, I took the liberty of asking Tom to read every chapter of the Murray manuscript as I completed them. He agreed, with the mutual understanding that his response would be completely objective. In fact, his chapter responses turned out to be motivational, since he invariably ended them, no matter how brief, with a personal note looking forward to the next chapter. I am also indebted to the curator of the magnificent William Elliot Griffis Collection at Rutgers University, Fernanda Perrone. Fernanda personally introduced the well-known collection to me, which turned out to be one of the major sources of related materials on David Murray. She responded positively to every request I made both from Japan and, after retirement, from my home in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Fernanda was very helpful academically. She exerted a motivating influence and was clearly delighted that I was writing the first biography of David Murray in English that necessarily included many sections that involved William Griffis, his student at Rutgers College. Griffis became a professor of science at Japan’s premier national institution of higher education when David Murray was Superintendent of Japanese Education in Tokyo. There were several other Americans who provided critical assistance in this project and are deserving of recognition. Laura Mumma, reference librarian at the local Joseph Simpson Public Library in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, managed the process of obtaining research materials from libraries throughout the United States through interlibrary loans. Approximately fifty books, some from the 1800s, passed through her office, serving as a resource that, not too many years ago, was only available to academic researchers at major universities. Jack Igoe, good neighbor and senior computer specialist, used his magical touch and advanced computer programming to “rework” old pictures. Among them were some taken in Japan during the feudal period of the Tokugawa era that ended in 1868. It is also a great pleasure to recognize the generous publication grant made available by the United States–Japan Foundation to publish the first biography on David Murray in English. In this case it was granted to Rutgers University Press, for which I am grateful. I am indebted to the individual who initiated

358

Ack n owle d gme n ts

the publication grant, David Janes, director of foundation grants and assistant to the president of the United States–Japan Foundation, and to the president, Dr. George R. Packard. Finally, recognition of the role that the newly appointed director of Rutgers University Press, Micah Kleit, made in approving the publication of the Murray biography by an academic publisher not deeply involved in Asian studies. His wise choice of executive editor Kimberly Guinta and editor Lisa Banning to effectively guide me through the publication process proved to be the appropriate one. It was a pleasure working with them as the author of Dr. David Murray: Superintendent of Education in the Empire of Japan, 1873–1879.

N OT E S

introduction 1. Tsuchiya Tadao, Kindai Nihon Kyōiku no Kaitakusha [Pioneers of modern Japanese education] (Seikaisha, 1950), 12–32. 2. Tsuchiya, 12–13. 3. “This Agreement,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1873. 4. David Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, 1877, unpaged. 5. Kaigo Tokiomi, ed., Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education] (Heibonsha, 1971), 778. 6. William Chamberlain, ed., In Memoriam, David Murray, Ph.D., L.L.D., Superintendent of Educational Affairs in the Empire of Japan, and Advisor to the Imperial Minister of Education, 1873–1879 (self-pub., 1915), 14–15. 7. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 11. 8. “Paths to History at Rutgers,” Collections and University Archives, Alexander Library, Rutgers University. 9. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 767. 10. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 17–18. 11. New York Times, February 20, 1910; and Targum, February 10 and 23, 1910. 12. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 41–42. 13. Targum, February 23, 1910. 14. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 18. 15. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 1–22. 16. David Murray, ed., An Outline History of Japanese Education (D. Appleton, 1876).

chapter 1 — dr. david murray’s awakening to japan 1. John Ferris, “How the Japanese Came to New Brunswick,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:57. 2. William Elliot Griffis, In the Mikado’s Service (W. A. Wilde, 1901), 40. 3. William Elliot Griffis, “The Japanese Students in America,” The Japanese Student 1916–1917, 1:15.

359

36 0

N ote s to Page s 1 2 – 3 4

4. Letter from Guido Verbeck to John Ferris, June 6, 1866, Japan Mission Correspondence, Archives, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Jersey. 5. Griffis, “Japanese Students in America,” 1:8. 6. Griffis, In the Mikado’s Service, 44. 7. Griffis, 40–48. 8. Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (Rutgers University Press, 1966), 81. 9. McCormick, 8. 10. Ferris, “How the Japanese Came to New Brunswick,” 58–59. 11. Griffis, “Japanese Students in America,” 1:13. 12. Griffis, 8. 13. Griffis, 10. 14. McCormick, Rutgers, 83. 15. McCormick, 82. 16. David Murray, ed., Delaware County, New York: History of the Century, 1797–1897 (William Clark Publishers, 1898), 121–131. 17. Murray, 217–218. 18. Murray, 193. 19. Theodore Sizer, The Age of the Academies (Teachers College Press, 1964), 1–2. 20. Kaigo Tokiomi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese educational history] (Heibonsha, 1971), 419. 21. R. Fox Dixon, Union College: An Unfinished History (Union College, 1945), 14. 22. Andrew Raymond, Union University (Lewis, 1907), 1:301–302. 23. Codman Hislop, Eliphalet Nott (Wesleyan University Press, 1971), 226. 24. Raymond, Union University, 153–154. 25. Raymond, 155. 26. “Merit Roll of Class Graduating July 1852,” Union College, Archives. 27. Cornelius VanSantvoord, Memories of Eliphalet Nott (Sheldon, 1876), 33. 28. VanSantvoord, 119. 29. VanSantvoord, 167. 30. William Chamberlain, ed., In Memoriam (self-pub., 1915), 63–64. 31. Chamberlain, 6. 32. Jean Wilson Sidar, George Hammell Cook: A Life in Agriculture and Geology (Rutgers University Press, 1976), 38. 33. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 2. 34. Chamberlain, 20. 35. Chamberlain, 37. 36. Chamberlain, 59–61. 37. Chamberlain, 2. 38. Chamberlain, 2. 39. Cuyler Reynolds, Genealogical and Family History of Southern New York and the Hudson River Valley (Lewis Historical, 1914). 40. Daily Home News, January 19, 1929. 41. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1973, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 42. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 28, 1877. 43. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 28, 1877. 44. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 60–61. 45. Daily Home News, January 19, 1929. 46. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, May 18, 1873. 47. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, May 20, 1874. 48. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 3.

Not es to Page s 36–55

361

49. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:108–109. 50. Daily Home News, January 19, 1929. 51. Fiftieth Anniversary of the Foundation of the Second Reformed Dutch Church of New Brunswick, New Jersey (published by the Consistory, 1893), 54. 52. The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Second Reformed Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey (published by the Consistory, 1943), 93. 53. One Hundredth Anniversary, 90, 93.

chapter 2 — the samurai invasion of new brunswick 1. E. Warren Clark, Katz Awa: The Bismarck of Japan (B. F. Buck, 1876), 31. 2. Clark, 31. 3. William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 17. 4. Gordon Laman, “Guido Verbeck: Pioneer Missionary to Japan,” Newsletter to the Historical Society of the Reformed Church in America, 1980, 4:2. 5. Umetani Noboru, Oyatoi Gaikokujin [Foreign employees] (Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, 1965), 72. 6. Gordon Laman, Pioneers to Partners: The Reformed Church in America and Christian Mission with the Japanese (William Erdmans, 2013), 64–65. 7. Griffis, Verbeck of Japan, 124–125. 8. Griffis, 124–125. 9. Ogata Hiroyasu, Gakusei Jisshi Keii no Kenkyū [The implementation of the Gakusei] (Kōsō Shobō, 1965), 37. 10. John Ferris, “How the Japanese Came to New Brunswick,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:57–58. 11. Letter from Guido Verbeck to John Ferris, March 19, 1870, Japan Mission Correspondence, Archives, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Jersey. 12. Letter from Guido Verbeck to John Ferris, November 21, 1871. 13. Donald Roden, Schooldays in Imperial Japan (University of California Press, 1980), 35. 14. William Elliot Griffis, The Rutgers Graduates in Japan (Rutgers College Alumnae Association, 1885), 24. 15. Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku, ed., Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku Gojūnenshi [Fifty-year history of the Tokyo Imperial University] (Tokyo University, 1927), 1:147–148. 16. Letter from Guido Verbeck to John Ferris, September 21, 1871. 17. Paul Kadota, Kanaye Nagasawa: A Biography of a Satsuma Student (Kagoshima Prefectural Junior College, 1990), 22–41. 18. Kadota, 42. 19. Kadota, 13. 20. Andrew Cobbing, The Satsuma Students in Britain (Japan Library, 2000), 23–24. 21. E. Warren Clark, Life and Adventures in Japan (American Tract Society, 1878), 139. 22. Cobbing, Satsuma Students in Britain, 36–37. 23. Kadota, Kanaye Nagasawa, 62. 24. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:110. 25. Kadota, Kanaye Nagasawa, 68–69. 26. Cobbing, Satsuma Students in Britain, 119. 27. Yoshiyuki Kikuchi, Anglo-American Connections in Japanese Chemistry: The Lab as Contact Zone (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 17–18. 28. J. Harris, “From Giessen to Gower Street: Towards a Biography of Alexander Williamson,” Annals of Science 31, no. 2 (1974): 95–130. 29. Harris, 110.

