This post takes as its inspiration a letter (published in Yoshimoto Kenji’s ‘Sengoku Bushō kara no Tegami’ - 戦国武将からの手紙) written by the younger brother of the daimyo of Satsuma province during the Tenbun period, Shimazu Yoshihisa (1533-1611). The brother in question, Shimazu Yoshihiro (1535-1619), was quite renowned for his military abilities, as he spent a great deal of his life engaged in warfare, from his first battle at the siege of Iwatsurugi castle in Ōsumi province, through to the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600. Over the course of 45 years, he was involved in no less than 52 battles and skirmishes, and played quite a pivotal role during the invasion of the Chŏsen peninsula. It was at the Battle of Sacheon River (the 3rd month of the 9th year of Keichō, or 1598) that Yoshihiro, with an army of several thousand troops, fought and defeated a much larger Ming army under the command of Jin Yiyuan (董一元), resulting in the taking of 38,707 heads (according to contemporary Japanese records). At the Battle of Sekigahara, it was Yoshihiro who led the frontal assault against the Tokugawa forces, which allowed the remnants of the Western Army to retreat without suffering further loss. Thereafter Yoshihiro was confined to his residence on Sakurajima, but eventually received a pardon from the Tokugawa. (146)

These military exploits make the following letter that Yoshihiro sent to his wife, Saishō, all the more interesting, as they reveal a side of warriors in the Sengoku era that are rarely given prominence – that is, their concern for others, and their capacity for tenderness. The letter itself was written on the 19th day of the 3rd month of Tenshō 19 (or 1591), when Yoshihiro was fifty seven years old. While Saishō’s exact age is unknown, she was of comparable age to Yoshihiro, and so it is quite touching that although many years had passed, the affection that Yoshihiro felt towards his wife did not diminish but grew stronger (154);

“Your letter dated for the 26th of the latter half of the first month has only just arrived. I am relieved to know that nothing untoward appears to have happened where you are either.

As I have said previously, recently the grey hairs on my head have increased so that it looks as though snow has piled upon it, wrinkles have formed deep crevices on my face that look like a series of rolling waves, and when I look at my face in a mirror in the morning, I find it hard to do so even though it is my face. Were I to meet you, you would be quite surprised at my appearance and how much I have aged. I look like a completely different person.

It is often said that the rapidity by which time passes is difficult to bear, yet I wait for the time when I may take the road home. Time really does move slowly, damn it.

Mataichirō (Shimazu Hisayasu) occasionally visits you, doesn’t he? I’d like to know details about this.

It is essential that Matahachirō (Shimazu Tadatsune, later Iehisa) be encouraged to perform his public duties.

Are Chōman (Shimazu Tadakiyo) and Go Ryō Nin (the youngest daughter in the Shimazu household) both behaving themselves?

At any rate Go Ryō Nin is unique, isn’t she? (having been born when Saishō was comparatively old by early modern standards)

It is right that we do not refrain from giving thanks to the gods and Buddha for all things.

In order to ensure that Ōshinoji (possibly the child of Taishinsai and Shimazu Tadachika’s son Tomohisa), Sanmi (possibly the child of Sanmi Nyūdō and Itō Yoshisuke’s son, Suketaka) Toyama Fūfu (the daughter of Toyama Ōkurabō and Niiro Tadatomo), Tōgō Oba (possibly the wet nurse to Tōgō Shigetora) and other women of the household to not neglect their duties, I want you to listen to what they say, and gather useful information about them.

3rd month, 19th day

                                                                                                                             Yoshihiro

To Lady Saishō

(P.S: I saw you in my dreams again tonight. To think that we would meet here….

If you happen to have any good news, no matter how many times you’ve told it, I’d be happy if you could write it down for me.

Could you also ask Matahachirō to practice his prose and other studies?

I hope that Chōman has already started his education. I think it would be good to ask Lord Monseki (Shōrenin Monseki Sonchō Hōshinnō) to lend some textbooks to Chōman.

I’ve heard that Mataichirō is getting along well with his wife. I would be overjoyed if, by the light of the moon and stars, the relationship is subsequently blessed. As for advice, I’d be grateful if you could choose the right time to speak to the couple about this.

