Paper short abstract:

It is surprisingly difficult to find western imperial powers like Britain designated ‘empires’ in East Asian tongues prior to the 1870s. But if earlier Japanese commentators did not see the global exploits of the Occidentals as an instance of ‘empire’, what did they see it as an instance of?

Paper long abstract:

Although textbooks commonly inform us that the nineteenth century was the age of high imperialism, it is surprisingly difficult to find western imperial powers like Spain or Britain designated as ‘empires’ in East Asian tongues. Now, by the late eighteenth century there had already existed a well-established convention of translating post-Roman nomenclature of European universal sovereignty (Caesar, Kayzer, Keiser, Tsar; Imperator, Emperador) into the equally universalist modes of the post-classical Chinese political theology. By extension, it had become possible to speak of an ‘emperor-land’ (Ch: diguo; J: teikoku) as a type of polity.

Yet, despite these conditions of translatability by means of such comparative political vocabulary, curiously, the expansion of European powers over the globe was not described in the language of Sino-Japanese equivalent of ‘empire’ until late in the nineteenth century. In fact, I am aware of no example pre-dating the 1870s, nearly a century into vigorous writing about the western states' past and present exploits, and well past the Opium wars or the imposition of extraterritorial treaties upon Qing and Tokugawa states.

Which raises a question: Given that Japanese commentators in the early- through mid-nineteenth century did *not* see the conquest and settlement of the non-European world as an instance of ‘empire’, what conceptual vocabulary *did* they use? Which is really to ask: What recorded historical memory serving as a general precedent did they suggest the exploits of the Occidentals to be an intuitive recollection of? And does it make any difference, beyond the pedantic niceties of historical semantics?

Querying a range of primary sources from 1790s to 1840s, this talk will try to offer some answers while sketching an alternative, historically documented way of articulating the ‘age of empire’.

Paper short abstract:

This paper explores the rhetoric of remonstration in the manifestos from three figures who led violent movements in 1837: Ōshio Heihachirō, Ikuta Yorozu, and Yamadaya Daisuke. The circulars did not just stoke the flames of unrest; they also worked to stoke the fiery egos of movements' leaders.

Paper long abstract:

English and Japanese language monographs on Ōshio Heihachirō have enjoyed a resurgence over the last decade, with studies ranging from an extensive literature review in _Monumenta Nipponica_ (McMullen 2021) to Ōshio's investigation into practitioners of Christianity in Osaka (Miyazaki, et. al. 2020) to a vocabulary of Yōmeigaku employed in his texts (Morita 2017). This presentation builds on such recent scholarship by exploring the rhetoric used in Ōshio's final piece, his Gekibun (檄文: Call to Action). It then turns to Ikuta Yorozu, a noted Kokugaku scholar from Echigo Province who led a six-person attack on a jinya outpost in Kashiwazaki. Ikuta's own call to action was a letter he sent to former pupils in the month preceding his movement. This paper lastly focuses on the Kaijō (回状: circular) of an herbalist named Yamadaya Daisuke who left Osaka to lead thousands of peasants on a march from his hometown in northeastern Settsu province to the Emperor's residence in Kyoto.

Ōshio's gekibun naturally served as the blueprint for the other two manifestos, since news of his early 1837 riot appeared quickly circulated in newsprints across the provinces. His piece promises a restoration of order and virtuous rule for those who join the ideologue's plans to make the corrupt pay for their perceived crimes. Beyond the outline of the movement, though, Ōshio applies boilerplate Confucian rhetoric and historical references to elevate himself as the sole figure who can rectify the ills befalling Japan. Both Ikuta and Yamadaya also outline their respective movements in their final texts. Furthermore, in his letter, Ikuta draws from his scholarship in Waka poetry as well as his service in the bushi ranks to draw attention to his leadership. While lacking the intellectual credentials of the other two, Yamadaya stresses his background as a druggist and merchant as a justification for his own cause.

Together, these three pieces demonstrate that the calls to the action worked not only to publicize the plans of the movements, but they also worked to promote and even aggrandize the names of the leaders.

Paper short abstract:

The three so-called "incidents" of Horeki, Miwa and Songo between 1756 and 1793 have been a alivly debated topic among Japanese historians since the Meiji period. Roughly in the last ten years however, several aspects of such topic have been restudied opening new glimpses of historical research

Paper long abstract:

In the second half of the 18th century, three episodes occurred which were presented in the Meiji period as if they had anticipated the imperial restoration of 1868 and a return to the monarchy the Heian period. We refer in particular to the “incidents" of hōreki( 1756-59) and meiwa (1767) and to the songo Ikken of 1789-93. These events are well known and there is no need to summarize them here. Suffice it to say that they have been considered in the past in the context of a supposed contraposition between the imperial court and the shogunate. However, a new interpretation appeared in the last decades of the 20th century that had its fulcrum, as far as the hōreki Incident is concerned, in the contrast between two groups of court nobles, one of which was accused of attempting a rebellion against the bakufu. The influence of suika shinto on the latter was emphasized also. More recently in the 2010s a further development of the research has taken place which insisted on aspects only hinted at before with an additional use of some previously ignored manuscript sources. New details were brought to light as well, on the principal characters of the hōreki jiken, including Takenouchi Shikibu, whose philosophical orientation stood out against the broad background of nativist doctrines, including kokugaku, and of factional rivalry among shintō priests.

Moreover new findings concern the relationship, never fully clarified before, between Shikibu and Yamagata Daini, the protagonist of the meiwa jiken. As to political history also stimulating details were noted. Both during the hōreki and the songo incidents the emperors themselves look as if they directly acted, according to a dynamic unusual for the Tokugawa period. In the discussions on the eve of songo, the officials of bakufu showed also to have assimilated the doctrine of Chinese origin, but extraneous to the Japanese tradition, that court and bakufu officials were subordinate within a single hierarchy to the shōgun, whose authority was inferior only to that of the tennō himself. Paradoxically it did not help this time to justify the reassertion of the imperial authority.