362

N ote s to Page s 55– 7 3

30. Olive Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912 (Macmillan, 1989), 74; Kikuchi, Anglo-American Connections, 41. 31. Laurence Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan (William Blackwood and Sons, 1859), 179. 32. Cobbing, Satsuma Students in Britain, 66–67. 33. Cobbing, 66–67. 34. Cobbing, 119. 35. Cobbing, 98–101. 36. Ivan Parker Hall, Mori Arinori (Harvard University Press, 1973), 77–80. 37. Hall, Mori Arinori, 105. 38. Margaret Oliphant, Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant (William Blackwood and Sons, 1859), 2:179. 39. Herbert Schneider and George Lawton, A Prophet and a Pilgrim: Being the Incredible History of Thomas Lake Harris and Laurence Oliphant; Their Sexual Mysticisms and Utopian Communities Amply Documented Confound the Skeptic (Columbia University Press, 1942), 112. 40. Kadota, Kanaye Nagasawa, 87. 41. Hall, Mori Arinori, 105. 42. Schneider and Lawton, A Prophet and a Pilgrim. 43. Kadota, Kanaye Nagasawa, 95. 44. Inuzuka Takaaki, Mori Arinori (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1986), 78–79. 45. Griffis, Rutgers Graduates in Japan, 22. 46. Schneider and Lawton, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, 125. 47. Schneider and Lawton, 199. 48. Schneider and Lawton, xv. 49. Inuzuka, Mori Arinori, 81–82. 50. Schneider and Lawton, A Prophet and a Pilgrim, 214. 51. Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari,” 1:110. 52. Murray, 1:110. 53. Murray, 1:110. 54. William Elliot Griffis, “Japanese Students in America,” The Japanese Student 1916–1917, 1:8. 55. Murray, 1:110. 56. The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Second Reformed Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey (published by the Consistory, 1943), 93. 57. Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari,” 1:111. 58. One Hundredth Anniversary of the Second Reformed Church, 93. 59. Griffis, Rutgers Graduates in Japan, 25. 60. Watanabe Masao, The Japanese and Western Science (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 3. 61. Letter from Martha Murray to Aunt Helen, July 20, 1873, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 62. Letter from Martha Murray to Aunt Helen, July 20, 1873. 63. Clark, Katz Awa, 51–52.

chapter 3 — murray’s celebrated class of 1868 1. William Elliot Griffis, The Rutgers Graduates in Japan (Rutgers College Alumnae Association, 1885), 21–23; Kato Katsuji, “Japanese Students at Annapolis,” The Japanese Student, 1918–1919, 3:58. 2. William Demarest, A History of Rutgers College 1766–1924 (Rutgers College, 1924), 441.

Not es to Page s 7 3 –9 0

363

3. Demarest, 441. 4. Demarest, 441. 5. Morrill Land Grant Act, Pub. L. No. 37–108, July 2, 1862, General Records of the United States Government, National Archives. 6. Jean Wilson Sidar, George Hammell Cook: A Life in Agriculture and Geology (Rutgers University Press, 1976), 40–41. 7. Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (Rutgers University Press, 1966), 82. 8. Henry Vittum, The Development of the Curriculum of Rutgers College, 1862–1958 (New York University, 1962), 74. 9. Sidar, George Hammell Cook, 51. 10. Vittum, Development of the Curriculum, 79. 11. Sidar, George Hammell Cook, 56. 12. Vittum, Development of the Curriculum, 49–84. 13. McCormick, Rutgers, 88. 14. Sidar, 86–90. 15. Demarest, 34. 16. Sidar, George Hammell Cook, 98–99. 17. Sidar, 108. 18. John Ferris, “How the Japanese Came to New Brunswick,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:57. 19. Griffis, Rutgers Graduates, 21–22. 20. Vittum, Development of the Curriculum, 49. 21. Sidar, George Hammell Cook, 110. 22. The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Second Reformed Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey (published by the Consistory, 1943), 93. 23. E. Warren Clark, Life and Adventure in Japan (American Tract Society, 1878), 138. 24. Kato, “Japanese Students at Annapolis,” 3:58. 25. Kato, 3:58. 26. Kato, 3:58. 27. Letter from E. Warren Clark to William Elliot Griffis, October 17, 1871, Family Correspondence, Griffis Collection. 28. William Elliot Griffis, “Tarō Kusakabe,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1817, 1:196. 29. Griffis, 1:197. 30. Griffis, 1:197. 31. Griffis, 1:197. 32. Griffis, 1:197. 33. William Elliot Griffis, In the Mikado’s Service (W. A. Wilde, 1901), 46. 34. Griffis, 46. 35. William Elliot Griffis, The Mikado’s Empire, SR Scholarly Resources, 8th ed., vol. 2 (1890), 371. 36. Griffis, Rutgers Graduates, 9–10. 37. Edward Beauchamp, An American Teacher in Early Japan (University of Hawaii Press, 1976), 24. 38. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 370. 39. Griffis, 399–400. 40. Griffis, Rutgers Graduates, 10. 41. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 31. 42. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 431. 43. Griffis, 518. 44. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 48. 45. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 430. 46. Griffis, 526.

364

N ote s to Page s 9 0– 1 04

47. Griffis, 539. 48. William Elliot Griffis, The Mikado: Institution and Person (Princeton University Press, 1915), 156. 49. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 533. 50. Griffis, 536. 51. Letter from Guido Verbeck to John Ferris, November 21, 1871, Japan Mission Correspondence, Archives, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Jersey. 52. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 89. 53. Clark, Life and Adventure, 140. 54. Clark, 140. 55. Letter from Clark to Griffis, October 17, 1871. 56. E. Warren Clark, Katz Awa: The Bismarck of Japan (B. F. Buck, 1876), 52–53. 57. A. Hamish Ion, “Edward Warren Clark and Early Meiji Japan: A Case Study of Cultural Contact,” Modern Asian Studies 2 (1977): 562. 58. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 527. 59. Kato, “Japanese Students at Annapolis,” 59. 60. Ion, Edward Warren Clark, 561–562. 61. Clark, Life and Adventure, 41–42. 62. Clark, 47–48. 63. Griffis, Mikado’s Empire, 548. 64. Clark, Life and Adventure, 128–129. 65. Clark, 131.

chapter 4 — murray’s employment in the service of the emperor 1. William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 255–256. 2. Marlene Mayo, The Iwakura Embassy and the Unequal Treaties, 1871–1873 (Columbia University Press, 1961), 29–31. 3. Albert Altman, “Guido Verbeck and the Iwakura Embassy,” Japan Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1966): 61. 4. Mayo, Iwakura Embassy, 29–31. 5. Ogata Hiroyasu, Gakusei Jisshi Ikisatsu no Kenkyū [The implementation of the code of education] (Kōsō Shobō, 1963), 47–48. 6. Altman, “Guido Verbeck,” 61. 7. Kaigo Tokiomi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Dictionary of Modern Japanese Educational History] (Heibonsha, 1971), 25. 8. Naka Arata, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shijo ni Okeru David Murray to Gakkan Kooan Nihon Kyōiku Hoo [David Murray’s proposed education in Japan by David Murray in the history of Japanese educational administration] (Kyōikugaku Kenkyū, 1956), 43. 9. Naka, 44. 10. Tsuchiya Tadao, Meiji Zenki: Kyōiku Seisaku Shi no Kenkyū [The history of educational policy in the early Meiji period] (Kōdansha, 1962), 39. 11. Tsuchiya, 38. 12. Tsuchiya, 27–28. 13. Kunitake Kume, comp., Japan Rising: The Iwakura Embassy to the USA and Europe 1871–1873 (Cambridge University Press, 2009), xvi. 14. Mayo, Iwakura Embassy, 108. 15. Charles Lanman, The Japanese in America (University Publishing, 1872), 31–32. 16. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 41. 17. Mayo, Iwakura Embassy, 29.

Not es to Page s 105–12 8

365

18. Ivan Parker Hall, Mori Arinori (Harvard University Press, 1973), 129. 19. William Elliot Griffis, The Mikado’s Empire, SR Scholarly Resources, 8th ed., vol. 2 (1890), 399–400. 20. Griffis, 399–400. 21. Hall, Mori Arinori, 157–158. 22. Hall, 172. 23. Katherine Knox, Surprise Personalities in Georgetown, D.C. (self-pub., 1958), 7. 24. Lawrence Cremin, The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men (Teachers College Press, 1957), 7–9. 25. Vincent Lannie, Henry Barnard: American Educator (Teachers College Press, 1974), 43. 26. Kume Kunitake, comp., The Iwakura Embassy 1871–1873: A True Account of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’s Journal of Observation through the United States of America and Europe (Princeton University Press, 2002), 1:xxix. 27. Lanman, Japanese in America, 37. 28. Evening Star, Washington, D.C., February 29, 1872. 29. Lanman, Japanese in America, 35. 30. Ōkubo Toshiaki, ed., Mori Arinori Zenshū [The complete works of Mori Arinori] (Senbundō Shoten, 1972), 3:271–272. 31. Mori Arinori, Education in Japan: A Series of Letters Addressed by Prominent Americans to Arinori Mori (D. Appleton, 1873), 100–101. 32. Mori, 100–101. 33. Ōkubo, Mori Arinori Zenshū, 3:358–378. 34. Naka, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shijo, 43. 35. Ōkubo, Mori Arinori Zenshū, 3:382. 36. Evening Star, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1872. 37. Kume, Iwakura Embassy, 1:214. 38. Sidney Brown, The Diary of Kido Takayoshi (University of Tokyo Press, 1983), 2:143. 39. Arthur Sherburne Hardy, Life and Letters of Joseph Hardy Neeshima (Dōshisha University Press, 1980), 134. 40. Hardy, 135. 41. Yoshiie Sadao, “David Murray, Superintendent of Educational Affairs in Japan: His Views on Education and His Influences in Japan and in the United States” (PhD diss., UMI Dissertation Services, 1997), 93. 42. Naka, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shijo, 43. 43. Evening Star, Washington, D.C., February 29, 1872. 44. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” The Japanese Student, 1816–1817, 1:111. 45. Naka, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shijo, 43. 46. Brown, Diary of Kido, 147. 47. Brown, 149. 48. Brown, 154. 49. Mori, Education in Japan, 1:vi. 50. Naka, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shijo, 43. 51. Letter from David Murray to William Elliot Griffis, August 14, 1872, Griffis Collection, Rutgers University Library. 52. Letter from Murray to Griffis, August 14, 1872. 53. Hardy, Life and Letters, 137. 54. Kume, Iwakura Embassy, 395. 55. Letter from Murray to Griffis, August 14, 1872. 56. Brown, Diary of Kido Takayoshi, 2:253. 57. Ōkubo, Mori Arinori Zenshū, 3:154. 58. Letter from David Murray to Arthur Swain, January 13, 1873, Archives, Albany Academy, Albany, New York.

