Reading Tokujirō Obata

At the end of March this year, 2022, Keio University and the Fukuzawa Yukichi Memorial Association began publishing the "Collected Works of Tokujirō Obata" (planned for 5 volumes in total).

Tokujirō Obata studied under Yukichi Fukuzawa from the end of the Tokugawa period. In 1890, he was appointed President of Keio University, and after Fukuzawa's death, he served as the head of the Juku. Outside the Juku, he held various positions such as a member of the Tokyo Academy and a member of the House of Peers, making significant contributions toward the civilization of Meiji Japan.

As is well known, Tokujirō Obata was a co-author of the first volume of "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)" along with Yukichi Fukuzawa.

However, in general, while many people may have heard the name Tokujirō Obata, they might not know much about what kind of person he was.

Therefore, today, while I serve as the moderator, I would like to discuss the personality and appeal of Tokujirō Obata with Mr. Masaru Kawasaki, one of the planners of this project, and Ms. Naoko Nishizawa, who is involved in editing the "Collected Works."

First, I would like to ask about Tokujirō Obata's life. Tokujirō Obata was born in Nakatsu in 1842 (Tenpo 13), wasn't he?

Like Yukichi Fukuzawa, he was born as the son of a Nakatsu domain samurai. Since Fukuzawa was born in 1835, Obata was seven or eight years younger.

Fukuzawa came to Edo in 1858 (Ansei 5) and began teaching Rangaku (Dutch studies) at a Juku located in the Nakatsu domain's middle residence. Having had the opportunity to see America and Europe, he came to believe that the urgent task for Japan was the cultivation of human resources. Therefore, he wanted to invite talented young people to the Juku and create a place where they could learn together. At that time, the word "Shachu" was not yet used, but they were the kind of companions who would later be called the Keio Gijuku Shachu. He went to his hometown of Nakatsu to look for talented individuals, and Tokujirō Obata was one of the five people scouted. This was in 1864 (Genji 1).

After coming to Edo and entering Fukuzawa's Juku, Obata assisted Fukuzawa and played a central role within Keio University for a long time.

Furthermore, through translation, he introduced Western civilization to Japan. He was also involved in the establishment of the Middle School Teacher Training Department of the Tokyo Normal School in 1876 (Meiji 9), served as the President of Keio University, and was active as a member of the House of Peers, involved in various legislative bills.

I know nothing at all about Nakatsu, so I would like Ms. Nishizawa to tell me. The Obata family were high-ranking samurai (joshi) and the Fukuzawa family were low-ranking samurai (kashi), but how far apart were those ranks? Also, since Maeno Ryotaku was in the Nakatsu domain, Rangaku flourished there from early on. How much academic influence did that have on Fukuzawa and Obata?

The fathers of Fukuzawa and Tokujirō Obata were both Nakatsu domain samurai, but their positions within the domain differed: the Fukuzawa family were low-ranking samurai with thirteen koku and two fuchi (rations), while the Obata family were high-ranking samurai with two hundred koku, serving as tomoban (escorts).

Fukuzawa later stated in his 1877 work "Kyuhanjo" (Conditions in the Old Domain) that there was a very large gap between high-ranking and low-ranking samurai in the Nakatsu domain, with different standards of living and even different books being read for education.

However, although Tokujirō Obata was born into the high-ranking samurai class, a conflict occurred among the high-ranking samurai during the Tenpo era. At that time, Obata's father lost the struggle and was forced to retire. By the time Tokujirō was born, an adopted son had already succeeded the Obata family. Although he was born as the eldest son, as the name "Tokujirō" suggests, he was treated as the second son and was not the heir.

Also, I think Fukuzawa created a certain image of Nakatsu in his "Fukuo Jiden" (Autobiography of Fukuzawa Yukichi). For example, there is something like a roster of domain samurai called a bungencho, written in order of rank. Even though they were low-ranking, the Fukuzawa family name appears before the middle of the entire bungencho.

