This article was publish in serial form in the Kokumin no tomo from January 9th to 23rd, 1897.
………
Part I
In the Nirvana Sutra there is a parable. The king’s wrestler had a diamond in his forehead. When he fought with another wrestler, to his great distress he lost the diamond. Although no one realized it, in the course of the bout, the other wrestler had hit his head, pushing the diamond deep into his flesh. He did not know that the diamond was buried in his own flesh. Japanese historians are much the same. Unable to recognize the development of popular government (heiminshugi) in Japanese history, they say that it is a product solely of the West. In their view human rights, republicanism, and popular government are all alien to the Japanese people. Japanese history is a distinctive type of history and the Japanese people have produced a distinctive type of civilization. In the whole world, they say, there is no country like Japan. Is this is not like the wrestler who did not know there was a jewel within his own body?
Educators repeatedly encourage the teaching of Japanese literature and Japanese history as a means of promoting Japan’s unique spirit of loyalty, fostering Japan’s unique spirit of patriotism, and cultivating Japan’s unique spirit of filial piety. Their objective in teaching Japanese history and Japanese literature stops at this. Were someone to go a step further and explain that the history and literature of our country is an account of a war our ancestors fought for survival and for their rights, would they not shower that person with unending abuse?
A politician such as Shinagawa Yajirō takes an even more extreme position. He regards the system in which the cabinet is responsible only to the emperor as the political structure (kokutai) uniquely appropriate to Japan and denounces as heresy the idea that ministers bear a responsibility to the people. If his words are true, it must be said that in Japanese history the people have counted for nothing. This is because, in his view, upholding Japan’s unique kokutai means that no matter who the leader or how bad the policy, the Japanese people should not do anything by way of resistance. This is to say, is it not, that should another per-
son above us oppress us and threaten our existence, we do not have the right to rise up and resist. How could human beings endure such a state of affairs! Let us suppose that the government oppresses us, torments us, and abuses our children. Yet we can do nothing but submit totally. How could such a principle accord with the instincts of human nature! Mr. Shinagawa, however, says that this is our kokutai. He says that asserting one’s rights and questioning the responsibility of government ministers is heresy. If Mr. Shinagawa’s words are correct, Japan’s kokutai should be cursed by people throughout the world. The two thousand five hundred years of Japanese history must be the record of a frightful hell in which the blood of the people has been sacrificed for the sake of government ministers.
The truth, however, is clearly opposite to this. The history of Japan clearly shows the development of human rights. That this is not understood is owing to the lack of knowledge of historians, the blind belief of educators, and the ignorance of Mr. Shinagawa. These people are not aware of the jewel that exists within themselves and simply think that it is someone else’s treasure.
Let us look at the history of the founding of Japan. For what reason did the Japanese people become devoted to the imperial house and develop an unwavering loyalty to it? Why did they selflessly offer themselves in the service of the imperial house? Was it because of a feeling of shared blood among the Japanese people who had derived from a common ancestry? Was it because of a religious spirit arising from the fact that the imperial house was descended from
the Sun Goddess? Books such as Kojiki and Man’yōshū offer clear evidence that in the beginning, Japan’s kokutai was a form of government by tribal chiefs which evolved into a kind of theocracy. As time passed, the feeling of common ancestry inevitably became weak, and with the advancement of knowledge, Shinto also declined in influence. The reason why, despite the declining influence of these two factors, the glory of the imperial house continued to increase surely lies elsewhere. At the time, the Japanese people needed to protect themselves from the despotism of the nobility and to defend themselves in the struggle for survival with the Koreans and Emishi. In these circumstances the Japanese emperor was in a position to provide what the people needed. According to the imperial edict concerning the eastern expedition of Jinmu, it was the emperor’s wish to subjugate the clan chiefs who had divided the land among themselves and to establish a unified political system. Shōtoku Taishi’s constitution likewise states:
Let not the provincial officials or the provincial nobility levy exactions from the people. In a country there are not two lords and the people do not have two masters. The sovereign is the master of the people of the whole country. The officials to whom he gives charge are all his vassals. How can they, as well as the government, presume to levy taxes on the people.
If one goes to Kyushu and sees the tumuli built for the local chief, Tsukushi no kuni no miyatsuko Iwai, one can imagine the extent to which the clan chiefs of the time oppressed the people. Our ancestors were oppressed just as the Egyptian pharaohs oppressed the Israelites, forcing on them harsh physical labour such as mixing mud and making bricks in the heat of the sun from morning until night. The people in reality were in shackles. In these circumstances the imperial house offered the people the fullest safeguard against the oppression of these aristocrats. At the time there was the saying that “the people are the treasure of the imperial house.” These words resonated in the hearts of the people like a sound from heaven. For the people oppressed by the clan chiefs, this was good news like a “declaration of human rights.” When Emperor Nintoku traveled to the Kibi region, he recited the following poem:
What a delight
To pick together
With the girl of Kibi
The greens growing
In the mountain fields.
