Talk:Forty-seven rōnin/HenryDSmith

Note: ''Prof. Henry Smith has been an invaluable source of help and information. Some of the material he has provided (in email to me) isn't available in English yet, so I'm putting it up here so others can see it. Please do not edit this page; if you have any comments, please post them on Talk:Forty-seven_Ronin.

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:52:14 +0900 From: Henry Smith  Subject: Re: "47 Ronin" history sources

...

Mitford's account was never even intended as a description of the historical Ako incident, but simply as a "story" that was widely told among  the Japanese. It basically reflects the kodan oral story-telling tradition that emerged in the second half of the 18th century, and was widespread by  the mid-19th century when Mitford arrived in Japan. As such, many of the episodes are purely imaginary, although most have some grain of historical  truth as their origin. It was only for the lack of anything better in English that anyone ever used Mitford to describe the historical events of  1701-03. David Weinstein, bless his soul, is blissfully ignorant of Japanese history (he is a collector of ukiyo-e prints), and his account of  the historical incident is mangled and misleading. It is inexcusable that he should have used Mitford at all, when he had a perfectly good  English-language account in Ikegami (see below), whom he cites but  evidently did not really read.

A much more reliable historical account, which you mention, was provided in the final volume of James Murdoch's monumental history of Japan, in the  chapter "The Forty-Seven Ronin," _A History of Japan_, vol. 3 (London:  Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1926), pp. 218-37. Longford (who prepared this volume for publication after Murdoch's death in 1921) added  notes that reflect the consensus of the 1920s, but the basic account by  Murdoch reveals the state of knowledge of the Ako incident ca 1900, before  the explosion of new historical writing that came with Fukumoto Nichinan  (1909, 1914) and the publication of the basic primary documents about the  incident (Ako gijin sansho, 1910-11). As such, The Murdoch account is no longer of anything but historiographical use. But unlike Mitford, it aimed to be a serious historical account, and remained the best thing available  in English for many years.

The summary of the Ako incident in Hiroaki Sato's _The Legends of the Samurai_ is not very good, considering that the author had access to plenty  of good secondary accounts in Japanese; it has a number of misleading  assertions and factual errors. His translated documents, on the other hand, are of great importance, although see below on the Okado memorandum.

Far superior to Sato's summary is the chapter on the Ako incident in Eiko Ikegami, _The Taming of the Samurai_, which appeared in the same year  (1995) as Sato's book. This remains the single best overall description of the entire incident in English, and I would urge you to use this as your  basic secondary source (although in conjunction with Bito, see below).

I might mention, by the way, that there are big debates among historians over the reliability of Okado Denpachiro's account, which is translated (in  part) by Sato. It is a document of great importance, and no one doubts that it was written by Okado himself, who was a critical eye-witness to the  attack on Kira. The problem is that Okado's account is not corroborated by other sources, and in some ways it is contradicted by the official account  of the Tamura house (where Asano was executed). The strong suspicion (which I share) is that Okado wrote his account _after_ the execution of the  ronin, when they had emerged as popular heroes, and he altered details to  make himself look like a sympathetic defender of Asano's cause from the  start, which I find highly implausible. So my own feeling is that the Okado account should be used with great caution; Bito, for example, in the  article cited below, asserts quite directly that "it cannot be trusted as a  contemporary account." But it is really all that survives in the way of an eye-witness account, and as such remains indispensable; it is the basis for  the depiction of the palace attack in almost all 20th-century historical  novels and films about the Ako incident. Parts of this account, as well as other documents related to the Ako incident (many of them overlapping with  those of Sato) will also appear in the newly revised edition of Theodore  deBary, ed., _Sources of Japanese Tradition_, vol. 2, which should appear  within the next year.)

In the meantime, however, I have myself written and translated various other articles that you might want to look at if you haven't already. Most of my own work is as much about the process of legend-making, both during  the Tokugawa and modern periods, as about the historical incident, although  I always touch on both. They are:

"The Capacity of Chushingura." Monumenta Nipponica, 58/1 (Spring 2003), pp. 1-42.

�$B!H�(BA Chushingura Palimpsest: Young Motoori Norinaga Hears the Story of the Ako Ronin from a Buddhist Priest.�$B!I�(B Co-authored with Federico Marcon. Monumenta Nipponica, 58/4 (Winter 2003), pp. 439-65.

�$B!H�(BThe Trouble with Terasaka: The Forty-Seventh Ronin and the Chushingura Imagination.�$B!I�(B Nichibunken Japan Review, 14 (2004), pp. 3-65.