36 6

N ote s to Page s 1 2 8 – 153

59. “This Agreement,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1873. 60. H. J. Jones, Live Machines: Hired Foreigners and Meiji Japan (University of British Columbia Press, 1980), 11. 61. Tsuchiya Tadao, Kindai Nihon Kyōiku no Kaitakusha [Pioneers of modern Japanese education] (Seikaisha, 1950), 19. 62. Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (Rutgers University Press, 1966). 63. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 4. 64. William Chamberlain, ed., In Memoriam (self-pub., 1915), 3. 65. New Brunswick Times, May 3, 1873. 66. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 8, 1873, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

chapter 5 — japanese education before murray’s arrival 1. Kaigo Tokiomi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education] (Heibonsha, 1971), 781. 2. Ministry of Education, Gakusei Hyakunijuunen Shi [The 120-year history of the code of education] (Ministry of Education, 1992), preface. 3. New Brunswick Times, May 3, 1873. 4. Ōkubo Toshiaki, ed., Mori Arinori Zenshū [The complete works on Mori Arinori] (Senbundō Shoten, 1972), 3:371. 5. Richard Rubinger, Private Academies of Tokugawa Japan (Princeton University Press, 1982), 6. 6. Ronald Dore, Education in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1965), 254. 7. Rubinger, Private Academies, 193–199. 8. Dore, Dore, Education in Tokugawa Japan, 11. 9. A. L. Sadler, The Code of the Samurai: A Translation of Daidooji Yuuzan’s Budoo Shoshinshuu (Charles E. Tuttle, 1941), 18–19. 10. William Elliott Griffis, The Mikado: Institution and Person (Princeton University Press, 1915), 212. 11. Kiyōka Eiichi, trans., The Autobiography of Fukuzawa Yukichi (Hokuseido, 1960), 22. 12. F. Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy (University of California Press, 1998), 49. 13. Aizu Hankō Nisshinkan Guidobukku [A guidebook to the Aizu Han Nisshinkan Clan School] (Aizu Hankō Nisshinkan, 1994), 33. 14. New Brunswick Times, May 3, 1873. 15. Kiyōka, Autobiography of Fukuzawa Yukichi, 13. 16. Kiyōka, 18. 17. Letter from David Murray to William Elliot Griffis, August 14, 1872, Griffis Collection, Rutgers University Library. 18. Motoyama Yukihiko, Proliferating Talent: Essays on Politics, Thought, and Education in the Meiji Era, ed. J. S. A. Elionas and Richard Rubinger (University of Hawai’i Press, 1997), 9. 19. Motoyama, 116–117. 20. Yamazumi Masami, Nihon Kindai Shisō Taikei: Kyōiku no Taikei [Outline of modern thought in Japan: Education] (Iwanami Shoten, 1990), 9–13. 21. Yamazumi, 9–13; letter from Murray to Griffis, August 14, 1872. 22. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 25. 23. Murakami Toshiaki, ed., Meiji Bunka Shi [The cultural history of the Meiji period] (Yōyōsha, 1955), 3:41. 24. Tsuchiya Tadao, Meiji Zenki: Kyōiku Seisaku Shi no Kenkyū [The history of educational policy in the early Meiji period] (Kōdansha, 1962), 37–40.

Not es to Page s 153 –165

367

25. Tsuchiya, 38. 26. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 22. 27. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 38. 28. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 25. 29. Yoshiie Sadao, “David Murray, Superintendent of Educational Affairs in Japan: His Views on Education and His Influences in Japan and in the United States” (PhD diss., UMI Dissertation Services, 1997), 93. 30. Marlene Mayo, The Iwakura Embassy and the Unequal Treaties, 1871–1873 (Columbia University Press, 1961), 108. 31. Arthur Sherburne Hardy, Life and Letters of Joseph Hardy Neeshima (Dōshisha University Press, 1980), 155. 32. Ogata Hiroyasu, Gakusei Jisshi Keii no Kenkyū [The implementation of the Gakusei] (Kōsō Shobō, 1963), 37. 33. Inatomi Eijiro, Meiji Shoki: Kyōiku Shisō no Kenkyū [The history of early Meiji education] (Fukumura Shoten, 1956), 123–127. 34. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 180. 35. David Murray, “The Development of Modern Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 8. 36. Naka Arata, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [History of modern Japanese education] (Kōdansha, 1975), 49. 37. Ishida Takeshi, Kyōikugaku Zenshū: Kindai Kyōiku Shi [The complete works on pedagogy: The history of modern education] (Shōgakkan, 1968), 3:37. 38. David Murray, ed., An Outline History of Japanese Education (D. Appleton, 1876), 124–125. 39. Ishida, Kyōikugaku Zenshū, 3:37. 40. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 781. 41. A Report by the Japanese Government to the United States Commissioner of Education, United States Office of Education, Circulars of Information, no. 2, 1875, 153. 42. Report by the Japanese Government, 153. 43. New Brunswick Times, May 3, 1873. 44. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 781. 45. Naka, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi, 52. 46. Ishida, Kyōikugaku Zenshū, 3:42. 47. Richard Rubinger, Popular Literacy in Early Modern Japan (University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), 79. 48. Naka, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi, 52–53. 49. Ministry of Education, Gakusei Gojūnen Shi [The fifty-year history of the Gakusei] (Ministry of Education, 1922), 61. 50. Noda Yoshio, Meiji Kyōiku Shi [The history of Meiji education] (Yūmei Shobō, 1980), 312. 51. Horimatsu Buichi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [History of modern Japanese education] (Risōsha, 1959), 55. 52. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 183. 53. Horimatsu, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi, 53. 54. Mizuhara Katsutoshi, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yoosei Shi Kenkyū [History of modern Japanese teacher education] (Kazama Shobō, 1990), 45. 55. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 146–147. 56. Hirata Muneyoshi, M. M. Sucotto no Katsudō to Gyoseiki [The activities and achievements of M. M. Scott] (Kyōikugaku Kenkyū, 1978), 5:1, 6. 57. Hirata, 5:1, 6; Mizuhara, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yoosei Shi Kenkyū, 44. 58. Ishida, Kyōikugaku Zenshū, 45. 59. Ishida, 45.

36 8

N ote s to Page s 1 65– 1 83

60. Naka, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi, 65. 61. Suzuki Kōichi, Meiji Nihon Hakkutsu [Meiji Japan unearthed] (Kawada Shobō Shinsa, 1994), 1:80. 62. Suzuki, 1:80. 63. Ogata Hiroyasu, Gakusei Jisshi Keii no Kenkyū [Implementing the Gakusei] (Kōsō Shobō, 1961), 256–258. 64. Ogata, 256–258. 65. Ishitoya Tetsuya, Nihon Kyōin Shi Kenkyū [History of Japanese teachers] (Kōdansha, 1958), 1–6. 66. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 155–156. 67. Tsuchiya, 112.

chapter 6 — murray’s introduction to japanese education 1. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 13, 1873, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 2. David Murray, “The Development of Modern Education in Japan, April, 1904, for the University Magazine, Union College, April, 1904,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 9–10. 3. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 7, 1873. 4. Olive Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912 (Macmillan, 1989), 27. 5. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, August 2, 1873. 6. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, August 8, 1873. 7. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, July 20, 1873. 8. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, July 20, 1873. 9. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, September 3, 1873. 10. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, September 3, 1873. 11. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, September 9, 1873. 12. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 9, 1873. 13. Takahashi Korekiyō, Takahashi Korekiyō Jiden [The autobiography of Takahashi Korekiyō] (Chūō Kooronsha, 1996), 146. 14. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 13, 1873. 15. “Audience with the Emperor, September 12, 1873,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unpaged. 16. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 13, 1873. 17. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 13, 1873. 18. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, from October 30, 1872, to October 9, 1873, 98–100. 19. Transactions of the Asiatic Society, 101. 20. Japan Weekly Mail, Tokyo, October 11, 1873. 21. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, October 9, 1873. 22. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, October 9, 1873. 23. “Address of the Emperor to the Foreign Teachers at the Opening of the Kaisei Gakkō, October 9, 1873,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unpaged. 24. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1873. 25. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1873. 26. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, September 21, 1873. 27. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:112. 28. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, October 27, 1873. 29. E. Warren Clark, Life and Adventures in Japan (American Tract Society, 1878), 131–132. 30. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1873.