This was the way of thinking of the emperors of the time. Here we can see that from the very founding of the country, the imperial house became the embodiment of the development of human rights. It is no wonder that awareness of this grace entered deeply into the hearts of the Japanese people and became something fixed and unshakable.
The other reason a sense of loyalty to the imperial house developed among the Japanese people was the struggle for survival with the Emishi and Koreans. At that time the Ainu were extremely powerful, and there can be no doubt that they endangered our existence. Pressure from the Korean peninsula and the power of China, which was channelled through Korea, were also something to be feared. In this situation, our ancestors decided on the best possible course. Aware that our position was like that of an army surrounded on all four sides, they felt that to deal with these circumstances, it was essential to have an effective and powerful central government. They thus acclaimed the Taika Reform and the establishment of the rule of law under the Nara court which sought to transform Japan into a single ‘organism’. Showing ever more reverence for the imperial house, they wished for an even stronger government. This was because they saw this as the way to ensure their own security. For them the imperial house was the embodiment of the state and loyalty to the throne was simply
another name for patriotism.
In this period Buddhism came to Japan, and the imperial house immediately became the protector of Buddhism. Seen from the perspective of today when the division of church and state is taken to be a fundamental principle, the system of that time in which the imperial family became the protector of Buddhism and the emperor himself became something like the chief officiator of Buddhism seems a strange phenomenon. Considered more closely, however, it should also not be overlooked in the history of the development of human rights in Japan. The system of social organization of the time differed most from that of today in the distinction between noble and lowly. From the beginning of history in Japan there were free people and slaves just as there were in ancient Greece. The life and liberty of the slaves belonged to their masters, who were free to use them as they liked. This was truly a great stain on the history of human rights. The imperial house becoming the protector of Buddhism, however, served to ameliorate this cruelty. With its patronage, morality based on compassion and pity spread through society. Philanthropic works, such as the establishment of hiden’in were undertaken. Monk officials were dispatched throughout the land to admonish the provincial clan chiefs, district officials, magnates, and local chiefs against maltreating the people and the slaves. According to legend, Empress Komyō gathered beggars together and offered them a bath, washing them herself. Is not this evidence that at the time the imperial family was the protector of the people and the font of human compassion?
As can be seen from the argument presented so far, our ancestors were loyal and devoted to the imperial house for a reason, not out of blind obedience as in the dreams of biased historians, credulous educators, and ignorant conservative politicians. Our ancestors were not believers in passive obedience and non-resistance. Our emperors were not despots who trampled on the people for no reason like the Turkish sultans or the Russian tsars. The emperors were benevolent rulers who saved our ancestors from the oppression of the aristocracy. They were heroes who unified our ancestors in the face of a threat from a foreign enemy. Gold shines naturally by itself, and benevolence and virtue naturally bring about
the submission of the people. Our ancestors looked up to successive emperors and were completely loyal to them because the emperors were always the supporters of human rights. Our ancestors stayed with the imperial house in the same way that an untethered horse remains by the grass growing luxuriantly in the damp corner of a spring field. They were not mechanically obedient to the successive emperors. The heart of the ruler was the heart of the people. The two entities were one and the one entity two. Lacquer and glue could not produce
such a bond; their relationship was like that between fish and water.
With the passage of time, circumstances changed. The despotism of the aristocracy was eventually curbed. The Ainu withdrew to the north and gradually grew weaker. Relations with the Korean peninsula ended. This situation presented a great danger to the imperial house! Why do I say this? The English people welcomed the Tudor dynasty and wished to strengthen its absolute power in order to suppress the violence of the nobility. After the violence of the nobility had been suppressed, however, they hated the power of the king. The reason the people of the Warring States period in China did not side with the rulers of their
states but welcomed the Ch’in emperor was because they could not endure the constant warfare resulting from the division of the realm. Once the Ch’in dynasty had been established, however, they quickly complained about the harshness of its government. Past and present, it has always been the case that what in the beginning is a virtue ultimately becomes an obstacle to the development of civilization. In the age before representative government, the only remedy for this problem was revolution. This is the reason why in China there have been twenty-two dynasties. In the early Heian period, our imperial house was in a similar position. It was in the dangerous position of having the merits of its rule judged by the people. Mysteriously enough, however, at this time the Fujiwara family
arose and took on the burden of governance. This house thus became the focus of the praise and blame of the people. Through a remarkable coincidence, the principles of ministerial responsibility that are the pride and special characteristic of the English system of representative government began to emerge in our country. As a result of this fortuitous event, our ancestors did not meet with the need to carry out a revolution. If someone were dissatisfied with the government of the day, it was sufficient to question the Fujiwara or at least bring pressure on them. From this time on, it was not necessary for us to be like the English people who fought with Charles I and who drove away James II.
