MODERN ECONOMIC& BUSINESS SERIES
No.1, 2004

Copyright2004 by Research Institutefor Economics & Business Administration
Kobe University
Kobe, JapanAll right reserved. No part of this bookmay be reproduced in any means without
permission in writing from the publisher.

ISSN 1349-4430
Printed in Japan
by Kishimoto PrintingImage and Identity
Rethinking Japanese Cultural History

Image and Identity
Rethinking Japanese Cultural History

Edited byJeffrey E. Hanes
Hidetoshi Yamaji

The Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration
Kobe University

謝辞

本著の出版では多くの方に多くの点を負うている。まずは、各寄稿者には最大の感謝の念をささげる。平成１４年１
１月に神戸大学経済経営研究所で開催されたトビ教授を中心とした第２回神戸歴史フォーラム「Rethinking Japanese Cultural History」での議論が核となって、ポス
トモダン的な方法を基礎とした日本史の研究という本著の構想が生まれ、トビ、へインズ、陶、カーリン各氏をはじめとするフォーラムへの参加者はもちろんのこと、多くの内外の研究者に声をかけて論文を寄稿していただくことによって、今日の出版となったわけである。

また、編著者はヘインズと山地になっているが、歴史研究者である
藤村聡（神戸大学経済経営研究所）および加藤慶一郎（流通科学大学）
両氏には実質的な編集作業で大変お世話になった。ほぼ共同編集者であることを明記して感謝の念をささげる。

ジェフリー・ヘインズ
山地秀俊

Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Jeffrey E. Hanes
Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist
Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku
monogatarishû
Haruko Wakabayashi
Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern
Japan: A Historiographical Essay
Brett L. Walker

1

15

29

Chapter 3

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in
Late-Tokugawa Japan
59
Brian Platt

Chapter 4

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰−近世都市における家臣団の位置づけ−
The Violation of Waterworks Regulationsin the Edo Era
The Character of Vassal Groups in FUKUI-HAN
藤村 聡 (Satoshi Fujimura)

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

江戸後期における流通貨幣
近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例
On Stratified Currency of Late-Tokugawa JapanA Case Study of Nakai Genzaemon,an Affluent Merchant
加藤慶一郎 (Keiichiro Kato)
Mind Maps and Land Maps:
The Cognitive Geography of “The Village”
in Tokugawa Japan
Ronald P. Toby
黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風
羅森の虚像と実像
The “Cantonese” Whirlwind Brought by the Black Ships
陶 徳民 (De-min Tao)

73

95

115

131

Contents

Chapter 8

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of
the Samurai during Bakumatsu and Early Meiji Japan
Michael R. Auslin
143

Chapter 9１
９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』
American Photography in the Latter Half of the 19th
Century and “Beiou Kairan Jikki”
山地秀俊 (Hidetoshi Yamaji)

167

Chapter 10

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing theModern Memory of Edo『「東京三百年祭」
における「江戸の近代的記憶」の構造』
Jason G. Karlin
215

Chapter 11

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural Politics of Local
Identity in Modern Japan
Jeffrey E. Hanes

229

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local
Identities in Japan
E. Taylor Atkins

249

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan
Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation
with Ronald P. Toby
Kevin M. Doak263

About the Contributors
Chapter 1:

Haruko Wakabayashi

University of Tokyo

Chapter 2:

Brett L. Walker

Montana State University

Chapter 3:

Brian Platt

George Mason University

Chapter 4:

藤村 聡

神戸大学

Chapter 5:

加藤慶一郎

流通科学大学

Chapter 6:

Ronald P. Toby

University of Illinois

Chapter 7:

陶 徳民

関西大学

Chapter 8:

Michael R. Auslin

Yale University

Chapter 9:

山地秀俊

神戸大学

Chapter10:

Jason G. Karlin

University of Tokyo

Chapter11:

Jeffrey E. Hanes

University of Oregon

Chapter12:

E. Taylor Atkins

Northern Illinois University

Chapter13:

Kevin M. DoakGeorgetown University

Introduction
Jeffrey E. Hanes

The essays collected here challenge the metanarrative of trans−historicalprogress that has long reigned supreme in the field of Japanese history.
Which is to say that they are postmodern in the best and most basic senseof the word. The authors arrived at their postmodern skepticism via different routes, yet they have all managed to escape the objectivist straitjacketof historical truth-seeking and to embrace the subjectivist relativity of postmodern interpretation. Their shared thematic interest in images and identities issues from the common understanding that history is about life andlives, both lived and living, and that historical discourse should properly
seek to capture the subject(ive) positionings that continually animate human experience.
Not to put too dramatic a spin on the critical turn exemplified by theseessays, it must be said that they do not overtly seek to break new theoretical ground. Nevertheless, even the most stolidly empirical among them,seeks to break new historical ground; and, whether explicitly or implicitly,
all of them proceed toward that objective from a postmodern vantage point.
Their approach to historical discourse––namely, critical theory interrogating empirical research; and empirical research, in turn, interrogating theory––has permitted the authors both to unpack facts and to dissemble theories.
The happy result of this methodological exercise in “point-counterpoint” is
new historical insights, new interpretive trajectories, and newly captured
meanings. While other historians in other fields are certainly following asimilar trajectory, it is important to note the relative novelty of this approach within the field of Japanese history. Although there has been a
promising outpouring of postmodern interventions in recent years, most ofthese have been much longer on theoretical imaginings than on historicalevidence: As a whole, the field remains at once ploddingly empirical, prosaically positivistic, and dismayingly hermetic. These essays, by contrast,1

2

Jeffrey E. Hanes

stand and deliver new historical insights grounded in solid, imaginative research. Their engagement of images as subjective representations of humanexperience, rather than objective reflections of it, compels readers to confront the contingent nature of historical discourse. And their exploration ofidentities as protean cultural constructions, rather than immutable social
facts, commands those same readers to interrogate Japanese culture inpromising new ways.
The quiet postmodern skepticism that informs these essays, as well as
the sonorous exchange between critical theorizing and rigorous researchthat animates them, resonates especially loudly with the scholarship of one
historian in particular: Ronald P. Toby. As a number of the authors explicitly acknowledge––authors pursuing subjects as diverse as medieval Buddhist cosmology and contemporary jazz festivals––the path-breaking trajectory of Toby’s work has served as a beacon for their own. In the course ofan academic career focused on the history of Tokugawa Japan (1600-1868),
Toby has helped breathe new life into an era long consigned by modernconceited historians to “feudal stagnation.” At times adamant in his effort
to track its forward movement––and hence an early advocate of the “earlymodern” label now commonly affixed to the era––at other times he has assiduously traced its premodern roots. In the end, it would seem, what hehas really been promoting is a wider appreciation of the lively distinctiveness of Tokugawa Japan, and a deeper respect for its diverse inhabitants inall their subject−ive multiplicity.
Long interested in social interaction and cultural connectivity, Ron Toby
first engaged the subject in a deceptively pedestrian way: by taking a close
look at early modern Korean-Japanese diplomatic exchange. Stunned by
the electric current of diplomatic interchange that he discovered––and wellaware that historians of Japan still labored under the false assumption thatJapan had somehow thrust itself into splendid isolation with the so-called
sakoku (closed country) edicts––Toby invited readers to experience thesurging energy of foreign relations. Paradoxically, the publication of Stateand Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan 1 did little to disabuse historians of
their cherished myth of sakoku––except in Japan. There, the work triggered a historiographical paradigm shift.
What Japanese historians of Japan readily recognized was that State andDiplomacy was not simply a study of regional diplomacy, but an exploration of the ties that had alternately bound and divided the different peoplesof East Asia. In this respect, among others, the book was far ahead of its
time. It was about “border crossings,” after all, that had drawn the countries of East Asia into a kind of “proto-transnational” cultural dialogue. As
1. Ronald P. Toby, State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in theDevelopment of the Tokugawa Bakufu (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984;
reissue, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991).

Introduction

3

Kevin Doak astutely observes in his contribution to this volume, State andDiplomacy was deceptively cultural in its historical thrust: “[It] can be,
and often has been, read merely as a case study in diplomatic history thatchallenged standard assumptions about how ‘closed’ Japan was during theEdo period. Yet, it should be clear from Toby’s earlier work––and especially from his many publications since––that the main thrust behind thiswork was not so much diplomatic or political history, but an anthropological concern with how different groups of people construct collective, especially ethnic, identities.”
The “anthropological concerns” that pounded away in the background of
Toby’s early work, as its basso ostinato, have since been drawn into theforeground as its melodic refrain. In more recent monographs and articles
focused on popular culture rather than state ritual––ranging from Gyo-retsu
to misemono (Parades & Entertainments) to “Performing Portugal”2––
Toby has claimed culture(s) as his central concern. The author himself has
attributed this scholarly shift to a deepening appreciation of the cultural“discourses” that lurked in the background of his earlier examinations of
diplomatic exchange: “I was both explicitly and implicitly aware that ‘actors’ were subjectively motivated, that their actions were taken in responseto their beliefs about self and other, about what ‘Japan’ and ‘the state’
were; what ‘Korea’ was; what the connections between Japan and Korea([as well as] China, Ryukyu, Ezo, the ‘west’) were and should be, both
historically and in the present.”3
The essays in this volume all owe something to Ron Toby’s historicaland methodological ingenuity. That most of the authors acknowledge his
intellectual influence with appreciative nods, rather than gushing praise or
epigrammatic excess, is a fitting tribute to his scholarly example: reading
critical theory, doing basic research, and bringing the two together insearching essays and books written in two different languages (English andJapanese). What the wide-ranging essays here witness about that scholarly
example is that Ron Toby has not merely helped to rewrite the story of
early modern Japan, but helped in the process to put a new and more human face on Japanese cultural history more generally.
The release of this collection of essays owes ultimately to the inspirationand persistence of its lead editor, Yamaji Hidetoshi. Somehow convincing
his colleagues in the Institute of Economics and Management at Kobe University to support two linked symposia on Japanese cultural history, thiseconomist turned historian guided the discussions and debates that inspired
this volume. These conversations, anchored by Ron Toby’s path-breaking
2. Ronald P. Toby, Gyoretsu to misemono [Parades and Entertainments], with
Kuroda Hideo (Tokyo: Asahi shinbunsha, 1994); Ronald P. Toby, “Performing Portugal: Foreign Fad & Farce in Japan in the Age of Encounters.” Bulletin of Portugese/Japanese Studies (forthcoming).
3. Personal communication from Ronald P. Toby, 22 April 2002.

4

Jeffrey E. Hanes

ethnographic scholarship, were centered on the salient theme of image andidentity. When it became clear that historians of Japan had some compelling things to say on the subject, Professor Yamaji took on a co-editor tohelp pull together an appropriate collection of essays. This volume on Image and Identity: Rethinking Japanese Cultural History is the happy resultof that process. The editors wish at the outset to thank the historians who
contributed essays, and to add a special note of thanks to Fujimura Satoshi
for his work in preparing the papers for publication. Lest we be accused ofresidual chronophonism, we would like to note that the essays are arranged
in roughly chronological order by topic––though for no other reason reallythan easier reading. The central purpose of this introductory essay, accordingly, is to elicit some of the historical, theoretical, methodological, and interpretative connections that hold the collection together.
In Chapter One, Haruko Wakabayashi’s stimulating study of “Sangoku
Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology,” we are transported
backward in time to a medieval moment when Japanese mapped the world
according to a religious cosmology that traced the “eastern progress” (bukkyô tôzen) of Buddhism from India, to China, and finally to Japan. This is
the so-called “three peoples cosmology,” or sangoku shisô, that appears in
the twelfth century folktales of the Konjaku monogatari. Well before Japanese ever imagined a diverse world inhabited by “myriad peoples” (bankoku shisô)––or went on to project a diverse, but Nippon-centered, world
dominated by the “divine people” (shinkoku shisô)––Wakabayshi contends
that they carved out for themselves a comfortable niche in the universal
spiritual cosmos represented by Buddhist faith. Peripheral to the Indianspiritual core and dwarfed by Chinese cultural greatness, Japan, in this account, is the proverbial mouse that roared. Overcoming its intrinsic weaknesses as a country––namely, its peripheral location and its small size––Japan marshaled its superior spiritual powers to forge a unique cultural identity. That it also took Korea out of the picture––perhaps out of rivalry andcontempt for what Toby terms “the proximate other”––gives us something
further to think about.
Wakabayashi goes on to project the significance of this finding into
early modern and modern history. She argues poignantly that the secular
Tokugawa cosmologies mentioned above––cosmologies that refigured Japan’s view of the world, in Ron Toby’s view––did not in fact entirely supplant the Buddhist spiritual cosmology. Well into the modern era, and evento this day, she insists, we hear echoes of sangoku shisô. “Despite the riseof the unique shinkoku shisô nationalism,” Wakabayashi concludes, “thecore elements that constituted earlier sangoku shisô were never eliminated,and continued to influence the Japanese view of the world in two respects––that Japan was small and peripheral, yet at the same time, it was thedestination of civilizations that progressed in an eastward direction.”
Whereas Wakabayashi expresses considerable skepticism about the ex-Introduction

5

tent to which Japanese re−imagined and re−figured the world in the
Tokugawa Era, Brett Walker harbors none. In Chapter Two, he touts the“myriad peoples” cosmology (bankoku shisô) as an entirely new Japaneseperspective on self and other with particularly profound implications forJapan’s interaction with the world beyond its borders. His multifaceted examination of the scholarly literature in English on “Foreign Affairs andFrontiers in Early Modern Japan” defies an easy summary, but pointedly
returns again and again to the work of Ron Toby. Identifying State andDiplomacy as “pioneering scholarship” that laid the groundwork for a“new historiography on early modern Japan’s foreign affairs and frontiers,”
Walker goes on to dismiss the hackneyed stereotype of a seclusionist Japanthat recoiled from foreign contact and retreated into splendid isolation.
From the outset, Walker pointedly affirms Ron Toby’s recent claim that
the Tokugawa shoguns exhibited a distinctly “national consciousness” thatthey injected into foreign relations by way of a newly-created “Japancentered epistemology.” Rather than dwelling on the core concerns ofTokugawa foreign relations (China and Korea)––an area that Toby andothers have explored exhaustively––he draws us out to the periphery (Ezoand the Ryukyus). Here, drawing heavily on his own expertise on Ezo and
the Ainu, Walker invokes the Tokugawan cultural paradigm of ka’i chitsujo (civilized center/barbarian periphery) to help explain how and why frontier relations took the forms they did. If this paradigm enabled officials todelineate state boundaries and to begin constructing a national identity, heargues, it also “extended into the popular consciousness.” Tracing the trajectory of Toby’s own work, Walker notes that, while State and Diplomacy
led us to appreciate “the complexity of Japan’s pre-Meiji relations with theoutside world,” recent essays such as “Imagining and Imaging Anthropos”4have since enabled us to visualize that world in all its ethnic and historicalintricacy. In this same vein, Walker urges historians of Japan to turn thefield in a new direction: first, by affirming the sakoku-busting argument ofState and Diplomacy and thus de-hermeticizing Tokugawa Japan; second,by “rescu[ing] the nation from history” (to borrow Toby’s telling term) byconvincing fief−fixated historians of the domestic order to acknowledge
some measure of national consciousness in the Tokugawa era; and third,by projecting an understanding of the “complexity of early modern affairs
and frontiers” into the study of modern Japan. That this historiographicalagenda so closely parallels the trajectory of Ron Toby’s scholarship speaks
volumes for its path−breaking originality.
While Wakabayashi and Walker concern themselves fundamentally withimages and identities of self and other––and, in particular, those related to
the wider world beyond Japan––a quartet of essays follows that turns our
4. Ronald P. Toby, “Imagining and Imaging ‘Anthropos’ in Early Modern Japan.” Visual Anthropology Review, 14:1 (Spring-Summer 1998), 19-44.

6Jeffrey E. Hanes

attention inward once again to the intricately-layered and intermeshed social, economic, and cultural worlds of the Tokugawa domestic order. In
Chapter Three, cleverly titled “Both a Banker and Poet Be,” Brian Plattpays homage to “Both a Borrower and a Lender Be,” Ron Toby’s pathbreaking study of early modern rural banking.5 In the latter essay, Toby
compellingly laid to rest the lingering image of Tokugawa economic backwardness by demonstrating that mid-Tokugawa village lenders created andemployed a nascent credit system to transform themselves into regional
bankers and thus also to forge regional socio-economic networks. Thisfinding becomes Platt’s point of departure, as he proceeds to examine
other activities that might have accelerated the “formation of regional networks among village elites.”
Noting that Tokugawa regionalism was anything but one-dimensional,
Platt traces the rise of cultural networks among would-be poets in the
crossroads−region of Shinano, linking these to the rise of new regional networks of information and the formation of new social identities. While
Platt does not question the importance that Toby and others have placed on
the formation of regional networks that circulated capital and commodities,
he compellingly contends that “cultural practices––namely, aesthetic andintellectual pursuits––were perhaps more instrumental to the formation ofelite networks.” Equally important, he concludes that these networks were“part of a larger, longer process of cultural integration in Tokugawa society” that anticipated the rise of a modern public sphere.
Similarly fascinated by the dynamics of social change in the Tokugawa
period, Fujimura Satoshi nonetheless explores a very different dimensionof it in Chapter Four. In his painstakingly researched essay on “The Violation of Waterworks Regulations in the Edo Era,” he identifies a stunning
trend in the early nineteenth century toward uniform enforcement of water
use regulations in Fuki-han. Central to Fujimura’s argument is the observation that this telling socio-legal development occurred in a castle town––that is, a settlement with numerous residents of diverse statuses who werecompelled to share a host of urban facilities. Waterworks, as Fujimura illustrates, are a key case in point. As urban infrastructures essential to thehealth and hygiene of all urban residents, they demanded regulation. Yet,
not until the early nineteenth century were the waterworks of Fukui s castle town properly policed. While townspeople were regularly fined fordumping garbage, washing clothes, rinsing vegetables, or cleaning fish,samurai residents appear to have remained immune from enforcement ofwater use regulations. That this created an untenable situation is clear. Yet,as Fujimura suggests, it was not until the early nineteenth century that thestrictures and structures of Tokugawa society loosened sufficiently to re5. Ronald Toby, “Both a Borrower and a Lender Be.” Monumenta Nipponica, 46,
no. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 483-511.

Introduction

7

move the double standard.
Things began to change in Fukui from 1814, contends Fujimura, when a
new law and a new regimen of legal enforcement went into effect. This
was the beginning of the end of special treatment for samurai residents ofthe castle town. Marshaling evidence to show that samurai were cited fromthis point forward for violation of water use regulations, Fujiwara thengoes on to examine the historical significance of the change in policy. The
finding, he concludes, compels us to ask whether Bakumatsu urban Japan
experienced a pivotal contraction of vertical status distinctions that prefigured the social leveling of the modern era. Although Fujimura and Platturge us to look at Tokugawa social change in different ways––the former
stressing the horizontal integration of village elites, the latter stressing thevertical contraction of status distinctions between samurai and commoners––it is important to note that they arrive at the same basic historical conclusion: that the roots of Japan’s modern civil society were sunk well before Meiji, in its early modern villages, cities, and regions.
It is tempting to speculate that the examples of early modern socialchange elicited by Platt and Fujimura were symptomatic of something evenmore fundamental: an indigenous process of early modernization that bothpreceded and superceded the putatively western-led process of modernization of the Meiji era. In Chapter Five, Katô Keiichirô engages this question,
asking whether currency circulation was as integrated and advanced as
early modern-minded historians might like to believe. His essay, “On theStratified Currency of Later Tokugawa”, is appropriately focused on theÔmi merchants, whose trading territory extended from their home basenear Biwako to Ezo and beyond. In a case study of the merchant house of
Nakai Genzaemon, one of the most prominent such houses in the Ômi network, Katô investigates the instruments of credit and currency exchangethat governed commercial practice. His findings call into question Ron
Toby’s bold hypothesis in “Both a Borrower and Lender Be” that local
lending spawned a circulatory network of capital that extended across Japan by the early nineteenth century.
While the Omi merchants themselves circulated actively and widely,
contends Katô, the same cannot be said of currency. Inter-regional traders
such as the house of Nakai found themselves caught up in a “multi-tiered”
currency structure. The local staying power of different domainal paper
currencies (hansatsu), in particular, continued to dictate the inter-regionalcommercial practice of gold-and silver-based currency exchange. Even as
Kato thus casts into doubt the Toby-drawn projection of early economic
modernization––contending indeed that currency exchange was not fully
integrated and standardized into a “universal currency” until the beginningof the twentieth century––he also compels us to contemplate the effects ofmismatched structures of local economic exchange on the formation of regional social networks, not to mention the rise of a modern civil society.

8

Jeffrey E. Hanes

Ever the skeptic, it is safe to say that Ron Toby himself would not blinkan eye at Katô’s revisionism. As he illustrates in his own contribution for
Chapter Six, a new essay entitled “Mind Maps and Land Maps: the Cognitive Geography of ‘The Village’ in Tokugawa Japan,” he is more uncertain
than ever about what we really “know” of Tokugawa society. In his essay,
Toby explores the epistemological structures of knowledge that have dictated our contemporary images of Tokugawa Japan. Stepping back and reexamining one of the most cherished certainties about Japanese society––the existence of “natural villages”––he ends up casting this proverbial Village into the dustbin of history. Not only does Toby challenge our understanding of what constitutes a village, by revealing the radical disconnect
between mura (juridical villages) and social villages (i.e., communities), hethen challenges us to take a closer look at the social spaces in which socialchange ostensibly occurred.
The famous focus of Toby’s study is a juridical village known as
Nishijô, located in present-day Gifu prefecture, whose extensive run of
mid-Tokugawa census registers has attracted the close attention of several
hard-hitting historical demographers (Hayami Akira among them) and thus
rendered it virtually synonymous with The Tokugawa Village. During avisit to Nishijô some twenty years ago, Toby was shocked to discover that
this seemingly unitary village was actually “a multiplicity of overlapping,layered ‘villages,’ occupying the same territory.” His typically-exhaustive
investigation of the Tokugawa records revealed multiple legal jurisdictions
and ambiguous social boundaries; and this led him in turn to maps––
though not just mappings of the conventional sort. Following the theoretical lead of cultural geographers such as Denis Wood, Toby scoured the“land maps” of Nishijo and its environs for clues to the assumptions andinterests that guided their construction. Not stopping here, however, healso launched an investigation of what he calls the “mind maps” throughwhich villagers understood their social territory.
The result of this multifaceted investigation is a searching essay on“space and representation” that compels us first to interrogate the official“patterns of intention” behind “land maps”––that is, the conventionalized
mappings of territory commonly consulted by historians today to locate“real” villages––and then to explore the patterns of social understanding
behind the “mind maps” that villagers employed to make sense of their local world. “The ‘village’ was a fluid, shifting unit, comprising different
elements––cognitively mapped quite differently––at different times, depending on the purpose served at the moment,” concludes Toby. “Similarly,
we as historians or ethnographers need to be sensitive to this multiplicityof ‘villages’ in the cognitive geography of localities in Tokugawa Japan.”In questioning what “villages” actually were, Toby implicitly asks who“villagers” were. And in this concern with people as subjects, as well as
the manner in which people of all sorts construct identities both for them-Introduction

9

selves and for others, he is joined by the two authors whose essays follow
his own. In Chapter Seven, on “The ‘Cantonese’ Whirlwind Brought by
the Black Ships,” Tao Demin aggressively interrogates the late Tokugawa
historical record for evidence of the identity of Luo Sen (Ra Shin), a Cantonese scholar and calligrapher hired on at Macao in 1854 as a record
keeper and diplomatic facilitator for the famed American Mission to Japanof Commodore Matthew Perry. The shadowy subject of Tao’s study survives mainly in “virtual images” preserved in sketches, diaries, poetry, andmemoirs. In the course of creating a composite portrait from these “virtual
images,” Tao proposes to construct what he calls a “real image.”
What we learn from Tao’s thick description of Luo Sen is highly intriguing: that he was a latter-day tarento (pop star), sought out by samurai
officials and common people alike, to pen calligraphic epigrams on blankfans; that he was highly respected for his classical learning both by theAmericans he served and the Japanese with whom he interacted; and that
he was something of a dissembler, who frequently blunted the curiosity of
his interlocutors with inconsistent and disingenuous accountings of his motivations and his identity. In the end result, Tao constructs a composite
portrait of Luo Sen that establishes his historical significance as an intermediary of sorts. His thick description of this mysteriously “diplomatic”
figure––drawn from anecdotes in Luo Sen’s own memoirs, passages from
S. Wells Williams’ diary, pictorial sketches of the subject and his times,
and even poetry delivered to him by admiring Japanese officials––offers us
a “real image” of Luo Sen as a kind of cultural facilitator.
Michael Auslin is likewise interested in teasing meaning out of images.
In Chapter Eight, entitled “Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations,” he draws
inspiration from Ron Toby’s meditations on early modern constructions ofJapanese Self vis-à-vis Foreign Other. Reversing the gaze, so to speak,
Auslin instead explores the construction of Japanese Other vis-à-vis Foreign Self. Carrying us forward to a historical juncture when such concerns
were cast by circumstance into high relief––the moment of an epochal
clash of cultures that saw fiercely chauvinistic samurai forcefully resist thethreat of foreign barbarians––he examines how the circumstances influenced western images of the samurai.
Auslin concludes that westerners were traumatized by the “terror” of theearly 1860s, during which a handful of sailors, diplomats, and civilians
were either wounded or killed by marauding anti-western samurai. In an
essay that implicitly links the ups-and-downs of diplomatic relations to thesensationalized accounts of these incidents in western (mainly British)
newspapers, Auslin explores the creation of an orientalist stereotype: thesamurai as “savage killer.” In sharp contrast to the benign accounts of Japan that earlier circulated in the west, produced by wayfarers such asFranz von Seibold, in the 1860s the British media stepped in to spin thegory accounts of shell-shocked witnesses and the sober editorializing of

10

Jeffrey E. Hanes

outraged diplomats into new cultural stereotypes. “Over the course of adecade into the late 1860s,” Auslin points out, “the Western image of thesamurai dramatically evolved. A mélange of visions gave way under the
threat of terror to a chilling portrait of a savage killer.” That some of thesame samurai were later “rehabilitated” as misguided idealists by the samenewspapers that had condemned them as bloodthirsty assassins––the key
source being detailed accounts of ritual suicide that stressed the samurai’sfatalistic sense of honor––only reinforces Auslin’s point about the construction of stereotypical images and the attendant essentialization of cultural identitites.
Chapter Nine also examines the construction of images, but in a much
more literal sense. Projecting forward in time––and across a massive territorial divide––Yamaji Hidetoshi confronts a concern that Ron Toby has explicitly addressed in much of his recent work on early modern cultural imagery: the construction of the aesthetic subject. Yamaji’s essay on “American Photography in the Latter Half of the Nineteenth Century” is focusedon cartographic and photographic representations of the American West.
He turns his attention first to the early maps and photographs commissioned by railway companies and mining interests committed to westward
expansion. Compellingly reading the photographs as imagistic expressionsof the march of Manifest Destiny in the settlement of the American West,he goes on to contrast them to photographs taken later by conservationists
such as John Muir. While these photographs, too, monumentalized thenatural environment, observes Yamaji, they did so in a way that exalted
the natural grandeur of the American West.
Yamaji introduces us next to a hybrid genre of American Western photography that stressed both conservation and recreation. Tracing these photographs to an unusual “strategic alliance” between the exploiters of nature(the railroad magnates) and the defenders of nature (the conservationists),
Yamaji suggests that what joined them was their mutual interest in thecreation and utilization of America’s newly-established national parks.
While he goes on to deconstruct these new images of the American West––observing, among other things, that they erased any trace of the indigenous inhabitants––his fascination with the images is multifaceted. Not interested solely in the construction of these images, but also in their diffusion, he tracks their passage across the Pacific. Who could have predictedthat promotional images of the American West taken by Alfred A. Hart for
the Central Pacific Railroad would one day be collected by Kume Kunitake of the Iwakura diplomatic Mission from Japan? And how could wepossibly project, concludes Yamaji, that these images would later be used
to construct the Japanese image of the American West?
The final four essays in this collection pose explicit questions about theconstruction of modern identities––national, regional, local, and ethnic, respectively––and carry the theme of this volume into more contemporary

Introduction

11

territory. In Chapter Ten, Jason G. Karlin examines the ways in which
Meiji Japanese imagined and experienced their new nation. His essay on“The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo” transports us to the 1880s––to apoint in Japan’s modern history when enthusiasm for the new had begun togive way to nostalgia for the old. Ushering us into the debate that surrounded planning for the Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo––during
which self-styled Edokko hijacked the event and made it into a showcase
for their “oppositional memory” of the old city and the old national culturethat it represented––Karlin identifies this commemoration as a site (and arite) of resistance to the “oblivion of modern change” forced on Edo/Tokyo by the developmental scheme of bunmei-kaika (civilization and enlightenment). Following the theoretical lead of Michel de Certeau andHenri Lefebvre, Karlin explores the motives and methods through whichthese cultural recidivists invented Edo as “the essence of Japanese cultural
identity.” Paradoxically, they employed a quintessentially modern method
to mobilize “ordinary life” as a force against modern change: the inventionof tradition. “No longer the domain of undifferentiated repetition and‘taken-for-grantedness,’” Karlin observes, “everyday life has become thesource of invention and mystification.”
Similarly fascinated by modern imaginings of the nation, Jeffrey E.
Hanes shifts our attention from the construction of national identity to thepreservation of regional identity in Chapter Eleven. His story begins, in asense, where Karlin’s ends: with a fixed national “Japanese cultural identity” forged in Tokyo. In an essay entitled “Osaka vs. Tokyo: The Cultural
Politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan,” Hanes explores the modern rivalry between Japan’s first and second cities: Tokyo and Osaka. He challenges the conventional wisdom that this rivalry was merely an extensionof age-old cultural bickering between the Kansai and Kanto regions. Arguing that Osaka and Tokyo were not thrust into a binaristic rivalry until
state−supported Tokyo centrism raised its ugly head in the Meiji era, he
explores the cultural stereotyping that ensued from the national leadership’s assertion of Tokyo-focused national cultural hegemony.
Notwithstanding the hegemonic claims of modern Tokyo, however,Hanes contends that it still took an unpredictable historical event to create
an undbridgeable cultural chasm between Japan’s first and second cities.
Noting the reversal of fortune that occurred following the Great Kanto
Earthquake (1923), as Tokyo fell suddenly to its knees and Osaka rosesteadily to its feet, he examines the cultural panic that ensued. No sooner
did Tokyo crash and burn than social gadflies began to worry aloud abouta loss of cultural hegemony. In the most eloquently paranoid version ofthis dire projection, the essays of the social critic Ôya Sôichi, the consumerist metropolis of Osaka (“Japan’s America,” as he calls it) was stealthily
undermining the cultural capital of Tokyo on its way to corrupting the values of an entire nation. Rather than mystifying this regional rivalry, as Ôya

12Jeffrey E. Hanes

does, Hanes seeks to historicize it. He urges us, in the final analysis, toseek the roots of cultural stereotyping in the “us/them” dichotomies that
hardened so acutely in the modern era, as nation−states aggressivley pursued cultural hegmonization and homogenization.
Quietly removing us from the volatile realm of modern Japanese identity
crises, examined in the essays by Karlin and Hanes, Chapter Twelve explores the creative construction of local identity in contemporary Japan. In
an essay entitled “Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan,” E. Taylor Atkins focuses our attention on an extraordinary
example of furusato-zukuri (native-place-making). Whereas most such initiatives “valorize native place” by inventing a nativist tradition based on
the local culture, he observes, the port cities of Yokohama and Kobe haveinvented an international/native tradition by domesticating a foreign cultural form. In both cities, he contends, “local governments have used jazz
to authenticate their local identities and their place in a national narrativeof internationalization (kokusaika).” Through their creation of annual jazzfestivals––occasions where we see the “appropriation of jazz as a local artifact”––Yokohama and Kobe have attempted to forge local unity by assuming a cosmopolitan civic identity. In order to achieve this objective,
however, they have not merely domesticated jazz, but also sanitized it.
“Purged of the turmoil and divisiveness [that] jazz actually inspired,” argues Atkins, the “jazztowns” of Yokohama are thus doubly paradoxical.
Not only are they places where “being modern is the tradition,” they areplaces where the modern is traditionalized.
Chapter Thirteen, Kevin M. Doak’s meditation on “the State of Ethnicity
in Modern Japan,” provides an appropriate denouement to this collection.
Permitting us to hear echoes of his ten−year conversation with Ron Toby
about ethnicity and identity, Doak begins with a searching observation
about the thrust of Toby’s scholarship: “what emerges from any carefulreading of Toby’s work is that representations of ethnic identity are far
more than mere reflections of a supposed social reality and, in fact, are important strategies of cultural intervention that convey, implicitly and explicitly, specific political values.” Chewing on this idea briefly, even as hecontinues to engage Toby’s more recent work, Doak then reveals his central concern: the contemporary rise of ethnic nationalism.
Reminding us that ethnicity, like race, is “manufactured in modern discourse,” Doak invites us to question “the presumed connection between
national and ethnic identity.” He introduces us to the subject through an
extraordinary Japanese example of historical narrativization that “de−coupled” the nation and ethnicity in the interest of promoting Japanese imperialism. The text in question, a popular historical ethnography of The Nations of the Far East (Kyokutô no minzoku) written in 1916, paradoxically
proposed that the Chinese embrace their ethnic identity. Since it is commonly assumed that powerful nation-states, not to mention imperial states,

Introduction

13

sought to repress and suppress ethnic identity, the text offers us a fascinating opportunity to ponder the surprising conplexiy of ethnic nationalism in
the Japanese inperial context. Sharply distinguishing East from West––
most explicitly, by characterizing “the Orient as a field of ethnic nationhood in contrast to the Western concept of the territorial state”––the text
urged the Chinese to throw off their doomed western-style state and to embrace their natural state of diverse ethnicity. But who could possibly step
into this political void and prevent Asia from descending into chaos? Its
obvious answer, of course, was Asia’s premier modern state: the Land of
the Rising Sun.
Going on to link ideas voiced in this text to the frightening rise of fascist ethnology in the 1930s, Doak means for us as well to recognize a lineof reasoning in these ideas that “prefigured more contemporary postmodern
imaginations of diasporic ethnic identities that allegedly float above andacross territorial states.” By projecting forward in this cautionary way fromhis historical subject, Doak reminds us that the lessons of the past resonate
with the challenges of the present. It is our hope that readers will similarlyfind contemporary meaning in the historical essays that compose this collection.

Chapter 1
Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity
in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depictedin the Konjaku monogatarishû
Haruko Wakabayashi

I Introduction
As Thongchai Winichakul states in his book, Siam Mapped , the discourse of a modern nation usually presupposes a two-way identification:
positively by some common nature, identity, or interests; and negatively by
the differences with other nations.1 Winichakul further argues the importance of a spatial perspective––the territoriality or in his words, the “geobody,” that demarcates the positive as well as the negative––in the formation of such identities. The purpose of this paper is not to argue that national identity or territory in the modern sense existed in late Heian Japan.
However, the author feels that Winichakul’s study that links geography
and identity is helpful in understanding Japan’s awareness of its geographical place in a larger world and the impact it may have had on the early development of its identity. This was certainly the case, especially among
those who adopted the Buddhist cosmology, which placed Tenjiku 天竺(India) at the center of human continent, Shintan 震旦 (China) as one of
the many middle and small sized countries, and Japan as one of the myriad
tiny countries on the periphery.
This paper is an attempt to identify elements in early Buddhist cosmology that helped shape Japanese views of Self and Other, some of whichwere reinvented and integrated into nationalist ideologies in later periods.
As source material, the author has selected stories from the Konjaku monogatarishû 今昔物語集, a collection of more than 1000 setsuwa 説話
compiled in the early 12th century.2 These tales, especially those that re1. Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation(Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 1994), pp. 2-3.
2. For Konjaku monogatarishû, I have used the Iwanami Nihon koten bungaku
taikei (vols. 22-26), and Shin Nihon koten bungaku taikei (vols. 33-37).
15

16

Haruko Wakabayashi

count the exchange between Japanese and foreign Others, reveal how Japan in its early times identified its place in the world, distinguished itself
from other countries, and at times, revealed pride. Of particular interest is
how actual contacts with the foreign countries, or the lack thereof, havehelped shape Japan’s identity within the Buddhist paradigm.
II Sangoku shisô and the Buddhist Cosmology3
For Japan, it was Buddhism that introduced a geographical map that included the larger international world beyond Korea and China, with which
the Japanese had had direct contact.
This cosmology placed Mt. Sumeru at the center of the universe, surrounded by seven rings of oceans and mountains, and by the four continents in the four cardinal directions. Jambu-dvîpa, the continent in thesouth, was believed to be the human world, where the Buddha was born
and where all the known countries are located. Jambu-dvîpa consists offive Tenjiku (Indian countries divided into North, East, South, West andCentral regions) at its core, 16 big countries, five hundred middle-sizecountries, 10,000 small countries, and countless scattered grains of millet.
The Gotenjiku-zu 五天竺図 (“The Map of Five Tenjiku”) of Hôryûji copied in 1364 is a map of the world based on this Buddhist cosmology.4 The
diagram itself is, of course, not accurate in the modern scientific sense, but
is a map that depicts “real” places that appear in Buddhist texts, biographies of Shakyamuni, travel records of Faxian and Xuanzang. Depicted in
the egg-shaped continent are kingdoms of five Tenjiku at the center, anumber of kingdoms in Central Asia, and Shintan 震旦, or the Great T’ang.
Located amidst the ocean in the Northeast is Japan (labeled Shikoku andKyûkoku), as one of the millet countries that lie beyond the boundaries of
the continent. The map is just one example that gives a picture of Japan’s
geographic location in the Buddhist context.
From such a view of the world, the Japanese (whose minds functioned
within the above Buddhist paradigm), by the ninth century, developed theirown interpretation of the cosmology, referred to as the sangoku shisô 三国
思想. According to the sangoku shisô, the world was divided into threemajor countries––India, in which Sakyamuni Buddha was born, China, towhich Buddhism was transmitted, and Japan, where Buddhism continued
3. On Buddhist cosmology and premodern Japanese maps, see Kuroda Hideo,“Gyôki-shiki ‹Nihonzu› to wa nanika,” in Kuroda, Mary Elizabeth Berry, Sugimoto
Fumiko, eds., Chizu to ezu no seiji bunkashi (Tokyo Daigaku shuppankai, 2001),
pp. 3-78; “Ôji Toshiaki, Echizu no sekaizô (Iwanami shoten, 1996); Unno Kazutaka, Chizu ni miru Nihon −Wakoku/Jipangu/Dainippon− (Taishûkan shoten, 1999).
4. Gotenjiku-zu is reproduced in Kokuhô Hôryûjiten (a catalogue for an exhibition held at the Tokyo National Museum, Nara National Museum, etc. in 1994),
p.149

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

17

to thrive.5 This sangoku shisô embodied two extreme views of Japan as
Self and China and India as Other: (1) India and China are two great central civilizations of the world, whereas Japan is a small, peripheral country.
In other words, Japan recognized itself as being marginal. (2) At the sametime, however, it was also commonly believed that Buddhism had declined
in both India and China, whereas it was still thriving in Japan. Buddhism
gradually progressed to the east, that is, until it reached its final destiny,
Japan (Bukkyô tôzen 仏教東漸). In terms of the prosperity of Buddhist
teachings, therefore, Japan was the most successful. Furthermore, we mustnote that by limiting the central countries to three, many countries thatwere excluded from this cosmology, the most significant being Korea (it istotally invisible in the Gotenjiku-zu, for example).
III Tales from Konjaku monogatarishû
The Konjaku monogatarishû is divided into three sections, Tenjiku (India), Shintan (China), and Honchô (Japan), each subdivided into Buddhist
tales and secular tales, a division clearly based on the above sangoku shisô.
Tales about Korea and other Foreign Lands are also included, though they
do not constitute an independent section. In the following pages, I wish to
examine how Self and Other are portrayed in some of the stories containedin the Konjaku monogatarishû, and how they reveal Japanese attitudes toward Foreign Others.
INDIA
Let us begin with the core county, India, referred to as Tenjiku. In fact,
stories dealing with India are mostly based on tales that were borrowed
from already existing sutras and Chinese writings. Many discuss the founder, Sakyamuni’s life and his miracles. Others have also been taken from
Xuanzang’s “Record of the Western Regions” (Da Tang Xiyi-ji 大唐西域記). Yet since there were very few actual contacts with people from Tenjiku (which also included those from Southeast Asia), and no Japaneseever saw Tenjiku, reflected in these stories is the Japanese notion of India
that remained an imaginary and legendary world. However, some of thestories that are told in this section are believed to have helped shape Japan’s perceptions of the “other world” beyond the Buddhist boundaries.
One such example is the story of Sôkara who landed on what would
later become Sri Lanka, which was then inhabited by man-eating de5. For sangoku shisô, see Sasaki Reishin, “Sangoku Bukkyô shikan to zokusan
hendo,” in Kuroda Toshio, ed. Taikei Bukkyô to Nihonjin, vol. 2: Kokka to tennô.
(Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1987), pp. 275-315, Takagi Yutaka, Kamakura Bukkyôshi
kenkyû (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1982), and Sueki Fumihiko, “Bukkyôteki sekaikan
to esunosentorizumu” in Arano Yasunori et. al., eds., Ajia no naka no Nihonshi,
vol. 5 (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1993).

18

Haruko Wakabayashi

monesses (5-1). Sôkara was an Indian merchant who, along with a groupof merchants, landed on the island of rasetsu 羅刹, the man-eating demons.
Initially, the men were fooled by these demons, who appeared as beautiful
women, until one day, the men found skulls and flesh of other men who
had been eaten by them previously. Having realized the true identity ofthese women, Sôkara and the merchants tried to escape from the island,
and managed to do so with the help of Bodhisattva Kannon. After a successful return to India, Sôkara led a military expedition to the island, conquered the demons, and became the king of the island.6
It is perhaps worth noting that this land said to have been conquered by
Sôkara is depicted in one of the earliest surviving maps of Japan, known
as the “Gyôki-style” map (Gyôki-shiki Nihonzu 行基式日本図).7 The oldest copy of the Western half of this map, dated early fourteenth century, ispresently in the Kanazawa Bunko. Japan, according to this map, is illustrated in the shape of a single vajra (dokko 独鈷), its border marked by anarrow strip that looks like a serpent/dragon’s body, and is surrounded bybodies of foreign lands such as T’ang, Koryo, and Ryûkyû. Interestingly
enough, one of these foreign lands is identified as the “Land of Rasetsu”(Rasetsu-koku 羅刹国), and described as a land inhabited by women,
where no visitor ever returns alive. This must refer to the above-mentioned
island of Sôkara, or Sri Lanka. Although the Japanese has never seen thisisland, they were aware of its “existence” as the island in the southern seas,
and therefore, placed it as the land that marked the southern border of themap. This is just one example of how literary works such as the Da Tang
Xiyi-ji, read in its original form as well as in Japanized form as in the
Konjaku monogatarishû, had influenced the Japanese view of the world
beyond their actual reach.
CHINA
Even though Japanese diplomatic missions officially ended in the 9th
century, the stories in the Shintan section reveal the more direct nature ofcontact between China and Japan, in contrast to the legendary and mythical world described in the Tenjiku section. Especially notable are the Buddhist priests who went to China to study Buddhism. In Konjaku monogatarishû, we find a number of stories about the experiences of Japanesemonks in China.
One such example is Dôshô 道照 (629-700), founder of the Hossô sectin Japan. He went to China in 653 as a member of an embassy, and became a student of the famed monk Xuanzang 玄奘, not returning to Japan

6. NKBT 22, pp. 338-343. This story, originally contained in the Da Tang Xiyiji, also appears in the Uji shûi monogatari (9) in NKBT 27, pp. 210-6.
7. For a detailed analysis of the Gyôki-style map, see Kuroda, pp. 3-78.

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

19

until 661. An interesting episode appears in chapter eleven of the Konjaku
monogatarishû (11-4). The story takes place as Dôshô arrives at Xuanzang’s door.
Xuanzang immediately invited him in, went out to greet him, and began
to talk to him as though they were old acquaintances. Dôshô stayed andstudied under Xuanzang for one year, and did extremely well. One day,other students of Xuanzang, being envious of Dôshô, said to their master,“there are a number of students in this country, all of whom are with great
virtue. However, the great master never respects us, but would personallywelcome the Japanese priest. This, we cannot understand. Even though theJapanese priest may be good, he is a man of the small country (小国).
How can he compare to the people of this country?” To this, Xuanzang responded, You should all go to the Japanese priest’s chamber in the evening, and secretly look into his room. Only after then, you may speak ill
or highly of him.” A couple of his students did as told. They looked into
Dôshô’s room one evening and found him reading the sutras. When theylooked more carefully, they could see a bright light coming out of his
mouth. When the students reported to the master, the master said, “Youcertainly are fools. You did not understand why I would show respect tohim. You have no wisdom.” The students finally realized that Dôshô was adeity incarnate and so was Xuanzang, who could tell that he was special.
One thing to notice in the above passage is the use of the expression“small country” used by the Chinese disciples to refer to Japan. The expression suggests that the Japanese acknowledged the smallness of theircountry, and were aware of the civilized (and arrogant) Chinese wholooked down upon them. Yet the twist in this tale is that, nevertheless, theJapanese priest is the more talented and venerable, while the disciples are
mere fools who could not perceive that.
Such a storyline, indeed, is not new or unique to this tale. The episoderesembles Kûkai’s own account of his first encounter with his master,
Huiguo.8 As soon as Huiguo saw Kûkai, he smiled and told him that heknew that Kûkai would come, and that he had been waiting for him as the
person to whom he could transmit the teachings. Both episodes suggest
thatthe true line of Buddhism has been transmitted to Japan, supporting theearlier-mentioned notion of the eastward transmission of Buddhism. In thecase of Kûkai, he claimed that his master, Huiguo, had studied under an
Indian priest, hence establishing a direct lineage from India. Dôshô’s master, Xuanzang, too, is famous for his travels to India, and Dôshô had inherited directly the teachings of Buddhism from India via China.
Another renowned priest who studied in China is Jakushô 寂照 (?-1034).
His dates suggest that he lived not far from the time Konjaku monoga8. Translation from the Memorial Presenting a List of Newly Imported Sutras in
Sources of Japanese Tradition, volume 1, pp. 140-2.

20Haruko Wakabayashi

tarishû was written. Jakushô studied Tendai and esoteric Buddhism under
Genshin and Ningai. Then he went to China in 1003 and entered the capital, Kaifeng, the following year. There, he saw the Emperor, responded tohis questions regarding Japan, and received the purple robe and the titleEnzû Daishi. He lived in Wumen Temple in Suzhou and died in Gangzhou
without ever returning to Japan.
There are two episodes about Jakushô in the Konjaku monogatarishû
that are of interest to the present topic. The first is about Jakushô findingout that his old friend, Seihan, has been reborn as a prince in China. He
finds this out when he is invited to the palace of the Chinese Emperor.
The prince, four or five years of age, comes up to Jakushô and whispers to
him “in his own language” that he is a reincarnation of Seihan, and has
been reborn in China because there were many people there that need his
merits. The story emphasizes the eminence of a Japanese priest whom even
the Chinese people revered. Also noteworthy is a clear notion of “our” language versus the “other” language. As we will see later, intelligible language was a key element of advanced civilization.
Moving on to the second story (19-2):
While in China, the Emperor summoned Jakushô along with the holymen of China and suggested that each person fly a bowl to receive offerings. The Emperor’s true intention was to test Jakushô who had come fromJapan (日本の寂照). One by one, the Chinese priests flew their bowls andfinally, it was Jakushô’s turn. However, Jakushô had never learned thisparticular rite. He had heard of those who could practice it in ancient Japan, yet because of the Final Age, people have forgotten it. He then prays,“Three treasures of my country (本国), please help me. If I cannot fly thebowl, it would bring a terrible shame on my country. (本国の為に極めて恥也).” The bowl in front of Jakushô then suddenly began to turn like a
top and flew in the air, faster than any other bowl, and returned to Jakushôwith the offerings. The Emperor, ministers and the hundred officials were
all deeply impressed and venerated Jakushô.
Expressions like “shame on my country” reflect pride and vanity as arepresentative of one’s own country. Moreover, it is interesting that
Jakushô prays to the “three treasures,” specifically defined “hongoku no”(of my country), suggesting that there is a clear distinction between theprotective power of Buddhism in respective countries. If this story were retold in the Kamakura period, Jakushô most certainly would have prayed to
the kami of Japan instead of the Buddhist “three treasures.” This, as I will
discuss in my concluding remarks, is the very limit of Buddhist-oriented
sangoku shisô––it cannot produce a uniquely Japanese identity.
The story of the flying bowl reminds us of Shigisan engi emaki 信貴山
縁起絵巻, but the story itself is more similar to Kibi Daijin nittô emaki 吉
備大臣入唐絵巻 (12th-13th century scroll; the story also appears in Godanshô 江談抄), which is about Kibi no Makibi 吉備真備, a scholar-official

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

21

who was sent to China in 717.9 According to the scroll, he is confined to a
tower immediately upon arrival by the Chinese ministers who fear his talents. Three times, the Emperor and his ministers test him, but with thehelp of an oni, who is actually the spirit of Abe no Nakamaro 阿倍仲麻呂,
who had earlier died in the tower, he is able to pass the tests and impress
the Chinese emperor and his ministers. Both the Kibi Daijin and Jakushô
stories reveal the extremely complex nature of Japanese identity vis-à-vis
China: an awareness of being small and inferior in knowledge and skills,
yet at the same time, the belief that its spiritual power exceeds that of theChinese, and therefore allows them to overcome the handicap. Similar patterns can be found in later shinkoku shisô 神国思想 (especially in the belief in the Divine Wind that repelled the invading Mongols), and in theconcept of wakon kansai 和魂漢才 (Japanese spirit, Chinese knowledge),later modified to wakon yôsai 和魂洋才.
KOREA
The Japanese attitude toward Korea was quite different from that toward
China. Although Korea was the country that had actually introduced Buddhism to Japan, none of the tales reflect the kind of reverence held towards
China. Instead, many tales in Konjaku monogatarishû reveal the moresecular aspects of The Korea-Japan relationship. Notable is a number of
episodes that refer to the historic battle against Silla in the 660’s, when Japan sent troops to aid Paekche, which was, in the end, destroyed by thejoint forces of Silla and T’ang. There are several tales that recount Japanese priests and soldiers who had been sent to aid Paekche, became captives of T’ang, or escaped the battle, and safely returned to Japan by praying to Kannon and other bodhisattvas.
Others also describe the situation in Koguryo during its battles against
Silla and T’ang, also in the seventh century. One such example is about
the priest Gyôzen 行善 who was sent to Koguryo to “study and spread”
Buddhism (16-1). However, Koguryo was conquered by T’ang during his
stay. As Gyôzen was trying to escape from the chaotic capital, he cameacross a big river. There were no boats, and the bridges had all been destroyed. All he could do was pray to Kannon. Then, all of a sudden, an
old man (who in fact is a manifestation of Kannon) appeared with a boat
and told him to cross the river on the boat. Thinking that there is no meritin staying in Koguryo, he decided to go to T’ang. There, he continued
studying Buddhism, and made a statue of Kannon. The Emperor of T’ang,hearing about this miracle of Kannon, summoned Gyôzen and venerated
him. Gyôzen finally returned to Japan in 718.
These stories recount Japan’s alliance with the Korean kingdoms and its
9. Kibi Daijin nittô emaki is reproduced in Nihon emaki taisei, vol. 3 (Chûôkôronsha, 1977).

22

Haruko Wakabayashi

experiences in the battles. Korea is presented as a country that relied onJapanese aid as its kingdoms were being destroyed in one battle or another.
Another story, which takes place in the mid-ninth century, represents a
more tense situation between Japan and Korea (14-45):
During the reign of Emperor Montoku 文徳天皇 (850-858), Silla denied
His Majesty’s orders. The ministers held a meeting and said, “That country
agreed to serve our dynasty at the time of Emperor .... It is not good thatthey deny the orders. We shall immediately send a punitive expedition to
Silla.” Fujiwara no Toshihito was thus chosen to lead the troops.
Silla had no clue of what was happening. However, there were a numberof strange phenomena in the country, which were interpreted as an omenof a battle against a foreign country. The King and ministers of the country held a meeting and decided to ask for the help of the Three Treasures.
They thus invited the Chinese priest Fachuan, student of Huiguo, the master of esoteric rituals, to perform the rituals for conquest.
During this time, Chishô Daishi 智証大師 of Miidera happened to be inSung, studying Shingon under Fachuan. He, too, went to Silla with hismaster, and without knowing that the ritual for conquest was against his
own country, he performed the ritual. After seven days, blood flowed on
the ritual platform. Knowing that the ritual had succeeded, the priests returned to Sung.
Meanwhile, as Toshihito was preparing to leave the country, he fell ill.
Then, he suddenly rose and pulled his sword out in the air, danced about
with his sword, and died. The Court thus gave up the plan to send troops
to Silla. It was only after Chishô returned to Japan that people knew that it
was because of his ritual that the general had died.
Similar stories are found in Uchigikishû 打聞集 and Kojidan 古事談,
although in both cases, the incident takes place during the reign of Emperor Uda 宇多天皇 (867-931), and not Montoku. According to these stories, the conquest of Silla could be prevented only because Chishô, theJapanese priest, unknowingly performed the ritual to subdue the great general. This plot itself is quite ironic. Yet what is more compelling is the depiction of tension between Silla and Japan.
Although there is no historical record that an expedition against Silla
was planned during the reigns of Montoku or Uda, according to Sandai jitsuroku 三代実録, and the recently published Taigai kankeishi sôgô nenpyô
対外関係史総合年表, there was a time during the reign of Montoku’s son,Seiwa 清和 (850-880), when the Court seriously feared the invasion ofSilla, strengthened its defense, and prayed to repel the Silla sea forces (kaizoku 海賊).10
Noteworthy, too, is the minister’s statement that Silla had earlier agreed
10. Taigai kankeishi sôgô nenpyo henshû iinkai, ed., Taigai kankeishi sôgô nenpyô (Yoshikawa kôbunkan, 1999), pp. 90-93.

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

23

to serve Japan, and that Japan was sending a punitive expedition for notobeying the Emperor’s orders. There is, of course, no historical record that
Silla was subjugated by Japan. However, according to the well-known taleof Empress Jingû and her conquest of the three kingdoms of Korea, which
first appears in the Nihon shoki 日本書紀 and Kojiki 古事記, the Korean
kingdoms did pledge in the third century to become tributaries to Japan.
Later medieval text, Hachiman gudokun 八幡愚童訓, even claims that the
Korean kings promised to become dogs. This legend has been retold over
and over again to justify Japanese invasion of, or even ascendancy over
Korea.
In sum, there is much greater sense of rivalry and disdain toward Korea
than toward China or India. This certainly is a reflection of immediate interaction and competition for power in the region, and is the very attitude
that was carried on to the modern imperialist era.
BARBARIC OTHERS
Regardless of it’s domineering attitude, Japan still represented Korea asa country that is as equally civilized as Japan. However, there are manyother lands that are described as “barbaric” in the Konjaku monogatarishû.
In one story, merchants from Kyushu stop over on an unknown island, andlater are told that the island is called Torashima (Cheju Island, off the Korean Peninsula in East China Sea), and that the inhabitants there are cannibals(31-12). Ryûkyû, too, is described in as an island of cannibals (11-13).
The inhabitants of these barbaric islands were also often deformed or uncultivated. An extraordinarily tall man lived on an island where the peopleof Sado stopped (31-16); the men were prohibited from landing, and weresent back to the sea with some provisions. People who saw the naked,
headless corpse of a giant that was washed in from the sea onto the bay of
Hitachi rumored that it must be the body of a female Asura (31-17). Abe
no Yoshitoki who found himself in northern Kokoku saw people who werechattering away nonsensical words (31-11). Hence the Japanese believedthat amidst the distant seas existed barbaric islands inhabited by nonhumans or uncivilized people.
Such a tradition of dehumanizing the foreign Other existed in preBuddhist Japan, as represented in the notion of hare and kegare (purity
and pollution) prevalent during the Heian period. Demons often appearedin areas deserted by people, such as old, uninhabited huts in the mountain,
or at certain symbolic spots such as bridges, rivers, and mountains, whichwere believed to be the boundary (kyôkai 境界) between this world andthe other world. Once in a while, they would appear in the capital, within
the limits of the boundary and bring pollution and disease to the capital. In
order to avoid such impurities from polluting the imperial realm, it was
important that the court hold annual purification ceremonies where the Emperor could symbolically drive away all impurities (i.e. evil spirits) from

24

Haruko Wakabayashi

his realm.11 Beyond the boundaries of his realm, therefore, existed the
Other World (ikai 異界), and it was within this Other World that demons
were contained.
However, the notion of demonic other is also an element found in Buddhist cosmology, as noted earlier in the legend of Sôkara in the Tenjiku
section. The story reveals two aspects of the Buddhist view of the world.
First, although China and India (and Korea, to a certain extent) are foreigncountries, since they are part of the Buddhist world, they are not completely alien. The Chinese and Indian people are therefore depicted as humans, sharing the common culture and level of civilization with the Japanese. However, there are those who do not belong to this sphere, and those
Others often portrayed as barbaric demons. Second, the story of Sokara
carries a strong Buddhist tradition that depicts non-Buddhists as demons.
In Buddhist tradition, Hindu gods and other anti- or non-Buddhist elements
were frequently represented as demons, and there are countless tales ofthese demons’ defeat by bodhisattvas and priests, as well as their conversion to Buddhism. The story of Sôkara, too, is about the conquest of demons with the support of the bodhisattva Kannon, and thereby illustrates
the expansion of the Buddhist world.
The hare/kegare view of the world and the Buddhist view were twovery different perceptions of Japan’s Self and Other. One was exclusive,
stressing the need to drive out the impure Other, leaving Japan with asense of racial purity and superiority. The world was basically divided into
two––Self and Other––and there was a very limited notion of Foreign. The
Buddhist view, represented by sangoku shisô, on the other hand, containedin its view a larger world and the enthusiasm to conquer the Other and by
so doing, expand the Buddhist world. In both views, Others who did notbelong were symbolically represented as demonic; however, when we compare the two, the Buddhist cosmology contains a much more concrete andinteractive experience of the Foreign. In that sense, the presence of the demonic Foreign is naturally stronger in the Buddhist tradition.
BUKKYÔ TÔZEN , THE EASTWARD PROGRESSION OF BUDDHISM
It is within this Buddhist cosmology that Japan, by the twelfth century,
begins to show signs of national pride. This can be seen in one of the key
concepts that underlies the structure of Konjaku monogatarishû, “Bukkyôtôzen” (仏教東漸) or the eastward progression of Buddhism. This concept
defined the historical development of Buddhism within the spatial framework of sangoku shisô. In other words, Buddhism was progressing in an
11. This consciousness of purity and pollution in relation to the Court and theworld outside of the boundaries has been discussed in Itô Kiyoshi, Nihon chûsei noôken to ken’i (Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 1993), pp. 17-68, and Murai Shosuke, Ajia nonaka no chûsei Nihon, pp. 108-142.

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

25

eastward direction, beginning with India, where Sakyamuni Buddha wasborn, moving on to China, where it developed, and finally, was brought toJapan, where it continues to flourish.12 What is important here is that thisconcept not only describes the transmission of Buddhism, but also contains
the notion that Buddhism had deteriorated in both India and China as its
center gradually shifted eastwards, until it finally reached Japan. Two stories in chapter 20 are particularly representative of this attitude:
The first is a story about a tengu from India(20-1). As he was flying
from India to China, he heard a stream of water in the sea chanting a Buddhist phrase on impermanence. Curious to know why the water is chanting
the holy words, the tengu becomes determined to find out its origins andstop it. He reaches China, but the water continues to chant, so he passes
China, crosses over the sea, and through Tsukushi (Kyushu), reaches themouth of Yodo River in Japan. From there, passing through Uji River, hereaches Lake Biwa, as the chanting grows louder and louder. Finally, hegets to a river that flows from Yokawa of Mt. Hiei, over which stands theFour Diva Kings and a number of other deities protecting the water. The
tengu asks one of the lesser deities why the water is chanting the holy
words, the deity replies that this river is located below the latrine used bypriests of Mt. Hiei. That is why even the water chants the holy words. “Ifeven the water from the latrine chants the holy words, how venerable mustthe priests of this mountain be!” The tengu immediately repented his evil
thought of stopping the water, and was reborn as the priest Myôgu in his
next life.
Tengu are demonic creatures that appear in different forms (usually halfbird and half-human figure, or in the form of a kite) in medieval Japanese
literature and painting. In Konjaku monogatarishû, they are presented as
symbols of ma, or the Buddhist concept of evil, which defies Buddhism.
This story, which is the first of the twelve stories in chapter twenty featuring tengu, recounts the arrival of ma, the antithesis of Buddhism, alongwith the introduction of Buddhism. Ma, as represented by tengu, naturally
follows the same path that Buddhism took––that is, starting from India,
moving on to China, then to Japan––causing its decline in respective countries. When it reaches Japan, however, it is conquered by Buddhism, asrepresented by Mt. Hiei, the headquarters of Tendai Buddhism in Japan.
The second story in chapter twenty is about a tengu from China named
Chira Yôju who comes to Japan. He speaks to the Japanese tengu, “there
are many priests in China of great evil deeds (i.e. good deed; “evil” fromthe tengu’s point of view), but there is none that I could not seize. I therefore came to this country to challenge the priests here.” The Japanese
tengu are elated, and take the Chinese tengu to Mt. Hiei. The Chinese

12. Sasaki, pp. 275-315.

26

Haruko Wakabayashi

tengu, disguised as an old priest, awaits by the stone stupa on Mt. Hiei tochallenge the priests; however, he is completely defeated by the Tendai
priests Yokyô 余慶, Jinzen 尋禅, and Ryôgen 良源. The Japanese tengu,
seeing this, says, “We brought you here because we believed that you, being a tengu from the big country, should be able to easily win the peopleof this small country, but poor fellow, you have broken your hip bone,” sosaying, he takes him to the hot springs, then sends him home.
The above story may be interpreted as a reflection of a more critical andeven superior attitude of the Japanese of the twelfth century towards China,
to which they had earlier held great respect. This is the period when Japan
gradually began developing a sense of national identity, and even superiority over the other two countries. Such sentiments arouse from the realization of the collapse of the subsequent dynasties in China, and from the factthat Buddhism had declined both in India and in China, whereas it was
still flourishing in Japan. Hence, the Chinese tengu could defeat the priests
in his own country, but not in Japan.13
IV Conclusion
In sum, the world as illustrated in the Konjaku monogatarishû is divided
into several levels: (1) First, at the core are the three countries, India,
China and Japan, with Japan being identified as a small country on the periphery(zokusan hendo or hendo no shôkoku). (2) Korea, though the country that introduced Buddhism to Japan, is not included among the central
kingdoms. It was excluded from the center so that Japan could take thesecondary place after China. At the same time, however, it is not completely removed from the Buddhist world, and is often portrayed as acountry that shared the common culture and level of civilization of theother three countries. (3) Then, on the outskirts of the Buddhist world are
the uncivilized, non-Buddhist lands, believed to be inhabited by demons.
(4) Finally, although I did not have the time to discuss it today, there are
the Other Worlds in this Buddhist cosmology, which include the nonhuman world of Hells, the Dragon Palace, and the Heavens.
How, then, did the Japanese construct their positive and negative identities within the above worldview? Although physical, territorial boundaries
were yet to be fixed, there was a clear sense of boundaries between existing states––terms such as hongoku and Nihon suggest that distinctions
13. This story about the Chinese tengu isan interesting piece of work in examining the early forms of Japanese nationalism. The same story appears in a narrative
scroll form as Zegaibô ekotoba in the early fourteenth century, just decades awayfrom the attempted Mongol invasions, and in the mid-sixteenth century as a nô theatrical drama, “Zegai.” Zegaibô ekotoba is reproduced in vol. 27 of Shinshû emakimono zenshû (Kadokawa shoten, 1978), and “Zegai” is in Yôkyoku taikan, vol. 3(Meiji shoin, 1931), pp. 1595-1608.

Sangoku Shisô and Japan’s Identity in the Buddhist Cosmology as Depicted in the Konjaku monogatarishû

27

were made between one’s own country and the others, and between civilized and barbaric lands. Furthermore, the distinctions were not only territorial, but cultural as well. Japan, as much as other countries, is describedas having its own language, history, and protective (Buddhist) powers. The
tales also reveal awareness of other countries with their own culture andknowledge (or in the case of the barbaric, with no culture and knowledge)that viewed Japan as their inferior, peer, or rival. These identities were
strengthened especially when one represented one’s own country or faced
trials in a foreign land, or was reminded of memories of war.
However, these sentiments were arranged within the framework of sangoku shisô, or the Japanized Buddhist cosmology of the Konjaku monogatarishû. On the one hand, imported Buddhist cosmology with India at its
center imposed on Japan the fact that Japan was a small and peripheral
country. This, indeed, was not difficult to admit, since the Japanese alreadyknew of and had contacts with much more advanced civilizations like
China, and in Konjaku, Japan is frequently referred to as the shôkoku
(small country). At the same time, Japan reframed its own global position
by inventing its own version of the cosmology, sangoku shisô, which defined itself to be one of the three major Buddhist countries, while Korea
and other numerous Buddhist countries were dismissed. Furthermore, thetheory stressed that the history of Buddhism proceeded eastward, where Japan was its final destination. Such views of Self allowed the Japanese tomaintain their pride as a major Buddhist civilization.
I must also point to the limits of sangoku shisô as nationalist ideology.
After all, this worldview is confined within a Buddhist universe. There is,therefore, no discussion of a distinctly Japanese character or religion. The
competition, after all, is contained within the realm of Buddhist cosmology,
and therefore, shows no sign of Japan’s unique cultural or religious identity. Instead, much emphasis is placed on its superiority within the paradigm of civilization (i.e. Buddhism) established by the countries that wereonce overbearing. In other words, the triumph depends on how much Japan could identify itself with China and India, and prevail in the masteryof their culture. In this sense, as much as the Japanese identified themselves with Japan, they, in many cases, presented themselves as membersof the larger, Buddhist community.
Although replaced by ideologies such as shinkoku shisô, or by bankoku
shisô in the sixteenth century, as Ronald Toby argues, in many ways, sangoku shisô remained prevalent into the modern period. The foundations ofJapan’s nationalist sentiment have been constructed upon the notion of its
being a peripheral land, and upon the fact that nevertheless, it could overcome its peripherality and rise above the greater nations. In the modern period, India and China were replaced by the great Western nations. Thistransition is clearly marked in Fukuzawa Yukichi’s An Outline of the Theory of Civilization, which Fukuzawa begins by discussing the once great

28

Haruko Wakabayashi

civilizations of India and China that had by then declined in contrast to thesuccessful civilizations of the West. Fukuzawa also begins his “Datsuaron” by stating that with the development of worldwide transportation, theways of Western civilization have gradually moved eastward (東に漸し),
and all places, grasses and trees, have bent before this wind. He also
speaks of bunmei tôzen (文明東漸). In other words, Buddhism or Indian/Chinese ways have now been replaced by Western ways.14
The notion of the “smallness” of Japan also remains fundamental tomodern nationalism. Heroes of folk literature of later periods were often
young boys, small in size, who could defeat giant ogres that possessed
great power. Such a plot in itself may not be uniquely Japanese. However,in modern nationalist discourse, these small heroes were the ones that represented Japan. The tale of Momotarô, which became extremely popularduring World War II, is one example. In wartime propaganda films, thepeach boy Momotarô represented sacred Japan, while the vicious demons,much larger in size, symbolized the American and British enemies.15 The
heroes in Japanese tradition have found their virtues in their “smallness,”yet defeating the “grandeur” through their righteous, spiritual power. Despite the rise of the unique Shinkoku shisô nationalism, the core elementsthat constituted earlier sangoku shisô were never eliminated, and continued
to influence the Japanese view of the world in two respects––that Japanwas small and peripheral, yet at the same time, was the destination of civilizations that progressed in an eastward direction.

14. See, for example, Chapter I Part 2, “Seiyô no bunmei o mokuteki to surukoto” in Fukuzawa Yukichi, Bunmeiron no gairyaku (Iwanami bunko, 1962) [English translation by David A. Dilworth and Cameron Hurst (Sophia University,1973)] pp. 25-56.
15. See John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War,
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1986) pp.250-9.

Chapter 2
Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in
Early Modern Japan:
A Historiographical Essay1
Brett L. Walker

I Introduction
When the Edo shogunate implemented maritime prohibitions (kaikin) in
the 1630s, it marked the beginning of a historical era wherein the shoguns
strictly regulated Japan’s contact with the outside world. In pre-Meiji Japanese history, it represented one of the few moments when such hegemons,
whether in Kyoto, Kamakura or, in this case, Edo, were powerful enoughto usurp the prerogatives of coastal domains in Kyushu or such port cities
as Sakai, and channel foreign contact through the center. The Tokugawa
shoguns prohibited local state and nonstate interests from formulating independent foreign agendas, sponsoring religious exchange, and conducting
overseas trade without authorization. As the new historiography argues, it
was a powerful assertion of the realmwide legitimacy of the new regime in
Edo, as well as an obvious birthplace of an early “national” consciousness
among many Japanese and a critical element in the formation of what historians call Japan’s early modern period, or kinsei. In many respects, thepioneering scholarship of Ronald Toby paved the way for this new historiography on early modern Japan’s foreign affairs and frontiers, and so thisessay serves as testimony to his signal contribution to Japanese studies.
Simply, this essay attempts to create an updated narrative of early modern Japan’s foreign relations and frontier experiences, one that incorporates
previously neglected topics and highlights the new directions explored bythis vibrant subfield of Japanese studies. This narrative suggests that the
1. Originally, this essay appeared as a conference paper for “Early Modern Japanese Studies: The State of the Field,” an Early Modern Japan Network Symposium
at Ohio State University, April 21-23, 2000. It benefited greatly from the suggestions of the participants.
29

30

Brett L. Walker

selective exclusion of certain foreigners from Japanese soil should beviewed as a proactive engagement of the outside world, one which required a fairly sophisticated understanding of the religions and cultures of
trading partners and the implications of exchange with them. That is to say,the Edo shogunate actively sought to authorize or prohibit certain domains
from conducting trade unilaterally, to debrief repatriated individuals, tocraft diplomatic ceremonies so that they bolstered Tokugawa authority, todefend borderlands from invasions and uprisings, and to rigidly scrutinize
the implications of the importation of new technologies and ideologies
from around the globe. The Edo shogunate’s stance toward the outside
world, as this narrative portrays it, was a loosely knit fabric of politicaland cultural assumptions about foreign affairs and prejudices about the outside world, not to mention real fears of events unfolding in Asia, fears motivated by the Jurchen-Tartar unification wars, the Manchu conquest of
Ming China, Ainu insurrection, and European expansion. In short, Edo
shoguns wove together the threads of military violence, ideological containment, political legitimacy, identity formation, cultural arrogance, individual paranoia, and the economics of foreign trade when crafting their approach to dealing with the outside world.
In the first section, entitled “Kultur Politik,” I draw on the scholarshipof Jurgis Elisonas, Herman Ooms, and others to paint a portrait ofHideyoshi’s invasion of Korea and China. Even though a gruesome failure,
Hideyoshi’s invasion needs to be viewed within the context of the processof state consolidation and border formation in the beginning decades of theearly modern period. Second, in “Diplomacy,” I explore the pioneering
work of Ronald Toby, as well as Gregory Smits and others, to illustrate
how the Tokugawa regime used diplomacy to legitimize its authority bothat home and abroad. Third, in “Diplomatic Sham,” I look briefly at the critique of Toby’s work articulated by Jurgis Elisonas in The Cambridge History of Japan, and then, in an attempt to mediate this dispute, I projectboth Toby’s and Elisonas’ main arguments against the backdrop of observations made by Engelbert Kaempfer in the seventeenth century. In the
fourth section, “Others,” I survey new research on the birth of an earlymodern identity for Japanese, one which positioned foreign peoples as“others” in the creation of ethnic boundaries, political borders, and notionsof a Japanese “self.” In this context, as Toby, David Howell, and Tessa
Morris-Suzuki argue, foreign “others” served to bolster a sense of a Japanese “self” in an otherwise fragmented political and social environment
where most Nihonjin (a term that people of the early modern period seldom used outside discussions of things foreign) delineated identities along
patrilinear, domainal, regional, or status lines. Under the Edo shogunate, it
was in the realm of foreign contact that the dominant ethnic group of thepresent-day Japanese Archipelago, the people we view as “Japanese,” best
understood themselves to be just that, Nihonjin.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

31

The fifth section, entitled “People,” looks at multiethnic interaction
within the Japanese Archipelago’s most ambiguous spaces. As Smits demonstrates, Ryukyu Islanders possessed more agency in their own cultural
assimilation than previously thought. In a fascinating twist, even following
the invasion of the Ryukyu Kingdom, Satsuma and Edo officials preserved
Ryukyuan foreignness, or place as “other,” in order to keep trade with
China alive, while at the same time Ryukyuan ideologues, such as Sai On,
emulated Japan, a country they believed to be exemplary in the Confucianworld. To the north, the intensification of trade between Ainu and Matsumae domain led to the emergence of such charismatic chiefs as Shakushain,
who, in 1669, waged a bloody war against Japanese after forging a panAinu alliance to expel Japanese from the southern tip of the Oshima Peninsula. And, at Deshima, the small islet near Nagasaki, the experiences ofEngelbert Kaempfer support the notion that Japan, because of the shogunate’s fear of Christianity, had closed its doors, particularly at the level ofinterpersonal interaction, during the early modern period. I argue that thesethree figures caution against using foreigners as simply “others” either in a
cultural anthropological sense or to generalize about Japan’s relationshipwith all foreigners. That is to say, just as Shakushain fought against what
he viewed as an expanding Japan to the north, Kaempfer was confronted
by an inward looking and, not to put too fine a point on it, paranoid society, one which basically staged diplomatic conduct in the name of domestic politics.
The sixth section, called “Place,” investigates the interdependency of Japan’s domestic economy, overseas commerce, and the ecology. As Toby,
Howell, and Robert Innes argue, Tokugawa foreign relations had an important impact on the domestic economy by fueling market growth, and hence
sparking technological innovations in mining, fishery development, andother industries. In the case of Ezo, Japanese markets and Matsumae trade
policy led to regional depletions of deer numbers in Ezo and undermined
the ability of Ainu to subsist independently. The economic intrusion into
Ezo also witnessed the introduction of deadly contagions––as European advancement did in “virgin soil” populations around the world in the form ofwhat Alfred Crosby calls “ecological imperialism”2 ––exposing the implications of Japan’s move into new epidemiological terrain.
As this introduction suggests, a fair amount has been written on Japanese early modern foreign relations and frontiers in recent years, and so
not all of it can be discussed in this essay. I focus mainly on historical
writings that I see as pushing the boundaries of this subfield, writings thathave reshaped the ways we look at the early modern period in particular
2. On the notion of “ecological imperialism,” see Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological
Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

32

Brett L. Walker

and Japan in general.
II Kultur Politik
Mary Elizabeth Berry argues in her political biography Hideyoshi that in
the closing years of the sixteenth century, the second great unifier crafted
what she refers to as a “federal” state from the remnants of the late medieval polity. Through a variety of political and personal devises, Hideyoshi
linked powerful warring states lords (sengoku daimyô), rulers who only
decades before had viewed their domains as semi-independent states(kokka), to the center in Kyoto, and thereby extended his authority over
the traditional provinces of the realm.3 By the 1590s, Hideyoshi extended
this vision of unification even further, and orchestrated the failed invasionof Korea and Ming China. To contextualize this invasion, we must start bylooking briefly at the late medieval period. This fact might seem obvious
to those who study pre-modern Japan. But all too often, the early modern
period serves as a kind of preface to discussions of Japan’s modern period––an epochal “straw man” positioned to show just how fast Japan modernized and industrialized in the late nineteenth century––when the birth of
the Edo shogunate also represented the termination of the chaotic medieval
period and the emergence of a more perfected form of feudalism. The invasion of Korea (as cruel and ill-fated as it was) was an offshoot of thesepolitical developments.
At the outset, there was no “Christian century” in Japan at this time.
With only about 130,000 converts in 1579, the height of missionary activity and only eight years before the first expulsion edicts issued by
Hideyoshi, what C. R. Boxer saw as the “Christian century” was in fact
the terminal decades of the Era of the Warring States and the primordial
beginnings of early modernity in Japan.4 What Boxer exposed was that thelate medieval period witnessed intense spiritual exploration by many Japanese, no doubt a response to endemic warfare and the “culture of lawlessness” that gripped the late medieval years.5 After the Ônin War (1467-77),
the Ashikaga shogunate had basically lost any semblance of control over
the warring states lords of Kyushu, the greatest patrons of the new faith,and motivated for reasons of devotion, exotic magic, weapons technology,
domestic ambitions, and access to foreign markets, some gladly accommo3. Mary Elizabeth Berry, Hideyoshi (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1982), 147-67. On the reunification of Japan and the Weberian model, see Berry,“Public Peace and Private Attachment: The Goals and Conduct of Power in Early
Modern Japan,” Journal of Japanese Studies 12, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 237-71.
4. George Elison, Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern
Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 54 and 63.
5. On the “culture of lawlessness,” see Mary Elizabeth Berry, The Culture ofCivil War in Kyoto (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 11-54.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

33

dated the early missionaries of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.6 By 1587, however, Hideyoshi had become alarmed. Not because of
too many converts, but rather because the hegemon learned that Christianlords reportedly oversaw forced conversions of retainers and commoners,that they had garrisoned the city of Nagasaki, that they participated in theslave trade, and (apparently offending Hideyoshi’s Buddhist sentiments)that they allowed the slaughter of horses and oxen for food.7 With the San
Felipe Incident of 1596, moreover, Hideyoshi’s resolve hardened considerably, and he undoubtedly viewed Christianity as a threat to the realm. “Ihave received information that in your kingdoms the promulgation of thelaw [i.e., Christianity] is a trick and deceit by which you overcome otherkingdoms,” he wrote in a letter to the Philippines in reply to the embassy
led by Navarrete Fajardo in 1597. Christian missionaries, in Hideyoshi’s
mind, represented the first wave of European imperialism.8 The expulsionof these missionaries, therefore, needs be viewed as a first step in centering
control over foreign affairs in Kyoto and the stepping up of an ideologicalcampaign designed to articulate Hideyoshi’s legitimacy to rule “all underheaven,” or the East Asian notion of tenka.
Hideyoshi, taking a page out of the missionary’s own handbook, began
to fantasize about his own vision of religion as a means to articulate aworld hierarchy that legitimized overseas conquest. Herman Ooms, elaborating on the role of religion and thought, illustrates that Hideyoshi, in letters to the Portuguese Viceroy of Indies in Gao (1591) and the governorgeneral of the Philippines, explained that Buddhism in India and Confucianism in China both spoke of the same deities: the kami of Japan’s
Shinto. Therefore, it stood to reason that Hideyoshi’s Japan had religious
justification to physically, not just metaphysically, extend its power overthe entire known civilized world. It was, as Ooms concludes, Hideyoshi’s
version of kultur politik.9 The invasion of Korea, in other words, implemented a broader spiritual unity that already existed in Hideyoshi’s imagination, albeit with Japan––shinkoku, or the Land of the Gods––as the sacred center. Hideyoshi’s reorganization of foreign relations, then, was notnecessarily, as Elisonas submits, “a matured antecedent to the Tokugawa
construction, Sakoku,” but rather a form of sixteenth-century Japanese expansionism, interwoven with a program of domestic pacification and legitimation, and rooted in nativist traditions of Japan as a divine land.10
6. On the “Christian Century,” see C. R. Boxer, The Christian Century in Japan,
1549-1650 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
7. Elison, Deus Destroyed , 117-18.
8. Michael Cooper, Rodrigues the Interpreter: An Early Jesuit in Japan and
China (New York: Weatherhill, 1974), 160.
9. Herman Ooms, Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570-1680 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985), 46.
10. Elison, Deus Destroyed , 117.

34

Brett L. Walker

Armed with this newly fashioned world order, Hideyoshi launched his
infamous attack on the Korean Peninsula. The invasion, skillfully narrated
by Elisonas, resulted in Japanese defeat. Elisonas’ moving account of Japan’s “sanguinary excesses” during the invasion, the utterly horrific atrocities inflicted against Koreans of all stripes, ranks among the most disturbing scholarship on Japan. On the one hand, the lurid 1597 threats by Japanese warlords to mass murder Korean officials and farmers illustrates thatJapanese armies made few, if any, distinctions between combatants andnoncombatants. The Japanese collection of pickled noses, on the other
hand, when such domainal contingents as Kikkawa Hiroie’s and Nabeshima Katsushige’s boasted the collection of some 23,794 noses in about
two months, remains inexplicable even by modern standards. The Chôsennichinichiki (Korean days), the work of a Buddhist priest named Keinen,
tells of Korean slaves being led by Japanese slave traders. In a section
translated by Elisonas, Keinen wrote, “Among the many kinds of merchants who have come over from Japan are traders in human beings, who
follow in the train of the troops and buy up men and women, young andold alike. Having tied these people together with ropes about the neck,they drive them along before them; those who can no longer walk aremade to run with prods or blows of the stick from behind. The sight of the
fiends and man-devouring demons who torment sinners in hell must be
like this, I thought.”11
Simultaneous to orchestrating these hellish policies in Korea, Hideyoshi
also extended Japan’s northern border to include the Kakizaki family (theMatsumae family after 1599) of southern Ezo (present-day Hokkaido). In
1593, when Kakizaki Yoshihiro met with Hideyoshi at Nagoya in Hizen
Province, the staging area for the invasion of Korea, they discussed thepossibility of a northern route through Orankai (north of the Korean Peninsula near Manchuria, home of the Tartar and Jurchen) onto the continent.
Maps in Hideyoshi’s possession, and earlier maps attributed to Matteo
Ricci, illustrated Ezo (that is, the island of Hokkaido) as part of North
Asia. It was widely rumored, moreover, that the Jurchen and Tartar carriedon trade with the Ainu (at this time called Ezojin). Katô Kiyomasa, after
attacking Hamgyông-do, crossed into Orankai where he captured Gotô Jirô,a Japanese native from Fukuyama (at this time only a fort, but later the
castletown of the Matsumae family). He had been living in the region fortwenty years, spoke both Korean and Japanese, and told Kiyomasa thatFukuyama, in southern Ezo, was “close to Orankai [and hence Korea].”12
Chronicles describe Hideyoshi, after his meeting with Yoshihiro, as “ex11. Jurgis Elisonas, “The Inseparable Trinity: Japan’s Relations with China andKorea,” in The Cambridge History of Japan, Vol. 4, ed. John Whitney Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 290-93.
12. Brett L. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands: Ecology and Culture in Japanese Expansion, 1590-1800 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 29-35.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

35

tremely excited.” Obviously, the reasons for his excitement were twofold.
First, Hideyoshi sought to use Ezo as a possible northern route for his invasion of the continent. Second, he sought to position the Kakizaki family
as a bulwark against Jurchen and Tartar unification wars that were, according to descriptions offered by missionary Luis Frois, underway in Orankai,and that he and others believed might spill over into Ezo and possibly Japan. It was foreign policy based on realm security, much like his expulsionof European missionaries was motivated (at least in part) by fears of imperialism. To bolster Kakizaki authority, Hideyoshi granted the Kakizaki theexclusive rights to levy shipping duties in Ezo (funayaku): Kakizaki ports
henceforth became the hubs of the region’s economic activity. Implicit
within this arrangement was the fact that Kakizaki lords became obliged torecognize Hideyoshi’s authority to grant such shipping duties, duties subsequently recognized by Japan’s sometimes cantankerous political community. When Yoshihiro returned to Ezo after the 1593 meeting, chronicles
trumpet that he gathered Ainu “from east and west” and read to them, intranslation, Hideyoshi’s vermillion-seal order granting the Kakizaki theright to levy shipping duties. If Ainu failed to observe these orders, thechronicle continues, a force of 100,000 warriors would be sent by the hegemon to crush them. With this, “Hideyoshi had extended his control beyond the confines of the traditional provinces of the realm, which suggeststhat not all his overseas ambitions ended in utter disaster.”13
Recent writings, in other words, view Hideyoshi’s policy toward thecontinent less as simply a bungled invasion of Korea that ended in thelater Tokugawa withdrawal from the international arena than as part of abroader process of state consolidation, the conversion of military power topolitical legitimacy, border demarcation, realmwide security, and the continuing formation of a Japan-centered epistemology in the form of shinkoku. In short, Hideyoshi’s foreign policy set the stage for a proactive engagement of the Eurasian continent designed to strengthen domestic
authority and, unless you view events from the singular perspective of
Jesuit and Franciscan friars on ships departing Nagasaki, moved to protect
Japan, a country he understood to be the sacred core of a more far-flung
agenda of kultur politik.
DIPLOMACY
The Tokugawa stance toward foreign affairs was initially shaped by
Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea, and so, Ronald Toby, in his pioneeringState and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan, begins with a discussion of
how the Edo shogunate attempted to patch up relations with Korea andChina.
13. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 34-35.

