by Donald Keene
25. This is the theory of Asukai, Meiji taitei, p. 98.
Chapter 10
1. The French text of this treaty is in W. G. Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy, pp. 273–74. It provided that the Japanese government had to deliver to the French minister in Edo, within three months of the return of the Japanese embassy, 140,000 “piastres mexicains, dont 100,000 piastres seront payées par le Gouvernement lui-mēme, et 40,000 piastres par l’Autorité de la Province de Nagato.”
2. A translation of Ikeda’s long letter to the shogunate explaining his actions is in Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, pp. 274–82.
3. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 387.
4. Ibid., 1, p. 388.
5. Ibid., 1, p. 395. This entry is dated February 16. His name appeared again on March 8, when he urged precisely the opposite course of action: to allow the nobles to return to the capital and to restore them to their positions. He seems to have changed his mind as the result of an order from the daimyo of Satsuma, Shimazu Mochihisa.
6. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 407.
7. The foreigners always referred to the emperor as the mikado, a title that they believed was that of a religious, rather than a secular, authority.
8. Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 653. The original French text of the memorandum, signed on October 30, 1865, in Yokohama by the ministers in Japan of Great Britain, France, the United States, and Holland, is in Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, pp. 293–96. The contents differ in many small ways from the Japanese version given in summary here.
9. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 416.
10. The information on the dealings with the foreigners at Hyōgo, found in Kōmei tennō ki, 5, pp. 654–55, is derived from Zoku saimu kiji, the records kept between 1862 and 1867 by Matsudaira Yoshinaga (1828–90), the daimyo of Echizen.
11. Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 654.
12. Mario Emilio Cosenza, ed., The Complete Journals of Townsend Harris, pp. 371, 518.
13. Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, p. 300. The letter is dated November 21, 1865.
14. It is true that the foreigners on occasion (and as far back as Townsend Harris) had threatened to take a disputed matter to the mikado in Kyōto, but this was the first time they—or anyone else—had been informed that the emperor ranked higher than the shogun. For mention of foreigners who had earlier shown awareness of the importance of the emperor, see F. V. Dickins and S. Lane-Poole, The Life of Sir Harry Parkes, 2, p. 43. But William Elliot Griffis wrote, “English scholarship first discovered the true source of power, exposed the counterfeit government in Yedo, read the riddle of ages, and rent the veil that so long hid the truth. It was the English minister, Sir Harry Parkes, who first risked his life to find the truth; stripped the shogun of his fictitious title of ‘majesty;’ asked for at home, obtained, and presented credentials to the mikado, the sovereign of Japan” (The Mikado’s Empire, p. 577)
15. I have followed here the account given by Matsudaira Yoshinaga, as quoted in Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 655. It differs in details from the account in Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 418, which states, for example, that it was Parkes who, seeing Inoue about to cut his finger, said he took his word.
16. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 419.
17. Quoted in Ishii Takashi, Bakumatsu hiun no hitobito, p. 91.
18. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 420. For a translation of the message from the court to the shogunate, see Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, p. 304.
19. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 421.
20. Quoted in Tōyama Shigeki, ed., Ishin no gunzō, p. 56. His translation is very free and omits a good deal, but by so doing he makes better sense than the original. Ishii quotes phrases from the same letter, dated August 29, 1865 (Bakumatsu, p. 89). The letter does not appear in Kōmei tennō ki but is in Asahiko Shinnō nikki, 1, pp. 336–37.
21. Asahiko Shinnō nikki, 1, pp. 336–37. Tōyama says this statement is to be found in Zoku sōri meichū (Ishin, p. 57), but it is not there. He also quotes the diary of Nakayama Tadayasu to the effect that “the palace is exactly like the licensed quarter; every day is spent in pleasure.”
22. Ishii, Bakumatsu, p. 88.
23. Tōyama, Ishin, p. 51; Ishii, Bakumatsu, p. 77. Because of this position, the prince was referred to as in no miya.
24. The relevant part of the letter sent by Kōmei to Nakagawanomiya on January 11, 1864, is in Kōmei tennō ki, 4, p. 940. Ishii quotes the section in which the emperor, denouncing the rumor as the work of villains seeking to overturn the changes achieved on September 30, said he was sure the in no miya could see into his heart, just as he could see into the in no miya’s heart (Bakumatsu, p. 77). Kōmei concluded with the assertion that he entertained absolutely no suspicions of the prince.
