The Tokugawa State 33

THETOKUGAWASTATE There has always been a lively argument about the nature of the Japanese polity during the Tokugawa, or Edo, period. Eigh- teenth-century Japanese scholars were well versed in the nature of the Chinese state and fully aware that their own was very different. In China the polity had progressed from “feudal” to central under the empire. The Japanese reading of the Chinese characters used to telegraph these systems distinguished between ho¯ken, or feudal, and gunken, centralized government based on districts and prefectures. By late Tokugawa times even elementary compendia of knowledge prepared for commoners could note that while China had started with ho¯ken and moved on to gunken government, in Japan the sequence had been re- versed. Chinese-style institutions introduced into Japan in the seventh century had produced a centralized government under the emperor, but warrior rule had led to feudalism thereafter. Later, familiarity with Western historical writing in the nineteenth century was quickly followed by attempts tofit Ja- pan’s history into world history. This produced a large volume of writing, some of which argued the case for the Tokugawa shogun as having had the “power of kingship” on the order of feudal monarchs in the West. Those who agreed held that it made more sense to compare the place of the emperor, whose functions were ritual and who held no political power, with that of the pope in the West. This position too had precedents in Tokugawa days, when the Dutch representatives who traveled to Edo routinely referred to the shogun as the “emperor.” The documents prepared for Perry’s mission to Japan in 1853 also addressed the shogun as “emperor.” In the early eighteenth century the shogunal adviser Arai Hakuseki had tried to institution- alize this by referring to the shogun as Japan’s “king” (kokuo¯), but Arai’s efforts did not long survive his period in office. The Tokugawa State 33 The problem has its origins in the fact that Tokugawa Japan was pacified and bureaucratized but not really unified. The daimyo domains, with their administrative structures, armies, andfiscal systems, retained important ele- ments of autonomy although they were dependent on shogunal favor. Edwin O. Reischauer’s term “centralized feudalism” encapsulates this paradox and identifies the problem: Japan was neither fully centralized nor fully feudal. Since World War II historians in Japan have followed substantially the same path by analyzing the Tokugawa system as a baku-han kokka, or “bakufu-han state,” to indicate the duality between central shogun (bakufu) and regional daimyo (han) polities. To cap these distinctions, in recent years the dissolution of communist authoritarianism elsewhere has brought interest in the possibil- ity that nongovernmental space can grow within an apparently closed system, and this in turn has led to efforts to see whether the limitations on shogunal rule at the center suffice to make it possible to consider early modern Japan under the rubric of “civil society.” Limitations on both center and periphery, it can be argued, created interstices in which preconditions for participatory and limited government might have anticipated, or speeded, the changes of modern times. It is interesting to examine the Edo system with some of these questions in mind, but it is necessary to begin with the assertion that the system changed considerably over time. In the period’sfirst century, when Ieyasu emerged victorious from cataclysmic battles at Sekigahara and Osaka, he and his succes- sors stood out as the most powerful among their peers. But they did have peers, and their victories were victories of allied armies, however hegemonic the leader’s position came to seem. Still, the early shoguns were able to discipline, reward, and punish with relative impunity. A century later, once major feudal barons had been in place for a generation or more, dominance of that sort was exercised less frequently, and daimyo tenure became relatively secure. Political institutions did not move in the direction of greater centralization, but economic integration did. The needs of peace, commerce, and communi- cations created waves that washed over political boundaries with increasing frequency. As conflict receded, so too did the shogun’s need or inclination to marshal and to discipline his vassals. 