36

Brett L. Walker

Following the death of Hideyoshi, writes Toby, “the most urgent diplomatic business at hand was what in modern terms would be called the normalization of relations with East Asia.” In concrete terms, this meant a
withdrawal of troops from the peninsula; offering paddy lands to Tsushima
to raise its status so that it could, under the protocol of the day, enter commercial relations with Pusan; and playing host to a 1607 Korean embassy
to “normalize” relations to the benefit of both countries, when a forged letter from King Sônjo was given to shogun Hidetada. The 1607 embassy, argues Toby, “functioned to the advantage of both [Japan and Korea] as legitimating propaganda for the bakufu, and as a channel of political andstrategic intelligence on continental affairs, as the political foundation for
trade, and as one element in an emerging diplomatic manifestation of Japan’s ideal vision of the structure of international order.”14
Supported by this new political foundation, foreign trade flourishedamong those domains that the shogun authorized to trade. By the late seventeenth century, the profits from the private trade between Pusan andTsushima domain, for example, exceeded 10,000 kan in silver, an amount,
Toby notes, comparable to the nengu (annual tax) revenues of all but thelargest early modern domains.15 This diplomatic “normalization”––if such aterm can be comfortably applied to conquest––also extended southward between the Ryukyu Islands and Satsuma domain. In 1609, Shimazu Iehisa,
after receiving authorization from Edo, invaded Ryukyu with a force of
3,000 troops.16 Essentially, Satsuma then incorporated the Ryukyu Kingdom: it ruled over the islands, conducted cadastral surveys, and eventuallyclaimed Ryukyu’s kokudaka (assessed yield) as its own.17
Gregory Smits, in Visions of Ryukyu, writes that Satsuma also proceeded
to reinvent Ryukyuan history in the form of a pledge, signed by King ShōNei, that acknowledged Satsuma’s historical role in governing the islands.
Smits concludes, “Satsuma’s military power had transformed Ryukyu’s
past.” From this point forward, despite the creative resistance of such
Ryukyuan figures as Tei Dō, Satsuma oversaw the kingdom’s relations
with China. Among the Fifteen Injunctions given to the king of Ryukyu,
one forbade “any merchant ship to sail from Ryukyu to a foreign country”
without Satsuma’s approval. Smits points out, however, that a conflict
quickly broke out between shogunal and domainal officials over the ad14. Ronald P. Toby, State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in theDevelopment of the Tokugawa Bakufu (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984;
reprint, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 23, 25, 26, 33-35.
15. Ibid., 39-40.
16. George H. Kerr, Okinawa: The History of an Island People (Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1958), 156-60. See also Toby, State and Diplomacy, 45.
17. Toby, State and Diplomacy, 45-46. See also Gregory Smits, Visions of
Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1999). 15-16.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

37

ministration of Ryukyu, a conflict that the Shimazu family ultimately lost.
In 1613, Satsuma had sought to assimilate the islands: one domainal orderread that “[t]he various customs and practices of Ryukyu are not to differ
from those of Japan.” However, three years later, Shimazu Iehisa reversed
Satsuma policy, arguing, as Smits paraphrases, that “for Ryukyu to follow
Satsuma in every way would be detrimental to Ryukyu’s continued existence as a country.18 In time, Satsuma prohibited Ryukyu Islanders fromwearing Japanese hairstyles and clothing. The reason that Ryukyu needed“continued existence as a country,” even after its conquest, was because
the island kingdom was more useful as a foreign country in the Tokugawa
diplomatic order and more lucrative as a trading partner with China than it
was as a newly assimilated province.
Toby also explains that in this competition between Satsuma and the
shogunate over what to do with the conquered Ryukyu Islands, Edo won.
In fact, between 1610 and 1850, Ryukyu kings, adorned in their intentionally preserved native and, more importantly, foreign garb, made twentyone trips to Edo to visit the shogun.19 Shogunal officials, moreover, manipulated these visits in order to make them serve as a powerful legitimizing tool for Tokugawa authority. This fact, Toby submits, “should serve to
lay to rest some of the misconceptions that exist about the direction ofearly Tokugawa foreign policy: the bakufu actively sought contact with
Korea and the rest of Japan’s international environment, pulling back only
when it perceived real danger.”20 In brief, immediately following the military victory at Sekigahara, the shogunate took an active interest in manipulating audiences in Edo, disputing sinocentric calendars and era names, andcrafting its own tally trade with China. In relations with China, the shogunate invented new diplomatic titles such as Nihonkoku taikun, Great Princeof Japan, rather than simply “king,” which smacked of the sinocentric order, because it correctly understood these aspects of political and diplomatic life to be an important part of extending its hegemony over therealm and bolstering its prestige abroad.
In this way, while foreign envoys visited Edo, ceremony was carefully
constructed to create a Japan-centered world. As Toby explains, “thebakufu sought a set of protocols and norms for the conduct of foreign relations which would be acceptable to a sufficient number of foreign states tosustain the levels of trade and cultural contact deemed essential, and whichmight constitute a symbolic mirror of the structure of an ideal ‘world order’ of Japanese fantasy.”21 Specific diplomatic language, the manipulationof spatial hierarchy, the strict use of a Japanese-based schedule of ambas18. Smits, Visions of Ryukyu, 16-19.
19. Toby, State and Diplomacy, 48-49.
20. Ibid., 81.
21. Ibid., 173.

38

Brett L. Walker

sadorial visits, employing popular art as propaganda in the form of the Edozu byôbu [1637], ritualizing gift giving, and pushing notions of Japan as
the “central kingdom” and foreigners as “barbarians”––or the ka’i chitsujo––all served to legitimize Tokugawa authority and set a standard for realmwide diplomatic practice.
In Matsumae domain’s “barbarian audiences” with Ainu, for example,
officials employed these realmwide diplomatic practices. Kakizaki Orindo’s
Matsumae jônai nenjû gyôji (The annual events of Matsumae Castle),
which includes a section on the protocol used in Ainu visits to Fukuyama
Castle––visits called uimamu, a term, as David Howell observes, that wasa reinvention of a native Ainu form of greeting22 ––illustrates that these
Ainu visits were meticulously constructed to assert the military power andpolitical authority of the Matsumae family, and hence Japanese rule, on thenorthern border. When Ainu participated in attendance at the castle, Kakizaki noted that the ceremony was held in the audience chamber, a room
carefully adorned with the symbols of Matsumae authority, including armor and hanging curtains with the household crest. Spatial hierarchy
dramatized Japanese power, moreover: the domain lord occupied a raised
section of the chamber while Ainu sat in the outer chamber. A designatedofficial mediated all edicts, while a translator made sure Ainu understoodthem. Even the gifts carried political nuances. Ainu offered kenjôbutsu, or
gifts presented upward, while the lord presented kudasaremono, or gifts
bestowed downward. The goyôban, or master of ceremonies, then escorted
Ainu elders to inspect the military hardware of the domain. This protocol
shared several similarities with the seventeenth-century visits to Edo by
Korean and Ryukyuan embassies.23
Only four decades after Sekigahara the shogunate found itself confronted
by a major foreign-policy issue on the Eurasian continent. With the Manchu conquest of China, Edo realized what Toby calls (and all Japan specialists should recognize as) a manifest truth: “Japan is in Asia, and cannot
isolate herself from it.” To varying degrees, the shogunate, or domains under its authority, assisted continental allies in their fight against Manchu
takeover. In 1627, anticipating a Manchu push, shogun Iemitsu orderedthat gunpowder and swords, and possibly some firearms, be sent to Korea.
Later, in 1645, Ming loyalist Cui Zhi, through the Nagasaki magistracy(bugyô) requested shogunal assistance in fighting the Qing. “[D]ozens ofembassies,” Toby explains, followed, all looking for Tokugawa aid.24 However, the absence of a Ming state, the poor prospects of Ming pretenders,and other factors all pointed to a cautious stance by the shogunate. Finally,
22. David L. Howell, “Ainu Ethnicity and the Boundaries of the Early Modern
Japanese State,” Past & Present 142 (February 1994): 80-81.
23. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 214-17.
24. Toby, State and Diplomacy, 112, 114, 119.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

39with the defeat of Zheng Zhilong, any hope of driving the Manchus out ofChina died, and shogun Iemitsu chose to stay out of the conflict. Still, byfavoring anti-Qing merchants and serving as a haven for Ming loyalists,
Japan had taken sides in a continental matter.
DIPLOMATIC SHAM
Jurgis Elisonas, in The Cambridge History of Japan, leveled the firstcritique of Toby’s thesis, arguing that Korea and the Ryukyu Kingdom, thetwo countries with which Japan conducted so called “diplomatic relations”––that is, tsûshin, as opposed to tsûshô, or “commercial relations”––wereeither reluctant participants in Japan’s staged diplomatic sham or not reallyforeign countries at all.
Turning the East Asian perspective against Toby and others, moreover,Elisonas points out that the model for the Tokugawa policy of kaikin,“maritime prohibitions,” was Ming China, a country that, Elisonas insists,“constructed the model of an isolationist policy.” “The means and motivesof what the Chinese of the Ming period called hai-chin (J: kaikin), or
maritime prohibitions,” writes Elisonas, “were analogons to those of theTokugawa period’s sakoku directives.”25 Hence, the very spirit and historical precedent of the notion of kaikin (strictly speaking, of course, there
were no “sakoku directives”) issued from the very East Asian context that
Toby and others emphasize as being so important.
Elisonas continues by pointing out that Korea, “the only foreign country
with which the Tokugawa regime maintained diplomatic relations,” sent
only twelve official embassies to Japan during the entire Tokugawa period,
and that the first and most famous of these, the 1636 mission to visit shogun Iemitsu and the deified Ieyasu at the Nikkô mausoleum, was in fact a“diplomatic mission” rather than a “return embassy,” thus hardly constituting a tributary visit as understood by the rules of the East Asian diplomaticorder. As for the Ryukyu Kingdom, between 1634 and 1806, the Ryukyu
king dispatched some fifteen embassies to visit Tokugawa shoguns. Elisonas insists, however, that Ryukyu “could scarcely be called a foreign country insofar as Japan was concerned. Ryukyu was not an independent oreven an autonomous state: it had been conquered in 1609 by the Shimazu
and was no more than a dependency of the daimyo of Kagoshima, whom
the bakufu enfeoffed with Ryukyu just as it did with Satsuma andÔsumi.”26
Elisonas is correct about Ryukyu. Nonetheless, remarks made by theGerman doctor Engelbert Kaempfer, whose seventeenth-century history ofJapan has recently been translated Beatrice Bodart-Bailey under the title
25. Elisonas, “The Inseparable Trinity,” 237.
26. Ibid., 299-300.

40

Brett L. Walker

Kaempfer’s Japan, illustrate the complexity of the relationship between the
Ryukyu Kingdom and Japan, as well as some noteworthy comments about
Chôsen (Korea) not mentioned by Elisonas but that support his critique.
“Some centuries ago,” Kaempfer wrote, the Ryukyu Islands “submitted to
the king of Satsuma as a result of military force, and he keeps them subservient with bugyô, or commissioners and magistrates, strong militarycommanders, and guards.” Kaempfer continued, “Even though they are notconsidered foreigners, but to some extent as Japanese subjects, they are,nevertheless, treated as foreigners and outsiders when it comes to trade.” In
the case of Chôsen, Kaempfer remarked in his section on “Japanese Possessions Overseas” that, after Hideyoshi’s invasion, “Ieyasu had the Koreans appear at court every three years with a delegation as proof of theirsubmission. After that, they slowly came again under the sway of the Tartars and pushed the Japanese occupation to the furthest corner of their lastprovince, which indeed is still subservient to the present Japanese ruler.”
Kaempfer explained that the Tokugawa shogun “is happy to own no morethan the Korean frontier as safety for his own country and has it guarded
by the lord of Tsushima, who maintains a military guard of sixty people
under the command of a bugyô. The Koreans are ordered to appear atcourt only at a time of shogunal succession to take an oath of loyalty to
the new ruler.”27
Herein lies the crux of the debate between Toby and Elisonas. If we follow Kaempfer’s line that Ryukyu Islanders “are not considered foreigners,”
then we can accept the rather sharp critique of Toby leveled by Elisonas:“Japan had a government that barely pursued foreign relations at all.” Thatthe “sham played with Ryukyu enforced participation and the facsimile ofa formal relationship in which Korea acquiesced sufficed to create for the
bakufu its own international order, in which Japan ranked first, even if it
had to be prima in vacuo.”28 Regarding Chôsen, although Elisonas neverquestioned its authenticity as a foreign country in trade and diplomatic exchange, some Japanese historians, such as Yamamoto Hirofumi, float thenotion that southern Korea was part of the administrative frontiers of theearly modern Japanese state or, as Kaempfer mentioned, that the shogun
oversaw part of the Korean frontier “as safety for his own country.”29
Hence historians raise questions regarding even Chôsen’s authenticity as areal diplomatic partner.
If we return to Kaempfer’s earlier remarks, however, we learn that
Ryukyuans were “treated as foreigners and outsiders when it comes totrade,” which was, if we understand Kaempfer’s use of the word “trade” to
27. Engelbert Kaempfer, Kaempfer’s Japan, ed. Beatrice M. Bodart-Bailey(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), 42-43, 228.
28. Elisonas, “The Inseparable Trinity,” 300.
29. Yamamoto Hirofumi, Sakoku to kaikin no jidai (Tokyo: Azekura, 1995), 1-9.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

41

mean both economic and diplomatic exchange, precisely Toby’s point.
That is to say, the Tokugawa shoguns partly manufactured such foreigners
to fit within its version of diplomatic exchange to bolster its politicalpower at home and abroad, even if such diplomatic exchange was largely
the product of the Japanese imagination.
OTHERS
By retelling a fascinating story from Ezo, David Howell demonstrates
that Matsumae policy toward the Ainu shared similarities to the shogunal
and, later, the Satsuma strategy of what might be called mandated difference toward the Ryukyu Islands. That is, Ainu were, like the Ryukyuans,“treated as foreigners” by Matsumae domain, even when the status of theiractual foreignness, at least in the area called Wajinchi (Japanese land) was
less clear. Howell points to an Ainu named Iwanosuke, of Kennichi village
in Wajinchi, the Japanese occupied section of southern Hokkaido, who was
thoroughly assimilated to the everyday customs of Japanese life: he had aJapanese name, lived in a Japanese village, and wore his hair in a Japanesefashion. During New Year’s ceremonies, however, Iwanosuke underwent
what Howell calls a “curious metamorphosis.” “As a representative of the
Ainu people,” writes Howell, Iwanosuke went to Fukuyama Castle to participate in an audience with the Matsumae lord. Iwanosuke’s metamorphosis was cast by contemporary Japanese observers as a “remnant of old Ezo
customs.” However, as Howell argues, the opposite was true: “Iwanosuke
assumed what had become for him a false identity for reasons that had little to do with old Ainu customs and everything to do with the institutionsof the Matsumae domain.”30
This invention of tradition and fabrication of foreignness, Howell points
out, served several purposes. Most pertinently, it demarcated “ethnic
boundaries” which in turn served to establish “political boundaries.” At thesame time, it cast the Japanese domination of the Ainu “in history and the‘timeless’ traditions of Ainu culture.” Howell observes of the Tokugawa
shogunate that it “was the first regime in Japanese history to draw clear
physical borders for itself.” Qualifying this assertion, however, he continues that “rather than establish a dichotomy between Japan and the rest of
the world, it surrounded itself with peripheral areas that were neither fullypart of the polity nor completely independent of it.” Howell submits that
this “spurred the formation of a Japanese identity even before the emer-

30. Howell, “Ainu Ethnicity and the Boundaries of the Early Modern JapaneseState,” 79-80. See also David L. Howell, “Kinsei Hokkaidô ni okeru midorugurando no kanôsei,” in Basho ukeoisei to Ainu, ed. Hokkaidô-Tôhokushi Kenkyûkai (Sapporo: Hokkaidô Shuppan Kikaku Sentâ, 1998), 417-18, 420.

42

Brett L. Walker

gence of a modern nation-state in the mid-nineteenth century.”31
Similarly, Tessa Morris-Suzuki points out that even the assimilation
policies aimed at the many “societies on the periphery” of the early modern polity “involved a sharpening of the official definition of what it meant
to be Japanese.” Scrutinizing the place of the “frontier” in mapping out
what was spatially “Japan,” Morris-Suzuki asks important questions regarding “the whole way in which we deal with space in history.” “The eye ofthe historian,” she writes, “tends to look for change over time rather thandiversity across space.” Through investigating Japan’s relationship with its
neighbors, Morris-Suzuki argues for a sensitivity to “spatial diversity” aswell as “temporal change.”32
Following an analysis of the 1713 Wakan sansai zue (An Illustrated
Japanese-Chinese encyclopedia), Morris-Suzuki conjectures that the “feeling conveyed by this work is of a world made up of concentric circles ofincreasing strangeness, stretching almost infinitely outwards from a familiar centre.” She points out how this model was born from the ka’i chitsujo––or the model of the “civilized center” and “barbarian periphery”––although it remains not entirely clear whether Japan or China served as the
hub in this first work (it being modeled after earlier Chinese encyclopedias). Bruce Batten, though more concerned with comparative models offrontier and boundary creation, emphasizes a similar frontier theme, albeit
on a more state-centered level, in his Japanese-language history of premodern Japanese boundaries and frontiers. Rather than identify “concentric circles of increasing strangeness” which stretched out from a “familiar centre,” as Morris-Suzuki did, Batten draws on Robert Gilpin’s state-centeredmodel of “loss-of-strength gradient,” wherein premodern frontiers are defined by their distance from the political core and by their politicalstrangeness.33
Morris-Suzuki argues that in the late Tokugawa period, other popularencyclopedias drew on the increasingly important nativism of Motoori
Norinaga, “in which Japanese identity was defined in terms of spontaneous
virtue and creativity, as opposed to the rigidity and sterility attributed toChinese learning,” and the civilized hub was clearly identified by an “urbanized samurai encountering a group of Geisha in a city street.” “Moral
rectitude” emerged as one of the defining characteristic of being Japa-

31. Howell, “Ainu Ethnicity and the Boundaries of the Early Modern JapaneseState,” 69, 71, 83.
32. Tessa Morris-Suzuki, “The Frontiers of Japanese Identity,” in Asian Forms of
the Nation, ed. Stein Tonnesson and Hans Antlöv (Richmond: Curzon, 1996), 42,
44. See also Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Re-Inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation (NewYork: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 11-20.
33. Bruce Batten, Nihon no ‘kyôkai’: Zenkindai no kokka, minzoku, bunka (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 2000), 35.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

43

nese.34 Like Howell, Morris-Suzuki writes that the “cornerstone” of the
ka’i chitsujo was “the logic of difference,” even if it was sometimes
trumped up. She explains that the “relationships with the Ainu and the
Ryukyu kingdom were important precisely because they represented thesubordination of foreign people to Japanese dominion. Everything about
the relationship, therefore, had to be structured in such a way as to magnify the exotic character of the peripheral societies.” The embassies dispatched to Edo from the Ryukyu Kingdom, for Morris-Suzuki, were an“extravagant and elaborately staged dramatization of the logic of ka’i,” ormandated difference.35
Later, with late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth-century contact with
European nations, Japan was forced to grapple with a modified notion of
the frontier. Morris-Suzuki explains that Japan needed to adjust to the ideaof a frontier as a “line marking the boundary between one nation and another, instead of the idea of a series of frontiers marking gradually increasing degrees of difference.” (Pointing to a later transformation of frontiers
to national boundaries, Batten picks up this theme as well, arguing that actual boundaries failed to emerge in the north until around 1855 with the
Shimoda Treaty between Japan and Russia.36) But for Morris-Suzuki, evidence of boundary creation earlier than 1855 includes the formulation ofan assimilationist discourse in Japan, a discourse that forced Edo officials
and intellectuals to sharpen their definition of what was, and what was not,the Japanese realm. The geographer Honda Toshiaki, for example, following the intrusion of Russian trappers into the North Pacific, believed that
Ainu should be made more Japanese.37 “[W]e must establish a mutual frontier between Japan and other countries and create a fortress to withstandforeign enemies,” he wrote on one occasion. Thus, even the slow absorption of “peripheral societies” into the early modern polity (and hence theclean delineation of borders between Japan and other nations) further
helped clarify what it meant to be Japanese.38 For Morris-Suzuki and Batten, one of the hallmarks of modernity in Japan was the transformation of
once “concentric circles of increasing strangeness” or “loss-of-strength gradient” emanating from the political center to political borders and the ultimate assimilation of foreign peoples who found themselves living withinthese newly drawn lines.
34. Morris-Suzuki, “The Frontiers of Japanese Identity,” 48.
35. Ibid., 51.
36. Batten, Nihon no ‘kyôkai’ , 21, 50.
37. On Honda Toshiaki, see Donald Keene, The Japanese Discovery of Europe,
1720-1830 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952); George Alexander Lensen,
The Russian Push Toward Japan: Russo-Japanese Relations, 1697-1875 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959); Morris-Suzuki, “The Frontiers of Japanese
Identity,” 54.
38. Morris-Suzuki, “The Frontiers of Japanese Identity,” 54-56.

44

Brett L. Walker

In 1857, in a different kind of example of this spatial and ethnic demarcation of the boundaries of the early modern polity, the Edo shogunate
sponsored medical treatment and Jennerian smallpox vaccinations for all
Japanese and Ainu in Ezo. With this policy, shogunal officials, working
through the Hakodate bugyô, placed medical treatment and smallpox vaccinations in the same context as the other forms of assimilation discussed byHowell and Morris-Suzuki. State-sponsored medicine in Ezo “sought totransform the place of the Ainu, even at the level of the individual Ainu
body, in relation to the early modern Japanese polity.” Like the Foucauldian relationship between public medicine and state power thatemerged in modern Europe, medicine in Ezo was employed by the shogunate to protect what it viewed as “a newly acquired appendage of the bodypolitic––or something to be integrated into the national whole––as well as
demarcate, at the level of the individual body, the borders of the Japanesestate in the north.”39
Beginning in 1799, with the Tokugawa attainder of lands and administrative powers once under Matsumae control, officials in Ezo mandated
that Ainu infected with disease report to administrative posts throughout
Ezo. In other words, in the same context as ordering Ainu to change theirhairstyles, conform to Japanese customary norms, use the Japanese language, or to abandon the practice of polygamy, Ainu were forced, via shogunal policy, to recognize Japanese-based notions of health and medical
culture. The ultimate manifestation of this was the 1857 vaccination project.
Physicians on Tokugawa payroll set out to vaccinate people increasingly
thought to be wards of the early modern state, even if they were ethnic
Ainu, and conscious decisions were made at the outset about who andwhere to vaccinate. In short, in the arena of public medicine, the Edo shogunate consciously mapped out the ethnic, spatial, and administrative
boundaries of the early modern body politic before the rise of the modern
nation-state.40
The emergence of an early modern Japanese identity, and the delineationof modern state boundaries, was not confined to the political arena, but extended into the popular consciousness as well. As Toby illustrates in several articles on the topic, images of “foreign others,” ones usually built onstrongly held, and sometimes state-sponsored, stereotypes––or “codes of
Other”41––of Koreans and other outsiders, galvanized the imagination of
39. Brett L. Walker, “The Early Modern Japanese State and Ainu Vaccinations:Redefining the Body Politic, 1799-1868,” Past & Present 163 (May 1999): 126-27,
128-29.
40. Ibid., 141-58.
41. Ronald P. Toby, “The ‘Indianness’ of Iberia and changing Japanese iconographies of Other,” in Implicit Understandings: Observing, Reporting, and Reflecting on the Encounters Between Europeans and Other Peoples in the Early
Modern Era, ed. Stuart B. Schwartz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994), 331.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

45

urban commoners in Japan. He writes that along the routes of Korean embassies, “rich and poor; courtier, daimyo, and commoner, competed––andpaid dearly––for the best vantage point from which to watch the passageof an embassy.” To preserve and profit from these embassies, “artists andprintmakers recorded virtually every stage of a Korean embassy’s progress
through Japan, from first landfall in Tsushima, to passage by ship throughthe Inland Sea and riverboat up the Yodo River, and overland throughKyoto, and along the highways to Edo, and occasionally beyond.” Toby’s
highly original analysis of these visual sources illustrates that the tropes ofalterity (or “codes of Other”) employed by Japanese served to affirm what
it meant to be Japanese. “Through reenactment and representation,” writes
Toby, “the alien embassy became permanent and omnipresent, an enduring
element in contemporary culture. It was an instrumentality for the construction of ‘Korea’, and implicitly of all ‘others’, in Japanese culture, andby extension it was a means for creating ‘Japan’.42
The symbolic meaning of Korean embassies also altered the nature of
the Tokugawa status system. When townspeople undertook their own Tôjin
gyôretsu, or foreigners parades, and crafted Chôsen yama, or Korean floats,common people asserted an “identity radically different from that sanctioned by official social ideology,” and by masquerading as foreigners,
they “licensed themselves temporarily to step outside the tightly controlled
behavioral requirements of role and status demanded of them by the normsof their society.” In other words, participants stepped from the realm of theJapanese self, and its implicit rigid status categories, to the realm of
stereotyped-ethnic alterity, appropriating the “codes of Other” which remained alien enough to serve as a commonly perceived liminal space for
escaping the officially endorsed social norms of the day. Common people,
Toby concludes, masquerading as foreigners, brought the political center,that lavish capital where embassies visited, to themselves, thus “asserting
their own, communal parity with the shogun.”43
Ultimately, as Toby explains, confronting foreigners actually forced
early modern Japanese “to reorder not only their cosmology, but their
imaginings and imaging of the range of human variation that they encountered in the wake of Columbus.”44 The greater the number of outside people Japanese witnessed in the early modern period, the less meaningful became the blanket terms they used to describe this outside world, such as
Sangoku, or the Three Realms. Prior to what Toby describes as the
42. Ronald P. Toby, “Carnival of Aliens: Korean Embassies in Edo-Period Art
and Popular Culture,” Monumenta Nipponica 46, no. 4 (Winter 1991): 416, 418,
423.
43. Ibid., 445, 452, 454.
44. Ronald P. Toby, “Imagining and Imaging ‘Anthropos’ in Early Modern Japan,” Visual Anthropology Review 14, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1998): 19.

46

Brett L. Walker“Xavierian moment,” the tripartite framework Japanese employed to describe the outside world was the Three Realms of Wagachô (“Our Land,”or Japan), Shintan or Kara (usually “China,” but also other continental
peoples such as Koreans), and Tenjiku (rendered as “India,” but more of atheologic term that meant “Land of the Buddha”). Toby writes that forearly-sixteenth-century Japanese, “the real world consisted largely of two
possible identities: people of ‘Our Land’, and people from China––comprising ‘the Continent’, with which there was a long history of contact andcommerce.”45 (Perhaps for this reason, when Kaempfer traveled to Edo, he
was called Tôjin, or Chinese, by onlookers.46) After the 1550s, however, inthe wake of the “Xavierian moment,” Japanese were, argues Toby, “inundated with a bewildering array of new-found Others,” people who “camein hitherto inconceivable variety of colors, shapes, hirsutenesses, and habiliments.” These were the people not of Sangoku, but rather of the more
broadly cast Bankoku, or “Myriad Realms.”47
The notion of Bankoku required a new way of construing the world, one
riddled with unfamiliar geographies and taxonomies, demanding that Japanese artists, who rendered these new cartographies visually, move beyond
distinguishing between Japanese and others, now distinguishing Japanesefrom among a vast variety of human kinds––jinrui. In his analysis of suchworks as the 1645 Shôhô bankoku jinbutsu zu (Shôhô illustration of thepeoples of the myriad realms), Toby describes a “groping toward an ‘anthropology’ of sorts,” or what he later refers to as the “anthropology ofrepresentation.” Moreover, Toby cautions against dismissing this type ofearly modern “anthropology of representation” as overly imagined bypointing out that “European ‘knowledge’ of the foreign was not consistently empirical, either....” The principal medium for representing foreigners became the visual image and, as Toby argues, “each image was aspecimen, much like museum dioramas or specimen villages at a World’s
Fair.”48 This explosion of anthropos in the Japanese world view engendered new knowledge of “other” and “self,” and visual sources, unlike
texts, provide a rare glimpse into this world of the early modern imagining
and imaging of the outside world.
PEOPLE
Focus on the formation of an early modern identity, one which required
casting foreigners as “others,” has had its dangerous interpretive pitfalls.
Fine tuning this notion of an early modern Japanese identity has meant
45. Ibid.
46. Kaempfer, Kaempfer’s Japan, 285.
47. Toby, “Imagining and Imaging ‘Anthropos’ in Early Modern Japan,” 19.
48. Ibid., 36.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

47

casting foreign peoples, both real and imagined, as reflexive or reflective“others,” with little or no historical agency. More often than not, such foreigners and the places where they lived have served the purposes of either
Japan or those who write its history, which is, of course, a biased vantage
point from which to view any country’s foreign relations and frontier experiences. New research reveals that relations with foreigners not only transformed the Japanese idea of self, but that these foreigners themselves––the“others” with whom the Japanese interacted––also witnessed political andcultural changes as a result of their contact with early modern Japan. Asidefrom important observations related to missionaries, or brief discussions ofseventeenth-century Korean politics, this point has only been made by Elisonas, Smits, and Bodart-Bailey, but nonetheless it should be consideredcentral to our discussion. Really, this lesson is simple yet critical: vantage
point, or the temporal, spatial, and human perspective from which history
is construed, shapes our rendering of the past.
When Boxer and Elisonas argued that Japan was isolated under the
Tokugawa regime––the “sakoku directives”––their vantage point and temporal site stemmed from European experiences in the late sixteenth andearly seventeenth centuries. Of course, for these Europeans, Japan was a“closed country,” and so not surprisingly, historians most reliant on thisEuropean perspective most passionately pushed the sakoku thesis. Reinier
Hesselink, who actually bridges the Japanese and European perspectives,
has most recently made this point in Prisoners from Nambu. In July 1643,
when Japanese authorities from the northeastern domain of Morioka (overseen by the Nanbu family) cleverly lured ashore and then incarcerated tencrew members of the Breskens, a yacht out of Batavia that Dutch officials
had dispatched along with the fluyt Castricom, these Dutch sailors correctly came to the conclusion that Japan was a country run by paranoidand at times even sadistic rulers. What else could they possibly have concluded as they watched the Christian hunter Inoue Masashige and others
subject Catholic missionaries to horrific tortures such as the anatsurushi(the legendary “pit torture”)?49 By contrast, it stands to reason that historians illustrating the pervasiveness of East Asian contact in the early modern
period should depend on an Asia-centered perspective. These historians argue that some foreign groups understood Japan to be an altogether tooopen country. In other words, if certain Europeans understood Japan to beclosed, then Ryukyu Islanders, Koreans, and Ainu had a different opinion.
Japan was not only open, but slowly expanding and at times highly intrusive.
In his introduction to Visions of Ryukyu, Smits stakes out a decidedly
Ryukyuan vantage point. He writes that his study “seeks to center Ryukyu
49. Reinier H. Hesselink, Prisoners from Nambu: Reality and Make-Believe in
17th-Century Japanese Diplomacy (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002).

48

Brett L. Walker

as a historical agent, examining Ryukyu history mainly from the vantage
point of Shuri (capital of the Ryukyu Kingdom), not Edo or Beijing.”
Smits accomplishes this largely through the person of Sai On, a Ryukyuan
ideologue and statesman who believed that the small island kingdom muststrive to reach a “moral parity” with Japan and China. Smits explains that
Sai On understood that “Ryukyu’s long-term survival and prosperity... depended in large part on its adoption and adaptation of the Confucianway.”50 Thus, in an ironic twist, the idea of the dominant Japanese forcing
the acculturation and assimilation of neighboring people is cast in a fresh(and slightly uncomfortable) light: some of these neighbors also advocateda policy of assimilation––of assimilating themselves––through the adoptionof certain aspects of Japanese life in order to assure their country’s survival.
To begin with, Sai advocated a Confucian agenda for Ryukyuan officialsthat would have brought a grin even to the face of his stoic hero, Kaibara
Ekken. He believed officials should thoroughly familiarize themselves with
the Classics; nurture a Confucian-based notion of sincerity of will; employ
geomancy in the construction of sacred and political sites; adopt Confucian
notions of family relations; replace certain “native” Ryukyuan rites withJapanese ones; and recast the king as a Confucian sage.51 In one polemic,
Sai inferred that the Satsuma conquest of the Ryukyu Islands had in fact
benefited his kingdom. Ryukyu, under Satsuma rule, now practiced what
he identified as “fundamental principles of the Way of Government.” Smits
illustrates that Sai expressed his indebtedness to Satsuma in largely Confucian terms, believing that even the rice tax extracted by the powerful Kyushu domain, which no doubt pained the Ryukyuan countryside, had led tobetter agriculture among farmers, in turn leading to a “rectification” of
Ryukyuan customs.
Moreover, Sai oversaw important policy initiatives that in today’s world
might be viewed as traitorous to his country. In the mid-eighteenth century,for example, Sai oversaw widespread forestry reform and the Genbun survey. Smits points out that the Genbun survey, based on Japanese cadastral
practice, “established the basic economic framework for early modern
Ryukyu,” and resulted in a revision of the original cadastral numbers and atightening of the central government’s control over rice-producing districts.
However, as it did in Japan, the survey went further than just the realm ofagronomics. As Smits argues, in Ryukyu it provided the government witha means to regulate everyday life in the districts, which extended into therealm of “moral behavior” and ceremonial practice. With increased central
control, Sai was able to oversee a crackdown on “native” Ryukyuan festival life, assert a ban on shamanism, and reinvent the original meanings of
50. Smits, Visions of Ryukyu, 3, 8.
51. Ibid., 75, 76, 97, 101, 103.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

49

such rites as worshiping the hearth deity. Of course, these measures met
with mixed results; but the point is that some of the deculturation and assimilation of the Ryukyu Kingdom was generated internally.52 Oddly,
while Tokugawa officials pushed to preserve Ryukyuan foreignness, Sai
On and others advocated that country’s move in the opposite direction.
In the far north, Shakushain’s seventeenth-century struggle against Matsumae domain serves as another example of the historical agency of foreigners. A survey of the twenty some years leading up to Shakushain’s
War demonstrates that the roots of this conflict lay planted in the soil ofcultural and ecological change brought about by trade with Japan. By thelate sixteenth century, Ainu notions of political power, social prestige, andritual practice had become tied to trade with Japan. That is, like the example of Sai On’s reform policies, Ainu generated political and culturalchange internally. Everything from the clothing that adorned powerfulchiefs, to the lacquerware cups and saké used in ceremonies, Ainu acquired in trade. To obtain these items, Ainu brought dried fish, animalskins, and certain pharmaceuticals to trading posts. Consequently, as certain chiefs maneuvered to extend their hegemony through acquiring more
emblems of prestige, they positioned themselves to extend their control
over the land that produced the animals whose skins purchased these goods.
Early on, this led to border conflicts between Ainu chiefdoms, including
the construction of Ainu fortifications called casi. In the case of
Shakushain’s War, the two main chiefdoms involved were the Hae, under
Onibishi (and his territory known as Haekuru), and the Shibuchari (orMenashikuru), under Shakushain.53
In the 1660s, Shakushain defeated Onibishi, but not before forcing Matsumae domain to take sides in the conflict. Just prior to the outbreak offull-scale war, Hae Ainu sought assistance from Japanese miners and Matsumae domain, and Shakushain, viewing these events from his fortified position in eastern Ezo, believed himself to be boxed in by hostile neighbors.
So he lashed out, killing just under 300 Japanese in two well-planned assaults. Matsumae domain dispatched troops to Kunnui, in eastern Ezo, tostem a potential Shakushain-led march on Fukuyama Castle, and at Kunnuia stalemate ensued. Ultimately, the shogunate, in an unqualified exampleof how it viewed its role on the borders of the realm, dispatched a retainer,
Matsumae Yasuhiro, to take over local command of military activities in
Kunnui and see to the “subjugation of the barbarians.” Indeed, “Campaigns
to ‘subdue the barbarians’ were urgent prerogatives of the shogunate; after
all, it was the imperial duty of the Barbarian Subduing Generalissimo (seiitaishôgun; the formal imperial title of the shogun) to defend the realm.54

52. Ibid., 109-16.
53. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 53-54.

50

Brett L. Walker

However, Shakushain’s War also forged strong ethnic identities among
the participants, leading some Japanese historians to call the conflict a“greater ethnic war.” Once underway, Shakushain’s War served tostrengthen ethnic identities in Ezo. Although competition for resources
sparked the conflagration, the two sides of the conflict, with some important exceptions, were drawn along ethnic lines. Matsumae commanders,such as Kakizaki Hiroshige, went so far as to threatened to “destroy all the
Ainu.” Shakushain, by contrast, boasted that his forces should “slash their
way to the Matsumae” stronghold. In short, Shakushain’s War took on a
disturbing us-against-them mentality, prompting the shogunate to assert its
duty to defend the realm by conscripting support among northeastern domains under the already arcane gunyaku (military conscription) system.
The important point is that trade with Japan, and the incorporation ofJapanese-manufactured items into Ainu politics and culture, was a powerful ingredient in this war and the formation of pan-Ainu alliances. Moreover, at the same time that Japanese probably viewed themselves as “Japanese” while facing tenacious Ainu fighters, Ainu probably formed broader
conceptions of their Ainu-ness while facing Japanese warriors as well. Before and after this point in 1669, Ainu society remained fragmented among
patrilinear political alignments called petiwor, or river-based villages andchiefdoms. However, as Shakushain watched his hunting and fishinggrounds transform into akinaiba chigyô, or trade fiefs, under Matsumae’s
economic expansion, it forced him to think more bilaterally about ethnic
relations on the island. Importantly, for these Ainu, Japan must have beena country all too actively engaged with the outside world, or from
Shakushain’s vantage point, actively conquering his homeland.
Situated on the southern and northern edges of Tokugawa hegemony,
Sai On and Shakushain faced the ensuing complications of an expanding
early modern Japanese polity at different periods of time. Sai On, on the
one hand, resisted the Edo shogunate’s attempts to mandate Ryukyuan difference on an intellectual and political level, pushing the small kingdom inthe direction of Japanese-style Confucian reform. On the other hand,
Shakushain resisted Japanese economic designs on the cold, harsh battlefields of eastern Ezo by attempting to create an united Ainu front to expel
the Japanese from his homeland. For these two non-Japanese societies situated on the fringes of the Japanese realm, Japanese expansion resulted in
nothing less than their ultimate conquest and acculturation, and so, consequently, any characterization of early modern Japan as a “closed country”
would have come as some surprise to them.
Such a characterization would not have surprised other foreigners, however, proving once more that vantage point is critical to understanding
early modern Japanese attitudes about the outside world. As mentioned,
54. Ibid., 66.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

51

Engelbert Kaempfer was stationed on Deshima Islet near Nagasaki, (likeRyukyu and Ezo, Nagasaki was also an ambiguous space, with Chinese
temples and the Chinese factory, not to mention the Dutch presence at Deshima). He viewed seventeenth-century Japan not as an expanding country
but as a closed and highly paranoid one. Given a chance, he speculated,
the Japanese people would have lavished “the best possible treatment on us[Dutch visitors],” but owing to the strict prohibitions against Christianity,
the Edo shogunate kept Europeans under a watchful eye.55
Even a superficial reading of Kaempfer’s writings related to his stay inJapan (between September 1690 and October 1692) exposes the extreme
steps taken by the Edo shogunate to immunize Japan from any potential
Christian infection. It is hard to overestimate the shogunate’s fears of themonotheistic religion. Like antibodies scurrying around an alien, and quite
threatening, virus, trying to protect the larger body from infection, attendants and translators followed Kaempfer throughout his stay in Japan,
making sure that he did not infect people, and hence the Tokugawa bodypolitic, with the toxins of Christianity. Those Japanese who dealt with the“imprisoned visitors,” as Kaempfer called the Dutch, were “bound by anoath and sign with their blood not to talk or entrust to us information
about the situation of their country....” In others words, as Kaempfer concluded––in many ways setting the tenor in Japan and the West for nearly
three centuries of historiography related to early modern Japan’s foreign
affairs and frontiers––Japan was a “secluded world apart from the rest of
the world.”56
Offering much needed details on the nature of the Nagasaki trade,
Kaempfer wrote that when European ships first entered the waters off Japan, their arrival was announced by guards called tomiban. They manned
watch towers to warn of European invasion (an invasion thought immanent,
incidently, after the expulsion of the missionaries). In the case of such aninvasion, signal fires would be lit in succession until the fires, and hence
the news of the European attack, had reached Edo. Later, as European
ships entered Nagasaki harbor, they were assisted (or accosted, dependingon your perspective) by guard boats called funaban. Kaempfer described
the city of Nagasaki as having an international flare, a product of latesixteenth and early-seventeenth-century trade. Three Chinese temples (theNankin, Chokushû, and Hokushû temples) graced the port city and upwards of 10,000 Chinese merchants had once visited Nagasaki every year
in well over 200 ships. Some Chinese, according to Kaempfer, had evenset up permanent residences in the city. After 1688, however, following
shogunal suspicions that the Qing state had accommodated the Jesuits (theTokugawa family’s “sworn and banished enemy”), and that Christian
55. Kaempfer’s Japan, 285.
56. Ibid., 27, 56.

52

Brett L. Walker

books “printed in China were hidden among the other Chinese volumes
that annually arrived in the country,” the Chinese trade was restricted andChinese merchants themselves, much like Dutch merchants at Deshima,
were forced to reside at the Chinese factory. Although the Chinese wereallowed to intermix with the Japanese population for a longer period oftime, in the case of the European presence, “No Japanese who treats the
Dutch with sincerity is considered an honest citizen,” observed Kaempfer.57
Kaempfer described Deshima as a “jail” or a “fortified compound,” one
where Europeans were “sealed off and guarded like thieves.” Japanese who
worked with the Dutch were inoculated from foreign influence through a“Letter of Acceptance,” wherein a guarantor promised that the new employee would not “listen to any talk about the banned Christian sect” andnot “have any secret discussions with the Dutch.” Even when traveling to
Edo for a shogunal audience, Japanese attendants watched over Kaempfer’s
every move, “even when stepping aside to follow the call of nature.” At
the inns where they stayed along the Tôkaidô Circuit, “the Dutch must relyon the small walled garden during the day and, if it pleases them, the bathat night.” While traveling, “young gentlemen” followed Kaempfer and his
entourage shouting, “tôjin bai bai!” (or “Chinaman, haven’t you got something to peddle!”), illustrating a curious clumping of all foreigners under
one category of “other” in the Japanese mind, hardly a quality that one expects from a country really open to outside contact. Once at Edo Castle,
much like infected people in need of quarantine, “Our rooms were isolated
from all other human beings,” wrote Kaempfer. Following the audience,
Kaempfer returned to Nagasaki in time to witness the execution of Japanese who had smuggled with the Dutch (a common occurrence). For thecrime of illegal trade with the Dutch, “with neither a word nor ceremony,”an executioner “cut off the heads of their charges as soon as we arrived
and turned our eyes upon the scene.” Although the Japan trade was lucrative for the Dutch, their treatment at the hands of paranoid Tokugawa attendants and translators was the conduct of people who had, in Kaempfer’s
opinion, “closed their mouths, hearts, and souls” to their foreign guests.58
PLACES
Where early modern Japan did actively engage the outside world, it
often reshaped such places through prolonged ecological and cultural exchange. John Hall, for example, has illustrated the importance of the copper trade in commercial relations between Japan and China.59 Robert Innes,
57. Ibid., 186-88, 153-54, 224-25, 199.
58. Ibid., 142, 187, 234, 282-83, 285, 355, 396, 27.
59. John Whitney Hall, “Notes on the Early Ch’ing Copper Trade with Japan,”
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 12, no. 3-4 (December 1949): 444-61.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

53

in his unpublished dissertation on the economic value of such trade, argues
that the continental trade led to technological advances in mining in someJapanese communities. Trade spurred an expansion of mining in Japan tomeet the foreign demand. The main reason for this expansion was that the
major Japanese export specie in the early Tokugawa years (as Hall pointedout) was precious metals: gold, silver, and copper. Facilitating the expansion of the mining industry, and the exploitation of these valuable resources, were technological innovations in excavation techniques, drainage,
surveying, and smelting. In short, Innes concludes that foreign trade
speeded the pace of innovation by increasing the demand first for silver
and later for gold and copper.60 Toby echoes this point, explaining that the
influence of foreign trade on the early modern domestic economy was several fold: it fostered a general advancement of the market economy,
sparked regional industries such as sugar and silk, facilitated an expansionof national transportation networks, and led to market competition which
improved the quality and increased the quantity of goods.61
Economic and technological advancement also transformed Japanesecommercial activity beyond the traditional provinces. In Capitalism FromWithin, Howell illustrates how the intensification of cash-crop farming in
the Kinai led to increased demand for herring-mulch fertilizer. This demand, in turn, sparked a massive expansion of merchant-run fisheries inEzo, transforming the production habits of local Japanese and Ainu. It was
not long until Japanese were searching out fresh supplies of herring on
southern Sakhalin, hoping to fill the large merchant vessels, or kitamaebune, which followed the Japan Sea coast to ports such as Tsuruga or
Obama.62 Along with engendering dependency in Ainu communities by
forcing them to labor in fisheries, however, the herring industry depleted
fishery yield throughout Hokkaido and beyond. At one point, explains
Howell, herring shoals which migrated from the Sea of Okhotsk to thewest coast of Hokkaido to spawn had been so dense that “a pole could almost stand unsupported.” At these sites, gams of whales and flocks of seagulls gathered to feed off the concentration of fish. However, with advances in fishing technology, such as the invention of the pound-trap, notonly were small family fisheries unable to compete with the proto60. Robert Leroy Innes, The Door Ajar: Japan’s Foreign Trade in the Seventeenth Century (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1980), 533, 543.
61. Ronald P. Toby, “Ikinai shi no naka no kinsei Nihon no kokushi––meshitakadai,” in Ajia koeki ken to Nihon kogyôka, 1500-1900, ed. Hamashita Takeshi and
Kawakatsu Hirao (Tokyo: Riburopôto, 1991), 235.
62. Robert G. Flershem, “Some Aspects of Japan Sea Trade in the Tokugawa
Period,” The Journal of Asian Studies 23, no. 3 (May 1964): 405-416; David L.
Howell, Capitalism From Within: Economy, Society, and the State in a JapaneseFishery (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 38; and Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 138-44.

54

Brett L. Walker

capitalist firms which owned this equipment, but the environment witnessed a drastic decline in fishery yield by the Meiji period.63
This type of environmental degradation and ecological change occurred
throughout Ezo (and other places in Asia) with the expansion of Japanesemarkets and trade networks. In the early seventeenth century, large quantities of deer skins were imported into Japan from Asia, an early tradelargely ignored by Western scholarship. Once in Japan, these skins wereused to make armor and other specialty crafts such as brushes for calligraphy or tabi, a kind of sock worn with traditional Japanese footwear. Deerskin items became so popular that Japanese merchants traveled to Southeast Asia in search of more skins to import. Dutch records from 1624 lament that European traders could not get their hands on any decent deerskins because Japanese had bought them all up. That year alone, 160,000
skins were imported. It reached the point where Spanish observers (nodoubt motivated by their own greed) worried that deer herds were disappearing from Southeast Asia.64 John Shepherd, in his history of early Taiwan, points out that the deer skin trade with Japan also became an important part of that island’s economy under early Dutch and Chinese rule.65
Thus Japanese had an appetite for animal skins, and as certain Asian markets were increasingly closed off, or as deer became scarce, Ezo began tosupply deer skins in their place.
Ainu trapped and hunted deer throughout Ezo, exchanging the skins
with Japanese at trading posts. Matsumae Norihiro, in an eighteenthcentury memorandum to Edo officials, remarked that trade in deer skins
had depleted herds in Ezo. (These herds, it should be mentioned, alongwith healthy salmon runs, were closely tied to Ainu subsistence systems.)
Norihiro was not the only observer to note the depletion of deer herds,
however. Five years earlier, Matsumiya Kanzan had briefly remarked ofdeer pelts that “in recent years none are traded.” Likewise, in 1717, a shogunal inspector wrote that “in past years deer pelts were mainly taken in
the Saru River and Yûbetsu areas, but in recent years few pelts are taken
at all.” These are important observations because healthy deer herds were
central to Ainu survival.66
In 1792, Kushihara Seihô, a local observer in Ezo, offered hints as tohow deer had come under so much pressure. He wrote that in the fall deer
from the mountains of the southern section of the Ishikari region crossed
the Ishikari River and migrated southeast to Shikotsu. Illustrating ecological trends in fauna distribution, he observed that in western Ezo the snow
63. Howell, Capitalism From Within, 50, 117.
64. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 120-21.
65. John Robert Shepherd, Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan
Frontier, 1600-1800 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 57, 73-79, 100.
66. Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 119-20.

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

55

became very deep in the winter, and deer found it difficult to forage forfood. During this migration, when deer crossed the Ishikari River, Ainu
concealed themselves and their boats behind reed blinds and waited fordeer to cross the river so that they could overtake them in boats and killthem. “In recent years an increasing number of deer have been taken, andnone are left. Those deer that did remain have swum across the straits toMorioka domain,” wrote Kushihara. Now, “there are very few if any deerin eastern Ezo.”67
Finally, maritime prohibitions, and Japan’s geographic isolation from theEurasian continent, shaped the disease ecology of the archipelago, andhence the rhythms of life and death in early modern Japan. In her researchon disease and mortality crisis in the early modern period, Ann Bowman
Jannetta argues that with the establishment of the Edo shogunate few new
diseases actually entered Japan. Pointing to evidence such as the absenceof bubonic plague and epidemic typhus, Jannetta argues that “Japan’s geography and her isolation from the major world trade routes provided acordon sanitaire that prevented major diseases from penetrating Japan until
the mid-nineteenth century.68
That is not to say, however, that certain diseases did not spread outward
from Japan. Similar to the scenario outlined by William McNeill in
Plagues and Peoples, Japanese contributed to the dissemination of deadly
contagions in Ezo as their commercial and political interests advanced into
Ainu communities.69 In Ezo, Japanese traders brought diseases such as
smallpox and syphilis, incorporating the northern island into the disease
ecology of early modern Japan and sparking demographic havoc in Ainu
communities.70 Ecologically speaking, viewed from the perspective of theepidemiologic range of Japan’s disease ecology, Ezo was incorporated into
the Japanese Archipelago in the early modern period via forms of “ecological imperialism.”71 Not only were people moving beyond the traditional
confines of the realm, but it seems pathogens were as well.

67. Ibid.
68. Ann Bowman Jannetta, “Disease Ecologies of East Asia,” in The Cambridge
World History of Human Disease, ed. Kenneth F. Kiple (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993): 476-482; Ann Bowman Jannetta, “Diseases of the Early
Modern Period in Japan,” in The Cambridge World History of Human Disease, ed.
Kenneth F. Kiple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993): 385-389; andEpidemics and Mortality in Early Modern Japan (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1987), 5.
69. William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (New York: Anchor Books, 1976).
70. Walker, “The Early Modern Japanese State and Ainu Vaccinations,” 102-7;
Walker, The Conquest of Ainu Lands, 177-93.
71. Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion ofEurope, 900-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

56

Brett L. Walker

III CONCLUSION
I should offer at least a brief explanation as to why this historiographicalessay concludes prior to the rise of the “unequal treaty” regime negotiatedbetween the Edo shogunate and the early Meiji state with the Western
powers. Quite simply, in my opinion, such forms of international interaction and diplomatic order no longer resemble early modern forms and soare beyond the scope of this narrative. As W. G. Beasley and, more recently, Michael Auslin point out, after 1855, Japan was forced to navigate
within a new logic of foreign relations and international order that was notpremised on the notion that Japan (or even China for that matter) stood at
the center of a real or imagined global community, but rather one that exposed that it sat precariously on the edge of modern civilization. As Auslin
cautions, this is not to say that between 1858 and 1872 the Japanese werecompletely unable to assert some political and diplomatic agency when negotiating with the Western powers. For example, Japanese diplomats did
succeed in shifting the location of some key treaty ports (along with otherminor diplomatic successes) during this early phase.72 However, the mereadvent of such ports, not to mention the “unequal treaties” that made themlegally binding and the “extraterritoriality” that made them sting, meantthat Japan, whether it liked it or not, had joined the dog-eat-dog international climate of the late nineteenth century.
As for the early modern period, three points stand out after surveying
new literature on its foreign affairs and frontier experiences. The firstcomes in the form of (not altogether unbiased) praise: with the exceptionof John Whitney Hall’s Government and Local Power in Japan, 500-1700
and Thomas C. Smith’s The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan, possibly
no single monograph on the early modern period has spawned the kind of
explosion of historical writing as has Ronald Toby’s State and Diplomacy
in Early Modern Japan. To different degrees, the writings of Howell,Morris-Suzuki and others expand on Toby’s point that the notion of sakoku was highly Eurocentric and that historians need to focus on the Edo
shogunate’s relations with Asia. With the thesis that Japan isolated itself
from all foreign contact wiped clean from the deck (although, as the caseof Kaempfer shows, certain important issues clearly have yet to be sweptaway), Japan specialists have started to navigate entirely new waters. For
this reason, some of the most interesting work in early modern Japanesestudies relates to the subfield of foreign affairs and frontiers. At the sametime, however, so much still could be done: multiethnic communities in
Nagasaki, Japanese-trading stations in Korea, foreign trade and environ72. Michael Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: Japan and the Unequal Treaties, 1858-1872 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,2000).

Foreign Affairs and Frontiers in Early Modern Japan: A Historiographical Essay

57

mental degradation in Japan, early-seventeenth-century Japanese trading
communities in Southeast Asia and their environmental impact, and manyother topics cry out for investigation by talented scholars.
Second, an interpretative gulf exists among scholars of early modern Japan. Those who study domestic-centered topics, ranging from literary studies to domainal politics and economics, often sound like they are talking
about a different country than those writing on foreign affairs and frontiers.
Increasingly, historians such as Philip Brown, Luke Roberts, and Mark
Ravina paint a picture of an early modern polity where local domains remained the most pervasive manifestation of the political and economic
country. However, in the realm of foreign affairs, few would dispute theidea that the Edo shogunate maintained tight control over contact with theoutside world, a concrete manifestation of a state in the process of centering power. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, but Japan specialists have yet to integrate them into one convincing narrative of Japan’s
early modern experience. To date, in the collective scholarship of Japan
specialists, two political countries coincide and sometimes collide in one
temporal and spatial frame. One aim of future research should be to reconcile some of these differences.
Third, the new writings on early modern foreign affairs and frontiers
have failed to convince historians of the modern period of the complexityof Japan’s pre-Meiji relations with the outside world. Many modernists stillslavishly use the “closed country” (sakoku) and “open country” (kaikoku)
dichotomy to explain Japan’s plunge into the modern age. It is still common to talk of the “opening of the country” with Matthew C. Perry, andhow in the 1850s Japan was forced to confront for the first time the practice of international diplomacy. This is, of course, highly misleading, but it
does make the task of writing about the Meiji years easier. With sakoku,
we can be told that only in the Meiji period did Japan master diplomacy,
conduct foreign trade, conquer foreign lands, and develop collective philosophies similar to what might be described as a “national” identity. The
next step, it seems to me, is to have a broader penetration of the complexity of early modern foreign affairs and frontiers into the other subfields ofJapanese studies. This would require the onerous process of rethinking topics such as modern Japanese expansionism, but it would surely enrich ourunderstanding of Japan’s past and present.

Chapter 3
Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village
Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan
Brian Platt

I Introduction
While the bulk of Ronald Toby’s research on Tokugawa Japan focuses
on issues of diplomacy and ethnic identity, his article “Both a Borrower
and a Lender Be” makes an original contribution to the study of protoindustrialization in the Japanese countryside. Tracing the lending patternsof one family of hereditary headmen over the last several decades of theTokugawa period, he demonstrates that they came to borrow money from
elite families in other villages to provide additional capital for their own
lending activities. In doing so, they graduated from mere “moneylender” to“banker,” thus enhancing the potential for capital accumulation and making
possible new forms of entrepreneurial activity.1
This development represents one aspect of a larger phenomenon that occurred during the last half of the Tokugawa period: the formation of regional networks among village elites. This process began in the eighteenth
century when village notables, seeking to reaffirm their local status on afoundation of literary credentials, established intra-regional ties throughaesthetic pursuits. Indeed, the family of bankers in Toby’s article invested
a good deal of time and money in their self-image as literati, building up
cultural capital as well as financial capital. In the last few decades of theTokugawa period, these same networks of village elites that provided capital for rural bankers also allowed for the spread of ideological movements
aimed at restoring order to rural communities and shoring up the local
authority of village leaders. The circulation of commodities, poetry, capital,
and ideas along these networks fostered a common identity among village
1. Ronald Toby, “Both a Borrower and a Lender Be,” Monumenta Nipponica vol.
46, no. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 483-511.
59

60

Brian Plattelites, while also creating a kind of public sphere that enabled them to contribute their voices and energies to the Restoration movement and the formation of the Meiji state.
II Status, Aesthetic Pursuits, and Elite Networksin Eighteenth-Century Society
The first half of the Tokugawa period saw an important transformationin the structure of rural society. During the course of the eighteenth century, the power of village magnates (dogō)––who typically held expansive
landholdings, supported large numbers of dependents, and enjoyed a monopoly on local political position––began to decline relative to the generalvillage population. A growing parity in landholding and burgeoning demands for political participation from below led to a narrowing of the economic and political distance between magnates and other landholders in rural society.2 This decline in the power of multi-village magnates did not result in a leveling of status distinctions within village society, but it did involve changes in the roles and activities of village elites and the criteria
for social distinction within the village. One aspect of this change was thelinking together of village elites into networks of communication and interaction.
These networks were forged in part by the political and economic activities of village elites. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth century,
local political administration increasingly required village officials to interact and cooperate with one another––to attend meetings with other village
officials in the same village league (kumiai), to circulate overlord decrees,
to arrange for the shipment of tax rice to Edo, and so on.3 In addition, thefirst half of the Tokugawa period also saw the expansion of commercial
activity in rural society. This expansion was gradual and uneven, and did
not mark a sudden and fundamental change in the livelihood of most ruralfamilies; nonetheless, commercial activity tied villages together into what
Wigen calls “functional regions,” usually centered on regional castle
towns.4 Commercialization, therefore, provided another context for interaction and communication, particularly among village elites who were positioned to take advantage of commercial opportunities.
But while political and economic practices helped to foster regional interaction among village elites, cultural practices––namely, aesthetic and in2. See Mizumoto Kunihiko, Kinsei no mura shakai to kokka (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1987). In English, see Herman Ooms, Tokugawa Village Practice (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996).
3. Anne Walthall, “Village Networks: Sōdai and the sale of Edo Nightsoil,”
Monumenta Nipponica, vol. 43, no. 3 (Fall 1988), pp. 279-303.
4. Kären Wigen, “The Making of a Japanese Periphery,” (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), p. 16.

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan61

tellectual pursuits––were perhaps most instrumental to the formation ofelite networks. These pursuits flourished in Japan’s major urban centers
during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Then, beginning in
the mid-eighteenth century, these cultural pursuits spread quickly to regional urban centers and, from there, into the hinterlands.5 This diffusionof cultural pursuits occurred largely through the movements and activitiesof village elites. In turn, these individuals and their movements and activities provided both the infrastructure and generating force behind the formation of the networks of information that are the focus of this essay.
Let me explore the dynamics of the formation of these networks by focusing on the aesthetic and literary pursuits of village elites in Shinanoprovince. Like many provinces in central Japan, Shinano was politicallyfragmented, composed of fifteen different domains and dozens of Bakufu
territories scattered throughout the province and administered by intendants
in regional urban centers. Several major transportation arteries passed
through Shinano, giving it ready access to the urban cultures of both Edo
and Kyoto and linking it northwards towards the Tōhoku region and southwards towards Nagoya and the Nobi plain. Its location and geo-politicalconditions were thus ideal for the transmission of culture and information.
For the first hundred and fifty years of the Tokugawa period, however, village elites bean did not actively seek out contacts outside of their own immediate vicinity for the purpose of pursuing aesthetic and literary knowledge. Even the passing of Matsuo Bashō through Shinano in 1688 elicitedlittle interest from local elites.6
By the mid-eighteenth century, however, a few native Shinano residents
had begun making a name for themselves in Edo or Kyoto poetry circles.
One such individual was Ōshima Ryōta (1718-1787), who was born into a
wealthy commoner family in the Ina district but left the family business as
a young man to live in Edo and study with some of Matsuo Bashō’s pupils.
Ryōta eventually achieved fame and status as one of Edo’s top poets.
Upon reaching this pinnacle, however, he returned to Shinano and opened
up a haikai school in the castle town of Matsushiro, organizing the publication of over two hundred poetry volumes and teaching over three thousand pupils, who ranged from merchants and rural elites from nearby vil-

5. Tasaki Tetsurō traces this process in his article, “Zaison chishikijin noseichō,” in Tsuji Tatsuya, ed., Nihon no kinsei, vol. 10: Kindai eno taidō (Tokyo:
Chūō Kōronsha, 1993), p. 302.
6. By contrast, later in the period, local poets built numerous memorials to commemorate Basho’s passing through Shinano, and local elite would travel great distances to lay eyes on even a middling poet from Edo or Kyoto. See Kobayashi
Keiichirō, “Haikai no ryūsei to shakai––Kobayashi Issa o chūshin ni,” in Takeuchi
Makoto, ed., Nihon no kinsei, vol. 14, Bunka no taishūka (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha,
1993), p. 99.

62

Brian Plattlages to the daimyo of Matsushiro domain, Sanada Yukihiro.7 Similarly,
Kaya Shirao (1737-91) was the second son of a samurai in Ueda domain
who achieved nationwide fame as a haikai master in Edo. Shirao opened
up his own school in Edo during the spring and autumn, but in summer
and winter he returned to Shinano and taught thousands of aspiring poets(mostly commoners) from throughout the province––many of whom would
eventually become haikai teachers themselves, and who raised money topublish ten volumes of Shirao’s poems after his death.8 Through the movements of provincial elites like Ryōta and Shirao, cultural forms were carried from the national urban centers to regional urban centers.9
These regional urban centers, however, did not serve merely as provincial outposts of Edo and Kyoto culture. After nationally known masters
like Ryōta and Shirao returned from Edo to the provinces, they––and thecastle towns in which they usually set up shop––became hubs in the generation of regional cultures. And if Ryōta and Shirao acted as the “hubs”
of such regional cultures, then the “spokes” were formed by individuals
like Kobayashi Issa (1763-1827), a native Shinano poet from a later generation of local haikai masters. Issa came from a humbler background thanmost other Edo-trained Shinano poets. His family lived in Kashiwabara, asmall post town in northern Shinano, near the primary roadway connecting
Shinano to northeastern Japan. His father held only about six koku of land,
which would classify him as a small landholder––enough for agricultural
self-sufficiency but definitely not enough to be considered among the economic elite of the village.10 The family once had significant holdings, but
generations of partitioning among multiple offspring had dissipated theirholdings considerably. At age 15, Issa went to Edo for a term of domestic
service (hōkō); this was not, it seems, the “grand tour” type of domestic
service mentioned above, but a one-year term involving unskilled manuallabor. While there, however, he found time to study poetry briefly withsome friends he met in Edo, and when he returned to Edo ten years later,
he formally entered the tutelage of a poetry master in the Katsushika
school of haikai. He gradually climbed his way up the Edo poetry circles
and traveled extensively throughout Western Japan teaching and writing
7. Nagano kenshi tsūshi-hen, kinsei 3, pp. 500-501.
8. Kobayashi, “Haikai no ryūsei to shakai,” p. 101.
9. This is not to suggest that Edo was the “original source” for all Edo-period
culture, and that provincial areas like Shinano were simply cultural blank slates,
waiting for “Edo culture” to reach the peripheries. Constantine Vaporis has effectively criticized this notion in a recent article, in which he argues that “Edo culture” itself was in part the product of the interaction of influences brought from theprovinces to Edo. See Vaporis, “To Edo and Back: Alternate Attendance and Japanese Culture in the Early Modern Period,” in Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 23,
no. 1 (Spring 1997), pp. 25-67.
10. Kobayashi, “Haikai no ryūsei to shakai,” pp. 108-109.

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan63

poetry.
Issa eventually returned to Shinano, but unlike earlier haikai masters
like Ryōta and Shirao, he did not establish a permanent school in a regional urban center. Rather, he became an itinerant poetry teacher with aclientele scattered in villages throughout northern Shinano. According toIssa’s diary, during the last fifteen years of his life, he spent nearly twothirds of his days away from his home in Kashiwabara, staying in thehomes of village elites who had entered his tutelage. The individuals towhom he taught poetry (at least, those whose names can be located on local tax and population registers) were the upper crust of village society:headmen, sake brewers, large landlords, and so on.11 Around this time,
many of these wealthy villagers began building an extra room in theirhomes specifically for the purpose of housing wandering literati such as
Issa.12 These wealthy villagers were not merely students, but patrons, withwhose support haikai culture reached further into village society throughregionally prominent poets like Issa.
We can witness a similar dynamic in the spread of other aesthetic pursuits as well. Terajima Sōhan (1794-1884), for example, was a regional
ikebana (flower arranging) master from a wealthy farm family in northeast
Shinano who had studied in Edo with the nationally renowned ikebana
master, Shōfū Enshū. Like the poet Issa, upon returning to his hometown,Sōhan spent decades traveling around the province, teaching both ikebanaand Noh to village elites in exchange for temporary room and board. According to Sōhan’s records, he taught over one thousand students in Shinano during this period.13 In a similar fashion, the popularization of waka
poetry in Shinano can also be traced to the movements and teaching activities of commoner elites. Momozawa Mutaku (1737-1810), for example,
was the son of a village headman in the Ina district who, according to therecords of one of his pupils, developed a passion for waka as a youth, andtraveled to Kyoto at the age of thirty to study with master Chōgetsu.14
Upon returning to his home in 1801, Momozawa founded a waka society.
Hundreds of samurai, castle-town merchants, and village elites fromthroughout southern and western Shinano flocked to his home to study
with this prestigious figure in regional poetry circles.
The transmission of new ideologies in eighteenth-century Shinano followed a similar pattern. Particularly important was Shingaku, a religious
movement that flourished in the merchant communities of Kyoto and Edo
11. Ibid., pp. 113-116.
12. Miyachi Masato, “Fūsetsu tome kara mita bakumatsu shakai no tokushitsu,”
Shisō, no. 831 (September 1993), p. 18.
13. Sōhan’s records are in NKKS , vol. 8, #1.
14. This quote is found in the diary of one of Mutaku’s students, a headman andaspiring haiku poet in the Northern Ina district of Shinano. Ibid., #128.

64

Brian Plattand was carried into the provinces by disciples during the last few decadesof the eighteenth century. While Shingaku originated in the major urban
centers and diffused outward into the provinces, the agency behind this
diffusion lay not only in the center, but also in the periphery––namely, inthe activities of commoner elites in villages and provincial towns. The
spread of Shingaku in Shinano is usually attributed to the efforts of two
Shinano natives, Nakamura Shūsuke (1732-1816) and Uematsu Jiken (1749-1810). Both were born in villages alongside major highways in Shinano,and spent much of their time in Japan’s major urban centers: Shūsuke
spent part of each year in Kyoto as a silk thread merchant, while Jiken
went to Edo as an apprentice and eventually opened up his own bookstore
there.15 Both became disciples of Shingaku in their forties after a time of
study at Shingaku meetinghouses (kōsha) in Kyoto and Edo, and both returned to Shinano to establish meetinghouses in their home villages.16
More important to the spread of Shingaku than these meetinghouses, however, were Shūsuke and Jiken’s traveling lectures. Shūsuke traveledthroughout most of Shinano, teaching nearly five thousand students from
350 different villages.17 The geographic scope of Jiken’s preaching waseven larger, including the provinces of Kai, Kōzuke, Bishū, and much ofcentral Japan.
But the dynamics of the spread of Shingaku in Shinano were not limited
simply to the movements of two exceptional individuals who traveled tothe center and returned to transmit new forms of knowledge throughout the
periphery. Once they returned to Shinano, it was only through the patronage and connections of village elites that Shingaku became a prefecturewide phenomenon. Shūsuke’s case is illustrative here. During the first several years after returning to Shinano, he concentrated his teaching activity
in castle towns (particularly Matsushiro, Suzaka, and Ueda) and in nearby
post towns on major highways.18 During this time, many of his pupils werefrom villages near these towns, and were similar in background to thosevillage elites who traveled to castle towns to study at private schools orwith regionally renowned poetry masters. After studying Shingaku with
Shūsuke and returning to their home villages, these elites served as a kind
15. Biographical information on Shūsuke and Jiken can be found in Nagano-ken
kyōikushi, vol. 1, pp. 170-71. As a youth, Shūsuke had studied poetry in Ueda withKaya Shirao, the aforementioned haikai master who achieved notoriety as a prominent Edo poet while also spending part of each year in Shinano tutoring aspiring
local poets.
16. For a discussion about the organization and activities of Shingaku meetinghouses, see Janine Sawada, Confucian Values and Popular Zen (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993), pp. 46-48.
17. Shūsuke’s records of his students is found in Nagano-ken kyōikushi, vol. 7, #307.
18. Ibid .

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan65

of human infrastructure for Shūsuke’s evangelistic activities, housing andfeeding him as he traveled throughout the province.
What was occurring at this time was not merely what Nishiyama has
dubbed the “diffusion” of Edo and Kyoto culture to the peripheries, but theformation of new, regional communities of cultural production. Castle
towns served as the nodal points for these communities. This was where
the poetry of regionally renowned masters was compiled and published,
usually through the initiative and funding of their former students. This
was also where village elites from throughout the region gathered to study
and socialize with other aspiring literati. Upon returning to their respective
villages, they sometimes took on their own pupils; in other cases, they
formed local poetry associations with other like-minded elites from nearby
villages. These regional communities had their own “who’s who” catalogues of local literary figures, as well as their own hierarchies of masters;
famous poets like Ryōta and Shirao rested at the top of such hierarchies,
while part-time connoisseurs in the countryside occupied the bottom.19
These communities sometimes had their own local histories, written by regional poets or artists who sought to legitimize their local field of culturalaction and make a name for themselves within it.20
Before exploring the implications of these networks for the subsequent
history of late-Tokugawa and Meiji Japan, it is worth considering why, inthe mid- to late-Tokugawa period, village elites began to invest so muchtime and money into aesthetic and literary pursuits. The answer to thisquestion lies, in part, in the changes in the role and position of village
elites over the course of the first half of the Tokugawa period. During thistime, the dominant position of early-Tokugawa rural magnates grew more
precarious. This involved, as noted above, the erosion of the economic basis for their local authority. Many headmen and elder (toshiyori) families
were faced with difficult financial circumstances: in addition to the financial attrition caused by the tendency to divide family landholdings fairly
equally among at least two male offspring, the burdens of public officealso caused a significant drain on the time and resources of elite families.21
As a result, some hereditary headmen in Shinano actually quit and renounced their families’ position and the privileges and responsibilities it
entailed. The house rules of one elite family in Ueda domain actually forbade family members from seeking public office, arguing that it took timeaway from the family businesses, often resulted in troublesome lawsuits,
19. Tasaki, p. 283.
20. Aoki Toshiyuki, “Shinano no rangaku-juku nyumonsha ni tsuite,” in Aichi
Daigaku Kyōdo Kenkyūjo, ed., Kinsei no chihō bunka (Tokyo: Meicho Shuppan,
1991), p. 25.
21. Kobayashi Keiichirō, “Kinsei kita-Shinano ni okeru kinbun sōzoku ni tsuite,”in Nihon rekishi, vol. 280 (September 1971), pp. 45-47.

66

Brian Plattand incurred the jealousy of other villagers.22
Meanwhile, many landholders––especially those whose holdings had increased significantly over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or who
had profited from commercial opportunities––began to challenge the monopoly over political office held by long-standing elite families. One strategy of up-and-coming families was to petition for the creation of additional elder (toshiyori) positions, thereby opening up political office to previously ineligible families, some of whom were of small landholder (kobyakushō) status.23 A directive issued by Matsumoto domain in 1800 noted
this development: “In recent years,” the author lamented, “we see [officials] from among men of small landholder status. In fact, there are somevillages where all the officials are small landholders.”24 The decree stipulated that henceforth only one official in each village could be of small
landholder status, with the other two coming from traditional elite families;
in so ruling, the domain attempted to constrain the political power of thosefamilies of small landholder status, but also sanctioned their inclusion
among the political leadership of the village. Up-and-coming families also
challenged the status trappings of older elite families. Many families ofsmall landholder status––and even some non-titled peasants (kakae, kadoya,mizunomi)––became quite wealthy, and sometimes used their newfoundwealth to purchase the status of titled peasant (onbyakushō).25 Others violated village laws by wearing certain types of clothing and materials that
had customarily been restricted to titled families; more than a few village
disputes (murakata sōdō) in Shinano started over such seemingly trivial
matters.
For those long-standing elite families who sought to preserve their local
position at this time––as well as for those up-and-coming families who aspired to elite status––such matters were far from trivial. As Bourdieu has
argued, it is precisely when the economic or political foundations of statushave been shaken that such symbolic sources of status become more valuable.26 Such a claim is based on the notion that symbolic capital is fully
convertible with economic or political capital, and can therefore function
to bolster status even when its material foundation has eroded. Ooms has
used this concept in his study of intra-village conflict, viewing titles (likeonbyakushō), clothing materials, and types of housing as forms of symbolic capital that functioned to maintain or create status differences.27 This
22. Nagano kenshi, kinsei shiryō hen, vol. 1, #289.
23. Nagano kenshi tsūshi-hen, kinsei 2, p. 193.
24. Nagano kenshi, kinsei shiryō hen, vol. 7, #716.
25. Ooms, p. 184; Nagano kenshi tsushi-hen, kinsei 2, p. 542-43, kinsei 3, p.
435-36.
26. Bourdieu, An Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by Richard Nice
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 177-184.
27. Ooms, pp. 3-4, 123-24, 126-134, 198-202.

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan

67

concept is also useful in understanding the involvement of village elites inaesthetic and literary pursuits. Facing various challenges to their economic
and political dominance in village society, village elites invested in such
pursuits as a means of creating a new foundation for their local status.28
They recognized that cultural expertise was, in Bourdieu’s words, “rareand worthy of being sought after,” and thus could function as a valuable
source of symbolic capital.29 As a result, aesthetic talent was, as Kurushima Hiroshi has argued, “as indispensable to leadership in local society
as administrative competence.”30
One critical feature of the elite networks forged through the interactionof village elites in the pursuit of aesthetic or literary expertise is that theytranscended the status and geographic boundaries fundamental to the
Tokugawa order. Participation in cultural pursuits invariably brought village elites into a broad, diverse circle of acquaintances. The aforementioned “who’s who” guides to local literati––which in most cases consisted
merely of a list of acquaintances encountered by a guide’s author in thecontext of his literary and aesthetic pursuits––provide glimpses into this diversity. In one such guide from Mikawa province, the author, an innkeeper
from Yoshida named Furuichi Mokuda, lists an acquaintance named Kobayashi Kizaemon, a merchant and haikai poet from Yamagata.31 How didthese two middling poets from hundreds of miles away come into contact
with each other? Furuichi’s records reveal that another of his acquaintances,a samurai named Imai Kozuma, had moved from Yamagata to the Mikawa
area when his lord was transferred in 1764. After Imai moved to Mikawa,
he became acquainted with Furuichi through their involvement in Mikawa
poetry circles. In 1782, eighteen years after he moved to Mikawa, Imai
was visited by an old friend––Kobayashi, the aspiring poet from Yamagata.
Imai apparently introduced Kobayashi to Furuichi, thus explaining Kobayashi’s inclusion in Furuichi’s list of literati.
This is merely one example of how aesthetic pursuits generated personalconnections that would have been otherwise impossible. In this one case,an individual established contacts that bridged both considerable geo28. As Iwahashi points out, this increased involvement of village elites in aesthetic and literary pursuits was accompanied by the emergence of yuisho, in which
elite families traced the history of their leadership role in the community in an effort to legitimate their monopoly of local political office. These yuisho, Iwahashi
argues, were usually written in response to specific challenges to the authority ofelite families, and thus reflected another strategy by which elites sought to shore up
their authority by shifting it to new foundations. See Iwahashi Kiyomi, “Kinseikōki ni okeru rekishi ishiki no keisei katei,” Kantō kinseishi kenkyū, no. 34 (September 1993), pp. 8-34).
29. Bourdieu, pp. 177-178.
30. Kurushima, “Hyakushō to mura no henshitsu,” in vol. 15 of Iwanami kōza
Nihon rekishi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1995), p. 99.
31. Furuichi’s “who’s who” guide is discussed in Tasaki, p. 286.

68

Brian Plattgraphic space (the distance between Mikawa and Yamagata) and an
equally significant social space (between commoners and samurai). The
connections were made through personal contact, but the extent of a given
individual’s social network was not confined to those whom he encountered personally: in this case, the link was between a friend of a friend. All
of Imai’s contacts, in other words, could potentially become Furuichi’s
contacts, and vice versa. As a result, the cumulative scope of these elite
networks was far greater than that which could be achieved by the movements of a single individual. And while these took shape through the involvement of village elites in aesthetic and literary pursuits, they madepossible the transmission of other sorts of knowledge and information. As
a result, their historical import would soon reach far beyond the realm ofaesthetic practice.
III Information Networks and the Roots of the Nation-State
A number of important developments from the last several decades of
the Tokugawa period can be traced to the formation of these elite networks.
As Toby’s research on rural banking has shown, these networks allowed
village elites to use borrowed capital in their moneylending practices, thus
stimulating an exponential increase in the supply of credit in rural society
and, ultimately, providing the capital for Japan’s industrialization. These
networks also allowed for the spread of various kinds of information inlate Tokugawa society, fueling both a public activism among local elites
and a process of cultural integration that linked together distant regions by
strands of shared knowledge. Both of these developments would have farreaching implications for the Tokugawa political order and the formationof the modern nation-state after the Meiji Restoration.
Networks of village elites took shape in the context of cultural pursuits,as aspiring literati passed on the latest literary trends from Kyoto, formed
poetry associations, gained introductions to prominent haikai masters, andso on. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, these same
networks also enabled village elites to share information about socioeconomic conditions. They were particularly concerned with a number ofproblems that plagued rural society in the late Tokugawa period and threatened the status and position of village elites. Natural disasters––for example, the eruption of Mount Asama in 1783 and the string of poor weather
in the 1830s––exacerbated famine conditions and brought tremendous suffering and instability to rural society. Village depopulation, the result of
starvation, increased migration, and poverty-induced dekasegi, eroded thevillage tax base and destabilized the local labor supply for wealthy households who depended upon hired help. Commentators also took note of the
sharp increase in internal village disputes (murakata sōdō), in which ordinary villagers directly challenged village elites’ monopoly of social andBoth a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan69

political privileges.
In and of themselves, conditions such as famine and unrest were not unprecedented. However, because village elites were now linked by networks
of information, they were increasingly aware that such conditions were notconfined to their own communities. As a result, phenomena that might
have otherwise been viewed as localized or temporary were seen as pervasive and chronic, and were interpreted as signs of a profoundly disorderedworld. This disorder manifested itself in the social, political, and economic
realms but was, in the view of many village elites, moral and cosmologicalat its root. There even emerged a common language to describe this crisis.
For example, one striking metaphor that appears in the writings of a number of village elites is that of a “world on thin ice”––a metaphor thatcomes from The Book of Odes, an ancient Confucian text that village elites
would likely have encountered in their training as literati.
In the late eighteenth century, village elites began to seek out ideological movements aimed at fixing this perceived crisis. These ideologies, too,spread among village elites via the same networks that had originally been
formed in the context of aesthetic pursuits.32 Such ideological movements
were remarkably diverse in their intellectual provenance, ranging from
Kokugaku to Shingaku and Confucianism. What they shared, however, wasthe goal of restoring social and moral order to the village community at atime of distress and anxiety. These ideologies also informed the efforts ofvillage elites to adopt new measures and create new local institutions forthe purpose of rejuvenating rural communities in the midst of this perceived crisis. Thousands of elites, for example, opened schools in theircommunities beginning in the 1830s, and encouraged the attendance of local children; schooling, they believed, would enable them to both inculcate
morality among local people and transmit useful skills, thus fostering economic improvement and moral regeneration within their communities.33
Other elites, believing that the neglect of agriculture was at the root ofboth famine and moral decline, initiated land reclamation campaigns andother public works projects in an attempt to effect economic and spiritual

32. Particularly illustrative here is the case of Kokugaku. For a description of the
spread of Kokugaku among village elites, see Haga Noboru, Bakumatsu kokugaku
no tenkai (Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō 1963), and Miyachi Masato, “Bakumatsu Hirata
kokugaku to seiji jōhō,” in Nihon no kinsei, vol. 18: Kindai kokka e no shikō (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron, 1994).
33. Kimura Masanobu,“ Bakumatsu-ki chikugo no nōson ni okeru terakoya no
kyūzō to murayakuninsō,” Kyūshū daigaku kyōiku gakubu kiyō, vol. 34 (1988), pp.
45-59; Nakano Shinnoyū, “Sonraku fukkō wo mezasu kyōiku shisō to sono kōzō,”in Kōza Nihon kyōikushi, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1982), pp. 104-126; also
see chapter one of my book, Burning and Building: Schooling and State Formationin Japan, 1750-1890 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, forthcoming).

