Recognised as a social norm

On a certain morning in the eighth month of the 24th year of Ōei (1417), in a space beside the entrance to a private house between the Kyoto avenues of Ayano Kōji Ōmiya and Shijō Ōmiya, an incident occurred whereby a priest of the Hokke sect was assassinated by two individuals.  The assassinated priest had been chased along Ōmiya road and had made his way north, finally seeking refuge in a private house.  His assailants had made their way into that house, and there they had assassinated the priest.  There was, however, no way that the people of the surrounding township would silently allow someone`s private home to be violated and a murder take place.  They immediately flew out of their houses and apprehended the assailants.  They then made their way to the samurai-dokoro of the Bakufu, and there presented the two culprits. (p.37)

As became clear during the subsequent investigation, the murderer was the leader of the two, who in the guise of a priest had killed the Hokke priest with a `great sword` (or daitō). The other member had apparently placed a bow and its case (or utsubo, 靫) in the vicinity of the crime.  According to the testimony of the accused, the murdered priest had been a `katakiuchi`. What is particularly interesting about this case is that the person who recorded it their diary, Nakahara Yasutomi, was a highly regarded official who wrote down his impression of the case.  In Nakahara`s view, it was an example of “the mysteries of divine will”.  In other words, upon hearing that the murdered priest had been a `katakiuchi`, Nakahara chose to praise the murderers.  So how about that.  Nakahara did not consider what the two individuals had done as a bad thing, but appears to have thought that they should be thanked for their deed. (p.37)

In order to prove that this was not a peculiar characteristic of Nakahara`s way of thinking, Nakahara continued with the following  “ただし、かくのごとき仮りごと、つねにあるのあいだ、信ずるにおよばず” (However, this is a commonly repeated lie (that the murdered person was a katakiuchi), and so it cannot simply be believed). In other words, whether or not this was an example of katakiuchi was beside the point. The murdered priest clearly wasn`t a true katakiuchi, and there were many examples of people murdering others and then claiming the other party was a katakiuchi in order to escape punishment. (p.37-38)

For example, in the 4th year of Eikyo (1432) on the estate of Nishi Kawai in the province of Harima (now part of Kasai City in Hyogo prefecture), two samurai by the name of Nakamura Sado Nyūdō and Kōzuki Yamato no Kuni killed another local samurai named Kōhana Hikozaemon Nyūdō and appropriated his tribute. At least, this was the charge that the Bakufu made against the owner of the estate, the shrine of Iwashimizu Hachimangū.  Iwashimizu then attempted to come up with a variety of counter arguments to justify the killing.  They claimed that Kōhana had been their own retainer in the service of a local official, and part of the younger band of retainers, while also being a `katakiuchi`.  In the end Iwashimizu lost the case. They had been prepared to claim that Kōhana was a katakiuchi despite the fact that it wasn`t true.  Given this state of affairs, it is fairly clear that for the society at the time, to kill a katakiuchi was not itself regarded as illegal.  (p.38-39)

By using these social mores, each party attempted to justify murder.  As Nakahara had written, it was fairly common to see people who claimed that they had killed a `katakiuchi` in order to justify the killing. When one considers that they were brazen enough to use this defence in the Bakufu`s own law courts, then there is a very high probability that killing a katakiuchi was regarded by society as normal. In the second month of the 2nd year of Kenan (1362), a legal official for the Muromachi Bakufu, when asked to give an opinion on the criminality of katakiuchi,  wrote about a precedent in the `Goseibai Shikimoku` (御成敗式目) as ratified by the Kamakura Bakufu.  According to this document, if the offspring of an individual kill their father`s enemy, they will be found innocent. Yet if one digs a little deeper, one finds that in the original Goseibai Shikimoku, there is no such clause.  Rather, Article 10 of the original document states the exact opposite. (p.39)

If the offspring of an individual should kill their father`s enemy, both the father and his offspring shall be punished. This error in interpretation can either be attributed to a simple mistake on the part of the legal official, or else it might have been a deliberate attempt by the official to change the meaning of Article 10.  In truth, it is difficult to decide either way.  Nevertheless, while the practice of katakiuchi may have been banned within the original Goseibai Shikimoku, by the Muromachi era even officers of the law had diverted from the original interpretation (or else ignored it) and thus there began to appear people attempting to justify katakiuchi. (p.39)

The legitimacy of `Shin Katakiuchi`

Was killing an enemy `officially sanctioned`?

