CC BY
136On Organization of Poetic Material in Medieval Japanese Collections (Shinsanjurokkasen and Koyasan Kongozanmai-in tanzaku)
Maria Vladimirovna TOROPYGINA
The purpose of this article is to analyze the selection and organization of poetic material of two medieval poetic collections, Shinsanjurokkasen and Koyasan Kon-gozanmai-in tanzaku, created respectively in the middle of the 13th and the middle of the 14th centuries, and to give information about the manuscripts of these collections stored at the Russian State Library in Moscow .
Keywords: Japan, medieval poetry, poetic anthology, waka, Kamakura period, Ashikaga shogunate, Buddhism, manuscript, poetic hierarchy, poetic tradition.
Waka fn^ is the Japanese medieval court poetry mostly represented by 31-syllable "short poems" (tanka fe^). In the early 10th century this kind of poetry became state, imperial, and poetic anthologies were composed on the "imperial rescripts" (chokusenwakashu Poets whose texts were
included in imperial anthologies were deemed to be success. The peculiar "quantification" criterion for creative works of medieval poets (the number of poems by the author included in imperial anthologies) migrated from old texts to modern reference books. Imperial anthologies were being compiled until the middle of the 15th century. During the relatively calm Heian epoch of the 10th - 12th centuries seven anthologies (the most famous anthology Shinkokinshu ^^-^ft, included in the concept of first eight collections ha-chidaishu AW^ft, still Heian in poetical features, was composed at the beginning of Kamakura era) were created, and during the epochs of the Kamakura and Ashikaga shogunates, thirteen anthologies (if to exclude Shinkokinshu) were compiled (jusandaishu On the one hand it indicates the unstable situation in the country, on the other hand, the prestige of compiling anthologies for the imperial power, being a kind of additional indicator of legitimacy.
Imperial anthologies had a rather strict system of material organization. They are organized by theme throughout the text and have dynamic sections (seasons of the year from the beginning of a season to its end, love from the emergence of this feeling to the parting). By the time the first imperial anthology, Kokinshu ^^ft, was composed, there were other methods of material organization in Japanese poetry collections, as well. For instance, there
The Russian State Library's collection of early Japanese publications is catalogued in: [Kornicki 1999; Kornicki 2004]. However, a small collection of manuscripts stored at the Russian State Library's manuscript research department, was not included in those catalogues. For this collection, see [Toropygina 2015].
were several poetic anthologies in the Chinese language before Manyoshu ^ft emerged. The first anthology in Chinese, Kaifuso composed in
the 8th century, was based on the author principle and took into account the social status of authors (was consistent with the official hierarchy). In the first waka anthology Manyoshu and principles of material organization varied from one scroll to another [Meshcheryakov 2006].
It was intensive poetic life that made possible to start the compilation of imperial anthologies. There were poetic contests and meetings, from the most prestigious, hosted by the emperor, and the imperial family, to those held far from the central authorities: at homes of aristocrats, provincial officials, and members of military aristocracy, as well as at sanctuaries and temples. Poetic collections could comprise poems composed for a poetic competition or a poetic meeting, poets released collections of their own poems, pupils released collections of their teachers of poetry, and many people created collections of poems they deemed to be the best.
Whenever the release of an imperial anthology was announced, poets presented their works for consideration. 15th century work Kensai Jodan ^ contains the following legend about poet Kamo no Chomei:
"When poems were being chosen for Shinkokinshu, various figures at the court presented personal collections of from five hundred to a thousand poems for consideration. Kamo no Chomei, however, presented only twelve poems, all of which were included in the anthology with no revisions, I was told" [Carter 2001, p. 311].
Given their significance, imperial anthologies were a special group of Japanese poetic anthologies, which is why researchers divide all waka collections of medieval Japan into "imperial," i. e. official prepared on the rescript of an emperor or a former emperor, and the rest, i. e. unofficial, which did not require the imperial assent.
Unofficial poetic anthologies can be divided into personal (or family) collections (shikashu MMM) and unofficial anthologies (regularly described as shishenshu Ml«^), including works by several poets [Harries 1980].
Official anthologies organized material by the principles laid down by the first imperial anthology, which did not change much over five centuries (although new sections appeared in imperial anthologies), meanwhile unofficial collections (although many of them had the structure similar to those of imperial anthologies) were highly diverse.
Both Shinsanjurokkasen and Koyasan Kongozanmai-in tanzaku are unofficial poetic anthologies, shisenshu.
The analysis of the Shinsanjurokkasen poetic collection was based on the manuscript stored at the Russian State Library's manuscript research department (F-184 / IV, No 52).
The manuscript stored at the Russian State Library is an album of illustrations made on silk and poems written on paper. The silk and paper are glued to fan-fold bound cardboard sheets. The silk cover has decorative
metal angles. Poems are written in cursive on gold-flashed paper with a floral ornament.The artistic composition comprises a portrait of the author at the bottom of the page, and a landscape at the top of the page. There is also the artist's stamp, Togen (Dogen The album is torn in several places, and
two portraits are lost. The paper with poems has a size of 21x31.3 cm, the size of illustrations is 21x34 cm, and the size of cardboard sheets is 26x39.8 cm. There are "left" and "right" characters above the poet's name [Toropygina 2014].
The manuscript is missing the collection's title, yet the poetic collection itself suggests that this album comprises the works of poets known as Shin-sanjurokkasen, the new 36 geniuses of Japanese poetry .
The collection has several titles in manuscripts and early editions, namely Shinsanjurokuninsenkasen S — + A A f« S ff , Shinsanjurokuninkasen Shinsanjurokuninsen utaawase s^+aa^s^, and Shinsanjurokkasen .
The collection is known from a number of manuscripts. It is not large, so it is sometimes included in the manuscript (publication) together with other materials. Several manuscripts are available on the Internet3.
It seems that the first edition of this collection was released in 1848. The book Kijo no takara m^®^^', published 1891, titles the collection as Shinsanjurokkasen. [Shinsanjurokkasen 1891].
Several versions of this collection were published in the Nihon kagaku-taikei series, including the same variant as the one to be contained in the Russian State Library's album [Nihon Kagaku Taikei. Vol. 6. 1991, p. 241242]. Illustrated albums of this collection comprise a separate group to which the album can be attributed. A special role in the tradition of depicting poetic geniuses (Sff!!) was played by artist Kano Tan'yu (1602-1674) who illustrated several series of "poetic geniuses"; the portraits of poets painted by Kano Tan'yu set a model for artists of next generations [Matsu-shima 2003].
Several Shinsanjurokkasengacho albums by Kano Tan'yu are stored at the Tokyo State Museum. The museum also has an album by Kano Eino (16311697). The album stored at the Ferris University was created by Kano Masu-nobu (Kano Toun, 1625-1694); this is the only collection with an unusual order of poems [Shinsanjurokkasengacho 2000-2002]. All those albums have been posted on the Internet either fully or partially. All the albums are called
2
There is a slightly different list of "new 36 genuises of Japanese poetry," which also includes works of poets of the 12th-13th centuries. It is known from the publication Gunsho Ruiju (maki159). The collection is called Shinsanjurokuninsen (Collection of new 36 poets) and consists of a preface and a collection of ten poems by each of 36 poets [Shinsanjurokuninsen 1979].
