Jimmu or Jimbu is the Chinese-style name, or title, of a legendary ruler of ancient Japan who was, according to the Japanese equivalent of pious fundamentalists, the "great-great-great-grandson of the Sun Goddess," and supposed to have ascended the throne of Japan on the eleventh day of the second moon in the year 660 B.C. Obviously a soldier-statesman of no mean prowess, he was able to organize a big force, conquer a large part of ancient Japan, and establish the first monarchy in the island empire. Though precise biographical details are lacking, Japanese tradition does supply a number of geographical and personal names in connection with Jimmu. His grandfather and father both had recognizable names, and the names of their burial places were given. Also known are the names of Jimmu's mother, three brothers, two wives and two sons.
Starting from his base in the south of Kyushu Island, in southern Japan, Jimmu and his followers,· including both men and amazons, fought their way to the plain of Osaka, where he became the first king or emperor of Japan. Part of the time, they traveled by water, part of the time by land; their journey was not an easy and uneventful one. More than once they had to beat a retreat in face of stubborn resistance, to try again after a period of rest and recuperation. Before they reached their destination, Jimmu's oldest brother was hit by an enemy arrow and died subsequently of the wound. Of the four brothers, only Jimmu survived to reach the promised land. But after he got there, he was able to set up a national government and became a successful and beloved ruler. After the end of a long reign he died, but he had won a place of eminence not only in the history, but also in the pantheon of Japan.
On the Chinese side of the story, we have information that is more precise and reliable. Scion of a noble but no longer powerful or wealthy family, Hsu Fu was born about 255 B.C. in the southeastern part of Shantung, in a district called in those days Lang-Ya. In his youth, he witnessed the conquest of China's feudal states by the conqueror-despot Ching Shih Huang Ti (the First Emperor of Ching), and the loss of liberty by the people of conquered regions, of which Lang-Ya was one. Taking advantage of the conqueror's visit to Lang-Ya in 219 B.C., Hsu Fu made an ingenious and attractive proposal to the visiting ruler. He was willing to make an expedition to the Islands of the Immortals in the sea, to seek the Elixir of Life for the emperor.
To the aging conqueror, this was an attractive offer, and he gave orders to outfit an expedition for Hsu Fu, who included in his requirements a troop of several thousand boys and girls as well as a big supply of food and equipment. Nine years after he gaily set sail, Hsu Fu came back with the story that he had no difficulty in finding the Elixir, but there were big fishmonsters in the sea that would not permit him to bring the precious cargo back to China. He therefore asked the Emperor for archers and "repeater-bows" to go with him to cope with the monsters of the sea. In response to his request, Ching Shih Huang Ti gave him necessary equipment to catch or slay these fish monsters, and once more he set sail never to return again. More than fifty years later, a compatriot of Hsu Fu reported that the bold adventurer had found a "fine plain with big lakes in it", settled down and become its king.
Nothing happened to disturb the separate identities of the Japanese emperor and the Chinese adventurer until 1950 when Professor Tingsen S. Wei, a bold but on the whole sound scholar from Free China, published an exciting volume*, in Hongkong on what he called "the true origin of the Japanese monarchy." Emperor Jimmu, he said, was the name given to the empire-builder and adventurer, Hsu Fu, who had come to Japan, established the first monarchy and effectively covered his tracks. The reasons he offered for such an identification included some points of considerable interest.
In the first place, all accounts, both Chinese and Japanese, agree that Hsu Fu and his men were not lost at sea; on the contrary, there are contemporary and subsequent reports that they succeeded in establishing a thriving and growing colony somewhere overseas. Secondly, the mighty Jimmu was not a native Honshu, Shikoku, Kyusha or Hokkaido, the four islands of Japan Proper, but a scion of Heaven or foreigner who came, presumably from Heaven, with followers in large "roofed" junks, who stoutly and successfully maintained that he was a great-great-great-grandson of the Sun Goddess, and who displayed in his exploits a decided superiority in brains as well as in equipment. Thirdly, there was no other place than Japan where Hsu Fu could have found the fine plain and big lakes, that contemporary reports insisted that he found, and there was no other country from which a man like Jimmu could in those days have come than that part of China which produced Hsu Fu. In this connection, it should be pointed out that in any inquiry into the origin of the great man who united ancient Japan and established her first monarchy, we must start from the assumption that he was indeed a man, and not a god or a myth. If we do so start, then the origin of Jimmu the King civilizer, who transformed the neolithic (Kaizuka Bunka) tribes of Japan into a nation of proto-historic metal-using (Kofun Bunka) people using bronze or iron weapons, becomes a sensible or reasonable problem that permits discussion and solution. If he was not a native of Japan, then he must have come from somewhere outside of Japan. T. S. Wei submitted the bold but interesting thesis that in those days, East China was the only place in the Far East capable of producing such a man.
