Japan by the Japanese/Chapter 14.2

In Europe and America ancestor-worship has long ceased to exist, even if it was ever practised. In Japan—where at the present time a Constitutional Government is established; where codes of laws modelled upon those of Western countries are in operation; where, in short, almost every art of civilization has taken firm root—the worship of deceased ancestors still obtains, and exercises a powerful influence over the laws and customs of the people. The practice dates back to the earliest days, and has survived through hundreds of generations, in spite of the many political and social revolutions which have taken place since the foundation of the empire. The introduction of Chinese civilization into the country was favourable to the growth of this custom, by reason of the fact that the morality, laws, and institutions of China are also based upon the doctrine of ancestor-worship. Buddhism, which is not based upon this doctrine, but is, on the contrary, antagonistic to it, was compelled to yield to the deep-rooted belief of the people, and adapt itself to the national practice; while the introduction of Western civilization, which brought so many social and political changes during the last thirty years, has had no influence whatever in the direction of modifying the custom. Thus, it will be seen that the three foreign elements—Confucianism, Buddhism, and Western civilization—all of which have had immense influence upon our laws, manners, and customs, and two of which were diametrically opposed to ancestor-worship, could not make way against, nor put an end to, the widespread and persistent faith of the people.

The origin of ancestor-worship has been ascribed by many eminent writers to the dread of ghosts (Sir John Lubbock’s ‘Origin of Civilization,’ 4th edition, p. 318; Jhering’s ‘Vorgeschichte der Indoeuropaer,’ S. 59; Fustel de Coulange’s ‘La Cité Antique,’ chap. ii.), and the sacrifices made to the souls of ancestors for the purpose of propitiating them. It appears to me more correct to attribute the origin of ​ancestor-worship to a contrary cause. It was the love of ancestors, not the dread of them, which gave rise to the custom of worshipping and making offerings of food and drink to their spirits. Respect for their parents may in some cases have become akin to awe; yet it was love, not dread, which caused this feeling. A Chinese philosopher, Shiu-ki, accurately summarizes the origin of ancestor-worship when he says, in his ‘Book of House Ceremonies,’ that ‘the object of worship is nothing less than performing all that is directed by a feeling of true love and respect.’ Confucius says, in the ‘Book of Medium,’ that ‘it is the highest filial piety to serve the dead as they would serve the living, and to serve the departed as they would serve the present.’ We celebrate the anniversary of our ancestors, pay visits to their graves, offer flowers, food, and drink, burn incense, and bow before their tombs, entirely from a feeling of love and a respect for their memory, and no question of ‘dread’ enters our minds in doing so. Moreover, in the records and traditions of our country there is nothing that suggests that ancestors were worshipped with a view of propitiating their souls.

Ancestor-worship was the primeval religion of Japan from the earliest times of our history, which dates back more than 2,500 years, and it is universally practised by the people at the present moment.

There are three kinds of ancestor-worship in vogue: the worship of the First Imperial Ancestor by all the people; the worship of the patron god of the locality, which, as will be shown later, is the remains of the worship of clan-ancestors by clansmen; and the worship of the family ancestors by the members of that household.

There are two sacred places in every Japanese house: the Kamidana, or ‘god-shelf’; and the Butsudan, or the ‘Buddhist altar.’ The first-named is the Shinto altar, which is a plain wooden shelf. In the centre of this sacred shelf is placed a Taima or O-nusa, ‘great offering,’ which is part of the offerings made to the Daijingu of Ise, or temple dedicated to Amaterasu Omi-Kami, the First Imperial Ancestor. The Taima is distributed from the Temple of Ise to every house in the empire at the end of each year, and is worshipped by every loyal Japanese as the representation of the First Imperial Ancestor. On this altar the offerings of rice, saké, and branches of sakaki-tree (Cleyera japonica) are usually placed; and every morning the members of the household make reverential obeisance before it by clapping hands and bowing, while in the evening lights are also placed on the shelf. On this shelf is placed, in addition, the charm of Ujigami, or the local tutelary god of the family, and in many houses the charms of the other Shinto deities also.

​In the Shinto household there is a second god-shelf, or Kamidana, which is dedicated exclusively to the worship of the ancestors of the house. On this second shelf are placed cenotaphs, bearing the names of the ancestors, their ages, and the dates of their deaths. These memorial tablets are called ‘Mitama-shiro,’ which means ‘representatives of souls,’ and they are usually placed in small boxes shaped like Shinto shrines. Offerings of rice, saké, fish, sakaki-tree, and lamps, are made on this second shelf, as on the first.

In the Buddhist household there is, in addition to the Kamidana, a Butsudan, on which are placed cenotaphs bearing on the front posthumous Buddhist names, and on the back the names used by the ancestors during their lifetime. The cenotaph is usually lacquered, and is sometimes placed in a box called ‘Zushi,’ while family crests are often painted both on the tablet and on the box. Offerings of flowers, branches of shikimi-tree (Illicium religiosum), tea, rice, and other vegetable foods, are usually placed before the cenotaphs, while incense is continually burnt, and in the evening small lamps are lighted. The Butsudan take the place of the second god-shelf of the Shinto household, both being dedicated to the worship of family ancestors.

Of these three kinds of ancestor-worship, the worship of the Imperial ancestors, and especially of the first of them, Amaterasu Omi-Kami, or ‘the great Goddess of Celestial Light,’ may be styled the national worship. The places set apart for the worship of the First Imperial Ancestor are three in number: the Temple of Daijingu at Ise, the Kashikodokoro in the sanctuary of the Imperial palace, and the Kamidana, which is to be found in every house. In the two first named the divine mirror represents the Imperial Ancestor. This is the mirror which, according to old histories, Amaterasu Omi-Kami gave to Ameno Oshiomino Mikoto, accompanied by the injunction that her descendants should look upon that mirror as representing her soul, and should worship it as herself. The divine mirror, called ‘Yata-no-Kagami,’ was worshipped in the Imperial household down to the sixth year of the reign of Sujin (B.C. 92), when the Emperor, fearing that familiarity with it might engender disrespect, ordered Princess Toyokuwairihime-no-Mikoto to set up a temple in the village of Yamato, and decreed that the mirror should be honoured and worshipped there. This temple was afterwards removed to various localities, until Ise was finally chosen as its permanent site. The Emperor further caused a duplicate of the mirror to be ​made and placed in the sanctuary of the palace, in order that he and his descendants might worship as heretofore. Thus, the true mirror is now in the Temple of Daijingu at Ise, and the duplicate in the Temple of Kashiko-Dokoro in the Imperial sanctuary. At the present time, not only does every loyal Japanese worship Daijingu in his own house, but many look upon it as a duty to make a pilgrimage to Ise, or ‘Ise-Mairi,’ at least once during a lifetime. Thousands of people, high and low, rich and poor, yearly throng the Temple of Daijingu from all parts of the country, and offer holy music and dances, called ‘Dai-dai-Kagura,’ in honour of the Imperial Ancestor.