The politically active class of the day consisted of the large landholders scattered throughout the country. They were the flowers of Japan just as in the seventeenth century the ‘country gentlemen’ were the flowers of England. As the administrative system of the Fujiwara ceased to be effective, large landholders came to take as their leaders the Taira and Minamoto houses, both of which were offshoots of the imperial line. They secretly waited for a chance to reform the government. They looked up to the Taira and the Minamoto as descendants of
the imperial line much as in ancient times the Japanese people had become closely bound to the imperial house because it restricted the oppressive activities of the chieftains. In this way, the glorious administration of the Fujiwara reached its inevitable fate, and the Kamakura government of Minamoto no Yoritomo was established.
What kind of institution was the Kamakura government? Contemporaneous records show that at the time of Minamoto no Yorie, sixty-six magnates (daimyo) gathered at Tsurugaoka Hachiman shrine in Kamakura to complain of the misdeeds of Kajiwara Kagetoki and finally succeeded in driving him away. From this it is clear that the Kamakura government was nothing more than a great alliance of large landholders who took the Minamoto as its
head. As a result, the Hojo made it their family law not to go beyond the fourth court rank and for generation after generation limited themselves to the posts of governor of the provinces of Sagami and Musashi. Being no more than one member of the alliance of large landholders, if they went beyond this, they could not avoid the jealousy of the others. I do not say that the Kamakura government was a republican political system, but I do not doubt that the politics of the alliance of great landowners contained within it the buds of a republican system.
Although the Hōjō were the representatives of the great landholders or put in other words, constituted the government that represented the republican group of great landholders, they did not think only of the interests of the great landholders. The wise Buddhist sage Myōe of Toganoo told Hōjō Yasutoki, “The secret of good government is not to be greedy.” The Hōjō followed this advice well. Their family code made it a point not to give free reign to the insatiable desires of the great landholders. The most important task undertaken by their government was to clarify the principles of land distribution and thereby prevent territorial incursions. They also devoted attention to public administration by building bridges and roads, planting willow trees, and securing rice to distribute to those suffering from starvation. A poet of the time praised their efforts as follows:
In the peaceful night
The shutters of the inn
having been opened,
the light of the clear moon
shines brightly.
That in the Kamakura period the large landholders became part of the Japanese political system was a great advance in the development of human rights. The fact that the Hōjō family restricted the power of the large landholders and preserved peace was another great advance. Unfortunately, in this same period the Jōkyū Disturbance occurred. Rather than saying, however, that the era of the Jōkyū Disturbance was one in which the Japanese people had to choose between following the imperial house or following the Hōjō family, one should say that it was a time when they had to choose between following the government in Kamakura or following the government in Kyoto. For the Japanese people did not regard the decision of the Hōjō to exile Retired Emperor Go-Toba to Oki as praiseworthy. Not only was it not regarded as praiseworthy, but this unprecedentedly wicked act was undoubtedly one reason the destiny of the Hōjō family was cut short. How deeply are engraved in the loyal hearts of the Japanese people the lines,
I am the new guardian of this island of Oki,
wind that tosses the waves,
when you blow
beware because
I am here.
To extend the destiny of their own house, it would have been a wiser policy had the Hōjō simply destroyed the Kyoto government without taking such a harsh measure as this.
Why is it that despite this act of disloyalty, the realm continued to applaud the Hōjō family? To explain this, I will borrow the words of Kitabatake Chikafusa, the pillar of the Southern Court and a paragon of imperial loyalism:
“Since the age of Shirakawa and Toba, the ancient way of government had declined steadily, and in Go-Shirakawa’s time armed rebellions occurred, and treacherous subjects threw the country into disorder. The people of the land fell into almost total misery. Minamoto no Yoritomo restored order by his own force of arms; and although the imperial house was not returned to its former state, the fighting in the capital was quelled and the burdens of the people were eased. High and low were once again at peace, and people everywhere submitted to Yoritomo’s virtue. Apparently, it was because of this submission that no one rebelled against the bakufu, even at the time of Sanetomo’s assassination. How then could the Kyoto court expect so readily to overthrow the bakufu, if it did not have an administration of merit equal to that of Kamakura?”
