The History of China–Japan Relations: From Ancient World to Modern International Order [1st ed. 2023] 9811955980, 9789811955983

Citation preview

The History of China-Japan Relations From Ancient World to Modern International Order Edited by

pi ng bu sh i n ic h i k i taok a

The History of China–Japan Relations

Ping Bu · Shinichi Kitaoka Editors

The History of China–Japan Relations From Ancient World to Modern International Order

Editors Ping Bu Beijing, China

Shinichi Kitaoka Japan International Cooperation Agency Tokyo, Japan

ISBN 978-981-19-5598-3 ISBN 978-981-19-5599-0  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0 Jointly published with Social Sciences Academic Press The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the print book from: Social Sciences Academic Press. ISBN of the China Mainland edition: 978-7-509-75790-1. Translation from the Chinese language edition: “中日共同历史研究报告 (古代史卷)” by Ping Bu et al., © Social Sciences Academic Press 2014. Published by Social Sciences Academic Press. All Rights Reserved. © Social Sciences Academic Press 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Introduction

Since ancient times, the relationship between China and Japan has been an extremely close one. The two countries are often said to be “separated only by a thread of water as thin as the belt around a robe.” This relationship has had positive aspects, such as cultural and interpersonal exchange, but has also involved wars and invasions. The ancient history portion of the Japan–China Joint History Research Project initiated in December 2006 comprehensively considers a range of issues related to ancient historical exchange between China and Japan, and at the same time strives to gain a full understanding of the roles the countries have played and the impacts they have exerted in East Asian and worldwide historical contexts. As part of the Joint Research Project, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Japan in May 2008, meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda. The two leaders issued the “China–Japan Joint Statement on All-round Promotion of Strategic Relationship of Mutual Benefit,” declaring, “The two sides agreed that China–Japan relations are one of the most important bilateral relations for both countries. The two countries have a major influence on and shoulder solemn responsibility for peace, stability and development in the Asia-Pacific region and the world. Pursuing long-term peace, friendship and cooperation is the only choice for the two sides. The two sides are determined to advance a China–Japan strategic relationship of mutual benefit in an all-round way so as to realize the lofty goal that the two countries live together in peace, enjoy lasting friendship, and carry out cooperation of mutual v

vi  

INTRODUCTION

benefit for common development.” The statement continues, “The two sides are determined to face history, be forward-looking, and continue to open up new prospects in a China–Japan strategic relationship of mutual benefit. The two sides will continue to enhance mutual understanding and mutual trust and expand mutually beneficial cooperation to ensure that the growth of China–Japan relations conforms to the development trend of the world, and work together to create a bright future for the Asia-Pacific region and the world.” A further statement by the two parties specifically states, “We commend the positive impact that the Japan– China Joint History Research Project has had and agree to continue the research project.” The Chinese and Japanese scholars on the ancient history team felt that the key reason for this high praise by the leaders of both countries was the frankness and fairness of the research project; we have consistently put forth our best efforts in a humble spirit. Of course, this does not mean that the Chinese and Japanese scholars did not use different methods or take different perspectives on particular issues. Whenever there was a difference of opinion on how to view or appraise historical events, we followed the advice of Tang dynasty historian Liu Zhiji, who exhorted, “Point out the merits of others, and do not hide your faults.” That is, to ensure that the joint research project produced valuable results, the Chinese and Japanese scholars on the ancient history team examined Chinese and Japanese history from multiple perspectives within the context of both East Asian and world history, sought to point out the merits of the other party, and did not try to conceal their own faults. Such a broadminded perspective resonates with the spirit of the “China–Japan Joint Statement” described above and provides a foundation for the achievements we seek to make through a collaborative China–Japan research project for a new age. Needless to say, historical processes have always had positive and negative aspects, and when scholars on different sides decide which aspects to describe and analyze, divergences and differences are inevitable, and it is natural for scholars to emphasize their own individual understandings. In analyzing history, we have sought to adhere to facts and seek truth. Every scholar on both sides agrees that history is like a darkened world swept by countless small lights: some areas are clearly visible, but the light does not penetrate everywhere, and other areas remain dark. Ancient history is a field with limited historical materials, and when it comes to such unclear areas, we should not be satisfied with subjective

INTRODUCTION  

vii

guesses and determinations. In the field of ancient history, we uncover historical materials to clear up doubt and proceed to increase the accuracy of our judgments until consensus is reached. To draw up this report, scholars on both sides held serious, candid discussions founded on a mutual understanding of the historical perspective of the other side, proceeding to write reports on common themes and to accumulate a novel and valuable body of experience. These efforts have proved highly beneficial. In ancient times, China was a major center of world culture, spreading culture widely, exerting an influence upon a number of neighboring states, and stimulating new cultural creation. The Japanese scholars on the ancient history team gave due emphasis to China’s transmission of culture and its influence, and the Chinese scholars gave due praise to the uniqueness and creativity of Japanese culture. Scholars on both sides fully recognized the historical processes through which the two cultures influenced and stimulated one another. German-born Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt believed that the European tradition of world history originated with the genius of the Greeks, who had the ability not only to directly observe the world, but also to understand the worldviews of those with contrasting opinions, and thus they were able to understand phenomena indirectly (Denktagebuch I). It could be said that this understanding of “the worldviews of those with contrasting opinions” was precisely what had to be achieved for the ancient history component of the Japan–China Joint History Research Project to be successful. This is a manifestation of the spirit of adhering to facts and seeking truth. Though there may be areas where this report falls short in realizing this ideal, it is the fruit of two years of collaborative effort by both Chinese and Japanese history scholars, and we ask readers for their understanding.

Contents

1 Preface: China–Japan Relations in the Ancient East Asian World 1 Lifeng Jiang, Shaodang Yan, Yajun Zhang and Li Ding Part I Transformations in the Order and Systems of East Asia 2 The Establishment of the East Asian International Order in the Seventh Century 57 Xiaofu Wang 3 The East Asian International Order and China–Japan Relations in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 89 Xinsheng Wang Part II The Transmission of Chinese Culture and Manifestations of the Uniqueness of Japanese Culture 4 The Transmission and Transformation of Thought and Religion 129 Chengyou Song 5 Movement of People and Goods 185 Yong Wang ix

x 

CONTENTS

Part III Chinese and Japanese Society—A Comparison of Mutual Understandings and Historical Characteristics 6 China and Japan—Mutual Understandings 237 Xiaoqiu Wang 7 A Comparison of Chinese and Japanese Political and Social Structures 283 Lifeng Jiang, Yong Wang, Zhengjian Huang, Zongguo Wu, Zhuo Li, Jiayu Song and Fan Zhang

List

of

Contributors

Li Ding School of Foreign Languages, Peking University, Beijing, China Zhengjian Huang Chinese Academy of History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China Lifeng Jiang Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China Zhuo Li  Japan Institute of Nankai University, Tianjin, China Chengyou Song Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Jiayu Song Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Tokyo, Japan Xiaofu Wang  Peking University, Beijing, China Xiaoqiu Wang Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Xinsheng Wang Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Yong Wang  Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

xi

xii  

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Yong Wang Japanese Language and Culture, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China Zongguo Wu  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Shaodang Yan Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Peking University, Beijing, China Fan Zhang  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Yajun Zhang  The Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China

CHAPTER 1

Preface: China–Japan Relations in the Ancient East Asian World Lifeng Jiang, Shaodang Yan, Yajun Zhang and Li Ding

The Japan–China Joint History Research Project is a public research project that the governments of both China and Japan have agreed to undertake. This is a positive, constructive experiment seeking to resolve historical issues between China and Japan through a joint study by scholars from both countries, and to prevent overall China–Japan relations from being damaged by disputes over history. In fact, when we speak of historical issues between China and Japan, we are generally referring to L. Jiang (*)  Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] S. Yan  Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Peking University, Beijing, China Y. Zhang  The Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China L. Ding  School of Foreign Languages, Peking University, Beijing, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_1

1

2  L. JIANG ET AL.

one particular event in modern Asian history, Japan’s invasion of China. The 1972 “Japan–China Joint Communiqué” reached a clear conclusion in this regard. Nevertheless, assertions and discussions counter to this conclusion have subsequently emerged in Japan, and have even come to impact Japanese government policy toward China, turning a problem of simple historical knowledge into a complex political problem and hindering the further development of the relationship between the two countries. In planning this project, we were aware that history cannot be divided into segments, and thus sought to understand the patterns and peculiarities of China–Japan relations as a flowing totality and to sum up the resulting experiences and lessons. Therefore, we made the decision to carry out the study in two main parts, ancient history and modern/contemporary (including postwar) history. The ancient history team was comprised of Chinese scholars Jiang Lifeng, Tang Zhongnan, Wang Xiaoqiu, and Wang Xinsheng, and Japanese scholars Yamauchi Masayuki, Kawamoto Yoshiaki, Tsuruma Kazuyuki, Kikuchi Hideaki, and Kojima Tsuyoshi. In addition, a number of special contributors took part, including Chinese contributors Yan Shaodang, Song Chengyou, Wang Xiaofu, Zhang Yajun, Ding Li, Huang Zhengjian, Wang Yong, Wu Zongguo, Li Zhuo, Song Jiayu, and Zhang Fan, and Japanese contributors Ide Seinosuke, Kojima Yasunori, Sakurai Eiji, Furuse Natsuko, and Murai Shōsuke. In the Chinese view, “ancient history” is equivalent to premodern history, which encompasses medieval and early modern history; the Japanese view situates ancient history alongside medieval history and early modern history, regarding all of these together as premodern history. The ancient history study undertaken as part of this project is a joint study of premodern history. This study both summarizes the results of past research and innovates through intercultural exchange. Any study must have a theory and a framework. Studies of history are generally founded on one of two theoretical supports, historical materialism or historical idealism. The historical materialist view holds that the development of human society is an objective reality and that it follows particular patterns. Such patterns do not change based on the hopes, desires, or knowledge of later generations, and the search for these historical patterns is the point of departure as well as the ultimate destination of historical research, which sums up historical experience to the benefit of the present and the future. The historical materialist view formerly emphasized the transitions between the five social stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism,

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

3

capitalism, and socialism, placing the focus on the fundamental driving role of the development of production capacity. More recently, this perspective has been further enriched by studies of civilizational history, and begun to analyze and study the course of historical development by examining multiple modes of human civilization, including hunting, farming, industrial, postindustrial, information, equestrian, continental, and maritime. This approach has made historical research more dynamic and more faithful to historical fact. According to historical idealism, the development of human society is driven by ideas, and to the extent that certain patterns exist, they are reflections of these ideas. Present-day schools such as liberalism, existentialism, and structuralism all take a historical idealist perspective. Of course, historical idealism emphasizes the role of human will in the course of history, and is a perspective that historians should indeed take into account. However, the question of how to objectively analyze and accurately understand the ancient history of East Asia and the world remains extremely challenging. It is insufficient to merely repeat theoretical principles and cite from a few classic papers. For instance, in analyzing and evaluating international relationships in the history of modern East Asia and the world, certain Japanese scholars have set forth the notion of “modern rationalism,” holding that the bourgeoisie represents advanced production capacity and that bourgeois nationalism is progressive, thus approving of both. This “modern rationalism” draws no distinctions between the developmental phases of modern bourgeois nationalism and fails to recognize its duality, holding that “that which is real is rational” and mounting a defense of the power politics practiced by the modern bourgeoisie. However, from the viewpoint of peoples who are suppressed, enslaved, and pillaged, the African slave trade of the bourgeoisie, the slaughter of Native Americans by white settlers, and the aggressive expansionism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascist powers are in every respect clearly “modern irrationalist.” Thus, it must be pointed out that while “modern rationalism” may in some ways be rational, it also has irrational aspects, and that it can be both progressive and reactionary; specific instances should be handled individually rather than treated uniformly. As an alternative to “modern rationalism,” is it possible to apply an “ancient rationalism” to the study of ancient history? This is a question that deserves to be considered. Genghis Khan commanded a force of fearless cavalrymen who swept across the Asian continent and laid waste to everything in their path. Seen in the context of East Asian history,

4  L. JIANG ET AL.

however, Genghis Khan’s westward expansion is said to have “opened transportation routes from the East to the West,” and in Asian or at least East Asian historical studies, Genghis Khan has consistently been touted as a heroic figure. Taking a Eurocentric view of the Crusades, or a Russocentric view of the expeditions of Peter the Great, we arrive at similar conclusions. From a Japan-centric perspective, the westward expeditions of Empress Jingū and Toyotomi Hideyoshi are spoken of in glowing terms. Perhaps this could be called “ancient rationalism.” It is thus apparent that human cognition and understanding follow a particular developmental process which is closely correlated with the development of production capacity. Thus, ancient and modern people necessarily have different views of society and different values, and in studying history, we must take great care not to judge and make demands of ancient people based on present-day values. We must also ensure that historical studies are not limited to a particular national or regional focus. It is only by basing our thoughts and observations on a broader view of world history that we can accurately judge historical events and people. However, ancient societies were by no means incapable of telling right from wrong, and had fairly clear norms and value standards. For example, they unequivocally lauded righteousness, benevolence, patriotism, loyalty, and openness, and condemned their opposites, namely, evil, tyranny, treason, treachery, and conservatism. At the same time, we should not forget that some values have been upheld throughout history, such as those governing our judgments of progress and backwardness, and those related to sovereignty and human rights. Although it is not possible to mechanically judge particular historical people and events according to the notions of progress and backwardness, there is a general distinction between the two. Simply put, when a person or event is in accord with the developmental requirements of production capacity and the norms of advanced civilization, that person or event is referred to as “advanced”; people and events not in accord with such are referred to as “regressive” or “backward.” In ancient world history, states fought ceaselessly against each other and numerous imperial tributary systems were established in order to expand and strengthen sovereignty (in spite of their external differences, states generally held this goal in common), and peasants constantly rebelled with the clear intention of securing the basic human right to life. Though ancient people lacked the concepts of

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

5

“sovereignty” and “human rights,” they did think similarly and make similar demands. Historical studies would be lost in the absence of such standards for making value judgments. The basic principle of historical studies is to adhere to facts and seek truth. Everyone who took part in the Japan–China Joint History Research Project agreed on this. To adhere to facts and seek truth means to get at the real essence of history through in-depth, rigorous study, not to confirm preconceived “conclusions” that we simply want to believe are true. Investigations should come first, followed by conclusions, not the reverse. Thus, putting forth “China’s enormous influence over Japan” or “the uniqueness of Japanese culture” as foregone conclusions would clearly undermine the original intent of the study. In order to adhere to facts and seek truth, the foremost concern is the trustworthiness of materials. It is very important to perform research based on accurate, reliable firsthand materials. Historians scoff at the idea of creating false historical materials to support their views, but it is nonetheless necessary to sort through the vast quantity of classic historical material that has been preserved in both China and Japan in order to determine what is true and what is false. The Chinese Twenty-Four Histories are important materials for the study of the ancient relationship between China and Japan, and though their records of Japan can basically be trusted, severe errors certainly do exist, and key Japanese historical materials such as Kojiki (Record of ancient matters 古事記) and Nihon shoki (Chronicles of Japan 日本書紀) are particularly problematic; both sides must be aware of this. The Japanese scholars boldly questioned some of the statements of Nihon shoki, an attitude that deserves commendation. At the same time, in historical studies, it is crucial to root out bias, be willing to change first impressions, and humbly take objections into account. No historical study can possibly consider all historical materials. Historical studies can only carry out analyses and make determinations based on the best possible grasp on foundational historical materials. To this end, historical romanticism and an atmosphere of academic freedom play key roles. In the 1950s, there was a favorable atmosphere in both Chinese and Japanese academia, and it was thanks to this that great, highly influential scholars and academic perspectives emerged. This is highly significant to the Japan–China Joint History Research Project as well. The work of the Chinese scholars may take a slightly different perspective on some issues. No attempt has been made to impose unanimity; this is another important manifestation of a free academic atmosphere.

6  L. JIANG ET AL.

In determining the themes of the joint study, the Japanese scholars specifically proposed studying the roles and relative positions of China and Japan in ancient East Asia from the viewpoint of East Asian history, and also proposed performing a comparative study of ancient Chinese and Japanese political and social structures. Though these are both side topics in studies of historical relations between China and Japan, not main topics, and there is essentially no need to specifically designate them as research topics, taking the big picture into account, the Chinese scholars agreed to the proposal. Needless to say, this did not indicate agreement to study China–Japan relations within the framework of “uniqueness” as the Japanese side wished, but rather a commitment to study the relationship between ancient China and Japan in a broader, deeper way. It was thus determined that the themes of the study would be these: the East Asian international order out of which ancient China–Japan relations developed, Chinese and Japanese cultural exchange and mutual awareness, and comparative study of the political and social structures of ancient China and Japan. This preface, however, does make reference to the above-described concept of “uniqueness” in building a foundation for and offering guidance on the themes of each chapter, as below.

1  On the Origins of the Chinese and Japanese Races To properly study the history of China–Japan relations, we must start from the earliest point of origin. Previous studies have demonstrated a close relationship between the Chinese and Japanese races, and this is one of the foundations upon which China–Japan relations developed. With regard to the origins and development of humanity, ethnographic studies have generally taken one of two views, namely the “Out-of-Africa hypothesis” and the “multiregional hypothesis.” The Out-of-Africa hypothesis holds that the entire human race shares a single point of origin, either Kenya or Ethiopia, as well as two common ancestors, the Orrorin, a genus of hominins that lived approximately 6 million years ago, and the Australopithecus (“Lucy”), a genus that lived approximately 3.2 million years ago. It is believed that these hominins proceeded to fan out westward and eventually, over millennia, developed distinctly human features. In the history of human social development, four great civilizations—Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, and

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

7

Chinese—arose one after another, providing circumstantial evidence for this hypothesis. However, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that these genera were by mere chance the ones unearthed by archaeological excavations. The multiregional hypothesis holds that there must have been multiple centers with conditions similar to the homelands of the Orrorin and Australopithecus, and that human beings likely evolved simultaneously in multiple locations; different races developed merely due to different geographic and climactic conditions. Of course, these hypotheses remain to be proven by further archaeological excavations. In fact, the former hypothesis emphasizes the links between the races as they developed, whereas the latter emphasizes the distinctions between races. Each view has its logic, but combining the two, with due attention to the unique characteristics of different regions and different time periods, would surely lead to the conclusion in best alignment with historical fact. The majority Chinese ethnic group, the Han, was created by a fusion of northern and southern peoples. The results of past and present archaeological digs indicate that Wushan Man of Wushan, Chongqing (2040 ka) and Yuanmou Man of Yunnan (1700 ka) may be the forefathers of the Chinese people. Later, anthropoid apes, archaic humans, and homo sapiens such as Yunxian Man of Hubei (1000–800 ka), Lantian Man (800–500  ka), Peking Man (700–200  ka), Tianyuanhe Man (40 ka), Shandingdong Man (30–20 ka), and Hemudu Man (7–6 ka) left ruins across a wide range of regions, indicating that the main components of the Chinese race took shape relatively independently and evolved relatively continuously. We say “relatively” because it is not out of the question that northern and southern Chinese people separately came under the influence of another race. In this sense, it can be said that the Chinese race formed and developed through independent, continuous evolution with a degree of admixture. Recent years have seen a multitude of Japanese archaeological “discoveries,” each apparently more ancient than the one before, purporting to furnish irrefutable evidence of the “uniqueness” of the Japanese culture and race. Japanese nationalist forces have greeted these discoveries with elation. However, it was found in the year 2000 that archaeologist Fujimura Shin’ichi had falsified a number of findings. With this, dozens of “important archaeological discoveries” relating to Japan’s Lower and Middle Paleolithic eras were invalidated, and the sincerity and honesty

8  L. JIANG ET AL.

of Japanese archaeology were called into serious question. At present, most Japanese archaeologists believe, based on those archaeological findings that have been reexamined and found to be valid, that the period of human activity on the Japanese archipelago extends much further into the past than previously believed, that is, approximately 80–40 ka further into the past than prior estimates of 700–600 ka, to the end of the Middle Paleolithic era. Based on comparative studies, some experts have come to believe that late Peking Man crossed the land bridge that connected mainland Asia to the Japanese archipelago during the Ice Age in pursuit of prey. If this is in fact the case, primitive Japanese people originated from mainland Asia in ancient times. However, this conclusion remains to be validated by further archaeological findings. At present, based on those archaeological findings that have been examined and revalidated, it appears that homo sapiens first appeared in Japan 30,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene or the Upper Paleolithic. In fact, however, the matter is more complicated. After the Pleistocene era, sea levels rose, splitting the Japanese archipelago from mainland Asia, and approximately ten thousand years ago, in the early Holocene, Japan entered the Jōmon cultural period, which revolved around hunting, gathering, and fishing. The Jōmon period continued until approximately BC 300, at which point the Yayoi period, which was characterized by rice cultivation and metal tools, began. During this transitional period, the physical characteristics of the Japanese population rapidly transformed, and at the same time, the defining characteristics of Japanese culture changed drastically as well. It is precisely because the Japanese population went through such clearly demarcated phases in terms of both physical and cultural characteristics that the origins of the Japanese have been studied and discussed so extensively. Such studies and discussions have encompassed a wide range of academic fields such as physical anthropology, archaeology, genetics, ethnology, and historical studies. In the past, some Japanese scholars insisted on a “theory of continuity” in the development of the Japanese race, asserting that the Japanese have maintained an unbroken lineage from the Jōmon period to today without any admixture whatsoever, but numerous archaeological findings have disproven this view. Additionally, a number of scholars insist on a “theory of replacement” or a “theory of migration,” asserting that during the Yayoi period, large numbers of migrants arrived in Japan from the northern or southern mainland as well as from overseas, bringing advanced aspects of mainland civilization such as rice agriculture and

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

9

bronzeware casting techniques to western Honshū and Kyūshū. These migrants from continental Asia gradually outnumbered the indigenous inhabitants of other parts of Japan and became the direct ancestors of the Japanese as they evolved from the Yayoi period onward into the Japanese people as we know them today. The Yayoi people and their descendants began to diffuse eastward during the late Yayoi period, establishing an imperial court when they reached Yamato. In the process, they mingled with indigenous populations and gradually became the present-day Japanese. However, their northern expansion was relatively slow, and so the Ainu people of Hokkaido retained the physical and cultural characteristics of the indigenous people of the Jōmon period to quite a considerable degree, and were essentially not influenced at all by the migrants from the Asian mainland.1 Historically speaking, the Ainu remained virtually politically independent until modern times, and their political and geographic isolation helped preserve their gene pool. With regard to physical characteristics, among East Asian populations of the Neolithic and later, the Jōmon people were relatively isolated morphologically, retaining ancient characteristics of Paleolithic continental Europeans, such as high, broad foreheads, prominent brows, short, broad faces, deep-set nasal bridges, prominent noses, deep, broad eye sockets, short, burly arms, and long, flat tibias. These characteristics made the Jōmon people similar to the inhabitants of southern China in the Neolithic, with whom they shared both cranial and cultural characteristics.2 The Yayoi migrants differed markedly from the Jōmon people, having relatively flat brows, shallow, flat nasal bridges, long, narrow faces, shallow eye sockets, tall statures, and so on, physical features similar to those of the Japanese throughout subsequent historical periods to the present day. The Yayoi belonged to the same morphological group as the Japanese, and their lack of morphological continuity with the Jōmon people demonstrates that such characteristics originate with genes from outside the Japanese archipelago. This conclusion is supported by findings in a wide range of fields such as dental anthropology, epidemiology, blood composition analysis, and genetics. The great majority of anthropological studies have also found that, from the Yayoi period to the present day, the Japanese (excluding the Ainu) have exhibited morphological continuity, and their lack of morphological continuity with the Jōmon people shows that such characteristics result from an inflow of genes from outside the Japanese archipelago.

10  L. JIANG ET AL.

In 1975, American scholar Christy G. Turner II performed the first comparison of the dental morphology of the contemporary Japanese, the Ainu, the Jōmon, the Yayoi, and the prehistoric Chinese, proposing a “dual origin with admixture hypothesis” of the population of the Japanese archipelago. Turner believed that the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago consisted of populations with two distinct types of dental morphology, Sundadonty and Sinodonty, with the Jōmon people and the Ainu being Sundadonts, and the Yayoi people and the contemporary Japanese being Sinodonts. Sundadontal characteristics took shape in Southeast Asia approximately seventeen thousand to thirty thousand years ago, and according to Turner’s analysis, early Southeast Asian people with Sundadontal characteristics migrated north along the Asian mainland until they reached Hokkaido, Japan, where they became the Jōmon and their descendants, the Ainu. Then, in the Yayoi period, northeast Asian people with Sinodont characteristics arrived in Japan from mainland Asia, merging to some degree with the local Jōmon people and forming the Yayoi people and their descendants, the present-day Japanese. Simply put, the present-day Japanese bloodline has a dual origin which can be traced mostly to the genes of mainland Sinodonts and in smaller part to Sundadont Jōmon/ Ainu genes. Thus, an ever-growing body of scientific research has led to broad acceptance of the “migration hypothesis,” which holds that after the Jōmon period, the physical features of the Japanese went through such drastic changes due to the marked genetic and cultural influence of mainland migrants who were mainly Sinodonts. With reference to the relationships between archaeological cultures, there are three routes by which the ancestors of the Yayoi people of western Japan may have migrated from the Chinese mainland to Japan: first, they may have directly crossed the East China Sea from the Jiangnan region; second, they may have crossed the ocean from China’s Shandong Peninsula, reaching the Korean Peninsula and then western Japan by way of the Korea Strait; third, they may have departed from coastal China, rounded Bohai Bay to the Liaodong Peninsula, then crossed the Korean Peninsula and the ocean, finally landing on the Japanese archipelago. Considering it is the most convenient route, most support the view that the ancestors of the Japanese reached Japan via the Korean Peninsula, but there continues to be a lack of anthropological materials from the Korean Peninsula from this time period to support this view.

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

11

In recent years, Chinese and Japanese physical anthropologists have collaboratively studied ancient Chinese human remains from a number of angles, and cultural anthropologists have conducted thorough analyses of the transmission of rice cultivation. On this basis, they have arrived at conjectures regarding the origins of Yayoi period migrants. Possible Point of Origin 1: The Middle and Lower Reaches of China’s Yellow River Anthropological materials address mainly the population of Shandong during the Neolithic period and the Zhou and Han dynasties. Studies of dental morphology have shown that the Neolithic people of Shandong were Sinodonts, as are the present-day Japanese, but by contrast, the Jōmon people were Sundadonts. This indicates that, as of three thousand years ago at least, there was little or no contact with people who crossed the Sea of Japan or the seas to the east of China, and that if such contact did occur, it had essentially no genetic impact upon the Jōmon people. This isolation persisted until the beginning of the Yayoi period, that is, the Sea of Japan and the seas to the east of China served in the long term as obstacles to genetic mixture. Studies of cranial morphology have found that the genes of Zhou and Han dynasty era Shandong people and the Yayoi people of western Japan have similar characteristics, and it is thus hypothesized that the most direct ancestors of the migrant Yayoi originated somewhere in this region; Shandong may have been a key area.3 Studies of nonmetric cranial characteristics also support the view that the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River in the Chinese mainland may be the original homeland of the Yayoi people of western Japan. Geographical analysis shows that migrants could easily have traveled across the sea from the Shandong Peninsula to the Korean Peninsula and from there crossed the Korea Strait to western Japan, or they could have set out from the Shandong Peninsula, crossed the Liaodong Peninsula and the Korean Peninsula, and finally settled in western Japan, particularly the Kita-Kyūshū/Yamaguchi area. Possible Point of Origin 2: China’s Yangtze River Basin and Jianghuai Region The people of Japan’s Yayoi period had an advanced civilization centered on rice cultivation, leading many to believe that the ancestors of the Yayoi originated in southern China, one of the origins of such

12  L. JIANG ET AL.

rice-cultivating civilizations. Paddies dating back ten thousand to twelve thousand years have been found at the Wannian Xianren Cave site in Jiangxi Province and at the Yuchan Temple site in Dao County, Hunan Province. Traces of large-scale rice cultivation can be found at the Neolithic Hemudu site in Yuyao, Zhejiang (7–5 ka). The people of Hemudu lived in houses that stood on stilts, sailed ships, and made and used earthenware, commonly carving crisscrossed cord markings into the lower bellies of the cauldron-like pieces they made. Judging by tidal currents and seasonal winds, it is possible that the people of the Jiangnan region crossed the ocean directly to Japan. Around the third century BC, one group of southern Chinese people (referred to as the “Yue” or the “Baiyue”) may have fled across the ocean to Japan due to political turmoil, becoming the “Wo people,” i.e., the Yayoi. Another group may have migrated to Yunnan, where they comprise a minority population that continues to flourish today. In 1994, Chinese anthropologists organized the China–Japan Collaborative Team for Studying Human Remains in Southern China, excavating remains dating from the sixth century BC to the first century AD in Jiangsu, China as well as Japanese Jōmon and Yayoi remains from roughly the same time period and studying these comparatively from a number of angles. A comparison of craniums and numerous other lines of research reached the following conclusion: there are very great morphological differences between the Neolithic people of China’s Jiangnan region and the Neolithic Japanese, but the inhabitants of Jiangsu (a large area extending from the north of the Huai River to the south of the Yangtze River) from the Spring and Autumn period to the Western Han dynasty have strong similarities to the migrant Japanese Yayoi, and it is therefore believed that the remains of hominins similar to the Yayoi people may be distributed across not only the Korean Peninsula, but a very large area including the Shandong Peninsula and the Jiangnan region. Therefore, in searching out the origins of continental Asian migrants of the Yayoi period and earlier, we must not restrict our focus to only the Korean Peninsula and northern China, but broaden it to include the lower reaches of the Huai and Yangtze Rivers, particularly the Huai River Basin in northern Jiangsu. Other than pointing out a connection to the rice-cultivating cultures that originated in the Jiangnan region and the diffusion of their successors, we can say nothing of the formation of the Japanese people, but in the future, it will be necessary to take a broader perspective including southern China and Southeast Asia.4

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

13

Chinese scholar An Zhimin has also analyzed in depth the notion that the origins of Japanese culture can be traced to continental Asia. His basic views are as follows: the earthenware and polished stone tools that emerged during Japan’s Jōmon period clearly demonstrate close ties to continental Asia. Decoratively patterned earthenware found in Nagasaki, Japan resembles the decoratively patterned earthenware of China’s Jiangnan region. Tripod-like earthenware vessels found in Ōita and Aomori, Japan differ markedly from those of China’s Dongbei region, but are very similar to those of southern China and may be Japanese reproductions of southern Chinese tripods; in Korea, however, no tripods have been unearthed, and thus they could not have reached Japan by way of Korea. Early Jōmon period earrings and lacquerware may also originate from China, specifically the Yangtze River Basin. Considered together with the emergence of rice cultivation in the late Jōmon period, this evidence demonstrates that transformations in Jōmon culture were heavily influenced by China’s southeastern coastal region. Buildings on stilts, like those the Yayoi people used as residences and storage houses, are common in the region of China to the south of the Yangtze, and may have reached Japan from China’s southeastern coast, along with rice cultivation.5 Japanese scholar Watabe Tadayo has proposed that rice cultivation originated in Assam, India and Yunnan, China, and Torigoe Kenzaburō’s research has concluded that the origins of the Japanese can be traced to Yunnan, citing as circumstantial evidence the fact that Mongolian spots, which many Japanese people have, originate from Yunnan. Investigations have determined that the folk customs and primitive beliefs of certain Yunnan minority peoples in many respects resemble those of the Japanese (in addition to rice cultivation, this includes teeth blackening, tattooing, houses on stilts, harvest rituals, and sun worship; also, the Mosuo people of Lugu Lake on the border of Yunnan and Sichuan have retained a matriarchal culture which in some respects resembles that of Yamato). This circumstantial evidence may indicate that the origins of the Japanese people can be traced to Yunnan, or it may only demonstrate that Yunnan and Japan independently developed in similar ways. Possible Point of Origin 3: The Dongbei Region of China This conclusion is based on a comparative study of cranial morphometry among various Yayoi period populations, the Neolithic people of the northern Chinese province of Henan and the southern province of

14  L. JIANG ET AL.

Fujian, and the Bronze Age people of Dongbei. Based on racial characteristics, it appears that most Yayoi period migrants originated from Dongbei in ancient times, while some came from the Yellow River Basin.6 In the past, a majority of anthropologists and archaeologists believed that very few people migrated from continental Asia during the Yayoi period, so few in fact that they could basically be disregarded. At present, however, various types of evidence have shown that migrants from continental Asia were numerous, and that they had an enormous influence upon the indigenous people of Japan. Using models of population growth and changes in cranial morphology, computer simulation results have shown that for approximately one thousand years, beginning in the Yayoi period, the population growth rate of the Japanese archipelago far exceeded the worldwide average, and migrants from continental Asia numbered more than 1,000,000; following the Yayoi period, during the Kofun period, the ratio of the descendants of indigenous Jōmon people to mainland migrants was 1:9–2:8 in western Japan (the rate of admixture of migrant heritage among the direct descendants of the Jōmon people during the Kofun period was 1:9 in Kansai, 2:8 in western Japan, and 3:7 in Kantō). A theory of singular racial origin cannot explain the complex changes in Japanese culture or the physical characteristics of the Japanese.7 In addition to archaeological excavations, classical historical works are also important sources of evidence. As is widely known, Records of the Historian (Shi ji 史记) records that Qin Shihuang “sent Xu Shi [alternately Xu Fu] with thousands of boys and girls across the ocean in search of the land of the immortals.” History of Northern Dynasties (Bei shi 北史) and The Book of Sui (Sui shu 隋书) record that in the year 608, Pei Shiqing “went to the kingdom of Wo [Japan] as an envoy, passed through Baekje, traveled to Jukdo, visited Danluo [believed to refer to Silla], passed by Dusima [Tsushima], and went out onto the open sea. He then traveled east to Yizhi [Iki], then to Zhusi [Chikushi], then further east to the kingdom of Qin [Hakata], where the people are just like the Chinese. He believed he was in Yizhou, but could not be sure.” Some believe that “the kingdom of Qin” is a state that Xu Fu established on his journey to Japan. It is worth noting that both the “Records of Barbarians” (“Zhuyi zhuan” 诸夷传) chapter of The Book of Liang (Liang shu 梁书) and the “Records of Barbarians and Northern Tribes” (“Yi mo zhuan” 夷貊传) chapter of History of Southern Dynasties

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

15

(Nan shi 南史) make mention of “the land of Dahan,” which lies “five thousand-some li to the east of Wenshen.” According to A Brief History of Wei (Wei lüe 魏略), The Book of Jin (Jin shu 晋书), The Book of Liang, History of Northern Dynasties, Comprehensive Institutions (Tong dian 通典), and other sources, the Wo people “claimed to be the descendants of Taibo [legendary founder of the Chinese state of Wu].” In an entry for the year Ōjin 14 (283), Nihon shoki records, “In this year, Lord Gungwol [ruler of 120 districts] immigrated from Baekje.” An entry for the Ōjin 20 (289) states, “Achi no Omi, progenitor of the Yamato no Aya no Atai, immigrated with his son Tsuka no Omi, bringing his relatives from the seventeen districts.” It should be noted that the Yayoi period roughly corresponds to the Chinese Warring States period and the Qin and Han dynasties. This being the case, the sudden emergence of people distinct from the indigenous inhabitants of western Japan may well be related to unstable lifestyle situations in the Chinese mainland during a time of war and upheaval. Under such political and survival pressure, the people of Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang may have settled in Japan, bringing with them the cultures and customs they relied upon to survive. Additionally, Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names (Shinsen shōjiroku 新選姓氏録), compiled by the Yamato court in 815, states that among 1182 clans in the Kansai region at the time, 326, nearly a third, were from “miscellaneous domains” (shohan 諸 藩). The term “miscellaneous domains” refers to “the people of the Han empire and the Three Kingdoms of Korea.” Classical historical works state clearly that, for quite some time prior to this, Chinese and Koreans had been immigrating to Japan in large numbers. To summarize, approximately eighty thousand years ago, there were already traces of hominin habitation on the Japanese archipelago (though it remains impossible to fully verify these), and it is apparent that as of thirty thousand years ago, homo sapiens were already present in Japan—they may have evolved from late Peking Man and his descendants who migrated to Japan. The Japanese Jōmon people who emerged approximately ten thousand years ago, making their livings hunting, gathering, and fishing, may have been closely related to the Neolithic people of southern China. Mass migration from mainland East Asia, mainly China, clearly had a great deal to do with the emergence of the rice-cultivating Yayoi people in BC 300. Though some mingling did take place as the migrants spread, the genes of continental Asian migrants proved advantageous over those of the indigenous Japanese,

16  L. JIANG ET AL.

and it is these migrants who gradually became the present-day Japanese. From the Middle Ages onward, there was no significant inflow of overseas genetic material into the Japanese population. As a result, it may be concluded that the formation of the modern Japanese people was heavily impacted by the arrival of migrants from mainland East Asia, primarily China, and that the Chinese and the Japanese races are closely related.

2  On the Relationship Between the Chinese and Japanese Cultures in Ancient Times The Chinese and Japanese cultures were closely related in ancient times. Every aspect of Japanese culture was profoundly influenced by Chinese culture, including aspects of daily life such as clothing, food, residences, business practices, marriage customs, funerary customs, etiquette, and academics. As part of the East Asian Confucian cultural sphere, Japan’s cultural development in prehistoric times (up to the Heian period) was strongly influenced by Chinese culture, and in historical times (from the Kamakura period onward), uniquely Japanese cultural characteristics emerged, becoming more and more distinct as time went on. For many years now, both Chinese and Japanese scholars have poured great energy into studies of cultural exchange between China and Japan, and an overwhelming body of research has demonstrated that Chinese and Japanese cultures are closely related in a way that is unique in the history of worldwide cultural exchange. Japanese scholarship, especially the theory of subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest culture (Umehara Takeshi), the theory that Japanese rice cultivation originated in Yunnan (Watabe Tadayo), the theory that Wuyue culture exerted an influence over ancient Japan (Fukunaga Mitsuji), and the Maritime Silk Road theory (Higuchi Takayasu), is worthy of note here. Such scholarship has provided increasing support for the notion that the Japanese and Chinese cultures developed in close coordination. The Japanese refer to themselves as the people of Yamato (大和, literally “great harmony”). Ask why the Japanese refer to themselves in this way, however, and why these characters are read “Yamato,” as is the character 倭 (“Wo” in Chinese, literally “submissive” or “dwarf”), and perhaps only one in ten Japanese will be able to answer. The answers, moreover, will be hesitant and ambiguous. In our experiences in present-day Japan, “Yamato” is believed to be a shortened form of

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

17

“Yamamoto,” meaning “base of the mountain,” referring to the ancient Wo/Yamato people who lived beneath or in the foothills of mountains. In The Seventeen-Article Constitution (Jūshichijō kenpō 十七条憲法), Prince Shōtoku (574–622)8 cites a saying by Confucius’ disciple Master You as recorded in The Analects (Lunyu 论语): “In the practice of propriety, harmony is key.” This demonstrates that ancient Japanese rulers profoundly understood the importance of harmony. The Chinese character in question (和) generally means peace, amicability, or harmony, and distinctions may be drawn between its lesser, middle, and greater forms. Its lesser form is peace, its middle form is amicability, and its greater form is harmony. The Japanese are a clever people, and in the first year of the Tenpyō Hōji era (757), they designated the characters 大和 as a replacement for the characters 倭 or 大倭, but the pronunciation remained the same, “Yamato.” The “Office of Winter” (“Dongguan kaogong ji” 冬官 考工记) chapter of The Rites of Zhou (Zhou li 周礼) states, “Great harmony is unvarnished.” Jia Gongyan comments, “‘Great harmony’ refers to an archer’s bow of the nine harmonies. Because its six materials are so excellent and outstanding, it is left unvarnished.” In The Central Scripture of Laozi (Laozi zhongjing 老子中经), the seventh immortal is “The Great Harmony.” The text states, “The Great Harmony is the corporeal soul of heaven and the lord of effortless spontaneity. He attends to the Lord of the Way, standing by on his right.” In The Book of Changes (Yi jing 易经), the text of the first hexagram states, “As the Way of Heaven transforms, it brings order to all of nature. It maintains great harmony and gives universal benefit.” Collected Songs of the Music Bureau (Yuefu shiji 乐府诗集), Chapter 79, “Modern Songs” (“Jindai quci” 近 代曲辞), lists a piece entitled “Great Harmony” (“Dahe” 大和) (originating from the Wude and Zhenguan eras of the Tang dynasty, popular in the Kaiyuan and Tianbao eras, i.e., 713–756). Confucian scholar Tan Qiao of the late Tang and the Five Dynasties period gives another explanation of “great harmony”: “To a man of virtue, nothing is familiar or strange. He does not love, and he does not hate. This is called great harmony.” Whatever interpretation might be taken of the term “great harmony,” in the fourth chapter of The Book of Transformations (Hua shu 化 书), entitled “The Transformation of Benevolence” (“Ren hua” 仁化), it is clearly a very favorable term alluding to an ideal realm that transcends the everyday. Japanese rulers in fact began writing “Yamato” with the characters 大和 rather than 倭 in order to improve their image.

18  L. JIANG ET AL.

A glance at the Heian period statue of Prince Shōtoku at Japan’s Ichijōji Temple shows it to be identical in both facial features and clothing to the Immortal of Great Harmony (“He attends to the Lord of the Way, standing by on his right”) at the Daoist temple on Mt. Kongtong in Pingliang, Gansu, China. Prince Shōtoku was enamored with Chinese dragon totems and had a lifelike dragon design engraved above the door of his tomb. Prince Shōtoku was closely involved in the founding of Hōryū-ji Temple, and the decorative dragon pillars that support the eaves of its main hall might well have been carved by the same hands as the decorative dragon pillars of the Precious Hall of the Great Hero in Panlong Temple, Kunming, Yunnan, despite a gap in time of eleven hundred years. Prince Shōtoku trusted Ono no Imiko more than any of his other officials and dispatched him to the Sui court in China on two occasions, in 607 and 609, making him one of the most illustrious diplomats in the history of ancient China–Japan relations. On arriving in the Chinese mainland, what did he see, and what did he learn? The Chinese art of flower arrangement gradually developed from the primitive pre-Qin dynasty period to the Han to the Wei to the Northern and Southern dynasties, and by the Sui, it was flourishing. Ono studied not only Buddhist dharma but also the art of arranging flowers to offer to the Buddha, an art he introduced, along with flower arranging implements, into Japan. On completing his diplomatic mission, Ono converted to Buddhism, taking the Buddhist name Senmu (meaning “devoted to a mission”). He moved into Rokkaku-dō Temple (aka Chōhō-ji Temple, Mt. Shiude, Kyoto) built by Prince Shōtoku, studying flower arrangement, offering flowers to the Buddha, and establishing customs for arranging flowers on altars. Inside the Rokkaku-dō compound, there is a pond where Prince Shōtoku bathed, and for this reason his residence is called Ike no Bō (meaning “the monk’s dwelling by the pond”). After Prince Shōtoku’s death, inspired by the Chinese custom of presenting flowers as a form of worship, Ono no Imoko picked flowers and grass from beside the pond and offered them in memorial to Prince Shōtoku. Ono no Imoko thus became the founder of Japan’s oldest school of ikebana or kadō (flower arrangement), the Ike no Bō school. Ono no Imoko contributed more than anyone else to the creation and furtherance of Japanese flower arrangement. Later, in the Nara period and the Heian period, a number of flowers such as plum blossoms and chrysanthemums were imported into Japan from China,

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

19

providing robust nourishment for the further development of Japanese flower arrangement. An equally close relationship to Chinese culture is apparent in other arts such as the tea ceremony, calligraphy, and kendo (swordsmanship). The Chinese culture of the Sui and Tang dynasty era has had a profound impact upon Japanese daily life. The kimono and matching hairstyles worn by Japanese women today are clear examples. To give another example, Ranryō-ō (Chinese: Lanlingwang 兰陵王) is a masked dance that originated in the Northern Qi dynasty and peaked in popularity in the Tang. Accompanied by simple, pleasant melodies, a solo male dancer embodies the heroic martial bearing, brusque, decisive movements, and powerful virility of King Gaosu of Lanling of the Northern Qi. The protagonist is big and burly, brave and strong, but his face is elegant and womanly. Knowing his soft, handsome looks are unlikely to intimidate enemies, before every battle he puts on a fierce, frightening wooden mask. Though Ranryō-ō long ago died out in China, fortunately, it spread to Japan in the Tang dynasty, and the Chinese language lines have been preserved. It is still performed at celebrations at Japanese imperial temples such as Ise Jingū, and in the twentieth century, it was transmitted back to China. The Japanese have long had their own spoken language, but it is mingled with many essential elements from the languages of other peoples. In the late Jōmon period and the early Yayoi period, the people of Jiangnan, China crossed the East China Sea to Japan, taking advantage of ocean currents and seasonal winds, and their language may well have integrated in some way with Japanese. From a phonological perspective, the pronunciation of Japanese relies heavily upon go-on readings of Chinese characters imported from China’s Jiangnan region in ancient times, kan-on readings that began to be imported from the Chang’an Central Plains region during the Tang dynasty, and tō-on readings based on official Chinese government pronunciations imported from the Song and Yuan dynasties onward, among which go-on and kan-on have had the biggest impact. The pronunciation of Japanese is clearly similar to that of modern Chinese, particularly Hokkien. Due to the Disaster of Yongjia of the early Jin dynasty (fourth century) and the subsequent Wuhu Invasion, in the late Tang, the Five Dynasties period, and the Song, the Han people of the Central Plains region around the Yellow River and the Luo River fled en masse from wartime turmoil on three separate occasions. Among their numbers, intellectuals were particularly prevalent,

20  L. JIANG ET AL.

and they ultimately settled mostly in southern Fujian, with a portion migrating further to Taiwan, avoiding the linguistic dissimilation that would have resulted from a merging of Central Plains people. Hokkien retained official pronunciations from the Han dynasty to the Song, particularly the Tang, in relatively pure form. It is precisely this phonological system that Japan acquired in the Tang dynasty and then retained. Chinese and Japanese pronunciation are closely related. It is inconceivable that Japan developed pictorial characters or ideograms prior to the importation of Chinese characters. None of the many archaeological studies of the Jōmon period have concluded that this was the case, demonstrating that even if pictographic writing or ideograms did emerge, due to the drastic shock caused by the arrival of advanced mainland culture, they stepped down from the stage of history at an early date and have left no trace. Since the Kamakura period, some scholars have boasted that Japan had written language prior to the importation of Chinese characters, but these so-called “jindai moji” (characters of the age of the gods) have long since been shown to be false. They are believed to be later forgeries. Of course, it might therefore be concluded that from the Jōmon period to the Kofun period, the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago remained illiterate; this view is worth considering as well. The first words of the introduction to Collection of Ancient Tales (Kogo shūi 古語拾遺) by early Heian period scholar Inbe no Hironari are “It is said that in very ancient times, written language did not exist. Rich and poor, old and young alike communicated orally, and in this way, the deeds and actions of previous generations were preserved and not forgotten.” We must not overlook the following sentences, however: “Since written characters came into existence, people have tended not to speak of the past, turning superficial, covetous, and scornful of all things old. In their pursuit of the new, over the generations, people have forgotten the ancient ways. Now, when they look back on the past, they do not understand its foundations.” The key questions are when were these “very ancient times,” and at what point did “written characters [come] into existence?” In the Yayoi period and the Kofun period, migrants from mainland East Asia, mainly China, arrived in Japan in large numbers. Considering that the tyrannical Qin Shihuang burned books and slaughtered scholars, and a string of social upheavals followed, intellectuals like Xu Fu must have made up a significant proportion of the migrants from continental Asia. It is very possible that such people brought books written on bamboo,

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

21

wood, silk, and paper with them to Japan, and it is inconceivable that they did not bring wordbooks. In any event, Xu Fu’s previously mentioned “kingdom of Qin” must have been literate. Numerous archaeological studies have demonstrated that Chinese characters long ago entered Japan along with ancient mainland Chinese currency, bronze mirrors, and other goods. Ancient Chinese coins inscribed with the characters “huo quan” (coin currency) have been unearthed from a late Yayoi period site in Nagasaki, Kyūshū, Japan. Such coins have since been discovered in mid-Yayoi period strata in sites in Tsushima, Saga, Fukuoka, Kumamoto, Kyoto, and Osaka, among others. Researchers have determined that these coins were minted during the Xin dynasty (9–23) founded by Eastern Han official Wang Mang. In addition, there are written records of the importation of goods through official channels. For instance, The Book of the Later Han (Hou Han shu 后 汉书) records that when an envoy from the Japanese state of Na came to pay tribute in the second year of Jianwu Zhongyuan (57), Emperor Guangwu presented them with a golden seal reading “King of Na, vassal state of Han.” Additionally, in areas of Japan such as Kantō, Chūbu, and Kansai, numerous bronze mirrors inscribed with Chinese reign titles dating to the third century have been unearthed. Such examples demonstrate that, at least as early as the first to third centuries AD, Chinese characters had entered Japan along with Chinese goods. In addition, Chinese histories record that the Wei emperor “sent an imperial edict to a Wo queen” (239), and the following year, Queen Himiko “dispatched an envoy with a message of thanks for the edict.” It is apparent that the kingdom of Yamataikoku was at this time capable of deciphering imperial edicts and composing tributary memorials in Chinese. Clearly, by the Yayoi period, Chinese characters were already in use to some degree. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” (“Woguo zhuan” 倭国传) chapter of the later The Book of Song (Song shu 宋书) records that King Bu of Wo (r. 477–479) presented Emperor Shun of Song with a tributary memorial written completely in Chinese; not only that, it employed the exquisitely stylized Six Dynasties pianwen style. As seen here, by the fifth century, Japanese government documents demonstrated a better grasp of Chinese characters and the Chinese language. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that mainland migrants with relatively advanced attainment in classical Chinese learning played an important part in this proficiency. Regarding the introduction of Chinese books to Japan, Nihon shoki records that in Ōjin 16 (285), King Wani of Baekje traveled to Japan on

22  L. JIANG ET AL.

the orders of the emperor. “He thus became the teacher of Prince Uji no Waki Iratsuko, teaching him various classics, and there was nothing the prince did not come to understand. It is for this reason that King Wani is said to be the forefather of the Fumi no Obito clan [of literary scribes].” Kojiki contains a similar account, stating specifically that King Wani brought a ten-volume edition of The Analects and a one-volume edition of The Thousand-Character Classic (Qian zi wen 千字文) with him to Japan. These mark the earliest appearances of King Wani as forefather of literature and writing in Japanese historical documents. It is generally believed that such accounts are in accord with historical fact in that Chinese classics had by this time indeed arrived in Japan by way of Korea.9 In the late Heian period, Ōe no Masafusa said, “The court of Emperor Ōjin was the first to introduce written characters, replacing the knotted cords that had previously been in use.” Motoori Norinaga of the Edo period also regarded The Analects and The Thousand-Character Classic as pioneering works that served to spread Confucianism and Chinese characters throughout Japan. According to historical records, further Confucian classics reached Japan in the sixth century. In Keitai 7 (513), scholar of classical Chinese works Dan Yang-i arrived in Japan to teach Confucian classics, followed three years later by scholar of classical works Go An-mu. They brought with them a number of classic works such as The Book of Changes, The Classic of Poetry (Shi jing 诗经), The Book of Documents (Shu jing 书 经), Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun qiu 春秋), and The Book of Rites (Li ji 礼记). The introduction of such Chinese books no doubt served to spread literacy and spur the use of Chinese characters by the Japanese. In the mid-sixth century, Buddhism was introduced to Japan. The introduction of Buddhist classics in Chinese translation encouraged the further expansion of the literate population, such that Chinese characters spread beyond the imperial court to commoners. The introduction of Chinese characters, Chinese books, Confucian classics, and Buddhist scriptures in Chinese translation strongly encouraged the Japanese to study Chinese characters and literary Chinese. During his regency, Prince Shōtoku dispatched envoys to both the Sui and Tang courts and sent a large number of exchange students and monks to study in China, giving larger numbers of Japanese the opportunity to learn Chinese. Once these intellectuals had acquired a familiarity with Chinese characters and literary Chinese, due to the need to keep records and communicate with China, they began learning to use them to write.

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

23

Under the leadership of Prince Shōtoku, in Suiko 1 (604), the TwelveLevel Cap and Rank System (Kan’i jūnikai 冠位十二階) was drawn up, and the following year, the Seventeen-Article Constitution was instituted. Both documents were written completely in classical Chinese, and a number of articles were cited directly from Chinese classics such as The Analects, The Book of Rites, The Book of Changes, Laozi (老子), and Zhuangzi (庄子). With their simple, beautiful language, these documents were the most outstanding Chinese language texts Japan had yet produced. Though Commentary on the Three Sutras (Sangyō gisho 三経義疏) exhibits a strongly Japanese flavor in places, the text is written completely in Chinese, and monolingual Chinese speakers would typically be able to understand it fully. Further, the emergence of classic texts using Chinese to express complex Buddhist ideas demonstrates that the contemporary Japanese had reached quite a high level in their ability to compose texts using Chinese characters. Once the Japanese became able to freely express themselves using Chinese characters, they ceased merely imitating Chinese reading and writing habits and began to consider using Chinese characters and the classical Chinese language to write their own language. Thus, a further fusion of Chinese characters and Japanese took place. In Japan, the earliest use of Chinese characters to write Japanese sounds is seen in early kinsekibun (writings on metal or stone). For instance, the inscription on a blade unearthed from a mid-Kofun period tomb in Etafunayama, Kumamoto reads “Blade made by Itaka, text written by Zhang An” (作刀者名伊太加, 書者張安也). The attribution “text written by Zhang An” indicates that the author was a mainland migrant of Chinese descent, and “Itaka” is a Japanese name written phonetically in Chinese characters. The inscription on a bronze mirror from Suda Hachiman Shrine in Wakayama (fourth to early fifth century), the inscription on an iron sword from Inariyama, Saitama (approximately 471), and the inscription on the roban (a box-like cover that sits on top of the roof and protects the ends of rafters) of Gangō-ji Temple recorded in The Origins of Gangō-ji Temple (Gangō-ji engi 元興寺縁起) are still clearer instances of the use of Chinese characters to write Japanese phonetically. In texts of the Nara period and later, such as Kojiki and Nihon shoki, a major change occurs in the use of Chinese characters to represent Japanese sounds. In such texts, Chinese characters come to be used to represent short phrases and even sentences; mainly, of course, they were used to write the rhymed lines of ballads.

24  L. JIANG ET AL.

When Man’yōshū (Collection of ten thousand leaves 万葉集) was published in book form, it used not only ongana but also kungana. Ongana is a means of indicating sounds in which a single character represents one or two syllables. It maintains the basic forms of Chinese characters but uses them regardless of meaning to indicate Japanese sounds. Kungana, on the other hand, maintains the basic form of characters but uses them for their meaning without regard for sound, assigning the characters’ pronunciations that correspond to Japanese words with similar meanings. As Man’yōshū uses both ongana and kungana extensively, these methods came to be referred to as manyōgana. Subsequently, hentai kanbun emerged. As early as seventh-century kinsekibun, an embryonic form of hentai kanbun was in use. Kojiki, in addition to using pure classical Chinese to write the introduction and manyōgana to write out ballads, uses hentai kanbun in the main body of the text. In the introduction, author Ō no Yasumaro explains his reasons for using hentai kanbun: “In the ancient past, language was simple. It would be difficult to transcribe such language into Chinese characters. Using characters for their meanings would result in the essence being lost. Using characters purely for sound would result in the text being overly long. For this reason, I may mix both methods in a single sentence, or in some cases I may use characters only for their meanings.” In Japanese, mana are Chinese characters written in kaishu (regular) style, and kana are characters created on the basis of Chinese characters written in simplified form for ease of writing. The most prominent view on how the two forms of kana originated is that, during the Tang dynasty, Kibi no Makibi created katakana from the kaishu style, and Buddhist monk Kūkai created hiragana from the caoshu (cursive) style, drawing on his knowledge of the Erwang school of calligraphy. Later, amateur literati scholars such as Kino Tsurayuki and Heian period women popularized the use of kana. Though hiragana and katakana had emerged by the early Heian period, they had not yet come to be used in combination with Chinese characters. In the Kamakura period, a new writing style combining Chinese characters with kana, similar to modern Japanese, started to emerge. It is thus apparent that not only are Chinese and Japanese closely linked phonologically, in terms of writing as well, the Japanese adopted Chinese characters wholesale, became accustomed to their use, and absorbed and recreated them in a manner suited to the unique features

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

25

of their language. Chinese characters had a very important, very profound impact on the development of Japanese society. The influence of Chinese civilization on Japanese culture may be summarized as below. 1.  Rice cultivation originated in the eastern region of the Asian mainland, that is, the Jiangnan region of China, spread further east and became a crucial manifestation of production capacity, propelling the indigenous people of the Japanese archipelago from primitive times into the civilized era as they transitioned from the Jōmon period to the Yayoi period. 2. From approximately the third to fourth centuries BC, Chinese migrants arrived in Japan in large numbers. They brought with them the most advanced production techniques then in existence in East Asia, such as spinning, weaving, lacquering, saddle-making, and Chinese medicine, as well as classical Chinese language texts such as The Analects, providing ancient Japanese governmental regimes with a firm material and spiritual underpinning. 3. In approximately the fifth century AD, Buddhism reached Japan by way of the Korean Peninsula, and with this, a fifteen hundred-year period of mass belief in Buddhism began. This voluminous transmission of culture had a profound impact upon practically every facet of Japanese society. The doctrines, scriptures, and ceremonies of Japanese Buddhism all formed upon the foundation of South Asian texts which were expounded upon in China and spread to Japan through Korea. All Japanese Buddhist scriptures, except for a very small number of Sanskrit scriptures used as materials for calligraphy, are Chinese language translations. 4. In approximately the seventh century, the ancient Japanese feudalist state began to take shape. In this process, China’s wealth of relatively mature political concepts and moral and ethical ideals furnished the ancient Japanese state with a valid political and theoretical foundation, as in Prince Shōtoku’s Seventeen-Article Constitution. 5. In the early eighth century, Japanese “Kiki myth,” a body of state mythology proclaiming the emperor’s divinity based on two main texts, Kojiki and Nihon shoki, provided a psychological underpinning for Japanese ancestor worship and Shinto belief. From

26  L. JIANG ET AL.

a comparative cultural perspective, this is a “variant mythology” built upon the foundation of primitive Japanese myth. Chinese Daoist and Confucian concepts, Confucian ethics, and alchemical and occult theories all played a role in the formation of the Kiki myth that served as a firm support for imperial authority. 6. According to the late ninth century Catalog of All Extant Books in the Empire (Honchō genzai shomokuroku 本朝見在書目録) (later referred to as Catalog of All Extant Books in Japan [Nihonkoku genzai shomokuroku 日本国見在書目録]) compiled by Fujiwara no Sukeyo, the Japanese central government and imperial palace library at the time held 1568 Chinese language books, approximately fifty percent of all books then in existence in China.10 This phenomenon is extremely rare in the history of world civilizations. Such a voluminous transfer of culture could only occur within a peaceful, stable, amicable, neighborly political framework. Also, according to Record of Books Arriving Aboard Merchant Ships (Shōhaku sairai shomoku 商舶載来書目) by Mukai Tomi, imported book inspector at the port of Nagasaki in the early nineteenth century, for a 111-year period from 1693–1803, a total of 4781 “books of a commercial nature” arrived at the port of Nagasaki aboard Chinese merchant ships.11 In 1826, in Shimoyoshida, Suruga, Japan, Zhu Liuqiao, captain of a Chinese commercial ship called the Detai, mentioned to a Japanese man named Noda Tekiho that of all Chinese books, “seventy or eighty percent have recently been shipped to Nagasaki.”12 For one country to possess seventy to eighty percent of another country’s books—what a glorious cultural phenomenon this is! According to a recent survey, ninety-eight Japanese libraries currently hold 10,822 Chinese language books of the Ming dynasty and earlier (including “National Treasures,” “Important Cultural Properties,” “Important Art Objects,” etc.) which arrived in Japan at some point in history from antiquity onward. Japanese bibliographic scholars estimate that this corresponds to eighty to eighty-five percent of the holdings of all such books in Japan (not including Qing dynasty writings, which are yet more numerous). In ancient times, books were the primary means through which culture was transmitted, and this constant eastward outflow of Chinese language books served as a thoroughfare for the transmission of Chinese civilization to Japan.13

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

27

7. The Chinese language and Chinese characters had an enormous impact on the Japanese language and were key drivers of progress in ancient Japanese society and civilization. 8. During the Nara and Heian periods, from the eighth to twelfth centuries, the first literary boom in Japanese history took place, and both Chinese and Japanese language literature reached extraordinary heights. Regardless of the language, however, all such achievements were built on the foundation of Chinese literature Japan had received, sorted through and absorbed from the pre-Qin era to the Tang. In regard to the subsequent development of Japanese literature, Gozan bungaku (Chinese language literature produced in Zen temples) was heavily influenced by Tang and Song literature, Edo period literature was heavily influenced by the literature of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing, and Edo period yomihon (books of stories based on Chinese and Japanese history, generally with few illustrations and a moral didactic tone) were heavily influenced by the oral popular literature of the Ming and Qing. 9. The late twelfth century was the beginning of a four-hundredyear period of turmoil in which warlords vied for power. During this time, simply to preserve and maintain Japanese culture was a formidable challenge, and the only new developments were the gradual formation of Zen Buddhism and the construction of Zen temples. The Kamakura Gozan (the five Zen temples of Kamakura) built in the fourteenth century and the Kyoto Gozan (the five Zen temples of Kyoto) built in the fifteenth century became cultural centers and emblems of Japanese culture in the Middle Ages. Zen, a school of Buddhism with a distinctly Chinese character, took shape on Chinese soil following the transmission of Buddhism to China; the term “Gozan” (Chinese: “Wushan” 五 山, literally “Five Mountains”) refers to a system of Zen Buddhist hubs built in Hangzhou and Ningbo during the Southern Song dynasty. Japanese “Gozan culture” is the sole link between Heian period and Edo period culture, that is, the sole link between ancient and early modern Japanese culture. “Gozan culture” has three main aspects: first, Zen religion (disseminated by both Japanese monks who traveled to China in search of Buddhist teachings and Chinese monks who proselytized in Japan); second,

28  L. JIANG ET AL.

Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism (transmitted to Japan wholly through exchange between Chinese and Japanese monks; Ming dynasty Xinxue school Neo-Confucianism was transmitted later); third, block printing (the basic technology was transmitted to Japan by Chinese laborers and was used to print Chinese language Chinese books as well as Chinese language Buddhist scriptures). 10. The political ideology of the Tokugawa shogunate was based on Shinto, and Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism furnished its theoretical framework. First-generation academic leaders of the shogunate such as Hayashi Razan had profound knowledge of both Shinto and Neo-Confucianism, and the Hayashi family was the primary force behind two hundred years of Neo-Confucian scholarship. The Neo-Confucian boom was responsible for the “bunjin (amateur literati scholar) culture” of the Edo period, the first such scholar-amateur movement in Japanese history, and leading figures of the Japanese Kokugaku (national studies) movement were well-schooled in Chinese culture. The Museum of Motoori Norinaga exhibits numerous Chinese books studied by Motoori, including a plethora of notes in his hand. 11. Christian missionaries began arriving in Japan in approximately the seventeenth century, establishing for the first time a cultural communication channel between Japan and the West. According to extant historical documents, the earliest missionaries came from countries such as Spain, Italy, and Portugal, and had previously lived and proselytized in Macao, China. Except for a very few who arrived directly from Macao, the vast majority of these missionaries traveled through inland China and gradually made their way to Japan, a route similar to that by which Buddhism spread. When the Tokugawa shogunate banned Christianity, Christian missionaries and a small number of their Japanese followers fled to China’s mainland aboard the Chinese merchant ships that traded in Nagasaki, then further fled to Macao by way of China’s mainland. The graves of these missionaries and their followers remain in Macao today, bearing eternal witness to this unique period in the cultural development of Japan. There is another cultural phenomenon that is significant in this regard: due to the need to proselytize in China, the European missionaries who reached Japan via China made a practice of identifying Chinese characters and words to translate concepts and words in

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

29

European languages. As Japan adopted Western culture during the Meiji period, Japanese scholars referred to these missionaries’ materials and used Chinese characters to invent new Japanese words which would become important components of the vocabulary of modern Japanese, words such as shugi (ideology 主義), bunka (culture 文化), and bunmei (civilization 文明). Viewing the relationship between the ancient Chinese and Japanese cultures through the lens of theories of civilizations, it is apparent that the relationship was one in which Japanese culture remained under the influence of Chinese culture. In this regard, it must be pointed out that the Chinese civilization of eastern mainland Asia, particularly the Yellow River and Yangtze River regions, grew and developed in a continuous, uninterrupted fashion and consistently maintained the same form. Thus, a unified East Asian sphere of civilization based on Chinese characters developed, encompassing China’s mainland, the Korean Peninsula, the Japanese archipelago, and the eastern Indochina Peninsula. Within this cultural sphere, the degree of modernity of each state and people and the degree to which they distinguished themselves from each of the others determined whether they occupied strong or weak positions among the civilizations of the region and the world. Generally speaking, worldwide civilization is in a constant flow state. That is to say, culture tends to flow from states that are relatively powerful overall toward those that are relatively weak. As ancient China possessed the most extensive territory, largest population, and most developed production capacity in East Asia, as East Asian civilizations developed, it played, relatively speaking, a leading role in history, and occupied a strong position over the long term. Needless to say, therefore, the relationship between China and Japan in ancient times was generally one in which culture flowed from a strong China to a weak Japan. Since the mid-1990s, however, the cultural and historical notions of the so-called “concept of oceanic Japanese civilization” have spread from Japanese intellectuals to ordinary citizens and have come to exert a wide-ranging social impact which we cannot afford to ignore. This theory asks, “is Japan truly part of Asia?” Setting up a false analogy, echoing the claim that “the history of Europe over the past two thousand years has been the history of Europe’s liberation from Islam,” some have attempted to describe “the history of Japan” as “the history of Japan’s resistance of Sinicization.” The concept of oceanic Japanese civilization

30  L. JIANG ET AL.

seeks to reposition Japan within the history of world civilizations, all but ignoring two thousand years of East Asian history, falsely claiming that mainland Asian civilization did not give Japan nourishment and creating an illusion of a solitary island civilization in service of political aims. Based on the above analysis of China–Japan relations in ancient times, it is apparent that over the course of two thousand years of East Asian history, mainland Asian civilization, particularly Chinese civilization, provided Japanese culture with the nourishment it needed to develop and improve in every important sense. This influence was internalized and served as the impetus behind Japan’s development, giving rise to the richness and diversity of ancient East Asian civilization. Here, we have outlined the history of China–Japan relations in ancient times on the basis of historical fact, reaching conclusions that contrast in every way with the claim of the concept of oceanic Japanese civilization that Japan’s history over the past two thousand years is the history of Japan “resisting Sinicization” or “breaking free from Asia.”

3  On the Uniqueness of Ancient Japanese Culture As described above, China exerted an enormous influence over the development of Japanese culture. However, this does not indicate that Japanese culture is not unique in any way, or that it is equivalent to Chinese culture. If a culture is utterly isolated from the world, it is bound to die out. Only by absorbing the influence of other cultures, and by incorporating the best they have to offer, can a culture grow; however, this does not mean that it turns into another culture. This is the case with the relationship between Chinese and Japanese culture. The uniqueness of Japanese culture manifests in two main ways, inclusivity and innovation. The first manifestation of the uniqueness of ancient Japanese culture, its proactive inclusivity, signifies Japan’s adeptness at absorbing of the best of other cultures without fear that learning from other advanced cultures would mean forgetting its own heritage, even running the risk of forgetting its own heritage in order to learn from other cultures. Such a mentality may result from the relatively low position Japanese culture has occupied throughout history, owing perhaps to geographical conditions. The Chinese, on the other hand, lack this mentality. Chinese culture has continually occupied a superior position, with longstanding traditions, a vast territory, and abundant resources, conditions that do

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

31

not favor forgetting one’s own heritage, and thus, China has tended to be inclusive only when there is no other option, that is, it is passively inclusive. The second manifestation of Japanese uniqueness is tenacious, meticulous innovation. The Japanese have the courage to learn from others and are skilled innovators: folding fans, kana, Japanese blades, and Shinto are well-known examples. The Chinese are enamored with Japanese blades. Famed Northern Song writer Ouyang Xiu’s poem “Song of Japanese Swords” (“Riben dao ge” 日本刀歌) gushes over their beauty: “A scabbard of fragrant wood wrapped in fish skin secrets a gold-plated copper blade of white and yellow.” Also, in a Chinese travelogue entitled Collection of Essays on Further Travels (Saidoshū 再渡集), sixteenth-century Japanese monk Sakugen Shūryō records that while in China he frequently traded the blades and folding fans the Chinese loved in exchange for books. For instance: “July 8, Kasei 18 (1539), traded two crude fans and three small blades for the eight-volume Gleanings from Reading Du Fu [Du Du yude 读杜愚得].” Here, “crude fans” refers to Japanese folding fans. The Chinese invented cattail leaf fans, but the Japanese invented the folding fans that were introduced into China and beloved by the Chinese. In 1467, Japanese master painter Sesshū traveled to Taintong Jingde Temple, one of the five great Buddhist monasteries to the south of Ningbo, Zhejiang, to study the dharma. Alongside such pursuits, which earned him the appellation “Occupant of the First Seat at Tiantong Zen Temple,” he diligently studied the styles and techniques of Song dynasty painters like Li Tang, Xia Gui, and Mu Xi. His travels in China took him to famous mountains and rivers, where he produced an enormous quantity of artwork. On returning to Japan, he invented a new painting style rooted in natural realism, but with a uniquely dynamic, vital approach. His ink seemed to flow without inhibition, resulting in a strongly idiosyncratic, exquisite fusion of ethnic flavor and Japanese landscape. Sesshū thus became the founder of a new school of Chinese-style ink painting with strongly Japanese characteristics, the Kanga (漢画) school, which became the leading school of painting in the Muromachi period. Works such as “Long Landscape Scroll of the Four Seasons” (“Shiki sansui chōkan” 四季山水長巻) (1486) and “Painting of the Bridge to Heaven” (“Ama no hashidate zu” 天橋立図) (1502) made Sesshū’s name in the Japanese painting world. In the 1990s, the eastern pagoda of Ayuwang Temple, a Chinese Wushan temple just across the mountain

32  L. JIANG ET AL.

from Tiantong Temple, was reconstructed based on “Painting of Mount Yuwang” (“Iō-zan zu” 育王山図) painted by Sesshū atop Mt. Yuji, which is positioned across from Ayuwang Temple. The third manifestation of Japanese uniqueness is the way in which the ancient Japanese culture that developed through absorption and innovation was then transmitted west through various channels to the Asian mainland, where Chinese civilization absorbed it. Though the scope of its transmission was never as extensive as that of Chinese civilization, and it did not impact as many different facets of life, ancient Japanese culture was of particular value and significance to China in the below respects. 1. Japanese waka poetry was transmitted west to China. It is believed that the ancient Japanese invented waka around the same time their mythology was being established. In the beginning, waka had a free meter. As waka matured, its meter came to be regulated, giving it a distinctly Japanese rhythm; ultimately, waka developed into tanka, a type of poem with thirty-one syllables. The poems in Kojiki, Nihon shoki, and fudoki (ancient accounts of local myths, rituals, culture, etc.) all use a free meter. Manyōshū is a bridge between free-form waka and regulated meter, and Kokin wakashū (Collection of waka past and present 古今和 歌集) firmly establishes waka in their final misohitomoji (thirty-one character) form. The Chinese became acquainted with this Japanese art form relatively early on. Poem 63 in Volume 1 of Manyōshū is the first tanka poem written in China by Yamanoue no Okura, a member of the eighth Japanese mission to Tang China from 702 to 718. いざこども早く大和へ大伴のみつのはままつまちこいぬらむ Listen, everyone: it is time to go back to Yamato. The pines on the beach in Mitsu, Ōtomo long for our return.

Not long after, in 753, Abe no Nakamaro composed the following poem while preparing to bid his friends farewell at the harbor in Mingzhou (Ningbo), China, where he had until then been studying abroad. This is poem 406 in Volume 9 of Kokin wakashū. 天の原ふりさけ見れば春日なる三笠の山にいでし月かも I lift my gaze to the great sky and see the moon. Back home in Kasuga, does the same moon rise over Mount Mikasa?

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

33

Poets Bao Ji and Zhao Hua were present when Abe no Nakamaro recited the poem, and thus this mid-eighth century gathering was the first China–Japan literary meeting of the minds. For the first time, Japanese waka gained a Chinese audience, marking this as the first step in the international recognition waka would eventually gain. Second, the pronunciations of Japanese words began entering China in approximately the twelfth century. Chinese documents refer to these as “transmitted words” (jiyu 寄语), an elegant name drawn from the “Royal Regulations” (“Wang zhi” 王制) chapter of The Book of Rites.14 In the twelfth century, Luo Dajing studied Japanese with a visiting Japanese monk named Ankaku, and in the process the two created a word list, using Chinese characters to indicate the pronunciations of Japanese nouns such as mouth, head, hand, and ear. The list appears in Luo’s Jade and Dew in the Forest of Cranes (Helin yulu 鹤林玉露) under the title “Chart of Transmitted Words” (“Jiyu biao” 寄语表). This China–Japan reading practice chart, made up of a total of seventeen pairs of “transmitted words,” is the earliest such document in Chinese literature. Thus, a Chinese man (Luo Dajing) and a Japanese man (Ankaku) pioneered the introduction of Japanese “semantics” into China. Later, the Chinese began paying much more attention to and taking a much greater interest in the Japanese language. In the fourteenth century, Yuan dynasty naturalist Tao Zongyi wrote a work on the history of calligraphy entitled A Social and Institutional History of Calligraphy (Shushi huiyao 书史会要). The eighth chapter discusses the Japanese language, including the first “iroha kana diagram” in history, consisting of forty-seven characters, excluding the character “ん” (n). Beneath each kana character, a “mana pronunciation” is given in Chinese characters. For instance, the pronunciation of “いろは” is given as “以、罗、法” to enable the Chinese to pronounce the corresponding sounds. In the Ming dynasty, Li Yangong and Hao Jing compiled A Consideration of Japan (Riben kao 日本考) due to the need to defend against Japanese pirates from the southeastern sea. The fourth chapter, “Transmitted Words,” sets forth 1186 sets of Chinese characters and their kana equivalents, separated into fifty-six categories such as astronomy, seasons, and so on. In addition, the first chapter gives the names of eighty-one Japanese islands in kana. This might be referred to as the first ChineseJapanese dictionary of practical value. Shortly after, Zheng Shungong of the Ming dynasty compiled Mirror on Japan (Riben yijian 日本一鉴), which presents 3410 “transmitted words” in Chinese and Japanese, making it the most extensive Chinese-Japanese dictionary of its time.

34  L. JIANG ET AL.

3. In the sixteenth century, Chinese intellectuals began translating Japanese literature and even making attempts to compose poetry in Japanese. Through China, the worth of Japanese culture was demonstrated to the world for the first time. The above-mentioned A Consideration of Japan presents fifty-eight waka in Chinese translation. The Chinese had begun to accept and gain an understanding of Japanese waka, the first step in the merging of waka into East Asian civilization and its eventual broad international acceptance. Original: あさみどりやまははるけさかすみかなみねもしつかにわたる はるかぜ Chinese translation: 清晨山顶, 春霞笼罩。领头过去, 漫漫春风。 English: Rosy clouds ring the peak of Mount Asamidori, stirred by gentle spring wind. Original: とほやまにもみじふみわけなくしかのこえきくときはあきぞ かなしき Chinese translation: 远山红叶落, 鹿踏自悲鸣。时值残秋后, 声叫苦难听。 English: I hear the deer cry as they walk among the fallen leaves on the distant mountain. Their mournful cries resound through the waning days of autumn. Original: かりかえるつきのむらあめはれはれてひかりもさすなゆうぐ れのそら Chinese translation: 黄昏天黑村雨过, 月电交明独雁归。 English: Dusk settles over the village, and rain begins to fall. Weaving among shafts of moonlight and flashes of lightning, a solitary goose flies home.

In the eighteenth century, Chinese authors began producing literary works in Japanese for the first time. In Kangxi 48 (1709), Cao Yin, grandfather of Cao Xueqin, author of the classic Dream of the Red Chamber (Hong lou meng 红楼梦), wrote a nine-act play entitled Joy in Times of Peace (Taiping leshi 太平乐事) in which the seventh act, “Words on a Japanese Lantern” (“Riben deng ci” 日本灯词), is written in Japanese.15 This is the first instance of a Chinese author engaging in literary production in a foreign language. It is apparent that Japanese culture had come to have considerable influence in China, and some Chinese literati were quite fascinated with Japan and possessed quite a bit of knowledge in regard to it.

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

35

4. In the early thirteenth century, a number of Gozan Zen temples in Kamakura and Kyoto began using block printing technology imported from China to print Buddhist scriptures and non-Buddhist Chinese works. Such undertakings became an important facet of “Gozan culture,” spurring the printing of Chinese books in culturally developed areas of Japan and playing an active role in preserving classic works that had already been lost in China. Specifically, works that had been lost in China were reprinted in Japan and then retransmitted to China, such as the famed Collection of Commentaries on the Analects (Lunyu jijie 论语 集解), which was printed in the Southern Court period during the reign of Emperor Go-Murakami in Shōhei 19 (1364); this work by He Yan on The Analects had long been lost in China. Also, in 1781, Tokugawa Munechika, daimyō of the Owari Domain under the Tokugawa shogunate, reprinted a critical edition of Compilation of Writings on Important Governmental Principles (Qunshu zhiyao 群书治要), a Tang dynasty work by author Wei Zheng that had been lost in China for centuries. Upon retransmission to China, the work made waves in Chinese academia. At the same time, academic works by Japanese scholars also found a Chinese readership. For instance, A Study of the Seven Classics and Mencius (Shichikei Mōshi kōbun 七经孟子考文), written by Yamanoi Kanae with reference to Chinese classics collected by the Japanese Ashikaga School, was introduced to China and included in Complete Library in Four Parts (Siku quanshu 四库全书), and Guide to the Four-Part Library (Siku tiyao 四库提要), edited by Ji Xiaolan, asserted that it “resolves myriad ancient mysteries.” At a particular point in time, such works made considerable contributions to Chinese academia. The East Asian cultural sphere brims with vitality. Its various peoples have various operating mechanisms for recognizing and absorbing foreign cultures. Thanks to Japanese inclusivity and uniqueness, and thanks to stable, amicable, neighborly conditions, ancient Japanese culture was able to manifest its uniqueness, thus contributing to the development of Chinese civilization and the establishment of the East Asian cultural sphere.

4  The East Asian Tributary System and China–Japan Relations Under the East Asian tributary system, Japan occupied a relatively special position, and its political uniqueness is quite striking, manifesting mainly in its struggle for autonomous status within East Asia and its pursuit of self-driven growth.

36  L. JIANG ET AL.

In ancient times, world order was maintained through three basic systems, namely the imperial tributary system, the colonial system, and the contractual relationship system. In ancient East Asia, Chinese imperial courts largely maintained order in East Asia through the “center/periphery” mechanism of the imperial tribute system. Chinese imperial courts established a complex array of international relationships that differed depending on the court itself as well as the subject. China, of course, had the largest population, most expansive territory, and most advanced production capability of any ancient East Asian state, and the tributary system was one of the strategies used by a number of courts to maintain relations with states on the periphery. Courts that implemented this strategy generally pursued a policy of accepting all who came and pursuing none who left (that is, the court granted titles to those states that actively requested them, and simply gave up on those that did not). In this tributary system, international relations took a multi-layered structure of close, intermediary, and peripheral states. Based on historical fact, it is apparent that the Japanese archipelago occupied a peripheral position in the Chinese imperial tributary system. To gain an understanding of the political relationship between ancient China and Japan, we must begin by describing conditions on the Japanese archipelago. Making use of externally imposed titles, based upon the degree of political domination attained by various regimes, it may be said that three different types of regimes emerged on the Japanese archipelago in ancient times, namely the Wo regimes, the Yamato regime, and the Nihon (日本, literally “the source of the sun”) regime.16 The Wo regimes include numerous administrations based in Yamataikoku during the Yayoi period, the Yamato regime was a unified regime that emerged in the fourth century, and the Nihon regime was established in the early seventh century through the Taika Reforms. According to The Book of Sui, “In Kaihuang 20 (600), the Wo king, surname Ame, courtesy name Tarashihiko, title Ahokimi, dispatched an envoy to the emperor… the envoy claimed that the Wo king took heaven for an older brother and the sun for a younger brother.” “In Daye 3 (607), King Tarashihiko sent an envoy [Ono no Imoko] to pay tribute to the court. The king’s letter to the emperor stated, ‘From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun, may good health be with you,’ and so on.” Nihon shoki records that in Suiko 13 (605), “King Taeheung of Goguryeo

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

37

heard that the king of heaven of the land of the source of the sun was building a statue of the Buddha and contributed three hundred ryō of gold.” An entry for Suiko 16 (608) states, “Ono no Imoko was again appointed envoy… and sent on a mission. The king of heaven thereby delivered the following message to the Tang emperor: ‘The eastern king of heaven sends his respects to the emperor of the west…’” An entry for Suiko 29 (621) states, “A Korean monk named Hyeja… testified as follows: ‘In the kingdom of the source of the sun there was a sage [Prince Shōtoku]… who was born in the kingdom of the source of sun with extraordinary virtue.’” An entry for Suiko 32 (624) states, “A monk from Baekje named Gwaneum presented himself in court and stated the following: ‘[…] It was less than a hundred years ago that our king heard that the king of heaven of the land of the source of the sun was wise and able and presented your majesty with a figure of the Buddha as well as some Buddhist scriptures.’” Based on these materials, scholars generally believe that in the late sixth century and the early seventh century, the terms “king of heaven” (tennō 天皇, alternately “emperor”) and “source of the sun” were already in use at the Suiko court. However, this view remains to be further validated. With regard to ancient Japanese materials, the most significant difference between the 712 Kojiki and the 720 Nihon shoki is that the former refers to Japan as “Wo,” making no mention of the term “Nihon,” i.e., “the source of the sun,” while the latter uses only the name “Nihon,” making no mention of the term “Wo.” The texts use either the term “神倭伊波礼毘古命” (“Kamuyamato Iwarebiko no Mikoto”) or “神日 本磐余彦天皇” (“Kamuyamato Iwarebiko no Sumeramikoto”) to refer to Emperor Jinmu, either the term “息長帯比売命” or the term “気長 足姫尊” (in both cases “Okinaga Tarashihime no Mikoto”) to refer to Empress Jingū, and either the term “大雀命” (“Ohosazaki no Mikoto”) or “大鷦鷯天皇” (“Ohosazaki no Sumeramikoto”) to refer to Emperor Nintoku. All these are different ways of referring to the same person, and while written with different characters, the pronunciations are similar or the same. This indicates that, at the time these books were published, Japan’s subjective consciousness as a state was undergoing fundamental change. There is a further significant difference between the two works: Nihon shoki expresses a more intense ambition to invade and occupy the Korean Peninsula than Kojiki. In an entry for Ōjin 3 (392), Nihon shoki states, “The eastern Emishi paid tribute to the court. The Emishi were put to

38  L. JIANG ET AL.

work building the Umayasaka road.” Also, an entry for Ōjin 7 (396) records, “People from Goguryeo, Baekje, Mimana, and Silla all came to pay tribute to the emperor.” Countless such entries concerning the payment of tributes by the states of the Korean Peninsula to the Japanese court demonstrate that Japan was attempting to establish a degree of suzerainty over the Korean Peninsula and thus demonstrate its might to the Chinese empire, chip away at that empire’s might, and create a small tributary system with the states of the Korean Peninsula as vassal states. Cross-referencing such accounts with historical facts, there are clear indications that the “history” written by the compilers of Nihon shoki on the basis of this new concept of the state was fraudulent, departing drastically from the realities of the historical time periods under discussion. On this basis, it is believed that the terms “Nihon” or “the source of the sun” and “king of heaven” came into use from the late seventh century to the early eighth century, following the Taika Reforms. The term “Nihon” or “source of the sun” originates from the earliest ancient Chinese wordbook, Approaching Elegance (Er ya 尔雅). In describing the concept of direction of the ancient Chinese sages, Approaching Elegance uses the term “beneath the sun” (rixia 日下) for the east. The author states, “The term ‘beneath the sun’ refers to the kingdom beneath the place where the sun emerges.” The term “source of the sun,” that is, the name by which Japan referred to itself in the above-described document presented to the court, indicates this “place where the sun emerges.” The Japanese people borrowed the elegant term used by the ancient Chinese to describe their observations of the east as recorded in Approaching Elegance for the new political entity they established. The driving force behind this transition in Japan’s subjective consciousness as a state may have been Emperor Tenmu, who established a centralized, ironfisted totalitarian state and ultimately successfully completed the Taika Reforms, or it may have been his successor Empress Jitō and her successors Empress Genmei and Empress Genshō. These three empresses, Jitō, Genmei, and Genshō, took a highly innovative approach to government administration which set them well apart from other emperors and empresses. Of course, in describing relations with the Korean Peninsula, Nihon shoki used the term “source of the sun” at a relatively early date (as in “Mimana, province of Nihon” [任那日本府]); this fact is worth considering further. Nihon shoki records that in Daye 4 (608), the Chinese Sui court dispatched Pei Shiqing to escort Ono no Imoko back to Japan, bringing

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

39

with him a letter which began, “The emperor addresses the sovereign of Wo,” a form of address meant to express dominance. It was only in the tenth century, beginning with Old Book of Tang, that Chinese historical works began explicitly referring to Japan as “the source of the sun.” The “Annals of Eastern Barbarians” (“Dong yi zhuan” 东夷传) chapter of that work separately describes Wo and Nihon or “the source of the sun.” The text states, “The ‘kingdom of Wo’ refers to the ancient Wo state of Na…” It continues, “Nihon is descended from Wo. Because it is located beyond the horizon, it is referred to as Nihon, the source of the sun. It is also said that its name may have been changed to Nihon because its people found the name Wo distasteful. It is also said that Nihon was once a small kingdom that annexed Wo’s territory. The envoys who paid tribute on its behalf were arrogant and deceptive, and thus China distrusted it… in Chang’an 3 (703), their high official Ason Mahito came to pay tribute in the form of local products.” Subsequently, in the Kaiyuan, Tianbao, Shangyuan, Zhenyuan, Yuanhe, and Kaicheng periods (713–839), Japan sent further envoys to China. During the Song dynasty, in approximately Jiayou 5 (1060), New Book of Tang (Xin Tang shu 新唐书) was compiled. Its “Annals of Eastern Barbarians” chapter contains records of Nihon, but makes no mention of the kingdom of Wo. The text states, “Nihon is comprised of two ancient Wo kingdoms… in Xianheng 1 (670), it sent an envoy to congratulate Tang on suppressing Goguryeo. Shortly after, the envoy became accustomed to Chinese tastes and came to dislike the name Wo, so the name was changed to Nihon. The envoy said that the kingdom has this name because it is located in the place where the sun emerges. He alternately claimed that Nihon was a small kingdom that was annexed by Wo, which gave the name Nihon to the new territory. The envoy did not explain clearly, and therefore doubt remains.” New Book of Tang contains detailed records of the succession of the Japanese throne from the emperors of ancient myth to Emperor Kōkō (884). Except for Emperor Kōan, Emperor Bidatsu, Emperor Junna, and Emperor Heizei, the names of dozens of emperors are recorded without error, and mention is even made of Empress Jingū and the eastern expedition of Emperor Jinmu. This demonstrates that the account in the New Book of Tang is based on either ancient Japanese documents or oral accounts by educated Japanese people. Such documents or oral accounts must have discreetly pointed out, in the process of describing the evolution of the Japanese monarchy, the name change from Wo to Nihon beginning in 670.