Also, please tell my elder brother Yoshihisa in Kagoshima and my daughter Oyachi in Hiramatsu that all is well with me.

Best wishes to you in all things). (156-157)

Following on from a posting made two weeks ago, the following material consists of the first items contained under the Kōyō Gunkan甲陽軍艦. As outlined in the previous post, the numbers in parenthesis ( ) indicate the page numbers in the modern version of the Kōyō Gunkan edited by Satō Masahide, which are basically there should the reader wish to compare the translation to the modernised version. As each item needs to be spelled out in detail, a translation of the entire law code will take some time (there are 57 laws in total, meaning that until the entire work is translated I’m going to have to post bits periodically on this blog. Nevertheless, the laws reveal much about the era in which they were written, and are a suitable place to start a study on Takeda laws as they related to territories during the late sixteenth century).  

The Laws of Kōshu (甲州)

Item, it is egregious for any Jitō (or regional administrator) within a province, acting without authorisation, to dispense justice for what they deem to be a crime and confiscate land or property for their own personal use. If a retainer of Lord Shingen commits such a crime, they will no longer be permitted to serve as a Jitō. After a decision is made regarding their fields, these shall be given to another. Tithes and taxes will be paid to another Jitō without delay. Any lands given over as a reward will not be recorded. The household, wives, children, and property shall be handed over to officials in accordance with the law. (30)

Item, the content of a legal issue, after it has been aired in a court, must not be revealed to anyone other than a legal officer. This extends to the period after a judgement has been made. If such content is revealed before a judgement has been handed down, people other than a legal officer will be permitted to discuss such information. (30)

Item, it is forbidden to send gifts or correspondence to other provinces without prior permission. However people living in Shinano have no choice but to correspond with people passing through their province. Moreover, people living in the border area between provinces often have to send letters. In such instances this shall be allowed. (30)

Item, forming ties with other provinces, accepting land from them, sending retainers to them and creating alliances with them are unforgivable, criminal acts which shall be punished. Any who transgress this law will face the harshest of penalties. (31)

Item, in relation to fields that do not have proper documentation to prove their ownership, if the fields produce a tithe, the Jitō is responsible with administering them. If the fields were obtained as a reward, decisions related to them will be decided via arbitration. Any debts related to fields will be dealt with according to circumstance. (31)

Item, it is a particularly serious crime for peasants to avoid paying their tithes. It is the responsibility of the Jitō to collect tithes from land held by peasants. If any irregularities occur, these should be examined, and the system reorganised. (31)

Item, it is a violation of the law to leave fallow any field cultivated from arable land without a legitimate reason. However, if a large number of tithes remain unpaid from such fields, and if this situation has continued for two years, then no action shall be taken. (31)

Item, in instances where a dispute arises concerning the placement of stakes around the four sides of a field cultivated from arable land in the mountains, a decision will be made after examining circumstances related to the original ownership of the field.  If it proves difficult to determine where the original borders of the field were, the field shall be divided in half. If this does not resolve the dispute, then the field shall be given to someone else. (31-32)

Item, if stakes are driven into the ground around a field on orders from a Jitō and if the person responsible for the field leaves it unsown, the field shall become the responsibility of the Jitō from the following year onwards. However, if tithes are collected for the field despite it producing no harvest, this will not be regarded as irregular. Moreover, if a Jitō engages in illegal conduct, he shall forfeit half of his allocated lands. (32)

Item, in regards to a field acquired as a reward, such a field should not be exchanged for another even if it suffers damage as a result of flooding or drought. Its harvest shall be collected and reported. However, any persons who have served with merit shall be granted a more appropriate field. (32)

Item, any who possess a field as a reward and yet performed no service for a Jitō before Tenmon 10 (1541) for a period of ten years shall be unable to perform such a service. However, if the period is less than nine years, then a decision shall be handed down based on circumstance. (32)

Item, it is forbidden to forcibly sell a field given as a reward except those fields which are privately owned. In instances where this cannot be avoided, a sale shall occur after discussing the circumstances and deciding on a period of sale. (32)