Not es to Page s 184 –20 8

36 9

31. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1873. 32. Takahashi, Takahashi Korekiyō, 140–142. 33. Takahashi, 143. 34. Kaigo Tokiomi, Meiji Kyooju Riron Shi Kenkyū [The history of teaching theory in Meiji Japan] (Heibonsha, 1966), 172. 35. Kaigo, 17–18. 36. Naka Arata, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [History of modern Japanese education] (Kōdansha, 1973), 57. 37. David Murray, “The Development of Education in Japan for the University Magazine, Union College, April 1904,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 11. 38. Murray, 13. 39. Inagaki Tomomi, Gakkan Dabiddo Mare—(David Murray) no Kenkyū [Research on Superintendent of Education David Murray], vol. 29 (Philosophia, 1955), 107. 40. Education in Japan, Copy of the Official Report of the Honorable Superintendent of Schools and Colleges in Japan to the Vice Minister of Education, in Circulars of Information, United States Bureau of Education, No. 2 (Government Printing Office, 1875), 2:141–151. 41. Inagaki, Gakkan Dabiddo Mare, 107. 42. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, December 18, 1873.

chapter 7 — murray’s 1874 report 1. Education in Japan, Copy of the Official Report of the Honorable Superintendent of Schools and Colleges in Japan to the Vice Minister of Education, in Circulars of Information, United States Bureau of Education, No. 2 (Government Printing Office, 1875), 2:141–151. 2. Mizuhara Katsutoshi, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yooseishi Kenkyū [History of teacher training in modern Japan] (Kazama Shobō, 1990), 56. 3. Tsuchiya Tadao, Meiji Zenki: Kyōiku Seisaku Shi no Kenkyū [The history of educational policy in the early Meiji period] (Kōdansha, 1962), 187. 4. Tsuchiya, 187. 5. Tsuchiya, 187. 6. Mizuhara, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yooseishi Kenkyū, 63. 7. Mizuhara, 56. 8. Michio Nagai, Higher Education in Japan: Its Takeoff and Crash (University of Tokyo Press, 1971), 26. 9. Kaminuma Hachirō, Isawa Shūji (Ishikawa Kōbunkan, 1962), 51. 10. Kaminuma, 49. 11. Naka Arata, Nihon Kyōkashō: Kyōshi Shiryō Shūsei [Japanese textbooks: A collection of materials on teachers] (Tokyo Shoseki, 1982), 1:225. 12. Karasawa Tomitarō, Kyōkashō no Rekishi [History of textbooks] (Sōbunsha, 1956), 129–130. 13. Karasawa, 129–130. 14. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, May 20, 1974, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 15. Education in Japan, Report of the Honorable Superintendent, 2:141–151. 16. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, May 20, 1974. 17. Audience with the Emperor, May 18, 1874, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 18. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 27, 1874. 19. Mizuhara, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yooseishi Kenkyū, 45.

370

N ote s to Page s 2 08 – 2 2 1

20. Murayama Hideo, “Takamine Hideo to Osuweegoo Shihan Gakkō” [“Takamine Hideo and the Oswego teacher training school”], Shigagu Kenshū, no. 46 (1968): 106–107; Mizuhara, 60–62. 21. Murayama, “Takamine Hideo,” 106–107. 22. Murayama, 106–107. 23. Ned Harland Dearborn, The Oswego Movement in Education (Arno, 1969), 94–102. 24. Hermann Krusi, Recollections of My Life (Grafton, 1885), 7. 25. Kaminuma, Isawa Shūji, 53–54. 26. Kibō [Hope] 4, no. 10 (December 1957): 29. 27. Takamine Hideo Sensei Fu [The biography of Takamine Hideo] (self-pub., 1910), 11–12. 28. Kibō, 29. 29. Donald Berger, “Pioneers of Music Education in Japan: Isawa Shūji and Luther Mason,” Music Educators Journal (October 1987): 33. 30. Krusi, Recollections, 227–229. 31. Murayama, “Takamine Hideo to Osuweegoo Shihan Gakkō,” 107. 32. Krusi, 233–234. 33. Dearborn, 12. 34. Krusi, Recollections, 236. 35. Letter from Takamine Hideo to Hermann Krusi, June 16, 1878, Archives, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York. 36. Krusi, Recollections, 233–234. 37. Kaminuma, Isawa Shūji, 83. 38. Kaminuma, 83. 39. Kaminuma, 84. 40. Letter from Isawa Shūji to Hermann Krusi, September 17, 1879, Archives, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York. 41. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 209. 42. Edward R. Beauchamp, An American Teacher in Early Meiji Japan (University of Hawaii Press, 1976), 113. 43. Letter from Griffis to Tanaka Fujimaro, September 3, 1872. 44. Letter from Griffis to Tanaka Fujimaro, September 3, 1872. 45. Letter from Griffis to Tanaka Fujimaro, October 3, 1873. 46. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 99–108. 47. Beauchamp, 99–108. 48. Beauchamp, 99–108. 49. Beauchamp, 99–108. 50. William Elliot Griffis, Verbeck of Japan (Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 271. 51. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 101. 52. Warren Clark, Life and Adventure in Japan (American Tract Society, 1878), 131. 53. Clark, 142. 54. Kikuchi Yoshiyuki, Anglo-American Connections in Japanese Chemistry (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 40–41. 55. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” The Japanese Student, 1916–1917, 1:112. 56. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, December 21, 1873, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 57. J. Harris, “From Giessen to Gower Street: Towards a Biography of Alexander Williamson,” Annals of Science 31, no. 2 (1974): 117. 58. Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (Rutgers University Press, 1966), 91. 59. McCormick, 91. 60. Jean Wilson Sidar, George Hammell Cook: A Life in Agriculture and Geology (Rutgers University Press, 1976), 51.

Not es to Page s 22 1–236

37 1

61. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, January 3, 1874. 62. Harris, “Giessen to Gower Street,” 125. 63. Olive Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912 (Macmillan, 1989), 74. 64. Kikuchi, Anglo-American Connections, 28. 65. Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Japan, 74. 66. Kikuchi, Anglo-American Connections, 41. 67. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 108. 68. Letter from David Murray to William Griffis, January 24, 1874, Griffis Collection, Rutgers University Library. 69. Beauchamp, American Teacher, 112. 70. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy January 3, 1874. 71. Letter from Martha Murray to Helen, February 1, 1974. 72. “Subarashii Meiji Onna no Tanaka Suma” [Tanaka Suma: An amazing Meiji woman], Fukuso (Autumn 1978): 72. 73. Yamauchi Akiko, Tanaka Suma (self-pub., 1980), 14. 74. Yamauchi, 9. 75. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 8, 1874. 76. “Subarashii Meiji Onna no Tanaka Suma,” 72. 77. Fujimaro Akamaro, Mumbu Jihō [Ministry of education report], vol. 730 (1941), 105–107. 78. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 15, 1874. 79. “Subarashii Meiji Onna no Tanaka Suma,” 72. 80. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, April 19, 1874. 81. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 19, 1874. 82. Sidney Brown, The Diary of Kido Takayoshi (University of Tokyo Press, 1983), 2:423. 83. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, February 1, 1874. 84. Brown, Diary of Kido, 2:430. 85. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, April 24, 1875. 86. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 7, 1874. 87. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 9, 1874. 88. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 28, 1875. 89. Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Japan, 7–9. 90. W. McLaren, “Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan,” in Japanese Government Documents, 1867–1889, vol. 42, part 1 (1914). 91. Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Japan, 112. 92. Letter from Martha to Lucy, February 5, 1875. 93. Letter from Martha to Lucy, July 22, 1875. 94. William Chamberlain, ed., In Memoriam, David Murray, Ph.D., L.L.D., Superintendent of Educational Affairs in the Empire of Japan, and Advisor to the Imperial Minister of Education, 1873–1879 (self-pub., 1915), 12. 95. Chamberlain, In Memoriam, 12. 96. Letter from Martha to Lucy, September 3, 1874. 97. David Murray, “The Development of Education in Japan for the University Magazine, Union College, April 1904,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 98. Kaigo Tokiomi, ed., Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education] (Heibonsha, 1971), 779. 99. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, October 8, 1874. 100. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1874. 101. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, November 16, 1874. 102. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, December 4, 1874. 103. Meiji Bunka Kenkyū Kai, Meiji Bunka Zenshū, Kyōiku Hen [Documentary collection of the Meiji era: Education] (1928; repr., Nihon Hyōronsha, 1992), 11:124–136.

372

N ote s to Page s 2 39 – 2 54

104. David Murray, Education in Japan, Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education (Government Printing Office, 1875), 2:141–151. 105. Naka Arata, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [History of modern Japanese education] (Kōdansha, 1973), 56. 106. David Murray, “The Development of Modern Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 37–38. 107. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 23, 1875. 108. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 23, 1875.

chapter 8 — the japanese educational exhibit at the american centennial 1. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 23, 1875, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 2. Ishizuki Minoru, “Philadelphia Hakurankai to Nihon no Kyōiku” [“The Philadelphia centennial and Japan”], in Jūkyū Seki Nihon no Jōhō to Shakai Hendo (Kyoto Daigaku Jimbun Kagaku Kenkyūjō, 1985), 431–432. 3. David Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits at the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1876, unpaged. 4. Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education for the Year 1875 (Government Printing Office, 1877), 57. 5. David Murray, ed., An Outline History of Japanese Education (D. Appleton, 1876), 4. 6. Murray, 17. 7. Naka Arata, Kyōiku Gyōsei Shi ni Okeru David Murray to Nihon Kyōiku Hō [David Murray in the history of educational administration and Japanese educational laws] (Kyōikugaku Kenkyū, 1956), 3:45. 8. Tanaka Akamaro, Mumbu Jihō [Ministry report] (Tokyo, 1941), 107–109. 9. Yoshiie Sadao, “David Murray, Superintendent of Educational Affairs in Japan: His Views on Education and His Influences in Japan and in the United States” (PhD diss., UMI Dissertation Services, 1997), 93. 10. James P. Wickersham, A History of Education in Pennsylvania (Inquirer, 1882), 582. 11. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, April 24, 1875. 12. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, May 18, 1875. 13. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, July 23, 1875. 14. Ishizuki, “Philadelphia Hakurankai to Nihon no Kyōiku,” 434. 15. Ishizuki, 434. 16. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 17. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Yokohama, July 12, 1876, 89. 18. Newspaper clipping, David Murray File, Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, untitled and undated. 19. Ishizuki Minoru, Kyōiku Hakubutsu Kan to Meiji Kodomo [Meiji children and the educational museum] (Fukumura Shuppan, 1986), 156. 20. Pennsylvania School Journal, June 1876, 394. 21. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 22. David Murray, “Report upon Collections Made at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition for the Educational and Scientific Museum at Tokyo, Japan, 1877,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unpaged. 23. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 108–109. 24. Yamauchi Akiko, Tanaka Suma (self-pub., 1980), 19. 25. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 107–108. 26. Abe Taizō Den [Biography of Abe Taizō] (Meiji Seimei Hoken Sōgō Kaisha, 1971), 34.