70

Brian Plattrenewal.34 Others, distressed by the prevalence of infanticide and childabandonment in late-Tokugawa society, devised new arrangements for orphanage care.35 In the final years of the Tokugawa period, many village
elites organized farmer militia in order to defend local communities against
the threat of foreign invasion and domestic insurrection.36 A few elites
even established quasi-public libraries, distributing free copies of exhortatory tracts and making outreach visits to the local poor.37
These initiatives were not completely novel: most had historical precedents in the repertoire of reformist measures available to political leaders
and were informed by Confucian notions of benevolent governance. Whatis significant, however, is that thousands of village elites were prompted at
this particular moment to adopt these measures in response to what they
perceived to be a crisis in late-Tokugawa society. Their efforts were, inmany respects, consistent with what Harootunian has described as a secessionary movement in late-Tokugawa Japan: with the Tokugawa regime unable to save the realm from a condition of crisis, village elites took proactive measures to resolve this crisis within a proscribed local space.38 In theprocess, elites began to reconceptualize their own role within this local
space, viewing it increasingly as a public office––or, more precisely, as avehicle for the expression of public activism. In this capacity, they sought
to intervene in a variety of social practices (education, land reclamation,orphanage care, and so on) and make them matters of public concern. Elite
34. Kawamura Hajime, Zaison chishikijin no jugaku (Tokyo: Shibunkyaku Shuppan, 1996), pp. 79-83 and 96-98; Nakano, “Sonraku fukkō,” pp. 119-122;
35. Ochiai Emiko, “The Reproductive Revolution at the End of the Tokugawa
Period,” in Hitomi Tonomura, Anne Walthall, and Wakita Haruko, eds, Womenand Class in Japanese History (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, Universityof Michigan, 1999); David Howell, “Peasant Elites, Infanticide, and Social Order in
Mid-Nineteenth Century Japan,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Washington, D.C., 2002; and Kawamura, Zaison
Chishikijin, pp. 104-106.
36. For a brief discussion of farmer militia in English, see Conrad Totman, The
Collapse of the Tokugawa Bakufu, 1862-1868 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1980), pp. 97-98, 285-86. William Steele discusses a case study of a farmer
militia in his paper, “Ishizaka Shoko, A Village Headman in Restoration Period Japan,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
37. Tasaki Tetsurō, “Zaison chishikijin,” pp. 302-309. Tasaki gives the example
of a library established by Hadano Takao, a Hirata disciple. Hadano originally created this library in an effort to compile Nativist texts and distribute them among
his fellow Hirata disciples, but gradually expanded its scope and function during
the 1850s and 60s. Hadano even put up signs to direct travelers to the library,where they could borrow volumes for a month-long loan period or peruse volumes
in the library’s reading room.
38. Harootunian, “Late Tokugawa Culture and Thought,” in Marius Jansen, ed.,The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 5: The Nineteenth Century (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), esp. pp. 181-82.

Both a Banker and a Poet Be: Village Elite Networks in Late-Tokugawa Japan71

networks had helped to make this development possible: not only did theyfacilitate the transmission of new ideologies and new strategies for local
regeneration, but the horizontal, extra-village linkages among elites also allowed elites to visualize themselves outside the context of their community,
which in turn enabled them to think in an abstract way about their own
position in the overall structure and rationale of the Tokugawa order andthus conceptualize the public dimension of their role in local society.39
This deveiopment was deeply significant for the formation of the modern
Japanese state, because it facilitated the Meiji government’s effort to bring
the public initiatives of late-Tokugawa elites under its own purview, andprovided the rationale by which it mobilized the support of local elites behind this effort.
The importance of elite networks in Tokugawa society took on a new
dimension in the mid-nineteenth century, when the threat of Western imperialism transformed them into a vehicle for the transmission of political information and a forum for discussion of current events. As Miyachi has
shown in his study of fūsetsu tome (private journals containing news reports on contemporary events), Commodore Perry’s arrival in 1853 provoked furious efforts by commoner elites throughout the country to collectand transmit information about Japan’s dealings with the West and about
the Japanese leaders who were responsible for such dealings. He also
demonstrates that this information was collected and transmitted via thesame networks that had taken shape in the context of aesthetic and intellectual pursuits.40 Miyachi argues that these networks allowed for the emergence of public opinion as a political force in Tokugawa society, and thus
constituted a central component of an emergent public sphere. As he points
out, this public sphere diverged from the Habermasian model in one key
respect: because of Bakufu censorship, political information could not be
fully commodified and sold on the market (in the form of newspapers, forexample). It was precisely due to this constraint, however, that the networks of information-gathering subjects were so crucial.
Through these networks, village elites not only could know about contemporary political and diplomatic issues, but could engage in a discussionof those issues and thus contribute to the formation of public opinion on
the momentous events and policy decisions taking place during the bakumatsu era. This development was inimical to the Tokugawa regime in two
important respects. First, the organization of territory into autonomous han
39. Two rural intellectuals who spoke at length about the position of the village
leader within the overall structure of the Tokugawa order were Ōhara Yūgaku andMiyaoi Yasuo; see Nakano, “Sonraku fukkō.”
40. See Miyachi, “Fūsetsu tome,” pp. 4-26; Miyachi makes this point in greater
detail in his “Bakumatsu seiji katei ni okeru gōnōshō to zaison chishikijin,” in Miyachi, et. al., ed., Nihon kin-gendaishi vol. 1: ishin henkaku to kindai nihon. (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993), pp. 29-76.

72

Brian Plattand the division of people into distinct status orders, both of which were
fundamental to the rationale of the Tokugawa order, were undermined by
the formation of elite networks that transcended those divisions. In addition, the political operation of the Tokugawa regime assumed a monopoly
over the flow of discussion and information. The unprecedented broadening of public discussion in the late Tokugawa period destroyed that monopoly, bringing the conduct and decisions of the Tokugawa government
into full public view precisely at the time when it was being thrust into therealm of modern international politics and diplomacy. Since the government was accustomed to acting autonomously in its political decisions, it
was paralyzed when forced to operate in an environment of public discussion. The anti-bakufu forces, by contrast, capitalized on such an environment––for example, when activists in Chōshū published and distributed
hundreds of thousands of pamphlets in an effort to articulate its cause to
the Japanese people.41 Defining the limits of that popular involvement
would become one of the central political projects of the Meiji period.
The formation of this public sphere was part of a larger, longer processof cultural integration in Tokugawa society. The main engines behind thisprocess were urbanization, the commercialization of print culture, and, as
I’ve explored in this essay, the formation of networks among local elites.
Increasingly, people in Tokugawa society read the same texts, bought thesame woodblock prints, visited the same tourist sites, imagined themselvesin the same geographic space. As Berry points out, this integration resulted
not in cultural unity or sameness, but rather in the formation of “integrative principles that can connect necessarily different units in society––theideas or mental habits that permit fragmented units to situate themselves ina whole.”42 Following the Meiji Restoration, Japanese society was able tocoalesce around such integrative principles inherited from the Tokugawa
period, permitting the relatively rapid formation of a modern nation-state.43

41. Miyachi, “Fusetsu tome,” p. 23.
42. Mary Elizabeth Berry, “Was Early Modern Japan Culturally Integrated?”
Modern Asian Studies, vol. 31, no. 3 (1997), p. 560.
43. One integrative principle that would prove central to this process was ethnicity. Ronald Toby has turned to precisely this issue in his recent research, using visual sources to demonstrate how Tokugawa culture imagined self and other in ethnic
terms. It did so using a code of signifiers (such as hairstyles, clothing and diet) thatprovided a vocabulary and a conceptual framework for articulating Japanese ethnic
identity. See Toby, “The Narcissism of Petty Differences,” book manuscript.
Toby’s earlier research on rural banking complements this recent work, in that it
uncovers the networks through which these concepts of ethnicity and identity weredisseminated among the Japanese population.

Chapter 4
福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰
近世都市における家臣団の位置づけ
The Violation of Waterworks Regulationsin the Edo Era
The Character of Vassal Groups in FUKUI HAN
藤村 聡（Satoshi Fujimura）

Ⅰ 初めに
１ 本稿の課題
近世城下町の居住者集団は、おおまかには武家−町−寺院の三者に区分される。このうち研究の遅れが指摘されてきた武家集団も近年は多様な観点から考察が進められ、豊富な情報が蓄積された。しかし、そこでは専ら江戸の大名屋敷（藩邸）が対象であり、諸藩の城下町で家臣団が都市居住者として、どのよ
うに位置づけられ、いかなる性格を持っていたのかという問題は充分には解明されていない１。
筆者は先に福井藩の上水管理の実態を分析した。本稿では福井藩の家臣団を題材に、上水利用における違反行為の処罰を通じて都市居住者としての武家集団（家臣団）の性格とその変容を検討する２。上水は橋や街路と同じく、空間
１ 武家屋敷に関する研究には、武家屋敷の所有形態については宮崎勝美「江戸の武家屋敷地」（高橋康夫・吉田伸之編『日本都市史入門』第１巻 東京大学出版会 １９８９年）、
宗教的活動は吉田正高「江戸都市民の大名屋敷内鎮守への参詣行動」（『地方史研究』第
２
８
４号 ２
０
０
０年）
、都市公共施設の関連では岩淵令治「江戸武家方辻番の制度的検討」（『史学雑誌』第１０
２編３号 １９９３年）、総括的な研究としては宮崎勝美・吉田伸之編『武家屋敷』（山川出版社 １９９４年）や藤川昌樹「近世の武家屋敷と都市史研究」（都市史研
究会編『年報都市史研究 城下町の類型』山川出版社 １９９４年）など。
２ 拙稿「福井芝原上水の管理役職について」（『神戸大学史学年報』第１
３号 １
９
９
８年）
。
また江戸の上水と武家屋敷は拙稿「近世後期における江戸武家屋敷の上水・橋々組合について」（『歴史学研究』第６
８
２号 １
９
９
６年）
。福井藩に関する研究は舟沢茂樹「福井藩の卒族について」（『福井県地域史研究』第５号 １９７５年）、同「福井藩における士分の存在形態について」（『福井県地域史研究』第６号 １９７６年）、金井円「親藩の成立と構造」（『藩制成立期の研究』吉川弘文館 １９７５年）などを参照。また城下福井の都市構造は
松原信之「福井城下の町方支配と貢租・土地制度の諸問題について」（『福井県史研究』
第６号 １
９
８
９号）がある。

73

藤村

74

聡

的、あるいは身分的な差異を越えて城下全域を覆う重要な都市公共施設であり、上水利用に伴う事柄は家臣団だけでなく町にも共通し、同一の俎上で両者の対比が可能である。本稿は家臣団を対象にしつつ、必要に応じて町人と比較し、都市居住者としての家臣団の性格を考察したい。

２ 福井藩家臣団と芝原上水の概要
福井藩の石高（朱印高）の変遷は、初代藩主の結城秀康は越前一国６８万石を領有したものの、貞享３（１６８６）年には６代藩主の綱昌が改易されて同藩の石高は２５万石に減知された。その後、享保年間に３０万石に復領し、近世後期には３２万石で推移して維新を迎えた。また藩租秀康の血統は宝暦８（１７５８）年に１６歳で没した１１代藩主重昌で絶え、以後は将軍家一族から迎えた養子が藩主に就いている。
近世を通じた城下福井の人口推移の全貌は明らかでなく、断片的な数値を提示すると、町人は慶長年間に２５，２３１人、享保２（１７１７）年２１，
６２２人、天明５（１７８５）年２１，
５８９人、弘化４（１８４７）年に１９，７８９人であった。武家人口は貞享の半知により士卒２，
８６１家となったものの、嘉永５（１８５２）年には士卒３，６７３家に増加している。従って近世前期以降の城下人口は町人は若干の減少、武家は漸増傾向であり、全体的には横這い程度であったと推測される。
福井藩は弘化４（１８４７）年に領内人口を調査して「御国人別帳」を作成しており、城下人口の内訳が詳細に判明する。同史料から幕末期の城下人口を抽出し、また参考までに家臣団については嘉永５年の給帳から家数を加えて表１を作成した（卒族家臣のなかには在郷居住者がいるので、その分は除外している）。
「御国人別帳」の記載様式は例えば、
大御番組
上
下
〆

男

八百八人

女

八百六人

男

八拾五人

女

百五拾三人

千八百五拾弐人のように、家格別の集団ごとに集計されている。文中の「上」は当主（表の家数）と家族、「下」はその奉公人を示している。
福井藩の家臣団は、大きくは史料で「御侍」と呼ばれる士分家臣と、足軽などの卒族家臣に区分できる。最上級の士分家臣は国老という尊称を持つ本多内蔵助で、同家は武生に２万石を領有し、また江戸では幕府から屋敷を拝領するなど必ずしも福井藩の家臣団体制に包摂されない特殊な存在であった。ついで

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰
表１
身

分・家

格

家

上級士分家臣
内

75

弘化４（１
８
４
７）年の城下人口

単位：人

数

家族数 ［男／女］

７
１

３
４］ ２，
８
０
７［１，
４
８
９／１，
３
１
８］
４
４
５［ ２
１
１／ ２
５［

２／

３］ １，
３
３
３［ ６
９
１／ ６
４
２］

本多内蔵助

１

その他の門閥

７０

中級士分家臣：番士

６
０
１

４
３
７］
２，
９
２
４［１，
４
８
７／１，

下級士分家臣：新番以下

１
３
０

５
７
０［ ２
７
６／ ２
９
４］

士分家臣

８
０
２

卒族家臣

１，
８
９
８

奉公人 ［男／女］

４
４
０［ ２
０
９／ ２
４
７
４［ ７
９
８／ ６
３
１］ １，
７
６］
１
７］
５
１
８［ ２
０
１／ ３
１
２
７［

４
９／

７
８］

３，
９
３
９［１，
９
７
４／１，
９
６
５］ ３，
４
５
２［１，
７
３
９／１，
７
１
３］
４
３
２］
４，
９
８
４［２，
５
５
２／２，

３
９［

３／

３
６］

町人

− １
９，
７
８
９［９，
９
３
１／９，
８
５
８］

−

寺社

−

−

４
８
０［ ４
５
０／

３
０］

人口合計 ３２，
６８
３人 ［男１
６，
６
４
９人／女１
６，
０
３
４人］
［「御国人別帳」（『松平文庫』）福井県立図書館］

高知席（１６家）−高家（２家）−寄合席（３８家）−定番外席（１４家）と続き、この７１家が門閥とも呼ぶべき上級士分家臣である。中級の士分家臣は家臣団の中核である番士（６０１家）であり、下級士分家臣は新番（８１家）や医師等（４９家）で、士分家臣の合計は本多内蔵助を含めて８０２家である。与力や足軽などの卒族家臣は細かくは御目見得の資格を持つ者とそうでない者に分かれ、その総数は１，８９８家であった。
町人と寺社は「御国人別帳」では
足羽郡福井

町中・寺社・門前・借屋・地名子・地方男女当歳以上

一、男九千九百弐拾八人
一、女九千八百五拾三人
一、寺社四百四拾四人
内、社人四人一、尼三拾人〆弐万弐百五拾五人
内

三千弐百拾六人

地方と総数のみが記載されている。このほか城下の「御朱印地神明」に僧４名と社人２人のほか、男３人と女５人の計１４人が居住していた。これらの記載から城下町人は１９，７８９人、寺社は男４５０人と女３０人の合計４８０人であったことが判明する。史料では「地方」の人口も含まれているが、ここでの「地方」は城下周縁

藤村

76
表２

城下人口比率家

士 分 家 臣

聡

族

単位：人
奉

公

人

３，
９
３
９（１
２．
１）

３，
４
５
２（１
０．
６）

卒 族 家 臣

４，
９
８
４（１
５．
２）

３
９（ ０．
１）

町

人

１
９，
７
８
９（６
０．
５）

−

寺

社

４
８
０（ １．
５）

−

総計 ３
２，
６
８
３人
・（

）は総計にしめる％である。

で、実質的な城下域を意味している。また町人の記載では家族と奉公人は区分されておらず、これは両者の間に身分的差異がなかったためと判断される。
以上の数値を、表１に整理した。表１によれば、士分家臣の家族数の合計は
３，
９３９人で、その奉公人は３，４５２人である。ただし本多内蔵助の奉公人には、明らかに同家に仕える武士身分の陪臣を含み、同じく家禄が大きい高知席（最大４５００石）などの上級家臣の奉公人にも、若干の陪臣が存在すると思われる。ただし奉公人の大部分は屋敷内の雑労働に携わる雇用者で、その身分は町農民であったことは間違いない。奉公人数は家禄の多寡に比例し、本多内蔵助は１家で１，３３３人の奉公人を持ち、門閥７１家では奉公人は２，８０７人（１家平均４０人）である。しかし中下級の士分家臣では１家平均１人以下に激減し、卒族家臣では
１，８９８家に対して奉公人は３９人しかいない。
また家族規模を見ると、上級士分家臣は１家平均６．
３人である一方、中級士
分家臣は１家４．
９人、下級士分家臣は４．
４人、卒族家臣は２．
６人になっており、家禄の大きさと家族規模には比例関係が見受けられる。奉公人と寺社を除けば、それぞれの集団内の男女比には、それほどの相違は感じられない。
表２では、表１から身分別城下人口比率を算出した。幕末期城下の人口比率
は総計３２，
６８３人のうち、家臣団（士卒合計、当主と家族）は８，９２３人で城下人
口の２７．
３％、武家奉公人（士卒合計、一部に武士身分を含む）は３，
４９１人で１０．
７％、
そして町人が１９，７８９人で６０．
５％、寺社４８０人で１．
５％という構成であった。
これら約３万３千人が居住した福井城下に、飲料水や生活用水を供給したのが芝原上水である。芝原上水の創設時期はさだかでなく、近世初頭に国老本多富正が開鑿したともいわれる。芝原上水は九頭竜川の松岡大堰から、途中の村々に農業用水を分水しつつ約１０キロメートルを流れ、上流域では上水路に油絞りの水車が建てられたほか、川幅が広いので藩用木材の運搬水路としても使用された。そして城下入口の志比口で上水路は大きく２つの経路に分岐したのち、城下では毛細血管的に複数の上水路に分流して、城郭内はもちろん、各家臣の武家屋敷や町々を流れて飲料水や生活用水として利用された。
芝原上水は、江戸の上水道のような地中に埋設された暗渠ではなく、水面が福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰

77

露出した開渠である。取水口の松岡大堰から城下まで上水路の幅は３間であるが、城下では各所で分岐するごとに上水路の幅は狭められて末端では幅２尺になり、これは流速や流量を保つための工夫であったという。城下の上水路は武家屋敷地では街路の一方の端に、町地では街路の中央に設置され、武家屋敷地と町地では異なる景観を生んでいる。
多くの武家屋敷は「泉水」という屋敷前の上水路から水を引き込んで邸内を循環させる装置を持ち、泉水には再び水を上水路に戻す「元返シ」と屋敷裏の悪水に排出する「悪水落」という２種類があった。元返シと悪水落では泉水口
寸法に大小の違いを定めて取水量を調整している。
町地には「河戸」や「食水溜」と呼ばれる設備があり、前者は上水を汲むた
めに上水路に降りる石段、後者は水を汲み上げやすくする目的で水底に埋められた桶である。
芝原上水の管理は、上水奉行とその配下の長柄組足軽２名が担当したが、管理態勢の充実のために明和５（１７６８）年に数名在職していた目付から上水行政を専管する「上水掛目付」を１名選び、同人に目付組（史料では「組之者」と表記される）の足軽２名を付けて上水方の足軽を４名とした。上水掛目付は上
水奉行を指揮し、文化１０年に一旦廃止されたものの、上水利用に紊乱が生じたとして翌１１年には再設置された。
上水の管理制度は徐々に整備が進められ、特に明和５年と文化１１年には諸法令が出されるなど大きな変革が認められる。その際の変更は従来の政策の否定や根本的な方針転換ではなく、おおむね既に定着していた慣習の明文化や法令の遵守励行が中心であり、前例を踏襲し、その方向に則った強化策というべき性格が強い。
本稿が分析素材にした『上水掛御用留抜書』（以下『御用留』と略記）は、
嘉永元年に上水掛目付に就任した浅井政昭（八百里）が伝来の上水関係の諸文書を整理した編纂史料であり３、延宝３（１６７５）年から嘉永２（１８４９）年までの記事を収録する（嘉永２年以後も、別人の手で若干の記事が補足されている）。
浅井政昭は藩主慶永（春嶽）の側近で右筆や近習を歴任し、藩政改革を志した
有能な藩官僚であったが、嘉永２年に３７歳で急逝した。現在でも同人が編纂した藩政文書は『御用留』以外にも多く残っている。
『御用留』の内部は「上水掛旧例考」と「上水掛近例考」に大別され、さらに「旧例考」は延宝３年〜明和４（１７６７）年、明和５年〜文化１０（１８１３）年の２つの時期に区分される。明和４年までの記述はきわめて簡素で１年分は数行か、まったく記述がない年もあり、浅井政昭は特に目を惹いた事項のみ収録している。しかし明和５年以後は年ごとにページが割り付けられ、記事の内容と３ 『松平文庫』福井県立図書館蔵。本史料は冒頭と末尾の部分が『日本都市生活史料集

成』
（四

城下町編Ⅱ

学習研究社 １
９７６年）に翻刻されている。

藤村

78

聡

種類は急速に豊富になる。
文化年間には一時的に上水行政は混乱し、「旧例考」でも文化８年の部分は空白で、文化９年と同１０年の記事も数行にすぎない。しかし上水掛目付が再設置された文化１１年から史料名は「近例考」に変わり、史料が編集された嘉永年間に向かって記述は再び詳細になる。こうした『御用留』の構成と記事の精粗
さは、上水掛目付を基軸にした上水の管理制度の変化に照応したものと理解できる。
『御用留』の内容は、上水の管理役職の人事異動、取締の法令、処罰、補修
普請、水量分配の争論、城下一斉の清掃日などの社会的行事といった種々の事項を収録する。

Ⅱ 違反者の処罰
１ 取締の概要
芝原上水の最大の目的は、城下居住者に円滑かつ充分に上水を供給することであり、そのため藩は上水の汚濁や不当な取水を禁止する利用規定を設け、それに違反する行為を処罰した。
『御用留』の冒頭に収録された延宝３（１６７５）
年の達では「前々相触候通、弥上水へむさき物入間敷旨、下々江堅可申付候」とあり、ほかの年でも上水への汚物投棄や上水で手足などを洗うことを禁じた
触が頻出する。上水方に所属する数名の足軽は、毎日２回ほど城下を巡回し、違反者を摘発した。
明和５（１７６８）年７月には「上水之儀、御定法も有之候処、不参届儀も有之」として、上水奉行を始めとする上水方を専任で監督する上水掛目付１名が置かれた。また武家屋敷の泉水口寸法を厳格に規定し、屋敷前の上水路に堰石を埋めて取水量を増加させることを禁止した。同８月には上水方役人は各武家屋敷を廻って水口寸法を取り調べ、違反した屋敷主に是正を命じている。
それ以外に同年の改革では上水路幅の規定、過料銀の標準額設定、流死人の取扱い、上水路の浚いや制札場所の指定など、上水行政全般にわたって、上水の利用規範を強化している。
しかし現実には違反行為は跡を絶たず、『御用留』はそうした違反行為に対する多くの処罰記事を収録する。その一例を挙げる。
一、同廿八日御徒

丹羽与左衛門過料銀壱両
右之者上水を穢候を掛り之者見咎、相沢武兵衛へ申達、右之通申付候段相達候、

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰

79

表３ 身分別処罰数
期間（対応年数）

明和５（１
７
６
８）
年〜明和６（１
７
６
９）
年
明和７（１
７
７
０）
年〜安永３（１
７
７
４）
年
安永４（１
７
７
５）
年〜安永８（１
７
７
９）
年
安永９（１
７
８
０）
年〜天明４（１
７
８
４）
年
天明５（１
７
８
５）
年〜寛政元（１
７
８
９）
年
寛政２（１
７
９
０）
年〜寛政６（１
７
９
４）
年
寛政７（１
７
９
５）
年〜寛政１
１
（１
７
９
９）
年
寛政１
２
（１
８
０
０）
年〜文化元（１
８
０
４）
年
文化２（１
８
０
５）
年〜文化６（１
８
０
９）
年
文化７（１
８
１
０）
年〜文化１
０
（１
８
１
３）
年
上記期間の合計：
７
３件
文化１
１
（１
８
１
４）
年〜文政２（１
８
１
９）
年
文政３（１
８
２
０）
年〜文政７（１
８
２
４）
年
文政８（１
８
２
５）
年〜文政１
２
（１
８
２
９）
年
天保元（１
８
３
０）
年〜天保５（１
８
３
４）
年
天保６（１
８
３
５）
年〜天保１
０
（１
８
３
９）
年
天保１
１
（１
８
４
０）
年〜弘化元（１
８
４
４）
年
弘化２（１
８
４
５）
年〜嘉永元（１８４８）
年
上記期間の合計：
１
３
８件

町人
７
５
２
４
５
７
３
３

百姓
１
５
３
５
１
４

単位：件
卒族
家臣

武家
奉公人

２
１

２

士分
家臣

他
１

１
１
３

２

２

３

３
６
（４
９）１
９
（２
６）１
０
（１
４） ２
（ ３） ０（ ０） ６
（ ８）
１
２
２
３
６
３
１
２
１
９

７
５
３
４
４
１
１

２
２
２
２
５
４
８

１
１
２
２
１
２

１
１
１
１
３
１

２
１
２

５
７
（４
１）３
４
（２
５）２
５
（１
８） ９
（ ６） ８（ ６） ５（ ４）・本表の処罰数は件数である。
処罰１件で複数の人間が処罰されるケースがあるので、件数と処罰人数は必ずしも一致しない。
・（ ）は各期間内の合計数における％である。

これは文化１４年４月２８日の記事で、上水を汚濁した御徒（卒族家臣）の丹羽与左衛門に銀１両の過料銀を命じたという内容である。
処罰記事の大部分はこうした簡略な記述であり、また史料を編纂した浅井政昭（八百里）は、ありふれた違反は「度々之事故、一々不記之」と記載を省略する。しかし折に触れて「八百里案スルニ〜」と自身の論評を加えて前後の情況を明らかにするほか、処罰規定の変更や重要な処罰事例は遺漏なく収録しており、細かな数的変化の動向はともかく、処罰方針の長期的趨勢は充分に観察できる。
まずは被処罰者を、身分別に提示しておこう。明和５（１７６８）年から嘉永元（１８４８）年まで、被処罰者を身分別に区分したものが表３である。各期間は、できるだけ５年で区切り、文化１１年を画期としたので便宜的に年数を調節した箇所がある。前述のように文化年間は『御用留』自体の記載が乏しく、文化４年から同１０年まで処罰記事はない。記事のあり方が常態に復するのは、上水行政が改革されて、『御用留』も「旧例考」から「近例考」に代わる文化１１年からである。
この表から明和５年から文化１０年までの時期を観察すると、処罰件数の合計７３件で町人が３６件、百姓１９件、卒族家臣１０件、武家奉公人２件である。他６件は三上町官正院と西山光照寺などで、特に官正院の母は数度に亘って上水を汚

80

藤村

聡

して摘発されている。浅井政昭はすべての処罰事例を『御用留』に収録したわけではないので、その処罰件数は厳密とは言いがたい。しかし概数として処罰の傾向を把握することはできる。その観点から表を見れば、文化１１年以前の時
期では、処罰の大部分は町人と百姓であり、卒族家臣の処罰も多い。卒族家臣は一応は武士身分ではありながら、町人や百姓と同じく処罰対象に含まれていたことが判明する。
それとは異なり、士分家臣の処罰事例は、この時期には観察できない。また
武家奉公人の処罰も安永３（１７７４）年６月６日に上水に水をまいた江口次郎兵衛雇人幸七（過料銀３匁）と、同月１３日に上水に塵芥を掃き込んだ岡田藤兵衛
雇人与助（過料銀３匁）の２件にすぎず、武家奉公人の処罰も稀で、実質的に処罰されない存在になっている。屋敷主の江口次郎兵衛は享保期の給帳によれば、役番外御奉行で家禄２５０石の上級士分家臣であり、岡田藤兵衛は給帳では確認できないものの、その氏名の記載様式や、表１で明らかなように武家奉公人は僅かな例外を除いては士分家臣の屋敷に雇用された奉公人であったから、同人も士分家臣の武家屋敷に雇用された奉公人と推測される。
即ち文化１１年以前の時期では士分家臣本人（及びその家族）はもちろん、その屋敷に雇用された奉公人も処罰から除外され、士分家臣の屋敷が上水の利用規定に違反して処罰されることはなかったことが特徴であった。

２ 違反行為の内容
違反行為の内容は、城下では専ら上水の汚濁であった。
『御用留』に収録された違反行為の規定は、前出の延宝３（１６７５）年の汚物投棄の禁令が初出であり、その後の記事では上水路での洗濯、水浴、野菜洗い、魚洗い、心太や割竹の漬け込み等々が摘発されている。ただし同地方は冬季には生鮮食料品が不足する豪雪地帯であり、城下では食糧確保のために初冬に上水路を使用した「大根洗」が許された。
一、十一月五日、御城下上水筋大根洗相済候ニ付、例年之通清浚申付為致掃
除候段、掛り之者申聞候、これは天保１０（１８３９）年の記事である。通常は上水路における野菜の洗浄は厳禁であったものの、冬を迎える直前に上水路で大根（漬物用と推測される）を洗うことを許可し、その終了後に各町に上水路の掃除を命じている。
「大根洗」の記事は各年の１１月頃に散見され、初冬の城下を彩る年中行事であった。
城下の違反行為の実態は、高札からも読み取れる。幕末期には２９本の高札が城下の所々に立てられ、上水路での水浴、汚水の流入、塵芥の投棄、材木運搬を禁止しており、ともすれば、そうした行為が上水路で行なわれたことを示し福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰81ている。藩が設置した高札以外に、寛政８年４月に油町尾崎長左衛門は「夜分等ニ到候而ハ、猥ニこみ等捨候故」と自分の屋敷周辺で夜間に塵芥を投棄する者がおり、注意喚起のために附書札の設置を願って「自分建札」の許可を得た。
種々の記事を見るかぎり、違反行為の内容には近世を通じて時期的変化は認められない。
村方では盗水（規定以上の取水）や無届けの堰普請、上水路土手の植付けや伐採、筏流しなどである。芝原上水は城下域外では農業用水として機能し、城下周辺の５３村（約４万石）に用水を供給した。そのため渇水時には農業用水と城下への上水の分配をめぐる対立が発生し、大きな騒擾につながることもあった。文化１４（１８１７）年夏に城下の渇水を解消するため、藩は上水源流の彦右衛門川を掘削したところ、農業用水が不足したとして周辺農村の数百人が彦右衛
門川を再び埋め直すという騒擾が発生した。このときは村々を扇動した下森田
村湯番麻右衛門が居村三里四方を追放され、また騒擾に加わった２８村が詫書を提出している。
こうした城下周辺農村が引き起こす騒擾に対しては、藩は農業用水を犠牲にしても、城下の飲料水を確保する方針を堅持している。城下への上水と農業用水が不足した弘化３（１８４６）年５月、城下周辺５３村は用水奉行に堀川（掘削）を願い出て、家老は用水奉行管轄で堀川を許可した。しかし、それに対して上
水奉行は口上書で次のように反論している。
元上水口堀川之儀ハ、古来 上水渇水之節ハ上水方 夫々御達申上候而堀川
被仰付候得共、其節村々江人足等申付堀立候儀ニ御座候、此度村方之願ニ依
而堀川被仰付候節ハ、愈以上水掛り用水之方重ニ相成、第一御城掛り御城下
食水等ハ次之様ニ相成候而ハ不相済候、即ち従来は堀川は上水奉行の管轄であり、それを用水方が担当したのでは城下への上水よりも農業用水のほうが優先されることになると危惧し、史料では続いて、今回の堀川は一旦用水方に許可したものの、上水方へも下命し、用水方と上水方の双方が担当するように変更を求めた。このときの家老の裁定は不明
であるものの、弘化３年１２月に作成されて上水奉行の職権範囲や上水管理の諸事項を定めた「上水奉行勤向之覚」には、城下飲料水と農業用水の位置づけが明文化されている。
一、四月頃

九月頃迄上水 分水仕候而、用水ニ仕候村方五十三ケ村斗御座候、此高四万石余ニ御座候ニ付、割合を以用水へ分水仕候、且又上水渇水仕、御城下食水指支之節ハ、右用水口歩留仕、其上ニも食水指支ニ相成候得ハ皆留ニ仕候而、御城下之食水指支不仕様取扱申候、右口留之節ハ御目付組御長
柄之者、毎日為相廻申候、

82

藤村

聡

芝原上水は春から秋まで石高４万石の５３村に農業用水として分水された。しかし城下が渇水した際にはそれぞれの用水を減水し（時間制や取水の堰板を用いて用水量を調整した）、城下の渇水が深刻になった場合には完全に農業用水を差し止めると規定している。芝原上水は城下への飲料水供給が最優先の使命
であり、農業用水は副次的な位置に留め置かれた。
本来は村方の用水は藩の用水奉行が管轄するはずにもかかわらず、城下域外に居住して農業用水として利用する百姓に対しても、上水方が処罰の権限を持ち、そのため表３で見られるように多数の百姓が上水方の手で処罰されたと考えられる。

３ 処罰の諸手段
違反行為にはその重軽に応じて、様々な処罰が課せられた。最も厳しい処罰
は元禄１０（１６９７）年９月、多賀谷権太夫が召使う小坊主が摘発された事例である。史料の原文を掲示する。
多賀谷権太夫召仕之小坊主、去頃門前之川ニ網を構申候、依之、右之小坊主
ハ未幼少之者事ニ候間其通ニ候、網貸候者不届ニ付、権太夫へ被下置候、権太夫遠慮之儀ハ御免被遊候旨、但追而右網貸候家来、権大夫於下屋敷成敗、
多賀谷権太夫は寄合席に所属する家禄１３００石の上級家臣である。このとき上水路で網漁をした小坊主は幼少ということで処罰はされず、また権太夫も遠慮などの処分は受けなかったが、小坊主に網を貸した家来は権太夫の下屋敷で成敗された。上水関連で死罪になった唯一の事例であるが、その執行は藩によるものではなく、多賀谷権太夫の私的な手討ちと解釈される。
城下追放も、寛政４（１７９２）年３月に浚い不埒のうえ上水方役人に暴言した
町人１名の事例がある。ほかには利用施設の没収があり、例えば魚町寄合の大河戸があった一条町（町地）で「度々上水を穢候体見受候得共、組之者相咎候
得ハ逃去、行衛相知レ不申、其上河戸ニ捨物等有之」と上水方役人が上水を汚す者を捕らえようとしたところ、違反者は逃走して摘発できなかった。同所を管理するはずの一条町は、その河戸は元来は魚町のもので責任を負えないと上
水方役人に回答したため、藩は天保元（１８３０）年５月に該当の大河戸の閉鎖を命じている（同年９月に魚町が詫書を提出して、再使用が許された）。
しかし、以上のような処罰は稀であり、一般的な違反行為は「押込」
「過料
銀」
「一札」
「叱り」が科せられた。これらの多くは単独で、場合によっては「押込のうえ過料銀」「過料銀と一札」などと組み合わせて執行された。
このうち押込は、特に悪質な違反に適用された処罰手段である。時期は下がるが、押込の典型的記事を挙げよう。

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰

83

一、同廿三日
押込五日

餌刺町

桶屋惣九郎

右之者上水を穢候を十郎兵衛見咎候処、再三相詫候得共、此者儀ハ毎度之儀ニ而、先年も過料銀被仰付候者ニ付、伺之上右之通申付之、これは弘化３（１８４６）年１０月２３日の記事である。上水を汚濁した餌刺町桶屋
惣九郎を上水奉行横山十郎兵衛が摘発し、同人は再犯であるので過料銀ではな
く押込に科している。再三の違反や違反の度合いが深刻な者、あるいは摘発時に上水方役人に過言を申した者などが押込を命じられた。後出の表７で明らかなように文化１０年以前の押込４０件の被処罰者の内訳は町人２２件、百姓９件、卒族家臣７件などで、士分家臣や武家奉公人を押込にした事例はない。
近世前期以来、過料銀の徴収が最も一般的な処罰手段であった。延宝３（１６７５）年、家老は上水に汚物を投棄した者には過料銀を科すように上水方に命じ、また享保２（１７１７）年８月に評定留を監査した藩主は、次のごとく上水奉行を訓戒した。
上水奉行織田藤左衛門、最前御役儀被仰付候砌ハ、過料銀抔取改様入念候様ニ相見得候処、此間者過料銀取候沙汰も無之、上水不沙汰ニ成候様ニ御聞被
成候間、仲ケ間申談、藤左衛門ニ油断不仕様可申聞旨御意ニ付、右之趣仲ケ
間申談、藤左衛門へ申聞候、即ち上水奉行織田藤左衛門は、就任当初は入念に過料銀を徴収したものの、近頃は過料銀の取扱いが少なく、一層の精勤を督励している。通常の違反行為は過料銀で対処され、明和５（１７６８）年の上水行政の改革に際して、過料銀額の基準が定められた。
一、上水相穢候者過料之儀、都而銀三匁ツゝ取之、八百里案スルニ、当子年 以後連年は右之趣ニ相見候、尤其科ニ依而
五匁拾匁以上過料申付候儀も後々ハ有之、乍去何様之穢方と申事多分
認無之ニ付、一々ハ不記之、
この達で過料銀を銀３匁とすることが定められたものの、実際の処罰記事を検討すると、浅井政昭（八百里）が添書で述べるように寛政年間から銀５匁、銀７匁、銀１０匁という銀額が頻出する。過料銀３匁はあくまで標準額であり、例えば文政９（１８２６）年１０月３日、三上町吉田屋惣八は「妻儀毎度上水を穢候
得共、過料銀も難差出者ニ付町役人呼付、叱ニ而内済」と経済的に困窮した者であることを考慮し、過料銀を免じて叱りで済ませている。過料銀は違反内容の軽重を基本にしつつ被処罰者の内情を斟酌し、柔軟に対応して決められたと

84

藤村

聡

考えられる。

Ⅲ 幕末期の変化
１ 文化１
１年の改革
文化１１（１８１４）年、藩は上水行政の改革を布達した。同年５月２９日の記事によれば、
一、同廿九日、此度上水御吟味改而被仰出候ニ付、明和五子年改而立岩平右衛門へ被仰出候留書之内、御触面文段少々引直し、尤御定法書等相添、御家中并町奉行へ可相達哉と御触案文を以、御家老中へ相伺候処、其通差出候様
大谷丹下方差図有之ニ付、六月四日左之通差出之、
ここで明らかなように文化１１年の改革は、基本的に明和５（１７６８）年の改革を踏襲したものであった。６月４日には家中と町方に触書が出され、その冒頭に「上水川筋之儀、御定法も有之候処、近来猥成趣相聞候ニ付、此度改而御吟味被仰出候」と述べる。即ち上水の定法が近来は等閑にされており、弛緩した現状の引締めが目的であった。具体的な内容は、前年に一旦廃止した上水掛目付の再設置、利用規則の遵守徹底、各武家屋敷の泉水改め、生け簀改め、川縁
吟味、過料銀や押込規定の改定、上水路の浚い、普請担当役職の権限の調整などである。
詳細な実情は不明であるものの、前述のように文化年間を迎えると『御用留』の記述は急激に減り、また上水掛目付が廃止されるなど上水行政全般に混乱が生じており、それが文化１１年の改革を必要にしたと思われる。
文化年間に、上水行政が著しく混乱した理由は明らかでない。しかし藩内部の実態を記した史料によれば、同時期の家臣団体制が著しく紊乱していた情況が窺われる。
「米価安・諸色高」の物価趨勢や借知（給禄の削減）によって近世中後期に諸藩の家臣団が経済的困窮に陥っていたことは多くの論考が指摘するが、福井藩では宝暦１１（１７６１）年に給禄を５０％削減する半知が始まり（同１３年まで）、
安永元（１７７２）年以降は連年に亘って半知と八分減（給禄８％削減）が交互に実施された。慢性的な借知に家臣団の不満はつのり、文化２（１８０５）年には藩政を揺るがす前代未聞の大事件が発生している。
文化２年１１月、家臣団の中核で中下級の士分家臣で構成される番組一統（主に大番組と新番組が該当し、士分家臣約８００家のうち６８０家程度が所属する）は、連年の借知で貧窮が耐え難いので格別の手当を支給するか、御役銀等の上納を免除することを藩に願い出た。寛政年間には７ケ年という、それまでにない長福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰

85

期の半知を強いられたのち、直前の享和年間にも２ケ年の半知が施行されたば
かりで、家臣団が厳しい困窮にあったことは疑う余地はない。
しかし藩は番組一統の要求を却下したため、番組一統は「当暮餅搗不申、来春年礼相勤不申、門外礼式之餝不致」４と恒例の年礼をボイコットしたのみな
らず、頻繁に大寄を開催して公然と反抗的態度を示威した。事態の深刻さに驚いた藩政首脳は江戸在府の藩主に急報し、藩主は説諭書で御手当を約束して慰撫に努め、ようやく騒動は沈静化された。翌年６月には大番組と新番組の首謀者１９名が処罰されたものの、切腹や追放などの厳科に処せられた者はおらず、最も重くて家禄削減にすぎない。この騒動のせいか、以後２０年間の借知は八分減に据え置かれ、文政７年まで半知は施行されなかった。
おそらく、この紛擾は家臣団の不満が表面化したごく一部にすぎず、藩財政の窮乏化と共に、当時の家臣団体制は激しく動揺していたと考えられる。文化
末年に実行された上水行政の刷新は、そうした藩体制の建直しの一環であった可能性が大きい。

２ 処罰範囲の拡大
文化１１年の上水仕法の改革は基本的に明和５年に達せられた定法を踏襲し、その遵守を企図したものであったが、『御用留』の諸記事からは、改革の達書で明示された以外の運用情況や、あるいはそこから逸脱した様々な変化が観察できる。本節では、そうした幕末期（便宜的に本稿では、化政期以降を幕末期と表現した箇所がある）の上水行政を検討する。
最大の変化は、処罰範囲の拡大である。藩は明らかに処罰範囲を拡大する方針をとり、それまで処罰されなかった士分家臣やその武家奉公人も処罰を受けるようになった。
前述したように、家臣団のなかでも御徒や下代といった卒族家臣は、町人と同様の処罰対象であった。
その一方で、化政期以前に処罰を受けた士分家臣は皆無である（寛政３年に行政事務の齟齬のために御奉行織田甚兵衛が処罰された事例があるものの、これは本稿が扱う上水利用における違反行為ではない）。士分家臣の処罰記事がまったく記載されていないことは、史料編纂者の浅井政昭の恣意的な操作によるものとは考えがたく、実際に処罰された士分家臣が存在しなかったことに基因し、その背景には士分家臣を卒族家臣や町人とは異なる存在と見なして、同列には扱わないという封建的身分秩序意識があったと判断される。しかし、そうした士分家臣も表３で見たように文化１１年から嘉永元年までには、８件の士分家臣（家族を含む）の処罰記事が収録されている。また武家奉公人は安永３年
４ 「続片聾記」

藤村

86
表４
処罰年月

氏

名

文政５年５月 松原伝五右衛門
柳下勘七
〃
鈴木作大夫
８．３
天保元．１
２ 松村市内
小野庄助
８．６
野村要助
１
３．９
三好久左衛門
１
４．６
大野勝次郎
８
鈴木作大夫
弘化３．８

聡

士分家臣の被処罰者
家 禄

所

属

２
０，４
２
５，４
１
８，３
１
５，３
２
０，３
２
０，４
１
８，３

大番組
書院番
大番組
新番組
大番組
大番組
無役留守番組
大番組
１
８，３ 大番組

処罰内容

処罰理由

内聞済
〃
過料銀１両
過料銀３匁
過料銀２両
過料銀１
０匁
過料銀１両
過料銀５匁
過料銀５匁

倅が水浴
〃
母が穢し
妻が穢し
穢し
養子が穢し
普請違反
妻が穢し

・家禄の「x,y」は、「切米 x 石、y 人扶持」を表わす。大野勝次郎の家禄は不明。
・各人の家禄及び所属・役職は『御用留』のほか、天保年間や嘉永年間の給帳による。
・文政５年５月の松原伝五右衛門と柳下勘七は同一件である。

の２件の処罰記事以外には記載がなく、実質的に処罰対象から忌避されていたが、文化１１年以降には９件の記事がある。
このように士分家臣と武家奉公人が処罰されるようになったことが、幕末期の最大の特色である。
まずは士分家臣の処罰を検討しよう。
処罰された８件９人の士分家臣を表４にまとめた。士分家臣の初めての処罰
記事は文政５年５月、酒井外記下屋敷前の上水路で水浴した柳下勘七と松原伝
五右衛門両人の子息を上水方役人が摘発したという事例である。
一、同晦日

伝五右衛門忰
勘七忰

松原伝次郎

柳下兵吉

右両人酒井外記下屋敷向上水ニ而、水をあび居候処、掛り之者見咎、名元承候ニ付、相沢武兵衛へ相達候処、先此度ハ内分ニ而指置候も可然与申聞候由、追而伝五右衛門挨拶ニ罷越候由、文中の相沢武兵衛は当時の上水奉行で、上水掛目付に内済に処すように上申した。このときは内聞済として違反者両人は実質的な処罰は受けなかったものの、本件は士分家臣（正しくはその家族）が摘発された初めての事例である。
続いて文政８年３月には、鈴木作大夫が過料銀１両を命じられ、
天保８年６月の小野庄助の処罰記事には「来栖庄右衛門見咎如此（中略）、上水奉行直ニ見咎候而之取扱も、庄右衛門勤中

初而御用留ニ相見得候」という添書があり、士分家臣の摘発には上水奉行来栖庄右衛門が自ら乗り出し、士分家臣の処罰に藩は強い意思で臨んでいたことを示している。
被処罰者の内訳は、家臣団の中核である大番組が６人、書院番・無役留守番組・新番組が１人ずつで、その家禄は最高でも２５石４人扶持の切米取で、被処福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰
表５
年 月

被 処 罰

87

武家奉公人の被処罰者

者

安永３年６月 江口次郎兵衛雇人幸七
岡田藤兵衛雇人与助〃
石井甚平家来次助
文化１
１．７
金子十郎助家来弥吉
文政５．６
平山貞蔵家来天保元．５
赤尾久太郎雇男
８中山忠兵衛家来
９．７
関勇右衛門家来〃
安部駒吉家来７
小栗助七家来喜八
１２．８
狛帯刀中間十平
弘化２．５
数賀山彦右衛門下女
嘉永元．６

屋敷主
家 禄

屋 敷
主家格

処罰内容

処罰理由

過料銀３匁
過料銀３匁
２
０，３ 留守番組 過料銀３匁
過料銀３匁
１
０
０ 大番組
押込２日
御外科
過料銀１
０匁
１
５，３ 御徒１
００ 末之番外 過料銀２両
過料銀５匁
１８，３ 新番組，５ 書院番
押込７日
２
０
０ 大番組
叱り
１
６
０
０ 高知席
過料銀３匁
１
０
０ 書院番

穢し
穢し
穢し
穢し
穢し
梯流し
仮橋設置
〃
待網
穢し
穢し
穢し

２
５
０ 役番外

・屋敷主家禄の「x,y」は、「切米 x 石、y 人扶持」を表わす。その他は石単位の知行高である。
・屋敷主の家禄及び家格は『御用留』のほか、天保年間や嘉永年間の給帳による。
・赤尾久太郎は卒族家臣、その他の屋敷主は士分家臣である。ただし岡田藤兵衛は当該期の給帳に見出せず士卒家録が判明しないほか、平上貞蔵の家禄は不明。
・天保９年７月の中山家来と関家来は同一件である。

罰者は中下級の士分家臣であった。家族が違反行為の当事者であっても、処罰が申し渡されるのは屋敷主の士分家臣であり、また処罰手段は専ら過料銀で、押込等の厳罰は科せられていない。
士分家臣と共に、文化１１年から処罰対象には武家奉公人が含まれるようになった（正確には安永３年６月に武家奉公人の処罰が２件あるが、これは例外的事例と思われる）。安永３年から嘉永元年までに処罰された１
１件１２人の武家奉公人が表５である。この表で見るように、「家来」「雇男」「中間」「下女」などの奉公人が、主に上水の穢しを理由に押込・過料銀・叱りに処せられた。彼らを雇用する屋敷主は御徒（卒族家臣）１件と不明１件を除いて士分家臣であり、それも大番組や新番組の中級家臣だけでなく、家禄百石以上の屋敷主も多く、家老に次ぐ家格である高知席の上級家臣も含まれる。
また後出の表６で観察できるように、嘉永２（１８４９）年の１年間に徴収された過料銀２９件には士分家臣の奉公人が４件あり、そこには寄合席に所属する家
禄４００石の波々伯部熊蔵や同３５０石の西尾久作の奉公人が含まれ、上級の士分家
臣の奉公人も日常的に処罰を受けたことが判明する。
武家奉公人の処罰が、直ちに屋敷主の処罰を意味するわけではない。自分の屋敷の奉公人が処罰されても、その屋敷主の上級士分家臣には何の制裁もなく、形式上であっても処罰を申し渡されて過料銀を負担し、あるいは押込められるのは違反行為の当事者の奉公人であった。もっとも多数の奉公人を抱える上級士分家臣の屋敷で、屋敷主本人やその家族が塵芥等を処理して上水路を汚濁する機会があったとは考えがたく、上水汚濁が理由の違反行為で上級の士分家臣

藤村

88

聡

が処罰される局面は、現実的には皆無であった。
しかし、それまで処罰されなかった上級士分家臣の屋敷における違反行為も摘発されるようになったことの意義は大きい。藩は違反行為の実行者のみを処罰し、屋敷主の上級士分家臣は処罰しないことで、巧みにすべての武家屋敷を処罰の枠内に置き、身分の高下の差異なく武家屋敷の違反行為を処罰対象に囲い込んだといえる。

３ 処罰手段の改定
文化１１（１８１４）年の改革では、処罰規定が変更された。まずは処罰に際しての手続きの簡略化が指摘できる。同年６月４日の達では、一、過料之儀、前々之儀令吟味候処、過料銀申付候上押込等申付候得共、同役談之上、此度

制札之表之通過料銀取之、押込ハ不申付候事、尤仕儀ニ寄、咎候節過言等ニ而も申候歟、或ハ壱人ニ而毎度上水穢候歟之節ハ押込等ニも可申付事、猶其節之模様次第之事、八百里案スルニ、是迄ハ押込ハ勿論、過料等ニ而も毎分御家老中へ相伺
得差図候上申付候趣ニ候得共、此度 以来一通り咎候儀、御家老中へ相伺候儀相止、
従来は過料銀に加えて押込を命じる場合もあったが、これからは押込は極力抑制するという方針がとられている。明らかに藩は体刑から経済的制裁への移行を指向しているものの、ただし事情によっては押込に処すと附言する。実際に後出の表７で判明するように押込は杜絶していない。また、この記事では浅井政昭の添書に注目したい。即ち、これまでは過料銀や押込を科すときは家老への伺いが必要であったものの、以後は家老への伺いは無用とされた。そして
弘化３（１８４６）年１０月には上水方内部で「同役評議之上、以後左之通致内定置候事」と処罰手続きを再度改定し、そこではさらに規定は詳細になり、かつ手
続きは簡略になった。
一、御扶持人以上御家中家来共押込相伺候節ハ、同役評議之上及差図、追而
御家老中江可致御物語事、一、町人百姓押込相伺候節ハ、同役評議之上致差図、御家老中ヘハ不及御物
語事、一、過料銀相伺候時ハ、都而即刻可致差図事、御扶持人（卒族家臣）や武家奉公人を押込に処すときは家老に事後報告する
ものの町人や百姓の押込は報告せず、また過料銀は上水方内部で判断し直ちに

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰
表６
月 日

89

嘉永２（１
８
４
９）年の過料銀徴収［身分］被処罰者［屋敷主］［町］下谷町庄屋 青木清一郎母［町］南横町 肴屋与一郎家来［奉］脇田奥右衛門雇之者［士分家臣，１００石］［町］田原町 鍛冶屋次郎右衛門家内［町］万町 古木屋文大夫［不明］与力町 小路清順家内［町］志比口筏町 大文字屋伝六妻［町］小野田町 大工文右衛門［町］三橋 中村屋元八倅茂太郎［町］柳町 わたや十助［町］柳町 金ものや善八妻［町］夜廻町新町 多葉粉や猪右衛門［奉］屋代源五右衛門下女［卒族家臣か］［町］一乗町 吉田幸庵同居之女［町］下油町 笠屋忠蔵妻［奉］笹川藤内家来［士分家臣，１００石］［奉］西尾久作家来［士分家臣，３５０石］［奉］安井藤大夫雇女［卒族家臣か］［奉］波々伯部熊蔵家来［士分家臣，４００石］［町］清源寺町植木や留蔵借家 門蔵妻［町］御堂町 大野や喜右衛門母［卒］忍組山本裕次郎母［卒］御先物頭武曽大夫組 山本善十郎［奉］
菅沼市左衛門家来春助［士分家臣，１５人扶持］［町］餌指町 八百屋長蔵娘［町］松本西中町 福島屋藤蔵妻
［町］一乗町 吉村屋茂三郎
１２．１
２ ［町］寺崎町 綿屋六右衛門
１
２．１
３ ［町］寺崎町 川北屋惣十郎

１．２
７
〃
４．２
２
５．１
１
５．１
２
７．１
７．７
７．３
１
〃
８．１
〃
８．４
８．３
８．６
８．９
８．１
５
９．１
５
９．２
９
〃
９．３
０
〃
１
０．１
１
０．１
２
１
０．１
３
１
０．１
４
１
０．１
５

銀額
５ 匁
３
１
５
１
６
１．
８
４．
３
１
０
２
０
３
３
３
３
２
０
２
０
４．
３
５
５
４．
３
５
８．
３
８．
６
５
４．
３
４．
３
３
８．
６
５
８．
６
８．
６

罪

状

芋子洗い
小鰈洗い
木枝投棄
度々穢し
砂揚げ
洗濯
米洗など
泥水流し
鍋洗い
小桶洗い
重箱洗い
飯櫃洗い
着類洗濯
洗濯
花流し
草刈り込み
塵掃き込み
大根洗い
塵掃き込み
大根洗い
鍋漬かす
菜洗い、不埒
絹糸洗い
大根葉洗い
板洗い
大根葉入れ
洗い
雪入れ、不埒
〃・［ ］のうち［町］は町人、［奉］は武家奉公人、［卒］は卒族家臣である。

処分することを決めた。このように上水方の裁量は拡大され、同時に処罰手続
きは簡略化される方向にあった。
続いて、各処罰手段の執行情況を検討しよう。主要な処罰手段である過料銀
は、文化１１年に次のように再規定された。
一、過料銀之事、左之通相定之、町方至而軽キ者ハ、銀三匁ツゝ前々之通取之、御家中家来共、右同断、御足軽之儀ハ、銀壱両 四匁三分也

取之、

ここで被処罰者は、町人（「町方至而軽キ者」）・武家奉公人（「御家中家来」）
・卒族家臣（「御足軽」）に区分されており、前二者は銀３匁で同額、その単位

藤村

90

聡

は一般的に使用される「銀匁」であった。しかし卒族家臣には「銀両」という特殊な単位が用いられ、その換算銀額は銀１両＝銀４匁３分で、町人や武家奉
公人よりも高めに設定されている。同年７月１８日には、妻が上水を穢した堀平
大夫組荒井弥大夫に過料銀１両が命じられ、「銀両」という単位が現実に適用されたことが確認できる。こうした措置は、前述のように文化初年の家臣団の動揺が背後にあり、上水行政においても身分差を強調することで卒族家臣の統制強化を計ったのではないかと推測されるものの、史料的制約のために内実はさだかでない。
しかし文化１１年に導入された「銀両」という身分区分を強調する適用は、間もなく放棄された模様である。
一、十二月十二日

長谷部小右衛門組

石田勝蔵

上水穢候ニ付、過料銀三匁
八百里案ルニ文化十一戌年之定ニハ、組之者過料ハ銀壱両と申定之処、此節ニ而ハ定法も崩候哉如何、
これは文政３（１８２０）年１２月、長谷部小右衛門組石田勝蔵が上水穢しで過料
銀３匁を命じられた記事であり、そこで浅井政昭は「文化十一戌年之定ニハ、組之者過料ハ銀一両と申定之処、此節ニ而ハ定法も崩候哉」と添書する。この後も銀両単位の過料銀は観察できるものの、文化１１年から嘉永元（１８４８）年まで過料銀９１件のうち、銀両単位は町人９件、百姓３件、士卒家臣９件、寺１件で各身分が混在している。逆に銀両でなく銀匁単位で家臣から過料銀を徴収した事例も多く、過料銀額の単位に身分的区別を設ける試みは、導入後にほどなく挫折したことが判明する。
また文化１１（１８１４）年の規定では、被処罰者は町人・武家奉公人・卒族家臣の三者で、そこに士分家臣は入っていない。しかし士分家臣の処罰を整理した
前出の表４で明らかなように、天保期以降には６名の士分家臣が過料銀を科せられている。
前述のように『御用留』はすべての処罰や過料銀徴収を記録しているわけではないが、嘉永２（１８４９）年は正月２７日から１２月１３日まで１年間の過料銀徴収を記録しており、それを表６にまとめた。同年の過料銀徴収は２９件、その内訳
は士分家臣の奉公人が５件、卒族家臣が２件（ほかにその奉公人と推測される者が２件）、残りは町人である。武家奉公人の屋敷主は波々伯部熊蔵（家禄４００石）や西尾久作（家禄３５０石）など上級の士分家臣も含まれている。銀額単位に「銀両」は使用されておらず、すべて「銀匁」である。ただし銀１両と同額の銀４匁３分（あるいは倍額の銀８匁６分）が９件あるものの、それは町人５件、士分家臣の奉公人１件、卒族家臣とその奉公人と推測される者が２件で適用に身分の違いはない。また当初は家臣団の過料銀は町人と比較して、やや高福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰
表７

身分別の押込み

単位：件

町人

百姓

卒族
家臣

明和５（１
７
６
８）
年〜安永８（１
７
７
９）
年
安永９（１
７
８
０）
年〜寛政元（１
７
８
９）
年
寛政２（１
７
９
０）
年〜寛政１
１
（１
７
９
９）
年
寛政１
２
（１
８
０
０）
年〜文化１
０
（１
８
１
３）
年

８
４
６
４

２
２
３
２

２
２
１
２

文化１
１
（１
８
１
４）
年〜文政７（１
８
２
４）
年
文政８（１
８
２
５）
年〜天保５（１
８
３
４）
年
天保６（１
８
３
５）
年〜嘉永元（１
８
４
８）
年

３
３
１
０

４

期

間

91

（対応年数）

７

武家
奉公人

士分
家臣

他
１
１
１

４

１
１

く設定されたが、嘉永２年の過料銀徴収では身分と銀額に関連性は見られず、あくまで罪科の軽重が銀額の決定要因であったと思われる。
こうした処罰における身分的差異の縮小は、「一札」でも観察できる。過料
銀と押込に関しては、家老への報告の有無は別として、卒族家臣と町人百姓は同じく処罰されるべき存在であり、過料銀は文化１１年の規定で両者の区別が強調されたものの、すぐに形骸化した。押込は表７である。押込の身分別の被処
罰者数を表７で観察すると、文化１１年以前も以後でも卒族家臣は町人や百姓と同様に押込に処され、三者に差異は見られない。
しかし一札では事情は異なる。次の史料は天保８（１８３７）年９月、違法な普請をした卒族家臣に過料銀２０匁と一札の提出を命じた記事である。
一、同十三日

生駒五左衛門下代

横山千左衛門

一札取置、過料銀二拾匁
右之者、去ル六月十五日地蔵町地蔵堂裏ニ先年地蔵高御膳水とか申水口樋有之而、近年潰切ニ相成来候処、何方へも不相達手侭ニ堀立、泉水へ掛申所存ニ而致引水候を相咎候処、度々相詫候ニ付情愍を以、右之通上水奉行へ一札取、過料ニ而相済候旨、八百里案スルニ御扶持人 一札取候儀珍敷事ニ候故、相記置之、近来断水していた水口樋を勝手に堀立て利用した横山千左衛門という卒族家臣が摘発され、過料銀２０匁の徴収に加えて一札を上水奉行に提出させたという内容である。ここでは特に添書に注目したい。浅井政昭は「御扶持人 一札取候儀珍敷事ニ候」と述べ、同時期以前には卒族家臣（「御扶持人」）の一札提出はなかったことが読み取れる。天保中期に藩の取扱いが変化したことが想定され、従って便宜上、一札については天保中期を画期として検討しよう。
一札に関しては、表８で見るように『御用留』では天明元年から嘉永元年まで２８件の記事があり、天保５年までの１５件は町人３件、百姓１１件で、いくぶん百姓が多く感じられる。諸記事から判断すれば、過料銀や押込を命じるには及ばない比較的軽微な違反者に一札が科せられ、多くは内済で許された。被処罰

藤村

92

聡

表８ 身分別の一札処分
期間（対応年数）

町人

百姓

単位：件
卒族
家臣

明和５（１
７
６
８）
年〜安永８（１
７
７
９）
年
安永９（１
７
８
０）
年〜寛政元（１
７
８
９）
年
寛政２（１
７
９
０）
年〜寛政１
１
（１
７
９
９）
年
寛政１
２
（１
８
０
０）
年〜文化１
０
（１
８
１
３）
年
文化１
１
（１
８
１
４）
年〜文政７（１
８
２
４）
年
文政８（１
８
２
５）
年〜天保５（１
８
３
４）
年

４
（４）
２
（１）
１
（０） １
（１）
２
（２） ２
（２）
２
（０）

天保６（１
８
３
５）
年〜嘉永元（１
８
４
８）
年

５
（０） ４
（２） ４
（０）

・
（

武家
奉公人

士分
家臣

他

１
（０）

）
は処罰対象が町、あるいは村の件数である。

者に注目すると、特に百姓の処罰において、一札の提出者は個々の百姓ではなく村（あるいはその代表者である村役人）であり、天保６年以前の百姓１１件では８件が新保村、間島村、組合３３村庄屋共などで、個人は３件にすぎない。町も同様の傾向が見受けられる。専ら一札は個人よりも、町や村といった団体の責任を問う処罰手段であったと理解できる。
多くの記事では一札自体の文面は不明であるが、文政元（１８１８）年５月２０日に松本地方志比口町庄屋（福井藩では町役人も「庄屋」と呼称された）清助に「水汲河戸之儀ニ付不届之儀有之、相咎候処、日々相詫候ニ付上水奉行宅へ召呼、一札取置」という記事では、その時に提出された一札も収録している。
差上申一札之事
一、私町内新宅弐人之者共、河戸二ツ御願申上候処、願之通被仰付難有仕合奉存候、然処御太切之御上水ニ御座候得ハ、石ニ而厳重ニ仕候様被仰聞候得
共、両人困窮者ニ御座候得ハ石ニ而ハ難仕候故、弐軒合ニ壱ツ仕度旨御願申上、又々御免之処、私心得違仕致差図河戸二ツニ為致懸り之処可申上様も無御座、不調法至極恐入候、依之口書差上申候処、仍如件、
文化十五年子五月

松本地方志比口町庄屋清助

印

要するに、当初は同町の新居２軒に河戸２つを願い出たものの、石では建設が困難であるので２軒で河戸１つに減らして再度許可を得たが、町役人の手違いで河戸を２つ設置したという内容である。このように一札の大部分では、違反の当事者ではなく、監督者としての町（村）役人の責任が問われており、その点も違反行為の当事者を処罰した過料銀や押込と異なっている。
しかし天保６年以後の時期では、百姓４件のうち２件は村に一札を命じているものの、町人５件はすべて違反行為の当事者の個人が対象で、町（あるいは町役人）が一札を提出した事例はなく、明確に町においては団体から個人へという変化が認められる。

福井藩芝原上水における利用違反の処罰

93

そして一札における最大の変化は、前述のように卒族家臣が処罰範囲に含まれたことである。天保６年以後の期間で、合計１３件の内訳は町人５件、百姓４件、卒族家臣４件で三者が混在し、卒族家臣は町人や百姓と同じく一札提出を命じられる存在になった。処罰における身分差の縮小の一例と評価されるが、ただし士分家臣やその奉公人から一札を提出させた事例はなく、その理由は観察期間の短かさのせいか、士分家臣には未だ身分的な差異が認められていたからなのか、史料的制約のために、その理由の確定は現時点では困難である。

Ⅳ まとめ
本稿では福井藩の家臣団を視座に据えて、上水利用における違反処罰を通じ、その都市居住者としてのあり方や位置づけの変化を検討した。
近世初頭以来、化政期以前には、士分家臣はいかなる処罰も受けない存在であった。これは同じ都市居住者でありがらも、士分家臣は町人や卒族家臣とは異なるという封建的身分秩序を意識した藩の措置であったと理解される。しかし化政期からは処罰範囲が拡大して士分家臣も処罰に含められるなど、都市社
会の秩序構成に変化が認められる。家臣本人の処罰は中下級の者に限定されて上級家臣本人を処罰した事例はないものの、上級家臣の武家屋敷では違反行為の実行者としてその奉公人が処罰され、実質的にすべての武家屋敷における違反行為が処罰範囲に包摂された。
近世前期から町人と同様の処罰対象であった卒族家臣は、文化１１年の改定で、過料銀単位には町人や武家奉公人と異なる「銀両」という身分別区分が導入されたが、その規定は崩れ、また一札においても卒族家臣は町人や百姓と同様に提出を命じられるようになった。
こうした変化を端的に表現すれば、それは封建的な身分的差異の縮小傾向であり、平準な関係の居住者で構成される近代的都市社会への移行過程であった。
「自己意識」や「主体化」の生成は、その存在内外の両側面から発達する複数の経路が想定されるが、本稿では外部から存在形態が規定される事例を観察した。ここで見た家臣団の位置づけの変化は、近代的都市社会の創出過程の一つと考えているが、それは基本的に藩という国家による改変であり、家臣団自身にとっては外部から強いられた結果であったことは否めない。ただし本稿では家臣団内部の意識には立ち入らず、また家臣団の上水利用も処罰以外の様々な視角から分析する必要がある。そうした考察を今後の課題としたい。

Chapter 5
江戸後期における流通貨幣
近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例
On Stratified Currency of Late Tokugawa Japan :A Case Study of Nakai Genzaemon, an Affluent
Merchant
加藤 慶一郎（Keiichiro Kato）

Ⅰ はじめに
江戸中期において、大坂を中心として手形の制度が確立し、その流通をになう両替商の経営が伸張した。江戸後期になると、経済発展の原動力は地方へうつり、それとともに地方金融市場が発達した。地方において資金流通網が広がりをみせるなか、遊休資金を社会的に動員するための貯蓄＝投資連結機構も胎動をはじめた１。時には、地主の「原基的銀行家」化現象などもあらわれることもあった２。通貨の面でも、地方における変化が際だった。すなわち、もともと東西で基軸通貨を異にする状態のもとで、地方の諸藩において多数にのぼる紙幣発行することもあった。さらに、藩だけでなく、豪農商さえも紙幣を発行した３。これらの紙幣は、幕府貨幣とは違い、一定地域内でのみ通用する貨

１ 新保博『近代日本経済史』（創文社、１９９５年）４６頁において、「市場経済の枠組のもとで近代経済発展ないし工業化を展開していくためには、少なくとも 生産要素の自由な移動、 私的所有権の確立、 貯蓄＝投資連結機構の形成、という三つの条件が不可欠である」とのべられている。江戸後期において、 が自生的にうまれつつあったということになる。
２ この点については、ロナルド・トビ氏が、以下の論考によって先鞭をつけたといえる。
Ronald Toby, Both a “Borrower and a Lender Be : From Village Moneylender to Rural
Banker in the Tempo Era” in Monumenta Nipponica ４
６ １
９９１，idem, “Changing credit :from village moneylender to rural banker in protoindustrial Japan”, in Gareth Austin andKaoru Sugihara, eds., Local Suppliers of Credit in the Third World，１
７
５
０−１
９
６
０，St. Martin’s
Press，１
９
９３，ロナルド・トビ「プロト工業化期金融の一試論 天保期における銀行的経営形態の胎動 」『人文学報』第７８号、１９９６年。また、貯蓄＝投資連結機構、すなわ
ち金融仲介機関の広範な展開について論じたものに、加藤慶一郎『近世後期経済発展の構造 米穀・金融市場の展開 』清文堂、２００
１年、第４〜６章がある。

95

96

加藤

慶一郎

幣であった。
このような多様な通貨構造が解消され「一国一通貨」の体制が構築されたのは、さほど遠い昔のことではない。通貨の統合は、そう簡単ではないからである。貨幣制度の場合、ある人が利用しているからといって、他の人の利用がさまたげられることはない。つまり、通常の私的財とは異なり、同時消費が可能なのである。さらに、貨幣制度の利用者から、その費用を徴収することは難しい。つまり、ただ乗りをふせぐための費用が膨大であるという意味で、排除不可能性をもっているといえる。このように、貨幣制度は公共財の性質を強くもっているため４、その統一には想像以上に長い時間を要するのである。くわえて、時におこる貨幣不足による取引渋滞や、発行者が享受する鋳造益の誘引が多様な通貨発行を誘発し、統合への道程を長くさせた。明治期以降の日本においても、幣制の完全な統一には紆余曲折があった。１９０６（明治３９）年、不況下の金融難に対応して蔓延しつつあった私札を取り締まるため、紙幣類似証券取締法が公布されなければならなかった５。この事実が、明治末にいたっても地
域内通貨の発行・流通が根絶されていなかったことを物語っている。しかも、大正期にいたってもなお地域内通貨が発行された形跡がみとめられる６。こうした点をふまえると、近世後期の地域内通貨にかんする考察は、近世経済史研
究にとどまらず、近代の経済史研究をも裨益しうるものといえよう。
この地域内通貨の経済的意味は、簡単にはつぎのように考えられる７。まず、短所としては、市場機構の働きを阻害することがあげられる。すなわち、地域
内通貨が基準貨幣としてもちいられると、各商品価格の価格表示が地域ごとに異なってしまう。その結果、市場間の価格について、その見通しが悪くなる。
市場機構が適切に作動して「一物一価」へむかうさいに、価格は最も重要な情報として機能する。価格情報の質が低下するならば、その代償は大きいといわざるをえない。さらに、通貨間で成立する交換相場は変動するため、いわゆる為替差損の危険がともなう。通貨同士を交換するためには、両替費用も必要と
３ 加藤慶一郎「近世後期における地域通貨

後期私札を中心に 」（『近世史サマーフ
ォーラム２
０
０
２の記録 全体テーマ 貨幣からみた近世社会』近世史サマーフォーラム
２
０
０
２実行委員会、２００２年）。
４ 公共財にかんする議論については、建元正弘「公共経済学」（熊谷尚夫・篠原三代平編集委員代表『経済学大事典（第２版）Ⅰ』東洋経済新報社、１９８０年）を参照した。
５ 京都府下の一部地域においては、明治前期から私札の流通が継続していた。この点については、松好貞夫『明治維新後に於ける両替商金融』（財団法人金融研究会、１
９３７年）
第８章を参照。阿部謙二『日本通貨経済史の研究』（紀伊國屋書店、１
９
７
２年）２
４
５頁にも、
明治３
０年代に個人が発行した私札が紹介されている。
６ 小槌義雄「紙幣類似証券取締法公布後の紙幣類似証券 附 伊予地方紙幣類似証券一
覧表」（『収集』第２６巻第４号、２００１年）は、富山商工業連合会や宇和島運輸株式会社が大正期に発行した紙幣類似証券を紹介している。
７ 加藤「近世後期における地域通貨」２３−２５頁を参照。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

97なる。いずれにせよ、「一物一価」実現の障害となる要素である。他方で、地域内通貨は、長所となる側面ももちあわせている。すなわち、貨幣発行は金融政策の手段になりうるものであるから、地域の実情におうじた金融政策の実施が可能となる。景気の動向や作物の作況などに対応し、地域独自の政策運営ができることになる。したがって、地域内通貨は地域経済の安定・発展に寄与しうる可能性をもつものである。また、長所と短所の両面を兼ねそなえた要素もある。地域内通貨は通用範囲がかぎられているため、それだけ地域内需要の囲い込みが期待できる。有効需要を地域の外に流出させず、地域内にとどめる効
果をもっているのである。だが、このことは一長一短であり、競争劣位にある
地場の生産者や商人を温存するという弊害もある。その皺寄せは、地場の商品や用役を買わざるをえなかった地元の購入者である。長期的には、地域全体の生産力を削ぐこともありうる。こうした長所と短所の両方を勘案すると、共通の通貨をもった方が都合がよいのは、商品のやりとりが頻繁で、なおかつ経済構造がよく似た地域同士である。なぜなら、こうした条件の下では、為替相場の危険と両替の費用が特にかさむことと、類似した経済構造には類似した金融政策がふさわしいからである。逆に、両地域が比較的疎遠であったり、特色ある経済構造をそれぞれがもっているならば、別個の地域内通貨がのぞましいということになる８。
江戸後期の地域経済の動向と、各種の地域内通貨、すなわち私札・藩札・金銀の幕府貨幣からなる重層的な流通構造とは無関係ではあり得ない。藩札についてはこれまで多く取りあげられてきたが、民間の決済手段としてよりも、財政政策の手段としての機能が注目されてきた９。近年では基本に立ちかえり、「東の金遣い、西の銀遣い」といった図式的理解にかわる、重層的な通貨構造が実証的に明らかにされつつある。
以下では、関連する主要な先行研究をあげておくことにしよう。
「西の銀遣い」という理解に修正をせまる早い段階の論考に、田谷博吉氏による大坂市場を対象としたものと１０、新保博氏による摂津国西部の農村を対象としたものとがある１１。両氏は、大坂および西摂農村において、価格表示は銀貨単位である
８ こうした地域内通貨の経済的意味を前提としたとき、相対的に低水準にあった東日本

が金遣い経済圏を形成したことは、その地域経済の保護・育成の点で一定の意義があったともいえよう。もちろん、こうした経済的帰結と政策意図とは直結させて考えることはできない。
９ 新保博・斎藤修「概説１
９世紀へ」（新保博・斎藤修編『日本経済史２ 近代成長の胎動』岩波書店、１
９８９年）、西川俊作・天野雅敏「諸藩の産業と経済政策」（同前）などを参照。
１
０ 田谷博吉「幕末期関西の流通貨幣
鴻池与三吉家文書の紹介を兼ねて 」
『歴史研
究』第１
４号、１
９
７
２年。
１
１ 新保博「徳川後期西摂農村における貨幣流通摂津国八部郡花熊村の史料を中心にして 」（『兵庫県の歴史』第１１号、１９７４年。他に河内農村を対象とした竹内繁治『近世小作料の構造』（御茶の水書房、１
９６８年）補章２をあげることができる。

98

加藤

慶一郎

にもかかわらず、じっさいの授受貨幣は「金貨」であったことをしめした１２。
また、浦長瀬隆氏は、土地売渡し証文における基準貨幣を主たる指標として、
金遣い経済圏と銀遣い経済圏への分化が１７世紀初頭に生じたことや、その境界が近江〜越中国にあることなどを明らかにした１３。さらに、九州を主たる対象地域とする藤本隆士氏が、九州に「銭遣い経済圏」を検出したあとをうけ１４、
岩橋勝氏は、精力的な史料博捜をつうじ、銭遣い圏を西日本諸地域と東北地方へ拡張している１５。そのさいには、銭貨の一定量を匁単位で表示する、いわゆ
る「銭匁遣い」の検出が梃子となった。これは、銀貨の相対的な急減への対応措置として自然発生的にうまれたもので、銭貨流通が基盤になければ生まれえない取引慣習であった。この銭匁遣いの普及を指標として、西南地域に広範に銭遣いが展開していた事実と、その論理についてのべられている。また、安国良一氏も、銭匁遣いがみられる江戸後期の東伊予地方を対象に、貨幣の多様性から派生する諸問題を広範にあつかい、在地における貨幣同盟の存在など興味深い論点を提示されている１６。同様の貨幣をめぐる地域社会論的視点をもつ古賀康士氏は、倉敷地域における貨幣流通に検討をくわえ、交換相場の決定権が村にあったことなどを明らかにしている１７。ほかに、江戸後期の西日本において私札が爆発的に発行された事実を明らかにしつつ、その経済的意義について論じる報告もなされている１８。このように、近年、各地の事例が着実に蓄積されつつあるが、江戸期貨幣流通の重層的構造については、より一層の研究蓄積が必要であろう。特に、上述の先行研究の動向をふまえたとき、流通貨幣その１２ 本論文では、貨幣種類をその素材如何にかかわらず専ら単位を基準にして、まずは以下のように大きく区分してよぶことにする。すなわち、「金貨」とは、両・歩・朱の単位をもつ、計数金銀貨と金札をさすものである。
「銀貨」とは、匁の単位をもつ秤量
銀貨と銀札の総称であり、「銭貨」は文の単位にしたがう銭貨と銭札のことである。それ以下については、適宜説明を加えつつ区分していく。
１
３ 浦長瀬隆『中近世貨幣流通史
取引手段の変化と要因 』（勁草書房、２
０
０
１年）第
８〜１
０章。
１
４ 藤本隆士「近世西南地域における銀銭勘定」（『福岡大学商学論叢』第１７巻第１号、
１９７２年）や同「近世における銭貨流通の一考察 福岡藩の『匁銭』成立を求めて 」（『経済学研究』第４９巻第４・５・６号、１９８４年）など。
１
５
同氏による多数の論考のなかで、同「南部地方の銭貨流通 近世『銭遣い経済圏』
論をめぐって 」（『社会経済史学』第４８巻第６号、１９８３年）が東北地方を対象としており、同「近世中後期土佐における貨幣流通 いわゆる八銭勘定を中心として 」（『西
南地域史研究』第６輯、１９８８年）は、銭匁遣いの成立について実証的な理由づけを試みている。ほかに、それまでの実証結果を集約したものとして、同「江戸期貨幣制度のダ
イナミズム」（『金融研究』第１７巻第３号、１
９９８年）および同「近世の貨幣・信用」（桜
井英治・中西聡編『新 体系日本史１
２ 流通経済史』山川出版社、２００２年）がある。
１
６
安国良一「１８・
１
９世紀の通貨事情と別子銅山の経理」『住友史料館報』第３
２号、２
０
０
１年。
１
７
古賀康士「備中地域における銭流通」『岡山地方史研究』第９
９号、２
０
０
２年。
１
８
加藤「近世後期における地域通貨」１８−２１頁。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

99

ものの定量的な分析が比較的少ない傾向が看取できる。
ただし、じっさいに授受された貨幣（流通貨幣）の把握はさほど容易ではな
い。取引帳簿や証文などをみると、ある貨幣で金額がしるされている。一見すると、これらが流通貨幣をしめしているかのようである。しかしながら、それらはあくまでも基準貨幣なのであって、流通貨幣そのものを意味している訳ではない。基準貨幣と流通貨幣の乖離は、取引上の慣行や貨幣価値の変動、あるいは集計作業上の理由から十分おこりうる。長期的にみれば、基準貨幣は貨幣
流通の構造変動と無関係ではあり得ないはずである。とはいっても、必ずそこに一意な対応関係が成立するとはかぎらない。
本論文では、流通貨幣を検討するにさいして、中井源左衛門家という商家経営を素材とする。周知のように、同家は広域にわたり支店を展開した近江商人であるが、ここではその支店網の中枢をなした本家（本店）に的をしぼることにしたい。中井家という商人を取りあげることで、貨幣流通の結節点をなした
豪商経営における通貨構造の一端をとらえることが期待できる。さらに、前出の先行研究をみてもわかるように、西日本の東端に位置する近江国はこれまで
余りふれられてこなかった点も指摘しておきたい。また、基準貨幣ではなく、流通貨幣を対象とするという本論文の方法は、貨幣流通の実態そのものに接近できるという特徴をもつ。もちろん、ここで観察するのは一商人の使用貨幣であるため、それは商品の種類・取引の規模・取引相手の所在地などから多様な影響をうけているであろう。他方で、商品流通をになった大規模な商人の貨幣的基礎をしることができるという利点ももっている。以下ではこうした点に留意しつつ、検討をすすめることにしたい。

Ⅱ 中井源左衛門家の概要
本節では、中井源左衛門家に関連する基本事項について、あらかじめ確認しておくことにしよう。
はじめに、中井家の事業について、簡単にみておくことにする１９。当家の商業活動は、初代源左衛門光武により１７３４（享保１９）年にはじめられた。日野合
薬の関東地方への行商が、その出発点であった。そのご、１７４５（延享２）年における下野への出店を皮きりに、仙台・京都・大坂のほか各地に店舗が展開した。その数は、支店・枝店をあわせ通算で４４にたっする。表１は、各支店の事
業内容を整理したものである。同表は、１７４５〜１８６７年を２３年あるいは２５年ごと
１
９ この部分にかんしては、おもに江頭『中井家の研究』（雄山閣、１
９６５年）第１章と第３章によっているが、後出の支店・枝店数については、
『平成１
２年度〜１
４年度科学研究費補助金基監研究
１
２
４
１
０
０
８
９研究成果報告書 近世近代商家文書に関する総合的研究』（研究代表者：宇佐美英機、２
０
０
３年３月３
１日）
「中山家出店表」（岡井たまき氏作成）
によった。

加藤

100
表１

慶一郎

中井源左衛門家の支店数と取扱品目

支
店
数
合
計
絞
油
業
目
薬
呉 服 太 物
酒
造
業
鋳
物
業
醤油醸造業
銀
箔
薬 種 唐 物
質
屋
海
産
物
漆
蝋
繰
綿
米
穀
穀
類
紅
花
青
苧
真
綿
生
糸
木
綿
古
手
日 野 合 薬１７４５− ６７ ２ １ １ １ １ １ １ １ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ９ ２
１７６８− ９２ １ ４ １ ５ １ ３ ３ ２ ２ ３ ２ ２ １ ２ １ １ １ １ １ １ １ −３
９９
１７９３−１８１７ １ ７ ２ ４ １ ５ ５ ３ ２ ６ ３ ３ １ ６ １ １ １ １ ２ ３ １ ２６
１１３
１８１８− ４２ １ ６ ２ ３ １ ４ ４ ２ １ ５ ２ ２ １ ４ − − − １ ２ ２ １ １４５９
１８４３− ６７ １ ５ ２ ４ １ ４ ４ ２ １ ４ ２ ２ １ ３ − − − − １ ２ − １４０９注）１．江頭恒治『近江商人 中井家の研究』（雄山閣、１
９
６
４年、１
９
９
２年復刻）
〈付録１〉
によって作成。
２．太字は、前期より取扱支店数が増加したことをしめす。

に区分して作成している。これをみると、とくに１８世紀後半から１９世紀初頭にかけて、支店数の急増と取扱商品・関係事業の拡大がみとめられる。初代の光武の晩年から２代目の光昌にかけての時期である。こうした店勢と並行して、ひとつの商品を複数の支店であつかう傾向が明確化している。これは、事業経営が緻密さを増したことをしめすと同時に、事業展開が限界にたっしつつあったことを示唆するものであろう。多岐にわたる取り扱い商品に対応して、取引仕法としていわゆる「産物廻しの商法」がとられた。すなわち、上方地方と東北地方の支店をむすんで、各地方の商品が大規模に取引された。上方地方の古手・繰綿・薬種などと、東北地方の生糸・青苧・紅花などが支店間で相互に流通した。商業取引以外では、金融業をはじめ、絞油業や酒造業などの製造業にもたずさわっていた点は、表１にしめされたとおりである。商品取引業とならんで金融業も重要であり、質屋業などをいとなんでいた２０。表１にあるように、その展開は１７９３〜１８１７年において活発化した。これは、既存の京都店などにく
わえ、羽前国天童・豊後国杵築・大坂などに設置された結果である。初代光武から３代目の光熈にかけて経営規模は大きく伸張し、本家資産は天保期初頭に１０万両をこえるにいたった。資力の充実とともに、諸藩との関係がうまれた。
その結果、大名貸などもおこなった。なかでも、本家が立地した水口藩（石高２万５０００石）と、仙台店の所在した仙台藩との関係が深かった。両藩とは、御用商人としてその経済・財政運営に深くかかわることになった。しかしながら、
２０ ちなみに、質屋業は収益面で重要であったと考えられる。すなわち、質屋部門をもつ支店ともたない支店について、その継続年数には違いがあった。質屋部門をもつ支店
が４７．
６年と、約５０年の平均継続期間であった。それにたいし、質屋部門をもたない支店
は３
４．
４年と、３
０年あまりにとどまった（江頭『中井家の研究』＜付録１＞「中井家出店
表」）。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