40  L. JIANG ET AL.

This transformation in Japan’s subjective consciousness as a state is related to the relatively clear concept of equality that took hold among the rulers of the Yamato regime around the turn of the seventh century. Unlike the “Five Wo Kings” of the past, who had requested titles from the Liu Song emperor on their visits to court,17 the Yamato regime and the Nihon regime ceased striving to ingratiate themselves with the East Asian tributary system ruled over by the Chinese imperial court. Less than twenty years after the Taika Reforms, having established a feudal dynasty similar to China’s as well as a fledgling degree of power as a state, Japan sought to display its political uniqueness to the Chinese court and attain a relationship of equals by way of the Battle of Baekgang. When this failed, it was forced to again take up a subservient position and go back to dispatching envoys. In keeping with its policy of “accepting all who come and pursuing none who leave,” the Chinese court did not therefore sever relations with this new Nihon regime with its new subjective consciousness. Thus began a new phase in China–Japan relations in which they were, except for a brief period, lukewarm and flagging, with Japan drifting at the periphery of the East Asian tributary system ruled over by China. The governing bodies of ancient Japan sought to both distance themselves from the Chinese tributary system and forcibly subjugate states at their own periphery (mainly the states of the Korean Peninsula, later including the kingdom of Ryūkyū) in order to establish their own sphere of influence. Japanese rulers invented the story of Empress Jingū’s Korean exhibition to lay a theoretical foundation for their later greed-driven “administration” of Korea. Regardless of the quality of its relationship with the Chinese court, Japan never gave up on its “historical mission” of expanding into the Korean Peninsula. As for Ryūkyū to the south, the Satsuma domain invaded it in 1609, seizing five northern islands—Kikaijima, Ōshima, Tokushima, Kuchinoerabujima, and Yoronjima—out of a total of thirty-six, giving the islands new Japanese names and placing them under the Satsuma domain’s administration, the first step in the eventual full annexation of Ryūkyū. Classical Chinese sources went from using only the name “the kingdom of Wo” to using both “the kingdom of Wo” and “Nihon” and finally to using only “Nihon,” a progression that reflects changes in relations with Japanese regimes. This progression demonstrates that, under the influence of the ancient Chinese feudal system, the Japanese archipelago transformed from a group of diverse migrants to a new ancient

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

41

feudal state. As its regime transitioned from diffuse to unified to firmly consolidated, it in fact never ceased receiving, absorbing the impact of, and assimilating with the Chinese civilization of the Asian mainland. Throughout this process, the ancient East Asian feudal system served as an extremely effective mechanism for maintaining and furthering this historically progressive reception, absorption, and assimilation. Nihon shoki records that, in Ōjin 37 (306), “Achi no Omi and Tsuka no Omi were sent to Wu [China] in search of seamstresses. Achi no Omi and his men planned to reach Wu by crossing Goguryeo, but in Goguryeo, they lost their way. They begged Goguryeo to give them someone who knew the way. The king of Goguryeo assigned Kureha and Kureshi to guide them, and they managed to reach Wu. The king of Wu gave them four seamstresses, Ehime, Otohime, Kurehatori, and Anahatori.” The Wo king imported advanced production techniques and personnel from Wu, and at the same time Japan took in Confucian scholar Wani and scholar of classical Chinese works Dan Yang-i; these are all excellent examples of the transmission of mainland culture to Japan. In the seventh century, China and Japan finally broke free from reliance upon transportation routes that necessitated traveling through third countries, establishing direct links across the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea. This was accomplished by the “Western Ocean Missions” (alternately the “missions to Sui,” the “missions to Tang,” etc.) organized and dispatched to China by the Japanese government. Later in history, there was contact of a personal nature, for instance ocean crossings by monks during the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, and various types of ocean-based trade by merchants. In this way, China and Japan established a common political order in which the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea served as the main communication channels. The ancient Japanese learned about Chinese culture through the Western Ocean Missions, and the Chinese took a friendly attitude toward the Japanese envoys, referring to Japan as “a righteous kingdom” that was “no stranger” to China. Emperor Xuanzong of Tang referred to a meeting with a Japanese envoy as “an excellent audience,” and worried that the “swelling of the ocean” and “the evening tides” might startle this “fine gentleman.”18 In Kaiyuan 22 (734), the tenth mission to Tang encountered violent winds on its journey home, and the four ships drifted off course. On hearing the news, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang immediately sent a personal letter to Japanese Emperor Shōmu informing him of the information the Chinese court had learned. The letter

42  L. JIANG ET AL.

states, “Disasters such as these cannot be foreseen. Why, in spite of how loyal and faithful you and your ministers have been, have the powers of heaven seen fit to visit this catastrophe upon you? I am certain that when you hear of this, you will be shocked. Heaven, in its mysterious way, assigns a fate to each of us. My best wishes for the safety of you and your people in the midwinter cold. Ason Nashiro will now return home and make a detailed oral report. There are many matters I have not mentioned in this letter.”19 The letter expresses the grave concern of the Chinese emperor with the Japanese envoys and his empathy for the Japanese emperor. Later, in the Ming dynasty, Prince Kaneyoshi of the Japanese Southern Court (referred to as “Prince Yoshikane” in Veritable Records of Ming [Ming shi lu 明实录]) and Ashikaga Yoshimitsu of the Northern Court were both granted the title “King of Japan” (日本国王), demonstrating that, between the late fourteenth century and the mid-fifteenth century, Japan had yet to fully break free from the tributary system ruled over by the Chinese court. In the 1470s, Japan was in the midst of the tumultuous Southern and Northern Courts period, with shoguns and warlords vying for control. On the Chinese mainland, Zhu Yuanzhang overthrew the Mongol Yuan dynasty and founded the Ming. At this time, the “Wo pirates” whose raids targeted mainly the coast of the Korean Peninsula shifted the focus of their activities to the Chinese coast, growing from a band of a few individuals to a gang of around three hundred. Their ships too grew in number from a handful into the hundreds, until more than five hundred boats would set out simultaneously to pillage and rob on a mass scale. Such large-scale piracy was necessarily coordinated in a centralized, systematic way. The newly established Ming court immediately set out to suppress this ocean piracy in order to maintain security in the southeast, dispatching envoys to warn Japan that these activities of the “Wo army” were to be immediately halted. In Hongwu 2 (Ōan 2 under Emperor Go-Kōgon of the Japanese Northern Court, Shōhei 14 under Emperor Chōkei of the Southern Court, AD 1369), the Ming court sent envoy Yang Zai and his men to Japan with a letter from Emperor Hongwu of Ming which read, in part: Shandong came to report to the court that the Wo army had plundered the coast on numerous occasions, kidnapping women and children and damaging goods. I am writing to inform you that a new dynasty has

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

43

begun, and to request an explanation as to why the Wo army is crossing the sea. On the date this edict arrives, if you choose to act as a subject should, send a memorial to the court; otherwise, assemble your troops and strengthen your defenses to prepare for the heavenly empire to rectify this matter and secure its territory. If forced to do so due to pirate invasions, I will command the navy to set sail for the islands, arrest all the pirates, enter the kingdom, and tie up the king. I will not fail to act on heaven’s behalf to strike down villains. The king is advised to take this into consideration.20

Aside from informing the Japanese monarch that a new dynasty had been established, the main purpose of the edict was to issue a stern, sharply worded, unambiguous warning about the attacks by the “Wo army” on the Chinese coast. However, because news that Japan had split into a Northern Court and a Southern Court had not yet reached China, on landing in Hakata, the “monarch” with whom the envoys met was Prince Kaneyoshi of the Southern Court. The prince had five of the envoys killed, and following the massacre, which at the very least implies that there was some relationship between the activities of the “Wo army” on the Chinese coast and the government of Hakata, Yang Zai went home empty-handed. For the sake of naval security, Emperor Hongwu of Ming dispatched a further envoy, Zhao Zhi. His hand forced by the war raging at home, in Hongwu 4 (Ōan 4 under Emperor Go-En’yū of the Japanese Northern Court, Kentoku 1 under Emperor Chōkei of the Southern Court, AD 1371), Prince Kaneyoshi sent an envoy to the Ming court to mend ties. This mending of ties did not entail the Ming court conferring a title upon Japan. First, Prince Kaneyoshi represented only a single region of war-torn fourteenth-century Japan, not the entire country; second, acting on outdated information, Chinese officials were unaware that the Japanese state had split into a Northern Court and a Southern Court, and Veritable Records of Ming mistakenly records that the “King of Japan” was “King Yoshikane [Kaneyoshi], who sent his ministers and monks to court with a memorial.”21 Therefore, there is little support in historical fact for the notion that the title “King of Japan” was conferred. In 1392, however, the conflict between the Japanese northern and southern courts was resolved, with Kyoto’s Northern Court taking precedence, and with this, the age of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s Muromachi shogunate began. For the sake of solidifying political domination, this military regime sought to gain a rapid boost in economic power by

44  L. JIANG ET AL.

trading with the Chinese mainland. Previously, in 1374 and 1380, Ashikaga had sent representatives to the Ming court to discuss opening trade routes, but in both cases the representatives were turned away because the memorials had not been written in the prescribed format, and their identities could not be verified. In Jianwen 3 (Ōei 8 under Japanese Emperor Go-Komatsu, AD 1401), the Muromachi shogunate learned that Emperor Hongwu of Ming had passed away, and at the urging of Hakata merchants, began sending envoys to the Ming court. On this occasion, Ashikaga’s letter began, “I, a member of the Japanese nobility, humbly address the great Ming emperor. Since the founding of the Japanese kingdom, we have yet to send an envoy to your great empire. Blessed to hold power over a land at peace, in accordance with ancient custom, I hereby send Koitomi and deputy envoy to establish friendly relations, bringing a tribute of local goods…”22 The letter uses humble language with the clear intention of currying favor with the new emperor of Ming. In Jianwen 4 (Ōei 9 under Japanese Emperor Go-Komatsu, AD 1402), the Ming court sent a response through monks Tianlun Daoyi and Yian Yiru. When they landed in Hyōgo, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu personally came to the port to welcome them, a sign of his haste to begin trading with the Ming court. The letter from Emperor Jianwen of Ming read, in part: You, Gendōgi [Ashikaga Yoshimitsu], King of Japan, put your heart and soul into courtly affairs and hold a sincere affection for noble governance. You dispatched your envoys across violent waves to the court… I find this highly commendable. Japan has always been known as a land of poems and books, and it is a land close to my heart. However, being preoccupied by a number of government and military affairs, I have been unable to ask after your well-being. You, the current king, esteem justice and wish to fight back against the kingdom’s enemies. It is earnestly adhering to the way of a noble subject that has made all this possible…23

As Ashikaga wished, Emperor Jianwen granted him the title “King of Japan.” Thus, eight hundred years after the establishment of official ties between China and Japan in the year 600, the Chinese court for the first time conferred a title upon Japan. At least two factors facilitated the granting of the title. First, as Ashikaga Yoshimitsu had actively appealed to the Ming court to “establish friendly relations,” the Chinese court of course did not turn Japan away as a tribute-paying subject. Second, the

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

45

Ashikaga shogunate assisted China in suppressing the “Wo pirates” pillaging the coast. That same year, there was a coup in the Ming court: Zhu Di seized the throne and moved the capital to Beijing. The new Ming court continued to insist that the relationship with Japan be contingent upon stamping out pirates, a stance that is made quite clear in a letter from Emperor Chengzu of Ming (as Zhu Di was rechristened) of Yongle 4 (Ōei 13 under Japanese Emperor Go-Komatsu, AD 1406). The letter states: In the past, pirates from islands such as Tsushima and Iki pillaged and terrorized the people, and the emperor commanded Dōgi [Ashikaga Yoshimitsu] to capture them. Dōgi dispatched his army, captured the leader, presented him to the court, and annihilated his underlings. In reward for these diligent efforts, the following command is issued: Dōgi is to be granted one thousand liang of silver…24

It is apparent that a desire to stamp out “Japanese pirates” was the essential motivation behind the Ming court’s conferral of the title “King of Japan” upon Shogun Ashikaga, and Ashikaga sought said title for purposes of trading with China; thus, the alliance took shape under unique governmental and military conditions. A shogun may not be an emperor, but shoguns nonetheless were the effective rulers of their states, so the Ming court granted the shogun the title “King of Japan” in order to make Japan part of the East Asian tributary system. However, both the Japanese royal family and shogunate personnel were quite dissatisfied with this arrangement, and conferral of such titles soon ceased. Their historical impact proved limited, and they never constituted a full-fledged tributary system or anything comparable. The political uniqueness of ancient Japan also manifested in its adoption of the concept of “civilized vs. barbarian,” a concept seeking to confirm racial belonging through cultural identification. Both China and Japan resisted outside threats in the name of “repelling the barbarians.” In fact, it is necessary to trace the concept of civilized vs. barbarian in China–Japan relations to its root and analyze it further. To begin with, generally speaking, the culture (including religious culture) of each of the somewhat stronger peoples that emerged in the ancient world as civilizations developed had an objective consciousness and a subjective spirit, and this consciousness and spirit gradually strengthened as such peoples developed. Throughout the history of

46  L. JIANG ET AL.

civilizations, peoples have emerged and disappeared, and it appears that the root cause of such decline, for instance the disappearance of the Ainu people from the Japanese archipelago and the disappearance of mainland Asian peoples such as the Xiongnu and the Xianbei, is in general a lack of subjective spirit in the cultures of these peoples. As ancient Chinese culture developed, and as Chinese ethnic groups took shape, these groups developed progressively stronger innate self-consciousness and continuously elevated this into a subjective spirit. In ancient times, true facts about the planet and the world were essentially unknowable, and each people believed the world it knew to comprise the entire universe. In a time before science discovered that the world was round, in a time before seafaring technology, did any people anywhere accurately understand its place in the world? Did any people truly break free from the concept that the world revolved around its own sphere of activity? For present-day researchers to criticize the worldviews of our ancestors based on contemporary knowledge structures and concepts of the planet and space, to blame them for knowing only their own world and not the entire world would, from an academic, rational perspective, demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of historical and cultural contexts. Here, we must inquire into the cultural significance of the concept of civilized vs. barbarian from a historical linguistic perspective. The people of ancient China referred to the essence of their culture by the name “Xia” (夏), as the Xia dynasty was the origin of the Han Chinese people and the cultural and spiritual foundation of Chinese civilization. The term “Hua” (华), literally “radiance” or “glory” (also meaning “China” or “civilized”), is simply another term for “Xia.”25 The concept of civilized vs. barbarian as popularly discussed in the present day refers to attempts to draw distinctions between Chinese and non-Chinese cultures. In this context, the concept set in opposition to “China” or “civilized,” namely yi (夷,) has the meaning of “equals” or, in the vernacular, “those guys” (also “barbarians”). It may be said that across world civilizations in general, even in the twenty-first century, the psychological and administrative need to set one’s own cultural identity apart from that of others has not only survived among subjective peoples, it has in fact grown stronger. Thus, prior to the formation of the concept of equality between peoples, a people that felt a need to distinguish its cultural identity from that of others would invariably forcefully assert its own culture as “the best in the world”; this is an inescapable reality of all cultures

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

47

regardless of location, both secular and religious. Therefore, it would be out of accord with the principles of science to take the ancient Chinese to task for building a worldview based upon the distinction between civilized and barbarian, or to condemn them for holding a concept of a “great China” to which “all in the world pay tribute,” as they did from the Spring and Autumn period on.26 Second, studies of the civilized vs. barbarian distinction in the East Asian cultural sphere often ignore the fact that the Japanese, as part of this sphere, were both subject to the notion of civilized vs. barbarian and made tenacious efforts to develop their culture so as to create their own particular objective consciousness and subjective spirit; throughout this process, they remained in dialogue with Chinese culture but made no shortage of innovative historical contributions to East Asian civilization. In the body of “Kiki myth” comprised by Kojiki and Nihon shoki, we see the earliest attempts to create an artistically embellished record of the origins of the Japanese people. The first volume of Kojiki opens, “When heaven first parted from earth, a deity named Amenominakanushi arose in Takamagahara.” This first deity was the ancestor of the Japanese people and the foremost deity in the universe. Nihon shoki, for its part, states that Kuninotokotachi no Mikoto, one of the third generation of deities according to Kojiki, is the supreme creator of the universe and the foremost of all gods. These mystical tales are distillations of the cultural spirit of the polytheistic Japanese, a spirit that permeates Japan’s ways of life, values, and religious practices, in which context it is expressed as Shinto. Shinto, as the “object” of ancient Japanese culture, manifests first and foremost in the notion of Japan as a divine kingdom. This notion first appears in Nihon shoki, in the tale of Empress Jingū’s expedition to Silla. The author attributes the following words to Silla’s king: “I have heard that there is a divine kingdom called Japan in the east, and that it has a holy king who is called the son of heaven. These must be the mystical soldiers of that kingdom. How could our army hope to resist them?” Thus, Silla made no attempt to fight back against the Japanese: “They soon raised a white flag and submitted, tying their hands up with white cloth and kneeling down on the ground.” The fourteenth-century Authentic Record of Divine Imperial Lineage (Jinnō shōtōki 神皇正統記) represents the first attempt to compose a mythically based imperial lineage proving the divine provenance of the Japanese emperor. The work opens with the words, “The great kingdom of Japan is a divine kingdom.” This objective consciousness constitutes the essential view of the

48  L. JIANG ET AL.

Japanese people on the world and the cosmos as well as the fundamental driving force behind the dynamic activity of Japan within the East Asian cultural sphere. Shinto’s strength lies in its ability to assimilate foreign cultures from outside the Japanese archipelago. Hayashi Razan, referred to as Edo’s foremost Sinologist in studies of the history of Japanese ideas, helped the Tokugawa shogunate establish an ideology based primarily on Zhu Xi-style Neo-Confucianism. He understood Zhu Xi’s ideology as a faith involving worship of a supreme deity. In Initiation into Shinto (Shintō denju 神道伝授), he sets forth a Confucian interpretation of the above-described Kuninotokotachi no Mikoto: “There is no natural law [ri 理] except within the mind. When the mind is clear, the light of divinity shines; to walk an upright path is to be godlike; divine virtue is expressed through government affairs; divine might is expressed through the administration of the state.” Thus, Hayashi sets forth a Shinto-Confucian theory in which the way of the gods and the way of mankind are under the control of the “natural law” regarded by Zhu Xi as the highest principle of human conduct, taking the view that “Shinto is natural law” and constructing a “natural law-centered Shinto.”27 The late eighteenth-century Kokugaku school represented by Motoori Norinaga and his Commentary on the Kojiki (Kojiki den 古事記伝) insisted on the historicity of Amenominakanushi no Kami, affirmed the greatness of the “Japanese spirit,” and sought to divorce Shinto from Sinology (Confucianism) and resituate it within the theoretical framework of Kokugaku. Fifteen hundred years into the cultural development of Japan, the culture finally had an objective core around which to crystallize. This objective core enabled ancient Japanese culture to absorb the culture of mainland Asia, primarily Chinese culture, to a considerable degree, and furnished indispensable raw material for the further development of this heterogeneous culture. In the ancient East Asian cultural sphere, although the concept of “civilized vs. barbarian” originated in China, it was not a fixed, static concept. Rather, under particular living conditions, due to changes in political situations and cultures, the peoples of the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago also came to regard their own cultures as “civilized” and those of other peripheral peoples as “barbarian.”28 In the seventeenth century, a drastic political transition took place in mainland East Asia, and in the early Edo period, the Cheng-Zhu school Neo-Confucianism passed down from the Gozan period came to be regarded with distrust. It was during this period that Confucian,

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

49

military strategist, and Shinto scholar Yamaga Sokō set forth a theory of Confucian orthodoxy in his work Compendium of Sacred Teachings (Seikyō yōroku 聖教要録). He believed that “Chinese orthodoxy had already died out by the Song dynasty,” and thus “scholars [all] openly advocate Confucianism while practicing heterodoxy in private.” He advocated directly adopting “the Way of Confucius and the Duke of Zhou,” appropriating the mainland Chinese concept of Confucian orthodoxy and beginning to imply that the cultural center of civilization, as in “civilized vs. barbarian,” had shifted eastward. The views of the Japanese Kogaku school of Neo-Confucianism (including the Kogigaku and Kobun Jigaku schools) gradually took shape on this basis. These schools began to see themselves as representatives of the true spirit of Confucius, and thus, the East Asian cultural sphere saw the emergence of a Japanese permutation of the “civilized vs. barbarian” concept in which Japan was regarded as “civilized” and others were regarded as “barbarian.” This Japanese concept of “civilized vs. barbarian” was more complex than its Chinese iteration. Japan’s grounds for regarding itself as civilized went beyond assertions of the superiority of Kokugaku over Chinese Confucianism. In fact, Japanese Confucianism had become a complex composite of Chinese Confucianism, Jinsai school Confucianism (aka Kogigaku), Sorai school Confucianism, military science, and Shinto, and on the basis of this conceptual framework, it was asserted that China had lost its grasp of the true spirit of Confucianism. In the Edo period, Japan’s “civilized vs. barbarian” order was distinguished by the following characteristics: first, Japan sought to maintain a relationship of equals with the Chinese court; second, it instituted a complete ban on maritime intercourse with foreign countries; third, it constructed a “civilized vs. barbarian” order of a hierarchical nature involving peripheral peoples such as the Koreans, the people of Ryūkyū, the Ainu, and even the Dutch, pursuing a basic strategy that can be summed up as “goodbye China.” All this serves to demonstrate that, just as the Chinese people believed in a distinction between themselves and barbarians, Japanese culture also had a strongly ethnocentric objective core, and it is on this basis that cultural identification was confirmed and cultural development was pursued. The Japanese concept of “civilized vs. barbarian” became one of the theoretical foundations of the development of modern Japan. In studying the distinction between civilized and barbarian in East Asia, we should bear this in mind.

50  L. JIANG ET AL.

5  Conclusion The relationship between China and Japan has been documented by historical records for more than two millennia. Modern and contemporary history comprise just 150-odd years of this period. Generally speaking, in premodern times, China and Japan belonged to an East Asian cultural sphere in which China occupied the center and Japan the periphery, but the countries had an extremely close relationship in every way. History shows very clearly that, except for Japan’s two invasions of Korea, which resulted in armed conflict between China and Japan, and the two invasions of Japan by the Yuan military, through which the Mongols sought to expand their territory, the relationship between China and Japan remained stable, peaceful, friendly, and mutually beneficial over the long term. The extraordinary influence of Chinese civilization upon Japanese culture is beyond doubt, and the influence of Japanese culture upon China’s development should not be overlooked. Such cultural interchange constitutes the basic framework of the political, economic, and cultural ties that bound Japan and China in ancient times.

Notes



1. Y. Dodo and H. Ishida, Nonmetric Analysis of the Doigahama Crania of the Aeneolithic Yayoi Period in Western Japan, ed. Kyushu University Department of Anatomy (1988); Manabe, Yoshitaka 真鍋義孝 and Atsushi Rokutanda 六反田篤, “Shandong Sheng Han dai muzang yiji Wendakou shiqi muzang chutu de rengu chiguan yu chigen de feiceliang xingzhi” 山东省汉代墓葬以及大汶口时期墓葬出土的人骨齿冠 与齿根的非测量形质 [Nonmetric morphology of the crowns and roots of the teeth of human remains excavated from Han dynasty tombs and Dawenkou period tombs in Shandong Province], in Tansuo dulaixi Mishengren dalu quyu de yuanliu 探索渡来系弥生人大陆区域的源流 [In search of the continental Asian origins and development of the migrant Yayoi people] (Shandong Province Cultural Artifact Archaeological Research Center, The Doigahama Site Anthropological Museum, 2000), 360–370. 2.  Wu Xinzhi, “Origins and Affinities of the Stone Age Inhabitants of Japan: Japanese as a Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations,” in International Symposium 4 (International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 1992), 1–8.

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 



51

3. Han Kangxin 韩康信, “Shandong Linzi Zhou—Han dai rengu tizhi tezheng yanjiu yu xi Riben Misheng shidai rengu zhi bijiao” 山东临淄 周—汉代人骨体质特征研究与西日本弥生时代人骨之比较 [A study of the characteristics of Zhou—Han dynasty human remains in Linzi, Shandong and a comparison of these with Yayoi period remains from western Japan], in Tansuo dulaixi Mishengren dalu quyu de yuanliu, 112–157; Zhang Yajun 张雅军, “Shandong Linzi Houliguan Zhou dai muzang rengu yanjiu” 山东临淄后李官周代墓葬人骨研究 [A study of human remains in Zhou dynasty tombs in Houliguan, Linzi, Shandong], in Tansuo dulaixi Mishengren dalu quyu de yuanliu, 164–171; Shang Hong 尚虹, Kangxin Han 韩康信, and Shougong Wang 王守功, “Shandong Lu zhongnan diqu Zhou—Han dai rengu yanjiu” 山东鲁中南地区周—汉代人骨研 究 [A study of Zhou and Han dynasty human remains in Luzhongnan, Shandong], Renleixue xuebao 人类学学报 21, no. 1 (2002): 1–13. 4. Yamaguchi, Bin 山口敏 and Takashi Nakahashi 中橋孝, Chūgoku Kōnan/ Kōwai no kodaijin—toraikei Yayoijin no genkyō o tazuneru 中国江南·江淮 の古代人—渡来系弥生人の原郷をたずねる [An inquiry into the homeland of the ancient migrant Yayoi people in China’s Jiangnan/Jianghui region] (Therapeia, 2007), 142. 5. An Zhimin 安志敏, “Kōnan bunka to kodai Nihon” 江南文化と古代日 本 [Jiangnan culture and ancient Japan], in Yayoi no shisha Sho Fuku 弥生 の使者徐福 [Xu Fu, envoy to Yayoi], ed. East Asian Cultural Exchange Research Society 東アジア文化交流史研究会 (1989), 48–51. 6.  Pan Qifeng and Hong Zhu, “A Comparison on Racial Anthropology Between the Yayoi Human Skulls of Japan and the Ancient Skulls of China,” in Tooth and Facial Morphology of Ancient Chinese Skulls (Tokyo: Therapeia, 1997). 7. Hanihara Kazurō 埴原和郎, “Toraijin wa hyakumannin kibo” 渡来人は百 万人規模 [There were approximately a million Asian migrants to Japan] in Yayoi no shisha Sho Fuku, 90–92. 8. “Prince Shōtoku” is an honorary title granted to Prince Umayado after his death, during the Heian period. 9. As The Thousand-Character Classic had not yet been published in book form in the sixth year of the reign of Emperor Ōjin, this record cannot be fully trusted. Some take the view that King Wani arrived in Japan in the sixth century, following the publication of The Thousand-Character Classic. 10. The “Records of Confucian Classics” (“Jingji zhi” 经籍志) chapter of The Book of Sui lists 3127 Sui dynasty books and materials, and the “Records of Confucian Classics” chapter of Old Book of Tang (Jiu tang shu 旧唐 书) lists 3060 Tang dynasty books and materials. That is, the holdings of Japanese government bodies in the late ninth century correspond to approximately fifty percent of all Sui dynasty materials and fifty-one percent of all Tang dynasty materials.



52  L. JIANG ET AL. 11. Tanaka Kenji 田中謙二 and Akira Matsuura 松浦章, “Bunsei kyū-nen enshū hyōchaku Tokutai sen shiryō” 文政九年遠州漂着得泰船資料 [Material on the Detai, a boat that drifted ashore from far away in Bunsei 9], Kansai Daigaku Tōzai Gakujutsu kenkyūsho shiryō shūkan 関西大学東 西学術研究所資料集刊 13:2 (Osaka: Kansai University Press, 1986). 12. See Tokutai sen hitsugo 得泰船筆語 [Writings on the boat Detai], Chapter 3 (first part). 13.  See Yan Shao Dang 严绍璗, ed., Ricang Hanji shanben shulu 日藏汉 籍善本书录 [Inventory of rare Chinese books held in Japan], ch. 3 (Zhonghua Book Company, 2007). 14. The “Royal Regulations” chapter of The Book of Rites says, “The people of the five regions did not share a language, and their likings and desires differed. To communicate their intentions and wants, the people of the east had transmitters, the people of the south had representers, the people of the west had translators, and the people of the north had interpreters.” The four concepts of “transmission, representation, translation, and interpretation” spoken of here are specialized terms referring to the translation of written and spoken language in ancient China. As the people of the east were said to “transmit” between languages, “transmitted words” constitute comparisons between languages carried out thereby. In the Chinese word for “transmitted words,” “寄语,” the character “寄” means “to transmit” or “to communicate,” and “寄语” can mean “to communicate between domestic and foreign languages.” 15.  Joy in Times of Peace is a one-volume play attributed to retired scholar Liu Shan published during the Kangxi period (1662–1722) of the Qing dynasty. The play is listed in A Consideration of Present-Day Drama (Jin le kaozheng 今乐考证), and its program can be found in Compilation of Classic Drama Programs (Gudian xiju cunmu huikao 古典戏剧存目汇 考). For an analysis of the script, see Yan Shaodang 严绍璗, Zhong Ri gudai wenxue guanxi shi gao 中日古代文学关系史稿 [This history of literary relations between China and Japan in ancient times] (joint publication of Chung Hwa Book Co. [H.K.] and Hunan Literature and Art Publishing House, 1987). 16. Translator’s note: In Chinese characters, these terms are 倭, 大和, and 日本, respectively. All of these terms can be pronounced “Yamato,” but the first can also be pronounced “Wa” (“Wo” in Chinese), and the third can also be pronounced “Nihon,” the common name for Japan in modern Japanese. To simplify this discussion, the terms have been translated into English as Wo, Yamato, and Nihon. Additionally, in the following passages, the terms “source of the sun” and “Nihon” are used interchangeably, as the text often refers to the literal meaning of the Chinese characters “日本,” that is, “the source of the sun.”

1  PREFACE: CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS IN THE ANCIENT EAST ASIAN WORLD 

53

17. It should be noted that for a period of 122 years, from 478, when the Wo king requested a title from Emperor Shun of Song, to 600, when Japan dispatched the first Envoys to Sui, there is no record of Japan having requested a title from the Chinese court, perhaps because Japan was in the midst of a significant transition in governance which was accompanied by a change in attitudes, or perhaps only because a failure in record-keeping. The matter awaits further investigation. 18. In 753, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang composed a poem especially for the eleventh mission to Tang. The poem goes, “The land at the source of the sun is no stranger to us, the kingdom of heaven has enjoyed an excellent audience with them; loath to part from me but drawn back by distant duties, they set out on an arduous journey home. The ocean swells beneath the autumn moon, the homebound ships sail through blustering night winds; lest this fine gentleman be startled, may the influence of the distant emperor clearly guide him.” 19. “Chi Riben guowang shu” 敕日本国王书 [Edict to the Japanese king], in Tang chengxiang Qu Jiangzhang Xiansheng wenji 唐丞相曲江张先生文集 [Collected works of Tang prime minister Qu Jiangzhang], vol. 7. 20. Entry for Hongwu 2 (1369), second month, sixth day, Ming shi lu 明实录 [Veritable records of Ming]. 21.  In fact, an edict from Emperor Hongwu of Ming to the Imperial Secretariat in the entry for Hongwu 7 (1374), sixth month, first day in Veritable Records of Ming had already pointed out this error. The text states, “In the past, King Yoshikane came to present a gift to the court. Thinking him the Japanese monarch, I sent an envoy to request his response.” The phrase “Thinking him the Japanese monarch” makes the matter quite clear. Its meaning is in fact, “He was not the Japanese monarch.” 22. See Zuikei Shūhō 瑞渓周鳳, Zenrinkoku hōki 善隣国宝記 [Jeweled chronicle of neighboring kingdoms]. 23. Entry for Jianwen 2 (1400), second month, Ming shi lu. 24. Entry for Yongle 4 (1406), first month, Ming shi lu. 25.  Explaining Texts and Demystifying Characters (Shuo wen jie zi 说文解字) has a chapter called “Radiance” (“Hua bu” 华部), and the “Lesson on Earthly Forms” (“Zhui xing xun” 坠形训) chapter of Huainanzi (淮 南子) states, “On its branches blossom ten suns whose radiance shines down upon the earth.” 26.  The “civilized vs. barbarian” distinction is a theme that should be researched from a comparative cultural studies perspective, demanding that researchers possess deep knowledge of multiple cultures. As a cultural phenomenon of universal significance in the history of world civilizations, researchers should have solid, broad-ranging foundational

54  L. JIANG ET AL. knowledge regarding the history of world civilizations in order to study it, or they will be constrained by their own limited perspectives and unable to see the full picture. 27. See Hayashi Razan 林羅山, “Kuninotokotachi dōtai imyō ji” 国常立同体 異名事 [On the various names of the unitary Kuninotokotachi], chap. 33 in Razan bunshū 羅山文集 [Collected works of Hayashi Razan], vol. 55, Shintō denju 神道伝授 [Initiation Into Shinto]. 28. Regarding the manifestation of this concept on the Korean peninsula, see works by Korean Confucians from the Joseon dynasty as well as the Yanjing Travel Essays (Yeon haeng log 燕行錄) of sixteenth to eighteenth century Korean envoys.

PART I

Transformations in the Order and Systems of East Asia

CHAPTER 2

The Establishment of the East Asian International Order in the Seventh Century Xiaofu Wang

Historical East Asia (here I refer primarily to northeast Asia) was comprised primarily of the Chinese mainland, the Korean Peninsula, the Japanese archipelago, and the seas in between. This natural environment furnished a unique platform for international relations within the region, and it is this platform upon which the general structures of such relations took shape in approximately the seventh century AD.

1  Early International Relations in East Asia In ancient times, Japan was called Wo. Wo and China were in contact at least as early as the Chinese Han dynasty (third century BC to third century AD). The “Geography” (“Dili zhi” 地理志) section of The Book of Han records, “The Wo people live by the Lelang Sea [the Sea of Japan]. They are separated into more than a hundred kingdoms, and at harvest time, they pay tribute at court.” The “Annals of Wo” (“Wo zhuan” 倭 传) chapter of The Book of the Later Han records, “In Jianwu Zhongyuan

X. Wang (*)  Peking University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_2

57

58  X. WANG

2 [57], the Wo kingdom of Na came to court to pay tribute. The envoy proclaimed himself grand counsellor of the southernmost extreme of Wo. [Emperor] Guangwu granted him a seal with a tassel.” It was proven that such a seal had indeed been given to the Wo kingdom of Na by Emperor Guangwu when, in the fourth year of the Tenmei era of the Japanese Edo period (1784), a golden seal engraved with the words “King of Na, vassal state of Han” was unearthed on Shikanoshima Island, Fukuoka Prefecture. Later, during the Wei-Jin period and the Northern and Southern dynasties period (third to sixth centuries AD), though “the Japanese people of the Yamataikoku period and the Five Kings period were more autonomous, the Japanese queen and the five kings nonetheless not only accepted but actively requested titles from the Chinese court.”1 Up to the seventh century, Japan’s missions to China had one defining characteristic: they were essentially political. Historical documents record that Japanese envoys mainly came to China to request or receive titles, clearly demonstrating Japan’s active participation in regional politics. The development of this enterprising approach can be divided into the following three phases. 1. From the age of multiple Japanese kingdoms to the age of the kingdom of Yamataikoku. Throughout this time, Japan displayed a particularly strong desire to integrate with regional society, and was satisfied with vassal status and titles reflecting this, such as “King of Na, vassal state of Han” and “Monarch of Wo and Friend of Wei.” 2.  The post-integration “Five Wo Kings” periodcorresponds to China’s Northern and Southern dynasties period (fifth and sixth centuries AD). During this time, Japanese monarchs continued to seek titles from the Chinese court in order to enhance authority at home and gain greater prestige abroad. 3.  The Sui missions. As Japan gained greater international prestige and became more civilized, it ceased seeking titles from the Chinese court and began striving to attain equal status with China. These changes in Japan’s relationship with China are closely bound up with the social development of the Japanese archipelago and the impact of Japan’s activities in the region. In the early third century AD, a number of powerful neighbors rose to challenge Yamataikoku. These included Kunakoku to the south and Jinhan (which would later become Silla) on the southeastern part of the

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

59

Korean Peninsula across the sea to the north.2 As these powers developed, they came to pose a direct threat to Yamataikoku, and there were constant military clashes with Kunakoku. Thus pressured from both sides, Yamataikoku pursued a strategy of remaining friendly with distant states while attacking its neighbors, proactively maintaining its relationship with China in order to suppress the threat of Jinhan3 and enable it to focus on coping with Kunakoku to the south. Historical records indicate that, from 239 to 247, Yamataikoku and the Chinese state of Wei exchanged missions on approximately seven occasions. Yamataikoku’s 266 mission to the Chinese Jin court was the final such occasion, after which ties between China and Japan remained cut for 147 years. During this period, Japan was quite active on the Korean peninsula. From 108 BC, when Emperor Wu of Han completed the conquest of Gojoseon and established the Four Commanderies of Han, to the late Han dynasty and the Wei-Jin period, the commanderies of Lelang and Daifang were under Chinese control. In 313, Goguryeo captured the commanderies of Lelang and Daifang, beginning Korea’s Three Kingdoms period: Goguryeo ruled the north of the peninsula, Baekje in the southwest, and Silla in the southeast. It is under these conditions that the Japanese actively inserted themselves into the peninsula’s affairs, maneuvering among various powers for their own interests. According to “The Grave Marker of King Haotai” (“Haotai Wang bei” 好太王碑), from the late fourth century to the early fifth century, the undertakings of the Japanese on the Korean peninsula were essentially these: in 391, the Japanese army sailed across the ocean and invaded Baekje and Silla; in the fifth month of 393, the Japanese army besieged Geumseong, capital of Silla, and simultaneously, Silla formed an alliance with Goguryeo to the north and attacked Baekje; in 397, Baekje allied with Japan, sending Prince Jeonji to Wo as a hostage; in 399, Japan attacked Silla, and “the Japanese people breached the kingdom’s borders, destroyed the cities, and enslaved the people”; in 400, Goguryeo sent fifty thousand foot soldiers and mounted troops to Silla’s aid, and the Japanese army withdrew; in 402, desiring to establish friendly ties with Japan, King Naemul of Silla sent his son Misaheun to Japan as a hostage, but Japan’s continuous incursions across Silla’s border did not cease. As Japan became more integrated internally and as it continuously sought to expand into the Korean peninsula, China went through the tumultuous Sixteen Kingdoms period and entered the Northern and Southern dynasties period. In 413, ties between Japan and China were

60  X. WANG

restored. In 420, Liu Yu founded the Liu Song dynasty, putting an end to the Jin; in 439, northern China was integrated under the Northern Wei dynasty. It is generally believed that Wo kings San, Chin, Sai, Kō, and Bu, who according to Chinese historical records established friendly ties with the Chinese Southern Court during this period, are the emperors referred to by Nihon shoki as Nintoku, Hanzei, Ingyō, Ankō, and Yūryaku. These “Five Wo Kings” pursued a policy of friendly relations with China in hopes of gaining China’s support and as well as greater status within East Asia and the world. According to Chinese historical records, for an eighty-one-year period, from 421, when King San sent a mission to the Liu Song court, to 502, when Emperor Wu of Liang granted Wo King Bu the title of Great Eastern General, Japan sent ten missions to China, including eight to the Liu Song court.4 The primary aim of the Japanese missions to the Chinese Southern Court was to obtain China’s recognition of Japan’s sovereignty over the Korean Peninsula. The Liu Song court faced an internal conflict between north and south, and from its first establishment, it sought friendly ties with Wo. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Song records, “The kingdom of Wo lies in the sea to the southeast of Goguryeo, and it has always paid tribute. In Yongchu 2 (421), the founding emperor wrote an edict stating, ‘King Zan [San] of Wo has traveled far to pay tribute. In reward for his sincerity and perseverance, he is awarded a title.’” At the time, Goguryeo maintained its traditional relationship with both Chinese courts; Japan, however, had a much more favorable relationship with the Southern Court. Subsequently, Emperor Zeng of Song formally conferred titles upon the Wo king on two occasions, as the king had requested in memorials to the court. On the first occasion, in 438, King Chin of Wo sent a mission to Song, requesting to be recognized as “Envoy, Great Pacifying Eastern General Overseeing the Military Affairs and of the Six Kingdoms of Wo, Baekje, Silla, Mimana, Jinhan, and Mahan, and King of Wo.” Although, at the time, Emperor Wen of Song granted only the title “Great Pacifying Eastern General and King of Wo,” in 451, King Sai of Wo was granted the title “Envoy and Pacifying Eastern General Overseeing the Military Affairs of the Six Kingdoms of Wo, Silla, Mimana, Gaya, Jinhan, and Mahan, As Before.” On another occasion, in 478, King Bu of Wo sent a memorial to the Song emperor seeking the titles “Supreme Commander” and Great Pacifying Eastern General and requesting support for his policy of maintaining friendly relations with distant states while attacking those

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

61

nearby, which in this case meant establishing dominion over the Korean Peninsula. Emperor Shun of Song granted the king the title “Envoy, Great Pacifying Eastern General Overseeing the Military Affairs of the Six Kingdoms of Wo, Silla, Mimana, Gaya, Jinhan, and Mahan, and King of Wo.” Although the court rejected repeated requests by Wo kings to oversee the military affairs of Baekje, the titles make it clear that the Chinese emperor approved of Japan’s exercise of power over the Korean Peninsula, and this gave a considerable boost in status to Japan within East Asian international relations in addition to strengthening the international reputation of Japanese monarchs.5

2  The Battle of Baekgang and International Relations in East Asia Though the sixth century is a “blank” as far as the relation between China and Japan is concerned, in the mid-sixth century, drastic changes began taking place in East Asian regional politics. The Gaya (Mimana) alliance of the southern Korean Peninsula dissolved, and in 562, the bulk of its territory was annexed by Silla6; Goguryeo became a great kingdom with territory spanning the northeast of the East Asian mainland and the northern peninsula, forming part of a tripartite of powers which included the northern Turks and the Chinese Central Plain court. In 589, the longstanding conflict between the Northern and Southern courts was resolved, and China was unified under the Sui. Not long after, internal conflicts between Japanese noble families came to an end as well, and in 593, Empress Suiko took the throne, with Prince Shōtoku acting as regent. Prince Shōtoku of Japan carried out reforms such as strengthening domestic rule, reorganizing regional administrations, instituting a code of etiquette, and promoting Buddhism while proactively engaging in foreign diplomacy and striving to become a great kingdom to rival China. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui states, “Silla and Baekje believed Wo to be a great kingdom, cherishing and venerating it and frequently sending envoys.” As previously stated, during the “Five Wo Kings” period, the kings considered themselves subjects of the Chinese court and actively requested titles from China. However, the kings ceased requesting or accepting titles from the Sui

62  X. WANG

court that unified China, and not only that, as Japan gained international prestige and became more civilized, it displayed a stronger subjective consciousness in its dealings with China as it strived to attain equal status. This attitude is expressed clearly in the letter of the second mission to Sui, which begins, “From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun,” and the letter of the third mission to Sui, which reads, “The eastern king of heaven sends his respects to the emperor of the west.” Japanese envoys to China maintained this attitude until the early Tang dynasty. It was an attitude that the Chinese emperor refused to tolerate. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui records, “Their letter read, ‘From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun, may good health be with you,’ and so on. Displeased by this, the emperor [Yang of Sui] said to the minister of dependencies, ‘The next time the barbarians send such an insolent letter, do not give them a hearing.’ The next year, Sui Gentleman-Litterateur [Wenlin Lang 文林郎] Pei Shiqing went to the kingdom of Wo as an envoy.” It is generally believed that this indicates Emperor Yang of Sui did not accept the letter from the Japanese monarch; Pei Shiqing was dispatched to Japan not in a gesture of reciprocation of courtesy between equals, but to commend and issue orders to these barbarians who visited the court from far away.7 Subsequently, the Tang dynasty supplanted the Sui. In the eighth month of Jomei 2 (630), Japan dispatched the first mission to Tang, led by Inugami no Mitasuki and Kusushi no Enichi, officials of dainin rank. The following year, “The envoys had an audience, and the emperor, taking pity on them for the long journey they had endured, ordered that the officials cease collecting yearly tributes.8 Gao Renbiao,9 governor of Xinzhou, was dispatched to deliver the edict. He got into a dispute over etiquette with the king which could not be resolved, and left without announcing the emperor’s order.”10 It is believed that this “dispute” may have been caused by Gao’s insistence that “the emperor take his seat and receive the Tang envoy’s letter from the north.”11 The term buping (unsettled 不平) is used in the text to indicate that the problem could not be resolved, and Gao therefore “left without announcing the emperor’s order”; with this, relations between China and Japan were severed. Later, in 645, the Taika Reforms were enacted, and only some twenty years after the dispute, in 653, did Japan dispatch the second mission to Tang, with the Korean kingdom of Silla acting as intermediary.12

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

63

The second mission to Tang included a number of scholar monks and overseas students,13 and it is generally believed that they “undertook the mission of studying aspects of Tang culture such as Buddhism, systems, and so on in order to establish the sort of state envisioned by the new Taika administration,” and historical works record that “the Tang emperor was presented with numerous books and treasures,” giving this particular mission a strongly cultural character. Within Japan, however, there were significant divergences in knowledge and awareness of Tang China. For instance, two years earlier, in AD 651, envoys from Silla arrived in Japan “dressed in Chinese clothes, and docked in Chikushi. Despising their vulgar outfits, the [Wo] court berated them and sent them home.”14 This haughty attitude was in fact consistent with that of the letter “from the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun” that had been delivered by the mission to Sui. It is apparent that in spite of the positive contributions of overseas students such as Takamuko no Kuromaro, the conservative faction of the court which was confident in Japan’s subjectivity remained highly influential. A year after the second mission to Tang, in 654, with the previous mission yet to return, Japan urgently dispatched a third mission. The envoys and accompanying personnel dispatched on this occasion clearly held higher positions than the personnel of other missions to Tang, and no students or scholar monks were among their numbers. The mission was dispatched hastily for ends that were obviously purely political. When the mission reached Chang’an, Tang court officials asked the envoys detailed questions about Japanese geography, and when the mission departed, “[Emperor] Gaozong wrote a letter to comfort them, saying, ‘Your kingdom is near Silla. Silla is frequently invaded by Goguryeo and Baekje. When it faces danger, your king can easily dispatch the army to its aid.’”15 This demonstrates that this particular Japanese mission to Tang was sent for reasons closely related to international tensions in the East Asian region at the time. However, in the fourth mission to Tang in 659, Japan’s surging subjectivity was once again on display. In an entry for Saimei 5 (659), autumn, seventh month, third day, Nihon shoki states, “Sakaibe no Muraji Iwashiki of shōkinge rank and Tsumori no Muraji Kisa of daisenge rank were sent to Tang as envoys. They took with them an Emishi man and woman from Michinoku to present to the Tang emperor.” On the eve of Baekje’s destruction at the hands of Silla and Tang (660), Japan sent a further mission to Tang, demonstrating to the Tang emperor that

64  X. WANG

the Emishi kingdom “pays tribute to our kingdom at each harvest,” and thus Japan, like China, was a great kingdom to which barbarians paid tribute. Some hold that “Japan’s purpose was to establish its authority on the basis of great-nation chauvinism imported from China.”16 However, based on the previous history of relations between the two countries, I believe that the more important reason was the overconfidence of the Japanese themselves, which caused them to fail to recognize China’s highly advanced culture and might as a kingdom. Otherwise, they would not have brazenly sent troops to aid the reconstruction of Baekje following its defeat by Tang and Silla, a mistake that resulted in utter ruination and defeat in the Battle of Baekgang (663). It is apparent that, though the two sides had been in communication prior to the Battle of Baekgang, Japan did not accurately understand or give due consideration to the international status and position of Sui and Tang China. Defeat in the Battle of Baekgang alerted the Japanese to the truth of the situation, and they began taking seriously and making efforts to learn from the advanced political culture of Tang China, as well as applying this knowledge to found their own kingdom and manage their own affairs.17 Of course, the establishment of Japan’s ritsuryō system was not instantaneous; after the Battle of Baekgang, and after a subsequent period of disturbances such as the Jinshin War of Tenmu 1 (672), it was instituted in Taihō 1 (701) by the Taihō Code (Taihō ritsuryō 大宝 律令). Accordingly, East Asian international relations underwent a great transformation.

3  The Impact of Silla’s Unification Upon International Relations in East Asia In 663, Japan dispatched its navy to the Korean Peninsula to aid in the reconstruction of Baekje, and was annihilated in the Battle of Baekje by the allied army of Silla and Tang China. This occasioned a series of momentous changes in both Japanese national policy and international relations in East Asia, making the Battle of Baekgang a major turning point in history. As previously described, Japan had long actively held dominion over areas of the peninsula. However, although both Sui and Tang had attacked Goguryeo for reasons related to regional politics, China became involved in the peninsula’s affairs mainly because it was dragged

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

65

in by Silla, which had crafted a careful strategy to unify the peninsula. Silla’s aim was to unify the territory of the Three Korean Kingdoms to the south of the Taedong River,18 and thus, its main strategic mission was to destroy the western kingdom of Baekje with which it shared the peninsula. The first capital of Baekje was Wiryeseong, a city on the southern bank of the Han River. Later, due to military expansion by Goguryeo, the capital had to be moved south to Gomnaru (present-day Gongju) on the middle reaches of the Geum River in 475, then further south to Sabi (present-day Buyeo) in 538. At this time, the eastern kingdom of Silla was flourishing, and Baekje was the weakest, smallest kingdom on the Korean Peninsula. In the mid-sixth century, Silla allied with Baekje and seized the area along the lower reaches of the Han River, forcing Goguryeo’s forces to retreat north; soon after, it expanded to the west and seized the west coast of Baekje. In 554, Baekje struck back, but King Seong of Baekje and his thirty thousand officers and men perished in battle at Gwansan Fortress. Thus, Baekje was forced to seek assistance from Japan, and even to join forces with its former enemy Goguryeo19 in hopes of escaping the destruction that otherwise seemed assured. However, Baekje’s survival strategy proved political suicide, objectively situating its interests in the region counter to those of China. Baekje’s weakness became still more pronounced following the establishment of the Sui and Tang courts, under which China was unified. For instance, the “Annals of the Eastern Barbarians of Baekje” (“Dong yi Baiji zhuan” 东夷百济传) chapter of Old Book of Tang records, “In the year [Zhenguan] 16, Uija [king of Baekje] dispatched troops to attack forty-some cities in Silla, and more troops were sent to protect them. He established friendly ties with Goguryeo in a plot to seize Danghang Fortress and cut off Silla’s route to the court. Silla sent a mission to request urgent assistance, and [Emperor] Taizong sent Minister of Revenue Xiangli Xuanjiang with letters to the two barbarian kingdoms clarifying the blessings or misfortunes their subsequent actions could bring. Also, Taizong personally led an expedition to Goguryeo and Baekje, defeating both, and exploited Silla’s weak points, destroying ten cities. In the year 22, a further ten-odd cities were destroyed. For a number of years, no tributes were presented to court. During the reign of Emperor Gaozong, in Yonghui 2, tribute-bearing missions resumed.” It is quite clear that Baekje found itself in a predicament, and that it sought to resolve this by invading Silla. Silla’s rise coincided with

66  X. WANG

Goguryeo’s expansion, placing the two kingdoms in opposition; when Silla annexed Gaya (Mimana), this generated a further conflict of interest with neighboring Japan.20 Silla, needless to say, could not and would not place itself in a situation where enemies pressed in from the north and south in order to gain control of Baekje, and thus, in order to enact its plan to unify the peninsula, it had no choice but to induce the Chinese Central Plain court to assist. King Munmu (r. 661–681) of Silla, unifier of the Korean peninsula, described the strategy clearly: “Silla was once pressed between two other kingdoms, attacked from the north and invaded from the west. It was a time of constant turmoil. The corpses of soldiers were heaped on the plains in the borderlands, the bodies separated from the heads. Taking pity on the commoners who had suffered such horrors, abandoning the honor he would have gained by being the leader of a great army, the previous king crossed the sea, had an audience with the court, and requested troops in order to put a permanent end to the warfare, the accumulation of hatred, and the suffering of the commoners. He pacified Baekje, but did not defeat Goguryeo, so I took up the work of my predecessor and finished what he started. Now these two enemies no longer trouble us, and there is peace throughout the land.”21 This is the main reason why historical documents so often depict Silla dragging the Tang court into the peninsula’s affairs. In fact, the means by which Silla induced the Tang court to action was simple: it constantly made the court aware that Silla was its only faithful, trustworthy ally in East Asia, and that Silla in turn relied upon the Tang court for all things. For instance, in spite of the repeated attacks by both the Sui and Tang courts upon Goguryeo, not only did Silla not ally with Goguryeo, in Zhenguan 17 (643), it complained to the Tang court that Baekje had “established friendly ties with Goguryeo in a plot to seize Danghang Fortress and cut off Silla’s route to the court”22; in Yonghui 6 (655), “King Kim Chun-chu of Silla again complained about Baekje and Goguryeo, saying that the Mohe people had invaded from the north, destroying more than thirty cities.”23 To extract Silla from this predicament with enemies pressing in on both sides and place Goguryeo in such a predicament instead, Baekje inevitably had to be destroyed: “In order to defeat Goguryeo, Baekje was first destroyed and soldiers remained to guard it and control key strategic points.”24 In Xianqing 5 (660), the allied Tang-Silla forces easily defeated Baekje. Former general Boksin of Baekje and a monk named Dochim reclaimed Juryu Fortress, took in former prince Buyeo Pung, newly

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

67

returned from Japan, enthroned the prince as king, and set about rebuilding the kingdom. As previously described, the Sui and Tang courts did not regard Japan as an equal in regional affairs, and when the third mission to Tang returned, “[Emperor] Gaozong wrote a letter to comfort them, saying, ‘Your kingdom is near Silla. Silla is frequently invaded by Goguryeo and Baekje. When it faces danger, your king can easily dispatch the army to its aid.’”25 However, Japan was overconfident, not only failing to heed this advice but going as far as to dispatch troops to aid in Baekje’s reconstruction, determined to prove itself Tang’s equal. The most detailed record of the battle that broke out at the mouth of the Baek River26 in 663 is found in the “Annals of Liu Rengui” (“Liu Rengui zhuan” 刘仁轨传) chapter of Old Book of Tang: “Shortly after, Yeo [Buyeo] Pung killed Boksin and sent further missions to Goguryeo and Japan to request military aid to resist the [Chinese] government troops. It was ordered that General Sun Renshi of the Youweiwei guard unit would take charge of an army to be sent across the ocean to give support. Renshi joined forces with Rengui. Spirits were high among the soldiers. Thereupon, the generals held a meeting, saying, ‘Garim Fortress is a hub of land and sea routes. We should attack it first.’ Rengui said, ‘Garim is impregnable. If we attack it hastily, we will lose many men; if we besiege it, we will lose much time. It would be better to attack Juryu Fortress first. Juryu is a bandits’ lair, a nest of fiends. To eliminate evil, we should concentrate on its origins, pulling it out from the root. If we defeat Juryu, many other cities will fall on their own.’ Thus, the army pressed onward, led by Renshi, Renyuan, and King Kim Beopmin [Munmu] of Silla. Liu Rengui personally led the navy and the grain boats together with Du Shuang and Buyeo Pung, proceeding from the Gomnaru River to the Baek River and joining with the army in a joint siege of Juryu Fortress. Rengui encountered the Japanese army at the mouth of Baek River, won a succession of four battles, and burned four hundred boats. Smoke and flame rose into the sky, coloring the ocean red. The enemy was utterly crushed. Prince Buyeo escaped, leaving behind his beloved sword. The men and women who had been loyal to false princes Buyeo Chung-seung and Buyeo Chung-ji, the Japanese, and the envoys of Tamna surrendered. The cities of Baekje all pledged allegiance.”27 The historical source cited here makes it clear that the allied forces of Tang and Silla plotted a careful strategy, planning at first to bypass Garim Fortress, a hub of water routes, and attack Juryu Fortress,

68  X. WANG

the center of Baekje’s reconstruction efforts. Things did not go according to plan, however, and a great battle broke out with the Japanese navy at the mouth of Baek River near Garim Fortress. Clearly, this naval battle caught the Tang navy completely off guard. As far as the Tang military was concerned, the battle with the Japanese at the mouth of Baek River occurred by chance (the text indicates this by using the character 遇 [“encounter,” “meet by chance”] to describe these events, as in the phrase “Rengui encountered the Japanese army”). It is clear that the allied forces of Tang and Silla knew Baekje had requested military assistance from Goguryeo and Wo, and that they understood the circumstances of the Garim area prior to the battle. This being the case, how could such a battle occur by happenstance at the mouth of the Baek River near Garim? I believe the root cause is that Tang’s military strategy focused on the north of East Asia rather than the south, that is, on Goguryeo rather than Japan, and in fact paid no heed whatsoever to Japan or its military.28 This attitude on the part of the Tang people is still clearer in the record of the same battle in the “Annals of Baekje” (“Baiji zhuan” 百济传) chapter of Old Book of Tang: “Buyeo Pung had his trusted followers kill Boksin, then sent envoys to Goguryeo and Japan to request military aid to resist the [Chinese] government troops. Sun Renshi was attacked along the way, defeated the attackers, met with Renyuan and joined forces. Spirits were high among the troops. Thereupon, the army pressed onward, led by Renshi, Renyuan, and King Kim Beop-min [Munmu] of Silla. Liu Rengui personally led the navy and the grain boats together with Du Shuang and Buyeo Pung, proceeding from the Gomnaru River to the Baek River and joining with the army in a joint siege of Juryu Fortress. Rengui encountered Buyeo Pung’s forces at the mouth of the Baek River, won a succession of four battles, and burned four hundred boats. The enemy was utterly crushed, but Buryeo Pung managed to escape. The men and women who had been loyal to false princes Buyeo Chung-seung and Buyeo Chung-ji surrendered, as did the Japanese. The cities of Baekje all pledged allegiance, and Sun Renshi, Liu Renyuan and their men returned home in triumph.” Sun Renshi and his men had departed from Donglai, and the attackers they crushed on their way were no doubt Goguryeo’s troops. “Spirits were high among the troops” because they wrongly assumed no further formidable enemies awaited them. Thus, the Japanese troops at the mouth of Baek River were treated as part of “Buyeo Pung’s forces”;

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

69

even when taken captive after the battle, they were seen as subjects of Baekje. Accordingly, at war’s end, the massive Tang detachment returned home in triumph. Fascicle 27 of Nihon shoki records that in 664, the year after the Battle of Baekgang, “In summer, fifth month, seventeenth day, Liu Renyuan, general stationed in Baekje, sent chaosan dafu29 Guo Wucong and his men to the court with a memorial and a gift.” In 666, 667, 669, and 671, further Tang missions were dispatched to Japan. Thus, Japanologist Nishijima Sadao believes that in fact, following the victory at the mouth of the Baek River, the Tang court suddenly began taking a greater interest in Japan’s affairs; one of these missions, involving forty-seven ships and two thousand men, was intended not to peacefully maintain ties, but to put on a threatening display of martial might. Nishijima even links the Feng and Shan sacrifices performed on Mt. Tai by Emperor Gaozong of Tang to China’s victory at the mouth of Baek River.30 Clearly, such views are based mainly on the subjective impressions of the defeated Japanese people. They are not objective and do not conform with the principle of adhering to facts and seeking truth. First, it should be pointed out that none of these missions to Tang recorded in Japanese history books appear in Chinese sources. Also, “Liu Renyuan, general stationed in Baekje,” as in the entry for the fifth month of 664, never existed. As previously stated, following the Battle of Baekgang, Liu Renyuan and Sun Renshi returned to China with a large detachment of Chinese troops, and Liu Rengui stayed behind with a garrison force. According to Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance (Zizhi tongjian 资治通鉴), these events took place in the ninth month of Longshuo 3 (663), at which time “Liu Renyuan went to the capital, where the emperor asked him, ‘You have reported your numerous accomplishments across the eastern sea in accordance with protocol and decorum. How is it that you, a military man, have managed to do this?’ Renyuan said, ‘It is all Liu Rengui’s doing. I had no part in it.’ Delighted, the emperor promoted Rengui to sixth rank and appointed him governor of Daifang. He built a residence for Rengui in Chang’an, generously rewarded his wife and children, and dispatched an envoy to present him with a commendation letter impressed with the official imperial seal. Shangguan Yi said, ‘Rengui was relieved of his duties but was nonetheless utterly faithful, and Renyuan showed self-restraint and promoted the accomplishments of a worthy man. Both deserve to be called gentlemen.’” Thus, the fact that Liu Renyuan returned to China is beyond dispute. In the tenth month of Linde 1 (664), General Liu

70  X. WANG

Rengui presented a memorial offering a full account of all he had experienced. “Deeply moved by his words, the emperor dispatched General Liu Renyuan of the Yuoweiwei guard unit across the ocean with a contingent of men to replace the previous garrison.” Thus, it appears that Nihon shoki is in error. Further, historical documents clearly state that, following the Battle of Baekgang, “The cities of Baekje all pledged allegiance, and Sun Renshi, Liu Renyuan and their men returned home in triumph.” This phrasing does not in any way imply that the Tang army pursued or attempted to further punish the defeated Japanese military. The approach taken by the Tang court is consistent with both its strategy in northeast Asia and the chance nature of the military encounter at the mouth of Baek River. With regard to Liu Rengui’s defense mission in former Baekje, the “Annals of Japan” (“Riben zhuan” 日本传) chapter of Old Book of Tang states, “Boksin’s revolt left Baekje in ruins and corpses piled high across the land. Rengui began by ordering the remains collected and funeral rites carried out. A new census was taken, officials were appointed, roads, villages, and bridges were built, dikes and reservoirs were reconstructed, aid was given to the poor, measures were taken to stimulate agricultural production, and messengers were sent to inquire after solitary elderly people. Worship at ancestral temples was banned, and imperial temples to the gods of soil and grain were established. The commoners of Baekje were occupied and content. An agricultural colony was established to feed the soldiers and facilitate the administration of Goguryeo.” As Liu Rengui’s memorial stated, “I surreptitiously observed the garrison, finding the weak and weary to be many and the strong and healthy to be few. Their clothes were tattered, and their only thoughts were of returning home. They were in no mood to exert themselves in service of their kingdom”; “They [the soldiers] all said, ‘When we left home, we were ordered to take only enough goods and clothing for one year. We are now in our second year, with no return date.’ I inspected the officers’ remaining clothing and found that it was only enough to last the winter. Absolutely no preparations had been made for autumn of next year or later. Your Majesty, you have stationed troops overseas in hopes of annihilating Goguryeo. Baekje and Goguryeo are old allies, and though the Japanese are far away, they too can be called upon for aid. Our garrison is the only thing stopping them from uniting into one kingdom. We currently have the resources to support the garrison and have established an agricultural colony, but all this depends upon the soldiers being of

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

71

one heart and mind. With the soldiers making complaints such as these, how can we hope to gain victory?”31 At the time, Goguryeo’s borders remained “impregnable,” and the weary Tang garrison was barely able to defend Baekje, to say nothing of stirring up trouble with distant Japan. In fact, Tang China had a limited understanding of Japan, and would have been unable to administer it effectively. The “Annals of Japan” chapter of Old Book of Tang states, “Nihon is descended from Wo. Because it is located beyond the horizon, it is referred to as Nihon, the source of the sun. It is also said that its name may have been changed to Nihon because its people found the name Wo distasteful. It is also said that Nihon was once a small kingdom that annexed Wo’s territory. The envoys who paid tribute on its behalf were arrogant and deceptive, and thus China distrusted it.” Therefore, if Chinese missions did in fact frequently visit Japan following the Battle of Baekgang, as Nihon shoki states that they did, these must have been attempts by the Chinese garrison of former Baekje to display its martial might for self-defense purposes; these shows of force, in addition to the arrival of refugees from former Baekje, generated a panicked response on the part of defeated Japan. Following Baekje’s defeat, Silla set its sights on reclaiming the territory of Baekje that had been seized by Goguryeo and unifying the Korean peninsula. In Munmu 6 (666), “Having defeated Baekje, desiring to attack Goguryeo, the king requested military aid from Tang. In the twelfth month, Tang made Li Ji general administrator of the Liaodong frontier outpost and appointed Ministry of Civil Appointment ministers Bo Anlu and Hao Chujun his assistants. They were tasked with attacking Goguryeo.” In Munmu 8 (668), “In autumn, seventh month, sixteenth day, the king traveled to Hanseong [Seoul] and instructed the commanders to go meet the great [Tang] army. Munyeong and his men encountered the Goguryeo army on the plains of Sa River. A battle ensued, and Goguryeo’s forces were crushed. On the eleventh day of the ninth month, Silla and the great army besieged Pyongyang. The king of Goguryeo sent a contingent led by Cheon Nam-san to surrender to Yinggong [Li Ji].” In the same year, “On the fifth day of the eleventh month, the king went to the capital with seven thousand Goguryeo prisoners. On the sixth day, King Munmu led all the officials to the ancestral temple, declaring, ‘We will take up the work of our predecessors and join the great Tang army in the righteous cause of holding Baekje and Goguryeo accountable for their misdeeds and restoring peace to the kingdom. I hereby declare this so that the gods may hear.’”32

72  X. WANG

With Goguryeo’s fall, Silla established unified rule over the Korean peninsula (668–935), a momentous event with an epoch-making impact upon international relations in East Asia.

4  The Founding of the Kingdom of Balhae and the Origins of International Relations in East Asia In fact, until the Battle of Baekgang, the Japanese remained combative and continually jockeyed for position with Tang China. In 661, Empress Saimei of Wo even traveled to Kyūshū in order to personally direct the battle with Tang and Silla, but, fatigued by the long journey, she took ill and died. The Korean exhibition the Wo military had planned would have to be delayed. Studies have determined that the Japanese military lost the Battle of Baekgang because it arrogantly overestimated its own abilities and failed to understand the true might of the allied forces of Tang and Silla, causing it to go into battle blind and suffer defeat. Defeat in the Battle of Baekgang snuffed out Japan’s boundless confidence and determination to stand toe to toe with Tang China. The Japanese court was now aware of its predicament, and every move of the Tang court struck fear into it: the great army might invade, the security of the archipelago might be compromised. According to Nihon shoki, in 664, the general of the Baekje garrison dispatched Guo Wucong as an envoy to Japan. Following Guo’s departure, the Japanese emperor stationed guards and built beacon towers on Uma Island, Iki Island, and Chikushi. In addition, a river fortress was built in Chikushi, and the following year, mountain fortresses were built in Ōno and Kii, Chikushi to guard against a sneak attack by Tang. In 667, Tang dispatched envoy Sima Facong to Japan. Shortly after, the Japanese built three fortresses in the Tsushima Strait area, Takayasu, Yashima, and Kaneda. In 668, Tang and Silla joined forces to defeat Goguryeo, and it became apparent that Tang was preparing to dispatch troops to Japan. The Japanese dispatched envoy Kawachi no Kujira to size up Tang’s military might while continuing to strengthen the defenses of fortresses such as Takayasu. Under constant stress due to the international tensions, Emperor Tenji passed away. The “Annals of Japan” chapter of New Book of Tang states, “In Xianheng 1 (670), it [Japan] sent an envoy to congratulate Tang on suppressing Goguryeo. Nihon is comprised of two ancient Wo kingdoms… in Xianheng 1 (670), it sent an envoy to congratulate Tang

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

73

on suppressing Goguryeo. Shortly after, the envoy became accustomed to Chinese tastes and came to dislike the name Wo, so the name was changed to Nihon. The envoy said that the kingdom has this name because it is located in the place where the sun emerges. He alternately claimed that Nihon was a small kingdom that was annexed by Wo, which gave the name Nihon to the new territory. The envoy did not explain clearly, and therefore doubt remains.” A vast amount of research has been carried out in regard to the reason for the name change to Nihon and its timing, and numerous explanations exist. Examining the problem in light of international relations in East Asia, I take the view that Wo likely changed its name to Nihon in order to avoid military conflict.33 It is generally believed that the name change occurred around 670,34 and I believe that it must have taken place at least as early as Kawachi no Kujira’s mission in 669, the year after Tang and Silla defeated Goguryeo. The reasoning behind this conclusion is related to the timing of the defeat of Baekje and subsequently of Goguryeo, events which gave Japan sufficient reason to switch to the new name, and also of Kawachi no Kujira’s mission to Tang, the ostensible purpose of which was “congratulating Tang on suppressing Goguryeo,” an occasion which also provided an excellent opportunity to communicate news of the name change. However, for a subsequent thirty-year period, until the eighth mission to Tang in 701, China and Japan did not exchange missions. The main reason for this is that both countries experienced a breakdown in relations with unified Silla. In 657, Silla officially severed ties with Japan due to its support for Baekje in the conflict with Silla. After the fall of Goguryeo, however, conflict broke out between Tang and Silla over ownership of southern Goguryeo,35 and the same year (668), Silla promptly sent a mission to Japan. Over the following thirty-two years (from 668 to 700), Silla sent twenty-nine missions to Japan, and Japan sent eleven missions to Silla. Thus, the two countries were in contact at least once yearly, a degree of closeness far beyond what would ordinarily be expected. It is apparent that during this time period, in order to resist Tang, Silla needed to maintain amicable ties with Japan; Japan, for its part, sensed an opportunity in regional politics and gave up the opportunity to improve relations with Tang. However, as relations between Tang and Silla gradually recovered in the late seventh century, relations between Silla and Japan again worsened, and the Japanese realized the merits of changing tack.

74  X. WANG

The main reason for the drastic turnaround in East Asian international relations at the turn of the eighth century was the founding of the kingdom of Balhae (698–926) in northeast China. Following the fall of Goguryeo, not only was the Tang court unable to expand further, it soon moved the newly established Protectorate General to Pacify the East from the Korean city of Pyongyang to Liaodong. This was done not only due to the limited strategic value of the location (due to China’s tradition of peaceful coexistence) but also the rise of the Tubo kingdom (629–846) in western China. In 670, a force of 100,000 Tang troops led by Xue Rengui was defeated at Dafei River in Qinghai. The battle proved the beginning of a prolonged war between Tang and Tubo that played out on the Tibetan Plateau. The stubborn resistance of the Tubo provided an opening for the renewed rise of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. In the early Tang dynasty, in Zhenguan 4 (630), the Eastern Turkic Khaganate toppled the Northern Turkic Khaganate and established Turkic settlements along the border from Youzhou (present-day Beijing) to Lingzhou (present-day Lingwu, Ningxia). Fifty years later, with Tang’s military resources invested into the conflict with Tubo in the northwest, the Khaganate seized the opportunity to incite repeated revolts and ultimately succeeded in establishing the Second Turkic Khaganate (682–745). Although the khaganate was based in the Khangai Mountains (alternately referred to as Ötüken) in present-day Mongolia, it frequently raided frontier areas further south. During the Qapaghan Qaghan period (691–716) in particular, the khaganate widely expanded both eastward and westward and subjugated numerous northern barbarian tribes36; year after year, a force of more than forty thousand archers mounted sneak attacks on the Chinese border, acting in concert with the Tubo. During this period, the khaganate reached a peak of power and prosperity. The renewed rise of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate presented a severe threat to Chinese border security, and the Tang court was forced to strengthen its eastern line of defense, going as far as to transfer forces from the northeastern frontier defense post of Ying Prefecture (present-day Chaoyang, Liaoning) to put down rebellions. Ying Prefecture, inhabited by the Xi and the Khitan, had been the most remote northeastern border post of Central Plain courts throughout the ages. The Tang court established the Pinglu Army there, tasking it with the mission of pacifying the Shiwei and Mohe in coordination with the Protectorate General to Pacify the East.37 In the Wu Zhou dynasty,

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

75

in Yanzai 1 (694), “On the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, the Qapaghan raided Ying Prefecture. The Shiwei revolted, and Senior General Li Duozuo of the Youyingyangwei guard was sent to pacify them.”38 The disturbance in Ying Prefecture set off a chain reaction with widespread effects upon northeast Asian politics. In Wansui Tongtian 1 (696), the Wu Zhou court was embroiled in twin conflicts with the Tubo and the Turks,39 and “In summer, fifth month, twelfth day, Ying Prefecture Khitan Songmo Army Commander Li Jinzhong and Guicheng Prefectural Governor Sun Wanrong mobilized their troops in a rebellion, stormed and captured Ying Prefecture, and killed Army Commander Zhao Wenhui. Jinzhong and Wanrong were brothers-inlaw, and both lived in the capital of Ying Prefecture”; “Jinzhong, who called himself ‘the Peerless Khan,’ seized Ying Prefecture, with Wanrong in the vanguard.”40 This large-scale revolt went on for more than a year and exerted a major impact upon political affairs. The Khitan rebellion forced the Tang court to withdraw administratively and militarily from the region beyond the Great Wall, and Ying Prefecture descended into anarchy. Therefore, the Sumo Mohe and the survivors of Goguryeo who had been resettled in Ying Prefecture for thirty years, ever since the fall of Goguryeo, seized the opportunity to escape from supervision and return to the original homeland of the Sumo Mohe (near present-day Dunhua, Jilin Province), where they established a separatist kingdom. At the time, Empress Regnant Wu was occupied with the Khitan and had no choice but to take a conciliatory approach toward the Mohe, appointing their leader Geolgeol Jungsang Duke of Zhen (written either 震 or 振). Even so, some Mohe refused to go along. Thus, once the Khitan rebellion had been pacified, Empress Regnant Wu sent the army to suppress the rebellious Mohe. However, they encountered strong resistance from Dae Jo-yeong, son of Geolgeol Jungsang, and his men. A number of the surviving Khitan as well as the Xi had surrendered to the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, particularly since the defeat of the Khitan, and the khaganate’s territory thus crossed the route by which the Central Plain court would have attacked the Mohe, blocking access. This enabled Dae Jo-yeong to establish a kingdom that he at first called Jin (the Korean pronunciation of “Zhen”), after his father’s title, then renamed to Balhae in Xiantian 2 (713), when a new title was conferred by the Tang court.41 The rise of the Balhae Mohe spurred the reestablishment of amicable ties between Tang and Silla. After Balhae was founded, it expanded

76  X. WANG

not only into northeastern China, but the Korean peninsula as well, putting a check on the growth of unified Silla. To effectively restrain Balhae, the Tang court had to maintain a favorable relationship with Silla so as to put the kingdom under pressure from both sides; Silla, for its part, wanted to reestablish historically friendly ties with China in order to counterbalance Balhae’s power and further its own growth by absorbing the advanced culture of Tang. Studies have suggested that Silla’s 699 mission to Tang may have been dispatched partly in relation to these aims.42 Although, from 703 on, Silla paid tribute to the Chinese court perhaps more frequently than any other kingdom,43 it was only in the 730 s that a drastic turnaround in diplomatic relations between Tang and Silla took place. In Kaiyuan 21 (733), Emperor Xuanzong of Tang requested that Silla dispatch troops to attack Balhae, and Silla immediately agreed. Though the operation was halted due to deep winter snows, to reward Silla for its faithfulness, the Tang court officially recognized the Pae River (the present-day Taedong River in North Korea) as Silla’s northern border.44 Thus, relations between the two countries entered a phase of sustained amicability and wide-ranging development. To entice Silla to dispatch its military to suppress the Balhae Mohe, the Tang court granted the king of Silla the special title of Envoy of the Peacekeeping Navy in the hopes that Silla would maintain peace on the seas following the surprise attack upon the Chinese in Deng Prefecture (present-day Penglai, Shandong Province).45 The same title was granted to several subsequent generations of Silla kings, until Jang Bogo established the Cheonghae Garrison in southern Silla in the mid-Tang dynasty.46 In summary, after relations between Tang and Silla were restored in the 830s, ties between the two sides grew progressively closer, greatly benefitting the social development of unified Silla. In the eighth and ninth centuries, northeast Asian powers were efficiently balanced, with the strategic partnership of Tang and Silla serving as the center of gravity, maintaining a stable international order for nearly two hundred years. These were positive, historically significant developments. Emperor Tenji and generations of subsequent emperors reflected deeply on Japan’s crushing defeat in the Battle of Baekgang. They realized that Japan could not hope to be Tang’s equal, and that if it wanted to become a strong East Asian state, it would have to establish a centralized power structure, reinforce and consolidate imperial power, and implement domestic policies focusing on modernizing the state and

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

77

strengthening the people. It is apparent that, thanks to forty years of persistent effort following the Battle of Baekgang, Japan did make strides in many areas. The second lesson Japanese rulers drew from their defeat in the Battle of Baekgang was that, in order for Japan to achieve rapid political, economic, and cultural development, a peaceful environment was needed, and in addition, it was absolutely necessary to establish favorable relationships with neighboring states in order to learn from the advanced culture of continental Asia. Therefore, the subsequent Nara period proved a new era in Japan’s relationships with other countries. In 701, with the enactment of the Taihō Code, the ritsuryō system was put in place, and Japan dispatched the eighth mission to Tang, the first diplomatic contact between the two states in thirty-two years. This mission clearly demonstrated that the purpose of Japan’s interactions with China had shifted from attaining political goals to learning from Chinese culture. The relevant entry in the “Annals of Japan” chapter of Old Book of Tang makes the cultural and educational character of the mission quite clear: “In Chang’an 3 (703), their high official Ason Mahito came to pay tribute in the form of local products. Just like a Chinese minister of works, Ason Mahito wore a jindeguan crown with a floral crest of four segments, and was clad in a purple robe with a silken belt. Mahito knew a great deal about Confucian classics and historical works as well as their commentaries, and had a graceful, refined air. [Empress] Zetian put him up in Lindedian Pavilion, appointed him Minister of Imperial Entertainments, and sent him back to Japan.” The efforts of the Japanese to attain a higher level of acculturation had at last proven effective: they had done their utmost to build a governmental structure similar to the Tang court and to create a culture of a quality to equal China’s, and now they had received international recognition. The Japanese were extremely proud of this, as recorded in the entry for the first day of the seventh month of Keiun 1 (704) in Fascicle 3 of Shoku Nihongi (Further Chronicles of Japan 続日本紀): “The people of Tang said to our envoy, ‘We have heard that there is a great Wo kingdom across the eastern sea. It is said to be a noble kingdom where the people live in happiness and prosperity and behave with righteousness and propriety. Having seen how their envoy carries himself with such grace, how could we not believe it?’”. From this point on, earnest, sincere study of Chinese culture became the primary aim of every Japanese mission to Tang. For instance, the “Memorial Tablet of I, Chief Official of Royal Apparel”

78  X. WANG

(“Zeng Shangyi Fengyu Jing gongmu zhi” 赠尚衣奉御井公墓志), available for viewing at Northwest University, reads as follows: “Surname I, given name Manari, of Japan, was a man of God-given talents who was chosen to serve as an envoy to distant China. He was proficient in rites and music and appeared in court in full traditional dress. He was a man with few equals!”. Some Japanese scholars argue that, “In the aftermath of the Battle of Baekgang, as in the Meiji Restoration and the post-World War II period, it may be said that the whole nation acted in concert to import the national systems and culture of an ‘enemy state.’”47 In fact, the periods are distinguished by one major difference: following the Battle of Baekgang, particularly following Japan’s establishment of the ritsuryō system after the Chinese model, the focus of state policy shifted from regional political machinations to insularity, peace, and growth. Japanese scholar Mori Kimiyuki’s After the Battle of Baekgang (“Hakusonkō” igo 「白村江」以後), Chapter 3 (“The Establishment of the Ritsuryō State of ‘Japan’”), Part 5 (“The Shift Toward Passive Diplomacy”), covers essentially the following subjects: the severance of diplomatic ties with the peninsula, the refusal of requests for assistance from Tamra (present-day Jeju Island, Korea), the avoidance of contact with the Tang court, “tributes” from Silla, emulation of Tang models, and the formation of a “disparaging attitude” toward China. This should be sufficient to explain the problem. Though the purpose of all Japanese missions from the eighth mission to Tang onward was to study Chinese culture, Japan refused to request titles from the Tang court, even if it meant being considered a “barbarian kingdom.”48 Such behavior can be considered a manifestation of the shift toward political insularity. The transformation in the purpose of the missions to Tang reflects the transition of Japanese national policy toward peace and growth, a transition that is also apparent in relations between northeast Asian powers. To begin with, Japan ceased making war abroad. Although, during the period in question, historical documents do record several expeditions to Silla, none appears to have been successful.49 Second, following the Battle of Baekgang, Japan remained on the sidelines of regional politics, even in the An Lushan Rebellion.50 Third, Japan took a conservative approach to foreign diplomacy: in the eighth century, it began withdrawing from interactions with Silla, until, in 779, all contact ceased; its interactions in Tang were mainly cultural and educational, involving little give and a great deal of take; in its interactions with Balhae, Japan

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

79

behaved in exactly the opposite manner, with Balhae expressing a desire to develop maritime trade and Japan actively putting in place restrictions. Particularly from the mid-eighth century onward, northeast Asian international relations gradually stabilized, and interactions between Japan and Balhae therefore lost much of their political character, transitioning toward pure economic and cultural exchange. Balhae missions comprised mostly of grand chieftains made fervent appeals which Japan repeatedly refused. Japanese officials often cited failure of correspondence to adhere to etiquette, failure to pay tributes, and even disease outbreaks as pretexts for blithely turning away trade missions from Balhae that had endured arduous sea crossings.51 Later, this incited turmoil and piracy.52 It is apparent that beneath the grand façade of what some scholars have described as a “disparaging attitude” toward China lay an insular, exclusionary attitude. During this period, although Japan was not as proactive in regional politics as it had been in the seventh century and prior, it enjoyed long-term, peaceful development. It is widely known that Japan’s ritsuryō system and its highly distinctive traditional culture primarily took shape in this period. As in the Chinese proverb “to lose a horse may turn out to be a blessing,” to grasp the true nature of this period in history, deep reflection is indispensable.

Notes



1. Shen Ren’an 沈仁安, “Han shu, Hou Han shu Wo ren jishi kaoshi” 〈汉 书〉、〈后汉书〉倭人记事考释 [A study of entries on the Wo people in The Book of Han and The Book of the Later Han], in Riben shi yanjiu xushuo 日本史研究序说 [Preliminary research findings on Japanese history] (Hong Kong Social Sciences Press, 2001), 68. See also “‘Wo Wu Wang’ qianshi chushou kao” “倭五王”遣使除授考 [A consideration of the dispatching of envoys and appointment of officials by the “Five Wo Kings”] by the same author (begins on p. 180 of the aforementioned work). 2. Fascicle 1 of History of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk sagi 三國史記) by Kim Bu-sik, “Basic Annals of Silla” (“Silla bongi” 新羅本紀), begins with the ascension of King Hyeokgeose in the fourth month of Wufeng 1 (BC 57) during the reign of Emperor Xuan of Han. As the kingdom was not given an official name until AD 503, it is referred to in the “Basic Annals of Silla” fascicle of History of the Three Kingdoms as “Seonabeol,” “Jinhan Yukbu,” “Gyerim,” and “Silla,” and in the “Annals of Korea” (“Han zhuan” 韩传) section of Records of the Three Kingdoms (San guo zhi 三国 志) as “Jinhan” (including twelve small kingdoms).

80  X. WANG





3.  According to the “Annals of Korea” chapter of Records of the Three Kingdoms, “In the Jingchu era (237–239), Emperor Ming secretly dispatched Liu Xin, grand administrator of Daifang, and Xianyu Si, grand administrator of Lelang, across the sea to pacify the two commanderies… as the states of Korea had originally been unified under Lelang, Regional Administrator Wu Lin divided Jinhan into eight states and gave them to Lelang. However, due to a linguistic interpretation error by a clerk, the Korean people of Sinbunhwal became incensed and attacked Qili Camp in Daifang. Thereupon, Grand Administrator Gong Zun and Lelang Grand Administrator Liu Mao raised a force and struck back. Gong perished in the battle, but the two commanderies proceeded to defeat the Koreans”; “Byeonhan and Jinhan were made up of twenty-four states in all. The large kingdoms had four to five thousand families and the small kingdoms had six or seven hundred, with a total of forty of fifty thousand residents. Twelve of the kingdoms belonged to the king of Jin [Jinhan]. Generation after generation, the kings of Jinhan came from Mahan. The people of Jinhan were unable to be seated on the throne of their own kingdom.” Also, according to the “Annals of the Wo” (“Wo ren zhuan” 倭人传) chapter of the same work, immediately after Wei seized Lelang and Daifang, the Japanese queen sent a mission to seek an audience with the court. It is apparent that Jinhan and Japan had previously been in conflict, relying upon the forces of Mahan and the Gongsun family of Liaodong. The development of the relationships between these parties is deserving of further study. 4. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of History of Southern Dynasties states, “During the Jianyuan era of the [Southern] Qi dynasty, King Bu was appointed Envoy and Great Eastern General Overseeing the Military Affairs of the Six Kingdoms of Wo, Silla, Mimana, Gaya, Jinhan, and Mahan. Emperor Wu of Liang took the throne and conferred upon King Bu the title of Great Conquering General of the East.” See also the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Southern Qi (Nan Qi shu 南齐书) and the “Annals of Wo” chapter of The Book of Liang. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui records that Japan was “in communication with China from the Wei dynasty to the Qi and the Liang,” but makes no mention of the conferral of titles. Comparing these historical materials, it appears that the Qi and Liang courts conferred titles upon the Wo kings at times when there was intercourse and exchange of envoys between Japan and China. 5. See Shen Ren’an, “‘Wo Wu Wang’ qianshi chushou kao,” “Si, wu shiji Ri chao guanxi de ruogan wenti” 四、五世纪日朝关系的若干问题 [Some problems concerning the relationship between Japan and the Chinese court in the fourth and fifth centuries], and “Zaoqi Ri chao guanxi

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 









81

chutan” 早期日朝关系初探 [A preliminary investigation of the early relationship between Japan and the Chinese court], in Riben shi yanjiu yushuo, 189–190, 192–217. 6. See Academy of Sciences of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Historical Research Institute, “Baiji he Xinluo guo de jianli yiji liu Gaye” 百济和新罗国的建立以及六伽倻 [The establishment of Baekje and Silla and the six states of Gaya], chap. 3, section 2 in Chaoxian tong shi 朝 鲜通史 [A comprehensive history of Korea], trans. Yanbian Prefecture Translation Team 延边州翻译组 (Jilin Renmin Chubanshe, 1975), 1: 106–109; Qian Kuanyu 千宽宇, “Baiji, Xinluo zhengduo Gaye yu Gaye zhi mie” 百济、新罗争夺伽耶与伽耶之灭 [Baekje and Silla’s struggle for Gaya and Gaya’s defeat], part IV in “Gaye shi yanjiu” 伽耶史研究 [A historical study of Gaya], chap. 1 in Gaye shi yanjiu 伽耶史研究 [A historical study of Gaya] (Seoul: Ilchokak Publishing Co., Ltd., 1997), 37–54. 7. Some scholars even believe that the letter beginning “The eastern king of heaven sends his respects to the emperor of the west” of Japan’s third mission to Sui is a subsequent forgery by the compiler of Nihon shoki; see Hsu Hsien-yao 徐先尧, Er Wang chidu yu Riben Shuji suozai guoshu zhi yanjiu—Sui Tang qi Zhong Ri guanxi shi zhi yi zhang 二王尺牍与日 本书纪所载国书之研究——隋唐期中日关系史之一章 [A study of correspondence between two monarchs and diplomatic letters recorded in Nihon shoki: One chapter in China-Japan relations in the Sui and Tang period], chaps. 3–5 (Taipei: Yi Hsien Publishing Co., Ltd., 2003), 143 onward. 8. The term used for tribute here is suigong (岁贡), which generally refers to a system for governing relationships between the provinces and the central government within China; here, however, it appears to be used in an analogous sense, indicating not a binding system but an awareness and expectation of regular behavior by Japan on China’s part, as in the “tributes at harvest time” presented by various Wo kingdoms according to the “Geography” chapter of The Book of Han. In other words, what Emperor Taizong of Tang means to say is that the Japanese endured a long journey to reach the court, and thus he deigns to receive them in a casual way at their convenience. 9.  Name given as “Gao Biaoren” in the “Annals of the Eastern Wo Barbarians” (“Dong yi Wo guo zhuan” 东夷倭国传) chapter of Old Book of Tang. 10. “Dong yi Riben zhuan” 东夷日本传 [Annals of the eastern barbarians of Japan], Xin Tang shu 新唐书 [New book of Tang]. 11. See Shen Ren’an, “Tang Ri guanxi de ruogan wenti” 唐日关系的若干问 题 [Some problems concerning relations between the Tang court and Japan], in Riben shi yanjiu yushuo, 231.

82  X. WANG 12. The “Annals of the Eastern Wo Barbarians” chapter of Old Book of Tang states, “In [Zhenguan] 22, Silla again mediated by delivering a memorial to the court.” Japanese historical works report that the second mission to Tang departed in 653, and Zhenguan 22 is the year AD 648, so the only reasonable interpretation is that Silla acted as an intermediary. 13. Entry for the fifth month of Hakuchi 4 (653), Nihon shoki. 14. Entry for Hakuchi 2 (651), Nihon shoki. 15.  Kingdom of Wo entry, Tang hui yao 唐会要 [Institutional history of Tang], f. 99. 16. Hori Toshikazu 堀敏一, Sui Tang diguo yu Dong Ya 隋唐帝国与东亚 [The Sui and Tang empires and East Asia] (Yunnan People’s Publishing House, 2002), 47. 17. Kitō Kiyoaki 鬼頭清明, Hakusonkō—Higashi Ajia no dōran to Nihon 白村 江―東アジアの動乱と日本 [Baekgang: Turmoil in East Asia and Japan] (Tokyo: Kyōikusha, 1988), 182 onward; Nishijima Sadao 西嶋定生, Nihon rekishi no kokusai kankyō 日本歴史の国際環境 [The international environment of Japanese history] (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1985), 120 onward; Mori Kimiyuki 森公章, “Hakusonkō” igo 「白村江」 以後 [After the Battle of Baekgang] (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1999), 14–15. 18. See my own work “Xinluo beijie yu Tang chao Liaodong” 新罗北界与唐 朝辽东 [The northern border of Silla and Liaodong in the Tang dynasty], Shixue jigan 史学集刊 3 (2005): 41–47. 19. See Lee Ki-baik 李基白, Hanguo shi xin lun 韩国史新论 [A new theory of Korean history] (Chinese translated edition) (Guoji Wenhua Chuban Gongsi, 1994), 48–49. In fact, King Seong of Baekje (r. 523–554) moved the capital from Gomnaru to Sabi (present-day Buyeo) not only because he was forcibly elbowed out, but because doing so facilitated calling on allies across the ocean to resist assaults, as was the case in the subsequent Battle of Baekje. 20. See Qian, Gaye shi yanjiu, 44–52. 21.  See “Silla bongi je yuk: Munmu Wang” 新罗本纪第六·文武王 [Basic annals of Silla 6: King Munmu], Samguk sagi. 22. “Dong yi Baiji zhuan” 东夷百济传 [Annals of the eastern barbarians of Baekje], Jiu Tang shu 旧唐书 [Old book of Tang]. 23. “Dong yi Xinluo zhuan” 东夷新罗传 [Annals of the eastern barbarians of Silla], Jiu Tang shu. 24. Zizhi tongjian 资治通鉴 [Comprehensive mirror in aid of governance], f. 200. 25. Kingdom of Wo entry, Tang hui yao, f. 99. 26.  With regard to the name of the river, according to General Survey of the Territory of Eastern Kingdoms (New Expanded Edition) ([Xinzeng] Dongguo yudi shenglan [新增]东国舆地胜览), Fascicle 18,

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 

83

while on an exhibition against Baekje, Tang general Su Dingfang put a white horse on a fishing hook and fished the river dragon from Baek River, quelling the violent rapids, and thus the river came to be called White Horse (Baekma 白馬) River, the name the Koreans still use today. Chinese historical sources abbreviate the name to White River (Baekgang 白江). For unknown reasons, Japanese historical sources call it White Village River (Hakusonkō 白村江). Japanese academics have often discussed the “Battle of Hakusonkō” and its historical impact without having a clear understanding of what Baek River and the mouth of Baek River are or where Juryu Fortress was located (see Zheng Xiaoyun 郑 孝云, “‘Baijiang zhandou’ de wenti dian yu duiwai guanxi” “白江战 斗”的问题点与对外关系 [Points concerning the ‘Battle of Baekgang’ and foreign relations], chap. 4, part 2 in Gudai Han Ri zhengzhi jiaoshe shi yanjiu 古代韩日政治交涉史研究 [A study of the history of political negotiations between ancient Korea and Japan] (Seoul: Xueyan Wenhua She, 1995), 177–185; Mori, “Hakusonkō” igo, 105). A detailed examination of relevant local historical records confirms that the upper reaches of Baek River (written 白沙 in Samguk sagi, Fascicle 7; clearly a mistake for 白江 due to the similarity of the characters) or Baekma River originate where the Geumgang River converges with the Geum River, and its lower reaches terminate at Godajin in Imcheon County (present-day Imseo, Buyeo County); when historical materials refer to “the mouth of the White River” (Bai Gang kou 白江口), they are referring to the terminus of the lower reaches of the Baekma River at Godajin. The battle took place in the Godajin and Ganggyeong area. For a detailed investigation, see my own work “Bai Jiang Kou zhi Zhan xiangguan shidi kaolun” 白江口之战相关实地考论 [An onsite investigation regarding the Battle of Baekgang], in Sheng Tang shidai yu dongbei Ya zhengju [The golden age of Tang and political circumstances in northeast Asia] (Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House, 2003). 27. “Liu Rengui zhuan” 刘仁轨传 [Annals of Liu Rengui], Jiu Tang shu. 28. For instance, in 661, once the threat of Baekje had been suppressed, the Tang army withdrew, with generals such as Liu Renyuan and Liu Rengui remaining to defend the prefectural city of Baekje and Gomnaru and to pacify their remaining adherents. Subsequently, Su Dingfang was ordered to attack Goguryeo, putting Pyongyang under siege, but withdrew without success. Thereupon, Emperor Gaozong sent an edict commanding Liu Rengui, “Now that the Pyongyang army has returned, you cannot secure the city on your own. Pull out and go to Silla, where you can share the garrison facilities. Kim Beop-min [son of Kim Chun-chu, King Munmu of Silla, r. 661–681] and the ministers may stay with the

84  X. WANG garrison to assist in holding off the enemy; if this is not necessary, set sail for home immediately” (entry for Tang Gaozong Longshuo 2 [622], seventh month, thirtieth day, Zizhi tongjian, f. 200). After receiving the edict from Emperor Gaozong, the Tang military’s “generals and men all wanted to return home.” Under these circumstances, Liu Rengui clearly described the Tang court’s strategy in northeast Asia to the officers and men of the Tang military: “In order to annex Goguryeo, His Majesty first destroyed Baekje and left soldiers behind to guard it and control key strategic points. The enemy is numerous, but very poorly prepared. If we sharpen our weapons, feed our horses, and strike when they least expect it, how could we fail to win? Once we emerge victorious, the men will be safe. Then we will divide forces and take up strategic positions, expanding out across the land, and we will send a memorial to the court to request more ships and men. When the court hears our request, it will certainly dispatch generals and troops to aid us, and we are sure to crush the enemy. Success will be ours, and the turmoil overseas will be permanently settled. At present, the army of Pyongyang has pulled out of Gomnaru and returned home. The remnants of the defeated Baekje military may soon rise again and assemble in Goguryeo, giving us the opportunity to wipe them out. Once the enemy is gathered in one city, we will wait them to make a misstep, then kill and capture them all. Having withdrawn to Silla, we are guests here, and there are certain matters in which we can do little if we do not get our way. Furthermore, Boksin is an extraordinarily cruel, vicious man. Prince Buyeo Pung of Baekje distrusts him, and the tentative truce between them will not hold for long. With these two ruthless men in one place, there is sure to be violence. We should stay on guard until the situation changes and seize the opportunity when it comes. Now is not the time to act rashly.” Thereupon, “the multitude of men agreed” (“Annals of Liu Rengui,” Old Book of Tang). It is apparent that neither the Tang emperor nor the officers and men of the Tang military paid any heed to Japan or the Japanese military. The Tang court only clashed with Goguryeo for reasons of regional politics, and was only pulled into peninsular affairs by Silla. The early Tang court’s strategy in northeast Asia did not and could not involve military aggression against Japan, and it is for this reason that the encounter with Japanese military at the mouth of Baek River caught the Tang military off guard. 29.  “Chaosan dafu” (朝散大夫) is the title of a sinecure post of subcongwupin (从五品) rank in the Tang court. In the Tang system, such officials had no official duties, but were able to play a minor role in the selection of officials if they served in the Ministry of War or the Ministry of Civil Appointment (see the “Langzhong and Yuanwailang Officials of

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 





85

the Ministry of Civil Appointment” (“Libu Langzhong Yuanwailang” 吏 部郎中员外郎) entry in Chapter 2 of The Six Statutes of the Tang Dynasty (Tang liu dian 唐六典). The notion that Guo Wucong was sent as an envoy in a sinecure capacity, that is, with no official duties, and with no title as an envoy, is highly doubtful. 30. Mori, “Hakusonkō” igo; Nishijima, Nihon rekishi no kokusai kankyō, 120 onward. 31.  Zizhi tongjian. f. 201. 32. “Silla bongi je yuk: Munmu Wang,” Samguk sagi. 33. Taiwanese scholar Hsu Hsien-yao believes that “Based on the ‘Annals of Japan’ chapter of Old Book of Tang and the entry for the twelfth month of Munmu 10 (670) in History of the Three Kingdoms, Wo changed its name to Nihon because, after suspending missions to Tang following the threatening show of force by Liu Renyuan’s envoy, Japan feared the Tang court would further pursue it for its role in the Battle of Baekgang. Within Japan, the country was referred to as ‘Yamato’ (corresponding to the Chinese characters 山門 or 山戸 [gate or door to the mountains]), and to other countries, it referred to itself as Nihon. The need to maintain diplomatic ties with China played a particular role in the name change, which was in accordance with the old concept of ‘the land of the rising sun.’” (See the previously cited work by the same author, Er Wang chidu yu Riben Shuji suozai guoshu zhi yanjiu, 197.) However, between the 664 mission of “Liu Renyuan’s envoy,” i.e. Guo Wucong, and the 668 fall of Goguryeo, Japan sent two further missions to Tang, in 665 and 667. Therefore, fear of being pursued for its role in the Battle of Baekgang seems not to be the sole reason why Japan changed its name. It seems more plausible that, following the destruction of Goguryeo, Japan feared suffering the same fate. 34. Based primarily upon the entry for the twelfth month of Munmu 10 (670) in “Silla bongi je yuk,” Samguk sagi: “Wo changed its name to Nihon because, as it claimed, it is a land near the source of the sun.” 35. See my own work “Xinluo beijie yu Tang chao Liaodong,” 43–44. 36. “Annals of the Turks, Part One” 突厥传上 [Tujue zhuan shang], Old Book of Tang: “From the Jingū era (697) onward, the Khitan and the Xi were frequently subjected to expeditions by it [the khaganate].” “Annals of the Northern Shiwei Barbarians” 北狄室韦传 [Bei di Shiwei zhuan], New Book of Tang: “The kingdom had no supreme leader, only chieftains who were called ‘baghatur.’ Each governed his own people but submitted to Turkish authority.” According to “Annals of the Northern Barbarians of Balhae” 北狄渤海传 [Bei di Bohai zhuan], New Book of Tang, the Heishui Mohe “formerly requested tudun from the Turks, who always notified us first.” A tudun is a Turkish official who would be dispatched

86  X. WANG







to vassal states to oversee the payment of taxes; see “Tujue zhuan xia” 突 厥传下 [Annals of the Turks, part two], New Book of Tang. 37.  See the “Pinglu Army Regional Military Governors” 平卢军节度使 [Pinglu Jun jiedushi] entry and the “Liucheng” 柳城 [Liucheng] entry, “Treatise on Geography 1” 地理志一 [Dili zhi yi], Old Book of Tang. With regard to the position and role of Ying Prefecture in Tang dynasty northeast border defense, see my paper “The Tang Dynasty Pinglu Army and the Balhae Area” 唐代平卢军与环渤海地域 [Tang Dai Pinglu Jun yu Bohai diyu] in my work Sheng Tang shidai yu dongbei Ya zhengju. 38.  Zizhi tongjian, f. 205. 39.  The “Wu Yizong’s Army Goes to Zhao Prefecture” 武懿宗军至赵州 [Wu Yizong jun zhi Zhao Zhou] entry in Fascicle 206 of Zizhi tongjian records Sun Wanrong’s final mournful wail: “It is too late for you to submit to Tang. Submit to the Turks, and you die; submit to Silla, and you die. There is nowhere left for you to go!” It is clear that he had considered the impact of the Khitan rebellion upon the options open to the Khitan and their relationships with various parties. 40.  Zizhi tongjian, f. 205. 41.  See the “Annals of the Northern Barbarians of Balhae” chapter of New Book of Tang and the “Annals of the Northern Balhae and Mohe Barbarians” 北狄渤海靺鞨传 [Bei Di Bohai Mohe zhuan] chapter of Old Book of Tang. These sources make it clear that the kingdom of Balhae was from beginning to end a vassal state of the Central Plain court, and the legitimacy of its regime rested on titles granted by the central government. In Balhae, internal disputes often arose in relation to this. See my own works “Zong lun: Sui Tang Wu Dai dongbei Ya zhengzhi guanxi dashi” 总论: 隋唐五代东北亚政治关系大势 [Preface: Trends in political relationships in northeast Asia in the Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties period], part 4, “Mohe, Nüzhen zhi dixing” 靺鞨、女真之递兴 [The rise of the Mohe and the Jurchen] and “Tang chao yu Xinluo guanxi shi lun—Jian lun tongyi Xinluo zai Dong Ya shijie zhong de diwei” 唐朝与 新罗关系史论——兼论统一新罗在东亚世界中的地位 [A historical survey of relations between the Tang court and Silla—Including a survey of the role of unified Silla in East Asia and the world], in Sheng Tang shidai yu dongbei Ya zhengju, 16–19, 338–339; see also Kaneko Shūichi 金子修 一, “Tōchō yori mita Bokkai no nabunteki ichizuke ni tsuite” 唐朝より見 た渤海の名分的位置付けについて [On the status and position of Balhae from the viewpoint of the Tang court], in Higashi Ajia shi ni okeru kokka to chiiki (Tō Dai Shi Kenkyūkai hōkoku) 東アジア史における国家と地 域 (唐代史研究会報告) [The state and the region in East Asian history (a report by the Tang Dynasty Research Society)], ed. Tang Dynasty Research Society 唐代史研究会 (Tokyo: Tōsui Shobō, 1999), 402–424;

2  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER … 













87

Hamada Kōsaku 浜田耕策, Bokkaikoku kōbō shi 渤海国興亡史 [A history of the rise and fall of Balhae] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2000), 16–17; Ma Yihong 马一虹, “Tang feng Da Zuorong ‘Bohai Jun Wang’ hao kao—Jian ji Tang chao dui Bohai yu Gaojuli guanxi de renshi” 唐 封大祚荣 “渤海郡王” 号考——兼及唐朝对渤海与高句丽关系的认识 [A consideration of the Tang court’s conferral of the title ‘King of Balhae Prefecture” upon Dae Jo-yeong: Also making mention of the Tang court’s awareness of relations between Balhae and Goguryeo], Beifang wenwu 北方文物 2 (2002): 61–66. 42. See Huang Yuese 黄约瑟, “Wu Zetian yu Chaoxian bandao zhengju” 武则天与朝鲜半岛政局 [Wu Zetian and the political situation of the Korean peninsula], in Huang Yuese Sui Tang shi lun ji 黄约瑟隋唐史论集 [Huang Yuese Sui and Tang history essay collection], ed. Liu Jianming 刘 健明 (Zhonghua Book Company, 1997), 72–73. 43. See Huang, “Wu Zetian yu Chaoxian bandao zhengju,” 73. 44. See Huang Yuese, “Du Qu jiang ji suo shou Tang yu Bohai ji Xinluo chishu” 读〈曲江集〉所收唐与渤海及新罗敕书 [Reading imperial letters to Balhae and Silla recorded in Qujiang collection], in Huang Yuese Sui Tang shi lun ji, 95–102. See also Chen Yinke 陈寅恪, Tang dai zhengzhi shi shulun gao 唐代政治史述论稿 [A study of Tang dynasty political history], 150–151; and my own work Xinluo beijie yu Tang chao Liaodong, 44–45. 45.  See “Dong yi Xinluo zhuan,” Jiu Tang shu, 5337. According to the chapter of the same name in New Book of Tang, “The Balhae Mohe raided Deng Prefecture, and Heunggwang [king of Silla] attacked and drove them off. The emperor gave Heunggwang the title Envoy of the Peacekeeping Navy and sent him to attack the Mohe” (6205); in fact, however, the king of Silla first dispatched the military and then was awarded the title. As Balhae employed Yellow Sea pirates in the attack on Deng Prefecture, it is possible that there was conflict with Silla prior to this. See Hamada Kōsaku, “Shinra ōken to kaijō seiryoku—toku ni Chō Hokō no Seikaichin to kaizoku ni kanren shite” 新羅王権と海上勢力特に張保皐の清海鎮と海賊に関連して [Silla’s regime and naval forces: Particularly in relation to Jang Bogo’s Cheonghae Garrison and pirates], in Higashi Ajia shi ni okeru kokka to chiiki, 454–455. 46. Hamada, “Shinra ōken to kaijō seiryoku,” 455–456. 47. See Kamigaito Ken’ichi 上垣外憲一, Nihon bunka kōryū shōshi—Higashi Ajia dentō bunka no naka de 日本文化交流小史-東アジア伝統文化のな かで [A brief history of Japanese cultural exchange—Within the traditional culture of East Asia] (Tokyo: Chūkō Shinsho, 2000), 49. 48. See Mori, Hakusonkō igo, 214–215. For instance, Fascicle 19 of Shoku Nihongi records that in 754, a Japanese envoy and an envoy from Silla

88  X. WANG “vied for position” at the Tang court; in any event, they were both vying for status as “barbarian kingdoms.” With regard to the issue of diplomatic “bilaterality” suggested by the failure of historical documents to make any mention of Japanese memorials to Tang, Taiwanese scholar Hsu Hsien-yao makes the following observation based on his textual research: “Given that the Chinese emperor had issued imperial letters to the Japanese monarch, and the Japanese monarch paid tribute to the Tang emperor, how could memorials not have been presented?” See Hsu Hsien-yao, Er Wang chidu yu Riben Shuji suozai guoshu zhi yanjiu, 200–201. 49.  See Ma Yihong, “Hachiseiki chūyō no Bokkai to Nihon no kankei— Nana roku ni nen Bokkai dai roku ji gen Nihon shi o chūshin ni” 八世 紀中葉の渤海と日本の関係―七六二年渤海第六次遣日本使を中心 に [The relationship between Balhae and Japan in the mid-eighth century—Focusing on Balhae’s sixth mission to Japan in 762], Kokugakuin Daigaku Daigakuin kiyō (Bungaku Kenkyū Ka) 國學院大學大学院紀要 (文学研究科) [Kokugakuin University Graduate School bulletin (Literary Research Department)], vol. 29 offprint (March 1998): 261–281; Hamada, Bokkaikoku kōbō shi, 49–53. The “Basic Annals of Silla 8” (“Silla bongi je pal” 新罗本纪第八) chapter of History of the Three Kingdoms records that in the fourth month of the thirtieth year of the reign of King Seongdeok of Silla (731), “Three hundred Japanese naval ships crossed the ocean and attacked our eastern coast. The king dispatched the military and crushed them.” However, as Japanese sources make no mention whatsoever of these events, doubt remains as to whether they occurred. Given conditions within Japan at the time, such records of military affairs must be subjected to thorough analysis. 50. See Nishijima, Nihon rekishi no kokusai kankyō, 120 onward; Entry for Tenpyō Hōji 2 (758) of the reign of Emperor Junnin, twelfth month, tenth day, Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀 [Further chronicles of Japan], f. 21. 51. See Hamada, Bokkaikoku kōbō shi, 90–104, 107–108, 124–126, 132–133, 147–152, 162–165, 178–180, 187–193; Furuhata Tōru 古畑徹, “Kan Nihon Kai chiiki kan kōryū shi no naka no Bokkaikoku” 環日本海地域 間交流史の中の渤海国 [Balhae in the history of interregional relations in the Sea of Japan coastal area], in Higashi Ajia shi ni okeru kokka to chiiki, 434–438. 52. Furuhata, “Kan Nihon Kai chiiki kan kōryū shi no naka no Bokkaikoku,” 439–440; Hamada, “Shinra ōken to kaijō seiryoku,” Higashi Ajia shi ni okeru kokka to chiiki, 464.

