PowerPoint Slides 24 January and 28 January (1) PDF

The “Foreign Threat” 1771 Hungarian Benyowsky escapes Russian penal colony in Kamchatka with a ship in its harbor, and makes three calls on the Japanese coast, seeking provisions. Addresses letters in German to the Dutch in Nagasaki, claiming to be a captain of the Austrian navy, and w...

The “Foreign Threat” 1771 Hungarian Benyowsky escapes Russian penal colony in Kamchatka with a ship in its harbor, and makes three calls on the Japanese coast, seeking provisions. Addresses letters in German to the Dutch in Nagasaki, claiming to be a captain of the Austrian navy, and warns of impending Russian attack from the North to gain attention. All of this was made up, but rumors of an impending Russian attack amidst concern over inadequate coastal defenses begin to spread. Expeditions to Ezo (present-day Hokkaido) and Kurile Islands to check on situation in the northern “borderlands.” Japan as a Secluded Country in the Eighteenth Century Until the eighteenth century, East Asian waters were dominated by the Dutch East India Company, which remained satisfied with its trading arrangement with Japan. And while as the British foothold in Canton became ever more important in world trade (tea and “chinaware”), Japan did not attract British trading interest until the mid-nineteenth century either. The English had abandoned their earlier trade in 1623 of their own accord (and thus were never excluded from trade by decree in fact). → Japanese “seclusion” had been possible because it was never seriously challenged. Moreover, it never was a consciously defined policy beyond the (later so-named) “seclusion edicts” of the 1630s banning Spanish and Portuguese trade, Christianity, and Japanese overseas travel. The term sakoku 鎖国 (“closed country”) was not coined before 1801 (see below). “Foreign Relations” of the Tokugawa State Ryūkyū Islands conquered by Satsuma in 1609. Conquest “concealed” from Ming China. → Ryūkyūs remain tributary state of China. (Japanese officials “hide” during Chinese embassies, Japanese influences explained by contacts with “Tokara”) → important conduit for trade with and information regarding China Ties with Korea (Yi dynasty) via Tsushima domain (Sō) → Japanese trading post in Pusan → Problems of protocol dealt with by forged documents, appellation taikun 大君, and use of zodiac years (to avoid implication of tributary relation with China) → Qing rule over China considered illegitimate in Korea. Japanese, despite Hideyoshi invasion, were considered less offensive. No Japanese allowed into Korea (beyond trading post in Pusan). Diplomatic missions by Korea to Tokugawa. (No kowtow as in China. Both sides construct relationship as honorable from their own viewpoint.) Trade with Ezo (present-day Hokkaido) via Matsumae domain. → Increasing importance of herring fishery for fertilizer. “Foreign Relations” of the Tokugawa State Trade therefore continues even as Japanese are banned from traveling abroad! → However, Japanese gold and silver mines depleted by the early 1700s, causing fiscal and monetary problems. In this sense, Japan subject to global economic forces. → On the other hand, no urban growth fueled by international trade. Economic growth fueled by agricultural production and regional commerce. Disengagement from the East Asian continent. No perceived foreign threat. Thus state building slackens. → Tokugawa decline Ming request for military help against Manchu in 1630s Complicated system of Tokugawa control possible only for that reason. Tokugawa needed no “national army.” Distinctly “non-modern” character of frontiers (defined ambiguously, or differently by states involved) Hayashi Shihei 林子平 Publishes Kaikoku heidan 開国兵談 (Military Talks for a Maritime Nation) in 1791. “What is meant by a maritime nation? It is a country not connected by land to any other, but bordered on all sides by the sea. There are defence preparations that are suited to a maritime nation, and that differ in kind from those prescribed in Chinese military works, as well as from those traditionally taught in Japan…” “A frontierless sea road leads from the Nihon Bridge in Edo to China and Holland. Why is it that there are defence installations only in Nagasaki?” Arrested for publicly commenting on questions of foreign policy as the shogunate’s preserve. Ultimately not sentenced to execution, but dies in house arrest. The Laxman Mission (1792-1793) 1783 Shipwreck of Daikokuya Kōdayū 大黒屋光太夫, who in 1791 ends up in St. Petersburg, where he convinces Catherine the Great to repatriate his group of castaways on a Russian ship. 1792 Russian envoy Laxman calls at Nemuro (Hokkaido) to return the Japanese castaways and ask for trade. 1793 Official response to Laxman in the name of the shogunate claims “ancestral laws” forbidding foreign intercourse. Officials instructed to make Laxman “understand the matter in terms of etiquette.” Laxman given permit to enter Nagasaki after being told that negotiations could only be conducted there. However, he returns to Russia, feeling that he lacked a sufficient mandate to negotiate with Japan. Point: The “policy of seclusion” had never been formulated as such before Laxman’s visit. Russia, which had reached the Pacific by the early eighteenth century and had some outposts as far as Alaska, was not pushing towards Japan either. Catherine had to be persuaded into supporting the Laxman mission, and did not sign off on it in her own name. (The Laxman Mission was undertaken in the name of the Governor of Siberia instead.) Laxman asked for trade when returning the castaways, but he sailed home when asked to relocate to Nagasaki before negotiations could begin. Some historians think that the Tokugawa might have agreed to a limited engagement with Russia if Laxman had proceeded to Nagasaki to pursue his request. The term sakoku 鎖国 (closed country, seclusion) was coined by Shizuku Tadao in his translation of Kaempfer’s “Seclusion Essay” (see next slide) only in 1801. Engelbert Kaempfer, “An Enquiry, whether it be conducive for the good of the Japanese Empire, to keep it shut up, as it is now, and not to suffer its inhabitants to have any Commerce with foreign nations, …” The Japanese “Empire” One of the discoveries made by the castaway Kōdayū in Russia was that Japan, like China, Russia, and England, etc., was referred to as an “Empire” in Europe. (Note also the title of Kaempfer’s essay: “… whether it be conducive for the good of the Japanese Empire…”) The Japanese term teikoku 帝国 is not found in the Chinese Classics, but was introduced to render the sense of the English “Empire” and its equivalents in other European languages. Note that when Europeans spoke of the Japanese “Emperor” they were usually referring to the shogun in Edo. The Japanese emperor in Kyoto was often compared, as a “spiritual emperor,” to the “Pope” instead. The term kōkoku 皇国 (imperial land), on the other hand, had been launched into currency (increasingly also among Confucians) by Kamo no Mabuchi in his Kokuikō 国意考 (“Study of the Idea of Our Country”) of 1765. Further Incidents with Foreign Ships By the time when the Russian ambassador Rezanow arrived in Nagasaki with Laxman’s permit 12 years later in 1804, the idea that Japan could not permit any trade other than with the Dutch and Chinese traders in Nagasaki was asserted as a longstanding and unalterable policy. Rezanow, on his part, took personal offense at being rejected, and some of his crew raided Japanese outposts in Sakhalin in 1807. The first British ship to force its way into Nagasaki harbor (the Phaeton in 1808), was doing so in pursuit of Dutch ships and provisions during the Napoleonic Wars, not as part of a policy to “open” Japan. → Increasing presence of whalers off the coast of Japan in 1820s The Expulsion Edict (Uchiharai-rei) of 1825 打払令 1824 British whalers go ashore in Mito, the seclusionist domain home to Aizawa Seishisai. Aizawa in charge of interrogating them. Note: it is increasing presence of whalers in the Pacific off the coast of Japan (rich hunting grounds while the Atlantic had been depleted) that leads to incidents more than diplomatic requests for opening the country to trade. The British whalers in Mito had been carrying Christian symbols. Aizawa Seishisai concerned especially about these. 1825 Shogunate issues order to “not think twice” before shooting at foreign ships approaching the Japanese coast. Aizawa Seishisai writes Shinron 新論 (New Theses) in the same year. Note: The only incident in which a ship was actually fired at, was the American Morrison’s attempt at entering Edo Bay in 1837. The “Don’t Thing Twice” Edict was revoked after the end of the Opium War (1842) in China. Confucian Critiques of the “Expulsion” Policy Western-style painter Shiba Kōkan 司馬江漢 on Rezanow Incident: “One cannot claim the behavior of the barbarians to have been in violation of etiquette (rei 礼). Rezanow was an envoy of the sovereign of his country, a sovereign no different from our own. Etiquette is held to be the first teaching in the Way of mankind. It is as if we have chosen to stand stark naked among people in proper court attire; they must think the people of our country to be no better than animals. Ah, how lamentable!” Western-style painter Watanabe Kazan 渡邊崋山 imagining a dialogue with an Englishman after the Morrison Incident: “Your country’s longstanding prohibition is firm and inviolable. However, not only my country but other seafaring nations have vessels that are blown off course, need firewood or fresh water, or have sick crewmen, and thus seek a landfall to relive the distress. When they do, they up against the heavily defended coast of your country, which presents an obstacle to navigation. For the sake of a single nation, you harm the other nations of the globe. We walk the same earth under the same heaven; if you thus offer harm to our own species, can you properly called human.” Aizawa Seishisai 会沢正志斎 (1782-1863) Advisor to Tokugawa Nariaki of Mito, who merged themes from Confucianism, National Learning and Dutch Learning. 1825 Shinron 新論 (“New Theses” or “New Proposals”) written in the same year as shogunate issued Expulsion Edict. Later becomes the “bible” of imperial loyalists seeking to overthrow Tokugawa shogunate. Seishisai, however, was not advocating overthrow of the shogunate yet. His is a nationalist, pro-imperial stance formulated from within the existing political framework. Obedience to one’s lord (daimyo, shogun) coincides with loyalty to the emperor for him. Aizawa Seishisai on the Kokutai 国体 (國體) Concept of the kokutai 国体, which combines elements from Shinto mythology, Confucian ethics, and Bushidō (Way of the Samurai), as central to Aizawa’s political message and thought. “Amaterasu founded our nation on the twin precepts of loyalty and filial devotion, … she esteemed martial virtues, and … attached supreme importance to nurturing her people.” → Pivotal concept in prewar and wartime emperor-centred nationalism: “Peace Preservation Law” of 1925 (same year as introduction of universal male suffrage) stipulates severe punishment for “crimes against the kokutai.” Kokutai no hongi 国体の本義 (“Fundamentals of Our National Polity”) published and distributed by Ministry of Education in 1937 Kokutai 国体 (國體) Continued Various translations of kokutai 国体 into English: “what is essential to the nation,” “national essence,” “national polity” etc. Note that the two meanings of the Sino-Japanese character tai 体（體）of physical “body” and metaphysical “substance” or “essence” are brought to overlap in the compound kokutai 国体 in a similar way as in the English term “body” in expressions such as “body politic.” “Just what is essential (tai 体) for a land and people to be a nation (kuni 国)? Without four limbs, a man is not a man. Similarly, a nation also possesses some essence [or requisite and defining entity that make it into a nation] (kokutai 国体).” But maybe closest: “imperial body politic,” since it conceptually ties Japan’s existence and “spiritual” unity as a “nation” (kuni 国) to its “imperial” quality manifest in an unbroken continuation of its imperial line. Aizawa Seishisai on Christianity But as Bob Wakabayashi has convincingly shown, Aizawa was also decisively influenced by what he believed was the superior spiritual efficacy of Christianity (even as he feared and denounced the latter, as an “evil creed”). “The only thing that allows the barbarians to achieve