Tokugawa Nariaki was regarded as the foremost figure among those who advocated expelling foreigners. An incident that calls to mind Nariaki’s true feelings occurred on the 28th day of the 2nd month of Meiji 2 (1869). The place was Sanjō Nawate in Kyoto. On the day the ministers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands were to meet the emperor, two men attacked the procession.
The guards were domain retainers from Owari and other domains. Nakai Hiroshi, who led the cavalry at the front, jumped down from his horse, grappled with the attacker, and suffered a light wound. The other man was cut down by many men and captured while severely wounded. The one who died was Ida Naokata, a rōnin from Totsukawa; the one captured was Saegusa Shigeru, a former monk of Jōrenji in Osaka.
Nakai cut off Ida’s head, raised it high, and showed it to Parkes. Ninagawa Arata writes that this was an act of flattery. Parkes did not proceed to the imperial palace, and presented 3 conditions. That the state issue a formal apology in writing, that the assassin be executed by beheading rather than allowed to commit seppuku, and that the charges be made known within the country. The following day the government stripped Saegusa of his samurai status and beheaded him.
It displayed his head with a statement of his crimes attached, and apologized in an official document together with a copy of it. Displaying the head of a man who had not harmed any foreigner was too severe a punishment. Ninagawa concludes that this was diplomacy of terrible humiliation. 11 days before the incident, on the 17th day of the 2nd month, the government had issued a proclamation to the whole country. Its content was that, in accordance with the emperor’s wishes, the ministers of each country would be treated in the manner common to the world.
Dealings with foreign countries were carried on just as under the former shogunate. The domain lords of 6 domains submitted a memorial arguing the need to let foreign envoys come and go at the imperial court. Ninagawa observes that the fact people had been enraged when foreigners were brought into Edo Castle had been forgotten. Nariaki told Matsudaira Yoshinaga that he too thought it was impossible. He also said that guns and ships would be built, and that eventually trade with foreign countries would come about.
Nariaki went on to say that he intended never to lower the banner of expelling foreigners until his death. According to Ozaki Saburō’s recollections, Sanjō too, knowing that opening the country was the only option, sent Ozaki to Nagasaki. Mochizuki Shigeru concludes that pressing the shogunate while knowing it could not be done was a means of overthrowing the shogunate. The manifesto that Kumoi Tatsuo sent to the domains of Ōu in Meiji 1 likewise pointed out the inconsistency between Satsuma-Chōshū’s earlier and later stances. Ninagawa shows that the heads of two men who had made their words match their true feelings were put on display, and asks the Japanese people of today to judge.
The course of events in the stabbing and the display of the head at Sanjō Nawate can be followed through Itsuji shiho, Kumoi Tatsuo’s manifesto, and Ninagawa Arata’s view.
The twenty-eighth day of the second month of Meiji 2 (1869), Kyoto.Original
On this day, the ministers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands were to have an audience with the emperor.OriginalOriginal
The road passed through Sanjō Nawate.Original
Two men leapt at the party.Original
They were assassins.OriginalOriginal
Domain retainers from Owari and others were on guard.Original
Nakai Hiroshi, commander of the mounted vanguard, leapt down from his horse and grappled with the assassins, sustaining a light wound.Original
The other man was cut down by the many guards, suffered serious wounds, and was captured on the spot.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryThe one who died was Ida Naokata, a rōnin from Totsukawa.Original
The one captured was Saegusa Shigeru, a former monk of Jōrenji in Osaka.Original
Parkes was unharmed, Ninagawa Arata writes.OriginalOriginal
The man who held up the head
After the commotion settled, Nakai performed one act.Original
He cut off the head of the dead Ida and held it high to show Parkes.Original
Ninagawa records this as “currying favor with Parkes.”OriginalOriginal
It is said that Parkes said, “Thank you, thank you.”Original
Did people who had been shouting for the expulsion of foreigners until just yesterday have any political principle or conscience?Original
Ninagawa surmises that Parkes must have harbored such doubts inwardly.OriginalOriginal
Parkes did not go to the court.OriginalOriginal
Parkes was not satisfied with this expression of sympathy alone.Original
This was a response that Ninagawa describes as “indeed befitting a diplomat of the English style.”Original
The nation of Japan was to issue a formal apology in an official document.Original
Seppuku was not sufficient for the assassins; they were to be sentenced to beheading.Original
The Japanese government was to proclaim the charges within the country.Original
Three conditions were presented.OriginalOriginal
The government of the time complied.Original
The following day, Saegusa Shigeru was stripped of his samurai status, sentenced to beheading, and his head was further exposed with a notice of sentence attached.Original
A copy of the sentence notice was attached, and an apology was made to Parkes in an official document.OriginalOriginal
A political offender who had not inflicted a single wound on any foreigner was condemned to have his head put on display.Original