In other words, there were about three times as many low-ranking samurai as high-ranking ones, and there were many samurai with about the same thirteen koku and two fuchi as Fukuzawa. Therefore, while two hundred koku can be said to be a very high rank, if you ask if there was a massive difference, there were many people of Fukuzawa's class. So, I think it's a bit different to perceive it as Fukuzawa being at the very bottom and Obata at the top.

Regarding the tradition of Rangaku in Nakatsu, Maeno Ryotaku was probably stationed in Edo and not in Nakatsu, so it is difficult to see a single continuous lineage of Rangaku. However, among the successive domain lords, there were people with a strong interest in the Netherlands, known as "Ranpeki" (Dutch-maniacs). For example, the Japanese person who appears most frequently in Siebold's diary is the fifth lord, Masataka Okudaira (1781–1855). He was the son of Shigehide Shimazu of Satsuma, and he commissioned the creation of the first Dutch-Japanese dictionary, known as the Nakatsu Dictionary, as well as a Japanese-Dutch dictionary.

In 1854 (Kaei 7), Yukichi Fukuzawa left Nakatsu for Nagasaki, and from 1858 (Ansei 5), he opened a Rangaku Juku inside the Okudaira family's middle residence in Edo. Recent research points out that behind this, there was assistance from reformers within the Nakatsu domain, such as the domain Confucian scholar Nomoto Shinjo. One of those people was Obata's father, Tokuzo. However, this is not mentioned in "Fukuo Jiden."

As Mr. Akio Noda has introduced before, Obata studied at Nomoto Shinjo's (Hakugan) Juku. The materials I am looking at are "Osuien Iko," written by Watanabe Ikarimaro, who attended the Nomoto Juku, which contains fragmentary descriptions of how Obata studied, and the diary of Hachijo Hanpa, who was also a fellow student.

Watanabe Ikarimaro wrote that those who studied at the Nomoto Juku were called the Nomoto faction and were a group that created a unique atmosphere within the domain. I think the network centered on the Nomoto Juku had a great influence on both Fukuzawa and Obata.

Looking at Hachijo Hanpa's diary, the network of Nomoto's Juku overlaps with people who played central roles in the domain, particularly in military system reforms. These were people oriented toward reforms that included the introduction of Western armaments. I think his older brother Sannosuke was more involved, but Fukuzawa also had contact with them. The key to where Obata first became conscious of Fukuzawa seems to lie around there.

It is a fact that in 1864 (Genji 1), Obata came to Edo with five other Nakatsu domain samurai, including his younger brother (Nisaburo [Jinzaburo]) and companions, and began studying English studies for the first time at Fukuzawa's place. However, I think it is quite doubtful to say that he had no interest at all in Western studies or the West before then. It wasn't that Obata started Western studies simply because Fukuzawa told him to; he was interested in Western studies, but he probably had hesitations about going to Edo.

At that time, Obata was over 20 years old and served as the head teacher at the domain school, Shinshukan. That was when Fukuzawa's invitation came, wasn't it?

Obata himself said that he heard Fukuzawa was in Nakatsu looking for someone to go to Edo and support him. However, he had his own circumstances and did not want to go to Edo, so he avoided meeting Fukuzawa. But one day they met by chance, and that led to him going to Edo. However, he also stated that he had known Fukuzawa since childhood through his father Tokuzo's younger brother, Ikuzo Takeshita, and had read "Things Western (Seiyō Jijō)" even before it became a book.

Fukuzawa, hearing that Obata did not want to go, wrote that since he was the second son, he needed to find an adoptive family, and since there were plenty of adoptive families in Edo, he persuaded not only Obata but also Obata's mother, saying it was almost like he had kidnapped him.

After coming to Edo, Obata studied English studies at Fukuzawa's Juku, and about three years later, he took a position as an assistant professor at the Kaiseijo. Mr. Kawasaki, you have researched the Bansho Shirabesho and the Kaiseijo; how did Obata acquire his English skills?