While working on this collection, I have studied three manuscripts published on the Internet by the International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Kokubungakukenkyu shiryokan) and two manuscripts published by the Tokyo University.
Shinsanjurokkasengacho, so the album stored at the Russian State Library can also be called Shinsanjurokkasengacho, "Illustrated album of new 36 genuises of Japanese poetry."
Traditionally, former Emperor Go-Toba is believed to be the creator of the collection of poems by new 36 geniuses of Japanese poetry. There are manuscripts which call him the compiler. There is also another theory. Meigetsuki the diary of Fujuwara no Sadaie (Teika) have the inscription dated for 1233, says that Fujiwara no Motoie composed the list of 36 poets and ordered their portraits to Fujiwara no Nobuzane. The list was supposed to be taken to the exiled Go-Toba. Nothing is known about the fate of this list, but researchers believe it could be the collection of new 36 genuises.
The collection presents poems by Go-Toba, Shikishi Naishinno, Tsuchi-mikado-in, Toshinari Kyo no Musume, Juntoku-in, Minamoto no Michiteru, Ninnaji no Miya (Dojo Shinno), Fujiwara no Tadayoshi, Kujo no Kanezane, Minamoto no Michichika, Fujiwara no Yoshitsune, Jien, Fujiwara no Kin-tsune, Minamoto no Michitomo, Fujiwara no Sanesada, Fujiwara no Kiyo-suke, Fujiwara no Motoie, Gishumon-in no Tango, Fujiwara no Sadaie, Fujiwara no Ietaka, Fujiwara no Masatsune, Nijoin no Sanuki, Fujiwara no Tameie, Fujiwara no Takasuke, Fujiwara no Ariie, Minamoto no Tomotika, Kunaikyo, Fujiwara no Hideyoshi, Inpumon-in no Tayu, Kojiju, Fujiwara no Nobuzane, Jakuren (Fujiwara no Sadanaga), Minamoto no Ienaga, Shun'e, Fujiwara no Toshinari (Shunzei), and Saigyo.
Most of this poets are presented in Shinkokinshu. Only six of the "new geniuses" are not Shinkokinshu authors: Tsuchimikado-in, Juntoku-in, Dojo Shinno, Fujiwara no Tameie, Fujiwara no Takasuke, and Fujiwara no Mo-toie. Eighteen poems of Shinsanjurokkasen come from Shinkokinshu. Only one poem of the entire collection, by Fujiwara no Kanezane, comes from an imperial poetic anthology published before Shinkokinshu (from the seventh imperial anthology Senzaishu ^ftft). The collection presents three emperors, and all poets come from the court, seven of them are women. The social composition of the Shinsanjurokkasen collection is completely in the vein of Heian court poetry.
The collection is organized in the following way: it consists of 36 poems, one by each of the best 36 poets (the "poetic geniuses" title indicates that they are the best), and poems marked as "left" and "right" are published by turn.
The tradition of selecting the best 36 poets begins with the anthology by Fujiwara no Kinto (966-1041). He selected 150 poems by 36 poets of various periods: there were ten poems by each of six authors, while each of the rest had three of their poems included. Those 36 poems were called "36 geniuses of Japanese poetry" in the history of Japanese poetry. A collection of early manuscripts of this anthology is stored at the Kyoto temple of Nishi Honganji as a national treasure. The list of 36 geniuses played a huge role not only in the history of Japanese poetry but also in the history of fine arts, because the portraits of those poets started a tradition of series of poets' portraits. The
first known scroll depicting 36 poetic geniuses was created at the beginning of the Kamakura (just in time of "new geniuses"). This scroll is called the Satake-bon sanjurokkasen emaki after the family
which owned the manuscript. Traditionally, Fujiwara no Nobuzane (1176-1265) is believed to be the painter of those portraits, while Kujo no Yoshitsune (1169-1206) is believed to be the calligrapher (both belong to "new geniuses"). The scroll was divided into parts in the early 20th century; its parts are currently owned by several museums and private collectors.
The scroll organized material in the following way: it gave brief information about the poet, one poem, and a portrait of the author. It is believed that the Narikane-bon sanjurokkasen scroll, whose artist
was Nobuzane and calligrapher Taira no Narikane, had the biggest influence on the tradition of poets' portraits. Earlier scrolls, which go back to the 13th century, include Agedatamisanjurokkasen which depicts
poets sitting on tatami mats. Lists of 36 poets were also made by Fujiwara no Mototoshi (1060-1142), Fujiwara no Norikane (1107-1165), Fujiwara no Toshinari (1114-1204) compiled the Toshinari sanjurokunin utaawase
anthology. Thus, the tradition of selecting "36 poetic geniuses" established itself by the late 12t - early 13t century.
The best known collection, which presents one poem of each chosen poet, is Hyakuninisshu by Fujiwara no Teika, which appeared approx-
imately at the same time as Shinsanjurokkasen.
The Shinsanjurokkasen collection was organized as a poetic contest, which is proven by the "left" and "right" marks. The practice of poetic contests, as we know it, originated in the second half of the 9th century. The first contests, especially those held at the court, were staged performances where composition of poems was just one of the elements, and not always the most important one. The notion of "poetic competition" included interior decorations and costumes4.
Poetic contests changed a lot from one epoch to another due to various reasons, including those political and economic [Huey 1990]. The general trend was a decline in theatrics and a bigger significance of poems itself. There were lots of contests. Two early records of poetic competitions are Jikkan-bon utaawase A^^^^ and Nijikkan-bon ^A^^^^, which contained 46 and 200 (53 of which did not survive) records of poetic competitions, respectively [Ito 1982, p. 203].
There were not so many universal rules for poetic contests. There were two teams called the left and the right. The contest was held in rounds (ban), and one song was recited in each round by the left (who were always the first to start the competition) and the right. Songs recited in one round had to
4
For early poetic competitions and translations of several competitions, see [Dialogi 2002; Utaawase 1998].
have the same subject. The songs were compared, one of them was declared a winner, or both songs were recognized as equal.
The first structured poetic competitions appeared quite early. An early anthology of a structured poetic competition is Kasen utaawase SffS^ (The Competition of Poetic Genuises). It was compiled by Fujiwara no Kinto and modified by Prince Tomohira Shinno (964-1009). 130 songs by 30 poets were included in this collection.
It was important for a poetic contest that poems were created to prescribed themes. It was necessary to compare poems, so they had to have something in common.
The Shinsanjurokkasen collection does not have the indication of the comparison of poems (there was no indication that either poem won), and in some pairs poems were not quite close by their subject, yet the same subject prevailed in most pairs (for instance, the description of the same season). Given that only one poem of each poet was included in the collection, the only criterion for hierarchy here was to become participant of the first round. Quite natural that the participants of the first round were Go-Toba and Shiki-shi Naishinno.
Thus, the Shinsanjurokkasen collection was organized as a poetic contest, all poets came from the court, female poets participated, and the principle of "one poem per poet" was applied.
