Fraternity’s Journey: From the West to China via Meiji Japan’s Bo’ai

Fraternity’s Journey: From the West to China via Meiji Japan’s Bo’ai

The comparison between the Confucian term of Ren and the Western virtue “fraternity”, has been a frequent topic discussed by scholars of Chinese philosophy in recent years, especially in the mainland of China. The relevance between the two can be found in Han Yu’s (韩愈, 768-824) work, serving as the foundation of this comparison. In his famous article “The origin of Dao” (原道, yuandao), Han used the phrase “fraternity (博愛, bo’ai) is called benevolence (仁, ren)”, explaining “benevolence” with “fraternity”. Also, the existing writings regarding ren and fraternity among Chinese scholars seem to be invariably a comparison between purely discursive ideas, which can be reasoned from the Confucianism context of ren. Since ren is the most representative concept or idea of Confucianism, the general understanding of ren is to a large extent based on Mencius (372-289 BC), and is somewhat cloaked in the extreme conceptualisation and abstraction of Neo-Confucianism.

Though “fraternity” is generally understood as a Christian virtue in modern China, especially post-1900, insights from the French Revolution and its emblematic motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” found their way into China largely through translations of Japanese literature. Notably, the conflation of the concept of Fraternité arising post-French Revolution with the philanthropic ethos of Christianity seems to have solidified into an inadvertent “tradition” among Chinese scholars, tracing back from the Republican era to contemporary times. Such approach can be intelligible, as France is indeed historically known as the eldest daughter of the Church (French: Fille aîné de l'église) and it is true that Fraternité, the motto of the French Republic, does not exclude the Christian fraternity; nonetheless, simply equating them remains problematic.

Instead of adapting the usual paradigm, if we approach the topic of ren and fraternity from the translation and introduction of Fraternité into China, we will notice the important role that Japan played in this topic, which was ignored in previous research. It is worth to mention that most of the abstract terms in modern Chinese language, such as “state” (國家, guojia), “nation” (民族, minzu), “freedom”(自由, ziyou) and “society”(社會, shehui), was actually brought from Japan as a “reverse importation”.

At the time, the Japanese Meiji government funded intellectuals to study in Europe and the United States. Besides the science and technology they expected abroad, many of them, represented by the famous Fukuzawa Yukichi (福沢諭吉, 1835-1901), were fueled with institutional, cultural and political ideas and insights during the journey, which had a crucial impact on Japanese modernisation, and even wider in east Asia.

During the Meiji era, Japan rapidly imported and integrated a multitude of doctrines and theories from Europe and the United States, more so than any previous time. One might reasonably expect that the maxim of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, emblematic of France’s highest values, would also have garnered significant attention from Japanese intellectuals. However, surprisingly, this was not the case. 

In the Meiji Japan, akin to the situation during the French Revolution, intellectuals were primarily drawn to the concepts of “Freedom” and “Equality”. The term Fraternité was scarcely mentioned until around 1900, based on my examination of modern Japanese literature and newspaper databases. Furthermore, there was no unanimous agreement for quite some time on how to best translate the term into Japanese. Some modern Japanese scholars have identified two primary translations prevalent at the time: “友愛” (ゆうあい, meaning friendship) and “博愛” (はくあい, signifying benevolence or philanthropy). Yet, other translations emerged from my findings, such as “同胞” (どうほう, denoting compatriot). 

One of the earliest Japanese translations of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” appears in the book “The Outline of the History of Nations” (万国史綱, 1893) penned by Motora Yujiro (元良勇次郎, 1858-1912) and Ienaga Toyokichi (家永豊吉, 1862-1936). The authors describe the French Revolution as an event wherein the French, rallying behind the call for liberty, equality, and compatriotism (同胞), shattered the monarch’s repression and the aristocracy’s privileges. When Shao Xiyong (邵希雍,?-?) translated this book into Chinese in 1903, he expressed the sentiment: “The French populace holds faith in freedom, equality, and compatriotry 同胞”. However, during the period between 1895 to 1910, a crucial phase when China extensively introduced and imported Western academic theories from Japan, the most predominant translation of fraternity was undoubtedly “博愛”.