There are almost no official records regarding the educational content at the Kaiseijo. However, since Obata was evaluated as having "outstanding scholarship" and was immediately promoted to the rank of first-class professor, he must have already built up his strength at Fukuzawa's place. The people there had a mysterious ability to acquire language skills quickly (laughs). It's completely incomprehensible under the current education system. Even without foreign teachers there, everyone acquired proper language skills. This was true not only for English but also for German and French. It seems that Meiji-era people had an acquisition system that is unthinkable today, where they didn't study grammar or practice conversation, but simply read and understood original texts immediately.

Later on, even at the Sapporo Agricultural College, lectures were in English and they just read texts in turn. My guess is that at domain schools, everyone's foundation was the rote reading (sodoku) of Chinese classics, and they would naturally come to understand it through repeated reading. So, they probably applied that same method to English.

Another thing is that the relationship between the translation office where Fukuzawa was and the Kaiseijo is not well understood. Do you know anything from Fukuzawa's side?

The relationship between the translation office and the Kaiseijo is a theme I need to investigate further, but looking at why Obata started working at the Kaiseijo, it seems there was a massive increase in shogunal retainers who wanted to study English studies there, perhaps out of necessity. By October of Keio 2, the number exceeded 150, and there was a shortage of teachers. While they were looking to hire several people from among the shogunal retainers, Obata also became a candidate. Although his status as a rear vassal (baishin) was an issue, he was hired because his scholarship was good and his ability in "translated works" was highly valued. He rose from assistant professor to professor in one year.

His younger brother Nisaburo and another person, Kotaro Kobayashi of the Iyo-Matsuyama domain—one of the first people for whom enrollment records at Keio remain—also served at the Kaiseijo. Letters of thanks from the domain lords remain for these three, and it seems they were hired as representatives of their respective domains rather than directly from the Fukuzawa Juku.

This was after Obata passed away, but an anecdote in the "Jiji Shinpo" says that when the Obata brothers started teaching at the Kaiseijo, their explanations were so easy to understand that during breaks, a line of people asking questions would form only in front of the Obata brothers.

In Keio 2, when he worked at the Kaiseijo, Obata became the President of Keio University (this is different from his appointment as President in 1890). Furthermore, he is said to have been involved in drafting the "Keio Gijuku no Ki (Notes on Keio Gijuku)," which outlined the founding principles of Keio University. Does this mean that Fukuzawa's evaluation of Obata rose rapidly during this period?

The President at that time was like a leader of the students, which is different from the role of the President today. According to students who entered the Juku during the Keio era, Obata seems to have handled things like enrollment procedures and guidance. However, it is mysterious that he was also going to the Kaiseijo during that time. Kotaro Kobayashi and the Obata brothers were all teaching at the Kaiseijo, and furthermore, in Keio 3, Fukuzawa went to America again and was away for a period. What was happening inside the Gijuku during that time?

Presumably, Fukuzawa had high expectations for Obata even before he joined the Juku, and after he arrived, Obata lived up to those expectations with his activities.

Obata became the first principal of the Nakatsu City School when it was established in 1871 (Meiji 4) based on Fukuzawa's proposal. Looking at your paper ("Tokujirō Obata: His Thought and Activities—Focusing on the Period up to the Establishment of the Kojunsha," Konan Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3/4, 2017), Obata also created a department called the Translated Books Department. What were his activities in Nakatsu like?

To go back a bit, according to Tatsui Baba, who entered the Juku in May of Keio 2, the teaching method at Keio University was completely incomplete; there were no fixed teachers, they taught each other, and lessons were bestowed like a favor from older students. He says they used an English grammar book of about 30 pages printed at the Kaiseijo, and were taught this book first without even being taught the ABCs. The pronunciation was always wrong, but at the time, no one knew the correct pronunciation.

I think what Obata was thinking was not so much learning English as a language, but how everyone could accept new scholarship and new knowledge that had not been introduced before through English. When the Nakatsu City School was established, it was difficult to tackle difficult Western books right away unless one had a certain foundation in Confucianism. He probably thought that to establish a new school and teach various people, it was necessary to create a Translated Books Department and learn from translated books where the content could be understood without learning the language. "Translated Books Department" means learning through books that have been translated.