For a straight story of the Ako incident, however, I would rather recommend a piece by Bito Masahide, a leading Japanese scholar of the Edo period,  which I translated last year: Bito Masahide, "The Ako Incident, 1701-03,"  _Monumenta Nipponica_, 58/2 (Summer 2003), pp. 149-69. This is a highly reliable account, with a very interesting analysis of the motivation of the  historical ronin. It will also provide the best answers available (in the absence of almost any reliable surviving documents) to your interest in the  "deliberations which led up to the sentence of seppuku on the Ronin." I have a pile of offprints of the article, and would be happy to mail you a  copy if you can provide me with a mailing address.

So the take-home message is: stick with Ikegami and Bito for solid and responsible English-language accounts of the historical Ako Incident, and  read Smith (especially "The Capacity of Chushingura") for an overview of  the far vaster world of the many ways in which the story was later retold  in legend, by storytellers, on stage, in film and TV, and in historical  novels. And take the Okado memorandum with a grain of salt.

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:16:46 +0900 From: Henry Smith  Subject: Re: "47 Ronin" history sources


 * I am beginning to understand that. Although I am puzzled by the "48 graves" part - he lived very close to Sengakuji, I'd have thought he'd have counted them! (Unless somehow another of Oishi's group, one who wasn't in the attack, somehow wound up there too. And why isn't it 46? But I digress...) Sigh, I'll be sad to lose the Satsuma man - he was such a nice touch!

Ah, the problem of the extra graves! It would take a book in itself to deal with this problem. Originally, there were only 46 graves, the number of those executed in 1703 (although in fact one of these was an empty grave,  since the relatives of one of the ronin insisted on claiming the remains  for their own and burying him in a family plot). Many years later, two new candidates emerged to claim graves at Sengakuji. One was Terasaka Kichizaemon, on whom I have written an article so long and detailed that it  will probably put you to sleep, but I really do think it is a fascinating  story, so I will send you a copy. He was clearly a member of the group of 47 that attacked Kira, but was sent away before the remaining 46  surrendered at Sengakuji. He later attracted a following, however, and a grave was eventually erected at Sengakuji (exactly when is unclear). He appeared in Kanadehon Chushingura as Teraoka Heiemon.

But meanwhile, there was still another crucial claimant to grave space, the historical Kayano Sanpei, who had been a member of the original league of  revenge but committed suicide in the First Month of 1702 when caught in a  bind between loyalty to lord and family. The true story is every bit as dramatic and pathetic as any fiction. Sanpei was reborn on the Kabuki stage as Hayano Sanpei in _Kanadehon Chushingura_, and as such won a special  claim to a grave at Sengakuji. So basically the 48 graves are the original 46 plus Terasaka plus Sanpei/Kanpei. The latter is missing today, but it may have been around in Mitford's time.

The Satsuma Man is a wholly different matter, and too complicated to explain quickly. If you have the stomach for it, please look at the attached letter that I wrote .. What I tried to explain to him is that to demonstrate that Murakami Kiken may not have actually  existed does not mean that one has to give up the Satsuma Man. Personages created by the popular imagination can be every bit as real as those  documented by sober historians--perhaps even more so. For me as a historian, they truly exist, in the minds of the storytellers and their  listeners, and I think that it is eminently possible to write the history  of these "imaginary" people. .


 * ... Are his reports of the artifacts currently preserved at Sengakuji to be trusted at all? (If not, is there another reliable source?)

For the artifacts at Sengakuji, there is actually a catalog that appeared two years ago when the temple opened a new treasure hall. The English-language text was provided by me and my friend Tom Harper. If you really are interested, I can send you a copy, but it will have to wait  until I return to New York (I'm now in Kyoto through December).


 * Are there any similar contemporaneous documents, similar to Okado Denpachiro's account, but for other phases of the affair? Did any of the Ronin leave any still-extant writings during the months they were held, or did any other witnesses to the action at Kira's mansion do so?

Boy, you are sounding like a real historian! The answer is yes, there are all sorts of documents of the kind you mention. If you read my article on Terasaka closely, you will encounter quite a number of them. While in custody, the Ronin in the leadership group of 17 who were held at the  Hosokawa mansion managed to leave quite a detailed record. They were able to send out letters to relatives and supporters, and many of these survive. But the most valuable and intriguing records are those left by their custodians, above all Horiuchi Den'emon, a senior retainer in the Hosokawa  mansion. At 59, Den'emon was close in age to the three key senior leaders-Yoshida Chuzaemon (63), Onodera Junai (60), and Hara Soemon  (56)-and clearly respected them. In return, they trusted him and spoke to him with relative openness. He spoke with them at length, and recorded their responses in his lengthy memorandum. It is an amazing account, and deserves to be translated. There was a similar figure at one of the other daimyo mansions of custody that provides additional detail.