Ninagawa calls this “an exceedingly humiliating diplomacy” and judges that, as a punishment, it was “excessive and unreasonable.”Original
In the days of the former shogunate, there was only one case in which a Japanese man who had cut down a foreigner had his head exposed in Yokohama.Original
But apart from this one case in Meiji 2, there was probably no other instance in which a man who had injured no one had his head exposed, Ninagawa writes.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryThe proclamation of the seventeenth day of the second month
Eleven days before the incident at Sanjō Nawate, on the seventeenth day of the second month.Original
The government had issued a proclamation throughout the country.Original
“Since the imperial will concerning relations with foreign countries was previously declared, the ministers of each country shall be dealt with according to the common practice of all nations.”Original
This means that, since the emperor’s intention regarding relations with foreign countries had already been shown, the ministers of each country would be treated in accordance with practices common to all nations.Original
The proclamation also announced that the ministers of each country would suddenly be received at court.Original
Relations between Japan and foreign countries were to be carried on just as the former shogunate had conducted them.Original
The domain lords of the six domains of Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, Hizen, Echizen, and Aki had petitioned on the necessity of allowing foreign envoys to come and go at the imperial court.Original
Ninagawa sees a discrepancy here.Original
The fact that the expel-the-barbarians faction had been enraged when foreigners were let into Edo Castle had, before anyone noticed, been forgotten.Original
“Is this the sense in which a noble man changes like a leopard, or has the world been deceived?”Original
Does a noble man correct his faults, or did he deceive the world? Ninagawa asks.Original
It can also be read that the assassins at Sanjō Nawate stood upon this very discrepancy.Original
Those who had taken power while calling for the expulsion of the barbarians now exposed the head of one who had wielded the sword of expulsion.Original
Ninagawa named this configuration “a diplomatic policy that kicked aside the expulsion of the barbarians.”OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryExpelling the barbarians is my trade
So did the advocates of expelling the barbarians truly believe that expulsion was possible?Original
Ninagawa approaches this question by drawing on Mochizuki Shigeru’s essay “An Anatomy of the Theory of Expelling the Barbarians,” published in “Kokuhon” in the fifth month of Shōwa 2 (1927).OriginalOriginal
What Mochizuki cites is the recollection of Matsudaira Yoshinaga, the author of the *Itsuji shiho*.Original
Yoshinaga once happened to put a question to Tokugawa Nariaki, who was regarded as an expeller of barbarians among expellers of barbarians.Original
Foreign countries were now coming repeatedly, and he thought expulsion was something that could not be done.Original
If relations with foreign countries were opened, the present age would become difficult, he said.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryNariaki’s answer was as follows.Original
“In truth I too think as you do, and so I have cast cannons and built ships such as the Asahi Maru, so that in time our own ships will be sent to foreign countries and trade will come about.”Original
This means: in truth I too think so, and that is why I have cast cannons and built ships like the Asahi Maru, so that eventually our own ships will be sent to foreign countries and trade will take place.Original
Nariaki went on to say.Original
“As for someone like me who has grown old, expelling the barbarians is my trade, so I will not give it up for the rest of my life, and I intend to remain an expeller of barbarians right up until death.”OriginalOriginal
Yoshinaga writes that from this one should understand that Nariaki was not truly an expeller of barbarians.Original
Ninagawa takes this testimony as evidence that the leader of the expel-the-barbarians faction was guilty of “saying one thing while thinking another.”OriginalOriginal
What about the court nobles’ side?Original
Ninagawa quotes a secret letter from around the fourth month of Ansei 5 (1858), taken from the Complete Works of Hashimoto Sanai.Original
Tōbōjō, a court noble regarded at the time as “a man of sound judgment,” is said to have asked Iwase, “The country called Christendom—to whom does it currently belong?”Original
The secret letter records that this was not the question of someone who knew about the West, but merely reflected the assumption that such matters should simply be left to the shogunate.OriginalOriginal
It is no wonder that court nobles who had scarcely ever left Kyoto knew nothing of Westerners.Original
Ninagawa writes that their argument for expelling the barbarians was therefore “a narrow argument of emotion” and “pride without foundation.”Original
That anti-shogunate politicians exploited this sentiment was, he adds, only natural for men of scheming.OriginalOriginal
Go to Nagasaki
This is the recollection of Ozaki Saburō, who served the five court nobles confined at Dazaifu.OriginalOriginal
One day Ozaki spoke to Sanjō.Original
Until now we have spoken single-mindedly of expelling the barbarians, but at this rate things cannot go on.Original
We should first know the enemy and know ourselves, and only then decide whether to associate with them or drive them away.