In this way, Obata was an indispensable presence for Fukuzawa's activities. Why, then, has a collection of Obata's works not been compiled until now?

Tatsui Baba and Eikichi Kamada have published complete works, and even for Hikojiro Nakamigawa from the same hometown, or Toyotaro Isomura and Toyoji Wada, they all have fine biographies, or collections of biographical materials gathered to create biographies, but until now, Obata didn't even have that.

People of that era knew well the relationship where Obata was behind Fukuzawa and Fukuzawa was behind Obata. What is strange is that, despite this, Obata's presence is not very clear in "Fukuo Jiden."

"Fukuo Jiden" is not a simple autobiography; it focuses on what Fukuzawa wanted to say in that era, so things like his relationship with politics become central.

Obata himself was someone who was constantly with him and was his right-hand man, so there was no need to specifically mention and discuss his name. Whether it was Fukuzawa's statement or Obata's statement, there were times when the two were like one.

From Fukuzawa's perspective, Obata's arguments and his own were one, and once he spoke for himself, it was finished. So, perhaps Obata was something inside himself, not a person to be considered separately. I can't help but feel they have become unified.

I believe the "Autobiography" is all about self-assertion, so I feel that is why he conversely does not bring Obata out there.

Obata is often called "Fukuzawa's right-hand man," but one intention of publishing this collection of works is to ask the question, "Is it enough to think of him merely as a right-hand man?"

One of the issues is that the first volume of "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)" is a co-authored work by Obata and Fukuzawa. It is said that this was because Obata had more influence in Nakatsu than Fukuzawa for releasing it toward Nakatsu as the Nakatsu City School. However, it seems to me that there is more to it than that. I want to place more importance on the meaning of the co-authorship.

Was it Fukuzawa or Obata who chose the famous opening words, "Heaven does not create one person above another"? Perhaps Obata chose it and Fukuzawa turned it into his own style of writing. This is nothing more than my own speculation.

Next, regarding the critique of the mixed residence of foreigners and Japanese in "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization," first Nishi Amane and Tsuda Mamichi published an argument promoting inland travel in the "Meiroku Zasshi." In response, Fukuzawa wrote an argument that foreigners should not be allowed to come to Japan and a rebuttal of inland travel in the "Meiroku Zasshi" and "Minkan Zasshi" in the form of "Refuting Mr. Nishi's Theory." After that, Obata continued to write "Rebuttal of Inland Travel." Then, Fukuzawa incorporated what Obata wrote into "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization" instead of his own essay, saying that he had been taught by Obata.

Fukuzawa's writing style and Obata's writing style are completely different. Fukuzawa's style can still be read easily today. However, Obata's is full of difficult words, many kanji that are no longer used today appear, and coined words in combinations not found in Chinese-Japanese dictionaries occur frequently.

In Masao Maruyama's "Reading 'An Outline of a Theory of Civilization'," he says Obata is quoting what Fukuzawa wrote, but since Obata's style and Fukuzawa's style are different, I think that passage belongs to Obata. The core is the same, but Obata's is very specific, while Fukuzawa's is considered to be discussed from the perspective of a theory of civilization. In my image, given his ideological background, Fukuzawa did not oppose mixed residence. However, at that time, he had no choice but to argue against Nishi and others.

In the discussions of that time, such as at speech meetings during the Freedom and People's Rights period, especially political speech meetings, speakers would sometimes forcibly create opposing opinions against a debater to make the discussion work, regardless of their own thoughts. Regarding mixed residence, Obata clearly lists the problems. I read Fukuzawa's way of picking a fight as saying that while those current conditions must be acknowledged, Mr. Nishi says nothing about them, which is problematic.

Also, when you think of Wayland, you think of Fukuzawa, but it was Obata who bought Wayland's original book. Obata had an excellent eye for English books. So, a relationship might have formed where Obata would hand something to Fukuzawa saying, "This is interesting," and Fukuzawa would read it. Therefore, the two were in a reciprocal relationship.