CHAPTER 3

The East Asian International Order and China–Japan Relations in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries Xinsheng Wang

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Chinese mainland was ruled by the Ming court, and its tribute system furnished East Asia with an international order; Japan, among other states, was part of this system. However, due to conflicts of interest, internal turmoil, piracy by the Wokou (倭寇),1 problems related to regional trade, and so on, there was constant friction and even occasional armed conflict between the two sides. Not only did “tally trade” (kanhe maoyi 勘合贸易) come to an end, relations between China and Japan remained severed entirely for more than three hundred years.

1  The Ming Dynasty Imperial Tribute System In premodern times, the international order of East Asia consisted primarily of the imperial tribute system or chaogong tizhi (朝贡体制) of the mainland Chinese court, though the degree to which the system X. Wang (*)  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_3

89

90  X. WANG

predominated differed depending on the phase of history; the system is also referred to as cefeng tizhi (册封体制), chaogong zhidu (朝贡制 度), chaogong maoyi tizhi (朝贡贸易体制), tianchao lizhi zhixu (天朝礼 治秩序), Hua yi zhixu (华夷秩序), and so on,2 making it clear that it encompassed conferral of titles (shangfeng 赏封), tributes (chaogong 朝 贡), trade (maoyi 贸易), etiquette (liyi 礼仪), order (zhixu 秩序), and so on. Literally, chao (朝) means to have an audience with the emperor, gong (贡) means to present tribute, shang (赏) means to reward a subject with gifts, feng (封) means to confer titles, and maoyi (贸易) refers to trade carried out by tributary states as part of the tribute process. Specifically, the monarchs of states peripheral to continental Asian imperial court sent envoys to seek audiences with and present tributes to the mainland Chinese emperor, and in return, the emperor presented gifts to the envoys and the kings, queens, and ministers of the states they represented, and in some cases conferred titles to the monarchs of these states. Because the value of the gifts far exceeded that of the tributes, and because tributary states could carry out trade as part of the tribute process, tributary states regarded paying tribute as a profitable commercial activity. Special mention should be made of the fact that China, a highly developed, civilized, agricultural state, generally took a defensive stance in foreign diplomacy, that is, it maintained peace in the region with a “loose reigns” (jimi 羁縻) approach. The imperial tribute system through which this approach was implemented had the following characteristics: it was unequal, with the mainland Chinese court placing an emphasis upon political authority, and tributary states paying greater heed to economic benefit; it was permissive, in keeping with the mainland Chinese court’s policy of “accepting all who come and pursuing none who leave” in regard to tributary states; and it was expansive, consisting of the central mainland Chinese court surrounded by concentric rings of tributary states in which relations were stronger with states closer to the center and weaker with those on the periphery. Additionally, the rulers of peripheral states and peoples often drew on the authority of the mainland Chinese court to strengthen their own political positions or enhance their own power, and the mainland Chinese regime likewise needed the imperial tribute system in order to solidify its authority. Beginning with Emperor Wu of Han, “holding dominion over barbarians and receiving tribute from all the world’s kingdoms” became the standard for judging the strength and prosperity of the court. In addition to traditional

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

91

reasons, the following contemporary factors enabled the Ming court to attain great prosperity. First, Zhu Yuanzhang, founding emperor of the Ming dynasty and the only emperor in Chinese history to originate from an impoverished peasant background, sought to enhance his authority by “receiving tribute from all the world’s kingdoms,” and the third Ming emperor, Ming Chengzu, usurped the throne from his nephew, adding to the necessity of receiving tributes as a demonstration of legitimacy; second, to suppress the remnants of Yuan dynasty powers lingering in the north as well the pirates, including the Wokou, plaguing the coastal region, it was necessary to restore peace to the periphery, and to this end, a proactively peace-oriented diplomatic approach was implemented and fifteen “insubordinate states,” including Japan, were designated; third, in contrast with the Song and Yuan dynasties, periods of relatively free foreign trade, the Ming court implemented a strict ban on maritime intercourse, such that peripheral states wishing to trade with the Chinese mainland were forced to do so by submitting tributes; fourth, the strong state power and economic capacity of the early Ming court enabled it to carry out a form of foreign diplomacy in which it treated subjects generously and asked for little in return. The Ming dynasty was founded in January 1368, that is, Hongwu 1. China was not yet completely unified, and in the twelfth month of that year, founding Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang sent special envoys to Annam and Goryeo to announce the founding of a new dynasty, urging these kingdoms to send tribute-bearing envoys to the Ming court. King Chen Rikui of Annam and King Wang Seo of Goryeo sent missions to offer congratulations, pay tributes, and request titles in the sixth and eighth months of Hongwu 2 (1369), respectively. The Ming court then sent Imperial Academy scholar Zhang Yining and archivist Niu Liang to Annam to confer the title “King of Annam” upon Chen Rikui; at the same time, Secretary of Seals Xie Si was dispatched to Goryeo to deliver an imperial letter, a golden seal, and a mandate, and to confer the title of king upon Wang Seo of Goryeo.3 In the first and second months of Hongwu 2 (1369), Zhu Yuanzhang dispatched two batches of envoys to deliver decrees to Japan, Champa, Java, and various Western countries to announce the change in dynasties from the Yuan to the Ming as well as the ascension of a new emperor. The missions also brought datongli almanacs and various silk products as gifts to the monarchs of these states to encourage them to shift

92  X. WANG

their allegiances and become tribute-paying subjects of the Ming court. During the reign of Zhu Yuanzhang (1368–1398), a total of twenty-four different states sent envoys to pay tribute to the Chinese court.4 Additionally, Zhu Yuanzhang instituted a ban on maritime intercourse due to “coastal border disturbances.” These disturbances took two main forms. First, remnants of other anti-Yuan forces posed a threat to the Ming regime. In the peasant uprisings of the late Yuan, rebels such as Zhang Shicheng and Fang Guozhen put up powerful resistance to Zhu Yuanzhang. Though such forces were all ultimately defeated, remnants fled to the high seas and “frequently harassed islanders and pillaged the coast of Shandong.” Thus, it was ordered that “Inhabitants of coastal areas are prohibited from private sea voyages because of frequent plundering by remnants of Fang Guozhen’s forces.”5 The second type of “coastal border disturbance” was piracy by the Wokou. In the early fourteenth century, the late days of the Kamakura shogunate, Japanese society was in turmoil. Even after the Muromachi shogunate was established in 1338, the Northern and Southern Courts remained in conflict, and some western Japanese warlords, merchants, peasants, and fishermen turned to pillaging the Korean peninsula and the Chinese coast in order to fulfill their economic needs—historians call these the “early Wokou.” This period corresponds to the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties, a time of turmoil for both the Korean peninsula and the Chinese mainland. Naval defenses were lax, and as a result, pirates ran rampant, and were even joined in some cases by local powers. For instance, “The remnants of Zhang Shicheng and Fang Guozhen’s forces directed the Wokou who roamed the seas, set fire to people’s houses, and pillaged their belongings. No part of the coast, from Liaohai and Shandong in the north to Fujian, Zhejiang, and eastern Guangzhou in the south, was free from these disturbances.”6 In the twelfth month of Hongwu 4 (1371), Ming Taizu issued an order stating that “The ban on private sea voyages by inhabitants of coastal areas remains in place”7; this is the earliest record of the Ming dynasty prohibition on maritime intercourse. Simultaneously, the emperor flew into a rage at Li Xing, commander of Fujian’s Xinghuawei guard, and others engaged in private maritime commerce: “Because foreign countries can reach us by sea routes, I implemented the ban in an attempt to stop them from coming and going… those who ignore the ban in pursuit of ill-gotten gain will be punished.”8 It is thus apparent that the prohibition on maritime intercourse was intended not only to

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

93

combat piracy, but also to prohibit private maritime commerce. Not only this, it also restricted the times at which tributary states could pay tribute and the items they could present as tribute, and prohibited non-government-affiliated overseas merchants from trading with China. In Hongwu 5 (1372), Ming Taizu issued regulations on the timing of tributes by the Goryeo court and the goods it could present, and in Hongwu 7 (1374), he abolished the seaport offices responsible for foreign trade in Ningbo, Quanzhou, and Guangzhou. Additionally, measures requiring foreigners to present memorials along with their tributes were strictly enforced, and non-government-affiliated merchants who did not present memorials were shut out from tribute trade. In the tenth month of Hongwu 14 (1381), Ming Taizu reiterated that “residents of coastal areas are prohibited from private sea voyages to other countries,”9 and in Hongwu 16 (1383), the tally system was implemented; this involved issuance of permits to tribute-paying states. In Hongwu 23 (1390), it was declared that “the prohibition on intercourse with foreign countries is to be strictly observed,” and in Hongwu 27 (1394), it was declared that “citizens are prohibited from using foreign incense and other foreign goods,” with the emperor citing the following pretext: “The overseas barbarians are swindlers, and contact with them is therefore prohibited. Only Ryūkyū, Chenla, and Siam are permitted to present tribute.”10 In the fourth month of Hongwu 30 (1397), a year prior to his death, Ming Taizu once again declared, “the people are prohibited from going to sea and conducting trade abroad without authorization.”11 In the ninth month of Jianwen 4 (1402), the newly enthroned Yongle Emperor hastily dispatched missions to notify kingdoms such as Annam, Siam, Ryūkyū, and Champa of his ascension, and between the eighth and tenth months of Yongle 1 (1403), sent a total of eight missions comprised of xingren (officials responsible for arranging audiences 行人), geishizhong (imperial attendants 给事中), and huanguan (court eunuchs 宦官) to kingdoms such as Java, Sumatra, and Joseon, presenting the monarchs with gifts and urging them to pay tribute to the Ming court. Chen Cheng was ordered to travel along the ancient western Silk Road, visiting kingdoms such as such as Qumul, Turpan, Samarkand, Bechbaliq, Shiraz, and Herat, all of which sent envoys to pay tribute to the Ming court.12 During the Yongle Period, to encourage more foreign kingdoms to pay tribute to the Ming court, to search for the Jianwen Emperor (whose

94  X. WANG

whereabouts were unknown), and to carry out a mop-up operation of maritime travel routes, the Yongle Emperor dispatched six large-scale missions led by Zheng He across the western sea. At furthest, these missions reached the east coast of Africa. Each time Zheng He’s fleet arrived in a new location, he first recited the Ming emperor’s decree to the local monarch or tribal chief, inviting the kingdom to send envoys to the Chinese court, presenting gifts of silk products and gold and silver coins, gathering tributes in the form of local goods, and carrying out trade using the goods aboard the ships. Zheng He visited more than thirty countries and regions, and nearly all sent return missions to trade with and pay tribute to the Chinese court. The monarchs of four such kingdoms, Borneo, Malacca, Sulu, and Gumalalang, personally traveled to China to seek audiences with Ming Chengzu. During the Yongle period, “Nearly thirty kingdoms far and wide submitted to the authority of the court and paid tribute. The empire’s territory expanded to match that of the great Han and Tang dynasties. Its grand endeavors succeeded, and it reached a height of magnificent prosperity.”13 Not only did the Yongle Emperor treat the visiting envoys generously, he also allowed them to trade in China. When dispatching an inaugural mission to notify other kingdoms of his ascension, he instructed the officials of the Ministry of Rites, “In the time of Emperor Taizu, when foreign envoys visited the court, all were treated fairly, and those who had come to traffic in local goods were allowed to do so. Foreigners were given special consideration and pardoned when they broke regulations out of ignorance. Now all the world is one family, and none are excluded. All kingdoms that sincerely submit themselves and pay tribute to the court shall be granted hearings.”14 During the Hongwu period, trade goods brought by overseas envoys were exempt from taxes, and the Yongle Emperor took still more proactive measures, easing tribute deadlines and restrictions on tribute items, vessels, and personnel, and even explicitly declaring, “Commercial taxes are imposed in order to regulate commerce by citizens, not to gain profit. Admiring our righteous empire, the foreigners have traveled far to reach us, and we would have little to gain by preventing them from profiting. To do so would only tarnish our greatness.”15 At the same time, the Yongle Emperor persisted in implementing a strict prohibition on maritime intercourse, declaring explicitly in his coronation edict, “At present, the soldiers and civilians of the coastal regions frequently take private voyages to foreign countries. This shall no longer

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

95

be permitted. As in the Hongwu period, a prohibition is instituted.”16 Then, in the first month of Yongle 2 (1404), a further regulation was issued: “The people are hereby prohibited from possessing seafaring vessels. Existing seafaring vessels shall be converted to regular boats. The appropriate officials shall prevent them from coming and going.”17 A regulation stating that “Tribute-bearing boats may engage in frontier trade, but those that do not bear tribute may not” had the effect of strongly encouraging trade activity for the nominal purpose of paying tribute to the court. Thus, in Yongle 1 (1403), the Yongle Emperor established three seaport offices in Ningbo, Zhejiang; Quanzhou, Fujian; and Guangzhou, Guangdong. In Yongle 3 (1405), in the same locations, three guesthouses (yiguan 驿馆) named Anyuan (安远), Laiyuan (来远), and Huaiyuan (怀远) were established to receive tribute-bearing envoys and their attendant personnel from abroad. In Yongle 5 (1407), a linguistic institute (siyiguan 四夷馆) was established in the capital to train the interpreters and translators needed to receive tribute-paying envoys. According to classical historical works such as Ming Dynasty Laws and Instructions (Ming hui dian 明会典), A Consideration of Tributes by Foreigners (Waiyi chaogong kao 外夷朝贡考), and History of Ming (Ming shi 明史), more than one hundred states paid tribute to the Ming court. Such tributary states can be broadly characterized as political tributary states, economic tributary states, and nominal tributary states. Political tributary states such as Joseon, Ryūkyū, Annam, and Champa were in vassal-suzerain relationships with the Ming court: not only did they regularly send tribute missions and use Ming dynasty reign titles and calendars, the court also conferred titles upon and gave gifts to their monarchs. Due to the strength of the vassal-suzerain relationships with such states, the Ming court sometimes involved itself in their governmental affairs, including military interventions. For instance, in the early Yongle period, the Li clan usurped the throne of Annam and made numerous incursions across the borders of Yunnan and Siming Prefectures, in addition to attacking Champa numerous times. The grandson of the previous monarch, Chen Tianping, went to the Ming court to plead for assistance, and the Yongle Emperor dispatched troops to accompany him on his return, but within the borders of Annam, they were ambushed by Annam’s military. Chen Tianping was killed, and the Ming army withdrew in defeat. In Yongle 4 (1406), the Yongle Emperor dispatched a punitive exhibition, conquered Annam and replaced it with the province of Jiaozhi, which was placed under the direct administration

96  X. WANG

of the court. Needless to say, such tributary states were also attracted by the economic benefits of paying tribute. Economic tributary states were in some instances directly awarded titles by the Ming court, and came to China to pay tribute on either a regularly scheduled or sporadic basis, but were mainly interested in the economic benefits of paying tribute; such states included Japan, Siam, Sulu, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Samboja. The Ming court permitted only tribute-bearing missions sent by the supreme leader of the state to carry out trade within China, meaning that not only were ships from foreign countries prohibited from trading in China, Chinese people were also strictly prohibited from traveling to foreign countries or carrying out commercial activity there, and thus, foreign merchants desiring to trade with the Chinese mainland had no choice but to join tribute-bearing missions. The goods aboard such ships consisted firstly of tributes from foreign monarchs, secondly of tributes from the main and deputy envoys, and thirdly of items brought by attendant personnel, most of whom were merchants. Such additional goods often exceeded the tribute items in quantity dozens of times over.18 Significantly, the Ming court generally purchased all the goods aboard the ships, except a small portion, at prices several times in excess of their actual values. In addition, the Ming court paid all lodging, meal, and transportation expenses incurred in China by the envoys, making the missions extremely profitable.19 Suzerain-vassal relationships with such states were weak, and the Ming court generally did not involve itself in their internal affairs, but did on occasion mediate disputes between them. Nominal tributary states visited China infrequently. Not only were they not in suzerain-vassal relationships with China, their visits to China were often purely trade-oriented. These states were located mostly in Central, West, and South Asia. Thus, the so-called “tribute system” was in fact an international order encompassing all East Asia, including Southeast Asia. Specifically, these were states peripheral to the Ming court, such as Joseon, Japan, Ryūkyū, Luzon, Malacca, Java, Samboja, Sumatra, Siam, Annam, and Champa. The Ming court set forth clear regulations regarding the timing of tributes, the routes to be followed by tributary missions, and the sizes of the missions. For instance, with regard to timing, the regulations for most states stipulated that tribute was to be paid once every three or once every five years, but different rules applied to those with particularly close relations to the court: Joseon was to pay tribute three times

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

97

a year, and Ryūkyū once every two years. On the other hand, relations with Japan were relatively distant, and it was to pay tribute once every ten years. In most cases, however, tributary states did not abide by such regulations. In regard to routes, regulations were stricter: “Missions from Japan are received in Ningbo, missions from Ryūkyū are received in Quanzhou, and missions from Champa, Siam, and Western countries are received in Guangzhou.”20 However, there were special regulations for certain kingdoms, stating for instance that Joseon was to enter through Shanhaiguan Pass, Annam was to enter through Pingxiang Prefecture in Guangxi, and Central Asian kingdoms were to enter through Jiayuguan Pass; there were explicit regulations on the size of tributary missions as well, placing limits on the number of tributary vessels, accompanying personnel and personnel allowed to enter the capital. The purpose of these restrictions was to prevent excessive importation of goods and disturbances to border security, but enforcement was lax. Additionally, the Ming court explicitly stipulated that “when foreigners enter China to pay tribute, they must present memorials,” that is, missions were to submit an official document or face “rejection of their tributes.” If the memorial did not adhere to the prescribed format (for instance, if the monarch did not refer to him or herself as a subject, use Ming dynasty reign titles, and so on), this would also result in the tribute’s rejection. Later, in order to verify the identities of tributary envoys, tallies were issued to tribute-paying states, except Joseon and Ryūkyū, with which relations were particularly close. Simultaneously, a detailed code of court etiquette for foreign monarchs was set forth, including etiquette for presenting memorials, paying tribute, receiving edicts, receiving seals, and celebrating the emperor’s birthday, the new year holiday, the winter solstice, and so on.21 Tributes generally consisted of local products, and the gifts given in return by the court were generally silk products far exceeding the tributes in value.

2  The Tributary Relationship Between China and Japan The primary driving force behind the Ming court’s interactions with Japan was the problem of the Wokou. As early as the eleventh month of Hongwu 1 (1368), Ming Taizu ordered, “A mission shall be dispatched to give notice of my enthronement. An edict shall be issued. The monarchs of the four barbarian kingdoms of Annam, Champa, Goryeo, and

98  X. WANG

Japan shall be notified.” Veritable Records of the Taizu Era (Taizu shilu 太祖实录) does not record the results of the mission to Japan, which may have met destruction at the hands of the Wokou en route to its destination. Historical Records of Great Japan (Dai Nihon shiryō 大日本 史料), Volume 6, Number 37, “Official State Letters of the Ming and Correspondence of Ming Envoys Zhong You and Wuyi Keqin” (Ming guoshu bing Ming shichen Zhong You, Wuyi Keqin chidu 明国书并明使 臣仲猷、无逸克勤尺牍), contains a letter sent to the abbot of Tenryūji Temple: “A mission was sent to establish friendly relations with Japan. When the boat entered Japanese waters, pirates murdered the envoys, and the edict was lost. The islands were searched for the pirates, and several were boiled alive.”22 On the twentieth day of the first month of Hongwu 2 (1369), Ming Taizu issued the following edict: “A mission shall be dispatched to give notice of my enthronement. Japan, Champa, Java, and Western kingdoms shall be notified,” and in the second month of the same year, a further edict ordered, “Wu Yong, Yan Songlu, Yang Zai, and others shall be dispatched as envoys to kingdoms such as Champa, Java, and Japan.”23 Yang Zai’s delegation of seven arrived in Kyūshū, Japan bearing an edict that read, “I am writing to inform you that a new dynasty has begun, and to request an explanation as to why the Wo army is crossing the sea. On the date this edict arrives, if you choose to act as a subject should, send a memorial to the court; otherwise, assemble your troops and strengthen your defenses to prepare for the heavenly empire to rectify this matter and secure its territory. If forced to do so due to pirate invasions, I will command the navy to set sail for the islands, arrest all the pirates, enter the kingdom, and tie up the king. I will not fail to act on heaven’s behalf to strike down villains. The king is advised to take this into consideration.”24 Though the Muromachi shogunate had been established many years previously, there was a conflict between the Muromachi shogunate’s Northern Court and the Southern Court of Emperor Go-Daigo. The Ming envoys were unaware of this, and wrongly believed that Prince Kaneyoshi (referred to as “Prince Yoshikane” in Chinese historical works), son of Emperor Go-Daigo and general in control of the Kyūshū area, was the Japanese monarch, they presented the edict to him. Perhaps because he was preoccupied by the conflict with the Northern Court, because of the lingering shock of the Yuan expedition to Japan, because the prince himself was allied with the Wokou, or because he was

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

99

displeased with the threatening tone of the edict, Kaneyoshi had five of the Ming envoys killed, and Yang Zai and Wu Wenhua were detained for three months before being allowed to return home. In spite of this, Ming Taizu continued to take a conciliatory approach toward Japan. In the third month of Hongwu 3 (1370), he dispatched a mission led by Sub-Prefect Zhao Zhi of the Lai Prefecture government office to Japan, bearing an edict that called Japan to account for laxity in paying tribute to the Ming court and failing to crack down on Wokou piracy. At first, these Ming envoys were also detained, but when the army of Imagawa Ryōshun, the shogunate’s Kyūshū commissioner, drew near Kyūshū, Prince Kaneyoshi’s attitude changed drastically, and he ordered that the Ming envoys were to be “given the most preferential treatment.” Also, in Hongwu 4 (1371), he sent a monk named Sorai to China to “present a tribute of horses and local products and return more than seventy prisoners captured from the Ming and Tai commanderies.”25 In response, “Taizu held a celebratory banquet for the envoys.” At the same time, Ming Taizu summoned a Japanese monk named Chintei Kaiju, who had arrived in China during the Yuan dynasty, from Tianjie Temple in Jinling, and learned from him that Prince Kaneyoshi was not the Japanese monarch and that the Kyoto court and the shogunate held ultimate authority over Japan. He also learned that the Japanese respected Buddhist monks, and thus, when the Japanese mission departed, he decided to send Abbot Zhong You of Tianning Temple and Abbot Wuyi Keqin of Waguan Temple as envoys in an effort to establish ties with the Northern Court.26 Zhong You’s delegation reached Hakata, Kyūshū in the fifth month of Hongwu 5 (1372), and even though the Kyūshū area was essentially under the control of Imagawa Ryōshun at the time, the Ming envoys were detained in Hakata’s Shōfukuji Temple for approximately a year. During this time, Wuyi Keqin sent a letter to Shōin Hosshinnō, head monk of Kyoto’s Enryakuji Temple, to request assistance. The letter was forwarded to Muromachi shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, who sent a delegate to Kyūshū to meet the Ming envoys. The Ming envoys reached Kyoto in the sixth month of Hongwu 6 (1373), but because the official correspondence in their possession had previously been delivered by envoy Zhao Zhi, the shogunate was suspicious. Two months later, negotiations between the shogunate and the Ming envoys resulted in Xuan Wenzhi and others being appointed to a return mission that departed for China along with all the Ming envoys in the eighth month of that year.

100  X. WANG

Zhong You’s delegation was detained in Hakata for ten months and returned to Nanjing in the fifth month of Hongwu 7 (1374). Because the correspondence in the possession of the Japanese mission was addressed to the Imperial Secretariat, and the mission did not bear a memorial, Ming Taizu refused the tribute, but “still awarded two lengths of damask and two lengths of leno weave to Xuan Wenxi and his men. His aides were given different gifts of cash and silk, and the mission was sent home.”27 Veritable Records of the Taizu Era records that, in the subsequent Hongwu period, there were nine Japanese missions to China, among them one dispatched by Ashikaga Yoshimitsu in Hongwu 13 (1380), but because the envoys did not present a memorial or a letter to the prime minister, the mission’s tribute was rejected; Japanese monarch Kaneyoshi sent four missions, of which two were rejected; the other missions were sent by local feudal lords, and all were rejected. In the twelfth month of Hongwu 13, Ming Taizu sent a letter taking Japan to task for failing to crack down on the Wokou, and the following year, a mission by Prince Kaneyoshi delivered a forcefully worded response: “I have heard that the heavenly empire is prepared to go to war. Our humble nation also plans to put up resistance to our enemies.” In response, Ming Taizu “ordered a protocol officer to send a letter scolding their king as well as their general in charge of foreign expeditions. He did this to show his willingness to carry out an expedition.”28 It is readily apparent that Ming Taizu consistently sought to negotiate with Prince Kaneyoshi of Kyūshū in order to put down the Wokou, and it is also to this end that he decided to cut off contact. When it was discovered in Hongwu 19 (1386) that, in Hu Weiyong’s attempted Hongwu 13 rebellion, Commander Lin Xian of the Ningbo Guard had collaborated with the Wokou in support of Hu, the emperor ordered ties with Japan severed and coastal defenses augmented in order to resist the Wokou. It was only once a stable regime was established under the third shogun of the Muromachi shogunate, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, and once the many warlords were brought under control when the Northern and Southern Courts were unified in 1392, that Japan officially became part of the tributary system. Ashikaga’s primary reasons for proactively restoring ties with the Ming court and “paying tribute as a subject” were as follows: first, he wanted to increase the shogunate’s income through tribute trade. Ashikaga was well aware that the Tenryūji Temple boat dispatched in the early days of the Muromachi shogunate had made a tidy profit trading with continental Asia, and the shogunate itself owned little

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

101

land directly, making most of its money by taxing goods passing through its territory, and needed large quantities of Ming copper coins to serve as currency; additionally, the Ashikaga clan was accustomed to an aristocratic standard of living, and needed financial support to maintain its life of luxury. Second, the Ming court had implemented a strict prohibition on maritime intercourse, including strengthening coastal defenses against the Wokou in the late Hongwu period, and without taking part in the tribute system, it was impossible to trade with the Ming court. Third, gaining a monopoly on foreign trade and strengthening control over regional feudal lords would make it possible to enhance the authority of the Muromachi shogunate and its shogun. Fourth, Shogun Ashikaga was fond of aristocratic culture and Zen Buddhist religion, and he wished to obtain luxury goods from and carry out Buddhist cultural exchange with the Ming court. In Jianwen 3 (1401), Ashikaga Yoshimitsu appointed a monk named Soa and a Kyūshū merchant named Koitsumi envoys to Ming, entrusting them with a letter that “humbly address[ed] the great Ming emperor” in the name of “the three empresses,” declaring that “Since the founding of the Japanese kingdom, we have yet to send an envoy to your great empire,” and thus, “Blessed to hold power over a land at peace, in accordance with ancient custom,” Ashikaga was presenting a tribute. Though China was in the midst of a civil war, the Jianwen Emperor gave the envoys a warm welcome, and when Soa’s delegation departed, he dispatched Zen monks Tianlun Daoyi and Yian Yiru to accompany them to Japan, sending also a number of gifts including a datongli almanac. Soa’s delegation reached Kyoto in the eighth month of Jianwen 4 (1402), and Ashikaga personally welcomed the envoys and held a grand reception ceremony where he was presented with a letter from the Ming court referring to him as “Gendōgi, King of Japan.” In the third month of Yongle 1 (1403), Tianlun Daoyi and the other Ming envoys returned to China, and Ashikaga Yoshimitsu dispatched another monk from Tenryūji Temple (Kenchū Keimitsu) and a delegation of more than three hundred to pay tribute to the court. As the outcome of the civil war was not known at the time of departure, two letters were prepared. In the letter addressed to the Yongle Emperor, Ashikaga referred to himself as “Gen, king of Japan and the emperor’s vassal” and praised the Yongle Emperor for “embarking on the great work of the empire’s resurgence and initiating a period of peace and prosperity. Although Your Majesty sits upon the throne in the imperial court, the

102  X. WANG

empire’s authority extends far across the eastern sea.” Thus, Ashikaga sent his envoys to “pay respects to the great empire by humbly presenting a tribute of local products.” In fact, in the ninth month of Yongle 1, one month prior to the arrival of the Japanese mission in Ningbo, the Yongle Emperor had been planning to send a mission led by Office of Transmission deputy official (zoutongzheng 左通政) Zhao Juren to Japan, but learned that the Japanese tributary envoys had arrived in court and canceled the plan. The Yongle Emperor was very pleased with the Japanese tributary mission and with Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s deference, and not only did his edict, delivered by Zhao Juren, effusively praise Japan, he turned a blind to the arms that had been imported illegally aboard the envoys’ boat; in fact, the government ultimately purchased these. Among the emperor’s many gifts were a coronation costume for Gendōgi, king of Japan, and a golden seal with a turtle-shaped knob, through which the emperor sought to give material expression to the sentiment “Soon after I was seated upon the throne, a mission came to pay tribute; my best wishes for a speedy return home,” and to make Japan aware that “serving the great empire indeed brings limitless blessings.”29 When the Japanese tributary mission departed, the Yongle Emperor sent Zhao Juren to accompany them. In Yongle 2 (1404), the delegation reached the port of Hyōgo near Kyoto, and Ashikaga Yoshimitsu personally came to welcome them and tour the ship. When the Ming mission departed, the shogunate sent a monk named Myōshitsu Bonryō to accompany them, and to offer congratulations to the emperor on the appointment of the crown prince. When Myōshitsu Bonryō left for Japan In Yongle 3 (1405), the Yongle Emperor ordered the Ministry of Rites to dispatch a large delegation of envoys to accompany him, and issued a decree instructing the Japanese king to exterminate the Wokou. As a result, “The king dispatched troops and annihilated most of them, taking twenty of their leaders captive. In the eleventh month of the third year [of Yongle], they were presented to the court, along with a tribute. […] On the ninth day, King of Japan Gendōgi dispatched Minamoto no Sukekata and other envoys with a memorial and a tribute in the form of horses and local goods. They also presented the Wokou they had captured who had previously threatened border security.”30 The Yongle Emperor commended this, presented additional gifts, and returned the Wokou leaders who had been brought to the court, ordering that the Japanese mete out punishment as they saw fit.

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

103

In the first month of Yongle 4 (1406), the Yongle Emperor ordered Assistant Minister Yu Shiji to leave on a mission to Japan. Yu was to “reward [their king] richly, christen a mountain of their kingdom the Mountain of the Garrison Post of Long-Lasting Peace, engrave a stone tablet, and place it on the mountaintop.” In addition, “At the beginning of the Yongle period, Japan was ordered to pay tribute once every ten years. A mission was to consist of two hundred people on two boats, and it was not permitted to transport military equipment. Violators would be deemed pirates. The Japanese were also given two ships to be used in paying tribute.”31 The Japanese were also given one hundred Yongle period tallies which allowed them to present tribute to the court and carry out trade. For this reason, the term “tally trade” is used to refer to trade between the Ming court and Japan. In the fifth month of Yongle 6 (1408), Ashikaga Yoshimitsu passed away, and “Crown Prince Gen’yoshimochi dispatched an envoy to give notice of his father’s passing. A court official named Zhou Quan was ordered to carry out a full funeral service and present gifts to the bereaved family.” A separate edict from the Yongle Emperor to Ashikaga Yoshimochi made special mention of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s success in exterminating the Wokou: “As the current king, you have taken up your father’s work, dispatching troops and taking every possible measure to capture the pirates. Your future as a king is bright.” When Zhou Quan’s delegation departed, the Muromachi shogunate again sent Kenchū Keimitsu to accompany them and express thanks to the Ming court, as well as to “present the pirates that he had captured; the emperor commended this.” When Kenchū departed for Japan, the Yongle Emperor sent Wang Jin with a reward, but Ashikaga Yoshimochi refused him an audience and broke off the tribute missions to the Ming court, citing as a reason, “the spirits have implored me to say this: we have never submitted ourselves as a subject to any other kingdom.”32 Ashikaga Yoshimochi severed the tributary relationship with the Ming court firstly because some Japanese leaders expressed resistance to the idea of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu submitting himself as a tribute-paying subject to the Ming court, believing that this would bring shame upon their kingdom; secondly, Shogunal Deputy Shiba Yoshimasa was displeased with the Hosokawa clan and the Ōuchi clan taking part in tally trade and wanted Ashikaga Yoshimochi to change government policy regarding trade with the Ming court; the final reason had to do with a conflict between Yoshimitsu and Yoshimochi. Though Yoshimochi took

104  X. WANG

over for Yoshimitsu in 1394, becoming the shogunate’s fourth shogun, he did not hold actual control until his father passed away in 1408. It is therefore understandable that he nursed a grievance, and after assuming power, immediately dispensed with his father’s title of “Supreme Emperor” and changed directions with regard to foreign policy. In 1418 and 1419, the Yongle Emperor sent a delegation including Vice Director (yuanwailang 员外郎) Lü Yuandeng of the Ministry of Punishments to restore diplomatic relations, but Yoshimochi responded by sending a monk named Gen’yō Saidō of Rokuonji Temple to explain his reasons for refusing. The Ming mission was ultimately denied entry to the capital, and Lü Yuandeng had no choice but to return home emptyhanded. Lusting after profit, local feudal lords seized the opportunity to send ships to trade with the Ming court, but most were turned away for failing to present memorials. In 1428, Ashikaga Yoshinori was appointed the sixth shogun of the shogunate. Yoshinori was a despot and practiced terror politics, and on the request and with the support of local feudal lords, merchants, and major temples, he actively resumed tribute trade; a secondary aim was to solve the shogunate’s financial problems. In summer of 1432, a mission comprised of five ships (one belonging to the shogunate, one to Shōkokuji Temple, one to the Yamana clan, one to temples and feudal lords including the Hosokawa, and one to Sanjūsangendō Temple) set sail for China. The mission, headed by expatriate Chinese monk Longshi Daoyuan, bore a letter signed “Gen’yoshinori, king of Japan and the emperor’s vassal.” Although Emperor Xuanzong took a defensive foreign policy approach—surrendering Jiaozhi and recalling all soldiers, civilians, and officials in Xuande 2 (1427), taking a passive, defense-oriented approach to the region of Mongolia to the north of the Gobi Desert, and withdrawing the line of defense to the interior of the Great Wall in Xuande 5 (1430)—he nonetheless wished for all the world to pay tribute to the court. In the first month of Xuande 7 (1432), Xuanzong dispatched a functionary named Chai Shan to Ryūkyū and ordered the king of Chūzan, Ryūkyū to deliver an edict urging the Japanese to send a mission to the court. Though the edict was not forwarded to Japan, the shogunate was granted an audience in the capital and paid tribute in the fifth month of Xuande 8 (1433). Xuanzong handsomely rewarded the envoys and relaxed regulations on tributes, which were still to be paid once every ten years, but the

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

105

number of people permitted was increased to three hundred, the number of boats was increased to three, and Internal Minister (Neiguan 内 官) Lei Chun was sent to accompany the envoys back to Japan, bearing one hundred tallies, a letter, gifts, and so on. The delegation arrived in Kyoto and was granted an audience with Ashikaga Yoshinori in the sixth month of Xuande 9 (1434). The Ming envoys related the emperor’s request to capture the Wokou and free the kidnapped Chinese citizens, and Yoshinori dispatched a tenth mission to Ming comprised of six tributary ships (one belonging to the shogunate, four to feudal lords, and one to a number of temples) headed by lead envoy Jochū Chūsei. Regulations prescribed that, on reaching the Zhoushan Islands, Japanese tributary fleets were to be greeted by local frontier officials, pass through customs at the seaport office and submit reports to various government offices in Ningbo. The Military Commission office sent armed vessels to direct such fleets to a dock; the seaport office checked the memorials and tallies of the tributary ships and carried out a detailed inspection of the ships, number of personnel, tribute items, envoys’ trade goods, and other cargo. Defensive arms, horses, and so on were unloaded in Dinghai, and the original boats transported the remaining items to Ningbo. Tributes to the emperor and items prepared for trade at the linguistic institute in the capital were inspected by the seaport office and, if approved, had seals pasted on them and were transported to Beijing by the envoys. The remaining items were purchased by the government and either stored in Ningbo or transported to other locations such as Nanjing and Hangzhou. Excluding the ships’ crews and a small number of other personnel, the Japanese tributary envoys and most of the attendant personnel were allowed to enter the capital via water or land routes. On arrival in Beijing, they were received by officials from the Ministry of Rites and offered lodging at the linguistic institute. Then a date was set for the meeting with the emperor, and the memorial and tribute were presented. Once the formalities were complete, the envoys and their attendant personnel rested or engaged in trade at the linguistic institute. Prior to their departure, the Ming court treated them to a banquet and presented them with gifts, and they then traveled back south to Ningbo. Beginning with a mission’s arrival in Ningbo, every member was treated with great generosity; the Ming court granted them monetary allowances and food rations and paid all expenses incurred on the Chinese mainland in association with the trading, loading, unloading, and transportation of goods.

106  X. WANG

Thus, missions nominally carried out for purposes of paying tribute were extremely profitable for Japan.33 The missions to Ming played an important role in the history of China–Japan relations. First, they occurred during a time of sustained contact and cooperation between the two sides and served to largely quell the disturbances of the Wokou, bringing peace not only to China and Japan but to all East Asia; second, the missions aided the development of Japanese culture, society, and economy. On the one hand, the lead envoys of Japan’s missions to Ming were universally high-ranking monks intimately familiar with Chinese culture, and they worked actively to transmit the culture of continental Asia, primarily Zen religious culture, to Japan, going so far as to specifically name books they wanted and implore the Ming court to provide them in official state correspondence; their efforts enriched Japanese culture and provided a foundation of “Gozan culture” upon which it further developed. Simultaneously, trade conducted in association with the missions to Ming generated extraordinary profit, leading in particular to the importation of large quantities of copper Ming coins. During the reign of Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimasa alone, there were three requests for copper coins, and it is apparent that large quantities were exported to Japan.34 This influx of funds not only served to stabilize the shogunate’s finances, it also played a role in spurring the development of the Japanese commodity economy.

3  Trade in East Asia The above-described imperial tribute system provided the framework for a sphere of controlled commerce that took shape in fifteenth-century East Asia. The main participants included, in addition to Ming China and Japan, Joseon, Ryūkyū, and the kingdoms of Southeast Asia. In Jianwen 3 (1401), the Ming court officially conferred the title “King of Joseon” upon Yi Seong-gye. There was frequent contact between China and Joseon, much of it commercial. As the relationship between the Ming court and Joseon was one of suzerain and vassal, Joseon’s trade with China was not subject to the restrictions of the tally system or the seaport office system, and such trade occurred frequently, in large quantities, and in a wide variety of forms. Although the Ming court stipulated that there was to be only one visit every three years, Joseon in fact dispatched tributary missions at least once yearly, and up to three or four times a year. Cloth, horses, paper, furs, ginseng,

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

107

various medicinal herbs, gold, silver, and products made from gold and silver comprised the bulk of the goods transacted through the tribute trade process, of which official state commerce and trade by envoys made up significant proportions. For instance, during the Hongwu period, the Ming court purchased large numbers of horses and cows from Joseon, and in the Yongle period, it again purchased large numbers of horses, whereas Joseon’s purchases from the Ming court included large quantities of goods such as silk, medicinal herbs, gunpowder, and sulfur. Envoys also traded as private individuals: for instance, the Joseon regime stipulated explicitly that envoys could take certain quantities of products to China to sell to recoup the costs of the journey. Additionally, in the border region, private commerce occurred in small volumes between the Ming court and Joseon, including transactions of livestock, cloth, agricultural implements, and various local products. Under the Goryeo administration, Korea had sent missions to Japan in 1366 and on several subsequent occasions to request crackdowns on the Wokou. Due to the conflict between the Northern and Southern Courts then ongoing on the archipelago, Goryeo was unsuccessful in gaining Japan’s cooperation or even establishing diplomatic ties. For these reasons, in 1389, Goryeo’s military attacked Tsushima, home base of the Wokou. In 1404, the Yi clan’s Joseon established diplomatic ties with Japan, but the Wokou problem persisted, so in 1419, Goryeo launched another attack on Tsushima. At the time, there was controlled trade between Tsushima’s ruling Sō clan and the powerful feudal lords of western Japan, and a conciliatory policy was taken toward the Wokou. In 1443, Joseon signed the “1443 Agreement” (“Guihai yueding” 癸 亥约定) with Tsushima, agreeing to send fifty “harvest boats” (suiqianchuan 岁遣船) each year and to trade with Japanese settlements (Wakan 倭館) in Gyeongseong and the Sampo region (Busanpo, Naijiho, and Yeompo). In the fourteenth-century Sanzan period, Ryūkyū was split into the kingdoms of Hokuzan, Chūzan, and Nanzan. In 1406, Shishō of Nanzan and his son Shō Hashi launched a war to unify Ryūkyū, which they succeeded in doing in 1429, and from then until the mid-sixteenth century, Ryūkyū enjoyed a historical height of prosperity deriving in part from tribute trade with the Ming court. The regulations stated that Annam and Siam were to pay tribute once every three years, Japan once every ten years, and Ryūkyū once or twice a year, but these were never strictly enforced. From Hongwu 1 (1372) to the end of the Hongwu

108  X. WANG

period, Ryūkyū paid tribute roughly twice a year. In the Yongle period, it frequently paid tribute several times a year, and “though the heavenly court was annoyed by the trouble, [the envoys] could not be deterred.” History of Ming states that during the Ming dynasty, Ryūkyū sent a total of 171 missions to the court, far exceeding the kingdom with the second highest number of missions, Annam, with 89, but the actual number of missions is in fact much higher; one scholar counts 486.35 Additionally, the Ming court took a policy of non-intervention in commerce between tributary states, and thus Ryūkyū actively engaged in transit trade, selling Chinese products such as raw silk, silk products, porcelain, and so on to Japan, Joseon, and the kingdoms of Southeast Asia, and selling Southeast Asian products such as pepper and sapanwood to China, Japan, Joseon, and so on. Not only was such transit trade of enormous economic benefit to Ryūkyū, it also spurred the creation of the East Asian regional commercial sphere. In the second half of the fifteenth century, challenges began to arise to the above-described controlled East Asian trade. The first challenge had to do with the internal domestic problems of Ming China and Japan. Following the reigns of Ren and Xuan, Ming China entered a period of political instability and social turmoil; secondly, the tributary trade that had sustained interregional ties became tainted by corruption. Because the power of the state had weakened, following the ascension of Emperor Yingzong, the Ming court gradually tightened regulation and management of tributary missions, reducing the number of court tribute personnel, giving less valuable gifts, degrading the standard of accommodation, and simultaneously strengthening the prohibition on maritime commerce and enforcing strict controls on private trade. In the Jingtai period (1450–1457), an official of the Ministry of Rites complained to the emperor, “Their tributes are worth very little at market, and the prices we pay are too high. Even under a policy of being generous and asking little in return, the people can only give so much, and many, including the Mongolians, are coming to present tribute; we must restrain our finances. I recommend that the officials be ordered to pay market prices.”36 For instance, one jin (approximately one pound) of red copper brought 60 wen (an ancient copper-based currency) at market, but the court paid 200 wen, an increase of more than 300 percent; one jin of sapanwood brought 80 wen at market, but 1000 wen at court, an increase of 1250 percent.37 Therefore, in the Hongzhi period (1488– 1505), the Ming court began levying taxes on tribute trade goods—the

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

109

taxes were based on a percentage of receipts, and in the Zhengde period (1506–1521), civilian vessels not associated with tributary missions were also permitted access to harbors provided taxes were paid. In Japan, to provide the shogunate with financial sustenance, “memorial-bearing missions” were resumed in Jingtai 4 (1453) after being suspended for two decades. Not only did the number of attendant personnel reach one thousand, more than ever before, the quantity of tribute trade goods increased several times over. A dispute arose between lead envoy of the Ming missions Tōyō Inpō and Ming court officials over purchase prices: the Ming court paid market price, and this greatly displeased the Japanese envoys who, on the way back to Ningbo in the south, looted civilian residences in Lingqing, Shandong and assaulted investigative personnel dispatched by the local government. “The officials requested that they be captured and punished, but the emperor feared losing the favor of his far-off subjects, and refused to allow it.” Instead, the emperor “ordered that trustworthy personnel be selected to verify the account and that the envoys be allowed to come if the account was confirmed.”38 In 1459, the shogunate made preparations to dispatch a further mission to the Ming court, but due to financial constraints, the mission was not dispatched until 1464, when a tributary trade fleet consisting of one ship belonging to the shogunate, one to the Hosokawa clan, and one to the Ōuchi clan set sail for China. The fleet was besieged by stormy waves, and only the Hosokawa clan’s ship reached the Ming court in 1466; it was not until the fifth month of 1468 that the shogunate’s ship carrying lead envoy Tenyo Seikei and the Ōuchi clan’s ship arrived in Ningbo. When Tenyo’s delegation reached the capital, one of its members, Matō Jirō, killed a man in a dispute over a purchase, and the Ministry of Rites wrote a memorial requesting that the court mete out punishment, but Emperor Xianzong instead issued a pardon to Matō. One month after the Japanese tributary fleet departed, the third boat returned to China, claiming that the gifts from the Ming court had been lost in a storm and demanding replacements, in response to which Emperor Xianzong issued a further gift of silk, satin, and copper coins. Although a decade-long civil war, the Ōnin War, broke out over the succession of the shogunate, in pursuit of riches and further tallies, the shogunate dispatched a tributary mission and was granted an audience with Ming Xianzong in the first month of Chenghua 14 (1478). “The king of Japan was given 50,000 wen, and Tadamoto and the other

110  X. WANG

envoys were turned away and told to seek their share from their king.”39 In the eleventh month of Chenghua 20 (1484), a further Japanese tributary mission had an audience with Emperor Xianzong, declaring in a memorial, “Our kingdom has long been destitute. We are bereft of cash and our storehouses are empty—how are we to provide for our people? Thus, envoys have been sent the court to request aid.” The memorial went on, “We are requesting 100,000 guan. We will be satisfied with this, and will make no further requests.” In addition to following established custom in giving “the king and queen silver and valuable cloth,” the emperor admonished them that “tribute trade goods… shall not be excessive in the future, and shall follow precedent set in the Xuande period. There shall be no more than thirty of any sort of knife or blade. This will reduce effort and expenditures on both sides.”40 Subsequently, dominance over tally trade shifted from the shogun to powerful local feudal lords, in particular the Hosokawa clan and the Ōuchi clan. In the Ōnin War, the Hosokawa clan were the leaders of the eastern military alliance, and the Ōuchi were key members of the western alliance. The sea route traditionally used to reach the Ming court, which passed through the Seto Inland Sea, the Straits of Shimonoseki, Hakata, Hirado, and Ningbo, was controlled by the Ōuchi clan, and the Hosokawa clan’s Ming mission fleets had to detour around the islands of Shikoku and Kyūshū, then pass by the southern tip of Kyūshū in order to reach Ningbo. Each clan acted independently of the other, and thus there came to be Japanese tribute boats using tallies from different reign periods at the same time. For instance, in Hongzhi 6 (1493), the boats of the shogunate and the Hosokawa clan held Jingtai period tallies, and the boat of the Ōuchi clan held a Chenghua period tally; the boats reached Ningbo at almost precisely the same time via different routes.41 Merchants involved in tally trade, among them pirates and Wokou, pledged allegiance to either the Hosokawa clan or the Ōuchi clan, and tribute missions were frequently beset by unpleasant incidents. At the same time, the eastern and western alliances were embroiled in armed conflict, and the tally ships of the Hosokawa clan were frequently robbed by pirates under the control of the Ōuchi clan; the shogunate’s mission ships even fell victim to pirates acting at the behest of the Ōuchi, forcing the shogunate to allow the clan to independently dispatch tribute missions. For instance, in Zhengde 8 (1513), when the Japanese mission to Ming was on its way back home, the Ōuchi clan stole the mission’s new Zhengde period tally and coerced the shogunate into permitting it

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

111

to independently dispatch a tribute ship to the Ming court. In Zhengde 11 (1516), the Ōuchi clan dispatched three ships to the Ming court, with a monk named Kendō Sōsetsu serving as lead envoy. In the fourth month of Jiajing 2 (1523), the fleet arrived in Ningbo. The Hosokawa clan greatly resented this, and coerced the shogun into agreeing to dispatch a boat to the Ming court using an expired Hongzhi period tally, with a monk named Rankō Zuisa serving as lead envoy. The ship reached Ningbo a few days after the Ōuchi clan’s fleet. The Ming court stipulated that “When foreign boats arrive bearing cargo, the seaport office shall inspect the cargo and hold banquets for the crews. The ships shall be in served in order of arrival.” However, the deputy envoy of the Hosokawa clan’s ship, a mainland Chinese man named Song Suqing, bribed seaport office officials, who not only inspected the cargo on the Hosokawa clan’s ship first, but even held Kendō’s banquet at Jingqing Temple, while Rankō’s was held at the seaport office; thus, “the two sides were attended to unequally in different locations.” A dispute between clans over banquet arrangements turned violent, resulting in the death of Rankō, at which point Song Suqing fled. Kendō pursued Song to Shaoxing but was unable to catch him and returned to Ningbo, looting, burning, and killing all along the way, ultimately stealing a ship and escaping. Commander Yuan Jin of the Ningbo Guard and Japanese Defense Commander Liu Jin set off in pursuit and were savagely murdered in what historians call the “Tribute Battle” of Ningbo. The battle sent shockwaves through coastal communities, and cries for a renewed prohibition on maritime intercourse grew louder. “Imperial attendant Xia Yan said that the problem of the Wokou had arisen from maritime trade, and so such trade was abolished,”42 and a ban on maritime intercourse was reinstated. In addition to the Tribute Battle, the historical reasons for the Ming court’s strict ban on maritime intercourse include the business success of the Portuguese in East Asia and the renewed resurgence of the Wokou. In fact, private civilian trade occurred in significant volumes even in the period of controlled trade, particularly in the latter half of the fifteenth century. Economic growth and urbanization throughout East Asia, including Ming China, reinvigorated domestic as well as private international commerce. Particularly in the Chinese coastal regions of Fujian and Zhejiang, many relied on the sea to make a living, and the strict ban on maritime intercourse had the unintended effect of making

112  X. WANG

international trade, most of all trade with Japan, extremely profitable. For instance, Gu Yanwu stated, “On sales to goods purchased and sold to them [the Japanese], profits are extraordinary, as are profits on goods purchased from them and sold to others.”43 It is thus only natural that the Chinese began traveling abroad in large numbers.44 As previously described, controlled commerce occurred between Joseon and Japan, mainly Tsushima, alongside private civilian trade. As the two states developed economically, the scope of this private trade gradually expanded, and the Joseon government began taking measures to control it. This resulted in severe dissatisfaction among the Japanese merchants of the Sampo region, who mounted armed rebellions which were put down by the Joseon military. In 1512, Tsushima and Joseon signed the “1512 Agreement” (“Renshen yueding” 壬申约定), and although “harvest boats” continued to operate, their number dropped to twenty-five a year. In 1557, the two sides signed the “1557 Agreement” (“Dingsi yueding” 丁巳约定), which set the number of “harvest boats” per year at thirty.45 In the early sixteenth century, as worldwide maritime trade routes were established for the first time, Portugal and Spain took the lead among European countries in initiating trade with East Asia. In 1511, the Portuguese conquered the Southeast Asian sultanate of Malacca and gained control over the east–west spice trade. In 1517, the Portuguese first reached Guangzhou, claiming they had come to pay tribute and demanding to be let into the city; their requests to open trade routes were rejected, and they engaged in unauthorized maritime commerce with China from a fortified base in “Tamão,” their name for Tunmen, Guangdong. When the Jiajing Emperor took the throne, he ordered the Portuguese expelled from Tunmen. They then moved on to Shuangyu Harbor on an island off the coast of Ningbo, using this as a trading hub. As a result, there was widespread smuggling in areas such as Zhejiang and Fujian, areas where international commercial activity had already been widespread. In Jiajing 26 (1547), the court appointed Zhu Wan governor of Zhejiang Province and commander in charge of the military affairs of Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces. Zhu rigorously enforced the ban on maritime intercourse and from the beginning of his tenure strove to rectify coastal defenses and improve the battle capabilities of the military, simultaneously “prohibiting ferryboats, strengthening the baojia (communal self-defense 保甲) system, and conducting raids for traitors.”46 Following

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

113

several battles, the area was swept clean of Portuguese merchants, and severe blows were dealt to Chinese merchants as well. This also had a serious impact upon powerful families whose interests were tied to maritime trade in the Fujian and Zhejiang areas, and together with high-ranking local officials, they rebelled against Zhu Wan and sent a memorial to the court condemning his indiscriminate killing. As a result of this, in the fourth month of Jiajing 28 (1549), the court recalled and censured Zhu Wan, and in the seventh month of the following year, Zhu Wan “committed suicide by drinking poison.” Thereafter, “the post he had occupied was abolished, and there was no further talk of a ban on maritime intercourse between China and foreign countries,”47 resulting in a flourishing smugglers’ trade. The court dispatched personnel to crack down on the smugglers, and a group of armed sea merchants rose up against the government. “The Japanese scourge of the Jiajing period” grew worse and worse. In addition, Japan entered a period of chaos and conflict between feudal lords, and the Ōuchi clan, which had a monopoly on later tally trade, was toppled in a coup by retainer Sue Harukata, and trade with the Ming court ceased. The warlords, merchants, fishermen, and farmers of northern Kyūshū and the southern tip of Honshū, areas that had been controlled by the Ōuchi clan, were left without a leader, and to continue trading with the Chinese mainland, they gradually formed alliances with merchants and pirates of the Chinese coast, or engaged in smuggling or armed looting. The leader of China’s largest group of armed sea merchants, Wang Zhi, who established a base of operations in Hirado in western Kyūshū, is one such example. These groups of armed sea merchants, which historians call “the later Wokou,” frequently harassed and plundered the coast of the Chinese mainland. In the fourth month of Jiajing 31 (1552), a group of armed sea merchants carried out a massive raid of the Zhejiang coast: “They made landfall and attacked Taizhou, laying waste to areas such as Huangyan, Sisan, Xiangshan, and Dinghai, growing more wanton by the day. County Magistrate Wu Wei perished, and eastern Zhejiang fell into chaos.”48 The “Wokou plague” persisted, with the number of annual attacks reaching a peak of 101 in Jiajing 33 (1554). Statistics show that from Jiajing 30 (1551) to Jiajing 44 (1565), there were a total of 535 “Wokou” attacks. In Jiajing 38 (1559), Wang Zhi was murdered by Zhejiang Provincial Governor Hu Zongxian, and the larger armed sea merchant groups were wiped out one after another. To adjust to

114  X. WANG

the rapid growth of private commerce, in Longqing 1 (1567), newly enthroned Emperor Ming Muzong “lifted the ban on maritime intercourse and permitted trade on the eastern and western seas,” but trade with Japan remained prohibited.

4  Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s Disruption of Regional Order Though the “Order Prohibiting Piracy” (“Kaizoku kinshi rei” 海賊禁 止令) issued by Toyotomi Hideyoshi after unifying Kyūshū resulted in the gradual disappearance of the Wokou, his invasion of Joseon severely disrupted international order in the region. Toyotomi had long wished to expand his territory and made plans to do so, and as early as 1585, after becoming kanpaku (chancellor 関白), he revealed to former vassal Hitotsuyanagi Naosue that he planned not only to unify Japan but had even set a timetable for conquering Ming China.49 On the twenty-ninth day of the fifth month of 1587, on the way back to Kyōto from Kyūshū, Toyotomi wrote in a letter to his wife, “I will further dispatch a speedy boat to Goryeo to inform them that the Japanese shogun is on the way; if they refuse, we will tell them that the following year they will be invaded, and then we will surely conquer Tang.” The next year, Toyotomi sent a letter to his officer Kobayakawa Takakage stating, “I also plan to invade Tang and the southern barbarian kingdoms; following a preparatory battle in Kyūshū, I will proceed to conquer the five kingdoms of Kinki.”50 That same year, using the ruling Sō clan of Tsushima as intermediary, Toyotomi sent a letter to the Joseon regime demanding that tribute be paid to Japan and that Japan be given assistance in invading Ming China; the request was refused. In subjective terms, Toyotomi’s ambition to expand his territory through invasions originated on the one hand from a habit of constant military action: Toyotomi originated from a humble background, and through he had become the most powerful leader in government, he maintained a desire to enhance his authority and power through largescale warfare. On the other hand, the Ming court’s generous treatment of the Japanese tributary envoys and laxity in cracking down on the Wokou led Toyotomi to regard China scornfully; the “Annals of Japan” chapter of History of Ming states that Toyotomi “convened the remnants of Wang Zhi’s forces and learned that the people of Tang feared the Japanese as they might have feared a tiger. This led him to become arrogant, and he raised a great army and repaired his warships.” Another

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

115

reason was that Toyotomi wished to challenge the traditional notion of the mainland Chinese court as the leader of international order in the region, and he thus planned to conquer not only Ming China but India and the Philippines as well, building a new international order centered around Japan.51 In objective terms, a number of southwestern Japanese feudal lords demanded the expansion of territory and the further development of international trade, and gaining territory through wars overseas and restoring tributary trade with the Ming court were means of fulfilling these demands. A Korean historical work records that the Japanese stated, “China has long since severed relations with Japan and refused to permit tributes. Hideyoshi is angered by this, and wishes to initiate military action.”52 In 1590, on the urging of Sō Yoshitoshi, son of Tsushima’s feudal lord, the king of Joseon dispatched envoys to Japan to congratulate Toyotomi Hideyoshi on unifying Japan, and Toyotomi divulged to them that he wished to “borrow resources to invade Ming” and asked Joseon to “guide the expedition,” stating in a letter to the king of Joseon that, “undeterred by the great distance between our kingdoms and the rivers and mountains that must be crossed, we plan to proceed directly to Ming and, drawing on your familiarity with its four hundred provinces, topple the government in the imperial capital and rule over it forevermore.”53 Joseon informed the Ming court of Toyotomi’s scheme, and in a return letter to Toyotomi, rejected his request. In the third month of 1591, Toyotomi ordered the entire country to prepare to invade Joseon. In early 1592, from his base in the city of Nagoya in Hizen Province, Kyūshū, he assembled a great force comprised of nine armies and one navy containing a total of approximately 170,000 troops. On the thirteenth day of the fourth month of the same year, Konishi Yukinaga led the First Army across the Tsushima Strait and landed in Busan. The next day, Busan was captured, followed by the city of Dongnae fifteen days later. In the process, the entire defense force of both cities was wiped out. The army then divided into three and attacked the capital of Joseon by separate routes, succeeding in capturing it early in the fifth month. “The temples and the imperial palace were burned, officials took over people’s private residences, and the treasury was looted. Japan had conquered the kingdom.” The invasion went so smoothly even Toyotomi was surprised, and on the eighteenth day of the fifth month, he proposed a plan of actions following the subjugation of the Ming court, consisting primarily of the

116  X. WANG

following: Emperor Go-Yōzei would move to Beijing, and ten kingdoms around Beijing would serve as the manor of the imperial family; Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s heir Toyotomi Hidetsugu would be appointed kanpaku of the Ming court and granted dominion over the many kingdoms around Beijing; either Toyotomi Hideyasu or Ukita Hideie would serve as kanpaku of Japan; either Hashiba Hidekatsu or Ukita Hideie would rule Joseon, and Toyotomi Hidetoshi (Kobayakawa Hideaki) would rule Kyūshū; either Prince Nagahito or the emperor’s younger brother Tomohito would serve as emperor of Japan; Toyotomi himself would live in Ningbo; Kyūshū kingdoms such as Satsuma and Bungo would be moved to Ming, and their territory would be expanded ten or twenty times over; the territory of chūnagon (second-rank counsellor 中納言) Hashiba Hidetoshi (Mōri Terumoto) would be expanded ten times over; and so on. King Seonjo of Joseon fled to Uiju, just across the river from Ming China, and his two sons attempted to flee as well but were captured by the invaders. While on the run, the king dispatched numerous envoys to request aid from the Ming court. At the time, the court faced conflicts on its northern, western, and southern borders, and opinions were split over whether to aid Joseon. Those in support argued, “At present, the best strategy of resistance is to engage the enemy outside our borders and prevent them from entering Chinese territory.”54 Those opposed believed that “The borderlands are the gateway to China, and the land of the four barbarian tribes is our line of defense. We should defend against the four barbarians, not on behalf of them.”55 It was ultimately decided the military would be dispatched to Joseon’s aid because “the court believed that the vassal state of Joseon was a line of defense for China and a location of key strategic importance.”56 At the same time, there was an awareness that “Wo’s true intention is to invade Joseon in order to gain access to China, so in fact, by helping Joseon, China helps itself. We have no other option,”57 and that “Joseon and China have a very close relationship which is nothing like the distant relationship with the kingdoms of Ryūkyū. We are dependent upon one another, or as it has been said since ancient times, we share in struggles and rewards. Joseon is a line of defense that China cannot afford to have breached.”58 It is clear that for the Ming court to dispatch troops to aid Joseon was not only a just and moral act under the imperial tribute system, but also a necessary one for self-defense.

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

117

On the second day of the sixth month, the Ming government issued an emergency decree ordering that “the Liaodong garrison is to dispatch two detachments of its best soldiers to aid Joseon,” upon which Liaodong Garrison Deputy Commander Zu Chengxun and Staff General Shi Ru set out to aid Joseon with a force of five thousand troops. On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, with no reinforcements, this force took the daring step of invading Pyongyang without authorization. The force was greatly outnumbered and very nearly obliterated, but Zu Chengxun narrowly escaped and withdrew to Liaodong. The court and the commoners were shocked when the news reached Beijing. In the tenth month, following the suppression of a rebellion in Ningxia, the Ming court appointed Assistant Minister Song Yingchang of the Ministry of War to the position of Japanese Defense Commissioner of Ji Province and Baoding, Liaodong, and at the same time appointed Shaanxi Provincial Commander Li Rusong, who had suppressed the rebellion in Ningxia, to the position of Japanese Coastal Defense Commander of Ji Province and Baoding, Liaodong and Shandong; under their leadership, a force of 400,000 troops proceeded to Joseon. In the first month of Wanli 21 (1593), Li Rusong led an attack on Pyongyang, and following a fierce battle, the Japanese invaders fled south, abandoning the city, and the allied army of Ming and Joseon set off in pursuit. The allied force succeeded in reclaiming areas including Kaesong, Hwanghae, Gyeonggi, Gangwon, and Pyongan, and the invaders retreated to Gyeongseong. The victory led Li to underestimate the enemy, and he set out with a small force for Gyeongseong, but was surrounded by the invaders at Byeokjegwan. Numerous high-ranking officers perished in battle, the force lost more than a thousand of its finest troops, and Li was forced to withdraw to Pyongyang. Following Zu Chengxun’s defeat, the Ming court’s minister of military affairs Shi Xing dispatched Shen Weijing, a Zhejiang merchant who spoke fluent Japanese, to Pyongyang to hold peace negotiations with Konishi Yukinaga. Konishi, who came from a wealthy merchant background, responded favorably to the entreaty and proposed ceasefire conditions such as making the Taedong River the borderline, granting Joseon the territory to the west of Pyongyang, and granting Japan the territory to the south, and the two sides ultimately agreed to a fifteen-day ceasefire. Following the Battle of Byeokjegwan, the Ming court’s reinforcements had yet to arrive, and the Chinese force had no

118  X. WANG

strength left to launch a further offensive. Dealt severe blows by the Ming military, harassed by Joseon, Japan’s will to fight had diminished as well. After the Ming forces burned a Japanese granary in Gyeongseong at the end of the second month, Konishi sent a letter to Song Yingchang pleading for peace. On the eighth day of the fourth month, further peace talks were held, and a new agreement was reached: the Ming forces would return to China, the Japanese forces would withdraw to Busan, and the Ming court would send a mission to Japan to negotiate peace. The Ming court sent a mission to Nagoya, Japan to hold direct talks with Toyotomi Hideyoshi, setting forth three conditions: the Japanese military would withdraw completely form the Korean peninsula, the two Joseon princes would be set free, and Toyotomi would apologize. Toyotomi set forth seven conditions: the Ming emperor’s wife would wed the Japanese emperor; imperial tributes, including tally trade, would resume; Ming and Japanese high officials would pledge to maintain friendly relations; the four prefectures of northern Joseon and Gyeongseong would be returned to Joseon, and the four southern prefectures would be placed under the control of Japan; the prince of Joseon and one or two high officials would be sent to Japan as hostages; Joseon’s officials would pledge not to break this commitment; and the two princes and high officials of Joseon who had been taken prisoner would be set free. The peace conditions proposed by the two sides varied widely. The Ming court’s envoys refused to accept Japan’s conditions, and traveled to Joseon with Japanese envoy Naitō Joan, who along with Shen Weijing had a meeting with Li Rusong in which no mention was made of Toyotomi’s seven ceasefire conditions. When news reached Song Yingchang, who had returned to Liaodong, he sent an envoy to meet with Konishi, demanding that the Japanese military fully withdraw to Tsushima and stating that Japan would only be granted titles and allowed to present tribute once Toyotomi’s letter of surrender was submitted. In the second month of Wanli 22 (1594), Shen Weijing returned to China and delivered “the kanpaku’s letter of surrender” to the Ming court.59 The Ming court officials of the time were against “titles and tributes” (granting Toyotomi Hideyoshi the title of King of Japan and permitting Japan to resume tribute trade), and opposition toward “permitting tributes” was particularly virulent. Among those opposed was Fujian Provincial Governor Xu Fuyuan, who pointed out that “Many of those debating the matter believe that if titles are not granted and tributes are

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

119

not permitted, the Japanese will turn to large-scale piracy. They do not know that Hideyoshi has long been scheming, and that he will come with tributes and titles or without. It is simply a matter of time.”60 In the eighth month, newly appointed Military Commissioner Gu Yangqian, who took Song Yingchang’s place as administrator of the withdrawal of troops from Joseon, reported in a memorial to the emperor, “The Japanese are behaving respectfully and submissively. Their soldiers will not cause problems. Please grant them a title,” and that “Regarding titles and tributes, both should be either permitted or rejected as one. Permitting them will ensure ten years of peace.” Gu advised that a facility for paying tributes be installed in Ningbo, and that pressure be simultaneously put on the king of Joseon to appear in Japan’s place to request a title. Despite this, many Ming court officials opposed “permitting tributes” due to the Wokou piracy on the southeastern coast during the Jiajing period, and “dozens of court officials forcefully protested.”61 In the twelfth month, Japan’s representative at the talks, Naitō Joan, arrived in Beijing from Liaodong. The Ming court proposed three conditions for peace: Japan would withdraw its military from Joseon, be granted a title but not allowed to pay tribute, and cease to invade Joseon.62 Naitō accepted. Thereupon, the Ming court carried out official title conferment procedures and conferred the title “King of Japan” upon Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the title “Great Army Commander” upon Konishi Yukinaga. Subsequently, Ming Shenzong appointed Marquis of Linhuai Li Zongcheng as lead titulary envoy and Regional Commander Yang Wanheng deputy titulary envoy. Accompanied by Shen Weijing, they delivered an imperial mandate, a golden seal, a coronation outfit, and so on to Japan. In the first month of Wanli 23 (1595), the titulary mission departed from Beijing, arrived in Joseon and waited there for the Japanese military to withdraw. In the sixth month, Toyotomi Hideyoshi handed down the withdrawal order. In the twelfth month, the king of Joseon decided to dispatch a delegation of high officials to Japan. In the first month of 1596, Shen Weijing and Konishi Yukinaga left for Japan, and when several months passed without news, Li Zongcheng, concerned that perhaps the situation had changed, fled from Busan back to the capital. The Ming court then appointed Yang Wanheng as lead envoy and Shen Weijing as deputy envoy of a new mission which set sail for Japan in the sixth month. The mission arrived in Osaka in the ninth month of Wanli 24 (1596). Toyotomi Hideyoshi accepted the titulary mandate issued by the Ming

120  X. WANG

emperor, the golden seal of the king of Japan, and the Ming court coronation outfit, and appeared at the banquet for the titulary mission and other ceremonies wearing the crown, shoes, and clothes he had received. However, Toyotomi was displeased with the wording “knocking on our distant door and humbly requesting to become a subject” in the letter from the Ming court, and knowing that the emperor had not taken any substantive acts such as ceding territory or providing him with a Chinese wife, had not accepted his condition of permitting tribute trade, and had dispatched not princes but lowly vassals as envoys, he was enraged. Toyotomi expelled the Ming envoys and handed down an order to mobilize for war. In the second month of Wanli 25 (1597), 120,000 Japanese soldiers landed on the southeastern coast of the Korean peninsula and began a second invasion of Joseon. The king of Joseon sent repeated letters urgently requesting help, and at the same time, titulary envoy Yang Wanheng returned from Japan to Beijing, informing the Ming court that the effort to confer titles had failed. As a result, Shi Xing and others in favor of peace were dismissed, Shen Weijing was imprisoned, Shenzong appointed Xing Jie governor general and minister of military affairs, Imperial Censor Yang Gao commissioner of Joseon military affairs, and Commander Ma Gui provincial commander, and the expedition departed to the east to resist the Japanese and aid Joseon. On landing, the Japanese invaders progressed rapidly to Gyeongsang Province to the south of the Korean peninsula and toppled every major city in Silla one after another. In the seventh month, the Japanese navy decimated Silla’s navy at Geojedo. In the ninth month, a large force of Japanese troops reached the Han River, and the royal family again withdrew to Gyeongseong. Xing Jie, Yang Gao, and Ma Gui joined forces in Gyeongseong and inflicted heavy casualties upon the Japanese at Jiksan. In the twelfth month, the Ming military advanced to Gyeongju and, with Joseon’s aid, besieged Ulsan. At the siege, “many types of cannons were fired, making a thunderous sound that shook the ground,” and the remnants of the Japanese forces fled to a new fortress at Dosan, which they tenaciously defended throughout a days-long siege. The Ming military ultimately withdrew to Gyeongju. The Battle of Ulsan dealt a heavy blow to the Japanese military, but the Ming military withdrew fully to Gyeongseong in early Wanli 26 (1598), and subsequently only occasional skirmishes took place, as both the Chinese and the Japanese wanted to continue the peace talks. There

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

121

was continuous debate within the Ming court over which approach to take, with the doves’ voices predominating. Even after Toyotomi’s second invasion of Joseon, numerous officials believed that aiding Joseon was going too far, and thus the court’s aim was not to launch a full-scale war or to decisively crush the Japanese invaders. On the other hand, although Toyotomi’s ambitions were grand, for many of the feudal lords and generals, the purpose of the war was to press China to permit tributes. It is for precisely this reason that peace talks were never broken off. On the nineteenth day of the eighth month, Toyotomi Hideyoshi took ill and passed away in Fushimi, Kyoto, and the Council of Five Elders led by Tokugawa Ieyasu decided to withdraw from Joseon, dispatching Ishida Mitsunari to Hakata in northern Kyūshū to administer the withdrawal. At the end of the eleventh month of the same year, the Japanese military contingents withdrew one by one from the Korean peninsula, and the last to withdraw, that of Konishi Yukinaga, suffered severe losses in an attack by the Chinese navy at the Strait of Noryang. In autumn of Wanli 27 (1599), all Chinese troops withdrew from Joseon. Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasions of Joseon had an enormous impact upon the three northeast Asian states involved and severely shook international order in the region. To the Ming court, which was already on the decline, the expedition to resist the Japanese and aid Joseon came at an extremely high price, the highest of all the three great expeditions of the Wanli period, not only crippling the empire’s might but sapping morale among the populace and exacerbating corruption. “The expeditionary army’s pursuit of ill-gotten gain sent shockwaves far and wide. The tribes in the east and north turned to banditry, and subjects everywhere ceased to be loyal.”63 The Chongzhen Emperor made a mighty effort to implement reforms, but it was too late. In less than fifty years, the Ming dynasty was supplanted by the Qing. The people of the Korean peninsula where the battle was fought suffered terribly: nearly the entire southeast was razed to the ground, farmland went to waste, cultural relics were destroyed, and a large portion of the populace either perished in battle or was taken captive by the Japanese. Restoring economic and social order became the primary aim of the postwar Joseon government. Meanwhile, in Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasion of Joseon had consumed enormous human and material resources, and this is the main reason why Toyotomi’s regime fell from power. Still more importantly, the conflict generated a transformation in East Asia’s tribute-centered international order, and although Joseon’s government

122  X. WANG

restored relations with Japan, sending a “response and repatriation mission” to facilitate the return of the captives from Joseon, the Ming court refused Tokugawa Ieyasu’s request to restore relations. Diplomatic relations between China and Japan remained severed throughout the Qing dynasty, with Japan once again adrift outside the bounds of the regional international order revolving around the mainland Chinese court.

Notes







1. Translator’s note: This term literally means “Japanese pirates,” but by the Ming dynasty, not only Japanese but Korean, Portuguese and even Chinese pirates were among the crews. 2. Nishijima Sadao, Higashi Ajia shi ronshū 東アジア史論集 [East Asia history essay collection], vol. 3, “Higashi Ajia sekai to sakuhō taisei” 東アジ ア世界と冊封体制 [The East Asian world and the title system] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002); Li Yunquan 李云泉, Chaogong zhidu shi lun— Zhongguo gudai duiwai guanxi tizhi yanjiu 朝贡制度史论——中国古代 对外关系体制研究 [The history of the imperial tribute system: A study of foreign relationship structures in ancient China] (Xinhua Publishing House, 2004); Hamashita Takeshi 浜下武志, Chōkō taisei to kindai Ajia 朝貢体制と近代アジア [The imperial tribute system and modern Asia] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1997); Huang Zhilian 黄枝连, Tianchao lizhi zhixu yanjiu 天朝礼治秩序研究 [A study of imperial systems of ceremony and government], vols. 1, 2, 3 (China Renmin University Press: 1992, 1994, 1995); He Fangchuan 何芳川, “‘Hua yi zhixu’ lun” “华夷秩序” 论 [A study of the “civilized vs. barbarian order”], Beijing Daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 北京大学学报 (哲学社会科学版), 6 (1998). 3. Wan Ming 万明, Zhongguo rongru shijie de bulü—Ming yu Qing qianqi haiwai zhengce bijiao yanjiu 中国融入世界的步履——明与清前期海外政 策比较研究 [The process of China’s integration with the world: A comparative study of the foreign policy of the Ming and early Qing] (Social Sciences Academic Press [China], 2000), 63. 4. Li, Chaogong zhidu shi lun, 62–63. 5. Chao Zhongchen 晁中辰, Ming dai haijin yu haiwai maoyi 明代海禁与 海外贸易 [The prohibition on maritime intercourse and overseas trade in the Ming dynasty] (People’s Publishing House, 2005), 35. 6. Gu Yingtai 谷应泰, Ming shi jishi benmo 明史记事本末 [Comprehensive Ming historical records] (Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1994), f. 55: 217. 7. Entry for Hongwu 4 (1371), twelfth month, seventh day, Ming Taizu shilu 明太祖实录 [Veritable records of the Ming Taizu era], f. 70.

3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 









123

8. Entry for Hongwu 4 (1371), twelfth month, sixteenth day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 70. 9. Entry for Hongwu 14 (1381), tenth month, eighteenth day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 139. 10. Entry for Hongwu 27 (1394), first month, fourteenth day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 231. 11. Entry for Hongwu 30 (1397), fourth month, third day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 252. 12. Li, Chaogong zhidu shi lun, 65. 13. “Chengzu ben ji: Zan” 成祖本纪·赞 [Basic annals of Chengzu: Zan], f. 7 in Ming shi 明史 [History of Ming] (Zhonghua Book Company), 105. 14. Entry for Hongwu 35 (1402), ninth month, seventh day, Ming Taizong shilu 明太宗实录 [Veritable records of the Ming Taizong era], f. 12. 15. Entry for Yongle 1 (1403), tenth month, thirtieth day, Ming Taizong shilu, f. 24. 16. Entry for Hongwu 35 (1402), seventh month, first day, Ming Taizong shilu, f. 10. 17. Entry for Yongle 2 (1404), first month, nineteenth day, Ming Taizong shilu, f. 27. 18. Li, Chaogong zhidu shi lun, 96. 19. Sakuma Shigeo 佐久間重男, “Myō, Sei kara mita Higashi Ajia no Kai chitsujo” 明、清からみた東アジアの華夷秩序 [The East Asian civilized-barbarian order as seen in the Ming and Qing], Shisō 思想, 796, 1990. 20. “Shi huo zhi wu: Ma shi” 食货志五·马市 [Record of food and commodities 5: Horse markets], f. 81 in Ming shi. 21. Li, Chaogong zhidu shi lun, 211. 22. Kageki Motohiro 蔭木原洋, “Kōbu Tei ki Nicchū kankei kenkyū no dōkō to kadai” 洪武帝期日中関係研究の動向と課題 [Tendencies and problems concerning China-Japan relations during the reign of the Hongwu Emperor], Tōyō shihō 東洋史訪, 2, 1996. 23.  Ming Taizu shilu, f. 28. Sakuma Shigeo believes that these two entries are separated by a time span of just sixteen days. This citation is drawn from Kageki Motohiro’s “Kōbu Tei ki Nicchū kankei kenkyū no dōkō to kadai,” as its content is identical. 24. Entry for Hongwu 2 (1369), second month, sixth day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 39. 25. “Waiguo san: Riben” 外国三·日本 [Foreign countries 3: Japan], f. 332 in Ming shi. 26. Wang, Xiangrong 汪向荣 and Hao Wang 汪皓, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi 中世纪的中日关系 [China-Japan relations in the Middle Ages] (China Youth Press, 2001), 106.

124  X. WANG 27. Entry for Hongwu 7 (1374), sixth month, first day, Ming Taizu shilu, f. 90. 28. “Waiguo san: Riben,” f. 332 in Ming shi. 29. Tanaka Takeo 田中健夫, ed., Zenrinkoku hōki shintei zoku zenrinkoku hōki (yakuchū Nihon shiryō) 善隣国宝記 新訂続善隣国宝記 (訳注日本史料) [Jeweled chronicle of neighboring kingdoms, new revised edition of continued jeweled chronicle of neighboring kingdoms (translated and annotated Japanese historical materials)] (Tokyo: Shūeisha, 1995), 108–118. 30. Entry for Yongle 3 (1405), eleventh month, ninth day, Ming Taizong shilu. 31. “Waiguo san: Riben,” f. 322 in Ming shi. 32. “Hoi” 補遺 [Addendum], Zenrinkoku hōki 善隣国宝記 [Jeweled chronicle of neighboring kingdoms], quoted in Wang, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi, 125–128. 33. Wang, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi, 158–160. 34. Cheng Liang-sheng 郑樑生, Ming dai Zhong Ri guanxi yanjiu—Yi Ming shi Riben zhuan suo jian jige wenti wei zhongxin 明代中日关系研究—— 以明史日本传所见几个问题为中心 [A study of China-Japan relations in the Ming Dynasty: Based on some issues seen in the “Annals of Japan” chapter of History of Ming] (Taipei: The Liberal Arts Press, 1985), 262. 35. Liu Yuewu 柳岳武, Ming chao shiqi Zhong, Ri, Liuqiu guanxi yanjiu 明朝 时期中、日、琉球关系研究 [A study of relations between China, Japan, and Ryūkyū in the Ming dynasty], Anhui shixue 安徽史学 4, 25. 36. Entry for Jingtai 4 (1453), twelfth month, second day, Ming Yingzong shilu 明英宗实录 [Veritable records of the Ming Yingzong era], f. 236. 37. Chao, Ming dai haijin yu haiwai maoyi, 126. 38. “Waiguo san: Riben,” f. 322 in Ming shi. 39.  Entry for Chenghua 14 (1478), first month, eighteenth day, Ming Xianzong shilu 明宪宗实录 [Veritable records of the Ming Xianzong era], f. 174. 40. Wang, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi, 142–143. 41. Zhang Dexin 張徳信, “Qinxi Ming dai de Wokou yu haifang jianshe— Jian lun Ming dai Zhong Ri guanxi de zouxiang” 淺析明代的倭寇與海 防建設——兼論明代中日關係的走向 [A concise analysis of Ming dynasty Wokou and coastal defense installations: With a secondary focus upon trends in China-Japan relations in the Ming dynasty], in Higashi Ajia kaiyō ken’iki no shiteki kenkyū 東アジア海洋域圏の史的研究 (京都女子大 学研究叢刊 39) [A historical study of East Asian seas (Kyoto Women’s University research collection 39)], ed. Kyōto Joshi Daigaku Tōyō Shi Kenkyūshitsu 京都女子大学東洋史研究室 (Kyoto: Kyoto Women’s University), 229. 42. “Shi huo zhi wu: Ma shi,” f. 81 in Ming shi.



3  THE EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CHINA–JAPAN RELATIONS ... 

125

43. Gu Yanwu 顾炎武, “Yang shui” 洋税 [Maritime import duties], f. 93 in Tianxia junguo libing shu 天下郡国利病书 [On the positives and negatives of regional administration by the empire], quoted in Chao, Ming dai haijin yu haiwai maoyi, 186. 44. Yamazaki Takeshi 山崎岳, “Chōkō to kaikin no ronri to genjitsu—Myō dai chūki no ‘kansai’ Sō Sokei o daizai to shite” 朝貢と海禁の論理と現 実——明代中期の「奸細」宋素卿を題材として [Imperial tributes and prohibitions on maritime commerce in theory and in practice: With reference to mid-Ming dynasty “traitor” Song Suqing], in Chūgoku Higashi Ajia gaikō kōryū shi no kenkyū 中国東アジア外交交流史の研究 [A historical study of Chinese-East Asian foreign diplomatic interaction], ed. Fuma Susumu 夫馬進 (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, 2007). 45.  History Educationalist Conference of Japan 歴史教育者協議会, ed., Higashi Ajia sekai to Nihon—Nihon, Chōsen, Chūgoku kankeishi 東アジ ア世界と日本—日本、朝鮮、中国関係史 [The world of East Asia and Japan: A history of relations between Japan, Joseon, and China] (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 2004), 65. 46. “Zhu Wan zhuan” 朱纨传 [Annals of Zhu Wan], f. 205 in Ming shi. 47. Chao, Ming dai haijin yu haiwai maoyi, 182. 48. Gu, Ming shi jishi benmo, f. 55: 218. 49. The Mainichi Newspapers Co., Ltd. 毎日新聞社, Nihon shi no nazo to hakken Nobunaga to Hideyoshi 日本史の謎と発見〈9〉信長と秀 吉 [Mysteries and discoveries of Japanese history    Nobunaga and Hideyoshi] (Tokyo: The Mainichi Newspapers Co., Ltd., 1979), 67, quoted in Fan Shuzhi 樊树志, “Wanli nianjian de Chaoxian zhanzheng” 万历年间的朝鲜战争 [The war with Joseon in the Wanli period], Fudan xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 复旦学报 (社会科学版), 6 (2003). 50. Wang, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi, 296–297. 51. Nakano Hitoshi 中野等, Bunroku/Keichō no yaku 文禄·慶長の役 [Wars of the Bunroku and Keichō eras] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2008), 21. 52. Ryu Seong-ryong 柳成龙, Jingbirok 惩毖录 [Book of corrections], f. 1. 53. Entry for year 24 (1591), third month, first day in Lee Jo Seonjong silrok 李朝宣宗实录 [Veritable records of the Seonjong era of the Lee Dynasty]. 54. Song Yingchang 宋应昌, “Buyuan taijian taioyi shulüe” 部垣台谏条议疏 略 [Summary of censorate officials’ documents], f. 1 in Jinglüe fuguo yaobian 经略复国要编 [The military commissioner’s summary of the restoration of the state]. 55. Entry for Wanli 20 (1592), seventh month, third day, Ming Shenzong shilu 明神宗实录 [Veritable records of the Ming Shenzong era], f. 250. 56. Mao Ruizheng 茅瑞徴, “Wo shang” 倭上 [Japan part one], in Wanli san da zheng kao 万历三大征考 [A consideration of the three major

126  X. WANG









expeditions of the Wanli period], Beijing Tushuguan guji zhenben congkan 北京图书馆古籍珍本丛刊 [Beijing Library ancient and rare book series]. 57. Wang Xijue 王锡爵, Wang Wensu gongwen ji 王文肃公文集 [Collection of official documents of Wang Wensu], f. 2. See Chen Zilong 陈子龙 et al., eds., Ming jingshi wen bian 明经世文编 [Ming administrative document collection], f. 394. 58.  “Shenliu chezhuo jingquan shu” 慎留撤酌经权疏 [Letter considering withdrawing or remaining and deliberating on management and administration], in Chen, Ming jingshi wen bian, f. 402. 59. Both China and Joseon doubted the veracity of the “kanpaku’s letter of surrender” and believed it to be a forgery by Konishi Yukinaga or Shen Weijing. See Wang, Zhongshiji de Zhong Ri guanxi, 312. 60. Xu Fuyuan 许孚远, “Fu Min gao: Qing jiyi Wo qiu shu” 抚闽稿·请计议倭 酋疏 [Papers of the Fujian Provincial Governor: Letter requesting to consult with the Wo chieftain], in Jinghetang ji 敬和堂集 [Jinghetang collection], quoted in Fan, “Wanli nianjian de Chaoxian zhanzheng.” 61.  王德宪: 《王都谏奏疏》卷1, 《目击动倭衅隙专备御疏》, 见陈子龙等 编《明经世文编》卷 444。 Wang Dexian 王德宪, “Muji dong Wo xinxi zhuanbei yushu” 目击东倭衅隙专备御疏 [Memorial to the throne from witnesses of hostility by the Japanese], f. 1 in Wangdu jian zoushu 王都谏 奏疏 [Memorials to the throne], quoted in Chen, Ming jingshi wenbian, f. 444. 62. Mao Ruizheng, “Wo shang.” 63.  Entry for Wanli 27 (1599), fourth month, twenty-second day, Ming Shenzong shilu, f. 333.

PART II

The Transmission of Chinese Culture and Manifestations of the Uniqueness of Japanese Culture

CHAPTER 4

The Transmission and Transformation of Thought and Religion Chengyou Song

Ancient China was the first East Asian civilization to fully flower, and its culture exerted a significant influence upon the development of Japan’s. This fact is almost universally accepted, even among Japanese scholars. Naitō Konan asserts that “the history of East Asia is the history of the development of Chinese culture”1; in ancient times, “Japan, as a member of the same cultural sphere as China, developed its own culture with encouragement from China.”2 Numerous prewar studies express similar views. After the war, Hiroshima University professor Kimiya Yasuhiko’s A History of Exchange between China and Japan (Chū Nichi bunka kōryū shi 中日文化交流史) marked the start of a new era in this research field. Both Chinese and Japanese scholars pursued studies on similar themes over many years, producing a vast body of research. In 1996, led by editors in chief Zhou Yiliang and Nakanishi Susumu, more than eighty Chinese and Japanese scholars jointly compiled Compendium on the History of China–Japan Cultural Exchange (Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi 中日文化交流史大系), published in Chinese and Japanese by

C. Song (*)  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_4

129

130  C. SONG

Zhejiang People’s Publishing House and Taishukan Publishing Co., respectively. The compendium is comprised of ten volumes on history, law, thought, religion, customs, literature and art, science and technology, classics, and historical figures, and at a total length of approximately three million characters, is a voluminous, comprehensive work that was nothing less than an academic milestone. Since the 1990s, the rise of neonationalism and anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan has resulted in deliberate attempts to whitewash the influence of Chinese culture and to “de-Sinicize” Japanese culture. Thus, numerous matters that ought not to be problematic have been made so. To thoroughly clarify doubts and correct misunderstandings, this chapter focuses on gaining an accurate understanding of the relationship between China and Japan in ancient times, presenting perspectives on a number of issues such as the introduction of Chinese culture, the adaptations and innovations made by ancient Japan in the process of importing a foreign (Chinese) culture, the development of Japanese culture and its distinguishing characteristics, and the relationship between ancient Chinese culture and traditional Japanese culture, for purposes of initiating dialogue.