101

１８３４（天保５）年に家督を相続した４代目の光基の代になり、家運に陰りがみえはじめたようである。資産規模の伸びは頭打ちとなっている。１８６０（万延１）
年、仙台店経営をめぐる紛糾から、光基は押込め隠居を余儀なくされた。この前後から事業の縮小がはかられ、出店の閉鎖があいついだ。
つぎに日野の本家の役割について、瞥見しておこう。その基本的機能は全国各地の店舗の統括であった。本家の主要帳簿である大福帳には、各支店の勘定がたてられており、「産物廻し」にともなう支店間の決済にも関与していたとみられる。それにくわえて、金融事業も並行しておこなっていた２１。たとえば
１８５３（嘉永６）年正月起筆の店卸帳をみると、同５年において約５８０両の収益をあげており、これは本家全収益約６，
７００両の８．
７％をしめている。仙台支店の６０．
０％や大坂店の２１．
９％にはおよばないが、京都店（３．
６％）・仙台枝店（２．
９％）・天童店（２．
８％）をうわまわる業績をあげている。従業員数でみても、本家は相応の比重をしめている。１８５５（安政２）年現在において、家事使用人をのぞいた全６
８名中、本家所属が５人でその比率は７．
４％であった２２。中井家
本家とは、全体の統括部門であると同時に、自律的な財務部門としても機能していたのである。
さいごに、本家の立地状況についてみておくことにしよう。本家が所在したのは、湖東地域にある蒲生郡日野の大窪町であった。日野は、東海道と中山道をむすぶ御代参街道上にあり、交通の便にめぐまれていた。水口藩の城下町は、
そこから１０キロほどへだたった地点に所在した。ここに東海道の宿駅がおかれたのは、１６０１（慶長６）年のことであった。１８４３（天保１４）年現在の戸数と人口は、それぞれ６９２戸・２，６９２人にのぼった。この数字は、近隣各宿中で最高であった２３。しかし、町勢は停滞気味で、周辺に特産物もなく商品流通がさかんであった形跡はあまりみられない２４。所領支配の特質としては、非領国的であったことがあげられる。すなわち、周辺には、水口藩のほか、彦根・仁正寺・大森の諸藩、あるいは旗本領や他国大名領などが散在していた２５。

２
１ 本家の主要帳簿である「大福帳」をみると、繰綿の仕入をおこなっている。たとえ

ば、天保１
１（１
８
４
０）年には、約１，０００両にのぼる繰綿を仕入れており、この取引によって約１０％の利益を生みだしている。ほかに、僅少な目薬の売り上げもあった。
２２ 中川泉三『中井家史 第１３巻』（稿本、滋賀大学経済学部附属史料館蔵）１
０
８−１
１
１頁。
２
３ 水口町志編纂委員会編『水口町志 上巻』（同委員会、１
９
５
９年）１
９
０−１
９
１頁。近隣各宿の戸数と人口は、『水口町志 上巻』２３０頁によれば以下のとおりである。亀山（５
６
７
・１，
５
４
９）、関（６３２・１，
９４２）、坂ノ下（１５３・５６４）、土山（３
５
１・１，
５
０
６）
、石部（４
５
８・１，
６
０
６）
、
草津（５
８
６・２，
３
５
１）
。
２
４ 『水口町志 上巻』２５１頁。
２５ 藤田貞一郎「近江商人生成の諸条件」（安岡重明・藤田貞一郎・石川健次郎編著『近江商人の経営遺産 その再評価 』同文舘、１
９
９
２年）２
３頁。

加藤

102

慶一郎

Ⅲ 中井源左衛門家における流通貨幣
Ⅲ−１ 「金銭出入帳」について前述のとおり、中井源左衛門家の本家における流通貨幣を観察する。そのさいの依拠史料は、現金の出納を管理した「金銭出入帳」である。当該史料は、
１８０８（文化５）年から１８９８（明治３１）年まで、ほぼ連年にわたり残されている２６。
その分析に先だち、ここでは記載形式を確認しておくことにしよう。以下にかかげたのは、１８１０（文化７）年度分の冒頭部分である２７。
「二月七日改〆一金三拾五両弐分弐朱ト

引受

有高古帳

銀十三匁六分‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

①

‥‥‥‥

②

‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥③

壱〆八百十四文
二月七日
出

百廿四文

（写）

大寄合入用

金弐朱

（合）

祖母様かし

〃
入
〃
出

百三十六文（合）

右つり払

二月九日
入

金十六両壱分（合）天童店り足配分金、并植村店ちん

六匁
代六百五十四文…（中略）…
入〆

金六十四両也
九貫四百六十八文

出〆

金三十六両壱分弐朱
五〆九百七十三文‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

④

差引而〆
２
６ じっさいには、表題に異同がある。１
８
２
８（文政１
１）年以前は「金銭出入帳」、１
８
３
０（文

政１
３）年以降は「金銀出入帳」となっている（１８
２９年は欠帳）。ここでは、便宜上、「金銭出入帳」で統一した。
２
７ この年の金銭出入帳の記帳は、やや変則的であった。まず、この帳簿には、文化７年と同８年の２年分がまとめてしるされている。そして、７年については、２月から記帳されており、１月分は前年の文化６年分末尾に記録されている。また、当年分の表紙には「午未両年分明治七甲戌年改相記」とあり、のちに書きあらためられたことがわかる。

江戸後期における流通貨幣
金廿八両弐分弐朱

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

三〆四百九十四文
一金壱両ト
弐百五拾弐文不足仕分、色々吟味仕候得共尚出不申、

103

⑤

‥‥

⑥

‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥⑦

無是非此所へ印置

二月廿日改〆
一金廿七両弐分弐朱銀十三匁六分有高引受

銭三〆弐百四拾弐文…（後略）…」
まず、①に書きあげられているのは、２月７日現在における貨幣残高である。
ここでは、金が３５両あまりと圧倒的に多かったことがわかる。つぎの②では、じっさいの出金と入金が記録されている。各取引について、日付・入出金の区
別・金額・摘要をしることができる。店の交際費や親族への貸金、あるいは家賃収入など、多岐にわたる貨幣の出入りがみられる。そして、一定期間が経過した時点で、ひとまず締めきり集計作業にはいる。このときは、１３日後の２月２０日であった。それが③と④である。ここで注意が必要なのは、③の入金額合計は①の繰越金額をふくむ点である。つまり、繰越金は前期から「入金」とみなし、外部よりの入金と合算しているのである。よって、最新の貨幣残高は、繰越金額と入金額の合計である③から、出金額である④をさし引くことで算出できる。これが⑤である。当然、次期への繰越金は⑤と同じはずであり、それが⑦である。計算結果と、じっさいの貨幣残高が一致すれば、出納業務が正し
くおこなわれたことが確認できる。ただし、ここでは２点の不十分な点があった。ひとつは、銀貨の書きもらしである。本来なら、これも③に計上されなけ
ればならなかったが、実際にはおちてしまっている。⑦には①と同額の銀１３匁６分が計上されているので、この期間においては銀貨取引が皆無であったことが災いしたと推測される。もうひとつは、⑥の不足金の発生である。本来なら
金２８両２歩２朱と銭３，４９４文がなければならないところが、１両不足の金２７両２歩２朱と２５２文不足の銭３，２４２文しか見あたらなかった。以上のような形式と手順で、「金銭出入帳」では「現金の物財管理」がおこなわれ２８、そのさいには貨幣べつに入金と出金が記録されていた。したがって、その記録にもとづくことにより、中井家を経由する貨幣の流れを把握することができることになる。
次節では、貨幣流通の実態を観察することにしよう。

２
８ 小倉栄一郎『江州中井家帖合の法』（ミネルヴァ書房、１
９６２年）９１頁。ただし、同書で検討されているのは、伊勢国一志郡香良洲の酒造店のそれである。

加藤

104

慶一郎

Ⅲ−２ 本家における流通貨幣
本節では、「金銭出入帳」にもとづきながら、中井家本家の授受貨幣の内容について明らかにしていくことにしよう。
まずは、全体的な推移を観察することにしたい。図１は、年初における貨幣
残高を、銀匁に換算したのち、種類べつに表示したものである。先に検討した「金銭出入帳」の記載例にあったように、前年から繰りこされた貨幣が年頭部分に記載される。その時期的変化を観察することで、流通貨幣の変遷に接近できるであろう。同図を一瞥すると、金貨が群をぬいていることが明瞭である２９。
そして、それにつぐのが銭貨であり、銀貨はほとんど使用されていないことがわかる。こうした序列はほとんど揺らぐことなく推移するが、時期によっては若干の動揺がみられる。１８２０年代においては、金貨が突出して増加するかたわらで、ほかの貨幣の残高は僅少なため、両者の格差は拡大傾向にあった。そのご、こうした金貨の増大は沈静化し、その動きにやや遅れて銭貨の残高が増えている。この銭の増大は幕末までつづき、この間、金貨のとかなり近接するまでにいたっている。年によっては、銭貨の残高が上まわる場合も確認できる。
銀貨についても、微弱ながら、その残高には変化が生じていた。銭貨の増加とほぼ時を同じくして、１８４０年代後半において若干の増大が見てとれる。しかしながら、こうした銀貨の推移は、三貨の序列を根底からおびやかすようなものではなく、常に最下位のままであった。

図１

中井家本家における貨幣有高（年初）２
９ この金貨単位貨幣については、計数金銀貨と金札との区別も重要である。金属貨幣と紙幣の別にかんしては、銀貨単位貨幣と銭貨単位貨幣とあわせて、のちにふれることにしたい。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

105以上、中井家本家の貨幣残高について、年初の数字のみであるが、長期にわたり観察をおこなった。その結果によると、同家においてはすでに銀貨はほとんど所持しておらず、主な流通貨幣は金貨であったことがうかがえた。ただし、三貨のあいだの相対的地位には、時期的変化が看取された。つぎに、この点について、検討をくわえることにしよう。
図２は、そのために用意したものである。この図には、先にみた年初貨幣残高について、その構成比を表示している。ここには、先に読みとった趨勢がより鮮明にあらわれている。金貨の比率の低落は、１８３０年代後半を境として一気にあらわれている。金貨はそれまでほぼ１００％近い割合をしめしていたのであるが、そのご比率を下げるとともに乱高下をみせるようになる。一方、銀貨と銭貨は、１８３０年代後半から比率上昇の兆しが見えはじめ、１８４０年代にはいるとその傾向はより明瞭となる。二度にわたって、銭貨が金貨を上まわっていることが確認できる。特に１８６０（万延１）年には、その比率は約７０％にたっした。
こうした両者の構成比に生じた変化は、金貨の減少と、それにつづく両貨幣の増大による結果であることは先に検討したとおりである。ただし、銀貨については、そうした動きは長つづきせず、１８５０年代にはいりふたたび元の水準へと回帰した。
こうした金貨が一貫して圧倒的比率を維持したという事実は、先の観察結果とあわせ、どのように考えればよいのであろうか。本家が商取引にもちいたのは金貨であったと推察され、その回転率が高いために金による支払額もふえたとみられる。
「はじめに」の部分でのべたように、１
８世紀末から１
９世紀初頭、
とくに文化期に各地に支店が展開したことが作用したのではないだろうか。す
なわち、中井家は東西の各支店をむすんで取引をおこなっていたから、本家が支店網をより有機的に結合することに成功すれば、本家を経由する資金の流通
効率は高まるはずである。逆に、資金が遊休化して有効につかわれず、本家に

図２

中井家本家における貨幣有高構成比（年初）

加藤

106

慶一郎

表２ 中井源左衛門家本家の支払い貨幣 （単位：匁、％）
年度＼貨幣
１８１０
（文化 ７）

金額 （匁）
金貨
６１，
１１６

銀貨
１６０

構成比
銭貨

金貨

１，
３５５

９７．
６

（％）

銀貨
０．
３

銭貨
２．
２

１８３０
（文政１３） １，
００８，
０４６

５８

８０１

９９．
９

０．
０

０．
１

１８５０
（嘉永 ３） ３，
３４６，
９９３

２，
１５３

２，
４０７

９
９．
８

０．
１

０．
１

２０ １９７，
６１７

９８．
１

０．
０

１．
９

１８７０
（明治 ３）１０，００２，００３

注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」
によって作成。
２．換算相場は、
鶴岡実枝子編『大津諸相場帳』
・宮本又次編『近世大阪の物価と利子』によった。
３．１匁未満は切捨て。
４．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．
７
５匁（
「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻貸し」）はのぞいている。
この点については注引を参照。

滞留することが多くなると、その流通量にたいして残高が肥大せざるをえない。
図１においてみられた１８２０年代における金貨の急増は、こうした事情を背景にもっていたのではないだろうか。表２をみると、金貨による支払は１８１０年から顕著な増大傾向をしめしており、商勢の充実がうかがえる。同時期における残高は、１８２０年代の調整期間をはさんで安定している。資金の有効利用を実現する仕組みが構築され機能していたと推察されるのである。
つぎに、一時点における貨幣残高ではなく、１年間の支出における使用貨幣量を観察することにしよう。表２はそのために作成したもので、ここでは「金銭出入帳」の残存状況を勘案しつつ、１９世紀初頭以降の４つの時点を２０年おきにえらび作業をおこなった３０。すなわち、１８１０（文化７）年にはじまる、１
８３０（文政１３）年、１８５０（嘉永３）年、１８７０年（明治３）年の４ヶ年である。同表によると、金貨がしめる割合が非常に高かったことは一目瞭然である。銀貨と銭貨は、ともに僅かであるが金額・比率が変化しており、その動きは連動している３１。
以上、いくつかの側面から中井源左衛門家本家の使用貨幣について考察した。
ここでは、主に金貨が使用されており、銀貨は影が薄かったことが明らかとなった。しかしながら、表２にみられるように、銭貨とともに使用頻度がやや上昇しているのも事実である。本来なら、銀貨は金貨と並びたつはずの主要通貨
３０ 平時においては支払額と受取額はほぼ均衡するはずであるから、支払のみによって使用貨幣を把握しても大過ないと考える。
３
１ なお、１８
５
０年３月２７日において、銀７貫匁余の出納が中井岩之助（大坂店）との綿取引に関連しておこなわれている。しかし、こうした事例はほかに見うけられないことと、同日に他店へ振り替えられていることを重視して、検討対象からはぶいた。しかし、こうした秤量銀貨取引が大坂店との関係で生じていることは、大坂の流通貨幣を考える
うえでは重要である。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例107である。そこで、わずかにみられた銀貨の使用について、その内容とはいかなるものであったのか次節で検討をくわえることにしよう。

Ⅲ−３ 本家における銀貨単位貨幣の使用実態
はじめに、銀貨が使用されるさいの、他の貨幣との組合せを整理した表３をみよう。この表には、銀貨のみ使用された場合のほか、金貨、銭貨、金貨・銭貨と併用された時の金額と件数、およびその比率を表示した。このうち、金貨単独、あるいは金貨・銭貨と併用された銀貨とは、端数処理につかわれたとみて良い。その性格からして、銀貨が基軸通貨であるか否かにかかわらず、こうした事例は見いだされるであろう。したがって、焦点は銀貨のみの使用事例である。支払にかんしては、金額には上下があるが、銀貨のみが金額で半分程度

表３−１

中井家本家の銀貨単位貨幣使用形態（支払）

年度＼種類
銀のみ
１８１０年
９２．
５７
（ ２４）
（文化 ７） ５７．
８
１８３０年
２２．
２０
（ ９）
（文政１３） ３８．
６
１８５０年 １，
４２６．
１１
（ ８７）
（嘉永 ３） ６６．
３
１８７０年
７．
５０
（ １）
（明治 ３） ３６．
７

銀・金
３１．
４０
（ ４）
１９．
６
１．
８０
（ １）
３．
１
４５０．
６２
（ ４１）
２０．
９
１２．
９６
（ ６）
６３．
３

銀・銭

銀・金・銭
合 計
３６．
３０
（ ２） １６０．
２７
（ ３０）
２２．
６
１００．
０
２．
１０
（ ２） ３１．
４０
（ ４）
５７．
５
（ １６）
３．
７
５４．
６
１００．
０
７６．
１６
（ １６） ２００．
００（ ９） ２，
１５２．
８９
（１５３）
３．
５
９．
３
１００．
０
２０．
４６
（ ７）
１００．
０

注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」によって作成。
２．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．
７
５匁（「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻貸し」）はのぞいた。
３．上段の単位は匁であり、括弧内の数字は件数をしめし、下段の数字は構成比（％）
である。

表３−２
年度＼種類
銀のみ
２１４．
７７
（ ４）
１８１０年
（文化 ７） ９４．
７
１８３０年
７２．
９０
（ ３）
（文政１３） ９２．
０
１８５０年 １，
３１７．
２２
（ ３６）
（嘉永 ３） ６０．
６
１８７０年
１０．
１５
（ ３）
（明治３）
４９．
６

中井家本家の銀貨使用形態（受取）
銀・金
７．
５０
（ １）
３．
３

８０１．
４８
（ ３５）
３６．
９
１０．
３１
（ ４）
５０．
４

銀・銭
銀・金・銭
合 計
４．
５０
（ １）
２２６．
７７
（ ６）
２．
０
１００．
０
６．
３０
（ ２）
７９．
２
（ ５）
８．
０
１００．
０
１９．
９５
（ ６） ３５．
４０（ ２） ２，
１７４．
０５
（ ７９）
０．
９
１．
６
１００．
０
２０．
４６
（ ７）
１００．
０

注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」によって作成。
２．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．
７
５匁（「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻借り」）はのぞいた。
３．上段の単位は匁であり、括弧内の数字は件数をしめし、下段の数字は構成比（％）である。

加藤

108

慶一郎

をしめる。１件あたりの金額をもとめると、１８１０（文化７）年が３．
９匁、１８３０（文政１３）年が２．
５匁、１８５０（嘉永３）年が１６．
４匁、１８７０（明治３）年が７．
５匁となっていた。したがって、嘉永３年をのぞくと、基本的には銀貨は小口の支払にほぼ限定されていたことになる。受取についても同様に数字をおってみると、銀貨のみの使用が多いことがわかる。１件あたり金額は、それぞれ５３．
７匁、
２４．
３匁、３６．
６匁、３．
４匁とわずかに高額である。
先にみた図２にあったように、嘉永期の銀貨増大は一時的であった。そこで、まずは文化７年をとりあげ、平時の銀貨の使用状況について確認しておくことにしよう。表４は、同年の銀貨のみの使用事例について、その日付・入出金のべつ・使用内容をしめしたものである。上段には支払い、下段には受取について掲げている。後に検討する１８５０（嘉永３）年とは異なり、「札」の記載がな
いため、すべて秤量銀貨であったとみられる。支払で目だつのは、１月１日の

表４

中井源左衛門家本家の銀貨単位貨幣の使用目的（１８１０〈文化７〉年）

月 日

銀

１．
１
０
１．
２
０
３．
１
０
３．
１
０
３．
１
０
４．
９
０
４．
１
８
４．
２
４
６．
４
０
７．
１
２
７．
１
２
７．
１
３
７．
２
９
７．
３
０
８．
７
０
９．
７
０
９．
７
０
９．
７
０
９．
１
０
９．
１
１
９．
２
６
１
１．
２
３
１
２．
２
６
１
２．
２
９
３．
１
０
３．
２
９
４．
１
２
８．
２
４

−５．
８
０
−３．
５
０
−２．
０
０
−２．
０
０
−１．
５
０
−７．
９
０
−５．
５
０
−６．
０
０
−４．
３
０
−５．
８
０
−５．
０
０
−１．
６
０
−３．
６
５
−４．
５
２
−４．
３
０
−１．
６
０
−３．
０
５
−３．
０
５
−４．
３
０
−２．
０
０
−１．
０
０
−７．
８
０
−２．
１
０
−４．
３
０
５．
５
０
２
０
０．
０
０
１．
８
０
７．
４
７

高

内

容

大聖寺祝儀
正崇寺香儀
奥仙寺法事ニ付香典
源三郎様同断（奥仙寺法事ニ付香典）貸杢太郎様同断（奥仙寺法事ニ付香典）貸銀両かへ（金２朱）後藤元通左時かり払
法雲寺正林寺布施
長徳寺へ布施彦根釘替謝礼大の同断薬施牧野氏薬礼
小谷若村儀兵衛香儀
両かへ（５
０
０文）
竹部九性寺志し両かへ（１７６文）（大聖寺宜戒和尚入院祝儀）祖母殿分
杢太郎様同断かし
宜戒和尚円通寺へ入院祝儀
西ノ本誓寺へ布施祖母分かし
杢太郎かし右同断掛金（御講）
大東へ渡ス同断（法事布施）かし
清水寺へ香儀周造殿へ薬礼元通左時かり
中井屋岩之助様かり（但し小玉ニ候）
両かへ（２
０
０文）
両かへ（８
１
４文）

注）１．
「金銭出入帳」（文化７年）によって作成。
２．正の符号は入金を、負の符号は出金をしめす。
３．単位は銀匁である。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

109

大聖寺祝儀のほか、香典・布施・薬礼といった各種の儀礼上の目的である３２。
両替（「両かへ」）取引も何度かおこなわれており、４月に２件、７〜９月に各１件ずつあった。注目されるのが、３月２９日の２００匁のやや高額の入金である。
受取先は中井屋岩之助、すなわち中井家の大坂店である。同店は、質屋業や繰
綿・古手などの仕入取次を担当していた。小玉銀は旅行のさいにも必要であったため３３、わざわざ大坂から取りよせたのかもしれない３４。なお、この年、源３
２ 「水口日野縁談一件帳」（天保３年）は、４代目となる光基が、婿養子として中井家へむかえられるさいに作成されたと推測される帳簿である。これによると、祝儀として白銀１両と南鐐１片のほか、金１００疋と金２朱がおくられている。銀貨、あるいは素材としての銀への志向が読みとれる。
類似の現象はほかの地方でも確認できる。ここでは、西宮（現兵庫県西宮市）の古老による貨幣流通にかんする回顧談を引用しておこう。なお、同人は「慶応末年は余は年
齢既に十五才で有る」とのべているので、安政〜慶応期ごろの当地の状況をのべていると考えられる。
「以前には丁銀や豆板や一分の金などが有つたやうで有るが一向目に触れなかつた、
小玉は僅かに有つて謝儀等に用ゐた（中略）銀は・・・銀札許りで・・・銀の代用で諸藩から発行した・・・小玉は計量器に掛けて使用したもので、自分の幼年時には偶々謝儀などに用ゐた事を記憶している」（吉田良秀編・発行『老の思ひ出 一名西宮昔噺』
私家版、１
９
２
８年、１
６
０−１
６
２頁）
。
３
３ 以下は、『旅行須知』という旅行指南書で、道中での貨幣使用についても言及している。著者は岡山藩藩士と推定される。執筆年代は不明であるが、写本が作成されたのは
１８５５（安政２）年である。ここでは読みやすくするため、適宜、句読点と丸数字を付し
ている。
「（前略）
一、小判を道中ニて切らする事すへからす。姦曲のものありてあしき壱歩に両替する事間に有り。壱歩道中ニて入用程ハ、両替江して出へし。但、伏見にてハ銭屋五兵衛に申付切らせてもよし。
〈①〉
一、銭を両替せは、旅宿ニて銭屋をよひて両替し、銭の数を家来ニ改させ受取へし。道中ニて両替すへからす。数を改むる隙もなく、数不足かち也。
〈②〉
馬士共申分多くやかましき也。
〈③〉
一、銀子二三匁斗なるハ、数多く用意すへし。道中ニて、はたこや共 y 祝儀指出事有物也。其節、鳥目共遣わしてハ、下品ニて悪し。銀子を祝儀ニ遣してよし
〈④〉
（後略）
」
（近藤篤『旅行須知』三井高陽監修『日本交通史料集成第三輯』国際交通文化
協会、１
９
３
９年、２
８頁）
①〜③によると、道中へは、小判ではなく一分判を携行し、それを必要におうじ旅宿
において銭屋を相手に両替するのが良いとされている。一気呵成に両替すると、銭そのものが荷物となってしまうからである。④では、秤量銀貨の儀礼的使用についても言及されており、旅籠屋への返礼は銭ではなく秤量銀貨が推奨されている。中井家にも同様の傾向がみられる点については、このあとにもふれる。
３４ 年未詳であるが、１８
０６（文化３）年から１８
６８（慶応４）年まで設置された大坂店の「月〆」には、つぎのような記載がみられる。
「一、小玉 五百匁
右ハ御注文之品也」
小玉銀が貨幣としてよりも、商品としての認識がまさっていた状況がうかがえる。

加藤

110
表５−１

慶一郎

中井家本家の銀貨使用目的（出金）

年度＼種類 商品・用役代金 貸 借１６．
７０（ ４） ２２．
８５
（ ７）
１８１０年
０
２４．
７
（文化 ７） １８．
０．
９０（ １） ４．
７０
（ ２）
１８３０年
０
２１．
２
（文政１３） ４．
４９（４５） ２２４．
３５（１０）
１８５０年 ６３３．
４
１５．
７
（嘉永 ３） ４４．
０．
０
０．
０
１８７０年
０
０．
０
（明治 ３） ０．

寄 付
両 替 その他・不明 合 計
３９．
００（１０） １４．
０２
（ ３）
９２．
５７
（２４）
４２．
１
１５．
２
１００．
０
１３．
７０
（ ５） ０．
００２．
９０（ １） ２２．
２０
（ ９）
６１．
７
０．
０
１３．
１
１００．
０
６７．
７（１６） ３５１．
４９（１０） １４９．
０８（ ７）１，
４２６．
１１
（８８）
４．
８
２４．
７
１０．
４
１００．
０
０．
０
７．
５０
（ １）
７．
５０
（ １）
０．
０
１００．
０
１００．
０

注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」によって作成。
２．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．
７
５匁（「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻貸し」）はのぞいた。
３．上段の単位は匁であり、括弧内の数字は件数をしめし、下段の数字は構成比（％）
である。

表５−２

中井家本家の銀貨使用目的（入金）

寄 付
両 替 その他・不明 合 計
年度＼種類 商品・用役代金 貸 借
−
２０５．
５０
（ ２） ０．
００
９．
２７
（ ２）
−
２１４．
７７
（ ４）
１８１０年
−
９５．
７
０．
０
４．
３
−
１００．
０
（文化 ７）
−
０．
００
０．
００
７２．
９０
（ ３）
−
７２．
９０
（ ３）
１８３０年
−
０．
０
０．
０
１００．
０
−
１００．
０
（文政１３）
３０
（ １）
−
５．
００
（ １）１，
０８５．
３７（２５） ８７．
５５（ ９）１，
３１７．
２２（３６）
１８５０年 １３９．
６
−
０．
４
８２．
４
６．
６
１００．
０
（嘉永 ３） １０．
−
−
−
２．
６５
（ ２） ７．
５０（ １） １０．
１５
（ ３）
１８７０年
−
−
−
２６．
１
７３．
９
１００．
０
（明治 ３）
注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」によって作成。
２．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．７
５匁（「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻借り」）はのぞいた。
３．上段の単位は匁であり、括弧内の数字は件数をしめし、下段の数字は構成比（％）
である。

左衛門光熈は、出店の経営監査のため店廻りを実施している。そのさいに、奉公人に祝儀を下付することもあったから、その用意であった可能性もある３５。
いずれにせよ、この時期においても大坂では相対的に秤量銀貨が豊富であったことがうかがえる３６。この銀２００匁をのぞくと、１件あたり金額は４．
９匁となり、同年の支払とあまりかわらなくなる。以上のように、文化７年を状況によると、銀貨単位貨幣単独の使用は、端数処理や儀礼的な支払がその中心をなしていた。
つぎに、他の年度についても使用目的をみてみることにしよう。
表５は、各年の銀貨単独の支出入を目的べつに整理したものである。ここの「寄付」とは、前出のとおり香典や薬礼などの総称である。まず、支払にかん

３５ 江頭『中井家の研究』８
１
６−８
１
８頁。
３
６ 大坂支店では弘化期においても、においても、出向いた当主にたいして小玉銀が貸しつけたり、現送したことがしるされている（「差引調帳」弘化２年および同５年）。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例111してまずみよう。１８１０年と１８３０年においては、寄付がもっとも金額が多い。両年においてそれについだのが、貸借であった。しかしながら、１８３０年は銀貨の使用は不振であり、４項目すべての使用金額が減少している。そのご１８５０年になると、かなり様相が異なっている。それまでとは一転して、全項目に増額がみとめられる。とりわけ商品・用役代金の増大が顕著であり、両替と貸借もそれにつづいた。こうした全体的な増勢のため、寄付もある程度は増加しているにもかかわらず、その比率は大幅に減少することとなった。１８７０年になると、その使用はほとんどなかった。一方、受取はどうであっただろうか。１
８１０・
１８３０年については、小玉銀調達と両替にともなう受取でしめられており、それ以外の使用は見あたらない。それ以前は銀貨が無くともこと足りていたわけであるから、中井家が積極的に銀貨をもとめたわけではないだろう。１８５０年になると、先と同様の変化が生じている。すなわち、大量の銀貨が両替をつうじて入金してきたのである。それに連動するかのように、商品・用役代金としての入金も増えている。この年についていえば、両替を通じて受けとった銀貨を、商品・用役代金あるいは両替などの目的で出金していたことになる。つまり、銀貨のみの循環が、小規模であるが形成されていたのである。当時、中井家では伊勢の香良洲店をもっており、そこでは比較的銀札が流通していた。しかし、本家独自の取引をつうじて銀貨の流通がみられるため、同店からの流入ではな
かったということになる３７。それ以前の１
８１０・１８３０年においては、主に端数処理によって受けとった銀貨を、支払時に使用するという形になっていたのとは対照的である。
右の検討により、１８５０年における銀貨の使用事例が際だっていた。この事実
は、その流通量が増大していたことを示唆するものである。さらに、この年独自の現象として、秤量銀貨とともに「銀札」の使用がみられた。銭貨について
も、「銭札」使用があった点では共通している。それぞれの流通量増大は、紙幣流通に起因するものであった可能性がある。そこで、同年について、銀札の部分をわけて作成したのが表６である。出金・入金それぞれについて、各項目の上段が銀札の使用金額で、下段が全体の使用金額である。まず合計額をみると、入出金ともに、銀札が全体の約６８％をしめている。したがって、この時期における銀貨の使用量増大は、銀札によるところが大きかったとみて間違いない。看過されてはならないのは、秤量銀貨使用量も増大している事実である。
恐らく、銀札流通に牽引され、それまで退蔵気味であった秤量銀貨がふたたび市場に出まわるようになったと考えられる。こうした点からしても、通貨が自然に統合されることはきわめて困難であったといえよう。つぎに各項目をみると、出金では商品と両替において銀札使用率が高い。寄付と貸借においては、
３
７ 同支店の「金銭出入帳」の嘉永２・３年分をみると、全支払額（銀約４７貫匁）のうち、約４％（約２貫匁）が銀札であったと見積もられる。

加藤

112
表６

慶一郎

中井家本家の銀札使用状況（１８５０〈嘉永３〉年）

出

商品・用役代金貸借
寄付
両替 その他・不明 合計
５０４．
４０
６．
００ ２０．
００ ３３０．
００ １０６．
００ ９６６．
４０
銀 札（２９）（ １） （ ２） （ ６）（ ４） （４２）
比率（％）
７９．
６０
２．
７０ ２
９．
５０ ９３．
９０
０．
００
６
７．
８
６３３．
４９ ２２４．
３５
６７．
７ ３５１．
４９ １４９．
０８１，
４２６．
１１
全 体
（４５）
（１０） （１６） （１０） （ ７） （８８）５．
００ ８５８．
６７ ２９．
４０ ８９３．
０７
銀 札−−（ １） （１４） （ ５） （２０）（構成比）−
− １００．
００ ７
９．
１０ ３３．
６０
６
７．
８
１３９．
３０
５．
００１，
０８５．
３７ ８７．
５５１，
３１７．
２２
全 体
−
（ １）
（ １） （２５） （ ９） （３６）

金

入金注）１．各年分「金銭出入帳」によって作成。
２．嘉永３年３月２
７日の７
０
８
８．
７
５匁（「中井屋岩之助綿代差引尻貸し」・「同左借り」）
はのぞいた。
３．単位は銀匁、括弧内は件数をしめす。

反対にその率が低くなっている。これらの場合は、銀札よりも秤量銀貨がより選好されていたことがうかがえる。支出目的によって、貨幣の使い分けがなされていたのであろう。香典などの儀礼的な貨幣授受にかんし、紙幣よりも金属貨幣が選好された点は先にみたところである。また、貸借についても、先に検討した表４にしめされた内容からすると、近親者のために香典を立てかえた場
合や、身内のものへ少額を貸しつけた場合がかなりふくまれていたと推察される。こうした時、金額があえば何でもよいというのではなく、貨幣素材にも一定の配慮がなされたことが再確認できる。他方、入金をみると、商品・用役代
金に秤量銀貨の比較的高額な１件があるため、銀札使用率が低くなっている。
これはその内容をみると、京都の分家である中井正治右衛門からの綿代と駄賃である。この事実から、京都では依然として秤量銀貨の使用頻度が高かったことがうかがえる３８。そのほかでは、両替が大半であり、銀札の比率も８０％弱と高めであった。

おわりに以上、文化期以降を対象時期として、中井源左衛門家の本家における流通貨
幣に検討をくわえた。その結果を簡単にまとめておくことにしよう。

３
８ 中井正治右衛門家の「金銭出入帳」は、１８６５（元治２）年が利用できる。これによると、同年の支払貨幣の内訳は、総額銀約４，０００貫目のうち、金単位貨幣が９１．
２％、銀単位貨幣が８．
３％、銭単位貨幣が０．
５％となっていた。このころの異常な銀安傾向を勘案
すると、この銀単位貨幣の比率は過小であるかもしれない。

江戸後期における流通貨幣

近江商人・中井源左衛門家の事例

113①大半の流通貨幣は計数金銀貨であった。
②主として、秤量銀貨は儀礼的な目的につかわれた。
③「銀貨」と「銭貨」の使用は、紙幣の使用とともに僅かに回復した。
①にかんしては、明治期にはいって「金銭出入帳」に「金札」があらわれるため、それ以前は計数金銀貨であったと判断した。②と考えあわせると、中井家の本家における取引は、計数金銀貨によって成立していたことになる。秤量
銀貨の経済的機能は、著しく低下していたのである。この事実は、江戸後期の豪商のなかには、計数金銀貨のみでこと足りた経営があったことを示唆している。全国的には、天保期の改鋳によって「秤量銀貨の退役」が決定的となったとされる３９。しかし、中井家においては、文政の改鋳以前の１８１０（文化７）年
において、すでに計数金銀貨が決済手段となっていたのである４０。
もちろん、在地経済とのつながりが深ければ深いほど、銀貨あるいは銭貨の使用頻度は高まるであろう。この点を裏づけるのが、③の事実である。中井家が所在した湖東地域は、先述のとおり非領国的地域である。したがって、種々の藩札が越境して流通することは十分ありえた。じっさい、同家による札の使用量増大と、近隣における札の発行とは時期的に重なっている。すなわち、
１８４７（弘化４）年において、下大森村（現八日市）に陣屋をもつ旗本・最上氏（石高５，０００石）が、銀札（２匁・１匁・５分）と銭札（５００文・３００文・１００文・５０文）を発行している４１。その名称が「茶切手」、引替所が「江州大森茶会所」となっており、茶の専売制と関連して発行されたのであろう。この旗本札はよく流通していたようである。他地域へ流出した分については、月に一度ずつ八日市町へ出張して引きかえたという４２。最上氏は、１８６０（万延１）年以降も４度にわたり銀札あるいは銭札を発行したことが確認できる。中井家とは所領を異にするが、日野と大森とは８キロほどしか隔たっていないため、在地における諸取引を通じて同家の手にもわたったのであろう。また、東老蘇村（現安土町）に陣屋をもつ根来氏（石高３，４００石）は、１８４９（嘉永２）年に銀１匁の額面をもつ豆手形を発行している４３。さらに、水口藩自身も１８５６（安政３）年に３
９ 山本有造『両から円へ

幕末・明治前期貨幣問題研究』（ミネルヴァ書房、１
９
９
４年）
３
０
６頁。
４
０ 中井家が所在した蒲生郡をふくむ近江国南東部について、土地売渡し証文を検討した浦長瀬『中近世日本貨幣流通史』２３８頁によると、１
８世紀末においては銀が基準貨幣であった。この点に、貨幣の流通構造の重層性、あるいは基準貨幣と流通貨幣の乖離があらわれている。
４
１ 日本銀行調査局編・土屋喬雄／山口和雄監修『図録 日本の貨幣６』（東洋経済新報
社、１
９
７
５年）２
６頁。
４
２ 滋賀県蒲生郡役所編『近江蒲生郡志 巻五』
（同前、１
９
２
２年）７
９頁。
４
３ 滋賀県蒲生郡役所編『近江蒲生郡志 巻四』
（同前、１
９
２
２年）３
７
７頁、日本銀行調査局『日本の貨幣６』８
４頁。

114

加藤

慶一郎

銭札（５００文・１
００文・５０文）を発行している４４。藩札はやはり在地経済における通貨であった。中井家の本家は、その経営を計数金銀貨により成りたたせていたため、藩札の流通との接点はほとんど無かった。地域内通貨とのかかわりは、その在地経済との関係により格差があったといえよう。重層的な貨幣構造と直接むきあわねばならない商人もいれば、間接的な接触にとどまるものもいたことになる。
【付記】
本論文は、日本銀行金融研究所貨幣史研究会西日本部会における報告をもとにしたものである。報告にたいし、会員各位よりご教示たまわった。また、徳島県立貞光工業高等学校・野口昭四郎氏からは、近代の私札にかんする有益な情報をご提供いただいた。史料採訪にさいしては、滋賀大学経済学部附属史料館の関係者の方々よりご高配たまわった。末筆ながら、しるして感謝の意を表したい。なお、本論文は２００２年度流通科学大学商学部特別研究助成による研究
成果の一部である。

４４ 日本銀行調査局『日本の貨幣６』２７頁。

Chapter 6
Mind Maps and Land Maps:
The Cognitive Geography of “The Village”
in Tokugawa Japan
Ronald P. Toby

Maps are seen in the mind long before they are drawn on paper. Denis
Wood reminds us, “[T]he maps we make in our minds embody experience
exactly as paper maps do, accumulated as we have made our way throughthe world in the activity of our living.” (Wood 1992: 14) And there aremany more maps in the mind than can ever be inscribed on paper, formaps are the products of purpose, “choos[ing] among competing interests;
that is, they embody those interests in the map.” (Wood 1992: 57; emphasis in original) What is shown, and what hidden, in any map is an index of
the interests behind its makers.
Maps show certain things––say, irrigation channels, rice paddies, orcommon land––while ignoring or obscuring others. A map of the distribution of landholding in a village will not show the distribution of occupations, office-holding, or religious affiliation; a map of arable and fallow
land may be of little use as a guide to the best route from one field to another. And the social map of a village, as found in the mind of its headman or others of the village elite, may differ markedly from that in themind of a tenant farmer, an outcaste, or a Buddhist priest.
The “maps” I write of in the present paper, following Wood, existed
principally in the minds and practices of villagers––in this case, the small
farming village of Nishijō, situated on the banks of the Nagara River, inthe polder lowlands of what is today Gifu Prefecture. They can be foundon paper as well, but not as what we might commonly recognize as maps.
For they are not simply “graphic representation[s] of the milieu” (Robinson
and Petchenik 1976: 16), according to a schematic code, of the geographical features of the village, indicating their spatial distribution––though thisis a fair working definition of a “map.”
First, if maps are “simply... a representation of things in space; representation and space are the key elements” (Ibid., 1976: 15), they may exist in
115

116

Ronald P. Toby

the mind, and be recovered from ordinary written, that is, verbal records ofthe acts and behavior of ordinary people.
And second, following Wood (1992),
and especially the late J. B. Harley (1988,
1989a, 1989b), we also have come torecognize that that those “things inspace” that Robinson and Petchenik(1976) took to be immanent, given features of the landscape, the objects maps
represent, are not so innocent; the makers behind the maps may deploy“graphic representations” as much to‐‐
Map 1: Nishijo
and the Nobiregion constitute as to represent. Maps, that is,
are suffused with what Baxandall (1985)
has called “patterns of intention,” the purposes of both their immediate architects, and the patrons who employ them. The villagers of Nishijō in thelate Tokugawa period have left palimpsests of their mind maps, that is,embedded in their written records and cultural practices, from which it ispossible to elicit a variety of mappings of Nishijō and its environs. These
mind maps call into question the nature, perhaps even the very existence,of Nishijō as a village, and reveal it to be a series of arguments about its
identity, and its geographic and social extent. It is precisely these invisible
maps that I propose to bring out in the discussion that follows.
BACKGROUND
Some years ago, I began a project inspired by the pioneering work of
the economic historian Hayami Akira, on the demographic history of Edoperiod Nishijō. Much of Professor Hayami’s path breaking work in Edoperiod historical demography had been based on data from Nishijō’s population records, which were compiled annually from the seventeenth century
until 1872, and which survive intact in a continuous series for the lastninety-seven years of that span of time. Professor Hayami has elucidated
such questions as marriage and fertility patterns, labor migration, etc. in
Tokugawa Japan, using the Nishijō data as his laboratory, to the great advancement of our understanding of demographic and social processes inearly modern Japan.1
In the Edo period, Nishijō was a tenryō village, that is, a village in the
1. Much of this work is summarized in Hayami Akira 1997, Chapter 4. Nishijō
has been the focus of several important studies that take off from Hayami’s extensive corpus of work. Of particular relevance to this paper is Narimatsu Saeko,
Shōya nikki ni mieru Edo no sesō to kurashi (Mineruva Shobō, 2000).

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan117

direct domains of the Tokugawa bakufu in Edo. It was one of dozens ofsuch villages scattered around the heartland of Japan that were not part ofextensive tracts of shogunal land, but simply one or two isolated villages,
not concentrated enough for the shogunate to place its own administrative
agent there. Like many other such villages, Nishijō was “deposited” with
the nearest daimyo (daimyō azukari), in this case with the Toda of Ōgaki
domain in 1748, as a sort of fiduciary agent for the bakufu. (Harafuji1988) The village was within a day’s round trip by ferry and foot from thedaimyo’s castle town of Ōgaki, which sat astride the Minoji, a branchhighway connecting the Nakasendō and the Tōkaidō, the two main routes
between Kyoto and Edo. The successive headmen’s diaries are replete withreferences to their many trips to “the honorable fiduciary office” (oazukari
oyakusho), the Ōgaki office that collected taxes and oversaw the tenryō
villages deposited with Ōgaki. (Narimatsu 2000)
For the purposes of his demographic analysis, Prof. Hayami implicitly
takes “Nishijō” as a unitary site, with a coherent population and internalsocioeconomic structure, a “village” comprising the lands inhabited andfarmed by the people registered the annual census registers. The registers,
most of them entitled Ninbetsu shūmon aratame chō, were compiled eachyear by the village headman, with the assistance of local Buddhist clergy,both as a census and as a check that all village residents were uninfectedwith any taint of Christianity. Taking the population of the registers, which
are extant for a century from 1773 to 1872, to represent a unitary village
yielded a population large enough for significant statistical analysis––analysis that has revolutionized historical scholarship on Edo-period Japanese demography. But it may have masked internal fissures and divisions,the existence of cross-cutting communities both within and beyond the area
covered by those records, a multiplicity of overlapping, layered villages,
occupying the same territory. Beginning to map these multiple communities––to attempt to tease out some of the villagers’ own mind maps––is thefocus of this paper.
FIRST ENCOUNTERS
In preparing for my first extended visit to Nishijō, I had made two quite
brief stops there earlier, in 1983 and 1984. The village immediately called
up images of Teshigahara Hiroshi’s film version of Abe Kōbō’s Woman in
the Dunes: Nishijō is surrounded on two sides (north and east) by tallearthen dikes that tower above the rooftops of the village; maintenance ofthe dikes has long been a life-or-death matter. For, situated in the northeast
corner of the Fukutsuka Polder, Nishijō is nestled on the west bank of the
Nagara River, and just south of a dry creek called the “Nakamura River”(it was not dry in the Edo period, but had a ferry), in the heartland of thepolder region (wajū chitai) of the Mino lowlands (modern Gifu Prefecture).

118

Ronald P. Toby

Most of the region was reclaimed marsh and sandbar in the Edo period,and is still susceptible to prodigious floods; to control the floods and preserve the land in arable condition, it has been diked for more than four
centuries.
Thus, while I had a visual image of the village, and some sense of its
physical reality, I was essentially limited in my knowledge about it to what
I had learned from Prof. Hayami’s work, my own examination of the
documentary and scholarly record, including local histories, and a few
hours’ observation of the physical environment. I had yet truly to walk the
ground on which the people of Nishijō had lived and worked.2 When I
worked in the village for an extended period in 1985, however, I discovered that the “village” of Nishijo presented me with epistemological problems that confront every historian and anthropologist, but that I had taken
too lightly.
One calm but dreary afternoon in the Spring of 1985 I was sitting outside a small local store––if Nishijō were larger, it might be a mini-mart––
at a bus stop on the main road that bisects the community, squatting down
and sipping a soda beside a middle-aged man doing much the same. He
seemed to be waiting for the bus into town (Ōgaki). He was, not surprisingly, puzzled by the presence of a foreigner, for while hundreds of foreigners pass Nishijō (and Ōgaki) each day on the “bullet train” which runs
just north of the former and south of the latter, surely none of them noticeit; indeed, concealed as it is by a towering flood-prevention dike constructed in the Tokugawa period, the village is invisible from the Shinkansen. And few foreigners ever enter the village.
Equally commonplace, we struck up a conversation, to pass the time,about nothing in particular. He wanted to know where I was from––though
he correctly assumed me to be American––but, thankfully, did not remark
on my ability to speak Japanese. Even more, he wondered what had
brought me to this seemingly unremarkable rice-farming village. I told him
I was there doing research, and asked him, in turn, whether he was returning home to Ōgaki, or whether he lived in Nishijō. I was hardly prepared
2. There have of course been fine-grained changes in the surface of Nishijō, especially the so-called “reorganization of farmland” (nōchi seiri; kukaku seiri) of the
postwar era, which has all but obliterated the patchwork of irregular field shapesthat characterized most Japanese farmland until “modern” and “rational” systems
were parachuted onto the land. Nearly all the fields, both paddy and dry, are now
neatly rectangular and of essentially uniform size. Consequently, the irrigation system has also been completely restructured around the new rectangular fields. And,of course, the village is crisscrossed by paved roads lined with utility poles. TV
satellite dishes, parked automobiles, and hundreds of other appurtenance of modern,consumer society are everywhere to be seen. But Nishijō’s fundamental layout,
deep structures like the location of the dikes, the division between residential plots
and farmland, and many of the internal divisions not immediately apparent to theeye, remain.

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan119

for his indignation: “Me live in Nishijō!? No, I live in Jūrenbō,” he said,
in a somewhat exercised voice, indicating by its local name the eastern
half of the “Nishijō” compassed by the Edo-period census registers. For
my interlocutor, Jūrenbō was decidedly not “Nishijō.”
MULTIPLE MAPPINGSThis brings me to the epistemological issue I shall address here. If the“village” of today is so uneasy of definition, then where was the “Nishijō”of the Tokugawa period? Who were the peasants of Nishijō? What are thephysical, social, and cognitive boundaries of Nishijō––indeed, is Nishijō aunitary cognitive entity? I raise these issues because they are essential to
our enterprise, because their resolutions are anything but self-evident, andbecause they are issues central to an understanding of how communities
defined themselves––that is, an understanding of people and locality, locality and region, governed and governing. To put my conclusion ahead of
my exposition, whether Nishijō was a “village,” and what its relationshipwas to other villages, depended substantially on one’s point of view. From
some perspectives––say, from the viewpoint of the annual census––earlymodern Nishijō was a unitary community, within the larger “village” ofNiremata; and other times, particularly when viewed from higher on theadministrative ladder, Nishijō disappeared from sight almost entirely. And
yet, at the same time, there were multiple villages within “Nishijō,” whichwere themselves obscured by administrative fiction.
The “Nishijō” of Professor Hayami’s studies is in essence the unit of reality defined––and, I shall argue, constructed––by a series of census andsectarian-affiliation registers, the Shūmon aratame chō (hereafter “census
registers”), an uninterrupted annual series of which covers the years from1773 to 1872. The peasants listed in these registers were juridical membersof the seventy-five to ninety-two households (ie) that comprised the village,
the “village” whose marital, reproductive, and migratory behavior has been
so well elucidated by Professor Hayami. As Prof. Hayami makes clear, thecensus registers themselves identify Nishijō simultaneously as a “village,”
and as part of a larger, more complex village: “The Village of Nishijō,
within the Village of Niremata” (Niremata-mura no uchi Nishijō-mura).
Although part of Niremata for certain administrative purposes, as the titleof the Shūmon aratame chō makes clear, Nishijō reported its population
independently; the southern half of Niremata reported its population separately––as “Niremata.” To distinguish the larger, all-inclusive Niremata
from the smaller one, I shall call them “greater Niremata” and “lesser Niremata,” respectively.
But when it came to the annual report of village conditions, the meisaichō (“register of details”), also submitted to the “honorable fiduciary office” (o-azukaridokoro; oyakusho) each year, Nishijō almost completely

120

Ronald P. Toby

disappeared: Greater Niremata presented the office with a unified annual
report summarizing the tax base and population, Shintō shrines and Buddhist temples, and other details of conditions within its boundaries, without
a single mention of “Nishijō”––nor of the “Lesser Niremata”––hidden
within. The only hints that there might be more than one community that
this document politely conceals––the oyakusho, of course, knew of both
Nishijō and Lesser Niremata from census, tax, and other records––were themention of two separate public notice boards (kōsatsu), and the fact thatthe meisai-chō were signed by the headmen, elders (toshiyori), and peasants’ representatives (hyakushōdai) from both Nishijō and Lesser Niremata.
(Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981: 867-870; cf. Kurushima 1993 on
the significance of kōsatsu)
Some have suggested that there is an a priori entity, a “natural village”(shizen shūraku) that is somehow immanent in the structure of life and local geography, an expression of the inherent social and cognitive organization of the people of “the village”: “Mura: Natural village. Under the satoor gōri system, the household [ko] was the [basis of] the administrative
unit, but the mura was completely unrelated to that, having reference to acoherent territory, persisting as the unit of peasant life” (Nihonshi Yōgo
Jiten Henshū Iinkai 1979: 781; emphasis added) This is distinct from the“administrative village” (gyōsei sonraku), which is an administrative fiction imposed arbitrarily by higher (samurai/daimyo/shogunal) politicalauthority. However, for this “natural village” to exist, there must have beena physical and geographical unit that corresponded to a widely-agreedupon social and cognitive unit––a community––that constituted “the village.” Anyone familiar with the area, that is, ought readily to have beenable to point out a dividing line between “village” and “not-village,” andthat boundary ought to have been affirmed by any other local person, evenfrom another village, excluded from the cognitive/geographical unit of the“village” agreed upon above.
In Nishijō, however, the case is not so simple, as my chance encounterat the bus stop suggested, and as the complexities of local practices––someof them noted above––reflected in the shūmon aratame chō, meisai-chō,and other local records, confirm. For some purposes, the social and residential unit comprising the population registered in the Nishijō census registers was the “village,” but for other purposes, neither the residents of thecensus “village,” nor the neighboring village of “lesser” Niremata, regarded Nishijō as a village. At times, Nishijō was part of a larger village––
Greater Niremata––and at others, if we are to believe the cognitive implications of the record, and of local collective memory, it was itself an amalgam of the two villages of “lesser” Nishijō and Jūrenbō. If Marc Blochwas correct about feudalism being characterized by landholding patterns
such that many people might look at the same field and say, “this is myland,” in some “villages” in Tokugawa Japan the same peasant might look

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan121

to different entities for different purposes, and say: “That is my village.” Inorder to clarify this admittedly confusing description, I will have recourse
to a more conventional map.

‐

Map 2: Nishijo and Its Multilayered Communities

The Nishijō of the census registers, that is, was part of a larger administrative village known as Niremata, which comprised both the Nishijō ofthe census/sect registers, and a separate, contiguous census registration unit
called Niremata. It is unclear when the two villages were combined for administrative purposes, or even when, and in what sequence they were
founded. One local (Nishijō) oral tradition has it that Nishijō is older, andthat Niremata was founded later, after the Battle of Sekigahara (1600).
Folks in Niremata, of course, see it differently. But both appear––as separate villages––in Hideyoshi’s 1588 catalog of the Ichihashi fief (Gifu Ken
1972-1973, Shiryō-hen, Kinsei 6: 6; Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai
1981: 781), rendering the question of seniority moot, except for local bragging rights. But my suspicion, on the basis of several sixteenth- andseventeenth-century manuscripts in the Nishijō headman’s collection, in thecollection of the Niremata headman, and in other archives, is that the process of amalgamation proceeded piecemeal over the course of the seventeenth century, and that it received added impetus from a peasant protest in
the village during the Genroku period (1688-1704).
When Toyotomi Hideyoshi enumerated the villages given in fief to Ichi-

122

Ronald P. Toby

hashi Shimōsa-no-kami in 1588, Niremata (listed as “Nuremata”) andNishijō were listed as separate villages––indeed, separated in the catalog
by another village––with a notation that the taxes on Nishijō were to be
paid to a local samurai of the Nishimatsu family, as a form of subfief
within the Ichihashi domain. But just eight days after Tokugawa Ieyasu
won a decisive victory over Hideyoshi’s heirs in the winter of 1600, in the
Battle of Sekigahara, only a few miles northwest of Niremata and Nishijō,Tokugawa Ieyasu issued an order to seven of the villages in the Fukutsuka
Polder, proscribing arson, banditry, and illegal (secret) harvesting of crops:
Niremata was among them, but Nishijō was not. Perhaps Ieyasu saw
Nishijō as a subordinate part of Niremata. (Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan
Iinkai 1981: 787-788) Local lore has it that Nishimatsu had been a Toyotomi partisan, and was deemed untrustworthy: As punishment, he waslinked––and subordinated––to Niremata and its headman. This might account for Nishijō’s invisibility, but it is just as likely that the absence ofNishijō from this order merely indicates that Ieyasu had not yet taken account of it: These were unsettled days, and there were several other villages in the polder that Ieyasu had likewise overlooked.(Wanouchi-chō shi
Hensan Iinkai 1981: 785-786)
A quarter-century later, a 1624 survey of commons (kayano) in the villages along the New Shimo-ōgure Road listed Niremata and Nishijō asseparate villages, each with its own headman. (Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan
Iinkai 1981: 791-793) But the impression that Nishijō is subordinate to Niremata is reinforced by a land tax (nengu) report only two months earlier:
While Niremata and Nishijō’s tax obligations are distinguished, the report
is a submission from Nishijō’s headmen to Niremata’s headmen, as if thelatter were superior officers. (Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981: 804805) And, when Niremata villagers protested a 1641 reassessment thatwould have nearly doubled Niremata’s tax obligations, it was a Niremata
without Nishijō. (Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981: 807)
The earliest extant census of “the village,” the Ninbetsu-chō of 1676,
treats Nishijō and Niremata as two villages paired for reporting purposes.
It is entitled Ninbetsu-chō Niremata Nishijō, suggesting that the two clusters of residential and agricultural land and people constitute separate entities that are paired for convenience, and that the two villages are roughpeers.3 This document is itself internally contradictory as to the nature of“the village,” though it seems to confirm the administrative superiority of
3. Despite the bakufu mandate that “investigations of sect affiliation” (shūmonaratame) be conducted in every tenryō village, and the extension of that mandate
to all villages after 1665, there is no indication of sect affiliation in the 1676
Ninbetsu-chō, nor are individual members of each household identified by name or
relation to the family head. The members of each household are merely recorded in
the aggregate: so many males; so many females––and so many horses.

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan

123

Niremata. The register opens by counting 999 koku of currently productive
land as constituting “Niremata-mura, in Anpachi District, Mino Province”;
but it closes with the two reporting officers signing the census. One ofthem, Magoshichi, I can identify as both a descendant of the “Nishimatsu”
to whom Toyotomi Hideyoshi allocated Nishijō in fief in the 1580s(Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981: 785),4 and the ancestor of all subsequent Nishijō headmen. Both sign themselves, however, as Nirematamura shoya ––[co-]headmen of Niremata village––seeming to negate theindependent existence of Nishijō as a village, or even as a separate community within Niremata.
The practice of Niremata and Nishijō headmen co-signing documents as
joint heads of a Niremata that makes no reference to the inner constituency
of Nishijō as a village was common throughout the early modern period,
though by no means consistent. Three joint “headmen of Niremata Village” signed a 1799 map of the dikes within the Fukutsuka Polder; indeed,eight of the eighteen “villages” mapped were represented by multiple headmen. But the map itself speaks of Nishijō independently of Niremata (Gifu
Ken 1972-1973, Kinsei 5, suppl. 4), and another map of riparian works inthe early eighteenth century likewise maps “Nishijō Village” separatelyfrom Niremata (ibid., suppl. 5).
The 1676 census register gives no indication which households reside inwhich sub-village, but the muradaka (assessed product) of the “village”
listed in the front of the register for the entire “Niremata” is broken downat the end into “Niremata” and “Nishijō” land. The inference might readily
be drawn that the administrative “Niremata” is a fiction imposed by higher
authority. Neither does the register make any pretense to registration of individuals, or of sectarian affiliation, suggesting that the bakufu’s mandate
to do so was as yet only unevenly implemented across the country––much
as Hideyoshi’s land surveys took several decades for full implementation.
(Brown 1993)
RITUAL PRACTICE AS MAPPING
There are practices in the villages even today which suggest that forsome ritual purposes the administrative fiction is a reflection of social fact.
There are six Buddhist temples in the extended villages of “greater” Niremata (one of which did not exist in the Tokugawa period), and two major
Shinto shrines, as well as one small Ise shrine––really a stone lantern dedicated to the grand shrines at Ise––and countless lesser shrines, especially to
4. The Nishijō headman’s family continued to use the Nishimatsu surname unofficially, in family financial records, for example, throughout the early-modern period, and in 1861 recovered both samurai status and the legal privilege of the
Nishimatsu surname. See Toby, 1991.

124

Ronald P. Toby

Jizō, guardian of the crossroads and protector of children. Shirahige-san is
located in the Jūrenbō section of Nishijō, in the northeast corner of the
combined villages, where the Nakamura River reaches to join the Nagara;
Shinmei-san is squarely within the bounds of “lesser” Niremata, between
the village residential area, and the Nagara River levee. O-Ise-san, a stonelantern dedicated to the shrines at Ise, stands above the village, atop the
Nakamura River dike just north of Jūrenbō.
All residents of Nishijō are ujiko (children) of Shirahige-san, and all
residents of “lesser Niremata” are ujiko of Shinmei-san––people “living
within the precincts of a particular shrine, who are thus under the protection of its principal deity.” (Nelson 1996: 266-267) In the Edo period thetwo shrines celebrated their festivals on the same days, precluding anyone’s participation in both festivals––a significant indicator of membershipin the shrine community.5 And the “children” they protect, therefore,
would seem to form mutually-exclusive communities.
At the level of shrine organization, this may be true; yet local practice at
New Year suggests that in other ways the boundary between these two“communities” were blurry: The route for New Year’s Day shrine pilgrimages (hatsu-mōde) for all residents of “greater” Niremata, according to local informants, starts with Shirahige-san, proceeding thence to “Ise-san,”the stone lantern (jōyatō) dedicated to Ise, sitting atop the Nakamura River
dike at the northern edge of Nishijō. Thereafter, the pilgrimage routes diverge: Those living in the Nishijō sections (“lesser” Nishijō and Jūrenbō)then proceed directly to family deities (the aucestors), while those from“lesser Niremata” return to a pilgrimage to Shinmei-san before their obeisances to family deities. (verbal communication) It is of course possiblethat the “lesser Niremata” practice of hatsu-mōde to O-Ise-san arose aspart of the State’s reorganization and regularization of Shintō practice inthe years between the Meiji Restoration and the Pacific War, for including
an “Ise pilgrimage” in the hatsu-mōde would constitute starting the yearwith obeisance to the originary ancestor of the imperial clan, Amaterasu,
who is enshrined at Ise.
These overlapping New Year practices suggest that, in fact, there areseveral “villages” that overlap: “Nishijō” existed as a unit of census andsectarian record-keeping, but was not congruent with any social unit as defined by either Buddhist affiliation or Shinto affiliation. All residents of the
Nishijō of the census registers acknowledged the protection of Shirahigesan, but that was also true of residents of Niremata. One could say that thereligious group that was congruent with the Nishijō reflected in the census
registers was all those who were ujiko of Shirahige but did not pray at
5. The mura meisai-chō for 1838 records festivals at both shrines on the sixteenth day of the sixth lunar month and the fifteenth day of the eight month.
(Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981): 868.

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan

125

Shinmei, for all residents of “lesser Niremata” were ujiko of (or at least
made New Year visits to) both shrines, and no Nishijō residents went toShinmei for New Year prayers. (verbal communication) The Ise Shrine in
the Nishijō section of Niremata, may be recognition of the fact that 10.103
koku (one koku equals approx. 4.96 bu.) of Niremata land was set aside as
the Ise shrine’s fisc ((Niremata mura sashidashi meisai kakiage chō [1838],
in Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai 1981), 867-869).
DECONSTRUCTING “NISHIJŌ”For all that, “Nishijō” is less self-contained in its Buddhist aspect than“lesser” Niremata: While all residents of “lesser” Niremata were parishioners of one of the local Buddhist temples (there were three in Niremata, allof the Jōdo Shinshū––True Pure Land––sect), this was not true of Nishijō
residents. Although there were also two temples in “greater” Nishijō, Saifukuji and Shinjōji, only 85% (figures are for 1793) of the households
were parishioners of those two temples (and in about equal proportions:
Saifukuji=44%; Shinjōji=41%), the remaining 15% were: a) not Jōdo Shinshū believers, and b) therefore parishioners of temples outside Nishijō. Of
these, 12% were affiliated with one of two different Zen temples of theMyōshinji branch of the Rinzai sect; one of these is over 5 km. from
Nishijō. The remaining few (3%) were Pure Land sectarians, and affiliatedwith a Pure Land temple 2.1 km. away. Note, however, that there is nooverlap in Buddhist temple affiliation between the “lesser Niremata” population––all of whom were True Pure Land adherents”––and the “greater”
Nishijō population. The True Pure Land believers in the combined village
supported five Buddhist temples, all of the same sect.
One wonders why, of course. I recall the borscht belt joke about an
ocean liner on a tropical cruise, coming across a tiny, uncharted island on
which they see a small town. The captain, of course, puts over in a small
boat to see what it is all about, and comes upon an aged Jewish castaway.
The man is happy to be rescued, but of course he is eager to show the rescue party the town he has built in his years on the island, and they arequite as curious as he is eager. He shows them around the town, pointing
out the grocery, the hardware store, the town hall, and the shul (synagogue). After he has shown them all around the town, the captain notices
another building on a rise outside the town, and asks the castaway what itis. “It’s a shul ”, he replies. The captain is nonplussed: “But you said thiswas the shul ! What do you need two shuls for?” he asks. “Why, it’s simple,” the castaway replied, “This shul I go to, but that one, I wouldn’t!”
And indeed, it seems that the parishes of which I speak were––and remain today––real, significant social groups within Nishijō, perhaps defining two separate communities. I have begun to refer to “greater” and“lesser” Nishijō because the Nishijō defined by the census registers in fact

126

Ronald P. Toby

comprises two smaller social and geographic entities, masked by the census registers, but defined in part by membership in a Buddhist temple parish.
In the Tokugawa period record, there are tantalizing references to a“Jūrenbō, which is sometimes referred to as a kumi (group), sometimes as
a mura, and today as a buraku (hamlet). People resident there today referto themselves either as “Nishijō” people or as “Jūrenbō” people, as if they
were mutually exclusive categories. On the map, Nishijō and Jūrenbō appear as contiguous members of the northern sweep of “greater” Niremata––that is, “Lesser Nishijō” in my shorthand. Neither one today has any juridical or administrative significance. But, according to the priest of Shinjōji, all his parishioners are Jūrenbō residents, while all Saifukuji parishioners are residents of lesser Nishijō.6
Taking this information as suggestive, I have analyzed the membershipin gonin-gumi (mutual-responsibility groups) as found in the Shūmonaratame-chō (they are listed for each year from 1801 to 1869), and havefound that they are mutually exclusive: there is no overlap in membership;
no gonin-gumi comprises both Saifukuji and Shinjōji parishioners. Furthermore, while the census registers never refer to Jūrenbō, other records do
indicate when people reside in Jūrenbō (about which more in a moment),
and in all cases, the families or individuals so designated are Shinjōji parishioners, confirming the geographical separation of affiliation. So whereis “the village?”
The Shūmon aratame chō of “Nishijō” and those of Niremata disagree,
implicitly, on what constitutes “the village.” Both sets of registers are explicit when designating either the origin or the destination of persons moving in or out of the population registered, whether the “move” is for employment, study, adoption, or marriage. In the Nishijō registers, traffic between Nishijō and “lesser” Niremata is treated the same as that between
Nishijō and any other village: the distinction is between “this village”(tōson, denoting Nishijō), on the one hand, and anyplace else (e.g.,
Niremata-mura); that is, Niremata is treated as an “elsewhere,” rather thana part of “this village” (tōson) “This village” comprises only “greater”
Nishijō (itself composed of “lesser” Nishijō and Jūrenbō). In the registers
for lesser Niremata, by contrast, traffic between “greater Nishijō” (a population not recorded in the Niremata registers) and “Niremata” is treated astraffic to and from parts of “this village.”
Viewed from the standpoint of the Niremata Shūmon aratame chō,
therefore, Nishijō is part of “this village,” and has no separate existence,even though the entire Nishijō population is excluded from the same census registration. The headmen of Niremata and Nishijō do not agree on
6. While Shinjōji still has a resident priest, Saifukuji’s priest lives outside
Nishijō; I was unable to interview him.

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan127

what constitutes “this village” for census purposes. For the headman of
Nishijō, his is a separate village whenever he can assert that viewpoint; forthe headman of Niremata, all of “greater Niremata” is under his purview––
even if he does not register its entire population. It remains to be determined whether these two contrasting viewpoints reflect a sense of identity
shared broadly by the various subsets of “Greater Niremata” residents (in“Lesser Niremata,” “Lesser Nishijō,” and Jūrenbō) or are limited to thetwo headmen––who had a necessarily tense relationship of competingclaims to authority.
Another articulation of independent status in the early-modern village
was the presence or absence of a public notice-board (kōsatsu), where shogunal edicts were posted, including proscriptions on Christianity, and otherlegal proclamations. As Kurushima Hiroshi (1993) has noted, rural communities were not free to establish a kōsatsu at their own initiative, but required higher authority to do so; the presence of a kōsatsu was a cherishedpublic signifier of a community’s very existence as a corporate entity. Here,though Nishijō was melded into Greater Niremata for certain administrative purposes, as we have seen, the mura meisai-chō lists two locations forkōsatsu in Greater Niremata––strongly suggesting that there was one inLesser Niremata and one in Nishijō. (Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai
1981: 868)
For still other purposes, however, the headman of Nishijō cut the distinctions even finer. As mentioned above, some records distinguish between “Nishijō” residence and “Jūrenbō” residence. In particular, the headman of Nishijō was, like most headmen in the area, a moneylender, andone whose activities grew in scope over time. In his banking ledgers, hecategorizes his loans geographically, according to the borrower’s place ofresidence; and there, Jūrenbō residents are included within “this village,”
but “lesser” Niremata borrowers are listed under people from “elsewhere”(yoso no bu). Jūrenbō borrowers are, however, distinguished from others
within “this village,” by being starred as “Jūrenbō.” (Toby 1991)
NAMING PRACTICES AND COMMUNITY
Since peasants in Tokugawa Japan were not allowed (with rare exceptions) to have legally-recognized surnames, households were generally referred to by their household head’s personal name, a practice still common
today in villages where many households share the same surname. Personalnames rarely heard in Tokyo are heard every day in Nishijō, Jūrenbō, andNiremata today. One important indicator of village boundaries ought to bepersonal names, especially the personal names of household heads, since
duplication in household-head names would create confusion within thecommunity.
And indeed, throughout the 97 years for which the Nishijō Shūmon ara-

128

Ronald P. Toby

tame chō are extant, I can find not a single case of the simultaneous use ofa single name by two household heads within either Nishijō or Jūrenbō.
The same name may be used by different households at different times,
but not at the same time. Further, this “law of avoidance” is not applicable
to wives––who brought their names with them from their natal households(as adoptive husbands did not)––or to anyone else in the household orcommunity: Only household heads had to be distinct within the village
community.
As among Nishijō, Jūrenbō and Niremata, however, this law of avoidance did not apply: there could readily be an Asashichi in both “lesser”
Niremata (TKM, Niremata-mura SAC, HN-40) and in Jūrenbō (NGM,
SAC, HN-60A) at the same time (1801-1802). But similarly, there could
be a Chūhachi simultaneously in both “lesser” Nishijō (HN-4) and Jūrenbō
(HN-64) at the same time (1773-1781), or an Iemon in both Nishijō andJūrenbō (HN-45 [sfj] and HN-59 [sjj]) overlapping from 1798-1809,
strongly suggesting once more that these were two distinct––indeed sometimes hostile––communities, unhappily tied together by administrative fiat.
SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONSOne could continue, attempting to define the “village” in terms of waterrights communities (Nishijō participated in two different kinds of waterrights communities, one which controlled surface water (irrigation rights),
and one which controlled the exploitation of subsurface water (welldigging rights), cooperative work-groups (“lesser” Nishijō and Jūrenbō
were mutually-exclusive taue-kumi until the end of World War II [v.c.]),wakamono-kumi (on which no information survives in the written record),landholding and tenancy patterns (the land records do not seem to sustain
this sort of investigation, since location of fields is not indicated), and evenresidence (not everyone registered in the shumon aratame-chō resided in
the houses of “greater” Nishijō).
However, what I would like to suggest here is that “the village” is not
an objective, palpable cognitive unit, whose boundaries everyone can readily agree upon. Indeed, the selfsame person who regarded Jūrenbō as partof “this village” for census registration purposes regarded it as “elsewhere”
for money lending purposes. “The village” was a fluid, shifting unit, comprising different elements––cognitively mapped quite differently––at different times, depending on the purpose served at the moment. Similarly, we
as historians or ethnographers need to be sensitive to this multiplicity of“villages” in the cognitive geography of localities in Tokugawa Japan.
Herman Ooms suggests that “maps are representations of the land andits occupants” (Ooms 1996: 287), and to a degree he is, of course, quite
correct. But “the village” here proves far too labile an entity to be susceptible of a single mapping. Even for Ooms, “the village” is complicated by

Mind Maps and Land Maps: The Cognitive Geography of “The Village” in Tokugawa Japan129

the presence of outcaste branch villages, which appear not to have beenpresent in the area immediately around Nishijō. Rather, interlocking patterns of practice created multiple, overlapping and intertwined social units
that “mapped” differently. The taxable Nishijō was coterminous with thecensus Nishijō; yet within that “greater Nishijō” were two mutually exclusive, and often mutually hostile, communities, separate Buddhist parishes,
though of precisely the same Jōdo Shinshū sect of Buddhism.
Both communities contained within them households who were membersof neither Buddhist parish––who affiliated as danka of Pure Land, Rinzai,
or Sōtō Zen temples elsewhere in the polder. Yet all came together as
ujiko of the local shrine deity, Shirahige, and all made New Year’s visits
to the lantern atop the northern dyke that embodied the Ise Shrine within
the village. And even residents of Niremata, who were parishioners of yetother Buddhist temples in their own residential area, made New Year’s visits to both Shirahige and O-Ise-san.
In sum, the residents of early modern Nishijō, Jūrenbō, and Niremata,coexisted and competed in a variety of cross-cutting communities or “villages,” each defined by a different set of social, economic, political, or religious practices. Though few of these overlapping communities was everinscribed in an actual, literal “map,” residents were intensely conscious of
the boundaries of each of these communities, and of who was included in––or excluded from––each.
Records kept by successive local headmen––“Gonbei” after “Gonbei,” inthe latter half of the Edo period––show how comfortable villagers were in
simultaneously recognizing mutually contradictory notions of the “village.”On the one hand, Gonbei could construct a “Nishijō” in the census registerthat readily subsumed Jūrenbō into a seamless and unitary “Nishijō”––that
was what the authorities demanded of him––yet on the other, show in hisbanking ledgers that he did not consider residents of Jūrenbō to be members of “this village,” by which he meant what I’ve chosen to call “Lesser
Nishijō.” At the same time, successive headmen of Lesser Niremata felt nocompunctions about claiming all of Nishijō as part of “this village,” which
for them was all of Greater Niremata.
The complexity of cross-cutting practices mapped in daily behavior andannual ceremonial cycle the multiple maps of community in early modern
Nishijō.

130

Ronald P. Toby

References
Baxandall, Michael
1985 Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, Philip
1993 Central Authority and Local Autonomy in the Formation of Early Modern
Japan: The Case of Kaga Domain. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Harley, J. B.
1988 Silences and Secrecy: The Hidden Agenda of Cartography in Early Modern Europe. Imago Mundi 40.
________.
1989a Deconstructing the Map. Cartographica 26, no. 2: 1-20.
________.
1989b Maps, Knowledge, and Power. In The Iconography of Landscape, ed.
Denis Cosgrove and Stephen J. Daniels Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 277-312.
Hayami Akira
1997 Rekishi jinkōgaku no sekai. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kurushima Hiroshi
1993 Kinsei no mura no kōsatsu. In Daimyō ryōgoku o aruku. ed. Nagahara
Keiji. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Nelson, John K.
1996 A Year in the Life of a Shinto Shrine. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Nihonshi Yōgo Jiten Henshū Iinkai, ed.
1979 Nihonshi yōgo jiten. Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō.
Ooms, Herman
1996 Tokugawa Village Practice: Class, Status, Power, Law. Berkeley, Los
Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
Robinson, Arthur H., and Barbara Bartz Petchenik
1976 The Nature of Maps: Essays toward Understanding Maps and Mapping.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Toby, Ronald P.
1991 Both a Borrower and a Lender Be: From Village Money lender to Rural
Banker in the Tempo Era. In Monumental Nipponica 46, No. 4: 483-512.
Wanouchi-chō shi Hensan Iinkai
1981 Wanouchi-chō shi. Wanouchi-chō: Wanouchi-chō.
Wood, Denis
1992 The Power of Maps. New York: The Guilford Press.
NGM Nishimatsu Gonbei monjo
Rikkyō University: 1216 (Nishijō-mura nayose-chō ––1655).
Ōgaki Shiritsu Toshokan: NG-35-1-8 Nayose-chō (1660); Ninbetsu chō
(1676)
TKM Tanabashi-ke Monjo
Gifu Kenritsu Rekishi Shiryōkan: 5-2-3 Niremata mura san-kumi suiraku
soshō wappu-gin no oboe (1702)

Chapter 7
黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風
羅森の虚像と実像
The “Cantonese” Whirlwind Brought by the BlackShips
陶 徳民（De-min Tao）

Ⅰ 「風雲児」の羅森
１８５４（安政元）年の春、横浜・下田および箱館など黒船の行った先々で羅森（字は向喬、約１８２１−１８９９）という広東人の名前が噂になっている。作詩が上手で、書道も得意だということで、空白の扇面をもって彼の題辞を求める日本の役人や庶民は殺到した。

図１

ポーハタン号〔「金海奇観」より
早稲田大学図書館所蔵〕

131

図２

鍬形赤子画「米利堅人応接之図」より

陶

132

徳民

横浜で書かれた羅森の日記によれば、
日本人はこれまでの２００年間、外国人との交流を断ち切ってきた。そのため、長崎での交易が許されている少数の中国人やオランダ人を除いては外国人を見たことがなかったのである。私も珍しそうに見られているのを感じた。日本人は漢字や漢文を非常に尊重しているため、私は行く先々で、自分の扇子になにか書いてくれと頼まれた。横浜滞在中の１ヵ月の間に、私は少なくとも５００本の扇子に漢文を書いた。実際のところ、このような依頼には困惑したし、書くにも時間がかかったが、彼らの熱心な頼みを断るのはむずかしかった１。
とある。そして、下田での様子については次のように述べられている。
下田の周辺７里四方には、羊、山羊、豚は１匹も見当たらなかった。しか図３羅森が松前勘解由に送った扇面、
松前町郷土資料館所蔵

図４

羅森扇子図『恵比すのうわさ』より、国立国会図書館所
蔵

１ 「ペリー提督の第２回日本訪問―ある中国人が記した日誌―」、株式会社オフィス宮崎訳『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II（栄光教育文化研究所、１
９９７年）所収、４００頁。
これは、羅森の日記に対するウィリアムズの英訳文から日本語に訳されたものである。
羅森自身が中国語で綴った『日本日記』の原本における関係記載は次のようになっている。
（横浜にて）「予或到公館、毎々多人請予録扇、一月之間、従其所請、不下五百余柄」。
王暁秋訓点『羅森等早期日本游記五種』（湖南人民出版社、１
９
８
３年）
、
３
４頁。ここにいう「公館」は、幕府がペリーとの会談のために横浜で設けた「応接所」のことである。
なお、増田渉「『満清紀事』とその筆者−わが国に伝えられた「太平天国」について」（『西学東漸と中国事情』所収、岩波書店、１
９７９年）、大石圭一「ペリー提督の通訳・羅森の子孫を香港に訪ねて」（『ニューフレーバー』第１７巻４号、１
９８３年４月）、王暁秋「近代中日文化交流的先駆者羅森」（同『近代中日関係史研究』所収、中国社会科学出版社、
１９９７年）を参照されたい。

黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風

133

し牛はよく見られ、荷物の運搬に使われていた。牛はまた田畑を耕すのにも使われていた。女たちは中国と同様に機を織っていた。鍛冶屋や大工もわれわれの国と同じように働いていた。しかし、女たちが刺繍をしている
姿は見られなかった。また男も女も好んで扇子を持ち歩くようである。こ
こに滞在している間、私は頼まれて少なくとも１，０００本の扇子に漢文を書いた。奉行やアメリカ人との交渉を担当するいろいろな役人、誰もが私に同じことを頼むのである２。
自分の題辞した扇子の数に関する羅森の記述が決して自己顕示するための誇張ではなかったことは、後述に引用するペリーの首席通訳官 S．W．ウィリアムズ（１８１２−１８８４、中国名は衛三畏）の私信でも分かる。要するに、羅森は開国
当時の日本人の間でかなりの人気者になっていたことは確かである。
図５

萩市にある松陰（左）と金子重輔（右）の銅像

羅森の雷名は、当時海外脱出を図っている吉田松陰と同伴の金子重輔の耳にも入った。密航失敗後に書かれた松陰の『回顧録』によれば、４月４日（旧暦３月７日）大槻平治時神奈川に留まる故、是れを訪ふ。平
治漁舟に乗じ夷舶に至り、詩を賦し、羅森に贈りたる事を聞きし故、奇策はなきかと思ひ訪ひたるなり。かくて酒楼に登り酒を置き、舟を招き恣に酔飽せしめ、微言を以て之を動かす３。
２ 同上、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol.