their sinister designs is their wicked doctrine, which they use to incite stupid commoners to rebel. The only way we can counteract that wicked doctrine is to elucidate the Great Way of Justice. When our Great Way is clear to all, the barbarians’ wicked religion will be foiled, and with it, their sole tactic of subversion.” From a letter written in the 1850s Aizawa Seishisai on “Inner Strength” of Christians Compare the high regard he expressed for Giovanni Battista Sidotti, a Jesuit missionary apprehended in 1709 upon trying to enter Japan (to convert the Japanese) in an undated essay titled “A Tract to Enlighten the Roman”: “You, sir, enjoy the blessing and derive inner strength from your religion and system of government. Upon order of your Pope you have traversed thousands of miles of desolate ocean, seeking only to disseminate the religion you hold so dear to your heart. I am deeply touched and impressed by your sense of patriotism, which fully accords with our own values of loyalty and truth.” Aizawa Seishisai on “the Sages’ Quan 権” “Certain people stress the need to enrich our country and strengthen our arms in order to defend our borders. But the foreign beasts now seek to take advantage of the fact that the people in outlying areas crave a source for spiritual reliance, and furtively seduce our commoners into betraying us. Should the barbarians win over our people’s hearts and minds, they will have captured the realm without a skirmish.” “[T]he barbarians have set up a false god and beguile their peoples with it. Therefore, they are able to make their peoples revere rulers [i.e. themselves] with the same reverent awe that those peoples feel for Heaven. Though their teachings are not the true teachings found in nature, these are sufficiently cogent to let them steal the sages’ quan 権… They make [their peoples] look upon them as one with Heaven.” Ogyū Sorai on the Sages’ Quan 権 Sorai applied his understanding of the Sages “perspicacity and wisdom” also to a re-reading of, and re-emphasis on, the Chinese character quan 権. As Wakabayashi shows, Sorai’s notion of “the Sages quan 権” was picked up by Aizawa Seishisai. It is also the character found in translations for English terms such as “sovereignty” (shuken 主権) later. “The former sage kings realized that words alone were insufficient to edify people, and therefore created ritual and music. They realized that political institutions and laws alone were insufficient to bring peace and stability to the people, and therefore created ritual and music to exercise ka 化, ‘an inducing influence’ over them… When one follows ritual, one comes under this ‘inducing influence’ and unconsciously obeys the laws of the sovereign.” Ogyū Sorai on the Sages’ Quan 権 “He who seeks to make his listeners submit through wordy explanations has already failed to make them submit voluntarily. A teaching is something dispensed to those who believe in the edifier. People [in antiquity] believed in the former sage king and the disciples of Confucius believed in him.” The character quan/ken 権 means originally a “counterweight” used for weighing on a balance. Compare the English “to deliberate” (from libra = “balance,” “pound”) meaning literally “weighing” (the pros and cons) of something (→ “to ponder,” penser) Compare also the English “weighing in” on something, or “weighing down” on someone, with the “weight” of authority or power. Additional meaning: “provisional” in Buddhist sense of “provisional” (gon 権) as in “provisional teaching” or “provisional appearance” (gongen 権現) → Tōshōgū gongen 東照宮権現 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Compare Seishisai’s concept of kokutai 国体 with the frontispiece of Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651), the book often said to contain the first theory of “the modern state.” Note that the “body” of “the Sovereign” depicted here is composed entirely of “the people” facing upwards in the direction of the Sovereign’s “head,” who is staring, half invitingly and half menacingly, at the reader in turn. Note that this drawing of Leviathan references St. Paul’s definition of the church (ecclesia) as the “body” formed by the followership of Christ whose “head” is Christ. The Emperor in the Text of the Meiji Constitution Article 1 The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal. Article 4 The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution. Article 5 The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent of the Imperial Diet. Article 6 The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be promulgated and executed. Itō Hirobumi’s “Axis Speech” before the Privy Council in 1888 “Thus in establishing this Constitution we must first seek the axis of the nation and decide what that axis shall be. Without an axis, with politics entrusted to the reckless deliberations of the people, the government will lose its guiding principle and the state will collapse. If the state is to survive and govern the people, we must see that it does not lose the means to rule effectively. Constitutional government in Europe has a history of more than a thousand years; not only are the people experienced in this system but their religion has provided an axis that imbued and united their hearts. In Japan, however, the power of religion is slight, and there is none that could serve as the axis of the state. Buddhism, when it flourished, was able to unite people of all classes, but it is today in a state of decline. Shinto, though it is based on and perpetuates the teachings of our ancestors, as a religion lacks the power to move the hearts of men. In Japan it is only the imperial house that can become the axis of the state. It is thus with this point in mind that we placed so high a value on imperial authority and endeavored to restrict it as little as possible in this draft constitution.”  