After a three week hiatus, a result of a trip to the US and Canada of the same length, I`m returning to writing this blog on a subject vastly different to my usual posts, namely my own impressions of what I experienced during that trip. From the outset I must say that I was thoroughly impressed by the people of both nations, who obviously carry a self-assured nature that comes from being citizens of two of the wealthiest nations on the planet. The people I came into contact with were affable, approachable, and genuinely interested in a person`s origins and their reasons for travel.

It appeared to me, as an Australian, that the peoples of these nations have more in common than they may realise, although their approach to matters  is, on occasion, radically different. There were, it must be said, far fewer homeless on the streets of Canadian cities than those in the US, although neither country was beset with the type of poverty that you often witness in Asia.  Having said this, clearly the issue of social disparity is widely debated within American society, particularly among the recent migrant communities in large cities such as New York and Washington D.C. Many that I talked to express frustrations at working in a system that they consider perpetuates rather than relieves their financial concerns, and weren`t shy about revealing that to a foreigner.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that American society is by and large stable and recovering from its financial problems of the past years. Employment seemed regular and widespread, and there were plenty of people purchasing items in stores in the cities that I visited. Gun violence, a subject that is often raised overseas in relation to the US, was a distant issue even in large cities. Mind you, I did not visit the outer suburbs of these larger cities so my impressions were formed on what I saw at their centers, but these areas are like any other city centre in Canada and Australia. Speaking of city centres, clearly American cities take enormous pride in their civic spaces, and I was impressed by the neo-Roman, Greek, and British/French inspired architecture that dominates public spaces in places such as Washington, Philadelphia, and Boston.

Canada also had that same civic pride, but theirs was somewhat more subdued in its promotion. Canadians are a little more reserved than Americans in their temperament, but they are by and large more affable than Australians (these are my own observations, it must be remembered).  Canadian cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal are, despite their size, well run, well organised, and quite safe to travel in. The scenery of Canada, for those reading this in Australia, must be seen to be believed. It is hard to believe that such greenery can exist, given the tendency of our own continent to be averse to steady rainfall. No wonder the earlier European settlers of North America were so captivated by the place, as such rich soil in such abundance would naturally create ample crops for farms to trade with one another and the cities on the coastline. It makes an Australian very envious!

If there was one thing that I found at fault in my journeys, it was the existence of tipping. It has long been pointed out that this is an inefficient form of taxation, and the absence of a standard minimum wage (by which I mean liveable wage) for either the US and Canada means that its practice will not disappear anytime soon, but I found it an inconvenience more than anything else.

I will also say in closing that if there was one city that impressed me more than any other, it was Quebec. Many might find that odd, given the range of amenities and civic projects one can find in bigger cities such as New York or Toronto, but that was my impression. Perhaps it was the fact that Quebec strongly retains its French heritage, and that its architecture was reminiscent of Europe that so captivated me, but at any rate I found it to be far more liveable and awe-inspiring than the other cities that I visited (Boston also caught my eye for its historical significance, and is another city I would like to visit again in the future). This much is true, one cannot do justice to the amount of sights and sounds available in North America by just visiting it once, hence at some point in the future I will once again head out north to visit the fascinating countries that reside there (just as soon as I overcome this damn jet lag!).

Rōnin vent their frustration at the Bakufu

This rebellion took place in the 4th year of Keian (1651), and was an attempt by groups of rōnin to revolt against the Tokugawa Bakufu.  It is also known as the Keian Incident (慶安事件). The leader of the revolt was a military strategist by the name of Yui Shōsetsu and rōnin by the name of Marubashi Chūya, Kanai Hanbe`ei, and Kumagaya Saburō Hei`ei.  

In the aftermath of the Battle of Sekigahara (1600), the Tokugawa Bakufu set about re-arranging the local of regional daimyō families or else seized their territory and drove them into ruin.  This process continued so that by the time of the third Shōgun Iemitsu there were an estimated 40,000 rōnin (masterless samurai) throughout the realm. Not content with this, the Bakufu also went about expelling rōnin from the capital at Edo and increased penalties and measures to clamp down on rōnin in general.  During the Kanei period (1624-44), new measures were imposed on daimyō to prevent them from expanding their number of household retainers, and so the unease of the rōnin grew even further.

It was around this time that Yui Shōsetsu opened up a school of military strategy in the Kusunoki style at Kanda Renjyaku (modern Chiyoda ward, Kanda Suda-machi), where many of his students were members of daimyō households as well as rōnin. At the same time, Marubashi Chūya was a renowned practitioner of the Hōzōin style of crossed spears, and opened a dōjō at Ochanomizu (Chiyoda ward). Both Shōsetsu and Chūya were dissatisfied at the way of the world and seeking a means to help rōnin. They eventually decided to join together and work to `correct` what they regarded as a corrupted Bakufu. Such was their influence that soon many rōnin were flocking to join either of their schools. 

In the 4th year of Keian (1651), Iemitsu died of illness. His successor, Ietsuna, was but an infant when he was named as the next Shōgun. Sensing an opportunity, Shōsetsu then hatched a plan whereby uprisings against the Bakufu would occur simultaneously in Edo, Sunpu (located in what is now central Shizuoka prefecture), Kyoto, and Osaka.

The plot is discovered after secret missives sent

According to the plan, Shōsetsu would make his way to Sunpu, seize the treasure of Ieyasu on Kunōzan (in modern Shizuoka city), and from there direct the rebellion. In Edo, Marubashi Chūya would direct the rōnin, destroy the fire extinguishing warehouses in Koishikawa (modern Bunkyō ward), set fire to buildings at a number of points throughout the city, and then use the ensuing chaos to attack Edo castle and seize the Shōgun.  At the same time, Kanai Hanbe`ei in Osaka and Kumagaya Saburō Hei`ei in Kyoto would lead rōnin in those cities against local representatives of the Bakufu.