On 14 May 1900, the socialist and anarchist Kotoku Shusui (幸徳秋水, 1871-1911) published an article in the Mancyo Gazette (萬朝報) decrying the state of Japan, which should have been advancing towards the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity (“博愛”) but was instead devolving into despotism, class polarisation, and selfishness. This work was translated and introduced to China in 1903. Another voice, the esteemed literary critic and thinker Takayama Chogyu (高山樗牛, 1871-1902), in his work from June 1900, praised the French Revolution for successfully embedding the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity (“博愛”) deeply into the European psyche. This book was also translated into Chinese and published in 1902 by Kaiming Publication. In contrast, references to “友愛” (ゆうあい ,friendship) were sparse before the 1910s.

The two primary questions that arise next are: firstly, what was the fundamental understanding of fraternity(博愛) in Japan during the Meiji era? Secondly, how did Japanese scholars interpret Fraternité when they decided on its translation as “博愛”? On the first point, regrettably, I’ve not identified any prior research by Japanese experts. Another commonly utilised research tool, referring to dictionaries from that period, also offers little insight: Ōtsuki Fumihiko’s 大槻文彦 (1847-1928) independently published The Sea of Language: Japanese Dictionary (言海: 日本辞書, 1889-1891) listed the term “博愛”, briefly defining it as “to love the livings widely”. However, Ochiai Naobumi’s 落合直文,1861-1903) Japanese Dictionary (国書辞典, 1907) from the late Meiji era, did not feature any entries related to “博愛” or “友愛”. This suggests that “博愛” was not a prevalent term in Japanese society at the time.

Thus, we resort to the National Diet Library of Japan (国立国会図書館), the primary system for modern historical material searches, from which we infer that during the Meiji period in Japan, the term fraternity(博愛) encompassed a vast and somewhat ambiguous array of meanings:

1. Within the confines of Confucianism and even secular morality, it implied “restraining one’s selfish desires and caring for others.” For instance, the 1889 Guide Book of Moral Cultivation in Normal Elementary School (尋常小学修身科教授書) highlighted fraternity(博愛), using an anecdote of an ancient Roman general sharing water with his troops while crossing a desert, depicting it as an act of “deep benevolence and love, capable of suppressing one’s selfish desires”.

2. Fraternity(博愛) also alluded to Buddhist and Christian virtues; however, this perspective is not the focus of our current discussion.

3. In the modern context of charity and mutual aid organisation and advocacy, a notable example is Sano Tsunetami’s (佐野常民, 1823-1902) Hakuaisya (博愛社,the community of fraternity). Established during the Japanese Civil War in 1877, the organisation is the predecessor of the Japanese Red Cross Society.

It is also vital to note that these interpretations are not strictly distinct. For instance, fraternity(博愛) in a religious context closely aligns with Confucian morality on an individual level, whereas its altruistic and societal connotations directly associate with philanthropy and charitable endeavours.

Moving on to the second question. Neither Kotoku Shusui nor Takayama Chogyu had the experience of studying in France or learning the French language. Consequently, their understanding of Fraternité was not derived directly from a “translational” perspective but was likely influenced by translations provided by their predecessors.

Kotoku Shusui employed the term “博愛” in several commentaries in 1900, offering a glimpse into his interpretation of the concept. He stated, “For those in search of literature that is majestic, profound, heroic, and melancholic, I offer this piece of advice: one shouldn’t seek it in the eulogies of war. Why not turn to the Bible or the Lotus Sutra (法華経)? These two texts, with peace as their core and fraternity (博愛) as their essence, provide what’s sought”. He continued, “In the tenets of moral cultivation, how can one overlook the principle of fraternity (博愛)? The love one possesses should be extended to others; this isn’t a doctrine of self-interest... Thus, teachings of independence and self-respect must go hand in hand with virtues of harmony and equality; the notion of self-love must intertwine with the heart of fraternity (博愛)”. This indicates that Kotoku Shusui’s understanding of fraternity(博愛) still closely aligns with its traditional moral and ethical implications.