Aizawa Seishaisai’s idea of the kokutai 国体 as a polity centered on the emperor in a quasi-religious fashion Nakae Chōmin on the Constitution Meiji-era “People’s Rights” leader and theorist. Translator of Rousseau’s “Social Contract” into Classical Chinese. Elected to First Diet in 1890 but lays down his mandate after Diet refuses to force the government to revise the Meiji Constitution. “What we call a constitution is when the people gather together to form a nation and cooperate in establishing rules and regulations in order to secure the foundations of their common welfare.” “The Constitution is none other than the articles of incorporation of the company [or “corporation”] (kaisha 会社) we call Japan.” → Chōmin characterizes a national assembly as “the general meeting of a nation’s shareholders.” Iwakura Mission (1871-1873) on “Government in Europe” “Government in Europe, taken as a whole, is completely different in character from government in the East. Embedded deep in the European character is the disposition to form corporate bodies (kaisha 会社), something which the Eastern races lack completely. Consequently, if we examine the political customs and practices of Europe in detail, we find that every unit of government, from the largest, the polity of a country, through the states, provinces and counties into which that polity is divided, to the smallest, the towns and villages into which those in turn are divided – is without exception organized in the form of a corporation (kaisha 会社).... The forming of corporations is a trait with which Europeans of all classes are thoroughly imbued. The republican form of government arises from [the practice of] appointing the head [of state] by public election. Superficially, these differ immensely, but neither is different in character from a body corporate.” Kume Kunitake, “A General Survey of Political Practices and Customs in Europe” “Society” ↔ “Corporation” 社会 ↔ 会社 Kokka 国家 “state” new overtones in “early modern” Japan Society 社会 “society” central to political debate in “modern” Japan Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 2 “Christianity has … preserved a great hold [empire] over the American mind [esprit], and what I especially want to note is that it reigns not only as a philosophy that is adopted after examination, but as a religion that is believed without discussion.” (p. 404) “The Americans have a democratic social state and constitution, but they did not have a democratic revolution. They arrived on the soil they occupy nearly as we see them. That is very important.” (p. 404) “The Americans have a democratic social state that has naturally suggested to them certain laws and political mores.” (p. 399) Aizawa Seishisai (1782-1863) on the Sun Goddess Amaterasu and Shintō 神道 as “the Spirit-Like Processes of Nature” “In antiquity, the Heavenly Ancestor [i.e. Amaterasu] (Tenso 天祖) established teachings (oshie 教) in accordance with the spirit-like processes of nature (shintō 神道), thus elucidating loyalty and filial devotion and prescribing the rules of conduct by which men live. It is by means of these teachings that the realm can be maintained for all eternity.” “New Theses” (Shinron 新論), 1825 Compare: “When they [the sages] gaze upon the spirit-like processes of nature (shendao 神道), the seasons unfold in proper order. The sages established teachings in accordance with the spirit-like processes of nature (shendao 神道), and the realm submits [in proper order].” “Classic of Changes” (Ijing 易経) Aizawa Seishisai on the Divine Origin of the Imperial Line “When Amaterasu bequeathed the realm to Her Divine Grandson, Ninigi, She … decreed that Ninigi step in to carry out the divine tasks hitherto accomplished naturally through the Heavenly Processes, and that thereafter the Three Imperial Regalia be handed down faithfully from generation to generation for ages eternal. … The distinction between ruler and subject was established, and the greatest virtue of all, loyalty of subject for ruler, was made manifest. In bequeathing the Mirror to Ninigi, the Sun Goddess said, ‘When you look at this Mirror, think of it as myself.’ Throughout the myriad generations, Emperors have worshipped this Mirror as the embodiment of Amaterasu Herself. When they gazed into it, they caught a glimpse of what they perceived to be Her sacred image, though what they really saw was their own reflection as Her offspring. When making sacrificial offerings at ritual time, a communion between men and gods inevitably occurs.” → this last phrase is actually a quote from the Ijing 易経 as well! The Unequal Treaties with China Opium War 1839-1842 Treaty of Nanking 1842 - Full access for British trade to specified Chinese ports - Low fixed tariffs on traded goods - Legal protection for British merchants (extraterritoriality) - Most favored nation clause - Cession of Hong Kong to Britain as a colony and naval base - Payment of 21 million silver dollars in damages News of British victory over China in Opium War had an enormous impact on Japanese perceptions of Japan’s position in the world. In Japan, high-ranking officials and well-connected intellectuals learned of China’s defeat quickly through Dutch reports. Question of cause for Chinese military defeat and how it caused a threat for Japan. Discussion of Opium War suppressed, but news impossible to contain. Government Responses and Tenpo Reforms 1842 Repeal of the “No Second Thought” expulsion order of 1825 out of concern that it might invite a military attack. Program to improve national defense under Mizuno Tadakuni from 1843. Reorganization of Edo’s defense, including creation of first modern artillery division. New coastal defense positions in Shimoda, Haneda and Niigata. Assertion of direct shogunal control over Niigata and two broad regions around Edo and Osaka. Furious protests by displaced daimyo and hatamoto as well as commoners. Mizuno forced to resign. Reforms systematically reversed. Stability of the compound state precluded the creation of a nation-state. In order to gain control over its capital region, the shogunate needed to challenge the authority the traditional privileges of its allies: hatamoto and fudai daimyo. Shogun Ieyoshi emphasizes need for “harmony.” The American Turn toward Japan Since the 1820s, increasing presence of New England whaling vessels in Japanese waters. Opening of new treaty ports in China (especially Shanghai) arouses new American interest in the China trade. Outbreak of war with Mexico led to the acquisition of California in 1848. Allegedly harsh treatment of shipwrecked American crews