How to Read Yukichi Fukuzawa: Focusing on the Positioning of "Gakusha Anshin-ron"

2022/03/11

I am Hiraishi, as just introduced. Thank you very much for inviting me to such a prestigious gathering as the Yukichi Fukuzawa Birthday Commemoration Meeting today. As someone who has studied Fukuzawa for many years and learned much from him, this is a great honor. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the organizers for giving me this opportunity to speak.

The title of today's lecture is "How to Read Yukichi Fukuzawa," with the subtitle "Focusing on the Positioning of 'Gakusha Anshin-ron'." I would like to start by briefly explaining the background behind why I chose this theme.

As mentioned in the introduction, at the end of last year, I published a book titled "Yukichi Fukuzawa and Masao Maruyama: The Intellectual Origins of Modern and Contemporary Japan" from Hokkaido University Press. Originally, I intended to publish one book each on Fukuzawa and Maruyama. However, in the spring of the year before last, Mr. Hidetoshi Takenaka of Hokkaido University Press proposed combining my theories on Fukuzawa and Maruyama into a single book. After considering it myself, I came to the conclusion that it might be better to make it one volume.

The reason is that, as you know, Fukuzawa formed his thoughts during the upheaval from the end of the Edo period to the Meiji era, and Maruyama did so during the turbulent times from the pre-war period through the defeat to the post-war era—both periods when Japanese society was turned upside down. Based on those experiences, both were thinkers who exercised intellectual leadership in the subsequent eras. They share commonalities in that regard, and additionally, Maruyama learned a great deal from Fukuzawa, using it as nourishment for his own work. There, we see a rare example in modern Japan of the internal development of thought.

Therefore, I thought that treating Fukuzawa and Maruyama together would broaden the reader's perspective and contribute to a unified understanding of the intellectual history of two eras: the modern and the contemporary. With this in mind, I decided to accept the offer.

As you can see from the above, this book is a collection of previously published papers, not a so-called newly written work. However, after writing the original manuscripts, it is natural to come up with new ideas regarding the themes, or to find it necessary to partially correct old drafts, or to need to respond to criticisms received. In this book, I addressed these points by adding an "Addendum" after each paper and a "Postscript" at the end of the entire book.

Today's lecture is based on the sections discussing "Theory" and "Political Discourse" included as Chapter 3 of this book, as well as the "Addendum" added after that paper, which discusses "Gakusha Anshin-ron," reconstructed along the flow of time. I would like to state this at the outset.

Let us move to the main subject. There are two issues I wish to examine in this lecture. One is how to understand the fact that Fukuzawa's assertions regarding the relationship between the people and the government shifted repeatedly during the year and a half from mid-Meiji 8 to the end of Meiji 9. Specifically, in "Kokken Kabun no Setsu" (Theory of the Divisibility of National Power) published in June Meiji 8, Fukuzawa argued against the claim that "the Japanese people lack the spirit to oppose the government; since civilization progresses through disputes between the government and the people, as long as the people are in such a state, it is useless to establish popular assemblies or reform political laws." He emphasized that "regardless of the form, it is necessary for the government and the people to coexist and share national power, advancing civilization through debate between them." This is clearly a position supporting the establishment of "popular assemblies."

However, ten months later, in "Gakusha Anshin-ron" published in April Meiji 9, Fukuzawa encouraged the people to devote themselves to "their own governance" (jika no sei). He argued that since the people provide taxes to support the nation's politics, it is natural for them to be involved in politics. However, he stated that the people's involvement in the government's politics should be indirect, not direct.

In modern terms, he was saying that since there is plenty of room for the people to be active in the sphere of civil society, they should be active in those fields. He argued that "politics" in a broad sense exists there too, and criticized the radical private-sector factions of the time, who advocated for civil rights, for concentrating their arguments solely on the government's political sphere. Compared to "Kokken Kabun no Setsu" ten months earlier, it is clear that this was a regressive argument in terms of the people's participation in national politics. The question is why such a change occurred.