The Koyasan kongozanmai-in tanzaku collection which was composed about 100 years later had very different principles of structure.
The social stratification of waka poets greatly increased in the 13th - 14th centuries. The courtiers did not lose their place in the poetic circles, the waka poetry remained court poetry, but the military class confidently entered the poetic elite, and among the monastic poets there were especially many people from the military class.
The involvement of military men in the poetic life required new regulations. Poet Shotetsu (1381-1459) mentioned some of those.
"On formal public occasions, the lector withdraws as soon as all of the poems by the courties have been read aut loud. Not until these poems are being read does the sovereign take his own poem slip from the folds of his robe and hand it to the regent or chancellor, upon which a new lector comes in. He reads the sovereign's poem seven times. For those in the imperial entourage as well, poems by the regent ant the highest court nobles are read three times. Poems by members of the shogun's family have also been read three times in recent years" [Conversations with Shotetsu 1992, p. 104].
"Stacking the poems at a poetry gathering is a matter of the utmost importance. It is very difficult because they must be collected and stacked in sequence according to the participants' court rank and family standing. The stacking procedure is easy at a gathering attended solely by court nobles because their official titles and court ranks are in an established order. The
procedure is difficult when the party consists of both court nobles and members of the military aristocracy" [Conversations with Shotetsu 1992, p. 122].
In the 13th century, the Mikohidari poetic family became divided into three schools. The poetic elite splited simultaneously with the breakup of the imperial family. Thus, the Nijo school was associated with the imperial branch of Daikakuji, Kyogoku with the Jimyoin branch, and Reizei with the military aristocracy. The first shogun of the Ashikaga family, Ashikaga Takauji, started his poetic life with two poetic meetings, where poems were composed for sanctuaries: Sumiyoshi in 1336 (ft^^i^^fnS Sumiyoshishahoraku waka) and Kasuga in 1339 Ryakuoninen Kasuga-
honowaka).
A manuscript consisting of two sutra abstracts and a poetic collection was presented to the Kongozanmai-in temple on Mount Koya in 1344. The original of this manuscript has survived. The manuscript was kept at the Kongozanmai-in temple until the Genroku era. In 1692 (Genroku 5), it was acquired by the fifth daimyo of the Maeda clan, Tsunanori (1643-1724). The text became part of the vast Sonkei collection, and remained there until now. The manuscript has the status of a national treasure, kokuho 5.
The Hoshakukyo sutra (chapters Kashyapa and Ubari), was copied
by the brothers Ashikaga Takauji and Ashikaga Tadayoshi, and Muso Soseki, a prominent representative of Zen Buddhism, close to Takauji and, especially to Tadayoshi (it seems, Tadayoshi initiated the project). A poetic collection was the other part of the project.
Time passed, and the poetic collection began its independent existence. The poetic collection was published in the Zokugunshoruiju series (maki 403) and in Dainihonshiryo. Several manuscripts of this poetic collection have been published on the Internet6.
The collection has several titles: r^iJ^^IWJ—№Ife."№Koyasan kon-gozanmai-in tanzaku; Kongozanmai-in hyakunijushu;
^WJHWIK^IftfnS Kongozanmai-in hono waka; and SS^Mm^ffi M Hoshakukyoyobontanzaku waka.
The manuscript stored at the manuscript research department of the Russian State Library as F-184 /II, K.4, No 1 is untitled. The text was written on a scroll (713.5x 33.6 cm in size) and fan-folded as a book of 12.3x33.6 cm (58 pages). The text was written on one side of the sheet. The time of writing and the name of the copyist are not indicated. The poems are written in cursive, and the Chinese afterword in regular script. The cover is beige with an ornament of butterflies and plants. The interior part of the cover is light with an ornament of flowers of paulownia and chrysanthemum. The manuscript is in good condition. There is an inscription at the end of the book:
6 See [Kokuho 2011].
Three manuscripts published in the database of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Kokubungakukenkyushiryokan) were studied in the course of research of this collection.
i^IS^^Titffi and stamp ^ff (date Meji year 23 [1890], the address of the store and the stamp of the owner).
The absence of library stamps shows that the manuscript comes from a private collection, and the date near the shop address suggests that it was bought in Tokyo after 1890; information on the time and circumstances of the acquisition of the manuscript by the library was not found.
All manuscripts and publications of the Koyasan kongozanmai-in tanzaku collection have an afterword by Ashikaga Tadayoshi dated as 8th day of the 10th moon of Koei 3 (1344), with the explanation why the sutra was copied and circumstances of thee mergence and the structure of the poetic collection.
"Earlier last year, a man had a prophetic dream, which suggested that he should take the phrase (ft&^^^ot^L^^)
(Oh, relics of Shakya Buddha! Na-mu-sa-ka-fu-tsu-se-mu-shi-mu-sa-ri), put every symbol first in the line, and compose poems. That has been done, and a scroll has been created. The principal text was written on the back side, so that everyone who composed those songs had a good karma. We humbly ask for the enlightenment coming from 31-syllable "flowery phrases," the fulfillment of aspirations of over 20 authors in two generations, and the rewarding of their descendants for good deeds of their ancestors in all the three realms of existence" [Kokuho 2011, p. 4].
The collection was structured in the following way: the phrase on which poems were based consists of 12 symbols. The phrase is repeated ten times. The "principal" collection comprises 120 poems (there is also additional first poem, which is not included in the main structure). The collection presents poems by 27 poets (excluding the author of the additional poem). There are no consecutive poems of the same author (the author principle was not observed).
It seems the poems were composed at a poetic meeting. The method of composing poems in which poets are given different themes (in this case it is not a theme, but the first symbol) is called tsugiuta Such
poetic meetings were popular in the 14th century. Tsugiuta meetings were described, for example, in Shotetsu monogatari. The poems produced during tsugiuta composed a poetic cycle authored by several or many poets.
Unfortunately, there is no credible information regarding the time and venue of the poetic meeting. Toin (Nakazono) Kinkata (1291-1360) mentions the gift for the Kongozanmai-in temple in his diary Entairyaku giving the same date that is given in Tadayoshi's inscription (8th day of the 10th moon), so the information given by Kinkata seems to come from Tadayo-shi's text.
«The eighth day of the tenth moon. <.. .> Earlier Tadayoshi saw in a prophetic dream that he should collect songs by over 20 participants; the scroll was made, Hoshakukyoyobon was written on the back together with Takauji
and Soseki, and presented to the Koyasan Kongozanmai-in temple" [Dai Nihon Shiryo 1908, p.457].
The first commentary on the poetic collection is to be find in the Koya Shunju ^SJ-—^ (the full name Koya Shunjuhennenshuroku ^SJ—^ffi^ text by monk Kaiei (1642-1727), a collection of documents of Mount Koya temples and comments.