by local Japanese authorities stirs public sentiment in favor of protecting them. American navy was interested in acquiring coaling stations to supply its growing steamship fleet (Japan rumored to have abundant supplies of coal). Commodore Perry a champion of steam power: Important to establish a presence in Japan, before the “unconscionable government of England” does. Letter from King Willem II of the Netherlands, 1844 “The intercourse between the different nations of the earth is increasing with great rapidity. An irresistible power is drawing them together. Through the invention of steamships distances have become shorter. A nation preferring to remain in isolation at this time of increasing relationships could not avoid hostility with many others.” Letter by Commodore Perry to the Shogun (“Emperor”), 1853 “Therefore, as the United States and Japan are becoming every day nearer and nearer to each other, the President desires to live in peace and friendship with your imperial majesty, but no friendship can long exist, unless Japan ceases to act toward Americans as if they were her enemies. However wise this policy may originally have been, it is unwise and impractible now that the intercourse between the two countries is so much more easy and rapid than it formerly was.” The Advent of Steamships Note the emphases on reduced distances due to the introduction of steamships in the preceding quotes. Steamships were introduced at just this time! Note also that the authors of both letters were acutely aware of Kaempfer’s “Enquiry…,” the text that had been translated into Japanese as Sakokuron 鎖国論. One major premise of Kaempfer’s argument in favor of Japanese seclusion had been that Japan was geographically isolated. This was no longer true, especially if steamships ploughed the Pacific from San Francisco en route to Shanghai. They would inevitably steam along the Japan coast. Perry had a copy of Kaempfer’s A History of Japan on board! He thus knew how the Japanese would argue for seclusion, even as he may not have suspected that the Japanese negotiators had been reading the same text originally published in Latin in 1711! The Arrival of Perry in 1853 Arrival of Perry’s gunboats hardly a surprise to the Japanese authorities. Dutch in Dejima had already informed Japanese of plans for Perry Mission. (They even knew his name already.) Information also obtained from Japanese castaway (Nakahama Manjirō) who had lived in New England before returning to Japan (with a whaler) in 1851. But tactics of polite obfuscation and delay no longer worked. Perry determined to stand the Japanese government down: “to demand as right, and not to solicit as a favor, those acts of courtesy which are due from one civilized nation to another.” Letter by U.S. president Millard Fillmore (in Classical Chinese) in delivered by Perry in 1853 “It sometimes happens, in stormy weather, that one of our ships is wrecked on your imperial majesty’s shores. In all such cases we ask, and expect, that our unfortunate people shall be treated with kindness, and that their property should be protected, till we can send a vessel and bring them away. We are very much in earnest in this.” Letter by Commodore Perry presented to the Shogun (in Dutch) in 1853 “With the Americans, as indeed with all Christian peoples, it is considered a sacred duty to receive with kindness, and to succor and protect all, of whatever nation, who may be cast upon their shores, and such has been the course of the Americans with respect to all Japanese subjects who have fallen under their protection.” Abe Masahiro 阿部正弘 (1819-1857) Chief elder of shogunate from 1845-1855 Plans for coastal fortification, particularly along the approaches to Edo. But efforts hamstrung by financial difficulties and conservative resistance. Breaks with the practice of keeping the daimyo divided and weak: Permits Satsuma, Saga, and other domains to strengthen their defenses. On arrival of Perry, Abe breaks precedent by asking all daimyo how to respond to the American demands. Most urge to reject American demands but to avoid hostilities as well. Note that neither Perry’s nor U.S. President Filmore’s letter asked for trade! That access to coal for steamships and provisions, and a consular bridgehead on Japanese soil, not immediate trade, was Perry’s primary concern is clear from the fact that he accepted Shimoda and Hakodate as points of call. They are easily accessed by ships ploughing the sea off the Japanese coast, but not in reasonable distance from any major trading center. Perry succeeds with being allowed to land at Kurihama to personally hand over the letter to the Japanese “Emperor” (i.e., shogun) from President Fillmore. He vows to return within a few months for a response. (Smart move. Rather than insisting on an immediate response, he applies pressure, but also grants time for those arguing against rejection to win the upper hand in an ensuing decision- making process.) Some Daimyo Responses to Perry’s Request for Opening the Country in 1853 “The text of the letter does not sound entirely unreasonable.” “In their letters, there is a statement to the effect that the people of their country are also included within the Five Relations. Even the barbarians are conscious of proper ethics and couch their appeals to us in expressions of concern for humanity. If we should reject even such overtures, it would be difficult to claim the customs of our country are humane and just.” “Since it appears their [requests for] amity and friendship are being made in good faith, they should not be rejected… Though national territories may differ, all men exist between the same heaven and earth, and to take pity upon their distress and suffering is a fundamental principle of heaven and earth.” Convention (Treaty) of Kanagawa (1854) “Convention of Peace and Amity” signed on March 31, 1854, at Perry’s return. Opening of Shimoda and Hakodate as ports of call Provisions for the repatriation of shipwrecked sailors Provisioning of American ships by Japanese government Establishment of a consulate at Shimoda Article V “Shipwrecked men and other citizens of the United States, temporarily living at Simoda [Shimoda] and Hakodade [Hakodate], shall not