II、４０４頁。これに対応する羅森の中国語日記における関係部分は、（下田にて）「予于下田、一月之間、所写其扇不下千余柄矣」となっている。
『羅森等早期日本游記五種』、３９頁。
３ 『吉田松陰全集』第九巻（大和書房、１
９
７
４年）
、３
６
３−３
６
４頁。

134

陶

徳民

とある。すなわち横浜にいた松陰は、この日にすでに大槻平治（磐渓）を通じて羅森のことを知っていたわけである。したがって、４月２５日（旧暦３月２８日）
午前２時ごろ下田でペリーの旗艦ポーハタン号に乗り込んだのち、ウィリアム
ズに「広東人羅森」と書いた一枚の紙を見せて、羅森との面会を求めた４。羅
森に会えば、漢文による筆談でお互いの意思疎通がよりスムーズにできるだろうと想定していたのであろう５。

Ⅱ 「羅旋風」の正体では、この羅森はいったいどのような人物であろ 図６

ウィリアムズ肖像うか。広東人である彼はなぜ、黒船に乗って来日し〔高川文筌筆「金海たのだろうか。

奇 観」よ り、早 稲 田

いわゆる「黒船来航」、すなわちペリー提督の率大学図書館所蔵〕いるアメリカ艦隊の日本来訪は２００３年で１５０周年になった。そして、日本の開国を象徴する「日米和親条約」の締結も２
００４年で１
５０周年になる。しかし、当時の日米交渉は日本語と英語ではなく、漢文とオ
ランダ語という二つの媒介言語をもって行われていたということを知っている人は意外に少ないようである。
実際、先にふれたペリーの首席通訳官ウィリアム
ズも漢文の通訳に当っていた。ペリー来航までの２０
年間マカオ・香港などに滞在し、教会の印刷所を経営する 傍 ら E．C．ブ リ ッ ジ マンの英字誌『中国叢４ 『回顧録』には、ウィリアムズとの問答における関連部分は次のようである。
「江戸を発すること何日ぞ」。曰く、「三月五日」。
「曾て予を知るか」
。曰く、
「知る」
。
「横浜に
て知るか、下田にて知るか」。曰く、「横浜にても下田にても知る」。ウリヤムス怪しみて曰く、「吾れは知らず。米利堅へ往き何をする」。曰く、「学問をする」。
（中略）吾れ
等云はく、「君吾が請をきかずんば其の書翰は返すべし」。ウリヤムス云はく、「置きてみる、皆読み得たり」。予広東人羅森と書き、「此の人に遇はせよ」と云ふ。ウリヤムス
云はく、「遇ひて何の用かある。且つ今臥して牀にあり」
。同上、３
９
３−３
９
４頁。この中の「書翰」というのは、松陰の「投夷書」、すなわちペリー側に渡した海外密航のための嘆願書のことである。詳細は、拙稿「下田密航前後における松陰の西洋認識−米国に残る「投夷書」をめぐって−」（『環』第１３号、藤原書店、２
０
０
３年５月）
、
「下田獄における
第二の「投夷書」について―松陰の覚悟に対するペリー側の共感―」（『環』第１
４号、藤
原書店、２
０
０
３年７月）
、
「羅森に寄せた松陰の想い」（『関西大学通信』第３
０
８号、２
０
０
３年
５月１
５日）を参照されたい。
５ 事実上、松陰の供述にもとづいてまとめられた「下田一件調査報告書」に、「右アメ
リカ人之内ニ清国人も居候ニ付、於于時ハ筆談ニ而、
何歟応答様之事仕候事共ハ無之哉」という記載もあるので、筆談による意思疎通の意図がはっきりしていると言える（「下田事件関係文書」、『吉田松陰全集』第９巻、岩波書店、１
９
３
５年、３
８
２頁）
。

黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風

135

報』の編集を手伝っていた彼は、漢語についてかなりの自信をもっていた。日
本人漂流民を送還する１８３７年の「モリソン号事件」にかかわったので、日本語にも多少通じていた。
（ちなみに、ペリー来航後、１８５６年からの約２０年間は清国駐在米国公使館の書記官兼通訳として活躍し、晩年はエール大学の初代中国
言語文学教授をつとめた。
『中国総論』（The Middle Kingdom），『漢英韻府』（A
Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language）などの名著と辞書を残している。）
しかし、ウィリアムズの漢文能力は主に読解や会話の方にあったようで、漢文による作文はできず、外交文書を飾る流麗な書道も勿論上手ではなかった。
したがって、外交文書や会談記録の作成は無理であった。そして、ウィリアム
ズはなかなかの勉強家で、航海途中でも中国人を助手とする語学研鑚や漢書英訳の計画を立てていた。このような二つの理由から中国人雇用の必要性が生まれたが、しかし、１８５３年一回目の来航時に広東で雇った中国人助手は阿片吸引者で病弱であったため、琉球滞在中の６月１１日に亡くなってしまった。この意
外な出来事で対日交渉に支障を来たすのではないかと憂慮したペリーは、日記に次のように書いている。
けさ一時に、ウィリアムズ氏が通訳として雇っていた老シナ人が息を引きとった。五五歳だといっていた。彼は教育のある人で、外国人、とりわけウィリアムズ氏にシナ語を教えるために雇われていた。その生涯の長い間、彼は阿片吸飲常習者であって、全身は非常に弱化し、その結果やせ細っていたため、本艦にやってきた時には、誰もが彼は長生きできまいと予言した。こうしてわれわれはシナ語の通訳をもたぬ状態におかれた。というのは、ウィリアムズ氏は英語の意味を北京官話にして伝えることができ、またこうして口述することもできるが、北京官話を書くことはできないからである６。
半月後、上海で新期雇用した中国人助手が琉球に到着したが、しかし、彼の教養はあまり高くなかった。それに、彼の上海弁とウィリアムズの広東弁との違いもお互いの意思疎通の障碍となっていた。幸いに、二人が協力してアメリ
カ大統領の国書などを漢文に訳すことができたので、７月１４日、久里浜でそれらを日本側に渡すことには影響が出なかったようである。
一方、羅森は広東省南海県の郷紳出身のもので、詩文に長じ書道も上手かった。アヘン戦争（１８４０−４２）中、イギリス軍に抵抗する民兵を組織して戦ったが、戦争終結後、自分の功績を政府に評価されなかったことに憤慨し、香港・マカオに出かけていった。そこで英米人に中国語を教える傍ら、実業を営んでいたが、ペリーの二回目の来航時にウィリアムズに雇われ、日本に連れられてきた７。
６ 金井圓訳『ペリー日本遠征日記』（雄松堂出版、１
９
８
５年）
、１
３
２頁。
７ 羅香林「香港開埠初期文教工作者羅向喬事蹟述釈」、『包遵彭先生紀念論文集』（国立歴史博物館ほか編印、１
９
７
１年）
、２
８
９−２
９
３頁。

陶

136

徳民

この香港・マカオ移住や日本来訪の理由について、羅森は平山謙次郎（名は敬忠、号は省斎、１８１５−１８９０）という日本の役人に宛てた書簡のなかで、次のように打ち明けている。
凡才の私ではありますが、何年も世界の出来事に関わってまいりました。
イギリスとの戦いにおいても、勇敢な者たちを率いて、全力を尽くして故国のために戦ってまいりました。しかし、私腹を肥やすことだけに熱心な政府の役人は、私の貢献や努力を一顧だにしませんでした。このため私の心は外国に旅することに向けられ、この蒸気船に乗ってここまでやってきたのです８。
日本にやってきた羅森は、扇面題辞で莫大な人気を博したと同時に、対日交渉の文書作成や筆談記録などでも大活躍し、アメリカ側だけでなく日本側にも高く評価されていた。
たとえばウィリアムズは、箱館からマカオにいる妻へ送った私信のなかで次のように羅森を称えている。
首都からは使節もオランダ語の通訳も到着しないので、通訳の仕事が全部
私にふりかかってきました。まるで二十枚の舌を終日、はねハンマーのよ
うに動かし続けるほどの仕事があるといっても過言ではありません。
（中略）ところが、今や事柄は深刻になりましたので、私は羅にかなり手伝わ
せ、もう一つの言葉〔中国語〕の助けを借りて、あまり誤りをしでかさないようにしています。彼は、われわれの計画のすべてに強い関心を示し、住民ともうまくやっております。たしかに、彼らは彼ほど学のある中国人に会ったことがなかったし、彼が扇子に優美な詩を一、二行書いてでもやると、彼らはいっそう喜んで中国語の学識を彼に披露するのです。日本へ来てから五百本以上もの扇子に書いてやったのではないかと思いますが、これを頼まれるほど、彼を喜ばせることはないのです９。
一方、羅森は日本人からは次のような賛美の漢詩も受けた１０。
横浜相遇豈無因和議皆安仰頼君
遠方鴃舌今朝会
幸観同文対語人

８ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol.

II、３９９頁。しかし、書簡のこの部分は英訳された日記に載っているものの、公刊された羅森の中国語版『日本日記』には載っていない。その理由は次のように考えられる。すなわち中国語版『日本日記』は広東の清政府の役人も入手可能で、しかも読んで分かるのである。時々広東の故郷に帰省する必要のある羅森はその反政府言論のもたらすかもしれないトラブルを避けるために、書簡のこの部分を中国版から削除したのであろう。
９ ウィリアムズ著・洞富雄訳『ペリー日本遠征随行記』（雄松堂出版、１
９
７
０年）
、４
４
６頁。
１
０ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II、４０２頁。

黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風

137

私たちがここで出会ったことはまったくの偶然でしょうか、
条約と平和が得られたのはあなたのおかげです。
遠くから見知らぬ人々がやってきて、言葉も分からない私たちは、
あなたの筆と舌がなければどうなっていたことでしょう。

Ⅲ 誤解と理解の諸相
このように、日米交渉にかかわる羅森の仕事は図７羅 森 肖 像、樋 畑 翁

おおむね双方の好評を得ていた。しかし、当時の輔筆。『米国使節彼理

一部の風評に現れているように、羅森に対する誤提督来朝図絵』より

解がなかったわけではない。
たとえば、幕府応接掛の首班である林大学頭の了解を得て横浜応接所で写生を行っていた松代藩の医師兼画師・高川文筌が、羅森との会話を次のように記している。
席末に広東の羅森、字は向喬たる者あり、頗る書画を（善くす）。文、書を以て試問して曰く、何故此船に在るや。曰く、朱氏の乱を避くる。顧みるに、彼或いは罪科有り、潜亡して身を此船に寄る歟。屡に之を詰る。遂に他を言う。聞くことに、前年夏、国書を齎ふ
時、漢文を作る者、彼の手に出ると云ふ１１。
これによってみれば、羅森は知らない者には自分の来歴を安易に披露しない態度を取っていたようである。したがって、高川の質問に対して、太平天国の乱（実情とは違いこれを朱氏の乱と呼んだのは、清王朝に反旗を掲げた太平天国の乱の目的が、朱氏を皇族とした明朝の復活にあるといえば、一般の日本人でも分かると思ったからだろう）を避けるために日本にやって来たのだとごまかして答えた。繰り返し問い詰めても本当のことを聞き出せなかった高川は、結局、羅森は犯した罪を逃れるためにアメリカの軍艦に乗り込んだのだろうと推測したわけである。
そして、前年ペリーから渡されたアメリカ大統領の国書の漢文版の作成者は謝氏であったにもかかわらず、ここでは羅森と誤認されてしまったのである。
そして、箱館の名主小嶋又次郎の目に映っている羅森の姿は次のようなものである。
此図広東人羅森ト申（ス）モノナリ。姿柔和ニ見セテ内心左ニアラザルヨ
１
１ 高川文筌「横浜紀事」、樋畑雪湖編『米国使節彼理提督来朝図絵』（吉田一郎発行、
１９３１年）所収。

陶

138

徳民

シ。此モノ外（ノ）広東人卜違ヒ、筆法可也。依テ扇面モ諸方ニ書タルヨシ也。又気量モ相応ナルベシ。何ユイニ亜墨利加舟へ乗タルモノヤ、近頃彼等ガ国ニ於（テ）モ一戦（阿片戦争）有之候ヨシ。定テへロリ（ペリー）ガ威勢ヲ恐（レ）、随心ト見得タリ。餓死テモ何トカノ水ヲ喰ハザルノ語
ヲシラザルユイカ。又深キ謀ト有テノ所為カ。是ヲ謀トモ明白ニイワズ。
此モノヽ買求ル品ハ字引、墨之類、外品トモアメリカ人トチガイ、貧乏ナ
ルカ金銭不足。買物至而直（値）切テ買モノ高不足、此モノ同ジ漢土ニテモ頭高ク１２。

図８

羅森肖像、『亜墨利加一条写』より、市立函館博物館所蔵

図９

羅森（〔スタットラ ー『黒船絵巻』より〕）

要するに、正義感の高い小嶋はアヘン戦争の敗北から教訓を汲まず、強いア
メリカに荷担する羅森を「無節操」のものと見ていたのであった。また、羅森の文才を買っているものの、その買い物時の貧相と値引き上手には好感を持っていなかった。
このほか、たとえば羅森を通訳という賎業（「鴃舌之門」）に陥った士人と見ている日本人もいた１３。
種種の誤解を受けながらも、羅森は終始前向きの姿勢を変えなかった。

１２ 市立函館図書館所蔵『亜墨利加一条写』。本文での引用は、田中彰編『開国』（日本

近代思想大系１、岩波書店）のそれによる（１７５頁）。分かりやすくするために、文中に適宜、括弧のなかに説明や語尾などを補足する片仮名を入れた。
１
３ 同注（１）、『羅森等早期日本游記五種』、４２頁。

黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風139

図１０ ４分の１大のノリス社製機関車モデル（炭水車及び客車つき）
樋畑翁輔筆。（東京大学史料編纂所所蔵模本）

たとえば、和親条約締結後に行われたアメリカ側の近代的贈り物の展示や実演について、彼は次のような興奮した口ぶりで紹介している。
翌日、合衆国政府から日本の皇帝への贈り物が披露された。模型の機関車と客車、救命ボート、電信機、銀板写真機、さまざまな農機具などである。
町はずれに模型機関車用のレールを円形に敷き、そこで機関車と客車をかなりの速度で走らせたところ、見物人は非常に驚いた。電信機は、銅線を使ってある場所からほかの場所に瞬時に情報を伝える装置である。銀板写
真機は、太陽光線の反射を金属板に投影して写真を撮るものである。筆や写生は必要なく、写真は薄れることなく長持ちする。救命ボートは、空気
ボックスがついており、沈まないようになっている。この発明品により、船の難破の際に乗組員の命を救うことができる。農機具は、合衆国の農業のために考案された便利な機具ばかりであった。日本の皇帝は

図１１ 平山謙次郎の書跡、『ウィリアム

これらの品々を受け取り、返礼

ズ家文書』所収。エール大学スターとして漆器、陶磁器、絹などをリング記念図書館古文書部所蔵。

１
４

贈った 。
そして、羅森のもっとも感動的事
例はやはり、先にも触れた平山謙次郎との腹を割った交流であろう。開国当時は徒目付であった平山は学問はすぐれているものの、思想はやや保守的であった（幕末は外国総奉行に昇進し、明治維新以後は儒教・心学などをもとり入れた「神道 大 成教」を創立した。）羅森の『南京紀事』と『治安策』という二著を読んだ平山は、孔孟の「王道主義」にも
１
４ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II、４
０
１頁。

陶

140

徳民

とづいて次のような西洋批判を行っている。
相互交流という原則は、世界のどこでも共通です。大切なのは礼儀、親切、誠意、正義です。これを守るならば尊い調和が広がり、天地の心があます
ところなく現われるのです。これとは逆に、利益だけを求めて商売を行な
えば、争いや訴訟が起こり、喜びではなく呪いとなります。
（中略）人間の社会はあたかも虎や狼の群れのようになり、世界中のいたるところで強者が弱者を破滅させ、大が小を飲み込むことになるでしょう（中略）。
あなたはいま、合衆国の船に乗って海を旅していらっしゃいます。私が述べたような人物にお会いになったことがおありでしょうか。もしいまだお会いになっていないならば、あなたの行く先々で、その国と統治者にこの原則を説いてくださるようお願いいたします。そうすれば、孔子と孟子の願いが、何世紀も経過してやっと世界全体を明るく照らすようになるで
しょう１５。
平山のこの書翰を受け取った羅森は次のような返事を出した。
すばらしいお手紙をいただき、大変感動いたしました。私たちは水面を流れる葉のように出会い、あなたのご教示は私に光をなげかけてくれました。
世界中のすべての人間は天地の子供であり、天理、礼儀、誠意、正義の原理にしたがって互いを遇するべきだというあなたの言葉はすばらしく、その通りだと思います。また、宇宙の寛大な心とわれわれの賢人の教えにある平等の慈悲心を十分に表わしていると思います。お手紙の一語一語に感謝しております。お言葉を常に心に刻みつけて忘れぬようにいたします１６。
このように謙虚に平山の意見を傾聴した羅森は、一方、平山に対する婉曲な説得も試みたのであった。「現代は古代とは非常に異なった時代です。それを知り 図１２ 松浦章ほか編著『遐邇貫珍のながら心ある者が見て見ぬふりをするこ
研究』（関西大学出版部）よりとができるでしょうか１７」という羅森の冷徹な現実主義的姿勢は、おそらく理想主義者の平山に一定のショックを与えただろう。
以上の対話も収録した羅森の『日本日記』は、一中国人による日本開国事情の証言として貴重なもので、早くも１８５４年の１１月から『遐邇貫珍』という香港英華

１
５ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II、３
９
８−３
９
９頁。
１
６ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II、３９９頁。
１７ 同注（１）、『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』Vol. II、３９９頁。

黒船のもたらした「広東人」旋風
図１３

141

図１４

図１５ 羅森の名刺、『青窓紀聞』より、国立国書院の漢文月刊に三回にわ会図書館所蔵たって連載され、松陰を含む幕末の日本人有志の目に留まった。そして、ウィリ
アムズによって英訳された
同 日 記 は１
８５４年９月『香 港記 録 報』と い う 英 字 商 業
週 刊 誌 の 増 刊（Overland
Register and Price Current）に掲載され、その価値はペリーに認められ、２年後に出版のアメリカ議会の公式文書『ペリー艦隊日本遠征記』第二巻の付録に収録されるようになった。また、
１９１３年に『大日本古文書・幕末外国関係文書』が編纂された際、同日記も付録の一つとして「米国使節随行清国人羅森日本日記」というタイトルで収録され、その価値を再度確認されたわけである。

Chapter 8
Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations:Western Images of the Samurai during
Bakumatsu and Early Meiji Japan
Michael R. Auslin

I Introduction
On the morning of August 25, 1859, two Russian sailors buying ships’
stores were murdered by a vagrant samurai in the streets of the new treaty
port of Yokohama. Their blood soaked into the dust of a port opened not
yet two months. Yokohama, the offspring of the previous year’s U.S.Japan Treaty of Amity and Commerce, was the symbol of a new era in Japan’s international history. A mere fishing village a year earlier, it immediately supplanted Nagasaki as Japan’s window on the world, despite being
designed for the more prosaic activity of trade. It was there, above all, thatJapanese and Westerners came into sustained contact for the first time. The
murder of the Russians gave notice that more than just goods would be exchanged between Japan and its treaty partners.1
For both the Tokugawa bakufu and the Western treaty powers, their new
relations were simply economic. Neither side expected or desired to haveany other type of exchange and certainly no cultural encounter. Indeed the
bakufu hoped to use the treaty ports as a new type of physical boundary
between Japanese and foreigners, while the Western nations were in Japan
to exchange goods and nothing more.
In reality, though, both Japanese and Westerners transgressed theboundaries carefully imposed by the diplomats. These personal interactions
led to the formation on both sides of various images of the Other that was
1. The 1858 Commercial Treaty opened Yokohama (Kanagawa), Nagasaki, Hakodate, Niigata, and Shimoda to trade immediately, and set staggered dates for opening Edo, Osaka, and Hyogo. Shimoda closed six months after Yokohama opened.
The 1858 commercial treaties were signed with America, Great Britain, Russia,
Holland, and France.
143

144

Michael R. Auslin

now encountered on a daily basis. As a result, in the 1860s political relations and cultural images collided as often as did the Japanese and Westerners in the narrow streets of Yokohama. For Westerners, the samurai became in many ways the focus of observation, due in no small part to thefrequency of their attacks on the foreigners.
This chapter will explore the Western, primarily British, images of thesamurai created during this period. I will tentatively suggest some effects
that the politics of the time had on these images. I am particularly interested in tracing the process through which shared images are impacted bypolitical events.2 Such images are as malleable and susceptible to the vagaries of international encounter as the policies they inform. It is clear that at
certain moments of intense contact, these images are radically transformedby politics. At times, the images reenter the political environment and influence subsequent relations.
A note on the use of the word “political” in this paper: it can be argued
to what extent the terrorism of samurai attacks was political. If politics isthe rational, verbalized working out of competing claims to authority or
disparate communal goals, then the nonverbal physicality of the terror attacks was the antithesis of the political process envisioned in the negotiated treaty structure. Yet, terrorism, as William Beasley notes, had an explicit political goal, the expulsion of Westerners from Japan. Thus, it andany other interactions between Japanese and Westerners in this period werepolitical if they took place on a public stage with the aim of affecting thehigher-order relations that were uncontestedly political, even if imperialistin genesis.3

2. Recent scholarship on international history has greatly expanded from its previous focus almost solely on diplomatic and political issues. The role of Westernculture in driving imperialism, the cultural interactions between the West and therest of the world, race and gender concerns, and regional variations in the clash of
civilizations have all been explored in recent years. See, for example, the roundtable on Laura Ann Stoler, “Empires and Intimacies: Lessons from (Post) Colonial
Studies,” in Journal of American History 88:3 (December 2001): 829-98; Robert J.
McMahon, “Cultures of Empire,” in JAH 88:3 (December 2001): 888-92; Emily
Rosenberg, Financial Missionaries to the World: the politics and culture of dollar
diplomacy, 1900-1930 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); Gilbert
Joseph, ed., Close Encounters of Empire: writing the cultural history of U.S.-Latin
American relations (Durham, N.C.; London: Duke University Press, 1998); Akira
Iriye, Cultural Internationalism and World Order (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1997); and Matthew Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: the UnitedStates encounters foreign peoples at home and abroad, 1876-1917 (New York: Hilland Wang, 2000).
3. William G. Beasley, The Meiji Restoration (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1972), 172-74. This is also the place to note that this paper is not primarily
concerned with the issue of punishment in early modern and modern Japan. That
question and its relation to Japan’s modernization is the topic of Daniel V. Botsman, “Crime, Punishment, and the Making of Modern Japan, 1790-1895” (Ph.D.
dissertation, Princeton University, 1999).

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan

145

II First Impressions
As the treaty port of Yokohama began to fill up in 1859, most Westerners arriving in Japan had little knowledge of the country, its history, customs, or social organization. Information on Japan, especially accurate information, had always lagged far behind that on China. Ignorance of theroles, functions, and life of the military caste was merely a part of the generally low level of Western knowledge. Although the first Western mentionof the country was Marco Polo’s brief nod to “Cipangu” in the late 13th
century, the traders and diplomats taking up residence in Yokohama most
likely would have received their knowledge of Japan from a number ofsources. Those sources proffered a melange of images, some positive,
some negative, most paternalistic.
Dutch merchants, of course, had been living in the southern port city ofNagasaki for over two centuries, isolated on the man-made, fan-shaped island in Nagasaki Bay called Dejima, which was connected to land by asingle, guarded bridge. Once every four years a small delegation, led by
the head of the “factory,” or trading post, was allowed to travel to Edo, thecapital of the Tokugawa bakufu, to present gifts to the shogun and pay
obeisance. This was the only chance during those centuries for most Japanese even to glimpse the “hairy barbarians.”4
For Westerners, perhaps their primary source of information on Japan
was a nearly two hundred-year-old account by Englebert Kaempfer, a physician attached to Dejima from 1690 to 1692. Kaempfer’s massive threevolume survey, for all its detailed information, shed little light on thesamurai. In his account of Nagasaki, he offered his most extensive surveyof local government, but only noted that the high-ranking Nagasaki magistrates, directly appointed by the “ziogoon” (shogun), received a “knightly
title” of “cami” (kami), along with a grant of land. Their assistants, he further recorded, were drawn from young men of high aristocratic birth who
fulfilled both military and government functions.5 Yet of the intricacies ofthe status system, and the role the samurai played in governing the lower
4. For a discussion of Japanese images of foreigners during the Tokugawa period(1600-1868), see, Ronald P. Toby, “Imagining and Imaging ‘Anthropos’ in EarlyModern Japan,” in Visual Anthropology Review 14:1 (Spring-Summer 1998), pp.
19-44.
5. Englebert Kaempfer, The History of Japan, Together with a Description of theKingdom of Siam, 1690-92, 3 vols., trans. by J.G. Scheuchzer (Glasgow: James
MacLehose and Sons, 1906), pp. 91-109. See also, Englebert Kaempfer,
Kaempfer’s Japan: Tokugawa Culture Observed , edited, translated, and annotatedby Beatrice M. Bodart-Bailey (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), pp.
148-49, which redacts much material. A current discussion is in Marius B. Jansen,
The Making of Modern Japan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000),
pp. 101-11.

146Michael R. Auslin

status ranks, Kaempfer either did not notice or did not choose to relate.
A century and a half after Kaempfer, there appeared a more accurate description of the samurai and status system in Japan, a slim volume entitled
Manners and Customs of the Japanese. It was printed in New York in1841 and was drawn largely from the translated notes of Phillip Franz vonSiebold, a German physician to the Dutch, who lived on Dejima from1823 to 1829. Siebold had played a small role in Japanese history, having
been arrested and deported from the country on account of possessing a
map of the islands, a grave offense under the maritime restriction laws of
the Tokugawa. His Japanese co-conspirators, part of a group of scholars
interested in Western knowledge, were jailed or sent into internal exile.
Manners and Customs notes, however, that the section detailing thestatus system was provided by a Dutch resident at Dejima named Meylan,
and not from Siebold’s papers. This description of social organization relates that Japan is divided into “nearly hereditary classes. It is held to be
the duty of every individual to remain through life in the same class inwhich he was born...to sink below it is utterly disgraceful.”6 The eightclasses described by Meylan divided the military caste into three rankings,
the top being the daimyô (lords), labeled as “princes,” the next class comprising the “noblemen” (“kie-nien,” kenin, lit. “housemen”) who held theirlands in fief through military service to their lords, and the fourth classmade up of the “samlai”, the “vassals of the nobility.”7
The influence of Manners and Customs on Commodore Matthew Perry’s
official account of his mission to Japan is evident. The entire backgroundsection relating social and governmental conditions, written by Francis L.
Hawks, drew almost directly, sometimes word for word, from Siebold’s
miscellany.8 Unlike Siebold, however, Hawks paid considerable attention
to the practice of ritual suicide (seppuku) reserved for the samurai caste,
and it is in Perry’s report that the custom was first popularized. Hawks
wrote that “A very singular system of self-punishment, even unto death,prevails among all the officials of Japan. When one has offended, or evenwhen in his department there has been any violation of law, although be6. Manners and Customs of the Japanese in the Nineteenth Century, from the accounts of Dutch residents in Japan and from the German work of Dr. Phillip Franz
von Siebold (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1841), p. 154.
7. Manners and Customs, pp. 154-55. In this scheme, the third class was composed of priests. See Hall (1977) for an accurate description of the status system.
8. See, especially, Matthew Calbraith Perry, Narrative of the expedition of an
American squadron to the China Seas and Japan, performed in the years 1852,
1853, and 1854: under the command of Commodore M.C. Perry, United States
Navy, by order of the government of the United States. Compiled from the original
notes and journals of Commodore Perry and his officers, at his request, and under
his supervision by Francis L. Hawks (Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, Printer,
1856), pp. 16-17.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan147

yond his power of prevention, so sure is he of the punishment of deaththat he anticipates it by ripping up his own body, disembowelling himself,
rather than to be delivered over to the executioner. In fact, he is encouraged to do so...it is a point of honor thus to kill themselves on any failurein their department.”9Indeed, concludes Hawks, “the severity of the Japanese laws is excessive.
The code is probably the bloodiest in the world. Death is the prescribedpunishment for most offenses.”10 An image of the samurai both noble andviolent thus painted the official American record of first contact with Japan.
Popular periodicals in Europe and the United States, however, profferedanother image of the Japanese, less fearsome than comical. In its review ofPerry’s account of his mission, Harper’s portrayed the samurai as a child’sforce and certainly no threat to American power. Recounting the Commodore’s landing at Uraga, when he was accompanied by gunboats with cannon at the ready, the reviewer dismissed the shogunal troops who guarded
the beach “glittering in their gay robes of bright red and blue, while theirlacquered caps, and tall spears, shone brightly in the sun’s light.” The
Japanese official in charge of negotiating with Perry was likewise a strange
mix of Alice-in-Wonderland and frustrating antagonist, who, through “provoking and tedious negotiation...with his cunning vivacity seemed, in his
gay bedizenment, very like an uncommonly brilliant knave of trumps.”11
To the conflicting images from Perry and Harper’s were added other accounts, such as an 1855 book by Bayard Taylor, who accompanied Perry,
entitled A Visit to India, China, and Japan. Just as Western diplomats andmerchants set sail for Yokohama, however, a third major account appeared,
Laurence Oliphant’s Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s Mission to China andJapan.12 Oliphant’s (1829-1888) two-volume work was the British counterpart to the Perry-Hawks offering, recording the British diplomatic mission
to sign the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin with China (ending the Arrow War)and to conclude the Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty of 1859. Oliphant’s
account broke new journalistic and anthropological ground, seeded as it
was with his arch comments and keen observations. It broke decisively
with the dry, matter-of-fact annals offered by previous authors, and provided the model for future first-hand memoirs and the review of them inWestern periodicals. Oliphant, nonetheless, often repeated accounts ofJapanese society that had appeared previously. He followed the status out9. Perry, pp. 20-21. Contrast this with Siebold’s laconic statement that “a man of
the higher orders publicly accused, and conscious of his guilt, will prevent his trial
by at once committing suicide.” (Manners and Customs, p. 160)
10. Perry, p. 22.
11. “Commodore Perry’s Expedition to Japan,” in Harper’s vol. 12, no. 70(March 1856), p. 463.
12. Laurence Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s mission to China and Japan in the years 1857, ’58, ’59 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1859).

148

Michael R. Auslin

line given in Manners and Customs, but also played down the hereditarynature of the samurai caste, giving instead an impression of a fluid bureaucracy at the lower levels.13
Oliphant’s readers, however, found such formal categorizing buried
amongst idiosyncratic anecdotes, which gave life to the samurai for Western readers. Commenting on the habit of wearing two swords under theirouter half-coat, for example, Oliphant cast the Japanese officials as having“the appearance, at a distance, of being some new species of bipedadorned with two tails.”14 He also disagreed with the emphasis on seppuku
in the Perry-Hawks account, noting that what the Japanese called the“happy dispatch” was a “notorious method of suicide,” and confessing,“whether this...is really common at the present day, I could not ascertain.”
Nonetheless, Oliphant dramatically concluded, “it is resorted to as a meansof preserving from disgrace a whole family...it is a certificate which whitewashes all the survivors.”15 Oliphant, it would seem, readily bought into
the prevalent image of strict samurai justice, painting them as modern-day
Spartans, while at the same time exploiting to the full their exotic nature toWestern eyes. Oliphant’s memoir offers a melange of seemingly uncontested observations, serving only to give weight to stereotypes that had already appeared.
As the preceding examples suggest, it is questionable to what extent any
kind of firm image of samurai existed by the time Yokohama was opened
for trade. Gaudy, brave, devious, pitiless––all these adjectives could be
employed with equal seriousness by sophisticated writers and readers. Of
the actual workings of the status system, the relations among shogun,
daimyô, and samurai, even the best read Westerner was almost entirely ignorant. Only slightly more knowledge did he have of samurai tradition,customs, or dress. And yet certain of the images relayed above, particularlythat of ritual suicide, clearly embedded themselves in the consciousness of
those who paid Japan more than just a passing thought.
Despite this misty portrait, or indeed perhaps because of it, nearly all
who came into contact with Japan sang its praises in comparison withother “barbarian” lands, especially China. As part of a larger East Asian“orientalist” discourse, Japan and China were arrayed on the scales, andChina was found wanting. The glowing vision of the islands was best encapsulated by the Atlantic Monthly, which praised the “extraordinary habits and character of the people” of Japan, and concluded that, “on close examination, the imagined attractions of China disappear, those of Japan become only more definite and substantial. The old interest in China is trans-

13. Oliphant ii, p. 149.
14. Oliphant ii, p. 8.
15. Oliphant ii, pp. 146-48.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan149

ferred to its worthier neighbor.”16 On the other hand, the ruling samurai
were portrayed as a less-than-fearsome military force of hereditary soldiers,
some of whom were devious negotiators, and all of whom possessed an inhuman tradition of self-immolation for even the smallest of offenses. With
this bare, shifting, and often misleading template, the West was finally to
encounter the samurai in the flesh, sometimes far too closely.
III Terrorism Erupts, 1859-61
The foreign policy of the Tokugawa bakufu was predicated on defending the pillars of its traditional diplomatic culture, which comprised ideological, intellectual, and physical components.17 The bakufu saw the tradetreaties forced on Japan by the Western nations as an unavoidable expansion of Japan’s international relations, but strove to maintain the conceit
that Japan was at the center of an international realm ordered by the shogun.18 The strategy it adopted relied heavily on preserving the physicalboundaries between Japan and the West.
Faced with the necessity of opening up to Western-style trade relations,the bakufu signed commercial treaties with the Americans, British, French,
Dutch and Russians during the summer and autumn of 1858. Nonetheless,
Edo made sure that trade would be conducted at a limited number of official ports, which it conceived of as sterile spaces within which the bacillus
that was the West could be contained. The bakufu’s primary strategy was
to control the physical presence of the foreigner in Japan through attempts
to isolate the treaty ports and to postpone the opening of others. The main
port under the trade treaties was Yokohama, located about eighteen miles
southwest of Edo. It was, in reality, only at Yokohama and in its immediate environs that Japanese and Westerners mixed to any great degree. Thus,
it is not surprising that conflict between the two groups took place in the
Edo region, and that no attacks or murders were recorded at the other ports
until 1868.
In Edo, the shogun’s administrative center, fully half the inhabitants,
nearly a half a million persons, were samurai, which represented far morethan their actual percentage among the population of Tokugawa Japan.19
Anti-foreign feeling was particularly strong among middle-level and lower
samurai and even stronger among those from han traditionally antagonistic

16. “Japan,” in The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 5, no. 32 (June 1860), p. 722.
17. See Michael R. Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties
and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Harvard University Press, 2004), Ch. 1.
18. The classic exposition is Ronald P. Toby, State and Diplomacy in Early
Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu 2d ed. (Stanford,1991).
19. Samurai comprised five to seven percent of the total population.

150

Michael R. Auslin

to the Tokugawa, such as the far-western fiefs of Choshu and Satsuma.
The rise of “men of spirit” (shishi) and the sonnô jôi (revere the emperor
and expel the barbarian) movement is one of the best-documented featuresof the time.20 The Westerners in Japan were fully aware of their tenuous
position, and everyday they were surrounded by thousands of swordbearing men, ranging from decorated officers to fiercely anti-foreign ruffians.
It did not take long for hostilities to erupt, although on balance, the lossof life must be considered relatively small. On the last day of July 1859,
the month that Yokohama opened, Townsend Harris’ secretary, Henry
Heusken, was attacked by a mob in Edo, although he was not wounded.
Three weeks later, the two Russian sailors were cut down in the streets of
Yokohama. Their murder made the establishment of a foreign cemetery anecessity, and the bakufu appropriated land from a Buddhist temple at thefoot of the Bluff in Yokohama, where it remains today.21 In late February
1860, two Dutch sailors met a similar fate. By the following month, terror
had struck at the shogun’s highest ministers, for in late March, tairô Ii Naosuke was murdered just outside Edo Castle.
With these initial murders, a menacing image of the samurai began toovertake the foreign residents of Japan. Ironically, given the tenor of later
reporting, it was certain elements of the Western press that for the moment
resisted provocative labeling. Commenting upon the murders of the Russians and Dutch, the London Times declared that “it is not denied that oursailors, and those of other nations, behaved themselves too commonly withrudeness to the natives, offended their susceptibilities, and outraged their
feelings. This conduct naturally generated a retaliative spirit, until, in theend...foreigners were occasionally the objects of murderous attacks.”22 But
such judicious commentary was not to last long, especially given the increasing number of the attacks and the inflammatory accounts by Westerners actually present in Japan.
To the foreign residents in Japan, the attacks were acts of terror, pureand simple. They saw themselves as blameless merchants carrying on legitimate business that the commercial treaties protected. Many, of course,
formed perfectly normal relationships with non-samurai Japanese who were
merchants or domestic help. However, that their presence had loosed political passions rocking the country could not be adequate explanation for

20. See, for example, William Beasley, The Meiji Restoration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972), Chs. 6, 7.
21. The cemetery is still the major burial ground for foreigners in Japan. In its
old section, ordinarily closed to the public, one can see the graves of the Russianand Dutch sailors, Charles L. Richardson, and Major Baldwin and Lieutenant Bird
(see below).
22. The Times, April 9, 1860.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan151

the peril they perceived. Their fears and frustrations were shared equallyby Western diplomats, and both groups poured those concerns into theiraccounts of the attacks. The accounts created a new, terrifying image ofthe samurai.
Among the leading contributors to this new image was the British Minister to Japan, Rutherford Alcock (1809-97), who was known in particular
for the descriptions in his 1863 best-selling memoir, Capital of the Tycoon.
Yet even before he published that book, Alcock’s diplomatic dispatches,
printed in the Parliamentary Papers series, helped engender the initialchanges. His reports were picked up, amplified, and disseminated by Britain’s elite press. For example, a mere two years after Yokohama opened,
the highly influential Edinburgh Review used Alcock’s descriptions of thefirst murders and of the samurai, writing that the “two-sworded men” were
“swaggering, blustering bullies, cowardly enough to strike an enemy in theback, or cut down an unarmed and inoffensive man.” These ruffians were,
the Review concluded, “the terror of all the unarmed population and street
dogs.”23
The accounts steadily darkened with the new year of 1861. On January
15, Henry Heusken, secretary to the American Legation and perhaps theWesterner best informed about Japan, was murdered late at night in Edo
while returning from the Prussian Legation. All the Western legations werelocated in Edo, a day’s ride from Yokohama, and Heusken’s murder inflamed the diplomats’ feelings of insecurity. He was the highest-ranking
foreigner to be cut down, and his murder occasioned a minor political crisis. Headed by Alcock, the British, French, Dutch, and Russian officials
abandoned Edo and took up residence in Yokohama, where they sought
safety behind the gates of the foreign community. Townsend Harris, theAmerican Minister to Japan since 1856 and Heusken’s superior, refused todecamp from Edo, however, believing that the bakufu was sincere in its
desire, and capable in its ability, to protect the foreigners. Although Harris
was mollified by an indemnity paid to Heusken’s mother, the perpetratorsof the crime escaped, as had the murderers of the Russians and Dutch.
This sense of impotence aggrieved the Western diplomats and further unnerved their countrymen living in the scarcely protected foreign settlement.
It took a full-scale assault on the British Legation that spring to solidify
the image of the savage killer among Westerners. On July 5, the Legation,a Buddhist temple known as Tôzenji, was attacked by a band of roninfrom the anti-Western domain of Mito, who were intent on driving foreigners out of Japan. At least 14 attackers swarmed the compound. During
fierce fighting at the front gate the rônin killed two bakufu guards and
23. Review of Parliamentary Papers: Correspondence with Her Majesty’s Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Japan, 1860, in Edinburgh Review
113 (January-April 1861), pp. 37-73, at pp. 51-52.

152

Michael R. Auslin

wounded ten. British soldiers fired their rifles as the Mito samurai attempted to hack through the defenders with their long swords. In the residence, attackers poured into the narrow hallways aiming for Rutherford Alcock’s quarters. The Britons beat back the attackers in the darkness withrifles and whips. Two English officials, including Laurence Oliphant, who
had recently returned to Japan, were seriously wounded, Oliphant being severely cut on his wrist and neck.
Alcock himself narrowly escaped assassination. As he reported immediately to Lord John Russell, British Foreign Secretary, “the Legation looked
as if it had been sacked after a serious conflict. Screens and mats were all
spotted with blood, the former thrown down, broken, and torn; furnitureand bedding all hacked, books even cut through by the sabres...”24 Nearly acentury and a half later, Tôzenji’s entrance pillars still bear sword cuts andbullet holes from British rifles, offering mute testimony to the fury of thebattle.25
Contemporary treaty port newspapers avidly recounted the terror of theattack and painted a picture of the machine-like precision of the samurai:“[T]hose who appreciated the reality of the attack must have felt the cold
hand of death––and such a death––upon them! Japanese assassins, recklessof their own lives, seldom leave their work unfinished, and here they werewith clamour and yell within a few paces of their destined prey.”26
The papers, however, did not have to work too hard to convince foreigners in Japan of the tenuous nature of their position. Those back in
Europe and America similarly were provided with greater detail, yetequally high-strung images. For example, the London Illustrated News ofOctober 21, 1861 graphically portrayed scenes of the attack and its aftermath on its front and second pages. All the papers shared a growing contempt for the samurai. When reporting on the grisly fate of the assassins, anumber of whom were killed on the spot, the Nagasaki Shipping List andAdvertiser asserted that “Among themselves, the Japanese think very littleof death and wounds; affrays are so common.”27 The killer was not merely
savage, but inhumane, incapable, according to the accounts of shocked
Westerners, of loving life and limb.
British Minister Alcock sealed the image with his dramatic descriptionof the attack published two years later in his memoirs. The beguiling na24. Alcock to Russell, July 6, 1861. Parliamentary Papers: Correspondence Respecting Affairs in Japan [hereafter, CRAJ] 1861, No. 1.
25. Tôzenji is still located a mile away from Shinagawa station in Tokyo. On thewooden entrance pillars to the main hall, one can easily see both sword cuts andpellet holes from the vicious battle fought there. For a nominal fee, visitors can go
into the private back garden and view the building where Alcock and the other diplomats were attacked.
26. Nagasaki Shipping List and Advertiser, July 31, 1861, p. 30.
27. Nagasaki Shipping List and Advertiser, ibid.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan

153

ture of Japan competed with the ever-present specter of danger in Alcock’s
pages. He reflected on the violence of the samurai as he surveyed the remains of the two rônin killed during the attack: “One man had his skull
shorn clean through from the back, and half the head sliced off to thespine; while his limbs only hung together by shreds.”28 The swords of theJapanese guards inflicted these wounds, and the message is not lost on thereader that it could just as easily have been Englishmen lying like butchered meat. Indeed, despite the heroics of the Japanese guard, the Westernaccounts focused on the vicious nature of the attackers and their lack ofhumanity, not only for their victims, but themselves as well. Alcock in partwas undoubtedly reacting to his years in China, where Europeans held theupper hand in any clashes, being able to utilize larger military forces andgunboats. Nothing had prepared him for the type of personal dangers presented by samurai committed to attacking Westerners.
Supported by the growing unease in Europe, Westerners in Japan now
demanded the ultimate penalty for any attack. Only in this way, they believed, could they defeat the terrorists. Samurai who dared wave a sword
at a foreigner must be made to pay the heaviest price possible. Alcock reflected this mindset in his memoirs, when he wrote that Westerners had,perhaps unfortunately, accustomed themselves to “isolated acts of butcheryor assassination in the streets. But this last deed [i.e., the Tôzenji attack]
was a conclusive demonstration of the existence of a hostile party, which
would stop at nothing...”29 Therefore, although no Englishmen were killedin the Tôzenji assault, Alcock demanded death for all the attackers, andwas satisfied to learn by March 1862, as he was drafting his memoirs, that
all the ronin had been accounted for, the majority being killed or committing suicide.30
Despite the apparent vengeance extracted by the bakufu, though, Alcock
was profoundly shaken by his brush with death and he shared with hisreaders how nerve-racking it was “never to sleep without feeling that yournext waking hour may be your last, with the vengeful steel at your throat,and the wild slogan of murderers in your ears...”31 The American Minister
Robert Pruyn shared this feeling, writing to the U.S. State Department that“all the officers of the Western powers in Japan are sentinels in the outposts of civilization.”32
28. Rutherford Alcock, The Capital of theTycoon: A Narrative of a Three Years’
Residence in Japan (New York: Harper & brothers, 1863), vol. ii, p. 169.
29. Alcock ii, p. 199; italics in original.
30. Minutes of meeting between Alcock and Japanese Ministers for Foreign Affairs on March 12, 1862 in Parliamentary Papers: Further Correspondence Respecting Affairs in Japan, March 1861 to February 1863, no. 73.
31. Alcock i, p. 47.
32. Pruyn to Seward, June 30, 1862. Foreign Relations of the United States(Washington, D.C.: Department of State) 1863:2, no. 31.

154

Michael R. Auslin

IV “Cruel Butchery”: The Second Tozenji Attack
and the Namamugi Incident, 1862
The codification of Western images of the samurai climaxed in 1862, ayear that witnessed the most famous killing of a Westerner as well as asecond attack on Tôzenji. One year to the date of the first strike on the
British Legation another nighttime assault took place, despite the presenceof over five hundred bakufu guards assigned to protect the Britons.33 This
time rônin murdered two British soldiers attached to the Legation. The
bakufu claimed that a sole assailant committed the attack and that he waswounded and later committed suicide. Lt. Col. Edward St. John Neale,chargé d’affairs and head of the Legation during Rutherford Alcock’s sojourn back to Europe in 1862 through 1864, viewed with extreme skepticism the bakufu’s account of the second Tôzenji assault.
Neale was on the whole sympathetic to the bakufu and understood the
difficulties it faced in controlling anti-Western elements. Nonetheless, hetoo contributed to the image of the samurai as an ever-present threat, azealot who when consumed by the desire to attack was nigh unstoppable.
Neale’s dispatches, soon published in Parliamentary Papers, relived the terror of the samurai slaughter of one of the British sentries. He noted that inthis “barbarous attack,” the diplomats trapped inside the Legation buildings
could do nothing to help their doomed colleague and could clearly hear a“rapid succession of blows or cuts, at each one of which the unfortunate
man cried out in anguish.” Neale was even more graphic in a letter to Vice
-Admiral Hope of the China Seas Squadron: “Every cut of the sword withwhich [the sentry] was attacked severed the member it was aimed at. He
could offer no defence whatsoever. He met his death from sixteen wounds
in less than five minutes, the half of which were each separately mortal.”34
The actions of the Japanese government itself, moreover, helped
strengthen the Western impression that the life of a samurai was not onlyof little worth, but that he was to be little respected even after death. In an
attempt to limit international fallout from this latest attack, the bakufu assured Neale that there was only one assailant, a samurai named Itô Gunbei,
who committed suicide immediately afterwards. Since the bakufu could notpunish him while he was alive for his crime, they informed Neale that his
body, which was not yet buried, would be burned and his remains throwninto the streets, a major disgrace. Moreover, his family would be punishedand exiled from Edo.35
33. Tokugawa Japan used a lunar calendar, and both attacks occurred on the 28th day of the 5th month; however, by the Western calendar, the 1861 attack occurred on July 5, while the 1862 attack took place on June 26.
34. Neale to Russell, July 3, 1862. P.P.1863:74, no. 29 plus enclosures.
35. Report of August 19 conference between bakufu and Neale. Neale to Russell,
August 21, 1862. P.P. 1863:74, enclosure 2 in no. 38.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan155

The bakufu’s response was merely an extension of its punishment for
the lowest criminals, which normally resulted in their severed heads or crucified bodies being displayed publicly with an admonitory explanation of
their crimes tacked up nearby. Samurai terrorists in bakumatsu Japan, however, turned this government technique on its head and likewise displayed
the heads of their victims on public bridges and in front of daimyô mansions or bakufu offices.36 To the Westerners, the harshness of theTokugawa legal code gave the lie to the idea of Japan’s “civilized” status.
The second Tôzenji attack is also notable because it created another
Western image of the samurai. On the one hand was the savage killer; on
the other, a cowardly, lazy, untrustworthy partner unable or unwilling toprotect foreigners. Itô Gunbei, with or without actual confederates in theattack, had penetrated a supposedly secure screen of over 500 samurai specially commissioned by the bakufu to protect the British Legation. Moreover, after fatally wounding two British soldiers and despite being
wounded by a gunshot himself, he somehow managed to escape backthrough the defensive lines and return to his dwellings, where he committed suicide.
Neale and others both in Japan and Britain realized that they were faced
not merely with what they considered murderous renegades, but also withan incompetent or simply disingenuous samurai support system, insultinglyoffered by the bakufu as the best way to assure Western life and limb.
Neale held back nothing in his reports to Russell, blaming the Tokugawa
government for the success of the attack and excoriating the “unaccountable disgrace and utter want of vigilance of the Japanese guards.”37
Neale’s direct superior, Rutherford Alcock, was at this time putting thefinishing touches on his memoirs, and, undoubtedly influenced by the second Tôzenji attack, condemned the entire samurai class as dishonorable,
the very opposite of British officialdom’s moral virtue. He recounted thatmany of the attacks on Westerners took place at night, or from behind,with the assailants swiftly escaping from the scene of the crime. “They do
not deem it inconsistent with a reputation for courage,” he wrote, “to attack perfectly inoffensive and unarmed strangers walking alone.”38
Alcock was being at least partly disingenuous, for he himself had once
called the British merchants resident in Yokohama the “scum of the earth.”
Nor were all those wearing the uniforms of their country paragons of virtue, as indeed Japanese artists portrayed drunken Western sailors swagger36. See Nakasawa Michio, Bakumatsu ansatsu shiroku (Yuzankaku Kabushiki
Gaisha, 1966), for a record of five executed assassins. See also Anne Walthall,“Off with Their Heads! The Hirata Disciples and the Ashikaga Shoguns,” in Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 50, No. 2. (Summer, 1995), pp. 137-170.
37. Neale to Russell, July 3, 1862. P.P. 1863:74, no. 29.
38. Alcock I, p. 236.

156

Michael R. Auslin

ing through the streets of Yokohama. Part of Alcock’s wrath came fromthe fact that his own Legation seemed to be a permanent target and him
the biggest prize. This sense of danger and injustice transformed itself in
his memoirs into a charge that the savage samurai attacked innocent Westerners for no other reason than the fact that they were not Japanese.39
Alcock of course knew that the Western presence had ignited a raging
political debate between those samurai who favored opening the country
and those who sought to keep it closed. He downplayed, however, the ideathat the samurai attacks came from the political fissures in Japan caused by
the Western presence. The assaults, Alcock averred, were a symptom of
the essential cowardice of the samurai. He dismissed the Japanese warrior
class, who “when beaten in the field...fall back on fraud and cunning, thetraditional arms of the weak; and, it must be added, the only ones muchrelied upon by the Asiatic.”40 Alcock thus lumped the Japanese warriors together with the entire “Asiatic” race in a clear reaffirmation of the moral
superiority and courage of the West as represented by him. In Alcock’s description, the turn around from the early innocuous, if not positive, portrayal of the Japanese in the pages of magazines like Harper’s was nearlycomplete.
The image of the savage capriciousness of the samurai was reaffirmed in
the late summer of 1862, with the most famous attack on Westerners in Japan. On September 14, a party of four Britons, three men and one woman,left Yokohama to ride along the main road in eastern Japan, the Tôkaidô.
At a little village called Namamugi, about seven miles northeast of Yokohama, the four crossed the three hundred-man strong procession of Shimazu Hisamitsu, the father of the daimyô of Satsuma and the effective
power in the domain. Hisamitsu was returning to the imperial capital of
Kyoto after installing a new ruling triumvirate in the bakufu which hehoped would be more amenable to sharing power with the Court and leading domains such as his. What happened next was described by various
Western sources.
William Marshall, one of the party, stated in a deposition taken the next
day by British officials that the group pulled their horses off to the side of
the road when they encountered the samurai. “Our horses were quietly
turned around,” he continued, “when I saw a man in the center of the procession throwing the upper part of his clothes off his shoulders, leaving
himself naked to the waist, and drawing his sword, which he swung withboth hands, he rushed upon [Charles L.] Richardson.”41 After slashing at
39. See, for example, Yokohama kaikô kenbun shi I, illustration of a “drunken
foreign ship captain” staggering through Honmachi, supported by two uniformed
sailors.
40. Alcock ii, p. 202.
41. Deposition of William Marshall, contained in Vyse [Yokohama consul] toNeale, September 15, 1862. P.P. 1863:74, no. 42 and enclosures.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan157

the 28-year old Richardson, the samurai turned to Marshall and William
Clarke, cutting both of them, and finally aimed a blow at the woman in theparty, a Mrs. Borradaile. Clarke and Borradaile’s accounts accorded with
Marshall’s.
Chargé Neale continued the story in his next-day dispatch to Russell,describing this “barbarous murder” in which “Mr. Richardson, nearly cut
to pieces, fell from his horse.” To both Russell and the Japanese foreign
magistrates, Neale went into detail, describing how, while the other threemanaged to escape in the confusion, “Mr. Richardson was cruelly butchered, and though on the ground and dying, or dead, by orders of a superior
officer...his throat was cut. The cortege, with the cruel chief whom it surrounded, went on its way.”42
This first murder of a civilian in Japan shocked both the treaty port
community and the Western governments into action. Richardson actuallywas not a resident in Japan, but was vacationing from Shanghai. No matter,for now that one of their own had fallen victim, the foreign community inJapan wanted instant vengeance. Neale was barely able to restrain the British community from heading off en masse to find and punish the Japanese
responsible. Thwarted in forming a posse, the merchants held a community
meeting the following day. They sent a separate report to Russell demanding action which, when published in the Times in November, inflamed
British public opinion. The attack on Mrs. Borradaile was particularly reviled, and the merchant report contained her statement that, during the attack, though confused and desperate, she rode her horse into the nearby
sea, “preferring the risk of drowning to falling into the hands of thesebloodthirsty miscreants.”43 British officials and civilians alike professed utter disgust for those who would carry out a deliberate attack on an unarmed woman.
It is important to note here that major European newspapers did nothave correspondents in the Far East, but relied upon occasional reporting,letters from travelers, or, most commonly, the treaty port newspapers. Yet
the treaty port papers had intimate ties with the Western merchants, andcould hardly be considered unbiased. European readers therefore received
unadulterated treaty port images directly in their home papers. For example,
the minutes of the merchant meeting referred to above, which contained
Mrs. Borradaile’s statement, was sent as a dispatch to Russell and also reprinted nearly verbatim in the same day’s edition of the Yokohama-based
Japan Herald . This paper was sent to the major treaty ports in China, suchas Shanghai, and from there its account appeared newspapers such as the
42. Neale to Russell, September 15, 1862. P.P. 1863:74, no. 41 plus enclosures.
James Clavell fictionalized this episode as the opening scene in his novel, Gai-Jin(New York: Delacorte Press, 1993).
43. Enclosure 2 in no. 46, P.P. 1863:74.

158

Michael R. Auslin

Times.
Thus it was that a great number of London breakfasts undoubtedly went
untouched on the morning of November 28, 1862, when the Times reprinted the exact same account, containing Mrs. Borradaile’s statement aswell as the following passage: “[European officers] found the body lying
about ten yards off the road in a field at the side of a small cottage...The
whole body was one mass of blood; one wound, from which the bowels
protruded, extended from the abdomen to the back; another, on the leftshoulder, had severed all the bones into the chest; there was a gaping spear
wound over the region of the heart; the right wrist was completely divided,
and the hand was hanging merely by a strip of flesh; the back of the left
hand was nearly cut through, and on moving the head the neck was foundto be entirely cut through the left side.”44
Europeans in Yokohama photographed both the site of the murder andRichardson’s body, while Charles Wirgman, the most famous sketch artist
in Japan portrayed the attack in prints circulated among Western residents.45
British diplomats were aware that Edo had little, if any, control overSatsuma, but nonetheless demanded an indemnity from both parties. The
fact that Satsuma steadfastly refused to pay its share of the indemnity
pushed Foreign Secretary Russell into the August 1863 bombardment of
Satsuma’s capital, Kagoshima, by British warships.46 That one-day battle
was inconclusive and led to the deaths of eighteen British sailors, including
two high-ranking officers. Yet justice was never fully served according to
British lights, for Richardson’s killers never were caught.
Richardson’s murder codified in Britain the popular image of the samurai. Whereas the London Times back in 1860 could blame the ill-mannered
Europeans for their misfortunes, not so the Times of three years later. By
now, Alcock’s memoirs, numerous diplomatic dispatches, and media accounts had formed an accepted portrait of the savage and untrustworthy
samurai who terrorized innocent civilians. A long article entitled “What
Are We to Do with Japan?” printed at the end of June 1863 represented
the new common wisdom. Comparing Japan to the China of the 1850s,
which accepted European superiority only when the Chinese rulers themselves were threatened by military action, the article averred that the “early
provocations...had nothing to do with the system of assassination deliber-

44. “The Murder of Mr. Richardson in Japan,” the Times, November 28, 1862.
45. Pictures of Namamugi were taken by F.Beato and can be found in Beato(1987). A photo of Richardson’s body is in Ozawa Takeshi, Bakumatsu: shashin no
jidai (Tokyo: Chikuma Gakugei Bunko, 1996), p. 103. Wirgman’s sketches are in
Tôkaidô dokuhon (Kawasaki: Kawasaki shimin myujiamu, 1994), p. 88.
46. Richardson was buried in the foreigners’ cemetery in Yokohama, where hestill rests. His large headstone reads that he was “assassinated on the Tôkaidô.”Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan

159

ately adopted by the Japanese nobles. The names of Europeans who havebeen savagely murdered within the last two years would make a long list.
[These] can be accounted for by no other supposition than a foregone resolve to murder every European who may fall in the way of a Japanesechief.”47
Several months later, a lengthy piece reviewing the Richardson murder
expanded on this theme. The Times dismissed arguments that the Richardson party somehow brought disaster upon itself, noting that such a claim
cannot “hold good of an onslaught made by a retinue of 200 ruffians on
three gentlemen and a lady...The fear, or hatred, or jealousy of strangers
which is found in every barbarous race lives in the breast of the Japanese
Princes...They set upon the object of their abomination to kill them...”48 Ignoring direct evidence that primarily one, at most several, samurai were involved in the attack, the Times charged the entire procession with savage
murder and condemned all Japanese as uncivilized.
It was at this moment that the cultural image inserted itself into the international politics of the day. Rutherford Alcock had returned to Japan in1864 convinced of the duplicitous nature of the samurai and the constantthreat they posed to Britain’s position. His fears were combined with aconviction that the bakufu itself was secretly planning on expelling theWesterners from Japan. An ill-conceived bakufu policy of closing Yokohama, broached with the treaty powers in 1864, coupled itself in Alcock’s
mind with the previous year’s attack on Western shipping by the antiWestern domain of Chôshû. While Chôshû had acted alone on an Imperial
order to expel the barbarians, the bakufu had done all it could to quash thesame order after initially accepting it. The bakufu’s senior councillors repeatedly told Western representative that they had no intention of carryingout the expulsion order. Nonetheless, as the price of maintaining domestic
stability, Edo decided to attempt a closure of Yokohama. To Alcock, thiswas the final blow.
In late March 1864, he sent a long, aggressive dispatch to London,claiming that relations were in a “crisis.” He wrote Russell, “the time hasgone by irrevocably for concessions contrary to the sprit and intent of existing Treaties.”49 Two weeks later he again exhorted Russell to action, asserting that “there will be no improvement until measures of a hostile andcoercive character are resorted to...[the Japanese] will then learn to respectsuch rights, as the lesser of two evils, if for no better or higher reason.”50
By early May, Alcock was little short of panic: “Something must be done
47. The Times, June 29, 1863.
48. The Times, November 4, 1863; emphasis added.
49. Alcock to Russell, March 31, 1864. P. P. 1865:57 (3428), no. 20.
50. Alcock to Russell, April 14, 1864. P. P. 1865:57 (3428), no. 23.

160

Michael R. Auslin

to stop this underhand plotting for our final expulsion and the rupture of
all friendly relations, or the end will surely come.”51
Alcock’s words easily lead one to conclude that he saw enemies on all
sides. His disdain for Japan’s samurai government and his fear of the antiWestern samurai was reflected in his public and private writings. The image he helped create informed his viewpoint as he wrestled with what hebelieved to be an unsolvable problem. Ultimately, he could see no course
other than the exercise of military force to beat back a threat that none of
his fellow diplomats perceived as strongly. Over the summer months of1864, Alcock worked tirelessly to convince the other Western diplomats to
support an attack on Shimonoseki, the main city in Chôshû. He saw this asa righteous punishment, not just of Chôshû, but of the bakufu itself, andbelieved that it would serve as a warning to any contemplating violenceagainst Westerners in Japan.
After months of hectoring his allies, Alcock in the end won out and amainly British flotilla engaged in a three-day bombardment of Shimonoseki in late September, ostensibly to reopen the shipping lanes in the Inland Sea. Despite his conviction, Alcock could not sway his own superiors
that his policy was correct, and Foreign Secretary Russell recalled himfrom Japan at the end of 1864, replacing him with the equally experienced,
yet apparently more stable, Harry Parkes.
Alcock had run the cycle round: politics had led him to craft an image
that itself affected politics. Such an outcome was not preordained and indeed might not have happened had another man been in his position. Unlike most Westerners in Japan, Alcock was in a position to translate his beliefs into policy, but he clearly did not hold those images in isolation, aspress accounts and the writings of other diplomats show. The image of thesamurai could have remained that used by Rutherford Alcock to justify his
actions, yet soon after the image began radically to be transformed.
V The Transformation Begins: Shimizu Seiji
and the Baldwin and Bird Murders, 1864
The first intimations of this shift occurred a few months after the bombardment of Shimonoseki and just before Alcock returned to England. On
November 20, 1864, a band of samurai at Kamakura murdered two British
officers of the 20th Regiment, Major George Baldwin and Lieutenant
Robert Bird. It was while returning from visiting Kamakura’s landmark
Great Buddha, located about seventeen miles southwest of Yokohama, that
Baldwin and Bird were cut down.
The first reports to reach London, this time from the Times’ own Shang-

51. Alcock to Russell, May 6, 1864. P. P. 1865:57 (3428), no. 34.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan161

hai correspondent, who still relied on treaty port papers, replayed the nowfamiliar scenario: “[A]nother murder, more brutal and inexcusable, than
any which have preceded it, has been perpetrated at Yokohama...upon thisoccasion, they have cut to pieces two English officers who were engaged
in sketching the caves and temples in one of the most picturesque spots
among the Japanese islands...It was a sudden surprise and a murder of malice. It had, in fact, all the characteristics of an ordinary Japanese murder...”52
Yet this assault proved different from the murders before it, for the
bakufu now searched with alacrity for the assailants and, within one month,
had captured and executed two purported attackers. Chastened by Alcock’sshow of force against Chôshû, Edo tried to prove that when attacks occurred on its territory, by ordinary samurai, it could act swiftly. British
bloodlust, and British pride, was partially salved, for justice had finallytaken its course. More importantly, however, this was the first time that
British representatives witnessed an execution.53
Two weeks after this execution the British tone changed even more. The
bakufu had captured the ringleader of the murderers, a rônin named
Shimizu Seiji. He was transferred to Yokohama, an act by which the
bakufu symbolically recognized the right of the entire foreign community
to “punish” him, and was executed in front of not only British representatives, but in the presence of the entire 20th Regiment, the billet of his victims. Shimizu, reviled only slightly before by Europeans in Japan andacross the globe, evoked admiration from all present for his calmness inthe face of death. British diplomats John MacDonald and Martin Dohmen
represented acting minister Simon Winchester, and wrote the first approbationary account of the death of a samurai. Noting Shimizu’s steadfastness
and military bearing, the two representatives wrote warmly that
“He met his doom in a manner worthy of abetter cause, and for which
he would no doubt have left this world with full forgiveness from the regiment he so outrageously insulted in murdering two of its beloved officers
had he but shown the slightest sign of regret at the sorrow of which he
was the cause.”54
Despite these feelings, there was still a message to be delivered in
Shimizu’s execution, and the bakufu paraded his head through Yokohama
and displayed it at the entrance to the foreign settlement, where Felix

52. The Times, January 27, 28, 1865.
53. Alexander von Siebold, son of Philipp Franz von Siebold, author of Manners
and Customs of the Japanese, and John MacDonald represented Alcock. See theiraccount in P.P. 1865:57 (3459), no. 1.
54. Report of execution of Shimizu Seiji, Winchester to Russell, December 29,
1864. P.P. 1865:57 (3428), no. 3, plus enclosure 5.

162

Michael R. Auslin

Beato photographed it.55
Nonetheless, despite the cruel post-mortem treatment of Shimizu, MacDonald’s report, publicly printed the following year in Parliamentary Papers, marked the first change in the samurai image. Even a half-century after the fact, Ernest Satow, another witness to the execution, retained impulses from this turning point and wrote of Shimizu in his famous memoirs, A Diplomat in Japan, that “[I]t was impossible not to hate the assassin, but nevertheless, looking at the matter from a Japanese point of view,
I confess that I could not help regretting that a man who was evidently ofsuch heroic mould , should have been misguided enough to believe that his
country could be helped by such means.”56
IV Enshrining the Image: The West Witnesses “Hara-kiri,” 1868
This newly emerging image lay fallow for nearly three years, as the Kamakura murders marked the end of the high tide of jôi terrorism. Indeed,in the view of William Beasley, post-1864 domestic politics in Japan
turned to the construction of a new political order, guided by the slogan ofthe era: fukoku-kyôhei (enriching the state and strengthening the army).57
By late-1867, the fifteenth shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, had relinquishedshogunal authority to the Emperor, and the bakufu struggled to retain any
vestige of power. The main phase of the struggle ended on January 3,
1868, when forces of the anti-bakufu domains of Chôshû and Satsuma,
united under the imperial standard, took control of the Imperial Palace inKyoto. In the name of the sixteen-year old Emperor Mutsuhito, they proclaimed the restoration of imperial rule (ôsei fukkô) and abolished the position of shogun.
Two days prior to the restoration, the major commercial city of Osakaand the treaty port of Hyogo opened for trade. Although Hyogo, actually
moved about ten miles west to the village of Kobe, did not rival Yokohama in importance, the Western diplomatic representatives valued its location closer to the heart of Japanese domestic politics then roiling in
Kyoto. Thus it was that the entire foreign diplomatic community found itself at Kobe on February 4, 1868 to celebrate the near-completion of theforeign settlement. Near the end of the ceremonies, a detachment of samurai from Bizen (Okayama) domain leaving the settlement apparently skirmished with some French sailors present for the festivities. Suddenly, according to the diary of A. B. Mitford, secretary at the British Legation, thesamurai “halted at the word of command and opened a murderous fire
55. Beato’s photograph can be found in Ozawa (1996), p. 102.
56. Ernest Satow, A Diplomat in Japan (London, 1921), p. 140 (emphasis
added).
57. Beasley (1972), esp. Chs. 9-10.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan

163

upon the foreigners.”58
Despite the intensity of the attack, none of the diplomatic representatives
was killed or seriously injured. The assault, however, was the first major
attack on foreigners since the Baldwin and Bird murders, and more importantly, it was the first serious international crisis faced by the new Meiji
government. The outrage immediately called into the question the abilityof the new government not only to conduct smooth diplomatic relations
and to honor international law, but also whether it could prevent the very
type of terror attacks its leading members supported when opposing the old
Tokugawa bakufu.59 Equally important, however, was the role the Kobe Incident played in enshrining the new image of the noble samurai for Westerners.
The Meiji government lost no time in arresting the leader of the Bizen
detachment, a samurai named Taki Zenzaburô. Brandishing language identical to that once used against the Tokugawa, British Minister Sir Harry
Parkes led the Western representatives in demanding capital punishment
for Taki. Decrying the “murderous attack,” even no Westerner was actuallymurdered, Parkes wrote to London that relations between the Meiji government and the West could actually improve if there were to be a “satisfactory arrangement” for the Kobe Incident, i.e., the execution of Taki
Zenzaburô.60 Yet Parkes did not let on to the Japanese that Russell had
given him strict orders back in 1865 not to use military force in Japan. After three weeks of pressure, the Imperial government agreed to the Western
demand and, in an order immediately translated for the foreign community,commanded Taki to commit seppuku.61
The execution was scheduled for March 2, 1868. On that morning the
Meiji government requested clemency for Taki. The Western ministers met
and divided over the request, but ultimately agreed that to back down
would lead the Japanese to call into question Western resolve. Such a result could, in their view, not only lead to a resurgence of terrorism, butalso gravely impact the effectiveness of Western policy in Japan.62 That
evening, Taki Zenzaburô was brought to Eifukuji temple in Kobe for his
58. Algernon Bertram Mitford, Mitford’s Japan: the memoirs and recollections,
1866-1906, of Algernon Bertram Mitford, the first Lord Redesdale, ed. Hugh Cortazzi (London; Dover, NH: Athlone Press, 1985), p. 79.
59. See, Uchiyama Masakuma, Kobe jikken: Meiji gaikô no shuppatsu ten (Tokyo: Chûô Shinsho, 1983).
60. Parkes to Stanley, February 13, 1868. F.O. 46/91, No. 22.
61. Copy of order in Dai Nihon Ishin Shiryô Kohon [hereafter, DNISK] ME0190494, which contains most of the material relating to the Kobe Incident.
62. The Meiji government asked for clemency only from the original treaty powers (minus Russia, which did not have a minister in Japan at the time), even thoughother foreign representatives, such as Prussia’s von Brandt, were fired upon. The
opinions of von Brandt and Italian Minister de la Tour, both in favor of capital
punishment, can be found at DNISK ME019-0494.

164

Michael R. Auslin

punishment. For two centuries the famous ceremony of seppuku, often
called hara-kiri had influenced all Western accounts of the samurai, andnow the foreigners would see it in their own quest for justice. The event
was a milestone in Japanese-Western cultural relations, and marked aqualitative change in the Western image of the samurai; indeed it can besaid to have started the popular culture cult of the samurai which retains
vigor to this day.
The scene of the execution was carefully laid out in the temple’s main
hall with seven Japanese and seven foreign witnesses. The government
made a careful schematic of the arrangements, noting the exact positions
for each observer, the centering of the platform upon which the sentence
was to be carried out, and the positions of the executioners. Torches,“shedding over the altar a dim and spectral light, which lost itself in the
mysterious darkness beyond”, lighted the temple.63 To the foreign observers, the entire event became not merely the execution of justice but a new
and deeply impressive ritual.64
The reports of the Western witnesses became the basis for the new image of the samurai, which took hold first among the small circle of foreign
representatives and officials in Japan, and soon to a much wider Western
audience. The most important was by Bertram Mitford. He, along with
Ernest Satow, witnessed the ritual, and reported back to Parkes. Mitford
then published an account of the execution in Cornhill Magazine and a revised version in his famous 1871 book Tales of Old Japan; the book chapter greatly expanded his personal account, filling fully thirty-five pages
with an in-depth look at the history and culture of seppuku. Mitford’s account is worth quoting in extenso:65 “[After entering the hall] Taki
Zenzaburô advanced slowly toward the Japanese witnesses...bowed before
them, then drawing near to the foreigners [he] saluted us in the same way...
in each case the salutation was ceremoniously returned. Slowly, and withgreat dignity, the condemned man mounted on to the raised floor, prostrated himself before the high altar twice, and seated himself on the felt
carpet with his back to the high altar, the kaishaku crouching at his left
side.66 One of the three attendant officers then came forward, bearing...thewashizaki, the short sword or dirk of the Japanese, nine inches and a halfin length, with a point and an edge as sharp as a razor’s. This he handed,
prostrating himself, to the condemned man, who received it reverently,
63. The New York Times, June 4, 1868.
64. See DNISK ME019-0494 for the schematic and ancillary documents, including the final government order of kappuku, dated 2/9 (3/2).
65. The following account is taken from “The Execution by Hara-kiri,” in Cornhill Magazine November 1869, pp. 549-54. It was reprinted and expanded withmore material in Mitford, Tales of Old Japan (London, 1871), pp. 375-409.
66. The kaishaku was his second: a handpicked man who would deliver the coupde grace after Taki had disemboweled himself.

Terrorism and Treaty Port Relations: Western Images of the Samurai during Bakumatsu and early Meiji Japan

165

raising it to his head with both hands, and placed it in front of himself.
“After another profound obeisance, Taki Zenzaburô...spoke as follows:––“ ‘I, and I alone, unwarrantably gave the order to fire on the foreigners
at Kobe, and again as they tried to escape. For this crime I disembowel
myself, and I beg you who are present to do me the honour of witnessing
the act.’“Bowing once more, the speaker allowed the upper garments to slip
down to his girdle, and remained naked to the waist. Carefully, according
to custom, he tucked his sleeves under his knees to prevent himself fromfalling backwards; for a noble Japanese gentlemen should never die falling
forwards. Deliberately, with a steady hand, he took the dirk that lay before
him; he looked at it wistfully, almost affectionately; for a moment heseemed to collect his thoughts for the last time, and then stabbing himself
deeply below the waist on the left-hand side, he drew the dirk slowly
across to the right side, and turning it in the wound, gave a slight cut upwards. During this sickeningly painful operation he never moved a muscleof his face. When he drew out the dirk...the kaishaku...sprang to his feet,poised his sword for a second in the air; there was a flash, a heavy, ugly
thud, a crashing fall; with one blow the head had been severed from thebody.
“A dead silence followed, broken only by the hideous noise of the blood
throbbing out of the inert heap before us, which but a moment before had
been a brave and chivalrous man.
“The ceremony...was characterized throughout by that extreme dignity
and punctiliousness which are the distinctive marks of the proceedings of
the Japanese gentlemen of rank....While profoundly impressed by the terrible scene, it was impossible at the same time not to be filled with admiration of the firm and manly bearing of the sufferer.”
Mitford’s famous description was reprinted many times and codified for
the West the image of the noble suicide. In Mitford’s retelling Taki became the apotheosis of his peers, his dignified death but an extension of
the honor that guided his life and manifested itself in a respect for traditionand etiquette. Terrorism was all but forgotten and the samurai was nolonger a savage killer, but rather a breed of modern-day knight, willing,even eager, to lay down his life for his principles.
The new view quickly found its way into the popular press in the West.
The London Times of May 7, 1868 described Taki’s suicide and decried
the severity of the punishment demanded by the West: “The ends of justicewould have been met, and a proper moral effect produced, had the man
been disgraced in rank, or reprieved at the last moment.” The question ofwhether British morality trumped Japanese morality was now laid before
Londoners. Equally important, punishment assured that Japanese-Westernrelations could continue smoothly, the good faith of the imperial govern-

166

Michael R. Auslin

ment now proved in blood; as the New York Times headlined its account:“An Act of Reparation...Resumption of the Entente.”67
By the time that Taki so impressed Western observers, the samurai
themselves had not long to exist, being considered an impediment to themodernizing tendencies of imperial rule. In 1871, the Meiji government
abolished the domain system, replacing the 250-odd semi-autonomous territories with Imperial prefectures. By 1874 the samurai were forbidden to
carry swords or wear their distinctive topknot, and in that year, as well,their rice stipends were commuted into long-term government bonds. Intermarriage between status groups was allowed and the samurai encouraged
to take up a trade. With these acts ended the status system, and the vastbulk of samurai disappeared into the stream of history.
Taki Zenzaburô was among the last Japanese to attack Westerners forover two decades. Yet the image of the noble suicide remained in theminds of the Westerners. In 1874, the very year that samurai practicallyceased to exist, the London Quarterly Review mythologized the caste, regretting that their “sense of honour [was] cultivated at such a cost of life.”
After asserting that the samurai represented the best of Japan, the Review
wondered whether Britain was “taking due care that our nobler principles
and better life shall go along with [the British customs and habits being introduced into Japan]?68
In merely a decade, the Western image of the samurai dramatically
evolved. A melange of visions gave way under the threat of terror to achilling portrait of a savage killer. With successful punishment of their acts,
the image metamorphosed into an almost hagiographic depiction of the noble suicide. Men with distinctly different experiences of Japan and thesamurai crafted the image. Some of them, like Rutherford Alcock, let theimage dictate their actions. Others, like Mitford, used it to create a lastingbond between the two peoples. For all, though, the image of the samurai
became for an intense historical moment a central, if not the primary, lensthrough which they interpreted Japan.

