From Darkness into Light : An Engagement with the English-Language Historiography of the Court and Tenno during the Edo Period

From Darkness into Light : An Engagement with the English‑Language Historiography of the Court and Tenno during the Edo Period

journal or

publication title

The Bulletin of the Research Institute for Japanese Studies, Kanda University of

International Studies

volume 6

page range (59)‑(117)

year 2014‑06‑30

URL http://id.nii.ac.jp/1092/00001100/

asKUIS 著作権ポリシーを参照のこと

RiekoKamei-Dyche Introduction

Believing,withallloyalJapanese,thatthegloryofJapan・stri- umphsinpeaceandwarisdueto・thevirtuesoftheMikado・s ancestors,・eachoneofwhomwas・thesonofAdam,theson ofGod,・theauthordedicatesthisworktoallloversoftruthin EverlastingGreatJapan.(WilliamE.Griffis,iii)

ThesentenceabovewaswrittenbyWilliam Griffisonthefirst pageofhisbook,TheMikado:InstitutionandPerson,publishedin 1915.Whetherornotweagreewithhisstatement,itisrepre- sentativeofmanywritersforwhomJapanwasboundupwiththe existenceofthetenn・(sovereign,emperor).¹ Whiletheview

AnEngagementwiththeEnglish- LanguageHistoriographyofthe CourtandTenno duringtheEdo Period

１ ThereissomedebateinEnglishoverwhether,andifsohow,torendertheterm

・tenn・・inEnglish.FollowingtheJapanesetrendsincetheMeijiPeriod,muchEnglish- languagescholarshipemployedtheterm・emperor・despiteitsassociationswithleaders whodrewtheirauthorityfrommilitarypowerinWesternEuropeorChina.Theterm

・tenn・・isitselfimperfectbecauseeveninJapaneseitwasemployedretroactivelyfor ancientrulerswhowouldnothaveusedtheterm (onthis,seeJoanR.Piggott・sThe EmergenceofJapaneseKingship).Thecurrentarticleelectstouse・tenn・・and・sovereign・

(althougheventheextenttowhichhistoricaltenn・weresovereigninpracticehasbeen debated)interchangeably,whileavoiding・emperor・andtheratherarchaic・Mikado.・ Japanesenameshavebeenwrittenincustomaryorder(familynamefirst),unlessthe personinquestionpublishedprimarilyinEnglish.

ofJapanesesovereignshaschangeddependingonthetime period,theroyalinstitutionexistedthroughoutrecordedJapanese history.However,inthestudyofJapanesehistory,themesre- latingtothetenn・orthecourthavenotbeenassessedevenly,but insteadhavereceivedmoreattentionforsomeperiodsthanfor others.InEnglish-languagescholarshiponhistorysincethe establishmentofthefirstbakufu(militarygovernment)inKama- kurainthetwelfthcentury,thecourtandtenn・havereceivedlittle attentionsincetheywereconsideredtobeofnegligiblepolitical importance.ThisstateofaffairsisparticularlytrueoftheEdo Period(1600-1867),forwhichthestudyofthecourthasbeen almostentirelyneglected.Althoughthereissubstantialhistorical scholarshipinEnglishconcerningtheEdoPeriod,itfocuses insteadonsuchmattersasthebakufu,socialdevelopments,or intellectualhistory.

Whenthetenn・and/orthecourtarediscussed,itisnormally inthecontextoftheBakumatsuera(1853-1867),withthepromi- nenceoftheSonn・J・i(・Reverethetenn・,expelthebarbarians・) movement.However,whilethereislittleinthewayofscholar- shipspecificallyconcernedwiththecourtintheEdoPeriod, therearesomeworksontheinstitutionmorebroadly;further- more,itispossibletotracethehistoriographyofthesovereign andcourtduringtheEdoPeriodbyutilizingotherscholarship, suchassurveyhistoriesorgeneraltreatmentsofEdo-erahistory.

Althoughtheydonotfocusontheissueinquestion,itispossible toascertainhowtheunderstandingoftheEdo-erasovereignand courthaschangedthroughconsideringthesebroaderworksof scholarship.Additionally,thisapproachalsohelpstogainan understandingofhow researchontheEdoPeriodhasbeen developingingeneralasafield,andwhatdirectionslieopenfor

futurework.

Thecurrentarticleisorganizedchronologically,anddivided intofourlargesections:prewarscholarship(1900-1930),early postwarscholarship(1945-1989),laterpostwarscholarship(1990- 1999),andcontemporaryscholarship(2000-present).Eachsec- tionattemptstoconsidersomeimportantworksinthecontextof whentheywereproduced,aswellasinrelationtoeachotherand trendsinthescholarship.