Additionally, since Fraternité is a foreign term, referring to foreign language dictionaries of that era should be a viable method to determine its translation equivalent. Regrettably, the most authoritative French-Japanese dictionary from the Meiji period, The French-Japanese Dictionary (仏和辞書) compiled by Nakamura Shusui (中村秀穗,?-?) in 1886, remains inaccessible to the author. Hence, we turn to the English-Japanese dictionary for guidance.

Arai Ikunosuke’s (荒井郁之助,1836-1909) The English-Japanese Translation Dictionary (英和対訳辞書) from 1872 includes the term “fraternity”, defining it as a “relationship of brotherhood; companionship” (兄弟の因み; 仲間). Furthermore, early in the Meiji era, the Japanese adopted the An English and Chinese Dictionary (1866, 1869) written by missionary W. Lobscheid for the Chinese. This was later revised by Inoue Tetsujiro (井上哲次郎, 1856-1944) and published in 1884 as Revised and Enlarged English-Chinese Dictionary (英華字典 訂増). Here, the term “fraternity” is described as “n. brotherhood”, with the Chinese translation being akin to “brotherly relationship, brotherhood, cronyism” . A review of this dictionary indicates that Inoue Tetsujiro made no alterations to the original Kanji characters. While we cannot ascertain his comprehension of “fraternity” from this alone, references to “博愛” in Inoue’s writings emerge post-1890. For instance, in 1897, when he collaborated with Takayama Chogyu on the Textbook of Ethics: A New Edition (倫理教科書: 新編) Volume III, “Social Virtues” (社會公徳), the opening section titled “Fraternity and Public Welfare” posits, “Fraternity (博愛) and charity (仁慈) are the noblest moral virtues on earth.” This is further elaborated as fraternity(博愛), succinctly put, means to forgo one’s interests for the benefit of others without any expectation of return.” He also underscores that there’s a hierarchy to fraternity(博愛), emphasising that “The principle of fraternity should not lack structure. Prioritising others’ families over one’s own or placing foreigners above one’s compatriots does not abide by this principle.”

In 1902, within The Textbook on the Cultivation of Moral Integrity in Secondary Schools, Inoue Tetsujiro revisits similar themes in the twelfth section of the fourth chapter titled “Insights on the Cultivation of Virtue”. Discussing fraternity(博愛), he concludes by referencing The Imperial Rescript, stating that its proclamation to “extend your benevolence to all” embodies this philosophy. The Imperial Rescript referred to here is the famous “Imperial Rescript on Education” (教育ニ関スル勅語) issued by Emperor Meiji in 1890, which states:

Know ye, Our subjects:

Our Imperial Ancestors have founded Our Empire on a basis broad and everlasting and have deeply and firmly implanted virtue......Ye, Our subjects, be filial to your parents, affectionate to your brothers and sisters; as husbands and wives be harmonious; as friends true; bear yourselves in modesty and moderation; extend your benevolence to all.

It is noticable that Emperor Meiji’s teaching on human relations has an obvious association with the order “Placards of People’s Instructions” (教民榜文,Jiaomin bangwen), which was promulgated by Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋, 1328-1398), the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty of China. Issued in 1388, the order consists of forty-one articles, and the nineteenth of which reads:

In each village and li a bell with a wooden clapper shall be prepared......Let them shout loudly so that everyone can hear, urging people to do good and not violate the law. Their message is: “Be filial to your parents, respect superiors, maintain harmony with neighbors, instruct and discipline sons and grandsons, live and work in peace and contentment, do no wrongful acts.”