However, the problem does not end there. This is because at the end of the same year, Meiji 9, he wrote "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" (published in November of the following year), in which he overturned his assertion in "Gakusha Anshin-ron" once again, arguing that administrative power (chiken) should be given to the people in the regions. Here, he utilized the arguments from Tocqueville's famous "Democracy in America." Tocqueville divided state power into government (which Fukuzawa translated as seiken) and administration (which is chiken).

"Seiken" (Governmental Power) refers to the power the state exercises over the nation in general, mainly consisting of the enactment of general laws, the organization of the army and navy, the collection of taxes to support the central government, decisions on diplomacy, peace and war, and the minting of currency. In contrast, "Chiken" (Administrative Power) is the power to seek the happiness of the people living in a region according to the convenience of various parts of the country. It includes police, construction and management of roads, bridges, and embankments, establishment of schools, temples, shrines, and parks, sanitation, and collection of local taxes. Fukuzawa proposed that while the central government should hold seiken, chiken should be entrusted to the regions so that the local people (specifically the shizoku class) could gain training in self-governance.

To summarize, while he supported the establishment of popular assemblies in June Meiji 8, in April of the following year he preached the people's devotion to "their own governance," and then five months later, he advocated for the people's participation in local politics. How should we think about these short-term shifts? This is one of the issues I want to examine today.

The other issue is the problem of the "Theory of Harmony between Government and People" (Kanmin Chowa-ron). At the beginning of the five-volume Fukuzawa Zenshū (The Collected Works of Fukuzawa) published in his later years, there is the Foreword to the Collected Works of Fukuzawa (dated September 10, Meiji 30 (1897)). What we should note is that at the end, Fukuzawa writes that the main point of his political theory lies in "harmony between government and people," and that its origin was not in Meiji 10 or 15, but much earlier.

He likely mentioned Meiji 10 with "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" (published in November of that year) in mind, and Meiji 15 because the core of his political commentary in the "Jiji Shinpo" newspaper, which he founded that year, was harmony between government and people. However, Fukuzawa claimed the concept of "harmony between government and people" existed even earlier, and he brings up the story of an interview with Toshimichi Okubo and a meeting of three people including Hirobumi Ito. However, why the content of his talk with them introduced there can be called the origin of the theory of harmony between government and people has been a point that did not sit right with me for a long time. One reason for this, I think, is that there is a confusion of memory on Fukuzawa's part in this section.

However, while preparing for this lecture, a manuscript tentatively titled "The Government Should Take Measures to Win Popular Support" by the editor of the current Fukuzawa Zenshū (The Collected Works of Fukuzawa) caught my eye (Vol. 20, pp. 156-159). In it, there is the expression "the other day there was the Edict to Prohibit the Wearing of Swords." This edict (Haitorei) was issued on March 28, Meiji 9, and since he describes it as "the other day," we can estimate that this piece was written not long after that. Upon examining its content, I could see that it largely matches the gist of the story Fukuzawa said he told Okubo and Ito in the Foreword to the Collected Works of Fukuzawa.

If so, we can estimate that in Fukuzawa's mind, this essay was understood as a pair with "Gakusha Anshin-ron," which came out in April of the same year, Meiji 9—as a set, so to speak. And if read in that context, we can understand the reason why Fukuzawa sought the origin of his theory of harmony between government and people in his interview with Okubo and others. I would like to make the examination of that point the other theme of today's lecture.

Having finished presenting the issues, I will now move on to the analysis of the content. Regarding the first issue, what is important when reading the works from "Kokken Kabun no Setsu" to "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan"—that is, the works from mid-Meiji 8 to the end of Meiji 9—is their connection to the historical background in which Fukuzawa wrote them.

First, regarding "Kokken Kabun no Setsu" issued in June Meiji 8, the overall tone is full of confidence. In my understanding, this is largely because in An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, finished in April of the same year, Fukuzawa grasped the Meiji Restoration as a historical counterpart to the civil revolutions in England and France. Therefore, he established the understanding that the current Restoration government was a revolutionary regime built by the people after overthrowing the despotic power of the Shogunate, and was a "Liberal Party."