To jump ahead a bit, when the "Jiji Shinpo" was later launched, it took "impartiality and non-partisanship" as its motto. However, that was merely a cover against the government, and it clearly stated that Fukuzawa and Obata planned and read everything. Everything was "censored" by Fukuzawa and Obata. I position it as an organ of speech that showed Fukuzawa's partisan nature.

In other words, what was published in the "Jiji Shinpo" were the thoughts of Fukuzawa and Obata, and they took a style of leading the discussion in one direction. I think this is something Obata and Fukuzawa had been doing together consistently since "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)." Therefore, it wasn't that Obata supported Fukuzawa from the shadows, but rather, so to speak, their collaboration was the premise.

I think it was Obata who tried to firmly convey the problems Fukuzawa constantly brought up since "Things Western (Seiyō Jijō)" from the original sources, while showing the evidence. So, couldn't it be said they were in a relationship where they merged to create a single work?

In other words, is it an image of them creating in a form like a workshop? Until now, the light of Yukichi Fukuzawa was too strong, and Obata was only positioned as his right-hand man. However, in reality, they sharpened each other, and Fukuzawa himself may have been greatly influenced by Obata.

Even in "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization," Fukuzawa writes about Obata in the introduction: "In particular, I troubled Mr. Tokujirō Obata to review it and ask for corrections, which greatly increased the quality of the theory in many places."

A noteworthy point of Obata's literary activity is that he translated the works of John Stuart Mill and Tocqueville, which became very important ideological sources for Fukuzawa in developing his political theories on civilization and decentralization.

"Joboku Jiyu no Ron" is a translation published by Obata in 1873 (Meiji 6) from the English version of the discussion on the freedom of the press in "Democracy in America" by the French thinker Tocqueville. It is a valuable work published at a very early stage, both in terms of the reception of Tocqueville and in terms of discussing the freedom of the press.

Later, in 1876 (Meiji 9), Obata translated passages from the English version of Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" discussing "public spirit" (giki), the distinction between "government" (seiken) and "administration" (chiken), and centralization and decentralization, and published them in the magazine "Katei Sodan." These translations were introduced in Fukuzawa's "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" (1877), written around the same time, and it is inferred that Fukuzawa was influenced by these translations by Obata.

As is well known, Fukuzawa's "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" is a work that directly discusses the political situation of the time, when the rebellion of disgruntled former samurai was becoming a problem. In it, Fukuzawa, while quoting Obata's translation of Tocqueville, advocates the importance of people establishing not "government" but "administration" which has a "different source," namely "local decentralization" that participates in "public affairs," and cultivating "patriotism" rooted in the "spirit of self-government."

Recently, through a graduate school seminar, I have been comparing the English version of Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" with Obata's translation, and various interesting things are coming to light.

First, while Obata's translation occasionally uses difficult words, as a whole it is very easy to read and can be said to have a high degree of perfection as a translation. Influenced by his deep foundation in Confucianism, the translation gives the impression of being concise yet striking at the essence.

Furthermore, when compared with the English text, I encounter many places where Obata's translation intent seems to emerge.

As one small example, in "A translation of a piece discussing the public spirit of the people of the United States from the book 'Democracy in America' by the Frenchman Mr. Tocqueville," Tocqueville's argument distinguishing between natural patriotism and patriotism with a rational character is translated. In particular, the latter, rational patriotism, is introduced in Fukuzawa's "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" as "reasoned patriotism" that accords with "logic."

Here, Tocqueville explains loyalty as a form of patriotism based on the former natural attachment, which can be called a kind of religion. What is interesting is that Obata applies the translation "Sonno" (reverence for the emperor) to this "loyalty." Through this, the reader understands through Obata's translation that patriotism like the "Sonno" ideology is a temporary thing based on natural attachment, and that in the world to come, a different, rational patriotism based on participation in politics and administration is required. From this, it can be seen that for Obata, translation was not just an academic endeavor, but actually a political act.

By the way, when contrasted with Fukuzawa's "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan," it turns out that there are actually places where Fukuzawa added to Obata's translation without notice.