According to it, the poetic meeting was held at the Koyasan Kongozan-mai-in temple on the 18th day of the 3rd moon. Yet a small foreword has obvious mistakes; it says, for instance, that the participants composed poems on the basis of a 14-syllable phrase (mu and ni symbols were added: na-mu-sa-ka-mu-ni-fu-tsu-se-mu-shi-mu-sa-ri) [Dai Nihon Shiryo 1908, p. 474]. This made Kikuchi Shin'ichi wonder whether that part of the text could be trusted [Kokuho 2011, p. 6].
The waka database of International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Nichibunken) stores poems composed at this poetic meeting in the "no date" section [Waka database].
Koya Shunju does not comment on the poems but gives information about participants, including the number of poems in the collection.
All manuscripts found on the Internet and in the manuscript at the Russian State Literature also contained a list of participants, indicating the number of poems included in the collection.
The number of poems indicated the significance of the participant in the collection. Another criterion for the assessment of poet's contribution was the order of appearance in the collection.
The poetic collection includs (the names are given in the order of appearance, and the number of poems is given in brackets) works by Ashikaga Takauji (12), Ashikaga Tadayoshi (12), unnamed tanzaku (6), Ko no Shigemochi (3), Nijo Tameakira (6), Hosokawa Akiuji (3), Fujiwara no Arinori (5), Na-gai Hirohide (5), Kono Moronao (1), Gyochin (Nikaido Yukimoto) (5), Hosokawa Yoriharu (3), Reizei Tamehide (6), Nikaido Tsukiharu (5), Hosokawa Kuzuuji (Tomouji) (5), Doe (5), Shibukawa Sadayori (3), Nikaido Narifuji (5), Keiun (5), Jitsusei (5), Renti (Utsunomiya Sadayasu) (3), Kenko (5), Tonna (5), Aihara Kiyotane (1), Akiyama Mitsumasa (1), Tiaki Takanori (2), Joben (2), and Minamoto no Sueyuki (1).
Definitely, the Ashikaga brothers, Takauji and Tadayoshi, were the two principal authors of the poetic collection. Both composed 12 poems, which constituted the na-mu-sa-ka-fu-tsu-se-mu-shi-mu-sa-ri phrase. The first poem was authored by Takauji, and the second by Tadayoshi. The equal participation of the shogun and his brother demonstrated the political situation in Japan in the period when brothers had comparable power.
Six poems were not signed; they were authored by the emperor. Poems of the incumbent and former emperors and other members of the imperial family could be indicated in poetic collections as gyosei This is how the poems
were indicated in a number of manuscripts, including the manuscript stored at the Russian State Library.
It is believed that the anonymous gyosei could stand for the name of either Emperor Komyo or former Emperor Kogon. The Koya Shunju commentator believes it was Emperor Komyo.
Yet the original text made researchers wonder whether the imperial poems were composed by one person or two, because the unsigned tanzaku were recorded in a slightly different manner. It is possible that both emperors contributed three poems each to the collection.
Two representatives of the leading poetic schools, direct descendants of Fujiwara no Toshinari and Teika - Nijo Tameaki and Reizei Tamehide - wrote six poems each.
The collection presented works by the entourage of Takauji and Tadayo-shi. The social structure includes the emperor (or even emperors), the shogun, military men, monks (with origins in both aristocracy and the military class), and aristocrats. There are no women amongst the participants.
The participants included acknowledged poetic leaders, the so-called Four heavenly kings of Japanese poetry: Tonna, Joben, Kenko and Keiun. This poetsdid not play the primary role in the collection.
There were no prescribed themesfor poems of the collection apart from the first syllables of poems, yet the general focus is religious.
No doubt, the collection was edited before being presented to the temple, and special first poem was added to the principal text. The first poem is dedicated to the coming of the future Buddha, Maitreya (Miroku).
Yukusuemo We will meet
mekuriawamu to In the future
takanoyama On Mount Koya
sonoakatsuki wo Wait for this dawn
tsukinikoso mate7 Under the moon.
The author of the first, so very significant poem is Kenshun (1299-1357)8. Kenshun was a monk of the Shingon school. He was privy to the Shingon sacred knowledge and a gojiso - an exorcist monk). Kenshun was a
supporter of Takauji; he performed secret rituals of the Shingon school for emperors of the northern court and the shogun. His religious and political influence was enormous. No doubt, his poem was added to the collection to make the gift to the temple more valuable.
The Heian epoch is rightly called the zenith of waka poetry. The zenith of the court is also the zenith of the court poetry, and "the belonging to the
7 ft
For political situation of the moment and the role of Kenshun see [Conlan 2011].
court" is the key feature of waka poetry. Both collections include poems by emperors. Yet Shinsanjurokkasen was a collection with every characteristic of Heian poetry (first of all, the principle of choosing poets), while Kongo-zanmai-in tanzaku was an example of poetic activity of shoguns, sort of an attempt of the new authorities to resemble the imperial household.
Shinsanjurokkasen collection was based on the author's principle of anthology compilation: 36 best poets were chosen, all belonged to the same social group, and every poet contributed one poem, which led to the absence of visible hierarchy in the collection, except for the traditional choice of poets of the first pair. Quite the opposite, the Kongozanmai-in tanzaku collection had a hierarchy, what is more, the hierarchy created by the particular political moment, which is demonstrated by the number of poems of each participant included in the collection, and the addition of the first poem, which heightened the political weight of the poetic event.
The two collections manifest mixed trends in the waka poetry - the aspiration for traditionalism in the Shinsanjurokkasen collection and the unavoidable influence of social cataclysms in the Kongozanmai-in tanzaku collection.
References
Carter, S.D. (2001). Chats with Master: Selections from "Kensai Zodan". Monumenta Nipponica. No 3 (Vol. 56). Pp. 295-347.
Conlan, T.D. (2011). From Sovereign to Symbol: An Age of Ritual Determinism in Fourteenth Century Japan. New York: Oxford University Press.
Conversations with Shotetsu (Shotetsu Monogatari) (1992) / Translated by R. H. Brower, with an Introduction and Notes by S. D. Carter. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan.
Dai Nihon Shiryo [Chronological Source Books of Japanese History] (1908). Vol. 6, part 8. Tokyo: Tokyo teikoku daigaku.
Dialogi yaponskikh poetov o vremenakh goda i lyubvi [Dialogues of Japanese Poets on Seasons and Love] (2002) / Translated by A.N. Meshcheryakov. Moscow: Natalis.
Harries, P.T. (1980). Personal Poetry Collections. Their Origin and Development Through the Heian Period. Monumenta Nipponica. No. 3 (Vol. 35). Pp. 299-317.
Huey, R.N. (1990). The Medievalization of Poetic Practice. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. No 2 (Vol. 50).Pp. 651-668.
Ito Setsuko (1982). The Muse in Competition: Uta-awase Through the Ages. Monumenta Nipponica. No 2 (Vol. 37). Pp. 201-222.
Kokuho Hoshaku kyo yobon Koyasan Kongozanmai-inhono waka tanzaku [Hoshaku kyo yobon Koyasan Kongozanmai-inhono waka tanzaku national treasure] (2011). Tokyo: Zaidan hojin Maeda Ikutokukai.
Kornicki, P.F. (1999). Catalogue of Early Japanese Books in the Russian State Library. Moscow: Pashkov Dom.