Through reading Guizot's "History of Civilization in Europe" and other works, Fukuzawa learned the historical law that civilization progresses through the struggle between the despotic power of the government and the intellect of the people, with the people winning. He understood the Meiji Restoration as the same thing actually happening in Japan. In other words, it is important that he did not capture the Restoration revolution merely within the limited context of Japanese history, but grasped and positioned it within a world-historical perspective. Standing on this understanding, it was quite natural for the view to emerge that it is only right for the people to participate in national politics as an extension of that. Therefore, in the draft of An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, there was a passage supporting the establishment of popular assemblies.

It seems that the government's movements during the same period influenced this tone of Fukuzawa's. As you know, the Restoration government split due to the Seikanron (debate over invading Korea) in the latter half of Meiji 6. Takamori Saigo returned to Kagoshima with his comrades, but former councilors (Sangi) such as Taisuke Itagaki, Taneomi Soejima, and Shinpei Eto submitted the "Petition for the Establishment of a Publicly Elected Assembly" to the Sain (Left Chamber) in January Meiji 7, and furthermore, published it in a newspaper called "Nisshin Shinjishi." As you know, this triggered the debate over the establishment of an assembly. Fukuzawa's "Kokken Kabun no Setsu" also had an aspect of being written by expanding on the arguments he had in a debate with Hiroyuki Kato and others at a Meirokusha public speaking meeting amidst the spreading ripples of that event.

Looking at the government's subsequent movements, the Taiwan Expedition became a major issue in Meiji 7. Over this issue, Takayoshi Kido, who maintained the principle of prioritizing internal affairs, resigned as Sangi in April and returned to his hometown of Hagi. Meanwhile, Okubo, who remained, settled the matter at the end of October that year by receiving 500,000 ryo as reparations from the Qing Dynasty. However, lacking Saigo and Kido, the meritorious contributors to the Restoration, the power base was unstable. Therefore, Okubo asked Kido to return to the government. On the other hand, Kido requested that Itagaki also return. In this context, the famous Osaka Conference was held in February Meiji 8, and a certain agreement was reached between Okubo, Kido, and Itagaki. Then in March, Kido and Itagaki returned as Sangi, and in April, the so-called Imperial Edict on the "Gradual Establishment of Constitutional Government" was issued.

The important point of this edict was that, as steps toward the establishment of a constitutional government, it decided to establish the Genroin (Chamber of Elders) and Daishin-in (Supreme Court) separately from the Cabinet, and to open the Conference of Local Officials. It is particularly noteworthy that in Itagaki's mind, the Conference of Local Officials was positioned as the first step toward a future publicly elected assembly (History of the Liberal Party, Iwanami Bunko edition, Vol. 1, p. 167). Moreover, the chairman of this Conference of Local Officials was Takayoshi Kido. Therefore, although there was a difference between gradualism (Kido) and radicalism (Itagaki), it can be inferred that both stood on a common ground regarding the people's political participation. The above are the movements from February to April Meiji 8.

From Fukuzawa's perspective, these government movements must have looked as if the government was heading in a direction that largely coincided with his own thinking. Therefore, the composure seen in "Kokken Kabun no Setsu," which came out in June, was likely influenced by his perception that he was rowing with the mainstream of history.

However, a problem occurred immediately after this. That was the promulgation of the Libel Law (Zanboritsu) and the Press Ordinance on June 28, Meiji 8, which strengthened control over anti-government speech. How did Fukuzawa view these new laws? As I mentioned earlier, he basically characterized the Restoration government as liberal. If so, why would that government suppress freedom of speech? This should naturally have been a problem.