In the sanctuary of the Imperial palace there are three temples—Kashiko-Dokoro, Kworei-Den, and Shin-Den. Kashiko-Dokoro occupies the central position, and is where the divine mirror is placed, and is dedicated to the worship of the First Imperial Ancestor. Kworei-Den stands to the west of Kashiko-Dokoro, and is dedicated to the worship of all the Imperial ancestors since Jimmu Tenno, the first Emperor and the founder of the empire. The third temple, Shin-Den, stands to the east of Kashiko-Dokoro, and serves to honour all the other deities.

At the present time eleven ‘great festival days’ are observed as national holidays. All these, with the exception of two—one of which is the birthday of the Emperor, and the other the banquet of the New Year—relate to the worship of the Imperial Ancestors. The first holiday is New Year’s Day, on which the Emperor performs the ceremony of ‘Shihohai,’ or ‘worship in four directions.’ This ceremony takes place in the palace at four o’clock in the morning of the first day of the year. He begins by worshipping the First Imperial Ancestor in the direction of the west, and after in the directions of the respective graves of the first Emperor Jimmu Tenno, and the Imperial Father Komei Tenno, and other deities.

At the termination of this ceremony, the Emperor and the Empress receive New Year’s congratulations from the members of the Imperial Family, foreign Ministers, officials, nobles, and other dignitaries; and thus the first ceremony of Court may be said to begin with the worship of Imperial Ancestors.

The second festival takes place on the 3rd of January, and is called ‘Genshi Sai,’ meaning ‘sacrifice to the origin.’ On this occasion the Emperor personally performs the sacra in the three temples of the sanctuary, attended by the members of the Imperial household and all the high officials of Shin-nin and Chioku-nin rank. In the afternoon the nobility and all officials down to those of the lowest rank, attend the sanctuary to worship the three temples.

The third national festival, called ‘Shinnen Yenkwai,’ or the ​‘banquet of the New Year,’ takes place on the 5th of January, and is one of the two national holidays which has no relation to ancestor-worship.

The fourth festival day is ‘Komei Tenno-Sai.’ This is the anniversary of the death of the august father of the Emperor, and is observed on the 30th of January. The ceremonies on this and other festival days being similar, it is unnecessary to give any further description.

The fifth festival, on the 11th of February, is called ‘Kigen-Setsu,’ or the anniversary of the accession of the first Emperor and the foundation of the Empire. After the ceremonies are performed at the sanctuary, a grand banquet is given in the palace to the Princes, foreign Ministers, high officials, and nobles.

The sixth festival occurs on the 20th of March, and is called ‘Shiunki-Kworei-Sai,’ or the ‘spring sacrifice to the spirits of the Imperial Ancestors.’ The ceremony of worship is also performed both in Kworei-Den and Shin-Den by the Emperor in person, attended by all the high officials of State.

The seventh festival day, ‘Jimmu-Tenno-Sai,’ is the 3rd of April, which is devoted to the worship of Jimmu-Tenno, for this day is the anniversary of the death of the first Emperor.

The eighth festival day is ‘Sgiuki Kworei Sai,’ or the ‘autumnal sacrifice to the spirits of Imperial Ancestors,’ which takes place on the 23rd of September. This corresponds to the ‘spring sacrifice,’ and the ceremonies are nearly identical.

The ninth festival, on the 17th of October, called ‘Shinsho-Sai,’ or ‘Kan-Name-Matsuri,’ has as its principal ceremony the offering of the first crop of the year to the First Imperial Ancestor.

On this occasion also the Emperor performs the ceremonies at the Imperial sanctuary, besides the ceremony called ‘Yo-hai,’ or the ‘distant worship’ of the First Imperial Ancestor at Ise. With the new crops, ‘the sacrifice of the first tribute,’ or ‘Nino-sakino-Nusa,’ the offering of silk, is made. This is the relic of the ancient practice of selecting the best portion of the ‘first cargo’ of the taxes, in kind, and offering it on the graves of the Imperial Ancestors.

The tenth festival day, ‘Tencho-Setsu,’ is the birthday of His Majesty the Emperor, and is the other of the two festivals not founded upon the worship of Imperial Ancestors.

The eleventh and last festival is ‘Shin-sho-Sai,’ or ‘Nii-Name-no-Matsuri,’ which takes place on the 23rd of November. The chief feature is the offering of new crops to the Imperial Ancestors, but this festival will be more fully dealt with in speaking of the accession of the Emperor to the throne.

All the festival days are annually observed as national holidays. National flags are hung from all the houses, women don their best attire, and the streets are thronged with ​holiday-makers; while children go to their schools and assemble before the portraits of the Emperor and the Empress, and His Majesty’s famous speech on education is read and explained to them by the schoolmasters.

From the foregoing it will be readily seen that worship of the Imperial Ancestors is the national worship.

The population of Japan was originally divided into three classes: Shin-betsu, the divine branch which consisted of the descendants of the gods; Kwo-betsu, or the Imperial branch, comprising the descendants of the Imperial families; and Ban-betsu, or the foreign branch, comprising the descendants of naturalized foreigners. Each of these three branches was divided again into many clans, each section having a distinctive clan name, ‘Uji’ or ‘Kabane.’ The word ‘Uji’ denoted the clan name, or the common appellation of the descendants of the same ancestor, and sometimes the clan itself. The word ‘Kabane’ was more usually employed to designate titles of honour, but was also sometimes employed in the sense of a clan name. In the course of time each ‘Uji,’ or clan, was subdivided into smaller clans. The ‘Uji’ thus became divided into ‘O-uji,’ the great clan, and ‘Ko-uji,’ or small clan. Each ‘O-uji’ consisted of a number of subordinate bodies, and usually certain words were added to great clan names to distinguish them from the parent community.

Each clan had a clan god, or ‘Uji-gami,’ who was the eponym of that particular community. In early times it seems to have been customary to render homage to the clan god every month, at the house of each individual clansman; but afterwards this practice declined, and festivals in honour of the clan ancestor were substituted, and these were held three times a year in the temple. All clansmen took part in the ceremony, and records still exist which show that Court officials were permitted to set out on a journey to attend the sacra of the clan god or ancestor, which were performed in the temples far away from the capital, without first obtaining leave of absence. Sometimes lands were presented by the Emperors to the temples of clan gods of high officials, in order to mitigate the heavy expense of festivals. The offerings submitted on the occasion of festivals consisted usually of food, drink, and clothing.