PartI:PrewarScholarship(1900-1930)

ThefirstEnglish-languagestudyofJapanesehistoryinthetwen- tiethcentury,AHistoryofJapanbyJamesMurdoch,begantobe publishedin1903andisagoodpointatwhichtostart.Although thisisageneralhistoryofJapan,ittouchesuponthecourtand sovereignevenduringthetimesinwhichtheywerenotconsid- eredtohavebeenpoliticallysignificant.InMurdoch・saccount, althoughsincethelateMuromachiPeriod(1336-c.1467)thesov- ereigndidnothavemuchinthewayofpoliticalpowerandsuf- feredfrom poverty(asdidthecourtiers),thetenn・nevertheless retainedadegreeofpoliticalinfluencethroughtheSengoku Period(c.1467-1600),whichproceededtheEdoera.²Thisimplies thatbeforetheEdoPeriodthesovereignmayhavepossesseda greaterdegreeofagencyandreceivedmorerespectthanhadbeen usuallythought.

２ Forinstance,hementions・gimachiTenn・(1517-1593,r.1557-1586).Murdoch doesnotsaythat・gimachiwaspowerful,buthedescribeshiminanimplicitlypositive way(stressinghisagency),statingthat・gimachiorderedtheShoguntopunisharebel in1552,andwhentheShogunfailedtocomplywithhiscommand,・gimachigavethe sameordertoanotherSengokudaimy・,whofollowedit.Also,thelanguageheusesto describe・gimachi・sactionsinmakingpeacebetweenwarlordsispositive,andgivesthe readertheimpressionthatthesovereigndecidedthematterofhisownwill(II.360- 361).

AccordingtoMurdoch,thissystem wasendedbyToyotomi Hideyoshi(1537-1598),whopaidalmostnorespecttothetenn・, choosingtopresenthimselfasthetruerulerwhilesimultaneously takingadvantageofthesovereign・sauthorityandimage.In Murdoch・swords,

Now,underHideyoshi,thethirdstageinthedevelopmentof Japanesefeudalismisreached;andfromthisdatedowntothe endoftheTokugawasupremacy,theEmperorofJapanisre- movedfromallcontactwith,andfromallcontrolover,thefeuda- tories(II.376).

SuchanattitudewasthencarriedonbyTokugawaIeyasu(1543- 1616),whoalsopresentedhimselfasthetruerulerofthecountry asHideyoshihaddonebeforehim (II.480).InMurdoch・sview, thesovereignandcourtwerevictimsofadeplorablebakufu;he referstotheKyotoShoshidai(shogunaldeputyinKyoto)asspies (II.508)andstatesthatthecourtwasforcedtobe・almost entirelyisolatedfrom allcontactwiththerestofthenation・

(II.510).However,thisdoesnotmeanthatMurdochunderstands thecourtaspoliticallyimpotentduringtheEdoPeriod;rather, thebakufuregulationsneedtobeunderstoodaspreventivemeas- ures.Sincethebakufuwasawareofthepossiblethreatposedby thetenn・(II.696;Murdochsuggeststhattheywereawareofthe possibilityofanotherGo-Daigo^３),itsoughttoregulatethe court・severyactionandputitundertotalcontrolthroughiso- latingitfromtheoutsideworld.ForMurdoch,thecourtwasnot politicallyimpotentbecauseitwasisolated;rather,itwasdeliber-

３ Go-DaigoTenn・(1288-1339,r.1318-1339)recruitedwarriors,notablyAshikaga Takauji,tohisbannerandoverthrewtheKamakuraBakufu,usheringinabriefexperi- mentwithdirectroyalruleknownastheKenmuRestoration(1333-1336).Thecollapse ofhisregimeledtohisabandoningKyotoandestablishingasecondcourtinthesouth, usheringintheeraoftheSouthernandNorthernCourts(Nanbokuch・,1336-1392).

atelyisolatedbecauseofthethreatposedbyitspotency.

Murdochalsoconveysadynamicrelationshipbetweenthe Edo-erasovereignsandshogunsthatchangeddependingonthe time;hepointstotheincreasinginfluenceofthecourtinthe 1660s(III.166-172),andtheparticularlygoodrelationshipithad withTsunayoshi(fifthTokugawashogun,1680-1709),who・did notalittletorestoretheprestigeoftheImperialCourt,・ (III.183).UnderIenobu(sixthshogun,1709-1712),courtinflu- encereachedsuchanextentthatatonepointbakufuofficials adoptedcourtrobesandpractices,whichtroubledthosewho expectedamoremilitarystylefromthebakufu(III.244-247).This viewofanongoing,changingrelationshipismarkedlydifferent fromviewsthatthecourtwasofnoconsequenceorhadacon- stantstraightforwardrelationshipwiththeshogun(inthatit accordedhimauthority).

