Source: rekishi.maboroshi.biz 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).
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).
RSS Feed