Those who hold that Japanese people have lacked the ability to choose governments and to make governments by themselves, why don’t you listen to the words of Kitabatake Chikafusa! Those who irrationally cling to the name of cabinets responsible only to the monarch, and who, resisting the great trend towards the development of human rights, would cause the imperial house to be the direct target of the anger of the people-are you not making plans as foolish as those that led to Retired Emperor Go-Toba being driven into exile?
The Hōjō family also fulfilled their inevitable destiny. The Mongol invasions led the Hōjō to see the need for centralized power, and the great landholders who enjoyed freedom of action soon felt the fetters of centralized authority. The increase in government expenditures reached the point where extraordinary exactions of sixty thousand kan were levied on just one village in a newly developed estate. The signal flare for revolution had already been set off at the time of the Jōkyū Disturbance by the imperial house, which had received a wound that
would not heal. The feelings of loyalty towards the imperial house aroused in the hearts of the Japanese people by the poem “I am the new guardian of this island of Oki” burst into flame. This conjuncture of events led to Go-Daigo’s restoration of direct imperial rule.
Unfortunately, however, the Japanese people were again confronted with a situation in which they had to make a choice. Go-Daigo’s restoration ran counter to what people expected. The author of Taiheiki, who in fact was sympathetic to the Southern Court, expressed the mood of the time as follows: “If the realm is to be ruled solely by the court as it is now, the jitō and gokenin will all be like serfs and slaves. For this reason, there are many people who wish that somehow, it would come to pass that warrior rule would be restored.” The majority of the Japanese people finally gave their support to Ashikaga Takauji and rebelled. This clearly shows that the Japanese people were able to defend their rights themselves. Here also we can once again speak of the victory of the people.
Why do I discuss these kinds of things? It is to show that principles regarding human rights and popular government are not solely the products of foreign countries. I have additional points to make, which I will explain in the next issue. (January 16)
PART II
When the sun rises in the east, first it shines on the mountain peaks, then on the mountain ridges, and finally on the foot of the mountains. The development of human rights is also like this. In the beginning, it seems, only chiefs and clan leaders had the ability to choose the government and to change it. This is what happened, for instance, when the heads of the feudal lords recommended Shun. Gradually those with a little land and a few weapons they also were part of the political body. In this way political power gradually became distributed among a wider social class, and it was here that a kind of republican spirit was born. The Kamakura government was a government made by the great landholders who became aware of their own power. They made it through their own ability and to their own liking. To regard the establishment of the Kamakura government as simply a shift of political power from the Fujiwara to the Minamoto is to mistake form and substance.
Of course, the great landholders of the time did not know the word ‘cabinet responsibility’. They did not know what a republican system was. Not only did they not know of such things, but they were unaware that they had the legitimate right to make and change governments. But even if they were unaware of this, they exercised their rights unconsciously. The reason they followed the Hōjō o for a long time without rebelling against them was because the Hōjō family represented their feelings well and protected their interests. When they finally turned
against the Hōjō it was because the Hōjō acted contrary to their feelings and interests. They expressed this, however, by saying that “the Hōjō fell because they rebelled against the Way of Heaven and committed many evil deeds.” In fact, they were exercising their own political rights; they simply did not realize this.
It is clear from the following chronology that the great landholders had the power to change a government that was not to their liking:
Changes in Ashikaga Stewards (based on Taiheiki)
Kan’ō 2 [1351], second month, Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu were killed. Nikki Yoshinaga became steward.
Enbun [1360], seventh month, Nikki Yoshinaga was driven away (held office for eight years). Owari no Michitomo became steward.
Joji AM 5 [1366], eighth month, Owari no Michitomo was driven away (held office for five years).
At the time it was quite usual for stewards of the shogun not to be able to hold the position for long. Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu were killed and Nikki Yoshinaga and Owari no Michitomo were driven into exile. Those members of the government who met such a fate did so because they lost the confidence of the daimyo who were the great landholders of the day. If at this time, the daimyo had met and formed a parliament, if there had been rules about the appointment and dismissal of stewards according to the will of parliament, those serving as steward probably could have been changed without the playing out of a tragedy of this sort. Unfortunately, the trend of the times had not yet reached this point, and because the mechanisms for changing a government had not yet been developed, the only methods available were murder and driving into exile.