Item, if the peasantry provides someone for official duties and that person is subsequently killed in battle, the household that provided the deceased shall be exempt from official duties for a period of 30 days. Thereafter the household will perform their duties as before. Any loss of material goods shall not be compensated. Furthermore, if the person concerned abandons his duties and this is not reported to those responsible for the said person but subsequently confirmed, this crime shall not be exempt from punishment even though years may pass. (32)

As an addendum, if the master of a peasant should be killed through no fault of the peasant, the Jitō shall exempt the said peasant from official duties for 10 years. (32)

Item, the exchange of private contracts between family members or retainers shall be regarded as acts of rebellion against their master. However, if the contract is made on the battlefield, it shall be regarded as an act of fealty towards their master. (33)

Item, it is forbidden for the original master of servants to seek out and seize the said servants should they be employed by another.  The servants should be returned after hearing an explanation regarding their circumstances. If the former master launches legal action for the return of the servants after hearing the explanation, and the current master insists that the servants were allowed to escape, then compensation must be paid to the current master in the form of replacements.

If the servants are slaves or persons of low social status and if ten years have passed since the act concerned, then in keeping with the Jōei Shikimoku (貞永式目) there is no obligation to return the servants to their original master. (33)

Item, if a slave should escape and later be discovered on the road, this should be reported to the current owner. It is a violation of the law to take the slave back to the former owner. First, the slave should be returned to the current owner. However, if the slave is discovered in a distant place, no objection shall be made to residing in that place for a maximum of fifteen days. (33)

Item, should an argument or dispute occur, both sides shall be dealt with regardless of which side was right or wrong. Yet if this does occur, the aggrieved must not be punished. However, if another interferes in proceedings as a favour to the aggrieved or out of deceit, they shall be punished regardless of circumstance. If events lead to unintentional death, the wives, children, and extended family of the accused shall not be questioned. However, if the instigator should flee, for example in instances where they have committed a heinous act, then the wives and children of the accused shall be brought to an official station and there they shall be questioned. (33)

Item, it is proper that any punishments directed towards arguments among retainers or acts of theft committed by them shall not extend to their master. However, if circumstances indicate that the master may have been involved, and if he subsequently declares his innocence but flees without releasing his retainers from their employment, 1/3rd of the master’s property shall be seized. If they have no property, then they shall be sentenced to exile. (33)  

Is Japan developing offensive naval capabilities in anticipation of conflict with China? This is a question that has dominated East Asian defence blogs and opinion pieces over the past two weeks following the ceremony marking the completion of construction of post-war Japan’s largest ever naval vessel, the 19,500 tonne (27,000 tonne fully loaded) ‘Flat Top Destroyer’ ‘Izumo’, on the 6th of August at the Isogo docks in Yokohama City (E). According to the Asahi Shimbun (J), the Izumo, named after the former eastern district of what is now Shimane Prefecture, is about the same size as the Imperial Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga that was sunk during the Battle of Midway, and about 6000 tonnes larger than the Hyūga, Japan’s ‘Helicopter Destroyer’ and previously the largest ship in the Japanese fleet.

Philip Radford, writing for the Strategist blog, contends that the Izumo is in fact an aircraft carrier in disguise, that Japanese engineers could modify the stern section of the ship to form an elevated runway (or ‘ski-jump’), thereby allowing the Izumo to accommodate at least 20 F-35B STOVL capable fighter aircraft to contend with any Chinese attempt to seize Japanese territory in the East China Sea. This capability would give Japan the equivalent to Britain’s Harriers that were used to repel an Argentinian air force five times larger than its own during the Falklands War of 1982. The fact that Japan is planning to build another ship of similar size only gives Radford more reason to suspect that this is precisely what Japanese strategists have in mind (as a second vessel could be used for recovery – or landings, while the first allows for launches).

Chinese observers certainly share Radford’s views, as on the day following the completion ceremony both regional Chinese newspapers and the Liberation Army Newspaper contended that the Izumo could easily be modified to accommodate fighter aircraft, and that its completion was evidence that Japan was headed in a nationalistic direction and ignoring ‘the lessons of history’. Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, stated that the Izumo appeared to be deliberately aimed at antagonising China, given that the name ‘Izumo’ was shared by an Imperial Japanese vessel that was used during the campaign in China in the 1930s (E). 