1  The Introduction of Ancient Chinese Culture into Japan Aspects of Chinese Culture Introduced into Japan The history of cultural exchange between China and Japan extends more than two thousand years into the past and encompasses many facets of culture. Among these, the following are several aspects of Chinese culture that exerted a particularly strong influence upon the development of traditional Japanese culture, comprising the foundational or key aspects of a wide-ranging cultural framework. Chinese Characters As is widely known, Chinese characters originate from inscriptions on primitive pottery, and emerged in their earliest form in the oracle bone characters of the Yin/Shang dynasty approximately 3400 years ago. In the more than 2300 years since Qin Shihuang unified the Six Kingdoms and enacted a policy of “uniformity of script” (shutongwen 书同文) in the

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

131

third century BC, Chinese characters have transitioned from seal characters to scribe characters to regular script while maintaining a consistent foundation; Chinese semantics as well have remained rooted in tradition. Even in the twenty-first century, as technology rapidly develops and the pace of the information age quickens, Chinese characters continue to exert an unparalleled impact. Unlike Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, Chinese characters remain in use and retain their vitality, and may be referred to as one of the marvels of worldwide written language. In ancient times, through a lengthy process of transmission, Chinese characters made their way south to Vietnam, spread across the Chinese mainland, and reached as far east as the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, forming a vast cultural sphere based on the common use of Chinese characters which we will refer to as the Sinosphere. As Chinese characters gradually spread from the center to the peripheral areas of northeast Asia, they first reached the Korean peninsula and were then transmitted to Japan. This is documented in many sources, including Records of the Historian and The Book of Han (Han shu 汉书). For instance, when the Zhou dynasty replaced the Yin in the eleventh century BC, the Ji clan returned to their homeland in the uncivilized east, pioneering the transmission of Chinese characters in the process. In the third century BC, when the Han dynasty replaced the Qin, to escape the chaos of the war with the Qin, inhabitants of continental Asia migrated to the Korean peninsula and further south to Japan, becoming the Toraijin who introduced Chinese characters into Yayoi period Japan. In the late second century BC, the Four Commanderies of Han were established, and the Japanese began traveling to Lelang to pay tribute, providing ever-increasing opportunities for Chinese characters to spread to Japan. For several centuries, from the Eastern Han dynasty to the Wei-Jin period to the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, the kingdoms of Na, Yamataikoku, and the “Five Wo Kings” were in constant contact with Han Chinese monarchs, and Chinese immigrants to Japan helped elevate the proficiency of the Japanese with Chinese characters. The memorial written in fluent Chinese by King Bu of Wo, as recorded in The Book of Song, is one example. Archaeological discoveries from the above time period, for instance late Yayoi period pottery engraved with Chinese characters, the inscription on a golden seal reading “King of Na, vassal state of Han,” the inscription on a blade unearthed from a tomb in Etafunayama, Kumamoto, the inscription

132  C. SONG

on a bronze mirror from Suda Hachiman Shrine in Wakayama, and the inscription on a metal sword from Inariyama, Saitama provide evidence of the history of the importation of Chinese characters into Japan. The process of the importation of Chinese characters, vehicles for the transmission of culture, is a history of human comings and goings. Chinese characters served to introduce Japan to aspects of Chinese civilization such as etiquette, ethics, religion, ideological principles, education, technology, literature, art, classic and commerce-oriented texts, seasonal celebrations, everyday customs, and so on, accelerating Japan’s entry into the civilized era. The early eighth century saw the publication of historical works in Chinese characters, such as Nihon shoki, furnishing Japan with its own self-authored national histories for the first time. Imported Chinese characters also provided the foundation upon which the Japanese written language was created. Confucianism Confucianism “concerns itself with benevolence and righteousness,” “carries on the tradition of Yao and Shun, sets forth civil and military regulations, takes Confucius as a master, and puts the Way above all things in its teachings” toward aims such as “aiding rulers, putting yin and yang in order, and enlightening people through education.”3 Confucius was followed by pre-Qin Confucians such as “Zizhang, Zisi, the Yan family, the Meng family [Mencius], the Qidiao family, the Zhongliang family, the Sun family, and the Yuezheng family.”4 During the Han dynasty, Dong Zhongshu and Liu Xin promoted a form of Confucianism informed by classical texts of the present and past, including Han dynasty mystical works (chenwei 谶纬). In the Wei-Jin period and the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, Xia Houxuan, Wang Bi, He Yan, and others from the state of Wei developed a metaphysical interpretation of Confucianism, drawing upon Daoist mysticism. During the Sui and Tang dynasties, Confucians produced a wide range of commentaries on ancient texts, and Confucian orthodoxy experienced a resurgence. In this process, Han and Tang dynasty Confucianism was transmitted eastward, providing the foundation upon which early Japanese Confucianism was constructed. According to Nihon shoki, in Ōjin 16 (285), Baekje court academician Wani, who claimed to be a descendant of Emperor Gaozu of Han, brought Chinese classics such as The Analects to Japan, an instance that represents the earliest record of the transmission of Confucianism

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

133

to Japan. Crown Prince Uji no Waki Iratsuko studied Chinese classical texts under Wani.5 Considering the fact that Confucian classics reached Japan by way of the Korean peninsula as well as the frequent intercourse between Baekje and Japan, the story is likely not a complete fabrication. In the sixth century, during the reigns of Emperor Keitai and Emperor Kinmei, scholars of classical Chinese works Dan Yang-I and Wang Yoogwi and scholar of divination Wang Do-yang successively visited Japan on the orders of the king of Baekje. In addition, a scholar of Classical Chinese works from Goguryeo named Go An-mu and a man from the southern state of Liang named Sima Dadeng visited Japan, and throughout the Han dynasty, such visits served to transmit Confucian classics to Japan in a continuous fashion. It is not by chance that many of the scholars who transmitted Confucian classics eastward belonged to the Wang family of Lelang originating from the Central Plains of China; this piece of information is essentially trustworthy. At the very least, the information above should be taken as true until and unless disproved by other historical sources. Following the Taika Reforms, the court of Emperor Tenji established a two-level education system consisting of national and local mechanisms such as the Daikagu-ryō imperial university and Kokugaku educational institutes, and professors well versed in Chinese classics lectured on Han and Tang Confucian commentaries, with Confucian classics such as The Analects, Classic of Filial Piety (Xiao jing 孝经), The Book of Changes, The Book of Rites, and Mao’s Book of Songs (Mao shi, aka Classic of Poetry 毛诗) serving as the basic educational texts for apprentice bureaucrats of rank five and above under the ritsuryō system. Recollections of Poetry (Kaifūsō 懐風藻), compiled in 751, praises Japan’s “inclination toward the Zhu and Si rivers and haste to learn from Qi and Lu [old Chinese place names meant to suggest an affinity for classical Chinese learning]”6 which had taken hold since Wani’s visit and its transformation into a civilized country, demonstrating the influence of Han and Tang Confucianism upon society. In the late Heian period, with the breakdown of the ritsuryō system, Han and Tang Confucianism declined and Song dynasty NeoConfucianism spread to Japan, starting a new phase in the eastward transmission of Confucianism. In the Song dynasty, a new form of Confucianism—Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, which was deeply penetrated by Buddhist ways of thinking and informed by Daoist cosmology—started to spread, initiating a new Neo-Confucian era. According

134  C. SONG

to Origins of Sinology (Kangaku kigen 漢学起源), when Japanese monk Shunjō, who had traveled to Song China in 1199, returned to Japan in 1211, he brought Song Neo-Confucian texts to Japan for the first time. In 1241, Enni, a Buddhist monk who spent six years studying the dharma in Song China, introduced a mixed Confucian-Buddhist approach into Japan and became active in the upper levels of the shogunate and the imperial court. In Japan, Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism was referred to respectfully as Shushigaku (Master Zhu Studies 朱子学). It was first studied in temples and gradually became well-known among nobles and bureaucrats. In 1246, Southern Song monk Lanxi Daolong led his disciples on a sea voyage to Japan, opening a new channel for the eastward transmission of Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism by Chinese Buddhist monks. As Shushigaku gradually spread throughout Japan, Neo-Confucianism was studied and expounded upon by temple monks and high-ranking court officials in the Kamakura period and developed continually throughout the war-ravaged Muromachi period. With the integration of Confucianism and Buddhism in the Warring States period, as in the teachings of Giyō Hōshū and Keian Genju, Neo-Confucianism began taking on a more popular character and gradually penetrated society. In the Edo period, a relationship took shape between NeoConfucianism and the regime, and Neo-Confucianism was quickly instituted as an official subject at public schools. Fujiwara Seika and Hayashi Razan played key roles in this process. In 1597, Fujiwara was instructed by famed Joseon Confucian Kang Hang, awakened to the true essence of Shushigaku, and became the forefather of Edo period Shushigaku. His disciple Hayashi Razan received his teachings and further expounded upon them with reference to the basic principles of the shogunate system. At age twenty-one, Hayashi opened a school where he lectured on The Analects and Collected Commentaries on the Four Books (Sishu jizhu 四书集注); “every listener’s seat was filled.”7 Tokugawa Ieyasu, founder of the Edo shogunate, praised Hayashi’s ability and insight and ordered him to take part in the shogunate administration by drafting documents on laws and regulations. The Hayashi family served as imperial Confucian tutors to four generations of shoguns, beginning with Tokugawa Ieyasu, securing the family a unique position as researchers and interpreters of Shushigaku. Hayashi Razan published more than eighty classic Chinese texts during his lifetime, many of them Confucian classics such as Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries on the Thirteen

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

135

Classics (Shisan jing zhushu 十三经注疏), Complete Works of the Two Cheng Brothers (Er Cheng quanshu 二程全书), Great Compendium of Master Zhu’s Works (Zhu Zi daquan 朱子大全), Great Compendium on the Principles of Life (Xingli daquan 性理大全), and so on. The first three Edo period shoguns, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Tokugawa Hidetada, and Tokugawa Iemitsu, all professed adherence to Shushigaku, the fourth shogun, Tokugawa Ietsuna, granted it protection, and the fifth shogun, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, vigorously promoted it, lifting it to ever-greater heights as time went on. In 1690, Tsunayoshi built Yushima Seidō, a vast Confucian temple containing the Hayashi Family School (Hayashike Gakumonjo 林家学問所, aka Seidō Gakumonjo 聖堂学問 所, Shōheizaka Gakumonjo 昌平坂学問所, or Shōheikō 昌平黌), which became the foremost seat of Shushigaku learning. Numerous feudal lords vied to promote and study Shushigaku at their own domain schools, and it became fashionable for samurai to read Confucian classics. The ethical norms of Shushigaku refined the moral principles of samurai, leading to the development of bushido, the governing philosophy of the ruling class which inevitably filtered down to townsfolk and commoners. In 1724, Kaitokudō, a “school for the townsfolk,” began operations, complemented by terakoya private schools which opened across Japan, furthering the profound penetration of Confucian ethics and values into the lives of common people. Religious Daoism Religious Daoism is founded upon worship of immortals and techniques of achieving immortality from the Chunqiu period, the Warring States period, and the Qin dynasty. During the Western Han dynasty, “inaction”-oriented Huang-Lao Daoism came to prominence, playing a role in spurring the development of religious Daoism. During the late Eastern Han dynasty, Zhang Ling (Daoling), Zhang Lu, and others who revered Laozi as the forefather of their religion authored Daoist scriptures and founded the Wudou Midao (Tenshi Dao) sect; Zhang Jiao, inspired by the Black Scarf Book of Supreme Tranquility (Taiping qingling shu 太平青领书), founded the Taiping Dao sect. These initial steps in the founding of religious Daoism exerted an impact throughout Chinese society. In the course of competing with Buddhism during the WeiJin period and the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, Daoism absorbed a number of Buddhist elements, produced a great volume of classic scriptures, invented unique methods of warding off ill fortune,

136  C. SONG

talismanic writing and petition ceremonies, and ultimately became a fullfledged indigenous Chinese religion. It entered Japan by a route clearly different from that taken by Confucianism and Buddhism; the transmission of Daoism was a complex, confusing process, and therefore, some space below will be devoted to a further explanation. It is generally believed that the earliest record of the transmission of Daoism-related books to Japan is found in Nihon shoki, in the entry for the tenth year of the reign of Empress Suiko (602). According to this text, “In October, a monk named Gwalleuk arrived from Baekje, presenting almanacs, works on a wide range of learning, and books on sorcery and the occult.” The court of Empress Suiko dispatched three or four scholars to Baekje “to pursue learning.”8 At the time of the Taika reforms, Emperor Kōtoku’s court instituted an era name system based upon the Chinese model, Chinese sorcery techniques came into vogue in the imperial court, and the Onmyōryō divination bureau and an astrological observatory were established, putting Daoism to use to reinforce political power. Mokkan (wooden writing strips 木簡) excavated from the Fujiwara-kyō site are inscribed with text from the opening portion of Laozi’s Dao de jing (道德经), such as “The way that can be named is not the true way,”9 providing evidence for the transmission of Daoist classics to Japan. The “Daoism” (“Dao jia” 道家), “Five Elemental Phases Section” (“Wu xing bu” 五行部), “Medicine” (“Yi fang” 医方), and “Miscellaneous Biographies” (“Za zhuan jia” 杂传家) sections of Catalog of All Extant Books in the Empire (Catalog of All Extant Books in Japan), a Kanpyō 3 (891) work compiled by Fujiwara no Sukeyo, include a large number of books related to Daoism, such as Classic on Laozi’s Conversion of the Barbarians (Laozi hua hu jing 老子化胡经), Classic (Record) of the Deification of the Supreme Elderly Lord and Mysterious Emperor (Taishang laojun xuanyuan Huangdi shenghua [ji] jing 太上老 君玄元皇帝圣化 (记) 经), The Master Who Embraces Simplicity (Bao pu zi 抱朴子), Scripture of Supreme Treasure (Taishang lingbao jing 太上灵 宝经), Scripture of Dispelling Demons, Treasuring the Real, and Pacifying the Will (Xiao mo bao zhen an zhi jing 消魔宝真安志经), Scripture of the Talismans of the Six Gods (Liu jia shenfu jing 六甲神符经), Secrets of the Curses and Incantations of the Three and the Five (San wu dajin zhoujin jue 三五大禁咒禁诀), Superior Talismans for the Protection of the Six Gods (Liu jia zuoyou shang fu 六甲左右上符), Secret Talismans of the Elderly

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

137

Lord of the Great Way and the Six Gods (Dadao laojun liu jia mijue 大道 老君六甲秘符), Jade Almanac of the Master of the Red Pine (Chisongzi yu li 赤松子玉历), and Legend of Immortals (Shenxian zhuan 神仙传). As is apparent, from ancient times to the Nara and Heian periods, Daoist scriptures were continuously transmitted to Japan in large numbers. Unlike other products that arrived aboard ships, these books had a direct effect on the thoughts and opinions of the people. As one Daoist scripture after another was transmitted to Japan, it was inevitable that Daoist concepts deeply penetrated Japanese court culture and social life. Daoist books continued to stream into Japan thereafter. According to the records in Record of Books Arriving Aboard Merchant Ships from the eighth year of the Genroku era of the Edo period (1695) onward, among the many Daoist texts that were imported to Japan, exerting an influence upon Edo period academics and ideologies, are the 1445 first edition of the Ming dynasty compendium of Daoist scriptures Daoist Canon (Dao zang 道藏); the Qing dynasty publications Scripture of Response and Reaction by the Supreme Lord (Taishang ganying jing 太 上感应经), Authentic Treatise on Practical Knowledge of Awakening to Divine Monarch Guan (Guan sheng dijun jueshi zhenjing lingying pian 关圣帝君觉世真经灵应篇), Complete Book of Father Lü (Lü Zu quanshu 吕祖全书) (30 volumes); and Complete Book of Wendi (Wendi quanshu 文帝全书) (50 volumes). Scripture of Celestial Supreme Lord Taiyi (Taijō Tenson Taiitsushin kyōjo 太上天尊大乙神经序) by Japanese Yōmeigaku scholar Nakae Tōju celebrates the Daoist deity Taiyi. Kokugaku scholar Hirata Atsutane was well versed in Seven Tablets from the Celestial Satchel (Yunji qiqian 云笈七谶), and his works extensively cite Daoist scriptures such as The Central Scripture of Laozi, Jade Writ of the Supremely Subtle (Taixiao langshu 太宵琅书), and Mandate of the Perfected (Zhen gao 真 诰), evincing a relationship between Daoism and Shinto. In the mid-Edo period, a monk named Jōin of Mt. Togakushi, Shinano, inspired by reverence for Laozi’s Dao de jing, built a Daoist temple, installed a golden statue of Laozi, and worshiped “the supreme elderly lord and mysterious original emperor [Laozi]” there. Later, Jōin was informed upon, convicted, and exiled to Hachijō-jima.10 The transmission of Daoist scriptures to Japan continued, but there is scant evidence of the presence of Daoist temples or religious activities by Daoist priests, subjects that continue to draw great interest from scholars. Kuroita Katsumi has combed through relevant records in classical sources such as Nihon shoki and Shoku Nihongi and located numerous

138  C. SONG

traces of Daoism. For instance, Yamato Takeru no Mikoto was ordered by Emperor Keikō to carry out an expedition against the eastern barbarians, perished in the attempt, and transformed into an immortal, taking the form of a swan; a starving man saved by Prince Shōtoku “discorporated” (shikai 尸解) and became an immortal; Emperor Yūryaku saw a Daoist immortal while hunting on Mt. Yamatokatsuragi; in Tamumine, the Saimei court built a Daoist temple “referred to as Ryōkikyū (Temple of the Twin Zelkovas 両槻宮) or, alternately, Tenkyū (Temple of Heaven 天宮).” Kuroita cites additional evidence of the transmission of Daoism to Japan, such as the fact that the shinjūkyō mirrors excavated from the tomb of Fune no Ōgo in Matsuokayama Kofun in Kawachi and Shinyama Kofun in Ōtsuka Village, Kitakatsuragi-gun bear motifs and inscriptions referencing Daoist deities such as “King Father of the East” (Japanese: Tōōfu, Chinese: Dongwangfu 東王父) and “Queen Mother of the West” (Japanese: Seiōbō, Chinese: Xiwangmu 西王母) as well as the court sacrifice ritual prayers in Procedures of the Engi Era (Engishiki 延喜式). Kuroita believes that Daoism was transmitted to Japan at the time of Achiki and Wani’s visit, and points out that “the Daoist character of Shinto rites is no coincidence,” but rather the result of the long-term penetration of Daoism.11 Tsuda Sōkichi has demonstrated that the term tennō (emperor 天 皇) originates from classical Chinese historical works, and believes that Japanese monarchs came to be referred to as tennō rather than ōkimi (great kings 大王) in the early seventh century for reasons related in part to the introduction of Daoism; he holds that the notion of the Supreme Emperor associated astrologically with the Northern Pole Asterism of the Purple Forbidden Enclosure merged with that of the heavenly emperor of Japan, granting religious significance to the emperor and making him an object of Shinto worship. Tsuda’s conclusion is as follows: “The term ‘tennō’ came to be used in Japan because of its religious significance. Based upon the above investigation, we can say without doubt that the title tennō originates directly from Daoism.”12 Over the last twenty years, Japanese researchers have made major advances in studying the interaction between Daoism and Japanese culture, resulting in the publication of books such as The Transmission of Daoism and Ancient States (Dōkyō no denpa to kodai kokka 道教の伝播 と古代国家), edited by Noguchi Tetsurō, and Daoism and Japanese Culture (Dōkyō to Nihon bunka 道教と日本文化) by Fukunaga Mitsuji in addition to papers such as Kubo Noritada’s “The Influence of Chinese

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

139

Daoism upon Japanese Folk Religion” (“Zhongguo Daojiao dui Riben minjian xinyang de yingxiang” 中国道教对日本民间信仰的影响) and Masuo Shin’ichirō’s “The Spread of Daoism in East Asia” (“Daojiao zai Dongya de chuanbo” 道教在东亚的传播). Such publications discuss matters such as evidence of the transmission of Daoism to Japan, its expression within Japanese culture, and the relationship between Daoism and the ancient imperial system, carrying out multifaceted research of a greater breadth and depth than studies carried out before the war. Fukunaga Mitsuji believes that the title “heavenly emperor,” the term “mahito” (新人, referring to relatives or descendants of emperors and princes), the “purple palace” inhabited by the emperor, the two sacred symbols of the emperor’s absolute power (the mirror and the sword), and the Chinese term “great harmony” (大和) that gave Yamato its name “all originate from ancient Chinese religious thought, specifically Daoism or primitive Daoist thought.”13 Based on inquiries into folk customs and beliefs, Kubo Noritada believes that “While it may be said that Japanese folk beliefs, customs, and traditions absorbed numerous Daoist elements as they were transmitted, and are related closely with Daoism, this does not mean that Daoism as such was transmitted to Japan. Rather, it may be said only that Daoism had a significant influence on Japan.”14 Similar research themes have drawn the interest of Chinese scholars. In the 1980s, Li Weizhou traced the transmission of Lao-Zhuang Daoism to Japan, concluding that the Lao-Zhuang Daoism that reached Japan was not pristine and untouched; rather, just as Confucianism and Daoism merged in China, Shinto and Confucianism merged in Japan, and just as ideologies everywhere transform in response to new demands, Daoism did so in Japan, coming to exert a profound influence.15 Since the 1990s, Yan Shaodang has researched the transmission of Chinese traditional culture to ancient Japan, concluding that “continental Asian culture Japan received from China was rich and multifaceted” and that “speaking in terms of the totality of ancient China-Japan relations, indigenous Chinese Daoist thought reached Japan early on, at more or less the same time as Confucianism, when immigrants from the Chinese mainland made their way east.”16 Wang Jinlin regards the imperial family’s establishment of authority over sacrificial rituals in Kinki and rural areas, the institution of an imperial official with jurisdiction over rituals, and the use of the term “god of light” (myōjin 明神) (or “god of the present life” [akitsukami 現世神]) to refer to the emperor as the three main indicators of the formation of early Shinto. In this process, “many

140  C. SONG

elements of Chinese Daoism, Confucianism, and various late Zhou dynasty ideologies aided the religious institutionalization of traditional Japanese beliefs.” Aspects of Daoism such as the pursuit of eternal life using cinnabar and mercury, appreciation of fine jade, use of peaches to exorcise evil spirits and jeweled mirrors to ward off demons, burial of sacred swords in place of the bodies of those believed to have become immortals, and so on are evinced by numerous artifacts such as mercury excavated from the Koga and Yoshinogari sites in Saga Prefecture, peach pits excavated from the Makino family tomb in Nara Prefecture, jade rings, jade tubes, and magatama (a stone jewel with a distinctive curved shape 勾玉) excavated from tombs in Kitakyushu, and bronze mirrors excavated from tombs in Kyoto, Nara, and Fukuoka.17 Baekje, through which Confucianism initially reached Japan, also served as a channel for the transmission of Daoism. The 1971 excavation of the tomb of King Muryeong of Baekje (r. 501–523) and the 1993 excavation of Buyeo Neungsanri Temple in the ancient capital of Baekje demonstrate that Baekje was also influenced by Daoist culture, and the inference that Daoism reached Japan through Baekje is beyond reproach. Chinese Buddhism There are numerous theories on when Buddhism came to China. The following three views are supported by classical historical works: (1) the “Emperor Ai theory.” According to this theory, in the first year of the Yuanshou era of the reign of Emperor Ai of Han (BC 2), “Classic of the Buddha (Futu jing 浮屠经) was orally transmitted to apprentice court academician Jing Lu by Scythian envoy Yi Cun.”18 (2) The “Emperor Ming theory.” According to this theory, “Emperor Ming dreamed of a tall golden man with light blazing from his head, and asked the ministers about it. They said, ‘There is a god in the west called the Buddha who stands two meters tall and is the color of gold.’ The emperor thus dispatched an envoy to India to learn the way of the Buddha, and thus it was that the Buddha came to be depicted in Chinese paintings.” Later, Emperor Ming sent a further mission to India. The envoys returned with a white horse carrying a load of Buddhist scriptures “and presented them to the Chinese court, an event from which the name of Baima [White Horse] Temple was drawn.”19 (3) The “Emperor Huan theory.” According to this theory, “Emperor Huan was a devotee of mysticism who venerated both the Buddha and Laozi” and “established a Buddhist temple as well as a Daoist temple within the palace”; “some commoners

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

141

came to worship, and in time, Buddhism flourished.”20 It is recorded that in the first year of the Jianhe era of the reign of Emperor Huan of Han (147), eminent Scythian monk Lokaksema traveled to Luoyang and translated fourteen Mahayana Buddhist scriptures in twenty-seven volumes, including Prajna Paramita Sutra (Banruo daohang pinjing 般若 道行品经), Surangama Samadhi Sutra (Shoulengyan sanwei jing 首愣 严三味经), and Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra (Banzhou sanwei jing 般 舟三味经), the earliest transmission of Buddhist scriptures in Chinese translation. The Goryeo dynasty work Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk yusa 三國遺事) records, “The Annals of Baekje states, ‘In the year gapsin of the reign of King Chimnyu (the ninth year of the Dayuan era of the reign of Emperor Xiaowu of the Eastern Jin dynasty), fifteenth monarch of Baekje, a barbarian monk named Marananta went to Jin and was ceremoniously welcomed by the court. The next year, the year eulyu, a Buddhist temple was built in the new capital of Hansan, and ten monks visited; this was the beginning of Buddhism in Baekje.’”21 King Chimnyu took the throne in 384. It was the twenty-sixth monarch, King Seong (523–554), who sent envoys to Japan with Buddhist scriptures in Chinese translation. In Japan, there are various theories on the specific time at which Buddhism entered through official channels, including Senka 3 (538), approximately Kinmei 6 (545), Kinmei 7 (546), and Kinmei 13 (552). For its part, Nihon shoki relates that in the tenth month of the thirteenth year of the reign of Emperor Kinmei (552), envoys of King Seong of Baekje “presented a gilt bronze Shakyamuni effigy, a number of hanging banners and canopies, and a number of scriptures” with an accompanying note effusively praising Buddhism as “the most outstanding of all doctrines, difficult to decipher and difficult to penetrate, beyond the grasp of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius” and “capable of generating measureless, boundless blessing.” “When the Emperor [Kinmei] heard of it, he leapt with joy. He declared to his envoys, ‘Never before have I heard of such a subtle, sublime doctrine—though I do not claim to be an adept myself.’”22 Following a debate, Emperor Kinmei ordered minister Soga Iname no Sukune to allow entrance to Buddhism, which flourished. Biography of Prince Shōtoku (Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō teisetsu 上宮聖徳法 王帝説) and History and Financial Records of Gangō-ji Temple (Gangō-ji garan engi narabi ni rukishi zaichō　元興寺伽藍緣起並流記資財帳), publications contemporary with Nihon shoki, both record that in the

142  C. SONG

tenth or eleventh month of Kinmei 7, King Seong of Baekje dispatched envoys with presents of a Buddha effigy, Buddhist ritual implements, and Buddhist sutras. While the texts differ on the precise date at which Buddhism was transmitted, to sum up the above theories, Buddhism entered Baekje in the first half of the sixth century; such theories are basically trustworthy. When Buddhism first entered Japan, a political dispute arose between the Soga clan, which supported Buddhism, and the Mononobe clan, which did not. The Soga clan ultimately won over the Mononobe, and Buddhism gradually began to spread throughout Japan. During Prince Shōtoku’s regency (593–622), he sent envoys to Sui, put extensive effort into importing Chinese Buddhism, built temples such as Hōryū-ji and Shitennō-ji, and wrote commentaries on Buddhist scriptures, and is thus revered as the forefather of Japanese Buddhism. The Six Schools of the Nara period (710–794), including Sanron, Jōjitsu, Kusha, Kegon, and Risshū, emphasized the study of Buddhist texts from Tang China. The main Buddhist sects of the Heian period (794–1192) were Tendai and Shingon. Saichō brought the Tendai sect, the creation of Buddhist master Zhitou, to Japan in 804, establishing a sect that venerated the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma pundarika sutra in Sanskrit or Fahua jing 法华经 in Chinese) on Mt. Hiei; in 816, the monk Kūkai, an expert calligrapher, imported the Shingon sect from Tang China, establishing a temple far from Kyoto on Mt. Kōya where the sect venerated Mahavairocana Tantra (Dari jing 大日经) and Vajrasekhara Sutra (Jingangding jing 金 刚顶经). These are both Mahayana sects which believe that by merely chanting mantras and believing in the Buddha with all one’s heart, even an evil person can achieve Buddhahood. Their teachings emphasize worldly benefits and were welcomed by nobles. In the Kamakura period (1192–1333), six new Buddhist sects arose: the Jōdoshū sect founded by Hōnen, the Jōdo Shinshū (Ikkōshū) sect founded by Shinran, the Jishū sect founded by Ippen, the Rinzai sect founded by Eisai, the Sōtō sect founded by Dōgen, and the Nichiren sect founded by Nichiren. In Kamakura, Buddhist sects proliferated, reflecting the differing spiritual pursuits of warriors and commoners and simultaneously demonstrating that Japanese Buddhism had reached new heights, rivaling Chinese Buddhism.

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

143

Unique Characteristics of the Transmission Process Continuity The transmission of aspects of culture such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism was characterized, in all cases, by continuity. Since the establishment of a unified Japanese state and the introduction of Confucianism, early Japanese Confucianism served as the primary governing philosophy of the Yamato court. Generations of Confucian scholars from the Korean peninsula and the Chinese mainland taught Confucianism in Japan, and these teachings were warmly welcomed. Later, in the Han, Tang, and Ming dynasties, forms of Confucian scholarship such as exegesis of ancient texts declined, and Cheng-Zhu NeoConfucianism touched off a second wave in the eastward transmission of Confucianism. Thanks to characteristics of Japanese society such as reverence for elite knowledge and eagerness to learn from Chinese culture, Shushigaku quickly found Japanese admirers and adherents, and during the Muromachi and Edo periods, it developed into an important aspect of Japanese traditional culture. Daoist classics and other related texts also continuously entered Japan throughout various phases of history. Buddhism was continuously grafted onto Japanese culture throughout the Sui and Tang dynasties, making the Asuka, Nara, and Heian periods the golden age of Japanese Buddhism. The six Nara sects of Heian-kyō, that is, Sanron, Jōjitsu, Hossō, Kusha, Kegon, and Risshū, introduced nearly every Tang dynasty Buddhist sect into Japan. In the Kamakura period, a tendency toward Japanization emerged in Japanese Buddhism. Thus, the transmission of Song dynasty Buddhism slowed. Relative to the Sui and Tang dynasties, a time when many traveled west to seek the dharma, the Song dynasty was a time when few Japanese monks went on religious pilgrimages to China. However, monks such as Chōnen, Jakushō, and Jōjin traveled to Song China and returned with numerous classical texts that have now been lost in China as well as new Song dynasty scriptures, and Song dynasty monks such as Lanxi Daolong and Dati Zhengnian transmitted the principles of Zen as well as Song dynasty Confucian teachings to Japan, spurring cultural interchange. The Mongol invasion of the Yuan dynasty resulted in the total severance of relations between the two powers, but Zen monks like

144  C. SONG

Xijian Shitan, Wuxue Zuyuan, and Jingtang Jueyuan furthered the development of Japanese Zen and sought to spread peace through the chanting of scriptures. In the Muromachi period, following the example of the official temple system of the Southern Song dynasty, the shogunate established the five main Zen temples of Nanzen-ji, Tenryū-ji, Kennin-ji, Tōfuku-ji, and Manju-ji, referred to as “Kyoto Gozan”; in Kamakura, it established the five main Zen temples of Kenchō-ji, Engaku-ji, Jufuku-ji, Jōchi-ji, and Jōmyō-ji, referred to as “Kamakura Gozan.” In 1386, Kyoto’s Shōkoku-ji was upgraded to the status of primary Gozan temple, further contributing to the completeness of the official temple system. With the shogunate’s support, Zen monks wrote literary works, personal journals, collections of quotations, informal essays, and other works in the Chinese language, in addition to commentaries on Buddhist scriptures and classical Confucian texts. The monks were Confucian scholars, and the Zen temples were something like academies of classical learning, giving “Gozan literature” multiple layers of significance. During the Edo period, eminent Chinese monks such as Zhenyuan, Juehai, Liaoran, Jueyin, and Chaoran traveled eastward to Japan and directed the affairs of three Chinese-founded temples in Nagasaki. At Kyoto’s Manpuku-ji Temple, Zen monk Ingen founded the Ōbakushū sect, whose adherents were skilled at both painting and calligraphy. Additionally, monks at the temple chanted sutras in Chinese, demonstrating the sect’s rich uniqueness. Daoism was introduced in a similar fashion which, to avoid redundancy, we will not describe in detail here. Diverse Channels of Transmission Exchange between the two powers took place through two channels, official and civilian. The former channel involved reciprocal visits between diplomatic envoys, scholar-monks dispatched by the government, and Japanese studying abroad in China; the latter involved various methods such as exchange between intellectuals, artists, clergy, and merchants. This resulted in the establishment of multiple, diverse channels of interaction, official and civilian, each assisting the other. Mainland Chinese culture was introduced into Japan through the above-described channels. The official channels described above were frequently disrupted after Japan ceased dispatching envoys to Tang China in 894. Civilian channels, on the other hand, remained in operation over the

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

145

course of two thousand years of cultural exchange. From the Heian period onward, civilian cultural exchange ended the monopoly of official channels and became the primary means by which cultural exchange occurred between China and Japan. In addition, there were indirect channels involving third countries. Among these, the Korean peninsula played a decisive role, with Baekje serving as a bridge for cultural transmission. As was the case with the transmission of Confucianism, in the Three Kingdoms period, Baekje was under pressure from both Silla in the west and Goguryeo in the south, and this led it to establish close diplomatic ties with Japan, enabling the transmission of mainland culture. In the sixth month of the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Keitai (513), “Baekje dispatched General Jeo-mi Mun-gwi and General Ju-ri Jeuk-i along with Hozumi no Omi Oshiyama to present as tribute a scholar of classical Chinese works named Dan Yang-i”; in the ninth month of the tenth year (516), Baekje dispatched a mission and “presented as tribute another scholar of classical Chinese works, Go An-mu of Han, requesting that he be allowed to take Dan Yang-i’s place. The exchange was carried out as requested.”23 In the second month of the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Kinmei (554), “Baekje dispatched General Sam-gwi, the hanyul of the Lower Division, with Mononobe no Kaku, the nae-ryul of the Upper Division, and others to ask for relief troops. They also offered Mak-go, son of the deok-ryul Dong-seong, in exchange for the nae-ryul Dong-seong’s son Eun. The scholar of classical Chinese works Wang Yu-gwi was replaced by the go-deok Ma Jeong-an; nine men including the monk Dam-hye replaced seven men including the monk Do-sim. Separately, in accordance with an imperial mandate, they presented the si-deok Wang Do-yang, a scholar of divination; the go-deok Wang Bo-son, a scholar of calendar-making; the nae-ryul Jun Ta, a scholar of medicine; the si-deok Beon Ryang-bong and the go-deok Jeong Yu-ta, experts at gathering herbs; and the si-deok Sam Guen, the gye-deok I Ma-cha, the gye-deok Jin No, and the dae-deok Jin Ta, musicians. All the exchanges were carried out as requested.”24 Confucian scholars such as the scholar of classical Chinese works Dan Yang-I, Wang Bo-son, Wang Yu-gwi, and the scholar of divination Wang Do-yang mentioned in the above citation took turns serving in Japan, making important contributions to the introduction and development of early Japanese Confucianism.

146  C. SONG

Korean Confucians of the Joseon dynasty also played a significant role in the institutionalization of Shushigaku. In 1590, Fujiwara Seika, abbot of Kyoto’s Myōju-ji Temple, paid an official visit to Korean envoys Geum II-seong and Heo Gam-ji and developed an intense interest in the Neo-Confucian philosophy of Yi Toe-gye. In 1597, Kang Hang, an official from Jeolla Province, Korea, was taken to Japan as a prisoner. Fujiwara treated Kang Hang well, and with the support of Akamatsu Hirohide of Tajima Province, paid him a significant sum to purchase classical Shushigaku texts. Moved by Fujiwara’s passion for learning, and in order to gather funds for the return journey, Kang copied a number of Shushigaku works in his own hand, including The Four Books and the Five Classics (Si shu wu jing 四书五经), Complete Classic of the Summary of the Rules of Propriety (Quli quanjing 曲礼全经), Elementary Learning (Xiao xue 小学), Record of Approaching Ideas (Jin si lu 近思录), Complete Record of Approaching Ideas (Jin si tong lu 近思统录), Separate Record of Approaching Ideas (Jin si bie lu 近思别录), Book of Comprehensive Knowledge (Tong shu 通书), and Rectifying the Obscure (Zheng meng 正蒙), and gave them to Fujiwara.25 Fujiwara intently studied this knowledge passed down to him by Kang Hang, established a foundation for Neo-Confucian studies by expounding upon the principles of “natural law” and “human temperament,” and initiated the institutionalization of Shushigaku by taking on shogunate official Hayashi Razan as a student. Breadth and Depth of Influence Chinese culture was transmitted consistently to Japan in both tangible and intangible forms and exerted a widespread influence. Among these, the culture of paddy cultivation entered Japan, took root, germinated, and grew up strong and steady, shaping an agricultural framework and dietary habits with long-lasting influence. Based on recent archaeological excavations, surveys, and analyses, it is apparent that round-grained non-glutinous rice cultivation emerged at the latest seven thousand years ago across an extensive area along the lower reaches of China’s Yangtze River. In 1973, stratified deposits of rice paddies averaging 40–50 cm in thickness and weighing an estimated total of more than one hundred tons were excavated from the fourth cultural stratum of the Hemudu site in Yuyao, Zhejiang Province.26 The results of an archaeological excavation at the Kuahuqiao site in Hangzhou further demonstrate that Chinese paddy cultivation began 7700 years ago. Round-grained non-glutinous rice cultivation practices were transmitted

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

147

to Japan by way of the Korean peninsula or the maritime route across the East China Sea during the late Jōmon Period and the Yayoi Period. In 1978, carbonized rice husks and the ruins of paddy fields and canals were excavated from the Itazuke site in the Hakata ward of the city of Fukuoka, furnishing powerful material evidence of this. In addition to this, (1) with reference to ideology, the ethical framework of Confucianism provided a foundation for Japanese political culture, setting forth commonly practiced behavioral criteria and value standards, and Buddhist and Daoist religious ideas played important roles in the development of Japanese religion. (2) With reference to government, the ritsuryō system imported from China provided support for the ancient imperial system as well as, in modern times, a foundation for the “reestablishment of imperial rule” in the Meiji Restoration. (3) With reference to literature, history, and art, historical materials of great value to the study of ancient Japan, such as the Chinese language poetry collection Recollections of Poetry and the six Chinese language national histories including Nihon shoki were produced. (4) With reference to art, pronounced Chinese influence is apparent in gagaku, which incorporates influences from Tang dynasty song and dance, the Golden Hall of Tōshōdai-ji Temple, which directly employs a Tang architectural style, the dry lacquered statue in the same temple depicting Jianzhen in a seated position, and other works of sculpture such as the sculptures of Ashura and the Eight Legions at Kōfuku-ji Temple; Chinese Song, Yan, and Ming dynasty ink and wash paintings, calligraphy, and so on were transmitted to Japan, and famous painters such as artist-monk Sesshū, who studied painting in Ming China, emerged in large numbers, exerting an influence over later schools such as the Kanō school, the Unkoku school, and the Hasegawa School. The exquisitely beautiful craftsmanship of the Japanese national treasures kept at Shōsō-in provides evidence of cultural exchange between ancient China and Japan. (5) With regard to education, Chinese books of various types, such as Classic of Filial Piety, the Four Books and Five Classics, The ThousandCharacter Classic, Wengong’s Family Norms (Wengong jiafan 温公家范), and General Import of the Derivative Meaning of the Six Precepts (Liuyu yanyi dayi 六谕衍义大意) went into long-term circulation as textbooks, and ōraimono,27 which were modeled after Tang dynasty shuyi, continued to serve as models for private school textbooks until the Edo period. (6) With reference to science and technology, beginning during the reign of Emperor Suiko, knowledge related to astronomy, calendrical systems,

148  C. SONG

geography, Chinese medicine, and mathematics was transmitted to and received warmly by Japan. Astrological observatories began to be built during the reign of Emperor Tenmu, and the imitative observation of comets and water clocks of the Nara period as well as the agricultural texts and “Wasan” (Japanese mathematics 和算) of the Edo period demonstrate the continuing development of ancient science and technology in Japan. (7) With regard to celebrations and holidays, as the “Tang dynasty vogue” of the Nara period penetrated Japanese society, Chinese holidays such as Chinese New Year, the Dragon Boat Festival, the Qixi Festival, and the Double Ninth Festival were transmitted to Japan, becoming traditional Japanese holidays which have subsequently endured for more than a thousand years. There are countless other similar examples. In summary, without the influence of ancient Chinese culture, it is impossible to imagine how Japanese traditional culture might have taken shape and developed. To deny the objective presence of elements of Chinese culture in the traditional culture of Japan would be not only unhelpful, but harmful to the healthy development of academic research, and any such attempt would be in vain.

2  Adaptation and Innovation in the Process of Importing Chinese Culture into Ancient Japan From the viewpoint of indigenous Japanese culture, the culture imported from ancient China was foreign. It was necessary to import Chinese culture to meet a variety of needs. Simultaneously, for this foreign culture from China to take root and grow in Japanese soil, innovation on the part of the Japanese court and commoners, suitable national conditions, political adaptation and innovation, and the gradual internalization of this culture in the form of Japanese traditional culture were needed. In ancient Japan, examples of the importation, adaptation, absorption, and assimilation of Chinese culture are too numerous to list. Due to limited space, here we will examine only the examples below. The Invention of Katakana Characters Prior to the introduction of elements of Chinese culture, Japan had its own language, but it did not have its own writing system. As books and immigrants streamed in from continental Asia, Chinese characters arrived

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

149

in Japan and quickly came into use. Until at least the Asuka period, all official foreign diplomatic correspondence was written in Chinese. It was clearly no simple matter to write the Japanese language in imported characters, and there was a wide disparity between oral and written language. The undertaking was further complicated by the fact that Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family and Japanese to the Altaic language family. After acquiring a firm grasp of Chinese characters early on, in the Nara period, the Japanese made use of these preexisting characters, borrowing their function of expressing a single sound with a single character and also making use of their logographic function to create manyōgana, the first step in the creation of the Japanese written language. Manyōgana borrowed the Chinese language pronunciations of characters and used them to write Japanese sounds. The name “manyōgana” originates from the fact that the Manyōshū and other works of waka poetry use such characters extensively. Works written in manyōgana exclusively use Chinese characters, which are also referred to as magana. There is little relation between the Chinese meanings and Japanese pronunciations of the Chinese characters used in manyōgana. For the Japanese, borrowing Chinese characters for their sounds resolved at least in part the problem of lack of consistency in written and spoken languages and constituted a critically important first step in the creation of a Japanese written language. In the Heian period, for speed and ease of writing, scholar-monks and government clerks made reference to manyōgana to create katakana, which borrows components of kaishu style Chinese characters, and hiragana, which borrows caoshu style characters, increasing the range of kana characters. Simultaneously, traditional Chinese characters remained in use. In the process of creating a Japanese written language, while male aristocrats continued to use Chinese characters, considering them to be elegant and refined, Japanese women made innovations, becoming the first to use hiragana to write diaries and literature; for these reasons, hiragana is also referred to as onnade (women’s script 女手). At the time, there were forty-seven kana characters, and for ease of memorization, the Buddhist chant format of Nirvana Sutra (Niepan jing 涅槃经) was borrowed to create the Iroha Poem (Iroha uta いろは歌). In the twelfth century, texts mingling Chinese with Japanese emerged, with Chinese characters used to express meaning and kana used to express sound. Such texts

150  C. SONG

included both onyomi readings and kunyomi readings, representing the Japanese written language in fully developed form as it remains in use today. From copying Chinese characters wholesale to using them selectively for sound in the form of manyōgana, and then inventing katakana and hiragana and adding Chinese characters to the mix, the Japanese created a composite written language consisting of a mixture of Chinese and Japanese which is a manifestation of the innovative spirit of the ancient Japanese. By employing a mix of kana for sound and Chinese characters for meaning, the Japanese language nimbly cleared the linguistic barriers between the two languages and overcame the inconsistency of written and spoken language, and thus has remained in use to the present. Such a written language was of benefit internally in solving the difficulties presented by complex Japanese regional dialects, and externally in facilitating international cultural exchange in East Asia, factors that explain its continued vitality. The Application of Chinese Cosmology and History by the Compilers of “Kiki myth” Kojiki and Nihon shoki were both compiled in the early eighth century and include sections on the creation of the world by the gods as well as sections on the world of the gods and the world of people, explaining matters including the creation of the universe, the establishment of the state, and aspects of national history such as imperial lineages. It is readily apparent that the compilers of Kiki myth were influenced by ancient Chinese cosmology and history. The Kiki myth origin stories describe the creation of the world by the gods with only minor differences between the texts. In the preface of Kojiki, Ō no Yasumaro describes the separation of heaven and earth as follows: “When chaos had begun to coalesce, but energy and image were not yet in effect, nothing had been named and nothing had been done, and no one could know its shape. Nonetheless, heaven and earth first parted, the three gods commenced creation, and yin and yang divided; these two spirits became the progenitors of all things.”28 This passage greatly resembles one from the “Essence and Spirit” (“Jingshen pian” 精神篇) section of Huananzi: “Before heaven and earth existed, there were only images and no forms, and all was obscure and dim. Two gods arose from chaos

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

151

to administer heaven and earth, and thus yin and yang divided from one another and separated into the eight cardinal directions.”29 Similarly, the creation story of Nihon shoki reads, “Long ago, before heaven and earth were cleaved apart, before yin and yang divided, they formed a chaotic mass like an egg, lacking defined boundaries, with a sprout inside. Its pure, bright part spread out thin and long, forming heaven, and its heavy, clouded part settled and became earth. The delicate, subtle part formed easily, but the heavy, clouded part coalesced with difficulty. Thus, heaven formed first and only then was earth defined, and afterward the gods came into being in the midst of this.”30 This again resembles a passage from Historical Record of the Three and the Five (San wu li ji 三五历纪), “Heaven and earth formed a chaotic mass like an egg, and Pangu came into being in the midst of this. When he was 18,000 years old, heaven and earth divided, with the clear, pure part forming heaven and the dark, clouded part forming earth. Pangu was between them, transforming nine times a day, granting divinity to heaven and sacredness to earth.”31 Not only do the texts follow the same line of thinking, but even the specific wording is also quite similar. Despite these similarities, the descriptions of the creator deity differ. In the Kiki texts, the deity that takes Pangu’s place, that is, the creator deity said to have emerged when “heaven and earth first parted,” is “Amanominakanushi no Mikoto”32; it is alternately stated that the deity that first emerged “upon the initial separation” was “Kuninotokotachi no Mikoto.”33 The explanations of the formation of heaven and earth, the human world, and the territory of Japan are also extraordinarily similar. In Chinese creation myth, after Pangu died, “His energy became the clouds and wind, his voice became thunder, his left eye became the sun, his right eye became the moon, his four limbs became the four cardinal directions, his blood became the rivers, his energetic channels became the land, his muscles became the fields and the soil, the hair on his head became the stars, the hair on his body became the vegetation, his teeth became metal and stone, his bone marrow became pearls and jade, his sweat became the rain and dew, and the parasites in his body, stirred by the wind, became the human race.”34 In the Kiki texts, the male deity Izanagi no Mikoto and the female deity Izanami no Mikoto married and produced the territory of Japan, called “Ōyashimaguni,” as well as thirty-five deities including the god of the ocean, the god of the water, the god of wood, the god of the mountains, the god of the earth, the god

152  C. SONG

of fire, and so on. When Izanagi was washing his left eye, the sun god Amaterasu Ōkami emerged, and when he was washing his right eye, the moon god emerged, thus giving rise to the notion of a “kingdom of the gods” distinct from Confucianism which, by complete contrast, rejects notions of spiritual beings.35 In linking the world of the gods with the world of humanity, the innovation of the Kiki texts lies in the extended application of external concepts, in which the notion of divine spirits takes the place of the Confucian notion of the mandate of the heaven. Thus, the emperor was believed to be descended from the sun god “Amaterasu Ōkami,” and the “grandson of heaven” Ninigi no Mikoto was believed to have descended to Mt. Takachiko in Tsukushi no Kuni, Kyushu in accordance with a “divine edict,” bearing the “three sacred treasures” of the mirror, the jewel, and the sword, to rule over “Ashihara no Nakatsukuni”; then, the grandson of heaven, “Kamuyamato Iwarebiko no Sumeramikoto,” embarked on an expedition across the eastern sea, made his way to Yamato and, in the year kanototori (AD 660), ascended to the imperial throne at Kashihara-gū on Mt. Unebi, becoming Japan’s legendary first emperor, Emperor Jimmu,36 thus effecting a transition from the age of myth to the age of human history. In the process of compiling the Kiki texts, in particular Nihon shoki, the compilers employed theories of Chinese monarchic hierarchy as well as the writing techniques of the Spring and Autumn Annals in exhorting virtue and condemning vice to assemble a historical account while simultaneously employing the concept of an “eternal lineage” as a replacement for the theory of the five virtues, inventing an imperial lineage beginning with Emperor Jimmu, taking pains to promote the uniqueness of the Japanese “kokutai” (body politic 国体), and drawing a clear distinction with Chinese notions of history involving “the virtuous one as monarch” and “changing of dynasties.” The Absorption and Adaptation of Elements of Daoism The rapid absorption of Daoism into Japanese religious culture and its coexistence with other forms of religion within Japanese society are themes that have occupied scholars for many years. Recently, Japanese scholars have intensively studied these themes and achieved noteworthy results.

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

153

Masuo Shin’ichi has studied the numerous connections between Daoism and aspects of Japanese religion such as Onmyōdō, Mikkyō, Shinto, Shugendō, Kōshin Shinkō, and fengshui based on the foundation of research performed by Yamashita Katsuaki, Kosaka Shinji, Takahashi Masao, Takahashi Miyuki, Sugawara Shinkai, Miyake Hitoshi, and Nagai Yoshinori, and other scholars as well as his own research. To summarize, his conclusions are as follows. (1) During the ritsuryō period that began in the second half of the seventh century, the Onmyōryō was established under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Central Affairs. It consisted of four divisions, a divination division, an astronomy division, a calendar division, and a timekeeping division which were responsible for overseeing fortunetelling, astronomical observation, calendrical projections, timekeeping during day and night, and so on. Initial efforts to systematize Onmyōdō began in the tenth century, involving additions of a clearly magical/religious character including the four divination methods of Taiyi, Leigong, Dunjia, and Liuren, the performance of rituals to ward off calamity, and reporting of astronomical phenomena to the emperor. (2)  In that esoteric Buddhism (Japanese: Mikkyō 密教) imported from India to China placed great importance on worldly benefit and rapid attainment of Buddhahood, and did not emphasize ascetic practices, it had much in common with Daoism, and its scriptures include many Daoist elements. As esoteric Buddhism was imported into Japan, elements of Daoism were imported as well, and Mikkyō both influenced and was influenced by Onmyōdō. Mikkyō clergy, like Onmyōdō priests, chanted incantations to expel evil spirits when new houses were constructed and performed Uho (Chinese: Yubu 禹步) mystic dancing to dispel the energy of evil heavenly bodies and strengthen the power of good ones. (3)  In the eighth century, Daoist astrology and Mikkyō began to overlap and intermingle in Japan, eventually giving rise to three new faiths, Myōken, Gotō, and Kōshin Shinkō, which venerated the North Star and the Big Dipper. In the late Heian period, Onmyōdō began taking on a more common character, and the deities it venerated, god of joy, wealth, longevity, and worldly

154  C. SONG

enjoyment Taizan Fukun and the twelve gods of the underworld, were widely known and venerated by the masses. As Onmyōdō evolved, elements of Daoism began to enter Japanese religious culture. (4) Shinto is an indigenous Japanese religion distinct from Buddhism and Confucianism, and in the late Kamakura period, Shake Shinto (a form of Shinto transmitted by hereditary priests 社家 神道), which emphasizes offerings to the gods, rituals, and religious doctrines, took shape, including sects such as Ise Shinto and Yoshida Shinto. These forms of Shinto assimilated the teachings of Buddhism and Onmyōdō and, as polytheistic forms of worship involving veneration of nature deities, had much in common with Daoism. The descriptions of the creation of heaven and earth, concepts of divinity, and relationships between the gods and mankind in Ise Shinto texts such as The Five Books of Shinto (Shintō gobu sho 神道五部書) and Illuminated Origins of the Gods (Ruiju jingi hongen 類聚神祇本源) are based upon Chinese Daoist philosophy, divination, occultism, and mystical Confucianism, and extensively cite related passages from Laozi, The Annotated Laozi (Laozi shuyi 老子述义), The Book of Changes, and The Grand Significance of the Five Elemental Phases (Wuxing dayi 五行大义). Yoshida Shinto criticized honji suijaku (the theory that Shinto kami were manifestations of Buddhist deities 本地垂迹), but its scripture Singular Compendium of Shinto Doctrine (Yuiitsu Shintō myōhō yōshū 唯一神道明法要集) actively draws upon Laozi, Zhuangzi, and True Scripture of the Supreme Mystical Big Dipper on Original Destiny and Life Extension (Taishang xuanling beidou benming yansheng zhenjing 太上玄灵北斗本命延生真经). Much of the sacrificial etiquette of the Compendium is drawn from the Daoist Scripture of the Big Dipper (Beidou jing 北斗经); “Mystical Talisman Methods” (“Genrei fuhō” 玄霊符法), part of the Compendium, cites fifty-seven Daoist magical incantations directly from the original texts, leading to the creation of “Shinto-Daoist mystical talismans”; such teachings had enormous influence. (5) Shugendō, a form of mountain worship, reached its final form by absorbing elements from Onmyōdō, Mikkyō, and Daoism. Shugendō founder En no Ozunu was an ascetic who lived in the late seventh century near Mt. Yamato-Katsuragi. At the time, the area was a hotbed of Daoism. Works of the mid-Heian

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

155

period such as Miraculous Tales of the Lotus Sutra from Japan (Dainihonkoku hokke genki大日本国法華験記) and Annals of Japanese Immortals (Honchō shinsen den 本朝神仙伝) record tales of groups active in areas on the periphery of Yamato such as Yoshino and Kumano which are rich with descriptions of the unique characteristics of Shugendō practitioners. From the Kamakura period to the Muromachi period, Shugendō practitioners gradually formed organized groups and carried out religious activities such as prayer, sorcery, blessing of talismans, and tamashizume (a ceremony to prevent a person’s soul from leaving his or her body 魂詰) on holy mountains such as Mt. Ōmine, Mt. Yoshino, Mt. Kurobane, Mt. Tsuki, and Mt. Hiko in areas such as Kinki, Tōhoku, and Kyūshū. The practices they performed in the mountains, including incantations, fasting, sacrifices, and grain avoidance, resemble the practices recorded in The Master Who Embraces Simplicity, but Daoism emphasizes that immortality is to be obtained by practicing asceticism as a lone mountain hermit rather than in a group. (6) Kōshin Shinkō, which is based upon the Daoist notion of the three corpses, was transmitted continuously among the nobility in the Heian period and samurai families in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods in the form of Kōshinkai. The faith, which is based upon Laozi’s Scripture on the Shūkōshin Method in Pursuit of Immortality (Rōshi shūkōshin kyū chōsei kyō 老子守庚申求長生 経; alternately The Kōshin Scripture [Kōshin kyō 庚申経]), gradually incorporated Buddhist elements, as seen in Origins of Kōshin (Kōshin engi 庚申縁起), which became a classical scripture of Kōshinkai. In the Edo period, Shugendō mountain hermits and Mikkyō monks developed Kōshinkai into Kōshinkō, organizing Kōshin congregations and building Kōshin pagodas across many regions.37 The above-described studies by Japanese scholars further explain that in the process of the transmission of Daoism to Japan and its penetration into religions such as Shinto, Onmyōdō, and Shugendō, although Daoism did not ultimately form an independent religious entity, it existed as an important element of the daily activities of other sects and denominations and exerted an influence upon Japanese society.

156  C. SONG

Daoism was imported, adapted, and applied in accordance with the typical Japanese approach of selectively borrowing from other cultures for its own needs, in clear contrast with the manner in which Confucianism and Buddhism spread to Japan. Opinions differ as to the reasons for this, in regard to which we await the results of further research. The Origin and Ascendance of Edo Period Kokugaku Kokugaku, alternately referred to Kōkokugaku or Wagaku, initiated the “Jinnō no Michi” movement denouncing Buddhist and Confucian elements and seeking to restore past greatness, emphasizing a uniquely Japanese national spirit. Kokagaku flourished in the middle and late Edo period and represented an attempt to establish a culturally objective consciousness. Early Kokugaku scholar Shimokōbe Chōryū (1624–1686) was a waka poet who, in his studies of Manyōshū, devoted himself to discovering a uniquely Japanese spirit, composing Anthology on Forest Leaves Collecting Dust (Rinyō ruijin shū 林葉累塵集), a work that popularized the uniquely Japanese poetic form of waka. His close friend Keichū (1640–1702), a Shingon Buddhist monk, continued closely studying Manyōshū and added further annotations expressing the belief that medieval poetic studies had been adulterated by Confucian and Buddhist teachings. In Commentary on Manyōshū (Manyō daishōki 万葉大匠記), Keichū emphasizes that “Japan is the kingdom of the gods,” employing Shinto as a replacement for Buddhism and Confucianism, holding that “in remote antiquity, Shinto alone ruled the land,” and asserting that the spirit of Shinto was to be found in waka collections such as Manyōshū. Simultaneously, Keichū, who was deeply influenced by Confucianism, regarded Shinto as mystical and abstruse, asserting, “Shinto is my foundation, and I also make use of elements of Confucianism and Buddhism.”38 Although inquiries by pioneers such as Keichū extended no further than the textual study of Manyōshū, the reverence such forefathers of Kokugaku held toward Shinto determined the essential orientation of Kokugaku, which was to inquire into the “ancient mindset” that predominated prior to the introduction of Confucianism and Buddhism. The “four giants of Kokugaku” who followed Keichū brought the study and dissemination of Kokugaku to new heights. Keichū’s disciple, a Shinto priest named Kada no Azumamaro (1669–1736), praised

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

157

the “pure Japanese spirit of Manyōshū and the boundless study opportunities it presents,” advocated further developing such studies, and praised the unique national spirit of Japan, holding it to be the “kingdom of the gods.” Kada expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the rise of Confucianism and Buddhism, “the decline of indigenous Japanese learning,” and the prevalence of Chinese occult ideas in Shinto. Thus, Kada submitted a document to the shogunate demanding the promotion of the “teachings of the holy emperor,” glorifying Japan as the “kingdom of the gods,” praising the spirit of Shinto, and proposing an early version of the “theory of national polity [Kokutairon 国体論].”39 Kada’s disciple Kamo no Mabuchi (1697–1769) was also originally a Shinto clergyman. Kamo advocated the intensive study of ancient poetic, literary, and historical works such as Manyōshū, Tale of Genji (Genji monogatari 源氏物語), Kojiki, and Nihon shoki, called for eliminating mistaken interpretations, and followed the trend of studying foreign doctrines such as Confucianism and Buddhism in order to uncover a uniquely Japanese cultural essence. To these ends, Kamo forcefully advocated “a return to ancient classics,” summing up the essence of the ancient way as “the way of the divine emperor.”40 Kamo’s work served to further clarify the fundamental orientation of Kokugaku. His essential stance was to reject Buddhism and Confucianism based on the belief that Yao’s abdication to Shun was a case of “excessive good transforming into evil”; that Yu, to whom Shun further abdicated, was an evil person; that King Wen of Zhou’s boast to “own two-thirds of everything under heaven” resulted in his demise; that the world should not have accepted King Wu of Zhou’s expedition against Emperor Zhou of Shang; that the Duke of Zhou went too far in massacring more than forty feudal lords of the Shang and Yin and their families; that the introduction of Confucianism into Japan led to upheaval and the unfaithfulness of subjects to their rulers; and so on. Whereas Kamo heaped scorn on the “kingdom of Tang,” he praised Japan as a “a kingdom of honest, fair-minded people who are disciplined and forthright in spite of their lack of education”; he further stated that “the people of the Kingdom of Tang have evil hearts” and “forget in the evening what they learned in the morning” and that the Japanese “way of reconstructing ancient greatness” meant its empire would last forever whereas “the way of the Kingdom of Tang” was bound to be short-lived, arguing forcefully on this basis for a “theory of Japanese superiority.”

158  C. SONG

Kamo’s disciple Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801), originally a merchant employer (toiya 問屋), wrote the voluminous forty-four volume Commentary on the Kojiki, which distinguished him as a major figure in Kokugaku. Motoori insisted that records of the age of the gods were historically factual, criticized the Confucian acceptance of revolutions and changing of dynasties, and extolled Kusunoki Masashige’s loyal service to and ultimate death for the sake of the emperor. Simultaneously, Motoori summed up Japan’s unique cultural character, that is, “mono no aware,” as follows: “So-called mono no aware means, first of all, sensitivity to the subtle. What one sees and hears, and what one’s heart feels, all become a sigh”; “To experience a moving phenomenon and fail to be moved or to feel anything is to lack mono no aware. Such a person has no heart.”41 The spirit of mono no aware led Motoori to sympathize with “direct petitions” to authorities by commoners and townsfolk. Motoori believed that direct petitions “might appear to be an insignificant matter, but are in fact very important” and resulted “in all cases not from the errors of those below, but the errors of those above.”42 Motoori’s self-professed disciple Hirata Atsutane (1776–1843) focused his studies on Kojiki and Nihon shoki. Influenced by Daoist immortal worship, Hirata studied the “age of the gods” of the Kiki texts, arguing for a “theory of the kingdom of the gods” and a “theory of Japanese superiority.” Hirata divided the universe into the three realms of heaven, earth, and the land of the dead, holding that “Mikuni,” the heavenly realm of Amaterasu Ōkami, was to be found above Japan, and the mystical underworld ruled by Susanoo was to be found below. The land between the two, Japan, was held to be the foremost kingdom in the world, “a great kingdom that is the pillar of the ten thousand kingdoms,” “a grand empire… surpassing any of the other ten thousand kingdoms”; the reason was said to be that “our emperor understands the principles of the great rulers of the ten thousand kingdoms, and also knows where the spirits dwell,” and thus Hirata called for “holding firmly to the great spirit of Yamato.”43 Hirata focused upon explicating the “the way of the divine emperor,” believing that the Confucian ethics of “respect, justice, benevolence, wisdom, and bravery” were manifestations of the will of the divine; that the deities of the underworld observed and passed judgment on the actions of humans in the world; that human nature was bestowed by the gods in heaven, and only by eliminating personal intelligence was it possible to bring human behavior into accord with divine will and to realize a truly divine world, that

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

159

is, the world of “the way of the divine emperor”; that the essence of the “way of the divine emperor” was “taking tranquility as a foundation, avoiding evil and impurity, being loyal to one’s ruler and family and kind to one’s wife and children, having many children and grandchildren, maintaining a harmonious household, earning the trust of one’s friends, showing compassion to slaves and maidservants, bringing honor to the family name,” and so on. Hirata attacked Confucianism as an “enemy of the divine” and condemned Shakyamuni for having “abandoned his ruler and father” and “abandoned his wife and children,” thus acting against human nature, for which reason his teachings were to be regarded as corrupt.44 The “four great figures of Kokugaku” made various contributions to the development of Kokugaku as an academic discipline. Under contemporary historical conditions, these contributions were highly significant. First, Kokugaku took a critical stance toward Buddhism and Confucianism, launching forceful attacks against the shogunate’s two main tools of thought control, Buddhism and Shushigaku, which had the objective effect of diminishing the influence of these ideologies. Second, Kokugaku insisted on restoring past greatness, that is, it emphasized returning to ancient ways that preceded autocratic rule by the warrior class, reflecting the intense dissatisfaction of peasants and townsfolk with contemporary conditions. Third, Kokugaku extolled the ancient “way of the divine emperor,” advocating venerating the emperor and repelling barbarians, aims which were part and parcel of Shinto, and providing ideological tools for the shogunate’s political struggles. As a manifestation of the sense of decline, and to fulfill the spiritual needs of a social group in decline, Kokugaku presented a complex, even self-contradictory sense of values. The positive effects of Kokugaku acted directly against the trends of the times, and Kokugaku’s “theory of the kingdom of the gods” and “theory of Japanese superiority” became primary sources of the ideologies that spread from modern Japan to other countries. The rise of Kokugaku, with its emphasis upon Japanese uniqueness and superiority, in the mid-Edo period was a manifestation of self-searching on Japan’s part as it sought to discover and develop a unique cultural essence at a time when Japanese folk culture was flourishing, embodying a self-aware mentality putting folk culture first and reacting against the long-term penetration of Confucianism and Buddhism. However, Kokugaku scholars were unable to break free completely from the

160  C. SONG

influence of these imported ideologies, particularly Confucianism. In many cases, Kokugaku scholars even drew on Confucianism to propagate Kokugaku. Hirata Atsuntane, for instance, in explicating the general aim of the “way of the divine emperor” as part of his view of ethical relations according to the five virtues, often cited the Confucian virtues in something very close to their original form and even mixed in elements from the Daoist theory of the five blessings. This came about because Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist cultural elements had already deeply taken root in Japanese traditional culture, Kokugaku being no exception. The Creation of Bushido Samurai provided Japan with a set of values and a moral orientation. By the Heian period, when samurai first arose, ideologies such as musha no narai (warrior studies 武者の習い) and shidō (the way of the warrior 士道) which emphasized a spirit of official service, blood and regional ties, loyalty, warrior’s courage, and honor were already in existence. In 1232, the Kamakura shogunate issued Code of Adjudication (Go seibai shikimoku 御成敗式目, alternately Jōei shikimoku 貞永式目), “seibai” meaning adjudication and “shikimoku” meaning code. This was the first code of conduct formulated by samurai and consisted of fifty-one articles addressing primarily litigation by the shogun’s vassals, their rights and obligations, succession of assets among them, the professional duties of military governors and estate stewards, and moral standards for samurai such as worshiping the kami and the Buddha, pledging loyalty to the monarch, and so on. The code applied only to the samurai and did not govern court officials or religious institutions such as shrines and temples. In 1336, the Muromachi shogunate issued the seventeen-article Kenmu Code (Kenmu shikimoku 建武式目), reaffirming that extravagance was to be avoided in favor of thrift; prohibiting bribery and violent acts; stipulating that government posts should be given to the virtuous and capable; prohibiting trespassing on private property; forbidding samurai from taking part in drunken gatherings; returning vacant land to the original owners; providing for hearing of litigation by the impoverished and disempowered; and so on. These codes served to standardize musha no narai. In this process, Shushigaku, Zen, and Shinto exerted a significant influence as the three main sources of bushido. In 1615, the newly established Edo shogunate issued a series of laws governing samurai, the court, temples, and shrines. As bushido became more legalistic

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

161

and standardized, Shushigaku served to orient it toward ethics, and it ultimately became the unique moral code of the ruling class, that is, the warrior class. In summary, bushido was based on an ethical framework of which the five Confucian relationships and five virtues made up a part. The main distinguishing features of bushido are described below. (1) A foundation in loyalty and filiality The Laws for Military Houses (Buke shohatto 武家諸法度) issued to the feudal lords and the Laws for Samurai (Shoshi hatto 諸士法度) issued to the hatamoto and gokenin, hereditary samurai vassals, by the Edo period shogunate state explicitly, “reward loyalty among civilians and the military to rectify decorum” and “encourage loyalty and filiality in order to rectify laws and rites.”45 Yamaga Sokō’s The Way of the Warrior (Shidō 士道) similarly emphasizes, “it is a warrior’s work to realize loyalty and filiality.”46 The first article of Yoshida Shōin’s late Edo period Seven Principles for Samurai (Shiki shichisoku 士規七則) reads, “There are five cardinal human relationships, among which those between ruler and subject and father and son are paramount. People gain humanity by taking loyalty and filiality as a foundation.”47 As is apparent, loyalty and filiality are the foundational values of bushido. (2) Advocating both the way of the scholar and the way of the warrior, but placing the way of the warrior first and emphasizing the martial spirit Laws for Military Houses stipulates, “Scholarship and military pursuits, each complementing the other—this is the ancient way, and either should be practiced alone,” and requires that all samurai be “thoroughly acquainted with scholarship, martial affairs, and the ways of the bow and the horse,” given that “the horse and bow are essential for military houses.”48 Yamaga Sokō believed that “warriors who do not work in farming, construction, or trade” born to “houses of the bow and horse” had the natural “duty” to put martial affairs before all else.49 Yamamoto Jōchō’s Hagakure (葉隠) states that those who consider themselves samurai must “possess the determination to display their martial bravery to the world,”50 and demands that samurai pursue both scholarship and military pursuits, but never neglect their main duty of martial affairs. In the Edo period, only samurai were allowed to carry dual swords as symbols

162  C. SONG

of their exclusive authority over and dominant position in military affairs. (3) Emphasizing a spirit of official service and loyalty One Hundred Articles of Tokugawa Seiken (Tokugawa Seiken hyakkajō 徳川成憲百ケ条) compares the relationship between ruler and vassal to “the sky providing a canopy for the earth,” regarding the loyalty of vassals to their rulers as equivalent to “nature’s law” and “the way of the warrior.”51 Yamaga Sokō’s The Way of the Warrior refers to the “main duty” of a samurai as “taking a master and loyally carrying out his duties”; his work Elementary Education for Military Houses (Buke shōgaku 武家小学) instructs the apprentices of samurai to get up in the morning and, before anything else, “reflect thankfully on the love and care of their masters, and only then turn their thoughts to their daily tasks.”52 This mindset of loyally performing official duties is the core of bushido upon which all its other moral precepts are based. The notion of performing one’s official duties to the point of giving one’s life for one’s ruler was cloaked in a mystical aura of righteous service when, in fact, the “official service” of vassals and the “love and care” they received from the masters who paid their salaries were outgrowths of a transactional relationship which was in truth founded on economic, material value. (4) Promoting a worldview trivializing life and glorifying death Bushido emphasized vassals giving their lives unconditionally to their rulers, perishing in battle, or committing seppuku for their rulers’ sake. Thus, bushido deliberately promoted a worldview trivializing life and glorifying death, requiring vassals to abide by hereditary hierarchical systems, break down the boundary between life and death, and ultimately die with honor. The opening passages of Hagakure explicitly state, “The way of the warrior is to find a way to die honorably” and that “Every morning and every evening, he is to die and die again, until he reaches a permanent state of living death. Only then may he obtain freedom on the path of the warrior and devote his life to scrupulously fulfilling his duty” and thereby “avoid dying like a dog.”53 Here we see a burgeoning concept of shame with an emphasis upon honor. It is worth noting that bushido took on its final form during the Edo period, when the country was closed to the outside and remained free

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

163

from internal disturbances for a long period of time. Thus, the original meaning of ancient bushido lies in regulating the behavior of the warrior class, stabilizing systems of governance, and emphasizing the mindset of samurai rulers. This clearly differs from the modern spirit of militarism extolling “loyalty to one’s ruler and love for one’s country” and the use of this as a spiritual support for aggression overseas. The rulers of all ancient East Asian states had sets of morals and values. Unlike China and Korea, however, from the shogunate era onward, the Japanese ruling class had a governing ideology that it had created on its own and that had uniquely Japanese characteristics, namely bushido. Though the fundamental virtues of bushido were drawn from the ethical framework of Shushigaku, the warrior class sorted and selected these based on its own needs. For instance, bushido placed greater emphasis on the one-sided group loyalty of the vassals to their rulers, extolled a martial spirit, emphasized dying a worthy death, ignored the value of life, and so on. In one sense, the moral precepts of bushido may be seen as a militarized version of Shushigaku ethics insofar as the nucleus and soul of bushido precepts and virtues originate from the theory of hierarchical position, ethical framework, and political mentality of Shushigaku. In that samurai were hereditary, professional military men, their modes of thought and action clearly differed from those of scholar-bureaucrats, who were mainly concerned with passing the imperial service examination. They had limited ability and willingness to study ideological principles and commentaries on ancient texts, but their practical abilities and bravery exceeded those of the literati. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why, in the closing years of the shogunate era, many middle- and lower-class samurai nurtured ambitions of overthrowing the shogunate. Viewed in terms of cultural and historical significance, it is apparent that bushido was created and spread in response to the needs of the Japanese ruling class itself; for this reason, particular ideas were selected from Shushigaku, adapted, and assimilated.

3  The Formation of Japanese Culture and Its Distinguishing Characteristics As Japan continued to import and make use of mainland culture in unexpected ways, Japanese folk culture gradually took on markedly unique Japanese characteristics.

164  C. SONG

The Formation of Self-Consciousness and the Development of Folk Culture In the seventh century, envoys to Tang announced that the name Wo had been changed to Nihon and, in the early eighth century, national histories were compiled for the first time, indicating the formation of self-consciousness awareness on the part of the Japanese people, a mindset that provided a foundation for the development of folk culture. Viewed in terms of cultural history, Heian period Japanization (kokufūka 国風化 or Wafūka 和風化), an outgrowth of Nara period Sinicization (Tōfūka 唐風化), was the process by which Japanese folk culture developed, taking on the below main forms. (1) In contrast with Karae paintings, which emulated Chinese motifs such as “Beautiful Woman Beneath a Tree” and “Portrait of the Goddess of Fortune,” Yamatoe paintings depicting Japanese landscapes, people, and customs became popular. Well-known works include “Scroll Painting of Annual Functions” (“Nenjū gyōji emaki” 年中行事絵巻) and “Painting of Birds and Animals at Play” (“Chōjū giga” 鳥獣戯画). (2) In contrast with the Nara period vogue for Tang poetry, in the Heian period, waka rose to popularity. The twenty-volume Kokin wakashū is comprised of eleven hundred poems collected by the imperial court, which also selected thirty-six immortal poets (sanjūrokkasen 三十六歌仙) including Ki no Tsurayuki, Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, Sōjō Henjō, Ariwara no Narihira, and Ono no Komachi; dengaku folk dancing also displayed distinctly Japanese characteristics. (3) With regard to religious faith, the honji suijaku theory rose to prominence. When Buddhism first entered Japan, to resolve the conflict between indigenous Shinto faith and imported Buddhist religion, the notion of shinbutsu shūgō (syncretism of the kami and the Buddha 神仏習合) was popularly employed to syncretize and harmonize the relationship between the two. In the Nara period, the notion of “the Buddha as master and the kami as subordinate” came into vogue. The people generally saw the kami as guardian deities of the dharma, believing that the dharma could resolve the kleshas (obstacles to spiritual awareness) of the kami. Buddhist temples were built within Shinto shrines, and Buddhist

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

165

sutras were recited to the kami. The Heian period saw the rise of the notion of honji suijaku. “Honji” (literally “this place”) refers to Japan, and “suijaku” refers to the manifestation of deities. It was believed that the Indian Buddha had manifested as the Japanese kami for the sake of the salvation of Japan, and thus the kami and the Buddha were equivalent. For instance, Amaterasu Ōkami was a manifestation of Mahavairocana, Yawata Ōkami was a manifestation of the Amitabha Buddha, and so on. Likewise, the kami venerated in ceremonies at Shinto shrines were regarded as local Buddhas, resulting in the integration of Shinto and Buddhism. In the Kamakura period, Japanese folk culture further developed as follows. (1)  The rise and gradual Japanization of Buddhism. The new Buddhism of the Kamakura period was a reflection and manifestation of spiritual searching on the part of the samurai and the commoners and more closely reflected the realities of Japanese social life. Among the new forms of Buddhism, Nichiren promoted a Japan-centric mentality, excluding and denouncing sects from China, a new phenomenon in the history of the development of Japanese Buddhism. (2) Literature and artwork depicting stylized samurai came to prominence. Many military tales with the word “monogatari” (tale 物 語) in the title emerged, such as Tale of Hōgen (Hōgen monogatari 保元物語), Record of the Rise and Fall of Genpei (Genpei seisuiki 源平盛衰記), and Tale of Heike (Heike monogatari 平家物 語). The simple, practical architectural style of bukezukuri (warrior house style 武家造) became popular. The statues of the two guardians Deva kings at Tōdaiji Temple, the work of famed sculptors Unkei and Kaikei, are robust and powerful, exuding fierce, virile beauty. (3) The notion of Japan as the “kingdom of the gods” developed further. In 1274 and 1281, Kublai Khan’s two attempted invasions of Japan met with unfavorable temporal, geographic, and human conditions, resulting in crushing defeat. The storms that coincidentally destroyed the Yuan ships were believed to be manifestations of a “kamikaze” (divine wind 神風) that had descended

166  C. SONG

due to “the intervention of heaven and the kami,” and thus the notion of Japan as the “kingdom of the gods,” an idea given full expression in Kitabatake Chikafusa’s Authentic Record of Divine Imperial Lineage, gained traction. The notions of the “divine emperor” and Japan as the “kingdom of the gods” explained why Japanese soldiers and civilians had been able to fight off invasions by the Yuan military and emphasized cultural and psychological self-respect and pride, a sense of victory that at worst manifested as arrogance. In the Muromachi period: (1)  Zen culture increasingly took on distinctively Japanese characteristics. While simultaneously continuing to be influenced by Chinese culture, Japanese culture entered a new phase of development in which the influence of Zen became more pronounced. For instance, the “dry landscapes” of Japanese gardens, that is, the arrangements of rocks and white sand into mountain, island, lake, and sea shapes reflect a Zenlike spirit of spontaneous expression. Additionally, flower arrangement and the tea ceremony rose to popularity, with an emphasis upon the pursuit of solitude, tranquility, and refinement. Third shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu built a golden pavilion in Kyoto’s Kitayama Mountains combining the shindenzukuri architectural style with a Tang dynasty architectural style; a preference for lavish complexity and reverence for Song and Yuan literature and ink and wash painting characterized what came to be referred to as “Kitayama culture.” Under the administration of eighth shogun Ashikaga Yoshimasa, aesthetic concepts underwent a transformation. Ginkaku-ji, the shogun’s villa in the Higashiyama Mountains of Kyoto, was a realm of remarkable seclusion, quiet, and elegance. Flower arrangement, painting, renga poetry, and study of literary classics all reflected a search for the abstract and refined with a profoundly Zen-based orientation; this developed into “Higashiyama culture,” which was distinguished by a strongly Japanese character. (2) War novels enjoyed popularity, reflecting a change in power structures. Among these, the 1371 Chronicle of Great Peace (Taiheiki 太平記), said to be the work of Kojima Hōshi, is a forty-volume novel depicting the internal conflict between northern and

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

167

southern courts that developed into more than half a century of war. (3)  Popular literature and arts flourished. A number of different troupes or za performed short noh plays; short, humorous kyōgen plays ridiculed feudal lords and landholders; short, popularly oriented, easy-to-understand otogizōshi stories came into vogue, including famous works such as “Issun bōshi” (“The one-inch boy” 一寸法師), “Urashima Tarō” (“The boy from Urashima” 浦島太郎), and “Rashōmon” (“Rashō gate” 羅生門), reflecting the mentalities of Japanese commoners and samurai. In the Azuchi-Momoyama period, Azuchi Castle, Momoyama Castle, and Osaka Castle, built on flat land with lofty, majestic watchtowers, proclaimed the authority of military feudal lords and demonstrated the wide-ranging power of Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, in addition to displaying the uniqueness of Japanese political culture. Meanwhile, urban culture also underwent development. New, distinctly Japanese art forms intended for the entertainment of townsfolk arose during this time, including kabuki, jōruri, and ningyō jōruri puppetry shows. Numerous schools of flower arrangement and the tea ceremony arose and became important components of Japanese art and culture. In the Edo period, Japanese folk culture entered a phase of advanced development. The “Genroku culture” of the early Edo period produced many well-known artists and works across a number of fields. (1)  Writer Ihara Saikaku produced a large number of popular tales in the otogizōshi genre, such as The Life of an Amorous Man (Kōshoku ichidai otoko 好色一代男), The Japanese Family Storehouse (Nippon eitai gura 日本永代蔵), and Worldly Calculations (Seken munesanyō 世間胸算用), works that affirm the significance of money and promote the materialistic values of urban dwellers. (2) Poet Bashō, referred to as the “saint of haiku,” excelled at employing extremely subtle flourishes to communicate melancholy, homesickness, and solitude. Examples include the famed poem “An old pond/The frogs jump into/The sound of water.” (3)  Dramatist Chikamatsu Monzaemon, regarded as a master of ningyō jōruri and kabuki performance and playwriting, authored well-known works such as Battles of Koxinga (Kokusenya kassen

168  C. SONG

国姓爺合戦), Double Suicide (Jinjūten no amijima 心中天網 島), and Courier of the Underworld (Meido no hikyaku 冥途の飛 脚). Famous kabuki actors such as Sakata Tōjūrō and Ichikawa Danjūrō arose in large numbers; ningyō jōruri masters such as Takemoto Gidayū passed their titles down to generations of disciples. (4)  Ukiyo-e, a genre of popular painting, came into vogue, often taking the lifestyles of city folk and landscapes as subject matter. Well-known practitioners include Hishikawa Moronobu. (5)  Imported Chinese mathematics were assimilated into Japanese culture and came to be referred to as “Wasan.” Seki Takakazu, Japan’s most famous mathematician, excelled at the tenzanjustu symbolic method, written algebra, and equations. In Jōkyō 2 (1685), Shibukawa Harumi created the “Jōkyō calendar” based on Chinese calendrical methods, spurring the development of Japanese astronomy. (6)  Kokugaku sought a uniquely Japanese spirit in Japanese classical texts such as Kojiki, Nihon shoki, and Manyōshū, efforts that might be referred to as the Japanese studies of the time. Keichū, Shimokōbe Chōryū, and others opened schools, drawing followers such as Kada no Azumamaro and Kamo no Mabuchi who criticized Buddhism and Confucianism, advocated returning to ancient ways, and revered the “way of the divine emperor.” Late Edo period culture is characterized by cultural phenomena that occurred between Bunka 1 (1804) and Bunsei 12 (1829), the fundamental characteristics of which are as follows. (1) A clearly common orientation. Art forms that enjoyed popularity include ninjōbon books on the lives and love affairs of commoners, popular reading material with illustrations known as kusazōshi, kōdan, a form of storytelling performed across Edo in 124 venues called yose, rakugo, a form of comedic storytelling, naniwa-bushi or rōkyoku drum-based performances, kyokugi acrobatics shows, tejina magic shows, and so on. (2) The proliferation of academic sects. The field of Rangaku (Dutch studies 蘭学) flourished following the 1774 kanbun translation of the Dutch anatomical text Ontleedkundige tafelen by Maeno Ryōtaku, Sugita Genpaku, and others, entitled Kaitai

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

169

shinsho (New book of anatomy 解体新書). In the early nineteenth century, the field further divided into government and civilian branches, both of which developed vigorously. Kokugaku teachers took on disciples for the purpose of promoting the Japanese spirit. Essentials of the Ancient Way (Kodō taii 古道大 意) by Hirata Atsutane, a disciple of leading Kokugaku scholar Motoori Norinaga, mounted the most forceful criticism yet of Confucianism and Buddhism and advocated revering the emperor and rejecting foreign influences. Keiseigaku was a discipline that incorporated the Confucian notion of governing skillfully for the benefit of the people, and Rangaku as well as nationalistic Kokugaku served to turn the focus of the Japanese toward international affairs, with leading figures such as Kudō Heisuke (A Consideration of Northern Defense Policy [Akae zofū setsukō 赤 蝦夷風説考]), Hayashi Shihei (Military Affairs of a Maritime Nation [Kaikoku heidan 海国兵談], Illustrated Overview of Three Countries [Sangoku tsūran zusetsu 三国通覧図説]), Honda Toshiaki (A Secret Strategy for Administering Government [Keisei hisaku 経世秘策], Tale of Western Lands [Seiiki monogatari 西域物語]), and Satō Nobuhiro [A Secret Strategy for World Domination [Udai kondō hisaku 宇内混同秘策]) beginning to tentatively explore modern national policy. Later Mitogaku figures such as Tokugawa Nariaki (Record of the Kōdōkan [Kōdōkan ki 弘道館記]), Fujita Tōko (Annotated Record of the Kōdōkan [Kōdōkan ki jutsugi 弘道館記述義]), and Aizawa Yasushi (A New Theory [Shinron 新論]) advocated revering the emperor and rejecting foreign influences, drawing opposition from numerous factions associated with existing power structures. The diversification and vigorous development of various schools of thought provided the talent reserves necessary for social change and laid the groundwork for the Meiji Restoration. Distinguishing Characteristics of Japanese Culture Views diverge with regard to how to best characterize Japanese culture. Speaking exclusively in regard to cultural typology, Western scholars refer to it as “a culture of shame,” Japanese scholars as “a hybrid culture,” and Chinese scholars as “a pluralistic culture,” among other characterizations. In China, with interest in cultural studies on the rise, there

170  C. SONG

have been countless studies concerning ancient Japanese culture and the Japanese national character. For Zhou Yiliang, “bitterness” and “desolation” capture the essence of Japanese culture, a rather unusal view.54 Wang Jinlin believes that Japanese culture is characterized by the pursuit of development and inclusivity and is ultimately comprised of “a dual or multiple structure rooted primarily in the pluralistic nature of the origin and development of Japanese culture.”55 Yan Shaodang focuses upon the origins of culture, holding that Japanese culture is fundamentally “a composite, variant culture,” said variation manifesting primarily as the “absorption” and “assimilation” of foreign culture as well as “the ability to generate new cultural forms.”56 Wang Jiahua, in his studies of Japanese Confucianism, argues that Japanese culture “emphasizes direct observation, deemphasizes the abstract, emphasizes emotion, deemphasizes reason, takes a practical approach in selecting cultural elements, and is characterized by the coexistence of pluralistic elements.”57 Wei Changhai believes that the main characteristics of Japanese culture are “emphasis upon practicality and deemphasis of theoretical analysis,” “rejection of the old and pursuit of the new,” and “facility for assimilation.”58 Guan Ning believes that the notions of yin and yang and the five elemental phases “added to the country’s strength, replaced or displaced primitive ideas, and formed the philosophical core of ancient Japanese culture as well as the governmental framework of the state.”59 Wang Yong believes that the basic characteristics of traditional Japanese culture took shape “through repeated cycles of emulation and innovation”60; these are only a some of the views that have been put forward by scholars. This author believes that, as an exotic flower in the forest of world cultures, Japanese culture is most prominently distinguished by the following characteristics. (1) An open, dynamic culture Speaking in regard to its overall course of development, Japanese culture, in the process of its origination and growth, has benefitted from openness to the outside, gone through repeated cycles of importation, emulation, absorption, assimilation, and growth, and developed without interruption. From the beginning of its formation as a state, Japan grew rapidly by absorbing mass quantities of advanced mainland culture. For a period of more than eight hundred years, from the seventh century to the fifteenth,

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

171

through the missions to Sui, the missions to Tang, trade between Japan and Song China, and the missions to Ming, Japan continually imported and absorbed governmental systems, etiquette and decorum, Buddhist dharma, clothing, customs, holidays, and other aspects of Chinese culture, and during the Edo period, the development of folk culture attained new heights. Japanese culture was clearly distinguished by its openness, as a result of which its culture flourished, manifesting in a variety of forms that each developed vigorously. (2) Diversity A range of heterogenous cultural forms are tolerated and coexist within Japanese culture. This includes forms of refined or high culture with an emphasis upon style and taste, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, the tea ceremony, flower arrangement, calligraphy, haiku, and waka, all of which seek to cultivate human sentiment, in addition to forms of popular or low culture intended for mass entertainment, such as noh, kabuki, kibyōshi, kōdan, rakugo, naniwa-bushi, rōkyoku, kyokugi, tejina, and ukiyo-e which, with their distinctive humor, coarseness, entertainment orientation, and approachability, reflect the lifestyles and tastes of common people. (3) Duality Japanese culture is a vast conglomeration of material and spiritual elements, including mutually contradictory and exclusionary elements that nonetheless rely upon and complement one another. Among these, openness and insularity, tolerance and exclusivity, innovation and conservation, ambiguity and specificity, humbleness and pride coexist in striking contrast. The above-mentioned characteristics are expressed in concentrated fashion when existing cultural forms and foreign cultural forms interact, for instance in the conflicting movement to venerate and exclude Buddhism upon its initial introduction to Japan, the self-oriented awareness and other-oriented awareness of Edo period schools of Kogaku, the alternate incorporation and exclusion of Confucianism by Kokugaku, and so on. (4) Pragmatism In order to fulfill needs related to internal governmental administration as well as foreign diplomacy, generations of ancient Japanese rulers took the approach of importing advanced culture from China and Korea. In this process, national sentiment was

172  C. SONG

unified, and the necessary selection, absorption, and assimilation of imported cultural elements were performed with a clear view toward pragmatism, that is, fulfillment of Japanese needs, which would gradually become a prominent characteristic of Japanese culture. Even during the Nara period, the strong trend toward “Sinification” did not result in the importation of the imperial civil service examination system or the eunuch system, and Edo period Shushigaku emphasized the principle of practicality and the spirit of public service, all examples that serve to illustrate this point. (5) A sense of superiority A consistent, strong sense of superiority is the fundamental core of Japanese culture. This is the manifestation of a mindset on the part of individual Japanese people which draws clear lines between self and other as well as a national sense of collective identification as Japanese. The ancient notion of a divinely favored kingdom of the gods, the early modern theory of Japan as the center of civilization and the exclusion of Buddhism and Confucianism by Kokugaku, the modern notion of the state as a family under an imperial system with an unbroken lineage, and Japan’s contemporary regard for itself as a world leader all consistently demonstrate this attitude of Japanese superiority. There are three reasons for the firm grip this self-consciousness has long had on the Japanese people. The first reason is the natural environment. Japan sits on an island covered by dense vegetation, is surrounded on all sides by the ocean, and has plentiful rainfall and snowfall as well as four clearly defined seasons. The island is frequently afflicted by earthquakes and typhoons, but also boasts beautiful landscapes and rich natural resources. The island’s geography, similar to that of southern China but writ small, may have contributed to the temperament of the Japanese people, who are distinguished from other people by their delicate sensibilities and ability to delight in their lot during the natural economy period. The second reason is the political situation of this maritime nation and the development of its culture. Although the Muromachi shogunate accepted feudal titles from the Ming court for more than a century, Japan generally dwelt on the periphery of the East Asian tributary system from remote antiquity on, and this in addition to the crushing failure suffered by the Yuan military upon its attempted invasions and

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

173

the height of development attained by folk culture during the Edo period facilitated the construction of a uniquely Japanese cultural framework and simultaneously encouraged the notion of Japanese culture as the equal of mainland Chinese and Korean culture, as well as an attitude of cultural superiority in which Japan was taken to be the center of civilization. Third, since early modernity, fresh discoveries made by Japan in the course of interacting with foreign culture have led to a strong sense of Japan as a “top student,” further reinforcing the notion of Japanese superiority. The spread of European ideas to the East in the mid-sixteenth century and the spread of American and European political influence to the East in the early nineteenth century constituted two shocks that altered the traditional Sinocentric configuration of East Asian culture and facilitated the rise of Japan. The first shock, Asia’s encounter with Western, that is, “barbarian” ideas, provided stimulation to Japan, and European cannons accelerated Japan’s unification while simultaneously inspiring Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s ambition to build an empire by militarily subjugating East Asia. During the Sakoku period, the development of Japanese Rangaku led to the cultivation of a new generation of intellectuals capable of fulfilling the demands of Japanese modernization, one of the main reasons Japan was able to break free from Chinese and Korean influence in modern times.

4  The Relationship Between Ancient Chinese Culture and Japanese Traditional Culture Japanese culture has its own unique roots, and there is evidence that primitive Japanese culture originated at least as early as the Jōmon period, but this is only one facet of the issue at hand. The other is the strong influence of Chinese cultural elements and their steady development as Japan cast aside the prerational barbarism of ancient times and entered the civilized era. Thus, taking an analytical perspective on the overall structure and cultural typologies of the East Asian Sinosphere, Chinese culture was the source of the most impactful, influential cultural stimulus Japan received from any country, and the Japanese culture of the civilized area was an offshoot that flowed from this source. Japan’s primitive cultural foundation was permeated by Chinese influence and rapidly attained new heights, while at the same time enjoying

174  C. SONG

a late-mover advantage, becoming the most dynamic offshoot of the Sinosphere. From a dialectical perspective, bearing in mind the theory of developmental stages, relationships between sources and offshoots are not isolated, static, and unchanging. In the process of importation and absorption, Chinese culture was selected, assimilated, and Japanized, and cultural typological offshoots became new sources of Japanese folk culture. In other words, the relationship between source and offshoot is interactive and ever-changing. Similar Cultural Typologies It is generally believed that, though both cultures belong to the East Asian Sinosphere, ancient Chinese culture is the originating culture and ancient Japanese culture is the secondary culture. Despite this, both Chinese and Japanese ancient cultures belong to the same typologies of “the Sinosphere,” “the Confucian cultural sphere,” and “the Mahayana Buddhist cultural sphere,” and bear a number of similarities to one another. The similarity between Chinese and Japanese cultural typologies manifests not only in ideological principles, but still more prominently in their concrete political applications. Among these, a typical example is the similarity of Chinese Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism with Japanese Shushigaku in early modern times. In the Chinese Qing dynasty and the Japanese Tokugawa period, Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism and Shushigaku were both official fields of study, occupying integral mainstream positions and enjoying special respect in both countries. In the Tokugawa period, schools of Confucianism other than Shushigaku included Yōmeigaku, Seigaku, Kogigaku, Kobunshigaku, Secchūgaku, and Mitogaku, but the shogunate only respected and relied upon Shushigaku, particularly once it began to decline. In order to rectify social order and reduce the pressure of the financial crisis, eighth shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune, leader of the Kyōhō Reforms, ordered the reconstruction of Confucian sanctuaries and personally instructed the ministers and feudal lords in Shushigaku. Yoshimune also ordered the publication of Derivative Meaning of the Six Precepts (Rikuyu engi 六諭衍義), a Japanese language edition of The Six Precepts (Liuyu 六谕), a text published by the Qing dynasty Shunzhi emperor, to promote Shushigaku ethics and morals. Matsudaira Sadanobu, leader of the Kansei Reforms, ordered the prohibition of schools of Confucianism other than Shushigaku and published

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

175

popular reading material such as On Loyalty to Parents and Friends (Kōgiroku 孝義録), symbolically extending the teachings of Shushigaku to the lower classes in order to win the hearts of the people. Imitating this approach, Mizuno Tadakuni, leader of the Tenpō Reforms, led services at sanctuaries and published social instructional texts such as Mirror on Moral Cultivation and Loyalty to Parents and Friends (Shūshin kōgi kyō 修身孝義鏡) and Lessons for Children (Mōdō kyōkun 蒙童教訓) in an attempt to draw upon the teachings of Shushigaku to supplement the severely ailing shogunate regime. In China, meanwhile, when the Qing dynasty replaced the Ming in 1644, Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism was not replaced and did not go into decline due to the changing of dynasties, but in fact gained the support of the Central Plains Qing emperor. In Kangxi 12 (1673), the Kangxi emperor issued Sacred Edict on Institutions of Higher Learning (Xuegong shengyu学宫圣谕), mandating “the elimination of heterodoxy and the sublimation of orthodox learning,”61 ensuring that Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism remained an official branch of study under the new dynasty. The Kangxi emperor traveled south to the Jiangnan region on many occasions, inscribing numerous plaques for Confucian temples, personally composing couplets, and heaping praise upon Zhu Xi and Neo-Confucianism. In Kangxi 50 (1711), he issued an edict naming Zhu Xi as one of ten great Confucian scholars, installing a tablet in the Hall of Great Accomplishment, and mandating sacrifices twice yearly in the spring and autumn. The Kangxi emperor ordered classical scholar and grand secretary Li Guangdi and others to compile Complete Works of Zhu Xi (Zhu Xi quanshu 朱子全书) and Essence of the Principles of Life (Xingli jingyi 性理精义) and authored their prefaces, in addition to personally compiling Accumulated Merit of the Four Books (Si shu ji yi 四书 集义) and publishing it nationwide. In the preface to Complete Works of Zhu Xi, the Kangxi emperor reviews Han and Tang dynasty commentaries and charts the evolution of Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism, offering the following words of praise: “Zhu Xi was a master who revived a field of study that had been dormant for 1100 years, dispelled ignorance, and established an order that endured throughout the ages. He arrived at his expertise by probing the roots of things, and arrived at his practices through self-searching. He expounded upon Great Learning (Daxue 大 学) in a systematized fashion and thereby attained expertise and established peace on earth, awakening to morality and reaching perfection. His predecessors have universally benefitted from his teachings.”62 Due

176  C. SONG

to Kang Xi’s veneration and promotion of Zhu Xi, Zhu was recognized as the greatest sage since Confucius and Mencius, and the norms and standards of Zhu Xi Neo-Confucian temples came more and more to resemble those of Confucian temples. The Qing emperors who succeeded Kang Xi all followed their predecessor’s example. The entire bureaucratic apparatus was organized around Zhu Xi Neo-Confucian orthodoxy, which would form the core of bureaucratic culture throughout the Qing dynasty. The rulers of both countries revered Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism or Shushigaku because it played a range of roles including directly supporting the imperial rule, explicating ideological principles, and enlightening society. Particularly during chaotic times of political transition, Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism or Shushigaku proved useful in areas where other doctrines and religions fell short. Both pre-Qin Confucianism and Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism arose fundamentally from times of social turmoil in which old and new were in conflict and intellectual activity was vigorous. Thus, Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism both promoted orthodoxy and proposed methods of governmental administration. Confucian orthodoxy emphasizes adherence to natural principles and extinguishment of desires, seeking to purify people’s hearts and rectify social order; Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism also provides rulers of states with standards and advice. Simultaneously, it regards the rise and fall of empires as an extension of individual educational attainment and the administration of kingdoms as an extension of the harmonization of family relationships, emphasizing the organic unity of loyalty and filial piety as well as service to the state as means of cultivating a docile populace suited to the needs of the supreme rulers of feudalist administrations. Considering the above-mentioned aspects of Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism, it is not difficult to understand why it became the ideology of the ruling class and was given such a prominent place in official education in early modern times. Diverse Cultural Typologies and Their Political Impact Political conditions and popular sentiment differed across different countries, and in the process of transmitting cultural content, it was inevitably necessary for such content to transform so as to take on a popular orientation. From Japan’s viewpoint, Chinese culture was foreign, imported from overseas. Therefore, once it was assimilated and absorbed, it was further “Japanized,” becoming part of Japan’s own traditional culture.

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

177

In this way, in spite of the general similarity of cultural typologies, disparities do exist. There are countless such examples concerning cultural exchange between the two countries and cultural evolution. Speaking exclusively in regard to the transmission and evolution of Zhu Xi NeoConfucianism or Shushigaku, due to variation in the political conditions, popular sentiment, and other circumstances across the two countries, we can easily see the paradox of disparity amid similarity in cultural typologies and their political impact. In China, though the Qing emperor had a firm grip on power, the insistence of Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism upon a strict distinction between Chinese and barbarian posed an awkward dilemma for the ruling Aisin Gioro clan of the northeastern land of the “barbarian tribes.” The Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong emperors accelerated the pace of Confucianization, carried out large-scale literary inquisitions, and rigorously policed thought while simultaneously promoting Zhu Xi NeoConfucianism, emphasizing the unity of Chinese and barbarian as well as monarchism and asserting the legitimacy of Qing dynasty rule. In Yongzheng 6 (1728), Hunan scholar Zeng Jing tried to incite Shaanxi governor Yue Zhongqi to rebel against the Qing, but the attempt failed, and Yue was arrested. The Yongzheng emperor ordered him interrogated and personally compiled the results in the form of Record of Great Righteousness to Resolve Confusion (Dayi juemi lu 大义觉迷录), distributing the text nationwide. The “Edict” (“Shangyu” 上谕) section of the text explicitly states, “In accordance with the ancestral way, those with virtue may serve as rulers of the world. The world is of one family, and all things in it are one. It has been this way since ancient times, generation after generation, and remains so today,” and “This dynasty may originate from Manchuria, but China is nonetheless its homeland. Yao was an eastern barbarian and King Wen was a western barbarian, but this did not diminish their sacred virtue.”63 In the eighth article of the interrogation, the emperor refutes Zeng Jing’s assertion that “outside of China, all the people of all four directions are barbarians” as follows: “China comprises but one one-hundredth of the area of the nine continents and four seas. The same principles and the same energy govern all under heaven in all directions—or is it that Chinese and foreigners live under a different heaven, on a different earth?”64 The distinction between Chinese and barbarian was fit conveniently into Zhu Xi’s principles-energy theoretical framework, emphasizing the unity of Chinese and barbarian and rule by virtuous sovereigns. In the Qianlong period,

178  C. SONG

though disputes within the royal family led to numerous scandals, damaging the dignified image of the Qing emperors presented by Record of Great Righteousness to Resolve Confusion, the Qianlong emperor’s veneration for Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism exceeded even that of the Yongzheng emperor, a trend followed by every subsequent emperor of the Qing dynasty. Tokugawa period Japan was characterized by two dual power structures comprised of the shogunate alongside fiefdoms and the imperial court alongside the shogunate. For a relatively long period of time from the early to the middle shogunate period, checks and balances were in place and harmony predominated within and between these dual power structures, making the more than two-hundred-yearlong Tokugawa period a peaceful one. Among these dual power structures, the one consisting of the shoguns and the lords of the fiefdoms reflected the fact that the superstructure of a feudal land ownership system had been built upon the foundation of the kokudaka-sei taxation system in acknowledgment of the reality that, while Tokugawa Ieyasu had completely exterminated the Toyotomi clan in the 1600 Battle of Sekigahara and the Battle of Osaka Castle, he was unable to stamp out separatist feudal lords in fiefdoms across Japan. Thus, to maintain a balance between shoguns with control over the entire country and feudal lords with control over local areas, the shogunate had to maintain formidable martial might. The so-called “eighty thousand hatamoto” were the foundation upon which the shogunate created and maintained order, and a crucial factor in Tokugawa Ieyasu’s attainment of longterm imperial domination. In Japan, the shogunate repeatedly issued Laws for Military Houses and Laws for Samurai, making familiarity with the ways of archery and horsemanship, military preparedness, and so on pivotal aspects of the administration and pacification of the empire. Whereas the Qing emperor emphasized that “those with virtue may serve as rulers of the world,” the shogunate emphasized the importance of military might. At the same time, the shogun had no need to emphasize “the unity of the four seas” because, unlike the Qing emperor, he did not face the awkward dilemma of the distinction between Chinese and barbarian. To summarize the above, Chinese culture exerted a profound influence over Japanese folk culture throughout the entire process of its formation and development. This essential fact should be kept in mind

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

179

when evaluating the similarities and differences in the political impact of cultural typologies of the two countries and in distinguishing between sources and offshoots.



