Chushingura; Or, The Treasury of Loyal Retainers. Shoraku Miyoshi
military prowess of his ancestors to boast of, he would, in the battle-field even when a question of a few minutes was of vital importance, stand up before the enemy and make boast of it to them. The third essential element of Bushido to be mentioned is the high estimation of honesty and integrity and disregard of pecuniary profit. It was considered most despicable to change one’s mind for lucre. Even when he was offered a thousand pieces of gold, the true samurai should not for a moment alter his original intention. The samurai gave money, but did not lend it; and he received money, but did not borrow it. To borrow money with a promise of repayment was to rely upon one’s life continuing till the morrow, which was unworthy of a samurai. At the time of the invasion of Korea towards the close of the sixteenth century, Hineno Hirotsugu, before he set out on his mission to that country, borrowed a hundred pieces of silver from Kuroda Josui, and upon his return he went to Kuroda to repay the money; but the latter told him that he had not lent it in hope of its being repaid, and in the end he absolutely refused to take it back.
The essential elements of Bushido may appear, when only these three are mentioned, to be very simple; but that is far from being the case, for there are many other minor elements which go to its making. But one that deserves special mention, and may indeed be deduced from the elements above described, was the keeping of one’s word. Once anything was undertaken, it was dishonourable not to carry it out even at the sacrifice of life, property, and all that one possessed. Thus, in a bond of debt often appeared the words “in case of failure to repay this money, I shall be no longer looked upon as a man,” or “if I should by any chance neglect to repay this money, I should not utter a word of protest even if you laughed at me before company.” From these words the honesty and simplicity of the samurai may be readily inferred. The contempt for money and money-making which they expressed at all times had no doubt been handed down from the period of civil wars, when the whole country being overrun by soldiery, those who possessed wealth were in constant danger of attack and robbery. To the warriors whose lives could never be called their own, money was only a means of temporary gratification of their senses; for if they fell into straits, they merely robbed, and in war time money was of less value to them than a mouthful of food or a sword, and it was only natural that they should be utterly indifferent to its acquisition. Kono Moronao is made in the Chushingura to take bribes, because the authors wished to exhibit him as a man utterly bereft of the Bushido spirit and so contrast him with the loyal retainers who are the mirror of chivalry and single-heartedness; for the same reason he is shown up as a poltroon. The qualities above referred to are the characteristics of Bushido; and that they composed the spirit peculiar to our country will be patent to all who study the history of Japan from the oldest times. But Bushido underwent slight changes with the progress of the times, and coming under the influence of Buddhism and Confucianism, it was brought to perfection under the Tokugawa régime, especially in the Genroku era in which the Ako vendetta took place.
“SEPPUKU.”
It would be tedious to describe one by one the customs of the samurai, which may be taken as the outward expressions of Bushido in its most developed form; but perhaps the most conspicuous among them was the vendetta, to which, on account of the important part it plays in the Chushingura, we will refer later on. Another custom was the seppuku (or harakiri), or self-disembowelment. It was an act inspired by the spirit of Bushido which urges loyalty and considers life light as compared with the preservation of one’s honour. Death was looked upon as an atonement for all faults and errors. One who had acted contrary to the principles of Bushido did not wait for others to lay their hands upon him, but slew himself without hesitation; and he who showed fear or irresolution on such occasion was looked upon as bringing dishonour upon the samurai’s name. The death of Kanpei in the sixth act of the Chushingura is an instance in point. A samurai guilty of a serious offence which deserved capital punishment was sentenced to commit seppuku. In such case the order to commit seppuku, instead of being beheaded like a common criminal, was looked upon as an honour, as may be seen in the fourth act of the Chushingura where Enya Hangwan is condemned to death. A curious form of seppuku was the junshi, the suicide of a retainer upon the death of his lord in order to serve him still in the other world. This custom, which was in great vogue in the early years of the Tokugawa régime, was founded upon the principle of Bushido that it was dishonourable for a samurai to serve a second master. Some went so far as to look upon it as a stain upon their honour to serve the heir of their dead master and so followed him to the grave. The feudal government, however, prohibited this practice by law and threatened with severe punishment all who violated it; and by the Genroku era the junshi was entirely discontinued.
VENDETTA.
We may now proceed to touch upon the custom of vendetta. Among the most marked social products of the Tokugawa period must be mentioned vendetta. It was the favourite subject for the novels, ballads, and plays of the period and was treated so frequently that it seemed to be the peculiar product of that period. But the vendetta was not peculiar to that age. It made its first appearance some fifteen centuries ago and was known in every period of our national history. The revenge of the Soga Brothers, for instance, who killed their enemy in 1193 seventeen years after their father’s murder, is the most famous of our vendettas and was sung in songs, played on the stage, and treated in novels, of the Tokugawa period. There were many vendettas before the Tokugawa age; and what made them appear peculiar to that age was the strong contrast they presented to the idle, luxurious life which was resulting from the long-continued peace under the Tokugawa rule; and for that reason they attracted the greatest attention of the nation.
A vendetta is the wreaking of vengeance upon a man’s murderer by his relations, friends, or retainers. It took place not only when the murderer killed his victim with his own hand, but also when he incited another to the act, or even when one struck and killed a man without intent to murder. Strictly-speaking, it was of course the duty of the state to punish a murder and not to leave it to private vengeance; a vendetta was, in fact, an act done in defiance of the punitive right of the state and subversive of the social order. In the Yedo period, society was, it is true, kept in strict order, and the relations between lord and retainer and between father and child were rigorously observed; but it was also a period in which an intimate connection subsisted between morality and law, and the vendetta was recognised as an unavoidable act originating in the intense feelings of loyalty and filial piety. It was permitted on moral grounds as the result of the teachings of Bushido and Confucianism. It may here be added that although the vendetta of the Ako retainers was a subject of discussion among contemporary and later scholars, the question turned upon whether the retainers were justified in looking upon Kira Yoshinaka as their true enemy; no doubt was ever expressed upon the legitimacy of vendetta itself.
The formal procedure for carrying out a vendetta in the Tokugawa period was first for the avenger to apply for permission, if he lived in Kyoto, to the deputy-governor, if in Yedo, to the city magistrate, and if in the provinces, to the local lord; and these reported it to the central government, which then entered it in the official register and gave the required permission. Now, the murderer seldom remained quietly in the locality where the act was committed, but almost invariably fled to other territories; and therefore it was probable that if the avenger killed him as he always did regardless of time or place immediately he discovered him, he would cause a disturbance there and might be brought to account for it. If, however, his vendetta was entered in the official register, he was permitted to kill his enemy anywhere. In such case, the local officials came as soon as they heard that a vendetta had taken place, and if they were satisfied that it had been officially registered, they took no further note of the matter. However, even when it had not been registered, they usually let the avenger go if it was shown that he had not been actuated by malice, but had done the deed from loyalty or filial piety.
If, after the official permission had been obtained, the enemy died before the revenge could be taken, it had to be reported with satisfactory