However, some of the plotters got cold feet and informed the Bakufu of the plan. On the 22nd of the 7th month of the same year, Marubashi Chūya was arrested, and was later executed by crucifixion on the banks of the Shinagawa. Shōsetsu, and 10 of his accomplices, were lodging at Umeya in Sunpu when their lodgings were surrounded by men belonging to the local Sunpu magistrate. On the 26th of the same month, Shōsetsu and his accomplices all committed ritual suicide. The Bakufu then launched a nationwide search for other accomplices, rounding up another 30 or so rōnin. Shōsetsu left a will before he died, in which he explained that his intention had not been to overthrow the Bakufu but to instead rescue rōnin from a life of destitution and reform the system of politics.

This incident awoke the Bakufu to the difficulties being faced by rōnin, and so the policy of reform of the daimyō system was eased, thus making this an important turning point in the political policies of the nation. (pp.199-200) 

I was going to start this particular post by explaining why I have decided to once again delve back into translations by exploring some of the chapters included in the book 大江戸まるわかり辞典 (The Comprehensive Edo Encyclopaedia) by Oishi Manabu. However my computer, after I had just finished the original translation, decided to crash before I had a chance to save the material therein, thereby forcing me to once again undertake the translation and struggle with my desire to put my fist through the computer`s screen. At any rate, over the next couple of weeks I will be translating parts from the chapter in the book titled `major incidents of the Edo period`, primarily because I believe that there is still a shortage of knowledge out there about such incidents in English. The first incident outlined in the book is that of the Shimabara Rebellion, an incident that is well documented in Ivan Morris` The Nobility of Failure.  What follows is a re-translation of Oishi`s explanation, with a few additional notes for clarity.

島原の乱  The Shimabara Rebellion

At the outset of the Edo period, the area of Kyushu known as the Shimabara peninsula (located in modern Nagasaki prefecture), and the area known as Amakusa Island (located in modern Kumamoto prefecture) had witnessed a steady growth in Christian followers over the years. However the lord of Shimabara province, Matsukura Katsuie, and his counterpart in Karazu province (which housed the Amakusa island chain), Terazawa Katataka, had both earned the ire of local residents through their imposition of excessive taxation and suppression of local Christian beliefs.  Add to this the fact that in the mid 1630s the region had experienced a series of bad harvests, and soon apocalyptic teachings and messages of the second coming of Christ began to resonate very loudly among the local peasant population. In the 10th month of Kanei 14 (1637), things came to a head with the outbreak of a rebellion among locals on the southern tip of Shimabara peninsula.(p.198)

The rebellion soon spread to cover virtually the entire peninsula, and culminated in an attack by local groups on the local castle at Shimabara itself. Moreover, peasants on the island of Amakusa also rose in revolt against the Terazawa, and joining forces with groups from Shimabara surrounded the main Terazawa castle at Tomioka (located in modern Reihoku town in Kumamoto prefecture) and brought it to the brink of surrender. The leaders of this rebellion were drawn from among the disaffected samurai (or ronin) that lived in the region, together with a section of the leaders of local communities. While providing military leadership to the group, they also used the Christian religion to keep the group together. On the island of Oyano, one of the islands in the Amakusa island chain, a `saviour` figure emerged in the form of one Amakusa Shiro (also known as Mashita Shiro Tokitada). (p.198)

An army of 120,000 to suppress a rebellion

The Tokugawa Bakufu was particularly concerned by this outbreak of rebellion, and ordered Itakura Shigemasa to lead a force draw together from resources from Saga, Yanagawa, and Kurume provinces against the rebellious locals.  In the 12th month of the same year, a force of around 20,000 men and women, young and old, retreated to the old castle at Hara (in modern Minami-Arima town in Nagasaki prefecture) and there prepared themselves for a siege. The involvement of the religious factor of Christianity would from here on influence official thinking on all forms of peasant rebellion, and thus Christianity would be associated with disorder and rebellion.(p.198)

In the 1st month of the following year (1638), Itakura Shigemasa died while fighting against the local rebels.  His replacement, Matsudaira Nobutsuna, a senior retainer in the Bakufu (his name demonstrates that he was a direct relative of the Shōgun himself) was given command of a (for the time) huge army of 120,000 soldiers who were dispatched to Kyushu. Upon arrival at Hara, Matsudaira began his siege of the castle, adopting a strategy of cutting off the castle`s supply lines. The Bakufu had also managed to secure assistance from visiting Dutch trading ships in the area who used their ships` cannon against the old castle. (198)

While the defenders of the castle were still resolute in their determination to resist the Bakufu, on the 27th of the 2nd month the castle`s food supplies ran out. On the following day, the Bakufu forces launched an all-out attack against the castle, whereby they overwhelmed the weakened defenders therein and slaughtered every one of them. (p.198)

The total casualties among the Bakufu forces were calculated at some 12,000, which indicates the degree of ferocity by which the local rebels defended the castle (and may also indicate the degree to which disease may have swept through the Bakufu camp while engaged in the siege).  After the castle fell, the Bakufu decided to punish both Matsukura Katsuie and Terazawa Katataka by seizing their territory, and executing Katsuie. Katataka, perhaps knowing that he would met a similar fate, instead chose ritual suicide.  The Bakufu, in order to ensure that no peasant rebellion might ever again threaten its rule, imposed a range of strict measures on peasant communities, and banned the practice of Christianity among the peasantry.  It also banned Portuguese traders from the country, and forbade any Japanese from trading with Portugal.  This would lead to the phenomenon of self-imposed isolation by Japan from the outside world (other known as Sakoku, or 鎖国), a practice that in turn solidified and strengthened the Bakufu`s hold over the country. (p.198)