Notes 1. Naitō Konan 内藤湖南, Shina jōkoshi: Shogen 支那上古史·緒言 [Very ancient Chinese history: Introduction], in Nihon no meicho (41) Naitō Konan 日本の名著 (41) 内藤湖南 [Japanese masterworks (41) Naitō Konan], ed. Ogawa Tamaki 小川環樹 (Tokyo: Chūōkōronsha, 1971), 262. 2. Naitō Konan, “Zhinaren de Zhina weilaiguan ji qi piping” 支那人的支那 未来观及其批评 [The view of the Chinese on the future of China and criticisms of this view], in Naitō Konan zenshū 内藤湖南全集 [Complete works of Naitō Konan] (Chikuma Shobō, 1969), vol. 8: 163. 3. “Wenyi zhi: Zhu zi lüe: Xu” 艺文志·诸子略·序 [Biographical treatises: Essential information on various masters: Preface], Han shu 汉书 [The book of Han]. 4. “Xian xue” 显学 [Eminence in learning], Han Feizi 韩非子 [Han Feizi]. 5. Entry for the second month of Ōjin 16 (216), Nihon shoki, f. 10. 6. “Jijo” 自序 [Preface], Kaifūsō懐風藻 [Recollections of poetry]. 7. Kumakura Isao 熊倉 功夫, ed., Shiryō taikei Nihon no rekishi dai 4 kan kinsei 1 史料体系日本の歴史第4巻 近世 1 [Systematic historical records of Japanese history, vol. 4: Early modernity 1] (Osaka: Ōsaka Shoseki, 1979), 262–263. 8.  Nihonkoku genzai shomokuroku 日本国見在書目録 [Catalog of all extant books in Japan]. 9. Shinkawa Tokio 新川亀男, “Nihon kodai to Dōkyō” 日本古代と道教 [Ancient Japan and Daoism], in Nihon bunka ni miru Dōkyō no yōso 日 本文化にみる道教の要素 [Elements of Daoism seen in Japanese culture] (Tokyo: Bensei Publishing, 2005), 15. 10. Masuo Shin’ichirō 増尾伸一郎, “Higashi Ajia ni okeru Dōkyō no denpa: Kanji bunkaken no tenkai no naka de” 東アジアにおける道教の伝播― 漢字文化園の展開のなかで― [The spread of Daoism throughout East Asia: Within the development of the Sinosphere], in Kodai Nihon no ibunka kōryū 古代日本の異文化交流 [Intercultural exchange in ancient Japan], ed. Suzuki Yasutami 鈴木靖民 (Bensei Publishing, 2008), 144, 153, 154. 11. Noguchi Tetsurō 野口鉄郎, ed., Dōkyō no denpa to kodai kokka 道教の伝 播と古代国家 [The transmission of Daoism and ancient states], vol. 1 of Senshū: Dōkyō to Nihon 選集『道教と日本』 [Anthology: Daoism and Japan] (Yuzankaku Shuppan, 1996), 41, 46–48.



180  C. SONG 12. “Tennō kō” 天皇考 [A consideration of the emperor], in Tsuda Sōkichi zenshū 津田左右吉全集 [Complete works of Tsuda Sōkichi] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1986), vol. 3: 490. 13. Fukunaga Mitsuji 福永光司, Guidao he shendao: Zhongguo gudai zongjiao sixiang he Riben gudai 鬼道和神道——中国古代宗教思想和日本古 代 [The way of demons and the way of gods: Ancient Chinese religious thought], in Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi 4: Zongjiao juan 中日文 化交流史大系4·宗教卷 [Compendium on the history of China-Japan cultural exchange 4: Religion], ed. Yang Zengwen 杨曾文 and Yuan Liaoyuan 源了圆 (Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 1996), 38. 14. Kubo Noritada 窪徳忠, Zhongguo Daojiao dui Riben minjian xinyang de yingxiang 中国道教对日本民间信仰的影响 [The influence of Chinese Daoism upon Japanese folk religion], in Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi 4: Zongjiao juan, 56. 15. Li Weizhou 李威周, “Lüe lun Lao Zhuang sixiang yu Riben” 略论老庄 思想与日本 [A brief consideration of Lao-Zhuang thought and Japan], Waiguo wenti yanjiu 外国问题研究 2 (1987). 16. Yan Shaodang and Yuan Liaoyuan, eds., Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi 3: Sixiang juan 中日文化交流史大系3·思想卷 [Compendium on the history of China-Japan cultural exchange 3: Thought], 86–290. 17. Wang Jinlin 王金林, Ribenren de yuanshi xinyang 本人的原始信仰 [The primitive faith of the Japanese people] (Ningxia People’s Publishing House, 2004), 174–190, 204, 215, 216. 18. “Xirong zhuan” 西戎传 [Annals of the Xirong], in Wei lüe 魏略 [A brief history of Wei], quoted in “Wei zhi: Dongyi zhuan” 魏志·东夷传 [Annals of Wei: Annals of the eastern barbarians], in Sanguo zhi 三国志 [Records of the three kingdoms]. 19. “Gu shui” 谷水 [Water in the valleys], Shui jing zhu 水经注 [The annotated water classic], f. 16. 20. “Xiyu liezhuan: Tianzhuguo” 西域列传·天竺国 [Annals of Western lands: India], Hou Han shu 后汉书 [The book of the later Han]; “Xiang Kai zhuan” 襄楷传 [Annals of Xiang Kai], Hou han shu. 21. “Nanta byeok Je” 難陀辟濟 [Maranda opens the way for Buddhism in Baekje], Samguk yusa 三國遺事 [Memorabilia of the three kingdoms]. 22. Entry for the tenth month of Kinmei 13 (551), Nihon shoki, f. 19. 23. Entries for the sixth month of Keitai 7 (513) and the ninth month of Keitai 10 (516), Nihon shoki, f. 17. 24. Entry for the second month of Kinmei 15 (521), Nihon shoki, f. 19. 25. Kang Hang 姜沆, Kanyōroku—Chōsen Jusha no Nihon yokuryūki 看羊録― 朝鮮儒者の日本抑留記 [Kanyangnok: A record of the detainment of a Korean Confucian in Japan], trans. Pak Chong-myong 朴鐘鳴 (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1984).

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 

























181

26. Wang Yong 王勇, Riben wenhua: Mofang yu chuangxin de guiji 日本文 化——模仿与创新的轨迹 [Japanese culture: The trajectory of imitation and innovation] (Higher Education Press, 2006), 67. 27.  The Japanese refer to the letters that nobles and monks began to exchange in the Heian period as “ōraimono” (products of exchange 往 来物); in the Edo period, these were used as teaching materials at private schools. 28. “Jo” 序 [Preface], Kojiki 古事記 [Record of ancient matters]. 29. “Jingshen pian” 精神篇 [Essence and spirit], Huainanzi 淮南子 [The Huainan masters]. 30. “Shindai jō” 神代上 [Age of the gods, part one], Nihon shoki. 31.  Historical Record of the Three and the Five (San wu li ji 三五历纪), f. 2 in Taiping yulan 太平御览 [Imperial anthology of the Taiping era]. 32. Kojiki, f. 1. 33. “Shindai jō,” Nihon shoki. 34.  Wu yun linian ji 五运历年记 [Chronology of the five elemental phases], f. 1 in Yi shi 绎史 [Unceasing stream of history]. 35.  Nihon shoki, f. 1. 36.  Nihon shoki, f. 1. 37. Noguchi, Dōkyō no denpa to kodai kokka, 141–146. 38. Keichū 契沖, annotated by Abe Akio 阿部秋生, “Zatsusetsu (shō): Manyō daishōki sōshaku” 雑説 (抄) ―万葉代匠記総釈 [Miscellaneous teachings (excerpt): Fully annotated commentary on Manyōshū], in Kinsei Shintō ron: Zenki Kokugaku (Nihon shisō taikei ) 近世神道論·前期国学 (日本思想大系〈39〉) [On early modern Shinto: Early Kokugaku (Japanese thought document collection )] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1972), 310, 311, 315. 39. Kada no Azumamaro 荷田春満, annotated by Abe Akio, “Sōgakkōkei” 創 学校啓 [Petition to found a school], in Kinsei Shintō ron, 333, 335. 40. Dainippon Shisō Zenshū Kankōkai 大日本思想全集刊行会, ed., “Kokuikō” 国意考 [A consideration of the meaning of the nation], in Dainippon shisō zenshū 大日本思想全集 [Great compendium of Japanese thought] (Bandō: Tokiwa Insastsu Co. Ltd., 1933), vol. 9: 31. 41. Motoori Norinaga 本居宣長, Genji monogatari tama no ogushi 源氏物語 玉の小櫛 [Jeweled comb of the Tale of Genji], in Shiryō taikei Nihon no rekishi dai 5 kan kinsei 2 史料体系日本の歴史第 5 巻近世 2 [Systematic historical records of Japanese history, vol. 5: Early modernity 2], ed. Hiromi Inui 乾宏巳 (Osaka: Ōsaka Shoseki, 1978), 320. 42. Motoori Norinaga, Hihon tama kushige jō 秘本玉くしげ上 [Secret book of the jeweled box, part one], in Shiryō taikei Nihon no rekishi dai 5 kan kinsei 2, 231.



182  C. SONG 43. Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤, Tama no mihashira 霊の真柱 [The true pillar of the spirit], in Shiryō taikei Nihon no rekishi dai 5 kan kinsei 2, 323. 44. Hirata Atsutane, Tamadasuki 玉襷 [The jeweled sash], in Hirata Atsutane, Ban Nobutomo, Takamasa Ōkuni (Nihon shisō taikei 50) 平 田篤胤・伴信友・大国隆正 (日本思想体系 50) [Hirata Atsutane, Ban Nobutomo, Takamasa Ōkuni (Japanese thought document collection 50)] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973), 191, 202. 45. Ishii Shirō 石井紫郎 (annotations), Kinsei buke shisō (Nihon shisō taikei 27) 近世武家思想 (日本思想体系 27) [Early modern samurai thought (Japanese thought document collection 27)] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), 458, 465. 46. Tahara Tsuguo 田原嗣郎, et al. (annotations), Yamaga Sokō (Nihon shisō taikei 32) 山鹿素行(日本思想体系 32) [Yamaga Sokō (Japanese thought document collection 32)] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970), 51. 47. Yoshida Shōin 吉田松陰, Shiki shichisoku 士規七則 [Seven principles for samurai], Shōin Jinja Kan’in. 48. Ishii, Kinsei buke shisō, 454. 49. Tahara, Yamaga Sokō, 31. 50. Saitō, Kazuma 齋藤一馬, Taiji Okayama 岡山泰四, and Tōru Sagara 相 良亨 (annotations), Mikawa monogatari/Hagakure (Nihon shisō taikei 26) 三河物語・葉隠(日本思想体系 26) [Tale of the Mikawa/Hagakure (Japanese thought document collection 26)] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten), 226. 51. Ishii, Kinsei buke shisō, 475. 52. Inoue, Tetsurō 井上哲郎 and Sukemasa Arima 有馬祐政, eds., Bushidō sōsho 武士道叢書 [Library of bushido] (Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1905), vol. 1: 220. 53. Saitō, Mikawa monogatari, 220. 54. Zhou Yiliang 周一良, Zhong Ri wenhua guanxi shi lun 中日文化关系史 论 [A historical consideration of the relationship between Chinese and Japanese cultures] (Jiangxi People’s Publishing House, 1990). 55. Wang Jinlin, Riben wenhua de duochong jiegou ji qi yuanliu de duoyuanxing 日本文化的多重结构及其源流的多元性 [The multilayered structure of Japanese culture and the diversity of its sources], Riben yanjiu 日本研 究 4: 1991. 56. Yan Shaodang, “Gudai Riben wenhua yu Zhongguo wenhua huihe de xingtai” 古代日本文化与中国文化会合的形态 [Convergence of cultures in ancient Japan and China], Wenshi zhishi 文史知识 2, 1987. 57. Wang Jiahua 王家骅, “Riben Ruxue de tese yu Riben wenhua” 日本儒 学的特色与日本文化 [The distinguishing characteristics of Japanese Confucianism and Japanese culture], Riben wenti 日本问题 2, 1988.

4  THE TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION 



183

58. Wei Changhai 魏常海, Riben wenhua gailüe 日本文化概略 [An outline of Japanese culture] (Zhongguo Wenhua Shuyuan, 1996). 59. Guan Ning 管宁, Yinyang wuxing sixiang yu Riben gudai wangquan yishi de xingcheng 阴阳五行思想与日本古代王权意识的形成 [Chinese esoteric thought and the formation of ancient Japanese attitudes toward imperial power], vol. 10 of Riben yanjiu lunji 日本研究论集 [Japanese studies anthology], ed. Japan Institute of Nankai University (Nankai University Press, 2005), 199. 60. Wang, Riben wenhua, 396. 61.  Shengzu shengxun 圣祖圣训 [Sagely edicts of the Kangxi emperor]. 62. “Xu” 序 [Preface], Zhu Zi quanshu 朱子全书 [Complete works of Zhu Xi]. 63. “Shangyu” 上谕 [Edict], Dayi juemi lu 大义觉迷录 [Record of great righteousness to resolve confusion]. 64. Article 8, “Fengzhi wenxun Zeng Jing kougong shisan tiao” 奉旨问讯曾 静口供十三条 [Zeng Jing’s testimony in response to imperial inquiry in thirteen articles], Dayi juemi lu.

CHAPTER 5

Movement of People and Goods Yong Wang

From ancient to modern times, in China as well as internationally, the movement of people and goods has played an integral role in the transmission of culture between regions. In different time periods and different spaces, however, means of transmission have not been uniform. Looked at longitudinally, the relative importance of people has changed with the times. In ancient times, when means of transportation and communication were limited, goods traveled with people, that is, people played the primary role in transmitting culture; in modern times, as commercial economies developed, goods were gradually freed from reliance upon people and themselves became an important carrier of cultural content. That is, in the context of cultural interchange across different time periods and different locations, the relationship between people and goods has been constantly in flux, and the two have been of differing degrees of importance. Looked at latitudinally, types of goods have differed by region. Beginning in the Han dynasty, as Chinese silk was transported westward, east and west came to be connected by what was known as the Silk Road; among East Asian states, because sericulture techniques spread at a Y. Wang (*)  Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_5

185

186  Y. WANG

relatively early date, books rather than silk were the most important trade commodity, and Chinese language books circulated along a two-way “Book Road.” In summary, the transmission of culture between regions has taken on different characteristics due to differing locations, histories, traditions, and customs, and the types of culture transmitted as well as the means of transmission have been diverse. On the basis of the above, when investigating the movement of people and goods between China and Japan, in particular when considering the exchange between China and Japan during the Sui and Tang era, historical contexts and regional characteristics should be kept in mind.

1  Eastward Migration from Continental Asia Migration from continental Asia began so early that it is impossible to determine the precise timing at this late date. However, several great strides made by early Japanese civilization are clearly related to advanced metalware, manufacturing tools, textile techniques, and so on brought to Japan by migrants.1 For instance, items such as the carbonized rice paddies, huoquan (货 泉) coins, and Chinese mirrors excavated from Japanese Yayoi ruins dating to approximately the beginning of the common era as well as the sankakubuchi shinjūkyō (三角縁神獣鏡) mirrors, copper bells, and equestrian gear excavated from Kofun period sites of approximately the fifth century AD are not indigenous products of Japan, but goods imported from the Chinese mainland or Korea, or variations on such items created under the influence of foreign civilizations. Who, then, imported these items into Japan, and from which foreign civilizations did this influence originate? Let us now set out to disentangle this complex, confusing history and sort legend from fact. Xu Fu and the “Kingdom of Qin” The veracity of the legend of Xu Fu is difficult to determine. The matter has been perennially puzzled over for generations in both China and Japan and remains a contentious issue in literary and historical studies. If we strip away fantastical embellished elements originating from folktales and legends and study Xu Fu as a figure symbolic of mass migration during the Qin and Han dynasties, we find among the legends historical facts worthy of consideration.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

187

According to the worldview of the ancient Chinese, the Japanese were an eastern island people and were therefore referred to as “Eastern Yi barbarians” (dong Yi 东夷). Xu Shen’s Explaining Texts and Demystifying Characters states, “Yi (夷), people of the east, a combination of the character ‘big’ (大) and the character ‘[archer’s] bow’ (弓).” Duan Yucai’s Commentary on Explaining Texts and Demystifying Characters (Shuo wen jie zi zhu 说文解字注) points out that the names of peoples such as the Man (蛮), Min (闽), Di (狄), Mo (貉), and Qiang (羌) all contain radicals related to animals, whereas only the character for the Yi people includes one for “big,” implying “person” (人), and thus Duan concludes that “The Yi have benevolent customs, and the benevolent live long; it is a kingdom of immortal gentlemen.” The “kingdom of immortal gentlemen” was a utopian ideal of the ancient Chinese, who saw the distant land across the eastern sea in a mystical light, referring to it as Fusang, Yingzhou, Penglai, and so on, and it was regarded as a first choice for migrants seeking shelter from worldly turmoil.2 It seems that not only the common people but even Confucius entertained such ideas. Book 5 of The Analects, “Gongye Chang” (公冶长), states, “The master said, ‘If the world fails to practice the Way, I will board a small raft and go floating across the sea. As to who will accompany me, surely You [Zilu] will.’ On hearing this, Zilu was delighted.” What destination did Confucius hope to reach by “floating across the sea?” Book 9 of The Analects, “A Matter of Which the Master Seldom Spoke” (“Zi han” 子罕), states that Confucius wished to visit “the nine Yi tribes,” and that the following conversation occurred on the topic: “The master said he wished to live among the nine Yi tribes. Someone asked, ‘How could you endure such uncivilized people?’ The master said, ‘With gentlemen living among them, how could they be uncivilized?’” Confucius believed that there were “gentlemen living among” the nine Yi tribes, and that taking up residence in barbarian lands was an ideal way to retire from worldly life. As to where exactly the “nine Yi tribes” were located, Han dynasty scholar Li Xun explains in his commentary on Approaching Elegance, “There are nine types of Yi barbarians: the Xuantu, the Lelang, the Goguryeo, the Manshi, the Fugeng, the Suojia, the Dongtu, the Wo, and the Tianbi.” The “State of Yan” (“Yan di” 燕地) section of The Book of Han contains a well-known passage on the Wo people: “The Wo people live by the Lelang Sea [the Sea of Japan]. They are separated into more than

188  Y. WANG

a hundred kingdoms, and at harvest time, they pay tribute at court.” However, scholars often neglect the fact that this statement is preceded by one describing the Wo people as the inhabitants of the land of the nine Yi tribes that Confucius hoped to reach by “floating across the sea”: “The eastern Yi are gentle and yielding by nature and differ from any other people in the world. Therefore, Confucius wished to leave a land that failed to practice the Way and float across the ocean in hopes of reaching the land of the nine Yi tribes—he was not without reason! The Wo people live by the Lelang Sea. They are separated into more than a hundred kingdoms, and at harvest time, they pay tribute at court.” This example demonstrates that, as late as the Eastern Han dynasty, it was believed that the Wo were one of the nine Yi tribes, and not only were there gentleman living among them, they were a gentle, amicable people. The tale of Xu Fu’s eastward sea crossing in search of the island of the immortals, as told in Records of the Historian, Record of the Ten Islands within the Seas (Hai nei shi zhou ji 海内十洲记), and so on may also be a reflection of the same mindset and world situation. Xu Fu is said to have set out across the ocean with a number of boys and girls and to have settled in a place with “flat plains and vast swamps” where he established himself as king. Since ancient times, there have been numerous opinions on where this place is, including Zuzhou, Yingzhou, Yizhou, Changzhou, Danzhou, and Zhuyu, but in any event, full-fledged contact with Japan first began during the Sui or Tang dynasty. In Daye 4 (608), Pei Shiqing was dispatched on a diplomatic mission to Japan. In Pei’s own words, his route passed through “the kingdom of Qin” where “the people are just like the Chinese”; he believed this may have been the “Yizhou” where Xu Fu settled.3 In later generations, it was often assumed that the “kingdom of Qin” was in fact Japan. For instance, in the Five Dynasties period, Yi Chu determined that Xu Fu and his descendants had taken up residence in “Penglai” (the foothills of Mt. Fuji), where they maintained the customs of their land of origin, and thus “the people and things there are just like those of Chang’an.”4 Similarly, in the Ming dynasty, Xue Jun claimed that Xu Fu had settled in the Wo kingdom with “several thousand boys and girls,” proclaiming the place “the kingdom of Qin,” and thus the Chinese referred to him as “Xu of Wo.”5 From the Yuan and Ming dynasties onward, a major change occurs, and stories of Xu Fu’s journey to Japan begin to portray him as the ancestor of the Japanese. Wang Yun of the Yuan dynasty describes the

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

189

Yuan military’s Japanese expedition in Minor Record of an Ocean Voyage (Fanhai xiao lu 汎海小录), stating that the expedition arrived at “the Mountain of the Three Spirits” where “there live many people with the surname Xu who claim to be ‘the descendants of Junfang [Xu Fu].’”6 Zhou Zhizhong’s Annals of Foreign Lands (Yi yu zhi 异域志) asserts that “the kingdom was founded by the boys and girls led by Xu Fu in the time of Qin Shihuang,” and that “among the people brought by Xu Fu were all sorts of craftsmen, artisans, spiritual healers, and diviners.” The tale of Xu Fu’s journey to Japan is ultimately legendary, but it reflects the historical fact of eastward migration from the Chinese mainland to Japan during the Qin and Han dynasties. Among the migrants were no shortage of skilled artisans and farmers who brought with them advanced mainland civilization and production techniques, and even to an extent transmitted aspects of high culture such as music, religion, and books.7 The “Descendants of Wu Taibo” Theory The states of Wu and Yue, both located in the Jiangnan region, were constantly at war throughout ancient times. In BC 473, King Goujian of Yue defeated King Fuchai of Wu. Prologue to Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance (Zizhi tongjian qianbian 资治通鉴前编) states, “Fuchai was the twenty-fifth Wu king descended from Taibo. The present-day people of Japan claim be the descendants of Taibo of Wu. When Wu was defeated, his descendants crossed the sea to Japan.” This indicates that when the king of Wu was killed, his descendants scattered in all directions, with some crossing the sea to Japan. The earliest instance of the Japanese claiming to be the descendants of Wu Taibo is found in Yu Huan’s A Brief History of Wei, which states that “the Wo people claim to be the descendants of Taibo,” an explanation repeated in a number of Tang and Song dynasty historical works including Garden of Writings (Han yuan 翰苑), The Book of Liang, Comprehensive Institutions, History of Northern Dynasties, The Book of Jin, Imperial Anthology of the Taiping Era (Taiping yulan 太平御览), and Annals of Barbarian Domains (Zhu fan zhi 诸蕃志). Taibo, the oldest son of King Tai of Zhou, was praised by Confucius as “eminently virtuous” because he relinquished the throne to his younger brother Jili (The Analects). Taibo and his other younger brother Zhongyong traveled to a remote, wild area on the pretext of gathering medicinal herbs for their father, adopted primitive local customs, set

190  Y. WANG

about educating the natives, and gradually drew a mass of reverent followers, establishing a kingdom called Gouwu with its capital in Wuzhong (present-day Suzhou city). In the late Chunqiu period, Wu grew into a strong, prosperous kingdom and attempted to seize control of the empire from the northern state of Jin. In BC 473, King Goujian of Yue, nursing ambitions of vengeance, commanded his army to invade Wu, and Gouwu fell to Fuchai. The notion of the Japanese as the descendants of Wu Taibo arose at least as early as the late third century, when A Brief History of Wei was published. By this time, Chinese “envoys and interpreters were in contact with thirty [Japanese] states,”8 among which Yamataikoku, led by a queen, was the most powerful and prosperous. The theory that the Japanese are descended from Wu Taibo involves suppositions regarding not only the origins of the Japanese people but also eastward migration from continental Asia, and has thus drawn attention in the academic world and become the subject of fierce debate. For instance, Murao Jirō condemns the theory as a “perverse daydream”9 of the Chinese, Ōmori Shirō terms it “the product of Sinocentric ideology among the Han,”10 and so on; based on meticulous textual research, Chijiwa Minoru concludes that third-century Japanese settlements claimed the sagely Taibo as an ancestor due to a need to consolidate authority internally and proclaim their prestige to the world, that is, he affirms the “explanation put forward by the people of Wo themselves.”11 According to the “Discourse of Wu” (“Wu yu” 吴语) section of Discourses of the States (Guo yu 国语), the Yue military invaded the capital of Wu and surrounded the throne. Gouijian’s messenger relayed this message to Fuchai: “I will make arrangements for the king to live to the east of Yongju. He may choose three hundred married couples to accompany and serve him so that he may comfortably live out the rest of his years.” Yongju is located on the coast of the present-day Ningbo, and it is possible that some of the “three hundred married couples” who accompanied Fuchai in exile “to the east of Yongju” may have crossed the sea to Japan. The “Matsuno-Muraji” (松野連) entry of Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names (815) notes, “Descendants of King Fuchai of Wu.” It is thus apparent that some migrants from continental Asia revered “King Fuchai of Wu” as an ancestor, and although they changed surnames to Matsuno-Muraji upon reaching Japan, they did not forget their heritage. The Wo people who “claim to be the descendants of Taibo” according to A Brief History of Wei must be the descendants of the Wu people

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

191

who “crossed the sea to Japan” according to Prologue to Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance. Numerous Chinese state histories advance this view, and it is likely that it originates not from piecemeal stories related by individuals, but from a tale regarding the founder of a particular settlement. If this assumption is correct, then sometime prior to the late third century, migrants from Wu crossed the sea to Japan and established or administered a settlement (or coalition of settlements). This settlement (or coalition of settlements) must have refused to submit to the Wei-allied queen and revered Taibo, founder of the state of Wu, as its ancestor, and must not have been one of the thirty states under the administration of Yamataikoku. Migrants from Wu, Qin, and Han In fourth-century China, the Northern and Southern Courts came into conflict, and chaos consumed the north as the “Sixteen States of the Five Barbarians” vied for control. The south remained relatively stable under the governance of the Eastern Jin dynasty, and thus the population flowed out of China mainly to escape the conflict in the north, and most migrants reached Japan by way of the Korean Peninsula. At the time, the speed of Japan’s unification was accelerating and the era of innumerable small states was rapidly coming to a close, giving way to the Kofun period. The Japanese historical work Collection of Ancient Tales (807) states, “Many people from Qin, Han, and Baekje pledge allegiance [to Japan].” Kofun period mainland migrants were comprised of three main groups, migrants from Wu, migrants from Qin, and migrants from Han. Among the Wu group, the “Yamato no Kusushi no Omi” clan is particularly noteworthy. Not only was the clan large, but it also contributed much to Japanese culture. These contributions are mentioned repeatedly in Japanese historical works, for instance the “Yamato no Kusushi no Omi” (和薬使主) entry of the “Miscellaneous Domains of Sakyō, Part Two” (“Sakyō shohan ge” 左京諸藩下) section of Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names: “Ancestors of Chisō, descendant of Shōen, sovereign of Wu. Visited the court along with envoy Ōtomo no Satehiko during the reign of Amekuni Oshiharu Kihironiwa no Mikoto [posthumous title Kinmei] bearing 164 volumes including Japanese and foreign scriptures, medicinal texts, and acupuncture diagrams, a Buddha effigy, and a set of gigaku implements.”

192  Y. WANG

Chisō (Chinese: Zhi Cong 智聡), revered by the Yamato no Kusushi no Omi clan as a forefather, is said to be the descendant of a sovereign of Wu named “Shōen” (Chinese: Zhao Yuan 照淵), but it is unclear to whom this name refers. Kurita Hiroshi suspects it to be an erroneous reference to Emperor Xiao Yan (萧衍) of the Liang dynasty of the Southern Court.12 Chisō appears to have been a migrant from Liang who resettled in Korea (Baekje) and further resettled in Japan during the reign of Emperor Kinmei (540–571). Chisō brought with him to Japan “164 volumes including Japanese and foreign scriptures, medicinal texts, and acupuncture diagrams, a Buddha effigy, and a set of gigaku implements,” and his descendant presented to the court “130 volumes of medicinal texts, an acupuncture diagram, a mortar and pestle, and a gigaku set.” The most famous of Chisō’s descendants is his son Zenna no Omi. According to Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names and the “Order of the Grand Council of State” (“Daijō kanpu” 太政官 符) of the year 820, he was granted the surname “Yamato no Kusushi no Omi” (“Master of Japanese Medicine”) and a post in the Bureau of Medicine (Tenyakuryō 典薬寮) upon introducing the emperor to cow’s milk; the position was “inherited by his descendants” for approximately the next two centuries.13 In all, Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names records approximately twenty clans claiming to originate from people of the state of Wu such as Wu king Sun Quan, Wu prince Qing Qingwang, Wu king Sun Hao, Wu Tian Guogu, Guangling Gaomu, and Wu king Fuchai. These records are in part historically verifiable, and in part can be shown to be erroneous. Generally speaking, the Wu group made very significant contributions to the transmission of Chinese medicine. According to Nihon shoki, in Ōjin 14 (approximately 376), Lord Gungwol of Baekje arrived in Japan and reported that his people of the 120 wards had been detained by Silla in Gaya. Thus, the emperor sent Kazuraki no Sotsuhiko to extract them, and three years later, he returned with a group of people from Qin. Lord Gungwol is alternately referred to as King Yūzū, and Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names states that he is a fifth-generation descendant of Qin Shihuang responsible for leading a group of Qin migrants to the Korean Peninsula, and that the Yamato court acknowledged him as “the forefather of the Hata [Qin] no Miyatsuko.” Making joint reference to Nihon shoki and Newly Compiled Record of Family Titles and Clan Names, it is apparent that during the reign of

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

193

Emperor Yūryaku (late fourth century), there were ninety-two groups of Qin people and a total population of 18,670; that in Kinmei 1 (540), “the total number of Qin households was 7,053”; and that Emperor Nintoku, who reigned in the late fourth century and early fifth century, assigned the Qin people to different districts, putting them to service cultivating and spinning silk. The Han group migrated to Japan slightly later than the Qin group, as recorded in the entry for the ninth month of Ōjin 20 (approximately 382) in Nihon shoki: “Achi no Omi, progenitor of the Yamato no Aya [Han] no Atai, immigrated with his son Tsuka no Omi, bringing his relatives from the seventeen districts.” Achi no Omi claimed to be descended from Emperor Ling of Han, and in the late eighth century, his descendant Sakanoue no Karitamaro presented the emperor with a memorial stating, “We are descended from King Achi, descendant of Emperor Ling of the Later Han dynasty. When the Han dynasty fell and the Wei rose, King Achi followed the teachings of the holy ox and went to Daifang.”14 He then further migrated to the south of the peninsula and finally crossed the sea to Japan. According to “Sakanoue Lineage Chart” (“Sakanoue keizu” 坂上 系図; mid-ninth century), Achi no Omi migrated with a total of seven Han clans, namely the Duan, Li, Zaoguo, Zhu, Duo, Zao, and Gao. On this occasion, Achi no Omi reported to the emperor, “When I came to court, the people of my homeland scattered. I have heard that they are now spread out across Goryeo, Baekje, Silla, and other kingdoms. Please, send an envoy to summon them.” Emperor Ōjin dispatched an envoy as requested, and “entire villages of men and women returned under the envoy’s escort.” In Japanese documents, the Han people are referred to as “Ayaudo,” (literally “silk people” 綾人), “Ayahatori” (literally “Han weavers” 漢織) “Anahatori” (apparently an alternate way of writing “Ayahatori” 穴織) and so on, indicating their skill with weaving silk. In addition, it seems they were also skilled metallurgists,15 and among them were many literati and scholars.16 Sankakubuchi Shinjūkyō Mirrors If the legend of Xu Fu does in fact reflect historical migration to Japan from the Central Plains, then the “descendants of Wu Taibo” theory must be a miniature representation of historical eastward migration from

194  Y. WANG

the Jiangnan region. Around the transition from the Qin to the Han, some people from the states of Qi and Wu did indeed cross the sea to escape from wartime chaos and search for eternal life, but given the state of contemporary seafaring technology, it would have been quite difficult for migrants to take to the sea on a large scale, and the most popular migration route must certainly have been the eastward land route. The bulk of the migrants settled either in Liaodong or on the Korean Peninsula, with only a very small number traveling further east to Japan under pressure from new migrants. It is these migrants to whom the terms “people of Wu” (Kurebito 呉人), “people of Qin” (Hatabito 秦 人), and “people of Han” (Karabito 漢人) in Japanese historical documents refer. The movement of people naturally spurred the circulation of goods. The migrants brought not only objects such as bronze mirrors, bronze swords, steel blades, earthenware, silk, agricultural implements, musical instruments, equestrian gear, medicine, and Buddha effigies, but also paddy cultivation techniques, sericulture techniques, weaving techniques, metallurgy techniques, medical techniques, performance techniques, and cultural knowledge; this much is readily apparent and widely known. However, the migrants’ contributions were not limited to these. As they transmitted culture, they also learned from the cultural traditions, folk customs, and natural resources around them, developing new, innovative forms of cultural expression. Sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors are a typical example. In October 1950, a sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirror bearing the inscription “Jingchu year 3” was found in the Koganezuka Kofun (early Kofun period) in Izumi city, Osaka. According to the “Annals of the Wo” chapter of Records of the Three Kingdoms, this is the same year that the Wei emperor presented “a hundred bronze mirrors” to the Wo queen. According to statistics gathered in 1998, there were 485 such mirrors across Japan, concentrated mainly in the Kinai region. The question of where these bronze mirrors were produced is the subject of very vigorous debate in academic circles. According to one view, the bronze mirrors were produced in Japan, while others insist that they were imported from China. Based on the place names that appear in the inscriptions, including “Xuzhou” and “Luoyang,” and era names such as “Jingchu” and “Zhengshi,” most believe that the mirrors were produced in China by Wei court artisans.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

195

In the early 1980s, Chinese scholars including Wang Zhongshu, Xu Pingfang, and Wang Jinling joined the debate. Wang Zhongshu, for instance, proposed that the mirrors were produced by migrants from Wu, sending shockwaves through Japanese academia. His main assertions are as follows: (1) No sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirror has ever been discovered in China. (2) From the Eastern Han dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period, shenshoujing mirrors and huaxiangjing mirrors circulated widely in the Chinese Jiangnan region. (3) Sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors combine the outer portion of huaxiangjing mirrors with the inner portion of shenshoujing mirrors. Kasamatsumon (pine needle motif 笠松紋) designs, a feature not found in Chinese mirrors, are added to accommodate Japanese tastes, and the body of the mirror is enlarged. (4) Sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors were produced in Japan by migrants from Wu.17 As Wang’s theory was causing an uproar in Japan, in October 1986, a Banryūkyō mirror with beveled edges bearing the inscription “Jingchu 4, fifth month” was found in Hiromine Kofun 15 in Fukuchiyama, Kyoto; the Hyogo Prefecture Tatsuuma Archaeological Museum holds a bronze mirror with the same inscription, style, and measurements. As there is no such year as “Jingchu 4” in Chinese history, the discovery lends further credence to the theory that the mirrors were created by migrants from Wu. Molds are used to cast bronze mirrors, and mirrors produced by the same molds are called dōhankyō. In 1998, among thirty-three sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors excavated from Kurozuka Kofun in Nara Prefecture, twenty-seven are dōhankyō with bronze mirrors discovered in other areas. Because bronze mirrors emphasize tradition and lack distinctive characteristics, it is perilous to date them based solely on the dates inscribed upon them; under certain conditions, era names were copied from earlier works along with designs, patterns, divine beast motifs, and inscriptions. Thus, a date alone is not enough evidence to determine whether a mirror came from Wei China or from Yamataikoku. The Wei dates and Wu designs of sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors suggest the coexistence and fusion of groups with different cultural backgrounds, resulting in the emergence of new cultural forms.

196  Y. WANG

2  Transmission of Information and Circulation of Goods The Northern and Southern courts had been split for centuries when, in AD 589, the Sui dynasty defeated the Chen and unified China. This effected a drastic change in East Asian political structures, such that not only were neighboring states forced to make difficult diplomatic decisions, a number of latent internal contradictions were brought to light. The repercussions extended to Japan, which entered a period of upheaval. At this point, a sagacious political leader emerged—Prince Shōtoku, who wielded control of the Suiko court in spite of domestic turmoil and overseas invasions, dispatching international missions to Sui, opening direct communication channels with continental Asia for the first time, and assimilating its advanced culture toward the aim of progress; internally, he reformed systems, formulated a constitution and bureaucratic structures, and established totalitarian imperial rule, building a solid foundation for the state. Exchange between China and Japan thus entered a new era. From the Envoys to Sui to the Envoys to Tang An entry in Nihon shoki for Suiko 15 (607) states, “Autumn, seventh month, third day. The dairai Ono no Omi Imoko was dispatched to Tang China, with Kuratsukuri no Fukuri serving as interpreter.” This mission is also recorded in the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui, in the entry for Daye 3 (607), and therefore it is generally believed in the academic world that the first mission to Sui took place in AD 607. However, the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui records that, in Kaihuang 20 (600), “the Wo king… dispatched an envoy to meet with the emperor,” that is, the first mission to Sui was dispatched at an earlier date. Many Japanese scholars express doubts regarding this mission, postulating that it may have been dispatched privately by Kyushu nobles, or that this is a mistaken reference to the 607 mission.18 Cross-referencing the two entries in The Book of Sui, to begin with, the Wo king is referred to in the former as 多利思比孤 and in the latter as 多利思北孤, both pronounced “Tarishihiko.” Because the only difference is the use of the character 北 versus 比, and the characters are similar, it appears that the same Wo king dispatched both missions, and thus the distinction between the missions does not lie in whether they

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

197

were dispatched by regional nobles or the central government. Second, the text states that the Wo envoys of the Kaihuang period met with “Gaozu,” that is, Emperor Wen, whereas the envoys of the Daye period had audiences with Emperor Yang; Emperor Wen’s reign ended Renshou 4 (604), and an orthodox state history would be unlikely to fabricate the title of an emperor or a reign title. Finally, Emperor Wen “dispatched functionaries to investigate their [Japan’s] customs,” whereas Emperor Yang dispatched no such mission, further supporting the idea that the first Japanese mission took place in Kaihuang 20. If records of the missions to Tang are any indication, it is unlikely that the Chinese and Japanese state histories refer to the same mission in this case.19 The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui describes the Japanese mission of Kaihuang 20 in concrete detail in a way that does not overlap with the entry for Daye 3, so it is more likely that the first mission to Sui took place in AD 600. The second mission to Sui led by Ono no Imoko declared to Emperor Yang of Sui that the purpose of the mission was follows: “On hearing that a revival of the dharma was taking place under the bodhisattva emperor across the western sea, we dispatched a mission to the court, in addition to sending dozens of monks to study the dharma.”20 Scholarmonks were not part of the first mission to Sui, but it appears that the mission returned with news that “a revival of the dharma was taking place under the bodhisattva emperor across the western sea,” and thus “dozens of monks [were sent] to study the dharma.” First, the “Five Wo Kings” sent envoys to the Southern court, and later the missions to Tang traveled West to Chang’an, with the missions to Sui forming a link between the two. Although most works on the missions to Tang briefly touch upon the missions to Sui, regarding them as precursors, studies of the Five Wo Kings rarely make mention of the missions to Sui. Regarding the background of the missions to Sui, to begin with, though the Five Wo Kings frequently dispatched envoys to the Southern Court, relations between China and Japan remained severed for approximately a century afterward21; also, the Sui dynasty had existed for less than two decades, and the Japanese lacked experience interacting with a unified Central Plains court. Therefore, the early missions to Sui committed a frequent faux pas. The envoys of the first mission faced questioning by the Court for Dependencies and responded regarding Japanese governmental affairs: “The Wo king takes heaven for an older brother and the sun for a

198  Y. WANG

younger brother. When light is yet to appear in the sky, he holds court, sitting down cross-legged; when the sun comes out, he finishes his business and lets his younger brother take over.” Emperor Wen condemned this response as “utter insolence” and “ordered it amended.”22 The second mission brought a letter in accordance with imperial tribute regulations, but Emperor Yang was displeased by the wording “‘From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun,’ and so on,” and ordered the minister of dependencies, “The next time the barbarians send such an insolent letter, do not give them a hearing.” This memorial is often cited as evidence of a level diplomatic playing field,23 but in fact, it should be seen as a major misstep by early Japanese diplomats. In the fourth month of Daye 4 (608), Pei Shiqing dispatched Ono no Imoko as an envoy to Wo, sending with him a letter stating, “the emperor sends his regards to the king of Wo.”24 The Wo king proclaimed, delighted, “I have heard of the great kingdom of Sui across the western sea. It is said to be a land of righteous customs, and thus we pay tribute to it. We are barbarians who inhabit a remote corner of the sea, knowing nothing of righteousness… therefore, we will now clean the streets and decorate the halls to prepare to welcome the ambassador in the hopes of absorbing restorative instruction from that great kingdom.”25 The notion that Prince Shōtoku, who praised Sui China as “a land of righteous customs” while referring to himself as a “barbarian” who knew “nothing of righteousness,” sought to proclaim himself an equal to Emperor Yang of Sui, is a mistaken assumption made by later generations. After receiving “restorative instruction” from this “great kingdom,” the Wo king took a series of follow-up actions. In the ninth month of that year, a third mission was dispatched to Sui bearing a letter with the amended wording “the eastern king of heaven sends his regards to the emperor of the west,”26 ameliorating the negative impact of the previous letter. It is worth noting that this mission included four “students” and four “scholar-monks.”27 Upon becoming regent, Prince Shōtoku implemented numerous reforms related to domestic politics and foreign diplomacy and attempted to overcome an “island nation” mentality; this was his internal motivation for dispatching diplomatic missions. His external motivation for dispatching the missions to Sui and sending “dozens of monks to study the dharma” was that he had heard that “a revival of

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

199

the dharma was taking place under the bodhisattva emperor across the western sea.”28 Pei Shiqing brought Japan “restorative instruction” from China, deeply impressing the importance of “righteousness” upon Prince Shōtoku, and it became a routine practice for Japan to dispatch not only “scholar-monks” but also equal numbers of “students.” As the students and scholar-monks completed their studies in Sui China and returned to Japan, they brought with them new information that furnished the motivation to dispatch the missions to Tang. In an entry for the seventh month of Suiko 31 (623), Nihon shoki records, “Silla dispatched the namal Ji Se-i as an ambassador and Mimana dispatched the dalsolnamal Ji; together they came to the court… on this occasion, Ji Se-i’s delegation was accompanied by several returning students from great Tang including monks Esai and Ekō and doctors Enichi and Fukuin. Thereupon, Enichi and the others jointly presented a memorial: ‘All the scholars who were studying in Tang have completed their studies and should now be called home. Great Tang is an outstanding kingdom with established laws and norms. We should certainly continue to travel there frequently.’” The year after Emperor Jomei took the throne (630), he dispatched Inugami no Kimimitasuki and Enichi, a doctor, to China; this was the first mission to Tang. The second mission to Sui had sent monks to China specifically to study Buddhism, the third mission to Sui also included students dedicated to studying such matters as “righteous customs,” and now Emperor Jomei defined the purpose of the first mission to Tang as studying “laws and norms.” Subsequently, at a time when Japan was in the process of constructing the ritsuryō system, the envoys to Tang undertook the mission of broadly studying the advanced institutions and culture of Tang China. The Sources and Impact of the “Tang Bulletins” From the time that the returned students advised Emperor Jomei to “remain in constant communication” with China, missions were regularly dispatched to Tang China as a matter of basic Japanese national policy, and the bureaucrats, attendants, overseas students, scholar-monks, and others dispatched to the Tang court were all tasked with the mission of learning new knowledge and collecting new information. On returning home, their duty was to make presentations to the court, and the official reports submitted by the bureaucrats dispatched to the Tang

200  Y. WANG

court contained special sections on the national affairs of Tang China which were referred to as “Tang Bulletins” (“Tō shōsoku” 唐消息 or “Tōkoku shōsoku” 唐国消息); rulers paid these particular heeds. Most of the Tang envoys’ “Tang Bulletins” are collected in official Japanese histories, also known as the six national histories.29 These bulletins give us a glimpse of certain aspects of Tang China as the Japanese envoys to Tang saw it, and in many cases prove a valuable supplement where Chinese sources are lacking. The “Tang Bulletins” are drawn firstly from the written memorials presented by the envoys to Tang upon returning home and reporting on their missions. For instance, magistrate Ono no Shigeno, captain of the third ship of the sixteenth mission to Tang dispatched in the sixth month of Hōki 8 (777), reported upon the start of the journey, the sea crossing, the entry into China, the visit to the capital, the audience with the court, the outstanding hospitality the mission received, and the return journey. This passage appears at the end of the long memorial: “Tang Bulletin: The current emperor’s title is Prince of Guangping, his personal name is Di, and his age is fifty-three. The crown prince’s title is Prince Yong, and his personal name is Kuo. The year is Dali 13 by the Chinese calendar, corresponding to Hōki 9.”30 Ono was merely the captain of the third ship and one of four magistrates, and his report was relatively simplistic, but it nonetheless presented crucial information related to the Tang court, including the names of the emperor and the crown prince, the emperor’s age, and the Tang dynasty reign title. The eighteenth mission to Tang was dispatched on the sixth day of the seventh month of Enryaku 23 by the Japanese calendar (804), and the first ship returned without incident on the eighth day of the sixth month of the following year, upon which ambassador Fujiwara no Kadanomaro submitted a much more detailed “Tang Bulletin” that is cited below. (1) Tang Bulletin: “The current emperor, named Song, is but one of the sons of the previous emperor, now deceased. He is forty-five years old and has more than forty children. The crown prince, Prince Chun of Guangling, is twenty-eight years old. The empress dowager, surname Wang, is the current emperor’s mother and the previous emperor’s wife. The year is Zhenyuan 21, corresponding to Enryaku 24.” (2) “Li Shigu (grandson of Li Zhengji, son of Li Na), governor of Ziqing Circuit and prefect of Qing Prefecture, maintains an army

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

201

of five hundred thousand. Officials of the court traveled to each of the circuits to inform the governors of the emperor’s passing, but when they attempted to cross the border of Qing Prefecture, Li refused them entry. Li took advantage of the mourning period and led a force of a hundred thousand troops in a surprise attack on Zheng Prefecture. The prefectures joined forces in a counterattack, and a fierce battle ensued. Thus, high-ranking court envoy Xi Qian was dispatched to make peace with Shigu. Governor of Cai Prefecture Wu Shaocheng too raised a large army and watched for an opening to attack.” (3)  “Then, in Zhenyuan 19, Longwu General Xue Shen was sent to make peace with Tibet. He was detained on arrival and was unable to complete his mission. Xue lied, saying, ‘My purpose in coming is to make peace by marrying a princess.’ The Tibetans decreed that Xue was to be allowed to take a wife and to return home. The emperor said angrily, ‘I was not aware that you planned to take a wife. You should have received my permission in advance. Now go, and do not return until you have completed your mission.’ Xue returned to the Tibetan border, but was refused entry. He dwells even now in the borderland between the two kingdoms. In the twelfth month of last year, Tibetan envoys visited China. When asked their purpose, they claimed it was to marry a princess. The emperor glared at them and said nothing, so they did not take part in New Year’s celebrations. Tibet is located to the northwest of Chang’an and has raised an army and invaded China on several occasions. Chang’an lies five hundred li from the border of Tibet. Internally, the court is suspicious of the governors, and externally, it mistrusts Tibet. The capital is in turmoil, and the people cannot rest easy.” The first excerpt addresses primarily the affairs of the Tang royal family, and is quite similar to the previously mentioned “Tang Bulletin” delivered by Ono no Shigeno, but with additional information concerning the emperor’s children, the age of the crown prince, and the empress dowager. This appears to be the essential information a “Tang Bulletin” was expected to contain, and personnel other than diplomats were also duty-bound to gather it. The second excerpt addresses Tang court politics and military affairs, making specific mention of developments involving Li Shigu, governor of Ziqing Circuit, and Wu Shaocheng, governor

202  Y. WANG

of Cai Prefecture; this was another category of information in which the Japanese court took an interest. The third excerpt has to do with diplomatic relations, recording a dispute between the Tang court and Tibet, including valuable historical material not present in Chinese sources. There is no doubt that, as described above, reports by returning envoys to Tang were the main sources of the “Tang Bulletins,” but from the eighth century onward, Japan dispatched a mission to Tang just once every twenty years on average. At a time when patterns of interaction in East Asia were constantly changing, relying solely upon the missions to Tang clearly meant information was much delayed, and thus Chinese merchants doing business in Japan became another important source of “Tang Bulletins.” On the sixteenth day of the sixth month of Yuanhe 14 (819), several merchants from Yue Prefecture, among them Zhou Guanghan and Yan Shengze, traveled to Japan aboard a boat dispatched by Silla, and upon arrival Japanese bureaucrats immediately asked them for “news from China,” to which Zhou responded, “We come from the remote countryside and are unaware of the goings-on in the capital. However, in Yuanhe 11, governor of Yuan Prefecture Li Shidao led five hundred thousand of his finest troops in a rebellion. The emperor dispatched troops from various circuits, but was unable to put down the rebellion. The empire is in chaos.”31 In addition to this, Balhae and Silla were in frequent contact with Japanese envoys and were also important information sources for Japan’s “Tang Bulletins.” For instance, in the first month of Tenpyō-hōji 7 (763), the emperor held a banquet for foreign envoys and civil and military officials, and Balhae’s ambassador Wang Sin-bok provided information on the An Lushan Rebellion: The emperor and his father, surnamed Li, are both dead, and the Prince of Guangping has taken over as regent. The harvest has failed, and the people have turned to cannibalism. The Shi clan has founded a dynasty, placing Emperor Shengwu on the throne. He is kind and forgiving, and his followers are many. His army is extremely strong, and none dare challenge him. Deng Prefecture and Xiangyang are controlled by the Shi clan, while only Su Prefecture is controlled by the Li clan. The roads to the capital remain impassible.

This bit of news proved a severe shock to the Japanese court, as just two years before, in 761, the Tang court had dispatched a delegation of thirty-nine, including Shen Weiyue, zhechong (a type of military

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

203

official 折冲) of the Yue Prefecture Puyang Government Office, to escort Japanese envoy Kō Gendo back to Japan, and Japan was at the time considering dispatching a mission to Tang to accompany Shen and the others back to China. On learning from Balhae’s ambassador that “the roads to the capital remain impassible,” the court issued the following rescript to the Dazaifu (the regional government of Kyūshū 大宰府): “The kingdom of Tang is in turmoil, with two houses striving for supremacy. Until peace is restored, it will not be possible to dispatch missions. Shen Weiyue and the others are to be given lodging and treated hospitably. Supply them with seasonally appropriate clothing drawn from government storehouses. If they miss home badly and wish to return, give them a fast boat and sailors and send them back when appropriate.”32 However, Wang Sin-bok’s information was long out of date. By this time, 763, the Tang military had mounted a full-scale counterattack with the aid of the Uyghurs, resulting in the defeat of Shi’s army and the suicide of Shi. When Wang reported to the Japanese court that Shi’s army “is extremely strong,” and that “only Su Prefecture is controlled by the Li clan,” the severed heads of the Shi family leaders were already on display in Chang’an, and the eight-year-long An Lushan Rebellion had come to an end. However, Shen Weiyue and his delegation did not receive this news in a timely fashion, gave up on returning home, and were naturalized as Japanese. Though the so-called “Tang Bulletins” reported information concerning the Chinese Tang court, not all the information was collected from the Chinese people. The Japanese collected information through their own channels in accordance with the needs of their own government, picking and choosing information from the viewpoint of bystanders. Thus, cross-referencing the “Tang Bulletins” against Chinese sources, we find that though they contain erroneous information and hearsay in some cases, they display exceptional, unique insight in others.33 To summarize the above, in the process of constructing the ritsuryō system after the Tang Chinese model, not only did Japan eagerly absorb advanced mainland culture, but it also paid great heed to changing political situations in Tang China and throughout East Asia; not only did it dispatch the envoys to Tang to collect political, military, and diplomatic intelligence, but it also gathered the latest information from Chinese merchants and envoys from Balhae and Silla, demonstrating initiative and self-directed action on the part of Japan during the era of the missions to Tang.

204  Y. WANG

Tributes to and Gifts from the Imperial Court As the purpose of the missions to Tang was to pay tribute, the envoys naturally did not arrive empty-handed. In Zhenyuan 20 (804), the mission boat on which Kūkai was a passenger endured thirty-four days of stormy seas and reached the port in Changxi County, Fu Prefecture on the tenth day of the eighth month. From the eighth century onward, the Japanese missions to Tang generally landed in Su Prefecture, Yang Prefecture, or Ming Prefecture, all located in the Jiangnan region. Fu Prefecture was not a place Japanese tributary missions generally traversed, and thus regional officials became suspicious, repeatedly questioning the mission as to its purpose and inspecting the goods aboard the ship. In response, Ambassador Fujiwara no Kadanomaro (Chinese name Heneng) wrote a defense on behalf of Kūkai. The “Ambassador’s Letter to Fu Prefecture Inspectors” (“Wei dashi yu Fu Zhou guancai shishu” 为 大使与福州观察使书) is written in gorgeous four-six parallel prose style (si liu pianwen ti 四六骈俪体) and mentions that “Courtier Fujiwara, aka Heneng, and others have been sent as envoys to deliver a guoxin (国信), a biegong (别贡), and so on.” Here, “guoxin” and “biegong” appear to refer to imperial tributes brought by the ambassador. Of what precisely did this guoxin and biegong consist? Extensive Records of the Taiping Era (Taiping guangji 太平广记) mentions that the Japanese presented “ten boats worth of guoxin and countless precious goods,”34 but does not enumerate the items. Thankfully, a list of the tribute items appears under the heading “List of Gifts to Foreign Courts: Great Tang Emperor” (“Shi bankaku rei: Dai Tō kō” 賜蕃客例・大唐皇) in the “Ministry of the Treasury” (“Ōkurashō” 大蔵省) section of Procedures of the Engi Era. Great Tang emperor: 500 taels of silver pieces, 200 bolts each of mizuori no ashiginu and Mino no ashiginu silk, 300 bolts each of hosoashiginu and kiashiginu silk, 500 spools of kiito yellow silk thread, 1,000 ton of hosotsumi no wata silk floss. Presented separately: 200 bolts of saihaku silk, 200 chō of tatamiwata silk floss, 200 ton of tsumi no wata silk floss, 30 tan of sackcloth, 100 tan of Mōda no nuno cloth, 100 chō of kiwata silk floss, 10 fire-starting crystals, 10 pieces of agate, 10 pieces of fire-starting iron, 6 to of camellia oil, 6 to of amazura juice, 4 to of gold lacquer.

The portion of the list from “500 taels of silver pieces” to “1,000 ton of hosotsumi no wata silk” makes up the guoxin, while the items “presented separately” correspond to the biegong in the “Ambassador’s

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

205

Letter to Fu Prefecture Inspectors.” Not only did the envoys present the above-mentioned tribute items to the court, the court issued various items to each of the members of the missions to Tang in order to compensate them for their travel expenses in China. A list of items granted to the ambassador, four subordinate classes of officials, interpreters, overseas students, seamen, and so on appears under the heading “Items Granted to Envoys: Items Granted to Envoys in Foreign Countries” (“Shoshi kyūhō; Nyū shohanshi kyūhō” 諸使給法・入諸藩使給法) in the “Ministry of the Treasury” section of Procedures of the Engi Era. Ambassador to Tang: 60 bolts of ashiginu silk, 150 bolts of silk wadding, 150 tan of linen; Deputy ambassador: 10 bolts of ashiginu silk, 100 bolts of silk wadding, 100 tan of linen; Inspectors: 10 bolts of ashiginu silk, 60 bolts of silk wadding, 40 tan of linen each; Recorders: 6 bolts of ashiginu silk, 40 bolts of silk wadding, 20 tan of linen each; Ship captains, interpreters, short-term overseas students, ritual officiants, doctors, oracles, painters: 5 bolts of ashiginu silk, 40 bolts of silk wadding, 16 tan of linen each; Scribes, archers, boatmen, lead musicians, interpreters of the languages of Silla, Amami, etc., diviners, attendants of overseas students: 4 bolts of ashiginu silk, 20 bolts of silk wadding, 13 tan of linen each; Miscellaneous personnel, musicians, jewelers, blacksmiths, artisans, shipbuilders, helmsmen: 3 bolts of ashiginu silk, 15 bolts of silk wadding, 8 tan of linen each; Servants, oarsmen: 2 bolts of ashiginu silk, 12 bolts of silk wadding, 4 tan of linen each; Overseas students, scholar-monks: 40 bolts of ashiginu silk, 100 bolts of silk wadding, 80 tan of linen each; Area-specific short-term students: 20 bolts of ashiginu silk, 60 bolts of silk wadding, 40 tan of linen each (of the amounts of linen above, one-third shall consist of Kazusa no nuno linen); Head seaman: 1 bolt of ashiginu silk, 4 bolts of silk wadding, 2 tan of linen; Seamen: 4 ton of silk wadding, 2 tan of linen.

206  Y. WANG

The two lists above suggest the following: the two sides likely agreed upon the quantities and specifications of the guoxin, whereas requirements for the biegong were somewhat looser; ashiginu silk (mizuori no ashiginu, Mino no ashiginu, hosoashiginu, kiashiginu), wata silk floss (hosotsumi no wata, tatamiwata, tsumi no wata, kiwata), haku silk (saihaku), ito silk thread (kiito), nuno cloth (sackcloth [asanuno], Mōda no nuno, Kazausa no nuno), etc., make up the bulk of the goods transported westward by the missions to Tang, indicating that Japan was capable of mass-producing silk; and cloth, floss, and silk served as the primary trade currency between China and Japan at this time, as also evinced by firsthand materials such as Ennin’s Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Dharma (Nittō guhō junrei gyōki 日唐求法巡礼行 記), which records that members of the missions to Tang used cloth and floss as payment methods in transactions throughout China. The lists of goods brought by the missions to Tang according to Procedures of the Engi Era are limited to items issued by the government, and do not include personal effects; in addition, the two lists appear to be merely examples from one particular mission,35 and it is not the case that every mission to Tang brought the same set of items. For instance, Miscellany of the Pine Window (Song chuang zalu 松窗杂录) records that Emperor Xuanzong of Tang used “Japanese-made paper” to write a total of three hundred volumes of speeches. Said paper was likely brought to China by the missions to Tang. The “Annals of Japan” chapter of New Book of Tang records that in Kenchū 1 (780), “Japanese envoy Mahito Okiyoshi presented numerous items… Mahito is a skilled calligrapher, and his paper is lustrous as a silk cocoon. Never have we seen the likes of it.” The “Mahito Okitoshi” referred to here is ambassador Fuse no Kiyonao of the 779 seventeenth mission to Tang, and Chinese sources widely report on the “silken paper” he brought as well as his calligraphy skills.36 Exchange of goods between official diplomatic delegations and the Tang court was certainly bidirectional, involving both tributes from the envoys and gifts from the court, though the gifts awarded by the Tang court on the basis of the tribute items frequently exceeded the value of these tribute items dozens of times over. The “Annals of Japan” chapter of Old Book of Tang records that, in the early Kaiyuan era, Emperor Xuanzong bestowed a “gift” (xilai 锡赉) upon the mission to Tang, wording that implies the gift consisted of cash rather than material goods,37 but unfortunately a list of specific items is not provided.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

207

3  The Background and Motivation of Chinese Travels to Japan During the Sui and Tang era, exchange of people and goods between China and Japan was consistently characterized by a marked inequality. First, with regard to goods, those transported from Japan to China were generally crudely processed items and everyday consumables which were limited in quantity as well as in cultural and artistic value; Tang China, meanwhile, exported to Japan technological masterworks and top-quality arts and crafts which were abundant in quantity and of great cultural merit. Next, with regard to people, the Japanese missions to Sui and Tang China in no way stood out from those of Korean and various Western kingdoms, but were far more frequent and involved far greater numbers of people than visits by the Chinese to Japan; the missions to Sui and Tang China were dispatched as a matter of state policy and displayed a strongly subjective agency, taking up the weighty mission of learning from an advanced civilization; on the other hand, Chinese travels to Japan were often compelled by external forces, consisting mostly of ceremonial visits and in general having nothing to do with the mission of assimilating Japanese culture. When the Chinese traveled eastward with Japanese envoys, they generally did so for personal reasons, Jianzhen’s travels being the exception rather than the rule. Though the Chinese did not visit Japan in large numbers, it is an objective fact that such visits occurred and were of unique historical significance and social impact. It might be said that, as the inverse of the Japanese missions to Tang, they comprised an integral aspect of SinoJapanese exchange during the Sui and Tang era. Frequent Maritime Accidents In Tianbao 12 (753), the twelfth mission to Tang led by ambassador Fujiwara no Kiyokawa entered the capital and requested that Emperor Xuanzong allow them to hire Xiao Yingshi as a teacher. Xiao, described as “a great academic known even to barbarians… well-reputed both domestically and abroad,”38 was a renowned scholar whose works were without parallel in the era. Debate persists in Chinese and Japanese academia as to whether the delegation requesting to hire Xiao was in fact from Japan or

208  Y. WANG

Silla.39 Wherever the delegation may have been from, the request was not granted. Concerning the reason for this, the “Biography of Xiao Yingshi” (“Xiao Yingshi zhuan” 萧颖士传) chapter of New Book of Tang explains that “court drafter Zhang Jian and others objected, and thus the request was refused,” but Fascicle 395 of Complete Tang Prose Anthology (Quan Tang wen 全唐文) cites Liu Taizhen’s “Preface to Dispatching Xiao Yingshi to the Eastern Court” (“Song Xiao Yingshi fu Dong Fu xu” 送萧颖士赴东府序), which states that Xiao Yingshi “took his leave due to illness, and thus did not accompany them”: Recently, the Wo people of the east crossed the sea and came to our country as guests, requesting the services of a master as a teacher to their country. Not daring to personally make such a request, they wrote a memorial to the emperor. The master took his leave due to illness, and thus did not accompany them.

There are many reasons why Xiao may have claimed illness, his awareness of the peril posed by the sea crossing certainly being one. Xiao was not the only one who exhibited such hesitation, which seems to have been a universal phenomenon among Tang dynasty scholar-officials. During the reign of Emperor Xuanzong, another illustrious scholar who served as governor of Hai Prefecture during the Kaiyuan era, Li Yong, became aware that a Japanese mission boat fully loaded with tribute goods had drifted into the prefecture’s territory. In a scheme to enrich himself, Li engineered a heist of the “countless rare treasures onboard,” then hired a boat to escort the envoys back to Japan. Prior to the departure, he gave a confidential briefing to the Chinese crew: “Reaching Japan means making a long journey across stormy seas. Who knows if you will survive the trip? If you turn back halfway, no one will blame you. Do as you please.”40 It is apparent that, in the eyes of the Chinese people of the Tang dynasty, Japan was a remote land, and the sea crossing presented great danger; few returned from such journeys. The Tang empire had reached a height of prosperity and exerted a powerful pull upon neighboring kingdoms. The entries in the Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang together indicate that more than fifty kingdoms paid tribute to the Tang court,41 China was visited by a constant stream of foreign envoys, and the Chinese often dispatched missions to other kingdoms as well. Tasked with a mission by their monarch, no matter how dangerous the sea crossing may have been, the envoys

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

209

could not shirk responsibility by claiming illness, as Xiao Yingshi had, nor could they go halfway and then return, as in Li Yong’s scheme. Because the Tang court’s envoys to Japan were pushed out of the country by strong driving forces, their mind state cannot be compared to that of the Japanese envoys to Tang. As previously described, the first mission to Tang dispatched by Emperor Jomei reached Chang’an in Zhenguan 5 (631). Emperor Taizong of Tang “took pity due to the long journey they had endured and instructed his functionaries not to collect tribute,”42 and the following year dispatched Gao Biaoren, governor of Xin Prefecture, on a pacification mission to Japan. The journey was beset by difficulties, and the boat only reached Japan after drifting for months. On returning to China, Gao recounted with a terror-stricken expression: We have passed through the gates of hell. I saw it myself, the green steam rising and the smoke and fire, heard the sound of wailing like blades being pounded at a forge. Travelers tremble with fear at the sound.43

For generations, historical texts leveled multiple veiled criticisms at Gao, claiming that he “lacked the ability to pacify a distant kingdom,” that he “became involved in a dispute over etiquette with the [Japanese] prince and returned without completing his mission from the court,” and so on.44 In fact, Gao’s boat was tossed by the waves of the open sea for several months, leading to his hallucinatory vision of passing through “the gates of hell.” It appears that because Gao was driven to utter physical and mental exhaustion, he was not subject to censure as others would have been. The final sentence, “Travelers tremble with fear at the sound,” scared off many future would-be travelers. Gao Biaoren narrowly escaped death due to sheer luck, but the fate of court eunuch Zhao Baoying, dispatched to Japan approximately 150 years later, was not so fortunate. In the first month of Dali 13 (778), the tenth mission to Tang traveled north from Yang Prefecture to Chang’an, where Ono no Iwane’s delegation of eighty-five was received hospitably. In the third month, the delegation had an audience with Emperor Daizong, and in the fourth month, preparations were made to travel south and then return home. At this time, Daizong handed down a decree ordering that Zhao Baoying was to be dispatched to Japan bearing “reciprocal gifts.” Zhao was prefect of the Eunuch Bureau, and the fact that he was dispatched

210  Y. WANG

as envoy demonstrates the importance of Japan to the Tang court. However, Ono no Iwane was concerned, and advised Daizong, “The journey to my homeland is a lengthy one beset by waves and wind. Now a palace messenger has declared that he will go forth through billowing waves, but I fear the worst could come to pass, and your majesty’s decree could go unfulfilled.”45 Ono’s prophecy unfortunately proved accurate. Swept up by a windstorm on the high sea, the convoy of ships split apart, and Ono’s delegation of thirty-eight Japanese envoys as well as Zhao’s delegation of twenty-five Chinese envoys met their deaths. Chinese Envoys to Japan Studied of interaction between China and Japan during the Sui and Tang era tend to focus upon the Japanese envoys to Sui and Tang while ignoring Chinese envoys to Japan. It is widely known that Pei Shiqing of the Sui court made a journey to Japan and Gao Biaoren did the same in the early Tang dynasty, as numerous Chinese orthodox histories record these visits. However, piecemeal records of the missions by some Tang court envoys (such as the aforementioned Zhao Baoying) are scattered in different Japanese sources, and scholars have only rarely attempted to examine them systematically.46 Tang court missions to Japan generally belong to one of the following two types: delegations that escorted Japanese envoys home out of courtesy, including those of Gao Biaoren, Zhao Baoying, and Shen Weiyue, and delegations dispatched due to the political situation on the Korean Peninsula, mainly after the Battle of Baekgang (663), such as those of Guo Wucong, Liu Degao, and Li Shouzhen. As space is limited, only missions of the first type will be discussed here. First escort delegation: In the eleventh month of Zhenguan 5 (631), the first Japanese mission to Tang arrived in Chang’an, and Emperor Taizong of Tang dispatched Gao Biaoren, governor of Xin Prefecture, to “visit them as an envoy and console them.” Gao reached Japan in the tenth month of the following year, and returned to China in Zhenguan 7 (633) to report on his mission. Second escort delegation: In the eleventh month of Qianfeng 2 (667), Sima Facong, envoy of General Liu Renyuan of the Baekje garrison, Ungsan County Magistrate of the Ungjin Governor’s Office, and senior commanding general, arrived in Japan with Sakaibe no Iwasuki

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

211

and his delegation and escorted them to the Tsukushi Governor’s Office.47 In the ninth month of Linde 2 (665), the Tang court dispatched Liu Degao, chaosan dafu, Yi Prefecture marshal, and senior commanding general, to Japan, and in the eleventh month of the same year, Sakaibe escorted the Chinese envoys back home under the emperor’s orders; on his return journey two years later, Sakaibe traveled through Baekje under Sima Facong’s escort; when Sima Facong’s delegation returned to China, Japan sent Iki no Hakatoko and Kasa no Moroishi to accompany them. This series of journeys and return journeys is a praiseworthy development in Sino-Japanese relations. Third escort delegation: In Kaiyuan 21 (733), the mission to Tang headed by Tajihi no Hironari arrived in China, and Emperor Xuanzong ordered Chao Heng (the Chinese name of Abe no Nakamaro) to escort them back to Japan; the Chinese also composed a poem and held a farewell dinner for the envoys. Zhao Hua’s “Seeing off Buque Chao upon His Departure to Japan” (“Song Chao Buque gui Riben guo” 送晁补 阙归日本国) goes, “At the western secretariat we enjoy a day off, while you return to your remote eastern homeland. When you came, you studied with the fervor of the viscount of Tan, and as you depart, you long for home like Zhuang Xi of Yue. While we traverse the autumnal outskirts on horseback, your boat cuts through the gloomy sea like a sunbeam. I know that our palace towers will remain in your memory, and ten thousand miles away solitude will shake your soul.” Wang Wei’s preface to “Seeing off Imperial Library Director Chao on his Return to Japan” (“Song Mishu Chao Jian huan Riben guo” 送秘书晁监还日本 国) goes, “He packed the clothing given him by the emperor and the edict of imperial greeting. With the aid of these jade characters inscribed on gilded bamboo, he will transmit enlightenment to the hinterlands; he will take sacrificial vessels and distribute them among the kingdoms of those with foreign clan names. He will educate the monarchs of those lands of the virtue and magnanimity of our emperor.” On a later occasion, Xuanzong refused to allow Abe to depart, likely because he so greatly valued Abe’s talents.48 Though Abe was not allowed to leave, this does not exclude the possibility that others accompanied the Japanese delegations in his place. Fourth escort delegation: In Qianyuan 2 (759), Kō Gendo crossed the Bohai Sea to China under orders to extract former ambassador Fujiwara no Kiyokawa, who had been detained by the Tang court. The An Lushan Rebellion was then in progress, and the Tang court ordered

212  Y. WANG

Kō to return home because “the uproar has not yet been quelled, and many of the roads remain impassible.”49 In Shangyuan 2 (761), Kō traveled south to Su Prefecture, and the court dispatched a delegation of nine including Shen Weiyue, a zhechong official granted a copper fish talisman (zijin yudai 紫金鱼袋) of the government office of Puyang, Yue Prefecture, and a crew of thirty seamen to accompany him. It was at this point that Balhae envoy Wang Sin-bok erroneously reported to the Japanese that the internal conflict in the Tang court was worsening, and the thirty-nine members of the escort delegation gave up hope of returning home and settled in Japan. Fifth escort delegation: In Dali 12 (777), a delegation led by lieutenant governor Ono no Iwane arrived in China, and in the third month of the following year, presented a “guoxin, biegong, and other items” to the court. Daizong, “extremely pleased, showed [the gifts to] the ministers,” and ordered Zhao Baoying to go to Japan bearing “reciprocal gifts.” The delegation was extremely large, and Yang Prefecture was ordered to urgently begin building ships. In addition to ambassador Zhao Baoying, the delegation included Deputy Ambassador Sun Xingjin, four magistrates, and dozens of attendant personnel. Subsequently, because Yang Prefecture failed to build the ships on time, the Tang delegation split into teams and boarded the ships of the Japanese mission to Tang. As previously described, the mission met with disaster at sea, and twenty-five members of the Tang delegation, including Zhao, lost their lives. Those who managed to reach Japan included Deputy Ambassador Sun Xingjin and Magistrate Gao Helin. Zhao’s mishap at sea must have proved a major shock to the Tang court, as no escort delegations were dispatched to accompany the following several missions to Tang upon their return. Although the Tang court’s escort delegations were dispatched for reasons of courtesy, they also had a proactive and unique effect in stimulating cultural exchange. First, the delegations delivered letters expressing the Tang court’s desire to maintain friendly relations with Japan. As part of the third escort delegation, Abe no Nakamaro bore an “edict of imperial greeting” from Xuanzong. Said edict is believed to have been the “Edict to the Japanese King” (“Chi Riben guowang shu” 敕日本国王书) written by Zhang Jiuling, which begins with the words “That land of righteous customs” and ends with the words “The ministers, the heads of state, and the commoners all send their best wishes”50; as a further example,

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

213

when the members of the Japanese mission to Tang urged against sending the fifth escort delegation due to the peril posed by the ocean crossing, Daizong declared that “the moral and just do not seek to avoid toil” and that “the envoys who visited the court shall be accompanied on their return journey to build friendly relations,” and dispatched an escort delegation to deliver a letter.51 The two instances cited above demonstrate that the Tang court’s escort delegations contributed to solidifying friendly relations between the two states. Second, the escort delegations encouraged the exchange of personnel. The fifth escort delegation traveled aboard the ships of the Japanese mission to Tang, and members of the Japanese delegation traveled with the fourth escort delegation; Kō Gendo’s journey to China through Balhae was an unusual case in which the Chinese escort delegation resettled in Japan. In addition, numerous Japanese students, both monks and laity, returned to Japan under the escort of Tang court delegations. For instance, Abe no Nakamaro of the third escort delegation was himself one such student; when the fifth escort delegation traveled south, it “left the capital with overseas students in tow,”52 and was additionally accompanied by a Japanese ambassador Fujiwara no Kiyokawa’s daughter Kijō. Finally, the delegations facilitated the exchange of goods. For instance, the Tang court’s escort delegations bore gifts from the emperor. The fifth delegation can be referred to as the “mission of the token of appreciation”; Jianshi (senior official of the administrative division known as jian 监使) Yang Guanghui recited from Daizong’s edict as follows: “Zhao Baoying and other envoys shall deliver a token of appreciation to the kingdom of Japan.” When the Japanese mission to Tang attempted to refuse the return escort, Daizong stated, “I wish to send a small token of my appreciation. I shall presently dispatch Baoying and the others to escort you.”53 It is worth noting that before Kō Gendo left the capital under the escort of the fourth delegation, Daizong said to him, “Due to Lushan’s rebellion, many of our weapons have been destroyed. I presently wish to trade for ox horns to make bows. I have heard that there are many ox horns in your kingdom. Upon your return, seek them and have them sent to me.” Kō returned to Japan and reported this, and the court ordered Aki Province to build four mission ships, in addition to ordering Tōkai, Tōsan, Hokuriku, San’yō, San’in, Nankai, and other circuits to present 7800 ox horns in tribute.54

214  Y. WANG

The Background of Jianzhen’s Travels to Japan The Sui and Tang governments permitted only diplomatic missions dispatched by the court to cross the border and prohibited private crossings by civilians and officials. During the Tang dynasty, on the sixteenth day of the sixth month of Zhenguan 2 (628), Taizong issued the following edict: “Envoys from foreign states who take Han women as concubines may not take them back when they return to those foreign states.”55 This meant that while foreign envoys were permitted to take Chinese wives and concubines, they were not permitted to return with those women to their home countries. Exposition of the Tang Code (Tang lü shuyi 唐律疏义) states, “Border posts shall be established on the periphery in order to demarcate Chinese and barbarian lands… entry to and exit from the national border shall not to be permitted except by government envoys.” Those who crossed the border and left the country without permission were to be “imprisoned for two years,” and those who married foreigners without permission were to be “exiled two thousand li away”; if a border official failed to catch a domestic criminal who “fled beyond the reach of Chinese civilization, for instance to a stretch of desolate coastline or another remote area,” that official was to be “imprisoned for a year and a half.”56 There is an immense body of research concerning Jianzhen, but the majority of such studies address the process of Jianzhen’s eastward travels and their subsequent impact, failing for the most part to directly discuss Jianzhen’s motives. Those that do treat the subject do so superficially, often portraying Jianzhen as a great man who dedicated his life to establishing friendly ties between China and Japan; others make patently absurd arguments, reducing Jianzhen to a crooked figure on a spy mission.57 Tang dynasty law prohibited private sea crossings by both monks and laity, and intellectuals disdained the notion of making an itinerant living abroad. It is thus apparent that not only did Jianzhen’s journey to Japan violate national policy, it simultaneously departed from common Chinese practice, and we should therefore not assume his motives were conventional. In the tenth month of Tianbao 1 (742), Jianzhen decided to travel to Japan to spread the dharma at the invitation of fellow Chinese monks Rongrui and Puzhao. Record of the Eastern Journey of a Great Chinese Monk (Tang da heshang dong zheng zhuan 唐大和上东征传) describes the conversation in detail, providing reliable primary material concerning

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

215

the motives for Jianzhen’s journey to Japan. First, Rongrui and others went to Daming Temple in Yang Province and explained the reason for their visit to Jianzhen as follows58: With regard to the transmission of the dharma to Japan, Japan reveres the dharma, yet there is no one to transmit it to them. Prince Shōtoku of Japan once said, “In two hundred years, sagely teachings will flourish in Japan.” That time has now come, and great monks should travel eastward to spread enlightenment.

Jianzhen’s response was as follows: I have heard that, following Zen master Nanyue Huisi’s death, he was reincarnated as a Japanese prince, and thus the dharma flourished and the masses attained salvation. I have also heard that Prince Nagaya of Japan revered the dharma, had a thousand Buddhist robes made, and distributed them to monks throughout our kingdom. The fringes of the robes are embroidered with these four lines: “Mountains and rivers of a foreign land/Wind and moon in the same sky/A gift to the disciples of the Buddha/So that karma might bear fruit.” As you can see, Japan is a land of destiny where the dharma thrives. Among my fellow Buddhists, who will heed the call and set forth to spread the dharma to Japan?

The first half of Jianzhen’s statement consists of a response to Rongrui’s invitation, mentioning the legend of Huisi’s reincarnation as a Japanese prince as well as the tale of Prince Nagaya distributing Buddhist robes to China, whereas the second half poses a question: who among the gathered disciples was willing to go to Japan to transmit the dharma? What happened next was startling: everyone went silent. A long moment passed, and at last leading disciple Xiangyan approached Jianzhen and explained, “That foreign land is too far away. The journey would endanger our lives; the sea is vast, the chances of surviving the crossing slim. It is rare to be incarnated as human, rare as well to be born Chinese; until our practices are complete, the bounds of karma cannot be broken. For this reason, the monks remained silent. They do not know how to respond.” Xiangyan quoted a passage from Buddhist scripture, “It is rare to be incarnated as human, rare as well to be born Chinese; until our practices are complete, the bounds of karma cannot be broken,” and summed up the sentiments of the group as follows: “That foreign land is too far

216  Y. WANG

away. The journey would endanger our lives; the sea is vast, the chances of surviving the crossing slim.” Jianzhen’s response caught the crowd off guard, as his words were accustomed to do: “Compared with the mission of spreading the dharma, of what worth is human life? If no one will accompany me, I will go alone.” At this, Xiangyan spoke up, “If you go, I will go with you.” Ultimately, twenty-one monks including Daoxing, Daohang, Shenchong, Renyun, Minglie, Daomo, Daoyin, Fazang, Laojing, Daoyi, Youyan, Rukong, Chengguan, Deqing, and Situo agreed to accompany Jianzhen. In Jianzhen’s conversation with Rongrui and Xiangyan, we clearly see the opposition and conflict between the two sets of ideas. Xiangyan spoke in a way that was common among the Chinese and expressed commonly held ideas. His words may as well have been spoken by the aforementioned Li Yong and Gao Biaoren, who certainly would also have questioned why one born in China, the center of civilization, would choose to travel to a savage wasteland. Japan lay on the periphery of the known world, and few who set out for it were fortunate enough to reach its shores. However, Jianzhen took a different view. This “land of destiny where the dharma thrives” exerted a powerful pull upon him, and Huisi’s “reincarnation as a Japanese prince” kindled in him a fervor to transmit the dharma eastward. Jianzhen cited the poem embroidered on the robes presented by Prince Nagaya: “Mountains and rivers of a foreign land/ Wind and moon in the same sky/A gift to the disciples of the Buddha/ So that karma might bear fruit.” The first two lines express a Buddhist worldview in which the distinction between Chinese and barbarian is transcended, freeing Buddhist disciples from the strictures of national boundaries and facilitating their free movement through unlimited space. Over the following twelve years, Jianzhen led his disciples on six attempted sea crossings which met with both natural and manmade calamity: he came into conflict with local authorities, was informed upon by disciples, and faced low morale among his entourage. Not only was Jianzhen himself blinded, thirty-six members of his entourage lost their lives, and more than 280 turned back before completing the journey. When Jianzhen’s fifth attempted crossing failed and he was forced to return to Yang Prefecture, only Situo remained by his side.59 In AD 743, the twelfth mission to Tang led by Fujiwara no Kiyokawa visited Jianzhen in Yang Province and reported to him the results of negotiations with Xuanzong: the Japanese envoys had officially proposed

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

217

inviting Jianzhen to Japan to spread the dharma, but Xuanzong, a fervent believer in Daoism, had insisted that Jianzhen be accompanied by a Daoist priest. However, because “the Japanese monarch did not revere Daoist teachings,” the envoys to Tang were forced to withdraw their invitation to Jianzhen, and four members of the entourage, including Haru no Tōgen, stayed behind to study Daoism. Jianzhen lived at a time in which the entire country, from the leaders to the common people, believed in Daoism, and Buddhism was steadily losing prestige. At such a time, hearing that “the Japanese monarch did not revere Daoist teachings” must have affected Jianzhen emotionally and served to renew his resolve to spread Buddhism in Japan. Thus, he decided to attempt a sixth sea crossing with the mission to Tang. The crossing was successful, and the tale of his subsequent achievements is well known in both China and Japan. Generally speaking, the movement of people is motivated by either a “push” or “pull” factor. Tang court envoys traveled to Japan primarily because of a “push” from the imperial court; in the case of Jianzhen’s travels, however, the rise of Daoism in China constituted a “push” driving disciples of Buddhism overseas, and the lack of veneration of Daoism among the Japanese was the “pull” that attracted them; in the ninth century, Chinese merchants began taking to the seas, and the development of the Chinese commodity economy and the cachet of Chinese goods in other countries constituted another sort of “push” and “pull”; although there were no diplomatic relations between China and Japan during the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, merchants and Zen monks traveled frequently between the two countries, motivated by the development of the Chinese commodity economy and the pursuit of new religions among the Japanese warrior class.

4  The China–Japan “Book Road” At a time when Westerners remained convinced that silk was gathered from a “wool tree,”60 the ancient Koreans and Japanese were already raising silkworms, cultivating mulberry trees, and producing silk. According to Chinese historical classics, as early as the third century, the queen of Yamataikoku paid tribute to the Wei court on several occasions. The tributes consisted of kapok fabric, Japanese brocade, silken clothing, fine red and blue jian silk, bo silk, and yiwenza brocade, demonstrating that production capacity and manufacturing techniques were quite advanced.

218  Y. WANG

Given that worldwide civilizations have widely differing characteristics, we should not assume that forms of cultural exchange are uniform. In the late nineteenth century, German geographer von Richthofen proposed the concept of the “Silk Road,” and this has indeed proved useful in describing commercial and cultural exchange since the Han and Tang dynasties; however, it is not necessarily appropriate to mechanically apply this concept to cultural exchange in ancient East Asia. Treasures of Shōsō-in In October 2001, the fifty-third Shōsō-in Exhibition opened in Nara, and the next day, a surprising announcement was made: the characters “twenty-seventh day, tenth month, Xianqing 4” had been discovered written in ink at the end of the fourth fascicle of On the Perfection of Consciousness (Cheng weishi lun 成唯识论), a text on display at the exhibit. Shōsō-in enjoys an excellent reputation as “the maritime silk road museum,” but the above-mentioned discovery makes one wonder whether silk is truly the most important historical artifact. The translation of the ten-volume On the Perfection of Consciousness, a Buddhist scripture brought back by Xuanzang from a pilgrimage to India, was started in the tenth month of Xianqing 4 (659) and completed in the twelfth month of the same year; it was transcribed by Xuanzang’s disciple Kuiji (Cien). The characters “twenty-seventh day, tenth month, Xianqing 4” indicate the date on which the translation of the fourth fascicle was completed. In accordance with established practices, the text would only have been presented to the court after being corrected and further copied. It is likely that the fourth fascicle of the edition of On the Perfection of Consciousness held by Shōsō-in is an uncorrected draft in Kuiji’s hand, a finding of great importance to the history of Buddhism. Examining writings by Japanese monks who visited China around this time, we find that a monk named Dōshō studied under Xuanzang, and on his return, Xuanzang “gave the monk some Buddhist relics and scriptures.” After returning to Japan, Dōshō founded a Zen temple which “held many scriptures written in excellent calligraphy with no mistakes, all brought by the monk.”61 It is thus most probable that this edition of On the Perfection of Consciousness was a gift from Xuanzang upon Dōshō’s return to Japan, making this a significant episode in the history of SinoJapanese cultural exchange.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

219

Shōsō-in was originally the treasure storehouse of Tōdai-ji temple in the Nara period. After Emperor Shōmu passed away in Tenpyō-shōhō 8 (756), Empress Kōmyō contributed six hundred “national treasures” that had belonged to the emperor, in addition to a subsequent four donations. Most of these treasures of the imperial family were cultural relics brought back by envoys to Sui and Tang, for instance Miscellaneous Collection (Za ji 杂集), an anthology of literature from the Six Dynasties period to the Sui and Tang; Affairs of Yue Yi (Yue Yi lun 乐毅论) and Outline of Miscellaneous Letters of the Du Family for Attainment of Epistolary Proficiency (Du jia licheng zashu yaolüe 杜家立成杂书要略), works of calligraphy copied out in the empress’s hand; original works of calligraphy by Wang Xizhi and Wang Xianzhi; twenty volumes of copies of calligraphic works by Wang Xizhi; and so on.62 Shōsō-in holds a wide array of treasures, including books, calligraphy utensils, ritual paraphernalia, Buddhist implements, toys, personal adornments, dining utensils, medicinal items, weapons, and so on. Though the collection includes no shortage of silk products, they are far inferior to the gold and silver items, glassware, and lacquerware, and the most precious of all the treasures are without doubt the documents and books. The classic texts held by Shōsō-in number in the tens of thousands. For instance, the Sacred Teachings Collection (Shōgozō 聖語蔵) of Buddhist texts alone contains 22 volumes from the Sui dynasty, 221 volumes from the Tang dynasty, and 114 volumes from the Song dynasty. The total number of volumes is 4960, the previously mentioned fourth fascicle of On the Perfection of Consciousness being just one. Reflecting upon Shōsō-in’s collection of rare treasures, one pauses to ask which made the deeper impression upon Japanese culture and penetrated deeper into the hearts and minds of the Japanese: the garishly colored shreds of silk, or profound, abstruse classical Chinese texts? The answer should be clear. The Mission of the Envoys to Tang The first Japanese mission to Tang was dispatched in 630, but due to primitive shipbuilding techniques and lack of seafaring know-how, fatal shipwrecks were a frequent occurrence. Given this, for the Japanese to risk such a dangerous sea crossing, the mission had to be important. What is certain is that, unlike envoys from Western regions, the main purpose of the Japanese envoys was not purchasing silk.

220  Y. WANG

In Chinese and Japanese historical materials from the Tang dynasty, we find no record of the large-scale importation of silk by the missions to Tang. It is apparent that, rather, silk comprised the bulk of the tributes presented by the missions, and the Japanese court paid the travel expenses of the envoys entirely in silk and other textiles.63 What did the missions to Tang, which carried silk as a tribute and as currency, hope to gain from these lengthy, perilous journeys? The answer is found in the “Annals of Japan” chapter of Old Book of Tang: At the beginning of the Kaiyuan era, another mission visited the court to request instruction from Confucian scholars. Zhao Xuanmo, teaching assistant at the School of the Four Gates, was ordered to teach them at the Court for Dependencies, and the envoys paid Zhao for his services in broadcloth, calling it “cloth paid in taxes in the year Hakuki 1.” There is some doubt as to the authenticity of this [reign title]. They spent the entirety of their monetary gift from the court on books at the market and took these back across the sea with them. A courtier named Nakamaro admired Chinese customs and thus decided to stay, changed his name to Chao Heng, and served in the posts of zuobuque and yiwangyou. Chao stayed in the capital for fifty years, a lover of books, and though permitted to return to his native land, never did so.

The Japanese envoys paid their teacher in “broadcloth” and were such “lovers of books” that they spent the entirety of their gift from the court on “books at the market.” The missions to Tang originated from and followed directly after the missions to Sui; the nominal purpose of the Japanese envoys did not remain the same over approximately four centuries of missions to China, yet purchasing books consistently remained their real primary aim, as evinced by numerous Chinese and Japanese sources. For instance, Volume 1 of Jeweled Chronicle of Neighboring Kingdoms cites Continued Record of Classic Texts (Keiseki kōdenki 経籍後 伝記) as follows64: On the first day of the first month of the twelfth year of the Oharida dynasty (note: the reign of Empress Suiko), the Chinese calendar system first came into use. At the time, the country had few books, and because the kingdom of Sui was held in high regard, Minister Ono was sent there to purchase books, and also had an audience with the Sui emperor.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

221

This pioneering mission, the first instance of a Japanese envoy traveling to China in search of books, opened a channel for the circulation of books between China and Japan which would be developed further during the era of the missions to Tang. Channels for the Transmission of Books to Japan A number of East Asian states sent missions to China to purchase books, a phenomenon that is rare among missions from other areas. Concerning the compilation of Bai Juyi Collection (Bai Shi wenji 白氏文集), Bai Juyi writes, “This anthology is drawn from five volumes… private copies from kingdoms such as Japan and Silla and the two capitals are not recorded here.” The “Biography of Zhang Jian” (“Zhang Jian zhuan” 张荐传) chapter of Old Book of Tang praises Zhang Zhuo’s prose, pointing out that it was renowned around the world: “Particular importance is placed on literature in eastern barbarian domains such as Silla and Japan. Every mission dispatched to China invariably spends a large amount of money on books. In this way, his name has spread far and wide, even across the sea.” It is apparent that, although the works of a well-known Tang dynasty writer were said to have “spread far and wide, even across the sea,” they in fact spread mainly eastward within the East Asian cultural sphere, further substantiating the existence of the Book Road. There is no question that the missions to Tang played the primary role in establishing the Book Road between China and Japan. They were granted funds to buy books by the state and received outstanding hospitality from the Tang court, making it relatively easy to complete the mission of purchasing books. For instance, scholar-monk Genbō brought more than five thousand Buddhist scriptures with him on his return to Japan, a number approximately equal to the total number of texts in the Kaiyuan era Buddhist canon65; to offer another example, a student named Kibi no Makibi brought more than 150 volumes with him upon his return, including Rites of Tang (Tang li 唐礼), Dayan Almanac (Dayan lijing 大 衍历经), Easy Guide to the Dayan Calendar (Dayan li licheng 大衍历立 成), and Outline of Books on Music (Yue shu yaolüe 乐书要略). In addition, the “eight great pilgrims to Tang,” Saichō, Kūkai, Jōgyō, Engyō, Ennin, Eun, Enchin, and Shūei, obtained thousands of volumes of scriptures while in China, and the “inventory of imported books” they created has been passed down to the present day.