While it may appear to be somewhat of a digression, to show the fallacy in the reasoning of people like Shinagawa Yajirō, who hold that cabinets are responsible solely to the ruler (who hold, that is, that government administrators are accountable only to the ruler and that their tenure in office does not depend on became aware that the people), let me go a little more into the circumstances of the stewardship of Nikki Yoshinaga. He was someone who in fact tried to implement Mr. Shinagawa’s theory of governments being responsible solely to the ruler, only to fail as a result. The daimyo of the day gradually began to lose confidence in Yoshinaga and to show clear signs that they wanted to change stewards. According to
Taiheiki, Yoshinaga thereupon declared:
“If His Lordship Shogun Yoshiakira, influenced by those who tell lies, secretly approaches the Hosokawa and the Hatakeyama (the leaders and representatives of the discontented daimyo), the tozama warriors (those who are not Yoshiakira’s direct retainers but follow him only because Yoshinaga is his steward) are likely to turn against him, so it would be best to put the shogun under house arrest and prevent his followers from contacting him.”
Yoshinaga sought to defend his own position by identifying his own person with that of his lord Yoshiakira. No matter how splendid Mr. Shinagawa’s theory of cabinet responsibility to the ruler, the ultimate result will be no different from what happened in this instance. Making the ruler and the cabinet one is nothing more than using the sacred body of the ruler to protect the cabinet. The inevitable consequence of confusing the position of the ruler with that of the cabinet will be that people, if dissatisfied with the conduct of government, will raise their
voices in protest against the ruler. Is not this theory a most dangerous fallacy?
Yoshiakira’s father, Takauji, previously had put himself in danger trying to protect the stewards Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu. Well aware of what had happened, Yoshiakira did not think of trying to defend the steward Yoshinaga, but taking advantage of the dark of night, went over to the opposing camp. He joined those daimyo who were dissatisfied with the steward’s handling of government affairs. Yoshinaga’s plan to make himself one with his lord was thus totally thwarted. If Yoshiakira had been reluctant to part from Yoshinaga, if he had not broken with him, I am sure that the destiny of the Ashikaga would have been curtailed earlier. The experience of the Ashikaga made them realize that it
would be foolish to try to defend a steward who had lost the confidence of the people. They recognized that if the person entrusted with the responsibilities of steward were not able to receive the confidence of the people, he would not be worthy of the trust of the ruler either. It was at this point that the practice developed of routinely rotating the position of steward. Under Yoshimitsu a system was established in which the post of steward was shared among three houses, who alternately held it in turn. This was like the system in Rome in which consuls held office for one year, or that in the United States in which the term of the president is four years. This was truly a great step forward in the world of politics. Those who do not know this and say it is our kokutai to have cabinets responsible only to the ruler have not even the wisdom of Yoshimitsu!
It was other events, however, that brought about a major change in the Japanese political world. Strangely, this has been overlooked by Japanese historians. If there is a period in Japanese history that divides past and present, it was not the reforms of Yoritomo, nor the period of confusion and turmoil at the time of the Northern and Southern Courts; rather it was the warfare that followed the Ōnin War. The transformation of early local chief into provincial administrator and then into daimyo was without question a noteworthy development. Throughout the period up to the late fifteenth century, however, great landholders continued to be the foundation of the government. Yoritomo placed shugo in the provinces and jitō on the estates and thereby appeared to restrict somewhat the power of the great landholders. Nevertheless, in the end his government depended on the support of the great landholders. The same continued to be true under the Ashikaga. A reliable account indicates that until the Onin period there were forty-eight daimyo houses in the area of northern Ise alone. Extrapolating from this figure, we can say that in the whole of Japan there were some five or six thousand houses commanding forces of one or two hundred mounted warriors. These five or six thousand houses made up the political constituency of the time. When the world was at peace, they administered their own territories and paid homage to their leader. At times of unrest, they would form a band or alliance, support the government leaders they liked, and oppose those they did not, bringing about at will a change in government. Administration by the Hojo was changed as a result. Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu were killed as a result. It was through the tacit support of these houses that Kamakura deputies in Kyoto and Ashikaga deputies in Kamakura were able to maintain their positions.
This is the way in which the history of the development of human rights evolved in Japan for more than one thousand years. One might surmise from this that in the normal course of events the great landholders would gradually become aware of their own power and would come to assert consciously the right to change governments that previously they had exercised unconsciously. Here would thus emerge the buds of representative government. The actual result, however, was the exact opposite. The great landholders who for long had made up the political constituency completely lost their power. The lands they had long held were
swallowed up by other great landholders. Throughout Japan the old families who had held dominion throughout the countryside like stars in the night sky or stones on a go board disappeared like frost in the morning sun. The five or six thousand daimyo houses were reduced to some two hundred and sixty domains. The political rights of these two hundred and sixty domains were concentrated in the hands of the Tokugawa family, and the daimyo were in effect forced into a position of political subordination. This was a transformation the likes of which had not been seen in the thousand or so years since the founding of the state. What was the cause of this unprecedented transformation-it was the introduction of guns!