The word ‘Uji-gami’ is now used in another sense, meaning local tutelary god, or the patron god of a man’s birthplace or domicile. The change in the use of the word ‘Uji-gami’ from clan god to local tutelary god possibly rose from the fact that in early days clansmen usually lived together in the same locality, and erected ​a temple for the worship of their ancestral eponyms, with the result that the clan god and local patron god meant one and the same deity. But subsequently, the means of communication gradually developing, the members of the various clans began to disperse and to live in different parts of the country. Moreover, the administrative departments of the empire, from being tribal, gradually became local and territorial; but facts combine to show that the worship of ‘Uji-gami,’ or local patron gods, is a relic of the worship of clan ancestors.

The occasions for the celebrations of the worship of the ancestors of a house may be classed under three categories—the sacrifice days, the sacrifice months, and the sacrifice years. The sacrifice day, or ‘ki-nichi,’ is the day in each month corresponding to the day of the ancestor’s death. The sacrifice month, or ‘sho-tsuki,’ is the day of the month corresponding to the day and month of an ancestor’s death. The sacrifice year, or ‘nen-ki,’ is the day of the month in certain years corresponding to the day of the month of the death of an ancestor, the ceremony of worship in connection with it usually taking place among Shintoists on the first, fifth, tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, fortieth, and fiftieth year.

Among Buddhists these anniversary ceremonies are usually observed on the first, third, seventh, thirteenth, seventeenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh, thirty-third, thirty-seventh, forty-third, forty-seventh, fiftieth, and hundredth year, after which year they are held every fiftieth year, as in the case of the Shintoists.

In accordance with an ancient custom, sacrifices are made and ceremonies of worship are performed by Buddhists after a man’s death, every seventh day until the seventh seventh day—that is, the forty-ninth day from the date of death—these sacrifice days being respectively designated the ‘first seventh day,’ the ‘second seventh day,’ and so on. Among Shintoists these sacrifice days are usually commemorated every tenth day after death, and end with the fiftieth or hundredth.

As a rule, on the sacrifice days, or ‘ki-nichi,’ of each month, after the seventh seventh day among the Buddhists, and the fiftieth or the hundredth day among Shintoists, only members of the family and near relatives take part in the proceedings; but on the occasion of ‘shotsuki’ and ‘nenki’ feasts are provided, and relatives and descendants of ancestors invited to participate in the worship. In both the Shinto and Buddhist religions, priests officiate at the ceremonies, but among Shintoists the ceremonies are held in their own houses, while among ​Buddhists they sometimes take place in the temples as well as in their own homes.

The respective rituals of worship differ somewhat in the Shinto and Buddhist religions, and there are also some variations observable in the rites of different Buddhist sects. Shinto offerings consist of rice, saké, fish, game, vegetables, and fruits, for food and drink, and pieces of silk and hemp for clothing, while branches of sakaki-tree and flowers are also frequently offered. The priests who perform the ceremony clap their hands before the altar, and the chief priest pronounces the prayer, or ‘norito,’ the words of which vary on different occasions, although at the commencement of the recital the spirits of the ancestors are almost invariably informed that the head of the family, with the other members and connections, are assembled for the purpose of celebrating the particular anniversary, reverently offering to the sacred soul ‘lucks of sea and mountain,’ meaning thereby fish, game, and so on, that the house is in a peaceful condition, and that the descendants are prosperous. The prayer usually ends with the supplication that the spirit may protect and watch over the family, and accept the offerings dutifully submitted. After this each of the assembled party, commencing with the head of the house, takes a ‘tamagushi,’ or small branch of sakaki-tree, to which is attached a piece of paper representing ‘nigo-taye,’ or fine cloth, places it on the altar, and then claps hands and makes obeisances. With regard to the significance of the hand-clapping, three explanations have been given. Some consider it a sign of joy, others as an invocation, and others, again, as a sign of admiration. The last-named is the opinion of the late Professor Konakamura, and is the most widely-accepted explanation. At the termination of this ceremony all the relatives are invited to a banquet, concerning which the late Professor Kurita, in his treatise on the ‘Ritual of Worship,’ writes: ‘The relatives assembled partake of the sacred saké, which has been offered to the ancestor, and talk about his meritorious deeds, while each person present gives voice to a resolve not to degrade in any way the name of the ancestor.’

In the ceremonies of the Buddhists the offerings usually consist of tea, rice, fruits, cakes, and flowers, either artificial or natural, the most usual being the lotus. Fish and meat form no part of the sacrifice, because of the doctrine of abstinence from flesh embodied in Buddha’s commandments not to kill any animate being. Whether the ceremony takes place in the temple or in the house, priests officiate and recite sacred books. When it is performed in the temple, sacred music generally accompanies the prayer recitals. The assembly in turn burn incense and prostrate themselves before the altar, the order of ​precedence being the same as in the case of Shinto worship. The feast which is held in the house on the preceding evening does not differ in its general features from that of the Shintoists, except that the food consists of vegetables only.

In addition to the ceremonies performed on the three occasions referred to, there are three appointed times in the course of a year when people offer sacrifices to the spirits of ancestors, both at home and at the graves. These are the weeks, respectively, of the spring and autumnal equinox, which are called ‘Higan,’ and the festival of ‘Urabon-ye,’ or ‘Bon,’ which continues from the 13th to the 16th of July. In ‘Higan’ the family graves are visited, and flowers and water offered upon the tombs. In ‘Urabon-ye’ the festival for the ‘invitation of spirits’ is held in every Buddhist’s house. On the day previous to the Bon festival, ‘Kusachi’ or ‘Bon-ichi’ are held in many places for the sale of articles used in the decoration of altars. On the 14th of July visits to the family graves and offerings of flowers and lanterns are made, and shelves are erected in the house called ‘Shoryo-dana,’ or ‘the shelf for the spirits,’ which are decorated with various kinds of vegetables and large lanterns called ‘kirikodoro.’ In the evening of the 13th the ‘mukai-bi,’ or ‘reception fire,’ is kindled before the door of the house or in the garden; and on the evening of the 16th ‘oquri-bi,’ or the ‘farewell fire,’ is lighted. During these four days the spirits are supposed to come and stay in the house. Priests are invited to recite prayers, and many offerings of rice, water, fruits, cakes, and vegetables, are made on the spirit shelf, the most curious among the offerings being oxen made of egg-plants, and horses fashioned from white melons, the legs being represented by hemp-stalks. Elaborate rules regulate the nature of the offerings of this festival, but it is unnecessary to dwell upon them here. The extent of the sacrifices made on the occasion of the periodical service described, and the number of priests who conduct the ceremony, as well as the size and decorations of the ancestral graves, vary in accordance with the rank and fortune of the people. At the beginning of the eighteenth century a new law was enacted by which the number of priests was limited to two or three hundred, the number of sacred books to be recited to one thousand volumes, and the duration of the festival to three or four days. This reform is said to have reduced the expense to one-tenth of the original amount. This fact demonstrates the importance attached to the worship of ancestors, and the worship of ancestors is not limited only to the festival times mentioned. When a young student goes to Europe to pursue his studies, when a soldier sets out on a campaign, when an official is sent abroad on some Government service, or when a merchant undertakes a long ​journey on business, he invariably visits the graves of his ancestors in order to take leave of them. When they live in places distant from their ancestral graves, they very often make long journeys in order to visit the tombs and make sacrifices to them. In many Shintoists’ houses the offerings of saké and sakaki-tree are offered every day, and incense is continually burnt in Butsudan. In fact, the worship of the spirits of ancestors forms a part of the everyday life of the people.

