Section 7 | History, Politics and International Relations | Session 2A, Panel
Chair and Organiser: Constantine N. Vaporis (University of Maryland)
Discussant: Constantine N. Vaporis ( University of Maryland)
Hollywood and Japanese television have each contributed in their own way to the creation of the image of the samurai as sword-wielding warriors who readily cut down co mmoners for rudeness. The papers in this panel explore several issues that reveal key aspects of the nature of the samurai's exercise of authority and the role of historical memory in samurai life. In "The Image and Reality of Samurai, from the Perspective of the Use of Force," Taniguchi Shinko uses evidence from a number of actual incidents in which samurai did attack co mmoners for rudeness, or co mmitted "wife-revenge," to examine the regulations in which these practices were enveloped and to explore how the samurai's use of force was embedded in the political, social and moral structure of the period. In "Remembering and Forgetting Executions for Rudeness," Luke Roberts discusses the multiple uses of memory of incidents of attacks for rudeness through an examination of the historical record in Tosa domain. He demonstrates how conflicting memories of the incidents were used as tools of social and political conflict and explores how officials sought to uphold the right of samurai to exercise this punishment, while at the same time limiting its socially disruptive potential, sometimes by suppressing memory of the incident. Kasaya Kazuhiko, in his paper "Historical Memory (Precedent) and Tokugawa Politics: The Daimyo Cooperatives of Edo Representatives," shifts the subject to the daimyo's diplomatic officials, known as Edo Representatives ( Edo rusui yaku), but retains the focus on the issue of memory. He examines the importance and use of historical memory, i.e. precedent, in the exercise of Tokugawa authority as well as in the manner in which the domains' diplomatic officials reacted to Tokugawa law and regulations.
The diversity of images of samurai in the Edo period derives from the fact that warriors co mmanded strong military power but had multiple administrative, judicial and social duties as well as military ones. Political rulers controlled military strength and forced warriors to relinquish their habit of flaunting military ferocity in daily life. However, samurai were permitted to use force in some cases and had to use it in other cases, which tells us some of the unique characteristics of samurai in this period. It was not until around the middle of the seventeenth century that rulers began to forbid co mmoners to carry 'katana' swords, which became a symbol of samurai status after that. Strangely enough, rulers did not prohibit co mmoners from possessing 'katana' and 'wakizashi' as well as firearms and bows. Under such circumstances where everybody had to protect their own safety due to a lack of police authority, self-defense by both co mmoners and samurai was judged right. In the latter half of the seventeenth century, bakuhan authority began to encourage the morality of "chu" (loyalty to one's master) and "ko" (filial piety to one's parents). "Katakiuchi" (revenge) and "megatakiuchi" (wife revenge) by both samurai and co mmoners were recognized as right actions, and regarded as expressions of this morality. Samurai, particularly a head of a samurai household (ie), owing a noblesse oblige accompanying his social status, had to indicate that he had an ability of govern himself, control his family members, and could serve his master. Therefore, it is understandable that warriors in some domains were even forced to carry out wife revenge so that they could recover the lost honor of their family and maintain their household. Revenge by samurai was not considered as their duty, but, they could get their position back as samurai only after they made an application to the authority for revenge and succeeded in carrying it out. In addition, rulers permitted samurai to use force to retrieve their lost honor due to abuse, slander or rudeness toward them. Rulers distinguished temporary quarrels from attacks against those who stained a samurai's honor. The former was considered as violence but the latter was regarded as legitimate because defamation of character was a matter that samurai could not overlook. These cases when warriors attacked commoners for rudeness (burei-uchi), reveal that authorities sanctioned attacks for rudeness only when the existence of rudeness was proven and that it was generally believed that a samurai's reputation should be recovered by sacrificing the offending co mmoner's life. Samurai's use of force was embedded in the political, social, and moral structure of the Edo period.
Luke S. Roberts (University of California, Santa Barbara)
As in much of Japan during the Tokugawa period, samurai of Tosa domain were accorded in law the right to cut down and kill a commoner or retainer of lower status who had been rude to them. Tosa has a nearly complete record of punishments of samurai from 1601 t0 1852 and as one might expect no samurai is listed as having been punished for exercising this right or duty of "slaying for rudeness." Surprisingly, however, soon after performing such an execution the samurai sometimes ended up being severely punished by the domain for making mistakes in the protocol of the slaying, for insanity, or even frequently for such an indeterminate crime as "loose living," with no mention at all of an execution. In this way judicial officials protected the legality of the right of slaying for rudeness and the status order it was designed to support, while attempting through punishment to limit the social disruption its application might cause.
Punishments occurred because executions sometimes created disturbance and protest by family or associates of the victim. Although the domain administration framed punishments as not directly caused by the slaying for rudeness itself, people in Tosa often remembered the punishments as being for the slaying, and then used that memory of former punishments as a means of proving their arguments to the domain that the "offending" samurai should be punished. Conflicting memories of the incidents thus were tools of socio-political conflict.
In sum, the Tosa administration sought to draw attention away from the rightness or wrongness of the slaying itself or even to suppress memory of the incident, while people within the realm commonly remembered the domain as punishing the samurai for the act, and then used that memory to justify the complaints and unrest at new instances of execution.
Kazuhiko Kasuya (International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyôto)
In the Tokugawa period, daimyo were required by the shogun to reside in Edo every other year as part of the system of alternate attendance (sankin kôtai). They constructed residence compounds (daimyô yashiki) in Edo, and during the period in which the daimyo returned to the domain and were not present in the bakufu capital their officials known as Edo Representatives ( Edo rusui yaku) held administrative authority. They handled all necessary co mmunications and negotiations with the Tokugawa government, as well as with other daimyo, during the lord's absence. In other words they held important functions as the daimyo's diplomats and as the domains' officials responsible for information gathering in Edo. To fulfill these functions the Edo representatives formed cooperatives (kumiai), each of which usually was comprised of officials from about ten daimyo households, of the same general status or shared some familial connection. The cooperatives were not formed due to bakufu dictate, but rather were generated organically by the daimyo themselves.
While the Edo Representatives did collect general information of a political and social nature, another key function involved inquiries into historical precedents for a variety of issues that confronted the domain. The Tokugawa government's decision-making and administrative authority was not based simply on the shogun's arbitrary rule. The use of historical precedent was a key element in that authority; it had great influence on the promulgation of laws and the issuance of regulations, not to mention in ceremonial matters that took place in Edo Castle. Given this, it became the responsibility of the individual cooperatives of Edo Representatives to investigate and collect information on precedents regarding issues as they arose. The overall significance of the Representatives thus lies in their identity as officials with specialized knowledge of historical memory.
In sum, this paper will investigate the function and importance of historical precedent or memory in Tokugawa politics and the crucial role of the Edo Representatives as specialists dealing with these issues.