In the preface to "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan," Fukuzawa states, "This single volume is a record of the tea-table talk of our fellow members at occasional meetings." Obata and Fukuzawa probably discussed current politics while showcasing their academic achievements through these "meetings." I can visualize the appearance of Keio University at that time, repeating discussions while moving back and forth between scholarship and politics.

In this way, they encountered the works of Western thinkers such as Tocqueville, gained intellectual inspiration from them, and tackled the political challenges of Meiji Japan unfolding before their eyes.

In 1875 (Meiji 8), the Libel Law (Zanboritsu) and the Press Ordinance were issued. At that time, the only one properly criticizing them was the "Yubin Hochi," and an article was published under Obata's signature clearly as a critique of the Libel Law. It has received almost no attention, but this is also an achievement of Obata.

However, at the stage of 1873 (Meiji 6), such issues of publication probably hadn't come out directly. In that context, he brought up the issue of freedom of the press. Moreover, since it was before the Freedom and People's Rights Movement, it was very early as something considering the issue of freedom.

He must have been moved by reading Tocqueville, and I don't know what Fukuzawa thought at the time, but they both supported the "Yubin Hochi" and were writers for it. In the end, Obata was more conscious than anyone else of the meaning of emphasizing freedom of the press. As a result, while Fukuzawa was releasing various works, he ended up protecting Fukuzawa.

Therefore, while the image of a pioneer of civilization belongs to Fukuzawa, I would like to evaluate Obata as a person who took leadership in such basic things.

Tocqueville became a sensation after the Freedom and People's Rights Movement started, but "Joboku Jiyu no Ron" had more impact than that time. Tsuda's "Taisei Kokuhōron" and Mill's "On Liberty" influenced people like Ueki Emori and led to the Freedom and People's Rights Movement. I see "Joboku Jiyu no Ron" as one of the things that provided the ideological basis for that.

I think it is exactly as you pointed out.

The fact that Tocqueville's argument, which is also important in political philosophy—that cracking down on freedom of the press leads to despotism—was translated during this period has extremely great significance in the history of Meiji thought.

The relationship between Obata and Fukuzawa has become quite clear, but at the same time, Obata supported Keio University in practical terms and played an important role.

I believe that Tokujirō Obata was thinking about how to create a modern Meiji society in a way that was distinct from Yukichi Fukuzawa. His perspective on the transition from feudalism to the prefectural system was not simply about the change from the Tokugawa era, but rather an interest in how to navigate the shift from feudalism to prefectures within the context of changes spanning six hundred years.

In that process, he considered what should be read and discussed with students at Keio University, and translated or introduced works by Tocqueville, Mill, and overseas religious theories. I think Obata taught students and engaged in discussions with them while compiling his own writings.

While there is the episode at the Kaiseijo mentioned earlier, there are also recollections that while Fukuzawa's classes were very simple and easy for students to understand, Obata's classes were extremely difficult. Perhaps the classes at the Kaiseijo were meant to teach technical skills, but that was not the case at Keio University. Obata wanted students to be able to obtain the same amount of information from a Japanese translation as they would from the original text. I believe he wanted to convey the concepts and ideas he gained from Tocqueville or Mill. For that reason, he likely paraphrased or omitted parts where he felt the reader would not understand without a foundational background.

Also, Obata had a very strong sense of "agatō" (our party/group); although he had different ideas from Fukuzawa, he felt they were part of one large circle of comrades. Gradually, the burden Obata carried for the sake of this group increased. After 1877, following the Satsuma Rebellion, as the management of the Juku began to decline, Obata felt a stronger need to maintain the Juku than Fukuzawa did, and his workload continued to grow.

Fukuzawa continued to publish books until his death, but Obata did not publish any independent volumes after 1888. Also, as Fukuzawa wrote, I believe the idea for the Kojunsha came from Obata, but the practical work was handled by him. Even regarding the "Jiji Shinpo," it is doubtful how much Fukuzawa actually proofread the articles, and I suspect Obata's burden grew heavier and heavier. As a result, the impression of him as Fukuzawa's supporter became dominant, which is likely why neither a biography nor a collection of his works was published. As it is evaluated that the achievements of Keio University would not exist without Obata, the fact that it was able to continue precisely because he was there is, I think, very significant.