The six phrases to say on the road was named “Six Decrees of the Sacred Edit” (圣谕六言, shengyu liuyan). In the mid to late Ming Dynasty, it was widely quoted during the preaching of the township rules (乡约, xiangyue), and were widely disseminated among the people.

Instead of fading out with the Ming regime, the impact of “Sacred Edit” even expanded under the ruling of a Manchu-led government. Under the Qing Dynasty, emperors beginning with the Shunzhi Emperor embraced and further extended the practice of direct monarch-to-people instruction. Notably, in 1679, Emperor Kangxi issued the Sixteen Decrees of the Sacred Edict (聖諭十六條), and in 1724, Emperor Yongzheng completed the Extended Instructions of the Sacred Edict (聖諭廣訓). The Exposition of the Six Decrees (六諭衍義), a commentary written during the transition from the Ming to the Qing dynasty to elucidate the Six Decrees of the Sacred Edict, was later introduced to Japan, where it exerted a profound influence.

Regarding the history above, it is also easy to recognise that the content of “Imperial Rescript on Education” was influenced by Confucianism and the piled texts of “Six Decrees of the Sacred Edit”, which were continuously amended and used by the govenors to educate people to be rulable.

With a brief understanding of the human relation discourse, as well as its position in the Confucian texts both in China and Japan, which has always been political, let us get back again to “Imperial Rescript on Education”. After the traditional teaching on human relations, the phrase “extend your benevolence to all” (博愛衆ニ及ホシ) emerged, in which we can find “博愛” and ren connect. In the French version translated at the time, the corresponding phrase of “博愛衆ニ及ホシ” was “étendez votre bienveillance à tous”, identical to the English version. Bienveillance, and its English equivalent “benevolence”, are precisely the words that are generally used today in translation of the Confucian term ren.

In addition to the basic meaning of “disposition to do good”, “benevolence” has a broader interpretation of “kindness”. Then, when the Meiji officials were writing an imperial textbook, thinking about educating their people of “national morality”, what did they mean by “extend your benevolence to all” ? Clues might be found in relevant texts of that time. Since “Imperial Rescript on Education” was too brief and incomprehensible, especially for young children, instruction books were published, for educators to explain in detail. In an edition of Elementary School Instructions (小学校訓示教案) published in 1909, it provided an example for “benevolence”: “The Rescript includes the phrase ‘extend your benevolence to all’, which means to love (可愛がる) many things. There is an old saying: ‘of all creatures man is the most highly endowed’, which means that of all living things, humans are the greatest. ” The third section of this textbook, entitled “The Order of Benevolence”, explains the certain sequence of practising benevolence. Firstly, parents, brothers and sisters, secondly, the family servants, then friends and neighbours, then people in one’s own village or town, then people in the whole Japan, then foreigners, then birds, animals and plants.

It is noticeable how this part is related to Confucianism. The quote “of all creatures man is the most highly endowed” is a classical Confucian saying from the chapter “Tài shì” in the Book of Documents (尚书・泰誓篇). The order of benevolence described above is a diagram expanding outward, which is consistent with the model in The Great Learning (大学). According to Neo-Confucianism, “regulating one’s family, governing one’s state, making the whole world tranquil and happy” is also a social relation model of concentric circles. The relation between this Meiji Japanese textbook and the Chinese Confucian classics is not surprising. The Mitogaku (水戸学), serving as part of the intellectual foundation in the “national state” in modern Japan, originated from the Japanese Zhuzi school, which was named after the famous Confucian scholar Chu Tsi. “Imperial Rescript of Education” is no exception; its compilation, according to the studies of Japanese scholars, has a close affiliation with Zhuzi school and Mitogaku.