25. Tōyama, Ishin, p. 52.
26. According to Ninagawa Shin, “The emperor Meiji ascended the throne on the ninth day of the first month of the third year of Keiō. On the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month of the previous year his father, Kōmei tennō, was assassinated by Iwakura and others, and on the twentieth day of the ninth month of that year the fourteenth shogun, Iemochi, was killed by an unknown assailant while in Ōsaka Castle” (Meiji tennō, p. 11).
27. The Chōshū men included such outstanding figures as Kido Takayoshi, Takasugi Shinsaku, Inoue Kaoru, and Itō Hirobumi (Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 429).
28. For the negotiations at this time, see Marius B. Jansen, Sakamoto Ryōma and the Meiji Restoration, pp. 217–22.
29. For the six articles of the agreement, see ibid., pp. 220–21.
30. Iemochi’s illness had begun in May of that year and, after various ups and downs, had become serious at the end of the July while he was in Ōsaka. For a detailed account of his illness, see Conrad Totman, The Collapse of the Tokugawa Bakufu, p. 516.
31. The diary of a court lady mentions Princess Chikako’s fears that Kamenosuke was too young to cope with the difficult times (quoted in Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 799).
32. Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 798. The memorial to the throne is dated simply “seventh month” but elsewhere is identified as having been sent on the twenty-ninth day of the seventh month. However, Iemochi died on the twentieth day of the seventh month. It is not clear, therefore, whether Iemochi wrote the memorial at some previous time or whether it was written by someone else.
33. The text of the proposal is in Kōmei tennō ki, 5, pp. 804–6.
34. This is the view of Ishii, Bakumatsu, p. 95. I have tried without success to imagine Kaiser Wilhelm II listening patiently as a stinging attack was made on his policies.
35. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 442.
36. The announcement said merely that hostilities were being discontinued “for a while” (shibaraku) (Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 832).
Chapter 11
1. Ōkubo Toshiaki, Iwakura Tomomi, p. 138.
2. Ishii Takashi, Bakumatsu hiun no hitobito, pp. 97–98.
3. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 445.
4. Ibid., 1, p. 445.
5. Ibid., 1, p. 445.
6. Ibid., 1, p. 454; documentation is in Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 916.
7. Higashikuze Michitomi, Ishin zengo, pp. 41–42. For a citation from Nakayama Tadayasu’s diary in which he mentioned that the emperor was so robust that he never even caught a cold, see also Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 927.
8. Haraguchi Kiyoshi, “Kōmei tennō wa dokusatsu sareta no ka,” p. 48. See also Kōmei tennō ki, 5, p. 918.
9. Nakayama Tadayasu nikki, 3, p. 652.
10. Tankai’s diary stated that the emperor was well on the way to recovery (Nezu Masashi, “Kōmei tennō wa byōshi ka dokusatsu ka,” p. 33).
11. Haraguchi, “Kōmei,” p. 49. Kōmei’s death was officially said to have occurred on the twenty-ninth of the twelfth month, although he actually died on the twenty-fifth. It had been the practice ever since the seventeenth century for the “official” day of an emperor’s death to be later than the day on which he actually died, perhaps to allow more time f
or preparing the funeral. It was decided in October 1867 to change the day of mourning for Emperor Kōmei to the day on which he had actually died (Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 816).
12. Haraguchi, “Kōmei,” p. 57.
13. Haraguchi discusses the article by Yoshida Tsunekichi, first published in 1949, insisting that smallpox was the cause of Kōmei’s death, in ibid., pp. 49–50.
14. Nezu Masashi, who emerged as the leading exponent of the poison theory, somewhat melodramatically stated that “anyone who, prior to the defeat, expressed the slightest doubt concerning this official fact [that Emperor Kōmei died a natural death] was branded as impious or else pursued by the law and thrown into prison. No scholar even considered investigating it. Not one document written in Japanese openly stated that Emperor Kōmei had been poisoned, but Satow’s A Diplomat in Japan reported it as a rumor. This passage was cut from the Japanese translation of Satow’s book” (“Kōmei,” p. 28). But Nezu himself mentions that in July 1940, at a meeting of the Nihon ishi gakkai Kansai shibu (Kansai Division of the Society for the History of Japanese Medicine), Dr. Saeki Riichirō, after examining the diary of a court physician in the possession of Irago Motoyoshi, concluded that the course of the smallpox was normal up until January 22 or 23, when Iwakura Tomomi took advantage of the emperor’s illness to have his niece, a court lady, administer poison. Dr. Saeki said he had heard the facts directly from the woman in question, who subsequently became a nun at the Reikan-ji convent at Shishigatani, to the east of Kyōto (pp. 34–35). Among the problems is the fact that the court lady in question was a sister, not a niece, of Iwakura’s. Ishii, who supported the poison theory, felt compelled to state that the sister, Horikawa Motoko, could not have committed the crime, if only because she was not on duty in the palace at that time (Bakumatsu, p. 114).