1. Taking Control Tokugawa Ieyasu moved carefully and systematically to exploit his victory at Sekigahara. His goal was to structure a system that would be more enduring than those built by his predecessors. He was in a stronger position from the start. Nobunaga had been survived by three sons, Hideyoshi by one, but Ieyasu 34 TheMakingofModern Japan leftfive of his nine sons behind him. By the time he died in 1616 one, Hidetada, had already been shogun and three others had been settled as major daimyo in the cadet houses of Owari, Kii, and Mito, which were eligible to provide sons for adoption into the main line in the event a shogun failed to father an appropriate successor. Nevertheless Ieyasu’s success required astute judgment, determination, and patience. Thefirst and obvious steps were disposition of the territories held by lead- ers of the western coalition that had opposed him at Sekigahara. Eighty-seven warrior houses were extinguished and three were reduced in size, as a total of 6,221,690 koku of assessed land changed hands. Hideyoshi’s son Hideyori alone found his holdings reduced by 1.3 million koku. The immediate benefi- ciaries were the Tokugawa vassals who had served Ieyasu from thefirst. They had been in charge of territories on the Kanto¯ (Edo, or Tokyo) plain since Hideyoshi had ordered Ieyasu to move there in 1590; several had held territories larger than those of many daimyo, but as subordinates to Ieyasu they had not had formal daimyo status. Now that rank and title were Ieyasu’s to convey he made this good, and the vassals were relocated to strategic points through- out central Japan. Next, the need for additional rewards was combined with doubts about loyalty to affect tenure in lands already granted. Kobayakawa Hideaki, the turncoat whose defection from the western cause had sealed its fate at Sekigahara, was enfeoffed in the great Inland Sea domain of Okayama (Bizen), but when he died without an heir in 1602 the territory was reclaimed and his house came to an end. This was thefirst time a transfer of this order had not been related to fortunes of war, and it testified to the strength of the central power that was emerging. The greatest problems came with the greatest lords. Shimazu, daimyo of Satsuma, had beat a hasty retreat to his domains in southern Kyushu after the disaster at Sekigahara. It would have required further warfare with a deeply entrenched leader to eliminate him altogether, and instead the arts of diplo- macy came into play. Soon messengers were moving between Ieyasu’s head- quarters and the distant port of Kagoshima. Late in 1602 a meeting was arranged between Ieyasu and Shimazu Yoshihiro at Ieyasu’s Fushimi head- quarters. Significantly, Ieyasu was absent in Edo when Shimazufirst made the trip, and chose to keep his guest waiting until he made a leisurely return to Fushimi. Now it became possible for Shimazu to explain that his participation at Sekigahara had been based on the mistaken belief that it had been mandated by his loyalty to Hideyoshi’s son. Mollified, Ieyasu confirmed him in the rule of his ancestral territory, and Shimazu pledged his loyalty to the new Toku- gawa hegemon. Prior to this the imperial court had offered to invest Ieyasu with the title of head of the shogunal house of Minamoto, only to have him The Tokugawa State 35 decline, but in 1603, with Shimazu on board, Ieyasu accepted appointment as shogun, head of the Minamoto and of the military houses, second court rank, and Minister of the Right in the old administrative structure of honors. Two years later he transferred the office of shogun to his son Hidetada, who led a host of 100,000 men to Kyoto to accept the commission. The ceremonies for Ieyasu’s appointment had followed so soon after Sekigahara that few of the major lords (as opposed to Tokugawa vassals) were present, but for Hidetada’s investment the retinues of almost all the major barons, including Shimazu Iehisa of Satsuma, thronged the streets of Kyoto. Significantly, not one of them thought it politic to combine this with a visit to young Hideyori at Osaka. Ieyasu, free of burdensome ritual, was now at liberty to plan the reduction of Osaka. Toyotomi Hideyori remained in charge of Japan’s largest and strongest castle complex in a city swollen by adherents of defeated lords whose lands had been confiscated. It was a host increasingly desperate and fearful, but without an unlikely military upset it was not going to get the support of other daimyo, who saw the writing on the wall. The Shimazu capitulation had been followed by pledges from most others who counted. The year 1611 brought oaths of loyalty from all the major daimyo who had been Ieyasu’s peers. As afirst step Ieyasu suggested a visit with Hideyori. The boy was now ten years old; he was being educated in the aristocratic arts of the capital, and advised by his mother. Though his holdings had been reduced to lands producing 650,000 koku, he remained a threat to Tokugawa legitimacy be- cause Ieyasu and his peers were pledged to guard his interests. Hideyori and his mother resisted and vacillated in responding to Ieyasu’s request for a meeting, uncertain whether his professions of concern and respect for the Toyo- tomi legacy were more than a carefully planned ruse.

Load more