be subject to such restrictions and confinement as the Dutch and Chinese are at Nagasaki, but shall be free at Simoda to go where they please within the limits of seven Japanese miles.” Hotta Masayoshi and the Harris Treaty 堀田正睦 (1810-1864) Shogunate happy to have weathered the crisis without resorting to war and without having given the foreigners the right to trade. But anti-foreign leaders, such as Tokugawa Nariaki of Mito, appalled. Abe Masahiro ousted and replaced by Hotta Masayoshi. Townsend Harris arrives as Consul in 1856, with instructions to negotiate trade treaty. Has no fleet to back him, but skillful in playing on shogunate’s fear of the British. (Second Opium War at this time.) January 1858: Signing of Draft Treaty opening new treaty ports (Yokohama, Nagasaki, Niigata, and eventually Kobe) for trade, establishment of customs duties by treaty, right of American traders to be tried in consular courts, dispatch of minister to Edo. Essentially the same as “Unequal Treaties” with China (with the important exception of Opium) The Succession Crisis and the Treaty Problem The dispute over the signing of the Harris Treaty coincided with a dispute over shogunal sucession due to the foreseeable death of the ailing young shogun Iesada. Shogunal elders backed the twelve-year old Tokugawa Iemochi (a weak shogun meant that the government would continue to be run by the elders), while the Reformist daimyo backed Yoshinobu (Keiki), the seventh son of Tokugawa Nariaki of Mito and head of the Hitotsubashi house (citing the need for a strong leader at a time of national crisis). Spring 1858: Hotta seeks imperial backing for treaty ratification. Imperial Decree calls for further deliberation instead. Severe blow to authority of shogunate. Hotta replaced by hardliner Ii Naosuke. July 1858: Ii Naosuke signs Harris treaty, decides succession in favor of Iemochi, and clamps down on opposition.  Yoshida Shōin Rise of Imperial Loyalism 吉田松陰 (1830-1859) With his refusal to back the shogunate’s signing of the Harris Treaty, the emperor emerges as a rallying point for anti-foreign and increasingly anti-Tokugawa activists. “Revere the Emperor, Expel the barbarians” as a rallying cry (sonnō jōi 尊王攘夷). Students of Yoshida Shōin in Chōshū in a leading role. “The Realm (tenka 天下) belongs to one person (i.e. the emperor) and not unto itself.” “imperial loyalty” as transcending accumulated layers feudal loyalty Mostly middle and lower ranks of the samurai class, “men of high purpose” (shishi 志士) seek to control Kyoto. 1860 Assassination of Ii Naosuke at Sakurada-mon Gate Kōbu gattai 公武合体 “Unity between court and shogunate” Attempt to promote “unity between the court and military government (shogunate) (kōbu gattai 公武合体), by such means as having Iemochi marry the emperor’s younger sister. → Note that in the slogan kōbu gattai 公武合体 the character kō 公 (used later to translate “public”) denotes the “imperial court” here, while bu 武 (military) denotes the shogunate. So far the character kō 公 had been prominently associated with the shogunate through appellations such as kōgi 公儀 (“public authority”) and kubō 公方 (although the court nobles were certainly also kuge 公家) Political Moves of the Shogunate During the 1860s After the assassination of Ii (1860), reformist daimyo such as Matsudaira Yoshinobu (Shungaku) appropriate kōbu gattai 公武合体 as a slogan to broaden their own influence. 1862 Marriage of Shogun Iemochi to the emperor’s younger sister Kazunomiya takes place. Hitotsubashi (Tokugawa) Yoshinobu (the candidate of the reformist daimyo in the succession struggle) is appointed “guardian” of Shogun Iemochi, while Matsudaira Yoshinaga (who had been forced into retirement by Ii Naosuke) is appointed Senior Councilor. At the same time: Moderation and virtual abolition of sankin kōtai (alternate attendance) system. Chōshū as a Restorationist Domain 1862 On the side of imperial loyalism, meanwhile, Chōshū emerges as the principal protector and instigator of radical shishi and rōnin activities. 1863 Anti-bakufu intrigues move court to issue decree for expulsion of foreigners. Chōshū fires on ships passing through Shimonoseki straits. Satsuma forces, under order of the shogunate, expel Chōshū activists from Kyoto. 1864 Chōshū forces reenter Kyoto. Are driven out by Satsuma and Aizu forces. First Punitive Expedition against Chōshū in fall. Loyalist leaders executed. 1865 Loyalists regain control of government in Chōshū aided by militia units (kiheitai 騎兵隊) including commoners equipped with Western arms. Satsuma’s Way to Alliance with Chōshū Second largest domain. One out of three inhabitants are samurai, including rural samurai. Strong financial position through sugar monopoly and Ryūkyū trade 1863/1864 joins shogunate in driving out Chōshū from Kyoto. However, radicals around Saigō Takamori and Ōkubo Toshimichi gain in influence. 1866 Sakamoto Ryōma of Tosa mediates secret deal between Satsuma and Chōshū. Satsuma to stay neutral. Second punitive expedition against Chōshū. Satsuma stays neutral. Shogunate suffers humiliating defeat. Shogun Iemochi dies during campaign. Domestic Unrest Nonetheless widespread popular expectation of radical change: Opening of ports causes sharp inflation (debasing of gold coins to stem outflow of gold due to different silver-gold exchange rate, foreign demand for silk) and economic dislocation (imported goods drive prices down, forcing local producers out of business.) 1866 35 urban riots and 106 peasant uprisings (Uprisings not anti-foreign in nature though.) 1867 Ee ja nai ka Movement “Crowds of people in holiday garb, dancing and singing ee ja nai ka (isn’t it good?), houses decorated with rice cakes of all colours, oranges, little bugs, straws and flowers… Many of the dancers carried red lanterns on their heads. The pretext for these rejoicing was a shower of pieces of paper, bearing the names of the two gods of Ise, alleged to have taken place recently.” Reforms of the Shogunate under Tokugawa Yoshinobu 1866-67 New shogun Yoshinobu (since 1867) embarks on an attempt at remaking the shogunate into a Western-style national government, not so different from policies adopted by the Meiji government later. 