Not es to Page s 254 –274

37 3

27. Abe Taizō Den, 41–43. 28. Pennsylvania School Journal, July 1876, 29. 29. Abe Taizō Den, 43. 30. David Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” The Japanese Student, 1816–1917, 1:111. 31. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 107–108. 32. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, February 2, 1877. 33. Abe Taizō Den, 44. 34. Murray, “Report upon the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 35. James Wickersham, Forty-Third Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (B. F. Meyers, 1876), xvi. 36. Pennsylvania School Journal, August 1876, 41. 37. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, International Conference on Education Held at Philadelphia, July 17 and 18 in Connection with the International Exhibition of 1876 (Government Printing Office, 1877), 7. 38. Department of Interior, International Conference on Education held at Philadelphia, 43. 39. Department of Interior, 65. 40. Pennsylvania School Journal, August 1876, 42. 41. Department of Interior, 68. 42. Letter from David to Lucy, July 9, 1876. 43. Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” 1:112. 44. Murray, 1:112. 45. Abe Taizō Den, 48. 46. Yoshida Mitsukuni, Jūkyū Seiki Nihon no Jōhō to Shakai Hendō [Information and social change in nineteenth-century Japan] (Tokyo Daigaku Jimbun Kagaku Kenkyūjoo, 1991), 437–438. 47. Abe Taizō Den, 48. 48. “Subarashii Meiji Onna no Tanaka Suma” [“Tanaka Suma: An amazing Meiji woman”], Fukuso (Autumn 1978): 73. 49. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 108. 50. Abe Taizō Den, 49–50. 51. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 52. Pennsylvania School Journal, August 1876, 42. 53. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 54. Murray. 55. Wickersham, History of Education, xx–xxvi. 56. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged. 57. Wickersham, History of Education, xxvi. 58. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 89. 59. Abe Taizō Den, 53. 60. Abe Taizō Den, 53. 61. Abe Taizō Den, 54. 62. Murray, “Hatakeyama Yoshinari of Japan,” 1:113. 63. Letter from Martha to Lucy, December 6, 1876. 64. Abe Taizō Den, 55.

chapter 9 — murray’s controversial report to the ministry of education 1. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, January 22, 1877, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

374

N ote s to Page s 2 74 – 2 85

2. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, February 2, 1877, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 3. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, January 20, 1877. 4. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, March 30, 1877. 5. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 10, 1877. 6. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, January 20, 1877. 7. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, January 20, 1877. 8. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, January 20, 1877. 9. Kikuchi Yoshiyuki, Anglo-American Connections in Japanese Chemistry (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 28. 10. Tokyo Daigaku, ed., Tokyo Daigaku Hyakunen Shi [One-hundred-year history of Tokyo University] (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1984), 1:411–413. 11. Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku Gojūnen Shi [Fifty-year history of Tokyo Imperial University] (Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku, 1932), 1:467–468. 12. David Murray, “The Development of Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 19. 13. Tokio Times, December 22, 1877. 14. David Murray, “Address Delivered before the University of Tokio at Commencement,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., undated, unpaged. 15. David Murray, “Report upon Collections Made at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition for the Educational and Scientific Museum at Tokyo, Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1877, unpaged. 16. Murray, “Report upon Collections,” unpaged. 17. Dorothy G. Wayman, Edward Sylvester Morse: A Biography (Harvard University Press, 1942), 236. 18. Wayman, 236. 19. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 10. 1877. 20. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 23, 1877. 21. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, June 23, 1877. 22. Wayman, Edward Sylvester Morse, 238–239. 23. Wayman, 256. 24. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, May 2, 1878. 25. The National Museum of Nature and Science, 2015 Profile (Kokuritsu Kagaku Hakubutsukan, 2015), 3. 26. David Murray, “Address at the Opening in Tokyo of the Educational and Scientific Museum,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., undated, unpaged. 27. Ishizuki Minoru, Kyōiku Hakubutsukan to Meiji no Kodomo [The educational museum and the children of Meiji Japan] (Fukumura Shuppan, 1986), 165. 28. Murray, “Address at the Opening in Tokyo,” unpaged. 29. Ishizuki, Kyōiku Hakubutsukan to Meiji no Kodomo, 146–147. 30. Letter from David Murray to Dr. Joseph Leides, October 23, 1876, Papers of David Murray. 31. Murray, “Report upon Collections,” unpaged. 32. Ishizuki, Kyōiku Hakubutsukan to Meiji no Kodomo, 147. 33. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, September 17, 1877. 34. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, November 1, 1877. 35. Ishizuki, Kyōiku Hakubutsukan to Meiji no Kodomo, 147. 36. Tanaka Akihiro, Mumbu Jihō [Ministry of Education report], vol. 730 (1941), 109. 37. David Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1877, unpaged. 38. Inoue Hisao, Gakusei Ronkō [A study of the Gakusei] (Kazama Shobō, 1963), 318–319.

Not es to Page s 2 85–320

37 5

39. Naka Shin, Nihon Kyōiku Shi [History of Japanese education] (Kōdansha, 1973), 59–60. 40. David Murray, ed., An Outline History of Japanese Education (D. Appleton, 1876), 124–125. 41. Tokio Times, August 9, 1877. 42. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 108–109. 43. Katagiri Yoshio, Jiyū Minken Ki Kyōiku Shi Kenkyū [The history of the People’s Movement for Freedom] (University of Tokyo Press, 1990), 101–103. 44. Inoue, Gakusei Ronkō, 318–319. 45. Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan Kankōkai, ed., Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan [The biography of Egi Kazuyuki] (Oozorasha, 1933), 1:36. 46. David Murray, “The Development of Education in Japan for the University Magazine, Union College, April 1984,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 11. 47. David Murray, Education in Japan, Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education (Government Printing Office, 1875), 2:147. 48. Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision,” unpaged. 49. Murray, unpaged. 50. Tsuchiya Tadao, Meiji Zenki: Kyōiku Seisaku Shi no Kenkyū [The history of educational policy in the early Meiji period] (Kōdansha, 1962), 142. 51. Ministry of Education, Meiji Ikō: Kyōiku Seido Hattatsu Shi [History of the development of educational policy in the Meiji period] (Ministry of Education, 1938), 1:141–165. 52. Tsuchiya, Meiji Zenki, 184. 53. Kaigo Tokiomi, ed., Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese educational history] (Heibonsha, 1971), 778. 54. Ministry of Education, Meiji Ikō, 162. 55. Meiji Bunka Kenkyū Kai, ed., Meiji Bunka Shiryō Soosho [A collection of materials on Meiji culture], vol. 8, Kyōiku [Education] (Kazama Shobō, 1961), 124–125. 56. Arthur Sherburne Hardy, Life and Letters of Joseph Hardy Neeshima (Doshisha University Press, 1980), 129. 57. Tanaka, Mumbu Jihō, 108.

chapter 10 — murray’s final report and departure 1. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, May 17, 1878, Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 2. Letter from David Murray to William Elliot Griffis, August 14, 1872, Griffis Collection, Rutgers University Library. 3. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, March 28, 1877. 4. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, May 17, 1878. 5. David Murray, “Public Schools of Tokio, 1877,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unpaged. 6. Kaigo Tokiomi, ed., Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [Encyclopedia of modern Japanese education] (Heibonsha, 1971), 778. 7. Murray, “Public Schools of Tokio,” unpaged. 8. David Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan, 1877,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unpaged. 9. Murray. 10. Murray. 11. Ōkubo Toshiaki, ed., Mori Arinori Zenshū [The complete works on Mori Arinori] (Senbundō Shoten, 1962), 3:372. 12. New Brunswick Times, May 3, 1873.