222  Y. WANG

The missions to Tang may have played the leading role, but this does not mean that others did not play significant supporting roles. Particularly from the ninth century onward, merchants from China, Silla, and even Japan took to the eastern sea, and many channels for the exchange of books between China and Japan took shape. Below are some examples. (1) Personal gifts. Biographical records of Japanese monks such as Saichō, Kūkai, Ennin, and Enchin indicate that almost all received books as gifts from the Chinese. The prefaces and postscripts of a number of extant commentaries on Buddhist scriptures, such as the edition of Bequeathed Teachings Sutra (Yijiao jing 遗教经) held by Ishiyama-ji Temple, the Taishō Tripitaka canon edition of Commentary on the Treatise of Sengzhao (Zhao lun shu 肇论疏), and the Small Character Edition of the Lotus Sutra (Xiao zi fahua jing 小字法华经) held by Hōryū-ji also furnish evidence of this. (2) Chinese voyages to Japan. Only a few Chinese monks made the journey to Japan, but those who did exerted a tremendous influence. Jianzhen’s party, for instance, transported hundreds of Buddhist volumes, including the Tiantai sect commentaries that provided the impetus for Saichō’s establishment of the Japanese Tendai sect. (3) Chinese merchant ships. From the ninth century onward, Chinese merchant ships traveled frequently between China and Japan, and books were among their cargo. According to Veritable Records of Emperor Montoku of Japan (Nihon Montoku Tennō jitsuroku 日本 文徳天皇実録), in Jōwa 5 (838), Fujiwara Okamori was inspecting the cargo of a Chinese ship at the Dazaifu when he happened upon a copy of Verses of Yuan and Bai (Yuan Bai shibi 元 白诗笔),66 which he presented to the emperor. Additionally, in Gangyō 5 (881), a Chinese merchant named Zhang Meng arrived in Japan; prior to departure, Li Da had tasked Zhang with the mission of transporting to Japan some 120 volumes of Buddhist works that were not then available in Japan and further shipping them to Enchin, who had previously gone on a pilgrimage to China. (4)  Silla and Balhae. Although the Book Road that connected China and Japan flowed freely during the era of the missions to Tang, indirect channels mediated by Silla and Balhae continued

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

223

to play a role. Here, we will discuss only an example involving Balhae. In Ten’an 2 (858), an envoy from Balhae named O Hyosin journeyed to Japan, taking with him Xuanming Calendar (Xuanming li 宣明历), a Tang dynasty calendrical text which was revered by the Japanese court as a priceless treasure. Thus, the Dayan Calendar and the Five Ages Calendar (Wu ji li 五纪历) were retired and the Xuanming Calendar was instituted in their place. The significance of this text which remained in use for a subsequent eight hundred years is not to be underestimated.67 How many texts were transmitted to Japan through various channels during the Tang dynasty? It is not a simple matter to answer this question, but Catalog of All Extant Books in Japan (875) provides useful reference material. Said catalog lists 17,345 different volumes comprising 1579 distinct texts, approximately half of all the texts listed in the “Annals of Books” (“Jingji zhi” 经籍志) chapter of The Book of Sui (36,708 volumes), and just over one-third of the texts in the “Annals of Books” chapter of Old Book of Tang (51,852 volumes). Given that the catalog lists only texts that survived the great fire in the imperial library (Reizei-in 冷然院), the number of texts is quite surprising. The Circulation of Japanese Kanbun Texts As described above, during the era of the missions to Tang, the Book Road between China and Japan facilitated the eastward flow of large numbers of Chinese books which encouraged the development of Japanese culture. However, we must bear in mind that this Book Road was not unidirectional, and Chinese language kanbun texts by Japanese authors flowed westward to China as well. Below are some examples. (1) Prince Shōtoku’s Commentary on the Three Sutras. During the Tang dynasty, in Kaicheng 3 (838), Ensai went on a pilgrimage to China and placed Commentary on the Lotus Sutra (Hokke gisho 法華義疏) into the collection of scriptures on Mt. Tiantai. Approximately sixty years earlier (in 772), an entourage of eight including Japanese monks Kaimei and Tokusei arrived in Yang Prefecture and presented the great monk Lingyou of Longxing Temple with Commentary on the Lotus Sutra and Commentary on the Srimala Sutra (Shōmangyō gisho 勝鬘経義疏). Chinese monk

224  Y. WANG

Mingkong was fond of the subtle and skillful explanation of doctrine found therein and composed Annotated Commentary on the Srimala Sutra (Shengman jing shuyi sichao 胜鬘经疏义私钞), broadening the circulation of the text. (2) Books transmitted to China by Saichō. Saichō was a shōyakusō (a type of scholar-monk 請益僧) known for visiting China in the early ninth century (804) and transmitting a number of Buddhist texts. A public proclamation issued during the Tang dynasty by the Ming Prefecture government (popularly referred to as the “Ming Prefecture Proclamation” [“Ming Zhou die” 明州 牒]) makes it apparent that Saichō went to China with the Lotus Sutra, the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings (Wuliang yi jing 无 量义经), the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sutra (Guan Puxian jing 观普贤经), the ten-volume Commentary on Submission to the Ten Great Virtues (Kutsu jū daitoku sho 屈十大徳疏), and the two-volume Discourse on Great Virtue in Japan (Honkoku daitoku jōron 本国大徳諍論), presenting all of these as offerings on Mt. Tiantai. (3) Ōmi no Mifune’s Annotated Treatise on the Awakening of Faith through Mahayana (Daijō kishin ron chū 大乗起信論注). Based on the records in Testimony of an Enryaku Era Monk (Yanli seng lu 延历僧录) by the Chinese monk Situo, when the monk Engaku of Tōdai-ji Temple arrived in China, he gave a copy of Annotated Treatise on the Awakening of Faith through Mahayana to the monk Youjue of Longxing Temple in Yue Prefecture. Upon reading it, Youjue composed the following ode: “The realized man proclaims the awakening of faith; the worldly scholar writes a forest’s worth of words. A few fragmentary utterances are as precious as fine jade; a sentence is worth many thousands of gold pieces. A brush writes characters as lovely as brocade; the flower of language deepens in hue. Upon the auspicious arrival of the imperial envoy, I declare my respect and affection.” (4) Isonokami no Yakatsugu’s In Praise of the Tripitaka (Sanzō sanshō 三蔵讃頌). According to the records in Testimony of an Enryaku Era Monk, Isonokami, referred to as one of the “foremost literati” alongside Ōmi no Mifune, was selected as deputy ambassador of the fourteenth mission to Tang (appointed 761), but because he was unable to make the journey, he entrusted the other envoys to Tang with the mission of introducing In Praise

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

225

of the Tripitaka to China. The envoys to Tang took the book to Chang’an, and after reading it, the great monks and mendicants of the Tang court palace chapel were shocked at the depth of erudition this scholar from a foreign kingdom had attained and praised him highly, comparing him to Vimalakirti. They also authored the single-volume Wugeng Poem Extolling the Name of the Buddha (Nian Fo wugeng zan 念佛五更赞), presenting it as a return gift to the envoys of Tang. (5) Saichō’s Treatise on Clarifying Precepts (Kenkai ron 顯戒論). On returning to Japan, Saichō devoted his full energy to founding the Tendai sect. As the teachings of the sect conflicted with older schools of Buddhism, he decided to write the three-volume Treatise on Clarifying Precepts expounding upon the Tendai sect’s beliefs, then presented the text to the emperor. The text was likely introduced to China by Ennin, author of Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Dharma, who traveled to China in 804 and sought instruction from Tang dynasty Buddhist authority Zhixuan, who wrote a letter praising the work as follows: “Its broad, brilliant observations distinguish it as an absolute masterpiece… the name of this eastern kingdom will be known far and wide, and this luminous, veritable doctrine will endure into perpetuity.” Above, with reference to a number of concrete examples, we have seen that the Book Road facilitated not only the transmission of a large volume of classic Chinese texts to Japan, but also the transmission of a small number of Japanese classics to China. That is, the Book Road was bidirectional. In fact, in the An Lushan Rebellion and the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism, many cultural relics and classic texts were lost. In the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, Tiantai monk Yiji of Wuyue, then attempting a revival of the sect, complained to King Qian Hongchu of Wuyue that certain classic sutras were no longer extant. Thus, the king contributed a large sum of money to send envoys overseas in search of books, and Chegwan of Goryeo and Nichien of Japan contributed works in response. Such restoration of lost works continued in earnest until the late Qing dynasty and the early Republic of China era, enabling the return of many important components of Chinese cultural heritage to their land of origin.

226  Y. WANG

Additionally, in the Qing dynasty, as Japan and China traded in earnest and printing techniques rapidly developed, Chinese merchant ships came to play the leading role in the Book Road. Japanese public and private libraries and commercial bookstores placed order after order for books, and Qing dynasty merchants searched constantly for cargo to fill their ships. The market economy put Chinese books directly into the hands of Japanese consumers, and as the volume and speed of circulation of these books doubled and redoubled, a complete transformation of the landscape of the Book Road was effected.68 The landscapes of the Silk Road and the Book Road differ in more than geographical characteristics; the differences in fact are deeply rooted in the core of civilization. Today, when the silk that was shipped westward in ancient times is excavated from desert ruins, it is generally so decayed that it can no longer be worn; on the other hand, the books brought back by the envoys to Sui and Tang remain fountainheads of human wisdom. Like the seeds of civilization, these books put down roots and then germinated over a long period of time, blossoming and bearing fruit, developing into towering trees. The relationship between silk and books is somewhat like the relationship between rice and rice seeds. Chinese-produced white rice was transported West in enormous quantities, and may have incited temporary “Chinese rice” booms, but once the rice had been consumed completely, its influence gradually dissipated, as rice grains cannot be replanted. On the other hand, at some point a Chinese rice seed landed on eastern soil, and someone cared for it, so it took root, sprouted, grew into a plant, and eventually generated a paddy field, completely transforming lifestyles in the area, as rice seeds have regenerative capacity. Books are like rice seeds: once planted in people’s minds, they take root, sprout, flower, and bear fruit, blanketing swaths of our internal worlds in green, exerting a direct influence on human creation of culture. Given that there was so little historical contact between China and Japan, how is it that their cultural landscapes came to so greatly resemble one another? The riddle has now been solved: Chinese books were the seeds of civilization. Transmitted to the islands of Japan along the Book Road, they took root in foreign soil, and though variant strains have inevitably developed, the genes of Chinese civilization have unceasingly transmitted ancient wisdom.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

227

Notes









1. For a systematic, detailed discussion of the history of eastward migration by the Chinese, see Shen Dianzhong 沈殿忠 et al., Zhong Ri jiaoliu shi zhong de Huaqiao 中日交流史中的华侨 [Chinese migrants in the history of Sino-Japanese exchange] (Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1991). 2. Regarding ancient Chinese views on Japan, see Wang Yong, Chūgoku shi no naka no Nihon zō 中国史のなかの日本像 [Images of Japan in Chinese history] (Tokyo: Rural Culture Association Japan, 2000). 3. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Sui states, “The next year, Sui Gentleman-Litterateur Pei Shiqing went to the kingdom of Wo as an envoy, passed through Baekje, traveled to Jukdo, visited Danluo, passed by Dusima, and went out onto the open sea. He then traveled east to Yizhi, then to Zhusi, then further east to the kingdom of Qin, where the people are just like the Chinese. He believed he was in Yizhou, but could not be sure.” 4. Yichu 义楚, “Guo cheng zhou shi bu” 国城州市部 [Kingdoms, cities, provinces, and towns section], f. 21 in Shishi liu tie 释氏六帖 [Six models of Buddhism]. 5. Xue Jun 薛俊, “Yange kao” 沿革考 [Consideration of change and development], in Riben guo kaolüe 日本国考略 [A brief consideration of Japan]. 6. Wang Yun 王恽, Fanhai xiao lu 汎海小录 [Minor record of an ocean voyage], f. 40 in Xiu jian ji 秋涧集 [Autumn stream anthology]. “Junfang” is Xu Fu’s courtesy name. According to this text, the Japanese themselves were the source of tale of Xu Fu as their ancestor. This is further evinced by a two-line poem from Yang Weizhen’s Sending off a Japanese Monk (Song Wo seng huan 送倭僧还): “The gentleman of Wo claims to be a descendant of Xu Fu; the ship’s prow points toward the sun like a cart’s wheel.” 7. “Song of the Japanese Swords,” said to be the work of Ouyang Xiu, goes, “I have heard tell of a kingdom on a large island where the soil is fertile and the folk customs are excellent. Their ancestor Xu Fu deceived the people of Qin, claiming they were going to gather medicine, and settled there with an entourage of the elderly and the young. There were men of all trades among their numbers who have passed down their exquisite work to the present day… When Xu Fu made his journey, the books had yet to be burned, and numerous lost ancient works remain extant in that land.” According to one view, the poem is the work of Qian Junyi (Gongfu). 8. “Woren zhuan” 倭人传 [Annals of the Wo people], Sanguo zhi.

228  Y. WANG











9. Murao Jirō 村尾次郎, “Go Taihaku setsu kenkyū” 呉太伯説研究 [A study of the Wu Taibo theory], Kenmu 建武 515, 1940. 10. Ōmori Shirō 大森志郎, “Go no Taihaku gōei setsu” 呉の太伯後裔説 [The descendants of Wu Taibo theory], Bunka 文化 8, no. 10 (1941). 11. Chijiwa Minoru 千々和実, “Go Taihaku byōei setsu no saikentō: Teiki/ Kyūji seiritsu no hitojosetsu” 呉大伯苗裔説の再検討―帝紀・旧辞成 立の一序説 [A reconsideration of the descendants of Wu Taibo theory: An introduction to the establishment of the Imperial chronicle], Tōkyō Gakugei Daigaku kenkyū hōkoku 東京学芸大学研究報告, Nov. 1949. 12. Kurita Hiroshi 栗田寛, Shinsen shōjiroku kōshō 新撰姓氏録考証 [A historical investigation of Newly compiled record of family titles and clan names] (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1969). In Japanese, the names “Zhao Yuan” (照渊) and “Xiao Yan” (萧衍) are pronounced alike, “Shōen,” and it is possible that the Liang court and the Japanese were in contact either directly or indirectly. Whether Zhi Cong is descended from Zhao Yuan is another matter. Later generations of migrants often sought to gain prestige by associating themselves with high-status fellow clan members; thus, there are many members of the Qin clan who claim to be descended from the monarch of Qin and many members of the Liu clan who claim to be descended from the Han emperor. 13. A chapter of Han Sheng 韩昇, Riben gudai de dalu yimin yanjiu 日本古 代的大陆移民研究 [A study of migration from continental Asia in ancient Japan] (Wen Chin Publishing Co., 1995) is dedicated to discussing evidence of the eastward migration of the people of Wu. 14. Entry for Enryaku 4 (784), sixth month, Shoku Nihongi. 15. Zhang Shengzhen 张声振, Zhong Ri guanxi shi 中日关系史 [The history of Sino-Japanese relations] (Jilin Wenshi Chubanshe, 1986), 1: 50. 16. Wani, the first to bring The Analects and The Thousand-Character Classic to Japan, claimed to be descended from Liu Bang, founding emperor of the Han dynasty, and served in the position of “court academician” in Baekje. After arriving in Japan, Wani gradually invited a number of his fellow clan members from Baekje. Dwelling primarily in Furuichi County, Kawachi Province (Osaka Prefecture), they dedicated themselves to teaching Chinese classic texts and writing works themselves, comprising a group known as “aya no obito” (文首; alternately 西文首 [Kawachi no aya no obito]) which revered Wani as an ancestor. 17.  With regard to Wang Zhongshu’s views, see the following papers: “Guanyu Riben sanjiaoyuan shenshoujing de wenti” 关于日本三角缘神 兽镜的问题 [On the problem of Japanese sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors] (Kaogu 考古 4, 1981), “Guanyu Riben sanjiaoyuan Foshoujing wenti” 关于日本三角缘佛兽镜问题 [On the problem of Japanese sankakubuchi Butsujūkyō mirrors] (Kaogu 考古 6, 1982), and “Riben

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

229

sanjiaoyuan shenshoujing zonglun” 日本三角缘神兽镜综论 [A comprehensive study of Japanese sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors] (Kaogu 考古 5, 1984). The Henan Museum displays a “sankakubuchi shinjūkyō” mirror excavated in the local area; when this author visited in May 2007, its authenticity had yet to be verified by experts. 18. Motoori Norinaga’s Edo period work Lamentation of the Expulsion of Barbarians (Gyojū gaigen 馭戎慨言) proposes that the mission was “the work of western people,” “western” here referring to the Kyūshū region; Kimiya Yasuhiko 木宮泰彦, Nikka bunka kōryū shi 日華文化交流史 [The history of Sino-Japanese exchange] (Fuzambo, 1955) takes the view that the mission was dispatched by the Japanese garrison force on the Korean Peninsula. 19. Japanese orthodox histories (the six state histories) record sixteen missions to Tang, but the “Annals of Japan” and “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” sections of Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang record just twelve, two of which are not found in Japanese sources; thus, just ten missions overlap. 20. Entry for Daye 3 (607), “Annals of the Wo Kingdom,” The Book of Sui. 21. It is generally believed that the final mission of the Five Wo Kings is the one that took place in the fifth month of Shengming 2 (478) according to the “Annals of Emperor Shun” (“Shun di ji” 顺帝纪) section of The Book of Song, but the entry for the fifth month of Jianyuan 1 (479) in the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Southern Qi and the entry for the fourth month of Tianjian 1 (502) in the “Annals of Wo” chapter of The Book of Liang both record the conferral of titles upon the Wo king. However, it remains to be determined whether Wo dispatched envoys to request the titles. 22. Entry for Kaihuang 20 (600), “Annals of the Wo Kingdom,” The Book of Sui. 23. In his work Missions to Tang (Qian Tang shi 遣唐使), Sen Ke asserts that Japan insisted in engaging in diplomacy as China’s equal based on the view that “the strong do not plead,” citing the memorial brought by the mission to Sui as an example. In A Brief History of the Japanese Missions to Tang (Riben qian Tang shi jianshi 日本遣唐使简史, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 1983), Chi Buzhou refutes this: “Speaking in regard to both contemporary international relations and cultural differences between the two countries, it is quite clear which country was weaker and which was stronger, which higher and which lower. The emergence of the great undertaking of the missions to Tang is in itself sufficient to demonstrate that contemporary Japan did in fact plead with the great Tang Chinese empire” (page 13).

230  Y. WANG











24. In the entry for the eighth month of Suiko 16 (608), Nihon shoki uses the term “emperor of Wo” (Wa gō 倭皇), but Continued Record of Classic Texts uses the term “king of Wo” (Wa ō 倭王) and Record of Official Documents on Foreign States (Yiguo diezhuang ji 异国牒状记) uses the term “king of Yamato” (He wang 和王); thus, the original texts use the term “king” rather than “emperor.” 25. Entry for Daye 4 (608), “Annals of the Wo Kingdom,” The Book of Sui. 26. In the entry for the ninth month of Suiko 16 (608), Nihon shoki uses the term “emperor of the east” (higashi tennō 東天皇) whereas Record of Official Documents on Foreign States employs the wording “the eastern king of heaven” (dong tianwang 东天王). This memorial did not incite a dispute, and the wording in Record of Official Documents from Foreign States is likely accurate. 27. The entry for the ninth month of Suiko 16 (608) in Nihon shoki records, “Yamato no Aya no Atai Fukuin, Nara no Osa Emyō, Takamuku no Ayahito Genri, and Imaki no Ayahito Ōkuni were sent to the kingdom of Tang as students and Imaki no Ayahito Nichimon, Minabuchi no Ayahito Shōtan, Shiga no Ayahito Ōen, and Imaki no Ayahito Kōsai were sent as scholar-monks, for a total of eight people.” 28. Entry for Daye 3 (607), “Annals of the Wo Kingdom,” The Book of Sui. 29.  The term “six national histories” refers to the following six volumes written in Chinese kanbun: Nihon shoki (720), Shoku Nihongi (797), Nihon kōki (Later chronicles of Japan 日本後紀) (840), Shoku Nihon kōki (Continued later chronicles of Japan 続日本後紀) (869), Veritable Records of Emperor Montoku of Japan (879), and Veritable Record of Three Japanese Eras (Nihon sandai jitsuroku 日本三代実録) (901). 30.  Shoku Nihongi, f. 35. 31.  Nihon kiryaku 日本記略 [Brief annals of Japan], vol. 1. “Yuan Prefecture” (Yuan Zhou 圓州) may be a mistake for “Qing Prefecture” (Qing Zhou 青 州). 32.  Shoku Nihongi, f. 24. 33.  See Yamauchi Shinji’s meticulous study of the “Tang Bulletins” in Yamauchi Shinji 山内晋次, Nara Heian ki no Nihon to Ajia 奈良平 安期の日本とアジア [Japan and Asia in the Nara and Heian periods] (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2003). 34.  The “Li Yong” (李邕) entry in Fascicle 243 of Extensive Records of the Taiping Era states, “Li Yong of Jiangxia, Tang, governor of Hai Prefecture, was visited by a Japanese state delegation of five hundred which brought ten boats worth of guoxin and countless precious goods.” According to Yu Xianhao’s investigation in “A Comprehensive Study of Tang Prefectural Governors, Volume 2” (Tang cishi kao quanbian 2 唐刺史考全编 2) (Anhui University Press, 2000), 137, Li Yong served

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

231

as governor of Hai Prefecture from approximately Kaiyuan 8 (720) to Kaiyuan 20 (724), and this passage likely refers to the ninth mission to Tang which departed in 717. Brief Annals of Japan (Fusō ryakuki 扶桑 略記), Fascicle 6, records that “Four boats carried 557 people across the sea,” numbers that more or less concur. 35. Tōno Haruyuki conjectures that said mission took place in the early Nara period. See Tōno Haruyuki 東野治之, Kentōshi to Shōsōin 遣唐使と正倉 院 [The missions to Tang and Shōsō-in] (Iwanami Shoten, 1992), 51. 36. Volume 2 of Tao Gu’s Song dynasty work Record of Pure Marvels (Qingyi lu 清异录) records, “In the year Jianzhong 1 [780], Japanese envoy Mahito Okiyoshi, a skilled calligrapher, visted the court. An interpreter asked him for pieces in the zhang and cao styles, and he complied with two pieces drawn from Literary Selections (Wen xuan 文选). Yang Lü of Shayuan, who served as an arranger at the Imperial Academy during the Xiande period, claims that the interpreter was a remote ancestor of his and that he saw the two works, which were written in the style of the people of Jin. The works were written on two different types of paper, one of a purple hue referred to as nü’erqing, and the other white and shiny as a mirror, referred to as maopinhuang. It is extremely difficult to apply ink to this type of paper, and only a consummate calligrapher would dare attempt it. It was every bit as exquisite as paper from Gyerim [Silla].” 37. As evinced by “Biography of Cui Youfu” (“Cui Youfu zhuan” 崔祐甫 传), New Book of Tang: “On one occasion, out of reverence for Emperor Dezong’s virtue and might, Li Zhengji presented him with 300,000 copper coins. The emperor wished to receive a memorial from Li, but feared he could not be trusted, so he accepted the gift and said nothing. He consulted his chancellor, Cui Youfu, who responded, ‘Li is a treacherous man, as your majesty suspects. I advise your majesty to send an envoy to Ziqing to present the officers and men with a gift (xilai 锡赉) of the coins presented by Li. This will arouse in them deep gratitude for your majesty’s sagely virtue and alert the vassal states to the court’s generosity.’ The emperor gladly went along. Li was extremely ashamed and submitted completely to Dezong.” 38. “Biography of Xiao Yingshi,” Old Book of Tang. 39. See the relevant chapters in Ikeda On 池田温, Higashi Ajia no bunka kōryū shi 東アジアの文化交流史 [The history of cultural exchange in East Asia] (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2002), Tōno, Kentōshi to Shōsōin, and Wang Yong, Shōtoku Taishi jikū chōetsu 聖徳太子時空超越 [Prince Shōtoku’s transcendence of space–time] (Taishukan Publishing Co., 1994).



232  Y. WANG











40. “Li Yong” entry, Extensive Records of the Taiping Era, f. 243. 41. According to The Six Statutes of the Tang Dynasty, Institutional History of Tang, and other texts, more than seventy countries were in contact with the Tang court. 42. “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” (“Wo guo zhuan” 倭国传), Old Book of Tang. 43. Historical Lessons from the Record Bureau (Cefu yuangui 册府元龟), f. 662. The account is not sensationalized. Kūkai’s Anthology of Innate Inspiration (Shōryōshū 性霊集) contains a letter by Ambassador to Tang Fujiwara no Kadanomaro describing his observations upon arriving in Fu Prefecture: “Having been blessed with the opportunity to sacrifice myself in service, I risked my life to journey to Tang. I departed from my native land and made it halfway to my destination. A sudden rainstorm soaked the sails, and a violent wind snapped the rudder. Our small boat nonetheless pressed on, little by little… as the waves billowed, we drifted with the wind.” In short, the journey was perilous. In Miscellany of the God of Literature (Wenchang zalu 文昌杂录), Long Yuanying of the Song dynasty expresses his impressions upon reading this text: “Many have described it as a living hell, and I trust that their accounts are not exaggerated.” Surprisingly, it appears the account is accurate. 44. “Annals of the Wo Kingdom,” Old Book of Tang. 45. Entry for Hōki 9, Shoku Nihongi, f. 35. 46. In this author’s opinion, Yang Zhe 杨辄, “Zhongguo Tang chao qian Ri shi kao” 中国唐朝遣日使考 [A consideration of Tang dynasty Chinese envoys to Japan], Daqing shehui kexue 大庆社会科学 4, 1990, is a groundbreaking work. 47. Entry for Tenji 6, eleventh month, Nihon shoki, f. 27. 48.  Kokin Wakashū Index (Kokin wakashū mokuroku 古今和歌集目録) cites National History (Kokushi 国史) as follows: “In [Kaiyuan] 21, he asked to return home to care for his aging parents, but the request was refused, upon which he composed the following poem: ‘Fame and righteousness are empty. I am unable even to be filial. When may I repay my debt of gratitude? When may I return home?”. 49. Entry for Tenpyō-hōji 5, eighth month, twelfth day, Shoku Nihongi, f. 32. 50. This edict is collected in Zhang Jiuling’s Oujiang collection (Oujiang ji 曲 江集) as well as Luxuriant Garden of Literature (Wenyuan yinghua 文苑 英华) and Complete Tang Prose Anthology. 51. The entry for Hōki 10, fifth month, Shoku Nihongi, f. 35 states, “Envoys of Tang Sun Xingjin and Qin Fuqi, among others, had an audience with the court, presenting a letter from the Tang court as well as tribute items.” 52. Entry for Hōki 9, eleventh month, Shoku Nihongi, f. 35.

5  MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS 

233

53. Entry for Hōki 9, tenth month, Shoku Nihongi, f. 35. The entry for the eleventh month of the same year specifies that this “token of appreciation” consisted of “precious local products.” 54.  Entries for Tenpyō-hōji 5, eighth month and tenth month, Shoku Nihongi, f. 32. 55. “Miscellaneous Records” (“Za lu” 杂录), f. 100 in Institutional History of Tang. The “Border Posts” (“Yuedu yuanbian guansai” 越度缘边关塞) entry of Fascicle 8 of Exposition of the Tang Code states, “Foreigners who take Han women as wives or concubines may not take them back when they return to their homes abroad.” This demonstrates that the restriction was not limited to “envoys” or to “concubines.” 56. “Wei jin” 卫禁 [Security regulations and prohibitions], f. 8 in Tang lü shuyi 唐律疏义 [Exposition of the Tang code]. 57. Suzuki Osamu 鈴木治, Hakusonkō: Kodai Nihon no haisen to Yakushiji no nazo 白村江―古代日本の敗戦と薬師寺の謎 [Baekgang: The defeat of ancient Japan and the mystery of Yakushi-ji Temple] (Tokyo: Gakuseisha, 1972), 181. 58. The text cited here is Record of an Eastward Journey by a Great Tang Monk (Tō dai wajō tōsei den 唐大和上東征), specifically a hand-copied edition (kōbon 甲本) held by Kanchi-in, Tō-ji Temple. 59. The “Annals of the Great Buddhist Ascetic Fushō” (“Gaoseng shamenshi Puzhao zhuan” 高僧沙门释普照传) section of Testimony of an Enryaku Era Monk states, “Among the mission’s entourage, 36 lost their lives, and more than 280 mutinied.” 60. Regarding ancient Roman and Greek legends of “wool trees,” see George Cœdès, ed., Textes d'auteurs grecs et latins relatifs à l'Extrême-Orient [Texts of Greek and Latin authors on the far east] (Paris: E. Leroux, 1910). 61. “Dōshō kōden” 道照薨 伝 [Memorial to Dōshō], Shoku nihongi, f. 1. The characters 楷好 in the original text appear to be a mistake for 皆好 (“all excellent”). 62. Tōdai-ji kenmotsu chō 東大寺献物帳 [Record of offerings to Tōdai-ji Temple]. 63. “Ōkura-shō” 大蔵省 [Ministry of Finance], Engishiki 延喜式 [Procedures of the Engi era]. 64.  The original text of Continued Record of Classic Texts, also known as Annals of Confucianism (Juden 儒伝), is lost, but fragments appear in Jeweled Chronicle of Neighboring Kingdoms and Outline of Books on Governance (Seisho yōryaku 政書要略), among other works. 65. The Kaiyuan Canon (Kaiyuan zang 开元藏, also known as Kaiyuan Buddhist Records [Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 开元释教录]), compiled in the Tang dynasty, consists of a total of 5048 volumes.

234  Y. WANG

66. An anthology of poetry and prose by Tang dynasty poets Yuan Zhen and Bai Juyi. 67. Wang Yong, “Tang li zai Dong Ya de chuanbo” 唐历在东亚的传播 [The transmission of the Tang calendar in East Asia], Tai Da lishi xuebao 台大 历史学报 30, 2002. 68.  Ōba Osamu 大庭修, Jianghu shidai Zhongguo dianji liubo Riben zhi yanjiu 江户时代中国典籍流播日本之研究 [A Japanese study of the transmission of Chinese classic texts in the Edo period], trans. Qi Yinping 戚印平 et al. (Zhejiang University Press, 1998).

PART III

Chinese and Japanese Society—A Comparison of Mutual Understandings and Historical Characteristics

CHAPTER 6

China and Japan—Mutual Understandings Xiaoqiu Wang

The ways in which the Chinese and Japanese understand one another is an extremely significant theme in any study of historical Sino-Japanese relations. In one sense, to study the history of Sino-Japanese relations is to study the history of Chinese and Japanese mutual understandings, as knowledge and understandings can only be acquired through interaction and exchange, and mutual understandings have determined the character of interactions between the two countries: friendly or distant, favorable or unfavorable, peaceful or violent. Interactions of various types have served to deepen and transform mutual understandings, spurring further development and change in Sino-Japanese relations. The Chinese and the Japanese have understood one another in dynamic ways that have developed over time, fluctuating in response to changes in time and place as well as historical transformations in environments. Such mutual understandings have been influenced primarily by the following three factors: (1) changes in internal political, economic, military, cultural, ideological, intellectual, and other conditions in the two countries; (2) changes in diplomatic relations, cultural

X. Wang (*)  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_6

237

238  X. WANG

exchange, commerce, and exchange of personnel between the two countries as well as changes in their degree of relative power, political interactions, and so on; (3) changes in international relations and international environments, particularly changes in the strategic military situation in East Asia, multilateral relations between East Asian states, and so on. Such mutual understandings therefore by necessity do not remain static or fixed, but constantly transform and deepen over time. Simultaneously, we must consider the profound impact of mutual understanding upon the history of the two countries as well as developments in Sino-Japanese relations. Our understandings of others often mirror our understandings of ourselves, and Chinese and Japanese mutual understandings have had a significant impact upon the course of both Chinese and Japanese history. Additionally, Chinese and Japanese mutual understandings are multifaceted. Within the two countries, classes and groups with different identities, positions, and interests may hold different understandings. For instance, monarchs, nobles, government officials, feudal lords, warriors, literati, merchants, commoners, and others frequently hold idiosyncratic understandings which they express in distinct ways. Facing the future, using history as a mirror, how are we to more seriously, profoundly, and specifically study the question of how Japan and China have understood each other throughout the two thousand-yearlong history of Sino-Japanese relations? How did such understandings form? How were they expressed? How did they impact the development of Sino-Japanese relations and the history of the two countries? Also, how did such understandings transform over time? Which factors contributed to or inhibited mutual understanding? What sorts of historical lessons can we draw from this? How are the Chinese and the Japanese gain a full, objective, scientific understanding of each other? How can mutual understanding and mutual comprehension be deepened so as to build a more robust, stable, friendly, cooperative relationship between the two countries? Past studies of Chinese and Japanese mutual understandings have generally focused upon modern and contemporary times and upon individual case studies, and thus the present work attempts to explain ancient Chinese understandings of Japan more comprehensively.

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

239

1  Overview and Distinguishing Characteristics of Ancient Chinese Understandings of Japan In this work, “ancient Chinese understandings of Japan” refers primarily to understandings of Japan held by Chinese people from remote antiquity to the mid-Qing dynasty; this might be referred to as the ancient Chinese perspective on Japan. Distinguishing Characteristics To simplify and summarize somewhat, ancient Chinese understandings of Japan generally have the below characteristics. (1) Ancient China was the first country in the world to acknowledge Japan and record its history, and the Chinese have not ceased to generate documentation of Japan for more than two thousand years. The first written record of “Wo” is found in Classic of Mountains and Seas (Shan hai jing 山海经), a text compiled in, at the latest, the first century BC.1 The “Geography” section of the first century AD The Book of Han is the earliest Chinese historical work to contain an explicit record of Japan. Also, the “Annals of the Wo” chapter of the “Book of Wei” (“Wei shu” 魏书) section of the third century AD Records of the Three Kingdoms contains the world’s earliest concrete description of conditions within Japan. Among the Chinese orthodox histories of the Han to the Qing dynasties (popularly referred to as the twenty-four books) are sixteen texts with dedicated “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” or “Annals of Japan” sections. In addition, numerous unofficial histories, civilian research works, personal writings, and literary works throughout history make mention of Japan. (2) Ancient Chinese understandings of Japan were slow to change. Although the ancient Chinese gradually acquired a deeper, more evolved understanding of Japan, due to a lack of actual on-theground investigations as well as the influence of the “civilized vs. barbarian” mindset, in many cases such understandings were outdated or based on secondhand information. In the Ming dynasty, due to the need to defend against the Japanese, understandings of Japan did evolve and deepen to a degree, but prior to the Qing dynasty, due to the closure of Japan to the outside world, such understandings tended to be stagnant and regressive.

240  X. WANG

(3)  Ancient Chinese understandings of Japan were, in the main, friendly and positive, and in some cases even of an idealistic, mystical character. For instance, Japan was described as “the island of the immortals,” “the kingdom of gentlemen,” “the kingdom of pearls and jewels,” and so on, particularly in the context of literary works presented to visiting Japanese literati and monks. Only in the Yuan and Ming dynasties, when the Wokou harassed and pillaged the Chinese coast, did a negative image of the Japanese Wokou as brutal and ruthless emerge. (4)  Ancient Chinese understandings of Japan were expressed in a multitude of ways. Throughout history, the “Annals of Japan” sections of official orthodox histories expressed the views of the ruling class and dominated the mainstream discourse. However, we should not neglect the poems exchanged between Chinese and Japanese literati and monks of the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, or the civilian research works on Japan during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Writings by visiting Chinese merchants and literati as well as the testimony of castaways who washed up on Japanese shores reflect the attitudes of Chinese commoners toward Japan. Historical Periods With reference to the course of their historical development, ancient Chinese attitudes toward Japan can be generally divided into the following periods. The Qin-Han period (third century BC to third century AD). During this period, Chinese understandings of Japan remained hazy. The Chinese were vaguely aware of the kingdom of Wo across the eastern sea, and their descriptions of it were often of a mythological, legendary character. The Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties period (third century to sixth century AD). At this time, the ancient Chinese and Japanese were first beginning to interact with and acquire an understanding of one another. This interaction consisted primarily of official tributes and conferral of titles, events resulting in records of ancient Japanese history, for instance the early records of Yamataikoku and the “Five Wo Kings.”

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

241

The Sui and Tang period (sixth to ninth century). This period represents the peak of ancient Sino-Japanese cultural exchange, a time when understandings of Japan made considerable progress. Official orthodox histories ceased referring to Japan as Wo and began referring to it as Nihon. Tang dynasty poets wrote numerous farewell poems to Japanese friends, embodying the cordial sentiments between the Chinese and Japanese people and molding a positive image of Japanese envoys, exchange students, and scholar-monks. The Five Dynasties and Song-Yuan period (tenth to fourteenth centuries). This was a period of flourishing private commerce between China and Japan and frequent interaction by literati and monks. Thanks to the testimonies of Japanese visitors, the Chinese began to understand Japan, and Chinese and Japanese monks and literati expressed friendship toward one another through changhe (chains of poems written by multiple poets in response to one another 唱和) poems. Products imported from Japan to China, specifically Japanese blades, fans, and so on, heightened the goodwill of the Chinese toward Japan. However, expeditions by the Yuan military against Japan and the actions of the early Wokou poisoned this atmosphere. Song and Yuan dynasty official histories first positioned records of Japan in “Annals of the Four Barbarians” (“Si yi zhuan” 四 夷传) sections, then shifted these to “Annals of Foreign Countries” (“Waiguo zhuan” 外国传) sections and finally “Annals of Foreign Barbarians” (“Waiyi zhuan” 外夷传) sections. The Ming and Qing period (fourteenth to mid-nineteenth century). In this period, Chinese understandings of Japan saw significant development. The severity of the Wokou problem in the Ming dynasty on the one hand created a negative image of the Japanese Wokou as violent and barbaric, and on the other heightened the need for the Chinese to understand Japan. In the Ming and Qing dynasties, a number of civilian research works on Japan emerged, deepening understandings of Japan. In addition to changhe poems and other literary works exchanged between literati and monks, merchants and castaways wrote travel logs and personal reflections upon Japan. Routes and Channels The main routes, channels, and means by which the Chinese and Japanese came to understand each other included envoys, literati, and scholars who traveled between the two countries, Japanese exchange students and

242  X. WANG

scholar-monks in China, Chinese merchants who migrated to Japan for business reasons, and Chinese sailors, literati, and castaways. Channels through which understandings developed include diplomatic envoys, cultural exchange, trade, religious activity, war, and aid for stranded sailors. Media Written media through which understandings were transmitted included official orthodox histories, civilian research works, various types of personal writings, diaries, and travel logs, as well as literary works of various types such as poems, plays, and stories in addition to the testimonies of castaways and records of conversations.

2  Records of Japan in Ancient Chinese “Annals and Biographies” Type Orthodox Histories Ancient China had a long tradition of official orthodox histories; often, following a change in dynasties, the new imperial court wrote the history of the old. With the exception of a small number of works written by private individuals with official authorization, these “annals and biographies” (jizhuanti 纪传体) type orthodox histories were compiled primarily on the orders of the government, in some cases by bureaus specifically established to carry out such extensive compilation projects. These histories primarily reflect the perspectives and historical viewpoints of contemporary rulers, and are frequently shot through with strongly feudalist traditional concepts as well as the civilized vs. barbarian mindset. Records of the Historian and The Book of Han The first Chinese annals and biographies type orthodox history is the first century BC Records of the Historian by Sima Qian of the Western Han dynasty. Although the text does not directly mention Wo or Japan, the “Basic Annals of Qin Shihuang” (“Qin Shihuang benji” 秦始皇本 纪) and “Biographies of Huainan and Hengshan” (“Huainan Hengshan liezhuan” 淮南衡山列传) relate that Qin Shihuang dispatched alchemist Xu Fu with a number of boys and girls as well as workers of various trades across the eastern sea to “Mt. Sanshen” in search of the elixir of immortality. Xu Fu, however, never returned, coming upon a place with “flat plains and vast swamps” where he established himself as king.

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

243

Though Sima Qian does not say explicitly that Xu Fu reached Japan, the tale subsequently served as fodder for numerous legends to the effect that Xu Fu had crossed the eastern ocean to Japan. Xu Fu is thus a figure symbolic of the transmission of advanced civilization by Chinese migrants in the course of cultural exchange between China and Japan in remote antiquity. Simultaneously, the tale is representative of the numerous murky mythological elements of ancient Chinese views of Japan in which Japan was regarded as a mystical island of immortals. The second ancient Chinese orthodox history is Ban Gu’s first century AD The Book of Han. The entry on the kingdom of Yan in the “Geography” section states, “The Wo people live by the Lelang Sea [the Sea of Japan]. They are separated into more than a hundred kingdoms, and at harvest time, they pay tribute at court.” This is the first instance of an ancient Chinese orthodox history using the character “Wo” to refer to Japan. During the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, the Lelang Commandery was established in northern Joseon, providing the Han dynasty Chinese with a window on Japan. The Book of Han states explicitly that the “Wo people” lived on the open sea to the east of China in a land that then consisted of a multitude of settlements and small kingdoms, and that they paid tribute to the Han court. This represents the first definite understanding of Japan by the ancient Chinese. It is worth noting that the work also mentions that the eastern barbarians, including the Wo, were “docile by nature.” Records of the Three Kingdoms and The Book of the Later Han By publication date, the first orthodox history with a section dedicated to Japan is the third century AD (approximately 289) work Records of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou. The “Wuhuan and Xianbei Barbarians of the East” (“Wuyuan Xianbei dong yi zhuan” 乌丸鲜卑东夷传) chapter of the “Book of Wei” section of the work, found in the thirtieth fascicle, contains an “Annals of the Wo” section (generally referred to as the “Annals of the Wo in the Book of Wei” section, though this designation is imprecise) in which nearly two thousand characters are dedicated to describing Japan’s geographical location, social patterns, governmental systems, economic products, customs, and interpersonal relations, as well as conditions relating to exchange and payment of tributes between China and Japan; the text may thus be referred to as a cornerstone of ancient Chinese understandings of Japan, as well as the most authoritative historical

244  X. WANG

resource on third century Japanese history. According to the work, in Jingchu 2 (238), the Japanese kingdom of Yamataikoku dispatched envoys to pay tribute to the Chinese Wei emperor, and Emperor Ming of Wei conferred the title “Monarch of Wo and Friend of Wei” upon Queen Himiko, awarding her a golden seal with a purple tassel as well as numerous other gifts. The work describes Japan as a righteous kingdom that paid tribute and pledged allegiance to China, “did not steal and rarely raised disputes” and “observed a well-defined hierarchical order.” In addition, some exotic aspects of Japan are described: it is a land where people “tattoo their faces and bodies,” “eat raw vegetables,” “greatly enjoy drink,” and “produce pearls and sapphires.” This work exerted a significant influence on subsequent Chinese understandings of Japan. By dynasty, the first period-specific orthodox history with a section dedicated to Japan is the fifth century (approximately 445) The Book of the Later Han by Fan Ye. Fascicle 115 of the work, “Annals of Eastern Barbarians,” contains a section on Wo. The Book of the Later Han was compiled more than 150 years later than Records of the Three Kingdoms, and much of its content is drawn from the “Annals of the Wo” section of that work, but with the addition of important historical data concerning the earliest diplomatic contact between China and Japan in the Eastern Han period. Specifically, the text states that “In Jianwu Zhongyuan 2 (57), the Wo kingdom of Na came to court to pay tribute,” and that Emperor Guangwu of Han “granted [the envoy] a seal with a tassel.” The historicity of the passage was verified when, in 1784, a golden seal engraved with the words “King of Na, vassal state of Han” was unearthed on Shikanoshima Island, Fukuoka Prefecture. The descriptions of Japanese customs and images of Japan are generally in accord with those of Records of the Three Kingdoms: “The men all tattoo their faces and bodies; social status is distinguished by the pattern, placement, and size of the tattoos… they greatly enjoy drink and live long lives… their women are not wanton or jealous… it is their custom not to steal and to rarely raise disputes.” The Book of Jin, The Book of Song, The Book of Southern Qi, The Book of Liang, History of Southern Dynasties, History of Northern Dynasties The Book of Jin was compiled by Fang Xuanling in the dynasty, and Fascicle 97, “Biographies of the Four (“Si yi liezhuan” 四夷列传), contains an “Annals of the ter which is essentially an abridged version of the “Annals

early Tang Barbarians” Wo” chapof the Wo”

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

245

chapter of Records of the Three Kingdoms. The Book of Song was compiled by Shen Yue of the Liang dynasty in approximately 488. Fascicle 97, “Biographies of Barbaric Peoples” (“Manyi liezhuan” 蛮夷列 传), contains the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter, which discusses primarily the history of Sino-Japanese relations during the Liu Song dynasty of the Northern and Southern dynasties period, furnishing particularly valuable historical material on the “Five Wo Kings” of Japan; the text also reproduces a Chinese language tributary memorial presented by an envoy of King Bu of Wo, and states that Emperor Shun of Song conferred the title “Great Pacifying Eastern General and King of Wo” upon King Bu. The Book of Southern Qi was compiled by Xiao Zixian of the Liang dynasty, and Fascicle 58, “Annals of Eastern and Southern Barbarians” (“Dong nan yi zhuan” 东南夷传), contains a brief “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section. The Book of Liang was compiled by Tao Si of the Tang dynasty, and Fascicle 54, “Annals of Eastern Barbarians,” contains an “Annals of Wo” section which in the main follows the previously described text. History of Southern Dynasties and History of Northern Dynasties were both compiled by Li Yanshou of the Tang dynasty. Fascicle 79 of History of Southern Dynasties, “Records of Barbarians and Northern Tribes,” contains an “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section, and Fascicle 94 of History of Northern Dynasties, “Annals of the Four Barbarians,” contains an “Annals of the Wo” section. Neither text presents any new information, and not only that, they arbitrarily distort preceding works of history and commit many errors. In any event, though all six of the above-mentioned orthodox histories of the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties periods contain an “Annals of the Wo” or “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section, the most valuable of these is The Book of Song, which furnishes new historical material concerning relations between China and Japan and provides a precious document in the form of the Wo king’s memorial; simultaneously, the text reflects understandings of Japan among the contemporary Chinese scholar-officials, focusing primarily on such matters as dispatching of envoys, payment of tributes, conferral of titles, and the construction of the civilized vs. barbarian system.2 The Book of Sui The Book of Sui was compiled primarily by Tang court chancellor Wei Zheng. Fascicle 81 of the work, “Annals of Eastern Barbarians,” contains an “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section. The work is unique in that,

246  X. WANG

rather than duplicating the content of preceding histories, it emphasizes the narrative method of dynastic histories, recording the history of SinoJapanese relations and interaction during the Sui dynasty and detailing historical facts concerning the Japanese envoys to Sui. It is of great historical value, and the “Annals of Japan” sections of later orthodox histories reference it extensively. The Book of Sui reflects the civilized vs. barbarian mindset of contemporary Chinese monarchs and scholar-officials: when Emperor Wen of Sui heard that the envoy from Wo had said that “the Wo king takes heaven for an older brother and the sun for a younger brother; when light is yet to appear in the sky, he holds court… when the sun sets, he finishes his affairs,” he was very displeased, remarking, “this is utter insolence,” and demanding amends be made. Emperor Yang of Sui received a letter from Japan which read “From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun” and “upon reading this was displeased, ordering the minister of dependencies, ‘The next time the barbarians send such an insolent letter, do not give them a hearing.’” However, the records of Japanese institutions and customs in The Book of Sui also demonstrate that Chinese understandings of Japan had deepened significantly and were of a positive nature. For instance, the text records the names of the twelve cap and rank levels instituted by Prince Shōtoku, and also states that “During the Sui era, their king instated cap and rank regulations, stipulating a cloth cap of a different color for each rank, adorning the caps with gold and silver ornamental designs… when their king held court, it was required that imperial insignia be displayed and that court music be played… the people are quite tranquil, rarely becoming involved in disputes, and there are few bandits… they revere the dharma… they are a cultured people of an upstanding nature… their women are not wanton or jealous,” and so on, all positive descriptions. Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang There are two Tang dynasty orthodox histories, Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang. In the Tang dynasty, the Chinese empire was powerful, and cultural exchange between China and other countries was frequent. Japan dispatched more than ten missions to Tang as well as numerous exchange students and scholar-monks who actively studied and absorbed Chinese institutions and culture; Sino-Japanese cultural exchange reached a peak during this period. While New Book of Tang

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

247

makes mention of this, the mention is quite brief, and a great deal of information such as the number of Japanese missions to Tang and their activities is omitted; the text thus fails to represent Sino-Japanese exchange at its Tang dynasty peak. The main reason for this is that the Tang dynasty ruling class did not take Japan with sufficient seriousness. One noteworthy aspect of the understanding of Japan represented by New Book of Tang is the change in the name used to refer to Japan. Fascicle 199 of Old Book of Tang, compiled primarily by Liu Xun of the late Jin dynasty, is made up of an “Annals of Eastern Barbarians” section which contains both an “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section and an “Annals of Japan” section. The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section states, “The ‘kingdom of Wo’ refers to the ancient Wo state of Na,” and records interactions between China and Japan during the Zhenguan era (the reign of Emperor Taizong of Tang). The “Annals of Japan” section states, “Nihon is descended from Wo,” and provides three explanations for the name change from Wo to Nihon: “Because it is located beyond the horizon, it is referred to as Nihon, the source of the sun. It is also said that its name may have been changed to Nihon because its people found the name Wo distasteful. It is also said that Nihon was once a small kingdom that annexed Wo’s territory.” This section also records interactions between China and Japan during the reign of Wu Zetian, from the year Chang’an 3 (703) onward. “Annals of Eastern Barbarians,” Fascicle 220 of New Book of Tang, a text compiled during the Northern Song dynasty by Ouyang Xiu, Song Qi, and others, contains an “Annals of Japan” section which states, “Nihon is the ancient Wo kingdom of Na.” The text further states that during the reign of Emperor Gaozong of Tang, in the year Xianheng 1 (670), Japan “sent an envoy to congratulate [Tang] on suppressing Goguryeo,” then mentions three reasons for the name change: “Shortly after, the envoy became accustomed to Chinese tastes and came to dislike the name Wo, so the name was changed to Nihon. The envoy said that the kingdom has this name because it is located in the place where the sun emerges. He alternately claimed that Nihon was a small kingdom that was annexed by Wo, which gave the name Nihon to the new territory.” Clearly, contemporary scholar-officials believed that Japan changed its name between Xianheng 1 and Chang’an 3, a belief which is essentially in accord with fact. At this time, Japan had recently undergone the Taika Reforms (645) and been defeated by Tang China in the Battle of Baekgang (663), and

248  X. WANG

to improve its image and heighten its autonomy, based on its geographical location at “the place where the sun emerges,” it changed its name to Nihon. Chinese orthodox histories adhered to the principle of deferring to the place names used in the places in question, and thus, orthodox histories from the Tang dynasty onward use the title “Annals of Japan [Nihon].” The “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” section of Old Book of Tang describes Japan as “a land with fewer men than women where the people are highly literate and the dharma is widely revered.” The “Annals of Japan” section records that “The envoys who paid tribute on [Japan’s] behalf were arrogant and deceptive.” However, it also praises the envoy to Tang Awata no Mahito as “well-acquainted with Confucian classics and history, capable of comprehending and composing prose, and of a gentle, refined temperament.” The “Annals of Japan” section of New Book of Tang, the work of Ouyang Xiu and others, adds a great deal of new information, most notably the first ever imperial genealogy. History of Song and History of Yuan In the Song dynasty, though there were no diplomatic relations with Japan, private businesspeople and monks traveled back and forth frequently. History of Song (Song shi 宋史) was compiled mainly by Yuan dynasty chancellor Tuo Tuo and consists of 496 fascicles. One unique characteristic of the text is a name change from “Annals of the Four Barbarians” to “Annals of Foreign Countries,” perhaps because the Yuan dynasty was ruled by Mongols. Fascicle 491 of the text, “Annals of Foreign Countries,” contains an “Annals of Japan” section which reflects new developments in understandings of Japan by the ancient Chinese. The most significant progress is seen in the use of interviews with Japanese visitors and materials provided by them to describe Japan, resulting in a significantly deeper understanding than that found in previous histories. For instance, nearly two-thirds of the “Annals of Japan” section of History of Song is devoted to describing a visit to Song China by the Japanese monk Chōnen of Tōdaiji Temple. Based on an interview with Chōnen, it became apparent that Japan “had the five classics, and Buddhist scriptures, and the seventy-volume Bai Juyi Anthology (Bai Juyi ji 白居易集), which had been obtained from China. Its soil is suited to cultivating the five grains, but wheat is not grown there, and copper coins are used for trading… they have large quantities of silkworms and large quantities of silk which is thin and beautiful… the eastern

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

249

province of Mutsu [Mutsu no Kuni] produces gold, and the western island of Betsu [perhaps referring to Tsushima] produces white silver which is used to pay tribute. The monarch’s surname is Ō; the crown has been passed down through a hereditary line to the current generation, the sixty-fourth. All Bunsei bureaucratic and official positions are likewise hereditary.” The text also reproduces the detailed genealogy of the sixty-four generations of Japanese emperors and the record of major events involving China from Imperial Chronicle (Ō nendai ki 王年代記), a text brought to China by Chōnen, and discusses specific Japanese geographical divisions: “These are what are referred to as the five imperial domains, the seven prefectures, and the three islands; altogether, there are 3,772 districts [likely referring to villages].” Emperor Taizong of Song personally summoned Chōnen and “rewarded him richly, presenting him with a purple Buddhist gown.” On hearing Chōnen report that Japan’s “imperial lineage is unbroken, and all the ministers are hereditary bureaucrats,” Taizong was overwhelmed by emotion, and said to his chancellor, “These savage islanders have maintained a continuous imperial lineage for generations, and their ministers too are of an unbroken pedigree, after the fashion of the ancients.” The emperor then remarked with a sigh upon the frequent changes in Chinese dynasties, in particular the empire’s fracturing into the Five Dynasties and the establishment of separatist regimes during the late Tang era, drawing encouragement therefrom to “never be lazy and to seek out the root of the problem” in order to become as the Japanese emperors and engage in the “eternal enterprise” of establishing an unbroken imperial line. This represents one feudalist emperor’s understanding of Japan, from his own perspective, based on his own interests. History of Song also records that Chōnen dispatched his disciple Kiin to pay tribute to the Song emperor and deliver a letter of thanks stating, “Whether near or far, I have only admiration for the emperor’s abundant virtue; across the ocean, across the sea, I shall never forget the depth of the emperor’s kindness.” These words stroked the vanity of the Chinese monarch, who sought to establish a “great celestial empire” and bestow his favor upon the entire world. The “Annals of Japan” section of History of Song also contains the first historical record of matters such as trade between Chinese and Japanese private merchants and the rescue of castaways. History of Yuan (Yuan shi 元史) was compiled in the Ming dynasty primarily by Song Lian. During the Yuan dynasty, the Yuan military launched an expedition against Japan, and Fascicle 208 of History of

250  X. WANG

Yuan, “Annals of Foreign Barbarians” (“Wai yi zhuan” 外夷传), contains an “Annals of Japan” section focusing on diplomatic relations between China and Japan. A large portion of the text is devoted to describing the two expeditions Emperor Shizu of Yuan (Kublai Khan) launched against Japan. This is the first case in which the “Annals of Japan” section of a Chinese orthodox history describes in detail a falling-out between the two countries resulting in war. The text also describes the failure of the Yuan military’s expedition, stating that “just three men of the force of a hundred thousand returned alive.” This description was frequently cited by subsequent works, but in truth is an exaggeration, perhaps referring to Mo Qing and two other Yuan generals who escaped and returned to China. During the Yuan dynasty, there was extensive private commerce as well as the interaction between Chinese and Japanese monks, but History of Yuan makes nearly no mention of this. History of Ming History of Ming was compiled in the Qing dynasty mainly by Grand Secretary Zhang Tingyu. It is a voluminous work containing a wealth of information on a fifty-year span of history. Fascicle 322 of History of Ming, “Annals of Foreign Countries,” contains an “Annals of Japan” section which focuses on Sino-Japanese relations during the Ming dynasty, discussing primarily three topics, tribute trade between Japan and the Ming court, the problem of the Wokou, and the court’s war of resistance against Wo (Toyotomi Hideyoshi). From beginning to end, the “Annals of Japan” section of History of Ming is concerned primarily with the problem of the Wokou; said problem was also the motivation for a major transformation in understandings of Japan by the ancient Chinese. Chinese orthodox histories, unofficial histories, and works of literature depict the Wokou as cunning, barbaric, and brutal, and commoners would even tell their children “the Wokou are coming” to frighten them. The final passage in History of Ming is as follows: “Near the end of the Ming dynasty, the prohibition against dealings with Wo was strengthened, and the common people of the back alleys even called one another ‘Wo’ as an insult and spoke its name to strike fear into their children.” However, History of Ming draws a distinction between the early and late Wokou, pointing out that the early Wokou were in fact mainly warriors, rōnin, profiteers, and pirates from the feudal domains of Kyūshū, Japan.

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

251

“The Wo are cunning by nature. They take to the ocean with their boats loaded with local produce and weapons, drawing their arms and pillaging wantonly when the occasion presents itself; otherwise, they display their produce and claim their aim is to pay tribute. They ceaselessly harass the southeastern coast.” However, among the later Wokou were no shortage of collaborators with the Wo or “coastal traitors,” that is, costal Chinese pirates and smugglers as well as impoverished people who were compelled to join by force. History of Ming records that Wang Zhi and other “notorious bandits of the sea gained great profit by disguising themselves in Japanese costumes and splitting into bands aboard boats bearing the Japanese flag, setting about to pillage the inland regions; the problem of the Wokou worsened by the day.” In collaboration with the Wo, Wang pillaged the coast on a massive scale: “Alarms sounded simultaneously along thousands of miles of coastline.” Thus the Wokou effected a transition in the policy of the Ming court, which sought to defend against and control the Wo and implemented a restriction on maritime intercourse, among other measures.3 The “Annals of Japan” section of Fascicle 164 of the early Republic of China era An Outline of Qing History (Qing shi gao 清史稿), “Annals of Diplomatic Relations” (“Bangjiao zhi” 邦交志), describes mainly SinoJapanese relations during the late Qing dynasty, a subject which is outside the scope of this work. In summary, it may be said that the “Annals of Japan” sections of official orthodox histories have served throughout history as concentrated manifestations of the understandings of Japan held by the government of ancient China, that is, monarchs and scholar-officials, as well as the primary media through which such understandings were transmitted. In addition, they often reflect understandings of Japan that were mainstream in their time.

3   Images of Japan in Ancient Chinese Literature The images of Japan depicted in ancient Chinese poetry and prose are likewise manifestations of the understandings of Japan held by the ancient Chinese. Interactions between ancient Chinese literati and Japanese diplomatic envoys, exchange students, and monks as well as depictions of Japanese natural landscapes, customs, and habits are the primary sources of the images and understandings of Japan found in ancient Chinese literary works as well as the main subject matter of these works.

252  X. WANG

Northern and Southern Dynasties Period Poetry and Prose Depictions of Japan in Chinese poetry can be traced back to the fifth century “Yamatai Poem” (“Yematai shi” 耶马台诗) by Southern Dynasties monk Bao Zhi. This is a composite style poem with an unusual format which is almost impossible to read unless line numbers are added. The entire poem consists of twenty-four lines of five characters each, such as “ 百世代天工” (perhaps “Working on heaven’s behalf for a hundred generations”) and “初兴治法事” (perhaps “Before all else, the establishment of the law”). As the poem is difficult to read and understand, it is said that Tang dynasty poets used it to test Japanese exchange student Kibi no Makibi. “On Remote Antiquity” (“Suigu pian” 遂古篇) by Southern Dynasties poet Jiang Yan, roughly a contemporary of Bao Zhi, also makes mention of Japanese customs: “In the southeastern kingdom of Wo, all the people have tattoos; Their teeth are painted black, and they go about without clothes; The people are dwarves, none standing more than a meter tall.”4 The author appears to have drawn upon the “Annals of the Wo” section of Records of the Three Kingdoms in depicting this image of Japan. Tang Dynasty Poetry Cultural exchange between China and Japan reached a peak during the Tang dynasty, with Japan dispatching a constant stream of exchange students, scholar-monks, and envoys to Tang. Tang dynasty poets wrote many poems concerning associating with or bidding farewell to Japanese friends; even the Tang emperor himself wrote poems for the Japanese envoys to Tang. For instance, Li Longji, aka Xuanzong of Tang, granted an audience to Japanese envoy Fujiwara no Kiyokawa and his delegation in Kaiyuan 11 (752), and on taking note of Fujiwara’s elegant, dignified bearing, offered these words of praise: “I had heard that there were virtuous gentlemen in that kingdom, but was nonetheless quite surprised at how the envoy hastened forward to bow.” The emperor further called Japan “a kingdom of well-mannered gentlemen” and ordered the court painters to produce a portrait of Fujiwara for posterity. Upon Fujiwara’s departure for home the following year, Emperor Xuanzong held a grand farewell banquet and presented Fujiwara with a farewell poem: “The land at the source of the sun [referring to Japan] is no stranger to us, the kingdom of heaven [referring to China] has enjoyed an excellent audience with them… lest this fine gentleman be startled, may the influence

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

253

of the distant emperor clearly guide him.”5 Fujiwara is praised as a “gentleman” who spread the emperor’s virtuous influence across the sea. A number of renowned Tang dynasty poets exchanged literary works and formed friendships with Abe no Nakamaro (Chinese name Chao Heng), who came to China as a student and later served as an official in the Tang court. Renowned poet Wang Wei’s “Sending Secretary Chao off to Japan,” for instance, is preceded by a preface of nearly a thousand characters describing the long-standing friendly relationship between China and Japan and the poet’s deep feelings of friendship toward Abe no Nakamaro; in addition, the poem reflects the understanding of Japan held by contemporary Tang dynasty literati. The preface states, “The great kingdom of Japan lies across the eastern sea. The people adhere to the teachings of the sages and conduct themselves as gentleman. They set the beginning of the year by the lunar calendar and wear Chinesestyle clothes.” The text further states that Japan’s diplomatic envoys “pay tribute to the son of heaven in the form of local products. Our ceremonial officials grant them hospitality unknown to nobles. The tent masters have changed to a new approach and no longer house them in the lodging for barbarian tribes. ‘We will not deceive you; do not doubt us.’ They come with good intentions, and so we have loosened restrictions upon them. The emperor has written literary compositions to enlighten them; they come empty and leave full.” Although there is detectable Sinocentric sentiment in the text, the Japanese are no longer treated as a “barbarian tribe” but as a “kingdom of gentlemen.” Wang goes on to praise Abe no Nakamaro, stating that he “recites the poems of the seven masters and wears the seals of the two kingdoms about his waist. He will enlighten his vassals as to the virtue and magnanimity of our monarch,”6 portraying a Japanese envoy in a friendly light. When the great poet Li Bai, then wandering through Suzhou, heard a rumor that Abe no Nakamaro had met with an accident on his return journey, he was inconsolable, and wrote a famous poem of mourning expressing high praise for Abe, “Crying for Official Chao Heng” (“Ku Chao Qing Heng” 哭 晁卿衡): “Japanese official Chao Heng took his leave of the imperial capital, and his boat was swept away by stormy seas. The pearly moon has sunk into the jade sea, never to return. Melancholy clouds of white shroud Mt. Cangwu.”7 Poet Bao Ji also wrote of missing Abe: “A great talent born in a small kingdom, a neighbor to the eastern sea… a man of decorum, born with a pure heart, unsullied by the world”8; the poem praises Abe’s politeness, sincerity, and simple forthrightness.

254  X. WANG

In addition, Tang poets expressed reverence and praise for visiting Japanese monks. For instance, the poem “To Japanese Monk Chizō” (“Zeng Riben sengren Zhicang” 赠日本僧人智藏) praises Chizō’s resoluteness, broadmindedness, and piety: “I have been to see many Chinese Buddhist masters, but have rarely seen the likes of his fierce tranquility.”9 The poet Zhu Qiansheng dedicated a poem to the Japanese monk Kūkai, calling him “an erudite master of the written word” and praising his “skill in Sanskrit, knowledge of the eight scripts, facility with the sheaths of the self, and mastery of the three vehicles.”10 The Japanese scholar-monk Ensai spent forty years in China, forming friendships with numerous Chinese poets. Tang dynasty poet Lu Guimeng wrote a poem describing the vast quantity of Chinese language Buddhist scriptures Ensai took with him on his departure for Japan: “The nine occupations and the three schools of thought, overturned and poured out all at once… our heritage now disappears eastward, to enlighten the students of a land beyond the last frontier.”11 Late Tang dynasty poet Wei Zhuang writes in “Sending off Japanese Monk Keiryū” (“Song Riben sengren Jinglong gui” 送日本僧人敬龙归), “The land where the sun rises lies in the distance, shrouded by haze; home lies still further east from the origin of the sun… who has accompanied the master there, boat dipping beneath the horizon like the pearly moon, sails aflutter?”12 The above works written by Tang dynasty poets to commemorate the departure of their Japanese friends are filled with sincere emotion and celebrate China–Japan friendship, in addition to constructing a positive image of Japanese friends and voicing deep longing. It was mainly the Japanese passion for learning from Chinese culture and institutions and the concept of “Sinifying the barbarians” that changed Japan’s image in the eyes of the Chinese. At the same time, visiting Japanese envoys, literati, and monks exerted their own individual charms—dignified conduct, literary and artistic talent, and refined manners—winning them the admiration and friendship of Tang dynasty poets and creating a general atmosphere of friendliness and kindness toward Japan on the part of Tang dynasty literati. Song and Yuan Dynasty Poetry and Prose In the Song dynasty, private commerce between China and Japan flourished, and Chinese literati cherished and praised imported Japanese objects such as blades and fans. For instance, Ouyang Xiu’s “Song of

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

255

Japanese Swords” expresses a novel understanding of Japan by praising the exquisite beauty of Japanese swords: “This jeweled blade, newly bought, was brought by a merchant of Yue across the deep green eastern sea from Japan… it is said that the kingdom lies on a large island with fertile soil and excellent folk customs… in the past, they came often to pay tribute; their men of letters often possess a gift for prose and poetry. Xu Fu traveled there before the burning of the books; many works no longer extant here remain in circulation there.”13 Not a few Chinese people developed an admiration for Japan on this basis. Japanese folding fans also reached China in the Song dynasty and became a favored subject of poems by Chinese literati. For instance, “Yang Zhubu’s Japanese Fan” (“Yang Zhubu Riben shan” 杨主簿日 本扇) by Song dynasty poet Su Zhe displays ingenious wit: “This fan is from Japan, but this breeze is not a Japanese breeze… and yet, only when I hold a Japanese fan does wind arise from nothing.”14 China at one time had only round fans, cattail leaf fans, and feather fans; the Japanese imported these and transformed them into the exquisite, convenient folding fan. Chinese scholar-officials and literati immediately fell in love with these fans, and they circulated among the common folk as well. As seen here, exquisitely beautiful items for export and handicrafts contributed to creating a positive image of Japan. The Yuan court launched two expeditions against Japan, and during the late Yuan dynasty the Wokou persistently harassed the Chinese coast, for which reasons the two countries began to regard each other as enemies. The derogatory term “impish Japs” (zui’er Wo nu 蕞尔倭奴) makes its first appearance in Yuan dynasty literary works, for instance, a poem by Bai Pu: “The impish Japs challenged the supreme empire and met with ruin on the Central Plains.”15 Wu Lai’s “On Wo” (“Lun Wo” 论倭) says similarly, “The Japs lurk in the lair of imps across the eastern sea… their envoys are ill-mannered. They play at war, safe within their impregnable abode.” However, many Yuan dynasty literary works continue to express goodwill toward and maintain a positive image of the Japanese, particularly visiting Japanese monks. For instance, Ding Xia’s poem “Seeing off Sen Chūgō of Japan on His Return to the East” (“Fusang xingsong Xian Zhonggang dong gui” 扶桑行送铦仲刚东归) offers the following praise: “The people of Japan are not evil… the kingdom and its people are by nature good… I have heard that the people of the kingdom of Japan are not ashamed to die.”16 Yang Weizhen’s poem “Sending off a Monk on His Return to Japan” (“Song seng gui Riben”

256  X. WANG

送僧归日本) likewise praises Japan: “Their king esteems rites and music, and the items they present in tribute are rare and valuable.” Many of the Japanese monks who visited Yuan China gained the admiration and praise of the Chinese literati. For instance, Zhang Zi heaps praise upon Japanese monk Sen Chūgō,17 calling him “a talent as great as five phoenixes.”18 Zheng Dong, for his part, says that “there is no official in the palace who does not know” Chūgō’s talent.19 The Yuan dynasty literati also heaped praise upon Japanese paintings, blades, and fans, and numerous poets wrote works on the subject of Japanese paintings and folding fans. For instance, Gong Xing’s poem “Japanese Fan” (“Wo shan” 倭 扇) praises Japanese fans as follows: “The exquisite artifice of that outer domain surpasses the work of nature; their poetry and paintings are limitlessly ingenious. They are like Vietnamese jade, and they bask in the breeze of benevolence that blows over China.”20 The poem presents an imaginative depiction of Japanese fans blowing a breeze of Chinese benevolence over Japan. Ming Dynasty Poetry and Prose In the Ming dynasty, China and Japan repeatedly broke off and restored relations, and the relationship fluctuated between amicable and hostile. Though the harassment of the coast by the Wokou continued over the long term during this period, and war broke out between China and Japan in the late Ming dynasty, this was also a time when many Japanese envoys and monks visited China. Thus, images of Japan in Ming dynasty Chinese literary works are multidimensional, multifaceted, variable, and complex, reflecting differences in views of the Japanese on the part of Chinese people of different times, regions, and classes. The understanding of Japan held by Zhu Yuanzhang, aka Emperor Taizu of Ming, transformed significantly over time. In the early Ming dynasty, specifically Hongwu 5 (1372), Ming Taizu dispatched the monks Zuchan and Keqin to mend relations with Japan, and upon their departure personally composed a poem for their farewell dinner which exhorted emphatically, “I shall now send you far away; do not stir up unnecessary trouble. You are traveling as disciples of the Buddha, and as envoys of my court… Shed the light of the Buddha upon that distant land; the Japanese are sure to be overjoyed.”21 In Hongwu 9 (1376), Zhu Yuanzhang received Japanese monk Zekkai Chūshin at Longhe Yingwulou, and when the tale of Xu Fu came up in conversation, the

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

257

emperor himself composed this poem on the spot: “In the mountains of Kumano there is a shrine where animals are sacrificed, and the roots of the pines and their amber are well nourished [by the runoff]. In bygone days, Xu Fu went in search of the elixir of immortality and never returned.”22 Zekkai gladly received the poem and took it home, treating it like a cherished jewel, but later, due to the constant harassment by the Wokou, as well as a rebellion plotted by Ming court officials in collaboration with Prince Kaneyoshi of Japan, Ming Taizu’s goodwill toward Japan soured, and he wrote in “Poem on Japanese Fans” (“Wo shan xing” 倭扇行), “In a land where the ruler does not know the Way, the people turn to thievery, harassing and angering gods and ghosts. Sitting in darkness at the bottom of a well, what can one know of the light?… They are wanton rebels, violators of heaven’s will.”23 He ordered all relations with Japan severed and implemented a ban on maritime intercourse, as well as policies aimed at exterminating the Wokou. Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, third shogun of the Muromachi shogunate, dispatched a tributary mission to the Ming court and mounted a successful crackdown on the Wokou. Zhu Di, aka Emperor Chengzu of Ming, was pleased, and in Yongle 4 (1405) issued an imperial edict, a golden seal, and a coronation outfit, referring to Ashikaga as “the king of Japan.” In addition, the emperor designated Mt. Aso in Higo “the Mountain of the Garrison Post of Longevity and Peace” and personally composed the following poem in praise of Japan: “The kingdom of Japan lies across the eastern sea and dispatches numerous boats that come near China as they pass. Their capping ceremonies, music, and rites adhere to the Chinese model, and in language and writing too they follow our lead.” The emperor also awarded Ashikaga a stone tablet with the following inscription: “You, Gendōgi, have carried out my command, fulfilled your solemn oath to exterminate the bandits, and pledged allegiance to the court. There is no other kingdom across the eastern sea that exceeds Japan’s virtue… never in history has Japan had a king like Gendōgi.”24 Thus the emperor made Japan fully a part of the civilized vs. barbarian (or Chinese vs. barbarian) order and bestowed high praise upon Japanese shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. Zhu Houcong, aka Emperor Shizong of Ming, also wrote a poem commemorating the departure of Japanese envoy Sakugen Shūryō, a well-known Japanese monk of the Japanese Warring States period who was dispatched to the Ming court by shogun Ashikaga Yoshiharu on a

258  X. WANG

mission to restore trade relations, which he succeeded in doing. The emperor personally held a banquet for Ashikaga, in addition to composing a poem on the spot and presenting it to him: “There are well-mannered, genuine monks among the eastern barbarians who have crossed stormy seas to learn of the ways of the empire. Now that you have paid tribute, I will receive you hospitably. Upon your return, do not forget my kindness.” The emperor then composed a further poem praising Sakugen’s brilliance: “You possess rare talent and deep erudition. Your masterful writing has swept my heart like a great wave.”25 Sakugen would visit China twice, making a pilgrimage to famous mountains and ancient monasteries and forming relationships with eminent Chinese monks. Upon his departure, the emperor held a banquet for him and showered him with gifts. Piracy by the Wokou was one of the most severe social problems of the Ming dynasty. For a three-hundred-year period from the late Yuan dynasty to the late Ming dynasty, a number of Japanese feudal lords, warriors, and rōnin took part in piracy, smuggling, and the armed harassment of the southeastern Chinese coast; the disturbances were the most severe from the Jiajing era of the Ming dynasty on. Wanton burning, killing, and looting by the Wokou did severe damage to the society and economy of the coastal region as well as the lives and finances of the people, inciting hostility, indignance, and disgust toward the Wokou on the part of the Chinese government and people. Numerous poems, prose works, personal writings, and pieces of popular fiction from the Ming dynasty denounce the Wokou, exposing their ruthless violence and the severe suffering they inflicted upon the Chinese. Sun Cheng’en’s “Poem Denouncing the Wo” (“Zu Wo ci” 诅倭词) is one example: “We bear no grudge against the Wo; why is it that they turn their weapons against us? They take advantage when we are unprepared, attacking without warning, disrupting our happy lives, burning and looting wantonly. Sword blows come raining down; who dares challenge them? They slaughter our kin, murder our parents and siblings. Bloody bodies litter the ground; every door is tightly shut. The dead lie in pieces, and the living run for their lives.”26 A poem by She Xiang depicts the atrocities visited upon common people by the Wokou and horrifying scenes of devastated families: “The cityscape is so shattered it can no longer be recognized; it is a scene of absolute human devastation… broken bits of bodies and bones lie all about, jackals and tigers pace among the remains… he who escapes with his life witnesses

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

259

the horrific deaths of his wife and children… the Wokou are fiercer than tigers, and the people scatter like a flock of lambs.”27 Ming dynasty poetry, prose, and popular fiction depict the Japanese Wokou as ferocious, cunning, and brutal. For instance, Wang Shizhen writes, “The Wokou are fearless yet stupid, not knowing the difference between life and death. In battle they prance about naked, brandishing meter-long swords; no one can halt their advance.”28 Feng Menglong’s Illuminating Words for the Edification of the World (Yushi mingyan 喻 世明言) contains a piece of popular fiction entitled “Yang Balao’s Extraordinary Family Reunion in the State of Yue” (“Yang Balao Yue guo qi feng” 杨八老越国奇逢) which includes the following passage: “The Wokou did not kill every Chinese person they came across. They kidnapped the wives and raped them viciously… they killed the old, weak men. They shaved and painted the heads of the strong ones, dressed them up like young Japanese men and put them on the front lines to be slaughtered in battle.”29 Although Ming dynasty literary works contain no shortage of passages exposing and denouncing the savagery of the Wokou, a number of works extol and commend visiting Japanese monks and celebrate friendship between China and Japan, and many famed Japanese painters spent time in China and associated with Chinese literati and painters; Sesshū, who spent two years in China, is an example. Xu Lian’s poem “Saying Goodbye to Sesshū” (“Songbei Xuezhou” 送别雪舟) praises his versatile talent: “He lives on Ruoshui Bay in Penglai; his easy grace is more than mortal. His literary talent is known even beyond this world, and his paintings too have made their mark upon history.”30 Xu Fenggang, vice censor-in-chief of the Imperial Bureau of Censors, heaped praise upon visiting Japanese monk Shikkyū, saying, “Master Kyū’s grasp of the Way is a beautiful thing indeed,” in addition to stating, “He continuously honors the emperor, never neglecting to be grateful; he repeatedly calls upon scholar-officials, understanding well their greatness. His work is brilliant, his skill profound.” Xu further dedicated to Shikkyū a poem which read, “The venerable Shikkyū is an unusual man by nature, having no attachment to wealth or fame, caring only for books and poetry… having visited the court twice and awakened to the essence of truth, it is no wonder that he has become like an immortal or a Buddha.”31 Chinese Ming dynasty scholar-officials often employed their own cultural and moral standards and their own appearances to construct or reproduce images of Japanese friends.

260  X. WANG

Numerous works of Ming dynasty literature depict Japanese products and crafts imported into China, most frequently Japanese folding fans, blades, and inkstones. Japanese folding fans were the primary items exported to China by Japanese tribute ships, and were extremely widespread in Ming dynasty China, becoming something of an essential item for court nobility, scholar-officials, and even civilian literati and women. Ming dynasty literati wrote many poems about Japanese fans: for instance, there is a poem about the emperor distributing the fans presented in tribute by the Japanese to his clan relatives and courtiers as gifts. Zhang Yu’s “On Japanese Fans” (“Ti Wo shan” 题倭扇) goes, “A small kingdom across the eastern sea came to pay tribute, and the officials now distribute gifts at the main palace gate. The recipients shall treasure forever these items bestowed by their monarch; having received such a special gift, one never lets it go.”32 Other poets wrote exposés of Japanese merchants who bought low-priced imitation Japanese fans from areas such as Hangzhou and resold them for high prices, presenting them as authentic. Some Japanese merchants even traded fans for antique Chinese bronzeware, making an enormous profit. For instance, Wang Fu’s “Song of Japanese Fans” (“Wo shan yao” 倭扇谣) says, “I was puzzled to see the Japanese buying up fans in Hangzhou, but before I knew it they were reselling them on the street at high prices… the Japanese claim that they do not aim to profit from our fans, and their only aim is to acquire antique bronzeware… alas, antiques must be hard to come by in Japan, and it is a good thing that the Japanese come to present fans in tribute each year.”33 The knives and swords brought to China by the Japanese tributary missions were purchased mainly by the government, with a small quantity going into circulation among the civilian population. In the Ming dynasty too, a number of poems were written regarding Japanese knives and swords. For instance, Tang Shun’s “Song of Japanese Swords” praises the elegance and sharpness of Japanese blades and, in addition, makes mention of the Wokou scourge, expressing a desire to use jeweled Japanese blades to obliterate the enemy. “If only someone were capable of bringing peace to Longsha, the people of the borderlands could sleep easy.”34 Among Japanese tributary trade goods, the Ming dynasty literati also loved Japanese inkstones, upon which they made inscriptions. For instance, Song Lian’s “Inscription on a Japanese Inkstone” (“Riben yan ming” 日本砚铭) says, “Chinese and barbarian alike belong to one family; this is no corruption of civilizing principles.”35 The poem draws a link between Japanese

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

261

inkstones and the traditional concept of civilized vs. barbarian as well as the notion of the empire’s civilizing influence. Yang Shiqi’s “Inscription on a Japanese Inkstone” praises the quality of Japanese inkstones: “Round and shiny, silent and solid, brought across the eastern sea in tribute.”36 Some Ming dynasty literati surmised, based on the items Japan presented in tribute, that it was a prosperous kingdom teeming with precious jewels. For instance, a poem by Dong Ji says, “The billowing sails on the opposite shore belong to Japanese boats; the daughter of the Dragon King has come to offer jewels to the Buddha.”37 Others surmised that Japan must be a wealthy kingdom based on the paintings on Japanese fans: “The isles must be extremely prosperous, if they at all resemble the picturesque painted designs. Light sparkles on the coral on the sea bed, and pine roots and amber abound.”38 Japan was envisioned as a moneyed kingdom teeming with jewels, an image not in fact in keeping with the reality of Japan at the time. Qing Dynasty Poetry, Prose, and Theater As there was little direct interaction between China and Japan until the mid-Qing dynasty, other than merchants who visited Nagasaki to conduct trade, and a small number of Ming dynasty sympathizers who migrated to Japan upon the change in dynasties, there were few Chinese visitors to Japan, and thus literary images of Japan often contained imaginary, sensationalistic, or exaggerated elements. Sha Qiyun’s Miscellany of Japan (Riben za 日本杂) is a particularly influential text. The preface states, “Japan is foremost among foreign kingdoms. Its waters teem with boats, its mountains and rivers are extraordinarily beautiful, and its landscapes are unsurpassed.” Sha visited Nagasaki as a merchant and wrote sixteen poems focusing on the folk customs of Nagasaki, for instance, “Each year the people welcome the coming of the Great Luminous Deity and invent new tales of the fantastic. In a frenzy, they shout, ‘The best under heaven,’ pick tea leaves, and sing songs, just like the Chinese.”39 You Tong’s Classic Poems from Foreign Lands (Waiguo zhuzhici 外国竹枝词) contains two poems making mention of Japan, among them, “The emperor of the land of the rising sun is referred to as Shison [the Revered One 至尊], and has vassals throughout the five provinces and seven circuits. Mirror of the East has been passed down throughout the generations, and the Taikō [retired regent 大閤] is Kinoshita.”40 An annotation to the poem states,

262  X. WANG

“Kinoshita refers to Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who ruled the kingdom of Wo for many years, proclaiming himself the Taikō king.” There are also poems reflecting the understandings of Japan held by early Qing dynasty literati, for instance, Qiu Zhang’s “Sending off My Uncle, a Sailor, upon His Departure to the Japanese Island of Nagasaki” (“Song jiushi haishi xiansheng zhi Riben Changqi dao” 送舅氏海士先生 之日本长崎岛): “The ancient Wo state of Na lies far to the east. Its five provinces and seven circuits are encircled by moats. The land is abundant, and the people are free and easy by nature. They have tattoos on their faces and bodies, and they wear their yellow hair tied and hanging down. They pledge allegiance to the holy Chinese emperor Yao and revere the northern star Kuibiao.”41 Yuan Mei’s poem “To the Painter Shen Nanping” (“Zeng Shen Nanping huashi” 赠沈南萍画师) goes, “Far beyond the eastern frontier lies the kingdom of Japan, where many paintings and works of calligraphy from the Jin and Tang have been collected. The Japanese sought instruction from Xiao Yingshi, and itinerant merchants sell poems by Bai Juyi. The shogun pays hefty sums to recruit capable men from China and beyond… the seventy-two islands remain there as always, walled off from the world by the sea.”42 It is also worth noting that Cao Yin, grandfather of Cao Xueqin, author of Dream of the Red Chamber, served during the Kangxi period as imperial textiles commissioner of Jiangning [Nanjing] and was responsible for trading with the Japanese using copper coins. In Kangxi 42 (1703), under the name Liushan Jushi (the Lay Buddhist of Mt. Liu 柳 山居士), he wrote the play Joy in Times of Peace. One act of the play, “Words on a Japanese Lantern,” depicts Japanese men and women’s clothing, song, dance, and language, depictions drawn from works such as Illustrated Encyclopedia of Japan (Riben tuzuan 日本图纂), and sings the praises of the Kangxi emperor. In the play, the Japanese emperor speaks these words: “The capital of my kingdom is called Chikushi. It is shaped like a lute, and the people read Confucian works and other Chinese classics and revere Indian Buddhist doctrine. In the Ming dynasty we rebelled against the empire, behaving in an extremely insolent, uncivilized manner. Presently a great Chinese sage has taken the throne, and the world is at peace. Taxes upon international commerce are low, and common folk enjoy favorable treatment. Foreign kingdoms like mine are at a loss as to how to express our gratitude. We can only venerate the Buddha and pray to heaven that the holy emperor may enjoy a long life.”43 In “Words on a Japanese Lantern,” Cao Yin

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

263

frequently uses Chinese characters to represent the pronunciations of Japanese words, that is, he employs “transmitted words,” making this a pioneering undertaking in the history of Chinese literature.

4  Understandings of Japan in Ming and Qing Dynasty Civilian Research Works Prior to the Ming dynasty, Chinese understandings of Japan were entirely dominated and directed by official orthodox histories. Generally speaking, few intellectuals or commoners were in a position to access relevant materials, nor was there any particular need to deeply understand or study Japan. Prior to the Ming dynasty, therefore, we see few civilian works dedicated to describing or studying Japan; all we have are a few personal writings, travel logs, and miscellaneous writings containing fragmentary descriptions. In the Ming dynasty, this state of affairs changed somewhat: particularly in the Jiajing and Wanli periods of the middle and late Ming, the ever-worsening problem of the Wokou spurred Ming dynasty scholar-officials and civilian intellectuals, particularly scholar-officials on the Zhejiang coast and regional military officials on the front line of defense against Japan, to take note of and actively write about Japan. In addition to excerpting ancient historical records, they also gathered information from merchants and envoys who traveled between the two countries as well as prisoners of the Wokou, and even personally went to Japan to gather materials on the ground, bringing Ming dynasty understandings of Japan to new heights. Ming Dynasty Works (1) A Consideration of Japan in Several Chapters A Consideration of Japan in Several Chapters (Riben kaolüe 日本考略) by Xue Jun, a scholar of Dinghai, Zhejiang from the Jiajing period of the Ming dynasty, may be referred to as the first ancient Chinese work dedicated to the study of Japan. The work is straightforwardly entitled “Japan” and is divided into seventeen chapters (referred to as lüe [略]) on subjects such as history, border regions, landscapes, local products, institutions, customs, imperial tributes, banditry in the borderlands, and “transmitted words.” Though the text is brief, drawn mostly from

264  X. WANG

official histories of previous dynasties, and riddled with errors—for instance, events that took place in Japan more than a thousand years earlier are treated as contemporary—A Consideration of Japan in Several Chapters nonetheless pioneered Ming dynasty Japanese studies. The “Imperial Tributes Chapter” (“Chaogong lüe” 朝贡略) covers the time period from the Han dynasty to the violent incident surrounding payment of tribute in Jiajing 2 (1523), and the “Banditry in the Borderlands Chapter” (“Kou bian lüe” 寇边略) describes the numerous border disturbances by the Wokou from the early Ming dynasty to the Jiajing period. The “Transmitted Words Chapter” (“Jiyu lüe” 寄语略) in particular played a pioneering role in Ming dynasty Japanese studies in that it indicates the pronunciations of Japanese words in Chinese characters, listing a total of more than 350 words in fifteen categories. These words were likely drawn from interviews with Chinese merchants, ship captains, and seamen who had been in direct contact with the Japanese; some consider this chapter China’s first “Chinese-Japanese dictionary.” Given that A Consideration of Japan in Several Chapters was written for purpose of defending the Japanese, author Xue Jun’s understanding of the Wokou, based on the information available to him, was as follows: “They are barbaric, cunning, and ruthless, and often lie in ambush, plundering wantonly when the opportunity presents itself… They are as savage as wolves. It is their nature to pillage… They are mercurial, first submitting, then revolting, treacherous and impossible to predict.”44 (2) An Account of Japanese Customs and A Consideration of Japan Classical scholars have confirmed that An Account of Japanese Customs (Riben fengtu ji 日本风土记) by Hou Jigao and A Consideration of Japan by Li Yangong and Hao Jie, both published during the Wanli period of the Ming dynasty, are two different editions of the same text.45 Hou was governor of Zhejiang and commander of the anti-Japanese frontline forces. Li was governor-general of the Imperial Guard and marquis of Linhuai, and Hao was vice minister of the Imperial Guard’s Ministry of War; both were high-ranking military officers, and the work was compiled for purposes of defending against the Japanese. The entire work consists of five fascicles containing more than a hundred chapters on such subjects as Japanese national affairs, history, border regions, customs, local products, folk songs, language, and literature. It enumerates 1,186 “transmitted words” in fifty-six categories, and it is worth noting

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

265

that the work presents the “Iroha Poem” (“Yilübo Poem” 伊吕波歌; written 以路法 in the work), which functions as a chart of Japanese kana, as well as thirty-nine Japanese poems in pioneering Chinese translations. In addition, the work includes a map of Japan. In the “National Affairs of the Wo Kingdom Chapter” (“Wo guo shi lüe” 倭国事略), the author states his understanding of Japan as follows: “Among the Japanese, some are poor, while others are rich; some are virtuous, while others are evil. Those who are rich and virtuous come to our shores aboard either tribute boats or merchant boats. The impoverished and evil come aboard pirate ships… There is an urgent need for that kingdom to crack down on bandits, but it has been absolutely unable to do so.” (3) Illustrated Book on Maritime Preparations Illustrated Book on Maritime Preparations (Chouhai tubian 筹海图 编) is an influential comprehensive treatise on maritime defense compiled by Zheng Ruoceng for the purposes of defending against the Japanese. Zheng had previously served as an aide to Governor-General Hu Zongxian, who was responsible for the defense of the Zhejiang coast, and with assistance from Hu compiled Illustrated Book on Maritime Preparations based on Illustrated Encyclopedia of Japan and A Pictorial Treatise on Comprehensive Coastal Defense (Wanli haifang tulun 万里 海防图论), with additions and corrections. The work consists of a total of thirteen fascicles; it is a lengthy text with numerous illustrations. The second fascicle, dedicated to the history of Sino-Japanese relations, includes an “Envoys of Feudal Dynasties to Wo Chapter” (“Wangguan shi Wo shi lüe” 王官使倭事略) as well as a “Japanese Imperial Tributes Chapter” (“Wonu chaogong shi lüe” 倭奴朝贡事略) describing the history of contact between Chinese and Japanese envoys supplemented by a Japanese “compass course,” that is, a China–Japan maritime route diagram. The “Affairs of the Wo Kingdom Chapter” (“Wo guo shi lüe” 倭 国事略) inquires into the origins of the Wokou and the scope of their activities, and is supplemented by several maps including a “Map of the Wo Kingdom” (“Wo guo tu” 倭国图) and an “Invasion Map” (“Rukou tu” 入寇图). Based on an extensive investigation into Japanese geography, the author enumerates numerous Japanese place names previously unknown to the Chinese. The work encompasses a rich array of content and is of great value.

266  X. WANG

(4) Mirror on Japan Zheng Shungong’s Mirror on Japan (Riben yi jian 日本一鉴) represents Ming dynasty Japanese studies at its peak. In 1556, Zheng was dispatched to Japan by Governor-General Yang Xuan to “inquire into the affairs of the barbarians” and stayed there for six months conducting on-the-ground research and gathering materials. In Zheng’s words, “I learned their customs, visited the places where they live, talked with them, and read their books.” The work is thus filled with information and highly trustworthy, representing a new evolution in ancient Chinese understandings of Japan. For instance, the “Transmitted Words” (“Jiyu” 寄语) section collects 3401 Japanese words, most of any Ming dynasty research work on Japan. The work also references Japanese documents and classical texts, describing the Japanese civil service system, famous people, household utensils, customs, and so on in unprecedented detail. For instance, the “Functionaries” (“Zhiyuan” 职员) section lists the names of more than 300 Japanese bureaucratic posts, and the “Plants” (“Caomu” 草木) section lists more than 360 Japanese plants. The four works discussed above are well-known civilian research works on Japan that represent understandings of Japan held by the Ming dynasty Chinese. There are more than ten other civilian research works that make mention of Japan, including Mao Yuanyi’s Annals of Military Preparedness (Wubei zhi 武备志), Song Yingchang’s The Military Commissioner’s Summary of the Restoration of the State (Jinglüe fuguo yaobian 经略复国要编), Wang Shiqi’s Record of the Suppression of the Wo by the Ming Emperor (Huangming yu Wo lu 皇明驭倭录), Cai Jiude’s Outline of Incidents Involving the Wo (Wo bianshi lüe 倭变事略), Zheng Mao’s Brief Chronicle of Maritime Pacification (Jinghai jilüe 靖海纪略), Zhuge Yuansheng’s Record of Pacification in Two Eras (Liang chao pingrang lu 两朝平攘录), Huang Yuqing’s A Consideration of the Origins of the Wo Scourge (Wo huan yuan kao 倭患源考), Zhang Huan’s Four Reports on the Pacification of the Wo (Ping Wo si shu 平倭四疏), and Jiao Hong’s Biographies of Leading Figures of the Present Dynasty (Guochao xian zhenglu 国朝献徵录); these will not be individually discussed here. Ming dynasty civilian research works on Japan have the following unique characteristics. First, in format, they depart from the accounts of Japan found in the “Annals of the Four Barbarians” and “Annals of Foreign Countries” sections of official orthodox histories and are, rather, dedicated publications consisting of multiple individual volumes, in some

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

267

cases more than ten; Mirror on Japan, for instance, is a sixteen-volume work. The compilation methods as well depart from the “Annals of Japan” sections of orthodox histories, which are not divided into categories. Instead, these civilian research works are split into detailed subsections; for instance, there are 114 such sections in An Account of Japanese Customs. Second, these works are broader and deeper in terms of content. In addition to continuing and adding to the results of predecessors’ research, and discussing Japanese geography, history, nature, institutions, local products, local conditions, and customs in detailed, dedicated subsections, these works add numerous new subjects such as maritime navigation routes, use “transmitted words” to indicate the pronunciation of Japanese words in Chinese, discuss Japanese folk songs and board games, and present maps of Japan, maps of cities, maps for navigation between China and Japan, and so on. Such publications served to greatly expand and deepen Chinese understandings of Japan and even exerted an influence upon the Ming court’s policies toward Japan. Despite their numerous faults and deficiencies, such works demonstrate that during the Ming dynasty, the Chinese gained an understanding of Japan far surpassing that of any previous era. Early Qing Dynasty Works (1) On the Positives and Negatives of Regional Administration by the Empire In the early Qing dynasty, the Wokou scourge of the late Ming remained fresh in the minds of Chinese literati and scholars, and treatises on maritime defense are replete with reminders to remain on guard against the Japanese. For instance, Fascicle 119 of On the Positives and Negatives of Regional Administration by the Empire (Tianxia junguo libing shu 天下 郡国利病书) by famed scholar Gu Yanwu, entitled “Overseas Barbarian Nations” (“Haiwai zhu fan” 海外诸蕃), points out, “There are many barbarian kingdoms across the sea, but among them, none has troubled us like Japan. Japan is made up of more than a hundred islands, and in its southwestern region, Satsuma has proved the most problematic. The pirates, who also come from the islands of Higo and Nagato, have pillaged and invaded time and time again.” Gu also emphasizes the severity of the Wokou scourge of the late Ming, stating, “Violence seethes in the

268  X. WANG

southeast, and the people wallow in misery.” He also discusses Japanese governmental systems: “Though the kingdom has a monarch, the shogun holds complete control.” Simultaneously, Gu approves of Japanese social customs and public order: “When goods arrive, the market administrator of the island is notified, and he determines fixed prices so that customers are not taken advantage of when making purchases… their customs are simple and straightforward, and honesty pervades society.”46 (2) Record of Knowledge Gleaned from Maritime Kingdoms Chen Lunjiong derived an understanding of Japan primarily from on-the-ground research. Having served previously as governor of Taiwan, in 1710 he traveled to the South Seas and Japan and wrote Record of Knowledge Gleaned from Maritime Kingdoms (Haiguo wenjian lu 海国闻见录). The “Records of Japan” (“Dongyang ji” 东洋记) section of the work offers an introduction to Japanese politics, economics, and culture, aspects of Japan which Chen praises. For instance, he writes that the Japanese monarch “is the recipient of a title conferred by the Han court and pledges allegiance to China,” that he “has studied Chinese characters, pronouncing them in Japanese,” and that “his authority in military and governmental affairs is granted by the shogun.” Chen further writes, “Salaries are generous, enough to cover living expenses, and thus crime is low… Cleanliness is valued, and the streets are cleaned frequently… Those skilled in literature and art are held in high esteem. They are treated respectfully and exempted from mandatory labor… Although the men and women are not more beautiful than the Chinese, they are beyond comparison with any other barbarian kingdom. Japan is the jewel of the east.”47 Chen’s depiction of Japan and his words of praise were frequently cited by his successors. (3) Book on Ocean Passages In the Qing dynasty, China and Japan both closed their borders and cut diplomatic ties. Most of the Chinese people who made their way to Japan were merchants doing business in Nagasaki. They generally resided in Nagasaki’s Tōkan (唐館), residence halls built specifically to house Chinese merchants. The most famous work by a Chinese merchant in Japan is Wang Peng’s Book on Ocean Passages (Xiuhai bian 袖 海编). Wang, a painter as well as a merchant, was born in Qiantang,

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

269

Zhejiang, and traveled to Japan during the Qianlong period. He resided for a time in a Tōkan in Nagasaki, writing of the city, “the fog is so thick it is impossible to walk outside.” Wang wrote of his own idiosyncratic understanding of Japan, drawing upon the things he saw and heard during his stay. His impression of Japan is extremely positive, and his praise is effusive. He writes, “Japan is the strongest, richest kingdom across the eastern sea… Nagasaki, also known as Keiho, is a land of breathtaking landscapes, filled with glistening mountains and enchanting rivers, and the people there are no less intelligent than the Chinese. They do not waste time, they do not neglect their duties, and they are well educated… They are familiar with courtly etiquette as well as the works of Confucius… They are mild-mannered by nature, and never lose their composure even when very angry… Nagasaki is a place of isolated islands and seaside coves. It is often said that the islands are impoverished, but in fact few there are poor. People spend great sums on lanterns which they hang above their gates in the evenings. Those with more money buy more lanterns to demonstrate a lack of concern for personal wealth… The Japanese have been importing Chinese books in vast quantities for many generations. They are a curious people, and do not hesitate to spend money on books, which they wrap up and treasure. They buy books in such vast quantities that their oxen perspire beneath the weight… The country has no imperial examination system, and thus literature and culture are not revered. There are a few self-taught individuals who are very much capable of reading the works of the sages. They know well the Confucian classics and history and study the affairs of the Chinese.” When trading, Japanese merchants entered their bids on bulletin boards and Chinese merchants “selected the most favorable selling price… this excellent trading method prevents disputes.”48 To summarize, Wang believes that the Japanese adhered to Confucian principles in politics, enjoyed economic abundance, revered Chinese culture, and were fair and reasonable in business. (4) Writings by castaways In the Qing dynasty, a number of Chinese merchants, crewmen, and fisherfolk met with maritime accidents, drifted to Japan, and were later repatriated; these are called castaways (piaoliumin 漂流民). They generally belonged to the lower classes of society and were not well educated.

