What do you think?
Rate this book
159 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1899
"Valor and honor alike required that we should own as enemies in war only such as prove worthy of being friends in peace."
"It will be long before it will be recognized how many fortunes were wrecked in the attempt to apply Bushido ethics to business methods; but it was soon patent to every observing mind that the ways of wealth were not the ways of honor."
"Tranquility is courage in repose."
"Fine manners, therefore, mean power in repose."
The irresistible tide of triumphant democracy, which can tolerate no form or shape of trust—and Bushido was a trust organized by those who monopolized reserve capital of intellect and culture, fixing the grades and value of moral qualities—is alone powerful enough to engulf the remnant of Bushido. The present societary forces are antagonistic to petty class spirit, and Chivalry is, as Freeman severely criticizes, a class spirit. Modern society, if it pretends to any unity, cannot admit "purely personal obligations devised in the interests of an exclusive class."
The relationship between ethos and ethics seems evident. When used as a noun, Ethics is the philosophical study of principles relating to the conduct of right or wrong actions. Contrariwise, ethos is the basic values that make up the character of a person, a culture, or in the case of this book, a nation. This distinction may be superfluous, nonetheless, it must be recognized in order to attempt an understanding of what Inazo Nitobe’s intent was in formulating Bushido: The Soul of Japan. A Classic Essay on Samurai Ethics.
It is hard to take away the fact that Nitobe is an intellectual. His education and training surely prepared him for the stylistic approach apparent throughout the book. At times poetic, at times intriguing, there are numerous examples of the great rhetorical care Nitobe took in composing his words. There should be no question that Nitobe understands and uses a rhetorical mastery in his writing style. Perhaps, though, this is the reason that it is questionable whether or not Nitobe’s writings should be appraised or critiqued.
I have given a justification for praise, now is the time for critique. Is Nitobe really the proper authority to speak for the people of Japan? While the book is beautifully written, most of the evidence provided is incredulous or anecdotal. The stories used to explain the ethos of Bushido are no more than anecdotal evidence, handed down in the form of myths and bedtime stories. Not that this is necessarily wrong, but the problem lies in the fact that this is all there is. The people cited by Nitobe, which are few and far in between, are mostly other Western-trained literati’s whose driving ethos are separable from what one could ascertain to be the true spirit of the Samurai. This book was written in 1899, less than 30 years after the restoration measures which begun the downfall of the warrior. Why would Nitobe not use the people who were these warriors to explain their belief systems and their insight into the true nature of Bushido?
At this point, I must retreat and talk a little about the positive aspects of the book. Nitobe’s initial instinct seems correct when he writes, “…the philosophical student reads the results of today in the stored energies of ages gone” (xvi). If only Nitobe would have remembered this intuition when writing. The main thesis, as I can gather is,
Enticing as is an historical disquisition on the comparison between European and Japanese feudalism and chivalry, it is not the purpose of this paper to enter into it at length. My attempt is rather to relate firstly, the origin and sources of our chivalry; secondly, its character and teaching; thirdly, its influence among the masses; and fourthly, the continuity and permanence of its influence (2).
Ultimately, there is some good discussion about the eight virtues of Bushido; viz., justice, courage, benevolence, politeness, sincerity, honor, loyalty, and self-control. The discussion is only overshadowed by Nitobe’s continual attempts at relating these virtues to Western conceptions.
There is much to love, and loathe about this text. If you can take anything away from my review / critique, take away the message that not all good writing is historical fact. Not all intents are for understanding. Sometimes, people just want to put what they believe, rather than what is fact, into writing, and hope that they can sway others to agree with them. After all isn’t that what persuasive writing is all about?