67. The New York Times, June 4, 1868.
68. London Quarterly Review 142(85) (April 1874), p. 95.

Chapter 9１
９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』
American Photography in the Latter Half of the
19th Century and “Beiou Kairan Jikki”
山地 秀俊（Hidetoshi Yamaji）

Ⅰ 開 題
Ⅰ−１ 一般的視角
ミッシェル・フーコーは，彼の分析枠組みの中心概念であるディスクール
（言説）について以下のように説明している。言説とは「語ることによって対象を体系的に構成していくプラティックである…言説とは対象について語ることではない。対象を明らかにすることではなく，対象をつくりだし，そうするなか
で逆に，それが自らつくりだしたものであることを隠蔽するものである」と１。
１ フーコーの分析枠組みの中心概念は，言説である。言説とは，表現方法や思考方法を意味するが，同時に，誰が，いつ，いかなる資格あるいは権威に基づいて語っているかということが問題となる。言説は，意味と社会関係の表現されたものであり，主体と権力の諸関係を共に構成するものである。言説とは「語ることによって対象を体系的に構成していくプラティックである…言説とは対象について語ることではない。対象を明らかにすることではなく，対象をつくりだし，そうするなかで逆に，それが自らつくりだ
したものであることを隠蔽するものである」（Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” １
９
８
２．
）
。
このように，対象を意味づけ定義する可能性は，予めそうした意味や定義を使用する人たちの社会的，制度的地位によって先取りされているのである。したがって意味は，言語から生まれるのではなく，制度的なプラティックや権力の諸関係から生じるのである。
ことばや概念は，それらがどのような言説の中で展開されるかに応じて，その意味や影響力を変化させる。言説は，思考の可能性を抑制するのである。言説は，ことばをある特定の方法で配列し結合するのであり，それ以外の組合せは排除されるか配列しなおされることになる。しかし，言説が，包摂と同時に排除によって，語られると同時に語られないことによって構成される限り，そのような言説は，他の言説，他の意味の可能性
や主張，権利，立場とは，対立的な関係におかれることになる。これが，フーコーのいう「非連続性の原理」である（「フーコーの紹介」３−４頁。スティーブン・J・ボール
編著，稲垣恭子・喜多信之・山本雄二監訳，『フーコーと教育』，勁草書房，１
９
９
９年，第
１章）
。

167

168

山地

秀俊

この思考を我々の情報公開に対する規定に援用するならば以下のようになろう。
すなわち，情報を伝達するメディアが，文字・図像・音声を問わず，そうした情報を公開するということは，公開する内容となっている対象・問題について語り明確にしていくという体を装いつつ，対象・問題を体系的に構成していくプラティックと考えられる。情報公開とは実は対象について語ることに主眼があるのではない。対象を明らかにすることではなく，対象をつくりだし，そうするなかで逆に，それが自らつくりだしたものであることを隠蔽することに主眼がある。したがって，１９世紀から２０世紀にかけて形成された近代的情報公開制度は，巨大社会組織構造の中で形成された近・現代の言説の発生源として理解されよう。２０世紀の巨大組織とは代表的には国家政府であり株式会社企業である。こうした２大巨大組織体が形成するコミュニケーション関係の中に我々は存在し，その関係から影響・規定されてアイデンティティを持った存在となる。
我々がこれまで研究してきた会計もまた一種の言説の発生源として捉えることができよう。会計情報公開は，企業行動のある側面を表象し・測定しているというよりも，対象となる行動を体系的に構築していく行為である。そして測定しなかったものを隠蔽する働きを持ち，会計情報が構築し表した事実物は，隠蔽した事実物とは対立的となる。情報公開は特定の思考（イデオロギー）の発信であると同時に隠蔽行為と同値でもある。
遡って，本稿で分析する１９世紀のアメリカにおける西漸運動−具体的に本稿
では踏査隊活動と鉄道網の西部への拡大動向を指す−の中で撮影された写真は，マニフェスト・デスティニとしての当該運動を刺激して，新興国家アメリカの国民としてのアイデンティティを高め，結果，現代的・アメリカ的な多くの諸制度（鉄道交通網・国立公園・国有林・市民運動・環境保護）を生み出し，その対極で他民族（インディアン）の文化・アイデンティティを消去していくという言説的機能をもっていた。翻って上述した会計も写真も，事象を事実として描き出すある定型化した技術構造をもっており，それが社会的権力の言説源
泉としてうまく機能し，結果，制度化されていったと見るべきである。
以上要するに，広く一般に情報公開制度は，実は，大衆民主主義社会の中に巧妙にかつ密やかに組み込まれ，一般大衆を対象とした，言説的・操作的主体形成のための制度として確立するということができよう。
我々はこれまでに，徐々に鮮明化しつつある以上のような問題意識の下に，
会計情報公開制度の研究，あるいは１９３０年代の連邦政府の写真収集活動２や２０世紀初頭においてハイン（Lewis Hine）が撮影したドキュメンタリー写真の社会的意義について３，あるいは同様に１９世紀の終わりから２
０世紀の３
０年代頃
までのアメリカ企業−具体的にはゼネラル・エレクトリック社−の写真による

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

169

情報公開活動４について部分的にではあるが漸次検討を加えてきた５。その過程
で，さらにこうした分析の対象を１９世紀に遡らしめる必要性を痛感した。その検討対象は，１９世紀のアメリカにおける領土（拡大）問題あるいは国家権力の浸透問題に直接・間接に関与している意味から，南北戦争と西部踏査隊活動それに，世界に先駆けて成立した株式会社としての巨大鉄道会社が行う鉄道網の拡大，に絞られよう６。南北戦争あるいは一般に戦争と写真の問題は別稿に譲るとして，本稿では西部踏査隊活動と鉄道網の拡大過程について，そこで撮影され用いられた写真情報の意義について検討する。

Ⅰ−２ １
９世紀後半アメリカ写真情報公開への仮説
前項では情報公開に対する筆者の一般的視角とそこから導かれる課題について展開した。ここでは，そうした一般的視角から導かれた，１９世紀後半の西部踏査隊あるいは鉄道会社の残した写真の理解という課題に対するより具体的な仮説について触れる。
こうした残された大量の写真が撮影された直接的目的は，行論で明らかになるように，鉄道建設に際して費用の面から最小となるようなルートを，地質を中心に検討するための調査に際して，写真は地図とともに，鉄道会社経営者に
具体的地質イメージを提供する手段として機能したということである。さらに２ 拙稿，「２
０世紀初頭のアメリカにおける写真情報公開の展開−企業写真情報公開から

国家写真情報公開へ−」，山地秀俊・中野常男・高須教夫，『会計とイメージ』（神戸大
学経済経営研究叢書 No．４
９）
，１
９
９
８年に所収。あるいは，拙稿，「FSA（農業安定局）と SEC（証券取引委員会） アメリカにおける国家による情報収集・公開活動に意義」，『国民経済雑誌』第１８
１巻第６号（平成１
２年６月）
。
３ 拙稿，
「２
０世紀初頭のアメリカにおける写真情報公開 Lewis W. Hine の写真によせて 」，『国民経済雑誌』第１７
７巻第６号（平成１０年６月）。
４ デビッド・ナイ著，山地秀俊・山地有喜子共訳，『写真イメージの世界 ゼネラル・
エレクトリック社のコーポレートアイデンティティ 』，１
９
９
７年，九州大学出版会。
５ 写真情報も各時代においてその「意味は，写真そのものの写された対象から生まれるのではなく，制度的なプラティックや権力の諸関係から生じる」のである。我々が最初に取り上げた写真情報の公開問題で，２０世紀初頭のゼネラル・エレクトリック（GE）
社の写真情報公開は，それまで多様な環境に居た人々に，資本主義的生産関係の中で，自己と会社との関係・アイデンティティを意識的・主体的に形成させ，生産構造の中に組み込むという機能を持っていた。また同時期のハインの写真は，批判的写真雑誌による公開を通して，そうした労働過程に組み込まれようとしている移民・児童等の人間を別の社会価値から捉えようとした，したがって資本主義的生産構造に組み込まれつつある人々をそれ以外の関係に組み込むための努力であった。
６ この二つの問題を提起せしめる社会・政治・経済問題の構造は，実は会計情報公開問
題をも提起している。それは南北戦争時期の鉄道会社の州規制問題と１８８０年代の連邦政
府の鉄道会社規制問題である。この間の事情については拙著，『情報公開制度としての
現代会計』，同文舘，１
９
９
４年，第４章を参照。

山地

170

秀俊

そうした写真は人々の思考を規定するようになる。すなわち西漸運動と相俟って，アメリカの人々の心に自然保護特にアメリカ独特の西部荒野の自然保護思
想を育むようになった。またこうした心的条件を基礎に，国立公園や国有林のような具体的自然保護制度が制定されるようになる。しかしそれには止まらない。このような写真によるアメリカ人アイデンティティ形成過程は，やがて他
民族−具体的・直接的にはインディアン−の文化を否定する力としても作用す
るようになるとともに，他民族−日本人−のアメリカ理解を規定する一因としても作用するようになる。視覚的言説の完成である。
こうした仮説的理解から，以下，１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真情報公開を分析していくこととする。

Ⅱ アメリカ西漸運動と写真
Ⅱ−１ 鉄道網の西漸問題
Ⅱ−１−１

鉄道敷設と地図（写真情報公開前史）

アメリカの鉄道敷設と調査活動そして地図作成との関連は１８世紀にまで遡ることができる。したがって商業目的で蒸気機関車が走り始めるのが１８３０年代からであることから，蒸気機関車が牽引する汽車が鉄道の上を走り出す前に，荷馬車を鉄道の上で馬が牽引する時代から，鉄の道（chemin de fer）としての鉄道建設のための調査活動と地図の作成は行われていたといえる７。
北アメリカで最初の鉄道建設は，１７６４年にニューヨーク州のナイアガラ連水
陸路運搬用に，イギリス人技術者モントレッサー（John Montressor）によって行われた。象徴的に彼は著名な地図作成者（mapmaker）でもあった。アメリカで最初に商業用「鉄軌道」（tram road）の敷設計画を織り込んだ調査地図を作成したのはトムソン（John Thomson）であり，１８０９年９月にフィラデルフィ
アで描かれている。トムソンの描いた地図は，当時の著名な政治家であったジェファーソンとも知己があった富裕なフィラデルフィアのタバコ商人ライパー（ThomasLeiper）の鉄道軌道敷設計画を調査し，地図に描いたものであった。

当該地図は「トマス・ライパー殿がクラムクリークにある彼の石切り場からリッドレイクリークにある彼の船着場までを結ぶべく考えた鉄道・・・を示す素案」とタイトルがつけられている。トムソンは１９世紀後半に長期間ペンシルベ
ニア鉄道の社長を勤めたトムソン（John Edger Thomson）の父親である。
やがて１８２６年にアメリカではスチブンス（JohnStevens）によって初めて蒸７ 以下の論述は，アメリカ国会図書館の，以下のインターネト・アドレスの論述を参考にしている。
http : //memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/rrhome.html

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

171

気機関車が走る試走用の円形軌道が敷設された。続いて１８３０年代になってボルチモア・オハイオ鉄道の調査・地図作成・建設へと進んでいくこととなる。しかし当該時代の鉄道は総じて距離も短く，資金拠出者が全く想像すらできない
ような地域への鉄道建設ではない。地図を基に資金提供者に説得するという類の調査および地図作成ではなかった。
以上のようにアメリカでは１８３０年代に逸早く東部で蒸気機関車が牽引する商業目的の鉄道が敷設されたが，以後一般にアメリカにおける１９世紀の鉄道発展
は，いくつかの時代に区分することが可能である。第一の時代は，１８２７年にボルチモア・オハイオ鉄道（Baltimore & Ohio Railroad）の建設が認可されて以来， ３０年代に入って河川・運河交通の補助手段として，主として東部諸州において短距離の鉄道が建設された時代である。マサチューセッツ州等でもこの時代から鉄道建設が開始されている。第二の時代は， ４０年代から ５０年代にか け て 経 済 の 一 つ の 中 心 と し て 鉄 道 が 確 立 す る 時 期 で あ り，四 大 幹 線（trunkline）鉄道が完成をみるのもこの時代である。またこの時代には，イギ
リス資本の導入が本格化し始める。第三の時代は，巨大鉄道会社を中心に鉄道網がアメリカ全土に拡大していく過程を含んでいる。 ６０年代から ７
０年代にほぼ相当する。さらに第四の時代は， ７０年代後半以降であり，ようやく投資
銀行家が不況下の鉄道会社の更生を通して，鉄道産業に介入してくる時代である。それは，やがてくるはずの全産業レベルでの独占化傾向の前兆ということができよう。実はこうしたアメリカ大陸全体への鉄道網の敷設と並行して，地質調査活動そして地図作成活動，後には写真撮影も本格化するのである。
第一の時代は，文字通り，鉄道が河川・運河交通の補助手段として利用されていた時代であり，東部主要都市の商人や銀行家がこぞって自己資金を投資したり，あるいは地方政府の援助によって鉄道を建設することにより，主要運河
等と自都市を結合せんとしていた時期である。そうすることによって究極的には，中西部との連結を図ろうとしていたのである。その典型は，ニューヨーク
・セントラル鉄道（New York Central Railroad）の前身であるモーホーク・ハ
ドソン鉄道（Mohawk & Hudson Railroad），あるいはマサチューセッツ州の鉄道に求めることができる。例えば，各都市がどれほど鉄道運輸体系の中で主導的地位を獲得しようとしていたかを示す事例としては，モーホーク・ハドソン
鉄道とトロイ（Troy）市の鉄道との間の競争を指摘できよう。こうした時代においては，鉄道会社の設立には州政府の認可を必要とした。州政府は鉄道会社に対して直接的援助を行ったのであるが，連邦政府が鉄道会社に直接的援助を行うことは稀であった８。代わって間接的援助をしたのであるが，それが陸軍

８１
８５
０年になって初めて連邦政府は，イリノイ・セントラル鉄道に対して直接的援助として土地の無償提供を行っている。以後当該鉄道会社は，無償提供された土地を資金獲得に利用し，鉄道会社か不動産屋かわからないと酷評されるようになる。

172

山地

秀俊

の技師を登用した，鉄道建設用ルートの地質調査と地図作成のための踏査隊の派遣であった。そうした踏査隊派遣を資金的にも人員的にも可能にする法律（General Survey Bill）は，１８２４年に議会を通過している。そして翌１８２５年には当該法律に基づいて充当された予算が，「カナワ（Kanawha）河上流とジェイムス河やロアノーク河を，運河あるいは鉄道で繋ぐことの実行可能性を確認するための研究・調査（Examinations and Surveys）」に用いられた。ハーネイによれば当該調査が連邦政府の援助による初めての調査活動であった９。
第二の時代は，幹線鉄道の完成の時代である。ここにいう幹線とは，専ら東部からアパラチア山脈を越えてエリー湖付近までつまり中西部へ達する鉄道のことをいう。この幹線を最初に完成させたのは，ニューヨーク・セントラル鉄道であった。ニューヨーク・セントラル鉄道自体は，合併によって１８５３年に成立するのであるが，その前身の諸鉄道がすでに，全体でこの幹線を完成させていたのである。続いて５０年代にいると，ペンシルベニア鉄道（Pennsylvania
Railroad），エリー鉄道（Erie Railroad，（New York & Erie）），そしてボルチモ
ア・オハイオ鉄道が相次いで幹線を完成させている。それによって，以後の鉄道建設でも中心的存在となる四大幹線鉄道が完成・成立をみたのである。また，
この時代には，イギリスからの資本がアメリカに流入し始め，各幹線の拡大に投資されるようになる。例えば，ペンシルベニア鉄道は，逸早くイギリス資本の導入を決定し，路線拡大を容易にしたのである。
この時期になると，現実の基幹路線建設と並行して，太平洋と大西洋を結ぶ
大陸横断鉄道の議論が本格化する。特に１８４６年にイギリスとの条約でオレゴン
境界線係争の問題が解決する前後で本格化している。最初に具体的な形で，大陸横断鉄道計画を提出したのは，中国貿易で富を得たニューヨークの商人ホイットニー（Asa

Whitney）であった。彼は１８４５年に議会に対して大陸横断鉄道の建設に関する調査旅行への資金援助を申請したが，別のルートを支持し，西部 を 越 え て 東 洋 貿 易 を 目 指 し て い た ミ ズ ー リ 州 出 身 の 政 治 家 ベ ン ト ン１０（Thomas H. Benton）の反対に遭い却下された。そこで彼は１８４９年にベントン案も考慮して，北アメリカの地図に描いた複数の大陸横断鉄道計画を小冊子の形で発表した。これが議会に提出された最も初期の大陸横断鉄道計画の一つであった。この時期（１８５１年から１８５３年）に，戦争省長官デイビス（Jefferson Davis）
は太平洋までの大陸横断鉄道敷設可能ルートを調査するよう命じている。
ホイットニーの計画に続いて，西部への郵便事業の拡張が主張されたり，メキシコ戦争でカリフォルニアがアメリカに帰属し１８４８年に金鉱が発見されゴー

９ Louis H. Haney, Congressional History of Railways in the United States,

Vol．１（１９０８），
Vol．２（１９１０）．Chapter II. Reprinted by Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, New York，１
９
６
８．
１０ ベントンの「インドへの道」思考は当時の西部への憧れを強化する一つの思考であった。H.N．スミス著，『ヴァージンランド』，第二章「インドへの道」を参照。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

173

ルドラッシュが始まり，加えてフロンティアが消滅し，東部では鉄道が一層の発展をみていたことが重なり，そして次節で見る文学・絵画・写真等で作り出された西部ウィルダネスへの憧れも作用して，大陸横断鉄道への関心はより高
まっていった。さらにはカルホーン（John Calhoun），ダグラス（Stephen Douglas）
ら有名政治家が，領土の西部拡大計画を念頭に，アメリカ全土を鉄道で繋げる
大陸横断鉄道計画を支持した。しかし議会は，当該計画が東部起点（eastern
terminus）の計画であること，西部では複数路線計画があることで難色を示した。そこで双方の利害を調整するために，デイビス長官によって奨励された西部調査は，１８５３年に陸軍地形調査部隊（Army Topographic Corps）に対して「ミシシッピ川から太平洋までの最も実行可能で経済的な鉄道建設ルートを確定する」ための調査費用が認められる形で具体化されたのである。
当該調査は，１８５０年代に４ルートで行われる。概ね，緯度に沿って南北４つの地域に区分されたのである。最も北部は北緯４７度線から４９度線までの区間であった。当該地域はワシントン準州の長官であったスチブンス（Isaac

Ingalls

Stevens）隊によって為された。続いて北緯３８度線から３９度線はガニソン（JohnGunnison）大尉（Cp．）によって，彼の死後は４１度線まで拡張してベックウィ
ス（Edward Beckwith）大尉（Lt．）によって続けられた。またウイップル（Amiel
Whipple）大尉とクリスマス・イヴ（Joseph Christmas Ives）は３５度線に沿って
南カリフォルニアまで調査した。最も南の３２度線に沿って為された調査は，パーク大尉（Lt. John G. Parke）によって指揮が取られた。当該踏査隊にはポープ大尉（Capt. John Pope）が同行し，地図作成に携わった。こうした調査の結果が，上述のように１８６０年代に戦争省から報告されることになる。
当該報告書によって３２度線に沿った鉄道建設が最も経済的だと判断され，サザン・パシフィック鉄道が建設された。当該鉄道は，ユダ（Theodore Judah）の努力によってサクラメントの富裕商人の資本拠出とリンカーンの政治的援助を得て建設されたセントラル・パシフィック鉄道と合併し，さらには１
８６９年
５月１０日にユタ州プロモントリーでユニオン・パシフィック鉄道と連結され最初の大陸横断鉄道を完成させることになる。
当時の最も詳細な鉄道地図で我々の観点から問題とすべきは，前述の陸軍の調査隊活動が議会に対して提出した報告書 Reports of Explorations and Surveys,
to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from theMississippi River to the Pacific Ocean １８５３−１８５６（Washington，１８５５−１８５９）に，添付された２２枚の地図である。以下にその一枚を掲載する。
当該報告書の添付地図には，１８２４年に前述の一般調査法（General

SurveyBill）が国内調査を促進する以前の１
８００年代に，ジェファーソン大統領によって派遣されたルイス＝クラーク（Lewis and Clark）踏査隊１１の太平洋までの調査から，１８５０代終わりの General Land Office の調査活動まで計４５回の調査活動の結果が記入されていた。当該地図を参考に，鉄道経営者たちは，西部への鉄

174

山地

秀俊

道の敷設あるいはさらには大陸横断鉄道を計画し，東部と西部を鉄道で接続することによって，東部住人の西部ウィルダネスへの憬れを経済的に利用しようとした。具体的に例えば，クック（Jay

Cooke）は，鉄道の西漸計画―具体的には Northern Pacific Extension Project―の推進者であり，イエロ−ストーン国立公園設立のために議会に対するロビング活動を行った推進者ともなった。この動向が，第３節で触れるように，自然保護運動と鉄道会社利害の実利的結合（practical alliance）へと結実する。

第１図

議会提出地図１
１ 当該踏査隊の意義については以下の文献に詳しい。D．ホロウェイ著，池央耿耿訳『ル

イスとクラーク−北米大陸の横断−』，草思社，１９７７年。さらに南北戦争以前にはパイク（Z. Pike），ロング（S. H. Long），フレモント（J. C. Fremont）らが政府派遣の探検家として有名である。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』
Ⅱ−１−２

175

鉄道会社と写真

サザン・パシフィック鉄道，セントラル・パシフィック鉄道そしてユニオン
・パシフィック鉄道へと発展的に連結され最初の大陸横断鉄道が完成をみることになるが，その過程を支えたのは，連邦政府の派遣する軍隊による調査活動とその結果報告される地図であったが，やがて写真も利用されるようになることは次節で検討する。ここでは，むしろ鉄道会社の側からも大量に撮影された写真について若干言及しておこう。
象徴的写真としては，大陸横断鉄道完成時にユタ州プロモントリーで，西からと東からの工事が連結された時の写真であるが，鉄道会社の広告を兼ねた委託記念写真としてよく引用される。当該写真を始め，鉄道会社の広告用に西部への鉄道敷設現場が多く写真に残されている１２。
しかし実は，本稿で検討対象としている踏査隊の写真と鉄道会社の写真は，それほど簡単に区別できるものではない。その理由として，いくつかの踏査隊に同行した写真家についても，踏査隊員として写真撮影する以前から単独で西部地域を撮影していたものもいるし，また踏査隊に雇用されると同時に，同一人物が民間の鉄道会社にも相前後して雇用され，多くの西部地域の写真を後世に残しているからである。こうした特殊事情を体化した写真家として特に本稿で注目するのは，鉄道写真家として名声を博したハート（Alfred E. Hart）と，踏査隊と鉄道 会 社 そ れ に 個人としても写真家として活躍したワトキンス（Carleton Watkins）である。
ワトキンスは踏査隊に同行した写真家として有名である。後述するように，
特に著名な西部踏査活動を行う４大踏査隊の一つである，キング（C.King）が率いた踏査隊に，ワトキンスは同行している。しかしキングとワトキンスの関係は，年齢的には１８２９年生まれのワトキンスが１８４０年生まれのキングよりも年上である。ワトキンスは，それ以前の１８６１年からすでに個人的にヨセミテの写真を撮影し，１８６２年にはニューヨークやロンドンでも，ヨセミテ特にマリポサの写真で個展を開き世界的な注目を集めており，１８６３年にはサンフランシスコ
でギャラリーを持つまでになっていた。また同じく１８６２年には連邦国家の踏査隊とは別に，写真家としてカリフォルニア州地質調査隊のメンバーとなっている。またヨセミテでのワトキンスの交友関係には，次節で触れる自然保護運動
家ジョン・ミューア（JohnMuir）も含まれていた。因みに，ワトキンスが踏査隊に参画する以前に撮影したヨセミテの写真はまた，ホイットニー博士が作成したカリフォルニア州当局への報告書である『ヨセミテ』（１８６８年刊）にも
１
２１
８
６
９年５月１
０日にユタ州プロモントリーで東西からの大陸横断鉄道建設が連結された時の，レイリー（J. J. Reilly）によって撮影された完成セレモニーの写真が有名である。Paul Hickman and Peter Palmquist, “J. J. Reilly Photographer Views of American
Scenery,” Stereo World, Vol．１
２，No．３，July./Aug．１
９８５を参照。あるいは以下の WEB
も参照 http : //www.cprr.org/。

176

山地

秀俊

２４枚が採用されている。
４大踏査隊の隊長の一人であるキングは，コロンビア大学の地質学者ホイットニー博士の薫陶を受け，弱冠２７歳で１８６７年に，民間人として始めて踏査隊の指揮官としての命を受けたが，もちろん，キングが行った踏査活動すべてにワ
トキンスが同行していたわけではなく，１
８７０年に行われたシャスタ山（Mount
Shasta）までの踏査に同行している。しかしそこでも精力的な撮影活動を行い，１８７１年には，サンフランシスコの芸術協会のチャーター・メンバーに選ばれ，
新しくヨセミテ・アート・ギャラリーを設立している１３。
ワトキンスはまた，踏査隊に同行すると同時に，セントラル・パシフィック
鉄道あるいはサザン・パシフィック鉄道にも雇用され，工事記録や広告用の写真を撮影している。１８６９年には Illustrated San Francisco News に掲載するべく，
セントラル・パシフィック鉄道会社に関する一連の立体画（ステレオグラフ）の作成を引き受けた。
しかしこの間の事情は複雑である。今日，Web 上でのネット展示でもセン
トラル・パシフィック鉄道が１９世紀に残した写真データベースは，ハート／ワ
トキンス・コレクション（Hart/Watkins Collection）として展示されている場合がある１４。ところが，最近の研究で，実は１
８６０年代の当該鉄道会社の写真は，実質的にはハートによって撮影されたことが判明している１５。すなわち，ハートの写真ネガはワトキンスの新聞社に対する仕事の都合上，セントラル・パシ
フィック鉄道によって１８６９年にワトキンスに譲り渡され，ワトキンスが当時彼自身の名前で新聞に発表していたのである。そのためにハートは長い間，１８６９
年に死亡したとされ，彼自身が撮影した写真もワトキンスの写真として伝えられてきた。しかしその後の研究で，ハートは１９０８年まで生存していたことが判明している。そうした事情に鑑みるとき，ハート／ワトキンス・コレクションの大半はハートによって撮影された写真であるといえよう。
特に本稿で注目するのは，１８６０年代末にセントラル・パシフィック鉄道に雇

１３ Eric Hill, “Carleton E. Watkins,” Stereo World, Vol．４
１，No．１，March April，１
９
７
７を参照。当時の大衆に写真を体験してもらう方法は，普通紙に写真を印刷する技術が未だ発明されていなかった以上，写真イメージから銅版画・木版画を起こし，後述するトラ
ベラーズ・マップのようなパンフレット類で大量印刷に付すか，あるいは多くの人々が集まるところや，ギャラリーを経営して，そこに覗き箱のようなステレオ写真を見る器具を準備して，写真を鑑賞してもらう，といった方法が採られていた。
１
４ セントラル・パシフィック鉄道の写真は Web 上のデータベースとして以下のアドレ
スで見ることができる。本稿での筆者の発見と指摘は，ネガからの作業であれば膨大な時間を費やしたであろうが，ネット上なので簡単な作業となった。
http : //www.cprr.org/Museum/index.html
１
５ Peter Palmquist, “The Heart of AlfredA. Hart ; A Review of Recent Research,” Stereo
World, Vol．１
２，No．３，July./Aug．１９８５．

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

177

用され撮影した鉄道写真家の写真が，当時の日本にまで影響している可能性があるということである。この点については第５節に譲る。

Ⅱ−２ 西部踏査隊と写真
やがて，６０年代に入ると，実際の鉄道建設は第三の時代に至る。上記の幹線鉄道の各々に，その会社を後世にまで特徴付ける経営者が出現し，各会社の鉄道建設は一層拍車がかけられる。ニューヨーク・セントラル鉄道のバンダービ
ルト（C.

Vanderbilt），エリー鉄道のグールド（J.Gould）らが代表的である。

彼らは共通して自己の会社の株式操作により巨額の財産を築くという特徴をもっており，大衆の批判の的となった。しかし，この時代の鉄道経営者及びプロモーターは，殆どが程度の差こそあれ，このような特徴をもっていたといえよう。したがってこの時代は「金ぴか時代」（Gilded

Age）と呼ばれている。こ

うした鉄道経営者の行動をみた農民が，不満をもつようになり，グレンジャー
運動（Granger Movement）と呼ばれる農民運動を引き起こすことになる過程は，拙著で詳しく分析した１６。
この時代に上述のように大陸横断鉄道は最初の完成を見ることになるが，領土の詳細な調査という意図から，依然として調査活動は続けられることになるとともに，これまでの踏査隊が軍人の指揮下にあったのに対して，南北戦争以後は，民間人が徐々に登用されることとなる。
アメリカ合衆国は１９世紀に入って，当初は軍人を起用して後には民間人を起用しつつ，主としてアメリカ西部の地質・地理・天然資源等の調査活動を何度かにわたって行った。そうした調査（Survey）は，踏査隊１７を組んで行われた。
南北戦争前の踏査隊活動については前節で見たように軍隊を中心とした人選で組織されたが，南北戦争後になると，１８６７年から１８７９年にかけて，計４回の踏査隊を連邦政府は組織するが，ヘイデン（F. V. Hayden），キング（C. King），
パウエル（J. W. Pawell）らの民間人をも起用するようになった。計４回のう
ち３回は民間人主導の踏査隊が組織された。ヘイデン隊，キング隊，パウエル
隊が民間人主導隊であり，残る一つのウィーラー（G. M. Wheeler）隊だけは軍人指導隊である。そしてこれら４隊にはいずれも地質調査班あるいは地図作
成者とは別に写真家が同行しており，彼らは多くの写真特に西部のウィルダネ

１
６ 拙著，『情報公開制度としての現代会計』，同文舘，１
９
９
４年，第４章「鉄道会社規制と会計情報公開」を参照。
１
７ 調査行為もそれを行う編隊もともに Survey と呼んでいる。因みにサーベイと称される調査活動・隊は，以後もアメリカでは民間・政府系あるいは規模を問わず何度か編成される。拙稿，「２
０世紀初頭のアメリカにおける写真情報公開−Lewis W. Hine の写真によせて−」，におけるピッツバーグ・サーベイの論述を参照。

178

山地

秀俊

１
８
ス（wilderness）
を本質とする風景写真を撮影し，東部に送るという作業を行うことになる。キング隊にはオサリヴァンとワトキンスが，ウィーラー隊にはベルとオサリヴァンが，ヘイデン隊にはジャクソンが，パウエル隊にはヒラーズとビーマンが写真家として同行した。分けても前述したワトソンと並んで，オサリヴァンも後世最も有名な踏査隊写真家の一人である１９。こうした写真の意味について，あるいは踏査隊が組織された意義について，今日では例えば，連邦政府は，１９世紀半ば以降においてすでに，アメリカでは逸早く，自然保護運動（Conservation Movement）が盛んであったという点を強調するために利用している２０。
上記４つの踏査隊は後に纏めて大踏査隊（Great Surveys）と呼ばれるが，キング隊とウィーラー隊は合衆国戦争省の管理下に置かれており，ヘイデン隊とパウエル隊は合衆国内務省の管轄下であった。各隊の正式名はキング隊が，theUnited States Geographical Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel，ウィーラー隊は，
the United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian，ヘイ
デン隊は，the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories，
パウエル隊は the United States Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky
Mountain Region といった。単発の調査ではなく何度か各踏査隊は目的地域に踏み入っており，最終年となる１８７９年には，調査目的を終了していたキング隊
以外の３隊は合同調査隊を組んでいる。各隊の正式名称からおおよその担当地域が分かるが，ヘイデン隊はイエロー・ストーンやハリークロス山での活躍，
キング隊はシエラ地域の調査あるいはコロラドでのダイヤモンド騒動，ウィー
ラー隊は中南部コロラドでの隊員の歯痛による偶然の新ルート発見，パウエル
隊はコロラド川の征服によってその名前を知られている２１。

１
８ ウィルダネスとは，人手が介入していない野生原生・原始性を指す抽象的概念である。もちろんその具体的形象が，アメリカ西部の荒々しい原生林や荒野であることは言
うまでもない。
１
９ 彼はまた，当時の肖像写真で財を成したブレディに雇用されて南北戦争を撮影した
写真家としても有名である。Rick, Dingus The Photographic Artifacts of Timothy O’Sullivan,
Albuquerque, N. M．１
９８
２．Joel, Snyder American Frontiers ; The Photographs of Timothy
O’Sullivan，1867−1874．
２０ 例えば，アメリカ国会図書館（Library of Congress）が開いている，インターネットのホームページ The Evolution of the Conservation Movement，１
８
５
０−１
９
２
０を参照されたい。ここでは，上記の踏査隊によって撮影された写真が掲載されており，１
９世紀中葉からアメリカに存在した環境保護運動としての意義付けのために用いられている。
（http : //lcweb２．loc.gov/ammem/phcoll.new.html）
２
１ 踏査隊の残した多くの報告書は１
７
８
７年から１
９
０
１年までの代表的合衆国公文書として登録されており，キング隊８，ウィーラー隊４０，ハイデン隊５０パウエル隊１８の報告書がリストアップされている。Richard A. Bartlett, Great Surveys of the American West,
University of Oklahoma Press，１
９
６
２，p.xiv.

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

179

ヘイデン隊
ペンシルベニア大学地理学教授フェルディナンド・ヘイデン博士率いるヘイデン隊は，１８７１年の夏にイエローストーンを調査している。当該隊は前述のように写真家としてウイリアム・ジャクソンを同行するとともに，当時の人気画家であったトマス・モランも同行している２２。ヘイデン隊が画家及び写真家を伴ったのは明確な意図があった。それは，写真や絵画によって，東部の人々にとっては観念的であったウィルダネスを視覚化して提示するという機能を意図していたのである。彼らの意図は見事に結実し，特にモランの絵画「イエローストーンの大渓谷」は連邦議会に１万ドルで買い上げられ，イエローストーン
を国立公園にする機運を高めることになり，ヘイデン博士も議会で証言を繰り返し「公共のための自然保護」を主張した。１８７２年にイエローストーンが世界ではじめて国立公園として制定された。また写真家ジャクソンはコロラド州の
ハリークロス山の写真撮影にはじめて成功した。コロラドのメサベルデ地域の
アメリカ・インディアンが住む岩窟を世界に紹介したのも当該隊であった。
キング隊
１８６３年にカリフォルニア地質調査局に勤務したキング（Clarence King）は１８６７
年に弱冠２７才で民間人としては始めて陸軍省を説得してアメリカ合衆国大陸部
踏査隊の指揮官となった。キングは，カリフォルニア地質調査局勤務中に，当時の地質学の大家であったハーバード大学教授ジョシュア・D・ホイットニー
博士の指導下で，後述するミューアとホイットニーのいわゆる「ヨセミテ氷河形成説」の真否を確かめるべく，１８６４年にヨセミテ渓谷を調査し，いくつもの氷河活動の痕跡を発見している。しかし師であるホイットニーが，氷河形成説を採らずに，当該説の主張者であったミューアを批判するに及んで，キングもまたミューアへの中傷を開始するに至る２３。キングには，１８６７年３月に「パシフィック鉄道建設用ルート及びその複数の代案を含む，ロッキー山脈からシエ
ラ・ネバダ山脈にかけての領土の地質学的・地勢学的探検を指揮する」という具体的命令が陸軍省から発せられた。調査地域に因んで「北緯４０度踏査隊」と称され，具体的には当該地域の地質学的構造・地理学的条件・天然資源の探索
・気象状況等を調査した。
特に当該隊に同行した写真家が撮影したヨセミテの写真は，以後当該地域の風光明媚さをアメリカ全土に知らしめる機能を果たすとともに，多くのアメリ
２
２ 西部の荒野を好んで描いた風景画家。兄弟であるエドワード・モラン，ピーター・

モランや２人の息子パーシー，レオンも画家として有名。
「イエローストーンのグラン
ドキャニオン」「コロラドのグランドキャニオン」「ホーリー・クロスの山」の３部作で知られる。
２
３ 彼はカリフォルニアの最高峰に，師の名前を冠してホイットニー山と命名した。彼は１
８
６
７年に正式に踏査隊長に任命される以前から，シエラ地区の調査を行い，写真を撮影していた。１
８
６
５年撮影と思われるヨセミテ地域の写真が残っている。

180

山地

秀俊

カ人に見られることによって，次節で検討するような文化的機能を果たすよう
になる。
パウエル隊
パウエルは当時の代表的な民俗学者であり地質学者であった。１８６７年からロッキー山脈の調査を開始し，６９年にはグランドキャニオンを流れるコロラド川を小船で横断することに成功している。北アメリカ・インディアンの言語を比較研究するとともに，１８７０年には国立ロッキー山脈地理・地質学測量部を創設
し，民俗学，地質学双方の領域で業績を挙げた。
ウィーラー隊
厳密には，ウィーラーは軍人であり，ウエストポイント士官学校卒業のエリート大尉であった。彼自身あるいは軍隊は，南北戦争後多くの領域でハーバー
ドやエール卒業の民間人の若手が活躍するに及んで，軍人の存在意義を顕示する必要があった。踏査隊に関しても上記３隊はいずれも民間人を隊長としていた。そこで海軍は the United States Geographical Surveys West of the One
Hundredth Meridian を組織して，ウィーラーを隊長に任命した。ウィーラー隊はコロラド一帯を調査探検しているが，写真家オサリヴァンは，キング隊へと同様にウィーラー隊にも同行し，風光明媚なコロラドの山岳写真を撮影している。
こうした諸隊が大量の写真を撮影し，東海岸をはじめアメリカ全土に結果的には配布したことになるのであるが，当該写真は，まずは直接的に企図された
鉄道建設計画への助成という経済的機能を果たすことになる。例えば，前節で指摘した大陸横断鉄道の建設という観点からは，１８６０年代にその第１号が完成したが，１８８０年代には，アチソン・トペカ・サンタ・フェ鉄道とサザン・パシ
フィック鉄道が１８８１年にニューメキシコ州のデミングで連結され，１８８３年にはノーザン・パシフィック鉄道が北西部で，合併等を利用しながら大陸横断路線を完成させ，複数横断鉄道の時代に入る。当該１８８０年代は独占的鉄道会社間によるアメリカ鉄道建設技術向上の最盛期となり，鉄鋼レールへの変換，路線幅，
連結器，ブレーキ等の規格化が進んだ。そして独占色を強めた鉄道会社を規制すべく，１
８８７年には始めて連邦政府によって鉄道規制を行う州際商業委員会（Interstate Commerce Commission）が設立される。
しかし，上記のような踏査隊活動による情報提供が進み，大陸横断鉄道は複数完成したが，鉄道路線の過度な建設競争は長くは続かなかった。そしてアメリカの鉄道建設時代における第四の時代に入る。具体的には，７０年代の不況を一つの契機として，その不況により倒産した鉄道会社の再建を引き受ける形で，モルガン（J. P. Morgan）を始めとする投資銀行家が台頭・介入して，鉄道会
社を幾つかの企業手段に再編成することになる。さらに，鉄道産業においてその資金力を蓄えた投資銀行家がやがて世紀の転換期頃に非鉄道部門における独占体制の確立に，中心的役割を果たすようになる。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

181

だが，直接的には経済的動機で撮影された写真ではあったが，経済目的以外にも，多くの場所でアメリカ人に見られる機会があっと推測される。それが次節でより詳細にみるように，自然保護や国立公園・国有林の設立運動といった市民運動的な動向を形成する心的要因となっていくのである。
彼らあるいは先行の諸調査隊に同行した写真家が残した写真は，ヨセミテやイエローストーン，グランド・キャニオンそしてナイアガラ瀑布等の風景写真であるために，そして以後のアンセル・アダムス（Ansel Adams）等に代表されるような鮮明なピントの風景写真２４に類似しているために，自然保護を企図したといった意義付けを行うことはきわめて自然なようにも思われる。またさらに，当時の動向としてこうした写真は，制度としての国立公園・国有林の設立運動にも大きく影響を与えているといえよう。すなわち，先の自然保護機運の高まりと並行して，州政府や連邦政府の権力が前提となり，微妙に異なった要因が作用する運動として当時，国立公園・国有林の設立運動が起きており，
１８６４年にはヨセミテがカリフォルニア州の公共公園（public park）に，イエロ
ーストーンが１８７２年にアメリカで最初の連邦政府公認の国立公園（nationalpark）として制定され，１８９１年には国有林指定の基礎となる森林保護法が制定
第２図

アメリカ国会図書館インターネト・ホームページ（アメリカの自然保護運動）

From Several Divisions of the Library Congress２
４ 鮮明な写真とは焦点がほぼ全面で合った状態の写真をいっている。アンセル・アダ

ムスに代表されるように，大判カメラの絞りを f６
４まで絞って写真全体のピントのシビ
アーさを追求するいわゆる f６４運動の写真家の撮る写真は，そうした特徴を有している。

182

山地

秀俊

されている２５。
しかし，そうした写真が撮影された当時としてそのような意図の下に撮影されていたか，あるいはより客観的に検証可能な問題として表現すれば，どのような社会的コンテキストの中で当該写真が利用され一定の機能を果たしていたかとなると甚だ不明瞭になる。例えば，踏査隊の活動報告書として合衆国戦争省（the U. S. War Department）が公刊した１８６０年代の報告書では，当該踏査隊の公的な目的は，「ミシシッピ川から太平洋までの最も実行可能で経済的な鉄道建設ルートを確定する（to ascertain the most practicable and economical routefor a railroad from Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean）」ための調査と明記されていたりするからである。したがって，この場合には，写真は，東部の鉄道
会社へ投資する資本家に対して，西部に向かって路線を延長敷設するための，あるいは大陸横断鉄道等の建設可能性を判断せしめる資料の一つとして撮影された可能性が高いのである。この場合は，明らからに撮影目的は，あるいは撮影された写真の社会的機能は経済目的が優先されていたことになる。
さらに大量の写真の意義付けとしては，大衆や鉄道の西漸問題，自然保護運
動そして国立公園・国有林設立運動以外に第四の，あるいはその基底にあるといってもよいより基本的な要因を検討する必要がある。それは，トラクテンバーグ（A. Trachtenberg）も指摘するように，アメリカ合衆国という新興国家が，戦争や買収によって領土を拡大していったが未だ完全には国家権力が及んでいない地域に，踏査隊を派遣して，地質を調べ，地図をつくり，見知らぬ風光明
媚な土地に，先住民族がより先に付与していた名前とは異なった名前を付け，写真を撮り東部に送り写真集等の形で刊行・公開するという行為（これを写真情報公開と呼ぶことにする）自体の意義こそが，我々が注目しようとする基本的な第四の要因である２６。参考までにアメリカ国家の拡大時期を以下に掲載し
２
５ 具体的に連邦議会は，An Act to set apart a certain Tract of Land lying near the Head−waters of the Yellowstone River as a Public Park という法律を１８７
２年に通過させて，ワイオミング州の当該地域をアメリカで最初の，というよりも世界最初の国立公園に制定している。因みに，遡ること８年の１
８
６
４年に，連邦議会はリンカーン大統領の署名入りでカリフォルニア州に対してヨセミテを公共公園として付与する法案（a bill granting
Yosemite Valley to the State of California as a Public Park）を通過させている。当時の注
目度という観点からは，イエローストーンよりもヨセミテの方が，大きくかつより早期からであった。
２
６ Alan Trachtenberg, Reading American Photographs, Images as History, Mathew Brady toWalker Evans，１
９
８
９．邦訳，生井英考・石井康史訳，『アメリカ写真を読む 歴史としてのイメージ』，白水社，１
９
９
６年，第三章，「風景を名づけて」を参照。
ここで第四の要因としての写真の機能は，写真映像を制度として捉えて，そうした映像情報が大量に東海岸の人々に降り注がれることによって，彼ら東海岸の諸州の住人は，
市民運動的に環境保護を唱える集団に無意識的に作り替えられていくことになるという構造主義的認識に立って指摘されている。またスミス（H. N．スミス）が彼の著書『ヴァージンランド』で用いた方法である「神話と象徴」も，文学的作品がアメリカ西部のウィルダネスに対するイメージ形成に，さらには西部志向の東部人というアイデンティ
ティを形成するのに寄与したことを指摘する。H. N．スミス著，永原誠訳，『ヴァージ
ンランド−象徴と神話の西部−』，研究社叢書，昭和４６年。特にアメリカ人を西部に駆り立てた心的要因として「明白なる神意」（Manifest Destiny）が指摘されるが，この心的要因の社会的形成過程の分析としてスミスの著作は興味深い。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

183ておこう２７。
第３図

Ⅲ 自然環境問題
Ⅲ−１ 環境保護運動

アメリカの領土拡大

特にヨセミテを中心にミューアの活動

本節では，１９世紀後半の踏査隊活動が残した写真に関する今日的・支配的解
釈である環境保護・保全運動としての意義に基づいて，したがって写真情報公開のそうした側面での意義について見ていくこととする。
アメリカでは１８５０年以前から，いわゆる東部１３州に住む人々は，西部への憧れがあり，その感情に訴えかけるように絵画や線画によって西部の風景を描き出して販売するという商売が成り立っていた。それは映像以外に文学の領域でも存在していた機運であり，いわゆるウィルダネス（wilderness）に対する憧れを刺激した初期の作家・歴史家として，フランシス・パークマンを挙げることができる。彼は紀行文学（travel

literature）作家としても活躍し，ヨーロッパ文化から継承した，多少退廃的な原始と野蛮を崇拝するゆとりがあり，そう２
７ Atlas of United States History, Hammond, New Jersey，１
９
７
９．

184

山地

秀俊

した性向を「原始主義」と称していた２８。彼もまたアメリカのウィルダネスの素晴らしさを強調することによってアメリカのアイデンティティを高めていったのである。こうした文学上の西部志向は，ホイットマン，ターナーにも共有されている。
さらに１
９世紀後半には所得の上で余裕の出来た一部階層の人々は，ヨーロッパにおける貴族階層の余暇の過ごし方に倣って，自然に回帰する旅行等に憧れるようになった。そこで西部踏査隊の行った西部地域の調査・報告，特に写真による報告は，東部の人々に西部への憧れを一層かき立てる結果になった。他
方，ヨーロッパの完全な模倣ではなく，アメリカ独自の自然を尊重する傾向と相まって，東部から比較的近くに位置するナイアガラ瀑布が初期には注目され始めた。やがては，西部のウィルダネスが注目され始め，ヨセミテやイエローストーンがアメリカ独自の自然を象徴する地域として注目を集めるようになった。
また自然への配慮を思想的に基礎付ける動向との関係では，エマーソン（R. W. Emerson）２９，ソロー（H. D. Thoreau）３０の存在について言及しなければならない。エマーソンは牧師の家系に生まれ，聖職に就くが，やがて辞してヨーロッパに遊学後，１８３４年からボストン近郊のコンコードの森に移住し，そこで超越主義（トランセンデンタリズム）の思想に到達する。そのコンコードにエマーソンの考え方に共鳴するものとしてソローが住むようになる。彼らはそれまでの慣習や宗教の存在，あるいは国家の存在を疑問視（否定）し，外見
的には隠遁者風の生活を送っていた。個人の絶対的存在・霊的尊厳を最も重要なものとして位置付け，こうした絶対的存在の個人を信頼する「個人信頼」の考え方はエマーソンによって提起されるが，それを実践する場として，都会ではなく自然の中での生活に求めたのであった。しかし彼らは政治に興味がなかったわけではなく，民主主義が隆盛になり数による支配が明確化すると当時の国家や法制度を講演等の場で批判し，まずもって個人の尊厳を説いていた。そのために，都会から遠く離れた大自然の中での生活ではなく，ボストンという大都会の近郊の小さな田舎村コンコードを活動・実践の場としていた。彼らの思想は後で見るミューアの自然思考に影響を与えることになる。
アメリカ西部のウィルダネスを保護する活動は，前節で見た踏査隊等の撮影した写真あるいは絵画に触発されてはいるが，必ずしも踏査隊のメンバーの多２
８ H. N．スミス，『ヴァージンランド』，６２頁。
２９ アメリカ古典文庫，第１７巻『超越主義』研究社に，エマーソンの論考が訳出されている。
「歴史的覚書」（Historic Notes of Life and Letters in New England）「自然」（Nature）「アメリカの学者」（The American Scholar））の３作である。
３０ またアメリカ古典文庫，第４巻はソローの著作『H.D．ソロー』（研究社）が１４篇訳出されている。ソローの個人尊厳の主張の政治的適応は，後にトルストイ，ガンジー，
キング牧師そして１９
７０年代のヒッピーに影響を与えた。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

185

くが自然環境保護を主張したわけではなく，むしろ環境保護の立場からは，上で見たエマーソンやソローの思想に触発された主張・思想を持った人々が活躍することになる。例えば，本節で主として検討するヨセミテの場合には，ランドスケープ・デザイナーとしての先駆的存在であるオルムステッド（F．L．
Olmsted）や，自然保護の父と称されるミューア（JohnMuir）３１らの保護活動が有名である。そこで本節の以下では，ミューアのヨセミテ保護活動と踏査隊の関係について言及しながら，自然保護運動と写真公開の問題を議論する。
ミューアはスコットランド移民の息子であり，彼の家族は１８４８年にカリフォ
ルニアに金鉱が発見されたニュースとともにヨーロッパから大挙してアメリカに渡ってきた移民集団の中の一家族であった。子供の頃より自然思考が強かったとはいえ，前述のエマーソンやソローの論述を読んで感化されたといった教養人ではなかった。むしろ自然思考が強く，アメリカに移住してからも北アメ
リカ大陸を植物採取で縦横断して見識を広めていった。その過程が一見エマー
ソンやソローの生活様式に類似していた。そしてミューア自身，自然崇拝という観点から思想的にエマーソニやソローに後年になって共鳴していった３２。人間は自然の中にいてこそ最も崇高であるとする彼らの思想は，ヨセミテに関する写真とともにミューアに実際の自然保護運動へと向かわせる切掛けとなった。
ミューアは１８７０年当時すでにアメリカで注目される存在になっていた。彼は大自然を崇拝して住み付いたヨセミテ渓谷が，氷河によって形成されたとする
今日では通説である「ヨセミテ氷河形成説」を唱えて一躍地質学の全国的論争の渦中にいた。他方は，ハーバード大学地質学の教授であり，１８６３年にはヨセ
ミテ渓谷の地質調査隊を指揮し１８６４年のヨセミテ公共公園（public park）設立に貢献したホイットニー博士が提唱する「地殻変動説」であった。彼らが生きた時代には，論争の最終的決着はつかなかったが，当時の地質学の権威である

３
１１
９世紀末の自然保護運動の先駆者であるジョン・ミューアについてはあまり日本で知られていない。しかし幾冊かの伝記と彼自身の著作の邦訳書は出版されている。東良三，『自然保護の父 ジョン・ミューア』，山と渓谷社。加藤則芳，『森の聖者 自然保護の父ジョン・ミューア』，山と渓谷社，１９９９年。ジョン・ミュア著，小林勇次訳，『山の博物誌』，立風書房。ジョン・ミュア著，熊谷鉱司訳，『１０
００マイルウォーク緑へ』，
立風書房。ジョン・ミュア著，岡島成行訳，『はじめてのシエラの夏』，宝島社。また『１０００
マイルウォーク緑へ』以外は，刊行された著作集 John Muir, Nature Writings, The Libraryof America，１９
９７，に含まれている。
しかし伝記では何故にミューアがアメリカ大陸を植物採集で放浪し，結果ヨセミテに至り住み付き自然保護を唱えたかがいま一つ明確ではない。それには１
９世紀当時のヨー
ロッパにおける植物学の隆盛，特に百科全書的分類学の体をなす植物学の隆盛と，さらに一つ，ブルジョアの勃興により彼らの貴族趣味を支える庭園植物の世界的規模での収集活動（プラント・ハンター）の隆盛を想起しておく必要があろう。
３２ 伝記によれば，エマーソンとミューアはヨセミテで出会って，ミューアがエマーソンへの思想的傾倒を打ち明けている。加藤則芳，前掲書，第５章参照。

186

山地

秀俊

ホイットニーと論争を展開した隠遁生活者ミューアは，一躍，アメリカの自然保護運動の中心的存在としてクローズアップされるようになり，以後多くの著作を発表し，また論敵であったホイットニー博士の所属したハーバード大学等
複数の大学から，名誉博士号を授与されるまでになる。
彼の活躍は２０世紀に入るとより顕著なものとなり，以後２０世紀を貫徹する自然保護運動の代表的思考を形成することになる。思想形成過程の一つのピーク
は森林局の初代長官であったピンショー（Gifford Pinchot）との森林保護論争においてであり，一つのピークは後述するシエラ・クラブを形成して市民運動
として自然保護を展開する過程である。アメリカは１８９１年に自然保護の一環として森林保護法を成立させ，森林保護区を設定することになるが，保護区確定と そ の 保 護 政 策 を め ぐ っ て 連 邦 政 府 の 国 家 森 林 委 員 会（National

ForestCommittee）の中心的存在であったピンショーとミューアは対立する。ピンシ
ョーの森林保護思想は，ヨーロッパで形成された持続的収益（sustainable yield）
を生み出す森林管理という発想を継承し，材木伐採等経済開発を前提として，その利害保護のために森林を管理維持するという新しい思想であった。後に森林経済学と称される所以である。それに対してアドバイザーとして委員会に参画していたミューアの思想は，人間の個人的尊厳を最も高められる場としての自然の保護であることから人間の絶対非介入を理想としていた。双方の思想は以後今日まで森林政策等での二大思想として受け継がれている３３。こうした思想の対立は，以後多くのケースで見られるようになるが，すぐさま現れたのは次項で検討するヨセミテ国立公園内のヘッチ・ヘッチー渓谷でのダム建設問題であった。
初期のミューアのウィルダネスへの憬れを形成したのは，もちろん彼の気質やエマーソンへの思想的傾倒があったことは事実であるが，それとともに伝記作家も指摘しているように，当時西部への憬れを誘う旅行パンフレットの写真であったことも確かである。ミューア自身が踏査隊の撮影した写真を見たか否かは定かではないが３４，写真がミューアのウィルダネスへの傾倒を刺激したことは事実であろう。またさらにミューアの生き方や活動は徐々に今日でいう市民運動的な支持をアメリカ全土特に東海岸の人々から得ることになるが，そのような状況を東海岸の諸州で醸成した要因の一つに，紛れもなく踏査隊が撮影して東海岸に送られた写真があったことは否めない。このように，１９世紀後半
３３ 両者の森林政策での対立状況の歴史については，梶原晃助教授所有のワシントン大

学森林学大学院での授業シラバスを参考にさせていただいた。記して感謝したい。また
以下の文献も参照。大田伊久雄，『アメリカ国有林管理の史的展開−人と森林の共生は可能か−』，京都大学学術出版会，２０００年，第１章‐第４章。
３
４ ミューアがヨセミテに赴いて自然保護活動を行うに際して，影響を与えた図像の候補として，時期から考えて前述したワトキンスの撮影したヨセミテの写真が含まれていた可能性がある。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

187には，東海岸の諸州に住む人々にとって漠然としたウィルダネスを保護しようとする市民運動的機運を高めていった要因の一つに，対象を具象化し美化した写真の存在があった。

Ⅲ−２ 国立公園・国有林設立運動
アメリカの国立公園あるいは国有林３５の設立運動は，第２節でみた踏査隊によって作成された地図や写真による地質報告書によって刺激された西部への鉄道の拡張や鉱山会社による自然破壊をくい止めようとする環境問題が直接的契機となって起こされたものである。しかし鉄道建設と国立公園設立・国有林設立運動そして前項で見た環境保護運動は複雑な関係を呈している。以下本項では，国立公園及び国有林設立運動の問題を，ヨセミテを中心に議論し，そこでの写真情報公開の機能を検討する。
１９世紀末から２０世紀初頭にかけての国立公園設立運動は，一方では，鉱山開発・牧場化や治水工事，場合によっては鉄道の敷設によって自然が破壊されることに対する対抗策であるという環境保護の側面と，他方では，ウィルダネス
を標榜する地域への鉄道敷設によって始めて原生の森すなわちウィルダネスの経済的価値が社会的に認識されるという経済的側面の妥協の上で展開されるという特徴がある。したがって鉄道敷設なくしては，国立公園として認定されず，
むしろ鉄道建設を積極的に誘致するという事例も見られる。この点は純粋の環
境保護運動とは一線を画している。鉄道建設者は特に環境保全に気を配っていたわけではなく，ツーリズムを活発化させ，それによって旅客量を増やし，収益をあげようとしていたに他ならない。しかしツーリズムの活性化ということは，それによって開発という経済的動機を犠牲にして環境を保護することの強固 な 経 済 的 動 機 を 与 え る こ と に な り，結 果 的 に は 環 境 保 護 運 動 家（conservationist, preservationist）と当時において利害が一致したのである。その先例は先述したように，１８７１年頃から始まるフィラデルフィアの銀行家クック（Jay Cooke and Company）のノーザン・パシフィック鉄道建設拡張計画とイエローストーンの国立公園化計画である３６。鉄道関係者は，ワイオミング北

３５ アメリカでは，国立公園は営造物扱いで内務省国立公園局（National

Park Service）
が管理し，国有林は農林省森林局（Forest Service）が管理し，双方が地域的に重複することはない。大田伊久雄，前掲書，２頁。
３
６ しかし彼自身は１
８
７
３年の金融恐慌によって，ノーザン・パシフィック鉄道の敷設計
画には頓挫している。１８
８
０年には再度，財産的基礎を建て直したとされる。当該鉄道は，
１８６４年にリンカーン大統領から特許されたのであるが，１８
８
３年に大陸横断鉄道を完成させ，２
０世紀初頭にはモルガン対ハリマンの経営権獲得競争の舞台となったことで有名であり，１９７
０年にはバーリントン鉄道とグレート・ノーザン鉄道を合併してバーリントン・ノーザン鉄道となっている。

188

山地

秀俊

西部への鉄道の敷設と国立公園の開園時期を合わせようとしていた。他方，イ
エローストーンの開発者であったランフォード（Nathaniel Pitt Langford）も，
イエローストーンの「驚異」に旅行者が「素早く近づける」ようにする直接的手段としてクックの提案を受け入れていたのである３７。こうした事例は他には
例えば，ハリマン経営下のサザン・パシフィック鉄道は，ヨセミテ等カリフォ
ルニアのハイ・シエラ地域の保護キャンペーンを行った。こうした環境保全活動で当該鉄道会社は数十年に渡って大きな利益を得ることになる。前述の踏査
隊長キング等の写真によって東部にその存在が知られるようになったヨセミテであったが，以後の開発には鉄道会社の影響が強いが，そうした商業活動に加えて，環境保護の立場からは前述したランドスケープ・デザイナーとしての先駆的存在であるオルムステッドや，自然保護の父と称されるミューアの活動が並存する。ミューアの活動によってヨセミテは１８９０年に国立公園に昇格するが，彼を中心とするシエラ・クラブの以後のさらなる活動によって，ヨセミテ渓谷を含む広範囲の国立公園化は１９０６年に完結する。アリゾナ州にあってはサンタフェ鉄道が，グランドキャニオンの保護運動を展開した。続いて１９０８年にはルーズベルト大統領によってグランドキャニオンが国家モニュメントとして宣言され，１９１９年には運動の結果，最終的にグランドキャニオンは議会によって国立公園に認定された。同様にモンタナ州のグレイシア国立公園設立運動はグレート・ノーザン鉄道のヒル（Louis

３
８
Hill）
によって，当該鉄道会社の「アメリカを最初に見よう（See America First）」キャンペーンの一環として熱心に取り組まれ，１９１０年に国立公園となった。
むしろ自然保護の観点から直面した典型的問題は，１９０８年にサンフランシスコ市がヨセミテ公園の中のヘッチ・ヘッチー渓谷（Hitch Hitchy Valley）を堰止めてダムを建設しようとした事例である。経緯は１９０６年にまで遡る。この年の４月にマグニチュード８．
３の大地震がサンフランシスコを襲い火災が３日間続いた。しかしそれを鎮火させる水源が当該市にはなかった。そこでこれまでにも連邦政府に申請され却下され続けていたダム建設が再度議論になった。ダム建設推進者の主張は，当該バレーは年に一度夏シーズンだけ数百人の「自然愛好家」がその景観を享受するために訪れているだけであるが，ダム建設によって７５万人のサンフランシスコ市民が便益を享受できる，というものであった。
上述したように，こうした経済的主張に対抗するためには，自然保護主義者も

３
７ Alfred Runte, “Pragmatic Alliance Western railroads and the national parks,” National Parks& Conservation Magazine, April，１
９
７
４，p．
１
４．ただし経済的困難性もあって，実際にノーザン・パシフィック鉄道がイエローストーンの近くまで鉄道を敷設したのは，１８８３年のことであり，１
８
７
２年にイエローストーン国立公園が設立されてから１１年後のことであった。
３
８ Louis Hill は１
９世紀後半のアメリカ鉄道王として有名な JamesJ. Hill の息子である。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

189

また経済的論理で対抗する必要性があり，ロビング活動にも強い鉄道建設者との実利的連合（practical alliance）を強めていったと考えられる。パイプライン
やダムよりもホテルのほうが景観には「まし」だったのである。しかし結果的には自然保護派のミューアらの反対にもかかわらず，そしてミューアと知己のあったルーズベルト大統領が退任し，次のタフト政権下ではダム建設を食い止めたが，建設推進派のウイルソン大統領が就任するに及んで，１９１３年９月に建設法案が下院を通過し１２月に上院を通過した。ダム建設推進派の勝利に終わった。この事件を切掛けに，自然保護運動家の間で，国立公園として護られている景観を保護しつづけることの意義を，多くの一般大衆に対して説得する必要性が痛感され，そのためのパブリシティ活動を行う必要性が改めて認識された。
こうした国立公園設立・保護運動に関するパブリシティ活動に写真が多用されたことは想像に難くない。ヨセミテの場合には初期には踏査隊の撮影した写真
が，観光開発が進んだ段階では，特に繰り返し使われた風景写真として「ヨセミテ公園のマリポサ，レッドウッド・グローブにあるワウォナ・トンネル・ツ
リーを通過する馬車」３９が有名である。これによって東部にはない西部のウィ
ルダネスのイメージが東部の旅行客に一層伝えられていった。因みに，１９１５年にはサンタフェ鉄道とユニオン・パシフィック鉄道は合同で，サンフランシス
第４図

ワウォナ・トンネル

３
９ Alfred Runte, “Pragmatic Alliance Western railroads and the national parks,” p．
１
６．

山地

190

秀俊

コ万博に，５０万ドルをかけて国立公園に関する展示を行った。さらに，多くの写真を掲載し自然保護を主張した PR 雑誌が，西部鉄道１
７社の拠出金４万３千ドルを基金として出版され，学者・政治家・商工会議所メンバー，新聞記者等
２７万５千人の人々に配布された。
また自然保護者は，サンフランシスコ市のような公共部門が新たに部局を設立して国立公園に対して新たな開発・管理行動を取ることの先手を打つべく，
連邦国家の単一の機関によって国立公園を管理させるべく運動を展開し，
１９１６年８月に国立公園局（National Park Service）の設立を議会に認めさせた４０。

Ⅲ−３ 娯楽の提供という落し穴
さらに注目すべきは，当初，National Park Service を設立して国立公園を保全・管理しようとした際には予期していなかったような問題が以後発生することとなる。本節の最後に新たな課題について言及しておこう。２０世紀に入ってNational

Park

Service に対して二つの目的で公園を管理する義務を付与した

１９１６年の法律の文言に新たな問題の源泉があった４１。二つの目的とは，自然を保護するという目的と，娯楽（enjoyment）を提供するという目的である。前者についてはそれまでの規制の流れから理解できるところであるが，後者の目
的は鉱山会社あるいは前述のサンフランシスコ市の水源確保目的等，自然を別の目的により破壊する計画から景観破壊をくい止めるべく，一方的で経済的な自然破壊よりも，自然を保護してそこから国民に娯楽を満喫してもらい，それを経済計算で換算し景観を別の経済性から保全するするという思考を対峙させるべく，打ちだされたのである。この娯楽を提供するという発想が，実は，National Park Service 設立より今日まで，国立公園の社会的意義付けを変遷せしめることになるのである。以下該当個所を引用しておこう。
The service thus established should promote and regulate the use of the Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified bysuch means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks,
monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and thenatural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoymentof the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired forthe enjoyment of future generations.
４０ 因みに当該管理局の初代局長はマザー（Stephen

Mather）であり，彼の１９２
９年の死は，
国立公園への観光客の誘致によって国立公園の経済的存在意義を強調するという初期の保全政策の終わりを意味している。
４
１ Act of August ２
５，１
９
１
６
（３
９ Stat. L., ５３５）−An Act To establish a National ParkService
and for other purposes. Stanford E. Demars, The Tourist in Yosemite，１
８
５
５−１
９
８
５，Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah，１９９１，p．
２．斜線による強調は筆者。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

191

問題は，例えば現代のヨセミテの状況と対比することによって明確になる。
現代のヨセミテは，多くの観光客によって占拠され，毎日のようにロックコン
サートが開かれるという，おおよそ１９世紀にウィルダネスとしてヨセミテが注目され始めた時には，あるいは，上記の法律が制定された時（２０世紀初頭）には予期しなかった状況である。こうした当該国立公園の今日的な都会型のアミューズメント・パーク化は，結局は食い止めることが出来なかったのであるが，その根拠は，他ならぬ“provide for the enjoyment”という文言であった。自然保護のために挿入した文言が，今日では公園保護の最大の障害あるいは破壊の最大要因になっていったのである。このように，２０世紀に入るとアメリカ国立公園の維持管理運動は，enjoyment 概念が変遷するによって，当初の運動目的が大幅に修正されることを余儀なくされている４２。

Ⅳ アメリカ現代国家の眼差し −在来文化の消去と取込み−
Ⅳ−１ 地図作成の意義
地図の作成，特に近代社会における地図の作成には政治的意図あるいは利害調整の意味がこめられていることが多い。さらに歴史を遡れば，黒田日出男氏も指摘するように，中世あるいは近世の日本においても，物理的正確性は保たれていないものの，それどころか一見牧歌的に象徴的地形や建造物をあしらった地図（絵図）が作成され，そこに社会的概念である村の境界線あるいは入会権の境界線，あるいは国境が描かれている。それはある意味で契約あるいは権力の均衡関係を視覚化（visualization）する，あるいは当該地域を「支配するための基本図であり，それを持つことによって（当該地域の）把握と支配が可能になる」ような「地図学的にはベースマップ」という意義がある４３。こうした解釈がアメリカの各種踏査・調査による鉄道建設用地図について言えるか否かを検討するのが第一の課題である。
さらに地図を扱う上での第二の問題として，未だ踏査隊の所属する国家の権力が完全には及んでいない，したがって当該国家の言語・文化を使って当該地域を掌握できていない地域に，踏査隊を送り込み測量し，地図作成上必要なネーミングを行い，それを地図に書きこみ，印刷し，当該国家の国民に配布することの意味である。
以上の二点を念頭に以下，議論を続ける。踏査隊の地図の典型として掲載し

４
２ Stanford E. Demars, The Tourist in Yosemite，１
８
５
５−１
９
８
５の論調を参照。
４
３ 黒田日出男，『姿としぐさの中世史』
，
「第四部

引用は２
３
２頁。

荘園絵図は語る」，平凡社，１
９
８
６年。

山地

192

秀俊

た１８５０年代の地図を参照するとき，ある特徴に気付く。もちろん日本の中世における絵図とは異なり近代的な測量技法で作成されてはいるが，踏査された地
域の特に山脈の描写が非常に鮮明であるのに対して，すでに既知の領域の山並
みは精密な描写を受けていないという点である。踏査対象を描写したのであるから当たり前のことではあるが，こうした地図の意義には，国家権力が十分には及んでいなかった地域の明確化・権力内への取り込みを宣言するという意義

第５図

アイオワ観光鉄道地図

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

193がある。さらにそれは，未知の土地に英語によるネーミングをし，地図に刷りこむことによって完結する。すでに既知のアイオワの鉄道周辺を描いた地図とは明らかにその趣旨が異なることが分かる。アイオワの鉄道地図は，周辺のすでに既成のアミューズメントを絵画化しながら挿入し列挙して，鉄道の観光利用を促す目的で作成されている。それに対して諸外国からの買収あるいは戦争終結等でアメリカ合衆国の領地（テリトリー）とはなったが，その詳細が知れていない西部は，未だその本来の意味ではテリトリーではなかった。白人の西漸を拒むインディアンあるいは大自然の存在等が，テリトリーしての宣言を拒んでいるのである。そうした領域の詳細を視覚化して地図に刷りこむことは，
インディアンや大自然の問題（障害）をクリアーしつつあることの宣言になっており，近代国家アメリカの眼差しが，西部のウィルダネスにも届いたことを意味するのである４４。

Ⅳ−２ 写真撮影の意義
先にトラクテンバーグの主張を参照しながら触れたように，アメリカ合衆国という新興国家が，未だ完全には国家権力が及んでいない地域に，踏査隊を派遣して，地質を調べ，地図をつくり，見知らぬ風光明媚な土地に先住民族がより先に付与していた名前とは異なった名前を付け，そして最終的には新たな科学的手段である写真を利用し，撮影された映像を東部に送り雑誌等で刊行・公開するという行為の意義こそが，地図作成と相俟って，開題で我々が注目するよう指摘した当該時代の写真情報公開の基本的な第四の要因である。そこで本項では，こうした意義を具体的に解明しておこう。
鉄道建設という具体的・直接的・経済的課題の下に，写真家が，北アメリカ
大陸を縦横に写真撮影して回ったのであるが，そうして撮影された映像を，資本主義的生産様式がある程度確立して余剰所得を持ち，西部のウィルダネスに対する憧れにも似た感情を持ち，そしてアメリカ人としてのアイデンティティ追求に目覚めつつあった東部の人々が，「大量消費」することになった。そのことは意識・無意識は別にして，全く異なる意義を持つことになる。写真家自身の，あるいは写真家から映像を入手して出版する編集者の直接的意図は，東部のヨーロッパ人移民に分かりやすいような形で，西部の自然を紹介することにあったかもしれない。したがって，撮影された写真に対して分かりやすい英４４ 熊本学園大学の酒巻政彰教授の主張であるが，こうした地図の意義は会計にもある。

会計手続き上，ある企業が棚卸減耗損をある金額計上したということは，単にそれだけ棚卸品が物理的に磨耗していたことを示しているのではない。そうした棚卸品の管理責
任者が自らの管理責任の度合いをその程度であると公表してもよいと認めたこと，すな
わち組織内での権限関係の均衡結果を示していることになる。地図による権力関係の視覚化機能に類似していると思われる。

山地

194

秀俊

語版のキャプション（見出し）をつけて投稿・掲載することになる。このことが多くのアメリカ大陸の風景について，何度も繰り返し為されることによって，もともとは原住民たるインディアン由来の名が冠せられていた風景に，英語のスペリングが与えられたり，ヨーロッパ的名前と意味が再付与され定着化されることになる。被写体である現実の西部の山や河をみたことのない東部住人にとって，それは素晴らしい，ヨーロッパにはない，わが祖国「アメリカ」の荒々しい原風景（wilderness）となって，脳裏に焼き付けられることになる。以下に掲載された写真を参照されたい。
当該写真には「３人兄弟」とキャプションが付されている。その荒々しさから姉妹（sisters）ではなく兄弟（brothers）と冠されたと思われる４５が，当時すでにインディアンの名前が付されていたことは容易に想像がつく。しかしインディアンの痕跡はこの写真からは微塵も見えない。またキャプションにも登場しない。東部アメリカ人はこうしたキャプション付きの写真を数多く無意識に見せられたことになる。こうした写真作業が，インディアンに対する連邦政府
対策に影響を及ぼしたり，支持する根拠になっていった。一見綺麗な西部のウ

第６図Three Brothers の写真（Carleton Watkins １
８６５ 年頃）

４
５ こうしたパターンの後追い命名作業はアメリカに限ったことではない。オーストラリアにも「four sisters」という連山がる。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

195ィルダネスを撮影し英語のキャプションが付されただけの風景写真を見せ続けられた東部住人は無意識に「アメリカ人」になり，インディアンを心情的に排斥する感情を植え付けられていったことになる。それとともに，文化的にもインディアン的文化要素を消去することになっていった。
１９世紀後半はアメリカにおいてインディアンを排斥する多くの戦闘が繰り返された時期であることは周知のとおりである。それとともに，インディアンに対して「文化変容の強制」を行った。具体的に利用された手段は，西洋人によってそれまでに使い古された手段であり，「キリスト教化」と「私有財産制化」
であった４６。多くの牧師・宣教師がインディアン居留区に派遣されている。またインディアン居留地区と鉄道敷設の関係から，立ち退きを迫られた部族は枚挙に暇がない。しかしこうした手段，特にキリスト教化は，西洋において近代
市民社会が確立する以前から植民地政策として用いられていたかび臭い戦略でしかなかった。それに対して実は，自然保護運動あるいは国立公園設立運動という市民運動の先駆け的運動は，同じ征服政策課題をより洗練された形で遂行することを可能にしたと考えられる。すなわち，キリスト教化に代わる近代的市民運動理念の高揚，土地の私有化に代わる「国立公園化」「国有林化」による囲い込みが，現出することになる。
そこに西部ウィルダネスの写真の変遷に，異文化（インディアン文化）を排斥すると同時に取り込もうとする思想的努力がなされた跡を辿ることができるのである。それは例えば，国立公園設立運動の項でみたヨセミテ公園の写真に見ることができよう。当初，我々が上で見てきたようなヨセミテの自然を歎美・称賛する写真が利用され，東部にも送付されていたと思われるが，やがてヨセミテ紹介にインディアンのテントと女性インディアン等比較的温和な情景を撮り込んだ写真が利用されるようになる４７。自然環境保護に加えてインディアンとの共存を想起させる写真である。しかしそれは，アメリカ的ウィルダネス
とそれを保護する環境保護運動・国立公園設立運動の中の一齣を担わされたインディアンでしかない。かつてアメリカ人の西漸に立ち塞がったヨーロッパ・
アメリカ文化の外のインディアンではなく，東部アメリカ人のアメリカン・ア
イデンティティを形成する西部ウィルダネスの構成物と化したインディアンの姿である。このことは，在来文化の消去からさらに進んで取り込み（co−optation），
宥和化へと写真作業が進展していることを窺わせる。こうした写真の意味は，当時の写真家が意識して付与した意味とは言えない。しかし，意識の上で主体

４
６ W.T．ヘーガン著，西村頼男・野田研一・島川雅史訳，『アメリカ・インディアン史』，

北海道大学図書刊行会，１
９
８３年，第五章「文化変容の強制」を参照。
４
７ Stanford E. Demars, The Tourist in Yosemite，１
８
５
５−１
９
８
５，p．
３
９．以下で示すもう１枚のインディアン男性の写真は，Bartlett, Richard, Great Surveys of the American West，よ
り引用。

196

山地

秀俊

的に行う行為の意味と，結果生ずる制度的影響とは，必ずしも対応するものではない４８。

第７図

２枚のインディアンの写真（１）

２枚のインディアンの写真（２）４８ こうしたインディアン映像の対比による社会問題の指摘については以下の文献が参考になる。ドーク氏はインディアンと２
０世紀的文化が混在している写真から２
０世紀的・
資本主義化したアメリカ社会の持つ問題点を指摘する。その点で我々の写真対比よりも
より近代的な問題を指摘するのに用いている。Kevin M. Doak, “Anachronism,” containedin Imagining the Twentieth Century, edited by Charles C. Stewart and Peter Fritzsche，（University of Illinois Press，１
９
９
７）
，p．
１
５．

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

197

インディアン問題はそこから離れているほど，問題に対する現実感の欠如からインディアンに対して実は同情的であったとされる４９。したがって西部よりも東部の人々がインディアンに対して同情的であった，あるいは温情的政策を支持したとされる。このことは逆言すれば，東部の人々はメディアを通じた情報のみによってその態度が左右されやすいことを意味している。そこに東部での写真の公開が意味を持ってくることになる。
さらに２０世紀になると，環境保護運動あるいは国立公園運動に，そうした在来文化の視角は完全に消滅して，アメリカの自然管理に対する二つの視角が対立する現代的環境問題へと変質してしまう。
本節では，１９世紀後半にアメリカで組織された西部踏査隊が残した写真の意
義について考察を加えてきた。幾重にも重なった動機から写真が利用されてきた経緯について指摘してきた。第２節では１９世紀のアメリカ経済の牽引役である鉄道建設の西漸問題で，それを国家がサポートするために，あるいは鉄道会
社自身が開発を誇示する目的から北アメリカ大陸の風景写真の撮影が，為されてきた。また第３節では，こうした鉄道の西漸問題と拮抗して，自然が開発によって荒廃させられるという危機意識から，そして経済的余裕の発生によってヨーロッパ的余暇意識も手伝って，自然環境に対する意識が高まったことを指摘し，それが東部の大衆をして，自然特にウィルダネスの写真を大量消費する
写真の消費大衆へと変質させたのであった。
またさらに幾重にも重なった目的で利用された写真ではあるが，ある共通の要因すなわちアメリカという比較的新しい国家権力の発現過程の中で写真が利用されている状況が認められた。この点は時期を同じくして，筆者の今一つの研究領域であるアメリカ会計情報公開史の中での近代国家の権力発現過程と揆を一にしている。すなわち１９世紀後半は一方では私的資本の集中形態である株式会社制度が，許認可制から登記制に変わり，また有限責任制が大きく注目されることによって，発展していく時期である。典型的には他国に類を見ない巨
大な株式会社としての鉄道会社が多く出現してくる時期である。こうした私的
株式会社たる鉄道会社が農民を始めとする一般市民の生活に大きな影響力を行使することになり，ややもするとその影響力は負の効果を有していた。その負の影響を払拭すべく，当初は州政府がやがては連邦政府が株式会社に規制を試み始めるのが１９世紀後半である。州政府あるいは連邦政府が次第に大きな権力を持ち始め，私的株式会社に挑戦するという構図である。その挑戦の過程で連邦政府の権力が私的株式会社の権力を越え始める象徴が，２０世紀初頭のモルガ
ン（J. P. Morgan）対ルーズベルト（T. Roosevelt）の争い，そして独占禁止法の制定・改定である。こうした過程で，民主主義を標榜するアメリカ社会では

４
９ 上掲書，第５章を同じく参照。

198

山地

秀俊

絶えず，一般大衆を政策の味方につけておく必要があり，そのために情報公開が一層社会制度化されていくことになる。こうした経済の動向と呼応して，踏査隊の連邦政府権力の発現過程としての意義が，再認識されるのである。
本節の最後に触れるべきは，写真・会計をはじめとする情報公開制度が，誰れか特定の固有名詞が付される人間あるいは集団によって意図的に使われたか否かということを筆者は意識していないという点である。そうした場合もあれ
ばそうでない無意識的な場合もあろう。そうした意識性は問題ではないのである。

Ⅴ 岩倉具視使節団とアメリカ写真
Ⅴ−１ 岩倉使節団の記録としての『米欧回覧実記』
前節までに１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真情報公開が視覚的言説として多様な制度を育みつつ，他民族の文化を消去する働きを有していたことを検討した。本
節では，同様の写真が日本のアメリカ理解を規定した可能性について指摘したい。
実は１８７２年の１月から２月にかけて，日本の特命全権大使岩倉具視使節団５０が，北アメリカ大陸を，１８６９年に完成したばかりの大陸横断鉄道を利用して横断しており，その際にわれわれが前節までに問題にしたような写真あるいはそれから作成された木版画等を日本に持ち帰った可能性があるのである。すなわ
ち岩倉使節団一行の米欧視察旅行の報告書が，後に久米邦武によって編集され，『特命全権大使

米欧回覧実記』５１として太政官記録掛から明治１
１年１０月に刊

行され，博聞社から販売されるが，その中に数多くの銅版画が挿入されており５２，
その銅版画の原版イメージにアメリカの写真が直接・間接に利用された可能性があるのである。もしそうしたことが確認できるならば，当該時代におけるアメリカの写真は，日本にまでその文化的覇権を及ぼしていたことになり，久米邦武というフィルターを通して，日本にアメリカ的思考を植えつけることになったと考えられるのである。さらにいえば，こうした諸外国の図像をみること

５
０ 廃藩置県直後に政府の威信を高めるべく，右大臣岩倉具視を特命全権大使とし，木戸孝允・大久保利通等を副使とする米欧使節団一行が横浜を出港 し た の が 明 治４
（１
８
７
１）年１
１月１
２日のことである。岩倉使節団の明治史における意義については，本稿では議論しない。もちろん筆者の専門外であるからに他ならない。さしあたり脚注４で指摘する文献の第１巻に収められた，田中彰，「解説 岩倉使節団と『米欧回覧実記』」
を参照。
５
１ 我々が参考にしたのは，以下の版である。久米邦武編，田中彰校注，『特命全権大使
米欧回覧実記』，岩波文庫，１
９７７年。
５２ 久米美術館編，『特命全権大使『米欧回覧実記』銅版画集』
（昭和６
０年１
０月）
。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

199

によって，近代国家への展開期の日本人であることを意識したといえよう。
明治４年（１８７１年）１１月に，後年日本政治の中心的人物となる伊藤博文，大久保利通，木戸孝允，岩倉具視らは，米欧１２カ国視察の旅に出発している。まず横浜を出発し，サンフランシスコに上陸し，北アメリカ大陸を横断し，ヨー
ロッパに渡り，イギリス，フランス，ベルギー，オランダ，ドイツ，ロシア，
デンマーク，スウェーデン，イタリア，オーストリア，スイスの１２カ国を歴訪し，その後地中海から紅海，アラビア，
インドそして中国を経由して，１年１０ヵ月
後の明治６年（１８７３年）９月に日本に帰ってきている。その間の一行の記録が，久米邦武によって編まれ，明治１１年に太政官から刊行されている。全１００巻５編
５冊の『特命全権大使 米欧回覧実記』である。初版は５００部で，後に増刷がなされ，計３５００部が世に出たことになる。当時としては，ベストセラーであったといえよう５３。
われわれのアメリカ写真情報公開研究との関連で関心を引くのは，『実記』に掲載されている図版である。「図版のうち風景等の銅版画は，「文明諸国ノ一
斑ヲ国人ニ観覧セシメン」という意図から，使節団が回覧に際して現地で購入した写生画を模したり，なかには銅版画をそのまま復刻したものもあった５４」とされる。分けてもわれわれの関心を引くのは岩倉具視一行がサンフランシス
コに到着して，汽車でソルトレイク・シティまで行き，さらにはロッキー山脈
を越えるその道中の風景画である。
「第５巻 加利福尼（カリホルニア）州鉄道ノ記」と「第６巻 尼哇達（ネヴァタ）州及ヒ「ユタ」部」に計１１枚の銅版画が掲載されている。これらを含めて『実記』に出てくる多くの銅版画は，実質的にアメリカを始め各国各地域が日本に図像的に紹介された最初の文献ではないかと考えられるのである５５。したがって，以後日本の当該地域あるいは文化理解にとって大きな影響力を有していたと考えられる。特に，上に列挙した
５
３ 幕末期に西洋式の高度な活版印刷技術が日本に伝えられ，急速に和装本は洋装本に取って代わられた。明治中期には年間数千冊の本が出版されるようになった。因みに『実記』は明朝活字の基礎を作った本木昌三の作成した活字で印刷されている。
５
４ 『米欧回覧実記』岩波書店，解説，４
０
７−４
０
８頁。
５
５ 万延元年（１８６０），条約の批准書交換のために，新見豊前守，勝海舟，福沢諭吉らを構成員とする遣米使節団が，アメリカ艦船ポ−ハンタン号で合衆国に赴いた。幕末期の当該使節団は，咸臨丸が随行したこと等もあって使節団としては岩倉使節団よりも歴史上有名かもしれない。その際に当該使節団に随行した小栗忠順の従者の一人が記録した日誌『亜墨利加紀行』が残っているが，正式に出版されてはおらず，その著作としての影響力は『実記』の比ではない。また万延使節団が持ち帰った１
８
６
０年版アメリカ年鑑が『実記』以上に，広く読まれたり，紹介されたとも思えない。
さらに幕末期には幕府以外にもいくつかの藩が，欧米に使節団を派遣しているが，成果が印刷物として出版されているものは皆無に近い。福沢諭吉も１
８
６
０年のアメリカ視察等を基礎に，アメリカについて文章を残している。
『西洋事情』『世界国尽』である。しかもこれらは，久米邦武が米欧に出発する前に出版されている。しかし筆者が本稿で直接検討の対象としているインディアンについては，『西洋事情』に数行の言及がある程度である。さらに当時の日本における西洋に関する知識の程度については以下の文献が参考になる。開国百年記念文化事業会編、『鎖国時代日本人の海外知識−世界地理・西洋史に関する文献解題』、原書房、昭和５３年。沼田次郎・松沢弘陽編、『西洋見聞集』日本思想体系６
６、岩波書店、１
９
７
４年。

200

山地

秀俊

地域の図版は，以後そのイメージが頻繁に日本で改定されるほど注目すべき地
域ではなく，まさに荒野（wilderness）だからである。それでは，なぜわれわれの研究関心の延長線上に『米欧回覧実記』のそうした銅版画が位置づけられ
るかといえば，岩倉使節団一行がセントラル・パシフィック鉄道を利用してソルトレイク・シティを経過するのは１８７１年から１８７２年にかけてであることがその理由である。詳細に言うならば，前節で指摘したように，１８６７年から１８７９年まで大踏査隊（Great Surveys）と称される４つの踏査隊が当該地域に分け入り，地質調査を行うとともに多くの写真を残していること，また１８６９年５月に当該鉄道会社がユタ州プロモントリーで最初の大陸横断鉄道を連携・完成させてから僅か３年後のことだということ，従って，当時その領域の写真が大量に当該鉄道会社雇用の写真家によって撮影され残されているということ，ゆえに，それらの写真が何らかの手段で直接間接に岩倉使節団一行によって日本に持ち帰へられ，日本のアメリカ紹介に利用されたのではないかという認識からである。
すなわち，ハーンボルト河領域は，同時期に，複数の西部踏査隊が調査に入った時期に相当しているとともに，かつセントラル・パシフィック鉄道の拠点地
域として多くの写真が鉄道会社によって撮影されているという意味で，いずれかあるいは双方の写真が何らかの手段で岩倉使節団一行によって持ち帰られた可能性があると考えているのである。いうまでもなく，これは北アメリカ大陸
で写真情報公開によって推し進められていた文化的覇権行為が，期せずして視覚的言説たる写真が，日本にまで及んでアメリカに関する日本的言説を発生させていることになるのである。
われわれは写真が『実記』に掲載されている可能性があることを思考した。
しかしいうまでもなく，普通紙に写真を印刷できるようになる技術であるハー
フトーン印刷技術が世界で始めて発明されるのが１８８１年であることから，もちろん写真の構図が『実記』への挿入銅版画に参照されたという意味であるが，それとても実は定かではない。すなわち，久米邦武が参照したオリジナル・イ
メージもアメリカ人の手になる絵画である可能性が残るからである。しかし，
例えばインディアンの銅版画がその疑問に答えてくれる。すなわち，インディアンの銅版画を見ると，描かれているインディアンの眼差しが，見るものの方に一点に集中して向いている。このことはオリジナルのイメージが，写真であることを物語っている。またインディアンのテントの背後に木枠が書き込まれているが，絵画デッサンであるならば必ずしも必要でないと思われる。オリジナルの写真イメージに写しこまれていたものを省略することなく書き写したと思われる。
こうした類推から結論すると，西部踏査隊の写真家として写真を供給できた可能性があるのはワトキンスである。それに対して，鉄道会社雇用の写真家で，撮影した写真が岩倉一行に持ち帰られる時期的可能性の高い写真家は，ハートである。そこで上記したセントラル・パシフィック鉄道写真博物館（Web）の

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

201

ハート／ワトキンス・コレクション（Hart/Watkins Collection）の写真を概観す
ることによって，我々は『実記』に掲載されている銅版画のオリジナル・イメージと思われる写真を探す作業を行った。
昭和６０年以後の日本での研究の進展は明らかではないが，久米美術館編，『特命全権大使『米欧回覧実記』銅版画集』（昭和６０年１０月）記載のデータで，『実記』銅版画のオリジナル・イメージが見出されているか否かを確定した。当該
データによれば，『実記』に掲載されている銅版画のオリジナル・イメージが判明しているものは１割程度でしかない。しかも我々が関心を寄せているカリ
フォルニア州からネバタ州を通るアメリカの鉄道沿線の銅版画は，そのオリジ
ナル・イメージは最終確定できていないことがわかる５６。その意味は，オリジ
ナル・イメージの数枚が，久米美術館編，『〈新訂版〉久米邦武』（平成９年１月）
５５頁に掲載されているように，第５，６巻の銅版画については，部分的にはセントラル・パシフィック鉄道の旅行者用地図（traveler’s map）の絵画であることまでは確定されているが，それら旅行者用地図の絵画のさらにオリジナル・
イメージが存在するか否かはこれまで明らかではなかった，ということである。
まず，岩倉使節団一行が持ち帰ったセントラル・パシフィック鉄道の旅行者用
地 図 は 前 述 し た ハ ー ト に よ っ て デ ザ イ ン・出 版 さ れ て い る こ と が CPRR（Central Pacific Railroad）写真データベースから判明する（第８図及び第９図を参照）。

第８図：岩倉一行が持ち帰った同地図

５６ しかも，久米邦武によって持ち帰られた地図は，その周辺を取り囲む絵画が数枚切り取られているが，その完全な形も確認できた。

202

山地

秀俊

第９図：セントラル・パシフィック鉄道旅行者用地図（ハート作成）

このオリジナルの地図と久米邦武の持ち帰った地図との比較から，岩倉使節
団一行の持ち帰った地図では欠けていた幾枚かの絵がまず確定できる５７。しかもさらに CPRR 写真データベースからは，旅行者用地図の周りを装飾している絵画のすべてが確認できるとともに，そのオリジナルが，ハートの写真であることも指摘されている。そこでこうしたデータで判明する限りで，ハートの写真とオリジナル地図絵画の対応を示しておこう。

第１０図で引用した写真は CPRR 写真データベースから転用したものであり，説明文は地図絵の位置を示し，データベース番号は CPRR 写真データベース
番号を示している。第１０図では，『実記』の中に転用されている絵図と写真の対応は省略している。このことから，地図に使われた木版画（線画）は，ハート自身によって１８６０年代に撮影された写真イメージが少なくとも部分的には下絵になっていたことは明らかである５８。さらにいうならば，先に我々も触れた

５
７ 久米邦武が持ち帰った図版と，CPRR の Web サイトの図版を比べると，含まれている図版は同一であると思われる。しかし，掲載位置が異なっているものが数枚確認できる。ハートの旅行者用地図は，いくつかのバージョンがあったことが指摘されていることから，掲載位置の移動は納得できる。
５８ ただし，地図絵すべての写真ネガが確定できたわけではない以上，すべての絵がハートの写真を基礎としているとはいえない。また当時セントラル・パシフィック鉄道にはハート以外にも，アンソニー，カルバット，ガードナー，ジャクソン，ワトキンス，
ライリー，シルビス，サベージらが撮影した写真が残っているからである。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』
第１０図

203

旅行者地図（オリジナル）とセントラル・パシフィック鉄道写真の対応

左横上から２番目と対応（ネガ番号３４０）

下から２段目右から３番目（ネガ番号２９９）

最下段左から５番目（ネガ番号２１１）

下から２段目右から５番目（ネガ番号２５２）

204

山地

秀俊

ように下絵となった写真イメージは，主としてハートによってステレオ写真として撮影されたものであることも明らかである。当時ステレオ写真は，通常のカメラよりも横に２倍大きな２つのレンズを持ったカメラで風景を微妙にずらせて２枚同時に撮影し，同様に２つのレンズが組み込まれた覗き箱（ステレオ・ヴュアー）を通して２枚のフィルムを同時に見ることによって，立体的に風
第１１図：ハートのステレオ写真の広告

景を楽しむことができた。そして旅行者用地図に添付された絵画は，そのうちの片側をイメージとして利用しているのである。こうした写真が見世物としても当時人気があったことは，第１１図の広告から知ることができよう。
『実記』の銅版画のうちの数枚は，オリジナル写真のアメリカにおける旅行者用地図への木版画複写のさらなる銅版画複写ということになる。写真の日本への紹介は間接的であったといえよう。
『実記』の銅版画のオリジナル・イメージは，ネヴァダ州及びユタ部の写真を基礎にしていることは明らかであるが，その一部分は，ハートら鉄道会社に

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

205

雇われた写真家によって撮影されたものであることが確定できたと考える。しかも，踏査隊に関与した写真家（ワトキンス）の名前で発表されたものであったが，その実は鉄道会社の写真家（ハートら）による写真であったことも第Ⅱ
節でしておいた。

Ⅴ−２『実記』への図像選択の意図

それでは，次にどうして上で見たような図像が久米邦武によって選択されたのであろうか。この課題に答えることは，アメリカで作成された図像が，日本で公開されたとき，アメリカとは異なる意味を持ちうる可能性が指摘できることにも通じる。そのことを念頭において，『実記』の第５章，第６章に掲載されている鉄道に関する銅版画の選択を検討するとき，岩倉使節団一行というよりも，久米邦武の判断によって，鉄道技術の紹介を主眼として第５章のイメージが採用されたと主張しえよう。それは『実記』の編者久米邦武が，自らの主観的記述と客観的知識紹介を峻別しているというこれまでの研究の指摘からも言える５９。すなわち久米は，『実記』の中で，米欧の技術や社会システムの記
述を詳細に行っているが，その際，自らの主観的論評と解説を峻別する傾向にあり，技術的解説にはその裏付けとなる図像を利用したと考えられる。さらにそれを立証する証拠として，ハートの写真としては芸術的に最もよくできた風
景写真の一枚がセントラル・パシフィック鉄道の旅行者地図絵画にも転載されているが，『実記』には当該イメージが採用されていない，という事実を挙げることができよう（第１０図の左上の写真）。むしろ写真という観点からは必ずしも良質ではないイメージが，『実記』第５章には採用されているのである。
そもそも，岩倉使節団一行が持ち帰った旅行者用地図は，半ば観光者向けに沿線の西部的風景を紹介するべく作成された地図であると考えられるが，したがってそうした選考基準から地図添付イメージもまたアメリカでは選択されていると考えられるが，久米は，その数枚をアメリカの鉄道・土木技術の水準を示
す科学技術的データとして転載していると理解できる。
具体的に見るならば，まず，山肌を掘削して敷設したと思われる線路のイメ
ージ「「ブローメル」の鏨割」（『岩波文庫』１１９頁下段），雪覆い（スノーセット）の内部と外部のイメージ「雪覆ヒノ内景」「「シイルラ，ネヴァダ」山鉄道
雪覆ヒ」（『岩波文庫』１２７頁上段・下段）は，そのオリジナルであるハートの
写真撮影動機も，彼が撮影した写真の前後のネガの光景と合わせて判断したと
き，工事記録用に撮影したと思われる。当該イメージに対応するハートの写真
は写真データベースから見出すことができたが，久米の旅行者地図には切られ５
９ 田中彰，「解説