Based on the search results from 1890 to 1945 from the National Diet Library of Japan, it is clear that references to fraternity(博愛) saw a significant increase after 1890. However, the depth of content concerning this topic appears quite limited. At least 90% of these references fall under the categories of “moral cultivation” (修身) and “national morality” (国民道徳), elaborating on the concept of “extending one’s benevolence to all” as found in the Imperial Rescript on Education. Intriguingly, even Buddhism, which in China has historically been seen as advocating “Defiance of Father, Defiance of Monarch” (a view primarily held from the Confucian perspective), has seen numerous publications with titles like Buddhist Moral Conversation: Nation’s Education (仏教道徳談: 国民教育) from 1903, suggesting content that promotes the alignment of Buddhist teachings with the shaping of national morality. This highlights the pronounced political and societal influence of the Imperial Rescript on Education. Meanwhile, the doctrine of fraternity, as associated with the French Revolution, is almost entirely absent in these materials.

In the aftermath of China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese naval battle of 1895, how did China, which was keen on learning from and emulating Japan, understand Fraternité? We’ll explore this question in the same manner as before, examining how Fraternité was translated and introduced to China and how fraternity(博愛)  was understood and discussed during that time.

Chen Qiwei, in his paper titled “The Significance of the French Revolutionary Slogan ‘Fraternity’”, analysed various Chinese translations of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” from the late Qing Dynasty. He identified four translations for Fraternité: “同胞” (compatriot), “兄弟” (brotherhood), “博愛” (benevolence), and “友愛” (friendship). Specifically referencing the term “brotherhood”, a 1910 article by Hou Sheng (候聲) titled “On Fraternalism” described the three main tenets of the French Revolution as “equality, liberty, and brotherhood”. Though it remains unclear why Hou Sheng translated Fraternité as “brotherhood”, the article seems to interpret Fraternité through the lens of the traditional Chinese understanding of broad love.

The remaining translations of Fraternité were almost influenced by Japanese scholarship. Renowned Japanese thinkers like Kotoku Shusui and Takayama Chogyu, familiar to Chinese intellectuals like Liang Qichao, undoubtedly shaped China’s comprehension of the French Revolution. Their writings emphasised the motto of “liberty, equality, and fraternity”, which resonated in China.

In addition, as Chen Qiwei points out, both Kang Youwei (康有為, 1858-1927) and Sun Yat-sen (孫中山, 1866-1925) further popularised the French Republic’s motto in China. In his 1905 work “Travels in France”, Kang Youwei vehemently criticised the French Revolution, stating: “The political theory of the revolutionaries is very brilliant, unveiling fraternity as their name; while the policy of their revolutionaries is nothing else but to guillotine the opponents in reality.” He also remarked, “At the time of the Terror, there were more than 300,000 prisoners in the country, but more than 8,000 in Paris... The most perverse thing is that one who daily unveils the emblems of fraternity, liberty, and equality, and who, in the name of fraternity, creates massacres”. For Kang Youwei, Louis XVI was a “most benevolent” monarch, and the Jacobins’ invocation of fraternity (博愛) was a mere rhetoric for mass violence.

As for Sun Yat-sen, it would take up too much space here to discuss his idea of fraternity (博愛). In the meanwhile, it is worth noting his 1905 “Manifesto of the United League”, where he repeatedly emphasised the “spirit of liberty, equality, and fraternity”. This became a cornerstone reference for subsequent revolutionaries and advocates of democratic reform. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the French Revolution among these revolutionaries may be debatable. An article in 1912 titled “Refuting the Constitutional Monarchy of Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao (Recorded Draft)” began with the assertion that a republic hinges on the three principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, the subsequent examples of the sage-king of ancient times suggest a continued adherence to Confucian ideals, illustrating that the Chinese conceptualisation of fraternity(博愛) may not have been deeply influenced by French theories or experiences.