Research dealing with revenge and `killing one`s enemies` has a long history in this country, at least from the Meiji period onwards.  Although it is complicated, this is an important problem area, hence an explanation of a bit of the history of this research is in order. 

The first direct commentary on the phenomenon of `killing one`s enemy` was made by Nitobe Inazō (1862-1933), the author whose visage appeared on the old five thousand yen note.  In the middle of his literary work `Bushidō`, which was the first to convey to the outside world the Japanese concept of beauty (English version 1899, Japanese translation 1908), Nitobe touched upon `killing one`s enemy`, or katakiuchi, 敵討.  Nitobe wrote that the pre-Early Modern samurai use of `katakiuchi` was a means to preserve the mores of society in a `world without law courts`, and so it functioned as a `logically equitable system of justice`.  Nitobe thereby placed the samurai social practice of `katakiuchi` amid the universal history of mankind.(34-35)

The next person to deal with this issue from a legal perspective was the so-called `giant` of the Meiji and Taishō legal world, Hozumi Nobushige (1855-1926). In his work `Revenge and the Law` (Fukushū to Hōritsu, published posthumously in 1931), Hozumi took the view that the transcendence of revenge killings by the law was an important development in the history of mankind, and so established `katakiuchi` as a product of an era in which revenge was officially sanctioned. According to Hozumi, the history of mankind evolved from `an era in which revenge was sanctioned` to `an era in which revenge was limited`, and finally to `an era in which revenge was banned`. (35)

This study was followed by that of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi (1895-1984), the author of `The Imperial View of History` (Kōkoku Shikan) which promoted an ultra nationalistic view of history during the Pacific War.  In his work `Social temples and society in the medieval period` (published in 1926), Hiraizumi examined the question of sanctuary and revenge in medieval Japan.  While declaring that the social temples of medieval Japan performed a role similar to that of monastic sanctuaries in Western Europe, he also pointed out that the existence of revenge killings in medieval Japan led to the development of the concept of sanctuary.  It was Hiraizumi who also posited that the gradual elimination of revenge killings by the courts in turn led to the elimination of sanctuary from society.  For Hiraizumi, sanctuary existed in tandem with katakiuchi .(35)

These three theories may be termed `the traditional academic definition` of katakiuchi, and as is clear from a reading of all three, Nitobe developed his in order to promote recognition among Western society of the Japanese concept of beauty, while Hozumi and Hiraizumi both created their theories using the context of the nineteenth century theory of evolution and how this led to the development of the law (as well as the development of Japanese history).  All three writers formed their views from the historical material available to them at the time, and the abundance of collateral evidence is truly astounding.  Yet the danger in their theories lies in their excessive praise of the conquest of revenge by the state. This probably stems from the age in which all three writers lived, yet one cannot help feeling that they attempted to simplify and pre-establish a linear pattern for what is a complicated historical development.  (36)

In conclusion, this means that as far as their historical research was concerned, the development of a unique law such as `mutual punishment` (Kenka Ryōseibai) was deliberate. All three writers` theories were in keeping with the age in which they lived.  They saw the law leading society out of the dark ages into a brighter age of social mores.  At the time the writers lived in, the practice of mutual punishment was regarded as the force that changed society, despite a lack of evidence to collaborate this. The theory was then simply inserted into the framework of the theory of evolution, thus giving it an overly positive reputation. The dangers of forming such a glorified theory on the creation of order by the state can be seen in the way that Hiraizumi advocated the `Imperial View of History` and leaned towards ultra nationalism. (36)