Regarding this, Fukuzawa had already written the following in "Kokken Kabun no Setsu": "If one advocates the theories of reformers and writes books, or records fierce arguments in newspapers and the like, it seems that the government often dislikes it, but this is only due to the habits of the Japanese government and the remaining embers of despotism" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 19, p. 535). Inferring from this, Fukuzawa likely saw that these new laws did not stem from the historical essence of the Restoration government, but rather, as analyzed in Chapter 9 of An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, "The Origins of Japanese Civilization," the habit of the "imbalance of power" that had continued since the beginning of Japanese history was acting on the current government, causing the remaining embers of despotism to flare up.

A serious impact of these new laws was that many journalists were punished for violating them. Fukuzawa sympathized greatly with them; for example, when Tetcho Suehiro was sentenced to imprisonment, he sent many beers as a get-well gift. This is a well-known example (An Encyclopedia of Yukichi Fukuzawa, "Chronology," p. 1030). And despite these new laws, in reality, many radical political commentary magazines of the shizoku civil rights faction were published from Meiji 8 to the following year (Comprehensive Chronology of Modern Japan, 4th edition, p. 68).

In the background of Fukuzawa writing "Gakusha Anshin-ron" in February Meiji 9 (published in April), there is no doubt that the motivation to see these radical movements and guide them in a desirable direction was at work. Due to time constraints, I will not go into it today, but there were also circumstances such as the weakening influence of Kido and Itagaki within the government and the reformers reaching a deadlock (Itagaki was dismissed as Sangi in October Meiji 8, and Kido resigned as Sangi in March Meiji 9 and moved to the idle post of Cabinet Advisor).

I will move on to the summary and background of "Gakusha Anshin-ron." In this essay, Fukuzawa cites "imbalance of the heart" (the tendency to value only one side of one's feelings) as a tendency that no one can escape. People see the shortcomings of those they interact with directly and fail to see their strengths. Also, they demand little of themselves and much of others. This is a tendency that even "brilliant men" rarely escape, and he enters the main subject by stating that its evils "seem to be very prevalent in the political discourse of our country recently" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 4, p. 216).

According to him, since the opening of the country during the Kaei era, Japan has been a newly built nation, and people seek the cause of this in the single act of the Restoration of Imperial Rule. However, in his view, the government is not the cause of the change in human affairs, but merely the result of the change in the human heart. And while the hearts of the people of the world have moved toward reform, "reform begins at the upstream and reaches the downstream," so those who rejoice in reform are in the upstream, and the downstream has not yet reached it.

Thus, there are two factions in Japan: the reformist and the conservative. And there is no doubt that the government belongs to the "upstream" and is part of the reformist faction. If so, anyone who considers themselves a reformist should share the spirit and direction of the government, advance reforms, and strive to make even the conservatives into reformists. However, in reality, this is not happening. Regarding the cause, Fukuzawa points out that it is because "the people of the reformist stream are unable to control the imbalance of the heart in their respective positions, are blinded by the interests of minor positions and misjudge things, and use their lifelong strength for current gains and losses without considering eternal and grave joys and sorrows" (ibid., p. 217). Then, after stating that he completely agrees with the theory of civil rights, he asserts his own theory.

The essence of it is that, while taking the people's involvement in national politics as a matter of course, he takes the character for "politics" (sei) in its broadest sense and makes it his principle that "the people themselves engage in the governance of their own houses." In other words, just as the old word "kasei" (household management/governance) indicates, he argues that there are elements of "politics" in private-sector businesses as well, and encourages the radicals among the civil rights advocates to seek a field of activity in non-political areas. Therein lay a criticism of the tendency of the radicals to think about things centered on the government's politics and neglect their own—that is, the private—sphere.

What Fukuzawa, who argued this way, feared most was that the reformists in both the private sector and the government would intensify internal conflicts due to the "imbalance of the heart," and in that vortex, the radical private-sector reformers and the conservatives, who are originally two different elements, might "form a temporary embrace." If such a thing were to happen, it is clear that it would hinder reform and lead to a "step backward for civilization" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 4, pp. 222-223). To avoid this, Fukuzawa encouraged the radical private-sector reformers to find a field of activity in areas other than politics and to interact with the government indirectly rather than directly.