376

N ote s to Page s 32 1 – 3 4 4

13. Education in Japan, Copy of the Official Report of the Honorable Superintendent of Schools and Colleges in Japan to the Vice Minister of Education, in Circulars of Information, United States Bureau of Education, No. 2 (Government Printing Office, 1875), 2:141–151. 14. Ōkubo, Mori Arinori Zenshū, 3:371–372. 15. Pennsylvania School Journal, August 1876, 42. 16. Pennsylvania School Journal, 42. 17. Pennsylvania School Journal, 43. 18. Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision.” 19. Letter from David Murray to Lucy, September 7, 1878. 20. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, December 12, 1878. 21. Letter from Martha Murray to Lucy, December 23, 1878. 22. “Ceremonies in Connection with Dr. Murray’s Leaving Japan on the Termination of His Engagement with the Gov’t as Superintendent of Educational Affairs,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1878, unpaged. 23. According to Murray’s report on the ceremonies immediately following the Minister of Education’s message, “The present named in the accompanying paper was one thousand yen,” the equivalent of $1,000.

chapter 11 — david murray’s legacy for japan 1. David Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision of the Code of Education in Japan,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 1877, unpaged. 2. Murray. 3. Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan Kankōkai, ed., Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan [The biography of Egi Kazuyuki] (Ōzorosha, 1933), 36–39. 4. Egi, 38–39. 5. Kurasawa Tsuyoshi, Shōgakkō no Rekishi [The history of the elementary school] (Japan Library Bureau, 1965), 78–79. 6. Kaigo Tokiomi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten [The dictionary of modern Japanese educational history] (Heibonsha, 1971), 6, to become the Kyōiku Chokugo [The Imperial rescript on education] on October 30, 1890; Herbert Passin, Society and Education in Japan (Teachers College Press, 1965), 151. 7. Passin, Society and Education in Japan, 228. 8. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan: Lectures Delivered in the Presence of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Japan, 1912 (Yushodo Booksellers, 1964), 48. 9. Ōkubo Toshiaki, ed., Mori Arinori Zenshū [The complete works of Mori Arinori] (Senbundo Shoten, 1972), 378. 10. Nihon, Kindai Kyōiku Shi, 778. 11. Egi, Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan, 36–37. 12. Inuzaka Takaaki, Terashima Munenori (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1990), 299–300. 13. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 778. 14. Yamazumi Masami, Nihon Kindai Shisō: Kyōiku Taisei [Outline of Japanese thought: Education] (Iwanami Shoten, 1990), 106–107. 15. Horimatsu Buichi, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi [A history of modern Japanese education] (Risōsha, 1959), 64. 16. Egi, Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan, 42–43. 17. Yamazumi, Nihon Kindai Shisō, 89–90. 18. Egi, Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan, 46–47. 19. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 777. 20. Egi, Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan, 54–55. 21. Kaigo, Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten, 777.

Not es to Page s 3 4 5–352

37 7

22. Kaigo, 235. 23. Kaigo, 777. 24. Egi, Egi Kazuyuki O Keireki Dan, 67. 25. Karasawa Tomitarō, Kyōshi no Rekishi [History of teachers] (Sōbunsha, 1955), 37. 26. Taki Kōji, Tenno no Shōzō [Portrait of the emperor] (Iwanami Shoten, 2002), 176–177. 27. Karasawa, Kyōshi no Rekishi, 34. 28. Karasawa, 105–107. 29. Mizuhara Katsutoshi, Kindai Nihon Kyōin Yoosei Shi Kenkyū [The history of teacher training in modern Japan] (Kazama Shoten, 1990), 292. 30. Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision,” unpaged. 31. David Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits at the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876,” Papers of David Murray, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1877, unpaged. 32. James Wickersham, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Year Ending January 1, 1876 (B.F. Meyers, State Printer, 1876), xxvi. 33. Murray, “Report upon a Draft Revision,” unpaged. 34. Wickersham, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, xiii. 35. Murray, “Report on the Educational Exhibits,” unpaged.

I N D E X

Page numbers followed by f and t refer to figures and tables, respectively. Abe Taizō, 253 Advancement of Learning (Gakumon no Susume), 148, 155 Aichi prefecture, 185–186 Aichi Teachers Training School, 205–206 Aizu domain, Japan, 144–145 Albany, New York, 206 Albany Academy, 17, 25–26, 76, 294 Asiatic Society of Japan, 176–177, 232, 250, 267 Atkinson, Robert William, 221–222 Bakumatsu period, 144–147 Barnard, Henry, 106 blackboards, 90, 162, 197 Boshin Civil War, 70, 74, 93, 150, 215 Boston, Massachusetts, 210 Boston Society of Natural History, 277–278 Bovina, New York, 18 Bridgewater State Normal School, 209, 210 Brocton colony, 59–61, 104–105, 108 Brotherhood of the New Life, 59–62, 63 Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, 261 Campbell, William H., 17, 76, 86, 110–111 Carpender, Alice, 33 Carpender, Catherine, 33, 225, 255 Carpender, Lena, 33 Carpender, Lucy, 33–34, 69, 231 Centennial International Exhibition, 241–242, 243–245, 251–252, 256f, 266–267, 280–283; educational conferences, 250, 256–259, 262–263; influence on Murray,

350–351; report on, 287–288. See also Japanese educational exhibit Chamberlain, Basil, 250 chemistry, 220–223 Chōshū domain, Japan, 50, 58, 150, 304 Christianity: banned by Tokugawa government, 38, 41–43; in education, 117; and Japanese Rutgers students, 38, 84; and school holiday schedule, 216; Tanaka’s opinion of, 301; teaching of, in Japan, 94; in Western textbooks, 165 clan schools. See domain schools Clark, Edward Warren, 41, 71, 74, 75, 91, 92f, 93–94; awakening to Japan, 81–82; at Denshūjo school, 94–95; at Kaisei Gakkō, 91, 93, 183, 217–218; as Rutgers student, 78, 79 classrooms, design of, 90, 161–163, 319 Code of Education. See Gakusei College of New Jersey, 47, 255 Confucian studies, 33–34, 36, 51–52, 68, 139, 141–142, 144–145, 299–300; and Education Law of 1880, 345; and Imperial Will on Education, 339, 340, 344; vs. modern subjects, 150, 157 Cook, George, 25–26, 76–78, 216, 220–221, 282–283; interest in geology, 77–78, 220; and Japanese Rutgers students, 80; and Rutgers curriculum, 77 Dajōkan, 155, 204, 303, 337 Delaware Academy, 19 Delhi, New York, 19

379

380 Denshūjo school, 93, 94–95 domain schools (hankō), 16–17, 32–33, 34–36, 48, 114, 139, 144–145, 321; closing of, 137; criticism of, 157; curriculum, 36, 51, 89, 141–142; history of, 141–143 Dutch Reformed Church in America, 11–12, 14–15, 16–17, 42, 43; role in AmericanJapanese relations, 99 Eaton, George, 244, 247–248, 258 Echizen domain, Japan, 16, 87 Education Law of 1879. See Kyōiku Rei Education Law of 1880, 329, 331, 332, 342, 344–345 Education Magazine (Kyōiku Zasshi), 188, 200 Education Museum. See National Museum of Nature and Science Egi Kazuyuki, 288, 300, 309, 329, 330f, 332–333, 341–342; academic background, 332; audience with emperor, 347; mentorship by Murray, 334–336; role in education laws, 343–345, 347–349 Encyclopedia of Modern Japanese Education (Nihon Kindai Kyōiku Shi Jiten), 6–7 engineering, 222 English language, 63, 123–124, 209; in Japanese schools, 43, 238 Essentials for Elementary School Teachers (Shōgaku Kyōshi Hikkei), 163 Fergusonville Academy, 19 Ferris, John, 12, 15, 43–44, 81, 87 Fish, Hamilton, 105, 118, 268 France, education system, 154, 264, 295 Freedom of Education Law. See Kyōiku Rei Frelinghuysen, Frederick, 81 French Gakusei (Futsukoku Gakusei), 154 Fukui, Japan, 87, 88–91 Fukuoka prefecture, Japan, 167 Fukuzawa Yukichi, 3, 100, 143, 147f, 209, 253, 348; academic background, 147–148; and Gakusei formation, 155; influence of, 141, 148 Fundamental Code of Education of 1872. See Gakusei Gakkō Kyōin Hinkō Kentei Kisoku. See Regulations Governing the Conduct of Teachers gakumuin. See school boards: Japan Gakusei: administrative structure, 158, 290–291; controversy over, 289; deficiencies of, 286, 311; development of,

I n de x 152–153; effectiveness of, 306; financing of, 158–159, 164, 165t; founding of, 1, 158–159; implementation of, 184, 237; initial report on, 184, 185–186; Murray’s criticism of, 198–199, 288–289; Murray’s early knowledge of, 138; opposition to, 164–168, 185–186, 194, 199, 239–241, 248, 286, 293, 322, 349; plan for, 102, 103–104, 137–138; preamble to, 155–157; as progressive, 156; reformation of, 186, 241, 285–286, 287–289; replacement of, 298, 301; teaching methods, 185–186; Western model for, 138, 154, 247 Genrōin, 298, 337, 340 Germany, education system, 112, 113, 249, 263–264, 295–296, 297 Gilmore, Niel, 208–209 Gilmore, Sid, 211 girls, education of, 139, 166, 198, 229, 237, 286, 315 grand districts, 205 Grant, Ulysses S., 118, 244, 251–252, 267 Great Britain, education system, 113, 264, 295 Griffis, William Elliot, 73–74, 75, 83f, 86–88, 105, 173–174; and Asiatic Society of Japan, 176–177; awakening to Japan, 81–82; departure from Japan, 224; dispute with Tanaka, 216–219, 223; as educational pioneer, 215, 224; at Fukui school, 88–91, 94; on Japanese education, 142; on Japanese Rutgers students, 12, 15–16, 63; and Kaisei Gakkō reopening, 178; at Nankō, 91, 216–219; relationship with Japanese students, 84; as Rutgers student, 78, 79; as seminary student, 82, 87; Verbeck’s invitation to Nankō, 91, 214–215 Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers, 345, 346f, 347 hankō. See domain schools han schools. See domain schools Harris, Thomas Lake, 59–62, 60f, 63, 79, 104–105 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 248 Hatakeyama Yoshinari, 34–36, 35f, 49, 52–53, 56–57, 72, 274–275; academic background, 79, 115; and Asiatic Society of Japan, 177; and Brotherhood of the New Life, 59–62; Centennial International Exhibition attendance, 252–253; conversion to Christianity, 38, 64, 80; death of, 268; English fluency, 63; friendship with Clark, 91, 218; honorary Rutgers degree,