Keio University began publishing the "Keio University Academic and Accounting Report" in 1890. Obata also wrote the introduction for this. He stated that since the Juku had grown so large, it was necessary to inform the public about the type of education the Juku was providing, and that donations would not be collected unless the accounting reports were handled properly. Conveying such matters was also a major role for Obata.

What I thought when creating this collection of Obata's works was that Obata's writing and translation activities up until around 1877 had a very strong influence on Fukuzawa, and that Obata was not doing these things because he was told to by Fukuzawa, but was thinking about what should be translated based on his own interests. I believe one of those interests was the issue of local self-government. And as for why Obata became interested in local self-government, I think the fact that he was born into the upper samurai class of the Nakatsu Domain was a major factor.

In fact, the people who handled the administration of the Nakatsu Domain from the Return of the Domains (Hanseki Hokan) until the Abolition of the Feudal Domains and Establishment of Prefectures (Haihan Chiken) were Obata's comrades. Obata understood that how to respond on the ground was a critical issue as everything from the tax system onward was changing. Therefore, his foundation lay in how to transition from feudalism to the prefectural system. I believe that is where his interest in local self-government grew stronger.

In Fukuzawa's case, he had moved to Edo early on, and the people from the Nakatsu Domain around Fukuzawa were not in a position where they actually had to settle the confusion from the Return of the Domains to the Abolition of the Feudal Domains. I think there is a structure where Fukuzawa would look at what Obata had translated or summarized, realize that "those things are also issues," and incorporate them into his own writings.

I feel that unless we clarify this, we cannot understand Fukuzawa's achievements, and we will also lose sight of what the people who were actually in administration during the Meiji transition period were thinking and how they created a new society.

That is exactly right. By the way, the Kojunsha was established in 1880, and Mr. Kawasaki has also conducted research on the Kojunsha. For what purpose was the Kojunsha founded, and what role did Obata play within it?

In its first year or two, the Kojunsha included people from all walks of life, from bureaucrats to politicians and thinkers. Furthermore, the regions were very diverse. While it was an organization created primarily by Keio alumni, I see it as having been positioned as a medium of public opinion to oppose the government.

However, before the Political Crisis of 1881, it was a time when Fukuzawa was being consulted about newspapers by Kaoru Inoue and Hirobumi Ito. For Fukuzawa, so to speak, he wanted to create a medium of public opinion that included politicians who were not on the side of the old regime. This meant positioning it as an entity centered on discussion as a symbol of civilization, which Fukuzawa had advocated since Things Western (Seiyō Jijō).

It is not clearly visible how Obata moved, but in any case, with Obata as the axis, members such as Heigoro Shoda, Fumio Yano, and Tatsui Baba built up the Kojunsha while engaging in discussions. From an external perspective, I think it was a natural progression for it to be regarded as a "political" organization, no matter how much they claimed otherwise. As Obata himself was at the core and providing leadership, I get the feeling that after "Jōki Jiyū no Ron" (On the Liberty of Printing), Tocqueville became a source of ideological support.

By the way, did Obata mention anything about Guizot or Buckle?

While Fukuzawa was interested in the history and theories of civilization by Guizot and Buckle, would it be correct to say that Obata instead turned his attention to Mill and Tocqueville—that is, to freedom of speech and local self-government?

I feel there might be a clue there to finding the differences between the two.

It is also interesting that Obata translated Mill's "Three Essays on Religion." From that, it might be possible to see Obata's own view of civilization and his vision.

"Three Essays on Religion" has a proofreader named Toyama Kuwana, a former samurai of the Nakatsu Domain. He served as the Kyoto Rusui-yaku Karo (resident elder) during the Keio era at the end of the Edo period, then served as the Daisanji (senior official) of the Nakatsu Domain from the Return of the Domains to the Abolition of the Feudal Domains. After the abolition, he was a figure who could be called a Confucian scholar, taking notes of Obata's lectures by his side at Keio. Later, from November 1878, he became involved in local administration as a district head of various counties. Why did this Toyama Kuwana become the proofreader for "Three Essays on Religion"?