In response to this `traditional academic definition`, the criticisms of postwar Japanese legal history turned towards the basic facts that all three writers insisted upon, that is, that the practice of `katakiuchi` in Japanese history was `officially sanctioned` as a `logically equitable system of justice`.  Ishii Ryōsuke, who built the foundations of postwar Japanese legal history, stated that the within the annals of Japanese history, the first appearance of `katakiuchi` as sanctioned by law was in the `Precepts of the Chōsokabe Family`, a document drawn up in Keichō 2 (1597) by the Chōsokabe of Tosa province (modern Kōchi prefecture), and therefore of the Edo period. In no way was katakiuchi `officially sanctioned` in general before this time, and thus the legal theory of evolution as promulgated by the traditional academic definition did not fit the Japanese model. (37)

In truth, the existence of katakiuchi as a legally sanctioned form of authority and its incorporation into the exercise of public authority, as in the `trials by combat` of medieval Europe, is almost impossible to confirm before the early modern period in Japan. Moreover, while katakiuchi might have been a statutory law during the medieval period, one is forced to conclude that before the early modern period, katakiuchi was banned in all but statutory law. For this reason, for a long time after the war researchers believed that katakiuchi of the medieval period was an illegal activity, and thus there wasn`t much interest in examining the phenomenon in detail. (37)

However research after this period led to a rejection of this point of view, and at present the view is that katakiuchi was not necessarily an illegal act.  The author has found a number of examples from the Muromachi period to illustrate this point, which shall be examined in detail next week. (37)

This post takes as its theme a short excerpt from the book “Kenka Ryōseibai no Tanjō” (or The Birth of the Practice of Mutual Punishment) by Shimizu Katsuyuki.  It is a tremendous read on how the concept of punishing both sides involved in a dispute came to be so widely used throughout Japan during the Muromachi period. The excerpt below starts just after chapter one, hence there is a bit of a disconnect between it and the first paragraph of chapter two, but bear with it, as it does contain some interesting information.  I will translate more of the chapter as time permits, as this is an area that I would very much like to examine further.

Not even daimyō could do as they wished

This does not mean that the people of the Muromachi period flew off the handle at the drop of a hat or went around in a permanent state of agitation.  Although we might readily use the word “fight” (or ‘kenka’, 喧嘩), when one closely examines the historical records, this concept was divided into different categories  such as a “tōza no kenka” (or ‘random fighting’) and “shukui no kenka” (or ‘feuds’). Fighting that occurred at the time could either be a sudden, random event, or it might have been an act of revenge stemming from long held grudges. As we saw in the examples from the previous chapter, while trouble often arose from drunken arguments, the people at the time maintained a strong sense of personal pride, and unless alcohol was involved or some other special circumstance, were not easily provoked to anger. 

That is to say, for the society at the time ‘feuds’ were a much more serious problem that ‘random fighting’.  It is for this reason that this chapter shall examine the former, and consider acts of revenge and ‘slaying one’s opponent’ (or ‘katakiuchi’, 敵討ち). The Jesuit missionary Valignano, who journeyed to Japan in the sixteenth century, wrote about the extraordinary calculating nature of the Japanese in his ‘Record of Travels throughout Japan’ in the following manner;

They (the Japanese) show a great deal of restraint, and do not openly express what they are thinking.  As they keep such a hold over their anger, when they do express anger it is slight (abridged) Even though they might be the worst of enemies, both sides maintain the cheeriest of expressions, and do not for a moment consider abandoning the etiquette that they are used to.  They harbour the most conspiratorial of thoughts deep within their hearts and yet have the most refined and respectful countenance, all the while biding their time, gritting their teeth  and waiting for their day of victory to arrive. (pp.30-31)

Japanese people at the time had a very strong sense of honour, yet at the same time this was combined with an insidious nature whereby they `harbour the most conspiratorial of thoughts deep within their hearts` while `biding their time, gritting their teeth and waiting for the day of victory to arrive`. For the daimyō of the Muromachi era in particular, who hired retainers who would not hesitate to `kill their master`, they had to live day to day in fear of their retainers ` treachery. When one reads the historical records, they often discuss the outbreak of hostility between the Muromachi Shōgunate of this period and daimyō. As there are so many examples of such behaviour, while some might argue that this was a genealogical pattern of a system centred on the Ashikaga family, I prefer to think that this behaviour was caused by the power structure of the time and the mentality of retainers. (p.31)