Kornicki, P.F. (2004). Catalogue of Early Japanese Books in the Russian State Library. Vol. 2. Moscow: RSL Center for Oriental Literature.
Matsushima Jun (2003). Shokiedokanoha no kasengacho Tan'yu, Masano-buo chushin-ni [Illustrated albums of poetic geniuses of the early Kano school: Tan'yu and Masanobu]. In Kokka. No 1298. Pp. 9-29.
Meshcheryakov, A.N. (2006). Drevnyaya Yaponiya: Kultura i tekst [Ancient Japan: Culture and Text]. St. Petersburg: Giperion.
Nihon Kagaku Taikei [Anthology of Japanese Poetics] (1991) Vol. 6 / Comp. by Hitaku Kyusojin. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.
Shinsanjurokuninsen [The Collection of new 36 geniuses] (1979). In Gunsho Ruiju [Classified Collection of Japanese Classics]. Vol. 10. / Comp. Hanawa Hokiichi. Tokyo: Zokugun shorui jukanseikai. Pp. 459-468.
Shinsanjurokkasen [The new 36 geniuses of Japanese poetry] (1891) In Kijo no takara. [Treasure for Ladies]. Okayama : Saikinsha. Pp. 113-118. Also available at: National Diet Library Digital Collection. URL: http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/ pid/848361/1 (accessed: 26 July 2018).
Shinsanjurokkasengacho [Illustrated album of new 36 genuises of Japanese poetry] (2000-2002). // Ferris University Library. URL: http://www.library.fems. ac.jp/lib-sin36/lib-sin36.html (accessed: 26 July 2018).
Toropygina, M. V. (2014). 36 yaponskikh geniyev na poeticheskom turnire [36 Japanese geniuses at a poetic competition]. Vostochnaya kollektsiya. No 2 (57). Pp. 57-69.
Toropygina, M. V. (2015). Japanese Manuscripts at the Russian State Library and the History of 20th Century. // Association of Japanologists. URL: http:// japanstudies.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=593&Itemid=58 (accessed: 26 July 2018).
Utaawase. Poeticheskiye turniry v strednevekovoi Yaponii [Poetic competitions in medieval Japan] (9th-13th centuries) (1998) / Translated by I. A. Boronina. St. Petersburg : Giperion.
Waka database. URL: http://tois.nichibun.ac.jp/database/html2/waka/waka_ i479.html (accessed: 26 July 2018).
Russian edition of the article: OPUSCULA IAPONICA & SLAVICA. Vol. III. 2016.
Pp. 37-52.
Ritual and Law: Reception of Adam Laxman's expedition in Japan*
Vasiliy Vladimirovich SHCHEPKIN Kirill Mikhailovich KARTASHOV
The factual head of the Japanese government, Matsudaira Sadanobu, declared the ritual and the law as the foundation for receiving Adam Laxman's expedition, the first russian mission to Japan. The article attempts at understanding the meaning he ascribed to those notions through the lens of several sources related to Laxman's expedition.
Keywords: Adam Laxman's expedition, history of Russian-Japanese relations, foreign policy of the Tokugawa shogunate, diplomatic protocol, Matsudaira Sadanobu.
The Russian ship Ekaterina carrying Adam Laxman's expedition dropped the anchor in the Nemuro Harbor off the northeastern extremity of the Hokkaido Island on October 9, 1792. The primary objectives of the expedition were to bring home Japanese castaways and to establish trade relations with Japan.
Matsudaira Sadanobu (1759-1829) hailed the decision to bring survivors of a Japanese ship's wreck to their home country. "They (Russians) arrived today, and behaved properly1. So, we should create no impediments and [act] consistent with the ritual and the law" [Yamashita Tsuneo (ed.) (2003a) p. 153], Sadanobu said in his "Guidelines for Interaction with the Russians". He also said in his memoirs more than 20 years later, "They [the Russians] brought gifts and a letter from the government. Opinions differed, and the case did not look simple. The use of force seemed untimely. We decided to convey [our stance] to them on the basis of the ritual and the law" [Matsudaira 1969, p. 165]. This article studies the ritual and the law on which Matsudaira Sadanobu relied through the lens of several texts related to Laxman's expedition.
The arrival of Laxman's expedition caused active correspondence between officials in Nemuro, Matsumae, and Edo.The mission was not totally surprising to the Japanese administration. The Ainu spread the rumor that the Russians might pay a visit, and Tokunai Mogami, an explorer of northern territories, delivered the news to bakufu in 1791 [Mogami 1972, p. 453-454].
The first report on the arrival of the Russian ship in Nemuro was sent to
bakufu in the tenth month of the fourth year of Kansei (November-December
*
Supported by the Grant of the President of the Russian Federation (project MK-3996.2018.6) The term seimei, [rectified names], was used in the original. Rectification of names, i.e. reconciliation of names with the essence of things and phenomena, is a central concept of Confucian philosophy.
1792). The report was authored by Yunosuke Matsumae, the elder son of daimyo Michihiro Matsumae. The report told the story of Daikokuya Kodayu and his companions. It also said that the Japanese were questioned by an official of the Matsumae clan upon their arrival [Pozdneyev 1909, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 49-50].
The next report by Yunosuke Matsumae said that the expedition members wished to bring the Japanese sailors, letters, and gifts to Edo, but were stopped in Nemuro for the time being. "They said they would be waiting for a response until the fourth or fifth moon of next year, and will go to Edo should the response not be given. They will be waiting here until instructions are received" [Pozdneyev 1909, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 50]. Yunosuke Matsumae sent officials to Nemuro and told them to resolve the matter peacefully if possible.
The bakufu seated in Edo sent the following answer to the report by Yu-nosuke Matsumae: "Bring here the Japanese castaways. Keep the Russians in Nemuro, give them rice and sake, be polite, and treat them kindly and attentively. As to receiving the Japanese castaways, I [Matsudaira Sadanobu] am sending officials, Rokuemon Ishikawa and Daigaku Murakami" [Pozdneyev 1909, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 51]. According to Yoshimitsu Koriyama, a historian of Russian-Japanese relations, the very fact that negotiations with Laxman were conducted by officials designated by bakufu, rather than representatives of the Matsumae principality, should be seen as the expedition's success [Koriyama 1980, p. 131; Cherevko 2010, p. 208-209].
Negotiations between Laxman and bakufu officials were due to take place in Matsumae. The Russian delegation sailed to Hakodate in order to be escorted to Matsumae by land from there.
The local daikan met the expedition in Hakodate, and ordered to tow the Ekaterina to the harbor. Laxman and his companions accompanied by daikan and six officials came to the home of a local merchant. The Russians cleaned themselves up, had a seafood meal, and were ceremoniously escorted back to the ship [Laxman 1961, p. 135-136]. The Russians were offered luxury smoking appliances, silver for Laxman and lacquered for other mission members, at another dinner [Laxman 1961, p. 137].