The relation of ancestor-worship to law is now to be considered. That the foundation of our government was the worship of ancestors is shown by the word for ‘government,’ ‘Matsurigoto,’ which means the affairs of worship. The ceremony of ‘Seiji-hajime,’ or ‘beginning of the affairs of State,’ which takes place on the 4th of January, consists of the Emperor receiving from his Ministers the reports of the affairs of the Temple of Daijingu, the First Ancestor of the Emperor. Thus, the business of our Government begins every year with matters relating to ancestor-worship. Even after the introduction of Chinese civilization in ancient times, and the great reform of the Taikwa era in A.D. 645–649, the Department of Divine Worship was given precedence over all other Government departments, even over ‘Da-Jo-Gwan,’ or the Great Council of State, which was afterwards reorganized and established as the Cabinet. And although the affairs of Divine Worship are now administered by bureaux of the Home Department and the Imperial household, motions are brought forward in almost every session of the Diet to make representation to the Government to revive the Department of Divine Worship.

The most minute regulations with respect to rituals of worship are to be found in the old books of law, such as the Taiho Code and Yengi Shiki; and all great affairs of State, like the promulgation of the Constitution, the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace, and the revision of treaties with foreign Powers, are usually reported to the Temple of the First Imperial Ancestor at Ise, and sometimes to the tombs of other Imperial Ancestors.

The present Constitution of the Empire of Japan was promulgated by the Emperor on the 11th of February, 1889, that day being the national festival of Kigensetsu, or the anniversary of the foundation of the empire by the first Emperor, Jimmu Tenno. In the framing of this Constitution, the Constitutions of Western countries were examined, and most of the principles which ​find a place in the component elements of constitutional governments have been adopted, in so far as they are consistent with the fundamental principles of the form of Imperial government that has existed from the beginning of our empire. That fundamental principle is clearly stated in the first article of the Constitution: ‘The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.’ That the foundation of the Constitution is the worship of Imperial Ancestors is definitely set forth in the preamble of the Constitution, which runs thus: ‘Having by the virtues of Our Ancestors ascended the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal; remembering that Our beloved subjects are the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors, and desiring to promote their welfare and give development to their moral and intellectual faculties; and hoping to maintain the prosperity and progress of the State, in concert with our people and with their support: We hereby promulgate … a fundamental law of State, to exhibit the principles by which We are to be guided in Our conduct, and to point to what Our descendants, Our subjects and their descendants are for ever to conform. The rights of Sovereignty of the State We have inherited from Our Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants. Neither We nor They shall in future fail to wield them, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby granted.’

In the course of the Imperial speech made on the occasion of the promulgation of the Constitution, His Majesty said: ‘The Imperial Founder of Our House and Our Other Imperial Ancestors, by the help and support of the forefathers of Our subjects, laid the foundations of Our Empire upon a basis which is to last for ever. That this brilliant embellishes the annals of Our Country is due to the glorious virtues of Our Sacred Imperial Ancestors, and to the loyalty and bravery of Our subjects, their love of their Country, and their public spirit.’

His Majesty further took an oath to the Imperial Ancestors at the sanctuary of the palace, to observe the provisions of the fundamental law, the terms of the oaths including the statements that the Constitution was the ‘exposition of grand precepts for the conduct of the Government bequeathed by the Imperial Founder of Our House and by Our other Imperial Ancestors,’ and that the new Constitution was intended to ‘give clearness and distinctness to the instructions bequeathed by the Imperial Founder of Our House and by Our other Imperial Ancestors, in consideration of the progressive tendency of the course of human affairs, and in order to keep in line with the advance of civilization.’

​When Jimmu Tenno founded the empire and ascended the throne, the ceremony of coronation consisted in the worship of the Imperial Ancestors on the Hill of Torimi Yama. At the accession of every Emperor there is a ceremony called ‘Daijo-Sai’ or ‘Oname-no-Matsuri,’ usually on the first festival day of Shinsho-Sai, the eleventh festival day already referred to, in which the newly-crowned Emperor offers the first-fruits of the year to his ancestors. Article 11 of the Imperial House Law says: ‘The ceremonies of Coronation shall be formed, and Daijo-Sai shall be held at Kyoto.’ Article 10 of the same law provides that ‘upon the demise of the Emperor the Imperial Heir shall ascend the throne, and shall acquire the Divine Treasures of the Imperial Ancestors.’ These divine treasures consist of the mirror before mentioned, a sword and a precious stone which have been bequeathed by the First Imperial Ancestor, Amaterasu Omi Kami, to her descendants as symbols of the Imperial power.

The foregoing facts relating to the Constitution of the empire will suffice to show that the sovereignty of Japan is the heritage of Imperial Ancestors, and that the foundation of the Constitution is ancestor-worship.

That the worship of Imperial Ancestors is our national worship has already been stated. They are worshipped, not only because they are the ancestors of our august Sovereign, but because they are the Sovereigns of our ancestors. Formerly, as has been stated, the people of Japan were divided into three branches, or ‘three bodies,’ and each branch was divided into many clans. Each individual subject had a ‘Uji,’ or clan name, which was the mark of descent from a certain ancestor. Each clan, whether great or small, had its chief, called ‘Uji-no-kami,’ who was usually the oldest male descendant of the eponymous ancestor. He was obeyed and honoured by the clansmen as the representative of their common ancestor. He was the head of their worship, their leader in time of war, and their governor in the time of peace. Small clansmen were governed by the ‘Uji-no-kami’ of the clan, who was himself subject to the ‘Uji-no-kami’ of the great clan. The Emperor was the supreme authority over them all, and laws and proclamations of the Imperial Government were transmitted to the ‘Uji-no-kami’ of great clans, who in turn transmitted them to the ‘Uji-no-kami’ of the small clans, and thus each clan, which was a body founded on the community of blood and worship, formed an administrative division of the country, corresponding to the present administration divisions, such as provinces, cities, towns, districts, and ​villages. Since the great reform of the Taika era, in spite of the fact that the clan system of government continued for a long time afterward, the bases of administration division of the country gradually changed from being personal to being territorial.