There is no need for me to give a detailed explanation here of the great change brought about in Japanese society by the introduction of guns. The reader can imagine how dramatic it was by looking at the accompanying table.
| Before the Introduction of Guns | After the Introduction of Guns |
| 1) A small number of soldiers could de- fend themselves against a large enemy force if they were based in a strategic location. For this reason, most castles were built on the top of mountains. Provisionswere largely what could be stored there.An example is the castle of the Kusunokifamily at Chihaya. | 1) It was not possible to defend oneself against a large enemy force unless one had a large number of soldiers. For this reason castles were located on the plainsso as to protect the roads crucial to securing provisions. |
| 2) As a small number of soldiers could defend themselves against a large enemy force, a daimyo with two or three hundred mounted warriors could preserve a position of independence. As a result, five or six thousand more-or-less independent large landholders maintained themselves throughout Japan. | 2) As a small force could not hold out against large ones, small daimyo were eventually absorbed by larger entities. For this reason the number of daimyo was reduced to some two hundred and sixty. |
| 3) Since to enter into battle required only a small number of soldiers, there was no need for military discipline. There was also no need to concentrate military power, and so samurai lived on the land. | 3) As it was necessary to be able to manoeuvre a large number of soldiers, military discipline and the concentration of military power also became essential. The samurai were all gathered together in castle towns. |
In this way the once-extensive power of the great landholders declined. In the past Haga Hyōe, the steward of Utsunomiya house, being displeased about certain things, raised soldiers in revolt against the Ashikaga shogunal deputy in Kamakura. In the Tokugawa period such behaviour became something unimaginable. Through military force the Tokugawa brought all the fertile land of the realm under their control. They divided up this land and granted
it to family members and retainers, constructing a magnificent example of a despotic political system in which they confronted the feudal lords from a position of great authority. The course of events thereupon moved in yet a new direction. The great landholders had been destroyed, and the traces of their right to change the government which they had exercised unconsciously were lost. But does this mean that the development of human rights as such suffered a great setback? Was the early development of human rights crushed with the coming of guns in the same way that grass sprouting in the warm days of fall withers in
the winter frosts? Why should it be so? I know that even under the Tokugawa government the Japanese people asserted their own existence and broadened their rights.
The Kamakura-Muromachi period in which the great landholders unconsciously exercised their right to change the government was undoubtedly a significant epoch in the advance of human rights. There were, however, no more than five or six thousand of these great landholders, and these five or six thousand families were, in fact, like regional dictators. There is a saying that has survived until the present day that “a crying child and a jito cannot be overcome.” This shows that within their own areas the great landholders had unlimited
power. Their mansions were built with the sweat and blood of the people of their territories, and the soldiers they led into battle were the children of these people. Those known as ‘family retainers’ were the children of the people of their territories who for generation after generation had followed the great landholders. It was a long-standing custom that the lives of these ‘family retainers’ were at the disposal of their masters in the same way as property. Because of the relationship of submission that had developed over hundreds of years, even when the samurai were separated from the land following the Keichō-Genna period, the forms of control over their retainers remained. Even if the lord was poor, had no land, and was set adrift, his retainers could not leave him. If they did try to sever the relationship and their lord, angered, killed them, society would not condemn him. Considered from this point of view, the great landholders not only divided up the land of Japan into their own domains, they also regarded the people who belonged to the land as their own private property. It thus must be said that the Japanese people were oppressed by the five or six thousand daimyo families.
The Tokugawa saved the Japanese people from this situation. The people, who, like Russian serfs, had been bound to the land and unable to leave, were able for the first time to escape from the oppression of their local lord and to freely select their work and the place they wanted to live. The relationship between lord and retainer changed and became one of master and contractual servant. The people who had been thought of as the personal property of the great landholders began for the first time to have personal freedom. (January 16)
PART III
No matter what the age, governments that show contempt for human rights lack the basis to sustain their existence for even one day. Whatever the age, whatever the place, people are people. As soon as they become aware of their power to defend their own rights, they overturn governments they do not like and seek to replace them with governments they like. In the past, the five or six thousand daimyo scattered throughout the land fought with each other for glory. During this period, in the harbors along the transport routes of the Inland Sea (the region that was the source of Japanese civilization), the Japanese people who had long
been trying to assert their interests, discovered themselves to constitute a power distinct from the daimyo. This is another phenomenon to which most historians do not pay attention. The fact that the Japanese people nurtured among themselves a type of power distinct from that of the daimyo is related to the point I wish to discuss here, the history of the development of human rights in the Edo period. Please allow me to elaborate somewhat on this point.