In spite of a wide discrepancy in estimated time, 660 B. C. for the coronation of Jimmu and 255 B. C. for the birth of Hsu Fu, Professor Wei claimed that the two names represent really one and the same person, because the date 660 B. C. was based upon a system of calculation that assigned a life span of from 106 to 168 years to ten out of fourteen legendary kings from Jimmu down. Discarding the padded numbers, and substituting for them a hardheaded average of about thirty years for each generation, he reached the agreeable date of 203 B. C. as the year in which Jimmu ascended the throne—when Hsu Fu was 52 years of age. It must be admitted that this was an arbitrary action, though Wei had given some good reasons for it.
To prove that his identification was a sound one, the ingenious scholar cited a number of points as evidence. Two of the three heirlooms left by Jimmu—a bronze mirror and a rapier—were both Chinese products dating back to Hsu Fu's time and before. In the old graves along the route followed by Jimmu on his Eastward Expedition, and elsewhere, were found ancient Chinese coins, mirrors, rapiers, knives, etc. dating back to the same period. But more important than these was Jimmu's mighty fleet. Primitive Japan of Jimmu's era, Wei pointed out, was not capable of constructing and outfitting the fleet of big junks or ships commanded by Jimmu. Fleets of that kind were, Wei insisted, available in those days only to the people of the East Mediterranean, of the Persian Gulf, and of the east coast of China. They were not available to the Japanese until somebody brought them to Japan from abroad; and that place abroad was more likely to be the East China coast than either the Persian Gulf or the East Mediterranean.
Next to these, Wei pointed out that the political concepts and institutions of Jimmu's time were identical with those of Hsu Fu's homeland. Likewise, the religious and mythological concepts of Jimmu's reign were mostly identical with those of Hsu Fu's home state. One particularly telling piece of evidence came from the official History of Japan, completed in 720 A. D. In reference to a chieftain who surrendered to Jimmu, in the chapter on Emperor Jimmu, an old native was quoted as saying: "To the East there is a fine plain surrounded by green hills. Some of the people there likewise descended in 'celestial' roofed ships." Commenting on the word "likewise" in the quotation, Wei expressed the view that the word was used there because Jimmu himself was a "celestial" visitor who arrived in "celestial-roofed ships," meaning by this big sea-going junks with roofs above, as distinguished from the roofless boats owned by the natives of Japan. If this interpretation is correct and Jimmu was indeed a newcomer from Heaven or abroad, he must have come from a homeland with a higher level of culture, and the east coast of China was the most probable place.
Judging from the remoteness and discrepancy of dates and the lack of precise data, the case of Jimmu and Hsu Fu was obviously a difficult one to prove. But Wei was so sure of his conclusions that he proceeded to write, and publish, ten quatrains to celebrate his discovery and a new biography of Emperor Jimmu to complete the historical record!
The publication of this volume and a supplement in the winter of 1950 created a sensation in Chinese and Japanese scholarly circles. But much to the pained surprise of the enthusiastic scholar, the subsequent reception accorded to it in Free China and Japan has on the whole been unfavorable. Japanese scholars in particular reacted to Wei's thesis with bitterness and even invective—"absurd and baseless," "silly", "mid-summer night's dream," etc. Some of them condemned the suggestion even before they read the book. Outside of Japan, the reaction was less violent. Words of praise and approbation were heard at first, but they were soon drowned out by unfavorable criticism. Some of the critics maintain that Jimmu and Hsu Fu were both products of myth and imagination. Some who accept the existence of Hsu Fu deny that he could have arrived in Japan. Others hold that in the third or second century before Christ, Chinese junks and sailors were unable to reach Japan by sea. Still others attack the credibility of Wei's evidence. To younger Chinese scholars, the absence for several centuries after Jimmu's time of any trace of Chinese culture and Chinese language in Japan seems to be an insuperable obstacle.* Poor Wei was almost snowed under by this avalanche of scepticism, rejection and abuse.
To a careful and impartial observer, however the matter is not so simple. The case of Hsu Fu is indeed a mystery and a most difficult problem, but not a myth. There certainly was a man named Hsu Fu who took an expedition overseas; they certainly were not lost at sea; and they did find a big island domain somewhere. This conclusion is based upon contemporary and subsequent accounts which are sufficiently reliable. Likewise, the legendary Jimmu was neither a myth, nor a native of Japan. The reason for this conclusion lies in the fact that in him we are studying the problem of the first founder of the Japanese monarchy, no matter what his name. It seems reasonably clear that there was such a founder-a man, and he was not a native Japanese, but a scion of the Sun Goddess who arrived at Japan with his followers in sea-going "roofed" junks, vessels considerably larger and more seaworthy than those available to the natives of Japan at that time. The important question is: where did this Imperial Founder come from, and where had the mysterious Hsu Fu gone to?