It was particularly difficult at the time for the head of a household, such as a daimyō, to have his wishes concerning successors or administration of the household enforced at will, as the opinions and ideas of retainers also had to be respected. As we learned from the previous chapter, these retainers placed more importance on their own honour that following the precepts of their lord. If the head of the household had been able to exercise complete control over the household and have a clear, fixed position at the centre of the household, as was the case with daimyō of the Early Modern period, then this would not have been a problem.  Yet the household politics of this era was distinguished by the `power balance` between the daimyō and his retainers, and the fluctuation of events between them. (p.31) It was a result of this precarious state of affairs that daimyō were not able to control their retainers at will, and so I think there were probably quite a few daimyō whose sanity might have slipped as a result of living in the midst of such anxiety. (p.31)

In reality, daimyō such as Hosokawa Katsumoto and Yamana Sōzen, who controlled rival sides during the Ōnin and Bunmei wars, did not anticipate that their feud would spark such a major conflict, and that the conflict itself would drag on for six years, driving Katsumoto to take the tonsure, almost forcing Sōzen to commit ritual suicide, and hastening the early deaths of both men. While both men may have been powerful daimyō, they were unable to control their own factions or the retainers who served under them, and so may have been driven to death by the strain this had on them.  The actions of generals of the Muromachi period, when compared to that of the Era of the Warring States, were feeble and at times incomprehensible, yet they had their origins in the power structure that these generals supported and the expectations of society at the time. (p.32)

Strike or be struck?

Yet while living in this era, daimyō also `harbour(ed)  the most conspiratorial of thoughts deep within their hearts` while `biding their time, gritting their teeth and waiting for the day of victory to arrive`, and had a vindictiveness equal to any of their peers.  Daimyō would seek to cut off any budding revolt by their retainers before it had a chance to grow, and planned for just such an eventuality. It was just such behaviour that the missionary Organtino witnessed during his stay in Japan during the sixteenth century, an experience he wrote about in the following manner;

They (the Japanese) do not punish people with the whip, yet if a lord and master can no longer stand the malicious behaviour of their retainer, they bring that retainer before them, and with no show of anger or indignation, have that retainer put to death.  As for why they do this, if the lord exhibits any show of dislike or doubt towards a retainer, the lord will be killed first. (p.32)

When killing a retainer, a daimyō would show `neither anger nor indignation` and would have the act done as quickly as possible.  If they didn`t, then they might be done in.  It is quite horrible to contemplate, but it was common practice in the Muromachi period.  There are many examples of daimyō, without showing any outward sign of anger, suddenly killing (or attempting to kill) a retainer.

In the sixth month of the 2nd year of Hōtoku (1450), in the town of Furuichi in the province of Yamato (modern Nara Prefecture), there was a samurai by the name of Udaka Arimitsu who, with his family in tow, asked to serve in the household of the kokujin Furuichi family.  It was at this time that Anmiji Kyōgaku, who was under pressure exerted by the same Furuichi family, wrote in his diary that this Udaka fellow was formerly a retainer in Kyoto to the shugo of Izumi province, Hosokawa Tsuneari. As a result of Udaka`s `disobeying the orders of his master` (shumei ni somuku, 主命に背く)  and `trouble with his colleagues` (Hōbai no sata, 傍輩の沙汰), Hosokawa Tsuneari arranged for an attack to be made on Udaka`s lodgings at night, and with his own hand attempted to cut Udaka down.  This act by Tsuneari was in exactly the same manner as that described by Organtino in his writing. However the night attack ended in failure, with Udaka fleeing from Kyoto and making his way to seek sanctuary with the Furuichi.  (p.33)