It should be noted that Fukuzawa first clearly showed this idea of separating the government and the private sector in Part 4, "Discussing the Duty of Scholars," and Part 5, "Words on January 1, Meiji 7," of Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning) in January Meiji 7. In these, he preached the division of roles between the government and private middle-class scholars in advancing civilization, emphasized the leadership of scholars, and criticized the scholars and gentlemen of the world who "know there is the official but do not know there is the private."

In terms of emphasizing the division of roles between the government and the private sector, "Gakusha Anshin-ron" follows this position from early Meiji 7. As a result, compared to the arguments of Meiji 8 that were pushing for participation in national politics, it was a step backward. On the other hand, while in the "Theory of the Duty of Scholars" two years earlier, he had limited "politics" (sei) to the duty of the government, stating "doing things limited to the meaning of the character sei is the responsibility of the government" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 3, pp. 48-49), in "Gakusha Anshin-ron," the point that the people's businesses are also "politics" in a broad sense has changed significantly. I believe that this logic of encouraging radicals to engage in private business by interpreting the character "sei" broadly had an aspect of being a desperate measure to persuade them.

We have seen the gist of "Gakusha Anshin-ron." What Fukuzawa emphasized there was indirect contact with the government. However, it is none other than "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan" in which that same Fukuzawa, only five months later, raised a concrete theory of direct involvement, albeit in the limited form of local self-government.

As I mentioned earlier, in this essay, Fukuzawa envisioned a way to activate the interest in national affairs (the politics of the state) that the local shizoku had cultivated through long-standing habits by giving them administrative power (chiken), and particularly in the case of the conservatives, to transform and utilize that spirit. In "Gakusha Anshin-ron," Fukuzawa said nothing regarding the form of the government. He merely stopped at emphasizing that since it is a very difficult problem to determine what degree of power is appropriate to give to the people, the government should deliberate over and over again. However, in "On Decentralization of Power, Advocating Less Centralized Government in Japan," he himself shows a concrete theory of the state in the form of local self-government. He must have been quite confident in this; in fact, in a letter at the time, he boasted that it was "intended to be quite a brilliant theory" (Collected Letters of Yukichi Fukuzawa, Vol. 1, p. 351).

The major external factor that brought about this change in Fukuzawa was, needless to say, the shizoku rebellions that occurred one after another in October Meiji 9 (the Shinpūren Rebellion, the Akizuki Rebellion, the Hagi Rebellion, etc.). Looking at Fukuzawa's writings, he had previously been complaining about the spinelessness of the shizoku. In other words, he felt it was pathetic that amidst the trend of enlightenment since the Restoration, the shizoku had lost their pride and were following the fashion submissively ("Why are the Kazoku and Shizoku so submissive after the abolition of clans and establishment of prefectures?" "They are oppressed by the general spirit of the world and can do nothing," Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 19, pp. 533-534, etc.). However, the series of shizoku rebellions that occurred in that context made Fukuzawa re-evaluate the inherent spirit possessed by the shizoku. And he came to think about how to utilize that power for Japan's independence and the promotion of reform.

Theoretically, he used Spencer's theory of the "transformation of force" in First Principles, which he had started reading at the time, and as I mentioned earlier, Tocqueville's theory of the separation of governmental power (seiken) and administrative power (chiken). Regarding the latter, Tokujirō Obata, who was Fukuzawa's most trusted comrade, had read Tocqueville well, and it seems Fukuzawa obtained that knowledge from him at the time. By combining these new theories, he presented the concept of decentralization of power. It had epoch-making significance as the first time Fukuzawa concretely showed a theory of Japan's political system.

As we have seen above, the shifts in Fukuzawa's opinions during the year and a half from mid-Meiji 8 to the end of Meiji 9 were issued as countermeasures against the backdrop of the violent changes in the domestic situation at the time, and were the result of taking in new theories in response to the new situation while building on his previous ideas and showing a new outlook. In that sense, I evaluate this as an internal logical development.