1866 Removal of all restrictions on Japanese trading at the open ports, purchase of ships, employment of foreigners, travel abroad. Suspicion by loyalists that shogunate will turn against them. Anti-shogunate elements in Choshu, Satsuma and Tosa determined to replace Tokugawa government by a new “imperial government” Radical court noble Iwakura Tomomi in 1866: “To [reassert our national prestige and overcome the foreigners] requires that the country be united. For the country to be united, policy and administration must have a single source. And for policy and administration to have a single source, the Court must be the center of the national government.” Sakamoto Ryōma (1836-1867) 坂本龍馬 Lower samurai from Tosa, studying in Edo at the time of Perry’s arrival. Returns to Tosa in 1858 and joins loyalist radical faction. Seeks to assassinate modernizing shogunal affical Katsu Kaishū in 1863, but is convinced by the latter of the need for modernizing reform instead. Becomes Katsu Kaishu’s protégé. Arranges Satsuma-Chōshū alliance in 1866. Senchū hassaku (Eight Point Plan Drafted Aboard a Ship) in 1867: Argument for power-sharing between imperial loyalists and shogunate based on invocation of kōgi yoron 公議輿論 (public debate and public opinion). Basis for Tosa proposal for “peaceful return of power” in 1867. Assassinated in 1867. Katsu Kaishū “Restoration of Imperial Rule” July 1867 Proposal by Tosa and Echizen domains for peaceful transfer of power: abolition of the shogunate, demotion of the Tokugawa to daimyo status, establishment of a bicameral assembly November 1867 Tokugawa Yoshinobu agrees to return “sovereign power” to the imperial court. Understanding that he remains as head of both the executive and legislative branches of government. “restoration of sovereignty to the imperial court, with public discussion (kōgi 公議) to be exhaustively pursued throughout the realm” “Restoration of Imperial Rule” (continued) December 1867 Contingents of Satsuma and Chōshū move into Kyoto, occupy imperial palace on January 3, 1868. January 3, 1868 “Restoration Edict” (ōsei fukko no gorei 王政復古の御令) formally abolishing traditional offices of the shogunate and establishing a new imperial government “appropriate public discussion (kōgi 公議) to be pursued without discrimination between court officials and samurai, or those of high or low rank or station.” Note the term kōgi 公議 as the hallmark of the Echizen-Tosa faction  kōgi 公儀 → kōgi 公議 shogunal government as “public authority” “public discussion”/”public opinion” → Historians who argue that the Meiji Restoration ought to be more properly conceived of as a “revolution” focus on this shift in how the “public” is conceived, seeing a “republican” turn in it. Yokoi Shōnan 横井小楠 (1809-1869) Confucian advisor to Matsudaira Yoshinaga (Shungaku) of Echizen. Assassinated in 1869. 1860 Kokuze sanron 国是三論 (Three Theses on National Principles) Describes “republican” government in Confucian terms as politics of “public harmony” (kōkyō wahei 公共和平) → translation of “republic” as kyōwakoku 共和国. Remains a staunch Confucian to the end of his life. But aversion to the traditional “warrior ethics.” Yokoi Shōnan, Kokuze sanron (Three Theses on National Principles), 1860 “In America, three major policies have been set up from Washington's presidency on: First, to stop wars in accordance with divine intentions, because nothing is worse than violence and killing among nations; second, to broaden enlightened government by learning from all the countries of the world; and third, to work with complete devotion for the peace and welfare of the people by entrusting the power of the president of the whole country to the wisest instead of transmitting it to the son of the president and by abolishing the code [ of obligation] in the relationship between ruler and minister. Based on these policies, the Americans have adopted all of the best political institutions and administrative and other tools and techniques from throughout the world and made them their own, implementing a truly benevolent government. In England the government is based entirely on the popular will, and all government actions-large and small-are always debated by the people. [... ] Furthermore, all countries, including Russia, have established schools and military academies, hospitals, orphanages, and schools for the deaf and dumb. The governments are entirely based on moral principles, and they work hard for the benefit of the people, virtually as in the three ancient periods of sage-rule in China.” “Restoration” as return to Japan’s supposedly “ancient constitution” Early Meiji leaders bolstered their claim as restorationists by labeling the first government offices with ancient Chinese terms used by the Japanese court in the Nara and Heian periods. Considerable influence by kokugaku scholars on early Meiji politics: Creation of a Department of Divinity (Jingikan 神祇官) above the Council of State (Dajōkan 太政官). This department was not modeled on a Chinese institution. Semiofficial status of Buddhist temples in Edo era ended. Wave of attacks on Buddhist temples (haibutsu kishaku 廃仏毀釈). Ideal of “Unity of Ritual and Government” (saisei itchi 祭政一致) ←Aizawa Seishisai ←Maeno Ryōtaku on Christianity in Europe The “Meiji Restoration” as a Comprehensive “Spiritual Regeneration” (万機の維新) The court noble Iwakura Tomomi, one of the key figures in the coup leading to the “restoration of imperial rule” (ōsei fukko 王政復古) on January 3, 1868, and leader of the Iwakura Mission of 1871-73 quotes in his memoir the following advice by the National Learning scholar Tamamatsu Misao of 1867. “You must make the restoration of imperial rule (ōsei fukko 王政復古) as broad and far-reaching as possible. Thus in reconstituting the structure of official ranks and offices, the goal should be a comprehensive regeneration (banki no ishin 万機の維新) aimed at unifying the realm based on the original foundation established by Emperor Jimmu (Jimmu-tei 神武帝).” The “Meiji Restoration” as an Imperial “Government Reform” (kōsei ishin 皇政維新) in 1868 Opening Line of the Seitaisho 政体書 (“Constitution of 1868”/”June Constitution”) as rendered by the Kobe Journal in English: 去冬皇政維新… (Kyotō kōsei ishin …) “This winter after the government was reformed…” (contemporary English translation in Kobe Journal) → Authors of Seitaisho prominently included a disciple of Yokoi Shōnan (advisor to Matsudaira Shungaku of Echizen), a proponent of the of the kōgi yoron 公議世論 faction. Shōnan had used the term 維新 in a sense of fundamental government “reform” in his writings. The “Meiji Restoration” as “the Restoration” (ishin 維新) in a Government Document of 1876 我が帝国は旧邦なりと雖ども、其政は即ち新なり。