岩倉使節団と『米欧回覧実記』
」を参照。

山地

206
第１２図

秀俊

『米欧回覧実記』掲載銅版画（左）とセントラル・パシフィック鉄道
写真（右）の対応

データベース・ネガ番号？

データベース・ネガ番号３３８

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

207

データベース・ネガ番号 ij１３００

データベース・ネガ番号２１３

データベース・ネガ番号２５７

208

山地

秀俊

データベース・ネガ番号３４２vb

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

209

データベース・ネガ
silvis-scl-tabernacle

たか時刻表のために対応絵が確認できないものもある。雪掻車はネガ番号３３８のものが，旅行者用地図の絵には対応するが，『実記』に掲載された雪掻車の絵に対応するネガを見出すことはできなかった。しかし同種の雪掻車であることは確認できる。
トンネルのイメージは特に注目する必要がある（『岩波文庫』１２８頁上段）。
スミット隋道（トンネル）（Summit Tunnel）のイメージは，久米が当該隋道の意義を知らなければ掲載されなかったイメージであると考えられる。掘削された隋道の岩盤，そして落石を防ぐための防御柵の敷設，さらには柵用鉄骨が路線の脇に積み上げられている様子までが描かれている。このイメージも明らかに写生によるイメージではなく，写真から作成したイメージであることがわかる。当該隧道は，ルイス・クレメント（Lewis

Clement）によって設計され，中国人労働者によって掘削された，当時としては工学の最高技術を用いた工事であった。その工事過程を再現するようなイメージである。また当該隋道の完

210

山地

秀俊

成によって大陸横断鉄道の完成が可能であったことを考えるとモニュメント的な隧道であり，その紹介を兼ねている。多分，岩倉使節団一行には，鉄道でソルトレイク・シティへ行く途中に，スミット隋道の掘削工事あるいは，プロモ
ントリーで大陸横断鉄道が完成を見たこと等の知識が，アメリカの側から伝えられたと思われる６０。
それに対して，第６章のユタ部周辺の４枚のイメージは，異国の雰囲気を伝えるとともに，アミューズメント的要素が含まれたイメージである。セントラ
ル・パシフィック鉄道沿線のハンボールト荒野のインディアンのイメージ「「ハンボールト」荒野印度土藩ノ住居」，ハンボールト河ペリサァーデ峡のイメー
ジ，ソルトレーク・シティ府庁前のイメージ，モルモン教の寺院のイメージ（いずれも岩波文庫１４２−１４３頁）は，当時の日本の読者にとって感嘆を禁じえない図像であろう。当該イメージのオリジナル写真は現在までのところ見出すことができなかった。しかし，描かれたインディアンと類似したインディアンの集団が写された写真（ネガ番号３４２vb），モルモン教寺院が写った写真（ネガ番号silvis-scl-tabernacle）を見出すことは容易にできる。ただしハートの写真ではない。インディアンやモルモン教寺院あるいはソルトレイク・シティについて，
日本への図像つきの紹介としてはもっとも初期に属するのではないだろうか。
ハンボールト河近辺を走るセントラル・パシフィック鉄道沿線には，インディアンが多数生活していたようであり，久米も『実記』の中で詳細にインディアンについて記している。その名称のいわれ，住居の形態，当該地のインディ
アンの置かれている社会・政治的状況も書かれている。当該地域を列車で過ぎるに際して，「文明開化ノ地ヲスキ，此曠古蒙昧ノ域ヲ渉ル，俯仰ミナ耳目ノ感ヲ増コト多シ」（文庫１３１頁）。しかし「此辺スヘテインヂアン土人ノ領地ナ
リシニ，近年ニ至リ米人駆テ地ヲ奪ヒシユヘニ，土人ミナ怨憤シ，今ニ報復セントスルノ心タヘス，鉄道ノ初テ成リシ頃ハ，土人嘯集シテ，之ヲ粉砕シ，或ハ大石ヲ圧シ，種々ニ妨害ヲナシ，怒レハ毒矢ヲ挟ミテ，行旅ヲ射ルニ至レリ」（１３１−１３２頁）というように，当時のアメリカ国家のインディアン政策と成果の対応についても詳細である。因みにハートの撮影した写真ネガ，あるいはそれ以外にも CPRR に雇用されていた写真家が残したネガには，沿線に住む多くのインディアン写真が写し込まれている。しかし，必ずしも久米によって選択されたイメージのようなインディアン写真ではなく，民族衣装で正装したイ
メージも数多く残されている。
久米によって選択された図像とこうした久米の記述が一緒になると，当時の日本人のインディアン理解を規定してしまった可能性がある。まさに言説とな

６０ 当該鉄道を作った会社として「カントリー」太平会社の名前が見られるが（
『岩波文

庫』１
２
０頁）
，セントラル・パシフィック鉄道（Central Pacific Railroad）のことではないかと推察される。

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

211っている。それも本来アメリカで作成された写真という視覚的言説が，日本に持ち帰られ，異なるコンテキストで公開されることによって，異なる言説と化している６１。
勿論，久米邦武自身に対して及ぼされたアメリカの映像や文化の影響は大である。「アメリカでの最初の二か月間に，久米はサンフランシスコからニューヨークに向けて大陸横断を果たしているが，その過程で久米の受けた衝撃は，
それまでの思想を全面的に改めるに十分であったようだ。具体的にいうならば，久米は様々な人種を統合するためにアメリカ政府が行ってきた同化政策―衣服の同化，食事の同化，身体の同化，思想の同化など―に深い興味を示し，こうした文化的同化政策を通じて，今後日本が中央集権的に国民国家形成を進めていくことが十分可能になるとの結論に達していったと思われる６２。」このことは前述のインディアンに関する記述からは微妙に食い違う。もし一般の日本人にアメリカのインディアン同化政策を説明するならば，掲載されたような絵を用いることはなかったであろう。しかし，説明的言説とそれ以外の多くの図像と実体験によって総合的に影響された久米には，上記のような影響があったと考えられる。すなわち，選択され，『実記』に掲載され一般の日本人に公開された図像の意味と，アメリカで久米邦武が実際の体験と図像から受けた影響の意味は別のものなのである。

Ⅵ 結 語

写真と文化的覇権

岩倉使節団によって日本に持ち込まれたアメリカに関する図像は，二重の意
味を有している言説である。一つは，アメリカの当該地域や風物に関するイメージを日本人に植えつける役目を果たしている。それは多くの可能性あるイメージからの選択である以上，他のイメージから受ける情報を削除していることになる。今一つは，久米邦武をはじめとする岩倉使節団構成員に与えた影響を考慮する必要がある。それは，明治期の一般の日本人に与えた影響とは異なり，
近代国家日本の形成に影響した可能性がある。しかし『実記』のオリジナル画
像を確定することを主眼とした本稿では，この点の考察を十分には行っていな
い。

６
１ 第Ⅲ節の議論のように、アメリアでは，インディアンの図像は，その年代とともに

当初はウィルダネスを象徴するものであったが，２０世紀への転換期に近づくにつれて，西部を観光地としてみせたり，インディアン政策が終焉に近づいたことを示唆するものであったりした。日本的イメージとはかなり異なる意味を有していた。
６
２ 杉橋隆夫，研究実績報告（立命館大学文学部），「久米邦武の思想形成における海外体験の影響」より引用。

山地

212

秀俊

写真という情報伝達手段に絡まる偶然性と，情報を選択する個人の偶然性によって，情報が表象する対象の理解が大きく変わる可能性がある。

主要参考文献Adams, Henry “King’s Fortieth Parallel Survey,” North American Review, July，
１８７１．
Bartlett, Richard, Great Surveys of the American West, Norman, Oklahoma，１９６２．
Demars, Stanford E. The Tourist in Yosemite，
１８５５−１９８５，University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City, Utah，１９９１
Dimock, George, Exploiting the View : Photographs of Yosemite & Mariposa by
Carlton Watkins, North Bennington，１９８４．
Dingus, Rick The Photographic Artifacts of Timothy O’Sullivan, Albuquerque, N. M．
１９８２．
Doak, Kevin M., “Anachronism,” contained in Imagining the Twentieth Century,edited by Charles C. Stewart and Peter Fritzsche，（University of Illinois Press，
１９９７）．
Goetzmann, William Exploration and Empire ; The Explorer and the Scientist in theWinning of the American West, New York，１９６６．
Haney, Louis H. Congressional History of Railways，１９０８．
Hickman, Paul and Peter Palmquist, “J. J. Reilly Photographer Views of American
Scenery,” Stereo World, Vol．
１２，No．
３，July./Aug．１９８５．
Hill, Eric “Carleton E. Watkins,” Stereo World, Vol．
４１，No．
１，March-April １９７７．
Lane, Franklin K., Yosemite, Department of The Interior，１９２０．
Mead B.Kibbey and Peter Palmquist（Editor），The Railroad Photographs of Alfred
A. Hart, Artist, California State Library Foundation；（August １９９６）．
Nash, Roderick, The American Environment :Readings in the History ofndConservation，２ ed., Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley，１９７６．
Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind，３rd ed., New Haven andLondon, Yale University Press，１９８２．
Nye, David E. Image Worlds, Corporate Identities at General Electric, The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts，１９８５．邦訳，山地秀俊・山地有喜子共訳，『写
真イメー

ジの世界』，九州大学出版会，１９９７年。

Palmquist, Peter “The Heart of Alfred A. Hart ; A Review of Recent Research,”
Stereo World, Vol．
１２，No．
３，July./Aug．１９８５．
Petullla, Joseph M., American Environment History, San Francisco, Boyd and Frazer，
１９７７．

１９世紀後半のアメリカ写真と『米欧回覧実記』

213

Runte, Alfred “Pragmatic Alliance Western railroads and the national parks,”
National Parks & Conservation Magazine, April，１９７４
Runte, Alfred, National Park : The American Experiencxe，２nd., ed., University of
Nebraska Press，１９８７．
Smith, Henry Nash “Clarence King, John Wesley Powell and the Establishment of
the United States Geographical Survey,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review ２４，（June，１９４７）．
Snyder, Joel American Frontiers ; The Photographs of Timothy O’Sullivan，１８６７−

１８７４．
Tractenberg, Alan Reading American Photographs Images as History
Mathew
Grady to Walker Evans , Hill and Wang, New York，１９８９．邦訳，トラクテ
ンバーグ著，生井英考・石井康史訳，『アメリカ写真を読む』，白水社，１
９９６
年。
泉 三郎，『堂々たる日本人』，祥伝社，平成１３年。
泉 三郎，『「米欧回覧」百二十年の旅』，図書出版会，１９９３年。
大田伊久雄，『アメリカ国有林管理の史的展開
人と森林の共生は可能か 』，
京都大学学術出版会，２０００年
開国百年記念文化事業会編、『鎖国時代日本人の海外知識
世界地理・西洋史に関する文献解題』、原書房、昭和５３年。
久米邦武編，田中彰校注，『米欧回覧実記』，岩波文庫，１９７７年。
久米美術館編，『特命全権大使『米欧回覧実記』銅版画集』（昭和６０年１０月）
久米美術館編，『＜新訂版＞久米邦武』（平成９年１月）
坂内知子，「サンクト・ペテルブルグにおける岩倉使節団 『米欧回覧実記』
における「育嬰院」の記述をめぐって」，異文化コミュニケーション研究所『異文化コミュニケーション研究』，第１３号，（２００１年３月）
H．N．スミス著，永原誠訳，『ヴァージンランド 象徴と神話の西部 』，
研究社 叢書，昭和４６年。
田中 彰・高田誠二編，『『米欧回覧実記』の学際的研究』，北海道大学図書刊
行会，１９９３年。
田中 彰，『岩倉使節団の歴史的研究』，岩波書店，２００２年。
西川長夫・松宮秀治編，『『米欧回覧実記』を読む １８７０年代の世界と日本 』，
法律文化社，１９９５年。
イアン・ニッシュ編・麻田貞雄他訳，『欧米から見た岩倉使節団』，ミネルヴァ
書房，２００２年。
沼田次郎・松沢弘陽編、『西洋見聞集』日本思想体系６６、岩波書店、１９７４年。
W．T．ヘーガン著，西村頼男・野田研一・島川雅史訳，『アメリカ・インデ
ィアン史』，北海道大学図書刊行会，１９８３年。
山下典子，「『米欧回覧実記』の社会学的一考察
欧米の風景がいかに日本に214紹介されたか山地

秀俊」，財団法人アジア太平洋観光交流センター（APTEC）主催，

第５回「観光に関する学術研究論文」，１９９９年。
山地秀俊，「１９世紀後半期におけるアメリカの写真情報公開を中心として

西部踏査隊活動」，『神戸大学経済経営研究年報』，第５１号（２００２年）。

山地秀俊，『情報公開制度としての現代会計』，同文舘，１９９４年。

Chapter 10
The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo:
Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo
Jason G. Karlin

Throughout the Meiji period, former bakufu retainers (旧臣) resentful ofthe denigration of the Tokugawa legacy played a central role in opposing
the Meiji state through the memorialization and preservation of the cultural
memory of the Edo period. The emergence of this oppositional memory
was born from the desire to reclaim the past from the ruins of history.
Their commemorative activities during the Meiji period sparked a longing
for the past that was reflected in the pervasive nostalgia for the tastes andstyles of the Edo period (江戸趣味). The Edo period lent itself to the invention of tradition since its history could be easily mobilized into a populist symbol of the nation.1 By increasing awareness of the disappearance ofthe cultural practices of the past, they gave a new visibility to the experience of everyday life.
The recent interest in everyday life as a category of analysis has arisen
from the understanding that modernity disrupts everyday practice by relativizing and demystifying the “taken-for-granted” reality of everyday existence. Scholars such as Agnes Heller see everyday life as the site of potentially humanistic and democratic change.2 Similarly, Henri Lefebvre argues
1. The invention of Edo was the product of two mutually reinforcing ideas. The
first defined Edo as a temporal category which corresponded to the period of theTokugawa bakufu. According to this definition, Edo was the history of Japan prior
to the invasion of Western culture. The invention of sakoku was the sine qua nonfor constructing Edo as the origin of an indigenous national culture. The other defined Edo as a spatial category conforming to the geographical boundaries of Edo
proper, which differentiated the distinct customs and manners of Edo from the provincialism of rural Japan. The spatial definition of Edo was contested between thesocial practices of the samurai class centered on the Yamanote and the commoners(町人) of the Shitamachi.
2. Agnes Heller, G. L. Campbell, trans. Everyday Life (London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1984).
215

216

Jason G. Karlinthat everyday life is the plane of cultural revolution where the individual
may overcome the alienation, estrangement, and meaninglessness of modern life to discover the potential for radical change and subjectivity.3
Michel de Certeau invests everyday life with a creative potential that disrupts and reappropriates forms of domination and control.4 Together theseperspectives all share a positive productive view of everyday life as theprivileged space of resistance to the dominant cultural economy. Ultimately,
this turn towards everyday life is an attempt to locate an authentic level ofreality amid the uncertainty of modern identity. Its utopian impulse is suggested by its redemptive potential to redefine the cultural reality that constitutes the structures of power within society.
The invention of Edo shared this utopian impulse to rescue history fromthe oblivion of modern change and to make everyday life visible for its appreciation. By making the appurtenances and practices of everyday life into
objects of contemplation, the distinctiveness of everyday life could be appreciated as an expression of an authentic culture. No longer lost amid therepetition of life’s daily routine, the culture of everyday life became theobject of observation, preservation, and appreciation. As former bakufu retainers promoted the congruity of everyday life and national culture, those
habits and customs which were once perceived as obstacles to modernization were redefined as objects of inspiration and longing. As such, everyday life became the site of resistance to the Meiji government’s programof civilization and enlightenment, and remembering became a way of defying official narratives of the past. Edo culture’s appearance as a sign ofdifference from the modern was thus an ineluctable consequence of its
construction as a site of opposition.5 In this way, former bakufu retainers
and other critics of the Meiji state invented the aesthetic of everyday life
as a cultural tradition to reinforce a shared sense of national identity.
Recently historians have begun to explore the connection between nationalism and celebration by emphasizing the role of commemoration andpublic ceremonials in the construction of national identity. Celebrations are
not only occasions for the simultaneous imagining of the nation, but societal events for inventing the past and fashioning national memory. The ceremonies, commemorations, and monuments through which national memory
has been elaborated in modern Japan share the purpose of creating a senseof historical continuity amid the contingency and uncertainty of the mod3. Henri Lefebvre, Everyday Life in the Modern World , trans. Sacha Rabinovitch(New Brunwick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1999).
4. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Randall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).
5. See Carol Gluck, “The Invention of Edo,” in Stephen Vlastos, ed. Mirror ofModernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), pp. 262-284 for a discussion of the “relation of Edo-as-tradition tomodernity.”

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo217

ern age. The fabrication of imperial ceremonies and state rituals during the
Meiji period was driven by the need to break with the past, and to create asense of distance between the new imperial regime and the old Tokugawa
shogunate. However, as John R. Gillis notes, “modern memory was born
not just from the sense of a break with the past, but from an intenseawareness of the conflicting representations of the past and the effort ofeach group to make its version the basis of national identity.”6 While the
Meiji state was active in promoting commemorative activities which would
enable the people to experience communion with their emperor, commemorations were also invented to express the memories and experiencesof those who shared a different conception of the nation and its history.
These activities were born of a commemorative vigilance necessitated by
the creation of an official history that consigned the Tokugawa era to thefailures and weaknesses of the past.
Official historical scholarship in the early Meiji period celebrated theachievements of the Restoration while denouncing the tyranny of bakufu
rule. Japanese scholars of the history of civilization (文明史) such as
Fukuzawa Yukichi, who found inspiration in the positivism of Buckle andGuizot, viewed the Restoration as an inevitable consequence of the natural
growth of progress and deplored the 250 years of Tokugawa rule as the“depths of stagnation.”7 In 1884, the historian Fujita Mokichi criticized the
bakufu for its suppression of Christianity and Western learning, and lamented the harshness of the bakufu’s policy of national isolation (鎖国）.8Unlike other bunmeishi historians who wrote in sweeping gestures of thetyranny of the Tokugawa period, Fujita wrote specifically of the suppression of Watanabe Kazan (1793-1841) and Takano Choei (1804-1850) who
espoused Western learning and criticized the bakufu’s 1825 policy callingon all coastal domains to attack and repel any encroaching foreign ships.
The characterization of the Tokugawa period as a time of “national seclusion” was thus a Meiji period invention which sought to criticize thebakufu’s restrictions on foreign intercourse as a policy adverse to the spiritof civilization and enlightenment. In official historical writings, sakoku
highlighted the oppressive and restrictive conditions of Tokugawa rule, andprovided an absolute and coherent explanation for Japan’s lack of progress.
One of the first historical works to depart from the official narrative of
the Meiji Restoration was Fukuchi Gen’ichiro’s Bakufu suibo ron (幕府衰
6. John R. Gillis, “Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship,” in John
R. Gillis, ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 8.
7. Fukuzawa Yukichi 福沢諭吉, An Outline of a Theory of Civilization 文明論
之概略, trans. David A. Dilworth and G. Cameron Hurst (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973), p. 160.
8. Fujita Mokichi 藤田茂吉, Bunmei tozenshi 文明東漸史 (Tokyo: Hochisha,1884).

218

Jason G. Karlin

亡論). First serialized in Tokutomi Soho’s Kokumin no tomo (国民之友)
in 1892, Fukuchi titled his work after Edward Gibbon’s The Decline andFall of the Roman Empire, for which he hoped to suggest not only the
grandeur of the Tokugawa bakufu, but the significance of his own work inrevising official histories. Like Gibbon, Fukuchi rejected the search forgeneral laws of causation and suggested that history needs to be appropriate to its subject. Fukuchi claimed that his work was based largely on his
own memories and conversations he had with former officials in the
Tokugawa shogunate. In the preface to this work, Fukuchi made clear his
intentions to write a history that represented the bakufu’s position: “recent
historical writings are constantly appearing, and it’s not that there aren’t
any works which describe the fall of the bakufu, but rather that theseworks all center on describing the great achievement of the Meiji Restoration. The bakufu is placed in a secondary position, or is portrayed merely
as the enemy. These so-called Meiji Restoration histories (明治維新史)
cannot be considered true histories of the ‘decline and fall of the
bakufu.’”9Like Fukuchi, Togawa Zanka (Yasuie) (1855-1924) was deeply concerned with preserving the legacy of the Tokugawa bakufu. During the
Meiji period, he became one of the leaders of the movement to collect andto preserve documents and materials pertaining to the shogunate. Togawa
was born in Edo of parents with close ties to the bakufu. Around 1890,
Togawa began to regularly contribute short articles and poetry to several
magazines. He was active in the literary circles of the mid-Meiji period,
and was a promoter of modern poetry (shintai-shi) which he often wrote toexpress Christian themes. Like many mid-Meiji intellectuals and literary
figures, Togawa’s belief in Christianity wavered, and he found himself increasingly drawn to the past. His interest in history grew out of literature,
but was nurtured by “the constraints of his status as a former bakufu retainer.”10 With the support of other former bakufu retainers such as Enomoto Takeaki, Kimura Kaishu, Otori Keisuke, and Kurimoto Joun, he began publishing the journal Kyubakufu (旧幕府) in April 1897. The contents of the journal included illustrations, historical source material, historical essays, and biographies pertaining to the Tokugawa period, especiallythat of bakumatsu period and the Restoration. The journal was so well received in intellectual circles that the first issue was reprinted four times tosatisfy the interest of readers. The inspiration for the publication of thisjournal was born from the realization that former bakufu officials and re9. Fukuchi Ochi 福地桜痴, “Bakufu suibo ron,” 幕府衰亡論 Fukuchi Ochi shu
福地桜痴集, vol. 11 of Meiji bungaku zenshu 明治文学全集 (Tokyo: Chikuma
shobo, 1966), p. 162.
10. Asakura Haruhiko 朝倉治彦, “Kaidai,” in Togawa Zanka, Bakumatsu shoshi
戸川残花, 幕末小史, vol. 10 of Bakumatsu ishin shiryo sensho 幕末維新資料選
書 (Tokyo: Jinbutsu Ouraisha, 1968), pp. 418-419.

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo

219

tainers were gradually passing away, and that the memory of the achievements of the bakufu would perish unless an effort was exerted to collecthistorical documents and personal records related to its history.
The efforts of these historians and former bakufu retainers to revise thenegative view of the Tokugawa shogunate established by bunmeishi historians was important for creating an appreciation for the past. Essential tothis effort was the historical redefinition of the seclusion policy (鎖国)from a national tragedy to the triumph of cultural uniqueness. By averting
Western colonialism, they argued that the bakufu’s policy of national seclusion allowed for the development of Japan’s unique cultural traditions.
In order to appreciate the Tokugawa period’s historical legacy, it was necessary to reject natural laws of progress, and to make empirical studies ofthe social features of culture. Implied in this turn toward empiricism was
the feeling that the state-initiated reform of customs and manners (風俗改良) of the early Meiji period had proceeded arbitrarily and inflexibly without regard for the reality of “everyday life.” Miyake Setsurei, one of themembers of the Seikyosha (政教社) who attacked superficial forms ofWesternization, argued that the excesses of the Meiji Restoration needed to
be tempered by the social reality of life in Japan. According to Miyake,“we must extricate ourselves from the phantasm of contemporary knowledge and make it more descriptive and empirical.”11 For Miyake, Westernknowledge was an illusionary phenomenon lacking permanence and meaning. He felt that history needed to make clear what it meant to be Japanese.
Similarly, others in the Seikyosha lamented the destruction of Japan’s indigenous customs (風俗), and wrote of the need to “salvage” Japan’s cultural past.12 From these concerns, there emerged a new interest in the history and study of Japanese customs and manners (風俗史学).
Kurimoto Joun along with a group of mostly former Mito-han retainers
joined together in April 1889 to form the Edokai (江戸会) with the aim ofpreserving the distinct history and customs of Edo. Members of the Edokai
included such former bakufu retainers as Maejima Hisoka (1835-1919),
Kishigami Shitsuken (1860-1907), and Kimura Kaishu (1830-1901) as wellas others resentful of the denigration of the period of Tokugawa rule. Most
members of the Edokai were born in Edo, and shared a common identity
as “Edokko.”13 The historical objective of the Edokai was to salvage the11. Miyake Setsurei 三宅雪零, “Shinzenbi Nihonjin,” 真善美日本人 Miyake
Setsurei shu 三宅雪零集, vol. 33 of Meiji bungaku zenshu 明治文学全集 (Tokyo:
Chikuma shobo, 1967), p. 201.
12. Kuga Katsunan 陸羯南, “Kokumin no fukuso,” 国民の服装 in Nishida
Taketoshi, Uete Michiari, and Sakai Yukichi, eds., vol. 2, Kuga Katsunan zenshu
陸羯南全集 (Tokyo: Misuzu Shobo, 1969), pp. 4-5.
13. Other prominent members of the Edokai included Takada Sanae (1860-1938),
Sekine Masanao (1860-1932), Tsuboi Shogoro (1863-18313), and Naito Chiso(1826-1902).

220

Jason G. Karlin

vestiges of the Tokugawa period from the destruction of the Meiji Restoration in order that the blessings of the Tokugawa period “should be remembered by our children and grandchildren, and recorded for posterity so that
it is never forgotten.”14 Among the activities which concerned the Edokai
was the historical preservation of geographic place names, historic landmarks, and scenic spots within Tokyo. In addition, several members of the
Edokai diligently collected and published documents pertaining to the
Tokugawa bakufu.15
In June 1889, the Edokai began publishing the Edokai zasshi (江戸会雑誌) which was subsequently renamed Edokai-shi (江戸会誌) on the occasion of the tricentennial celebration of Tokyo. This journal provided an intellectual forum for scholars to work together to “enjoy the benefits of examining the traces of the three hundred years of Tokugawa rule.” The
Edokai-shi focused on nearly all aspects of the Tokugawa period, but its
emphasis tended more towards the social and cultural history of everyday
life in Edo. The first issue of the Edokai-shi proclaimed that “the threehundred years of Tokugawa rule was a time of the most unprecedented
progress and development of Japanese civilization (文明), but as a result of
the revolution of the Restoration, all aspects of society were transformed.
Most of our institutions, literature, and customs were destroyed, and thatwhich survived has become extremely uncommon.”16 While official histories placed notions of progress and development at the center of its critiqueof the feudalistic Tokugawa order, here was an attempt to redefine progress in terms of cultural achievement. The essays which filled the pagesof the Edokai-shi sought to demonstrate that “from painting, sculpture,music, and drama to clothing and playthings, all achieved unparalleled development during the three hundred years of Tokugawa rule.”17 This definition of progress was part of an emerging consciousness that civilization
was no longer a normative category, but a plural category of specific andvariable differences. Significantly, the achievements of the Tokugawa period were articulated not in terms of political or economic development,
but the advancement of culture.
Like the writing of history, commemorative activity in Meiji Japan was
also a contested process that resulted as much from the actions of critics
and opponents of the new regime as it did from the “memory machine” of

14. “Edokai-shi no kubi ni,” 江戸会誌の首に Edokai-shi 江戸会誌 1.1 (August
26, 1889), p. 3.
15. Naito Chiso 内藤耻叟 edited a multi-volume work of documents relating to
the Tokugawa family, Tokugawa jugodai-shi 徳川十五代史, 12 Vols. (Tokyo:
Hakubunkan, 1892-1893).
16. “Edokai-shi no kubi ni,” p. 2.
17. “Edokai-shi no kubi ni,” p. 2.

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo

221

the Meiji state.18 Although Takashi Fujitani links commemorative activity
in Meiji Japan to the notion of a monolithic state ideology, the tricentennial celebration of Tokyo was planned and organized by a group of former
bakufu retainers who hoped to preserve the cultural memory of theachievements of the Tokugawa era. In response to the process of renewal
and rapid social change in the early years of the Meiji period, they invented the modern memory of Edo as a way of resisting the accelerationof history and the eradication of the legacy of the Tokugawa era. However,
the tricentennial celebration was not merely an act of resistance to state
power and official history, but was equally productive of its own national
narrative centered on the culture, practices, and tastes of the Edo period.
By moving beyond a narrow emphasis on commemorations and celebrations as sites of the production of state ideology, I argue for the continued
need to address the multiplicity of actors in the production of national
identity.
The tricentennial celebration of the founding of Edo (東京三百年祭)
opened in Ueno Park on August 26, 1889. Throughout Tokyo, paper lanterns and flags decorated the city to mark the occasion. The day of theevent celebrated the anniversary of Tokugawa Ieyasu’s occupation of Edo
castle following the defeat of the Hojo in August 1590. During the Edo
period, this day was regularly observed according to the lunar calendar as
the celebration of hassaku (八朔) [the first day of August]. After the Restoration no official celebration was held until a group of former bakufu retainers calling themselves the Hassakukai (八朔会) organized preparations
for a celebration of the tricentennial. The organizing committee washeaded by Enomoto Takeaki (1836-1908), and was composed of such notable figures as Taguchi Ukichi (1855-1905), Shibusawa Eichi (1841-1931),
and Iwasaki Yanosuke (1851-1928) as well as the heads of the 15 wards ofTokyo. The celebration was supported by numerous private contributions,many from the families of former bakufu retainers. The event’s main activities, which included displays of archery, swordplay, dancing, music,
and fireworks, were held on the grounds of the park which were adorned
with flags from each of the old daimyo domains. The guest seating area,
which was reserved for around 500 distinguished visitors including nobility
and members of the Tokugawa family, was designed to resemble Edo castle. Among the centennial’s other activities, the Japan Fine Arts Association (日本美術協会) organized a display of the weapons and armory of
Tokugawa Ieyasu as well as other artifacts dating from the same time pe18. Takashi Fujitani has argued that the modern state in Meiji Japan became a“memory machine” that invented and manipulated imperial rituals, national holidays, and spectacular state ceremonials. According to Fujitani, these activities werepart of “the modern governing elites’ energetic creation of a culture of nationalism.” See Takashi Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern
Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), p. 16.

222

Jason G. Karlin

riod. Altogether around 230 pieces were on display which conveyed the
grandeur of Tokugawa Ieyasu and the culture of the Edo period.19
For the citizens of Tokyo, the celebration created an unprecedented feeling of unity. Though festivals were not uncommon in Tokyo, they tended
to be confined to one district of the city. The tricentennial celebration wasan event that united all the people of Tokyo and contributed to the creationof a municipal identity. The population of Tokyo had been rapidly expanding in the years since the Restoration. However, the natural increase in the
population of permanent residents was greatly outpaced by the influx of
new residents. The increased urbanization of Tokyo was the result of a
rapid influx of people moving to Tokyo to escape the economic crisis in
the countryside during the 1880s. The divisions within the city between its
old and new residents were profound, but the tricentennial celebration offered a moment of reconciliation. As one member of the Edokai expressed
it: “those who in the least bit have the blood of an Edokko, or who live inTokyo today and enjoy its benefits, should fully devote their spirit to celebrating this event.”20
The selection of Ueno Park as the location for the celebration was determined by the symbolic importance of this site to the veneration of
Tokugawa Ieyasu. The park’s interior encompassed the Toshogu shrine located on the grounds of Kan’eiji which was the center of the Ieyasu cult inTokyo.21 In addition, the tombs of six former Tokugawa shoguns were located near the shrine. Throughout the day, the Toshogu shrine overflowedwith worshippers who came to pray to the spirit of Ieyasu. Like the famous shrine in Nikko, the Toshogu shrine in Ueno was built to venerate
Tokugawa Ieyasu. It was established in 1627, but remodeled in 1651 during Tokugawa Iemitsu’s great Nikko expansion project which created replicas of the Nikko Toshogu shrine throughout Japan. This outpouring of reverence for Tokugawa Ieyasu was the outcome of a cult of worship whichdeveloped out of what Herman Ooms describes as the “systematic sacrilization” of Ieyasu during the early Tokugawa era.22 This process began with
Ieyasu’s own last testament in which he expressed his desire to be venerated as a guardian deity (鎮守). Though Ieyasu himself had throughout hislife sought to legitimize his authority by appropriating religious symbols, it
19. For a complete listing of the items on display, see Otsuki Shuji 大槻修二,
ed., Tokyo kaishi sanbyaku-nen sai 東京開市三百年祭 (Tokyo: Otsuki Shuji,1890).
20. “Hachigatsu niju rokunichi wo shuku se,” 八月二十六日を祝せ Edokai-shi
江戸会誌 1.1 (August 26, 1889), p. 6.
21. The term Toshogu (東照宮) for the name of Ieyasu’s shrine was derived
from Ieyasu’s sacred title Tosho daigongen (東照大権現) or “Great Incarnation
Shining over the East” which was conferred upon him in 1617.
22. See Herman Ooms, Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570-1680(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo

223

was Tokugawa Iemitsu (1604-1651) who promoted the cult of Ieyasu by
posthumously inventing his grandfather as the “divine founder” of theTokugawa regime. Iemitsu oversaw the rebuilding of Ieyasu’s shrine in
Nikko and ordered the construction of Ieyasu shrines throughout Japan. As
a consequence, Ieyasu came to be revered as a protector deity.
From the moment a celebration was planned, much debate arose overthe meaning of the event. Some argued that the focus of the celebration
should be on the city of Tokyo and its future prosperity. Others felt thatthe event should celebrate Tokugawa Ieyasu’s achievement in laying thefoundation for the city’s greatness. This controversy spilled over into a dispute over what to name the celebration. Although the date was remembered as the “tricentennial of Ieyasu’s founding of the bakufu,” (家康開府三百年祭) government officials pressured committee members to rename
the event the “Tokyo tricentennial celebration” (東京三百年祭). This contradiction was not lost on the residents of the city who could not understand the reason for celebrating the three hundred year anniversary for Tokyo when the new capital’s name had only been in use for just over 20
years. An editorial which appeared in Choya shinbun the day before thecelebration criticized this decision to rename the celebration:
The Imperial Household has nothing to fear from Tokugawa Ieyasu
who completed the great task of bringing about order and stability, andwho has loyally served the imperial family. We can not at all understand
why the protestors so detest the name of Ieyasu that they advocate a Tokyo tricentennial festival, but will not allow us to call it the Ieyasu
tricentennial commemoration. Since this matter has already been decided,
there’s perhaps no reason to even mention it. Still, the city’s residents
who have enjoyed the benefits and prosperity of Ieyasu’s rule should,
regardless of what it is called, celebrate the event as a commemoration
expressive of their adoration for the merits of Ieyasu’s three hundredyear legacy as a military commander and political leader.23
The first issue of the Edokai-shi, whose publication was timed to correspond with the tricentennial celebration, joined in the criticism by notingthat there never would have been a Tokyo were it not for Tokugawa Ieyasu’s occupation and establishment of a castle at Edo three hundred years
earlier.24 During the celebration, these deep divisions were enacted on thestreets of Tokyo where supporters of a celebration for Ieyasu’s founding of
the bakufu hung paper lanterns displaying the hollyhock crest of
Tokugawa Ieyasu. Others displayed lanterns of the rising sun to show their

23. “Tokugawa Ieyasu Edo kaifu sanbyaku-nen sai,” 徳川家康江戸開府三百年祭 Choya shinbun 朝野新聞, no. 4763 (August 25, 1889), p. 1.
24. “Hachi-gatsu nijuroku-nichi o syukuse,” 八月二十六日を祝せ Edokai-shi 江
戸会誌 1.1 (26 Aug. 1889): 5.

224

Jason G. Karlin

unity with the imperial family.25 The Meiji government’s apprehension
about allowing the event to be named in honor of Tokugawa Ieyasu is areflection of the degree to which the state and the Imperial Householdcarefully policed commemorative activity that challenged its authority.
On the day of the celebration, merchants lining the streets leading towards Ueno Park sold various commemorative items, including patent
medicines that invoked the protectoral spirit of Ieyasu the Great Incarnation. Other items included portraits of the image of Tokugawa Iesato (1863-1940), who was the successor to the Tokugawa house after Tokugawa
Keiki (Yoshinobu) was deposed in the Meiji Restoration.26 The portraits ofTokugawa Iesato were sold mounted in ornately decorated glass albums.
Shopkeepers throughout the city observed the anniversary by setting up
temporary storefront shrines (神輿) built from long curtains enclosing gold
folding screens (屏風). The object of these temporary shrines would varydepending upon the occasion, but were typically dedicated to popular deities. For the tricentennial celebration, the people of Tokyo enshrined photographs of Tokugawa Iesato (1863-1940) within the altar of these storefront shrines. The official portrait of Tokugawa Iesato was taken by
Uchida Kuichi who also served as the photographer for the first photographic portraits of the Emperor Meiji in 1872 and 1873.27 In contrast to
Uchida’s seated portraits of the Meiji emperor, Iesato is pictured standing
at attention. As was common for portraits of members of the nobility, Iesato posed wearing the ceremonial dress appropriate to his rank in the nobility.28
Beginning with photographs of the emperor and members of the imperial family, merchants first appeared around 1874 who specialized in selling photographic reproductions of the portraits of public figures, military

25. “Tokyo kaishi sanbyakunen-sai o miru tokoro,” 東京開市三百年祭を見る処
Jiji shinpo 時事新報, no. 2394 (August, 27 1889), p. 2.
26. “Kaifu-sai no keikyo,” 開府祭の景況 Choya shinbun 朝野新聞, no. 4764
(August 27, 1889), p. 1.
27. For a discussion of the imperial portrait as a token of Western diplomacy
and a symbol of national unity, see Taki Koji 多木浩二, Tenno no shozo 天皇の肖像 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1988), pp. 111-154 and 197-234. The Meiji government first began distributing portraits of the Emperor to display in government andmilitary facilities from around 1882. The preparation of the imperial portrait for
public consumption was timed to coincide with the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution in February 1889. With the promulgation of the Imperial Rescript on Education of 1890, copies of the Rescript along with portraits of the emperor were distributed to elementary schools throughout Japan.
28. At the time of the photograph, Tokugawa Iesato held the rank of duke in the
nobility. He was granted this title with the issuing of the Kazoku-rei in 1884. The
ceremonial dress for members of the nobility varied in design and color depending
upon one’s rank.

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo

225

heroes, and famous prostitutes.29 While it was common for members of thenobility to have photographic portraits taken as family mementos, the portrait of Tokugawa Iesato was one of the few to circulate as an object of religious veneration. Like the image of the emperor, the portrait of
Tokugawa Iesato was iconic of Tokugawa sacred authority. It served as amaterial symbol in religious rituals and ceremonies by substituting a photographic image of the body of the Tokugawa heir for the sacred authority of
the Tokugawa name. These images, through their likeness to the person
represented, became a tangible presence of his sacro-religious authority. As
Taki Koji argues the context of the consumption of images of the emperor
were central to his construction as an object of national idolatry.30 Japanesereligious practices rooted in an iconophilic use of images became wedded
to modern ideology to promote a political idolatry centered on competing
images of national authority.
In his address during the opening ceremony, Enomoto paid tribute to
Tokugawa Ieyasu by describing the development of the city since its
founding, and by calling upon its citizens to remember this day as the“birthday of Tokyo.”31 Enomoto concluded by stating that he hoped for thefurther spread of Tokugawa Ieyasu’s legacy, but he was careful to notethat this legacy had been Ieyasu’s way of revering the emperor. By carefully subordinating Ieyasu to the emperor, Enomoto sought to avoid any
perception of lese-majesty. At the conclusion of his speech, the excitedaudience threw their hats into the air and cheered “Tokugawa banzai!”
During a reception afterwards, guests greeted Tokugawa Iesato with banzai
salutes. As one journalist wryly observed, “some call this tricentennial anniversary a festival of Edo, while others call it a celebration of Tokyo. Listening to all this, I get the strange feeling that if the tricentennial anniversary is in fact a celebration of the Great Incarnation’s (東照) occupation of
Edo castle, then perhaps there are some who are seeking the revival of Edo
castle.”32
Although the celebration lasted for three days, it did not approach the
29. Ishii Kendo 石井研堂, “Shashin no soshi jidai,” 写真の創始時代 Meiji
jibutsu kigen 明治事物起原, vol. 6 (Tokyo: Chikuma shobo, 1997), pp. 192-193.
30. Taki, pp. 183-196. According to Taki, the portrait of the Emperor was contextualized differently from that of Western monarchs in the modern period.
Whereas Western monarchs became increasingly secularized with the rise of civilsociety, the image of the Japanese emperor was sanctified through ceremony andworship. Although the portraits themselves were consistent with late nineteenth
century European practices which were relatively straight-forward and uncoercive,the images were placed in a context of public consumption wherein they became
symbols of the Emperor’s sacred authority.
31. “Tokyo sanbyakunen sai no shukushi narabini toji,” 東京三百年祭の祝詞並びに答辞 Choya shinbun 朝野新聞, no. 4765 (August 28, 1889), p. 1.
32. “Tokugawa banzai kansei,” 徳川万歳歓声 Choya shinbun 朝野新聞, no.
4765 (August 28, 1889), p. 1.

226

Jason G. Karlin

scale of the festivities that accompanied the promulgation of the Meiji
Constitution in February 1889. Most notably, the tricentennial celebration
was only observed within the capital. In fact, much of the debate regarding
the naming of the event was related to defining the spatial boundaries of
the celebration. A celebration of Ieyasu’s founding of the bakufu suggested
a national scale that was unacceptable to the Meiji leadership. By naming
it the tricentennial of Tokyo, they succeeded in limiting its geographic focus and weakening its nationalistic assertion.
Despite these efforts, the state failed to curtail the growth of a popular
historical consciousness that celebrated the culture of the Edo period. The
popularization and commercialization of Edo culture in modern Japan developed in conjunction with the tricentennial celebration of Edo. This moment of reflection on the legacy of the Tokugawa era generated an intense
enthusiasm for the tastes of the Edo period. Throughout the middle Meiji
period, antique stores flourished among collectors of Edo period art andutensils. This commercialization of tradition, which helped to reinforce asense of “authentic” connection to the past, was contingent upon the riseof an affluent class of collectors whose taste for antiquities rendered thepast fashionable. Popular interest in the culture of the Edo period included
the revival of fashions and styles from the pleasure quarters and an heightened appreciation for the Genroku period. During the tricentennial celebration, several prostitutes within Tokyo revived Genroku period fashions as alure to male customers.33 Owing to the proprietary role that prostitutes andgeisha played in shaping social tastes in the early Meiji period, Edo fashions soon spread throughout Tokyo and Japan. In particular, a distinct styleof Edo period parasol became popular in the years immediately following
the tricentennial celebration.34 Thereafter, the Genroku period soon becamea marker of all that was fashionable.
In conclusion, the invention of Edo as the essence of Japanese cultural
identity was the product of the commemorative activities and preservationist movements of former bakufu retainers embittered by the denigration of
the achievements of the Tokugawa era. Because the habitual and quotidian
practices of everyday life were defined as the unchanging patterns of tradition, their presumption as an authentic reality contrasts with the ephemerality and contingency of modern experience. However, the relationship between everyday life and modernity is not oppositional but mutually reinforcing. As Lefebvre notes, “the quotidian and the modern mark and mask,
legitimate and counterbalance each other.”35 Without modernity, there is no
33. “Genroku shikake,” 元禄仕掛け Tokyo asahi shinbun 東京朝日新聞, no.
1420 (August 27, 1889), p. 4.
34 Hiraide Kojiro 平出鏗二郎， Tokyo fuzoku shi 東京風俗史 (Tokyo:
Yasaka shobo, 1991), p. 182. These rush-woven umbrellas with red handles thatwere originally popular during the Edo became known as Genroku kasa.
35. Lefebvre, p. 25.

The Tricentennial Celebration of Tokyo: Inventing the Modern Memory of Edo

227

everyday life since it is the rapid social changes of modern life that create
a new awareness of the quotidian. Everyday life is a distinctly modern
phenomenon that only emerges with the awareness of its disappearing
forms. With the experience of modernity, everyday life becomes the objectof representation in art, literature, and history. It is at this moment thateveryday life breaks free from its aesthetically impoverished existence. No
longer the domain of undifferentiated repetition and “taken-forgrantedness,” everyday life has becomethe source of invention and mystification. Through the aestheticization of everyday life, the discourses of themodern invent the nation as the ethos of the ordinary.

Chapter 11
Osaka versus Tokyo:
The Cultural Politics of Local Identity
in Modern Japan
Jeffrey E. Hanes

In 1994, Professor Ôtani Kôichi published the first in a series of bookson the subject of Ôsakagaku, or what he translated as “Osakaology.” Fromthe moment he began working on the subject for an undergraduate course
at Tezukayama Gakuin Daigaku, Ôtani set out self-consciously to pioneer a
new “field of study” (gakumon). According to the none-too-humble professor himself, Osakaology was something utterly new: a gakumon so thoroughly defined by place that the place name (chimei) described it. Ôtani
tells us that he worked up this “unprecedented” new field of study fromscratch––first by identifying notable “phenomena” (genshô) associated with
Osaka, then by investigating these phenomena “through and through.”
Anxious to raise Osakaology to the level of a social science, Ôtani earnestly strove to objectify his findings: through quantification (or seeking
sûji, as he rather inelegantly put it) and by steering clear of questionable
evidence derived from “subjective impressions” (inshô) or “regional chauvinism” (okuni jiman). By examining Osakan phenomena from “every[conceivable] angle,” the professor confidently asserted, he would ultimately be able to ascertain their “provenance” (yûrai).1Ôtani soon discovered, however, that it would not be easy to reach his
student audience. Met with yawning disinterest in the subject matter, he resolved to find a way of working the crowd. As he explains the pedagogicalturn that followed: “The focus of my concern was Osaka in and of itself.
Yet, given that it was my ultimate goal to comprehend Osaka, I realized I
could make things more understandable and more interesting by comparing
Osaka to Tokyo. Thus, unexpectedly, the focus of my discourse became
the [two distinct] cultures of Eastern and Western Japan.”2 Denying any
1. Ôtani Kôichi, Ôsakagaku (Tokyo: Shinchôsha, 1994), pp. 3-4.
2. Ibid., p. 4.
229

230

Jeffrey E. Hanes

impulse to “stipulate which was good and which was bad”3––that is, eschewing value judgments and thus casting himself squarely in the role ofthe social scientist––Ôtani trumpeted his scholarly objectivity. His soleconcern, he insisted, was to tease out the salient cultural characteristics ofthe city and its inhabitants.
Beneath this veneer of dispassionate objectivity, however, lurked thesoul of a cultural partisan. As Ôtani steadily catalogued the cultural differences between Osaka and Tokyo, he expected to reveal the timeless cultural essence of Osaka. He witnessed the depth of his belief in placecentered cultural essentialism in the published version of his lectures,
where he lamented the need to follow orthographic convention, and thus todistinguish early modern Osaka (written 大坂) from modern Osaka (written 大阪). While he could conveniently elide this historical distinction in
his classroom lectures by speaking the city’s name aloud––in both cases,
pronounced “Osaka”––the book forced him into a conceptual compromise.
Rather than running the risk of looking “ludicrous” by contriving a “standardized” written form that projected his belief in place-centered, transhistorical cultural continuity, he protested aloud before biting the bullet.4
Unabashedly proud of his own trailblazing as the father of Osakaology,Ôtani praised it as a means of grasping Osakan culture in its totality. “Allin all, in this single book, I should be able to accurately capture Osaka in
its entirety,” claimed the author, “and [thus] present Osaka as a [distinct]
body of knowledge.”5 To the degree that Osakaology was premised onÔtani’s unexamined faith in the primacy of place, it was a social sciencebuilt on quicksand. In the end, Ôtani managed to do little more than produce a pseudo-scientific essentialization of Osakan culture that sanctified
cultural stereotyping. Not surprisingly, following the completion of Ôtani’s
trilogy on the subject of Osakaology––Ôsaka gaku (Osakaology, 1994),
Zoku Ôsakagaku (Osakaology: The Sequel , 1994), and Ôsakagaku: sesôhen (Osakaology: On Customs, 1998)––other Osaka partisans followed suit,proudly waving the cultural banner of their beloved city. One such group,
led by a band of journalists from the Asahi Shinbun, published a series ofarticles, interviews, and roundtable discussions of Osakaology. And whom
did they ask to write the preface? None other than the irrepressible Ôtani
Kôichi. In his rousing introduction to Ôsakagaku: 21 seiki hen (Osakaology: The 21 st Century Edition), the self-declared father of Osakaology
threw down the gauntlet: “What will become of Osaka in the 21st century?
We all want to know. Toward this end, needless to say, we must thoroughly examine, document, and analyze Osaka. It all begins with this. We
don’t have any need for ungrounded theories or ideas that do not issue
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan

231

from [experience of] the place itself.”6 Ôtani’s rousing declaration to thecontrary, however, theories and ideas are exactly what these Osakaologists
reproduced. The inductive process they promoted––namely, the collection
and analysis of local data in an effort to identify and catalogue local characteristics––was really intended to reveal the immanent cultural identity ofOsaka and its inhabitants. Not to put too esoteric a spin on their work,
they clearly aimed to capture something akin to the auratic identity of theplace.
I have begun this essay with a rather lengthy commentary on the recently pioneered field of Osakaology not merely to expose the chauvinistic
underbelly of what we might call “Osakaism” (Ôsakashugi), but to launcha broader investigation of the cultural politics of local/regional identity inmodern Japan. This is a pilot study, then, in the form of a case study; andit should be added that it is cast every bit in the mold of the ethnographic
case studies that have come to characterize Ron Toby’s pioneering scholarship.
Viewed from the local perspective, Osakaology is merely the most recent counteroffensive mounted by chauvinistic Osakans in their city’s ongoing urban rivalry with Tokyo. Yet, far from revealing the intrinsic identity of Osakans, Ôtani and other self-styled Osakaologists have actuallyconstructed a composite identity for them. What they have characterized as
Osaka Tradition with a capital “T,” tracing the formation of that Tradition
to a steady accretion of place-bound habits and customs passed down fromgeneration to generation, is actually an intoxicating cultural cocktail
whipped up from a suspicious variety of ingredients, including folk wisdom, anecdote, superstition, nostalgia, and stereotype. One of the most telling characteristics of this pseudo-social science––and the one that concerns
us most directly here––is its spurious identification of discrete cultural“phenomena” as objective manifestations of innate cultural traits. Whilesome Osakaologists seem to believe that Osakan culture flows in the veinsof the inhabitants, and others that it is stamped on their DNA, all
Osakaologists work from the same shared assumption: that Osakans bear
the indelible imprint of the place they inhabit.
By why is it, we should ask, that Osakaologists intent upon conjuring
the aura of Osaka spend so much time comparing the city to Tokyo? Ôtani
would have us believe that it is because the ongoing discourse about thecultural differences between Eastern and Western Japan illuminates the respective cultural character of these two cities, and promises thereby topique our interest in his city specifically. But the fact that Osakaologists
direct their gaze mainly toward the distant capital, and not to nearby Kyoto
or Kobe, should give us pause. Ôtani to the contrary, I would argue that
6. Asahi Shinbunsha Shakaibu, ed., Ôsakagaku: 21 seiki hen (Osaka: Asahi shinbunsha, 2000), p. 3.

232

Jeffrey E. Hanes

Osakaologists are drawn to the Osaka-Tokyo comparison primarily because
it resonates with their cultural politics. Further, I would argue that theirown identity as prideful Osakans has caused them to neglect the historicaldimension of this ongoing discourse. The discourse that Ôtani treats as
timeless is actually a linked set of discourses that tend to overlap, butwhich have also changed dramatically over time. Whereas this discourse
once broadly evoked the regional rivalry between the Kanto and the Kansai, it later narrated the narrower first city/second city rivalry between Tokyo and Osaka. The former discourse boasts a long, distinguished history,
extending back to the Tokugawa era and before, of benign comparison between the distinctive customs of two distant regions. The latter discourse isof recent historical vintage, on the other hand, and casts the two major cities within these regions into a sharp binaristic rivalry. Arguably blinded bytheir belief in the primacy of place and their faith in the cultural supremacy of Osaka, Osakaologists such as Ôtani have read the latter rivalry backinto the former, conjuring the illusion of a unitary, ongoing discourse ofregional cultural competition. In the process, they have forged a palpably
false foundation for the place-centered social science that they claim tohave pioneered.
The distinctive cultural “phenomena” elicited by Osakaologists are
hardly proof positive of basic cultural traits intrinsic to native Osakans;more often than not, in fact, they are epiphenomenal evocations of themodern historical rivalry between Tokyo and Osaka. Rather than continuing to mystify the cultural distinctiveness of Osaka by imagining an unbridgeable cultural gap with Tokyo that has existed from time immemorial,
I propose to place the Osaka-Tokyo rivalry in historical perspective as a
striking example of cultural politics in the modern Japanese nation-state.
Cultural characteristics that Osakaologists today tend to identify as timelesstraits of Osakaism, I will treat as symptoms of the modern politico-cultural
rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo. This rivalry, which was initiallybrokered by Japan’s national leadership following the Meiji Restoration in
1868, began with the reinvention of Edo as the national capital of Tokyoand the attendant relegation of Osaka to the status of “second city.”7
In the course of the Meiji era, as the Japanese nation-state engineered aunipolar concentration of political power and cultural hegemony in the
newly anointed capital of Tokyo, this rivalry steadily heated up. The driving force behind this cultural rivalry between the nation’s capital and its
second city was state-sanctioned Tokyo centrism. As the capital of a modern nation-state, Tokyo was the symbolic embodiment of national political
7. On the subject of Osaka as a second city, see Blair A. Ruble, Second Metropolis: pragmatic pluralism in Gilded Age Chicago, Silver Age Moscow, andMeiji Osaka (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Press and Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan233

and cultural authority. Not only was it the seat of the family-state (kazokukokka), it was the symbolic embodiment of the national family. If we wereto imagine the “state as a city,” to paraphrase Michel Foucault, then thecapital would be its “main square.” Once Tokyoites embraced their symbolic status as the guardians of Japanese Tradition––traditions, we might
add, that were largely invented by the modern state to promote national
cultural homogeneity––ideologues began to step up onto their soapboxes inJapan’s “main square” and to point out the deficiencies of its “second
city.”
Thus placed under the wilting “gaze” of Tokyo-based representatives of
the central government and soon subjected as well to the dismissive “gaze”
of chauvinistic Tokyoites, the beleaguered inhabitants of the once-greatcommercial entrepôt of Osaka slowly adopted a siege mentality. If the cultural rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo simmered steadily in early Meiji,
however, it came to a boil later on. Flaunting its cultural hegemony by late
Meiji, Tokyo stereotyped Osaka, then dressed down its natives, and ultimately dismissed Osaka culture as inferior and even deviant. Even as Tokyo thus endeavored to reinforce its national political and cultural supremacy, however, Osaka was steadily establishing national economic supremacy. Increasingly confident in its modern identity, Osaka rose to the challenge both politically and culturally.
By the 1910s, Osakans had begun to reverse the “gaze” from Tokyo, asserting their city’s cultural autonomy from and superiority over the capital.
The burgeoning rivalry that now pitted Japan’s second city against its firstcity at first took the form of name-calling, but soon escalated into a war ofwords. No sooner did the Great Kanto Earthquake (Kantô Daishinsai) level
Tokyo in 1923 than the cultural tables were turned. Suddenly overshadowed by Japan’s second city, which continued to prosper and progress, thedestroyed and debilitated first city was at pains to sustain its national cultural supremacy. From the mid-1920s, what had once been a healthy (ifalso catty) rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo rapidly devolved into cultural
warfare. The sudden reversal of fortunes that befell Tokyo and Osaka in
the wake of the Great Kanto Earthquake called into question the Tokyocentric model of national cultural hegemony promoted by the Meiji state.
Prompting paranoid cultural critics to project a topsy-turvy world in which
Osakans were poised to seize the upper hand, this new state of cultural affairs was met with a combination of fear and loathing in the capital.
By the late 1930s, Tokyo had renewed its political dominance and restored its cultural hegemony. In the postwar era, it went on to establish
economic dominance as well, of course, ushering in the age of unfettered
Tokyo centrism.8 Nevertheless, as the cultural sniping by Ôtani and other
8. On the subject of postwar Tokyo centrism, see my article “From Megalopolis
to Megaroporisu.” The Journal of Urban History, 19, no. 2 (February 1993), pp.
63-94.

234

Jeffrey E. Hanes

local chauvinists illustrates, the rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo persists
to this day. One pithy example among many of its enduring cultural poignancy is the recent release of a hip-hop recording by the previously unknown, Osaka-based group West End X Yuki, entitled “So. Ya. Na” (“Iguess that’s how it is”). This song, issued in response to a hit song by the
Tokyo-based group East X Yuri, entitled “Da. Yo. Ne” (“I guess that’s
how it is”), pointedly substituted Osaka dialect for the Tokyo dialect of theoriginal,9 and thus threw Tokyo’s national cultural pretensions back in its
own face. Although Osaka no longer holds a cultural candle to Tokyo, so
to speak, and isn’t any longer even the nation’s second city (that distinction having been passed to Yokohama), still local chauvinists sing Osaka’s
praises vis-à-vis Tokyo. If Osaka chauvinism rings a bit hollow now––
seemingly little more than a name-calling game of tit for tat––ironicallythe threat of creeping Osakaism still has the capacity to raise the hacklesof Tokyoites. As recently as the year 2000, an outbreak of Osaka dialect(Ôsaka-ben) in Tokyo was treated by some opinion leaders as if it were acommunicable linguistic disease.10
In the coming pages, I hope to suggest why the bitter rivalry between
Osaka and Tokyo remains capable to this day of attracting combatants andeven of inciting hysteria. I will not argue that Ôtani and his fellow
Osakaologists fantasized the cultural gap that separates Osakans from Tokyoites; rather, I hope to show that they have misapprehended its provenance and thus inadvertently distorted its meaning and significance.
Whereas Ôtani depicts the cultural relationship between Osaka and Tokyo
as a place-based cultural rivalry whose roots extend back into the mists oftime, I will portray it by contrast as a series of parries and thrusts in a cultural duel that threw the minions of the modern nation-state into a defensive posture from 1923. The cultural warfare between Osaka and Tokyo,
once Osakans reversed the “gaze” and Tokyoites wilted beneath it, did notalso result in a reversal of the vectors of cultural (no less political) power.
To the contrary, Osaka won a few battles only to lose the war. But thesecond city’s battles with the first city do teach us some important historical lessons, not the least of which is that nation-states aspire to the creationof national cultural hegemony and that the Japanese nation-state arguably
fought and won that war when Tokyo prevailed over Osaka.
Before we begin our examination of the interwar cultural rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo, it is important to address several salient theoretical issues. First, on the subject of cultural stereotyping, I would like to

9. I am indebted to Brian Chaney for this information.
10. Shinya Hasumi, “Osaka dialect gaining admirers.” Mainichi Daily News:
Mainichi Interactive (www.mainichi.co.jp//English/Japan/Kansai0626: Monday,
June 26, 2000).

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan235

draw some insights from the stimulating work of Michael Pickering.11
Pickering begins by observing––correctly, I think––that scholars too seldom deconstruct stereotypes analytically, preferring instead to dismiss themas irrational or malevolent. Given their ubiquity in modern life, however,stereotypes obviously deserve our attention; and Pickering makes several
suggestive points about them that help us to better understand the OsakaTokyo rivalry. Firstly, Pickering points out that stereotypes are “typifications” that are “simplifications,” usually created by a dominant “we” to pigeonhole an exploited “them.”12 Yet, although stereotypes usually assert
who “they” are, implicitly stereotypes actually tell us who “they” are not.
Without this us/them dynamic, suggests Pickering, stereotyping simply
doesn’t take place; and, equally important, stereotypes are not created before the fact of a relationship between two groups, but only as a way tojustify some preexisting pattern of exploitation.13 Secondly, says Pickering,“Stereotyping always operates in relation to what is culturally ambivalentand theoretically contradictory within everyday life, and does so as acommon-sense rhetorical strategy of naturalizing order and control. Stereotypes operate as socially exorcistic rituals in maintaining the boundaries ofnormality and legitimacy.”14 Despite their pretensions to “timelessness,”stereotypes “do not exist as common-places for all time,” continues Pickering. “They have a historical basis...[S]tereotyping is always a part of ongoing cultural processes and shifting symbolic relations.”15 He concludes withan observation that is particularly germane to the present study: “When asocial category becomes a stereotype it takes on the aura of myth...Stererotypes are history in drastic reverse.”16
While I cannot demonstrate categorically that there was no stereotyping
before the advent of the nation-state, I am convinced that conditions wereripe for the practice from the advent of the modern era. Where Japan isconcerned, this means the Meiji era, during which time the nation’s leaders
strove to invent national traditions. Among other things, this entailed thecreation of a purposefully packaged pastiche of social customs––strategically exaggerated, distorted, and exalted––that could be presented as Japanese national tradition with a capital “T.” As Stephen Vlastos observes in
the introduction to his collection of essays on the subject, in this process ofinvention the critical distinction between “tradition” and “custom” waselided. Defining “tradition” as something primarily “identified with superstructural institutions and elites,” Vlastos contrastingly characterizes “cus11. Michael Pickering, Stereotyping: The Politics of Representation (Hampshire,
UK and New York: Palgrave, 2001).
12. Ibid., pp. 47-78.
13. Ibid., p. 30.
14. Ibid., p. 45.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 48.

236

Jeffrey E. Hanes

tom” as “popular and capable of being mobilized by groups at society’sbase.” Paraphrasing Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, he observes that“traditions impose fixed practices, [while] custom is flexible, capable ofaccommodating a certain amount of innovation while still providing the
sanction of ‘precedent, social continuity, and natural law expressed in history.’ Accordingly, the invention of tradition functions ‘to structure at least
some parts of social life within it as unchanging and invariant.’ Finally, invented traditions are distinguished from other (genuine?) traditions by thefact that continuity with a historical past is largely fictitious.”17 I havequoted Vlastos at some length here because the distinction that he highlights between “custom” and “tradition” is precisely the one that was obscured by Meiji leaders in Tokyo anxious to promote national cultural hegemony and is now being obscured by Osakan chauvinists anxious toshake off the Tokyo cultural yoke. In both cases, the result is stereotyping––through what Pickering calls the “politics of representation”––and it myintention here to unpack the respective stereotypes of Osaka and Tokyo in
the interest of understanding the historical dynamic of their modern rivalry
between these two cities.18
Before I lay out the background of the modern feud that later grew intoa cultural duel between Osaka and Tokyo, allow me to touch briefly upon
the subject of cultural difference and custom in Japan. While it is my contention that the binaristic cultural rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo ismodern in origin, I do not mean to suggest that it is the source and inspiration of all the cultural differences that divide the proud inhabitants ofthese two places. Since their establishment toward the end of the sixteenth
century, these distant cities have traced widely divergent historical trajectories. Osaka’s urban identity as the central commercial entrepôt of theTokugawa regime, and Edo’s as its political capital, triggered the development of two very different ways of life in two very different urban settings.
In terms of their social and cultural customs, these early modern cities
could hardly have been more different. Let us briefly historicize their cultural differences. As the capital of a “centralized feudal” regime ruled by
the Tokugawa shoguns, Edo was in an urban class all its own. From theperspective of Osakans and others, it was the undisputed fount of politicalpower and authority. Yet, unlike its modern incarnation, Tokyo, Edo was
not also conceived as the fount of Japanese culture. The Tokugawa regime
had neither the motive nor the means to establish the sort of central cultural authority that would later be engineered by the leaders of the modern
nation-state. After all, national cultural hegemony is a distinctly modern
aspiration that reflects the peculiar concerns of centralizing nation-states.
17. Stephen Vlastos, ed., Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern
Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), pp. 3-4.
18. Pickeving, Stereotyping, pp. 47-78.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan

237

The Meiji oligarchs, for their part, deliberately invented traditions conceived to promote national cultural hegemony. Not only did they do so because the modern nation-state demanded cultural homogenization, however,
but because the early modern nation had never achieved anything approaching it.
When the Meiji leaders looked back on the early modern Japanese nation, what they saw was not the national cultural uniformity to which they
aspired but such local/regional cultural diversity as constituted a clear andpresent danger to that very objective. Although Edo-era Osaka was thus
compelled to acknowledge the political hegemony of Edo, it was relatively
free to celebrate its cultural distinctiveness. This unrivaled port city, colorfully referred to as Mizu no Miyako (the Capital of Water), was crisscrossed by canals and rivers spanned by the legendary “myriad bridges”(happyakuya bashi). As the central commercial entrepôt of the Tokugawa
regime, Osaka rapidly gained a reputation as the land of plenty. People
everywhere spoke of it as Tenka no Daidokoro (the Pantry of the Realm),
where such a panoply of potables and comestibles were marketed and consumed that it was possible to “eat ‘til you dropped” (kuidaore).
Writers such as Ihara Saikaku brought Edo-era Osaka to life with gripping stories of the lives of its townspeople (chônin); Kabuki and Bunraku
dramatists similarly staged plays that evoked the ethos of urban life; andforeign visitors such as the German doctor Engelbert Kaempfer testified
with their own eyes that the city was a “universal theater of pleasures anddiversions.” While all this lent a certain mystique to Osaka’s vibrant ethos,it did not impel anyone in Osaka (or elsewhere) to imagine the city as
Edo’s rival. While Edokko (the native sons and daughters of Edo) reputedly looked down their noses at Osakans as “country bumpkins,” the term
they used to put them down was “Kamigata zeiroku.” Rather than singlingout Osakans for cultural disdain, that is, they lumped Osakans together
with Kyotoites and thus extended the criticism to all who inhabited the Kamigata region (i.e., the Osaka-Kyoto area). This sort of equal opportunity
insult leveled by Edokko at their urban cousins to the west illustrates twothings: first, that cultural difference had yet to rise anywhere near the levelof cultural conflict; second, that cultural rivalry with Edo, such as it was,
was waged on a regional level.
For their part, Edo-era Osakans themselves seem to have been far moreconcerned with their reputation in the Kansai region than their status vis-àvis Edo. When Osakans represented their city to outsiders, they played up
an element of their urban identity that meant little to Edokko. On maps
and in tourist guidebooks, they commonly referred to Osaka by its ancient
name, Naniwa. With this specific appellation, Osakans forged a nostalgic
association with their city’s distant past, recalling the by-gone day when
Osaka had been the site of an imperial capital. That Osakans thus tacitly
compared their city to the neighboring cities of Kyoto and Nara, with their

238

Jeffrey E. Hanes

rich imperial histories, should give us pause. What this suggests is that
Osaka strove mightily to distinguish itself as a distinct urban culture––andthat it went so far as to compare itself with important cities nearby––butthat Osakans did not see the point in distinguishing their city from Edo.
Come the Meiji era, however, all bets were off in Japan’s urban cultural
sweepstakes. The complex early modern rivalries that we have described
were recast by a single epochal event: the establishment of the modern
nation-state. From 1868 forward, all eyes were trained on Tokyo. Equallyimportant, however, the wilting gaze of Tokyo was soon trained directly
on Osaka. In the first instance, this was arguably the result of Osaka’s illfated bid, spearheaded by the redoubtable Meiji oligarch Ôkubo
Toshimichi, to be named the Japanese national capital. Describing Osaka
as a port whose “maritime avenues led directly to foreign intercourse,”Ôkubo made his plea primarily on economic grounds.19 In the end result,
his plan was done in by a fellow oligarch. Maejima Hisoka, in his critique,observed that Osaka was nowhere near the center of Japan geographicallyand that its harbor could not accommodate seagoing ships. Adding that thecity was excessively small, that its streets were too narrow, and that it possessed no palaces or public buildings to speak of, he concluded that Osaka
was an utterly inappropriate choice for capital-dom. Interestingly, however,Maejima offered one last, prophetic justification for his position: that Edo,
deprived of its political identity, might wither and die, but that Osaka was
a commercial dynamo whose future was assured.20 On the latter count, as
is well known, Maejima was right as rain. Following some years of expensive port improvement and audacious industrial development, Osaka transformed itself into a commercial and industrial metropolis. While the city
thus proved itself up to the challenge of capitalism––and though its leadership doubtless recognized this as vindication of its failed bid to be named
the nation’s capital––there was no singing in the streets. For, despite thecity’s successes, Osakans discovered that the national leadership had consigned their city to second fiddle in the national urban band.
As if to remind Osakans of their proper place in the modern national urban hierarchy, in 1893 the Tokyo-based publication Shôgyô shiryô (Commercial Papers) printed a list of things not found in Osaka––among them,aristocrats, big spenders, gentlemen, libraries, gas lamps, two-horse carriages, and women in western dress. If this publication is to be believed, infact, Osaka was missing virtually all of the accouterments and icons ofmodern Civilization that the capital alone possessed.21 Some years later, in
19. Ôkubo Toshimichi, “Ôsaka sento ron” (1868). In Ôkubo Toshimichi monjo,
Volume 2 (Tokyo: Seikyôsha, 1927-29), pp. 191-194.
20. Kitazaki Toyoji, Bakumatsu Ishin no Ôsaka (Kyoto: Shôraisha, 1984), p. 109.
21. Quoted in Okamoto Ryôichi and Watanabe Takeru, Ôsaka no sesô (Osaka:
Mainichi Hôsô, 1973), pp. 323-324.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan239

a similar vein, the Tokyo-based Board of Tourist Industry for the Japanese
Government Railways produced a guidebook for foreign tourists that identified as Osaka’s greatest attraction its convenience to other more interesting places: “By far the greatest attraction of Osaka, from a tourist’s viewpoint, is that it is so near to many lovely cities and interesting places,
within a few hours by motor train such as Kyoto (26 miles), Kobe (20miles), Nara (18.8 miles) and a host of others celebrated for their exquisite
scenery and historical associations. Osaka’s notoriety as an ideal city to getaway from rests largely on this fact.”22 This was how modern Tokyoites“dissed” their urban cousins in Osaka: by reminding them of who they
were not.
This strangely dismissive promotion of Osaka was entirely consistent
with the historical agenda of Tokyo-centered national cultural hegemony(and also resonates, obviously, with Pickering’s observations about culturalstereotyping). Having invented traditions conceived to propagate a homogeneous Japanese national culture under the progressive rubric of “Civilization and Enlightenment” (bunmei-kaika), the Meiji leaders tacitly commissioned the inhabitants of the nation’s capital as cultural exemplars andmoral arbiters. Yet, once Osaka rose to urban economic supremacy toward
the turn of the century, Osakans suddenly began to talk back. In 1899,
Nakahashi Tokugorô, one of the city’s most prominent adoptive sons, wentso far as to revisit the idea that Osaka should be declared the national
capital. Noting that it was the “undisputed pivot of imperial commerce,”
this president of the Ôsaka Shôsen shipping company maintained that
Osaka alone among Japan’s major cities possessed the combined infrastructural strength of international shipping routes and domestic railway lines tobecome a “metropolis” (tokai) in the truest sense of the word.23
By the mid-1910s, as Osaka’s economy boomed and Osakan selfconfidence boomed with it, sarcasm gave way to criticism in the ongoing
cultural rivalry between Japan’s first and second cities. One poignant example of this shift in tone can be heard in a spontaneous public exchange
mediated by the Osaka Asahi Shinbun in September 1916. On the Englishlanguage page of the newspaper, where social commentary frequently
could be found, appeared a curious series of editorials on the subject of“Osakaism.” The first author, who identified himself only as a “Tokyo
Man,” got right to the point. Bluntly asserting that “the brains [of Osakans]are imbued with a strong desire for thrift and economy,” he cited as evidence the fact that they routinely insisted on carrying doggie bags homefrom dinner parties. Osakans, he concluded, were “clever in making money

22. Shunkichi Akimoto, The Lure of Japan (Tokyo: Board of Tourist Industry,
Japanese Government Railways, 1934), p. 81.
23. Nakahashi Tokugorô, Kôkokusakuron (Tokyo: Seikyôsha, 1913), pp. 526-536.

240

Jeffrey E. Hanes

and turning everything to good account.”24 This editorial repeated a hackneyed cultural stereotype: Osaka as an irredeemably commercial and commercialized city, so utterly crass that merchants greeted one another eachday not with a cheery konnichiwa (“good day”) but with a rousing môkarimakka (“So, are ya makin’ money”).25
Given the editorialist’s gracelessness and tastelessness, not to mention
his hubris as a “Tokyo Man” coming down on Osakans in an Osaka-based
newspaper, it will come as no surprise that his comments sparked heateddebate in subsequent issues. Over the following month, the character of
Osaka came under intense scrutiny. The first rebuttal to “Tokyo Man”
came from a proud regional ally of Osakans: a self-declared “Kobe Man,”
who entitled his contribution “Osakaism Misinterpreted.” Singing thepraises of Osakans, the author pointedly called them “Osakakko,” thus representing them as the dignified counterparts of “Edokko,” the venerable
sons and daughters of old Tokyo. Blanching at this comparison of Edokko
to Osakans, “Another Tokyo Man” went on to reiterate an observation
made by his comrade-in-arms (and words). Not only did Osakans “set store
by wealth above all things,” exhibiting a notorious lack of “moral culture,”
but they were in imminent danger of going the way of the Jews or the
Chinese.26
This ad hominem attack on Osakans (not to mention Jews and Chinese),
which tacitly identified them as a distinct ethnic group, sparked an equallyunrestrained reply. A writer who went only by the initials “J.P.S.” firstrose to the defense of the city and its inhabitants. He identified Osaka as“one of the most important commercial and industrial centers of the Far
East” and went on to praise Osakans as an extraordinarily “independent
people.” Rather than stopping here, however, “J.P.S.” went on the offensive, and pretty offensively at that. Bristling with righteous resentment at
the Tokyo writers who had assassinated the character of his beloved
Osakans, he dismissively characterized Tokyoites as their mirror opposites:
people hopelessly “dependent upon the influence of the Government forthe consummation of any enterprise, public or private.”27
Seemingly in an effort to neutralize the cultural vitriol that had beenheaped upon Osakans, then later upon Tokyoites, one final editorialist diplomatically declared the exchange one huge misunderstanding. He took theonus off Osakans and their alleged Osakaism by placing the blame for
their seeming crassness on the excesses of a small, unrepresentative minority of selfish materialists who had perpetuated what he conveniently labeled Ultra-Osakaism.”28
24. Ôsaka Asahi Shinbun (4 September 1916).
25. Ibid. (10 September 1916).
26. Ibid. (17 September 1916).
27. Ibid. (21 September 1916).
28. Ibid. (24 September 1916).

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan241

It is no accident, of course, that this controversy over “Osakaism” brokeout when it did. In 1916, Japan was in economic boom mode, and Osaka
was booming biggest of all. The new found wealth and nouveau ways of
the infamous narikin (nouveaux riche) and their hangers-on was met witha mixture of envy, dismissiveness, and resentment by Tokyoites. At thishistorical juncture, the incipient cultural rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo
rose to a new level––as a sort of sibling rivalry between the chônan (firstson) and the jinan (second son) of Japan’s modern urban family. Little didanyone suspect that this rivalry would soon be ratcheted up to a new level––as something that could truly be described as “ultra-Osakaism.” When
this full-blown cultural stereotype next took hold of the popular imagination, it gripped people’s attention. For, almost unbelievably, Osakaism appeared next as a transgressive force that threatened to topple Tokyoism andto seize national cultural hegemony.
The catalyst for this devolution of cultural relations between Osaka andTokyo was a historical event that was entirely unanticipated: the Great
Kanto Earthquake of 1923. No sooner did this horrible disaster lay Tokyo
to waste than it also called into question the hierarchical relationship between the nation’s capital and its second city. By at least three significant
measures––population, physical size, and economic wealth––Osaka would
become Japan’s biggest city by the 1920s and would remain so until 1936.
The huge government investment in post-earthquake reconstruction reassured Tokyoites that their city would be restored to its former glory.
Amidst the dislocation caused by the earthquake, however, a number ofTokyoites relocated to the Osaka area. Perhaps the most prominent of these
was the writer Tanizaki Junichirô, who immediately made it his business tohighlight the cultural gulf that separated Tokyo from his “temporary” newhome.
In his first essay about his new home in the Kansai, published in the literary journal Bungei shunjû in 1925, Tanizaki attested to a feeling of severe culture shock. His pointedly sarcastic “record of personal experiencein the Hanshin [area]” began with a disdainfully essentializing flourish.29“The people of Osaka are the sort of people who, as a matter of course, allow their children to piss on the train,” he wrote incredulously. “Were one
to relate this to people from Tokyo, they would surely be surprised. But
it’s nothing to scoff at. Indeed, twice with my own eyes, I have seen such
spectacles.”30 Tanizaki went on to describe other disturbing scenes: such asa couple on the train who placed their one-year-old child in the amidana,or net luggage rack, apparently for their own amusement, or the countlesspassengers who refused to make room for their fellow travelers, in some
29. Tanizaki Junichirô, “Hanshin kenbunroku” (1925). In Tanizaki Junichirô zenshû: Volume 20 (Tokyo: Chûô Kôronsha, 1982), pp. 60-67.
30. Ibid., p. 63.

242

Jeffrey E. Hanes

cases going so far as to place packages on the seat next to them. “Compared to Tokyoites,” asked Tanizaki rhetorically, “can it not be said thatthe citizens [of Osaka] on the whole lack public virtue (kôtokushin)?” The
writer then wrapped up his remarks with a thinly veiled insult: “Having
written previously about Kamigata cuisine, I have made an effort this time
to write about [local] people. But I have to say that the people are certainly lower class than their food.”31
Tanizaki’s remarks were likely met by Tokyoites with ribald laughter
punctuated by sighs of relief. But, if Tokyoites remained remarkably sanguine in 1925 about their cultural superiority, some had begun to waver
and worry by the end of the decade. By then, the cultural backwater of
Osaka so humorously described by Tanizaki seemed to be washing overthe capital. Or so thought the Tokyo-based, but Osaka-born, cultural critic,
Ôya Sôichi. In an essay written in 1929 for the Ôsaka Asahi Shinbun, thisastute cultural observer first provided a description of the vibrant new cultural ethos of Osaka, then went on to contrast this ethos to the moribund
mood of Tokyoites. Following a brief guided tour of his birthplace, whichleft him feeling like an étranger (a stranger in his own native land), Ôyafound himself transfixed by the “modernist” spirit of the city. He identified
this “modernism” with the “new consumer philosophy” and “new consumer lifestyle” that had taken root in Osaka during the boom years of theFirst World War. Memorably labeling Osaka the “America of Japan” (Nippon no Beikoku), Ôya thus compared Osaka with the western fount ofmass culture and consumerism in the capitalist age.32
Ôya went on to trace the consumerism of America, and by extensionthat of Osaka, to the “gospel of efficiency.” Adapted by white-collar workers (sarariiman) to the rigors of daily life––namely, to the basic demandsof food, clothing, and shelter––this “practical philosophy” had rapidly become the creed of capitalist consumers. Committed to deriving the greatest
benefit possible from their limited income, the sarariiman endeavored not
simply to maximize the efficiency of basic daily consumption but to extend this principle to the pursuit of pleasure and enjoyment (kyôraku seikatsu). Even in the recession-ridden world of 1929, marveled Ôya, “young
gentlemen (wakadanna) and white-collar workers (sarariiman) continued
to sing and dance in Osaka’s cafes and dance halls” as if yearly bonuses
were somehow automatic.33
For Ôya and others, what threw the actions of Osaka’s wakadanna andsarariiman into high relief was the sharp contrast with life among theirpeers in Tokyo. Making note of the widening “difference in lifestyle be31. Ibid., pp. 64-67.
32. Ôya Sôichi, “Ôsaka wa Nippon no Beikoku da” (December 1929). In Ôya
Sôichi zenshû: Volume 2 (Tokyo: Sôyôsha, 1981), pp. 146-148.
33. Ibid.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan243

tween the middle classes (chûkan kaikyû) of eastern and western Japan,”Ôya traced the disparity primarily to historical happenstance. Ever since
the Great Kanto Earthquake, he observed, Tokyo’s “middle classes” hadsteadily been thrust into a “desperate situation.” Gripped with fear thatthey might lose their jobs at a moment’s notice, the city’s sarariiman had
become so anxious about their daily lives that they thought twice about investing in monthly commuter rail passes. In an effort to draw out the contrast between the middle-class lifestyles of post-earthquake Tokyo andOsaka, respectively, Ôya tellingly likened life in Tokyo to life in postwar
Germany. Much as the First World War had driven Germany to its knees
and raised America to its feet, the Great Kanto Earthquake had reduced
Tokyo to a shadow of its former self––enabling Osaka to step into the cultural void. Whereas the sarariiman of Osaka continued to dance in thecity’s entertainment districts, observed Ôya, those of Tokyo “danced boisterously” but to a very different tune: the “uneasiness” of hopelessness.”34
More than a tad alarmed at the rise of Osakan “modernism,” Ôya decided to carry his cultural analysis one step further. His research left him
so apprehensive of Osaka’s burgeoning “consumer culture” (shôhi bunka)that he began to trace its wider impact on Japanese society as a whole. In
a second article, written in 1930, Ôya again shared his bleak findings withthe readers of the Ôsaka Asahi Shinbun. Ominously titled “The Tokyoization of Osaka and the Osaka-ization of Tokyo (“Ôsaka no Tôkyôka to
Tôkyô no Ôsakaka”), his article described the steady insinuation of the
Osakan lifestyle into the Tokyo way of life. While Osaka dialect had once
been a source of dismissive laughter in the capital, he noted, it could now
be heard everywhere. Not only did it ring out in cafes and dance halls, thecastles of consumer culture, it could be overheard in railway stations
downtown, at “high-collar culture houses” (haikara bunka jutaku) in thesuburbs, and on the team benches of elite college baseball teams. In thevaudeville houses and movie theaters of Tokyo––that is, in the meccas ofmodern media culture––Ôya anxiously observed that it was impossible toappreciate any entertainment at all without some knowledge of Osaka dialect.35
Having thus elicited evocative examples of the Osaka-ization of Tokyo,
Ôya strove to shock Tokyoites out of their cultural complacency. He reminded them, first of all, that times had changed. Prior to the Great Kanto
Earthquake, when Tokyo had been “the fount of Japanese culture” and Tokyoites had represented “all the people of Japan,” Osakans had been disdainfully derided as mimics who did their best to replicate the culture ofTokyo, but never managed to come close. In those by-gone days, it
34. Ibid.
35. Ôya Sôichi, “Ôsaka no Tôkyôka to Tôkyô no Ôsakaka” (March 1930). In
Ôya Sôichi zenshû: Volume 2 (Tokyo: Sôyôsha, 1981), pp. 143-145.