The Russians arrived at the negotiations venue in the company of 16 officials from Edo and Matsumae; their full escort consisted of 450 people. Laxman, navigator V. F. Lovtsov, and volunteer A. I. Koch, a son of the Okhotsk commandant, travelled by norimono, a kind of palanquin.Translator E. I. Tugolu-kov, geodesic sergeant I. F. Trapeznikov, merchants V. N. Babikov and I. G. Polnomoshnyi, and five more Russians were riding horses, each in the company of two junior officials. There was also a saddled horse in case Laxman wished to ride [Laxman 1961, p. 137]. The travelers made several stops, during which the Russians were given a ceremonial welcome and invited to spend the night at local homes. In Hakodate, Matsumae, and every village
where the mission stopped, its residence carried the "Russian house" sign [Fainberg 1960, p. 61; Preobrazhensky 1990, p. 307].
For the purpose of the expedition's convenience, the Japanese decorated the lodging in the European style. Laxman lauded "chairs made especially for us" [Laxman 1961, p. 128] at one of his meetings with Japanese officials. The house accommodating the Russian guests in Matsumae "had tables, benches, beds, and no floor mats".As to the ritual of negotiations, the Japanese told the Russians they should take off their shoes and either sit on their knees or "lie on the side" [Laxman, 1961, p. 139] during the meeting. Lax-man strongly rejected those rules, and insisted that each side should keep to one's traditions [Laxman 1961, p. 139].
Japanese researcher Michiko Ikuta explored how much Laxman's demand was met. According to her, the Japanese did not push for following their ritual and even tried to act in accordance with Russian traditions. Describing the first day of those negotiations, the researcher said that some Japanese officials sat on folding chairs, instead of tatami. The "oversight inspectors" ometsuke rose to greet Laxman on the second day of negotiations and approached the Russian ambassador to thank him for the gifts given on behalf of I. A. Pil'2 (the distance between the negotiating parties was about 8.5 meters at the first meeting), which was another sign of acceptance of European traditions. In the opinion of Michiko Ikuta, Japan was demonstrating unwillingness to trade with Russia orally and in writing despite the fact that certain messages were favorable for the Russians. Meanwhile, the language of ritual was remarkably cordial [Laxman 1961, pp. 140, 143; Ikuta 2006, pp. 68-69, 77-78].
Laxman said he appreciated that his companions and he "were received in the best possible manner and given full support" [Laxman 1961, p. 143] in Nemuro, Hakodate, and Matsumae. This comment is a rather precise description of the way the Japanese treated the Russian mission.
Still some suspicion about the mission remained.
For instance, Edo officials Yasuzo Tanabe and Denjiro Takusagawa and their companion, doctor Gen'yan Imai, said they were very worried when they traveled to Nemuro, while Kumazo Suzuki, another official who visited the mission in Nemuro, told E. I. Tugolukov that he was "desperate" when he was preparing for his voyage, and "his farewell party and himself were in tears" [Laxman 1961, p. 124]. The fears rooted in stories told by the Dutch, who said that Russia was cruel towards foreigners. After they made sure that the expedition was well-disposed, Yasuzo Tanabe and Denjiro Takusagawa sent a letter to Edo and expressed hope it would change the government's prejudiced attitude towards the Russians [Laxman 1961, p. 124].
2
Pil', Ivan Alferyevich (approx. 1730-1801), Russian statesman, governor general of the Irkutsk and Kolyvan' vicegerency (1788-1794), on whose behalf Laxman's expedition was officially operating.
Another noteworthy episode happened when the mission was sailing from Nemuro to Hakodate. It was initially agreed that the Russians would sail to the Edomo harbor on the southeastern coast of Hokkaido, instead of Hakodate. Perhaps, the Japanese feared the Russians might breach the agreement, so they asked some of the Ekaterina crew members to board the Japanese ship. Laxman was insulted and said the Japanese did not need to fear and "could take the amanat"3 from the Ainu, but not from "educated officers of the Russian empire fulfilling their mission" [Laxman 1961, p. 134]. The agreement resulted in a failure: the fog prevented the expedition from landing in Edomo, and after the fog was gone the cross-wind made the return to Edomo impossible [Laxman 1961, p. 136].
The Ekaterina fired a gun to notify the Japanese about her departure from Hakodate. An official from Matsumae caught up with the Russian ship and expressed the authorities' dissatisfaction with the gunfire. Explanations were given, but a few days later, Laxman noticed two Japanese ships monitoring the Ekaterina's voyage [Laxman 1961, p. 146].
The Russian mission was given a kind and ceremonious welcome, but some caution was exercised. Judging by Laxman's journal, a number of restrictions and bans were imposed on the mission members.
First and foremost, the Russians were strictly prohibited from meeting with local residents. According to Laxman, the Ekaterina was surrounded by numerous boats upon its arrival in Hakodate. The curious Japanese approached the Russian ship and asked for permission to board, yet designated officials pushed them away using iron sticks, threw logs at them, and "beat those people without mercy just to keep them off' [Laxman 1961, p. 135]. It was said in the end of the journal that "for the purposes of surveillance and prevention of any disturbance city residents could cause [to mission members]", a Japanese ship was anchored near the coast from the day the expedition arrived in Hakodate till the day it went home [Laxman 1961, p. 146].
While describing their arrival in Matsumae, Laxman said homes "had their doors open and were packed with spectators of both genders" [Laxman 1961, p. 139], which showed how much interest common Japanese had in the mission. A cloth hanged on the fence around the mission's residence was aimed to prevent any communication between the Russians and the local population, and 60 guards were standing at the house gate [Laxman 1961, p. 139].
Expedition members were not permitted to freely move around Hakodate. All Laxman was permitted to see was the northern coast near the Hameda village, currently a district of Hakodate, in the company of an official. The Russians were not allowed even to wash their clothes on the shore [Laxman 1961, p. 136].
3
Amanat - something given for safe keeping. In this case: a hostage held to ensure the fulfillment of an agreement.
Obviously, attempts to demonstrate goods brought by Russian merchants, let alone to start bargaining, resulted in failure. The officials said that trade required a special permission of bakufu, and added that any mistake in the fulfillment of obligations could cost a life [Laxman 1961, p. 144].
Given the Ainu uprising on the Kunashir Island in 1789, the administration of the Matsumae principality feared that the Russians might get close with the Ainu. The Japanese officials stayed in Nemuro for winter in order to prevent attempts at such communication, although they usually spent the winter in the principality's capital, Matsumae [Laxman 1961, p. 119]. The supervision over contacts between the Russians and the Ainu was a task of Kumazo Suzuki and Doctor Kengo Kato, who arrived from Matsumae in December 1792 [Laxman 1961, p. 121-122].
For its part, bakufu tried to take control over communication between the Russians and the Matsumae principality burdened by the watchful eye of the central government [Fainberg 1960, p. 56]. Laxman noticed that Matsumae officials stopped visiting the Russians after the arrival of officials from Edo, as they feared accusations of illegal contacts with the foreigners [Laxman, 1961 p. 123]. When the head of the Russian mission said he wished to have a face-to-face with the Matsumae prince to personally thank him for hospitality and give him gifts, ometsuke said the prince was just following orders from bakufu and the visit was not necessary. It was allowed, though, to hand over presents via an official. According to the journal, gifts for the Matsu-mae prince were selected with special care to make the due impression on the head of the territory bordering Russia [Laxman 1961, p. 143-144].