I ndex 254–255; illnesses of, 241, 249, 261; and Iwakura Embassy, 104–105, 107–108, 115, 120–121; as Kaisei Gakkō president, 200, 217–218; as Ko Zo Soogiwoora, 38, 230; as Murray’s interpreter, 200; Murray’s memorial of, 268–269; personal qualities, 182; relationship with American students, 80; relationship with Murrays, 62–63, 64, 68–71, 115, 121–122, 181–182, 221; role in Murray’s employment, 120–122; study of Christianity, 54 Henry, Joseph, 25–26, 106 Hirayama Tarō, 288, 308 Hyōgo school, 237 Igakkō, 275–276 Imperial Academy. See Teikoku Gakushiin Imperial College. See Tokyo University Imperial Restoration. See Meiji Restoration imperial studies, 347, 349 Imperial Will on Education, 331, 338–342, 344, 345, 349 Industrial Revolution, 21, 23, 63, 116 International Conference on Education, 244, 258 International Educational Conference, 261 internationalism, 144 Isawa Shūji, 205f, 205–206, 209–211, 212–213, 253 Itō Hirobumi, 98–99, 140, 151f, 185, 303–304, 337; influence of, 141, 151–152 Itō Umeko, 185 Iwakura Asahi, 45–46, 170; hospitality of, 172–173; relationship with Murrays, 67, 68–71, 174 Iwakura Embassy, 97–104, 99f, 107–111, 114–115, 116, 120, 122–123, 153–154, 244, 304–305 Iwakura Makiko, 171–172 Iwakura Tatsū, 45–46, 67 Iwakura Tomomi, 6, 30, 46–47, 71, 86, 105, 171, 304–305; conflict with Mori, 122–123; and Iwakura Embassy, 97–99, 101; relationship with Verbeck, 88 Japan Academy, 2, 3–5 Japanese educational exhibit, 251, 254; funding for, 249–250; plan for, 241–242, 243, 244–245. See also Centennial International Exhibition Japanese language, 123–124, 191, 238 Japanese private schools (shijuku), 139–140, 317

3 81 Japanese Rutgers students: arrival of, 11–12; English fluency, 63, 79; enrollment numbers, 32, 66, 96; government scholarships, 47, 48; in London, 53–57; from Nagasaki route, 43–49; origins of, 40, 62; personal qualities, 14, 34; relationship with American students, 79–80; relationship with Murrays, 36–39, 65, 80, 96, 353–354; from Satsuma route, 49–53; study of Christianity, 38, 86 Japan Times, 3 Japan Weekly Mail, 180 Jardine Matheson, 51, 53 Jiyū Kyōiku Rei. See Kyōiku Rei Jiyū Minken Undō. See People’s Movement for Freedom Johonnot, James, 212, 213 Kagawa prefecture, Japan, 166 Kagoshima, Japan, 50–51 Kaigo Tokiomi, 6–7 Kaisei Gakkō, 148, 179f; reopening of, 177–180; science education reform, 214, 219–223; transformation to Tokyo University, 274–276 Kaiseijo school, 51–52, 115 Kanda Kōhei, 237 Katoo Hiroyuki, 275 Katsu Kaishū, 70, 93–94, 95–96, 174–175, 225 Katsu Kōroku, 65–66, 68–71, 93–94, 175 Keio University, 3, 148 Kido Takayoshi, 98, 104, 117, 149f, 171, 304–305; hospitality of, 173; influence of, 141, 148–151; as Minister of Education, 230–231; opinion of Mori, 122–123; role in Murray’s employment, 121–122, 149–150 Kikuchi Dairoku, 3–5, 5f Kirkpatrick Chapel, 5 Kobe, Japan, 236 Kōno Togama, 342–343 Ko Zo Soogiwoora. See Hatakeyama Yoshinari Krusi, Hermann, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 Kusakabe Tarō, 73, 79, 82, 84, 85f, 90 Kyōgaku Seishi. See Imperial Will on Education Kyōiku Rei, 298–302, 303, 307, 331, 337–338; effectiveness of, 342–343; implementation of, 340–341; opposition to, 338, 341, 343; replacement of, 343–344 Kyoto, Japan, 166, 236, 237–238 Lanman, Charles, 106, 118 London, England, 49–51, 63–64

3 82 Mann, Horace, 106 Manual of Elementary Instruction, A (Sheldon), 197, 208 Mason, Lowell, 210 Mason, Luther, 210–211, 213 mathematics, in Japanese schools, 238 Matsudaira (Echizen domain leader), 87 Matsumura Junzō, 52, 53, 58, 72–73, 79, 80–81 Meiji, Emperor, 48–49, 67, 70, 103, 150; description by Martha Murray, 231–232; Egi’s audience with, 347; Gakusei proclamation, 155; interest in education, 176, 253–254, 338; and Kaisei Gakkō reopening, 177–180; Murray’s audiences with, 175–176, 323–324; National Museum visit, 284; portrait displayed in schools, 348 Meiji government, 16, 144; educational goals, 1, 101–102; and Iwakura Embassy, 98–99; leaders of, 88, 150; relations with Western countries, 100, 103; and Shizuoka students, 95 Meiji Restoration, 16, 45, 70, 93, 144, 304, 338–339 Mikado’s Empire, The (Griffis), 224 Ministry Journal of Education (Monbushō Zasshi), 188 Ministry of Education (Germany), 296 Ministry of Education (Great Britain), 295 Ministry of Education (Japan), 99–104, 170f; controversy within, 289, 297–298, 299–300, 301–302, 303, 335; formation of, 152–153; and Gakusei reformation, 186; power of, 25, 158, 247, 287, 298, 300, 342, 344–345; reorganization of, 288; responsibility of, 290–291 Ministry of Education (Prussia), 343, 351 Mitsukuri Rinshō, 153 Modern Teacher, The (Kyōjū Shimpo), 206 Monbushō. See Ministry of Education (Japan) morals course (shūshin), 299–300, 337–338, 341, 345 Mori Arinori, 6, 52, 58, 61–62, 81, 108f, 115; and Asiatic Society of Japan, 177; and Birdsley Northrop, 118–120, 123; as diplomat, 53, 104–112, 122, 171; and Iwakura Embassy, 118, 122–123; letters, 109–110; study of U.S. education system, 106 Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, 74–76, 77–78 Morse, Edward, 64, 277–279, 285 Motoda Eifu, 329, 330f, 331, 338–341, 344–345, 347–348

I n de x Mrs. Itō. See Itō Umeko Mrs. Iwakura. See Iwakura Makiko Mrs. Takahashi. See Takahashi Sina Mrs. Tanaka. See Tanaka Suma Murray, David, 73f, 330f; 1873 Gakusei report, 188–196, 288–289, 320–321; 1874 Gakusei report, 235–240; 1877 Gakusei report, 289–298, 333–334, 351–352, 353; 1878 public school report, 310–319; arrival in Japan, 169–171; awakening to Japan, 1, 26, 34, 39, 79, 96, 100, 353–354; Centennial Exhibition lectures, 258–261, 321–322; Centennial Exhibition report, 263–266, 287–288; Christian convictions, 25, 27–28, 38, 64; commitment to Japan, 352–354; contract with Japanese government, 128–131, 138, 169; departure from Japan, 323–328; education, college, 19–21, 23–25; education, early, 18–19; and educational administration, 262–265, 290–291, 293, 298, 332, 349–351; farewell speech in Japan, 327–328; farewell speech in New Brunswick, 131–133, 320; and Griffis affair, 218–220, 223–224; and Japanese Rutgers students, 1, 32–34, 80, 96, 113–114, 139, 353–354; legacy of, 349–352; letter to Mori, 111–115, 116–117; marriage to Martha Neilson, 31; memorials, 3–6; minimization of Gakusei opposition, 199, 239–240, 293; misunderstanding of Japanese education, 138–140, 321; personal qualities, 26–28; philosophy of education, 111–113, 189–190, 340; relationship with colleagues, 184, 231–232; relationship with Japanese leaders, 152, 181, 303–306, 323–325; and Rutgers curriculum, 76–77; as Rutgers professor, 11, 16, 18, 23, 27–28, 72; and Rutgers Scientific School founding, 76, 78; as spokesman for Japan, 262; Tokyo school survey, 306–310, 321; Tokyo University graduation address, 276–277; and Tokyo University inauguration, 275–277; visits to Japanese schools, 235–240, 306–310, 321 Murray, Martha Neilson, 5f; Christian convictions, 64; early life, 28; education, 28–29; hospitality of, 33–34, 80, 180–181, 224–226, 231, 232–233; letters, 29, 30–31, 69, 171–173, 224–225; opinion of Tokyo, 224, 234; opinion of Yokohama, 171; opportunities in Japan, 184; personal qualities, 29, 31 Murray, William, 19 Murray Hall, Rutgers College, 3, 4f