As most commentary on the Izumo has focused on its potential capabilities and meaning (see, for example, here, here and here), it is clear that the MOD’s protestations that the Izumo is only meant for disaster and peace-keeping missions isn’t really cutting it with amateur and expert analysts alike (this does, of course, depend on whether the observer in question believes that the Izumo is intended to give Japan an offensive capability. Cory Wallace, writing for Japan Security Watch, noted that the Izumo does not have a ski-jump, or Thermion landing pads to allow for the F-35B’s vertical landing capability, could only accommodate a limited number of F-35Bs, and that given these restrictions, it is unlikely that the Izumo was designed to  allow for offensive operations.  Moreover, Japan does not currently possess any F-35B aircraft and may not be able to afford them, so it makes little sense to build a potential aircraft carrier for aircraft that you may never actually possess).

The Japan Marine United Corporation began construction of the Izumo in September of 2012 which, as readers would be aware, co-incided with the incursion of Chinese vessels into Japan’s EEZ around the Senkaku Islands (and kudos go to the designers, engineers and shipbuilders at JMUC for realising the plans for the Izumo in just 11 months. As the Izumo is essentially a modified Hyūga class this would not have presented much of a problem, but it is indicative of the ability of Japan’s heavy industries to complete projects in record time).  So it does appear that the Izumo has more of a defensive than offensive purpose, and that purpose would presumably be to launch and support amphibious operations (in anticipation of the development of a marine corps, as explored here and here).

While speculation about Japan’s motives in launching such a vessel are perfectly reasonable, any belief that Japan is set upon a course of open confrontation with China appears to draw upon a range of mitigating circumstances and assign to Japan capabilities that it does not yet possess or motives that would be contrary to Japan’s interests (reaching for the gun before trying to talk is an anathema to post-war Japanese diplomacy – even the Abe administration continues to press for talks with China’s leadership to reach some form of agreement on the Senkaku Islands).  If Japan believed that it was facing a direct, immediate threat to its security, it would not be trying to cage its abilities or seek ‘permission’ from the US or other regional nations before acting. While the Izumo could be modified for offensive capabilities, its purpose is exactly as the MOD describes – to provide support to SDF troops involved in disaster response operations and exercises, a sort of ‘floating heliport’ to stand in for damaged or destroyed port infrastructure.

Before I continue with this post, I should state that while I did say last week that I would be putting up translated parts of the Kōyō Gunkan together with their original Japanese script, time constraints have meant that I have to forego the latter part of that promise. I do apologize.

Nonetheless, the following is the introduction (or more correctly, forward) to the Kōyō Gunkan, a military treatise written in the latter part of the sixteenth century (for a more comprehensive explanation, see here - in Japanese). The numbers in brackets at the end of each paragraph refers to the page number in the volume Satō Masahide (ed), Kōyō Gunkan, Chikuma Shobō, Tokyo 2006.

Forward

Item, there is no significance behind the use of kana in this work. Were a scholar to read this work, he would snigger at the number of mistakes it contains. I am a peasant. In the Spring of my sixteenth year I was unexpectedly called up by Lord Shingen, whereupon I took the name Kasuga Gengorō, and rose from humble origins to a position of authority. As I served my lord without fail I had no time to devote myself to study, and so I knew nothing of letters, a state in which I still remain. Although my mistakes are just that, when considering the principles I am attempting to convey, I would like the reader to think of them (the mistakes) as evidence of the warrior code that applies to both high and low, and which extends from the present Lord Katsuyori to his heir Tarō Nobukatsu. (014)

Item, Lord Nagasaka Chōkanrō and Lord Atobe Ōi no Suke remember the following quite vividly. During the reign of Lord Shingen, the former ruler, all matters, not only those regarding legal cases, were discussed in detail and the merits exposed. However not all matters were written down. At times when there were differences of opinion and no firm consensus could be reached, both Shingen and his councillors would discuss matters at hand and then make a decision on them. One or two of these decisions would then be written down. (014)