If one reads Ki no Tsurayuki’s Tosa Diary one sees that, from Ōtsu in Tosa until the province of Izumi, they were always on the watch for pirate attacks.60 When he reached the sea off Izumi, he wrote, “Now that we have arrived at Izumi there is no trouble from pirates.” This indicates that at that time there were groups of people who plundered government and private ships on the Inland Sea. People who think that because these groups were termed ‘pirates’
they were simply outlaws on the periphery of society, do not know the state of affairs at the time. In this period, the power of the central government’s control had grown weak, and it had no means of keeping the daimyo from engaging in private conflicts. Throughout Japan, the objective of the various daimyo was to seize the land of others and to add it to their own. In short, throughout the realm everyone had the heart of a pirate. Such aims were not limited to those who plied the Inland Sea. Just as Ki no Tsurayuki, who bore the heavy responsibility of
governor of Tosa, was unable to bring the pirates under control, so other members of the nobility who held exalted positions as provincial governors were unable to exercise control over the daimyo. Just as it is normal in human affairs that when a central government grows weak, various powers existing under it assert themselves and compete with others for their own advantage, so the existence of people like these pirates was something normal. Seen from the perspective of the progress of history, there are cases where strong states have arisen
from among pirates. These events that took place along the Inland Sea may have been associated with “pirates,” but it cannot be denied that nevertheless they were an important phenomenon in the development of the Japanese people. From this time on, the Inland Sea became a stage on which the bold and energetic Japanese people asserted their own existence.
That the people living along the Inland Sea or in ports linked to the sea routes came to play a significant role in Japanese history is clear from the following facts:
(1) Most of the home bases of the wakō were situated along the coast of the Inland Sea.
(2) There is evidence that during the time of the Ashikaga, people living in Nishinomiya, Muro, Suma, Naruto, Ujima, Kojima, Mihara, Itsukushima, Moji, and Amakagaseki engaged in trade with Korea.
Even before the establishment of the Tokugawa government, those living along the Inland Sea or in areas linked to it had thus developed into a power to be reckoned with because of their skill in navigation, the advantages in their geographic location, and their bold and adventurous spirit as seafaring people. Sakai in Izumi was located at the so-called neck of the Inland Sea, and the reputation of Sakai merchants became known throughout the land. Sakai gave birth to bold and talented people like Ruson Sukezaemon, the rich Luzon merchant who had contact with Matsunaga Hisahide and was killed by Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
Because history unfortunately has not left us a detailed biography of Sukezaemon, we can do no more than imagine the whole of his exploits on the basis of a few fragmentary pieces of evidence. If there were not remote mountain regions, there would not be fierce wild animals. In the same way, in this period, Sakai gave birth to a large and powerful citizenry (shimin)
that possessed within it a strength sufficient to shake the foundations of daimyo government.
Written in 1477, Ryuto’s Kōteiki is a historical document that tells us about Edo at the time of Ōta Dokan. In a section noting the people and goods that came to Edo through Edo Bay and the Sumida River, it records: “Rice from Bōsō, tea from Hitachi, copper from Shinano, bamboo from Echigo, flags and mounted warriors from Sagami, pearls, rhinocero horn, and precious scents from Izumi.” At the time, Edo was nothing more than the castle town of
the Ōgigayatsu family, but already goods traded through Izumi had found a market here. From this one fact we can guess how widely the commercial supremacy of Sakai extended. It indicates that already by this time there existed an urban citizenry distinct from the samurai. For one investigating the history of Japan from the perspective of the development of human rights, is this not a phenomenon worthy of close attention?
In general, the Tokugawa government contributed to the development of the urban citizenry which had in this way grown steadily. Of course, policies such as national isolation and the banning of Christianity were great obstacles to the development of the rights of the citizenry. At the time, however, there were reasons why policies like these were unavoidable (or at least, there were reasons that provided a justification for claiming that they were unavoidable). Seen as a whole, the Tokugawa government saved the Japanese people from the violence of the daimyo, and, it must be said, it was in this period that the existence of an
urban citizenry distinct from the samurai was fully established.
The Tokugawa government, on the one hand, forcibly reduced the strength of the daimyo and made them subject to their own judicial authority. On the other hand, it fostered the development of a citizenry based in large urban centres by extending its favour to the urban class and protecting it. In my view this situation is vividly apparent in the so-called Genroku literature of Saikaku and Chikamatsu. Let us see how they portray the outlook of the citizenry. The people of Kyoto are described as feeling that “Since this is the capital, people
do as they please.” With regard to the people of Osaka, it is written that “As they are the townspeople of the realm, they have no fear of the world and can do as they wish.” In the expressions ‘the capital’ and ‘the townspeople of the realm’ one can read an unconscious awareness of the benefits received from the Tokugawa, who protected the speakers from the oppression of the daimyo.