270  X. WANG

Some created records of their experiences in Japan and their interactions with Japanese people, writings that reflect Chinese commoners’ understandings and impressions of Japan. In Daoguang 6 (Bunsei 9 by the Japanese calendar, AD 1826) a Chinese merchant ship called the Detai which departed from Zhapu was beset by stormy seas and ran aground in Tōtōmi, Japan; the following year, the ship returned to China by way of Nagasaki. The captain and the crew recorded a number of very fascinating conversations they had with Japanese people along the way. In one instance, a Japanese man expressed the utmost reverence for Chinese literature and calligraphy. Said one of the Chinese castaways, “The landscapes in your country are gorgeous, the people are wealthy, and the land is productive. There are many extremely talented people just like yourself. Lingering here in your midst, I feel myself filling with lofty aspirations. Just as we admire and envy you, you must likewise long to visit our country.” Each side expressed admiration for the other. The castaway continued, “The Japanese population is small, so the people do not want for the necessities of life. Our country has a large population, and therefore many go hungry.” The Japanese man said, “Our country is indeed rich, but the population is not necessarily small. I have heard others say that your country is rich and prosperous; why is it that you claim it to be poor?” The Chinese castaway said, “The frugal customs of ancient times have slowly given way to extravagance, and the people lead profligate lives. This is why there is a constant lack of food.” The Japanese man said, “We are a simple people and thus have no need for luxury. What’s more, we have no choice but to be frugal. You are a civilized people, and thus have no need for extravagance, yet you have no choice but to be extravagant!” Said the castaway, “There is no place in the world with scenery more beautiful than Japan’s. For instance, brilliant, beautiful, jade-like mountains like the ones that surround us now are a rare sight in China.” “What a shame that travel to your country is so tightly restricted.” The Chinese castaway asked to see a Japanese map: “Do you have a map of Japan with you? Please, let me take a look.” The Japanese man responded, “In our country, there is a restriction on maps: they are not to be shown to outsiders.” The Chinese castaway inquired as to the truth of a rumor: “I have heard that in Japan, the islanders are ordered that if a family has four or five brothers, only one may take a wife, and the other brothers are not allowed to marry. Is this true? Please enlighten me.” The Japanese man refuted this: “An absurd bit of gossip.”49

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

271

(5) Mirror of the East with Supplements Prior to the mid-Qing dynasty, the civilian research work best known to scholars of Japan was Mirror of the East with Supplements (Wuqijing bu 吾妻镜补) by Weng Guangping. Weng, a native of Wujiang County, Jiangsu, was a “scholar of ‘practical learning’ (puxue 朴学; a school of textual study) from an impoverished rural background.” A sharpminded, versatile scholar motivated by what he saw as the incompleteness of the Japanese historical classic Azuma kagami (Mirror of the East 吾妻鏡), Weng believed that “of all the eastern sea kingdoms, Japan is the greatest,” and resolved to compile a comprehensive history of Japan toward the goal of “completing a national history of one kingdom across the eastern sea.”50 Weng labored for seven years, collected more than 190 Chinese and Japanese books, and in the nineteenth year of the Jiaqing era of the Qing dynasty (1814) completed Mirror of the East with Supplements. Alternately titled Annals of the Kingdom of Japan (Riben guozhi 日本国志), the work was written more than seventy years prior to the work of the same name by Huang Zunxian. Unfortunately, it was never printed, and only handmade transcripts of two fascicles, 28 and 30, are extant. The range of content is wide; Fascicle 10, on the subject of genealogy, chronicles the lineage of the Japanese emperors as well as the history of Sino-Japanese relations. Additionally, the text includes a “Geography” (“Dili zhi” 地理志) section made up of two fascicles, a “Local Customs” (“Fengtu zhi” 风土志) section made up of two fascicles, a “Food and Commodities” (“Shihuo zhi” 食货志) section made up of one fascicle, an “International Trade Regulations” (“Tongshang tiaogui” 通商条规) section made up of one fascicle, a “Government Posts” (“Zhiguan zhi” 职官志) section made up of one fascicle, a “Literature” (“Wenyi zhi” 艺文志) section made up of seven fascicles, and so on. Many aspects of Japan, including historical geography, politics, economics, culture, customs, and products, are discussed. The “Literature” section reproduces 146 literary works by Japanese authors and catalogs more than a hundred works on Japan by Chinese authors; it may be referred to as a great synthesis of ancient Chinese understandings of Japan. Unfortunately, Weng never had the opportunity to travel abroad or conduct on-the-ground research in Japan, and the work consists mostly of selections from the work of predecessors. When these predecessors are in error, Weng can do nothing but repeat the errors,

272  X. WANG

compounding them with his own, and as there is a lack of any individual evaluation or exposition on Weng’s part, the work fails to make any significant progress over previous understandings. In addition, the work was never printed and failed to make a major impact. Simply put, it was forgotten by history. In summary, from the beginning of the Qing dynasty onward, given that the Wokou had been pacified, and the Qing government implemented a closed-door policy and a ban on maritime intercourse, interaction between China and Japan lessened, and the interest of Chinese scholar-officials in Japan gradually flagged. As little notice was paid to Japan, understandings of Japan among the Chinese of the early Qing dynasty stagnated and even regressed. It was for this reason that the sections on Japanese geography in Xu Jiyu and Wei Yuan’s famed works of world geography published after the Opium Wars, Annals of the World (Yinghuan zhilüe 瀛寰志略) and Illustrated Annals of Maritime Countries (Haiguo tuzhi 海国图志), both make the same startling error, stating that Japan is made up of three islands, Nagasaki, Satsuma, and Tsushima.

5  Chinese and Japanese Mutual Understandings in Ancient Times: Historical Lessons In looking back on the understandings of Japan held by the ancient Chinese, one further matter remains to be analyzed: throughout the course of history, which factors contributed to or hindered mutual understanding between China and Japan? Contributing Factors (1) The establishment of friendly diplomatic relations furnished the prerequisites for the formation of mutual understandings as well as the environment within which such understandings formed. Envoys began traveling back and forth between the two countries in the Eastern Han dynasty. Interaction relating to the payment of tributes and conferral of titles was especially frequent during the Northern and Southern dynasties period, encouraging many Chinese to acquire initial understandings of Japan and to further deepen these understandings;

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

273

it was during this period that works such as the “Annals of the Wo” chapter of Records of the Three Kingdoms and the “Annals of the Wo Kingdom” chapter of The Book of Song established foundational Chinese understandings of Japan. In the Sui and Tang dynasties, as the Japanese government dispatched missions on a large scale, including the envoys to Sui and the envoys to Tang, the two countries established friendly, neighborly diplomatic ties, and all sorts of exchange and interaction occurred in earnest, greatly contributing to mutual understanding between the Chinese and Japanese. Not only did official histories such as The Book of Sui, New Book of Tang, and Old Book of Tang deepen understandings of Japan, the literary works exchanged by literati and monks express the friendly sentiment that took shape between the two countries. (2) Cultural and personnel exchange played a key role in the development of mutual understandings and friendly ties between China and Japan. The cultural exchange that continued uninterrupted for two thousand years between ancient China and Japan was wide-ranging and varied and exerted a profound, long-lasting influence. China and Japan both belong to the Chinese cultural sphere and share linguistic features and beliefs across many areas such as Chinese language and literary studies, Confucian studies, and Buddhist studies. Chinese characters, the Chinese language, Chinese poetry, painting, and calligraphy served as particularly important media furnishing conditions favorable to the establishment of mutual understandings between the two countries. In ancient Japan, most bureaucrats, literati, warriors, and monks were familiar with Chinese characters and could read texts written in classical Chinese, in addition to composing Chinese language poetry. Exchange of personnel as well as interaction through books, literature, and art deepened mutual understandings. In the case of personnel exchange, when a language barrier existed, it could be surmounted by writing in Chinese. Thus, cultural interaction between China and Japan reached a peak in the Sui and Tang period, and during the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, cultural interaction between China and Japan continued without interruption.

274  X. WANG

(3) Economic trade relationships and exchange of goods were additional important channels and motivations for mutual understanding. Tributary trade between China and Japan during the Wei, the Jin, the Northern and Southern dynasties period, the Sui, and the Tang dynasty, as well as the private trade, tally trade, and shinpai (信牌)51 trade of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing period were important channels through which mutual understandings took shape, as well as key drivers of the deepening of such understandings. Exchange of goods, including exquisite items such as the Japanese blades, fans, and inkstones imported from Japan to China during the Song, Yuan, and Ming periods, also served to strengthen understandings. The large quantities of Chinese books brought to Japan during the Qing dynasty by Chinese merchant boats trading in Nagasaki served to drive significant progress in Japanese understandings of China in the Edo period. (4) Interpersonal interaction and friendship between the Chinese and Japanese, especially the cultured conduct and talents of Japanese envoys, literati, and monks, created a positive image of Japan in the minds of the Chinese. Understandings of other countries often develop through contact with individual people from those countries, and thus the personal character, statements, conduct, and talents of the Japanese people who visited China had a great impact upon ancient Chinese understandings of Japan. Among the Japanese envoys to Tang, overseas students, and scholar-monks who visited China during the Tang dynasty were no shortage of extremely talented individuals who formed deep friendships with Chinese poets, and their personal charms contributed to the favorable image of the Japanese found in Chinese poetry. This includes, for instance, Japanese people such as Abe no Nakamaro, Fujiwara no Kiyokawa, and Kūkai, who visited during the Tang dynasty, Japanese monks such as Chōnen and Eisai, who visited during the Song dynasty, and the Japanese monk Sakugen Shūryō and the painter Sesshū, who visited during the Ming dynasty. In spite of the Wokou scourge of the Ming dynasty, Chinese literati continued to revere and commend the Japanese monks who visited China during this time. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that though there was conflict, including armed confrontation, between China and Japan, it is an

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

275

objective fact that such instances spurred China to take a greater interest in and develop a deeper understanding of Japan; for instance, a large number of civilian research works regarding Japan were produced during the Wokou scourge of the Ming dynasty. Hindrances We will now examine the factors that hindered mutual understanding between China and Japan. (1) Mutual understanding was severely inhibited by the severance of diplomatic ties and the prohibition on travel between the two countries as well as the adoption of closed-door policies. The severance of diplomatic ties and interaction between the two countries, as well as the adoption of closed-door policies, severely inhibited mutual understanding. The Qing dynasty, for instance, was a key period of history in which mutual understandings deepened significantly, but out of a desire on the part of the leaders of both countries to prevent the people from coming into contact with foreign influences and to monopolize foreign trade, among other reasons, the Qing government and the Japanese Tokugawa shogunate severed official ties with one another, enacted closed-door policies shutting their respective countries off from the outside world, and prohibited their people from going overseas in order to trade or otherwise interact with the outside. In the Qing dynasty, the only trade between China and Japan was conducted in Nagasaki and subject to numerous restrictions; this too served to severely inhibit mutual understandings between the two countries. (2) Opposition and conflict between the two countries, in particular military aggression, threatened territorial integrity and security and severely impacted mutual understandings, inviting mutual hostility and negativity. For instance, the rulers of the Yuan dynasty launched two expeditions against Japan, leading to a negative reaction on the part of the Japanese, who believed they were being invaded. Additionally, the plundering of the Chinese coast by the Wokou became an extremely severe social

276  X. WANG

problem in the Ming dynasty, altering the positive impressions the Chinese had long held toward Japan. The burning, looting, murdering, and plundering perpetrated upon coastal China by the Wokou led the Chinese of the Ming dynasty to develop a negative image of the Japanese as ruthless, rapacious, and deceitful, and the invasion by Toyotomi Hideyoshi further intensified this negative impression. (3) The two parties both wrote works exposing one another’s past misdeeds in addition to scorning and even belittling each other; such acts had extremely deleterious effects, hindering objective and friendly mutual understandings. Because Chinese literati regarded Chinese culture as superior and adhered to a “Chinese vs. barbarian” worldview, they consistently regarded Japan as a small barbarian kingdom to the east, scorning the Japanese and disdaining to engage in deep study of Japan. Additionally, Japanese literati had their own version of the civilized vs. barbarian distinction, adopting a nationalist mindset and at times behaving antagonistically toward and demonizing China, for instance, referring to the Qing dynasty rulers as “Tatars.” In History of Japan (Riben guozhi 日本国志), Qing dynasty diplomat Huang Zunxian criticized this attitude as follows: “Historians [of China and Japan] have long glorified their own peoples and heaped insults upon others, scorning one another as island savages. The Chinese have written of the ‘Annals of the Eastern Barbarians,’ referring to Japan, while Japanese historians have written of ‘The Barbarian Domains of the Yuan,’ referring to Sui and Tang. The Chinese have called the Japanese monarch the King of Wo, while the Japanese have referred to the Chinese monarchs as the lord of Sui or Tang. This is equivalent to the inhabitants of the same village cursing and condemning one another; what benefit does anyone gain from this?”. (4) Cases of individual lack of moral character, dishonorable behavior, arrogance, duplicity, deceit, and so on severely inhibited mutual understandings. For instance, deplorable behavior by Japanese merchant profiteers, pirates, and rōnin, in particular the ruthless, rapacious actions of the Wokou, created a negative image of Japan in the minds of the Ming and Qing dynasty Chinese and severely damaged Japan’s reputation.

6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

277

We should diligently study and absorb the lessons of history with regard to mutual understandings between China and Japan and take history as a mirror as we face the future, strengthening mutual understandings to build healthier, more stable, friendlier, more cooperative mutual ties.

Notes









1. The “Classic of Northern Regions Within the Seas” (“Hai nei bei jing” 海内北经) section of Classic of Mountains and Seas states, “The state of Gai lies to the south of the great state of Yan and to the north of the state of Wo. Wo is subservient to Yan.” This is the earliest use of the character “Wo” (倭) in any Chinese source, and the text specifies that Wo is located to the east of the Chinese mainland. Thereafter, “Wo” gradually became a fixed term used by the ancient Chinese to refer to Japan. Scholars have determined that “Wo” and “wei” (委) possess the similar meanings, that is, the original meaning of “Wo” is yielding or compliant, and based on the use of the radical for person (人), it is apparent that it did not originally have a pejorative connotation. See Shen Ren’an, Riben qiyuan kao 日本起源考 [A consideration of the origins of Japan] (Kunshan Chubanshe, 2004), 26–28. 2. See, for instance, Wang Xiangrong, Zhong Ri guanxi shi wenxian lunkao 中日关系史文献论考 [A consideration of historical documents on SinoJapanese relations] (Hunan Yuelu Publishing House, 1985) and Wang, Xiangrong, and Yingyuan Xia 夏应元, eds., Zhong Ri guanxi shi ziliao huibian 中日关系史资料汇编 [Anthology of historical materials on SinoJapanese relations] (Zhonghua Book Company, 1984). 3. See Cheng, Ming dai Zhong Ri guanxi yanjiu. 4. Yang Zhiqiu 杨知秋, ed., Lidai Zhong Ri youyi shi xuan 历代中日友谊 诗选 [Selection of historical poems on China-Japan friendship] (Shumu Wenxian Chubanshe, 1986), 5–7. 5. Li Longji 李隆基, “Song Riben shi” 送日本使 [Sending off a Japanese envoy], in Ichikawa Kansai 市河寬齋, ed., Zen Tō shiitsu 全唐詩逸 [Poems not collected in Quan Tang shi], vol. 1. 6. Wang Wei 王维, “Song Mishu Chao jian huan Riben guo” 送秘书晁监还 日本国 [Sending Secretary Chao Off to Japan], in Quan Tang shi 全唐诗 [Complete Tang poems] (Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1986), f. 127. 7. Li Bai 李白, “Ku Chao Qing Heng” 哭晁卿衡 [Crying for Official Chao Heng], in Quan Tang shi, f. 184. 8. Bao Ji 包佶, “Song Riben guopin heshi Chao ju Qing dong gui” 送日 本国聘贺使晁巨卿东归 [Seeing off the great Minister Chao, celebratory envoy of Japan, upon his return to the east], in Quan Tang shi, f. 205.

278  X. WANG









9. Liu Yuxi 刘禹锡, “Zeng Riben shiren Zhicang” 赠日本诗人智藏 [To the Japanese poet Chizō], Quan Tang shi, f. 359. 10. Zhu Qiansheng 朱千乘, “Song Riben guo San Zang Konghai shangren” 送日本国三藏空海上人 [To Kūkai, master of the Tripitaka from the kingdom of Japan], in Lidai Zhong Ri youyi shi xuan, 38. 11. Lu Guimeng 陆龟蒙, “Wen Yuanzai shangren xie Ru shu po shidian gui Riben guo, geng zuo yijue yi zengsong” 闻圆载上人挟儒书泊释典归日 本国, 更作一绝以赠送 [A poem dedicated to the great Ensai upon hearing of his return to Japan with numerous Confucian books and Buddhist scriputures], in Quan Tang shi, f. 629. 12. Wei Zhuang 韦庄, “Song Riben sengren Jing Long gui” 送日本僧人敬龙 归 [Sending off Japanese Monk Keiryū], in Quan Tang shi, f. 695. 13. Ouyang Xiu 欧阳修, “Riben dao ge” 日本刀歌 [Song of Japanese swords], in Ouyang Xiu ji 欧阳修集 [Ouyang Xiu anthology], f. 54. It was believed for generations that the poem was the work of Ouyang Xiu of the Northern Song dynasty, and thus it is included in Ouyang Xiu Anthology. However, some believe that it is the work of Sima Guang of the Northern Song dynasty, and thus it is included in Fascicle 2 of Sima Guang Anthology (Sima Gong ji 司马公集). According to yet another view, the poem is the work of Qian Gongfu (courtesty name Junyi), who served as magistrate of Ming Prefecture during the Northern Song dynasty. As regional administrator of foreign trade ports during the Northern Song, Qian may have purchased a sword from a Japanese merchant and thereafter composed the poem. The poet Mei Yaochen once exchanged poems with Junyi on the topic of Japanese swords. 14. Su Zhe 苏辙, Yang Zhubu Riben shan 杨主簿日本扇 [Yang Zhubu’s Japanese fan], in Luancheng ji 栾城集 [Luancheng anthology], f. 13. 15. Bai Pu 白朴, “Mulanhua man: Tique fen” 木栏花慢·题阙分 [Man poem on magnolias: Untitled], in Tianlai ji 天籁集 [Music of nature anthology], f. 2. See Zhang Zhejun 张哲俊, Zhongguo gudai wenxue zhong de Riben xingxiang yanjiu 中国古代文学中的日本形象研究 [A study of images of Japan in ancient Chinese literature] (Peking University Press, 2004). 16. Ding Xia 丁复, “Fusang xingsong Xian Zhonggang dong gui” 扶桑行 送铦仲刚东归 [Seeing off Sen Chūgō of Japan upon His Return to the East], in Yuan shi xuan er ji 元诗选二集 [Yuan poetry anthology], vol. 2, f. 16. 17. Translator’s note: This monk’s full name likely consists of four characters, but one character is omitted in the Chinese source, which gives the name as 铦仲刚; thus, the full correct Romanization is unclear.



6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

279

18. Zhang Zi 张镃, “Lao bi zeng Xian shangren er shou” 老笔赠铦上人二首 [Two poems for the great Sen from a venerable pen], Hunan ji 南湖集 [Hunan anthology], f. 4. 19. Zheng Dong 郑东, “Song riben seng zhi jing” [Seeing off a Japanese monk upon his departure from the capital], Yuan shi xuan san ji 元诗选 三集 [Yuan poetry anthology], vol. 3, f. 11. 20. Gong Xingzhi 贡性之, “Wo shan” 倭扇 [A Japanese fan], Hunan ji 南湖 集 [Hunan anthology], vol. 2. 21. Zhu Yuanzhang 朱元璋, “He Zong Le” 和宗泐 [With Zong Le], in Itō Matsusada 伊藤松貞, comp., Rinkō chōsho 隣交徴書 [Records of interactions with neighbors], ed. Wang, Baoping 王宝平, Wanping Guo 郭万平 et al. (Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House, 2007), vol. 1, f. 2. 22.  Zhu Yuanzhang, “He Jue Haiyun” 和绝海韵 [With Jue Haiyun], in Rinkō chōsho, vol. 1, f. 2. 23. Zhu Yuanzhang, “Wo shan xing” 倭扇行 [Poem on Japanese fans], in Ming Taizu wenji 明太祖文集 [Ming Taizu anthology], f. 19. 24. Zhu Di 朱棣, “Shouan Zhenguo Shan pai” 寿安镇国山碑 [Tablet of the Mountain of the Garrison Post of Longevity and Peace], vol. 1, f. 1. 25. Zhu Houcong 朱厚熜, “Song Riben shi Ceyan” 送日本使策彦 [Seeing off Japanese envoy Sakugen], in Rinkō chōsho, vol. 2, f. 2. 26. Sun Cheng’en 孙承恩, “Zu Wo ci” 诅倭词 [Poem denouncing the Wo], in Wenjian ji 文简集 [Wenjian anthology], f. 11. See Zhang, Zhongguo gudai wenxue. 27. She Xiang 畲翔, “Du Yao Xinning Kuzhu ji yougan fu ci wei zeng” 读 姚新宁苦竹记有感赋此为赠 [Impressions upon reading Yao Xinning’s On bitter bamboo, presented as a gift], in Xue Liyuan shi ji 薛荔园诗集 [Xueliyuan poetry anthology], f. 1. 28. Wang Shizhen 王世贞, “Wo zhi” 倭志 [Annals of Wo], in Yanzhou si bu gao 弇州四部稿 [Four treatises on Yanzhou], f. 80. 29. Feng Menglong 冯梦龙, “Yang Balao Yue guo qi feng” 杨八老越国奇逢 [Yang Balao’s extraordinary family reunion in the state of Yue], in Yushi mingyan 喻世明言 [Illuminating words for the edification of the world], f. 18. 30. Xu Lian 徐琏, “Songbie Xuezhou” 送别雪舟 [Saying goodbye to Sesshū], in Rinkō chōsho, vol. 1, f. 2. 31. Xu Fenggang 徐枫冈, “Song Jixiu Shi guiguo” 送即休师归国 [Bidding Master Shikkyū farewell upon his return], in Rinkō chōsho, vol. 2, f. 2. 32. Zhang Yu 张羽, “Ti Wo shan” 题倭扇 [On Japanese fans], in Jing an ji 静 庵集 [Tranquil hut anthology], f. 4. 33. Wang Fu 王绂, “Wo shan yao” 倭扇谣 [Song of Japanese fans], in Wang Sheren shi ji 王舍人诗集 [Palace Secretary Wang poetry anthology], f. 2.

280  X. WANG

34. Tang Shunzhi 唐顺之, “Riben dao ge” 日本刀歌 [Song of Japanese swords], in Jing Chuan ji 荆川集 [Jing Chuan anthology], f. 3. 35. Song Lian 宋濂, “Riben yan ming” 日本砚铭 [Inscription on a Japanese Inkstone], in Wenxian ji 文宪集 [Wenxian anthology], f. 15. 36. Yang Shiqi 杨士奇, “Riben yan ming,” in DonglI xu ji 东里续集 [Further Dongli anthology], f. 15. 37. Huang Ji 黄纪, “Hai wu wei Yi Guding” 海屋为彝古鼎 [Houses on the sea, for Yi Guding], in Xijiao xiaoduan ji 西郊笑端集 [Matters of laughter from the western outskirts], f. 1. 38. Wang Guangyang 汪广洋, “Ti riben hua shan yingzhi” 题日本画扇应制 [Poem on a painted Japanese fan written upon imperial order], in Fengchi yingao 凤池吟稿 [Songs of a trusted imperial official], f. 7. 39. Sha Qiyun 沙起云, Riben zayong 日本杂咏 [Poems on Japanese miscellany], in Zhaodai congshu 昭代丛书 [Anthology of an enlightened age]. 40. You Tong 尤侗, Waiguo zhuyi ci 外国竹枝词 [Classic poems from foreign lands], in Wang, Shenzhi 王慎之 and Zijin Wang 王子今, eds., Qing dai haiwai zhuyi ci 清代海外竹枝词 [Qing dynasty classic poems from abroad] (Peking University Press, 1994), 7. 41. Qiu Zhang 邱璋, “Song jiushi haishi xiansheng zhi Riben Changqi dao” 送舅氏海士先生之日本长崎岛 [Sending off My Uncle, a Sailor, upon His Departure to the Island of Nagasaki in Japan], in Rinkō chōsho, vol. 3, f. 2. 42. Yuan Mei 袁枚, “Zeng Shen Nanping huashi” 赠沈南萍画师 [To the painter Shen Nanping], in Xiaocang Shan fang ji 小苍山房集 [Mt. Xiaocang studio anthology]. 43. Liushan Jushi 柳山居士 (Cao Yin 曹寅), “Riben deng ci” 日本灯词 [Words on a Japanese lantern], in Taiping leshi 太平乐事 [Joy in times of peace]. See Feng Zuozhe 冯佐哲, “Cong ‘Riben deng ci’ kan Qing chu de Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu” 从〈日本灯词〉看清初的中日文化交流 [Sino-Japanese cultural exchange in the early Qing dynasty with reference to “Riben deng ci”] (China Social Sciences Press, 1998), 135–152. 44. Xue Jun 薛俊, “Yange lüe” 沿革略 [History chapter], “Kou bian lüe” 寇 边略 [Banditry in the borderlands chapter], in Riben kao lüe 日本考略 [A consideration of Japan in several chapters]. 45. Wang Xiangrong, “Guan yu Riben kao” 关于日本考 [On A consideration of Japan], Riben kao 日本考 [A consideration of Japan] (Zhonghua Book Company, 1983). 46. Gu Yanwu, “Haiwai zhufan” 海外诸藩 [Overseas barbarian nations], f. 119 in Tianxia junguo libing shu. 47. Chen Lunjiong 陈伦炯, “Dongyang ji” 东洋记 [Records of Japan], in Haiwai wenjian lu 海国闻见录 [Record of knowledge gleaned from maritime kingdoms].



6  CHINA AND JAPAN—MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 

281

48. Wang Peng 汪鹏, Xiuhai bian 袖海篇 [Book on ocean passages], vol. 10 in Xiaofang huzhai yudi congshu 小方壶斋舆地丛钞 [Collection of writings on world geography]. 49. Tokutai sen hitsugo, Bunsei kyū-nen enshū hyōchaku Tokutai sen shiryō (Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, Kansai University, 1986). 50. Weng Guangping 翁广平, “Wu qi jing bu xu” 《吾妻镜补》序 [Preface to Mirror of the east with supplements], in transcript of Wu qi jing bu 吾妻 镜补 [Mirror of the east with supplements], Peking University Library. 51. Translator’s note: A system of trade in which Chinese ships were required to show permits to enter the port in Nagasaki.

CHAPTER 7

A Comparison of Chinese and Japanese Political and Social Structures Lifeng Jiang, Yong Wang, Zhengjian Huang, Zongguo Wu, Zhuo Li, Jiayu Song and Fan Zhang

The history of Sino-Japanese relations in ancient times and Sino-Japanese cultural synthesis are well-studied subjects, but few comparative studies of political transformations and social development have L. Jiang (*) · J. Song  Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] Y. Wang  Japanese Language and Culture, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China Z. Huang  Chinese Academy of History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China Z. Wu · F. Zhang  Department of History, Peking University, Beijing, China Z. Li  Japan Institute of Nankai University, Tianjin, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 P. Bu and S. Kitaoka (eds.), The History of China–Japan Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5599-0_7

283

284  L. JIANG ET AL.

been undertaken. As Chinese and Japanese scholars are drawn by different interests and bound by different taboos, when new historical materials emerge, scholars understand and make use of them differently. This chapter is dedicated to examining several highly representative issues pertaining to the history of ancient Chinese and Japanese political and social development, not toward the aim of drawing definite conclusions, but to depict these subjects in their totality by examining select case studies, and in so doing underscore the importance of the comparative study of ancient Chinese and Japanese political and social structures and encourage scholars from both countries to take greater interest in such research. We believe that our work here will be of aid in advancing the study of Sino-Japanese relations.

1  Chinese and Japanese Emperors Emperors—referred to as huangdi (皇帝) in China and tennō (天皇) in Japan—were the supreme rulers of ancient Chinese and Japanese political systems as well as representatives and symbols of the state. Any comparison of the political structures of ancient China and Japan must begin with a comparison of Chinese and Japanese emperors. Though, as we have said, the Chinese ruler was generally referred to as “huangdi” and the Japanese ruler as “tennō,” there are exceptions. Emperor Gaozong of Tang (r. 650–683) referred to himself as “tianhuang [Japanese: tennō 天皇],” and his posthumous title was “Tianhuang Dadi [Great Emperor and King of Heaven 天皇大帝].”1 Additionally, Shoku Nihongi refers to Emperor Kanmu (r. 781–806) as “kon kōtei [the current emperor, in Chinese jin huangdi 今皇帝].” As one might imagine, these similar titles did not emerge by coincidence, but as the natural result of internal links between Chinese and Japanese political systems. The Li clan emperors of the Tang dynasty promoted Daoism, claiming that the clan descended from Laozi, the father of Daoism, and that they were thus “the offspring of an immortal,” further divinizing imperial authority. Their influence spread to Japan, where the empire and the imperial system likewise developed close ties with Daoism. Emperor Kanmu conferred the posthumous title “Sudō Tennō” (The Emperor Who Revered the Dao 崇道天皇) upon Prince Nara. Kanmu, a great champion of Chinese culture, also studied the sacrificial practices of the Chinese emperors, and on two occasions offered sacrifices to God, that is, “the supreme heavenly ruler [haotian shangdi 昊天

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

285

上帝],” at an altar on the southern outskirts of Nagaokakyō. The motivations for the emperor’s behavior are readily apparent. Both Chinese and Japanese emperors proclaimed themselves gods, but this had different implications in each country. In China, no matter an emperor’s social class of origin, on taking the throne, he became “the son of heaven,” that is, the “son of the sovereign of heaven” and therefore an incarnation of “the supreme heavenly ruler,” the earthly representative of heaven’s will and the holder of absolute, inviolable divine authority. Thus, before the formation of Japanese “Kiki myth” (a body of state mythology proclaiming the emperor’s divinity based on two texts, Nihon shoki and Kojiki 記紀), Japanese emperors did not derive authority from a clear, consistent source, and the Japanese envoys to Sui stated, “the Wo king takes heaven for an older brother and the sun for a younger brother” and sent to the Sui court a letter reading “From the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun to the son of heaven in the land of the setting sun,” wording which predictably displeased Emperors Wen and Yang of Sui. Among the emperor’s sacrificial rituals, the sacrifice to heaven was the most important and involved the most stringent specifications. It encompassed two rituals, a sacrifice to the sun and a sacrifice to the moon. Subsequently, around the time that the Kiki texts were published, Japanese rulers, perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Chinese “sons of heaven,” proclaimed themselves the “grandsons of heaven” based upon the foundational myths of those texts. Also, they invited spirits to possess them in rituals such as the Daijosai (大嘗祭), through which it was believed that the emperor became an incarnation of the sun goddess and thus a “living god.” The first Chinese emperor, of course, was Qin Shihuang, who founded the Qin empire in BC 221. The Japanese emperors emerged only much later, in the early seventh century. Even so, until modern times, the Japanese emperors consistently claimed an “unbroken lineage,” and in present-day Japan there are still some who firmly believe and continue to propagate this claim. The Chinese throne, meanwhile, continually changed hands from one clan to another in accordance with the concept of “revolutionary change of dynasty” (yixing geming 易姓革命). Such revolutionary change was a frequent occurrence, and even an impoverished beggar could become emperor upon taking the Dragon Throne. The Japanese throne was passed down in hereditary fashion, and it was indeed impossible for someone from outside the bloodline to become emperor, but claims of “unbroken lineage” are

286  L. JIANG ET AL.

suspect. It is widely accepted that the portions of the imperial lineages of the Kiki texts prior to the fifteenth emperor, Ōjin, are highly unreliable, and subsequent portions too present problems. For instance, the forty-eighth monarch, Empress Shōtoku, and the forty-ninth, Emperor Kōnin, are, respectively, the fifth- and third-generation descendants of the thirty-fourth emperor, Jomei, descended from different family lines, but ritsuryō system regulations prevented the throne from passing to relatives beyond fifth-degree kin. On December 23, 2001, Emperor Akihito, then aged sixty-eight, made the following statement regarding the fiftieth emperor, Kanmu: “Emperor Kanmu’s biological mother was a descendant of King Munyeong of Baekje. This fact, recorded in Nihon shoki, gives me the sense that our fate is intertwined with that of Korea.” Indeed, it is apparent based upon many similar entries in Nihon shoki that the Korean peninsula played an important role in the imperial succession process. For instance, Nihon shoki records that Emperor Jomei ordered “the construction of a great palace” on the banks of a river in Baekje. The text further states, “Year thirteen [641], winter, tenth month: The emperor passed away in the palace in Baekje. He was temporarily buried to the north of the palace in what is referred to as the Great Temporary Burial Hall of Baekje.” It is on this basis that a number of Korean scholars assert emphatically that the origins of the “Japanese kings” (as Korean scholars continue to refer to the emperors) can be traced to the Korean peninsula. It is also on this basis that, in Japan, Mizuno Tasuku has proposed the theory that the Japanese court was taken over by Korea (specifically that Emperor Ōjin’s court was of foreign origin, dispatched from the Korean peninsula to subjugate Japan) and that Egami Namio has proposed that Japan was conquered by an equestrian tribe (specifically that Emperor Sujin came from Korea to invade Kyūshū, and his descendant Emperor Ōjin expanded from Kyūshū to Kinai). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the lineage of the Japanese emperors remained unbroken much longer than that of their Chinese counterparts. Throughout ancient Chinese history, the emperor was nominally the supreme ruler, as epitomized by the grandiose declaration, “I am all under heaven.” In fact, however, it often happened that emperors delegated authority to others or lost it to subordinates, that the fathers or female relatives of emperors took over as dictators, or that chancellors or functionaries became “subordinate to the one [the emperor] but superior to the ten-thousand [the masses].” Despots terrorized both court and commoners, and intense, brutal struggles for power were common

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

287

within the court. In Japan, the age of myth came to a close, and flesh and blood historical emperors became, for a time, the supreme leaders of the state. Subsequently, particular regimes flourished and fell, gained and lost power, and cases of cloistered rule, and of dictatorial regimes controlled by female relatives of the emperor, were many. In the Middle Ages, the shogun took charge of government, reducing the emperor’s status within the Japanese feudal system to that of a merely religious or symbolic figure. The early Japanese emperors occupied a position within the innermost core of state authority, and it was for this reason that, as in China, bitter struggles for power occurred so frequently within the court. In the Middle Ages, the emperors were stripped of actual authority over government, and the power struggles diminished considerably in intensity. In the Bakumatsu period (the final years of the Edo period in the mid-1800s 幕末), however, Emperor Kōmei again entered into a struggle for substantive control of government which some believe resulted in his assassination by poisoning. A comparison of the Forbidden City in Beijing and the Imperial Palace in Kyoto shows clearly the differences in political culture between the two countries, with the former emphasizing “grandiose beauty” and the latter emphasizing “austere beauty.” This grandiose beauty is a reflection of the unified will of the great imperial authority at the center of East Asia, while this austere beauty is a manifestation of the enterprising spirit of an independent imperial authority at the region’s eastern periphery. In spite of these external differences, however, the Chinese and Japanese emperors maintained identical ruling ideologies, employing Confucianism, Buddhism, and the Way as tools of governance. Of course, these various ideologies received different emphases in different time periods. The “Way” (Chinese: dao, Japanese: dō or tō 道) here refers to both Chinese Daoism (Daojiao 道教) and Japanese Shinto (神道). The names are linked by the shared use of the character 道, a phenomenon that merits further investigation. Once Japan was unified under the emperor’s authority, it became necessary to support imperial rule through a religion permitting the divinization of the emperor. The struggle between Daoism and Buddhism on the Chinese mainland and the development of Daoism had an important influence upon Japan. However, because Buddhism did not furnish an appropriate framework for the deification of the emperor, the Soga clan of Buddhist evangelists was persecuted, and reformers inspired by the Tang emperors’ use of Daoism to consolidate authority fused Daoist

288  L. JIANG ET AL.

teachings and rituals with indigenous Japanese religious beliefs and legends of the imperial family. This resulted in a body of myth which gradually transformed through further human intervention into Shinto, a faith focused on veneration of the emperor. The term “Shinto” originates from the following passage in The Book of Changes: “Witnessing the way of the gods [shendao 神道] in heaven, the four seasons turn without error. The sage spreads teachings in accordance with the way of the gods, and all under heaven submit.” Historical classics state that not only did The Book of Changes enter Japan and become the subject of serious study early on, other Daoist classics flowed continuously into Japan, and many of their teachings had an important influence upon the creation of the body of Japanese state myth proclaiming the emperor’s divinity. One of the foundations of Chinese traditional culture, Daoism is an extremely varied body of belief which can broadly be separated into the following four categories: (1) philosophy and ideology, including philosophical Daoism (Daojia 道家), Xuanxue (a metaphysical philosophy of the Six Dynasties 玄学), and yin-yang cosmology; (2) science and technology, including occult sciences, astrology, and medical sciences; (3) ceremonies and customs, including rituals, beliefs concerning immortals, and holidays; (4) sects and institutions, including Daoist temples, the Daoist canon, and various schools of thought. The “Philosophical Daoism” (“Dōka” 道家) entry of Catalog of All Extant Books in Japan (891), a work compiled by Fujiwara no Sukeyo on the emperor’s orders, catalogs 62 texts in 458 volumes including Laozi, Zhuangzi, The Master Who Embraces Simplicity, Guang Cheng zi (Master Guang Cheng 广 成子), He Guan Zi (Master Pheasant Cap 鹖冠子), and Scripture of Uppermost Heaven (Taixiao langshu 太霄琅书); if texts in the “School of Strategy” (“Heika” 兵家) section (60 texts, 242 volumes), the “School of Astronomy” (“Tenmonka” 天文家) section (85 texts, 461 volumes), the “School of Calendars and Mathematics” (“Rekisūka” 歴数 家) section (54 texts, 167 volumes), the “School of the Five Elements” (“Gogyōka” 五行家) section (54 texts, 167 volumes), and the “School of Medicine” (“Ihōka” 医方家) section (166 texts, 1309 volumes) are counted, the total number of Daoist texts is staggering. Considering the reverence for Daoism on the part of the Tang emperors of the Li clan during the golden age of Sino-Japanese exchange when the missions to Tang began, it would have been unusual for the Japanese not to have taken an interest in Daoism. According to the entry for the fourteenth year of the reign of Emperor Kinmei (553) in Nihon shoki, Japan sent

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

289

envoys to Baekje to request that specialists in medicine, divination, and calendrical systems be sent to Japan, and the following year, Baekje fulfilled the request by sending the si-deok Wang Do-yang, a scholar of divination, the go-deok Wang Bo-son, a scholar of calendar-making, and the nae-ryul Jun Ta, a scholar of medicine, among others. This demonstrates that the entry of divination and divination scholars into Japan is a matter of historical fact. It is not necessarily the case that such texts did not circulate in Japan prior to the era of the missions to Sui and Tang simply because they are no longer extant. It is likely that such texts were indeed transmitted to Japan but were subsequently destroyed. Though it is impossible to know for certain, large numbers of classic texts may have been destroyed by Soga no Emishi during the Taika Reforms, or Japanese rulers may have followed the example of Qin Shihuang and burned such texts in order to control public opinion following the publication of the Kiki texts. It is clear that Daoism was transmitted to Japan at least as early as the Yayoi Period. It is generally believed that the “way of demons [gui dao 鬼道]”2 practiced by Queen Himiko was in some way connected with Zhang Lu, said to have “instructed the people in the way of demons while proclaiming himself a gentleman and an example to imitate.”3 In fact, the description of Zhang Lu’s mother, said to have “possessed good looks and practiced the way of demons,”4 suggests a still stronger connection. The Han dynasty shenshoujing mirrors excavated from Yayoi period ruins had by this time transmitted knowledge of Daoism to Japan in fragmentary fashion. Among the effects buried with the dead were numerous sankakubuchi shinjūkyō mirrors, demonstrating that the Japanese were familiar with images of Daoist deities such as Dongwangfu and Xiwangmu. However, it appears that Daoist ideology was first accepted into Japan under Prince Shōtoku, then adopted by the royal family under Empress Saimei in the mid-seventh century, after which it served as the spiritual foundation upon which Japanese governmental systems were constructed under every emperor from Emperor Tenji to Emperor Tenmu. Prince Shōtoku’s regency began in 593. Nihon Shoki describes the prince’s education as follows: “He understood what was to happen in the future. He studied the inner teachings with a monk from Goguryeo named Hyeja and the outer teachings with a scholar named Kakga, gaining great proficiency in both.” Here, the term “inner teachings” refers to Buddhism, the term “outer teachings” refers to Confucianism and

290  L. JIANG ET AL.

Daoism, and the phrase “he understood what was to happen in the future” refers to the prince’s proficiency in divination. Prince Shōtoku’s facility with the three doctrines—that is, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism—provided him with an ideological foundation for administering state affairs. Biography of Prince Shōtoku (Jōgū Shōtoku Hōōtei setsu 上宮聖徳太子 法王帝説) also describes the prince’s education, stating that he “grasped the import of the three esoteric texts and the five classics and was wellversed in the ways of astronomy and geography.” The term “three esoteric texts” refers to Laozi, Zhuangzi, and The Book of Changes.5 In the Wei-Jin period, those who studied these texts were referred to as qingtanjia (literally “pure talkers,” a school of metaphysical and philosophical inquiry 清谈家). Zhao Yi states in his work Notes on the Twenty-Two Histories (Nian’er shi zhaji 廿二史劄记) that “the pure talkers of the Six Dynasties always used animal hair dusters [chenwei 尘尾],” and thus “pure talkers” later came to be referred to as “dust talkers.” Various histories of the Southern Dynasties also state that monks held dusters while expounding upon scripture. It is worth noting that Prince Shōtoku also held such a tool while expounding upon scripture. See the entry for the seventh month of Suiko 14 (606) in Chronicles of Prince Shōtoku (Shōtoku Taishi denryaku 聖徳太子伝歴) (917): “The empress instructed the prince as follows: ‘I have heard many Buddhist sermons and explications of many scriptures, but never have I been taught the Srimala Sutra (Shōmangyō 勝鬘経). Now, come before me and instruct me in its doctrine.’ The prince addressed the empress: ‘Allow me some time to write a commentary and think upon its principles. I have not yet mastered it.’ He spent five or six days reading the scripture, and on the tenth, seated himself on his master’s throne with an animal hair duster in his hand.” Origins and Record of the Assets of Hōryū-ji Temple (Hōryū-ji engi narabi ni shizai chō 法隆寺縁起并資財帳) (761) records that this duster “has a lacquered shaft shaped like a bamboo stalk with a silver tip, and comes with a case. Its outside portion is painted and its inside portion is lacquered with cinnabar”; the duster has survived to the present day. In 603, Prince Shōtoku instituted the Twelve-Level Cap and Rank System. Zhang Chujin’s early Tang dynasty work Garden of Writings cites Comprehensive Treatise on Geography (Kuo di zhi 括地志) as follows: “The officials of the kingdom of Wo are divided into twelve ranks. The first is called Mahitokimi [麻卑兜吉寐], or in Chinese, Dade [Great Virtue 大德]. The second is called Lesser Virtue, the third is called

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

291

Greater Benevolence, the fourth is called Lesser Benevolence, the fifth is called Greater Righteousness, the sixth is called Lesser Righteousness, the seventh is called Greater Propriety, the eighth is called Lesser Propriety, the ninth is called Greater Wisdom, the tenth is called Lesser Wisdom, the eleventh is called Greater Sincerity, and the twelfth is called Lesser Sincerity.” According to the text, the Chinese characters “大德” are read “Mahitokimi.” “Kimi” (here written “吉寐”) is the Japanese reading of the Chinese character “君 (gentleman)”; it appears that the characters “麻卑兜” were read “mahito,” perhaps meaning “true man (真人),” and thus “Mahitokimi” appears to mean “true gentleman (真 人君).”6 The above Chinese term for “true man” originates from “The Most Venerated Master” (“Da zongshi” 大宗师) chapter of Zhuangzi,7 and was a title awarded by the emperor to recognize the recipient’s outstanding attainments as a Daoist practitioner. Prince Shōtoku’s choice of this title for the highest class of officials demonstrates that he was wellversed in Daoism. In the fourth month of 604, Prince Shōtoku instituted The SeventeenArticle Constitution, which cites classic Chinese texts extensively. For instance, the tenth article includes the phrase “if the other is correct, then I am in error, and if I am correct, then the other is in error,” which is reminiscent of the wording and content of the “this and that, true and false” passage of the “Setting Things in Order” (“Qiwu lun” 齐物论) chapter of Zhuangzi. Empress Saimei appears to have been the first Japanese monarch to directly establish ties with Daoism. The entry for Saimei 2 (656) in Nihon shoki records, “Also, a kan [観] stands beside two zelkovas on a hilltop. Thus, it is called Futatsuki no Miya [the Palace of Two Zelkovas 両槻宮], or alternately Amatsumiya [the Palace of Heaven 天宮].” Here, the term “kan” appears to refer to a Daoist temple (Dōkan 道観), and it is for this reason that the palace is also referred to as “the Palace of Heaven.” In China, the supreme Daoist deity was referred to as “tianhuang” (Japanese: tennō 天皇). As to the use of the title in Japan, the word “tennō” appears three times in the epigraph of the Bhaisajyaguru statue in Kondō Hall, Hōryū-ji Temple, constructed in Suiko 15 (607); in addition, it appears in the early seventh century “Embroidered Curtain of the Mandala of the Land of Eternal Life” (“Tenjukoku mandara shūchō” 天寿国曼荼羅繍帳); Yachū-ji Temple in Fujii City, Osaka Prefecture has a bronze and gold statue of Maitreya seated in a

292  L. JIANG ET AL.

contemplative pose dated “year hinoetora [666 丙寅], fourth month, eighth day” with the inscription on the pedestal reading “Central Palace Tennō”; the “Fune no Ōgo Epitaph” (“Fune no Ōgo boshi” 船 氏王後墓誌) excavated from Matsuokayama Kofun in Kashiwara City, Osaka Prefecture contains the phrase “the tennō who governs all under heaven” and is dated “year tsuchinoetatsu [戊辰],” believed to refer to the year 668. Based on the phrases “Central Palace Tennō” and “the tennō who governs all under heaven,” it appears that although the word “tennō” had come into use by this time, it was not yet the monarch’s official title. In March 1998, a large number of wooden mokkan writing strips were excavated from the Asukaike Site in Asuka Village, Nara, among them one that can be interpreted to read “天皇聚露弘寅,”8 the first two characters being “tennō,” with an accompanying mokkan reading “year hinotōshi [丁丑],” believed to refer to the sixth year of the reign of Emperor Tenmu (677). This is the earliest known use of the word “tennō” on a mokkan, and the subsequent excavation of a mokkan reading “津皇子 [Tsu no miko, a term that refers to Prince Ōtsu]”9 shows that the words tennō, miko, and even kōgō (皇后 empress) were used together, and there is no doubt that “tennō” had come into use as the monarch’s official title. We read in the “Basic Annals of Gaozong” (“Gaozong benji” 高宗 本纪) section of Old Book of Tang that Emperor Gaozong of Tang, a Daoist, changed the titles “huangdi” and “huanghou” (empress 皇后) to “tianhuang” (Japanese: tennō 天皇) and “tianhou” (天后), respectively, in the eighth month of Xianheng 5 (674). News of the change of the Tang emperor’s title was no less important than a change in reign titles, and had to be promptly reported to neighboring kingdoms10; the news no doubt influenced Emperor Tenmu’s choice of titles. Emperor Tenmu was an adept of Daoist magic. As Nihon shoki puts it, he was “skilled in astrology and the art of invisibility,” and many of the achievements he is supposed to have made are in some way linked with Daoism. For instance, in the Jinshin War (672), during a military march, the emperor saw “a black cloud more than thirty meters long cross the sky” and thereupon “lit a candle and personally took up a chiku [式],” making the following prediction: “This is a sign that the world will split in two, but ultimately I will unite all under heaven!” The term “chiku” refers to a Daoist divination tool made from the wood at the core of a jujube tree which is spun in order to divine good or bad luck. In the fourth year of Emperor Tenmu’s reign (675), the political situation

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

293

stabilized somewhat; at this time, “the first astrological observatory was built” and “the god of wind was worshipped at Tatsuno, Tatsuta.” This entire series of events is closely related to Daoist faith. Also, in Tenmu 14 (685), “Beopjang, a monk from Baekje, and Masuta no Atai Kinshō, a lay Buddhist, were sent to Mino to make an atractylodes decoction.” Atractylodes, a medicinal herb cataloged in Daoist medical texts such as Shennong’s Classic of Herbal Medicine (Shennong bencao jing 神农本草 经), was prized as a panacea by Daoists. In Tenmu 13 (684), the emperor decreed, “The surnames of all the clans shall be further reformed, and the Yakusa no Kabane (Eight Titles 八色の姓) system shall govern all surnames under heaven.” The title “Mahito” applied to the top rank of the system, just as “Mahitokimi” was the highest rank in Prince Shōtoku’s Twelve-Level Cap and Rank System. The conferral of this title, which in Daoism refers to extraordinary adepts who have attained freedom from worldly concerns, was restricted to members of the royal family, further evincing the Japanese emperors’ close relationship with Daoism. The “Eastern Pagoda Epigraph” (“Tōtō satsumei” 東塔檫銘) of Yakushi-ji Temple in Nara metaphorically describes Emperor Tenmu as having “ascended to the realm of the immortals on a dragon chariot” upon his death in 686, and this description as well as the emperor’s posthumous title “Ama no Nunaharaoki no Mahito” (天渟中原瀛真人) are of a strongly Daoist character. The character 瀛 (Japanese: oki, Chinese: ying) refers to Yingzhou (瀛洲), one of the three fabled Daoist isles of the immortals, and “mahito,” as previously stated, refers to high-ranking Daoists. Not only does this title perfectly encapsulate Emperor Tenmu’s thought and religious belief, it also demonstrates the Daoist character of early Japanese state ideology. Generations of Japanese emperors have treasured the “three imperial regalia,” namely the mirror, Yata no Kagami, the sword, Kusanagi no Tsurugi, and the jewel, Yasakani no Magatama. Fukunaga Mitsuji points out that the use of a mirror and sword as sacred implements and symbols of the authority of the “tianhuang” as the supreme Daoist deity originates from two Six Dynasties period texts, Ge Hong’s The Master Who Embraces Simplicity and Tao Hongjing’s Mandate of the Perfected.11 In fact, the character “jewel” or “jade” (玉) also has special significance in Daoism, where it is used often in the names of immortals, such as Yunü (玉女) and Yulang (玉郎); names for the emperor, such as Yuhuang (玉皇) and Yudi (玉帝); names for heaven, such as Yujing (玉京) and

294  L. JIANG ET AL.

Yuqing (玉清); and names for earth, such as Yuque (玉阙) and Yulou (玉楼). According to the “Religion Ordinance” (“Shingi ryō” 神祇令) section of the Yōrō Code (Yōrō ritsuryō 養老律令), at the end of the sixth month and the end of the twelfth month of each year, the palace performed a ceremony called “Ōharae [大祓] in which “the Nakatomi offer up the ōnusa [a type of wooden wand 御祓麻] and the Fubitobe of Yamato and Kawachi offer up the blade of purification and recite a purification incantation. Next, all the officials gather in the place of purification. The Nakatomi recite a purification incantation and the Urabe perform the gejo [解除] cleansing ritual.” The ceremony originates from Emperor Tenmu and is of a strongly Daoist character. The eighth fascicle of Procedures of the Engi Era records the “Incantation Recited by the Fumi no Imikibe of Yamato When Offering the Sword” (“Yamato no Fumi no Imikibe no tachi o tatematsuru toki no ju” 東文忌寸部献横刀時呪): I humbly plead: Supreme sovereign of heaven, great gentlemen of the three poles, celestial bodies, deities of the eight directions, directors of destiny, King Father of the East on the left, Queen Mother of the West on the right, five emperors of the five directions, four energies of the four seasons, I offer up this silver effigy that you might ward off disaster; I offer up this golden sword that you might extend the emperor’s reign. I recite this incantation: From Fusō in the east to Guen in the west, from Enkō in the south to Jakusui in the north, may all the thousand cities and hundred kingdoms be ruled over perfectly for ten thousand years, banzai, banzai.

The incantation is filled with the names of immortals and places drawn from Daoism, and the use of “silver effigies” to ward off disaster is a Daoist magical technique. In 1980, archaeologists excavated 207 wooden human effigies from the Nara period Heijō-kyū Mibumon site; these may have been used in the Ōharae ceremony in place of “silver effigies.”12 In June 2003, six bronze effigies with line engravings were excavated from the Fujiwara-kyō site. Based on the dates on the mokkan excavated along with the effigies, they can be dated to approximately Wadō 2 (709). Additionally, every New Year’s Day, the court performed a ceremony called “Shihōhai” (四方拝). First, the emperor venerated the star of his birth year, then recited an incantation. The incantation is recorded in

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

295

Palace Protocols (Dairi gishiki 内裏儀式) and Ōe’s Procedures (Gōke shidai 江家次第): Through bandits and thieves, grant me passage. Through venomous demons, grant me passage. Through danger and misfortune, grant me passage. Through poison air, grant me passage. Through armies at war, grant me passage. Through the five dangers and the six evils, grant me passage. May the hundred illnesses be cured. May desires be fulfilled. May my plea be granted without delay.13

It is clear based upon the final line alone, “May my plea be granted without delay,” that the incantation is in the mold of a Daoist incantation used to plead for salvation from disaster. Numerous mokkan reading “May my plea be granted without delay” have been excavated in Japan; it is apparent these were in use not only in the court but also among nobles, and even became part of the folk customs of commoners. The previously mentioned emperor’s title “Tianhuang Dadi” is a reference to the emperor as an earthly incarnation of the Big Dipper, also referred to as the “Primordial Absolute” (Taiyi 太一) or the “Primordial Unity” (Taiyi 太乙). In the late seventh century, the Japanese emperor adopted part of this moniker, “tennō,” as an official title, and belief in the “Primordial Absolute” became widespread. The great sun goddess Amaterasu venerated at Ise Jingū Shrine was female, yet “the Primordial Absolute” was a male deity; how was this contradiction to be resolved? Yoshino Hiroko believes that the Primordial Unity was secretly venerated for generations in the “Hakukankyū” constructed due north of Ise Jingū during the reign of Emperor Tenmu.14 The “Sengū” (迀宮) ceremony performed once every twenty years at Ise Jingū uses numerous mokkan reading “Primordial Unity.” It is said that in the past, boats transported offerings to Ise Jingū from around Japan, bearing flags reading “For the Use of the Venerated Primordial Unity.” Every year on the twenty-fourth of June, as part of the rice-planting ritual called “Otaue Shinji” (御田植神事) performed at Izawanomiya, an auxiliary shrine of Kōtai Jingū Shrine, a large fan reading “Primordial Unity” in black ink stands to the west of the sacred rice field. It is quite clear that, although Daoist schools and institutions were not systematically transmitted to Japan as such, philosophies, ideologies, science, technology, rituals, and customs associated with Daoism nonetheless made their way to Japan. Japanese Shinto assimilated the essence

296  L. JIANG ET AL.

of Daoism, which exerted an undeniable influence upon the political systems and imperial institutions of Japan. While Buddhism was transmitted to Japan in recognizable form, Daoism was transmitted under cover of Shinto. Though it may have appeared that Buddhism had been transmitted to Japan, while Daoism had not, this was an illusion.

2  The Imperial Examination System and Japan In comparing the political systems of ancient China and Japan, systems for selection of officials are worthy of particular note. This section focuses upon the imperial examination system, examining the similarities and differences between systems used to select officials in China and Japan as well as their social impact. The Imperial Examination System in China The imperial examination system was a means of selecting officials which arose as the product of economic, social, and cultural progress. The investigation and recommendation (chaju 察举) system was instituted early on, during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han. Earlier in the Han dynasty, only the descendants of high-ranking officials paid salaries of at least two thousand bushels (dan 石) and the descendants of wealthy non-merchant families with assets of at least 100,000 qian (钱) were able to serve the imperial court as lang (郎) officials; this describes the functioning of the appointment by inheritance (renzi 壬子) system and the appointment based on wealth (zixuan 赀选) system. Many high-ranking officials were the descendants of such officials paid salaries of at least two thousand bushels. Leading commandery and county officials were appointed by the imperial court, while ordinary officials were appointed by senior officials. Under the investigation and recommendation system instituted by Emperor Wu of Han, special Virtuous Excellence (Xianliang 贤良) examinations were administered on an as-needed basis to candidates nominated by the emperor, and regular Filial Uprightness (Xiaolian 孝廉) examinations were administered to candidates nominated by commandery governments. Emperor Wu also established a university in the capital where fifty apprentices trained under masters, and those who completed their studies and passed examinations were granted official posts. Thus, even ordinary citizens could obtain official posts through the investigation and recommendation system or through

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

297

schooling. No longer were official posts awarded to hereditary nobles; now, ordinary citizens could gain such posts based on merit. From the mid-Eastern Han dynasty onward, the bulk of the official positions awarded through the investigation and recommendation system and through conscription went to powerful aristocratic families. In the Wei-Jin dynasty, such practices developed into the nine-rank system (jiupin zhongzheng zhi 九品中正制). Although those qualified to take up official positions were still required to go through the examination and conscription procedures that had been in place since the Han dynasty in order to gain those positions, family status was the foremost condition for selection through the investigation and recommendation system as well as through conscription. Thus, family status became a prerequisite for serving in officialdom. From the Northern and Southern dynasties period onward, as powerful noble families declined, it was once again proposed that official posts be granted based on ability. The investigation and recommendation system rose again to prominence. In the Northern and Southern dynasties period, systems for nominating officials in categories such as Outstanding Talent (Xiucai 秀才) and Filial Uprightness (Xiaolian 孝 廉) were revived, and a system for nominating officials in the Expert in the Classics (Mingjing 明经) category was instituted. Simultaneously, private schools proliferated, and the Guozixue (国子学) imperial academy began admitting commoners. Emperor Wen, founder of the Sui dynasty, abolished the nine-rank system as well as the conscription of candidates for lower-level regional positions by senior regional officials. All officials, including lower-level regional officials, were appointed by the central government. The appointment of officials was no longer restricted by family status. Regulations instituted in the first month Kaihuang 7 (587) stated that each province was to put forth three candidates annually and officially instituted regular annual examinations. Outstanding Talent and Expert in the Classics were the main categories of the regular examinations instituted under Emperor Wen of Sui. In the Wei, Qi, Liang, and Chen dynasties, the Outstanding Talent examination tested candidates mainly on literary talent. After the Northern Zhou dynasty toppled the Northern Qi, in Xuanzheng 1 (578), Emperor Xuan issued an edict stating, “Outstanding Talent refers to outstanding scholars recommended by prefectures,”15 making scholarly merit the standard for nominating Outstanding Talent candidates. In the Sui

298  L. JIANG ET AL.

dynasty, Outstanding Talent candidates were “tested on knowledge of government policy,”16 instituting knowledge of politics as a further requirement. When Emperor Yang of Sui took the throne, he maintained the Outstanding Talent and Expert in the Classics categories and established a new Imperial Scholar (Jinshi 进士) category, in addition to continuing to test candidates on Filial Uprightness. Following several centuries of evolution as described above, the imperial examination system transformed under Emperor Yang of Sui into a complete, structured system with multiple levels in which candidates were tested on a range of subjects, furnishing the state with a mechanism for appointing officials based solely on scholarly merit. Thus, the imperial examination system gradually metamorphosed from the rudimentary investigation and recommendation system into the main system for selecting officials from the Tang dynasty onward. The Tang dynasty system for selecting officials is referred to as the xuanju (选举) system. The character xuan means “choose,” and the character ju means “nominate”; together, they refer to what is generally called the imperial examination system. Schools were also a part of this system for selecting officials. The Tang government trained personnel through schools at a variety of levels, selected talented candidates by examination, and awarded official posts based on the results. On the first day of the fourth month of Wude 7 (624), Emperor Gaozu of Tang issued a new series of regulations. Among twenty-seven ordinances in thirty volumes, the tenth ordinance is the “Ordinance on Selection and Nomination” (“Xuanju ling” 选举令) and the eleventh is the “Ordinance on Assessment of Officials” (“Kao ke ling” 考课令); with this, the xuanju system took on its final, established form. There were three ways an official could be selected to serve in the Tang court. The first was menyin (an inheritance-based selection method 门荫): the children and grandchildren of officials of fifth rank or above could obtain official posts of various levels depending upon the rankings of their fathers or grandfathers. Unlike family status, this was a special privilege granted to the descendants of high-ranking court officials. The second was zase ruliu (the promotion of miscellaneous minor officials into the rank hierarchy 杂色入流), a process which mainly involved the promotion of minor liuwai (流外) central government officials to ranked positions. Candidates who successfully passed an assessment could take

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

299

part in the quanxuan (铨选) process for selecting officials. The third was the imperial examination system. In the Tang dynasty, officials of fifth rank and above were nominated by the Ministry of Civil Appointment (Libu 吏部). The chancellors then deliberated, and if the candidate passed, the emperor was requested to approve the appointment. Fascicle 2 of The Six Statutes of the Tang Dynasty, “Imperial Secretariat Ministry of Civil Appointment” (“Shangshu Libu” 尚书吏部), states, “When a candidate is nominated for a position of fifth rank or above, he shall be sent to the Palace Chancellery [Zhongshu Menxia 中书门下] for approval, and upon approval, shall be awarded the post.” This describes the system that existed after the Palace Chancellery replaced the Office of Administrative Affairs (Zhengshitang 政事堂) in Kaiyuan 11 (723); prior to this, the chancellors deliberated in the Office of Administrative Affairs. Candidates thus awarded posts of fifth rank and above were not required to undergo examinations. However, such candidates would have undergone an examination upon assuming each rank prior to the fifth. Also, as chancellors deliberated upon appointments and only then recommended candidates for approval by the emperor, candidates’ scholarly merit and career achievements were evaluated rigorously. Special regulations applied to appointments to third and fifth rank. From the Wude era to the Qianfeng era (618–668), a third rank position was a special privilege not often granted to ordinary officials. Appointments to fifth rank were made based on the results of the quanxuan process; those candidates who passed at the lower subordinate fifth rank level were recommended to the emperor for approval. The annual number of appointees was restricted, but no restrictions were placed upon the number of assessments qualified candidates were required to undergo. Regulations regarding the number of assessments were first instated under Emperor Wu Zetian, and thereafter the number of required assessments progressively increased. The number of assessments required of a fifth rank candidate was increased from eight to twelve, and then, in the Kaiyuan era, to sixteen, and candidates were required to reside in the living quarters for officials of sixth rank and higher and to hold upper superior sixth rank. The number of assessments required of a third rank candidate was increased from twenty-five to thirty, and candidates were required to reside in the living quarters for officials of fourth rank and higher and to hold upper superior fourth rank. This demonstrates that restrictions on the promotion of the descendants of

300  L. JIANG ET AL.

high officials who had entered officialdom through menyin were gradually tightened. The Imperial Secretariat (Shangshusheng 尚书省) was responsible for the appointment of candidates of sixth rank and lower. Within the Secretariat, the Ministry of Civil Appointment was responsible for the appointment of civil officials, and the Ministry of War (Bingbu 兵部) was responsible for the appointment of military officials; this is what is referred to as the quanxuan process. The Tang court implemented a rule requiring officials to be promoted consecutively through the rank hierarchy. Only jiancha yushi (监察御 史), zuo shiyi (左拾遗), you shiyi (右拾遗), dali pingshi (大理评事), officials of imperial domains such as the cheng (丞), bu (簿), and wei (尉) of counties near the capital, and qingwang (清望) officials were able to skip ranks, provided they had served in at least three positions and undergone at least ten assessments. Those not considered to be qingliu (prestigious functionaries 清流), including those from liuwai and shipin (视 品) backgrounds, could not be appointed qingzi (清资) officials. Among these, head secretaries of the Central Secretariat (Zhongshusheng 中书省), Chancellery (Menxiasheng 门下省) clerks, and Imperial Secretariat office administrators who had served as kaoci (考词)/shizhuang (使状), were honest, experienced, virtuous, skilled in speech and calligraphy, intelligent, and capable as officials, and had undergone at least sixteen assessments and were able to serve as qingzi officials such as tingnisi (听拟寺), jiancheng (监丞), zuowei (左卫), youwei (右卫), and jinwu changshi (金吾 长史).17 In the Tang dynasty, the huibi (回避) system was instituted to avoid conflicts of interest in appointing officials. “Those engaged in related positions in the same government office may not have a family relationship closer than third degree kinship [dagong 大功], nor may supervisors have such a relationship with subordinates in the same office.”18 The quanxuan process began from the first third to the final third of the tenth month of the year, and ended in the third month of the following year. Regardless of a candidate’s background, those not awarded official posts following quanxuan assessments were given prestige title (sanguan 散官) positions. Prestige officials from fourth to ninth rank served in shifts at the Ministry of Civil Appointment and the Ministry of War. Each shift lasted forty-five days. If the Ministry of State Affairs (Dusheng 都省) needed an envoy to deliver a directive or a department of the

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

301

ministry needed an envoy, prestige officials at the Ministry of War and the Ministry of Civil Appointment were drawn upon to fill these needs. After serving two shifts, candidates were allowed to again take part in the quanxuan process; those who failed went back to serving shifts, up to a maximum of six times. The Tang court established the Hongwenguan (弘文馆) academy under the Chancellery, and the Left Secretariat of the Crown Prince (Taizi Zuochunfang 太子左春坊) established the Chongwenguan (崇文 馆) academy; these schools took in the children and grandchildren of the emperor, chancellors, Imperial Secretariat officials and certain high officials of third rank and higher as students. Six schools were established under the Imperial Academy (Guozijian 国子监), with each accepting certain strictly defined classes of students. Among these, Guozixue taught the children and grandchildren of civil and military officials of third rank and above as well as those of imperial dukes; Taixue (太学) taught the descendants of officials of fourth and fifth rank and above as well as those of commandery dukes and county dukes; Simenxue (四门学) taught the descendants of sixth and seventh rank officials in addition to the children of marquis, earls, and barons and the descendants of certain commoners. The students of the Guozixue, Taixue, and Simenxue were required to study two Confucian scriptures, and after passing examinations, were recommended to take the gongju (贡举) examination of the Imperial Secretariat. Tang dynasty imperial examinations consisted of regular examinations (changke 常科) and special examinations held upon the emperor’s request (zhike 制科). There were six types of regular examinations, Outstanding Talent, Expert in the Classics, Imperial Scholar, Expert in Law (Mingfa 明 法), Expert in Calligraphy (Mingshu 明书), and Expert in Mathematics (Mingsuan 明算). Both students of state schools and independent applicants from provinces and counties, referred to as xianggong (乡贡), took part in regular examinations. The Expert in the Classics examination required proficiency in two Confucian scriptures. In the beginning of the Tang dynasty, the Imperial Scholar examination consisted of five ce (a type of essay 策) items on contemporary affairs. Under Emperor Gaozong of Tang, it was decided that items on miscellaneous texts (zawen 杂文) and tie xiaojing (items on which an examinee was presented with an excerpt from a classic text and

302  L. JIANG ET AL.

required to reproduce the rest of the passage 帖小经) items would be added to the Imperial Scholar examination. Under Emperor Zhongzong, a three-part examination was instituted. According to the “Duties of the Assistant Minister” (“Shilang zhi zhi” 侍郎之职) entry of Fascicle 4 of The Six Statutes of the Tang Dynasty, “Imperial Secretariat Ministry of Rites” (“Shangshu Libu” 尚书礼部), “Experts in the Classics first reproduce classic texts, then complete two items on miscellaneous texts and five ce items on contemporary affairs. For a candidate to pass, the miscellaneous texts must be both beautiful and substantive, and the ce essays must be well-argued and relevant.” This describes the system that existed in approximately the Kaiyuan era. The earliest miscellaneous texts were in styles with which scholars were familiar, such as zhen (箴), biao (表), ming (铭), and fu (赋); from the Tianbao era (742–756) on, only the shi (诗) poetry style and the fu style were used. In the Tang dynasty, those who passed the Imperial Scholar or Expert in the Classics examination were qualified to serve as officials but were not automatically granted positions. In order to enter officialdom, they were required to pass a quanxuan assessment and a further quanshi (铨 试) examination at the Ministry of Civil Appointment. Successful examinees were assigned official ranks as follows: “Those who pass the Outstanding Talent examination at the upper superior level [shang shang di 上上第] are granted upper superior eighth rank [zheng ba pin shang 正八品上]; those with results at each level below this until upper intermediate level are granted lower inferior eighth rank [cong ba pin xia 从八品下]. Experts in the Classics examinees are level three, beneath Outstanding Talent. Those who pass the Imperial Scholar and Expert in Law examinations at level A [jia di 甲第] are granted upper inferior ninth rank [cong jiu pin shang 从九品上]; those who qualify at level B [yidi 乙第] are one rank below this. Those with excellent family connections [benyin 本荫] who pass the Outstanding Talent or Expert in the Classics examination at the superior level [shang di 上第] are granted four additional family connection ranks; the number of additional ranks granted decreases by one as the level of results decreases. Those certified as proficient in two or more classic texts on the Expert in the Classics examination are granted one additional rank per text.”19 Examinations held upon the emperor’s request covered material determined by the emperor. Examinations were offered on a wide range of subjects, such as the Skillful Governance (Caikan Jingbang 才堪经邦) examination and the Literature and State Administration (Wenyi Jingguo

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

303

文以经国) examination. Both ordinary citizens and those currently serving in official positions could take these examinations. Up to the Kaiyuan era of the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, a candidate had to be recommended to take part, but from the Kaiyuan era onward, candidates could “self-nominate,” that is, independently register to participate. Regulations stated that after passing the examination, commoners who “receive outstanding scores on composition sections are immediately granted prestigious positions. Those who pass at lower levels are granted the qualification to enter officialdom.” Those currently serving in official positions were given immediate promotions.20 In the Tang dynasty, the imperial examination system was just one of several methods used to select officials. In different time periods, the system played different roles in the selection of officials and the training of personnel. In the early Tang dynasty, the number of people who enrolled in imperial examinations each year was low, and extremely few entered officialdom through this route. Menyin and zase ruliu were the means by which the vast majority of officials gained their positions. This remained the case until the reign of Emperor Xianzong of Tang (806–820), during which the majority of chancellors and high-ranking officials were qualified as Imperial Scholars, and the Imperial Scholar examination became the main source of high-ranking officials. This marked the beginning of a new era in the history of the ancient Chinese official service system and imperial examination system. In the Northern Song dynasty (960–1107), the imperial examination system of the Tang dynasty and Five Dynasties period remained in use, but took on unique characteristics. In Kaibao 8 (975), the palace examination (dianshi 殿试), which was personally administered by the emperor, was officially instituted. To prevent favoritism, in the third year of the Chunhua era of the reign of Emperor Taizong (992), examination officers instituted the suoyuan (锁院) system. For the duration of examinations, examination officers were not permitted to leave the examination grounds, nor to meet with their relatives, friends, or other officials. From Chunhua 3 onward, palace examination packets were sealed. Later, departmental examinations (shengshi 省试) and prefectural examinations (zhoushi 州试) were also required to be sealed. Additionally, under Emperor Zhenzong, the tenglu (誊录) system was instituted. Under this system, candidates’ examination papers were first transcribed by clerks, then submitted to examination officers for evaluation.

304  L. JIANG ET AL.

Beginning in the Taiping Xingguo era of the reign of Emperor Taizong of Song (976–980), successful Imperial Scholar candidates were assigned one of three ranks depending upon examination performance, jinshi jidi (进士及第), jinshi chushen (进士出身), or tong jinshi chushen (同进士出身), and were immediately granted official posts depending upon their ranking in the examination results.21 The top three performers were quickly promoted through the ranks of officialdom. The majority of high officials belonged to the jinshi chushen rank. The ideal of selecting officials based on scholarly merit was fully realized in the Northern Song dynasty. In the Northern Song dynasty, greater numbers of candidates were recruited through the examination system. Those who failed to pass after taking the examination numerous times were, depending upon age and number of attempts, specially commended by the Ministry of Rites and allowed to immediately take the palace examination. Candidates were awarded jidi or chushen status and granted specific official posts whether or not they passed. The leaders of the Song dynasty not only used the examination system to select officials, they also began using it to consciously adjust the hierarchical order, allowing a greater number of scholar-officials into the orbit of the imperial court. The Ming dynasty imperial examination system emulated that of the Yuan and involved three levels of examinations, academy examinations (yuanshi 院试), regional examinations (xiangshi 乡试)/central examinations (huishi 会试), and palace examinations. Only successful examination candidates from local schools and students of the Imperial Academy could take part in imperial examinations. The purpose of schools thus became preparing students for imperial examinations. The Qing dynasty imperial examination system generally resembled that of the Ming, but with more restrictive requirements. For instance, the format of eight-part essays (baguwen 八股文) was stricter, and a limit was placed on the number of characters. Emulation of the Chinese Imperial Examination System in Japan The Taika Reforms were a time when the Japanese intensively studied and emulated every aspect of Tang Chinese political ideology, systems, regulations, science, and technology; the imperial examination system was no exception.

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

305

It is apparent based upon the 701 Taihō Code and the 757 Yōrō Code (Yōrō ritsuryō 養老律令) that in the Nara period, in order to train officials, Japan established central universities under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Education (Daigakuryō 大学寮) as well as provincial schools managed by provincial governors across Japan. Under the codes, the capacity of each university was set at four hundred students, and in order to be eligible for admittance, students had to be children or grandchildren of bureaucrats of fifth rank or higher or descendants of “the Fuhitobe of Yamato and Kawachi,”22 a clan of immigrants from continental Asia who had long served the imperial court as clerks. In principle, if the descendants of lower-level bureaucrats of sixth to eighth rank wished to attend university, they could also do so. The capacity of provincial schools was based upon the size of the province: fifty students for very large provinces, forty students for large provinces, thirty students for medium-sized provinces, and twenty students for small provinces. In all cases, the descendants of local magistrates were eligible for admission. Students ranged in age from thirteen to sixteen and were subject to rigorous annual examinations. Terms of schooling lasted up to nine years, and top performers were allowed to take part in the national examination. As candidates put forward by provincial schools were referred to as kōjin (貢人) and those put forward by universities were referred to as kyojin (挙人), the national examination was referred to as kōkyo (Chinese: gongju 貢挙), the same name used by the Tang court. The purpose of the kōkyo examination was to select officials. In accordance with the weight of this mission, the ritsuryō state instituted a series of laws setting forth specific regulations. Kōkyo examinations were administered directly by the Ministry of Ceremonies (a body corresponding to the Tang dynasty Ministry of Civil Appointment) and took place from the tenth month to the eleventh month of each year.23 Kōjin candidates from provincial schools were required not only to pass provincial school examinations, but also to be recommended by senior local officials.24 The examination process was as follows: “All kōkyo examinees are given examination papers at five o’clock in the morning and required to hand them in the same day. The examination is administered by the Ministry of Ceremonies. Examinees who fail to complete the examination within the time limit are disqualified. Upon completion, examinations are graded by senior officials of this bureau, and the results are then announced.”25

306  L. JIANG ET AL.

The subjects and evaluation standards of kōkyo examinations were essentially the same as those of Tang court examinations, with subjects including Outstanding Talent (Shūsai 秀才), Expert in the Classics (Myōgyō 明経), Imperial Scholar (Shinshi 進士), and Expert in Law (Myōbō明法). The Outstanding Talent examination consisted of “two shaku (Chinese: ce 策) items on government policy,” fewer than the five of the Tang court examination; “Examinations that are excellent in quality of prose and in reasoning are graded as upper superior [jōjō 上上]; those that are excellent in quality of prose but average in reasoning or average in quality of prose but excellent in reasoning are graded as intermediate superior [jōchū上中]; those that are average in quality of prose and reasoning are graded as lower superior [jōge 上下]; those that are adequate in quality of prose and reasoning are graded as upper intermediate [chūjō中上]. Those that are inferior in quality of prose and below average in reasoning are failed.”26 The Expert in the Classics examination consisted of “four items on The Rites of Zhou, The Zuo Commentary (Zuo zhuan 左传), The Book of Rites, and Mao’s Book of Songs, three items on other classic texts, and three items on Classic of Filial Piety and The Analects.” On an examination consisting of ten items in total, those who passed all ten received upper superior grade, those who passed at least eight received intermediate superior grade, those who passed seven received lower superior grade, and those who passed six received upper intermediate grade. The Imperial Scholar examination consisted of “two shaku items on contemporary affairs,” fewer than the five of the Tang court examination, and items requiring reproduction of texts from memory (seven passages from the first ten fascicles of Literary Selections and three passages from Approaching Elegance). Those who passed both shaku items and successfully reproduced all the passages received the grade of A (kō 甲), those who passed both shaku items and successfully reproduced at least six passages received the grade of B (otsu 乙), and all others were failed. The Expert in Law examination was identical to that of the Tang court. It consisted of “ten items on penal regulations and ordinances.” Those who passed all the items received the grade of A, those who passed at least eight received the grade of B, and those who passed seven or fewer were failed. According to the regulations of the “Recruitment and Promotion Ordinance” (“Senjō ryō” 選叙令), officials were to be selected from among successful examinees. The criteria for selection were as follows: “Selection of Outstanding Talent candidates is based upon scholarly

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

307

merit, selection of Expert in the Classics candidates is based upon mastery of two or more classic texts, selection of Imperial Scholar candidates is based upon familiarity with contemporary affairs and reproduction of selections from Literary Selections and Approaching Elegance, and selection of Expert in Law candidates is based upon familiarity with penal regulations and ordinances. All candidates must be upstanding individuals of good moral character, and must have excellent reputations as well as behavior.”27 At the time, the procedure for appointing court officials involved assigning first a court ranking, followed by an official position. Successful Outstanding Talent examinees were assigned the highest rankings, that is, upper superior eighth rank (shō hachii no jō 正八位上) for those who passed the examination at the upper superior level, and lower superior eighth rank (shō hachii no ge 正八位下) for those who passed the examination at the intermediate superior level; Experts in the Classics, Imperial Scholars, and Experts in Law were accorded progressively lower status, that is, lower superior eighth rank for Experts in the Classics who passed at the upper superior level and upper inferior eighth rank (ju hachii no jō 従八位上) for those who passed at the intermediate superior level; lower inferior eighth rank (ju hachii no ge 従八位下) for Imperial Scholars who passed at level A, upper greater initial rank (daishoi no jō 大 初位上) for Imperial Scholars who passed at level B and Experts in Law who passed at level A, and lower greater initial rank (daishoi no ge 大初位 下) for Experts in Law who passed at level B. A close look at the Japanese kōkyo examination system and official selection process reveals that although the details of implementation differed slightly from Sui and Tang China, and subsequently a number of changes did take place, in general, implementation procedures were quite similar to those of Tang China. It is thus clear that during the ritsuryō period, Japan was influenced by Sui and Tang Chinese institutions, and did in fact use an examination system to recruit officials. Simply put, the assertion that Japan never implemented imperial examinations runs counter to historical fact. It cannot be denied, however, that the examination system never flourished in Japan, and its tenure as a means of selecting officials was brief. It is apparent based upon an Enryaku 21 (802) memorial from the Department of State that, during the century following the 701 proclamation of the Taihō Code and the establishment of the kōkyo system, only a few dozen candidates passed the Outstanding Talent and Expert in the Classics examinations, the two most important examinations.28

308  L. JIANG ET AL.

Additionally, according to Collection of Excerpts from Government Directives (Ruijūfu senshō 類聚符宣抄),29 for a period of more than 230 years, from the Keiun period (704–707) to the Jōhei period (931– 938), just sixty-five officials were recruited through the Outstanding Talent examination, which tested examinees on government policy. In 1177, the Bureau of Education was destroyed in a fire, and Japan never again had an examination preparatory institution dedicated to training bureaucrats to serve the state. With this, the imperial examination system itself ceased to play a role in Japanese history. Reasons Why the Japanese Imperial Examination Was Quickly Abolished Why did the Japanese imperial examination system fail to flourish and meet a quick end? In the final analysis, Japanese society proved inhospitable ground for the imperial examination system because of the considerable power and influence of the Japanese nobility. The Chinese imperial examination system was first implemented in the Sui dynasty, in part as a result of the decline of powerful families which had been ongoing since the Wei-Jin and Northern and Southern dynasties period. The emergence of the system dealt a further blow to the monopoly of hereditary nobles over state power, accelerating their decline and ultimate dissolution. This expanded opportunities for landowners of various levels of wealth as well as ordinary commoners to compete under fair conditions for official positions; in this sense, the imperial examination system can be seen as an “equal opportunity” means of selecting officials. The Japanese imperial examination system was implemented at a time when the influence of the nobility was at a peak. Japan had a tradition of powerful nobles as early as the Yamato period, and though their power diminished in the process of the mid-seventh-century Taika Reforms, they did not disappear, instead merely shrinking and splitting. In fact, shortly after the Taika Reforms, nobles again began gaining power. When one group of nobles ceased to exist, another rose to take its place, and the power of the nobility increasingly came to rival that of the imperial family. Also, a series of ritsuryō policies further bolstered the rise of the nobility. Among these policies, those with the most conspicuous effects were the emperor’s granting of surnames to the nobility and the rank and post equivalency system (kan’i sōtōsei 官位相当制).

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

309

The former refers to the emperor’s granting of various surnames to the nobility to reflect their positions within the social hierarchy. Surnames were granted based on family background and descent, particularly a family’s degree of genealogical relationship with the emperor. This system, originally formulated by the court prior to the Taika Reforms in order to maintain social order among clans, was revived by Emperor Tenmu shortly after the Taika Reforms. Although surnames were nominally awarded “based only upon present merit and not advantages granted by heaven,”30 in fact, most of those who were granted surnames were established nobles. The surnames served to secure rankings, official positions, and economic benefits for the established nobility at a time of social change. The rank and post equivalency system was a system by which, in order to consolidate power, the court granted merit-based rankings to court officials, then further assigned official posts based on these rankings.31 In accordance with the principle of “rankings eminent and humble, officials high and low, high positions for the eminent and low positions for the humble,”32 clear regulations addressed which positions were to be granted to officials at which ranks. Among thirty ranks ranging from “superior first rank” (shō ichii 正一位), the highest, to “lower lesser initial rank” (shōshoi no ge 少初位下), the lowest, those of fifth rank and above were referred to as nobles (nobles of third rank and above were referred to as “eminent” [ki 貴] and those of fourth and fifth rank were referred to as “ordinary eminent” [tsūki 通貴]). These nobles monopolized the highest official positions in the court: for instance, only superior first rank and inferior first rank (ju ichii 従一位) officials could serve as grand ministers of state (daijō daijin 太政大臣), and ministers of the left (sadaijin 左大臣) and ministers of the right (udaijin 右大臣) had to belong to superior second rank (shō nii 正二位) or inferior second rank (ju nii 従二位). When nobles gained governmental authority, they simultaneously gained economic benefits such as official salaries, fiefdoms, and exemption from taxes and corvee labor. Such systems accelerated the rise of the nobles and sealed the fate of the imperial examination system. That system, with its basis in a spirit of equality, conflicted severely with the traditions of the nobility, and it was for this reason that it failed to take root in Japan. First, kōkyo participants were nobles and the descendants of officials. Under ritsuryō regulations, only students of universities and provincial schools were qualified to take part in examinations, and these institutions

310  L. JIANG ET AL.

had strict admission requirements: “University students must be the children or grandchildren of officials of fifth rank or above or the children of the Fuhitobe of Yamato and Kawachi,” “Students of provincial schools must be the descendants of local magistrates.” The children of commoners were unqualified even to attend school, much less take part in state examinations as kyojin or kōjin. This meant that every route by which commoners might join officialdom was severed, one of the factors differentiating the eligibility of examination candidates in China and Japan—in Japan, only kyojin from the Bureau of Education and kōjin from provincial schools could take part in examinations, and there was no equivalent to the Chinese xianggong (who were able to take part in provincial and county examinations without first attending school and, if successful, to then take part in the central departmental examination). Second, the recruitment of officials through imperial examinations conflicted directly with the rank inheritance system (on’isei 影位制). Under this system, the descendants of nobles could take up particular positions depending upon their fathers’ and grandfathers’ ranks.33 Under the “Recruitment and Promotion Ordinance,” all nobles of fifth rank and higher were qualified under the rank inheritance system: nobles of third rank and higher could pass their ranks to their grandchildren, the children of nobles of first to fifth rank could obtain ranks from lower inferior fifth rank (ju goi no ge 従五位下) to lower inferior eighth rank, and the grandchildren of nobles from first to third rank could obtain ranks from upper superior sixth rank (shō rokui no jō 正六位上) to upper superior seventh rank (shō shichii no jō 正七位上). Considering that the children of first-rank Tang dynasty officials could obtain only upper superior seventh rank, Japanese nobles received much more favorable treatment than their Chinese counterparts. Naturally, obtaining a rank meant gaining the corresponding position as well as the material benefits associated with that position. Under the rank inheritance system, regulations stated that “When a descendant of an official of fifth rank or higher turns twenty-one, the Department of State shall be notified and a hereditary rank shall be assigned”; thus, high ranks were relatively easily obtained, and regulations further stated that “notification shall be made in all cases regardless of an heir’s achievements or lack thereof.”34 By comparison, top performers on the Outstanding Talent examination were appointed only to upper superior eighth rank, and for low-level bureaucrats who did not originate from noble family backgrounds, it took thirty-two years to be promoted from the lowest rank, lower lesser

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

311

initial rank, to lower inferior eighth rank.35 Also, ishi (sons of officials of the lowest ranks, sixth to eighth 位子) and commoners with no academic or official titles were unable to achieve the lowest rank in the nobility, lower inferior fifth rank, even after thirty to fifty years of service.36 Sugawara no Michizane (845–903) is an example of an official awarded a post through the Japanese imperial examination system. In 870, Sugawara passed the government policy examination of the Ministry of Ceremonies and was appointed to upper superior sixth rank, apparently as a result of passing the examination. In fact, however, Sugawara had previously been appointed to lower superior sixth rank (shō rokui no ge 正六位下) under the rank inheritance system in 867, as his grandfather, Sugawara no Kiyotomo, had been a third-rank official, and ritsuryō regulations stated that third-rank officials could pass ranks to their grandchildren. In truth, Sugawara no Michizane obtained lower superior sixth rank as a result of inheritance, not as a result of passing the examination. Given that descendants of nobles could obtain official positions without any effort whatsoever, they generally did not go to the trouble of gaining positions through study, and the descendants of contemporary nobles did not proactively seek to study at the Bureau of Education. For this reason, in Daidō 1 (806), Emperor Heizei issued a rescript to the effect that when the children and grandchildren of shoō (members of the royal family not granted official status by imperial proclamation 諸王) and officials of fifth rank or higher reached the age of ten, they were “to enter university and study specialized fields.”37 It is apparent that, under the nobility system, only the descendants of the Fuhitobe of Yamato and Kawachi and low-ranking bureaucrats of sixth rank or below were unable to serve as officials without attending the Bureau of Education, and that even after completing rigorous studies, obtaining favorable results on the kōkyo examination, and obtaining ranks (the minimum age required to obtain a rank in this fashion was twenty-five, older than the age at which the descendants of nobles could gain positions by inheritance), they received mainly low-level bureaucratic positions. Statistical records indicate that, throughout the seventy-four-year-long Nara period, there were a total of 112 officials of third rank and higher, and just seven of these originated from low-ranking noble families.38 Under such social conditions, the imperial examination system was stripped of any real significance. Of course, the lack of interest among the descendants of nobles in taking the examination does not indicate that they did not value scholarly pursuits. In fact, many contemporary noble families placed great

312  L. JIANG ET AL.

emphasis upon education and scholarship, and it was for this reason that, in the Nara and Heian periods, the culture of the nobility flourished. Ultimately, the transformation of official positions into family assets further solidified the hereditary nature of the nobility. Japan has, generally speaking, a tradition of clan-based governance. In the Yamato period, clans engaged in particular occupations were the fundamental building blocks of society, and clan leaders (ujigami 氏上) served as court and local officials. Following the Taika Reforms, the ritsuryō state made the clans, which had by then fragmented, part of the state’s governmental framework as family units, and assigned hereditary occupations to these families. Thus, families became official court institutions, and official positions became family assets. The entry for the twenty-fifth day of the eighth month of Jōhei 5 (935) in Fascicle 9 of Collection of Excerpts from Government Directives, “Government Policy Examination” (“Hōryaku shiki” 方略式), describes this social phenomenon as follows: “Since the Kanpyō era [889–898], children and grandchildren have assumed their fathers’ and grandfathers’ occupations in hereditary fashion.” For instance, the Sugawara clan of nobles were originally hereditary earthenware makers and were referred to by the surname Haji, but this was later changed to Sugawara as they lived in the village of Fushimi in Sugawara, Yamato Province. They served the imperial court as scholars; Sugawara no Michizane, referred to in later generations as “the divine scholar,” served as minister of the right, and his descendants followed in his footsteps, serving the court as a family of scholars and writers. Almost all the senior secretary (daigeki 大外記) posts of the Lesser Counselors’ Office (Shōnagon 少納言) of the Department of State were filled by the Kiyohara clan and the Nakahara clan, and the Nakahara clan continued to serve as a “family of court secretaries” until the Edo period. A typical example of the transformation of official positions into family assets occurred in the Fujiwara clan. Emperor Tenji granted the surname Fujiwara to clan founder and Taika Reforms leader Nakatomi no Kamatari based on the name of the village where he lived (Fujiwara, Takaichi District, Yamato Province). Kamatari’s second-oldest son Fujiwara no Fuhito followed in his father’s footsteps, devoting himself to consolidating central government authority, participating in the formulation of the ritsuryō codes, and ultimately becoming a high-ranking, influential court figure. In the Heian period, the Fujiwara clan gained still greater influence, establishing the regency system and becoming the dominant force in the court. It has been calculated that, of the

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

313

395 high-ranking officials who served the court from the beginning of the tenth century to the end of the twelfth century, 265, 67 percent, belonged to the Fujiwara clan.39 In the shogunate period, the clan split into the “five regent houses,” foremost nobles who served as regents and chief advisors to the emperor.40 Under the ritsuryō system, specific nobles filled official posts and staffed government offices in hereditary fashion, and thus the imperial examination system had no further reason to exist. In China, the imperial examination system sealed the fate of the nobility, but in Japan, as the central government fractured, powerful nobles put an end to the imperial examination system. Warrior families monopolized government and the hierarchical system steadily grew more entrenched, leading in early modern times to a state of affairs wherein scholars, farmers, laborers, and merchants all had rigidly defined roles. Under such social conditions, it was unnecessary to select officials in a fair, open way through an imperial examination system, and indeed it would have been entirely impossible to do so. In this sense, it is an objective fact that Japan did not have an imperial examination system. The Impact of the Lack of an Imperial Examination System upon Japanese Social Development Japan did indeed have an imperial examination at one point in time, but lacked such a system for the majority of the feudal period. Investigating the matter further, it becomes apparent that the lack of an imperial examination system had profound effects upon the development of Japanese society. First, education took on a utilitarian orientation due in part to the lack of an imperial examination system. The imperial examination system had two functions, namely implementing examinations (the form of the system) and selecting officials (its substance). That is, the imperial examination system functioned as both an education system and a political system for the selection of officials, and education was regulated and implemented according to standards for the selection of officials, reducing education and testing to mere appendages of the system. The only way to pass the examinations and join officialdom was to become proficient in the Chinese Four Books and Five Classics, texts divorced from the realities of contemporary society, and thus, education under the imperial examination system “squandered students’ sincere effort on

314  L. JIANG ET AL.

the study of past texts of no practical import,” in the words of Zheng Guanying.41 At times when Japan did not have an imperial examination system, people had no hope of changing their status or social position by taking examinations, thus greatly reducing the political benefit of education. Everyone, from the ruling samurai class to ordinary commoners, that is the governed, gathered knowledge in order to gain survival techniques and the skills to engage in their occupations, and thus the ultimate value of knowledge lay in its utility. For instance, Sengoku period military officer Tako Tokitaka’s family precepts describe the numerous inconveniences an illiterate person might suffer: “For instance, one might receive an important, top-secret letter and, lacking the ability to read it, be forced to ask someone else to do so, and with this the confidentiality of the letter would be compromised,” and therefore, “We should diligently practice reading and writing both morning and night from a young age.” To give another example, the mid-fourteenth century Letters for Home Education (Teikin ōrai 庭訓往来) was initially intended as an educational primer for the children of warrior families; the vast majority of its 963 vocabulary words have to do with basic life necessities, occupations, Buddhist faith, weapons, health practices, and so on, whereas just 61 relate to the education of nobles and literature. It is precisely because of its strongly utilitarian bent that Letters for Home Education was later used to educate commoners and became the most important educational text prior to the establishment of the modern textbook system: over the course of five centuries, it was revised and republished more than four hundred times. Information of a utilitarian nature spurred the development of utilitarian education. In the Edo period, in addition to schools under the direct administration of the shogunate, domain schools, and other such institutions for the education of warrior families, village schools, private schools, and temple schools flourished. In particular, village schools, intended for the education of the masses, were rooted in a firmly utilitarian spirit, teaching the children of farmers information related to production and agriculture and teaching the children of merchants how to read, write, and perform arithmetic with an abacus. Though educational curricula incorporated much content drawn from Confucian scriptures, the intent of this was merely to increase students’ cultural awareness. The scholar, farmer, laborer, and merchant classes all actively sought out knowledge, and thus, during the Edo period, educational programs developed rapidly. Temple schools

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

315

alone numbered more than 15,000, furnishing a solid foundation for the development of modern education. Second, Western culture spread due in part to the lack of an imperial examination system. The imperial examination had the noble intent of selecting talented scholars, but the subject matter of examinations was limited to the teachings of Confucius, and only those proficient in the Four Books and the Five Classics who approached the examination with the values advocated by Confucian classics in mind could obtain official positions. Thus, for Japanese intellectuals, Confucian classics became a mandatory area of study, often to the exclusion of other subjects, and the imperial examination became the generally acknowledged measure of scholarly attainment, while other subjects such as social sciences and natural sciences were neglected. Examinees needed only to memorize the text of Confucian classics, and were not required to produce prose of their own, and the highly heterogeneous values proclaimed by these texts failed to infuse society and culture with vitality. It was also for precisely this reason that, as knowledge of the West was transmitted eastward, most scholar-officials who had gained their positions through the imperial examination system lacked an interest in and even reviled the outside world. Wei Yuan’s Pictorial Record of Kingdoms beyond the Seas (Haiguo tuzhi 海国图志), a primer on the Western world, was printed more than twenty times in Japan between 1854 and 1856, influencing a generation of Japanese intellectuals of the Bakumatsu period while going mostly ignored in China. Though Confucian ideology had long exerted an influence upon Japan, it was only designated an official area of study under the Edo shogunate. The lack of an imperial examination system obviated the need for examinees to mechanically study dead texts, and thus the study of Confucianism never became rigidly formulaic. Intellectuals studied Confucianism from a research perspective, that is, they inquired into how to put Confucianism to better use in maintaining the existing social order. In the field of Confucian studies, texts were understood and interpreted and scholarly innovations were made from a number of angles, with a wide range of scholars espousing a wide range of views, but ultimately Confucianism was never enshrined as an object of veneration over the long term as it was in China. Simultaneously, due to the lack of an imperial examination system and the presence of a strict social hierarchy, official posts could not be gained through scholarly merit, and thus Japanese scholars were able to pursue scientific research,

316  L. JIANG ET AL.

regarded by Chinese scholar-officials as a “minor field of study [moji 末 技].” When Western culture was transmitted to Japan, it was a novel subject which scholars approached with great curiosity and studied intensively. Not long after Rangaku (蘭学), a field of study focused primarily on the Dutch language and Dutch medicine, entered Japan, it developed into an independent academic system, and its study became a highly influential dedicated profession. Though Chinese medicine was seen as orthodox, some Rangaku scholars, not content to be bound by such limitations, encountered European medicine through contact with the Dutch and established their own research network. Not only did Rangaku scholars translate numerous Western medicinal texts, their own research produced important, innovative findings. Gynecologist Kagawa Gen’etsu discovered the normal position of the fetus (1765), Ōya Shōsai conducted experiments on kidney functioning (1800), and Hanaoka Seishū invented general anesthesia (1805), early modern Japanese medical developments were praised as “three major achievements worth boasting about to the world.”42 The contributions of Rangaku scholars ensured that contemporary Japanese knowledge of Western civilization far outpaced that of China, where the imperial examination system remained entrenched. Rather than toiling to pass examinations, large numbers of Japanese intellectuals devoted themselves to researching Western culture and technology, and it became apparent that there was a significant gap between the West on the one hand and Japan and the East in general on the other. In the Bakumatsu period, Japan faced external pressures but was able to nimbly adapt to the challenges posed by the West. The Japanese expanded the field of Rangaku into the study of the West as a whole, researching Western military techniques and political systems and ultimately choosing to actively open themselves to the world. Then, in the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese implemented a series of reforms, taking the lead in modernizing Asia. From this viewpoint, it is fortunate that the Japanese did not implement an imperial examination system. Third, the warrior spirit arose in part due to the lack of an imperial examination system. The establishment of the imperial examination system in the Sui and Tang dynasties cemented the social and political status feudal scholar-officials had enjoyed since the Han dynasty, making them leading players in the world of Chinese politics. From this point on, the literati read the same books, held the same goals, moral standards, and common interests, and even shared the same path through life:

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

317

completing their studies, taking the imperial examination, and entering officialdom. Poetry, prose, and classical learning were greatly valued, not only by scholars but throughout the world of education and society in general. Literary refinement was held up for veneration, while martial qualities were seen as shameful; these universally held values are one reason why China remained so weak for so long. In Japan, there was never a ruling class of intellectuals corresponding to the Chinese scholar-official class, and imperial examinations were abolished early on. There was no market for the idea that “all common activities are vulgar, and literature is the only exalted undertaking.” With the rise of samurai society, social standing was based upon martial arts skills, and the samurai, warriors by occupation, were the ruling class. Samurai looked down upon peace-loving aristocrats as frail and feminine, revering courage and loyalty and never hesitating to sacrifice their lives for their masters. Once the samurai gained power, particularly during the peaceful and prosperous Edo period, although they emphasized self-mastery and claimed to value both martial might and scholarly attainment, and many samurai became intellectuals, the warrior spirit remained the prevailing force in Japanese society, not only determining the core values that guided the behavior of the samurai, but exerting a considerable influence upon common people as well. As expressed by the saying “the most beautiful flowers are sakura, and the greatest men are samurai,” though samurai made up just one-tenth of the population during the shogunate period, the masses venerated and sought to emulate them. In the Edo period, numerous merchants and landowners spent money to purchase samurai family status or were admitted into warrior families as adopted children in hopes of becoming samurai. The precepts of numerous common families encouraged children to study military techniques.43 Fourth, in the absence of an imperial examination system, wide-ranging personnel development took place. The imperial examination was a means of selecting personnel that embraced equality, opening its doors to all of society, those with money and those without, those from powerful as well as humble families. People were afforded more or less equal opportunity to enter officialdom through competition, and thus the notion that “one might toil in the fields at the dawn of life but ascend to the heavenly court by the twilight of life” was no empty ideal. The system was fundamentally rational and respected personnel, but because the sole standard for the selection of talent by examination was proficiency in Confucian classics, literature, and rhetoric, and people of all social classes

318  L. JIANG ET AL.

regarded “ascending to the dragon throne” and “inscribing their names upon the golden placard [passing the examination]” as the ultimate goals of life, in regard to social class divisions, the value judgment of “scholars as supreme, followed by farmers, then laborers and merchants”44 was universally embraced. This led to increased fluidity among Chinese social classes and inhibited the long-term development of particular industries. The Japanese imperial examination system came to an end due not to chance, but the conflict between the equal opportunity spirit of the imperial examination system and the tradition of hereditary nobles holding absolute power. In both aristocratic society and samurai society, the hierarchy was foremost, and the inheritance of authority was deeply entrenched. The class system and the hereditary nobility system prevented new talent from circulating into the elite class of society, and in this respect such systems were far inferior to the equal opportunity imperial examination system, yet personnel development did occur on a wide scale in the absence of such a system. The rigidity of the class system hindered social fluidity: the common classes, that is, farmers, laborers, and merchants, were bound to specific identities and prevented from taking part in politics, but the warrior class was unable to encroach upon their specific area of specialty, the economy, and they did objectively have room to grow and develop. Scholars, farmers, laborers, and merchants worked with single-minded devotion in their areas of specialty. In the Edo period, there were new developments in the field of agriculture, and some farmers became quite wealthy. Commerce too flourished, with merchants gaining tremendous wealth. Remarkably talented personnel emerged in all areas, and society as a whole widely pursued the ideal of “each with a role to play and each content with his lot.” Japan instituted and then abolished the imperial examination system earlier than Korea (instituted 958, abolished 1894) and Vietnam (instituted 1075, abolished 1919). These countries, referred to along with China as the “imperial examination culture sphere,” were successively reduced to colonies or semi-colonies of great Western powers in modern times, but Japan, the only one to abolish the imperial examination system early on, avoided this fate. The question of whether or not this is coincidental should certainly be considered by the Chinese, the inventors of the imperial examination system. Rather than focusing exclusively on the rise of the imperial examination system, Chinese scholars would likely find it of great value and interest to examine its abolition as well.