In the Middle Ages clans began to gradually disintegrate, and households took their place. This transition may be illustrated by the history of our Law of Registration. The development of this law can be divided into three epochs: (1) The epoch of clan registration; (2) of house registration; and (3) of personal registration. In those early days, when the clan formed the unit of the State, it was of the utmost importance that each person’s clan name should be kept sacred. As only those who belonged to certain clans could fill high official positions or join the Imperial Bodyguard, and as several other privileges were enjoyed by particular clans, attempts were often made to forsake original clans and surreptitiously adopt the names of some influential clans. In order to put a stop to these abuses, an ‘ordeal of hot water,’ or ‘kuga dachi,’ was held, in obedience to an Imperial proclamation in the fourth year of the Emperor Inkyo (A.D. 415), to test the truth or falsehood of the clan names borne by the people. This ordeal consisted in plunging the hand into hot water before the temple of a god, and it was claimed that those who had assumed false clan names would suffer injury, whilst the innocent would escape unhurt. In the fifth year of the era of Tempei Hoji (A.D. 761) an office called ‘Sen Shizoku Jo’ was founded for the compilation of a clan registry, and a Commission was appointed which numbered among its members the most distinguished scholars of the time. The work of the Commission was, however, not completed. Since this time Imperial proclamations were frequently issued ordering all clans in the empire to send their genealogical records to the Government, in order that they might be included in the Imperial archives. It was ordered that in these records the name of the first ancestor, and also the name of the ancestor from whom the small clan branched out, should always be given, and the records of those claiming to belong to noble clans had to be attested by the signature of the head of the whole clan. In the reign of the Emperor Saga, in the sixth year of the era of Konin, the ‘Register of Clan Names,’ or ‘Seishi Roku,’ was compiled, a part of which is still in existence to-day. This register consists of thirty volumes, and contained 1,182 clan names. In that year ‘Kan Kei Jo,’ or the Bureau of Genealogical Investigation, was established. The preservation of genealogical records and their accuracy ​were considered to be matters of the utmost importance in those times, and their loss or forgery used to supply abundant material to the writers of novels and dramas, just as the subject of the loss or forgery of wills is frequently resorted to by Western writers.

The introduction of ‘ko-seki,’ house-registry, dates back as far as A.D. 645, first year of the era of Taika, when great reforms were made in the system of government.

It was only in the year 1898, the 31st year of Meiji, that the history of our law registration began to enter upon the third stage of the development. The present law, which was promulgated in 1898, and which replaced the previous law of 1871, still retains the name of ‘Koseki Ho,’ or the ‘Law of House Registration,’ but the character of the law has undergone a change, necessitated by the progress of the social condition of the country, for it provides for the registration of individual status, or ‘mibun-toki,’ as well as of house registration.

So it will be seen that until recently a house was a corporation and a legal unit of the State. But ever since the Restoration of 1868 the family system has gradually fallen, until at present the house has entirely lost its corporate character. Formerly it was the head of the family only who could fill an official position, serve in the army, and hold property. But with the reform in the system of government the members of a house were permitted to fill public positions, and with the reforms of the law of military conscription both head and members are liable to military duties; while with the progress of commerce and industry the younger members of the house were entitled to hold public bonds, stocks, and shares, which the law now recognises as their separate property. Although the house has thus lost its corporate existence in the eyes of the law, it still, nevertheless, retains its character as the unit of society. The new Civil Code, which came into operation in 1898, allows members to secede from a household, and to establish a new ‘branch house’ with the consent of the head of the family (Article 743, Civil Code); for the law recognises the tendency of social progress towards individualism, but at the same time it makes careful provision for the continuity of the house.

It is provided in Article 744 that ‘the legal presumptive heir to the headship of a house is not permitted to enter another house, or to establish a new one, except in cases where the necessity arises for the succession to maintain the main branch of the house.’ A legal presumptive heir is heres necessarius, as to him falls the duty of succeeding to the headship of his house and of upholding the continuity of its worship. For that reason he or she cannot become a member of another house ​by marriage, adoption, or any other cause, nor found a house of his or her own except where the more important duty of preserving the continuity of the worship of the main branch of the house renders such a step necessary.

Marriage, as an institution, must seek for the original cause of its recognition by law in ancestor-worship. The State recognised wedlock, and began to make rules for its protection, because it was regarded as a means of perpetuating the worship of ancestors. In the eyes of the old law it was essential that a family should perpetuate itself for ever, and marriage represented the union of man and woman for the purpose of obtaining a successor to maintain the continuity of ancestor-worship. It was a means to an end, and that end was the continuity of the sacra. It was considered one of the greatest misfortunes that could befall a man, to die without leaving a son to perpetuate the worship of his ancestors and himself. Mencius says: ‘There are three things which are unfilial, and to leave no posterity is the greatest of them.’ In the ‘Book of Filial Piety,’ Confucius says: ‘There are three thousand acts which are punished by the five punishments, but no crime is greater than filial impiety.’ Therefore to die without male issue was regarded as the greatest sin a man could commit against the doctrine of Chinese philosophy, which has been taught in our country for more than a thousand years. The reason of this doctrine is obvious. The posthumous happiness of the ancestors of a family depended on the proper performance of the family sacra. It was therefore the duty of every head of a house to marry, for the purpose of avoiding the calamity of the family sacra becoming extinct. It was the established principle of our customary law, which is maintained with some modifications in the Civil Code (Article 750), that a member of a house must obtain the consent of the head of the family for his or her marriage. The House Law (‘Ko-riyo’) of the Taiho Code also required the consent of grandparents, parents, and other relatives, before the marriage could be celebrated. According to Article 751 of the New Civil Code, if a member of a house marries without the consent of the head of the family, the latter may, within one year from the day of the marriage, exclude him or her from the household, or, if he or she has entered another house by the marriage, forbid his or her return to it in case of dissolution of marriage. As to the consent of parents, the first clause of Article 772 provides: ‘For the contracting of marriage, a child must obtain the consent of the parents who are in the same house. But this rule does not ​apply if the man has completed his thirtieth year or the woman her twenty-fifth year.’ The consequences of a marriage without the consent of the parents are stated in Articles 783 and 784. The parent may make application to a court of law for the annulment of the marriage within a period of six months from the time when he or she first became acquainted with the fact of the marriage, or within two years from the date of its registration.

Another rule which existed before the Restoration of 1868 clearly shows in what light marriage was regarded by our old law. Formerly, among the Samurai, or military class, only the oldest son, who was the presumptive heir to the house-headship, or his eldest son, who would become the presumptive heir after him, was allowed to contract marriage, and the younger sons could not lawfully marry. It was the duty of every house head and his presumptive heir to marry; but there was no necessity for the younger sons, who had no apparent hope of ever becoming the head of a houshhold. They were consequently called ‘heyazumi,’ or ‘dwellers in apartments.’