He had a foundation in Confucianism that was second to none in Nakatsu, but I don't think that person could have read Mill's English and corrected Obata's translation. I think the reason why he had Kuwana proofread it reveals who Obata wanted to convey "Three Essays on Religion" to.

Specifically, what kind of readership did he have in mind?

Obata had a continuous interest in local self-government, and I believe his political interest and interest in the political system were stronger than Fukuzawa's. That is why he probably thought it was fine for the Kojunsha to be perceived as a political party and went on to propose a private draft constitution.

On the other hand, Obata became the core of a network for introducing Kojunsha comrades and exchanging information. For Obata, the Kojunsha was also an institution for "semu shijun"—exchanging information about the world. In particular, he likely had a strong desire to eliminate the gap in the amount of information between the center and the regions. After all, when considering the state of politics, he must have thought it important for both urban and rural areas to have the same amount of information.

Thinking that way, I suspect that for "Three Essays on Religion," he intended for more people than just scholars in the center to understand the foundation upon which a new political system would take root. I believe he had Toyama read it in the hope that he could act as a mediator who had a foundation in Confucianism and could bridge the interpretation.

Mr. Kawasaki, you have been widely involved in the editing and publication of collected works and complete works of contemporary figures, not just Obata, such as the "Complete Works of Tatsui Baba," the "Collected Works of Emori Ueki," the "Collected Letters of Yukichi Fukuzawa" (Iwanami Shoten), the "Complete Works of Mamichi Tsuda" (Misuzu Shobo), and the "Diaries and Posthumous Manuscripts of Tatsui Baba" (Keio University Press). How do you view the significance of publishing their collected works now, 150 years later?

To be honest, I'm in a bit of a bind because the collected works I've been involved with don't sell at all (laughs).

However, precisely because they don't sell, they must be preserved as historical materials. If we miss this opportunity, Obata will probably never see the light of day again. Even if it's a small print run, it is important to put it into print so that anyone can read it and to make its location clear.

That's true. It almost seems like Yukichi Fukuzawa pushed all the troublesome tasks onto Obata, which I think is a bit unfair (laughs).

However, Obata's writings, especially those up until around 1877, are very important. This is not just for knowing Obata, but for understanding what kind of changes were occurring in Japan during that period. I believe the greatest significance of publishing the "Collected Works" lies in having people understand that.

Until now, complete works and collected works have been compiled as a way to honor outstanding thinkers and politicians of their time. However, today, 150 years after the Meiji Restoration, rather than honoring individuals, importance is placed on leaving as much material as possible to show what happened in that era.

This "Collected Works" also has precious value not as a tribute to Tokujirō Obata, but rather as historical material showing how people of that time lived. I believe the compilation of such collected works is important for examining the birth of Meiji Japan more historically and objectively.

Furthermore, in recent years, research on the Meiji Restoration by overseas scholars has been flourishing. Regarding Obata, research is being advanced by scholars such as Harb Hassan of Cairo University in Egypt.

The endeavor of leaving behind important materials that contribute to historical research is extremely significant from the perspective of re-examining the framework of world history.

There was mention of the 150th anniversary of Meiji, but at the time of the 100th anniversary, the government was in a gung-ho mood, and it was, so to speak, a tribute to great men, a kind of "promotion of national prestige." Now it is not like that; it is about re-examining materials properly as subjects of critique. And publishing activities based on that are very important from the perspective of the theory of publishing culture. I am very happy that Obata's collected works were taken up as one of those.

In Obata's case, he is not someone everyone knows like Fukuzawa, but I hope that through the publication of this five-volume "Collected Works," a foundational image of Tokujirō Obata will be established.

Thank you very much. I hope that many readers will take even a slight interest in Obata and pick up the "Collected Works."