If we deal with foreign countries without knowing anything about them, we will be outmaneuvered from start to finish.Original
Is it not necessary to know the circumstances of foreign countries?OriginalOriginal
It was an age when saying such a thing to a Mito domain retainer would get one’s head split open, and carrying a woolen tobacco pouch would get it torn to pieces.Original
But Sanjō replied.Original
“No, I think so too. Since it is impossible to say this openly now, if you have some idea, go and try it your own way.”Original
So it came about that Ozaki went to Nagasaki and tried associating with Westerners.Original
Ozaki states that by that time Sanjō had already fully realized that the country had to be opened.OriginalOriginal
This court noble, said to have been the most stubborn advocate of expelling the barbarians, had already made plans to travel abroad while he was a refugee in Nagasaki.Original
The last lines of a long poem he composed in the autumn of Heiin read: “At that time I had the intention of a journey to the West, but was unable to carry it out.”Original
This means: at that time I had the ambition to travel to the West, but could not accomplish it.Original
Mochizuki writes that Sawa too must have felt the same way as Sanjō.OriginalOriginal
Mochizuki’s conclusion is this.Original
To press the shogunate to expel the barbarians while knowing it could not be carried out was to use the expulsion of the barbarians as a means of overthrowing the shogunate, and it is permissible to interpret this as “expelling the barbarians was equivalent to overthrowing the shogunate.”Original
He also cites the example of Ōhara Shigetomi, who went down to Edo as an imperial envoy and repeatedly delivered imperial edicts on expelling the barbarians, and of Matsudaira Yoshinaga, who wrote, “This is a matter of great distress, needless to say painful.”Original
This means: this caused almost unbearable distress, and the pain need hardly be mentioned.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryHaving borrowed this essay in its entirety, Ninagawa adds his own view on top of it.Original
The harm the whole nation suffered because of the argument for expelling the barbarians was immense.Original
“Did they dare to bring disaster upon the people?”Original
Ninagawa concedes, for the moment, that they probably believed in it at first and only later realized it was impossible.Original
Even so, Ninagawa adds, it remains true that they had no settled conviction and knew nothing of the world.OriginalOriginal
True Feelings of Ten-Odd Years
In Meiji 1, a manifesto flew out to the domains of Ōu.Original
It was written by the hand of Kumoi Tatsuo.Original
Ninagawa passes on to today’s readers, just as it stood, this text which Ishikawa Ryōichi had published in Kokuhon in December of Taishō 15 (1926).OriginalOriginal
The manifesto says:Original
When Satsuma-Chōshū first contended with the shogunate, they made a crime of its having made peace with foreign countries and opened the ports, and by advocating reverence for the emperor and expulsion of the barbarians they won the emperor’s favor.Original
But once they were able to monopolize the court’s government, they changed course, courted foreign countries, and had the ministers of England and France come to pay court at the Shishinden.Original
This means: the other day they argued that a minister’s entering Edo was a grave crime of the shogunate, yet today they rejoice that a minister enters the imperial palace and call it a grand ceremony—why this contradiction between before and after?OriginalOriginal
And the manifesto declares:Original
“That the true feelings behind their advocacy of reverence for the emperor and expulsion of the barbarians for these ten-odd years lay solely in their wish to topple the shogunate and accomplish their wicked scheme is manifestly clear.”Original
It means: it is clear that the true intent behind more than ten years of advocating reverence for the emperor and expulsion of the barbarians was simply the wish to overthrow the shogunate and carry out a wicked scheme.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryIshikawa writes that it was no accident that the retainers of the allied domains of Ōu read this, raised their brows, and rose up as if driven to a frenzy.Original
Ninagawa borrows even Ishikawa’s sentiment and adds: “As Japanese of today, we ought to be free to judge for ourselves whether this was right or wrong.”OriginalOriginal
The Sanjō Nawate incident occurred the year after this manifesto was written.Original
One could even say that the scene which the manifesto called “contradictory before and after” took shape on the streets of Kyoto in the form of a single severed head.OriginalOriginal
Elsewhere in this chapter, Ninagawa writes that the shogunate was “a government heavily entrusted” with authority.Original
This is a phrase from an imperial directive of the fifteenth day of the tenth month of Keiō 3 (1867), meaning a government to which the court had heavily entrusted the conduct of politics.Original
Can it be praised as the conduct of Japanese people that, in order to overthrow that legitimate government, they used a diplomatic issue as a political weapon, troubled the emperor’s heart, and made the people suffer?Original
Ninagawa demands: “The Japanese of today must render a correct judgment.”OriginalOriginal
Until yesterday they cried out for expelling the barbarians; today they bow their heads to foreign ministers.Original
Nariaki laughed, saying “expelling the barbarians is my specialty,” and Sanjō sent his subordinate to Nagasaki, saying “it is impossible to say this openly now.”Original
Amid all this, perhaps only Ida Naokata and Saegusa Shigeru were men whose words matched their hearts.
The heads of those whose words matched their hearts were displayed in public, while those whose words did not match their hearts seized power.Original
Was not the correct judgment that Ninagawa asked of “the Japanese of today” precisely a matter of how one views this single picture?OriginalOriginal
| Source text | Ishin zengo no seisō to Oguri Kōzuke no shi, Continued (1931). National Diet Library Digital Collections (PDM). PID 1179005 |
| Dates and names | All 4 dates in the text exist in the calendar for their year, and the Western years given alongside them agree. The 6 people named in the text were checked word for word against the source text. This period lies outside the volumes of the Ishin shiryō kōyō. |
| English gates | 117 of 117 sentences passed the checks on the English text. |
This article is a reading of Ishin zengo no seisō to Oguri Kōzuke no shi, Continued. Ninagawa Arata’s books (1928-31) are written from the standpoint of the shogunate’s retainers. The source text is a century old and may differ from current scholarship.