The above is the first issue I wanted to consider in today's lecture. Next, I will move to the second issue of the theory of harmony between government and people. As I introduced earlier, Fukuzawa says its origin was not in Meiji 10 or 15, but before that. I will read that part.

"I recall it was around Meiji 7 or 8, when the late Home Minister Okubo, the current Mr. Hirobumi Ito, and I met somewhere (...) At that time, my theory was that while the government should firmly hold governmental power and be determined enough not to fear the reproach of despotism at times, on the other hand, the opinions of the people must never be slighted, and so on. Also before that, in the early years of Meiji (...) I was invited by Mr. Hisanobu Samejima and visited him, and I was a fellow guest with Home Minister Okubo, and in the talk after the meal among the three of us," Okubo implicitly regarded Fukuzawa as the leader of the civil rights advocates and made critical remarks, so Fukuzawa argued back, saying that there are two types of distinctions in the rights of the people—governmental power and human rights—and since he was unfamiliar with government affairs, the government could do as it pleased with government affairs, but regarding human rights, he would fight to the end without compromise. Then he said, "As the years pass from now on, theories of governmental power will also rise in the world and eventually it may become like a poked beehive; see then," and Fukuzawa writes at the end of the Foreword to the Collected Works of Fukuzawa that he almost made a promise that not only would he not join the bees, but as a steady person, "there may be cases where I am instead relied upon by you all" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 1, pp. 63-64).

From Okubo's diary, it is known that this meeting took place on February 27, Meiji 9 (Masafumi Tomita, "Kōshō Yukichi Fukuzawa," lower volume, p. 449). What I find strange is that Fukuzawa places the meeting of the three—Okubo, Ito, and himself—around Meiji 7 or 8, and furthermore, places the interview with Okubo at the Samejima residence before that, in the early years of Meiji. If this chronological memory is correct, since the interview with Okubo was in February Meiji 9, the meeting of the three including Ito would have to be after that. In other words, it could not have been in Meiji 7 or 8.

In this connection, what we should note is that from the entries in the "Memorandum" Fukuzawa was keeping at the time, it is known that the completion of the manuscript for "Gakusha Anshin-ron" was February 19, Meiji 9 (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 7, p. 664). As I have repeatedly stated, the gist of this work was to appeal to the radical civil rights faction to devote themselves to "their own governance" and be active in the private sector. In other words, since this was telling them to stop attacking the government, there is no doubt it was a theory the government should welcome. And judging from the temporal proximity between the completion of "Gakusha Anshin-ron" on February 19 and the interview with Okubo on the 27th of the same month, it can be estimated that the content of the talk Fukuzawa gave when he met Okubo was likely based on the gist of "Gakusha Anshin-ron."

The story gets complicated again, but what I want to recall here is that the basic idea of "Gakusha Anshin-ron" lay in the theory of the division of roles between the government and private scholars, and furthermore, that Fukuzawa first asserted such a theory in Part 4, "Theory of the Duty of Scholars," of Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning) in January Meiji 7. I speculate that because of this, a confusion of memory occurred in Fukuzawa's head. That is, in reality, Fukuzawa spoke to Okubo using the gist of "Gakusha Anshin-ron" as material. However, the basic idea of that "Gakusha Anshin-ron" was the argument in Part 4 of Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning) from January Meiji 7. Therefore, I believe that as a result of those two being confused in Fukuzawa's head, a lapse of memory occurred that the interview with Okubo was in the early years of Meiji when he was advocating the division of labor between the government and private scholars.

In connection with this point, the question arises as to when the three-way talk involving Ito took place. Fukuzawa's memory says around Meiji 7 or 8, but at that time, Fukuzawa was making arguments in the direction of pushing for the establishment of popular assemblies. Judging from that point, I think Meiji 7 or 8 is not appropriate as a time when Fukuzawa would have encouraged Okubo and others to "not fear the reproach of despotism at times" and to do it resolutely with courage.