Although Chinese laws and philosophy were introduced into Japan in ancient times, the famous Chinese law prohibiting marriage between persons bearing the same clan name was not adopted in those of our old codes which were modelled upon the Chinese digest. The reason for this remarkable deviation from the ordinary course seems to be this: that an ancestor only receives the sacra of his blood descendants, and the marriage between persons belonging to the same clan—that is, between persons descended from the same ancestor—was, perhaps, rather to be favoured than the alliance with a person of another clan, for the issue of the marriage would be of the unmixed blood of the ancestor. This exception to the general adoption of the Chinese laws appears the more remarkable by reason of the fact that the prohibition against the adoption of a child from a different clan, which has existed and still exists in Chinese law, was included in our old codes, almost without any modification.

Some of the articles of the ‘Ordinance relating to the Marriages of the Imperial Household,’ published on the 25th of April, 1900, and given below, show also the close relationship between marriage and ancestor-worship:

3. When the agreement of the Imperial Marriage is made, it shall be reported to Kashiko Dokoro (the temple of the First Imperial Ancestor, Amaterasu Omi Kami), Kworei Den (the temple of the other Imperial Ancestors), and Shin Den (the temple dedicated to the worship of other deities); and the Imperial Messenger for offering sacrifices shall be sent to Jingu (the Temple of the First Imperial Ancestor at Ise) ​and to the Graves of Jimmu Tenno (the First Emperor), the late Imperial Father and the late Imperial Mother respectively.

6. The Imperial Marriage shall be reported to Kashiko Dokoro, Kworei Den, and Shin Den on the day when the ceremony takes place.

7. The ceremony of the Imperial Marriage shall be performed before the Temple of Kashiko Dokoro, according to the forms specially prescribed.

9. The Emperor and the Empress shall present themselves to the Temples of Kworei Den and Shin Den when the ceremony of the Imperial Marriage is finished.

12. The Emperor and the Empress shall present themselves to Jingu and to the respective Graves of Jimmu Tenno, the late Imperial Father and the late Imperial Mother, after the ceremony of the Imperial Marriage is performed.

15. The ceremony of marriage of Kwo Taishi (the Imperial son who is Heir-apparent), Kwo Taison (the Imperial grandson who is Heir-apparent), Shinno (Imperial male descendants, from Imperial sons to Imperial great-great-grandsons), or Wo (Imperial male descendants from the fifth generation downwards), shall be performed before the Temple of Kashiko Dokoro, according to the forms specially prescribed.

In the House Law (Ko-riyo) of the Taiho Code are enumerated the famous Seven Grounds of Divorce. The Code says ‘for abandoning a wife there must be one of the following seven grounds of divorce: First, sterility; second, adultery; third, disobedience to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law; fourth, loquacity; fifth, larceny; sixth, jealousy; seventh, bad disease.’ If any of these grounds exist the wife may be abandoned, the husband signing the necessary deed, which must be countersigned by the nearest ascendants. If any of these persons cannot write the mark of the thumb may be made in place of the signature. The enumeration of the causes of divorce shows plainly that the object of marriage was the perpetuation of worship. The reason for sterility being made the first ground of divorce scarcely needs explanation. The commentators of the Taiho Code say that sterility here does not mean actual barrenness, but the failure of male issue. The marriage being contracted for a special object, and that object failing, it was justifiable to dissolve the union. A man was, in fact, under a moral obligation to his ancestors to do so.

Adultery is recognised by most nations as a ground of divorce; but the reasons of its recognition differ considerably in ancient and modern legislations. In the eyes of the Taiho ​Code, it was not the immorality of the act itself, but rather the apprehended danger of the confusion of blood, whereby a person not in reality related to the ancestor might succeed to the worship.

The last grounds mentioned in the Taiho Code may be attributed to a similar cause. The hereditary nature of some diseases seems to have been early known, and the fear of ancestors’ blood becoming polluted was the chief cause of incurable disease being recognised as a ground of divorce.

According to the new Civil Code, two kinds of divorce are recognised, consensual and judicial, the former being effected by the arrangement of parties, while the latter is granted by law on various grounds which are specified in Article 813 of the Code. The majority of the grounds mentioned in the Taiho Code do not find a place in the new Code, and bigamy, adultery, desertion, cruelty, or gross insult, condemnation to punishments for certain offences, such as forgery, theft, embezzlement, sexual immorality, disappearance from residence, etc., are the principal grounds of divorce specified. Besides the grounds already mentioned, a judicial divorce is allowed in a case in which an adopted son has married the daughter of the persons who have adopted him, and they, for some reason, break off the adoption. Under such circumstances the man is entitled to dissolve the marriage.

From the comparison of the grounds of divorce mentioned in the Taiho Code and those enumerated in the new Civil Code, it will be seen that the law of divorce has undergone a great change, except the last ground, and the present law has only a slight connection with ancestor-worship.

Perhaps in no department of jurisprudence is the relation between ancestor-worship and the law more clearly shown than in the law of adoption. Failing male issue, it was considered the duty of a house-head to acquire a son by adoption, that being the most general method of providing for the continuity of ancestor-worship.

Many of the European legislatures which allow adoption limit the age of the adopter, the majority of them, such as the French, Italian, Australian, and German codes, fixing the lowest limit of an adopter’s age at fifty. The House Law of our Taiho Code provides that a person ‘having no child’ may adopt one from among his relatives within the fourth degree of kinship whose age does not exceed that which might have been attained by a son of the adopter’s own body. As long as a hope of having a male issue of blood—that is, the direct descendant of ​his ancestor—existed the head of a house should not permit a person of more distant relationship to become the successor to the sacra. This rule took another form during the Shogunate of the Tokugawa family. In order to prevent the extinction of a house by the sudden death of a house-head who had no son, any man over the age of seventeen years was allowed to adopt a son. A person between the age of seventeen and fifty years could even adopt a son on his death-bed, and this event was called ‘Kiu-yoshi,’ or ‘quick adoption.’ But if he failed in his duty of providing for the continuity of his house until after he had attained the age of fifty, he was threatened with the dire, dreadful consequences of the extinction of his house in the event of his dying without male issue, for ‘quick adoption’ was not permissible after that age. The prohibition of death-bed adoption is not in force to-day, and has not, therefore, been incorporated in the new Code. On the contrary, Article 848 allows a person to make an adoption even by testament. The old and the new law seem on this point to contradict each other, but the spirit of both is the same. They both had the perpetuation of house for their object, and the difference between them consists in this: that the one wished to make people provide for the succession early in life by attaching severe penalties to the neglect of that precaution, while the other desired to avoid the chance of a house-worship becoming extinct by freely countenancing adoption.