Item, though some may wonder why this work was written using kana, there is no point transcribing the work into kanbun (Chinese script). I do not mind if the parts in kanbun are re-written in kana. However, in such instances a single volume should be written out exactly like the original, and then a kana version should be made of this. The original of which I speak are the 57 precepts (or laws) of Lord Shingen. (015)  There are probably no scholars among the great number of people who read books written in kana. It is these unlettered people that read kana, and kana allows both young and old to take a book in hand and read on rainy days. (015)

Item, warriors, both high and low born, should strive to study and acquire knowledge. However as to what written works they should read, they should read one book, or two or three at the most and be satisfied if they can apply the lessons therein. There is no need to read a large number of books. Moreover, there is no need to study Chinese poetry or Chinese literature. There are (and have been) generals that hold half the realm in their hands, who excel in their studies, read both Chinese poetry and literature, and are praised for their abilities even after their deaths. Yet it is often the case that although a general may hold the realm in their grasp, those generals that have more book volumes than successes in battle are thought of as weak. This is something that must be carefully considered. (015)  

Item, for example, although questions might emerge regarding a general who holds on to a province and yet dedicates too much of his time to his studies, a lower born warrior who aspires to become the first chosen for public office and then spends his time studying will ignore his duties, lose his position, and be thought of as disloyal.  An official position in a lord’s residence during peace time equates to glory against an enemy in battle. (016) No matter what one’s line of work, to ignore one’s duty is unforgivable. The duty of those born into a warrior household is to serve. There are two types of service; that which is exercised in a lord’s household, and glory in battle. (016)

The Buddhist priest follows the practices of Buddhism, the Confucian scholar practices Confucian thought, the town dweller trades, and the peasant tends to his fields, for that is his profession. Even carpenters and artisans should apply themselves to learning the profession they were born into. It is not acceptable to neglect one’s duty and pour all of one’s efforts into other pursuits. The priest that neglects his studies and applies himself to warfare, or the warrior that becomes absorbed in study or Nō drama and puts aside his duty gravely insults his true profession. (016)

However, it is indeed good for there to be one or two educated warriors among a hundred or so. Famous generals that hold the realm in their grasp have learned priests in their service. While it would be better for lower level generals with two or three hundred saddles at their command, or generals with only a minimal force divided into three to have priests in their service, an educated warrior is a treasure as valuable as a horse that can accommodate two saddles. This is the reason it is very fortunate to have one or two educated warriors among the hundred one commands. (016)

Item, lower level warriors, even if they are educated and have acquired knowledge of Chinese poetry and verse, should not flaunt these abilities in the open. Though they may receive praise, such warriors are like those Ashikaga priests that return to the secular world, and are in most cases quite pathetic. Although they are priests, they pretend to have the learning of the Zen priests of Daitokuji or Myōshinji, their penmanship is poor, they can only perform meditation with one leg folded, and are harshly scolded by priests who are dedicated to the practice of Zen. (017)

Item, a warrior must exercise loyalty and fealty towards their lord whether they be asleep, drunk, or having a meal. (017)

Item, when speaking of a general that holds the realm (or province) in their grasp, even if they are an enemy general, they should not be referred to as that ‘foolish general’, but should merely be referred to as ‘general’. To insult and demean an enemy general is a cowardly tactic used by the weak. Hence one should respectful terms whether one is writing or speaking to the ruler of a province, be he an enemy or an ally. (017)

When counting the number of generals throughout the realm that rule over an entire province, there are perhaps sixty six in total, not even a hundred. Should the said general be from an established family, one should praise their heritage. Should they have recently risen to prominence, one must consider their intelligence and dedication to the protection of the gods and bodhisattva and avoid insulting them. Insulting the enemy is a strategy used by households that are poor in battle. (017)

Battles are usually won by the side that is strongest, however it is possible for a weaker side to win as a result of good fortune. However a weaker side, when it defeats a stronger, will always insult the enemy general. For example, when a town dweller beats a warrior in a duel, he will praise his own exploits and bad-mouth his opponent. As he had not fought a warrior in earnest before he thought he had little chance of victory. So when he unexpectedly wins, he insults his opponent by telling him that he’s not much of a warrior. Moreover, when a warrior fights against  town dweller, should it take the warrior more than the usual amount of effort to beat the town dweller, the town dweller will be praised rather than the warrior because he offered up a much better fight than was expected from him.(018)