Secondly, concerning the interpretation of fraternity(博愛) during the late Qing Dynasty and early Republican era, its meaning bears similarity to its counterpart in Japan. It can largely be categorised into three realms: Confucianism, Buddhism/Christianity, and charity combined with mutual aid. Notably, these realms might not always be distinctly delineated from one another. Modern Confucian scholars tend to interpret ren and Fraternité through a “Confucian-Christian Comparative” lens. In fact, this approach was already prevalent among intellectuals of the Republican era. For instance, Ke Minyi (柯閩義) wrote in “Confucianism, the Great Epitomiser of All Teachings” (1913): the Christian virtue of fraternity (博愛) resonates with the Confucian teaching in The Analects of “overflow in love to all” (汎愛眾, fan’aizhong). However, it risks the problem of “love all without difference of degree” (愛無差等), potentially giving rise to socialist ideologies. Critiquing Christianity for its “indiscriminate love” is evidently an extension of Mencius’ two-millennium-old critique of Mohism for its “love without distinction” and his promotion of Confucianism as “love with distinction.”

Another illustrative example is Liang Qichao, a disciple of Kang Youwei and arguably the most influential figure in modern Chinese history. In his treatise The Doctrine of New Citizens, he posited: “Is not the so-called fraternalism (博愛主義) and cosmopolitanism (世界主義) the epitome of supreme virtue and profound benevolence? Yet, can we realistically expect these doctrines to transition from idealistic realms to tangible reality? Such a reality may still be tens of thousands of years away”. Here, the notions of “fraternalism” (博愛主義) or “cosmopolitanism” (世界主義) are undeniably derived from the Confucian concept of “Universal Harmony” (大同, datong). These are juxtaposed with the understanding of state relations within the framework of the international law, as recognised by the Chinese in the late Qing era—a system crafted and upheld by Europeans. Liang Qichao perceived such global aspirations, such as the eventual abandonment of national or ethnic constructs in favour of a unified human family, as lofty ideals far removed from practicality. Evidently, in this context, fraternity(博愛) has no direct linkage to the French Revolution, either.

Upon reviewing the introduction of the French Revolution’s republican ideals—Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité—into Japan and China during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we can discern several salient conclusions: Firstly, the commonalities in the Japanese and Chinese experience: Notably, in both nations, the concept of Fraternité was often sidestepped by intellectuals until the dawn of the 20th century. When translations of Fraternité did emerge, the term “博愛” (bo’ai, translating to ‘universal love’ or ‘broad love’) became the predominant choice in most Japanese literature of that era, a trend China subsequently mirrored. In the contexts of Meiji Japan and China during the transition from the Qing Dynasty to the Republic, fraternity(博愛) was imbued with layers of meaning: traditional Confucian ethics, Buddhist/Christian religious tenets, and principles of charity and mutual aid. These layers often interwove and overlapped. Given the limited historical and cultural knowledge about the French Revolution and Fraternité among scholars of the time, the term was often either cursorily mentioned or interpreted through a lens of morality and idealism.

Secondly, the contrasts between Japan and China’s reception: Japan’s increasing introspection about Europeanisation from the 1880s, coupled with Emperor Meiji’s issuance of the Imperial Rescript on Education in 1890, led to a pronounced spike in references to fraternity(博愛). However, its interpretation leaned heavily towards “extending benevolence to all,” as advocated in the Imperial Edict—a blend of traditional Confucian ethos and a nationalism centred around the Emperor. In contrast, China lacked a directly analogous historical juncture. While fraternity(博愛) in China evaded being co-opted as an ideological instrument, its understanding largely remained ensconced within the frameworks of traditional Chinese thought. The term either signified religious “compassion towards others”—often critiqued within Confucian circles—or represented a utopian “universal harmony” in socio-political contexts. Although the French Revolution, buoyed by proponents like Sun Yat-sen, enjoyed more influence in China than in contemporaneous Japan, the revolutionary French ideals and their history did not significantly resonate with the people of that era. This nuanced reception and understanding form the primary motivation behind this article’s exploration.