Summing up intermediate results, we should say that on the orders from Matsudaira Sadanobu the Japanese were very polite and courteous with the Russians since the day the expedition arrived and till the day it left home, which might be the result of his focus on the ritual. At the same time, certain actions of the Japanese demonstrated their caution and suspicion. For instance, contacts between the Russians and local residents were firmly stopped, and communication with Ainu and officials of the Matsumae principality was restricted.
We should now proceed to the second element of the rules laid down for negotiations with the Russians, the law. The law mentioned by Matsudaira Sadanobu often implies the country-closing edicts [Pozdneyev 1909, Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 114, 123; Kutakov 1988, p. 74], which said that foreign vessels could visit Nagasaki only. As early as in 1635 all Chinese merchant vessels were ordered to arrive in that port, and in 1641, two years after the ban on visits by Portuguese vessels, the trading station of the Dutch East India Company was moved to Nagasaki. It was the city visited in the 17th century by ships from Southeast Asia, Portugal, and England, which offered trade resumption.
However, there was no special law or any other document restricting communication with foreigners to the port of Nagasaki until the late 18th
century. Thus, the image of Nagasaki as the only place permitted to be visited by foreign vessels was rather a custom, perceived as a law. This is proven by the fact that during negotiations with the Russians in 1778-1779 officials of the Matsumae principality responded to the proposal of starting trade by saying that "if they wanted to trade, there is a place, Nagasaki, of this same country, where people come from all over the world for trading, and this is where they should go to trade" [Polonsky 1871, p. 461]. Perhaps, Matsudaira Sadanobu, who learned about the precedent from reports of the expedition to the land of the Ainu in 1785-1786, believed the Russians could be convinced to do so.
Documents presented to the Russian side after negotiations in Matsumae included the permission of a visit of one Russian ship to Nagasaki, and the "formal warning", which was called in Russian "The List Signed by His Majesty of Tenzin-Kubo in Regard to Foreign Ships' Visits to the State of Ja-pan'^.Given that the Russian translation of this text differed greatly from the original, and the archaic language was difficult for modern readers to understand, let us offer a new translation.
"From olden times, [Japan] has had a national law requiring that vessels of foreign countries, which have no diplomatic relations [with Japan], arriving in Japan be either seized or forced to leave; the law is still in effect. It is not allowed to disembark in any other harbor but Nagasaki even if the vessels bring home our castaways. Should a vessel of another country drift to our shore, we decided way back that even if the vessel belonged to a country, which has diplomatic relations [with Japan], [those castaways] should be returned to their country from the Nagasaki harbor by Dutch ships. Whenever those castaways break our law, they should be held [in Japan] and not allowed to go home. Also, since the day of the country's establishment, whenever [vessels] from countries having no diplomatic relations [with Japan] drift to our shore, such ships are destroyed, and such castaways stay [in Japan forever] and are not allowed to go home. However, considering your effort to bring our castaways from afar and realizing that [you] have been unaware of laws of our country, you are allowed to return home as you are, but you should not visit these lands [the so-called Ainu land, and the Matsumae principality] ever again.
You have brought a letter from your government but your country has no diplomatic relations [with ours] and we do not know the title of your ruler, have no knowledge of your oral and written language, and are unaware of the difference between your nobility and low-born, which makes the choice
4
There is a published translation of this document. List predpisannyi ot yego Tenzin-Kubosskogo velichestva o uzakonenii v gosudarstve Yaponskom v rassuzhdenii prikhoda inostrannykh sudov [The List Signed by His Majesty of Tenzin-Kubo in Regard to Foreign Ships]. Text see: [Arhiv knyazya Vorontsova 1880, Vol. XXIV, p. 411-413]; The Japanese government's list to Laxman prohibiting sailing along Japanese coastline. In [Makarova 1989, p. 314-315].
of a correct ritual difficult. What is deemed to be respectful in our country, your country may see as rude, there is no way we can know this, so we cannot allow an exchange of letters between governments. This time we cannot refuse to [accept] our castaways, but we cannot allow diplomatic relations with these lands [Matsumae] either.
Neither can we allow your visit to Edo. This is because since the old days, we have never allowed even those countries, which have diplomatic or trade relations with us, to visit [arrive to] without permission other places than the designated ones. Should you choose to disobey, you will be treated harshly everywhere, and, given that [your] language is not understood in all harbors of our country, you are risking an even bigger harm. You kept telling us that the ruler of your country has ordered you to sail directly from the Ainu lands to Edo; if we are not mistaken, you will disobey the order of your ruler by doing so. The reason is the law [which requires] that whenever a foreign vessel arrives, it should be treated harshly along the entire coast: the vessel should be either detained or put under fire; you will put yourself in the harm's way if you seek friendly communication. You will violate the order of your own ruler by doing so. If you refuse to accept every rule we have just explained to you, we will arrest all of you and act in accordance with the law of our country. There will be nothing we could do even if you regret your behavior.
Representatives of the Edo government have come to your place [of stay] to explain the laws of our country, do justice to the trouble you took to deliver our castaways from afar, and make sure that people of your country understand what we have just said. It looks like you [who have delivered our castaways] have orders to hand them over to Edo government members, but there is no reason why you cannot do that here [in Matsumae]. You can say you will refuse to hand over the castaways you have brought here if you are not allowed [to sail] to the place you want because of the law of our country. We will not take those castaways by force, but this does not mean that we have no compassion with the people of our country. However, this is not a reason to breach the national law. You are free to do whatever you want, having understood all of the above. If we decide to bring here the other two castaways you did not transport this time because of their sickness, you should not do so in the same manner. You should understand we will not accept them anywhere but in Nagasaki. Even if you bring them to the Nagasaki harbor, you cannot sail within the range of visibility of our country, but you should travel in the high sea instead. As we have told you, all harbors have received the order, and you should not take this lightly or act dangerously. Even if you arrive in the Nagasaki harbor, you will be unable to enter [the harbor] unless each of your ships has a written permission. What is more, you should go to Nagasaki and follow the instructions of local authorities if you aspire for something else, although it would be difficult to establish without proper grounds diplomatic and trade relations with countries other
than the ones designated earlier. [Now] you should clearly understand what we have told you in detail, and leave immediately". Translated from the text: [Yamashita Tsuneo (ed.) 2003b, p. 361-365].