244

Jeffrey E. Hanes

seemed as if the “cultural supremacy” of Tokyo was unchallengeable. But
those days were gone, wrote Ôya ominously: “Osaka has graduallyachieved industrial and economic supremacy. Now, as its consumer culture
is similarly achieving supremacy, Osaka threatens first to place Tokyo,
then all of Japan, under its influence.”36
Following six months of meditation on Osaka’s consumer culture, punctuated by several visits to the site of his waking nightmare, Ôya foundhimself at an editorial crossroads. What he had once considered an amusing cultural development centered in Osaka, and had then recast as a national cultural trend spearheaded by Osaka, he had finally come to identify as an ominous new cultural ethos mediated by Osaka. Spinning out his
new thesis in a long Ôsaka Mainichi Shinbun article entitled “The Conquest of Japan by Osakan Culture,” Ôya bluntly predicted that Osaka’s“newly-risen culture” (shinkô bunka) would soon achieve national cultural
hegemony. With obvious ambivalence, he told the story of Osaka’s growing cultural influence––in the course of which its Americanesque culture
had acted as the vanguard of a cultural revolution, just a step away from“conquering Japanese culture” as a whole.37
Placing this development in historical perspective, Ôya recalled that theKansai area (and Osaka within it) had dictated the terms of Japanese culture up through the Edo era. Indeed, during the over thousand-year reignof urban Kansai as a virtual “museum of Japanese culture,” Edo had subsisted as one its “colonial cities.” According to Ôya, however, all thischanged in the Meiji era. With the introduction of a modern “Western culture” based on “technological civilization,” cultural hegemony had shiftedfrom the Kansai to the Kanto. Ôya observed that this new modern culture,
explicitly modeled on the West, was brokered by the Japanese state fromand within the Japanese capital of Tokyo. In 1923, when the Great Kanto
Earthquake literally destroyed this “cultural core,” it was as if “the entire
nation had lost its brain.” Given that the First World War had earlier destroyed the British, French, and German civilizations on which Japan had
modeled its modern culture, argued Ôya, the Japanese nation was thus hit
with a double whammy. Even if the state had been able to immediately resuscitate Tokyo after the quake, there was no longer a model of European
culture to emulate.38
In the wake of the Great Kanto Earthquake, which came on the heels of
the First World War, Japan found itself in the grips of a cultural crisis.
Globally, claimed Ôya, two new “cultural types” (bunka no kata) hadcome to the fore: the “social culture nurtured by Soviet Russia” and the36. Ibid.
37. Ôya Sôichi, “Ôsaka bunka no Nippon seifuku” (June 1930). In Ôya Sôichi
zenshû: Volume 2 (Tokyo: Sôyôsha, 1981), pp. 148-158.
38. Ibid., pp. 148-153.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan

245“100 percent capitalist culture produced by America, the world’s greatest
nouveau riche nation (narikin koku).”39 In Japan, with the ascendancy ofOsaka, American capitalist culture had seized the day. Having imported
and steadily cultivated American culture, Japan’s second city now stood ina position to launch its capitalist values into the cultural void left by thedestruction of its first city.
Ôya described Osaka’s American culture as a “lifestyle culture” (seikatsu bunka) based on consumer economics––one that “shone forth as a
new wonder [of the world]” in the electric urban nightscape of cafes,
dance halls, and department stores––but he ultimately attributed this culture
to the unique “enterprise of people from the Kansai” (Kansaijin no jigyô).
Singling out the Kansai’s suburban train network as a prime example of“structure, planning, and investment,” Ôya praised it as a model of economy, comfort, and efficiency. In short, he represented it as the iconic embodiment of Osaka’s core cultural values. He contrasted this “superb” railway system, in turn, to Tokyo’s extensive but woefully inadequate one,reasoning that it was only a matter of time before his fellow Japanese jettisoned the “idealistic, decorative culture” of Tokyo and embraced in its
stead the “practical, utilitarian culture” of Osaka.40
Ôya went on portentously to observe that Osaka was investing heavily
in Tokyo’s reconstruction and was thus accomplishing the de facto “Kansai-ization” of the Kanto. Equally important, however, he noted that Osaka
was using the media to orchestrate this takeover––offering us an interesting
twist to Benedict Anderson’s argument about the role of newspapers increating the “imagined community” of the nation-state. Taking advantageof their position at the center of Japan’s modern print culture, thenationally-circulated Ôsaka Asahi and Ôsaka Mainichi newspapers were
propagating Osakan values; and American-modeled, Osaka-based illustrated mass magazines such as the Sunday Mainichi were splashing
Osaka’s new “lifestyle culture” across their colorful pages. “Before long,”
predicted Ôya, “Japanese will embrace an outlook on life commensuratewith that of a capitalist [consumer] society.” Labeling this development“Americanism/Osakaism,” he declared it a “cutting edge culture” (sentan
bunka) that threatened first to “conquer and control” Tokyo, then to “subjugate the rest of Japan”––unless and until Tokyo and Tokyoites reassumed
their rightful position of national cultural hegemony.41
Ôya was joined in his escalating anti-Osakaism by the film director
Mizoguchi Kenji, among others, whose classic melodrama “Osaka Elegy”(“Naniwa Ereji,” 1936) depicted the city as a capitalist dystopia where men
and mammon ran rampant, corrupting the future mothers of the nation by
39. Ibid., p. 154.
40. Ibid., pp. 156-158.
41. Ibid.

246

Jeffrey E. Hanes

making them into moga (modern girls).42 In the last analysis, I would argue, Ôya, Mizoguchi, and other critics like them succumbed to a kind ofcultural paranoia, or what Pickering call’s “moral panic”. Taken aback by
Osaka’s sudden rise to prominence, they allowed their fears to get the bestof them. Rather than projecting a pluralistic model of national culture that
acknowledged the history and customs of the nation’s second city, they resorted to a defense of the metropole that portrayed its invented traditions
as universal and absolute.
Whereas Ôya and Mizoguchi shrank from the prospect of a multicultural
nation, choosing instead to exaggerate the binaristic cultural rivalry between Osaka and Tokyo and to throw their weight behind the metropole,
one other, equally influential opinion maker suddenly reversed his field.
Admitting to the error of his ways, Tanizaki Junichiro openly confessed
his earlier “antipathy” (hankan) toward the Kamigata area (and more specifically toward Osaka) and resolved to put things right. This acerbic critic,
who had once declared Osakans a people devoid of “civic virtue,” proffered a retraction in 1932. In an article entitled, “Osaka and Osakans Observed,” published in the national journal of opinion Chûô Kôron, thewriter confessed to his foibles as an Edokko.43 Noting trenchantly that
Kyoto was commonly considered the mistress of Osaka, he hastened to addthat Tokyoites vilified Osaka less out of contempt for its deficiencies thanout of fear of its strength as a “metropolis” (dai tokai) that threatened thevery identity of the capital.44 Indeed, insisted Tanizaki, there was an argument to be made that the Kansai rather than the Kanto was most typicallyJapanese and that Osakans truly embodied the spirit of the nation.45
Tanizaki, who had once portrayed himself as a stranger in a strange land,
now declared Osaka his “second homeland” (dai ni no furusato).46 Admitting that he had earlier succumbed to the deep-seated chauvinism of the
Edokko, Tanizaki redeemed himself by turning the cultural tables on Tokyo. Whereas he had earlier played up his old identity as a native son ofTokyo, providing examples of crass Osakan behavior, the expatriate now
produced positive portraits of Osakan life conceived to burst the selfrighteous bubble of Tokyoites. Tanizaki noted that Osaka’s dense urban
42. For an analysis of this film, see Jeffrey E. Hanes (Jiefurii E. Heinzu; trans.
Endô Tomomi), “Taishû bunka/ka’i bunka/minshû bunka: senkan-ki no Nihon no
toshi bu ni okeru kindai seikatsu.” In Yoshimi Shunya, ed., Toshi no kûkan/toshi
no shintai (Tokyo: Keisô shobô, 1996), pp. 114-121.
43. Tanizaki Junichirô, “Watashi no mita Ôsaka oyobi Ôsakajin.” In Tanizaki
Junichirô zenshû: Volume 20 (Tokyo: Chûô kôronsha, 1968), pp. 347-397.
44. Ibid., p. 352.
45. Ibid., pp. 394-395.
46. As Ken Ito compellingly argues, however, what Tanizaki really discovered
was a “a home that was another world.” See Ken K. Ito, Visions of Desire: Tanizaki’s Fictional Worlds (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), pp. 110-111.

Osaka versus Tokyo: The Cultural politics of Local Identity in Modern Japan247

neighborhoods provided a sense of community that Tokyo’s sprawlingones discouraged; that the local custom of exchanging newspapers (leaving
one’s own behind for others to read) was not a sign of parsimony, but ofrational, efficient, egalitarian behavior; and that the much-reviled Osaka intelligentsia was infinitely more manly and progressive than its pallid Tokyo counterpart.47 If Tanizaki thus took some of the sting out of Ôya’s andMizoguchi’s intemperate criticism of Osakan culture, he hardly put an end
to the bitter binaristic rivalry that they helped whip up. Fatefully, instead,this rivalry was simply removed to the proverbial back burner in the coming years––as nationalism trumped all forms of regionalism and the state
impressed a transcendent form of cultural hegemony on the nation as awhole.
No sooner did the Pacific War end, however, than Osakans and Tokyoites were once again at one another’s throats. In answer to the negative cultural stereotyping to which Osakans were again subjected, the popular
Osaka writer Oda Sakunosuke took to composing increasingly elegiac portraits of the city. In one, pointedly entitled “City of Trees” (“Ki no Miyako”), he confronted those who would put down his beloved city as alifeless, gray, industrial metropolis.48 Tragically, according to the urban
legend that even today allegoricizes Oda’s life, this proudest of Osakan native sons was done in not merely by the tuberculosis that wracked his body,but by the cold indifference of those who failed to relieve his pain. As the
Osaka bundan (literary world) spun the story of his death, Oda’s collapse
from tuberculosis on a Tokyo commuter train in 1947 only resulted indeath because the attending Tokyo physicians were uncaring and incompetent. Or, as one proud Osaka partisan allegedly put it, “Tôkyô no yatsura
ni korosareta”: Oda was “done in by those guys from Tokyo.”
In 1961, as Japan’s postwar economic miracle materialized, someTokyoites briefly, if also nervously, fretted about the resurgence of Osaka
dialect as a fad.49 But Tokyo’s postwar rise as the nation’s undisputed political and cultural epicenter, combined with its new status as a “worldcity,” seems to have left Tokyoites largely disinterested in the cultural rivalry that once seemed to dominate their politics of local identity. The
same cannot be said of Osakans, however, and certainly not of Osakaologists: Tokyo remains their bête-noire. The cover of Ôtani Kôichi’s recently-published sequel, Osakaology: On Customs, says it all. The conventionalized manga that graces the cover, drawn by the cartoonist Ishii Hisaichi,
47. Tanizaki, “Watashi no mita Ôsaka oyobi Ôsakajin,” passim.
48. Oda Sakunosuke, “City of Trees.” In Oda Sakunosuke (trans. Burton Watson), Stories of Osaka Life (New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill, Inc., 1994), pp.
107-124.
49. I am grateful to Jayson Chun for alerting me to this fact. See Suesugi Setsuko, “Ôsaka ben bûmu.” Shisô no kagaku, 27 (March 1961), pp. 54-57.

248

Jeffrey E. Hanes

depicts an ethnographer (Ôtani himself?) asking three caricatured foreign
informants for their impressions of Osaka. The first offers the opinion that“Osaka closely resembles New York,” the second that “it is just like Hong
Kong,” and the third that “it also resembles Damascus, as a matter offact.” Taken up short, the ethnographer stares intently at his notes. “So,”he blurts out in Osaka dialect, “I guess the only place that Osaka doesn’t
resemble is Tokyo.”50
Paradoxically, in this humorous scenario, Osaka, not Tokyo, is the true
“world city”––so cosmopolitan that it recalls New York, Hong Kong, andDamascus. In the introduction to his book, in fact, Ôtani goes to identify
Osaka as the nation’s true metropole: “The subject of this book is Osaka,
but this encompasses more than the theme suggests. Naturally, we will go
inside Osaka, but the reason for focusing on Osaka is simply to narrow theview. This book might as well be called ‘Japanology: On Customs.’”51 Not
able realistically to challenge the cultural hegemony of Tokyo, Ôtani andhis fellow Osakaologists have altered the thrust of their argument aboutplace-based cultural identity. They have convinced themselves (and are out
to persuade us as well) that, culturally speaking, Japan is Osaka (not Tokyo) writ large. This latest conceptual twist is both stunning and satisfying
in its dismissal of the cultural hegemony of the capital, and it is certainly
tempting to mount a Spivakian defense of the move in the spirit of “strategic essentialism.” But, in the final analysis, Ôtani’s claim to Osakan superiority is no less culturally arrogant in its way than the Tokyo centrism it
rebuffs.
No more “natural” than the Tokyo-centric national culture that it rejects,
the Osaka-centered regional culture that Osakaologists champion is a pastiche of local customs passed off as timeless Tradition. Still, it is hard not
to feel some sympathy for the cultural underdogs, whose benign delusionof cultural superiority has, after all, been bent to the worthy cause of local
cultural autonomy. In the stale cultural atmosphere of the postwar Japanesenation-state, where Tokyo centrism both reigns and rules, Osakaology
might also be regarded as a welcome strategy of resistance.

50. Ôtani Kôichi, Ôsakagaku: sesô hen, cover.
51. Ibid., p. 3.

Chapter 12
Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing
Local Identities in Japan*
E. Taylor Atkins

I Introduction
Ronald Toby’s accomplishments and contributions to Japanese studies
are so intimidatingly abundant, it would be all but impossible either toenumerate or to digest them all. There is little doubt that his debunking of
the sakoku myth will be his most readily remembered legacy, for thereby
he placed a country previously regarded as peculiarly aloof and isolationist
squarely within the sweep of early modern world history. Each of the contributors to this volume has been influenced by particular aspects of his
work. In my own case, I have found his virtuosic use of (for lack of a better term) “non-verbal” sources (e.g., woodblock prints, pictorial encyclopediae, maps, etc.) to be particularly instructive and inspiring. Utilizing materials that had previously been the exclusive domain of art historians, aesthetes, and connoisseurs, Professor Toby has taught us many lessons about
how Japanese of various social categories imagined themselves in relation
to their immediate neighbors in East Asia and myriad peoples in more distant lands. His example made it seem all the more feasible for me to pursue research on Japanese notions of identity by using musical evidence. In
much the same way that Professor Toby has mixed traditional historicalmethods with anthropological theories and fieldwork (including personalobservations of festivals in which participants masqueraded as early modern Koreans), the essay that follows employs an eclectic evidentiary baseto understand how Japanese imagine themselves in relation to their fellow*. I read an earlier draft of this essay in 1995 at the Ph.D. Kenkyūkai at International House of Japan, Tokyo, and at the Midwest Conference on Asian Affairs at
the University of Missouri-St. Louis. I am grateful for comments received at both
meetings.
249

250

E. Taylor Atkins

countrymen, their immediate neighbors, and the wider world, via the art ofjazz.
If it were possible to be in more than one place at one time, then early
October would be an opportune moment to be a jazz fan in Japan. On thesame autumn weekend, the Yokohama Jazz Promenade and the Kōbe Jazz
Street, two of the East Asian archipelago’s biggest jazz festivals, attract
hundreds of musicians and thousands of enthusiasts to swing with abandon,
while marinating in the unique local auras of these self-styled “exotic” port
cities. But the fortuitously omnipresent jazzbo would doubtless discern dissonance in the historical narratives presented in the advertising for theserespective events: while Promenade promotions declare, “Now, as always,
jazz is Yokohama” (ima mo, mukashi mo, jazu wa Yokohama), Kōbe ads
proclaim their city to be “the cradle of Japanese jazz” (Nihon no jazu no
hasshōchi).
Jazz reached Japanese shores at roughly the same time that the first
American jazz recordings were made. The music rapidly entranced urban
mods but also sparked outrage among those determined to protect nativesocial and aesthetic mores from its influence. Jazz was, simply put, a major source of contention, exacerbating generational, socioeconomic, andaesthetic cleavages in a century of continual upheaval. But as the curtain
closed on that most remarkable of centuries, several Japanese cities actively embraced and promoted jazz as an essential ingredient of their distinctive local auras. As municipalities since the 1970s have sought to identify, preserve, and promote local identities, and thereby attract tourists,
Yokohama, Kōbe, and Yokosuka, in particular, have embellished their respective places in Japan’s jazz history and developed competing events andfestivals that celebrate local jazz heritage.
Elsewhere I have argued that jazz artists and aficionados developed avariety of musical and discursive strategies to authenticate a foreign art
form performed and appreciated by Japanese.1 Here I investigate the ways
in which local governments and citizens’ groups have used jazz to authenticate their local identities and their place in a national narrative of internationalization (kokusaika). The appropriation of jazz––hailed by so many as
the quintessential global music––as an integral element of local identities
is indicative of a number of important themes in contemporary Japaneseexperience: the quest to define distinctive local identities, in spite of (if coincident with) the ubiquity of totalizing notions of Japanese national homogeneity; the centrality of cosmopolitan experience to that process of local,

1. E. Taylor Atkins, Blue Nippon: Authenticating Jazz in Japan (Durham: Duke
UP, 2001).

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan251

indigenous identity formation;2 and the concomitant aesthetic, social, andinstitutional legitimization of an art once regarded as emblematic of cultural imperialism and the annihilation of indigenous social and aesthetic
values.
The process by which local identity, community pride, and sense ofplace are created and commodified through music is by no means uniqueto Japan. Both New Orleans and Kansas City boast jazz museums testifying to their importance in the music’s history; St. Louis purportedly gave
us ragtime, while Chicago and Helena, Arkansas, claim blues as distinctive
local products; and Memphis portrays itself as the maternity ward where“the blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll.” These appropriations––designed to engender pride of place in locals and to render place
into product for the tourists––necessitated significant reevaluation of themusical styles involved and the people who created them. Jazz, originally
blasting from the bordellos of Storyville, was a source of shame to respectable New Orleans until its value as consumable curio became apparent. In
all of these cities, the African Americans responsible for creating so muchof the music did so as literal outsiders, whose homes, schools, businesses,
and night spots were spatially and symbolically segregated from the rest of
town. The appropriation of their music as a distinctive local commodity
entailed retroactively embracing them as native sons and daughters, giving
them and their art a legitimacy few of them lived long enough to enjoy.
By the 1970s, Lawrence Levine writes, a critical consensus not only acknowledged jazz as a legitimate art, but also conceded that jazz had “transform[ed] our sense of art and culture,” and “bridged the gap between all of
the categories that divided culture; a music that found its way through thefences we use to separate genres of expressive culture from one another.”3
In the context of Jim Crow America, the appropriation, assimilation, andlegitimation of African American music by municipal governments andcultural institutions invariably dominated by white Americans was every
bit as sensational a gesture as their Japanese counterparts’ embrace of jazzas indigenous cultural commodity. Still, it remains remarkable that a musicthat most Japanese have long regarded as alien maintains any authentic potency at all for evoking a sense of “native place” (furusato). It is said that
2. See Jennifer Robertson, “It Takes a Village: Internationalization and Nostalgia
in Postwar Japan,” in Stephen Vlastos, ed., Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 110-29; andDavid M. Potter, “Who in the World is Hasekura Tsunenaga? Presentation and Appropriation of Local Symbols in Provincial Japan,” in Douglas Slaymaker, ed., A
Century of Popular Culture in Japan (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2000),
pp. 155-75.
3. Lawrence W. Levine, “Jazz and American Culture,” in The Unpredictable
Past: Explorations in American Cultural History (New York: Oxford UP, 1993), p.
186.

252

E. Taylor Atkins

enka, the maudlin genre that most Japanese of the first postwar generations
would consider to be the musical expression of the nation’s soul, most effectively conjures nostalgic longings for native place.4 Urban Japanese detached from their rural roots can, through enka, vicariously return to unspoiled landscapes marked with “forested mountains, fields cut by a meandering river, and a cluster of thatched-roof farmhouses,” thus recapturing a“desirable lifestyle aesthetic” of “artlessness and rustic simplicity.”5Though musically enka is an eclectic genre, its lyrics evoke a pure, unaffected, insular, and quintessential Japaneseness, spatially rooted in themountain hamlets and fishing villages which many believe are their true
“native places.” Furthermore, in much the same way that American rappers
must demonstrate their “street cred,” and country and western singers are
obliged to exemplify a folksy “downhome” quality, successful enka singers
are likewise compelled to establish a “continuing link” to the provincial furusato.6
But jazz as indigenous cultural artifact suggests an alternative view offurusato and of modern Japanese experience: native place need not be pureand sequestered; it can also be the site where alien cultures are encountered, debated, tamed, and assimilated. The enka narrative is one of loss
and cultural atrophy: Christine Yano refers to enka as “Japan’s internalmonologue,” which seems to say, “We long for our Japanese selves.”7 But
this depiction of modern Japanese experience is inverted in the jazzy narrative to valorize the “progress” and cosmopolitan awareness of kokusaika.
Jazz thus authenticates the experience of those Japanese to whom enka
does not speak, for whom an artless village life holds neither meaning nor
attraction, to whom “native place” is where they became acclimated to exoticism, and to whom authentic “Japaneseness” means openness and eclecticism rather than insularity and purity.
What follows is a description and analysis (based on fieldwork conducted primarily in Yokohama in the mid-1990s) of this process by which
local identity is established in Japan through the invention of “jazztowns.”
II Sinking Roots
In the early 1980s, the Yokohama City Planning Bureau unveiled its
ambitious machi-zukuri (“town building”) plan, a blueprint to guide and
4. See for instance Minami Hiroshi and Shakai Shinri Kenkyujo, eds., Shōwa
bunka 1945-1989 (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1990), pp. 282-8; and Christine Yano,“Longing for Furusato: The Shaping of Nostalgia in Japanese Popular Enka
Songs,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Ph.D. Kenkyūkai Conference on Japanese Studies (Tokyo: The International House of Japan, 1994), pp. 75-95.
5. Robertson, “It Takes a Village,” p. 116.
6. Yano, “Longing for Furusato,” p. 81.
7. Yano, “Longing for Furusato,” p. 88.

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan253

promote the economic and social development of each ward for the twenty-first century. The cardinal principle of machi-zukuri––a variation of thecatchphrase furusato-zukuri 8 ––in Yokohama was to shape the port city’s
future in a manner congruous with its unique heritage as the “window”
through which western European and North American cultures blew into
Japan.9 Like most Japanese cities, Yokohama has had to define itself in relation to Tokyo and to contend with the capital’s seemingly irresistablegravitational pull, which sucks all political and economic function into its
own core. Yokohama is particularly cursed by its proximity to the monstrous metropolis, effectively rendering the port city––with a population
roughly that of Chicago’s––into a “bedtown” for commuters to the capital.
Little wonder then that Mayor Takahide Hidenobu urged Hamakko (Yokohama natives) to work for the realization of a “New City Yokohama,” atown in which “anyone can be proud and happy to live.”10
Similarly jinxed by the nearness of Osaka, Kōbe seems to have pursued
a furusato-zukuri strategy similar to that of Yokohama: playing up its historical status as a kokusai toshi (“international city”), the place where foreign influences in technology, arts and architecture, business practices, andso on, were first introduced and applied. Were it not for the active ports of
Yokohama and Kōbe (whose name translates as “Sacred Door”), local historians and city promoters tell us, Japan would not have ice cream, gaslights, railroads, beer, or jazz. Neither city has allowed the sites of their respective former foreign settlements to deteriorate or go unrecognized: Yokohama’s Bluff and Kōbe’s Kitano-chō are among the cities’ most lovely
and frequently-visited districts; both cities also boast prominent Chinatowns. Tokyo and Osaka may imagine themselves to be the most internationalized of Japanese cities, but Yokohama and Kōbe both claim much of
the credit for making them that way: indeed, Asami Shigeki’s lengthy listof Yokohama innovations is subtitled “reading Yokohama, one can see Japan.” If modern Japanese have been open to foreign ideas and influence, it
is because they have followed the examples set by Hamakko and theirKōbe counterparts, who first lived with the foreign devils, played with
their toys, and danced to their music.
In playing up their “exotic” histories of cohabiting with aliens and ingesting their cultures, Yokohama and Kōbe promoters were consistent withmajor trends in domestic tourism campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. As
8. Jennifer Robertson, Native and Newcomer: Making and Remaking a JapaneseCity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), p. 32; Robertson, “It Takes a
Village,” pp.117-8; and Potter, p. 157.
9. Asami Shigeki, Yokohama hajimete monogatari: Yokohama o yomu, Nihon ga
mieru (Tokyo: Mikōsha, 1988), p. 51; and Yokohama-shi Toshi Keikakukyoku,ed., Plan for Yokohama––Yokohama no machi-zukuri (Yokohama: Match & Co.,
1991).
10. Yokohama-shi Toshi Keikakukyoku, Plan for Yokohama, p. 1.

254

E. Taylor Atkins

described by anthropologist Marilyn Ivy, the 1970s witnessed the Japan
National Railway’s “Discover Japan,” which encouraged a nativist “(re)discovery” of provincial roots; but this campaign was supplanted in the following decade by the “Exotic Japan” project, which portrayed “all of Japan––whether pristinely native or recently imported” as a “montage of exotic [and consumable] objects.”11 But whereas much of the imagery employed in the campaign to exoticize the national homeland evoked Japan’sancient links to exotic continental (Indian and Chinese) civilizations, theYokohama and Kōbe efforts address much more recent history, exoticizing
those Western-derived commodities and customs which most Japanese takefor granted as part of their everyday existence. In their respective attempts
to define and valorize native place, Yokohama and Kōbe promoters mustremind native and newcomer alike that beer and baseball, jitterbugging andjazz came from somewhere else, sinking roots locally before sweeping thenation.
III The Cutting Contest
In the last two decades, jazz seems to have become a particularly prominent element of this furusato-as-kokusai toshi self-image, no doubt because
prominent civic positions are filled by jazz fans determined to advocate themusic they love and raise its profile. It is also likely that the appropriationof jazz as local cultural artifact is the result of both the music’s stabilized
status as a legitimate art and avocation, and the rising profile of individual
Japanese artists in the international jazz scene, in the last three decades of
the twentieth century.
From the time of its introduction in the 1920s, through the years of militarism, “spiritual mobilization,” and total war, and well into and beyond
the Occupation era, jazz occupied an ambiguous cultural space that Japanese found irresistably fascinating yet undeniably frightening. The tensions
that tore at modern Japanese society––nativism vs. cosmopolitanism, purity
vs. hybridity, social stability vs. upheaval, and aesthetic edification vs. degradation––were acted out on the dance floors, on the bandstands, and invigorous “jazz debates.” Young urban modernites enjoyed the sense of personal liberation and smug hipness the music conferred, while their parents,social scientists, and government officials fretted that jazz encouraged frivolity, licentiousness, and individualism, effectively rending Japan’s social
fabric. But by the 1970s some three generations had grown up with jazz;rock and roll had stolen its thunder as a vehicle for adolescent discontent;
and jazz was deemed no more responsible for the erosion of native social

11. Marilyn Ivy, Discourses of the Vanishing: Modernity, Phantasm, Japan(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 51.

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan255

and aesthetic mores than were industrial capitalism, political democracy,
and militant feminism. Less than three decades after an official wartime
government ban made Japan hell for jazz fans, Japan was internationallyrenowned as “jazz heaven” (jazu tengoku, or as France’s Jazz Magazine
declared in 1975, the world’s nouveau paradis du jazz), a place where underappreciated American and even European artists could record and gig ina climate of respect, historical awareness, and quiet awe.
Moreover, after decades of suffering a reputation as singularly imitative
and unimaginative poseurs, a handful of Japanese jazz artists emerged in
the sixties and seventies who developed national and international reputations as original and uninhibited improvisors and composers. Elvin Jones,
Sonny Rollins, and Art Blakey recruited Japanese sidemen; Boston’s prestigious Berklee School of Music welcomed promising youngsters from theEast Asian archipelago on a regular basis (it is said that in the 1990s Japanese regularly constituted ten percent of the Berklee student population);12
and individuals such as Akiyoshi Toshiko, Watanabe Sadao, Hino Terumasa, Aki Takase, Watanabe Kazumi, Tiger Okoshi, Matsumoto “Sleepy”
Hidehiko, Kawasaki Ryō, and Yamashita Yōsuke were regularly invited torecord and perform in Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Akiyoshi’s triple victory in the 1980 Downbeat poll (in the big band, composer, and arranger categories), the year after Ezra Vogel’s Japan as Number One put the western world on economic alert, signified that Japanese
could create exemplary jazz and even best their American counterparts.
The legitimation of jazz as a pure art and benign social force, and thelegitimation of native sons and daughters as superlative jazz artists, wereperhaps necessary preconditions for the official appropriation of the musicas a municipal symbol with community-building potential. In this climateof acceptance, Yokohama and Kōbe both advanced claims as the “cradle ofJapanese jazz” (Nihon no jazu no hasshōchi)––each apparently ignoring
the pretensions of the other––and used local cultural media to retell themusic’s history in Japan in a manner magnifying local contributions. Furthermore, each city developed public festivals to celebrate local jazz heritage and thus enhance their respective self-images as the vanguards of internationalization in Japan.
Hamakko appear to have been the more aggressive claimants to jazz, if
at times overplaying their hand in the “cutting contest” to own the music.
The inaugural issue (December 1991) of the free culture monthly Yokohama bunka jōhōshi was devoted to claiming jazz as a distinctive local
product. Recounting the story of ocean liner bandsmen who traversed thePacific in the 1910s and 1920s, explored San Francisco’s music halls and12. Craig McTurk, Tokyo Blues: Jazz and Blues in Japan (documentary film,1999).

256

E. Taylor Atkins

instrument stores, “traded their violins for saxophones,” and brought ragtime, fox trots, and jazz back to Japan, the article’s anonymous author
leaves little room for doubt that Yokohama was peculiarly “blessed as thesoil on which jazz was raised.”13 Subsequent issues of Yokohama bunka jōhōshi (as well as other local bulletins such as Yokohama no tayori, Yokohama Echo, HamaJazz, and Kōhō Yokohama) reiterated that “jazz came byship” (jazu wa fune ni notte yattekita);14 though not neglecting to list Kōbeas one of the stops on the ocean liner routes that connected San Francisco
and Seattle to Manila, Shanghai, and Yokohama, the narrators of the“Yokohama Jazz Story” (Yokohama jazu monogatari) present their city as
chronologically the first and sole port of entry for jazz.
The relationship between Hamakko and jazz deepened with the years,
we are told. The first commercial dance hall, Kagetsuen, opened in the
Tsurumi district in 1920, followed by several others so that by 1930 thecity boasted a half dozen such establishments. Composer Hattori Ryōichi(1907-1993) was reportedly inspired to write his first “Japanese blues”(1938’s “Wakare no burūsu”) while nursing a drink in a bar in the Honmoku district.15 The unusually heavy concentration of African American
soldiers in Yokohama during the Occupation (1945-1952) made the port
city a jazz “boom town,” where aspiring Japanese beboppers could develop“hip chops” on the bandstand with jazz greats like Hampton Hawes andHarold Land.16 Japan’s oldest jazz cafe, Chigusa, founded in 1933 and resurrected from the ashes of war in the late 1940s by Yoshida Mamoru(1913-1994), became the hangout/schoolroom where rising stars such as
Watanabe Sadao, Moriyasu Shōtarō (1924-1955), and Akiyoshi Toshikostudied the latest US recordings.17 Years after Yoshida (recipient of the
Yokohama Culture Prize in 1986) died, Chigusa remains a monument to
the local roots of jazz, drawing aficionados from around the country on

13. “Tokushū: ‘hajimaru’ Yokohama no ongaku JAZZ,” Yokohama bunka jōhōshi 1 (Dec. 1991): pp. 3-9.
14. Tatsumi Mitsuyoshi, “Jazu wa fune ni notte yattekita!” Yokohama bunka jōhōshi 31 (Sept. 1994): pp. 1-7; “Jazu no furusato’ apiiru Yokohama Jazz Promenade,” Yokohama bunka jōhōshi 22 (Dec. 1993): p. 12; “Yokohama ōrai: Yokohama to jazu,” Kōhō Yokohama (April 1994). See also Obata Yoshinobu, “Jazu,”
in Kanagawa-ken Hyakka Jiten Kankōkai, Kanagawa-ken hyakka jiten (Tokyo:
Yamato Shobō, 1983), p. 572.
15. Hattori Ryōichi, Boku no ongaku jinsei (Tokyo: Chūō Bungeisha, 1982), pp.
141-2.
16. Uchida Kōichi, Nihon no jazu shi: senzen, sengo (Tokyo: Swing Journal,1976), p. 202; Honda Toshio, Jazu (Tokyo: Shin Nihon Shuppansha, 1976), p. 47;
and Honda Toshio, “Talk and Jazz: ‘Yokohama Story,’” Forum Yokohama Matsuri,
Oct. 23, 1994.
17. Yoshida Mamoru, Yokohama jazu monogatari: ‘Chigusa’ no 50 nen (Yokohama: Kanagawa Shinbunsha, 1985).

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan257

what writer Hiraoka Masaaki calls “jazz cafe pilgrimages” (jazu kissa junrei).18 All of this evidence is invoked to appropriate jazz as a Yokohama“trademark,” to remap the city as the “native place of jazz” (jazu no furusato).19
The “Yokohama Jazz Story” is challenged (albeit usually indirectly) byother municipalities claiming credit for jazzing Japan. Often dubbed Japan’s “gateway to Asia” (in contrast to Yokohama, the “gateway to theWest”),20 Kōbe stakes its own claim as the “cradle” or “seismic center”(shingenchi) of jazz. Although one local writer concedes that “where jazz
chronologically first landed in Japan, Kōbe or Yokohama, is unknown,”21
proponents point out that the first “real,” improvised jazz was performed
by Filipino emigres in Kōbe hotels and ballrooms, and that the first Japanese to attempt “ad lib” solos followed their example.22 The Laughing
Stars, regarded by many as the first “professional” Japanese jazz band, wasbased in Kōbe and sponsored by a local music dealer.23 Moreover, they say,the 1923 Kantō Earthquake that leveled much of Tokyo and Yokohama
provoked a mass migration of musicians and entertainers to western Japan,
shifting innovations in popular entertainment away from the capital region
to the Kansai region, where dance halls and cafes proliferated along theroute between Kōbe and Osaka.
My observations are related principally to Yokohama and Kōbe, but it isworth mentioning in passing the claims of other aspiring jazztowns, though
they have not always poured as much energy into appropriating jazz as
Kōbe and Yokohama have. Osakans insist that their city––in Ōya Sōichi’s
wry estimation, “the America of Japan”––was the “jazz mecca” of the
1920s.24 One local encyclopedia maintains that “jazz came from Osaka”(jazu wa Osaka kara): “The modern city of Osaka was the base where cultures were imported from overseas, and disseminated to the interior.” Early
jazz stars Nanri Fumio and Hattori Ryōichi were native sons, and Osakaearned renown in the postwar period as the “hot jazz” capital (a distinction

18. Hiraoka Masaaki, Yokohama teki: geinō toshi sōsei ron (Tokyo: Aodosha,
1993), p. 257.
19. Brad Johnstony, “Hot Jazz Sizzles in Yokohama,” Yokohama Echo (Sept.
1993): pp. 1-2; “Yokohama yūgaku sanpodō,” Yokohama no tayori 264 (Sept.
1994): pp. 10-1. A counter-claim is made in Kōbe C jōhō, Sept. 1994.
20. Kokaze Hidemasa, “The Age of Ocean Shipping,” in Katō Yūzō, ed., Yokohama Past and Present (Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990) pp. 116-7.
21. Suehiro Mitsuo, “Jazu,” in Kōbe Shinbun Shuppan Sentā, ed., Hyōgo-ken dai
hyakka jiten (Kōbe: Kōbe Shinbun Shuppan Sentā, 1983), pp. 1233-4.
22. Ōmori Seitarō, Nihon no yōgaku. Vol. 1 (Tokyo: Shinmon Shuppansha,
1986), pp. 146-5, 148-9; Uchida, Nihon no jazu shi, pp. 321-2.
23. “Jazu shingenchi,” Mainichi shinbun, Kōbe ed., Feb. 2, 1979: p. 17.
24. Osaka Toshi Kyōkai, ed., Zoku Minami-ku shi (Osaka: Osaka Toshi Kyōkai,1982), p. 591.

258

E. Taylor Atkins

Kōbe also claims), the place where the trad style thrived in spite of the
predominant modern jazz movement.25
Yokosuka, a city south of Yokohama that was home to a major Japanesenaval base before World War II and a US naval station since then, alsocommemorates its jazzy heritage with three statues of jazz musicians.
Decorating the sidewalks in the Americanized section of town near thebase, the sculptures memorialize those Japanese musicians who performed
in US servicemen’s clubs during and after the Occupation. Even the northern provincial city of Sendai makes a modest claim. “It is not wellknown,” Kikuda Susumu wrote in the Nihon keizai in 1995, “but in theearly 1950s Sendai was a jazz town [jazu no machi].” At the “dawn ofJapanese jazz” several “first-rate West Coast pros” were among the US
GI’s stationed there, Kikuda maintains, leaving “footprints” in “furusato
Sendai.”26
IV Festive Histories
Aside from historical writing, the jazz festival has proven to be a popular and effective way of creating a sense of community jazz heritage. The
New City Yokohama plan urged citizens and city officials to collaborate in
the creation of “events” that promote the city’s kokusai toshi legacy, andjazz festivals fit the bill. Promotions for Yokohama’s many jazz fests––theAsahi Jazz Matsuri, Kōhoku New Town Summer Jazz, the Ōkurayama
Jazz Society concerts, and the Honmoku Jazz Festival (which since its
1981 debut is said to draw jazz fans “from Hokkaidō to Okinawa”)––invariably attempt to persuade audiences that “the sound of jazz suits Yokohama” and always has.27 In 1993 the city sponsored the first Yokohama
Jazz Promenade, a weekend-long pub crawl featuring headliners whostarted their professional careers in Yokohama’s ubiquitous US servicemen’s clubs, such as Akiyoshi Toshiko and Hara Nobuo. Advertising
blitzes repeatedly stressed the suitability of jazz to the city’s international
character and historical role. In case anyone missed the message, festival
planners mounted an impressive exhibit at the Port Opening Memorial Hall,with photographs and artifacts testifying to a seventy-year love affair between Hamakko and jazz.
The precedent for the Promenade, however, was Kōbe’s Jazz Street, first
held in 1982. Both festivals take attendees on a tour of local jazz spots and
25. Sōgensha, ed., Osaka monoshiri jiten (Osaka: Sōgensha, 1994), pp. 66-9;
Suehiro, “Jazu,” p. 1234.
26. Kikuda Susumu, “Nihon jazu ‘yoake’ e kurofune,” Nihon keizai shinbun Jan.
11, 1995: 32.
27. Honmoku no Ayumi Kenkyūkai, Honmoku no ayumi (Yokohama: Hirai Insatsujo, 1986), pp. 130-1.

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan

259

concert halls for a plethora of performances of all styles of jazz. The largest number of performance sites are concentrated in the so-called “foreign”
districts of each city––Kitano-chō in Kōbe and the Port Town (the area extending south from Yokohama Station to the Yamate Bluff) in Yokohama––where most of the old dance halls, servicemen’s clubs, and cabarets
were located historically. Moreover, the Promenade’s final acts perform
aboard the Hikawa maru, an ocean liner docked at Yamashita Park, reminding attendees that “jazz came by ship.” Thus performance sites arecarefully selected not only to acquaint natives and newcomers with thecurrent scene but also to infuse them with a sense of jazz’s local historicity.
Recent ethnographic scholarship argues that municipal festivals (matsuri) have an “authenticating effect” on their communities, rooting them ina consensual vision of the past and defining their unique qualities. Jennifer
Robertson observes that the city-wide matsuri in Kodaira is “perceived asa particularly cogent symbol of and condition for an ‘authentic’ community.” Likewise, Theodore Bestor contends that the “social and symbolic
meanings” of the Miyamoto-chō matsuri are manipulated by planners andparticipants to invest the community with a historically rooted “aura ofcommunity identity and autonomy.” Redraw our borders if you will, local
celebrants say to city planners through the matsuri, but we are still who
we are and who we have always been. Bestor notes that in the case of
Miyamoto-chō, the narrative of communal cohesion and distinctiveness is
at best an “invented history,” but one to which the “traditional” custom of
the matsuri lends credence.28
Of course the symbolic content of the matsuri described by Robertson
and Bestor differs significantly from that of the Kōbe and Yokohama jazz
fests: they utilize Shintō symbolism, traditional costume and music, andthe o-mikoshi to establish the boundaries of native place and the continuityof indigenous traditions, local variations of a pure, essential “Japaneseness.” In contrast to the purportedly pure, timeless, and indigenous traditions valorized in the matsuri, the jazz festivals celebrate a legacy of modern cosmopolitanism and cultural hybridity: being modern is the tradition
here, celebrants say. Yet nonetheless the jazz festivals function the same
way as the matsuri, inventing a narrative of a seamless, continual, and felicitous relationship between jazz and the local population, thereby establishing a distinctive community identity.
This raises a couple of points worthy of note. First, the invented histories of these jazztowns are clearly purged of the turmoil and divisivenessjazz actually inspired. Consumers of these festive histories are led to believe that, even if jazz was controversial outside of its “native place”

28. Robertson, Native and Newcomer, p. 39; Theodore C. Bestor, Neighborhood
Tokyo (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1989), pp. 251, 260.

260

E. Taylor Atkins(whether Yokohama or Kōbe), it always had a home here. This in spite of
the fact that Kōbe, in November 1928, was the first municipality to enact
and enforce draconian measures, architectural codes, and zoning restrictions designed to contain the moral contamination of the dance halls where
jazz reverberated; Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama, and every other city infectedwith “dance fever” (dansu netsu) lost little time following suit.29 The association of jazz with undesirable social elements of the post-World War II
era––gangsters, pan-pan girls, juvenile delinquents, and arrogant American
servicemen––likewise goes unmentioned. The local media and festivals
produce “history lite,” portraying jazz as a benign sociocultural phenomenon that captivated and thus distinguished the locals.
This brings me to a second point, that jazz contributes to and characterizes an essential civic unity which in reality is fictive. All efforts to define
local or national character necessitate the erasure of difference and conflict;thus the invented histories of jazztowns imply that jazz was something thatall Hamakko or Kōbekko could and did embrace because of their distinctively tolerant, cosmopolitan natures. This in spite of the fact that jazz has
always effectively functioned as a marker of class or status, within the
jazztowns no less than without. Simply put, cosmopolitan airs were and remain expensive, and not all residents of either port city have had equal access to the social connections and financial resources necessary to put onsuch airs (Yokohama jazz historian and cafe proprietor Yoshida Mamoru
frequently remarked on the high price of dance hall admission and imported records, in effect suggesting that jazz was available only to selectgroups of Hamakko).30 Yet promoters of the Yokohama-as-jazu no furusato image express a naive belief in the power of jazz to unify diverse
classes of people, and thereby to construct communities, a belief at odds
with the historical record.
V Inventing Jazztowns as Furusato-zukuri
Robertson remarks that all efforts to define and construct native place(furusato-zukuri) occur in a context in which the “dominant metropole” ofTokyo always serves as the principal referent: furusato and Tokyo operate
as antonyms; furusato is everything Tokyo is not, and vice versa; furusato
signifies the pure, the indigenous, the time-honored and traditional, while
Tokyo represents the hybrid, the alien, and the modern and globalized.31
However, furusato-zukuri (or machi-zukuri) campaigns in Yokohama andKōbe, while retaining Tokyo as the principal referent, attempt somethingelse altogether: to out-Tokyo Tokyo by claiming credit for initiating Ja29. Atkins, pp. 114-15.
30. Yoshida, Yokohama jazu mongatari, pp. 28-9.
31. Robertson, “It Takes a Village,” p. 112.

Inventing Jazztowns and Internationalizing Local Identities in Japan261

pan’s modernization and internationalization.
With regard to jazz, official appropriations of the music as municipal
soundtrack occur in the context of Tokyo’s dominance of the jazz scene.
Tokyo is, quite simply, one of the world’s most vibrant jazz capitals,
boasting a staggering wealth of clubs and “live houses.” It lures rising stars
away from respectable jazz scenes in Osaka, Kyōto, Nagoya, and Fukuoka,
for aspiring Japanese jazz musicians go to Tokyo to “make it” in the samemanner that their American counterparts try to break into the dominant
New York jazz scene. The invention of jazztowns is supposed to serve asa corrective by providing historical perspective which suggests that jazz
has a local (read: non-Tokyo) pedigree. The invention of jazztowns thus
contributes to the broader effort of engendering local identity and pride ofplace by claiming innovations (koto hajimete) wrongfully credited to thegluttonous capital.
Robertson also writes that “Furusato-making and internationalization are
two mutually constitutive modalities of modernity: the ‘old’ and the ‘new’recuperate each other and converge in the latest contemporized version of
postwar modernity....the conception of eternal recurrence (‘tradition’) andthe belief in progress (‘internationalization’) are complimentary if refractive.”32 While she thus notes the irony that native place-making (furusatozukuri) and internationalization (kokusaika) depend on each other for selfdefinition, she nonetheless is bound by her data base (in small villages,
towns, and hamlets) to conceive of them as opposing processes. They remain discursive opposites. However, furusato-zukuri and kokusaika arenever more “complimentary” than in the port cities under scrutiny here:
promoters of Kōbe and Yokohama as kokusai toshi need not pose the “native” and the “international” against each other, for the “international” iswhat constitutes the “native.” Native place in this case is not defined in
opposition to the alien or the international, because the whole basis for distinctive local identity rests on a historical legacy of appropriating the alien
and international and transmitting it to the rest of the nation.33
Moreover, by thus defining their respective native places as the legacyof kokusaika, Yokohama and Kōbe residents offer a vision of furusato that
directly opposes the exalted rural ideal commonly enshrined in the term.
The placid, cyclical, rural existence usually valorized in furusato discourse
is subverted in an alternative conception that celebrates the dynamic, progressive, urban experience “native” to them. For these people, native place
resides in a space somewhere between “Japan” and “the world,” and they
legitimize and authenticate its location by using the term furusato, which

32. Robertson, “It Takes a Village,” p. 128.
33. Potter, p. 158, observes a similar “process of constructing local identity ininternational terms” in the Tōhoku region.

262

E. Taylor Atkins

others use to designate a more hidebound and insular space.
My argument here is that in the last two or three decades jazz has become the most important artistic signifier of this alternative conception offurusato as kokusai toshi. Historically a source of major discord in Japanese society, jazz has emerged as an aesthetically respectable and sociallylegitimate expression of local distinction, civic unity, and internationalawareness. Much history needs to be swept under the rug in the process ofinventing jazztowns, but jazz aficionados are unlikely to complain, as their
beloved music attains a public profile unimaginable two generations ago.

Chapter 13
The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan−Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation
with Ronald P. Toby−
Kevin M. DoakI Introduction
A major theme running throughout Ron Toby’s work has been the problem of identity, specifically how ethnic identity has been represented by
Japanese people in efforts to distinguish themselves from Koreans, among
others. State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan (1984) can be, andoften has been, read merely as a case study in diplomatic history that challenged standard assumptions about how “closed” Japan was during the Edo
period. Yet, it should be clear from Toby’s earlier work––and especiallyfrom his many publications since––that the main thrust behind this work
was not so much diplomatic or political history, but an anthropologicalconcern with how different groups of people construct collective, especially ethnic, identities. While State and Diplomacy is undeniably concerned with a theory of the “state” (a question Toby returned to most recently in his 2001 “Rescuing the Nation from History”––an article which I
will take up below), it did so less from traditional political theory thanfrom an anthropological interest in strategies for dealing with ethnic “Others.” In that work, Toby’s conclusions that the Bakufu qualified as a kindof “state” and that it was not a “closed” one both stem from the primaryargument about the presence of Asians (especially Koreans) within the social consciousness of Edo-period Japanese. Not only does much of Toby’s
subsequent work (especially after his overt “anthropological turn”) but
even some of his earlier work reveal this ethnic and national concern.
Seen in the broad context of his entire oeuvre to date, State and Diplomacy may not be the best place to unpack the meaning of Toby’s contributions to our understanding of Japanese history. Rather, a shorter––andtruly seminal––piece published ten years earlier tells us much more, bothabout the concerns that underwrote State and Diplomacy and the subse263

264

Kevin M. Doakquent trajectory of Toby’s work. The article in question is the often unjustly overlooked “Education in Korea under the Japanese: Attitudes andManifestations.” Although short (the entire essay is less than ten pages), it
identifies the key problem of (ethnic) national consciousness (minzoku
ishiki) in modern Japan’s relations with other Asian peoples, notes how amulti-ethnic empire sought to contain the threat to multi-ethnic empires
posed by this kind of national identity, and calls for more attention to “themotivation and philosophy of Japanese colonial administration in Korea.”1
This was truly a far-sighted call, as it took most historians of Japan at leastten more years to recognize the importance of Japanese colonial policy asa source, not simply of economic or political structures of oppression, butof a cultural form of intervention with and against the claims of ethnic
identity.2 What Toby understood far earlier than most was that the discourse on “minzoku” was more than a simple reflection of “the way theJapanese are” (as one senior American scholar of Japan once told me, by
way of discounting the importance of ethnicity in nationality theory). On
the contrary, what emerges from any careful reading of Toby’s work isthat representations of ethnic identity are far more than mere reflections ofa supposed social reality and, in fact, are important strategies of culturalintervention that convey, implicitly and explicitly, specific political values.
It is, I believe, for this reason that the problems of ethnicity and thequestion of national or state formation run like a basso ostinato throughout
the entire range of Toby’s work. The issue of ethnic identity is raised in
sharp relief in his lead chapter on “Three Realms/Myriad Countries: An‘Ethnography’ of Other and the Re-bounding of Japan, 1550-1750” in abook I edited with former Illinois colleagues. When I first read Toby’s
manuscript, I couldn’t help but notice that he had provided the cultural
material for the argument against sakoku which he had introduced almost
twenty years earlier in State and Diplomacy. Not only was Japan not
closed to Asia (and its very concept of “Asia” transformed by Western cartographic imaginations), but the West was now “within” Japan in very profound ways. The Bankoku sozu, a world map published in Nagasaki in
1. Ronald Toby, “Education in Korea under the Japanese: Attitudes and Manifestations,” in James B. Palais, ed., Occasional Papers on Korea: Number One (NewYork: Joint Committee on Korea Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, 1974): 55-63, at 63.
2. Consider that it was over twenty years later that a new generation of scholars
brought these issues of colonialism and ethnicity to the forefront. Cf. Komagome
Takeshi, Shokuminchi teikoku nihon no bunka tôgô (Iwanami Shoten, 1996);
Yasuda Toshiaki, Teikoku nihon no gengo hensei (Seori Shobo, 1997), and ‘Gengo’ no kôchiku: Ogura Shinpei to shokuminchi Chôsen (Sangensha, 1999). My
own contributions in this vein include “Colonialism and Ethnic Nationalism in the
Political Thought of Yanaihara Tadao (1893-1961),” East Asian History, no. 10(December 1995).

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−

265

1647, marked the very clear presence, not of “red-haired” or “white” foreigners, but of a diverse ethnic panoply of identities that transformed theearlier more vague “Three Realms” consciousness of self and other.3
Thereafter, an ethnography of difference entered into Japanese conceptionsof identity. Yet Toby was wise not to base his argument too closely on thelanguage of identity that was actually employed, for he knew that the key
concept of ethnicity had not been registered in the Japanese vocabulary.
The argument presented in “Three Realms/Myriad Countries” contrasts
on this point with Toby’s recent review essay on “Rescuing the Nationfrom History.” Here, in order to rebut Mark Ravina and Luke Roberts’s
challenge to his thesis that the Tokugawa bakufu was the Japanese (national) state, Toby relies on the use and significance of political terminology, both his and theirs. This attention to terminology includes both words
used during the Edo period (eg., takokumono, wagakuni, kokka) and definitions provided by the contemporary dictionary, Kojien. Toby’s conclusion (“to confine kuni or kokka to any single meaning... is to blind ourselves to the way people in Edo-period Japan saw their world”)4 is at once
unobjectionable, indeed commonsensical. Yet, this insight invites serious
mis-interpretation, and therefore deserves further analysis. It would be a
mistake to deduce from this important warning that we should not try tounderstand what people mean by the terms they employ, or that language
usage is not central to identity assertions. No one who gives the kind ofserious attention to primary sources that Toby does could discount the importance of the exact language employed in the sources as an important
tool for understanding how people conceive the world they experience. I
believe Toby’s point here is that we must capture the significance of identity through the terms people actually use themselves, and not impose ourown preconceptions on them. This does not mean we should ignore thespecific language through which people express and contest their identities,
or worse that we should intentionally obfuscate such language in keepingwith post-structuralist pronouncements on the opacity of language. Surely
we are not to conclude that words resist retrievable historical meanings, orthat a word has so many meanings that any effort to restrict its unlimited
free-play of meaning is misguided. In order to read Toby here fairly, wemust first recognize his prior assumption that Edo period Japanese did not
restrict the meaning of kuni or kokka to refer only to a single, centralized

3. Ronald P. Toby, “Three Realms/Myriad Countries: An “Ethnography” of
Other and the Re-Bounding of Japan, 1550-1750,” in Kai-wing Chow, Kevin M.
Doak, Poshek Fu, eds., Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2001), 15-45, at 35-36.
4. Ronald P. Toby, “Rescuing the Nation from History: The State of the State in
Early Modern Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica vol. 56, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 197237, at 230.

266

Kevin M. Doakstate. He is in fact inviting us to take the next step and interrogate howthese important terms were employed in struggles over political and cultural identity.
In short, I believe Toby is offering here, not a post-structuralist posturethat takes language as an unreliable indicator of social reality (and thus aposition that only language itself can serve as an object of serious study),
but a call for more serious, historically informed research into the languageof identity that will help us understand better the reality of national identity as it takes shape in Japanese history. Indeed, that is in fact what muchof my own research has been concerned with over the last ten years (i.e,mainly years when Ron Toby and I were colleagues at the University of Illinois). What I intend to present below is my own kind of tribute to the influence Toby’s work has had on me and my own thinking about thesematters. For the better part of that decade, we’ve both shared an interest inquestions of national and ethnic identity and an understanding that such
identities were represented in Japanese historical and anthropological discourse. Whereas his focus has been mainly on the Edo period, before theconcept of minzoku was widely used, I have been looking at how the introduction and dissemination of the concept of minzoku (nation, ethnicity)transformed the ways in which national identity was understood and articulated in modern Japan. These different temporal frames lead us to different
emphases, but the fundamental point––how to create the conditions for amore tolerant, multi-ethnic society––is very much our common ground.
Let me begin to unpack some implications of ethnic (minzoku) identity
for a liberal democratic Japan by beginning with the relationship of history
to the nation. In the review cited above, Toby calls us to “rescue the nation from history,” a not too thinly veiled reference to (and inversion of)Prasenjit Duara’s argument that we should “rescue history from the nation.”5 In a sense, I agree with Toby that it is more important to rescue thenation from history than to rescue history from the nation, especially if ourconcerns are to enhance democratic society. Indeed, Duara’s argument is
open to criticism on these grounds. The general problem he raises on narrativity, that is, the relationship of narrative to national identity, needs tobe reconsidered when calls for rescuing history from the nation end up
separating history from the state only to leave the nation and history in aneven tighter embrace. At that moment, we need to seriously interrogate themeaning of this nation that has been left, often silently, in history’s embrace while the state, we suppose, just withers away. As we have seen in
the former Yugoslavia, rescuing an ethnicized nation out from under amulti-ethnic state may not be in the best interests of democracy, pluralism
or tolerance.
5. Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives ofModern China. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.)

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−

267

Perhaps we should begin with Duara’s argument that a specific form of
evolutionary History has served to reinforce the sense of the nation-stateand its “dubious claim to an evolving, monistic subjecthood.”6 Duara’s attention to the variety of alternative identity claims that often challenge thehomogeneity of nationalist ideologies is important, as it reminds us that national identity always remains a contested practice. Yet Duara’s argumentthat nationalist ideologies tend to conflate the distinction between the nation and the state under the weight of modern, linear historical time canyield the impression that the problem of a distinctive national culture ismerely displaced by History onto the particularism of a trans-national Eastagainst the universality of the West.7 Ironically, imperialism and colonialism in East Asia lose their historical particularity as they are reduced toderivative forms of a Western model of imperialism, and the nation appears less as a site where East Asian ways of being modern were negotiated and more as an imitation of modern identity forms spawned by theWest.8
But a closer look at the function of historical narratives in Japanese imperialism might question whether history should be reduced to Westernforms of universal time, or whether from a postcolonial perspective, thenation should be “rescued from History.” Does this mean the nation should
only be rescued from the Westernized state and not from an ethnic national
identity? Or does it mean history should also be rescued from all homogenized, nationalized forms of cultural or racial identities? An emphasis on
the historical specificity rather than the (Western) sameness of all national
identities exposes certain limitations to the project of rescuing history fromthe nation––even if the nation can be equated with the state––within thecontext of colonialism in East Asia. Before concluding that “history must
be rescued from the nation” or “the nation must be rescued from history,”
we first need a better understanding of the actual ways in which nation andstate have been mobilized as distinctive identity claims in modern East
Asia. Lacking this understanding, we might very well rescue the nationfrom history only to put the nation at the mercy of ethnology, thereby
playing into the hands of ethnic nationalists like Milosevic and others.
Such a scenario is not merely a hypothetical possibility, but a rather precise summary of what happened in Imperial Japan during the late 1930s.
If we are to grasp the full potential of historical narratives as national
forms of identity, then we also need to de-couple the presumed connection
between national and ethnic identity. Today, it may be fashionable in someacademic circles to speak of the slipperiness of the concept of nation––or
6. Duara, 16.
7. Duara, 29.
8. See Duara, 23, 224-5; and Stefan Tanaka, Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts
into History. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993): 180-1.

268

Kevin M. Doakeven the polysemy of the nation (as it is of the concepts of “race” and“ethnicity”). But it would be more accurate to say that the global discourseon nationality in the twentieth century was marked less by “polysemy”
than by a remarkable degree of agreement as to what the nation is andwhat its distinctive identity claims (separate from those of the state) are.
This is especially true in East Asia, where a common political vocabulary drew a clear distinction between the nation as an ethnic people(minzu; minzoku; minjok) and the state (guojia; kokka; kukka). Korean nationalists under Japanese imperialism were especially sensitive to the differences between their ethnic nationality as Koreans (minjok) and theirstatus as nationals (kokumin) of the Imperial Japanese state. Writing on the
problem of nation and historical narrative under Japanese colonialism, Korean historians like Ch’oe Namsôn (1890-1957) and Sin Ch’aeho (18801936) sought not to rescue the nation from history, but to rescue history
from the Imperial Japanese state by associating historical narratives with
the Korean minjok, or ethnic nation.9 All across the East Asian region, thelast hundred years of political struggle have been shaped in fundamental,
although varying, ways by the intersections between the distinctive national claims made by the modern state and the ethnic nation. Without aclear awareness first of how national identity was conceived as distinct
from the state in East Asian political discourse, we run the risk of failingto understand the political dynamics that informed imperialism, colonialism,
and nationalist liberation movements throughout the region.
To truly appreciate the ironies involved in these missions to rescue thenation, the state, or history, we need to reflect more deeply on theories ofnational and ethnic identity. This does not necessarily mean that national
identity itself should be represented as an abstraction, or that the important
forms of difference lie more in a constantly shifting personal identity thanthey do in the claims of the collective. But it would certainly help to startby recognizing the artificiality of the very concept of ethnicity itself. As
Naoki Sakai has argued, “Since it is generally accepted that the nation(kokumin) is a Gesellschaft, an associative community mediated by the rationality of the state, whereas the ethnos (minzoku) is a Gemeinschaft, anatural community prior to state mediation, few historians have taken into
serious consideration the view that such a natural community as the ethnosis also manufactured in modern discourse.”10 Sakai is right to draw our attention to the invented nature of these ethnic identities. Yet, this naturaliza9. Chizuko T. Allen, “Northeast Asia Centered Around Korea: Ch’oe Namson’s
View of History.” Journal of Asian Studies vol.49, no.4 (1990) :787-806, at 792-3;
Andre Schmid, “Rediscovering Manchuria: Sin Ch’aeho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea.” Journal of Asian Studies, vol.56, no.1 (1997) :26-46, at 3033.
10. Naoki Sakai, Translation and Subjectivity: On “Japan” and Cultural Nationalism. (Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997): 60.

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−

269

tion of ethnicity (or “ethnos”) as distinct from the invention of the nationand the state often invites a different and paradoxical claim that separating
ethnicity from the political state liberates one from nationalism, when infact such a gesture may simply enhance the legitimacy of ethnic nationality
as, ironically, a more natural identity. By pausing a moment before we embrace ethnic identity, we may find ourselves concerned rather than cheering when, in the post-Yugoslavian world, we witness celebrations of thewithering away of the multi-ethnic state and its replacement by sometimes
diasporic, sometimes territorialized, forms of collectivized, ethnic identities.
The distinction between ethnicity, nationhood and the state is neither
merely of historical interest, nor a pedantic concern. Rogers Brubaker has
uncovered the limitations of approaching national identity as simply the result of a boundary consciousness that merely reflects the ideology of theterritorial state, and he has called attention to the ways in which nationhood as a marker of shared ethnic identity has functioned within the territorial state, even while often hostile to the state. The functions of this ethnicized nationhood have rarely yielded a more democratic society. At stakein the debates over national identity are competing forms of citizenship,with different implications for immigration policies and the relationship between different kinds of national identities. Moreover, Brubaker’s insights
into the relationship between the “homeland nationalism” of diasporic ethnic groups and the nationalizing nationalism of certain postcolonial nation-states suggests that the dynamics of modern imperialism cannot be fullycomprehended without an awareness of how ethnicity itself has provided
the foundations for a sense of nationhood that has functioned independently from the state itself.11 “Diaspora,” it turns out, is not the eruption ofdifference on the homogeneous map of modernity that it often pretends tobe. It is more often the return of the repressed sameness of collective ethnic nationality whose distance from the conventions of citizenship and thestate seduces individuals away from a more direct confrontation with theiranxieties over the unsettling conditions of modern life.
Rather than escaping from the alienation of modern life to the promised
land of ethnicity, democratic concerns today invite us to separate ethnic
claims and nationhood claims. It should not be surprising then to find that
Bluntschli’s distinction between nation and state resonated widely in a discourse that was truly global by the early twentieth century. Similarly,
Ramsay Muir’s theories on the nation, although often forgotten today, hada considerable influence in these global theories of national difference.
Muir wrote: “What do we mean by a nation? It is obviously not the samething as a race, and not the same thing as a state. It may be provisionallydefined as a body of people who feel themselves to be naturally linked to11. See Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National
Question in the New Europe, 55-76.

270

Kevin M. Doakgether by certain affinities....”12 For Muir, the nation was a condition of being defined by the ways identity claims were enacted by its members. To
be sure, those within the nation were distinguished from those without, but
the nation as a whole could also liberate its members from larger identity
claims of common race, creed, or language. Yanaihara Tadao, a liberal andinfluential interwar Japanese theorist on colonialism and nationalism, echoed the same distintion between nation, state and race, making a further
distinction between the ethnic nation (minzoku) and the political nation(kokumin), the state (kokka), and race (jinshu). Yanaihara went so far as torepeat almost verbatim Bluntschli’s etymology of the word nation in the
Latin word “natio” (even though, without a common etymological source
between the Japanese term minzoku and the Latin natio, Yanaihara’s argument itself risked incoherence.)13 To simply suggest that it is the functionof narrative itself that collapses this distinction between nation and state
into a single subjectivity (the “nation-state”) not only undertheorizes the
problem of nationality but also requires us to overlook the history of how
the nation and the state actually have been understood by many people inJapan. In important ways, it also obscures the historical relationship between nation, state and the problem of imperialism in modern East Asia.
II The Nations of the Far East
Certainly I cannot do justice to the complex relationship of nation, stateand imperialism in East Asia in this short essay. The best I can do is signal the importance of a distinction between ethnic nationality, political nationality and the state, while trying to provide a historical context for thesignificance of that debate. I wish to do so by drawing attention to a remarkable text, The Nations of the Far East, published in 1916 with furigana and simple syntax. rendering it accessible not only to Japanese but
to non-native readers of Japanese (i.e., colonials)14. It employed historicalnarrative to convey its point about national identity, but it did not introduce a particularly original view of history. Perhaps most important, this
12. Ramsey Muir, Nationalism and Internationalism (London: Constable andCompany, Ltd., 1917): 38.
13. Yanaihara Tadao, cited in Doak, “Colonialism and Ethnic Nationalism in the
Political Thought of Yanaihara Tadao,” 92.
14. The only information about the author given in the text is that he was a“Nakamura, Bachelor of Literature, who is conversant in history, and who currently
lectures on Oriental history at the Tokyo Higher Normal School” (“Preface,”
Kyokutô no minzoku, 3). After an exhaustive search, and textual comparison with
Nakayama Kyûshirô (1874-1961)’s Tôyôshi kôza dai-ni-ki zenpen (Tokyo: Yûzankaku, 1940), I have concluded that the two were most likely one and the same.
Nakayama, born Nakamura, was a renowned historian of China who graduatedfrom Tokyo Imperial University in 1899, studied in Germany, and was a lecturer at
the Tokyo Higher Normal School around 1910. He received his Ph.D. in 1925.

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−271

text was part of an encyclopedia series oriented toward a broad reading
public, and as such it popularized among the masses certain assumptions
about nationality that were common among many historians, political scientists, ethnologists and others in Japan at the time. The Nations of the Far
East provides clear evidence that the nation (minzoku) was defined ethnologically, and distinct from the state, in Japan around the time of theFirst World War. But to fully appreciate the significance of this text, itneeds to be set in the context of historiographical shifts in Japan during theearly twentieth century, including how non-academic historians, especiallythose affiliated with the Min’yūsha publishing house that published thebook, had been grappling with the problem of nation and state for several
decades. It is important to remember that attitudes which would shape
Japanese understanding of Chinese nationality developed within the domestic context of antagonistic relations between the Japanese people and theirmulti-ethnic state and subsequently those attitudes (and the liberationist
dreams they inspired) were projected onto others outside of Japan.
The Nations of the Far East is of interest not because it expressed thebrilliant originality of a single author (indeed the identity of the author remains uncertain), but precisely for its lack of originality. It embodies certain assumptions about national identity that reveal a deep rift within Japanese intellectual culture between ethnicity and political institutions, between the people and their state. These ideas were already gaining widespread currency in early twentieth century Japan, and Japanese historians
were projecting them onto their own image of Asia. Shiratori Kurakichi,
professor of Chinese history at Tokyo Imperial University was a leading
player in this field of tôyôshi, or oriental history. He was a member of thesecond generation of the tôyôshi scholars that Stefan Tanaka has identified
as key players in the development of a new, ideological use of Chinese
history for Japanese imperialism. And, if the author of Nations of the Far
East was indeed the historian Nakamura Kyûshirô, it is important to notethat Nakamura was a student of Shiratori. Placed in that context, the views
expressed in this text are not so much those of an original or even eccentric scholar, as they are emblematic of a rather systematic effort to reconfigure the field of Chinese studies in Japan to meet the demands of imperialism for a modern, scientific historiography.
Shiratori had organized the Asia Society (Ajia Gakkai) in 1905, alongwith Torii Ryûzô, in order to bring together scholars on “oriental history”
around an activist program of re-shaping East Asia after Japan’s victory in
the Russo-Japanese war.15 The problem of ethnic nationality (minzoku) was
not peripheral to these concerns: it was central. Torii himself published abook in 1925 called Far Eastern Nations (Kyokutô minzoku) that almost

15. Tanaka, 234-6.

272

Kevin M. Doakliterally repeated the title of Nakamura’s book, and Torii played a key rolein the contribution of Japanese ethnology to this imperialist discourse on
ethnic identity.16 Given these modernizing trends in the field, it would be
misleading to characterize Nakamura’s approach as “conservative” or “indigenous.” Nakamura followed Shiratori in trying to bring modern Japanese historiography in line with the most recent developments in the West.
But of all Shiratori’s students (and there were many), Nakamura’s particular contribution may lie in his combination of historical scholarship, policy
concern, and a popularizing impulse.
Nakamura was well-known for writing works that were marketed to
middle-brow readers, and this gave his historical interpretations a broader
influence than his more academic colleagues had over the Japanese reading
public. It also made him an easy target for his critics. Hirano Yoshitarô,still in his prefascist, Marxist days, singled out Nakamura as an “imperialistic” historian who “used research merely as an embellishment of [a] policy... [of] seeking the reform of China through dismemberment”.17 Yet, in
one significant way, Hirano and Nakamura’s differences were not so great.
Hirano, too, found the concept of ethnic nationality (minzoku) central tohis own understanding of East Asia, which he envisioned as a political union of the various ethnic nations of the region. Hirano shared with Nakamura a definition of national and cultural identity along ethnic lines, andthe sense that one political state (Japan) should manage the financial, military and diplomatic affairs of the region. This common belief in the nation
as an ethnic, rather than necessarily a political, body contributed to the“common discourse [that] helps to explain why imperialists and Marxists
could work side by side” in research on Chinese history.18 It was also thebridge for Hirano’s move from marxism to national socialism at the heightof the Pacific War.
The rise of the new field of tôyôshi may have provided the matrix for
this historiographical approach to the study of China, but it alone cannot
explain the 1916 book The Nations of the Far East. For that we must also
give some attention to the ideological mission of the Friends of the Nation
Society (Min’yûsha) that published the book. The mission of this association is all the more important, since Nakamura’s name did not appear on
the book’s cover (he is only partially identified in the editor’s preface) ortitle page. On the title page, one finds only the names of Tokutomi Sohô,the series editor and head of the Friends of the Nation, and Yoshino
Sakuzô, editor of the 1916 volume. Yoshino was the leading populist intel16. Torii Ryûzô, Kyokutô minzoku (Tokyo: Bunka Seikatsu Kenkyukai, 1925);
on Torii’s ethnic theories, see Oguma Eiji, Tan’itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen, (Tokyo: Shin’yôsha, 1995): 157-160.
17. Hara Kakuten, cited in Tanaka, 252; italics in Tanaka.
18. Tanaka, 256-7.

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−273

lectual of the day, an advocate of “people-centered” (minponshugi) government who had taken to an ethnic (minzoku-teki) definition of nationhoodin his writings.19 Tokutomi was a leading populist nationalist who had
founded the Friends of the Nation Society in 1887, taking the name fromthe characters in the journal the association founded that year, The Nation’s Friend (Kokumin no tomo). Nationalism was a central concern fromthe founding of the Min’yûsha, but it was a self-consciously populist nationalism that sought to emulate the approach taken by the American leftist
journal The Nation.20 Although some historians have emphasized
Tokutomi’s nationalist conversion from around the time of the SinoJapanese War of 1894-5, his early sense that nationalism needed to bebrought in line more with popular aspirations provided significant lines ofcontinuity in his thinking, and that influence is clear in his preface to The
Nations of the Far East.
There are at least two reasons this text claims our attention: its clear distinction between the ethnic nation and the state, and the way in which ethnic nationality displaced the state as the subject of Japanese historical narratives on China. Nakamura argued that the outbreak of the World War revealed that the problem of ethnic nationality had not been successfully
handled by the prewar international system that was based on relations
among territorial states. He noted that the postwar interest in ethnic nationality presented both opportunities and dangers for Imperial Japan, since Japan alone in East Asia was both an independent state and a member of theWestern Powers. Imperial Japan’s ambivalent position with regard to both
East and West offered advantages in re-evaluating the significance of themodern state to national identity in East Asia. Nakamura was conscious of
the dangers ethnic separatism could pose for the Japanese empire, and herecognized that the empire’s subjects included those, like Koreans, whowere not ethnically Japanese.21 Underlying Nakamura’s explicit reference
to how the Japanese political state, as an empire, included Korea was aspecific imagination of the Far East as a field of competing nationalities inwhich ethnicity was a historical and dynamic marker of non-Western identity in contrast to the Western privileging of the territorial state as the fundamental unit of modern national identity. This was a theory of imperialism that promoted ethnic identity, rather than one that sought to exterminate or suppress ethnicity.
This imagination of the Orient as a field of ethnic nationhood in contrast
to the Western concept of the territorial state was no primordial or tradi19. See Yoshino Sakuzo, “Sekai kaizô no risô: minzoku-teki jiyû byôdô no risôno jikkô kanô” Chûô Kôron, no. 367 (1919): 87- 91; also Oguma, 152-156, 235.
20. On the connection between ethnic nationalism and Tokutomi’s Friends of the
Nation Society, see Oguma, 98-103.
21. Kyokutô no minzoku, (Tokyo: Min’yûsha, 1916): 34-35.

274

Kevin M. Doaktional Asian view: after all, as State and Diplomacy reminds us, East Asia
had seen various forms of the territorial state in its long history. Rather,
Nakamura’s understanding of ethnic nationality as competing with the territorial state over national identity was indebted to recent advances in thetheory of nationality made by Western scholars. Nakamura had just returned from two years’ study in Germany a decade earlier, and whether directly or indirectly, he clearly had been influenced by Bluntschli’s distinction between “the state” and “the Volk”.22 After World War I, there was abroad, international turn toward this Volkisch, or ethnic, sense of nationhood as a challenge to the political nationalism centered on the state.
Nakamura joined wholeheartedly in this “ethnic turn,” noting that theGreat War had exposed the weakness of the boundary approach to identity
in imperial states and in contrast exposed the relative strength of ethnic national identities.
Nakamura began with definitions of the key terms he would employ in
his narratives: the ethnic nation (minzoku), the political nation (kokumin)and race (jinshu). He began with a lengthy exegesis of the term minzoku
that would provide the foundation for his and many subsequent imaginations of national identity in 20th century East Asia. He explained that theterm “the ethnic nation” (minzoku) was a neologism, like “The Far East”(kyokutô), and captured certain aspects of the English word “nation,” theFrench word “peuple,” and the German word “Volk,” all of which originally had different emphases but which had recently coalesced around theconcept of a distinct national people who shared certain attributes. Nakamura listed these attributes as (1) a common ancestral blood lineage; (2)historical and spiritual unity; (3) common culture; (4) common religion; (5)common language and customs; (6) a sense of community or shared economic interest; (7) a common state structure that increases the sense ofshared economic interests; (8) a sense of economic or industrial community. Nakamura listed these attributes in a roughly developmental order,
but his point was to place primary emphasis on the premodern, ethnic origins of the nation:
To summarize the above eight elements of a nation (minzoku), themost important ones are the first (racial community) and the second(historical and cultural community, especially linguistic or literary community).... Thus, we can see that the nation (minzoku) is a grouping of
humanity that has shared a continuous common spirit. Its union is not at
all an accident, but is the result of an unbreakable communal groupingthat possesses common relations handed down historically from ancient
times. It is a solid, eternal union. Happenstance groupings or disbandings can never be nations.23
22. Kyokutô no minzoku, 10.
23. Kyokutô no minzoku, 9.

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−275

Nakamura’s definition of the nation is not at all an idiosyncratic one. It
closely follows Joseph Stalin’s 1914 definition of the nation (“a historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture”) which provided the foundation for many
early twentieth century theorists of the nation.24 But whereas Stalin utilized
this list of national characteristics to emphasize the contingency of this national formation and to undermine its natural racial bonds, Nakamura did
not. He shifted the focus to the collective social markings of race and culture which traditionally have provided the defining elements of ethnicity.25
Distinguishing between ethnic nationhood and biological race was important to Nakamura, a student of Chinese history who wanted to emphasize
the historical and cultural differences between the Japanese and Chinese
peoples.
But more important than the differences between Stalin and Nakamura’s
definitions of the nation was their common attempt to alienate (“rescue”)
the nation from the (“capitalist” “Western”) state. Nakamura drew fromthis tradition of conceptualizing the nation as separate from the state, andhe arrived at a concept of the nation that Brubaker, Connor and others
have identified as the “ethno-nation” or the ethnic nation. While mosttheorists of the nation emphasized that no element or combination of elements could determine what a nation was in all cases, this concern withdefining the nation itself was a response to Ernest Renan, who as early as
1882, tried to find a definition of the nation that was not identical to either
the political state or biological race.26 These formative elements, along with
Nakamura’s insistence that the ethnic nation (minzoku) must be distinguished from the legal-political concept of the political nation (kokumin)
and the state (kokka) mark out a concept of ethnic identity as a distinct
form of national identity.27 Although Nakamura never used the English
word “ethnic,” it is essential in translating his concept of minzoku since hemeant by that term a kind of nationality that was based in blood and culture, and which he distinguished both from biological “race” and the political or civic kinds of national identity that were formed in a closer relation24. Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994): 73.
25. For the classic definition of ethnicity as “race plus culture,” see Pierre vanden Berghe, Race and Racism (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1967): 9-11.
26. Cf. Ernest Renan, “What is a Nation?” (1882). Reprinted in Omar Dahbour
and Micheline R. Ishay, eds., The Nationalism Reader (New Jersey: Humanities
Press, 1995): 143-155.
27. Cf. “The (ethnic) nation [minzoku] approaches things from a blood-andcultural perspective; the (political) nation (kokumin) approaches things from a political and legal perspective: the two are not the same thing.” Kyokutô no minzoku
10.

276

Kevin M. Doakship to the state. Moreover, his concept of nationality was a widely shared
one during the interwar period, a reflection of the problems posed by suchcollective identities as the Germans, the Irish and the Serbians––identities
that today we recognize as ethnic ones.
III The Ethnic Phantasm in the Post-Colonial Present
Through The Nations of the Far East we are able to link a domestic discourse that posited an ethnic nationality distinct from the state with an imperialist rhetoric that negated the very idea of an independent Chinese state.
China was deemed not to be a state, merely a realm of competing ethnic
nationalities. At the same time, by narrating Chinese history in ethnic
terms, The Nations of the Far East revealed how history could be rescued
from the state only to promote a national identity premised on an ethnic
principle that might undermine the legitimacy of the Chinese Republic andperpetuate Japanese imperialism. This text reminds us that Japanese imperialism, a combination of Japanese dominance in East Asia and a rhetoricof liberation from the West, cannot be comprehended simply in terms ofanti-ethnic policy. By separating ethnic nationhood from the concept of thesovereign state, Japanese imperialists enforced a singular discursive regularity on the nation in both foreign and domestic contexts that located primary allegiance in the ethnic group, and only then considered the questionof the state in the context of Japan’s privileged position in the region. To
be sure, the text’s narratives rescued Chinese history from the state, but
only by, at the same time, “rescuing” a sense of ethnic nationhood, both asa means of undermining a multi-ethnic Chinese state and of legitimating adomestic Japanese discourse on ethnic identity that set itself against Western, liberal beliefs in a multi-ethnic civic nation. This discourse on ethnic
nationality as a modern construct enabled simultaneous calls for the absorption of Korean ethnicity into Japanese ethnicity and for the assertion ofa distinctive Manchu ethnicity to be expressed in an independent Manchu
state. These were distinct, but not necessarily contradictory, visions of thenation.
Space does not permit a complete treatment of this discourse on ethnic
nationality as it unfolded in imperial Japanese discourse. Nor is the historyof that discourse per se my primary concern here. Rather, what I want tohighlight by way of conclusion is the intersection of the kind of historicalnarrative one finds in Nakamura’s text with the emergence of a specificethnological approach to nationality in Japanese discourse. This complementary relationship between history and ethnology was a significant element in Japanese imperialist ideology.
In the years following the publication of The Nations of the Far East,
this emphasis on ethnicity as the basis of national identity was reinforcedby new developments in the field of anthropology. The 1920s brought out

The State of Ethnicity in Modern Japan −Echoes of a Ten Year Conversation with Ronald P. Toby−277

a sharp division in Japan between those practicing formal anthropology
and those who espoused cultural anthropology, which eventually meantethnology. Formalists like the physician Nagai Hisomu moved towards a
racial, eugenic interpretation of ethnicity (minzoku), while their views were
contested by mainstream anthropologists in Japan who emphasized theplasticity and contingency of ethnos (minzoku) as a cultural phenomenon.28
The culturalists banded together under Yanagita Kunio and Oka Masao toemphasize ethnicity as a composite identity that results from cultural andracial changes, and they even founded a journal called Ethnos (Minzoku)
in 1925 to convey their culturalist position.29 While this fascinating debate
over the meaning of “minzoku” (itself evidence that ethnicity was slowly
becoming independent of the concept of “race”) has yet to be studied in
depth, here I can only suggest the ways that this culturalist, and selfconsciously liberal, approach to ethnicity played a major role in imperialist
and even fascist ideology in wartime Japan. Surprisingly, it was not the
eugenicists or the “racial” theorists who played the leading role in Japanese imperialist ideology but the culturalists. Oka brought together dozens
of Japan’s leading ethnologists under the umbrella of the state-supported
Institute for Ethnic Nationality in Tokyo in the early 1940s where hepropagated the fascist theories on Volk identity that he had learned while astudent of ethnology in Vienna during the 1930s.30 The Institute was only
the most visible instance of a broad discursive regularity in imperial Japanthat supported ethnic identity as a composite form of cultural identity thatwas invested neither in the rights of citizenship nor in the political state.
In their war to “overcome modernity,” these imperialist ethnologists prefigured more contemporary postmodern imaginations of diasporic ethnic
identities that allegedly float above and across territorial states. For anyone
concerned with the conditions of democracy in today’s post-colonial (if not
yet postmodern) world, the lessons of Japanese anti-Western imperialism
are an important challenge to broaden our understanding of what a nation
can mean and what relationships have existed between ethnicity, nations,states and historical narratives. How these distinct concepts of the ethnic
28. Oguma, 249-270. See also my “Building National Identity through Ethnicity:
Ethnology in Wartime Japan and After” The Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 27,
no. 1 (Winter 2001): 1-39.
29. See my chapter on “Culture, Ethnicity, and the State in Early Twentieth Century Japan,” in Sharon Minichiello, ed., Japan’s Competing Modernities: Issues in
Culture and Democracy,1900-1930 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998):
181-205.
30. On Oka’s role in founding the Institute on Ethnic Nationality and especiallythe influence of Nazi theories on the Volk in his understanding of ethnicity, see
Nakao Katsumi, “Minzoku kenkyôjo no soshiki to katsudô” Minzokugaku kenkyû,vol. 62, no. 1 (June): 47-65. pp. 50-51. In English, see my “Building National
Identity through Ethnicity.”

278

Kevin M. Doaknation and the political state were used varied, but the basic vocabulary
was shared by intellectuals in East Asia across the political spectrum whoembraced the same terminological distinctions in their attempts to represent
their identities and political aspirations. In particular, Nakamura’s narratives of Chinese history provide a useful reminder of how, “outside of theWest,” narratives of ethnic nationhood have often been mobilized against(“Westernized”) states and their attempts to use history for their own purposes––which can be to construct a sense of community in multiethnic societies as well as for the more familiar repressive purposes of erasing local
and other identities.
Today, some anthropologists and social theorists invoke free-floating
ethnic identities as postmodern traces of social identity after the presumed
demise of the modern, multiethnic state. Yet, the possibilities of these visions of ethnic diaspora serving merely as sites for what Brubaker has
called “nationalism reframed” remain serious and often unchallenged. Whatfrequently gets erased in neo-realist championings of ethnic groups are thealternatives held out by different kinds of national narratives, and the different kinds of states––some more democratic than others–– they can support. Before we can decide whether the nation should be rescued from history (even “History” with a capital H), we need to know what kind of nation is implied. At the very least, the different kinds of national identity(ethnic, civic, statist) should give us reason to pause when we are asked, inthe name of liberty and progress, to undermine the state, and with it, its
potential for framing the specific kind of civic community that one regularly encounters in multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies. Sameness canbe asphyxiating, but difference can be downright murderous.