With regard to the lowest limit of the age of the adopter, both the laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate and our new Civil Code agree in giving the widest scope to adoption. The Taiho Code fixes the limit at sixty, but the laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate allowed and encouraged any childless person over the age of seventeen, and even, by special permission, heads of houses under that age, to adopt a successor; and Article 837 of the new Civil Code allows any person who has obtained his majority to adopt another person. As to the difference. of ages which must exist between the adopter and the adopted, the Taiho Code required that the adopter and the adopted should be ‘fit to be father and son.’ In the time of the Tokugawa Shogunate the adopter was only required to be older than the adopted; but frequent deviations were made to this rule by special permission—notably, a decree allowing a house-head under seventeen years of age to arrange an adoption, and another by which even an older person might be adopted as a son. Article 838 of the new Civil Code provides that a person cannot adopt one older than himself, although he may adopt any person who is younger than himself.

As to the age of the adopted, no limit has been fixed in our law. Article 843 of the new Civil Code runs as follows: ‘If ​the person to be adopted is under fifteen years of age, the parents in the same house may consent to the adoption on his or her behalf.

That the object of adoption was the perpetuation of ancestor-worship may be also inferred from the old strict rule that only a kinsman could be adopted as a son. The Taiho Code limited it to within the kindred of the fourth degree. From the remains of the Taiho Criminal Code, which have come down to us, we know that a penalty of one years’ penal servitude was inflicted upon anyone who adopted a son from a different clan, and one of fifty floggings for anybody who assisted him. This prohibition against the adoption of a person not related in blood seems to have been observed till the time of the Tokugawa Shogunate. It derives its origin from the belief that ‘the spirit does not receive the offerings of strangers.’ There is a law, enacted in the first year of Genna, A.D. 1615, that adoption must be made from persons of the same clan name—that is, from the descendants of the ancestor of the adopter. This rule, as well as the prohibition of ‘quick adoption’ before mentioned, was so strictly enforced that many feudal lords’ houses became extinct on account of the failure of heirs; and in consequence their estates were forfeited, and thousands of their vassals, or ‘Samurai,’ lost their feudal salary. The result was, that those ‘Ronin,’ or members of the military class who have lost their feudal position, and could not, and would not if they could, earn a living by agriculture or commerce, became seditionaries, and often excited insurrections and joined in civil commotions, which were very frequent in the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate. That Government soon saw that the relaxation of this strict law of adoption was necessary in order to maintain the peace of the country. In A.D. 1651, the fourth year of Keian, soon after the famous plot of Yui-no Shosetsu to overthrow the Tokugawa Shogunate, an important modification was introduced into the law of adoption. From that time adoption from different clans was not strictly forbidden, but the amended law enjoined that a man who had no son should adopt one from the same clan, although in case of failure to find a suitable person permission might be obtained to adopt a person of different clan. Although the law of adoption was revised and amended several times, this rule remained substantially the same for more than two hundred years, till the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The rigorous rule of limiting an adoption to persons of the same clan name practically lost its force by the introduction of the just-mentioned proviso, and it has not, therefore, been adopted in the new Code.

Another requirement of adoption is the absolute failure of male issue. The House Law of the Taiho Code only allowed ​adoption provided that a man had no son. This rule has been uniformly observed from ancient times down to the present day, and the new Civil Code also retains that rule, with, however, certain modifications. Article 839 provides that ‘a person having a male child who is the legal presumptive heir to the headship of the house is not allowed to adopt a son. But this rule does not apply in the case of adopting a son for the purpose of making him the husband of a daughter of the adopter.’

There is one form of adoption called ‘Muko-yoshi,’ or the adoption of a son-in-law. As has been already stated, the law considered a man childless even though he had a daughter. Males were the only continuers of worship, for formerly it was a strict rule that only males could become house-heads and perpetuators of the cult. Those who had daughters only, therefore, were obliged to adopt a son; but it was necessary for the blood of the ancestor to be, if possible, continued in the house. In such cases, a house-head selects a person as his adopted son who is fit to be his daughter’s husband. If adoption and marriage take place at the same time, it is called ‘Muko-yoshi.’ This form of adoption is very common, and is recognised by the new Civil Code (Article 839), and Article 102 of the Law of Registration.

But the marriage of the adopted son with the daughter of his adopter may take place subsequently to the act of adoption; for, although Article 769 of the Civil Code prohibits marriage between collateral blood relations within the third degree of kinship, collateral blood relationship of brothers and sisters by adoption is no bar to their marriage. A person who has a daughter frequently adopts a son with the expectation that the adopted son should marry his daughter when they grow up, and in most cases the parents’ wishes are fulfilled. In cases where the parties do not wish to marry dissolution of adoption very often takes place, either because the adopted son thinks it is his duty to leave the house, so that the daughter may remain in it and marry a second adopted son, thus preserving the blood of the ancestor in the house, or because the adoptive father desires the dissolution from the same motive.

The effect of adoption is that the adopted son acquires the same position as a natural-born, legitimate child (Article 860, Civil Code). He relinquishes the original house and worship and enters into the house of the adopter, taking the house name and clan name of the latter (Articles 860, 861, Civil Code). The consequence of his acquiring the status of an actual son and entering the house of the adoptive parent is that he becomes the legal presumptive heir to the headship of the house.

From what I have stated it may, I think, be laid down as a ​general rule that adoption had its origin in ancestor-worship; and the stronger the belief in that practice among the people, the wider is the scope allowed for adoption by the law. The dissolution of adoption shows the same. Two kinds of dissolution are recognised by the Civil Code: the one, dissolution by consent; the other, dissolution by judicial decree.

Adoption may be dissolved for any cause, provided that the parties mutually agree; but for its compulsory dissolution an action must be brought by one of the parties on the basis of one of the grounds specified in Article 866 of the Civil Code. I will only mention the two grounds for dissolution which have a direct bearing upon ancestor-worship. One of them is that, ‘if the adopted person commits a grave fault of a nature to disgrace the family name or ruin the house property’ of the adoptive house, the adoptive parent may bring an action for dissolution of the adoptive tie, the reason for this rule being that the name of the ancestor’s house is sacred; and it is not only his legal right, but his moral and religious duty, to dissolve the tie. The adoptive house is not the house of the adopter alone, nor is it the house of the adopted, but it is the house which the adopter inherited from his ancestor and will leave to his descendants. It is the duty of every house-head to preserve it, and leave it unblemished.