Seeing the urban citizenry rise in stature and the power of the samurai steadily decline, Ōgyu Sorai felt great indignation. Giving voice to the yearning for the old days that took shape within him, he wrote:
“At the moment there is no one who has higher positions or greater holdings than the daimyo. They live in great comfort, but they also must look after their retainers and deal with judicial matters in their domains. Above they owe service to the shogun, and they also must preserve good relations with those of similar rank. While enjoying great comforts, they also confront many trials. As people of high rank, they cannot do simply as they please and must restrain themselves at all times. In a much better situation than these daimyo are those wealthy
townspeople who simply live off their income. Although listed among those engaged in trade, they in fact do no business. They possess money but find it too troublesome to lend it out. They keep great numbers of town houses and live a life of ease on the rent they receive from them. They have neither a lord to serve nor anything to fear. Having no post to hold, they need not worry about matters pertaining to it. They have no people below them to rule, no retainers; they have no need to concern themselves with the etiquette and obligations of a samurai. Yet from clothing to food and housing, their wealth is equal to that of a daimyo.
Those who attend them or seek to do business with them all do their best to please them. They can amuse themselves in the gay quarters or with actors as they wish, and no one rebukes them. They fear no one and indulge in whatever pleasures they wish to pursue without concern for whom they might thereby offend. In today’s world these are the people who enjoy the pleasures of a king.”
Ōgyu Sorai was a great prodigy, one of the greatest minds Japan has produced. Even so, except for the reactionary and untenable idea of returning the daimyo and the warriors to the land, he could think of no way to prevent the development of the steadily advancing urban citizenry. Saikaku’s ‘stories of love’ and the plays of Chikamatsu reflect nothing other than the fact that, in place of the political rights they were unable to secure, the urban citizenry that had developed to this point expanded its personal liberty as far as it could.
After the introduction of guns, the small daimyo could not avoid being absorbed by the large daimyo. Together with this process of absorption, the warriors could not avoid being separated from the land and being brought to live together in the castle towns. The powers opposed to those in a position of authority, the daimyo, could not but increase in force. With the weakening of the daimyo and the warriors, the urban citizenry inevitably became more prominent. Considered from this perspective, the social revolution of the Tokugawa period
was the result of the introduction of guns. Historical cause and effect is not simple, but who would think that the age that produced a ‘man of the day’ like Yonosuke was created by guns.
From this time, the adage ‘money is the pedigree of the townsperson’ became rooted in the minds of the Japanese citizenry. The urban citizenry that had newly made an appearance in Japanese history at last came to recognize its position. From this time on, people with money began to realize that they possessed the most important key to the control of human affairs. This was a great historical turning point. In ancient Japan, the Japan of the daimyo, the only form of wealth had been land. In the Edo period, there was in addition the bakufu and wealthy merchants, and the most important part of their wealth was money. Having already come to have great power, capitalists now came to be aware of this power. How could this not be a major turning point?
Look at how the samurai were insulted by wealthy merchants throughout the Tokugawa period. Did not even haughty daimyo often have to approach rich merchants with trepidation? The Hosokawa house of Higo were major daimyo holding an entire province as their domain, but at the time of Hosokawa Munetaka it faced a financial crisis and was almost ruined. As a consequence, the wealthy Osaka merchant house of Kōnoike refused to act as its financier. Through his retainer Hori Katsuna, Munetaka’s heir, Hosokawa Shigekata, implored the Kōnoike to take pity on him, but was unable to gain their trust. He barely avoided a dire emergency by getting a certain Nagata Sakubei to act as his financer. Look also at the situation at the time of the Restoration: if the imperial forces had not obtained money from the Mitsui they would have found it difficult to go even from Kyoto to Otsu. Look also at the financial reforms of the various domains. Were not most based on plans devised by specially commissioned brokers from the urban citizenry? In the Tokugawa period, the citizenry thus already had established itself in a strong position.
There is no need for me to discuss the history of the period following the Meiji Restoration. Although Japanese history showed a new face several times during the span of time I have covered here, as Tennyson has written, a line of progress runs throughout its entirety. Human rights progressed step by step from one age to the next. From ancient times the people of Japan have had the ability to make governments bend to their will. Whoever today says that they do not have such authority shows contempt for the history of the Japanese people, does not understand the kokutai of Japan, betrays the sentiments of the Japanese people, and casts scorn upon the imperial ancestral will, which for 2500 years has graciously regarded the hearts of the Japanese people as its own. People of Japan, fellow countrymen whom I love, beat the drums loudly: you must attack ignorant historians, credulous educators, and people like Shinagawa Yajirō. (January 23)