Fortunately for Udaka the Furuichi were in a welcoming mood, and after being invited to view the famous `wind dance` performed by the Furuichi family, Udaka spent a few months in good company. It seems he also became quite friendly with Kyōgaku as well, the author of the diary.  Yet in the ninth month of the same year, Kyōgaku began to hear some very puzzling rumours.  It seems that Udaka had been going around saying that the former Kanrei Hosokawa Katsumoto wanted him back in the capital, and so he was planning on returning to Kyoto within a few days.  For a person whose life had been threatened by the Izumi Hosokawa family, and who had not actually been pardoned, the fact that he was now being invited back to the Hosokawa household after such a short space of time was, strangely enough, an opportunity not to be missed.  Indeed, he was positively entranced by it. (p.33)

After hearing this rumour, Kyōgaku could not help thinking`this is all too sudden, there must be something behind it` . Yet whether Kyōgaku never expressed his concerns to Udaka, or whether Udaka chose to ignore Kyōgaku`s warnings, we will never know.  On the following day, Udaka, together with his family, left the company of the Furuichi and made his way slowly back to Kyoto. (p.35)

News that Kyōgaku`s suspicions had been confirmed arrived just six days later.  Udaka had been ambushed upon his return to Kyoto, and `that he, along with sixteen, or seventeen members of his family and younger retainers` had all been killed.  Although Kyōgaku might have written `it is as I suspected` (anzuru ga gotoshi, 案ずるがごとし), that didn`t really make a difference. The invitation had been too attractive to be missed. (p.35)

It appears that the Izumi Hosokawa and Hosokawa Katsumoto had been involved together in the plot.  Katsumoto had learned not to waste his experience of nearly being assassinated by his retainers, and had learned to tame his harsh words towards those who might seek to divide the household. Instead he would use their ambitions against them, and by doing so extinguish all opposition.  So, just as the missionary quoted before said, Katsumoto was successful in his insidious form of revenge, and tore out the buds of rebellion (p.35).   

This week the media in Australia were sparked into a deluge of speculation following publication on Monday on a report from News Corp that the Abbott government had all but decided to purchase Japanese Soryu class submarines ‘off-the-shelf’, and that an announcement on the purchase would be made before the end of the year (all newspaper reports on this issue have been included at the end of this entry*).  This revelation, which was denied by senior Abbott government ministers, Defence Minister David Johnston and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane among them,  did not so much come as a surprise as it did a confirmation of which way the Abbott government plans to pursue industrial reform.  In the same week, Fairfax Media reported that the government was planning to fast track the entry into production of so-called ‘super frigates’, to be constructed using the same skills developed for use on Australia’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program, thereby saving jobs at the quasi-government run Australian Submarine Corporation docks located at Techport Australia marine manufacturing precinct in Adelaide, South Australia.

The news that the government was going back on a pre-election promise to have any submarine work done in Adelaide prompted Opposition leader Bill Shorten to address members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union outside the ASC docks on Tuesday, where he vowed that a Labor government would renege on any Japanese submarine deal, and that “This is a government with a short memory.  In the Second World War, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia”. Aside from the fact that the figures quoted by Shorten were inaccurate, to use WWII as an excuse to refuse any attempt to have submarines built by Japan smacked of jingoism and protectionism, and was not one of Shorten’s finest moments. It took Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen to set the record straight during an address to the National Press Club on Thursday, in which Bowen confirmed that any Labor government would honour a contract with Japan should the government choose that option. 

Aside from Shorten’s rhetoric, the arguments for and against Japanese involvement in the Future Submarine Project (or SEA 1000) have been outlined in detail in previous entries in this blog.  While the involvement of Japan would mean that Australia and Japan would forge a much closer, much more encompassing defence relationship than heretofore experienced, it would not be without some risk, both in terms of geopolitical consequences and technical proficiency in shipbuilding in Australia.  What is clear is that Australia does need a submarine replacement, as the unreliability of the Collins class and the looming threat of having no submarine capability for a decade (2020-2030) is a problem that needs to be addressed and addressed now.  As Defence Minister David Johnston has reiterated at length, any decision on a domestic submarine alternative needed to be made five years ago (if not earlier) but wasn’t, and now we are in the situation of having to go for a pre-existing design provided by foreign submarine manufacturers. Whether that design is then turned into manufacturing in Australia depends on how urgently the government feels Australia needs its submarine alternative, and with other states in the region in the process of acquiring greater submarine technologies of their own, it is a decision that will require some very careful consideration.