I am willing to admit that so far Professor T. S. Wei has not presented enough evidence to prove conclusively that Jimmu and Hsu Fu were really one and the same person. They are all circumstantial and indirect evidence. But they are the best that-anyone outside of Japan can find and produce, the case being definitely a most difficult one to prove. However, the circumstances of the case are such as to confer a high degree of probability on the thesis thus advanced by Wei. To the crucial question of where did the one come from and where had the other gone to, there is only one answer that enjoys a high degree of probability. It was quite probable that Jimmu and his men came from the east coast of China; it was quite probable that Hsu Fu and his men landed in Japan. The old grave in Japan attributed to Hsu Fu indicates that at least at one time many people in Japan believed that Hsu Fu and his followers had arrived at Japan. And if the date assigned by T. S. Wei to Jimmu be roughly correct, which it may well be, it was equally probable that these two worthies were one and the same person.
This assertion is made here in spite of the objections that have been raised. And for good reason. One harsh critic, for instance, who recently took Wei to task, said that one important source of contemporary information must be unreliable, because the speaker was "pleading for his life" and therefore apt to be untruthful. The implication is that, since one is "apt to be untruthful," he must forthwith be considered as untruthful. Therefore, his testimony must be ruled out, though there is no evidence to show that on the point under consideration he actually was lying. But as a matter of fact, a "wise pleader" for his life is just as apt to tell the truth, because truth is more convincing and more likely to win the sympathy and good will of the judge and jury. If he is not a fool, he certainly will not fib about subordinate details. And in the case under consideration, the part of the testimony involved deals precisely with a subordinate detail. The writer of a critical review is really sitting in judgment; he must form and express his views as a judge, and not take unfair advantage in argument as a debater. But our mentor-critic lashed out at the absent Professor T. S. Wei as a debater lashing out at an opponent, and not as an impartial judge assessing the merits of an individual case.
Another argument that has repeatedly been hurled against Wei is that it was impossible for Hsu Fu and his fleet to have sailed directly from China to Japan, without following the roundabout coastal route by way of Korea. This was probably true. But the essential thing in Wei's thesis is the suggestion that Hsu Fu and his followers succeeded in reaching Japan and establishing a dynasty there. It is true that in his enthusiasm for what he considered a startling and momentous discovery, he went so far as to claim, rashly if you insist, that Hsu Fu succeeded in sailing straight from Lang-Ya to Japan, and not following the roundabout route via Korea. Thus he gave his critics a chance to jump on him, and they all did, Chinese as well as Japanese critics, throwing epithets like "superficial" "fantastic" absurd", etc., at him like brickbats.
Fortunately like a sagacious campaigner that he is, T. S. Wei has made a strategic retreat and conceded that Hsu Fu's trip might very well have been a roundabout voyage by way of Korea. The result is: his position is very much improved, and no longer so weak, or untenable. True, he had not been able to produce conclusive evidence to show that Hsu Fu and his men had sailed from China to Japan, directly or via Korea. Working outside of Japan, who can? But the evidence he culled from history does prove that in Hsu Fu's time, the east coast of China was in a position to construct and outfit a sea-going fleet that could take Hsu Fu's party to Japan, at least by way of Korea. Judging from the fact that he had no access to materials available only in Japan, but had to rely entirely on the limited facilities of Taiwan and Hongkong, what he did in this connection was the very best that anybody could, or can, do, and we really have no right to blame him for not having accomplished more or done better. It is easy for his critics and tormentors to prove that his evidence is not conclusive. It was not so easy for him to have done as much as he did.
In attacking Wei's theory, Japanese critics have been more abusive than the Chinese. But some of them have occasionally also picked a good argument and presented it with good sense and good temper. In connection with the bronze mirrors, rapiers and coins discovered in Japanese graves, it was pointed out that though they were made at Hsu Fu's time, they could very well have been brought to Japan later, and there is really no evidence to prove that they arrived in Hsu Fu's time. This is of course a good argument, but not damaging enough. T. S. Wei replied that at the same time, there is also no evidence to show that they did not arrive in Hsu Fu's time but arrived later, and that only a study of the circumstances attending the excavations may supply clues to the date of arrival. Pending the completion of such a study, which mayor may not be made soon, there is nothing more that anybody can say on this point at present.
What will be the future of this controversy? Analysis of the problem itself shows the existence of several component questions: (1) What really was the original home of Jimmu? (2) When did he rule Japan? (3) Where had Hsu Fu and his followers actually gone to? (4) Were Jimmu and Hsu Fu really one and the same person? To these questions, satisfactory answers based upon conclusive evidence may, or may not, be found later. The possibility exists that Jimmu did not come from China, though it will be hard to conceive of any other place which could send him to Japan with the kind of fleet he commanded. The possibility also exists that he actually came to Japan scores of years, or may be a century or more, before Hsu Fu's time, though T. S. Wei's calculation of time sounds reasonable and satisfactory enough at this time.
Six years after the controversy began, the problem remains unsettled. Where did his Imperial Majesty come from? From China or from Heaven? In spite of the objections so far raised in the acrimonious debate, the thesis advanced by Professor T. S. Wei that Jimmu came originally from China and his original name was Hsu Fu, remains one with a high degree of probability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
*T. S. Wei, Jimbu Kaikoku Shinko, Hongkong, 1950
*This is an objection that T. S. Wei had anticipated. He thought that Hsu Fu was anxious to cover his track, and had done a thorough job.