In a similar way, in the case of battle, to insult an enemy general and making up various lies about the enemy implies that one did not believe one could win in the first place and that victory was totally unexpected. This then makes one vulnerable to being manipulated by other provinces. In the household of Lord Katsuyori, it is forbidden to speak ill of an enemy. (018)

There were no household rules in place during the reign of Lord Shingen, yet the warriors under his rule took it upon themselves to act appropriately, and did not make up fables about the enemy or engage in insulting behaviour towards them. Many years ago, during the battles between the Taira and Minamoto households, the armies of the Taira would belittle the Minamoto. When the Taira won the night battle of Taikenron, they insulted the enemy, and spoke of ‘that bastard Yoritomo’. Thereafter, when the Minamoto defeated the Taira, the armies of the Minamoto referred to the Taira as ‘Lord Kiyomori’, ‘Lord Komatsu’ or ‘Lord Councillor’, and did not speak a word of ill against them. The fact that Lord Yoshitsune shed tears upon viewing the head of his enemy, Taira no Atsumori, is proof of how the warriors of the Minamoto did not insult the Taira. One must therefore be able to discern between the merits and faults of such behaviour. (018)

Item, when providing hospitality towards members of one’s own retinue, or household councillors, or immediate family, or any large group of people, the host should always test for poison himself. This is not for anyone else’s benefit but his. One should also be wary of those who don’t do such things. This must also be considered for its merits and faults.

The nine precepts outline here thus constitute the forward to what follows. (019)



 

In this morning’s The Age newspaper, there is a particularly interesting op-ed by the ANU’s Professor Hugh White exploring the issues of why Japan needs to pursue its own security policy separate to that of the US. Ultimately, says White, Japan needs to exercise independence in order to ensure that the US does not end up in a direct conflict with China.

White’s thoughts on Japan’s growing ‘nationalism’ provides some clear arguments as to why Japan won’t pursue a unilateral, expansionist security policy (should it choose to modify its constitution), and that a more ‘normal’ Japan is far more preferable to one still beholden to the US for its defence. One question though; if a more independent Japan decides that forming a separate alliance with regional partners is a key to its security, would Australia sign or, like the current Japan, still rely on the US for most of its security needs?

For those who do need a quick revision of Hugh White’s overall thesis on US-China relations, see here.  White is not an apologist for China, despite claims to the contrary.  Labelling his views as pro-China, anti-US misses the point of his central thesis, which is; the strategic map of Asia is changing, and incumbent powers must either choose to share power with a rising China or risk war to maintain their hegemony. White does not state that the US should simply surrender to China's whims, and indeed says that should China try to unilaterally change the strategic balance of the region then it should be met with force. Yet by seeking to deny China any influence beyond its immediate borders, the US risks a retaliation from China which does not share the US's vision for the region.  

This particularly post takes a large deviation from those of previous weeks and returns to a topic for which I have a great deal of interest; namely, the development of institutions of rule in the pre-Edo period. As part of this interest, I have wanted (for some time) to embark upon a translation project that would both contribute to a wider understanding of such institutions and figures of historical interest. While I have considered a full-length translation of the Kōyō Gunkan, the material itself and the need for greater familiarity with the history of the Takeda household has meant that this will have to remain an ambition for a little while longer. I shall, however, post short excerpts from the work, together with the Japanese original, when the opportunity arises.

In the meantime, given its historical importance, the Shinchō Kōki presents an interesting and fitting challenge for translation (I am, of course, aware that this work has already been translated into English by Jurguis Elisonas, or George Elison, and Jerome Lamers as ‘The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga’. To those that doubt the usefulness of pursuing another translation, I say what the hell, I can but try).

The record itself (信長公記, also referred to as the Shinchō Ki, or 信長記) is the work of Ōta Izumi no Kami Gyūichi (大田和泉守牛一) (or ‘Ushikazu’, as there is some dispute as to the correct reading of his personal name), a retainer of Oda Nobunaga and later Toyotomi Hideyoshi. According to Sakakiyama Jun (whose modern translation of the original Shinchō Kōki is my main source - to purists I do apologise, but given that I am not Helen McCullough and that I do not make a living from pre-modern translations, some leeway will be necessary), Gyūichi was born in the village of Yasugui (or Anshoku) in Yamada Shō, Kasugai Gun, in the province of Owari in the 7th year of Daiei (1527), and was commonly known as Matasuke (又助).