The document shows that the legislation repeatedly cited by the authors has two main provisions: the seizure or forcible expulsion of ships of foreign countries, which have no diplomatic or trade relations with Japan, and the ban on visits of foreign ships to any ports but Nagasaki. We have mentioned before that the second provision was actually a custom related to the edicts of the 1630s, which shaped up the foreign political system of Tokugawa's Japan. The first requirement was legalized one year before the arrival of Laxman's expedition. The regulations regarding foreign ships were released in 1791, following the appearance of the British ship Argonaut near the southwestern coast of Honshu. The document runs as follows:
"A foreign ship has been recently seen at the sea near the provinces of Chikuzen, Nagato, and Iwami. For more than eight days the ship was seen far from the shore and approached the coastline. [...] First, the ship gear should be seized, the vessel should be escorted to Nagasaki, and further instructions should be requested. From now on, whenever a foreign ship is detected, we should put personnel on standby and after [the ship] makes the first appearance, we should not use force right away, but send a written inquiry or an investigator to look into the case's circumstances. If [the foreign ship] resists our actions, the ship and its crew should be destroyed, or we can embark the ship, engage in a fight, and axe the crew. Arrest is also possible. You can use guns if necessary. But if they reply to the written inquiry, or no impediments are created to the work of our investigator, we should stay calm, even if we have to tie up the foreign ship by deception, seize ship gear, escort the crew to the shore, guard the crewmembers, prevent the ship from leaving, and request the government for further instructions as soon as possible. In case of any resistance, the crew should be arrested and put in prison. It is unknown what religion the crew of a foreign ship may have, so no one but the guards should be allowed even to look at them. These instructions should be followed if no more than one or two foreign ships show up. If there is a flotilla of several ships, or if there are few ships but they present a danger from the very beginning, you should act consistent with the circumstances. If such incident happens, you should inform the neighboring lands as soon as possible, mobilize people, gather ships, and sail off." Translated from the text [Yokoyama 2013, p. 8-9].
As we can see from a comparison of these two documents, Matsudaira Sadanobu might have feared a conflict with such a powerful state as Russia and objected to applying those regulations to the mission. It was decided to provide the Russians with everything they might need and give them the status of guests, but to keep the Russian ship from visiting the unprotected Edo harbor [Cherevko 2010, p. 211]. Analyzing the actions of the Japanese cen-
tral government after the Russian ship's departure from the Japanese waters, we can see that the most important result of the Russian mission's visit was the realization that the capital, Edo, and the adjoining waters were unprotected. Matsudaira Sadanobu personally inspected provinces adjoining the Edo Bay. We should also say that the central government's document was rather cunning: the regulations put into place only one year ago was presented as a national law in effect from long ago.
The Formal Warning was the first document of its kind, which attempted at explaining principles of the foreign policy of the Tokugawa clan's central government. In contrast to the Explanatory Note received by N.P. Rezanov in 1805, where fundamentals of the foreign policy were presented in a more detailed and uncompromising manner, the Formal Warning was situational: the Japanese authorities declared that they were following the national law in effect for a long time but were flexible. It would difficult to establish diplomatic and trade relations without proper grounds, but it was still possible, and Laxman received permission for the arrival of one Russian ship in Nagasaki.
References
Arhiv knyazya Vorontsova [Archives of Prince Vorontsov] (1880). Vol. XXIV. Miscellaneous documents. Moscow: University print shop (M. Katkov).
Cherevko, K.E. (2010). Rossiya na rubezhakh Yaponii, Kitaya I SShA (Vto-raya polovina XVII - nachalo XXi vv.) [Russia on borders with Japan, China, and the U.S. (2ndhalf of XVII century - early XXI century)]. Moscow: Russian Civilization Institute.
Fainberg, E.Ya. (1960). Russko-yaponskiye otnosheniya v 1697-1875 go-dakh [Russian-Japanese relations in 1697-1875]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo vos-tochnoi literatury.
Ikuta Michiko (2006). Shintai kara yominaosu bakumatsu nichiro bunka ko-ryushi. Gaiko girei o chushin ni [History of Japanese-Russian cultural contacts in the Bakumatsu period reconsidered from the angle of body language. Issue of diplomatic protocol]. Osaka: Osaka University.
Katsuragawa Hoshu (1978). Kratkie vesti o skitaniyakh v severnykh vodakh (Hokusa bunryaku) / [Brief reports on drifting in northern waters] / Translated from Japanese, with comments and appendixes by V.M. Konstantinov. Moscow: Nauka.
Koriyama Yoshimitsu (1980). Bakumatsu nichiro kankei shikenkyu [Study of the history of Japanese-Russian relations in the Bakumatsu period]. Tokyo: Ko-kushokan Kokai.
Kutakov, L.N. (1988). Rossiya i Yaponiya [Russia and Japan]. Moscow: Nauka.
Laxman, Adam (1961). Zhurnal posol'stva A. Laksmana v Yaponiyu [Journal of Laxman's mission to Japan]. Istoricheskii Arkhiv [History Archives]. No 4. Pp. 117-146.
Makarova, R.V. (ed.) (1989). Russkiye ekspeditsii po izucheniyu severnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana vo vtoroi polovine 18 veka. Sbornik dokumentov [Rus-
sian expeditions studying northern parts of the Pacific in the second half of the 18th century. Collection of documents]. Moscow: Nauka.
Mogami Tokunai (1972). Ezososhi kohen [New edition of "Ezo's Notes"]. In Hokumonsosho [Northern Library series]. Vol. 3. Tokyo: Kokushokan Kokai.
Matsudaira Sadanobu (1969). Uge no hitokoto [Stories of the Palace Visitor], Shukoroku [Notes of Studies and Practice]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Polonsky, A.S. (1871). Kurily [The Kurils]. In Zapiski imperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obschestva po otdeleniyu etnografii [Notes of the Ethnography Division of the Russian Imperial Geographical Society]. Vol. 4. Saint Petersburg: Maikov's Printshop.
Pozdneyev, D.M. (1909). Materialy po istorii Severnoi Yaponii I eyo otno-shenii k materiku Azii i Rossii [Materials on the history of Northern Japan and its relations to mainland Asia and Russia]. Vol. 2. Part. 2. Pervye kontakty mezhdu Rossiyei I Yaponiyei: [First contacts between Russia and Japan]. Vol. 2. Part 3. Otrazheniye pervykh snosheniy s Rossiyei v zhizni Severnoi Yaponii [Reflection of first contacts with Russia in life of Northern Japan]. Yokohama: J. Gluk Printshop.
Preobrazhensky, A.A. (1990). Yapontsy glazami pervogo russkogo posolstva [The Japanese through the Eyes of the First Russian Mission]. In Obschestven-noye soznanie, knizhnost', literatura perioda feodalizma [Public conscience, booklore, literature of feudalism period]. Novosibirsk: Nauka (Siberian branch).
Yamashita Tsuneo (ed.) (2003a). Matsudaira Sadanobu. Rosiajin toriatsukai tedome [Matsudaira Sadanobu.Guidelines for Interaction with the Russians]. In Daikokuya Kodayu shiryoshu [Collection of sources regarding Daikukoya Ko-dayu's story]. Vol. 1. Tokyo: Nihon hyoronsha.
Yamashita Tsuneo (ed.) (2003b). Yushi [Formal Warning]. In Daikokuya Kodayu shiryoshu [Collection of sources on the DaikokuyaKodayu story]. Vol. 2. Tokyo: Nihon hyoronsha.
Yokoyama Yoshinori (2013). Kaikoku zen'ya no sekai [The world before the country opened]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Russian edition of the article: Yearbook Japan. 2017. Vol. 46.
Moscow: AIRO-XXI. Pp. 169-180.
