The Japanese have two words in frequent use which aptly describe certain striking aspects of their civilization.  They are “tomawashi ni,” “yumei-mujitsu,” the first translated literally signifying “roundabout” or “indirect,” the second meaning “having the name, but not the reality.”  Both these aspects of Japanese character are forced on the attention of any who live long in Japan.

Some years ago I had a cow that I wished to sell.  Being an American, my natural impulse was to ask a dairyman directly if he did not wish to buy; but that would not be the most Japanese method.  I accordingly resorted to the help of a “go-between.”  This individual, who has a regular name in Japanese, “nakadachi,” is indispensable for many purposes.  When land was being bought for missionary residences in Kumamoto, there were at times three or even four agents acting between the purchaser and the seller and each received his “orei,” “honorable politeness,” or, in plain English, commission.  In the purchase of two or three acres of land, dealings were carried on with some fifteen or more separate landowners.  Three different go-betweens dealt directly with the purchaser, and each of these had his go-between, and in some cases these latter had theirs, before the landowner was reached.  A domestic desiring to leave my employ conferred with a go-between, who conferred with his go-between, who conferred with me!  In every important consultation a go-between seems essential in Japan.  That vexatious delays and misunderstandings are frequent may be assumed.

The system, however, has its advantages.  In case of disagreeable matters the go-between can say the disagreeable things in the third person, reducing the unpleasant utterances to a minimum.

I recall the case of two evangelists in the employ of the Kumamoto station.  Each secured the other to act as go-between in presenting his own difficulties to me.  To an American the natural course would have been for each man to state his own grievances and desires, and secure an immediate settlement.

The characteristic of “roundaboutness” is not, however, confined to Japanese methods of action, but also characterizes their methods of speech.  In later chapters on the alleged Japanese impersonality we shall consider the remarkable deficiency of personal pronouns in the language, and the wide use of “honorifics.”  This substitution of the personal pronouns by honorifics makes possible an indefiniteness of speech that is exceedingly difficult for an Anglo-Saxon to appreciate.  Fancy the amount of implication in the statement, “Ikenai koto-we shimashita” which, strictly translated, means “Can’t go thing have done.”  Who has done? you? or he? or I?  This can only be inferred, for it is not stated.  If a speaker wishes to make his personal allusion blind, he can always do so with the greatest ease and without the slightest degree of grammatical incorrectness.  “Caught cold,” “better ask,”