Gyūichi began his service to Nobunaga (from which the Shinchō in the work’s title is derived, given that the On reading for the characters for Nobunaga are read as Shinchō, although again there is some debate about whether the title should be read as Shinchō or as Nobunaga) as a foot soldier (otherwise known as an ‘ashigaru’, or 足軽).  Such was his prowess with a bow that he was soon promoted to third bow, and later formed part of Nobunaga’s personal bodyguard as the third of six ‘spears’ (a title bestowed on the most proficient soldiers appointed to protect a prominent general). In the 8th year of Eiroku (1565), Nobunaga carried out an attack against the Dōhora fort which belonged to Nagai Hayato no Kami, a retainer of Saitō Yoshitatsu (斉藤義竜) (20. These numbers refer to the page numbers in Sakakiyama Jun’s translation).

Gyūichi, acting on his own, scaled a tall building at the front of the fort and from the roof began to release a steady stream of arrows. Nobunaga believed him loyal enough that he used him another three times as a messenger, praised him as “working as if his life depended on it” and promoted him. For someone who began life as no more than a rural samurai with no family name, Gyūichi displayed remarkable tenacity and desire for knowledge. He was mostly self-taught, and came to serve as a personal attendant to Nobunaga and to Hideyoshi. He later served as an overseer (or daikan) to territory in Yamashiro and Ōmi provinces which he received directly from Hideyoshi, he was responsible for the construction of one section of the castle of Nagoya in Hizen province, and he worked in a bureaucratic role, meeting with dignitaries sent from Ming China.(21)

Gyūichi’s devotion to learning was such that it impressed those who ordinarily dedicated themselves to study. The diary of the Zen monk Saishō Shōtai, known as the Nichiyō Shū (日用集), contains an entry dated for the 22nd day of the 11th month of the 17th year of Tenshō (1589) which says the following…”In the evening I was visited by Lord Ōta Matasuke. He asked questions concerning the Mōkyū (蒙求, a Chinese historical record), and we discussed 5 or 6 historical figures”. Despite the fact that Gyūichi would have been over 60 years old by Tenshō 17, his love of learning never waned. Hence Gyūichi’s tenacity, the fact that he was personally present at many of the events described in his record, and his attention to detail have all contributed to the Shinchō Kōki’s reputation as a reliable historical resource.(21)

As for the Shinchō Kōki itself, it was completed by Gyūichi in the 15th year of Keichō (1610) in the early Edo period, and is the first historical record that concerns the life of Oda Nobunaga. Overall it consists of 16 scrolls, which are divided into 8 scrolls each. The first eight describe the early period of Nobunaga’s life, from his birth through to his arrival in Kyoto together with the Shōgun Ashikaga Yoshiaki in Eiroku 11 (1568), while the latter eight detail events leading up to Nobunaga’s dramatic death at Honnōji temple in Tenshō 10 (1582). The record covers all of the major events in Nobunaga’s life, and has been the principal source for historians regarding those events, including the battles of Okehazama, Anegawa, the suppression of the Ikkō Ikki in Ise and Echizen provinces, the burning of Enryakuji, and the war against Ishiyama Honganji.

Given that it was written by a close retainer of Oda Nobunaga, it is obviously heavily influenced by opinions drawn from among members of the Oda and Toyotomi households. There are also some theories that the work was not that solely of Gyūichi, and that he may have received some assistance (given that Nobunaga is variously referred to as 上様 (Uesama, literally ‘lord’), 信長公 (Nobunaga-Oyake), and 信長(Nobunaga). Nevertheless, the record gives a fascinating insight into sixteenth century Japan and the character of Nobunaga and his retainers. The translation itself will probably need to be transferred to my web site at some point (given the sheer volume of material and the need to organise it all in one, easy to access format), but for the time being it shall make up quite a few posts on this blog.