Another ground for dissolution mentioned in the Code has reference to ‘Muko-yoshi,’ or adoption of a son-in-law, and in the case of the marriage of an adopted son with ‘kajo,’ or the ‘house-daughter.’ If the adopted son marry the daughter of his adopted father, and divorce or annulment of that marriage takes place, an action for the dissolution of adoption may be brought by one of the parties (Article 866, Civil Code). The reason for this last rule is that, if the adopted son, who is in most cases the legal presumptive heir, remains in the adoptive house, and perhaps takes a second wife from another family, the true blood of the ancestor will not be continued in the house. The ‘adoption of a son-in-law,’ as I have said before, was a custom based on the desire to retain the true blood of the ancestor in the family; and if the marriage of the house-daughter with the adopted son be dissolved, the intention of the adopter is thereby thwarted.

The law of succession seems to have passed through three stages of evolution: Firstly, the succession of sacra; secondly, the succession of status; and thirdly, the succession of property. Each stage of development did not form a distinct period in itself, but the later was gradually evolved out of the ​earlier by the process of differentiation. In ancient times the duty of performing and continuing the worship rested on the head of the house, and the property of the house belonged exclusively to him. He exercised authority over the members of his house, because he was the continuer of the ancestral sacra, and in one sense the representative of the ancestor. He owned his property because it was left by the ancestor; and the authority and property of a house-head rested on the worship of ancestors. In those times the continuation of house-worship formed the sole object of inheritance. But in the course of time the authority of the house-head, which at first comprehended both power over the members of the house and rights over house property, came to be considered by itself in law. Afterwards the two constituent elements of the authority of the house-head gradually began to be separately considered, until at last property came to be regarded as a distinct object of inheritance.

Now, in the Succession Law of the Taiho Code, A.D. 701, there is a provision that, if a presumptive heir of a noble family is not fit to succeed to the ‘important duty’ owing to the committal of crime or to disease, he may be disinherited, and another presumptive heir may be substituted. The official commentary to this Code, ‘Riyo-no-gige,’ says: ‘To succeed to the important duty’ means to ‘succeed a father and inherit the sacra, for the matter of worship is the most important.’ It appears that at this time the continuing of ancestor-worship was the principal object of succession. Since the Middle Ages, the word ‘Katoku-Sozoku,’ or ‘the succession to house authority,’ was used for succession; and in the feudal system period, especially in the time of the Tokugawa Shogunate, succession represented the continuity of the status of house-headship. In later times ‘Katoku,’ which literally means ‘house authority,’ was very frequently used for ‘house property,’ which formed the object of inheritance, just as the word familia in Roman law was often used to designate property. This transition of the use of the word ‘Katoku’ indicates that the law of succession was gradually passing from the second stage to the third stage referred to.

Our present law represents the stage of transition from the period of the succession of status to the succession of property. The new Civil Code recognises two kinds of succession—succession to house-headship, or ‘Kotoku-Sozoku’; and succession to property, or ‘Isan sosoku.’ But there are many rules still remaining, which show that the foundation of the succession to house-headship is the necessity of continuing the worship of ancestors. Article 987 contains the following provision: ‘The ownership of the records of the genealogy of the ​house, the articles used for house-worship, and the family tombs, constitutes the special right of succession to the headship of a house.’

This important provision means that those things which are specified therein form the special objects of inheritance. They cannot be bequeathed away, nor can they be seized for debt. Four kinds of heirs to the house-headship are recognised by the new Civil Code: the ‘legal heir,’ the ‘appointed heir,’ the ‘chosen heir,’ and the ‘ascendant heir.’ The legal heir, who comes first in the order of succession, is the lineal descendant of a house-head, who is at the same time a member of his house. Among lineal descendants, nearest kinsmen are preferred to remote, males to females, and legitimate children to illegitimate, seniors in age being accorded priority when they are equal in other respects (Article 970, Civil Code). Modern writers on law usually give as a reason for the preference of nearer to remote kinsmen, that the order of succession is determined by the degree of affection which the deceased is presumed to have entertained towards his relatives, and also by the presumed intention of the person who dies intestate as to the disposition of his property. For the preference of males over females, feudal reasons are given. These reasons also form the principal basis of our present law. But here, again, the reasons for the existence of the rule and its origin are not the same. Originally, the nearest in blood to the ancestors worshipped, and their male descendants were preferred, because they were considered to be the fittest persons to offer sacrifices to the spirits of ancestors.

‘The legal heirs’ are heirs necessarius, and are not allowed to renounce the succession, whilst other kinds of heirs are at liberty to accept or renounce the inheritance, or to accept it with reservation, that they shall not be liable for the debts of their predecessors. It is the bounden duty of descendants who are legal heirs to accept the inheritance and continue the sacra of the house. The house-heads cannot bequeath away from them more than one-half of the property (Article 1,130, Civil Code), nor can they disinherit them unless there exists one of the grounds mentioned in Article 975 of the Civil Code. The causes especially mentioned are: (1) Ill-treatment, or gross insult to the house-head; (2) unfitness for house-headship on account of bodily or mental infirmities; (3) sentence to punishment for an offence of a nature disgraceful to the name of the house; and (4) interdiction as a spendthrift.

For these causes the house-head may bring an action against his legal presumptive heir, with a view of depriving him of the rights of succession. All of the grounds mentioned in the Code relate directly or indirectly to ancestor-worship, and the ​necessity of maintaining intact the reputation and property of the house.

In case there is no legal presumptive heir to a house-head, he may appoint an heir, either in his lifetime or by his will. But this appointment ceases to be valid when he obtains a child, in the course of nature or by adoption, for the latter will become his legal presumptive heir (Article 979, Civil Code).

If at the time of the death of the house-head there is neither legal presumptive heir nor an appointed heir, the father of the deceased, or if there is no father, or if he is unable to express his intention, the mother, or if there are no parents, or both are unable to express their intention, the family council chooses an heir from among the members of the house according to the following order: (1) The wife, if she is a ‘house-daughter’; (2) the brothers; (3) the sisters; (4) the surviving wife, who is not a ‘house-daughter’; and, finally (5), the lineal descendants of brothers and sisters (Article 982, Civil Code).

Now, in this also the desire for preserving the blood of ancestors will be seen from the order in which the heir is chosen. The surviving consort of the last house-head comes first in the order of succession provided that she is a ‘house-daughter,’ but fourth if she is not the descendant in blood of an ancestor of the house. If there is neither legal nor appointed nor chosen heir, then the nearest lineal descendants of the last house-head succeeds, males being always preferred to females between persons in the same degree of relationship (Article 984, Civil Code).

If there are no heirs above-mentioned, the family council must chose one from among other relatives of the last house-head or members of principal or branch houses. If none of the persons above-mentioned be existing, or able to succeed, then, as a last resort, the family council may chose an heir from among other persons (Article 985, Civil Code).

From the foregoing enumeration of the various kinds of heirs, it will be seen that the law takes every precaution against the contingency of a house becoming extinct, for with the extinction of the house the worship of its ancestors would come to an end.