As for the attack on the Kira mansion, there is a rich variety of detailed description. Many of the ronin themselves left accounts, both in letters to relatives and in conversations with their custodians. There were also bakufu investigators who interviewed the survivors among Kira retainers,  and their accounts have been preserved. In fact, the great bulk of what we know about the entire revenge stems from material generated during the time  that the Ronin were in custody.


 * I could easily believe he has indulged in Rashomon-like behaviour to make his role look better. However, that would imply that on details which don't reflect on him one way or the others (e.g. his talk with Asano's, where he refused to give details of his problem with Kira) he's probably believable.

Good point. I agree, and this is why I think the account remains so valuable.


 * look like a sympathetic defender of Asano's cause from the start, which I find highly implausible.


 * May I enquire why you feel this way?

Another good question. Basically, because there was nothing honorable about Asano's behavior (he had failed, after all, to kill his enemy, whom he  really seems to have struck from behind, according to Okado himself), but  also because the quick bakufu sentence and the execution in the garden were  nothing at all unusual. It is easy to forget the egregious nature of Asano's assault, on a high bakufu official at a very delicate moment of  ceremony. It was outrageous under any circumstances, and especially so by Tsunayoshi's standards. And again: he failed, the most shameful thing for a samurai. Why should Okado have any desire to defend him? Remember that the Ronin themselves never once suggested that their master was unjustly  punished--only that Kira was left unpunished.

...

it was at my insistence that the editors inserted the qualification in the introduction to the Okado memorandum that "It should be noted that most modern scholars argue that this document, leaving readers with the impression that it was composed shortly after Asano's suicide in 1701, was probably written well after the 1703 revenge vendetta and is questionable on a number of counts."

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:49:52 +0900 From: Henry Smith  Subject: Re: "47 Ronin" history sources

Let me first say that it suddenly dawned on me that because of my lousy memory (!) I had been conflating two very different eye-witness accounts. I believe I wrote that Okado actually saw the attack, but of course that is not the case. That was rather Kajikawa Yosobei. Unfortunately, Kajikawa's account has never, to the best of my knowledge, been translated into English. It is drier and less compelling than that of Okado, but probably more accurate. Even here, however, there are problems with the surviving texts. I will attach a copy of my notes of the best analysis of the issue, from Noguchi Takehiko's book.


 * May I enquire why you feel this way?


 * Basically, because there was nothing honorable about Asano's behavior (he had failed, after all, to kill his enemy, whom he really seems to have struck from behind, according to Okado himself), but also because the quick bakufu sentence and the execution in the garden were nothing at all unusual. It is easy to forget the egregious nature of Asano's assault, on a high bakufu official at a very delicate moment of ceremony.


 * Was it during the ceremony? I got the impression, from the accounts I have read, that it was at some other time - it seems to have been in the Pine Hallway, surely not a ceremony location. Something I'll have to check on!

You're absolutely right, it was not during the ceremony itself. But the emissaries from Kyoto had already arrived at Edo Castle, and hence were  fairly nearby in another part of the building. The attack took place probably about an hour or so before the ceremony was scheduled. (The ceremony itself was eventually completed successfully, with someone else in  the place of Asano.)


 * It was outrageous under any circumstances, and especially so by Tsunayoshi's standards. And again: he failed, the most shameful thing for a samurai. Why should Okado have any desire to defend him? Remember that the Ronin themselves never once suggested that their master was unjustly punished--only that Kira was left unpunished.


 * Quickly re-reading Okado's account (as translated by Sato), I note that while he does recount protesting the speed of Asano's sentence, he was also unhappy that Kira was let off scott-free.


 * While I concede that there may be a problem (as you point out) with his defense of Asano, this second part (his complaint about the lenience to Kira) may well be accurate. My understanding is that Kira was widely disliked, and had an unpleasant reputation, and so it may well be that court personnel would have welcomed a chance to see him punished.

There continues to be much debate over Kira's real character. The actual historical record provides virtually no evidence at all, except for an  anecdote now considered apochryphal that he had annoyed a different daimyo  earlier. (The is the famous story of Kamei, daimyo of Tsuwano, and his retained Tako Mondo, who became the models for Wakasanosuke and Honzo in  Kanadehon Chushingura; note the euphony between "Tako Mondo" and "Kakogawa  Honzo".) Kira's "unpleasant reputation" is purely the product of later  speculation, although some of it began immediately after the event. There have even been modern writers who have ardently defended Kira as a man of  great culture and a benevolent ruler of his small fief. But it does make sense that a senior court official like Kira would treat a small daimyo  from west Japan with contempt. Obviously there was something that Kira did to Asano to make him so furious.

Technically, however, the principle of punishing both parties to a dispute was applied only in the case where _both_ pulled their swords, so that Kira  was not guilty of joining in a true "kenka." There has been much debate on this matter. For a very good discussion, see p. 154-6 of the Bito article