*Sources: “New Japanese submarines to cost Abbott Government $20 billion”, News.com.au, 8 September 2014, p. http://www.news.com.au/national/new-japanese-submarines-to-cost-abbott-government-20-billion/story-fncynjr2-1227050682205, “Shift to Japan risks China row”, The Australian, 9 September 14, p. 1,2  “Home-built sub fleet deemed too expensive, too risky”, Australian Financial Review, 9 September 2014, p. 1,2  “Japanese subs on the way”, Australian Financial Review, 9 September 2014, p. 1,4 “Ian Macfarlane says SA ‘still in the mix’ for subs”, Australian Financial Review, 9 September 2014, p. http://www.afr.com/p/national/ian_macfarlane_says_sa_still_in_W16nrJu3QbnUKp9Ezp0wfK, “Racist and protectionist: Shorten’s submarine speech plumbs the depths”, The Australian, 11 September 2014, p. 1,4  “Shorten’s WWII call ‘frankly ridiculous’”, The Australian, 11 September 2014, p. 4  “Tweaks could compromise new sub design”, The Australian, 11 September 2014, p. 4  “Shorten’s rhetoric on subs dangerous”, The Australian, 11 September 2014, p. 12  “Submarines for security, not industry protection”, The Australian, 11 September 2014, p. 13  “Japan submarine deal a metaphor for big picture Abenomics”, Australian Financial Review, 11 September 2014, p. 10  “Germans undercut Japan subs”, Australian Financial Review, 11 September 2014, p. 11  “At last, sensible thinking on subs”, The Canberra Times, 11 September 2014, Times2, p.2,  “Labor to stand by Japanese subs contract”, The Australian, 12 September 2014, p. 6  “Saab joins bid for subs”, Australian Financial Review, 12 September 2014, p. 7  “Industry policy submerged under pragmatism”, Australian Financial Review, 12 September 2014, p. 39  “Promise must be torpedoed”, The Canberra Times, 12 September 2014, Times2, p.4, The Hon.David Johnston, ‘Address for the ASPI Conference – The Submarine Choice’, Transcript, 9 April 2014, p.8, website address: https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/20720/Johnston-Speech.pdf, Graeme Dobell, ‘Oz submarines: 12? 9? 6?’, The Strategist, 6 April 2014, website address: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/oz-submarines-12-9-6/, Senate Hansard Records: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Search?ind=0&st=1&sr=0&q=Japan+submarines&expand=True&drvH=0&drt=2&pnu=44&pnuH=44&f=12%2F11%2F2013&to=12%2F09%2F2014&pi=0&pv=&chi=1&coi=0&ps=10

As I have been weighed down by commitments to my Embassy duties, I haven’t been able to give close attention to the formation on Wednesday of the Second Abe Cabinet. The most prominent change in this new cabinet is the existence of 5 female cabinet members, making the Abe Cabinet unique among governments around the world (it certainly puts the Australian Cabinet to shame, with only one female cabinet minister). Nonetheless, the best analysis available in English on the cabinet changes come via Michael Cucek’s Shisaku blog, hence I’ll put a link here and trust that readers will take a look at Cucek’s description of each minister. 

I agree with Cucek that having Ishiba in the role of Rural Revitalisation is particularly unusual, unless Ishiba merely plans to use that position to secure a greater proportion of rural votes before the next round of LDP party position elections in 2015.  Eto Akinori as the new defence minister came as no surprise, although it did mean that Onodera Itsunori was shown the back door (he gave his farewell speech at the MoD on Thursday, and shed tears as he recalled his work with the SDF, a rare thing for former defence ministers to do (J). The full list of the Second Abe Cabinet can be found here (along with their electoral districts and past positions).