SECTION II.
ORIGIN OF THE JAPANESE PEOPLE.
A n opinion lias been expressed by several writers tbat Japan was
colonized by tbe Chinese. Such an opinion, founded on very superficial
observation, was advanced long before comparative philology had been
resorted to by the learned, as one of the safest and best tests of truth in
tracing the relationship of nations. But since the application of this test,
no one, competent to speak instructively on the subject, has ventured to
deduce the Japanese from a Chinese origin. The structure of the languages
of the two people is essentially different. I t is true that certain Chinese
words, the names of objects, introduced by the Chinese, may be heard from
the lips of a Japanese, modified however in the pronunciationjf it is also true
that the Chinese dialect of the Mandarins forms a species of universal
language among the learned, a sort of latin in the extreme east that is
understood by the highly educated, not only in China, but in Corea, at
Tonquin, and other parts, and also in Japan 5 but so little is the affinity
between the primitive language of Japan and that of China, that the
common people of the two countries, neighbors as they are, cannot understand
each other without the aid of an interpreter.
Probably those Europeans who too hastily adopted in former times the
conclusion of a Chinese origin for the Japanese, may, in their ignorance of
the languages, have been misled by observing among the Japanese the
occasional use of the idiographic cypher of the Chinese in some of the
Japanese writings. I t was introduced into Japan A. D, 290, but the Japanese
have an alphabet, or rather a syllabarium of their own, constructed on
a principle entirely different from the Chinese idiograph. Each of these
Chinese characters is in Japan pronounced in two distinct manners. The
one, as among the Chinese with a slight variation in the Japanese, pronunciation.
This idiom is called Koye, which means simply “ a Chinese sound
or word ; n the other mode of pronouncing is J apanese, and is called Tomi,
which signifies “ interpretation f ” the meaning o f the Koye word. An example
will illustrate. The words (according to J apanese pronunciation) tin,
chi, nin, all Chinese, are Koye, and mean repectively heaven, earth, man :
the words ame, tsoutsi, fito, are the Yomi (pure Japanese) of those Koye
words, and have, in the proper language of Japan, the same meaning as the
three Chinese words above named.
Hence, among the Japanese, there are three dialects; the first is pure
Yomi, without any admixture of the Koye. This is the primitive language
of the country, and is at this day used in poetry and works of light literature.
The second is pure Koye, and is employed by the bonzes in their religious
books.
The third is a mixture of the two, and constitutes the common language
of the Empire.
But the construction of sentences in the Chinese and Japanese, as to the
collocation of words,, is entirely different, as is also the pronunciation by a
Chinaman and a native of Japan.. That of the last is neat, articulate, distinct,
and rarely is there heard a syllable composed of more than two or
three letters of our alphabet; while the speech of the former is little better
than a confused sing-song monotone, unpleasant to the ear, in which constantly
occurs a disagreeable crowding together of consonants. I f an
analysis of the sounds of our letters be made, a Chinese pronounces our
aspirate H very plainly, while a J apanese never sounds it, but invariably
substitutes for it E ; while, on the other hand, our R and D, which are
sounded by a Japanese with a distinctness equal to our own, always become
L in the mouth of the Chinese. But without dwelling longer on this point,
it is sufficient to say that an examination of grammatical structure conclusively
settles, on the testimony of language,, that the original inhabitants
of Japan were not Chinese.
But the question still remains to be answered, 11 whence came the primitive
occupants of Japan ? ” On this subject a diversity of opinion is to be
found. Ksempfer brings them from the plains of Shinar, at the dispersion.
He supposes them to have passed from Mesopotamia to the shores -of the
Caspian, thence through the valleys of the Yenisi, Silinga, and parallel
rivers to the lake of Argueen; then following the river of that name, which
arises from the lake, he thinks they reached the Amoor, following the valley*
of which they would find themselves in the then uninhabited peninsula of
Corea, on the eastern shore of Asia. The passage thence to Japan, especially
in the summer season, would not be difficult. He supposes that this
migration occupied a long time; that they stopped when they found a
pleasant region, and then resumed their march when they were pressed on
their rear, or annoyed by other nomadic tribes. I t was easy for them to
make a home wherever they could find water and pasture for their flocks and
herds. From the purity of the primitive language of J apan, (the intermixture
of Chinese words is within the historic period and easily accounted for,)
he supposes that the original stock could not, in its migration, have remained
very long in any one inhabited place, or mingled much with any people then
existing, of whose language we at this day have any knowledge; otherwise
words from such language would have been found incorporated in the primitive
Japanese tongue.
This, if not satisfactory, is at least ingenious. Modern ethnologists,
however, turn to language as the best evidence of origin. Dr. Pickering, of
the United States exploring expedition, seems disposed, from an observation