I also recall hearing from my teacher, Dr. Tsunoda Ryūsaku, that about 1910 a neighbor at a bar in Honolulu told him that he had taken part in the assassination of Kōmei and for this reason could not remain in Japan. This would be pertinent information if I could be sure that (1) my memory of Professor Tsunoda’s conversation was accurate forty years after hearing it; (2) Professor Tsunoda’s memory of the alleged conversation in Honolulu was accurate forty years later; and (3) the man at the bar was not drunk.
15. Sir Ernest Satow, A Diplomat in Japan, pp. 185–86. Baku-fu is used for the shogunate, and Shitotsubashi (Hitotsubashi) for Tokugawa Yoshinobu.
16. Nezu, “Kōmei,” p. 35.
17. This theory is mentioned by Ōya Sōichi in Ōya Sōichi zenshū, 23, p. 294.
18. Ishii gives the names of two court ladies (Takano Fusako and Nakamikado Yo-shiko) who seem to him to be not above suspicion (Bakumatsu, p. 113). He also says, without further elucidation, that the culprit probably was a court lady, although a mastermind man was doubtless working behind the scenes. However, Sasaki Suguru suggested that the poisoner may have been Ōkubo Toshimichi, working in cahoots with Iwakura, who was hampered in his movements by his exile to Iwakura Village (Boshin sensō, p. 9). In any case, Sasaki felt sure that somebody working behind the scenes had planned the assassination. However, when his book was reprinted thirteen years later (in 1990), he wrote that he had been persuaded by Haraguchi’s articles that Kōmei died of smallpox.
19. Maruya Saiichi amusingly imagined the performance of kabuki that Emperor Meiji witnessed on April 26, 1887 (Aoi Amagasa, pp. 273–74). An addition to the program consisting of the play within the play from Hamlet, would be performed in the presence of not only the emperor but also Iwakura Tomomi, whose crime—poisoning the emperor like Claudius—would be enacted as Meiji stared at the guilty man. But as Maruya was fully aware, Iwakura died in 1883.
20. Ōkubo, Iwakura, pp. 181–82. A description by Iwakura of his overpowering grief on learning of the illness and death of Kōmei is in Iwakura-kō jikki, 1, pp. 1135–36.
21. Haraguchi Kiyoshi, “Kōmei tennō to Iwakura Tomomi.”
22. Haraguchi Kiyoshi, “Kōmei tennō no shiin ni tsuite,” pp. 2–3.
23. The art of vaccination had been transmitted to Japan in the 1830s by physicians at the Dutch trading station in Nagasaki. By this time it was being practiced fairly widely among the upper classes.
24. Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 459–60.
25. Ibid., 1, p. 470.
Chapter 12
1. This is an excerpt from a letter dated February 21, 1867. It is in Iwakura Tomomi kankei monjo, 3, p. 277. See also Fujita Satoru, Bakumatsu no tennō, pp. 239–40.
2. Asahiko Shinnō nikki, 2, p. 268. Shōki (Chung Kuei) was a mythic being of fierce countenance (distinguished by his full beard and big eyes) who was believed to have the power to drive away the god of plague and other demons with the sword he brandishes. He appeared in the dream of the T’ang emperor Hsüan-tsung, who had the painter Wu Tao-tzu draw his portrait.
3. Asahiko Shinnō nikki, 2, p. 272.
4. Tōyama Shigeki, ed., Ishin no gunzō, p. 57.
5. Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 463, 479. See also Watanabe Ikujirō, Meiji tennō, 1, p. 88.
6. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 466.
7. Ibid., 1, p. 467.
8. The ancient practice of bestowing on a deceased emperor a posthumous name derived from the Chinese classics and referring to him as tennō, which had fallen into desuetude for 955 years, was revived in 1840 for Emperor Kōkaku in honor of his long reign (Fujita Satoru, Bakumatsu no tennō, pp. 129–33). Before this return to ancient usage, emperors were normally known posthumously by a place-name followed by the word in, meaning that the emperor had entered priestly orders before his death. Ichijō-in and Momozono-in are examples. Kōmei tennō is an example of the new (but also ancient) usage.
9. Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 826–27.
10. Ibid., 1, pp. 469–70.
11. Ibid., 1, p. 477. For the complete text of the shogun’s letter, see Tada Kōmon, ed., Iwakura-kō jikki, 2, pp. 42–43, and W. G. Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy, pp. 308–10.
12. The text is in Tada, ed., Iwakura, 2, p. 44; the translation, in Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, p. 310.
13. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 480. The text is in Tada, ed., Iwakura, 2, pp. 44, 45; the translation, in Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, pp. 310–11.
14. The text is in Tada, ed., Iwakura, 2, p. 47; the translation, in Beasley, ed. and trans., Select Documents, p. 319.
15. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 481. Nakayama Tadayasu continued to give the young emperor lectures on the Japanese classics, and other men lectured on Chinese works (pp. 500, 507).
16. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 497. Meiji also had instruction from Takatsuji Osanaga and Nagatani Nobuatsu in the Chinese classics (pp. 500, 508). The one Chinese classic mentioned by name was the Shu Ching (Book of History).
17. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 474.
18. Ibid., 1, p. 481.
19. Ibid., 1, p. 484.
20. On December 17 the American minister resident, R. B. Van Valkenburgh, sent a message conveying the thanks of President Andrew Johnson for the Japanese efforts (Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 549).
21. At this time her name was Masako, but it was changed to Haruko, the name by which she was known abroad. For the sake of uniformity, I shall call her Haruko throughout.
22. Horaguchi Michihisa, Shōken kōtaikō, p. 9.
23. Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 502–3.
24. Ibid., 1, p. 504.
25. Ibid., 1, pp. 504–5. A nyōgo was ranked immediately below empress.
26. According to the Japanese calendar, it was on the twenty-eighth day of the twelfth month of the previous year. A full description of the marriage ceremonies is in Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 941–44.
27. Meiji tennō ki, 1, pp. 940–41.
28. She was known as jungō, meaning literally, “next after the empress.”
29. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 943.
Chapter 13
1. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 495.
2. Ibid., 1, pp. 497, 500. The text states that
in extreme cases husbands and wives separated and relatives broke off relations, estranged by the change in circumstances.
3. Meiji tennō ki, 1, p. 511.
4. Ibid., 1, p. 656.
5. Ibid., 1, p. 681.
6. Ibid., 1, p. 682. Sir Ernest Satow describes Sir Harry Parkes’s meeting with Gotō Shōjirō and Date Munenari (Muneki) on May 22, 1868: “With the latter we had a discussion about the recently published edict against Christianity; it revived the ancient prohibition, but in less stringent terms. Daté admitted that the wording was objectionable, and said that he had caused it not to be exhibited on the public notice-boards at Ozaka and Hiōgo. He had tried to get the expression (translated ‘evil’ or ‘pernicious’ sect) altered, but said it would be impossible to suppress the proscription of Christianity altogether …. Afterwards I had a long talk with Nakai [Hiroshi] on this subject, and suggested that instead of specifically mentioning Christianity the decree should merely forbid ‘pernicious sects’ in general. It was clear that the Japanese Government would not be induced to revoke the law completely, for that would be to give a free hand to the Roman Catholic missionaries at Nagasaki, who had already made themselves obnoxious by the active manner in which they had carried on their proselytism” (A Diplomat in Japan, p. 368).
7. Meiji tennō ki, 3, p. 42.
8. Ishii Takashi, Boshin sensō ron, p. 1.
9. For Oguri’s advocacy of Tokugawa zettai shugi, see Ishii Takashi, Bakumatsu hiun no hitobito, pp. 188–221.
10. Ishii, Boshin, p. 21.
11. Terajima Munenori (also known as Matsuki Kōan, 1832–1883) was an exception to this generalization. During the brief “war” between Satsuma and the British, he deliberately became a prisoner in order to travel abroad. His knowledge of the rest of the world, especially of India and China, convinced him that the only way Japan could resist colonization at the hands of foreign powers was by unifying the country under one ruler, the emperor (Ishii, Boshin, p. 22). After the outbreak of the war between the shogunate and Chōshū in the summer of 1866, Fukuzawa Yukichi presented a memorandum expressing his hope that after Chōshū was crushed (with the aid of foreign troops if necessary), the feudal system would be changed; he hoped the shogun would establish an absolutist regime (p. 29).