I ndex museums, 252, 261–262, 278–285 music education, 206, 209, 210–211 Nagasaki, Japan, 12, 236–237; contact with West, 41, 42 Nakatsu school, 147–148 Nankō school, 45, 48, 86, 88, 95–96, 158 nationalism, 144, 347, 349, 353 National Museum of Nature and Science, 279–285 Neilson, Helen, 33–34, 172 Neilson, John, III, 28, 31 Neilson, Martha. See Murray, Martha Neilson New Brunswick, New Jersey, 250–251, 255; and Japanese students, 11–12, 14, 15; and Neilson family, 33–34 New Brunswick Historical Society, 131, 320 New Theory of Education, The (Kyōiku Shinron), 214 New York, 294–295 New York Times, 5, 97 Niijima Jō, 118–119, 153–154, 301 Nikkō, Japan, 278 Nishimura Shigeki, 348 Nisshinkan school, 145f, 145–146, 146f Northrop, Birdsley, 106–107, 117–120, 123, 153 Nott, Eliphalet, 19–21, 22f, 23–24, 27, 33, 77 Okayama prefecture, Japan, 166 Ōki Takatō, 45, 119, 153–154, 178 Ōkubo Toshimichi, 98, 150, 303–304, 305–306, 337 Ōkuma Shigenobu, 101 Oliphant, Laurence, 56–61, 57f Orita Hikoichi, 45, 46–47, 255, 278, 288, 308 Osaka, Japan, 236 Oswego, New York, 197, 211 Oswego State Normal and Training School, 209, 211–212 Oswego State Teacher Training College, 208, 210, 343 Outline History of Japanese Education, An, 245–247, 259 Page, David, 206 Parkes, Henry, 177, 232–233, 250 Pennsylvania, 248, 265–266, 294, 296–297, 351 Pennsylvania Educational Hall, 256f, 256–257 Pennsylvania School Journal, 254, 257–258, 259 People’s Movement for Freedom, 286, 287 Perry, Matthew, 40–41, 143

3 83 Pestalozzi, Johann, 146–147, 197, 208, 209, 210–212, 213–214 Phi Beta Kappa, 73, 84, 90 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 241, 243, 251 Philadelphia Exhibition. See Centennial International Exhibition poetry, 52–53, 157–158 Princeton College. See College of New Jersey Principles and Practices of Teaching, The (Johonnot), 212, 213–214 private elementary schools, 317–318 private middle schools, 317, 318 protests, against Gakusei, 166–167, 199, 286, 293, 322, 349 Prussia, education system, 249, 263–264, 266, 343, 351 public elementary schools: attendance of, 168t, 168, 286, 287t; building types, 167–168, 168t, 318–319; curriculum, 164–165, 299–300, 310–312, 347; destruction of, 166–167; discipline in, 316–317; financing of, 159, 165t, 313–314, 322; local administration of, 298; Murray’s report on, 238–239 public middle schools, 238, 318 Queen’s College. See Rutgers College Regulations Governing the Conduct of Teachers, 348 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 77 Report of the Commissioner (Riji Kōtei), 186 Revised Education Law. See Education Law of 1880 royalists, 144, 150 Rutgers College, 14f; curriculum, alternate, 23, 77, 82; curriculum, classical, 15, 16, 76–77; history of, 14–15, 16–17, 74–75; influence on Japanese education, 11, 67, 255; and Japanese students, 11–12, 17–18; land-grant status, 17, 78 Rutgers Grammar School, 44, 79, 82 Rutgers Scientific School, 23, 74–76, 78, 214; deficiencies of, 220–221; establishment of, 17, 75–76; influence on Japanese education, 216; reputation of, 94, 110–111; standards of, 220–221 Rutgers Theological Seminary, 82 Saigō Takamori, 30–31, 70, 74, 98, 233, 304, 305 Saigō Tsugumichi, 306, 324–325 Sameshima Naonobu, 59, 61–62

384 San Francisco, California, 97 San Francisco method, 162, 314 Sat-Chō Alliance, 98, 150, 304 Satsuma domain, Japan, 49–50, 58, 150, 304 Satsuma Rebellion, 233, 274, 305 school boards: Japan, 298, 300, 311, 337, 341, 345; Prussia, 264, 266; United States, 249, 264, 266, 286, 296–298, 311 School Law. See Kyōiku Rei School of Medicine. See Igakkō school patrons, 313 Scientific School at Rutgers College. See Rutgers Scientific School Scott, Marion, 160–164, 161f, 196, 197, 207 Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick, 27–28, 31–32, 37f, 37–38, 86, 115 Sheldon, Edward, 197, 208, 209, 211–212 shijuku. See Japanese private schools Shizuoka, Japan, 93–95 Shōgakkō Kyōin Kokoroe. See Guidelines for Elementary School Teachers Shoka Sonjuku, 139 shūshin. See morals course Smith, Robert Henry, 223 social events, in Japan, 171–173, 180–181, 183–184, 224–226, 231, 232–234, 305, 323 Takahashi Korekiyō, 29, 174–175, 184–185 Takahashi Sina, 184–185 Takamine Hideo, 146–147, 209–210, 211f, 211–214, 253, 343 Tanaka Fujimaro, 2–3, 102–104, 117, 187f, 228f, 307–308; and American education system, 186, 243, 247–249, 252, 294, 297, 322, 337; background, 226–227; Centennial Exhibition attendance, 247–249, 252, 350; concern about Gakusei opposition, 200, 239–240, 286, 293; disagreement with Murray on school reform, 293, 297–298, 299, 301, 322, 331; dispute with Griffis, 214, 216–219, 223; farewell to Murray, 325–327; first meeting with Murray, 170–171; Gakusei discussions with Murray, 186–188; and Gakusei replacement, 240–241, 285–286, 292–293, 298–302, 331–332, 336–337; hospitality of, 183–184; and Iwakura Embassy, 103–104, 119–120, 153, 244; and National Museum, 280–281, 283, 285; observation of Western education, 163–164, 293–296, 350; opinion of Mori, 119–120; religious and moral beliefs, 301, 337; removal as Minister of Education, 342; role in Murray’s employment, 126; selection as

I n de x Minister of Education, 153–154; social relationship with Murrays, 225–226, 228–230, 274; visit to Canada, 261–262; visit to White House, 267–268 Tanaka Suma, 29, 180, 181, 225–230, 228f, 274; visit to America, 253; visit to White House, 267–268 Targum, 26 teachers: as activists, 287, 348; ex-samurai as, 314–315, 317–318; gender ratio, 198t; quality of, 309–310, 314–316; role of, 212; salary of, 315–316, 318; sent to America, 208–213; training of, 160, 191–192, 197–198, 203–214, 238, 314; turnover rate, 316, 318, 319 teaching methodology, 160, 161–162, 197, 208, 237–238 Teikoku Gakushiin, 2–3 temple schools (terakoya), 137, 139–140, 162–163, 164, 167, 185, 196, 300 Terashima Munenori, 342 Textbook Bureau, 348 textbooks, 165, 186; Japanese, 191, 238, 348–349; regulation of, 292, 348–349; Western, 162, 163, 208, 341 Theory and Practice of Teaching, The (Page), 206 Third Order of the Rising Sun, 7, 323 Tokio Times, 276, 286 Tokugawa government, 1; and education, 141–143; fall of, 45, 93, 98, 304; foreign travel ban, 50; isolationism, 14, 16, 41, 142, 143; relations with Western countries, 100, 103, 148; U.S. contact with, 40–41 Tokyo, Japan, 86, 88, 90–91, 95; public school survey, 306–310, 321 Tokyo Academy. See Teikoku Gakushiin Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku. See Tokyo University of the Arts Tokyo Joshi Shihan Gakkō. See Tokyo Teacher Training School for Women Tokyo Ongaku Gakkō. See Tokyo University of the Arts Tokyo Shihan Gakkō. See Tokyo Teacher Training School Tokyo Teacher Training School, 160–104, 192, 196–197, 206–207, 212–214, 314 Tokyo Teacher Training School for Women, 204f, 204–205 Tokyo University, 7, 24; curriculum, 279; inauguration of, 274–276; Murray’s initial report on, 195. See also Kaisei Gakkō; Nankō school Tokyo University of the Arts, 213

I ndex Toronto, Ontario, 261 Toronto Museum of Education, 261–262, 283, 285 Tottori prefecture, Japan, 166 Tsuchiya Tadao, 2 Ueno district, Tokyo, Japan, 2, 279 Union College, 19–21, 20f, 23–24, 25, 77 United States: education system, 112, 113, 247–248, 264, 265–266, 285, 286, 288, 294–298; relations with Japan, 40–42, 118, 143, 244 University College London, 55, 79, 220, 221–223 University of the State of New York, 26 University of Tokyo. See Tokyo University U.S. Bureau of Education, 248, 264 U.S. Naval Academy, 81, 94 Verbeck, Guido, 12, 43f, 44f, 99, 245; as English teacher, 43–44; and Iwakura Embassy, 98–101; as missionary, 42–44; at Nankō, 45, 47, 86–87, 88, 91, 154, 178, 214–215; recommending of Japanese

385 students, 16, 43–49; relationship with Japanese leaders, 154; resignation from Nankō, 216 Verbeck of Japan (Griffis), 88 Waseda University, 101 Wickersham, James, 248, 256–257, 258, 291, 296–297; influence on Murray, 265–266, 351–352 Williamson, Alexander, 53–55, 58, 79, 220, 221–223 women: education of, 19, 192–193, 198, 203–205; as teachers, 192–193, 315 Yamakawa Kenjirō, 67–68, 146 Yokohama, Japan, 169–171 Yokoi brothers (Daihei and Saheida), 11–12, 13f, 15–16, 43–45, 79, 143 Yokoi Shōnan, 16, 43 Yoshida Kiyonari, 52, 53, 59, 73, 79, 267, 268 Yoshida Shōin, 139–140 zoology, 278 Zôshikan school, 36, 51–52

A B O U T

T H E

AU T H O R

Benjamin Duke is a professor emeritus of the International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan, where he served on the faculty for forty years, ten as chair of the Graduate Division of Education. He holds a PhD from the University of London and a PhD from Pennsylvania State University.