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

319

3  The Law Systems and Land Systems of Tang China and Japan The ancient East Asian cultural sphere of which China was the center had several conspicuous common features, namely Chinese characters, Confucianism, Buddhism, and the lüling (Japanese: ritsuryō 律令) system. The first three are forms of elite culture, and similarity of political systems manifests only in systems of law. The lüling system was, in essence, a state system, but it took the form of a system of law. This system of law later came to be referred to as “the Chinese law system” (Zhonghua faxi 中华法系). The Chinese law system reached maturity in the Tang dynasty. The main components of the Tang dynasty law system were penal regulations (lü 律), ordinances (ling 令), rulings (ge 格), and norms (shi 式): “Penal regulations impose suitable sentences and regulate the determination of culpability, ordinances establish patterns and systems, rulings impose prohibitions and rectify evil, and norms establish the order of things such that they take their proper course.”45 Together, penal regulations, ordinances, rulings, and norms were regarded as “the fundamentals of governance,” but among these, penal regulations and ordinances were the most fundamental. Tang dynasty law students “specialized in penal regulations and ordinances,” whereas “rulings, norms, and legal codes” were “subjects of secondary study.”46 The mature legal system of the Tang dynasty spread quickly to neighboring states. The Japanese bemin (部民) system was then in its final days, and there was an urgent need to carry out systemic reforms and establish new state systems. Therefore, comprehensive study of Tang dynasty systems, in particular the legal system, was undertaken in earnest. The assertion “Great Tang is an outstanding kingdom with established laws and norms”47 represents the attitude of the contemporary Japanese toward the Tang court legal system. The ancient Japanese state adopted the legal system of the Tang court and later came to be referred to as a “ritsuryō” state, as ritsu (penal regulations 律) and ryō (ordinances 令) regulated all state systems. The Tang dynasty, however, is not generally referred to in this way, for the following reasons: first, the Chinese state was founded not only upon law, that is, penal regulations and ordinances, but also upon ritual propriety (li 礼). As a traditional social value, ritual propriety was accorded an extremely important position in the Chinese state system. Japan did not

320  L. JIANG ET AL.

adopt this value per se, and thus “penal regulation and ordinance-based law” made up the entirety of its state system. Second, penal regulations existed throughout the entire Chinese imperial period, and are not a unique characteristic of a particular time period. Additionally, the Tang dynasty implemented a legal system founded upon penal regulations, ordinances, rulings, and norms for its entire duration, whereas Japan implemented first the former two, followed by the latter two.48 The most fundamental reason for this is the concentration of power in the hands of the ancient Chinese emperors: “None but the son of heaven regulates ritual propriety, institutes systems, or establishes norms for written language.”49 Penal regulations and ordinances were mere means of imperial governance and existed only under imperial rule.50 However, penal regulations and ordinances were accorded higher status in the Tang dynasty than any other. In this sense, the Tang dynasty may be referred to as the “era of the lüling system.”51 As the name suggests, the system to some extent bears comparison to the Japanese ritsuryō system. Strictly speaking, of course, the penal regulations, ordinances, rulings, and norms of the Tang court comprised a complete legal system that cannot be broken into parts. Here, we will discuss primarily penal regulations and ordinances to facilitate comparisons between Tang Chinese and Japanese state systems, and because these are the main foundations of the “penal regulations, ordinances, rulings, and norms” system. It should also be noted that our comparison here is limited to penal ordinances and regulations prior to the early eighth century. Subsequently, particularly from the ninth century onward, during the Tang dynasty, gehouchi (edicts to supplement rulings 格后敕) played an increasingly important role; in Japan, three successive generations of emperors expanded the ritsuryō system by issuing rulings, norms, and ritual regulations, resulting in the “Sinification” of the civil service system, the imperial system, the ritual system, and other systems. That is, Japan entered a new phase of “rulings and norms-based law” in which Tang dynasty models were followed still more closely.52 A comparison of Tang dynasty penal regulations (as represented by Commentary on the Tang Code [Tang lü shuyi 唐律疏议]) and Japanese penal regulations (as represented by the penal regulations of the Yōrō Code) reveals them to be fundamentally similar. The Japanese regulations are somewhat simpler and impose somewhat lighter penalties, and to accommodate Japanese customs and beliefs, remove the provisions of the

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

321

Tang dynasty regulations prohibiting marriage between fellow clan members and giving preferential treatment to Daoist priests and priestesses.53 A comparison of Tang dynasty ordinances (as represented by the Kaiyuan Ordinances [Kaiyuan ling 开元令]) and the Japanese ordinances (as represented by the ordinances of the Yōrō Order) shows that ordinances vary much more widely than penal regulations. This is because ordinances regulate state systems. In the Tang dynasty, systems that had existed since ancient times reached full maturity (though further breakthroughs and transformations were on the horizon), and society flourished due to a spirit of progress. Contemporary Japanese society was backward by comparison, and though the Japanese sought to emulate Tang China, due to the fundamental differences between the two countries, numerous deletions, changes, and adjustments were made when formulating the Japanese ordinances.54 Specifically, a comparison of the titles of Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances shows that the Japanese renamed the Tang dynasty “Temple Ordinance” (“Ci ling” 祠令) to “Religious Worship Ordinance” (“Jingi ryō” 神祇令) and the “Investiture Ordinance” (“Fengjue ling” 封爵 令) to “Succession Ordinance” (“Keishi ryō” 継嗣令), newly instituted the “Ordinance on Monks and Nuns” (“Sō ama ryō” 僧尼令), and eliminated the “Imperial Procession Ordinance” (“Lubu ling” 卤 簿令). In addition, the Japanese changed the order of the Tang ordinances from “Household Ordinance” (“Hu ling” 户令)—“Education Ordinance” (“Xue ling” 学令)—“Ordinance on Appointment by Examination” (“Xuanju ling” 选举令) to “Household Ordinance” (“Ko ryō” 戸令)—“Farmland Ordinance” (“Den ryō” 田令)—“Taxation and Compulsory Labor Ordinance” (“Buyaku ryō” 賦役令). The order of the ordinances was changed because, although the “Household Ordinance” had served as a basis for the appointment of officials in China since the institution of the nine-rank bureaucratic system, in Japan it served as the foundation of mass governance. The following general observations may be made regarding the content of Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances: (1) Japanese ordinances systematically reproduce almost the entirety of the portions of Tang Chinese ordinances having to do with aspects of advanced culture, such as the “Medical Care and Disease Ordinance” (“Yi ji ling” 医疾令) and the “Education Ordinance.” (2) Japanese ordinances make unique modifications to the Tang Chinese ritual system. For instance, the Japanese version of the Tang Chinese “Clothing Ordinance” (“Yifu ling” 衣服令)

322  L. JIANG ET AL.

does not include regulations concerning the emperor’s clothing, as the Japanese emperor’s uniform was a white “silken robe,” quite distinct from the dress of the Tang emperor. In another example, whereas the Tang “Funerary Ordinance” (“Sangzang ling” 丧葬令) contains an article called “Mourning” (“Juai” 举哀) concerning the condolences to be offered by the emperor upon the deaths of ministers, the corresponding Japanese ordinance contains no such article, reflecting the one-sided nature of the ministers’ obligations to the emperor. (3) The Japanese adopted the highly developed bureaucratic governance system of the Tang dynasty, but because Japanese traditions remained entrenched, the text of Japanese ordinances contains numerous features characteristic of the clan and hereditary title system, in many cases reflecting the circumstances of ruling families and regional communities and revealing the immaturity of the Japanese bureaucratic system. For instance, the regulations on the crown prince’s palace in the “Ordinance on Functionaries” (“Zhiyuan ling” 職員令) are more simplistic than those of the Tang court, as Japanese crown princes did not participate in court administration. The Japanese “Ritual System Ordinance” (“Gisei ryō” 儀制令) contains regulations regarding the title “Retired Emperor [Daijō Tennō 太上天皇]” which are not found in any Tang Chinese ordinance; as the emperor retained imperial authority even after abdicating, it was possible under the Japanese system for two emperors to hold power simultaneously, a situation that would have been unthinkable in Tang China. The Japanese “Ordinance on Administrative Norms” (“Kushiki ryō” 公 式令) describes the orally transmitted bureaucratic system of the time, revealing the primitive nature of administrative methods. Additionally, the Japanese “Ritual System Ordinance” mandates that ministers are to refer to the emperor by his personal name (the Tang ordinance states that they are to refer to him as “chen [臣]”), a vestige of the clan and hereditary title system; according to the Japanese “Ordinance on Official Leave” (“Kenō ryō” 假寧令), only palace officials were eligible for leave (according to the Tang dynasty ordinance, both “internal and external officials” were eligible), indicating that the authority of the Japanese bureaucratic system extended only to “officials of bureaus in the capital”; and so on. (4) With regard to economic systems, because Japan did not have an agricultural colony system or a corvee system, and because its taxation and compulsory labor systems differed from China’s, there are numerous differences between the Tang Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinance,” “Taxation and Compulsory Labor Ordinance,”

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

323

and “Ordinance on Miscellaneous Matters” (Chinese: “Za ling” 杂 令, Japanese: “Zatsu ryō” 雑令). For instance, the Japanese ordinances conspicuously lack the provisions of the Chinese ordinances concerning “officials of all classes (zhuse ren 诸色人)” such as “local petty officials (shushi 庶士)” and “officials with minor duties (zazhi 杂职).”55 From the Yuan dynasty onward, Tang dynasty ordinances began to be lost, such that the extant ordinances can no longer be understood in context. In order to study Japanese ordinances, Japanese scholars labored for more than a century to collect and reconstruct the Tang dynasty ordinances upon which they were based, an undertaking resulting in the publication of two major works, Collection of Tang Dynasty Ordinances (Tōrei shūi 唐令拾遺) and Further Collection of Tang Dynasty Ordinances (Tōrei shūi ho 唐令拾遺補). In 1999, the Tian Yi Ge Museum of Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China discovered the Northern Song dynasty “Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity” (“Tian sheng ling” 天 圣令), and because the original Tang dynasty ordinance was appended to the Song dynasty text, it was possible to reconstruct the original text of the Tang dynasty ordinance, spurring new developments in studies of Japanese ordinances. For instance, thanks to the full reconstruction of the Tang dynasty “Taxation and Compulsory Labor Ordinance,” scholars discovered that the Japanese version involved perhaps the greatest changes and restructuring of any ordinance: regulations on land tax were moved from the Tang “Taxation and Compulsory Labor Ordinance” to the article on land tax in the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance”; regulations on suiyi (Japanese: saieki, an annual period of compulsory labor 岁役) and yong (Japanese: yō, a tax that could be paid as an alternative to performing suiyi 庸) were moved, along with the opening section on diao (Japanese: chō, a tax levied based upon the number of male children in a family 调), to Article 4; and the entirety of the regulations on suiyi and chake (compulsory labor and taxation 差科) in the latter portion of the Tang dynasty ordinance were changed to regulations on koeki (a type of compulsory labor 雇役), among other changes. In a further example, it was originally believed that Article 17 of the Japanese “Funerary Ordinance,” “Mourning Regulations” (“Bukki” 服紀), was formulated by the Japanese based upon Rites of Tang, but upon the discovery of “Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity,” it was proven that these mourning regulations do originate from a Tang dynasty ordinance (said content is included as an appendix to the ordinance). It is thus apparent that Article 17 of the Japanese “Funerary Ordinance” originates from law rather

324  L. JIANG ET AL.

than ritual, that is, the Japanese absorbed elements of ritual from Tang dynasty ordinances rather than Rites of Tang during this period.56 The newly discovered Northern Song “Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity” is an important resource not only in the study of Tang and Song dynasty ordinances, but also in Tang and Song dynasty institutions, as well as an extremely precious information source enabling the comparison of Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances.57 In summary, the legal systems of Tang China and Japan are similar in some respects, but different in others. Some Japanese and Tang Chinese ordinances appear similar on the surface but are in fact quite different, while others appear different on the surface but are actually closely related, one example being the Tang Chinese land equalization system (juntian zhi 均田制) and the Japanese land allotment system (handen sei 班田制) of the “Farmland Ordinance,” which will be examined below. As is widely known, the Japanese land allotment system was implemented following the Taika Reforms, largely upon the basis of the Tang dynasty land equalization system. The Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances” have been the subject of numerous comparative studies by both Chinese and Japanese scholars. These studies have identified numerous points in common as well as divergences; given this, are the texts overall more similar or more different? Are the differences fundamental, and what is the reason for them? Such questions have not been fully resolved by previous studies. The hand-copied Ming dynasty edition of the Tang dynasty Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance” recently discovered at Tian Yi Ge, Ningbo is highly significant not only to study of the Tang dynasty land equalization system, but also comparative study of the Tang Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances.” A Comparison of the Order of the Provisions of the Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances” and Their Essential Content In the early twentieth century, Nakata Kaoru and Niida Noboru obtained important results from a study attempting to reconstruct Tang dynasty ordinances based on the sequence and content of the Japanese Yōrō Code ordinances. Other Japanese scholars have since come to believe that, as in the case of the “Farmland Ordinance,” the Yōrō Code ordinances consist of content drawn from the Tang Chinese ordinances, but with the provisions in a different order; they assert that the original Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance” can be reconstructed based on

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

325

the provisions of the “Farmland Ordinance” collected in Comprehensive Institutions.58 We have compared twelve Tang dynasty ordinances preserved in Ming dynasty hand-copied editions with the corresponding ordinances of the Yōrō Order and found that, with the exception of the two ordinances missing from the extant edition of Explication of the Significance of Ordinances (Ryō no gi ge 令義解), “Storehouse Ordinance” (“Sōko ryō” 倉庫令) and “Medical Care and Disease Ordinance,” the provisions of the Chinese and Japanese ordinances are in essentially the same order. This applies to, for instance, the Yōrō Order “Farmland Ordinance” and the reconstructed original Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance,” making it clear that the articles of the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance” in Comprehensive Institutions are out of order, and it cannot be concluded that the sequence of the articles of the Chinese “Farmland Ordinance” was altered by the compilers of the Yōrō Order.59 The “Farmland Ordinance” in the extant edition of the Yōrō Code consists of a total of thirty-five articles, and the reconstructed Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance” consists of a total of sixty articles. Though the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” contains just over half the number of articles of the Tang “Farmland Ordinance,” the text is organized similarly to the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance.” The articles of the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance” are divided into the following categories: the area of farm tracts; the granting of farmland to civilian households; the granting of inheritable farmland (yongyetian 永业 田) to officials; manors, sales, and leasing; granting and reclamation of land; government-owned farmland; allotment of farmland to compensate officials (zhifentian 职分田); and agricultural colonies (tuntian 屯 田). The thirty-five articles of the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” are divided into the same categories and presented in a similar order. The categories of articles and their sequence in the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance” reflect the existence of private land held by officials and civilians, government-owned farmland, and militarized agricultural colonies. The Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” reflects the existence of the same three types of land, but Japan, being an island nation, lacked the largescale militarized agricultural colonies of the Tang Chinese borderlands, and had instead only “farmland used to provide food for the emperor,” referred to as “Kinai kanden [畿内官田]”; Japanese legal scholars interpreted these as equivalent to the Chinese tuntian, and the Tang dynasty agricultural colony system was used to manage them.60

326  L. JIANG ET AL.

There are also differences in the order and structure of the Yōrō Order “Farmland Ordinance” and the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance.” Article 2 of the Japanese ordinance, “Farmland Rental Fees” (“Denso jō” 田租条), appears in the Kaiyuan era “Taxation and Compulsory Labor Ordinance.” Article 11, “Public Farmland” (“Kōden sochin jō” 公田租賃条), and Article 33, “Newly Appointed Officials from outside the Capital” (“Gekan shinshinin jō” 外官新至任条), do not appear in the Kaiyuan era “Farmland Ordinance,” and may originate from the provisions of Tang dynasty rulings and norms. Article 5, “Allotment of Farmland to Compensate Officials” (“Shikibunden jō” 職分田条), is similar to the article “Allotment of Farmland to Compensate Officials of Bureaus in the Capital” (“Zai jing zhusi zhifentian tiao” 在京诸司职 分田条), but whereas it might be expected to appear in the sixth category, allotment of farmland to compensate officials, it in fact appears in the third, granting of farmland to officials.61 It is unclear whether these are the results of subsequent transcription errors, or whether the original ordinance was in fact deliberately sequenced in this way. The Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” is comprised of articles drawn selectively from Tang dynasty ordinances. The Japanese text alternately cites articles in full, cites articles in part, merges articles, splits articles, strips away the non-essential parts of articles, and simplifies them. It is clear based upon the methods used to compile the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” that the compilers of the contemporary Japanese legal code were highly proficient. They understood the content and implementation of Tang dynasty ordinances, skillfully adapted these to the realities of contemporary Japan, and formulated a simpler, more practical set of provisions than the Tang dynasty ordinance. The articles of the Tang dynasty ordinance that they generally cite in full, cite in part, merge, or split belong to the manors, sales, and leasing; granting and reclamation of land; government-owned farmland; and allotment of farmland to compensate officials categories. The articles that they generally strip of non-essential parts or simplify concern the granting of farmland to civilian households and the granting of farmland to officials. Some articles are reproduced directly from the Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance,” while others adapt the names of officials and types of farmland to fit the names used under the Japanese bureaucratic system and family registry system. The most conspicuous difference in the content of the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” and the Tang “Farmland Ordinance” is that the Japanese text mandates the “reallotment of farmland every six years,” an

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

327

arrangement which later came to be referred to as the land allotment system. Though the land allotment system generally functioned similarly to the Tang dynasty land equalization system in practice, it is clearly unique in that it adapts Tang court legal provisions to realities on the ground in Japan, in contrast to other provisions which were directly copied from Tang dynasty ordinances; this is worthy of particular note in the study of the ancient land systems of the two countries. The Japanese Land Allotment System and the Granting of Farmland in Heavily Populated Areas of Tang China In regard to the similarities and differences of Tang Chinese and Japanese land systems, Ritsuryō (律令) by Inoue Mitsusada et al. asserts, “The Japanese land allotment system does away with the restrictions of the Chinese land equalization system, retaining only the allotment of farmland based on set standards.”62 However, no extant farmland ordinance of the Wei, Qi, Zhou, Sui, or Tang dynasty has provisions concerning the allotment of farmland based on set standards. Thus, the matter of the differences in methods of granting land to civilian households under the Tang Chinese and Japanese land systems requires further study.

4  Fundamental Similarities and Differences in Tang Chinese and Japanese Methods of Granting Land to Civilian Households The Tang dynasty land equalization system and the Japanese land allotment system set forth regulations on the granting of land to civilian households which are similar in the following respects. First, the Tang Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances” both stipulate that particular quantities of land were to be granted to civilian households, that is, civilian households with little or no land could request “public farmland” from local authorities in accordance with regulations. Second, the Tang Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances” both stipulate that land left behind by deceased landholders without heirs, land abandoned by landholders, and land left over upon the inheritance

328  L. JIANG ET AL.

of land within a family following the death of the landholder was to be reclaimed and redistributed by the government. Third, at the time of the annual land allotment, regional branches of the Tang government were to “create a tally of all land owned by the bureau and distribute it evenly among the population,”63 that is, public farmland owned by regional governments was to be distributed equally to households whose land holdings did not meet the prescribed standards, and if there was not enough land to do so, such households were to be granted land in kuanxiang (areas with extensive arable land 宽乡). In Japan, land was allotted just once every six years, but regulations stated that, as in Tang China, “the total amount of farmland in each district is to be tallied and evenly distributed” and “the amount of land in the applicable area is to be evenly allotted.”64 Fourth, in both Tang China and Japan, land was allotted first to those who performed corvee labor, and then to those who did not; first to those who held no land, and then to those who held little land; first to the poor, and then to the wealthy. It is thus apparent that the land granted to civilian households under both the land equalization system and the land allotment system was public land which was not privately owned by the households themselves. Land held by civilian households reverted to public ownership mainly when the landholder died and there was no heir to claim it, when the landholder abandoned the land, and, in a small number of cases, when there was land left over upon the inheritance of land within a household following the death of the landholder. Thus, the local governments of Tang China and Japan reclaimed land from and reallotted land to civilian households on a regular basis, though this was generally limited to a portion of the land held by certain civilian households; the amount of land the governments were actually able to grant to households was very limited, averaging just a few mu (a measurement equivalent in the Tang dynasty to approximately 0.13 acres 亩) per person; plots of land were inevitably scattered, by a few li (approximately one-third of a mile 里), a few dozen li, even up to a hundred li. The Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance” allotted land in this way in order to ensure that the vast peasant population was provided with a minimum amount of land; local authorities evenly distributed publicly owned farmland to prevent the annexation of land by the wealthy and land-related disputes between civilian households. The Japanese land

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

329

allotment system was generally based in the same spirit. In this sense, it can be affirmed that the land systems of the two countries are essentially similar.

5   Japanese Civilian Households Were Granted Far Less Land Than the Amounts Prescribed by the Tang Chinese “Farmland Ordinance” The “Farmland Ordinances” from the Wude era to the Kaiyuan era of the Tang dynasty state that every working-age male of the ages ding (an age category designated during the Tang dynasty as twenty-one to fifty-nine years of age 丁) and zhong (an age category designated during the Tang dynasty as sixteen to twenty years of age 中) was to be granted, in kuanxiang areas, 20 mu of inheritable farmland and 80 mu of non-inheritable farmland (koufentian 口分田), and in xiaxiang (areas with little arable land 狭乡), 20 mu of inheritable farmland and 40 mu of non-inheritable farmland (all the above amounts are in Tang dynasty mu; the same is the case below unless otherwise noted).65 The “Farmland Ordinance” of the Japanese Yōrō Code stipulates that boys six years of age and older were to be granted 2 dan (段) of non-inheritable farmland (equivalent to approximately 4 mu), while girls were to be granted onethird less.66 In Tang China, only ding and zhong men, elderly men, and women who were widows, wives, or concubines were granted land, while boys, slaves, and women who were not widows, wives, or concubines were not; in Japan, boys six years of age and older, women, and slaves were all granted land. Even considering that the Tang dynasty regulations refer to the maximum amounts of farmland a person might hold, and that a larger proportion of the civilian population was granted land in Japan than in Tang China, the amounts granted to each man under the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance” are extremely small, no more than approximately 3 present-day mu (approximately 4 Tang dynasty mu), while women were granted just 2 present-day mu. Previous studies have shown that the amounts of farmland granted to ding and zhong age men under the Tang dynasty “Land Equalization Ordinance” (“Jun tian ling” 均田令) in both kuanxiang and xiaxiang areas are maximums, not the amounts of actual land grants. In implementing the land equalization system, regional governments instituted local standard land grant amounts. For instance, the Gaochang area was a xiaxiang area where the standard land grants were 10 mu to

330  L. JIANG ET AL.

ding and zhong age men and 4 mu to the elderly, widows, etc. (heads of household were granted 5 mu). Based on statistics concerning land grants to thirty-one households according to a Shenlong 3 (707) survey (dianjiyang 点籍样) of Chonghua Township, Gaochang County,67 fifty people were eligible to be granted farmland, and a total of 286 mu of land was granted. Households were granted a maximum of 25 mu and a minimum of 2.5 mu. The average grant was 9.22 mu per household, and the average plot measured 5.72 mu. Kuanxiang areas such as Dunhuang County in actuality granted approximately 20 mu to each ding and zhong man. Family registries (huji 户籍) from the Dazu era of the reign of Wu Zetian to the Kaiyuan and Tianbao era of the reign of Emperor Xuanzong record the amounts of land granted to thirty-three households68: a total of sixty-six people were granted land, and the total amount of land granted was 1455 mu. The maximum amount of land granted to a single household was 91 mu and the minimum was 7 mu. Each household was granted on average 44.09 mu, and each person was granted an average of 22.04 mu. The statistics from these two areas demonstrate that in practice, regional Tang government authorities instituted land grant amounts specific to local areas. Only those households that did not actually hold enough land to meet the standard amounts, referred to as qiantian (literally “lacking farmland” 欠田) households, could request publicly owned land from the local government; those holding farmland in excess of the standard amount could not request more land, but could acquire it through other means, for instance by purchasing it, up to a maximum of 100 mu per ding male (60 mu in xiaxiang areas) in accordance with the “Farmland Ordinance.” Standard land grants were generally determined by county governments based upon the population of the county and the average amount of land per person. Based on other classic historical works, it appears that 10 mu may have been the standard land grant amount generally in use in xiaxiang areas. Based upon a Daihō 2 (702) registry of land grants to fourteen households in Chō Village, Nakatsu District, Buzen Province, Japan (the units chō [町] and dan, used to indicate the amounts of the land grants, have been converted to present-day Chinese mu; amounts in bu [歩], a subdivision of dan, have not been included in the averages),69 the actual area of land granted to the 14 households was 592 present-day mu, an average of 42.28 present-day mu per household. A total of 247 people were granted land, and the average area of land granted to each

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

331

person was 2.39 present-day mu. If only men are deemed the recipients of grants, the average area of land granted to each person was 5.01 present-day mu. Japanese households were larger than Tang Chinese households: the above-mentioned fourteen households contained 20.9 people on average, four times the average number of people per Tang dynasty household.70 Under the Tang dynasty land grant system and annual accounting system (to which ding and zhong men were subject), counting only ding and zhong men, elderly men, widows, wives, concubines, and so on, ninety people from the above fourteen households would have been eligible for land grants, and the average land grant per person would have been 6.57 mu. One Tang dynasty mu is equivalent to 0.786 present-day mu, and thus the above fourteen households were granted 753 Tang dynasty mu of land, an average of 53.78 Tang dynasty mu per household, and the ninety recipients were granted an average of 8.36 Tang dynasty mu of land. It is apparent, based upon the land area granted to households in Chō Village, Japan, that the actual land area granted to each recipient was similar to the value stipulated by the Yōrō Code “Farmland Ordinance”; as well, the land area was similar to that which would have been granted in Chonghua, Gaochang, calculating the number of grant recipients and the land areas according to Tang dynasty regulations. If Chō Village, Japan fully followed Tang dynasty regulations, the average area of land granted to each recipient would be 2.64 mu higher than in Chonghua, Gaochang, but would not exceed 10 mu, making it much lower than the average area granted to each recipient in Dunhuang County. Based upon this comparative analysis, it is readily apparent that the Japanese adhered more or less to the Tang court’s actual standard land grant for xiaxiang areas in granting 2 dan (corresponding to 3 present-day mu or approximately 4 Tang dynasty mu) of farmland to each male in each civilian household under the land allotment system. The Japanese followed not the Tang court’s standard land grant in kuanxiang areas, but the county authorities’ actual method of evenly distributing standard amounts of land, and did not simultaneously implement the provisions of the Tang “Farmland Ordinance” limiting the maximum amount of farmland citizens of kuanxiang areas were permitted to hold. The above analysis provides important insights concerning the similarities and differences of the Tang Chinese and Japanese land systems, their character, and their implementation. Studies of the implementation of the Tang dynasty land equalization system have long drawn

332  L. JIANG ET AL.

widely diverging conclusions from the fact that the amounts of “land granted” to civilian households according to family registries universally fail to match the grant amounts for which those households were eligible. In the 1950s, Japanese scholars published a portion of the Ōtani Papers concerning the reclamation of farmland by the government in the Gaochang area, demonstrating that the government did at one time grant and reclaim land according to set standards in this area.71 However, many scholars believe that special regulations are applied to the Gaochang area, and these findings are not of universal significance. Studies have shown that, in implementing the land equalization system, Tang dynasty county governments did indeed institute local standard land grant amounts which were universally much lower than the maximum amounts stipulated by the “Farmland Ordinance.” A comparison of the Japanese land allotment system and the Tang Chinese land equalization system shows that the Japanese method of granting farmland was basically similar to the Tang dynasty method of granting farmland in xiaxiang areas. This in turn demonstrates that Tang dynasty county governments throughout China had standard land grant amounts which applied to actual grants. As the amounts of land granted to and reclaimed from civilian households by local authorities were quite small, generally only a few mu, the amounts of “land granted” entered by civilian households on family registries could not have been granted entirely by regional governments, but must have been derived from other sources as well. In particular, civilian households that held land in excess of standard local land grant amounts must have acquired that land through purchases or other means. This was the case under both the Tang Chinese land equalization system and the Japanese land allotment system, and it would not be correct to state that all land held by households was owned by the state.

6  Why Did the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” Grant Only Non-Inheritable Farmland to Civilian Households? One conspicuous difference between the Tang Chinese and Japanese land distribution systems is the fact that while the Tang “Farmland Ordinance” grants two types of farmland to civilian households, inheritable farmland and non-inheritable farmland, the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” grants only non-inheritable farmland. Inheritable farmland

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

333

comprises an important part of land grants to civilian households under the Tang “Land Equalization Ordinance” and is a type of land over which civilian households were granted relatively strong legal private ownership rights. As the Japanese land allotment system is basically similar to the Tang Chinese land equalization system, it might be expected to include provisions concerning inheritable land. There are, naturally, reasons why the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” does not distinguish between inheritable and non-inheritable farmland and refers to the land granted to civilian households as “non-inheritable farmland.” The provisions of the Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance” on inheritable farmland are separated into two categories depending on the party receiving the grant, inheritable farmland for commoners and inheritable farmland for officials (including farmland granted to recipients of merit titles [xunguan 勋官] in recognition of their service). Regarding the inheritance of inheritable farmland by commoners, the “Farmland Ordinance” stipulates, “Upon the death of the landholder, hereditary farmland is granted to the landholder’s heirs” and “In the event that an heir already holds inheritable land, he shall be deemed to have received his share.” That is, when the holder of a tract of inheritable farmland passed away, or was exempted from corvee labor due to age, the farmland in question could be passed down to other land grant recipients within the household, and following the reallocation, any surplus land reverted to public ownership. Regarding the inheritable farmland of officials and recipients of merit titles, the “Farmland Ordinance” stipulates, “All inheritable farmland passes to the landholder’s descendants; amounts received are not restricted. Even in the event that the landholder’s descendants are punitively dismissed from their official posts, the inherited land does not revert to public ownership.” As the Kaiyuan 25 “Farmland Ordinance” of the extant edition of Comprehensive Institutions contains omissions, and the provisions are out of order, many previous scholars have mistakenly concluded that this article applies to the inheritable land of commoners. Based on The Six Statutes of the Tang Dynasty, it is quite clear that this article applies only to the inheritable farmland of officials, not that of civilian households.72 The inheritable farmland of civilian households could be reallocated within the household subsequent to the owner’s death, but any surplus land reverted to public ownership; with regard to the inheritable farmland of officials, the “Farmland Ordinance” clearly stipulates, “All inheritable farmland passes to the landholder’s descendants; amounts received are not restricted.

334  L. JIANG ET AL.

Even in the event that the landholder’s descendants are punitively dismissed from their official posts, the inherited land does not revert to public ownership.” Thus, the descendants of officials had complete right of inheritance. However, in the Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance,” the distinction between inheritable and non-inheritable farmland is nominal. Various types of land records excavated in Turpan demonstrate that a strict distinction between the two types of land existed primarily in family registries rather than other types of documents; also, in family registries, inheritable farmland and non-inheritable farmland mainly refer to the amounts of two categories of land, and it is not the case that the actual farmland of civilian households was divided accordingly. In the Tang dynasty, as each ding and zhong male was granted only a small amount of land in xiaxiang areas, the distinction between inheritable and non-inheritable farmland was of still less significance. For instance, in the Gaochang area, the standard land grant to civilian households was 10 Tang dynasty mu, just one-sixth the amount granted to ding and zhong men in xiaxiang areas under the “Farmland Ordinance,” and half the amount of inheritable land, 20 mu. Thus, in documents on reclamation of farmland and granting of farmland as well as family registries discovered in Gaochang, almost all land of civilian households is inheritable farmland. However, numerous official and civilian documents from this area refer to such inheritable farmland as “koufen [口分],” “koufendi [口分地],” or “koufen tiandi [口分田地],” names similar to the general term for non-inheritable farmland, “koufentian” (口分田). A number of documents contain records such as the following: “The eldest daughter and wife of the Zhang family have 2.5 mu of koufen changtian [口分常田] in the city of Linchuan”73; “the above-described person holds koufendi far from the city”74; “Dazhi is a male of ding age whose koufen grant has yet to be fulfilled”75; “requested report on investigation of the koufen of the common people of Gaochang County.”76 The terms “koufen” and “koufendi” have a wide range of meanings in these documents, referring in the broad sense to the farmland to be granted to citizens rather than, in the narrow sense, the 80 mu of non-inheritable farmland to be granted to each ding male under the “Farmland Ordinance.” Thus, not only was there no distinction in practice between inheritable and non-inheritable farmland for civilian households during the Tang dynasty, in xiaxiang areas, inheritable land was referred to by such names as “koufendi” and “koufentian.” Additionally, as

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

335

non-inheritable land was not normally granted to civilian households in xiaxiang areas, the term “koufentian” generally refers in these areas to the inheritable farmland recorded in family registries. The Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” stipulates, “Farmland shall be reallotted once every six years. Land that is to be reclaimed due to the death of the landholder shall be reclaimed and distributed at the time of each reallotment.”77 According to the relevant commentary in Collection of Commentary on Ordinances (Ryō no shūge 令集解), when the holder of a tract of farmland passed away, any non-inheritable farmland he held reverted to public ownership. According to the Tang “Farmland Ordinance,” when the holder of a tract of farmland passed away, his inheritable farmland could be passed down within the household, and non-inheritable farmland reverted to public ownership. It is apparent that, as Japanese civilian households held only non-inheritable farmland, the provisions of the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” regarding the reclamation of farmland following a landholder’s death were drawn from the provisions of the Tang “Farmland Ordinance” regarding the reversion of non-inheritable land to public ownership; it is for this reason that the provisions are similar. However, the legal scholar who annotated the Collection of Commentary on Ordinances writes, “Question: The Tang ordinance states, ‘In the event that farmland is inherited within a household, grant recipients who are owed land shall first be allowed to claim the land without any obligation to pay taxes, and any surplus land shall be reclaimed and redistributed.’ Our government has omitted part of the ordinance; how should such cases be handled? Answer: The above article states, ‘Within a family, grant recipients who have not received the full amount of land due shall first be allowed to claim the land.’ Hence, as the ordinance states, grant recipients shall first be allowed to claim the land without any obligation to pay taxes.”78 As it was previously unclear which part of the Tang dynasty “Farmland Ordinance” had been cited in this passage or whether it had been cited correctly, the passage was neglected by scholars. Article 27 of the recently discovered Kaiyuan “Farmland Ordinance” on the reclamation and granting of farmland contains this exact text, and the article of the Yōro Code referenced in the passage above appears to be Article 23, “Allotment of Land” (“Handen jō” 班田条). This finding is of great significance to the interpretation of the provisions of the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” on the granting and reclamation of land to and from civilian households. Although Tang Chinese civilian households were granted two types of land to which

336  L. JIANG ET AL.

different granting and reclamation procedures applied, inheritable farmland and non-inheritable farmland, in actual practice, both types could be reclaimed, or as the ordinance states, “grant recipients who are owed land shall first be allowed to claim the land without any obligation to pay taxes, and any surplus land shall be reclaimed and redistributed.” Although all land of Japanese civilian households was non-inheritable farmland that reverted to public ownership upon the landholder’s death, and the text of the Japanese ordinance omits the phrase “shall first be allowed to claim the land,” in actual practice, the provisions of the Japanese ordinance on the reclamation of farmland following the landholder’s death were interpreted in accordance with the Tang dynasty ordinance. It is thus apparent that Japanese non-inheritable land did not revert completely to public ownership upon the death of the landholder, but like the inheritable and non-inheritable farmland of Tang Chinese civilian households, could be reallocated within households, and thus in actual practice was handled identically to the land of Tang Chinese civilian households. It is clear, based upon records of the reclamation and granting of land to and from civilian households in the Gaochang area, that the regulations of the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” on the reclamation and granting of non-inheritable land are identical to Tang Chinese regulations on the reclamation and granting of land to and from civilian households in xiaxiang areas. All the farmland designated “reclaimed farmland” in records concerning the reclamation of land from civilian households in Gaochang County was “inheritable farmland.” In addition to farmland that was reclaimed because the landholder had died, abandoned the land, or moved, there was also a type of land referred to as “reclaimed surplus” (sheng tui 剩退) land. This reclaimed surplus land, marked “inheritable farmland,” is land that remained after land was reallocated to other individuals within a household following the death of the landholder. The basic approach of the Japanese land allotment system was to “take back the land granted to deceased landholders and reallocate it to provide for the living,”79 but this merely indicates that surplus land was returned to the government and redistributed following the reallocation of land within a family, not that land was reclaimed by the government in its entirety. Further, the Tang “Farmland Ordinance” stipulates, “When a commoner passes away and the family is unable to pay for the funeral, his inheritable land may be sold.” Non-inheritable land could be sold only

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

337

when the landholder moved from a xiaxiang area to a kuanxiang area. The Kaiyuan 25 (737) “Farmland Ordinance” allowed non-inheritable land to be sold to purchase residences or facilities for traveling merchants (didian 邸店). Officials and recipients of merit titles could sell inheritable land. That is, inheritable land could generally be sold, whereas non-inheritable land could be sold only in certain situations. These regulations meant in effect that in xiaxiang areas such as Gaochang, civilian households could sell their land, as this land was generally not non-inheritable. The Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” allowed civilian households to sell “farmland and gardens,” the only restriction being upon sale of such land to temples.80 This indicates that the non-inheritable land granted to Japanese civilian households is equivalent to the inheritable land of civilian households in the Gaochang xiaxiang area of Tang China rather than the non-inheritable land subject to sale and purchase restrictions under the Tang “Farmland Ordinance,” and thus, sale and purchase regulations upon such land resemble those applied by the Tang “Farmland Ordinances” to inheritable land. Given that the land granted to Japanese civilian households resembles the inheritable land granted to civilian households in xiaxiang areas of Tang China, why is it that the “Farmland Ordinance” does not refer to such land as “inheritable land?” The reason is that the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” adheres to the way the Tang dynasty land equalization system actually functioned in practice, not to nominal legal frameworks which were by this time mere formalities. The inheritable land of Tang dynasty civilian households was in practice identical to non-inheritable land, and the two were handled interchangeably in family registries; it could not be perpetually inherited in full by descendants. Particularly in heavily populated xiaxiang areas with little land, there was not enough land to fulfill prescribed grant amounts, and the standard land grants of local governments were quite low. As a general principle, inheritable land reverted to public ownership upon the death of the landholder, and could not be inherited in full by the landholder’s descendants. Thus, in such areas, the “inheritable farmland” of civilian households was not in fact inheritable in perpetuity, though it continued to be referred to legally by this name. The Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” did not adopt in full Tang Chinese regulations on the inheritable land of officials and recipients of merit titles, changing the name of the inheritable farmland of Tang officials to “iden” (位田) and the name of the farmland granted to soldiers

338  L. JIANG ET AL.

in recognition of their service as “kōden” (功田). Whereas the iden of officials reverted to public ownership upon their deaths, different regulations applied to kōden based upon the soldiers’ contributions: “The farmland of those who make momentous contributions can be inherited for any number of generations, the farmland of those who make superior contributions can be inherited for three generations, the farmland of those who make intermediate contributions can be inherited for two generations, and the farmland of those who make lesser contributions can be inherited by their children.”81 A comparison of the Tang Chinese and Japanese “Farmland Ordinances” shows that the most significant changes in the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” have to do with private landholding, that is, the Japanese ordinance restricts the heritability of the land of officials and soldiers. In other words, in addition to more tightly restricting landholding by officials and eliminating the granting of farmland in recognition of superior contributions, the Japanese ordinance does not allow farmland to be inherited in perpetuity. This is perhaps because, due to a lack of land, Japan followed the Tang government’s approach to granting land in xiaxiang areas, or perhaps such an approach was taken due to the influence of the traditional rural Japanese collective land system. Given that neither the land of Japanese civilian households nor the land of officials could be inherited in perpetuity, the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” naturally does not use the term “inheritable land.” Though the non-inheritable land of Japanese civilian households was treated similarly to the inheritable land of civilian households in xiaxiang areas of Tang China when it came to granting, reclamation, sale, purchase, and inheritance, the Japanese “Farmland Ordinance” took a practical approach, adopting not the term “inheritable land,” which was in any case merely nominal, but the broader term “non-inheritable land” which was in wide use in xiaxiang areas of Tang China. To summarize the above, the Japanese land allotment system and the Tang Chinese land equalization set forth essentially similar regulations regarding the granting of land to civilian households. The primary difference between the two, other than the fact that the land allotment system does not adopt the restriction on the maximum amount of land that one ding male could hold under the land equalization system (100 mu in kuanxiang areas, 60 mu in xiaxiang areas), is the fact that the land allotment system adopts the method of granting land in xiaxiang areas rather than kuanxiang areas under the land equalization system. As Tang Chinese ordinances, rulings, and norms were subsequently lost, it

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

339

can no longer be known how land was granted in xiaxiang areas under these regulations. Land equalization system documents discovered in the Gaochang area furnish actual examples of the implementation of the land equalization system in a xiaxiang area. However, many scholars believe that this was a unique system and that these findings are not of universal significance. Comparing this system to the Japanese land allotment system, it is apparent that the Japanese system implements a Chinese method of granting land in xiaxiang areas which is not found in extant Tang dynasty historical works but happens to be the very method applied under the land equalization system in the xiaxiang area of Gaochang. If the results of this comparison can be further substantiated, we believe they will be of great benefit to the study of the similarities and differences in Tang Chinese and Japanese land systems, serving to resolve questions concerning the nature and implementation of the Japanese land system.

7  The Chinese Centralized Authority System and the Shogunate System Above, focusing on the Sui and Tang era, we have undertaken a comparative analysis of several representative problems concerning China and Japan. Below, we will carry out a brief comparison of the social and political structures of Chinese dynasties from the tenth century onward—the Song, the Yuan, the Ming, and the Qing—and Japanese samurai society toward the aim of discovering why China and Japan subsequently followed diverging paths. Following the Taika Reforms, Japan devoted itself to studying aspects of Chinese society such as governance, economics, and culture, and Japanese society developed rapidly, entering a Chinese feudalist-style phase of social development. However, Tang dynasty systems were not necessarily suited to Japan, and Japan could not simply continue copying them wholesale. As it gradually became more and more difficult to implement the land granting and reclamation methods of the land allotment system, private ownership of land was legalized through the enactment of the “Three-Generation Ownership Law” (“Sanze isshin no hō” 三世一身の法) in 723 and the “Permanent Private Ownership of Newly Cultivated Land Law” (“Konden einen shizai hō” 墾田永年私 財法) in 743. In 794, Emperor Kanmu moved the capital to Heiankyō,

340  L. JIANG ET AL.

and Japan transitioned from the Nara period, a time when Chinse culture was revered, to the Heian period, in which the focus gradually shifted to indigenous culture. A century later, in 894, Japan halted the missions to Tang, and thirteen years after that, the Tang dynasty fell, and China entered the tumultuous Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. In 960, China was again unified under the Song dynasty, a time period corresponding to the late Heian period in Japan. By the tenth century, a manor system based upon private ownership of land had developed in Japan, and the “donation” of land began occurring on a mass scale. Manors, which were increasing continually in number, evaded taxes and supervision from local governments by “donating” land to nobles and temples, and thus grew still larger. In the Tang and Song era, a feudal manor system developed in China as well, making this a period of ancient history in which China and Japan underwent parallel developments at approximately the same time. The economic development of the Tang dynasty continued under the Song, and China became one of the world’s wealthiest countries. However, because of the court’s policy of not restricting land mergers, large landlords came to monopolize larger and larger tracts of land, until they possessed approximately seventy to eighty percent of all cultivated land in China; the financial power of the state diminished accordingly. Reformer Wang Anshi, who advocated state management of the economy and the dissolution of private monopolies, promoted reforms that temporarily checked the growth of large landlords and increased the power of the state, but in the long term these efforts were unsuccessful. Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, a number of Japanese scholars including Naitō Kōnan, Katō Shigeshi, and Miyazaki Ichisada immersed themselves in the study of Song dynasty history, proposing the “TangSong transition theory” and the “Tang-Song transformation theory” and publishing a large body of work contrasting the European manor system with the Chinese Tang and Song manor system and in many cases putting forth unique views on the periodization of Chinese feudalist society. In the final analysis, however, the Chinese and European feudal systems differed, and the Song dynasty manor system differed from the feudal land system of medieval Europe. In all Song dynasty manors, regardless of land area, rent was collected in the form of agricultural products. Though the manors were armed, society relied primarily upon local governments for security. This arrangement developed from a Chinese tradition of centralized rule under feudalist sovereigns which was distinct

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

341

from the European feudal system. The Song dynasty was toppled not as the result of a rebellion by armed manors, but due to an invasion by the mounted northern Mongols of the Yuan which interrupted the development of Chinese feudal courts. In 1206, Genghis Khan established the Mongol Empire, in 1271, Kublai Khan christened his dynasty “Great Yuan.” In 1279, he overthrew the Southern Song dynasty, and in 1285 constructed the Yuan capital of Dadu (located in present-day northern Beijing) in the northern region of the Chinese Central Plains. Thus, a Mongol khan came to occupy the Chinese throne. In 1368, the Yuan dynasty fell, and the century-long Mongol Yuan dynasty with its rich equestrian culture82 came to end; it now comprises an integral part of Chinese history. However, under the Mongol khans from Genghis to Kublai, the Mongol Empire expanded rapidly, establishing four western khanates which ruled over a vast territory including almost all of Asia and a large part of Europe, the most expansive empire in world history. In 1259, Möngke Khan passed away and Kublai Khan took the throne; Kublai’s power was limited to the east, that is, the area under the administration of the Yuan Chinese court. The Mongol Empire split, and the four western khanates became independent feudalist states which developed independently of the Yuan court. Therefore, the western expeditions of the Mongols are part of Chinese history, but when we speak of the rise of the western khanates, we are in the realm of world history. A number of views might be taken on the problem of the Mongol invasions. From the perspective of productivity and development, agricultural civilization and equestrian civilization develop under different natural and geographic conditions, and it is difficult to say whether one is more advanced than the other. Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that the Mongol invasions disrupted and inhibited the productivity and development of the invaded territories. Once the Mongols had invaded and established basic institutions, the stable communication and transportation networks of the European continent aided interaction between Eastern and Western civilizations. The Crusades and the Mongolian invasions occurred around the same time, and as a result, Europe emerged from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. Some believe that, prior to the rise of the Mongols, Chinese civilization was the most advanced in the world, and its pace of advancement was accelerating; Islamic civilization was the next most advanced; Christian civilization lagged furthest behind, and was in fact on the verge of collapse. The

342  L. JIANG ET AL.

rise of the Mongols and the Mongol invasions forced drastic changes, “shuffling the deck” of world affairs: Chinese civilization fell into ruin, Islamic civilization was devastated, and Western civilization, dealt a blow but at its core intact, seized the opportunity to rise. That is, the Mongols snatch the baton of world leader from the Han Chinese and passed it to the West. There is a degree of reason to this view, as the Mongol invasions had different impacts upon different regions, countries, and races. For China, however, the Yuan dynasty, the product of an equestrian civilization, both halted the existing progress of Chinese feudalist society and contributed new elements to the development of that society. The question of how the Yuan dynasty altered the historical role of Chinese feudalist society deserves deep consideration. Unlike China, however, Japan lacked a social tradition of centralized feudalist rule, and its feudal manors bore greater resemblance to those of medieval Europe. In order for manors to maintain authority, and to ensure security throughout society in general, there was a need for an armed group such as the European knights, and it was for this reason that groups of samurai emerged. These groups of samurai became quite powerful, and in 1192 founded the Kamakura shogunate, marking the beginning of a period of samurai shogunates which would last more than 670 years. The Kamakura period and the Muromachi period were times of great violence and social turmoil, with samurai ceaselessly waging war on horseback. Toyotomi Hideyoshi twice plotted to conquer Korea with the intent of expanding further to continental Asia, ambitions that seem to resonate with those of Mongolian equestrian civilization. The question of whether this transition was in some way influenced by developments on continental Asia remains to be further studied. In this regard, we will now discuss the Yuan invasion of Japan. After taking up the post of khan, the haughty Kublai, wishing to establish an East Asian empire with the Yuan capital of Dadu at its center, was naturally unwilling to let Japan slip through his clutches, and still less inclined to tolerate the insolence the Japanese showed in killing a Yuan envoy. Therefore, in 1274 and again in 1281, Kublai Khan raised a great army and set out for Japan, but on both occasions was rebuffed by the Japanese samurai and retreated with severe losses. Many Japanese believed that the forces of Yuan were repelled by a “divine wind.” In fact, high ocean winds were just one cause: the Yuan military was made up of a mixture of Mongols, Koreans, and Han Chinese, was poorly prepared, carelessly underestimated its enemy, and committed tactical

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

343

errors, whereas the Japanese were well prepared, rallied the entire population to their cause, enjoyed high morale, and fought strategically. The battles between the Yuan and the Japanese, unlike those between the Yuan and the Song, were clashes between an equestrian civilization and a “samurai civilization” (the Kamakura period clearly differed from the Nara and Heian periods in that samurai did battle on horseback, that is, “samurai civilization” had already come to include some elements of equestrian civilization). The Yuan invasions of Japan generated further tension within Japanese society: the samurai class gained greater power and status, assuring six centuries of peace during which no further incursions across the Japanese border were attempted and increasing Japan’s international status within east Asia. Returning to the main topic, in China, the feudal system endured for a long period of time. If we begin calculating from the Zhou dynasty of the eleventh century BC, it endured for more than three thousand years, or, if we begin calculating from the Qin dynasty, for more than two thousand (alternately, some adhere to the view that the feudal system took shape in the Warring States period). Japanese feudal society endured for a much shorter period of just 1200 years, counting from the Taika Reforms (Chinese-style feudalism predominated in the Nara and Heian periods, and Japanese-style feudalism predominated in the shogunate period). Others assert that Japanese feudalism began in the midHeian period, the Kamakura period, the Azuchi-Momoyama period, or even the Edo period, in all cases shortening its history further. From a political science perspective, feudalism is a state structure83 which always includes the basic characteristic element of the feudal lord (landlord) and serf system, while the governmental system that facilitates the operation of the state may involve either centralized rule or decentralized enfeoffment, the two basic types of feudalist governmental systems. The Chinese feudalist governmental system transitioned from decentralized enfeoffment in the Eastern Zhou dynasty to centralized rule from the Qin dynasty onward, whereas the Japanese feudalist governmental system transitioned from centralized to decentralized. This transition took place in numerous stages, including one in which the Kamakura period military governor (shugo 守護) and estate steward (jitō 地頭) system balanced the provincial governor (kokushi 国司) and estate officer (shōkan 荘官) system of the court, as well as one in which the Muromachi period shugo daimyō (military governors who became feudal lords 守護大名) transitioned to the Sengoku period feudal lords (Sengoku daimyō 戦国

344  L. JIANG ET AL.

大名). In the Edo period, the shogunate system finally took on its more characteristic form as a decentralized enfeoffment system. The above-described system of centralized feudal rule was a political system suited to China’s development. Only by preserving this governmental structure was it possible to maintain unity in a vast, multiethnic state, and this is what enabled China to grow. Were this centralized authority structure had ruptured, the state would have ceased to be unified, and China would not only have failed to grow, but regressed; this principle has been proven again and again throughout history. Thus, generations of Chinese feudal courts regarded consolidating power and unifying the state as matters of utmost importance. As the Chinese proverb states, “hair cannot grow without skin.” Every feudalist ruler understood with utmost clarity that if the state ruptured, there would be no foundation upon which to establish centralized rule. This was also the case for sovereigns of non-Han Chinese courts. The Yuan was a Chinese feudal dynasty which was ruled by Mongols and bore the unique characteristics of an equestrian civilization. During the Yuan dynasty, under the pretense of acting on “heaven’s mandate,” the khans gathered supreme, unquestioned authority. All people, from nobles to commoners to servants, were regarded as “slaves and servants” of the khans.84 With concern to political structures, Yuan dynasty monarch-subject relationships were to a large extent influenced by the master-servant relationships and class concepts of grassland society, and it was for this reason that society came to be predominantly defined by superior-subordinate and master-servant relationships, that the gulf between monarch and subject widened, and that authority was consolidated under the emperor. By formulating and promoting the provincial administration system, rulers skillfully met this challenge, creating a unique centralized authority structure and maintaining authority over a vast territory for a century. In contrast to other ancient Chinese dynasties, the political structures of the Yuan were a unique composite of Central Plains governmental models and ancient Mongolian systems, the most noteworthy being the touxia (投下) system. The term “touxia” refers to the granting of land and fiefdoms, and by extension, to monarchs and nobles who owned land and fiefdoms. The touxia system of granting land originates from Mongol customs of dividing assets. Under the touxia system, feudal lords controlled and managed fiefdoms through officials and mechanisms they themselves installed, often behaving in a wantonly selfish way

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

345

and disregarding the dictates of regional governments, behavior which exerted a drastic impact upon everyday regional government administration. In addition to the special privileges they enjoyed within their own manors, touxia also participated in management of family assets and state governmental affairs, sending their own personnel to represent them in central government administration, including in high-level institutions such as the Central Secretariat, the Bureau of Military Affairs, and the High Court of Justice. Given that Yuan dynasty political systems functioned in this way, the government naturally became extraordinarily corrupt. In order to maintain central authority, the Yuan court implemented oppressive, ethnically discriminatory policies, including a strict ethnic hierarchy system. Rulers divided all commoners into four classes depending upon the order in which the races were conquered, Mongols, Semu (Central and West Asians 色目), Han Chinese, and southerners, in order from high to low status. The Mongols, known as guozu (literally “the state ethnicity” 国族) or zijia gurou (literally “the flesh and bones of our family” 自家骨肉), were the foundational force upon which rulers relied. Non-Mongol ethnic groups of northwestern and western regions, including the Tangut, the Ongud, the Hui, the Uyghurs, the Karluks, the Kipchaks, the Kangly, and the Tibetans, were referred to collectively as Semu, a name derived from the phrase gese mingmu (of all kinds 各色 名目). They were the main assistants of the Mongol rulers. The “Han Chinese” category referred in the narrow sense to the Han people of the area to the north of the Huai River formerly administered by the Jin dynasty as well as Sichuan and Yunnan, areas conquered by the Mongols early on, in addition to the Khitan and Jurchen people who had long resided in northern China and by the Yuan dynasty had largely assimilated with the Han. “Southerners” referred to the people of the conquered area formerly administered by the Southern Song dynasty (the three Yuan dynasty provinces of Zhejiang, Jiangxi, and Huguang). The four groups had different social positions and were treated unequally in many ways. In regard to government employment opportunities, the Mongols and Semu monopolized high government positions, and the Han Chinese and southerners were restricted in various ways from participating in the highest levels of government. In both central and local government positions, regulations stated that “Mongols are to be appointed to the highest positions,” and Han Chinese and southerners were restricted to subordinate positions.85 Except in special cases,

346  L. JIANG ET AL.

only Mongols could occupy the highest positions in central government institutions such as the Central Secretariat, the Bureau of Military Affairs, and the Censorate. In regard to central government supervision posts, regulations stated that “The lianfangsi (廉访司) of the circuits shall appoint as envoys Mongols, or if this is not possible, the descendants of meritorious former Semu officials or, if this is not possible, Semu or Han Chinese.”86 Southerners were completely excluded. Following the establishment of the imperial examination system, the four groups, though radically unequal in size, were represented equally among successful examination candidates; however, Mongols and Semu were required to undergo fewer examinations than Han Chinese and southerners. With regard to treatment under the law, if a Mongol struck a Han Chinese person in a fight, the Han Chinese person had to appeal to local authorities, and was not permitted to strike back; if, due to a dispute or excessive drinking, a Mongol killed a Han Chinese person, rather than receiving the death penalty, the Mongol was required only top pay the funeral expenses and perform penal labor. The four classes were punished differently for the same crimes: for instance, a Han Chinese or southerner who committed theft was subject to penal tattooing, a punishment from which Mongols were exempted. With regard to military defense affairs, the Yuan court maintained Mongol army and Tanmachi (an army staffed by tribes under the administration of the Mongols 探 马赤) garrison forces in the Central Plains as defenses against the Han Chinese, maintained a Han army garrison force in the Jiangnan region as a defense against southerners, and prohibited Han Chinese and southerners from owning arms such as bows and arrows, keeping hunting falcons and hounds, learning to fight with spears and clubs, and even praying at temples and taking part in theatrical performances. With regard to the types of clothes commoners were permitted to wear, marriage customs, and betrothal gifts, discriminatory rules applied to Han Chinese and southerners. Also, the Mongols split the Han Chinese under their administration into the two groups of Han Chinese and southerners to make it easier to manipulate and control them. However, though southerners occupied the lowest rung of the hierarchy, large southern landlords maintained political influence thanks to their wealth. One way in which they exerted this influence was by manipulating local authorities. Most Mongol and Semu nobles serving in high positions in Jiangnan prefectural and county governments knew nothing of political affairs and moreover were unfamiliar with the local areas they

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

347

administered, and were therefore forced to rely upon local aristocratic families. These aristocrats paid large sums to curry favor with officials, and such provincial officials “turned corrupt and swallowed the bait dangled before them, doing whatever they were told to do and not doing whatever they were told not to do.”87 In some cases, the aristocrats took up low-level positions themselves, evading corvee labor and ruling remote rural areas in arbitrary, dictatorial fashion. Another way in which the wealthy exerted influence was by purchasing official titles, that is, visiting the capital with enormous sums of money, making friends among the Kheshig imperial guard, and requesting positions. Thus, the saying “southerners visit the northern capital in pursuit of fame, and northerners go to the south in pursuit of profit” describes a common state of affairs in the Yuan dynasty. The Yuan court also sought to solidify control by instituting a unique family registry system (referred to as zhuse huji [registry of various types of households 诸色户计]). Under this system, the entire population was divided into various categories depending mainly upon occupation and secondarily upon other factors such as ethnicity and religious faith, and accordingly assigned different duties and required to provide different services to the state. Civilian households, in other words commoners, were the most basic type of household under the system. Other special types of households undertook special duties on behalf of the state. More than eighty different types of Yuan dynasty household registries are found in historical documents, including military households (numbering approximately 200,000–300,000), postal worker households (more than 300,000), artisan households (more than 200,000), salt-producing households (60,000–100,000), Buddhist clergy households (slightly more than 200,000), Daoist clergy households, Christian clergy households, Islamic clergy households, scholarly households (approximately 110,000, with approximately 100,000 in the south and 10,000 in the north), hunting households (who hunted on behalf of the royal family), hawk and falcon-raising households (who also worked on the royal family’s behalf), gold-panning households, garrison farm households, and so on. Once a family registry was created, households were bound to “engage in their set occupations,” which were hereditary and could not be altered. Centralized rule was maintained throughout the Yuan dynasty, but the equestrian culture introduced by the Mongols sent shockwaves through Chinese feudal governmental and social structures and injected a great

348  L. JIANG ET AL.

deal of new genetic material into Han-centered Chinese civilization. This enriched Chinese civilization: its external forms continually became more diverse, its inclusivity broader, and its power to persist stronger. In 1636, the Jurchen, a people said to “rule the battlefield on horseback and dominate governmental affairs on foot,” arose in alliance with the Manchus in northeastern China, an area ruled by the Ming court palace guard, and established a Mongol-Han dynasty, the Qing. In 1644, Qing forces invaded the Central Plains, and the basic foundations of dynastic rule were laid. The Qing took every opportunity to exterminate the remnants of the Southern Ming states, putting down the Revolt of the Three Feudatories, occupying Taiwan, and unifying China. The Qing established centralized control through central government structures modeled after those of the Ming court, with a central Cabinet, a Department of Defense, Six Ministries (Civil Appointment, Finance, Rites, War, Punishments, and Public Works), a Bureau of Censors, and so on. Areas outside the capital were separated into provinces, circuits, prefectures, and counties, and the central Ministry of Civil Appointment and Ministry of War controlled the appointment, dismissal, examination, promotion, demotion, and transfer of civilian officials as well as the appointment, dismissal, examination, etc. of military officials throughout the country. The Eight Banner System (Ba Qi Zhi 八旗制), one of the defining Qing dynasty central government structures, was used specifically to organize and manage the Manchu. However, it should be affirmed that, in the Yuan dynasty, Tibet officially became part of China. In 1264, Yuan emperor Kublai Khan established the Institute of Comprehensive Governance (referred to first as Zongzhiyuan [总制院] and later as Xuanzhengyuan [宣政院]) in order to “establish rule over the Tibetan border regions by subjugating Buddhist monks,” and appointed Imperial Preceptor Drogön Chogyal Phagpa to oversee the Institute. The “Tibetan border regions,” including Gansu, Qinghai, and Tibet, were placed under the administration of the Institute. In addition to establishing administrative bodies and military bodies in the Tibetan region, the Yuan court dispatched officials to Tibet to survey the population and establish relay stations, evidence of the extensive exercise of central government authority. In the north, the whole of present-day Siberia was under the administration of the Yuan’s Lingbei Province and Liaoyang Province, and on numerous occasions Kublai Khan dispatched soldiers and civilians to these provinces to establish garrison farms. In 1253, Kublai Khan led an expedition to Dali,

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

349

and in 1283, the Yunnan and Guizhou ethnic minority area of southwest China became Yuan dynasty territory. The Yuan dynasty may have existed for only a brief time, but its contributions toward consolidating Chinese territory and building a multiethnic Chinese state were highly significant. Subsequently, in the Ming and Qing dynasties, the northern Chinese border shifted, but Tibet never ceased to be part of China. The Ming court established Provisional Capital Command Departments (Xingdu Zhihui Shisi 行都指挥使司) to oversee civil administration in central and eastern Tibet as well as a Military and Civilian Supreme Command Office (Junmin Yuanshui Fu 军民元帅府) in Ngari; the officials who served in these institutions were appointed by the central government. Emperor Chengzu of Ming conferred titles such as “King of the Dharma” (Fawang 法王), “King” (Wang王), and “Consecrated Master Advisor” (Guanding Guoshi 灌顶国师) upon regional Tibetan religious leaders. The emperor’s approval was required in order for a new monarch to take the throne, and envoys were dispatched to confer titles upon monarchs. Each New Year’s Day, the Tibetan monarch was required to personally travel to the capital to take part in court ceremonies, present congratulatory memorials, and pay tribute. Subsequently, the Qing government conferred titles upon the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, and in 1751 instituted the Imperial Regulations for the Amelioration of Tibetan Affairs (Qinding Xizang shanhou zhangcheng 钦 定西藏善后章程), strengthening the authority of high officials stationed in Tibet and further consolidating rule over the region. On the northwestern frontier, the Qing government suppressed Galdan Boshugtu’s Dzungar rebellion, bringing the area of Xinjiang to the north and south of the Tian Shan mountains under the direct control of the Qing. In the southwest, the Qing government implemented a policy known as “gaitu guiliu” (a transition from rule by local chiefs to direct administration by centrally appointed temporary officials 改土归流), strengthening central government control over the southwest. In the High Qing era (1683– 1799), the empire’s territory extended across the Pamir Mountains in the west, to the north shore of Lake Balkhash in the northwest, into Siberia in the north, to the Stanovoy Range and Sakhalin Island in the northeast, to Tibet and Yunnan in the southwest, to the Spratly Islands in the south, and to Taiwan and the Senkaku Islands in the east. The Qing empire was vast, strong, and prosperous. One unique characteristic of Japanese samurai society is the division of power between the samurai regime and symbolic religious authorities

350  L. JIANG ET AL.

such as the emperor, somewhat similar to Europe (that is not to say, however, that samurai had no religious authority over subordinates). The emperor’s power steadily weakened throughout the mid-samurai society period, but the shogunate retained the imperial court as a symbol of the “divine nation.” The shogunate, in turn, derived legitimacy from the emperor’s “divine authority.” In the Edo shogunate period, the concept of Japan as a “divine nation” was exaggerated further by state-funded writers who proclaimed Japan the “middle kingdom (chūgoku 中国)” and the “central civilization (chūka 中華).”88 This tendency to exaggerate persisted through the ages and fused with the samurai spirit, laying the groundwork for early modern Japanese militarism. Japanese samurai society persisted for many generations, but throughout its duration society remained firmly rooted in the samurai spirit, esteeming martial qualities, promoting absolute loyalty, emphasizing etiquette, and idealizing death. These are the basic elements of the bushido code which took shape in the late shogunate period. Shortly after the establishment of the Edo shogunate, in 1615, the Laws for Military Houses were instituted. The first article of the Laws states, “Samurai ought to passionately engage in scholarship, military pursuits, archery, and horsemanship… It is the ancient way to engage in both scholarly and military pursuits; neither should be neglected. Archery and horsemanship are essential skills for samurai. These are fearsome tools of war which should be put to use when there is no other option. In times of peace, samurai should not neglect to prepare for war.” Thus, esteem for martial qualities is the basic foundation of the samurai spirit. By no means does the samurai code emphasize a pacifist focus upon scholarship. Absolute loyalty was the most important quality in a samurai, that is, they were expected to be unfailingly loyal to their masters. Samurai took their masters as ultimate authorities, fighting bravely and not hesitating to give up their lives to carry out their masters’ orders. Observing etiquette meant remaining scrupulously decorous no matter the circumstances and always acting in accord with one’s social station and the social hierarchy. Idealizing death meant facing death unflinchingly and valuing honor over life. The Japanese samurai spirit is to a significant extent in accord with the spirit of Yuan dynasty warriors and European knights. As described above, the Edo shogunate employed a decentralized enfeoffment structure which was unique to Japanese feudalism; this manifested as the shogunate system. The shogun was granted the title “Great Commander of the Expeditionary Force against the Barbarians”

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

351

by the emperor, and on this basis derived his legitimacy. For ranks below shogun, a complete system of conferring authority was in place, and a strict class system was applied to subordinate samurai. The shogunate ruled over numerous feudal domains which, depending upon their relationships with the shogunate, were termed shinpan (close domains 親 藩), fudai (hereditary domains 譜代), or tozama (outside domains 外 様). Lords held complete authority over their domains, which functioned as independent states. However, the shogunate exerted control over the domains through means such as the alternating residence system (sankin kōtai 参勤交代). The shogunate controlled 25.8 percent of all land in Japan, while the domain lords controlled 72.5 percent, the court and the imperial family controlled 0.5 percent, and temples and shrines controlled 1.2 percent. These figures accurately reflect the balance of authority between various Edo period powers. The Edo period feudal system can be thought of as a two-tier or even three-tier system, and it is this that primarily distinguishes it from the Chinese system of centralized rule. After establishing control over government, the samurai tightened controls over society and the people, instituting a very strict class system. The Kamakura shogunate, the Muromachi shogunate, and the Edo shogunate all had hierarchical class structures. Particularly under the Edo shogunate, borders between powers within the samurai class as well as between social classes were firmly defined and could not be crossed. Samurai had the highest status among the four classes (warrior, farmer, laborer, and merchant) and were not subject to the death penalty for committing murder, recalling Yuan dynasty class system regulations. The above comparative analysis of ancient Chinese and Japanese governmental and social structures has demonstrated that the two countries influenced one another very significantly throughout their development in ancient times. Particularly following the establishment of the state, Japan absorbed a great deal of advanced knowledge from Chinese civilization, but did so selectively and also innovated based upon the knowledge it absorbed, and the two countries developed along generally similar lines. In the Tang and Song dynasties, China became the leading power in East Asia, and after challenging China unsuccessfully, Japan switched to an approach of peaceful coexistence and developed in a stable manner. The centralized authority system and the decentralized enfeoffment system were the primary forms taken by feudalism in China and Japan, respectively. An examination of the course of the historical

352  L. JIANG ET AL.

development of China and Japan as well as the course of East Asian and world history shows clearly that no human civilization has ever flourished in perpetuity; rather, civilizations develop in wave-like fashion, with some pulling ahead while others fall behind. Agricultural civilizations possessed great vitality throughout the early and middle feudal period, but in the late feudal period, facing challenges from equestrian civilization, seafaring civilization, and finally industrial civilization, agricultural civilizations were forced to adapt in order to survive. Under the decentralized enfeoffment structure of the Edo period shogunate, Japan enjoyed 250 years of peace, but when foreign enemies pressed in, the country had to act with unified will to resist. At this point, the Japanese again relied upon the timeworn approach of learning from other countries, taking the best and leaving the remainder behind. As Japan’s martial and competitive spirit grew steadily stronger, and as technical development was emphasized, Japan was able to resolve this dilemma and continue along the path toward further growth. Centralized rule facilitated the growth of Chinese feudal society; when functioning well, it was naturally able to unite a country and ward off foreign aggression. Regrettably, however, the centralized feudal system collapsed in the High Qing era, and the state was unable to reverse a worsening trend toward corruption. No power could have halted the social deterioration depicted in Officialdom Unmasked (Guanchang xianxing ji 官场现形记) and averted what was destined to occur. This is the legacy left behind by ancient Chinese and Japanese history and the history of Sino-Japanese relations, a legacy of precious experience and lessons deserving of deep consideration.

Notes

1. Entry for Xianheng 5 (674), eighth month, “Basic Annals of Gaozong,” Old Book of Tang: “The emperor is referred to as tianhuang, and his descendants are referred to as tianhou.” Entry for Hongdao 1 (683), twelfth month, fourth day: “On this evening, the emperor passed away in Zhenguan Palace at the age of fifty-six and was given the posthumous title Tianhuang Dadi. In Tianbao 8 (749), his posthumous title was changed to Dasheng Huangdi (Great Sagely Emperor 大圣皇帝). In Tianbao 13 (754), his title was changed to Tianhuang Dasheng Dahong Xiao Huangdi (Heavenly Great Sagely Magnificent Filial Emperor 天皇大 圣大弘孝皇帝).”

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 













353

2. Translator’s note: The meaning of this term is disputed. It may refer to Daoism, Shinto, witchcraft, or a shamanic practice. 3. “Zhang Lu zhuan” 张鲁传 [Annals of Zhang Lu], Wei zhi 魏志 [Annals of Wei]. 4. “Liu Yan zhuan” 刘焉传 [Annals of Liu Yan], Han shu. 5.  The “Chapter on Diligent Study” (“Mian xue pian” 勉学篇) of Yan Family Precepts (Yan shi jiaxun 颜氏家训) states, “He Yan and Wang Bi elaborated upon esoteric teachings… in the Liang dynasty, this school of study had a resurgence, and Zhuangzi, Laozi, and The Book of Changes were referred to collectively as ‘the three esoteric texts.’” 6. This is substantiated by the fact that in all instances in which they appear in Nihon shoki, the characters 真人 are read “mahito.” 7. According to “The Most Venerated Master” chapter of Zhuangzi, a true man “does not resist his inadequacies, aspire to completeness, or lay painstaking plans,” “climbs high but does not tremble, enters water but does not get wet, enters fire but is not burned,” “sleeps but does not dream, wakes but does not worry, eats but does not savor, and takes deep breaths.” It is thus apparent that a true man a divine, transcendent being not bound by convention. 8. The character 露 is indistinct and could be interpreted as the character 霖. 9. Emperor Tenmu’s second-oldest son; ordinarily written “大津皇子” (Ōtsu no miko). Additionally, mokkan reading “大伯皇子宮物□…□品併五十 □,” “大伯皇子・大伴,” and so on have been excavated from the Asukaike Site [translator’s note: the inscriptions cannot be interpreted completely due to missing characters, but the relevant point here is that they contain the same word for prince (miko 皇子)]. 10. The sepulchral tablet of Kim Inmun, excavated in Gyeongju, Korea, is inscribed with the characters “高宗天皇大帝 [in Chinese, ‘Gaozong Tianhuang Dadi’]”; it is believed to date to the late seventh century. An entry in Nihon shoki for the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the fourth year of the reign of Empress Jitō (690) records, “The Genka Calendar and the Gihō Calendar were instituted upon imperial order.” No Chinese equivalent of the Gihō Calendar, which was used for more than seventy years in Japan, has been found. We conjecture that this calendrical system was transmitted to Japan during China’s Yifeng (Japanese: Gihō 仪凤) period (676–678), providing evidence of free-flowing cultural exchange between China and Japan during the reign of Emperor Gaozong. See Wang, “Tang li zai Dong Ya de chuanbo.” 11. Fukunaga Mitsuji, Dōkyō to Nihon bunka 道教と日本文化 [Daoism and Japanese culture] (Kyoto: Jimbun Shoin, 1988), 11–12. 12. Fukunaga Mitsuji, Minoru Senda 千田稔, and Tōru Takahashi 高橋徹, Nihon no Dōkyō iseki o aruku 日本の道教遺跡を歩く [A walk through

354  L. JIANG ET AL.











the Daoist ruins of Japan] (Tokyo: The Asahi Shimbun Company, 2003), 128. 13.  As cited in Mayumi Tsunetada 真弓常忠, “Shintō saishi ni okeru Dōkyōteki yōso” 神道祭祀における道教的要素 [Daoist elements of Shinto ritual], in Ajia yūgaku tokushū: Nihon bunka ni miru Dōkyō no yōso 『アジア遊学』特集『日本文化に見る道教の要素』 [Gleanings from Asian travels, special edition: Elements of Daoism in Japanese culture], 128. “危厄 (danger and misfortune)” was perhaps intended rather than “免厄 (salvation from disaster)” [translator’s note: the translation follows this interpretation]. 14. Yoshino Hiroko 吉野裕子, Yi, “wuxing” yu Riben shenhua 〈易〉、 “五行”与日本神话 [The Book of Changes, the five elemental phases, and Japanese myth], in Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi di 7 juan: Sixiang juan《中日文化交流史大系》第7卷《思想卷》 [Compendium on the history of China-Japan cultural exchange, volume 7: Thought], ed. Yan Shaodang et al. (People’s Press, 1996), 77. 15. “Xuan di ji” 宣帝纪 [Chronicles of Emperor Xuan], f. 7 in Zhou shu 周书 [The book of Zhou]. 16. “Du Zhengxuan zhuan” 杜正玄传 [Annals of Du Zhengxuan], f. 76 in Sui shu 隋书 [The book of Sui]. 17. “Libu Shangshu” 吏部尚书 [Ministry of Civil Appointment, Imperial Secretariat], in “Shangshu Libu” 尚书吏部 [Imperial Secretariat Ministry of Civil Appointment], f. 2 in Tang liu dian 唐六典 [The six statutes of the Tang dynasty] (Zhonghua Book Company, 1992). 18. “Libu Shangshu shilang” 吏部尚书侍郎 [Assistant minister, Ministry of Civil Appointment, Imperial Secretariat], in “Shangshu Libu,” f. 2 in Tang liu dian. 19. “Fanxujie zhi fa” 凡叙阶之法 [Assignment of rankings], in “Libu langzhong” 吏部郎中 [Ministry of Civil Appointment director] entry, “Shangshu Libu,” f. 2 in Tang liu dian. 20. “Xuanju san: Lidai zhi xia” 选举三·历代制下 [Imperial examination system 3: Historical systems 2], f. 15 in Tong dian 通典 [Comprehensive institutions]. 21. “Xuanju zhi yi” 选举志一 [Imperial examination system records 1], Song shi 宋史 [History of Song]. 22. Ryō no shūge jō令集解上 [Collection of commentary on ordinances 1], vol. 23 of Shintei zōho kokushi taikei 新訂増補国史大系 [Anthology of historical texts, newly corrected edition with supplements] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1943), 444. 23.  Ryō no shūge ge令集解下 [Collection of commentary on ordinances 2], vol. 24 of Shintei zōho kokushi taikei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1955), 650.



7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

355

24. Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞, Akira Seki 関晃, Naoshige Tsuchida 土田直 鎮, and Kazuo Aoki 青木和夫, eds., Ritsuryō (Nihon shisō taikei 3) 律令 (日本思想体系3) [Ritsuryō (Japanese thought document collection 3)] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1977), 302. 25. Inoue, Ritsuryō, 302. 26. Inoue, Ritsuryō, 300. 27. Inoue, Ritsuryō, 277. 28. In Enryaku 21 (802), the Department of State issued a memorial reading, “A century has passed since the code was instituted, yet only a few dozen examinees have passed in these two categories” (“Senjō ryō” 選叙 令 [Selection and assessment ordinance], in Ryō no shūge jō, 506). 29. Entry for Jōhei 5 (935), eighth month, twenty-fifth day, “Government Policy Examination,” Collection of Excerpts from Government Directives: “A careful inspection of records shows that of all examination candidates in the country, from the first year of the Keiun period [704] to the end of the Jōhei period [938], just sixty-five managed to pass. Prior to the Keiun era, there were only a few dozen successful candidates, mainly from well-known families. Since the Kanpyō era [889–898], children and grandchildren have assumed their fathers’ and grandfathers’ occupations in hereditary fashion. Just forty-five candidates have managed to enter officialdom without relying on family connections” (Shin shōkyaku chokufushō, Hōsō ruirin, Ruijūfu senshō, Zoku sajōshō, Besshūfu senshō 新抄格勅 符抄・法曹類林・類聚符宣抄・續左丞抄・別聚符宣抄 [New excerpts from rulings, orders, and directives, Legal anthology, Collection of excerpts from government directives, Further excerpts from government directives, Additional collection of excerpts from government directives], vol. 27 of Shintei zōho kokushi taikei [Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1936], 249). Collection of Excerpts from Government Directives is a collection of imperial decrees and official Department of State documents from Tenpyō 9 (737) to Kanji 7 (1093). 30. Katō Genchi 加藤玄智, ed., Kōhon kokun kogo shūi 校本古訓古語拾 [Collection of ancient tales and teachings, corrected edition] (Tokyo: Kinseisha, 1941), 25. 31.  “Ordinance on Ranks and Posts” (“Kan’i ryō” 官位令), Collection of Commentary on Ordinances: “‘Post’ refers to an official’s duties and ‘rank’ refers to an official’s position in the court. Ministers accumulate merit by serving their rulers with absolutely loyalty. They then obtain noble ranks and are thereafter awarded posts” (Ryō no shūge jō, 3). 32. “Kan’i ryō” 官位令 [Ordinance on ranks and posts], Ryō no gi ge 令義解 [Explication of the significance of ordinances] (Ritsu, ryō no gi ge 律·令義 解 [Explication of the significance of penal regulations and ordinances], vol. 22 of Shintei zōho kokushi taikei, 3).

356  L. JIANG ET AL.

33. The Yōrō Code “Recruitment and Promotion Ordinance” stipulates, “When the children of officials of fifth rank or above enter officialdom, first rank legitimate heirs shall be granted lower inferior fifth rank, and first rank illegitimate children shall be granted upper superior sixth rank. Second rank legitimate heirs shall be granted lower superior sixth rank, second rank illegitimate children and third rank legitimate heirs shall be granted upper inferior sixth rank, and third rank illegitimate children shall be granted lower inferior sixth rank. Superior fourth rank legitimate heirs shall be granted lower superior seventh rank, superior fourth rank illegitimate children and inferior fourth rank legitimate heirs shall be granted upper inferior seventh rank, and inferior fourth rank illegitimate children shall be granted lower inferior seventh rank. Superior fifth rank legitimate heirs shall be granted lower superior eighth rank, superior fifth rank illegitimate children and inferior fifth rank legitimate heirs shall be granted upper inferior eighth rank, and inferior fifth rank illegitimate children shall be granted lower inferior eighth rank. For third rank and above, ranks may be inherited by grandchildren, but the inherited ranks shall be reduced by one relative to children” (Inoue, Ritsuryō, 280). 34. “Gaku ryō” 学令 [Education ordinance], in Ryō no shūge jō, 460. 35.  Seki Akira, “Ritsuryō kizoku ron” 律令貴族論 [On ritsuryō nobles], in Iwanami kōza Nihon rekishi (3) kodai 岩波講座日本歴史 (3) 古 代 [Iwanami course on Japanese history (3): Ancient times] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1976), 50. 36. Nomura Tadao 野村忠夫, Ritsuryō kanjinsei no kenkyū 律令官人制の研 究 [A study of the ritsuryō official system] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1967), 279. 37. Entry for Emperor Heizei, Daidō 1 (806), sixth month, tenth day, Nihon kōki, vol. 3 of Shintei zōho kokushi taikei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1934), 67. 38. Yagi Haruo 矢木明夫, Mibun no shakaishi 身分の社会史 [A social history of status] (Tokyo: Hyōronsha, 1969), 114. 39. “Gyokuyō shūge, hochū” 玉葉集解・補注 [Jeweled leaf commentary collection, with notes], http://www.toride.com/~sansui/materials/kanezane/mokuji02.html. 40. The five regent houses were Konoe, Kujō, Nijō, Ichijō, and Takatsukasa. 41. Xia Dongyuan 夏东元, ed., Zheng Guanying ji 郑观应集 [Zheng Guanying anthology] (Shanghai People’s Press, 1982), 291. 42. Achiwa Gorō 阿知波五郎, Ishigaku tenbyō 医史学点描 [An outline of the history of medicine], in Achiwa Gorō ronbun shū jō 阿知波五郎論文集上 [Achiwa Gorō essay collection 1] (Kyoto: Shinbunkaku Shuppan, 1986), 192.

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

357

43. For instance, “martial arts practice is not to be neglected” (precepts of the Honma merchant family) and “practice martial arts, study the literary arts, and devote yourself to the cultivation of moral character” (precepts of the Hamaguchi family). 44. “Pang shi jiaxun” 庞氏家训 [Pang clan family precepts], quoted in Cong Xu 丛余, ed., Zhongguo lidai mingmen jiaxun 中国历代名门家训 [Family precepts of well-known historical Chinese clans] (Oriental Publishing Center: 1997), 255. 45. “Shangshu Xingbu” 尚书刑部 [Imperial Secretariat Ministry of Punishments], f. 6 in Tang liu dian. 46. “Guozijian” 国子监 [Imperial Academy], f. 21 in Tang liu dian. 47. Entry for Suiko 31 (623), Nihon shoki. 48. Mizubayashi Takeshi 水林彪, Tōru Ōtsu 大津透, Ichirō Nitta 新田一郎, and Osamu Ōtō 大藤修, eds., Hō shakaishi 法社会史 [A social history of law], vol. 2 of Shintaikei Nihonshi 新体系日本史 [A new view of Japanese history] (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2001). 49. “Xingfa yi” 刑法一 [Criminal law 1], f. 152 in Song shi. 50. Thus, Chinese history textbooks have always discussed penal regulations, ordinances, rulings, and norms in the context of the legal system and not in the context of state systems or political/economic systems. 51. However, although the Tang dynasty is generally referred to as “the era of the lüling system,” and Tang China is not referred to as a “lüling state.” 52. Ōtsu Tōru, “Kakushikihō no rekishiteki igi” 格式法の歴史的意義 [The historical significance of rulings and norms-based law], in Hō shakaishi. 53. Liu Lianan 刘连安, Tang fa de dong zhuan 唐法的东传 [The eastward transmission of Tang law], in Zhong Ri wenhua jiaoliu shi daxi fazhi juan 中日文化交流史大系法制卷 [Sino-Japanese cultural exchange compendium, legal systems volume], ed. Liu Junwen 刘俊文 and On Ikeda (Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 1996). 54. Japanese scholars generally believe that on the whole, the Taihō Code ordinances tend to strictly follow Tang dynasty ordinances, whereas numerous adjustments have been made to the Yōrō Code ordinances; however, the extent of the changes depends upon the ordinance. 55. Regarding the above-mentioned similarities and differences between Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances, see Ōtsu Tōru, “Kodai (Ritsuryōhō to koyūhōteki chitsujo—Nittō no hikaku o chūshin ni kakushiki no seiritsu to sekkanki no hō)” 古代「律令法と固有法的秩序—日唐の比較 を中心に格式の成立と摂関期の法」 [Ancient times: The structure of ritsuryō law and indigenous law—The establishment of rulings/norms and regency period law, focusing on comparisons between Japan and Tang China], in Hō shakaishi; and Ōtsu Tōru, “Hokusō tensei ryō no kōkan to sono igi” 北宋天聖令の公刊とその意義 [The publication and

358  L. JIANG ET AL.









significance of the Northern Song “Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity”], Tōhōgaku 東方学 114 (2007). 56.  Ōtsu, “Hokusō tensei ryō no kōkan to sono igi.” 57.  See Tian Yi Ge Museum 天一阁博物馆 and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Academy of History Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity Organization and Study Committee 中国社会科学院历史研究所天圣令 整理课题组, Tianyige cang Ming chaoben Tian sheng ling jiaozheng (fu Tang ling fuyuan yanjiu) 天一阁藏明钞本天圣令校证 (附唐令复原研究) [Corrected and verified edition of the hand-copied Ming dynasty edition of the “Ordinance on Heavenly Divinity” held by Tian Yi Ge (accompanied by a study of the reconstruction of the Tang dynasty ordinance)] (Zhonghua Book Company, 2006). 58. “Tō ryō shūi hotei: Den ryō” 唐令拾遺補訂・田令 [Collection of Tang dynasty ordinances with revisions and supplements: Farmland ordinance], in Tō ryō shūi ho: Fu Tō nichi ryō ryō taishō ichiran 唐令拾遺補―附唐日 両令対照一覧 [Collection of Tang dynasty ordinances with supplements: With a list of similarities and differences between Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances], ed. Niida Noboru 仁井田陞 and On Ikeda (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1997); “Tō nichi ryō ryō taishō ichiran: Den ryō” 唐日両令対照一覧・田令 [List of similarities and differences between Tang Chinese and Japanese ordinances: Farmland ordinance], in Tō ryō shūi ho. 59. See Tian Yi Ge Museum, Tianyige cang Ming chaoben Tian sheng ling jiaozheng. 60. “‘Den ryō’: Chi kanden jō shūge” “田令”置官田条集解 [“Farmland ordinance,” collected commentary on establishment of government-owned farmland], in Ryō no shūge 令集解 [Collection of commentary on ordinances], f. 12, quoted in Kokushi taikei ryō no shūge dai ni (shintei zōho fukyū ban) 国史大系令集解第二 (新訂増補普及版) [Anthology of historical texts: Collection of commentary on ordinances 2 (Newly revised and supplemented popular edition)] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1980). Further citations from Collection of Commentary on Ordinances are all drawn from this text; this will not be noted in each instance. 61. “Den ryō” 田令 [Farmland ordinance], f. 12 in Ryō no shūge. 62. “‘Kubunden enkaku’ jō hochū” 「口分田沿革」条補註 [Supplementary notes to “History of non-inheritable farmland” article], in Ritsuryō, ed. Inoue et al., 280. 63. “Hu hun lü shuyi” 户婚律疏议 [Commentary on household and marriage code], f. 13 in Tang lü shuyi 唐律疏议 [Commentary on the Tang Code] (Zhonghua Book Company, 1983). 64. “‘Den ryō,’ kubunden jō, kan kōden jō shūge” “田令”, 口分田条、 還公田条集解 [“Farmland ordinance,” collected commentary on

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 







359

non-inheritable land article and return of government-owned land article], in Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 65. Niida and Ikeda, eds., “Tō nichi ryō ryō taishō ichiran”; Song Jiayu 宋家 钰, “Tang Kaiyuan tian ling de fuyuan yanjiu fu ‘Tang Kaiyuan tian ling de fuyuan qingben’” 唐开元田令的复原研究附 “唐开元田令的复原清本” [A study of the reconstruction of the Tang dynasty Kaiyuan era farmland ordinance with the “Reconstructed corrected edition of the Tang dynasty Kaiyuan farmland ordinance”], in Tianyige cang Ming chaoben Tian sheng ling jiaozheng. One Tang dynasty mu is equivalent to 0.786 present-day mu.. 66. “Den ryō,” Ryō no shūge. One Japanese dan is equivalent to 360 square bu (步) or 1.5 present-day mu. 67.  Tulufan chutu wenshu 吐鲁番出土文书 [Documents excavated in Turpan] (Wenwu Chubanshe), vol. 7: 468–484. 68. Ikeda On, Chūgoku kodai sekichō kenkyū/rokubun 中国古代籍帳研究·録 文 [Study and transcription of ancient Chinese registry books] (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979). 69. Takeuchi Rizō 竹內理三, ed., Nara ibun 寧楽遺文 [Nara period historical writings] (Tokyo: Tokyodo, 1981), vol. 1: 113–134. 70. Liang Fangzhong 梁方仲, Zhongguo lidai hukou, tiandi, tianfu tongji 中 国历代户口、田地、田赋统计 [Historical Chinese household, population, farmland, and land tax statistics] (Shanghai People’s Press, 1980). 71. Nishijima Sadao, “Turufan shutsudo bunsho yori mitaru kindensei no shikō jōtai: Kyūden bunsho/taiden bunsho o chūshin toshite” 吐魯番 出土文書より見たる均田制の施行状態—給田文書・退田文書を中心 として― [The implementation of the land equalization system as seen in documents excavated in Turpan: Focusing on documents on granting of farmland and reclamation of farmland], in Seiiki Bunka Kenkyū (dai 2) Tonkō Turufan shakai keizai shiryō jō 西域文化研究 (第2) 敦煌 吐魯番社会経済資料上 [Western Chinese cultural studies (2) Documents on the society and economy of Dunhuang and Turpan 1], ed. Seiiki Bunka Kenkyūkai 西域文化研究会 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1959); Nishimura Motosuke 西村元佑, “Tō dai Turufan ni okeru kindensei no igi: Ōtani tankentai shōrai, ketsuden bunsho o chūshin toshite” 唐代吐魯番にお ける均田制の意義—大谷探検隊将来、欠田文書を中心として― [The significance of the land equalization system in Tang dynasty Turpan: Focusing on the Ōtani expedition collection and qiantian documents], in Seiiki Bunka Kenkyū (dai 2). 72. “Hubulang zhongyuanwailang tiao guanren yongyetian zhu” 户部郎中 员外郎条官人永业田注 [Vice director of Ministry of Census article, note on inheritable farmland of officials], in Tang liu dian, f. 3. 73.  Tulufan chutu wenshu, vol. 7: 517.



360  L. JIANG ET AL. 74.  Tulufan chutu wenshu, vol. 7: 506. 75. Ikeda, Chūgoku kodai sekichō kenkyū/rokubun, 436. 76.  Tulufan chutu wenshu, vol. 7: 357. 77. “‘Den ryō,’ roku nen ippan jō” “田令”, 六年一班条 [“Farmland ordinance,” article on reallotment of land every six years], Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 78. “‘Den ryō,’ juden jō shūge” 授田条集解 [“Farmland ordinance,” collected commentary on granting of farmland article], Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 79. “‘Den ryō,’ roku nen ippan jō shūge” “田令”, 六年一班条集解 [“Farmland ordinance,” collected commentary on article on reallotment of land every six years], Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 80. “‘Den ryō,’ takuchi jō, chinso jō, kanjin hyakushō jō” “田令”, 宅地条、 賃租条、官人百姓条 [“Farmland ordinance,” residential land article, rent and tax article, officials and commoners article], Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 81. “‘Den ryō,’ kōden jō” “田令”, 功田条 [“Farmland ordinance,” kōden article], Ryō no shūge, f. 12. 82. In this work, the term “equestrian civilization” refers not to nomadic people but to but to a type of civilization which has equestrian transport as its main external feature, that is, the totality of the state structures, ideologies, production methods, and social frameworks which nomadic people came to possess in the civilized historical era. Generally speaking, in the history of human social development, equestrian civilization emerges in the slavery-based and feudal social stages. Equestrian civilizations with a major influence upon the historical development of mainland Asia and Europe include the Xiongnu civilization that emerged around the first century BC or the first century AD and the Mongol Yuan civilization that emerged around the thirteenth century; the equestrian civilization of feudal Europe (the twelfth and thirteenth century Crusades) qualifies as well. 83.  [Translator’s note: The word used for “state structure” here is 国体, which is pronounced kokutai in Japanese and has taken on a particular meaning in Japanese politics. A translation of the original footnote follows.] Japanese imperialists use the word “kokutai” in a political context to refer to a state structure in which the country (kokka 国家, as in the phase “a country ruled by an unbroken lineage of emperors”) is represented by and revolves around the emperor; that is not the intended meaning here. 84.  Hamadani, Rashid al-Din 拉施特 ‫بیبط نیدلادیشر‬, Shi ji 史集 ‫عماج‬ ‫[ خيراوتلا‬Historical compendium] (Chinese translated edition), trans. Yu Dajun 余大钧 and Zhou Jianqi 周建奇 (The Commercial Press, 1983), f. 1, ch. 2: 15. 85. “Bai guan zhi yi” 百官志一 [Annals of the hundred officials 1], f. 85 in Yuan shi 元史 [History of Yuan].

7  A COMPARISON OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE POLITICAL … 

361

86. “Chengzong ji er” 成宗纪二 [Chronicles of Chengzong 2], Yuan shi, f. 19. 87. “Xing bu shijiu, zhu hin, jin haoba, Zhahuerdaichen yan san jian” 刑部 十九·诸禁·禁豪霸·扎忽儿歹陈言三件 [Ministry of Justice 19, various prohibitions, prohibitions against tyranny, statement on three matters by Zhahuerdaichen], in Yuan dianzhang 元典章 [Decrees and regulations of the Yuan dynasty], f. 57. 88. Translator’s note: Both these terms can mean “China.”