From here it becomes a hypothesis, but I estimate that the manuscript titled "The Government Should Take Measures to Win Popular Support" (Fukuzawa Zenshū, Vol. 20, pp. 156-159) by the editor of the Fukuzawa Zenshū (The Collected Works of Fukuzawa) is, judging from its content, a memo Fukuzawa prepared for this three-way meeting with Okubo and Ito. Here, Fukuzawa addresses the person regarded as a government leader and advises that to handle a situation where there is a danger of stubborn shizoku of the conservative faction exploding, it is better to change the method of forcing by unilateral orders and win the popular support of high-class scholar-reformists, and for that, fairness is important.

Fukuzawa says the current Japanese government cannot help but be despotic. However, the government should limit its concentration of power to the three powers of judicial power, military power, and tax collection power. Yet, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Finance, etc., are meddling in too many businesses. Such government-led civilization measures should be stopped, and room for activity should be given to the private sector. Also, among government officials, there are many from the Satsuma and Choshu clans and their hangers-on from the Tosa and Hizen clans, and those from other clans cannot become officials without connections to them. That is increasing the dissatisfaction of the shizoku. Therefore, it is better to examine them well and have incompetent people retire. Doing so would satisfy the sense of fairness of high society and win popular support.

Also, regarding the treatment of conservative shizoku in the Kyushu and Shikoku areas and foreign policy, the government needs to carry out difficult tasks. For that, the best policy is to first let public opinion (that is, magazines, newspapers, and the like) speak freely and make it the backbone of the government's administration. "Yet the current government always directly faces the spearhead of difficult tasks, and instead excludes even the scholars of high society who should be peerless allies, putting them into the enemy's territory; this is truly extremely regrettable" (ibid., pp. 158-159). In conclusion, Fukuzawa asks to "abolish the Press Ordinance and Libel Law, connect the hopes of high society, and indirectly help the government to plan for national security."

The "Gakusha Anshin-ron" I introduced earlier had one main focus in seeking compromise with the government from the private-sector radicals. In that regard, it is natural that dissatisfaction arose among the reformers that Fukuzawa was speaking from the government's side. However, conversely, in this "Measures to Win Popular Support," he criticizes the government-led civilization policy to the government leaders and calls for the abolition of the Libel Law and Press Ordinance. And he advises advancing reform by freeing the speech of newspaper and magazine journalists who are upstream reformers. This is clearly content that seeks concessions from the government.

Moreover, as mentioned before, since this "Measure" says "the other day there was the Edict to Prohibit the Wearing of Swords," we know it was made not long after the edict was issued on March 28. This means it was made at almost the same time as "Gakusha Anshin-ron."

Looking at it this way, "Gakusha Anshin-ron" and the "Measures to Win Popular Support" form a pair, and we can see that Fukuzawa is asking both sides—the private-sector radicals on one hand and the government leaders on the other, both of whom are basically reformers from his perspective yet are in conflict—to deepen their understanding of the other and work together for Japan's civilization and the maintenance of its independence. To the private-sector radicals, he says, "You should do more private-sector work and not concentrate only on criticizing the government." But to the government leaders, he says, "Do not meddle unnecessarily in private-sector work, and abolish the Libel Law and Press Ordinance to free speech and publishing." If so, it is well understood why Fukuzawa, who was putting out the two arguments as a set, would look back at the end of the Foreword to the Collected Works of Fukuzawa and place the origin of the "theory of harmony between government and people" in his meetings with Okubo and Ito.

In today's lecture, I have examined two issues using Fukuzawa's thought formation from mid-Meiji 8 to Meiji 9 as material. Thank you for your attention.

(This manuscript is based on a commemorative lecture given at the 187th Yukichi Fukuzawa Birthday Commemoration Meeting held on January 10, 2022, at the West School Building Hall on the Mita Campus and broadcast simultaneously online.)