ItisimportanttoconsiderMurdoch・sviewinthecontextof perceptionsofthetenn・atthetime:in1905,thestatureofMeiji Tenn・(1852-1912,r.1867-1912)wasemphasizedbothinside andoutsideJapan,andthesovereignwaswidelyseenasrepre- sentingJapanitself.Itisthereforeunsurprisingforthesovereign tobeseenashistoricallymeaningful,evenifpoliticallyimpotent formuchofthecourseofhistory;furthermore,iftherewere problemswiththecourtorlimitationstoitsagency,thiswasas- sumedtobewhollyduetothebakufu.Notably,Murdoch・swork waspublishedbetweentheFirstSino-JapaneseWar(1894-1895) andtheRusso-JapaneseWar(1904-1905),inbothofwhichJapan emergedvictoriousunderslogansfocusingonthesovereign.

Anotherbookconcerningthetenn・andcourtinJapanwas publishedin1915,tenyearsafterMurdoch・ssurveyhistory;this wasTheMikado:PersonandInstitution,byWilliam E.Griffis,a

phrasefrom whichIbeganwithabove.Griffisarguesthatthe threeunifiers・foughtinthenameoftheMikadotogivethe countryunity,aswellastogratifytheirownambitions・(54),sug- gestingthelegitimizingroleplayedbythesovereignduringthe SengokuPeriod.However,bytheformationoftheTokugawa Bakufu,Griffisquotes(Ieyasu?)totheeffectthat・allmemoryof thepersonalruleoftheMikadohadbeenlostforfourhundred years・(55).YetanyrespectthatIeyasupaidthesovereignwas onlyemptyformality;inactualityhe・madeofalivingmanan idolinashrine・(55).Thebakufuimitatedthecourtinbehavior anddress(59),asMurdochhadpointedout(althoughGriffis treatsthisasgenerallytruefortheEdoPeriodasawholerather thanforaparticulartimespanwithinit),whilethesovereigncon- tinuedtoloseinfluence,continuingtheprocessbegunwith Kamakuraas,・Undertheshadowofsuchadualsystem[ofcourt andbakufu]thepowerandlifeofMikadoism sanktoamythol- ogy,・remaininga・ghostlyshadow・untiltheMeijiRestoration (41).Inthisregard,GriffisissimilartoMurdoch,stressingthat thetenn・andcourtierswere・everunderespionage・(56);politi- callypowerlessuntiltherestoration,theywereconstantvictims, isolatedandspiedupon,whilealsousedastoolsforbakufulegiti- macy.

WhileGriffisalsoseesthecourtasavictimofthebakufu,he stillholdsthatitwasthetenn・whounifiedthecountryasaspiri- tualsymboloftheJapanese.Healsopresentsthetenn・asoccupy- ingapositiveexistenceincontrasttotheshogun:notonlywas thesovereign・traditionallytheembodimentofthingssacredby inheritancefrom・thegods・,・butfurther,asanoldsayingsuppos- edlywent,・TheMikadoallmenlove;theShoguneveryman fears・(2).Griffishimselfstatesthathesetoutinthisvolumeto

relateJapan・sdevelopmentintermsofMikadoism (52).This

・Mikadoism,・whichhecontinuallyrefersto,isunderstoodasthe ideologyunderlyingthetenn・whichunifiedthecountry.Griffis fundamentallyassociatesthesovereignwithJapanitself・al- thoughIwillnotcoverithere,hissurveyofJapanesehistorywas entitledMikado・sEmpire,thetitlealoneclearlyreflectingthisasso- ciationoftheMikadowithJapan.

GriffispresentsTheMikado:InstitutionandPersonasapersonal testimonial,sincehehimselfwitnessedtheBakumatsutransfor- mation.Astrongelementintheworkishishighadmirationfor MeijiTenn・,whomherepeatedlypraisesasagreatruler(e.g.4, 6,86).Infact,thebookwaspublishedonlythreeyearsafter Meiji・sdeath,soitisnotsurprisingthatitiscoloredbysuchad- miration:sinceGriffishimselflivedinatimewhenthegreatness ofthesovereignwasstronglypromotedbythegovernmentand deployedasanideologicaltooltoexplainJapan・ssuccessfulde- velopment,itisnecessarytounderstandthisworkinthecontext ofthepraisebeingaccordedthetenn・atthetime.

ThesameyearasGriffis・bookcameout,anotherimportant bookonthecourtandsovereignwaspublished:R.A.B.