維新の事業は… “Our Empire (teikoku 帝国) is an old state, its government (matsurigoto 政) is what is new. The work of the Restoration (ishin 維新)…” Compare the following sentence for the Classic of Poetry quoted by Zhu Xi in his Commentary to the Great Learning: 周旧邦雖、其命惟（維）新 “Zhou is an old state, its mandate, however, is new.” Note that “the government” (matsurigoto 政) has been moved into the space of the Confucian “mandate” (mei 命) here! Origin of the Term Ishin 維新 as a Sino-Japanese Character Compound 周旧邦雖、其命惟[=維]新 Shu wa kyuho to iedomo, sono mei ha kore arata nari. “Zhou is an old state, its mandate, however, is new.” (Classic of Poetry, also quoted by Zhu Xi in his commentary the Great Learning) 惟（維）kore: “that is what is…” (throwing the emphasis on the preceding word) → 維新 ishin = kore arata nari: “That is what is new” “That” being the Heavenly “mandate” (mei 命) of the Zhou dynasty! → 革命 kaku-mei “change of [Heavenly] mandate” ← mei o aratameru 命を革める, “renew the mandate” Zhu Xi’s Reading of 親[=新] in the Great Learning Zhu Xi’s reading of the opening line of the Great Learning: 明明德，在親[=新]民，在止於至善。 “[The way of greater learning lies in] keeping one’s inborn luminous Virtue unobscured, in renovating the people, and in coming to rest in perfect goodness.” Note that Zhu Xi quotes the Classic of Poetry here precisely to support his reading of 親民 as 新民, that is, as “[morally] renovating the people” as opposed to “caring for the people as a parents are expected of caring for a child.” Note also that this line, and Zhu Xi’s commentary on it is from the very first sentence that anyone studying the Neo-Confucian curriculum was taught and given to memorize. Confucian “Moral Renovation” and English “Civilization” “Civilization itself is but a question of the personal improvement of the men, women, and children of whom society is composed.” Samuel Smiles, Self-Help (1859) translated by Nakamura Masanao in 1870 “If we desire to change the people’s character and thereby encourage elevated conduct and virtuous feelings, we will accomplish absolutely nothing if we only reform the political structure… We should aspire instead to change the character of the people, more and more rooting out the old habits and achieving ‘renewal’ with each new day.” Nakamura Masanao, “On Changing the Character of the People” → Nakamura Masanao was a professor at the Confucian academy founded by Hayashi Razan (next to Ochanomizu station), who also translated John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty as Jiyū no ri 自由之理 in 1871. The “Meiji Restoration” as an Anglophone “Revolution”? From a letter by the British diplomat Ernest Satow (1843-1929) to F. W. Dickens, a Japan specialist in London: “On another point touched in your letter, whether the events of 1868 constitute a Restoration or a Revolution, I am inclined to agree with your view that it is the latter that is most characteristic of the period, though the other was what the leading men of the time preferred to use as their watchword… I dare say you will agree with me that not much importance is to be attached to a name. Only this is certain, that to the lips of those of us who were eyewitnesses of what went on, the word ‘revolution’ came spontaneously, never the other, till it was adopted out of courtesy to the Japanese, in the same way as Tokio has been substituted for Yedo and Emperor for Mikado in European mouths, because the Japanese liked that better.” A Modern “Revolution” “If we compare the situation of 1868 in any aspect – political, economic, social, cultural – to that of just a decade later, the changes are breathtaking and fully merit the term revolution. Of course, no society ever severs itself totally from its past, and Japan was no exception. But the range and depth of the changes were astonishing to observers at the time. It remains so when looking back after 150 years. One of the most insightful contemporary observers was a British scholar named Basil Hall Chamberlain. He lived in Japan for over thirty years beginning in 1873. In 1891, he wrote: …” (p. 61) Quote by Basil Hall Chamberlain “To have lived through the transition stage of modern Japan lets a man feel preternaturally old; for here he is in modern times, with the air full of talk about bicycles and bacilli and ‘spheres of influence,’ and yet he can remember distinctly the Middle Ages. The dear old Samurai who first initiated the writer into the mysteries of the Japanese language, wore a queue and two swords. This relic of feudalism now sleeps in Nirwana. His modern successor, fairly fluent in English, and dressed in a serviceable suit of dittos, might almost be European, save for a certain obliqueness of the eyes and scantiness of beard. Old things pass away between a night and a morning.” Quote by Basil Hall Chamberlain Continued “Yes, we repeat it, Old Japan is dead and gone, and Young Japan reigns in its stead…. Nevertheless, … is it abundantly clear to those who have dived beneath the surface of the modern Japanese upheaval that more of the past has been retained than has been let go. It is not merely that the revolution itself was an extremely slow growth, a gradual movement taking a century and a half to mature. It is that the national character persists intact, manifesting no change in essentials. Circumstances have deflected it into new channels, that is all.” Note that this quote is from 1905 and not 1891 as Gordon asserts. Chamberlain is not simply “observing” here but bitterly sarcastic out of a deep sense of disappointment with the rise of nationalism, militarism, and imperialism he observed in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War (and Japan’s annexation of Korea), in the country he called home for four decades and deeply loved. (See also his “Invention of a New Religion” cited earlier.)