Ponsonby-Fane・sTheImperialHouseofJapan.Inhispreface, Ponsonby-Fanementionsthatno genealogicaltableofthe JapanesesovereignshasbeenpublishedinaWesternlanguage;

hisbookisthereforethefirst,andaimsatintroducing・facts relatingtotheImperialFamily・toWesternaudiences,while making・no pretenceofgivingthedetailed historyofthe reign・(3).⁴Hisbookincludesachronologicaloverviewofsover- eignsupuntilTaish・Tenn・(1879-1926,r.1912-1926),andthen

４ HeacknowledgesthathedrewextensivelyfromthebooksbyMurdochandPapinot, aswellasthetranslationsbyChamberlainandAston.

hasseparatesectionsonexiledrulers,abdicationinJapan,an accountoftheenthronementceremonies(includingtheen- thronementofSh・waTenn・,1901-1989,r.1926-1989,whichwas addedinlatereditionsofthework),andothermatterspertaining totheroyalhousehold.Originallysomeofthesewereseparate essayswhichwerecollectedtogethertoconstitutethebookasit isnow.

Ponsonby-Fanedoesnotshowaparticularlystrongbiasto- wardstheEdo-erasovereigns;rather,hetreatstheminthesame wayasthosewhocamebefore.Ingeneral,heunderstandsthe tenn・andcourtduringtheEdoPeriodaspoliticallyweak.^５ One thingwhichshouldbenotedishisassociationofKokugaku (・nationallearning,・aschoolofphilologyassociatedwithre- storinganationalconsciousnessinliteratureandculture)withthe movementtowardstheMeijiRestoration.Forinstance,inhis descriptionofthereignofGo-SakuramachiTenn・(1740-1813, r.1762-1770,notablythelastfemalemonarch),hestatesthat,

Duringherreign,MotooriNorinagacontinuedtheworkofhis masterMabuchi,showingthattheTokugawawereusurpersand thatthepowershouldbelongtotheImperialFamily(120).

Althoughhedoesnotstronglyargue,asMurdochandGriffishad done,thatthecourtduringtheEdoPeriodwasmerelyvictim- ized,heimpliesthatthesovereign,havinglostpoliticalpower, wassupposedtoregainitatsomepointinthefuture.

Itisthenexpectedthat,likethepreviousscholars,hewould praiseMeijiTenn・,andindeedthisturnsouttobethecase:・It

５ Forinstance,regardingtheTitleIncident,hementionsthat・Itiseloquentofthe powerlessnessoftheCourtthatatatimewhenrelationswiththeBakufuwereexcep- tionallygoodtheEmperorcouldnotevenbestowanhonorifictitleonhisownfather・ (286).FormoreontheTitleIncident,seenote#9.

isimpossibletotreatoftheillustriousdoingsofthisaugust Monarchinthesamewayashasbeenattemptedinthecaseofhis predecessors・(125).Heidentifiessuchdecisionsasmovingthe capitalandthecraftingofapublicimagefortheroyalinstitution asexpressionsofthesovereign・swill,andpraisesMeijihimself forlivinga・Spartanlife,hisonethoughtbeingthewelfareofhis countryandsubjects・(125).WhileonthesurfacePonsonby- Fane・sworklacksastrongcoloration,itcanbereadasacel- ebrationoftheroyalinstitution.Thework・sextensivecoverageof royalconsorts,mausoleums,andotherparticularsreflecthowit waslikelywrittentorespondtoademandamongWesternaudi- encesforinformation aboutthenatureandhistoryofthe Japaneseroyalinstitution,whichwasbeingtransformedintoa symbolofthenew modernnation.Thereexistedatthetime considerableinternationalcuriosityaboutJapanandhowithad beenabletobecomeinashortlengthoftimepowerfulenough tobeabletowintwowarsandpresentitselfasanequalcon- tendertoWesterncountries.Inconsideringthe・mystery・behind Japan・ssupposedunityanditsmilitaryandeconomicsuccess,the roleoftheroyalinstitution,whichwasemphasizedbytheMeiji governmentitself,nodoubtdrewalotofattention.

Ina1923book,TheDevelopmentofJapan,KennethScott Latouretteemphasizedthereligiousaspectsofthetenn・.Accord- ingtoLatourette・sdescription,theJapanesesovereigndevoted himselfonlytoreligiousactivities,suchasancestorworshipand prayingforthenation.LikeMurdoch,Latouretteimpliesthat althoughthecourtwasputundertotalsupervisionbythebakufu duringtheEdoPeriod,thiswasbecausethebakufufearedthe potentialthreatposedbythecourt(68-69).Itwasinordertopre- ventthecourtfrom endangeringitspositionthatthebakufu